Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

User:BronzeDome

2012-05-25T09:11:22Z

BronzeDome: Arrogantly Godless?

God said, "Let there be a bronze dome in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the bronze dome, and divided the waters which were under the bronze dome from the waters which were above the bronze dome: and it was so. And God called the bronze dome Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. -- {{Bible|Genesis 1:6–8}}

=== Some off-site ruminations ===

* [http://www.zangasta.com/braindump/O4LuPStygIz5LUg1.php Arrogantly Godless?]
* [http://www.zangasta.com/braindump/ADiky8uDztd110U5.php Footprints in the Bland]

=== Work-in-progress ===
[[Failed Prophecy]]

=== Watchlist ===
* [[:Category:Pages for deletion]]
* [[Special:Deadendpages|Dead-end pages]]
* [[Special:Lonelypages|Orphaned pages]]
* [[Special:Unusedimages|Unused files]]
* [[Special:Uncategorizedpages|Uncategorized pages]]
* [[Special:Uncategorizedcategories|Uncategorized categories]]
* [[Special:Wantedpages|Wanted pages]]
*
* Ummm?
** [[Special:Unusedcategories|Unused categories]]
** [[Special:Wantedcategories|Wanted categories]]

=== Notes to Self ===
*[[America as a Christian nation]]
*[[Arguments for the existence of god]]
*[[Argumentum verbosium]]
*[[Deepity]]
*[[History of the Biblical canon]]
*[[Israelites]]
*[[Mythicism]]
*[[Overview of early Christianity]]
*[[There are no atheists]]
*[[Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that.]]
*[[Christianity invented science]]

=== Sites ===
*[http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm Translation Errors and Forgeries in the Bible]

Humanism

2012-04-10T07:48:02Z

BronzeDome: No need to add a link to the 'See also' section when the link is already in the article

{{Religion-stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
[[Humanism]] (capital H) is the set of philosophical beliefs that promote universal ethical principles based on rational thought and the commonality of human nature. While the modern usage of the word "humanism" usually refers to [[secular humanism]], the term can be very broadly used and includes many varieties of religious humanism.

In the philosophical sense from which the term derives, humanism is the moral stance that human beings are the central source of moral worth.

==See also==
*[[Secular morality]]

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Talk:Equivocation

2012-04-10T07:38:19Z

BronzeDome: I suggest reinstatement of removed examples

== I suggest reinstatement of removed examples ==
I disagree with the removal of those two examples. If you're going to remove them, you may just have to remove the whole lot. Rather insert statements to the effect that these aren't ''always'' equivocations. --[[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 02:38, 10 April 2012 (CDT)

Atheism

2012-04-09T06:22:55Z

BronzeDome: /* Strong atheism */ Italicisation

[[Image:Button_atheism.png|right|Atheism]]
An '''atheist''', in the general sense, is a person who does not believe in the existence of any [[god]]s. '''Atheism''' is the corresponding philosophical position. Atheism may or may not be a position of faith, depending on the type of atheism, as atheism may or may not refer to a stance on the theistic question, depending on the individual in question and how the term 'atheism' is meant. Arguments over whether or not atheism constitutes a belief are often based on one side assuming that the term always does or always doesn’t constitute a positivist statement, and therefore, a belief.

==Types of atheism==

===Strong atheism===
''Main article [[Strong atheism]]''

A "strong" atheist is one who asserts that "there is no god." Strong atheism is the form of atheism that most theists reference in debates, since most don't know the distinction between strong and weak atheism. However, strong atheists are rarer than most people think.

For the above reason, strong atheism is sometimes criticized for "requiring [[faith]]." This criticism often rests on the assumption that faith is a fault, which, if spoken by an arguer whose stance rests on faith, is self-defeating in a direct sense. Other times this idea is argued by theists to 'bring them down to our level'. Most often it is argued as a 'your stance is no better than mine' argument. Often, this is successful in derailing the conversation, as many atheists are uncomfortable with admitting that any element of their thoughts contain faith. Users of this wiki are advised to consider that, in the literal epistemic sense, all knowledge eventually requires some basic assumptions, and that assumption is functionally identical to faith. The difference relies not in avoiding faith/assumption, but in grounding one's knowledge in firmer and more well-reasoned thought.

Strong atheism is also called 'positivist' atheism. In this usage the term 'positivist' comes from the root 'to posit' meaning 'to take a position'. Thus a positivist atheist is one who has ''taken the position that there are no gods''.

===Weak atheism===
''Main article [[Weak atheism]]''

A "weak" atheist is one who doesn't claim to ''know'' that there is no god, but instead simply ''lacks belief'' in a god. This form of atheism is the most common, and is sometimes called "[[agnostic atheism]]" (see our discussion of [[atheist vs. agnostic]]). Every newborn baby is (unknowingly) a weak atheist, and remains so until the concept of god is introduced to him or her.

Weak atheists often argue that theirs is the only rational position, as both theism and strong atheism make positivist claims. Weak atheism is also called non-positivist atheism.

==Discussion==
Apart from not believing in the existence of any gods, there is no official atheist [[doctrine]]. There is no atheist [[pope]] or [[church]], and there are no atheist rules to live by. This does not mean that atheists do not also follow societal and [[legal]] rules, nor that they are never religious. Atheism figures in several religions and spiritual belief systems, including Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Neopagan movements such as Wicca, Unitarian Universalism and other nontheistic or non-dogmatic religions. Not to be misunderstood, atheism is not a foundational belief in all of these religions, but exists as an option or requirement within at least some part of each of these religions.

There is nothing specific about atheism, by itself, that tells you how you should live. However, there ''are'' comprehensive philosophical positions that include atheism as a part of the overall philosophy ([[secular humanism]] being the most well-known example).

==Other views==
Not everyone (not even all atheists) agree with the definitions above (which are based on academic sources). For instance, the authors of [[Evil Bible]] seem to [http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm define atheism] as denial of the existence of any gods, or the (positive) belief that there are no gods. [[Richard Dawkins]], author of ''[[The God Delusion]]'', does reserve the terms ''theism'', ''agnosticism'' and ''atheism'' on a Spectrum of Theistic Probability from 1 (''I know that a God does exist'') to 7 (''I know that a God does not exist''). In other words, "atheist", for Dawkins, is synonymous with "strong atheist", as above.

==See also==
*[[Atheist vs. agnostic]]
*[[Atheism vs. rationality]]
*[[Agnostic]]
*[[Secular humanism]]

{{Atheism}}

[[Category:Atheism]]

Brian's Paradox

2012-03-29T09:47:06Z

BronzeDome:

'''Brian's Paradox''' occurs when all outcomes result in [[theist]]s winning. It was coined by [[Tracie Harris]] and is inspired by the Monty Python movie ''The Life of Brian''.

:'''Brian''': I'm not the [[Messiah]]! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!
:'''Girl''': Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
:'''Brian''': What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
:'''Followers''': He is! He is the Messiah!

== Alternative version ==
Whereas Brian's Paradox is specifically theistic, it can also be expressed neutrally as "Heads I Win, Tails you Lose".

Talk:Brian's Paradox

2012-03-28T18:42:07Z

BronzeDome: Heads I Win, Tails you Lose?

LOL. Would it be appropriate to include what I consider to be an alternative rendition: "Heads I Win, Tails you Lose"? --[[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 13:42, 28 March 2012 (CDT)

User:BronzeDome

2012-03-25T20:51:14Z

BronzeDome:

I won't be saying anything here (at least for now), but please feel free to give me constructive criticism if I decide to contribute anywhere on the site.

=== [[User:BronzeDome/Footprints|Footprints]] ===

"Great re- tailing of Christian Classic" - [http://www.librarything.com/topic/132480#3234850 quicksiva]

=== Question ===
If I come up with an "original idea" on this site, does it get owned in it's entirity by the site, or do I get to claim "precedence"(?) if it should happen by some strange coincidence to be a "worthwhile" idea?

=== Bronze Dome ===
God said, "Let there be a bronze dome in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the bronze dome, and divided the waters which were under the bronze dome from the waters which were above the bronze dome: and it was so. And God called the bronze dome Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. -- {{Bible|Genesis 1:6–8}}

=== Work-in-progress ===
[[Failed Prophecy]]

=== Watchlist ===
* [[:Category:Pages for deletion]]
* [[Special:Deadendpages|Dead-end pages]]
* [[Special:Lonelypages|Orphaned pages]]
* [[Special:Unusedimages|Unused files]]
* [[Special:Uncategorizedpages|Uncategorized pages]]
* [[Special:Uncategorizedcategories|Uncategorized categories]]
* [[Special:Wantedpages|Wanted pages]]
*
* Ummm?
** [[Special:Unusedcategories|Unused categories]]
** [[Special:Wantedcategories|Wanted categories]]

=== Notes to Self ===
*[[America as a Christian nation]]
*[[Arguments for the existence of god]]
*[[Argumentum verbosium]]
*[[Deepity]]
*[[History of the Biblical canon]]
*[[Israelites]]
*[[Mythicism]]
*[[Overview of early Christianity]]
*[[There are no atheists]]
*[[Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that.]]
*[[Christianity invented science]]

=== Sites ===
*[http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm Translation Errors and Forgeries in the Bible]

Nothing Created Everything (book)

2012-03-24T20:14:57Z

BronzeDome: /* Chapter 10: The Mirror */ typoed link

'''Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution''' is a book authored by [[Ray Comfort]] in 2009.
==Preference==
Comfort starts off by sharing his relationship with atheists as a love/hate relationship: he loves atheists and atheists hate or at least deeply dislike him. This is hard to imagine why, especially when Ray Comfort constantly calls atheist fools, intellectually bankrupt, wicked, and such. Ray Comfort tries sharing that Christian love speech while distorting facts and deliberately being dishonest to his audience. When atheists point out his errors and lies, such as with his famous [[banana argument]], Comfort later claimed it was a hoax set up by atheists to make him look bad. Ray will do anything it takes to make atheists appear wicked or dumb. Ray Comfort obviously does not love atheists, his grudge against them is evident of that. Ray claims, as a Christian, he loves everyone, but what does that mean? If a person spreads love around to everything, then love loses its true meaning. Thus, when Ray says he loves atheists, his notions are meaningless and he knows it.

Moving on, Comfort shares his experience giving meals and books to atheists. He points out that atheists love to ask for books and concludes perhaps they use them as doorsteps or find spiritual things interesting. His response from atheists have been cheerful.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Maybe it is atheist are interested in learning new things, or perhaps they just want to smell what Comfort is spewing.}}

Comfort then shares a story of a police officer who was upset with a minister because his wife stays at church on Monday for too long that he does not have a cooked meal ready for him at home (what a selfish punk, it is only once a week. Try to be independent). The pastor responded that he would cook for the policeman. During this time, they made a friendly bet on a football game. If the pastor won, the policeman would join them for Sunday church. The policeman lost, and as promised the policeman showed up. After several months of this, the police officer wanted to be born again.

Ray then addresses atheists (why does he keep calling them that? He already argued -and failed- that atheists do not exist, so why continue to call them that?). He wants to make a friendly bet with atheists, that if one should lose they must give up something. Ray says if he fails to prove the existence of God and the importance of Christianity, Ray will give up going to Heaven. However, if he succeeds, atheists must give up going to hell.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Although this is very promising, it is already clear that Ray has no intention of changing his mind. As shown in a [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master debate with the Rational Response Squad], Ray Comfort and [[Kirk Cameron]] already failed to prove the existence of God scientifically, and they knew that they had no case going in. So already, the bet is over Mr. Comfort. The bet is over long before Comfort wrote this book. Comfort failed then, and is not more likely to have a better case here since Comfort has a bad habit of just repeating himself over and over in different books and episodes. Give up going to heaven Ray. Of course, Comfort may not read this article or ignore it when presented to him from another source. Even from a critique from a third party, Comfort will never admit that he has failed to prove God. Regardless, this book will be reviewed and show why Ray Comfort has failed to make his case.

Only in Ray's narrow definition and version of Hell is depicted as a fiery place of torment. Some Christians do not believe in a literal hell, some believe it is a place separated from God. As of yet, there is absolutely no proof of God, heaven, or hell. Hypothetically, perhaps there is some form of heaven, but it is only a realm for atheists and those brave enough to question or doubt God, whereas everyone else goes south. If there is a God, he does not believe in a higher power, making him an atheist as well.

As comedian Jim Jeffries pointed out in one of his stand up comedies,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZJ-_OTvsqo</ref> as far as we know about hell being a fiery place of eternal torment, that is what is in the Bible. As far as we know, we have not heard the other side of the story. The devil has not written a book. We have God writing all these bad things about the devil, and it seems the devil is being the bigger man and not responding to god's negativity. God says he sends drunks, thieves, and pricks to hell. Even if there is a hell, why would the devil punish you? You are one of his boys. He is going to dig you.}}

==Chapter 1: The Evolution Illusion==
The chapter begins with Ray sharing his experience at the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle Grand Galerie de L'Evolution in Paris November 2008. After spending time searching for [[evidence]] for [[evolution]], all he found was an 'ugly-looking stuffed monkey' labeled "Lucy." Based on this, he concluded that there was no evidence for [[evolution]].
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Given Ray's track record of deliberately misrepresenting evolution, he either was not sharing with his readers what else he saw at the museum or he had no idea of the facts before his eyes. His use of the word "monkey" deliberately misleads the reader to think this thing looks like a monkey, when it reality it is a reconstruction of what Homo floresiensis may have looked like. It clearly has more human features than a monkey.<ref>[http://hopsea.mnhn.fr/pc/flores/flores.html MNHN Link]</ref> The stuffed monkey in question is Australopithecus afarensis, one of the many intermediate fossils in human evolution. Australopithecus afarensis proved to be a fully bipedal ape whose hands, feet, teeth, pelvis, skull, and other physical details were exactly what creationists challenged us to find, yet they’re still pretending we never found it. But worse than that, we didn’t just find that one. In 1977, three years after we discovered the no-longer-missing link in the human evolutionary lineage, Harvard paleontologist, Stephen J. Gould mentioned an “extreme rarity” of other clear transitions persistent in the fossil record until that time, and his comment, -taken out of context- remains a favorite of creationist quote-miners to this day. But in the more than 30 years since then, there has been a paleontological boom such that we now have way more transitional species in many more lineages than we ever needed or hoped for.

Ray fallaciously concludes the entire theory of evolution is based on a single intermediate. However, scientists have discovered thousands of transitional fossils and the theory of evolution does not rest on a single intermediate, nor does it rest solely on fossils. This is a [[god of the gaps]] fallacy. In fact, every fossil is a transitional fossil, which has been pointed out to Ray in [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master a debate with the Rational Response Squad]. In 1999, National Academy of Sciences reported that the total number of transitional fossils were so large, lots of biologists and paleontologists now consider that list “innumerable” especially since the tally of definite transitionals keeps growing so fast! Several lineages are now virtually complete, including our own. Every species living today has definite relatives both extant and extinct, and evident in the fossil record. And in one sense, all of them, even the things still alive, count as transitional species.}}

Ray provides a quote from Berkley University that evolution is a testable, observable phenomenon and a fact. Ray then says scientists believe creatures like Archeopteryx is an intermediate fossil. Ray disagrees, calling it a full bird while providing a reference to an article from [[Answers in Genesis]].
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Answers in Genesis has a biased view and dismisses any evidence in all fields that contradicts scripture,they make that very clear on their web page. Archeopteryx is indeed an intermediate, it has many avian features but has more dinosaurian traits than bird traits, such as: teeth on premaxilla and maxilla bones, neck attached to skull from the rear, claws on three unfused digits, and over 100 other differences from birds (Chiappe 2002; Norell and Clarke 2001)<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html Archeopteryx].</ref>}}

Comfort says one of the main key tools in proving evolution is distraction. Ray provides a quote discussing the differences between elephant seals in different areas, and say evolutionists conclude based on this that man and apes have evolved. All animals and organisms on the planet evolved, man is no exception. Evidence for common descent in seals is not a distraction, because the evidence of common descent of humans is complete on its own.

===The Eye===
Perhaps creationist's favorite topic: the eye. Unfortunately, this mater has been settled hundreds of times, and yet creationists are still pretending evolution has no evidence for the origin and development of the eye. Here, Comfort takes the opportunity to kick the dead horse. Comfort provides a lecture from Berkley on the evolution of the eye. In it, it asks why do these eyes have similar characteristics? Ray inserts his own argument that planes have similar features, but they are all created by the same maker using similar blueprints. What Ray does not provide is actual evidence or tests to support his claims.

Comfort then provides a quote from a Christian who once "believed in evolution" but he does not share who.
<blockquote>
"We need to revisit (again and again) what Darwin said about eye evolution:

''Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.''

"If we like, we can continue to quote the next (and the next) paragraph but his case for evolution just gets weaker.

"Darwin is using the simplistic method of picking and choosing various eyes from various animals and 'demonstrating' gradations of eye development, all the while not showing the fossil evidence which actually and scientifically demonstrates this actually happened. 'How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us...' '...facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light.'

"What? Glossing over something like that is ridiculous. We have light-sensitive nerves (both rods and cones), a lens, focusing muscles, another nerve network to pick up that info, send it to the brain and invert the image, and Darwin explains the general principles of how it all came into being in one (excuse me, two) paragraphs? And that's supposed to be convincing to us? Wow.

"Let's be honest -- all this really takes faith. A blind leap. I know because I used to believe it myself. Until I started to ask some REAL questions to my biology professor and he shut me down. Romans 1:25: 'They exchanged the truth of God for a lie...
</blockquote>
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed, and there is a great amount of evidence for this. Faith is believing in things not seen. Going though Darwin's chapter of the eye, his arguments does not get weaker, in fact they become firmer. Darwin continues with three more pages describing a sequence of plausible intermediate stages between eyelessness and human eyes, giving examples from existing organisms to show that the intermediates are viable.}}

===Lets Make an Eye===
In this section Ray addresses the complexity of the eye. In a dramatic tone, he goes on about how complex the eye is that we do not have the technology to replicate one. What he does not include are the flaws and imperfection in the eye.

Russell D. Fernald, Professor of Biology at Stanford’s School of Humanities and Sciences, said:
<blockquote>
"At present, we do not know whether eyes arose once or many times, and, in fact, many features of eye evolution are still puzzling. How did eyes evolve? Darwin, the great English naturalist who first brought the systematic explanatory power of evolution to bear on the bewildering biological complexity of our planet, felt that eyes offered a special challenge to evolutionary thinking because they are such '...organs of extreme perfection and complication...' (1859). He was quite explicit on this point, saying '...that the eye....could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree'. More than a century later, with new insights that reach from molecular to macroscopic levels of analysis, new mysteries reinforce Darwin's prescient writing. We still have much to learn from the evolution of eyes, both about the existing eyes as well as the processes of evolution that produced them....First was the production of simple eye spots which are found in nearly all the major animal groups and contain a small number of receptors in an open cup of screening pigment. Such detectors cannot play a role in recognizing patterns but are useful for distinguishing light from dark. The second stage in eye evolution is the addition of an optical system that can produce an image."<ref>http://www.karger.com/gazette/64/fernald/index.htm</ref>
</blockquote>
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray does not provide the entire lecture this quote is taken from. In the article it provides steps to how the eye evolved and such stages exist in nature. Even in the quote, the person does not hint that the evidence of the evolution of he eye is lacking. Rather, Fernald explains the gradual evolution of a system that does not work well, but well enough, and over time new modifications make a better eye. Evidence for natural selection and evolution can be see in organism that lost their eyes due to dwelling in dark environments.}}

Ray then uses a quote from Kenneth R. Miller, Professor of Biology at Brown University (a Catholic and staunch defender of evolution) adds:
<blockquote>
"Critics might ask what good that first tiny step, perhaps only five percent of an eye, might be. As the saying goes, in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. Likewise, in a population with limited ability to sense light, every improvement in vision, no matter how slight, would be favored -- and favored dramatically -- by natural selection."<ref>http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/index.html</ref>
</blockquote>

Ray asks how could any sane person believe that the eye simply evolved? Comfort answers the necessary ingredient to believe, is "time."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=A more appropriate question is how can any sane person not accept the eye evolved. To do so is to ignore and deny the evidence that supports the evolution of the eye.}}

Comfort goes on to provide a quote from Scientific America:
<blockquote>
"Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles."
</blockquote>

Richard Dawkins said, "Given sufficient time, the non-random survival of hereditary entities (which occasionally miscopy) will generate complexity, diversity, beauty, and an illusion of design so persuasive that it is almost impossible to distinguish from deliberate intelligent design."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.dawkins1</ref> This an [[argument from authority]], and does not give special credit to intelligent design. What it does show is that natural selection can create patterns that can please the human perspective, giving it the appearance of design. However, if Ray wishes to provide a useful argument for intelligent design, then he must come up with model an collect actual data and perform tests to confirm unnatural interference. To this day, no intelligent design proponent/creationist has done so.

Ray concludes time performs miracles. Ray calls this "child-like faith" which "causes Professor Kenneth R. Miller to abandon all sense of reason":
<blockquote>
"Intelligent-Design advocates contend that evolution could not have produced such complex structures and processes because its instrument, natural selection, simply isn't up to the task. Such advocates agree that natural selection does a splendid job of working on the variation that exists within a species. Given a range of sizes, shapes, and colors, those individuals whose characteristics give them the best chance to reproduce will pass on traits that will increase in frequency in the next generation. The real issue, therefore, is whether or not the 'input' into genetic variation, which is often said to be the result of random mutation, can provide the beneficial novelty that would be required to produce new structures, new systems, and even new species. Could the marvelous structures of the eye have been produced 'just by chance?' "The simple answer to that question is 'no.' The extraordinary number of physiological and structural changes that would have to appear at once to make a working, functioning eye is simply too much to leave to chance. The eye could not have evolved in a single event. That, however, is not the end of the story. The real test is whether or not the long-term combination of genetic variation and natural selection could indeed produce a structure as complex and well-adapted as the eye, and the answer to that question is a resounding 'yes.'"<ref>http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/index.html</ref>
</blockquote>
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Kenneth Miller is correct that the eye could not evolve in a single moment, and that evidence shows that the eye can evolve over time. In fact, a study by Nilsson and Pelzer[Proc Biol Sci. 256:53-58, 1994. Available online in JSTOR archives] were able to perform a computer simulation of the evolution of the eye using tiny, non-overlapping steps. Despite using very conservative parameters, they found the modern eye could evolve in less than 400,000 generations - a blink of the eye in geological time.}}

Ray argues: "Long term" (time) performs the impossible miracle for the wide-eyed professor. When Richard Dawkins was asked how an eye could possibly have evolved, he simply said, "Audiences nevertheless appreciate an answer, and I have usually fallen back on the sheer magnitude of geological time." No one was back in time to see the unseen do its impossible work, but those who believe don’t need to see. They simply believe, says Ray.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Unfortunately, they do not "believe" in this sense. Genetic and fossil evidence shows the eye can evolve naturally. Such developments take time, but so does the development of stars and such. Ray's creationist beliefs holds that God created everything as they are instantly, which is why Ray ridicules any natural model that requires time. But as Nilsson and Pelzer showed us, it does not take that much time. The main difference between evolution of the eye and Ray's personal beliefs is that scientific evidence supports the evolution of the eye.}}

Richard Dawkins, in ''A Devil's Chaplain'' says:
<blockquote>
"The evolution of the vertebrate eye must have been progressive. Ancient ancestors had a very simple eye, containing only a few features good for seeing. We don’t need evidence for this (although it is nice that it is there). It has to be true because the alternative—an initially complex eye, well-endowed with features good for seeing—pitches us right back to Hoyle country and the sheer cliff of improbability. There must be a ramp of step-by-step progress towards the modern, multifeatured descendant of that optical prototype.

"Of course, in this case, modern analogs of every step up the ramp can be found, working serviceably in dozens of eyes dotted independently around the animal kingdom. But even without these examples, we could be confident that there must have been a gradual, progressive increase in the number of features which an engineer would recognize as contributing towards optical quality. Without stirring from our armchair, we can see that it must be so."
</blockquote>
Ray argues that mutations only modify or eliminate existing structures, not create new ones and scientists have yet to find even a single mutation that increases genetic information. The fact is that there is no evidence showing that mutations have ever created any new features.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is completely incorrect. There have been many mutations that add information.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html</ref>
*Kinfolk in the village of Limone Sul Garda in northern Italy have a mutation which gives them better tolerance of HDL serum cholesterol. Consequently this family has no history of heart attacks despite their high-risk dietary habits. This mutation was traced to a single common ancestor living in the 1700's, but has now spread to dozens of descendants.
*The Glycophorin A somatic cell mutation which has been identified in some Tibetans, which allows them to endure prolonged periods at altitudes over 7,000 feet without succumbing to apoplexia, or “altitude sickness”. A different, but similar mutation was identified in high altitude natives in the Andes.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21030426</ref>
*We’ve also identified an emerging population of tetrachromatic women who can see a bit of the normally invisible ultraviolet spectrum.
*The CCR5-delta 32 mutation. About 10% of whites of European origin now carry it. But the incidence is only 2% in central Asia, and is completely absent among East Asians, Africans, and tribal Americans. It appears to have suddenly become relatively common among white Europeans about 700 years ago, evidently as a result of the Black Plague, indicating another example of natural selection allowing one gene dominance in a changing environment. It is harmless or neutral in every respect other than its one clearly beneficial feature. According to Science-Frontiers.com, if one inherits this gene from both parents, they will be especially resistant, if not immune to AIDS.
*there’s a family in Connecticut who've been identified as having hyperdense, virtually unbreakable bones. A team of doctors at Yale traced the mutation to a gene that was the subject of an earlier study. In that study researchers showed that low bone density could be caused by a mutation that disrupts the function of a gene called LRP5. This clued them that a different mutation increased LRP5 function, leading to an opposite phenotype, that is, high bone density. According to their investigators, members of this family have bones so strong they rival those of a character in the Bruce Willis movie, 'Unbreakable.'<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180253/</ref>}}

Comfort provides a quote from S. G. Scott, making it seem he doesn’t speculate.
<blockquote>
"There are no examples of natural inorganic (non-living) materials ever forming themselves into living (organic) material, let alone organizing themselves to the level of being able to duplicate themselves; not to mention developing a system that could store and retrieve the information on how to do it so that their offspring could also duplicate themselves, and could also pass the information on to their offspring, and so on, and so on, and so on..."

"...mutations do not lead to an increase in information. Indeed, reducing the number of legs may alter the body plan, but it does not explain the origin of legs in the first place. Nor does it explain where the genetic information to produce wings came from."...

"Successful macro-evolution requires the addition of new information and new genes that produce new organs and systems."
</blockquote>
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=We know that Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all evolved from Latin, a vernacular which is now extinct. Each of these newer tongues emerged via a slow accumulation of their own unique slang lingo –thus diverging into new dialects, and eventually distinct forms of gibberish such that the new Romans could no longer communicate with either Parisians or Spaniards. Similarly, if we took an original Latin speaking population and divided them sequestered in complete isolation over several centuries, they might still be able to understand each other, or their jargon may have become unintelligible to foreigners. But they won’t start speaking Italian or Romanian because identical vocabularies aren’t going to occur twice. It works the same way in biology. Mutations are degrees of variation which are usually quite subtle but cumulative, normally harmless, and occasionally advantageous. Any change in information is different information, not already present, and therefore can only be considered “new”. But of the many types of mutations known to occur, there are additions and duplications as well as deletions and the rest. So yes, genetic material can be added or taken away. But as to whether “information” has been added as opposed to lost, we can’t really tell because creationists won’t tell us what they think “information” is or how to measure it. They’ll readily state (as if it had somehow been confirmed) that it takes more "information" to make a bird than it does a dinosaur, but if you ask 'em how much more, they’ll shut right up. And if you demand to see the data that justifies how they could even make that claim in the first place, they’ll to change the subject.}}

Finally, Comfort provides one last quote from Scientific American, March 2003 issue:
<blockquote>
"Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers."<ref>http://www.yale.edu/eeb/prum/pdf/Prum_n_Brush_2003.pdf</ref>
</blockquote>
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here is something Ray did not show in this article: "Very recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest...Together these advances have produced a highly detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight." Studies have indeed shown how new structures like digits, limbs, eyes and feathers have merged. Ray tries to give the false impression no studies exist or have eve been done.}}

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text='''Verbal Magic'''
# Probably a mistake, but Ray misstates the date of Neil Turok chair appointment by 30 years... Unless he actually believes that Turok was appointed Chair of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge at 9 years of age.
# Ray takes Turok's statements out of context and twists his encouragement to investigate the origin of the universe into a 'disproof' of evolution. This is blatantly dishonest and something he does in virtually every book he 'writes'.
# Ray offers his (incorrect) opinion as fact that Archaeopteryx is a not a dinosaur / bird transitional but just a bird. This is in direct contradiction to the views of the entire paleontological community. Archaeopteryx clearly has more dinosaur features that are not in birds as opposed to bird features that are not in dinosaurs. This clearly makes it a transitional fossil, yet he tries to twist and turn it into a bird that has no bill, and has teeth....
# Ray facetiously attempts to compare the eye's evolution to the 'evolution' of the 747 from a single engine private plane. This is a fallacious comparison. This is not even in the apples to oranges type, but more akin to comparing a pine cone to a dolphin.}}

==Chapter 2: The Intellectual Embarrassment==
Finally, at the end of the chapter, Ray addresses scientists who say the universe came from nothing. Ray says the scientists do not phrase it the same way Ray does, and they may protest on how he phrases it. This is one of the rare moments when Ray is being honest, but it ends quickly. Ray says, instead the scientists would phrase it that the universe came about by chance. Chance, according to Ray, is nothing. Ray ends the chapter by saying that the universe came from nothing is intellectual madness.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Of course Ray interpretation of the scientific consensus is far from what they actually say.<ref>''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo Origin of the Universe]'' by Lawrence Krauss</ref> Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) for NASA, Education and Public Outreach program, 2001 spelled out what scientists mean when they say "nothing:"

<blockquote>How can 'nothing' do anything at all, let alone create an entire universe? When physicists say 'nothing' they are being playful with the english language, because we often think of the vacuum as being 'empty' or 'nothing' when in fact physicists know full well that the vacuum is far from empty. The primordial 'state' at the Big Bang was far from being the kind of 'nothingness' you might have in mind. We don't have a full mathematical theory for describing this 'state' yet, but it was probably 'multi- dimensional', it was probably a superposition of many different 'fields', and these fields, or whatever they were, were undergoing 'quantum fluctuations'. Space and time were not the things we know them to be today because our world is a lot colder than the way it started out. Nothingness was not nothing, but it was not anything like the kinds of 'somethings' we know about today. We have no words to describe it, and the ones we borrow (that are listed in the Oxford English Dictionary) are based on the wrong physical insight.</blockquote>

The irony is that the ones who claim that the universe was created from nothing is exactly what Ray and his fellow creationists argue for. According to the book of Genesis, God spoke things into being and they were good. Basically an incantation (i.e. MAGIC) brought everything into being. Ray says we have never seen matter create itself. You know what we have never seen? We’ve never seen anything “created”. No one has ever seen a complex life-form (or anything else) magically pop out of thin air. But that’s what creationists are arguing for!}}

==Chapter 3: How did life begin?==
In this chapter, Ray addresses [[abiogenesis]], but falsely equates it to evolution and the [[Big Bang Theory]]. He says evolutionists say that life evolved from something, like rocks.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Evolution makes no comment on the origin of life, evolution only matters once life forms and begins to diverge. Nor does evolution say anything about the origin of earth or the solar system.}}

Ray asks where did this come from all the way back to the [[singularity]], and scientists cannot tell what came before that. Ray labels theses scientists Genesisophobics.

Ray then addresses several hypotheses how life could have evolved.
* Meteorites - we have found amino acids, molecular building blocks of nucleic acids, and water on meteorites.
* Organic soup and the heterotrohpic hypothesis -
* Cairns (and others) ideas of chemical determination from clay
* and finally "There are others. Of course the pseudoscience ideas are always thrown in by religious interests, but of course are not substantiated by scientific investigations."

Ray says any notion or idea that claims God as the genesis of life is excluded as [[pseudoscience]].
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is fairly accurate, since science is based on testing and empirical evidence, God cannot be used in the scientific method.}}

Ray then quotes Andrew Knoll, a Harvard professor, about the origin of life. Knolls said there are many explanations, but the thing is we just don't know exactly how. {{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=While Knolls is correct that many explanations exist and each provide evidence to support them, we are not sure which one is entirely responsible for the origin of life or if multiple, or all, of the explanations were responsible.}}

Comfort then includes a article from ''Times'' that perhaps life could be from alien forms. Using this, Ray quote-mines [[Richard Dawkins]] from the film [[Expelled]] to make it appear that Dawkins accepts the idea that life could have come from extraterrestrial life.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, when put in context, Dawkins was putting for a hypothetical scenario of how [[intelligent design]] might be plausible, but he never said to believe in aliens. While it may appear far-fetched to most people, the alien scenario can be testable and is more likely then we are the products of a invisible magic man.}}

Ray goes on about life from comets. He asks were did these molecules come from? Who made them? Why are they on comets? The question "who" is misleading. That mater is not who, but what and how.

Moving on to the Primordial soup, Ray asks where did these molecules come from and why were they there? Immediately, Comfort concludes that the Primordial Soup does not answer the questions at all. Comfort says scientists now believe it was not in a pond but actually the ocean, which he says is a problem because it is larger and deeper. {{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=How can Comfort just turn from the issue so fast and come to a conclusion before examining the evidence? Life forming in the ocean is not a problem at all for the origin of life. Life can even form '''below''' the earth bed, under all the pressures of the oceans and atmosphere. Life can form naturally under very harsh conditions. Conventional wisdom has held that nothing smaller than 150 nanometers - 150 millionths of a meter - can survive independently as an autonomous life form, because that is the minimum size needed to contain the necessary genetic and other life support material. That is until nanobes discovered by Dr Uwins, however, were only 20-150nm in diameter - remarkable considering that the size of a single ribosome (site of protein synthesis) is roughly the same as the smallest nanobes. Equally as amazing, the nanobes most likely came from a sandstone rock sample retrieved from 3-5km below the ocean bed, where the pressure is around 2,000 atmospheres and the temperature ranges from 115-170°C.}}

Ray says life did not originate in a "leisure" place Darwin envisioned. Comfort quotes German microbiologist Karl Stetter that life may not have formed in a warm pond, but a "hot pressured cooker."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The bottom of the ocean contains many volcanic, hydrothermal vents. These provide a remarkable ecologic niche. The gas from the vents contains carbon dioxide and methane and can serve as a hot reducing environment for the synthesis of prebiotic compounds.
These vents have been proposed as sites for the evolution of life itself. The high temperatures characteristic of these volcanic vents are especially suitable for the evolution of heat-loving, or thermophilic, Archaea.}}

Comfort says that scientists have come up with a lot of ideas, tossed out a few, but have not come to a general consensus of what they accept as the best hypothesis for the origin of life.

Ray ends this section with a fraction of an article "How did Life Begin? New Research Suggests meteorites may have Helped" by Joel Kontinen. Joel Kontinen is a translator and novelist currently living in Finland. His background includes an MA in translation studies and a BA in Bible and Theology, but nothing in science or biology.
<blockquote>
Since Charles Darwin's day, theories about the birth of life have come and gone. Darwin famously speculated about life having begun in a warm pond. Researchers tested the idea in 2006 and found it wanting. They examined hot puddles in Kamchatka, Russia, and Mount Lassen in California and discovered that "hot acidic waters containing clay do not provide the right conditions for chemicals to assemble themselves into 'pioneer organisms'. "

Stanley Miller and Harold Urey conducted a famous experiment in 1953. While it has been used as a propaganda device for evolution, Jonathan Wells and other Darwin skeptics have pointed out its flaws. Wells said:

"The Miller-Urey experiment used a simulated atmosphere that geochemists now agree was incorrect, it was not the 'first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth.' When conditions are changed to reflect better knowledge of the Earth's early atmosphere, the experiment doesn't work."

Others have looked to outer space as a potential source of life. Sir Fred Hoyle, convinced that life could not have originated on earth, suggested that it was brought here from space. While this panspermia view has its advocates, the naturalistic answer to how life began on Earth remains as elusive as ever.
</blockquote>
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Reminder Kontinen has no degree in biology or science, his representation of the evidence of abiogenesis is blatantly misleading. The Miller experiment is not and never was propaganda, nor have Johnathan Wells or other "Darwin skeptics" refuted it. The Miller experiment tried to prove spontaneous generation was possible, not prove how life first arose. Wells argument is 50 years out of date. What Wells does not share is that there have been more than 40 articles written since 1997 which cover nearly every imaginable prebiotic environment and still create certain types of organic material. The complaints of Wells and other creationists about the Miller-Urey experiments are without merit.

The question “How did life first evolve on earth?” is one of the most intriguing questions in biology. Examination of the wide range of modern organisms has provided a wealth of clues about some of the necessary chemicals and conditions required. While many models have been proposed, some are clearly better than others. One of the most likely is a protometabolism-transfer RNA model, consisting first of The Age of Chemicals providing the necessary organic compounds, followed by The Age of Information involving the co-evolution of polymers of RNA and protein. This model shows that the origin of life was not so intractable that only a divine creator could do it. Given the rapidity and apparent ease of the origin of life on earth, it is likely that many of the other planets in the universe also have intelligent life.}}

===From Dust to Dust===
Here Ray tries to present a case that if God created man we would expect many elements from the soil to be found in the human body. He lists six elements: potassium, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, iron, and maganese. Comfort does not mention carbon. Instead, Comfort uses an article called "Did Life Begin in the "RNA World?" by L.J. Gibson of the Geoscience Research.
<blockquote>
For many years there has been a general dissatisfaction with the protein hypothesis of the origin of life. Proteins cannot replicate themselves, making them unsuitable as a starting point for the development of life. However, there seemed to be no naturalistic alternative available until recently. This newer hypothesis has been dubbed the “RNA World” (Gilbert 1986). The basis for this model is the discovery that certain RNA molecules have catalytic properties. Since RNA also serves as a carrier of information, it seemed reasonable to suggest that ancient RNA molecules might have acted as a starting point for the origin of life. The “RNA World” hypothesis for the origin of life seems a significant improvement over the protein hypothesis, and has been the subject of considerable discussion.
</blockquote>
His article concludes with:
<blockquote>
The “RNA World” hypothesis for the origin of life requires implausible events at each step in the sequence outlined. Small molecules are highly unlikely to have been available in any plausible model of a primordial earth. Even if small molecules were present, they would be highly unlikely to produce the large protein and nucleic-acid molecules useful for life. Even if the large molecules were present, there is no known mechanism whereby they might be organized into functional cellular or subcellular units. The “RNA World” hypothesis suffers from many of the same problems as the protein hypothesis, and has additional problems of its own. Considering the conditions necessary for the establishment of life, it appears that the most plausible explanation for the origin of life is an intelligent creator.”
</blockquote>

==Chapter 4: Intellectual Degradation==
Comfort begins by stressing the point that man cannot create anything from nothing. Ray says that belief the universe began from nothing is preposterous and "atheism is off the charts in human folly. By contrast, the flat-earther is a real genius."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=When properly put forward, replace "atheism" with "creationism" is folly and makes a flat-earther look like a genius. Atheism does not comment at all about origins, meaning Ray lied from the start.}}

Ray goes on explaining the functions of the moon, and says atheists mock Genesis 1:16 that says the moon "rules the night."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The verse says "The greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light; it only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky? }}

Ray makes it clear that when a person, no matter who, professes to be an atheist is thereby "immediately disqualifies himself to speak as a representative of science because his premise is a violation of the fundamental rule of science." Ray then lists several scientists who believe in (and loved) God.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray has no degree in any scientific field, or even in theology or religion. Ray is the only one here who believes everything came from nothing, not atheists, so the only one here that is excluded from commenting on science is Ray Comfort.}}

Ray says he and his Christian friends love science, but as he quotes Einstein, Ray says those who leave out God in the equations "are lame" and are disqualified because their premise of "nothing created everything" is a scientific impossibility.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Einstein said "science without religion is lame" not "science without God is lame." Again, Ray is the one who is disqualified from commenting on science, not just for having no degree in science, that his creationist beliefs hods that Go magically created everything from nothing. So he goes beyond "everything from nothing" he invokes magic in the equation (a scientific impossibility).}}

He quotes Einstein again: "I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I wont to know His thoughts. The rest are details." Ray says the Bible will reveal God's thoughts.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Does it? There are over 30,000 denominations in Christianity. Then why can't genuine Christians agree what god thinks or wants?}}

===My "Dishonesty" and Evolution===
Ray says that he is accused of not accepting evidence for specie-to-specie transitions and he does not understand the theory of evolution. Ray wants to "settle this once and for all." He goes on to explain what a "missing link" is by citing an article and italicized parts of it.
<blockquote>
Discovered: the missing link that solves the mystery of evolution. Scientists have made one of the most important fossils in history: a missing link ''between fish and land animals'' [change from one species to another] showing how creatures first walked out of the water and on to dry land more than 375m years ago. Palaeontologists have said that the find, a crocodile-like animal called the ''Tiktaalik roseae'' and described today in the journal ''Nature'', could become an icon of evolution in action - like ''Archeopteryx'', the famous fossil that bridged the gap ''between reptiles and birds'' [change from one species to another]. As such, it will be a blow to proponents of intelligent design, who claim that the many gaps in the fossil record show evidence of some higher power.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/apr/06/evolution.fossils</ref>
</blockquote>
Ray says the above are not substantiated. He says Archeopteryx was a full bird and not a missing link. Ray ends this section with, "The missing link is still missing, and we're still waiting for the first piece of genuine evidence for the theory of evolution."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=It is a mystery how Ray seemed to miss another transitional mentioned in the article: Tiktaalik. Archeopteryx is not a full bird. It has many Dinosaurian traits include the following:
* no bill
* teeth on premaxilla and maxilla bones
* nasal opening far forward, separated from the eye by a large preorbital fenestra (hole)
* neck attached to skull from the rear
* center of cervical vertebrae that have simple concave articular facets
* long bony tail; no pygostyle
* ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes, and not articulated with the sternum
* sacrum that occupies six vertebrae
* small thoracic girdle
* metacarpals free (except third metacarpal), wrist hand joint flexible
* claws on three unfused digits
* pelvic girdle and femur joint shaped like those of archosaurs in many details
* bones of pelvis unfused
...and over 100 other differences from birds (Chiappe 2002; Norell and Clarke 2001). The missing link is no longer mising, and it hasn't for a very long time. A decade ago, Kathleen Hunt, a zoologist with the University of Washington, produced a list of a few hundred of the more dramatic transitional species known so far,<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html</ref> all of which definitely fit every criteria required of the most restrictive definition. Myriad transitional species have been, and still are being, discovered; so many in fact that lots of biologists and paleontologists now consider that list “innumerable” especially since the tally of definite transitionals keeps growing so fast! Several lineages are now virtually complete, including our own. Now the problem for evolution is that there are too many contenders, while a compounding problem for creationists is that not even one of them should exist if their story was true. And yet they do –by the bushelful! Despite their complaints to the contrary, the intermediate gradations in the human evolutionary line are now so fine that paleoanthropologists can’t agree whether they’re all different species or merely mildly modified varieties of the same ones, such that there are no more links needed for human evolution anymore.

But creationists still say we’ve never found anything that was “half-ape and half-human”. Adhering always to black or white absolutes, and being thus unwilling to admit any degree of variance other than 100% or zero, they make sure to divide every find into one of two boxes even when they can’t make up their minds which side of that imaginary partition each one belongs to.

Demanding an “ape-man” is actually just as silly as asking to see a mammal-man, or a half-human, half-vertebrate. How about a half dachshund, half dog? It’s the same thing. One may as well insist on seeing a town half way between Los Angeles and California. Because the problem with bridging the gap between humans and apes is that there is no gap because humans ARE apes –definitely and definitively. The word, “ape” doesn’t refer to a species, but to a parent category of collective species, and we’re included. This is no arbitrary classification like the creationists use. It was first determined via meticulous physical analysis by Christian scientists a century before Darwin, and has been confirmed in recent years with new revelations in genetics. Furthermore, it is impossible to define all the characters exclusively indicative of every known member of the family of apes without describing our own genera as one among them. Consequently, we can and have proven that humans are apes in exactly the same way that lions are cats, and iguanas are lizards, and whales are mammals. So where is the proof that humans descend from apes? How about the fact that we’re still apes right now!}}

===Confessions of a Backsliden Atheist===
Ray introduces a "backsliden atheist" A. N. Wilson, a friend of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who openly announced in 2009 he became a Christian. Comfort says that he became an Christian because of the fear of death.

Ray concludes this section by repeating his "creation requires a creator" argument. Comfort points out Wilson's question: how do materialists think language evolved?

===The Secret Plan===
Ray begins by sharing a time when he and his wife watched a Charles Dickens film "A Tale of two Cities." Ray points out the film left out the main character converted to Christianity in the last few days of his life. Ray then addresses the characters role to give life for another, which he equates to what God did when he became Jesus.

==Chapter 5: Ignorant knuckle-draggers==
In this chapter, Ray tries to convince the reader that belief in evolution leads to many social evils because evolution teaches that we are just animals. Ray equates those who say we are animals as fact are like religious zealots.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Evolution does not teach that humans are animals; biology in general does. More specifically, humans are a species of primate, which is a category of mammal, which is a category of vertebrate, which is a category of animal. This was known more than 2000 years ago.

This is a common creationist tactic with linking evolution to many wicked things, such as: homosexuality, abortion, bestiality, and others.

Ray says that accepting evolution leads people to lust and fornication. What Ray fails to understand is that description does not imply promotion. Mistaking "is" for "ought" is the naturalistic fallacy. The theory of evolution no more promotes promiscuity and lust than germ theory promotes getting infectious diseases.}}

Ray quotes from an unidentified dictionary that animal is defined as "any such living thing other than a human being." Wherever Ray got this definition, his source is incorrect. In a section, Ray shares his experiences asking atheists about the origin of the universe. He says atheists ''choose'' not to believe that the cause was God. He then says the Bible says atheists are blind (1 Corinthians 4:3-4). According to Ray, atheists make an absolute claim when they say "There is no God." Ray says for one to make an absolute claim is to have absolute knowledge of the universe. Turn the tables around, Ray makes an equally fallacious claim when he says "there is a God." However, Ray dances around this and says Christians don't need knowledge because they experience God through conversion. Ray never does provide any evidence for the authenticity of his conversion. If a Muslim is equally convinced Allah is real through conversion, what makes Ray's point any more reliable? Ray also ignores that the brain can cause many intense feelings that seem real. Consuming mushrooms, such as entheogens, produce many spiritual feelings that have been used by shamans and other religious figures.

Ray then makes an argument that faith in God is not faith but trust. He then goes on to use his parachute analogy, that is that if you were in a plane that was going down and people offered you a variety of gifts, you would reject them. However, when someone offers you a parachute, you take it and put your trust in it to save your life. He compares this parachute with faith in Jesus Christ.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is Ray's '''[[Parachute Analogy]]''', which is a reversion of the flawed argument known as [[Pascal's Wager]].}}

==Chapter 6: The Dinosaur in the Bible==
Skeptics have pointed out, says Comfort, that dinosaurs existed and therefore God does not. Ray tries to show that the God of the Bible mentioned such creatures in Job 40:15-24.

Ray then quotes from a source at says most dinosaurs were plant eaters. In verse 18, which says that the bones must be a strong as bars of iron, Ray says that the bones of Argentinosaurus must ave been strong to support its weight. Ray concludes, due to verse 20-23, that God slew the dinosaurs. In verse 24, Ray uses the dinosaur Argentinosaurus was so large it broke the branches with its nose.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The "tail like a cedar," which creationists think indicates a large dinosaur, is not even a real tail. "Tail" was used as a euphemism in the King James version. A more likely translation for the phrase is, "His penis stiffens like a cedar" (Mitchell 1987). The behemoth was probably a bull, and the cedar comparison referred to its virility.}}

===The Whale===
Here, Ray tries to convince people to not believe everything their teachers tell them (especially regarding the theory of evolution). Ray quotes an anonymous person who says they have known from the fourth grade that the blue whale is the largest creature on the planet, then Ray shows that on such dinosaur was in fact larger.

Ray ends this section with linking similarities with himself and Einstein.

==Chapter 7: The Blind Faith in the Theory of Evolution==
The chapter begins with Ray addressing evolution not having a mind guiding it to certain ends. He then falsely equates it to gravity, since evolution does not explain where gravity came from. He says are we just "fortunate" that gravity exists? When asking where it came from, he is not satisfied with answers like "chance" or accident." He asks evolutionists to explain where such laws came from.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The problem with this is that biology says nothing about cosmology or physics, so he is asking the wrong people. And once biologists cannot say, because it is not in their field of expertise, Ray jumps onto this saying "see, the scientists don't know." But do physicists provide an answer for such questions? Physicist Victor J. Stenger in his book ''God: The Failed Hypothesis'', Chapter 4: Cosmic Evidence explains where the laws of physics came from. His conclusion, based on the evidence, is that the laws were not created and appear as we would expect if the universe formed under natural forces.}}

Ray goes on to question gravity. He says Newton explained gravity, but could not explain the nature of gravity. Ray says Newton answered that question with God, but he provides no reference to such a claim.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray is known to deliberately quote mine, and frequently says Newton was a smart man who believed in god, not evolution. The problem with this, of course, Newton died many years before the ''Origin of Species'' was published.}}

Next, Ray brings up [[Ben Stein]], maker of the propaganda movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], why he made the movie, Stein replies "Well, if there is no [[intelligent design]], where did gravity came from?"

Ray admits he gets mocked by evolutionists for asking where gravity came from. Ray says evolutionists say it just is. How can Ray find this unbelievable, but at the same time thinks that his God has no cause or beginning?

Ray then examines the human hand. For a moment, he tells the reader to put aside evolution and intelligent design. He goes on to say the hand is wonderfully ''made''...
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text="'''Made'''" - not a good choice of words Ray, this shows us that you yourself did not put aside anything for this experiment. While humans have two hands, according to Ray, primates have four. This is false, primates only have two hands. Ray tries to compare the limbs of humans and primates to make it appear that they are fundamentally different and could not be the result of evolution. Ray then tries to equate evolution as a form of religion by saying we should get down and praise our hands and limbs.}}

Ray ends this chapter with a preachy ending. He goes on to say atheists and everyone should repent to be saved from hell. Unlike other "man-made religions" Ray says they do not acknowledge that God is perfect, and thus his law demands moral perfection. He repeats his usual guilt trip using his narrow selection of the Ten Commandments. Ray says that we all should become missionaries for God just as Ray did.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The problem with this Ray, it turned you into a uneducated lying hypocrite.}}

==Chapter 8: The Straw Man==
Ray addresses Epicurus famous work
<blockquote>Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing? Then hence cometh evil?
Is He neither willing nor able? Then why call him God?
</blockquote>

Ray says that Epicurus makes a good case, but does not include the "longsuffering of God." Ray says God will punish evil, but we do not see ourselves as being evil. Ray then quotes the Bible what God thinks about humanity in Romans 3:10-18 (but this is not God's words, they are Paul's).
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Overall, Ray does not address or answer the question. He just says be patient with God and do not think of him as evil.}}

Ray then talks about an atheist named Kat who comments on his blog "Atheist Central" claiming Ray is a hateful person. When he pressured Kat to find one example, and after a period of time, she wrote back saying that she found so many it broke her heart and would refuse to comment on Ray's blog any further. Ray says that she failed to provide one example.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Well, Ray how about when you insult atheists by saying "all I need are eyes to see and a brain that works" or when you insult fellow believers that your particular narrow view of God is correct and theirs is a form of idolatry. Ray admits in this book that mockery is a legitimate form of debate. Ray says he constantly mocks the theory of evolution (which he once proclaimed to believe), but he only mocks it in the most dishonest way possible because he would rather believe in an fantasy that accept a testable and verifiable reality. It is also clear he never accepted evolution, because he falsely compares it with cosmology and social ills. It is also clear that, due to his religious beliefs, Ray is also intolerant of homosexuals.}}

Ray ends this chapter with addressing Kat one more time. He says Kat is tender-hearted and cannot handle a civil debate.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=That is rich Ray, unlike you who admits that mockery is legitimate in a debate, and also prey on people's fears and emotions. Not to mention your deliberate misrepresentations of science and outright lying to deceive your audience.}}

==Chapter 9: Who killed JFK?==
The chapter begins from a paragraph authored by an atheist. It mocks Ray for believing in a man who can fly in the air, and yet Ray has the gall to mock atheism.

Ray counters this paragraph if you examine what an atheist believes, (creation has no creator, no design in nature, etc.) it is more ridiculous. Ray has failed to provide any evidence for such claims, so now it is not ridiculous not to believe in something without any proof. Ray does not stop there, he says atheists do have beliefs, they just do not what to admit it because it would show they have faith of some sorts. He says atheists ''believe'' the earth is several millions of years old. People accept the earth is old, not believe, because belief implies there is little evidence to support it. However, there are mountains of evidence to prove that the earth is indeed old.

Ray moves on to discuss the assassination of [[JFK]]. Since we do not know what happened several decades ago, how can we know what happened several million years ago? [It appears the author does not examine the question, Since we do not know what happened to JFK several decades ago, how can we know what happened to [[Jesus]] two millennia ago?]
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a fallacious argument. Just because we are not sure what happened in this one small period of history does not mean we throw out everything we know that happened in the past. Unlike the JFK incident, scientists have multiple ways of testing what happened in the past.}}

Ray goes on to explain miracles. Ray says he has no problem believing in miracles. He believes in the following: Creation; all animals brought onto Noah's Ark; global flood; splitting of the Red Sea; stopping the lions from eating Daniel; God guiding the rock from David's sling; feeding thousands with a few fishes and bread; and a man rising from the dead. Ray says it is easy to believe in such miracles every time he sees a bird fly, because he is witnessing God's handiwork. Even though Ray will not admit it, there is evidence for the evolution of feathers and flight.<ref>[http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/kpslides.html#birds Kitzmiller v. Dover: Padian demonstrative slides]</ref><ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/biblio/flight.html</ref>

==Chapter 10: The Mirror==
Comfort begins this chapter with saying it is easy for humans to use sin as an excuse for bad behavior, such as lying, stealing, and murder. Ray tries to portray his version of the [[Ten Commandments]] to make them appear as a "mirror" for us to look in and see our sins.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray does not mentions is that sin AND obedience to god's law both create bad behavior. Following God's word often leads to more suffering than sin, history and modern times testify to this. Even Ray, who firmly believes in the absolute rule of never lying, constantly breaks this rule when he attacks evolution. It seems lying is okay, if you are doing it for Jesus, but if this makes lying okay then would it also justify murder?}}

Comfort asks is it "unfair" to create rules that say don't kill, seal, lie, or commit adultery? Ray says the First Commandment is reasonably justified.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, is it reasonably justified? "I am your Lord thy God, thou shall not have any other Gods before me.” Notice it says ‘before me’ does that imply that other gods do indeed exist? What about any gods after him? This was spoken by Elohim (ironically, a plural name for the god El), who is the “Lord” of the Israelites. This is the equivalent of establishing the nation of Israel, not the United States of America. It can be taken as either monotheistic (only one god) or henotheistic (only one supreme god), and in any case is contrary to the American constitutional guarantees of freedom of conscience and against an establishment of religion. In the United States, we are free to worship many gods, one god or no gods at all. Elohim does not appear in any of the growing documents on which our country was founded.}}

Ray mentions that a person emailed him, explaining that lust is involuntary, and is therefore unlawful to make something out of our control a crime. Ray tries to justify his beliefs by claiming lust, not sex, is an "unlawful" desire. Ray says sex should be confined within marriage. Ray blames the spread of STDs on the failure to keep the "rules" of marriage as instructed by the Bible.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray does not stop to think and blame the spread of STDs due to religion and its dogma to teach kids abstinence, a failed system that it appears to be no accident that states with the highest levels of religiosity teach abstinence only, but also have the highest rates of STDs, teen pregnancies, and abortions.}}

Ray says that lusting for someone in your mind is adultery, and using the "involuntary" excuse will not do with God.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray did not fully address or answer the question. Lusting is indeed involuntary, and that is know to anyone familiar with psychiatry. There are pathways inn our brains that stimulate pleasure from things that are required for our survival, such as eating. We must eat to survive, so our mind evolved to seek pleasure in eating. Same with lust an sex, since we must reproduce to survive, our minds have been programed to seek and desire sex.}}

===Who is the Painter?===
This section begins with an anonymous person addressing Ray's favorite argument, the [[argument from design]] in the form of a painting. A painting is proof there was a painter says Ray.

==Chapter 11: The Subject of Lying==
This chapter begin with several quotes by atheists accusing Ray Comfort of lying. Here, Ray wants to address this by asking where do the atheists get their sense of right and wrong from. He does not bother tying to defend himself or justify his lies, instead he tries to attack his critics as lacking a moral compass.

Ray says that atheists have no moral absolutes. Ray says that accusing him of lying is meaningless if here is no god.

Ray then says atheists are without excuse [Romans 1:10] and the evidence for God is axiomatic because "creation requires a creator." Ray then quotes an article which he believes explains the justification for the damnation of atheists.

Addressing the definition of atheists as having a lack of belief in God, Ray tries to counter this by saying "I lack a belief that my Ford had a maker" means that nothing made his Ford. He goes on to conclude that does not make the Ford maker disappear from reality.

Moving on, he addresses the definition of Homo Sapiens, which means "wise man." Comfort argues that humans do not have the amazing abilities other animals do (such a sniff out drugs or catch a Frisbee in their mouth 6 feet in the air). Ray argues that scientists are still looking for a transitional fossil. He cites Archeoptryx, which scientists thought was more than just a bird because "it has large claws." Ray says they are "'theorizing.' They are merely imagining."

===Children and Their Propensity To Do Wrong===
This section begins with an anonymous person taking note of Ray's belief that everyone is born a sinner. By this view, why would people want to have children. Ray tries to answer that the ones who think they are sinners are the ones having children whereas the ones who think humanity is good are the ones having abortions.

Ray says that children know how to lie and steal, because they are born in a sinful nature and the Scriptures say the heart of humanity is wicked to its core. Ray quotes 2 Peter 2:2-3 about Bible preachers who use faith to draw in money.

Ray say he emailed a very famous atheist (not Richard Dawkins) once Christian the following email: "Judas lasted three and a half years. You managed to fake it for nineteen yeas. Amazing." The atheist told him to never contact him again. Ray did not reply because the atheist was a lawsuit frenzy person. Ray calls hypocrites, like this atheist, a faker. A pretender who never understood the cross. Comfort labels this atheist as bitter and hates the God he supposedly loved.

==Chapter 12: The Missing Link Finally Found==
Ray begins the chapter with the claim that creationists have been called liars for years, while providing a quote that points creationists and the public to a source of a wide library of transitional fossils. Next, he provides a article regarding Ida as if scientists have finally found the missing link. Next he provides a quote from CBS News "So while we don't know exactly what Ida means to human origins, she's proof we are endlessly fascinated by where we come from." He includes another quote from Wall Street Journal. From this, Comfort concludes that the missing link is still missing.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The truth is the "missing link" is not missing. It hasn’t been for a long time now. There was a missing link in 1859 when there were only two species of humans yet known in the fossil record, and no intermediate fossils to link them with any of the other apes we knew of at that time. Since then, we’ve found the fossils of thousands of individuals of dozens of hominid species, many of which provide a definite link to the other apes. But there were two particular pieces predicted to complete the puzzle: First, it was never supposed that we evolved from any ape species still alive today. Instead the theory held that chimpanzees and humans were sibling species, daughters of the same mother. So the first link we needed to find was an ancient ape apparently basal to either of us –to prove there was a potential progenitor of both groups. We had already found that link in Europe five years before Darwin went public. So we already had an evident “chain” of transitional species from which only one more “link” was needed. The theory then required that another extinct hominid be found in strata chronologically between the Miocene Dryopithecus fontana and the earliest known human species, which from 1891 to 1961, was Homo erectus. We’ve found lots of candidates, as many as fifty species of apes which are now all extinct. But more than that, the theory also demanded that we find one “half-way” between humans and other apes in terms of morphology. We found exactly that too way back in 1974. Australopithecus afarensis proved to be a fully bi-pedal ape who’s hands, feet, teeth, pelvis, skull, and other physical details were exactly what creationists challenged us to find, yet they’re still pretending we never found it.}}

Comfort goes on to examine the cause of human intelligence. He summarizes that the human intelligence must have a cause and the Creator must have a higher intelligence because we cannot create a grain of rice from nothing.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=If this argument was valid, then the mind of God not being a random jumble of synapses would require a higher intelligent creator. Evolution does explain human intelligence. Intelligence has obvious advantages that can help with survival, so it is consistent with evolutionary theory.}}

Ray provides more articles about scientists and what they "believe."

Ray argues that because species have similarities is NOT proof of evolution, instead they have a common creator. Comfort also argues that disease is not proof of evolution because it proves the biblical notion we live in a "fallen" world.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Regarding the first part, evidence for a creation must begin by specifying (before the fact) what is expected from a creator. When do we expect similar forms, and when do we expect different forms? The difference is that evolution theory has made predictions, and the pattern of similarities and differences that we observe accords with what evolution predicts. Disease is not proof of a "fallen" world. Why would God create humans with immune systems if disease did not exist before the Fall?}}

Next, Ray points out that science changes their "beliefs" as time goes by and new data is collected. Because science always changes, what we accept today may be wrong in a hundred years.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, evolution and gravity will remain. We observe both in nature right now and will always be a part of nature. As more evidence accumulates, scientific findings become more and more certain. Theories that have withstood several decades of study may undergo more refinement of details, but it is almost inconceivable that they would be overturned completely.}}

Ray notes that the fossil record only shows changes ''within'' a species, and never once shows evidence of specie-to-specie transition. Thus, the fossil record speaks of special creation. Whenever Ray asks a scientist what is the evidence for evolution, the scientist replies "science" and "fossils," but when asked specifically they say "I am not an expert."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=It is clear that whoever Ray was interviewing was not the person to be addressing the evidence for evolution, if he did interview them at all (it is hard to verify the credibility of an anonymous person). If you want an expert opinion on evolutionary theory, then talk to an expert. Start with a university professor, a evolutionary scientist, and such. As for the fossil record, it does not provide any proof of creation. The fossil record shows a gradual change in taxa and arise of new species. Many transitional fossils exist. We’ve found millions of evolutionary intermediaries in the fossil record, much more than Darwin said he could reasonably hope for. There are three different types of transitional forms and we have ample examples of each. But creationists still insist that we’ve never found a single one, because what they usually ask us to present are impossible parodies which evolution would neither produce nor permit, such as [[Kirk Cameron]] and his [[Crocoduck]]. A decade ago, Kathleen Hunt, a zoologist with the University of Washington, produced a list of a few hundred of the more dramatic transitional species known so far, all of which definitely fit every criteria required of the most restrictive definition. Myriad transitional species have been, and still are being, discovered; so many in fact that lots of biologists and paleontologists now consider that list “innumerable” especially since the tally of definite transitionals keeps growing so fast! Several lineages are now virtually complete, including our own.}}

Comfort provides quotes by a Christians. The first says evolution is a theory, and theories are speculations. The Christian demands proof that archaeology and history does not support the Bible. He says the Bible's history is very accurate and experts rely on it. The second says that they were brought up to accept evolution in school, but later when demanding for evidence and facts, nobody could explain what the "facts" are. He concludes that evolution is a worldview philosophy and not a science.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=None of the above is accurate at all. Evolution is presented in schools because it is the only explanation for life's diversity and the facts do exist. Whoever this anonymous Christian asked for evidence either was not an expert or did spell out the evidence for him, but this Christian did not know what he was seeing or choose not to accept it outright.}}

===Charles Darwin Believed Man Evolved from Monkeys===
Opens with comments explaining that humans and apes share a common ancestor. Ray says that there are 350 species of primate.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=And we belong in one of them.}}

In this short section, Ray provides a quote from Charles Darwin that compared the traits of monkeys and primates, and briefly included humans.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Ray does not share is that Darwin was not the first to categorize humans are apes. The first was Charles Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy and a creationist, placed humans as primates many years before Darwin was even born.

It is irrelevant what the above people believed, even if Ray is quoting them correctly and honestly. It is what the evidence provides. Humans indeed share a common ancestor with other primates and we are without a doubt apes now.}}

===The Catholic Church and Evolution===
The Vatican recently released a notice the Christianity and evolution are compatible. Ray Comfort in response argued that they were not compatible at all. According to Ray, God made man "instantaneously" in his own image (what does that even mean? And how can he make humans in an instant?). Ray quotes Scripture to show that man's flesh is different from other animals.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Unfortunately Ray, the Bible does not help you here. The Bible tries to make it appear humans are special. Of course our flesh is different from scales and such, but we are still mammals, vertebrates, and such which are all categories of animal.}}

At the end of the section, he includes a quote from William Donahue, president of the Catholic League responds to Ray Comforts pitiful arguments that the Vatican has chosen to believe Darwin over Jesus and not exercising "common sense." Ray does not prove any part of Donahue's response or arguments to show why he thinks that way.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Not revealing the rest of Donahue's objections (and we can be sure he had some interesting things to say), Ray goes on to say that the diversity of the Vatican is encouraging atheism. Perhaps the diversity of Christianity alone (over 30,000 denominations) is driving people away from religion, since none can agree how to interpret the Bible correctly and often commit acts of violence against each other.}}

===Smile Test===
A girl asks her mother when did the human race appear? Her mother relied when God created Adam and Eve. The girl then asks her dad the same question, he replies the human race came about through evolution. The girl is confused, she goes back to her mom, who says that both parents have told her a story, now she had to decide which to believe.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Not really good parenting. They should at least teach their girl how to think critically. And why would you let the child decide? You are foregoing your intellect in favor of fanaticism and things that are not supported by any shred of evidence, and you are not just raising a nation that is utterly ignorant about science, but why would you let the children decide? Do you let your children decide on when to go to bed? Do you let your kids decide on when to drink beer? No, you are the adult, you are supposed to be educated enough to think and to use reason and make a fair judgment that is not based on fanaticism or anything like that. You owe it to the kids to not teach them that and to decide for them what I reasonable and what is not. To teach them creationism and things like that, you are utterly failing them.}}

==Chapter 13: The Atheist's Amazing Imagination==
Ray mocks the idea science claims that things can be as old as 14 billion years. Such things to Ray are the products of imagination.

===The Open mind of an Atheist===
Here an atheist mocks Ray for believing that snakes can talk. Ray tries to counter this by pointing out that some species of primates know many human words. He points out some birds speak English words and pets seem to understand their masters and their master seem to understand them at times. Ray presumes the reader believes fish evolved into humans, so how hard can it be to imagine that an animal can communicate with humans.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, this does not make Ray's problem go away. We are dealing with a snake, a creature with no linguistic or vocal tools, and yet can speak perfectly with a woman. The problem is actual evidence. If someone you trusted told you they saw a cat speak Spanish to someone, you would demand proof. How about in the Gospel of Peter where a piece of wood actually speaks? "''When therefore those soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders; for they too were hard by keeping guard. And, as they declared what things they had seen, again they see three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them: and of the two the head reached unto the heaven, but the head of him that was led by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, Thou hast preached to them that sleep. And a response was heard from the cross, Yea.''"

How would Ray try to respond to that? Possibly that the gospel of Peter is not included in the Bible, written much later than the other gospels, or it was not written by Peter himself. True it is not included in the modern Bible. The Council of Carthage met in 397 C.E. to determine what early Christian writings would make up the canon of the New Testament. They voted to exclude the Gospel of Peter. Some scholars argue that the Gospel of Peter predates other Gospel accounts, perhaps having been written as early as 45 AD. And was it written by peter himself, who knows? But then again, we do not know who wrote the canonical gospels and we know many of the epistles (supposedly all written by Paul) are in fact forgeries.}}

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray says atheists will not believe anything as long as its in the Bible, but this is a false accusation. The Bible is full of extraordinary tales, and thus require extraordinary evidence. The claims that are not proven or do not have enough evidence (if any at all) are what atheists and non-Christians decline to accept. Even the vast majority of Christians do not accept everything that happened in the Bible, such as God creating Adam and Eve in a garden 6,000 years ago. However, making a huge accusation that atheists will not accept anything no matter what is in the Bible is simply false. For instance all atheists accept Jerusalem existed in the time of Jesus. Atheists are not closed minded as Ray tries to paint them as.}}

Comfort then asks if you think fire existed before man discovered it?
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Yes, it did. It existed on Earth probably as soon as the atmosphere contained enough oxygen to support combustion. He notes that fire needs fuel to burn. He then jumps into the "justice" of the Bible, noting that just because one cannot observe something [[Argument from ignorance|does not mean it does not exist.]] By this logic, a invisible gnome could be floating behind your back at all times, does that mean therefor they exist? No. The ones making the positive claim that such a thing does exist thus has the burden of proof. Ray has failed to meet that burden of proof.}}

===Getting Things Humming===
Ray says a group of evolutionists have gathered together to create a hummingbird from nothing, as in the genesis of life's origins. They go over what parts are required for the male bird, including the ability to reproduce after its own "kind." However, the scientists cannot get started because their first problem is creating something from nothing. They say that over time and better understanding will produce the answers. A small committee of scientists discuss the problem, making the same conclusion as found in Romans 1:20-21.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray demonstrates yet again his lack of understanding of evolution and science overall. Evolution, [[abiogenesis]], the [[Big Bang Theory]] does not say that life forms (like birds) came about fully formed from nothing. Actually, Ray's position of Biblical [[creationism]] says that such life forms sprung from nothing by magic. Can ray produce or test a hummingbird coming from nothing, whether through magic or prayer? Of course not, and thus he is really ridiculing himself in this section. And why must the scientists make a single male hummingbird? Here is one problem Ray has never understood and failed to understand (or willingly ignore) is that evolution does not take place with the individual, but the population. But why stick with using the male? Here is something to think about, why do all mammalian males have nipples? As any biologist would tell you is that the female is the foundation of the species, not the male. This is something that Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions got very wrong.

What does Ray mean by "kind?" Creationists have identified kinds with everything from species to entire kingdoms. By the narrower definitions, variation to new kinds has occurred. By the broader definitions, we would not expect to see it in historical time.

Finally, Romans 1:20-21 says "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." Basically, everyone is without excuse for ignoring the Christian god, but this is not more valid than the Islamic Primordial Covenant where we all were in the presence of Allah, testified that he is our creator, and thus when we die we are without excuse. Quoting Bible verses does not present any valid evidence for Ray's case.}}

===Tough Answers for Atheists===
Ray shares he watched a video (assuming it was presented by an atheist) that proves a Christian dented his car and if they do not pay him he will burn them alive. He then compares that to Christianity, since that is its message. Ray then uses his own analogy with policemen found evidence that connects you to the murder of six girls. The evidence is very strong, and you thought it was funny. The judge, according to Ray, is utterly perfect and holy and will punish you. He says an God considers adultery to be rape and hatred to be murder.

Ray says it is common sense that a creation has a creator, and theists are pretending to be atheists. When they deny this common sense, they discard all common sense. {{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, Ray only labels this as common sense as a veil to hide all the problems behind this line of reasoning. When Comfort says creation requires a creator, this is an example of [[begging the question]], as the point which he's attempting to prove is contained in his premise. Anything created must have a creator, but he hasn't demonstrated that what he means by "creation" (the universe, everything, humans, etc.) is actually a creation. The appearance of design, purpose or complexity alone is not sufficient to posit an intelligent creator. When he asks questions like, "When you see a building, how do you know there was a builder?", his answer is "The building is absolute proof of the builder." This avoids the important question about how we recognize design. He's relying on common sense and a lack of critical thinking, to support the idea that this is a natural, obvious and reliable assumption.

In truth, we recognize that the building is designed because we have an abundance of evidence that supports that conclusion and no evidence to support the idea that buildings are naturally occurring. We possess, or can attain by research, empirical evidence about the history of a given building; who designed it, who built it, what methods they used, etc. We can also learn about the general history of buildings and other structures, throughout recorded history. All of this evidence, and more, in conjunction with a lack of evidence supporting the idea that buildings occur naturally, lead us to the reliably supported conclusion that a given building had a builder. We're not always consciously aware of this process, as we've come to trust our intuition without constantly analyzing why this trust is deserved. Additionally, when humans create things, they use pre-existing material. To compare the creation of the universe by a god to the creation of objects by humans is to imply that this god used pre-existing matter to do it. This, of course, still leads one to ask, "where did this matter come from?" }}

Then Ray address how the suns were made. Even though scientists explain how they were formed, Ray asks where did those materials come from. According to Ray, they cannot form themselves otherwise that would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Ray concludes that theists have the answers, atheists don't.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=But how does the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevent the formation of suns? The law says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. Entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000). Even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system. In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time, but where did the materials for the sun come from? The molecules required to form a sun are heavy elements such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. Scientists have already established and observed how these elements form stars.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/how-do-stars-form-and-evolve/</ref> Ray would ask where did these molecules come from, and of course Ray says theists have the answer (God) and when someone offers and answer or is honest and says they don't know, Ray concludes his personal beliefs is confirmed by reality. Comfort offers no testing in this section, this book, or any of his materials. However, this belief is refuted by two things: [[Occam's Razor]] and the first law of thermodynamics (matter cannot be created and thus always existent).}}

===How Big is the Universe?===
This section starts off with a question for Ray to answer how big the universe is, what light is, and what life is?

Ray later on discusses the cause of material. Ray says that atheists get "stumped" and cannot give a credible account for the cause of material for evolution to bring life into being.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is another old straw-man, evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang or abiogenesis. Ray concludes the cause for material must be immaterial. In summary, he concludes the ''Spirit'' of God moved upon the face of the waters in Genesis 1:2. Why must the cause be immaterial? Did God have a cause? If not, then why not save a step and say matter had no cause. Note, at the quantum level, the laws of cause and effect disappear, meaning that a cause was not necessary for the universe to come about through the Big Bang. How can God exists as a "spirit" moving upon the waters before the earth was formed? Say God is a spirit does not add up, because it violates proper ontology, lacks empirical evidence and violates the very nature of existence. Saying God is a spirit is the same as saying a bed is made of sleep, you cannot exist or be made of a character trait.}}

Ray brings up the question "Who Created God?" Ray says atheists think this is a dilemma for Christians (it seems to be, since both Ray and Kirk choked when this was brought up in the debate with the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master Rational Response Squad]), but Ray dodges the question and says this is not a problem for Christians. He says the real problem is that atheists cannot comprehend how God can exist eternally. Comfort asks how can any of us comprehend the infinitude of space? He uses an analogy of using a very powerful laser beam, shooting lasers off into space at great speeds and even after millions of years they will not hit an end.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=However, the universe is made of energy and matter, and the laws of physics says that energy cannot be created or destroyed, thus making it eternal. So it is possible to comprehend something eternal, and this was brought up in the debate with the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master Rational Response Squad], who also used [[Occam's Razor]] to prove that God is likely not to exist. Neither Ray or Kirk have anything to say or respond to this, except for when the moderator asked if they had anything else to say, Kirk in a low voice say "I think the people can figure it out."}}

==Chapter 14: The Power of the Imagination==
Atheists reject the Biblical Fall and its explanatory power for suffering, disease, and death. They often quote Monty Python that "Their thought is that if God did exist, He alone, not man, is responsible for the pains of this world.

Comfort goes on to say many believers are "idolaters" for creating a God they are comfortable with. They "quote-mine" Scripture to make God all loving, kind and such, but leave out that God is holy and just. Comfort says the idolaters God does not exist. Atheists on the other hand do the opposite, they quote-mine Scripture to create a harsh and repulsive God. Ray says, same as the idolaters, this God projected by atheists only exist in their imagination.

===By the Light of the Silvery Moon===
Comfort provides a quote from an atheist that says the Bible cannot be accurate, giving an example of the moon does not produce its own light (Genesis 1:16).

Ray's first objection to is to the fools who included moonlight in the dictionary as noun - "the light of the moon." They should also ban Shakespeare for saying "Thou has moonlight at her window sung..." in "Midsummer's Night Dream." Next, he brings up the "ignorant" scientists at NASA who are "deceived that moonlight exists." He provides a quote from an article that explains the difference between sunlight and moonlight is its intensity (a difference by 400,000). Then there is country singer LeAnne Rimes for including moonlight in a song.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What first needs to be pointed out is that it says the sun and moon are "two great lights" ("great lamps" in the original Hebrew) created to "light" the earth, "for signs and seasons" on earth, to "rule the day and night" on earth. The Bible says only one moon was created, but Mars has two moons (raising her total of "great lamps" to "three," obviously God felt that Mars needed lamps to brighten its nights too). Neptune has four moons, Uranus has eleven, Jupiter has sixteen, and Saturn has at least eighteen moons. The earth only gets one moon, which does not "rule the night" since 3 nights out of every 28 it abdicates its "rule," and doesn't "light" the earth at all.

Also, there is a difference from being a source of light and a source of reflection. The Bible says the moon generates its own light, which is not accurate at all. Moonlight does exist regardless, in the context of being a reflection. The Dictionary may define it, but it does not say "light produced by the moon."}}

===An Important Question===
An atheist argued, "Jesus did not abolish death. People still die and, as before his birth, people's soul still live on forever." Ray agrees Jesus abolished death by quoting 2 Timothy 1:10, and says that there are only two options: either those who believe death was abolished are mentally challenged, or there is something here not clearly understood.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The problem with using 2 Timothy as a reference or as evidence is that the vast majority of critical scholars agree that 2 Timothy is a forger, it was never written by Paul. Therefore, the Bible contains books of a deceiver.

According to Ray, sin was the result of capital punishment for humanity (Romans 6:23), but we can only be saved by repenting to Christ. He says God gave the saved a "light" and those who do not believe walk in darkness (John 8:12). It is easy and not surprising that a book which was obviously written with an agenda would label nonbelievers as people who "walk in darkness." However, with no valid proof for its extraordinary claims, it is irrational to accept a religion such as Christianity.}}

===Berkeley Brainwashing - Trees Are Our Cousins===
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Tree's are our cousins? Interesting choice of words. You share more traits in common with your siblings than you do with your cousins due to the recent ancestors you share with them, your parents. Deeper down, you share more in common with those in your extended family than you do with neighbors and classmates, etc., people you don’t recognize as part of your biological family. But you must realize that on some level you’re still related. Deeper down, one could likely recognize subtle indications of cultural demes which most people will still agree all descend from one common ancestral lineage –despite their current apparent diversity and unfamiliar ways. Deeper down, we've seen that new breeds of barnyard birds, domestic pets, livestock, corn, even bananas have to some degree been engineered by human intervention via artificial selection, and new sub-species have occurred in the wild via natural selection. In both cases, these stem from common ancestry, be that hundreds of breeds of dogs coming from one strain of wolves, or dozens of commercial bovines being derived from the now-extinct European Aurochs. Overall, we are all related, we are all part of and products of the Earth. We are all genetically linked, but Ray would have you believe that we are separate and only humans are special. This sort of thinking has led religious zealots to accept that different races within humanity is a deliberate act (or curse) from God, but as a biologist would tell you that "race" does not exist.}}

Ray defines biological evolution as descent with modification.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This leaves out a lot of details, but a more accurate description of evolution is: Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html</ref>}}

Ray says the result of the theory of relativity caused man to have no sense of right and wrong.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=How can this be? Comfort points out that men who are certain they are correct when claiming that no one can be right seems absolutely sure of himself. He argues fallen politicians draw the line of right and wrong on a relative line, but Ray argues that right and wrong is written on stone. Time, according to Ray, has shown that violators of God's law meet justice. Ray summarizes that the fallen politician can only be tried by civil law, and the same will happen to us all on Judgment day since we are all criminals in God's eyes and must be saved.

How does the theory of relativity have any impact on morality? Very commonly, Ray blames evolution and lack of faith on the ills of society, now the theory of relativity is also to blame?

So morality is absolute? Then why does Ray not keep slaves, castrate himself, or drink poison as instructed in his own Bible? Comfort [[Cherry picking|cherry-picks]] those verses that he is morally comfortable with and ignores those that are morally repulsive. So Ray is living proof morality is not absolute. As far as we can gather, morality comes ''within'' humanity, and thus it is dangerous to talk about cosmic moral absolutes. This sort of thinking, such as God hates heathens, has lead to the mass murder of countless people. Morality is flexible. We believe it is wrong to lie, but we can lie for a good purpose such as lying to a Nazi during the Third Reich that you were hiding a Jew in your basement. We believe theft is wrong, but don't we consider Robin Hood a hero? Christianity says Pride is a sin, but anyone who wears more garments or jewelry that is not necessary to keep him/her warm displays pride.}}

===The Investigator===
Ray tries to defend Biblical reliability of the authors' testimony. He uses an analogy that an investigator interviews four eye-witnesses about a bank robbery. Three of them say there were two robbers, but the last says there was a third. So the investigator must harmonized the conflicting accounts and settles with one of the bank employees played a part in the robbery. If the investigator concluded that the four eye-witnesses were liars he would not be an investigator. He must set aside all prejudices and harmonized the conflicting accounts. Ray argues one must do the same when examining the conflicting accounts in the gospel.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The difference between the above analogy and the gospels is that investigation shows that none of the four authors were eye-witnesses. We do not know who wrote the gospels, but we can verify that Luke and Matthew often copied verbatim from Mark. Mark may have been written as a fiction.<ref>http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#2</ref> The gospels contradict each other in fundamental ways that there is no way to rationally "harmonize" them. Read for instance Jesus' bad weekend before he died.<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/gospelcontradictions/p/Resurrection.htm here</ref> We also know the four accounts have been meddled with, interpolated, and forged. We do not know if anyone in the 2nd century did any investigation to validate the claims made in any of the gospels. Any decent investigator would first account the problems with the accounts and little certainty can be drawn from their claims. External evidence is also lacking, such as we do not have any artifacts made by Jesus, no letters written by him, or anything. Read the [[historicity of Jesus]] to see the lack of historical evidence to support Jesus of Nazareth.}}

Next Ray talks about fear, and he is thankful for fear. He says fear prevents him from walking over a cliff and say away from poisonous animals. Fear, according to Ray, has a bedfellow: common sense. Common sense tells you to not walk over a cliff and such. He argues that people should not become Christian over fear of Hell, they should "come to Christ out of fear of a God that can cast them into Hell." He says the two are separated by "Moral Law." The law shows Ray Comfort that the law is perfect and holy and he deserves Hell, which reveals to him God's love and mercy. He then brings up polls that shows a steady increase of a minority of school students have stolen things, and a majority of religious school kids admit to lying to their parents. The polls say that they think they are alright and not the worst people in the world. However, Ray says they violated God's law, no matter how small.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Of course Ray would be thankful for fear, he is well known to play with people's fear to support his agenda. Fear by itself does not prevent you from walking off a cliff or handling poisonous animals, human experience presented knowledge of harmful activity that we should avoid. Fear is not always connected to common sense, some people have particular fears and phobias but that does not mean they rely on common sense. For instance, if a person is afraid of balloons, do they rely on common sense? (Not being disrespectful)

Common sense tells you to evaluate certain claims that fly in the face of logic and science. The Moral Law presented by Comfort do not prove God anymore than the 5 Pillars of Islam prove Allah or the Code of Hammurabi proves the god(s) of the Sumerians.}}

===Painted Into A Corner===
Starts off with a paragraph of an atheist addressing the evolution of sex. To this person, it seems irrelevant to him, but Ray should look at not what Darwin thought about the evolution of sex, but what modern data shows about it.

Ray says it does not matter about solving all the questions of the theory, its just when you eliminate a Creator you are "stuck with the ramifications." He says that "believers" in evolution accept that before their were two sexes, organisms reproduced asexually, until over time male and female evolved.

Ray notes the Charles Darwin "went to meet his maker" in 1882. Darwin was planned to be buried in a churchyard in Downe, until the President of the Royal Society arranged Darwin to be buried in Westminster Abbey. Darwin talked about the mind of Newton, which Ray finds interesting because Newton (according to Ray) was a theist.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray does not mention that Newton also practiced alchemy or any of his other beliefs, but nevertheless his personal thoughts about theology and such were irrelevant to his scientific discoveries.}}

Ray asks how can all the species of animals evolve a female partner at just the right time? Ray provides a brief explanation for a anonymous "believer" in evolution.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=It is not simply a matter of being sexual or asexual. There are many intermediate stages. A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is possible (Kondrashov 1997). The earliest steps involve single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information; they need not be distinct sexes. Males and females most emphatically would not evolve independently. Sex, by definition, depends on both male and female acting together. As sex evolved, there would have been some incompatibilities causing sterility (just as there are today), but these would affect individuals, not whole populations, and the genes that cause such incompatibility would rapidly be selected against. }}

Ray flat out states that if evolution is true, then the Bible is a fallacy.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Well, unfortunately for Ray evolution is true and a fact, however evolution does not refute the Bible (just a literal interpretation of the Bible).}}

Ray says scientists have no idea why organisms changed from asexual to sexual.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What he does not share, willfully ignorant or not, many hypotheses have been proposed for the evolutionary advantage of sex (Barton and Charlesworth 1998). There is good experimental support for some of these, including resistance to deleterious mutation load (Davies et al. 1999; Paland and Lynch 2006) and more rapid adaptation in a rapidly changing environment, especially to acquire resistance to parasites (Sá Martins 2000). }}

Ray repeats the old creationist lie that "believers" in evolution are passionate, because if Darwin was right then man is just an animal with no moral accountability.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Darwin never proposed that man is an animal, biology in general does. Man is a category of mammal, vertebrate, and such. This knowledge has been known for thousands of years.}}

===An Atheist's Honest Question===
An unknown atheist asks Ray if Christ makes you righteous as in compassion and loving, or righteousness in the sense of pure and saved? Or is it something else? Ray answers there are two types of righteousness. What Ray and Christians mean to live in righteousness is called "imputed" righteousness, that is the one that saves us from death and Hell. He explains by using an analogy. Your father tells you that your mom died because a drunk driver killed her, so you swear to never drink and drive (even though you already have no car or license), but one day you have to much to drink and take your friends on a joy ride, and you get into a huge accident and are in serious trouble. But at court, your dad pays your huge fine, saving you from prison time. This is what Christ did for humanity when he died on the cross. This is "imputed righteousness." You could not justify yourself, you knew you were guilty, and your fathers payment made you right with the law. After the payment, you immediately call yourself righteous, even though you do not deserve it.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Seems like good cop out for very violent criminals. As soon as your about to be charged and found guilty, a unknown person pays your fee and you are cleared.

The above message is the message of Christianity: we all violated God's law and Christ can save us. Unfortunately, the "Law" (Ten Commandments) do not prove God anymore than the 5 Pillars of Islam prove Allah. Comfort plays with people's emotions and sense of morality by setting up a scenario were no one is innocent and only his particular narrow version of God can save you without proving beforehand that his God really exists. Ray keep hammering that we will be accounted for on "Judgment Day" but fails to provide any evidence of such a day. In fact, history has shown that they are all wrong.<ref>http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/appendix3.html</ref>}}

Ray asks the reader to set aside all questions, doubts and arguments (yeah right, you would like that Ray) and humble yourself to God. Comfort constantly pushes mortality upon the reader and should make a decision quickly. He ends this chapter that when you see the "truths of what I just told you" you should join the ranks of Christians.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Unfortunately, very little truth, or any at all can be found in this book. Ray has yet to make a convincing rational case.}}

==Chapter 15: Bird Brain==
Ray begins be observing the marvelous bird. Afterwards, he says it is tragic for atheists because they have no one to thank for this. They cannot see the intelligence of a mind behind all of this. He says Einstein and Newton saw it. He says atheists eat their meals, but choose not to taste it.

===The Unanswered Prayer of the Atheist===
Ray talks about a boy being injured. A prayer is given to heal him, but the boy dies (some say God wanted him to go to Heaven). Atheists say this is an unanswered prayer. However, if the boy survived, atheists would conclude that the body would heal itself. Ray asks is this a miracle, who knows? He concludes only God knows, but prayer has nothing to do with gods existence. So he tries to explain why. If his wife's car had a problem, and Ray concludes the car has no manufacturer because they will not return his calls. Comfort goes on to say that God's existence has nothing to do with people who experience miracles, visions, or hear God's voice. He says the sun does not exist because we see its light or feel its warmth, nor does it disappear when a blind man cannot see its light. The sun exists regardless. Ray does not stop there, he says God's existence does not depend on the Bible or its authenticity. God existed before Scripture, before creation, and even if the Bible is proven fraudulent God would still exist.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here Ray tries to weasel out of admitting that God is an unfalsifiable being. Each of the following" prayer, the Bible, miracles, etc. are all used to prove God exists, but when each are proven to be wrong Ray dances around it and say that does not mean God does not exist. By this logic, any infinite number of Gods can theoretically exist. In a debate with the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master Rational Response Squad], Ray argued that the existence of God can be proven scientifically without invoking the Bible or faith. Spoiler, he failed and constantly used the Bible and faith to support his claims. Ray could not prove the existence of God, and he constantly tried with using the Bible. So how can he use the Bible to prove God, but when the Bible is shown to be incorrect he says that does not matter because God still exists. He provided three "irrefutable" evidence for a creator, but each was refuted at the debate. One of Ray's proofs was creation. Although there are many flaws in Ray's argument, Jainism has made great argument against creation.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism_and_non-creationism#Jain_opposition_to_Creationism</ref> The second was conscience, but evolutionary theory already explains in detail how conscience could come about. Finally, the last evidence for a creator was conversion through Christ, but if it can be demonstrated (and it has) that conversion can produce spiritual experience that can be triggered by stimulating parts of the brain, does Ray dodge this and say this "irrefutable" evidence for a creator somehow does not disprove a creator?

Even without refuting miracles, the Bible, visions and such, many atheists, philosophers, and scientists have created models that show God cannot exist (such as Victor J. Stengers book [[God: The Failed Hypothesis]]).}}

===Evolution and Beginnings===
Ray lists the vast amount of animals discovered by zoologists. He then presents several questions: Which came first, the heart or blood? What was it that carried the blood to the heart if there were no vessels. Why would the heart beat if there was no blood to pump. When did blood evolve, was it before or after the vessels evolved? If before, what were the vessels for? If blood evolved before the heart, what kept it in circulation?

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=First thing to point out this is an [[god of the gaps]] fallacy in which if we do not have the answer then Ray gets to conclude his God is responsible. What is important to note is that some animals and organisms are alive without blood, such as the jellyfish and plants. Some animals have blood but no heart. But keep this in mind, blood has to change too. Not all blood has ever been the same as human blood. How did the blood transfer through the body? Every organism has some muscle-like functions to spread things inside the body, such as digestion. The first veins may not be as veins as we picture them, but as some form of muscle that would assist in blood flow. After many generations when the species grow in size, it makes sense that a device that would help move the flow of blood would be very advantageous than those without it.}}

===Which Came First===
Comfort provides some attempts to answer the question about the vessels, blood and the heart, but they are all very brief comments from non-experts. They all appear to be from people with little or no background in the required field because they provide no scientific studies or use their terms or examples of anatomy, but they are all honest and want to set Ray straight on what evolution actually presents. Some are speculation, or not even real attempts to answer, one says Ray will not listen regardless (definitely got that one right).

Ray concludes, without bothering to research into any scientific article, that the only answer is: Almighty God made it supernaturally. He then reads a biography of Abraham Lincoln (what? how is that relevant?). Ray is saddened by this story and is glad to know the man through his own words. He then says 150,000 die in 24 hours, and this should fire you up to spread the gospel.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Why just the gospel? Ray excludes all the other holy texts known to man because of his biased personal beliefs. The fact that many people die everyday shows that death is very common and can be prevented to a degree. Christianity (and many other religions) plays a role in the death of thousands of people everyday, such as witch hunts and genocide.<ref>http://www.christianaggression.org/tactics_violence.php</ref>

This affirms Rays continual use of the [[god of the gaps]] fallacy. Just because he provides quotes from nonexperts in the field, Ray thinks he can conclude that his narrow version of God is responsible. Ray never actually seeks to get a scientific explanation from an actual expert, or when he does he rudely does not let them finish or share the whole thing (giving the impression the "expert" had no evidence to present).<ref>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Evolution_%28Way_of_the_Master%29#A_real_expert</ref> Comfort admits that God did create the circulation system through magic (supernatural means). The part including Abraham Lincoln is completely irrelevant to the question about the circulation system. Comfort only uses it to learn about the person himself, but that says nothing about the evolution of blood or the heart. He uses this as an attempt to imply that reading the gospel can give you an emotional insight to the character of Jesus, but this is not evidence. People can feel an emotional attachment to the characters in Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, but that does not mean the characters in the stories actually exist. In summary, Ray Comfort [[appeal to emotion|appeals to emotion]] to push his faith upon people.}}

===The God of the Old Testament===
Starting off with Richard Dawkin's description of Yahweh, Ray says God of the New Testament is just as offensive as the God of the Old Testament. Comfort says God never changes. He then presents several stories in the Old Testament when God kills people, such as a couple who told a lie (Acts 5:1-11) and condemns unbelievers and everyone because we have all violated God's law. Ray defends the notion that God will punish unbelievers with several Bible verses (John 3:36, Ephesians 5:6, and Romans 2:8-9. Ray includes 2 Thessalonians 1:8). James 4:4 says God calls us his enemy and liars will be punished (Revelations 21:8) And yet this does not scare or bother Ray one bit. At the end, Ray says the two scenarios of God is fictional, and God really is all good and merciful. He defends that God is merciful because he became the flesh and paid the price for our sins.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray barely scratches the surface of the evils committed by God. Ignoring that God murdered all the lives of humans, plants, and animals (including infants and unborn babies) in the great flood, slaying the first-born of Egypt (from the royal prince to the small child of the salve at the mill. ALL of them), and many others. Here is a short example: In I Samuel 6, the ark of the Lord was being transported across country. Five farmers of Bethshemesh “rejoiced to see it.” They opened the box and made a burnt offering to the Lord, and for this terrible sin God “smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the Lord had smitten many of the people with great slaughter.” Is it moral to kill 50,000 people for a petty offense? He slew them all for the crimes of five other men? And exactly what was the crime? These men were trying to worship this very god, in their own way. Wouldn’t a God of mercy understand their innocent mistake? What if one of your children gave you a birthday card with the words “Daddy/Mommy, I luv you” and you punish them for spelling the word wrong? There are many many other stories that reveal God's evils.}}

Ray ends the chapter with an encounter with a man named Joe on the plane. He asks him several questions, such as what were the highest mountains before Mt. Everest. Ray says it has always been Mt. Everest. He pulls the old "are you a good person?" tactic, but Joe does not believe in a Haven or Hell, so Ray says to Joe to try and pretend they do and then decide where you would rather go to. Seriously, just pretend? Well, that is basically all that can be done. No evidence exists for an afterlife or a realm that matches the description of Hell or Heaven, so all Ray Comfort can do is pretend that they do in order to evangelize and make money.

==Chapter 16: Right on the Money==

==Chapter 17: What Really Matters==
The chapter begins with a question to Ray Comfort from a Christian. He asks Comfort how does he prove God exists to non-believes? Ray says he does not have to prove God exists, because they already know God exists. Every person has a "god-given" conscience. He also has the evidence of mere creation. Ray say he does no waste much time trying to prove God exists. Ray says people need to be shown instead that sin exists and they need a savior.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is faulty and fallacious logic. A Muslim could argue Ray and everyone knows Allah exists with no further prof required. If Ray doe not bother wasting time and energy tying to prove God exists, then why publish over 60 books? Why go to debates to prove God exists?}}

===The Absurdity of Christianity===
Ray agrees that preaching of the cross is "absurd" even the Bible says so in 1 Corinthians 1:18.

On page 197, Ray says that God will forgive your sins, which is "confirmed by the fact that God had raised Jesus from dead."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is not a confirmed fact. If it was, where is the evidence?}}

Ray then says that salvation cannot be achieved through works, but by grace (while citing Ephesians 2).
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray skips (willfully or not) verses like Matthew 16:27 which spells it out nicely "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works." When Ray was asked why can't God just forgive? Ray says God is bound by his holy character. Ray thus admits God is limited. }}

Ray says God's law s perfect, and thus God is perfect.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The law is perfect? The law says nothing about rape, child molestation, torture, etc. How is that perfect? What is perfect?
P1) A perfect being is not subject to change.
P2) A perfect being knows everything.
P3) A being that knows everything always knows what time it is.
P4) A being that always knows what time it is, is subject to change.
P5) A perfect being is subject to change.
P6) A perfect being is not perfect being; Finally therefore;
C) There is no perfect being.}}

===This is what you are saying...===
Starts off with a quote from someone who is not sure what right o wrong is. The person would favor a pro-life world, but would vote pro-choice. Ray compares this to wanting a Germany who does not kill anyone, rather have them kill on how I vote. Ray points to that part of not being able to identify right and wrong and says atheism provides no moral anchor.

===Species-to-species definition===
Here, an anonymous person accuses Ray of lying about transitional fossils. Ray tries to counter this by trying to define species as "Biology: a major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species</ref> Ray says wolves, German Shepard, and coyotes are the same species (Canine family or "kind"), but cannot breed with cats or the tiger (the feline family or"kind").
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray chooses not to quote from a scientific definition. Has Ray ever seen an Aardwolf? It looks like a fox, but it is more related to cats.}}

Ray says when he is taking about a transitional species-to-species fossil, he do not see a skeleton of a cat evolving into a dog, or a chicken evolving into a fish, or a horse into a cow.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here, Ray only further shows his incredibly misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution does not say chicken evolved not fish, fish far predate the time of chickens, and horses and cows are not in the same family. If you go back int the history of cat and dogs, the fossil record has shown that t family of cats, dogs, bears, and weasels once shared a common ancestor, that possibly looked like raccoons.<ref>http://webh01.ua.ac.be/funmorph/raoul/fylsyst/Flynn2005.pdf</ref>}}

Ray concludes that the Biblical Creation is supported by the evidence and nature "screams [[intelligent design]]." Ray ends is section with: "If you think that's a lie, then so be it."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=If nature does scream evidence for biblical creation and intelligent deign, where is it? What is it? Because each of the arguments presented for “irreducible complexity” (the best arguments creationism ever had) were disproved scientifically and exposed in court. And apart from a series of frauds and falsehoods - the only arguments anti-science evangelists have ever had seem limited to nothing more than ignorant criticisms of dwindling and already irrelevant gaps in the ever-enveloping advancement of science. But vague criticisms against science still wouldn’t count as evidence for creationism even if those arguments weren’t all completely wrong. Even if there was evidence of gods, it might not be their god. Even if it was, that wouldn’t be evidence of creation either, because that still wouldn’t dismiss any of the evidence for evolution and against mythology; nor could it change the fact that humans are still apes. Creation relies on a false dichotomy –rejecting all other options and insisting that there can only be two alternatives; So they can imagine that criticizing the one will vindicate the other by default. }}

===The Game of Speculation===
Here, Ray points out the often occurrence when scientist use the words like "maybe", "possibly", "perhaps" etc. Ray says he does not believe in fairy tales like a pumpkin turning into Cinderella's coach or the "unscientific theory of evolution." Ray does not believe reptiles turn into birds or chickens were not once dinosaurs billion of yeas ago.

Ray says he never said that evolutionists believe that cows turn into dogs, it is just he sees no scientific evidence for any species "evolving" into another species. Ray says he asks people on the street how they define evolution, and they say that their great-great-great-grandfather was an ape. Ray says that evolutionists believe that we share a common ancestor with apes, but they [the public] believe we are direct descendants from apes. Ray say they are confused by the "speculation" of evolutionist like Richard Dawkins "We admit we are are all like apes - In truth, not only are we apes, we are African apes."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Both the public and evolutionist are right, we are apes and we share a common ancestor with other apes. Because the problem with bridging the gap between humans and apes is that there is no gap because humans ARE apes –definitely and definitively. The word, “ape” doesn’t refer to a species, but to a parent category of collective species, and we’re included. This is no arbitrary classification like the creationists use. It was first determined via meticulous physical analysis by Christian scientists a century before Darwin, and has been confirmed in recent years with new revelations in genetics. Furthermore, it is impossible to define all the characters exclusively indicative of every known member of the family of apes without describing our own genera as one among them. Consequently, we can and have proven that humans are apes in exactly the same way that lions are cats, and iguanas are lizards, and whales are mammals. So where is the proof that humans descend from apes? How about the fact that we’re still apes right now!}}

Using an article about Ida, Ray quotes Dr. Dr Jørn Hurum, the palaeontologist from Oslo University's Natural History Museum who assembled the scientific team to study the fossil. "It tells a part of our evolution that's been hidden so far. It's been hidden because the only [other] specimens are so incomplete and so broken there's nothing almost to study." Ray says drop the "almost" and the truth is revealed. Carl Sagan said "We [scientists] re not afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact." Ray says if you believe in evolution, you have failed that.

===Open-Minded Evolutionist===
Opens with a question from an anonymous person asking Ray if he label everyone who disagrees with him as an "atheist"?

==Chapter 18: Bikers, an Atheist, and Vampires==
Ray begins by sharing that he had a discussion with four pastors on the subject of atheism, that Ray pointed out one in four university professors were atheists/agnostic and atheism has doubled in the last two decades. Ray says that he knows how to make atheists backslide by asking them if they really believe everything came from nothing (he says he caught this on tape, but where is it?)
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=If the idea that everything came from nothing is absurd, and Ray seems to agree, then he has proven creationism is indeed comical and false. Atheism does not say anything about how everything came to be, it simply the lack of belief in God.}}

Ray then retells his story of going fishing with one of the pastors. He was told plenty of non-Christians ride bikes in the area. Ray saw them, all tough and wearing Nazi helmets. Ray introduced himself to them, telling them that their chances of getting in an accident is higher, and he wanted them to know about God. So Ray takes them through the old and dishonest [[are you a good person?]] routine and the court room analogy. Later when Ray arrived with his Christian friends at the lake, he was amazed by its beauty that he reasoned no atheist could be here -although they may be atheists in rat-infested, crime-ridden, overcrowded, smog-drenched city.

Afterwards he meets a man named Abel, who that day became a Christian and is a fan of [[Way of the Master]].

Ray claims that God has a plan for use all by citing Romans 8:28. When Ray's flight was delayed, he reasoned God wanted him to take the longer route so he could talk to a passenger. He meets a man named Nick reading a novel about vampires. Ray takes him through the old and dishonest [[are you a good person?]] routine. When Ray arrives home in Los Angeles, his wife tells him there was an earthquake. Several ornaments over the TV fell but did not break. Ray, appearing like a caring husband, tells her he put straps on the TV to prevent it from falling. When Ray shows her by shaking the TV, the ornaments fell and brake.

===Conclusion===
Ray thanks the reader for reading this book. He includes a comment on his blog,<ref>http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2009/06/ever-stood-infront-of-big-fan.html</ref>
<blockquote>
"Imagine a scenario where you are suddenly presented with absolute proof that God exists. Not proof that you can reproduce in a lab or record in scientific journal, but experiential proof that is clear and undeniable...but only to you. I can’t tell you what that proof looks like, because it’s different for just about everybody. I can tell you what it looked like for me, and I’ll do so shortly. The mind of the Natural man (atheist) will buck against imagining such a thing, and resist even considering the scenario, but I’m asking you to try anyway. Take yourself, with all of your vast scientific knowledge of the universe, and imagine that the Christian God revealed himself to you in an undeniable way. How would such a thing change your life? What would happen to all the knowledge that seemed to so clearly disprove God just a minute ago? I can tell you exactly what would happen, because it happened to me (minus the vast scientific knowledge part). All that stuff stops mattering. You begin to realize that what we don’t know outweighs what we do know by an astronomical amount. You realize that What We Know is only an insignificant grain of sand on an unimaginable desert of 'Things to Know.' You begin to realize that in spite of the fact that we can’t agree on what happened throughout eternity, eternity still happened, and something happened inside of it. Lots of somethings. You begin to realize that sometimes both sides of an argument can claim the same piece of evidence. It’s all about perspective. So there you stand. Everything that you once KNEW laying shattered and broken at your feet, and the searchlight of your curiosity that drove you to become so knowledgeable about science and stuff is now focused on the Bible, the one and only source of knowledge about the magnificent creator of the universe. Can you imagine how it feels to suddenly know that such an awesome being actually exists? Have you ever stood in front of a powerful fan and tried to breath? Every breath you take in fills you up to bursting, and you feel wide open and a little afraid. That’s kind of how it feels on the day you start to believe God exists. It is an awesome day, let me tell you. I’ve got chills remembering when it happened to me. I was an atheist in an atheist chat room. One day someone came into the room and typed, 'imagine a scenario where you are suddenly presented with absolute proof . . . As I imagined, I began to realize that God was POSSIBLE. Afterward, my natural curiosity took the wheel and it was all over for me. God had his revenge, and I became an anti-intellectual (or whatever it is you guys call us these days). The thing is, I read the posts in this blog, from all of your great minds that have such a clear love for learning, and I get excited because you guys are going to be strong soldiers in God’s army when you finally discover the one truth that can change your life. I’ll gladly call you my brothers and sisters on that day." Jim
</blockquote>

An atheist will not just be closed to such experiences. It has been tested an observed hundreds of times that the brain is capable for producing such experiences the feel so real it cannot be denied. Michael Harner, and anthropologist who lived among the Jivaro Indians of the Ecuadoran Amazon, described his experience with ayahuasca as follows:
<blockquote>
“For several hours after drinking the brew, I found myself although awake, in a world literally beyong my wildest dreams. I met bird-like people, as well as a dragon-like creature who explained they were the true Gods of this world. I enlisted the services of other spirit helpers in attempting to fly through the far reaches of the Galaxy. Transported into a trance where the supernatural seemed natural, I realized that anthropologists, including myself, had profoundly underestimated the importance of the drug in affecting native ideology.”
</blockquote>
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Notice the blogger, Jim, says "minus the vast scientific knowledge part." Someone unaware of neuroscience and such both before and after can fall for explaining away such terrific feelings with the supernatural. Both sides make claims about certain evidences, but only the scientific side tests them to verify their accuracy. Where is the proof that the Christian God is the same God of your Christian neighbor? There are over 30,000 different denominations in Christianity that have different views of God and the Bible. How does Jim know that the God who convinced him was real is not a trickster pretending to be God? Jim only accepts that God exists though blind faith.}}

Finally at he end of the book, Ray tells a story of his film crew and himself in Las Vegas outside the Bellagio Hotel. A song "Time to Say Goodbye" brought back memories and reminds the reader about death. Ray compares Christians as people in a village built by a dam. The Christian can see the dam losing control and this warns the villagers, butt they refuse to listen. Ray says when he dies, he knows that he will see his family again. He urges the reader to carefully examine the Ten Commandments (which version Ray?)

== Incidentally ==
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=”Nothing created everything” does not mean quite the same thing as, “Everything exists without a creator”. Clearly nothing can have absolutely no effects. According to believers, “Nothing created god/the gods" makes sense while “Nothing created the physical universe” is unreasonable. There is no logical reason for this distinction. }}

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Apologetic literature]]
[[Category:Books]]
[[Category:Ray Comfort]]

Ten Commandments

2012-03-14T09:02:46Z

BronzeDome: /* The Actual Ten Commandments */ 2 typos

{{wikipedia}}
The '''Ten Commandments''' are laws given by [[God]] ([[Yahweh]]) to the [[Jew]]s via [[Moses]] in the [[Bible]], and are considered the most important laws in [[Judaism]] and [[Christianity]].

The Ten Commandments are given in {{bible|Exodus 20:1-17}} ([[KJV]]):

('''Important Note''': The following commandments were spoken out loud directly by God, but these commandments were not written on stone.)
{{Ten Commandments}}
# [[1st commandment|Thou shalt have no other gods before me.]]
# [[2nd commandment|Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image]], or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. [...]
# [[3rd commandment|Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain;]] for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
# [[4th commandment|Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.]] Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates [...]
# [[5th commandment|Honour thy father and thy mother:]] that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
# [[6th commandment|Thou shalt not kill.]]
# [[7th commandment|Thou shalt not commit adultery.]]
# [[8th commandment|Thou shalt not steal.]]
# [[9th commandment|Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.]]
# [[10th commandment|Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife,]] nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

They appear in virtually the same form in {{bible|Deuteronomy 5:6-21}}, except for two differences (further explained below).

==Differing versions==

[[Catholic]]s and [[Protestant]]s use slightly different versions of the Ten Commandments, based partly on different methods of dividing up the verses in Deuteronomy. The Catholic and Lutheran version does not treat as a separate commandment the prohibition against graven images — an obvious problem for the Roman Catholic church which is rife with shrines and statues. To make up for this, Catholics divide verse 21 into two commandments, thus separating the coveting of a wife from the coveting of farm animals. The Protestant versions of the Ten Commandments retain the prohibition against graven images, but it seems to be ignored since statues and other images have proliferated in their churches as well.

===The Actual Ten Commandments===
Shortly after Moses returning from Mount Sinai and the whole golden calf incident, Moses smashed the stone tablets on the ground out of fury. After that, {{bible|Exodus 34:12-26}}, God directly told Moses to return on top of Mount Sinai, and God would make an '''identical''' copy of the original commandments. Moses did as instructed, and returned with the following commandments written on stone tablets:
{{wikipedia|Ritual Decalogue}}
# Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:
# For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
# Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
# The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
# All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male. But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
# Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
# And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel. For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.
# Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
# The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
# Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

This latter version is believed by scholars to predate the traditional Ten Commandments. These above commandments are '''only''' time explicitly labelled as "the Ten Commandments" (in {{bible|Exodus 34:28}}), whereas the better known version is not.

===Other versions===
The Hebrew or Greek word translated as “commandment” actually means “word.” So, despite the rather verbose content of the Ten Commandments, originally, there should have been just “Ten Words” on the stone tablets.

The Bible also disagrees as to when and where the Israelites received the stone tablets. In Exodus, Moses brings the tablets to Israel during the first few months of the Exodus while camped by Mount Sinai. In Deuteronomy, Moses gives them the tablets forty years later, in the vicinity of Mount Horeb at the entraceway to the Promised Land.

The biblical history of the Ten Commandments begins with a show of smoke, thunder, and lightening as God offers the Israelite a covenant. Follow my rule, he sad, and I'll give you a homeland in Canaan and drive out the present inhabitants. He then announced a set of ten commandments, the content of which appears in Exodus 20:1-17. This constitutes the traditional version of the Ten Commandments.

The Book of Deuteronomy provides a recap of the same scene and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 sets forth a second version of God's announced commandments. The two sets of commandments are nearly identical; but for two important differences. With regard to remembering the Sabbath, Deuteronomy states that the purpose of the Commandment is to remind Israel that God had liberated the Hebrews from servitude in Egypt. The Exodus version says that the purpose of the Sabbath is to remind Israel that God rested on the seventh day of creation. Another distinction between Exodus and Deuteronomy appears in the last commandment about coveting of other property. Between Exodus 20:17 and Deut. 5:21, Exodus says a neighbor's wife is considered part of the male's household property. In Deuteronomy, she is separate from the household property. Despite thee nearly identical language throughout the two texts, these two differences show disagreement over what was originally supposed to have been inscribed in stone preserved for all to see and hear.

===The Judgments===
When God finished announcing the terms of the covenant, the people were frightened and asked Moses to talk with God on a one-to-one basis and leave them out of it "lest we die." Moses then went up on the mountain to talk to God and they had a long conversation and perhaps more than sixty, depending upon how the sentences are punctuated and divided (the full list appears in Exodus 21:1-23:26) The list has the following preamble: "Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them" (Exodus 21:1).

We don't need to look at the full substance of these judgments, we should note that variations of all the traditional Ten Commandments appear within this larger list but the substance of the text and the sequence of appearance vary significantly from the traditional version.

At the end of the long conversation, ''"Moses came and told he people of the words of the LORD, ad all the judgments and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do. And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD..." (Exodus 24:3-4)''. We have now arrived at the first written statement of God's law and thy are not on stone tablets. The passages says that first Moses told the people "all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments." Then the people said they would follow the "words" and Moses then "wrote all the words of the LORD." While Moses first announces "words" and "judgments" the people agree to only the "words" and Moses writes down only the "words." Where are the Judgments?

Do the "words" and "judgments" mean the same thing or does "words" refer to what God announced to the crowd and "judgments" to the long list of commandments given on the mountain? Since the people already had heard God's announcement and it frightened them, it hardly seemed necessary to repeat it, especially since the essence was already contained within the longer list. Did Moses write down just the "words" announced by God to the crowd, just the "judgments" that only Moses heard or both collections? Were "words" and "judgments" interchangeable concepts?

In context, Moses's action followed immediately after the private conversation on the mountain and one would expect his writing to contain the substance of that conversation. But, what we have here is an example of complicated biblical editing reflecting the interaction of two or more separate traditions.

===Christ's Ten Commandments===

Even Christ's version of the commandments is different. In three of the gospels, someone asks Jesus what the commandments are, and they receive three different answers, depending on which gospel is being read - but in all cases, only five or six commandments are given:

* {{bible|Matthew 19:17-19}}: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

* {{bible|Mark 10:19}}: Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

* {{bible|Luke 18:20}}: Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

==The Ten Commandments in United States politics==
[[Image:ten_commandments.jpg|thumb|The FOE ten commandments monument at the Texas state capitol building in Austin]]
Starting in 1954, the [[Fraternal Order of Eagles]] (FOE), with encouragement from movie director [[Cecil B. DeMille]] (director of the 1956 movie ''[[Wikipedia:The Ten Commandments (1956 film)|The Ten Commandments]]''), began producing granite monuments displaying the Ten Commandments. Today, there are 145 such monuments documented in 34 states, plus one in Canada.

The monuments actually display ''eleven'' commandments, since they use elements of both the Catholic and Protestant versions. The commandments are not explicitly numbered on the monuments, but the second commandment is about graven images (as in the Protestant version), and the tenth and eleventh commandments treat the different versions of coveting separately (as in the Catholic version).

==Counter-apologetics==

A common claim by those who believe that [[America is a Christian nation]] is that United States [[law]] is somehow based on the Ten Commandments. They point primarily to the laws such as "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not bear false witness," and "Thou shalt not steal" to claim that these are the basis for modern law.

In fact these sorts of laws have existed in societies throughout history, including societies which significantly predate the [[Old Testament]]. The [[Code of Hammurabi]] is a good example.

Most of the other commandments have marginal relevance to modern American law, or none at all.
*''No other gods before me:'' Instituting this as a law would violate freedom of religion, as protected by the first amendment.
*''No creation of idols:'' Instituting this as a law would would violate freedom of religion and freedom of speech, both protected by first amendment
*''No taking the lord's name in vain:'' Instituting this law would violate freedom of speech.
*''Remember the Sabbath day:'' [[blue laws|Blue laws]] exist in many states, however, every time these laws have been challenged, they have been found unconstitutional. Certainly there is no federal law demanding observation of the sabbath. Instituting this as a law would violate freedom of religion. Furthermore, which day is the sabbath, friday, saturday, sunday, or one of the other days?
*''Honor thy father and mother:'' With the exception of unruly children laws, which apply only to minors, instituting this as a law would violate freedom of speech.
*''Adultery:'' It is grounds for [[divorce]] and alimony, but it is not punished in any way to indicate that it is a real crime. Instituting this law would violate a number of human rights.
*''Coveting:'' Instituting this as a law would violate the right to pursue happiness, and would be contradictory to any capitalist system.

Promoters of the Ten Commandments [[cherry picking|cherry pick]] the Bible. In the chapter immediately following the Ten Commandments ({{bible|Exodus 21}}), God gives various instructions on how to properly conduct [[slavery]], including the rules for selling one's own daughter as a slave. There is no obvious reason why God's instructions in Exodus 20 are moral and should be followed today, but not God's instructions in Exodus 21. This is especially relevant considering that these laws were never called the Ten Commandments, and the real Commandments from Exodus 34 are never advocated.

==External links==
* [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hoffman01.htm The Real History of the Ten Commandments Project] at [[Religious Tolerance]]
* [http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm Which Ten Commandments?] at [[Positive Atheism]]
* [http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/prot_cath_3.htm Different Versions of the Ten Commandments] at [[atheism.about.com]]
* [http://www.atheists.org/Hang_the_Commandments_--_All_30_of_Them Hang the Commandments - All 30 of Them] by Frank Zindler at [[American Atheists]]
* [http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/06/ten-commandments-jesus-couldnt-name.html The Ten Commandments: Jesus couldn't name them all either] at [[Dwindling in Unbelief]]
* [http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/sixth.html What was the sixth commandment on Jesus' list of "the commandments?"] at [[The Skeptic's Annotated Bible]]
* [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm The Ten Commandments] in the [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church]

{{Christianity}}

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Commandments]]

Talk:Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

2012-02-28T18:56:43Z

BronzeDome: Created page with " == ''Nietzsche Made Simple'' == Is anyone familiar with this book by Roy Jackson, and how would you judge it? --~~~~"

== ''Nietzsche Made Simple'' ==

Is anyone familiar with this book by Roy Jackson, and how would you judge it? --[[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 12:56, 28 February 2012 (CST)

Talk:James Patrick Holding

2012-02-28T18:36:22Z

BronzeDome:

I've changed "famous" to "well-known", though quite frankly I've never heard of him. [[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 06:14, 18 October 2011 (CDT)

Is there any real point to this page? And what about the rest of the [[Special:Lonelypages|Orphaned pages]]? --[[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 01:49, 27 February 2012 (CST)

:Never heard of him, either. What do you think about a "list of apologists" page, categorized by religion? We could then remove pages for individual apologists that aren't any more useful to us than their wikipedia entries (JP Holding being a perfect example) and include a blurb at the top of the "list" page that contributors familiar with a given apologist's unique and/or most personally-used arguments are welcome to create a page for the apologist that links to the pages that refute those arguments. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 05:32, 27 February 2012 (CST)

::I feel it hard for me to say, but I am open to the idea, and if you're willing to start such a page, that is write the blurb, I am most willing to move potential articles into it. (My approach to this is simply based on the Orphaned Pages list, which strikes me as an invitation to do some "weeding".) --[[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 12:36, 28 February 2012 (CST)

Talk:James Patrick Holding

2012-02-27T07:49:54Z

BronzeDome:

Talk:Overview of early Christianity

2012-02-26T10:06:14Z

BronzeDome: Created page with " == Bibliography == I wish there was a good bibliography on this subject."

== Bibliography ==
I wish there was a good bibliography on this subject.

Émile Durkheim

2012-02-26T09:45:53Z

BronzeDome: moved Ã‰mile Durkheim to Émile Durkheim: Encoding error

'''David Émile Durkheim''' (15 April 1858 - 15 November 1917) was a French sociologist. He developed functionalist theories of cultural analysis and offered a reductionist account of [[religion]], based on the role that it plays in the various societies in which it occurs. Many of Durkheim's accounts focus on the religion of non-western cultures. His focus is on the practice of religion, rather than the beliefs that individual religious communities hold. His work ''The Elementary Forms of Religious Life'' (1912) is considered a seminal work in religious sociology.

User:BronzeDome

2012-02-16T06:35:48Z

BronzeDome: Footprints: christian drivel retold

I won't be saying anything here (at least for now), but please feel free to give me constructive criticism if I decide to contribute anywhere on the site.

=== [[User:BronzeDome/Footprints|Footprints]] ===

"Great re- tailing of Christian Classic" - [http://www.librarything.com/topic/132480#3234850 quicksiva]

=== Question ===
If I come up with an "original idea" on this site, does it get owned in it's entirity by the site, or do I get to claim "precedence"(?) if it should happen by some strange coincidence to be a "worthwhile" idea?

=== Bronze Dome ===
God said, "Let there be a bronze dome in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the bronze dome, and divided the waters which were under the bronze dome from the waters which were above the bronze dome: and it was so. And God called the bronze dome Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. -- {{Bible|Genesis 1:6–8}}

=== Work-in-progress ===
[[Failed Prophecy]]

=== Watchlist ===
* [[Special:Deadendpages|Dead-end pages]]
* [[Special:Lonelypages|Orphaned pages]]
* [[Special:Unusedimages|Unused files]]
* [[Special:Uncategorizedpages|Uncategorized pages]]
* [[Special:Uncategorizedcategories|Uncategorized categories]]
* [[Special:Wantedpages|Wanted pages]]
*
* Ummm?
** [[Special:Unusedcategories|Unused categories]]
** [[Special:Wantedcategories|Wanted categories]]

=== Notes to Self ===
*[[:Category:Pages for deletion]]
*
*[[America as a Christian nation]]
*[[Arguments for the existence of god]]
*[[Argumentum verbosium]]
*[[Deepity]]
*[[History of the Biblical canon]]
*[[Israelites]]
*[[Mythicism]]
*[[Overview of early Christianity]]
*[[There are no atheists]]
*[[Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that.]]

=== Sites ===
*[http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm Translation Errors and Forgeries in the Bible]

Talk:America as a Christian nation

2012-01-13T08:26:04Z

BronzeDome:

<s>2.7 needs some counter-argument. I can at best come up with something facetious, eg 95% of Americans have hair on their head, therefore America is a hairy nation, and all Americans should be required to have a full head of hair. Yeah, I know.</s>

2.8 could do with examples. I'm not American. MLK day? President's day? How about examples of days that have been rejected (with reasons for rejection), eg "National day of prayer" I believe. [[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 02:35, 11 January 2012 (CST)

(Updated after Andy's reversion of Matt's edits. [[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 02:26, 13 January 2012 (CST)

User:BronzeDome

2012-01-11T08:36:11Z

BronzeDome: /* Notes to Self */

I won't be saying anything here (at least for now), but please feel free to give me constructive criticism if I decide to contribute anywhere on the site.

=== Question ===
If I come up with an "original idea" on this site, does it get owned in it's entirity by the site, or do I get to claim "precedence"(?) if it should happen by some strange coincidence to be a "worthwhile" idea?

=== Bronze Dome ===
God said, "Let there be a bronze dome in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the bronze dome, and divided the waters which were under the bronze dome from the waters which were above the bronze dome: and it was so. And God called the bronze dome Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. -- {{Bible|Genesis 1:6–8}}

=== Work-in-progress ===
[[Failed Prophecy]]

=== Watchlist ===
* [[Special:Deadendpages|Dead-end pages]]
* [[Special:Lonelypages|Orphaned pages]]
* [[Special:Unusedimages|Unused files]]
* [[Special:Uncategorizedpages|Uncategorized pages]]
* [[Special:Uncategorizedcategories|Uncategorized categories]]
* [[Special:Wantedpages|Wanted pages]]
*
* Ummm?
** [[Special:Unusedcategories|Unused categories]]
** [[Special:Wantedcategories|Wanted categories]]

=== Notes to Self ===
*[[:Category:Pages for deletion]]
*
*[[America as a Christian nation]]
*[[Arguments for the existence of god]]
*[[Argumentum verbosium]]
*[[Deepity]]
*[[History of the Biblical canon]]
*[[Israelites]]
*[[Mythicism]]
*[[Overview of early Christianity]]
*[[There are no atheists]]
*[[Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that.]]

=== Sites ===
*[http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm Translation Errors and Forgeries in the Bible]

Talk:America as a Christian nation

2012-01-11T08:35:09Z

BronzeDome:

2.7 needs some counter-argument. I can at best come up with something facetious, eg 95% of Americans have hair on their head, therefore America is a hairy nation, and all Americans should be required to have a full head of hair. Yeah, I know.

2.8 could do with examples. I'm not American. MLK day? President's day? How about examples of days that have been rejected (with reasons for rejection), eg "National day of prayer" I believe. [[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 02:35, 11 January 2012 (CST)

God is trying to trick you with dinosaur bones

2011-12-25T04:27:26Z

BronzeDome: /* Counter-apologetics */

==Objection==

{{quote|[[God]] doesn't want to let [[gullible]] people into [[heaven]], so he tests you with dinosaur bones to make sure you actually know how to think for yourself not just listen to ''experts''.}}

==Counter-apologetics==

* It's [[Petitio principii|begging the question]], assuming atheists haven't already "thought for themselves", and examined the evidence.
* It's begging the question additionally, assuming there's a god to "test" us, at all.
* The claim is not [[falsifiable]], and thus cannot be considered within a scientific context.
* It's in violation of [[Occam's Razor]], in that the simpler explanation is that dinosaurs died and fossilized, without an additional agents and motivations.
* It's accusing atheists of engaging in the [[Argumentum ad verecundiam|argument from authority]]. Accepting the claims is based from [[evidence]] and [[skepticism]], not because "experts" said so.
* Given a choice between evidence and logic-based claims by experts, and no-evidence and illogical-based claims from [[religion|religious]] sources, it's a far better choice to go with the evidence.
* "Say... Who's fanboy are you anyway? I thought you were ''opposed'' to 'the deceiver'?"

==Related Pages==
* [[Satan is trying to trick you with dinosaur bones]]

==External links==
*[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis Omphalos hypothesis]

{{Common objections}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Arguments for belief]]

The Portable Atheist

2011-12-17T08:24:51Z

BronzeDome:

'''The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-Believer''' is a 2007 book edited by [[Christopher Hitchens]]. It is a collection of writings concerning [[atheism]] and [[philosophy]] written by many authors including [[Carl Sagan]], [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Daniel Dennett]], with introductions for each selection written by Hitchens himself.

Covering a wide range of counter-apologetic arguments, these selections also show that there truly is nothing new under the sun when it comes to these questions. Religion could have been put out of our misery a long time ago if it weren't for it's abuses of power. Even the oldest work selected from contains more clear thinking than current creationism.

== Contents ==
* Introduction by Christopher Hitchens
* Chapter 1: Selections from ''De Rerum Natura'' (''On the Nature of Things'') (1st century BCE) by Lucretius
* Chapter 2: ''Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám'' (ca 1100 CE) by Omar Khayyám
* Chapter 3: Of Religion, from ''Leviathan'' (1651) by Thomas Hobbes
* Chapter 4: Selection from ''Theologico-Political Treatise'' (1670) by Benedict De Spinoza
* Chapter 5: ''The Natural History of Religion'' (1757); Of Miracles, from ''An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding'' (1748) by David Hume
* Chapter 6: ''An Account of My Last Interview with David Hume, Esq.'' (1777) by James Boswell
* Chapter 7: Extract from ''A Refutation of Deism'' (1814) by Percy Bysshe Shelley
* Chapter 8: Moral Influences in My Early Youth, from ''Autobiography'' (1873) by John Stuart Mill
* Chapter 9: Introduction from ''Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right'' (1843) by Karl Marx
* Chapter 10: ''Evangelical Teaching'' (1855) by George Eliot
* Chapter 11: Selection from ''Autobiography'' (1887) by Charles Darwin
* Chapter 12: ''An Agnostic's Apology'' (1893) by Leslie Stephen
* Chapter 13: Miracle, from ''Le Jardin d’Épicure'' (''The Garden of Epicurus'') (1895) by Anatole France
* Chapter 14: Thoughts of God, from ''Fables of Man''; Bible Teaching and Religious Practice, from ''Europe and Elsewhere'' and ''A Pen Warmed Up in Hell'' by Mark Twain
* Chapter 15: Author's Note to ''The Shadow Line'' (1917) by Joseph Conrad
* Chapters 16-47: Work-in-progress

The Portable Atheist

2011-12-16T11:09:05Z

BronzeDome: Too much personal opinion?

'''The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-Believer''' is a 2007 book edited by [[Christopher Hitchens]]. It is a collection of writings concerning [[atheism]] and [[philosophy]] written by many authors including [[Carl Sagan]], [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Daniel Dennett]], with introductions for each selection written by Hitchens himself.

Covering a wide range of counter-apologetic arguments, these selections also show that there truly is nothing new under the sun when it comes to these questions. Religion could have been put out of our misery a long time ago if it weren't for it's abuses of power. Even the oldest work selected from contains more clear thinking than current creationism.

== Contents ==
* Introduction by Christopher Hitchens
* Chapter 1: Selections from ''De Rerum Natura'' (''On the Nature of Things'') (1st century BCE) by Lucretius
* Chapter 2: ''Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám'' (ca 1100 CE) by Omar Khayyám
* Chapter 3: Of Religion, from ''Leviathan'' (1651) by Thomas Hobbes
* Chapter 4: Selection from ''Theologico-Political Treatise'' (1670) by Benedict De Spinoza
* Chapter 5: ''The Natural History of Religion'' (1757); Of Miracles, from ''An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding'' (1748) by David Hume
* Chapter 6: ''An Account of My Last Interview with David Hume, Esq.'' (1777) by James Boswell
* Chapter 7: Extract from ''A Refutation of Deism'' (1814) by Percy Bysshe Shelley
* Chapter 8: Moral Influences in My Early Youth, from ''Autobiography'' (1873) by John Stuart Mill
* Chapter 9: Introduction from ''Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right'' (1843) by Karl Marx
* Chapter 10: ''Evangelical Teaching'' (1855) by George Eliot
* Chapter 11: Selection from ''Autobiography'' (1887) by Charles Darwin
* Chapter 12: ''An Agnostic's Apology'' (1893) by Leslie Stephen
* Chapter 13: Miracle, from ''Le Jardin d’Épicure'' (''The Garden of Epicurus'') (1895) by Anatole France
* Chapters 14-47: Work-in-progress

The Portable Atheist

2011-12-16T10:51:59Z

BronzeDome: Work-in-progress

'''The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-Believer''' is a 2007 book edited by [[Christopher Hitchens]]. It is a collection of writings concerning [[atheism]] and [[philosophy]] written by many authors including [[Carl Sagan]], [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Daniel Dennett]], with introductions for each selection written by Hitchens himself.

== Contents ==
* Introduction by Christopher Hitchens
* Chapter 1: Selections from ''De Rerum Natura'' (''On the Nature of Things'') (1st century BCE) by Lucretius
* Chapter 2: ''Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám'' (ca 1100 CE) by Omar Khayyám
* Chapter 3: Of Religion, from ''Leviathan'' (1651) by Thomas Hobbes
* Chapter 4: Selection from ''Theologico-Political Treatise'' (1670) by Benedict De Spinoza
* Chapter 5: ''The Natural History of Religion'' (1757); Of Miracles, from ''An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding'' (1748) by David Hume
* Chapter 6: ''An Account of My Last Interview with David Hume, Esq.'' (1777) by James Boswell
* Chapter 7: Extract from ''A Refutation of Deism'' (1814) by Percy Bysshe Shelley
* Chapter 8: Moral Influences in My Early Youth, from ''Autobiography'' (1873) by John Stuart Mill
* Chapter 9: Introduction from ''Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right'' (1843) by Karl Marx
* Chapter 10: ''Evangelical Teaching'' (1855) by George Eliot
* Chapter 11: Selection from ''Autobiography'' (1887) by Charles Darwin
* Chapter 12: ''An Agnostic's Apology'' (1893) by Leslie Stephen
* Chapter 13: Miracle, from ''Le Jardin d’Épicure'' (''The Garden of Epicurus'') (1895) by Anatole France
* Chapters 14-47: Work-in-progress

Christopher Hitchens

2011-12-16T07:45:20Z

BronzeDome: Thanks Hitch!

'''Christopher Hitchens''' was an English-American writer, journalist, commentator, political activist and self described anti-theist. Hitchens contends that organised religion is "[v]iolent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children", and that accordingly it "ought to have a great deal on its conscience."

==Biography==
===Personal life===
Born April 13, 1949.
Died December 15 2011

===Education===
He was educated at the independent Leys School, in Cambridge, and at Balliol College, Oxford, and read philosophy, politics, and economics.
===Professional life===
Hitchens authored [[God Is Not Great|God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything]]. He comes to 4 main conclusions in his critique of religion:
* Religion distorts the origins of humanity and the universe;
* Religion commands unreasonable suppression of human nature;
* Religion impels people to violence and blind submission to authority; and
* Religion is hostile to free inquiry.

==Works==
===Bibliography===
*[[The Missionary Position|The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice]], 1995
*[[God Is Not Great|God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything]] 2007. ISBN 0-446-57980-7
*[[The Portable Atheist|Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-Believer]] 2007. ISBN 978-0-306-81608-6

[[Category:People|Hitchens,Christopher]]
[[Category:Atheists|Hitchens,Christopher]]

What about all the good things religion has given us?

2011-11-10T07:40:23Z

BronzeDome: Inappropriate?

{{argument-stub}}
Religious [[apologist]]s often argue that [[religion]] does good; that religious people and institutions help the needy, or created great works of art or science; therefore, religion is a good thing.

== Examples ==
William Donohue, head of the Catholic League, [http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1879 writes]:
{{Quote|It was the Catholic Church that created the first universities, and it was the Catholic Church that played a central role in the Scientific Revolution}}

Arthur C. Brooks, at Stanford's Hoover Institution, [http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html writes]:
{{Quote|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.}}

== Counter-apologetics ==
=== What is the argument? ===
Assuming for the sake of argument that religious beliefs cause people to be better, this does not imply that those beliefs are true.

In other words, "religion gives us good things, therefore religion is good" is an argument for the usefulness of religion, not its truth.

=== What is the causality? ===
Is there something about religion that causes people to do good things? Or are the good things attributed to religion due to some other cause?

For instance, in a community that is 75% Catholic, one would expect about 75% of all good deeds to be done by Catholics, all else being equal.

=== Is religion, on balance, a good thing? ===
Religious institutions also often do bad things, such as opposing the teaching of [[evolution]] in schools or promoting the spread of AIDS by denigrating the use of condoms. Therefore, we must ask ourselves whether, on balance, religion is a good thing or not.

[[Ray Comfort]] openly admits that his style of Christianity makes followers less happy in this world, below is just one of many times he has said that.
<blockquote>But there is no Biblical precedent for a message of life improvement upon conversion. None. In fact the Bible says you will have trials, tribulations temptation, persecution. [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RidZHDO8SMgC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=there+will+be+trials+and+hardships%2Bray+comfort&source=bl&ots=-Eu5V73XOu&sig=Fg0Z-R8iYbOwY9rVxOhurqCu960&hl=en&ei=AI2QTuGoOYW98gOKuIgP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false] </blockquote>

Other Christian apologists are less willing to admit that they reduce happiness. Many social problems are worse in the United States [http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Bible_Belt#Bible_Belt_Statistics Bible belt] than in other parts of the United States and religious fundamentalism is strong there. Statistics are less easy to find in other parts of the world where fundamentalists are not collected together in the same place but similar problems are likely to be associated with fundamentalism elsewhere.

One should not assume without evidence that religion, particularly fundamentalist religion makes people happy.

=== Is religious charity selfless? ===
One must remember that when a religious person does charity, they may be doing this for a reward, such as [[heaven]], if applicable to the religion in question. Many people act out on the word of God, to impress God. Many are not doing these good deeds out of the kindness of their heart, but for eternity in heaven. American [[Christian]] [[fundamentalism|fundamentalists]] of the [[Religious right]] give small amounts of money to charity, they feel good about this and imagine it will help them get to heaven. At the same time they vote and campaign against political parties that promote tax funded initiatives with potential to help poor people far more than voluntary charity can do. Small scale charitable giving is a smokescreen that seeks to prevent the religious right and the public at large seeing how far the Republican religious style of politics is actually harming poor Americans.

=== Dodging the issue ===
If brought up with reference to Atheism, this response may be a dodge. Atheists may just as well do good, so as an argument against atheism it misses relevancy.

This is part of the common misconception that: Atheism has bearings on topics other than the lack of belief in deities. And at the same time the misconception that: without religion, there can be no moral standards.
Thus, the apologist who responds with this dodge probably believes that the Atheist cannot have moral standards as he/she has no religion.

Furthermore Atheism is not equivalent to lack of morality. Although religion may promote morality, it is fallible to say that therefore Atheism promotes lack of morality. Morality is an issue of the individual not of an institution, thus Atheists and Theists have the same capacity of being moral or immoral as they both choose which morals to include in their lives.

The idea that morality is originally based on religion is frequently heard from apologists in debates and conversations. Some of the reasons for this belief can be that,
* one cannot imagine a world without religion
* one imagines the world to be barbaric without his/hers religion (Indians, Vikings, etc. Essentially societies that one believes were barbaric)
* the scripture speaks a lot of morals and laws, and one assumes that the world must have been without morals and laws before the scripture
* animals cannot read, and they act like animals

The reality is that morality is intrinsic to animals. Charles Darwin refers to this as altruism. Morality is basically a product of natural selection, and homo sapiens is far from the only species to exhibit this behaviour that we have labelled as "goodness".

It's also important to note the difference between ethics (more universal views of what is right or wrong - developed namely through cultural evolution) and morality (culturally-based views of what is right or wrong). Morals are not always ethical, and it is quite arguable that many religious morals are anything but ethical.

=== What about all the good things Nazism gave? ===
They
* put a stop to massive unemployment;
* ended hyper-inflation;
* restored the self-esteem of the German people;
* built the Autobahn;
* laid the technological foundations for modern utilisation of space;
* forced the world to rethink international relations to such an extent that much of Europe has enjoyed peace for over 65 years.

Surely with so many positive outcomes we ought to overlook a few minor unpleasantries?

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments for belief]]
[[Category:Non-arguments for the existence of God]]

What about all the good things religion has given us?

2011-11-10T07:24:51Z

BronzeDome: /* Is religion, on balance, a good thing? */ Grammar, typos

{{argument-stub}}
Religious [[apologist]]s often argue that [[religion]] does good; that religious people and institutions help the needy, or created great works of art or science; therefore, religion is a good thing.

== Examples ==
William Donohue, head of the Catholic League, [http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1879 writes]:
{{Quote|It was the Catholic Church that created the first universities, and it was the Catholic Church that played a central role in the Scientific Revolution}}

Arthur C. Brooks, at Stanford's Hoover Institution, [http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html writes]:
{{Quote|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.}}

== Counter-apologetics ==
=== What is the argument? ===
Assuming for the sake of argument that religious beliefs cause people to be better, this does not imply that those beliefs are true.

In other words, "religion gives us good things, therefore religion is good" is an argument for the usefulness of religion, not its truth.

=== What is the causality? ===
Is there something about religion that causes people to do good things? Or are the good things attributed to religion due to some other cause?

For instance, in a community that is 75% Catholic, one would expect about 75% of all good deeds to be done by Catholics, all else being equal.

=== Is religion, on balance, a good thing? ===
Religious institutions also often do bad things, such as opposing the teaching of [[evolution]] in schools or promoting the spread of AIDS by denigrating the use of condoms. Therefore, we must ask ourselves whether, on balance, religion is a good thing or not.

[[Ray Comfort]] openly admits that his style of Christianity makes followers less happy in this world, below is just one of many times he has said that.
<blockquote>But there is no Biblical precedent for a message of life improvement upon conversion. None. In fact the Bible says you will have trials, tribulations temptation, persecution. [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RidZHDO8SMgC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=there+will+be+trials+and+hardships%2Bray+comfort&source=bl&ots=-Eu5V73XOu&sig=Fg0Z-R8iYbOwY9rVxOhurqCu960&hl=en&ei=AI2QTuGoOYW98gOKuIgP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false] </blockquote>

Other Christian apologists are less willing to admit that they reduce happiness. Many social problems are worse in the United States [http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Bible_Belt#Bible_Belt_Statistics Bible belt] than in other parts of the United States and religious fundamentalism is strong there. Statistics are less easy to find in other parts of the world where fundamentalists are not collected together in the same place but similar problems are likely to be associated with fundamentalism elsewhere.

One should not assume without evidence that religion, particularly fundamentalist religion makes people happy.

=== Is religious charity selfless? ===
One must remember that when a religious person does charity, they may be doing this for a reward, such as [[heaven]], if applicable to the religion in question. Many people act out on the word of God, to impress God. Many are not doing these good deeds out of the kindness of their heart, but for eternity in heaven. American [[Christian]] [[fundamentalism|fundamentalists]] of the [[Religious right]] give small amounts of money to charity, they feel good about this and imagine it will help them get to heaven. At the same time they vote and campaign against political parties that promote tax funded initiatives with potential to help poor people far more than voluntary charity can do. Small scale charitable giving is a smokescreen that seeks to prevent the religious right and the public at large seeing how far the Republican religious style of politics is actually harming poor Americans.

=== Dodging the issue ===
If brought up with reference to Atheism, this response may be a dodge. Atheists may just as well do good, so as an argument against atheism it misses relevancy.

This is part of the common misconception that: Atheism has bearings on topics other than the lack of belief in deities. And at the same time the misconception that: without religion, there can be no moral standards.
Thus, the apologist who responds with this dodge probably believes that the Atheist cannot have moral standards as he/she has no religion.

Furthermore Atheism is not equivalent to lack of morality. Although religion may promote morality, it is fallible to say that therefore Atheism promotes lack of morality. Morality is an issue of the individual not of an institution, thus Atheists and Theists have the same capacity of being moral or immoral as they both choose which morals to include in their lives.

The idea that morality is originally based on religion is frequently heard from apologists in debates and conversations. Some of the reasons for this belief can be that,
* one cannot imagine a world without religion
* one imagines the world to be barbaric without his/hers religion (Indians, Vikings, etc. Essentially societies that one believes were barbaric)
* the scripture speaks a lot of morals and laws, and one assumes that the world must have been without morals and laws before the scripture
* animals cannot read, and they act like animals

The reality is that morality is intrinsic to animals. Charles Darwin refers to this as altruism. Morality is basically a product of natural selection, and homo sapiens is far from the only species to exhibit this behaviour that we have labelled as "goodness".

It's also important to note the difference between ethics (more universal views of what is right or wrong - developed namely through cultural evolution) and morality (culturally-based views of what is right or wrong). Morals are not always ethical, and it is quite arguable that many religious morals are anything but ethical.

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments for belief]]
[[Category:Non-arguments for the existence of God]]

User:BronzeDome

2011-10-19T10:22:04Z

BronzeDome:

I won't be saying anything here (at least for now), but please feel free to give me constructive criticism if I decide to contribute anywhere on the site.

=== Question ===
If I come up with an "original idea" on this site, does it get owned in it's entirity by the site, or do I get to claim "precedence"(?) if it should happen by some strange coincidence to be a "worthwhile" idea?

=== Bronze Dome ===
God said, "Let there be a bronze dome in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the bronze dome, and divided the waters which were under the bronze dome from the waters which were above the bronze dome: and it was so. And God called the bronze dome Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. -- {{Bible|Genesis 1:6–8}}

=== Work-in-progress ===
[[Failed Prophecy]]

=== Watchlist ===
* [[Special:Deadendpages|Dead-end pages]]
* [[Special:Lonelypages|Orphaned pages]]
* [[Special:Unusedimages|Unused files]]
* [[Special:Uncategorizedpages|Uncategorized pages]]
* [[Special:Uncategorizedcategories|Uncategorized categories]]
* [[Special:Wantedpages|Wanted pages]]
*
* Ummm?
** [[Special:Unusedcategories|Unused categories]]
** [[Special:Wantedcategories|Wanted categories]]

=== Notes to Self ===
*[[:Category:Pages for deletion]]
*
*[[Arguments for the existence of god]]
*[[Argumentum verbosium]]
*[[Deepity]]
*[[History of the Biblical canon]]
*[[Israelites]]
*[[Mythicism]]
*[[Overview of early Christianity]]
*[[There are no atheists]]
*[[Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that.]]

=== Sites ===
*[http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm Translation Errors and Forgeries in the Bible]

Talk:Failed Prophecy

2011-10-19T10:20:10Z

BronzeDome: My attempt

=== Text Taken from Website ===

[[Christhiru]]
It's problematic to copy/paste the content from there into here. Typically, it's frowned upon to do that even with wikipedia. It would be better to simply link to that page, with a description here, perhaps with an excerpt, or additional commentary.

I think it's more the amount you took is excessive than the fact you're referencing other work, even if the source is cited.

--[[User:Jt|jt]] 13:03, 26 May 2011 (CDT)

:I'll take it down

:--[[User:Christhiru|christhiru]

::Well, I didn't mean you had to take it down entirely. It's still a valid topic.
::[[User:Jt|jt]] 14:57, 26 May 2011 (CDT)

what do you suggest??
-CHISTHIRU

== My attempt ==

a) Yes, I know the text ought not to be quoted directly, maybe change will come;

b) I have a problem with a few of these being placed in this specific article, because they aren't necessarily clearly failed (yet) or even actual prophecies, but I suppose this is a work-in-progress. [[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 05:20, 19 October 2011 (CDT)

Failed Prophecy

2011-10-19T10:13:41Z

BronzeDome: How 'bout this for a start?

The following examples of '''failed prophecies''' have been selected from the long list found at the [http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html Skeptic's Annotated Bible].

As a punishment for killing Abel, God says Cain will be "a fugitive and a vagabond." {{Bible|Genesis 4:12}} Yet in just a few verses ({{Bible|Genesis 4:16-17}}) Cain will settle down, marry, have a son, and build a city.

God promises Abram's descendants the land of Canaan from the Nile to the Euphrates. {{Bible|Genesis 15:18}} But according to {{Bible|Acts 7:5}} and {{Bible|Heb 11:13}} God's promise to Abram was not fulfilled.

God promises to cast out many nations including the Canaanites and the Jebusites. {{Bible|Exodus 33:2}} But he was unable to fulfill his promise.

"If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will ... speak unto him in a dream." {{Bible|Numbers 12:6}} Now there's a reliable way to communicate with someone!

God promises to cast out seven nations including the Amorites, Canaanites, and the Jebusites. {{Bible|Deuteronomy 7:1}} But he was unable to fulfill his promise.

God promises to give Joshua all of the land that his "foot shall tread upon." He says that none of the people he encounters will be able to resist him. {{Bible|Joshua 1:3-5}} But later we find that God didn't keep his promise, and that many tribes withstood Joshua's attempt to steal their land.


James quotes a scripture that says, "The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy." {{Bible|James 4:5}} But there is no such verse in the Bible.

Peter believed that he was living in the "last times." {{Bible|1 Peter 1:5}}, {{Bible|1 Peter 1:7|7}}, {{Bible|1 Peter 1:20|20}}


John expects to live to see Jesus return. {{Bible|1 John 3:2}}

John quotes Jesus (1900 years ago) as saying, "Behold, I come quickly." {{Bible|Revelation 3:11}}, {{Bible|Revelation 22:7}}, {{Bible|Revelation 22:12|12}}, {{Bible|Revelation 22:20|20}}

"And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth...." {{Bible|Revelation 6:13}} To John, the stars are just little lights a few miles away that can easily fall to the earth.

== Sources ==
[http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html Skeptic's Annotated Bible]

{{Arguments against god}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Empirical arguments]]
[[Category:Biblical criticism]]
[[Category:Bad arguments against religion]]

Talk:Mormonism

2011-10-18T19:01:24Z

BronzeDome: /* Eternal progression */ redlink

Definition and summary expanded.--[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 17:45, 12 March 2010 (CST)
Link to main Wikipedia article added. --[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 16:59, 16 March 2010 (CDT)

Counter-apologetics moved into comment boxes. --[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 17:47, 19 March 2010 (CDT)
==Church History==
===Great Migration to Salt Lake City===

Moved under Church History--[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 17:19, 12 March 2010 (CST)

Initial paragraph added. --[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 14:46, 16 March 2010 (CDT)

==Prophets==
===Joseph Smith===

May I suggest that Joseph Smith's bio be moved to a page dedicated to him? I'm feeling too lazy to work out the restructuring myself right now...

--[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 14:49, 3 August 2006 (MST)

Major edits. Section mainly rewritten. Much of this section belongs in the Joseph Smith page. --[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 14:29, 16 March 2010 (CDT)

===Brigham Young===

==Holy Books==

Separated from Church doctrine section. Bold titles, such as '''Book of Mormon''', changed to subheadings.--[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 17:07, 12 March 2010 (CST)

Section intro edited. --[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 16:41, 17 March 2010 (CDT)

===Book of Mormon===

Link added: [[Book of Mormon]]--[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 17:37, 12 March 2010 (CST)

Separate [[Book of Mormon]] main page started. Bulk of the section moved there and expanded. --[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 16:30, 17 March 2010 (CDT)

===Doctrine and Covenants===

Link added: [[Doctrine and Covenants]]--[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 17:37, 12 March 2010 (CST)

===Pearl of Great Price===

Link added [[Pearl of Great Price]]--[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 17:37, 12 March 2010 (CST)

The bulk of this section was moved to the main page for Pearl of Great Price. --[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 16:58, 17 March 2010 (CDT)

===Counter-apologetics===

Section added. --[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 13:53, 16 March 2010 (CDT)

Changing doctrines argument added. --[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 16:44, 17 March 2010 (CDT)

==Other official Mormon publications==
===Journal of Discourses===

===Holy Bible: Joseph Smith translation===
Section added.--[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 17:00, 16 March 2010 (CDT)

==Church doctrine==

Separated from Holy Books section. The following sections have been grouped under this heading: Mormon world view, Polygamy, Temples and ceremonies, Womens roles in Mormonism, Adam-God doctrine, Eternal progression and Family forever (renamed Eternal Families).--[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 17:19, 12 March 2010 (CST)

===The Mormon godhead===
Section added. --[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 15:36, 22 March 2010 (CDT)

===Mormon world view===

Deleted previous sections, and created a summary. Most of what was there is covered in Eternal progression and will be covered in Polygamy. --[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 16:01, 15 March 2010 (CDT)

===Polygamy===
===Temples and ceremonies===

Section added. --[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 16:06, 15 March 2010 (CDT)

=== The Priesthood ===

Section added. --[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 16:49, 11 March 2010 (CST)

===Women's roles in Mormonism===

Section added. --[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 17:11, 11 March 2010 (CST)

===Eternal progression===

Section added. --[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 16:49, 11 March 2010 (CST)

Counter-apologetics added, including links. --[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 15:34, 15 March 2010 (CDT)

Paragraph added about the [[Euthyphro dilemma]]. --[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 13:51, 16 March 2010 (CDT)

Counter-apologetics moved into comment boxes. --[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 16:31, 24 March 2010 (CDT)

===Eternal families===

Section added. --[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 16:49, 11 March 2010 (CST)

==Things to be done...==

Information! Information! Information! And some formatting!

--[[User:Gunther01|Gunther01]] 04:20, 3 August 2006 (MST)

Reduce the Holy Books section, moving most of it to specific individual pages for the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, Journal of Discourses. Counter-apologetics can then be added with references to individual passages on those passages, with the main ideas being part of the main Mormonism page in a smaller Holy Books section. Other official Mormon publications, such as Ensign magazine can also be mentioned.

--[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 16:21, 11 March 2010 (CST)

Church Doctrine should be a separate section from the Holy Books section. The following sections should be subsections of Church Doctrine: Mormon World View, Temples and Ceremonies, The Priesthood, Women's roles in Mormonism, Adam-God doctrine, Eternal progression and Family forever. --[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 17:16, 11 March 2010 (CST)

The Church doctrine sections could easily fill individual pages on their own. I plan on systematically creating the individual pages, dissecting them from an counter-apologetics and moving a bulk of the deep explanations away from the main page.--[[User:Rabidwriter|Rabidwriter]] 14:52, 18 March 2010 (CDT)

== Noted ==

Read the two comments:
Kazim, I'm not sure how to move pages around and do formatting. But, please, anyone who DOES know how is entirely welcome to do so.

I'm working on getting the information completed. Sorry it's taking so long. I'm also trying to figure out how to embed pictures.
----
I moved all of the content from the Joseph Smith section to its own page and shortened the entry on this page. The new page will need to be formatted a bit, to maintain consistency with other bios. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 15:23, 19 August 2006 (MST)

Talk:You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think (book)

2011-10-18T18:57:45Z

BronzeDome:

What's a "Poe"? [[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 13:57, 18 October 2011 (CDT)

The Matrix

2011-10-18T18:52:53Z

BronzeDome: redlinks

{{wikipedia}}'''''The Matrix''''' was a popular 1999 action film starring Keanu Reeves, Laurence Fishburne, and Hugo Weaving. The film explored some common science fiction themes about the nature of [[reality]], and is sometimes used as a reference to discuss issues about [[knowledge]] in general.

==Plot==

'''Spoiler warning: Plot details follow.'''

Computer programmer Thomas Anderson leads a secret life as a hacker under the alias "Neo". Neo meets a mysterious figure named Morpheus who offers him a chance to learn the truth about his world, which Neo accepts.

Neo learns that rather than living in the year 1999 as he believed, he is actually in approximately 2199. Neo has spent his entire life living in an elaborate simulated reality maintained by intelligent computers to keep humans under control. Most of humanity lives in cryogenic pods, where they are fed intravenously and the computer feeds them false input about the world.

==Philosophical issues==

The subject of an illusory world has been explored as far back as 1641, when [[René Descartes]] speculated in his ''[[Meditations on First Philosophy]]'' that the world might be an illusion created by an evil [[demon]]. Ultimately Descartes rejected the idea that this could possibly be true, but in order to do this he had to invoke the idea of a [[good]] [[God]] who would not allow this to happen. This line of reasoning is not open to [[atheist]]s.

Indeed, it seems that there is no way to conclusively [[proof|prove]] that the world is not an illusion, if we are allowed to make the assumption that such an illusion would be so skillfully made that it was indistinguishable from reality. [[Science]] is only able to state facts about the world with a limited degree of certainty. While scientists may deem one hypothesis as more likely to be true than another, any explanation which fit the available facts must be considered "possibly true", although subject to conditional dismissal based on [[Occam's Razor]].

If we cannot even assert conclusively that the real world exists, then it is fair to say that we can never truly "know" whether something like a god exists. Therefore, the Matrix is sometimes brought up as a way of illustrating why [[weak atheism]] makes more sense than [[strong atheism]].

[[Category:Movies|Matrix, The]]
[[Category:Epistemology|Matrix, The]]

The Case for a Creator

2011-10-18T18:49:07Z

BronzeDome: /* Chapter 3: Doubts About Darwinism */ redlink

{{Wikipedia}}

==Overall comments==
All of the people [[Lee Strobel]] interviews for this book are connected with the [[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture (CSC): William Lane Craig is a fellow at the CSC; Jonathan Wells, Guillermo Gonzales, Jay Richards, and Michael Behe are senior fellows; Stephen Meyer is program director for the CSC; Robin Collins has received support for his work from the CSC.

In addition, Phillip Johnson, whose work is often cited for support, holds the title of program advisor for the CSC.

Nonetheless, although both the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture are mentioned several times, neither one appears in the index. Other people and concepts (such as Strobel's wife) do, despite being mentioned only once.

==Chapter 1: White-Coated Scientists Versus Black-Robed Preachers==
The first chapter begins with Strobel going through his early career as a journalist for the ''Chicago Tribune'' in the 1970's. At that time, he was not religious, but after covering a story in West Virginia about religion and schools, Stobel was reeled into religion. Stroble says he was a skeptic of Christianity and religion, but he does not give any evidence to support his story - so this may be just a ploy.

During his investigation, he learned that there were shootings and bombings at schools "all because some hillbillies are mad about the textbooks being used in the schools." Later, Strobel writes that when he attended an anti-evolution rally in rural Campbell's Creek and was recognized as a reporter, the crowd turned ugly and he was in real fear of physical harm (so much that Strobels knees were shaking) possibly because they thought the reporter would not portray them in a sympathetic light. An intense, dark-haired wife of a Baptist minister insisted,
<blockquote>
"The books bought for our school children would teach them to lose their love of God, to honor draft dodgers and revolutionaries, and to lose their respect for their parents."
</blockquote>
a local business man said,
<blockquote>
"Let me put it this way," he said. "If Darwin's right, we're just sophisticated monkeys. The Bible is wrong. There is no God. And without God, there's no right or wrong. We can just make up our morals as we go. The basis for all we believe is destroyed. And that's why this country is headed to hell in a handbasket. Is Darwin responsible? I'll say this: people have to choose between science and faith, between evolution and the Bible, between the Ten Commandments and make-'em-up-as-you-go ethics. We've made our choice - and we're not budging."
</blockquote>
{{Response|As you can see, the reason why the West Virginians were angry was due to religious reasons, it did not and does not matter if the evidence supports Darwin's theory of evolution (which it does). They preferred to choose their belief, and their children's beliefs, based not on what ''is'' true but on what they ''wanted'' to be true. Of course, everything the minister's wife and local business man stated about evolution is completely incorrect. The validity of evolution does not refute God or an afterlife, nor does evolution cause morals or meaning to vanish.

Was is really interesting and worth noting: Strobel never returns to these incidents, or draws any lessons from them. He never even explicitly condemns the violence. At best, he remarks about Christianity (from his back-then non-religious perspective) as an "archaic belief system." Remarks like this lead many to speculate that Strobel exaggerated about his past beliefs. Most atheists or reasonable people would remark at such violence like this as what it really was: violent irrational lunatics. Rather, Strobel seems to be implying their actions were somehow justified. A rational, hard-nosed journalist would point out that the possible social consequences of a scientific theory have no bearing on whether that theory is true. Strobel does not do this. Rather he supports the crowds notion that evolution refutes all possible beliefs about God (ignoring all the Christian evolutionists back then and of today).}}

{{Response|Despite the book being titled ''The Case for a Creator'' -which implies that the book's contents contain a set of factual arguments and supporting evidence worthy of the description "case"- Strobel here does nothing of the kind. In fact, what he's doing is exactly the same thing that his West Virginian interviewees were doing: trying to warn people away from accepting evolution by painting a frightening picture of its imagined consequences. Thus it is no surprise that Strobel does not attempt to cite supporting arguments for this staggering set of claims. Instead, the sole purpose is to provoke horror into Strobel's Christian readers.}}

==Chapter 2: The Images of Evolution==
The chapter begins with a quote by Richard Lewontin and [[Phillip Johnson]]. Johnson, the father of the modern [[intelligent design]] movement, makes the claim that science is identical to materialism and naturalism that purposely excludes god.
{{Response|The naturalism that science adopts is methodological naturalism. It does not assume that nature is all there is; it merely notes that nature is the only objective standard we have. The supernatural is not ruled out a priori; when it claims observable results that can be studied scientifically, the supernatural is studied scientifically (Astin et al. 2000; Enright 1999). It gets little attention because it has never been reliably observed. Still, there are many scientists who use naturalism but who believe in more than nature. Johnson, in 1996, made the statement "intelligent design debate is not about science, it's about religion and philosophy."}}

Strobel begins by sharing his experience as an atheist going through a biology class and how his curiosity for truth drove him into liking science. He retells how he grew up in a post-Sputnik era when education and science was held in a high degree. He mentions that in the 1960's relativism and situational ethics caused the nation to turn upside down.
{{Response|How could this be? If a person would prefer to life of hedonism and debauchery, then they can perfectly do that as a theist ([http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/08/on-christian-hypocrites.html and a lot of them do]). Strobel said that those who still had faith in the supernatural were, in his view, weak and had no evidence to support their claims. This Red Herring led to the violation of science (science cannot make a comment on the supernatural).}}

He quotes Richard Dawkins, who said Darwin make it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

===The Images of Evolution===
Strobel recalls the images he frequently saw in a biology class.

*Image 1: Tubes, Flasks, and Electrodes of the Stanley Miller Experiment. - This excluded God from having a role in creating life.
*Image 2: Darwin's "tree of Life" -After reading the ''Origin of Species'' Strobel says this explained the diversity of life.
*Image 3: Ernst Haeckel's Drawings of Embryos - Strobel says these drawings could be found in virtually every evolution book he studied.
*Image 4: The Missing Link - Strobel mentions and sticks to using Archeopteryx as an example.

Strobels says he met many spiritual skeptics who started doubting in high school or college. Strobel mentions in 2002, a Boy Scout was not granted the Eagle Scout award because he refused to pledge reverence to God. This started when he had "been an atheist since studying evolution in the ninth grade."(Dean E. Murphy of the New York Times, "Eagle Scout Faces Ultimatum over Atheism," Orange County Register (November 3, 2002))

===Darwin Versus God===
Here Strobel lists many scientists and theologians who find no conflict in accepting evolution and hold a belief in God. Where was Strobel when several Popes openly stated the evolutionary theory does not contradict or refute God?
This did not make sense to Strobel because he was taught evolution is undirected. Strobel brings up Phillip Johnson's book, ''Darwin on Trial'', that explains evolution's whole point is to exclude God. (Read [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html this article to see everything wrong in Johnson's book]) Strobel says Ernst Meyer agrees with Johnson (quoting phrase word for word on page 23),
<blockquote>
"the real core of Darwinism" is natural selection, which "permits the explanation of adaption...by natural means, instead of by divine intervention."
</blockquote>
Strobel takes the above quote from Stephen J. Gould, "Abscheulich! Atrocious! ''Natural History'' (March 2002).
Strobel also mentions Fransisco Ayala, a Dominican priest for to his science career, claiming there was no need for a creator or external agent for the mechanisms of evolution. (Ayala refused to be interviewed for this book). Strobel goes on to quote several other sources, including Pulitzer Prize winners and ''Time'' magazine.

===Darwin's Universal Acid===
Here Strobel goes back to finding sources to support his "atheistic" youth, and summarizes this section with a phrase by [[Daniel Dennett]] that evolution is a universal acid that slowly eats through every traditional concept.

Strobel goes on that since God was excluded from his worldview, he would go on forth towards his ambitions and pleasures (even the ones that "God" supposedly does not favor). Strobel blames this behavior on religious authorities were unwilling or unable to help him get the answers to questions he had about God. He ends this section retelling his view of such people as "slaves to their wishful thinking."

===The Investigation Begins===
A friend of Strobel announced that she was becoming a follower of Jesus, which made Strobel go about asking deeper questions about faith and God. The big three questions were the following,
*Are science and faith doomed to always be at war?
*Does the latest scientific evidence point toward or away from the existence of God?
*Are the images of evolution (which spurred him to atheism) still valid?

Strobel then goes of on his quest, saying that he would go were the answers took him. As a journalist, he is supposed to ask questions. He is also a lawyer, meaning he is skilled to make cases. The difference between those two and science is that scientists test and repeat their data, whereas lawyers make a case for a proposition whether it is true or not.
{{Response|This is false, because Strobel only sought out the Discovery Institute, who advocate [[intelligent design]] pseudoscience and cannot divorce itself from religion, making this book not based on scientific research.}}

==Chapter 3: Doubts About Darwinism==
Strobel begins this chapter with a paper from the Discovery Institute called "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism." He goes into detail which universities they are from and the several fields they expertise in. In the end, he concludes the "emperor of evolution has no clothes." He provides links to articles from the Discovery Institute criticizing PBS series presenting the evidence for evolution.

{{Response|Rather than make a case for a creator, Strobel decided to make a long non sequitor.}}

For this chapter, Strobel interviews [[Jonathan Wells]], a senior member of the Discovery Institute, who stated his only goal in science is to "destroy Darwinism." Strobel begins to interview him and his book "Icons of Evolution." The "Icons" used by Wells denotes a religious reverence for a symbol.

*'''Image 1: The Miller Experiment'''
Wells says the consensus is unclear what the atmosphere was like at the time, but it is generally agreed it is not like the one used in the Miller experiment. The experiment included methane, ammonia, and water vapor, but there is no evidence for methane-ammonia in the atmosphere and hydrogen was too light that the earth's gravity could not hold it.
{{Response|The Miller experiment tried to prove spontaneous generation was possible, not prove how life first arose. Wells argument is 50 years out of date. What Wells does not tell is that there have been more than 40 articles written since 1997 which cover nearly every imaginable prebiotic environment and still create certain types of organic material. As for his hydrogen argument, it is greatly misestimated.}}

Wells mentions that some textbooks mention organic material has formed, but says this organic material is Formaldehyde and Cyanide, and declares that these are toxic and life could not possible form from such substances.

Next, Wells develops a straw man: put a cell in a test tube, poke a hole in it, and all its contents will leak out.
{{Response|The reason why this is a straw man is because the earliest self-replicating systems were not modern cells. Lysing a cells in a test tube is only proof of Well's lack of understanding. Wells uses a non sequitor by labeling this star man putting humpty dumpty back together again.}}

*'''Image 2: Darwin's Tree of Life'''
Here Wells argues that fossil evidence has not proven Darwin's theory and the Cambrian explosion refutes Darwin's tree of life, which states that populations will diverse over time whereas the Cambrian shows a sudden appearance of life.
{{Response|Sudden huh? What Wells forgot to mention was that this "sudden appearance" took 10 million years. 11 of the 34 phyla have their origins in the Cambrian (which lasted 50 million years) while many of the other phyla originated much later. How about the Ordovician radiation is much more dramatic. Or how about the many discoveries of transitionals within the Cambrian or the organisms that predate the Cambrian?

There are three stages ancient life of Earth's history before the Cambrian: The Athcean, Proteroic, and Vendian. The Archean, the age of bacteria, lasted approximately a billion years as blue-green cyanobacteria, which was best suited for a young planet with an atmosphere containing hydrogen, nitrogen, methane, carbon dioxide, and little or no oxygen. Their blue-green color was due to chlorophyll, which allows photosynthesis. The Proteroiz ranged 543 million to 2.5 billion years ago, during which bacteria flourished and the appearance of archaeans. Finally, the Vendian (543 to 600 million years ago)the first multi-cellular organisms appear. Darwin noted the apparent absence of life forms prior to the Cambrian, and he was correct. Wells lies when he said Darwin "knew the fossil record failed to support his tree. He acknowledged that major groups of animals - he calls them divisions, now they're called phyla - appear suddenly in the fossil record. That's not what his theory predicts." This is false, Darwin was well aware of the imperfection of the fossil record, and devoted an entire chapter of his book to explaining why we should not expect to see clear transitions preserved. When Wells speaks of "major groups", he subtly misleads the reader. Based on his examples, a lay reader might erroneously conclude that starfish, crabs, reptiles, insects, and the like all just suddenly appeared during the Cambrian. In fact, as already stated, most species of the Cambrian explosion were relatively similar, and none of them looked much at all like the modern groups that are thought to have descended from them. Here are several Cambrian animals that Wells claims represent "major groups" that are "fundamentally different in their body plans".}}

*'''Image 3: Heackel's Embryos'''
Ernst Haeckel was a nineteenth-century biologist who lived around the same time as Charles Darwin. Haeckel is best remembered for his dictum "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", meaning that a developing embryo retraces the evolutionary history of its ancestors. Haeckel is also infamous for defending this claim by using his own drawings of developing embryos, which turned out to be faked to exaggerate the stages he claimed were there. Wells claims that these known fallacious drawing are still being taught in school text books today, even Strobel recalls seeing these pictures in his biology class.
{{Response|Wells, however, is lying again, making statements which he must know are false. [[PZ Myers]] quotes one of the books which Wells disparages by claiming that it is "resurrecting Haeckel", Campbell's Biology:
<blockquote>
The theory of recapitulation is an overstatement. Although vertebrates share many features of embryonic development, it is not as though a mammal first goes through a 'fish stage', then an 'amphibian stage', and so on. Ontogeny can provide clues to phylogeny, but it is important to remember that all stages of development may become modified over the course of evolution.
</blockquote>
Myers also cites a post listing a large number of other college textbooks[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/exorcising_the_spectre_of_haec.php] that point out the problems with Haeckel's hypothesis. Out of 15 books reviewed, only one presents recapitulation uncritically - and that one is from 1937!}}

*'''Image 4: The Missing Link'''
In this section, both Strobel and Wells repeat the old creationist lie that there are no such things as transitional fossils. Strobel quotes Michael Denton,
<blockquote>
[T]he universal experience of paleontology... [is that] while the rocks have continually yielded new and exciting and even bizarre forms of life... what they have never yielded is any of Darwin's myriads of transitional forms... The intermediates have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record.
</blockquote>
{{Response|This is demonstrably false. Not only do transitional fossil series exist, we have a strikingly large number of them, bridging most of the major evolutionary changes in life's history. Of all of the settled lineages of animals and transitional fossils, this section focuses on Archeopteryx.}}

Wells points out "Besides, we see strange animals around today, like the duck-billed platypus, which nobody considers transitional but which has characteristics of different classes."
{{Response|This is another example of the things Wells should already know. In fact, the platypus is transitional - albeit a kind of living transition.}}

Wells calls Archeopteryx a bird with modern feathers.
{{Response|Other than its feathers and a few other subtle characteristics, Archaeopteryx is actually much more like a dinosaur than it is like a bird. [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html The Talk.Origins Archive's All About Archaeopteryx FAQ] lists its reptilian features, which far outnumber the avian characteristics. What about the many other feathered dinosaurs, such as Sinornithosaurus and Microraptor? Over twenty genera of feathered theropods are known. Wells steers well clear of these, other than to mutter an accusation that they're probably all fakes [p.59].}}

==Chapter 4: Where Science Meets Faith==
An interview with [[Stephen C. Meyer]], a philosopher and one of the co-founders of the [[Discovery Institute]]. Strobel sets the theme of this chapter to argue how science and religion relate to each other. Strobel begins this chapter with a story of Allan Sandage, a respected cosmologist raised as a nonreligious Jew who shocked his colleagues by announcing his conversion to Christianity at the age of fifty.
{{Response|What Strobel omits, though, is Sandage's own reasons for why he converted. Sandage himself explains this, and makes it clear that, unlike Strobel and his creationist interviewees, he does not believe the theme put forward in this book, that science points to the existence of God:
<blockquote>
Q. Can the existence of God be proved? I should say not with the same type of certainty that we ascribe to statements such as "the earth is in orbit about the sun at a mean distance of 93 million miles, making a complete journey in 365.25 days"... Proofs of the existence of God have always been of a different kind - a crucial point to be understood by those scientists who will only accept results that can be obtained via the scientific method....The Bible is certainly not a book of science. One does not study it to find the intensities and the wavelengths of the Balmer spectral lines of hydrogen. But neither is science concerned with the ultimate spiritual properties of the world, which are also real.
</blockquote>
This is a common creationist fallacious tactic: take a few isolated, anecdotal accounts of scientists turning to theism, and use them as a basis to claim that most scientists are turning to theism, when the statistics tell a completely different story. Eighty percent of NAS physicists and astronomers disbelieve in God.}}

Meyer claims that scientists adopt naturalism is the basis of science.
{{Response| Methodological naturalists hold that science should exclude the miraculous from scientific explanations of certain events or phenomena, and thus scientists are too biased to see the error of their ways. Meyer paints naturalism as a form of "conspiracy" but the weight of evidence for god is "turning the tide." In ''Has Science Found God?'' Dr. Victor Stenger provides a recent survey of the members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) indicates that only 7 percent believe in a personal god.}}

==Chapter 5: The Evidence of Cosmology: Beginning with a Bang==
An interview with [[William Lane Craig]]. Inexplicably, in a book which claims to present the conclusions of scientific authorities, Strobel's interviewee on the subject of cosmology is not a practicing scientist but a professional Christian apologist. Strobel mentions at the beginning of the chapter "I wasn't interested in unsupported conjecture or armchair musings by pipe-puffing theorists. I wanted the hard facts of mathematics, the cold data of cosmology, and only the most reasonable inferences that could be drawn from them." And yet, Strobel does not interview someone in the fields of cosmology and physics, but rather theology and philosophy?

Here Craig presents his most popularized [[cosmological argument]]. He calls it the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which goes as follows:
:P1) Everything that exists has a cause
:P2) The universe had a beginning
:C) Therefore, the universe had a cause

{{Response|There are a wide range of reasons why Craig's Kalam argument fails. The first premise of Craig's argument is flawed. In quantum mechanics, things happen that are not caused. Such as radioactive decay or when an atom in an excited energy level it loses a photon. No cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus. Craig has said that quantum events are still "caused" just in a non-predetermined manner - what he calls "probabilistic causality." Craig is thereby admitting that the "cause" in his first premise could be an accidental one, something spontaneous and not predetermined. he therefore destroys his own case for a predetermined creation. Even if the KCA was sound, why would the cause itself not be natural?}}

{{Response|'''[[Petitio principii|Begging the Question]]''': The KCA is invalid and refuted because it commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. The phrase "whatever begins to exist" is not presumed to accommodate anything other than God, and that puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that was supposed to prove his existence in the first place.}}

{{Response|'''Compositional Errors''': The two premises that support the conclusion both commit compositional errors. This is because the premise, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" commits the fallacy of composition because, to quote Francois Tremblay, "The first premise tries to infer a necessary causality on a whole, the universe, on the basis of observation of such attributed in the parts, the existents around us. The attribute being transposed here, being caused, is relational and therefore cannot be transposed. Thus the KCA cannot generalize from caused entities around us to the universe in this matter."

The second premise, "The universe began to exist" forces us to draw an inference between the items in the set (things within the universe) and apply it to the set as a whole (the universe itself). For that to be valid, one must fallaciously presuppose a realm beyond the universe, in which the universe can be taken as an item in a larger set itself, within which it is contained, limited, and defined.

Which gives away to the compositional error, via the fallacy of Begging the question, since such a realm beyond the universe, is entirely unproven and in question itself.}}

{{Response|'''Defining Essentials''': The KCA fails to identify, either through its syllogism, or subsequent explanations for it's syllogism, it is defining its essentials. And the word that is essential for it to define is the word universe.

The KCA depends upon the [[Big Bang Theory]], being the beginning of everything, for if not, then there's a part of existence that is unaccounted for, that itself, maybe eternal, or may never have begun to exist, or caused our Big Bang, as a local inflationary expansion, or caused the rest of the universe in it's overall entirety.

Even if the universe in the KCA is defined as the totality of existence, the argument is again rendered impotent and refuted, because the universe could not have been created by something outside itself, since for something to create the totality of that which exists, one can only appeal to that creating agent as being non-existent. Further, for the universe to be labeled the totality of existence, it can never be caused as a whole, since that would assert that at one point, existence, was non-existent, which is impossibly incoherent.}}

{{Response|'''Who Created God?''': Another reason why the KCA is invalid and refuted is because it can be expressed in a competing syllogism.

*(P1) Everything that has sentience has a cause.
*(P2) The Judeo-Christian God is said to have sentience.
*(C) Therefore the Judeo-Christian God has a cause.

This syllogism can easily be ported to any god, since most, if not all gods, are said to be sentient in some form or fashion; and all referrals to reality, attest that sentience does not arise without antecedent causation.}}

==Chapter 6: The Evidence of Physics: The Cosmos on a Razor's Edge==
An interview with Robin Collins. Collins is not a member of the [[Discovery Institute]], he is a professor of Philosophy at Messiah College. He has a Ph.D in philosophy, but he dropped out of a Ph.D in physics program at UT, Austin. His actual study is in philosophy, not physics.

Collins focuses on the "[[Fine-tuning argument]]" and [[anthropic principle]] as evidence for God.

Strobel and Collins address the multiple universe or "multiverse" theories. Strobel proceeds to confess that "I found myself agreeing with the iconoclastic Gregg Easterbrook," whom he then quotes as saying: "The multiverse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they came from a religious text" (p. 144).
{{Response|Yet in the introduction to this book, Strobel said that he would "stand in the shoes of the skeptic" and follow the evidence wherever it leads (p. 28). Given the overt bias evident in such ridicule, however, it is hardly surprising that Strobel comes to the conclusions that he does.}}

==Chapter 7: The Evidence of Astronomy: The Privileged Planet==
An interview with Guillermo Gonzales and Jay Wesley Richards, authors of ''The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery'' in which they argue for the "rare earth hypothesis." Their position is the earth is so unique suited for life.
{{Response|Jay Richards is a Discovery Institute Fellow and fellow of Action Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty. Guillermo Gonzales is also a fellow of the Discovery Institute. He is assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State University. According to Mr. Gonzales faculty page at Iowa State University his work includes "spectroscopic abundance analysis of post-AGB supergiants and RV Tau variables." In other words, he studies the formation of stars.}}

Both Gonzales and Richards argument rests on the [[anthropic principle]].
{{Response|However, the anthropic principle is a tautology, weakened by the fact of quantum mechanics, the M-theory and the multiverse.}}

==Chapter 8: The Evidence of Biochemistry: The Complexity of Molecular Machines==
An interview with [[Michael Behe]], a senior member of the [[Discovery Institute]] and author of ''Darwin's Black Box.'' He is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, but disowned by his own department with an unprecedented disclaimer.
{{Response|What Strobel does not share is that Michael Behe actually accepts evolution and common ancestry as true.}}

Behe is known for constructing the argument [[irreducible complexity]].
{{Response|Every proposed mechanism said to be irreducible complex has been shown to be reducible and can evolve via natural selection.}}

Strobel quotes Behe, "Now, does this microscopic transportation system [Behe is speaking about the endoplasmic reticulum —Ebonmuse] sound like something that self-assembled by gradual modifications over the years? I don't see how it could have been. To me, it has all the earmarks of being designed."
{{Response|''I don't see how it could have been'': this is the argument of intelligent-design advocates in a nutshell. In the Kitzmiller-Dover court case Behe has admitted in court that his book, ''Darwin's Black Box'', is not peer-reviewed, intelligent design is "fringe" science, and Behe's own definition of a scientific theory would allow astrology to be taught as a scientific theory.

Furthermore, Behe testified that no "explanations" of how the complex organism could evolve. In science, an explanation is defined as a detailed, testable answer, and vice versa. However, Behe was given a mass multiple peer-reviewed scientific literature that did show and explain the complexity of the organisms in question. Behe admitted he had not read any of the material and only Googled the words "random mutation", but that did not make a difference. Without reading it, Behe remarked that they seem good, but nevertheless he concluded that they were not good enough (dismissing them out of hand without even reading any of them because they did not count just because Behe said so). Behe already had presupposition that they were all wrong, and proclaimed with certainty they were all wrong without even knowing what what in them, so Behe conjured up some excuse otherwise he would have to admit he was wrong (meaning he willfully choose to remain dishonest). So Behe extended his demands by wanting a "detailed rigorous" explanation. After more evidence was presented, he only further extended it to "detailed rigorous testable step-by-step." After being presented with exactly what he demanded, Behe weaseled his way out by further extending his demands and setting an impossible criteria to meet ("detailed rigorous testable step-by-step mutation by mutation analysis, including the sizes of now-extinct population of the moment those mutations occurred, the selective value or detrimental effects of each mutation, and many other such answer"). The only reason why Behe did this was to weasel out of admitting he was simply wrong.}}

When asked if irreducible complexity is falsifiable, Behe said it is otherwise all these "scientists" would not go through the trouble of trying to falsify it.
{{Response|The scientists are not necessarily trying to falsify irreducible complexity or intelligent design (since neither have anything positive explanations to provide), the scientists are showing why intelligent design is not scientific and revealing that intelligent design has no explanatory power whatsoever.}}

==Chapter 9: The Evidence of Biological Information: The Challenge of DNA and the Origin of Life==
An interview with Stephen C. Meyer, a fellow of the [[Discovery Institute]]. Strobel describes Meyer, who is not a biologist and has never published a single piece of research on this topic, as "one of the country's leading experts on origin-of-life issues." Strobel continues to praise Meyer in an obnoxious way by sharing an experience Strobel had witnessing Meyer in a debate and how fearless Meyer was (perhaps due to his boxing training).
{{Response|Curiously there is no reference or footnote to this debate, anywhere. Strobel footnotes just about everything else, but not this debate that demonstrates Meyer's intellectual powers at confronting criticism?

More curiously is why interview Meyer? Strobel seems keen to one-sidely interview everyone involved in the intelligent design movement. Why not interview Michael Denton, who was a strong anti-evolutionist until his latest work, ''Nature's Destiny'', took a complete reverse turn regarding evolution. What changed Denon't mind? Would a journalist like Strobel be interested?}}

Moving onto Meyer, on page 243 Meyer made such an erroneous claim,
<blockquote>
Well, I say it's time to redefine science. We should not be looking for only the best naturalistic explanation, but the best explanation, period. And intelligent design is the explanation that's most in conformity with how the world works.
</blockquote>
{{Response|It should be repeated and made very clear: Strobel and his fellow-travelers aren't doing science. They're doing something else, and they want to "redefine" science so that the new definition can encompass whatever it is they are doing. Meyer is not clear or explains what he wants the new definition to be. Not a single Intelligent Design proponent has ever provided an answer.}}

When addressing abiogenesis and the prebiotic soup, Strobel asks where is the evidence for it? Meyer responds with, "The answer is there isn't any evidence... If this prebiotic soup had really existed... it would have been rich in amino acids. Therefore, there would have been a lot of nitrogen, because amino acids are nitrogenous. So when we examine the earliest sediments of the Earth, we should find large deposits of nitrogen-rich minerals... Those deposits have never been located."
{{Response|There is no footnote for this. Earth today contains billions of tons of organic molecules, we have even discovered this same organic material in space on meteorites and comets. Meyer also fails to qualify his mention of "earliest sediments." If he is referring to the sediments of rock around the age of the origin of life, the reason why is that erosion has destroyed it.

Meyers main source comes from Jim Brooks in ''Origins of Life'', 1985. Strobel labels this an "astounding conclusion", but what he should be more astounded by is how far Meyer had to stretch to find a source for this claim. Further research for Jim Brooks' ''Origins of Life'' reveals it is a long out of print according to several online booksellers. But more comical is that Strobel cites the publisher of this book as "Lion" - whose full name is Lion Hudson, which is, in fact, a Christian publishing house. A twenty-year-old, out-of-print book by a Christian publisher - that's the most reliable source that could be found to back up these assertions!}}

==Chapter 10: The Evidence of Consciousness: The Enigma of the Mind==
An interview with J.P. Moreland, a Christian philosopher and theologian.
{{Response|Like many of Strobel's other interview subjects, Moreland is not a scientist and has no scientific credentials to speak of - this despite Strobel's initial boast that he'll be interviewing "authorities" [p.28] in the relevant fields. Moreland does have a doctorate in philosophy and an undergraduate chemistry degree, he is not an expert on brain physiology or chemistry.}}

{{Response|Strobel earlier stated on page 95, "I wasn't interested in unsupported conjecture or armchair musings by pipe-puffing theorists. I wanted the hard facts of mathematics, the cold data of cosmology, and only the most reasonable inferences that could be drawn from them." However, this chapter is full of exactly that which Strobel was hoping to avoid.}}

The discussion between Strobel and Moreland addresses consciousness. Moreland argues that consciousness could not have originated by natural processes.
{{Response|Wrong, evolution can and does explain the origin of consciousness.}}

Moreland insists that consciousness is separate from the brain. His best proof is a report from neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield. Penfield electrically stimulated the brains of epilepsy patients and found he could cause them to move their arms or legs, turn their heads or eyes, talk, or swallow. Invariably, the patient would respond, "I didn't do that. You did." According to Penfield, "the patient thinks of himself as having an existence separate from his body."
{{Response|However, this is very weak evidence. The fact that people tend to think of themselves as having an existence separate from the body has little to do with whether persons actually are separable from their bodies.

Keith Augustine argues against the evidence for the dependence of consciousness on the brain in his book, ''The Case Against Immortality''.}}

==Chapter 11: The Cumulative Case for a Creator==
Addressing the [[Overview of early Christianity|historicity of Jesus]] and the historical stance that [[Mythicism|Jesus did not exist]], Strobel quotes Gregory Boyd as some who, "offered a devastating critique of the Jesus Seminar, a group that questions whether Jesus aid or did most of what's attributed to him. He identified the Seminar as 'an extremely small number of radical-fringe scholars who are on the far, far left wing of New Testament thinking."
{{Response|So by Strobel's logic, if someone belongs to a fringe group then their claims can never be reliable. And yet, practicably every person interviewed in this book belongs to a fringe group. Intelligent Design has been proven and labeled fringe science since the Kitzmiller-Dover trial. The theory of evolution has the support of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community: state, national, and international scientific societies and academies; the biology faculties of dozens of accredited colleges and universities.}}

Strobel then briefly goes over the evidence addressed throughout this book.
# Evidence of Cosmology - [[William Lane Craig|Craig's]] Kalam Cosmological Argument
# Evidence of Physics - the fine-tuned argument that turned atheist [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Patrick_Glynn Patrick Glynn] into a believer.
# Evidence of Astronomy - Earth's rare position to support life
# Evidence of Biochemistry - [[irreducible complexity]]
# Evidence of Biological Information - DNA and information that can only come from an intelligent source.

All of these, when compared to Scripture, seem to show a link as if the "creator" authored the Bible.
{{Response|The verses he uses are very vague, such as God creating all the things "visible and invisible."}}

==External links==
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/creator.html Another Case Not Made: A Critique of Lee Strobel's ''The Case for a Creator''] by Paul Doland at [[Infidels.org]]
* [http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php List of Center for Science and Culture fellows], [[Center for Science and Culture]]
* [http://www.daylightatheism.org/series/the-case-for-a-creator A series of blog posts rebutting ''The Case for a Creator''] at [[Daylight Atheism]]

Naturalistic fallacy

2011-10-18T18:41:10Z

BronzeDome: Removed redlinks

The '''naturalistic fallacy''' or '''appeal to nature''' is a logical fallacy that is committed whenever an argument attempts to derive what is good from what is natural. Originally it was considered a type of [[equivocation]], wherein the word "good" was used in the sense of "pleasant" or "effective" in the premises, and in the sense of "[[moral]]" or "ethical" in the conclusion. Now it refers to any case in which someone refers to something as morally necessary simply because it is more natural.

The converse argument, where one assumes that whatever is good must be part of the natural order, is known as the "[[moralistic fallacy]]".

== Examples ==

A trivial example:
:Apples are good to eat (meaning they are delicious or have nutritional value).
:Therefore people who eat apples are better people (meaning more ethical).

A common [[Christian]] argument:
:[[Homosexuality]] is unnatural (meaning against the biological human drive to procreate or against the supposedly [[God-given]] purpose of sex).
:Therefore homosexuality is wrong (ethically).
::''Note: the first premise here seems to be untrue, based on scientific investigation into the causes of homosexuality. The causes are not understood but natural biological processes are known to be factors in at least some cases.''

Social Darwinism:
:[[Natural selection]] works because the weak/stupid/disabled die and the rest survive to reproduce.
:The weak/stupid/disabled should therefore be allowed to die or killed to keep the process going.

== "Ought" vs. "Is" ==

As [[David Hume]] pointed out, knowing about the physical world never, by itself, tells you how to behave ethically. To behave ethically, you must not only know what ''is'' out there, but also have a value system that tells you what ''ought'' to be out there and what your place ''ought'' to be in making that happen. Knowing about the natural world is not enough to build a moral system.

== "Natural" can mean many things, and none of them are the same as "moral" ==

"Natural" as opposed to "artificial" is not the same as moral, or else we would be obliged to give up sanitation, penicillin, modern agriculture, and other life-saving inventions as "immoral".

"Natural" as opposed to "[[supernatural]]" is not the same as moral. For one, many theists believe in both evil supernatural beings like [[demon]]s or malevolent [[spirit]]s and in good supernatural beings like gods or angels. For another, many people who believe in no supernatural phenomena at all have detailed moral codes.

"Natural" meaning "biological" as opposed to "cultural" is not the same as moral. Both [[wikipedia:altruism|altruism]] and [[wikipedia:psychopathy|psychopathy]] seem to have roots in human physiology. Similarly cultural influences can be either good or bad.

== Natural law ==

Natural law can refer to many different philosophies. Generally natural law philosophy simply posits that there is some objective set of ideal rules describing ethics, which all human beings should theoretically be able to agree upon and derive from a rational understanding of the world. Such philosophies usually start with some very small number of broad values (like "Happiness is the ultimate good." or "The interests of every person should be weighed equally.") and attempt to derive an entire system of ethics from them.

Some natural law philosophies additionally state that the "natural law" was created by [[God]]. In these philosophies, it is not a fallacy to claim that "natural" and "moral" are the same, because both were created by God to be consistent with each other. However, these philosophies are only viable if one can demonstrate the existence of an objective moral law and a God that created both the natural world and that law.

Strikingly, even in this kind of natural law, it is fairly useless to say that something is wrong because it is unnatural. These philosophies define both what is "natural" and what is "good" as being whatever is in accordance with God's will towards creation. To prove that something is unnatural in this sense means to prove that it is against God's plan. But "natural" already has straightforward definitions. To add this other, more unusual definition serves no purpose except to confuse the issue and risk some form of equivocation (between a usual definition of "natural" and this unusual meaning of "according to God's plan"). One might as well ditch the word "natural" entirely and use a different word or phrase instead.

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Liar, Lunatic or Lord

2011-10-18T18:30:34Z

BronzeDome: typo

The ''liar, lunatic or lord'' argument attempts to present a case through process of elimination of all other options, that Jesus Christ must have been god.

===Background information===
Even a number of theologians have pointed out that the ''liar, lunatic or lord'' argument is unsound. Apologists such as [[William Lane Craig]] cite this argument as a good example of a bad argument for Christianity. This argument has also been referred to as the "trilemma" by [[Josh McDowell]].

Despite this, the argument is widely used, and widely loved, by the more general Christian audience, as are many of Lewis' other equally flawed arguments such as the [[argument from desire]].

==Argument==
===C.S. Lewis version===
''[[C.S. Lewis]] in [[Mere Christianity]] c.1952'':
{{Quote|I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.}}

===Syllogism===
::p1. Jesus made certain claims
::p2. These claims are of a nature that has certain implications about his character
::::a. Lunatic: Jesus was not God, but he mistakenly believed that he was
::::b. Liar: Jesus was not God, and he knew it, but he said so anyway
::::c. Lord: Jesus was telling the truth and is God
::p3. Through process of elimination we can exclude the possibilities of lunatic and liar
::::a. Existential evidence
::::b. Textual evidence
::::c. Historical evidence
::c1. Therefore Jesus was/is the the lord and God in human form.

==Counter arguments==
===False premise p1: Unfounded Assumptions===
The first problem with the argument is that it assumes the efficacy of the bible. It assumes that the depiction of Jesus in the bible is historically accurate and an accurate depiction of his character, including (but not limited to) the words and claims attributed to him.

There is no first hand contemporary evidence that the words attributed to Jesus are his own as all accounts were written by the earliest of 80 AD (verification needed). It can also be argued that due to the discrepancies between accounts no quote in the bible can be held as the true words of Jesus. However, the fact that a person called Jesus was crucified for blasphemy is regarded by some new testament scholars to be one of the most certain claims of ancient history (Bart Erhman). As this is the biggest claim verifiable evidence can conclude, Occam's Razor states that it should be assumed that Jesus held no divine relationship or power unless additional evidence can be provided.

===False premise p2: False dilemma===
Based on the shaky grounds of the first premise, the argument creates a false dilemma to suggest that Jesus as appearing in the gospels is either telling the truth or not. This of course neglects the obvious possibility that he is a legend, in which case his claims (or those claims attributed to him) are neither true or false, but partially or entirely fictional.

Nearly everything that is "known" about the life of Jesus, or his claims of godhood, come from the [[Bible]], which [[Christian|Christians]] regard as inerrant but [[atheist|atheists]] do not. Jesus may not have existed, or he may not have said all the things that were attributed to him, to the extent that his teachings were good he may have copied ideas from other people.

The premise also ignores hybrid possibilities. For instance, that Jesus may in fact have been a lunatic who said true things (much like an insane person who thinks he's Napoleon may still be able to tell you the correct day of the week or the prevailing weather conditions) or that he might have been the Lord ''and'' a liar (unlikely, but inconvenient for Lewis' intended point). At heart, the dilemma commits the [[genetic fallacy]], of assuming that an idea from a bad source is itself inevitably tainted.

Finally, the premise also ignores the very real possibility that Jesus existed and did say some of the things attributed to him, but may have been misinterpreted. Many believers will refer to themselves as "Children Of God" (or similar phrasings), but they presumably do not mean this literally. In a similar fashion, if Jesus did refer to himself as the "Son Of God," he may have intended it as a metaphor that was misunderstood by subsequent audiences. (In fact "Son of God" meant a righteous man, the Messiah or a prophet. Incidentally Christians sometimes describe themselves collectively as children of god while believing that they are ordinary human beings. This did not in any way mean the "physical" son of God, a very pagan belief that Jews considered very blasphemous.) Additionally, the term 'Lord' is a term of nobility and respect that has subsequently been confused to be synonymous with 'God'. When the disciples call Jesus 'Lord' they are not necessarily confirming a belief that he is God.

===False premise p3: Unsupported evidence===
Even accepting the first two false premises, the so called evidence for the exclusion of lunatic and liar possibilities is questionable at best.

Many apologists, including some who are qualified psychologists, attempt to show that Jesus could not have been a lunatic. There are two major problems with this.

* First, is a complete lack of evidence. The idea of performing a real psychological diagnosis on someone that has been presumed dead for 2000 years, based solely on a few scarcely descriptive tales, from the very book that purports to reveal the truth of his divinity, is nothing short of laughable.

* Secondly, they make a case of special pleading. Despite the fact that Jesus isn't depicted as a rabid, uncontrollably raving maniac, doesn't mean he was necessarily sane. Any of the psychologists who attempt to claim Jesus was not insane would have no hang ups about committing a person today that made similar claims. Indeed if Jesus made his claims today, he would fit right in at the asylums full of other people that think they're God, Jesus, Napoleon etc.

Jesus could also have been a liar. Lewis disregards this because he claims Jesus was a ''great human teacher''. However, much of Jesus' advice was [[Sermon on the mount|bad advice]]. And regardless of his lesson content, being a great teacher doesn't by fiat logically exclude the possibility that he could lie. Jesus also had great motive to lie. Despite the trouble [[The Life Of Brian| Brian]] found himself in, there are presumably a great many selfish benefits to being mistakenly considered a human deity.

Additionally, some forms of the ''liar, lunatic or lord'' argument further commit the fallacy of begging the question, by accepting the 'biblical miracles as evidence for the lord' option, which of course a priori assumes the conclusion of Jesus' divinity that the very argument attempts to prove.

==Other counter arguments==
* Lewis makes the [[straw man]] presumption that lunatics speak falsely, rave without moments of clarity, never say anything worth paying attention to, etc. In truth, one may suffer from a delusional belief or fixation and function adequately or even superlatively in society.

==Additional notes==
===Trilemma/Dilemma===
The reason for the use of ''dilemma'' in False premise p2. rather than the titular ''trilemma'', is due to the fact that despite there being three options, two of those have effectively the same outcome as far as the argument is concerned. The multiple options are really nothing more than a red herring, as the argument's outcome is that the claims of Jesus are either true or not true.

Additionally, formal logic deals exclusively with dichotomies, not trichotomies. The overall argument attempts to prove he is the lord. So to actually express all three options, logistically it would need to be presented as two separate, but hierarchical dichotomies. (lord:(liar:lunatic))

::The main dichotomy: That he is either the lord or not-lord.
::::The sub dichotomy if he is not-lord: That he is either a liar or lunatic.

==Other religions==
Incidentally the leaders/founders of other religions can be postulated to be -whatever their religion claims-, liars or lunatics in a similar way and the different religions of the world cannot all be simultaneously true.

==Links==
===See also===
* [[Argument from desire]]
* [[Overview of early Christianity]]
* [[False dilemma]]
* [[Begging the question]]

===External links===
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_perry/trilemma.html The Trilemma-- Lord, Liar Or Lunatic?] by Jim Perry at [[infidels.org]]
* [http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/11/liar-loony-or-l.html Liar, Loony, or Lord; Or, How Atheists Make C.S. Lewis Cry] by [[Greta Christina]]

===Reference===
* [[wikipedia:Lewis's trilemma|Lewis's trilemma]] – Wikipedia article on Liar, Lunatic or lord

{{Arguments for god}}

[[Category:Christological arguments]]

Douglas Adams

2011-10-18T18:10:39Z

BronzeDome: /* The Babel Fish */ link

'''Douglas Noël Adams''' (March 11, 1952 - May 11, 2001) was a cult British comic dramatist, amateur musician and author, most notably of the ''Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'' series of radio and television shows and books.

Adams was a self-declared "radical [[atheist]]", though he used the term for emphasis, so that he would not be asked if he in fact meant [[agnostic]]. He stated in an interview with [[American Atheists]] that this made things easier, but most importantly that it conveyed the fact that he really meant it, had thought about it a great deal, and that it was an opinion he held seriously. He was convinced that there is no [[God]], having never seen one shred of evidence to convince him otherwise, and devoted himself instead to causes such as environmentalism. Despite this, he did state in the same interview that he was "fascinated by [[religion]]." [...] "I love to keep poking and prodding at it. I’ve thought about it so much over the years that that fascination is bound to spill over into my writing." His fascination he ascribed to the fact that so many "otherwise rational... intelligent people... nevertheless take it [the existence of God] seriously".

Adams is credited with introducing a fan and later friend of his, the zoologist [[Richard Dawkins]], to Dawkins' future wife, Lalla Ward, who had played the part of Romana in a number of episodes of the ''Doctor Who'' television series.

==Quotes==
{{quote-source|. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, `This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.|As quoted in Richard Dawkins's [http://www.edge.org/documents/adams_index.html Eulogy] for Douglas Adams}}

{{quote-source|So, I was already familiar with and (I’m afraid) accepting of, the view that you couldn’t apply the [[logic]] of [[physics]] to religion, that they were dealing with different types of ‘[[truth]]’. (I now think this is baloney, but to continue...) What astonished me, however, was the realization that the arguments in favor of religious ideas were so feeble and silly next to the robust arguments of something as interpretative and opinionated as history. In fact they were embarrassingly childish. They were never subject to the kind of outright challenge which was the normal stock in trade of any other area of intellectual endeavor whatsoever. Why not? Because they wouldn’t stand up to it.|[http://www.americanatheist.org/win98-99/T2/silverman.html Interview with American Atheists]}}

==Writings==

Adams' fascination with religion was evident in much of his writing.

===The Babel Fish===

In the original ''The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy'', we are introduced to the Babel Fish, a small, yellow, leech-like creature that, if placed in your ear, will instantly translate anything said to you in any form of language.

:''Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.''
:''The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for [[proof]] denies [[faith]], and without faith I am nothing."''
:''"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have [[evolution|evolved]] by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. [[Q.E.D.]]"''
:''"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of [[logic]].''
:''"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.'' 

===The Great Prophet Zarquon===

In ''The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'', we are introduced to The Church of the Great Prophet [[Zarquon]], who have been waiting for Zarquon's second coming. Zarquon (who obviously parallels [[Jesus]]) appears just moments before the end of the universe, and all he has time to say is: "Er, how are we for time? Have I just got a min-"

===God's final message===

In ''So Long, and Thanks For All the Fish'', the fourth book of five, in the ''The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy'' Trilogy, God's Final Message to His Creation is...

'''"WE APOLOGISE FOR THE INCONVENIENCE"'''.

The two main characters of the book, Arthur Dent and Fenchurch, upon reading the message, are filled with a profound sense of peace, calm, and understanding: "Well, that's alright, then."

===Entirely accurate dating technique===

"And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change..." --''The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy''

==External links==

* [http://www.douglasadams.com/ Official web site]

[[Category:People|Adams, Douglas]]
[[Category:Atheists|Adams, Douglas]]
[[Category:Authors|Adams, Douglas]]

User talk:Sans Deity

2011-10-18T16:58:46Z

BronzeDome: Atheist groups in ...

== Comments/Requests ==
Is there a way to fix the dates when looking at the recent changes/history of things? The server seems to be several days off (close to two weeks). I suspect the server that this wiki is on might have the date and time wrong. Im not sure who hosts the server or whos in charge of stuff like that. [[User:gizmoiscariot|gizmoiscariot]] 13:15, 10 September 2008 (PDT)

== Image/text alignment problem ==

As noted in the edit summary, I took the liberty of [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User:Sans_Deity&diff=4878&oldid=2319 inserting a newline] in your user page to fix an image/text alignment problem. When a right-aligned <nowiki>[[Image]]</nowiki> link is followed on the same line by text, some browsers (I.E. 5.0, at least) align the ''text'' to the right, too. Besides looking wrong, this makes the text easy to miss, especially when it's at the very top of the page. I think I've seen this problem in some articles, as well. Something to keep in mind.... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:24, 13 February 2007 (CST)

== Cite.php for ref's ==

In Wikipedia and other Wikimedia wikis, the [[WikimediaMeta:Cite.php|Cite.php]] extension allows for easy creation and maintenance of footnotes in articles using [[WikimediaMeta:Help:Footnotes|<tt><ref></ref></tt> and <tt><reference/></tt>]] tags. I've encountered a few cases were this would be really helpful to have here. According to documentation at the first link above, the extension requires at least MediaWiki 1.6x, so [[Special:Version|it should work for us]]. I would suggest we upgrade to a newer MediaWiki version anyway, but moving to 1.7x would also [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Important_Release_Notes require an upgrade to PhP 5]. Maybe a task for this summer? <g> - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 19:59, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

: I'd like to second this.
: Also, I'm a Unix sysadmin in Real Life™. If I can help, let me know.
: --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 21:17, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

:: When I last looked, it wasn't possible to add these due to limitations of my hosting service. I'll try to dig into this issue again, but (as I'm sure everyone has noticed) I really haven't had the time to focus on the wiki. I'll need to set aside a block of time to do this, but I'm not only spread to thin, I now have to start looking for a new job (Sept. 1 is my last day). I'll try to make time before then. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 17:22, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
::: "''limitations of my hosting service''" — Because of their version of PHP? I'd say, if that's the reason, you need to start complaining to your hosting service. (The current stable release of MediaWiki doesn't even ''support'' PHP4 anymore.) - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 15:10, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

== Sandbox ==

I noticed someone created [[Project:Sandbox]] back in Feb. Since we probably ''should'' have such a page, I've gone ahead and created a template-header for it, [[Template:Sandbox header]], explaining what the Sandbox is for, along with a "testing" template called [[Template:Sandbox]] (not "Template:Testing" or similar) for use on the Sandbox page to test template behavior. Then, of course, the template itself needed a template-header, [[Template:Sandbox template header]], to explain ''it''.... Anyway, I hope everything is basically self-explanatory on the pages [[Project:Sandbox]] and [[Template:Sandbox]]. Just figured I'd give you a heads-up so you can "watch" the two "header" templates, if you want. (I would suggest protecting them, but that probably would be overkill. Sufficient to "watch" them for now.) - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:52, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

== Utility templates? ==

I've been going through [[:Category:Templates|categorizing]] and [[Project:Templates|describing]] our various templates (with mixed results). Since you created [[:Category:Utility templates]], I guess I should ask you what your definition of a "utility template" is. Based on the single template that was in the category at the time I came across it ([[Template:If]]), I guessed it was for templates that are primarily for use in ''other'' templates, to make their "code" simpler (like subroutines in computer programming). But now I don't know what to do with templates like [[Template:Quote-source]] and [[Template:Comment-box1]]. Do you think either of those should be called "Utility templates" and the definition expanded? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 15:53, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

: I'm not [[User:Sans Deity]], but I think you're right, that utility templates are ones used for building or simplifying other templates; infrastructure, not content.
: Since [[Template:Quote-source]] and [[Template:Comment-box1]] are directly used in various pages, I wouldn't call them utility templates. I think if there were a template that said, "This <topic>-related article is a stub", that could be included in other templates that specified a topic, then that generic template would be a utility template. But that's just my opinion. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 16:09, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

:: I created the [[:Category:Utility templates]] category to hold templates used in other templates. Arensb's assessment is pretty much on the money. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:35, 18 April 2007 (CDT)

== In progress ==

It seems you've tagged a couple of articles as [[:Category:works in progress|works in progress]] and not found the time to return to them for further expansion. Understandable... but maybe we should have a policy about that template staying on articles for too long. For example, if there's no edits by the original "tagging" author in a month, say, editors are free to remove the template or replace it with another (e.g., stub) template, as appropriate. In particular, we should try to avoid situations where the template [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Mormonism&action=history stays on an article for many months with no edits] or [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Jesus_fulfilled_prophecy&oldid=5433 is placed on a stubby article where "progress" hasn't really even begun]. Not meaning to be overly critical, but these two cases seemed somewhat "suboptimal"... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:58, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
:Good catch. The mormon page was someone else's work...I just tagged it for them as an example of what they should do until they were done. The prophecy page was one I wanted to do, but never got to. They're both cleared. I think a month is probably more than enough. Any work in progress that's seen no activity for a month should be fair game to anyone - regardless of who tagged it. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 23:08, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
:: Will note this guideline on relevant pages. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:52, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

== Wiki spam galore ==

Obviously you've noticed how this spam is getting ridiculously out of hand. Have you seen [http://chongqed.org/prevent_spam.html this page]? It's full of useful suggestions for keeping the spam under control.

Do we currently prevent the page histories from showing up in search engines? If not, we definitely should, as the spammers may be benefiting from product placement even after we roll back their crap.

Also, how many people currently have the authority to block accounts? I wouldn't mind giving that permission to a few others. However, since they keep autogenerating random IDs, I'm not sure if there's even a point to blocking the accounts. Perhaps we should do something to prevent the types of accounts they're making, something like this:
:if ((username has six letters)
::and (username has at least one lowercase letter)
::and (username has an uppercase letter not in the first character)
::then deny account creation

Is that possible to do? --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 09:37, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

I was looking into solutions earlier. I think, considering the small community here, that I may either disable account creation (and let sysops manually add new editors) or try to create some custom user groups (bureaucrats, sysops, editors, n00b) so that no one can edit until their account has been flagged for it.

Unfortunately, this hasn't been easy. Most of the solutions are very slap-dash, as the software was originally designed to be open to edits from everyone. I'm hoping to have this solved by the end of the week. I should have some time this afternoon to investigate solutions. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:32, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

== Killing the vandals ==

I've made it a bit more difficult on the vandals. I've added a new requirement for any new users - they must verify an e-mail address.

It's an extra hoop that may kill the vandals, especially if they are bots. If it doesn't work, I'll take additional steps. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 12:26, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

That seems to have done the trick for now. Good job, Matt! --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:13, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

: I've also tried to start using the "[[WikimediaMeta:Help:Patrolled edit|Mark as patrolled]]" feature a bit more. When you select a "diff" from the [[Special:Recentchanges|Recent changes]] page (not from a page's history, though), you can mark the edit as "patrolled" (if it hasn't already been done), meaning it was a legitimate edit. Unpatrolled edits are marked with a red exclamation point (<span class="unpatrolled">!</span>) on the Recent changes page. Only admins can mark edits as patrolled. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:01, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
:: Interestingly, admins can even patrol their own edits. I guess if you're an admin you can be trusted not to abuse this feature.... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 16:49, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

== Another extension ==

In addition to the '''Cite.php''' extension I requested [[#Cite.php for ref's|above]], I've come across another extension it would be nice to have: '''[[WikimediaMeta:Help:ParserFunctions|ParserFunctions]]''' (which requires >= MediaWiki 1.6.8). This would make it possible to simply copy over any Wikipedia (for example) templates that use '''#if''' and the like, without needing to translate them to use our [[Template:If]]. For example, [[Template:Cite journal|this one]], which a user has already [[Talk:Hares chew their cud|tried to use]] in an article here. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 13:31, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

== Interwiki requests ==

Please see [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Interwiki map (requests)]] — the request list is getting kind of long (full disclosure: most are my requests :). - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 05:05, 26 March 2009 (CDT)

== Translating to portuguese ==

Hello,

[[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] has adviced me to talk to you about allowing this wiki to be translated to (brazilian) portuguese. I don't know exactly how to do this and think the admins have to enable the translated wikis here. As [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] suggested me, I started to translation some topics at my user page and am sure I can bring more people to help.

Regards,

[[User:BrightMan|BrightMan]] 15:26, 22 April 2009 (CDT)

== User Falseprophet ==

I just wanted to make sure you had read what the changes were by Falseprophet and weren't going by my change summary alone. He seems to have been doing legitimate updates, so a permaban I'm not sure is the way to go. The change he made was "Capitalism is the basis for the U.S. economy." to "Corporatism is the basis for the U.S. economy." Just want to make sure this isn't due entirely to half-second though summary write-up and that you had already gone over this.

-It's still a perma-ban. I have no way of knowing if the account was compromised or if they were trying to build a reputation before vandalizing or if they were just having a bad day. Vandalism = perma-ban. They can contact me to have it restored, or make another one. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 18:17, 18 November 2009 (CST

::Yup, I understand; just figured I'd follow up to be sure.--[[User:Zurahn|Zurahn]] 20:06, 18 November 2009 (CST)

== Wissam. Clearing the air ==

//You're about two comments from being blocked and I'd really rather not do that, so let's clear a few things up.//

We obviously started on the wrong foot. I don't think blocking me is necessary; the reason I almost started ranting was that I felt underappreciated and you kind of killed my motivation in editing this site although I have alot to offer.
_Wissam

Also, thank you for the advice and I realize you are busy. Yes, you are right. The kalam argument for atheists is not very impressive but it should be mentioned and i didn't mean it to be necessary- it's a counter-argument at least.
_wissam

== Forum? ==

Is anyone approving new users on the forum? Been a week since my request... [[User:Jwissick|Jwissick]] 22:52, 9 April 2010 (CDT)

== Delete my account ==

I want my account deleted as soon as possible. Thank you.
{{unsigned|Wissam hemadeh|11 September 2010}}
: Please note that a user's account cannot be completely removed because of licensing issues (all contributions by the user would have to be removed at the same time, which is impractical). Since all contributions to this wiki are submitted under the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.5)] license, the user has already granted permission "to copy, distribute and transmit" and "to adapt" all of his contributions, presumably in perpetuity. See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Revocation of our licensing is not permitted]] for a discussion of the issues. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 16:51, 15 January 2011 (CST)

== How To Win Every Argument ==

Hi,

All very well and fine your deleting my comment, but what's wrong with the actual article? And how does it get fixed? -- [[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 23:50, 30 December 2010 (CST)

== CAPTCHA ==
I note that you have a serious problem with spam, a similar problem at [http://www.palaeos.org/Main_Page Palaeos] was solved with a [[Wikipedia:CAPTCHA|CAPTCHA]]. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 09:01, 18 August 2011 (CDT)

If you make me a sysop I will be happy to help delete spam, I will check the wiki daily. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 05:16, 6 September 2011 (CDT)
- Done. Thanks!

Pages are still listed in [[:Category:Pages for deletion]] after I delete them. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 11:43, 7 September 2011 (CDT)

==Coding Logical Symbols==
I have been trying to code in formal logic, and haven't been able to make any of that work. Any recommendations for how to code a style of formal notation? - JStein (7:56, 9/13/2011)

== Atheist groups in ... ==

I suggest merging all those '''[[Special:Deadendpages|Atheist groups in some-country-or-state]]''' pages into one '''List of atheist groups''' page, organised, naturally, by continent, country and state. The current state of myriad miniature "articles" seems... silly.

May I? [[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 11:58, 18 October 2011 (CDT)

Nazi Party

2011-10-18T12:28:58Z

BronzeDome: UnDead-ending

The '''Nazi Party''' charter, point 24: "The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive [[Christianity]] without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination". Their charter does go on to demand [[religious]] freedom for religions that do not offend the [[morality]] of the German people ([[Christian morality]]).

The dominance of Christianity was so profound in the Nazi party that the Potsdam Church was (is) a well known symbol for the Nazi party. The first series of Nazi minted silver coins (1933) featured the Potsdam Church on the obverse side of the 5 Mark silver coin and [[Martin Luther]] on the obverse side of the 2 Mark silver coin.

Prior to WWI, being a Christian was a requirement for German citizenship. Not long after Jews were allowed to become German citizens, WWI broke out. Thus, the Nazi Party claimed "Jewish treachery" was responsible for Germany losing the war.

[[Category:religion]]

Variables

2011-10-18T12:06:37Z

BronzeDome: UnDead-ending

Generally, when [[scientist]]s talk about experimentation and the [[scientific method]] they bring up what are commonly known as the variables of the [[experiment]]. The variables are the parts of the experiment that can be changed/unchanged to study their effect on the experiment as a whole. Typically, in a basic model of an experiment there are two different kinds of variables: independent and dependent.

An independent variable is a variable (or variables) that do not change or get manipulated throughout the experiment. Sometimes this is also called the controlled variable or control group.

The dependent variable(s) are those that get manipulated throughout the experiment. Typically, the [[hypothesis]] for an experiment will suggest when a dependent variable changes, the results will change. Note this may not always be the case in practice.

Example: A study is going to be performed to test how much water a new sponge will hold. The controlled variable is the size of the sponge being used. Multiple tests with sponges of the same size will need to be performed to see if they all hold the same amount of water. The dependent variable(s) is the amount of water being used for each test and what kind of environment the test is being performed in.

User talk:Proxima Centauri

2011-10-18T12:02:21Z

BronzeDome: Atheist groups in ...

I’m lonely here as nobody has spoken to me yet. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 03:03, 24 July 2009 (CDT)
:Awww. There, there. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:46, 31 July 2009 (CDT)
::<irony>Thanks for being so understanding. </irony> [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 01:04, 1 August 2009 (CDT)
:Glad to see there are some folks who actually use the chat functions on these wiki pages. I mostly just edit, but I guess I'll have to check them. Off hand, you wouldn't happen to know if there's any way to encode formal logic on this page, would you? The standard wiki form doesn't work. - JStein (8:49, 9/13/2011)

I see you started a WOTM program review. *Big hugs* I have made multiple requests for help on RW, YouTube, and [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trolling_With_Logic TWL]. You are the first person to give a helping hand. Thanks mate, I really appreciate it. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 15:25, 6 October 2011 (CDT)

Any chance that we could not use the '''Multiverse''' "theory" here? It's currently an untestable claim that has no evidence to support it, not a scientific theory. I certainly agree that it's ''possible'', but until we have a way of detecting other universes, it's an irrational claim and not suitable for use in counter-apologetics. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 09:36, 7 October 2011 (CDT)

:[http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam&curid=2213&diff=18138&oldid=18111&rcid=17057 I think the mustiverse theory prevents God being proved]. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 11:10, 7 October 2011 (CDT)

::It does no such thing. The multiverse ''concept'' (please provide scientific evidence for the claim or stop calling it a theory) simply moves the problem up one level; a theist just has to claim that "God caused the multiverse to exist" and you're back where you started, plus you've added another unprovable claim to the mix. If anything, the concept of parallel universes could potentially be used to explain the conflicts between omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 20:54, 7 October 2011 (CDT)

I’ve taken it out as the issue is not worth so much trouble and I risk getting behind with refuting [[Ray Comfort]]. In my opinion the [[wikipedia:Multiverse|Muliverse]] is valid against [[Kalam]] because Kalam explicitly states, “Everything that '''starts to exist''' needs a cause and the Multiverse didn’t necessarily , '''start to exist'''. I agree the Multiverse does not work against general first cause arguments. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:35, 8 October 2011 (CDT)

== Spam/vandalism ==

Lol, when I tried saving one of those marked as spam, I was told you had just deleted it. <impolite>Don't you have a life either?</impolite>

Is there no way we can upgrade the MediaWiki software? The latest version should make user-management, and thus spam-prevention, within easier reach. Sure, it will add some bureaucracy to new user creation, but won't it be worth it?

:You could try asking, [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]], he's the site owner. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 05:24, 8 October 2011 (CDT)

::I see he's probably too busy. Especially as an upgrade, apparently ANY upgrade beyond the current version, would require an upgrade of PHP. Which looks like it would involve the ISP...
::Something tells me that the most effective solution would be to find a new ISP, export and import, and then transfer the domain name to the new site. All of course without stealing the domain from Sans Deity.
::Isn't this interesting? I didn't even know there was a forum. How much more work would that involve?
::I can feel myself giving up here. --[[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 05:53, 9 October 2011 (CDT)
Bother... I think I'll leave you to it. I'll stick to fixing typos... --[[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 02:31, 10 October 2011 (CDT)

I think the computer must have delayed before you found out I'd deleted that stuff. While I'm checking regularly I don't need delete templates but if ever I can't check for any reason delete templates will be very useful. Any admin who gets to delete just needs to go to [[:Category:Pages for deletion]] and find a bunch of articles all together ready to delete. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 10:12, 10 October 2011 (CDT)

== Clean up ==

I rolled back some changes and I don't have time to monitor and fix everything. I've been getting complaints about some regulars adding sloppy speculation and changing the site from informative to a personal, sloppy, speculative bitch-slapping of apologists. Dig through your changes....and wherever you've added unfounded accusations, speculations or snide comments - remove them. I'm going to check back after the wedding and if there aren't improvements, I'll be locking the site down, upgrading it and changing policies and permissions. This isn't a place to talk shit about apologists or post things that might cause unnecessary problems. You CANNOT simply toss around accusations about financial motivations - that leads to legal problems, and I'd prefer if people didn't post sloppy arguments. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 01:22, 15 October 2011 (CDT)

:First, my thanks to Proxima about AtheistWiki, but before we go there mate, we have work to do. I will go through all my material on Ray Comfort - that includes the programs, books, and main page. Nobody here meant harm, but we will not be divide over this issue and continue to work together. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 13:03, 15 October 2011 (CDT)

I haven’t got time to go through your edits and I’m going to bed soon, I’ve had an infection recently. On this wiki are writers who’ve done really good hard hitting stuff about the [[Problem of evil]] and other difficult topics. '''Please write nothing here that could offend those writers or which those writers may not like.''' You can write snark and offensive stuff at RationalWiki or [http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Atheism Wiki], '''just don’t break any libel laws'''. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 13:42, 15 October 2011 (CDT)
*:I appreciate the fixes. Please take a moment to check out the newly added "types of pages" section under [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Editing guidelines]] for a little more guidance in how pages ought to look. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 18:16, 15 October 2011 (CDT)

== Atheist groups in ... ==

I suggest merging all those '''[[Special:Deadendpages|Atheist groups in some-country-or-state]]''' pages into one '''List of atheist groups''' page, organised, naturally, by continent, country and state. The current state of myriad miniature "articles" seems... silly.

May I? [[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 07:02, 18 October 2011 (CDT)

Tenets and dogma

2011-10-18T11:46:06Z

BronzeDome: UnDead-ending

A tenet is an opinion, [[belief]], or principle held to be true by someone or especially an organization. While [[dogma]] is the established belief or doctrine held by a [[religion]], ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or from which diverged. In the context of religion, a specific opinion starts out as a tenet and may over time develop into dogma.

Skepticism

2011-10-18T11:41:41Z

BronzeDome: UnDead-ending

Skepticism in Western [[philosophy]], is the attitude of doubting knowledge claims set forth in various areas. Skeptics have challenged the adequacy or reliability of these claims by asking what principles they are based upon or what they actually establish. They have questioned whether some such claims really are, as alleged, indubitable or necessarily true, and they have challenged the purported rational grounds of accepted assumptions. In everyday life, practically everyone is skeptical about some knowledge claims; but philosophical skeptics have doubted the possibility of any knowledge beyond that of the contents of directly felt experience. The original Greek meaning of skeptikos was “an inquirer,” someone who was unsatisfied and still looking for truth.

From ancient times onward skeptics have developed arguments to undermine the contentions of dogmatic philosophers, [[science|scientists]], and [[theology|theologians]]. The skeptical arguments and their employment against various forms of [[dogma|dogmatism]] have played an important role in shaping both the problems and the solutions offered in the course of Western philosophy. As ancient philosophy and science developed, doubts arose about various basic, widely accepted beliefs about the world. In ancient times, skeptics challenged the claims of Plato and Aristotle and their followers, as well as those of the Stoics; and during the Renaissance similar challenges were raised against the claims of Scholasticism and Calvinism. In the 17th century, skeptics attacked Cartesianism (the system established by the French philosopher and mathematician [[René Descartes]]) along with other theories that attempted to justify the scientific revolution initiated by Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo. Later, a skeptical offensive was leveled against the Enlightenment philosopher [[Immanuel Kant]] and then against the philosophical idealist Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and his followers. Each challenge led to new attempts to resolve the skeptical difficulties. Skepticism, especially since the Enlightenment, has come to mean [[Belief#Disbelief|disbelief]] — primarily [[religious]] disbelief — and the skeptic has often been likened to the village [[atheist]].

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Nephilim

2011-10-18T11:32:50Z

BronzeDome: UnDead-ending

In the New International Version (and most modern translations), {{Bible|Genesis 6:4}} mentions a people called the Nephilim. The Douay-Rheims and [[King James Version]] call these people giants.

In both cases, the source for the translation contains the word "Nephilim." The actual point of debate is over the root of the word, and thus the identity of the Nephilim. There are two basic ideas on the matter:

# It is a [[Hebrew]] word rooted in the Aramaic word "naphal" (to fall), and thus can be interpreted to mean the Nephilim were a people fallen away from God, such as the descendants of [[Cain and Abel|Cain]].
# It is an Aramaic word based on the Aramaic "nephil" (giant), which can be interpreted to mean the Nephilim were:
#* unusually large individuals, perhaps the champion warriors of an otherwise usual people, like Goliath of Gath.
#* a race of giants, the offspring of angels and humans.

In his paper "The Meaning of the Word Nephilim: Fact vs. Fantasy", Dr. Michael Heiser argues that the only hypothesis which explains the word used in translation for the Greek Septuagint, the specific spelling, the mention in {{Bible|Numbers 13:33}} of the Nephilim looking upon people as grasshoppers, and of [[Jewish]] and [[Christian]] commentators prior to Augustine of Hippo believing they were literally the giant offspring of angels and humans, is the latter.

The Douay-Rheims and King James Version use the word "giants" instead of "Nephilim" because, being based on the Greek Septuagint, they inherit the early translation of the word into Greek which was then (arguably) known to be Aramaic. Translations which use the word "Nephilim" have simply neglected to translate the word, perhaps originally driven by the dogma that the Nephilim were the descendants of Cain

Problem of external testing

2011-10-18T11:23:06Z

BronzeDome: UnDead-ending

The '''problem of external testing''' points out an interesting question regarding "testing the Lord":

What would happen were an atheist to run into the Vatican and pour several ounces of cyanide down the [[Pope]]'s throat?

Here we have an interesting mix of two [[Bible]] verses and their ramifications:

{{Quote-source|'''Do not test the LORD your God''' as you did at Massah.|''Deuteronomy 6:16''}}
{{Quote-source|And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; '''and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.'''|''Mark 16:17-18''}}

An atheist would not feel bound by the Bible's command not to test God, and the Pope would not be actually testing God, as he had no choice in the matter. The Pope is supposed to be God's representative on Earth, so if anyone believes, it would be him.

The question is: would the Pope live or die? On his own, his beliefs should prevent him from being hurt from drinking cyanide. If some high-ranking cardinal were there, then he could "lay hands" on the Pope, and the Pope "shall recover."

If God exists, and the Bible is right, then the Pope would live, despite the cyanide's ability to kill him within minutes. If the Bible is wrong, then he would die.

Conversely, if he lives, then the Bible receives some experimental validation. However if he dies, either the Bible is wrong, or the Pope wasn't a true believer.

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments against the existence of God]]
[[Category:Empirical arguments]]

Non-canonical

2011-10-18T11:19:51Z

BronzeDome: UnDead-ending

Non-canonical books, sometimes called, "Apocrypha" and incorrectly even, "deuterocanonical," are all the books of the [[bible]] not accepted by the Catholic church as inspired by god, or by other faith communities as authoritative. However, just what is considered "inspired," and "authoritative," has been hotly debated among [[Christian]] and [[Jewish]] scholars. This is why there is variety among which books are included in different version of the bible.

Faulty generalisations

2011-10-18T11:17:25Z

BronzeDome: UnDead-ending

Faulty generalizations are a subgroup of informal [[fallacies]].

Talk:James Patrick Holding

2011-10-18T11:14:39Z

BronzeDome: Spelling :-)

I've changed "famous" to "well-known", though quite frankly I've never heard of him. [[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 06:14, 18 October 2011 (CDT)

Talk:James Patrick Holding

2011-10-18T11:14:15Z

BronzeDome: (in)famous

I've changes "famous" to "well-known", though quite frankly I've never heard of him. [[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 06:14, 18 October 2011 (CDT)

James Patrick Holding

2011-10-18T11:12:26Z

BronzeDome: UnDead-ending, de-eulogising, spelling, WP-link

{{wikipedia|color=#F0FFD5;}}
'''James Patrick Holding''' (formerly Robert Turkel) is a [[Christian]] [[apologist]], who has become increasingly well-known over the past few years. He specializes in the historical context in the [[bible]], such as vernacular and culture, generally trying to make violent bible passages seem tamer.

He runs Tektonics Ministries. They have over 1500 articles arguing in favor of the God of Israel.

==Websites==

* [http://www.tektonics.org/ Tektonics]
* [http://www.youtube.com/user/tektontv Youtube Channel]

==External Links==

* [http://the-anointed-one.com/index.htm Website critical of him]

[[Category:Christian apologists]]

Émile Durkheim

2011-10-18T11:02:36Z

BronzeDome: UnDead-ending

Talk:Philosophy

2011-10-18T10:59:38Z

BronzeDome: Theory?

Why does this page link to the Wiktionary entry on '''theory'''? [[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 05:59, 18 October 2011 (CDT)

Baruch Spinoza

2011-10-18T10:55:53Z

BronzeDome: UnDead-ending + Categorisation

'''Baruch Spinoza''' (November 24, 1632 – February 21, 1677) was a Dutch [[philosophy|philosopher]] famous for his work on metaphysics. His religious views have been highly controversial.

[[Category:Philosophers]]