‘We Are Apes:’ Abortionist Blasts Atheist Recording to Drown Out Christians’ Pro-Life Pleas

Tidewater-compressed
Photo Credit: Google Maps

NORFOLK, Va. — An abortionist in Virginia recently blasted an atheist message from his facility to drown out the Christians who were preaching the gospel outside and pleading with women not to kill their children.

David Peters is an abortionist at Tidewater Women’s and LGBT Primary Care in Norfolk, and is the owner of Brute Strength Gym in the city. In recent weeks, as Christians have been standing for life outside the facility, Peters has played music through the speaker on the side of the building, and on one occasion, blared a message from atheist P.Z. Myers.

“He’s played some heavy metal stuff, and this last one was the most interesting,” Jason Sleichter, who was present when the message was played, told Christian News Network.

“He said we came from pond scum,” Don Karns, who recorded video of the incident, explained.

“We are apes and the descendants of apes,” the recording of Myers’ book “The Happy Atheist” declared. “We’re the descendents of rat-like primates, who were the children of reptiles, who were the spawn of amphibians, who were the terrestrial progeny of fish, who came from worms, who were assembled from single-cell microorganisms, who were the products of chemistry.”

“Your daddy was a film of chemical slime on a Hadean rock and he didn’t care about you—he was only obeying the laws of thermodynamics,” it continued. “You aren’t here because of grand design, but because of chance, contingency and selection.”

The voice of a man preaching is faintly heard in the video as it is largely overcome by the recording. Sleichter said that he believes Peters purposefully blares the audio to combat Christians.

  • Connect with Christian News

“I think that his purpose is to try to drown us out,” he said. “It’s opposition to the gospel.”

“I don’t know what it sounded like inside. I would think it would sound crazy to the moms inside, but on the street it’s really hard for us to minister to women because he’s drowning us out with the loud music,” Karns stated.

The men explained that while Myers’ message was telling women that they are an accident and a product of the evolution of slime, the Christians were calling out to women to let them know that they and their unborn child are valuable.

“We were telling them that their baby was made in the image of God, and what was going on that day was that God’s image was being destroyed,” Karns outlined. “[We said that] every child has a value no matter the color of their skin.”

He said that the Christians were also offering assistance to the women, that “if they would allow us, we would help them any way we could to have their baby.”

“Our message is a message of hope, a message of life and a message of truth,” Sleichter explained. “Our goal is to share the gospel with them, that Christ died for our sins, and that our sins is what every one of us–not just the women in there—need to be delivered from. That’s the root of abortion—it’s the root of anything wrong with society—our sin. It’s our selfish nature that we need to be delivered from.”

The men are not deterred by the incident, but find Peters’ broadcast of the atheist audio book to combat the gospel interesting.

Sleichter encouraged Christians pray for those who are taking the word of God to the abortion facilities in our nation, and urged believers to become active themselves in reaching abortion-minded women for Christ.

“People need to get involved in putting this to an end and seeing the reality of what is, and saying, ‘I can’t go to sleep at night while this is still going on in my county and in my community,'” he said.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • bowie1

    I imagine the devils are rubbing their hands with glee that they have this abortionist brainwashed to spout out his vitriol. But of course they don’t have him securely in Hell just yet…

    • Shang Tsung

      He’ll go if he’s straight, as it is foretold in the bible that the only way to get to Heaven is through Jesus and that means you have to have some gay sex with Jesus, which straight people might not be into. I totally am though and can’t wait to gay sex the lord.

      • Mary Pallotrix

        I personally would not be able to have gay sex with the lord as I am a woman, is there any hope for me to get into heaven?

        • Shang Tsung

          Yea it may still be possible for it is said that “who comes to the lord” may be granted eternal life, but he will undoubtedly be sure to know if you are faking it.

          • Mary Pallotrix

            Eh, that seems like a lot of work, maybe I’ll just convert to Islam.

          • Shang Tsung

            Well, Muhammad is more accepting of people of differing sexual orientations, and Allah is truly great, so best of luck with that decision.

    • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

      There is a chance he could repent.

      • bowie1

        He could, but will he?

        • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

          Probably not. But I can hope. Some have changed but not many will change.Sigh.

    • nicacat56

      Really?? The “devils”? “Vitriol”? How about REALITY?? Sheesh…mythologically inclined people are SO dense!

      • bowie1

        Thankyou for your response which I understand CLEARLY!

  • Josey

    hmmm…let’s see the loud broadcast is calling humans of no value, that should say a lot to the women that they are considered of no value to this crazy guy, “you’re just pond scum”. Keep right on broadcasting that you nut, God will see it put to good use and open the eyes of the women coming to you to see you for what you are. Praise the Name of Jesus!

    • Shang Tsung

      Yes praise the name of the greatest one, no one more capable of being right, no one more capable of being strong, and of course no one more capable of being gay than our gay lord Jesus or as the apostles called him Jeethus.

    • Douglas E. Berry

      No we have value. For example, when it comes to writing string quartets we totally own the title over fruit flies.

      You make your own value.

      • The Skeptical Chymist

        Exactly!

  • StThomas

    The owner must be really annoyed if he is doing that.
    If this place provides “…reproductive health care, hormone therapy, and non-emergent primary care to LGBT persons and communities.” then maybe the ladies attending would be unlikely to be having terminations, and the religious protesters may be barking up the wrong tree as far as they are concerned, protesting women getting routine healthcare, not abortions. Do Christians in Virginia object to healthcare happening near abortions?

    • Josey

      did you not read the article? Quote from the article, David Peters is an abortionist Tidewater Women’s and LGBT Primary Care in Norfolk, and is the owner of Brute Strength Gym in the city.

      • StThomas

        Googling suggests that a lot more is going on there that MTOPs which they do offer, and it seems wrong to me to hassle someone who might be going in for a smear or an IUCD

        • StThomas

          Or an abortion for that matter

  • Guest

    Did Darwin Renounce Evolution on His Deathbed? icr org/article/2834/

    • bowie1

      There is no indication he did.

      • Shang Tsung

        There is a great deal of indication that Jesus was gay however. Likely gayer than a Japanese Hard Gay level of gay.

    • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

      For his sake I hope he did.

      • nicacat56

        Um…there is no fairy tail god…

        • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

          Remember your words against God When you take your last breath in life.
          Shalom <

    • nicacat56

      Lol! No, you idiot.

  • Guest

    Libs Argue Monkeys Are “Legal Persons,” But The Unborn Aren’t downtrend com/robertgehl/libs-argue-monkeys-are-legal-persons-but-the-unborn-arent

  • Guest

    Madness

    On the Madness of Modern Liberalism:

    The egalitarianism and welfarism of modern liberal government are
    incompatible with the facts of human nature and the human condition.
    But the rise to power of the liberal agenda has resulted from the fact
    that the people of western societies have irrationally demanded that
    governments take care of them and manage their lives instead of
    protecting their property rights. This misconception results in
    massive violations of those rights while permitting government
    officials to act out their own and their constituents’
    psychopathology. The liberal agenda gratifies various types of
    pathological dependency; augments primitive feelings of envy and
    inferiority; reinforces paranoid perceptions of victimization;
    implements manic delusions of grandeur; exploits government authority
    for power, domination and revenge; and satisfies infantile claims to
    entitlement, indulgence and compensation.

    Modern liberalism rejects, to one degree or another, the competence and
    sovereignty of the common man and subordinates him to the will of
    governments run by liberal elites. The western world’s twentieth
    century capitulation to this philosophy is obvious–and the
    implications for liberty are ominous. But the history of the world
    also documents the heroic struggles of human beings to escape from
    tyrannies of all types, whether imposed by the brute force and declared
    entitlement of a dictator, or falsely justified by economic, religious
    or political sophistries. The science fiction of Marxian economic
    evolution, the grandiose fantasy of a New World Order, the utopian
    dreams of The Great Society, the myth of the divine emperor, have all
    had their turns on center stage in irrational man’s attempts to
    legitimize government control and deny individual liberty. The
    realities of the human condition, especially the inherent sovereignty
    of individuals and their inevitable differences in choice and
    preference, render all collectivist doctrines absurd. A rational
    biologist will not transport a mountain goat to a prairie and declare a
    match between organism and environment. A rational social policy
    theorist will not create an environment of rules for human action that
    dismisses individual differences, ignores the critical roles of free
    choice, morality and cooperation, and otherwise distorts and violates
    the nature of man, and then announce that utopia has arrived in a
    workers’ paradise.

    Like all other human beings, the modern liberal reveals his true
    character, including his madness, in what he values and devalues, in
    what he articulates with passion. Of special interest, however, are
    the many values about which the modern liberal mind is not passionate:
    his agenda does not insist that the individual is the ultimate
    economic, social and political unit; it does not idealize individual
    liberty and the structure of law and order essential to it; it does not
    defend the basic rights of property and contract; it does not aspire to
    ideals of authentic autonomy and mutuality; it does not preach an ethic
    of self-reliance and self-determination; it does not praise courage,
    forbearance or resilience; it does not celebrate the ethics of consent
    or the blessings of voluntary cooperation. It does not advocate moral
    rectitude or understand the critical role of morality in human
    relating. The liberal agenda does not comprehend an identity of
    competence, appreciate its importance, or analyze the developmental
    conditions and social institutions that promote its achievement. The
    liberal agenda does not understand or recognize personal sovereignty or
    impose strict limits on coercion by the state. It does not celebrate
    the genuine altruism of private charity. It does not learn history’s
    lessons on the evils of collectivism.

    What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity,
    sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger,
    exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice.
    Those who occupy this world are “workers,” “minorities,” “the little
    guy,” “women,” and the “unemployed.” They are poor, weak, sick,
    wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and
    victimized. They bear no responsibility for their problems. None of
    their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not
    to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of
    ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in
    character. None of the victims’ plight is caused by failure to plan
    for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the “root causes” of
    all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war,
    ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender
    discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and
    imperialism. In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted
    on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: “Big Business,”
    “Big Corporations,” “greedy capitalists,” U.S. Imperialists,” “the
    oppressors,” “the rich,” “the wealthy,” “the powerful” and “the
    selfish.”

    The liberal cure for this endless malaise is a very large
    authoritarian government that regulates and manages society through a
    cradle to grave agenda of redistributive caretaking. It is a
    government everywhere doing everything for everyone. The liberal motto
    is “In Government We Trust.” To rescue the people from their troubled
    lives, the agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility,
    encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency,
    promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial
    obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining
    and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all
    abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality
    unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple
    entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal
    politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for
    everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct
    everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen,
    and eliminate all class distinctions. With liberal intellectuals
    sharing the glory, the liberal politician is the hero in this
    melodrama. He takes credit for providing his constituents with
    whatever they want or need even though he has not produced by his own
    effort any of the goods, services or status transferred to them but has
    instead taken them from others by force.

    Radical liberalism thus assaults the foundations of civilized freedom,
    and for that reason it is a genuine evil. Further, given its
    irrational goals, coercive methods and historical failures, and given
    its perverse effects on human development, there can be no question of
    the radical agenda’s madness. Only an irrational agenda would advocate
    a systematic destruction of the foundations on which ordered liberty
    depends. Only an irrational man would want the state to run his life
    for him rather than create secure conditions in which he can run his
    own life. Only an irrational agenda would deliberately undermine the
    citizen’s growth to competence by having the state adopt him. Only
    irrational thinking would trade individual liberty for government
    coercion, then sacrifice the pride of self-reliance for welfare
    dependency. Only an irrational man would look at a community of free
    people cooperating by choice and see a society of victims exploited by
    villains.

    The liberal agenda urges the citizen to place his basic trust in
    government, to see it as the mother of all providers, and to mistrust
    those with whom he would have to trade voluntarily in order to get what
    he wants. In doing this, the politician seeks to redirect to
    government offices the trust which can and should empower the
    individual to run his own life through voluntary cooperation with
    others. Government programs appeal to the citizen’s passivity by
    implying that he need not provide for his own health care, housing or
    retirement. And he need not cooperate with his fellows for these
    purposes either. Instead, he is told, he need only trust the
    government to make available to him whatever he needs and to implement
    that trust by ceding to its officials the power to tax the people and
    regulate them for his benefit. In short, the government invites the
    citizen to vote for the candidate who promises what a parent gives a
    child. It invites him to assume the dependent role of the child, to
    surrender his personal sovereignty to the state, to ignore his
    existential obligation to take full responsibility for his material and
    social welfare, and to empower government officials as his guardians.

    His neurosis is evident in his ideals and fantasies; in his
    self-righteousness, arrogance and grandiosity; in his self-pity; in his
    demands for indulgence and exemption from accountability; in his claims
    to entitlements; in what he gives and withholds; and in his protests
    that nothing done voluntarily is enough to satisfy him. Most notably,
    the radical liberal’s neurosis is evident in his extravagant political
    demands, in his furious protests against economic freedom, in his
    arrogant contempt for morality, in his angry defiance of civility, in
    his bitter attacks on freedom of association, in his aggressive assault
    on individual liberty. And in the final analysis, the irrationality of
    the radical liberal is most apparent in his ruthless use of force to
    control the lives of others.

  • Guest

    Liberals are Unwitting Shills for Communism and Satanism

    April 10, 2009

    by Henry Makow Ph.D.

    Liberals are dupes, what
    Communists call “useful idiots.” I was one for most of my life.
    “Championing the oppressed” was a pathetic way to justify my life while
    being blinded to the real enemy. As I will demonstrate, liberals,
    funded by the Rockefellers and Rothschilds, are mostly unwitting pawns
    of a Satanic Communist agenda. They are like the lower Blue Degrees of
    Freemasonry, dupes. This sounds extreme but unfortunately, it is
    literally true.

    Richard Rodriguez is a liberal propagandist. Flipping channels Thursday, I stumbled on this deceitful diatribe against men and the traditional family on the Rockefeller- funded PBS. Called “Women on the Move,”
    it suggests that the school girls of Afghanistan are ready to fill the
    void left by men as the “male order falters and fails.” Absurd as this
    notion is, coming from the Rockefellers, it conveys their desire for
    radical change and totalitarian control.

    Rodriguez, who is gay,
    actually celebrates native women traitors who betrayed their people –La
    Malinche, Pocahontas and Sacagawea. (This is what feminists do when
    they become pawns of the oppressor.) He glorifies single mothers and
    flails “tribal leaders at war with modernity” because they want to
    protect their culture.

    Newsflash: “Modernity” is Satanism, i.e. the deification of Man, i.e. Rothschild Cabalist Man. Remember what the Rockefeller Insider
    said in 1969: “there are always two reasons for anything the
    Rockefellers do: the pretext which makes it palatable to the gullible
    public and the real reason.”

    I get a kick out of sanctimonious
    liberals who contribute money to the “Public” Broadcasting System when
    obviously it is a Rockefeller tool. But then I contributed to PBS when I
    was a liberal.

    The same day, a Toronto Globe and Mail article trumpeted “A Remarkable Week for Gay Rights.”
    This is why I never buy newspapers. They are propaganda rags that have
    abandoned any pretense of objectivity or honesty. Why does author John
    Ibbitson rejoice when marriage, the central heterosexual rite of 96% of
    the population, is redefined to satisfy marriage-minded gays, who are
    less than one per cent of the population? Marriage is a heterosexual
    rite. What if Muslims started redefining Passover or Jews took over
    Ramadan? Homosexuals should have their own equal but distinct rites.

    Even
    children of sperm donors crave a father and go to great lengths to find
    him, yet Ibbitson is happy to see traditional marriage trashed. When
    was the last time you saw traditional marriage and family celebrated in
    the mass media? Marriage is designed to provide a stable foundation for
    child rearing. Apparently this society cares little for its own survival
    and health.

    What do Rodriguez and Ibbitson have in common? The
    not-so-hidden liberal agenda is to treat hetero and homosexuals as if
    they were the same, and to get women to choose careers over family and
    abandon child-rearing to the State. Not coincidentally, the Communist
    Manifesto advocates destruction of the nuclear family.

    Subjected to this propaganda, it’s no wonder that only 53% of Americans can definitely say they prefer capitalism to socialism.

  • Mark Bouckaert

    Lol. Great book but utterly dry reading is what’s getting blasted over the intercom. The book is called “The Happy Atheist”… And he’s starting at about page 97 if anyone wants to read more of that.

    Oh well. It’s fair game as he’s just preaching back at you.

  • FoJC_Forever

    America is mentioned in the Bible. America is the Great Harlot. Atheists are in for almost as big a shock as the fake Christians who don’t actually know Jesus (the) Christ, but only pretend to know Him, when they meet the LORD for Judgement.

    Follow Jesus, find Truth.

    • StThomas

      That would be the 33 year old unmarried jewish guy we see cuddling his boyfriend at the Last Supper, then hanging around in a public park with at least one naked man running around?

      • FoJC_Forever

        No. Jesus wasn’t “cuddling” John. The “Last Supper” is a painting and does not accurately portray the actual scene. I suppose you’d think a loving father was doing something nasty to his son, if he were simply embracing him in Love.

        Jesus wasn’t a homosexual.

        • StThomas

          I find that fundamentalists have some difficulty seeing the gay subtext in things. John 13.23: ” Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.”

          • bowie1

            John was more like a brother whom he loved, and there is no sexual allusion in the passage.

          • StThomas

            No sexual allusion of course; John and Jesus were just comfortable being that physically intimate in public. This was the main scriptural justification King James the VI (I if you’re English) used for having his young friend around.

        • StThomas

          What made you think I was talking about the picture and not the Gospels.

        • Shang Tsung

          Uh yeah he was, that’s what I learned at seminary. From the sounds of what scholars have unearthed, he was gayer than George Washington and Abe Lincoln combined.

    • bowie1

      I would think the Great Harlot would refer to the world at large that rejects Christ. As an aside some say the Roman Catholic Church is the Great Harlot, so like the anti-christ there are many opinions on this.

      • Dave_L

        I believe the same. The Woman in the wilderness = Church, the Harlot = anti-christian church, at any given time in history.

        • Shang Tsung

          What about the theory that the harlot is actually Jesus’ gay lover that he’s upset with because Jesus was gay?

    • Dave_L

      When New York Times best-selling author Joel C. Rosenberg tells audiences that America isn’t mentioned in Bible prophecy, many are stunned and ask how the wealthiest, most powerful nation in history isn’t a specifically defined player in the last days.

      “The Bible doesn’t say what happens to us,” Rosenberg says. “But by the absence of us being clearly defined in the text, it means something has happened. The question is what—what will happen to us that will neutralize our ability or desire to be an influential player in the last days of history before the return of Jesus Christ?”

  • Dan

    Freedom of speach goes both ways you know.

  • Shang Tsung

    Fun fact, if you read the bible, it becomes painfully obvious that Jesus was INCREDIBLY gay.

    Facts:

    – He hangs around with 12 dudes. TWELVE.

    – He heals a roman centurion’s gay lover.

    – He meets the woman at the well and turns her away because she’s a woman and he’s not into that.

    • Александр Безукладников

      Is very true. Jesus was depicted often in ancient times as a virile gay man of unending gay powers, capable of driving out “demons” (heterosexuality) and charisma to make disciples “gays” out of all the earth.

      • ReginaldConwayIII

        At seminary I too learnt the truth that Jesus was likely the gayest person to have ever lived and I think that’s a wondrous testament to the power of the Lord and what he wants for all of us.

        • Dog

          He wants us all to be gay?

          • ReginaldConwayIII

            Undeniably. Scriptures and tradition both are pretty clear.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Haha – yes, so that the human race will die out. Interesting “jesus.” 🙂

  • Nidalap

    Only a logical response, considering the circumstances. Interesting that he chose deliberately anti-Christian selections to blare over the speaker. Did he think it would drive them away like a cross would Dracula in the old movies?

    • Shang Tsung

      Well it depends on whether you ascribe to the theory of Jesus’ gay power being enshrined in the cross or if his gayness is so powerful it doesn’t need to be in the cross or not, that the powerful gayness of the Lord pervades the Earth if you will.

      • Nidalap

        And downvote and flag…

        • ReginaldConwayIII

          Nidalap, why are you telling us what you are doing instead of just doing it? I believe it was Jesus who said that you should not practice your kegels in public for those who do are hypocrites, rather practice your kegels in private with the help of a gay lover.

          • Shang Tsung

            Some people just still refuse to believe the truth about Jesus’ sexual leanings, who can say why people are in such a hubbub about Jesus’ very obvious homosexuality in the bible. It’s not like heterosexuality is a MAJOR sin, it’s something that can be forgiven if you give Jesus a handy at the gates of Heaven, I’m sure.

          • Nidalap

            Do you always talk to yourself in opposing windows like this?

          • Mary Pallotrix

            I don’t think he’s talking to himself, the majority of people accept the enlightened truth that Jesus was gay, very gay, and most modern Christians simply disagree on whether heterosexuals are sinners (I personally believe they are not).

            Sorry if you’re not quite up on the times, I understand Christianity used to be very focussed on sexuality. I’ll pray for you.

          • Nidalap

            To whom?

          • Mary Pallotrix

            Probably Allah, for he is great, inch’allah. I mean, Jehovah hasn’t really done anything interesting for 2000 years and let’s be honest he wasn’t that exciting even back then. Burning bushes? EH.

          • Nidalap

            You all seem, ah, rather young. Is this what all the cool kids are doing these days? 🙂

          • Mary Pallotrix

            I’m personally not that young, I graduated from seminary, where I learned about Jesus’ undeniable homsexuality, about 15 years ago

          • Nidalap

            Hmm…so you come to a Christian news site and post deliberately provocative statements. To what end? What do you hope to accomplish here?

          • Mary Pallotrix

            I don’t think there’s anything provocative about Jesus being gay, the latest scholarly research points heavily to that fact, just like Lincoln and Washington.

        • Александр Безукладников

          hahaha your screename is paladin spelled backwards, did u think was clever? is stupid like you.

          • Nidalap

            Nooooooo! You’ve broken my backwards-typing master code! Whatever shall I do now!? 🙂

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            He called you a name, so he wins. 🙂

          • Nidalap

            Ha! Which ‘Law’ is that? 🙂

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That is actually a long-running law that probably goes back to the French Revolution. I tend to just call it liberalism, but that is probably not good, because there is an element of total anarchy involved and liberalism has not always had that – until recent decades. How about:

            “The Law With No Name (except when I call you names)”? You can come up with something better.

          • Nidalap

            Hmm…’The Sticks and Stones Corollary’? ‘The Rubber and Glue Axiom’? 🙂 No wait, that would be the other side. Ah! ‘The Superior Insult Imperative’! 🙂

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Wow – great! I like the 1st and 3rd best – the “enlightened” ones will understand the first one better, but the 3rd one has a bit of Star Trek in it, which makes it most accessible to me and to atheists alike. I’m leaning that way, but am happy with your choice.

            Or the “Dangit, Jim, I’m an atheist, not a philosopher!” Law. (I can’t use the actual word, since I gave up my Satanese upon conversion, by the Grace of God only.)

          • Oboehner

            Well now super genius, tell me about mine.

          • Александр Безукладников

            Is from Indiana Jones movie, is name Indy has to jump across to get to holy grail, is good thing he remembers in old Latin letter X look like O.

      • ReginaldConwayIII

        I don’t think anyone is silly enough to think that the cross is the source of Jesus’ gay power. A man as gay as Jesus, especially with those abs, must be a power that is evident worldwide.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Only atheists would be “happy” with the view that their relatives are rats and their cousins are cockroaches. Hey, I think that goes somewhere into the Atheist Creed, no, Nidalap?

      I, the atheist, believe:

      1. That the universe miraculously popped into existence out of nothing uncaused by anything.

      2. That life magically sprang forth from non-life when lightning hit some mud.

      3. That minds and morals evolved from molecules through monkeys, my cousins are cockroaches and my relatives are rats.

      4. That sacrificing a human being in the womb is a “right,” because I can’t fit into my prom dress!

      5. That I’d kill for an orgasm. In fact I already have! (#ShoutYourAbortion)

      6. That there is no God, and I hate Him.

      Did I miss anything, Nidalap? I really want to improve this, your help is solicited. Since 97% of atheists are pro-aborts, that is surely a central doctrine of their faith. (BTW, the deathscorts at our abortuary are wiccan.)

      • Nidalap

        Welcome to the party! 🙂

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Yes, I see you invited the “enlightened” ones over. 🙂

          • Nidalap

            Oh my, no! They chose to come of their own volition and free will, I assure you! (^_^)

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            They almost seem to be behaving as if there IS an objective morality and if their life DOES have an objective purpose, huh?

            Nidalap, when I was an atheist, I sure was not evangelizing Christians! I was partying it up because tomorrow might not come and if so then I would cease to exist for all of eternity.

            But, these New Atheists are a queer breed: it’s almost like they don’t believe that the universe is headed for a slow cold dark death in which case nothing they do or say or think will matter one bit! It’s more like a cult than a religion, but I am open to your thoughts on which one.

          • Nidalap

            It’s hard to say for certain. It could be a combination of the things they were indoctrinated with in school/college and all the anti-Christian bile they are constantly inundated with through the media.
            That’s not even factoring in spiritual compulsion driving them…

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Well, they have a creed that is provable shared by the vast majority of atheists – so that argues for a religion. But, they pursue their evangelism in such an aggressive and derogatory manner, that such argues for a cult. i cannot decide. Is my creed long enough – I would like it to be on the order of a Nicene Creed actually?

          • Nidalap

            Well, I don’t know about all that, but I suggest against making it too long. Folk will lose interest if it looks to be too intimidating a read! 🙂

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That’s a really good point since atheists seem to have a short attention span. We cannot have anything much longer. Did you like the part about the prom dress?

          • Nidalap

            Nice. Cold-blooded but so terribly accurate…

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Well, cold-blooded seems to fit in that particular sub-doctrine, no?

          • Nidalap

            Very, very true. Hmm…they seem to have moved on from this page. Gone to spread more good cheer, no doubt! 🙂

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Maybe they realized they could not drown us out with their gay “jesus” myths? How about that story on the possible find of Sodom?

          • Nidalap

            I saw the headline, but haven’t read it yet. I’d though I’d heard of such a find years ago though! Balls of sulfur and devastation unearthed! Could have been just a fake story back then. My memory’s not up to retrieving minute detail.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Seems like a pretty solid find, but I am not an archaeologist. Isn’t it nice that our faith is grounded in the reality of good archaeology, science, logic, philosophy, mathematics, medicine, etc? Christian theism has such an incredibly high explanatory power and scope for the universe we see – it is a shame that so many people miss this.

          • Nidalap

            Sure is! Poor souls drifting blindly through a lonesome, sad existence. Driven by forces beyond their understanding to come to places like this and attack those who could point them to Truth…

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “and attack those who could point them to Truth”

            They do that because it gets in the way of their sex life AND it points them to the incredibly powerful God Who spoke 100 billion galaxies into existence out of nothing and to whom they must be held accountable. “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” — Hebrews 10:31

          • Nidalap

            Yep! Ha! Looks like some of my comments got caught up in the great removal process! 🙂

          • Lisa

            Why not just ask us instead of speculating. We are here. We don’t bite.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            OMG – I just caught this, you clever one: “free will!” Don’t most atheists adhere to some form of causal determinism? Isn’t free will a pebble in their shoe? You are a sneaky little one! Don’t you realize that subtleties like that are not detectable by a WGC in a china closet?!? 🙂

          • Nidalap

            Ha! You are assigning an unearned brilliance to me, I’m afraid! I had more of the old Dracula “Enter freely and of your own will.” thing in mind! (^_^)

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Well, maybe so, but it was utterly brilliant, even if unintentional. Just how does free will arrive on evolutionary naturalism?

          • Nidalap

            Well it doesn’t, of course. Only Man was created with a living soul. All other earthly creatures operate on instinct from the Commands given at Creation. I imagine that evolution fans would say free will is just some accidental evolutionary glitch.
            It’s a sad way to look at oneself, and probably goes a long way towards explaining the current state of the world…

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, it would seem to me that if the atheist mind is nothing more than random molecules in motion then:

            1. Free will could not exist, and
            2. The atheist would have no reason to trust his or her mind. (We theists gave up on trusting the atheist mind long ago. :-))

            I think you are correct – this goes a long way toward the “anything goes” concept on atheism.

          • Jim H

            I don’t really have a position on this, but I am aware of the whole causal determinism thing with regard to free will and have wrestled around with it in my head. I believe that some atheists, like Daniel Dennett, have a different view:

            “we don’t just act for reasons, we act for reasons that we consciously represent to ourselves and this is what gives us the power and the obligation to think ahead, to anticipate, to see the consequences of our action.”
            I find myself wanting to believe in some sort of free will. It is a belief Christianity, and the other Abrahamic religions require. But, on the other hand you argue for causality regarding even the origins of the universe. If every result must have a cause, wouldn’t that include our actions? Given the right circumstance and conditions wouldn’t our actions be predetermined by the causal factors involved; e.g., genes, environment. If not don’t we violate classical causality?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I believe that some atheists, like Daniel Dennett”

            I was a big fan of Dennett in my atheist days, second probably to only Sagan. But, I must point out that the predictions he made in “The Mind’s I” which were due long before now, are still nowhere on the horizon.

            “we act for reasons that we consciously represent to ourselves”

            Whoa! If we are consciously representing something to ourselves, that sounds like some form of mind-body dualism – a far cry from most versions of evolutionary naturalism that I am familiar with. That sounds supernatural to me. In fact, there is evidence that what Dennett says is true:

            http://www .science20 .com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982

            Excerpt:

            “WHILE MILITANT ATHEISTS like Richard Dawkins may be convinced God doesn’t exist, God, if he is around, may be amused to find that atheists might not exist.

            Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.”

            “If every result must have a cause, wouldn’t that include our actions?” AND “Given the right circumstance and conditions wouldn’t our actions be predetermined by the causal factors involved; e.g., genes, environment. If not don’t we violate classical causality?”

            Not if mind-body dualism is correct. That is, the mind is not identical with the brain. A soul exists, which is the efficient cause of our thoughts or actions – much as Dennett’s quote above seems to imply. That is a great area of study from both sides – nice talking with you, Jim!

          • Jim H

            “Not if mind-body dualism is correct. That is, the mind is not identical with the brain.”

            I don’t like the idea that we are just our brains. I much prefer the idea that we are more than that and have “a ghost in the machine” so to speak.

            But it is hard to deny that changes in the brain can and often do change peoples personalities. We tend to see our personalities as who/what we are. Drugs can change brain chemicals, injuries can destroy portions of the brain, etc. A frontal lobotomy A frontal lobotomy definitely changed a person’s personality. Violent people weren’t violent anymore, they often weren’t much of anything.

            These days we have psychoactive drugs that also change people’s personality. Ritalin can “fix” a hyperactive kid with discipline problems. Extreme personality disorders like schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder, etc.

            If a soul is the efficient cause of our thoughts or actions, how can those thoughts or actions be changed by changing the brain?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I agree with this. As to your last question, I would argue that mind-body dualism manifests itself in both directions. The brain is the manner in which we interact with the physical world, and changes to the brain will change that interaction. I like your post here.

      • Valri

        Oh my! Well, that’s HOW many times you’ve posted this “atheist creed” of yours, now? Five nice strawmen, all lined up in a row. How darling. Completely false, but still darling.

      • Johnathan Pertolick

        Oh god this is so sad and deluded it’s actually funny.

        • Valri

          The humor kind of peters out after he posts it 150 times.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Glad you thought it was funny, didn’t mean for it to be sad and deluded. 🙂 But thank you for confirming that God exists with your “Oh god!” Have you heard the audio of the debate where Dawkins did that? (just take the spaces out)

          https://www .youtube .com/watch?v=Hv2U2Xp2Nu8

          • Johnathan Pertolick

            ” But thank you for confirming that God exists with your “Oh god!”

            This is called a vestigial phrase.

            There is no supernaturality in this world. No ghosts, no demons, no heavens, no auras, no spirits. There is no magic, no miracles. No prophets and no devils.

            It’s very sad that you’re so deluded in your backwater supernaturalism that you think using the word “god” equates to belief in children’s stories.

            Listen: belief in your god is like believing in santa claus. I still say Santa is bringing presents, and I still say “god damn christians”. But I know beyond all doubt that santa is just a fake as your sad little bronze age jew deity.

            Poor little christian, forced to resort to “gotchas”. Soon you’ll have nothing left at all…. monotheism itself is as vestigial as the word god 😉

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “This is called a vestigial phrase.”

            Like vestigial organs – another atheist fail and science stopper?!? 🙂 Thanks for reminding me!

            “There is no supernaturality in this world. No ghosts, no demons, no heavens, no auras, no spirits. There is no magic, no miracles. No prophets and no devils”

            Prove it! Your assertions, your burden of proof.

      • Nite_Owl

        Then who created God or do you think he “miraculously popped into existence out of nothing uncaused by anything.”

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          At last – a semi-coherent post! Thank you for demonstrating that not all of my former comrades are in the land of absurdism, and your question relates well to the Atheist Creed – well-done.

          Either God is self-existing or the universe (or multiverse if it exists) is self-existing. The problem with the latter is that we have good secular scientific evidence that the universe is NOT past eternal and thus could not be self-existing. We have Big Bang, cosmic background radiation, 2nd Law
          of Thermodynamics, positive inflation rate of the universe, and BGV Theorem – not to mention that an actual infinite of past events cannot occur and a series formed successively cannot be actually infinite. So, based on the science, it is much more plausible that the Cause of the universe (or multiverse, should it exist) coming into existence is self-existing.

          Another way of looking at this, outside of the Kalam Cosmology, is to consider these 3 options:

          1. The universe is eternal.

          2. The universe was created by some sort of Being which is spaceless, timeless, non-material, immensely powerful, has personal free will, and is self-existing. (What we normally think of when we think of God.)

          3. The universe was self-creating.

          Are there any other possibilities? Option 1 is not supported by the current level of science. (see above) Option 3 is clearly self-refuting. It seems to me that the only rational place to be is in Option 2, unless I am missing another option?

          Thank you for your refreshing question! You get the Best Atheist award for the evening. Cheers.

          • Nite_Owl

            I’m afraid I’ll have to turn down the award as I’m a Pantheist.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Sorry for the confusion – you get the Best Pantheist Award tonight.

          • Jim H

            “We have Big Bang, cosmic background radiation, 2nd Law
            of Thermodynamics, positive inflation rate of the universe, and BGV Theorem.”
            Do any of those actually prove anything but inflation? There are theories other than a singularity regarding what happened prior to inflation.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Primarily inflation. But positive inflation rate plus BGV gives us a universe which cannot be past eternal, regardless of the physics involved prior to inflation or even after. So, that gives us a ton of great evidence for Premise 2 of Kalam. Great question, Jim H.

          • Jim H

            “But positive inflation rate plus BGV gives us a universe which cannot be past eternal, regardless of the physics involved prior to inflation or even after.”

            By BGV I assume you talking the theory espoused by Bord, Guth, and Vilenkin in their paper entitled Inflationary Spacetimes are not Past-Complete. The abstract to that paper is as follows:

            “Many inflating spacetimes are likely to violate the weak energy condition, a key assumption of singularity theorems. Here we offer a simple kinematical argument, requiring no energy condition, that a cosmological model which is inflating — or just expanding sufficiently fast — must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions. Specifically, we obtain a bound on the integral of the Hubble parameter over a past-directed timelike or null geodesic. Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.”

            The key phrase of that abstract lies in the last sentence:

            “Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.”

            What that appears to mean is that the BGV Theorem is saying is not “the universe had a beginning”, but that inflationary models cannot go infinitely into the past, and require physics other than inflationary models to describe the boundary condition.

            It appears this paper was a direct response to physicists who attempt to use inflationary models to describe an eternal universe. In case that’s not completely clear, the authors elaborate in the paper itself:

            “What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event [12]. The boundary is then a closed spacelike hypersurface which can be determined from the appropriate instanton.”

            “Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary [20]. This is the chief result of our paper.”

            Consequently, the authors are not saying “the universe which cannot be past eternal, regardless of the physics involved prior to inflation or even after. They are saying only that inflationary models are not sufficient to explain it.

            It should be noted that Vilenkin introduced the idea of quantum creation of the universe from a quantum vacuum, which is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence. His work has also included cosmic strings which are a prediction in both quantum field theory and string theory models of the early universe.

            People who are trying to make your point like to quote the following from Vilenkin’s 2006 book Many Worlds in One (amazon) which discusses the 2003 paper:

            “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (pg. 176).”

            However, on the very same page Vilenkin writes:

            “Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist.”

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “By BGV I assume you talking the theory”

            No, Theorem. Big difference.

            “What that appears to mean is that the BGV Theorem is saying is not “the universe had a beginning”, but that inflationary models cannot go infinitely into the past, and require physics other than inflationary models to describe the boundary condition.”

            False. Non-past eternality IS a cosmic beginning:

            “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning” Alexander Vilenkin (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

            And, then, as if to refute your own position, you gave me the obvious quote! I’m glad you gave this quote, Jim. You showed that your initial position was untenable – in one solitary post, no less!

            Let’s recap your post. First you make the argument that the BGV Theorem does not require a universe with a beginning, then you provide a valid scientific quote from the “V” in the BGV Theorem which contradicts that claim and shows that the universe DOES have a beginning, then you shift the goalposts to “Well, OK, it IS a cosmic beginning, but that does not prove that God exists.” I’m suing you for whiplash, Jim! 🙂

            “Is it a proof of the existence of God?”

            Of course, the BGV Theorem is NOT a proof of God’s existence – it is overwhelming evidence for Premise 2 of Kalam. That is a huge step forward for the theologian, when one considers the fact that the 20th century is littered with the corpses of past eternal universe cosmologies. The reason that I accept the first quote of Vilenkin and not the second is that the first quote is a scientific one and the second is a theological-philosophical one. Vilenkin is an outstanding cosmologist but, like many men of science as Einstein put it, a poor philosopher. His reasons for remaining agnostic clearly have nothing to do with science, put with a non-theistic presupposition. Regardless, thank you for doing half my work for me by refuting your own initial assertion that BGV does not require a cosmic beginning.

          • Jim H

            “False. Non-past eternality IS a cosmic beginning:”

            Only in a classical time space paradigm.

            “And, then, as if to refute your own position, you gave me the obvious quote! I’m glad you gave this quote, Jim. You showed that your initial position was untenable – in one solitary post, no less!”

            No. I posted that quote because the author said it and I am actually interested in honest dialog.

            The quote was: “There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning”. That does not refute my argument based on the abstract of the paper that “Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.” The author shows that the inflationary model requires some new physics, not theology, to describe conditions before inflation that can’t be explained with classical physics.

            “That is a huge step forward for the theologian.”

            Usually, theologians like to say that even though the scientists who make the discoveries disagree.

            Georges-Henri Lemaître was a Belgian priest who discovered that you could have a beginning of the universe, and a big bang. Pope Pius picked up on that and wrote this grand letter saying science has finally proven Genesis. And Lemaître wrote the Pope and said, ‘Stop saying that’: this is a scientific theory, it makes predictions — take from it whatever metaphysical or religious implications you want —take from it that it vindicates the story in Genesis — take from it that there is no God, that you don’t need it, that the world works without it — interpret it however you want. But the science, the predictions, are independent of your interpretation of the results!

            Vilenkin wrote: “Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist.”

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I think in needing to correct me, you just pointed out that BGV has less empiric evidence than evolution.”

            Haha – well, that is ONE way to look at it, Jim! 🙂 You are saying, and rightly so, that a PROVEN mathematical theorem (like, say, that there are no even prime numbers larger than 2) has less empirical evidence than an empirically supported theory, but that is because proven theorems do not depend on ANY empirical evidence! That is why an empirical theory can NEVER be proven true, Jim, no matter how much empirical evidence it has.

            To say that the BGV Theorem has less empirical evidence than the theory of macro-evolution is not exactly saying anything – since the BGV Theorem is proven and macro-evolution is not only NOT proven, but can never be.

            “Only in a classical time space paradigm.”

            Vilenkin and I disagree with you. 🙂

            “No. I posted that quote because the author said it and I am actually more interested in honest dialog than just winning.”

            Fair enough. You got me there. I’ll chalk it up to thinking out loud.

            But, it does refute your argument that there is no beginning to the universe, which is Premise 2 of Kalam.

            “Usually, theologians like to say that even though the scientists who make the discoveries disagree.”

            No, even great scientists like to say that:

            “The man of science is a poor philosopher.” — Albert Einstein

            Of course, the BGV Theorem is NOT a proof of God’s existence – it is overwhelming evidence for Premise 2 of Kalam. That is a huge step forward for the theologian, when one considers the fact that the 20th century is littered with the corpses of past eternal universe cosmologies. The reason that I accept the first quote of Vilenkin and not the second is that the first quote is a scientific one and the second is a theological-philosophical one. Vilenkin is an outstanding cosmologist but, like many men of science as Einstein put it, a poor philosopher. His reasons for remaining agnostic clearly have nothing to do with science, but with a non-theistic presupposition.

          • Jim H

            WGC:

            I don’t claim to know for certain the universe did, or didn’t, have a beginning, or that such language even applies. As a result, I don’t really have a position, but I am very interested in exploring that subject. I just don’t see BVG as overwhelming evidence for Premise 2 of Kalam. The fact that the 20th century is littered with the corpses of past eternal universe cosmologies, strikes me as irrelevant, since the 21th century has spawned new ones.

            Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness”. In fact, the opposite is true. The authors write:

            “What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event.”

            This “quantum nucleation event” refers to a paper Vilenkin wrote in 1982 titled Creation of Universes from Nothing, which discusses the universe coming into being through quantum mechanics.A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunneling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space. After the tunneling, the model evolves along the lines of the inflationary scenario. This model does not have a big-bang singularity and does not require any initial or boundary conditions.

            I was watching a Youytube video (from 2012?) titled Did the Universe have a Beginning? Alexander Vilenkin. In it, Vilenkin from not only said he was speaking in terms of semi-classical space time, but towards the end he also commented that quantum nucleation from nothing was the most promising approach

            This also addresses your comment—“False. Non-past eternality IS a cosmic beginning:”, to which I replied—“Only in a classical time space paradigm.” and you—Vilenkin and I disagree with you. :-). It appears that Vilenkin did not agree when he wrote those papers or gave that talk.

            The late Victor J. Stenger in his (I think) last book, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning said:

            The conclusion that Borde and collaborators had proved that the universe had to have a beginning was disputed the same year by University of California-Santa Cruz physicist Anthony Aguirre and Cambridge astronomer Steven Gratton that Craig ignores. Being good scholars, Borde et al. refer to Aguirre and Gratton in their own paper. I contacted Aguirre and Vilenkin, the latter whom I have known professionally for many years. I greatly admire the work of each, which will be referred to often on these pages. I first asked Vilenkin if Craig’s statement is accurate. Vilenkin replied:

            “I would say this is basically correct, except the words “absolute beginning” do raise some red flags. The theorem says that if the universe is everywhere expanding (on average), then the histories of most particles cannot be extended to the infinite past. In other words, if we follow the trajectory of some particle to the past, we inevitably come to a point where the assumption of the theorem breaks down—that is, where the universe is no longer expanding.

            This is true for all particles, except perhaps a set of measure zero. In other words, there may be some (infinitely rare) particles whose histories are infinitely long.”

            I then asked Vilenkin, “Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning?”

            He immediately replied,
            “No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time.”

            Vilenkin further explained, “For example, Anthony in his work with Gratton, and Carroll and Chen, proposed that the universe could be contracting before it started expanding. The boundary then corresponds to the moment (that Anthony referred to as t = 0) between the contraction and expansion phases, when the universe was momentarily static. They postulated in addition that the arrow of time in the contracting part of space-time runs in the opposite way, so that entropy grows in both time directions from t=0.”

            I also checked with Caltech cosmologist Sean Carroll, whose recent book From Eternity to Here provides an excellent discussion of many of the problems associated with early universe cosmology. Here was his response:

            “I think my answer would be fairly concise: no result derived on the basis of classical spacetime can be used to derive anything truly fundamental, since classical general relativity isn’t right. You need to quantize gravity. The BGV [Borde, Guth, Vilenkin] singularity theorem is certainly interesting and important, because it helps us understand where classical GR breaks down, but it doesn’t help us decide what to do when it breaks down. Surely there’s no need to throw up our hands and declare that this puzzle can’t be resolved within a materialist framework. Invoking God to fill this particular gap is just as premature and unwarranted as all the other gaps.

            Alan Guth in his Cosmic Inflation paper[2f] wrote,

            There is, of course, no conclusion that an eternally inflating model must have a unique beginning, and no conclusion that there is an upper bound on the length of all backwards-going geodesics from a given point. There may be models with regions of contraction embedded within the expanding region that could evade our theorem. Aguirre & Gratton (2002, 2003)have proposed a model that evades our theorem, in which the arrow of time reverses at the t = -1 hypersurface, so the universe “expands” in both halves of the full de Sitter space.

            I looked up Anthony Aguirre and Steven Gratton’s paper titled Inflation without a beginning: a null boundary proposal, which was published in 2008. Its abstract states:

            We develop our recent suggestion that inflation may be made past eternal, so that there is no initialcosmological singularity or “beginning of time”. Inflation with multiple vacua generically approachesa steady-state statistical distribution of regions at these vacua, and our model follows directly frommaking this distribution hold at all times. We find that this corresponds (at the semi-classical level)to particularly simple cosmological boundary conditions on an infinite null surface near which thespacetime looks de Sitter. The model admits an interesting arrow of time that is well-defined andconsistent for all physical observers that can communicate, even while the statistical descriptionof the entire universe admits a symmetry that includes time-reversal. Our model suggests, butdoes not require, the identification of antipodal points on the manifold. The resulting “elliptic” deSitter spacetime has interesting classical and quantum properties. The proposal may be generalizedto other inflationary potentials, or to boundary conditions that give semi-eternal but non-singular cosmologies.
            Scientists may not make good philosophers, but philosophers do not seem to make good scientists either.

