Feed on Posts or Comments 20 December 2014

Politics &Rationals Thomas on 13 Oct 2011 12:54 am

Are Atheists Really That Tainted?

Here’s a story that, in any other context, would defy belief – the American Cancer Society has turned down a $500,000 donation because it comes from atheists. There does not seem to be any other explanation for the behavior of the ACS:

Is Atheist Money Too Controversial for the American Cancer Society?

I’ll say this clearly, right up front: The American Cancer Society did not explicitly reject a massive donation offer from a non-theistic organization on the basis of it being a non-theistic organization.

That was not the stated reason given for rejecting a matching offer of $250,000 from the Foundation Beyond Belief and the Todd Stiefel Foundation to sponsor a national team in the upcoming Relay for Life. (An offer that, as a matching offer, was likely to bring in a total of half a million dollars for the American Cancer Society.) Nobody at the ACS has ever said, in words, “We don’t want our organization to be associated with atheists. It’s too controversial. We don’t want atheist money.” And when asked if this was the case, they have denied it.

It’s just difficult to reach any other conclusion. In the place of clear explanations, there has been an ongoing series of evasions, imprecisions, conflicting answers, moved goalposts, apathy, and even hostility…

It’s a fascinating story of the ACS turning down a $500,000 donation, apparently because the donation comes from atheists who want to be recognized for their good works. As the article points out:

And in case you’re thinking, “Why do those mean old atheists have to pick on the American Cancer Society? Why are they publicly embarrassing such a noble organization? Why do they have to make it all about them?” ask yourself this: If this were happening with any other organization — if it were a Jewish charitable foundation, an African-American one, an LGBT one, that had tried to give the American Cancer Society a $250,000 matching offer and had gotten shot down — would you be responding the same way? Would you be mad at the Jews, the African Americans, the queers, for calling attention to it? Or would you be writing enraged letters to the ACS, saying, “WTF? My aunt has cancer, I donate $500 a year to the American Cancer Society — and you’re turning down $500,000 because the money comes from a segment of society that some people don’t like?”

Are atheists really that tainted?

41 Responses to “Are Atheists Really That Tainted?”

  1. on 14 Oct 2011 at 6:11 pm 1.Asher said …

    Atheists are too paranoid. Then again who wants to be associated with an atheist organization? Of course the atheists would like to use the opportunity to repair their public image but the ACS is too smart to be used.

    Maybe the atheists could use the money to bail out the hooligans breaking laws as they occupy Wall Street or pay for some signs to further deride Christian beliefs this Christmas.

    Atheists have brought this stigma on themselves with divisive language and arrogant rhetoric. All thanks to leaders like PZ Meyers, Richard Dawkins, Chrstopher Hitchens and many others.

  2. on 14 Oct 2011 at 10:02 pm 2.DPK said …

    “Atheists have brought this stigma on themselves with divisive language and arrogant rhetoric.”

    What you are saying is we should learn our place and keep quiet in the back of the bus and not give no sass talk to the nice Christian folks who actually own the country… right? Yup, us uppity atheists need to learn our place.

  3. on 15 Oct 2011 at 5:52 pm 3.MegaByte said …

    #1 “Of course the atheists would like to use the opportunity to repair their public image”

    After reading the article I would have to acknowledge that is exactly the intent. All groups desire a good reputation and atheists have a lot of work to do.

  4. on 19 Oct 2011 at 2:37 am 4.Ben said …

    Are Atheists Really That Tainted?

    Yes, sadly yes.

  5. on 19 Oct 2011 at 8:33 am 5.Anonymous said …

    Yes they are, but why?

    Why won’t ACS take their money?

  6. on 19 Oct 2011 at 12:50 pm 6.Anonymous said …

    Because America is a country that has a large population of Christians. Unfortunately, Christianity is a religion that exhibits the principles of intolerance, bigotry, hate and fear of those that don’t adhere to its superstitions.

    Hence some Christians would rather denigrate the character of those that point out the rather obvious point that there is no proof of the existence of their imaginary god. It’s the shame and blame game all in the service of Christians not having to address their refusal to give up their primitive security blanket.

  7. on 19 Oct 2011 at 5:48 pm 7.Joe said …

    “Atheists have brought this stigma on themselves with divisive language and arrogant rhetoric. All thanks to leaders like PZ Meyers, Richard Dawkins, Chrstopher Hitchens and many others.”

    I do not find this point really convincing. When I look at the communication in this forum, I would say that Christians and atheists are pretty much on par when it comes to arrogance and divisive language here.

    Regarding some well-known atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, I agree that they can be (but do not have to be) perceived as arrogant and using divisive language. However, there are so many well-known Christians whom atheists preceive to be in the same way (such as Phelps, to give a particularly horrible example, i.e. a Christian whom also many Christians would consider arrogant and divisive). So also when looking at well-known Christians and atheists I reckon, both sides are on par.

    My conclusion is: this thing is probably related to the minority status of atheists in US rather than to a particularly characteristic behavior of atheists.

  8. on 19 Oct 2011 at 6:27 pm 8.Anonymous said …

    “Atheists have brought this stigma on themselves with divisive language and arrogant rhetoric. All thanks to leaders like PZ Meyers, Richard Dawkins, Chrstopher Hitchens and many others.”

    No, that’s absurd. This is simply tone trolling, rewriting of history, and blame shifting at its finest.

    The so-called stigma under discussion is a direct result of character attacks and strawman arguments put forward by theists as a way to dehumanize anyone who doesn’t share their beliefs. As a tactic, it’s common from people who are afraid of criticism and desire a scapegoat to serve as a common enemy. I’d mention examples, but then I’d be invoking Godwin’s law.

  9. on 19 Oct 2011 at 6:31 pm 9.DPK said …

    Atheists are the most hated minority in America. Indicative of the paranoia and fear fostered by religions and anything seen as threatening to their nice, tax exempt and reason exempt existence.
    A politician can be a convicted felon and still get elected, but be an atheist and you have zero chance.
    Voters will elect a Marion Barry, but give no chance to someone who doesn’t believe in invisible beings. Even Romney with his nuttier than thou Mormon beliefs (magic underwear anyone?) can be president, but anyone who disavows such nonsense hasn’t got a (excuse the phrase) prayer!
    Such is life in the USA.

  10. on 19 Oct 2011 at 7:18 pm 10.Anonymous said …

    DPK – “Atheists are the most hated minority in America. Indicative of the paranoia and fear fostered by religions and anything seen as threatening to their nice, tax exempt and reason exempt existence”.

    This is a situation that has been in existence way before the so-called new atheist movement. The fact that so many theists virtually salivate at the opportunity to denigrate some of the more outspoken atheists, then blame those individuals for standing up for their rights, readily underlines that intellectual and moral bankruptcy inherent in the religious extremism on display in the USA.

  11. on 19 Oct 2011 at 8:41 pm 11.Biff said …

    “such as Phelps, to give a particularly horrible example, i.e. a Christian whom also many Christians would consider arrogant and divisive”

    Here is the difference. Christians in huge numbers denounce Phelps. I challenge you to find one instance when an atheist denounces one of their loud mouth divisive fellow atheists.

    Atheists are sheep and will follow whatever their leaders lead. They are not hated, most American’s rarely give them a second thought.

  12. on 19 Oct 2011 at 9:05 pm 12.Lou (DFW) said …

    11.Biff said …

    “I challenge you to find one instance when an atheist denounces one of their loud mouth divisive fellow atheists.”

    Let’s start with you providing a list of “loud mouth divisive fellow atheists” that in anyway whatsoever compare with Phelps, or that in anyway whatsoever are divisive amongst atheists to the degree that you suggest.

    “Atheists are sheep and will follow whatever their leaders lead.”

    I can’t believe that anybody who is religious has the gall or arrogance to make such a comment about any other group. Being a sheep is the very essence of being religious. Without sheep like you, Biff, there wouldn’t be any religion.

    After a group of animals that live or eat together, the most common definition of the noun flock is:

    A group of people under the leadership of one person, especially the members of a church.

    John 10:11-18

    Jesus allegedly said:

    11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

    12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

    13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

    14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

    15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

    16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

    Biff, if you are an xtian, then you are most decidedly a sheep – a thick-headed one at that.

  13. on 19 Oct 2011 at 10:28 pm 13.Severin said …

    11 Biff
    “I challenge you to find one instance when an atheist denounces one of their loud mouth divisive fellow atheists.“

    I do denounce Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin who were said to be atheists, and any other atheist and theist who did something wrong.
    Those monsters are not my „fellows“.

    I also denounce Hitler, Mussolini, Papa Doc, Osama Bin Laden, Allende, Peron, and many Christian, Muslim (and other) leaders that commited masive crimes.

    OOPS, those guys (your fellows?) were all higly religious people!

  14. on 19 Oct 2011 at 10:38 pm 14.Severin said …

    11 Biff
    “Atheists are sheep and will follow whatever their leaders lead.”

    Indeed!
    We saw it in history: tens of millions of Christian “atheists” followed (and died for) Hitler and his fascism.
    Before that in Russia, hundreds of millions of Christian “atheists” followed (and died for) Lenin and communism.
    After that, in China, hundreds of millions of (whatever religion they had) atheists followed (and died for) Mao and communism.

    OOPS!

  15. on 19 Oct 2011 at 10:58 pm 15.DPK said …

    “find one instance when an atheist denounces one of their loud mouth divisive fellow atheists.”

    Denounce them for what? Stating that god is imaginary? Not gonna do that, because they are correct. So what do we denounce them for? Phelps pickets the funerals of dead soldiers and hates gays. I don’t see Harris, Dawkins, or even the amusingly abrasive Hitch doing such things. The only reason you find their exercise of free speech as “loud mouth and divisive” is because you don’t agree with them and are threatened by their calling your religion what it actually is… superstitious nonsense.
    You and your brethren here make a specific point to try and demonize them by claiming they said things they did not, and by deliberately misstating and misquoting them. The recent debacle about claiming Harris said we should kill people for their thoughts is a perfect example. You WANT a reason to hate them and you have no problem fabricating one out of thin air if it suits your needs. THAT is the very definition of being loud mouthed and divisive.
    You sir Biff, are the ultimate hypocrite.

  16. on 20 Oct 2011 at 2:43 am 16.Horatiio said …

    Biff,

    Great point. And as you see above, they still will not. No respect and not deserving of any. What they will do is make excuses for the nuts like Myers and Harris and claim everyone else lies about them.

    It is hilarious to me. Its like a cult!

    Oh, and atheists like Nose Buster who is an obvious bigot. They think he is great when he refers to southern trash.

    LOL!!

  17. on 20 Oct 2011 at 3:36 am 17.Lou (DFW) said …

    16.Horatiio said …

    “What they will do is make excuses for the nuts like Myers and Harris and claim everyone else lies about them.”

    Who made an excuse for Harris? Nobody apologized for anything Harris said. What we did was show how you and your ilk lied about what he said. If we were making excuses for him, then we would be defending what you falsely claim that he said.

    Right, Harris is a nut, but you aren’t? Back to “Broadway In The Basement” with you.

    “It is hilarious to me. Its like a cult!”

    You imagining something doesn’t make it true. Just like your belief in an imaginary god isn’t true – unless you finally have some evidence for him. Do you?

    “Oh, and atheists like Nose Buster who is an obvious bigot. They think he is great when he refers to southern trash.”

    Unless you can show where any of us think that Observer “is great when he refers to southern trash,” then you are a liar. Do you think he’s great when you imagine him dancing with Wiccans in your “Broadway In The Basement” fantasy? Yeah, that’s it, Harris is a nut, but you aren’t.

  18. on 20 Oct 2011 at 4:16 am 18.Observer said …

    #16 Hor- You state “Oh, and atheists like Nose Buster who is an obvious bigot. They think he is great when he refers to southern trash.” I think it usually goes something along the line of “white trash and various other cretinous filth” or some such thing.

    The geographic reference is admittedly gratuitous, but not intended to be all inclusive of folk from the South.

    As for the bigot bit, I think the word is not unambiguously defined so as to be accurately applied.

  19. on 20 Oct 2011 at 5:52 am 19.Severin said …

    16 Horatio
    “Biff, Great point.”

    Idiots always find idiocies great points.
    Why am I not surprised?

  20. on 20 Oct 2011 at 6:15 am 20.Severin said …

    Look at this discussion, people!

    Theist I: Atheist never denounce their fellow atheist
    Atheist: I do, all of them who did wrong (if the word “denounce” means something like “disagree”, “be against”, “criticize”, or the combination of)

    Theist I: Atheist are sheep that follow everyone who wants to lead them
    Atheist I: Gives examples from history when RELIGIOUS masses supported and BROUGHT TO POWER regimes like fascism and communism.
    (Of course, there are no examples in history that atheists followed idiots/criminals “en masse”, like religious masses DID, mostly Christians)

    Theist II: Good point, Theist I!

    Who but an idiot can see a “good point” in this debacle?
    Good morning, Mr. Bean!

  21. on 20 Oct 2011 at 12:05 pm 21.Anonymous said …

    What Biff said: “Atheists are sheep and will follow whatever their leaders lead.”

    What Biff believes: “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want; He makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still waters;… ”

    What atheism is: the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

    Now, thinking people of the world, which one of the above described people who are like sheep?

    Hint: Shepherds tend flocks of sheep. Now, what happens to the sheep after they lay down in green pastures? Right! They are made fat and happy then they are lead by their “loving” shepherds to the slaughter house.

    Yes, Biff, good point. LOL!

  22. on 20 Oct 2011 at 2:46 pm 22.RJ said …

    RE: #21

    “Now, thinking people of the world, which one of the above described people who are like sheep?”

    I know! Why don’t we go by Jesus’s own words! According to JOHN 10:1-6…

    “…the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers…”

  23. on 20 Oct 2011 at 5:04 pm 23.Anonymous said …

    Reception of my new “Atheist” bumper sticker

  24. on 20 Oct 2011 at 10:18 pm 24.Anonymous said …

    RJ, why stop there?

    Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is a hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth; and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is a hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

    Biff calls unbelievers sheep as an insult, yet his holy book describes believers like himself in terms of being, and cared for as, sheep.

    Oh, Biff, which is it? Sheep good, or sheep bad, or is it good to be a Christian sheep but otherwise it’s bad?

  25. on 20 Oct 2011 at 11:45 pm 25.Rostam said …

    “Now, thinking people of the world, which one of the above described people who are like sheep?”

    That is an easy question. The atheist. They might question God’s existence but that is it. Atheist are as predictable as the sun rise on every other issue. Politics, social issues, etc they are in step.

    Being led as sheep by the God of the universe is fine. Being led like sheep by men is quite sad.

  26. on 21 Oct 2011 at 1:23 am 26.Observer said …

    #25 Rosta- “Atheist are as predictable as the sun rise on every other issue. Politics, social issues, etc they are in step.” Yeah Rosta, atheists like George Will or other intelligent Neo-Cons, will have the same outlook on the world as Ayn Rand followers and various Libertarians, who will have the same outlook as Richard Dawkins and Noam Chomsky.

    Rosta, you are at the top of your game; sadly it is a game you are incapable of winning.

  27. on 21 Oct 2011 at 2:21 am 27.Anonymous said …

    Rostam said: “Being led as sheep by the God of the universe is fine”

    Rostam, so you would unquestioningly do whatever you perceived that your god had commanded of you?

  28. on 21 Oct 2011 at 2:40 am 28.Lou (DFW) said …

    25.Rostam said …

    “That is an easy question. The atheist. They might question God’s existence but that is it. Atheist are as predictable as the sun rise on every other issue. Politics, social issues, etc they are in step.”

    You know nothing of my position on politics or social issues. But there’s one thing I know about you – you’re as delusional about reality as you are about your belief in an imaginary god. One follows the other.

    “Being led as sheep by the God of the universe is fine. Being led like sheep by men is quite sad.”

    Jesus, numerous Popes, Billy Grahams, Oral Roberts, Joseph Smiths, Charles Taze Russells, Jim Bakers, Jimmy Swaggerts, Robert Tiltons, Ted Haggards, etc., etc., etc., all led sheep like you in the name of an imaginary god. Yes, quite sad,

  29. on 21 Oct 2011 at 3:36 am 29.DPK said …

    “Atheist are as predictable as the sun rise on every other issue. Politics, social issues, etc they are in step….”

    You know no such thing. Again, you are either a complete liar or have no problem pulling “facts” completely out of your ass and claiming they are true. Pathetic.

    Tell you what, let’s put your statement to the test. List your top ten political or social issues and lets take an informal poll among the atheists here and see exactly how much we are in “lock step.”

    Will you answer this challenge, or just disappear for a while and hope everyone forgets that you NEVER answer questions, reply to rebuttals of your lies or provide any evidence for your imaginary god.

    While you’re at it, since you don’t mind being led like a sheep by “the god of the universe”, at least please tell us exactly WHICH god it is that you blindly follow like a lamb.

  30. on 21 Oct 2011 at 11:29 pm 30.Clausewitz said …

    “Atheist are as predictable as the sun rise on every other issue. Politics, social issues, etc they are in step….”

    Even what they will say on this blog. Go to the godisimiginary.com and begin counting all the fallacious claims. It is a great tool for the apologist to review. I recommend all Christians look it over.

    Now I do like this call to “prove God” top the atheist although we know that is not what they desire.

    Go ahead and lay out your presuppositions for such an argument. Maybe I will play along.

  31. on 21 Oct 2011 at 11:54 pm 31.Anonymous said …

    Congratulations, Rostam. You’ve just proven that Christians like you have no morals. Perhaps you should have left Biff to languish in that Mariana Trench sized hole that he dug for himself.

    Rostam appears to say that he will do whatever the words on a man-made book tells him to do, no matter the moral consequences. The book that he holds so dear describes a despicable, ego-maniacal, despot who instructed his “followers” (Sheep, in Rostam’s world) to rape, pillage, and kill. Rostam is willing to be led, like a sheep, by his god.

    The thing is, there’s no proof at all for this, or any other, god. This is why theism is so dangerous. People want to believe that their god speaks to them and when someone convinces them that their Shepard wants them to kill, they change their values on a whim, and commit atrocities.

    Horatio@30 pretending to be someone else. Your post is gibberish, but no matter. You need to provide proof for your god, describe the mechanism through which how he interacts, with this world and demonstrate how we can differentiate it from all the other gods. Unless you can do so, you’re condeding that it’s just a fairy story.

    You won’t provide anything though — you never do — because your god is imaginary.

  32. on 22 Oct 2011 at 7:28 am 32.Severin said …

    25 Rostam
    “Being led as sheep by the God of the universe is fine. Being led like sheep by men is quite sad.”

    Maybe, if you somehow convince us that you are led by „God of the universe“.
    What, exactly, makes you think or feel that a god is leading you?

    How is it that other people think/feel as being led by other, different gods?
    How is it that some people think/feel as being led by NO god?

    Maybe it is just your wrong feeling?!
    Maybe you are led only by your own delusion!?
    Please elaborate: how do you KNOW who/what are you led by, and how will you make us believe you?

  33. on 22 Oct 2011 at 8:30 pm 33.Lou (DFW) said …

    30.Clausewitz said …

    “Go ahead and lay out your presuppositions for such an argument. Maybe I will play along.”

    Hor, you never play along. You are a fraud.

  34. on 22 Oct 2011 at 8:57 pm 34.Xenon said …

    Claus

    I can lay out the presuppositions for you. They don’t like you to know these until after you present a case, but I will share it with you nonetheless. These are the reasons there requests go unacknowledged.

    The Bible cannot be used.

    You personal experience cannot be used.

    Logic such as Laws require a lawgiver of information requires intelligence are out.

    Science must be able to test it.

    That’s it. They require more than they require for their own faithful beliefs. But since there minds are only a product of random chemical interactions formed from some primordial ooze, their conclusions certainly cannot be trusted.

  35. on 22 Oct 2011 at 9:47 pm 35.Observer said …

    #34 Inert windbag- “Logic such as Laws require a lawgiver of information requires intelligence are out.” There is a reason this would be out. First, aside from the obviously poor writing, it is a nonsensical: 1. Logic is not equivalent to “laws”. Is that what you meant? “Laws” is an imprecise term. Laws of Estonia are different from laws of Equador, and are different from laws of nature. Legal laws are man-made. “Natural” laws are empirically derived from science. 2. If you intended to write “or” in this nonsensical sentence instead of “of” “information requires intelligence.” is patently false. If you intended to write “of” your sentence is still nonsensical. Of course, you could work on acquiring the ability to communicate in English. There are non-native speakers on here who make grammatical and punctuation errors still write with clear meaning. You should try to do the same.

    I believe you have gotten mired in this before, but it does not seem you to have a clear understanding of what information is.

  36. on 22 Oct 2011 at 9:49 pm 36.Observer said …

    Of course the last two sentences there bring to question whether I am a native English speaker, but I think the meaning is clear.

  37. on 23 Oct 2011 at 12:20 am 37.Horatiio said …

    “There are non-native speakers on here who make grammatical and punctuation errors still write with clear meaning.”

    Nose Buster get off your high horse until you exit the basement. You and Severin make make zero sense and you are a fallacious windbag.

    On to the important points….

    X,

    This is the way the atheist continue their masquerade. They must impose their own precepts in order to maintain their worldview. And wisely, I no longer debate God’s existence any more than I debate the existence of the moon unless the individual is genuine.

    Maybe I could ask Nose Buster to prove he could write a coherent sentence but he may not use words. LOL!!

    Now if they actually believed in a reality that only the scientific method supports I would have more respect. We all know they do not.

    Have a great week. Even you Buster!

  38. on 23 Oct 2011 at 2:51 am 38.Anonymous said …

    Said Horatio in response to himself: “And wisely, I no longer debate God’s existence any more than I debate the existence of the moon unless the individual is genuine.”

    Yes, in one way it is wise that you do not debate the existence of your god but the reason you do not do so, is because your god is imaginary. It’s also interesting that you restrict your “debates” to “genuine” individuals but don’t tell us what you mean. Do you mean genuine as in the person you are “debating” with is genuinely yourself via one of your sock-puppets? That would be consistent, at least.

    Those points notwithstanding, this is a blog about god being imaginary. If you are not prepared to debate the existence of your god, then you are clearly stating that your presence here is not one of an honest contributor. In that case, you should kindly F-off.

  39. on 23 Oct 2011 at 3:03 pm 39.Lou (DFW) said …

    37.Horatiio said …

    “I no longer debate God’s existence any more than I debate the existence of the moon unless the individual is genuine.”

    Says Hor, stealing an idea from Sean Carrol that I posted – “Would you publicly debate an intelligent design advocate?
    No. And I don’t think astronomers should debate astrologers nor surgeons debate faith healers. The ID proponents have succeeded in gaining enormous attention for a notion that the scientific community and the courts have found lacking any scientific substance. ID is an outgrowth of a desire to undermine evolutionary science, which is perceived to be a threat to their religious worldview.”

    Ha-ha-ha! Hor’s ultimate lie! You NEVER have debated god’s existence! Even you aren’t dumb enough to do that because you know it’s a debate you can’t win.

    “Now if they actually believed in a reality that only the scientific method supports I would have more respect. We all know they do not.”

    You “know” no such thing. When are you ever going to learn that lying doesn’t accomplish anything other than to demonstrate that you are spineless fraud. And the only “we” you represent is one of your other psycho personas. Two lies in one sentence – “we” and “know.”

  40. on 23 Oct 2011 at 3:05 pm 40.Lou (DFW) said …

    38.Anonymous said …

    “Those points notwithstanding, this is a blog about god being imaginary. If you are not prepared to debate the existence of your god, then you are clearly stating that your presence here is not one of an honest contributor.”

    Hor has NEVER been “an honest contributor.”

    “In that case, you should kindly F-off.”

    I’ll second that.

  41. on 27 Oct 2011 at 8:41 pm 41.benson abraham said …

    I was very much eager to see something like this. Because i am such a person or may be the only one who is currently doing his PG in biotechnology, but still believes that earth was formed in 6 days.
    You may think that i am a true christian believer , but it is not so, I am a polythiest. I believe that all religions and science is from God, so that he can decieve us.
    How??
    1. God is all powerful, so only someone like HIM can be a threat to him.
    2. Man had that potential. RECALL : when moses went to pharoah, he dropped his stick, which became a snake. But the other magicians also did the same. The only difference is that God’s power overpowered.
    If mankind would have gone in the same path, maybe a day would have come when our powers would have overpowerd God’s.
    Tell me what is he supposed to do to hide his power (technology) away from us? The answer is simple, somehow make him believe that he is created not in the image of God, but some kind of a monkey.
    3. Time is applicable to man, but not God. We cannot change the past, but God can.
    RECALL : In the wedding of cannan, jesus converted water into wine. First there was water in the jar,which is the truth. Second, after the conversion there was wine in the jar, which is the truth. Now how much you test, you can never come to know that initialy it was water in the jar. So what will you believe to be the truth?
    Think!
    If God change the history of earth, then in wat will you believe, the one that was intially created or that has been altered.
    [In the whole bible, there is only one place, where is a mention of particular word or a spell (which we are all familiar off) which would have probably change the history of the earth.]
    4. I am a polythiest, so i believe that other religions from the same God. Because if, there would have been no concept about good, bad, sin, heaven etc. no body could have understood what the apostles meant by saying Jesus has sacrificed his life to save us from our sins.
    If i am wrong please correct me and follow me on bensonabraham86 in TWITTER
    THANK YOU!!!
    BE A FREE THINKER…….

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply