God is the reduction of all that is illogical to the simplest possible non-answer. It is the invention that sprang from our ignorance and fears when we evolved to the point where we were the first species on the planet to ask the question "Why?", and arrogant enough, once having posed the question, to think we deserved an immediate answer. God is the crutch we invented because we couldn't utter these simple words, "I DON'T KNOW........YET!".

Is god dead? Look around the world? Wars, famine, genocide, female mutilation and rape, poverty, theft by bankers and the fed, the top 1% get richer and everyone else gets poorer, global warming, HIV?Aids, cancer, foreclosure, bankruptcy,homeless kids living in cars, no healh insurance, disease, everyone is on something, or wants to be on something!

When was god ever alive? John Lennon said that "God is a concept, created out of man's own pain" He ain't never lied! Toss a whole lot of ignorance in there, a dash of fear, and a whole lot of fantasy and myth, and you get your living god! Send in $19.99 for your custom prayer and down payment into eternal heaven!

When God said, "I'll be born!"

God fainted on the pinnacle of His boredom,
And rolled off the craggy cliff of men's hypocrisies,
Into a sodden valley of religions,
Where He fell,
Men quarreled--
"Should we build Him a mosque,
A church, a temple,
A floating pagoda decked with roses?
Should we consecrate Him in the womb of nature,
Or let Him wander,
Over land and ocean--a reckless Spirit-
Should we discard Him,
Quash Him or plug Him--a divine Snoot---
With bullets from the barrel end of atheism?"

They grew distraught with the questions,
And their noise swelled, in waves penetrated-
God's sweet unconsciousness--
Stirring from His stupor,
He awoke.

From the soundless nothingness-
Of the time before existence to the jangle
of men clashing over what made the nothing something,
The journey had been long-- for God--
It was a terrible scene of blood curdling invectives,
Hurled with the thunder and the fire of explosives,
Standing on the margins He shrank from the chaos,
Shocked that His creation could pulsate without Him,
Then registering no one cared He stood on the fringes,
Around His neck He carried His exaltation,
And climbed back wearily to His utter desolation.

When men stopped beating their drums of dissension,
They looked everywhere but couldn't find Him,
Some said He had outlived His exaggerated purpose,
And fallen off the very edge of the planet,

Others said He had never been more than nothing,
And to nothing He had gone--a mere delusion,
But most fought over Him with intense focus,
In temples, mosques and various churches,
In pagodas decked with fragrant roses--
they fell on "The Other" with show and fury,
Their worship franchises bathed in glory--
They prayed for God to be born among them soon...

Anonymous - In other words, if god did not exist, man would have created it, and they did.

How can God be dead if He creates all life? He may be dead for many or most people as far as their beliefs go, but when Christ returns here they will find out how alive He is with a wake up call that they wont forget.

Robert I see your still spreading the atheist dogma. Like most of your previous post it’s pretty much meaningless. You have your belief and we Christians have ours. Yours always seem to come off either angry or annoyed. You also feel a need to insult those who believe. At times I wonder who you’re trying to convince those who trust in God or yourself that he doesn’t exist. No matter your post lacks the same thing you demand from those who believe.

Gotta love you Robert--you are the most endearing curmudgeon I don't know! Can't wait for Clay, my other bugaboo to peregrinate in these quarters and for Ravensfan my most recent nemesis.

The only ones dead are those who reject God. Those who do so will unfortunately one day realize their mistake. Sadly for many it who choose the wide path instead of the narrow one it will be too late. The choice is yours.

God is Alive--are you sure you are not Clay from a parallel universe? You are definitely not Ravensfan--your style is too dogmatic and whatever Ravensfan is guilty of he is not as dogmatic as Clay--no one in the world can actually lay proud claim to the Clay brand of dogmatism as Clay himself--but if you are not Clay, you could give him a run for his money with your declaration of divination-- you most certainly are not the alter ego of Robert Littel but Clay--yes, Clay could be your twin conjoined in the high art of witnessing for the Lord.

ravensfan - As is always the case with religion, now that they no longer are allowed to kill us heathens to shut us up anymore, the new ploy is to humiliate us into silence. If we can be kept silent, the disease of religion can continue to devolve unimpeded by reason or rhyme.
Humanity has well passed the point where we should have unloaded this silly pile of rubbish from all societies, so that we can start facing the real problems (many religion caused) from a rational perspective instead of supplicating ourselves before non-existent deities. My quarrel with religion is that IT IS NOT REAL and having so much influence over us by institutions rooted in superstition and myth can only lead to a bad end for us all.

Robert the only person I see trying to use the humiliation ploy is you. I could argue it wasn’t religion, but people who created those real problems you speak about. Human beings who twisted whatever Religion they claimed to be a part of into rationalizing and justifying their own selfish, greedy and uncaring actions.

Religion is a personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices. So it’s as real as it could be since religions exist. If you meant to say God isn’t well that’s a your belief not a fact. It’s rooted in your atheist dogma. You can no more prove God doesn’t exist than I can the he does so all you can say is the may not exist.

ravensfan - I could very well assert with blind certitude, that the third moon of the fourth planet in the Alpha Proxima star system is covered with a three foot layer of French brie. I could challenge you to prove that it is not so covered and you would not be able to, anymore than I could disprove your equally absurd contention that a god exists, or has ever existed. That you have a concept that is widely held despite its absurd nature, gives it no more weight in logic than the French brie assertion has. The possibility of your god existing is every bit as assertable as that contention and worth every bit of the same respect that the French brie assertion deserves....NONE.

As religion is the extension of a flawed concept, it can be nothing but corrupt, no matter how much false sparkle we place on it. It is nothing but a corruption of a lie and a crutch for people not evolved enough yet to utter these simple words, "I DON'T KNOW .....YET!

Robert if you made such an assertion I would question you on your basis for making it.
Assuming all you had was your word I would suggest that you are most likely wrong. I would not state you were 100% wrong as I have nothing to support that other than my belief you were wrong . We’ve already covered this ground. Logic 101 the fact that it can’t be proven A is true makes it false.

My assertions carries considerable more weight than your brie example as it is shared by considerably more people and has some basis in historical facts. For example we know the Jews were slaves in Egypt based on other texts besides the Bible. We know that Israel did exist and was conquered by the Babylonians. So there is considerably more credibility. The reason you can’t see it is that you are guilty of the same blind following of dogmatic ideas you rip on believers for having.

The truth is you don’t believe God exists. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t. In fact your entire rant about religion has no basis in fact. It’s simply your opinion. It has no basis in fact.

ravensfan - I see your point. I should yield to the superior position you espouse because of the billions of people who also hold, or held, such beliefs in the past, even though all those beliefs were handed down to them by ancestors from their distant past. Ancestors whose education and understanding was, no doubt, superior to that of today's rational thinkers, who only have logic and reason to work with and not the rich well of superstition and myth upon which to draw their conclusions. How could I be so blindly ignorant to not realize the relative worth of so many ignorant, delusional, superstitious souls, who thought the world was flat and disease was caused by demons, when you line them up behind you into an unassailable phalanx of applied absurdities.

You worry me ravensfan, you are starting to sound like a clone of the clown prince of the absurdly devout, Clay.

If you are so sure of your position why the sarcasm? Why do you need to continuously insult and belittle? In fact most of your posts have little to no reason and logic in them. They are as emotional and full of dogma as the most closed minded evangelical would make. You do realize that there are plenty of intelligent rational logical thinkers who actually do believe in God.

The only reason I could scare you is that I probably have used more logic than you have in my arguments. Despite all your sarcasm, all your insults not only of God and religion but of me as well you can’t prove God doesn’t exist. That’s what you really want and you can’t do it. So you go on these long winded rants trying to paint all religions and anyone of faith as blind fools following superstitions of their ignorant ancestors. The reality is that some of those thinkers like Thomas Aquinas G. K. Chesterton to name just two were as well versed in logic and reason as modern thinkers.

The sad truth is that you’re the one who sounds more like our friend Clay Actually more like an anti-Clay. Your arguments are about as fact based as anything he says. The difference is you argue the opposite side with the same. One other difference is he doesn’t pretend to have all the answers or call for the eradication of your side.

Neither you nor Clay will call for the eradication of the other side Ravensfan because you need the other side like light needs darkness to be light or vice versa. Faith is only buoyed by the unfaithful and illogic by logic. Why don't you simply tell Robert that even if he thinks you are sitting on a pile of rubbish it is YOUR pile of rubbish, it gives you comfort, it lends meaning to your life, it keeps you on the straight and narrow and it brings you joy and hope--it makes uncertain life more bearable for you, that your religious belief ferries you across a sea of troubles--it works for you irrational though it might be to him. You dare not do that in case the talk ceases there Ravensfan. You enjoy Robert's truculent outbursts and where is Clay by the way--is he sick or something? Robert you may have to pray to the French brie on the alpha proxima system to keep Clay well so we may continue to excoriate him--otherwise the biliousness could build up and cause liver damage in all of us --Ravensfan included. "Dear French Brie cheese, thou art on alpha proxima, thy will be done, give us this day and every day our dose of Clay, forgive our trespasses against him as we forgive him his trespasses against those who do not believe as he does, lead us not into the temptation of tenacious witnessing, deliver us from proving you do not exist, for thine is the cheese kingdom, the illusion and the illogic---Amen"
Anon the aspiring and failing intellectual

Praise the almighty and blessed name of Cheeses. Anonymous - What you suggest to ravensfan as a way to put me in my place, sounds much like he would be admitting that what he believes in is merely a crutch to assuage his basic fears. THAT is what is most objectionable about it, the waste of intellect and the abrogation of his duty to be a positive contributor to the Human experience instead of burying is head in the warm comfortable sand of delusional belief.

And he will insist Robert that even though like an ostrich he buries his head in the sand to seek the Lord, like the same ostrich he also gallops across the plains on his two legs, and does all the things a productive citizen should do in the land. You see he can chew gum and walk at the same time--belief and its attendant superstitions and gobbledygook don't necessarily make him any less a thoughtful person and his full potential for any field in the world can still blossom forth--the head in the sand is only a fraction of his day, the rest of the time he is as sharp as a tack, so he would say. There is no guarantee he would be smarter, more productive or a better contributor to the human endeavor if he were not religious--that would or could be his contention. Newton was religious--some would argue he didn't go far enough in science because religion stopped him and others would say that religion was his inspiration. I myself believe that religion is a grave hindrance to science and the scientist who is one of the faithful does himself a disservice because the closer he gets to wondering if there is a God or realizing there is none the more he fears his own discoveries and he stops stepping further. That is one of the reasons why science has a checkered past and progress in science is choppy-

Anonymous September 22, 2009 6:42 PM – If I were like Clay I’d say it sounds like you’ve crossed to the dark side. While I’ll admit I like debating I don’t need anything Robert has to offer. Faith is buoyed by God. I’m not going to go into that anymore than that since neither you nor Robert would accept any explanation anyway. Actually if there is such a thing Robert’s a great example of a fundamentalist atheist. The reality is there is nothing short of my capitulating and acknowledging his dogma is correct would suffice for him. In your case I’m not sure what would suffice for you.

Robert - your post was yet another example of the same atheist dogma which you’ve been proclaiming with every post you make. It was just shorter than most thankfully.

Anonymous I don't know Clay is. I am declaring nothing myself. It is God through the Scripture that makes the declarations. I'm doing nothing except repeating them. Speading the Good News to be exact.

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." Matthew 7:13

You are on the wide path my friend. All I'm doing is pointing it out. The choice of staying on it is yours.

ravensfan - Faith is the excuse for the acceptance of ignorance as truth. It is not defensible in any kind of logical way, and that is why it is so hard to debate someone who thinks they have a monopoly on the concept of truth based on superstition and their willingness to swallow it. It only shows that no matter how much they protest and throw rubbish at their opponent, they are not worthy of using the term debate, which presupposes that the truth of an argument can be demonstrated eventually by one side or the other. Until you can produce this god of yours, you should have no right to insist that the rest of society subscribe to the narrow precepts (as accepted by you) of this non-existent creature.

Very good dialogue here boys! it is nice to see some "shots exchanged". I would consider myself to be of young mind in the versing of reason and logic although I may have some fodder to add to the tussle. A point I would make as per the comment;

"Ancestors whose education and understanding was, no doubt, superior to that of today's rational thinkers, who only have logic and reason to work with and not the rich well of superstition and myth upon which to draw their conclusions".
- Robert Littel

As being a sarcastic remark no doubt, the reality of the time in which our ancestors took up the pen and passed down the wisdom which we build upon today, was INSPIRED by their reality. This reality was without the distractions of our modern era. The great philosophers and thinkers of today have no doubt given credit to the thinking of yesteryear and have used this as a foundation. I think man would have found it rather easy to be in touch with a higher being, force, "God" in those times. I find myself marveling at creation every time I strap on a snowboard and fly down a mountain. I really cannot deny the existence of a "creator". For some it may not be as apparent due to our lives being so cluttered and laden with distractions. Of course my opinion is subjective, however I do believe strongly in Objective realities, one fundamentally being the existence of a higher being. It's simple really when seen through the eyes of humility and wonder. Listening to the tone of Mr. Littel I sense a littel ignorance and bitterness. Your strong opposition to the arguments of "believers" is thus proof of the credibility of their argument and it gives even more strength to the notion of an "ultimate truth" by which human kind has held belief in for centuries. One fascinating atheist turned "believer" said;

"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning".
- C.S. Lewis

There is a great unknown. Today we know little about a lot. The fact we have such potential for intellectual development is proof of God. The intricate systems of biological composition is proof of God. Science does not contradict a God head, but gives credit and astonishment in "it's" perfection. Call it evolution or creation, ultimately LIFE is proof. What distinguishes human kind from hamsters and sharks?

"Humans are amphibians - half spirit and half animal. As spirits they belong to the eternal world, but as animals they inhabit time... You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body"...
- C.S. Lewis

The proof of a soul besides the supernatural is in mans ability to reason, love, do good in the world and realize his good works. This is what sets us all apart and gives more reason for a higher being. If believers are delusional, then this God epidemic has been the travesty of our existence. One other interesting point to consider is in our human condition we have been instilled with a yearning for knowledge. A drive to seek truth (which ultimately is NOT subjective) in our lives. Humans have been "programed" (yes this sounds creepy hehe) with the mission to seek a God figure. This reality is most often revealed in times of struggle and suffering. You could argue that it is a sub-conscience "delusion" in the heat of the moment; a wish for the suffering to end and therefore creating God as an answer to the adverse, almost like a maternal yearning. This Freudian argument while being possible, does not diminish the fact of it's existence in all of us. Whether its a soldier in the horrors of war for the first time calling out to "God" while his friend bleeds out in his arms, or a doctor in the ER contemplating going back to church because he witnessed a "miracle" on the operating table against all odds. We have all been gifted with a "where is my purpose in this universe? to search for God!" kinda deal inside us. How we play out our search is the marvelous thing.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell".
- C.S. Lewis

Cheers Boys!

Pattycakes - outstanding post.

Pattycakes - Young and gullible, evidently. Atheists, true Atheists, do not find "god". Only people looking for such a creature will find it, because it only exists in the mind of the unimaginative, or by those to lazy, or to fearful to admit they, as mere Humans (animals after all, and not very good ones either considering our history) are not somehow superior, by being connected to something higher than themselves.

If someone like C.S. Lewis claims to have been an Atheist at one time, then he was lying. He was at best an agnostic, who while sitting on the fence, fell the wrong way and tried to atone for his failure by reasserting himself in service to the absurd. Everything else you cited was rubbish as well, for it PROVES NOTHING. It is just a pile of drivel that you have signed onto rather than admit your inability to say these simple words that should be the driving impetus of Human understanding, and they are, "I DON'T KNOW .......YET!".

“Faith is the excuse for the acceptance of ignorance as truth. It is not defensible in any kind of logical way”

Robert that ranks as one of the most illogical comments you’ve made. It is nothing more than your own atheist dogma. It’s about as closed and narrow minded as anything I’ve ever heard anyone say. Try opening your mind and challenging your own belief or lack of them.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/reason.html

Actually you’re the one claiming to have the monopoly on truth. I’ve conceded many times that faith doesn’t have all the answers. You’re the one who makes the broad sweeping statements as if they are facts. What rubbish has been thrown at you? Challenging you to open your own mind and see past your own dogma? You definitely sound like the anti-Clay. Not worthy of the word debate? Who made you the judge of what is or isn’t worthy? I suggest you take some time and look up the meaning of the word. When have I ever insisted anyone subscribe to believing in God? That’s everyone’s choice. If I use your logic why should you have the right to insist using equally narrow precepts (as accepted by you) to subscribe that God definitely does not exist. I’ve acknowledged that there is no way to prove the existence of God. You’re the one steadfastly stating as a matter of fact that He doesn’t exist. An argument which is a fallacy of omission by appealing to a Lack of Evidence.

In fact all your posts contain the Fallacy of Relevance attacking the people who make an argument rather than discussing the argument itself. You do this by the Abusive arguement that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate with Christians which is fallacious. This persuasion comes from irrational psychological transference rather than from an appeal to evidence or logic concerning the issue at hand. This is similar to the genetic fallacy, and only an anti-intellectual would argue otherwise.

In short Robert the ignorant one here is really you. I apologize if that comes off as insulting. It is however the truth.

Wow Robert that repsonse to Pattycakes was classic Fallacy of Relevance. When did you become the authority for all atheists? I actually think you might me more dogmatic than Clay.

“Atheists, true Atheists, do not find "god". “

“If someone like C.S. Lewis claims to have been an Atheist at one time, then he was lying. He was at best an agnostic”

Mr Little those statements resonate with all the intelligence of a caveman. I’ll bet the ancient Mesopotamians used the same sort of reasoning skills when they declared the world was flat.

To reiterate Mr. Littel;

"Only people looking for such a creature will find it, because it only exists in the mind of the unimaginative, or by those to lazy, or to fearful to admit they, as mere Humans (animals after all, and not very good ones either considering our history) are not somehow superior, by being connected to something higher than themselves".

I would argue that persons whom hold fast to the belief in "God" need to have QUITE an imagination. Trying to perceive such a splendid being requires such mental artistry. Because FAITH is just that. I am not talking about "blind faith" like shooting a basketball from half court with .2 seconds on the clock, I am talking about faith based in reason. There is no direct PHYSICAL proof that God exists and I acknowledge this because no man calling themselves "god" has stood in front of me to date. I and many others have found OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE in God. So, assuming that you need tangible evidence of God, I sense you will need to continue your journey and grow in your spiritual reality. As we all do; it is ongoing. I am not going to convince you of a "God". It is futile because you have been mentally closed to the notion due to your life experience, upbringing, academic career, and pride. The irony in this is that with your astute responses which demonstrate your keen, erudite demeanor, you have then gone and discredited your very being as an "animal". I think you should give yourself credit for your achievements and intellect thus far and revise the degrading thought of yourself (and others) as mere animals. You sound like a charming man after all!

"Believers" should not think they are superior to non-believers, I agree. No being is superior to another and I say this with humility, fully understanding I make this comment with the good of all in mind. Secular social structure "says" otherwise, and this manifests itself with the EXACT thought of like-minded individuals such as yourself Mr. Littel. I have friendships and have lost friendships with many a person who share your thought and I enjoy conversing with them respectively.
I do wish you were able to construct an argument pertaining objectively to the thesis in question. Please try not using words such as "lazy, fearful, unimaginative".

Cheers!

pattycakes - Fear is the reason you are so easily led to believe the pile of rubbish that was spoon-fed to you as a child. "Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep, IF I SHOULD DIE" , which pretty much has most children afraid they will not see the morning, but if they don't, some god creature will whisk them off to some eternal cosmic Disneyland. Early programming produces people just like you, who are comfortable in their little myths, being good little automatons paying homage at the delusional altar because of the fear of death and the equally effective con of eternal damnation. You can always be counted on rising to the task to fling rubbish at anyone who challenges the absurdities.

I'll bet you have never given a second thought about your core beliefs, or if you did, you trotted off to confess your doubts and be corrected by some priest in a re-education booth. That takes a whole lot of lack of imagination to accomplish.

My reference to our being "mere animals and not very good ones at that" is more a reference to the horrible things we do to each other, be it at the individual level, or under the guise of names like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Torquemada and on and on and on ad infinitum.

Robert,

On the contrary, I have fallen away from my "beliefs" many times and have recently returned strong in my resolve because it is an undeniable truth in my life. Someone once compared the "Truth" or "God" to a rock; You can ignore the rock and it is still there, ineffective to you in it's presence, you can rebel or kick against it only to be hurt, or you can build on it and find a sure foundation. I might have it a bit different however it is along those lines. Bottom line here is ITS STILL THERE.

What is truth in your life? I felt quite cold and alone out there having left my "inner being". Everyone finds an inner "spirit" somehow. You cannot deny there is a force at work when humans strive for goodness/greatness in an adverse situation. Being human without spirit, we would succumb to our desires, passions, "human nature" leading us to do "wrong" or, yes I will use the word "evil". If there is a good, there is an opposing force called evil.

I may sound to your "progressive" ears as a prude or a "spoon-fed, old fashioned jack-ass" however, again this is your opinion (possibly?). The REALITY here is that as you mentioned, Hitler, Stalin etc etc were....EVIL?? would you agree that the opposite of what these men stood for was GOOD? On the two extremes we have the "originators" one you could call the "God" the other... "Satan", or whatever. These "forces" are at work 24/7.

It is interesting how you seem to deny this. So if we strip away all of the noise and agendas behind the decisions we make day in and day out, what forces are in play? a little voice inside us? a big flash of light? Maybe not, but I'm sure you have a conscience. Jealousy at your buddies new Camaro SS leading you to kill the guy is evil in nature. It might be because of a mental complication and you could argue the motives to death, but say the underlying factor was jealousy. Is it human to be jealous? yes, and how have we handled it? we killed the dude. Is it relative? no its WRONG in any case because we have an absolute: Right and Wrong.

Hitler and friends thought they were doing good, it worked out on paper right? but it was a subjective distortion of "good". See what happens when we are floating in a moral abyss? I'm thinking there is a trail of evidence leading to an ABSOLUTE good and an ABSOLUTE evil. It is interesting to note as well that satanic cults and worship provide proof of a "higher power" an evil one mind you but this in turn supports its "opposing force or reaction" a higher good.

Where evil and despair is abundant, goodness and truth will flourish ever more. Look at New Orleans for example (people coming together for a common good out of the disaster). My life thus far has provided me with the privilege of being able to put to my faith to the test and even fall away completely only to return STRONGER in faith.

Your claim that organized religion is seated in a “fear” is in part correct. Their is a fear of falling out of favor with the creator and this is good. Fear is more or a reverence or humility when you apply it to the context of Christianity. If we were not scared of “hell” then why be good? Since “heaven” and “hell” are complimentary, then it is only logical to have a love for the pursuit of heaven and a “fear” of the “damnation of hell”. However it is far deeper then that and we have not established common ground to even discuss the theological importance of this “fear”.

Have you ever had a longing for something? chocholate? beer? sex? Humans have these urges yes? Have you ever had an urge for something which no chocolate, brew or woman could satisfy? Neuroscientific evidence exists that Humans are “programed” for belief. If there is urge for sex, there is a complementing gender to provide a solution for the urge. If the is an urge for chocolate, we have Switzerland. If people are experiencing longings for an unexplainable solution that no physical experience or object can satisfy then are we “programed” to yearn for spiritual satisfaction? beyond our physical earth and body?

Sigmund Freud (your buddy) wrote in a paper in 1899;
“ I believe now that I was never free from a LONGING for the beautiful woods near our home in which... I used to run off from my father almost before I had learnt to walk.”
- Freud

This could speak volumes both for the longing for solitude (nature) in which you FIND “god” or your inner self in your own way. Remember too that the primitive civilizations also had TIME and SOLITUDE free of distractions to reflect and find “God”. Satisfy that insatiable “desire” to be in union with the spiritual. You say that these societies were responsible for the farce called “religion”. Well news flash broski, It’s still alive and well because its REAL. Good vs. Evil for the rest of the show! You will find out one day I’m sure.

Holla back when you can... GO RAVENS!

Ladies and gentlemen, WE HAVE A NEW CLAY! A rubbish flinger extraordinaire, whose wafers seem to be laced with methamphetamine. If ever there was an example of "opiate of the masses" pattycakes seems to be the poster child.

The effort to bury your opponent in a mound of meaningless double talk, is just pathetic, if in the end you say nothing meaningful. Had you made any attempt to really examine your core beliefs, you would have cast them all out and then begun the search for truth, allowing that which is real to rise or stand on its own merits. To turn away from ritual, attending church services, or as one eventual devout girl I knew believed as turning away from god, having sex in the dark when he couldn't see, your supposed examination of your beliefs was just a sham. Try an actual search for truth instead of seeking the path back to your comfortable lies. There is a real world out there, warts and all, that needs our attention, not paving over with a thin veneer of the delusional pap offered by superstitional dogma and belief.

Robert once again you resort to your usual belittling of someone who is of a different view than you. Why is it you never actually rebut the points made? What really bothers you is she is right. I’ve always suspected that inside you feel a void and that you lash out in anger because of it. It sure sounds as if pattycakes has done far more searching for the truth than you. In order to search for it you need an open mind and yours is about as closed as anyone’s. Instead of giving advice to her maybe you should consider trying it yourself first. Nothing she said paves over the real world, and as for dogma well no one clings to a dogma any more than you. No one I’ve met refuses to consider other possible alternatives any more than you. You constantly talk as if yours is the obvious only and obvious truth. You insult, belittle and discount those who don’t share your view of the world and religion. You talk of allowing that which is real to rise or stand on its own merits yet your idea of when life begins totally violates that very concept. Like I’ve said before you are the anti-Clay. Your reasoning is the same you just stand on the opposite side of the idea of God. He believes everything without question and you deny everything without question.

Pattycakes – I liked both your posts. You raise some very good points. Unfortunately Robert is too dug in to his dogma to consider any other possible truth than his atheist one.

ravensfan - I see, if I shut down my brain, open my heart, then I will be open to the truths you have found in a god that there has NEVER been the tiniest shred of evidence that it (or any god) exists, or has EVER existed. Why couldn't I see the brilliance of your argument before? Maybe because I actually have made the search for truth. Maybe it is because at the age of eleven I started to wonder about the world around me, and never stopped. Maybe I took the time to understand the dynamics behind societal development through-out recorded history and saw how each culture claimed oneness with divine beings that evolved over time from generalized universal spirits inhabiting everything around us, to divine sacred objects, to personified deities, to invisible deities, to one invisible deity inhabiting the entire universe (sounds a bit like the first step) and now a step backward toward multi-gods, as exists in the current Catholic Church (god, Human/god hybrid son of god, saints (lesser gods) and other venerated but very powerful sub-deities (which will now be denounced by the faithful with inappropriate indignation). I am clearly fascinated by this whole process and am as equally as respectful of the current state of deistic beliefs as you are of all the ones that preceded the one you have tied your lack of imagination to.

If you had any imagination at all, you would chuck your dogma, even if only for a bit, and experience the world of ideas, where dogma is anathema and truth is not sitting on a foundation of superstition and lies. A place where questions are more important than false and comfortable answers and where, it is not a crime to say, "I DON'T KNOW....YET!". Grow up, think on your own, for once.

Thanks for your response Robert,

I do sense a seed... a glimmer of an open mind in your backlash. As ravensfan has pointed out, you turn to under-minding the opposition and tossing insult at reason through your "tough shell of whatever-it-is...". I do admire you for the firm stance you take hold of in your BELIEF that there is no God.

Funny how belief works hey Rob? Intellects far more versed in reasoning and "atheist apologetics" if you will, have sat with me to chat and I must admit they provided outstanding arguments quite unlike your own. Your bitterness towards people who see past the "9-5" amazes me. Doesn't surprise me but still amazes. A tip if you wish to provide a real argument for your thesis: Keep your emotion out of it and meet talking points with your own.

As a matter of fact i have seen the "other" side of the God/no-God coin. Hanging with the wrong crowd. Drug dealing, excessive partying, promiscuity. That's the crowd I chose to roll with for a period in my story. I've seen how people react with a gun in their face. Now would you argue that this is NOT the way for anyone to contribute to society? I would hope so. I am not suggesting that ALL persons who do not believe in God act this way, however the people I associated with were indeed "godless" persons. In a sense they were their own god. The experiences and objects they adamantly pursued were the "god". Let me tell you it is a very shallow way of life. These people no doubt "fall" the hardest. When you cut off the life-line to the creator that badly, it's so much more beautiful when you come home! And the best part is WE ARE FREE TO CHOOSE.

So you see Rob, I tried the other side for a while, I "researched" my opposition. In retrospect it make MUCH more sense to me that (on a level you may understand) GOD does EXIST and he is the ultimate truth... LOVE. This will indeed blow your mind and you will claim I am on meth when I say this... but try with all your heart to understand the next series of words I write.... When YOU love someone, (mother, daughter, friend) you are thereby LOVING the CREATOR. This is because HE created humans... God created basically all matter, so in LOVING his creation, YOU are loving GOD!! SO without knowing it, YOU ROBERT are LOVING GOD!!! pretty cool huh? I know you WISH it wasnt so... The life I was wrapped up in (like yourself to a different degree) was NOT LOVING. It was FAULSE. When you do something without love, it is fruitless eventually. For me I hit a dead end. Some people spend their whole life figuring out that there is MORE for them. There is MORE for you Robert! I'm excited for you! Maybe you should RESEARCH your opposition before you step to the plate. It is a basic war tactic. All you do is sound off ridiculous, insulting mimics of childhood bedtime prayers. You clearly do not know the opposition.

- pattycakes- p.s. Say that God is "Dead"... People are far better off for loving.... you (WE) have nothing to loose, however YOUR school of thought has EVERYTHING to loose should God be ALIVE!

Robert I'm impressed you actually made an attempt to actually discuss the concept although you did still feel the need for belittling and insulting. I’d say your brain was already shut down. Only a fool would refuse to at least acknowledge the slightest possibility that things exist that have yet to be proven. I’m happy to hear you began your search for truth at 11. It must not have lasted too long to produce such an insensitive closed mind. Mine began around the same age. Actually it was forced on me by that nasty Catholic school indoctrination you spoke about. They actually made me study other cultures, other religions and ancient history. Would you believe they even challenged me to think about what I believe and why. They actually taught about things like respect and treating others the way you wanted to be treated. A process that I was forced to endure until I graduated high school. It’s a wonder I have any imagination after such brain washing. I guess college years and years away from the Church after that helped straighten me out. Sorry for the sarcasm Robert, but after that last round of insults I figured why not.
Thank you for your concern about my imagination Robert, but trust me it works just fine. I have looked at other ideas including the ones you preach and found them all lacking. That’s why I came back to the Church. Only someone with no imagination refuses to accept that there are things man can’t prove or never will prove. God is only one of those. As in my last post I’d suggest you follow your own advice because given your unbending loyalty to your own dogma you need it far more than I.

pattycakes Robert is a hard sell. He’s pretty much closed his mind to any possibility other than his own. You are right he has trouble keeping his emotion out of his posts. Many of his posts remind me of how my kids argue when they don’t want to do something they know they should be doing.

Robert - left this out of my last post. I DON”T KNOW WHY. I don’t know why God created any of the universe. I don't know how it was done. I don't take Genesis as an historical account of creation rather a simple story to explain that God is the creator. I know many Fundamentalists would take exception with me. You seem to be under the misguided notion that believing in God and being Catholic somehow reflects lack of imagination. I’d say that applies more to someone who only accepts what can be proven like yourself is more likely the one whose imagination is lacking. How many of today’s facts and accepted theories started out as mere ideas? Do you think gravity didn’t exist until Newton came up with it? Wasn’t the world always round even when people, especially religious ones, thought it was flat? You seem to have the misguided notion that belief in God somehow means turning off your mind. Did you come up with that theory yourself or did you tie your own lack of imagination to it?

Bravo! ravensfan! we seem to have VERY open minds and imaginations.
Robert, you are no doubt a very intelligent man, and if you can find it in your evident stubbornness to research other views opposing your own I don’t think it will prove God exists, (although lightning has stuck more then once in the same spot :) but it will make you a better person for it:). Take your own advice. Focus on one element of ONE “religion” or faith and try to understand it in the light of “faith”. What I mean by “light of faith” is like searching for a needle in a haystack at NIGHT... You cant find anything if you dont have a light source right? Its easier if you have a “light” in this case “faith”. It is not so simple however and faith is not something you “get” over night...maybe it is too much of a task for you presently, however why not? right? you want to gain more knowledge? Just say “what if?” You love to use that notion. “I don’t know yet...but WHAT IF” Thats where you are contradicting yourself. “I don’t know yet...BUT”.
Ravensfan - For us it is MUCH easier to see in the light of faith. It has already made sense to us on an intellectual, spiritual, practical and personal level. It even ENHANCES our daily decision making and relationships. We can see a “Godly” presence in everyone we meet. This is a reflection of HIS love for us. It’s like living in HD :) Humans are fascinating beings. Only something/Someone far superior could have designed such perfection. This has been elementary for like minded individuals and institutions for over 2000 years and far greater opposition has bitten at the ankles of the establish church since then. Changing the minds of atheists is not what we are about. Exchanging dialogue and sharing ideas is wonderful. We are all free to think as we will! God was just that thoughtful! If we can even shed a simple light on some of the “what if’s” in the world... The Creator will in HIS own way (tailored to the individual and NOT forcefully!) takes care of the rest and leads his beloved back to HIM! All it takes is an open mind and FREE WILL to WANT to get to know Him...
After that? the rest is gravy because you start to be overwhelmed with examples in everyday life. It just gets better from there :)
I’m going for some BBQ now boys, Regards

You will have to forgive my stubbornness in keeping my mind open to possibilities you have effectively excluded from your thought processes. If, tomorrow, you produced your god creature for all to see and it intoned that its nature was as you claim, I would be the first in line to acknowledge the truth of it. I would have some questions about why we had to suffer and kill so many of each other for so many centuries over doctrinal differences, that any omnificent creature should have been able to clear up with the snap of its ethereal fingers, but in the face of overwhelming proof, I would supplicate myself before it.

That being said, my first three year quest (as in concerted search for truth) entailed talking, quizzing and listening to priests, rabbis, ministers and any odd skeptics I could find, to give what was coming to me some perspective. My family was totally unaware of my doubts that led me (after three years) to call myself an agnostic at fourteen. The search drove me back to church at that point, getting up early and hitch-hiking to Sunday services, leading to being tapped for usher duty. My questioning nature outside of that church, (knowing the trouble having a doubter in their midst would be) limited my continuing search to other churches and religious figures not connected to my family. Finally, at seventeen, I came to the one thing that made it impossible to continue to waste time on religious doctrine, and that is the very thing you want me to consider, FAITH, which I found to be just a hollow excuse in the end. I attended my last church service on Christmas Eve in 1965. The minister, a blue-nosed hypocrite who drove his son to alcohol abuse by constantly railing against it, got wind of a party that a good number of the congregation were going to attend after the service (my parents included) and made his midnight Christmas Eve sermon an almost hour long rant against the evils of alcohol. It was little more than a clown show and as I was responsible for getting my surviving grandparents home (one from each side) I had a long fog shrouded drive over a mountain road with the fog so thick, I had to open the door and look straight down at the center line , while driving two miles per hour all the way home. Before I came out of that cloud, I was an Atheist. The search for truth has never ended in the 44 years since and no compelling reason has popped up along the way to change that conclusion. My parents were shocked, never having any idea that I even entertained any doubts and the resulting attempt by them to win me back, ended up winning my mother over to rationality. The choice ended any meaningful relationship with my father, who was a bit of a jerk anyway. He didn't last much after that with my mother, who finally found her inner strength and walked out the day after my little brother turned eighteen.

Once removed from religion, I was able to study its effects on society and individuals from a removed standpoint that began to show me what it really was all about, power and control. I was able to see where religion could lead us all if not corralled and the picture is not pretty. The 911 attacks are only the opening shot in a battle that religion means to wage against each other and in its wake, those of us who are on the outside of such foolishness who will end up as collateral damage in this fight, can only intone, "To hell with you all."

Robert – I was never looking for an apology nor do you owe any. Your last post explains a lot. I actually appreciate you opened up I won’t insult you by even attempting to say I understand what happened in your life because I haven’t gone through what you have. It does explain the anger that comes through in many of your posts. I would suggest that you were the victim of people who while claiming to be Christian were not following its most basic precepts. I know that will be little consolation to you. We both know the level of proof you want will never happen and if that’s what it will take I feel truly sorry for you. If that were possible everyone even the vilest and evil would bow down before God. For the record I don’t consider you either vile or evil. I still maintain that much of your views of religion are misguided and rooted in your own bad experiences. The problems in the world especially the quest for power and control is rooted in man not religion. I won’t pretend that religions, even my own, are perfect or haven’t made their share of suffering and pain in the world. However, if you look closely at the events and the precepts of the religion you will likely find that those guilty were in violation of their own faith. The best example I can give would be someone claiming to be pro-life trying to rationalize the killing of a abortion doctor.

What I ask you to consider is that not all people of faith are out for supreme power and control. Nor are they following some dogma like a trained animal or lacking imagination. There are actually issues you and I agree on. Separation of Church and State is one of those. Combining the two has and still does leave room for some really bad things to happen. I am thankful our forefathers had the good sense to realize that when framing our system of government. In closing I respect your right to believe or not believe as you wish. All I ask is you show the same courtesy.

Robert – I’m sorry in rereading your and my response there was a little more I wanted to say. I’m not trying to make you believe or even force my views on you. As I’ve said from the beginning faith is a matter of choice. I just thought I’d give you a something to consider. In searching for the truth all possibilities should be considered until they can be eliminated by the weight of evidence. Since you can not do that with God you should consider the possibility he exists. Even if one were to accept your idea that all religions seek only power and control that doesn’t mean God does not exists. It could mean that religion failed in its charge..

This is a quote from this website.

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

“If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon”

I mention it because when I read it you came to mind immediately. It’s just some food for thought. Please consider it when you make the accusation that people of faith lack imagination.. My intent has been twofold. To get you to acknowledge that all believers don’t fit in your mold and consider the possibility that God does exist. My apologies if any of this offends you.

As long as there are adherents to religion at the micro level, even if they think it is the greatest thing that ever happened to them, they make it possible for the mess we are headed for at religion's macro level. Religion at a personal level poses no real threat to the survivability of Humanity, but once it has mass and inertia (as in moving weight), it becomes an entirely different and dangerous animal. The very existence of doctrinal rigidity on a wide level, gains its own momentum that has, can and will, sweep people into "crusades" or "jihad's" in defense of what basically is not real. That there are now religious governments in possession of nuclear weapons (Israel has an estimated 100 already) and more on the verge of having them, that they have shown no restraint in their willingness to kill each other when not so armed, should have everyone quaking in their boots at the potential for conflagration that can, and will drag the rest of the world to oblivion.

In 1962, we came as close to nuclear war as we ever have so far and this was between two sides who were struggling over only political power in the world. Just think how insane it will be when the participants in future struggles are fighting over the "truth of their gods" and their perceived battlefields are not just here, but in an afterlife that so many of them will (and are) ready to go to (fat chance in reality) as they sacrifice themselves for their faith in suicidal and vicious nuclear attacks. You may perceive religion as a positive good, but there is a real danger that it could end up as the most ultimate evil the world has ever experienced, if we survive it. Frankly, blindly devout people scare the living crap out of me and if they don't cause that type of concern in you, you are truly blind, stupid or part of the problem.

Robert,

Very insightful, I agree with your first point. The organized establishment of religion HAS been infected with the virus of extremists, fundamentalist and what-have-you's.

First of all I greatly appreciate you sharing a paraphrased history of your past experience with organized religion. It makes total sense that you have negative feelings towards the establishment and general concept of "religion". You have found great strength pulling through the "road bumps" of your youth and you do see clearly now having been through it. I do respectively applaud you.

The problem with the human condition is ironic. We have the means to do good works yet we use the same means to do terrible things as you mentioned. All things being equal these “wacko’s” whom you speak of or the “religious” who exploit their beliefs and act unjustly in the name of their beliefs are too MISSING the mark completely. I, like you, see fault in that aspect that you could coin a by-product of organized religion. Absolutely.

Christianity was established based on one truth. Love. In a nut shell, people acting like the ones you mentioned are again missing the whole idea. There is no love, charity, looking out for the good of the species. It is all about them. So a man named Jesus took it upon Himself 2000 years ago to take the hit for the people he loved on earth. Symbolically a mere man who had done no real crime, primitively being crucified in UNIMAGINABLE pain because he cared. How much does someone need to be in love to endure the physical pain of being literally and graphically nailed to a wooden structure? Imagine the metal/physiological execution here.

And so the example is a historical sacrifice in ancient times which laid the beautiful foundation for all of us today to follow in the footsteps of love, compassion, sacrifice. Victory is that much sweeter when you bleed. You and I both know. And our journey’s are far from over.

For me, I look at a crucifix. I just stare and say nothing. I forget about the wrongs the church and state have come to pass... I forget about my own troubled trials of yesterday... What I see on the cross speaks volumes to me. It alone makes what I believe all worth the while. Because it is that which our species needs desperately. That is a fine place to start.

Robert - the TOTAL INSANITY of full-out nuclear "fair trade" AND GUARANTEED FALLOUT?Agreed ! !
Would this be the most ultimate evil the world has ever known? I don't think so. Deicide has claimed that distinction: the God-Man, Jesus Christ, killed on Calvary.
"The trouble with Christianity is Christians" (G.K. Chesterton) The same gentleman, when asked to write a column for the London Tablet (1930's)answering the question: "What's Wrong With the World?" sent the following cryptic reply to the editors: "I am".
We need to cryptically observe ourselves -religious or irreligious, believer or unbeliever, passionate about the world around us and within us, or ho-hum indifferent.
I hope your on-going search for truth brings with it an equal dose of healing balm for a guy dealt a rather cold up-bringing...to say the least.
I've had my own -virtually "blind"- search NOT for whether there is or is not a God (check Thomas Acquinas' five proofs; strictly intellectual...can be done)but for the world of affection, specifically that brother and sister, Mom and Dad affective interchange normal in a close-knit family. I'm from a large Dutch family, together, but not close affectively then ('50's and '60's) Possible today? . . depends.
Well, I found it. Without elaborating on it,this, for me, is what makes my day, is what makes each morning NEW. Friends and the disposition to be open to others (with discernment, of course). Good friends also end up exposing one's faults, real and abiding faults!
Thank you for the long and unrelenting exchanges with your "sparring partners".
Somewhere in the beginning of the blog you offer a "rich" litany of facts clearly pointing to the absence of God.
The best man I've read on that is Karl Rahner, 1958; he put in his "two cents worth" at a Symposium in Germany on "The Devotion To The Sacred Heart".
LONG story! . . don't want to start it here. Its just that Rahner, to me, gives the best BRIEF historical background as to where and why and when this absence of God process began . . . and continues unabated into today. A too lengthty addition for now. Almost my bedtime.
Have a Good Day . . the rest of it, and tomorrow.

B. Lawrence

First of all, I had a very good childhood, my father was an idiot (who committed tobaccocide), but there was always food on the table and a roof over our heads and we lived in areas so beautiful and exciting that most boys would have traded with me in a flash. I had, and still have, a mother who instilled a love of books and good music (although she never appreciated the beauty of jazz) and grew up as the kind of young man that parents readily felt safe allowing their daughters to date. Perhaps the type of girl I was attracted to had something to do with that. So stop making me out like some poor waif that led a deprived existence, falling away from god as a result of my pitiful environment.

I left religion behind because it was inane, archaic, and did not answer the questions I had been raised to feel free to examine. Had I been regimented and programed the way religious schools have a tendency to do, I would probably have ended up as blindly ignorant as those who insist my eviction of god concepts is somehow a sad loss. It is a joyful experience, not in the "spiritual" orgasm of delusional self deception, but in understanding what it really means to be a human. It is not some arrogant search to attain near godhood by attaching myself to a fake dogma to spend eternity at the left hand of any silly made-up god. If anyone is in need of pity, it is those squandering Human potential, that is wasted preparing to take a trip to a place you will never reach because the con of religion has the gall to promise to deliver it to you, after you are dead. Any business demanding/suggesting that you turn over 10% of your income for a promised, but totally undeliverable product after you die would be charged with fraud. Perhaps religion should be held to the same standard.

Hello Robert. What would you think if you saw Christ put His hands on a blind man and then the man could see? Or if you saw one of His disciples tell a lame man to get up and walk and then the man went leaping for joy and praising God? What would you think if one of these things happened to you? And, what would you think if you saw it happening over and over? Thanks.

Robert - You are quite wrong on your assessment of religion. The problem is people using religion as a justification for persecution or hate. If you examine the concepts of the religion, regardless of your believe in God, it usually doesn't take long to realize those advocating such things as “crusades” or now “jihad's” are violating the tenets of the very faith they claim to follow. What’s dangerous isn’t religion, but people. I can’t speak for other faiths, but as to my own I don’t recall ever being taught that it was our duty to fight and kill for God. In fact it was quite the opposite that I should “turn the other cheek”. The reason for the problems is now and always has been with us human beings. The only people who scare me are those who blindly refuse to challenge their beliefs and keep an open mind. The inertia of a large mass of close minded atheist would pose the same dangers as any religion. In fact you yourself crusade for an end to religion. While I know you mean the institution, it wouldn’t take much nudging to alter that to religious people.

As for your childhood you’re the one who spun the sob story. Sorry if my compassion bothered you. It’s one of those evils that those nasty Catholic schools taught me. Since you didn’t go to a religious school I’d say that makes you unqualified to speak about them. Funny how you attack people for beliefs they can’t prove and then proceed to do the exact same thing. I can’t speak for all religious schools, only the ones I attended, but they instructed us about the faith. That is if you were Catholic. Since we also had non Catholics they received no religious education. We were also challenged on to think about not only out own faith, but the faiths others and even your false atheist ideas as well. We were also taught of the need to respect all people even those we don’t agree with.

What you consider freedom many other people consider denial. You speak about God and salvation as if you have the answer. While I have no doubt you believe you. If I leave my own faith and its beliefs out and apply simple logic. How can you KNOW God doesn’t exist? What is your basis for the statement that God doesn’t exist? The only argument you can make is that it hasn’t been proven to your satisfaction He does exist. That is not a valid argument to state God does not exist. All you can say with any certainty is you do not believe God exists. Anything else is blind arrogance on your part. The reality is you are just as guilty of blindly following your own dogma and refusing to accept other possibilities. You are in fact exactly the very blindly devote person your rant about. The only difference is your devotion is to atheism. If you can’t see it than I would have to say that you are the truly blind or stupid one and part of the problem.

ravensfan - It is evident that you are determined to make your case for getting me to admit that there is a possibility that a god, of some sort, might have a chance to exist. I freely admit (as I have in a previous post, that you have somehow forgotten) that there IS a chance that some sort of creature might exist, but that the chance is so incredibly remote, it would border on insanity to invest any time in accepting any man made construct as being such a creature, or in allowing anyone insane enough to believe in such a man constructed creature, to determine how we are to exist in relation to this improbability.

You state of me that I, "speak about God and salvation as if you have the answer.", while ignoring the fact that I have stated repeatedly that my position is nothing but a search for still unknown truths, that is totally dependant on the concept of accepting the ability to say these words, "I DON'T KNOW....YET!". What I find so objectionable about what you subscribe to, is that you are committed to a body of man invented crap that you have the temerity to defend as if it made any sense at all, considering its source. You try to give it superior weight against the idea that the rational position must be tolerant of what we perceive to be to be a contrived, vacuous, devolution of of the insecurities, and fear of creatures so pathetic they must believe what can only (logically and rationally) be rubbish. You are entitled to believe that any mound of manure that exists is somehow "ultimate Truth", but to ask that the rest of us give credence to that notion, is the height of arrogant self delusion. To expect us to be ruled by such absurdities is a declaration of war against freedom itself, which will be vigorously resisted, even in the face of a new Torquemada like inspired Inquisition.

Mr. Littel,

Here are some basic points to put in question which you may find interesting.

The Argument of the Unmoved Mover

Some things are moved.
Everything that is moving is moved by a mover.
An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
This mover is what we call God.

The Argument of the First Cause

Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
This causer is what we call God.

The Argument from Contingency

Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, for then there would be a time when nothing existed, and so nothing would exist now, since there would be nothing to bring anything into existence, which is clearly false.
Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings.
This being is whom we call God.

The Argument from Degree

Varying perfections of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe.
These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection.
Therefore, perfection must have a pinnacle.
This pinnacle is whom we call God.

The Teleological Argument

The argument of "design" , which claims that everything in the Universe has a purpose, which must have been caused by God :
All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
Acting towards an end is characteristic of intelligence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends.
This being is whom we call God.

Very interesting literature on this. Maybe if you wanted to expand your thought check this out over a cup of tea...

Regards,

Robert You claim you have acknowledged the possibility God exists. I don’t recall it, but I’ll take your word for it. You don’t know yet, but you are quick to discount the idea and arguments made. Never mind the fact that you have present zero for your own That sure sounds like someone who is fair sure he has the answer to me. All you’ve done is belittle, insult and put down anyone who dares suggest God exists. What I find objectionable is you’re completely arrogant assumption view that only rational and logical thing is your own dogmatic position and anyone who doesn’t share it must somehow be intellectually and logically inferior. Like I’ve said before you are the anti-Clay. I’ve never asked you or anyone else to accept it. You’re the one proclaiming religion should be expunged. You’re the one trying to force your dogma on others. The trouble is you are so blinded you can’t or won’t see it. In the final analysis Robert you are the one on a crusade.

patycakes - Pardon me, but if you are going to play the part of an unschooled child, you will have to forgive me for not participating. Your points are those that would be better aimed at someone who hasn't spent a lifetime examining them, and once finding them circular and inane, has already discarded them long ago, as not worthy of further consideration.

ravensfan - You are free to believe whatever unfounded, unsupportable pile of rubbish you wish. There is little danger to the totality of society from the delusions of one individual entertaining fantasies to give his life artificial meaning. You are like one man urinating in a river, who would have little impact on those down-stream depending on that river for their drinking water. The problem is that when everyone up-stream urinates in the river, there cannot help but be problems for those down-stream and that is the type of problem that occurs when the accumulated infection of superstitious belief starts to negatively impact the real world.

If you weren't standing on a foundation of abuse and out-right murder, carried out over centuries by people who think just like you, I might find some reason to tolerate what, under conditions that seem to be reasserting themselves, could very well start happening again here. That such abuse is occurring in other areas of the world, is only a reminder of how easily and quickly things can get out of control in the world of those who claim divine truth as their shield and their sword.

pattycakes Good posts, but don’t get your hopes up. I'm sorry to say that Robert isn't really interested in expanding thoughts. I've already left him links and haven't seen any response. He is convinced that anyone who believes in God is "committed to a body of man invented crap" as he put it recently. He seems to feel the all of us delusional believers need to liberate ourselves by saying I DON'T KNOW YET. Never mind that I showed it was possible to do both.

Robert yet again you blame religion for what humans do. Do you honestly think if no one believed in God things would be different? Do you really think people wouldn’t find other ways to justify abuse and murder? If you do that you are either in denial or very stupid. I would suggest that without those who believe in a “divine truth” as you put it things would be far worse. You focus solely on negative and ignore the positives that have come from people adhering to that “divine truth”. In fact more abuse and outright murder comes from the ground you stand on. You are like the man who criticizes the neighbor’s kid’s behavior while being completely oblivious to your own kid’s bad behavior. BTW I’d love sometime for you to elaborate on that circular argument comment. It might work on Clay’s simplistic view but I think you’ll find Thomas Aquinas and others like C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton a little more difficult. Then again maybe not as I this quote pretty much is you.

“If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.”

It’s kind of funny how you DO NOT KNOW YET after a lifetime of examination, but every possible idea mentioned by believers ends up being called inane, unfounded, rubbish, or some other insulting or belittling description. The one thing I never see is the WHY they are those things are any of what you claim. Your problem is you’ve spent a life time blaming religion first for the bad things that happened to you then the bad things that happened in history and now anything happening in the world. While you were doing all that you didn’t bother to see what that religion actually says should its followers do. You condemn the message because of bad messengers. Your little analogy about urinating in a river is a pretty good one for your own intolerant hateful views. Here’s a thought. Before replying this time take the time to think about how things would be different if we all accept your dogma. Would concepts like do onto others still exist? What about the ideas of the ten commandments or the Sermon on the Mount? Would your godless society have any of those concepts, or would we operate simply on survival of the fittest like the rest of the species in the world.

Yes Robert, please enlighten us all with your schooled rebuttals on the subject(s). (i.e. circular arguments, how the world would benefit from being godless and atheist). I'm excited to hear your academic breakdown of these points. Please don't back out by saying "I Don't Know ...Yet".

ravensfan - You really do have a problem with things I have already said in the past. I have already stated that there is a possibility of there being some kind of god (only two of my posts ago). The odds are rather long, as in almost absurd in their unlikelihood, but I do acknowledge the remote possibility. I blame religion for what people do, because it is religion that shapes their actions, motivations and quite often their permission to do some of the horrible things they do at the macro-level. As to the goodness of the central core of religion, I find no compelling reason to praise ideas based on made-up falsehoods. It would be like finding the goodness in someone like Hitler because he built the Autobahn, or for Mussolini because he drained the swamps around Rome, ending the Yellow Fever threat. In the end, the good does not cover for the crimes and the major crime of several religions now seems to be trying to out-breed each other in a world that hardly needs more mouths to feed, no matter what the creed. We heathens seem to opt for quality, not quantity and I think much of religions objection to not only abortion, but also birth control for their adherents, is the loss of numbers that would occur. Imagine, your church, in 1910 making it a mortal sin to have an abortion because, not the morality of it, but the bottom line numbers in a population race.

If no one believed in god/gods, I'm sure there would be other causes for discord and even death, but at least no one would be dying or killing in, or for, any silly made-up god, a number that now is in the multi-millions throughout our history.

Lastly, I find no reason why I have to mount a defense for that which is rational, considered, has no dogma, makes no wild unprovable claims, has no deities and reflects reality and all its warts, in an open unencumbered by doctrine search for answers that man may never end, unless we all become like you and the one with the pom-poms (Rah Rah, Go Catholics), pattycakes.

Another point, your cited authorities above, "Thomas Aquinas and others like C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton ", never got past the same talking point that hung them up and in the end became what it is for you, an excuse for ignorance called FAITH. They copped out and bought the cheap escape, I did not. I consider my position to be the honest, honorable one and the logical choice.

Something is being lost in this very long "circular" merry-go-round around "God" and "god".
In re-reading yesterday's blog, I highlighted and copied one sentence from Mr. Littel. "“If, tomorrow, you produced your god creature for all to see and it intoned that its nature was as you claim, I would be the first in line to acknowledge the truth of it. I would have some questions about why we had to suffer and kill so many of each other for so many centuries over doctrinal differences, that any omnificent creature should have been able to clear up with the snap of its ethereal fingers, but in the face of overwhelming proof, I would supplicate myself before it.” Robert Littel, Sept. 24/09
For me the pivotal words are: ". . your god creature . ." There is the "rub" ( real old expression ). From what Mr. Littel has given about his personal experiences in early youth ..involving (I'm assuming) serious and sincere searching (questioning a whole assortment of people who should have known about Faith), the net outcome for him was the conscious jettisoning of "Faith" . . perceived by him, in the end, as totally spurious.
But there IS a difference in THAT "Faith" and the Faith as understood by the Catholic Church. The "Faith" rejected by Mr. Littel does NOT seem to be the GIFT bestowed on a PERSON at their BAPTISM . . which is the teaching of the Catholic Church. . Baptism effecting a new son or daughter in the Family of Christ's Body, the Church (that word in Greek, ecclesia, means "Gathering").
Mr. Littel's "Faith", on the other hand, seems to have denoted nothing of the kind, in which case it makes perfect sense for Mr.Littel, having chucked THAT "Faith", to depend TOTALLY on HIS OWN UN-AIDED reason for any and all lines of argument in HIS search for truth. . . since that pivotal moment right up to this very one. Hence Mr. Littel's very REAL affirmation: I DON'T KNOW . . YET. Emphasis on "I"!
But now one needs to clarify another Catholic teaching: that God is NOT a creature. God, as REVEALED IN the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament (Gospels and Letters and Book of Revelation), AND by Sacred Tradition, AND by Sacred Magisterial Teaching: is UNCREATED. God IS the Creator. God IS. Yahweh. "I AM Who AM".
Hence the inevitable clash between Mr.Littel's "your god creature" and the Judeo-Christian teaching on God, Who - by the way - is Triune, Three PERSONS. (Don't try and "figure it out"; we can't. Not with our unaided reason. Its a Mystery beyong our pea-pickin' brain to grasp . . or God WOULDN'T be God...here we need to go to Church Teaching, which includes Scripture, the wisdom of the Saints, and Papal teaching. God the Son became Man for our sake. All Church teaching derives from that event and fact)
Before proceeding further, let's go back to something Patticakes alluded to: the reality of God BEING LOVE. On this lets listen to a French Nun who spent her whole life seeking out and living ITS REALITY AND MEANING . . . with interjections from me in parentheses :"God is free from all SAVE HIS LOVE." This phrase, which I believe is by Monsegneur Gay (one of her many friends), gives much to my soul, particularly at this time of the Resurrection (Eastertime), when Christ, the victor over death, wants to remain our captive. And it seems to me this is how we can rise with Him : by walking through life " FREE FROM ALL SAVE OUR LOVE " our soul and heart fixed on God, repeating those words that Saint Catherine of Siena loved to say in the silence of her soul : "I AM SOUGHT; I AM LOVED" (. . Gee! Sister, then Mr. Littel must be too, no?) This is what is true, ALL THE REST IS NOT (which, for this cowboy, is THE perfect definition of "atheism") Oh ! how good it would be, as you say, to live by this life of the Trinity that Jesus Christ came to bring us. He said so often that He was the Life, and that He came to give it to us in abundance. " He has taken all in God to Himself to become the source for all, " as Pere Vallee (her community's retreat director)said to us one day in his strong language; then he added that all those who came close to Him had an " awareness of the vision He carried in His soul. " Since He still lives, why shouldn't we ask Him for the definitive light, that light of faith that makes saints... “
Elizabeth of the Trinity,OCD, died 1906 of Addison's Disease. [Letter 199]
Now, I'd wager a guess that, for Mr. Littel, such pious spoutings will be diametrically opposite to ANY possible meanings that he would have to attach to his pet whipping boy: "your god creature".
And that is because,"... the modern atheist is always angered when he hears anything said about God and religion - (BUT..) he would be incapable of such resentment IF GOD WERE ONLY A MYTH (i.e. "your god creature").
That was a quote from Fulton Sheen (Peace Of Soul, 1954, p228), who, during the decade of WW II, went on to observe that, ". .The new atheism is NOT OF THE INTELLECT, but of THE WILL; it is an act of free and eager rejection of morality and its demands. It starts with the AFFIRMATION OF SELF and the denial of the moral law." (Lift Up Your Heart, 1942 p.36).
What to say at this point of the impasse??
"Vive le difference"??
Impossible!
Frankly, Robert, I DON'T KNOW . . . YET!!

Have a Good day.

P.S. Mr. Littel . . some suggested readings:

1) The life of Edith Stein
2) The life of Ronda Chervin
3) The life of Alphonse Ratisbonne.

B. Lawrence

Robert this is a losing game--these guys are fanatics. Not only is there no place at their table for an atheist but there is none for people of other faiths and religions. The sanctimony of Lawrence B who spouts the same old tired argument that only religion can endow moral compass and the euphoria of Patty Cake who is a subscriber to the unintelligent theory of Intelligent Design, how far can you go with them Robert? And you have ignored Clay--he popped up in the middle of the melee and witnessed for the Lord. The man is tenacious like a leech for his cause.

Very insightful, fantastic post B. Lawrence!
“... the modern atheist is always angered when he hears anything said about God and religion - (BUT..) he would be incapable of such resentment IF GOD WERE ONLY A MYTH (i.e. "your god creature").”
“The new atheism is NOT OF THE INTELLECT, but of THE WILL; it is an act of free and eager rejection of morality and its demands. It starts with the AFFIRMATION OF SELF and the denial of the moral law." (Lift Up Your Heart, 1942 p.36)”.
This is the reality. To begin to understand truth (never mind Catholic Truth or “religious” truth) these individuals must be OPEN to truth. As ravensfan has mentioned, the fundamentalist atheist is CLOSED to any clues or tributaries leading to the goal of finding truth. OUTRIGHT. He has already made up his mind and is too high on a horse to find any need for someone/something (force or being) which is superior to himself. He directs the show. He calls his shots. He makes his truth, and it is this sort of thought which prevents any moral reasoning, action, faith or charity.
Robert you make no defense because you “believe” with the same devotion you claim religious waste their lives practicing. Only difference it is YOUR OWN dogma.
Have a good weekend boys! These pom pom’s are back at it ASAP Robbie, don’t you worry! And don’t head back to church JUST yet... we will have to pick you out a cute outfit first! Toodles

Dear "Anonymous" - well, I guess the old adage remains true:"If one has the Faith, no explanation is necessary. If one doesn't, no explanation is possible."
And that's because Faith is a GIFT "from Above", at one's BAPTISM. It is not a human construct, at least the Faith we're talking about.
Also, it is not true that, as you say, there is no room for atheists. The Church (Ecclesia) encompasses ALL.There's all kinds of room. You just haven't received the Gift yet.But, to put a human face on all this,
check out Ronda Chervin (Google . . Amazon.com . . etc.) She's still alive and very willing to converse with one and all. She's tough. Down-home Bronx New Yorker. Genuine atheist from day one in her life, but also, like Mr. Littel, searched for truth...and found it. Check out the rest of her story . . not because I say so, but on her own record.
Have a good week-end.
Cowboy Bob

Dear Athiest Friends, . . a poem:

WHAT THE COW DIDN'T SEE

Yes, . . .

Oh YES ! . . . Mrs. Udderly, you who

Better my toast with budder,

Are you aware,

With your brown-eyed stare,

Of shriven woods and skies of lady-blue, of

Re-plowed scraggly acres, brush-cut with fool’s gold stubble, all

Around you . . . ?

Are you . . . ?

Oughten it not ‘t make yer lolling tongue bubble,

With untroubled delight? To be gazing . . . almost grazing !

On that stubble, and

On autumnal yellows ‘n fading browns, and

On cloudy shades of charcoal hanging like flak in the azure sky, and

Tattered remnants of by-gone greens, unveiling grey branches

Are you . . . ?

“Moo-ooh! “ say you.

Ha! . . winter snows are coming on, and

Yoo’d rather be a Yak in Yakutiia

Itching to fill pails with yogen furze.

I know you.

That’ll do !

Mrs. Udderly.

Anonymous - There is only so far that you can go with them until they start flinging everything they have at you, in an effort to shut you down. It is at this point, when they become the most ridiculous and when the casual reader, especially the curious who haven't been totally co-opted by religion, but not brave enough to join the discussion, are most susceptible to seeing that that seed of doubt they have always carried might be capable of sprouting. It is always gratifying when someone starts to question what has been handed to them all there life and it is droning idiots like our friends above, that usually are the catalyst for sprouting of doubt. We owe them a debt of thanks because without them, there would be no standard of the obvious insanity they represent. Now, let's sit back and enjoy while their heads explode.

A lifetime in church
distilled into one post but
I no longer care.

Isn't it FUN to blog Robert!

It is your current occupation, no doubt, to plant the seed of doubt in this "bloggsphere" and I respect that. Cutting down to the "meat & potatoes", I think the average reader who stumbles upon these posts will be absolutely entertained.

You miss in your feeble attempts to discredit that, The "believers" on this blog are INDEED challenging everyone including ourselves to SEARCH and CONSIDER all possibilities. When seen through un-biased eyes the deep seated reasoning, logic and good intent which religious axiom brings to the human condition, I see no reason intelligent persons would "chuck the notion" even before an attept to UNDERSTAND.

Besides indirectly acknowledging that there could be a God (which is a start, and your acknowledgment conversely "chucks" any credibility you say YOUR dogma holds because YOU JUST DON'T KNOW YET), You have provided no objective argument even for YOUR OWN facetious worldview. People in their search for truth who could be termed "curious bystanders" in this blogg have already been exposed to a wealth of quotes, links, opinions and insights from historical intellectuals from which to draw stimulating questions. This is quality stuff to research and it leads to a wonderful search of both sides.

All bantering aside, Robert you have provided no tangible, focused, objective or equitable points for anyone to ponder. You thrive off biased and bitter rants. That is what is holding your cause back because had you taken the time to give even the slightest bit of relevant information to suggest good Christians, Muslims, Hindus and religious in the world are ACTUALLY HOLDING BACK mankind, I think this would lay bare your true conjecture:

You are a lonely, angry man...

Pattycakes - KA-BOOM!

Wow!! What an interesting debate over the human condition and the relevance or the irrelevance of the existence of God. I find it fascinating that those who deny the existence of God continue to do so at the risk of rewriting history to suit their own worldview. I have just one fundamental question for those who chose to ignore the hisorical Jesus as is related to us in Scripture. Why, with such a vested interest in proving that Jesus was NOT the Son of God that He claimed to be, was there never a body found?? All of the whole of Christian faith and beliefs could have been ended simply by producing a body therefore refuting claims to Deity. In all the years of "critical thinking", analysis, debating,
empirical evidence, not one line of Scripture has ever been found to be false. Surely after 2,000 plus years of assault, someone would have been able to find a reasonable explanation as to why.

Robert B - Why would you even consider that Atheists have " ...a vested interest in proving that Jesus was NOT the Son of God that He claimed to be,", when we don't even consider that god concepts are worth all the blood of Human suffering it took to write them in your book? To think we waste time trying to prove a mythical god/Human hybrid of a non-existent god has any merit at all, is absurd.

As to any body 2000 years dead not being found, you only have to remember that the discovery of the remains of Dr. Mengele in South America, had to rely on DNA evidence of small bone fragments that were all that were left of him, and he had only been dead for about seven years.

Lastly, I have a book sitting here right next to my Buy-Bull entitled "The Bible Handbook", which is 372 pages of biblical "Contradictions", "Absurdities", Atrocities", Unfulfilled Prophecies" and "Immoralities". With my already considerable knowledge and armed with this handy book (ISBN 0-910309-26-4) , I don't think you should stand on your statement, "In all the years of "critical thinking", analysis, debating,
empirical evidence, not one line of Scripture has ever been found to be false. Surely after 2,000 plus years of assault, someone would have been able to find a reasonable explanation as to why.", as your line in the sand, it will not stand.

Dear KA-BOOM, If you do not worship God, you worship something, and nine times out of ten it will be yourself. If there is no God, then you are a god; and if you are a god and your own law and your own creator, then we ought never to be surprised that there are so many atheists...
"Anonymous" seems to perceive believers out of a seige mentality, " . .flinging everything they have at you, in an effort to shut you down" . . not exactly a disposition for genuine dialogue.
But you,Mr. Littel,having made a fortress out of your entrenched doubting and the (legitimate) question, "I don't know . . yet" - which I respect,life ain't over 'til its over- does your quasi-agnostic position apply to everything? Are you willing to come up with, say, five things you ARE sure about?
10,000 questions which I may entertain do not equal one doubt. Have you done with seeking truth?. . . decided there is nothing more to be said or exchanged, or are you simply being hard to "reach", at least with "believers"? Or, is ANY attempt by ANYone engaging Mr.Littel with the pablum of "baby" questions BENEATH him to respond to from his fortress of doubt?
I'm beginning to suspect that you will respond . . er, uh from your heart of hearts -without derision- when you are sure the conversation originates from a "Buddha", an "awakened one", who, like Gotama Siddhartha, HAS descended deep, deep into the mystery of suffering. You know what I mean . . by the time you finish reading a book ABOUT making sense out of suffering, ten thousand children will starve, four thousand will be brutally beaten by their parents, one thousand will be raped, and hundreds of pre-born kids will be aborted.
But maybe I'm talking to the wrong guy. Maybe I've got YOU all wrong ! !Maybe I ought to keep silent and listen ONLY to the Word of God. . . and allow that Light to at least cover your existence with the balm of His Merciful Love.

KA-BOOM-BOB

Seeker thanks for your haiku--loved it. Lawrence B loved the poem about the cow. Did you write it? Or was it the work of Edith Stein or Ronda Chervin or Alphonse Ratisbonne? I was beginning to think you are a blathering fool and then the poem! Restore my faith in my own judgment Lawrence B--tell me you didn't write this poem, that I am right, that you are indeed a blathering fool

Or perhaps the udderly bovine one Under divine guidance inscribed the poem-
In her own dung with her hoof-- Whereupon Jesus appeared to you and took you by the hand--
And led you to the pasture where the miracle had occurred-
And you copied the ungulate's verse down
Beneath flocculating clouds, soft grass-
Undulating to the horizon-- Jesus left you there
Talking to the udderly bovine one--
that mooed to you "Go forth you blind believer-
And post what I have written, where Robert Littel can see it,
Be gone!"

Robert the horror of Lawrence B and Pattycake as opposed to Clay, is their erudition. Beware of the erudite lovers of the Lord; the apoplexy over the calvary cannot be countered with reason but Lawrence B is a good poet-- if he wrote the verse he posted Robert-- unless of course Jesus wrote the poem for him or the cow itself did the writing.

Robert B - If I worship anything, it is the freedom of thought that is not encumbered by dogma and doctrine, that I have swallowed because some church sprinkled it with sugar and made it addictive with the promise of painful withdrawal (eternal damnation). I truly pity people of your mentality and fear the consequences of what you would do to the rest of society, if given free reign to your absurdities.

Anonymous . . no, it wasn't those folks. I wrote it...on a day exactly like today, autumn, blue sky chuck full of a mix of floater clouds. Loved composing the thing from the original inspiration: a holstein cow painted on an old-fashioned mailbox in front of a little old house neighbored by a freshly plowed field and almost leaf-less trees.
This area of town, now almost choked out of existence by restless, suburban developers, is an exact "patch" of turf which one finds in my wife's neck of the woods : northern New Jersey, the Pocono Mountains (big hills, really), not a straight road around, pretty farm vistas.. Sussex, Port Jarvis and every other town "down the line" from there . . the tri-state area (N.J., Pennsylvania, and New York State).
Heck, why don't I add the preface I wrote to it:
"Friday, October 12, 2007
Several Octobers ago, on a day with temperature and conditions much as today, I was sauntering north on MEADOWLILLY ROAD SOUTH, a country-like, patchy paved lane off of Commissioners Road East, that is to say, just east of the Highbury overpass here in London (Ontario).
One brick home had the old-fashioned mailbox by the road. There was a Holstein cow painted on it. I’ve seen only one other like it, on Libertyville Road, near Sussex, New Jersey, opposite the home of my brother and sister-in-law, the Westdykes.
The insight reveled in? . . what the human person can see and find awesome, which the cow can’t. Silly stuff. Fun stuff. But then I’ve always had an “Ogden Nash” streak in me . . . you know, his poem about the termite and “Aunt May” falling “through the parlor floor one day”, or the one about the Panther, “If it’s a panther, don’t anther.”
Cowpoke Bob"
I've been lax in not composing more stuff; have it in me to do so. Just too wore out and/or lazy at the end of a working day.
There's a few other short poems come from my ball-point, but they're religious, which . . y'all don't wanna get sick on some more, huh? So, best leave these be.
Thanks for the compliment all the same. It put a wee smile in me heart! Real poetry and composition can't fake themselves past true appreciation.
Robert L -do you ever get called Bob? .. I actually did take off and spend several hours in silent reflection very early this morning. Among other things it occurred to me that your hallmark response: "I don't know . . YET" is a solid, your-OWN-feet-on-the-ground question. A floating foundation for the day-by-day. If my responses have been erudite, sincere apologies. There IS in me that "Dutchness" you know, those "wooden shoes, wooden head, wouldn't listen". Link these three to my extreme impatience to state my case, and . . I end up hearing right PAST ya!
I especially enjoyed your written entries (above) in which you describe those decisive moments of early youth; great human-interest narration. Do you publish biographical material?

Have a good day.

Robert I hope you didn't spend all weekend here. Your response to my challenge was pretty much why I expected. I’m well aware that you’ve reluctantly conceded that God could exist. The point you either miss or just don’t seem to want to accept is that it isn’t religion but people that cause those problems you mention. The people who committed, and still commit the acts are in violation of their own faith’s principals. You do reluctantly admit that the world would have been other reasons for the discord and death. In reality it rarely has anything to do with religion and everything to do with human faults of greed, envy, hate and fear.

Are you saying that not lying, not stealing, not committing murder, treating others as you wish to be treated aren’t worthwhile ideas? That was the point of my question. If you feel ideas like those aren’t worthwhile I feel sorry for you.

You state that you find no reason to support what is rational. Why exactly is it rational and not in need of support? Is it because you say so? At no time and no place have you ever supported your position? In truth you cling to as much dogma as the most hard core fundamentalists. You are the anti-Clay Robert. You can’t support your inherent hatred for religion or your arrogance that your view is the only rational one. That’s why even your opening admission contains so much of an attempt to minimize it. It’s also why you spend so much time attacking the messengers and not the message.

Anonymous since you decided to make pass judgment I thought I'd correct your incorrect assessment. I can't speak for everyone, but I have defended Robert's right to believe or not believe what he wishes. Robert is the one who is on the crusade if you will. It's funny you and him both speak as if you are standing on the correct side with no need to actually support it. That your opinions are so obviously correct that only a fool wouldn't see it as correct. That sure sounds like someone following dogma to me. Dismissing other people’s thoughts and beliefs while holding your own out as the only true choice. Maybe you both should think about that before your next response goes up.

Hope everyone had a safe and fun weekend!

Here is some more food for thought...

"In any closed system, a process proceeds in a direction such that the unavailable energy (the entropy) increases." In other words, in any closed system, the amount of disorder always increases with time. Things progress naturally from order to disorder, or from an available energy state to one where energy is more unavailable. A good example: a hot cup of coffee cools off in an insulated room. The total amount energy in the room remains the same (which satisfies the first law of thermodynamics). Energy is not lost, it is simply transferred (in the form of heat) from the hot coffee to the cool air, warming up the air slightly. When the coffee is hot, there is available energy because of the temperature difference between the coffee and the air. As the coffee cools down, the available energy is slowly turned to unavailable energy. At last, when the coffee is room temperature, there is no temperature difference between the coffee and the air, i.e. the energy is all in an unavailable state. The closed system (consisting of the room and the coffee) has suffered what is technically called a "heat death." The system is "dead" because no further work can be done since there is no more available energy. The second law says that the reverse cannot happen! Room temperature coffee will not get hot all by itself, because this would require turning unavailable energy into available energy".

Now consider the entire universe as one giant closed system. Stars are hot, just like the cup of coffee, and are cooling down, losing energy into space. The hot stars in cooler space represent a state of available energy, just like the hot coffee in the room. However, the second law of thermodynamics requires that this available energy is constantly changing to unavailable energy. In another analogy, the entire universe is winding down like a giant wind-up clock, ticking down and losing available energy. Since energy is continually changing from available to unavailable energy, someone had to give it available energy in the beginning! (I.e. someone had to wind up the clock of the universe at the beginning.) Who or what could have produced energy in an available state in the first place? Only someone or something not bound by the second law of thermodynamics. Only the creator of the second law of thermodynamics could violate the second law of thermodynamics, and create energy in a state of availability in the first place."

- John M. Cimbala
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
The Pennsylvania State University

pattycakes - I don't know if Robert is lonely but definitely an angry man who is steadfast in defense of his own dogma. It is humorous at times reading Robert’s attempt to suggest his own ideas are above any reproach or question. He actually ends up guilty of the very thing he attributes to us Christians – blind submission to dogma. In the end he can’t support his own beliefs or lack of beliefs so he spends his time attacking the beliefs of others.

ravensfan - I would be more than willing to bow to the superior argument and all you have to do is make it. In as much as you would have us all be subject to the limitations imposed by the continuation of religion as the moral guide (discounting all the evil it has done in the world), I would have to demand some kind of verifiable proof of a supreme power, as vain and vindictive as the one you seem to subscribe to, before allowing myself to be ruled by absurdities.

I have no position that needs to be defended, as I have no gods I am tying to ram down the throat of society, no dogma trying to control the masses, and no desire to force people to bow to my will based on superstition and myth derived delusions. That you cannot defend your position relative to such rubbish is evident by your need to attack those who dare question the absurdities you think have relevance for no better reason than you want to believe them. I am not claiming that my position is the only one capable of wearing the label of rationality (after all, I've admitted I DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING .....YET, but I am most assuredly stating that yours isn't , by its total lack of substantiation.

Robert we both know you haven’t and won’t bow to any argument presented. Besides myself others including Pattycakes, have presented our case far better than you. Your responses to them were usually childish and rude I have already sufficiently defended my position you just dismiss it as you do any argument made which doesn’t fit into your own narrow minded dogmatic view. It really wouldn’t matter how many references, links or quotes are put up you will ignore or dismiss them. Your constant cries of “I don’t know yet” only makes your other comments look that much more hypocritical. You don’t know everything yet, but you know (based on nothing) that mine is invalid. That’s so wrong I will refrain from saying the only word I could think of to describe it so as to not sound too insulting.

You’ve yet to show me an example that calls Christians to do any of that evil. Those who are guilty of such acts were not following the tenets of the faith. That would include anyone in my own denomination. People can always find reasons to justify actions.

When I have I ever said everyone should be subject to the rules or concepts of any religion? Maybe you could point it out because I recall defending your right to your views. Rules and morals of a particular faith are only applicable to those of that faith. As an atheist I wouldn’t expect you to be bound by any Christian teachings or principals. Before you drag up abortion again remember that my position had nothing to do with the Church’s position. I even conceded that once we knew for sure when life began scientifically abortion should be legal to that point. Regardless or weather you want to accept it making definitive statements about the non existence of God, putting it mildly since many of your posts are disrespectful, is an position requiring defense. Your argument might fly if you were holding it as an opinion. Since you maintain it as a fact it does require defense. Only someone extremely arrogant would maintain anything else.

Christians are called to proclaim the faith not force it on those who do not wish to accept it. If you or anyone else choose to reject it that is your right and I respect it. Respect is a two way street Robert and it would be nice if you tried showing some to those who don’t share your views on the subject.

ravensfan - If you had a point of view worthy of respect I would show it some. You may believe any pile of rubbish you wish, but don't expect me to pat you on the back for being gullible enough to swallow so much based on so little, or to support your perceived right to spread such nonsense throughout society to other marginally imaginative and gullible citizens. They would be far better served by a good dose of rationality, than the false bucket of bilge you would hand them.

Robert why doesn’t everyone’s view deserve respect? Why do you feel only the ones you happen to agree with deserve it. It is possible to respectfully disagree with someone. You imply that people of faith are gullible. Is that true of anyone who believes in anything that can’t be proven, or just those who believe in God? You keep calling for a good dose of rationality. Why don't you enlighten me and everyone else on that? I believe I asked that once before and you gave your usual arrogant your position needs no justification answer. How your dose of rationality improve the world or anyone’s life. Robert try backing up that constant preaching about how better things would be without the evils of religion. Tell me how anyone they would they be better if they didn’t listen to me and instead took that dose of rationality. Keep in mind that besides God I would be telling them about things like treating people the way the wanted to be treated. Respect those whose beliefs differ. Welcome people without being judgmental. I’d also be very specific about the importance of keeping religion and government separate. Come on Robert help me to see why your dose of rationality is the better way if you can.

Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a law) teaches us that in every chemical or heat reaction, there is a loss of energy that never again is available for another heat reaction. This is why things break down if left to themselves, and why scientists tell us that the universe is headed toward a heat death.

This law teaches us, then, that the universe is headed toward increasing randomness and decay.

But what does the theory of evolution teach us? The exact opposite, that the universe is headed toward increasing complexity and order. You put up a theory against my law, I'm going to settle for the law, thank you very much.

All right, another repetition of the false law/theory dichotomy, with extra emphasis. Still wrong.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics argument is one of the hoariest, silliest claims in the creationist collection. It's self-refuting. Point to the creationist: ask whether he was a baby once. Has he grown? Has he become larger and more complex? Isn't he standing there in violation of the second law himself? Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen.

No, Pattycake I wouldn't want you to obey the second law of thermodynamics, which you so love, and become a puddle of semen and menses. That would destroy Ravensfan who would then have to put away his pom poms for you. Disobey the second law of thermodynamics, be proof of the fact that most of what you spout is gook served up as gourmet food and relax Pattycakes--your attempts to prove God exists through the second law of thermodynamics proves nothing more than the simple fact who don't understand the second law.

ravensfan - You have no case, you have no proof, you have no valid argument, so why to you pretend you do? Anyone, who in the end, has to be backed against a wall and screams out ,"Faith", as his only justification that cannot be shredded because it is nonsense, deserves all the respect he deserves....NONE.

I don't hate you, I pity you because of your bull-headed determination to win an argument that has already been lost and your continued arrogance in thinking the personal attack you always launch against your foe when you run out of excuses, (that they are being hateful toward you) somehow elevates the pap you spew. You represent everything about religion that is bad and because you have some functioning brain cells, you do not sound as pathetic as Clay, or the cheerleader, pattycakes. They can be easily dismissed, but you are someone the truly stupid and ignorant look up to as a role model because you spout absurdities in a semi-literate manner. The real danger of religion is not the mindless followers, it is the wasted mind that never sees beyond the simplistic dogmatic programing of their youth to see the real potential of life.

Anonymous - :) I’m actually an “evolutionist” but thanks for the disturbing visual in that last ridiculous statement. You seem as though you are becoming Bobby Littels apprentice with an even better imagination! Nice work Robert, as long as you keep recruiting people like “baltimore’s finest” I see no need to worry about losing any schooled minds to you cause :) My greatest apologizes if your meager mind could not comprehend the context or the application of the second law of thermodynamics in my post. I didn’t think you would have so much trouble.
Let me s l o w it down for you mate. For starters;
Thermodynamics - from the Greek - therme, meaning “heat” and dynamis, meaning “power” (This is pertinent to physics by the way).
Entropy - basically means “deterioration”
Still follow? ok good... heres the COOLEST part... open wide here it comes !!!
Evidence indicates that biological systems and EVOLUTION of those systems conform to the second law, since although biological systems may become more ordered (as you kindly mentioned), the net change in entropy for the entire universe is still positive as a result of evolution.

Additionally, the process of “natural selection” responsible for such local increase in order may be mathematically derived from the expression of the second law equation for non-equilibrium connected open systems, thereby making your THEORY OF “EVOLUTION” ITSELF AN EXPRESSION OF THE SECOND LAW.
Furthermore, the second law is ONLY TRUE OF CLOSED SYSTEMS. It is easy to decrease entropy, with an energy source. For example, a refrigerator separates warm and cold air, but only when it is plugged in. Since all biology requires an external energy source, there's nothing unusual (thermodynamically) with it growing more complex with time.

It’s funny that I used this tiny example for you because i though it might strike a chord with you lol. Once again, CLOSED SYSTEM... of course we (humans) are more/less an open system, so this law, when understood in my reference, is pertinent to the universe as a system. However, you my friend make a wonderful case for a genuinely “closed system”. Hit up your local library and read a good book... i don’t care that it has pictures in it...everyone has to start somewhere right?

GO RAVENS... and COWBOYS... and CLOSED SYSTEMS :)

Mr. Littel... Thank you for your insight...
Have a wonderful work-week :)

Pattycakes so you are an evolutionist relying on the 2nd law of thermodynamics to salvage his belief in God. You have with fancy words said something cannot come from nothing. You have called the universe a closed system that obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics--true-- but by your own doublespeak does it not become an open system if it derived its energy , according to you from a God source at its inception? In what way is it different from any biological system that relies on an external source for energy if the omnipotent God source is a necessity for its inception? And if it is a closed system by virtue of fact the god source (that does not obey the second law of thermodynamics) no longer supplies it with energy then the question becomes why on earth the God source has cut out, leaving the universe to obey the second law of thermodynamics? Did the god source run out of steam after the big bang? And if it ran out of steam then god is dead and has no role to play in the turn of events in the current universe. In other words god created something over which he or she has no control. So god is irrelevant. Chow--I am going off to get my picture book. Some of the most fun and stimulating books around, Pattycakes, are picture books. I love your syrup and treacle treatment of Robert.

Robert, have you been reading the pedantic Pattycakes? The second law of thermodynamics ever the savior of the rogue gallery of god believers!
The Anon who is a failed intellectual according to Ravensfan

Robert – I posted this from another source before.

“If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.”

That pretty describes you I don’t hate you either I pity you though for different reasons. I fear one day you will get that proof you seek, however, when it comes it will be too late. That being said it’s your right to choose what you wish to believe. I also pity you because you believe the belittling, demeaning and destructive things you write. I don’t recall accusing you of being hateful towards me personally but towards all those who don’t share your view of the world. I fully realize that there is no way to change your view. To be honest I’m not trying. That doesn’t mean I can’t or won’t refute your completely arrogant, dogmatic and intolerant views of those who believe.

There is no simplistic or dogmatic programming. That’s an assumption on your part which has no factual basis to support it. You never did answer my question on why the world or even just me would be better off without religion? You just seem to keep stating it as if it was a given. I haven’t lost an argument because to lose would require you to provide a better one than mine and so far you haven’t done that. I’m sorry if this comes out insulting, that isn’t the intent, but you sound a lot like my youngest. He’s right because he knows he is right period. If anyone has lost their real potential my friend it’s you. You’re just too blind to see it. If I’m wrong and you are happy where you are in life good for you. I doubt it because of your need to try and stamp out religion and force your own view on others.

Anonymous you seem to be the one obsessing my friend. Certainly my opinion of you doesn't mean that much to you does it? I’m sure you will rationalize it as doing it for me somehow. It’s really isn’t necessary. It just minimizes any real argument you’re trying to make. Why is it you and Robert aren't capable of making your arguments devoid of put downs?

Pattycakes - You’re wasting your time trying to mount any logical arguments with Robert’s new disciple Anonymous. Both are too close minded and so sure they are right in their view they will dismiss any argument made without even mounting superior argument. They are right because it obvious and the other side can’t prove its right. That tends to be the summary of the logic. Add in some mocking and insulting and that forms the basis of the responses. Anonymous tried to be a cleverer at it and having failed seems to be calling on his leader to help him. You can’t convince anyone of God’s existence if they’ve made up their minds he doesn’t exist. Nothing short some sort of miracle would change their view and even then I’m not sure they wouldn’t try and rationalize it away.

Come on Ravensfan, I expect smart you to be an expert in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Engage Ravensfan, don't escape with these deep sighs, complaints and capitulations. Are you waiting for Pattycakes to appear on the scene with a bottle of Aunt Jemima?
The failed intellect anon.

Anonymous - I do apologize for my coming across as a "fanatic" or someone who is basing my belief in God solely on the second law of thermodynamics. I absolutely agree that it would be silly to do this. I also apologize to you and our friend Robert for the rudeness in my last response.

"...And if it is a closed system by virtue of fact the god source (that does not obey the second law of thermodynamics) no longer supplies it with energy then the question becomes why on earth the God source has cut out, leaving the universe to obey the second law of thermodynamics? Did the god source run out of steam after the big bang? And if it ran out of steam then god is dead and has no role to play in the turn of events in the current universe. In other words god created something over which he or she has no control. So god is irrelevant."
- Anonymous

Fantastic points you raise anonymous! This is just the mystery! What God has created, we humans are only slightly beginning to try and understand. The "God head" has blessed us with the mind to search for the truth. Using the "light" of faith and having some reasonable evidence to give reason for "faith" makes the journey for individuals like ravansfan and myself considerably easier then trying to understand it without an open mind. Faith is not a bad thing. God did not "run out of steam" as you suggest, energy is continuously being exchanged within His created "system". You only need to create the universe once (Big Bang, creation theory, evolution theory??). I'm sure we will all work to a common understanding one day. I would argue that God is not irrelevant. Just look at all the good and bad things people do in the name of "God". God is very relevant. Someone must have been on to something when he conjured up a "God idea".

