Feed on Posts or Comments 24 October 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 15 Apr 2010 12:27 am

“one of the problems in agruing in defense of God is that the evidence in your favor is either terrible or non-existent”

Sam Harris: “one of the problems in agruing in defense of God is that the evidence in your favor is either terrible or non-existent…”

478 Responses to ““one of the problems in agruing in defense of God is that the evidence in your favor is either terrible or non-existent””

  1. on 21 Apr 2010 at 12:51 am 1.Meg said …

    “An iron-age religion”?? Why is it that the Bible is the most sold book in history? It’s because it’s the truth! And now thousands and thousands of years after it was written, it’s still selling millions of copies a year. There is a reason for this. Also, Christianity is always a hot topic in the media. This is because thousands of years later, scientists still haven’t been able to effectively prove it wrong. It is still a huge threat to nonbelievers, because it scares them. It scares them because they’re scared they may be wrong. And the consequence for being wrong? Eternity in hell! So think what you will, but I personally would rather be safe than sorry. I’m looking forward to spending eternity in Heaven with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and my fellow believers.

  2. on 21 Apr 2010 at 2:08 am 2.A real-ist said …

    “Why is it that the Bible is the most sold book in history?”

    Because many people are either gullable or uneducated and gullable.

    “It’s because it’s the truth!”

    Really, have you actually read the whole bible? You can really tell me that Noah’s Ark, someone living inside a whale, a talking snake, etc are true things that happened?

    “scientists still haven’t been able to effectively prove it wrong. ”

    Science has proven many many things in the bible to not be able to actually happen. Also, it is kind of hard to prove a myth of a God living in a different realm wrong when the claim is that it is unconceivable to humans and you will only know when you die. Kind of proves itself wrong because there is no proof of it being true and when you die you are nothing but dirt in the ground, so it is kind of hard to change your mind at that point.

    “It is still a huge threat to nonbelievers, because it scares them. It scares them because they’re scared they may be wrong. ”

    Scares us? I actually wish it was true that there is an afterlife. But wishing it true doesn’t make it real. And if non-believers go to hell even if they live a good life by treating others well, then that is God’s fault for not showing better proof of his existance. I mean, come on, a book written by man 2000 years ago is the only legitimate claim you believers think as evidence, which is proven to be just a bunch of made up stories.

    “I personally would rather be safe than sorry”

    But I thought you were for sure there is a heaven? Being safe than sorry means you have doubt. And you do realize that you are saying you would rather live a life as a slave than to live life in a heaven on earth to do freely what you want to without thinking of consequences. (I am talking about drinking, sex, gambling, etc; not rape and murder.) Not being able to do those fun things because of being a slave to a pretend God is considered hell to me, so if you look at it that way, you are in hell right now and I am in heaven. Gotta love sleeping in on Sundays, too. :)

  3. on 21 Apr 2010 at 3:08 am 3.Horatio said …

    Meg,

    Go keeps His Word on the lips of man in order that they may find His kingdom.

    Science does nothing but confim what the Bible has already stated to be true.

  4. on 21 Apr 2010 at 3:55 am 4.A real-ist said …

    “Science does nothing but confim what the Bible has already stated to be true.”

    Please give me examples, because it is actually the opposite. Science proves the bible wrong. Take the very first part of the bible for example. It states God created light on the second day and then the sun on the third. Anyone with half a brain can figure that one out. Talking snakes. I think we know that snakes don’t talk. Noah’s Ark isn’t even possible to have had happen. For one thing, how can someone back then gather two of every species and later put them back where they came from? Living inside a whale for days. Hmmmm….doesn’t science show that there may be lack of oxygen there. These are just a few examples. So please give me your examples to enlighten me.

  5. on 21 Apr 2010 at 6:54 am 5.Severin said …

    1 Meg
    „…the Bible is the most sold book in history? It’s because it’s the truth!“
    The Harry Potter books were the 2nd bestsellers in human history.
    It’s because they are the truth!

    “This is because thousands of years later, scientists still haven’t been able to effectively prove it wrong.”

    Dear Meg, trust me, scientist NEVER lose time trying to prove that god does not exist!
    They are trying to prove their scientific theories!
    What they proved untill today, does not directly prove that god does not exist, but that his existance does fit anywhere, and is unnecessary. So, they do not CARE about god.
    Their time is too precious to spend on (stupid) fairy tales!

  6. on 21 Apr 2010 at 6:59 am 6.Severin said …

    3 Horatio
    “Go keeps His Word on the lips of man in order that they may find His kingdom.”

    Whose word?
    God who, according to some creationists discussing here, caused the Big Bang did not say anything!

  7. on 21 Apr 2010 at 7:01 am 7.Severin said …

    5 Severin
    Sorry, not: “…existance does fit anywhere”, but: “…existance does NOT fit anywhere”

  8. on 21 Apr 2010 at 12:14 pm 8.Horatio said …

    “God created light on the second day and then the sun on the third. Anyone with half a brain can figure that one out.”

    Prove it Real. Which of the over 100 Big Bang Models are you using as your guide? I don’t recall a talking snake? Some help there. You also have no proof for your other examples. If you are the atheistic-evolutionist then you admit nature is capable of anything.

    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#ZBofQpkgyJZh

  9. on 21 Apr 2010 at 5:05 pm 9.Meg said …

    A real-ist,

    As far as your list goes of things in the Bible that you think are crazy and untrue, Christianity is a religion based on faith. Therefore, we don’t need proof of these things, because we just trust that they’re true. (But for people, like you, who doubt, why don’t you try checking out this site http://www.squidoo.com/noahsarkfound for evidence of Noah’s Ark?)

    “It’s God’s fault for not showing better proof of his existence”??? Really…are you blind? Take a look at the world around you! Everything…the earth, the animals, and even you are his creation! I think that’s enough proof. And why don’t you try watching this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0-NPPIeeRk

    Finally, I said that I’d rather be safe than sorry, because I was referring to you. I do know for sure that God exists. I can feel his presence, and I’ve seen him work in my life and in the lives of those around me. I was saying that because of your doubts, so if I were you, I’m saying that it would be worth the risk. “You are in a hell right now” How can you say this about me? You don’t know me at all. I’m actually a very happy person! We Christians are not slaves to God. He has given us the free gift of salvation, and when we accept it, our lives change because we are consumed by our love for him, and we desire to please him. God does not make us change our way of life when we accept him…we do! I have a lot of fun without participating in immoralities that you speak of. If you really think that sex, gambling, and drinking are the only fun things in life, I feel really sorry for you, because you are living a very empty life. I am living for a greater purpose and a higher calling. Matthew 6:19-21 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

  10. on 21 Apr 2010 at 8:57 pm 10.Severin said …

    9 Meg
    “…Christianity is a religion based on faith.”
    Islam is a religion based on faith.
    All religions are based on faith ONLY.
    Does it mean all religions are equal and all are right?

    For me, all of them are equally stupid (and equally dangerous), but if you make difference among them and claim one of them is right and others are not, it calls for some explanation!

    “Therefore, we don’t need proof of these things, because we just trust that they’re true.”
    How VERY sad!
    EXACTLY the same muslims claim. What differs you from muslims (or any other religion?)

    “Noah’s ark…”
    A common definition of SPECIES is that it is a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen.
    Obviously, and well known, MANY species are not capable of interbreeding, and to save all animals to survive flood, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of pairs should be taken to the boat:
    ALL species of camels, elephants, hyppopotamus, zebras, giraffas, kangaroos, koalas, armadillos, monkeys, gasellas, buffalos, cows, sheep, goats, lamas, mice, rats, lions, tigers, bears (including polar bears), wolfs, foxes, pumas, wildcats, horses, (etc, etc), all species of insects living on solid ground, all species of serpents (and other reptiles) living on solid ground… all ..you name them!
    Do not forget (god did!) hundreds of thosands of species plants which would die after so long time under deep water (no photosynthesis, no breathing)….

    Of course, if you want to avoid incestous mating, which nature itself DOES avoid, much more than 1 pair of each animal would do the job. 1 pair of each species is FAR too few to spread species from beginning.

    Of course, your god did not avoid incest ever (WHO was Kain’s wife? Who MIGHT it be, but his own sister?)
    What a god!

  11. on 22 Apr 2010 at 1:51 am 11.A real-ist said …

    Horation, it states right at the beginning of the bible that God created light on one of the first days and then the sun the day after.

    And you say “Prove it Real.”

    How about you go open up a fucking bible and read it. It says that in the very first section. Have you even read the bible? You people make me sick how you claim things are true but you haven’t even researched it. And you are telling me to prove it says that in the bible. How about you open it and read the very first section.
    And yes, there was a talking snake in the garden of eden. And you say I have no proof of my other examples? Scientists have actually created and studied a model based on the Ark in the bible and there is no way it would have stayed afloat. And do you really think someone from that time period could go to every part of the world and get two of every species and then when the flood was done put them back? You are a fucking idiot if you think that it could have been done. And the other example of living in a whale. Basic biology courses can explain that one.

    So quit saying I have no proof. All your type can do is say there is no proof without even knowing that the proof is out there and you just asume goddidit without even thinking things through. How about you show me some proof of things in the bible actually being true.

  12. on 22 Apr 2010 at 2:10 am 12.A real-ist said …

    Meg,
    “Christianity is a religion based on faith. Therefore, we don’t need proof of these things, because we just trust that they’re true.”

    Reality is based on proof. Trusting something is true doesn’t make it true. That just means you are gullable to believe anything.

    And for your site on proving the Ark true, I actually just saw a special on tv about that very same claim and the scientists actually studied it and declared it isn’t true. I can’t recall the name of the show, but I just saw it on cable within the last week.

    “Take a look at the world around you! Everything…the earth, the animals, and even you are his creation! I think that’s enough proof.”

    How does that show proof? How does it prove that a God had to create it? Just because you don’t understand things doesn’t mean you can just claim God did it.

    And I used the sex, drinking, and gambling as just examples of fun things that are done. This doesn’t mean they consume my life and are the only fun things. I just pointed them out because your religion thinks they are immoral and you can’t enjoy those types of things because of it.

  13. on 22 Apr 2010 at 2:14 am 13.Meg said …

    Severin,
    The difference between Christianity and other religions is that we serve a RISEN God that is alive today! When Buddha died, he stayed dead, and is dead today. When Muhammad died, he stayed dead, and is dead today. The list goes on. However, when Jesus died, he didn’t stay dead. He arose!! My God and Savior is very much alive today. And that is the difference in my ‘religion’ and other religions. I actually have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and that’s what gives me hope and joy. I honestly wonder sometimes how nonbelievers get through just one day without knowing the Lord. He helps me and walks with me through the journey of my life, and I couldn’t do it without him…I wouldn’t have hope of an eternal future in heaven if it weren’t for him.

  14. on 22 Apr 2010 at 2:32 am 14.A real-ist said …

    “I actually have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and that’s what gives me hope and joy.”

    Again, Meg, this personal relationship you have is just you talking to your imaginary friend. Next time you think you feel his presence, think about what I am saying. It is just your imaginary mind at work.

    “I honestly wonder sometimes how nonbelievers get through just one day without knowing the Lord.”

    We get through the day just like everyone else, the only different is we don’t need an imaginary friend to guide us. Actually, if you think about it, imaginary friends are just yourself anyway, so really you are getting through the day with your own mind just like we are. No difference really. Us non-believers just realize that when we talk to ourself that it is actually ourself.

    “we serve a RISEN God that is alive today!”

    Really? Can you point him out to me? Where is he hiding?

  15. on 22 Apr 2010 at 5:48 am 15.megmustbfrmthsouth said …

    14 comments,

    Score:
    People who make Rational sense: 9

    Meg/Heratio: 0

    Not a single point they made that is not built on the fictitious and fundamentally flawed “faith”. Only with ration and logic can this planet emerge from the last 2100+ years of ignorance.

    I’m assuming at LEAST one of them is hailing from the Confederate States of America…Statistics suggest this…

  16. on 22 Apr 2010 at 1:48 pm 16.Meg said …

    Heck yes I’m from the south, and I’m proud of it!!! And what does that have to do with anything anyhow? Yall are just blind to the truth. You’ve probably come across a hypocritical Christian in the past, and that has turned you off to the possibility of a God. Well I personally apologize, and I’m sorry you have to live without knowing the King of Kings. And by the way, I have heard of miracles that God has performed in recent days, so I’m not just basing it on my ‘feelings’. But don’t worry, one day you’ll give glory to God. Romans 14:11 “’As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,‘every knee will bend to me,and every tongue will confess and give praise to God.” But unfortunately, it will then be too late for you to make a commitment to him.

  17. on 22 Apr 2010 at 2:02 pm 17.Chris said …

    Wouldn’t you know it, the arrogant are always from Yankee land! Statistics always dictate this……

    Score

    Realist Severin – 0 comprehension
    (Severin is like a tornado in a junyard????)

    Meg & Horatio – 10 comprehension

  18. on 22 Apr 2010 at 7:16 pm 18.Severin said …

    Meg,
    “When Muhammad died, he stayed dead, and is dead today.”

    Try to say this to muslims! They never declared their GOD (Allah) dead!
    Christian believers do not differ „a dot“ from muslim believers!
    The only difference is that christians reduced their killings and torturings for religion, and muslims did not yet, but it is the question of timing, not of the principle.
    Atheists made christian world more bearble. Without them we would still have Inquisition and burning of „sinners“ and „heretics“.
    Unfortunatelly too few atheists in the muslim world, but it is only question of time!

    As expected, you overlooked my comments about Noah’s ark and about incestous mating among A+E children.
    It is always easier just not to think about it, than to try to conclude something; “faith” is always stronger than facts and logic, unfortunately.

    So I am asking you directly now, if you dare to even think anything about it:
    Genesis 4:17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch;…
    Genesis 4:19 And Lamech took two wives;…

    WHO was Cain’s wife, whome he “knew” (had sex with)?
    Does your church prohibits incestous mating? If yes, why, as we all see god himself produced human race that way, and DID NOT prohibit it at any place further in the Bible.
    Is bigamy prohibited by your church? If yes, WHY, if we see god permited it in the Bible?

    The 1st question is more important, of course. How is it that your god permited incestous intercourses, and “producing” successors from incestous mating?
    Nature does not make such mistakes!

    Please notice that Cain and his wife WERE NOT MARRIED!
    (No church, no priests…)
    So, premartial sex is also permitted by god himself, he had no comments on this fact. Why is christian church so much aganst premartial sex?

  19. on 22 Apr 2010 at 8:23 pm 19.Merlin said …

    *”Try to say this to muslims! They never declared their GOD (Allah) dead!”

    To Severin

    Muh was a prophet, Allah is their God. They are not the same. Muh is dead.

    *”How is it that your god permited incestous intercourses,”

    There was no law against incest during the time of Cain. There was no law against hedge fund managers. See how that works? At least know something of the religions you berate. Geez….

  20. on 22 Apr 2010 at 9:13 pm 20.Hoffymann07 said …

    Why is proof always needed of something in order for it to be believed? Why cant we see wind? Why don’t atoms fly apart on their own? Why can’t we see the end of the universe?

    Things would exist how they are even if we didn’t ask questions as to why they exist that way. The way the world and universe is, from the microscopic to the universe, has a law and order about them that is set in stone. We may be able to alter them slightly, but one thing that we cannot alter in and of ourselves is death. Death is inevitable, as set in stone as gravity. We can postpone death with advances in medicine, but we all will die.

    Admittance that there is a God is the admittance that there is something other than ourselves that is higher than us, and also higher than science. He would be higher than our thoughts. Sin is why we are in the state we are in. Let’s take all the talking animals and claims of incest out of the picture. Just as much as if I am a follower of Christ, and I choose not to trust in God and I choose to do my own thing, I essentially am elevating myself above God and His way for my life. It is built into me from birth. Admitting there is a God would bring us to the point where we would have to ask ourselves what does a higher being want with us? Even though I am saved, it is still a choice for me to give up how I want my life to go.

    Many athiests ask for proof that God exists, and all I can give you is the changed life that I lead. Some claim that it was something that scared me or that I was tricked into believing what I believe. I willfully chose to believe the Bible and at the point of my salvation, was lost and was practicing religion. Is there any difference between a lost person who believes in God, and a lost person that doesn’t believe in God at all? No, they are both lost. God was as far from me as my interpretation and learning of him was, but at the point I became aware of who He was and what He had done for me, I could do nothing but choose to follow him. All I knew is that there was nothing I could do to save me from the state I was in except trust Him. You can go your whole life not knowing there is a God or who He is, and some people do. I however was looked upon in the state I was in, and was given grace in spite of that.

    James 4:6 “…God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.”

    I have never been an athiest, but I have believed evolution. I have believed that all religions were what people believed because of their interpretation of who God was. I even was raised in a Baptist Church, believing what I was taught there. I have believed in many things, but until salvation nothing satisfied or was real to me.

    You may not believe in God, or have many questions about the Bible. You may believe it’s a fairytale. My only question is why don’t you step beyond yourself and read the Bible, maybe even pray and ask God to show you something from His Word. Try putting God in a place other than a fairytale world and see if He responds to you. Ask Him to make Himself real to you and show you who He is.
    He showed me grace, and I know He can show you grace too. I’m not asking you to believe all this stuff that we believe, just seek God.

  21. on 22 Apr 2010 at 11:55 pm 21.A real-ist said …

    Meg,
    Would you mind if I ask what education level you have?

    “’As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,‘every knee will bend to me,and every tongue will confess and give praise to God.”

    Why would God need to be worshipped? ‘Bow down to me or else!’

    “Try putting God in a place other than a fairytale world and see if He responds to you. Ask Him to make Himself real to you and show you who He is.”

    Yeah, that is how I spent the first 20 years of my life. I was a confirmed Christian. I prayed and nothing ever happened. As my education grew so did my questions. I then put everything I have learned together and realized that religion and God is not real and how it could have come to make many people think it was real and why that could happen. After all this, the conclusion I came to is that people have blind faith. Faith is not reality.

    By the way, didn’t you see what I said about the very first part of the bible? It says God created light in one of the first days and then the sun the day after. Think about how flawed that is. You do realize you need the sun in order to get light. And the earth circles around the sun, not the other way around. So the sun had to be created first. This just proves that the bible was written by man who didn’t have enough scientific advancements and used God Did It for everything they didn’t understand.

  22. on 23 Apr 2010 at 12:03 am 22.A real-ist said …

    “Why is proof always needed of something in order for it to be believed? Why cant we see wind? Why don’t atoms fly apart on their own? Why can’t we see the end of the universe?”

    Because proofs are based on tests that show something is true. Science is based on proofs. Science proves why we can’t see wind, etc.

  23. on 23 Apr 2010 at 3:11 am 23.Meg said …

    I agree with Merlin! It was a completely different time then. There were no laws against incest. And a priest? Really? It wasn’t until Adam and Eve sinned that they even realized they were naked, so of course they didn’t perform fancy wedding ceremonies! And why wouldn’t he have everyone bow to him? He is the King of all Kings and we are all his creation, so we will all one day bow a knee in reverence to him. People bow to their kings, so I don’t think it’s too much to ask if the God of the universe wants people to bow to him.
    And did you ever think that when you were praying back in the day that God may have been answering your prayers, he just wasn’t giving you the answers you wanted? Because he always answers prayers, but sometimes the answer is no. However, he always does what’s best for us. Romans 8:28 “And we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love him and are called according to his purpose for them.” But you have to remember that our definition of ‘good’ isn’t always the same as God’s definition of good. He can see the past, present, and future, and we can’t. So sometimes what we think is the best thing for us, is not always right.

  24. on 23 Apr 2010 at 3:42 am 24.MrQ said …

    Meg,

    You say: “However, he always does what’s best for us.”

    Then explain: http://www.funlol.com/10277/Baby_born_without_skin.html
    or http://www.who.int/genomics/about/en/BD%20list.pdf

    How does a newborn baby deserve the pain and suffering inflicted by an almighty, all powerful, all knowing god? What is the lesson?

    Did you claim that the ark has been found? Better go to this site and study some of what other theistic scientists are saying: http://biologos.org/

    Post again after absorbing some of the information, don’t just pray for guidance, m’dear.

  25. on 23 Apr 2010 at 4:21 am 25.A real-ist said …

    “Romans 8:28″

    Is that the time in Rome when you wrote your post? LOL You still don’t get it that what is said in the bible isn’t real. The story of Adam and Eve was made up.

    “And why wouldn’t he have everyone bow to him?”

    What would God gain by people bowing to him? Is he like the God Zeus where he gains more power by the more people that pray to him?

    By the way, Meg, you never did tell me your education level.

    FFDP 1:3

    I won’t bow to something that I’ve never seen
    I can’t believe in something that doesn’t believe in me
    I’m not blood of your blood, I’m no son of your god
    I’ve no faith in your fate
    Still I find salvation

    You think you have the answers to every last detail
    In your eyes, you’re the victor
    In mine you’ve only failed

    You monkey see, you monkey do
    You’re always doing what they tell you to
    You’re such a puppet on string
    You don’t get it!

  26. on 23 Apr 2010 at 5:21 am 26.Severin said …

    21 Realist
    “It says God created light in one of the first days and then the sun the day after.“

    They forgot to mention in the Bible that before creating sun, god lighted the earth by neon lamps. It was that way, trust me!
    You must trust, without any doubt in your heart, everything written in the Bible (Kurr’an, Talmud, religious stone writings in Egypt and Latin America, Book of Mormons, … Harry Potter books, Cinderella story, not to mention stories of Santa, Spaghetti Monster and the Tea Kettle orbiting Jupiter).
    They all love you!

  27. on 23 Apr 2010 at 5:57 am 27.Severin said …

    Merlin
    „Muh was a prophet, Allah is their God. They are not the same. Muh is dead.“
    What else did I say to Meg, who claimed muslim god was dead?

    „There was no law against incest during the time of Cain….See how that works?“

    Yes, I clearly see it.
    You have just proved the Bible god was a weakling without any will and power. Or he never existed.

    WHO changed his laws? I never heard he did it. There are no version of the Bible in which god withdraws his laws and gives new ones.
    If any monkey has right to change the laws of god without consequences, how could you worship and trust such a weakling?
    By which logic would I have less right to change his laws, or to interpret them as I wish, than any other human?
    Or, perhaps he never existed, but was invented by humans, who changed his laws when and how they were pleased (and had interest to do so).

  28. on 23 Apr 2010 at 6:30 am 28.Severin said …

    23 Meg
    “I agree with Merlin! It was a completely different time then. There were no laws against incest.“
    According to you and to the Bible, the ONLY laws of that time were god’s words.
    He granted incest and bigamy, it is absolutely clearly written in the Bible, no doubt, no mistake.
    WHO changed his laws?
    WHEN, and WHERE were the new laws proclaimed („incest, although permitted by god, is forbidden from now on…“, „bigamy, although granted by god, is forbidden from now on…“)…
    Who DARED to proclaim new laws without god’s permission. We are talking VERY fundamental laws which were somehow misteriously CHANGED – who did it?
    Were people which changed those laws more clever than god himself? They DID understand that incestous mating brings deformation to the race, god DID not.

    God who tollerated any fool to change and to interpret his words was NOTHING. And he still is: if he existed, why would anyone care of him, knowing that whoever likes, can change his laws any time without consequences.

  29. on 23 Apr 2010 at 12:20 pm 29.Merlin said …

    Let me ask the same question asked by Realist but to Severin.

    “By the way, (Severin), you never did tell me your education level.”

    You are a very confused individual or very uneducated.

  30. on 23 Apr 2010 at 12:25 pm 30.Horatio said …

    “Please notice that Cain and his wife WERE NOT MARRIED!”

    LOL, How do you know? He probably had other brothers and sisters. What about the same God who married Adam and Eve?

    Atheist reasoning at its best!

  31. on 23 Apr 2010 at 3:51 pm 31.Severin said …

    Merilin,
    Thank you for your interest in my modest personality.
    Maybe my English is “confused”, because I never learnt it in the school, but am (in English) selftaught.
    Grammar and synthax of my language are very different compared to English, and I admit I have difficulties, especially when I try to write English quickly, which I do all the time. Maybe that is the problem, but I do hope my English, although primitive, is understandable enough for this sort of discussion.
    I learnt in school(s) German, French and Latin.

    I have university education, uncomparable with American education system, but normal for Europe for the time I went to school(s), several decades ago:
    8 years of primary school
    4 years of high school
    4 years of university (chemical technolgy, branche gound oil), 16 years in total.
    Besides, I read and learn a lot my whole life.

    Without counting someone’s formal degree of education, I take as uneducated anyone who believes anything without critical thinking and questioning.
    I take as uneducated anyone who takes for granted things from Bible and other religious books/writings, although things written there have nothing to do with reality, science, logic, humanity, decency, morality…

    An allmighty god who “creates” earth by abracadabra, create light before sun, creates women form man’s rib, then involves talking serpents in the story!
    An “allmighty god” who ordes burned animal offerings to be done for him to please his sense of smell!
    An “allmighty” (and, of course, all knowing) god who grants incest, not knowing incest degradate the race! And not finding anything immoral in incestous sex!
    An “allmighty” (and all loving) god who orders death punishment for non-virgin women, desobediant children and people who work on holyday!
    Etc, etc, etc,

  32. on 23 Apr 2010 at 4:21 pm 32.Severin said …

    29 Horatio

    As all the time, you post less important problem to try to make me an ignorant, and hush up the real problem you and your god have:
    Maybe god married brothers and sisters(!!!), I would not know, but then he DID grant incestous intercourses, wgich is both highly immoral AND lethal for surviving of species.
    Each farmer knows it (and knew it 10,000 years ago)! God did not, but he rather gave the believers an example how to live and how to behave in future!
    F… your sisters and if one does not please you, take 2 of them (Genesis)

    Married or not, according to Bible, brothers made babies to their sisters, no doubt, no mistake, and THAT is the real problem. And the BIG one!

    Believer reasoning as its best: save the sanctity of marriage (god himself married brothers and sisters! really importanat!), who cares for morality and surviving of human race!

  33. on 23 Apr 2010 at 4:41 pm 33.Horatio said …

    “incestous intercourses, wgich is both highly immoral AND lethal for surviving of species”

    Why is it immoral?

  34. on 23 Apr 2010 at 4:45 pm 34.MrQ said …

    Hor
    Are you sleeping with your sister?

  35. on 23 Apr 2010 at 6:39 pm 35.Severin said …

    Or, does your son sleaps with your daughter?
    What sort of morality are we dealing with here?
    Christian morality?

  36. on 23 Apr 2010 at 7:12 pm 36.Severin said …

    I know that marriage among brothers and sisters is prohibited by law in all countries I know.

    I know that all christian churches prohibit marriages among brothers and sisters. Am I wrong?

    So, according to Horatio (and acording to Bible) we have here pure hypocrisy: MARRIAGE among brothers and sisters is forbidden, but SEX, and production of children, are not!

    Interesting!

  37. on 23 Apr 2010 at 9:10 pm 37.Horatio said …

    Severin

    Nice dodge, weave and rope-a-dope but you failed to answer the question. Again, I’ll give you another chance. Why is incest immoral?

  38. on 24 Apr 2010 at 12:49 am 38.Merlin said …

    Severin I only ask the question of your education because your reasoning is that of a someone with only a high school education.

    Hopefully, it is only a language barrier issue but you arguments are illogical and you have no ability to stay on topic.

    That being said, you do know there was no governments or Bible in the story of Adam and Eve do you not? Therefore, how could there be anything immoral called incest?

    How else would the first humans reproduce if not with one another? Your argument is simply ridiculous and an embarrassment to anyone who has the ability to reason.

  39. on 24 Apr 2010 at 8:51 am 39.Mr. Z said …

    Mr.Q(refer to post.33)
    What type of brain dysfunction do you have? The question you gave was either a question of ill-thought content or dumb thinking.

    Wow is not my initial thought to your question, it was more of a “who is this pathetic excuse for a breathing organism?!!” and that is your status to all those that post their thoughts here. you spat in the air and the wind or gravity just gave you a ‘boomerang’ response. think hard before you make another spitting image of yourself.

  40. on 24 Apr 2010 at 9:17 am 40.Severin said …

    37 Merlin
    “How else would the first humans reproduce if not with one another?”
    I think that god should have thought of it, not I or you.
    God should have made several families with different genes to solve this problem. Would it be a problem for an “allmighty”? Snap of fingers, and 10 or 100 families with different genes are walking arround! Problem solved!
    He should have known genetic problems.
    Very untidy for an allknowing!

    So you believe in Biblical stories, and call yourself educated (and authorized to evaluate education of other people)?
    Beside so many evidences that creation of universe, beggining of life on earth, and its development (called evolution), were VERY different than described in Bible, you still believe a god (which one among so many of them?) created earth and made man from dirt and women from his rib, then required burned offerings from humans, to enjoy the smell (Bible!)?

    If you read books, explore Internet, and/or watch TV (National Geographic, Explorer, History…, which I do a lot), you would find that today’s human race is only the top of an iceberg in history of evolution of human race.
    It was proven that evolution produced much more than one species of humans during last 3-4 million years. Some of them (groups of different humans) used to live at the same time, even parallel on the same geographic areas.
    Evolution is NOT a straight line, but an extremely huge and extremely branched tree, most probably with more than one root (beginning of life). The existing species are only small „residues of green“ on the very tops of tiny branches. The rest of the tree is dead.
    None of existing species has living (existing) ancestor species, but have common ancestors among species which did not succeed to survive (dead branches).
    All of human species dissapeared, exactly as many (but MANY!) animal species dissapeared too, and left only fossil traces of their existances.
    History of life on earth was NOT a history of mating of reltives during short period of a few 100 of years, but LONG history of many natural “trials and mistakes”, during which many species did not succeed to survive, but only a few (millions) of them did, including ONE human race. Some of them probably failed because of mutual mating of close relatives, before nature (by selection) found ways to avoid it.
    Some present species of monkeys ARE STILL evoluting, and if we, “proud humans”, do not kill them all, within next several 10,000 of years we will have new primitive human race!
    Other species are still evoluting, and although evolutin processes are typically VERY slow, there are examples found as direct proofs of evolution in action.

    And, of course, try to find WHY is marriage among brothers and sisters forbidden today? WHY should it be forbidden, if god permtted it, is there any reason? And why the “allmighty” and “allknowing” did not recognize genetic problems when created man kind?

  41. on 24 Apr 2010 at 9:42 am 41.Severin said …

    38 MrZ
    Before you strike as ugly as you did, you better read previous comments!

    Horatio (comment 32) posed the question: “Why is it (incestous intercourses) immoral?” as his comment to still previous comments.

    What else could you ask him, to “sober” him?

    The whole “history” of those comments begann with my question: Who was Cain’s wife? (comment 18 Severin)
    So, if you are a believer, you have no right to react that way, because (your?) god himself permitted sex among brothers and sisters born by the same mother and the same father!
    Moreover, he permitted a brother to take TWO sisters (of his own!) as his wives (Bible, Genesis).

  42. on 24 Apr 2010 at 11:07 am 42.Merlin said …

    “He should have known genetic problems.”

    Severin this is the ridiculous statements of which I speak. If there were only two people on earth, there were no the genetic problems like we would see from many generations of inbreeding as we have see in the Royal of families of the past.

    You didn’t even answer hoatio’s question. Is incest immoral because it against the law or because it violates biblical authority?

    Please, no long narratives on evolution. My intent is not to be ugly but I call them as I see them.

  43. on 24 Apr 2010 at 11:08 am 43.Severin said …

    36 Horatio
    “Why is incest immoral?”

    Why don’t you ask priests and authorities who proclaimed it immoral, and forbad it (while god obviously did not)?
    Talking about myself, I FEEL it immoral. I never felt the slightest sexual attraction to my sister, mother or daughter, as I did to other ladies. Not even in dreams.

    I would say incest is „naturally immoral“, because it results in degradation of species. Nature, by selection, found ways to „make“ individuals avoid incestous mating, by giving them instincts to avoid it.
    But nature is not perfect, and did not make perfect balance between strong general mating instinct and instinct against mating with close relatives.
    So, some people have strong „built in“ natural instinct to avoid sex with (at least) their own sisters, brothers, children and parents.
    Some have not, unfortunately.

    Exactly as with killings. Some people can kill brutally another human being, and do it repeatedly, some are not able to do it ever.
    Recent investigations showed that only 2% of people are „borne killers“ (HISTORY Channel): during the D-day (and other investigated wars), ONLY some 2% of soldiers aimed their personal firearms at specific targets, and all others just fired it in „general direction“ of enemies, without precisely aiming it at them.
    It seems that „do not kill members of your group“ instinct, as instict of survival of species, existed in human (and animal) genes much before any god declared killings „immoral“ (except if a „sinner“ works on holyday, or a woman marries as non-virgin). Killing of members of the same group (species) was, and is, „naturally immoral“, as a tool of survival.

    The same with incest, just less perfect.

  44. on 24 Apr 2010 at 11:11 am 44.Merlin said …

    Kudos to Mr Z. I must concur.

  45. on 24 Apr 2010 at 12:00 pm 45.Severin said …

    41 Merlin
    „If there were only two people on earth, there were no the genetic problems..“

    If you do not know anything about problems with inbreeding, I can not help. You have to read or ask someone oabout it.

    WHY god put only 2 people on earth?
    Because he did not know anything about inbreeding problems! He did not know that inbreeding leads to degradation of race, otherwise he would easyly create a few more pairs of people, with different genes.
    If god created flowers, WHY did he never allow a single flower to pollinate itself?
    No flower gives pollen to itself, but many mechanisms vere “invented” by nature to disable self-pollinating (if you are not familiar with it, please find literature).
    WHY god found many ways to disable inbreeding of animals, but not humans? Instead, he DIRECTLY involved inbreeding in the beginning of human race.

    So, Mr. God KNEW inbreeding problems with plants and animals, but DID NOT KNOW about same problems with humans!?
    Very unlikely! Either god knew the (the BIG and GENERAL) problem of inbreeding, or he never created anything.
    Royal families are not good examples. They are “counter examples”, examples of how NOT to make successors. It is well known (read about it!) that families which practiced inbreeding had a lot of freaks, inherited deseases, mentally retarded successors…beacause they worked against nature!

  46. on 24 Apr 2010 at 1:58 pm 46.MrQ said …

    Ah, yes. A nerve was definitely struck.

    Sometimes when a stupid question is asked, such as Hor’s in #33, then I just got to shake my head and think what kind of hillbillies does this site attract. The question was asked to, hopefully, allow for introspection on Hor’s part and to save his sister and mother from his lewd and lusty advances.

    Maybe the delusional bible thumpers could debate amongst each other if A&E had belly buttons. Asking if incest is immoral, you folks don’t have a clue. Just keep the faith, morons or is that Mormons?

  47. on 24 Apr 2010 at 2:21 pm 47.MrQ said …

    MrZ

    My brain dysfunction is very severe. It keeps me from seeing the invisible man in the sky. I look at the STORY of A&E and it’s just that, a story. I try and I try and always my brain dysfunction gets in the way.

    So I come to these sites and find the hillbillies are debating if it’s OK to keep fucking my sister and I just go WOW, that’s what life is like when your brain functions.

  48. on 24 Apr 2010 at 4:16 pm 48.Mr. Z said …

    Mr. Q and Severin really need moral values, and biblical knowledge to even comprehend the context of the biblical texts.Taking some scriptures out of context will only leave you more confuse than you really think. So you bring such questions as you always do.
    Do you think the stories of the bible are fragments that are pieced together?(that is very clear in your comments) Well they are not fragments, they are themes, you obviously do not get the themes because your focus was on something totally out of context.Not only are your comments and questions out of context, they are comments of someone that is without a clue as to what they are asking. You do not understand the value of God, so you play it down to a character like “imaginary friend” or “invisible man.”

    These comments show the lack of comprehension and understanding as mentioned above.Let me demonstrate an example of the scriptures that you may find confusing.

    (Reading the context will solve this):
    The treatment of enemies for the believer; in some passages, you will find a vengeful, killing and destroying of the enemy attitude. In the other passages you will find turning of the other cheek and more importantly, Love your enemy attitude.
    CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING.
    To those that do not comprehend the texts, they will be left confused. (sounds like Mr. Q and Severin fits this category)
    Read to understand, not just for the sake of reading coz it does not benefit your cause or questions. (this is applied in everything you do in life).
    If you do not seek contexts in every written material, there is no doubt that you will miss the intentions of the writer. If you do not want to find the context of the scriptures then you definately have brain dysfunctions (some call this ignorance and arrogance).

    FYI: if you have a severe brain dysfunction, there are always people that will help with that, you will either have to choose to get help or not. from the way you comment and question, you do not want help. you just want to air your ignorance and arrogance.

  49. on 24 Apr 2010 at 4:38 pm 49.Mr. Z said …

    The wife of cain is not mentioned for the story does not benefit the flow of context in the scriptures.
    It is that simple, after Cain left with his wife, they were left at that. The flow of context went on towards the other son of Adam, Seth, for that is the focus of the whole scripture. read it if you want to know more, coz your question is out of context by a mile. Not even close to the intentions of the writer. Now what is the benefit of the question of in-breeding?

    It cannot be tied to the validity of the scriptures because it is again out of context. the marriages of siblings was the custom of the time and cultures of that region so it is no suprise to even see that in the scriptures but that is outside the whole context of the Bible.
    look for context, not just a piece of information because it will not help your question.

    So to simplify if for you Severin, your question is not even valid to be called a question.

    Even questions like that are asked in churches but when you ask it, there are two attitudes and mentalities behind it, you have an agenda that will differ to those that ask the same question within the church. So the question is already answered in your mind Severin. There is no seeking the right answers for you, just airing ignorance and arrogance.

  50. on 24 Apr 2010 at 4:45 pm 50.MrQ said …

    MrZ,

    Now I need moral values because I don’t buy into the batshit crazy concepts that you do? How well do you know me? NOT AT ALL, thank-you very much.

    Context is indeed everything. And it’s up to the delusional reader to decide on biblical interpretation. They’re all just stories, like Winnie the Pooh, Alice in Wonderland, and Robin Hood. Take what you want out of them. Look how many christian denominations, sects, and cults there are. Somehow it seems that context is something that you folks cannot all agree on. BTW, the best case for atheism is your bible, especially as long as you invisible sky daddy believers keep disagreeing on context.

    Thou shalt not kill, yet how much blood is on the religiously delusional hands? The sword does cut both ways, literally and figuratively. Incest? Which way do you want it, it’s all OK to you hillbillies. It sounds as if Hor has no clue why incest is immoral. Comes from reading the bible, no doubt.

    Thanks for the life lessons, MrZ. I will do just fine with or without your angry boy tirades.Try to worry only about your own salvation lest you join me in Hell.

  51. on 24 Apr 2010 at 6:28 pm 51.Horatio said …

    Q-

    Are you angry because you can answer a simple question. Severin states morality is based on feeling. What say you?

  52. on 24 Apr 2010 at 6:40 pm 52.Severin said …

    47 MrZ
    “CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING.”

    Why then did’t your god write a “Context Bible”, but enabled any “hillbilly” (new English word for me, I like it) to interpret the original Bible according to his will?

    You are right: I do not see any context in the Bible.
    Beacuse there is no context in the Bible.

    I would certainly find some context in the Bible if it was presented as LITERATURE: collection of stories written by people who wanted to leave behind them some testimonies about their times, in the form they knew the best. Like most of normal books.
    Homer’s Odyssey, for example.
    I like Odyssey, I understand it, I respect it, just I do NOT take it for granted, (otherwise I should necessaryly believe in mermates and Cyclops described there!), and do NOT take Odyssey as my guidance for life.
    But Bible was never presented as literature! It was always presented as direct “word of god”. It was always expected it to be OBEYED, to be a „life manual“,the LAW, and the ONLY truth.
    What context do you expect me to find in a manual? If there is written „push the red button“, what „deep phylosophical“ secrets, wahat CONTEXT, are hidden behind pushing a button?
    Or behind the words from the Bible: If a woman apperas already deflowered before the first intercourse with husband, kill her! Where is context in those words?
    Taken as literature, I could learn from this sentence how people used to live in Biblical times (context!). Taken as LAW, it is a cruel, immoral, unacceptable shit.
    So YOU tell me what the Bible is: is it literature, or god’s word?
    If it is literature, fine, then we can start to look for context, BUT we also have to rediscuss the beginnig of universe, how the earth was made, how life began on the earth…..
    If it is god’s word, it is only the blind manual, without any context, unacceptable to common sense, unacceptable to a person living on the earth today.

