Atheism not really a religion but a belief system, says creationist Ken Ham

[Warren Stupidity]

Somebody has to post this sort of nonsense.

Answers in Genesis CEO and creationist Ken Ham cannot understand why people consider atheism as a religion. He encourages Christians to learn more about atheism as well as other false religions so as to help battle secularisation.

"One religion that has grown in numbers and cultural significance is atheism. Now, why would we even call atheism a religion? AiG points out that as a non-theistic religion, atheism is a belief system that attempts to explain everything in our world, including how the universe came to be and how one should relate to his fellow humans," Ham writes on his Facebook page.

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/atheism.not.really.a.religion.but.a.belief.system.says.creationist.ken.ham/69781.htm

[DetlefK]

1. That's the great thing about atheism: No suspension of disbelief is necessary.

We have "facts" that were derived via the scientific method, repeatedly tested many times over and are accepted truth with a certain degree of possible error, because absolute truth cannot be derived from finite knowledge (it's statistically impossible).

Nobody is "believing" in atheism. Nobody asks you to take anything for granted and to suspend your criticism or disbelief in any way. (It is my personal opinion, that you don't count as an atheist if you can't explain WHY you are an atheist.)



Second point:
The other class of atheists is not in resistance to the concept of God, but to particular phenotypes/instances of God. Mostly when the ethical implications of such a god conflict with the morals of the person.
But this is also no belief in atheism: The god is assumed as real and judged as not being worthy of being worshipped.

[gelatinous cube]

12. Someone's going out kicking and screaming...

I've found that the stupidest opinion someone can have is the one that they haven't put any thought into. Believe whatever you want, but if you have no evidence or proof, scientific or logical, then it's simply dumb. The best part is that most religious beliefs fall under these conditions.

[edhopper]

2. At least he is honest about calling all the other religions false

People who absolutely believe in their religion are often hard pressed tom admit other religions are false, though they have to be for theirs to be true.

[Goblinmonger]

3. That guy is such a fucking doofus.

That he is saying the same thing a lot of people in this group are saying is just all the better. How can people say the same thing as Ken Ham and not hate themselves for it?

[mr blur]

4. Of course, just like Evolution is a fairy story with no basis in reality,

Oh, wait . . .

[cleanhippie]

5. I wonder how our resident apologists feel about being in the same camp as Ham?

[Warren Stupidity]

6. I think they are speechless.

[trotsky]

8. Speechless, but always watching...

[mr blur]

9. That makes me so angry!

[trotsky]

10. LMAO!!! n/t

[struggle4progress]

7. I had understood YOUR view to be that only the ignorant thought "Atheism is a religion"

based on your earlier post "Atheism is a religion like off is a TV channel"

For what it's worth, that actually seems to place YOUR views, rather than anyone else's, close (in some respect) to the views of Wacky Ken -- though I myself wouldn't really be inclined to claim it was worth much

[cleanhippie]

11. In your world where up is down, your opinion makes sense.

Here in reality though...

Maybe a google galop will clear things up.

[guillaumeb]

13. I was number 5

On Fri Nov 6, 2015, 08:25 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

In your world where up is down, your opinion makes sense.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=217108

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

If he can't respond to the point, he should not attack the poster with nonsense.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Nov 6, 2015, 08:33 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I disagree with the alerter--the poster is not "attacking with nonsense." He is attacking with personal insult. He is calling the poster unhinged from reality because the poster doesn't look at the issue in the way the he, a "normal" person, does. Because the poster doesn't see things his way, he further rudely insists the poster's very opinion is without merit--although a quick Google does bear that poster out, and provides arguments for both viewpoints.

I've had enough of this snark and rudeness. This is DU, not Yahoo. Discuss the issues, don't insult. Hide.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I see nothing objectionable here.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Juror 2 must have been using hermeneutics

to discover the hidden text in ckeanhippies post.

[guillaumeb]

20. How many layers of meaning ARE there in the text?

Hmmmmmm.