The point I wanted to make is that their is an abundance of tangible evidence to suggest that we are "not alone in this universe". Some of them being reasonably evident in scientific study. If we could raise questions this is wonderful. I am on YOUR side when it comes to these questions. "I don't know just yet" and I would love to seek truth just like you. I do differ from some however when it comes to putting up a "mental block" of legitimate questions arising from presented facts.

Moving on, would you argue that their is an unseen reality? Just as the air is unseen to our eyes, is their too a spiritual element in the universe? (spirits, good and bad??). besides "God" ?

Anonymous - If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. Therefore it would be a waste of time to present any arguments to you. I admire pattycakes for her zeal and her arguments pity your mind is closed.

Anonymous - Pattycakes is like a bad Juke-box. Put in your nickle and it/she just spits out bad music you cannot stop. What she says is not important, or dangerous, because the only ones who can be won over by her protestations and wild flights of "Duh", are the already witless. They don't count, although it is fun to make them get time changes wrong twice a year and either miss church, or show up an hour early.

Robert - what a surprise you mock and belittle someone who presents views you don't ascribe to. I’m still waiting on you for to explain how your dose of rationality would improve the world or anyone’s life. You and your new disciple seem to spend all your effort attacking the messenger not the message.

Here are some wonderfully simple, yet insightful ways for ANYONE to get to know God...
I quoted from the Catechism, however the universal wisdom in these writings is incredible!

WAYS OF COMING TO KNOW GOD
Created in God's image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of "converging and convincing arguments", which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These "ways" of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.
The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world's order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.
As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.
And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: "See, we are beautiful." Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change?
The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God's existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the "seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material", can have its origin only in God.
The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality "that everyone calls God".
Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

- Catechism of the Catholic Church.

p.s. You can find tons of practical and theological answers to a multitude of fundamental Christian beliefs here :)

ravensfan - Perhaps if we belittled people who believe so much based on so little, except on the strength of the accumulated absurdities of their ancestors, maybe we would could cure your habit of running around in public intellectually naked. You are an embarrassment to those of us walking around clothed in rationality and logic.

When a person has the light of faith... (Yes! all people are called to faith by God)...

Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but "the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives." "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."

Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."

To be human, "man's response to God by faith must be free, and... therefore nobody is to be forced to embrace the faith against his will. The act of faith is of its very nature a free act." "God calls men to serve him in spirit and in truth. Consequently they are bound to him in conscience, but not coerced... This fact received its fullest manifestation in Christ Jesus." Indeed, Christ invited people to faith and conversion, but never coerced them. "For he bore witness to the truth but refused to use force to impose it on those who spoke against it. His kingdom... grows by the love with which Christ, lifted up on the cross, draws men to himself."

Have a great night all!

I guess the only thing left to be expected from pattycakes is that she will start typing in tongues. Somebody please, slip her a Valium before her head explodes.

"My faith at this time was so clear and so lively that the thought of heaven was my greatest delight. I could not believe it possible that there were people without faith, and I was sure that those who deny the existence of another world belie their own convictions.
But during Easter, those days so full of light, the Lord made me understand that there are really souls bereft of all faith and hope. He allowed my own soul to be plunged into the thickest gloom. The thought of heaven which had been so sweet from my earliest years became for me a subject of torture.
The trial did not merely last for days or weeks. As I write, it has gone on for months and still I am waiting for relief. I wish I could explain what I feel, but it is beyond my power. One must have passed through the tunnel to understand how black its darkness is." (St.Therese of Lisieux, 1897)

Tenfour, KA-BOOM Bob

B. Lawrence- I have NEVER responded to "Bob" in my entire life.

That you quote someone who realized their delusions had little meaning is interesting. That they had difficulty adjusting (and failing evidently) to overcome their dependence on on the delusional crutch, that gave them so much false comfort, shows your lack of understanding how mind numbingly vacuous such beliefs actually are.

Robert - What a surprise a personal attack instead of answering my question. Let me ask a few more in response to that little rant of yours. How exactly is believe in God based on so little? Why is it absurd? What makes you think you are the one walking around clothed in rationality and logic? What makes someone who believes in God intellectually naked?

The truth is you can’t answer any of those questions. Just as you could answer the one I asked before. That’s why you resort to belittling. It’s a common tactic used when your argument won’t stand on its own merits. I’m sorry to say it’s also the sign of an inferior mind. Your entire argument is based on the premises I’m right because all rational, logical, intelligent people would think that way, and that and the no one has proven God’s existence to your personal satisfaction. God can’t be proven so he can not exist.

So I ask again try and answer the questions using LOGICAL and RATIONAL arguments. Also please answer my original ones on how the world would be better if we all joined the atheist side? What about biblical ideas not stealing, or lying or committing murder? What about that reprehensible one about treating others as you wish to be treated or the wealth of others we intellectually naked Christians believe. Do we trash them and go to the survival of the fittest like the rest of the animals?

Come on Robert show me some of that rationality and logic you claim to be clothed in.

Robert - Since you are the one of the fortunate ones clothed in rationality and logic why do you need to resort to belittling pattycakes? Surely someone who is as free from delusional crutch of faith and therefore as intellectually superior should be able to actually refute her claims using superior logic. Enlighten us backwards, ignorant souls who still run around in public intellectually naked.

Pattycakes - Great posts and I admire your efforts. Your exuberance in expressing and supporting your beliefs is inspiring. It’s pity that your efforts are waste on those who have closed their minds. The happiness, joy and hope in your posts is a significant improvement to the resentment, anger and gloom in Robert’s

I'm not sure why my post says Anonymous. The one from September 30, 2009 10:40 AM is should be ravensfan.

Thanks guys :)... I enjoy raising actual discussions, which our atheist buddies do not seem to want to take part in or refute.

Aside from the "nity-gritty" of research, I like to also be inspired by human stories of searching for truth. Whether it is Muslim, Jewish or any of the other fascinating belief systems in the world, the basic premise is the finding of God. There are millions of exciting stories from all over the world.

One in particular I have posted excerpts from below. Her name is Jennifer Fulwiler, she's now 32, married for 6 years, attractive, active and mother of 4 lil' ones!

"Five years ago I had never once believed in God, not even as a child. I was a content atheist and thought it was simply obvious that God did not exist. I thought that religion and reason were incompatible, and eventually became vocally anti-Christian."
"...Now, obviously I wasn't going to become Catholic. I mean, the Catholic Church is weird and antiquated and sometimes the people in it do seriously bad stuff. But I was interested to at least explore this line of thinking and see what I found.

I could have never, ever imagined what I'd find. Reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church was like nothing I'd ever experienced. This was truth. I knew it. I'd finally found it. It described God, our relationship to him, the Bible, Jesus, moral truths -- the entire human experience -- in a way that resonated on a deep level."

"When I started living my life according to Catholic teaching the proof was, as they say, in the pudding. It worked. It worked better than I could have ever guessed it would. And since I've been able to receive what they say is really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, my soul, my entire life, has changed profoundly. But that is whole separate story. To summarize my experience, I leave you with a quote from G.K. Chesterton, writing about why he converted to orthodox Catholicism:

"I do it because the [Catholic Church] has not merely told this truth or that truth, but has revealed itself as a truth-telling thing. All other philosophies say the things that plainly seem to be true; only this philosophy has again and again said the thing that does not seem to be true, but is true. Alone of all creeds it is convincing where it is not attractive; it turns out to be right, like my father in the garden."
- G.K. Chesterton

My thoughts exactly. Again, I share this not to cause division, but for the same reason anyone talks about anything they love -- that mysterious desire we all have to shout from the rooftops about the things that we find to be profound, beautiful, and true."

pattcakes - another good post. I'm sure our resident atheist friends will have one of their usual intellectual responses. Division only occurs when we choose not to respect another’s views particularly those they don’t agree with.

Robert Littel - I do not mean to belittle your thematic refrain, in the last instance, concerning the young lady from Lisieux, France. I love ya regardless. Your terrier-like tenacity and the persistent salvos coming from your trench keep us believers lookin' for more ammo. Just can't dismiss you outright. Concerning Therese herself, she will make her presence known to you in about a month. Give you some relief from having to defend your position for so long and so often.Don't be shocked if you start smelling roses. How do I know? I've asked her. Something called "the Communion of Saints" . . not just words but a living relationship..."Prayer is an intimate friendship, a frequent conversation with Him by Whom WE KNOW our selves to be loved".
Delusional? Well...you've got to believe of what you're convinced. This is the awesome (even scary) beauty of human freedom.
For us, Faith is not so much a delusional crutch -it CAN be for the immature-as it is "the evidence of things unseen, the conviction of things hoped for", stemming from a personal encounter with Christ.

ravensfan - I'm glad you cleared up the mystery. I thought Anonymous must have gone insane for a moment (Sept. 30th typical ravensfan rant), and you did it twice that day.

B. Lawrence - I suppose that now that you have sic-ed one, or a collection (Communion of Saints), on me, I should be quaking in my boots instead of sitting here laughing at how stupid you must be to think that any such meaningless threat would have any effect in turning me toward the blithering idiocism that is represented by institutionalized superstitional belief. The power of "Prayer", as illustrated by the hundreds of millions of such pleadings offered up to your god to stop Hitler before he killed 50,000,000 of this god's so much touted "loved children", is meaningless beyond its placebo affect on the practitioner. Hitler, after all, prevailed to kill so many, until he was stopped (ironically enough and at great sacrifice) by committed Atheists.

Robert what rant? I asked you to answer some questions. I noticed you didn’t bother to simply take a little shot then move on to B. Lawrence. Were my questions that hard for you? I mean you’re the one saying how we Christians are the ones lacking imagination, intelligence and the ability to use reason and logic.

After reading your post on the Palin thread I realized you have bigger problems than simply blind loyalty to atheist dogma. It’s actually that you’ve bought into paranoid delusions of the extreme left. Actually now your baseless fears make more sense. Don’t get me wrong the paranoids on the extreme right are just as delusional in their fears. The problem with both sides is neither will ever accept anything short of their way. That explains why you feel no need to justify yourself. I was right you are the anti-Clay.

ravensfan - If you are going for the Gold, you just got it, a delusional superstitionist and a bloviating Rightist. I just love patrio-jingoists who are so clueless they don't have a clue how badly they are being used and, who console themselves with the knowledge that Jebus is coming back soon to fix the mess we made. Good luck with that.

Robert,
You've got to tell me what you think of the use of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to bolster the argument that God lives. It is unbelievable. At first the religionists tell the scientists they are on the wrong path about almost everything--stem cells NO, Earth is round NO, the sun is the center of our solar system NO, then all of a sudden up they sprout like weeds from the sodden soil and say Second Law of Thermodynamics YES,YES,YES! Marvelous, no? Also Robert, I beg of you to go to the Holocaust Denier blog--insanity prevails there too--one of a kind, from the religionists.
Anonymous-- the failed intellectual as per Ravensfan

Robert – I must have really hit a nerve. What’s really pathetic is that you actually believe that gibberish you spewed. That’s the trouble with extremist on either side no room for compromise. It sure explains why you talk as those yours is the only possible reality and that anyone who does not buy into it is delusional and clueless. You also took the usual posture that anyone not with me is against me. I do believe I heard that before. Didn’t our last President use it after the 9/11 attacks?

Even though I know you won’t answer them, because you can’t, I’ll ask anyway. How am I being used and by whom? How do you know you aren’t the one being used or for that matter that anyone is being used? I tell you what if you can prove to me using the same level of absolute proof you demanded of me for God that I’m being used I’ll concede and seek to free myself. Finally where does it say that Jesus was coming back to fix any mess we’ve made? I agree He’s coming, but I don’t recall the fixing our mess part. Please enlighten me if you can.

Robert - just to distance myself from Clay's paranoia I have no idea when Jesus will return.

ravensfan - Trying to distance yourself from the absurdities of Clay in an effort to show the more positive value of your equally ridiculous beliefs (as foundationally sound as Clay's) is an old trick that does not fool anyone observing from the edge of the cesspool in which you both seem to wallow.

If you give credence to anything that flows from the mouth of the obsequious, self absorbed, ignorant excuse for a politician named Sarah Palin, then you are being used. If she represents your values, then you are valueless. We have become a corporate state and if you continue to shill for corporate interests without being in the august club at the top, who are reaping all the benefits at the expense of the rest of us, then you are being used like a two dollar crack addicted prostitute.

Paranoid? Christians should be happy about Christ returning. Thanks.

Robert - Your arrogance and bigotry never ceases to amaze me. Repeating the same old tired rhetoric over and over again, and deluding yourself into believing that your views are superior basically because you say they are. Time after time you show either unwillingness or inability to use even the most elementary form of logic. I will give you credit you have turned insulting, belittling and dismissing almost into an art form.

As I said in an early post on a different blog. I’m no Palin supporter. While there is could be some areas we might be able to agree on, I find her lacking in experience, leadership and too extreme.She’s a lightweight whose destiny could be losing to Obama if the Republicans are foolish enough to nominate her. It’s shocking that someone who rails so long and loud against perceived religious absurdities buys into political ones so easily. You would do well to use apply the same level out doubt on them as you do on God.

ravensfan - I give god, Sarah Palin and you, all the respect you deserve. That your favorite ploy is to call anyone who doesn't give credence, or pay lip service, to your deeply held superstitious beliefs a bigot, is stretching that word beyond its meaning for its negative effect. God concepts are not valid. They have no basis in fact and have NEVER been shown to be real. My belief that they have no value is based on the rational evaluation of the total informational lack supporting such notions and my disdain is based on the accumulated suffering that has been recorded over time by people who subscribe to such unsubstantiated notions. You may believe that you are carrying on a noble effort to flay against the blasphemers and heathens, and it may even impress those who have also been so mentally circumscribed, but in the end you are just a pathetic character tilting at windmills and living a lie, be it ever so comfortable and comforting to you.

Robert L. - quaking in your boots !?? . . whatever FOR! Should it materialize, the exact OPPOSITE will be your experience.

A bigot is a person Robert – Your comment on respect is the very reason you are a bigot. I’m not calling you one because you don’t share my beliefs in God or anything else. You’re a bigot because you are obstinately and intolerantly devoted your own opinions and prejudices, and you regard and treat members of groups with hatred and intolerance. To be a bigot requires elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing group. That’s a perfect description of you. The fact that you don’t see it isn’t surprising either. Bigots, like alcoholics and drug addicts usually don’t think they have a problem. In the end you ignore any arguments except your own and with every post flaunt your own ignorance in more disciplines than I care to mention. You assign blame for all the worlds problems past and present everywhere accept where it belongs. I’m not carrying on any noble effort. I’m simply exposing an angry, paranoid, bigot for what he really is and enjoying myself in the process.

Robert L. - perhaps the glaring absence, or abcess, you seem to see in Christians is the Cross. I mean a living witness to Christ Crucified . . and Risen . . such as, for example, in the life of Mother Theresa or Maximillian Kolbe. "The West worhsips Christ without His Cross (..all sweet and without His hard sayings); the Soviets worship the Cross without Christ ( ..all enforced slavery to the State, with the Gulag to pay for anyone caught expressing belief in God)" - Fulton Sheen

P.S. - today (Oct.1) is the official feast day, in the Catholic calendar, celebrating the life of Therese of Lisieux.
Don't go quaking in no boots, Robert. Relax. There are only smiles from Heaven. . and not of village idiot kind either. The other place has FORFEITED any and all JOY!
. . . Roses of one kind or another coming your way in about a month . . and not "of Sundays" either.

Tenfour. Entering Silence until then.

Considering my inability to shut down enough of my brain to accept the entire made-up history of god-concepts as anything more than man's feeble attempt to elevate himself above the rest of the animal kingdom (further than the evolutionary ability to conceive such nonsense), you are going to have to realize that the entire concept of god/Human hybrid creatures (like your supposed Jesus), are beyond belief in the rational world. To expect rational people to respect such nonsense (and all the silly trappings associated with it), is a stretch that just ain't gonna happen.

IN GOOD FAITH - Finding a Lift to God
"I looked in Scripture to find some suggestion of what the lift (elevator) I wanted might be. I came across these words from the Book of Proverbs:'Whoever is a little one, let that person come to me'(Proverbs 9:4) I therefore drew near to God, feeling sure I had discovered what I was looking for. But I wished to know more about what God would do to the 'little one'. So, I continued my search, and this is what I found:'You shall be carried at the breasts and upon the knees; as one whom the mother caresses, so will I comfort you'(Isaiah 66:12-13).
Never have I been consoled with more tender or sweet words. Jesus, your arms, then are the lift which must raise me to heaven. To reach heaven I need not become great. On the contraty I must remain little. I must become even smaller than I am.
My God, you have gone beyond my desire and I will sing your mercies! 'You have taught me, Lord, from my youth, and I still declare your wonderful works, and shall do so til old age and grey hairs' ( cf. Psalm 71:17-18)

IN GOOD FAITH - Sharing the Suffering of Unbelievers

"I will suppose that I was born in a land of thick fog, that I had never seen nature in her smiling moods, or one single ray of sunshine. From my childhood I had heard of these things and knew that the country in which I lived was not my real home - that there was another land for which I must always long. This was no tall story invented by an inhabitant of the land of fogs. It was an unquestionable truth, for the King of that sunlit country had come to dwell for thirty-three years in the land of darkness, even though sadly: 'The darkness did not understand that He was the Light of the world' (John 1:5)

But, Jesus, I believe firmly that you are the Light. I ask pardon for unbelieving people and am willing to eat the bread of sorrow as long as You will it. For love of You, I will sit at that table of bitterness where poor unbelievers take their food, and I will not rise from it till You give the sign. Am I not permitted to say in my own name and in the name of unbelieving people:'O God, be merciful to us sinners'? (Luke 18:13)

May all those on whom faith does not shine at last see the light! If it is necessary for one who loves You to purify the table of unbelief, I am willing to remain there alone to eat the bread of tears until You bring me to Your kingdom of light. I ask only that I may never offend You."

Robert you just don't seem to want accept the fact that many rational people do believe. You proceed from a narrow minded and arrogant assumption that anyone who doesn’t share your views can not be rational. It’s a position that you can’t support with any factual evidence. It happens to be your opinion. Why exactly is God beyond belief? So far all I’ve heard from you is that any other view somehow reflects inferior intelligence. An opinion devoid of any supporting facts or evidence. Many times I’ve invited you to state your case and as of yet all I’ve see in the same tired insult laced opinion and your steadfast claim your position needs no support. Nothing scientific, philosophical, historical or sociological that would even give cause to consider what you say. You sound like the opposite side of the die hard conservative right wing Christians. You’re a die hard left wing atheist. Your views are just as dangerous as they are if shared by too many people.

IN GOOD FAITH - Attacks on Faith
"From my childhood, I had had the conviction that I should one day be released from this land of darkness. I believed it not only from what I heard, but also because the deepest longings of my heart assured me that there was in store for me another and most beautiful country, a lasting place to live.

I was like Christopher Columbus whose genius anticipated the discovery of the New World. But suddenly the fog that surrounds me finds its way into my very soul. It so blinds me that I can no longer picture my promised home . . . it has faded away.

When my heart, weary of the enveloping darkness, tries to find some rest and strength in the thought of an everlasting life to come, my anguish only increases. It seems to me that the darkness itself, borrowing the voice of the unbeliever, cries mockingly:'You dream of a land of light, you believe the Creator of this wonder will be yours for ever, you think you will escape one day from the mists in which you now languish. Hope on! Hope on! It will give you not what you hope for, but a night darker still - the night of utter nothingness.'"

It matters not one twit whether every single person on the planet believes exactly the way you do. Unsupportable, delusional myth is still unsupportable, delusional myth, unless you can PROVE it isn't. That "everyone " believes it doesn't matter, that it has a long history doesn't matter, that there might exist a remote (as in miniscule) chance that it could be true doesn't matter and finally, that you believe it, doesn't matter. There are going to be people outside your narrow frame of mind, who will not swallow that load of bilge and who will not allow your kind to make the rest of us suffer the ill effects of having your silly dogmas rule our lives.
The height of bigoted and arrogant behavior is thinking your silly beliefs should be imposed on, or shown unwarranted deference, by the rest of society.

Robert – What doesn’t matter is your closed and narrow minded view on faith. I hate to break it to you but the world doesn’t revolve around what you think. When exactly did you become the official spokesperson for atheism or all those others you keep mentioning? No doubt there are those who share your and agree with your views and that’s their right. Which beliefs are silly? Is it that darned love your neighbor one? Maybe it’s that one about turning the other cheek? You didn’t elaborate which isn’t surprising.

“Arrogance : an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions”

“Bigot : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance”

Both are perfect descriptions of you Robert. Instead of worrying about the arrogance and bigotry of others try worrying about your own. After all you’re the one who would prefer to see all religion stamped out. You’re the one who has no tolerance for opinions and beliefs that run contrary your own warped ones. You’re the one who feels the need to belittle and insult at every opportunity. If you’re an example of what an atheist is all I can say is I’m glad I’m not one.

He is mad because he can't prove God doesn't exist. He is scared because he KNOWS there IS a good chance God exists.

Fake Anonymous - (aka Clay {we suspect}), go away, you are just as inane as you are under your other suspected moniker.

Rob can't prove his own dogmas. How on earth is he going to prove GOD doesn't exist... hmmmm this could take a while...

Fake Anonymous - Proving that something doesn't exist is a logical impossibility. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the head of the person making the positive assertion. If you understood ANYTHING about rational thought and logic, you would know that. I have painfully and thoroughly explained it before (and I suspect to you under another name), so I will not go through it again. If you take my response as some kind of victory, you might as well have "Fool" tattooed on your forehead.

Robert Littel when did Anonymous become reserved for special people? Are you the blog monitor or something? The only thing inane on this blog is you. You don't believe. It's your loss.

IN GOOD FAITH - Trials in Coping with Faith

"This description of what I suffer is as far removed from reality as the painter's rough outline from the model he copies. But to write more might be to blaspheme . . . even now I may have said too much. May God forgive me! He knows how I try to live by faith, even though it affords me no consolation.