          • Jim H

            Have you given up on this conversation? I was looking forward to hearing what you had to say about Vilenkin and quantum nucleation from nothing.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            🙂 No, Jim, I was giving you the last word. I took your earlier comment about my being hyper-competitive (my words, not yours, but quite accurate) to heart, and am trying to give the other side the last word as much as possible. Not sure if Vilenkin was referring to Krauss’s something from “nothing” using QM fields or not, but here is a good quote I have from another agnostic on the subject matter – which I adhere to – not sure if this is relevant to the argument you were positing:

            “But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-­theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.” –David Albert

            To which Krauss replied by calling Albert names. 🙂 Again, not sure that is the direction you were going or not in the discussion or not. Feel free to ignore if I am off topic.

          • Jim H

            “No, Jim, I was giving you the last word. I took your earlier comment about my being hyper-competitive (my words, not yours, but quite accurate) to heart, and am trying to give the other side the last word as much as possible.”

            I was actually interested if you were aware of those comments by Vilenkin. I have not yet read his entire book (I have ordered it) and it took a lot of research to find the things I quoted. I printed off his papers and read portions of his book using Amazon’s “look inside” and “search inside” functions. Most people who quote Vilenkin don’t mention quantum nucleation from nothing. So, if you hadn’t read his book, or not intentionally searched for it, you likely wouldn’t be aware of what he said.

            One of the reasons that I started to post here is that I really wanted to understand a point of view that was very different than my own. I also thought it would be easier than it has been to find some common ground.

            “Not sure if Vilenkin was referring to Krauss’s something from “nothing” using QM fields or not”

            Vilenkin’s quantum nucleation from nothing far predates Krauss’s nothing. He comments in his paper Creation of Universes from Nothing (1982) that spontaneous creation of closed universes was first discussed by E.P.Tyron and quantum tunneling of the universe as a whole had been discussed by Atkatz and Pagels (1982) and Hawking and Moss (1982). In 1982, Krauss had just been awarded his Ph.D. in physics.

            I think there may be an issue of what absolute nothingness is. Vilenkin seem to refer to it in terms of “all physical reality” including physical laws:

            “[T]he state of “nothing” cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus “nothing” should be subject to these laws. The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe.”
            – Alexander Vilenkin in his book Many Worlds in One (2006), Page 181

            Vilenkin’s “nothingness” seems to be simply an empty geometry (as described by general relativity), if so it is certainly plausible that this “nothing” behaves in a way which can be described by quantum mechanical laws.

            Regarding Albert’s comment that “particles can pop in and out of existence” but that doesn’t “amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing” completely loses me and seems quite contrary to what Vilenkin said.
            It sounds like now you are planning to throw Vilenkin “under the bus”.

            Speaking of Krauss, I don’t think he always reacts appropriately. He likes to antagonize people, but he doesn’t seem to want an actual discussion. Sometimes I think he is just trying to replace Christopher Hitchens among the “Three Horsemen” of atheism.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I would NEVER throw Vilenkin under the bus. He, Borde, Guth, and Roger Penrose are 4 of my all-time face agnostics. They should be known by all Christian theists, because, in my view, they have been intellectually honest enough to NOT throw away their good secular science that points to, is consistent with, or supports Christian theism.

            That does NOT mean that I take everything they say as gospel. I listen seriously to what they have to say on cosmology, etc, but if they do not offer compelling philosophical reasons for their theological-philosophical assertions, then I accept that only as opinion. Which is why I accept Vilenkin’s sound scientific conclusion that the universe had a cosmic beginning, but reject his theological speculation that it gives no advantage to the theist. He provided no justification for that. (IMHO.)

            Here is a good paper by Vilenkin – you probably already have it (remove spaces):

            http://arxiv .org/pdf/1204 .4658 .pdf

            All I can say about “nothingness” is that it is absolutely nothing physical-material: no QM fields, etc, like Krauss snuck into his “nothing.” (That’s what Albert was getting at.) Nothing is what rocks think about – or something like that. 🙂 If Vilenkin’s “nothing” preceded Krauss’s “nothing,” then I would be shocked if the former was closer to “nothing” than the latter, because if it had been, then Krauss would have (justifiably) used it in his book.

            Here is the Krauss-Craig debate from Australia with summary – it was good:

            http://winteryknight .com/2015/03/17/william-lane-craig-debates-lawrence-krauss-in-melbourne-australia-does-god-exist-3/

          • Jim H

            “All I can say about “nothingness” is that it is absolutely nothing physical-material: no QM fields, etc, like Krauss snuck into his “nothing.” (That’s what Albert was getting at.) Nothing is what rocks think about – or something like that. 🙂 If Vilenkin’s “nothing” preceded Krauss’s “nothing,” then I would be shocked if the former was closer to “nothing” than the latter, because if it had been, then Krauss would have (justifiably) used it in his book.”

            Let me first paraphrase you to make sure I understand what you are saying. Krauss is the latter, whose “nothing” was closer to actual “nothing” than Vilenkin, who is the former, because Krauss didn’t use Vilenkin’s “nothing” it his book?

            First off, I will simply say that you have to remember, we are talking about Lawrence Krauss here and I’ll leave it at that.

            Krauss included QM fields in his “nothing”. Vilenkin “nothing” had absolutely nothing physical-material. It only included the laws of quantum mechanics.
            Vilenkin is an agnostic, but he could be the ultimate, most extreme (modern)deist ever. God created the laws of quantum mechanics and turned everything lose to unfold on its own. If God is inherent or immanent in those laws and their results, he could also be an (old school) pantheist.
            I have watched the debate and it seemed to me that Krauss actually warmed up to Craig personally as the debates went on. Was that your impression too?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Krauss included QM fields in his “nothing”. Vilenkin’s “nothing” had absolutely nothing physical-material. It only included the laws of quantum mechanics.”

            Gotcha – I think you stated that before. Thanks for reiterating – I was not aware of that distinction. I have heard some other non-theists say that there were these “physical” laws in place before there was anything physical to operate on. In which case, your second-to-last paragraph seems plausible. Although most of the atheists I talk to substitute the pre-existing physical laws for God, in which case, I have to ask them what brought those physical laws into existence, or how it can be justified that they are necessarily self-existing.

            But, that concept does contradict what David Albert said in that quote: it’s not just that QM laws were in place, but that QM fields were also in place to bring these subatomic particles into existence. And, I am surprised Krauss did not adopt Vilenkin’s concept into his book. (Perhaps he did, and I am just not aware of it.) Surely there is a reason, but then again, as you say, Krauss is a schoolboy compared with Vilenkin.

            “I have watched the debate and it seemed to me that Krauss actually warmed up to Craig personally as the debates went on. Was that your impression too?”

            Yes, he started off rather childishly, but did much better as it went on. The fact that WK did not provide a snarky summary, like he does with many atheists, is a strong clue that Krauss brought “something” to the table. (Out of nothing, hehe. :-)) But, Krauss and Craig have done a serious of debates, I think?

          • Jim H

            “I have heard some other non-theists say that there were these “physical” laws in place before there was anything physical to operate on. In which case, your second-to-last paragraph seems plausible. Although most of the atheists I talk to substitute the pre-existing physical laws for God, in which case, I have to ask them what brought those physical laws into existence, or how it can be justified that they are necessarily self-existing.”
            I think that is the major difference between an agnostic and atheist. An agnostic can accept that (some concept of) God could be shown to be part of all this. They just haven’t seen any evidence they find compelling. An atheist is dead set on not admitting any such a thing. A deist strikes me as one who thinks there is a compelling reason to believe (some concept of) God is involved with all of this in some way, but pretty well stops there.
            I think there is intellectual value in agnosticism, as Huxley (who coined the term) characterized it. i.e., you shouldn’t say something is true if you can’t produce evidence it is true. However, I see that as a two edged sword. You can’t flatly say something is untrue if you can’t produce evidence that it isn’t. The most you can say is you feel there isn’t sufficient evidence to convince you.
            I tend to think that however much we learn, there will always be a gap that God could fit into. Science will never disprove God (I also think theologians will never prove God). But, I think you make a good point when you ask where did physical laws come from? An old school Pantheist would likely say those laws are God as is everything. A deist would likely say God put them in place.
            I’ve enjoyed our conversation. You always push me to explore my own position. I really love ideas and learning. I thank you for giving me an opportunity to bounce those ideas off someone with a different perspective.

          • Douglas E. Berry

            I attended a fascinating panel discussion several years ago that offered another possibility:

            We’re inside a massive black hole that exists in another universe. There’s the cause of the big bang, the collapse of the mass in this other universe that formed this one.

            The implication is that all the stable black holes we can detect in our universe hold other universes. Which would have their own black holes…

            Of course, there’s no reason for physical laws or time to work the same in these other universes, so existence could be a roiling mass of universes spawning off in infinite dimensions.

            I love hypothesis like this. The ones that break my brain while making me realize just how much we don’t know.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That IS fascinating – thanks for sharing! Is that concept related to the multiverse?

          • Dave_L

            “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise [Big Bang?], and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

            Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” (2 Peter 3:10–13)

          • Douglas E. Berry

            “In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet
            hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry,
            bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a
            hobbit-hole and that means comfort.

            “It had a perfectly round door like a porthole, painted green, with a
            shiny yellow brass knob in the exact middle. The door opened on to a
            tube-shaped hall like a tunnel; a very comfortable tunnel without smoke,
            with panelled walls, and floors tiled and carpeted, provided with
            polished chairs, and lots and lots of pegs for hats and coats – the
            hobbit was fond of visitors.” (JRR Tolkien, The Hobbit, Chapter 1)

          • Dave_L

            So you don’t believe the universe will eventually die?

          • Douglas E. Berry

            Eventually the universe will run out of hydrogen, but that won’t happen for many, many billions of years. Our solar system has about 5 billion years to live.

            The Big Bang was how the universe began. The sudden rapid expansion of a singularity. It will end with a whimper, as the last few stars burn the last of the hydrogen and swell up and die.

          • Dave_L

            Thanks for sharing your views. I think I go with the Apostle Peter’s claim that it will end with a great noise and melt. This followed by a brand new universe without death or suffering. If it does not end this way then I’ll embrace your theory.

          • Ken Campbell

            another possibility is that the stuff that formed the universe is eternal.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I agree, Ken, but I would capitalize Stuff, and note that Stuff must be spaceless, timeless, non-material, immensely powerful, personal free
            will, and self-existing – a lot like Yahweh. (There was no material “stuff” without the Big Bang.)

          • Ken Campbell

            I completely understand capitalizing stuff. My Stuff is usually capitalized as it is vitally important (including the rusty old bolts).

            Now mind you, I don’t think my Stuff is sentient, and I don’t think the stuff that produced the universe is sentient. That adds an unnecessary complexity. It was only ‘powerful’ in that it has great potential. The universe making ‘stuff’ was probably undefinable within our language capacity.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I love your sense of humor, Ken!

            I’m not sure I like the term “sentient”, partially because it is used so often as a (terrible) excuse for abortion. I like the term “personal,” though.

            “I don’t think the stuff that produced the universe is sentient. That adds an unnecessary complexity.”

            Can you tell me why you think these two things, i.e., why do you think Stuff is not sentient (or personal, if you like that term), and why you think the additional complexity is unnecessary? Thanks!

            “It was only ‘powerful’ in that it has great potential.”

            Well, Stuff brought 100 billion galaxies into existence out of nothing material, and that seems pretty powerful to me! But, then again, you might be a really good weightlifter, hehe. 🙂

            “The universe making ‘stuff’ was probably undefinable within our language capacity.”

            Please forgive me, but this response seems like a convenient excuse. I am NOT trying to be harsh here – but it almost comes across as some sort of belief in the (partially?) unknowable supernatural, which I welcome, of course.

            Good talking to you, Ken – LOVE your sense of humor!

          • Ken Campbell

            I don’t mind the word sentient and am a bit reluctant to use the word ‘personal’ as that negates the Deist (ID) model. How about simply using the word intelligent. The reason I don’t think the stuff needs to have intelligence is that it does not need it within the parameters of eternal. If this stuff has always ‘existed’ in some form, it would inevitably produce a stable universe an infinite number of times. In fact, it would produce our exact universe an infinite number of times. This does not need ‘direction’

            The universes did not appear from nothing. The stuff is not nothing.
            I don’t see this as ‘supernatural’ in that it occurred naturally. The dilemma is in trying to identify what is natural in a system that existed outside our ‘natural universe’. This is certainly enough to produce a headache.

            I don’t argue with the concept of an intelligent being doing all this as it is moot. We can really only say that our universe came to be. We can only look at what happened after it came to be.

            Thanks for the compliments

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I don’t mind the word sentient and am a bit reluctant to use the word ‘personal’ as that negates the Deist (ID) model. How about simply using the word intelligent.”

            Good point. I was not intending to eliminate deism. Point well-taken. Before I leave that thought, you do agree that this Deity somehow chose to create and created, directly or indirectly, personal beings, right? I am thinking that this lends to personal, but just wondering out loud here – just curious about your thoughts.

            “In fact, it would produce our exact universe an infinite number of times. This does not need ‘direction'”

            I’m not going to lie, Ken: the first time I read this, I had your psychiatrist on speed dial. 🙂 Now, I think it might be positively BRILLIANT. Let’s go with it: assume (for the sake of discussion only) that the universe is 14 billion years old and that the Planck time interval is 5.4 E-44 seconds. Then, the number of re-creations of the universe would be (14E9 / 5.4E-44) x 60 x 60 x 24 x 365.26 = 8.2E60, very large, yes, but not infinite.

            If this were the number of universe re-creations, then there would be no experiential difference between the words “re-creation,” “continuous creation,” and “sustain.” If so, then this would fit well with Christian theism. In fact, the Argument for the Existence of God from Unconditioned Reality does allow for the this re-creation / continuous creation / sustaining paradigm that you have introduced:

            1. There exists at least one unconditioned reality.
            2. Unconditioned reality itself is the simplest possible reality.
            3. Unconditioned reality itself is absolutely unique.
            4. Unconditioned reality itself is unrestricted.
            5. The one Unconditioned Reality is the continuous Creator of all else that is.

            (Note: this is a step-wise proof, not a premise-conclusion proof. Each of the 5 conclusions must be individually proven using the definitions and previously proven intermediate conclusions only. It is a very long proof – but completely ontological.)

            So, I just wanted to check, but your paradigm makes really good sense on Christian theism. If the re-creation / sustaining were done on Planck time, we would not experience life any differently than what we believe to be continuous creation or sustaining. Your paradigm adds a rich support for many Bible verses and doctrines.

            “The universes did not appear from nothing. The stuff is not nothing.”

            I didn’t say that – I said that it came into existence out of nothing material. I believe that is what modern cosmology shows us. In the case of theism, the Stuff is God.

            “I don’t see this as ‘supernatural’ in that it occurred naturally.”

            I do not see how this is possible, since naturalism assumes time, space, matter, and energy – or a strong subset. Without the Big Bang, none of those 4 properties existed – isn’t that your understanding of the physics of the situation?

            “The dilemma is in trying to identify what is natural in a system that existed outside our ‘natural universe’. This is certainly enough to produce a headache.”

            Yes, you anticipated my question – great.

            “We can only look at what happened after it came to be.”

            In terms of naturalism, that is 100% true. But, in terms of philosophy, not necessarily so.

            “Thanks for the compliments”

            You think I complimented you before?!? Your re-creation paradigm is out of the ballpark compared with your humor! (I pray I did not misrepresent it, and I hope that you allow me to substitute an incredibly large finite number for your infinite number of re-creations. For the sake of discussion.)

            You blew my mind tonight – thanks, Ken! I hope you don’t mind me adopting your paradigm – I promise to give you full credit.

          • Ken Campbell

            I am going to respond in separate comments so we don’t lose track of the subject. I am intrigued by the theist/deist concepts and how they play out in religion. I visualize the difference as follows: The Deist deity is like the perfect architect. He designs and builds the perfect universe and then withdraws to let it play out. As this deity is perfect, there is no need to tweak the system as it develops.

            The theist deity is not a perfect architect. He has built his universe but needs to stick around to deal with problems as they arise. Thus we have various alterations and fixes to the software and the hardware.

            I question whether this is actually a personal god as it is repeated frequently that this god has a plan. He therefore would not need to respond to prayer or wishes as these are all part of the grand plan.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “The theist deity is not a perfect architect. ”

            I think you are making a lot of assumptions here. Perhaps the theist Deity desires to enter into a personal relationship with His creatures. In that case, it is going to get messy rapidly – particularly if this Deity attaches free will to some of His creatures.

            There are a variety of views on this, none terribly dogmatic, but my view is that the Christian God is timeless without creation and temporal at the moment of creation. This makes good sense on the Trinitarian view, especially, as the Second Person of the Godhead clearly DID enter into space and time on such a doctrine.

            In short, the fact that God has a plan does NOT mean that He is free to perform logical contradictions – like forcing a creature with free will to perform some particular action to His liking.

          • Ken Campbell

            Lets stay away from the concepts of a Christian god for a moment and simply look at an all powerful, perfect entity. I agree that this entity may want to stick around for the show, but that would be meaningless for it as it knows exactly how the show will turn out. It would be like my perfect architect staying around to watch his house do well.

            The Christian God is another thing altogether. As this god is omnipresent, he would not need to stick around as he already knows how things will turn out. There would be no reason for an ‘experiment’. The only reason that such a god would need to watch the show unfold is if it was not able to move through time (in other words, it has restrictions)

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “As this god is omnipresent, he would not need to stick around as he already knows how things will turn out.”

            Yes, in either case, the God would not HAVE to stick around to know how the show turns out, but He might WANT to stick around, especially if He desires to enter into a personal relationship with some of His creatures. I don’t see why that would be implausible in any sense – and in fact, the opposite seems to be highly implausible.

            Just as an example, my Dad used to love to spend time with his cars, which (we think! :-)) are not free will creatures. He admired the design and complexities of cars, even though he never designed one. How much more would a car designer enjoy spending time with cars?

            An even better example might be a woodworker: he doesn’t create the wood, but he shapes it, molds it, finishes it, protects it with sealant. Woodworkers LOVE spending time with their “creations,” despite the fact that they neither create the underlying material nor do their “creations” have the ability to love them back!

            Imagine a God Who creates the underlying material (out of nothing material) and gives some of that creation the ability to love back! It seems more than reasonable to me that such a God would want to spend a LOT of time with His creations, no?

          • Ken Campbell

            So are you suggesting that God simply liked to watch the story unfold? It would be like making a movie and then watching it. I suppose it is possible but doesn’t seem very interesting. My perfect architect is just hanging out on the street watching his building.

            OK….I’ll accept this

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That’s not actually addressing my last post, is it? I was talking about how some car owners and woodworkers love to spend time with their inanimate objects, which could never love them back, and comparing that with how God likes to spend time with His creations (creatures) who are capable of loving Him back.

            I’m not sure where you got the movie thing from, but I am talking about a God Who is even more personal with respect to His creatures (continuously creating or sustaining them and responding to their love for Him) than a woodworker could ever be with his, which is already a lot. I think that your re-creation argument even lends excellent support to the personal God, as well as the intelligent God.

          • Ken Campbell

            I did understand the point actually. That is why I gave it to you. Actually I would probably watch my movies too.

            I have a goldfish (Homer) who sees me as a god. I feed it and sustain it, and occasionally interact with it (although he is not altogether interactive).

            I would agree that God would want to hang around. I don’t think he would NEED to hang around if he was perfect. There is somewhere in the Bible where God gives a divine ‘Oh shit’, but I can’t remember where it is.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I have a goldfish (Homer) who sees me as a god. I feed it and sustain it, and occasionally interact with it (although he is not altogether interactive).”

            I was remarking that about my dog yesterday! He actually sees me as a god, but not an unrestricted one. (He knows my limitations when we go on runs – that dog can FLY!) One of my fave Dr. Seuss books growing up was, and still is, “A Fish Out of Water.” Cannot tell you how many times I read that book, but it must be close to an infinity, hehe. 🙂

            “I would agree that God would want to hang around. I don’t think he would NEED to hang around if he was perfect.”

            Both statements are 100% true on Christian theism. In fact, on that view, God did not need to create anything, much less us.

          • Ken Campbell

            I think we can agree that we approach life from different perspectives. Right or wrong is not as important as acceptance.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Right or wrong is not as important as acceptance.”

            What if that argument was made in 1930’s Germany or 1850’s America (slavery)? It seems to me that the acceptance of slavery or Jew gassing, widely done by both cultures, is MUCH less important than right or wrong in those circumstances?

            Or, were you referring to truth claims being right or wrong?

          • Ken Campbell

            I was referring to only our conversation. Civil and friendly. I agree with you that there are issues that do not permit acceptance, but a philosophical discussion is not one of them. The only time that philosophy becomes a problem is when it is put into action and affects other people

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Wow – I took that out of context – my bad, please forgive!

          • Ken Campbell

            I am a bit confused by the ‘unconditioned reality’ theory. Darkness is an ‘unconditioned reality’ as it does not require something to exist. Cold is also an unconditioned reality (absolute zero is the ultimate unconditioned reality of temperature) Is this correct?

            On the other hand, energy is not the conditioned version of mass (thank you Einstein). They are just different versions of the stuff of the universe. By this concept, the non-universe ‘stuff’ and the universe ‘stuff’ are simply different versions of the stuff. One is not the absence of the other

            The only way your theory would work is if there was a state of ‘nothingness’ and a state of somethingness. This is not the case here as the universe’s material exists before and after the universe forms and has always existed. Thus statement #1 cannot be shown and the logic fails

            Your turn….:)

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I am a bit confused by the ‘unconditioned reality’ theory.”

            Definition of unconditioned reality: A reality that is not conditioned.

            Definition of Conditioned Reality: any reality (e.g., individual particle, field, wave, spatio-temporal continuum, physical law, etc) that is dependent upon another reality for its existence or occurrence.

            Example: Suppose we have a cat as a conditioned reality. Conditioning the cat “below” are realities like cells and cell structures. Conditioning the cells “below” are realities like molecules, which are conditioned by atoms, conditioned by protons, etc, conditioned by quarks, etc. Sort of like a tree hierarchy.

            Step 1: (short proof):

            Suppose, e.g., quarks form the “foundation” for all conditioned realities. Then, by definition, quarks are the unconditional realities. Alternatively, suppose that there is some reality “below” quarks, possibly many layers beneath. Then, by the definition of conditioned realities, this string of realities supporting quarks do not come into existence until they are supported by a reality “beneath” them. At some point, you reach the final unconditioned reality OR an infinite string of conditioned realities.

            If the latter, then every reality “above” those lower conditioned realities does not come into existence until the realities “below” it do. But, if the lower realities continue ad infinitum, then nothing comes into existence, because there is no final stopping point, or unconditioned reality, to get the chain of existence going. While this is possible, it would mean that nothing actually exists, which is a form of absurdism.

            “This is not the case here as the universe’s material exists before and after the universe forms and has always existed.”

            This statement violates the preponderance of current cosmological evidence, e.g., Big Bang, cosmic background radiation, 2nd Law of Thermo, positive inflation rate of the universe, and BGV Theorem – not to mention that an actual infinite of past events cannot occur and a series formed successively cannot be actually infinite.

            “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men
            and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning” Alexander Vilenkin (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

            Vilenkin is the “V” in the BGV Theorem. You would need to provide evidence that material “stuff” existed without (can’t say “prior to”) the Big Bang and that the assumptions of the BGV Theorem are false. But, even folks like Hawking admit that the universe has a beginning – he just thinks it created itself! (Pretty neat trick! :-))

            So, you are presenting a cosmology that is either VERY much outside of the mainstream of current secular scientific thinking OR is purely speculative.

          • Ken Campbell

            Thanks for the samples of ‘unconditioned reality’

            “This statement violates the preponderance of current cosmological evidence,” – there is no need to be concerned about the laws of physics as they apply outside of the ‘big bang’ as no laws were relevant. All we can do is assume that something ‘existed’ in some state. We exist in a universe of rules and with concepts that do not need to apply outside our universe. There may be universes that exist where a completely different set of rules apply

            I am not suggesting a ‘past eternal’ universe. We know (pretty clearly) that our universe had a beginning some 15 billion years ago. This is not about ‘our universe’. It is about the existence of a reality outside of our universe.

            I am not required to prove the existence of my ‘stuff’ as it exists purely by logic (something cannot come from nothing). My ‘stuff’ has always existed (past eternal). This is no different from the ‘god’ of the ID people, but my ‘stuff’ does not require any intelligence.

            You are correct that we cannot really ‘prove’ the existence of god or stuff, and its not really relevant anyway. The only time that we can prove is the time following the “big bang’, when the stuff formed onto a stable universe.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Gotcha. We both believe that non-material stuff brought the universe into existence out of nothing material, but your stuff is not intelligent and my Stuff is VERY intelligent. Doesn’t it seem more plausible that the Stuff would be intelligent than not, given we are talking about bringing into existence 100 billion galaxies of incredible complexity both in terms of the material effects and the physical laws?

          • Ken Campbell

            I will pull out my trusty razor from Occam and start my shaving. With infinity on my side, I would not need any intelligent force. As the number of events approaches infinity, the probability of a perfect event approaches certain.

            Once the correct rules are in place, the 100 billion galaxies form nicely,

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “With infinity on my side, I would not need any intelligent force.”

            1. How does this satisfy Occam’s Razor? An appeal to infinity is NOT a paradigm of simplicity. You would seem to be going the other way.

            2. Why don’t you need an intelligent force if infinity is on your side?

            3. What if God is infinite in some sense of the word – as Christian theism admits?

            “As the number of events approaches infinity”

            You are not claiming an actual infinity number of events can exist, are you? As a mathematician, I can tell you that limits to infinity are a useful tool, NOT a statement that actual infinities exist in the real world. (see, e.g., Hilbert’s Hotel)

          • Ken Campbell

            1 – Infinity is a given. Having a ‘beginning’ is a restriction. Even theists agree with this
            2. Because the probability increases to certainty. There is an inevitability of an infinite number of stable universes. In fact, there is an infinite probability that you and I have had this exact conversation
            3. I would assume that God is infinite.

            the ‘real world’ is only our universe. We can only guess at other possibilities (maybe parallel lines actually meet in other universes). I like the Hilbert Hotel paradox because it shows us that we really can’t comprehend infinity any more than we can comprehend ‘nothing’.

            The pleasure of discussing the ‘reality’ prior to our universe is interesting but really the only ‘time’ we can discuss is within our universe.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Hey, Ken – love your reply and agree mostly. Just a few nits:

            “1 – Infinity is a given. Having a ‘beginning’ is a restriction. Even theists agree with this”

            When theists talk about God as infinite, we are talking about a qualitative type of infinity, not quantitative. Potential infinities are well-known and understood in mathematics, but ACTUAL infinities are refuted by David Hilbert’s work. Finally, the fact that having a beginning is a restriction is not a violation of Occam’s Razor any more than the fact that you exist (but have not always existed) is a violation of Occam’s Razor – you had a beginning. (BTW, I once had an atheist reply to this that he had always existed. You cannot IMAGINE how much fun I had with him following that claim. :-))

            “2. Because the probability increases to certainty.”

            You would need to prove this, of course. Even if you could prove this, you are talking about a mathematical limit to infinity, which is a potential infinity not an actual one. (see Hilbert)

            “In fact, there is an infinite probability that you and I have had this exact conversation”

            It’s deja vu all over again – I knew we were having this conversation in another universe! 🙂 Seriously, probabilities cannot be infinite – they can be no greater than 1.

            “3. I would assume that God is infinite.”

            Yes, but that is a different class of infinity, non-mathematical. (I will search for a good source on this. I was just reading up on it a couple of months ago.)

            “I like the Hilbert Hotel paradox because it shows us that we really can’t comprehend infinity any more than we can comprehend ‘nothing’.”

            Yes, I agree. But, it also shows that actual infinities do not occur in the real world.

            “The pleasure of discussing the ‘reality’ prior to our universe is interesting but really the only ‘time’ we can discuss is within our universe.”

            Yes, I agree. This is why we use the term “without the Big Bang” instead of “before the Big Bang,” which would be wrong as you point out.

            In fact, this is why I believe that science cannot, even in principle, tell us much, if anything, about any potential Cause for our universe. Science plays small ball compared with philosophy. Interestingly, some theists and non-theists alike think there might be some form of metaphysical time that exists BEFORE the Big Bang. (where BEFORE is measure in metaphysical time only, not physical time.)

            Great points and great talking with you again, Ken!

          • Ken Campbell

            Oh boy….these are getting long.

            So as far as the time ‘before or outside’ the big bang, we really have nothing to investigate. It is a purely theoretical premise. It confuses the daylights out of me but is fascinating at the same time.

          • Ken Campbell

            The creator God is an interesting concept but using your theory, this god can not be the same as the Biblical god. The Biblical God is much more ‘magical’ then this theory would require. The theory that you propose is the person hitting the cue ball and having the reactions occur. The Theist god manipulates each ball as it moves around the table

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “The theory that you propose is the person hitting the cue ball and having the reactions occur. ”

            Untrue – He can both create AND sustain, re-create, or continuously create. (That is actually what the Bible teaches.) Your argument in favor of that fits beautifully into the concept of Christian theism! God is active in all ways – if He stops sustaining, re-creating, or continuously creating – nothing (but Him) exists! I think that your argument has tremendous merit – in favor of Christian theism! That is why I am thankful for you presenting it – it shows another way in which cosmological science is perfectly compatible with Christian theism.

            That’s why I think your point was brilliant.

          • Ken Campbell

            I don’t see this as being particularly in favor of Christian theism. If there is a perfect pool player, then he would know EXACTLY where all the balls would go before he hit the cue ball. Again, I think this goes against the Christian theism model OR indicates that the Christian God is imperfect.

            Interestingly, there are parts of the Bible that do indicate that the Christian God recognizes his imperfection. You probably know these verses better than I

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Well, I am merely saying that your “re-creation” paradigm fits in perfectly well with the Unconditioned Reality concept of God as a Sustainer or continuous Creator. That is really what I was addressing – I think that it adds a lot of cosmological weight to that characteristic of the Christian God.

            I think that the Pool Player analogy is pretty decent too (maybe because I grew up playing a LOT of pool :-)), especially as the pool balls, pool table, cue sticks, chalk, etc do not exist without this continued Sustenance provided by the Pool Player.

            I am enjoying our exchange, Ken – thanks for continuing it!

          • Ken Campbell

            As to the ‘naturalism’ issue. In each environment, there are rules for interactions. Theoretically, time space matter and energy did not exist before the big bang. However, there would still be a ‘nature’ that is specific to that environment

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Theoretically, time space matter and energy did not exist before the big bang. However, there would still be a ‘nature’ that is specific to that environment”

            How so? Do you mean a supernatural nature? I would have to agree with you then!

          • Ken Campbell

            OK, we can call it ‘supernatural’ in that it exists outside of the nature of our universe. Perhaps extra-natural is a better word

      • Jim H

        For a few of the things you said, I fail to see a real practical/functional difference in what you (I think sometimes inappropriately) characterize atheists beliefs and those of theists.

        “That the universe miraculously popped into existence out of nothing uncaused by anything.”

        Don’t you merely add another step–The universe miraculously popped into existence caused by something that was uncaused by anything.

        Why does adding a uncaused creator to make a universe from nothing make more sense than the universe itself being uncaused?

        If we apply Occam’s razor, since the latter involves one less contingency, does that make it a better answer than the former?

        “That life magically sprang forth from non-life when lightning hit some mud.”

        Why is that is more magical than God making man from dust? Dust is just dried mud. Aren’t you only changing the magic involved?

        “Only atheists would be “happy” with the view that their relatives are rats and their cousins are cockroaches.”

        What is your factual basis for saying that? Data seems to indicate just the opposite. The majority of the people who believe in evolution are not atheists. The last I checked about 60% of the US population supports evolution. I believe less than 5% of Americans are atheists. That means the majority of Americans support evolution and the vast majority of them believe in God.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          “Why does adding a uncaused creator to make a universe from nothing make more sense than the universe itself being uncaused?”

          Well, if one is a scientist, then it makes all the difference in the world, Jim. Look at it this way: which is more rational – that the universe came into existence out of nothing (material) uncaused by anything or that the universe came into existence out of nothing (material) caused by Something? If you say the former, then you are violating the principle of causality and committing scientific suicide. In that case, Occam’s razor actually turns atheism into a blind faith worldview.

          “Why is that is more magical than God making man from dust?”

          Because the science goes against life springing forth from non-life, Jim. In order to believe that there was no intelligent design involved, you have to defy the odds against mathematical impossibility. So, once again, the atheist is arguing for a mega-miracle that makes belief in God look rational by comparison.

          “The majority of the people who believe in evolution are not atheists.”

          There you go again, Jim. You reversed the Venn diagram. On atheism, evolutionary naturalism is the only game in town. So, atheists are forced to believe in macro-evolution, but Christians are not.

          • Jim H

            “Well, if one is a scientist, then it makes all the difference in the world, Jim. Look at it this way: which is more rational – that the universe came into existence out of nothing (material) uncaused by anything or that the universe came into existence out of nothing (material) caused by Something? If you say the former, then you are violating the principle of causality and committing scientific suicide.”

            I don’t think violating the principle of causality is committing scientific suicide, particularly if we are talking in quantum terms.

            In classical physics, events are ordered in time: a cause can only influence an effect in its future not in its past. According to quantum mechanics, objects can lose their well-defined classical properties, such as e.g. a particle that can be at two different locations at the same time. In quantum physics this is called a “superposition”.

            In 2012, an international team of physicists led by Caslav Brukner from the University of Vienna showed that even the causal order of events could be in such a superposition.

            If quantum mechanics governs all phenomena, it is natural to expect that the order of events could also be indefinite, similarly to the location of a particle or its velocity.

            For more information you can find:

            Quantum correlations with no causal order by Ognyan Oreshkov, Fabio Costa & Cadlav Brukner, Nature Communications Volume: 3, Article number: 1092. Received 29 May 2012 Accepted 17 August 2012 Published 02 October 2012

            “Because the science goes against life springing forth from non-life, Jim. In order to believe that there was no intelligent design involved, you have to defy the odds against mathematical impossibility.”

            I’m not sure what it gained by talking about the impossibility of life springing from non-life. That seems intentionally much too simplistic characterization to make it seem to be a drastic change, making it seem to be more of a mathematical impossibility than it really is. It was obviously a multistep process.

            Scientists have been able to create the building blocks to life for some time. The stumbling block has always been to get from building blocks to organisms.
            However, quite recently, two long-time University of North Carolina scientists – Richard Wolfenden, PhD, and Charles Carter, PhD have published companion papers in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that shed new light on the transition from building blocks into life some 4 billion years ago.

            “Our work shows that the close linkage between the physical properties of amino acids, the genetic code, and protein folding was likely essential from the beginning, long before large, sophisticated molecules arrived on the scene,” said Carter, professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the UNC School of Medicine. “This close interaction was likely the key factor in the evolution from building blocks to organisms.”

            “There you go again, Jim. You reversed the Venn diagram. On atheism, evolutionary naturalism is the only game in town. So, atheists are forced to believe in macro-evolution, but Christians are not.”

            Your comment was “Only atheists would be “happy” with the view that their relatives are rats and their cousins are cockroaches.”
            I don’t think evolution is something one would be “happy” about anymore than someone would be happy about any scientific theory.
            I assumed you were just trying to state that only atheists accept evolution. There was nothing in that comment to indicate that it was about options. It was clearly about only atheists believing in evolution.
            I think we see the Venn diagram proposed differently. In mine, the “believes in evolution” circle intersects and covers well over half of the “Christian” circle

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I don’t think violating the principle of causality is committing scientific suicide, particularly if we are talking in quantum terms.”

            OK, I noticed that you did not address which view of universal origins was the more rational. Do I have you correct and on the record as asserting that the universe coming into existence out of nothing (material) and uncaused by anything is more rational than the universe coming into existence out of nothing (material) caused by some Thing?

            OK, on quantum mechanics, the science you present is quite good, but the application of it is poor. You would need to show that a particle (much less a universe) can pop into existence out of nothing (material) uncaused by anything, similar to Lawrence Krauss’s failed attempt. Here is an excellent agnostic reply to that line of thinking:

            “But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-­theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.” –David Albert

            “Scientists have been able to create the building blocks to life for some time.”

            Not out of non-life. Miller-Urey, e.g., was a fail. Even IF scientists manage to do so, that will just be evidence for Intelligent Design.

            Your problem is origins, Jim: life out of non-life and naturally. That is where the mathematical impossibility comes in. You cannot make it out of the starting gate, my friend.

            “I assumed you were just trying to state that only atheists accept evolution.”

            Not at all – the point of the Atheist Creed is to provide doctrinal statements that the overwhelming majority of atheists can affirm. Since macro-evolution is the only game in town for atheists, that creedal doctrine stands as presented.

          • Jim H

            “Do I have you correct and on the record as asserting that the universe coming into existence out of nothing (material) and uncaused by anything is more rational than the universe coming into existence out of nothing (material) caused by some Thing?”

            That was my question, why is the latter more rational than the former because, instead of ” and uncaused by anything”, you say “caused by some Thing?”. Either way you assert it came from nothing. If it is possible for the universe to come from nothing, one explanation is not more rational than the other. If it is impossible for the universe to come from nothing, both explanations are irrational.

            I’m okay with any of the alternatives.

            “OK, on quantum mechanics, the science you present is quite good, but the application of it is poor. You would need to show that a particle (much less a universe) can pop into existence out of nothing (material) uncaused by anything, similar to Lawrence Krauss’s failed attempt.”

            Why, do I need to show that? I believe You have already admitted that you believe that an entire universe can pop into existence out of nothing. Do you really believe that a subatomic particle doing so is a big stretch? that is kind of absurd.

            “Not out of non-life. Miller-Urey, e.g., was a fail. Even IF scientists manage to do so, that will just be evidence for Intelligent Design.”

            How was Miller-Urey a fail? After Miller’s death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller’s original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.

            “Even IF scientists manage to do so, that will just be evidence for Intelligent Design.”

            The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2) and continuous electrical sparks fired to simulate lightning in the water vapour and gaseous mixture. Using 5 naturally occurring ingredients like that does not strike me as being so complicated as to require a very intelligent designer.

            “Your problem is origins, Jim: life out of non-life and naturally. That is where the mathematical impossibility comes in. You cannot make it out of the starting gate, my friend.”

            The chances of those ingredients; e.g., water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2) and

            lightening being in one place and interacting naturally don’t seem mathematically impossible to me. In fact, it seems quite likely.

            “Not at all – the point of the Atheist Creed is to provide doctrinal statements that the overwhelming majority of atheists can affirm. Since macro-evolution is the only game in town for atheists, that creedal doctrine stands as presented.”
            I’m sure they appreciate a non-atheist like yourself telling them what they must believe in order to simply not believe in God. I’ll bet most did not realize it was so complicated.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “If it is impossible for the universe to come from nothing, both explanations are irrational.”

            Why is it impossible for the universe to come into existence from nothing? Doesn’t that presuppose naturalism?

            ” I believe You have already admitted that you believe that an entire universe can pop into existence out of nothing.”

            Yes, but my universe comes into existence out of nothing by virtue of a Cause – yours does so mega-magically. No rabbit, no hat, no magician. Thus, my previous point stands, emphasis on final clause:

            You would need to show that a particle (much less a universe) can pop into existence out of nothing (material) uncaused by anything.

            “How was Miller-Urey a fail?”

            Well, you did a nice cut-and-paste job from Wikipedia, Jim! 🙂 Most evolutionary naturalists have abandoned it because the atmosphere was completely wrong. Additionally, scientists in Japan have recently shown that the amino acids got their carbon from ascorbic acid NOT from carbon dioxide. Thus, after many failures, Miller and Urey jury-rigged the system to give them the results they needed by introducing the ascorbic acid. Excellent example of intelligent design – after many failures.

            “Using 5 naturally occurring ingredients like that does not strike me as being so complicated as to require a very intelligent designer.”

            You miss the point again: are you now making the claim that Miller and Urey:

            A. Were not intelligent? and

            B. Did not design their experiment? 🙂

            “interacting naturally don’t seem mathematically impossible to me. In fact, it seems quite likely.”

            That’s why we do not use our feelings in the scientific world:

            http://winteryknight .com/2015/07/30/new-software-calculates-the-probability-of-generating-functional-proteins-by-chance/#comment-127077

            Excerpt:

            “For another example, I downloaded 4,986 aligned sequences for the ABC-3 family of proteins and ran it through the program. The results indicate that the probability of obtaining, in a single trial, a functional ABC-3 sequence is around 1 chance in 10^128. This method ignores pairwise and higher order relationships within the sequence that would vastly limit the number of functional sequences by many orders of magnitude, reducing the probability even further by many orders of magnitude – so this gives us a best-case estimate.

            There are only about 10^80 particles in the entire physical universe – 10^85 at the most. These are long odds.”

            OK, now that is proteins from existing amino acids. That means that this is an upper limit odds to even coming up with the first amino acids. (Unless Miller and Urey were around at the beginning of life to “fix” the experiment. 🙂 Perhaps Someone with higher intelligence was?!?)

            “I’m sure they appreciate a non-atheist like yourself”

            Former atheist – 42 years. So, are you conceding the point that ALL atheists, except for the few cult members who believe in supernatural entities, are stuck with macro-evolutionary naturalism, and that the creedal doctrine is valid?

            Nice talking with you Jim – God bless!

          • Jim H

            “You would need to show that a particle (much less a universe) can pop into existence out of nothing (material) uncaused by anything.”

            You need to ask your buddy Vilenkin, who you said was a an outstanding cosmologist, how quantum nucleation from nothing works, since he sees that as the most probable theory. He apparently thinks that my idea is quite plausible.
            “As a result of the tunnelling event, a finite-sized universe, filled with a false vacuum, pops out of nowhere (“nucleates”) and immediately starts to inflate…What could have caused the tunnelling? Remarkably, the answer is that no cause is required.” – Professor of Physics, Alexander Vilenkin [Alexander Vilenkin: Many worlds in one: The search for other universes (P. 181)]

            Your comments about Miller-Urey miss the point. We were discussing life from non life and I said “Scientists have been able to create the building blocks to life for some time.” Your response was, “Most evolutionary naturalists have abandoned it because the atmosphere was completely wrong.” The point was that they were able to create amino acids, which are the building blocks of organic life, and the first step in life from non life.

            New experiments (at least 15) since the Miller–Urey ones have achieved similar results using various corrected atmospheric compositions. Since some authors have argued that electrical energy might not have efficiently
            produced organic molecules in the earth’s early atmosphere, other energy sources such as cosmic radiation (e.g., Kobayashi et al., 1998),
            high temperature impact events (e.g., Miyakawa et al., 2000), and even the action of waves on a beach (Commeyras et al., 2002) would have been quite effective.

          • Jim H

            Are you avoiding discussing quantum nucleation from nothing, or is it the 15 experiments since the Miller–Urey ones? It was starting to get really interesting.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Trying to give you the last word, Jim – and you won’t let me do it! Gosh, I can’t lose for winning with you. 🙂

          • Jim H

            Well played.

      • Douglas E. Berry

        1. Not so, we have strong evidence that the universe expanded from a singularity some 13.5 billion years ago. Where that singularity came from is a very interesting question that we are still investigating.

        2. Not even close. Abiogenesis probably is an ongoing process. We’ve seen proteins form near deep ocean vents, and we know that amino acids spontaneously form in the right conditions.

        3. As are oak trees and every other living thing on the planet. So? The fact that I’m genetically close to a cow isn’t going to stop me from eating meat. The human brain evolved as a survival tool. We weren’t the biggest, or the strongest of the multiple primates roaming East Africa a few million years ago, but we had large brains and strong social bonds.

        4. That would be a terrible reason for an abortion. But right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder. I used to be an Army sniper. I killed people for just being in the wrong place in the wrong army. Was that right or wrong? OK, how about a German WWII sniper doing the exact same thing? Was he right or wrong?

        5. That one is just stupid. Contraception works.

        6. First part yes, and I don’t hate myths. But the fan club most deities accumulate tend to annoy me.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          1. Either the universe came into existence out of nothing (material) uncaused by anything or the universe came into existence out of nothing (material) but Caused. I fail to see any other possibilities. Another way of looking at this is to consider these 3 options:

          1. The universe is eternal.

          2. The universe was created by some sort of Being which is spaceless, timeless, non-material, immensely powerful, has personal free will, and is self-existing.

          3. The universe was self-creating.

          Are there any other possibilities? Option 1 is not supported by the current level of science. Option 3 is self-refuting. It seems to me that the most reasonable place to be is in option 2, unless I am missing another option?

          “Abiogenesis probably is an ongoing process.”

          Possibly. Regardless, the concept has been proposed as a hypothesis for the origin of life. So, creedal doctrine 2 stands.

          3. You haven’t provided an argument for how non-material minds or (objective) morals can evolve. If you believe the mind to be purely physical, then you haven’t given any reason for trusting random molecules in motion, which would lead to absurdism.

          “But right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder.”

          Great! I agree that, on atheism, what you say is true. Then gassing Jews and owning black people are just in the eye of the beholder too – and that is why atheists cannot consistently condemn such behavior.

          “5. That one is just stupid. Contraception works.”

          Not reliably. And then the killing begins.

          “6. First part yes, and I don’t hate myths.”

          http://winteryknight .com/2015/05/22/study-explores-whether-atheism-is-rooted-in-reason-or-emotion-3/#comments

          Excerpt:

          “At first glance, this finding seemed to reflect an error. How could people be angry with God if they did not believe in God? Reanalyses of a second dataset revealed similar patterns: Those who endorsed their religious beliefs as “atheist/agnostic” or “none/unsure” reported more anger toward God than those who reported a religious affiliation.”

          “But the fan club most deities accumulate tend to annoy me.”

          Why would they annoy you? You said that “right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder.” Why would you be annoyed that some of us like chocolate ice cream and some like vanilla? That does not seem rational.

          • nicacat56

            Your ridiculous rant annoys me. And, I’m very rational. You, on the other hand, are delusional.

          • http://www.mahablog.com Barbara_OBrien

            Just because you don’t see other possibilities to the origins of earth and its species doesn’t mean there aren’t any other possibilities. Narrow-minded people see things, well, narrowly. Theoretical physicists have come up with several explanations for the origins of the universe that don’t involve a creator god, so unless you are prepared to refute those your opinion is rather uninformed.

          • trurl

            It always fascinates me when non-believers refer to believers as “narrow minded” because they reject certain views while at the same time outright rejecting the views, supported by some very well degreed scientists, of creationists and not just disagreeing but refusing to even consider such ideas and openly mocking anyone who holds such beliefs. The very definition of narrow mindedness.

          • zug

            There no scientist worth their weight supporting your delusions. Narrow mind – hell if we followed that logic. We wouldn’t have developed all this marvelous technology – which you don’t have a clue on how it works. Primitive playing with toys.

          • trurl

            Thank you for proving my point.

          • Douglas E. Berry

            “Great! I agree that, on atheism, what you say is true. Then gassing
            Jews and owning black people are just in the eye of the beholder too –
            and that is why atheists cannot consistently condemn such behavior.”

            Slavery was the norm for most of human history. The Bible has extensive laws on who can be enslaved and how to buy and sell them. But times and opinions change. Slavery was accepted as good for centuries.

            The Holocaust? Who cried for the Armenians? The Native Americans? The Incas or Aztecs? Fact is genocide is another thing that was morally justified for centuries. Read the Bible, God orders the Israelites to destroy other nations down to smashing their children’s heads against stones.

            Morals change. What is right and wrong changes over time.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Slavery was accepted as good for centuries.” AND “Fact is genocide is another thing that was morally justified for centuries.”

            Great! Thank you for confirming that the atheist cannot condemn behavior that is culturally accepted. When William Wilberforce was abolishing slavery, atheists were on the sideline, and correctly so, on your view. Same for Bonhoeffer with the Jews and Christians on abortion. They / we are getting in the way of the social norms on your view. We both agree that, on atheism, there is no way to objectively condemn these things. Thank you for your intellectual honesty. You will enjoy this quote by Alex Rosenberg:

            “Is there a God? No.
            What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is.
            What is the purpose of the universe? There is none.
            What is the meaning of life? Ditto.
            Why am I here? Just dumb luck.
            Is there a soul? Are you kidding?
            Is there free will? Not a chance!
            What is the difference between right/wrong, good/bad? There is no moral difference between them… So much for the meaning of history, and everything else we care about… you will have to be comfortable with a certain amount of nihilism . . . . And just in case there’s always Prozac.” — Alex P. Rosenberg

          • Douglas E. Berry

            When William Wilberforce was fi9ghting slavery, public opinion was already turning against it in England, and it had already been outlawed in most of Europe. The City of Bologna formally published laws in 1256 outlawing slavery, and it was dead in England (and most of the Americas) before Wilberforce and his compatriots began working to end the slave trade.

            The slave trade. Not slavery, as slavery in England had already been illegal for close to a century.

            I would point out that if you declared yourself an atheist in the late 18th century in most Western nations, you faced prison, expulsion, or even death. In England, when your pal Wilberforce was railing against the use of British shipping to send slaves to the Americas, the The Blasphemy Act 1697 (9 Will 3 c 35) was still in full force.

            “Is there a God?” I see no evidence for any of the millions of deities, spirits, and other entities claimed by various human cultures.

            “What is the nature of reality?” Science is doing an excellent job of examining that question.

            “What is the purpose of the universe?” Why does it need a purpose?

            “What is the meaning of life?” Whatever meaning you give it.

            “Why am I here?” I’m here because sometime in last October/early November 1965 my parents had sexual intercourse. One sperm was faster than the rest. Same answer for every human on Earth.

            “Is there a soul?” No evidence for one. And since we know for a fact that physical changes to the forebrain can radically change a person’s entire personality, it seems clear that the essential “us” is contained in a matrix of neurons.

            “Is there free will?” Of course there is. However, many of our decisions are influenced by physical and mental processes we are not consciously aware of. This concept is the cornerstone of advertising.

            “What is the difference between right/wrong, good/bad?” Depends on the societal norms and the situation. For example, would you consider cannibalism bad? Yes or no.

            Now consider the Chilean soccer team whose plane crashed in the Andes. The only way to survive was to eat their dead companions. Cannibalism is a huge taboo in most situations, but these men were immediately forgiven. Was that right or wrong.

            Is it wrong to intentionally kill someone? Yes or no.

            Is it wrong to kill someone when serving as a solider in a war, under orders? Yes or no.

            Is it wrong to kill someone when serving as a solider in a war, under orders, if that person is a defenseless civilian? Yes or no.

            There are no black and white ethics in most cases.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “When William Wilberforce was fi9ghting slavery, public opinion was already turning against it in England”

            Slavery was not abolished in the UK until July 26, 1833, 3 days before Wilberforce’s death. Furthermore, you still have not shown why an atheist, on your view of cultural normative ethics, would have ANY involvement whatsoever in reform or human rights progress. By your argument, you would wait until the reforms had taken place and THEN get on the bandwagon.

            Non-Christian historian Robert Kenny wrote in 2007:

            “Having for most of my life believed that our acceptance of equality–racial, class, gender–was the result of the overthrow of past superstitions and prejudice by reason, I was perplexed: why had the fight against slavery, and the concern for aboriginal peoples, been so overwhelmingly the province of religious? … Hume, Voltaire, and Kant saw the African–the non-European, generally–as beyond the category of human to which the European belonged; race concerned them (particularly Kant) only to the extent that it could show the superiority of the European. It was not the philosophies of Paris or Edinburgh or East Prussia who fought slavery, but the evangelical Christians and Quakers who drew their inspiration not from philosophy but from ‘superstitious religion’. It was from the Evangelical Revival that the loudest claims for what we now call racial equality came.”

            Then, you post your affirmation of Alex P. Rosenberg’s claims. Again, we AGREE that, on atheism, Rosenberg is not only correct, but intellectually honest and consistent with his atheistic views. I commend you on that too. You are correct that your life has no ultimate or objective meaning, which begs the question: why act like what you are writing in our dialogue actually matters?!? The universe is going to die a slow cold dark death, and nothing you say or do matters at all in any ultimate sense. But, you seem to think what you post DOES matter – are you not refuting your atheism when you do so?

            “Is it wrong to intentionally kill someone? Yes or no”

            Is it wrong to torture a baby for fun. Yes or no?

            BTW, thanks very much for your service. God bless!

          • Michael Long

            Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

      • Mr. Spiffy

        It’s too bad the skank you crawled out of wasn’t raped to death first. It would be a better world.

      • Brewerofbeers

        You shouldn’t confuse science for “magic.” It betrays your ignorance. Your inability to process valid logic is unsurprising.

      • glennisw

        Your Christian love is shining through. Not.

      • zug

        hahaha.. oh believe in your imaginary friend. No body hates God – because it doesn’t exist!

      • Mark Bouckaert

        Not quite. An Atheist doesn’t necessarily believe or disbelieve God. Most just don’t believe in our version of the bible, our version of God and a few believe that its useless to waste time on this subject completely. If there is a God, then that entity put us here, it designed the universe so we can’t figure that question out and its counterproductive to even debate it, since that entity must have a vision for the universe as it is.

        Which brings up the next question… is there an afterlife. Again, maybe, maybe not. Either way, the person we are today will not be the same once we enter an afterlife as we’d then be immortal. I’ve got to admit on this, it would be extremely boring living forever. After a million years, you’d have done just about everything possible.

        So you are incredibly wrong in your assessment of what atheists believe in. And morals come from society, not a book. We are moral because we care as an individual towards others, or we don’t.
        The same can be said about sex. So again, your wrong about that. And the reasons for getting an abortion, are far more complex than what this sites Christians believe in. The bible says almost nothing about abortion. In fact, abortion was accepted by the church in the first trimester for hundreds of years. Why did it suddenly change it’s mind? Well… it wasn’t science. It was the fact that the common woman could afford a safely performed abortion. And we wouldn’t want that now, would we?

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          “An Atheist doesn’t necessarily believe or disbelieve God.”

          http://winteryknight .com/2014/12/25/is-the-definition-of-atheism-a-lack-of-belief-in-god-3/

          Excerpt:

          “First, let’s see check with the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

          ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

          Stanford University is one of the top 5 universities in the United States, so that’s a solid definition. To be an atheist is to be a person who makes the claim that, as a matter of FACT, there is no intelligent agent who created the universe. Atheists think that there is no God, and theists think that there is a God. Both claims are objective claims about the way the world is out there, and so both sides must furnish forth arguments and evidence as to how they are able to know what they are each claiming.”

          So, that basically shows that you are making some sort of blind faith assumption about atheism that is false. Either that, or you are uninformed to an extreme degree. Maybe I was a better atheist in the past than you are now.

          “In fact, abortion was accepted by the church in the first trimester for hundreds of years.”

          Again, demonstrably false. Are you deliberately misleading or just willfully ignorant?

          http://akathleptos .blogspot .com/2015/08/the-churchs-historical-position-on .html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CommuniquFromPatmos+%28Communiqu%C3%A9+From+Patmos%29

          Excerpt:

          Barnabas (Letter of Barnabas, circa 125):

          “You shall not kill either the fetus by abortion or the new born”

          Anon: An unknown author writing circa 135 AD in The Apocalypse of Peter:

          “I saw a gorge in which the discharge and excrement of the tortured ran down and became like a lake. There sat women, and the discharge came up to their throats; and opposite them sat many children, who were born prematurely, weeping. And from them went forth rays of fire and smote the women on the eyes. These were those who produced children outside of marriage, and who procured abortions.”

          “Those who slew the unborn children will be tortured forever, for God wills it to so.”

          Athenagoras (Petition to Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD), circa 150 AD):

          We say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God. For the same person, would not regard the child in the womb as a living being and therefore an object of God’s care and then kill it…. But we are altogether consistent in our conduct. We obey reason and do not override it.”

          Clement of Alexandria: ( Paedagogus 2, circa 150 – 215 AD)

          “Our whole life can go on in observation of the laws of nature, if we gain dominion over our desires from the beginning and if we do not kill, by various means of a perverse art, the human offspring, born according to the designs of divine providence; for these women who, if order to hide their immorality, use abortive drugs which expel the child completely dead, abort at the same time their own human feelings.”

          Tertullian (Tertullian, “Apology” (9:7-8), circa 155 – 225 AD):

          “…we are not permitted, since murder has been prohibited to us once and for all, even to destroy …the fetus in the womb. It makes no difference whether one destroys a life that has already been born or one that is in the process of birth.”

          Hippolytus (From “Refutation of all Heresies” 9:7, circa 170-236 AD):

          “Reputed believes began to resort to drugs for producing Sterility and to gird themselves round, so as to expel what was conceived on account of their not wanting to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time.”

          Minicius Felix (a Christian lawyer; circa 180 – 225 AD, Minucius Felix, “Octavious (30, 2)):

          “Some women take medicines to destroy the germ of future life in their own bodies. They commit infanticide before they have given birth to the infant”

          Basil the Great (Letter 188:2, circa 330 – 379 AD):

          “She who has deliberately destroyed a fetus has to pay the penalty of murder…here it is not only the child to be born that is vindicated, but also the woman herself who made an attempt against her own life, because usually the women die in such attempts. Furthermore, added to this is the destruction of the child, another murder… Moreover, those, too, who give drugs causing abortion are deliberate murderers themselves, as well as those receiving the poison which kills the fetus.”

          Ambrose: (Ambrose, “Hexaemeron”, (5, 18, 58), 339 to 397 AD):

          “The poor expose their children, the rich kill the fruit of their own bodies in the womb, lest their property be divided up, and they destroy their own children in the womb with murderous poisons. and before life has been passed on, it is annihilated.”

          John Chrysostom (Homily 24 on Romans, circa 340 – 407 AD):

          “Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? Where there are many efforts at abortion? Where there is murder before the birth? For you do not even let the harlot remain a mere harlot, but make her a murderer also. You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather something even worse than murder. For I have no real name to give it, since it does not destroy the thing born but prevents its being born. Why then do you abuse the gift of God and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the place of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter?”

          Jerome (Letter 22:13, circa 342-420 AD):

          “They drink potions to ensure sterility and are guilty of murdering a human being not yet conceived. Some, when they learn that they are with child through sin, practice abortion by the use of drugs. Frequently they die themselves and are brought before the rulers of the lower world guilty of three crimes: suicide, adultery against Christ, and murder of an unborn child.”

          Tertullian (circa 160-240 AD):

          “For us [Christians] we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter when you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one: you have the fruit already in the seed.” (Apology 9:6)

          “They [John and Jesus] were both alive while still in the womb. Elizabeth rejoiced as the infant leaped in her womb; Mary glorifies the Lord because Christ within inspired her. Each mother recognizes her child and is known by her child who is alive, being not merely souls but also spirits.” (De A ninta 26:4)

          Statements by groups:

          The Didache (also known as “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”) dates from the first half of the second century AD. It states: “Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion.” (2:2) It also says that “The Way of Death is filled with people who are…murderers of children and abortionists of God’s creatures.” (5:1-2)

          The Synod of Elvira, held in Spain in 306 AD: “If a woman becomes pregnant by committing adultery, while her husband is absent, and after the act she destroys the child, it is proper to keep her from communion until death, because she has doubled her crime.” Canon 63

          The Synod of Ancyra, held in 314 AD, condemned abortion. The penalty was 10 years of penance

          The Apostolic Constitutions (circa 380 AD) allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy. But it condemned abortion if the fetus was of human shape.”Thou shalt not slay the child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. For everything that is shaped, and his received a soul from God, if slain, it shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed.” 7:3:15 This document claimed to have been written by the apostles. However, it was actually written late in the 4th century AD at about the time that Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire and serious oppression of Paganism started.”

          “The bible says almost nothing about abortion.”

          0-2:

          http://www .epm .org/resources/2009/Dec/22/abortion-relevant-references-scripture/

          A very small selection:

          “You shall not commit murder.” (Exodus 20:13)

          “The babies [Jacob and Esau] jostled each other within her [Rebekah].” (Genesis 25:22)

          “In the womb he [Jacob] grasped his brother’s heel; as a man he struggled with God.” (Hosea 12:3)

          “Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese, clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit.” (Job 10:8-12)

          “Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?” (Job 31:15)

          “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made . . . My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” (Psalm 139:13-16)

          “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5)

          “His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit . . . an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 1:18-20)

          “But the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. . . . The angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.'” (Luke 1:30-31, 35)

          Note: Later in this passage, in Luke 1:39-44, the preborn John the Baptist (in his sixth month after conception) responded to the presence of the preborn Jesus in his mother Mary. Judging by the time it would take Mary to get to Elizabeth-she left “immediately” after the angel appeared to her-Jesus was probably no more than ten days beyond his conception. Since implantation doesn’t begin until six days after conception and is not completed until twelve days, it is likely Jesus was not even fully implanted in his mother’s womb when the preborn John responded to his presence.”

          OK, so now you are 0-3, right? I keep hearing that atheists are the “rational science-y” ones. So, let’s see how rational.

          The argument against abortion is a moral and scientific one:

          1. Human beings have intrinsic moral value and fundamental rights.
          (basic and positive morality).

          2. Assigning rights arbitrarily amongst human beings has proven catastrophic. (history of the world).

          3. What is located in the human womb, post conception, is a human being. (settled science, at least for those who know Human Biology 101.).

          4. Therefore, abortion kills a human being with intrinsic moral value and fundamental rights – one who is guilty of no crime.

          The only difference between a human being in the womb and one outside of it is size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. And each one of those factors, if used to argue for abortion, could be also used as a reason for killing a child OUTSIDE of the womb. In abortion clinics all across America today, nearly 4000 human beings with intrinsic moral value – guilty of no crime but their mere existence – are being led to their deaths, and gruesome ones at that. Can’t we all come together and bring our laws up to date with 21st century science and basic human compassion by passing a Life at Conception Act and ending forever this brutal crime against humanity – and the resulting and reprehensible trafficking in baby parts that derives its profit from it?

          • Michael Long

            Atheism is a lack of belief not a denial of your specific sky fairy.

      • Michael Long

        I see that you know absolutely nothing at all ab out science.

  • http://www.mahablog.com Barbara_OBrien

    Good for David Peters. Anybody who stands up to the Forced Pregnancy Army and gives them a taste of their own medicine is okay in my book.

  • Nite_Owl

    Why would any woman listen to the anti-abortion protesters when they abandon the very same babies they say they’re there to protect the moment they’re born? They fight to take away any programs that support the children or their mothers from the food they eat by cutting SNAP benefits, the places they live by cutting funding for affordable housing to the healthcare they require by attacking the Affordable Care Act or “Obamacare” and now Planned Parenthood.

    If they really want women to keep their babies they should be protesting in front of any politician’s office who supports such program cuts and they should be calling on Congress to fund permanent programs that help mothers and children. Till then they should be drowned out by loudspeakers every time they show up to protest. If they’re looking for something to drive the protesters away may I suggest the musical stylings of Yoko Ono but if that sounds just too mean then you could ease them into it with Leonard Cohen. As a young man I could always count on Cohen’s “Suzanne” to clear out the house when I wanted the party to end. Halfway through the song people would start yawning and getting up to leave. It worked like magic.

    • Jim H

      You make some excellent points about the concern for unborn lives only lasts while they are prenatal. I notice no one addressed that.

      • Nite_Owl

        Thank you. They seem to forget that the only way to get the strong, well adjusted adults that the country needs to grow is to build them from strong, well adjusted children. Not from hungry children living in poverty in the richest country in the world with crime all around them, abusive police officers and the anger it all breeds.

    • IWantALamborghini

      Why would any slaveholder listen to the abolitionists when they abandon the very same slaves they’re there to protect the moment they are freed?

      • Brewerofbeers

        Except for where that wasn’t the case. Your father and uncle is the same man, isn’t he?

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Excellent point!

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      False dichotomy AND strawman AND extremely poor logic. Your “logic” is that “Conservative Christians (CC’s) should not be allowed to speak out against killing innocent human beings in the womb IF they vote against welfare.” It fails on a minimum of 3 counts:

      1. Not all conservative Christians vote against ALL welfare. Most are for a safety net, but the evidence shows that massive welfare entitlements merely create MORE dependency and do nothing to lower the poverty rate nor homelessness rates – as we have seen in the past 7 years.

      2. Conservative religious devote more of their OWN time, treasure, and talents to charitable causes, including secular causes, than liberal secularists:

      Google: “statistics on whether atheists are more moral than religious people”

      Excerpt:

      “The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.”

      So, liberal secularists talk, with other people’s money, but conservative religious walk the talk.

      3. Most devastatingly, your “logic” applies equally well outside of the womb: “Conservative Christians (CC’s) should not be allowed to speak out against killing innocent human beings outside of the womb IF CC’s vote against welfare.” The only difference between inside the womb and outside of the womb is size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency – so it is just a question of what age you would be willing to stop killing the children of the poor outside of the womb? Would that be 18 years or 21 or some other age?

      A. Will you be intellectually honest enough to admit that your “logic” in favor of abortion results in your being in favor of laws allowing the killing of children outside of the womb too – for ANY reason the mom chooses, not just poverty? Like, for instance, a nose job and porn career:

      Google: “most hated woman in britain aborts fourth child for a nose job”

      Excerpt:

      “Josie Cunningham’s self-serving justification for aborting her newest child jives with survey results such as a 2004 study by the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute. As explained in an article by Gudrun Schultz on the actionlife .org website, “[a]lmost all abortions take place because a child would be inconvenient, too expensive, or too difficult to cope with … neither health problems, rape, incest, nor coercion by family members or partners were the primary or even secondary reasons for seeking an abortion.”

      B. Will you explain to us why you hate the children of poor people so much that you are willing to kill them inside or outside of the womb?

      Thank you for your reply.

      • Jim H

        “The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.”

        A National Study of American Religious Giving, in 2013 was distilled into a report entitled Connected to Give: Faith Communities. It found that 65% of religiously-affiliated people donate to congregations or charitable organizations. The religious people who are giving say they’re giving because of religion. And they’re overwhelmingly giving to religion as well.
        Religious people may be more likely to give, but most of what they give is given to their religion.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          False on two points:

          1. Conservative religious give more even to secular causes than liberal secularists.

          https://www .aei .org/publication/a-nation-of-givers/

          Excerpt:

          “For example, in 2000, religious people were 10 percentage points more likely than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities, and 21 points more likely to volunteer. The value of the average religious household’s gifts to nonreligious charities was 14 percent higher than that of the average secular household, even after correcting for income differences.

          Religious people were also far more likely than secularists to give in informal, nonreligious ways. For example, in 2000, people belonging to religious congregations gave 46 percent more money to family and friends than people who did not belong. In 2002, religious people were far more likely to donate blood than secularists, to give food or money to a homeless person, and even to return change mistakenly given them by a cashier.”

          There is no objectively moral reason, on secularism to give one’s time, treasure, and talents to ANY charity.

          2. Your “giving to religion” snide remark assumes, falsely, that churches, religious charities – such as missionaries and aid for underdeveloped countries, religious hospitals, homeless shelters, orphanages, etc themselves do nothing for the poor. That is, on the face of it, laughable.

          • Jim H

            The data you quote was from the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), which is one of the oldest and most influential of the pro-business right-wing think tanks. AEI has been described as one of the country’s main bastions of neoconservatism.
            Its scholars have argued that prayer belongs in public schools and that it doesn’t violate the establishment clause and advocated federally-funded school voucher programs.
            So, they are not unbiased.

            That only would not cause me to discount their findings, but I looked at the article you provided and didn’t see any kind of documentation as to where it came from our how it was derived. Organizations like Gallop usually tell you about the sample polled and how the survey was done. The article was just a Q&A interview format.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Classic ad hominem fallacy: you don’t like the results or the data, because you don’t like the ones who present it. Major fail.

            Based on such “logic,” I would be justified in dismissing ANY secular data, studies, and authors. But, as you know me well, I present them all the time.

            Who is the open-minded one again? 🙂

          • Jim H

            I’m sorry, I just reread what I wrote. I meant to say that alone (not only) would not cause me to discount their findings.

            What the article said may have been factual, and data could actually indicate that religious give more than secular, or conservatives more than liberals. However, when the results you cite all support your ideology, it is fair to question how impartial they are.

            A viewer’s poll by MSNBC will yield quite different results one by FOX. I don’t think it is an ad hominem fallacy to ask about the source of the results. As I said, Gallop always explains their polling method. I saw nothing in the article about how AEI got those results.

            I vaguely remember having this same discussion before, with you or someone else, and when it happened I found some results that were very different.

  • Reason2012

    “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”
    Proverbs 14:12

    “To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.”
    Deuteronomy 32:35

  • Lisa

    No creed, no cult. The guy is just fed up and decided to play something to wind them up.

  • Mr. Spiffy

    It’s going to be such a better world once all the Jesus thugs are raptured away.

  • Brewerofbeers

    Christian hatred of free speech and individual liberty marches on.

  • glennisw

    I guess you folks can dish it out, but you can’t take it. Hypocrites.

  • Tim

    For me, all it took was to see the video (one specifically) related to the Planned Parenthood situation to make me convinced that Abortion is one of the worst things I’ve ever seen in my 58 years of life. A woman flicking the heartbeat of an aborted baby which starts beating. Cutting the face off of a full figured baby fetus from chin up to remove a brain, cut off hands, feet, etc. It was too much for me to see or believe that a human being could ever do. Until I saw the reality, it did not effect me that much but once I saw it, I’ll never support Abortion and will do everything I can to talk to a woman about my son that we adopted at birth. What a gift from a young 15 year old that disagreed with her mother about having an abortion and gave up her baby to adoption. He is now 23 and knows his birth mom. She is so very happy she made the right choice. So are we as I love my son with all my heart.

    • Michael Long

      The video is fake.

  • usorthem3

    Cool, good job clinic. Keep it up.

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    The argument against abortion is a moral and scientific one:

    1. Human beings have intrinsic moral value and fundamental rights. (basic and positive morality).

    2. Assigning rights arbitrarily amongst human beings has proven catastrophic. (history of the world).

    3. What is located in the human womb, post conception, is a human being. (settled science).

    4. Therefore, abortion kills a human being with intrinsic moral value and fundamental rights – one who is guilty of no crime.

    The only difference between a human being in the womb and one outside of it is size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. And each one of those factors, if used to argue for abortion, could be also used as a reason for killing a child OUTSIDE of the womb. In abortion clinics all across America today, nearly 4000 human beings with intrinsic moral value – guilty of no crime but their mere existence – are being led to their deaths, and gruesome ones at that. Can’t we all come together and bring our laws up to date with 21st century science and basic human compassion by passing a Life at Conception Act and ending forever this brutal crime against humanity – and the resulting and reprehensible trafficking in baby parts that derives its profit from it?

    • Joe Soap

      Since only premenopausal women can get pregnant how can you pass a law that only applies to such a small percentage of the population? Laws are supposed to apply to all not just some.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Interesting take, Joe!

        Well, since laws against murder DO apply to all, abortion is just one more form of murder, so it fits quite nicely. Some stab, some shoot, some drown, others abort. Besides, the woman generally gets a LOT of help from an abortionist.

        Now, what will be interesting to see is how the penalties are applied. Some are for convicting the abortionists and nurses and staff only, others for convicting the mom who signed off on the death warrant for her child too. The latter would be more consistent with current laws against murder. Some of us are for going after the deathscorts – the people who escort the babies into the clinics to be killed. The argument there is that they are similar to the concentration camp guards who escorted the Jews to the gas chambers.

        • Joe Soap

          You’re not going after anybody. It’s just theorising. Abortion is legal and that isn’t going to change anytime soon. So don’t get carried away.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “You’re not going after anybody. It’s just theorising. Abortion is legal and that isn’t going to change anytime soon. So don’t get carried away.”

            “You’re not going after anybody. It’s just theorising. Slavery is legal and that isn’t going to change anytime soon. So don’t get carried away.” — Joe’s ancestors in America, circa 1850

            “You’re not going after anybody. It’s just theorising. Jew gassing is legal and that isn’t going to change anytime soon. So don’t get carried away.” – Joe’s cousins in Germany, circa 1943

          • Joe Soap

            Well besides the fact that I have no ancestors from America or Germany what slavers and the Nazis did was plainly illegal. Slavery and Genocide against living breathing people flies in the face of civilised standards of behaviour. Aborting a clump of cells by a consenting adult does not.

            If you wish to have less abortions make all forms contraception freely available and increase proper sex education in schools and college in how to use them. You would be amazed at the vast difference it makes. a lot more effective than trying to pray abortion away.

            Of course there is the other alternative. Breed like flies and gripe about how much welfare is costing you. Or do you cease caring about fetuses after they are actually born?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “what slavers and the Nazis did was plainly illegal”

            Uh, Joe, you don’t know your history. Slavery and Jew gassing were both 100% legal. You would have been right there with them – if not doing those things yourself, then fighting for their right to “choose” slavery and Jew gassing since they were legal and were not going away anytime soon.

            ” make all forms contraception freely available and increase proper sex education in schools and college in how to use them”

            Pay for your own contraception and brainwash your own kids. Your “logic” appears to be that if I don’t give you free condoms, you get to kill the humans in the womb. That’s pretty sick – I think I saw you carrying this sign last weekend:

            “I’d kill for an orgasm. In fact I already have!
            #ShoutYourAbortion” — Basset_Hound

            “Most abortions result from failed contraception,” admitted Joyce Arthur, founder and executive director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, earlier this year.

            Arthur’s statement parallels a prediction made in 1973 by Dr. Malcolm Potts, former medical director of the International
            Planned Parenthood Federation, who said: “As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate.”

            A 2011 Spanish study found that as use of contraceptive methods increased in a sample of more than 2000 Spanish women (49.1% to 79.9%), the rate of abortion in the group doubled in the same period.

            Research from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute showed in 2011 that a majority of abortions took place in America after contraception failure: “54 percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method [usually condom or the pill] during the month they became pregnant.”

            A 2012 Russian study found that while Russian women had the highest rate of contraceptive use when compared to surrounding
            countries, they also had the highest abortion rate.

            Like the researchers in the Russian study, Swedish officials were baffled earlier this year by statistics showing a rise in the country’s abortion rate following the introduction of the abortifacient morning after pill. Despite sales in the pill having doubled between 2001 and 2012, the abortion rate approximately within the same period was seen to have increased from 18.4 to 20.9 per 1,000 women. (Courtesy LifeSiteNews)

            “Or do you cease caring about fetuses after they are actually born?”

            Now, your “logic” is that if I don’t love welfare, you get to kill babies – inside the womb and out, I presume? Got it.

            I wonder what it would take – with all of the information out there – videos and pictures and descriptions by abortionists, testimony, etc – for a pro-abort to convert to pro-life at this point? Basic science and logic did it for me, long before the internet became public and while I was still an atheist. But, with all of the visuals, with the womb with a view (ultrasound), a person has to be really beyond a moral monster to remain on the side of abortion “rights.” Either that, or he must be unbelievably selfish to place his sex without consequences ahead of the life of an innocent human being with intrinsic moral value.

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    I wonder what it would take – with all of the information out
    there – videos and pictures and descriptions by abortionists, testimony, etc – for a pro-abort to convert to pro-life at this point? Basic science and logic did it for me, long before the internet became public and while I was still an atheist. But, with all of the visuals, with the womb with a view (ultrasound),
    a person has to be really beyond a moral monster to remain on the side of abortion “rights.” Either that, or he must be unbelievably selfish to place his sex without consequences ahead of the life of an innocent human being with intrinsic moral value.

  • Brian Forbes

    Ever wonder why atheists get such joy – downright giddy – about blasphemy? They denigrate people and find pleasure doing it. “You are insignificant. Your meaningless existence…” Even if atheism is true, there’s no sense in being happy at blasphemy or denigration of strangers. But if they had demonic influence, it would make sense of that.

  • Shootist

    Look to the genome. We and apes descend from the same critter.

    You cannot talk or understand evolution without understand the science of genetics.

  • kkb

    STFU, you cultists and go find a JOB. Keep this criminal behavior up and I will personally start picketing your lying-for-profit churches 24/7.

  • kkb

    What an incredibly biased and sickening site this is, should be entitled, “Catering to Cultists.”