A Challenge to Theists

[Backglass]

That was already account for in the study. As for links, I'm not going to go tooling around google...blah blah blah

TRANSLATION: "I have no sources or facts to support my claim."

Move along...nothing to see here.

NEWSFLASH, only humans have lungs our size! Weigh a blue whale at death, I'm certain it'll lose double that.

Exactly. According to the deluded, this obviously means that whales have an ENORMOUS soul.

[benmor78]

Why should religion be taken out of the public sphere? We, as a society, accept that sexuality is part of the public sphere. Why should religion be a private, closeted issue while whether you stick your penis in a man's anus or a woman's vagina is something suitable for prime time TV?

I don't accept any private actions taken by consenting adults to be necessarily public. Whether it be abortions, homosexuality, religion, toe clipping, or anything like that. Be free to do what you want, but don't cram it down other people's throats.

Well, Dawkins is certainly cramming his views down other people's throats, that's for sure. So is that nut in California trying to ban the pledge of allegiance.

Homosexuality is in the news because governments have seen fit to legislate against private behavior. Why can't gays get married? Because certain people find it icky, and it's an election year. Why can't there be a nativity scene at City Hall? Because Christians don't stand up for their rights, all they do is whine and complain and send letters to Pat Robertson.

I'm not talking about homosexuality in the news. I'm talking about the extremely public wearing of sexuality badges, coming out publically, etc. I don't see how or why that should be acceptable, but public discourse about religion shouldn't be.

If you want to pray to your God, that's fine. Religious beliefs are private, and I stand by that. You don't want to hear an atheist being critical of your religion anymore than I want Jehovah's Witnesses bashing on my door at 7 in the damn morning.

I hear atheists talking about this a lot, but honestly, I've never had a Jehovah's Witness knocking on my door. I've often had environmental groups and the like pounding on my door, though.

The question is, why does it have to be public? What is so great about your God that forces you to come into my private bubble and gnaw my ear off about it?

That's easy. Religious people are compelled by their religions to gnaw your ear off about it. And, really, they're compelled by simple human decency. They are telling you what, to them, is the equivalent of "your shirt's on fire." If you're not interested, tell them so.

The reason atheists are so public about these sorts of things is because there's this false sense of balance. All the religious people are complaining that they're being persecuted against while in reality it's all hype drummed up by radio and TV personalities to boost ratings. Christians make up the majority of the people in this country. More than half believes that the world was created by God in 6 days. Atheists make up less than 1/3 of the population.

In terms of numbers, who's persecuting who?

I didn't say anyone is persecuting anyone. I'm not even Christian, really. But for atheists to say they're being "persecuted," really, that's a laugh.[/quote]

[Lord Canti]

So you acknowledge a complete rejection of logic, reason, and general rationality is necessary to believe in a god?

Not a rejection, just an understanding that logic is unneccesary. Faith does not require logic.

I am not irrational. I simply believe that in this world there are certain things that are not meant to be understood until we are dead.

[Jamie]

Only humans lose two grams of weight at death.

NEWSFLASH, only humans have lungs our size! Weigh a blue whale at death, I'm certain it'll lose double that.

What does it prove? It proves that humans lose two grams at death. What a revelation! Stop the presses, when humans die they lose two grams!

This news could change the world! ZOMGWTFBBQ!

Other living creatures lose no weight at death, none. The studies accounted for the weight of the air lost. Easy to do considering your last breath is taken before the brain shuts down. Also, this was a MINOR part of my original post. This topic was one sentence in a very long post. Read the whole post I originally posted. If I were trying to prove that life was created, and didn't evolve from a pool of water 3 billion years ago, I certainly wouldn't use weight loss at death as my main argument

[Kugelblitz22]

If you think I am a liar, look it up yourself.

Why is it when you make absurd claims, we have to look it up?

Hey guys there is small troupe of traveling circus fairies living in my glove box. What do you mean prove it? How about you disprove it?

Lol, how about I don't believe things that make no sense?

[heavycola]

Only humans lose two grams of weight at death.

NEWSFLASH, only humans have lungs our size! Weigh a blue whale at death, I'm certain it'll lose double that.

What does it prove? It proves that humans lose two grams at death. What a revelation! Stop the presses, when humans die they lose two grams!

This news could change the world! ZOMGWTFBBQ!

Other living creatures lose no weight at death, none. The studies accounted for the weight of the air lost. Easy to do considering your last breath is taken before the brain shuts down. Also, this was a MINOR part of my original post. This topic was one sentence in a very long post. Read the whole post I originally posted. If I were trying to prove that life was created, and didn't evolve from a pool of water 3 billion years ago, I certainly wouldn't use weight loss at death as my main argument

Haven't you got some jaywalkers to call the cops on?

[Lord Canti]

Hey guys there is small troupe of traveling circus fairies living in my glove box. What do you mean prove it? How about you disprove it?

Well, ok, I don't mind a little work to disprove you. Where do you keep your car?

[benmor78]

I'm not sure why people on either side of this debate feel that evolution is contrary to the existence of a God. The universe operates according to rules, I don't understand why someone who believes in God would think that God would not choose to operate his plan according to those rules.

[Kugelblitz22]

Hey guys there is small troupe of traveling circus fairies living in my glove box. What do you mean prove it? How about you disprove it?

Well, ok, I don't mind a liitle work to disprove you. Where do you keep your car?

At my home...

[Lord Canti]

Hey guys there is small troupe of traveling circus fairies living in my glove box. What do you mean prove it? How about you disprove it?

Well, ok, I don't mind a liitle work to disprove you. Where do you keep your car?

At my home...

Well thats extremely vague...

[Kugelblitz22]

I'm not going to go tooling around google to look up a video I watched in my college theology class.

Ok well just take it on faith that you saw the video and it proved you right.

We don't even take god on faith, little lone the White tuxor.

[Backglass]

Why is it when you make absurd claims, we have to look it up?

Because...he has a superiority complex. He can spout off all day on wacko theories, because after all he is RIGHT and you are WRONG!

Cant you see that?

[Kugelblitz22]

Hey guys there is small troupe of traveling circus fairies living in my glove box. What do you mean prove it? How about you disprove it?

Well, ok, I don't mind a liitle work to disprove you. Where do you keep your car?

At my home...

Well thats extremely vague...

What do you want map coordinates? How can I help you prove god exists? Help me help you.

[Lord Canti]

How can I help you prove god exists? Help me help you.

I have no need for proof. I believe he exists. That is enough for me.

Now you will say that makes me irrational, that science proves that my beliefs are worthless.

......I don't care.......

[Kugelblitz22]

How can I help you prove god exists? Help me help you.

I have no need for proof. I believe he exists. That is enough for me.

Now you will say that makes me irrational, that science proves that my beliefs are worthless.

......I don't care.......

I don't care either really. Unless your a fundamentalist whack job who wants to take away my freedoms you can believe whatever crazy crap you want to.

[Lord Canti]

I don't care either really. Unless your a fundamentalist whack job who wants to take away my freedoms you can believe whatever crazy crap you want to.

I feel the same way about you, my friend. If you don't want to believe, that is your right.

[flashleg8]

Why is it that the evangelical atheists are so much more irritating than evangelical Christians? Oh, yeah, it's this obnoxious sense of intellectual superiority.

Versus the obnoxious sense of moral entitlement?

And Jamie, humans lose a couple of grams when they die? Our bodies are like 97% water. That ain't a couple grams dude.

I'm not talking about decay, or the bowels emptying themselves at death. I'm saying at the EXACT moment of death, for no reason science can explain, a human being loses a couple of grams. The exact moment in this case being when brain waves cease. It has been proven time and again. When anything else dies, this effect does not happen.

BS.


I'm assuming you are talking about this experiment.
"In 1907 Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill in Massachusetts actually tried to weigh this soul. In his office, he had a special bed "arranged on a light framework built upon very delicately balanced platform beam scales" that he claimed were accurate to two-tenths of an ounce (around 5.6 grams). Knowing that a dying person might thrash around and upset such delicate scales, he decided to "select a patient dying with a disease that produces great exhaustion, the death occurring with little or no muscular movement, because in such a case, the beam could be kept more perfectly at balance and any loss occurring readily noted"."

He recruited six terminally-ill people, and according to his paper in the April 1907 edition of the journal American Medicine, he measured a weight loss, which he claimed was associated with the soul leaving the body. In this paper, he wrote from beside the special bed of one of his patients, that "at the end of three hours and 40 minutes he expired and suddenly coincident with death the beam end dropped with an audible stroke hitting against the lower limiting bar and remaining there with no rebound. The loss was ascertained to be three fourths of an ounce."

And I assume your part about no animal having a soul refers to this:
"He was even more encouraged when he repeated his experiment with 15 dogs, which registered no change in weight in their moment of death. This fitted in perfectly with the popular belief that a dog had no soul, and therefore would register no loss of weight at the moment of demise."

Problems with this experiment.
1) six (as in the six dying patients) is not a large enough sample size.
2) he got "good" results (ie, the patient irreversibly lost weight at the moment of death) from just one of the six patients, not all six! Two of the results had to be excluded because of "technical difficulties". One patient's death did show a drop in weight of about three-eighths of an ounce - but this later reversed itself! Two of the other patients registered an immediate loss of weight at the moment of death, but then their weight dropped again a few minutes later. (Does this mean that they died twice!?) Only one of the six patients showed a sudden and non-reversible loss of weight of three-fourths of an ounce (21 grams).
3) Even today, with all of our sophisticated technology, it is still sometimes very difficult to determine the precise moment of death. And which death did he mean - cellular death, brain death, physical death, heart death, legal death, etc? How could Dr. Duncan MacDougall be so precise back in 1907?
4) He did not experiment on any other animals than those 15 dogs.

[Mylittlepuddykat]

Ok, I am a Christian.

You may come up with all sorts or reasons why I should not believe but none will suceed because I have seen, heard, and felt God's Power.

I have seen a lame women get up and walk.

I have heard the wonderous stories of revival, hope and thousands commiting there life to Jesus.

I have felt Gods power in me, I have felt the holy spirit, I have cried and shouted for Jesus.

You will come up with some 'logical solution' to all these great acts of God mainly probably that I am making it up. They may convince others but not me

because I know I'm speaking the truth

[unriggable]

Well, Dawkins is certainly cramming his views down other people's throats, that's for sure. So is that nut in California trying to ban the pledge of allegiance.

I wouldn't call him a nut, we added 'under god' in because of the red scare, after all. Same with the 'In God We Trust' on all our money. Also, Dawkins is kind of starting to piss me off - I assume Christians view that one guy on the street 'The End Is Coming!' in the same way.

I'm not talking about homosexuality in the news. I'm talking about the extremely public wearing of sexuality badges, coming out publically, etc. I don't see how or why that should be acceptable, but public discourse about religion shouldn't be.

I agree with you to some extent - if sexuality is something major in holywood, religion may as well. Kind of annoying why any of those things matter, unless you get into situations like Tom Cruise preventing the repeat of a South Park episode because it has to do with Scientology. But why people are freaking over Ellen DeGeneres being a lesbian still escapes me.

[unriggable]

Ok, I am a Christian.

You may come up with all sorts or reasons why I should not believe but none will suceed because I have seen, heard, and felt God's Power.

I have seen a lame women get up and walk.

I have heard the wonderous stories of revival, hope and thousands commiting there life to Jesus.

I have felt Gods power in me, I have felt the holy spirit, I have cried and shouted for Jesus.

You will come up with some 'logical solution' to all these great acts of God mainly probably that I am making it up. They may convince others but not me

because I know I'm speaking the truth

Wierd, somebody else cut open a tomato and found written within the seeds 'There is no God but allah and mohammed is his messenger'.

[Anony#1]

You used a lot of big words I did not understand. However, since I will not bother arguing with a college graduate or whatever you are, I'll just say I hold my faith because it works for me.

That must make you a...

[unriggable]

Anony, isn't it past your bedtime?

[Anony#1]

Nope, why? Are you hitting on me?

Thanks, but no thanks.

[benmor78]

I wouldn't call him a nut, we added 'under god' in because of the red scare, after all. Same with the 'In God We Trust' on all our money. Also, Dawkins is kind of starting to piss me off - I assume Christians view that one guy on the street 'The End Is Coming!' in the same way.

And we have a provision in the Constitution forbidding quartering troops in private homes because of the actions of the King of England. So what? In the end, no harm is coming to atheists by handling money that says "God" on it, and people can refuse to say the pledge of allegiance. My point, in the end, was that evangelical Christians and evangelical atheists are really two sides of the same coin. The topic starter is obviously wanting to crack out his back issues of "Skeptic" magazine and spread the brilliant peacock's tail of his intellect for all of us to see. I'm not sure what sort of personal fulfillment he's getting from trying to run down a belief system that a lot of people get great comfort and solace from, but he's certainly no better than the people he's bashing.

I agree with you to some extent - if sexuality is something major in holywood, religion may as well. Kind of annoying why any of those things matter, unless you get into situations like Tom Cruise preventing the repeat of a South Park episode because it has to do with Scientology. But why people are freaking over Ellen DeGeneres being a lesbian still escapes me.

The point, which I'm sure you didn't miss, is that the person to whom I was replying probably has no objection to the public discourse (Ellen Degeneres or Rosie O'Donnell spring to mind, who had to have a big public buildup and "reveal" about something we all knew already anyway) of something which would seem to be a much more private matter. So far as I know, homosexuality, as one of its central tenets, does not include prostelytizing.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

I wouldn't call him a nut, we added 'under god' in because of the red scare, after all. Same with the 'In God We Trust' on all our money. Also, Dawkins is kind of starting to piss me off - I assume Christians view that one guy on the street 'The End Is Coming!' in the same way.

The topic starter is obviously wanting to crack out his back issues of "Skeptic" magazine and spread the brilliant peacock's tail of his intellect for all of us to see. I'm not sure what sort of personal fulfillment he's getting from trying to run down a belief system that a lot of people get great comfort and solace from, but he's certainly no better than the people he's bashing.

I was content with leaving this thread because it has turned into another "we're right because we know god exists" thread, but this comment drew me back to the conversation.

First, I would like to address your ill conceived ad hominem. I am not trying to run people down, but instead calling into question what should be a question EVERYONE asks themself in regards to ANY belief.

Second, I would like to address my supposed "bashing". It seems that making valid, logical claims in opposition to your claims and asking you to rationally defend your claims is bashing. It's been 6 years since I graduated college, but I was under the impression that this is how rational debate is carried.

Third, I am a little disturbed that you would accept that belief in a deity as comforting as a legitimate reason for validating it. If we accepted that anything that gives a person solace and comfort is a good thing, we would have to accept all the implications: If a man enjoys rape, he should be allowed. If a woman enjoys mutilating her children, we should allow her to do it. Etc. so on, and so forth.

Fourth, I have an additional investment in this on several levels:

-I am morally obliged to call into question all beliefs and their rationality
-My profession revolves around history, evolution, and the sciences that revolve around them. The constant incursions by deists on my fields has lead me to believe that it only makes sense for us to question their beliefs as they question the validity of our work.