Feed on Posts or Comments 27 July 2016

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.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply