Great question and answer, here's a good debate about something from nothing ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U

Could be, though I don't think it's relevant to the question at hand. There are no known physical causes, but that does not mean there is no physical cause, and even if there were no physical cause, there it does not eliminate the possibility of an intelligent non-physical cause that we are unable to use science to detect. If it doesn't eliminate that possibility, then to use it against a proof for an intelligent non-physical cause is begging the question.

Thanks. I think there is good reason to consider Dawkins to be an authority on biology. I have no idea why people consider him to be an authority on philosophy and religion. That's not to say he can't be correct on those topics, it's just that he shouldn't be the first place you look.

A religious person shouldn't be the first place you look either.

It's not like religious who are experts in their field are unqualified to speaking on matters in their field. Everyone has bias and non-religious people have just as much bias going the other direction. It's better to read experts from both sides and start with the things that they both agree on. Read Dawkins if you're interested in learning about biology, but he's no better than your average layman when it come to philosophy.

"Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing. As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant. (He was just this when, thirty years ago, Mary Midgeley went after the selfish gene concept without the slightest knowledge of genetics.) Conversely, I am indignant at the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group."

- Michael Ruse, Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy, and Director of the Program in the History and Philosophy of Science, Department of Philosophy, Florida State University

So a scientist isn't someone you should refer to, but a christian priest should be one of those people you refer to?

If you weren't paying attention the first time, I said to read Dawkins if you're interested in learning about biology. Being a scientist does not make you an expert on religion or philosophy. Similarly, being a priest does not make you an expert on science or philosophy. All I'm saying is that you should look first to experts in a field to learn about that field.

But the religious are the ones who think they know what happened. Scientists try to find out yet don't think they know things they do not, and if they're wrong they're willing to admit it.

Both religious and non-religious people have bias. I don't know why you think they both can't try to do their best to objectively look at the facts and follow where they lead. Some atheists have done that and become Christians, and vice versa.

I've admitted that I am wrong in the past, I'm sure I currently hold things to be facts that are actually false, and I will certainly be wrong about things in the future. Thus us the nature of learning. Theists aren't any less interested in seeking the truth and aren't any less willing to admit they are wrong.

Because one side has a vested interest in keeping their belief alive at the cost of being factual. Only if the "truth" upholds their religious views. Otherwise they look the other way.

Wrong, if there were proof I'd change my views. But the fact is you have just as much evidence as any other believer of any other religon has about their own. Which is exactly 0.

No need for historical scholarship when you can simply just hand wave everything. With this level of skepticism, you also call into question the existence of other figures of antiquity. What's that line? Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Of course not, I never claimed it did. It's far more intellectually honest to admit that Jesus existed, but doubt that he performed miracles. It's ok to admit there is evidence for something even if you think the evidence is insufficient to justify your belief. Even if you don't think Jesus existed, you should at least be willing to say that someone can look at these works, consider them to be authentic, and draw the rational conclusion that Jesus existed.


A claim which I note that you continue to refuse to back up.

How do you produce evidence for nothing? That's like asking me produce evidence for you having no sixth toe.

This level of skepticism is why I'm not wearing a tin foil hat and don't believe the tooth fairy takes the the teeth of children and gives them money in return. I believe what I've seen, what I've experienced and what is backed up by science. Is that so wrong? I've never seen "God", heard his voice or felt his presence. I've never seen the spirit of Jesus, heard his voice or felt his presence. Yes, I know the spirit of Jesus = "God". I've never seen "God", protect the people who believe in him. Sure, I've heard Christians claim they communicate with him regularly but I don't know if they were just dreaming or lying or telling the truth. None of them were my friends. And if "God" is real, I wouldn't worship him anyway. He is obviously not a loving god. If he is real, his behavior has revealed to us, he wants all humans to suffer. I do wonder, if other figures from history truly existed. You do know, that people are capable of lying or exaggerating, right? People also enjoy writing fiction. Two thousand years from now, if they find a capsule with comic books, they might think Batman was real. OR if they found a time capsule with a magazine about celebrities, they might think Justin Bieber is a god, we worshiped.