<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Atheism Argued Successfully by Two Quotations</title>
	<atom:link href="http://danielmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations</link>
	<description>grep understanding</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:44:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eznight</title>
		<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations/comment-page-1#comment-257565</link>
		<dc:creator>Eznight</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jul 2011 17:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations#comment-257565</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Absolutely, and the evidence comes from the only book that has proven itself; the Bible. Before the big bang there was God.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;In no other religion were the authors of the scriptures supernaturally confirmed with miracles. And no other religion than Christianity has a Savior that was foretold with unbelievable precision. Even the most liberal critics admit that the prophetic books were completed some 400 years before Christ, and the book of Daniel by about 167 B.C.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Professor Peter Stoner, along with 600 students, calculated the mathematical probability of just 8 (of the more than 300) New Testament prophecies being fulfilled in any one person at one chance in a hundred million billion which equates to 1 chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. No other religious book offers anything that can compare with these supernatural predictions.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament contains scores of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Barton Payne&#039;s Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy list 191 on them, while Oxford scholar Alfred Edersheim cites 400. Some SPECIFIC major predictions about the Messiah, all of which WERE FULFILLED only in Jesus and could NOT be controlled by any human, was that he would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), of the seed of Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; 22:18), of the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10), of the house of David (II Sam 7:12-16), in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2); He would be heralded by the Lord&#039;s messenger (Isaiah 40:3); He would cleanse the temple (Malachi 3:1); He would be “cut off” 483 years after the declaration to reconstruct Jerusalem in 444 B.C. (Daniel 9:24-27); He would be rejected (Psalm 118:22); He would have his hands and feet pierced (Psalm 22:16); He would be pierced in His side (Zechariah 12:10); He would rise from the dead (Psalm 16:10); He would ascend into Heaven (Psalm 68:18); and He would sit down at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1).&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Absolutely, and the evidence comes from the only book that has proven itself; the Bible. Before the big bang there was God.</p>

<p>In no other religion were the authors of the scriptures supernaturally confirmed with miracles. And no other religion than Christianity has a Savior that was foretold with unbelievable precision. Even the most liberal critics admit that the prophetic books were completed some 400 years before Christ, and the book of Daniel by about 167 B.C.</p>

<p>Professor Peter Stoner, along with 600 students, calculated the mathematical probability of just 8 (of the more than 300) New Testament prophecies being fulfilled in any one person at one chance in a hundred million billion which equates to 1 chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. No other religious book offers anything that can compare with these supernatural predictions.</p>

<p>The Old Testament contains scores of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Barton Payne&#8217;s Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy list 191 on them, while Oxford scholar Alfred Edersheim cites 400. Some SPECIFIC major predictions about the Messiah, all of which WERE FULFILLED only in Jesus and could NOT be controlled by any human, was that he would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), of the seed of Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; 22:18), of the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10), of the house of David (II Sam 7:12-16), in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2); He would be heralded by the Lord&#8217;s messenger (Isaiah 40:3); He would cleanse the temple (Malachi 3:1); He would be “cut off” 483 years after the declaration to reconstruct Jerusalem in 444 B.C. (Daniel 9:24-27); He would be rejected (Psalm 118:22); He would have his hands and feet pierced (Psalm 22:16); He would be pierced in His side (Zechariah 12:10); He would rise from the dead (Psalm 16:10); He would ascend into Heaven (Psalm 68:18); and He would sit down at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1).</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Miessler</title>
		<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations/comment-page-1#comment-257563</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Miessler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations#comment-257563</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Your argument works great until you realize it applies equally to ALL
propositions for which there is no evidence.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Let&#039;s play. Before the big bang there was nothing in the university
other than Thor and a small plate of cheese. Do you have any evidence
against this?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your argument works great until you realize it applies equally to ALL
propositions for which there is no evidence.</p>

<p>Let&#8217;s play. Before the big bang there was nothing in the university
other than Thor and a small plate of cheese. Do you have any evidence
against this?</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Believer</title>
		<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations/comment-page-1#comment-257562</link>
		<dc:creator>Believer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jul 2011 14:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations#comment-257562</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;My ultimate counter argument is a simple statement.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Is it possible?
Is it possible that God exists. 
Is it possible that a spirit world exists.
Is it possible that there is life after death. 
Is it possible?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Any real scientist does not dismiss any thing that seams unlikely. They consider all possibilities no matter how unlikely.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Science is all about evidence, eliminating possible options though the objective evaluation of all evidence. When all possible options have been eliminated that which remains is the only possible explanation.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;At this point their is not enough evidence from before the big bang (creation) or the after life. To say the do or don&#039;t exist. Their is only opinion based on our current understanding of the universe. From the limited exposure we have to what ever evidence we may have been exposed to.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;To say some thing based on fantasy is not evidence of its existence is good logic but still bad science. To dismiss some thing because you believe it stupid, or only believed by the ignorant. Is just as ignorant. To dismiss some thing because there is currently no evidence is not the same as dismissing some thing there is evidence to disprove its existence.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Yes the simplest answer is the best. But simple is a matter of opinion. To say that only the material existence is all there is a good simple answer. But to say some one created it is all so a good simple answer. Any and all logic applied to this, can not discount that it could be possible for more then a material existence. That is irresponsible science.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Please prove that there was nothing before the big bang, and their is no after life. After you have done that you can continue to attack religion. 
I don&#039;t like the the way people impose there beliefs as truth, whether atheist or religious.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;To argues from ones beliefs (religious) is poor from. Never the less, I believe there is not enough evidence. 
I believe the answer to the question
Is it possible? God exists, there is life after death. 
The only responsible answer is Yes. Yes it is possible.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My ultimate counter argument is a simple statement.</p>

<p>Is it possible?
Is it possible that God exists. 
Is it possible that a spirit world exists.
Is it possible that there is life after death. 
Is it possible?</p>

<p>Any real scientist does not dismiss any thing that seams unlikely. They consider all possibilities no matter how unlikely.</p>

<p>Science is all about evidence, eliminating possible options though the objective evaluation of all evidence. When all possible options have been eliminated that which remains is the only possible explanation.</p>

<p>At this point their is not enough evidence from before the big bang (creation) or the after life. To say the do or don&#8217;t exist. Their is only opinion based on our current understanding of the universe. From the limited exposure we have to what ever evidence we may have been exposed to.</p>

<p>To say some thing based on fantasy is not evidence of its existence is good logic but still bad science. To dismiss some thing because you believe it stupid, or only believed by the ignorant. Is just as ignorant. To dismiss some thing because there is currently no evidence is not the same as dismissing some thing there is evidence to disprove its existence.</p>

<p>Yes the simplest answer is the best. But simple is a matter of opinion. To say that only the material existence is all there is a good simple answer. But to say some one created it is all so a good simple answer. Any and all logic applied to this, can not discount that it could be possible for more then a material existence. That is irresponsible science.</p>

<p>Please prove that there was nothing before the big bang, and their is no after life. After you have done that you can continue to attack religion. 
I don&#8217;t like the the way people impose there beliefs as truth, whether atheist or religious.</p>

<p>To argues from ones beliefs (religious) is poor from. Never the less, I believe there is not enough evidence. 
I believe the answer to the question
Is it possible? God exists, there is life after death. 
The only responsible answer is Yes. Yes it is possible.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eznight</title>
		<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations/comment-page-1#comment-257561</link>
		<dc:creator>Eznight</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jul 2011 04:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations#comment-257561</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Once again you have shown that you have a cursory understanding of Christianity and God. To state that “religion is based on absolute fantasy” is barely partially true. While there are some religions that have no basis this is glaringly untrue of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Archaeologists have uncovered more than 5500 ancient New Testament Greek manuscripts, with fragments dating back as early as the 2nd century. Counting Latin manuscripts and others, the total is 24,000 manuscripts in existence. Next to the New Testament, the greatest manuscript evidence for any other ancient work is for Homer&#039;s Iliad, of which there are fewer than 650 copies that come a full thousand years after the original writing.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;There are over 25,000 pieces of archeology supporting the bible including:
Biblical sites, cities, empires, artifacts, weapons, raw material and more on record which have been located and verified using the scriptures as a guide. In fact many biblical cites still exist today.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Archaeology has corroborated the essential reliability of the New Testament. Time after time, when incidental details of the New Testament can be checked out, they emerge as being accurate. For instance, John 5:1-15 describes how Jesus healed an invalid by the pool at Bethesda, which John describes as having 5 porticoes. And for years skeptics said that the pool never existed thus John was untrustworthy, however, recently the pool was excavated and scientists discovered 5 porticoes, or colonnaded porches, just as John described.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Luke, who wrote one-quarter of the New Testament, has been found to be a scrupulously accurate historian, even in the smallest details. One archeologist carefully studied Luke&#039;s references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands, finding not a single error. &quot;The general consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars is that Luke is very accurate as an historian,&quot; said archeologist John McRay.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Taking the cosmological, ontological, teleological, philosophical, scientific, historical, prophetical, existential and theological proofs for the existence of God it is self-stultifying to state that Christianity has no basis.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Once again you have shown that you have a cursory understanding of Christianity and God. To state that “religion is based on absolute fantasy” is barely partially true. While there are some religions that have no basis this is glaringly untrue of Christianity.</p>

<p>Archaeologists have uncovered more than 5500 ancient New Testament Greek manuscripts, with fragments dating back as early as the 2nd century. Counting Latin manuscripts and others, the total is 24,000 manuscripts in existence. Next to the New Testament, the greatest manuscript evidence for any other ancient work is for Homer&#8217;s Iliad, of which there are fewer than 650 copies that come a full thousand years after the original writing.</p>

<p>There are over 25,000 pieces of archeology supporting the bible including:
Biblical sites, cities, empires, artifacts, weapons, raw material and more on record which have been located and verified using the scriptures as a guide. In fact many biblical cites still exist today.</p>

<p>Archaeology has corroborated the essential reliability of the New Testament. Time after time, when incidental details of the New Testament can be checked out, they emerge as being accurate. For instance, John 5:1-15 describes how Jesus healed an invalid by the pool at Bethesda, which John describes as having 5 porticoes. And for years skeptics said that the pool never existed thus John was untrustworthy, however, recently the pool was excavated and scientists discovered 5 porticoes, or colonnaded porches, just as John described.</p>

<p>Luke, who wrote one-quarter of the New Testament, has been found to be a scrupulously accurate historian, even in the smallest details. One archeologist carefully studied Luke&#8217;s references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands, finding not a single error. &#8220;The general consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars is that Luke is very accurate as an historian,&#8221; said archeologist John McRay.</p>

<p>Taking the cosmological, ontological, teleological, philosophical, scientific, historical, prophetical, existential and theological proofs for the existence of God it is self-stultifying to state that Christianity has no basis.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fead</title>
		<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations/comment-page-1#comment-242432</link>
		<dc:creator>fead</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:57:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations#comment-242432</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;good&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>good</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SayBlade</title>
		<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations/comment-page-1#comment-242382</link>
		<dc:creator>SayBlade</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 01:25:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations#comment-242382</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&quot;Yes, it helps people through altered perception of the world, but so do three glasses of wine.&quot; ___ Oh, so atheists do not drink alcohol because it is too much like religion?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&quot;Religion is based on absolute fantasy.&quot; ___ Nor do atheists read books of poetry or fiction because real life is not represented there?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Yes, it helps people through altered perception of the world, but so do three glasses of wine.&#8221; ___ Oh, so atheists do not drink alcohol because it is too much like religion?<br /><br />&#8220;Religion is based on absolute fantasy.&#8221; ___ Nor do atheists read books of poetry or fiction because real life is not represented there?</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam</title>
		<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations/comment-page-1#comment-242381</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:48:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations#comment-242381</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;burden is on those who make the assertion, not on those who deny&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>burden is on those who make the assertion, not on those who deny</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anti-supernaturalist</title>
		<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations/comment-page-1#comment-242379</link>
		<dc:creator>anti-supernaturalist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:09:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations#comment-242379</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Theology is the subject without an object.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Theology is the subject without an object.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jo oliver</title>
		<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations/comment-page-1#comment-242360</link>
		<dc:creator>jo oliver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:20:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations#comment-242360</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Tolerance is what makes the world go round. I hear atheists argue that the reason they oppose Christian beliefs is because Christians force their beliefs on others. This Christian agrees with that aspect; as I find that practice actually to be polar opposite of all things Christian. That said, what do you think you are doing by trying to force your belief that religion is  fantasy. You want tolerance.....you must first show it. It is hardly tolerant to call other belief systems fantasy. People can not prove that God doesn&#039;t exist anymore than people can prove that he does.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tolerance is what makes the world go round. I hear atheists argue that the reason they oppose Christian beliefs is because Christians force their beliefs on others. This Christian agrees with that aspect; as I find that practice actually to be polar opposite of all things Christian. That said, what do you think you are doing by trying to force your belief that religion is  fantasy. You want tolerance&#8230;..you must first show it. It is hardly tolerant to call other belief systems fantasy. People can not prove that God doesn&#39;t exist anymore than people can prove that he does.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Ortiz</title>
		<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations/comment-page-1#comment-242351</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Ortiz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 04:21:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations#comment-242351</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Um yeah ok.  Proof is not found in Quotations alone.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Um yeah ok.  Proof is not found in Quotations alone.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Miessler</title>
		<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations/comment-page-1#comment-241853</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Miessler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 08:07:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations#comment-241853</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I&#039;m confused. What are you arguing?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#39;m confused. What are you arguing?</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick</title>
		<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations/comment-page-1#comment-241852</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 07:57:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations#comment-241852</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&quot;I find this this is the mother of the invention of the one most leaping premise and promise in subjecting one&#039;s-self to the call of religious devotion, that being FAITH.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I find this statement utterly impenetrable.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I find this this is the mother of the invention of the one most leaping premise and promise in subjecting one&#39;s-self to the call of religious devotion, that being FAITH.&#8221;<br /><br />I find this statement utterly impenetrable.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Miessler</title>
		<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations/comment-page-1#comment-241741</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Miessler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 04:07:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations#comment-241741</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I&#039;m confused. What are you arguing?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#39;m confused. What are you arguing?</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick</title>
		<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations/comment-page-1#comment-241740</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 03:57:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations#comment-241740</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&quot;I find this this is the mother of the invention of the one most leaping premise and promise in subjecting one&#039;s-self to the call of religious devotion, that being FAITH.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I find this statement utterly impenetrable.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I find this this is the mother of the invention of the one most leaping premise and promise in subjecting one&#39;s-self to the call of religious devotion, that being FAITH.&#8221;<br /><br />I find this statement utterly impenetrable.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Miessler</title>
		<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations/comment-page-1#comment-241713</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Miessler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 05:25:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations#comment-241713</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Make a DISQUS profile, mang. :)&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Make a DISQUS profile, mang. :)</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations/comment-page-1#comment-241712</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 05:17:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations#comment-241712</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”&lt;br&gt;-Albert Einstein&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”<br />-Albert Einstein</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jaren L</title>
		<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations/comment-page-1#comment-241707</link>
		<dc:creator>Jaren L</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 10:40:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations#comment-241707</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Speaking as an atheist, who has heard, enjoys and finds use in both of the above quotes:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&quot;1. Religion is based on absolute fantasy.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;strikes me as a logical leap. This is a point you haven&#039;t addressed, unless you take Payne&#039;s personal interpretation of the &lt;em&gt;study&lt;/em&gt; of Christianity as a factual description of &lt;em&gt;faith itself.&lt;/em&gt; Payne&#039;s quote, as far as I see, indicates only that &lt;em&gt;Christian theology&lt;/em&gt; is &lt;em&gt;unscientific&lt;/em&gt; in its methodology. I don&#039;t doubt that he&#039;s also penned wonderful quotes actually striking at the root of the truth or falsehood of theology itself, but that&#039;s not what &lt;em&gt;this&lt;/em&gt; quote is.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;And the second, while conclusive in and of itself, is only conclusive evidence of the &lt;em&gt;rightness&lt;/em&gt; of atheism if presented as the follow-up to a more credible argument for atheism.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;So I wouldn&#039;t say this is as much a &quot;successful argument&quot; for atheism as it is a pair of useful tools in the overarching argument over theism. I&#039;d instinctively guess that, if a proof this elegant does exist, it likely invokes Occam&#039;s Razor on a broad scale.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Speaking as an atheist, who has heard, enjoys and finds use in both of the above quotes:<br /><br />&#8220;1. Religion is based on absolute fantasy.&#8221;<br /><br />strikes me as a logical leap. This is a point you haven&#39;t addressed, unless you take Payne&#39;s personal interpretation of the <em>study</em> of Christianity as a factual description of <em>faith itself.</em> Payne&#39;s quote, as far as I see, indicates only that <em>Christian theology</em> is <em>unscientific</em> in its methodology. I don&#39;t doubt that he&#39;s also penned wonderful quotes actually striking at the root of the truth or falsehood of theology itself, but that&#39;s not what <em>this</em> quote is.<br /><br />And the second, while conclusive in and of itself, is only conclusive evidence of the <em>rightness</em> of atheism if presented as the follow-up to a more credible argument for atheism.<br /><br />So I wouldn&#39;t say this is as much a &#8220;successful argument&#8221; for atheism as it is a pair of useful tools in the overarching argument over theism. I&#39;d instinctively guess that, if a proof this elegant does exist, it likely invokes Occam&#39;s Razor on a broad scale.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: OzAtheist</title>
		<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations/comment-page-1#comment-241705</link>
		<dc:creator>OzAtheist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 06:50:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations#comment-241705</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Did you mean the William Paley &quot;Argument from design&quot;? If so, that fails dismally as well.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Did you mean the William Paley &#8220;Argument from design&#8221;? If so, that fails dismally as well.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Francois</title>
		<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations/comment-page-1#comment-241700</link>
		<dc:creator>Francois</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 20:58:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations#comment-241700</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I like wine :(&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like wine :(</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pyrex9</title>
		<link>http://danielmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations/comment-page-1#comment-241696</link>
		<dc:creator>pyrex9</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 19:04:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmiessler.com/blog/atheism-argued-successfully-by-two-quotations#comment-241696</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;P1. The principle of sufficient reason: All phenomena are either self-caused (i.e. A-&gt;A) or other-caused (B-&gt;A; B is not equal to A) but not both. Put another way, this principle says that the question &quot;why?&quot; is always meaningful. Everything happens for a reason.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;P2. The potency principle: If A -&gt; B then for all C element of B, A -&gt; C. In other words if A is the cause of B then A is the cause of every part of B. There are several notions of causality in philosophy. Hatcher&#039;s notion of causality is total causality; i.e. it is not the straw that breaks the camel&#039;s back but the 1000 straws before it, the camel, gravity, and so forth, that give rise to the camel breaking its back.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;P3. The principle of limitation: For all A, where A is an element of B, B -&gt; A does not hold. This says a system (which Hatcher represents as a set) cannot be the cause of its own components. Hatcher justifies this by explaining any system has (1) form (the parts) and (2) function (the relationship between the parts). A car (the system) cannot be the cause of its own steering wheel (a part), because the car does not even logically exist until the steering wheel exists. Thus the car&#039;s existence cannot precede the steering wheel&#039;s existence.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Hatcher shows that the logical outcome of these 3 axioms together with the above noted assumption are the existence of a &quot;unique, universal, uncaused cause.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hatcher&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hatcher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>P1. The principle of sufficient reason: All phenomena are either self-caused (i.e. A-&gt;A) or other-caused (B-&gt;A; B is not equal to A) but not both. Put another way, this principle says that the question &#8220;why?&#8221; is always meaningful. Everything happens for a reason.<br /><br />P2. The potency principle: If A -&gt; B then for all C element of B, A -&gt; C. In other words if A is the cause of B then A is the cause of every part of B. There are several notions of causality in philosophy. Hatcher&#39;s notion of causality is total causality; i.e. it is not the straw that breaks the camel&#39;s back but the 1000 straws before it, the camel, gravity, and so forth, that give rise to the camel breaking its back.<br /><br />P3. The principle of limitation: For all A, where A is an element of B, B -&gt; A does not hold. This says a system (which Hatcher represents as a set) cannot be the cause of its own components. Hatcher justifies this by explaining any system has (1) form (the parts) and (2) function (the relationship between the parts). A car (the system) cannot be the cause of its own steering wheel (a part), because the car does not even logically exist until the steering wheel exists. Thus the car&#39;s existence cannot precede the steering wheel&#39;s existence.<br /><br />Hatcher shows that the logical outcome of these 3 axioms together with the above noted assumption are the existence of a &#8220;unique, universal, uncaused cause.&#8221;<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hatcher" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hatcher</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

