$1,000,000 Randi WannaBe Debunked

[Jerry]

After numerous attempts to persuade thinkandreason.com, that their $1,000,000 challenge to prove God exists, would not be paid by JREF, Vashek Pokorny, Administrator for the site finally withdrew the reference to JREF as the contact and distributor for the $1,000,000 reward paid to anyone who could prove “God exists.�

On January 19, 2005, I was assured by thinkandreason.com that an “agreement� existed with JREF and if proof could be given for the existence of god, JREF would pay the reward that was offered by thinkandreason.com.

Following this, Linda Shallenberger of JREF assured me that, “The JREF has nothing to do with thinkandreason.com and we don’t take challenge applications claiming to prove God exists.� (Email dated January 19, 2005)

On January 20, thinkandreason decided that if Randi rescinds his offer, thinkandreason would make good on the offer:

“First, I do have the emails that prove Randi gave his okay. He is in Vegas at a convention right now, but I have emailed him for clarification. I have NOT received anything myself yet. Second...if he chooses to rescind his offer, I will make good on the offer.� (email dated January 20, 2005)

Now, according to the “think� web site, they have reversed their initial claim and insist:

“Okay…as I said on the web site, Randi has opted out of offering this challenge to religious zealots. He has better things to do with his time, so I am stuck with making good on the challenge.� (January 24, 2005, thinkandreason.com, CHALLENGE NUMBER FOUR)

Thinkandreason continues in the same paragraph with the pathetic claim:

“If you are ready to prove, with physical proof that your god exists, then please tell me what you have and I will prove that I can offer this amount…. Show me your proof and I will show you the money. You say I do not have the money, and I say you do not have the proof anyway... But rest assured I do have the capacity to get the funds. They may not be in escrow, but I do have them.�

The original boast and challenge of thinkandreason.com and their association with JREF is really nothing more than a hoax and a good example of poor thinking and reasoning of some atheists. This no doubt tarnishes the image of the virtuous, intellectual god scoffers. Although it took considerable effort to debunk this exaggerated claim, to the credit of thinkandreason.com they have removed references to JREF in their updated challenge.

In summary, on January 24, thinkandreason sent me a “portion� of an email sent by JREF with the “confirmation as to why Randi backed out.�

Would you post the “entire� email sent by JREF for all to see?

Sincerely,

Jerry

[Darat]

Hi Jerry and welcome.

Randi himself does not often visit the forum so if you want a quick response you could either email him directly or use the PM system here to contact "KRAMER" who is the person at the JREF responsible for the challenge applications.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Are you the same "Jerry" that is quoted on the front page of http://thinkandreason.com/ ?

[Jerry]

Yes Walter.

Jerry

[Jerry]

Thanks Darat,

I'll post Randi with my request.


Jerry

[H3LL]

Isn't the challenge a bit flawed?

"My God is this rock on my desk...and He can travel to become any rock, anywhere, instantaneously....Can I claim my $million?"

You are welcome to examine my God anytime. Go outside, pick up a rock, that feels right.....

That'll be the one.

I have faith he will be there. You now have physical proof.

I'll take a cheque.

[Jerry]

Originally posted by H3LL
Isn't the challenge a bit flawed?

Sorry. The challenge wasn't mine but rather a member of the atheist religion.

Jerry

[Carn]

Originally posted by Jerry
Sorry. The challenge wasn't mine but rather a member of the atheist religion.

Jerry

Well, not a especially clever member of the atheist religion, at most it can be proven, that the picture a religion has about it's god is wrong and i think even that is often impossible.

Carn

[Oleron]

Originally posted by Darat
Hi Jerry and welcome.

Randi himself does not often visit the forum so if you want a quick response you could either email him directly or use the PM system here to contact "KRAMER" who is the person at the JREF responsible for the challenge applications.

I think it would be helpful for Kramer to publicly make clear the JREF's correspondence on this. Nip it in the bud, as it were.

Perhaps someone ought to think about contacting Vashek to encourage him to clarify this also.

Incidentally Jerry, atheism is not a religion but rather the absence of religion.

[KRAMER]

I have had a brief correspondence with a gentleman I know simply as MICK whose email address is thinkandreason.com - he has been quite cordial. The entire exchange took place over the course of a few days, about a week ago. This was the first I'd heard about any of this.

Here is the exchange, which began with me responding (as in; REPLY ALL) to a "cc" I'd received on a heated debate regarding JREF's refusal to test religious claims:

============================================

Dear Sirs,

I'm hoping that you are aware that the JREF no longer tests "religious" claims such as these.

-Kramer, JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

+++++++++++++++

I am now aware of that. I have removed any mention of the JREF from my website. Can I ask as to why this change? Religion is the biggest scam ever, and I just can not fathom why Randi would not take it on.

Mick

+++++++++++++++

Because such claims are wholly unverifiable.

Should anyone EVER approach us with a scientific test protocol that would conclusively prove ANY religious claim, we will accept it. Absolutely.

Until then, however, we will no longer waste our time in endless correspondence with those who demand that we simply BELIEVE.

As per the Challenge rules, ONLY A DEMONSTRATION WILL SUFFICE.

The moment someone offers us an actual demonstration, we'll change the rules, and observe the test.

-Kramer, JREF.

+++++++++++++++

Okay that makes sense. But why can't the same protocals apply to supposed deities as to ghosts or apparitions??? That is what I attempted to do with his (Randis) permission earlier. Just to let you know, the religious zealots think that Randi "chickened out" because the proof of a christian god is too powerful for him.

Mick

+++++++++++++++

We know what the religious zealots think (if THINK is indeed the proper term - I'd imagine that the word BELIEVE better fits), and we couldn't possibly care less.

Applicants who want to prove the existence of ghosts almost always have some kind of a demonstration in mind, or believe that their photographic or videotaped "evidence" is good enough for them, so why not good enough for the JREF.

Applicants making religious claims simply ramble on about how we just "refuse to believe what is before our eyes", and other such nonsense. They either exhibit an absolute disregard for the Challenge rules, or they insist that the rules as stated cannot verify the kind of paranormal phenomenon they are claiming. They claim that our standards just don't fit the religious phenemenon they attest to. Whatever. Either way, we cannot abide their fantasies.

As Randi has so often stated, "It's our Challenge. We run it as we see fit..."

If they don't like it, let them make their OWN Million Dollar Challenge and award the prize to whomever they want.
There's certainly more than enough funding out there from wealthy religious zealots who might want to "prove" that god exists.

Funny they haven't initiated one yet.

-Kramer, JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

[Jerry]

Originally posted by Carn
Well, not a especially clever member of the atheist religion, ...
Carn


I agree with you on that!


Jerry

[Jerry]

Kramer,

Thanks for gutsy posting of your correspondence with "MICK" of "Thimk" ;>)

Since a portion is identical to what Vashek Pokorny, Admin of thinkandreason.com sent me, it's probably one and the same person.

This fills in the blanks for what was not told me, but unfortunately, you have no idea what corresponded with "Mickey" and me in the previous half dozen emails, which were supposed to be posted as part of the agreement to attach my full name to his article on his site (another topic another day).

Actually, one would have thought I was "defending" the JREF cause.

The very heart of the issue discussed, was not whether God exits, but rather (to borrow a few of your words) a atheist zealot who had a fantasy that he really did have someone else's million bucks that would stand behind his personal challenge. This agreement was with JREF and would be paid in behalf of thinkandreason if proof of God's existence could be given.

Thus, an atheist's bogus million dollar challenge debunked.

Have a nice day.

Jerry

[Jerry]

Originally posted by Oleron
Perhaps someone ought to think about contacting Vashek to encourage him to clarify this also.

Incidentally Jerry, atheism is not a religion but rather the absence of religion.

Oleron,

I think it's a great idea about contacting Vashek, MICK, or ADMIN.

Unfortunately, I think he'll only disappoint his fellow deciples.

By the way Oleron, Webster says religion can be defined as "any system or beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system [humanism as a religion]."

Atheism IS a religion.

Jerry

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Jerry
Oleron,

I think it's a great idea about contacting Vashek, MICK, or ADMIN.

Unfortunately, I think he'll only disappoint his fellow deciples.

By the way Oleron, Webster says religion can be defined as "any system or beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system [humanism as a religion]."

Atheism IS a religion.

Jerry
Well, Jerry, you can't always believe that Webster guy. Was it Phineas Webster?
Atheist merely implies, "No god, gods, whatever, whatsoever."
How is that a religion?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jerry
By the way Oleron, Webster says religion can be defined as "any system or beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system [humanism as a religion]."

Atheism IS a religion.

It can be defined that way, but that is not the primary or most commonly used definition. And you could observe (if you read these boards here) that atheism does not meet any of those criterion you have suggested.

Beliefs? None. There is a common lack of belief. I don't know who said it first, but I love the quote, "If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Practices? Got any clue what practices are universal or even common to atheists? I'd love to know, 'cause I want to make sure I'm doing it right. ;)

Ethical values? Go to the politics section if you want to see just how little atheists agree on ethical values.

Now humanism might be considered to have some ethical values (like "be good to humans") but not any that are inconsistant with most theistic religions. I think, given the actions of some fanatical religious groups, that we can agree that even people who believe in a god do not agree on morality.

No churches, no ministers, no rituals, no dogma, no deity. I cannot see what it is that makes you think atheism is a religion.

[Robaato]

Originally posted by Jerry
By the way Oleron, Webster says religion can be defined as "any system or beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system [humanism as a religion]." Italics mine.
Your definition seems to be missing something.

The italcized portion obviously refers to an earlier part of the word entry, where the word religion is more strictly defined. Without that, it seems to say that religion can be defined as any system that looks like a religion.

I found this more complete version here (http://www.sju.edu/cas/theology/Courses/1141/religion_as_phenomenon/some_definitions.htm).From Webster's New World Dictionary:
1) Belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe. 2) expression of this belief in conduct and ritual. 3a) any specific system of beliefs, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy: as the Christian religion, the Buddhist religion, etc. 3b) loosely, any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc., resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system, as "humanism is his religion." 4) a state of mind or way of life expressing love for and trust in God, and one's will and effort to act according to the will of God, especially within a monastic order or community: as, "he achieved religion." 5) any object of conscientious regard and pursuit: as, "cleanliness was a religion to him." 6) [obs.] a) the practice of religious observances or rites; b) pl. religious rites.Now, clearly, the part of the definition you quoted refers back to 3a). I don't think I'd consider atheism as a "specific system of beliefs." Other than the concept that there is no God (which is in direct opposition to most definitions of religion), there are no specific worship rituals or beliefs attached, in my opinion.

On preview, what Tricky said. :)

[jmercer]

How about Atheism as a philsophy?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by jmercer
How about Atheism as a philosophy?
Or even just one small aspect of a philosophy.

(And thanks, Raja)

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Jerry
Atheism IS a religion.

This seems fairly absurd, like saying baseball IS basketball, or hunting IS fishing, or Mars IS Venus.

Atheism is a rejection of religious beliefs. It is NOT a religion, as atheism possesses no ritual devotion of faith. The debate ought to end right there. But, it goes on.

Some may argue that Atheism can be defined as a belief system just as religion surely is, but Atheism is not so much a belief as it is a conclusion. It is arrived at not as the result of a leap of faith or indoctrination, but as the purest byproduct of reason.

Reason and Religion are NOT friends. They are fast enemies.

Atheism is a disbelief, or lack of belief. Religion doesn't even exist without belief.

How could any two things be more opposite?

I've heard plenty of arguments about this but none of them were very good. They usually begin with someone finding a dictionary with a definition (or just one poorly worded line in a definition) that fits their assertion, as this one did. Flimsy ground to build a house upon, IMHO.

And even if you could build a home atop it, I sure as hell wouldn't wanna live there.

[Jerry]

WOW! Touchy, thouchy.

You'd think with the distain that most on this forum have for a God of any kind, that a simple word wouldn't draw so much emotion instead of reason. But such is life.

I can modify Atheism to perhaps a better definition,
"The Atheist Cult."

Have a nice day.


Jerry

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Jerry
WOW! Touchy, thouchy.

You'd think with the distain that most on this forum have for a God of any kind, that a simple word wouldn't draw so much emotion instead of reason. But such is life.


I would say that god is not the only thing that you are seeing that is not actually there. You have mistaken emphasis regarding your poor definition as being an emotional, cultish repsonse.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by Jerry
WOW! Touchy, thouchy.

You'd think with the distain that most on this forum have for a God of any kind, that a simple word wouldn't draw so much emotion instead of reason. But such is life.

I can modify Atheism to perhaps a better definition,
"The Atheist Cult."

Have a nice day.


Jerry

I smell a troll

[Darat]

Originally posted by Jerry
WOW! Touchy, thouchy.

You'd think with the distain that most on this forum have for a God of any kind, that a simple word wouldn't draw so much emotion instead of reason. But such is life.

I can modify Atheism to perhaps a better definition,
"The Atheist Cult."

Have a nice day.


Jerry

How are you able to come to this conclusion?

In the above posts people give you many reasons why atheism is not a religion yet you have not responded with reason. That would seem to me to be a sign that you are reacting in an emotional rather then rational manner.

And in what way is atheism a cult? Cult according to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=cult&x=19&y=12) is:


1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion


It would seem cult is generally a word associated with religion, in saying "atheism is a cult" you have not modified your position from saying "atheism is a religion".

Do you have any reasons to offer up for your claim that “atheism is a religion�?

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
You have mistaken emphasis regarding your poor definition as being an emotional, cultish repsonse.

Bingo. I re-read all the postings subsequent to Jerry's initial statement, and all I see is courteous, politely offered Reason.

I wonder, Jerry, if the fact that everyone here has disagreed with you (and tried to present you with reason-based explanations for their position) has led you to entertain the notion that you just might be wrong.

If not, I hope then that you are someday able to see that it is precisely the emotion you accuse everyone else of that has clouded your judgement in this matter, and made it impossible for you to see that you ARE wrong.

Also, there is no definition of the word CULT that correspondends to your accusations regarding atheists. A cult, by definition, has a central figure who is infallible. If atheism is a cult, where it this central, infallible figurehead? Please advise.

I'm not defending atheists, either. I'm defending definitions, and if you choose to ignore the ones we find in the dictionary in favor of your own (which, of course, are in full support of your position), well, what can we say?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by KRAMER

Also, there is no definition of the word CULT that correspondends to your accusations regarding atheists. A cult, by definition, has a central figure who is infallible. If atheism is a cult, where it this central, infallible figurehead? Please advise.



Randi, of course. Who else could it be? I'm sure you would have gotten the same response if you asked other famous atheists such as Voltaire.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
I smell a troll
That's a good nose you have there Guy. Yes indeed, Mr. Benson is on a mission. A look at his website (http://www.challengemin.org/) will show you that he is a Chick Tracts wannabe who is intent on condemning anyone who doesn't believe the way he does. (He particularly hates Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, for some reason.)

Enjoy your little fantasy, Jerry. Your banal insults aren't going to create much of a ripple here. However, if you wish to take your act to the Religion & Philosophy section, there will be many there who will be willing to discuss your ideas.

[KRAMER]

Yeesh. What a website.

If only I could reclaim the time I wasted on trying to reason with Jerry.

But, I cannot.

Bye bye, Jerry. Have a nice day.

[Ashles]

Interesting website:
The late, well known Carl Sagon, avid atheist, had a naturalistic interpretation for everything he observed since he had determined there is no God:

"The Cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever will be." (Carl Sagon, Cosmos, 1980, p. 4)
Anyone know a Carl Sagon?
(This literally just above a correctly labelled photo of Carl)

Unfortunately, some have been convinced into thinking that Evolution is science and creation is religion. This really is just an excuse not to think of the ramifications of what if a god really exists. If God really existed, would we still say he didn't because that's religion? Actually, Evolution is just as much religion, and Creation is just as much science.
What a loon.

I love it when Christians try to use science to promote their brlirfs.

Then get it all wrong.

Jerry please come back. We'd love to chat further.

[Peter S.]

I always liked this one:

"Atheism is no more a religion than abstinence is a form of drinking."

I found it on The Skeptic Tank (http://www.skeptictank.org/) .

[Jerry]

It seems to me that atheism is indeed a belief system.

A belief and faith in the concept that all things MUST have a naturalistic explanation. The door cannot be left open even a crack that would consider a supernatural explanation for anything anywhere.

We could call this belief naturalism. Some prefer humanism. This faith in the concept on no god and the earnest, committed belief in naturalism, can fairly be called a "religion." Although not the general understood term, Webster's definition would allow the term to be used of the Atheist belief system. He even gives an example of humanism as a religion, which is adamant that there is no God.

In a less common usage of the world CULT, atheist would also apply. Here's a clue for those thinkers out there; when Webster defines a word, every example he gives does not necessarily have to apply. The word can have a variety of meanings and still be acceptable to use and communicate. One of his definitions of CULT can be a devoted attachment to a principle. He even refers to the "cult of nudism" which obviously would not necessarily have "a central figure who is infallible" as Kramer suggest must be true.

Interestingly, the American Humanist Association, while devoutly atheistic implies humanism as religious:

Humanism is a philosophy, worldview, or life stance based on naturalism—the conviction that the universe or nature is all that exists or is real. Humanism serves, for many humanists, some of the psychological and social functions of a religion, but without belief in deities, transcendental entities, miracles, life after death, and the supernatural. (www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/definitions.htm)

The religious implications of atheism was expressed in the "American Atheist" in perhaps their most abrasive assault on Christianity:

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing. (G.R.Bozarth, American Atheist, September 1978, p.30)

Thus, atheism is truly a religion.

Jerry

P.S. Forgive me for not responding to each question as I use my computer evenings only, generally quite sparingly. I will attempt to make one response evenings until this thread dies and then I’ll be gone.

P.S.S. Although this thread has probably wandered greatly from the original post, here’s a question that perplexes me most about atheists; “If you could be convinced that indeed there was a personal god, of what real value is that? It seems that atheists generally hate the way god may or may not be and therefore would simply be exchanging a life of hopelessness, to a future of misery both here and the hereafter.

[T'ai Chi]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jerry

The door cannot be left open even a crack that would consider a supernatural explanation for anything anywhere.
[/quopte]

Show us something supernatural then. So far, things look pretty natural.

[Jerry]

Originally posted by jzs
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jerry

The door cannot be left open even a crack that would consider a supernatural explanation for anything anywhere.
[/quopte]

Show us something supernatural then. So far, things look pretty natural.

What would you consider evidence for the existance of God?


Jerry

[Tricky]

Really, Jerry, this stuff ought to be in the religion and philosophy section. We clutter the challenge section with unrelated things. I recommend that you start a thread there. However, unless the moderators decide to move this thread, I will stay here.
Originally posted by Jerry
It seems to me that atheism is indeed a belief system.
Not a belief system, but simply a single belief, and the ways of approaching that belief are diverse. My own approach is that there is no evidence for a god, and I simply don't believe things for which there is no evidence. I apply the same approach to paranormal beliefs. If something or someone was able to bring good evidence to the table, I would believe it. So far, none have, but I don't rule out the possibility.

Originally posted by Jerry
A belief and faith in the concept that all things MUST have a naturalistic explanation. The door cannot be left open even a crack that would consider a supernatural explanation for anything anywhere.
The door is wide open to anything with evidence.

But if you let unsupported beliefs in, then how do you discriminate between unsupported beliefs? What makes Catholicism any better (or worse) than Mormonism? The only way to judge between ideas of how the universe works is to show evidence that those ideas work. Everything is measured with the same scale. No freebies for the ones we are most comfortable with.

Originally posted by Jerry
In a less common usage of the world CULT, atheist would also apply. Here's a clue for those thinkers out there; when Webster defines a word, every example he gives does not necessarily have to apply. The word can have a variety of meanings and still be acceptable to use and communicate. One of his definitions of CULT can be a devoted attachment to a principle. He even refers to the "cult of nudism" which obviously would not necessarily have "a central figure who is infallible" as Kramer suggest must be true.
Indeed, there are variable meanings, which allows people to call atheism a "cult" because it fits any one of the many definitions. However, if you use that definition for cult to define atheism, then you must use exactly the same definition when examining other religions. And if you define a cult as a group that is "devotedly attached to a principle", then every religion in the world is also a cult by that definition.

I would choose the definitions that separate cults from "mainstream" religions, and the thing I notice about the things that we usually call "cults" is that they are dominated by a single person, usually living or only recently deceased, whose authority cannot be challenged. There is no such person in atheism. I am an atheist, but I disagree with Randi, Carl Sagan, Penn Jillette, and every other atheist about selected things. On the boards here, we discuss our differences and sometimes we resolve them, sometimes we agree to disagree. But nothing is sacrosanct.

Originally posted by Jerry
Humanism is a philosophy, worldview, or life stance based on naturalism—the conviction that the universe or nature is all that exists or is real. Humanism serves, for many humanists, some of the psychological and social functions of a religion, but without belief in deities, transcendental entities, miracles, life after death, and the supernatural. (www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/definitions.htm)
No, Humanism does not serve many social functions that religion does. There are few or no humanist churches, softball teams, potluck dinners or any other thing that could qualify as social functions. The biggest thing with them is discussion (which can be done via forums or newsletters). Heck, Pagans (my wife's religion) are better organized than humanists, and Pagans can't even decide on a God. ;)
Originally posted by Jerry
The religious implications of atheism was expressed in the "American Atheist" in perhaps their most abrasive assault on Christianity:

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing. (G.R.Bozarth, American Atheist, September 1978, p.30)
Thus, atheism is truly a religion.
I see nothing in that quote that implies that atheism is a religion. However, I do not agree with that statement, because it lumps all of Christianity into one boat. Many Christians believe in evolution. Even the Catholic church has said that it is not incompatable with the Bible.

The person who made that quote appeared to be talking about a very narrow interpretation of Christianity held by fundamentalists. And while it is true that fundamentalism is very much averse to having their myths questioned, that is not true of all Christians, so I disagree with the atheist who made that statement. That is not to say that fundamentalism is not a threat to critical thinking, because it is, very much so, but I don't blame all Christians for the fanaticism of some Christians.

Originally posted by Jerry
P.S.S. Although this thread has probably wandered greatly from the original post, here’s a question that perplexes me most about atheists; “If you could be convinced that indeed there was a personal god, of what real value is that? It seems that atheists generally hate the way god may or may not be and therefore would simply be exchanging a life of hopelessness, to a future of misery both here and the hereafter.

It would depend on which variety of pesonal god you were talking about. There are so many variations. But I don't hate anything about god(s), since I don't believe in them. What I dislike is the way that religion polarizes us into "right and wrong". One only need to look at the tragedy of 9-11-2001 to see what evil can be justified by religion. Oh yeah. That was the wrong religion. Okay, use Northern Ireland instead.

But you are totally mistaken if you think that atheists are pessimistic about the future. On the contrary, I see them as much more in tune with the future, because they feel they have only a short to do what needs to be done. By contrast, some Christians feel like the rapture is coming soon so what good is trying to save the world? Which is the more upbeat, useful and forward-looking philosopy?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Jerry
What would you consider evidence for the existance of God?


It is not up to me to provide examples or definitions of things that I don't have any reason to believe exist.

Those that say the supernatural exist need to provide the evidence that they think is evidence of the supernatural.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by jzs
It is not up to me to provide examples or definitions of things that I don't have any reason to believe exist.

Those that say the supernatural exist need to provide the evidence that they think is evidence of the supernatural.
Oh, don't be a stick-in-the-mud, jzs. It's easy to give the fellow a bone to chew on. Here's one that has been mentioned before.

How about if God rearranges the stars to spell, "I'm God, and I'm real", visable to every person in the world (He can do it in multiple languages if he really wants to be impressive).

Now of course, that is not 100% proof, because it could be done by really clever aliens, but I consider that just about as unlikely as God.

How many examples do you want, Jerry?

[Carn]

Originally posted by Jerry
What would you consider evidence for the existance of God?


Jerry

Well, from what i remember from reading Bible the last time, there was something like "if someone realy believes in god and asks him to move a mountain into the sea, then god will pick up the mountain and put it into the sea."

I'm just asking, that you choose a mountain, that is devoid of life and that god drops it so gently that no tsunami is caused. And please choose a mountain that is not directly at the sea, otherwise we would have to think about, whether it was a natural event.

E.g. pick a mountain in himalaya, which has a height between 7500 and 7900 metres(no life there and few climbers, nobody goes for a mountain 7900m high, it is just frustrating) and let god just tear the upper 1500 m from it and drop it softly close to the shore of india, so that a new isle is created.

Carn

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by Jerry
It seems to me that atheism is indeed a belief system.

A belief and faith in the concept that all things MUST have a naturalistic explanation. The door cannot be left open even a crack that would consider a supernatural explanation for anything anywhere. Atheism isn't a belief system. It is a product of a belief system. Or more accurately, it is a product of a non-belief system.

A belief system means that someone or something says "this is the way things are". To accept that "this is the way things are" is a religion, and possibly a cult. But science says "we don't really know the way things are, but we do know this and that to some degree based on proven experiments".

A religion or cult says "this is the way things are" but science says "this is our best understanding of the way things are". A religion or cult requires that you state specifically "the way things are". Atheism (which is the lack of religion) says that we don't know specifically "the way things are". But science can make some good conclusions with reasonable certainty based on the evidence available. And if in our quest to make good conclusions we find new evidence, then "the way things are" can be adjusted accordingly, unlike most religions and cults.

So atheism is not a belief system, but a product of a belief system that questions belief. A religion (or cult) is a belief system that requires no question of its belief. The reason a "belief system" (like religion) is a "belief system" is because it is an unquestioned belief. The reason atheism is not a "belief system" (like religion) is because it is a questioned belief.

[Jerry]

I've already broken my rules. 1 post, per evening, per day.

I guess you guys are addicting (although wrong) ;>)

Coming to this forum was intended to be for a simple statement about a false charge of an atheist zealot. (Kramer taught me that word)

Now it takes me from valuable time I usually spend where you would hate.

This is my first and last thread at this site. If it gets moved, (which is understandable) I will not follow it. I'll finish what I started on this thread only and then I'm done. Call it what you wish, but it's time to go.

In the mean time, no one has answered my question. "If you were convinced a personal God exists, of what value would it be?"

The answer atheists tell me is NONE! They hate not only the concept of the possibility of God, but they hate the way He is (if the Christian God is the true one).

It goes like this:

I will NOT serve him. I will keep my friends, wife and kids from serving or knowing Him. I’ll tell all I know that I distain the way he is. I'd rather reign in hell than serve in heaven.

Have I missed anything?

Jerry

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Jerry
I've already broken my rules. 1 post, per evening, per day.

I guess you guys are addicting (although wrong) ;>)

Coming to this forum was intended to be for a simple statement about a false charge of an atheist zealot. (Kramer taught me that word)

Now it takes me from valuable time I usually spend where you would hate.

This is my first and last thread at this site. If it gets moved, (which is understandable) I will not follow it. I'll finish what I started on this thread only and then I'm done. Call it what you wish, but it's time to go.

In the mean time, no one has answered my question. "If you were convinced a personal God exists, of what value would it be?"

The answer atheists tell me is NONE! They hate not only the concept of the possibility of God, but they hate the way He is (if the Christian God is the true one).

It goes like this:

I will NOT serve him. I will keep my friends, wife and kids from serving or knowing Him. I’ll tell all I know that I distain the way he is. I'd rather reign in hell than serve in heaven.

Have I missed anything?

Jerry

Yeah. The athiests who aren't jerks.

Most of us don't have a problem with the existence of a God, Judeo-Christian or other. What we have a problem with is the manner that a number of followers have portrayed God(s) and we're frankly not that interested in bowing down in particular to the petty, brimstone and fire hurling, Grandmaster of Hissyfits that some folks like to scream about.

It's a divine entity. It shouldn't require worship and if it wants anything, than it should just be for people to be decent to each other, an effort that isn't limited to those with dieties in their worldview.

And it was Lucifer who reigned in hell. I think he counts as a Christian (though, not a very good one, I suppose.)

[fishbob]

Jerry - defining atheism: A belief and faith in the concept that all things MUST have a naturalistic explanation. Jerry appears to be deliberately confusing his personal understanding of science with his definition of atheist. Logic and reason and working from the assumption that what we can see and measure is real are poisonous concepts to bible literalists, creationists, and TV evangelists. Jerry's efforts to spin atheism into a religion certainly indicates that he allergic to reason and reality. Or maybe he is just another troll.

[Carn]

Originally posted by Jerry


In the mean time, no one has answered my question. "If you were convinced a personal God exists, of what value would it be?"



Have I missed anything?

Jerry

Yep, asnwer depends on what exactly your god is and what he wants of us.

E.g. if god wants me to kill all non-christians, i'll tell him to bugger off, unless he has a realy good explanation, that i understand.

E.g. if he wants me to follow the 10 commandments, i would try to so.

E.g. if god wants me to love everybody else as i love myself, i would ask him for help, what exactly he means with "love", because if i do not know that, i cannot even decide whether i want to and can follow this rule.


Carn

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Jerry
It seems to me that atheism is indeed a belief system.

A belief and faith in the concept that all things MUST have a naturalistic explanation. The door cannot be left open even a crack that would consider a supernatural explanation for anything anywhere.

We could call this belief naturalism. Some prefer humanism. This faith in the concept on no god and the earnest, committed belief in naturalism, can fairly be called a "religion." Although not the general understood term, Webster's definition would allow the term to be used of the Atheist belief system. He even gives an example of humanism as a religion, which is adamant that there is no God.

In a less common usage of the world CULT, atheist would also apply. Here's a clue for those thinkers out there; when Webster defines a word, every example he gives does not necessarily have to apply. The word can have a variety of meanings and still be acceptable to use and communicate. One of his definitions of CULT can be a devoted attachment to a principle. He even refers to the "cult of nudism" which obviously would not necessarily have "a central figure who is infallible" as Kramer suggest must be true.

Interestingly, the American Humanist Association, while devoutly atheistic implies humanism as religious:

Humanism is a philosophy, worldview, or life stance based on naturalism—the conviction that the universe or nature is all that exists or is real. Humanism serves, for many humanists, some of the psychological and social functions of a religion, but without belief in deities, transcendental entities, miracles, life after death, and the supernatural. (www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/definitions.htm)

The religious implications of atheism was expressed in the "American Atheist" in perhaps their most abrasive assault on Christianity:

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing. (G.R.Bozarth, American Atheist, September 1978, p.30)

Thus, atheism is truly a religion.



Wow. I don't think I've ever seen so many fallacies of equivocation in a single posting before. My congratulations, sir.

Just as a start : "belief system" != "religion." I have, for example, a systematic belief system that can be quickly summarized as "physics", but there's little of the supernatural involved in "force equals mass times acceleration neglecting friction and relativistic effects." I also have an unsystematic belief that pizza tastes better with olives than without -- again, there's little of the supernatural about that.

"Humanism" != "atheism." There are not only atheists who are not humanist (much of Communist party doctrine falls into this category), but also non-atheist humanists (I believe Erasmus is a good representative). This is one of the reasons that the phrase "secular humanism" was coined and is widely used.

"Naturalism" != "Humanism." For that matter, "Naturalism" != "Atheism," as the 18th century Deists would be happy to illustrate for you.

"serves as" != "is" (in particular, humanism may "serve some of the functions of" a religion without being a religion). If my car is in the shop, I can still transport myself to and from the office by bicycle, but not move heavy cargo. The bicycle can serve some of the functions of a car, but most certainly is not a car.

Finally, your assessment of "atheism" is a misstatement. It's not necessarily a belief that all things "must" have a naturalistic explanation, merely that they "do" have such an explanation. There are at least two different types of atheists out there; some believe that the notion of God (as conventionally defined) is not logically possible and MUST not exist. Others believe that there's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of God, but that it simply describes a non-existent entiity (like mermaids or unicorns).

There's nothing of "religion" or "faith" in a person disbelieving in unicorns or mermaids. It's simply an observation, a belief based on evidence, that such creatures, while possible, do not exist. Disbelief in God can easily be such a non-religious belief.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Jerry

P.S.S. Although this thread has probably wandered greatly from the original post, here’s a question that perplexes me most about atheists; “If you could be convinced that indeed there was a personal god, of what real value is that? It seems that atheists generally hate the way god may or may not be and therefore would simply be exchanging a life of hopelessness, to a future of misery both here and the hereafter.

Unfortunately, the way the question is phrased, it cannot be answered. It's simultaneously ambiguous, vague, insulting, and just plain a stupid question.

First, the notion of a "personal god" is hopelessly ambiguous (and illustrates one of the major problems with 'theism' as expressed in most of the United States today). Which God, and what are His attributes? The "value" that an Islamic fundamentalist would place on his "personal God" is probably substantially different than the value placed by an ancestor-worshipping Shinto, and both are different than the traditional Christian answer.

And, of course, I'm lying if I talk about "the" traditional Christian answer, because the number of different answers available within Christianity is tremendous. Ask a Unitarian, a Baptist, a Catholic, and a Mormon "what is the value of belief in God" and you'll probably get five different answers. (The Unitarian will almost certainly answer twice.)

There's also this inherent problem in assigning value to knowledge-events. If you were to be convinced, for example, that the atomic number of oxygen were 8, of what real value would it be to you? (I suppose you might be able to win some money on a game show or something.)

The question itself hinges on an unbelievably stupid hypothetical, since atheists, by definition, do not believe in God. Asking an atheist "But if you could be convinced of God" is like asking a mathematician "But if 13 were a composite number, what would its non-trivial factors be?" The hypothetical is so far out of what reason and experience demand, there's no reason to take it at all seriously.

But most importantly, it's insulting. It assumes that the atheist has not come by his disbelief rationally and honestly, and that he can be swayed by an emotional appeal to fear. Really, this question is little different from telling a small child to eat her vegetables "or the bogeyman will get you." That doesn't even work on sophisticated small children, because they don't believe in the bogeyman. So the basic premise of the question is that atheists really do believe in God, but they are dishonest enough not to admit it, and by simply scaring them enough, they will suddenly come to their senses. You can't frighten a typical atheist with the bogeyman, because he knows that the bogeyman doesn't exist.

[Ashles]

“If you could be convinced that indeed there was a personal god, of what real value is that? It seems that atheists generally hate the way god may or may not be and therefore would simply be exchanging a life of hopelessness, to a future of misery both here and the hereafter.
I like the way you think you can speak for atheists and how they would respond to every hypothetical situation.
And that atheists are all, apparently so hate filled.

Funny, it seems to be many religions that are more filled with hatred and fear.
I will NOT serve him. I will keep my friends, wife and kids from serving or knowing Him. I’ll tell all I know that I distain the way he is. I'd rather reign in hell than serve in heaven.

Have I missed anything?

Er yes Jerry - you've missed pretty much everything.

Your transference of your own type of feelings (hate, fear, anger) onto atheists is interesting, but misguided and drawing false conclusions. (Find me one atheist who wouldn't absolutely love there to be a heaven)

We don't hate or fear God, we don't believe he exists. I'm not sure which part of that you don't understand.

Do you hate and fear giant walking mushrooms? I would hope not. They are as unreal to you as God is to an atheist.

As nwdrkitten points out you are trying to build on some kind of fear and it's really not sensible, logical or particularly pleasant to watch.

Your logic is twisted to support your own viewpoint, but, and more worryingly (for you anyway) you don't understand the viewpoints of others.

According to you anyone who doesn't believe in God is 'wrong'.

Well many people believe your faith is 'wrong' (as in incorrect) to just as high a degree. Does this belief or theirs bother you?
If not, try to imagine how little they are bothered by your opinions of them.

Plus on your website you have a page entitled "Evolution challenged" then you utterly fail to challenge it in any way (other than you make it clear you don't like it).
So do you have any of the scientific evidence to challenge evolution that you claim on the website?

[IXP]

In the mean time, no one has answered my question. "If you were convinced a personal God exists, of what value would it be?"

No one has answered because the question is ludicrous. Let me rephrase it so you might understand: "If an event were to occur which completely overturned your understanding of the universe, causing you to rethink every belief you hold and reevaluate all of your knowledge, what would your values then be?".

[KRAMER]

It's sad for us all that Jerry does not understand.

It's sadder still that he isn't even trying. This is the most visible hallmark of all belief systems.

Jerry hears only the voices in his head that tell him not to fear death because there is a hereafter where he will sit beside a loving god. How sad it is that in this age of science, ancient superstition is growing faster than ever.

When fear is the guiding factor in one's life, one's life is rendered utterly meaningless - a fruitless pursuit of one chimera after another, which ends naturally where all life ends - in the dust.

But, I digress.

There's more sloppy thinking on Jerry's side of the debate than I have seen here since I joined the forum. It's such a perfect illustration of what atheists and freethinkers are up against...the mind boggles.

Yet still, knowing full well (from direct experience) that we will never get anywhere with "adults" whose minds are similarly closed, we engage them.

The only hope for our future is in the education of our children, and we are seeing even THOSE hopes stripped away from us by
religious fundamentalists who have in the last ten years traded their pulpits for a seat in the House of Representatives, or the State Senate, or the County Legislature.

Forget the terrorists and the smokescreens pouring forth from our capitol's exhaust pipes. Jerry and his kind are exactly what we ought to be fearing the most, and fighting the hardest.

I predict that this debate will go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and
on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on.

But, it will do so without my participation.

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by LostAngeles

And it was Lucifer who reigned in hell. I think he counts as a Christian (though, not a very good one, I suppose.)

Hmm, from what I have learned from my christian friends, Lucifer (aka Satan aka the Devil etc.) is NOT the ruler of Hell. It is very common to depict him/her/them that way, but I think that is more a PC version.

Lucifer, as stated by christianity and probably islam and judaism is actually the primary/most important "guest" in Hell. Or will be, when Hell is opened on or after judgement.

I see this misconception pop up a lot (especially amongst christians...). The really interesting thing is that the true Lord of Hell is actually God himself...

No I'll go and hide where "good moral citizens" will not find me until they cool off :p

Mosquito

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Mosquito
Hmm, from what I have learned from my christian friends, Lucifer (aka Satan aka the Devil etc.) is NOT the ruler of Hell. It is very common to depict him/her/them that way, but I think that is more a PC version.

Lucifer, as stated by christianity and probably islam and judaism is actually the primary/most important "guest" in Hell. Or will be, when Hell is opened on or after judgement.

I see this misconception pop up a lot (especially amongst christians...). The really interesting thing is that the true Lord of Hell is actually God himself...

No I'll go and hide where "good moral citizens" will not find me until they cool off :p

Mosquito

Well, I was working off the Milton quote there. Personally, I like Gaiman's version of Lucifer.

"I quit.";)

[Jerry]

In the mean time, no one has answered my question. "If you were convinced a personal God exists, of what value would it be?"



Originally posted by Carn
Yep, asnwer depends on what exactly your god is and what he wants of us.

E.g. if god wants me to kill all non-christians, i'll tell him to bugger off, unless he has a realy good explanation, that i understand.

E.g. if he wants me to follow the 10 commandments, i would try to so.

E.g. if god wants me to love everybody else as i love myself, i would ask him for help, what exactly he means with "love", because if i do not know that, i cannot even decide whether i want to and can follow this rule.


Carn


Thank you Carn.

You were the only one who really tried to answer my question.


Jerry

[Jerry]

Sorry guys.

I really don’t play well with others, but trying to do better. ;>)

Here’s a powerful example of the existence of God from one of the chief disciples of Atheism, your own Guru James Randi.

I would challenge you to read carefully his “anti-atheist eulogy� of his friend Johnny Carson posted on the home page of this site.

He that hath ears, let him hear.

Jerry

[Jerry]

Originally posted by Mosquito
Lucifer, as stated by christianity and probably islam and judaism is actually the primary/most important "guest" in Hell. Or will be, when Hell is opened on or after judgement.

I see this misconception pop up a lot (especially amongst christians...). The really interesting thing is that the true Lord of Hell is actually God himself...

Mosquito


You are closer to truth that you think.


Jerry

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Jerry
Sorry guys.

I really don’t play well with others, but trying to do better. ;>)

Here’s a powerful example of the existence of God from one of the chief disciples of Atheism, your own Guru James Randi.

I would challenge you to read carefully his “anti-atheist eulogy� of his friend Johnny Carson posted on the home page of this site.

He that hath ears, let him hear.

Jerry

I did. And I just re-read it.

I'm not usually this blunt, but after reading the rest of the tripe you've been peddling here under the guise of some form of wisdom, what are you babbling about? There's NOTHING in that eulogy that even hints at the existence (or non-existence, for that matter) of God.

And I'm at a loss why you would choose to use someone else's grief as a justification for your argument. I won't even begin to tell you what I think of that particular tactic.

[Oregon_Skeptic]

Originally posted by Jerry
It seems to me that atheism is indeed a belief system.

Hmmm…Okay then, where should I go for “worship� of my atheism? And what exactly would I then worship? What rituals do I need to engage in? Do I need to chant or light candles or hum or mediate or something else? Is there an atheist hymnal or scripture of some sort? Indeed, is there even a text in this religion? And if there is, it in unfailing and perfect?

And as far as what I would think of the value if “a personal God exists� (your words, not mine), I think it would be just swell and I imagine I would be pretty difficult to live with. After all, this would be my personal god, right? And that’s got to be a good sight better than any genie with just three wishes, because as a god this dude would have unlimited—or close to that—powers. I would make my personal god smite my enemies, put good democrats in the White House and Congress, have Harvard admit me as an English doctoral candidate just so I could turn them down and go to NYU instead, take about ten years and twenty pounds of fat of my body, make me smarter than just about everyone else, make my Japanese fluent, give me a bundle of money and a personal Lear Jet and a regular invite to the Playboy Mansion . . . oh yeah, the woman of my dreams, house of my dreams, time to write all I want . . . would the list never end? I imagine that by the end of it all he would be one tuckered out little god.

And one more thing--I would have my god beat-up your god.



Edited for grammar.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Jerry
Sorry guys.

I really don’t play well with others, but trying to do better. ;>)

Here’s a powerful example of the existence of God from one of the chief disciples of Atheism, your own Guru James Randi.

I would challenge you to read carefully his “anti-atheist eulogy� of his friend Johnny Carson posted on the home page of this site.

He that hath ears, let him hear.

Jerry

Tch.

As jmercer said, there was nothing "anti-athiest" about that. It was merely Mr. Randi's outpouring of grief.

He that hath a language center in the brain, let him have reading comphrension skills.

jmercer, if you think that's bad, you should see where 1inChrist told two very ill posters that God was going to heal them. I'll see if I can dig up the link.

[LostAngeles]

Here we go.

On this page, 1inChrist claims he can do it. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46496&perpage=40&highlight=heal&pagenumber=2)

God heals, Man bullsh**s. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48207)

"I will ask God to heal two forum members and that will PROVE the HELLFIRE!"

[Jerry]

Originally posted by Oregon_Skeptic
And as far as what I would think of the value if “a personal God exists� (your words, not mine), I think .... give me a bundle of money and a personal Lear Jet and a regular invite to the Playboy Mansion . . . oh yeah, the woman of my dreams, house of my dreams, time to write all I want . . .

And one more thing--I would have my god beat-up your god.

Edited for grammar.


Dear chained in darkness,

Let me help you here a little. I'll go slow. Notice the difference between "What would you do if YOU were god?"

And: "If you were convinced a personal God exists, of what value would it be?"

Come on. I know you can do it. :>)

By the way, about beating up my god, yours has already been defeated!

Jerry

P.S. The record is in that black book you’ve removed from your house. (1 Cor 1:18)

[Oregon_Skeptic]

Yo Jerry,

Yeah, I sort of noticed the difference the first time. See, if I were a god, I wouldn't make anyone do those things for me, I would just do them myself. But if I had a personal god, you know, like in the way I have a car or TV or even a dog to play fetch, then I would make my personal god do those things. Either way I would be dificult to be with.

Still, you're funny. You made me laugh. Maybe you should think about taking your shtick on the road?

[Jerry]

Originally posted by Jerry
Here’s a powerful example of the existence of God from one of the chief disciples of Atheism, your own Guru James Randi.

I would challenge you to read carefully his “anti-atheist eulogy� of his friend Johnny Carson posted on the home page of this site.

He that hath ears, let him hear.

Jerry

In a moment of passion and grief, I believe the amazing Randi, in his eulogy of his friend Johnny Carson, gave us a glimpse of the truthfulness and realness of the supernatural. Not the charlatan, bogus type, but something beyond natural chemical reactions confirming the existence of the human spirit which had departed.

This heartfelt, honest evaluation contradicts his entire philosophy of the supernatural. Although his eulogy of his friend Johnny Carson has been deleted from Randi's home page, one would wonder how you could miss something that does not exist? I would suggest that this super star of atheism has undermined the basic scientific test in the Carson demise. What actually took place that is worthy of grief? Where is the AAI award winning critical thinker who searches for truth and applies rationalism to solving life's mysteries. That powerful figure who unashamedly mocked the living God and all he stands for when he proclaimed:

"To make sure that my blasphemy is thoroughly expressed, I hereby state my opinion that the notion of a god is a basic superstition, that there is no evidence for the existence of any god(s), that devils, demons, angels and saints are myths, that there is no life after death, heaven nor hell, that the Pope is a dangerous, bigoted, medieval dinosaur, and that the Holy Ghost is a comic-book character worthy of laughter and derision."
- James Randi, challenging blasphemy laws in several US states (Skeptic, 1995, 3:4, p. 11)

Randi's eulogy is powerful evidence to all that listen to their conscience that man has a supernatural spirit created in the image of a sovereign God. It will survive the grave and is accountable to his maker.

“For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.� (Acts 28:27)

I love you enough to tell you the truth.

Your friend,

Jerry

[Tricky]

Jerry, do you see the big difference between Randi's statement and your own hate-filled tirades against Mormons and others (which I linked earlier in case anyone wants to see just how "loving" you really are)?

Look closely
"I hereby state my opinion ..."

When have you ever stated your own beliefs as anything other than fact? I feel like if God wants me to know something, He will be able to communicate with me directly. He won't need self-righteous, hubris-riddled human mouthpieces to speak for Him. You appear to be of the opinion that he is not omnipotent enough to do his own work.

[IXP]

Originally posted by Jerry
In a moment of passion and grief, I believe the amazing Randi, in his eulogy of his friend Johnny Carson, gave us a glimpse of the truthfulness and realness of the supernatural. Not the charlatan, bogus type, but something beyond natural chemical reactions confirming the existence of the human spirit which had departed.

Jerry

Jerry,

Clearly you think it is self-evident that there can be no grief or suffering of a loss when a fellow human dies if there is no god or immortal soul or spirit. Please explain this position. It is not self-evident to me, and, I expect to many others on this forum.

[Carn]

Originally posted by Jerry
In the mean time, no one has answered my question. "If you were convinced a personal God exists, of what value would it be?"


Thank you Carn.

You were the only one who really tried to answer my question.


Jerry

I make the prediction, that most forum members, would agree with my statement, but think that it's so obvious, that it's not worth mentioning.
After all, even you cannot deny, that there are thousands of descriptions of thousands of different gods among mankind, so the first crucial question is, which one you are talking about.
And even the bible somehow enables to have at least a dozen slightly different description of god, so even saying, the god described in the bible is a bit unprecise to answer the question what on would make of such god.

BTW, one of the complaints i would bring before god, is the statues he is given by the bible, namely the title "king". That is out of date, if he wants to rule us, he is free to run for presidency(as he is almighty, he can do that without braking any law in many countries simutanously).
If his political program is convincing, he'll get my vote, though his campaign leafelets should be modernised throughfully, otherwise i would not understand what his political goals actually are and how he wants to reach them.
And finger away from the division between government and jurisdiction, he is free to try to get to supreme court or his son can go for that job(after they have proven they are different persons), but being supreme judge, ruler and legislator is not acceptable.
:p :p

Carn

[Hawk one]

I think I'll follow up IXP's post and turn around the tables here.

Jerry, here's a question for you: Why do religious people need to mourn people dying? If we look at f.ex. the standard Catholic view, people will go to either heaven or hell. If they're in heaven, people should be happy about it. And if they go to hell, then why bother mourning such sinners that God himself didn't want to be associated with?

An atheist on the other hand will have lost a friend or a family member that s/he cared a lot about in life, and will mourn because the loss will be real. The deceased person will never come back, and that is something to be sad for.

So, why is it harder to understand atheists mourning the deaths of their loved ones than religious people's mourning?

[Ashles]

Dear chained in darkness,
Let me help you here a little. I'll go slow.

...

I love you enough to tell you the truth.

Dear arrogant, smug, misguided, none-too-bright Jerry,

Here is a question which may help clear matters up for you.

"If you were convinced no God exists , would you be able to cope with life?"

By the way, I am sure real Christians (i.e. the ones who have read and actually understood the Bible's messages of tolerance and love) wince when they see people like you.

The poorly explained nature of your beliefs and a condascending tone does more to put people off religion than any number of atheists could.
Nice work Jerry.

One day I hope you might take your blinkers off and see the world as it is in all its glorious complexity. And stop looking for magic explanations and rewards for everything.
You may one day learn to take responsibility for your own actions and thoughts, and the repercussions that comes with them.
Who knows, one day you may even be able to form a personal set of moral codes that allows you to help and encourage others, without instructions from some kind of guide book.

Until then, while you continue to look down on others and do not perceive how ludicrous you appear to everyone, then it is you my friend sitting in a little dark box of ignorance, frightened to open the box and let knowledge into your life.

And remember, I'm only telling you this out of love.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
Here we go.

On this page, 1inChrist claims he can do it. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46496&perpage=40&highlight=heal&pagenumber=2)

God heals, Man bullsh**s. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48207)

"I will ask God to heal two forum members and that will PROVE the HELLFIRE!"

You're right - this is even worse...

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Atheism is a disbelief, or lack of belief. Actually, the way I look at is is:

Religious people believe there is a god.

Atheists believe there is no god.

Agnostics don't know.

This would make Agnosticism, not Atheism, the lack of a belief.

Guess which one I am? :D

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by RSLancastr
Actually, the way I look at is is:

Religious people believe there is a god.

Atheists believe there is no god.

Agnostics don't know.

This would make Agnosticism, not Atheism, the lack of a belief.

Guess which one I am? :D Ummm. Just to pick nits. I think that the argument is (and I could be in the entirely wrong thread here, but it might not really matter) that to say "Atheists believe there is no god" is the same to say that "Religious people believe there is a god" in that they are both therefore belief systems and therefore both types of religion (if you define "religion" as a set of beliefs). So (the nitpicking) would be that Atheists do not "believe there is no god", but rather "do not believe there is a god". Threfore there is no "belief system" about God, which would be a religion, but rather a lack in belief in God, which doe not require a "belief system" or religion. Subtle, I know.

Your point is well founded: Agnostics have no belief because they are undecided. Religious people and Atheists clearly tip the scale one way or the other. But there is the subtle differnce of tipping the scale based on a "belief" rather than a "disbelief" which in turn tips the scale on what is "religion" and what is not.

Did I confuse anyone other than myself? :D

[Powa]

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
Did I confuse anyone other than myself? :D
I got it. Well put.

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
So (the nitpicking) would be that Atheists do not "believe there is no god", but rather "do not believe there is a god". It may be a matter pf semantics, but I disagree.

While both both atheists and agnostics do not believe in god, to simply define atheists as people who do not believe in god is to not be specific. It would be like defining a circle as "not a square."

I'll say it again: atheists do not simply "not believe in god."

They believe there is NO god.

I would not categorize it as a religion, but in my view, atheism is definitely a belief.

Some atheists might be uncomfortable with the word, preferring to say that they know that there is no god, but - to me - this no more supportable a position than that of those religious people who say that they know that there is a god.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by RSLancastr


While both both atheists and agnostics do not believe in god, to simply define atheists as people who do not believe in god is to not be specific. It would be like defining a circle as "not a square."

I'll say it again: atheists do not simply "not believe in god."

They believe there is NO god.


This would only make sense if there were in fact a legitimate middle ground -- a group of people who do not believe in (a) god, but do not, in fact, believe there is no god.

Unless you're playing silly semantic games and claiming that only Christians (= believers in the Christian God) can be theists (and that a person, for example, who believes in the Greek pantheon is not a theist), then I think the two groups -- the people who do not believe in (a) god, and the people who believe there is NO god -- are identical. You're therefore drawing a distinction without a difference.

You're welcome to give me a counterexample of how those groups differ, of course.

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by new drkitten
This would only make sense if there were in fact a legitimate middle ground -- a group of people who do not believe in (a) god, but do not, in fact, believe there is no god.Since I myself belong to that group (as do all agnostics by definition), I disagree.

And no, I don't think I am "playing silly sematic games."

There are people who believe that there is a supreme being(s).

There are people who believe there is NO supreme being(s).

There is a legitimate third group, who does not believe EITHER of those things. I belong to that group.

Saying that an atheist is someone who does not believe in god is like saying that a negative number is a number which is not positive. Although it is a true statement, it is not a definition, since the numeral Zero also fits that statement, but is not a negative number.

... I think the two groups -- the people who do not believe in (a) god, and the people who believe there is NO god -- are identical. You're therefore drawing a distinction without a difference.

You're welcome to give me a counterexample of how those groups differ, of course.

I think the numerical example above proves my point, but here's another analogy.

Familiar with Schroedinger's cat? The cat's in a sealed box, 50/50 chance that it is dead. No way for us to tell one way or the other.

There can be a group who believes the cat is alive.

A second group - who recognize we can't know one way or the other - who say that they do not believe one way or the other.

And a third group who believes the cat is dead.

We can divide everyone into those who believe the cat is alive (group 1), and EVERYONE ELSE (groups two and three).

We can also divide the group into everyone who believes the cat is dead (group three) and EVERYONE ELSE (groups one and two).

But these two groupings obscure the fact that there are three groups, not two.

Yet another go at it:

It is like saying that everyone who does not like chocolate, HATES chocolate. There's a third group, who can take it or leave it.

It is like saying that all (lighted) traffic lights that aren't red are green. No, there is also yellow.

I guess it is a variant on a "false dichotomy." Stating or implying that there are only two alternatives, when there are indeed more than that.

Am I "playing semantic games?" No. This is part of the definition of who I am. It is a valid and important distinction.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Jerry
...I will NOT serve him...Have I missed anything....?
Jerry [/B]
You got that Ed Damned Right, Jer! If we serve our God Cuthulu (sic *www.alienjesus.com/cuthulu), that's blasphemy. Cuthulu eats us, not the other way around.

* Yes, I love the craft of horror, and know how to spell Cthulhu. But that site is a sight . Cite it.

[Carn]

Originally posted by RSLancastr

Familiar with Schroedinger's cat? The cat's in a sealed box, 50/50 chance that it is dead. No way for us to tell one way or the other.


Jumping in to battle nonsense in QM:
Schroedinger offered his cat example only to show how stupid it is to interpret "observer" too far.

QM offers by the way a perfect sensible and correct solution for the problem:
There is a fourth group:
The cat.
It knows whether it is alive or not and causes all your nice uncertainity to collapse.
Not to forget a bunch of microorganisms, viruses and even molecule, which would react with the poison, "know" whether the bottle is broken or not.

Carn

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by Jerry
Kramer,

Thanks for gutsy posting of your correspondence with "MICK" of "Thimk" ;>)

Since a portion is identical to what Vashek Pokorny, Admin of thinkandreason.com sent me, it's probably one and the same person.

This fills in the blanks for what was not told me, but unfortunately, you have no idea what corresponded with "Mickey" and me in the previous half dozen emails, which were supposed to be posted as part of the agreement to attach my full name to his article on his site (another topic another day).

Actually, one would have thought I was "defending" the JREF cause.

The very heart of the issue discussed, was not whether God exits, but rather (to borrow a few of your words) a atheist zealot who had a fantasy that he really did have someone else's million bucks that would stand behind his personal challenge. This agreement was with JREF and would be paid in behalf of thinkandreason if proof of God's existence could be given.

Thus, an atheist's bogus million dollar challenge debunked.

Have a nice day.

Jerry

Two observations from the sidelines here.

1) The quotes attributed to "an atheist" don't sound like anything from an atheist at all.

2) The references to "The Atheist Religion" make me wonder which beliefs all atheists are supposed to accept on faith.

I tend to suspect that MICK and Jerry are the same person, trolling.

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by DrMatt
Two observations from the sidelines here.

1) The quotes attributed to "an atheist" don't sound like anything from an atheist at all.

2) The references to "The Atheist Religion" make me wonder which beliefs all atheists are supposed to accept on faith.

I tend to suspect that MICK and Jerry are the same person, trolling.

One more observation from the sidelines: I posted that without reading the whole thread. Having skimmed the thread, I think there's sufficient information there to establish my suspicions as likely beyond any reasonable doubt.

[Dr Adequate]

Jerry,

The purpose of your posts here seems mainly to be to tell people offensive lies about what they themselves think and feel.

This is fairly dumb, because of course we can tell that you're lying. You see, you might successfully lie to me about what other people think, or you might successfully lie to other people about what I think, but lying to me about what I think is not going to work. Because I know what I'm thinking.

So the effect of this practice is to make you appear to be

(a) Stupid
(b) Malicious
(c) A liar.

This does not exactly make you the best ambasador for your religion.

Why do I have to keep explaining this to crackpots? The mental process seems, so far as I can tell, to go like this."If I fantasise that all the people who disagree with me are evil and hateful, and if I deny their real beliefs and feelings no matter how often they're explained, and if I lie and lie and lie about them and to them about their own opinions then... I am right, without having to provide any good arguments on behalf of my own nutty views." They have to provide some substitute for actually being able to argue in favour of their own nutty point of view (this is why people never argue for sane things in this way) and I would feel sorry for them, except that of all the possible methods of defending oneself against reality, this is the most thoroughly unpleasant. The result is akin to schizophrenia --- grandiosity, paranoia, and an unbudgeable delusion. But the problem is not that the patient is hearing voices in his head. It's that he's become incapable of hearing the voices outside his head.

[jmercer]

I think it might be a bit simpler than that, Dr Adequate.

I think it's the "There's no place like home" syndrome - if I close my eyes (and my ears, and my mind) and say it enough, it'll become true...

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Jerry,

The purpose of your posts here seems mainly to be to tell people offensive lies about what they themselves think and feel.

This is fairly dumb, because of course we can tell that you're lying. You see, you might successfully lie to me about what other people think, or you might successfully lie to other people about what I think, but lying to me about what I think is not going to work. Because I know what I'm thinking.

So the effect of this practice is to make you appear to be

(a) Stupid
(b) Malicious
(c) A liar.

This does not exactly make you the best ambasador for your religion.

Why do I have to keep explaining this to crackpots?

The other factor you're missing is that, for the most part, they're not talking to you. They're using you as one half of a stage dialogue for the rest of the audience. You may know that he's telling lies about what you believe, but the audience will only hear your frenzied attempts to deny what you know to be The Truth.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by RSLancastr
Actually, the way I look at is is:

Religious people believe there is a god.

Atheists believe there is no god.

Agnostics don't know.

This would make Agnosticism, not Atheism, the lack of a belief.

Sorry, that's not right.

Atheism and Theism are statements of belief; Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge.

Theists are those who believe in the existence of a god (or gods), without needing to define the properties thereof. Atheists include both those who believe that there is no god and those who do not believe there is a god.

Agnostics are those who believe that the truth of the matter is not known, or cannot be known.

A + theism -> without god
A + gnosis -> without knowledge

You can thus be an agnostic atheist - you have no belief(s) in god(s), but do not consider that the matter has been decided. You can also be a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist, but being an agnostic theist would be logically inconsistent. Of course, that rarely stops people.

[Ririon]

Of course, that rarely stops people

Exactly. I have a (christian) friend who always believes that his favorite football team will win, but somehow he doesn't know that they will, so he can't support that belief with a bet...

Since in the same way you can't know that you will go to Heaven(tm) when you die (until it's too late), I would guess that many christians are "agnostic theist". They can't know, but they have to believe to get in, so they (this is where they lose me) somehow convince themselves.

I guess it makes some kind of sense if you are able to talk yourself into something like that. You get a slightly better chance of surviving your own death, and if you find a denomination with a small downside to the bet, then I guess it can seem like a good deal.

But who am I to talk about what goes on in the minds of people who can convince themselves of all kinds og wheird things, like that all the stuff in the Bible is true... :cs:

Ririon

[Carn]

Originally posted by Ririon

But who am I to talk about what goes on in the minds of people who can convince themselves of all kinds og wheird things, like that all the stuff in the Bible is true... :cs:

Ririon

Small defense:

AFAIK the vast majority of christians, including the pope, do not believe that every word in the bible is true.

They know there is some addon from retelling and so on, but they think that a correct interpretation, which unveils god's true messages, is possible, though there might be requirements to be able to do that, e.g. being the pope or a bishop.

I personally think they acquired this position, because science ha given them a throughful beating, while they tried to hold the other position.

I think the same has happened with most belive base systems, e.g. a homeopath told me some time ago, that Hahnemann is not to be taken literally and serious on everything he says.

Carn

[UrsulaV]

Originally posted by new drkitten
This would only make sense if there were in fact a legitimate middle ground -- a group of people who do not believe in (a) god, but do not, in fact, believe there is no god.


I sorta think that there might be something to this point, but I think that there's so much baggage attached to "atheist" and "agnostic"--often by people like our gentleman with the axe to grind against atheism earlier in this thread--that it may be hard to get at it.

For example, does an agnostic not know if there's a god, or believe that there IS some form of supreme being but that it's unknowable (or doesn't much matter?) I've heard it defined both ways, and there's a pretty big difference, obviously.

Now, I'm moving way beyond the realm of the quantifiable here, obviously, but I sort of think of it like this.

Belief that there IS NO God/s is how I get right after reading something inflammatory by Dawkins or whoever, or something by an idiot young-earth creationist, and I'm stomping around seething about the mushifying effect of religion upon the collective brains of mankind. I am convinced that there's no god, and I'm pissed off at people who are wasting their time kowtowing to a figment of somebody else's imagination. And I'd probably call that a belief. It's something that I am emotionally invested in and polish lovingly so that I may hit people over the head with it.*

It's fun, but it's also not something I can sustain for any great length of time.

Lack of belief in a God or gods, on t'other hand, is how I am after a good night's sleep, a nice cup of coffee, and a morning spent watching cute little birds try to slaughter each other on the birdfeeder. I am mellow. Is there a god? Eh, probably not. Maybe. I dunno. Who cares? Why are you asking me stupid questions when there's a battle royale between the chickadees and the woodpecker? I have bigger fish to fry. At that point, having a belief for or against any particular deity has no particular bearing on my existence. It's like asking whether I believe the story being told to the jury by Bob in Nebraska. Who is Bob in Nebraska? Why should I care? I don't believe him or disbelieve him--I don't know anything about it, and it just doesn't have any bearing on my existence. Getting my bowels in an uproar over Bob--or gods--seems like a waste of time, since at the end of the day, there will still be coffee (albiet congealing in the bottom of the pot) and the cute little birds will still be trying to slaughter one another cutely.

Are these two states different enough that one qualifies as a belief and one doesn't? They sort of feel like it, but I suspect it depends on how we're defining words like "agnostic."

I also suspect that while the angry religious types who want to debate the Misguided Atheists are probably thrilled by those who believe there is no god, they probably have a hard time getting traction on people who simply don't think the question matters enough to bother with, and thus will try to cast atheism only in the mold of the first one.

Or possibly the only thing one can derive from this post is that I spend too much time staring out the window at that bird feeder.


*I should also add that I don't think there's anything wrong with this, in moderation. Sometimes you have to get mad.

[Stitch]

Originally posted by Jerry

P.S.S. Although this thread has probably wandered greatly from the original post, here’s a question that perplexes me most about atheists; “If you could be convinced that indeed there was a personal god, of what real value is that? It seems that atheists generally hate the way god may or may not be and therefore would simply be exchanging a life of hopelessness, to a future of misery both here and the hereafter.

Of value? Nothing as far as I can see. I see plenty of people that "have" religion, but I don't see their life is any better than mine, i.e. more fulfilling, less tragedy in it etc etc and in many cases they seem less fulfilled than I, but it depends on what your life objectives are, and I'm happy with mine.

On a down side, if the RC god were to be shown as real, I wouldn't be able to lie in on a Sunday any more and I'd have to eat fish on Fridays and I hate fish, so all in all it isn't looking too good.

[Moose]

On a down side, if the RC god were to be shown as real, I wouldn't be able to lie in on a Sunday any more and I'd have to eat fish on Fridays and I hate fish, so all in all it isn't looking too good. [/B]

Actually, you simply couldn't eat what the RC church considers meat. You wouldn't have to eat fish. That part's optional. It's just a traditional (and convenient) substitute for most folks. Basically, if you can stand to go vegetarian for one day a week, you'd be set.

Can't help you for the sunday morning thing. ;)