oh Laz, with each post you prove how dense you really are

1. you keep saying that you do, but to date have not even cited a single thing that I have said that you have been able to conclusively "disprove" with a contrary fact.

2. science cannot breach the confines of he universe to see what actually lies out there. Maybe that is because first considered it fact that the universe was infinite and then after discovering otherwise retconned it to being soccer ball shaped and finite. Our sun was considered stationery by conventional science till 1985, when it was finally discovered to be in motion (laughably something already mentioned in the Quran 1400 years ago)

3. evolution is a theory that is not yet conclusively proven. (yet Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and Islam all state that man has been created in stages)
Hence the missing link. Fossil records are incomplete and inconclusive still. Archaeopteryx as a primordial ancestor to the modern bird has itself recently been placed in question based on recent findings in europe and China.

4. Quantum dynamics and relativity are not reconcilable which is why String theory, a theory built on vibrations as the basic material of the universe - a concept existing already in Hinduism, Sufism, and Theosophy for the past 1000 years - has been introduced. For the past 2000+ years your fact and science considered string theory as non-existent with the atom as the smallest unit, and only when we invented more powerful microscopes, so that we could SEE smaller particles, did we recognized the protons and electrons and neutrons. Otherwise protons, neutrons, and anything smaller than an atom were all fairies and Santa Clauses to the empirical world of industrial age science. Ironically, your argument is blatantly reminiscent of the same sanctimonious thought process.

5. Moral Zeitgeist is as abstract a theory as religion being the root of morality. Read more on Dawkins Zeitgeist to understand.
It does not even answer what "good" is.
Ask yourself why you consider "embezzlement" to be wrong, and charity to be "right" Is it on;y social. Societies in the past have considered rape to be "right", Nazis considered the "interest of the clan" (as Dawkins terms it) and for the sake of preserving the genetic purity of their race exterminated another.Does Zeitgeist actually answer why one is wrong to do so?
And when in ancient societies there was a sudden shift from bloodlust to respect for human life, ironically enough at those times when religious laws on "sanctity of life" were introduced into those systems, was it Zeitgeist that caused the change for the better, or did religion ultimately influence that Zeitgeist just as Sartre's existentialism influenced the Zeitgeist of the latter half of the 20th century. Can Dawkins then conclusively cite Zeitgeist as independent of external motivators. Would the introduction of religion into a society not be such a motivator? Why then attempt to quote Zeitgeist as purely determined by the mindset or preference of society. Today people try to use atheism or science as a motivator against religion or any other trend of thought, but then it is this atheism or science that is the Zeitgeist motivator not society for society's sake.

6. Just cos you can't see or feel it does not mean it does not exist. e.g Pluto till 1929

7. No archaeological records remain of the origins of civilizations. Atheistic approaches to demonstrate their point of view by citing scraps and shards puts together a puzzle in one of many permutations and combinations - like a scrabble board with a bunch of letters strewn around. One can do exactly the same to prove certain claims in religions.

8. The violence you accuse religions of was never even carried out. They were more "allegorical", "criminal deterrent", and "defense of the state" in nature, than you would care to read and understand. Your statement on David and the cutting of the child, ignored the key element that his decision was simply to call out the liar. From your argument in that case you would accuse Judge Judy of violence and brutality,and a disrespect of human rights.

9. You are not yet, and nor are people like Dawkins able to conclusively prove that religion is a delusion, and with no historical base. You were not there, you saw nothing. The main question is - what caused the people of that time to actually believe in that. Where did the Jews then come from.
Where did man come from to settle where he did. As per recent genetic findings Native Americans came from a single tribe that crossed from Siberia to Alaska and through the Americas. This as no surprise contradicts previously held misconceptions that they came in several groups from India.
A recent genetic study also demonstrated that all of us have ancestry dating back to 8 female ancestors in Africa, and as we study genetic distribution further we will discover more. So what are these books? All delusions across the globe in different, disjoint societies. Why did prehistoric man have an inclination towards a theist belief system? Was it all because of storms and earthquakes that people across the globe even after dispersing and forgetting their origins, and living in relatively fertile and stable areas chose to have "deities"?

Neither you, nor your atheist philosophy can conclusively prove it one way or the other. You may try to evade these points as being "abstract", but it is abstract because you in all honesty haven't got a clue. And yet these points are at the root of your atheist concepts. These are the points that actually deal with the assumption of existence or non-existence of God, and why. These are the points that are overlooked and assumed to be constants when actually evaluating atheist and theist beliefs. You call them abstract. But in reality these points are at the very heart of the matter, and your designation of them as "abstract" shows that it is in fact your understanding of your own atheism that is amusingly "abstract"
 
So what exactly are the facts that you claim your atheist empiricity offers, when new technologies offer new insights that have science and empirical truth retconning themselves at least once a decade.

In summation the only rationale that is appealing to you, in our atheist approach, is that you get to indulge your senses and not have to carry any burden of guilt - you get to set the sack down.
That's all. No scientific evidence exists to prove your atheism nor disprove theism.
As I said before, you use the wrong tool for the job - like oaring with banana leaves. That is what your argument is about.
It is always easy to blurt something that sounds profound simply because it contradicts common rationale. But does the argument actually stand up the very criteria it sets as a benchmark?
I, as you say, live in a fantasy land with fairies and Santa Clause. Ok.
But then why is your reality based on equally abstract and inconclusive theses?
 Being as fact driven as you claim to be, your entire argument is based on conjecture, and incomplete hypotheses that rely on your weak definition of "provability". As I already mentioned, string theory itself is not proven, and is still based on inconsistent conjecture. Do you discount it just as readily?
You draw on incomplete information as regards archeology, shifting theories as regards quantum dynamics and relativity, and facts that are limited by your limited idea of empiricity. i.e you say that you see it, feel it, and experience it - hence it exists. If not, it does not exist. Well to that, one asks if you have ever personally seen the moon-landing. Please don't tell me you're going to deny that, simply because you only have some 40 year old tapes that you consider to be special effect recordings of a Palm beach studio!  (and believe me there are actually people who say that)

In effect your fact-based argument that espouses logic delves into the same realm of conjecture, supposition, and far-fetched conclusions, in which you have accused me of living. Science has not yet discovered all the answers. Science has not yet got the technology to unravel the universe. Archaeology has no evidence that can paint a complete picture of mankind's past.
So what have you been ranting on about for the past 10 pages?

You keep saying that my argument is abstract and I cannot prove my points either. Ok.
Difference - you insisted that religion was abstract, we did not disagree. But you by your own statements in the above post acknowledged, while accusing me, that my arguments were just as abstract as yours and yours in like vein just as abstract as mine. And that is what I have been saying - your supposed facts are as abstract  as my fairies. What's worse, your facts of today, with new scientific inventions are prone to becoming tomorrow's fairy tales with consistent need for retconning - e.g atom is the smallest unit in existence. certainly not flattering to your "facts".
 Yet, as we get closer to unraveling the true nature of the universe, science and religion seem to be converging,  just as Science and Science-fiction are converging. New technologies reveal the fantastic nature of our own universe, and the more we learn, the more the fantastic becomes realistic.

So in the end what indeed do you "know" and what indeed is "fact".

As I always said, a little open-mindedness, and a lot of patience will go a long way in helping us understand the true nature of our universe and of our own history.
And quite frankly posts like this thread are the result of stubbornness, misinformation, and illogic, noxiously blended into a strong desire for self-gratification and pride.
Like it or not, that is your "uncomfortable truth"

You can't accuse me of being dense when you try to band around the idea that evolution is an unproven theory, showing that you are dense. You don't even know what the word theory means in science. You also continuously try this pathetic argument that "I can't prove it", and I'm fed up trying to correct this error in your dense brain.

The fact that you think that string theory was predicted by ancients is utterly ridiculous, and reminicent of the similar claims about the Koran. Show me hard proof of that wild assertion or keep quiet. In other words, "put up or shut up".

You're in no position to call me "dense". You call quantum mechanics "quantum dynamics" and yet you have the nerve to question my thinking ability. How can you throw around ideas that you do not even understand? You also seem to think that the particle idea has somehow been eradicated. Particle like properties are an observation that have been and will always be made, it merely depends on what instrument you use. A tiny string will always appear to be a particle until we can attain higher probing energies.

It's time for you to wake up.

theory's by natter are all way challenged Unproven and proven throw testing, nothing is absolute.

$50 on Dr. Lazarus

$100 on Laz. Since Ser has to jump around and change positions constantly to argue with laz, whose argument never has to change. Ser just switches which religions viewpoint he argues from, even though if he was a true believer, he would only believe in one.

Modern science is always going to be incompetent, for if it was completely competent, we would never need progress and all theories would be law. Science and religion are always going to clash. You tend to quote the 'Universe having the shape of a Soccer-Ball (or Dodecahedron to be correct)' THEORY, which in itself is enough to disqualify it as an argument because we simply cannot prove if it is right or that it is wrong. And associate that with the creationist concept of a limited universe.

My major issue with religion is that unlike Science,  those who follow it are unwilling to accept falsifications, modifications and refining of their theory, where as scientific claims are forever threatened at being overturned, for example all the former models of the Atom which were replaced by Bohr model. The religious are predominantly incapable of handling a debate and will simply blindly defend with faith.

I personally commend your knowledge of religions, Western(Christianity), Eastern(Islam) and Obscure(Zoroastrianism). It is far superior to my knowledge of religion, but you know that, so there is no need to acknowledge this fact for more than the purpose of respect. I have no interest in calling you a weak debater, for you are not.

To the point of you jumping around however, I still feel it is interesting how you tend to refute points of debate by quoting other religions who explain scientific theories.


Hinduism, Sufism and Theosophy are all great in their own respects, although Theosophy has the purpose of Comparing religions, and a 'nucleus' of humanity in which there lies no physical discriminations based on color, race, gender or social status. A great deal of religions HAVE those distinctions, especially Islam (fundamentally and extremely) in regards to the role of Women. Theosophy also believes highly in Karma (which is my primary fault with that religion in general), as I could do something 'bad' (which is a point of view!) and have little or no consequence dependent upon the action.

Now, you are inevitably correct in your argument regarding preached Absolutism.


Alright, I like what you wrote in your third paragraph...aside from the abandonment. I am open to debating this, but where is the proof in the higher essence not abandoning it's creations? For the last several thousand years the divine word hasn't changed, and that's what you seem to pay homage to, now where is the proof that the higher essence did not simply 'throw down' the divine word and go on vacation?

I probbably shouldn't poke my nose into the conversation after only hearing the start and the end with a whole 5 pages (you guys sure have been busy) inbetween the two but didn't you all kinda loose track right at the start.

at the begining (of this thread)

1) No one said there was no God.

2) Dr.Lazarus said that God as depicted in the bible advocated blood shed, murder and other bad things.

From the webpage linked to at the very begining of this thread I would have to say that the statements in the bible were pretty clear and I don't see how reading the whole story would change how it planely says peple should die for being homosexuals or just being around at the wrong time.

I have to say reading just some of that webpage has changed my perspective on the bible, I had the belief that it was a book of moral stories that taught values and goodwill to all men and all.

So a question for you all to try to poke you back on track, whether you believe in god or don't does not matter, was the god depicted in the bible actually exactly what Dr.Lazarus said murderfull and blood hungry and all that.

People are what make things mean some thing, I sorry to hear you have gotten nothing out of this and did not intend to from the start. you have a very closed mind.

As far a what you call superior view comes in to this. for me and I hope Laz to nether view is better then a another its just that one is basted in reality and the other is fantasy neither veiw is beater than the other. aging people make things mean some thing.

Ware in the bible dose it talk about gay people what verse?

Crimanls like any other behaveral problems can not reform in a place that perpetrates the same behaver. If is was potable for crimanules to reform you would see more of them do it. The reality is unless their is help from out side of them they can't change they are stuck in in side their own misconceptions just like you are with your debate.

Crime is not a chose its a beaver a learned tact to deal with avoiding failing in what ever that mite look like to the person with the behavior or it offin is a mental illness that can not be changed and is unwelcome to the person how has the mental illness.

Things aren't black and white most things are a shade of gray.