I have made more acts of faith during the past year than in all the rest of my life. Whenever my enemy provokes me to combat, I try to behave like a soldier. Aware that a duel is an act of cowardice. I turn my back and tell Jesus, my Saviour, that I am ready to shed my blood for Him as a witness to my belief in Heaven.

I tell Him that if He will open Heaven for eternity to poor unbelievers, I am content to sacrifice during my life all joyful thought of the home which awaits me. So, in spite of this trial which robs me of all sense of enjoyment, I can still say:'You have given me, Lord, a delight in Your doings'(Psalm 92:4). For is there greater joy than to suffer for Your love, Lord? Even if by impossibility You were not aware of my affliction, I should still be happy to bear it in the hope that by my tears I might prevent or atone for one sin against faith."

Therese - Either have your meds adjusted, or get on some quick. I have never seen a more desperate plea for treatment by someone who doesn't have a clue how far they have strayed from the rational world.

Fake Anonymous - I have to differentiate you from the person (of respected rationality) who also goes by that moniker. That you would use the same name is just a reflection on your lack of imagination and respect for someone who took it first in this forum. My "loss" was deliberate and achieved after a long and exhaustive search for truth, not subscribed to, as I suspect your position was gained, by a need to fill a void based on your inability to face the real world without a delusional crutch. Your lack of intellectual curiosity is the true loss, and must engender the only emotion worthy of such a waste, and that is pity.

Your hypocritical assumption that my comments were made without "rational thought" is of little essence. You my friend are the BIGGEST irrational "bigot" to have graced this forum. Your "fancy" gibberish and occasional outbursts condemning believers is comical.

People here who tremble in fear at your ASSUMPTIONS based on your anger have stated their cases and are WAITING YOUR INTELLECTUAL RESPONSES. Seeing as you have a flawed intellect, you have no argument worthy of presenting. It is all too simple Mr. Littel, where is your rebuttal?

YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY. You claim you have no need to because these people are "irrational". That is a joke... you just have nothing to conjure up in that fascinating "Littel" head of yours that wouldn't contradict your very accusation of illogicality.

As of now, the believers are WINNING! Your cause is LOSING! The arguments speak for themselves. I think most of these posts are so far over your educated mind you need YEARS of further "searching" not only for the truth but for another level of human thought which other people have clearly discovered.
Try making the world a better place for a change and enlighten the blog with some REAL posts.

signed - Robert's biggest fan

p.s. you are losing the battle

IN GOOD FAITH - The Night of the Soul

"You may think that I am exaggerating the night of my soul. If one judged by the poems I have composed this year, it might seem that I have been inundated with consolation, that I am a child for whom the veil of faith is almost rent asunder . . But it is not a veil . . it is a wall which reaches to the very heavens, shutting out the starry sky.

When I sing in my verses of the happiness of Heaven and of the eternal possession of God, I feel no joy. I sing out of what I wish to believe. Sometimes, I confess a feeble ray of sunshine penetrates my dark night and brings me a moment's relief, but after it has gone, the remembrance of it, instead of consoling me, makes the blackness seem denser still.

And yet I have never experienced more fully the sweetness and mercy of the Lord. He did not send this heavy cross when it would, I believe, have discouraged me, but chose a moment when I was able to bear it. Now it does no more than deprive me of all natural satisfaction in my longing for Heaven."

Robert Littel.- In case you didn't realize it anytime you leave the name line blank Anonymous shows as the id. There is no moniker it’s simply no id genius. There’s no way to know how many different people have done it, or who was first unless you possess some sort of special powers. That shows quite lack of intelligence. Based on your posts I doubt you possess the objectivity for a “long and exhaustive search for truth”. More like a quick trip to denial.

Here’s something to consider. Two fellow atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens contend that God is not demonstrable according to the scientific method. But then, lots of things are not demonstrable according to that method. Can Dawkins and Hitchens give a scientific account of consciousness? Can they locate free will under a microscope? What about "equality" and "justice" and "rights": none of these things have any material existence, so does that make them illusions? Since even Dawkins and Hitchens have no problem accepting the existence of lots of immaterial things, they never explain why God is the one immaterial entity that stirs up their skeptical indignation. Somehow the scientific case against God seems to be an inadequate explanation for their belligerent atheism.

Maybe the one lacking intellectual curiosity is you. Maybe you should save your pity for Dawkins and Hitchens and leave a little for yourself. None of you have that bright a future ahead of you.

Standing upon your "rock of truth" (actually a manure pile of superstition and myth) while hurling insults at those who don't, won't, and can't, accept anything you are selling because it is a fraud (even if you are shallow enough to swallow it) , is most entertaining. It is kind of like watching someone sitting there smoking cigarettes, swilling light beer, eating processes cheese sandwiches on Wonder Bread with Miracle Whip, who then state, "It don't get no better than this.". You are pathetic.

MMMM!! cheese!

What's Maricle Whip? There is no such thing as miracles. Therefore their is no such thing as Miracle Whip. Thanks.

Mr. Littel - You may or may not know that, during November, Catholics remember their departed ones.

Today I received the Apostleship of Prayer news letter. The editor, F.J.Power, S.J., includes a simple summation of what happens to be your position, in the context of "Bona Mors":

"There used to be a widespread spiritual association known as the Bona Mors Confraternity (Latin for "Good Death").Those who belonged were concerned about preparing properly for the next life through a spiritually disciplined life and with a special focus on Christ's Passion...a deep appreciation of this life as a preparation period for eternal life with God.

Human life was understood to be sacred and precious. Trials and troubles, sickness and pain were borne with patience and trust in God's love and mercy . . (but,needless to say) the sanctity of human life has diminished in today's society.

The unthinkable of a few decades ago is now possible in a Godless society WHERE A FUTURE LIFE AFTER THIS ONE IS DISMISSED AS NONSENSE. We cannot presume that, in their campaigning, they feel the need to be honest or truthful....

Our prayers for our dear departed this year are linked with praying for an effective dominion in society of the eternal values that made their lives worth living . . ."

One of my favorite scenes in all of Scripture is: "And all at once the angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled away the stone AND SAT ON IT" (Matthew 28:2).

The little Jewish girl, who's "Yes" began it all, has been blessed beyond all women on earth. . . thereby ENNOBLING the "fairer sex". Scripture applies to Miriam of Nazareth words out of the book of Judith,"The trust you have shown shall not pass from the memories of men, but shall ever remind them of the power of God" (Judith 13:23)

We trust and pray that your Guardian Angel (we've each been assigned one at birth)will employ this same Power and roll away the "stone" blocking your interior view and keep it that way, i.e. SIT ON IT.

B. Lawerence - Your fairy-tales, like your gods have no meaning in the real world. You may derive some comfort by subscribing to delusional beliefs , but it would, to me, be the worst waste of Human potential for me to cripple myself in such a ridiculous way. You have been cheaply bought by a con that promises to deliver you something impossible after you are dead and all they want from you is 10% of your income while you live and as many future payers of 10% that you can produce for them. In my book that is the definition of fraud and should be treated as such. You are a pitiful victim and so clueless you don't realize it.

Hi Robert,
To distinguish myself from the tongue in cheek Anon--who is actually quite amusing--and I believe is pattycakes--I will henceforth be known as Ravensfan's intellectual zero Anon. OK tongue in cheek Anon, consciousness actually is not a nebulous unsubstantiated, insubstantial concept--it resides right in your brain and can be seen on functional MRIs and PET scans. Even your faith is an illusion of your hypothalamus--you pray fervently, you close your eyes and your get goosebumps--what lights up on your functional MRI? Your amygdala my friend--not God in a burning bush--you obviously know nothing about your own brain. Does equality have a material existence? Does justice? Does free will? Your free will lights up the various nuclei of your hypothalamus as you reach for your mate, or your food or for a hammer to kill your enemy imagined or real. It is nothing but neurohormones, crossing back and forth from your neurons to your systemic circulation speaking to your cells, communicating, changing hormonal language to electrical impulses and making you act irrationally in the case of the myth called faith and rationally in the case of its rejection. Equality has thousands of material examples--it is entirely born of the material world--man made pal--and so also justice--your so called God has no partiality for either--men fuss with such niceties when they are troubled by their own dark sides or do so to grant themselves employment, or to assuage those whom they exploit--a sense of right or wrong that creeps up with faint echoes when their own survival is not at stake--like the question of torturing terrorists for the larger good--OK to save lives--like calling some wars good and others bad--all man made--equality, justice, torture, war--man made, man argued, man justified, man rejected--material to the core. So why only reject God who is immaterial--why only target that immaterial being when so many other things like blah, blah,blah are also immaterial and accepted by atheists you ask? Tongue in cheek anti-Littel Anon, because none of the things you speak of as examples--consciousness, free will, justice and equality are actually immaterial and since your argument is no more than the non sequitur of a God believer--and a science ignoramus--or may be an actual scientist--and this is a terrifying thought--with cataracts that need extraction-- you lose against Hitchens, Littel and Dawkins.
Ravensfan's intellectual zero Anon

IN GOOD FAITH - Facing an Early Death

"It seems to me that nothing stands in the way of my going to Heaven. I no longer have any great desires beyond that of loving till I die of love. I am free, and I fear nothing, not even what I once dreaded more than anything else, a long illness which would make me a burden to the community.

Should it please God, I am quite content to have my sufferings of body and soul prolonged for years. I do not shrink from a long life; I do not refuse the battle. The Lord is the rock upon which I stand - 'who teaches my hands to fight; and my fingers to war. He is my protector and I have hoped in Him' (Psalm 144:1-2).

I have never asked God to let me die young, but I have always thought that this favour will be granted me.

Very often God is satisfied with our wish to labour for His glory; and how immense are my desires to do so."

Robert Littel – Insults? Well if that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black. I’m not selling anything Bob. Belief or lack thereof is totally your choice. If you’re happy denying belief fraud fine. Somehow I doubt you are considering how much venom flows from you. One day you will get find out the truth and then you will be the one requiring pity not I.

Ravensfan's intellectual zero Anon – What is it about non-believers that causes you to simply say a statement is wrong yet provide no reason for it. I’ve never seen one yet that can make a case other than God can’t be proven therefore he doesn’t exist. Like a child you discredit any possible ideas other than your own as not feasible. In your world if we don’t hear or see the tree fall it didn’t. Like the three stooges you mentioned you provide nothing except to say you win and I lose. The childish logic from a childish mind.

It is you, tongue in cheek anon who has not substantiated the untruth that free will, equality, justice and consciousness are immaterial. That was the crux of my argument. It was a rebuttal to your previous egregious and scientifically disproved claims about the immaterial nature of the aforementioned words --but you are tone deaf to these arguments. Apparently your God needs to fine tune you--call on Him.
Ravensfan's anon.

Hi there Ravensfan Anon - Thank you for your argument, it appears you have taken Roberts throne for the time being. For the record I love all of you. Friendly jib-jabs are part of the game right?
I am very glad you have stepped up with some actual substance. Ranvensfan, pattycakes, and the other "anon" have put in some tangible stuff besides "I don't know yet".

Thanks also for the biology/neurology breakdown. It's good you know this.

So the hypothalamus is responsible for body temperature, hunger, circadian cycles, fatigue, etc,etc.
Your amygdala learns and stores emotional events (fear, paranoia, etc) and is vital to unconscious memory. You have vaguely explained the mechanics of your brain. As popular as the amygdala has been to science thus far, it remains vastly unknown and findings regarding the human amygdala are mainly at the level of the whole region rather than nuclei. Having said this, your argument is no more credible then the believers. You have vaguely explained the mechanics of the brain and attributed the relevance of faith to brain activity. This is obvious; people use intellect/experience/emotion in everything they do. That is because we differ from other organisms. We can use the marvelous functions of our "melon" to make EDUCATED decisions/actions. This is accomplished through neurohormonal activity among other things as you state.

"It is you, tongue in cheek anon who has not substantiated the untruth that free will, equality, justice and consciousness are immaterial. That was the crux of my argument."

- ravensfan's anon

Immaterial - "not consisting of matter". Free will is a substance? equality is a thing? human conscience is a chemical reaction? I do think you must split hairs here. Your claim is very broad. I would say that the individuals perception on these is subjective. The bottom-line which I argue is that, ok all mechanics aside, the human conscience is a PHENOMENA which science can make attempts to explain (although I do not know of any recognized papers addressing the topic... maybe you could provide a reference?) and you have not given a reason for mans ability to use this phenomena for the greater good of society/himself/others. What is the FORCE at work? is it measurable? is it really just a collection of chemical reactions in the brain? Why don't animals possess this "conscience"? do they not after all have a hypothalamus and amygdala?.. animals have the same biological needs as humans... but why then can humans "love" and grow in intellectually? Is "love" a chemical reaction ultimately?. I think I like you anon, you are putting up a great argument.
Lets see if we can come to sound conclusion... I'm still searching for truth too!

...come to think of it?... How DID we humans come into existence with all our complexities?
Why is an atom so perfect? who or what could have a cause for such perfection? are we just accidents?

"...science, when defined, simply means "knowledge reduced to a system" - it's a systematic form of what we already know ..

so when people praise science, or claim they *believe* in science, they are, in effect, praising what they know, which apart from being slightly egotistical, it's also the epitome of arrogance and ignorant stupidity.

how do i all know this? i'm a scientist. an engineer. one who dedicates himself, not to what he already knows, (and not entirely or arrogantly,) but to research, and the never ending quest of knowledge via observation and study.

this world is far too complex to believe that God doesn't exist; the fact, in any language, is that God does exist! where's the evidence of God's existence? in every single atom, every single molecule, every wave, every ray of light, everything that moves, everything that lives; the evidence is in every animate and inanimate thing known to humankind."

peace.

- unknown author

When someone subscribes to the notion that, " this world is far too complex to believe that God doesn't exist", what they are actually saying is that they are far too stupid, or ignorant (as we all are) to consider that the true answer is beyond their comprehension. They latch on to god concepts because they fear not having a convenient answer to questions they have not earned the right to answer. They are pathetic.

IN GOOD FAITH - On Counselliing Others

"In the abstract it seems easy to do good to souls, to make them love God more and to mould them to one's own ideas. But when we put our hands to the work, we quickly learn that, without God's help, it is as impossible to do them good as to bring back the sun once it has set.

Our own tastes, our own ideas must be put aside, and in absolute forgetfulness of self we must guide souls not by our way but along the particular path which the Lord Himself indicates. The chief difficulty does not, however, lie here. What costs more than anything else is to be compelled to note their faults, their slightest imperfections (as director of novices), and to wage war against them.

Happily for these souls, ever since I placed myself in the arms of Jesus I have been like a watchman on the lookout for the enemy from the highest tower of the castle. Nothing escapes me. Indeed my clear-sightedness often gives me matter for surprise, and makes me think it quite excusable for the prophet Jonah to have fled before the face of the Lord rather than announce the ruin of Nineveh.

I prefer a thousand reproofs rather than to inflict one, yet it is necessary the task should cause me pain, for if I spoke only through natural impulse, the souls at fault would not understand that they were in the wrong."

Therese - It must be such a comfort to you to have your ignorant narrow-minded bigotries and superstitions affirmed in writings of other ignorant narrow-minded bigots, who have found excuses to validate positive sounding reasons against using one's mind. You are, of course, pathetic by your lack of understanding of reality. If ignorance is bliss, you must be experiencing never ending explosive orgasms.

Robert – According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Ignorant a : destitute of knowledge or education : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence

Bigot: as a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

narrow-minded: lacking in tolerance or breadth of vision

After reading Therese’s and your post I would say that the term fits you much. There was considerably more lack of knowledge, intolerance, hate and lack of vision in your insult ridden tirade. I’m sure you win a lot of converts to atheism with posts like that one.

ravensfan - That you would classify any criticism of your religion as a bigoted ignorant attack, means that there is not a lot of latitude to point out that like all things, it has its faults too. I have to give you credit for determined tenacity to defend what, in a demonstrable fashion, has been responsible for so much Human suffering, has such a flimsy foundation and fosters so many people who can blindly walk off the edge of figurative cliffs because they wish something ridiculous to be true. It is a true measure of the breath and scope of Human gullibility and stubbornness.

Robert – If all you were doing was making criticisms I wouldn’t care. I’ve actually made my own to Clay and against wrong actions by my own Church. If all you were doing was respectfully questioning the basis on which the belief is founded that would not warranty what I said either. That isn’t what you are doing. What you are doing is name calling, belittling, treating all who don’t share your atheist views with contempt. In fact it was you who said that people who believe didn’t deserve respect.

I have no desire to force my faith on you or anyone else who doesn’t want it. I actually support your right to not believe is that’s your wish. I actually agree with you on Separation of Church and State. We’ve already covered your completely biased and incorrect assessment that religion or belief in God is responsible for any suffering. That’s the cliff you blindly walk off following some misguided atheist dogma.

You speak as though your opinion on the subject of God is the established fact and that those of us who don’t share your hate filled views on the subject are somehow gullible, deluded or lacking in some other way. That is what makes your posts bigoted ignorant attacks. If you can’t see the difference then I pity you.

Robert - The people you speak of walking off cliffs are delusion. You don’t seem to differentiate between “delusional believers” and plain old good hearted, hard working contributors to society. Ahh but you have! You claim we are all delusional! So not once have you given the tiniest of credit to believers. Just as your counterpart Mr.Dawkins (among others) avoids in his arguments. This gentleman wrote a 400 plus page book (yes, I unfortunately read it) devoted to his plea for there to be no “Ultimate Truth” and not once within those pages gave ANY objective credit to “belief” or “religion”. That my friend sounds quite impartial and delusional to me.

On the flip-side the whole tone and paradigm of “atheism” seems desperate to prove something which they fear is truth… Again, you only fear something if it is a reality or “truth” (in your mind or physical). Either way it is ALWAYS in your mind… how do we know if we are not delusional?

- beginning to seriously fail intellectually anon

It is evident that religionists are not going to come to any realization of the vacuousness of the belief systems they so cherish and which are inhibiting our intellectual progress as a species. The only hope is to keep the negative effects at bay, while trying to make rational sense out of a world they seem to think needs their petty, ingrained, superstitions and delusions.

You seem to make distinctions amongst yourselves as to your relative sanity in regard to your belief in religion, so why is it so hard to grasp that you are all wrong. Every religion, every believer, believes that they are the possessor of the truth. Only one has the possibility of being true, no matter how you cut it and we say that we share your feeling on this matter, but feel that one more belief system than you do, is spurious also. From your vulnerable position you feel you must tolerate other religions (all the while looking down your nose at them) lest they gain enough power to dominate you. We, the rationalists look down our noses at just one more religion than you, and what you can't stand is that it is your (or all) religion we find as carriers of deception and lies about reality. You have no defensible position, only your silly beliefs and they cannot stand the test of rational examination, ever.

"so why is it so hard to grasp that you are all wrong"

Because we aren't wrong you are and all who live in denial of the truth. The only one in a vulnerable position is you Littel. Someday will come face to face with that reality. Unfortunately for you and those who share your denial you will find yourself on the wide road to damnation. I can only hope you figure that out while you have time.

Rationalists? Your entire post was devoid of any rational thought. Does that mean rational thinking isn’t a requirement of being a rationalist? Can I assume that to be a rationalist requires rationalizing the truth into what you desire it to be? Our faith can easily stand any truly objective test that's what really scares people like you. Who are you trying to convince us or yourself? You deny what you can’t understand which is unfortunate.

God Lives - I suppose you have proof for that bucket of bilge, or is it just true because you want it to be true? I think you just wrote the definition of delusional.

Tongue in cheek Anon, you are a scientist? I believe you have conscience confused with consciousness, just as Robert has breadth confused with breath or these blogs are just filled with slaughter of homonyms due to hurried typing.

Anyway, the answer to lack of answers from science is more science, more inquiry, better science, more experiments, more observations, not more wringing of hands, or more religious ecstasy. You are guilty of the last--everyone of your posts begins with a good measure of logic and ends with a vast ocean of mush about the power of God.

You have given up as a scientist; you have placed your curiosity in the coffin of religion and set it afloat on these blogs. About conscience, tongue in cheek anon, is it material you ask? Yes, tongue in cheek anon, it is material--it is simply a pile of material experiences bred into us from childhood--good examples of telling the truth, not stealing, being civil, not killing--and none of these good behaviors requires belief in a God or many Gods-- set, imbibed and emulated--by the same token, the lack of conscience that breeds the psychopath or the sociopath, is the lack of these experiences and in many cases it is also the result of childhood abuse and neglect.

It is ingrained in you anon, that consciousness, conscience, right, wrong, equality and justice are all from the fountainhead called God--they are merely chemical reactions, electrical impulses, hormone to receptor contacts--why aren't they in animals you ask? You assume they are not there in animals. Animals too live and function in complex communities; they communicate with codes and behaviors we don't as yet, fully understand. They too love anon. Elephants mourn their dead calves for days.

By the same token humans, millions, kill their own young, abuse them, commit parricide, steal, lie, accumulate wealth far beyond their needs and a good number of these, through the centuries, have been God believers. The more crowded our planet, the more the competition for our meager and finite resources, the more our chemical reactions veer toward ruthless survival and the less the role of conscience, in our struggle to keep breathing. In this we are no different from other animals. In fact in our treatment of other animals we have consistently shown the sharpest rapaciousness for space and domination--this you call love?

We have evolved differently from other animals--that does not mean we are either superior or that we are inferior, and the conscience you speak of as though it were esoterica or exotica, operates inconsistently. Conscience is chemistry according to endangerment--the less the endangerment to property or self for the human, the more the conscience--and the more the endangerment the less the conscience.

The various varieties of conscience driven behaviors also reside in the hypothalamus anon--speaking the truth in a grandiose way to impress, using honesty for pompous preening, generosity to manipulate or to control another, kindness exhibited for material rewards--the human conscience is often exaggerated by believers into this God given immateriality present at birth, somehow endowing on humans a knowledge of the creator not present in other animals. It is in fact pure chemistry, driven by very real material situations and needs.

We are very fallible anon, more so even than other animals--our conscience is nothing special--it is certainly no proof of a God or Gods--yes, we are accidents and with science we not only praise what we know, we acknowledge there is a lot we don't know and a lot more we seek to know--therefore science is not the equivalent of arrogance.

Tongue in cheek anon, nothing any of you say makes sense to me--all of you squawk --Robert about the vacuousness of the God believers, Ravensfan about Robert's close mindedness, Terese about her trances and transcendental meditations, Lawrence B about his Catholic raptures, Clay about the apocalypse and the return of Jesus and you pop up periodically in the midst of this anarchy making the poorest arguments any one could on behalf of the Almighty, using eloquence that could melt hard cheese on a cold day--to what avail anon?

You have abandoned science for gobbledygook, tongue in cheek anon. When I spoke about the Second Law of Thermodynamics not one of you approached it logically. When I spoke about the latest in human science in the areas of consciousness, justice and equality, you barely scratched the surface and with a dismissive wave in your blog, tongue in cheek anon, you sang once more a mariachi song to the Great Spirit.

Let us postulate there is a God--He or She would cringe at your capitulation, your submission to superstition, your conclusion that science is arrogant, your inference there is a God without a shred of evidence--this God would be ashamed by the imbecility of the arguments you offer on His or Her behalf and that of course wouldn't affect either Robert or I because neither one of us believes there is a God.
Ravensfan's intellectual zero Anon

IN GOOD FAITH - The Way to Growth for a Soul

"The change which takes place in a soul from one day to another is sometimes really marvelous. 'You did well to be severe with me yesterday,' someone said to me. 'At first I ws indignant, but after I thought it over, I saw you were right. I left you thinking that all was at an end between us and determined to have nothing more to do with you. I knew, though, that the suggestion was a tempation and I felt you were praying for me. I grew calm, the light began to shine, and I have come back to hear all you have to say.'

Only too happy to follow my heart, I hastened to serve some food less bitter to the taste. But I soon discovered that I must not go too far. A single word can bring to the ground the edifice that cost so many tears. If I let fall a single word which seemed to soften the hard truths of the day before, I noticed the individual trying to take advantage of the opening.

Then I had recourse to prayer. I turned to the Virgin Mary, and Jesus was victorious. My whole strength lies in prayer and sacrifice; these are my invincible weapons, and experience has taught me that the heart is won by them rather than by words."

Ah, Therese you rhapsodize like a spoon fed parrot. Keep going and you will need a hospital bed for your delirious hallucinations. I know though that will not deter you--there you will rhapsodize to the walls.
Ravensfan's anon

Therese seems to think that ignorance and superstition are somehow " invincible weapons" that can be called into play to thwart what Humanity has been striving for throughout our existence, the search for truth. She has been co-opted by the need to feel superior, not only to the nature around her, but the very people she must share the planet with. It is an arrogance born out of the most selfish aspects of our being and magnified by our abject laziness when faced with unanswerable questions, leading us to cleave to the absurd rather than take the correct and difficult path. The arrogant need to be elevated to near godhood by claiming a fabricated divine being as their personal "savior" is beyond selfishness and delusion, it is insanity, and I can only imagine what kind of idiot would be born into a union of her and someone like Clay. I suspect that any progeny of such a union, would of necessity, spend their entire life standing on the bridge leading into town, grinning and waving at every car that passes by. Therese, you are a waste of brain matter, existing like some virus fed growth on the body of Humanity, that we hope will not spread before it can be burned off or excised to protect us all from your absurdities. Now all you have left is to declare your superiority in the face of your foe, reason and logic, as a martyr to your faith in-order to complete the picture you are you are so ineptly trying to paint.

NON-tongue-in-cheek ANONYMOUS - How does your "scientific" "logical" squawking differ from the rest of us? You are being neither scientific nor logical when you squawk about each of us NOT squawking scientifically but about our own differing "take" on the "God" thing or its non-existence.

You a scientist? Then speak and explain your stuff like a professional and quit squawking about us NON-scientists not squawking "scientifically".

B.Lawrence, I have posed my scientific arguments not out of my own volition but in reply to what Pattycakes posted about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and what tongue in cheek anon posted about consciousness and so on--the religious sure have a right to believe as they please but when they misrepresent science to fit their own unreality and when one sends a rational repartee the religious ignore the answer but instead rhapsodize their God, then the encounter between the religious and the irreligious becomes no more than an exercise in futility. We are here to talk to each other Lawrence B, not to talk at each other or even worse, shout incoherently for attention. If you are religious and you have used science to support your religion, then you should stand up, be a man, answer the scientist who refutes the blatant misuse of science that has occurred--raptures are a cop out.
Ravensfan's anon

BLOG AUTHOR: why do you allow more and more "Anonymouses"? ..tends to blaw and bleary the discussion and confuse the opposition.

What's so scary about participants putting in a real name? Got to hand it to Robert Littel for the guts to attach all his stuff to a whole person.

Think I'll do the same.

Robert Lawrence Maria (yep, that's right) Bernard Sontrop. Formerly "B.Lawrence". Bob Sontrop for short. Cowboy Bob if you factor in my yen for Classic Westerns.

Squawk Bob for Science Guy Anonymous.

Say, you want science? Here's some, hot off the press: SIGNATURE IN THE CELL;DNA AND THE EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN, by Stephen C. Meyer, Harper One/Collins Publishers, 2009.

A couple or three reviews
(out of 14):

(1)"Meyer has provided no less than a blueprint for the 21st century biological science ...After this book, readers will wonder whether anything more than sentimentality lies behind the continued association of Darwin's name with modern biology."(Dr.Steve Fuller, professor of sociology of science, University of Warwick).

(2)"Meyer demolishes the materialist superstition at the core of evolutionary biology by exposing its Achilles' heel: its utter blindness to the origins of INFORMATION (emphasis mine). With the recognition that cells function as fast as supercomputers and as fruitfully as so many factories, the case for a mindless cosmos collapses. His refutation of Richard Dawkins will have all the dogs barking and the angels singing." (George Gilder, author of Wealth And Poverty, and Telecom.)

(3)"Intelligent design - the idea that an intelligent cause, rather than an undirected process, best explains key features of life and the universe - continues to ignite controversy around the world. In SIGNATURE IN THE CELL, Stephen Meyer shows that digital code embedded in DNA points to a designing intelligence and helps unravel a mystery that Charles Darwin did not address: how did life begin? Meyer tells the story of the successive attempts to explain the origin of life and he develops a case for intelligent design based on new evidence using the same scientific method that Darwin himself pioneered." (the Publishers)

OK, boys, start reading. Its a leisurely,detailed,500 page scientific journey,presented in first-person style.

Unscientific, anecdotal squawking Bob

Bob Sontrop - Intelligent design?, PLEASE. When your so called scientist began his search for truth, he already had his answer, his job was to twist reality to fit that answer. The leap made by your so called scientist was a leap to a forgone conclusion , which hardly fits within the process of scientific examination of data. The whole "Intelligent design" fraud is little more than trying to fit square pegs into round holes with a hammer. It may look like you accomplished the task, if you ignore the mess you made doing it. Try again, you can only lose following a dead-end path.

ROBERT . . . so now that you've pre-judged the author, his research, and his conclusions, why don't you make the effort to go get a copy, READ IT, and find out if your pre-judgments fit Mr. Meyer's actual research and conclusions?

Ravensfan Anonymous - your clarification is well-taken. Thank you.

ROBERT . . a "p.s." here: from your reponse and my third reading of it, I'm getting a specific understanding from you of the "process of scientific examination of data". But you don't see THIS understanding of that process in Mr.Meyer's work. HAVE you read his work? Do you know him? Is he a familiar name in your scientific community? You're about 55; he looks about 35.
If you don't know him, or haven't read SIGNATURE IN THE CELL, can you contact him (shouldn't be that difficult through the publisher), tell him what you submitted in this blog, get his response, or get him to contribute to this blog?
Seems only fair.
Otherwise I'm truly a science ignoramus, an anecdotal addict.

Hello boys!
Ravensfan Anon – You are right, we must put down reasonably sound arguments here. However, you need to let that 2nd law go ;). You and I can only exclaim “WOW” at the second law of thermodynamics which was presented earlier. It’s not really a big deal. You haven’t provided any rebuttal or point to consider yet on that one… sorry if it left a bad taste in your mouth. I will acknowledge that it does not put a “measurable” or “tangible” face to the reason for all of this. I simply used it as “food for thought”. You clearly have chucked it aside as rubbish and I don’t see why. It is based on a “secular” law in physics. It does ultimately leave a big question mark but not considering the context of these examples leaves you behind. I haven’t chalked it up as rubbish. I haven’t chalked up anything you have said as rubbish either. I may not fully understand your points… although if/when I do I will learn from them. I would love for you to understand my points too. Every "Atheistic" argument seems to want to stop and resort to subjective "logic" and rationalizing which always ends up in hypocrisy. Most of them sound very bitter and naive to boot! You can't move forward with discoveries if you neglect to consider all angles. I'm sure I have been guilty before as have other "believers".

As I was driving into a parking lot this morning to pick up some milk (yes I was out of milk), I anticipated a young lady in my peripheral ready to make a crossing in front of me. Being that there was no cross-walk, I kindly stopped to let her cross over. Seems ordinary enough; it probably played out hundreds of times over around the world at that very moment. What was interesting? She made eye contact with me as if to acknowledge my intention to stop. In a fraction of second, she put her trust in my judgment as a “good person” and preceded, safe in her mind that I would not run her over. Why did all of this happen? Essentially because I did not want to kill someone and she wanted to live. But there was more beyond that. I was thinking much more in that fraction of a second. You have pointed out biologically HOW a person thinks and I trust that this is what was happening. For me, I was thinking about the milk, the angle of my steering wheel, other cars in my surroundings, pedestrians, how much gas/brake I was using, the absence of a stop sign, and this lady who clearly was going to cross etc,etc,etc. I was also thinking “man wouldn’t it be nice to let her cross now? I bet she will think that I am a nice person, and if I made her happy for a split second, then I am happy too”. This is all going on in a few seconds time frame. As it played out, she crossed, I didn’t commit murder, and I felt good for being a “normal” person in society. Why did I tell that exciting story? Because no other organism as far as we (atheist and religious alike) have proof of is capable of doing what I spoke of (intellectually and physically).

In other words, there is a lot going on in the mind of man which we take for granted as “normal” functions of everyday life. Animals, I regret to inform you, have not been blessed as such and I fear no monkey in the next century will be able to successfully pull off my feat of driving to the store for milk and engaging in an act of “goodwill” while calculating the outcome and REASONING behind my actions. We have this ability and it is undeniable, so this is suggestive of purpose. What purpose? To live on earth and use our intellect, physical and non-physical means to provide, engage, support, nourish, love, and move our species forward for a common good. Why? This is where I feel we part ways anon… Because (I believe) a higher force has created this universe for us to ultimately honor “HIM” in all we do and in our whole journey so that one day we might move on to a better reality. When we respect our journey on earth and the elements of that journey (environments, organisms, values, beliefs, thoughts) then we directly respect whatever that higher force may be and that type of humility is desperately needed in our world.

The belief that we are just biological accidents does not make sense to me because of the overwhelming complexities in the universe which we are only beginning to understand not to mention the whole human experience of the mind and the unseen “forces” of right and wrong. The elements keeping the “un-ordered ordered”. I fear you are missing the point of my arguments. The science is just that… science. As a person of “faith” I am not naïve to science. I just like looking at the bigger picture.

p.s. I think that book sounds interesting! (DNA info…)

Dear Squawking Bob,
You should not worry so much about names especially since you are a God believer and names are like mud to God. Your long winded science peregrination leaves me dumbfounded. You picked up this joke of a book, you recommend,squawking Bob, because you expected to find within its pages vindication for your own beliefs--your own blindness, would be closer to the truth. This book had a magnetic attraction for you because it screamed "Faith!" You read the blurb at the back of the book, perusing it in Barnes and Noble or whatever, scratching your balding religious pate, thinking to yourself, "Great minds think alike! Here at last a writer who can make me look plausible and scientific even to guys like Robert Littel!" and then you threw 30 or so wasted bucks for the bilge and walked out whistling that you at last had hit pay dirt--the kind that will whittle Littel down to size. Let me tell you this: Intelligent design is not science. It cannot aspire to come even close. It makes no hypothesis or observations, it compiles no experiments, it has no basis, and its conclusion does not follow proofs, instead Intelligent Design is a mockery of all intelligence, it is the most unintelligent of men's inventions, it concludes there must be a god because creation is too complex to ponder the imponderable that a god did not ever have to exist for universes and multiverses to exist--Intelligent Design's only purpose is to thwart scientific inquiry; it is the malevolent brain child of the religious. It clamors for equal place with science and having no hypothesis of its own to prove, it negates science and calls the negation itself a science worth learning. If you don't like what Darwin has to say, go find the missing link, squawking Bob, dig your way all the way to Timbuktu, put your shoulders to a spade, bring up some fossils from the earth, examine them, carbon date them, see what connects them and what features separate them. But don't try to tell the folks on this blog that you have found a treasure of a book that will stop the hearts of atheists, show that Darwin was no more than a fraud. For your info Lawrence B, Intelligent Design will meet the garbage heap of history and if you don't move along and evolve, you, the Catholic Church, Therese the singing nun, and pattycakes will be sitting in the same garbage pile cannibalizing each other and not one of you will survive--even the last god fanatic left standing will be consumed by the fumes of his faith. Darwin then will have his last laugh. The fittest are never the ones who stop all inquiry with prefabricated certainties. The fittest are never the ones with static answers to dynamic questions, with dogmatic refrains to arduous searches. If there were a God Lawrence B--aka--squawking Bob--He or She would prefer Robert Littel to you--because Robert is a pilgrim with an open mind; you on the other hand are a lazy traveler with a preconceived God notion as the only answer to all things baffling--the grand all knowing vizier of creation, if He or She exists, despite what the dull old Bible says, would be quite disenchanted with the guy who believes dumbly and blindly in a God when exactly the opposite is needed to understand the conundrum He or She has presented.
Ravensfan's zero anon--aka--non tongue in cheek anon

Robert - well, what can I say? I'm not a scientist by profession. I've been a janitor at a local university (UWO ..University of Southwestern Ontario ..enrollment forty odd thousand) going on eleven years. I'm thinking you would feel quite at home here in the Sociology/Poli-sci department. Americans are no strangers here. I can only define "Science" as: the human mind addressing each and every aspect (data) of the world around it, and methodically attempting to make sense of it . . coming up with one or other pattern of RE-cognition, some sort of cohesive whole.

From your response it seems clear that your understanding of "the process of scientific examination of data" ISN'T Mr.Meyer's. His "method", in your eyes (am I correct?) is an A PRIORI "done deal" which fraudulently (UN-scientifically) juggles the "data" only to come up with what he already knew he'd come up with and wanted to come up with.

Still, to give the guy a fair shake, have YOU read his work? Is his name known in your scientific circles? Do YOU know him? (you're about 55; Mr.Meyer looks to be about 35) What if you contacted him and repeated to him what you say in the above response .. at least giving him a chance to defend himself. You might be surprised.

Also, what IS so "scary" and/or despicable about nature "throwing us a curve", "betraying" the reigning school of thought by, wonder of wonders, showing order in the chaos, random chance giving way to intelligent design? Like, what's the big deal? You're world isn't going to fall apart! Neither will you. Like a good scientist, or -by analogy- musician, you now have the opportunity to CREATE a "variation on a theme", no?
SIGNATURE IN THE CELL is a leisurely page-turner. Mr.Meyer's autobiographic style has the reader accompany him on his journey of discovery. In the process, I find it "stretching it a bit" to corral the pages between these covers as an A PRIORI scam, a closed "done deal".

Can't see any harm in you also giving this book a read.

As for myself, its "new day; new dirt". Corners 'n edges (..if they're not done, the job ain't either). Creating fresh space for my customers.

Bob Sontrop - I have read all the books I intend to read that have "Faith" as their central core. In as much as the concept has been demonstrated as nothing but the excuse to believe that something with no basis in fact is true, I find no compelling reason to waste my time going through another attempt to get that point of view accepted for any more than it is, which is rubbish. Sugar coating crap and laying it out on a platter, does not change the fact that its basic nature is still crap. That you can swallow it, is the measure of your tolerance for foolishness, not mine.

Pattycakes you are a smart man but you stun me with your self imposed god limitation. What is our purpose you ask? Robert Littel despite his vituperations has already touched upon this. If you read him carefully you will see he says that the inquiry itself is the purpose. The unraveling of the many locked up secrets--that's the purpose--is there an end to science? No, pattycakes. We have giant conundrums to solve. We cannot waste our time on gods or god. The second law of thermodynamics proves that if there ever was a god who fed energy into the big bang that god cut out--that god doesn't want god preoccupation. God preoccupation is a selfish act. It resembles addictions very closely. Its obsession is personal salvation, preparation for another world of greater joy, recruitment of others to belief, proselytization and transcendental ecstasy, all swirling around the self. If God is all knowing, and all powerful, why would this God want to be worshiped, why would this god want prayers or humble pleas, promises or repentance or sorrow, why would this god waste the energy that set afloat the big bang--if it did-- on human waste and human dilemmas--what has been set in motion can be understood, only when purged of this tyrannical God conceived in human brains--god is the spoiler of the very things we are here to accomplish--a distraction, a digression, a non sequitur, a sophistry, a pacifier, a piece of irrelevance--if there is a God that created all the universes, all the fires, all the stellar nurseries and the revolving and exploding constellations, then this God can only be unmasked by the sedulous and unsentimental pursuit of the truth--the music and the mathematics of the universe, the physics of the subatoms, the study of the ocean floor and the pond creatures--waste not a minute on god or gods, because they waste not a minute on you.
Ravesfan's intellectual zero anon

Anonymous (the legitimate one) - Nicely stated.

Anon – Your response to Pattycakes isn’t as intolerant or rude as Roberts nonsense. I disagree with you on Robert’s purpose. He appears to be on an anti-religions crusade built on his incorrect and paranoid delusions that the source of all problems, past & present, in the world are caused by religion. You appear to operate in the similar narrow view that science and God are mutually exclusive ideas. That to believe in God somehow means denying science or that to embrace science one needs to deny God’s existence. You ask many questions in reference to God. The answer to those questions is the same as Robert has used in the past when questioned on science “We do not know yet”. How exactly did you come to the conclusion “ God preoccupation is a selfish act “? Before you go off on some long winded and wordy diatribe into the past sins of any Church keep in mind what I’ve said to Robert in the past. Those institutions and individuals who have done such things were violating the tenets of their own faith by their actions. The truth is that the reason for all the suffering past, present and future is human vices – greed, hate, envy and others. That you choose not to believe in God is your choice. I admit that science will never be able to prove God’s existence and if that’s what it would take for Robert or you to believe there isn’t anything anyone can do. What Robert and you fail to accept is that lack of proof doesn’t prove God does not exist. At best all you can say is he may not or probably doesn’t exist. To say anything more is your own faith in the world, or universe if you prefer.

ravensfan's tilting at windmills using his Noble lance of infinitesimally small odds for justifying our respecting his belief in the existence of a god being, as his final argument, is most amusing. I could argue the likelihood that three legged spiders from the purple dimension, control our existence with the same certainty he uses to justify his gods,using that form of illogic. If you cannot disprove the existence of the three legged spiders so described, then you cannot deny their possibility. An absurdity is an absurdity, no matter how much, or by how many hold to it.

Robert – When did the truth become tilting a windmill? You could argue three legged spiders, but of course you wouldn’t be able to point to any historical documents that mention them would you? It would simply be your personal assertion which is different than any argument made for God. If you don’t see the difference then I’ve seriously misjudged your intellect. That or you are too caught up in own atheist dogma to look at things objectively. Respecting the views of others is simply a courtesy that we all should extend to each other. I dare say most rational people would agree with that. The ones most likely to disagree are the irrational ones on extreme ends like you. What you don’t want to accept is that what you are spewing is not fact, but your own belief. If it were fact you’d be able to mount a convincing argument.

Robert – The idea that someone’s belief’s need justification to merit respect shows considerable arrogance and bigotry on your part. As for your spider argument it the same as your previous one and ignores the obvious. If you had something besides your own word such as historical writings or philosophical or scientific theories it would merit consideration. The fact that you don’t see the difference simply means you are either too subservient to your own dogma, or lack average intellect. The only absurdity is your idea that someone else’s opinions or beliefs require justification to warrant simple respect.

ravensfan - OK, three legged spider analogy aside, as anything that is said cannot seem to leave you any loop-hole that you can then use to spin into some kind of justification for your unsupportable, unfounded, ridiculous, but highly accepted MYTHS. You are relentless in defense of your ignorance.

You seem to give heavy weight to the accumulated rubbish you subscribe to, based on how many idiots have bought into these notions in the past. There have always been "ultimate truths" in every society going back to the moment we evolved to the point where we could invent them and all the supporting rubbish needed to validate them, until a new "ultimate truth" came along. Like all believers throughout time, you believe that at this point in history that you have somehow come to possess the "ultimate ultimate truth" just like every schlub that preceded you all the way back to Og of the swamp and his lovely rape/bride Moogah. You are no different than anyone else in history, who has failed to question their basic beliefs in search of what is real, and you are just as bone-headed in your defense of those beliefs even though they rest on the flimsiest of foundations, man's desire to be more than he is without earning it. You wish to be superior to all other life, you wish to transcend life by not dying and you wish to become one with the creator of everything in an effort to achieve near god-hood for yourself. In doing all of this, you have turned your back on what it really means to be Human and that is a loss you are deluding yourself into believing is a hateful attack against what you stand for, a pile of make-believe drek. You truly are pitifully insignificant in the universe (as we all are) and your artificial attempts to give meaning to your life only bars you from seeing the wonder of the universe as it unfolds before our more clever attempts to understand it. I am so glad I am not you, I couldn't live with your limitations and self deluding lies.

I think folks, the atheists and the God believers are too wrapped in themselves to notice we have an interesting phenom on these blogs--Lawrence B, also called Bob Santrop of Canada, a janitor, a poet, a religionist, a man of fervor--gosh Lawrence B a janitor thou sayest, enrolled in college for years--why? With your brains--and I am serious when I say this--you should be acing college and you should have flown the college coop by now--you are in the land of welfare from cradle to grave--your education should be all paid for Lawrence B by the Canadian government--your health care is most certainly all paid for-- so why are you dithering in college--don't tell me that the mop is more powerful than the books--don't tell that the aroma of the cleaning fluids is an irresistible force in your life--what be the reason for your dilly dallying ways--is it too much blogging and not enough studying--is it fear of growing up--failure to launch--ain't Jesus helping in your quest for a degree?

And Ravensfan, repeatedly has my atheist friend Robert Littel contended that one cannot prove the negative--that something does not exist is unprovable, Ravensfan--if he says that a three legged giant spider is actually God then you would ask him to prove his case because he has made a positive and definitive statement but if he turns around and tells you, prove that I am not right then you couldn't possibly do that--it defies every principle of logic to ask a man to prove a negative--your God exists only in your head Ravensfan--should your belief be respected--no. Should you be respected despite your cockamamie belief? Yes, because repeatedly you have shown, in spite of your God belief (inexplicably), you are a man of good sense--you just have a blind spot about this God thing and you have a right to your blind spots Ravensfan. But should you be so blind as to ask Robert Littel to prove God does not exist? This God, woven only by faith, should be proven by the faithful to exist, not proven by the faithless not to be existent. Robert Littel is an impatient man. He wants you to see the folly of your argument instantaneously. You on the other hand are stubborn that he prove the negative or else leave the puzzle in limbo, your position being as good as his. This Robert Littel cannot do because to him God belief wastes minds too precious to waste--if you ask Robert Littel he would say, Lawrence B is happy being a janitor because he is a God believer-that God belief stifles men, places them in shackles, prevents them from taking their knowledge quest to a destination beyond God belief, fearing that God would disapprove or retaliate against them.

Also notice that there is nothing happening in the religious world--even Matthew Hay Brown's genius could not dig up anything more than the dull story about Obama's Nobel and Obama's new found church. I want Shaukat of the "how to defeat the Taliban fame" to return. The Taliban is up and about with force and after all of Shaukat's great prophecies and lengthy blogs, it seems Pakistan is stumped--no closer to defeating the Taliban now than before.
Ravensfan's anon

"GOD'S NOT DEAD; HE AIN'T EVEN SICK !" (Fr. John Corapi, S.O.L.T.)

A devout Catholic who had worked as a nurse's aide, ( JEANNE ) JUGAN WAS 47 IN 1839 when she and two friends agreed to bring home and care for a blind and infirm elderly woman. They soon took in others, and by 1841, Jugan was traveling from door to door in the Brittany region of France, soliciting donations for the growing ministry. The tradition of relying on divine providence for support -- as opposed to building and managing an endowment -- continues today.

'When everything in our life is turned to the Father, that is the rule of God at work in us, and we will be blessed,' the Rev. James Chalangady said last week during a Mass at St. Martin's Home in Catonsville to bless the local delegation before the journey to Rome. 'JEANNE JUGAN experienced that reign of God in her life when she was rejected, humiliated and tested in many ways. In her difficulties and trials, she had the confidence in God to say that it is good to have nothing and to depend on God for everything.'

The Little Sisters arrived in the United States in 1868, and began their work in Maryland the following year. Archbishop Martin John Spalding of Baltimore said they were 'called to do a great deal of good in America, not only among the poor, but also among the rich; FOR WORDS NO LONGER SUFFICE; WORKS ARE NECESSARY' The order estimates that it has sheltered 15,000 elderly men and women in Maryland during the last 140 years.

JUGAN, who is sometimes compared to Mother Teresa of Calcutta, is one of five candidates to be canonized on Sunday. . . . . .
JUGAN'S canonization follows a church investigation of her life and death, including the certification of a miracle: THE CURE OF A NEBRASKA PHYSICIAN diagnosed with cancer in 1989 and given six months to live.

On the day an endoscopy revealed that anesthesiologist EDWARD GATZ was suffering from an adenocarcinoma extending from his esophagus to his stomach, his wife spoke with a Jesuit priest who had served as a chaplain to the Little Sisters of the Poor in Milwaukee. The Rev. Richard D. McGloin recommended that Jeanne Gatz pray a novena daily asking JUGAN to intercede.

Twenty years later, Gatz, now 72, is alive and well in Omaha.

Little Sisters and their supporters around the world will tune in to watch the Mass at St. Peter's Basilica. Kathleen Pence, a lay associateof the order, will attend in person.

'We've been praying and waiting and hoping,' said the Ellicott City woman, one of several members of the delegation who gathered after the send-off Mass last week to share their thoughts. 'This is really a privilege for us. It's once in a lifetime.'

Sister Alice Marie Jones, the local superior at St. Martin's Home, spoke of her gratitude at being called to follow in Jugan's path. 'I am so filled with joy and thanksgiving for the life and vocation of our Mother,' she said. JEANNE JUGAN is our example and we so desire to live the charism she has bequeathed to us, her daughters.'"

Copyright © 2009, The Baltimore Sun

Spontaneous remission and even the complete disappearance of terminal cancers occurs in patients occasionally. Their immune system reasserts itself and does the job and the only benefit of belief that they were cured has been illustrated as the power of the placebo effect. This effect is not limited to believers, but has been shown to be effective in people of no faith, by using a mind trick called bio-feedback. This trick has been shown to work even when the participant knows it is a mind trick. When such a mechanism occurs in the believer, it is ALWAYS ascribed to the divine and cited as PROOF of the hand of some god or another, even malevolent gods (or as the believer calls them - False gods) in more primitive societies. Bob Sontrop - Nice try, but you have proven nothing with your tale, but the power of self delusion that occasionally can occur.

Robert - After grudgingly admitting your error you then proceed to call my position ignorance. That sounds a bit childish don’t you think.

The second paragraph contains nothing more than your own personal beliefs. If you wish to believe that we’re insignificant that’s your right. You didn’t elaborate on how I’ve turned my back on what it means to be human, or for that matter what it means to be human. If I accepted your view it really means no more than a garden slug or amoeba. Maybe you could enlighten me more on that topic sometime. As for the search for what is real I have previously said and you either forgot or choose to ignore what I have said previously. I was challenged at home and in school to questions my beliefs and look at them in comparison to other concepts. Perhaps it’s your atheist dogma clouding your reasoning ability. By the way what makes your posts hateful attacks isn’t that you don’t believe in God or even challenge those who do. What makes them hateful is the constant disrespectful, belittling insults you use among other things. What makes them bigoted is your treatment of all believers as being somehow intellectually inferior. How exactly did you come to your conclusions that we are “pitifully insignificant in the universe”? How exactly does believing in God limit one’s self or hinder them from seeing the wonder of the universe? You constantly post as though the your position is the only obvious reality yet have never offered any compelling evidence or reasoning why. I dare say the one deluding himself is you. That last post was an emotional appeal from someone who doesn’t believe in God and wishes it was true but lacks the weight of evidence needed. The difference between us is that while you fear my beliefs I have no such fear of yours.

Annon - For the record I’ve never said that one can prove a negative although I could argue that is some limited cases you can. For example I could prove that 2 plus 2 doesn’t equal 5. My point with Robert and now you is that lack of proof of something does not disprove it. I’m not saying it proves God either as it clearly doesn’t. In the end logic can’t be used to prove or disprove God. Maybe you can elaborate on how you can respect a person while disrespecting a belief. Respect doesn’t mean you agree with the belief. Your statement on God is your opinion and nothing more. If Robert and you want to believe that’s fine. It doesn’t change the reality that it’s an opinion. I asked Robert to prove God does not exist because he and now you post as though it’s a rational, logical and factual reality. If that’s true then you should be able to justify it. Otherwise accept and admit that it’s your own belief or opinion an nothing more.
ravensfan

Anonymous October 15, 2009 11:25 AM was me. I don't know what happened to cause it to show Anonymous.

ravensfan

Fake Anonymous - either pick another moniker or except the fact that as long as you insist on trying to confuse the discussion by using a name already being used by someone else, you are not going to be given the courtesy of a response, not that the rubbish you spew is worthy of anything more than a curt dismissal anyway.

Interesting point you note Mr. Littel. "Medical Miracles" are one of a vast amount of phenomena which support the "faith" of believers. Objectively speaking, I'm sure your conclusion on the subject is indeed itself a matter of faith. The human brain is a marvelous thing no doubt, and it is possible some of these terminal cures have been as a result of the minds "persistence" to not throw in the towel on the whole living body.

How convenient that you would suggest that for believers it is a silly "proof" that a miracle can give evidence of a God and yet for "non-believers" it is just a matter of "luck" or the "human immune system" or "Biofeedback". Biofeedback is still only scientifically relevant in moderately simple application and is only now being cautiously looked at as a source for "alternative healing" (meditation, relaxation).
Your conclusion that this explains ALL and ANY "miracle" is vague and subjective and is not provable. On the contrary many in the profession who have worked on cases as such have been "awe-stuck" at the resilience of the human body and in turn have not been able to answer the WHY as opposed to the HOW. In some cases which I could site (although you will try to explain them anyways) there is NO known medical explanation due to the ruling out (medically) of all possible factors (such as the neurological and biological you mentioned).

Ironically this could be what brings some "non-believers" to faith because of not HOW it happened but because of the IMPROBABILITY of the event. Why do some recover and some don't? If there is a "God" why wouldn't He want us all to make it and realize his "All Encompassing Grandeur"? One because we are free to believe or not. Secondly because there are lessons to be learned from all of life's trials. And finally because this is our nature (to ask the why's and how's). Not the nature of the spiritual. If God did not exist we would be but a mess of sub-intelligent drones working to survive but one more day. Not asking and not knowing. I take nothing away from your explanation which deserves as much credit as a "believers" however again, you make sweeping statements to RATIONALIZE.

Robert I already ID's myself as the poster. Keep in mind that Anonymous isn't an id rather the lack of one. Posters whp don't enter an id get that. Also sometimes it happens even with an id there.

Ravensfan Anon - As you know, scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering emperical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Consider this: great thinkers of the past (Darwin included) have used this process when forming and testing their hypotheses, all the while trying to understand the problem. When they collected the data, researched the findings and proceeded to draw conclusions to retest, I'm sure they did so impartially.
As your whole argument seems very Darwinian, lets use him as our comparative subject. Darwin used the skills and knowledge of his time in combination the reasoning and logic within the context of his worldview. A fair assessment no? So in applying the "scientific method" to his work, he undoubtedly attempted to draw his conclusions by ruling out any other possible outcome. His studies on evolution were drawn from his observations and testing resources at the time. I respect his findings and agree that from his point of view our existence could very well have evolved from simple organisms. He published those findings and the rest is history.

Today with the advancement of science and tech, we have the means of supporting his theoretical conclusions quite accurately. What is being lost in all of this I fear is that these are observations based on the scientific study of his subject. What they are not is definitive truths about the origin of life. I say this because no one can "back-test" his theory historically speaking (i.e. using digital concepts of what we THINK a dinosaur moved like based on fossils etc. and comparing that to a living dinosaur to confirm). Darwin had to work with what he had to work with just like all scientist. Some hypotheses are different depending on the subject of study and I make my argument knowing this is not applicable in all instances.
When you are talking about the origin of life, this is a broad subject consisting of many studies and about 40 different takes on evolution itself.

Having said this, science on the possibility of "Intelligent Design" would have to be conducted using the same logic and processes. One of the latest developments on a relatively early discovery was the proof of information or chemical "instructions" in DNA which essentially give instructions for development. Information as we know it is basically the communication of a message. Information by definition implies a sender and a receiver. Information implies one's comprehension of an end goal or message. This observation in context with the formulation a living being is quite significant.
Using Darwin's own logic based on the proof in the DNA we could point to a "sender" or "intelligent force". He after-all points to "evolution" based on the same type of proof following observation and analysis in fossils, animals, biology etc. This by no means labels a "God" but invokes logical thought towards the evidence observed and thus arrives logically on an "intelligent designer".

“ANONYMOUS ( THE LEGITIMATE ONE ) – NICELY STATED” - a commentary.

It seems to me you confuse, and therefore mutually exclude, 1) the legitimate vocation of the scientist and the particular faith that undergirds it, with 2) those who have neither clue nor appreciation for the awesome objectives and rigorous demands of genuine scientific enquiry, but who’s faith in the person of Jesus Christ is equally valid.

Indeed, you have both justified and relieved Robert. Justified him in his frustrated vituperations against this cloud of noisy know-nothings who come calling out of the chicken coop of clucks and scratchings. Relieved, that you, out of the blue, finally ( after some 179 or so blog entries!) SPELLED OUT his “I Don’t Know . . Yet!” I had kept wondering when Robert himself would do us that service.

Indeed, nicely stated.

The inquiry IS the thing for the scientist. But ALSO for the "hoi poloi" (ordinary folks)in pursuit of the fullness of the Faith. "Fides quaerens intellectum" (St.Anselm)..Faith seeking understanding. "Faith seeks understanding; understanding seeks faith" (St.Augustine)

The pursuit is lifelong. So is the exchange of findings that bring about communion between people..the Holy Spirit being the common bond uniting true believers in quest for the truth. . which DOESN'T exclude the scientist!

But name-calling and putting the finger on my lazy nature -there is also that "wooden head, wooden shoes, wouldn't listen" in me- doesn’t exonerate you from actually reading Meyer’s work. That’s just as much a cop-out as Christians walling out genuine scientific research with incessant “God talk”. “Faith” isn’t the core of Meyer’s pursuit. Further knowledge is, using the scientific method.

One more thing, you lump together myself, Pattycakes, Therese the “singing nun”, in short, all things Catholic. This makes me suspect the oldest American negative bias at play here, rearing its ugly head: anti-Catholicism. Furthermore, the vehemence of your diatribe against my perceived motive for choosing Meyer’s book makes me also suspect you yourself just might be a fallen-away Catholic. . . and if so, probably because of the scandal of a majority of mediocre, lukewarm Catholics who don’t LIVE their “Confirmation”, and, therefore, can’t LIVE their faith because they don’t know it. And if you’re NOT a “ex” Catholic, you’ve been scandalized for the same reason.

For the staunch defender of religion, there is no room for doubt, no flexibility of thought and no truth outside the narrow parameters they have created for themselves, by subscription to already formulated and ancient dogmas and doctrines. For the sceptic, that is not something that can be viewed as healthy. I think the Spanish philosopher Jose y Gasset (1883-1956) summed it up nicely when he stated:

"Our firmest convictions are apt to be the most suspect, they mark our limitations and our bounds. Life is a petty thing unless it is moved by the indomitable urge to extend its boundaries."

Religion, for all its "good" intentions and all its bad results, is a surrender to the inside of the box, and that is its fatal flaw.

Once again: Faith is a Gift RECEIVED through Baptism. It is NOT a construct fashioned by un-aided human reason. The CONTENT of the Faith, the "articles" of the Faith as summarized in the Athenasian or Apostle's Creed, are the windows opening the person of Faith to a LIFETIME of understanding. St. Anselm's principle, "Faith seeking understanding", once again, comes into play. "10,000" DIFFICULTIES in this journey of questing, of seeking to understand the FULLNESS of the Faith, do not equal one DOUBT.

Thus, once again, you confuse a construct of unaided reason, a product of the human mind, with a Gift of the Church, whose Founder is fully human and fully Divine. Jesus Christ, who founded the Church, is a DIVINE PERSON who assumed a HUMAN NATURE, which experienced everything every human being experiences, EXCEPT SIN. Being Divine He became the "Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the World".

If anyone has a problem with this and the rest of the "deposit of the Faith", they don't have a problem with me, or with the Church, or with the Pope. They have a problem with Jesus Christ, Who founded the Church "through His life, death, and Resurrection"

If this enkindles your interest, check ANY issue you may have at heart with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm; www.vatican.va (and other sites)
All the articles of the Creed and Scripture and the Sacraments and prayer and more are fairly explained, "a sure NORM for the teaching of the deposit of the Faith"(John Paul II).

The Church and its teaching -i.e.Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Magisterial teaching are of DIVINE origin, which does not diminish human life -SIN does that! (maybe start with the teaching on sin!)- but enriches human life, thus making it capable of true fulfillment.

Finally, Robert, despite the fact that you were so rudely treated and scandalized during your teen years, check if your parents had you Baptized. If you were, that holds for good. God does not reneg on His promises.

Bob Sontrop - Stinking Bible Nazis like yourself, give religion the bad name it so richly deserves. Your "Divine", your "Sacred" , your "FAITH" , is just a crock of you know what, to anyone with a functioning intellect . It is boneheaded idiots like you that necessitate participation of people like me in these discussions because the very last thing the world needs is people with diseased minds (like you evidently) from gaining control of it. ANY IDIOT who claims to possess absolute truth based on the flimsy crap you subscribe to, IS NUTS.

Robert, Therese, the singing nun, Bob the Great Sontrop and Pattycakes, I suspect, are all one and the same. The trance and the ecstasy of the whirling Catholic dervish Sontrop are dizzying in their intensity. Sontrop, you were right, when you stated most humbly you know nothing much about science, or something to that effect, in an earlier post. Yes, you don't. Catholicism has made you a suspicious and sensitive man Sontrop. I did not insult you--I gave you credit for your intelligence and wondered if religion is a major impediment to your progress. You of course have equated your religious quest with the great scientific quests of humans--at the end of your religious quest Sontrop, you will be standing alone, selfish and saved, your God gleaming in your eyes--of what use is this to the rest of mankind? You equate, this, your wasted energy, chasing an illusion, to the discovery of the proton or the electron, to the march into human cells and into the subatomic universe? You're nuts Sontrop. The cleaning fluids permeate your sharp brain. You need to put away the mop and enroll in full time science courses. You can do it, without the baptism and the catechisms--you can do it with or without Jesus--try Sontrop--you may yet discover a talent within yourself for something other than religious apoplexies.
Ravensfan's anon

Amen Ravensfan Anon!... In dialogue taking place the world over on this timeless subject lines are drawn and opinions stated. All for what? to shed light on perplexities which may/may not be "relevant" and open the mind of others. I do applaud you. You have demonstrated the reality that competent, educated individuals who do their best to contribute to society may actually NOT believe in God. I admit I had no idea of such persons.

Such a fundamental reality in our world as demonstrated by the on-goings in our society, the natural world, the capacity of the mind, even our every-day life should be more than apparent to such open-minded individuals. "Atheism" is a dying religion. "Beliefs" aside, the reality of God's reality should be elementary for anyone using one's mind. I actually feel silly arguing such a fundamental subject.

So I shall continue my quest for truth and cultural prowess (through the sciences etc...) and will continue to try and shine Christ's light while I do it. I will pray that more minds will be opened up to the goodness and hope that wholesome religious belief supports. Yes, I will be better for it my friend, and will know that for all the glory which this earth can "provide", there IS something out there... something else much more worthy of my attention. While believers and non-believers excel in the offices of their vocations, (as you and I will) their journeys play out accordingly; lessons are learned, trials and triumphs abound and life becomes more beautiful. Once you realize that it CAN BE much more beautiful with a Friend's help, the Big Guy upstairs will give you something tangible that you can use HERE and NOW. In your science, your economics, your politics, your health, your sport... EVERYTHIG. This is where faith excels. Our non-believing friends should give it a try... go on! I am taking your advice to search out alternatives and you should give a shout out to God. Just say "What's up". You, quite frankly have nothing to loose! Should you term my advice silly? maybe you are being ignorant and closed-minded.

Anyways, hope you have good one! keep on searching!

Ciao for now! God Bless... Flacco for Prez!

"For the staunch defender of religion, there is no room for doubt, no flexibility of thought and no truth outside the narrow parameters they have created for themselves, by subscription to already formulated and ancient dogmas and doctrines"

If we substitute the word attacker for defender and drop the word ancient we get a good description of you Robert.

Robert - interesting that you chose to quote from a philosopher, Jose y Gasset, who believed that although each individual sees truth from a unique perspective, truth itself is absolute.

Ravensfan's Anonymous; Robert -WOW! ...you ARE fierce!! Apologies for my part in the bitterness flaring up. I'm afraid we're talking at cross purposes. Not exactly an exchange "In Good Faith". I see no point in a line-by-line rebuttal, and am going to leave it at that. All the best in your scientific endeavours.

Bob Sontrop - You cannot help but be overwhelmed when you skip into the middle of a discussion sprinkling fairy-dust, especially when the topic is about the very improbable existence of your invisible sky monster. A point by point rebuttal from your perspective would be entertaining and a useful tool to validate the anti-god concept position ,by its very reliance on unprovable assumptions that you would be forced (much like ravensfan) to claim as being truths. Nothing leads people to question their god concepts more than exposure to these notions by those who blindly accept them. You will be missed.

Robert – Don’t confuse someone being polite and showing manners with confusion. What Bob realized is simply what I’ve said before which is there is no way to prove God to anyone who has already made up their mind that He doesn’t exist. That’s why I don’t waste any time trying with close mind people like you. Nothing short of God speaking directly to you would work and even then you’d probably rationalize it as something else that you could understand. Seeing how much anger and hate you seem to have flowing through you I’m quite happy I’m not buying into your dogma.
ravensfan

Are you that stupid? God is SOOOOOOOOO NOT dead!! Why do you think you're living? He has the power to kill you! He's the ONLY thing that created ALL things! Incuding every little detail in the universe! You're sooooo idiotic!!!!

Tristan Flowers - Like I have stated many times, I don't know the answer to those questions (YET), but unlike you, I am not afraid to say so. That you need to subscribe to made-up foolishness to get answers you have not yet earned, even if they are ridiculous, is, "sooooo idiotic!!!!".

Tristan Flowers--what next will you say? God a thing? That's nice coming from a god believer. He has the power to kill me and yet he is the only thing that creates all things- Flowers, you need to bury your brain in a bed of flowers and nap your damn fool fantasies away. Get up clear headed and see if you can sally forth and conquer the world without god belief. You may surprise yourself.
Ravensfan Anon

I'm sorry I called you all those names. My anger got the best of me.

Accept your apology Tristan Flowers--you did nothing wrong--you spoke your mind--and I spoke mine--we have canceled each other out--no need to feel bad--also, get angry you must, once in a while--that's your right. Ravensfan Anon