[cleanhippie]

16. Thanks. I love how #2 loves the Google too!

[guillaumeb]

21. Some here are very quick on the alert button.

A little name calling is to be expected.

Except, of course, when I am the object of the insults.

[cleanhippie]

22. I agree, but I didn't call anyone names. Some have sensibilities like delicate snowflakes...

and that's not my problem.

[guillaumeb]

23. What a poetic metaphor!

"delicate little snowflakes".

Agreed. From a delicate little piece of......

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. You misunderstand - Ham says atheism is a religion; Christianity Today got the headline wrong

Here are the Ham quotes:

"One religion that has grown in numbers and cultural significance is atheism. Now, why would we even call atheism a religion? AiG points out that as a non-theistic religion, atheism is a belief system that attempts to explain everything in our world, including how the universe came to be and how one should relate to his fellow humans"

"It's more important than ever for Christians to understand false religions (including non-theistic ones like atheism)"

"Generations of our young people, including many in our churches, have been educated in government-run schools in the religious view of naturalism, which in reality is atheism.

Now, the battle between these religions began ..."

" Those religions built on man’s word take many forms, but whether it’s atheism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and so on, all make man god instead of trusting in the Creator God of the Bible."

"In the preface to World Religions and Cults, Hodge notes that in this series (there will be three volumes) he did not want to “ignore the many secular religions, with their sects and cults, like secular humanism, atheism, and agnosticism.” (Those secular religions will be covered in depth in volume three of the trilogy.)"


See? "not really a religion" is just the opposite to what Ham actually says. Christianity Today is just stupid. As is, of course, Ham, but for different reasons.

[struggle4progress]

19. Frankly, I can't make heads or tails of this. I have no use for Ham, but his statement that

atheism is a naturalistic, comprehensive worldview (as opposed to a supernatural one) is exactly the distinction that has sometimes been used in this forum to argue that atheism cannot ever be regarded as a religion

And the article may be incoherent as well: Answers in Genesis CEO and creationist Ken Ham cannot understand why people consider atheism as a religion. He encourages Christians to learn more about atheism as well as other false religions so as to help battle secularisation

The discussion in this thread doesn't help, either. We have lots of vague statements, together with a strange and completely unscientific image apparently suggesting chimpanzees gave rise to humans, which is untenable as modern evolutionary theory

I throw up my hands

[randys1]

76. BEst line ever, and true

"atheism is a religion like off is a TV channel"

brilliant...not sure who said it, reading this thread is confusing

[Yorktown]

14. I find Ken Ham touching

Behind the beard, there is a boyish face.

That little boy is trying with all his might to retain his childhood illusions.

Cute. Dumb, but cute.

[AlbertCat]

17. Cute. Dumb, but cute.

Laughing all the way to the bank..but in a cute way.

He's just so adorable! But as impenetrable as marble.

[Yorktown]

24. Ham, "as impenetrable as marble"?

That's because he lost so many of his marbles.

Can't lose any more.

Must be as impenetrable as his one marble left.

[randys1]

77. And believes every word and uses every word to generate hate and intolerance

[PatrickforO]

28. No, no, no, no, no...

Oh, Mommy! Look at that CUTE box jellyfish!

Ham is dangerous, I think, just because he IS cute. But not dumb. The converts he makes are dumb. He's...I don't know what he is.

A box jellyfish? A common death adder? A funnel spider?

[Yorktown]

33. Ken -box jellyfish- Ham

I saw a video where he was actually very efficiently dangerous:

in a theater packed with young kids (ages 5 to 10?), he asked "Have you ever heard about something called evolution?". Some kids would say yes, proud and hopeful they might be right. Good old Ken set them straight: "Well, good thing you came here to learn the truth. Because there is no such thing as evolution".

I'm so glad I watched that video.

Or I would have kept believing I evolved from a common ancestor with apes, fish and whatnot.

[Iggo]

25. Well, he's half right.

[HassleCat]

26. Atheism and cosmology

We (atheists) don't know how the universe came into being. We just know it wasn't created in seven days by some old guy who couldn't even build his own ark.

[old guy]

29. Never thought about that.

Would that be the first privatization gimmick? If so, it means that their god was the first repub. Crap, now it all makes sense.

[HassleCat]

30. And the ark was built by Halliburton

[Leontius]

35. You don't know that either.

You believe, you hope, you think probably not but you don't know.

[Goblinmonger]

36. Being that there is zero evidence for it,

one can make some pretty solid assumptions as to how to live one's life.

Are you a young earth creationist?

[Leontius]

37. Nope

[Goblinmonger]

39. That's good.

Why does creationism get equal probability with what science is currently pointing to as most likely? Can't we say "well, we don't know exactly how it came into being, but that creationism stuff is just kid's stories"?

[Leontius]

41. Depends on your definition of "creationism"?

[Yorktown]

42. wiki gives a pretty simple definition

Creationism is the religious belief that the Universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation.

Do you have another?

[Goblinmonger]

43. Well, there are different myths about creation

but it's pretty simple. See, when you Google something like that, it usually gives you this big box right at the top with the definition. Even Bing does that for god's sake.

[Lordquinton]

44. Some folks have other ways of googling

[Leontius]

45. Hoped to see some evidence of really wanting to engage in a discussion and this is how you respond.

Typical and I should have know better by your past history. God bless you I'll say a small prayer for you.

[Goblinmonger]

47. OK. Fair enough. I'll own that. My apologies.

Are you talking about some level of deist watchmaker concept or what?

[Leontius]

49. I believe that God created the Universe and has and still does interact with us.

I'll put it this way. God is the why. Science is the how. I hope that makes sense even in it's simplicity.

[Humanist_Activist]

52. But the "why" is irrelevant, and presupposes the existence of a creator god...

creating a circular argument that does nothing to advance our knowledge of ourselves, our place in the universe, or how it came about.

[Leontius]

54. We disagree on the relevance of the "why"

All arguments for "the beginning" create a circular argument. "It just happened" is the same argument with different words. Your view in my opinion makes the search for "our place in the Universe " irrelevant we have no "place" we just are. Our existence or annihilation is of no consequence in this vastness.

[cpwm17]

59. "It just happened" (or it just is) is the answer regardless if you believe in a god or not.

If we must give an explanation as to why or how there is existence, then one must give an explanation as to why or how there is a god. Plus, one must give an explanation as to how this god does its work.

Why not skip the god. God complicates things so much and there is zero evidence for this god.

Science has answered many of the questions on how we got here. The known starting point for our Universe that led to our existence is many orders of magnitudes simpler, thus far more likely, than a starting from a god. A god is the most complicated thing imaginable, so it is a very poor explanation for anything.

[Leontius]

60. God is hard so let's just ignore it as an a possible answer.

Not exactly the best way to go about the discussion but if it works for you great. Science is great for explaining the many forms of "how" but not so the "why". It in fact runs away from why, it dismisses why, claims it to be irrelevant it's not really even capable of answering that question.

[Yorktown]

61. What we have is no evidence for god and some mad 'holy' books

Now tell me how you know a god which can't be defined is a 'possible answer'.

[Leontius]

62. Do you believe that dark matter exists?

[Yorktown]

63. We have evidence for 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'

Observations of effects and equations to try to find what they might be.

No such observation for god which is an undefined concept with undefined properties.

[Leontius]

64. No there is no evidence of either.

Both are unknowns. They are assumptions or guesses based on the disconnect between theory and observation of light movement and gravitational fields. They are outside of our ability to define by todays scientific knowledge but you accept their existence because some smart guys say well maybe, could be, kinda makes the math work but it sure beats re-examining all our previous work and theories.

[Yorktown]

66. You are either disingenuous or ill informed

It's now almost one century since the theory of 'something' to explain distortions from known physical laws has been given the code name 'dark matter'. Whatever it is, the effects associated with this theory have been constantly reinforced by new measurements. It can be called 'dark matter' or 'modified Newtonian dynamics", there is something out there whose effects are felt and measured.

Nothing equivalent for the idea of a god.

No measurable effect, no defined properties, just one sentence where Science doesn't answer yet: "Magic! 'god' did it". What is god, what is it made of, where is it, what did it do, when? Not one inkling. God is just a stop gap for our ignorance.

'dark matter' -whatever it ends up being- is far more likely to exist than a 'god'.

[Leontius]

70. Do you believe they exist?

Nothing I posted earlier is ill informed or disingenuous they are unknowns, they are best guesses, fillers to make the theory work.

[Yorktown]

73. OK, done, you are willfully deaf to what I am telling you

This is the third time at least I told you,

(1) there is something, call it dark matter and dark energy or X1 and X2, which have nmeasurable effects in time and space.

(2) there is no such thing about the concept of 'god' which is just a generic term to 'explain' by undefined magic the elements of cosmology or of the apparition of life and consciousness that we haven't explained yet.

Do you see the difference between (1) and (2) now? Measurable effects or absence thereof.

Better still, there are research programs to determine which of the different existing theories might explain X1 and X2. No such thing exist for 'god'

Finally, the existing *holy* books which decribe what 'god' might be and want are laughable.

All in all, the god hypothesis has no basis. Other than human insecurities.

[Leontius]

78. Tell me again if you want it will not change the fact that dark matter is an unkown, unexplained

guess. At sometime in the future we may know that it's existence is real but for now we don't. You just accept it as fact because you want to believe just like the physicists want to believe because without this unknown it just doesn't add up, the observations and measurements don't support current theory it may be the answer to the puzzle or it may be angels on a pinhead.

[Yorktown]

82. The key word you try hard not to read is observable effect

Call it dark matter or X1, there is something that has an effect that can be identified and measured. The fact the exact explanation of the mechanism at work is not central to the fact of asserting there is a physical phenomenon at work.

No such thing for a 'god'. The 'god' stories are rubber patches on the holes in our knowledge.
No coherent theory of what a 'god' is, would have done, how and when. 'god' is just magic flloating in the air, unbound by any need to explain anything. "'god' must have done it" is all the believer needs to 'explain'things.

There is a fundamental difference between the two claims:
- 'black matter': something happens which can be measured, let's explain it
- 'god': there are things we don't know yet, let's call them 'god'

Do you see the conceptual difference now?

[Leontius]

83. I've seen your problem from the start .

I'm sure you see it too but the danger of admitting it is to great for you to confront so you must fall back to grasping that blanket as tightly as you can.

[trotsky]

85. Someone's definitely holding their blankie tight here.

But it ain't Yorktown.

[cleanhippie]

94. Yes, the blanket of facts and empiracle evidence is one that should be held tightly.

You should try it sometime. It's way more cozy than that worn-out blanket of faith and 'other ways of knowing' will ever be.

And best of all, it actually exists!

[Yorktown]

104. Tell yourself that

The fact the phenomenon code-named 'black matter' isn't explained yet doesn't change the fact it is a phenonomenon whose effects can be traced in time and space.

No such thing for the 'god' concept.

There goes your blanket.

[Leontius]

105. I have no problem that there is no generaly accepted scientific evidence or observation for God.

Why do you have so much trouble admitting you believe in an unknown?

[Yorktown]

106. Because you use weasely speech

I do not 'believe in an unknown', I accept the learned opinion of astrophysicists who say they detect and measure effects of great magnitude which they currently code-named 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'.

The word 'belief' being one of those loose words which can be extended by vague word plays to try to equate observation of facts and acceptation of invented concepts (god).

[Leontius]

109. Even your favorite wiki calls them 'unknowns'.

By the way dark matter and dark energy are "invented concepts".

[skepticscott]

65. No, the best way is

"God is unnecessary to explain anything we see, so why make it part of the explanation when there is no objective evidence for it?"

Apologists and religionists who imagine they're being clever have trotted out some version of "science answers the how questions and religion answers the why questions" for a long time, but it assumes without evidence that there even is a "why" that requires an objective explanation. There isn't. Religion answers emotional and psychological needs, not objective, explanatory ones.

[Goblinmonger]

67. I disagree. God is the easy way out.

Don't know how or why something came into being? God. That stops having to search for the answers. Do I have the answers? No. And I won't find them because I'm an English teacher. But those who study it are working on it. And that's probably a lot more productive than writing myths about God that try to explain things as we know it. It just a modern more fancy version of turtles all the way down.

[Leontius]

69. I agree with you that God can be used in that way by some people.

And they are wrong just as the people that take the other path of God is too hard a concept for me to imagine so let's ignore it are also wrong. I find a remarkable connection between Cosmology and Philosophy, they're both turtles all the way down, until.

[cpwm17]

71. God is huge step away from an explanation for existence.

Last edited Fri Nov 13, 2015, 01:51 AM - Edit history (1)

God explains nothing. A god explanation is equivalent to claiming the unknown is explained by magic. Where would that get you?

God or no god, there is some level that just exists as a brute fact. Theists claim that brute fact is a god(s), the most complicated thing imaginable. And it can only be imagined since there is zero evidence of its existence.

Others may claim the brute fact is matter, energy, and some laws of nature. This is far simpler than any god, plus we know that matter, energy, and the laws do exist.

Since all of existence could very well be infinite, including possibly infinite worlds outside our Universe, a lot is going to happen in such a large reality. Asking why (as you are using the word) in this context is meaningless. All one can say is tons of shit happens, including evolution and us. The huge world out there has given us great odds of existing right now.

[cleanhippie]

72. Which God are you talking about?

You keep saying "God" as if there is one and only one God (I know you believe that to be true), but humans worship thousands of different gods.

You've got a lot of work to do to not only prove that "God" exists, but also that YOUR God is the only one.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. you seem to have abandoned your interrogatory on the evidence for dark matter.

Wasn't working out so well? Did you have a point, or was there some gotcha trap that the filthy atheists failed to trigger?

[Leontius]

79. At what point did you reach such a ridiculous conclusion?

There is no evidence for dark matter only unexplainable anomalies in gravitational field measurements that dark matter as imagined may solve to make the current cosmological models work or it may be flying invisible space unicorns that account for this missing universal matter and energy.

[Act_of_Reparation]

80. Do you think flying invisible space unicorns are an equally valid hypothesis? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

81. Right so nobody chomped down on your bait.

And instead patiently pointed out that dark matter is just a place holder for observed anomalies. So what was your point?

[Goblinmonger]

88. It seems the only thing hard about the god concept you are describing

is trying to show why it has to be a thing. If god leaves no trace and is not measurable and everything can be explained without god, then it gets hard to make an argument as to why it has to exist. I fully realize that we don't understand everything about the universe, but nothing we have discovered in the last 2000 years leads to "Yup, there must be a god." It's always, "well, here's why this happens." And I know you are having the dark matter discussion elsewhere here, but, as was pointed out, that's just kind of a placeholder. To me, saying "well dark matter means there is a god" is no different than the Norse saying "well, thunder means there's Thor." Made sense at the time, but once we learned about lightening, Thor no longer had a purpose.

[mr blur]

95. Other. Ways. Of. Knowing.

Wonderful, supernatural powers available only to the True Believer.

[Leontius]

102. I don't understand how you get that I am saying "well dark matter means there is a god"

Last edited Fri Nov 13, 2015, 09:14 PM - Edit history (2)

One does not equal the other and I have never stated that they do but it is interesting that you make that statement.

[Leontius]

108. Post #88 by Goblinmonger says exactly that

Three threads three untruths uttered by you about me, seems like a pattern.

[Leontius]

112. Tell a lie then self delete the next day to avoid admitting you're lying and avoid apologizing.

Really says something about what type of person one is.

[cleanhippie]

96. 24 hours and still silence.

[Lordquinton]

84. But God has been disproved many times as a cause for things

Evolution, plate tectonics, lightening rods, bacteria, the list goes on and on of things that god was once responsible for that we now know simply isn't the case.

You're blindly defending the god of the gaps, it's an idea that can safely be discarded at this point. Seriously, if a scientific explanation for something had been disproved so thoroughly anyone backing it would be laughed out of the hall. And this isn't some plucky person who can prove the world wrong, this is some oppressive bully who has been unseated by the plucky person who did prove the world wrong.

[HassleCat]

38. I guess that's true

I don't know that any more than I know any other hypothetical possibility. Maybe the universe did not exist until I dreamed it into being.

[cleanhippie]

40. Ken Hamm, is that you?

Or do you just share his creationist view?

[Humanist_Activist]

46. There is evidence contrary to a Biblical creation, the Universe is...

around 13.82 billion years old, evidence suggested it started with the "Big Bang" and we know, roughly, the things that happened since it was minutes old if not seconds old. Past that, our theories break down.

These are facts, whether a god was responsible for what happened before that, the thing that got it started is a fallacy of infinite regress. The point is that we shouldn't assume such a being exists, particularly since there's no evidence such a being interacted with the universe since then.

[Leontius]

48. Contrary to a literal Biblical Creation, we both agree to that.

I am curious, How would anyone know that God interacts with the Universe or not if God transcends space and time and the physical universe? If it's all about the math why is it that the math just doesn't work until we add in unkowns, unprovens and speculations?

[Humanist_Activist]

50. If a god interacts with the universe in any way, its in a way that never...

violates the known theories and observations as we understand them through science. Such a god apparently doesn't perform miracles.

By definition, a god that transcends time and space can't interact with the universe anyways, so I don't see why speculation about such a being is useful. Nor is it useful to insert a "god of the gaps", that's pretending to have knowledge you can't possibly have.

Here's a thought experiment, imagine a universe without a creative, intercessory god creating or interacting with it. How would that universe be different than our own?

ON EDIT: An important point is that an intercessory god would leave observable traces on the universe that couldn't have naturalistic explanations.

[Leontius]

55. I'm not sure how you arrive and your definition that prevents God to interact.

I don't think there would be any difference we could detect or prove in a scientific acceptable manner in either universe.

[Humanist_Activist]

56. If that's the case, then why presuppose that a god exists in the first place? n/t

[Leontius]

57. Runs both ways though so the ground you stand on is no more or no less solid than where I stand.

Would still like you to explain your point or definition.

[Humanist_Activist]

58. Not so, my position is to not make assumptions, I certainly don't claim that any deity...

created this universe, for I don't know the circumstances as to how this universe came into existence.

[cleanhippie]

68. Ahh, the old 'you can't prove it doesn't exist' fallacy.

How many times do you have to be told, the burden of proof is on YOU, the one claiming there is a god.


And while you're at it, how do you know that the god YOU believe in is the one that really exists?


I won't hold my breath waiting on you to provide anything even resembling a coherent answer.

[stone space]

86. Ah, the old "You can't prove it exists fallacy"

Ahh, the old 'you can't prove it doesn't exist' fallacy.

How many times do you have to be told, the burden of proof is on YOU, the one claiming there is a god.

And while you're at it, how do you know that the god YOU believe in is the one that really exists?

[Goblinmonger]

87. So do you just take aim at cleanhippie because you don't like him?

I mean, it seems if you are this militant atheist you want to claim you are, you would be going further than he is with this one and completely empty the chamber on those that are making the argument he is responding to.

[stone space]

89. Sorry, but I don't talk gunspeak.

So do you just take aim

I'm an atheist, not a Gun Worshiper.

Please use non-offensive secular language if you really want to communicate with nonbelievers like me.

[Goblinmonger]

90. So metaphors are offensive?

That's an interesting concept. I mean, completely fucking bizarre, but interesting.

Seems like a nice way to not address the issues.

So, do you just knee-jerk to anything cleanhippie says? Oh, wait, I'm sorry, do bodily function figurative phrases offend your delicate sensibilities or will you address the issue now? Are you not a Nerve Worshiper?

[Act_of_Reparation]

91. Why do you keep calling yourself an unbeliever?

I don't get it.

[cleanhippie]

97. It's an obsessive-compulsive need, GM.

Just because one changes their socks doesn't mean their feet don't still stink.

[Goblinmonger]

98. It clearly has to be

No militant atheist would take offense at what you said. If anything, any militant atheist I have known would have pointed and laughed a lot harder at the creationist. But apparently we live in the world where we can make words mean whatever we want.

[cleanhippie]

99. Or in this case, words that mean nothing at all.

Incoherence is strong there.

[Leontius]

103. Pointing and laughing real classy behavior for some one who claims to be an educator.

[Goblinmonger]

110. I was talking about how a militant atheist

would react. I know your reading comprehension is better than that. Stoned space claims to be a militant atheist. Have you met any militant atheists? Their reaction would be pretty close to my description. But, sure, go ahead and imply that I said that is what I would do. I'm sure Jesus would be happy with that.

[Leontius]

111. You seemed to me to imply that that was your whole attitude about what I've been saying.

If you say that was not your intent I take you at your word and apologize for my misunderstanding and comment.

[Goblinmonger]

113. Not at all. It was a reaction to the person who continues to claim to be a militant atheist.

Clearly he has never met one. A militant atheist would not have taken the stance he did. They are very quick and brutal in their condemnation of religion.

[cleanhippie]

92. Ah, the old incoherent, unintelligible response.

I'm sure you think you have some sort of point, but you'll need to use actual words strung into coherent sentences first.

[trotsky]

101. Jeez man, put your weapons down.

cleanhippie doesn't deserve both barrels like that.

Don't you think the burden of proof is on the person who asserts there is a god?

[Warren Stupidity]

75. So your claim is that your god interacts in this universe but that it does so

in ways that cannot be detected as, for example, these interactions do not violate any physical laws and are otherwise indistinguishable from a universe in which no god exists. Is that correct?

[cleanhippie]

93. I think he's using those 'other ways of knowing' again.

In the end, it always boils down to "magic!"

[Warren Stupidity]

100. Well that and his theory adds an additional

variable labeled god that explains nothing additional from an otherwise identical theory without the god variable. We should reject his theory for that fact alone.

[PatrickforO]

27. Ken Ham is a pretty dangerous guy.

He sounds so sane with that happy British accent, and then you do a double take when what he's saying actually sinks in.

Wonder how many ill informed people he's 'converted' to this 'young earth Christianity?'

[mr blur]

32. That's a happy Australian accent. (nt)

[uriel1972]

34. I'm glad he's not here any more...

Sorry that he's making the rest of the world suffer...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

31. Ken, old buddy, I just believe in one less God than you do. nt

[Warpy]

51. No, numbnuts, it's the absence of any belief system.

Now bugger off and annoy everybody else like you usually do.

[Grey]

53. >>> What Warpy said >>>

[Manifestor_of_Light]

114. It's not a "belief system". It's called "science".

Science is true whether you believe it or not. A scientific theory not proven to be true through experimentation will be thrown out and another theory that meet the standards of proof, will replace it.

For instance, I do not BELIEVE the sun will come up in the East in the morning.

I KNOW the sun will come up in the East in the morning.

It is a FACT. The sun will come up in the (apparent) East as we rotate west to east. Furthermore, it can be calculated exactly WHERE on the horizon the sun will rise for ANY day of the year at ANY latitude and longitude. Mathematicians can do it. Because of axial tilt, the point on the eastern horizon WHERE the sun will rise is changing slightly every day and goes north in the summer and south in the winter, in the Northern Hemisphere.


Axial Tilt is the reason for the season (why it gets cold in the winter and there's the Winter Solstice, the date of the furthestmost south point for the Sun's apparent rising. Three days later, which is usually Christmas Eve or Christmas Day, is the day the sun appears to start moving northward again).