No, he said information WAS encoded physical patterns. He said information was patterns. You just said informaion was encoded IN physical patterns. You're misreading. I'm not being convoluted. By the way, I agree with what YOU said. Who did the encoding?

This is where my grandmother would slap my hand and say 'no no'. You see, you are trying to sneak intelligence in the back door here. You are ASSUMING the computer already. You ASSUME the code that says 0 and 1 mean anything. The patterns mean something (are a medium for information) in the presence of a code. No, the pattern is not information, it transimits information to something or someone that knows the code. Got it?

Ok so how does the computer know how to "transimit" that information?  I am pretty sure that computers don't use things beyond the physical.

 

(removed spelling error: "computeres" what was I thinking)

double post

  Missed my point again.  My point is this all happens on a physical level, nothing beyond the physical.  The claim is something intangible happens in the brain, and I said, that is an assertion that has no grounds.  By the fact that computers can communicate learn and do all the other things (some things are a more limited scale, than natural being) in just the physical world, is evidence that information is physical in nature, or can be physical in nature.

I'd like to say you guys did a pretty decent job. Yeah, it wasn't a perfect performance. Not as well prepared as you could have been, but really, you didn't need it. For people who are use to being in front of the camera all the time, Cameron and Comfort sure came off like fish out of water (unedited version, not the sanitized version they showed on tv). It's a real shame that a national television show still can't bring itself to allow any semblance of pro-atheism for fear of a boycott by those 75% Dee Dee Dees.

No offense but that is one of the dumbest suggestions I get. There are two really big problems here:

1. Atheists really don't believe in God. No fooling.
   
2. Many of us were devout Christians and ditched religion when we realized there was no reason to believe. I felt that God had revealed himself to me. I couldn't imagine not believing. Then I did imagine it and He evaporated like the fog of a dream upon waking. No trauma. No upheaval. Just freedom.

I have an alternate suggestion for you, however. I dare you to pray every day for 2 weeks, "Thor if you're real, reveal yourself." Don't you owe it to yourself to try, just in case?

Please invite everyone in your youth group to visit this site. If God is true then there should be no danger that we will lead any astray through simple dialog. Every mouth should proclaim Him. We look forward to having you all around for some good discussion.

Speaking for myself I am NOT saying it can't be a creator. I am saying I don't know. Regarding DNA, it is a difficult problem. However from my layman's understanding from reading various books, evolution provides a convincing explanation of how it happened. As you said earlier this opens the "can of worms" of why an unintelligent universe of matter would give birth to intelligence. Maybe that's just the way things are.

If what your suggesting is deism, I don't have too much beef with that. Personally I rather not make any unfounded claims. Even if there was some creative intelligence I don't see how people can believe they have personal knowledge about the characteristics of that intelligence. I find such a claim unsatisfying because it just moves the question outwards to asking why this creative intelligence exists.  Where did the information come from that makes up this intelligence? Again I rather not make any claims to answer the question "why is there something rather than nothing."

Here's one idea: What if the universe ends in a big crunch (I know they say this is unlikely now) and somehow in that infinitely crushed singularity a "seed" is pushed back through time, so that the universe gives birth to itself? I don't believe this! It's just an idea which I find interesting. Of course I would still wonder why any of it exists, and I'm certainly not jumping to believe it, but I find the idea  at least more believable than the idea of an eternal intelligence.

We can toss around cosmic ideas all night long, but again, I'm not going to believe any claim without good evidence.  

 

I think you should get to choose the tag... 

Maruta wrote:  "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."

 

I believe that an all-knowing, all-powerful cat created me and everything I see.  It listens to my thoughts every single day and is constantly judging me for what I think, let alone what I say and do.  The cat has the power to watch me, and all other people alive, day and night, simultaneously, while at the same time running everybody's lives and determining the choices everybody will make.  Nobody can stop the cat!  The cat is too strong for you or me to comprehend!

At least once a week, I enter a special cat-worship place and devote many hours to talking and thinking about the cat.  I talk about how the cat plans to punish the souls of all who do not devote their lives to thinking about it and acting in its name.

I believe that when I die, I will meet the cat and get to sit live in its glorious, shedding presence for all eternity.  

I believe that some day, probably soon, the cat is going to take a physical form and come to Earth to scour all of its divine kitty creation with fire and brimstone, then it will send its favorite holy kitten to rule over Earth for 1,000 years.  I hope that I can help accelerate a war in the Middle East to hasten the cat's glorious day of return.

 

That doesn't sound like a mental disorder to you?

 

The only difference between what we choose to call "religion" and what we choose to call "delusion" - the ONLY difference - is numbers.  There are more people who suffer from the delusion of religion than do not; therefore, we have chosen for no good reason to not acknowledge the obvious mental illness of religious belief.

 

As for only speaking out against separation of church and state because religion harms no one - just look at the Middle East.  They've been murdering each other for hundreds - thousands - of years, purely in the name fo religion, and recently we invaded their country because our President believes that God told him to, thereby assuring thousands of more deaths in the name of religion.

 

Religion harms EVERYBODY.  Moderate and extreme.  Its time has come and gone.  It does no good to you or to anybody else that you cannot derive from a nonreligious source if you only care enough to educate yourself about what the world is really like. 

If we consider only the initial focus of the debate which was ostensibly for Ray and Kirk to prove the existence of God then the mistakes made by Kelly and Sapient were excusable because the godbotherers failed. However the debate was not restricted to the initial focus. The vast majority of the debate was Kelly and Sapient defending themselves against the Kirk and Ray show. Instead of pressing their advantage, Kelly and Sapient let Kirk and Ray take the offence. This was a mistake.

Most of the comments made by Kirk and Ray were opportunities missed to show how dishonest creationists such as Kirk and Ray really are. Kirk made a number of quote mines, expressed some obvious scientific disinformation, and made claims that have been debunked so frequently they are famous. Ray made so many logical errors I'm amazed he can tie his shoes. They were all missed.  Both Kelly and Sapient showed a horrible lack of science knowledge.

Please, people, before you take on any more slick, skilled con men such as Kirk and Ray, take the time to hone your skills at places like talkorigins and RichardDawkins.net. People like K&R will always focus on evolution - it is important that everyone, including you, learn as much about evolution and how to counter creationist arguments as possible. They are not only anti-athiest, they are anti-science. We, as a group, need to know as much as possible about science.

 

Hi all,

Just in case anyone is interested, the newly forming RRS chapter in ontario (the first international chapter) can be found at http://www.myspace.com/184606538

Thanks all,

Zombie210

I like the idea, I don't necessarily like the end result.

I gotta say...seems as though the mediator made the best argument.

It could be my bias as I'm into Social Psychology and Anthropology who can easily explain the processes of religion both in the perspective of those in their "fog" and those outside. It does seem as though we're acknowledging arguments that don't deserve consideration logically. It's a losing battle.

 It seems more fruitful to explain the wonders of the sciences and realize that believers have generally been so for most of their lives. Especially considering the psychological processes involved, we're not going to change many minds. Moreover, it's even more unlikely to change minds while trying to dispute their ultimate truth. I'm afraid the only way to do away with dogma is to cope with it until it slowly (and literally) dies out.

Anyways, thanks both Brian and Kelly for getting the topic out there. You both seemed quite nervous and I'm sure I would be too. Two bits of advice...1.) No emotion...it makes it seem as though you could be illogical and 2.) Don't overstate (as it seems theists make a living off of overstatements or misunderstandings they perceive as overstatements.

My first post but most seem like good peoples. 

 

Unfortunately, the analogy is not accurate. Yes, we know people make computers and without people computers would not exist, we do not know the same thing about universes. We have a finite amount of information on the universe, this is true, but the information we do have does not confirm nor deny the existance of some sort of vague diestic sort of god...I mean, in way, is it really even fair to label such a being "God" given the fact that when you say god most people automatically tend to associate it with the judeo-christian god. We know the evidence we do have about the universe does not coincide with that of the judeo-christian God, so that is easily dismissed, but what you are posing here is much more difficult because the only definition of god in this particular case is "thing that made the universe happen". Well...something made the universe happen obviously, but whatever that something is, you know it is part of a natural system. That is to say, even if there is an intelligence behind the "construction" of the universe, that intelligence would also be a construction of some sort of natural system of it's own...everything breaks down. So, the fault here really is just slapping the label of god on this something for no apparent reason whatsoever other than to make ridiculously ambiguous arguments on internet message boards that are not disprovable by any possible realistic means.

That's just TOTAL speculation, and it doesn't even make sense. First, any scientist you want to talk to will tell you that bacteria exchange information. DNA contains/transfers information. Information does exist. DNA is just protein structures that fit together in a certain way physically? Well that's just a TAD reductionist. So things that fit together physically impart meaningful interactions that produce complex actions that support life? So if you take the parts of a computer and just throw them together on the floor, nothing happens. But, if an intelligent being PUTS them together in a certain way, and then INTRODUCES information into the system in the form of both a code, and information to be understood in the context of a code, meaningful things suddenly happen. Your reductionist statement that DNA is just 'protein structures' that somehow fit together and SHAZAAM, is ludicrous.
Secondly, you may SAY that information is just an abstract concept and doesn't really exist. But DNA and the cells that contain it sure don't act that way. And neither do we. They ACTUALLY respond on the basis of something. Abstractions dont produce action. And if information is just an abstraction, then what in the world are we even talking for? What is this conversation? Just an abstraction? Are my thoughts and your thoughts not real? What is passing between us? Is it all nonsense?

I THOUGHT YOU GUYS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE THE INTELLECTS - YIKES 

 

Atheism is merely the absence of any belief in God.  This is a quote by Brian and yet later Kelly stated that all of us are atheist because atheism is “a lack of a belief.” Atheist means “not God or no God” just the same way asymmetrical means “not symmetrical or no symmetry.” Kelly is very wrong in her definition. She then states that all of us are atheists because Christians do not believe in Zeus, Apollo, or Thor. So in her mind, you must either be a polytheist or an atheist. This is simply untrue. Any logical person knows that one can be a monotheist without being an atheist. You hurt your debate right out of the gate.

Who created God? God is not a creation. He is the creator. He has always been. He will always be. This line of thought should not be so foreign to science, since scientist once claimed the same for creation and scientists wanted all of us to believe it. Carl Sagan used to state on his show, Cosmos, what was - has always been. That was all the way until the 1960’s. Until scientist all of a sudden figured out that there was a beginning to the universe – Just like the Bible stated. God does not have a creator. This is beyond our comprehension, but it does not make it untrue.

The atheist makes this argument: Examples of unintelligent design includes: Nipples and mammary glands on men, Blind spot on the eye, and our ecosystem which includes the loss of life in order to sustain life and legs on snakes. AND YET, later Kelly talks about how science changes. Kelly stated, “The real beauty of science is that it is revisable and it continually changes with the addition of new information.” Everyday we find out something we did not know about our body, the world, and everything in it. So how is it that we, with certainty, claim that these things do not make sense or they are worthless when tomorrow we may find out that they do make sense and they are valuable? Let me give you one example. Our planet experiences the natural occurrence of lightening and thunder with storm systems. We know how the lightening happens and yet scientists are claiming that we have only scratched the surface as to the purpose of lightening. Why does it occur above the clouds into space as well as from ground to cloud? How does it benefit and harm the planet? Is life even possible without it? AND YET, we will get up on a platform and state that these things that you mentioned have no purpose. MAYBE we simply have not found that out. Just remember, 20 years ago we were throwing umbilical cords away because we thought they were useless after birth – we know that is not the case any longer. So, is it possible to state with such certainty that these things are unintelligent when science can change tomorrow? I think not.

What contribution has religion given to mankind in the same time frame as science has contributed to mankind AND what has religion given that atheist cannot give? Brian really needs to do some research when it comes to history. Science came from religious institutions. They were not separated. The scientific method came from religious men. A remnant of that comes from the fact that we have Methodist, Catholic and Baptist hospitals. The schism between religion and science happened during the time period known as The Great Awakening. I will not claim that religion has always responded to science correctly, but they have not been forever divorced from one another as you have assumed.

What has religion given that atheist cannot give: In a word – hope. Even though I have not gone to scripture, because you do not want to address the Bible, let me state as a Christian, “Hope comes from belief in Jesus Christ.” Religion has done some terrible things and people have done some horrible things in the NAME of God – but faith in Christ and true Christianity has done nothing but good. There is no doubt that people who do not believe in God do some good things in life, but an atheist cannot give man hope. The only thing that exists for the atheist is this world and our intellect. So what can mankind expect as an atheist, well certainly there are good things God has given us in this world but ultimately all that man can expect is . . . war, disaster, hurt, disease, and eventually death. You state that since you do not believe in God nor in an afterlife – that you live this life how you want without being hindered by the “rules of God.” God says that we are to love him with all our heart and then love others as yourself. So what is it, outside of what God tells us to do, that is “good.” These rules that you find repressive are how we are to love Him and others on this planet. How does someone lie, steal, commit adultery, dishonor father and mother, and murder and THEN say – “Now I am really living . . . This is life to the full.” All these things bring pain. What is repressive about living a life within the boundaries of what God said is good? What I am attempting to ask is - What is it that the atheist desires to do, outside of “God’s repressive rules,” that enhances ones life.

Brian claims that we are all born as atheists and we must be taught to be theist. I would state that quite differently. We are all born with the need to worship something. Every single society (not most of them, not the vast majority of them), both primitive and developed have had systems of worship. Developed societies did not go in and teach natives in America or natives in deep dark Africa to worship. They were already doing it. If you begin to think that you, as an atheist, are not worshipping something – incorrect again – it is self – it is the human intellect that you are putting on your throne. You cannot state that a 2 year is taught to worship (or brain washed) simply because when he or she is young, and he or she doesn’t act upon what is already created in them. A young child is not seeking sex, and yet they were created as sexual beings. We will not have to teach them to have sex later any more than we will have to teach them to worship. As a matter of fact, it is teaching them to WAIT until they are developed morally and intellectually to have sex. When it comes to worship we are not teaching them to become theist - we are teaching them to worship God (The one worthy of worship) and HOW to worship God.

Brian stated that one could prove the existence of a builder or car maker or painter because of documents and a factory or that you could see or touch the one who built. What if the builder was not around or if those things were never documented, would he then not believe that there is a maker. If Brian were to find himself on an island and he saw a hut. If he could not find the builder or because there was no documentation, would Brian then reject the idea that the hut was built and believe that somehow it was mysteriously and naturally formed? This was a very weak argument.

Kelly stated that “Science is the testing of explanations against the natural world. You can read about the tests and see the results, if one is so inclined. Direct experimentation and indirect experimentation is science BUT intelligent design is not science because you cannot test it in either of these ways.” AND YET, let’s look at a quote of one of the atheists out spoken representatives – Sir Richard Dawkins: “The other way (How our universe sustains life without God – my insert for context) is the multiverse way. That says that maybe the universe we are in is one of a very large number of universes. The vast majority will not contain life because they have the wrong gravitational constant or the wrong this constant or that constant. But as the number of universes climbs, the odds mount that a tiny minority of universes will have the right fine-tuning.” I hope you realize that your scientist is stating something that CANNOT be tested in your way and yet this is called science. When are you and others going to come to grips with the fact that this issue is not science vs. religion? This is philosophy vs. philosophy. Let me also point out Francis Collins’ response. “This is an interesting choice. Barring a theoretical resolution, which I think is unlikely, you either have to say there are zillions of parallel universes out there that we can't observe at present or you have to say there was a plan. I actually find the argument of the existence of a God who did the planning more compelling than the bubbling of all these multiverses. So Occam's razor--Occam says you should choose the explanation that is most simple and straightforward--leads me more to believe in God than in the multiverse, which seems quite a stretch of the imagination.”

Kelly states that God negates science completely. Again I would state this quite differently. God doesn’t negate science. He created it and is beyond it.

1. God created a world in which we could discover things about it, therefore creating a world in which science could be learned, understood and used. We do not live in a world of magic, as Kelly rightly states, but instead, God created a world in which laws exist that you can I can count on every single day and that you can I can use to create and grow. As an architect, I am glad that gravity exists and that it is a constant because then I can count on that law in order to created and build structures that stand based on that law.

2. The real problem that Kelly has . . . is that God is not limited to science. God is not testable in a test tube or by an experiment.

AH yes, the conscience. Kelly wants to know why parents have to teach children anything at all if they really have a conscience. Surely, you realize what you are doing here? You are invoking a philosophical question and then wanting Christians to answer it using only direct and indirect experimentation. This is not a fair game. You cannot have it both ways. Just like in the debate you don’t want the Christian to use the Bible then you misrepresent what it says in order to build your argument. Even though you want answers outside the Bible, I must use it to answer this question because this is a philosophical question and the Bible shapes my philosophy or world view. The Bible is clear that man is fallen. My children know that it is wrong to lie and wrong to steal. What I am teaching them is to obey their conscience. I do not have to teach them to have one. As far as mass murderers go (those that you state do not believe that it is wrong to kill) – we live in a fallen world in which our minds and bodies love sin and without the power of God to help you and me – we are capable of anything. But you do not believe in a fallen world, so discussion of good and evil is almost impossible. If you are correct in your assumption that the conscience is only necessary for gene proliferation as you state – then why doesn’t any other animal either have a conscience OR why have their species continued without it???? I would say this is an indirect scientific method of observation which destroys your view of “why the conscience evolved.” To put it simply, the observable problem with your statement is that apes have not died out because they did not have a conscience.

I was very disappointed with the lack of serious discussion on your part. When you were not making fun of God you were simply making statements that were not debatable, (Did democracy come from Captain America and your comment comparing God and the spaghetti monster – and I will say that Kirk’s example of the Croc-a-duck was no better). Also, Kelly, if you are going to point out scripture, please at least have an understanding of what you are quoting. Very poorly done.

Finally, Kelly attempts to point to the belief that Hitler went to heaven because he believed in Jesus and unbelieving Jews went to hell. Let’s be clear about something when it comes to belief. There is a difference in knowing about a person and knowing a person. I know about Michael Jordan, but I do not know him. The Bible points out that even the demons believe in God . . . and they shudder. They are afraid. They know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. They identified Him when He walked the earth, but demons are not in heaven. I am sure that Hitler knew about Jesus, (even you know about Him) but I can assure you that Hitler did not KNOW Jesus. Hitler may have believed that Jesus existed, but HE did not believe in Him which would have been reflected in Hitler’s actions. No person who knows Christ would do what he did. The fact that he was Catholic does not matter any more than if he was Baptist or Methodist. Being affiliated with a religion does not save a person. It is a relationship with Christ that saves a person.

Interesting mental exercise, but it doesn't disprove the point. You can say that DNA is a code or that it contains a code. Either way, a code exists. The reading apparatus 'knows' that a 'stop codon' has been reached. How does it know? Because it acts according to a code. As I said, either way, a code exists within the living system, and my point is that codes require information input. So where did the code come from?

Have you read the entire thread? It was the OP who kept on going with the painting analogy even though other arguments were presented. Sorry to have "embarassed" you--maybe you should go out there and do what we do instead of sitting at home criticizing us for trying.  The reason that they challenged us was because of the original Nightline piece, and just FYI, Comfort challenged Dawkins to a debate on the BBC the other day. Dawkins will not do it, though, and we are willing to sacrifice a little bit of face at times to get this out into the arena of public discourse. We never put ourselves out there as the most intelligent people or the best debators in the world, but at least we are willing to do more for a cause that we feel is vitally important than sit around and scrutinize others with similar intentions. So, why don't you find your way to a less embarassing forum.

Thanks,

Kelly 

 

I'm going to go ahead and requote myself here BUT I'm going to change it to fit this situation.

 

Unfortunately, the analogy is not accurate. Yes, we know builders build buildings, and we know painters paint paintings, and we know people create things, but we do not know the same thing about gods and universes. We have a finite amount of information on the universe, this is true, but the information we do have does not confirm nor deny the existance of some sort of vague diestic sort of god...I mean, in way, is it really even fair to label such a being "God" given the fact that when you say god most people automatically tend to associate it with the judeo-christian god. We know the evidence we do have about the universe does not coincide with that of the judeo-christian God, so that is easily dismissed, but what you are posing here is much more difficult because the only definition of god in this particular case is "thing that made the universe happen". Well...something made the universe happen obviously, but whatever that something is, you know it is part of a natural system. That is to say, even if there is an intelligence behind the "construction" of the universe, that intelligence would also be a construction of some sort of natural system of it's own...everything breaks down. So, the fault here really is just slapping the label of god on this something for no apparent reason whatsoever other than to make ridiculously ambiguous arguments on internet message boards that are not disprovable by any possible realistic means.

 

In addition I don't think you will find many intellectual atheists of the belief that matter has always existed, personally I don't claim to know anything beyond that of what we know scientifically and we can get really really really close to the "beginning" of it all, but not quite...but no one claims to know what happened before that. God however, always seems to exist in some special sort of logical loop hole where he needs no one or no thing to exist.

I'm choosing to use a thread instead of direct contact to Kelly and Brian so as to generate a courteous debate between those on this forum.... 

 As a whole, I was very impressed with the collective passion that existed in the forum for this debate on the existence of God.  Both sides were determined to get the "true" point across. 

I myself am a wholehearted Christian girl.  However, I also have a couple of very dear friends who are devout atheists....(surprising?)...while it saddens me that in their great intellect they refuse to have "faith", I never shun the fact that they are good people with kind hearts.  Let me make that clear right now. 

Now, to touch on a comment that was made in regards to each "sides" intelligence, Kelly, you stated that there are very smart "believers" who just refuse to allow logic to seep into their little "God Box" (love the term!)  On that, why is it so difficult to just sit back and TRUST something on FAITH?  Wait, you do!  As Ray pointed out, you quote "history" like it's a gospel.  Now, while I'm not a history buff by any means...isn't it entirely possible that, since Christianity, like ALL THINGS, had to have a beginning, and in the BEGINNING, it wasn't a smiled-upon concept, because it took "power" away from the rulers of that time, that the historical "facts" that you rely so heavily on were modified to omit and degrade the teachings of Jesus Christ, in order to prevent His following from growing?  I myself have always found that there are three sides to EVERY story...version #1, version #2, and what REALLY HAPPENED.  What makes those history books "right" and the teachings of Jesus Christ "wrong"?

If I need proof that God exists, all I have to do is look in the mirror.  Because only a supreme being of immense powers and love could have created me.

Besides, the world is too much into having to know "all things" and explain every thing that happens "scientifically".  That's why they are called miracles.  They only have Heavenly explanations.

I appreciate your time in reading my humble thoughts.  I wish you well.

-Amanda 

Perfectlawministries,

You seem honest and humble enough. I do follow your logic with what Ray was saying. I agree.

Here's the difference. Both building and painting are processes we understand given our culture. We "created" what building and painting means. Are there natural occurences of what might look like a building or a painting? Yes. Does this mean your god doesn't exist or that Ray's argument doesn't make sense in this light? Not at all.

The difference is...creation as we define it isn't a process we define culturally as in we did not "create" it. It is a process we've witnessed here on earth, especially when it comes to new born lifeforms. Do we have "creators" in our culture? I guess anyone who has sex could be considered a creator. When we apply this to a "time" we aren't fully aware of, however, it becomes a hypothesis at best. Does the universe demand a creation or would that only be a need for "life" as we define it here on earth and elsewhere and would that "creation" be in need of a "creator" or could it be a natural occurence we would personify in the case of belief in a god? Interesting question and quite difficult to consider.

From here, the only difference that remains is that science has theories of what might have happened and will continue to be provisional in seeking what could be tomorrow's truths of the universe. Religion already has a mystical answer that serves as their absolute truth.

It's the difference between science and mysticism. Mysticism demands an end point where some supernatural force takes over. If ignorance were to not exist anymore, thus would be the end of mysticism.

Science, in contrast, is motivated by what we don't know, maybe even in awe of it, but is determined to use the mind to the best of our capabilities to slowly diminish what all we don't "know". If ignorance were to not exist anymore, science would have succeeded (and by no stretch of the imagination do I ever see this happening, just a hypothetical to work through to explain the differences).

Thanks for your polite and humble contribution to the discussion. 

We do not need to have an answer for everything to justify denying god. Theists claim to have the answers so its up to them to prove it. When they respond to a question with "then how did it happen" or such I think it is best to just shift the burden of proof back where it belongs. 

Why argue over how the universe began. We dont have to propose a theory at all. They have made the claim so make them prove it.

 

I guess I don't really care, one way or the other, but how come you guys don't get a tag? I think we should both get different signs, like the Transformers and the Decepticons. Just Kidding. 

This may seem trivial, but I think an important point must be made here. Your description of 'labels' for things, and another poster's description of information being simply some sort of projection of consciousness are interesting. However, they don't comport with reality. Let's face it folks. YOU DONT LIVE YOUR LIFE THAT WAY. Information does exist to you, and you ACT upon it. It isn't just a label. I think this gets to the point that words DO mean something. Your arguments, (and I think rightly so given your world view) are consistent with the idea that there are no absolute truths (moral or otherwise). But again, you don't live that way. If someone points a gun at you, and says, in the English language, 'if you don't duck, I'm going to shoot you in the head right now.' You duck. You don't say, 'my interpretation of that emanation of sound waves from that person's mouth is just a projection of my consciousness. I think I will place a label on it to categorize it in the realm of my consciousness and say that it contains 'information'. NO. You duck. Because words DO mean something. They do pass on something meaningful, and they do result in action, sometimes very complex action. I react differently to some energy than other energy. Is that a function of a difference in the physical waves of energy themselves, or the information they carry for me (in the context of my code)? And the same is true of cells. They act. DNA contains information that results in action. I've already discussed the ridiculousity of the assertion that simple structural proximity to other molecules encompasses the entirety of DNA's function and explains the results. So, I say all of that because 'semantics' matter. If words have no real meaning (contain no real information), then this discussion is as worthless as any other sound or collection of rays light in any meaningless pattern. So why bother. You will have argued your own argument into irrelevance. And the result is total random absurdity. But remember, you don't act that way.

 

Divorce is forbidden in the bible, is it not?  Yet BAC's  are supposed to have the highest divorce rate, so I'm guessing this is one 'rule' that many Christians feel pain in keeping.  And if you're gay, being told that your sexual orientation is an 'abomination' can't be all that heartwarming.  And if you are in terrible pain from a terminal illness, euthanasia is out of the question.  Suspending critical thinking is something I find particuarly painful.  And hell isn't a nice place either.  I mean, how would I know if I'm following the right god?  If I worship the Christian god, I might upset Allah who might be the real god.  According to some Christian sects, it's preordained who's going to heaven anyway, so the rest us might as well not bother.  I just don't want the stress.  Better to not believe in any of them.  At least I can say to the god in charge (if there is one) that I didn't discriminate.