    What a twisted mind you must have, if you attack MrQ because of his question to Horatio, and pardon Horatio for his asking “Why is incest immoral?”

    So, is incest moral?

  53. on 24 Apr 2010 at 6:57 pm 53.Severin said …

    MrZ
    “Read to understand, not just for the sake of reading coz it does not benefit your cause or questions. (this is applied in everything you do in life).”

    Thank you, thank you! You opened my eyes!
    I read, and read, and read, and I found (some 50 years ago) something about “love” and “other cheek”, yes!
    Maybe 2 or 3 words about it, which is not very much compared to HATE leaking from all other parts of the Bible.

    But then, suddenly, I found billion of brutal killings ordered by god (including baby killing: god’s orders were SO DETAILED, that no context was possible to find there; it was DIRECT, BRUTAL ORDER full of hate, not “licencia poetica”).
    Then, again (some 45 years ago), I found the same guy proclaiming “love” and “other cheek” (not as frequently as brutality was proclaimed and ordered!), saying that only who hates his parents can come to him. Context??? Enlighten me, please!

  54. on 24 Apr 2010 at 7:02 pm 54.MrQ said …

    Hor,

    I didn’t realize I was angry…. thanks to my dysfunctional brain, no doubt. Can I ask you why you’re confused by the immorality of incest? Reading too many bibles, perhaps?

    The term “morality” can be used either descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
    normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

    Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

    Incest has a stigma attached to it, it’s a social taboo in today’s society. Why, you asked? I suggested that you take a look within, be introspective. Or just use your bible which condones incest and I am sure, with MrZ’s help, you’ll find a passage or two that condemns it. It’s all about context, right? Just try being a little rational and not basing your life’s outlook and views on a book written by our ignorant, easily impressed cave man ancestors.

  55. on 24 Apr 2010 at 7:05 pm 55.Severin said …

    Horatio
    “Q-
    Are you angry because you can answer a simple question. Severin states morality is based on feeling. What say you?”

    Why don’t you stop posing questions (provoking) and say WHAT YOU THINK?
    Are you the Holly Inquisition?

    Start with explaining us WHY IS INCEST MORAL, if you think it is, or WHY IS INCEST IMMORAL, if you think that way

  56. on 24 Apr 2010 at 7:42 pm 56.A real-ist said …

    “FYI: if you have a severe brain dysfunction, there are always people that will help with that, you will either have to choose to get help or not.”

    Mr.Z, you are telling this to people who think rationally, while in the meantime you have Schizophrenia, which is an actual condition that needs treatment.

    Schizophrenia is a mental disorder characterized by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality. It most commonly manifests as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking with significant social or occupational dysfunction……….a person diagnosed with schizophrenia may experience hallucinations (most commonly hearing voices), delusions (often bizarre or persecutory in nature), and disorganized thinking and speech.

  57. on 24 Apr 2010 at 7:53 pm 57.Horatio said …

    “Incest has a stigma attached to it, it’s a social taboo in today’s society. Why, you asked?”

    So incest is only immoral since is is socially unacceptable. So is homosexuality in many places, let say Lebanon. Does that make that immoral as well?

    Feelings is really a pretty sorry determinant.

    You really have not provided any solid foundation on why incest is immoral but (for the sake of argument) homosexuality is not? Why?

  58. on 24 Apr 2010 at 7:56 pm 58.Horatio said …

    Yikes, I just realized why Oh NoBama is so inept. The guy has schizophrenia! Wouldn’t that be enough to remove the delusional Oh NoBama from office?

  59. on 24 Apr 2010 at 8:36 pm 59.Severin said …

    56 Horatio
    “You really have not provided any solid foundation on why incest is immoral but (for the sake of argument) homosexuality is not? Why?”

    Why don’t you enlighten us? Why are you hiding your own opinion about topics dicussed?
    Why don’t you offer any arguments?
    It is because you do not have any opinion/arguments of your own, I guess, what other reason could it be.
    I guess you are posing many questions in attempt to learn somethin from us, because you don’t know anything.
    Keep learning, ignorance is a shame only if you don’t try to overcome it!
    Bravo Horatio!

  60. on 24 Apr 2010 at 8:55 pm 60.A real-ist said …

    “You really have not provided any solid foundation on why incest is immoral but (for the sake of argument) homosexuality is not? Why?”

    Homosexuality is not a choice, incest is. It is not like as if someone was only attracted to their kin as a choice for a sexual partner.

  61. on 24 Apr 2010 at 8:58 pm 61.MrQ said …

    Hor,

    Click on the link I previously provided, read it very carefully.

    Hey, how did you switch to the homosexuals? You’re not an alter boy, are you? Look to your bible, homosexuality is a sin…or maybe not. MrZ can likely provide details of a few passages where it’s acceptable under certain conditions depending on the phase of the moon and how horny and lonely you are. Don’t lose hope! If MrZ can’t help you then someone else versed in bible dogma can probably aid you to see the light at the end of that tunnel. ;-0

    Perhaps it would help me, and some of the others, to know what flavour of Christian you are? Baptist, Lutheran, RC, Mormon, Koreshian (oh wait, I think they’re all dead), and/or White Aryan Resistance. Might help to keep things flowing constructively. I will tell you that I am an atheist, surprise!!!

    I know that someone like you likes to look at the world in context of how it synchs with the bible stories. Just what level of believer are you? Literalist, revisionist, apologetic – could also help us out in your journey.

  62. on 24 Apr 2010 at 9:23 pm 62.Horatio said …

    “Homosexuality is not a choice, incest is.”

    No, cannot go there. Homosexuality is a choice as much as incest. It is a daily occurrence see individuals, switch from one to the other. I know of a number who have switched personally.

    So if a two individuals willfully partake in incest why is it wrong? Attraction is not a CHOICE is it?

    I think you are headed down the road of severin to “feeling”. Not a could objective course.

    How do you feel about your schizophrenic president?

  63. on 24 Apr 2010 at 9:44 pm 63.MrQ said …

    Hor,

    Take your meds. After they kick in, answer my question.

    What branch of christianity most resembles your belief system? No lying, god is watching and judging.

    What president? None rule my country.

  64. on 24 Apr 2010 at 10:55 pm 64.A real-ist said …

    “Homosexuality is a choice as much as incest.”

    No it isn’t. This just shows your level of education and unrational thinking. A straight person just doesn’t choose to like the same sex. Try it for yourself. Try choosing and telling yourself that you would like a giant cock in your mouth or ass. It doesn’t happen because it is built in our natural genes to be straight. Homosexuals just have a different type of gene in that area.

    “How do you feel about your schizophrenic president?”

    So tell me why you think Obama is a schizo? Does he talk to imaginary friends? I think Bush did when he was president. George Bush: ‘God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq.’ Do you get your political information from Fix News and Rush Limbaugh? Fair and Balanced….Bullshit. There is a reason why the majority of Republicans are Christians, because they share the same gullable unrational thinking and stupidity. The majority of them are also a lot less educated. For example, the Bible Belt in the United States (This is where Meg is from). I am not claiming Democrats in office are great either, they are just the lesser evil when it comes to politics so they are the better option. I could go on about politics, but I am here to talk religion. Politics belong in a different blog.

  65. on 24 Apr 2010 at 11:52 pm 65.Horatio said …

    “Homosexuals just have a different type of gene in that area.”

    Wrong again. This has never been proven. Second, the fact is many play around with homosexuality then go to straight. Lastly, who one is attracted to is NOT a choice, therefore incest follows the same pattern as homosexuality.

    “Does he talk to imaginary friends?”

    Where have you been the last 3 years. He is a christian and has admitted to praying. Get out of the basement. BTW, I didn’t bring up schizoidism, you guys did!

    Last chance, now, will you make an attempt at answering why incest is immoral? If two consenting adults decide to have sex even though they are related, why is it wrong? Is it a Feeling you have like Severin?

  66. on 25 Apr 2010 at 12:40 am 66.A real-ist said …

    Research does suggest genetics plays a major role.
    Incest is immoral because of genetic implications. People have many other choices to satisfy their sexual needs than their family. Gays only can be satisfied by their own sex.

    “many play around with homosexuality then go to straight.”

    That is because they are bi, which means a little of both. This is also common besides just liking only one sex.

    U.S. presidents must be Christian to satisfy the religous folks. Some presidents are more religous than others. Bush came out and said his political decisions are based on what God tells him. I don’t think Obama actually came out and said those types of things, so that is why I used that as an example. But if all presidets are Christian, then why did you bring up about our current president being schizo when they all are in that way?

  67. on 25 Apr 2010 at 1:17 am 67.Horatio said …

    “Incest is immoral because of genetic implications.”

    Much like homosexuality brought us Aids and shouldn’t that be the call of the adults?
    No, you are grasping at straws. Genetics as a guide to morality is an interesting twist.

    “if all presidets are Christian, then why did you bring up about our current president being schizo when they all are in that way?”

    To simply poke fun at your implications at #55. I don’t believe those who pray are Sciz and you won’t find a practicing psychiatrist who does either.

    I can sum up your basis for morality. It is based on what you feel and you likewise attempt to force your framework for morality on others. You mimic very much any religious group other than they pull theirs from a book.

  68. on 25 Apr 2010 at 1:33 am 68.A real-ist said …

    You want my opinion on morality?

    Morals come from living in a community with other humans. They are natural laws to help us survive. The only problem I have is when people claim that morals came from a God. They did not. They are nature’s laws for survival. If we didn’t have natural morals people would be killing and harming other people at an alarming rate. They just insure survival of a species. When people commit incest and produce offspring that are deformed, that isn’t helping the gene pool thrive. That is why it is believed to be wrong. I personally do not care what other people do as long as it doesn’t harm others. Creating deformed kids hurts those kids. Gays don’t produce offspring.

  69. on 25 Apr 2010 at 6:06 am 69.Severin said …

    Horatio
    Morality = responsibility.
    Could you accept it?
    Incest is immoral because of responsibility for descendants.
    That is the main reason it was prohibited by all societies, by all religions and by all authorities, at all times. Even by most primitive tribes in Africa, Oceania, Papua, Australia…., people somehow knew about danger of inbreeding, and forbad incest far before they were “discovered” by christian explorers. In fact, incest was never permitted anywhere, so those people followed their naturally accumulated knowledge, and did NOT practice incest, but punished it if it occured.

    Have in mind that all religions prohibited all sorts of protection during intercourse at all times, no exception, including today!
    Primitive tribes most probably did not know about any protection. Both types of societies avoided inbreeding by prohibitnig incest.
    The risk of inbreeding (and desappearing of society, a tribe) was BIG, and to avoid it, it was most practicall to proclaime incest a taboo.

    Have also in mind that women were (and still are, even in modern ssocieties) subordinated part of society during entire human history. I doubt they were ever asked whether they want sex with their brothers and fathers or not. In most cases they were FORCED, and had no oportunity to defend themselves and to avoid incest.
    Even today most of rapes within a family stay unannounced!
    So, prcticing incest includes rsponsibility for both: inbreeding (destiny of society) and for partner.
    Morality = responsibility.

    So if you sleep wiyh your sister or your mother TODAY, it is O.K. for me (really, although I personally disgust it), if you have mutual agreement, AND use protection to avoid inbreeding.
    Somehow, and without “reasonable” explanation, I could not accept anyone to sleep with his daughter (or mother with son), were they both adult or not, with or without mutual agreement. Maybe I am just too old-fashioned.

    BUT if you are a christian and practice incest, you are immoral to your church and your religion. You insult your god and your religion. You are, in such a case, a hypocrite, probably also doing a few mortal sins: you have sex without being married, for example!
    If you use protection, that is another big sin, I do not exactly know is it mortal or not, but I know all churches strongly prohibit protection during intercourse.
    And, of course you do not obey god’s command: go, breed nd spread.
    So you are immoral (hypocrite, lier) against your own religion and your god.
    Not simple!?

  70. on 25 Apr 2010 at 7:11 am 70.Severin said …

    66 Horatio
    “Much like homosexuality brought us Aids…”
    I bet drog users are contributing spreading of aids much more than homosexuals, by irresponsible use of drog injecting tools.

    But guess who is the major cause of spreading of aids, generally: christian church!
    I doubt people fuck less in GB than in Somalia.
    I doubt there is bigger percentage of homosexuals in Ivory Coast than in the USA.
    Yet, in GB and USA, the % of people infected by aids is MUCH smaller than in some African countries.
    Some 30% of whole populations of some African countries are infected by aids.
    Men and women, in same proportion.
    Children are olready borne with inherited aids there!

    Are they all homosexuals?

  71. on 25 Apr 2010 at 7:13 am 71.Severin said …

    66 Horatio, continued
    Christian church strongly prohibits protection during sex.
    Educated people in GB and USA neglect it and practice sex using protection.
    Uneducated (illiterate) people in Africa, terrified by possibility to go to hell, do not use it, but help spreading aids by unprotected (bisexual!) sex.

  72. on 25 Apr 2010 at 11:19 am 72.Horatio said …

    “Not simple!?”

    No, now you are using a book of who you detest as it proports a God that does not exist???? Why would you do that? So is your morality now biblical based, based on the majority or a feeling?

    Remember, all these societies you cited also detested homosexuality. Morality = responsibility must offer an opinion on what is responsible behavior and that is up to debate.

    And the Royal families for centuries did practice inbreeding. So this societal stigma you keep bringing up has its own set of problems.

    Too many holes and much of what you offer is up for “feeling”.

  73. on 25 Apr 2010 at 1:57 pm 73.Xenon said …

    “Uneducated (illiterate) people in Africa, terrified by possibility to go to hell”

    LOL, where does he come up with this stuff?????

    Morals can only derive from two places. Either from a religious deity or from the the heart of man and his own worldview. You can see even the atheist moral judgments have been impacted by the judeo-christian values imparted upon the nation. That is why they view incest as wrong.

    Then you see the impact that homosexuality and their own lobbyist have had at changing their moral compass. It then becomes a political stimulus that changes their moral judgments. You could sum it up and moral relativity and time/circumstances/power can impact even the strongest of beliefs.

  74. on 25 Apr 2010 at 2:43 pm 74.Severin said …

    Horatio 72
    “No, now you are using a book of who you detest as it proports a God that does not exist????”
    I was only telling you that one practicing incest is most probaly sinning against religious rules, and is immoral in eyes of religion, what elese did I say?

    “…societies you cited also detested homosexuality. Morality = responsibility must offer an opinion on what is responsible behavior…”
    Many societies detested many things which were not right to detest. Jews for example.
    We are talking present time!

  75. on 25 Apr 2010 at 2:44 pm 75.Severin said …

    Horatio 72 cnt.
    WHY are homosexual immoral?
    In what way homosexuals behave irresponsibly?
    What sort of danger they represent for society?

    There are many things I personally digust and detest, but it gives me no right to be a judge and to condemn, or to support prohibition of such a behavour, if it is private and makes no danger for anyone.
    I detest religious stupidity, but, although, unlike homsexuals, religions ARE dangerous for society,I NEVER thought or said I would prohibit religions.
    I would fight against any regime which would fight religious freedom by force!

    Although an atheist, I was punished in 1961. (I was 18) during communist regime in my country, beacuse I played guitar in a park with my friends on Christmes Eve day afternoon, and I did it deliberately, knowing it was C. Eve day, and knowing authorities will not look at it with pleasure.
    Also, I deliberately went, at that time, to Midnight Christmas Mass (full of communist spies) with my friends, althoug I was an atheist, just to „show“ the regime it can not push me where it likes.
    And, of course, as I detest religious stupidity, I DO fight religion my way, the only I know – by talking, and as you can see, without any hate for religious people.
    I am always ready to fight for their rights (my way, not to die for it, sorry).
    I disgust homosexual relations, but I am ready to fight (my way) for their rights as well.

  76. on 25 Apr 2010 at 3:08 pm 76.Severin said …

    73 Xenon
    “LOL, where does he come up with this stuff?????”
    1. From a friend living in Africa, I have correspondence with on regular basis
    2. From another friend traveling a lot, including, frequently, to poorest African countries (doing some business)
    3. From newspaper articles
    4. From TV, Internet, etc
    Christian church IS the most responsible factor for enormeous spreading of aids in Africa, because it prohibits protection.
    It prohibits protection in USA as well, but – fortunately, people are less obedient there than in Africa. I doubt they fuck less than Africans, they just use condoms some 100 times more than uneducated African people.

  77. on 25 Apr 2010 at 3:10 pm 77.MrQ said …

    Xenon,

    The good book you speak of condones everything it condemns.

    It’s exactly like speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Hor uses the teachings to bang his sister and wonders “why is that immoral?”. You use the book to say that incest is wrong. Ask MrZ, I am sure that he can put it into proper judeo-christian context and make both of you feel happy and confident that your decisions are the right ones.

    BTW, care to profess what branch of christianity most closely resembles your beliefs? Seems that Hor is a little ashamed to publicly lay claim to anything spiritual.

  78. on 25 Apr 2010 at 3:22 pm 78.Severin said …

    73 Xenon
    “Morals can only derive from two places….”

    Morals can only derive from one and only place: from evolution.
    Species far more primitive than humans have moral rules, imposed by necessity of surviving.
    Examples?
    “Do not kill your youngs” (Selective! Male linons and male polar bears, and many other males DO kill youngs of females within the same group, to make them ready to new mating)
    “Do not kill members of your group” (Selective! If in struggle for female a weaker, but more “stubborn” buffalo does not run away, he will be kiled by his competitor). Etc, etc, high level moral rules!

  79. on 25 Apr 2010 at 4:53 pm 79.Horatio said …

    “Then you see the impact that homosexuality and their own lobbyist have had at changing their moral compass.”

    X -My only point for the question in the first place was to show them all their morals derive from what THEY believe is right and wrong. The incest/homosexuality only illuminates the double standard they possess. Consenting human beings CAN have sex with their gender but NOT with a relative.

    Good point however – One has a strong political lobby the other does not. It is not PC to call homosexuality what we called it 30 years ago. Personally, the gov should stay out of all of their lives unless a child is abused.

  80. on 25 Apr 2010 at 5:42 pm 80.MrQ said …

    Hor, X,

    You guys really know how to put on a good show. Dumb and dumber.

    You call yourselves christians? According to whom? Does the good book provide you with that warm fuzzy feeling that you know better than everyone else?

    I wonder how your brand of christianity compares to the practices and beliefs from 1500 years ago? 1000 years? 200 years ago? 50 years ago? Why don’t you two do some of your own research and find out about moral relativity as it relates to you.

    How about how your flavour of christianity, whatever it may be, compares with the other modern branches? Why can’t you all agree and come up with the Definitive Moral Code and unify all the christian teachings. Oh yeah, those other christians are close but they just don’t it. It’s your version that’s the only correct one, those others, they’re just delusional.

  81. on 25 Apr 2010 at 7:56 pm 81.Horatio said …

    Q,

    You do make many the assumption, yes? I actually do not consider myself christian but you many indulge if you like. Labels I find detestable but I do embrace Libertarian.

    I realize when the weakness of you beliefs are exposed it tends to anger one – but in reality it is a good exercise. Every belief system has inherent weaknesses. Don’t be a hater, it is a blog!

    Tell me why do you atheist not unite? Could the atheist, the Buddhists, the Implicit atheist, the Explicit atheist, the Life force atheist, Ignostics come together and unite your beliefs? There is not even as many of you.

  82. on 25 Apr 2010 at 8:05 pm 82.Severin said …

    72 Horatio
    “Too many holes and much of what you offer is up for “feeling”.”
    Only one hole in your entire discussion: religion. The big black hole!
    72 Horatio
    “And the Royal families for centuries did practice inbreeding. So this societal stigma you keep bringing up has its own set of problems.”
    What else did I say? And I did not keep repeating it! Do you like my observation so much to keep citing them without any specific reason?

    79 Horatio
    “The incest/homosexuality only illuminates the double standard they possess.”
    ONLY passing judgment of criterions can decide about double standards. If the main (practically only) criterion is danger for society (human race), let’s see:

    Incest DOES endanger existance of species in such an extent, that it was tabooed in all societies and all the times, no exception. It was practiced, but illegally.
    Homosexuality DOES NOT endanger anyone. In some societies it was even not prosecuted or condemned, but accepted as normal behaviour of people (ancient Greek and Rome, maybe some other societies too).
    So who has double standards?

    So WHY is homosexuality immoral? Because you don’t like it?

  83. on 25 Apr 2010 at 8:34 pm 83.A real-ist said …

    “I realize when the weakness of you beliefs are exposed it tends to anger one”

    My non-belief of a God isn’t an exposed weakness. In fact, your belief of a God is the weakness that is exposed in all these discussions. If I get upset it is because I can’t believe how stupid believers can be when it comes to rational thinking.

    “Tell me why do you atheist not unite?”

    What purpose would all Atheists need to unite for? We aren’t looking to start a religous war. We will leave that for religious people to do. All Athiests want to do is spread the word that the idea of a God is fake, so we shouldn’t base our society on that one created us. We can live in peace and harmony without a God.

    “There is not even as many of you.”

    When the earth was thought to be flat, that was a majority at the time.

    A 2005 survey published in Encyclopædia Britannica found that the non-religious made up about 11.9% of the world’s population, and atheists about 2.3%. This figure did not include those who follow atheistic religions, such as some Buddhists. There was a correlation indicating that religious conviction diminished with education level.

  84. on 25 Apr 2010 at 8:53 pm 84.Severin said …

    Horatio, Xenon, MrZ, …
    Incest was, and still is, strong taboo among ALL animals, ALL plants….

    Only christians are excluded from this general rule, because their god did an “oops” when planned spreading of human race: Poor guy forgot genetic problems!
    Now all christians have to support his mistake by declaring incest „normal“ and „moral“ to avoid anger of their god and prospect for hell.

    Fortunately, some other, more informed and less senile gods, created plants, animals, and primitive tribes, which took care about incest, never considered it moral, but dangerous for their existance, and prohibited an prosecuted it, or (unconsciuous organisms) “invented” thousands of mechanisms to avoid it.

    No flower, no horse, no member of a most primitive tribe, ever posed the question: why is incest immoral?

  85. on 26 Apr 2010 at 1:44 am 85.Anonymous said …

    Meg sounds like the ultimate troll, but is actually %100 serious. I am sad…

  86. on 26 Apr 2010 at 2:24 pm 86.Hoffymann07 said …

    So….

    You guys are on a forum asking people what their education is to somehow prove a point? Makes sense that you are on a forum, and not at a university somewhere teaching.

  87. on 26 Apr 2010 at 2:39 pm 87.Hoffymann07 said …

    Unless you guys are teaching somewhere about all the “evidence” of science being superior to The One True God, I believe that it is something that you have been taught and are spewing forth from some other person’s mind.

    For a Christian, science is one more way to glorify God for what he has created. Viewing nature is an easy way to not get too involved, only using the senses.

    Science and proof are your religion. Your gods are yourselves and the men that make “headway” with humanism and atheism. There is nothing new about what you believe, as choosing to not believe in the existence of God or in other gods has been a popular choice throughout the centuries.

  88. on 26 Apr 2010 at 6:21 pm 88.Severin said …

    86 Hoffymann07
    “You guys are on a forum asking people what their education is to somehow prove a point?”
    Yes, believers discuss that way all the time. In lack of arguments, they always use demagogy to blow up some unimportant side-topics, sometimes also with insulting connotation, in order to hide their ignorance.

    87 Hoffymann07
    “… all the “evidence” of science being superior to The One True God, …”
    Yes, atheists think scientific evidences are superior to „the one true god”.

    „…I believe that it is something that you have been taught…“
    Of course! Unlike believers, we do learn and use our own critical minds to distiguish honey from shit.

  89. on 26 Apr 2010 at 6:32 pm 89.Severin said …

    86 Hoffymann07
    I hope you did notice that a BELIEVER (Merlin)) asked 2 people, including me, for education level, although no one’s education was the topic of discussion on this blog.

  90. on 26 Apr 2010 at 7:23 pm 90.Hoffymann07 said …

    I guess my point is what does education have to do with any of this discussion? None of us are published scholars.

    Just because someone went to college and earned a degree, does not mean they understand everything about life and what they are learning. Everything that requires faith, or can’t be explained is technically a theory because it can’t be proven.

    I have grown up in church my whole life; I’ve heard it all. I have heard arguments even in our own doctrine. I however, have also been to the darker areas of life and lived it with reckless abandon. Four separate experiences with church and one changed life. Why do I post all this?

    Putting others into a distinct group and classifying them is what we do, it’s part of our thought process. Treating them as individuals is a totally different thing. Just as much as it doesn’t make sense to me to believe that there is no God, I’m sure it makes no sense to you that I believe and serve something that you think is made up. That’s fine, It’s my life and yours is yours.
    I believe the people on this forum exist because they are responding to my comments (thanks!) with thought out answers.

    We are each living completely different lives with different experiences. I have had the distinct experience of growing up in church and following dogma. I however have followed other dogmas, mostly that can be found pursuing pleasure or enjoyment in life. My fulfillment was not found in any dogma, religion included. Nor was it found in drugs, money, or any other pleasure that I thought life brought.

    All I can do is explain what has happened in my life. It is real to me, and not everyone I encounter. Yeah, people can dismiss it as schizophrenia or try to appeal to my emotion and call me or my God bad names. Many people have names for everyone and their belief system. It’s really nothing new.

    Everyone’s world view must hold water. It is easy to spout dogma, doctrine, and damnation to others. The problem with this is that at some point intelligent, thinking people stop listening and people resort to feeling.

    Every person who has walked the face of the earth is born with the same questions, or inevitably asks himself in some form: Why am I here?, Who am I?, What is my purpose?. His ensuing thought process will bring him to his world view, but before we die we will have one. How he gets there, and what he chooses to believe will shape him into who he is, guaranteed.

  91. on 26 Apr 2010 at 7:50 pm 91.Merlin said …

    Hoffyman,

    Education does not make one wise. It is true, I did ask Severin his education level. Not because it was relevant but rather to follow up on A-Realist bashing Meg & I believe you on their education level @21. Severin would never tell you such because he is a deceiver but the thread does not lie. Another poster is notorious with his elitism and quite proud of it!

    This is how the atheist play ball. They like to demonize those with faith as delusional and schizoids. I’m out here for people like you to keep the deceivers and the haters from passing off their dogma as rationale by bashing others.

  92. on 26 Apr 2010 at 8:01 pm 92.Hoffymann07 said …

    Yeah, I think I’ve read all those comments from before, but it really has no relevance here, as any bashing shouldn’t.

    Not taking sides or anything either as each person has their own unique worldview, shaped by something they believe.

  93. on 26 Apr 2010 at 10:02 pm 93.MrQ said …

    One of the numerous faults with the bible, especially when using it as your moral compass, is all the contradictions (see MrZ’s #48, for one example) Love your enemy/Kill your enemy; it can be used for whatever desire you need or want. Inquisitons, witch trials, crusades, charity, compassion, etc.

    Now that incest and inbreeding has been shown, through scientific research, to result in genetic bottle-necking and potentially severe and deadly birth defects, then how does the bible get credit for saying it’s immoral? Especially when it has stories of inbreeding, A&E is the classic case. Where is incest immoral in the bible? Help me out MrZ.

    Seems to me that morals are more driven by the societies we live in and it’s the churches that are scrambling to keep up. The latest example someone threw out (see way above, #57) was “homosexuality. Now that science has found that there are genetic components to gayness and it occurs in nature, many churches have switched gears and accepted that as their “gospel truth”. The churches that decide to ride the faith out with a rigid unflexing old school style mentality are “going out of business”.

    When there is a coalition of people who want to advance incest as acceptable behaviour, I will look to the scientists (the doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, geneticists, etc) for the evidence for and against that behaviour. Together as a society, without religious influence, we will all be able to reach consensus, or majority rule. And I have a feeling even Hor would be happy if incest would be found immoral because then the inbred children requiring government support will not affect his big fat Libertarian wallet.

  94. on 26 Apr 2010 at 10:31 pm 94.Merlin said …

    Hoffy,

    Look at the above example by Q. He states:

    “then how does the bible get credit for saying it’s immoral?”

    He attempts to claim incest was declared immoral by science of all things before the Bible. We know science does not deal with morality (religious/philosophical- yes) but there is the dogma of the deceivers we must challenge. The Levitical code deals with incest as well as the Soferim in the 4th century BCE. The issue is to complex to go in to detail here but I don’t think science was there yet…

    “I will look to the scientists (the doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, geneticists, etc) for the evidence for and against that behavior.”

    Again, our Q has set up science as a source of moral code. More ridiculous dogma that must be challenged. Homosexuality brought us Aids which kills more people every year than cancer. Hmm, I wonder why he still considers it “moral”. How about gravity? Is falling immoral since it can break bones? Is adultery immoral? Hey, the hot button- Abortion! Maybe We can ascend to the thrown of the priest Dawkins for our answer! Great stuff from the Q.

    “we will all be able to reach consensus, or majority rule.”

    I save the best for last. In many ME nations they kill christians, atheist woman and children. But the majority rules so it MUST be OK

    And the Bible has problems no less…..

  95. on 26 Apr 2010 at 11:20 pm 95.MrQ said …

    Merl,

    Do you see jesus in toast, window panes, and tree knots?

    You should re-read my post. Clearly I stated: “Seems to me that morals are more driven by the societies we live in and it’s the churches that are scrambling to keep up.”

    Society, using the theories and research advanced by science, helps us use our innate sense of survival. Techniques and practices which have been honed through evolution to decide right from wrong, moral from immoral. There is absolutely no proof of any god(s), so we, as groups of people had to figure out how to get along over the last few hundreds of thousands of years. If we hadn’t figured that out I wouldn’t be here typing you this message. Ta-da, proof that evolution works. Tell me who A&E’s children mated with? Noah’s ark is another example of more genetic bottle necking. Look it up, “genetic bottle neck”, here’s a clue: it’s not in your bible.

    Your good book is simultaneously for and against everything. The reader must interpret and, in so doing, often acts out with personal biases and intentions. Call them sects, branches, or cults. You all have so many different thoughts on what it all means. How can that be a driver for social norms?

    Proper interpretation? Call it “CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING”, as MrZ does; I call it spin.

    Merl, I am going to categorize you with “true believer syndrome”. Again, look it up, it’s not in your bible.

    BTW, do you live in a democracy? Did you vote? Do you have majority rule?

  96. on 27 Apr 2010 at 12:10 am 96.A real-ist said …

    “I have grown up in church my whole life.”
    “Unless you guys are teaching somewhere about all the “evidence” of science being superior to The One True God, I believe that it is something that you have been taught and are spewing forth from some other person’s mind.”

    Hoffy, speaking of something that has been taught and spewed from others, hasn’t the church brainwashed you into thinking a God exists? I like the quote by Bill Maher, “Religion is just like getting a tooth filling, it can be drilled into you and it can also be drilled out of you.” Probably started at a very young age, which is the age where it is easy to believe anything that is told to you. Trust me, I have been there since I was raised a Christian. It was education that combined knowldge of history, science, math, and literature that gives brain much to use to decide what is reality and what isn’t. How about those people a long time ago that thought the earth was flat? It took knowledge to realize it is round. Just because one has a good level of knowledge doesn’t mean they have to be teaching it somewhere. In a way, though, that is what we are doing here. We are teaching it to you. Welcome to Atheist University! So if you “believe” you have knowlege of a God, then why aren’t you a priest or something of that nature?

  97. on 27 Apr 2010 at 12:31 am 97.Observer said …

    Merlin 94- Are you completely ignorant of the Talmud? The Talmud was written after the Second Temple was destroyed, most of it between 200-500CE and as a response to the decadent paganistic practices which befell Judaism culminating in what is now known as Christianity. Given the names of the two major works, you should be able to figure out where they were written.

    The Soferim? This was one of the latest written bits in the Talmud. It may even have been written as late as 1000CE. It deals primarily with the preparation of texts, and some bits on practices for holidays. In what section do you refer to that contains material about incest? What white-trash hillbilly seminary/seminarian did you get your “too complex to go into here” ideas from? Gimme a citation champ. Of course, you will have to get off your “thrown” to do it.

    Eating bush meat, not the pussy variety, but the chimpanzee for dinner variety is where AIDS originated (dumbass). It spread in Africa primarily through heterosexual contact, then on to traveling 80s-era anal-sex mad gay men ultimately spreading it to the Western Hemisphere. Gays neither invented nor created it. It should not be much of a worry for you, as I doubt you get much.

    I just reread your paragraph with the AIDs reference. You are far from smart, in the wrong direction too.

  98. on 27 Apr 2010 at 12:59 am 98.Severin said …

    91 Merlin
    “Severin……because he is a deceiver but the thread does not lie. Another poster is notorious with his elitism and quite proud of it!“
    „They like to demonize those with faith as delusional and schizoids.“

    That is how (some) religious people play ball!

    In lack of arguments and in helpless anger caused by their intellectual defeat, they start offend people.

    I never demonized you or called you a schizoid, but you have just presented yourself as one.

    Of course, you have no idea what the word “elitist” means.

  99. on 27 Apr 2010 at 1:31 am 99.Severin said …

    94 merlin
    “Homosexuality brought us Aids which kills more people every year than cancer.”

    It is of course a lie, used to oversize your own belief and to try to convince us you are right.
    In Europe and USA mortality caused by aids is FAR (VERY far!) under all other cause of death.
    If we talk Africa, where – in some countries – enormeous % of population is infected, and children are borne with aids, homosexuals certainly did not cause such a situation. Please refere to my comments 70 and 71 to see the truth.
    If you do not agree, you may call me a schizo, but please do offer some arguments.
    My arguments are clear:
    - Mortality caused by aids is minor compared to mortality caused by other deseases, in developed countries
    - In countries in which mortality caused by aids is really BIG, men, women and children die in equal proportion. Homosexuals neither bear children nor make them.
    Your arguments?

  100. on 27 Apr 2010 at 1:32 am 100.Severin said …

    “We know science does not deal with morality”
    Sorry, is phylosophy a science or not?

  101. on 27 Apr 2010 at 1:44 am 101.Severin said …

    Merly,
    You are free to call me any name you are able to think up, just please answer as directly as possible to 3 single questions:

    WHY are plants so “terribly affraid” of self-pollination, that they made it almost impossible by using thousends of mechanisms to prevent it?

    WHY farmers do not allow mating among animals being in close relationship?

    WHY is incest a taboo for primitive tribes?

  102. on 27 Apr 2010 at 12:35 pm 102.Merlin said …

    Hoffy –

    We have another interesting scenario with Observer. He has elected to google the word SOFERIM and discovered a later denotation to the word but failed to note that the word during the writing of the Torah and beyond denotes scribes. He then goes on either deceitfully or out of ignorance to presuppose I refer to the Talmud when it is apparent I am referring to the Torah. Again Hoffy, the holiness sections of Leviticus as well as Deuteronomy deal with incest in a very complex fashion. Take heed of the deceivers or those who truly have no clue. His argument is not really relevant since the Torah deals with incest long before the scientific community just as we noted.

    He then purports a theory of the origin of aids that is just one of 4-5 theories floated about. Again, it may be what he googled and is only sentient of this one conjecture or he deceitfully hides the fact. The origin is in reality immaterial for the debate; the massive spread of aids began in the gay community through anal sex – an act that is ripe pickings for the highly contagious HIV.

  103. on 27 Apr 2010 at 2:46 pm 103.Observer said …

    102 Tosser “The Levitical code deals with incest as well as the Soferim in the 4th century BCE.” Forgive me assuming the use of a capital S to denote a proper noun, and hence by context a text by that name, the only one I know of being a component in the Talmud. What are you saying now? The scribes authored these texts?

    Now, as before, where is the citation you are referring to? You are pathetic.

    There are no other theories about the origin AIDS floating about.

  104. on 27 Apr 2010 at 4:08 pm 104.Merlin said …

    “Forgive me assuming the use of a capital S to denote a proper noun”

    Forgiven – I do make mistakes, forgive me.

    “The scribes authored these texts?”

    Do you not understand the role of scribes?

    “There are no other theories about the origin AIDS floating about”

    Incorrect, do some research.

    http://www.avert.org/origin-aids-hiv.htm

    I would never refer to another as pathetic. I understand anger cause one to lash out. Let’s just say you are ill-advised

  105. on 27 Apr 2010 at 7:03 pm 105.Severin said …

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
    Causes of death fo 2006. USA:
    • Heart disease: 631,636
    • Cancer: 559,888
    • Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
    • Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
    • Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
    • Diabetes: 72,449
    • Alzheimer’s disease: 72,432
    • Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
    • Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
    • Septicemia: 34,234

    It is total 1,855,610. Junk food and inactivity cause so much more deaths than aids, that aids was not even included specifically in this statistic.

    So, why do you use incorrect arguments (lies) to prove yourself right Merlin?
    Let’s kill all junk food producers, and leave homosexuals alone.
    So: let’s kill all junk food propaguers (heart deiseases cancer…)

    See also: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus08.pdf and other sources.

  106. on 27 Apr 2010 at 7:16 pm 106.Severin said …

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
    Causes of death fo 2006. USA:
    • Heart disease: 631,636
    • Cancer: 559,888
    • Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
    • Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
    • Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
    • Diabetes: 72,449
    • Alzheimer’s disease: 72,432
    • Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
    • Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, etc: 45,344
    • Septicemia: 34,234

    Where is aids here?
    See also : http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus08.pdf

  107. on 27 Apr 2010 at 7:20 pm 107.observer said …

    104 Tosser “-I do make mistakes, forgive me.” “I understand anger cause one to lash out.” It would appear you make mistakes frequently.

    Tosser, where is the Torah citation? You do not have one. It would appear you threw out a transliterated Hebrew word to try to impress someone less impressive than yourself. Who knows what you were trying to convey? The context would indicate you were taking about a book. Someone called BS on what you were writing (that was me). Now you are trying to squirm out of it.

    As to the AIDS theories floating about, of course there are many without credibility. Doubtless, you find many of them appealing. The theory I mentioned is the only credible one given what is known to date. The merry man mating men spread it- they did not create it. The website link you provided says as much. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension, then enroll in a literacy for adults writing program.

    You are beneath pathetic.

  108. on 27 Apr 2010 at 7:26 pm 108.Severin said …

    http://www.avert.org/worlstatinfo.htm
    “Globally, around 11% of HIV infections are among babies who acquire the virus from their mothers; 10% result from injecting drug use; 5-10% are due to sex between men; and 5-10% occur in healthcare settings. Sex between men and women accounts for the remaining proportion – around two thirds of new infections.”

  109. on 27 Apr 2010 at 7:26 pm 109.Severin said …

    Aids, cont.
    Conclusions:
    - aids is statistically negligible cause of death in the USA. It is not even specifically mentioned in statistics
    - aids is more significant, but NOT prevailing cause of death in undeveloped countries
    - only some 5 – 10% of all infections with aids come from men to men sexual relations, and 50% from men and women relations

    So let’s hate junk food and cigarettes producer instead homosexuals!

    As typical, our dear believers (Merlin&Co) use again lies to prove themselves right (such as: homosexuals brought us aids as major cause of death, bigger than cancer…).

  110. on 27 Apr 2010 at 7:35 pm 110.Xenon said …

    Merlin,

    Call Disturber a Mumbain Dolt. That is a gem he pulled out to impress us all on an earlier thread. LOL

    Hey Mumbain Dolt,

    Look up Leviticus 18 and 20. Whole lists in there about not marrying a variety of relatives. Anyone who has the capacity to work a search engine can locate the jewel.

    Here is some free advice. You are not the scholar you attempt to portray yourself. Sit back, shut your mouth and maybe you will learn something.

  111. on 27 Apr 2010 at 9:49 pm 111.Merlin said …

    Anybody have an idea of what Observer is talking about?

    I can only conclude that when I made the comment “Homosexuality brought us Aids” that somehow He perceives my argument as gays developed HIV and therefore Aids. Of course my claim is Homosexual behavior spread the disease and the link also states the fact.

    Why do these guys get sidetracked so easily. They completely ignore the original points. Hoffy, if you are out there be aware of this tactic as well.

    Not familiar with the Mumbain dolt X…..but chapter 18 & 20 are correct. Maybe Observer can rest easy now.

  112. on 27 Apr 2010 at 10:34 pm 112.Observer said …

    111 Tosser- Calling your BS on “Soferim” references. Still no quotes?

    110 Inert Gas Bag- Trying to portray myself as a scholar? More a nose-busting rugby player in my circles, but of course, you are looking up from a different reference point.

