Feed on Posts or Comments 17 September 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 22 Sep 2011 12:44 am

How do we know that God is imaginary? We look at how ridiculous he is.

The following article brilliantly demonstrates that God is imaginary:

Churches speak up on gay marriage

Let’s say that God were real. If he were, we would know where he stands on gay marriage. Instead, no one has a clue:

“Does the Bible dictate that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is an abomination? Or is the Bible open to interpretation, and is God’s love all-encompassing?”

The Bible contains God’s commandment that “Thou shalt not kill”. The Bible also contains God’s commandment that gay men should be killed because they are an abomination. And the Bible contains God’s commandment, delivered through Jesus, that we love one another and love our enemies.

Why would anyone believe in a being, a book or a religion that is this ridiculous? We are supposed to kill no one, except all the people we are supposed to kill, and we are supposed to kill them while at the same time loving them.

These videos explain the problem. Any intelligent person can see it, and this is why intelligent people know that God is imaginary:

125 Responses to “How do we know that God is imaginary? We look at how ridiculous he is.”

  1. on 22 Sep 2011 at 9:25 pm 1.Horatiio said …

    “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

    There you go, right from Jesus. Problem solved.

  2. on 22 Sep 2011 at 11:19 pm 2.DPK said …

    So Hor…. are all divorced people going to hell? “What god has joined, let no one separate.”
    Hmmm… didn’t god also “make” homosexuals? Didn’t “at the beginning” he also made them gay and straight… and bi… and didn’t… since everything happens according to HIS will, he also tell us to love them?
    But, the father also says to kill them… Let me guess… we can kill them out of love. right?
    Makes as much sense as anything else.
    I hope you never have a gay son or daughter. I think you’ll be eating your words.

  3. on 23 Sep 2011 at 12:01 am 3.Suh said …

    Seems to me all Hor spoke on was regarding the link above. The question “Did God say homosexual marriage is OK? No.

    They are free to live together, have sex, avoid taxes, and every other right afforded Americans.

    God didn’t make sin, man chooses sin. Homosexuals need counseling and Jesus to help them overcome. Testimonies are everywhere of cured homosexuals. That is a fact.

  4. on 23 Sep 2011 at 1:31 am 4.DPK said …

    “God didn’t make sin, man chooses sin. Homosexuals need counseling and Jesus to help them overcome. Testimonies are everywhere of cured homosexuals. That is a fact.”

    Spoken like a typical judgmental, holier than thou, religious butt munch.

    I notice you conveniently avoided the crux of the article… does god want us to love homosexuals, or kill them?

  5. on 23 Sep 2011 at 5:10 am 5.Severin said …

    1 Horatio
    “There you go, right from Jesus. Problem solved.”

    Excuse me, who, the hell was Jesus?

  6. on 23 Sep 2011 at 6:37 pm 6.Xenon said …

    @4 DPK

    “Spoken like a typical judgmental, holier than thou, religious butt munch.”

    A very ironic statement. DPK passes judgement and then drops an ad homenim attack on another poster. Suh is looking to assist other human beings while DPK posts hateful comments.

  7. on 24 Sep 2011 at 3:01 am 7.DPK said …

    Yes… I am a meanie. I don’t like homophobes. And I don’t like people who insist homosexuals need to be “cured”.
    I was wrong to call Suh a butt munch. I should have said “asshole”.
    So yeah, I’m guilty.

  8. on 24 Sep 2011 at 3:11 pm 8.Xenon said …

    DPK you are not a meanie, just misguided and ignorant. You use words of which you are clueless of the meaning but your tolerance for people just like you is heart-warming.

    You probably don’t care for people with “Suh” in there name. Probably one of those foreigners.

  9. on 24 Sep 2011 at 4:42 pm 9.DPK said …

    My disdain for judgmental holier than thou, right wing homophobes has nothing to do with the country of their origin. And, sadly for you, it also has nothing to do with the reality of your imaginary god.
    Let’s understand exactly the position you are arguing from though, so we can properly address your delusion:

    Xenon… and I ask you this directly… the bible says homosexuals and adulterers should be killed, stoned to death if memory serves. Do you agree with that? It’s a yes or no question.
    D

  10. on 24 Sep 2011 at 5:38 pm 10.DPK said …

    To anyone else watching this thread, I will make a prediction. Xenon and the others will not answer this simple, direct question. They will try to deflect it with rationalizations and double talk. They may claim that we cannot question god on matter of morality. They may tell you that god didn’t “really mean” that homosexuals should be killed and you have to study the bible in contest to understand that things were different in the old testament. They will not, however, explain the context in which god’s commandment to put homosexuals, adulterers, and a host of other “sinners” to death can be understood to mean anything but that. More than likely however, they will not answer at all, and will start talking again about first causes, the origin of the first cell, complexity in nature, or some other smokescreen to avoid the contradiction in nature between what gentle Jesus teaches, and what the bible actually says, and the complete incompatibility of that reality with the nature of a perfect, loving god that they claim listens to their thoughts, answers their prayers, and that they have a personal relationship with.
    Now, sit back and watch what happens………..

  11. on 25 Sep 2011 at 6:24 pm 11.RJ said …

    (*crickets chirping*)

  12. on 25 Sep 2011 at 10:50 pm 12.DPK said …

    11.RJ said …

    (*crickets chirping*)

    LOL… I’m a prophet.

  13. on 26 Sep 2011 at 2:11 am 13.40 year atheist said …

    Wandering around fairly aimlessly I came across the following explanation of both Atheist morals and Christian morals as understood by an Atheist. The site is BackyardSkeptics.com, which is the group responsible for advertising their We Have Doubts and Good Without God Skepticism on bus stops in Southern California. The following claims are so non-coherent that I couldn’t resist taking them up here.

    “Many atheists feel it is the harder choice to not have a ‘moral rule book’ in their lives. Atheists take each situation separately and decide what is the moral thing to do. Many times it is very ethical to lie or cheat – for example, to defend your family, or to protect an innocent person. Some say this is a harder choice because atheists have to look at Christian’s value system as will as everyone else and decide if their choices are moral. This is another reason I have chosen to be an atheist. – the Bible has so many unethical an immoral stories of death and destruction – it boggles the mind how Christians can believe such nonsense. See Numbers 31 and tell me that the taking of virgins for sex slaves is ethical. Amazing!”

    But there is absolutely no possible way to conclude that they were sex slaves, if one reads more than just the one verse. Atheist versions of the Bible are based on searches for verses that offend them, which is odd, because they admit to having no morals dictated by their belief. In fact, the entire Midianite episode is entirely within the Consequentialist tactic that tumbles automatically out of the Atheist moral vacuum.

  14. on 26 Sep 2011 at 2:38 am 14.DPK said …

    My powers of prophesy are quite amazing, no?
    Remember I said, “Xenon and the others will not answer this simple, direct question. They will try to deflect it with rationalizations and double talk.”

    40 Year… do you care to answer my challenge to Xenon with a simple yes, or no?
    If you claim your morality comes from the bible, why is this so difficult. Should gays and lesbians, adulterers, and the other types of sinners for which death is prescribed in the bible, be killed?
    The source of atheist morality should make no difference. Should they be killed, as god said in the bible, or not?

  15. on 26 Sep 2011 at 6:08 am 15.Severin said …

    13 40yA
    “…Atheist moral vacuum.“

    I am an atheist, but I don’t feel like living in vacuum of any kind.
    I have „built-in“ moral rules that I strictly follow, and spontaniously, without “digging” through a book to tell me what is right and what is wrong: I do not lie, I do not cheat, I do not steal, I do not offend anyone, I do not kill, I disgust any sort of violence, and feel really bad when I witness it, I am compassionate, and feel very bad when I see anyone suffering.
    I help people a lot, and I do not limit my help to charity. For example, I teach math and chemistry for free children who can not pay teachers (never asking them what religion they belong)…
    When there was war in my country, I helped helpless endangered people to escape dangerous situations, risking a lot, for example my career, which I finally ended because I helped „wrong“ people (and their children).
    I am very responsible, I work a lot…

    My daughter is an atheist.
    She is a wonderful creature, humorous, compassionate, ready to help, honest, hard working, responsible…she also does not stael, cheat, lie, kill…AND she had never in her life read anu religious book, nither she ever went to any church…

    We live wonderful, joyfull lives, and, as I said many times here, I will probably die with a smile on my lips, thinking, while dying, about all good things I did in my life, before I go to nothingness.
    My life was tough, but wonderful.

    Without a god, Bible, Kuran, Jesus, …

    I know a lot of people like me and my daughter.
    It must be that you also know a lot of such people.

    How is it possible?

  16. on 26 Sep 2011 at 6:16 am 16.Severin said …

    13 40yA
    “But there is absolutely no possible way to conclude that they were sex slaves, if one reads more than just the one verse.”

    No, no possible way to conclude that they were sex slaves.
    They distroyed their homes, killed their parents and took them … to do WHAT with them?

    They were SLAVES, weren’t they?

    Couldn’t your god give his people a message that slavery is genrally bad?

    He could, yet he didn’t.

  17. on 26 Sep 2011 at 12:44 pm 17.DPK said …

    Not wishing to get off point.. but:
    40 year said;
    “But there is absolutely no possible way to conclude that they were sex slaves, if one reads more than just the one verse.”

    Splitting hairs is easy to do in biblical texts. Christian apologists have been long practiced and inventing convoluted rationalizations for the stuff in the bible. Perhaps that’s why they call them apologists… they have to keep apologizing for their god’s actions, over and over, and over…

    Numbers 31:7-18

    They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba – the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

    Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. Moses was angry with the officers of the army – the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds – who returned from the battle.

    “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”

  18. on 26 Sep 2011 at 1:09 pm 18.Lou (DFW) said …

    13.40 year atheist said …

    “Wandering around fairly aimlessly I…”

    That just about sums it up.

  19. on 26 Sep 2011 at 5:08 pm 19.Tom said …

    #13 “Many times it is very ethical to lie or cheat – for example, to defend your family, or to protect an innocent person.”

    Add to that murder, rape and pillage. I don’t mind atheist searching the Bible for passages they hate. I truly hope they will wise up. The brutal atheist dictatorships of the 20th century show just what the atheist mindset is capable of doing. It is easy to to stone the morality of another when you have no morality to defend.

    Of course the Mosaic law listed death for those who practiced homosexuality along with some other sins they must be OK with. They didn’t bring those up. Atheist never understand who the Mosaic law was for so I never bother. Maybe the fact Christians don’t have laws to murder atheist would give them a hint.

    I would venture to guess the atheist here support “pro-choice”. Or better yet, murder of babies who have committed no crime.

    Before you claim they are not human beings. Take into account those charged with murdering a pregnant mother are charged with two homicides.

    Let us watch them dance around that one.

    I will come back by to watch my prophecies fulfilled.

  20. on 26 Sep 2011 at 5:42 pm 20.DPK said …

    Ok, so are we to assume that you feel it was ok for god to prescribe death for the crime of adultery, homosexuality, working on the sabbath, et. al. ?
    I assume yes, since it is in the bible, the word of god.
    Hate to shatter your myopic stereotype, but I am an atheist and I do not believe in abortion… at least not as a method of birth control. I do not however, believe that a church or government should have the right to intrude on a personal medical decision that should be a private matter between a woman and her doctor.
    There… no dancing. Now… when god instructed his people to stone certain sinners to death… is that not what he meant? Did he later change his mind?
    How could something god commanded become immoral later on?
    Also hate to shatter what ever nonsense you have been spoon fed by your mind control clerics… but please give an accounting of the number of atrocities, rapes and murders than have been committed in the name of atheism, vs in the name of god. Name me one “atheist war”. Name me one “atheist” inquisition or crusade. Hmmm…

  21. on 26 Sep 2011 at 6:57 pm 21.Lou (DFW) said …

    19.Tom said …

    “Add to that murder, rape and pillage.”

    You’re an idiot if you think those things are comparable to lying or cheating.

    “I don’t mind atheist searching the Bible for passages they hate.”

    Again, you’re an idiot if you really think that way. It’s not a matter of hating a Biblical passage.

    “I truly hope they will wise up.”

    I hope that the same for you.

    “The brutal atheist dictatorships of the 20th century show just what the atheist mindset is capable of doing.”

    First, they weren’t “atheist dictatorships” any more than Hitler’s was a Catholic dictatorship.

    “It is easy to to stone the morality of another when you have no morality to defend.”

    Oh please. Again, you’re an idiot if you confuse morality with religion. As a group, atheists are just as moral as theists.

    “Maybe the fact Christians don’t have laws to murder atheist would give them a hint.”

    But you obviously have no hint.

    ‘I would venture to guess the atheist here support “pro-choice”.’

    Who cares what you would guess? You’ve already demonstrated that your ignorant.

    “Or better yet, murder of babies who have committed no crime.”

    As in the Noah’s Flood?

  22. on 26 Sep 2011 at 6:59 pm 22.Lou (DFW) said …

    21.Lou (DFW) said …

    “Who cares what you would guess? You’ve already demonstrated that your ignorant.”

    Correction: you’re, not your.

  23. on 26 Sep 2011 at 8:07 pm 23.Horatiio said …

    Tom

    Prophecy fulfilled.

    Don’t know if you drop by here much but these guys are full of relative moralism.

    So they are enraged by God calling homosexuality immoral and prescribing a punishment in the Hebrew culture. However, killing a child in the modern culture is OK. Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

    Just a note here. They have no idea what you mean by Mosaic law. I gave up explaining such concepts long ago.

    Good luck Tom

  24. on 26 Sep 2011 at 8:11 pm 24.Horatiio said …

    Louie,

    You haven’t paid attention to past posts especially 40YA who taught you this concept (what a shock). God cannot kill. God created all things therefore they belong to Him. He can do what He desires with them. Yes, if He wants to take a life it is His to take. A man has no such right.

    Go back to your notes and try again. LOL!!

  25. on 27 Sep 2011 at 2:10 am 25.Lou (DFW) said …

    23.Horatiio said …

    “So they are enraged by God calling homosexuality immoral and prescribing a punishment in the Hebrew culture. However, killing a child in the modern culture is OK. Yes, that makes a lot of sense.”

    Tom, Once again Hor resorts to his only tactic – lying about atheists.

  26. on 27 Sep 2011 at 2:18 am 26.Lou (DFW) said …

    24.Horatiio said …

    “God cannot kill. God created all things therefore they belong to Him. He can do what He desires with them. Yes, if He wants to take a life it is His to take. A man has no such right.”

    You are such a moron. God clearly kills people, regardless of whether or not they “belong to him.” You even contradict yourself – “Yes, if He wants to take a life it is His to take.” To take a life is killing. But even with all the killing god does, he still is too incompetent to eradicate evil.

    Now, if we could only eradicate ignorance in people like you.

  27. on 27 Sep 2011 at 3:40 am 27.MrQ said …

    Hor

    Yes, if He wants to take a life it is His to take. A man has no such right.

    What you’re saying is wrong.
    If a man takes another’s life it is with the complete consent and knowledge of the all seeing/all powerful god. God has the ability to see the act prior to it’s completion. As a matter of fact, if god has Omnimax power and fails to act prior to a murder, then wouldn’t he be responsible for not preventing the act? After all, if god knows the future it would be because he/she/it is the scriptwriter.
    The big guy in the sky is the man behind the curtain pulling the levers, isn’t he?

  28. on 27 Sep 2011 at 4:56 am 28.Anonymous said …

    23 Horatio,
    you miserable mouse-liar, YOU are talking “relative moralism”?
    You, who justify whatevera lunatic murder, your god, did/ordered, like murdering of innocent children in big flood or murdering his own son?
    Wasn’t that O.K. for you? „Who are we to judge Him?“

    For me, murder is murder, crime is crime, I do not justify it no matter who does/orders it.

    Power without responsibility = massive crime. That is why biblical god = multiple Hitler. The two lunatics, intoxicated by power, they both totally lost their compasses and enjoyed bloody orgies that costed so many people their lives.

    If your god existed, he could learn about morals from me.
    Children’s tears have always the same value for me.

  29. on 27 Sep 2011 at 4:57 am 29.Anonymous said …

    28 Anonymous = Severin

  30. on 27 Sep 2011 at 5:14 am 30.Severin said …

    24 Horatio
    “God created all things therefore they belong to Him. He can do what He desires with them. Yes, if He wants to take a life it is His to take.”

    THAT is what you call “moral”?
    Irresponsible lunacy? “I can, so I will” logic?
    “Right” to do something is one thing, WILL to do it is something very different!

    You ARE miserable! You don’t have your own personality, your own criteria, you are NOTHING.
    Phoey!
    If you were able to feel shame, I would say: shame on you, but I doubt you are.

    If such a god existed, I would be proud not to “belong” to him no matter how would it “cost” me.
    I would never be able to accept and justify anyone’s lunatic crimes. ANYONE’S.

  31. on 27 Sep 2011 at 5:29 am 31.Severin said …

    23 Horatio,

    “Yes, if He wants to take a life it is His to take.”
    Why didn’t he want SPARE lives?

  32. on 27 Sep 2011 at 12:01 pm 32.Horatiio said …

    “If a man takes another’s life it is with the complete consent and knowledge of the all seeing/all powerful god.”

    (sigh), same old tired arguments Q. God made man with free will. He gave the commands, he expects us to obey.

    I know Richard Dawkins has the atheist on puppet strings hollering delusion at every turn, bu God is much more loving.

    Mr Q, do you have kids? Do you FORCE them to love you?

  33. on 27 Sep 2011 at 12:51 pm 33.Lou (DFW) said …

    32.Horatiio said …

    “Mr Q, do you have kids? Do you FORCE them to love you?”

    Mr Q, do you have kids? Do you send them to hell for eternal damnation if they DON’T love you?

  34. on 27 Sep 2011 at 6:19 pm 34.MrQ said …

    Hor

    Mr Q, do you have kids? Do you FORCE them to love you?

    Yes and no, respectively.

    Differences between me and a god:
    I would never ask my child to prove their love by murdering their sibling(s) or any other human.
    I do not know or completely control the future for myself or my children. If I did, I would take home the Lotto money every week!!
    As Lou stated, I will not condemn my children to hell for failing to love me enough…for failing to pray to me…or for finding a different philosophy in life than mine. Who knows, maybe they’ll become Muslims, Ultimately it’s their choice. I am trying to empower them with the ability to REASON rather than telling them what the NEED to BELIEVE.

    Again, Hor, you fail to deliver. Somehow you think it’s OK for god to know the future and let it unfold as PLANNED. Free will is a moot concept with this scenario. If the future fails to unfold as god’s already planned, then his power is diminished. So what is it? Does god know the future (omnipresent) and is able to act on it (omnipotent) yet chooses to not do so?

  35. on 27 Sep 2011 at 6:40 pm 35.Lou (DFW) said …

    32.Horatiio said …

    “I know Richard Dawkins has the atheist on puppet strings hollering delusion at every turn,”

    You know no such thing. As usual, you lie about atheists.

    “…bu God is much more loving.”

    But if you don’t love and worship god, it’s off to hell for eternity with you. Sheesh, I “love” my pets more than your imaginary god “loves” his humans.

    Yes, you’re delusional, and that’s just the beginning of what’s a list of obvious intellectual, psychological, and emotional deficiencies you have.

  36. on 27 Sep 2011 at 6:48 pm 36.Horatiio said …

    “Yes and no, respectively.’

    Excellent Mr Q! Now you understand God. He forces no one to love Him OR accept Him as their Lord. Anyone who goes to Hell chooses to by rejecting Him. God cannot act against His character trait of justice for the sins man has committed.

    “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”

    “God does not wish that one would perish”

  37. on 27 Sep 2011 at 7:26 pm 37.Lou (DFW) said …

    36.Horatiio said …

    “Anyone who goes to Hell chooses to by rejecting Him.”

    Of course, this is nonsense. Nobody chooses to go to hell, for any reason. If your imaginary god existed and operated as you fantasize, then going to hell is cause and effect, not choice. For example, when your parents had sex, I doubt that they chose to conceive you. You were simply a consequence.

    “God cannot act against His character trait of justice for the sins man has committed.”

    Nor can Santa Claus “act against [h]is character trait of justice” by bringing toys to naughty girls and boys. But when children grow-up, they understand the difference between fantasy and reality. You obviously don’t.

    “God does not wish that one would perish”

    God wishes? I thought that your imaginary god is all-knowing and all-powerful. Obviously not.

  38. on 27 Sep 2011 at 8:07 pm 38.MrQ said …

    Yes, I am god; according to my children anyway. I created them with a little help from the missus, the godess. Good to see you comprehend.

  39. on 28 Sep 2011 at 12:23 am 39.40 year Atheist said …

    When an astrophysicist or an economist gets a prediction based on a hypothesis wrong, his consequent assumption is usually that the hypothesis is incorrect. When an evolutionary biologist gets a prediction based on a hypothesis wrong, his consequent assumption is always that the hypothesis cannot possibly be to blame, there must be some missing factor that has not been properly taken into account.

    If evolution by natural selection has not taken place, then evolution by some other mechanism must have taken place; the logical conclusion that the core hypothesis is simply incorrect and evolution did not take place is seldom, if ever, considered an option.

    There is zero evidence that abiogenesis ever took place, robustly imagined mechanisms for it notwithstanding. To claim that because there was no life before, but there is now, ergo abiogenesis occurred, is the very sort of philosophy that science has largely come to supplant.

    Evolutionists tend to wisely punt on the logically-dictated abiogenetic foundation upon which their materialist assumptions rest, but there is no reason anyone should permit them to do so. It’s rather like economists who attempt to leave debt out of their equations. The numbers may all add up nicely without it, but leaving out the most important element tends to call the entire model into question

  40. on 28 Sep 2011 at 12:56 am 40.MrQ said …

    40YA@#39

    When an evolutionary biologist gets a prediction based on a hypothesis wrong, his consequent assumption is always that the hypothesis cannot possibly be to blame

    Any recent examples of this?
    I thought that the evidence and other branches of science, unavailable to Darwin in his day, have come together nicely to support Evolution.

    If evolution by natural selection has not taken place, then evolution by some other mechanism must have taken place;

    Fill your boots. Use the evidence at hand and make your own conclusions. Maybe your ideas get traction and we need to have a re-think on how we interpret the data. What have you got?

  41. on 28 Sep 2011 at 2:46 am 41.Lou (DFW) said …

    39.40 year Atheist said …

    “If evolution by natural selection has not taken place, then evolution by some other mechanism must have taken place; the logical conclusion that the core hypothesis is simply incorrect and evolution did not take place is seldom, if ever, considered an option.”

    According to your convoluted way of thinking, if Le Sage’s theory of gravitation is incorrect, then there isn’t any gravity.

    This is yet another example of the fallacies of your thought process similar to when you wrote that anything not proven false is true.

    FYI – evolution isn’t anymore of a “core hypothesis” than is gravity.

    You’re simply clueless.

  42. on 28 Sep 2011 at 12:49 pm 42.Horatiio said …

    40 Year Atheist,

    Another great analysis. What you have just described is religion. The hypothesis must never fail therefore fill in the blanks and draw the pictures to fit what MUST be true.

  43. on 28 Sep 2011 at 1:19 pm 43.MrQ said …

    40YA gets his tires pumped by Hor. What a surprise!!!LOL

  44. on 28 Sep 2011 at 2:04 pm 44.RJ said …

    ““I would venture to guess the atheist here support “pro-choice”. Or better yet, murder of babies who have committed no crime.””

    On that note, I just don’t get why Christians get so keyed up over abortion. Don’t they believe the unborn fetus has a soul? And that that soul goes directly to heaven into the glorious arms of Jesus when “killed” by abortion? It gets to bypass all the pain, misery and hardships of an earthly life and circumvent any chance that it’ll end up damned for eternity by making some bad choices as a mortal. And doesn’t God exact his Righteous Vengeance on the evil mother and doctors by damning them to the fires of hell? So what’s the problem? Soul goes to live with Jesus, mother and doctor burn in hell for ever and ever. Isn’t that a christian win-win?

    By the way,I’m not for or against abortion in and of itself, but believe that every case is different and should be treated as such.

  45. on 28 Sep 2011 at 2:13 pm 45.RJ said …

    “Tom…Prophecy fulfilled.”

    LOL, it appears DPK’s prophecy (#10, and repeated in #14) as well. And looks like it will remain unchallenged.

  46. on 28 Sep 2011 at 3:50 pm 46.DPK said …

    44 RJ…
    In truth, the reality of christian dogma is that unless you have accepted Jesus as your personal savior and been baptized in his name, you do not go to heaven. Unborn babies… no exception. Off to hell with them.
    This was taught as dogma, at least by the Catholics (of which I am personally familiar)… when I was young, this was the teaching of the church. If a baby died before it was baptized… hell.
    This was so disturbing to many of the faithful, that the church invented a workaround… Limbo. They changed their mind and said that while heaven was unattainable with Jesus because of original sin and whatnot… hell was a bit harsh, so innocent babies where sent to Limbo.. a kind of the suburbs of Hell proper.
    Such is the insane workings of the religious mind.

    “The Limbo of Infants (Latin limbus infantium or limbus puerorum) is a hypothesis about the permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, too young to have committed personal sins, but not having been freed from original sin. Since at least the time of Augustine, theologians, considering baptism to be necessary for the salvation of those to whom it can be administered, have debated the fate of unbaptized innocents, and the theory of the Limbo of Infants is one of the hypotheses that have been formulated as a proposed solution. Some who hold this theory regard the Limbo of Infants as a state of maximum natural happiness, others as one of “mildest punishment” consisting at least of privation of the beatific vision and of any hope of obtaining it. This theory, in any of its forms, has never been dogmatically defined by the Church, but it is permissible to hold it. Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope that these infants may attain heaven instead of the supposed state of Limbo.

    While the Catholic Church has a defined doctrine on original sin, it has none on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants, leaving theologians free to propose different theories, which Catholics are free to accept or reject.[8]

    The fundamental importance, in Roman Catholic theology, of the sacrament of water baptism gives rise to the argument that, because original sin excludes from the beatific vision enjoyed by the souls in heaven, those who have not been freed from it either by the sacrament or by baptism of desire or baptism of blood are not eligible for entry into heaven.”

  47. on 28 Sep 2011 at 5:07 pm 47.Lou (DFW) said …

    42.Horatiio said …

    “40 Year Atheist,

    Another great analysis. What you have just described is religion.”

    And what you just wrote is another one of your lies. Even IF what he wrote was true, it wouldn’t be a religion – unless you want to define religion as a continuous belief in something for which there is no evidence and that been shown to be untrue. Wait, that DOES sound just like religion.

  48. on 28 Sep 2011 at 6:35 pm 48.Curmudgeon said …

    RJ does not understand why killing babies
    Is wrong. RJ please stay away from babies
    and wall animals.

    What about “You shall not” do you not understand.

  49. on 28 Sep 2011 at 6:41 pm 49.RJ said …

    RE: DPK, #46

    Wow. Bummer.

    I asked my very devout Catholic mother once what she believes happens to aborted fetuses. She pronounced the theory I outlined earlier (fetus = heaven, selfish mother/evil doctor = hellfire). I asked what happens to the fetuses once they get to heaven. She said it’s raised by the angels. However, she’d told me once before that you don’t age in heaven so I asked then if that meant the fetus would forever be a fetus. She said no, child souls grow up. I asked, if no one grows old in heaven, then what age does everyone there stop aging. Without hesitation, she replied “30″. I said what about those that died in their 80′s. What age are they in heaven. Why, they wake up in heaven at 30, of course.

    I’m not making any of this up.

  50. on 28 Sep 2011 at 6:50 pm 50.RJ said …

    RE: Curmudgeon, #48

    Uuummm, way to miss my entire point, there, bud.

    I wasn’t making a statement as to whether abortion is right or wrong. I even stated that plainly at the end of that post. I was merely just musing as to why christians specifically are upset by it if they believe the soul of the fetus takes the heaven express up to Jesusville and those that participated in the abortion (including mom) are punished in hell.

    But then, that’s the way the game is played here, isn’t it.

  51. on 28 Sep 2011 at 7:25 pm 51.Lou (DFW) said …

    48.Curmudgeon said …

    “What about “You shall not” do you not understand.”

    What part of anything do you not understand?

  52. on 28 Sep 2011 at 7:37 pm 52.DPK said …

    “I was merely just musing as to why christians specifically are upset by it if they believe the soul of the fetus takes the heaven express up to Jesusville”

    It’s the same irrational circular logic that allows them to claim that god has a plan for everyone, and he knows everything that will happen. Indeed, everything that happens is in accordance with his will and his plan. Why then, do we punish people who murder someone? Didn’t it happen according to god’s plan? Hilter was destined by god to execute the holocaust… why blame him? Wasn’t he just acting according to god’s plan for him. You get cancer and get better… god performed a miracle… you get cancer and die a horrible, painful death… god’s will.
    Can’t loose. Talk about stacking the deck! So yeah… why blame anyone for anything? Oh… because we have free will! But if god KNOWS I’m going to rob a bank tomorrow… how can you say I have free will not to rob the bank??
    This is the kind of lunacy they refuse to think about. They will tell you it is beyond your comprehension, so why bother?
    Idiots.

  53. on 28 Sep 2011 at 7:45 pm 53.RJ said …

    RE: DPK, #52

    You ——> Preacher. Me ——> Choir.

  54. on 28 Sep 2011 at 7:46 pm 54.DPK said …

    48.Curmudgeon said …

    RJ does not understand why killing babies
    Is wrong. RJ please stay away from babies
    and wall animals.

    What about “You shall not” do you not understand.”

    Have you read about how many babied god killed in the bible??? Seriously? How can you say we don’t understand it is wrong when the lord god… the source of reality, does it?
    Don’t get me wrong… I agree with you it is wrong… but doesn’t that present a problem for you in claiming that god is the source of morality?
    Is anyone going to answer my question from 10?

    Crum… you seem to have committed to the idea that killing babies is wrong. Good for you. Is killing homosexuals and adulterers wrong? How about brides who are not virgins? How about children that are disrespectful to their elders?
    Answers please. We don’t even need bullet points, a simple yes or no will suffice.

  55. on 28 Sep 2011 at 7:58 pm 55.RJ said …

    RE: DPK, #54

    “Is anyone going to answer my question from 10?”

    I’m gonna step up and venture a big fat “No”. Because there’s no way these Christards can possibly answer either yes or no without coming off looking bad. Allow me to demonstrate:

    “Is killing homosexuals and adulterers wrong?”
    Yes. (Oops, disagreeing with the Almighty.)
    No. (Yikes. Now you’re a Nazi.)

    No wonder they’ve all ever-so-subtly stepped around it.

    I don’t blame them.

  56. on 29 Sep 2011 at 5:53 pm 56.Curmudgeon said …

    RJ

    I have some great advice for you. Get away from the RC my man. You are more screwed up than a JW.

    I still would rather not see you around babies or children. I still question how safe they might be.

    DPK,

    Great question. Let me answer with a question. I wnat to apply the same intellect you apply.
    Can I ask do you think it OK to kill Christians, Catholics, Protestants or any other religious group? Your group has the history so I feel this need to ask all the God deniers.

  57. on 29 Sep 2011 at 6:32 pm 57.Lou (DFW) said …

    56.Curmudgeon said …

    “DPK,

    Great question. Let me answer with a question. I wnat to apply the same intellect you apply.
    Can I ask do you think it OK to kill Christians, Catholics, Protestants or any other religious group?”

    As usual, you can’t answer a simple question. Why? Because you know the truth will portray you and your ilk in a bad light.

    “Your group has the history so I feel this need to ask all the God deniers.”

    You can’t even answer it with a question without also lying. “Your group” doesn’t have any such history anymore than does “Christians, Catholics, Protestants.” You’re simply a liar.

    Nobody here cares about your “need to ask.” Just answer a question every once in a while – and without lying about atheists.

  58. on 29 Sep 2011 at 6:55 pm 58.Horatiio said …

    “Can I ask do you think it OK to kill Christians, Catholics, Protestants or any other religious group?”

    Cur may I answer? Yes, every time they obtain power to perform these dastardly deeds.
    No group has murdered more people than the atheist regimes of the 20th century. Sam Harris slipped up not to long ago and had to pull back after admitting that killing for ideas he found offensive would be OK.

  59. on 29 Sep 2011 at 7:02 pm 59.MrQ said …

    do you think it OK to kill Christians, Catholics, Protestants or any other religious group?”

    Cur may I answer? Yes, every time they obtain power to perform these dastardly deeds.

    Yeah, Hor. Just look at them Swedes. They shoot theists on the spot. Wouldn’t go there if I was you!!! LOL!!!

  60. on 29 Sep 2011 at 7:23 pm 60.Al said …

    ”But the underbelly of fundamentalist Christianity and radical Islam does not operate in the legal system. They don’t respond to lawsuits, letters, amicus briefs or other grass-roots campaigns and they must, must, must be eradicated.

    Al Santelli The American Atheist

  61. on 29 Sep 2011 at 8:23 pm 61.Lou (DFW) said …

    58.Horatiio said …

    “Yes, every time they obtain power to perform these dastardly deeds.”

    Yes, like when Catholics kill Protestants, Muslims kill Jews, etc., etc., etc. And it’s very possible that those religious groups would have killed millions more of each other throughout history if they had the same killing technology as was available in the 20th century.

    “No group has murdered more people than the atheist regimes of the 20th century.”

    Here we go again with Hor’s same-old, tired b.s. about so-called “atheist regimes.” Hor loves to equate atheism to immorality because that’s they way he operates. In other words, he’s a liar. Not to mention an obvious hypocrite. His “atheist regime” schtick is just another distraction from the fact that he doesn’t have any evidence for his imaginary god. People kill because they are human, not because they are theists or atheists.

  62. on 29 Sep 2011 at 8:25 pm 62.RJ said …

    Hahaha!

    Seriously, guys. Do you honestly think no one here is noticing that you keep dodging DPK’s question. You’re not even subtle about it anymore.

    Curmudgeon’s answer (#56): “Let me answer with a question.” (..and then some typical digression into whether it’s okay to kill Christians, Catholics, and Protestants. Oh, sad, sad, sad. And no surprise).

    But, okay, I’ll bite: No, I don’t believe it’s okay to kill Christians, Catholics, and Protestants. There’s a direct answer for ya bud.

    Now. Your turn (yet again). I’ll even save you the trouble of scrolling aaaalllll the waaaay baaaack up to post #10 to refresh your memory: “Is killing homosexuals and adulterers wrong?” But no one will be holding their breath.

    Wait, wait everyone! This just in! Horatiio gives an answer (in #58): …by answering Curmudgeon’s avoidance question! Oh, too rich! And them some blathering on about atheist regimes of the 20th century and Sam Harris and still no answer to DPK’s simple yes or no question.

  63. on 29 Sep 2011 at 9:53 pm 63.Xenon said …

    #60 Al,

    That is scary that some guy can make those sort of comments and get away with it. I wonder why no atheist denounces this hate?

    RJ,

    So are you Mr Q or Lou? Need another supporter?

    The reason nobody answers you ridiculous questions is because the answer is obvious. Yes, killing homosexuals is wrong. Do you hear any Christians calling for their death? On the other hand, see #60 and tell us why your atheist leaders want to eradicate us?

    Before you attempt to tell us the Bible tell us to murder (kill) atheist, do your due research. I will not waste my valuable time with a tired old argument that has been answered in great detail all over the internet. Yes, we know your silly game.

  64. on 30 Sep 2011 at 12:45 am 64.RJ said …

    …And it’s SuperX to the rescue!

    “…the answer is obvious. Yes, killing homosexuals is wrong.”

    I guess it’s obvious to everyone but God, since it was His idea. But sssh! Don’t let Him hear you! If He finds out you consider yourself more moral than Him, He may just send another hurricane up the coast. And poor Cindy Jacobs has enough to do these days.

  65. on 30 Sep 2011 at 1:53 am 65.Horatiio said …

    Last time I checked Jesus told us to love God and love our neighbors. Suddenly! PJ is a theologian? These non-stamp collectors are hilarious. LOL!!

    This link is for you PJ since you are son interested in theology. But, maybe you are not intersted in learning….

    http://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-testaments-commands-to-kill-homosexuals

    Why is it atheist are always attempting to get Christians to kill homosexuals? Is it not enough their own are calling for the killing of Christians and Muslims? Why are atheist so bloodthirsty?

    PJ, could you answer that for us?

  66. on 30 Sep 2011 at 2:07 am 66.Lou (DFW) said …

    65.Horatiio said …

    “Why is it atheist are always attempting to get Christians to kill homosexuals? Is it not enough their own are calling for the killing of Christians and Muslims? Why are atheist so bloodthirsty?”

    Why is it you are always lying about atheists?

  67. on 30 Sep 2011 at 2:40 am 67.Lou (DFW) said …

    65.Horatiio said …

    “Last time I checked Jesus told us to love God and love our neighbors. Suddenly! PJ is a theologian? These non-stamp collectors are hilarious. LOL!!

    This link is for you PJ since you are son interested in theology. But, maybe you are not intersted in learning….”

    Really? Please show us in the “New Covenant” where the violent punishment for homosexuals and adulterers was retracted – and not in some vague way such as “love our neighbors.” Where does it say something like “forget that part about stoning homosexuals and adulterers.”

    But the truth of the matter is that what the Bible says about anything is irrelevant. What’s hilarious is that any intelligent person, especially in the the 21st century, attributes any relevance to the Bible.

    All of this Old/New Covenant business is so extraordinarily silly.

  68. on 30 Sep 2011 at 2:41 am 68.Lou (DFW) said …

    63.Xenon said …

    “Yes, killing homosexuals is wrong. Do you hear any Christians calling for their death?”

    What rock do you live under?

  69. on 30 Sep 2011 at 11:19 am 69.RJ said …

    “Last time I checked Jesus told us to…love our neighbors.”

    Maybe you’d care to provide a couple of examples of how you personally do that? Just to demonstrate to an ignoramus like me how it’s done.

    “Why is it [atheists] are always attempting to get Christians to kill homosexuals?” and “…calling for the killing of Christians and Muslims?”

    Maybe you’d care to provide a couple of examples of how atheists are always attempting to do that? Or, since you addressed that to me, where I specifically “attempted” any of that.

    “…since you are [so] interested in theology…”

    Nope. No interest here.

  70. on 30 Sep 2011 at 12:56 pm 70.Horatiio said …

    You have no interest in theology? Then why bring it up?

    So will you continue to dodge the questions?

    Why does the atheist ilk try so hard to convince Christians they should kill gays?

    Why does the atheist ilk want to eradicate Christians as outlined in post 60?

    Your denial is not an answer because you rhetoric does not match your denials.

  71. on 30 Sep 2011 at 1:11 pm 71.Lou (DFW) said …

    70.Horatiio said …

    “You have no interest in theology? Then why bring it up?”

    Show us where he brought it up.

    “So will you continue to dodge the questions?”

    That’s rich, coming from you.

    “Why does the atheist ilk try so hard to convince Christians they should kill gays?”

    Why do you keep lying about atheists? Show us where atheists do that, liar.

  72. on 30 Sep 2011 at 2:07 pm 72.RJ said …

    #70, Horatiio

    “So will you continue to dodge the questions?”

    Show me where I’ve done any dodging. But, okay, have it your way:

    “Why does the atheist ilk try so hard to convince Christians they should kill gays?”

    They don’t. If you disagree with that, please provide examples of where/when/how that is taking place.

    “You have no interest in theology? Then why bring it up?”

    Because I have an interest in the truth.

    “Your denial is not an answer because [your] rhetoric does not match your denials.”

    ?????? I’d be happy to address that—except I don’t understand WTF you’re talking about.

    Fun times.

  73. on 30 Sep 2011 at 2:22 pm 73.RJ said …

    #70, Horatiio: “So will you continue to dodge the questions?”

    #71, Lou: “That’s rich, coming from you.”

    Indeed, Lou. I’ve answered every question he posed to me and he has ignored every one of mine.

    But I’m okay with that. To me, that’s as good as an admittance that he’s full of…let’s say…Bull poo-poo.

  74. on 30 Sep 2011 at 2:54 pm 74.Lou (DFW) said …

    73.RJ said …

    “But I’m okay with that. To me, that’s as good as an admittance that he’s full of…let’s say…Bull poo-poo.”

    Hor is a fraud and a liar, nothing more.

  75. on 30 Sep 2011 at 5:29 pm 75.DPK said …

    Hor is a fraud and a liar, nothing more.

    RJ… after you’ve been here a while, you’ll discover that nobody takes anything Hor says seriously! He lies, exaggerates, dodges, and post nonsense almost daily. We just keep at him for sport. It’s always good for a chuckle to see what pearls of wisdom emanate from his keyboard today…. LOL.

    It has even been suggested that Hor is actually a shill atheist who comes on here just to make the theists look even sillier than they already do.

    For the record, the link he posted to the old/testament – new testament shell game is the first actual attempt I have ever seen him make at actually answering any point or objection. Too bad it’s one of the biggest bullshit scams ever fostered on the “faithful.” You’re supposed to accept that the morality than comes from a perfect, all powerful, all knowing being about killing and maiming people for perceived “sins” and other trivial things somehow changed, and that what was ok and perfectly ok before, now isn’t. Wouldn’t the almighty have known he was gonna have to backtrack on those “inerrant words” and simply forbidden them from the start? hahaha….
    Also, the bible also very clearly says that
    “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
    So the idea that the “New Covenant” completely changed the morality of killing, for example, those that work on the Sabbath, is just bullshit rationalization. I’d like to say the xtians are good at that, but they really aren’t.
    D

  76. on 30 Sep 2011 at 7:16 pm 76.40 year Atheist said …

    It is easy for the intellectual goons to bully with this derision: “Har, har, har, you can’t prove that, it is magical thinking, har, har, har.” This is intended to embarrass the competition, provide a “win”, and in no way is intended to convict onlookers of any logical, rational content. It is a war-like tactic of aggression and character assassination, not a rational tactic.

    There is endemic of what occurs in many, even most, exchanges between what I will term “logicians of physics and metaphysics”, and “Philosophical Materialists”. I will say right up front that Philosophical Materialists have no logical defense and tend to go straight for character assassination, derision, ridicule, and in general, mental bullying through sarcasm that is not based on any grounded logic. It appears to be a case of wishing to generate the appearance of a “win” rather than attempting to generate a rational case for a position.

    Common themes seem to be that if you disagree, you are not educated or intelligent enough to understand; you are pursuing a hidden agenda; you are an outsider; your sources are all fools; your positions are delusions; your ideas are not worthy of even being considered, and so on. There are enough variations on these themes of denigration that an entire debate can be filled with them.

    It is interesting that these tactics generate so many followers, eager to guffaw at the so-called fools being degraded. It is also interesting that these tactics come almost totally from the Left, and from the revered Atheisti. (A commonly noted exception is Ann Coulter who uses these exact tactics and is roundly condemned by the Left using exactly the same tactics).

    The Atheist defense for using the tactics of denigration is the same as the tactic itself: the opposition is too stupid to consider responding to with anything less than ridicule. Therefore, ridicule is justified.

    My take is different. I think that reasonable intellects would choose a response based in logic, if that were available. If that were the case, then there are two possibilities. First that these are not reasonable intellects. Second that there is no logical basis available to them to argue from.

    The fact that Atheists can’t prove the validity of Philosophical Materialism is totally lost in the melee’.

    For this reason, the lack of responsible, rational interchange from Atheists, I don’t engage in theodicies or any such arguments with Atheists. The intellectual rot at the foundations of Atheism itself is a more serious issue and one that cannot be defeated by Atheists, either by using logic or by using derision and denigration. And the same goes for evolution. Further, I do not try to convince Atheists of anything; I try to point out the illogic of their Atheistic opinions and let the other readers decide. Bearers of agendas such as Atheism and evolution cannot be persuaded by mere logic. So when the character assassination begins, the conversation is done.

  77. on 30 Sep 2011 at 9:19 pm 77.RJ said …

    RE: #76, 40 Year Atheist

    “Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah”

    *Yaaaaaaawn*.

    #74, Lou:

    “Hor is a fraud and a liar, nothing more.”

    Oh, I think he’s so much more.

  78. on 30 Sep 2011 at 10:10 pm 78.Curmudgeon said …

    40 YA said: “I think that reasonable intellects would choose a response based in logic, if that were available.”

    True, but we just get more of post #77. You, Hor and X keep the blog worth reading though.

  79. on 30 Sep 2011 at 10:14 pm 79.Curmudgeon said …

    DPK said :”For the record, the link he posted to the old/testament – new testament shell game is the first actual attempt I have ever seen”

    That is because you don’t pay attention. I have seen that case made here at least 3 times. Personally, I wouldn’t have bothered answering the same question again either.

    At some point we just give you an F and move on.

  80. on 30 Sep 2011 at 10:44 pm 80.Observer said …

    #76 40yA Please answer #14 DPK. You won’t do it because you are a buffoon. It must be a case of “In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is king.” that gives you the temerity to blather on as if you are some sort of erudite xtian apologist. You are the product of some xtian diploma mill, or even more likely the slow student of the aforementioned.

    Oh no! Am I now a goon?

  81. on 30 Sep 2011 at 11:31 pm 81.Anonymous said …

    79.Curmudgeon said …

    DPK said :”For the record, the link he posted to the old/testament – new testament shell game is the first actual attempt I have ever seen”

    That is because you don’t pay attention. I have seen that case made here at least 3 times.”

    True.. and it has been discredited every time as the illogical, meaningless nonsense that it is. Not further defense is ever offered, as is any explanation for the biblical contradiction I cited.
    My point was not that this was the first time the old law/ new law shell game has been offered up as an “explanation” it was that it was the first time I ever saw Horattio offer it… or anything else other than LOL and allusions to basement dinner theater extravaganzas and racist’s comments about Dahlits and whatever strikes him as clever at the moment.

    40 year. If you have an actual point, I wish you’d just make it, rather than trying to impress us with your ability to use a thesaurus and the fact that you got a B+ in community college philosophy.

  82. on 01 Oct 2011 at 3:50 am 82.DPK said …

    56.Curmudgeon said …

    “I have some great advice for you. Get away from the RC my man. You are more screwed up than a JW.”

    I assume you mean Roman Catholics and Jehova’s Witnesses? Let me guess… You think THEY have it all wrong too, right? They’re crazy in their ridiculous beliefs… but not YOU, right? I assume you also think the Jews, Muslims, Hindu’s, Buddists, and all the others have it all wrong too…. you’re really almost there, you’re just one step away from acknowledging your own delusion…

    “DPK,

    Great question. Let me answer with a question.”

    How about you answer with an ANSWER instead? I don’t know why this is such a big problem for you. It’s a simple question.. either yes, or no, right or wrong. Why are you so reluctant to commit?

    “Can I ask do you think it OK to kill Christians, Catholics, Protestants or any other religious group?”

    Sure, you can ask. No I do not think it’s ok. I also don’t think it’s morally right. Is that a surprise to you? The only exception I’d add is that I think it is possibly ok to kill religious terrorists if they are harming, or plotting to harm innocent people. This is not because they are religious, but because they are terrorists. Although, in today’s world, sometimes the 2 things are so thoroughly interwoven as to become virtually the same thing.

    “Your group has the history so I feel this need to ask all the God deniers.”

    You are either a liar or have been seriously brainwashed by whatever cult has indoctrinated to to fear an loath anyone who does not share your delusion. We are not your enemy. We only want to show you the truth.

  83. on 01 Oct 2011 at 4:02 am 83.DPK said …

    “The fact that Atheists can’t prove the validity of Philosophical Materialism is totally lost in the melee’. ”

    There he goes again with his assumption that everything that cannot be disproved is therefore true.

    First, what makes you conclude that atheists need to “prove the validity of philosophical materialism” and what would you accept as “proof” if it were offered?
    I mean, the concept of materialism needs nothing more than the fact that there is no proof that anything exists outside of the reality of matter and energy. If you have proof that supernatural powers exist.. provide it and materialism will be invalidated. Why do you need proof of the obvious? It is obvious that matter and energy exist. It is obvious there is no evidence to support the idea that supernatural gods exists. One philosophy is supported, the other is not. To me, it’s as simple as that.

    You’re constant insistence that we somehow need to disprove your god, are just silly, and you know it.

  84. on 01 Oct 2011 at 10:51 am 84.Severin said …

    76 40 yA
    „The fact that Atheists can’t prove the validity of Philosophical Materialism is totally lost in the melee’.“

    The fact that theists claim there are gods and can’t prove their claims makes them idiots.

    “Blah, blah…” looks like something very clever compared to your braking winds on these pages.

    It would be much easier for you, and you would get many positive points, if not applause, if you only made a single effort to prove your god.

    Babbling does not help in proving gods.

  85. on 01 Oct 2011 at 1:51 pm 85.Lou (DFW) said …

    76.40 year Atheist said …

    “It is easy for the intellectual goons to bully with this derision: “Har, har, har, you can’t prove that, it is magical thinking, har, har, har.” This is intended to embarrass the competition, provide a “win”, and in no way is intended to convict onlookers of any logical, rational content. It is a war-like tactic of aggression and character assassination, not a rational tactic.”

    Then he wrote:

    “The fact that Atheists can’t prove the validity of Philosophical Materialism is totally lost in the melee’.”

    Moron.

  86. on 01 Oct 2011 at 2:13 pm 86.Biff said …

    DPK I bet you think, to quote you of course:

    “think the Jews, Muslims, Hindu’s, Buddists, and all the others have it all wrong too” and I will add Christians

    And let me answer with your own words:

    “you’re just one step away from acknowledging your own delusion…”

    Funny you added Buddhists. They are atheist as well. So how are they wrong?

  87. on 01 Oct 2011 at 2:17 pm 87.Biff said …

    “Your group has the history so I feel this need to ask all the God deniers.”

    Atheist really hate discussing the 20th century. Their atheist regimes killed more people than all other history combined

  88. on 01 Oct 2011 at 2:50 pm 88.DPK said …

    Funny you added Buddhists. They are atheist as well. So how are they wrong?

    You should ask Crumedegeon… that’s who the comment was about, or do you think he believes the Buddists actually have it correct? Try to follow along Biff… I know it’s confusing sometimes. BTW… do you agree with Crum that the Catholics and Jehovah’s are bonkers?? Just curious.

  89. on 01 Oct 2011 at 3:20 pm 89.DPK said …

    “Their atheist regimes killed more people than all other history combined.”

    Biff… I have never killed anyone. Why do you lump me in with lunatics and murders? Do I blame you for the Crusuades or the Inquisition, or the witch trials?

    Oh, that’s right, you subscribe to the theory that all mankind must be punished because some imaginary woman ate an apple and that even newborn babies are born inherently evil and need to be saved.
    You are so gullible.

  90. on 01 Oct 2011 at 4:23 pm 90.Biff said …

    DPK,

    I’m sorry I confused you. Lets try again. Do you believe the Jews, Muslims, Hindu’s, Buddists, and all the others have it all wrong? I can only assume you do. Maybe not Buddhism, you failed to answer…

    Accepting the premise I’m sure I assumed correctly, you’re just one step away from acknowledging your own delusion.

    “Biff… I have never killed anyone.”

    My, you make this jump as though you are hiding something. I accused the atheist regimes of doing so and you are a member of the atheist sect.

    It is along the same lines of of how atheists tend point to the Crusades and conclude Christianity is evil.

  91. on 01 Oct 2011 at 5:01 pm 91.Lou (DFW) said …

    90.Biff said …

    “DPK,

    I’m sorry I confused you.”

    You confuse everybody with your nonsense double-talk and non-sequiturs.

  92. on 01 Oct 2011 at 5:11 pm 92.DPK said …

    Biff, you are intent on putting words in my mouth. Please stop it. Let’s review:

    The comment to which you refer was about Crum.. not me. You get confused so easily. But, since you fail to follow the point, and you asked a direct question… yes, I think religious faith in gods is unfounded and false. Now, since I answered you… answer for us… which of the hundreds of available religions do you think have it “right”?

    Are you also going to dodge my question about if you agree with your pal, Crum, that the Catholics and Jehovia’s are wackjobs? For someone who never answers questions posed you, you are a very demanding person. Are you a priest or minister, by any chance? My experience is many of them also suffer from superiority complexes as well. Just a guess.

    Moving on:

    I never said Christianity is evil. Another lie. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind though, that Christians have done evil things in the name of, or for the furtherance of Christianity. Do you disagree?

    Now, which “atheist sects” do you contend are guilty of mass murder in the name of, or for the furtherance of, Atheism?

    I do not belong to any “atheist sect”. That is another lie. Do you belong to a “Christian sect”?

  93. on 01 Oct 2011 at 6:57 pm 93.Biff said …

    DPK,

    Thanks. You answered a few so lets look at your answers.

    “I think religious faith in gods is unfounded and false.”

    So why are they false but you belief is true? That seems to speak of a superiority complex.

    “I never said Christianity is evil. Another lie.”

    Oops, not a lie I never stated U did. A bit paranoid The leaders of the atheist sect do. Many articles you should review. So you disagree with Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, PZ meyers, American Atheists and others?

    Now for me:

    I don’t know Crum or who you are talking about. But the question ” Catholics and Jehovia’s are wackjobs?”

    No

    “Now, which “atheist sects” do you contend are guilty of mass murder”

    The sect not part of Buddhism or Taoism. The one inhabited by Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Mussolini, Kim Jong Il, Bonaparte, Than Shwe.

  94. on 01 Oct 2011 at 7:28 pm 94.DPK said …

    Poor Biff.
    Once agin, you cannot understand any mode of thinking that differs from yours. The fact that I think religious faith in the existence of the supernatural is not a “belief”. It is a lock of belief… and there is a difference, even though you fail to acknowledge it. Believing in Santa Claus is a “belief”… not believing in Santa Claus is just… well, being normal. Show me some evidence that supernatural beings exist and then we can talk about if I “believe” it or not. Until then, not believing in gods is no different than not believing in goblins. That’s the difference. The original point you jumped on me over (and if you aren’t going to read the posts, you really should comment on them) was because Crum, who is a theist, was telling RJ not to believe the wacky stuff the OTHER theists were claiming was real. Kind of like me telling you not to believe in Santa or the Sasquatch, but you should believe in Tinker Bell. You don’t see a distinction?

    Once again, (we’re going to have to call you that artful dodger) you didn’t answer. Which of the religious sects do you belong to, or think have it correct? At least you admit you think Crum is wrong and Catholics and Jehovia’s witnesses are not wrong… uh, but that’s a problem for you… because tou can’t be both… which are you? No matter which, does it bother you that other theists agree with us that you’re nuts?? Probably not.
    ““I never said Christianity is evil. Another lie.”

    Oops, not a lie I never stated U did. A bit paranoid…”

    Well lets see what you said:
    “…atheists uh.. that would be me) tend point to the Crusades and conclude Christianity is evil.

    I never said, nor “tended” to say any such thing.
    Now, answer the question, do you agree that Christians have done evil things in the name of, or for the furtherance of Christianity. You really like to pick and choose what questions you answer.

    Never heard of Meyers… who have Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens killed? Exactly what “atheist sect” are they leaders of? Who elected them. I think you are paranoid.

    “Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Mussolini, Kim Jong Il, Bonaparte, Than Shwe.”….. really? They all belonged to some secret atheist sect?? Do tell. I think that would be news to the rest of the world. By that, can we conclude, since Hitler was Catholic, that WWII and the Holocaust was the doings of a “Christian Sect”…… same difference. Were you a member?

  95. on 01 Oct 2011 at 8:09 pm 95.Biff said …

    Oh DPK, the old Santa Claus fallacy? Are you serious? That fallacy has been exposed time and time again.

    I am a member of no particular sect. I guess we have something in common huh?

    As for my list, yes these men all were part of the same sect you are a member. Atheism!, not the Buddhism or Taoist sects. Do you disagree?

    Its much like how atheist lump “Christians” or Muslims” and even “Religions” all together. Its also much like how atheists believe Falwell or Comfort are elected reps for Christians.

    Don’t get paranoid I didn’t use your name but you don’t speak for all in your sect.

    You can stop with the “lack of belief” argument. Nobody buys it.

    My time is up. Renounce you sect accept rationality.

  96. on 02 Oct 2011 at 5:05 am 96.Severin said …

    87 Biff
    “Their atheist regimes killed more people than all other history combined”

    Can you kindly define “atheist regime” for us?
    There is no such a thing, but maybe I missed something during my education.
    Enlighten us.

  97. on 02 Oct 2011 at 6:27 am 97.Severin said …

    95 Biff
    “Oh DPK, the old Santa Claus fallacy? Are you serious? That fallacy has been exposed time and time again.“

    You believe in a supernatural being. You have a Let’s see here:
    deep intimate feeling that such a being exists. You BELIEVE in your supernatural being.
    A 3 years old child believes in Santa. He has a deep intimate feeling that Santa exists. He BELIEVES Santa exists.
    A woodoo follower believes in mighty and dangerous ghosts. He has a deep intimate feeling that his ghosts exist. He BELIEVES in mighty and dangerous ghosts.
    Person X believes in lake fairies. He has deep intimate feeling that the lake fairies exist. He BELIEVES in lake fairies.
    My lady neighbor was a Christian, but she did believe in witches too. She had deep intimate feeling that witches existed. She always talked about what she thought witches did to her. She BELIEVED witches existed.

    Now, please, tell us why, the hell, would your deep intimate feeling be more valuable than deep intimate feelings of other people?
    You believe in a supernatural being, other peple believe in other supernatural beings, how do YOU know who is right?

    All you have to do is to prove YOUR supernatural being exists. That is ALL you have to do to make people trust you, but you NEVER do that.

    Why is it SO difficult for you?

    Or, isn’t it the “logic”: “I can piss further than you”, or “My dad is stronger than your dad”.

    Sounds like taht!

  98. on 02 Oct 2011 at 1:08 pm 98.Lou (DFW) said …

    95.Biff said …

    “Oh DPK, the old Santa Claus fallacy? Are you serious? That fallacy has been exposed time and time again.”

    The “Santa Claus fallacy” is that there is no Santa Claus. Same as the “god fallacy.” There is no god. That fallacy has been exposed time and time again. On the other hand you NEVER provide evidence that the “god fallacy” isn’t a fallacy.

    “Its much like how atheist lump “Christians” or Muslims” and even “Religions” all together.”

    WTF are you talking about? “Christians” or Muslims” ARE religious (religions). Atheists don’t lump them together. By definition, they are lumped together.

    “You can stop with the “lack of belief” argument. Nobody buys it.”

    Are you sure you aren’t Hor? Nobody buys it? You are a liar.

    “My time is up. Renounce you sect accept rationality.”

    Can somebody translate that?

  99. on 02 Oct 2011 at 6:02 pm 99.DPK said …

    “My time is up. Renounce you sect accept rationality.”

    Can somebody translate that?

    Yes… “It’s time for my meds and my allotment of internet time at the compound is up. Brother Steve only allows us 1 hour a day lest we become corrupted by the material world…”
    and
    “Rationality = whatever I have been brainwashed to believe. If you don’t believe it too, then it must be because you are irrational. What other answer could there be?”

  100. on 02 Oct 2011 at 7:28 pm 100.Biff said …

    “What other answer could there be?”

    I thought it was quite plain. Stop pretending there is no God and come into reality.

    You guys have been proclaiming God is dead since Nietzsche. Niet died off along with the other deniers and God is alive as ever.

    I know atheists have complained about not be trusted over the years. That is because if you don’t have the insight to recognize God exists you cannot be trusted with much else.

    Anyhow, just thought I would translate the obvious statement for you.

  101. on 02 Oct 2011 at 7:35 pm 101.DPK said …

    Biff’s answer reminds me of a debate I saw one time between Sam Harris and some young hot-shot theologian who was suppose to take him apart.
    Harris brought up the problem of immorality in the bible and the monstrously evil acts that god performed and prescribed.
    The young priest said, “That’s a very old argument Sam…” and moved onto his next point without addressing it at all.
    It’s an old argument because it’s a valid one that has never been answered. That’s like me killing someone and when I got caught my excuse being… “but that was years ago…” Like it makes a difference.
    Biff, the Santa Claus analogy keeps coming up because it fits… perfectly. So, admit you have no answer or provide one that makes sense and we’ll stop throwing it in your face.

  102. on 02 Oct 2011 at 8:05 pm 102.Biff said …

    DPK

    That is quite disappointing. I gave you more credit than you deserved.

    Would you be familiar with fallacious reasoning? Your argument that since Santa does not exist somehow leads one to reason God does not exist is a very popular and worn fallacy known by all who recognize logic and reasoning.

    I will give you a chance to save face and reveal to us what that fallacy that would be. You do make yourself look foolish.

  103. on 02 Oct 2011 at 10:28 pm 103.DPK said …

    Biff, you give yourself too much credit I fear. I never said BECAUSE Santa isn’t real (and I’m relieved to see that you agree he is imaginary.. one never knows) that THEREFORE god is not real.
    I said belief in god is akin to belief in other imaginary beings. Irrational unless there is evidence that such beings actually exist. There is no logical fallacy because it is an analogy, not a logic argument. No cause and effect, just similarities.

    Now, let me press you again on the questions you continue to dodge while making false statements left and right.
    Do you agree that Christians have performed immoral acts, even atrocities, in the name of and furtherance of christianity?
    Assuming you do, as history documents this well, please explain to us what conclusions you draw from this.
    Next, since you admirably agreed with us that Crum was wrong in his berating of Roman Catholics and Jehovia’s Witnesses, and you do not think they have things wrong… please tell us why you do not belong to one of those sects. After all, they both say that you must be a member of their particular sect in order to gain salvation. Since you say that you do not belong to any particular sect, and you also say that those two mentioned do not “have it all wrong”, the only (logical) conclusion that can be drawn is that you do not think you will be saved. It only stands to reason that if the Catholics or the JW’s have it “right” you should belong to at least one or the other. You are such a silly theist. You don’t even follow your own logic.

  104. on 03 Oct 2011 at 12:35 am 104.Biff said …

    “I said belief in god is akin to belief in other imaginary beings.”

    Ah, backtracking now. You only claim it is akin. You are still drawing a fallacious argument that since Santa is not real God is not real. It is and remains fallacious.

    Check this statement” There are no aliens on Mars therefore there are no aliens. This is also fallacious. One has nothing to do with the other.

    I see another fallacious step of yours of “changing the subject” is now your tactic. It will not work.

    Try again.

  105. on 03 Oct 2011 at 12:45 am 105.40 year Atheist said …

    If the possibility of a deity is not rejected, but is rather accepted, then the person cannot be an Atheist.

    If the possibility of a deity is placed on hold pending the receipt of further evidence, then the person has assumed a stance traditionally known as “agnosticism”.

    What other choices are available beyond a) reject; b) accept; c) place the decision on hold? Perhaps: continue in ignorance, having forgotten the whole thing? Atheists have not forgotten the whole thing.

    Atheists have, during the enlightenment centuries and up until recently, directly and positively rejected the existence of deity without trying to conceal that in any form of word play. The exceptions are in places and times of persecution, which did exist: Hume rejected the deity but claimed to be a “sceptic”, in order to get a job professoring at the university – he was rejected because his claim was false. But now the Atheists are not persecuted, yet they insist on disguising their true belief behind word-play.

    Atheists do not place the decision regarding the existence of deity on hold. Their claim of “without God” is made on the basis of having rejected God. So taking that position is a move taken to camouflage their actual rejection, and to protect themselves against an uncomfortable truth: Atheism cannot be proved using Atheist criteria for proof.

    The paradigm is being consciously shifted because Atheism is vulnerable. It makes demands of others that it cannot satisfy itself. It resolves to a position of unproven and unprovable Faith, a religion in the same sense that Atheists define religion. That is the reason for the paradigm shift amongst Atheists during the past decade: they cannot admit to having denied [Q], because they cannot prove their claim of non-existence of [Q]. So they change their stance, rather than change their position. Rather than admit that they believe in a faith-statement, they deny their belief, and conceal it with a new statement claiming that they have not denied [Q]. This, they think, protects them from having to prove their position.

    Atheists back-slap each other (virtually) on the cleverness of their ruse. But it is so totally transparent to outsiders that it diminishes the credibility of Atheism drastically. Maybe they have come to believe their own deception. That again says something about the rationality of Atheism.

  106. on 03 Oct 2011 at 2:31 am 106.DPK said …

    Biff, if the only way you can make a point is by lying about it, that doesn’t say much for your position, does it?
    I, nor anyone else here has ever said, or implied, that IF Santa does not exist THEN god does not exist.

    What was said was, believing in gods is like believing in Santa, or elves or fairies. By your logic, if god is real, then so is Santa.

    “Check this statement” There are no aliens on Mars therefore there are no aliens. This is also fallacious. One has nothing to do with the other.”

    I agree, that statement is fallacious, and not at all analogous to what I said.

    If I said, “We have no evidence of aliens on Mars, Venus, Mercury, or the Moon. Therefore, believing there are aliens on Mars is no different from believing there are aliens on Venus, Mercury, or the Moon.” THAT would be a comparable analogy.

    You are either a complete idiot or completely dishonest.

  107. on 03 Oct 2011 at 3:11 am 107.DPK said …

    “Atheism cannot be proved using Atheist criteria for proof.”

    Sigh… you are so dense. Atheism is not a hypothesis… i does not require proof. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend.
    “God” is a hypothesis… an idea, a proposal. Requires evidence.
    “Not god” is not.

    “Leprechauns” is a hypothesis… an idea that if proposed, requires evidence.
    “Not Leprechauns” is not. Do you propose that Non-Leprechaunism” requires proof?

    You are so wrapped up in your convoluted word games that you loose sight of the fact that your argument is simply ridiculous.

    Atheist need no more prove atheism than normal, sane people need “prove” that there are no Leprechauns.

  108. on 03 Oct 2011 at 6:01 am 108.Severin said …

    105 40 yA
    „If the possibility of a deity is not rejected, but is rather accepted, then the person cannot be an Atheist.“
    “What other choices are available beyond a) reject; b) accept; c) place the decision on hold?“

    WHAT?
    Since when „rejecting“ and „accepting“ became CRITERIA in proving something?
    Are you trying to drive „acceptance“ and „rejection“ as new CRITERIA for proving things into some sort of „new logic“?
    YOU said (see above) that rejection and acceptance are DECISIONS (intimate, private, personal acts of someone’s will), and you were right!
    Now tell us HOW, the hell, (personal) acceptance and/or (personal) rejection influence the idea itself?
    Does an idea become TRUE if I accept it? Does it becaome FALSE if I reject it?
    Or, does an idea becomes true or false, or „true/false“, if I place my decision in hold?
    Obviously, my private decision about accepting, rejecting, or putting an idea on hold, DOES NOT INFLUENCE the T or non-T status of the idea itself!
    Neither of 3 decisions will make an idea true or false!
    What happens when I accept an idea and you reject it? Is it, then, a „true/false“ idea, or what?
    Is the fundamental „tertium non datur“ still valid in logic?
    You have just piss on it!

    You denuded typical logic of theists: „If I accept something („deep in my heart“), that is true“. „What I reject is false“.
    But logic and science do NOT work that way, you moron.
    Children, up to age of about 3, function that way: I accept Santa, so: he exists!

    Aceptance of god, your or mine, does NOT make god real.
    I will neither reject nor accept this ida, but neither of my DECISIONS will make the idea true or false.
    I will stay SCEPTIC untill you prove me your god exists, then, when you expose your proofs, I will accpet the idea.

    I still have nothing to prove to you. I did NOT EXPOSE ANY IDEA TO BE OBLIGATE TO PROVE IT.
    I even did not claim there was no god.
    Maybe there is one, but I need PROOFS to accept it as fact.
    That IS how things function in normal life.

    I am really dissapointed. I hoped to hear something better from you, but you ARE a moron.

  109. on 03 Oct 2011 at 6:17 am 109.Severin said …

    108 40 yA
    “Hume rejected the deity but claimed to be a “sceptic”, in order to get a job professoring at the university – he was rejected because HIS CLAIM WAS FALSE (my bold).”

    You see!
    Dirty, typically demagogue job!

    You PROCLAIM something false, somewhere deeply hidden in your text, and base your entire further thesis on it.
    It seems that idiots follow you never notice such frauds.

    We do.
    HOW can a “claim” of a sceptic be false, please?
    A sceptic DOES NOT CLAIM ANYTHING!
    He only DOES NOT BELIEVE things without proofs, that one who exposes an idea is obligate to give.

  110. on 03 Oct 2011 at 6:38 am 110.Anonymous said …

    104.Biff said …

    “Ah, backtracking now. You only claim it is akin. You are still drawing a fallacious argument that since Santa is not real God is not real. It is and remains fallacious.”

    You lie all the time just as Hor lies. Nobody here EVER wrote that. You are a fraud.

  111. on 03 Oct 2011 at 6:39 am 111.Lou (DFW) said …

    I wrote #110.

  112. on 03 Oct 2011 at 4:29 pm 112.Ian said …

    “Rather than admit that they believe in a faith-statement, they deny their belief, and conceal it with a new statement claiming that they have not denied”

    Absolutely correct. Decades ago when I was an atheist we courageously made the claim there is no God. We even convinced ourselves the logic was solid.

    This lack of belief is just a cowardice way out of attempting to sit in the corner and claim we believe nothing. Those who believe in nothing are intellectual weaklings.

  113. on 03 Oct 2011 at 4:35 pm 113.DPK said …

    Ian, If I told you that I believed in garden fairies, and you said you did not, would your position require a “faith statement” and would it be logical for me to demand that you prove there is no such thing as garden fairies?

    Your reasoning is absolutely ridiculous.

    Now, if you have some evidence that any of the gods that people claim knowledge of actually exist, we are all waiting to hear it. So present your evidence or go away.
    D

  114. on 03 Oct 2011 at 4:44 pm 114.Carol said …

    @ R.J. >>>
    You wanted proof as to “how to love your neighbor”? The answer is simple if you give a minute to think about it….
    Love your neighbor as you would love yourself. Have you heard the saying “Treat people the way you want to be treated”? This is what I was taught as a young girl growing up.
    It’s like a ripple effect. One person does one good deed and then someone else sees it then they themselves do a good deed.
    For instance, loving your neighbor could be the simplest thing…picking up their trash cans when they fall over, getting their paper out of the bush, paying for a strangers meal behind you at a fast food restaurant, or paying 20 dollars of someone’s groceries because they are short.
    I personally volunteer at a shelter here where I live and it’s eye-opening to see what some people go through. I don’t do it for reward. I don’t get paid for it. I do it out of “love for my neighbor”. It breaks my heart to see things like that. I was homeless myself with my young children just last year. The volunteers at the shelter are so wonderful and kindhearted.
    It also breaks my heart to see all you grown adults fight over something that will be revealed maybe after we are all gone, but it will be revealed in due time.
    It is the small things sometimes that can make a whole lot of difference in someone’s life. I had a friend lone me a Christmas Tree last year because I could not afford one. I cried when she gave it to me. I cried because it meant my kids could wake up on Christmas and see a tree. Yea it was small but it was there. It was the meaning behind it. She did it out of love. I am forever grateful to her for having that little tree.
    I am very happy to say that I am a Christian woman. I am not perfect, nor do I pretend to be. I am NOT “holier than thou” as some might put it. I do not know all the answers to life’s questions. I don’t pretend to know all of them. If I do not have an answer I will certainly tell you. I do believe in God. I believe He is the Creator of all things, the Alpha, the Omega.
    I am only writing this to express my sadness when I read your comments. Especially how deeply lost some of you are. I apologize if that comment steps on any toes. But I am seeing the emptiness some of you have. I was there, I have been there more times than I want to admit. It feels like there is this never-ending void and no matter what you do, you can’t fill it.
    Go ahead and say whatever comments you like. I understand your need to express your feelings. Just know that I will pray for each of you individually. Know that despite what is said or done, God still loves you more than you can imagine. He created you for a reason. Please don’t ask what the reason is because I don’t know. Only in time you will know.
    God Bless you!!! I love you!!!

  115. on 03 Oct 2011 at 5:01 pm 115.Lou (DFW) said …

    104.Biff said …

    “Check this statement” There are no aliens on Mars therefore there are no aliens. This is also fallacious. One has nothing to do with the other.”

    Check this statement: A watch requires a watch-maker, therefore the universe requires a designer-creator. This is also fallacious. One has nothing to do with the other, yet it’s the foundation of your argument for your imaginary god.

  116. on 03 Oct 2011 at 5:35 pm 116.Burebista said …

    ‘This lack of belief is just a cowardice way out of attempting to sit in the corner and claim we believe nothing.’

    Ian that is the reason I go right for the heart if the matter. Fine, no God? Then explain origins and explain where matter originated from. They never can and usually resort to matter has always existed or we don’t know but we will.

    The we can ask “do you believe Socrates existed” and then show them the faith of their statement when they acknowledge he did exist. There are a host of questions they cannot answer with “time and chance diddit”.

    The evidence is there for them as Antony Flew acknowledged (especially in DNA) but they refuse to follow it. In the end, they must be willing to be healed if they are to be healed.

  117. on 03 Oct 2011 at 5:36 pm 117.Burebista said …

    Carol,

    A very nice post. Thanks for sharing it.

  118. on 03 Oct 2011 at 5:48 pm 118.RJ said …

    RE: #114, Carol

    “You wanted proof as to “how to love your neighbor”?”

    Actually, Carol, that (#69) was aimed specifically at Horatiio and I wasn’t asking for “proof”, I was asking for examples of how he personally ‘loved thy neighbor’ (which of course still remains unaddressed—surprise surprise). And naturally you’re not suggesting that an atheist is incapable of such a kindly philosophy because it demands a blind dedication to an invisible being, right? But thanks.

  119. on 03 Oct 2011 at 5:56 pm 119.RJ said …

    RE: #112, Ian

    “This lack of belief is just a cowardice way out of attempting to sit in the corner and claim we believe nothing. Those who believe in nothing are intellectual weaklings.”

    So, just for clarity, you’re stating that those who cannot make a move or think a thought in life without the assistance of an invisible being are strong and intelligent, and those that make it through life on their own intellect and strength are weak.

    Did I get that right?

  120. on 03 Oct 2011 at 6:06 pm 120.Severin said …

    116 Burebista
    “Then explain origins and explain where matter originated from.”

    We did it for you so many times.
    You never explain anything, you only claim things.
    To show my benevolence, let me repeat it for you once again:

    Matter has NO origins. It exists WITHOUT being crated. It was NOT “popped” from “nothing” by a god or by anything else. It is “self-existing”. No origin, no creation, just matter/energy that EXISTS and changes its form according to built-in natural laws.

    Now you:
    a) Give us some good arguments why would this logic be wrong (logic only)
    b) Where does god originate from?
    c) If god does not need to originate from somewhere, why would it be necessary for matter/energy?

    WHY?

  121. on 03 Oct 2011 at 6:16 pm 121.Severin said …

    Carol,

    I am a good man. I am doing same as you do and more.
    I don’t hate anyone, I don’t offend anyone, I don’t steal or kill, I help people a lot…

    Yet, I do not believe in god.

    Conclusion: being good or bad person does not depend on one’s faith, but on many other things, including genes.

    I can’t love my neighbor, because the son of a bitch frequently beats his dog, and makes me sorry for the poor animal.
    However, I don’t hate him either, and would never harm him.

    Is something wrong with me?

  122. on 03 Oct 2011 at 6:23 pm 122.Severin said …

    116 Burebista
    “There are a host of questions they cannot answer with “time and chance diddit”.”

    Who mentioned “chance”?
    NOTHING happens “by chance”, but by natural laws, and THAT was what we (atheists) claimed.
    No one ever mentioned “chance”.

    Is it lying, or blindness (you see only what you like to see)?
    It is not nice to lie!

  123. on 03 Oct 2011 at 6:34 pm 123.Lou (DFW) said …

    116.Burebista said …

    “Ian that is the reason I go right for the heart if the matter. Fine, no God? Then explain origins and explain where matter originated from.

    This has been explained to you over and over again.

    First of all, atheism and creation are mutually exclusive issues. One has nothing to do with the other.

    I can’t explain the origin of the universe. So what? It doesn’t mean there is a god who created it.

    “They never can and usually resort to matter has always existed or we don’t know but we will.”

    They NEVER CAN and NEVER will present their evidence for their imaginary god. Discussion of god is the reason for this “blog,” not creation of the universe. Creation is a diversion that that theists use in lieu of any evidence for their imaginary god. Rejection of a belief in god is independent of any scientific explanation for creation or lack thereof.

    WHY CAN’T YOU GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL?

  124. on 03 Oct 2011 at 7:47 pm 124.Lou (DFW) said …

    114.Carol said …

    “God still loves you more than you can imagine.”

    My pets show more love for me than does your imaginary god. If anything, god shows the opposite of love for every creature on this planet. For starters, the majority of “every creature on this planet” exists so that the others can eat them after they are painfully and violently killed.

    “He created you for a reason. Please don’t ask what the reason is because I don’t know.”

    Then you don’t know that your imaginary god created you or anything else.

  125. on 03 Oct 2011 at 9:58 pm 125.DPK said …

    Carol… if “god loves you more than you can imagine” then why di dhe make you and your children homeless? Why does he leave so many of the people YOU help at the shelter out in the cold to fend for themselves?? Why do innocent children starve to death everyday. If you ask me, we could do with a bit less of his “love”.
    Good for you for being a caring and compassionate human being. Most of the atheists I know are the same. Some are a-holes, but I’m sure you know some christians who are a-holes too… you alluded as much in your post about the kind of christian you are “not”. What does that show? That goodness and morality are not tied to a belief in an invisible, magical being who will reward you with an eternity of happiness or condemn you to an eternity of torture if you cross him.
    Same as Biff’s contention that atheist “sects” have been guilty of mass murder and genocide… so what? Christian sects have been guilty of the same thing. I asked Biff what conclusions he drew from this. Of course, he dodged the question. But the conclusion is bad things, and good things, can be done by both believers and skeptics… so what?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply