User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

General Discussion
Are you rational? Are you sure?

I've debated about making this post as I find irrationality so tiresome but I decided I'd take a stab at it anyways. I've discovered through many conversations with atheists that they can be just as dogmatic and irrational as a fundamentalist when debating something that flies contrary to their preferred world view. I'm an atheist but more importantly I'm a rationalist; I actively seek to find things I believe are true that are actually false. I strive to be proven wrong about all the dogmas, indoctrinations and preconceptions I've inherited by being a part of western culture. In my life I've only met 2 other people that strive for the same understanding and don't balk at ideas or evidence that conflict with their world views. I'm hoping I'll find others but past trends indicate that is unlikely. The difficulty is when someone is being irrational and dogmatic they think they are being reasonable and open-minded and that whoever they are arguing with is a nut, a pervert, a flake or a conman trying to present a corrupt or insane idea. A Christian thinks an atheist is either sadly deluded and deliberately evil, but look at an atheist debating with a conspiracy theorist for example (no I'm not advocating any particular conspiracy, this is just an example); let's assume the atheist in question thinks people who believe in conspiracies are all nutcases (and yes some certainly are, but then a percentage of any population will be) most of the time they will ignore or reject out of hand any evidence put forth by the conspiracy theorist in support of their theory or rationalize it away rather than give it real consideration simply because they don't accept even the possibility that government conspiracies exist.

I was once presented with the evidence for the moon landing conspiracy. I believed the moon landing to be real and a conspiracy to be unlikely but I listened to all the evidence with an open mind and gave it equal consideration to the evidence that it was real. A couple of the pieces of evidence seemed to point strongly to the side of the conspiracy and I was compelled to research those pieces of evidence further. In the end I found the evidence of the moon landing was more substantive than that of the conspiracy, but I made that decision based on the facts and evidence and not on the fact that all conspiracies are nuts or that I preferred to believe we could reach the moon.

The reason I'm coming down on atheists in this post is because we claim to be more rational and open-minded than our theistic kin, yet I find that irrationality and dogmatic thinking is just as prevalent in atheists as in any other segment of humanity. I've never met a prude who thinks of themselves as a prude, never a prejudiced person who thinks they are a bigot and never a close-minded dogmatist who thinks they are anything but rational and open-minded. I could come up with a dozen subjects that would be instant hot-button topics sending this thread into flame hell (assuming that isn't that case already) simply because they are unpopular or controversial. A fact doesn't care if it's hard to swallow, it simply is a fact. If anything atheists are even more dogmatic in the defense of their beliefs because they believe they are more rational so whatever they believe has to be right because they just aren't capable of irrational beliefs or falling for indoctrination, they're just too smart for that. There is such a thing as being too smart for your own good.

Many atheists believe that we are all born atheist then we are indoctrinated into religion, and I agree, but try to think of all the other things we are born as and then changed by indoctrination. We are born nudists but are taught clothes are needed and proper, most of us think nudists are at the very least strange if not downright nuts (no, I'm not a nudist clothes are one form of indoctrination I quite happily cling to). We are taught certain thoughts, ideas, actions, behaviors, etc. are wrong and believe it, even to the point of irrationality and aggressively defending them. We as humans are too attached to comfortable ideas and I don't believe we can afford this mental laziness if we are to mentally and emotionally evolve as a species and survive.

Tracie Harris said that we should be able to share our beliefs without citing someone elses work. But I disagree because we all learn some things from somebody.

Matt Dillahunty said that he isn't smarter now than when he was a Christian, he just knows more. I was sad though when he hung up somebody because he didn't have the expertise to debate with him and said, "He's too far gone to reason with."

One of Hovind's guys pleaded, "I know Christians see the world through tinted glasses, but will you, as an atheist, admit that you see the world through tainted glasses?" I believe his apologetics were correct, we all see the world through tainted glasses. Everyone believes something and the only way to come to conclusions is by assuming with faith. Except those who try to believe nothing.

@Devin Wesley Harper: Citing others' works is a practical time saver, keeping you from having to redo their work; but when citing work keep in mind it's only valid if the work has been proven accurate by independant means. Citing the bible is useless since it has been disproved many times.

There are many people too far gone to reason with. Through the study of cognitive disonance one realizes reason cannot impact on deeply held belief, the human mind will unconsciously defend its beliefs by twisting its own perceptions and logic cycles to prevent mental paradoxes or schizms. No matter how much reason and evidence you present a fundamentalist with you will never convince them of anything they don't want to be convinced of.

Yes it's true anyone and probably everyone can and will view the world through tinted glasses. Don't confuse individual atheists being dogmatic about particular beliefs they hold with them viewing religion this way. Atheists don't believe in nothing, anyone claiming this clearly has no idea what being atheist means and has no interest in understanding. The term atheist simply means that on the subject of the divine, and only on this subject, they made the rational choice to follow the evidence and logic. This doesn't mean they aren't or can't be completely irrational on any other subject. Don't confuse my comments as claiming the position of atheism is just as faith based or irrational as theism, my comments only point out that although atheists are rational about religion they are not necessarily rational about anything else.

>Tracie Harris said that we should be able to share our beliefs without citing someone elses work. But I disagree because we all learn some things from somebody.

Actually that's not what I said. It's fine to cite people's work as support for what you believe. It's not fine to cite what someone else beliefs as your own beliefs. There is a difference, and when people can't see that difference, they don't know what a "belief" is. A belief is something you hold to be true. That's subject and unique to you. Nobody else can tell me what you believe better than you can. And when you point to Person-X, who is not you, and claim that their explanation of their beliefs (not research results supporting your ideas--but THEIR personal beliefs expressed by them) is a representation of "your" beliefs, then we have a problem. If you can't so much as describe your own beliefs on your own--how on earth do you plan to have a discussion about them and answer questions about them? I'm going to be grilling you, not some guy who wrote a book you think you agree with, but can't even express in your own words.

Citing sources that support your beliefs is not only OK, it's expected. Citing someone explaining THEIR beliefs and trying to pass that off as your own is obscene.

Re: "Nobody else can tell me what you believe better than you can."

This is a very good point. I consider myself a Christian, yet, evolution makes sense to me and I believe that the universe is older than 6000 years old, perhaps, 6001 (just kidding, I know it's 13.7bln :-) I also believe that homosexuals should be able to marry and, although I think abortion is a horrible thing, I believe, they should stay legal to avoid greater evils. I also think that faith is a personal matter and I participate in this forum to challenge my own faith, and not to convert anyone. I know there is no proof for existence of God and never try to prove it. In fact, I enjoy finding fallacies in apologetics.

Yet, I have dozens of examples in this forum where atheists are telling me what I "actually" believe, how hypocritical I am, how eager to manipulate women's bodies, get into bed between homosexuals, etc. And when I say that this is not exactly what I believe, I'm told "oh, yes you do!, blah, blah, blah...there is no evidence...blah blah...burden of proof...blah blah blippety-bleep...". A lot of people seem to know what I believe better than I do. I find it strange and amusing.

"I know there is no proof for existence of God and never try to prove it. In fact, I enjoy finding fallacies in apologetics."

Wait. What? You say that you are part of a religion and believe in the existence of a deity that can't be proven, then add that you enjoy debunking the people that try to prove your religion true? How does that work? I was in the boat of deism for about a week after overcoming my Christian upbringing, but I became an atheist for that same reason.

Question then, AG: Why do you label yourself as a Christian then?

FlyinFree said, "I've debated about making this post as I find irrationality so tiresome but I decided I'd take a stab at it anyways. I've discovered through many conversations with atheists that they can be just as dogmatic and irrational as a fundamentalist when debating something that flies contrary to their preferred world view."

It would be very helpful if you gave some examples since an atheist is only a person who does not believe in the supernatural or any god/gods. That person's views on other topics could be typical of most people's.

FlyinFree said, "I'm an atheist but more importantly I'm a rationalist; I actively seek to find things I believe are true that are actually false. I strive to be proven wrong about all the dogmas, indoctrinations and preconceptions I've inherited by being a part of western culture. In my life I've only met 2 other people that strive for the same understanding and don't balk at ideas or evidence that conflict with their world views. I'm hoping I'll find others but past trends indicate that is unlikely. The difficulty is when someone is being irrational and dogmatic they think they are being reasonable and open-minded and that whoever they are arguing with is a nut, a pervert, a flake or a conman trying to present a corrupt or insane idea."

I think it depends on what the person is skeptical about to determine if they are rational. There are people calling themselves skeptics who believe in Ghosts, Bigfoot, UFOs, and Alien Abduction. They call themselves skeptics because they believe the government wants to hide Ghosts, Bigfoot, UFOs, and Alien Abduction from the public. The government hides plenty from the public, but the media helped fueled these stories and that's not what happens when the government wants to hide something from the public. I don't think these people are skeptics or rational. I think that they are gullible. There is a point when the evidence (or lack of evidence) is such that a rational person does not think some things are true.

However, there are also topics that broadcasters know are taboo and will be quashed if they are brought up. Some ordinary people in their everyday lives censor themselves about what they know because of potential repercussions. It's hard to judge what people really think.

FlyinFree said, "A Christian thinks an atheist is either sadly deluded and deliberately evil, but look at an atheist debating with a conspiracy theorist for example (no I'm not advocating any particular conspiracy, this is just an example); let's assume the atheist in question thinks people who believe in conspiracies are all nutcases (and yes some certainly are, but then a percentage of any population will be) most of the time they will ignore or reject out of hand any evidence put forth by the conspiracy theorist in support of their theory or rationalize it away rather than give it real consideration simply because they don't accept even the possibility that government conspiracies exist."

Calling people conspiracy theorists or nuts began with all the assassinations, the war in Vietnam and Watergate. Some people who spoke up had their lives destroyed, and nobody cared. They deal with people the same way today - who know too much - and say too much. In some instances people who tried to find out the facts and get the truth to the public were labeled conspiracy nuts - among other things - with the help of the media. They also start pointless conspiracies of their own in order to convince the public that there are no real conspiracies - or that only dumb people think there are conspiracies. It has worked rather well.

FlyinFree said, "I was once presented with the evidence for the moon landing conspiracy. I believed the moon landing to be real and a conspiracy to be unlikely but I listened to all the evidence with an open mind and gave it equal consideration to the evidence that it was real. A couple of the pieces of evidence seemed to point strongly to the side of the conspiracy and I was compelled to research those pieces of evidence further. In the end I found the evidence of the moon landing was more substantive than that of the conspiracy, but I made that decision based on the facts and evidence and not on the fact that all conspiracies are nuts or that I preferred to believe we could reach the moon."

The Russians would have been the first to scream hoax if they hadn't tracked the vehicle all the way to the moon.

FlyinFree said, "The reason I'm coming down on atheists in this post is because we claim to be more rational and open-minded than our theistic kin, yet I find that irrationality and dogmatic thinking is just as prevalent in atheists as in any other segment of humanity. I've never met a prude who thinks of themselves as a prude, never a prejudiced person who thinks they are a bigot and never a close-minded dogmatist who thinks they are anything but rational and open-minded. I could come up with a dozen subjects that would be instant hot-button topics sending this thread into flame hell (assuming that isn't that case already) simply because they are unpopular or controversial. A fact doesn't care if it's hard to swallow, it simply is a fact."

Well, I don't know what things you are talking about that people that think they are rational don't believe. However, I think it is unlikely that atheists are being more irrational than people who believe there is an invisible man in the sky counting the hairs on their head.

FlyinFree said, "If anything atheists are even more dogmatic in the defense of their beliefs because they believe they are more rational so whatever they believe has to be right because they just aren't capable of irrational beliefs or falling for indoctrination, they're just too smart for that. There is such a thing as being too smart for your own good. Many atheists believe that we are all born atheist then we are indoctrinated into religion, and I agree, but try to think of all the other things we are born as and then changed by indoctrination. We are born nudists but are taught clothes are needed and proper, most of us think nudists are at the very least strange if not downright nuts (no, I'm not a nudist clothes are one form of indoctrination I quite happily cling to). We are taught certain thoughts, ideas, actions, behaviors, etc. are wrong and believe it, even to the point of irrationality and aggressively defending them. We as humans are too attached to comfortable ideas and I don't believe we can afford this mental laziness if we are to mentally and emotionally evolve as a species and survive."

I wish I thought that you were talking about all that the Americans have given up in the name of security, but some how I don't. Benjamin Franklin sums it up well: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

@Linda: I specifically avoided examples beyond the 2 lame ones I used because telling someone they are being dogmatic on a subject that they are actually dogmatic about will simply result in an argument with heaps of irrationality and I simply can't be bothered wasting my time bickering with anyone. The effort, and probably an ultimately pointless and hopeless one, is to get people to recognize they are all vulnerable to irrational, dogmatic belief on many subjects and to encourage them to analyze their beliefs more critically and openly than in the past. But as I've stated before, given the evidence of history, I find this highly unlikely.

I was not, nor would ever, accuse atheists of being more irrational than theists on the subject of religion. My comments were only in regards to atheists holding individual irrational beliefs on other subjects. My goal was a warning to atheists against intellectual arrogance. Just because you are right on one subject, don't assume you are on anything else.

Although on a separate thread I might get drawn into a rational and intellectual debate on one of the avoided hot button topics hinted at in this thread, that is not within the scope of this thread and would only serve as a distraction from the issue.

It's not fair to generalize all atheists as anti-conspiracy theory or that we claim to be more rational or open-minded than any other group. I've been an atheist probably when I first started critically thinking about the subject around my teen years. There are thousands of wacky ideas about Life, Death, Universe, etc. And to reject certain fantastic claims does not make us closed minded or dogmatic. Each person has the right to believe in something or not. And when belief or non-belief is backed up by evidence or contradictions, it makes the argument stronger. I don't know any atheist that goes around not believing just to be dogmatic. I hope that we all thoughtfully consider the arguments before jumping to any absolutes. If theists have evidence that they can put forth and pass the scientific method, they should do so. And that goes for any conspiracy theory or claims that demand evidence. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence should be. That's not being closed minded. You tell me that an all powerful being that loves us, but still allow evil and injustices to happen is something I have to believe in, you have to do better than a 2000 year old book and scare tactics.

And there is a good reason that we choose to wear clothes. Not only does it covers our privates but it also keep us warm and protected from the elements. The argument is not what we are born with, but what reasons we have to do what we do. And if there is good reason to do something then I have no problem with it. That's how we can evolve and progress as a species. Not be stuck to old ideologies that don't really relate to the changing times.

@Leysin I was not generalizing that all atheists were anti-anything, other than anti-god(s). Anti-conspiracy was just one example that most people could understand and would be least likely of all the examples I could think of to spark a tiresome and lengthy irrational argument over. I also did not at any point claim that anyone didn't have to right to believe in anything, my only goal was to encourage people to be more critical of their beliefs thereby avoiding holding false beliefs, or even true beliefs for the wrong reasons. I most certainly did not tell you there is an all powerful being that loves us since I specifically stated I'm an atheist.

My example of nudism wasn't to claim we should all be nudists, it was just an example of our changing from what we naturally are to what we believe we should be. In the case of nudism you are quite correct there are many good reasons why we aren't all nudists, as I stated I'm not one. I had to use examples that most people could recognize and understand and would be least likely to spark debate, hence the examples being incredibly lame ones. I never meant to imply that all beliefs are false or that all deviations from nature are wrong; many, possibly even most, of them are for perfectly good reasons, but if we can't rationally analyze those reasons and their resulting beliefs we'll never know which ones we should keep and which are causing us harm.

I believed you did generalized just by targeting atheist as being the ones vulnerable to dogmatism and irrational thinking. If you meant to say that everyone no matter what label they put themselves should use critical thinking in order to avoid holding false beliefs, then why point out that atheist can be dogmatic and irrational. Shouldn't you say that just being human we are susceptible of making mistakes? I agree that people should avoid false beliefs and as an atheist myself, I practice this whenever an argument requires it. But why lecture atheist about the dangers of irrational arguments. Shouldn't you as an atheist demand rational arguments from the theist?

When holding beliefs that I can't prove myself, I rely on sources that I believe are creditable and I use multiple corroborating sources to form my beliefs and reject the ones that are weak or just don't make sense. And if I don't have the proper evidence to form a conclusive argument, then a simple "I don't know" is a perfectly fine statement to have. What is the irrational thinking that you seem to attribute to some atheist? If someone is a strong atheist because they think they have enough evidence to say "There is no God". How is that irrational? I would think it would be irrational for them to hold to the "There is no God" argument if evidence came out that definitively prove of God's existence. But we do not have that kind of evidence, so it is a pretty safe argument to make.

If being an atheist also mean you have to make rational decision about everything, then why bother claiming yourself an atheist. Why not just say you're a rationalist? I'm not an atheist because of my views on aliens or Bigfoot or the flying spaghetti monster. If you are an atheist then you should understand that it is a point of view that answers one particular question. If you don't believe in God then you're an atheist. Not, "I don't believe in Bigfoot so I'm an atheist. Do you understand the difference?

I understand that your goal wasn't to harsh on anyone, but by lecturing atheist about having irrational beliefs, kind of derails your point. Everyone should critically analyzed their beliefs, but on the subject of God, we atheist insist that theist also use critical thinking and not try to subjugate us with scare tactics, straw man fallacies, and all the ridiculous arguments they seem to present for their irrational beliefs.

@Leysin:

OK I'll try this again. Atheists are right about god and religion, I never said they weren't. The atheist position is not more irrational then the theist position. My post has nothing to do with what atheists believe about religion. My post is about the fact the nearly all the atheists I've met have believed themselves to be more rational and more intelligent than theists, so therefore believe they are right about other subjects just as dogmatically as a theist is about religion. Yes it's true all humans can be irrational, the problem is many atheists seem to forget this when thinking about themselves and their beliefs. I do require rational arguments from everyone but so far have only met 2 people in my life that always do. Atheists think their personally held beliefs on subjects other than religion are more valid because they happen to be right about their beliefs regarding religion. They basically spent their mental load working out the religious fallacies then just sat back and assumed they are right about everything else. Also I should point out I did specify in my original post that I am a rationalist.

As to your followup post about irrational beliefs having their uses I believe that to be a fallacy. There is never a time when it is constructive to hold beliefs that have no basis in fact or reality and in most cases it will also be harmful. Flights of fancy and imagination are fine but basing beliefs on them is ludicrous.

I like to entertain the belief that Bigfoot is out there waiting to be discovered just because I think it would be cool if Bigfoot walked amongst us. But the idea of a Lockness Moster I think is ridiculous and I'd say irrational, mainly because it's supposedly a living dinosaur or something. With Bigfoot, its closer to believable and we have that one video of it walking in the woods (you know the one) that I believe is real or really amazing. I don't have concrete evidence or any substantial rationale why I believe more in Bigfoot than The Lockness Monster, but this irrational belief I have doesn't make my atheism less acceptable. If I use the same critical thinking I do with the God question for my belief in Bigfoot, of course I would have to say that Bigfoot probably doesn't exist. But the belief in Bigfoot is not creating wars or creating laws and policies based on my belief in Bigfoot. Depending on the significance of the issue, using critical thinking and rational thought is not always necessary.

Sometimes its just fun to have irrational thoughts and to have them just for pure enjoyment. I wish that a belief in God could be used for pure enjoyment as Bigfoot does for me, but the fact is religion always seems to influence society in harmful ways. If a belief in Bigfoot lead to genocide or enslaving a group or just subjugating a group that didn't believe, I'd have a second look at my Bigfoot belief.

The Point is, not everything needs critical thinking and people can and should have crazy ideas that don't always have rational thought behind it. Sometimes its good to have ideas that are not shared by the norm. But when irrational ideas starts harm, mass delusions, or affects society in a way that stops us from advancement, then it is necessary to speak out and challenge those ideas.

Leysin said, "I like to entertain the belief that Bigfoot is out there waiting to be discovered just because I think it would be cool if Bigfoot walked amongst us. But the idea of a Lockness Moster I think is ridiculous and I'd say irrational, mainly because it's supposedly a living dinosaur or something."

Most rational people laugh at the kind of people who are enthralled by stories about Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster, lights in the sky and thinking that they're alien spacecraft. It isn't hard to understand why the same kind of gullible people believe Jesus raised people from the dead, and that Jesus was raised from the dead. This has led to all kinds of absurdities. Plus a lot of time and energy spent on meaningless things.

Leysin said, "With Bigfoot, its closer to believable and we have that one video of it walking in the woods (you know the one) that I believe is real or really amazing. I don't have concrete evidence or any substantial rationale why I believe more in Bigfoot than The Lockness Monster, but this irrational belief I have doesn't make my atheism less acceptable."

Atheists don't get wrapped up in this kind of fakery; it is dependent on the gullibility of the audience.

Leysin said, "If I use the same critical thinking I do with the God question for my belief in Bigfoot, of course I would have to say that Bigfoot probably doesn't exist.

I know that we can't disprove the existence of Big foot, any more than you can prove it, but that is the same excuse to believe in god. In other words, not only does an atheist not believe in the existence of a deity, we don't believe in the existence of a lot of other crap as well. "

Leysin said, "But the belief in Bigfoot is not creating wars or creating laws and policies based on my belief in Bigfoot. Depending on the significance of the issue, using critical thinking and rational thought is not always necessary."

Atheists use critical thinking to decide what they want to spend their time learning about, why study fakery. I don't believe in ghosts, palm reading and other supernatural beliefs. Which really shouldn't be surprising. Why would atheists believe in the paranormal and pseudoscience, but reject the idea of a god. Occult and paranormal beliefs are not consistent with rational thought.

Leysin said, "Sometimes its just fun to have irrational thoughts and to have them just for pure enjoyment. I wish that a belief in God could be used for pure enjoyment as Bigfoot does for me, but the fact is religion always seems to influence society in harmful ways. If a belief in Bigfoot lead to genocide or enslaving a group or just subjugating a group that didn't believe, I'd have a second look at my Bigfoot belief. "

Atheists don't think it's fun to have irrational thoughts; they think it's crazy. It isn't true that irrational beliefs don't harm anyone, because they do. It is exactly what led to the insanity of Christianity and things like the Salem Witch Trials.

Leysin said, "The Point is, not everything needs critical thinking and people can and should have crazy ideas that don't always have rational thought behind it. Sometimes its good to have ideas that are not shared by the norm. But when irrational ideas starts harm, mass delusions, or affects society in a way that stops us from advancement, then it is necessary to speak out and challenge those ideas."

Atheists do think people should practice using critical thinking on every subject. I read things for fun that are fiction, and I know that they are not true. The only good intelligent science fiction is written by scientist who know what is plausible and you can learn from reading it, but the crap you are talking is not in that category. Real science is far more interesting than pseudoscience.

Atheists do not believe just anything; the same thing that causes them to reject religion also causes them to reject other dubious claims as well. There is no proof of anything that you want to believe in including Big foot. The road to believing in God is manipulating your victims by teaching them to some form of superstitious nonsense. So, you don't really see things as they are, and this is what leads to the belief in other kinds of voodoo.

I really don't think it would benefit anyone to change from one set of irrational beliefs to another; especially people who seem to be becoming even more irrational. Atheists have abandoned irrational beliefs altogether.

Joe,

Well, I'm an atheist and I decide what I believe in and don't believe in. Who are you to tell me or anyone how I should think. Atheism is an answer to one question and that is if you believe there is a god. If the answer is no then you're an atheist. Nothing about Bigfoot, ghost, Lockness Monsters, etc. If I want to entertain the thought that Bigfoot is out there, so what? Why are you making a big deal out of it? I am human and I make irrational thoughts more times than I would admit to. That's why I eat spicy foods or go on scary rollar coaster rides. There's no rational reasons to do such things but I eat my spicy food cause I like the taste and I get a thrill out of rollar coasters, and Bigfoot is a badass beast that lives in the woods. So, what's your point again.

An irrational thought just for fun is the way that all religions bring superstitious crud into peoples thinking. That's what all the 'holy dazes' holidazes (fun times) are about. Actually you are so wrong about the idea that people don't always need to be using critical thinking. They do if they want to determine the difference in what is garbage and what isn't. Some people just don't do it because really they can't. People can say anything. It's not always what they say that matters. No one should take something at face value until you look at the whole picture.

As for someone expressing an opposite opinion, that is really the chance you take when you put out your opinion about what you think is all right, because other people can express theirs too. If that was just for your own benefit why put it on a message board. If I told people what I thought was all right to think or do, and put it on a message board, I would expect that someone might not agree and that's life. It's the way it works. Most people probably wouldn't expect to post things about mythology, folklore, Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, an alleged ape-like creature and Sea monsters or sea-dwelling mythical or legendary creatures that they think is all right to use the mind thinking about, without anyone expressing a contrasting view.

That really can only be accomplished in church where you turn your brain in at the door.

Like a chain being only as strong as its weakest link, I am as rational as my ignorance allows.

The quotation "a chain is only as strong as it weakest link" means that the chain will break at the weakest link and prevent the chain from remaining together. Preventing weak links would be important for keeping the chain in tact. It's a common misconception that this quote means weak links are desirable. What it means is that weak links must be dealt with; they should be strengthened or removed. It doesn't mean a great chain has lot's of crappy weak links, which will fall apart under pressure.

I don't see how a person who does not believe one thing because there is no evidence does believe other things with no evidence? People who are agonizingly working to shed superstitious beliefs that were drummed into their heads since birth don't need some more. They need support from sensible well-informed associates.

Weak links need to be fixed not affirmed. I think any group that wants to survive should address the weak links, and strive to build their strength as much as is possible. The weak link in an atheist chain is gullibility, but the weak link in a Christian chain is doubt; big difference.

How do I know I am irrational? If someone point it out to me and shows me why I am. Be honest is the first commandment for an atheist to yourself first. That way you will stay rational? Ask yourself does this make sense, is there a better option, why is that a better option. If it is better you have to drop either your current view or your rationality, that is the choice that should be in your mind always.

The difference between ignorance and education is finding out the facts. If you are unselfishly looking for the facts then you usually find them, but if what you already believe prevents objective investigation you don't look for facts in any new direction. I don't think it is rational to believe things without any corroborating evidence or to allow someone to do your thinking for you. If you are using critical thinking to find the answers yourself through research and asking questions, that is rational. If you are not doing your own thinking you are not rational. I assume everyone has a brain, so why can't they use it? I don't think it is rational or mentally stable to just trust the puppet masters to tell the truth? I think it is irrational and mentally wobbly when we know that they are not only liars but also not that smart. I do not think that those who are in power have any reason to tell the masses the truth, because they have no accountableness to tell the truth. Phony beliefs can be used to control the masses because fools believe them. If you believe things that are circulated by a deceiving power structure you are not in control of your own mind. That's what I think.

It may seem perfectly rational to some people to believe things are true that are just a combination of lies and distortions. To just base reality on what you are told is basing "reality" on ignorance and credulity. The concept of the supernatural or imaginary beings is not in the least unacceptable; it is not considered crazy by the worshiping throng, it's perfectly acceptable. What is found by means of research to be true may not be the most popular position, but it is the most rational. People who have been deceived for their whole life don't know they are being deceived. People have been spreading stories about the supernatural and miracles for thousands of years, but they have never proven anything with evidence, and the evidence that is available proves that the stories are false. If your beliefs come from an authority figure that does not have to answer questions it's indoctrination into a belief system; it is not the same as using critical thinking to investigate the claims being made and then deciding what is true and that's the difference. Someone taking what they are told at face value (never investigating the claims) just believes what they are told to believe, no matter how far fetched, is not what I consider rational. Many beliefs are irrational and invalid, but people do not question the validity of what they already believe. They are comfortable with it, and it might be too disturbing to find out that they do not know anything, when they think they know it all. They are not even capable of looking for the facts and that is why what they profess to believe is on faith and cannot be considered true. It is mental bondage. No one can find out what is true without the freedom to question what they are being told to believe. No one can find reality without freedom of thought. A belief that has been controlled by authority figures, and is based on a story that was concocted thousands of years ago with no basis in fact should be questioned like any other hokey claim, but it's not. Without a doubt, people who have been lied to their whole life are not looking for anything that contradicts their beliefs and they do not believe that they can learn anything new by getting the information. Besides, they are too busy telling other people the truth that is only based on what they have been told, and they reject any facts that do not fit their brainless pattern of belief. That's what I call irrational.

First of my I'd like to say that I believe in god! Well, the atheists usually make questions about god to cause a embarrassement to the evangelists! They normally say that the evangelists doesn't really know about what they believe! And making several questions about why god doesn't make anything to stop the murders, crimes, or why he just doesn't shows up! Well guys! I'm telling u guys for sure that jesus brought this answer to us! But I can't talk about jesus without talk about the reason that brought him here to the earth! But I can't talk about the earth without talk about the universe cause we subsist in the universe! But talking about the universe, what about the galaxies etc...?? Listen guys let's talk clearly! I do believe in the science and I'm really proud of us cause we made a lot of amazing thing like airplanes and space rockets, satelits, spacecrafts etc.. So we can watch the space we understand how it works we can go to the moon, we are cleaver enough to understand how our solar system works and how perfect it is! So the earth is the only planet with perfect conditions to life! So now I want to make a little CHALLENGE! LET'S LEAVE GOD OUT OF THIS! I wanna tell you guys my viewpoint about the life and my opinion about god! But I'm not gonna explain with answers, I'm gonna explain with questions! So before the first question, I'd like to remember that the science explain everything that exist but it doesn't explain where we came from! So the first question is "what's your opinion about the begin???? But I mean the real begin the first thing that gave meaning for all the stuffs in the universe!... Well some people use to tell me about the Big Bang but actually the Big Bang is not the answer but the question! Cause what caused the explosion? Now think for one second the scienc proofed that we need matter physics to have a explosion and if we has matter physics before the Big Bang won't be the begin, but if you keep stating this conclusion or if you just say that they doesn't have this answer yet, I suggest you start to think for yourself! Cause they never will figure trusting only in the science, but at the same time this answer is so clear and so easier to know that sounds like nonsenses! Hahahaha did you already thought for one moment that if you believe in the Big Bang you believe in magic?? No?? Let me explain! You believe that the earth and everything from the universe came through a explosion and it simply happened?? Like magic? Or should I say miracle??but indeed you guys are searching for information and thinking about something else like aliens or something like that, but please don't think that aliens are the answer cause one more time is just another question cause then I would ask who made them?? I'm here for everyone that has some doubt about god! I don't know everything but we can figure it out together! My purpose with this menssage is try to show that god and science are the same! But some persons doesn't realize it, and they make a big mistake! Some evangelist people also make this mistake and they preach a wrong menssage about god! But they just mess with god's word! So don't believe in every priest! Cause mostly of the time the priest are most confused than you so he's not able to explain your doubts! he just gonna make you more confuse! My email is ( streetadm@hotmail.com ) please let's just have a nice chat I'll respect your opinions and I hope u do the same for me! Lets change informations!

From: Jesus (Posted Jan 6, 2013 at 6:30 pm) JESUS SAID, "First of my I'd like to say that I believe in god! Well, the atheists usually make questions about god to cause a embarrassement to the evangelists!"

LINDA SAID: The evangelists don't want anyone to ask questions they want everyone to just believe. Why would questions embarrass evangelists?

JESUS SAID, "They normally say that the evangelists doesn't really know about what they believe!"

LINDA SAID: I don't know if evangelists are really that ignorant -or if they are just unwilling to tell their followers the truth.

JESUS SAID, "And making several questions about why god doesn't make anything to stop the murders, crimes, or why he just doesn't shows up!"

LINDA SAID: I think you are mixing together several different issues. It's one issue that countries that are the most religious are less educated, have worse economies, do not have a sense of social justice and they are far more violent. That indicates that religion has done nothing for the poor or the uneducated people. And every study has come to the same conclusion the population of less religious countries are better educated, far less violent and have a much better sense of social justice. That would lead anyone to believe that the Bible is not a very good way to teach morals. The other issue is about the fact that god seems to be a dead beat dad. It's another issue that the undetectable God after creating everything is testing our faith by hiding from us?

JESUS SAID: "Well guys! I'm telling u guys for sure that jesus brought this answer to us! But I can't talk about jesus without talk about the reason that brought him here to the earth!"

LINDA SAID: You said you were going to talk about why god brought Jesus to Earth?

JESUS SAID: "But I can't talk about the earth without talk about the universe cause we subsist in the universe! But talking about the universe, what about the galaxies etc...?? Listen guys let's talk clearly!"

LINDA SAID: I'm all for that when are you going to start?

JESUS SAID: "I do believe in the science and I'm really proud of us cause we made a lot of amazing thing like airplanes and space rockets, satelits, spacecrafts etc.. So we can watch the space we understand how it works we can go to the moon, we are cleaver enough to understand how our solar system works and how perfect it is! So the earth is the only planet with perfect conditions to life!"

LINDA SAID: No it's not. NASA's Kepler space telescope has spotted five planets about the size of Earth, orbiting stars in our galaxy. Because of these findings by NASA's Kepler space telescope it seem less likely that we are alone. Scientists have just started talking seriously about life on other planets. They are in the "Goldilocks zone" where the distance from the planet to their star is optimal for supporting life. Up until now we have only found one of these, Gliese 481C, and the planet's existence was in doubt. Finding FIVE of these planets, rocky planets that are optimal in size and location to support life makes it almost impossible to deny the existence of life on other planets. As many as 1/4 of all the sun-like stars in the Milky Way may have Earth-like worlds. One of astronomy's goals is to find 'eta-Earth,' the fraction of sun-like stars that have an earth. The number could be one in eight. But it's not one in 100, which was previously estimated. There could be even more Earth-size planets at greater distances, including within the habitable zone (or Goldilocks zone) located at a distance form the star where conditions are not too hot or too cold to allow the presence of liquid water.

JESUS SAID: "So now I want to make a little CHALLENGE! LET'S LEAVE GOD OUT OF THIS! I wanna tell you guys my viewpoint about the life and my opinion about god! But I'm not gonna explain with answers, I'm gonna explain with questions!"

LINDA SAID: What's new about that - if you don't have answers you can just ask questions.

JESUS SAID: "So before the first question, I'd like to remember that the science explain everything that exist but it doesn't explain where we came from! So the first question is "what's your opinion about the begin????

LINDA SAID: There is no reason why the physical universe cannot be it's own first cause. As we know from both everyday experience and highly structured scientific observations, complex systems develop from simpler systems all the time in nature (with not even low intelligence required.) Life can evolve from bacteria. And our relatively complex universe could have arisen out of the entity that is the simplest and most mindless of all--the void.

'The Star In You' - By Peter Tyson - Posted 12.02.10 - NOVA science NOW "Every single atom in your body--the calcium in your bones, the carbon in your genes, the iron in your blood, the gold in your filling--was created in a star billions of years ago. All except atoms of hydrogen and one or two of the next lightest elements. They were formed even earlier, shortly after the Big Bang began 13.7 billion years ago. Myths about Creation explain nothing? Every atom that ever was or will be came into existence during the big bang. All of the energy and mass in our universe was formed within and following the expansion of the singularity. Every atom then and now was actualized in the course of the big bang.

JESUS SAID: "But I mean the real begin the first thing that gave meaning for all the stuffs in the universe!... Well some people use to tell me about the Big Bang but actually the Big Bang is not the answer but the question! Cause what caused the explosion?"

LINDA SAID: Everything that is or ever will be came into existence at the Big Bang (which was not an explosion it was an expansion) the expansion of the universe by definition. Before the Big Bang nothing existed, nothing meaning the complete absence of everything (nothing) an infinite void. The universe has no boundaries because a boundary would place a limit on the size of nothingness, and indicate that there was something existing on the "other side" of the boundary, separate from the boundary itself. This would contradict the definition of infinite and nothing. This also excludes anything existing in any other dimension, or dimensions, as a dimension would then be a boundary. Nothing then, when described as an infinite void, excludes all possibility of anything else existing, anywhere.

JESUS SAID: "Now think for one second the scienc proofed that we need matter physics to have a explosion and if we has matter physics before the Big Bang won't be the begin, but if you keep stating this conclusion or if you just say that they doesn't have this answer yet, I suggest you start to think for yourself!"

LINDA SAID: Time did not exist before the universe. Time came into existence at the Big Bang. At the Big Bang (time is zero) and (mass had to be zero) the singularity had to be mass less. If there is no time beyond Planck time (smallest amount of time possible) mass does not exist. If space did not exist in singularity and mass was not the origin of the universe we have to consider its energy equivalent as the initiator. Time does not exist in singularity. Time is a property of space-time universe. In the energy-time version time is a computable element that cannot exist in singularity. Singularity is not time-bound. Mathematicians have worked on the "Theory of Relativity" and its implications regarding the notion of time. According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The Big Bang was the expansion of everything and enormous energy was the initiator. Some quantum events have no cause, and the question of "before" doesn't really make sense.

Gravity makes it possible for the universe to spontaneously come into existence, as a necessary outcome of the way physics operates. With quantum mechanics things happen spontaneously. If the point of energy that started the expansion was (spontaneous) the cause is meaningless. If the cause is meaningless it doesn't need to be considered.

JESUS SAID: "Cause they never will figure trusting only in the science, but at the same time this answer is so clear and so easier to know that sounds like nonsenses! Hahahaha did you already thought for one moment that if you believe in the Big Bang you believe in magic?? No?? Let me explain! You believe that the earth and everything from the universe came through a explosion and it simply happened?? Like magic? Or should I say miracle??

LINDA SAID: The only miracle event is theist claims of Creation week. Scientists know that nothing was created and that everything evolved over a very long period of time. You can't explain the Big Bang because you don't understand it, so stop trying. The Universe sprang into existence from a singularity that started to expand not explode. The Big Bang Theory of how the universe evolved includes the atoms that make up the molecules that make up life; they did not exist before the Big Bang. They came into existence over time as our universe evolved. At quantum physics level transitions do occur spontaneously without an apparent cause, like nuclear reactions. The Universe does not require a cause. The Hubble Space Telescope documents how the universe evolved to gain insight into the most basic processes underlying the formation of everything around us. These studies allow us to chart for the first time the maturation process of galaxies.

JESUS SAID: but indeed you guys are searching for information and thinking about something else like aliens or something like that, but please don't think that aliens are the answer cause one more time is just another question cause then I would ask who made them?? I'm here for everyone that has some doubt about god! I don't know everything but we can figure it out together!

LINDA SAID: Statistically, alien life is virtually a guaranteed proposition. If aliens exists it would have evolved like life on Earth or anywhere else by natural processes. Life's basic building blocks comprise a group of chemicals known as nitrogenated aromatics. They form the very foundations of all life on Earth. Astrophysicists study the composition of the universe by analyzing spectra - the unique signatures of light either emitted directly by stars or reflected by non-luminous objects, such as moons, asteroids, comets, dust and gas. Using sensitive instruments called spectrometers; scientists can detect elements and compounds at great distances. Nitrogenated aromatics exist throughout the Milky Way galaxy. The chemistry that underlies life on Earth is abundant throughout the universe.

JESUS SAID: "My purpose with this menssage is try to show that god and science are the same! But some persons doesn't realize it, and they make a big mistake! Some evangelist people also make this mistake and they preach a wrong menssage about god! But they just mess with god's word! So don't believe in every priest! Cause mostly of the time the priest are most confused than you so he's not able to explain your doubts! he just gonna make you more confuse! My email is ( streetadm@hotmail.com ) please let's just have a nice chat I'll respect your opinions and I hope u do the same for me! Lets change informations!"

LINDA SAID: Opinions are not facts and nobody has to respect beliefs that are based on nothing. Nobody can reconcile any Creation story in any Holy writ with what scientists know really happened.

JESUS SAID, "First of my I'd like to say that I believe in god! Well, the atheists usually make questions about god to cause a embarrassement to the evangelists!"

LINDA SAID: The evangelists don't want anyone to ask questions they want everyone to just believe. Why would questions embarrass evangelists?

JESUS SAID:mostly of the evangelists, are not ready to such questions cause they are only concentrate in faith and they are afraid to search for knowledge cause some evangelist doesn't realize that the science has been done by god, but they try to explain only with faith! and thats the mistake! cause if u dont know what goes around you you dont have a clue about god and your faith is minor! that's why they normally say that the evangelists doesn't really know about what they believe! (i just answered the questions number 1&2 in one)

LINDA SAID: I think you are mixing together several different issues. It's one issue that countries that are the most religious are less educated, have worse economies, do not have a sense of social justice and they are far more violent. That indicates that religion has done nothing for the poor or the uneducated people. And every study has come to the same conclusion the population of less religious countries are better educated, far less violent and have a much better sense of social justice. That would lead anyone to believe that the Bible is not a very good way to teach morals. The oissue is about the fact that god seems to be a dead beat dad. It's another issue that the undetectable God after creating everything is testing our faith by hiding from us?

JESUS SAID: thats true! the religious countries are the most violents because the relegion since the begin is not about god, its just a business issue! since centuries ago god's words became man's words! so what you see on tv about god and religion is just business so dont judge god based in man's actions! and religion shouldn't exist cause there's only one god! but the religion needs money to self publish and as they usually say (if has smoke has fire) what i mean is, religion became a business and business brings money and money brings greed, the religious leaders are not an exception of greediness so they rule the church as they want not as they need to! and the people are so stupid or so lazy to read the bible for themself! and that's why i told you that a lot of evangelists doesn't know how to answer when someone asks making themself frustrated and giving a wrong menssage to the others! to explain you better how the church works today is easy! _for example! i'm gonna talk about my country BRAZIL we have a corrupt government, in other words we have a lot of rules but it doesn't work cause if they behave as they should they won't be rich anymore! its really sucks cause they just stole from the people and they will never be lock up! so the problem is with the rules or with the people? for sure is the people cause the rules are trying to avoid such crimes, but the people just use the law when is convinient! so is religion we have god words but we just use when is convinient and that's completely wrong, so don't judge god's word based in managed by men! hoooo i almost forgot sorry :) did you asked me about god disappear after crieating everything and hide from us to test our faith? well here comes another example!_ let's suppose that you have a work to do! you make an appointment with a client to paint some walls at his home, but when you get there, you figured out that he's not at home but as you has the keys and everything that you need you just come in and do your job, when you are done you wait the guy for at least one hour to show him what you have done and get your money, but the guy doesn't came and you are tired so you come home thinking about some other day to come and get your money. but when you come back there the guy won't pay you he claims that he didn't saw you painting and it could be anyone else because you wasn't the only one that had the keys,or he can also say that the paint in the walls was a kind of magic coming from no where just like the big bang, and next time you need to wait for him come home to proof that you really made it instead you go home for one day or two cause he won't believe you! it was an stupid example i know but you are acting like the client god made the world and the proof of it it's everything around you cause you can't deny the matter physics around the world (trees, water, fire, rocks, solid, liquid, gaseous, etc...) however the science is everything existing together as only one and god is the origin! :)

JESUS SAID: "Well guys! I'm telling u guys for sure that jesus brought this answer to us! But I can't talk about jesus without talk about the reason that brought him here to the earth!"

LINDA SAID: You said you were going to talk about why god brought Jesus to Earth?

JESUS SAID: "But I can't talk about the earth without talk about the universe cause we subsist in the universe! But talking about the universe, what about the galaxies etc...?? Listen guys let's talk clearly!"

LINDA SAID: I'm all for that when are you going to start?

JESUS:hahaha im sorry i averted my goal! but here we go, now we gonna talk more about god's purpose than science in general! i mean not how he created but what for! god is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent! the bible only mentions the begin of the world, not the universe etc... and it also doesn't metions the angels so the period that god created the angels is a mistery but we only know that was before us! we also doesn't know god's age so he could be a thousand years old or even more before he decide to create us on the earth! and when it happened after gennesis! the humans was living in the the OLD TESTAMENT UNDER THE LAW! so in that period the humanity needs to follow the law to be safe by god! but it was kinda difficult cause it's impossible do not sin against god cause since the begin god gave us the free will, we can do whatever we want, we just need to take the consequences afterwards and the humanity still suffering the consequences of Adam, and you may say that's not fair cause noone should suffer his consequences besides him! cause ain't nowhere in the globe, ain't no one that will suffer the consequences of your sins besides you! so that's no fair what kind of god is that? what kind of god would be so unfair punishing me for old sins if it doesn't even belongs to me! i already wasted a lot of time wondering about it trying to find the answe and theologically its just unreal the way god guide us! well, remenber that god is omniscient so a long before the creation he knew that we would come through these situations, first he created the angels and he knew about satan conspirations! and he knew that satan would fall in the earth cause later the humanity would know the purpose that made god keeps him alive considering that his ambition is become god or at least similar! so we come back in the time and we see a brand new earth with all the creations and stuffs, but among them there's a enemy, and there in the middle of the gardens of eden god came one more time personally to the earth but this time he came to stay and make the most perfect creature in the universe. the breed that would overcome the others cause they would be perfectly amazing and in the 6th day of the week god created his CHURCH yes i said his church the HUMANS BODY we have been created as his image, and in the 7th day he took his rest inside of us inside of his temple! and since that day he gave the world in our hands and showed us that he used the science to create everything from the little stuffs till the big ones, and this same science would explain all of you need to know about the circle of life but it won't be enough to explain where the circle begins or ends, for example you can explain what a circle means, but can you define the life? i guess not! but if you think so, tell me who came first the egg or the chicken? relax you can answer me later in the question below cause my goal with this one is the bible! so coming back to my point, when god created the man with all the magnitude and greatness there was one witness and the witness was satan, so the god's enemy became our enemys cause as i said hes ambitions was become god or similar and instead of that he lose the war the rights as being one angel and above all he saw god creating us, and we are similar of god! and it would be enough to make him hate the human being and since that day we would face a war agains him and that's why the bible says that the devil is our only enemy, let's go fast now to rest of the history! after a while god created the first woman Eva, and god ruled the garden and he said, _you guys can eat everything and do everything inside of the garden but you cannot eat from the three of life etc.. and the devil saw a oportunity to bring the sins through Eva and as we know he succeed, and the sins separates the men of god, they has been banished from the garden, but it wasn't new for god cause he knew that it would happen it was just a part of his plan, after years and years god brought Moises as a prophet to apply the 10 commandments in the old testament but it didn't worked out, but take it easy god also knew that it would fail, the humanity was so desperate looking foward for answers like what is the life? and there is a god or not?, well everything was going well as him planned! the purpose of god was show the humanity that if you love someone you don't need to control him you need to set him free cause if he loves you as well he will be with you anyway, he was already preparing the humanity for the coming of christ. a little example about what god thinks about the old testament, well put yourself in the god's place for one second imagine that you have everything in the palm of your hand and you just want to be loved, would you make robots to follow orders or would you make a son? the robot would follow every order without complain, but your son after a while would start to ask himself why should him obey your orders instead he follow his own purposes! so it's impossible to show love through the order and would be impossible to save everyone to live in his palace, in the new testament the law was canceled cause we would know a true example of life with god cause god send a man to us a normal man but he made all the difference in the earth, and this man is jesus, he come to the earth to show us how would be the life if we dedicate our life to god and his purpose, don't kill don't steal, love each others as yourself love god above all etc.. but he did it not because of the rulers but because he really wanted to do! he made miracles and he defeated the death to show us that if god gave you the live once he can give you twice, so the purpose of jesus on earth was nothing more than one example. _ now think about it_ one day you are walking on the center of your city and u see one guy saying that he can make magic but a real magic! you will be curious and stop to watch, but after a while if you realize that he's lying you will come back home and maybe in 2 or 3 days you will forget It, but if instead of a lie you realize that he's really making magic you would be totally impressed don't you? and i bet it would change your perception of life it would open your mind for a new universe you would tell your friends your family and everyone that you saw a real magic and it was simply fantastic! and that's what jesus made! in that period of the time people didn't had tecnology so they was extremely religious but they didn't had any reason to believe in one specifically god so they changed god as they changed clothes, because they didn't saw any facts of miracles to keep them busy with only one so they all was just looking for the better option or the most consistent! but when jesus came they saw with their own eyes the purpose of the human being, and he showed how the humans would be if they dedicate their lifes to god, and that's why everything in the bible is wrote by testimony! he has done a lot of things trying to show us god's purpose, but in jesus period just as our contemporary period the religion was up to punish everyone making threats against them religion but not because of their god, but because of money and power! jesus suffered the consequences by trying to help us, and they nailed him up in the cross! but you think god didn't knew that? of course he did! this was the most important thing coming from jesus cause he came to the earth to die as a normal man, and resurrect as a normal man! he defeated the death and the sins! and now the humanity has a example to follow and a god to love, deny god's existence is the same of deny your existence! now do you understand why god sent jesus to the earth? satan is here on the earth he's the first sinner and when he came he brought the sin with him and introduced the sin to eva and eva to adam and after to all the humanity, but god loves us and he send moises to teach and preach but its impossible tofollow the law, so the devil would win cause by the law we would be contantly sinning, so he send jesus and the old testament is canceled cause we would start to live in the NEW TESTAMENT UNDER THE GRACE so doesn't matter how big is our sins jesus already paid the price with his death! in other words before christ we need to obey to be safe and in the new we just need to believe to be safe even sinning!

the men has been discoverying a lot of things through the centuries, and the tecnology is reason of the atheism cause without the knowledge about other planets galaxies etc... would be kinda difficult to believe that god doesn't exist, how could you guys proof your theories like there's no god cause we figure out another planet with oxygen, or we found some water on the moon etc.. haha sorry im being ironic, but it should make us believe more and more about god he showed us a way to go out of the earth and take notice about what else he created out of the earth and its just amazing! a long time ago i was motivated to forget about chirst and his theachings but after a while i realized that was happening something around the world and it was wrote on the bible in other worlds some prophecies was coming true! it made me kindle the flame in my heart about jesus and mademe think one more time about god and the begin, i was looking foward to find reason to believe in god by the science and it happened after some years studing! and today i have the fullness to find faith on the science by god! cause as i told you the science can explain everything existent but it doesn't explain where it comes from, i gues that there's a lot of people trying to preach a wrong menssage around the world cause they try to proof god by faith and not science! and we both know that a discuss between science's proofs and god's faith you know who is gonna win! and maybe you are in this web site because of those peoples but please linda forget everything you saw on the churchs on the tv or even what you head about christ and god cause mostly of then are wrong! and i told you that i couldn't talk about jesus without talk about the galaxies and the rest of the universe is because thinking about that you made your faith stronge cause you see how powerful is god i love the science i love the life i love you i love god!

JESUS SAID: "I do believe in the science and I'm really proud of us cause we made a lot of amazing thing like airplanes and space rockets, satelits, spacecrafts etc.. So we can watch the space we understand how it works we can go to the moon, we are cleaver enough to understand how our solar system works and how perfect it is! So the earth is the only planet with perfect conditions to life!"

LINDA SAID: No it's not. NASA's Kepler space telescope has spotted five planets about the size of Earth, orbiting stars in our galaxy. Because of these findings by NASA's Kepler space telescope it seem less likely that we are alone. Scientists have just started talking seriously about life on other planets. They are in the "Goldilocks zone" where the distance from the planet to their star is optimal for supporting life. Up until now we have only found one of these, Gliese 481C, and the planet's existence was in doubt. Finding FIVE of these planets, rocky planets that are optimal in size and location to support life makes it almost impossible to deny the existence of life on other planets. As many as 1/4 of all the sun-like stars in the Milky Way may have Earth-like worlds. One of astronomy's goals is to find 'eta-Earth,' the fraction of sun-like stars that have an earth. The number could be one in eight. But it's not one in 100, which was previously estimated. There could be even more Earth-size planets at greater distances, including within the habitable zone (or Goldilocks zone) located at a distance form the star where conditions are not too hot or too cold to allow the presence of liquid water.

JESUS SAID:brand news for me i can't deny i didn't knew that :) but this is such a good notice, glory to lord :)

JESUS SAID: "So now I want to make a little CHALLENGE! LET'S LEAVE GOD OUT OF THIS! I wanna tell you guys my viewpoint about the life and my opinion about god! But I'm not gonna explain with answers, I'm gonna explain with questions!"

LINDA SAID: What's new about that - if you don't have answers you can just ask questions.

JESUS SAID: hahahaha you are right there's nothing new about that the issues cited here are really old but for some of them are no answers and that's the problem for those that doesn't believe in god cause they are trying to proof everything only through the science but as we know it's impossible and when they are tired they just change their focus! example: i saw a video about the atheism community of austin on youtube and they was manipulating the answer of the participants they took a verse in the bible on the old testament and was something bad a don't remenber anymore and they told the guy that he could only say, No or Yes, in case of No they would say that was a lie and in case of he says Yes they said that god is terrible haha and that's what atheist does to embarrass the evangelist so i meant instead of questions about god would make questions about the science! :)

JESUS SAID: "So before the first question, I'd like to remember that the science explain everything that exist but it doesn't explain where we came from! So the first question is "what's your opinion about the begin????

LINDA SAID: There is no reason why the physical universe cannot be it's own first cause. As we know from both everyday experience and highly structured scientific observations, complex systems develop from simpler systems all the time in nature (with not even low intelligence required.) Life can evolve from bacteria. And our relatively complex universe could have arisen out of the entity that is the simplest and most mindless of all--the void.

'The Star In You' - By Peter Tyson - Posted 12.02.10 - NOVA science NOW "Every single atom in your body--the calcium in your bones, the carbon in your genes, the iron in your blood, the gold in your filling--was created in a star billions of years ago. All except atoms of hydrogen and one or two of the next lightest elements. They were formed even earlier, shortly after the Big Bang began 13.7 billion years ago. Myths about Creation explain nothing? Every atom that ever was or will be came into existence during the big bang. All of the energy and mass in our universe was formed within and following the expansion of the singularity. Every atom then and now was actualized in the course of the big bang.

JESUS SAID: did you said__There is no reason why the physical universe cannot be it's own first cause? and __Life can evolve from bacteria? that's contradictory, not about the bactery evolve the life but who evolved the first bactery? did you realized what you told me? you simply told me to believe in a universe created by nothing, and that's is the same to tell me that you believe in magic, and we both know that the science doesn't accept such conclusions as i told you in the question above the world turns around of the science's proofs and god's faith, the power of science it useless against god's issues, if you think i'm wrong bring me your proofs cause my faith is ready :) :) if i'm wrong i'll apologize and accept the brand news but i think it wont happen cause even the most cleavers scientist doesn't have this answer so im sorry linda only the science is not enough i suggest you to pay attention in what you believe cause you still having time to love the lord but if you still thinking that i'm crazy because i have faith in god well what can i say__if you are an atheist and believe in magic why should i don't believe in miracles????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6nhgN1QxI4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6nhgN1QxI4

Do you think you are referencing a peer-reviewed scientific theory. I don't believe a YouTube video is evidence of anything - any more than those incredulous Bigfoot videos?

How about some fact based information with evidence and experimental proof.

I answered you almost a week ago but I don't know what's going on with this site but they didn't published! __well you said that a YouTube video isn't a proof?__me neither, Lets suppose that I agree with you the video is not a fact, and I'm curious, can you give me a logical answer about it with facts proving who came first the egg or the chicken? I bet you can cause we are talking about a stupid video on youtube so is not that difficult to explain, if the scientist doesn't care about it it's because they already has this answer right? So I'm totally up for that :) hoo I'm sorry I don't wanna ask too much but I have one more doubt, the evolution theory says that the humans being evolved from the monkey and the monkey from the repitile and the repitile from the fish etc... but why we still having monkeys and repitiles in the world? Why they doesn't evolve anymore? I mean the evolution means constantly change right? Are we in the top of evolution already? if evolution is really possible it means that We can tamper our DNA and probably cure the handcaps? Cause if your genus changed naturally of course we could do by science cause we are really clever aren't we? we should fight for the monkey's rights cause they are our brothers! Maybe in 2 or 3 years they could turn into a human being! Hahaha sorry I'm acting like a kid I bet there's a logical answer for everything ah Linda if u wanna talk more often I can give you my email and we can have a nice chat if you want of course! Cause here we wait to long for chat! Have a nice day

From: JESUS (Posted Feb 1, 2013 at 1:50 am) JESUS SAID: I answered you almost a week ago but I don't know what's going on with this site but they didn't published! __well you said that a YouTube video isn't a proof?__me neither, Lets suppose that I agree with you the video is not a fact, and I'm curious, can you give me a logical answer about it with facts proving who came first the egg or the chicken?

LINDA SAID: Life began on earth about 1.5 billion years ago, and for the first billion of those years reproduction was asexual (not sexual) unicellular microorganism splits up its DNA into batches, divides up and each half goes it own way. The parent dies but two copies of itself will live on. This was not very effective and it was very slow. Around 500,000,000 years ago bacteria mixed and matched DNA of two organisms rather than making clones for it's offsprings. This sped up evolution and sexual reproduction evolved that is what caused the Cambrian explosion. Life Forms, that eventually led to man, some 495 million years later. Until sexual reproduction for a billion years amoebas were the highest life form. All new species arise this way, through small mutations in the DNA that are eventually realized in the new offspring. Chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the necessary mutation to the embryonic body plan to make the first true chicken. That one zygote cell then divided and formed a biologically modern chicken. The first chicken came from an egg laid by a pre-chicken. The first chicken would have to be produced from mutations resulting from non-chicken parents.

JESUS SAID: "I have one more doubt, the evolution theory says that the humans being evolved from the monkey and the monkey from the repitile and the repitile from the fish etc... but why we still having monkeys and repitiles in the world? Why they doesn't evolve anymore? I mean the evolution means constantly change right?

LINDA SAID: The apes did evolve. There was an ancient evolutionary split between apes and Old World monkeys. Discoverers of a partial apelike skull in western Saudi Arabia say that it now appears that a poorly understood parting of major primate groups occurred between 29 million and 24 million years ago. A 2004 analysis of DNA from living apes and monkeys in Africa and Asia had estimated an earlier divergence, between 34.5 and 29.2 million years ago. An intriguing mixing of features on the newly unearthed fossil, which dates to between 29 million and 28 million years ago, suggests that it lived shortly before a common ancestor that gave rise to hominoids (a primate lineage that includes apes and humans) and the monkeys of Africa, Asia and Europe. This is a missing link that fills in a gap in our understanding of the evolution of Old World monkeys and apes. Both man and the apes came from a common ancestor. An animal that lived about 40 million years ago, known as Aegyptopithecus, is believed by scientists to be a direct ancestor of humans. There appear to have been numerous partial splits, and numerous different fluctuating populations with various degrees of interfertility (actual interbreeding) between them. Most splits led to eventual extinction, Neanderthal man being a well known (more recent) example. When some of the apes moved from the forest into the savanna (for various reason) certain changes happened (for instance) there is evidence a jaw mutation that reduced biting power allowed the brain to grow bigger. In the forest that mutation was a disadvantage, but in the savanna the additional cognitive power given by the larger brain outweighed the loss of bite strength.

The human genome mapping provides indisputable proof that Darwin was right. Mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive ancestors. Apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. We are another species of apes. It's not biblical, but each species has a unique series of common ancestors linking it to the original common ancestor. Man and apes are branches of the same tree. The ancestral line for modern humans diverged from the ape tree. Hominoids, or apes that includes orangutans, gibbons, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. Hominidae consists of all species on our side of the last common ancestor of humans and living apes. Hominids are included in the super family of all apes, the Hominoidea, the members of which are called hominoids.

JESUS SAID: "Are we in the top of evolution already?

LINDA SAID: Humans haven't stopped evolving. Although civilization hasn't been around long enough to see any extraordinary changes Human height has been growing rapidly for 150 years.

JESUS SAID: if evolution is really possible it means that We can tamper our DNA and probably cure the handcaps? Cause if your genus changed naturally of course we could do by science cause we are really clever aren't we?

LINDA SAID: Humans may be able to bring about evolution through gene selection (or genetic engineering) to remove defects and undesirable traits, which means you choose the traits that your offspring will have before birth, that is how defective genes or traits could be eliminated altogether. This could eventually terminate defective traits completely.

JESUS SAID: "we should fight for the monkey's rights cause they are our brothers! Maybe in 2 or 3 years they could turn into a human being!" "Hahaha sorry I'm acting like a kid I bet there's a logical answer for everything ah Linda if u wanna talk more often I can give you my email and we can have a nice chat if you want of course! Cause here we wait to long for chat! Have a nice day"

LINDA SAID: No, this sounds like a fundie troll insinuating that they have a humane side, or the usual ignorant remarks (we hear all the time) from those who are either too dumb or too lazy to learn about evolution.

LINDA SAID: Even if you're not actually psychotic, I don't chat with anyone, especially those who don't have anything to contribute.

From: JESUS (Posted Feb 1, 2013 at 1:50 am) JESUS SAID: I answered you almost a week ago but I don't know what's going on with this site but they didn't published! __well you said that a YouTube video isn't a proof?__me neither, Lets suppose that I agree with you the video is not a fact, and I'm curious, can you give me a logical answer about it with facts proving who came first the egg or the chicken?

LINDA SAID: Life began on earth about 1.5 billion years ago, and for the first billion of those years reproduction was asexual (not sexual) unicellular microorganism splits up its DNA into batches, divides up and each half goes it own way. The parent dies but two copies of itself will live on. This was not very effective and it was very slow. Around 500,000,000 years ago bacteria mixed and matched DNA of two organisms rather than making clones for it's offsprings. This sped up evolution and sexual reproduction evolved that is what caused the Cambrian explosion. Life Forms, that eventually led to man, some 495 million years later. Until sexual reproduction for a billion years amoebas were the highest life form. All new species arise this way, through small mutations in the DNA that are eventually realized in the new offspring. Chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the necessary mutation to the embryonic body plan to make the first true chicken. That one zygote cell then divided and formed a biologically modern chicken. The first chicken came from an egg laid by a pre-chicken. The first chicken would have to be produced from mutations resulting from non-chicken parents.

JESUS SAID: i'm sorry but i guess you didn't read my message properly maybe if you read it again you will notice that i'm asking for PROVES not another theory! the example you give to me it's just one between many others whose goal is find a logical theory to claim and defend the evolution theory but I suggest you to stop for one second and open your sweet mind! first of all you said that the life began on earth 1,5 bilions ago but the most efficient datation method is by the (carbon-14) or radiocarbon which is used specially on organic matters, the CARBON 14 only give us a precisely date time about 70 thousand years ago, so every scientist article beyond this time it's nothing more than mere theory! now look to the other point you said that in the begin the reproduction was asexual (not sexual) and the prototypes of life (the micro organisms) could reproduce without (sex) but eventually our survival got totally dependent on sex! so basically we didn't evolved, we suffered a backspace a regression cause somehow our genes was able to clone it self, and currently even with the most advanced technology still really difficult to make a perfect clone, look at the earthworm which is emafrodita (bisexual) might I say that this worm could support the evolution better then us human being? (extra observation) don't you think that if we could reproduce as we did before in other words (without sex) we wouldn't have problems related at sexual relations like, gays and lesbians? i know it there's nothing to do with our point but it's just a easy way to explains what I mean)] Well finally but not new I will come back to our point Linda, tell me where and how, your theory proves that god doesn't exist I mean it wansn't the goal with this specific question but it is the goal of this website right?

JESUS SAID: "I have one more doubt, the evolution theory says that the humans being evolved from the monkey and the monkey from the repitile and the repitile from the fish etc... but why we still having monkeys and repitiles in the world? Why they doesn't evolve anymore? I mean the evolution means constantly change right?

LINDA SAID: The apes did evolve. There was an ancient evolutionary split between apes and Old World monkeys. Discoverers of a partial apelike skull in western Saudi Arabia say that it now appears that a poorly understood parting of major primate groups occurred between 29 million and 24 million years ago. A 2004 analysis of DNA from living apes and monkeys in Africa and Asia had estimated an earlier divergence, between 34.5 and 29.2 million years ago. An intriguing mixing of features on the newly unearthed fossil, which dates to between 29 million and 28 million years ago, suggests that it lived shortly before a common ancestor that gave rise to hominoids (a primate lineage that includes apes and humans) and the monkeys of Africa, Asia and Europe. This is a missing link that fills in a gap in our understanding of the evolution of Old World monkeys and apes. Both man and the apes came from a common ancestor. An animal that lived about 40 million years ago, known as Aegyptopithecus, is believed by scientists to be a direct ancestor of humans. There appear to have been numerous partial splits, and numerous different fluctuating populations with various degrees of interfertility (actual interbreeding) between them. Most splits led to eventual extinction, Neanderthal man being a well known (more recent) example. When some of the apes moved from the forest into the savanna (for various reason) certain changes happened (for instance) there is evidence a jaw mutation that reduced biting power allowed the brain to grow bigger. In the forest that mutation was a disadvantage, but in the savanna the additional cognitive power given by the larger brain outweighed the loss of bite strength.

The human genome mapping provides indisputable proof that Darwin was right. Mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive ancestors. Apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. We are another species of apes. It's not biblical, but each species has a unique series of common ancestors linking it to the original common ancestor. Man and apes are branches of the same tree. The ancestral line for modern humans diverged from the ape tree. Hominoids, or apes that includes orangutans, gibbons, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. Hominidae consists of all species on our side of the last common ancestor of humans and living apes. Hominids are included in the super family of all apes, the Hominoidea, the members of which are called hominoids.

JESUS SAID: the human being also has compatibility with certain kind of substance that could easily be found in plants, but please don't tell me that my ancestral was a mango tree, i could also quote a thousands of substance comprising the human body but it's a really big list, i don't have this time so jumping off for what really matter you can find a lot of our own substances in many others natural stuffs around us so you could possibly pick one of those hundred options of substance and create a new evolution theory by the way it could be possibly the reason that made this same theory be renewed too many times! and about the monkeys and the bones etc... did you ever heard about extinction? those bones and skull could be easily from a extinct race, the tendency of the genes is keep a circle of compatibility and the easiest example is the fact that one man can father a handcap child, but it doesn't means that his grandson will be a handcap as well! as we see its the genes keeping the same lineage!

JESUS SAID: "Are we in the top of evolution already?

LINDA SAID: Humans haven't stopped evolving. Although civilization hasn't been around long enough to see any extraordinary changes Human height has been growing rapidly for 150 years.

JESUS SAID: how do you know if we are really evolving if you don't know what we use to be before?

JESUS SAID: if evolution is really possible it means that We can tamper our DNA and probably cure the handcaps? Cause if your genus changed naturally of course we could do by science cause we are really clever aren't we?

LINDA SAID: Humans may be able to bring about evolution through gene selection (or genetic engineering) to remove defects and undesirable traits, which means you choose the traits that your offspring will have before birth, that is how defective genes or traits could be eliminated altogether. This could eventually terminate defective traits completely.

JESUS SAID: i have to agree with you that it is possible! but it wouln'd be a evolution this would be called as change! cause we would eliminate the worses genes and implant the good ones into a embryo etc..i believe it could happen cause our tecnology might be able to such things but for now it's nothing more than one theory, evolution is a natural event if we control and create it's technology, not evolution properly saing.( i asked you about it to show you how you have a wrong concept about evolution (((study))))

JESUS SAID: "we should fight for the monkey's rights cause they are our brothers! Maybe in 2 or 3 years they could turn into a human being!" "Hahaha sorry I'm acting like a kid I bet there's a logical answer for everything ah Linda if u wanna talk more often I can give you my email and we can have a nice chat if you want of course! Cause here we wait to long for chat! Have a nice day"

LINDA SAID: No, this sounds like a fundie troll insinuating that they have a humane side, or the usual ignorant remarks (we hear all the time) from those who are either too dumb or too lazy to learn about evolution.

LINDA SAID: Even if you're not actually psychotic, I don't chat with anyone, especially those who don't have anything to contribute.

JESUS SAID: Well you understood what i meant and you just evade tooking the jokes i made and using as one excuse for don't answer the last question! well as you read i made orther jokes in my text and i hope you don't use it as one excuse again otherwise I will think that the one lazy here to learn is you! i don't want to aurgue with you if you think you know enough i suggest you to teach the scientis around the world cause you are affirming facts about evolution and life and even the most clever from the scientist academy says that it's quite impossible to prove open your mind, and when i invited you to have a friendly chat you told me that you don't chat with anyone, so i was just asking myself what hell are you doing here? hahaha cause if you didn't notice you already had a long chat with me and many others! ARE YOU RATIONAL? ARE YOU SURE?

My only question is this: How do you expect to find one of these rare people, by this post. If you want to see if anyone shares your objective rationalism, posit a scenario that close-minded people would scoff at. Anyone who pays attention and utilizes logic and reason to have a discourse on the topic, is what you are looking for.

Hallo Raymond! Was this question really meant for me or for our friend Linda? cause u didn't wrote a name so I really wanna make sure I'm not getting it twisted, if u say so, I'll respond you in a while. Have a nice day!

Hi Raymond! was this question meant for me or for our friend Linda or someone else? U didn't wrote a name so I can't deny I'm a bit confuse, I don't wanna get it twisted so, if this question was really meant for me we'll talk soon! Have a nice day fellow!

JOE SAID:: Well, I'm an atheist and I decide what I believe in and don't believe in!......... JESUS SAID: well the fact who suppose to make you an atheist is the fact of nonbelief, recently Richard Dawkins changed his position of atheist calling himself as "bright" cause he figured out that the term atheism is Inappropriate. Once that atheism's terms are based only on evidence, but it's not the case when you ask some atheist about evolution's theory and the Big Bang theory! As the name itself says: theory is not evidence is based in concept of belief! In other words faith! have a nice day every one!

Is there someone looking for a debate in this topic?

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

ustream.tv

Join us for the Bat Cruise Lecture, 1:15pm September 27th at Trinity United Methodist Church, at 40th and Speedway. Lecturers will be Richard Carrier and Chris Johnson.

The ACA Bat Cruise is set for Saturday, September 27th, 6-8pm. Purchase tickets in advance here.

The audio and video from Dr. Shahnawaz August lecture is now available.