    I suspect I am a bit more familiar with Viyikra than you lot, regardless. There was never a question of incest being a sin in Leviticus, nor a question of clear statement that Christians do not follow the Bible of Moses, or Jesus for that matter. This is well established fact. I am waiting for Tosser to come up with a citation to his original BS on “Soferim”. Of course, he could do the right thing and quit bearing false witness, especially regarding a religion and god to which, I presume, he professes fealty. Tosser, come clean, say “I was BSing a bit.”

    You champs need to come up with a better rhetorical trick than accusing folks who call BS on an outrageous statement or claim as being sidetracked. Just back up what you say.

    This is getting depressing again. Inert Gas Bag, Tosser, et al., start reading the Science Section at NYTimes.com. You will learn something, particularly this week. Try it if you dare to learn and grow as a human.

  113. on 27 Apr 2010 at 11:06 pm 113.Xenon said …

    “I suspect I am a bit more familiar with Viyikra than you lot”

    I’m sure you are. You are just the holder of all knowledge, but what is “you lot”?

    “More a nose-busting rugby player in my circles”

    Only on a blog!

    “Try it if you dare to learn and grow as a human.”

    I only ask you grow up and stop attempting to have a pissing contest like some juvenile pimple-faced adolescent. Then you might be taken seriously Mumbain Dolt.

  114. on 28 Apr 2010 at 6:04 am 114.Severin said …

    Observer 109
    “The website link you provided says as much.”

    It says more than that. It says that 50% of aids was caused by normal, men/women sexual relations, and only 5-10% by men/men relations.
    So, it directs us to look for the causes of spreading of aids in other sources: NOT in practicing sex generally, be it man/man or man/womwn, but in general level of education, which includes use of condoms and other measures of protection by practcing sex.

  115. on 28 Apr 2010 at 6:36 am 115.Severin said …

    110 Xenon
    “Look up Leviticus 18 and 20.”

    I did, some 50 years ago, and now again.
    My conclusion is the same as it was 50 years ago:
    Either god was a senile idiot, or he never created anything.
    He first enabled incest (Genesis), then forbad it – not quite a clever and reliable god! Makes people confused about what was right.

  116. on 28 Apr 2010 at 6:39 am 116.Severin said …

    Merlin 111
    Yes, no doubt, the link states the fact.

    It also states that homosexuals contribute spreading of aids some 5-10% and some 50% of aids was caused by „normal“ sexual relations.
    Shall we now start to hate and to prosecute „normal“ man-woman pairs, instead of homosexuals, for spreading of aids?
    They DO contribute it MUCH more than homosexuals, don’t they?

  117. on 28 Apr 2010 at 11:54 am 117.Merlin said …

    Anyone have any idea what citation Observer desires to see? He is hung up on Soferim that I know and he has googled a new word, “Viyikra”. Good for you Nose-Basher.

    It is believed Soferim mandated that some relationships outside the Bible were incest and violated the law. These relationships were called sheniyyot also known as seconds. Maybe that is what has upset you.

    Maybe you could shed some light on what this has to do with Biblical incest precluding scientific studies on incest?

    You can stop with Tosser comments. We noticed and we are impressed but it reflects badly on you Buster.

  118. on 28 Apr 2010 at 3:01 pm 118.MrQ said …

    X,

    Have you resorted to name calling now? Remember to love your enemies, it’s the christian way. Free “moral” advice from an atheist, you inert gas bag ;-).

    Merl,

    “Again, our Q has set up science as a source of moral code.”
    Society has this strange ability to analyze facts and evidence and, as a result, debate the impact of the data. A decision to change the way we operate and how we think may result, or we may hold the status quo. It’s called progress. The religiously inclined resist almost all change when society creates dissonance between reality and their cherished belief system, and this is natural but it also leads to stagnation. Look, for example, at homosexuality; found in nature amongst other species, has genetic links, practiced by humans for thousands of years, but since there is no positive biblical acknowledgement of this activity some churches continue with the “it’s an immoral activity” line. Other churches have advanced into the modern age.
    A similar debate was also heard concerning “evolution” and it seems some churches continue to resist the facts and evidence. Others, such as the Catholics, surprisingly, have wisely accepted the facts and, slowly, continue to try and creep into the modern century. I heard that they even forgave Galileo for his absurd notion that our planet orbits the sun. Any folks out there that still think that we are the centre of the universe?

    “More ridiculous dogma that must be challenged.”
    ALL dogma must be challenged.

    “How about gravity? Is falling immoral since it can break bones?”
    No, the fact that we fall is just god pushing down on us, you twat. Haven’t you heard that the “theory” of gravity is just a THEORY. The real evidence points to “Intelligent Pushing”. Follow me here: There is an invisible and magical force known as god exerting a small pressure on top of our tiny heads. It keeps us affixed on our wonderful god given planet. When god is disappointed with us he pushes just a little harder, making us fall. He is sending us a warning message and encouraging complete subservience and demanding reverence for his almighty omnipotence.

    “I save the best for last. In many ME nations they kill christians, atheist woman and children. But the majority rules so it MUST be OK”
    Could it be argued that many/most/all of the ME problems have religion(s) as their basis?

  119. on 28 Apr 2010 at 5:47 pm 119.Observer said …

    117 Well Champ, the “V” word actually came from a book in my home library. It is called a Chumash. It is on a shelf of other books with titles like “Apology”, “Republic”, “On Man and the Universe”, and a couple of shelves away from “The Antichrist”, “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”, “Plausible Reasoning”, “Radical Priorities”, etc.

    What is wrong with Google? It is a great resource. If one judiciously chooses one’s sources, it can be a wonderful antidote to ignorance.

    What is the citation for the Soferim references?

    Inert Gas Bag – Bloviate to your heart’s content…

  120. on 28 Apr 2010 at 7:57 pm 120.Merlin said …

    Sure Buster “The Torah: A Modern Commentary” Plaut but I must warn it is quite lengthy. I do hope this satisfies your queer obsession with the Soferim.

    And Q is back
    “Could it be argued that many/most/all of the ME problems have religion(s) as their basis?”

    They sure do Q. And with your understanding of morality, the majority would rule? Henceforth, the murder of christians, atheist and woman in now OK.

    I wonder how Science feels about that sort of morality? Time to check in with Priest Dawkins?

  121. on 28 Apr 2010 at 8:22 pm 121.Severin said …

    120 Merlin
    “I wonder how Science feels about that sort of morality?”

    I just can not understand how one who would have leaved like a Neanerthal without science, can mock to science.

    Well, I wonder a little bit less when I recall his Neanderthal comments.

  122. on 28 Apr 2010 at 8:51 pm 122.MrQ said …

    merl,

    “And Q is back
    “Could it be argued that many/most/all of the ME problems have religion(s) as their basis?”
    They sure do Q. And with your understanding of morality, the majority would rule? Henceforth, the murder of christians, atheist and woman in now OK.

    Why not make stupidity illegal (ie: ban religious fervor) Live with logical and reasonable ideals instead of rallying the troops around false ideas. Why is it that the majority of religious practioners, all espousing love and goodwill towards their fellow men, are so capable of gleefully killing their fellow men?

    Maybe religious ideals and moralities are always correct, surely they transcend time, right Merl? Well, let’s just look to the good ole USA at slavery and racial segregation. Visit the link for a bit on segregation: http://jsr.fsu.edu/Volume10/Freeman.pdf
    In 1984 the pressure to stop segregation caused the Baptist leader, Criswell, to make a statement about desegregation: “My soul and attitude may not have changed,but my public statements did.” He learned how to adapt to the culture
    Makes for an interesting read. Turns out it was the civil rights movement that managed to change public attitude while the Baptists tried to block attempts at desegregation every step of the way. It was public pressure (Merl, that means society) that ultimately won. Maybe if the church stuck with your understanding of morality we could still be enjoying doors for colored folks and separate doors for the whites ones.

  123. on 28 Apr 2010 at 9:01 pm 123.Severin said …

    Why don’t we end all this with a small summary of conclusions:
    1.Incest is generally immoral if we consider responsibility for future generations; otherwise incest would not be prohibited in all societies, and nature would not protect ALL species from incestous sexual contacts
    2.Incest could be acceptable in modern societies, as a private matter between partners, if mutually agreed AND (very important!) if does not results in successors.
    3.Homosexuality is not immoral; it does not endanger future of human race. It is strictly private matter between partners and does endanger anyone.
    4. Homosexuals do not contribute mortality (by spreading aids) more than bisexuals

  124. on 28 Apr 2010 at 9:03 pm 124.Severin said …

    Summary, cont.
    5.Junk food producers contribute morTality much more than any other cause. Let’s start to hate and prosecute bisexuals and junk food producers.
    6.God is an idiot: he forgot (an all-knowing!) genetic problems when created man kind and granted sex between brothers and sisters. Then he forbad it to further generations. Both decisions are illogical and stupid
    7.Better to have no god, than stupid god

  125. on 28 Apr 2010 at 9:14 pm 125.Merlin said …

    Maybe you have forgotten Q. Dr Martin Luther King was a black Baptist minister! You are such a Q!

    Maybe you also forgot, you cannot legislate morality genius. He is right on the point, a government should not NEED to force racial equality. That doesn’t change the heart of a man. Just because a law passed did not mean racism did not still exist. The Civil Rights Act Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34 Democrats supported it 152-96. Disgusting Democrats.

    Public pressure also legalize partial-birth abortions How is that working in the science guide to morality?

    “Why is it that the majority of religious practioners, all espousing love and goodwill towards their fellow men, are so capable of gleefully killing their fellow men?”

    So you believe Muslims practice love and goodwill toward fellow men? Have you ever been to a Muslim nation? No they don’t Q-miester, you are way off – again!

  126. on 28 Apr 2010 at 11:10 pm 126.MrQ said …

    Oh yeah, Merl. What a dumbass I am, Martin Luther King. Don’t you Yankees have a federal holiday for him, I think it’s called Martin Luther King Day.

    And what did MLK do to help with desegregation? Did he work with his church leaders to get them to change their minds? Did he quote scripture to his Baptist leaders? No, of course not. That would never work.

    The Civil Rights Movement was the spark of change. No jesus, no allah, no religious morals were required, just a black athlete named Jackie Robinson to get things rolling. BTW, thanks for proving my point: Rev. MLK picked the Civil Rights Movement, backed by the people, to get it done and not his Baptist religious leanings. He was, indeed a very smart man.

  127. on 29 Apr 2010 at 12:22 am 127.Xenon said …

    LOL, ha ha,

    What? Uh, er was that a slight of hand? Actually, he worked with MANY church leaders to get civil rights in place.

    No Jesus? even though the man leading preached Jesus in his church and claimed all men are created in the image of God? Churches do not pass laws that is why we send politicians! See the DI and Constitution!

    He was a smart man since he believed in a God who made all men equal. But wait, wouldn’t Quack call him delusional for that?

    Quite the confused bunch!

  128. on 29 Apr 2010 at 1:45 am 128.A real-ist said …

    “He was a smart man since he believed in a God who made all men equal.”

    Since he believed in an imaginary friend that makes him smart? I think believing that all men should be equal was the smart part. A God didn’t make man.

  129. on 29 Apr 2010 at 1:52 am 129.observer said …

    120 Tosser “The Torah: A Modern Commentary” by Plaut? Never heard of it.

    “I do hope this satisfies your queer obsession with the Soferim.” I am interested the Soferim reference, as well as calling you on your BS.

    I will track the book down. Do you not know how to cite a reference? Where in “The Torah: …” is reference made to Soferim?

  130. on 29 Apr 2010 at 1:56 am 130.observer said …

    120 Tosser That is Stein’s book. Plaut is an editor for JPS. It is ironic you should quote the most liberal interpretation of the Torah ever made. On the other hand, perhaps not so since Christianity got its start from a very liberal and libertine sect of Jews who apparently violated most of the laws.

  131. on 29 Apr 2010 at 2:03 am 131.observer said …

    On the MLK kerfuffle, MLK used the only institution available to him. SO what? Well, in that sense, he was no different than a cracker like Jerry Falwell. The difference between Falwell and MLK was he tried to do something positive instead of enriching himself.

    Who knows whether MLK was a true believer, or opportunistic hypocrite wrt religion. Christianity has always found its attraction rooted in its appeal to the down-trodden. Regardless, he did try to do some positive things versus filth like Falwell and Robertson.

  132. on 29 Apr 2010 at 3:27 am 132.Merlin said …

    Buster

    Instead of talking about calling the BS could you go ahead and do so soon so you can drop the obsession?

    Let me share a secret with you Buster. I read many authors with who I may/may not disagree. It was once called open minded. You can google that term

    If you feel the need to check out all my references and citations your probably need a life. Seriously Buster, you are spending your time on references to Soferim. Get a girl, a hobby or watch Golden Girls.

    Top it with Observer the racist! Never mind my question you never answered, crawl back into your bunker. Racist of all colors disgust me. No citation needed.

  133. on 29 Apr 2010 at 3:58 am 133.A real-ist said …

    Who is Buster?

    “Let me share a secret with you”

    You sure you want to let your secret out?

    “If you feel the need to check out all my references and citations”

    Why? Do you admit they are not correct and that there is a reason they need to be checked?

    “watch Golden Girls.”

    Why, you do? Makes perfect sense now.

  134. on 29 Apr 2010 at 10:17 pm 134.MrQ said …

    X-box,

    Yes MLK was a great man, but was he a poster boy for Baptist or christian religion? With his adultery, plagiarism, and communist/marxist connections he seems to be an ideal candidate I would say. Especially when we have often seen that to be christian is to preach one thing and practice another. Not that I am judging him poorly for his adulterous ways, I’ll leave that to Merl and you. Didn’t some people in America also say that he was a “hypocrite preacher”?

    Nevertheless, he did get people, be they religious or secular, pulling on the same rope and ended the segregationist policies. Why couldn’t the churches have independently dealt with the immorality of segregation sooner using the good book? Or put an end to the practice of slavery before it even began? Were the religious institutions dithering on the practice of owning slaves? It would be immensely stupid to think that god would allow mention of anything as unsavoury as slavery in His good book. Right X-box, Merl? Otherwise the question of morality with respect to slave ownership would be moot.

    Society moves on and religion tries to keep up. The grip of the church is loosening with every passing century. It’s nice to breathe, isn’t it?

    Merl: “Public pressure also legalize partial-birth abortions How is that working in the science guide to morality?”
    And the bible says……* (fill in the blank, Merl) <-Other answers may vary depend on religion, strength of religion, region surveyed, age and maturity of respondent, type of bible quoted, reliability of biblical translation, etc, etc. *God, imaginary or otherwise, is not necessarily taking responsibility for any of the multitude of answers generated. Results may vary depending on some of the terms listed, not all terms are listed. Pray to me for guidance on this one. Signed, GOD.

  135. on 30 Apr 2010 at 2:25 am 135.Merlin said …

    @@”Do you admit they are not correct and that there is a reason they need to be checked?”

    If they were incorrect, you would have showed me so, right? Well?

    Where are your citations? Zero I noticed…practice what you preach Quack. I don’t put much stock in what any blogger states, especially when they are obvious ideologues. I sure don’t get all in a huff over scribes!

    @@”And the bible says”

    I’m petty sure it is clear. Thou shalt not kill. I thought even an atheist could figure that one out especially a life that innocent.

    Why do you guys have this constant belief Christians are some how perfect? They never claim to be…..You need to read a book on MLK since I see you posted a bunch of google goobly-goop. A good one is by Davidson but you atheist I’m sure just see him as delusional.

    You being a foreigner, you may not realize we have this separation of church and state…….yeah, sort takes the steam out of churches in politics you think?…….yeah.

    Anywho, you have a problem with Communist?

  136. on 30 Apr 2010 at 3:17 am 136.Daffy Duck said …

    Quack, Quack…..

    Merlin the Wizard says:
    “Thou shalt not kill.”

    First of all, shouldn’t it be “You shall not kill”? Otherwise it sounds like Shakesphere wrote it.

    When we die, doesn’t God kill us? Why doesn’t he make it so we live 300 years? And if we have immortality in heaven, then why didn’t God just put us there and skip the whole being human thing? Makes you wonder why we have a short mortal life when we have an eternal life in heaven. And does a baby go to heaven even though it didn’t believe in a God? Is the baby’s soul like a soul with a babylike mind?

    Merlin, keep waving your magic wand just like your God does.

  137. on 30 Apr 2010 at 3:30 am 137.Observer said …

    132 Tosser You are the one making the reference to Soferim, albeit a specious one. I asked for a citation. You are not able to produce one, because, as I pointed out, you were BS-ing some cretin of your faith. Next,…

    What question did you ask? I delight in answering your questions.

    Racist? Did I not write glowingly enough about MLK above? Or, are you referring to my frequent use of the exquisitely appropriate defamation “cracker”? Most folks, being those with some understanding of anthropology, or eyes, would call me a Caucasian. Perhaps I was being a bit ascerbic, but hardly racist. Ta Ta

  138. on 30 Apr 2010 at 4:34 am 138.MrQ said …

    Merl,

    “Why do you guys have this constant belief Christians are some how perfect? They never claim to be…..”
    Good, we are making progress!!

    Look up at your post #94 where you asked “Is adultery immoral?”. Would’ve been interesting to have had the good reverend’s take on that one. Don’t ya think? Typical of christians, telling everyone else how imperfect they are, about how the heathens need to “see” the lord almighty, about how jesus is the way and the light….and then dropping the ball and behaving very human indeed, just like the atheists ;-). See, we do have a lot in common, your horse is just a little higher.

    You’re right about one thing, though: “ridiculous dogma that must be challenged.”(see same post, #94) applies to christianity as well.

  139. on 30 Apr 2010 at 7:12 am 139.Severin said …

    Merlin 135
    “Thou shalt not kill.”
    The highest god’s representatives on earth killed and tortured, and ordered killings, and caused brutal wars…
    God himself ordered most brutal masacres („…put their children from cradle on your sabers…..kill their cattle….“)…
    As god himself never contacts anyone directly to say what he really wants from us, but transfers his (confused)will to people via Bible and church, how can we recognize what is right?
    Shall we kill, follow examples god and his representatives on earth give us?
    Shall we obey „You shalt not kill“, the ONLY sentence in the Bible telling us not to kill?

    I do not need such a confuzed and contradictory guidance.
    I have a „built-in policemann“ in my head (genes) who tells me what is right.

  140. on 30 Apr 2010 at 7:15 am 140.Severin said …

    “Why do you guys have this constant belief Christians are some how perfect?”

    We haven’t.

  141. on 30 Apr 2010 at 12:14 pm 141.Merlin said …

    “I asked for a citation. You are not able to produce one,”

    Hey Buster! You did come back. I’ll be glad to. Enlighten me on what about the Soferim you would like to know and I’ll be glad to provide you with a page number….if you are good…..very good. Quit being a racist for one. Color is not a race genius.

    Now, will you be citing reference for all you above post? I call BS on all of it! If you use books I expect page numbers!

    Now if you did call BS, please share it since you have failed to provide said BS. Also, I asked the question 3 times, therefore I could only deduce you have no answer. Try reading agin and maybe it will click.

    Ha det bra

    “Thou shalt not kill”

    Boys,

    I never knew you guys had such a hysteria toward not killing. Sorry to upset so many of you there. I admit, I have a problem pulling a baby out of a birth canal and shoving forceps into the skull. Hey, but that is just me.

    Was Shakespeare the only one to use Thou?

    Who knew!

  142. on 30 Apr 2010 at 12:26 pm 142.Merlin said …

    Buster,

    I think the word you were searching for was “acerbic”. I would still stick with racist to characterize you.

    For one who is so anal, you need to remain above reproach.

  143. on 30 Apr 2010 at 1:03 pm 143.MrQ said …

    Meryl,
    “I admit, I have a problem pulling a baby out of a birth canal and shoving forceps into the skull. Hey, but that is just me.”
    I’d have a problem with that too, especially since I am not a doctor. But I asked for what the bible says about that? Isn’t there something in there about god killing first borns? Hypothetically situation: What if that first born was just coming out of the birth canal? Then god = Nasty abortionist and murder. Just gotta look at all the angles. Why would you have a problem with the scenario you described anyway? Don’t the atheist babies get free passage to the ever wonderful Valhalla, or is it Heaven? Sometimes my myth stories get a bit jumbled, please excuse me.

    “Ha det bra”
    You’re a Swede? Javla fyfan!!! Det ar jatte kul!!! Vem vet?

  144. on 30 Apr 2010 at 5:55 pm 144.Merlin said …

    I believe about 5000 years ago a plague wiped out the first born of the Egyptians. Yes, true I was not there but that is how it goes. It was a punishment for stubbornness on the of Pharoah? I suppose if God gives life he can take it.

    I know a few things for sure. I’m not God and neither are you. I do know “Do not murder” (a more accurate translation) is in the Bible. Until I obtain God status, I’ll stick with that.

    If you are OK with killing babies in the birth canal I would have to assess you are no better than our POTUS who also sees no problem with the procedure.

    JAG er inte en smula Svensk min van.

  145. on 30 Apr 2010 at 11:11 pm 145.A real-ist said …

    “I believe about 5000 years ago a plague wiped out the first born of the Egyptians.”

    Um, the only way just first borns would be wiped out is by people murdering them. Plagues can’t tell if someone is a first born or not.

    Also, Merlin, there is a difference between early term abortion and late term abortion. Many abortions that take place are before the skull and nervous system are even developed. I disagree with late term abortions, but early term is okay. In your argument, though, then I guess you can no longer jack off because you are killing sperm that produces babies.

    “I do know “Do not murder” (a more accurate translation) is in the Bible.”

    God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6). In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

    The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).

  146. on 30 Apr 2010 at 11:30 pm 146.A real-ist said …

    Kill People Who Don’t Listen to Priests

    Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

    Kill Witches

    You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

    Kill Homosexuals
    “If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

    Kill Fortunetellers

    A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

    Death for Hitting Dad

    Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

    Death for Cursing Parents

    1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

    2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

    Death for Adultery

    If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

    Death for Fornication

    A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

    Death to Followers of Other Religions

    Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

    Kill Nonbelievers

    They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

    Kill False Prophets

    If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, “You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord.” When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

    Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God

    Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

    Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night

    But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

    Kill Followers of Other Religions.

    1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

    2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

    Death for Blasphemy

    One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD’s name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother’s name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD’s will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, “Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD’s name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD’s name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

    Kill False Prophets

    1) Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles, and the predicted signs or miracles take place. If the prophets then say, ‘Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,’ do not listen to them. The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt. Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT)

    2) But any prophet who claims to give a message from another god or who falsely claims to speak for me must die.’ You may wonder, ‘How will we know whether the prophecy is from the LORD or not?’ If the prophet predicts something in the LORD’s name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NLT)

    Infidels and Gays Should Die

    So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God’s death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)

    Kill Anyone who Approaches the Tabernacle

    For the LORD had said to Moses, ‘Exempt the tribe of Levi from the census; do not include them when you count the rest of the Israelites. You must put the Levites in charge of the Tabernacle of the Covenant, along with its furnishings and equipment. They must carry the Tabernacle and its equipment as you travel, and they must care for it and camp around it. Whenever the Tabernacle is moved, the Levites will take it down and set it up again. Anyone else who goes too near the Tabernacle will be executed.’ (Numbers 1:48-51 NLT)

    Kill People for Working on the Sabbath

    The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: ‘Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.’ (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

  147. on 01 May 2010 at 2:15 am 147.Xenon said …

    “If you are OK with killing babies in the birth canal I would have to assess you are no better than our POTUS”

    In Chicago where Bowama calls home they have hospitals where aborted babies actually survive but it is still against the law to save them. Lovely thought eh?

    I have close friends who twins were born at 21 weeks but are now full-term babies and now at home. So much for them ONLY being fetuses.

    I have never figured out why guys are charged for double murder when a pregnant woman is killed if she is only carrying a fetus? Go figure.

  148. on 01 May 2010 at 5:48 am 148.Severin said …

    144 Merlin
    “I suppose if God gives life he can take it.”
    I am very happy he does not!
    I would never like my life to depend on such senile, inconsistent, crule, illogical, immoral idiot.
    Lucky we there is no god!

    If we behaved according to his laws, human race would dissapear long ago.

  149. on 01 May 2010 at 6:03 am 149.Severin said …

    148 Merlin
    “Until I obtain God status, I’ll stick with that.”

    How nice of you!
    Ther are direct orders from god:
    - If a woman is non-virgin before the first “consumation”, she MUST be stoned.
    - If a child hits his father, he MUST be killed
    - Anyone working on holyday, MUST be stoned
    - etc.
    Do you stick with THAT too?
    If not, why, and how do you make your choice about what to stick with and what not?
    You are defying your god before you obtained his status, by oposing his direct orders. Isn’t it a bit dangerous for you?

  150. on 01 May 2010 at 6:10 am 150.Severin said …

    144 Merlin
    “If you are OK with killing babies in the birth canal…”

    Some 20% of proven pregnancies end by spontanious abortion. That is the fact, please see statistics.
    Of course, spontanious abortin occured more frequently in 18th century, or in 5th century b.c.

    So, your god “legalized” abortion far before humans did.

    Oh, yes, I forgot, he gives life, he can take it….stupid!

  151. on 01 May 2010 at 5:00 pm 151.Merlin said …

    “In your argument, though, then I guess you can no longer jack off because you are killing sperm that produces babies.”

    Do you understand the term “partial-birth abortion”? From your statement I can only assume you have no idea. You might check into that. You are safe to whack-off it that is what you need to do.

    You also listed many Jewish laws and customs. Exactly which of these did these babies aborted in the middle of birth violate? R U arguing God commanded these MDs and mothers to kill these babies?

    You post seems aimless and off track.

  152. on 01 May 2010 at 8:03 pm 152.MrQ said …

    Ah, yes. The polarizing issue of abortion. Looks like we have an endless supply of hot button topics. But what else can you expect when the gods that we humans create are so imperfect, illogical, and reflect our own frailties and failings.

    My take on abortion -It is acceptable. Under ALL conditions, NO. I say that even though I have THREE children of my OWN.

    Where is the line between human/fetus? Hmmmm… I have a brother and sister in-law who have their christian opinions; he claims if the egg divides once after conception, we have a human. His wife says it is human once the sperm enters the egg. If I ever need or want to split that hair, I will turn to the sciences and make a decision based on logical criteria such as fetal development. Off the cuff, I would say that first trimester abortions do not upset me and are acceptable.

    If I turned to the bible for help on the issue of abortion, I am sure I would be hard pressed to find any reference as to which trimester we go from fetus to human. Or if a zygote constitutes a “human being”. Using the bible for this exercise, the reader will eventually need to draw a line somewhere. Everyone, religious or secular, independently finds the division between human and fetus using their own morality because the bible does not answer this question. Seems that Catholics think “every sperm is sacred”.

    How is it possible to find value of life using a bible when god kills or encourages killing of the first born / adulterers / gays / Sunday shoppers depending on His almighty mood? God kills with complete abandon of logic and reason. I am afraid he may smote me for my blasphemous missives ;-). See partial list of some of the approved biblical killings (post #144/145/146). Thanks to Real-ist and Merlin for all that work.

    Why do I approve of abortions? Well, I look around and I see all the suffering that babies born with any number of birth defects must endure. When I see the abandoned, neglected, abused, unwanted children suffering, I think to myself that abortions are occasionally preferable when contrasted to some of the unimaginable misery. I look to my own children and see how happy and lucky they are to have me as their dad ;-) , then I look around and see how religiously fervent people raise their own unfortunate charges. Biblically delusional people may refuse blood transfusions for their ailing children or rely on faith healing or exorcise demons.

    Some examples, check them out:

    Faith healing: 16 year old Neil Beagley died of a treatable inflammation in his urinary system. Dr. Clifford Nelson called it “an absolutely horrible way to die.”

    Family Love: Alcoa pastor, Joe Colquitt, threatened to kill his wife and family over Michael Louis Colquitt’s (his son) lack of church attendance.

    True Faith, Delusional : Estelle Walker’s five children grew more emaciated and listless by the day; she made no move to find a job, no effort to scrounge up a meal. “We were supposed to wait for God to provide,” said Walker’s oldest daughter, now 21. “And that’s what we did.”

    True Faith, Prudence: Mark Hourigan, a sex offender convicted of sexually abusing an 11-year-old boy in central Kentucky, becomes a another church’s newest minister.

    True Faith, blind: Carl and Raylene Worthington told detectives that they never considered calling a doctor, even as their 15-month-old daughter deteriorated and died. “I don’t believe in them,” Carl Worthington said of doctors. “I believe in faith healing.”

    More Exorcising: Phung Tran and Jacky Tran, parents of a 3-year-old boy beat him with bamboo sticks and poked his feet with chopsticks in a violent attempt to remove demons from his body because he ate meat.

    More Demons: Blaine Milam and Jessica Carson were arraigned Wednesday on capital murder charges, accused of beating the woman’s 1-year-old daughter to get rid of “the demons.” Investigators think the couple used a hammer to “beat the demons out” of Amora.

    And then there’s yet another case of exorcising demons: “Sergio Casian Aguilar”

    I smile to myself, happy and satisfied that I am on the only sane and logical path of parenthood, free from the shackles of demons and gods, trusting and knowledgeable in modern medical practices and procedures.

    I am fully aware that abortion -not always an easy option- is sometimes the only correct choice.

  153. on 01 May 2010 at 11:49 pm 153.Biff said …

    “I will turn to the sciences and make a decision based on logical criteria such as fetal development. Off the cuff, I would say that first trimester abortions do not upset me and are acceptable”

    So it is whatever your particular opinion happens to be? Not much of a criteria. So, which scientist will you listen to in this debate. The participants of the RvW are now anti-abortion and many of the scientist are as well.

    So, who is your “scientist” on this one? You could solve the debate for us with this breaking science!

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey

  154. on 02 May 2010 at 12:45 am 154.MrQ said …

    Biffy boy,

    Take your head out of your ass and find me the biblical passage of when sperm meets egg becomes zygote turns into fetus and then human. Is a lone egg as sacred as the millions of swimmers trying to reach it? When they get it on in a test tube and make a zygote, do we have a human? What’s your bible have to say? How about if the fetus is tested and has the genetic traits for a horrible birth defect, such as no skin, then what? I suppose your OK with that level of suffering since it’s god’s will. Find your own line; don’t worry about my opinion, it should have no influence on your decision. Maybe you can pray for guidance on this one.

    Strange that you would come to an atheist site for your “moral” education.

    RvW dosen’t apply to me. I am not a Yankee, thank god ;-), and not a woman, either. I would feel like a real shit if I told a woman what she MUST do with her body.

  155. on 02 May 2010 at 11:51 am 155.Biff said …

    I will turn to the sciences and make a decision based on logical criteria such as fetal development. Off the cuff, I would say that first trimester abortions do not upset me and are acceptable”

    You didn’t answer your own contention. What has scientist determined?

  156. on 02 May 2010 at 12:26 pm 156.MrQ said …

    Biff,

    Nice try. You conveniently forgot what I wrote before “I will turn to the sciences and make a decision”

    That would be: “If I ever need or want to split that hair,”

    You ride a mighty high horse there, Biffy, thinking you have moral superiority thanks to the scribblings of some ignorant stone age people. Hey it’s Sunday…. Shouldn’t you be putting on your best outfit and getting ready to waste a few hours listening to someone with an even higher horse than yours drone on about your failings and imperfections? Enjoy!!

  157. on 02 May 2010 at 4:40 pm 157.Biff said …

    “thinking you have moral superiority thanks to the scribblings of some ignorant stone age people.”

    Changing the subject again? I didn’t bring up any of that, you feel the need to deflect from your statement?.

    Again, if you had to turn the sciences, what would the call be? Isn’t science the ultimate source on this matter? Would you be implying it has no answer?

  158. on 02 May 2010 at 6:05 pm 158.MrQ said …

    biff,

    Back from the sermon and atop the horse again?

    biff: “Again, if you had to turn the sciences, what would the call be? Isn’t science the ultimate source on this matter? Would you be implying it has no answer?”

    Ask yourself, Do you really care where I stand? Honestly the answer is NO. What can be accomplished with that discussion? Absolutely NOTHING. You’ll just get all pissy and we’ll have a big kerfuffle over something -abortion- that does not cause any problems with me as it apparently does you.

    What part of “If I ever need or want to split that hair, I will turn to the sciences and make a decision based on logical criteria” is beyond your grasp? Concentrate real hard on the first part, before the comma. Also, it may help if you re-read my entire post and try to grasp it. I don’t really care if you agree or disagree with my position.

    That being written, maybe you should launch the first salvo. Post something where the bible states where the egg becomes a zygote to blastocyst….all the way to human. Where is your line in the sand? I’ll go make some popcorn and watch as other interested parties, christian, atheist, and otherwise, weigh in. Let the wild rumpus begin!!

  159. on 02 May 2010 at 6:33 pm 159.Horatio said …

    Biff – I cannot believe you expected an real answer? Q may talk with great confidence, but we all know scientist have no clue when life begins. That was just idle take from Q about “going to the science”.

    I do know a fetus can survive outside the body after 20 weeks. That is fact I would not doubt it could happen earlier.

  160. on 02 May 2010 at 8:00 pm 160.MrQ said …

    Hor, is it immoral to abort a baby you are having with your sister if a birth defect is detected?

  161. on 02 May 2010 at 10:15 pm 161.Biff said …

    Q,

    You seem defensive? I am not sure why? You seem to believe science has definitive evidence to help you decide this abortion issue. I asked what the evidence would be. Rather than answer you go off on a religious rant.

    Not knowing an answer is not something to be embarrassed about. Becoming so defensive is rather a childish track to take.

    Horatio,

    I did not expect any real proof on when life begins. I was just curious as to what his criteria might have been.

  162. on 02 May 2010 at 11:26 pm 162.MrQ said …

    Biffy,

    I believe I wrote “If I ever need or want to split that hair”. No attack there, no defensiveness. Just an admission that the concept of abortion does not evoke a strong response in me. It’s a legal procedure and performed in my country.

    I am for abortion in principle, I just haven’t decided on the stage at which a fertilized egg transforms into a human being. I could use science to satisfy my curiosity by looking for information on fetal development. Right now I don’t really care to do that amount of research, I am lazy and have a life. I would rather spend that time with my kids.

    You choose the ancient texts, and if that works for you then that’s your problem. I’d wager that you’re not looking for answers or new information, so why should I indulge you? It’s simply a waste of my time.

    I know people who will have the debate with me, such as my brother. Him and his wife’s christian opinions are likely the same as yours, but it’s much more enjoyable to communicate/debate with him.

    Why not google something like “abortion controversy” and see the sticky issues rather than rehashing them here.

    Got to run, my daughter wants to play soccer.

  163. on 03 May 2010 at 12:07 am 163.Horatio said …

    “Hor, is it immoral to abort a baby you are having with your sister if a birth defect is detected?”

    Why Q my buddy? Have you found yourself in this situation?

  164. on 03 May 2010 at 1:53 am 164.MrQ said …

    Hor,

    I am not the one asking why incest is immoral. Um, I believe that was you, post #33.

  165. on 03 May 2010 at 8:00 am 165.3D said …

    42.Merlin said …

    “Severin this is the ridiculous statements of which I speak. If there were only two people on earth, there were no the genetic problems like we would see from many generations of inbreeding as we have see in the Royal of families of the past.
    You didn’t even answer hoatio’s question. Is incest immoral because it against the law or because it violates biblical authority?”

    Neither. Even though I agree with most of Severin’s well-reasoned posts, I disagree with him on this issue; I don’t think incest is “immoral”. I think we’re confusing “gross” with “immoral” here.

    I define immoral as any action that hurts another human being for one’s own self-aggrandizement. Incest is disgusting, but it doesn’t fit the above description so I don’t deem it immoral. (It becomes immoral if it’s incestuous rape or molestation, but that’s because of the rape and/or molestation, not the incest).

    The problem with the Bible God allowing incest isn’t that it was immoral, IMO. It’s that it’s overlooked completely! As one of the theists posting here correctly pointed out, the incest is not even the focus, nor message, of the Cain story. He just takes his wife, who logically can’t really be anyone but his sister, mother or daughter, and lives happily ever after. We’re left to wonder why he’s banging a close family member, with no further explanation.

    It’s a mistake to read anything into it other than accepting it as lazy, shitty storytelling. The writers of the Bible didn’t mean to condone incest; they just were too stupid to write a good creation story where incest didn’t crop up as a messy plot hole.

  166. on 03 May 2010 at 8:11 am 166.3D said …

    Severin:

    “I know that marriage among brothers and sisters is prohibited by law in all countries I know.
    I know that all christian churches prohibit marriages among brothers and sisters. Am I wrong?
    So, according to Horatio (and acording to Bible) we have here pure hypocrisy: MARRIAGE among brothers and sisters is forbidden, but SEX, and production of children, are not!
    Interesting!”

    Severin, Christians have to make arguments that incest is a good thing, simply because it appears in the Bible and is implicitly condoned by God. And if the Bible is wrong about anything, then their whole worldview falls apart. So therefore, incest is good to them. Just like there is nothing inherently wrong with stoning, burning people to death, etc.

    Anyone else on the planet who is not religious will tell you in one second that stoning people is wrong and immoral. The only person who can not give that quick answer is someone who is forced into the awkward position of defending their crazy ass Bible.

  167. on 03 May 2010 at 11:04 am 167.Horatio said …

    The demagoguery is alive and well.

    “I define immoral as any action that hurts another human being for one’s own self-aggrandizement”

    Can you show me this definition?

    “So, according to Horatio (and acording to Bible) we have here pure hypocrisy:”

    Show me where I made the statement or claim incest is “a good thing”.

    For the record, I am against stoning man.
    ______________________
    Q,

    Yo stepped right into it. I asked why, I never claimed to engage. I hope you two can work it out. :)

  168. on 03 May 2010 at 12:32 pm 168.Severin said …

    159 Horatio
    “…but we all know scientist have no clue when life begins.“
    162MrQ
    „…I just haven’t decided on the stage at which a fertilized egg transforms into a human being.“
    According to laws in most countries I know, life of a human being begins with BIRTH.
    That is why abortinons are not treated as murders in those countries, including, I believe, in all states of the US (please correct me if I am wrong).

    People started to make their own laws very early in history, as soon as they saw how unsustainable, irrational, contradictory, stupid…were the laws of their gods.
    It does not mean that first human laws were ideal, or less cruel than god’s ones, but unlike god’s laws, they had the head and the tail, the beginning and the end, witout contradictions.

    Religions prohibit abortions, but unbaptized children which die immediately after birth go to hell!

    If abortion should be treated as murder, we should have hang god for hundreds of millions of spontanious abortions during human history.

  169. on 03 May 2010 at 1:02 pm 169.Severin said …

    167 Horatio
    “The demagoguery is alive and well.”
    Yes, we all see it from your discussion. Isn’t a demagogue one who provokes all the time without giving his own opinion about anything?

    “Can you show me this definition?” (about immorality)
    The man just did! Are you blind? Do you disagree such a definition? Then SAY it, and offer another one! Otherwise his definition is valid.

    “Show me where I made the statement or claim incest is “a good thing”.”
    You did not. But, what do you expect anyone to conclude from your question “Why is it (incest) immoral?”, posed in 33 Horatio?
    Why don’t YOU tell us what YOU think about incest (or about anything else)?
    It seems to me that you are trying to avoid risks of being “caught”, but the way you are discussing you are exposing yourself as a demagogue (and ignorant).

    Isn’t a demagogue one who all the time provoques without saying anything about his own opinion?
    I (Q, 3D…) may be wrong, but we are, at least, telling here what we think.

  170. on 03 May 2010 at 2:47 pm 170.Xenon said …

    Severin,

    You continued ignorance never continues to amaze. demagoguery is the process of arousing the emotions and prejudices of the people he intends to win over. Its much like what you do with religion and god but remain unsuccessful.

    Only one with complete tunnel vision can continue to peel off the same rhetoric he was using 6 months ago and expect different results. Truth is, the religious in the world do more for the physically disabled to the poor and hungry than any group of atheist I have ever seen. When your rhetoric lives up to your actions, come back with your same ridiculous demagoguery.

    “According to laws in most countries I know, life of a human being begins with BIRTH.”

    So why when a man kills a pregnant woman is he charged with two murders?

  171. on 03 May 2010 at 4:39 pm 171.3D said …

    167.Horatio said …
    “I define immoral as any action that hurts another human being for one’s own self-aggrandizement”
    “Can you show me this definition?”

    You just quoted it.

    My morality comes to me from absorption and interpretation of evidence of the world around me through life experience. Not from the Bible or even from Webster’s dictionary. That’s the advantage atheists have over theists: we can form our own opinions on what’s right and wrong. That helps to prevent atheists from defending things like burnings, stonings, etc. And it’s why you rarely see atheists showing up at soldiers’ funerals picketing with God Hates Fags signs. Because you only pick that kind of stuff up in the Bible, like the flu.

    That said, there are many Christians who manage to reconcile their good morality, with a supposed belief in the Bible. They do this by editing out the bad parts or saying they don’t really mean what they say. They are good people, but they are wrong, and worse, they enable the actual crazy people who are literalists.

    “For the record, I am against stoning man.”

    I’m glad we agree on this issue! I’m against it too.

    If I can ask a couple of follow-up questions: Do you think stoning human beings is ALWAYS wrong? Universally? Or is it just wrong in the context of the current state of society? Was it also wrong when the God of the Bible prescribed it as a punishment for certain actions? Could it be moral again someday given a particular set of circumstances?

  172. on 03 May 2010 at 5:47 pm 172.Horatio said …

    “we can form our own opinions on what’s right and wrong”

    Well if every atheist can define their own morality then there is nothing to stop them from justifying burnings, stoning, gulags, etc just as China is doing now. It doesn’t work and it never has worked. Sure, maybe you are humane but that doesn’t stop a whole society for killing off those who don’t follow their dogma now does it?

    I think stoning, burning, gulags, etc were all wrong? What about the gas chamber and the electric chair? Ya think that will be kosher 100 years from now? I try to understand why a society acted as they did and attempt to compare it to our own culture. Wrong today but obviously not then.

    It it EASY to judge a society a millennium ago and speak of their barbarism. Careful who you judge.

  173. on 03 May 2010 at 5:51 pm 173.Horatio said …

    “rarely see atheists showing up at soldiers’ funerals picketing with God Hates Fags signs. Because you only pick that kind of stuff up in the Bible, like the flu.”

    Where did you find these acts in the Bible? I don’t claim to be a scholar but I don’t think they are there. Are you sure you want to claim atheist do not have their nuts? China is an atheist nation! You probably do not want to issue that challenge.

  174. on 03 May 2010 at 7:26 pm 174.3D said …

    173.Horatio said …

    “Where did you find these acts in the Bible? I don’t claim to be a scholar but I don’t think they are there.”

    Actually, the Bible tells them to kill homosexuals by stoning them. They have reduced it on their own, down to picketing with God Hates Fags signs, I would say most probably because of fear of punishment by US law. (Some Muslim countries have different laws — their law comes directly from the Koran which has similar barbaric punishments for crimes as the Bible does — and so, their religious extremists do indeed carry out such biblical executions, lawfully.

    “Are you sure you want to claim atheist do not have their nuts?”

    I do not make such a claim. All atheists form their own morality through life experience; that means everyone’s morality is different, some good, some bad, depending upon different life experience.

    However, the benefit of being an atheist is that they start with an advantage: a blank slate, an empty vessel. Christians start with an evil, outdated morality espoused in the Bible, and must either:

    (1) follow it and be outcasts in a modern society;
    (2) edit out the bad parts of the Bible, or contort themselves logically to claim it doesn’t really say what it says;
    or
    (3) wean themselves off of the Bible and become atheists.

    Most Christians fall into category (2); they form their OWN morality, exactly as atheists do, through life experience. Then they point to the parts of the Bible that support their own personal morality for backup, while rejecting or ignoring the parts that contradict their personal morality.

    This tells me that most Christians, though confused, are good people. They were indoctrinated at birth into Christianity, and it’s hard to completely shake off the rituals of a cult, but they refer to their own personal morality to guide them, and choose their own morals over the Bible when the two conflict.

  175. on 03 May 2010 at 8:03 pm 175.Severin said …

    170 Xenon
    “Demagogy or demagoguery is a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public—typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist, populist or religious themes.”

    Excellent definition for communist regimes, fascist regimes and religions.
    Also for what Horatio, Xenon, etc, are doing in name of religion.

    “Only one with complete tunnel vision can continue to peel off the same rhetoric he was using 6 months ago and expect different results.”
    Don’t you recognize yourself here? How long are you continuing to peel off the same rethoric here? At least twice as long as I do. I read this blog long before I started to participate.

  176. on 03 May 2010 at 8:18 pm 176.Severin said …

    170 Xenon
    “Truth is, the religious in the world do more for the physically disabled to the poor and hungry than any group of atheist I have ever seen.”
    You do not see well!

    “When your rhetoric lives up to your actions, come back with your same ridiculous demagoguery.”
    What do YOU know about my actions? Where are yours?

    “So why when a man kills a pregnant woman is he charged with two murders?”
    Where? In Guatemala? In Saudi Arabia?
    One who kills pregnant woman usually gets more years in prison than „ordinary“ killers, but is never formally charged for 2 murders in countries I could call (more or less) civilized.

  177. on 03 May 2010 at 9:02 pm 177.Severin said …

    172 Horatio
    “Well if every atheist can define their own morality then there is nothing to stop them from justifying burnings…“

    We have already discussed it, but you never comment something you do not like to hear.
    People has „built in“ morality, imposed by evolution.
    Not all the people have the same „built in“ feeling of what is moral and what is not. That is why societies imposed laws to try to make order in this field.
    I absolutely do not need to follow any written or said rules or laws to KNOW what is immoral.
    I can not kill a sparrow. I feel deep disgust when I only see violence against a human or an animal, my stomach gets up and down, and my heart is jumping.

    Some other people are able to kill without mentally hurting themselves.
    Societies are defending themselves from such people by creating laws.

    You can clearly see that human laws evoluted during history. Guillotine is canceled, as well as hanging. Death penalty is canceled in many countries. We do not punish people for many things which were taken as crimes only 100 years ago, but we do punish for hacking! Hacking was not known as a crime only 40 years ago! We have no more slavery, which was legal untill some 200 years ago.

    This is evolution in action!
    God did NOT change his „laws“, which are absolutely unacceptable today.
    Should I use god’s laws (from Bible, beacause there is no other source) as „moral rules“?
    No, thanks!
    Human race is making laws to DEFEND itself from god’s lunacy!
    And, of course, the laws are getting better and better!

  178. on 03 May 2010 at 9:14 pm 178.Severin said …

    172 Horatio
    „I think stoning, burning, gulags, etc.“

    Stoning is biblical invention.
    Burning is invention of church.
    Gulags and concentration camps are inventions of authorities which were accepted(Russia) or elected (Germany) from 100% religious populations.
    Both of those regimes promissed „heaven on earth“ and manipulated stupid (religious) people to vote/accept them. When people felt the realty, it was too late to react.
    If there were more atheists in those countries at that time, they would never accept a „gulag regime“ or voted a „concentration camps“ regime. They would recognize them BEFORE tragedy occured.

  179. on 03 May 2010 at 9:15 pm 179.Horatio said …

    3D

    You confuse Jewish law with God hating fags. God never claims to hate gays. Not the same thing and yes it was unfortunate and a direct denial of the two great commandments given by Jesus.

    However, China is full of atheist running a nation that kills Christians and Jews practically daily for simply having a Bible or meeting to pray. This happens now, not 5 thousand years in the past. So how is this atheist methodology more prudent? What keeps the atheist here from not doing the same outside of our laws?

    I don’t believe the morality they have decided on is favorable. I’ll risk my life here with the God hates fags nuts over what the atheistic communist regime may do in the name of their own self-determined morality.

    Again, it doesn’t work and the benefits you claim it possesses are non-existent.

  180. on 03 May 2010 at 9:43 pm 180.Horatio said …

    Sev

    I would comment more but your post are so erroneous and aimless its not worth my time. Let me answer just one and then you must promise to research all future posts. Do you promise? If not do not scroll down..

    “One who kills pregnant woman usually gets more years in prison than „ordinary“ killers, but is never formally charged for 2 murders in countries I could call (more or less) civilized.

    The US is civilized. Try Scott and Lacy Peterson in Ca. Standard judicial practice because we ARE civilized.

    (SIGH)

  181. on 04 May 2010 at 1:44 am 181.A real-ist said …

    “Where did you find these acts in the Bible? I don’t claim to be a scholar but I don’t think they are there.”

    Kill Homosexuals
    “If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

    Can we change the subject of talking about abortions. This is one subject where everyone has their own opinion on the stage it is okay to abort. A God actually existing isn’t an opinion. He either exists or he doesn’t. Since there is no evidence of him existing, then he doesn’t. But if you do think he exists, then your God is for far worse things than abortion. See below:

    The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).

  182. on 04 May 2010 at 6:52 am 182.Severin said …

    180 Horatio
    Maybe I was wrong about laws in the USA.
    So what? If I was, I appologize.
    You call me erroneous for that, and your believing in god is totally and generally erroneous and leads to superstition and ignorance.
    For the 100th time in this blog you are trying to turn attention to things of no importance, following the logic:
    “Severin said a 400 kg piano fell on a man’s head. He is so erroneous! Piano was only 300 kg!”
    I still think, and I will check it, that in Europe you can not be formally prosecuted for 2 murders if you kill a pregnant woman. Of course you will get more for it, but not for a second murder, not formally, but for especially brutal, morally disgusting and repellent deed. But why is that SO important?

    179 Horatio
    “However, China is full of atheist running a nation that kills Christians and Jews practically daily for simply having a Bible or meeting to pray.“

    What an example!
    China kills everybody: students (atheists) longing for human rights. Soldiers (atheists) who steal a handkerchief. People oposing the communist party. Some 30,000 or more dead sentences a year.
    China is doing it all 7000 years of its history. I do not see any connection with atheism there, or anywhere.
    More or less, ALL authorities used to do that at ALL times. What atheism has to do with it?
    How many atheists existed in the world during thousands of years of brutal human history, full of wars (mostly religious!), massive killings and torturings, all in name og god(s)?

    Was Inquisition an atheist organisation?

    “Thou shalt not kill!” should be changed to “Thou shalt not kill! Killing is reserved for me!”

  183. on 04 May 2010 at 11:40 am 183.Horatio said …

    “China kills everybody: students (atheists) longing for human rights. Soldiers (atheists) who steal a handkerchief.”

    So atheist kill their own too! Shows you just how barbaric man coming up with his own standards of morality can be. Again, it does not work just as I have pointed out this entire thread.

    “But why is that SO important?”

    Because you have zero credibility. I assume everything you type is erroneous. Sev, you promised to research. (sigh) I’m done.

  184. on 04 May 2010 at 2:22 pm 184.MrQ said …

    Hor,

    Strange, isn’t it, with the Laci Peterson murder trial the court failed to recognize the babies life as having equal “value” as the pregnant womans. Wonder why that was?

    In my country, the law sometimes uses the concept of “intent” in their rulings. Do some research yourself, Hor, and see if that could, in any way, apply here. I don’t want to hold your hand on this one but will offer a clue: Abortion has nothing to do with the answer.

    (sigh) It’s likely beyond you. In that case, just turn to the ancient book.

  185. on 04 May 2010 at 3:10 pm 185.Xenon said …

    “Wonder why that was?”

    Quack – Let me enlighten you.

    Maybe you have not read the trial transcript? Just made some silly assumption?

    He was charged 2nd degree because the intentional and premeditated killing of his wife led to the indirect killing of the baby. Silly Q, it wasn’t because they gave the baby” less value”. (sigh indeed)

    Is you claim that the babies life is of less value? How much less and who gets to decide just what the value would be?

  186. on 04 May 2010 at 3:21 pm 186.MrQ said …

    X,

    That’s right. By killing his wife, chopping off her head, and dumping her in the ocean, he had no idea that the baby would also die. God could have intervened.

    Give it a rest.

  187. on 04 May 2010 at 5:04 pm 187.Severin said …

    183 Horatio
    “So atheist kill their own too!“
    “…too” – same as – who?
    What the poet had intention to really say?
    If you do not have to say something that have sense, you better dont say anything.

    “Sev, you promised to research.”
    I did not. However, I do search for myself whenever I need it.
    You better search yourself and bring us some evidences for your own claims, instead of patronizing people.

  188. on 04 May 2010 at 5:18 pm 188.Severin said …

    183 Horatio
    “So atheist kill their own too!“

    They learnt it from christians.
    Christians left good examples of killing their own during the history.
    They could not learn it from other atheists, because there were practically none untill recently.

    Why don’t you answer the key question: were Inquisition an atheistic organisation?

  189. on 04 May 2010 at 6:33 pm 189.Xenon said …

    Notice how all the acts you describe were on Lacy Quack?

    Nice try, but you obviously have no idea how the law works. There are other cases, look into and understand the fine points of the law before jumping to ridiculous conclusions.

    Yes, please drop it before you become Severin.

  190. on 04 May 2010 at 6:49 pm 190.MrQ said …

    Gas Bag,

    I am thinking that maybe Mr Petersen wasn’t looking forward to the prospect of fatherhood, white picket fences, and the ennui of family life. The baby was part of that package. D’ya think he WANTED the baby dead too?

  191. on 04 May 2010 at 7:21 pm 191.Xenon said …

    Daffy,

    In the American courts, we judge what you did, not what you wanted. We call this intent. If he intended to kill her and failed, he would not have not gotten the 1st.

    See, you need to stop because you are beginning to look,,,,well,,,,Daffy.

  192. on 04 May 2010 at 8:17 pm 192.MrQ said …

    X,

    I see.
    He wanted to kill his wife and baby. He did kill his wife and baby.

    Maybe he just wanted to kill his baby and his wife just, inconveniently, got in the way. This thing could have gone in several different directions but thanks to your help, gas bag, it’s all so clear.

    I am really learning a lot through your in depth knowledge of American criminal law. And I always like to learn. Thanks, little buddy!!

  193. on 04 May 2010 at 8:27 pm 193.Horatio said …

    lol, give Q a break. You don’t know of what republic he lives. He may live under Sharia law.

    That case shows you how our own system is broken. Scott can take the life of Connor and get charged for murder. If Lacy and Scott has gone to PP, it would be called a medical procedure, even while giving birth. It is as big a mess as Q.

    Then again we are in a nation who makes a POTUS of of a man who has never even ran a lemonade stand. Go figure.

  194. on 05 May 2010 at 2:28 pm 194.MrQ said …

    X, hor:

    One of you claims: “China is full of atheist running a nation” REALLY!!!

    China has a population with 8-14% classified as “atheist, agnostic, non-believer”
    Sweden, on the other hand, is at 46 to 85%.
    We all know how poorly that’s working out for those idiot Swedes, don’t we? FyFan, javla fubik…

    The link:
    http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

    The brilliance of the gas bag (post# 191) “If he intended to kill her and failed, he would not have not gotten the 1st.” Huh? I hope that’s correct because if he failed to kill her it wouldn’t be the 1st, or even 2nd. It might be “attempted murder”.

    Children (I am referring to Hor,X) I have some bad news, I hope you’re sitting down. You know those stories mommy and daddy told you about Santa and the Easter Bunny, they were all made up happy stories. And those stories about god, sorry, that was just to get you to behave. But you can keep the fantasy alive if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

  195. on 05 May 2010 at 3:31 pm 195.Xenon said …

    “China has a population with 8-14% classified as “atheist, agnostic, non-believer””

    This is from your link……(SIGH!)
    * NOTE: The estimates of the number of atheists in North Korea, China and Cuba may be unreliable. The best data available have been used in making these estimates, but the people in these three nations live under Communist governments which have traditionally suppressed religious freedom
    and officially (often forcibly) endorsed atheism.

    “It might be “attempted murder””

    Congrats, you got one right. Now do you understand the difference b/t 1st & 2nd degree murder and how the punishment is determined?

    “those stories about god, sorry, that was just to get you to behave.”

    Is that all you have? My parents were murdered when I was less than two. Not many stories coming down after that. This is just you attempt to save face when you should just stop. You are looking silly. I’m trying to help here.

  196. on 05 May 2010 at 5:41 pm 196.Severin said …

    191 Xenon
    So, in America, you get the same if you accidentally kill a man by car and if you kill a man because you was angry at him.
    You did the same: you killed a man.

    That was exactly what you said!
    Is the law so strange in your sheriat, or are you just an total ignoarant?

  197. on 05 May 2010 at 6:43 pm 197.Severin said …

    195 Xenon
    „* NOTE: The estimates of the number of atheists in North Korea, China and Cuba may be unreliable. The best data available have been used in making these estimates, but the people in these three nations live under Communist governments which have traditionally suppressed religious freedom and officially (often forcibly) endorsed atheism.“
    What was your point?

    Are you trying to say that there are more atheists in China then estimated, or what?
    In that case you should have found another citation! This one is saying hat there is probably LESS atheists in China than estimated.
    People in China, Korea, Cuba behave EXACTLY the same as people during brutal religious regimes used to behave: they hide their real feelings to avoid problems vith regimes.
    “Problems” are, however, VERY DIFFERENT: in China, Cuba… if one declares himself religious, he will probably lose his job, and in extreme cases, if he provoques regime too loudly, he will go to jail.
    During of 2000 years of religious terror, if one declared himself to be an atheist (or much less than that!), they would torture him and kill him extremely brutally.
    Communism = fascism = religion, yet the a.m. regimes are much less brutal than religious regimes!
    Yes, they kill, but they do not burn people alive!

  198. on 05 May 2010 at 6:58 pm 198.Severin said …

    195 Xenon

    As all the time, you just neglect good arguments. They just do not exist for you.

    WHAT about Sweden (germany, GB, Holland….)?
    How do you comment this argument?

    And, of course, you NEVER said anything about the argument that Hitler’s regime was NOT forced, but ELECTED in regular elections, from 50 MILLION OF HIGHLY RELIGIOUS VOTERS, without a single atheist present, AND after the same VOTERS had oportunity to listen to Hitler’s speeches for more than a decade!
    RELIGION IN ACTION!

    As allways, you will just neglect this FACT, and tell us that I was a lier and an ignorant.
    Beacuse there were 48 million voters, not 50 million, in Germany of that time, and yes, there were in fact some 15 or 20 declared atheists too.

  199. on 05 May 2010 at 7:04 pm 199.Horatio said …

    lol, you would think Q would read his own link before posting it, not to mention the poll doesn’t inquire about government officials. I am just guessing, but I would bet it is 100% and much by force….of course! Atheist governments do not allow diversity or freedom of information flow.

    How do you go about polling the Chinese people? Do you send in Zogby and ask to do a religious poll on the Tibetans? Reminds of when Saddam got 100% of the votes in his Iraqi election. You know some bought into it.

    X, sorry about your parents.

    Q, nice quick, slight of hand change in the subject slick. The old worn God is not real story. Nice card to play when all else fails.

  200. on 05 May 2010 at 9:32 pm 200.Burebista said …

    There are a number of reasons why the nazi’s rose to power in such a short period of time. None of them have anything to do with killing jews or religion.

    Hitler’s speeches were inspiring, he was a great public speaker who could enthuse the masses and ignite a sense of belief. his policies made sense and were aimed at the areas of politics that the German masses were resentful of such as the treaty of Versailles and reparations. his party was highly organised, flexible in their views to the electorate and made promises that would benefit all sectors of the population. Further to this was the nazi’s open, and forceful opposition to communism and the impressive use of force and discipline to engineer success for themselves. these characteristics were highly valued in a Germany where law and order were being constantly threatened.

    Then there was the weaknesses of the Weimar government itself. Proportional representation had led to a series of weak governments and it allowed the nazi’s to become serious players without having a mass of public support. The government was perceived as being at fault for signing the treaty of Versailles and had lost support on several occasions for mismanaging the economic crisis. Hitler offered a effective solution to each of these faults and so gained power.

  201. on 05 May 2010 at 10:30 pm 201.MrQ said …

    (sigh)
    So much ignorance and so little time.
    Yes, you boys -hor,x- really stepped into it. The link I provided shows that an offically atheist country, China, has LOW atheism despite the fact that they “traditionally suppressed religious freedom and officially (often forcibly) endorsed atheism.” Is the data reliable? As good as anything you have provided because you offer nothing but hot air.

    And you STILL failed to address how the Swedes could possibly operate effectively with so much atheism amuck. Are the Swedes beating and murdering the faithful? Do they condemn the religious to prisons for being religious? NO, of course not. Actually, they operate a highly functional society producing goods like SAABs, Husqvarnas, and Volvos for our consumption and pleasure. Not to mention ABBA!!

    OK, check out:
    http://chartsbin.com/view/9qa
    Sweden still leads with 11.6% atheism to China’s 7.6%. These numbers don’t make a good case for you either. Sweden, you gotta watch out for those sneaky bastards, never know when they’ll resort to clubbing believers for their believing ways.

    Try and go to:
    http://chartsbin.com/view/omz
    Now you may be able to argue that China is almost the most AGNOSTIC place in the world at 32.6% whereas Sweden trails at 18.1%.

    Too bad for X’s parents. Bad things happen for no reason all the time.
    My philosphy: You’re born, life’s a bitch, and then you die. It’s not a fairy tale. I am filling in the parts between the born and die parts without necessarily using an ancient text for guidance. Yeah, I eat pork and I haven’t had any body parts mutilated in the name of the almighty big g.

  202. on 06 May 2010 at 7:27 am 202.Severin said …

    200 Burebista
    When Russian emperor was offended because church bells did not ring when he approached a village, on his trip, and asked the local administrator why bells did not ring, poor man answerd:
    Thera are many reasons for that, Your Majesty.
    The first one is – we don’t have bells on our church.

    Whatever you say, dear Burebista:
    1. Hitler WAS ELECTED on regular elections
    2. People who voted him was almost 100% religious
    3. The same people had enought time (some 12 years)to hear what Hitler was offering as his political platform.

    My point is that such a dangerous demagogue would never pass in an atheistic country

  203. on 06 May 2010 at 11:21 am 203.severin said …

    “Hitler’s speeches were inspiring,….”
    ….for masses infected with religion, taught to just believe, without questioning, withouit using their common sense… VERY MUCH unlike atheists!

    “…he was a great public speaker who could enthuse the masses and ignite a sense of belief.”

    You see! You are completely right! He was a great public speaker even for you (a believer, living in modern times).
    What to expect from believers of that time?

    For me he was always a paranoic lunatic in both: his gestures (combination of priest and clown) and way of pathetic addressing to listeners and in the content of his speeches.

    Among other bad things, religion(s)teach preople to obey athority unsupported by real values.

  204. on 06 May 2010 at 2:21 pm 204.Horatio said …

    “And you STILL failed to address how the Swedes could possibly operate effectively with so much atheism amuck.”

    Sweden is a constitutional monarchy with an elected parliament. What does that have to do with an atheist regime in China violating basic human rights? The people of China are not the subject. The fact a majority STILL will not follow atheism is quite remarkable. How does Sweden’s monarchy justify China’s brutal atheist government? Changing the subject is easier aye, Q?

    I never claimed atheist cannot be good people. of course they can. But when you give men power AND they chose their own morality, it is a bad mix. Atheist have no guide other than their personal belief. All men, and i mean all, have the capability to commit horrific acts in the right circumstances.

    Yeah, I eat pork and I haven’t had any body parts mutilated in the name of the almighty big g.

    So do I, and body parts all intact but light on the pork.

  205. on 06 May 2010 at 3:59 pm 205.MrQ said …

    Hor, (from your post #172, emphasis mine)

    “Well if every atheist can define their own morality then there is nothing to stop them from justifying burnings, stoning, gulags, etc just as China is doing now. It DOESN’T WORK and it NEVER HAS worked. Sure, maybe you are humane but that doesn’t stop a WHOLE SOCIETY for killing off those who don’t follow their dogma now does it?”

    Statistics have shown that Sweden is up to 85% atheist (Even O’Reilly, Fox News, says so -it must be true :-b). Somehow those Swedes use their mysteriously derived moral codes to decide how to vote, what laws to live under, how to treat each other, and how to generally get along. No stonings, gulags, burnings that I am aware of. (Hey, I thought stonings were biblical punishments for transgressions such as Sunday shopping.) Swedes are just a bunch of happy atheists who completely defy your understanding of human morality, as you have stated in the above quote. But, then again, you had to ask why incest is immoral in post #33. Have you figured that one out yet?

    Hor, post #172: “Careful who you judge.” ’nuff said.

    Hor, post #204: “How does Sweden’s monarchy justify China’s brutal atheist government?” Huh? Way off topic.

    Hor, post #204: “Atheist have no guide other than their personal belief. All men, and i mean all, have the capability to commit horrific acts in the right circumstances.”
    Did you know that there is a major shift away from organized religion that is sweeping across the entire world. Stay tuned as countries, even the USA, becoming increasingly atheistic/agnostic. Rudderless, unanchored people may spontaneously set up gulags, start stoning and burning people, ya think?
    But you are absolutely correct, god can be used equally effectively for loving or killing your fellow man. And that is better than atheism because……(________) It is written? It’s what gives you comfort in our vast and empty universe? ???? Atheism does have a guide. If we don’t ALL get along our children will inherit what exactly? Long before religion entered the picture we were making do, slowly developing our civilizations and moral codes.

  206. on 06 May 2010 at 4:20 pm 206.Horatio said …

    Careful who you judge.”

    Oh Q, now you go and take my post out of context. I believe I was referring to a civilization 5000 yrs ago and how they punish law breakers. Just like you guys to distort meaning.

    I will judge China as wrong (although you will not) on every human rights violation. Its a shame you will not speak out against the atheist human rights violators in China. 3000 new Christians a day in China. Not much of a shift away from religion!

    Maybe I should start holding up all the wonderful religious groups and their good works as Proof Positive that all religion is good. You guys seem to be lacking in that arena. That seems to be your tactic here with Sweden.

    For the record, I like Sweden and a haven’t a clue what you point intends to be. They do not have an atheist government.

  207. on 07 May 2010 at 2:57 am 207.A real-ist said …

    Worldwide, there are about 1.1 billion nonreligious people; only two religions have more numbers: Christianity has about 2.1 billion adherents and Islam has about 1.3 billion.

    A good way to notice that nonreligious people are growing and religous people are shrinking is by comparing the young adults to the baby boomer generation and the elderly. Almost all the young adults I know do not attend a church and do not follow religous rules. Even the number of priests and pastors are shrinking. At this rate, the scale will be tipping the other way where nonreligous people will be the majority in the near future.

  208. on 07 May 2010 at 11:29 am 208.Xenon said …

    “Worldwide, there are about 1.1 billion nonreligious people; only two religions have more numbers: Christianity has about 2.1 billion adherents and Islam has about 1.3 billion.”

    No data no dice.

  209. on 07 May 2010 at 11:41 am 209.A real-ist said …

    “Worldwide, there are about 1.1 billion nonreligious people; only two religions have more numbers: Christianity has about 2.1 billion adherents and Islam has about 1.3 billion.”

    “No data no dice.”

    Here is the data, so I guess there is dice:

    http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

    Where is your data that God exists? You want data (proof) of my numbers, but yet you don’t need data (proof) for your claims.

  210. on 07 May 2010 at 1:30 pm 210.Xenon said …

    So you consider theist to be non-religious? I thought, according to this site, believing in God was considered religious. According to the atheist any mention of God by the government is considered to be establishing a religion.

    You guys are a confusing bunch!

    OK

    Data for God existing? Now why would you want to go through this exercise? Google the many rich, referenced well documented books on the subject if you REALLY want proof. Hey, go to the father of your modern movement, Anthony Flew and see what he has written! Ironically he is now theist, but non-religious!

  211. on 07 May 2010 at 8:28 pm 211.Severin said …

    204 Horatio
    There is no doubt China has today a brutal communist regime.
    There is no doubt Russia used to have it for some 70 or 75 years, and Germany had similar regime for about a decade (formally from 1933 – 1945.).

    There is also absolutely no doubt that populations of ALL those countries were 100% religious at the moments those regimes came to power.
    German religious population ELECTED Hitler, as they thought they knew what were they voting for. Their critical mind was disturbed by religious “drill”: do not think, nut trust.
    Russian population massively ACCEPTED and SUPORTED communism.
    They were all seduced by kommunist/fascist demagogy. When they (ordinary people, voters) saw what was really going on there, after they acclaimed communism/fascism, it was too late to react. It finished in terror and horror.

    But, there is the big difference: German population was, before Hitler, strong, rich and cultivated population, with big material and cultural achievments behind. Also with some xperiance in deomcracy. AVERAGE individual in Germany was some 1000 times more educated than AVERAGE individual in Russia and China (my free estimation, figurative, but probably not far from facts).
    After Germans got “sober” (1945.), they DID NOT continue the same way! They had better ways to direct their activities than to turn back to religion. Today, religion does not play any significant rule in Germany, and number of atheists is already big, and growing rapidly there.
    In Russia, after communism crushed down, but after it left behind poor and ruined population (and economy, and – everything!) without previous experiances in anything pracitcal and normal, without knowing what is going on in the rest of the world, AND after their own communist elite grabbed most of the national wealths, the populatin turned back to religion.
    They HAD oportunity to make some changes, but they did not know how. THEY HAD NO CRITERIA, NO POTENTIAL, TO RECOGNIZE WHO TO VOTE FOR, on their first free elections.
    That is what RELIGION (first), then communism (later) made of them! A “grey mass” of totally disoriented people, looking for consoltation in religion.
    That will happen when China gets out of communism. If ever, which I hope.

    Religions, combined with total material powerty and illiteracy, made Russian and Chinese populations to become doughs, from which demagogues were able to prepare bread to their taste.
    Germans were seduced too, but learned their lesson quickly, because they, unlike Russian people, ALERADY HAD CAPACITY TO RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT WAY.
    Try to seduce germans today. Try to seduce Sweden! WHY communist have no chances to take power in germany or Sweden today?
    And, of course, WHY the percentage of ateists is growing dramatically in those countries? In GB, France, Holland, Spain, Italy… too!

  212. on 07 May 2010 at 8:31 pm 212.Severin said …

    “… significan rule..”
    sorry, “… significant role…”

  213. on 07 May 2010 at 9:21 pm 213.Severin said …

    204 Horatio
    Why are you so unfair?
    You NEVER say anything about RELIGIOUS regimes, which lasted for milleniums, and did more crimes than Hitler, Satlin, Pol Pot and Mao together.
    Do you think we are all idiots, or what?

    Do you know something about pogroms of Jews in christian countries during middle age?
    Do you know something about many religious wars, in which millions were killed in name of religions?
    Have you heard oabout 600 years of Inquisition and its victimes?
    Have you ever heard about slavery in the USA, a VERY religious country, which did not end 1000, but only some 200 years ago, in modern times?
    Have you heard about pogroms of political oponents in TOTALLY RELIGIOUS Latin American countries during last 100 years? About hundreds of thousends of killed, masacred, “dissapeared” individuals, all in countries wich have NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM? Their populations AND their regimes are ALL highly religious! Yesterday!Today!

    WHO caused those terrific, permanent crime, lasting without stopping for 2000 years?
    If atheists did not, who did?

    Do not all the time put “atheist regimes” under our noses.
    Those regimes were NOT ATHEIST REGIMES, but LUNATIC REGIMES, elected and supported by seduced religious population! You can not deny this fact.
    Yes, those regimes suppressed religions, but ONLY because lunaticS in power wanted to REPLACE gods, to IMPOSE THEMSELVES AS gods. They did not want competition! Just look their “iconography”!

    Try with religious regimes and THEIR crimes.
    But do, TRY! Say something!
    Or – maybe there is nothing to say, but to admit that religions are trash, exactly the same as communism and fascism are.
    All are based on the “phylosophy”: Do not think, but believe
    All have similar iconography.
    All bruttaly wipe out their oponents.
    All of them keep power by brutal force
    Etc, etc – no differences!

  214. on 07 May 2010 at 9:32 pm 214.MrQ said …

    hor;
    “3000 new Christians a day in China. Not much of a shift away from religion!”
    In an officially atheist country? What are the Chinese doing wrong?
    How many christians presently reside in China according to your numbers and research?

  215. on 07 May 2010 at 9:47 pm 215.Severin said …

    204 Horatio
    „All men, and i mean all, have the capability to commit horrific acts in the right circumstances.“

    You are absolutely and totally wrong here! I know MANY examples when individuals DID NOT WANT to comit horrific acts, and paid it with their lives. In many cases they were tortured to change thier mind, but they did not, but rather died in pain.
    I am absolutely sure you know many such cases too.
    So you can say MANY MAN have such capability, but NOT all.
    Need examples?

    Please do not make your “conclusions” on VERY wrong, thought up, assumptions!
    Untrue ones!
    Conclusions made on untrue assumption are untrue!
    Some less cautious reader could “catch” on it and continue to spread your “truth” based on a claim which is in fact a lie.

  216. on 07 May 2010 at 9:58 pm 216.Severin said …

    204 Horatio
    “Atheist have no guide other than their personal belief.”
    Not “belief”, because atheist DO NOT BELIEVE!
    But you are right atheist find moral guidance in their own mind.
    It is made of:
    - genetic inheritance, on the first place. THAT is why some people die, but never commit horrific acts!
    - family/parents/society influence

    I am very curious to finally learn where are non-atheists gathering their moral rules from!
    Can you enlighten me, please?

  217. on 08 May 2010 at 12:33 am 217.3D said …

    215.Severin said …
    204 Horatio
    „All men, and i mean all, have the capability to commit horrific acts in the right circumstances.“
    You are absolutely and totally wrong here! I know MANY examples when individuals DID NOT WANT to comit horrific acts, and paid it with their lives. In many cases they were tortured to change thier mind, but they did not, but rather died in pain.
    I am absolutely sure you know many such cases too.
    So you can say MANY MAN have such capability, but NOT all.

    Severin,

    In my experience, it seems that many theists have to take very twisted, depressing and nihilistic views of human nature, because they are forced to defend their very violent and immoral Bible; as well as the religious regimes throughout history.

    The above post by Horatio is an example of this. After all, if every man was not capable of horrible things, then it would seem that the killers, rapists and genocidal maniacs who the Bible regards as heroes are exceptions to the rule. So therefore, everyone must be capable of these horrible actions! Horatio probably would have a much less dim view of human nature if he didn’t read the Bible and believe in it.

  218. on 08 May 2010 at 2:21 am 218.A real-ist said …

    “Google the many rich, referenced well documented books on the subject if you REALLY want proof. Hey, go to the father of your modern movement, Anthony Flew and see what he has written! Ironically he is now theist, but non-religious!”

    You do realize anybody can write books. It is the substance in the books that matters. Speaking of Anthony Flew, didn’t he just die recently? Yes, I know he was an atheist that switched not too long ago. Kind of strange that he switched when he was very old and was close to death, now isn’t it? Death is very frightening for athesits because we realize there is not afterlife, so the mind can easily play a trick when it is very close to non-existence. Besides, he wasn’t the father of the modern movement. He was a well known atheist in his time, but keep in mind, atheism isn’t a religion/cult.

  219. on 08 May 2010 at 12:49 pm 219.Xenon said …

    “You do realize anybody can write books.”

    You missed the rich, referenced, well documented part? And no, not unless a publisher will publish the book. Then again, Sam Harris wrote one so yeah I see the point.

    “switched when he was very old and was close to death, now isn’t it”

    Six years ago? LOL, No, did you read the book he wrote in 2004? It was the discoveries of science especially in DNA and genetics. If there is not afterlife, what is the benefit of switching unless following the evidence?

    “Besides, he wasn’t the father of the modern movement.”

    Really, is that because he became theist or because he argued with reason and respect? You guys really sat off your own when they leave the dogma. huh?

    “atheism isn’t a religion/cult.”

    Only to atheist. We all know who the big 3 are you guys soak up. But if one ever leaves, look out.

  220. on 08 May 2010 at 1:17 pm 220.A real-ist said …

    “Six years ago?”

    You do realize that 6 years ago he was 80. That age can definitely mess with someone’s mind. And when that age the realization sinks in that death is near.

    “Really, is that because he became theist or because he argued with reason and respect? You guys really sat off your own when they leave the dogma. huh?”

    I would still say that he wasn’t the “father” of the modern movement even if he didn’t switch. So no, it is not the reason you think because he left.

    And yes, Atheism isn’t a relgion or a cult. Religions need belief in the supernatural. Cults have leaders. As I was trying to point out with the father of the modern movement that you claimed, my point is Atheism doesn’t need leaders. Cults are also based on joining a group with mind control with the potential for harm.

  221. on 10 May 2010 at 12:10 am 221.3D said …

    211.Severin wrote…

    That is what RELIGION (first), then communism (later) made of them! A “grey mass” of totally disoriented people, looking for consoltation in religion.
    That will happen when China gets out of communism. If ever, which I hope.

    Good post. I have hope that China will have a better fate once Communism collapses, than the USSR did, for the simple reason of Internet access.

    Internet is the theist’s AND communist tyrant’s worst nightmare. Free information readily available. Even in heavily censored countries like China, it’s impossible to stop everything from getting through. They’re not cut off from the world like Soviet citizens were.

  222. on 10 May 2010 at 12:11 am 222.3D said …

    211.Severin wrote…
    That is what RELIGION (first), then communism (later) made of them! A “grey mass” of totally disoriented people, looking for consoltation in religion.
    That will happen when China gets out of communism. If ever, which I hope.

    Sorry, messed up my HTML tags.

    Good post. I have hope that China will have a better fate once Communism collapses, than the USSR did, for the simple reason of Internet access.

    Internet is the theist’s AND communist tyrant’s worst nightmare. Free information readily available. Even in heavily censored countries like China, it’s impossible to stop everything from getting through. They’re not cut off from the world like Soviet citizens were.

  223. on 10 May 2010 at 7:36 pm 223.Jay said …

    I love reading these comments and usually chime in, but this time some of them are too long to read.
    Bottom line, the Bible was written by some old coots who thought it would be a good idea to scare people with fancy stories in order to control them a little bit easier. The same goes for the scripture of ALL religions.
    Has anyone ever read the missing books of the bible, or those that were removed in early times? They’re hilarious. Especially the one about Simon Magus flying over the crowd at the Forum in Rome during a “duel” with Peter. I guess you can see why the early church removed some of those outlandish tales. B.S. like that only fuels skepticism.

    P.S… And Meg, the latest discovery of Noah’s ark is proving to be a hoax. Some slick Kurds have created a cottage industry by taking advantage of ark searchers’ enthusiasm and building half-assed boats up in the mountains and letting people believe it’s the “real” deal.

  224. on 11 May 2010 at 12:24 am 224.Lou said …

    “Bottom line, the Bible was written by some old coots who thought it would be a good idea to scare people with fancy stories in order to control them a little bit easier.”

    So did the old coots get together and plan the ordering of events and the impending climax or did they act independently under an independent contractor?

  225. on 11 May 2010 at 10:17 am 225.Mr. Z said …

    Jay: “Bottom line, the Bible was written by some old coots who thought it would be a good idea to scare people with fancy stories in order to control them a little bit easier.”

    Sorry man, that ain’t the bottom line and if u think it was written to scare people then u are totally out of touch with what the Bible is all about.
    The fancy stories as u have stated are the various genres of ancient hebraic, aramaic and greek literature. Yeah that is fancy, and it possesses a lot of wisdom that a fool does not and cannot comprehend, which is you Jay.

    Try reading to understand the views of the writer, maybe you’ll make progress coz at the moment, you don’t have a clue what the bible is all about.

  226. on 11 May 2010 at 10:32 am 226.Mr. Z said …

    Jay: “Has anyone ever read the missing books of the bible, or those that were removed in early times? They’re hilarious.”

    The books are not missing, they were not useful nor helpful to the context of the Bible, many writings were brought forward to be examined by the churches to see wheter they align with the themes of the Bible or not.

    And clearly, some were found to be shallow or baseless writings that have no connection to the themes of the whole book. How is a flying dude in a duel with peter helpful in the context of redeeming the world from sin?
    It is way off the context of the books. Again, understand the Bible within its contextual foundations to understand why certain books were included and some were not.

  227. on 11 May 2010 at 11:17 am 227.Anonymous said …

    226 MrZ
    “The books are not missing, they were not useful nor helpful to the context of the Bible, many writings were brought forward to be examined by the churches to see wheter they align with the themes of the Bible or not.”

    Surprise!
    I was told the Bibel was the word of god!
    I have just learnt that it is a combination of men-written and men-sellected bullshit.
    What god has to do with the Bible, why should it be our moral guidance, why is it relevant at all…?

  228. on 11 May 2010 at 11:19 am 228.Severin said …

    Sorry, I was 227 Anonymous.

  229. on 11 May 2010 at 10:12 pm 229.Lou said …

    Severin

    We knew, your horrid spelling and sentence structure is a dead give away. Look into this for assistance. Don’t worry about moral guidance until you get some grammar guidance.

    http://www.crimsoneditor.com/

  230. on 12 May 2010 at 2:57 am 230.3D said …

    Severin

    We knew,

    Should be a semicolon, not a comma; either that, or a full stop and a new sentence.

    your horrid spelling and sentence structure is a dead give away.

    “Giveaway” is one word.

    At least Severin can say English is not his first language. What’s your excuse, Noah Webster?

  231. on 12 May 2010 at 5:25 am 231.Severin said …

    Thank you,
    Not only that English is not my first language, but I never learnt it (except alone, from books).
    I do hope that you understand me well, although my grammar and syntax must look terrible to you.

  232. on 12 May 2010 at 6:42 am 232.Jay said …

    “…The fancy stories as u have stated are the various genres of ancient hebraic, aramaic and greek literature. Yeah that is fancy, and it possesses a lot of wisdom that a fool does not and cannot comprehend, which is you Jay.
    Try reading to understand the views of the writer, maybe you’ll make progress coz at the moment, you don’t have a clue what the bible is all about…”

    Hey, I’m not saying the Bible isn’t good reading. There are fascinating stories in there, just as there are fascinating works of fiction at your local library or nearest Barnes & Noble. But to say all that stuff in there is true seems a little silly…I’m pulling the B.S. card. Plus, I know many self-proclaimed Christians who have admitted to me that they don’t understand most of the crap that’s in there. Does that make them a fool too?
    By the way, what’s with the name calling? Doesn’t your good book frown upon that? Hmmm, seems a little judgmental to me…Just because one doesn’t comprehend it doesn’t make them a fool. It doesn’t interest me and I don’t care to read it, just as I don’t care to read a lot of other books of legends, mythology, or fantasy.

  233. on 12 May 2010 at 8:10 am 233.Mr. Z said …

    Jay: “I know many self-proclaimed Christians who have admitted to me that they don’t understand most of the crap that’s in there. Does that make them a fool too?”

    Answer: a fool is one who is sure of one’s assumption, like you Jay.

    When questions are raised, they are not fools for they seek some truth or explanation to their questions.

    there is a difference, take note.

  234. on 12 May 2010 at 8:33 am 234.Mr. Z said …

    Anonymous/Severin: “Surprise!
    I was told the Bibel was the word of god!
    I have just learnt that it is a combination of men-written and men-sellected bullshit.
    What god has to do with the Bible, why should it be our moral guidance, why is it relevant at all…?”

    So you are surprised, well I’m not surprise at all. The bible was written by men inspired by God; men of God. God has everything to do with the written word because if God was not involved, then agendas of individuals creep into the mix. Men of God will identify the relevant books that connects to the will of God.

    It is a simple process that we do all the time in life. Choosing what is needed and what is not.

    If you are still surprise then that may have been the result of “misunderstanding what you think you know.” lets see if you can understand that philosophy.
    So you assume the role of the Bible is to provide moral values to humanity. What morals would you want instead? Everyone defines their own standard of good and bad? Thats playing with fire, Hitler did good in the eyes of his supporters. Mugabe is doing what he sees is good in his own view.

    And you ask: “why should it(bible) be our moral guidance, why is it relevant at all…?”
    HELLO!!! Are you serious? Review your questions again because we need it, and yes it is relevant.

  235. on 12 May 2010 at 8:44 am 235.Mr. Z said …

    Jay:”By the way, what’s with the name calling? Doesn’t your good book frown upon that? Hmmm, seems a little judgmental to me…Just because one doesn’t comprehend it doesn’t make them a fool. It doesn’t interest me and I don’t care to read it, just as I don’t care to read a lot of other books of legends, mythology, or fantasy.”

    Wow you answered my very ‘name calling’ as you’ve stated.
    look at: 1. it does not interest me.
    2. I do not care to read it.
    These are your words: they are words of a fool! This statement is the universal declaration of a fool!
    therefore: You are making a fool out of yourself.

    P.S. the fool is not someone that asks questions, it is someone that thinks he knows while having no interest and not a care to investigate any matter of concern thoroughly (just repeating your words).

  236. on 12 May 2010 at 9:07 am 236.Jay said …

    Alright, there you go, talkin’ in circles again (you’d make a great minister!). I have raised plenty of questions, and sought the truth and explanations to my questions but haven’t gotten any. So I’m still a fool? Likewise, aren’t Christians sure of their assumptions? But they’re not fools? Boy, isn’t religion fun?!!

    Just a quick question…Who is the “Mr. Z” over at thebeattitude.com? Is that you, or the anti-Mr. Z? If it’s you that just messed up, man.

  237. on 12 May 2010 at 12:07 pm 237.Lou said …

    3

    Ha Ha, if Sev was a Christian you and Observer would bash him like a punching bag. His first language is not an excuse, use a text editor.

    Lernt is not a word Severin.

    Reminds me 3D. Observer bashes language all the time but never Sev and you are never to the defense.

    Hypocrite

    Hey Z, Fool is not name calling if it is true.

    The fool says in their heart there is no God?

  238. on 12 May 2010 at 2:25 pm 238.MrQ said …

    From post #233, the incredible MrZ offers:
    “Answer: a fool is one who is sure of one’s assumption, like you Jay
    When questions are raised, they are not fools for they seek some truth or explanation to their questions.”

    Through the eyes, and with the wisdom, of the True Believer, MrZ: I assume that there is an invisible man in the sky who cares about me and listens to my prayers. I assume that it is not Zeus, or Odin, or Allah, or FSM, therefore it must be Jesus. I assume that the bible is correct because it allows me to kill my fellow man with the same zealousness that it says to love him (by love I absolutely do not mean say “to lay” with him but to like him really good and hard. By hard I mean not stiff, like with a chub on or anything like that, oh you get it, don’t you?) I assume I will live forever in heaven once all this Earthly stuff is done, and I won’t have to listen to another atheist rant or see the Ice Capades again. I assume the inerrant word of god as inspired, transcribed, translated, edited, re-formulated, packaged, and printed by man has not lost any of its original flavour; after all, it is INERRANT.

    But you, MrZ, are not sure of your assumptions, so you are not a fool. Keep the faith, buddy!

  239. on 12 May 2010 at 2:49 pm 239.Anonymous said …

    If the Bible is the word of God than why are there so many contradictions and inconsistencies?

  240. on 12 May 2010 at 2:51 pm 240.Anonymous said …

    s/than/then/g

  241. on 12 May 2010 at 3:08 pm 241.3D said …

    237.Lou said …

    Reminds me 3D. Observer bashes language all the time but never Sev and you are never to the defense.
    Hypocrite

    You are wrong, because I have been answering YOUR posts for a while now, and, even though you write pretty badly, I have only been addressing the content of the posts, not the spelling mistakes. I don’t really care about typos if the message is clear.

    However, when YOU make it a point to bash someone else for typos and grammar, and your OWN posts read like a bad third grade book report, then it’s another story. You’re making yourself look like an idiot if you bash someone’s spelling and grammar, while your own spelling and grammar is atrocious. Where’s YOUR text editor?

    Hey Z, Fool is not name calling if it is true.
    The fool says in their heart there is no God?

    “But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” — Matthew 5:22

    Dress light LouLou! Looks like you’re going downtown to roast on the devil’s pitchfork.

  242. on 12 May 2010 at 3:15 pm 242.3D said …

    Severin

    Thank you,
    Not only that English is not my first language, but I never learnt it (except alone, from books).
    I do hope that you understand me well, although my grammar and syntax must look terrible to you.

    I understand you perfectly. I never pick on anyone’s language unless they start the fight. Even if they are saying something I find completely repulsive, I will address the point and not the typing or the person.

    Lou, especially, writes like a 10-year old and not only that, but he has trouble addressing the points made to him and staying on topic, while you clearly address the points made to you even if the syntax isn’t perfect. So you are doing better than him in his own language. I never mentioned his terrible writing, but he opened the door by attacking your English — which is pretty stupid to do when you write like a monkey banging on a keyboard.

    Also, I think I should point out — my post at #230 was quoting and correcting Lou, not you… I left Lou’s “Severin” attribution in there by accident so it looks like I was responding to you, but it was his dumb grammar I was addressing, not yours. (See, we all make mistakes. Amen!)

  243. on 12 May 2010 at 3:26 pm 243.3D said …

    232.Jay said …

    Hey, I’m not saying the Bible isn’t good reading. There are fascinating stories in there, just as there are fascinating works of fiction at your local library or nearest Barnes & Noble.

    I don’t think it’s good reading. I forced myself to slog through the whole Bible a few years ago, just because I felt it would be unfair to take a position against it, if I didn’t read it cover to cover. Most of it is fucking boring and repetitive. There’s all the “begat” stuff and then there’s retellings of the same story over and over, sometimes a half-dozen times, sometimes with the same characters and sometimes with different characters. And so on.

    If the Bible were written today an editor would laugh his ass off and then throw the manuscript in the garbage (actually he would probably have to carry it out to the dumpster out back since it wouldn’t fit in most garbage cans).

    But to say all that stuff in there is true seems a little silly…I’m pulling the B.S. card. Plus, I know many self-proclaimed Christians who have admitted to me that they don’t understand most of the crap that’s in there. Does that make them a fool too?

    No, it makes them an average Christian. Most Christians have never read the Bible cover to cover; they just read the cherry-picked parts that give the Bible the best PR and ignore the rest of it.

    If more Christians actually read the Bible and understood what it says, there would be less Christians.

  244. on 12 May 2010 at 4:07 pm 244.Jay said …

    Aw, c’mon 3D…you don’t think this is a good story?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0r7syc1BSg

    You’ll have to admit that there are SOME good stories in there…? I like your “begat” comment. I’ve known a few people who said they started reading the Bible but stopped when they couldn’t get through Genesis and all the “begat” stuff. So, you’re right, I probably went a little overboard by saying it was good reading.

    Also, I do agree with your comment that if more Christians actually read the Bible and understood what it says, there would be less Christians. Most of them are all too willing to let the church spoon feed them the Bible with no regard to what they’re swallowing. I would just like to hear the enlightened Mr. Z’s comment.

    And to all…Just stop commenting on everyone’s spelling and grammar. Those high-falootin’ comments just send the discussion right off track. It’s a blog for cripes sake!

  245. on 12 May 2010 at 4:19 pm 245.3D said …

    244.Jay said …

    Aw, c’mon 3D…you don’t think this is a good story?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0r7syc1BSg
    You’ll have to admit that there are SOME good stories in there…?

    I do, but I think that’s beside the point. There’s some good stuff in the Bible, but it pales in comparison to the bad stuff, the evil stuff, the boring stuff and the contradictory stuff. If we sit here and remark about how awesome the .01% of the Bible is, we’re validating the rest of it that is full of garbage.

    It’s like picking through an entire sanitation truck full of raw sewage, to find a $5 bill. Congratulations! You got yourself really dirty — was it worth it for the prize you found?

    Also, I saw that video before and it’s really good; I LMAO-ed. (You were kidding about Sodom and Gomorrah really being a good story, right? Just checking.)

  246. on 12 May 2010 at 8:29 pm 246.Lou said …

    3d + S= 0 (solve the equation)

    ha ha, my three dimensional buddy, my typos are far and few between. Severin is impossible to read and to follow on most occasions. I have no problem on the occasional typo, which is why I reply to you. lol, I am hardly the first to post that here. English is not the first language? Use an editor.

    If you cannot perceive the difference it is due to your partisanship on atheist vs. theist. You blast a theist without thought (literally) as referenced above and on many other occasions. But a fellow atheist must be protected, circle the wagons …protect the woman and children!

    Admit you bigotry, your partisanship and stop enough with your silly rant.

    Until you understand the Bible, do not attempt to tell others what it does and does not offer. You only come off looking silly…again. Haven’t you dun learnt dat yet?

  247. on 12 May 2010 at 9:30 pm 247.Horatio said …

    3D obviously missed out on Observer whining about grammar while having his own faux pas pointed out. Of course he never gave Severin a lecture on poor grammar. He routinely links it to lack of intelligence 3D. Severin is almost impossible to read on many occasions which is why I accordingly look past his posts. 3D understand his points probably because the talking points remain unchanged and their insight about as fresh.

    But in true fashion, the atheist will rush to defense of those who believe like they do. I am grateful Christians routinely come to the defense of anyone hurting and in need of help. You never see an atheist group doing those things. They tend to go out and steal crosses for the good of humanity.

  248. on 12 May 2010 at 10:12 pm 248.3D said …

    247.Horatio said…

    But in true fashion, the atheist will rush to defense of those who believe like they do.

    Not true. I have participated in other forums, where atheists have pounced on a visiting theist for having bad grammar or typos and not addressing their points, and whenever that happens, I try to make the argument that we should address the arguments and not the poster.

    And, very recently, I disagreed 180 degrees with Severin (about a morality issue). I haven’t seen the disorganized theists posting here disagree with each other even one time, so your argument rings hollow… more projection than anything else.

    I am grateful Christians routinely come to the defense of anyone hurting and in need of help. You never see an atheist group doing those things.

    http://techskeptic.blogspot.com/2007/12/atheist-charities.html

    Although, I have to admit, Christians do routinely come to the aid of people in need. Usually the people in need are priests, in need of legal defense for molesting young boys. But hey, it’s a start!

  249. on 12 May 2010 at 10:17 pm 249.3D said …

    246.Lou said …
    3d + S= 0 (solve the equation)
    ha ha, my three dimensional buddy, my typos are far and few between.

    “Few and far between”, you mean. “Few between” doesn’t make any sense.

    If you cannot perceive the difference it is due to your partisanship on atheist vs. theist. You blast a theist without thought (literally) as referenced above and on many other occasions.

    I blast your arguments, not your typos and horrible writing. The only reason I referenced your horrible writing was because you brought it up, hypocritically, about someone else, when your own writing is terrible.

    Admit you bigotry, your partisanship and stop enough with your silly rant.

    I am not bigoted, I believe in the right to worship any religion you want, privately.

    However, if you make bad arguments on a public website, be prepared to be called out for your poor reasoning.

    Until you understand the Bible, do not attempt to tell others what it does and does not offer. You only come off looking silly…again.

    That’s funny, because I keep quoting *directly* from the Bible here, and you keep saying the Bible doesn’t really say what it says, it’s a bad interpretation, it’s faulty translation, yadda yadda yadda. Based on your writing, maybe YOU can’t read it?

  250. on 12 May 2010 at 11:07 pm 250.Anonymous said …

    If the Bible is the word of God then why are there so many contradictions and inconsistencies?

  251. on 12 May 2010 at 11:34 pm 251.Anonymous said …

    Dear real-ist,

    Exactly what world view do you believe in? Please reply back, my email is culbert_family@ymail.com. I would be happy to prove any of your theories about creationism and abortion and homosexuality wrong. :)

  252. on 13 May 2010 at 2:37 am 252.Lou said …

    “Few and far between”, you mean”

    Yes, this is what I mean. If you don’t understand take English 101. This means I make few and the time frame between errors is far between.

    “I blast your arguments, not your typos and horrible writing.”

    Not with anything other than a nose blast. Start blasting so you can live up to this grand achievement.

    “That’s funny, because I keep quoting *directly* from the Bible here,”

    It is simple. I can quote the Koran and The book of Mormon simply with a google search. Certainly doesn’t make me an expert now does it? I feel certain you have never looked up a systematic theological discussion of Biblical doctrines. When you have, we can talk.

    “you keep saying the Bible doesn’t really say what it says,”

    Where? Provide a quote?

    “Usually the people in need are priests, in need of legal defense for molesting young boys. But hey, it’s a start!”

    Another example of your bigotry. With all the great work Christians do around the world, you have the inability to thank them. Bigot.

    LOL, you list has the Red Cross on it! I volunteer with the Red Cross! We set up in churches regularly and we are not atheist. You list is now moot. No religious affiliation does not imply atheist 2D.

    This is the guys definition

    “I am considering charities that do not promote a specific religion to be an atheist charity”

    Hilarious! Why don’t you guys start a charity that promotes atheism? Would that not be helping people in your opinion? Get them off the God thoughts? I have no specific religious group. I must be atheist.

  253. on 13 May 2010 at 2:54 am 253.MrQ said …

    Having a conversation with Lou is like communicating with a brick.
    He is a True Believer; nothing, especially logic, will penetrate the fog of god that surrounds him.

  254. on 13 May 2010 at 3:28 am 254.Severin said …

    234 MrZ
    “The bible was written by men inspired by God; men of God.”
    How do we know that?
    Wasn’t the Kur’an written by men inspired by god?
    Maybe the Odyssey was too, and maybe also the books about Harry Potter?
    How about Kama Sutra?
    Or with „My Struggle“ („Mein Kampf“, Hitler clearly said in his speeches he was a christian and guided by god’s providence?).
    Why is his book les reliable than the Bible?. The book written by declared christian, guided by god’s providence?
    Why is ANY book less reliable than the Bible? There are many books written by men inspired by god(s).

  255. on 13 May 2010 at 3:40 am 255.A real-ist said …

    “Exactly what world view do you believe in? Please reply back, my email is culbert_family@ymail.com. I would be happy to prove any of your theories about creationism and abortion and homosexuality wrong.”

    Try proving it wrong here. I am sure all the other atheists would like to hear what you have to say. Why do you need to tell me in secret? LOL Better yet, how about you pray to your God to come speak to me. While you are at it, ask him why he never spoke to me or answered any of my prayers from when I was a child until half way through college when I realized God is only a figment of ones imagination. Apparently I didn’t have that great of an imagination and woke up to reality. Can you blame me for not believing when there is no actual real evidence of it being true? Once you realize how a world like ours can exist without a God, things will start to fall into place. I wish there was a God; who wouldn’t want eternal life? The only thing that would ever make me believe again is if God appears without question that he is there and real. Until then, it is all B.S.

  256. on 13 May 2010 at 3:42 am 256.Severin said …

    234 MrZ
    “So you assume the role of the Bible is to provide moral values to humanity.”

    Please do not twist/fake my comments!

    I certainly DO NOT assume it, and I never said anything like that, but only ASKED why should the Bible be taken as moral guidance, the idea christians push under our noses all the time.

  257. on 13 May 2010 at 4:13 am 257.Severin said …

    234 MrZ
    “What morals would you want instead?”

    Instead of morals that allows (and ORDERS!) killing babies in cradles?
    Instead of morals ordering stoning to death of people who work on holiday?
    Instead of morals of a strange god who orders to burn meat to satisfy his sense of smell?
    Instead of morals ordering killing of non-virgin brides?
    Instead of morals ordering killing of disobedient children?
    Instead of morals ordering a man to slaughter his own son to prove his faith?
    Instead of morals giving detailed instructions how to punish a slave without killing him – so, morals obviously supporting slavery?
    Instead of morals teachng us to massacre the whole towns, including babies and cattle (???), BUT to keep virgin females as slaves? AND, of course, teaching us to steal (“take all copper and iron things….”)
    Instead of morals giving a father detailed instructions how to sell his daughter to slavery?
    Instead of morals calling people hating their family to join religion?

    Hitler (you mention him in your comment) was lead by that very moral rules. He APPLIED biblical morals in practice.

    Thank you, I rather apply my own, personal standards, and I live well.

    I BEG you not to apply biblical morlas in your life! I doubt you would be able to, I do not think you are SO bad.

  258. on 13 May 2010 at 4:26 am 258.A real-ist said …

    For those of you ripping on Severin for not writing well in English, I dare you to write in a blog using his main language. I think Severin is writing well for English as a second language. You guys have English as a main language and yet you have errors at times as well. Where is your excuse? Maybe you should write to the owner of the blog to get spell check if you are that offended by writing errors. And you better never have an error of your own!

    “Although, I have to admit, Christians do routinely come to the aid of people in need. Usually the people in need are priests, in need of legal defense for molesting young boys. But hey, it’s a start!”

    I know of a great example first hand. My uncle is a gay priest and a year ago starting going crazy because he couldn’t stop hearing church music in his head and couldn’t get the gay thoughts out of his head (he never acted on them, though, like you hear about other gay priests in the media). The church ended up sending him to an institution for 6 months and told him he couldn’t come back if he didn’t get better. They used shock treatment on him and when he came back he was more depressed than ever and ended up having to leave his priesthood.

  259. on 13 May 2010 at 4:40 am 259.3D said …

    252.Lou said …

    Yes, this is what I mean. If you don’t understand take English 101. This means I make few and the time frame between errors is far between.

    Lou, I know you have a short attention span and all, and nothing interests you very much other than looking at videos of fetuses being sucked out of uteruses by vacuum machines all day; but try to follow along here. You wrote it backwards. You wrote “far and few between.” It’s supposed to be the other way around.

    Which I normally wouldn’t comment on, except that you were talking about your grammatical errors being few and far between, and you made… (drumroll please!)… A GRAMMATICAL ERROR while doing so.

    It’s like you keep stepping on the same rake over and over while circus music plays. Again, typos aren’t interesting or funny, except when you make them in the process of calling other people out for typos. Then they’re hilarious.

    It is simple. I can quote the Koran and The book of Mormon simply with a google search. Certainly doesn’t make me an expert now does it? I feel certain you have never looked up a systematic theological discussion of Biblical doctrines. When you have, we can talk.

    Actually, I think you would do a lot better with your Bible study if you just read what the fucking thing says, and take it at face value, like I do. They wrote down what they meant to say. All this dissembling has come about, because the barbarism of the Bible doesn’t apply anymore. So now we have a cottage industry of “theologians” whose job it is to spin the words of the Bible into something that sounds a lot nicer than what it is.

    But try jumping in the time machine to 1680 and telling the people in the colonies that the Bible isn’t literal. Try telling the white slave owners in the 19th Century that God didn’t really want them to have slaves. All these people had the same Bible you have available to them. But somehow they wound up with completely different morals and “interpretations” of it than you do.

    Now how is that? Maybe it’s because they used to interpret the Bible literally, the way it was intended, and nowadays, we can’t do that, because society has mellowed out and won’t allow most of the barbaric nonsense in the Bible.

    “you keep saying the Bible doesn’t really say what it says,”
    Where? Provide a quote?

    Right in this post. You said I can’t understand the Bible unless I read a bunch of bullshit websites where people put their spin on the Bible. I understand it fine because I read what it says on the page. When it says stone your child because he talks back to you, THAT’S WHAT IT MEANS. There’s no hidden meaning if you rub the page with magic dust. It means, take some stones, and hit your child with them, until he is dead.

    “Usually the people in need are priests, in need of legal defense for molesting young boys. But hey, it’s a start!”
    Another example of your bigotry. With all the great work Christians do around the world, you have the inability to thank them. Bigot.

    If it’s bigotry to point out how the Christian church enables the molesting of young boys, then the world needs more “bigots”.

    We should also thank the Christian church for enabling the Holocaust and helping the spread of AIDS in Africa. Hip hip… HOORAY!

    Why don’t you guys start a charity that promotes atheism? Would that not be helping people in your opinion? Get them off the God thoughts?

    http://foundationbeyondbelief.org/about

    My personal belief is that we should leave religion alone as long as it’s private and not promoted by the government. And then educate, educate, educate. The more people think for themselves, the less influence religion will have. And then it will shrivel up and die on its own, without us even having to do anything to it.

    Judging by how few young people identify as religious in the US today, the process has already started.

  260. on 13 May 2010 at 4:42 am 260.Severin said …

    246 Lou (Shakespeare)
    “Until you understand the Bible…”

    I think I do. If you think I/we (we = we, who think to understand Bible) are wrong, please give us a short course about how to understand Bible. Or a long course, I do not mind.

    As the Bible was translated to my native language (by experts, not by amateurs), I have absolutely no problem to understand WHAT WAS WRITTEN THERE. In spite of my poor English, I frequently compare translated text to English one, to be sure I understood it well, and to learn something.
    If I have to understand something NOT written there, please enlighten me/us.
    How are you doing it?
    How are you finding in the Bible anything what was NOT written there?
    How to exstract/filter/squeeze the very essence from the Bible?

  261. on 13 May 2010 at 5:16 am 261.Severin said …

    Lou,

    Lou, nisam ja tvoj li?ni neprijatelj, ja samo branim svoja uvjerenja, protiv tebe NEMAM NIŠTA.
    (Lou, I am not your personal enemy, I only defend my opinion and HAVE NOTHING against you.)

    This is only an example of my native language.
    Instead of 4 cases, we have 7.
    For example:
    This is an apple = To je jabukA
    Take an apple! = Uzmi jabuKU!
    There is a worm in the apple = Crv je u jabuCI
    It is an apple tree = To je jabuKOVO drvo, etc

    Double negation is allowed and normal in my language (NEMEM NIŠTA is, in fact: I do NOT have NOTHING against).
    Etc, etc, a VERY complicated language, and VERY differen from English.

    I will not continue it, of course, I just appeal to Lou and to others to tollerate my English IF they understand it good enough to keep discussion running.

  262. on 13 May 2010 at 2:45 pm 262.Lou said …

    “few and far between, and you made… (drumroll please!)… A GRAMMATICAL ERROR while doing so.”

    LOL! Hilarious! So, you will be proving your point, right? Since there is the “and” between them its fine….really. You are wrong once again. Its kind of like Laurel & Hardy or 3D and Severin. The order is inconsequential.

    ‘Actually, I think you would do a lot better with your Bible study if you just read what the fucking thing says, and take it at face value, like I do”

    Wow, an F-bomb in the process . How quaint. No thanks, I like to understand the culture, the writers, the audience and the intent. Googling atheist websites and finding passages to mock is not my thing.

    “If it’s bigotry to point out how the Christian church enables the molesting of young boys, then the world needs more “bigots”.”

    No, you are a bigot since you ignore the great work of Christian organizations. Good thing they are around. They enable? What, they set up rooms for molesting? I don’t care for the RC, but your line of just parroting has no basis.

    “But try jumping in the time machine to 1680″

    I don’t live in sci-fi land. You live there if you like.

    Will you be linking me to more theistic charities again. Drumroll on the new atheist charities………….Congratulations, your raised 23K. You now have one.

    I hope the founder is not murdered by another atheist in the office like your AA organization.

    Well have a great weekend. I’m off boys.

  263. on 13 May 2010 at 3:25 pm 263.Corey said …

    Dear real-ist,

    I am glad that at one point in your life you believed in God. God doesn’t always answer our prayers in the way that we like or in a very obvious manner. Tell me this, if you believe that there wasn’t a creator of the universe, then what exactly do you believe created the universe? Do you believe that there was a creation? If so, tell me your opinion.

  264. on 13 May 2010 at 4:14 pm 264.3D said …

    262.Lou said…

    LOL! Hilarious! So, you will be proving your point, right? Since there is the “and” between them its fine….really.

    That’s kind of interesting, that you think the order of words in your sentence doesn’t matter. It explains a lot of the horrible, jumbled-up writing in your other posts.

    Here, I’ll break it down for you.

    “Few” and “Far between”

    means small in number, and infrequent.

    “Far” and “few between”

    means nothing, because “few between” is a nonsensical phrase.

    You’re welcome.

    I hope the founder is not murdered by another atheist in the office like your AA organization.

    If only we could get you to be so concerned about the molestation of hundreds of thousands of young boys by priests, as you have for one single isolated incident of an atheist’s murder, we will be getting somewhere.

  265. on 13 May 2010 at 8:49 pm 265.Corey said …

    Also, any arguments you have to referring to Religion, Evolution, or Abortion and I would be more than happy to disprove any of you statements. And for everyone’s knowledge, I am a Christian, I believe in a creator, and I am pro-life.

  266. on 13 May 2010 at 10:18 pm 266.Severin said …

    265 Corey
    “…I believe in a creator, and I am pro-life.”

    It seems that your god is not. More than 25% of abortions are spontanious (god’s deed?), registred pregnancies counted, and it was estimated that up to 50% of all pregnancies end by spontanious abortion.
    Ask god why is he so cruel.

  267. on 13 May 2010 at 10:28 pm 267.Corey said …

    Take a look at the percentage of overall abortions throughout the united states. take that average and put your percentages into that. I will assure you that it’s not that big of a number for the 500 million people we have in this country. Also, sometimes when a pregnancy goes wrong and endangers the mother’s life, it then would be okay to have an abortion to save the mother’s life instead of losing both lives.

  268. on 13 May 2010 at 10:29 pm 268.Horatio said …

    Lou

    For the record, few and far and far and few in any order is fine and grammatically correct. 3D gets his panties in a wad over the most childish things.

    For the record, I bet you have done as much about the priest molesting kids as 3D has in his humanist love. If only we could get him to speak out against the murdering atheist in China, eh? That is daily and LEGAL. But he is OK with his atheist brothers.

    Corey

    Go get’em (yes I meant this 3D) bro. (or sis)!

  269. on 13 May 2010 at 10:56 pm 269.Anonymous said …

    This is silly. Stop attacking people for their spelling, grammar, religions or beliefs (especially on things that they can’t control).
    Everyone here can agree that molesting children, and murder are both wrong.

  270. on 14 May 2010 at 12:38 am 270.MrQ said …

    “Everyone here can agree that molesting children, and murder are both wrong.”
    As well as incest, right horatio ;-)

  271. on 14 May 2010 at 12:43 am 271.Corey said …

    Listen, this statement that I am about to make does not come from my beliefs or have any bias opinion.

    Nothing will ever get solved about life in general if ppl didn’t have these arguments and discussion. As much as I disagree with the Atheistic view, I have nothing against anyone that I am arguing with, only with what they say. And personally, I do it so I can grow in my education and help myself to further my belief in God. The more people throw their opinions at me, the more I have to think about what they say and whether or not it’s a valid statement.

    I am only 17 and I enjoy having these arguments with people. I have always wondered how people could have these arguments and now I am learning first hand. I am not a very big Christian believer but nevertheless, I am a christian and I will defend my beliefs until someone gives me better reason not to. All of the arguments I have seen in the last few days have not been reason enough for me to stop believing in God. Thats just my opinion.

  272. on 14 May 2010 at 1:10 am 272.Corey said …

    As of last year’s census, there are 309,000,000 people in the united states. Approximately 42 million women have an abortion each year. Severin says that 25 to 50 % of all abortions are from spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). I’m not exactly sure of those percentages of miscarriage but I will take his word for it at the moment. I’m not trying to prove him wrong on percentages, but he merely states that God is in control of these miscarriages. This is not true. As I stated in the other string of comments, God created Adam and from Adam created Eve, but God does not create every human life, he merely provides each human with a soul. The Law of Biogenesis states that Two animals of the same breed can only create offspring that is of the same breed. More specifically, this shows that humans create humans. The only factor that God has in reproduction is to breathe his breath of life into each human being.

    Now that I have shown that God isn’t the one controlling the outcomes of birth or abortion, I can say that our inequities that cause women to have miscarriages is caused by Adam and Eve’s original sin because sin is a cause of death and only humans sin, therefore, humans have done this to themselves and not god.

  273. on 14 May 2010 at 2:12 am 273.A real-ist said …

    “I am only 17. I am not a very big Christian believer.”

    Ah, makes perfect sense. Get a longer education first so you have a better knowledge. So young and gullable. I was at your age, too. And you sound like you are a big Christian believer and now you say you are not?

    “Tell me this, if you believe that there wasn’t a creator of the universe, then what exactly do you believe created the universe? Do you believe that there was a creation? If so, tell me your opinion.”

    No one in present day knows when happened at the actual beginning, but matter and energy could have always existed in some form. If you believe a God had to create the universe, then who created God? You say a universe can’t create itself, but how can you use that same theory to think a God doesn’t need to be created at some point as well? At least we know for sure matter and energy exists. There is no real proof of God existing. So it is easier to understand that matter and energy has always existed in some form than a God always existing.

  274. on 14 May 2010 at 2:34 am 274.3D said …

    269.Anonymous said …
    This is silly. Stop attacking people for their spelling, grammar, religions or beliefs (especially on things that they can’t control).

    I agree, especially on the grammar. It’s a waste of time, which is why Lou should never have opened the door to criticism of his own horrible English skills by attacking Severin’s.

    Everyone here can agree that molesting children, and murder are both wrong.

    If only that were true. Several of the posters here have heartily endorsed murder, in the Biblical stories where God sanctions it. As well as stonings and burnings.

    And Lou, in particular, got very upset when I pointed out that Christianity is responsible for the rape of hundreds of thousands of children. I figured he would be against it, too, but he seems to be more concerned about one atheist murder than rapes that number in the six-digit figures.

  275. on 14 May 2010 at 2:43 am 275.3D said …

    Horatio wrote…

    For the record, few and far and far and few in any order is fine and grammatically correct.

    Bzzzzzt! Wrong.

    http://tinyurl.com/2fz3q97

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/06/word-court/6802/

    http://www.english-for-students.com/More-Errors.html

    Maybe you picked up the wrong English phrasing when you were talking to the man in your head, or a burning bush.

  276. on 14 May 2010 at 2:46 am 276.Corey said …

    Since you have studied science and know a reasonable amount about how the universe works, then explain to me how, since the universe is expanding in every direction, that there wasn’t a single point in which it was created. If you reverse this process, then you have to begin at one single point. And because matter cannot create itself in a vacuum, then a greater power outside of spacial existence had to provide the motion which commenced the first spark of energy.

    What I mean by me saying that I am not a big Christian believer is that I don’t go to church every sunday, and I don’t always give in to God’s word over my desires, and this is because I am a sinful human being just like everyone else.

  277. on 14 May 2010 at 3:18 am 277.A real-ist said …

    Corey,
    Yes, we all agree there is a single point that began the creation of our current universe. It is called the Big Bang Theory. Yes, the universe is currently expanding, but it could also retract at some point and come back together as a single point again. Then another big bang could happen again. This could be a never ending cycle. That is one theory. Another theory is that matter and energy existed before the Big Bang, just in a different form. There are many theories that can be tossed out there and we may not know in our lifetime what caused the Big Bang. But if you believe a God existed outside of spacial existence, then why couldn’t matter and energy just have existed outside the current form of space? And again, keep in mind, if you don’t think matter could exist without a God creating it, then how could a God exist without him being created?

    “What I mean by me saying that I am not a big Christian believer is that I don’t go to church every sunday, and I don’t always give in to God’s word over my desires, and this is because I am a sinful human being just like everyone else.”

    You better watch out, because you will be attacked by other people in here that claim to be true Christians. They will say you are not a true Christian and therefore won’t go to heaven. You are almost exactly where I was at your age. I went to church, but not every Sunday, and I did sinful things. I was, and still am, a good person. It is how you define the difference between sins and bad sins. I don’t believe there is a God or heaven anymnore, but if there is one I believe that being a good person to others would be good enough to get into a heaven. The ones that believe in drinking alcohol, masterbating, and having sex before marriage are horrible sins….I don’t think those things are bad sins and will stop someone from going to a heaven if there is actually one. It is the things like rape and murder than would stop you from going to heaven.

  278. on 14 May 2010 at 5:42 pm 278.Jay said …

    I am only 17 and I enjoy having these arguments with people. I have always wondered how people could have these arguments and now I am learning first hand. I am not a very big Christian believer but nevertheless, I am a christian and I will defend my beliefs until someone gives me better reason not to. All of the arguments I have seen in the last few days have not been reason enough for me to stop believing in God. Thats just my opinion
    _________________________

    What you wrote reminds me of myself when I was 17. I was raised Christian and truly believed what the church was teaching despite never being truly devoted. I think one of three things will happen to you down the road.

    One – somewhere down the road you will be “born again” and devote your lift to Christ believing in everything the Bible says. The road very few of my friends have taken.

    Two – you will continue in your ways, and finally realize you have no need for church, then start to question the Bible, then start to question Christianity, then start to realize it’s all B.S. At this point you will decide if there are other possiblities (reincarnation, etc.), or if there is no God at all (Atheism). The road I have taken.

    Three – You continue down the path, you may or may not go to church but you will be in the same category as most Christians. Close-minded, judgemental, undevoted, and most of all…hypocrital.

  279. on 14 May 2010 at 5:56 pm 279.Jay said …

    I left out something in my second point. Which is kind of embarrassing because it is the position I take. Here’s the update…

    Two – you will continue in your ways, and finally realize you have no need for church, then start to question the Bible, then start to question Christianity, then start to realize it’s all B.S. At this point you will decide if there are other possiblities (reincarnation, etc.), or if there is no God at all (Atheism). Or, you just admit to yourself that you just don’t know (Agnosticism…my position). The road I have taken.

  280. on 14 May 2010 at 7:06 pm 280.Severin said …

    275 Corey
    “then explain to me how, since the universe is expanding in every direction, that there wasn’t a single point in which it was created.”

    Of course there was a single point universe exploded from, and it is somewhere at the geometrical center of existing universe.
    But if you have ANY explosion, and the “residents” of each point appear and start to explore their universe AFTER it exploded, they will will have impression that explosin happened at their point, because all other points are running away from them, and all are running away from each other. Like the particles of air in a baloon you are blowin up.
    In fact, as all the points were compressed together at the beginning, explosion REALLY happened at all points at the same time.

  281. on 14 May 2010 at 7:17 pm 281.Severin said …

    268 Horatio
    “If only we could get him to speak out against the murdering atheist in China, eh? That is daily and LEGAL. But he is OK with his atheist brothers.”

    If we only could get you to speak about burning of Giordano Bruno, and torturing and killing of hundreds of thousands of CHRISTIANS, by other christians in Europe, eh? That was daily and LEGAL, and unlike in China, it lasted fo 2000 years.
    But you are OK with your theist brothers.

  282. on 14 May 2010 at 7:32 pm 282.Severin said …

    268 Horatio
    Are you still getting daily bulletins from Chinese government?

  283. on 14 May 2010 at 7:37 pm 283.Corey said …

    Since every one of you believe in the big bang theory, you believe that two large chunks of “matter” collided and broke into pieces; therefore, forming our 8 planets along with pluto. If you take a look at the nature of each one of these planets, you will notice that each system is not similar. For example, you can look at Neptune, which is covered with nothing but water, and compare it to Saturn which is completely made of gases. You can also take the different qualities of each planet and you will notice that all nine planets have their own unique qualities, right? If so, then how could two large masses create nine planets, all of which, have different qualities about them? You can’t have to masses form nine different ecosystems, it just doesn’t work.

  284. on 14 May 2010 at 8:21 pm 284.MrQ said …

    Corey,
    “You can also take the different qualities of each planet and you will notice that all nine planets have their own unique qualities”
    Points which are likely addressable by an astrophysicist. I, for one, will not automatically attribute the unexplainable (to me at least) to a deity. On the other hand, you, Corey, are fully prepared to say “goddidit” when something appears counter-intuitive and not immediately explainable by your (lack of) reasoning.

    Corey, you say life is special and could not have risen out of inanimate matter? Hypothetical situation: Say that microscopic life exists or existed on the planet Mars. Do you abandon your beliefs or, like all the other biblical errors, just accept the fact and carry on drinking the Kool-aid? You guys used to think the earth is flat, we are the centre of the universe, owning slaves is A-OK, and evolution didn’t/doesn’t occur. Yet most of you don’t hold those views anymore.

    And do you still think God knows the future or is the future “continually changing”?

  285. on 14 May 2010 at 8:55 pm 285.Rosatm said …

    “You guys used to think the earth is flat, we are the centre of the universe, owning slaves is A-OK,”

    I never believed any of that, huh.

    Anywho, isn’t stating Astrophysicists can explain it just drinking the Kool Aid if you cant explain it or defend it yourself? Hmmm I personally know an AP (graduate from UC-Boulder) and he believes God is behind creation. Hmmm

    The fact scientist believe in God does not mean we do not study science because God is behind the creation. Your “Goddiit” is just more of the Kool Aid from your atheist blogs. You need some fresh on-liners.

  286. on 14 May 2010 at 10:01 pm 286.Severin said …

    282 Corey
    You have examples of “miracles” of physics and chemistry under your nose.
    Water dramatically changes its properties (withouth changing its chemical composition!) by just cooling and heating. Vapor, liquid water, ice, although chemically equal, behave VERY differently, have EXTREMELY different properties! An Aborigin from an Australian desert would probably not know what he is looking at, if someone showed him ice some 300 years ago (today, he puts ice in his soda).
    Then, we can go to chemistry: a simple, innocent water is chemical bond of 2 gasses, totally different from each other, totally different than water itself, both highly reactive and dangerous.
    Domestic salt is chemical bond of 2 very different elements: a gas and a metal. If you ever saw the element chlorine (I did, an ugly green gas, highly dangerous) and element sodium (metal, self-flammable on air and in touch with water), you would hardly believe common salt is made of those two. But it is! You can get those elements back from salt!

    WHY is it so strange to have very different systems in the universe, when we have them here on earth?
    It is ONLY matter of physics and chemistry, nothing more, nothing less.
    It is not simple to understand it all for you and me, but we have scientist who are able to explainr, and who DO explain it.
    If you are interested in some answers about how is it all possible, read, google, watch National Geographic Channel , History Channel, ask educated people, in one word: LEARN!
    Then THINK, COMPARE, USE LOGIC, use your intelligence, read again, ask again…
    What I would not suggest is to just trust, without questioning. It is a very comfortable way, but a way leading to ignorance.

  287. on 14 May 2010 at 10:15 pm 287.MrQ said …

    “Hmmm I personally know an AP (graduate from UC-Boulder) and he believes God is behind creation. Hmmm”

    Wonder if your friend has an explanation for the differences of the planets as asked by Corey? Hmmm, I would hope so, and I bet he resorts to science for his explanation…or d’ya think he cracks the bible to see what it has to say about it?
    If I wanted to research it, I would; just not automatically buying into the god idea because I don’t immediately understand something. Is there a problem with that approach?
    Lots of scientists believe in god(s) and I bet their versions of god are a lot different than most of the posters on this blog.

  288. on 14 May 2010 at 11:25 pm 288.A real-ist said …

    Corey,
    Your picture of two pieces of matter coliding together creating the universe which consists of only 9 planets just proves how uneducated you are. The 9 planets consist of our galaxy. There are many galaxies and solar systems out there, and I mean many with other planets. And the big bang wasn’t two pieces coliding. It was a central point that exploded. And the reason why each planet is different is because of their distance from the sun. We just happen to be at the right distance, so that is why life was able to form on your planet.

    The more you know about what is actually real that exists out there, the better idea you can have of actual reality. No wonder why you think there is a God out there. Get a better understanding of the real world around us first.

  289. on 15 May 2010 at 1:03 am 289.MrQ said …

    @Rosatm

    When I write “you guys” (post# 283) I am referring to Christians, in general, throughout history, not you particularily.

    When I write “drink the Kool-aid”, it is in reference to blind faith. When one starts with the assumption that God exists, then the struggle to square the circle begins. The conclusion (God exists) must fit the facts. I fully understand that it is possible for some people to see God and His almighty work everywhere and, at the same time, other people don’t see God anywhere at all. I ask you: The onus is on which group to “prove it”?

  290. on 15 May 2010 at 1:30 am 290.Rosatm said …

    “The conclusion (God exists) must fit the facts.”

    Can you provide some facts that disprove God? What facts do we have that do not fit the framework of God exists?

    The onus is on you to disprove God. The history of man is belief in God. Doing away with an intelligent deity does not fit the facts. Complex systems do not develop from lesser complex systems. The process of evolution never adds more complex information it actually loses information. When Darwin was alive, creation seemed fairly simple, but today we no better.

    Its the very reason Anthony Flew died a theist. Claiming Big Bang and luck did it is a much bigger stretch than god did it.

  291. on 15 May 2010 at 2:02 am 291.MrQ said …

    Rostam

    I believe in unicorns, dragons, and faeries. Prove they don’t exist.

  292. on 15 May 2010 at 2:21 am 292.A real-ist said …

    “Can you provide some facts that disprove God? What facts do we have that do not fit the framework of God exists?”

    It annoys me that the burden of proof is on us. It should be: ‘You came up with the idea. Why do you believe it?’ I could tell you i’ve got superpowers. But i can’t go up to people saying ‘Prove I can’t fly.’ They’d go: ‘What do you mean? ‘prove you can’t fly?’ Prove you can!!

    Where is actual proof of God existing? When something isn’t proven to exist, there is a pretty good chance it doesn’t exist.

    “Its the very reason Anthony Flew died a theist.”

    He changed his mind at age 80. Alzheimer’s? Paranoid of dying knowing there is no afterlife?

  293. on 15 May 2010 at 2:58 am 293.3D said …

    290.Rosatm said …

    The onus is on you to disprove God. The history of man is belief in God.

    Do you believe in Zeus? If not, the onus is on you to disprove Zeus. Zeus was worshipped for a good 1,200 years there, which is only 500 years short of Jesus, so, you could say the history of man is belief in Zeus, too.

    So — did Zeus exist? Yea or nay? If not, got any proof?

    Doing away with an intelligent deity does not fit the facts. Complex systems do not develop from lesser complex systems.

    Except God, who is the MOST complex system possible, and developed from… POOF!

  294. on 15 May 2010 at 11:25 am 294.Rosatm said …

    “Do you believe in Zeus? If not, the onus is on you to disprove Zeus.”

    Why? DO you believe in Zeus?

    “Except God, who is the MOST complex system possible,”

    Exactly, a greater system of complexity is required to develop lesser systems of complexity and therefore God is logically needed.

    How he came to be, I do not know but we will one day.

  295. on 15 May 2010 at 1:45 pm 295.A real-ist said …

    Rosatm,
    I think you were missing 3D’s points entirely. He wasn’t saying he believes in Zeus, he was bring up the point that Zeus was believed for a very long period just like the Christian God is believed today by people like you.

    And you are saying that you believers don’t know how God came to be, but will one day…..don’t you realize that is the same thing we are all saying about matter and energy? So are you saying that maybe God possibly lives in a another dimension/universe with other Gods? How did God/those Gods and his/their dimension/universe get created then?

  296. on 15 May 2010 at 3:48 pm 296.Severin said …

    289 Rostam
    „Can you provide some facts that disprove God?“

    Nobody can disprove existance of god by formal logic.
    There is no way to disprove existance of mermates as well, using formal logic, but I doubt you believe they exist.
    WHY? Why do you believe god exists, and mermates do not?
    And how do you know mermates are not responsible for creation of universe?
    I am just founding the new religion, and I claim: YES, mermates created universe!

    Now the onus is on you to disprove it!
    And hurry up! Tomorrow, 100,000,000 of adherents to new religion will start to „eat“ christianity and islam, and…..

  297. on 15 May 2010 at 5:20 pm 297.Severin said …

    Or, instaed of daring us to disprove god in general, why don’t you just try to prove to muslims that YOUR god is the right one, not their!
    How would you rove to muslims that your god is the right one and their is not?

  298. on 15 May 2010 at 5:41 pm 298.Severin said …

    289 Rostam
    „The history of man is belief in God.“

    Which one?
    In fact, the history of man is belief in GODS. Many of them!
    So if you had in mind christian god, he is only a short-lived guest in a looooong procession of gods worshiped by humans during history.
    Many of them „existed“ much longer than christian god, and had much more adherents.
    Jesus is „small fish“ for Ra, who was worshiped for some 4000 years.
    Quetzalkoatl, Zeus, Odin,…and some 100,000 or more other gods WERE the history of human society!
    Christianity is only an episode in human history, relatively short compared to some „detroned“ gods, and relatively small compared to number of believers of some Chinese gods, Indoenesian gods, South American gods….

    As you can see, episodes are transient! No more Ra, Quetzalqoatl has gone, Zeus is dead…
    It will happen with your god too.
    In fact, the process is already running.

    The history of man is the history of believing in many stupid things: flat earth, sun orbiting earth, deseases comming form gods, flogiston….gods.
    Most of them just dissapeared, spontaniously, with development of science, including many gods.
    Why would your god be an exception?

  299. on 15 May 2010 at 6:12 pm 299.Severin said …

    289 Rostam
    “Complex systems do not develop from lesser complex systems.“
    …which probably means that less complex systems develop from more complex ones?

    So, microorganisms developed from elephants? Maybe whales?
    Sun is burning helium to produce hydrogen?
    Toothed wheels are produced: smaller from Swiss watches, bigger from cars. Still bigger from bulldozers and ships.

    Man was developed from dirt – ooops!
    Who/what was more complex in that story? Dirt or man?
    Did you confuse something?

    This sort of babbling is not rising your reputation.

  300. on 15 May 2010 at 7:51 pm 300.Severin said …

    284 Rostam
    “Hmmm I personally know an AP (graduate from UC-Boulder) and he believes God is behind creation.“
    286 MrQ
    „Lots of scientists believe in god(s) and I bet their versions of god are a lot different than most of the posters on this blog.“

    That is the crucial question I am trying to get answered, but gentlemen believers NEVER answer it! They hide their god! They are ashamed of him (or of themselves!?).

    Xenon, Lou, Burebista, MrZ….and other Sunday christians, are you sure in which god YOU believe?

    Aatheists honestly say: we do not believe in god! Any god!
    There is no need to categorize gods we do not believe in!
    Most „religious“ scientist and many „believers“ in „higher force“ clearly say what are they believing in.
    Only yo are hinig your god(s)!

    DO YOU, PERSONALLY, IN YOUR HEARTS, know in which god you believe?
    Is it god who caused the BB?
    Is it god who kneeded mud to manufacture man?

    Is it god who created natural laws?
    Or, is it god who did not know anything about inbreeding, just as he knew nothing about anythig else modern man knows: math, chemistry, medicine, astronomy,physics, …?

    Or, if you think it was the same god, why don’t you just honestly say so?

    Or, maybe you are hidden atheists deep in your hearts?

    If I pretended to be a believer, I would behave exactly as you do: I would avoid direct answers all the time to avoid to be caught in lies.

  301. on 15 May 2010 at 9:07 pm 301.MrQ said …

    Sev
    “Is it god who caused the BB?
    Is it god who kneeded mud to manufacture man?”

    The question amongst those scientists with a spiritual slant would be exactly like the first one. They would be searching for that moment labelled t+0 seconds, the spark which created this universe, the exact moment at which space and time unfolded. The judgmental god of question #2, the one who’s responsible for A&E, Noah’s Ark, etc, would likely not be their cup of tea.

    When it comes to the BB, I am thinking most of those “spiritual” scientist would have no problem going from a mindset of “god was the spark” to “It happened when _________ event(s) set the BB into gear”. They haven’t figured out the “_______” part yet. Being scientific, they should be more interested in the “truth” than in keeping a myth alive, unlike the cast of believers populating this blog.

  302. on 16 May 2010 at 12:53 am 302.Corey said …

    How can you say “you guys” believed the earth is flat? at one time, the whole world believed the earth is flat!!! This was do to the lack of technology and science to prove that the earth was round, not because God told us the earth was flat!!

    And yes, I do agree that water has many different forms and can react way differently, but if you take a look at neptune, it is mostly made up of methane gas and ices, ammonia, and helium. A very little percentage of it is made of water and hydrogen.

    Also, the more science uncovers, the more God’s plan seems to be true. So far, nothing that science has unveiled has proven God wrong.

  303. on 16 May 2010 at 2:35 am 303.Jay said …

    How can you say “you guys” believed the earth is flat? at one time, the whole world believed the earth is flat!!! This was do to the lack of technology and science to prove that the earth was round, not because God told us the earth was flat!!

    He’s referring to the fact that at one time the Catholic church told people it was flat. They also told people that Earth was the center of the universe and all things revolved around it. So, they either got that information from the Bible…or, they just made it up. Now they wouldn’t just make things up, would they?…Kind of makes you wonder what other B.S. they have been telling people over the centuries, doesn’t it?

    And yes, I do agree that water has many different forms and can react way differently, but if you take a look at neptune, it is mostly made up of methane gas and ices, ammonia, and helium. A very little percentage of it is made of water and hydrogen.

    Let’s stop with the planet talk. That conversation is going absolutely nowhere. remember Mark Twain’s famous quote…”"Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”

    Also, the more science uncovers, the more God’s plan seems to be true. So far, nothing that science has unveiled has proven God wrong.

    Oh, boy…where should I start?…

  304. on 16 May 2010 at 7:09 am 304.Severin said …

    300 MrQ
    „They would be searching for that moment labelled t+0 seconds, the spark which created this universe, the exact moment at which space and time unfolded.“

    I have no problem with anyone searching for supernatural causes of universe, even if they go to T+10-100 seconds (even to T-1 second) to find their „god“ (-100 being an exponent of 10).

    I personally can not find any reason why matter is a worse candidate to be eternal, to „just exist“ from ever and for ever, changing its form according to natural laws, than „god“.
    If someone likes to name the matter a god, it is O.K. for me. I do not agree, but I expect such people (or their successors) will finally find their answers. Science will be of great help there!
    We have to admit that science, although giving many answers, did not give all of them, and that fact leaves some room for speculations. Not much, but some.

    My point is that such a „belief“, contrary to “regular” religions, can not harm anyone. People searching for „spirit“ as the „first cause“ are not dangerous for society. They might even be „positive“ in a way, making both scientists and ordinary people to THINK and to SEARCH.
    In fact, such a belief EXLUDES religions!
    ALL religions brought so many evil to humans that ALL of them ARE DANGEROUS for human society, and it would be better to have a „new BB religion“ than to insist on typical religious bullshits which poison people for milleniums.

    What makes me crazy is hypocrisy of „believers“ debating here.
    What are they REALLY „believing“ in, they never say.

    In my language there is a sentence about „confusing grandmothers with frogs“ (but it rhymes together in my language) when someone is giving wrong arguments, that do not fit the topic.
    They are doing it. They confuse evil and dangerous biblical god with „a” god, “a creator of unverse“. The two of them have nothing in common!

    So gentlemen believers SHOULD give us answers about their gods, to enable us normal debate.
    If someone believes in biblical god, I have somehing to say.
    If someone believes in a BB god, I have something to say too, but my raguments are quite different.

    If someone believes in both, I have hardly to sayanything: ALL EXISTING RELIGIONS ARE AUTOMATICALLY CANCELLED!

  305. on 16 May 2010 at 7:46 am 305.Severin said …

    MrQ

    Have you noticed how believers get quiet when they have no answers?
    They neglect questions, neglect arguments, stop debating for some time, than, after they find a new “victim”, they attack with the same arrogance (and ignorance) as they used before.
    They do not mind to accuse you to make up evidences (for example numbers), but feel free to make up their own (3000 new believers in China every day!).

    They all the time require evidences from you, never givng their own.

    They never unhide what the objects of their worshiping really are.
    They will NEVER openly tell you what they personally think for example about the B.B. or evolution.
    Their possible (and CAREFULL! they do not like to be caught in ignorance!) disagreement with such theories can only be felt from their arrogant unargumented “comments“, NEVER exposed as claims, but ALLWAYS as sarcastic questions.

    What sort of people are they?

  306. on 16 May 2010 at 1:08 pm 306.Rostam said …

    “So, microorganisms developed from elephants? Maybe whales?”

    Severin you so silly. I left out the obvious assuming you all would understand. Just as a F-18 Hornet is produced through the guidance of man, so was creation guided through the process with guidance of God. In each instance more complex developed less complex. R U feeling me here Sev?

  307. on 16 May 2010 at 3:19 pm 307.MrQ said …

    Rosatm:
    “Its the very reason Anthony Flew died a theist. Claiming Big Bang and luck did it is a much bigger stretch than god did it.”

    Let’s have a closer look at Mr Flew’s opinions after he chose theism, shall we?

    From: http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/index.cfm

    “HABERMAS: In your view, then, God hasn’t done anything about evil.
    FLEW: No, not at all, other than producing a lot of it.”

    “HABERMAS: I agree that near death experiences do not evidence the doctrines of either heaven or hell. But do you think these evidential cases increase the possibility of some sort of an afterlife, again, given your theism?
    FLEW: I still hope and believe there’s no possibility of an afterlife.”

    Yes, he became a theist. Yes he took a position that there was a god. Yes, he rejected Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. He seems to have taken a position as outlined by myself and Severin.

  308. on 16 May 2010 at 3:32 pm 308.Jay said …

    Here’s what really happened. 4.5 billion years ago, some alien kid created the universe as a science fair project (NOTE: 1 billion years in our time is probably, like, 10 years alien time). Of course when he created it there wasn’t much to it, just a bunch of rocks and gases.
    He brought it to the science fair and put it on a table.
    “Yay…another universe”, said the judges sarcastically, because building a universe for a science fair in alien land is equivalent to kids on Earth making model volcanoes. They weren’t impressed but liked his effort. He probably got around 6th or 7th place for it.
    Disappointed, he brought the universe home, threw it in a box, and put it in his closet and forgot all about it. And unbeknownst to him, it grew like mold in a damp space while he went off to alien college, met an alien girl, got married, and had an alien family.
    At some point, his mom will find it and either throw it away, or bring it along on the next alien holiday along with some of the other junk from his youth that he left behind. Either way we’re doomed.
    I’m pretty sure that’s how it all happened…

  309. on 16 May 2010 at 4:45 pm 309.Rosatm said …

    “He seems to have taken a position as outlined by myself and Severin.”

    Wow! Really? so you guys are now theist not atheist? You do believe in a God?

    To be safe, you may want to read the book he wrote in 2004 rather than googling for a few quotes. That can get you in trouble.

    Belief in any God involved in creation makes much more sense than atheism. Simple enough? To quote Flew “follow the evidence wherever it leads”.

  310. on 16 May 2010 at 5:07 pm 310.MrQ said …

    @Rosatm

    You folks (the believers) keep bringing up scientists and fomer atheists, such as Flew, as examples of people who believe in the existance of god(s). I am presenting to you the god(s) of the scientists; pointing out that their god(s) have nothing to do with the ideas of the believers posting on this blog.

    Personally, I do not see any god(s) anywhere. I think he’s invisible and that’s something we can agree on. So, I guess that makes me an atheist. Maybe I will change my views if and when further evidence and research warrants a re-examination of my mindset.

    Rosatm, do you believe in a Christian, Muslim, or Jewish God? If so, what flavour and strength of God makes the most sense to you? Or is your God the one who was the universe creator/originator and then disappeared?

  311. on 16 May 2010 at 5:35 pm 311.Jay said …

    There are scientists out there that do say there is a possibility of a god, or creator. They also mention that if a god or creator does exist there is no way to know, or to prove it. The thing that pisses most Christians off is that scientists usually discredit the god of Christianity.

  312. on 16 May 2010 at 6:46 pm 312.Rosatam said …

    “is your God the one who was the universe creator/originator and then disappeared?”

    I’m sorry Mr. Q. You claimed to parallel the beliefs of Flew, therefore I could only assume you had now become a theist.

    I only now that a Creator created the universe. I don’t pretend to claim to prove more than what is obvious through a combination of science and observation and a dose of solid common sense. Follow the evidence.

    Science is incapable of many things and proving that there is a God is not an activity science, in my estimation, is capable of undertaking. How would you go about it? Lab work? Mathematics?, Biology? Archeology?

    Example, prove that my great-great-great-great-great grandfather was a physician in Scotland. No paper trail, no grave, no marker, no way. I still believe he existed.

  313. on 16 May 2010 at 7:00 pm 313.MrQ said …

    But we can both agree that your uncle, like mine, was a monkey ;-)

  314. on 16 May 2010 at 7:45 pm 314.Burebista said …

    “The thing that pisses most Christians off is that scientists usually discredit the god of Christianity.”

    All except the ones who were and are Christian. Again, a bold statement that does not line up with facts.

  315. on 16 May 2010 at 8:20 pm 315.Severin said …

    313 Burebista
    “All except the ones who were and are Christian.”

    But more and more of those who were, and less and less of those who are.
    Unfortunatelly not valid for muslims (yet, but wait…).

  316. on 16 May 2010 at 8:34 pm 316.Jay said …

    Sorry Burebista. I should say MOST scientists. But my statement is still true…
    “The thing that pisses most Christians off is that MOST scientists usually discredit the god of Christianity.”

    Also, regarding your comment above, “There are a number of reasons why the nazi’s rose to power…”, steal that from the internet did ya?

  317. on 16 May 2010 at 10:15 pm 317.3D said …

    302.Corey said …
    How can you say “you guys” believed the earth is flat? at one time, the whole world believed the earth is flat!!! This was do to the lack of technology and science to prove that the earth was round, not because God told us the earth was flat!!

    The “whole world” never believed the earth is flat; this is a misconception and far from the truth. Scientists in ancient Egypt knew that the Earth was round; it’s a fairly simple conclusion to come to if you apply some thought and experiment to it; it didn’t require huge leaps forward in technology and science. In any given time you could find pockets of ignorant people who believed the earth is flat (even today); but never “the whole world”

    In fact, the most popular that false belief ever was, was probably during the Middle Ages, mainly because the world was dragged backwards into a hole of ignorance and anti-intellectual Luddite-ism, by (drumroll please…) THE BIBLE.

    Also, the more science uncovers, the more God’s plan seems to be true. So far, nothing that science has unveiled has proven God wrong.

    OK, now I am 75% sure he is trolling.

  318. on 16 May 2010 at 10:32 pm 318.3D said …

    Rosatam wrote…

    “is your God the one who was the universe creator/originator and then disappeared?”
    I’m sorry Mr. Q. You claimed to parallel the beliefs of Flew, therefore I could only assume you had now become a theist.

    This stuff about Flew is really unproductive to your argument, because it’s anecdotal. For every one guy like him, you can find about a hundred ex-Christians giving their de-conversion/cult de-programming stories and blogs all over the Internet. And does that mean atheists are right in and of itself? No, it doesn’t. Everyone has a story.

    The reason Flew is such an important guy that theists like to throw in atheists’ faces in these discussions, is because it hardly ever happens that way. Most people get more rational as they get older and attain more life experience, and the natural tendency of humans is to question dogmatism that’s been drilled into you. So obviously there’s a lot more conversions from theism to atheism than the other way around. It’s so rare, that it becomes a profound statement just by how unusual it is.

    Science is incapable of many things and proving that there is a God is not an activity science, in my estimation, is capable of undertaking. How would you go about it? Lab work? Mathematics?, Biology? Archeology?

    Of course, you could have said the same thing about any number of other scientific endeavors, before science discovered the answers, too. Like, how hot stars are; what they’re made of; how long they lived and have left to live; etc. How would you go about it? Send a man to a star 200 light years away to take samples? But, as you know, we figured out other ways to learn that stuff.

    So your argument fails because it makes a faulty assumption; that because we don’t understand now, we will never understand it. That’s what all the people living in the Dark Ages assumed about all the other science stuff that mankind hadn’t got to yet: God did it.

    Example, prove that my great-great-great-great-great grandfather was a physician in Scotland. No paper trail, no grave, no marker, no way. I still believe he existed.

    Yeah, but that’s not “faith”, that’s your hypothesis formed by observable evidence: you’re here, so you had to have a great-great-great-great-great grandfather; some of your family was from Scotland; and people you trust told you he was a doctor there. It’s a reasonable conclusion.

    The important question is, though: if it turned out that what you had been told about him wasn’t 100% accurate, and you found documented evidence that he was actually a horse and buggy salesman from Denmark, would you believe the new evidence? Or would you hold onto your “faith” that he was a doctor in Scotland? If you pick “A” then you’re a normal sane human being. If you pick “B” then the Bible is for you.

  319. on 17 May 2010 at 12:04 am 319.Rostam said …

    “Most people get more rational as they get older and attain more life experience, and the natural tendency of humans is to question dogmatism that’s been drilled into you.”

    He did, just like CS Lewis, Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel and yours truly. They all followed the evidence.

    “So your argument fails because it makes a faulty assumption; that because we don’t understand now, we will never understand it.”

    I could say that fairies will never be found, but again I could be wrong? I guess that is your point? When science finds an avenue to prove or disprove God, I will amend the statement. You are just looking to be argumentative. You are beginning to troll….

    “It’s a reasonable conclusion.”

    Yes, just as a Creator is as well. Told to me by the many others and to the fact that we are here and it is impossible to have be mere chance. You do see the parallels, I hope?

  320. on 17 May 2010 at 1:08 am 320.3D said …

    Rostam said…

    I could say that fairies will never be found, but again I could be wrong? I guess that is your point?

    Sort of. My real point is that it is not science’s job to disprove every single fantastical claim that you put in front of it with no evidence. Science’s job is to discover things based on the evidence available.

    When science finds an avenue to prove or disprove God, I will amend the statement. You are just looking to be argumentative. You are beginning to troll….

    That’s funny, because I thought I was being very polite in my disagreement. Unlike Lou and Horatio, you seemed to be interested in an honest debate rather than slinging insults. Oh well, maybe I was wrong.

    Anyway, again, it’s not science’s job to disprove any one, or all, of the zillions of Gods that at one point or another have been alleged to have created the universe.

    Once, people looked at the world and thought that the only way it could exist is if a giant bodybuilding dude held it up on his back, and they couldn’t wrap their brains around anything else. That was what the ‘evidence’ led them to because science hadn’t discovered planetary orbits or gravity yet. You’re doing the same thing with the origin of the universe.

    “It’s a reasonable conclusion.”
    Yes, just as a Creator is as well. Told to me by the many others and to the fact that we are here and it is impossible to have be mere chance. You do see the parallels, I hope?

    I hope you see why it’s not a parallel. If you don’t I’ll be glad to explain.

    The process by which you came from your father and mother’s reproductive systems is scientifically observable, repeatable and testable. All it takes to prove that you had a great-great-great-great-great-grandfather is to follow that process back 7 generations.

    The process by which the alleged Creator allegedly spawned human life (whether out of magic Play-Doh, the sneeze of a turtle, or Abracadabra) is not observable or testable, or repeatable, and not logically consistent with anything we know about the universe (unlike the process of sexual reproduction). That doesn’t mean that it CAN’T be the case, but it’s not likely because it doesn’t match up with the evidence we have. Like with the “faeries” example, it COULD be true, and pigs could sprout wings and all fly off the planet tomorrow, too. But, we have to deal with the reality of the evidence we have, and come up with theories that make sense, not indulge every fantasy someone comes up with.

    Also, I believe “mere chance” vs. “intelligent creator” is a false dichotomy. Those aren’t the only two choices. In fact, “random chance” is completely the opposite of what you’re dealing with given the vast stretches of time the universe has existed.

    As an illustration, if you flipped a coin once per second for 12 billion years, would you eventually get a string of 10,000 consecutive tails? Not necessarily, but the more you do it, the more likely it is to happen at some point. It’s improbable if you flip the coin only 10,000 times that you will get 10,000 tails — near zero likelihood — but in quadrillions or quintillions of trials, it’s a different story. So why is it so strange to you that given the same amount of time, the right chemicals could, one time, come together to make a living cell?

    Even though we agree, it’s very unlikely to see life originate at random on the corner of 5th and Main Street every other Sunday, that’s quite a different thing than saying that the conditions of life came together perfectly at one precise moment in the vast stretch of time that makes up the history of the universe. One is random, the other isn’t.

  321. on 17 May 2010 at 4:24 am 321.Anonymous said …

    “I only now that a Creator created the universe. I don’t pretend to claim to prove more than what is obvious through a combination of science and observation and a dose of solid common sense. Follow the evidence.”

    Really? What evidence? I can tell you I have an invisible monkey following me around, but how can you prove I don’t if you are not supposed to see him?

  322. on 17 May 2010 at 8:26 am 322.Severin said …

    311 Rostam
    „I only now that a Creator created the universe.“

    I have no complaints to that, as far as it is your personal „feeling“ or your own deduction.
    I do not believe it, but how can I prove you wrong if you think a “supernatural being“ was involved in creation of matter and energy. I can not.

    But if you name biblical god a creator, then YOU, in the first place, have many problems!

    The god you „feel“ did NOT write anything. The „superior power“ which, according to your feeling or your deduction, created matter/energy and caused universe to start expanding, DID NOT leave any moral rules behind. This „god“ DID NOT write the Bible. He, obviously, did NOT ordered people to worship him and to prepare burnt offerings for him. He DID NOT ordered people to kill non-virgin brides.
    What he might do, if he existed was: he created universe, build natural laws into it, and let universe develop according to those laws.

    WHAT has the Bible and biblical god to do with it? What has poor biblical god, who kneeded mud to „create“ a man, and was a total ignorant, to do with creation of universe?
    It CAN NOT BE THE SAME GOD!
    Can you imagine a superior (VERY superior, if existed!) creature having so MUCH knowledge and power to create universe and to imput laws into it for further development, comming to earth and kneeding mud? Can you imagine SUCH a creature sniffing burnt offerings to please himself? Can you imagine him to be so „locally“ interested in events in his HUGE universe, to come to earth, among billions and billions of galaxies, solar systems and planets he created, billions of years after he created them, to punish Lot’s wife?

    If you can connect those events, the REAL creation of universe, and kneeding mud by biblical god, then, sorry, something is not right with your way of making conclusions.
    don’t see any connection,then ALL religions ever existed on this planet WERE WRONG.

    In that case only your PERSONAL, intimate beliefs MIGHT be right, but what your intimate religion has to do with bullshits „sold“ to people from organized religions all over the world?
    NOTHING!

  323. on 17 May 2010 at 8:30 am 323.Severin said …

    321 Severin
    “…don’t see any connection,then ALL religions ever existed on this planet WERE WRONG.”

    Should stay: “IF you don’t see….”, sorry!

  324. on 17 May 2010 at 11:31 am 324.Rostam said …

    “that at one point or another have been alleged to have created the universe.”

    Then why do you guys insist that science can’t prove it and therefore one does not exist? Science is capable of proving what was created not the Creator.

    “prove that you had a great-great-great-great-great-grandfather is to follow that process back 7 generations.”

    Cute but wrong. You conveniently left out a Scottish physician which was the entire point. No proof but I believe.

    “So why is it so strange to you that given the same amount of time, the right chemicals could, one time, come together to make a living cell?”

    You have no proof and since you claim this is a completely naturalistic event you need to observe and test to prove your assertion. You are essentially claiming ANYTHING is possible. Why not God? Who provided the chemicals?

    More complex does not arise from the lesser complex.

  325. on 17 May 2010 at 1:32 pm 325.Anonymous said …

    323 Rostam
    “You have no proof and since you claim this is a completely naturalistic event you need to observe and test to prove your assertion. You are essentially claiming ANYTHING is possible. Why not God? Who provided the chemicals?“

    You are totally wrong.
    Do you have any idea about simple mathematics?

    First, not mathematic, but laws of physics, chemistry and biology tell us wether something is, or is not possible to happen at all. Laws of chemistry tell us what conditions are necessary to occure to get a chemical reaction (temperatures, pressures, catalists…, it is my profession, and I know prity much about it).
    For example, you can have mixture of hydrogen and oxygen which will never react if temperature is too low, but will react immediatelly if the temperature is rised to so called „tempearuture of rection“, to build water. Temperatures of reaction are specific for each element, combination of elements and chemical compound, but relatively simple formulas are available to calculate them for any desired combination of elements or compounds.
    On the other hand, you can mix neon and hydrogen, and get nothing no matter how much you rise the temperature, and how you fix other conditions, because atom of neon has no free electrons to react. Result will always be just a mixture of neon and hydrogen, no compound of them is possible to get, whatever you do. You can mix them for 1000 billions of years and get nothing, because IT IS IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO (very simple and well known) LAWS OF CHEMISTRY.

    Lucky for us, MOST of elements are able to build compounds under certain conditions, and billions of chemical elements and compounds are ready to react with each other, if surrounding conditions are right for their reaction.
    In some condition, for example, carbon and oxigen will not react at all. In different conditions you will get carbo monoxide, and in still different conditions it will burn to carbon dioxide, but IT CAN NOT burn to “carbon trioxide”, because the structure of electrons in both carbon and oxigen atoms disable such a reaction. It is IMPOSSIBLE, and a compund such as “carbon trioxide” CAN NOT EXIST, and DOES NOT EXIST.
    Ozon, for example is extremely rare compound of oxigen tself, and can be synthesized only under very specific conditions. Such conditions are present in higher layers of our atmosphere, and – guess! – ozon IS present there!

    So, there are billions of chemical reactions which are POSSIBLE to occure under precisely “tailored” conditions, and billions of resulting compunds which are theoretically possible to get from those reactions.

  326. on 17 May 2010 at 2:43 pm 326.Boz said …

    I would think a chemist could spell words like oxygen, compounds, ozone and catalyst by this time in their career. The scariest part was you misspelled them the same way more than once therefore typo is probably out of the question.

  327. on 17 May 2010 at 3:12 pm 327.Severin said …

    324 Anonimous = 324 Severin

  328. on 17 May 2010 at 3:20 pm 328.Severin said …

    325 Boz
    I spell them perfectly in my native language.

    I am trying to write quickly here, without using dictionary every second or two, and as I am not very good in English, it happens to make some errors.
    Maybe too many, and I appologize.
    I do hope you understood what I wanted to say anyway.

  329. on 17 May 2010 at 3:48 pm 329.Severin said …

    323 Rostam, cnt.
    That was about what is POSSIBLE.
    Impossible reactions will never happen.
    (It is impossible to win $1,000,000 if the main lotery prize is only $100,000)

    Possible reactions will never happen if conditions are not present.
    (You can not win $100,000 on $100,000 main prize lotery, if you do not buy ticket.)

    If interreactable elemnts or compounds are present under right conditions they will NEVER FAIL TO REACT!
    Mix hydrogen and oxygen, inniciate reaction with some fire, do it some trillion trillion trillion times, and they will NEVER fail to react.

    Probability does not tell us whether something is possible to occure or not, but HOW FREQUENTLY will a possible event occure. Practically, it tells us WHEN, or after HOW MANY TRIALS can we expect it to happen.

    Buy your $100,000 lotery ticket, and math will tell you what are your chances to winn $100,000.
    If math tells you your chances are 1:100,000,000, it is VERY LIKELY, ALMOST CERTAIN that you will win if you buy 100,000,000 tickets (or buy 1 ticket for 100,000,000 weeks).
    You may win first time. It can happen that you do not win after 100,000,000 trials too.
    But YOU WILL WIN WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, IF YOU JUST CONTINUE TRYING! There is absolutely no chance NOT to win.
    THAT is the essence of probability. It is NOT a matter of “luck”, but of mathematics.

    Conclusion is quite different than yours:
    It is NOT TRUE that ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.
    But it is true that averything WHAT IS POSSIBLE to happen, WILL HAPPEN, sooner or later.

    And, of course, it DID happen. Universe had enough time for almost everything.

  330. on 17 May 2010 at 3:55 pm 330.Severin said …

    …WHAT IS POSSIBLE to happen..

    maybe …THAT IS POSSIBLE to happen…???, hoping to understand me anyway,
    Sincerely Yours
    Severin

  331. on 17 May 2010 at 6:17 pm 331.3D said …

    328.Severin said …

    I spell them perfectly in my native language.
    I am trying to write quickly here, without using dictionary every second or two, and as I am not very good in English, it happens to make some errors.
    Maybe too many, and I appologize.
    I do hope you understood what I wanted to say anyway.

    I understood what you meant, as did the guy who replied to you. But he has nothing to say in response to your argument, so he decided to shit all over your English instead.

    One point in his favor, though — at least HE writes pretty well in English himself (despite a couple of small errors), unlike the dummies who criticized your writing in a non-native language earlier, and yet can’t even write in their own native tongue coherently.

  332. on 17 May 2010 at 7:23 pm 332.Biff said …

    Ditto Boz

    “if you flipped a coin once per second for 12 billion years, would you eventually get a string of 10,000 consecutive tails? Not necessarily, but the more you do it, the more likely it is to happen at some point”

    It takes intelligence to flip a coin. Since you claim no intelligence is involved, we don’t have anyone pushing the buttons hoping to create these first amino acids. And as you conveniently leave out, who provided the chemicals?

  333. on 17 May 2010 at 8:22 pm 333.Severin said …

    331 Biff
    “It takes intelligence to flip a coin”

    We can now be sure it was not you who flipped it.

  334. on 17 May 2010 at 9:04 pm 334.Rostam said …

    Severin,
    I can now say we who belittle your ridiculous spelling are now quite justified.

    Do you now see why the only response you get is 3D coming to you defense? You just lost.

    “It takes intelligence to flip a coin”

    Biff to take it another step it takes intelligence to initiate scientific laws, provide time & space not to mention the matter to get the show started.

  335. on 17 May 2010 at 9:08 pm 335.Severin said …

    331 Biff
    “Since you claim no intelligence is involved, we don’t have anyone pushing the buttons hoping to create these first amino acids.”

    Several trials were run in the lab as early as in decade of 1950. – 1960. (don’t know exact date, but can find, if you wish).
    Curious scientist wanted to see what will happen if they copy conditions of early earth. Very complicated organic compounds, including chains of amino acids, were spontaniously synthesized in only 1 week. No one „pushed buttons“. Meaning: no one controlled reactions as they are, for example, controlled in chemical industries. They were totally spontanious. No intelligence to direct them.
    You can easyly google information about this, and many other, more promissing trials, yourself.
    Try with „creating life in lab“ (21 million information), or something similar. I can recommand some popular books too, if you want.

    In 4.5 billion years (some 234 billion weeks) there were enought time anything to be sythetized spontaniously under right conditions. And in 234 billion weeks at least 2/3 of the time conditions were favourable for many spontanious chemical reactions.
    It obviosly did happen. We are hear! And you!

    Stars are „generators“ of elements. The whole physics of genesys of elements in stars is well known and confirmed. Read about it, do not be lazy.
    That was WHAT provided chemicals (not „WHO“ provided them!)

  336. on 17 May 2010 at 9:48 pm 336.Severin said …

    333 Rostam
    „Severin,
    ”I can now say we who belittle your ridiculous spelling are now quite justified.”
    I was polite enough not to say that I belittle your ridiculous ignorance, because I knew it could be improved by some learning.
    I belittle LAZY ignorants, and it seems, unfortunately, that you are one of them.

    I belittle your miserable drawing out from debate by spitting my English (which is bad, no doubt, but undersatandable enough for this type of debate), instead of giving some counter-arguments.

    But it is typical and expected. I saw such outcomes many times from “believers-in-god” on these pages: if you have no arguments, you always have enough saliva.

  337. on 17 May 2010 at 11:03 pm 337.Biff said …

    “Meaning: no one controlled reactions as they are, for example, controlled in chemical industries. They were totally spontanious. No intelligence to direct them.”

    Is this guy serious Rostam? He means the Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 which has proved nothing and and has been determined irrelevant. This was done in a lab, with assumed (wrong) hypothetical conditions guided by intelligence thus the name of the experiment. Your reasoning is as BAD as your English

    You would be wise to refrain from calling others ignorant.

  338. on 18 May 2010 at 6:28 am 338.Severin said …

    336 Biif
    Why are you so lazy to just try to find other information. At least a second one.
    Try: http://www.astrobiology.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=26796 or one of many other.
    Miller-Urey experiment was repeated more than once, under different conditions. All of those experiments confirmed big organic molecules are possible to be synthesized spontaniously in SHORT time.
    Is that “nothing”?
    It is much much more than picking mud (dirt).

    You are shitting my English (which is bad, so what?), but I see you DO read my comments and you obviously understand them.
    I am sure you understand my arguments too. You just DO NOT LIKE THEM! They do not fit your prejudicious mind. Do some effort! Do not oppose your own mind by force.

    Ignorance is not shame IF you try to learn something.
    Why don’t you try?

  339. on 18 May 2010 at 9:41 am 339.3D said …

    337.Biff said …

    Is this guy serious Rostam? He means the Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 which has proved nothing and and has been determined irrelevant. This was done in a lab, with assumed (wrong) hypothetical conditions guided by intelligence thus the name of the experiment.

    Yes, you are right, a hand coming down from the sky making a human being out of mud, then plucking out a rib and making a woman, is much more plausible than the Miller-Urey experiment.

  340. on 18 May 2010 at 11:20 am 340.Rostam said …

    You guys are so hung on mud? When you are backed into a corner you come out slinging mud. Why is that? Do you like to play in it or is it because it is on your face constantly?

    Simlify 3D: I’m sure Severin did his due diligence and found the pros and cons with Miller-Urey (after I informed him of the experiment). How did Miller-Urey prove origins was atheistically driven?

  341. on 18 May 2010 at 1:16 pm 341.Observer said …

    Who determined the Miller-Urey experiment irrelevant? Most likely simpleton Christians… From a year and a half ago…

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/322/5900/404

    Of course, this peer-reviewed journal is universally respected among competent scientists. This no doubt casts the opinions therein into the pit of “Saytainic Heeeethan Jeeehaysus Hatin HomoSEXyou’all COMMMMyounisssts” trying to undermine divine creation. Regardless, it does present something a bit more intelligent and plausible than the faerie dust and Man in the Sky arguments.

  342. on 18 May 2010 at 1:55 pm 342.Observer said …

    Yet another lay-up. Creationists are so pathetic. They have the Creation Museum in, of course, Kentucky. We have folks like this…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/science/18conv.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fscience%2Findex.jsonp

  343. on 18 May 2010 at 3:09 pm 343.Rostam said …

    “Who determined the Miller-Urey experiment irrelevant?”

    Oh look, Mr Testosterone is in the room. Ok Mr T, how is Miller-Urey relevant to the existence of a Creator?

    I would be delighted if you could just pick the ball up, much less perform a much more complicated lay-up Mr T.

    Hey, it is a good thing we have intelligent beings performing these experiments. Can you imagine watching these experiments take place by random chance!

  344. on 18 May 2010 at 3:19 pm 344.bigbroomstick ;) said …

    Yeah Mr. T is stupid!

  345. on 18 May 2010 at 3:20 pm 345.i believe in harrypotter said …

    Agreed. Mr Broomstick ;) is everything you can imagine. please thank your parents for raising you in the correct fashion. :D

  346. on 18 May 2010 at 3:23 pm 346.bigbroomstick ;) said …

    Go God Go!

  347. on 18 May 2010 at 3:34 pm 347.Dixie Normous said …

    Hooray for God!

  348. on 18 May 2010 at 3:35 pm 348.mikehox said …

    im in atheist >:( booo God

  349. on 18 May 2010 at 3:36 pm 349.Dixie Normous said …

    Looks like someone needs a little cup of happiness to me!

  350. on 18 May 2010 at 3:37 pm 350.i believe in harrypotter said …

    i could use some of that. I’ll use my wand to turn that happiness into mega happiness!

  351. on 18 May 2010 at 3:38 pm 351.Dixie Normous said …

    I believe the correct incantation for that would be “Engorgio”!

  352. on 18 May 2010 at 3:39 pm 352.bigbroomstick ;) said …

    Harry potter is my lord and savior. Hail Voldermort!

  353. on 18 May 2010 at 3:40 pm 353.Burebista said …

    “Who determined the Miller-Urey experiment irrelevant?”

    This article did pant-load.

    “The excitement has long since subsided. The amino acids never grew into the more complex proteins. Scientists now think the composition of air on early Earth was much different from what Dr. Miller used, leading some to question whether the Miller-Urey experiment had any relevance to the still unsolved problem of the origin of life.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/science/17life.html

    More experiments being done but nothing showing life forming without intelligence. In fact, just the opposite is true. Intelligence is being required to have any chance of putting it together.

  354. on 18 May 2010 at 3:41 pm 354.bigbroomstick ;) said …

    Hey guess who i am

    “Who determined the Miller-Urey experiment irrelevant?”

    This article did pant-load.

    “The excitement has long since subsided. The amino acids never grew into the more complex proteins. Scientists now think the composition of air on early Earth was much different from what Dr. Miller used, leading some to question whether the Miller-Urey experiment had any relevance to the still unsolved problem of the origin of life.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/science/17life.html

    More experiments being done but nothing showing life forming without intelligence. In fact, just the opposite is true. Intelligence is being required to have any chance of putting it together.

  355. on 18 May 2010 at 3:42 pm 355.Burebista said …

    Nevermind, what i said is FALSE. Go harry potter =D

  356. on 18 May 2010 at 3:44 pm 356.Dixie Normous said …

    Potter for President !! (:

  357. on 18 May 2010 at 3:46 pm 357.CoryCulbert said …

    hehe ;D i enjoy all these conversations

  358. on 18 May 2010 at 3:48 pm 358.bigbroomstick ;) said …

    Expelliarmus! i just disarmed your argument Burebista :) i think you need to catch up on your spell books and rethink what you are saying.

  359. on 18 May 2010 at 3:51 pm 359.Nick Kwapis said …

    This is how you guys waste the time I have given you?
    I can smell a few detintions coming your way.

  360. on 18 May 2010 at 8:36 pm 360.3D said …

    340.Rostam said …

    You guys are so hung on mud? When you are backed into a corner you come out slinging mud. Why is that? Do you like to play in it or is it because it is on your face constantly?

    Because theists like to hold one type of theory to the scrutiny of the scientific method (one that might come to a conclusion that doesn’t jibe with what they believe in), while saying that scientific proof completely doesn’t matter for another type of theory (one they believe in).

  361. on 18 May 2010 at 10:55 pm 361.Severin said …

    339 Rostam
    “You guys are so hung on mud?”

    We do not. Bible does. And you do.
    What did Santa bring you last Christmas?
    You believe in Santa, don’t you?

    “When you are backed into a corner you come out slinging mud.”

    Can you kindly remind me what were your arguments which backed me/us into a corner?
    I couldn’t find any..
    Maybe you think your childish pouting can replace arguments?
    What did Easter Bunny put into your basket?

  362. on 18 May 2010 at 11:11 pm 362.Severin said …

    339 Rostam
    “How did Miller-Urey prove origins was atheistically driven?”

    Sad! It repeats all the time! In lack of arguments let’s try with offends, lies and (this time, for change)with childish pouting.

    I NEVER said anything like that!
    I only said this experiment proved that complex organic moleculs CAN be synthesized spontaniously within a short time, and that it was much more than god did by picking mud.

    Please do not fake my words to prove yourself right!

    Please, try with arguments! Or wait the next Santa, maybe he brings you some.

  363. on 18 May 2010 at 11:26 pm 363.Severin said …

    “The amino acids never grew into the more complex proteins.”

    Of course not! God took some dirt and synthesized complex proteins by saying “abracadabra” (maybe it was “hocus pocus”, it was not noted).

    It would be much easier to him if he created electronic humans, than to complicate his life with puttering around with dirt trying to make proteins,but what can we do, god’s will!
    Sorry! I forgot God did not know anything about electronics.
    He was only good in “abracadabra” chemistry of proteins.

  364. on 19 May 2010 at 12:45 am 364.MrQ said …

    Rostam Post#323
    “More complex does not arise from the lesser complex.”

    Not sure what you are talking about here. Evolution? Early Earth primordial soup? References and explanations, please!

  365. on 19 May 2010 at 2:37 am 365.Rostam said …

    Try reading Cicero’s De natura deorum. A great read even if you do not agree.

  366. on 19 May 2010 at 5:56 am 366.Severin said …

    364 Rostam
    “Try reading Cicero’s De natura deorum…..”

    The guy is talking GODS, not GOD.
    How can it be applied to christian religion?
    Are you saying no difference among gods and religions?

    For me, there is no difference anyway: christianity IS in fact a polytheistic religion with its funny, totally inexplicable „3 in 1“ god.
    But if you are a christian, you should be careful not to make some mortal sin by calling Cicero to explain (or defend, or add some value to, or…what?) christian ideas.

    Try reading Sartre, Russel….Darwin, Einsein, Hawking…Harris, Dawkins…

  367. on 19 May 2010 at 11:28 am 367.Rostam said …

    Sev

    I n order to keep up with the discussion and what was asked: For you I suggest you just learn to read.

  368. on 19 May 2010 at 1:24 pm 368.Observer said …

    Rosta- I do not have time to track down your insipid opining that you try to pass as intelligent reasoning, BUT if you are in fact responsible for the quote MrQ attributes to you

    Rostam Post#323
    “More complex does not arise from the lesser complex.”

    it is a characteristically idiotic statement, and no doubt one that accurately captures your beliefs. The statement is also patently false. But, and I have posted this around here before, git ya some book lern’in on tha thar Ilya Prigogine. He is one of the pioneers of auto-catalysis and self-organization. He wrote a book for non-specialists, and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here, which may be accessible to you.

    Cicero? It is good you are branching-out from Bronze Age literature. You are still a couple millennia behind your betters. Please do a better job of keeping up.

  369. on 19 May 2010 at 2:17 pm 369.Severin said …

    366 Rostam
    Sev
    “I n order to keep up with the discussion and what was asked: For you I suggest you just learn to read.”

    WHY are you on this blog at all?
    To be fair, I will first tell you why am I here: To fight prejudices the best way I can.
    As I think all religions are the most dangerous prejudices on earth, I am trying to fight them first, and this blog is an ideal place to do it.
    I can not fight them directly, but there are many joung people in the stage of starting to be brain washed by money and power hungry churches, and lost for ever. If I can put a small worm of doubt in their mind about dangerous stupidities churches are teaching them, I will be happy.
    If a young person reading my comments (also comments of other atheists) starts to use his/her own brain instead of just accepting stupidities churches are teaching them, I will be even happier.
    Unlike churches, I do not get any money for my efforts. Only hope I did what I could.

    Now put your finger on your forehead and ask yourself: what am I doing in this blog? What is the purpose of my writing here?

    Share your motives with us, please!

    If your only motive is to read your own comments and to say to yourself in front of a mirror: “God, how clever I am”, do not be ashamed! It is good for self-cofidence. Maybe it will help you to become an atheist.

  370. on 19 May 2010 at 5:26 pm 370.Rostam said …

    (Finger and forehead and asking “why am I on this blog….)

    I drop by to post comments, at the moment on origins.

    I have been an atheist, but now I am healed. Good luck on the evangelism campaign.

    Mr T,
    Again, no meat only celery.

  371. on 19 May 2010 at 9:17 pm 371.Burebista said …

    Severin -

    How humanitarian of you. Rather than indoctrinating, why not try to learn something? It could be you are just be – wrong.

  372. on 19 May 2010 at 10:51 pm 372.Severin said …

    370 Burebista
    “It could be you are just be – wrong.”

    No need to repeat! That was the only argument you ever confronted to anyone.
    From now on, if you want to comment, put in your machine the sentence “You are wrong”, and print it in the next million omments of yours.

    You might, to make readers convinced in your diversity, try also:
    - How wrong you are!
    - You are not right!
    - You, moron, have no idea about anything!
    - You have no clue!
    etc, etc, but, as much as I saw until now, such a diversity in expressing is for you inaccessible poetry.

  373. on 19 May 2010 at 11:09 pm 373.Observer said …

    Rosta- Look at the links I posted a few lines above. That is the real deal love. I can not understand why you resist learning.

  374. on 20 May 2010 at 1:39 am 374.Rostam said …

    I learned Mr T, I really did. You are a bastion of magnificence and I feel privileged be on the same blog with you.

    No not really

    I listen to nothing a bigot like you puts forth. Learn begins at home Mr T. Take it to the Kentuckians.

  375. on 20 May 2010 at 12:41 pm 375.Anonymous said …

    Rostam (#311)
    “I only now that a Creator created the universe. I don’t pretend to claim to prove more than what is obvious through a combination of science and observation and a dose of solid common sense. Follow the evidence.”

    Rostam (Post#323)
    “More complex does not arise from the lesser complex.”

    Using your statement #1 above to verify statement #2; why don’t we look at us, humans, and evolution.

    According to what you have written, we should have had absolutely incredible civilizations 10 million years ago. You seem to say that the human race of today is the dumbed down version of prior generations if complexity is not generated over time. And is that what we observe when we “follow the evidence”? NO! http://www.becominghuman.org/

    We have slowly become more complex through evolution. There have been numerous extinctions of pre-humans. There has never been a hominid more capable of manipulating the environment as thoroughly as we do today. Your idea is shot when looking at human evolution, Rostam.

    But maybe your idea refers to the story of A&E? Or is it more in line with Mr Flew’s view of a creator?

  376. on 20 May 2010 at 1:14 pm 376.Rostam said …

    “More complex does not arise from the lesser complex.”

    Let me clear up this statement for those who did not follow the comments in the context of the previous posts. This will save you time in providing an exposition on evolution.

    More complex does not arise for lesser complex” UNLESS, their is a more complex creator behind the process. Therefore lesser complex (man) is still being produced from the most complex designer.

    I hope this clears things up.

  377. on 20 May 2010 at 1:33 pm 377.MrQ said …

    Rostam
    “I don’t pretend to claim to prove more than what is obvious through a combination of science and observation and a dose of solid common sense. Follow the evidence.”

    What about the science? What about the evidence and common sense? Poof, out the window!! It’s all about the invisible guy in the sky. You’re bulletproof.

  378. on 20 May 2010 at 1:45 pm 378.Observer said …

    Rosta #373 “I listen to nothing…” At last something accurate. At any rate, try to blunt some of your ever abundant ignorance and learn a bit about auto-catalysis, self-organization, etc. Ilya Prigogine is your man there. Of course, he is one of them thar JEWS, so he likely tryin to getchur MONEY! But don’t worry he died a few years ago. You could even try to get his layperson book “The End of Certainty” from your local library. It contextualizes the theory in Classical Western Philosophy, but leaves out as best I can remember Abrahamic religions, presumably because they have no bearing on reality.

    I just found a sample on Google Books. ( Be careful there too Rosta- them Google boys is JEWS too!!!! )

  379. on 20 May 2010 at 3:20 pm 379.bigbroomstick said …

    I think that all of us go to hogwarts when we die. except for the mudbloods, they are all gonna burn

  380. on 20 May 2010 at 3:26 pm 380.Nick Kwapis said …

    Why would we go back to our school, bigbroomstick, after we die?

  381. on 20 May 2010 at 3:29 pm 381.Rostam said …

    “What about the science? What about the evidence and common sense?”

    You are right Q, matter, creation and design forming ex nihilo makes MUCH more sense. Now if you can provide any science, evidence or even provide some common sense to disprove my belief, I am up for it. Is bulletproof you way of saying my case is air tight?

    Mr T,

    Do you hate Jews as well as all all those red neck southern boys? Haters are so ugly. It is the shame we can’t put all of you in leper colonies until they are healed. I’ll share a little something with you, I’m one of those hateful Jews and I more than likely already got some of your money :).

  382. on 20 May 2010 at 3:31 pm 382.Dixie Normous said …

    Shut up, Nick. Nobody asked for your input.

  383. on 20 May 2010 at 3:32 pm 383.Nick Kwapis said …

    You dont talk to me like that dix! im your headmaster, and you will show me some respect

  384. on 20 May 2010 at 3:33 pm 384.G UNIT said …

    I got moneyyyyy too Rostam. They call me G-UNIT from da hood cuz i gots the bags’o'money homeboy

  385. on 20 May 2010 at 3:35 pm 385.CoryCulbert said …

    im a jew. dont be makin fun guys. =(

  386. on 20 May 2010 at 4:09 pm 386.MrQ said …

    Rostam
    “You are right Q, matter, creation and design forming ex nihilo makes MUCH more sense. Now if you can provide any science, evidence or even provide some common sense to disprove my belief, I am up for it. Is bulletproof you way of saying my case is air tight?”

    You seem to be confusing concepts. I agree that at this moment we do not know exactly what caused the Big Bang. It’s a work in progress and no matter what is discovered, some, like you, will always say it was initiated/sparked by god. OK, fine, you’re right, if it makes you happy and makes more sense to you, then god(s) could have done that.
    But then you say that god(s) hung around after the BB and influenced evolution of humans (and other life forms, I am presuming). I don’t see any way that was possible. Evolution works, god is absolutely not required. The biodiversity of life on our planet today represents 1% of all life forms that have ever existed on our planet. Yes, that means 99% of all species that have ever evolved on Earth are extinct…Dinosaurs, pre-humans, ocean life,etc. Sounds like your god is quite an experimenter.
    And, No, bulletproof does not mean air tight. Only that you are resolute of faith. No matter what the evidence points to – goddidit.

  387. on 20 May 2010 at 6:32 pm 387.Rostam said …

    “But then you say that god(s) hung around after the BB and influenced evolution of humans (and other life forms, I am presuming). I don’t see any way that was possible.”

    Why is it not possible?

    “Evolution works, god is absolutely not required.”

    What proof do you have that macroevolution works without God?

  388. on 20 May 2010 at 7:26 pm 388.MrQ said …

    Rostam
    “Why is it not possible?”
    Lots of things are possible but ask yourself “what is probable.”
    Hmmm…Where to start:
    1)The collection of numerous fossil shows us transitional forms. Remember, very few animals become fossils; it is testimony to the hard work of researchers that we have an ever increasing number of fossils to enlighten us. The fossils of hominids show us creatures that transformed from ape-like to
    ape-human to human. http://www.becominghuman.org/
    Why do you suppose our closest genetic ancestors are the apes? God could be responsible, if that’s what you believe. Or it could be the painfully slow action of evolution.

    2)Irreducible complexity (an idea touted by the ID crowd) has proven to be completely false. There does seem to be genetic connections between numerous life forms. Was that an accident? An act of god? Or just evolution?

    3)Extinctions are a part of the package. Niches which wither and fade. Adaptation or death of the species. As I mentioned earlier, most of the bio-diversity on our planet is forever gone, extinct. What’s up with that? Is god trying to figure it out or is it just evolution? What makes more sense to you? I’ll stick with evolution, thank-you very much. Less baggage that way.

    You’ve somehow anchored yourself to an idea without requiring any proof. It’s called faith. You don’t, or shouldn’t, require any proof because the default argument is always “god was involved”. No problem with that. It makes you bulletproof.

  389. on 20 May 2010 at 9:08 pm 389.Observer said …

    Rosta MOT? that is a load. JFJ would be the closest you get.

    Rosta, you really are not smart. Entertaining, but not smart. I do have to hand it to you that you come up with something as asinine as Sean Hannity with the specious hatred charge.

  390. on 20 May 2010 at 11:37 pm 390.Rostam said …

    “1. The collection of numerous fossil shows us transitional forms.”

    Actually no, we are looking for some transitions but it is a stretch. The transitions must be guided by intelligence to take place.

    “2)Irreducible complexity (an idea touted by the ID crowd) has proven to be completely false.”

    Actually no again a theory developed by a prominent biochemist Michael Behe. It has arguments against and for the theory. You only accept one argument which is fine. Just don’t be disingenuous.

    “I’ll stick with evolution, thank-you very much.”

    LOL, so do I! You seem to completely ignorant of theistic evolution. A belief held by many scientist and a very popular position. Before you start attempting to disprove it, you may want to research it.

    Mr T,

    “Rosta, you really are not smart.”

    Wow, you got me! How could I stand in the presence of the bastion of manhood and intellect.

    Do you have some stones you need to hurl at Jews somewhere?

  391. on 21 May 2010 at 12:52 am 391.MrQ said …

    Rostam,
    Does this suit you as a definition of your beliefs (from Wiki): “Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation”
    “Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.”

    So, I guess someone like Ken Miller is in your league – A scientist with religious (in his case Catholic) beliefs.
    http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/

    We are almost on the same page, maybe. Are you saying god was involved with ALL evolution or ONLY human evolution? I am guessing you think god worked on only the human branch. If that’s what you believe, then you can understand that evolution, in general for all OTHER species, does NOT require a god. But we’re special, right? God said so.

    So was Michael Behe peer reviewed? And what did they find in support of his idea? You failed to back up your statement: “It has arguments against and for the theory.” I’d like to see a link or two in support of the idea. If it’s a theory, even better! I understand irreducible complexity to be a dead issue but it wouldn’t be the first time I am wrong.

    And yes, I am totally oblivious to theistic evolution. Must have been living under a rock for too long. I am wondering what your godly inspirational source is for all this. Is this where Cicero comes in?

  392. on 21 May 2010 at 2:28 am 392.Rostam said …

    First I don’t use wiki. You might read Francis Collins “The language of God”.

    Your second paragraph makes no sense. Sorry, I don’t know what you are attempting to postulate.

    “So was Michael Behe peer reviewed?”

    I’m sure he has been on many occasions. He is a leader in his field, published and around for quite a long time. Look him up Q.

    “And yes, I am totally oblivious to theistic evolution.”

    Yes, you definitely have been under the rock. It helps to read outside your own biases. Well I suggest you do some research. I don’t ask you to do my research for me. Be a big boy and read up on it if you truly desire to learn.

    I am familiar with Conway-Morris, F Collins and yes Miller. You obvious disdain for the fact he is a Catholic (I am not) shows me you have an inability to learn from others who might be relgious. That’s a shame.

    Aren’t most Libs catholic?

  393. on 21 May 2010 at 2:37 am 393.Corey said …

    May one of you explain the argument for me so I can comment. I’m not completely sure where you are at and want to get the information first hand.

  394. on 21 May 2010 at 8:30 am 394.Severin said …

    380 Rostam
    “You are right Q, matter, creation and design forming ex nihilo makes MUCH more sense.”

    Let’s start again: an ex nihilo god has sense, the ex nihilo matter has not.If no one created god, why we can not agree that no one created matter?
    WHY? Try to explain!

    And, of course, no one ever claimed the matter appeared ex nihilo! It just existed, exists and will exist. No cause, no reason.

    Now, again, WHY god is a good candidate to be eternal and matter is not? WHY matter should necessaryly had been created from anyone?

    And, again, and again, and again, untill I get a good answer: if we agree god created matter, WAS IT BIBLICAL GOD?

  395. on 21 May 2010 at 8:37 am 395.Severin said …

    Rostam 380
    “Now if you can provide any science, evidence or even provide some common sense to disprove my belief”
    Here again you are confusing things. You demand proofs to disprove you, instead giving your own to prove yourself right.

    What are your proofs god created matter/energy?

    I/we only THINK it did not happen that way, and our opinion is pretty well supoorted by reality, science, everyday life, logic. We are NOT trying to prove god does not exist.
    One who claims it does, should offer some evidences for his claim, which you never did.

  396. on 21 May 2010 at 12:27 pm 396.MrQ said …

    Rostam
    “You obvious disdain for the fact he is a Catholic (I am not)”
    Where did that come from? Disdain? OK, if you say so. But at least we now know what you are not.

    “So was Michael Behe peer reviewed?”
    “I’m sure he has been on many occasions. He is a leader in his field, published and around for quite a long time. Look him up Q.”
    I was asking about your assertion that irreducible complexity had arguments for it. But good cherry picking on your part. Still not able to find anything.

    Rostam, you’re all sizzle and no steak. Your idea is based on what? You keep avoiding that essential question. Are you ashamed to acknowledge the creator in which you believe?

  397. on 21 May 2010 at 1:17 pm 397.Corey said …

    Here is plausible evidence that God created matter:

    The universe is fine tuned. If the universe didn’t have some of it’s very specific aspects like the rate at which it’s expanding, where its expanding from, gravity, our distance from the sun, or the pull of the gravitational sun on all of the planets, we wouldn’t be able to exist. The probability of this happening is an almost unfathomable number of 1/10^23. in expanded form, that would be 1 over 1000000000000000000000000. Not a very likely chance that matter created itself and then used those odds to form itself in a stable formation.

    Also, since the universe is constantly expanding in all directions, if you reverse the order, then you will end at one point in space where the universe started from. Many Atheists will say that this is correct and the cause of it was the Big Bang, but this is wrong because Matter can’t create itself. Many will also say that the energy must have existed in another form before matter was created. Yes this is true, that other form was God! No information given can disprove that God happened to be the other form of energy that existed before matter.

    This shows that the God theory has science on it’s side and that the theory is a completely plausible theory.

  398. on 21 May 2010 at 1:18 pm 398.Rostam said …

    “I was asking about your assertion that irreducible complexity had arguments for it. But good cherry picking on your part. Still not able to find anything.”

    Well, I stated right up front their were arguments for and against it. You even brought up Miller who was brought into the Dover trial to refute Behe. It depends on which side you decide to support YOU brought up the theory not me. I sort of assumed you actually knew something about it since YOU bring it up.

    “You keep avoiding that essential question.”

    Well I stated there is a Creator because of the obvious design in Science, observations and a dose of good common sense. If I avoid the essential question then indulge me and speak it clearly. I’m not sure how much more I can acknowledge a creator. (creator creator creator creator) There is five more times.

    If you have no disdain for Millers Catholicism why do you bring it up in cute little brackets. Is it a form of Muhammad(Pbuh)? You are probably one of those atheist who stupidly believe men of religion cannot be scientist.

  399. on 21 May 2010 at 1:36 pm 399.MrQ said …

    Rostam,
    Round and round we go. Which god you come up with we’ll never know.

    Might as well say that your creator is a fairy dust sprinkling little pink unicorn or FDSLPU, for short.

    Still waiting for your link to the “theory” of irreducible complexity. Try to find a site which does not support ID/Creationism, it might help your case.

    BTW: I have mucho respect for Miller. Very smart man.

  400. on 21 May 2010 at 2:37 pm 400.MrQ said …

    Corey,
    “This shows that the God theory has science on it’s side and that the theory is a completely plausible theory.”

    The numbers are indeed impressive. But consider, for the sake of perspective, there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on our planet Earth. Factor in the chances of life occurring on Mars and on one or some of the moons orbiting planets in our solar system, then it would seem life in the universe was inevitable. Just saying, let’s not jump to conclusions.

  401. on 21 May 2010 at 2:42 pm 401.Observer said …

    Rosta- You failed the quiz. You are not a Jew. Do you consider yourself one of those “circumcised in the heart” Christian-ish Jews?

    #396 Corey. I do not know what orifice you pulled that number out of, it is an absurd proposition and such a number has not been calculated by anyone worth listening to, but it is less than 1/6 the number of water molecules in a 18gms of water ( as it appears you are not quite scientifically literate at a high school chemistry level, that is a less than a tablespoon and teaspoon combined ). So, in the grand scheme of things, the size of the known universe, that seems like a very high probability, and as it so happens, astronomers are discovering planets in far flung solar systems nearly daily. Did you people not go to school? Go to schools infected with Christians?

  402. on 21 May 2010 at 3:16 pm 402.Rostam said …

    “Round and round we go. Which god you come up with we’ll never know.”

    LOL, I admit I don’t know much about the Creator. Only his work. Which of the 100 BB theories do you support? Round and around we go which BB he grabs we never know! Be specific and provide details.

    “still waiting for your link to the “theory” of irreducible complexity. Try to find a site which does not support ID/Creationism, it might help your case.”

    Swing-and-a-miss! Again, you brought up the theory. Its not MY theory it is Behe’s. Why do you bring up things you can’t follow through on? Do you have a point to make on the theory? If so, spit it out Qless.

    Mr T,

    I’m not a Jew? Do you realize over 70% of the Jewish population are theistic evolutionist. What am I saying, I speaking to Testerone man!

  403. on 21 May 2010 at 4:12 pm 403.MrQ said …

    Rostam,
    “LOL, I admit I don’t know much”
    On this we agree ;-) (see what happens when I cherry pick)

    “Which of the 100 BB theories do you support?”
    The one that’s correct, of course. Why are you so anxious? Let the research continue, dummy. FDSLPU is one of my last choices, for the moment. Maybe your first choice?

    “Swing-and-a-miss!”
    OK. You’re still not committing to any particular idea or deity, other than “theistic evolution”. I didn’t bring “irreducible complexity” up as a “theory”, that’s what you call it. To me it is a flawed and disproven idea. It was my failed attempt to figure out where you stand but it appears that you genuinely do not know yourself. Other than the FDSLPU.

  404. on 21 May 2010 at 5:40 pm 404.Severin said …

    397 Rostam
    “Well I stated there is a Creator because of the obvious design in Science, observations and a dose of good common sense.”

    We never doubted you are a creationis. That’s fine, but there are at least 2 types of creationsts I recognized:
    - Cretionists walking around proving that biblical god created universe, big flood did happen, etc
    - Creatinists claiming a superior being stands behind creation af matter/energy some 13.5 billion years ago

    Which category are you?

  405. on 21 May 2010 at 6:22 pm 405.Severin said …

    401 Rostam
    “Which of the 100 BB theories do you support?”

    Which of many creation theories do YOU support?

    It is very important question, because differences among theories of creation are extreme, and theories are not compatible at all.
    If you categorize them all, you can recognize 2 main categories of creation theories::
    -One of them tells us that man was made of dirt and light was created before sun, and only 2 sources of light were created. Andromeda and Alpha Centauri were not mentioned. People supporting this sort of theories are walking around and making movies to prove the big flood relly occured, and Noah’s Arc existed, etc
    -Another group of creation theories recognizes natural reality, including the BB, but claims god stands behind it.

    So, in which group are you?

  406. on 21 May 2010 at 6:37 pm 406.Rostam said …

    “(see what happens when I cherry pick)”

    You prove yourself to be a dolt? Yes, I see.

    “Let the research continue, dummy.”

    C’mon you fence rider. Side with one! See what happens when you attempt to force someone to chose a particular side when one has not been established?

    “irreducible complexity” up as a “theory”, that’s what you call it.”

    No silly dolt. You brought it up knowing nothing about it. It was obvious when you brought up miller. A theory is NOT something you necessarily agree with. Learn how science works then come back with some big boy thoughts.

    You are officially a waste of time. Good night moon.

  407. on 21 May 2010 at 6:51 pm 407.Burebista said …

    “Just saying, let’s not jump to conclusions.”

    Why not? You did Q-less (Thanks Rostam). You state there is no God. You need to back off and not jump to conclusions.

  408. on 21 May 2010 at 7:35 pm 408.Corey said …

    I am simply stating facts that SCIENCE has given us. Do you not value life above any other thing in the universe? you say that out of all the planets and stars and such that there are in the universe, that life is unable to be avoided, right? well, think of it like this…Out of all the planets and stars in the universe that don’t have life on them, its amazing that life exists at all. I cannot say that science is wrong in finding life on mars and other such moons, because they haven’t found life at all yet; therefore, there is still that possibility that there is life, but I can say that human life and technology has not been discovered on any other planets or moons. And as far as jumping to conclusions, a God creating life on planet Earth is the most reasonable conclusion of all, especially with the supporting evidence that I have given you.

  409. on 21 May 2010 at 11:26 pm 409.3D said …

    408.Corey said …
    I am simply stating facts that SCIENCE has given us. Do you not value life above any other thing in the universe? you say that out of all the planets and stars and such that there are in the universe, that life is unable to be avoided, right? well, think of it like this…Out of all the planets and stars in the universe that don’t have life on them, its amazing that life exists at all.

    I think you have a problem of scale. You are just not understanding how huge the universe is.

    The ratio of planets with life to those without in our observable neighborhood is 1/10. That’s not rare at all. We can’t say definitively whether the faraway planets we’ve recently discovered have life or not, because we can’t zoom in enough.

    The scientists of the old world in Europe had the same problem because they couldn’t see the other side of the planet, so they made all sorts of wrong assumptions about it.

    So, it may be amazing that life exists at all, or it may be relatively common. We have no way of knowing yet.

    I cannot say that science is wrong in finding life on mars and other such moons,

    Mars is a planet, not a moon.

    And as far as jumping to conclusions, a God creating life on planet Earth is the most reasonable conclusion of all, especially with the supporting evidence that I have given you.

    No, a hand coming down from the sky and making people out of mud and then plucking a rib out and making a woman is not the most reasonable conclusion of all. Try again!

  410. on 21 May 2010 at 11:44 pm 410.Corey said …

    I didn’t call Mars a moon, read the above statement from Mr. Q to me.

    Also, God didn’t make people out of mud.

    Lastly, how can you say that the probability for life on other planets is 1/10 if we haven’t even found life on other planets yet. I seriously think your math is wrong because the last time I checked it was about 1/10000000000000. Even some of the most well known scientist like Professor Watson has said that life in an infinite universe is possible but not PROBABLE. In other words, its not very likely. Try again!

  411. on 21 May 2010 at 11:50 pm 411.Corey said …

    Prof. Watson, unfortunately, may be correct in his conclusion that “life on other Earth-like planets…(is)..not probable.” He may have proved the opposite by introducing infinity, “Infinity was invented to account for… a never-ending universe.”

    “His model… suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low – less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years.” Less than 0.01% of infinity is a pretty big chunk of celestual relistate even over four billion years. Intelligent life may be impossible to find – the proverbial needle-in-the-haystack but with these odds we at least know that the needle is there somplace.

    Above it mentions the “needle in the haystack.” We are that needle people!!! We were the exception that God chose to allow. We are the intelligent life that he created in this never ending universe.

  412. on 22 May 2010 at 2:52 am 412.Xenon said …

    It is quite incredible Corey. It is the reason our life is valuable, purposeful and quite the gift.

  413. on 22 May 2010 at 3:46 am 413.Corey said …

    Thank you Xenon!!!

  414. on 22 May 2010 at 6:40 am 414.Severin said …

    Corey
    Corey,
    In the first place you confused probability with possibility.
    Laws of physics and chemistry tell us whether some chemical reaction is POSSIBLE at all. If it is possible, scisnces also clearly tell us under what condition are they possible. I already gave some simple examples, but I will repeat them for you:
    Mix neon and hydrogen, and nothing will ever hhappen, no matter what conditions you imput on the mixture. It is because the nature of neon atoms do not permit any reacton. They have no free electrones for reaction.
    Mix hydrogen and oxygen, and let them stay mixed without iniciating reaction, and they will stay unreacted for eternity. But if you iniciate reaction (with some flame), they WILL react.
    Under benefitial conditions elements and compounds that, according to structure of their atoms and molecules are able to react, WILL REACT, and will NEVER FAIL TO REACT.

    Probability theory does not tell us WETHER somethin will happen or not. POSSIBILITY something to happen depends of laws of physics and chemistry NOT on probability.
    If we have elements and compounds able to react according to “constitution” of their atoms and molecules, probability tell us HOW FREQUENTLY can we expect them to react.
    It, of course, depends on how frequently will CONDITIONS occure, under which those elements/compounds WILL NOT FAIL TO REACT, because of their chemical nature.
    For example Na and Cl will react ABSOLUTELY EACH TIME when you put them together, with or without oxigen present, with or without catalyst, at any temperature and pressure.
    Carbon will NOT react with oxigen untill certain conditions (temperature) are present, but they will react to build compounds (CO, CO2) at the very moment right conditions appear, and WILL NEVER FAIL to react as long as enough carbon and oxigen AND conditions necessary for reaction are present.

    If you calculate PROBABILITY of appearance of right conditions to ocure and enable chemical reaction, if you have all elements for such calculations, you can get an accurate number which tells you HOW FREQUENTLY, or AFTER HOW MANY TRIALS can you expect a reaction to ocure.

    Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE a head will turn ever if you toss a coin long enough (in this case VERY SOON)? You are, of course!
    Are you absolutely sure that you will get 10 successive tails if you toss a coin long enough? Of course you are, you just have to toss it several million times! But IT WILL happen! No chance NOT to happen!

    So WHY is it so unexpected to get some benefitial reactions if elements and compounds ready to react (because they have ALL “built in” reaction mechanisms, such as electrons, afinity to each other…) are mixed together for BILLIONS of years?

  415. on 22 May 2010 at 6:45 am 415.Severin said …

    Corey
    “Of course you are, you just have to toss it several million times! But IT WILL happen”

    It was only an illustration. You have to toss a coin musch less than “several million times” to get 10 succesive tails. I can calculate it for you if you want.

  416. on 22 May 2010 at 8:21 am 416.Severin said …

    Corey
    And, of course, Miller – Urey experiment, and many other similar experiments, did not directly prove life started on the earth that way. But thoese experiments DID prove what was expected:
    IT WAS POSSIBLE!

    They run their experiments for very limited periods of time ccompared to time nature had on disposal, and get complex organic molecules.
    Billions of years were available to nature for such “experiments”! It owuld be a miracle if life did not occure!
    Please try talking to a chemist. Please read some literature about chemistry.
    ANYTHING for what laws of physics and chemistry say to be possible to occure, WILL occure sooner or later, under proper conditions. Carbon WILL react with oxygen. Carbon dioxide WILL take further reactions to make more complex molecules. Those molecules WILL react together, and to other elements, to make still complexer compounds.
    What is so strange in that?
    Please do not allow your poor knowledge of elementary chemistry to lead you to misconclusions!

    I am “poor” in biology, but trust people who have much more knoledge about it than I do. Why would I trust priests, not professionals?

  417. on 22 May 2010 at 2:20 pm 417.Xenon said …

    You are welcome Corey. The only thing you need to be aware of on this blog and from others is this. Many will interpret the results of science to suit their worldview. Miller-Urey is a great example. One thing they will not tell you is the simple amino acids produced had to be removed from the environment so they would not be destroyed. One other point I think I remember was the amino acids were not even correct for life. This was done by some of our most intelligient beings.

    But of course of God was involved, he certainly would have the ability to st up the lab to do exactly what He needed on primitive earth.

  418. on 22 May 2010 at 9:34 pm 418.3D said …

    Also, God didn’t make people out of mud.

    I agree! God didn’t make people, period.

    But the Bible says that God took some dirt, shaped it into a man-shaped thingy, and blew some soul stuff into his nose.

    Genesis 2:7
    “2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

    I thought you were a Lutheran Corey! Don’t Lutherans believe in the Bible?

    Or maybe you were correcting me that it was dirt and not mud? If so, I have to concede that you were right. Dirt makes much more sense.

    Lastly, how can you say that the probability for life on other planets is 1/10 if we haven’t even found life on other planets yet.

    Simple! I didn’t say that.

    I said the RATIO of planets with life, to planets without life, in our observable area, is 1/10 (actually it’s 1/9, so that was a mistake). That’s not the same thing as the “probability for life on other planets” though.

    The probability for life on other planets is an unknown. We don’t know enough about other planets outside our solar system to even begin to guess at how probable life is there, because they are too far away. Life may be as common as it is in our solar system (1 with, 9 without — I’m still counting Pluto for nostalgia) or it may be extremely rare. We can’t say yet.

    But more importantly… to say that life occurring here is a crazy miracle is not only premature. It is also arrogant, to assume that life did not similarly originate elsewhere and that all this cosmos, most of which we can’t even see yet, was created for human beings.

    I find that by the book theists (not so much the theistic God-fits-into-science group) are often very adamant about insisting that there aren’t any aliens out there. Because if aliens are ever proved to exist then you have a whole new mess of problems with the Bible. Was God breathing souls into the noses of dirt-men on other planets too? Do they have a different God? What?

  419. on 22 May 2010 at 10:34 pm 419.Xenon said …

    “Also, God didn’t make people out of mud.”

    3D, just to be correct here, mud is dirt and water. Didn’t you learn that as a preschooler? See, this is why you guys can never take you seriously. To tell lies.

    “I said the RATIO of planets with life, to planets without life, in our observable area, is 1/10 (actually it’s 1/9, so that was a mistake).”

    This is also a lie and distortion. We have telescopes that greatly increase our sphere of observance. Ratio of planets with life to planets without life is beyond calculation. Yes, if there is no God it should be much higher just based on mere chance, if it really can happen

  420. on 23 May 2010 at 1:35 am 420.MrQ said …

    Xenon,

    Regarding your post#418:
    See post #409. Do you see who authored that? It’s Corey’s work. Look for the statement: “Also, God didn’t make people out of mud.” See it? Good. Are you calling Corey a pre-schooler who tells lies? Ooops!!!

    Just for fun, check out this link and see who god really is: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64J5RY20100520

    We are as easily capable of making and altering life as we are of fabricating gods. Maybe we are the gods that made the creator in our image?

  421. on 23 May 2010 at 2:27 am 421.Corey said …

    He formed them from dust of the ground, made them with his all-powerful nature, and created them from his wonderous imagination. He also gave them a soul with his breath.

    You say it like its a bad thing that we are made out of dirt. Is it? we are made that way so we don’t pollute gods beautiful earth! Ashes to ashes dust to dust.

    The bible only tells us of our creation, not the rest of the universe. He very well could have created other organisms just like he created animals apart from humans. It is very unlikely though.

    Okay, you can make more complex molecules, but that does not explain how the molecules will separate into separate organs and give itself its own spark to actually live, its not possible. Thats why humans must reproduce. Do you see humans evolving from dirt or other animals now? no, of course not, because humans didn’t evolve from other animals or things!

  422. on 23 May 2010 at 6:15 am 422.Severin said …

    418 Xenon
    ” To tell lies.”

    Here we have again Xenon’s righteousness in action!

    Just imagine! Someone told god made man from mud, someone else he mad him from dust, and the third one from dirt! And the righteous Xenon can not stand with lies!

    Why, Xenon, is so imortant whether god made man from mud, dust, dirt or potato?
    Isn’t it equally idiotic?

  423. on 23 May 2010 at 6:34 am 423.Severin said …

    420 Corey
    “You say it like its a bad thing that we are made out of dirt. Is it?”

    I say it is good thing we are here, no matter what are we made of.
    But “dust”, “dirt” and “mud” are typically mixtures of clays, in some areas (depending on chemical composition of surounding ground) also of some other types of stones, like carbonates,silica… crushed into small particles by erosion (water, wind…).
    Some organic matters can be found in dust-mud-dirt, as residues of dead or rotten trash of dead organisms.

    It is very unlikely that all possible chemical compounds necessary to make a simple cell is possible to find in mud-dust-dirt.
    If they were all there, what about conditions necessary for reaction, and with most important component: TIME.

    Oops! I forgot god had an “abracadabra” in his pocket!

  424. on 23 May 2010 at 7:10 am 424.Severin said …

    420 Corey
    „Okay, you can make more complex molecules, but that does not explain how the molecules will separate into separate organs…“
    Dear Corey, I am not ready to go step by step in teching you things.
    I do admit that, although a chemist with university degree, I do not know enough to explain everything you might ask. So I can not teach you.
    When I have some doubts about something, or lack of knowledge about things, I learn! I read, ask, (mostly read), compare data with each other and with my own accumulated knowledge, and make conclusions using also my common sense.
    IF you came to conclusion more complex molecules are possible to be synthesized spontaniously, why then is it impossible for STIIL complexer ones?

    GENES are NOT simple „complex molecules“, but conglomerates of molecules designed to transfer information. THEY are „ordering“ the initial cells of a future human how to arrange to make organs. It is all well known, but I am NOT too familiar with that, I admit.
    But if very serious, very educated, very intelligent scientists, WHOSE ACHIEVMENTS ALREADY ARE WORKING IN REAL LIFE, and FIT reality, fit cause-effect chain, fit practice, fit my common sense… tell me it is possible, WHY would I not trust them, but a book telling me man was made from dust/mud/dirt in a second? Especially the part of making woman from his rib!
    Why would I avoid to trust Nobel Prize winners who worked their whole lives to do something, and DID something, supported by very solid, serious arguments, but should trust a silly ancient book telling me about dust/mud/dirt, talking snakes and angels?

    Please read!

    I will repeat your words here: “… but that does not explain how the molecules will separate into separate organs…“
    So you are requiring explanations, and it is VERY good!

    But you are NOT reqiring explanation for biblical creation! WHY?

    Does the story REALLY fit your intelligence/common sense, your present knowledge, your experiance, so you do not need explanation?
    Man made from dirt/dust/mud, talking snakes, angels, women transformed to salt…do such things fit your sense of reality?

  425. on 23 May 2010 at 7:42 am 425.Severin said …

    Corey,

    If I ever believed Bible was something I should trust, I would immediatelly stop trusting it after I read Genesis.

    I learnt from my grandfather who grew rabbits about danger of inbreeding. He always carefully cared not to mix genes among close rabbit relatives (he did not allow mating of close relatives), although he never heard anything about genes in his life.

    My grandfather KNEW it, god DID NOT!

    He allowed incetous mating among brothers and sisters, and BASED psreading of human race over the earth ON INCESTOUS MATING.

    Does your church allow incestous mating among brothers and sisters? If not, WHY, if god allowed it?
    WHO dared to change god’s will declared in the Bible?

    Additionally, HE ALLOWED men to have 2 wives! Even more than 2! A good example of hypocrysy and inconsistence: our society, including your church, FORBIDS bigamy. God, in the Bible tells us bigamy is O.K. (Genesis 4 19, there are other examples, find them yourself).
    WHY is bigamy forbidden today? WHO „dared“ to change god’s word and why?

    And, of coures: if any hillbilly is authorized to change god’s laws, what IS the Bible then?
    Nothing!

  426. on 23 May 2010 at 11:17 am 426.Xenon said …

    “Just for fun, check out this link and see who god really is”

    More proof that intelligence is required to form even the smallest step toward life. Isn’t it time for atheist to wake up and open up their eyes, and even smell the coffee?

    Thanks 3D. I read this and knew within 3 days an atheist would attempt to use this for their “no god” speech.

  427. on 23 May 2010 at 4:40 pm 427.Xenon said …

    “Because if aliens are ever proved to exist then you have a whole new mess of problems with the Bible.”

    Why wouldn’t aliens fit in the Bible?

    Do you believe in ET 3D? That sounds like faith there buddy. Not really any different than God.

    “Life may be as common as it is in our solar system”

    More faith? No proof no reason to say MAY exists when there is no observable proof.

    Why do you have problems with God MAY exist but you do not about ET? You seem to be hung up on little green men.

  428. on 23 May 2010 at 5:11 pm 428.MrQ said …

    Xenon,
    See what the smart people are saying about aliens and other life in the universe. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article7107207.ece

    The preachers, priests, pope, and yourself say all life is due to an intelligent and caring creator. We know how smart that group is, don’t we?

    Where in the bible does it mention aliens? Oh wait, it’s a multi-function book that can be interpreted for whatever you desire. I stand corrected, it’s all in there. Your base is covered.

  429. on 23 May 2010 at 6:32 pm 429.Xenon said …

    Q,

    The old appeal to authority fallacy? Are you so insecure you must trot out an authority to back your responses? I asked your opinion but apparently you don’t think for yourself. I could trot out authorities to counter but I think for myself.

    Yikes, Hawk tells me to avoid aliens. Would he be referring to the Mexicans crossing the border or ET? You would probably jump from the Bay Bridge if Hawk told you he deemed it safe. You sheep…

    In the end, you did not answer one question or offer one scrap of proof. You are probably the first member of Raëlism on the blog. Welcome.

  430. on 23 May 2010 at 7:22 pm 430.Severin said …

    420 Corey
    “The bible only tells us of our creation, not the rest of the universe.”
    WHY? Why Bible does not tell us anything about creation of the rest of universe?
    Because PEOPLE who wrote it did not know anything about universe!

    “Do you see humans evolving from dirt or other animals now? no, of course not, because humans didn’t evolve from other animals or things!”
    Of course I do! Not from dirt, of course! If we do not kill all monkies on the earth, we could expect a new primitive human race to develop in next few hundred thousands of years!
    Although evolution is extremely slow, there are other direct evidences about evolution in action before our eyes!

    Several different human races were developed on earth during last 3-4 million years. Some of them lived parallel in time, and some of them even on the same terrytory at the same time.
    Have you heard about Lucy? neanderthals? Those were NOT monkeys!

    You have to have in mind that neither humans nor any other living species have NO living ancestors today.
    We are all relatives, but only far “nephews”. We all have common ancestor, but the bigger the difference among today’s species, the further in the past is our conmmon ancestor.

    You can not take evolution as a line! It is an extremely big TREE. The existing species are the only green tops of tiny branches, the rest of the tree is dead. Much, much more species dissapeared from the earth than we have them today existing.

  431. on 23 May 2010 at 7:49 pm 431.Merlin said …

    Unflattering news travel slower for those who tried so hard to make Lucy fit. Oops Severin.

    Tel Aviv University anthropologists say they have disproven the theory that “Lucy” – the world-famous 3.2-million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis skeleton found in Ethiopia 33 years ago – is the last ancestor common to humans and another branch of the great apes family known as the “Robust hominids.”

    The specific structure found in Lucy also appears in a species called Australopithecus robustus. Prof. Yoel Rak and colleagues at the Sackler School of Medicine’s department of anatomy and anthropology wrote, “The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Australopithecus afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of [Lucy] as a common ancestor.”

  432. on 23 May 2010 at 8:51 pm 432.MrQ said …

    Xenon,

    Like the Raëlism movement, you have the faith. Their book is probably more modern than yours, though.

    Personally, I don’t think little green men (aka aliens) exist. I am just too skeptical for that idea. But I do find it interesting that Hawking would suggest something like aliens (I will state that there is a good chance of life existing in some form elsewhere in the universe). However, aliens makes more sense to my skeptical mind than saying the god of the bible exists. But that’s just me, walking lock-step without thinking for myself.

    Grand ideas require exceptional proofs. So far god has yet to heal an amputee or show up and scold his creations for their insolence. Aliens, apparently, were carved up at Area 51 (cue the eerie space music) according to some people. I give those people as much credibility as you for your faith in god.

    Geez, did I just think for myself?

  433. on 23 May 2010 at 10:05 pm 433.MrQ said …

    Merlin,
    “Unflattering news travel slower for those who tried so hard to make Lucy fit. Oops Severin.”

    Is it not great, Merlin, that we are able to look at real evidence and try to figure things out? You have faith in god and no matter how strong your faith may be it does not make your god any more real than little pink unicorns. With faith, can there really be a meaningful debate? A&E, belly buttons or not? Noah’s ark, did the animals hibernate during the journey? How many angels fit on the head of a pin? Yeah, go team!!!

    Real science looks at all the man-ape branches on the evolutionary tree and tries, with the few fossils available, to figure things out. Lucy not a direct descendant, no problem. Fits somewhere on the tree, ya think? We’re very lucky to have the REAL EVIDENCE of her existence. What have you got for god?

  434. on 24 May 2010 at 2:53 am 434.Xenon said …

    Merlin

    Don’t cha just luv how real scientist warn us not to talk to aliens? And you gotta luv Severin once again with more falsehoods.

    I am a big fan of science because it does keep inching to aliens or do i possibly throw this out……a God.

    Its funny though how the ancient ideas seem to make their way back to the mainstream. I believe in trees!

    C’mon Q, you know you will never talk to alien since Hawk told you not to do so. He should stick to black holes.

  435. on 24 May 2010 at 3:08 am 435.MrQ said …

    Xenon,
    “C’mon Q, you know you will never talk to alien since Hawk told you not to do so.”

    I think I have just a slightly better chance of talking to a real alien than I do to a real god. At the moment, both of them are in a tie for my favourite fictional characters.

  436. on 24 May 2010 at 7:31 am 436.Severin said …

    426 Xenon
    “Why wouldn’t aliens fit in the Bible?”

    Because of different chemical composition of muds/dirts/dusts on different planets.

  437. on 24 May 2010 at 7:06 pm 437.3D said …

    427.Xenon said …
    “Do you believe in ET 3D?”

    No. I don’t ‘believe’ in ET. I don’t believe anything without proof. That’s your gig.

    But I think they are possible. At least, more likely than unicorns and 940 year old dudes and talking snakes, anyway.

    “That sounds like faith there buddy. Not really any different than God.”

    No, here’s why it’s different: you have an opinion on God despite no evidence. That’s faith.

    I don’t have an opinion on whether aliens exist, because there is no evidence of it being the case. That’s called ‘reacting to the evidence in front of you’.

    ” “Life may be as common as it is in our solar system”
    More faith? No proof no reason to say MAY exists when there is no observable proof.”

    Well, you quoted half my sentence. The other half was “…or it may be extremely rare. We can’t say yet.”

    But we already know that you are here to make dishonest arguments. We knew that the second you started defending the Bible. Because when you defend the Bible, you don’t have any real logical backup, so you have to invent shit and use semantical loopholes. It’s not a big shock that you’re trying to do it by cutting quotes in half.

    “Why do you have problems with God MAY exist but you do not about ET? You seem to be hung up on little green men.”

    I don’t have a problem with “God may exist”. In fact, I feel the same way about aliens as I do about God — there is no evidence for either one.

    But, at least there is life here on earth, which tells us there may be life elsewhere that developed in a similar way. By contrast, there has never been a recorded instance of a god existing, breathing souls through noses, anywhere.

  438. on 24 May 2010 at 9:07 pm 438.Anonymous said …

    Sorry but GOD do exist!!!!!!!!!
    Think about it,who created us ourselfs?

  439. on 25 May 2010 at 11:20 am 439.Anonymous said …

    334.Severin…

    The question isn’t how life was created on earth, the question is how was it created in space? Space is a vacuum, and since its a vacuum, they need to test to see if life can be created in a vacuum on its own. I believe they have already tried this experiment. They even took it a step further and provided already living cellular organisms, which ended up dying in a day or two anyway. So life is not sustainable in a vacuum.

  440. on 25 May 2010 at 11:27 am 440.Corey said …

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    my comment

  441. on 25 May 2010 at 11:44 am 441.Corey said …

    God is all-powerful, so he can use anything he wants to “form” us. My assumption is that God created everyone from the earth so that when we die, we go right back to the earth. “Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.”

    There is nothing in the bible that says that God allowed incessed to happen, nor does it say that Adam and Eve are the only beings God created. God has the power to create what and whenever he wants. Its a likely probability that he could have created more humans so he didn’t break his own laws. I read Genesis and no where does it say that God approved of Lamech marrying two wives. God does not interfere with our sins. We will be judged in the end days, not now. God never said that Lamech did right by marrying two women.

    Xenon is right, no matter what sort of unsolved problem you come to, whether its aliens or the reality of God, you need to have some kind of faith to believe in such existance because there are some questions that humans just don’t have the technology or the brain mass to answer.

    436.3D

    If you don’t believe in anything that has proof, then how can you believe that the big bang theory is what created the universe when there isn’t even enough valid evidence to prove it?

  442. on 25 May 2010 at 6:42 pm 442.3D said …

    436.3D
    If you don’t believe in anything that has proof, then how can you believe that the big bang theory is what created the universe when there isn’t even enough valid evidence to prove it?

    Did I say I “believe in the Big Bang theory”?

    Try to argue against what’s put in front of you, rather than reciting talking points your pastor handed out to you. You’ll learn to think more logically that way.

  443. on 25 May 2010 at 7:24 pm 443.Corey said …

    That was more of a general statement to all the people who do believe in the Big Bang. And just so you know, I only see my pastor on sundays and we don’t speak at all. Just a friendly hello and goodbye. All my opinions are coming from me and not the “talking points” of my pastor. Insulting me still doesn’t prove to me how you are right, so I would suggest you stick with the argument, not your emotions.

  444. on 25 May 2010 at 7:43 pm 444.Xenon said …

    3D

    It is easy to sit back and claim to hear no evil and see no evil huh my multidimensional friend. I doubt Corey’s pastor claimed 3D believes in the BB so stop being a rhoid.

    Fact is, life is full of faith and everything is circular reasoning. It is all just a matter of big your circle is today.

    You know good and well you are a BB guy and I bet you believe the deepest part of the Pacific is over 5 miles deep. I bet as well you have never seen it either.

  445. on 26 May 2010 at 6:35 am 445.3D said …

    444.Xenon said …

    It is easy to sit back and claim to hear no evil and see no evil huh my multidimensional friend. I doubt Corey’s pastor claimed 3D believes in the BB so stop being a rhoid.

    He is reciting talking points to use against atheists, without actually applying them accurately against what people here are saying. I was trying to help him form a logical argument, something you should do too instead of enabling him into becoming a sheep that recites dogmatic BS.

    Fact is, life is full of faith and everything is circular reasoning. It is all just a matter of big your circle is today.

    Life is only “full of faith” if you make it that way, by ignoring facts.

    You know good and well you are a BB guy

    I don’t know what a “BB guy” is. I do know that the Big Bang is one of many sound theories that seem plausible, but also, as most scientists will tell you, we don’t know enough about the universe’s early stages to say what happened, definitively.

    But that’s the advantage of science over being a religious zealot. When you don’t know something, you say “I don’t know” and try to find out. Religious zealots claim they know everything, and stay incurious about the world.

    and I bet you believe the deepest part of the Pacific is over 5 miles deep. I bet as well you have never seen it either.

    Yeah! And maybe there are some unicorns and burning bushes down there too!

  446. on 26 May 2010 at 6:40 am 446.3D said …

    443.Corey said …
    That was more of a general statement to all the people who do believe in the Big Bang.

    Yeah, there’s your problem. Stop arguing with every atheist that ever walked the earth, and focus on the discussion in front of you.

    And just so you know, I only see my pastor on sundays and we don’t speak at all. Just a friendly hello and goodbye. All my opinions are coming from me and not the “talking points” of my pastor. Insulting me still doesn’t prove to me how you are right, so I would suggest you stick with the argument, not your emotions.

    I didn’t insult you. I’m trying to encourage you not to get your long-debunked arguments direct from a Christian talking points warehouse, and recycle them here, to atheists who have been answering silly stuff like that for years already. Some f these guys here are over the cliff, but you’re better than that!

  447. on 26 May 2010 at 11:46 am 447.Xenon said …

    “I don’t know” and try to find out. Religious zealots claim they know everything, and stay incurious about the world.”

    It is statement like this that make you opinions moot. You obviously know approaching zero on the curve anything about scientist. The majority of scientist have been and are “Religious” is some respect. We have done quite well even though we have these scientist who were (as you would claim) not curious about their world. You are such a drone.

    “I do know that the Big Bang is one of many sound theories that seem plausible”

    It is not one of many it is the accepted theory. There just happens to be about 100 models. Since you have shown to know approaching zero about scientist, you would indeed have no clue what a BB guy is.

    “I was trying to help him form a logical argument’

    Don’t be a liar on top of everything else. You are trying to prove him wrong but more importantly yourself correct. That is what we all do, don’t attempt to portray yourself as the dimension of virtue.

  448. on 26 May 2010 at 1:06 pm 448.Corey said …

    The reason I follow the arguing points are because you can’t prove them wrong. Not because my pastor taught me to do this.

    Do you have a wife? If not, lets speak in hypothetical terms. You love your wife very much and trust that she won’t be dishonest in your relationship. Is faith not another form of trust? In order to trust her, you have to have faith in her because you cannot control what she does when you are not around, but you trust that her love for you will keep her from being dishonest and unfaithful, right? or do you just know that nothing in the world would make her do that? no, you don’t.

    The world has many mysterious as well as the rest of the universe. There has already been some very uprising evidence to support creation and not a big bang and logical evidence at that.

    I know I am better than that!! I am smart enough to see that God is a logical answer! How can you say that our questions are silly if you haven’t even given enough proof to prove it wrong? Every answer that you give has another flaw that we can point out. So giving us flawful answers to try and prove that God is not true is not very efficient.

  449. on 26 May 2010 at 4:10 pm 449.3D said …

    447.Xenon said …

    It is statement like this that make you opinions moot. You obviously know approaching zero on the curve anything about scientist.

    Holy mackerel, was that supposed to be English? Weren’t you one of the guys making fun of Severin?

    The majority of scientist have been and are “Religious” is some respect.

    “Religious in some respect” is not the problem, e.g., if you believe there is an unseen source for the universe that set things in motion and doesn’t interfere, I have no problem with that. That doesn’t contradict science.

    That is not the same as “I believe the universe is 6,000 years old, evolution is wrong, and fossil dating is a hoax, because it contradicts the Bible” as Corey is very tenatively doing here. Once you stick your toe in that water, you revoke your claim to being sincerely interested in scientific inquiry.

    We have done quite well even though we have these scientist who were (as you would claim) not curious about their world.

    We do fine, when those scientists don’t allow their religion to interfere with the scientific process.

    On the other hand, when knuckleheads are in charge who actually believe that God sneezed souls into fully formed human-shaped dirt-clods, we don’t do so fine.

  450. on 26 May 2010 at 4:21 pm 450.3D said …

    448.Corey said …
    Do you have a wife? If not, lets speak in hypothetical terms. You love your wife very much and trust that she won’t be dishonest in your relationship. Is faith not another form of trust? In order to trust her, you have to have faith in her because you cannot control what she does when you are not around, but you trust that her love for you will keep her from being dishonest and unfaithful, right? or do you just know that nothing in the world would make her do that? no, you don’t.

    Exactly. I respond to the events as they happen. If she betrays my trust, or vice versa, each of us responds to that piece of evidence and re-examines the situation: the level of trust erodes. If the betrayal is bad enough, we will get divorced.

    Rational people (including most religious people, who are totally rational, outside of their compartmentalized delusional religious beliefs) will place their trust in ideas for which there is evidence. There is evidence that my wife is trustworthy, so I trust her. If that changes, I don’t trust her anymore.

    On the other hand, if all you had was blind faith in your wife, like the kind you are putting in the God of the Bible, you would stay with her and keep trusting her no matter how many times she cheats on you. You would ignore all evidence that the trust is misplaced, and keep believing no matter what. You would make excuses about how the mailman was just a really good friend who happened to leave his belt in your bedroom while changing a light bulb, the same way you are making excuses that the universe isn’t really billions of years old, and trying to cherry-pick the evidence to ignore eveything about evolution and the fossil record and cosmology that tells you it is really, really, really old.

    (Some people actually do this, they are called “victims of domestic abuse”.)

    Your analogy points out the exact opposite of what you were trying to say: we SHOULD put our trust in things that make sense, based on the evidence; and revise that stance as the evidence changes. Not blindly believe in things without evidence.

  451. on 26 May 2010 at 7:46 pm 451.Corey said …

    No, I never made fun of Severin or anyone else on this website. What I can say is that this website is not about proper grammar skills, its about getting your opinion across to the people you are talking to. I could talk “in txt,”but I don’t. Sorry, for not paying attention to my grammar.

    faith-confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.

    This definition was taken straight off dictionary.com

    You still haven’t answered the question of Carbon 14 dating. If carbon 14 only allows a fossil to be dated several thousand years in the past, then why are scientists saying that they have found billion year old fossils?

    There are many evidences that support the bible, such as…Many lost cities in the bible have appeared over the years and they were located in the exact spots pointed out in the bible with the exact layout and also has evidence of how the cities were destroyed, which also points back to the bible. So there is definitely evidence.

  452. on 27 May 2010 at 11:31 pm 452.Hammertimewhatpopsupwhenitypeh said …

    I’ve always wondered why people take religion so personally, at the end of the day if believing in God gets you through hard times then go crazy! I think we all forget that the bible was written a LONG time ago and I’ve always thought that it was written accordingly to allow people to understand the messages encompassed in it, as to how much of it is fact, who knows? But it is ridiculous to try and shoot down someones’ beliefs just because you don’t believe the same thing. I’m not really a christian but I do believe in God, though I could never quite put my finger on why, probably something to do with awe and wonder for creation etc, or that I am incredibly lucky, people always seem to be complaining and I’d say anyone who is commenting on an obscure internet blog has at least got a computer, and has somewhat come out tops. Besides we don’t know everything, science is disproving itself all the time and a lot of the values of science and faith can coincide peacefully so I don’t think there is any reason to discount anything until we are sure. Besides I like Jesus, he seems like a cool guy massaiah or not.

  453. on 28 May 2010 at 5:07 am 453.Severin said …

    443 Xenon
    “Fact is, life is full of faith and everything is circular reasoning.”

    Life is less and less “full of faith”, because people are getting more and more educated, and more and more free to put questions on the table.
    Number of atheists is growing rapidly.

    What could be more “circular” than religions?
    Religions only repeat and repeat their stupidities, expecting intelligent people to just accept it.
    But intelligent people do not like to be brainwashed by idiots. Not today.

    „Fact is, life is full of faith and everything is circular reasoning.“
    Yes, you have your car, mobile phone, vaccines…..because scientists followed circular reasoning all the time.
    Please! Do you really think we are all idiots here?

    Is there any better example of circular reasoning than religions? ALL of them!
    They all resist arguments and logic, and egsist on repeating of BS, expecting people to just trust them.
    And of course, they all exist untill some new religion appears and starts to claim to be the only and the right one. All based on same BS.

  454. on 28 May 2010 at 5:15 am 454.Severin said …

    Corey
    “Genesis 4 19
    And Lamech took two wives; the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.”

    Why don’t you search the Bible yourself? YOU claim it is the word of god you trust, not I.
    You will find more polygamic situations in the Bible if you only try to.

  455. on 28 May 2010 at 5:21 am 455.Severin said …

    443 Xenon
    440 Corey said:
    “God is all-powerful, so he can use anything he wants to “form” us.”

    THAT is circular reasoning!
    When you have no right answers, you pull out god’s omnipotence as a “proof”.

  456. on 28 May 2010 at 5:28 am 456.Severin said …

    441 Xenon
    “The majority of scientist have been and are “Religious” is some respect.”

    Which, of course, is just NOT the fact!
    Xenon criticizes “making up” figures untill he needs some.
    Then he just makes them up.
    Please see statistics.

  457. on 28 May 2010 at 5:44 am 457.Severin said …

    448 3D
    ““Religious in some respect” is not the problem, e.g., if you believe there is an unseen source for the universe that set things in motion and doesn’t interfere, I have no problem with that. That doesn’t contradict science.”

    Have you noticed how conspicuous they all avoid to make the difference?
    They just NEGLECT the problem and go further with their BS.

    They know well that a possible “BB god” has nothing to do with the made-up biblical abracadabra amateur.
    But, hey, if we now “switch” to the BB god, WHAT to do with the Bible? WHERE to put Jesus? WHAT with preyers? WHAT to do with religions generally?

  458. on 28 May 2010 at 5:45 am 458.Severin said …

    “conspicuous” = conspicuously

  459. on 28 May 2010 at 2:27 pm 459.Severin said …

    Corey,
    “You still haven’t answered the question of Carbon 14 dating.”

    The question was not for me, but you can find many methods for dating many things, including stones and rocks on Internet. Some of them you can find here: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/McKinney.html
    also here:
    http://www.answers.com/topic/rock-age-determination
    and on many other places.

    One thing is very sad about you: I guess you DO use your mobile phone, you (probably) DO fly, you (obviously!) DO use computer, etc. Have you EVER asked yourself HOW is it possible? You just take it for granted: it is here, I use it, who cares HOW did we get all this?

    Those things DO WORK! They DO FUNCTION! It is NOT the question of believing, but of functioning scientific achievments!

    Now, you DO NOT TRUST the very same scientists who enabled you to use mobile, computer, vaccines,plains,…., when they tell you that earth is NOT 6000 years, but some 4.5 billion years old!!!
    How is it possible?

  460. on 28 May 2010 at 3:16 pm 460.Severin said …

    Corey,
    “You still haven’t answered the question of Carbon 14 dating.”
    The question was not for me, but you can find many methods for dating many things, including stones and rocks on Internet. Some of them you can find here: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/McKinney.html
    also here:
    http://www.answers.com/topic/rock-age-determination
    and on many other places.

    One thing is very sad about you: I guess you DO use your mobile phone, you (probably) DO fly, you (obviously!) DO use computer, you probably DID get some vaccines in your life,…etc. Have you EVER asked yourself HOW is it possible? You just take it for granted: it is here, I use it, who cares HOW did we get all this?

    Those things DO WORK! They DO FUNCTION! It is NOT the question of believing, but of functioning scientific achievments!

    But when the very same scientists who enabled you to get benefits of all those things tell you that earth is NOT 6000 years old, but some 4.5 billion years old, and offer excellent arguments, including scientifically proven methods of dating rocks, you DO NOT trust them!!!
    How is it possible?
    Are you a hypocrite? Taking some scientific achievments for granted (by using them!), and denying other, “just like that”, without logical explanation or proofs, “smells” to hypocrisy.
    Or to youthful “militancy” (stubborness)?

  461. on 28 May 2010 at 3:54 pm 461.Severin said …

    440 Corey
    „There is nothing in the bible that says that God allowed incessed to happen, nor does it say that Adam and Eve are the only beings God created..“

    So A&E were not the only people god created on earth?
    He created also other people? Parallel to A&E? Or before A&E? Or after A&E?
    Did he created them all from dirt/dust/mud, and did he created their wives from men’s ribs? Did he put them all in Eden? Did he expell them all from Eden, together with A&E?
    Did all „other Eves“ made their “Adams” to eat forbidden fruits? How many talking serpents were involved in the story?

    So, you are telling us that Bible does not give the right description of god’s creation of earth and humans?

    What else is wrong with the Bible?

    Everything?

    Some Horatio (comment #33 right here) was more cautious when I posed the same question before. He understood he would deny the Bible if he denyed Genesis by reconstructing the story, as you just did. Instead, he posed the magnificent question:
    „Why is incest immoral?“

  462. on 28 May 2010 at 7:24 pm 462.Corey said …

    The intelligence of humanity does not disprove God. It shows that God created an intelligent being! God does not need to provide us with everything! He provided us with life and will provide us with eternal life after death! Simply using technology as an explanation of God not being true is not enough. Humanity has used the gifts that God gave us to create the technology and vaccines and whatever else you want to throw out there.

    In Genesis 4, does it say anywhere that God approves of Lamech having two wives? NO! Lamech is a human, and he has sin.

    There are many questions that the bible does not answer. But, It is possible that God created other human beings. It is also possible that, because God knew humans were going to sin, he didn’t stop humanity from being incest. If God knows everything, then he would have foreseen this sin coming, and he also wouldve realized that the first sin, eating the fruit of the forbidden tree, came before it. Yes, it is a sin to commit adultery, but God, once again, allowed sin; he didn’t create sin.

  463. on 29 May 2010 at 7:37 am 463.Severin said …

    461 Corey
    “There are many questions that the bible does not answer.”
    Why? Wasn’t it declared to be the word of a all-knowing god? The only truth! The law we have to behave accordingly! The moral code!
    WHAT makes the Bible relevant for ANYTHING in the case it does not contain answers for many very important questions?

    A book NOT explaining “creation” (too many “maybes” for a book aspiring to be the most important and most relevant book in human history: “The Truth”, “The Law”, “The Moral Code”….!
    …A book (word of god!) ordering and glorifying baby masacres.
    …A book giving to people “laws” and “moral rules” we could be ashamed of today (kill non-virgins, kill desobediant children, kill thousends of people for worshiping golden calf, bore a hole in your servant’s ear to mark him as your property……)
    …A book in which god orders the big flood to kill the whole population (innocent children, innocent animals…) because he was somehow “defended” by behavior of humans
    …A book exposing idiotic, unrealistic, impossible examples of “reality”: talking snake, burning bush, resurrection, virgins bearing children…
    …A book in which god “sacrifices” his son to be condemned to brutal death? This is the MOST DISGUSTING part of the Bible. Even more disgusting than god’s orders to kill other children. Imagine ANYONE to “sacrifice” his child for ANY REASON! Good example for humans about god’s morality!

    Is THAT a book you expect me to take as a “measure” of ANYTHING? Is THAT a book you are proclaiming relevant? Is that a book you are calling “the truth” and the “god’s word”?

  464. on 29 May 2010 at 7:40 am 464.Severin said …

    “…because he was somehow “defended””
    Sorry!
    “….offended…”!

  465. on 29 May 2010 at 8:27 am 465.Severin said …

    461 Corey
    “It is also possible that, because God knew humans were going to sin, he didn’t stop humanity from being incest. If God knows everything,…”

    Yes, EVERYTHING is possible if you have an all mighty and all knowing creature, especially if he is cruel and immoral enough to do what was described in the Bible! Whatever does not fit, you just proclaim “…it is also possible that… (because god is allmighty) …”.
    That is, of course, circular reasoning, but who cares!

    However, the Bible was never proclaimed to be a “maybe” word of god: “Maybe” he did this, “maybe” he had in mind that….
    It was stated all the time to be THE word of god!
    A VERY undefined and uncomplete word, I would say, when such IMPORTANT events as Genesis are described. God was not explicite when described „creation“ of earth and human race, so he „might“ do or think different things.
    BUT he was explicite in details in giving instructions about how to masacre people who “offended” him, AND their children in cradles (“put them on sabres!”), and how to rob those people, and how to make sexual slaves of their virgins!
    For SUCH events, god ALLWAYS had enough words, and very precize ones! He never left ANY doubt in what he wanted to say in such cases!

    If god knew humans were going to sin again and again (which they DID during the entire history, including the “after Christ” history, so he was right!), WHY did he sacrifice his son?
    For nothing? For fun?

    If you kow the meaning of the word “sacrificing” you will understand that any sacrificing is the gesture of some kind of trying to do a compromise: I will give (sacrifice) you something and you will give me something (pardon, rain, good harvest….)…

    So god sacrificed his own son to HIMSELF to make HIMSELF to pardon people for their sins! (how many of “!” to put here?)

  466. on 29 May 2010 at 8:31 am 466.Severin said …

    461 Corey
    Summary:
    God saw humans are doing sins aginst him. To forgive them their sins, AND to stop further sins (to “save” them – of what? of his own anger?), he sacrificed his own son, condemning him to cruel death, to induce mercy in HIMSELF to pardon humans for their sins.
    But, as an allmighty and all knowing creature he KNEW people will continue doing sins, so he sacrificed his son for NOTHING.
    Except, maybe, if you have in mind his „taste“ from other bbiblical stories, to enjoy the performance!

    Didn’t he give detailed instructions how to prepare animal burnt offerings for him, because he liked the smell of burnt meet?
    Maybe (everything is possible with an allmighty, as you said) he also liked the smell of fresh blood of his own son and enjoyed seeng him on the cross.

    Sweet, charming, story!

  467. on 29 May 2010 at 2:45 pm 467.3D said …

    453.Severin said …
    Please! Do you really think we are all idiots here?
    Is there any better example of circular reasoning than religions? ALL of them!
    They all resist arguments and logic, and egsist on repeating of BS, expecting people to just trust them.

    Actually Sev — it’s even better than that. They used to repeat the BS, but now part of religion’s self-sustaining job requirement is to constantly backpedal and CHANGE their official position on topic after topic, struggling to keep up with science.

    More and more verses in the Bible that used to be taken as fact, are now considered ‘metaphorical’ and not to be taken literally, just because of scientific advances. Pretty soon the whole thing will be reduced to a coloring book.

  468. on 29 May 2010 at 3:04 pm 468.3D said …

    462.Corey said …
    \In Genesis 4, does it say anywhere that God approves of Lamech having two wives? NO! Lamech is a human, and he has sin.

    True enough — that one verse does not say that God approves of polygamy.

    But then there’s Exodus 21, where God lays down the law about the proper treatment of your second wife.

    21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
    21:11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

    I would say that if he’s giving rules for how to treat your second wife, he’s probably not all that angry about you having a second wife.

    (Corey, I guess you missed that verse, but that’s OK. I understand, the Bible is very big and you probably got distracted by the part where God was watching the 4-dimensional flat panel TV.)

    Then there’s Deuteronomy 21, where God tells everyone how to handle dividing up the will, if they have two wives, but one is really awesome and the other one is a bitch, and he has kids with both of them:

    21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
    21:16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
    21:17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

    And, how about David, who is like God’s right hand man.

    5:13 And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.

    God punished him for making a census (that God told him to make), but never punished him for having lots and lots of wives, and hookers from all over the land. Go figure.

    There are many questions that the bible does not answer. But, It is possible that God created other human beings. It is also possible that, because God knew humans were going to sin, he didn’t stop humanity from being incest.

    Heck, if you’re going to make up stuff and put it into the subtext of the Bible, why not just say that God invented microbiology and the space shuttle too, and say that the writers just left them out? Go all the way with it!

    If God knows everything, then he would have foreseen this sin coming, and he also wouldve realized that the first sin, eating the fruit of the forbidden tree, came before it. Yes, it is a sin to commit adultery, but God, once again, allowed sin; he didn’t create sin.

    Of course, if he saw the sin coming, then he would know that he was creating creatures capable of feeling pain and sorrow, only to inevitably throw them into a fire pit and torture them forever.

    This time though, it’s NOT an inconsistency: that’s actually consistent with the rest of the Bible, since the Bible foreshadows this by telling us over and over that God likes the smell of burning animal flesh. He was just warming up on the animals for the main course of burning human flesh.

  469. on 29 May 2010 at 7:37 pm 469.Severin said …

    3D
    Thanks for making me loughing from time to time (god watching TV, David’s hookers, etc)

  470. on 29 May 2010 at 7:56 pm 470.Severin said …

    loughing=laughing

  471. on 13 Jun 2010 at 3:18 am 471.Gary Sellars said …

    Preface: Years ago I wondered what the purpose of this website was. It only took one look to see that you think you’re mocking God. LOL God has healed more than one amputee, just as He has raised the dead, the most significant One being His only Son whose life was given for those who mock Him.

    In the last 20 years, there have been hundreds raised from the dead and a number of them can be found on the Internet and if you fools had wanted the truth, you would have found it. Thus our Master’s Words have been fulfilled again, which are written in Luke 16:31.

    Silly fools.

    Asking for proof of God is the most ridiculous thing in the world because everything, in every way is the proof of God’s Word being true and it takes a hard hearted person to not see that.

    The true shame is the magnitude of Christians who want to weasel out of the question.

    Some blatant and obvious evidences of God.

    Your life: the specific details of your life demonstrate the truth of God’s Word that we reap what we sow and deliberate sin brings darkness and deception.

    Judy Garland’s life: Her father was a homosexual pedophile (unrestrained sexual indulgence) and God’s Word says the iniquities of the father will be visited on the children to the third and fourth generation. Poor Judy knew that iniquitous visitation and like her father, pretended, as do virtually all sexual libertines, that immorality isn’t wrong and there are no consequences.

    Though she was a greatly talented lady, she was miserable all her life except when in front of a fawning crowd, eaten up with the insecurity that is the result of a sinful life.

    The sun and the earth’s orbit:

    This is phenomenal on so many levels!:

    A large book could be written on the countless ways these facts, though ignored by the pretentious God-haters, demonstrate the love of care of God for His creatures. Here, as in all of life, without a perverse hatred for God *because* of your love of sin, the more knowledge one gets, the more one should rightly marvel at the intricacies of the details of God’s wondrous design. Inexplicable proof of God’s design, again, on so many levels, it’s mind boggling.

    Life:

    In the multitudes of ways in which life grows with its vast intricacies and variances, it’s all to the credit of the Great Designer. All praise to You, Lord Jesus, for the great beauty of Your creation and it’s magnificent design!

    If Charles Darwin were alive today, he would be ashamed to admit that he ever considered evolution. It’s so ludicrous that a child can see through it.

    Evolution: How is this proof of God and His Word? LOL Because it’s so extremely STUPID on every level, it demonstrates the extremes to which fools will go to pretend they aren’t accountable to the One who sacrificed Himself that they might have life. Because of your wicked heart’s denials, you refuse to see the plain teachings of Scripture that tell you that it’s your wickedness that brings about your deception. God laughs at you and you think you’re laughing at God. You’ll see who has the last laugh.

    The list, as I said includes EVERYTHING, and could fill every page on the Internet and still not exhaust the intricacies of God’s great proofs of His reality. It’s that way because He made creation that way. This is why He said in His Word: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”

    I could continue this list for months but I do have other things to do.

    The Godly will rejoice in what I wrote and the wicked will “gnash their teeth” not understanding the hater of their souls controls them.

    Jesus is Lord and is sitting down until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. Heb. 13:13

  472. on 16 Jul 2010 at 4:55 am 472.Jay said …

    In the multitudes of ways in which life grows with its vast intricacies and variances, it’s all to the credit of the Great Designer. All praise to You, Lord Jesus, for the great beauty of Your creation and it’s magnificent design!

    If Charles Darwin were alive today, he would be ashamed to admit that he ever considered evolution. It’s so ludicrous that a child can see through it.”

    …Yikes…

  473. on 16 Jul 2010 at 5:42 am 473.Severin said …

    471 Jay

    In 21st century?
    With all the evidences we have?
    I would be ashamed in your place to cite such idiotic claims!

    Why didn’t you cite Ptolemy?

    Maybe you still believe the earth is the center of universe?

  474. on 16 Jul 2010 at 1:04 pm 474.3D said …

    473.Severin said …

    471 Jay
    In 21st century?
    With all the evidences we have?
    I would be ashamed in your place to cite such idiotic claims!
    Why didn’t you cite Ptolemy?
    Maybe you still believe the earth is the center of universe?

    I think “Jay” was citing one of the weird and scary comments here. He did not write that himself. He put “Yikes” at the end of it.

    I have been messing around with various ways of quoting posts here and I think the “blockquote” HTML tag works the best because it puts everything into a big blue box.

  475. on 16 Jul 2010 at 2:26 pm 475.Severin said …

    Can I, in this case, understand “yikes” as “wow”, or as “really?

  476. on 16 Jul 2010 at 7:49 pm 476.3D said …

    475.Severin said …

    Can I, in this case, understand “yikes” as “wow”, or as “really?”

    Sort of, in context, yes. Originally “yikes!” is something little children would scream out when they are scared. Really it’s and old-fashioned word; nowadays it’s taking on more of an ironic usage; people will scream it out when they are pretending to be scared, or mocking/sarcastically acting scared, because it sounds archaic.

    Anyway, he was quoting the very scary religious BS that guy posted, and added “Yikes” to show that it’s really frightening that someone believes something like that.

  477. on 17 Jul 2010 at 5:28 am 477.Severin said …

    3D
    Thank you!

    I appologize to Jay!

  478. on 21 Jul 2010 at 4:07 am 478.Jay said …

    Anyway, he was quoting the very scary religious BS that guy posted, and added “Yikes” to show that it’s really frightening that someone believes something like that.

    3D, you are absolutely correct regarding my “yikes” comment. And I took the time to learn how to use blockquotes, a much better way to separate someone else’s comments from one’s own. So I guess I learned at least one thing valuable while discussing religion. Thanks!

    Severin,
    No problem. Hopefully the blockquotes will avoid any confusion in the future.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply