Feed on Posts or Comments 26 October 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism &Politics &Science Thomas on 07 Aug 2011 12:37 am

What religious delusion looks like in our world

Here is what religious delusion looks like in our world:

Polygamist leader walks out of sentencing hearing

A polygamist sect leader [Warren Jeffs, 55] convicted of child sexual assault walked out of his sentencing hearing in protest Friday, after reading a statement he claimed was from God. The statement promised a “whirlwind of judgment” on the world if God’s “humble servant” wasn’t set free.

Warren Jeffs is completely delusional, believing first that “God” exists, second that an imaginary “God” can write statements, and third that an imaginary “God” can cause a “whirlwind of judgment”.

Even more amazing, according to the article, is the fact that, “10,000 FLDS members nationwide see Jeffs as a prophet who is God’s spokesman on Earth.”

Clearly Jeffs and his followers have lost their minds.

But the fact is that Jeffs and his delusional followers are no different from any other religious practitioner. Anyone who believes in an imaginary “God” who “answers prayers” and routes people into “heaven” or “hell” is just as delusional. This video explains it:

58 Responses to “What religious delusion looks like in our world”

  1. on 08 Aug 2011 at 5:48 pm 1.Greg said …

    I think this Warren Jeffs guy just uses religion for his own perverted pleasures…

  2. on 09 Aug 2011 at 12:30 am 2.DPK said …

    “I think this Warren Jeffs guy just uses religion for his own perverted pleasures…”

    Ya think?
    You mean that “letter from god” wasn’t real?
    Gee. a religious leader lying to people in order to further his own selfish agenda… who would have thought THAT could ever happen?

    Did anyone see the premiere of the Discovery Channel’s “Curiosity” last weekend? Stephen Hawkins flatly concluding “there is no god” and “there is no afterlife”. I would have thought the Tea Party would be screaming bloody murder this morning………

  3. on 09 Aug 2011 at 9:34 pm 3.Horatiio said …

    “Stephen Hawkins flatly concluding “there is no god” and “there is no afterlife””

    We did! How does he know? We are still waiting to hear on the data the conclusions are based!

    My son and I sat there and just laughed. Maybe he should stick to physics where he has actual training rather than attempting to proclaim God does not exist.

    The arrogance I found to be hysterical!

  4. on 09 Aug 2011 at 10:07 pm 4.Mike said …

    Let me quote the CNN article:

    But some of Hawking’s Cambridge colleagues said the physicist has missed the point.

    “The ‘god’ that Stephen Hawking is trying to debunk is not the creator God of the Abrahamic faiths who really is the ultimate explanation for why there is something rather than nothing,” said Denis Alexander.

    “Hawking’s god is a god-of-the-gaps used to plug present gaps in our scientific knowledge.

    “Science provides us with a wonderful narrative as to how [existence] may happen, but theology addresses the meaning of the narrative,” said Alexander, director of The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion.

    And Fraser Watts, an Anglican priest and Cambridge expert in the history of science, said that it’s not the existence of the universe that proves the existence of God.

    But, he said, “a creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe, and … it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not. That view is not undermined by what Hawking has said.”

  5. on 10 Aug 2011 at 12:03 am 5.DPK said …

    ““a creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe, and … it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not.”

    Like Hor said, I’d love to see the data he based that conclusion on as well.

    I knew that would get a rise out of someone here!!!

    ““Stephen Hawkins flatly concluding “there is no god” and “there is no afterlife””
    We did! How does he know?”

    Hysterical. He “knows” with every bit the same authority that you claim to “know” both god and the afterlife are real.

    So, should it be safe to assume both you and Hawking are talking trash???

  6. on 10 Aug 2011 at 3:14 am 6.Nicole said …

    I don’t know who to contact but the fact that someone takes their time to publish a “god is imaginary” website needs to rethink a lot of things. First off, the praying to heal all the cancer in the world is kind of a foolish deduction. Did you know that Jesus answers prayers if its HIS will? He can clearly ACCEPT or REJECT prayers. Also, those who are poor/suffer in this temporary world will propser with God FOREVER in heaven if they believe and those who are “rich” and do not believe will go to hell – with nothing. Jesus said to LOVE everyone …. is it much better to let children listen to the disgusting/pointless messages of some modern music and watch mindless and/or corruptive Hollywood movies? Even if you don’t BELIEVE in the Bible, why can’t you agree that it does have messages of living a more peaceful life? I’d rather see people read those messages for what they are rather than partake in drinking/drugs/other sins.
    PS. Please don’t think I’m uneducated as I go to NYU on half-ride scholarship (if that counts for anything..)

    God Bless.

  7. on 10 Aug 2011 at 6:34 am 7.Anonymous said …

    Did you know that Jesus answers prayers if its HIS will? He can clearly ACCEPT or REJECT prayers.

    That is not what the Bible says. Did you read all of the Bible verses in this page:

    http://godisimaginary.com/i1.htm

    Even if you don’t BELIEVE in the Bible, why can’t you agree that it does have messages of living a more peaceful life?

    Have you watched this video? The Bible is disgusting:

    http://youtu.be/vkXOwBIRX7Y

  8. on 10 Aug 2011 at 1:09 pm 8.Lou said …

    6.Nicole said …

    “PS. Please don’t think I’m uneducated as I go to NYU on half-ride scholarship (if that counts for anything..)”

    It obviously doesn’t.

  9. on 10 Aug 2011 at 1:18 pm 9.Lou said …

    3.Horatiio said …

    “Stephen Hawkins flatly concluding “there is no god” and “there is no afterlife””

    “We did! How does he know? We are still waiting to hear on the data the conclusions are based!”

    Hor, you will never get it through your thick head. There is no evidence for god. All the evidence, or lack thereof, is that there is no god. Therefore, the conclusion is there is no god.

    “My son and I sat there and just laughed.”

    How do you know there is no tooth fairy? No doubt you and your son laugh at people who doubt the tooth fairy. But, you’re obviously both ignorant. What more should we expect? Unless you have any “data” that the tooth fairy doesn’t exist, then using your convoluted logic, we can only conclude that you believe in the tooth fairy.

    “Maybe he should stick to physics where he has actual training rather than attempting to proclaim God does not exist.”

    Maybe should stick to, wait, never mind. I can’t imagine that you have any training that qualifies you to proclaim anything BUT that an imaginary god exists.

    “The arrogance I found to be hysterical!”

    Your ignorance I find to be hysterical.

  10. on 10 Aug 2011 at 1:22 pm 10.Lou said …

    4.Mike said …

    “But, he said, “a creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe, and … it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not.”

    Credible?! Only to delusional fools who already believe in an imaginary god.

    “That view is not undermined by what Hawking has said.”

    Correct. That view is a delusion. It can’t be undermined.

  11. on 10 Aug 2011 at 9:16 pm 11.Xenon said …

    “PS. Please don’t think I’m uneducated as I go to NYU on half-ride scholarship (if that counts for anything..)”

    Yes Nicole it does. The whack lacky lefty atheists like to attempt to portray Christians as uneducated. Argument debunked – again.

    Also, they didn’t deal with a single one of your points. The reason is simple. They cannot.

    Mike,

    Great catch. Hawkings has finally completely lost his mind. It is so sad since he did at one time contribute so much. Lou was silly enough to trumpet this as some sort of real break through.

  12. on 10 Aug 2011 at 10:28 pm 12.Lou said …

    11.Xenon said …

    “Also, they didn’t deal with a single one of your points. The reason is simple. They cannot.”

    What points?

    “Hawkings has finally completely lost his mind. It is so sad since he did at one time contribute so much.”

    Until his conclusions conflict with your delusion.

    “Lou was silly enough to trumpet this as some sort of real break through.”

    Really? Show me where I did that.

  13. on 11 Aug 2011 at 12:51 am 13.DPK said …

    Well, Let’s take a look at Nicole’s “points”
    “praying to heal all the cancer in the world is kind of a foolish deduction”

    We agree. Foolish because it won’t happen. Indeed, every single scientific study has shown conclusively that prayer has ZERO effect. So, no problem.

    “Jesus answers prayers if its HIS will? He can clearly ACCEPT or REJECT prayers. ”
    But, as Lou DID point out. This is contrary to what Jesus says in the bible. So, Nicole’s “point” is either wrong, or what Jesus said in the bible is a lie… these are the only conclusions.

    “Jesus said to LOVE everyone..”
    Nothing wrong with that… but Yahweh, who is also god, said to stone people to death for all manner of sins, including but hardly limited to, homosexuals, adulterers, disrespectful children, those who work on the Sabbath, those that worship false gods… on and on. What do you call that? Tough love?

    “I’d rather see people read those messages for what they are rather than partake in drinking/drugs/other sins.”

    I don’t recall anyone here advocating immoral behavior. The fact the the bible contains instructions toward both good and bad behavior bears absolutely nothing on the existence of a supernatural god. Indeed, I think that a person who behaves morally and with integrity just because it is the right thing to do and not because of fear of judgement or in order to gain some supernatural “reward” is a purer “goodness” than those who only behave because god’s angels are watching everything you do.

    Now, what other “points” where in there?

  14. on 11 Aug 2011 at 1:57 am 14.Lou said …

    13.DPK said …

    “But, as Lou DID point out. This is contrary to what Jesus says in the bible.”

    I think you are referring to what Anonymous wrote.

  15. on 11 Aug 2011 at 2:13 am 15.DPK said …

    You are right… I stand corrected. In any event, the point was addressed, in spite of Xenon’s lie that “they didn’t deal with a single one of your points.”

    I’m still waiting for a response from Hor as to why he concludes that Prof Hawkings has no data to base a conclusion on the existence of a creator god… but at the same time, Hor concludes that there is, in fact a creator and intercessory god… but also presents no data.

    Fact is, Hor’s conclusion that Hawkings has no basis for his claim goes both ways… doesn’t it? Hawkings cannot draw a conclusion about the need for a supernatural creator despite a lifetime of studying theoritical physics and being acknowledged as one of the world’s foremost authorities on black holes, the big bang, and quantum physics? But, on the other hand, Horitio can draw a valid conclusion based on………… what?

  16. on 11 Aug 2011 at 2:45 pm 16.Burebista said …

    “I don’t recall anyone here advocating immoral behavior.”

    I adore these types of responses from atheists. What is immoral behavior Lou and why?

    “Hawkings cannot draw a conclusion about the need for a supernatural creator despite a lifetime of studying theoritical physics”

    Well, if you can tell us how physics proves, disproves or studies God then you might have an argument. What about the guy who studies etymology, computer science or the human genome? How are they more qualified to judge God’s existence than me?

  17. on 11 Aug 2011 at 3:36 pm 17.Lou said …

    16.Burebista said …

    “I don’t recall anyone here advocating immoral behavior.”

    I adore these types of responses from atheists. What is immoral behavior Lou and why?”

    Bur,

    I didn’t write that. DPK did. But what is it that you “adore” about those “types of responses from atheists?”

  18. on 11 Aug 2011 at 4:36 pm 18.Lou said …

    16.Burebista said …

    “Well, if you can tell us how physics proves, disproves or studies God then you might have an argument.”

    Are you really that dense? DPK’s argument is that Hor’s argument “goes both ways.” In other words, Hor’s claim for god must meet the same standards that he requires of Hawking. In that respect, your comment is irrelevant.

    “What about the guy who studies etymology, computer science or the human genome? How are they more qualified to judge God’s existence than me?”

    They’re intelligent, but you obviously aren’t. And it’s not a matter of judgement – about god’s existence or your intelligence.

  19. on 11 Aug 2011 at 6:22 pm 19.DPK said …

    Hawkings’ point, as an world class expert on theoretical physics, was that there is no “requirement” for a supernatural god to explain the creation of the universe… nothing more. The only “evidence” or justification that has EVER been presented as “proof” of a supernatural god is “creation”. If creation does not require a god, then there is no reason at all to expect such a thing exists. Pretty simple.
    Now, if you want to discount that as baseless… ok, but you have to meet the same burden of proof. What proof do you have that a supernatural god DID create the universe? I’d hazard you have none. So, your point of railing against Hawkins is irrelevant and meaningless… you are doing the exact same thing you accuse him of doing…. claiming to know things you cannot know. Now in Hawkings defense, he may not be able to “know” there is no god, but he certainly is better qualified than anyone here to speak to “knowing” about matters related to the big bang and quantum physics. So, am I inclined to believe Professor Hawkings, or someone like Horatiio, when it comes to such questions?
    LOL

  20. on 11 Aug 2011 at 8:59 pm 20.Burebista said …

    Well, neither of you answered the questions so I will try again.

    What is immoral behavior DPK and why?

    Why would Hawkings or anyone else be more qualified than me to determine if God exists?

    Why not a scientist who is theist? Plenty of them.

  21. on 11 Aug 2011 at 9:37 pm 21.Lou said …

    20.Burebista said …

    “Well, neither of you answered the questions so I will try again.

    What is immoral behavior DPK and why?”

    Why are you beating this irrelevant, dead horse? DPK only used the term in the context of her comment “I’d rather see people read those messages for what they are rather than partake in drinking/drugs/other sins.”

    In the context of her comment, “drinking/drugs/other sins” is “immoral behavior” because she obviously implied as much. For me, drinking and drug usage is not “immoral.” For the purposes of this discussion, what’s it to you as to what DPK or anybody thinks is “immoral behavior?”

    Bur, do you have some point to make by pursuing this tangent, or is it simply another distraction from the fact that you have no evidence for god or that god created the universe? If you have a point, then make it.

    “Why would Hawkings or anyone else be more qualified than me to determine if God exists?”

    Because Hawking has an infinitely greater knowledge about physics and quantum physics that can explain how the universe can be naturally created without a god. That, in and of it self, doesn’t “prove” that god doesn’t exist. But it doesn’t have to because there is no evidence that god exists.

    “Why not a scientist who is theist? Plenty of them.”

    Unless you have evidence to the contrary, it’s generally accepted that most scientists are not theists. But let’s assume they are. So what? How many of them attempt to “prove” that god exists? None of them. Why? Because they know that the belief in god is faith.

    Why can’t you accept that? Scientists who are theists don’t have anymore evidence for god that do you.

  22. on 11 Aug 2011 at 9:52 pm 22.Horatiio said …

    “Why would Hawkings or anyone else be more qualified than me to determine if God exists?”

    He doesn’t Bure. Hawkings is hoping he is right. He got black holes wrong for quite a long time. I sure will not buy his “philosophy” on God. Einstein was quoted as saying God doesn’t play dice with the universe. I tend to agree.

    “What is immoral behavior DPK and why?’

    don’t get them started on that since I have been through that here. They don’t know. It is all relative opinion for them..

  23. on 11 Aug 2011 at 10:07 pm 23.DPK said …

    Nice try at a dodge… the point of what I do or do not consider moral is not the point… the point was is the bible the ultimate source of morality, as Nicole implied. I say no. Morality and ethics are a human construct. If you claim that god is the source or morality and the moral code is contained in the bible, then please explain his instruction to kill homosexuals, adulterers, idolators, those who work on the Sabbath, plant mixed crops in their fields, and wear more than one type of fabric. I know you will simply dodge this problem, as you have every other time it has been brought up, because the only answer makes you look silly.
    Hawkings is infinitely more qualified to answer questions about the origins of the universe, and back to my original point that you either completely missed or conveniently decided to ignore.. NEITHER of you are qualified to judge the existence of a god, because by definition, such knowledge is not knowable. So, either put up your evidence that proves god actually exists, or shut the hell up about it because you cannot claim to be anymore an authority on the matter than you think Hawkings can.

  24. on 11 Aug 2011 at 10:24 pm 24.Lou said …

    22.Horatiio said …

    “Why would Hawkings or anyone else be more qualified than me to determine if God exists?”

    “He doesn’t Bure.”

    He “doesn’t?”

    “Hawkings is hoping he is right.”

    He told you that?

    “He got black holes wrong for quite a long time.”

    But he has them right now? When did you get them, or anything else, right?

    “I sure will not buy his “philosophy” on God.”

    So what? He’s not selling you any. Besides, if he was, you’re too intellectually broke to buy it.

    “Einstein was quoted as saying God doesn’t play dice with the universe. I tend to agree.”

    So what? But do you “tend to agree” with everything else that he said about god and religion? Why don’t you explain to us what Einstein meant by “Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the “old one.” I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.”

    Hawking says that god DOES play dice with the universe. What does that mean? Please explain it to us because Hawking can’t be right, can he? But you, who claim that god exists, are just as qualified or more so than Hawking because that dumbass “got black holes wrong for quite a long time.”

    “It (immoral behavior) is all relative opinion for them..”

    That’s correct. They’re relative to you, too. There are no moral absolutes.

  25. on 11 Aug 2011 at 10:53 pm 25.Burebista said …

    “Nice try at a dodge… the point of what I do or do not consider moral is not the point”

    Sure it is, I asked. Would you say you cannot answer such a simple & basic question society relies on?

    Sorry Horatio, I must ask.

    —————————-
    “Hawkings is infinitely more qualified to answer questions about the origins of the universe’

    Again, why? What has he discovered none of the rest of us can understand? Just making such an unqualified claim does not make it true. I take it you NOW agree with him or no?
    _______________________________________________
    “Hawking says that god DOES play dice with the universe.”

    Do you even read your posts Lou? You run in so many circles I am surprised you haven’t bit down on your own tail.

  26. on 11 Aug 2011 at 11:00 pm 26.Lou said …

    25.Burebista said …

    “Hawking says that god DOES play dice with the universe.”

    “Do you even read your posts Lou? You run in so many circles I am surprised you haven’t bit down on your own tail.”

    What circles? Please elaborate. Otherwise, you obviously don’t get it.

  27. on 11 Aug 2011 at 11:30 pm 27.Lou said …

    25.Burebista said …

    “Sure it is, I asked. Would you say you cannot answer such a simple & basic question society relies on?”

    ATTENTION EVERYONE! Please be advised that whenever Bur asks a question, THAT QUESTION IS THE POINT!

    That is all.

    Wait, it’s not. Bur also does not answer a question because he determines which questions are the point that you must answer, but that he doesn’t have to answer your questions.

  28. on 12 Aug 2011 at 12:10 am 28.DPK said …

    “Nice try at a dodge… the point of what I do or do not consider moral is not the point”
    Sure it is, I asked. Would you say you cannot answer such a simple & basic question society relies on?

    So what, do you want a list?? What do YOU consider immoral? I asked, so now it is the point.
    Know what? Just answer this for right now…. Is it moral to kill homosexuals, as god commands in the bible?” Now that’s a pretty simple question… certainly easier than “what do you consider moral”. So, what’s your answer?
    D

  29. on 12 Aug 2011 at 12:39 am 29.Horatiio said …

    LOL!!!

    I warned you Bure.! They will not answer this question because they have NO standards other than personal belief.

    We have atheists on this site who have claimed they would support jailing Christians for teaching children about God. Sam Harris claiming it is OK to kill people for a belief. I am nor making this up.

    That is why we had the gulags and the Reds murdering babies. Atheists have their personal opinions on morality and they have no basis for claiming something is immoral.

  30. on 12 Aug 2011 at 1:50 am 30.DPK said …

    Horatiio… do you believe morality is absolute?
    Is it, for instance, always wrong to kill?
    D

  31. on 12 Aug 2011 at 2:17 am 31.Lou said …

    29.Horatiio said …

    “They will not answer this question because they have NO standards other than personal belief.”

    Nor do you. EVERYBODY has standards (was morals) according to their personal beliefs, even you. But apparently you have none when it comes to lying.

    “We have atheists on this site who have claimed they would support jailing Christians for teaching children about God.”

    Your point? What does this have to do with morality?

    “Sam Harris claiming it is OK to kill people for a belief. I am nor making this up.”

    You ARE “making this up” unless you can provide said Harris quote. I warn you all, he won’t because he is a liar. So, I will do it:

    “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.”

    Harris explained “This paragraph appears after a long discussion of the role that belief plays in governing human behavior, and it should be read in that context. Some critics have interpreted the second sentence (quoted above) of this passage to mean that I advocate simply killing religious people for their beliefs. Granted, I made the job of misinterpreting me easier than it might have been, but such a reading remains a frank distortion of my views. Read in context, it should be clear that I am not at all ignoring the link between belief and behavior. The fact that belief determines behavior is what makes certain beliefs so dangerous.”

    http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/

  32. on 12 Aug 2011 at 2:34 am 32.DPK said …

    He knows about the Harris quote because it has been discussed at length here before. So, the only reason he would have to bring it up completely out of context is to try and present a completely dishonest assertion in a completely disingenuous way… what a scum bag! I’m surprised his Christian brethren don’t admonish him for being a liar. Hor… if you have to lie to make a point, it doesn’t say much for your point…
    LOL

    Hor… I’m waiting for your answer… is it always morally wrong to kill?

    Is it morally wrong to kill terrorists?

    Should Warren Jeffs be jailed for his “religious teaching” of children, which involved sexual abuse? (According to him, god says “No”. Is he wrong?

    Stop making simple minded and dishonest allegations and answer some real questions. You claim an atheist’s morality only comes from personal beliefs… where do YOURS come from? Is it the bible?

    We are waiting for answers…. or don’t you have any?

  33. on 12 Aug 2011 at 2:38 am 33.Lou said …

    32.DPK said …

    “Hor… if you have to lie to make a point, it doesn’t say much for your point…”

    No, but it says a lot about him.

  34. on 12 Aug 2011 at 3:09 am 34.Pryor said …

    “Sam Harris claiming it is OK to kill people for a belief. I am nor making this up.”

    “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.”

    Maybe someone could point out the difference between these 2 statements? It appears Horatio was right on track.

    I must say it is appalling a man would be OK with killing based on a thought! I despise Nazis, racists and jihadist but would never under any circumstance advocate killing just for the thought. That is the methodologies of Stalin and Mao.

  35. on 12 Aug 2011 at 3:48 am 35.DPK said …

    Was it wrong to kill Osama bin Laden?
    If someone’s religious philosophy is such that their belief is to kill anyone and everyone who does not agree with them, is it ethical to kill them to prevent them killing others?
    This is the extreme scenario Harris was discussing in this out of context quote. He never advocated killing anyone, he said that it is conceivable that SOME propositions are SO Dangerous it MAY be more ethical to kill advocates of those beliefs rather than not.
    Now, if US security had had knowledge of the extreme religious fanatics that hijacked and flew the 9-11 airplanes… would it have been ethical to kill them to prevent the 9-11 attack, or would you advocate acting only AFTER the act?

    Anyone who claims that there is never an ethical reason to kill someone as protection of the greater good is either foolish or a liar. Harris was simply being truthful, not evil.

  36. on 12 Aug 2011 at 6:48 am 36.Severin said …

    20 Burebista
    “What is immoral behavior DPK and why?”

    Mark 11:24
    Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

    THAT is immoral!
    It is immoral to lie to people, giving them false (unconditional!) promisses.
    Either Jesus did not exist, or he was an immoral liar.

    Jeremiah chapter 49, verse 20
    Therefore hear the plan which the LORD has made against Edom and the purposes which he has formed against the inhabitants of Teman: Even the little ones of the flock shall be dragged away; surely their fold shall be appalled at their fate. At the sound of their fall the earth shall tremble; the sound of their cry shall be heard at the Red Sea.
    THAT is immoral, too.
    It is immoral to kill children.
    Either there was no god, or he was an immoral (and bestial) children killer.

    Just for record.

    Etc,etc,etc…

  37. on 12 Aug 2011 at 7:33 am 37.Severin said …

    35 DPK

    “Was it wrong to kill Osama bin Laden?“

    Yes, it was, because it WAS NOT LEGAL.

    I hate Bin Laden and everything he did, but I also hate USA playnig global policeman, proclaiming right and moral everything THEY do.
    Didn’t USA MAKE bin Laden, then rejected him?

    With so many Burebistas, Horatios, Xenons, etc., having POWER in USA, I dont see the USA much different than any fundamentalist country, except in one thing: they are STRONGER, and can do what they want, including imposing rules to others about what is, and what is not „right“ and „moral“.
    But, what if, one day, China becomes stronger?
    Will moral rules change then?

    I would not like to see THAT!

    Nothing personal, DPK!
    I would like much more DPKs, Lous, Severins… to see everywhere on this planet, including my country and USA.

  38. on 12 Aug 2011 at 12:04 pm 38.Lou said …

    34.Pryor said …

    “Maybe someone could point out the difference between these 2 statements? It appears Horatio was right on track.”

    If it’s required that “someone could point out the difference between these 2 statements” for you to understand the difference, then you must first have a grade-school education.

    Check back when you get it.

  39. on 12 Aug 2011 at 12:29 pm 39.Lou said …

    35 DPK

    “Was it wrong to kill Osama bin Laden?“

    37.Severin said …

    “Yes, it was, because it WAS NOT LEGAL.”

    Legality and morality (wrong/right) are two separate ideas.

    Abortion is a perfect example of that. In some places it’s legal, but in others it’s not. But which is it, moral or immoral?

    This isn’t the place to discuss whether or not it was legal or moral to kill OBL.

  40. on 12 Aug 2011 at 12:45 pm 40.Pryor said …

    Sev

    You must be part of the OBL network. I’m not sorry your leader is dead and rejoice that the US has the chutzpah to take him out!

    DPK,

    Do you know the difference between action and an idea? OBL had an idea and then took action by putting a huge network in place to bring global terror to the world. Not only that, but they were attempting to bring him to trial but resorted to killing him when he resisted. So, even then killing came about due to his refusal to cooperate.

    Sam Harris only went back and attempted to save face on his statement after his book came out and he got a great deal of criticism.

  41. on 12 Aug 2011 at 12:48 pm 41.Pryor said …

    For the record let me add:

    Severin has some dangerous ideas as seen above. Under the Sam Harris philosophy, if I find his ideas are as dangerous would it be OK to have him killed?

  42. on 12 Aug 2011 at 12:52 pm 42.Pryor said …

    “if US security had had knowledge of the extreme religious fanatics that hijacked and flew the 9-11 airplanes… would it have been ethical to kill them to prevent the 9-11 attack”

    It would have been ethical to capture and then give them a trial. Why are atheist so quick to kill?

  43. on 12 Aug 2011 at 2:23 pm 43.Lou said …

    42.Pryor said …

    “Why are atheist so quick to kill?”

    Raised by xtians?

  44. on 12 Aug 2011 at 2:25 pm 44.Lou said …

    40.Pryor said …

    “Sam Harris only went back and attempted to save face on his statement after his book came out and he got a great deal of criticism.”

    Because he was misquoted out of context, exactly as Hor did it to advance their personal agendas.

  45. on 12 Aug 2011 at 3:01 pm 45.Severin said …

    37 Severin
    “Was it wrong to kill Osama bin Laden?“

    Yes, it was, because it WAS NOT LEGAL.

    42 Pryor
    “It would have been ethical to capture and then give them a trial. Why are atheist so quick to kill?”

    40 Pryor
    “Sev
    You must be part of the OBL network. I’m not sorry your leader is dead and rejoice that the US has the chutzpah to take him out!”

    I am not sorry Osama is dead. I only said the way he was killed was not legal.
    I am sorry you are an idiot. I like debating with clever people.
    Don’t you see what are you writing here?

  46. on 12 Aug 2011 at 4:04 pm 46.Lou said …

    41.Pryor said …

    “For the record let me add:”

    For the record? Really? Yes, your question is now on the record.

    “Severin has some dangerous ideas as seen above. Under the Sam Harris philosophy, if I find his ideas are as dangerous would it be OK to have him killed?”

    No, but it would be OK if only you did it with your bare hands only.

    Sheesh!

  47. on 12 Aug 2011 at 6:33 pm 47.Clausewitz said …

    “Severin has some dangerous ideas as seen above. Under the Sam Harris philosophy, if I find his ideas are as dangerous would it be OK to have him killed?”

    Pryor and others this is where atheist constructs break down. I feel certain when Harris made such a quote he was referring to what “HE” found to be dangerous ideas. This is not new Lenin and then Stalin did the same thing.

    But who is Harris to decide? Read the quote in his book and you find quite quickly he was NOT misquoted. He was busted for his stupid arrogance and his dangerous ideas.

  48. on 12 Aug 2011 at 7:57 pm 48.Lou said …

    47.Clausewitz said …

    “Pryor and others this is where atheist constructs break down.”

    B.S. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with so-called “atheist constructs.”

    “I feel certain when Harris made such a quote he was referring to what “HE” found to be dangerous ideas.”

    Who cares what you “feel certain about.” Are you also certain there’s a god?

    “This is not new Lenin and then Stalin did the same thing.”

    “But who is Harris to decide?”

    He didn’t claim to decide anything.

    “Read the quote in his book and you find quite quickly he was NOT misquoted.”

    He obviously was misquoted here by Hor. Are you Hor posting under a new name? You both make the same punctuation and grammatical errors, not to mention conceptual errors.

  49. on 12 Aug 2011 at 8:49 pm 49.Lou said …

    Do any of you literary enthusiasts see the connection between Horatio and Clausewitz?

    Not only do Hor and Claus make the same writing error, but they have a “literary connection.” Coincidence?

    And there’s this:

    29.Horatiio said …

    “That is why we had the gulags and the Reds murdering babies.”

    47.Clausewitz said …

    “This is not new Lenin and then Stalin did the same thing.”

    Hor, you can’t defend your Harris misquote by inventing a new pseudonym to defend and agree with you. You’re a transparent liar.

  50. on 12 Aug 2011 at 10:18 pm 50.nony mouse said …

    Meanwhile Horatiio is back on his old hobby-horse. Instead of providing evidence for the existence of this god of his, he attacks Sam Harris.

    Question: What evidence has Horatiio ever produced for the existence of his imaginary friend, or does he always change the subject when pressed for an answer?

  51. on 12 Aug 2011 at 10:20 pm 51.Horatiio said …

    LOL!!

    Is this all you have now Lou?

    No he didn’t and Horatiio is another poster?

    Reds are the Chinese and gulags are from the Soviets so where you connect Lenin and Stalin is in your little mind.

    Pryor and Claus make great points so maybe that is why you think they are me.

    LOL!

    I have always though Lou, DPK and Severin were the same poster. Still do

    Have a great week boys.

  52. on 12 Aug 2011 at 11:50 pm 52.Lou said …

    51.Horatiio said …

    “Is this all you have now Lou?

    No he didn’t and Horatiio is another poster?”

    Can someone translate that?

    “Reds are the Chinese and gulags are from the Soviets so where you connect Lenin and Stalin is in your little mind.”

    WTF? Have you started your weekend early with a strong cocktail? You moron, I didn’t connect those things with each other.

    “Pryor and Claus make great points so maybe that is why you think they are me.”

    WHAT? PRYOR?! Did I write that I thought Pryor was you? NO! I DID NOT. So, apparently you are also Pryor? You fool, now you really slipped-up. All liars eventually do. Hmmm, lets check something that Pryor wrote -

    34.Pryor said …

    “That is the methodologies of Stalin and Mao”

    VERY SIMILAR to what Hor and Claus wrote while attacking Harris in defense of Hor’s original misquote.

    “I have always though Lou, DPK and Severin were the same poster. Still do”

    Here you again, lying to cover your ass. Stop digging yourself into a deeper hole.

    “Have a great week boys.”

    Week? On Friday most people wish a great WEEKEND. Go easy on the cocktails.

    Hor/Claus (and now Pryor?), have a great WEEKEND.

  53. on 13 Aug 2011 at 12:09 am 53.Lou said …

    All of you, please google +Horatio and +Clausewitz, and read a little about them.

    Ignoring the common writing errors, isn’t it too much of coincidence that Claus suddenly appears, supporting and defending Hor’s Harris misquote without being the same person?

  54. on 14 Aug 2011 at 12:15 am 54.Anonymous said …

    I bet all of you have been arguing the same points over and over again for years.its really quite pathetic ;)

  55. on 16 Aug 2011 at 7:20 pm 55.Suresh said …

    No Matter what you say and try your best to prove your points to discreadit God’s power, His love for whole world.

    He is God and Jesus is living Savior. He do answers our prayers and it is true that one day He will come with His glory and reign with everlasting peace.

    Our rejection of God’s existance do not change Him or do not make less powerful.

    Science has very limited power to prove God wrong, But God is powerful and all knowing God who has time to time proved to human that the secience has its limits and no way can control God’s existance and His presence.

    I totally believe in Him and do believe that Jesus is the way and truth and life. His words are true.

    God is good in Him we have everlasting life

  56. on 17 Aug 2011 at 7:41 am 56.notfiveo said …

    Sounds like a child’s gibberish. How is it that some seeming intelligent people can put aside common sense and science to regress into some imaginary non-existent dimension of a child’s imagination and perceive themselves as carrying on an intelligent conversation without ever proving their claims? Simplistic head noders of the church of regressive knowledge. Why is praying [begging] always after the fact, did the all knowing god not already know?

  57. on 17 Aug 2011 at 4:17 pm 57.Udaybhanu Chitrakar said …

    In olden-golden days the saying was: When there was nothing, there was God. When there will be nothing again, there will still be God.
    But then came the scientists and changed everything. The above saying also changed to this: When there was nothing, there were quantum laws. When there will be nothing again, there will still be quantum laws.
    These quantum laws are spaceless, timeless, changeless, eternal, all-pervading, unborn, uncreated and immaterial. Only that these laws lack consciousness.
    These quantum laws are spaceless, timeless and immaterial, because when there was no space, no time and no matter, there were still these quantum laws. (Vilenkin’s model)
    These quantum laws are all-pervading, because these laws act equally everywhere.
    Quantum laws are scientists’ God, unborn, uncreated.
    Amen.

  58. on 20 Aug 2011 at 6:14 pm 58.Dimms said …

    “THE ONUS?”

    This is the most emotive, unscientific, irrational monologue for atheism I’ve seen and heard in a while! Please answer the questions below intelligently and NOT EMOTIVELY. (I want rational answers, NOT atheist rhetoric and abuse). Preferably, I would like the person who created this video to respond. (I hope, within the worldview of secular democracy, I can make such requests). Quotes below are extracted from the above video.

    “It will become clear to you that your belief in God is delusional”? Really? How clear? Watch this treatise (Naturalism can be just as “delusional” or a “leap of faith” within an evolutionary worldview): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbjp9PrtPS8

    “Harm us as a species”?, Hurting us as a species? How do you define “harm” on atheism?

    “The hope is that you will start healing your delusion”? Are you a psychiatric health professional to make such diagnoses? Please demonstrate from credible extant psychiatric authority, that belief in god is pathology.

    “With each healing we make our world a better place”? This sounds highly emotive and irrational. Please define a “better place”. Be careful here, you may sound religious! It is hard to define “a better place” within a worldview which asserts there is no moral absolutes! Or are you claiming there are “moral absolutes” in this statement? If so, on what basis? Please consider intelligently this debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq1QjXe3IYQ
    Here you are also making the claim of psychiatric pathology and diagnosis – on what authority? The DSM-4 perhaps? Please outline your authority to make such claims.

    “A normal intelligent person”? – please define a “normal intelligent person”. On what cognitive framework do you make such claims of intelligence?

    “Radically devalues human life”? Really? Does Christian theology, really devalue human life in such absolute terms? (this assertion belies a bad reading of history and Christian theology) Moreover, what, on atheism, is the value of the human species? Please watch how Sam Harris inadequately tries to affirm the “value” of humans and human morality within atheism in this debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq1QjXe3IYQ

    “The belief in heaven is delusional”? – really? On what diagnostic criteria?

    “The future of our species”? – this sounds highly teleological. How would you define, within your atheist mythology, what the ideal “future” of the species is, when atheistic evolution does not strictly allow for teleological/purpose claims? (Teleology is not built into the evolutionary, atheistic worldview)

    “Your irrationality”? Please define “irrationality” within an atheistic worldview. And, furthermore, what is my “moral duty” that I “ought to” behave within your framework of “rationality”. Your impositions and claims are starting to sound very “religious”!

    “Help you recover from your delusion”? – Again, “delusion” implies a psychological pathology. Please display your credentials to make such diagnoses. Moreover, in what position do you situate yourself that you can “help” an individual suffering from this malady of “delusion”? Are you suffering from a “messiah complex”? Please save this highly evolved ape from its malady! Otherwise, I am damned! (hold on, damned to what!?…. oh yeah, the atheist’s arbitrary judgements!)

    “Every study shows prayer is a superstition”? – Which studies? Please reference them. Are they studies which critique a robust exegesis and hermeneutics of New Testament theology on prayer, OR are they used as an attack on a “straw man Christianity” grounded in the theology of the “Word-Faith Movement”? It is easy to deconstruct your own construct of “the enemy”.

    “Normal, healthy, human being”? – On your own worldview, what is a “normal, healthy human being”? – again, be careful, because your answer will imply a teleological projection, which a strict atheist worldview does not seem to allow.

    “You can begin your healing journey now”? – Wow, you are starting to sound like an authoritative faith healer! – On what authority do you make this claim? What is the ideal state of health I OUGHT to attain, if indeed, I am sick. (according to your presentation I am “sick” as a Christian theist)

    “A normal, healthy human being”? – again, a huge authoritative claim! Please define normal and healthy. Are you a health care professional? As a Christian theist, I am currently defined by accredited health care authorities as “normal” and “healthy”. Do you have some higher insight? On what authority do you make such claims of “health” and “normal” external of your atheist rhetoric? Be careful not to sound like a cult leader in your answer! You are starting to sound like the “ONE” who can save me!

    Final question: This word view thesis of the “delusional bubble”, if true, should also be applied to the “atheist bubble of delusion”, since atheism is also a worldview construct. When are you going to be intellectually consisted and analyse your own “delusion” and create a similar video?

    Thank you, genuinely, for the free discourse this site affords.

    Please ANSWER these inquiries from a thinking theist. After all, I am the person you are proselytising.

    Regards

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply