Ok. Atheists... Stop trying to prove that a painting does not prove a painter. It does... Here are some definitions that might help.
Painting = something that was painted
Painter = something that paints

If something is painted it must have been painted at some point by something. Whether it be man, computer, tornado or my pet monkey. A painting is painted by a painter.

You guys are trying to prove a totally pointless argument. It is embarassing.

Theists.......

A painting is just that. Something that was painted. That does not imply that the universe was created. Calling it "creation" does not make it a created thing.
The idea that we have some apparent design does not imply that we have an apparent creator, it implies that we have a designer. That designer is EVOLUTION.

Rorschach addresses this in The Watchmen, saying that the universe is a formless blank in which we see patterns after staring at it for too long. Of course, that would be the position of a character with that name...

 

In 1991 J. P. Meier, in volume 1 of his landmark series A Marginal Jew, defended a variant of the second solution; he argued that exactly three phrases are later Christian interpolations. Josephus did not write them; an overly enthusiastic Christian scribe did, and the additions were picked up in later copies. I offer the passage again, but with the three Christian phrases boldfaced:

Γινεται δε κατα τουτον τον χρονον Ιησους, σοφος ανηρ, [ειγε ανδρα αυτον λεγειν χρη·] ην γαρ παραδοξων εργων ποιητης, διδασκαλος ανθρωπων των ηδονη ταληθη δεχομενων, και πολλους μεν Ιουδαιους, πολλους δε και του Ελληνικου επηγαγετο· [ο Χριστος ουτος ην.] και αυτον ενδειξει των πρωτων ανδρων παρ ημιν σταυρω επιτετιμηκοτος Πιλατου ουκ επαυσαντο οι το πρωτον αγαπησαντες· [εφανη γαρ αυτοις τριτην εχων ημεραν παλιν ζων των θειων προφητων ταυτα τε και αλλα μυρια περι αυτου θαυμασια ειρηκοτων.] εις ετι τε νυν των Χριστιανων απο τουδε ωνομασμενον ουκ επελιπε το φυλον.

And there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, [if indeed it is necessary to call him a man,] for he was a doer of paradoxical works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure and many Jews on the one hand and also many of the Greeks on the other he drew to himself. [This man was the Christ.] And when, on the accusation of some of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first loved him did not cease to do so. [For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, the divine prophets having related both these things and countless other marvels about him.] And even till now the tribe of Christians, so named from this man, has not gone extinct.

According to Meier, Josephus himself actually wrote only what remains after excising the three offending statements:

Γινεται δε κατα τουτον τον χρονον Ιησους, σοφος ανηρ, ην γαρ παραδοξων εργων ποιητης, διδασκαλος ανθρωπων των ηδονη ταληθη δεχομενων, και πολλους μεν Ιουδαιους, πολλους δε και του Ελληνικου επηγαγετο· και αυτον ενδειξει των πρωτων ανδρων παρ ημιν σταυρω επιτετιμηκοτος Πιλατου ουκ επαυσαντο οι το πρωτον αγαπησαντες· εις ετι τε νυν των Χριστιανων απο τουδε ωνομασμενον ουκ επελιπε το φυλον.

And there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of paradoxical works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure, and many Jews on the one hand and also many of the Greeks on the other he drew to himself. And when, on the accusation of some of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first loved him did not cease to do so. And even till now the tribe of Christians, so named from this man, has not gone extinct.

This proposal has won many adherents and seems most cogent and rational. It must be emphasized, however, that it is only cogent and rational. It was arrived at without the benefit of textual evidence. The method used to arrive at this conclusion was simply to stare at the paragraph for a long time, then cut out what does not look like what a Jewish historian would have written. (Rather like my uncle, a wood-carver, telling me how to carve a duck out of a block of wood: Just cut out everything that does not look like a duck.)

So Kelly and Brian don't exactly come across like Dawkins and Harris in their oratory abilities. Despite their nervousness, they were not as nervous as Ray and Kirk.

Many science educated atheists are embarrassed that such a low brow debate even has to occur. And this is the problem with us science educated atheists. We are trained to be honest and adherent to evidence and truth, we are not trained to be duplicitous politicians. As a result, we just pass people like Cameron and Comfort off as delusional freaks flying under the radar. And we may see the RRS as a bunch of college tokers who enjoy feeling brilliant about themselves for not being delusional amidst a sea of insanity.

But I reject these attitudes. The RRS does matter greatly. The arguments are often juvenile and embarrassing, but one must understand that this is where the public in America is. I suspect most people in America would actually find Cameron's photos of the intermediate species compelling in some profoundly absurd and ignorant way.

While people like us are listening to Dawkins and Harris, there is another segment of the population- a vast segment of the population, who have such a limited understanding that they could not hold their attention through any book which mentioned 'philosophy" or "biology", and these are the types of people who typically find Comfort and Cameron compelling- maybe 1/3 of America. The fact that Cameron even thinks his pictures were worth showing completely demonstrate his utter lack of knowledge of the subject.

The RRS is to be supported because they take the battle to where the masses are, especially the younger masses who are recovering from their brainwashing or encountering doubt for the first time. By planting the seeds of doubt early on through the internet and pop culture, we can thwart an entire generation of superstition, and marginalize faith to extinction.

Long live RRS.

 

This suggested corruption is not entirely rational for still not explaining why Josephus would offer such a parsimonious account as to why Pilate would see fit to condemn Jesus to the cross. "Paradoxical works" seems far too ambiguous and benign from a blatantly provocative conduct that might be picked up on Pilate's radar as circumstances worth snuffing out. "Accusation"? What accusation(s)? Where would the accusation(s) fall within the ideological parties (Pharisees, Zealots, Essenes, etc.), either as the accuser or accused, that so incensed Roman authority as detailed in the two histories of Josephus?

I have other problems and issues with the Testimonium that I wll relate, time permitting.

On the may 9th show of the worlds #1 podcast http://wayofthemasterradio.com/podcast/ they play clips of the cancer lady and rant about angry atheists. No response to the RRS arguments just "atheists are mean WAAAAAA" LOL!!

Thanks, Dunstan.  I'm only part of the support group and that accusation gets old for me. I imagine the core team must get really, really tired of it. One of our main goals is to put religion on an even playing field, to subject it to the same scrutiny and criticism as every other area of life. 

As it is now, even some atheists want to give it a free pass: "Aw, it's not hurting anyone!" Oh really?  There are so many things wrong with that statement, I sometimes don't know where to start.

Welcome, Dunstan.  I hope you stick around! 

 

Yeah...I agree!

I don't know what happened. The paragraphs were in the preview but not the post.

Sorry! 

 

 

New layer...New layer... Ok, first I’ll address your ‘trivial answer’. My question was where the information encoded within or ‘behind’ the DNA came from. You answered me by telling me where the physical matter came from. I assert that the information is not the matter itself. Just as a stick is not information in and of itself. It may be used to transmit information if there is a code that TWO people (or molecules in the case of the body) already ‘understand’. For information transfer to take place in any meaningful way, there must be a sender, who understands the code, a receiver, who understands the code, and a medium to transfer the information. So the DNA, just like the stick, is not information. I want to know where the information that is encoded in and transmitted by the physical DNA comes from. I have done research and talked with many other scientists, and none of them have been able to claim categorically that they can explain how information or codes came into being by the process of evolution. I would challenge you to do that if you would like to try. Basically the beginning of your argument to answer my question sounds like this: ‘Well we don’t entirely know the whole history of the universe all the way back (ala time TV), but if we did, we could see that there was no intelligence behind it’. And your description of DNA coming from RNA, and RNA coming from simpler protocells does nothing to answer the main question, and that is, ‘How do you account for the presence of the information that RNA and DNA use both to replicate themselves, and to replicate cells and perform all the thousands and millions of cellular processes that cause cells and organisms to live’. Are you saying that it is an intrinsic process within the universe that information arises from inorganic matter? If it is, I think you may see that this opens up a whole new can of worms for you in your beliefs. If not, then how do you account for the presence of this information. If you want to trust science then use scientific reasoning. If I look at DNA, and I recognize that it encodes and uses information (all scientists recognize this), then I must attempt to account for the origin of the information—NOT just the physical medium of the transfer or encoding of that information. I must account for where the code originated. So again, your answer 1)presumes that there is no intelligent beginning from the start 2) does not account for the presence of information, but only ATTEMPTS to account for the origin of the physical matter. So finally, I would say again, ‘do you accept that information exists, and if so, where did it come from?’

Here is a copy of an e-mail I sent this morning to this site. I've had a few problems getting logged in, so the text may be a bit haphazard. If this is the wrong forum to post this in, I apologize. 

To Mr. "Sapient", and Kelly,

I would like to congratulate you for putting in the better performance in
the debate aired last night by Nightline. Not for winning the debate,
because I don't feel you were that persuasive, merely that you were far
more skillful in presenting your case. Of course you were debating Mike
Seaver and a Jack Chick wannabe, not Nachmanides, so you did not need to
be too convincing. I am not a Christian, so I completely disagree with Mr.
Cameron and Mr. Comfort. I am an Orthodox Jew, and I happened to catch the
show. Neither you nor your Christ-loving opponents convinced of me of the
validity of either argument. Your argument is that there is no proof for
the existence of any god, they argued that not only is there a god, it's
the god outlined in the latter half of the KJB.

I am not going to start an argument with you that you are wrong, because
in my experience, no one can convince another person of the
validity/invalidity of their belief system through words alone.

You have recognized the moral bankruptcy of the Christian faith, a faith
which preaches love and burns people at the stake at the same time.
However, you have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Not all
religions are the same. Furthermore, your attitude last night comports
with that of most of the atheists I have met: the idea that snarkiness is
a good substitute for good arguments. That kind of snarkiness is found in
the whole "Blasphemy Contest", not to mention several entries. (I will
never forgive the entry that denies the existence of Optimus Prime! How
low can you atheists sink?   ) Basically, a kind word, a nice gesture,
politeness, these are how you can convince people to listen to you. You
had few kind words or nice gestures last night, and you were far from
polite. A more competent debater would have called the two of you on that,
as would a more astute moderator.

Like I said, I don't expect my e-mail to convert you to theism of any
stripe. To think so would be the height of arrogance. What I do wonder is:
do you ever doubt your position? As a Jew, I believe that within all humans
are two warring forces, a good inclination and an evil one. The evil
inclination preys on my doubt, my worries, my laziness. Any religious
person who says they never know doubt is a liar. But do you ever doubt
your disbelief? Wonder about what comes after the end of your life (may it
not come till you reach 120 years of age)? Or are you so full of passion
for your cause that you are as sure as good ol' Kirk? Just wondering.

Once again, congratulations. You bested them through their own ineptitude,
not your sterling speech.

Leor Blumenthal

 I only have time for a quick reply. In short, you are correct. It is only an attempt. The information is there, I attempted to explain it through materialistic processes. Do you have another option? I don't find supernatural explanations useful or interesting. 

The idea that things are going to be OK, is a comforting feeling, not often is it unfounded.  When you see someone suffering on the other side of the world.  Religion allows for it to be OK, because god will fix it in the end.  It becomes OK to ignore atrocities because god will fix it in the end.  Does it not close your eyes to suffering of all kinds.  Remember if God doesn't exist then it is us to make it OK.  Are you willing to take that chance with someone else's life?   Religion devalues life.  Accepting god is to accept less from life.  (of course that is my personal view)

It is not wonderful to believe something is worth dying for, it is wonderful to think there is something worth living for.  You have no worries when playing a video game either, if your character dies you can restart and in some cases, have a magical fairy bring you back to life.  Love exist without a god just as hate does.

Hey there, Leor - welcome to RRS.

 

I just wanted to point out that RRS's purpose in the debate wasn't to disprove God, but only to show that Ray and Kirk would not be able to "prove" God "scientifically" without invoking the Bible or faith.  In that, RRS succeeded admirably.

 

 

Ok, your argument is extremely convoluted, and it really is shifty in that it asserts things in vague terms that really beg the same question. You say:

 

Now think about that for a second. Information is physical patterns that are encoded. Ok, well, what are they encoded with? Uh, information? And where does that information come from? Then you say

I agree. Interesting that you said that ‘we can create’ all sorts of ways. Encoding of information requires an intelligent creator who 1) has information to pass along 2) is able to create codes. Then you say

I say, wrong. The information in the DNA is the physical DNA? Do you understand the fallacy of that? So the information contained my hands moving in sign language to another person is my hands themselves? I don’t think so. And the same can be said of DNA. Sure, the structure is ‘recognized’ by other structures, and has a meaning, but the meaning is not the structure, it is something else. It is information. Then ‘something happens’. You say,

So why is surviving important? Where did the information for that idea come from? Then

The arising? What in the world does that mean? Arising from where? You then say

I’m sorry, but by your understanding of the chronology of life, the information in DNA was already encoded prior to what you term ‘consciousness’. Or are you saying DNA did something different back then than it does now, namely, encode information for cellular processes. The fact that we now understand some of that information does not mean that the information was not there before we understood it. At one point I didn’t understand Spanish. The words on the page meant nothing to me. But now that I do, does that mean that before I understood it, there was no information being transferred in its use? I doubt it. Finally, you say

Again, you use the word encode. Encode with what? Material mediums that encode….physical process? You mean encode information about how a physical process is to occur. It is nonsensical to say that DNA is ‘encoded with’ the actual touching and moving of molecules (actions). It is encoded with information about how these processes are to occur, not the processes themselves. Surely you understand that. So, you may say that my analogy comparing linguistic information to the information encoded in DNA is a fallacy (which I don’t agree with anyway), but how I don’t understand how they are entirely different. Language is a physical pattern (of sound waves), just as DNA has a physical pattern. As you yourself say, this pattern is encoded. Again, I say, encoded with WHAT? Information. And as such, you must consider the origin of that information. And just because you don’t understand how information and physical matter interact does not mean that they do not interact. Simply by the fact that we are having this conversation we prove that physical matter is a medium for transfer of information. The two do interact. If they did not, then this would not be possible. Finally, I find it terribly ironic that your free thinking friends here (todangst and magus), simply must have glossed over these glaringly obvious problems with your statements, calling them ‘terrific’.

We have evidence for the existance of the universe - it is what we call everything we can sense. We have no such evidence for God. So the burden of proof is on theists to show that God exists before they can claim that he is eternal. 

This is an argument from ignorance. Basically you are saying "I don't understand how it works so it must be God." This is not logically valid.

Evolution has been proven over and over again using every scientific method at our disposal. Do some basic reading before you make such a ridiculous statement. Evolution is called a theory as a pure formality. The laws of gravity are also formally called the Theory of Gravity. Established and tested scientific theories are fact.

Actually, it is perfectly possible to use snakes as proof of evolution. We can find fossil ancestors of snakes that still had legs. Some species of boa constrictors still have vestigal hind limbs today. By tracing the changes in snake ancestors through the fossil record, we can see that the ancestors of snakes gradually changed into the creature we see today.

Ok, so the information is there. Your problem is that inanimate materialistic processes alone cannot explain the presence of information. So if your ‘natural’ or ‘materialistic’ processes don’t explain the origin of intelligent information, could you not see that a better explanation might be that information exists because, just as in our present day ‘natural’ experience (we do this all the time), an intelligent being created it? I think that your 'materialistic' explanations are far less useful, and far less interesting in this case.

Of course you would. That's called faith - belief regardless of evidence. Actually, you are already doing this, since the proof that there is no God is all around you, all the time.

 

You mean you imagine that you are loved...by an imaginary being. I guess this is fine if it is your premise that delusion is as good as truth. 

You are lying. You get up every day and work to better your circumstances and to gain security and needed things for yourself. If you really believed that God would provide, you would have no motivation to do that, in fact doing so would be a pointless waste of time.

Sure is, though I prefer that thing to be an actual thing like family or country rather than an imaginary myth. You certainly do no need God in order to find things in this world worth dying for.

If you would embrace rationality and start making some discoveries about the world around you, your movie would become a 3D IMAX production with surround sound. You could discover that the actual nature of the universe is a billion times more beautiful and awe-inspiring than anything contained in religion.

If you can seriously point to a benefit that your faith is bringing you, then you do have a rational reason for holding it. The belief itself remains irrational, and the question is begged if you could realize that same benefit without faith, but you are still at least rational in choosing to be irrational in this respect.

There are many people in this world, and I am one, that are so interested in correct understanding and discovering truth that we can see few fates more dismal than to be trapped in a condition of ignorance. For us, faith can never be the answer, or deliver any benefit greater than the penalty in terms of lost cognitive possibilities.  

Since we do not yet know how exactly the mind works, this statement is pretty unsupportable. This is classic "God of the Gaps" theology.

Let's go back in time for an analogous statement:

We shoot the arrow and it continues forward, even after it is no longer in contact with the bow. Since the bow can no longer be keeping the arrow moving forward, a god must be taking over from there and carrying it to its destination.

This is false. Shaun already dealt with this earlier in the thread.

 

You're building an argument from personal ignorance.

Explain how information can exist without matter or energy.

Provide an ontology for your 'god'

Oh, and leaving aside these enormous problems for a second, explain why explaining the existence of intelligence by appealing to intelligence 'solves' anything.

 

No offense guys but this website is very very childish. Im a firm believer in God and no lies will ever change that. Our youth group will be praying for all of you that before it's too late, you will come to know who God really his. He loves all of you. Before you guys start giving your souls away, i dare you to pray every day for 2 weeks, "God if your real, reveal yourself", If you really ask He will. God bless all of you.

Bingo. 

Did you even read what we were discussing? DNA. I assert that information, and the complexity of encoding that information, comes from intelligence. That is my experience, and the experience of science. Scientists DO NOT say that information is not contained in the coding of DNA. They assert that fact. And the deeper we understand this code, the more complex it seems. Now, either information is there or it is not. The poster I was responding to states that it is there. I ask, where did it come from? Science has not demonstrated that nonliving, inanimate matter produces information or understands it. So I stated that it would make more sense that information arose in the same way we view it arising: from intelligent, living beings. You want to say that it arose in some other fashion. I challenge you to produce that fashion. And you say, 'well we just don't know, but IT CANT BE A CREATOR'. Well, that's pretty closed=minded of you, and it rejects obvious realities that are easily perceivable. But hey, if you're dead set in your closed-mindedness, the why even discuss it.

It's explained pretty well in the Blind Watchmaker. As I understand it, matter carries information.  No one has to put it there, it's inherent in the nature of matter. 

DNA carries a particular type of information, but it got there from either mutation, combination or both.  Still no need for a creator.

 

If you're worried about religious power, you should make a case for seperation of church and state, and not vehemently attack believers. And I respect everyone's right to believe whatever the hell they like, as long as it doesn't hurt others. Unlike you, I'm not going to compare all religious beliefs to not bothering to cure cancer.

Religion isn't a mind disoder. Though some things can be diagnosed as clinical according to the DSM-IV (what you described is Paranoid Schizophrenia) and others point to malfunctive cognitions (such as Thought Action Fusion Morality), if you ever took a serious look at Clinical Psychology you'd realise that religion is not a disorder. It is only so when practiced to the extreme, but that goes for everything.

 

But you are far beyond skeptic. You call it pathological bullshit, that's taking a very strong stance. If you said "I don't believe the Bible", you don't necessarily have the burdon of proof. But when you claim that it's obvious that its a pile of shit, you need to prove yourself.

 

It's not required for believing, but if you really want to push your point as if it were fact, you need specific skill.

 

I just think you guys don't realise what kind of crowd you are fighting. These people don't care about your rationality, because everything Kirk & Ray do is motivated by the fear of Hell. Because this threat paralysis all doubt, they're not going to be moved from their faith no matter how clearly you show that they are stupid. And I know this because I was also bothered by those threats of eternal torture in the afterlife. It's really hard to move away from your faith when you intrinsically associate religious doubt with immorality and blasphemy. It took me years to get rid of it.

On top of that, by clearly showing how much you enjoy seeing them emberass themselves in public, you're only strengthening them in their faith. Most of these people think that being ridiculed is part of being a believer of the 'True' faith. Their not going to admit your point when you're insulting them. You're not just fighting ignorance, you're fighting cognitive dissonance.

my congratulations to Kelly and Sapient. was it perfect? no. did you make us proud? absolutely.