Hello Martin,

Let's assume there is no God, and we are the highest form of intelligence.

Why don't we know everything, and have to resort to inference, conjecture, and theory to fill the void where science ends?

Thanks!

Why isn't science perfect if we are the highest form of intelligence?

I think this question barely deserves an answer. Naturally we don't know everything, we have only been doing science properly for a vanishingly small fraction of our life on Earth. Most of the scientists who ever lived are alive today. To go from nothing to full knowledge of how the universe works and our place in it naturally takes time. Two hundred years ago we knew nothing of electromagnetic propagation and only a handful of men had any idea of the age of the earth or of the first traces of the idea that all life shared common descent.

Inference, conjecture and theory are science, at least they are vital stages in the scientific approach. Science is not a religion or even a single process. Science is a system of reason, a way to find the truth. To religious people truth has a very peculiar meaning, quite at odds with the everyday definition that which is so, the scientific approach is far more inline with this everyday definition than the strange concepts of religions. Paradoxically scientific explanations often feel less true than religious explanations, this only matters to people who expect human feelings to be tuned in to truth. I can see no reason why we should expect any natural process could evolve an intelligence with an instinctive grasp of truth beyond the experience of the community out of which it evolved.

To me the rational approach is to find out what is actually true and get used to it, rather than to reject the uncomfortable truth in preference for the comfortable myth. To me, and to scientists and rationalists, truth is something that is never certain, indeed certainty is considered the enemy of reason. Authority is always questioned, when an authority in a subject is questioned and found to be giving a good answer his authority is strengthened, but never confirmed beyond doubt or beyond questioning. That is why Darwin and Newton are so highly regarded as scientists, their theories have stood up well to scrutiny and have proved valuable, although not true in every particular.

Religious people, in the main, know very little about science and have little understanding of it. Trying to understand the universe in terms of matter and energy is difficult, the truth is often counter-intuitive but it is infinitely better than trying to make reality fit with what feels comfortable to believe.

Hi brother,

I'll love to debate this with you, but you need to keep it short, say, a paragraph or so. My train of thought lies on the same foundation of logic and reason as yours. Like you I don't reject science, I accept it wholeheartedly. The question here is philosophical, and within this paradigm, it is simply your views versus mine. The area we are covering is one where science hits a road block. I do agree that many religious people do not know much about science; yet many do. Many scientists are born-again believers, and I can get you some names if you insist on it. But it you will, let's start here, define religion. I find this term "religious" often misused and maligned, so lets start there.

Thanks!

I ask again, Martin. What is your definition of religion? As for Christ, you've made a quantum leap forward in time from where I thought we were. Let' start with the basics, aka, religion.

The Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary sets forth as one of its definitions the following: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Do you believe this definition to be accurate?

Brother?

What about comrade, neighbour or cousin, all would be more suitable and accurate unless you know something about my parents that I don't.

It is not possible to have a coherent belief system that encompasses a belief in Christ as a personal saviour with a truly scientific worldview. You can have one or the other, holding both is tantamount to a form schizophrenia. I am not saying that such belief systems cannot exist in one person, I am sure they do, but they are mutually antagonistic. Holding views at odds with themselves is normal and human, it explains how deeply moral and driven men like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jnr, JFK and Clinton can be such shits at home. (The sequence was not accidental, nor consciously chronological...)

Faith and science go together as comfortably as Judaism and pig breeding.

Religion is a pathological and contagious system of the suspension of disbelief. A system of delusion, self imposed self delusion that is transmitted both horizontally and vertically by memetic processes. I could expand on that if it will not over-tax your powers of concentration.

...and I am in no way ignoring the definition you set forth in your earlier message: "Religion is a pathological and contagious system of the suspension of disbelief. A system of delusion, self imposed self delusion that is transmitted both horizontally and vertically by memetic processes." Yet this appears to be your own subjective redefinition of the word. I would say it would be fairer to look for a semantically correct and accepted definition from a third-party source....such as the dictionary. (See my previous message)

Martin, the reason behind my request to "keep it simple" is that it may be the best format for some meaningful debate. I have read some of the rather extensive, yet well articulated, treatises you have posted in various newsgroups, and one cannot adequately respond without an equally extensive rebuttal that addresses the multiple points you set forth. I could be wrong, but in my opinion, this is not the best technique for engaging in online debate. I'd like the opportunity to convince you that the Christian worldview is more reasonable and logical than you give it credit to be. Are you up for the challenge?

When an old definition misses the point it is time to get a new definition. Just think about how little we could communicate if every word only ever had a single fixed definition. There would be no difference between time and tempo, sauce and salsa, clitoris and key, come to that church, cult and sect.

Words mean what they are used to mean. If I use the word "golf club" when you would use the word "anchovy" communication, not to mention golf and pizzas, become more difficult. In this case we are not arguing about the meaning of the words we are arguing about the nature of what the word describes, although we both have no argument about what a religion or a religious belief is, we can both pick them out of a line-up of similar concepts. Trading definitions of the words is futile. We agree what the words describe, we differ as to our interpretations of what the things themselves actually are. By the way, being English I regard Webster's dictionary as the Pope regards the Book of Mormon.

The definition you quote seems reasonable but it is a relatively uncoloured definition, it does not imply whether such a thing is good or bad anymore than does a description such as "the practice of having carnal knowledge of cloven footed beasts."

So you have checked out some of my postings have you? I did that once. I felt deeply ashamed at the size and extent of the postings. Well, no not really.

I post in newsgroups to attract publicity for my website and to spark off new debates. Most of the debates don't come to much. Most of my better debates come from people who share a lot of my basic ideas.

Most of the material I post is actually a republishing of pages from my website.

I think it is up to you to develop the idea that the belief in a revealed truth is consistent with the scientific method. To me the two types of thought seem to be totally at odds with each other. Science requires scepticism and a rejection of the idea of confirmation of ideas merely by an appeal to authority. Belief in Christianity requires a person to accept without question stories passed down through the generations, not questioning authority and not seeking direct corroboration seems to be anti-scientific.

Please note that I really am not interested in cosmology. I readily admit that I know nothing about it and it really does not concern me. What I reject is not the creator of the universe but the creator of man, the answerer of prayers. I am quite cool about the possibility of some kind of universal something or other stacking the cards in favour of existence at the expense of nothingness. I don't actually believe it but it would not ruin my life if I found out it was true. So stories of astronomers or physicists going to church is of no interest to me whatsoever.

OK. Over to you.

I am merely trying to baseline some terms for our ensuing discussion. I do agree that some words have multiple flavors based on context, but for us to effectively debate this particularly complex topic, we should really nail down some nomenclature. These terms and definitions should be sanitized and unadulterated, not tainted by either of our respective worldviews. I think we may have achieved that in defining "Religion", assuming you accept my definition. Why not take a crack at God and science, using the same guidelines.

God (capital letter)

The creator of the universe according to Judeo-Christian teachings. Omnipotent, omnipresent and benevolent (and unfortunately also non-existent).

Science.

1) The general process of applied reason in open debate.

2) The art of asking pertinent questions and applying reason to discover answers.

3) The subtle mixture of scepticism and wonder.

4) The personal quest for fulfilling answers based on their truth rather than their intrinsic feel-good factor.

5) An impersonal search for meaning and reasoned explanations.

6) What intelligence is for.

7) The basic qualification that gives a species a right not to be eaten.

You made a good point about the "visceral desire to fill a void deep within themselves". I have always considered that the thought processes of my brain were superior to those of my intestines. The truth is simply that which is, not that which feels right. There will always be a void within all members of our species because we need it, if we ever reach nirvana we are dead. The ache inside will always be there because it has evolved to be there, to tell us the difference between the way things are and the way they could be, our bodies do not allow of the concept of satiation. We cannot have enough. There will always be a need for more.

Many rich people feel that after they have become fabulously rich and famous there is still something missing. The Beatles were a classic example. They had it all; money, fame, status, recognition, more eager young pussy than they could ever hope to fill, but there was something missing. They sought it in Eastern religion. But it was never there to be found. Life is about the hole inside. It never goes away. If you subscribe to a religion the hole does not fill, it just becomes a sin or admission of weakness to admit that it is still there.

God/gods: What do atheists not believe in?

As I pointed out before, we would have a more productive debate if we stick to terms that are neutral, and untarnished by our respective world views. Let me attempt to define these while adhering to those standards:

god (not capitalized)

- a spirit, being, or entity believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshipped for doing so, or a representation of the being.

Science -

The systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. The organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations can be verified or tested by further investigation.

As far as the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, we can toggle that "g" when needed to refer to him. No doubt we both agree on the premise that somewhere within ourselves there is a deep yearning for something, a "hole inside" as you referred to it. Yet this curious phenomenon is separate from all the other yearnings and desires we experience throughtout our lives, in that it is always there, humming along like some primortial device implanted deep within our bodies. A need for companionship can be fullfilled, so can a woman's instinct to have children; our need for sex as well. But through it all, the maddening hum continues incessantly. We would not become automatons if the the humming subsized, as the other instinct and desires would continue. I am sure The Beatles enjoyed their incredible success, but throughout it all was that hum, that inexplicable hole.

Is that it? I am bored with this. Why don't you say something? You haven't addressed the main point. Tell me how a belief in a gospel (meanings 1 to whatever in whatever dictionary you choose, capitalized or not) and a search for truth wherever that search leads can be reconciled without schizophrenia.

Have a go at that.

We have in effect agreed to disagree about the nature of the hole. The distinction between what you claim is a hole that can only be filled by a god or Jesus or whatever and my idea of a hole that can never be filled but can be denied is a futile discussion. We have wasted enough time not getting anywhere. It is your move, address the main issue or goodbye. I'll go along with your definitions, they are reasonable and not in conflict with my own.

As you yourself said, most of your debates amount to nothing. I am merely trying to change that trend. I'd like to prove to you that Christianity is more sensical and reasonable worldview than your scientific one. This cannot start with the Gospel, as we cannot start a book in the middle chapter - we must start with the first one. Disbelief in God basically eradicates any notion of a Gospel, so there is no need to venture into that area - at least not yet. I cannot convince you of the veracity of Christianity from within Christianity, anymore than I can convince you that football is the best sport by telling you the rules of football, how a goal is scored, etc. I have to delve into sports in general, and from there prove to you that football is best. Any other other way would lead to a mano and mano, mudslinging brawl that leads to nothing. In such an instance, a goodbye would be more appropriate.

At first, these exercises into words, definitions, dictionaries and the like seem meaningless. But we are merely trying to avoid the old "bait and switch" trick of mutating the meanings during the debate, or the proverbial "changing the rules of the game amidst the game". I'd like to prove to you that you believe in a god as well, although not the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. That you have a religion, although it is not Christianity. That you have attempted to fill your hole with atheism , in the same manner as I with Christianity, in the same manner as the Beatles with Eastern religion. That we both believe in Science, as I cannot dispute the laws of gravity, inertia, and the like, as they can be successfully verified and tested. Our disagreements are philosophical in nature - they are not about science.

I must go...chew on this for a while. Do not chicken out on me. I will propose several logical starting points in a future message.

OK, go on then, prove to me that I believe in a god. I am just about at the limit of my patience. I am fed up with preamble and stage setting. Make your point. I don't want several logical starting points in a future message I want a proper start in the next message.

Take a punch, stand your ground or throw the towel in. Just stop dancing about the ring saying you're going to put me on the canvas.

Martin

My god is God, the Judeo-Christian one of the Bible, creator of the heaven and the earth. My God is not the creation, but rather, the Creator. Your god, Universe, is the heavens and the earth. While my God is like an architect whom designs and builds a house - and is separate from the house, your god is the house, the house itself being its own architect.

My God, with his magnificent power and intelligence, created the first man and woman, Adam and Eve. Universe, equally magnificent and intelligent, spawned a cell and programmed the cell to evolve. If God were to make time run backwards to the creation of the first man and woman, you would see the population gradually decrease until the you would have two people left - Adam and Eve. If you ran the clock to the very beginning, the most basic entity would be God.

If Universe were to make time run backwards, you would also get to the point where you have two people as we know them today. If you ran it back some more you would watch them regress to a more primitive form. A few billion years more and they would have regressed to a cell (or two, one for man and one for woman?) floating in primortial soup. If you ran the clock to the very beginning, the most basic entity would be Universe.

My God has revealed himself through creation and a series of historical books compiled together to form the Bible, which happens to be the best selling book in human history. Universe serendipitously discovered itself, this documented in a series of books such as The Origin of the Species, The Blind Watchmaker, etc. These books have yet to be compiled into a Universe Bible.

Your religion is atheism, mine Christianity. As a Christian, I embrace science, and where science falls short, I fill in the gap through inference, hypothesis, and conjecture - this is my faith. As an atheist, your stance mirrors mine - except that you erroneously categorize it all as science. You cannot scientifically prove evolution; I cannot scientifically prove Creation. Otherwise we would be both atheists, or both Christians.

I have already violated my own standard of keeping it short, so I'll stop here. I think what I'm proposing is evident. You're up.

Finally we are getting somewhere, you have ditched your veneer of rationality and science and come out in your true colours. Thoroughly irrational, symbolic and mystical.

Sorry to burst your bubble but I don't worship the universe. I find it very impressive, awe-inspiring and at times beautiful but that is because it is. Objectively the universe is rather big and trying to understand it makes my brain hurt. But then trying to understand women makes my brain hurt too.

All scientists find their subject matter fascinating, stimulating and enriching. To characterize that as “worship” is as twisted as the child molesters who claim they are sharing a fully mutual loving sexual relationship with their prepubescent victims.

I have found that there is a widespread tendency among humanity to try to understand people by starting from the assumption that underneath any superficial differences they are the same as yourself. This can be demonstrated by lesbian feminists strange idea that men are hiding their "female side", as outrageous and slanderous an idea as the theory that women really have penises and are hiding them from men for their own devious reasons. In actual fact if you go beneath my rational and non-religious exterior you will find a rational and non-religious interior. Now you don't have to believe that, you can if you choose continue to believe that underneath I am still like you but in denial and there is nothing I can do to prove otherwise, just as I can't prove to you that I am real and not a figment of your imagination, a robot or a devil sent to tempt you, or any other equally (im)plausible notion.

You are right that there is no atheist “Universe Bible”, although that seems like an interesting concept, I have been considering doing a recommended books page for my site, now I have a title. I like a large dose of irony in my page titles.

So your true colours are revealed as a fundamentalist Christian and that most nauseating form of oxymoronic memeoid, a "Creation Scientist." Creation scientists use science like a drunk uses a lamppost, more for support than illumination. Any finding that can be bent to suggest support for biblical concepts is grasped eagerly, anything that is in contradiction to the Bible is wrong and can be shelved, until it proves useful in showing up the contradictions and inconsistencies in the “creed” of the enemy.

As for your contention that I cannot prove evolution all I can say is any further discussion is futile. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Martin

I throw a couple of jabs and you're throwing in the towel? C'mon, Martin, I thought you a more formidable opponent than that.

Don't know why you missed it, but my colors have been evident from the very first message I posted to the newsgroup in defense of creation, the very message to which you responded.

As far as worship, we all do it, scientists and atheists included. It is not a choice, it is built in, just like that hole. If we were able to eavesdrop on the remotest corners of civilization - deep in the heart of Africa or some yet undiscovered land, we would soon find people engaged in worship of something or other, be it a stone, idol, or some other object or entity. Worship need not involve some god-like figure, as some worship their careers, others cars, still others - themselves.

But enough of the saber rattling. I'm going to stick out my chin so that you can deliver the knockout blow ala Lennox Lewis. Simply point me to the scientific evidence, study, article, etc. that indubitably proves evolution, and I will stand corrected. I am including our mutually agreed-upon definition of science for your reference.

Science - The systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. The organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations can be verified or tested by further investigation.

As I said before there are none so blind as those that will not see. The whole of biology makes sense in terms of evolution, and only through evolution, otherwise all it shows is God's inordinate fondness for beetles. I am not aware of any evidence that will be sufficient to prove evolution to somebody who wants not to believe it. Even if there could be a crystal clear example of the generation of a new mammal species entirely within a single human lifetime I don't think that you would be convinced. What would evidence be against faith? The whole point is futile in the extreme.

If you are so keen to be taken as a scientist do this experiment.

From a pack of playing cards take out a black two, the two of clubs or spades. Hold it side-up at arm's length, close your left eye and with your right eye look very hard at the spot on the left; now move it very slowly towards you, still looking hard at the left spot. For a while you will see both, but at a certain distance the spot on the right will vanish then re-appear as it comes closer. Now move it slowly away from you again; it will vanish and re-appear.

The explanation is very simple. The consequences are mind-blowing. There is a blind spot in everyone's vision. This trick allows you to convince other people that you can make things disappear by the power of concentration or by saying some mumbo-jumbo incantations. The killer is why there is a blind spot.

There is a blind spot in your vision because your eyes are inside out. They are inside out because of a fluke of evolution. If you, as a camera designer or a creator-god were to sit down and design an eye you would naturally put the clear bits at the front, then a lens, then photo-receptors and finally nerves or wires to transmit the data back to wherever it was to be processed. That much is obvious. It cannot possibly be a better idea to put the nerves between the squishy liquid stuff and the photo-receptors, can it? If you did that you would need a software work-around to convince the animal that a donut shaped image was normal... That can't be sensible can it? But this is what happens in every animal that is descended from the simplest fish. Eagles have a donut vision, we do, anchovies do.

Oh, if the trick doesn't work for you then you can exclude fish from your family tree.

It doesn't work for squid or octopuses, they evolved eyes with lenses and retinas but were lucky enough to do it the sensible way around, retina in front of the nerves. Once evolution takes a particular turn it cannot go back. No animal could evolve from having eyes inside out to eyes the sensible way round without being blind in the intermediate generations before evolution can re-adjust the focus. Evolution cannot work on genetic material in the digestive system of another animal. If a mutation is not as good or better to the host individual it will not be passed on. Evolution always proceeds by single steps. Just as a river will only ever flow downhill, it will never take a short detour uphill to save itself the bother of meandering.

Studying biology without a grasp of evolution is like stamp collecting. Dry as dust collecting of information with little reasons to connect them up into any kind of analytical framework. Before Darwin came along and made sense of the subject biologists were just natural historians, dull collectors and codifiers of arcane information, not somebody you would want to share a railway carriage with. Now biology is the most exciting subject of all. The truth is out there, and it can be discovered.

I have no reason to think that a Creation Scientist would ever change his stripe. Creation science is an oxymoron, you cannot do science already knowing the answer. The whole exercise is futile. There is little reason for me to continue any debate. You will not change your mind, it would be a sin for you to do so. I cannot prove my case to you because you could not accept that I had done so. The only thing that can happen is that I waste my time and dent my own credibility.

I have no belief that science will ever be able to dispel myths, dogma and religion. I am not a scientific optimist. Your poisonous kind will be with us for ever. The best I can do to minimize your damaging effect is to maintain your isolation.

There is no point in a debate unless both parties are willing to change their minds, otherwise it is futile, except as spectator sport. I do not have to worry myself with ratings. I have wasted too much of my time on you.

You have achieved nothing. You have not proved that I worship anything. You have not proved your are scientific.

As to the universal prevalence of some form of superstition what of it? That is hardly very good evidence for your one true God. There have been several thousand gods named throughout human history and so most people must be wrong about their gods, although most people would be just as unwilling to admit it as you. Sex, death, cancer, lust, greed, language, superstition, mimicking and a preference for younger women, a collection of universal human characteristics. I don't have any problems with putting all of those characteristics within an evolutionary framework. My explanations are far simpler than those of Christian fundamentalists trying to explain away things like tens of thousands of annual stripes in glaciers and mud cores from around the world.

The fundamentalist approach to science is to read scientific articles and gather conflicting information and anomalies, ignore the obvious conclusions, ignore the basic assumptions upon which most of the evidence is collected and then selectively spew the information back. It reminds me of those photo-montages, one large image made up of thousands of small images, except in your case the picture on the big re-generated image is nothing like the picture in the small images. It is perfectly possible to make an image of George W Bush out of hard core pornographic images, or vice versa. Creation science is just the same, selective quoting of tiny fragments of scientific information reassembled into something that looks nothing like the original.

You have defined some words, big deal. Knowing what science is does not make you a scientist.

I predict that within the next 50 years scientists will increasingly come to act in the way I have, refusing to countenance the idea of debate or science in the presence of heretics.

Martin

If you really are open minded I suggest you read some of the books I have recommended on my website. I have already read your definitive text on the creation of the universe and the diverse animal and plant life of this planet.

Martin, I was not a bit surprised that you were unable to deliver the knockout blow and produce hard evidence that support your theories. Why? Simply because this evidence does not exist. What baffles me is how a seemingly sensible man like you would pin all his hopes, aspirations, and existence on these skewed philosophies without having strong evidence to support them. You, sir, have much more faith than I do.

Pragmatically speaking, adapting your worldview is nonsensical. If Christianity were a fraud, then I would have your worldview as a safety net. But if Christianity is true - where does that leave you? Therefore, Martin, I urge you to make an effort to really understand Christianity before you dismiss it as irrational, mystical nonsense.

In your cliched references to Christianity, both here and in your web site, you are basically attacking a first grade Christianity with graduate level atheism. As an example, at some point you referred to the Bible, and I am paraphrasing, as a bunch of stories passed down from generation to generation. This is the equivalent of my claiming that the Origin of the Species is simply the result of giving a smart guy a magnifying glass and a lot of free time.

I will tell you just a little bit about these "bunch of stories". The Bible is a historical account of the plight of man, written in a period of 1,500 years by over 40 different authors consisting of shepherds, farmers, tent-makers, physicians, fishermen, priests, philosophers and kings. Despite these differences in authors, the book is extremely cohesive and unified. It is the best selling book in the history of manking, selling millions upon millions of copies, and with 1,200 translations. It is probably the only book in history that has withstood age after age of incessant persecution. Century after century men have tried to eradicate it and destroy it. But the book has survived the onslaught unscathed and untouched. The Gospels, if I may, were written less than 100 years after the actual events, making them highly reliable accounts by archaelogical standards. The Bible is the only book that provides answers to all of life's most crucial questions in logical and reasonable manner. It encompassed science, philosophy, economics, medicine, the human condition, our origin, ultimate destination, our purpose. It is basically a user's manual for mankind.

So be it; let's not debate. Must warn you that only debating those which share your viewpoint has the makings of an awfully boring debate. But I will tell you this with all sincerety - we need to chat some more. Despite my not buying into your wordview, I must admit that I am intrigued by it, and have found myself visiting your web site many times to get a good dosage of it. I simply cannot fathom the logic behind the conclusions you draw, captivating me even moreso. For instance, the example you site about the inverted retina, being poor design and all. Did not Dawkins proclaim that the universe has no design? If that is indeed true, why the discussion on design, albeit poor design? Nevertheless, there is a rather simple explanation to this, provided by, of all things, science. The photoreceptors in the human eye, due man's high metabolic rate and exposure to a wider variety of light than an octopus (or fish, or whatever), must be "wired" from the front, as their opposing end must mate with the choriocapillaris system, which feeds them much needed nutrients and oxygen for regeneration. Wiring the eye in a more intuitive fashion, i.e, wires in the back, would result in a minor annoyance, that is, blindness.

Broken my own rules again. Later.

Hard evidence?

I really cannot understand what you mean by a lack of hard evidence. The whole of biology makes sense in terms of evolution, with no evolutionary perspective it is truly random and comes down to categorizing the works of God, nothing can be predicted or fully explained. Such beliefs spread the contagion of mystery to infect every aspect of the universe.

Evolution does not yet explain everything in biology and there is a lot more to learn about exactly how it has operated. But there is very little evidence to suggest that the evolutionary perspective is not the single most important tool we can use to understand life.

This constant jibe that there is a lack of evidence is extremely annoying. It reminds me of the jibe the political party I used to support got from the know-nothings “you have no policies” they kept saying, but I could offer them ten policies from my party for any policy they could name from any other party. There was just an ignorant gut feeling that there were no policies on offer and so they didn't listen to those I could offer, because they knew I didn't have any.

There are a number of excellent books that I recommend on my website that are full of evidence for evolution. No credible theory exists to confront the theory of evolution except for the pseudo-science of the committed creationists whose methods are bizarre in the extreme, consisting of the equivalent of reproducing an encyclopaedia of science with 99% of the words removed leaving a pattern that is totally at odds with the original work. There are no non-religious scientists working on a non-evolutionary biology.

The Bible.

We agree on a few points about the Bible.

It was written by many different kinds of people at different times. You say that they were writing about the same central character “God” but I can see far more inconsistency in the portrayal of this character than that of any other fictional character that was been written about by different authors, such as Robin Hood, Superman, Dracula and Batman. Only one character in fiction has been subject to as wide and liberal re-interpretation and re-writing of character; the devil.

Your stuff about waves of persecution is laughable. Christianity was persecuted for a short period until 313 when it became adopted by the Roman Empire. From that moment on the boot was on the other foot. Christianity was spread by violent conquest and was a fellow traveller of economic and social imperialism centuries before Coca Cola was invented.

The Gospels were reliable because they were written within a century of the original events. That is farcical. A century of whispering, re-telling and boasting. Is there any independent evidence of the life and works of Jesus? There have been many more messiahs both before and since, many have much better and traceable evidence of having been real people.

The legitimacy for the Bible is entirely grafted on afterwards. There is nothing in the old testament that is there for the consumption of gentiles. It is a tribal religion and you are not part of that tribe. You have been told that the Bible is true, good, reliable, significant and worth reading. In believing that you have found evidence to support that point of view.

You miss the point about the inverted retina completely. Christians are the ones who talk about perfect design in animals. The evolutionary approach is to see how design has come about. Our eyes are badly designed. No designer would put the nerves in front of the photoreceptors, it is appallingly bad design. But that is the way they happened to evolve. Once vertebrate eyes began that trajectory of development there was no way back, a functional eye that was good at detecting light and dark, and perhaps finer detail as well could not turn "right-way out" in the next generation without being less good. Just as a river never takes a short cut uphill evolution cannot make a change that is not an improvement at every step of the way. Are you suddenly an expert on the eyes of octopuses and the bloodsupply to the eye? Can you explain why the photoreceptor cells need blood more than the nerve cells? Why can octopuses manage with this structure and yet we cannot? Why if this arrangements works in octopuses do fish use our system, metabolic rates and the filtering effect of seawater provide sauce for the gander. I am calling your bluff. Of course you know that your answer is true (how could it be otherwise?) but that does not wash with me.

If Christianity is an absurd waste of time and a system of self delusion then you have wasted your life in deluding others. You would have given yourself false hope and so avoided achieving your full potential in this life. If it is not then I may have to face some form of judgement. What would be my crime? Thinking for myself? Refusing to believe ideas that I find absurd? Refusing to except the accumulated hearsay evidence of several centuries as “Gospel truth”? I would throw myself at the mercy of the court content that I had done nothing wrong and confident that any punishment would offend natural justice.

You may answer that this would be no defence against a wrathful God. Likewise any of the three thousand plus gods that you dismiss and decry would be happy to skewer us on the same spit. That is the fate that all us non-believers risk, a gruesome spectre devised by those who would spread their poisonous beliefs.

Martin,

the existence of Jesus is by far the most thoroughly documented fact in ancient history. Why does'nt he have spectacular monuments or the like erected in his name, as is the case with powerful kings and military leaders? Simply because Jesus was not a king or military leader. He had a short, 3 year ministry, and he was relatively unknown. Yet his ministry was documented by authors who were under the constant threat of death. Non-Christian historians of that time, such as Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus and Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus, have made reference to Jesus in their writings. If the same principles of documentation analysis and logic were applied to all ancient historical figures, one could easily build a case for doubting all ancient people prior to the development of the printing press. Does it make sense to accept Julius Caesar, Nero and Alexander the Great and reject Jesus? Of course not. A far stronger case for existence of Jesus is available.

No doubts there's been many different gods worshipped by man throughout the ages. The Bible, or God's word tells us in the first of the ten commandments, not to worship false gods. Why? Simply because we have an innate need for worship, and therefore have the propensity for worshiping the wrong god if not careful. There are many instances of this phenomenon in the Bible itself. All these other alledged "thousands" of gods are but frauds, and comparing one to the god of the Bible is analogous to comparing a bicycle with a Ferrari. Don't believe it? Pick a god, any god other the God, and I will expose the fraud for you. The other god is probably a stone, some idol, some basket case, an animal, or something of that sort.

The case for Jesus Christ being the one and only messiah is far simpler to make. Hundreds of years before his birth the old testament already contained a significant amount of prophecy about the coming of a messiah. These prophecies detailed many attributes of the coming messiah including his birthplace and manner of death. Jesus Christ, and only Jesus Christ, fulfilled each and every one of those prophecies. So the other so called messiahs are simply frauds. If there is a specific one that you would like me to expose simply send me the name.

At first, God does appear inconsistent in the Bible. At times he is benevolent, forgiving, and graceful, on others he is vindictive, wrathful, and angry. Should sound familiar, Martin, as we are all like that. God created us in his image, so we mirror many of his attributes. We are also sometimes benevolent and other times malevolent, sometimes forgiving and other times vindictive. Are we also inconsistent? We probably are, but God isn't. While we misuse these emotions and traits, this does not mean the traits themselves are right or wrong, it is their misuse that is right or wrong. And while we are often vindictive when we should be forgiving, and forgiving when we should be vindictive, God applies these traits perfectly. The all-benevolent God with the white flowing beard is a myth concocted by those who have not studied the Bible. The real God, the one of the Bible, is far different - much more complex. Remember, this is the Creator of this incredible universe and the most incredible machine on earth - the human body.

If Christianity happens to be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated in the history of mankind, then I have your worldview as a safety net. Would my time have been wasted? Striving to love my neighbor as myself, loving and praying for my enemies, loving my wife as my own flesh, helping those in need, passing these same principles to others - was this an utter waste of time? I think not, and I don't think you would disagree.

On the other hand, if Christianity is right, then you are correct in that you will face your Creator one day. How will he judge you? The Bible admonishes us about judging, as man judges inaccurately from the outside, God perfectly from the inside. So I will tell you merely my perspective as a Christian. I think it is sad to see a man of your talents, your knack for writing, your sales skills in promoting your site, your technical skills in developing your web site, your ability to research and report - all this invested on an agenda that is the enemy of God. Even if Christianity is untrue, it gives people hope, renewal, it invigorates them, and you Martin, are in the business of dimming those hopes by peddling hopelessness, purposeless, and nothingness. And I do not say that as an attack - I say it with a heavy heart.

A common misconception is that Christianity is for the weak, a crutch for dealing with life. Actually, the opposite is the truth - Christianity is for the strong, as fighting against ones natural lusts and desires is not for the faint hearted. The easy path is to satiate each lust and desire within us. Some of the most successful and intelligent individuals I have met are Christians - business owners, intellectuals, etc. The founders of the most powerful country on Earth were Christians, and founded the USA on Christian principles. The president of that country, George W Bush, is a devout Christian. So the notion that Christianity and success are mutually exclusive is untrue.

What, specifically, do you find so poisonous and vile about Christianity? Not from a scientific viewpoint, but from a personal viewpoint. What within you, in your heart, to you find so offensive about it?

I did not say that Jesus did not exist. I personally believe that he did although there are many people who do not. Your assertion that “the existence of Jesus is by far the most thoroughly documented fact in ancient history” is quite absurd and it reduces your credibility even further.

The non-existence of Jesus is not part of any "Atheist Creed". Personally I think people who try to disprove the existence of Jesus are just as dangerous a set of fundamentalists as any Southern Baptists. (By the way, what one true scion of the one true faith in the one true God do you belong to?)

Tacitus was writing in 115, that can hardly be called a contemporaneous account. Do you think it is not possible that a story can get garbled and mixed up with hearsay and myth after more than 80 years? The historians of that era were not working to the scrupulous levels of accuracy as they have to today, I would rate Tacitus's account as being as authoritative as a double page centre-pullout in a present day Belgrade newspaper about the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914. In other words it is stale news reported long after the event and with many levels of myth-making over-laying the facts; even if a Serbian journalist or a Roman historian want to tell the truth they cannot be fully relied on.

I repeat that I am not saying this out of some crusade (is that an appropriate word? What the hell ;-) to make a point. It doesn't matter to me whether or not there was a historical Jesus. At least it doesn't matter more than any other contended issue. Truth always matters.

Josephus, the Jewish chronicler, writes about Jesus far closer to the time, only about 60 years after his death. Again the same argument applies. Sixty years is quite long enough to introduce a lot of apocryphal material. Just think about how accurate current myths about the life of Elvis are, then double the time and remove all the other supporting documentary evidence. Sixty years is a long time in the building of a myth. Other Talmudic references are even later additions, three hundred years after the event, stale news indeed.

The story of Jesus the man would be easier to square with the story of the son of God if it were not for the similarities between this story and many others that were around in the Greek influenced world in those centuries. The whole story reeks of addition, manipulation and invention. Unfortunately there is no possibility of anything approaching an unbiased assessment of the evidence ever coming out. People have faiths to defend from infidels and others have books and lecture tours to publicize. That is why this is a subject that I only pay the slightest attention to, studying it in detail would be futile. I rank it as a mystery, like conspiracy theories and UFO stories, there is no point in looking for truth in such things unless you dedicate you entire life to it, and if you did, who could ever trust you to tell the truth? The essence of mystery. I hate mysteries.

A little parable about faith. We hanged a man. The British judicial system hanged a man in the 1950s for rape and murder. Ever since his family have proclaimed his innocence. They have devoted thousands of hours and large sums of money to proving his innocence. A huge bandwagon developed. Now with the development of DNA fingerprinting technology it has become possible to extend the bloodgroup evidence that convicted him to another level of accuracy. Tests on the man's mother and brother matched the samples on the rape victims clothes and the handkerchief used on the murder weapon. Inconclusive they cried. So they dug up the corpse (again) and tested traces of DNA in the bones. Perfect match. Still the family protest his innocence. Once a bandwagon starts rolling nothing can stop it, faith cannot move mountains but it can allow people to believe anything they want to.

Jesus was a real man who died on a cross executed by Romans and encouraged by the Jews? If people can believe the weird theories about OJ Simpson that they clearly do believe can you doubt mankind's gullibility on this? We can never know the truth, it cannot be found. And the human body is not equipped with any organ that can measure truth as distilled from hearsay stories. Any feeling you have about the truth is worthless as evidence.

The scripture predicted the coming of Jesus? The story of the life of Jesus was told in a way that fulfilled the scripture. You really believe that stuff about baby Jesus and the baa-lambs in Bethlehem? Since when have Roman governors required people to go home to the city of their ancestors to be counted? You would have thought somebody would have recorded their annoyance at such a request, if only some busy entrepreneur. It is as fanciful a plot device as anything by the Brothers Grimm or H. G. Wells. It is not quite The Greatest Story Ever Told but it has been remade a few times; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all had a go, the critics differ as to which one told the tale best. In what way was Jesus born of David's line? Through the unmarried consort of Mary, cuckolded by the Holy Spirit. (I can't help recalling that Catholic girl's prayer; Oh Mary mother of God who conceived without sinning please help me to sin without conceiving...)

I have no doubt at all that belief can be powerful and can help you succeed. Just think about Saint Walt's parable about the magic feather. If you have the ability to fly and you doubt it then you will not try. But faith will not let you do the impossible. It may be largely an urban myth but I am prepared to believe that some people do sometimes jump off buildings believing that they can fly while under the influence of LSD, but they always describe the trajectory that Newton would have predicted. If your faith helps you to live your life I am happy for you. But I will never choose to believe in anything for any other reason than my own logical deduction that it is a reasonable thing to believe in and of itself. If that means I miss out on your heaven then so be it.

The only evidence that I can see tells me that a brain is the only structure capable of experiencing pain and suffering. When my brain stops working I will die with it. That is not an article of faith, it is merely what I have believed for the last 26 of my 38 years as I have been gathering evidence. I am quite thrilled to change my mind and beliefs in the light of new evidence, I really enjoy the process, but I can honestly say that no religious idea has survived in my brain for more than a couple of minutes. I would love to know the truth, but everybody I have been in contact who claims to know The Truth has been annoyingly sanctimonious and obviously subjecting themselves to systematic self-delusion.

By their fruits shall ye know them. I'd say they were all nuts.

Martin

What, specifically, do you find so poisonous and vile about Christianity? Not from a scientific viewpoint, but from a personal viewpoint. What within you, in your heart, to you find so offensive about it?

Sorry I forgot to answer your question.

One little point, for all your talk about the human body being the most wonderful device it does not think with it's heart. The heart pumps blood. The brain thinks. What religious people refer to as belief in their heart refers to illogical desires and thoughts that cannot be rationalized by the conscious brain.

I cannot separate a personal viewpoint from a scientific viewpoint. Just as you cannot give me your opinion separate from your Christian faith.

What I find objectionable is the claim of perfect knowledge of truth. The teachings of Jesus, as much as we can know what they were, seem reasonable. I have even called myself a Christian-atheist. I like the idea of the pre-emptive strike of goodness, not to treat others how they treat us but to treat them how we would like to be treated. I like his broadening of concern for our fellow man which seems to go, for the first time, beyond the nation of Israel or the local tribe or family. I like his egalitarianism and his disregard for material wealth. I also like his acceptance of the civil power, the necessity of paying tax.

What I find offensive is the stuff about God, especially the suggestion that he is the son of God. I cannot believe that this claim was made by him in his lifetime, if it was real much more evidence would have been forthcoming from Jewish and Roman sources of the time, not two generations or more later. People who claim such things attract mockery, we would have a lot more Latin and Aramaic jokes about him if this story about him claiming to be the messiah was true. People who believe in old religions and gods that don't do very much get tolerated, people who believe in incarnate gods doing magic tricks in their own lifetime attract ridicule. You may look back at first century Palestine as the Holy Land of Biblical Times but to the people of the time it was the here and now, and gods don't walk the earth in the here and now, charlatans and cranks do that.

But of course, I am forgetting the most important thing. Your incredible and impossible stories are true, unlike the myths and tales of other gods. That is the part of the story that I find particularly offensive. Other people ponder the mysteries of the universe and invent false gods; like Athena, Thor, Venus and Osiris. While the story that got handed down to you by your parents was inspired by The True Word of The True and Only God. All other stories are myths perpetrated by primitive people, your stories are Gospel Truth.

You could say it was the capital letters that stick in my throat. The certainty, the faith, the denial of all alternative suggestions. The pig-headed dogmatism, the smug self-satisfaction. The hunch dressed up as the faith that makes everything possible (but not anything specific.) The faith that can move unnamed mountains, if it wanted to. The certainty that the truth is known and science is merely there to corroborate it, and if it fails to do that it is worthless Satanic anti-science.

Science says “correct me if I'm wrong but I think the evidence suggests....”

Christianity says the truth is in the Bible; read it, believe it, live it, spread it. Doubting this message is evil.

Which one do you think is the more appealing to a person with an enquiring mind?

Martin

.....I have not forgotten you. The last few weeks have been tough ones with work, taxes, and the rest.

Well, let's see. The Greek goddess Athena was born a full grown woman completely clad in battle armor. Her somewhat uncoventional birth consisted of leaping out of her father's split head after he assimilated his mother during delivery. Then we have the Roman goddess Venus, who was born when Gaia, Goddess of Mother Earth, became somewhat irked with her husband Uranus and proceeded to slice off his genitals and fling them into the sea. They mixed with the foam of the ocean and formed Venus, a symbol unconcerned with maternal issues and focused on sensuality and pleasure.

Had enough? Are these caricatures the competition, or the other gods?

Martin, there is a chasm of difference between mythology and Christianity. Sure, if ones sole objective is to find similarities, then one will find them. One can certainly find similarities between a horse and a centaur, but their similarities do not relegate them both to the realm of mythology, or validate them both as being real figures. Even a superficial overview of mythology clearly shows a universe of pure fantasy that can only exist in the imagination. Christianity, on the other hand, is historical, with historically verified characters, events, and geographies.

A Christians claim of perfect knowledge is only the byproduct of accepting the Bible as the word of God and establishing a relationship with the Creator through Jesus Christ. A Christian would have to be schitzophrenic to accept Christianity as true while also accepting alternate truths, or waiting for science to discover some other flavor of truth.

Remember, Christianity has been on the witness stand under heavy cross examination for approximately 2,000 years. Has scientific evidence that will slay Christianity has never been found? No, and ironically science has been one of the greatest allies of Christianity. In the past century alone, archaelogical discoveries have corroborated many of the events in the Bible. For example, the census that you site from the book of Luke was indeed perplexing until an archeological dig uncovered an papyrus dated to that era containing instructions on how a census was conducted, and it perfectly aligned with Luke's account.

But this is small potatoes compared with, in my estimate, probably the greatest authentication of Christianity by science yet. Prior to 1950 or so, the steady state theory was accepted by the scientific community as the explanation for the existence of the earth. It claimed that the earth had always existed, and had no beginning. Scientific advancements in instrumentation provided the means to explore the cosmos more closely, revealing that the universe was actually expanding. Observation of the stars revealed that they were in a state of expantion, or each growing apart in distance from one another. This incredible discovery had resounding ramifications. This meant that if this expansion was actively occurring, if one were to interpolate, one would find a contration of the earth to a point of....

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

GENESIS 1:1

..a beginning. 3500 years ago or so it was already written in the Bible. Naturally, all secular theories had to be reworked to accomodate this little change. And now the Big Bang Theory is now with us, of course.

The evidence is there, Martin, its just that you need to open up your heart to it. Just like then DNA case you sited, the family would not open their hearts to the evidence - despite it being valid. If we think only with our brain, or in a manner where actions are dictated by empirical evidence, we are missing a very important part of the though process. I'm sure you use intuition, your conscience bothers you when you've done something wrong, you are moved by a poigniant orchestral masterpiece, or experience love for friend and family, the joy of life, probably even get attached to things because of sentimental value.

Is there a scientific formula for any of those? Can they be measured with an instrument? Charted on a graph? Is there a test that can be performed to measure how much we love our children? I personally don't think you're able to think "scientifically" any more than you can eat to nourish only one half of your body. Our mind simply does not work that way.

Frankly, I believe that you denial of God is something deeper, something that happened when you were a kid that hardened your heart to God. If I am intruding I do so with the most respect, but there have been many cases of people denying God due to some tragedy or event in their life that could not be reconciled with the existence of a God. When these individuals encounter a Christian, it only gives rise to the anger and resentment they feel for God. Is this your scenario? If not, why the anger and hostility, which is evident even in your e-mail messages. If you truly believe that Christianity is a mass delusion or some sort of myth - then why fear it?. I'm sure you do not fear Santa Claus - correct? Santa is not real - that's why.

What hinders you from God, Martin? In your last message you basically sprayed Christianity with a barrage of machine gun fire in hopes that the sheer volume of bullets will topple it. You went from your thoughts on Elvis (does anyone really believe this stuff?), to how myths originate (is this a science?), to believing in Jesus' existence (didn't you believe the Bible was a bunch of old stories?), to comparing Christians with a junkie trying to defy the laws of gravity (is Christianity suicide??), to claiming that doubting is evil (most Biblical figures doubted), to disputing the accounts of historians (those foolish historians). Do you have nuclear bomb anywhere in your arsenal?

...in answer to your question about my particular religion - it is Christianity. Yes, we can discuss denominations and the whole bit, but I don't identify myself as any particular denomination, albeit I attend a denominational church regularly. This whole debate about this denomination vs that denomination has only caused divisions, as people will cling fanatically to a denomination and its particular way of doing things, and forget the core tenets of Christianity. A man once asked Christ what were the most important commandments. Jesus responded that they are to love God with all you heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. That is where any true Christian's energy should focus.

You are the weakest link, goodbye

Do you really think that the Christian creation myth stands up so much better than any other myth? I have to agree that it is not the most far-fetched and incredible story of its kind but it is hardly science. I am probably as bored of the case against Genesis as you are. The conflicting accounts of creation. The creation in seven days, or is that an allegory? And if it is how do we know that the story of Jesus or anything else is not "supposed" to be read as an allegory? What about the nonsense about creating light and later creating the sun. What about the "and he made the stars also" bit, rather dismissive of 99.9999(I'll stop here out of boredom)% of the Universe, isn't it?

Where is the divine revelation? The universe, supposedly his handiwork, is far more magnificent than the people, and therefore the god, of bronze age and iron age Asia knew. We now know that the Earth is very much bigger than those goat herders could guess and we know how small it is in relation to the rest of the universe, there is not a hint of this in the Bible. If your story of true divine revelation was true surely there would be some hint of this? Basically your god seems to have said virtually nothing at all of any use to all his prophets. What did God do for his people? Released them from slavery? Back up a bit. released them? Where was he when they became slaves? Where was he when his people put their enemies to the sword, urging them on in their genocide? Apparently. Where was he when the Romans invaded? Where was he when the Romans scattered his people? Or when the Nazis were sending them to the death camps? My answer is clear and simple, he was where he always has been, only in the stories and imaginations of men.

Looking for evidence in science for your beliefs puts you in the same league as those wishful-thinking people who gather evidence of Government cover-ups, the Bermuda Triangle, Atlantis and other popular myths. If you care to check you find the same dogged determination to soldier on in their commitment to find mainstream scientific approval of their ideas. No negative evidence ever weighs against them, every shred of gossip and twisted finding is used to strengthen their case. Their determination to hold on to their views is just as strong as yours. The only difference is your pig-headed commitment to hold onto myth is seen as noble, worthy and capable of justifying tax and other concessions from the civil authorities. But the losers who go on about ghosts, spirits, UFOs and Masonic conspiracies are treated by everybody else as misguided figures of fun. I have news for you, many atheists don't discriminate, we see you all as equally worthy of ridicule.

Your triumphalism at the idea that the theory of the Big Bang supports biblical creation is simply astounding. What alternatives are there? Either there always was a universe or there was a beginning. I have no doubt that you would claim with equal vigour that if science said there always was a universe that somehow went along with the Bible too, in the beginning was the word, and the word was.everything. Where in the Bible is the description of atoms? Quarks? Neutrinos? Or what about something a bit more mundane and more useful knowledge; bacteria? Sperm?

Your weird concept of the thinking heart is a truly terrifying idea. If your heart tells you to do something you do it, including sacrificing your son on a mountain top, apparently. I will always do my best to think rationally. Only by seeing things in a rational way can they be fully understood. That also includes "matters of the heart". By seeing why men commit immoral acts I can understand them and I have a way to combat them. By seeing child sexual abuse, for example, as a product of certain beliefs and experiences we as a society can take active measures to reduce the occurrence. By simply saying that it is the product of evil we are left with the single most unproductive human activity ever devised, prayer. Hundreds of billions are prayers are said every year and the world is as unpredictable as if they had no effect whatsoever. The number of miracle cures attributed to trips to Lourdes for example is statistically less than would be expected by random chance, or to put it facetiously a higher proportion receive miracle cures after visits to Las Vegas or Disneyland.

Christianity on the witness stand? A hostile witness. The Christian church has backed no end of losing horses in the game of explaining reality. Science has come up with convincing answers and time and again the church has had to back down. The round Earth, the moving Earth, the ancient Earth, the fundamental distinction between organic and inorganic, the special and unique creation of each species. The simplest and most basic facts that the church was touting were demonstrably wrong. But the church never weakened and never admitted that it was contradicted. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Church will continue to maintain its 100% record. Never admitting it was wrong, never apologizing.

I find your theory that something must have happened to me as a child to be deeply offensive. I have news for you, I am not you, I don't secretly desire to be you, you are not normal and everybody else in the world is a distorted copy. I do not suffer from God-envy or any other weird idea you might come up with. I don't believe that there is a god, I can see how the idea of gods were invented, why they were spread, why people like yourself spend so much time and effort on spreading the idea of gods. That is it. I have no fear or hatred of your god, any more than you have about the man in the moon or the tooth fairy. For exactly the same reasons; you don't believe in the tooth fairy, you know why the story was invented, you know why it was spread but you don't believe in the tooth fairy yourself, not out of malice, you simply don't believe. I don't know how much simpler I can make the explanation than that. I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD. There is nothing sinister about it, I am not doing it to impress anybody or to get at anybody or to hurt anybody. I am just being true to myself.

If I was to embrace your God I would be a liar, a self-deceiver, a hypocrite. Can you understand that? I cannot "open my heart to God" any more than you can stand up with a clear conscience and declare you do believe in fairies. I am not rejecting your God, I am not hating him. I simply do not believe, and I am not in the slightest bit apologetic or disturbed by that.

You obviously have not read my messages with any desire to understand them and so I see no reason to continue wasting my time discussing things with you. I did not compare Christians to junkies (I could do, but I didn't) I was making the point that belief does nothing to change reality. People under the influence of drugs can believe things which are not true, such as their ability to fly, this belief changes nothing in the external world. If you cannot even grasp a simple concept like this I see no reason to continue to converse with you.

As to whether I have "a nuclear bomb in my arsenal" you really have not been paying any attention to me at all have you? I am deeply pessimistic about the ability of our species or any other species ridding itself of irrational beliefs. I don't have any reason to expect that the truth is capable of being recognized. The idea that a fallible and impressionable species like our own could ever discover and agree on the truth is wildly over optimistic. It is far more likely that the majority will continue to cling to ideas that are wrong but comfortable.

I never for one moment expected to win any debate with you, but I hoped to have one. We live and learn, at least some of us do.

Hello Martin,

My sincerest apologies, as my intentions are not to offend. As you have posted your biography on your web site for the world to scrutinize, I thought it was not out of bounds for you to field questions about it. Nevertheless, I will not venture into that area unless you specifically indicate otherwise.

As far as reading and understanding your messages, I must say I have read and attempted to understand every single word you have written. Hope you have done the same for me. The particular example which you seem to think I misunderstood concerns the guy on LSD believing he could defy the laws of gravity, and being proved wrong by the pavement below. Is it a stretch to call this suicide? What do you think the police would list as cause of death - "accidental fall"? Nevertheless, I must concede that I was trying to be facetious and do understand the point you are were trying to make: perception does not change reality - and I cannot disagree with that. But this example "falls" short when applying it to Christianity, as my reality is no different than your reality. When one converts to Christianity, the change is within, not outside oneself. There is a new understanding that is awakened, a new realization of how things really work. And one does not abandon all logic and reason, one extends it. You can certainly watch a 3D movie without the glasses. But don the glasses, and a whole new landscape opens up to you extending reality - yet the movie is the very same one. To those still not wearing the glasses, there is no difference; those wearing them do not deny the 2D simply because they are seeing in 3D. They are merely seeing more.

In my messages, I am merely trying to get you to wear the glasses. Nothing more, nothing less. It is your God-given right to refuse, and I respect that. You may not believe it but I am engaging you here out of love for you as a human being, to try to get you to experience this incredible wonder called Christianity. You cannot see what I am seeing simply because you do not want to wear the 3D glasses, which are free to everyone. Your computations say that 3D is not possible, as you mistakenly measure the figures on the screen and are certain there is no depth to them.

Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible are nothing new, and there are many areas which seem to be inconsistent, even moreso than the ones you site. But one must be a student of the Bible to reconcile these inconsistencies, and there are clear and logical explanations for them. Ever wonder why the writers of those stories didn't simply clear these areas up? Why open the Bible to such criticism when a simple shuffling around a few words may have made things nice and tidy.

Anyways, got to go. As I said in an earlier message, don't chicken out on me.

I am bored with this now. I am not running away, I'm just taking my ball home.

I have been as clear as I can be. I do not believe in god, I am quite well aware of the stories and the perspectives you are touting. I do not share them and I have no desire to.

You mention my childhood again. I was a choirboy and was therefore fully exposed to Christianity in a way that my parents expected would seal my beliefs for life. Perhaps they were right. The number of people who think that the cause of my rejection of Christianity has something to do with “something bad in my childhood” is quite alarming. As if the only explanation for being an atheist would be getting abused. It is simply not true. There was no abuse. Most of my fellow choirboys were happy to be Christian, one was very devout, most were moderately so, the odd one rejected the religion in various ways. I started off as very questioning, finding inconsistencies in the fabric of the religion. It made me a bit of a Martin Luther, if this was true, this bit must be wrong, if the ten commandments said this why were we doing that? No graven images? So what was that stained glass window full of saints all about? Who wrote this hymn (it's terrible!) how did they have the right to write this stuff? It wasn't Jesus who wrote this, it was an Englishman, I can see his name across the top, who gave him the right to make up bad poetry and, by extension, bad theology? I became a fundamentalist Protestant first, looking to make the religion consistent. Later I came to realize that there was no inner core of truth either. I had no experience of God, no hint that anybody was listening to my prayers. The wonder I had at how people coped with the inconsistencies of the religion expanded into a contempt for the gullibility of the so-called faithful, which has now mellowed to the kind of resigned fascination and mutual misunderstanding that men show women and vice versa.

By the time I was about 12 my beliefs had solidified into a firm atheism. I had looked for consistency in religion and not found it. I did not for one moment consider looking for a better religion, I knew where to look for the truth.

Now I am quite happy with my beliefs, the way I accept new and old ideas. My mind is a constant ferment of competing ideas, never fully stable or consistent but constantly improving. I have no envy for the simpler world view of the faithful. I have no desire to learn more about any religion or other form of systematic self-delusion.

You have set out to convert me, to show how Christianity can be scientific, you have failed in this and you have failed to hold my attention. This conversation is going nowhere. Please do not waste any more of your time on it, I know I will not.

You wrote that my writing is full of anger. There is no anger towards your God. I do not believe in God, I am not angry with him. If there is anger it is the frustration with the faithful who carry on proclaiming that their story is the only truth despite all the evidence against them. Faith is immunity from logic, immunity from defeat. The frustration of debating with a Christian is like the frustration little boys get when a playground game deteriorates because one player claims invincibility. There is no fun in playing cowboys and Superman.

By all means post your comments on my Forum page, see if anybody would like to debate with you.