Just curious if anyone has read Atheist Manifesto by Michel Onfray (the original title, Traité d'Athéologie, is much more interesting and the english title seems a bit unfortunate to me, but I am sure there are some marketing reasons behind it). From what I understand, Onfray is something of an academic rockstar in France, though I am unfamiliar with his work.  Anyway, I got the book today and it looks interesting.  Any comments from people who have read it? Or any comments from those familiar with other works by him?

Where is Heaven?

Ooh, baby, do you know what that's worth?

Ooh heaven is a place on earth

As I watched the RR debating the Banana Team (that's what I call them), I saw a woman in the audience asking "What kind of God creates cancer?"

The Banana Team's response was typical: read the Bible. We are living in a FALLEN CREATION.

Yes, a FALLEN CREATION.

However, when the debate started, these two guys showed the audience a painting and said each painting must've a painter.

But if we live in a fallen creation, shouldn't they have shown the audience a "FALLEN" painting? Or better yet, a "messed up" painting. Spots, and dirt, and a flower at the center? Could it be possible that the flower could have happened by chance? If you throw painting at a canvas for a billion years, maybe.

I found this article for another thread when a theist asked for "one example"(in a rather arrogant tone) of a theist's violence against a non-believer, strictly because they were atheist.

I know the initial argument from theists will be the 'no true scotsman fallacy', I don't buy that one, please don't use it.

I don't think there is an atheist here that will deny that Stalin or Pol Pot were atheist, rather we will argue that the reason those leaders committed atrocities was because of socio-political issues, or power mongering egotistical reasons. Not in the name of atheism.  

First off let me say I am agnostic and I am here to acquire knowledge. If you have 50min to spare watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1357036518657151746&q=bbc+horizon&hl=en

but if you don't it basically says that the big bang theory had to have happened because of our universe growing and new galaxies are forming from energy left over from the big bang. Does this disprove the 1st theory of thermodynamics that basically holds this group together? I mean correct me if I am wrong, you guys think that the universe has existed without begining, so I dunno just help me out

1) A quote mined out of context from a scientist.  It's even better if the scientist in question is an atheist when they can be reffered to as "the eminent atheist scientist".

2) A reference to a study carried out by someone with a PhD that supports Creationist theory.  That fact that the PhD is in, say, Mechanical Engineering rather than biology or geology is irelevant.

3) Frequent references to scientific 'facts' that:

a) are blatantly untrue 

b) have been debunked more times than a seaman in a violent storm 

c) are no longer valid and, in fact, have not been since before the invention of the net.  Or electricity for that matter.

The topic states the question clearly.  Here's the issue it stems from.

Assuming no god, and assuming causality and the first law of thermodynamics, the universe cannot at any point have spontaneously come into existence.  If those are refuted, the query ends there.  If not, this necessarily means the universe is infinite.  However, I think "infinite" might be an ontologically incoherent term.  It cannot be defined with any positive traits, only by things it is not.

Epistomologically, it seems no better off than claims of "supernatural" origins, as neither word has any meaning.

Thank you so much for the many encouraging emails regarding the New York atheist debate. Your kind words meant a lot to Kirk and me. The following is typical:

"Thanks so much for your debate on ABC's Nightline. I watched several portions on the website, and our radio station is promoting your "way of the master" website now too. Praise the Lord for the words that you shared which were VERY eye-opening and revealing and had a huge world-wide audience . . . I KNOW many lives are being reached through your commitment to Christ, and this opportunity which you knocked out of the ballpark." D.P. (WA).

So, if we wish to discuss the set of sentient beings S, we know with certainty that it is not empty.

So we have at least

S={h} where h = humans.

If we consider the possibility of degrees of sentience, are there beings with less sentience than humans? Recent work with sign language and primates suggest that they may be closer to sentience than not so it is not entirely unreasonable to and a few species to this set. If we accept degrees of sentience then it can be ordered.

This is a question for theists and feel free to respond if you're an atheist.

 A lot of the discussion and debate on forums and around the debating communities revolves around the origin of the universe etc.  Here's my question primarily for theists:

For all theists: Why do you need an answer, what is it so uncomfortable about ignorance?

For those that believe in heaven or similar: Why do you need to be rewarded at the end of your life, is your life now not reward enough? 

For all theists: If you were to suddenly know for fact that this was it, would you consider your life worth living?