Feed on Posts or Comments 30 July 2014

Christianity Thomas on 04 Nov 2011 12:32 am

Michigan creates a law designed to allow Christians to bully gays

It is a well known fact that people, especially in middle and high school, can bully gays so much that recipients of the bullying commit suicide. This article describes one such case:

Gay Buffalo Teen Commits Suicide on Eve of National Bullying Summit

Jamey Rodemeyer sent out many signals on social networking sites that he was struggling with his sexuality, and although he encouraged others on YouTube to fight off the bullies, things didn’t get better.

The Buffalo, N.Y., boy, 14, killed himself this weekend after posting an online farewell.

A student at Williamsville North High School, Jamey had been tormented for the past 12 months by cyberbullies who made disparaging comments with gay references on his Formspring account, a website that allows anonymous posts.

“JAMIE IS STUPID, GAY, FAT ANND [sic] UGLY. HE MUST DIE!” one post said, according to local reports. Another read, “I wouldn’t care if you died. No one would. So just do it :) It would make everyone WAY more happier!”

Who would write things like that? Christians for one. Their track record in the gay-bashing arena is long and storied. And now, in Michigan, Christians have a new law that protects them so they can keep up the bullying.

the Michigan legislature is doing its best to make me hang my head in shame. On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled state senate passed an anti-bullying bill that manages to protect school bullies instead of those they victimize. It accomplishes this impressive feat by allowing students, teachers, and other school employees to claim that “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction” justifies their harassment.

Michigan is already one of only three states in the country that have not enacted any form of anti-bullying legislation. For more than a decade, Democrats in the state legislature have fought their Republican colleagues and social conservatives such as Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, who referred to anti-bullying measures as “a Trojan horse for the homosexual agenda.” In that time, at least ten Michigan students who were victims of bullying have killed themselves.

This year, Republicans only agreed to consider an anti-bullying measure that did not require school districts to report bullying incidents, did not include any provisions for enforcement or teacher training, and did not hold administrators accountable if they fail to act. And they fought back Democratic attempts to enumerate particular types of students who are prone to being bullied, such as religious and racial minorities, and gay students. But it was the addition of special protections for religiously-motivated bullying that led all 11 Democratic senators to vote against the legislation they had long championed.

In an emotional speech on the Senate floor, Democratic Leader Gretchen Whitmer accused her colleagues of creating a blueprint for consequence-free bullying. “As passed today,” said Whitmer, “bullying kids is okay if a student, parent, teacher or school employee can come up with a moral or religious reason for doing it.”

The bill is called “Matt’s Safe School Law,” after Matt Epling, a Michigan student who committed suicide in 2002 after enduring prolonged bullying. Matt’s father, Kevin Epling, expressed his dismay in a Facebook post after the state senate vote on Wednesday. “I am ashamed that this could be Michigan’s bill on anti-bullying,” wrote Epling. “For years the line [from Republicans] has been ‘no protected classes,’ and the first thing they throw in…was a very protected class, and limited them from repercussions of their own actions.”

This video talks about how ridiculous “Matt’s Safe School Law” is:

There are no words to describe how disgusting and hypocritical Christians can be. First they have a leader, Jesus, who specifically tells them to love one another. Christians completely ignore Jesus’s central message and decide instead that their “God” hates homosexuals. Then Christians use their hatred to bully homosexuals, to deny homosexuals rights like the right to marry, etc. And in the case of Michigan, Christians pass laws that are specifically designed to kill homosexuals through extreme bullying that leads to suicide.

How can any group of people who claim to be moral and ethical be so transparently disgusting in their behavior? This is not some little fringe group of radical Christians behaving this way – these are elected public officials in prominent state offices acting in concert to kill people. All because they do not listen to their religious leader’s message of love but instead create their own brand of bigotry and hatred and then spread it nation-wide. Disgusting.

See also this post: Are Christians killing gay kids? Yes, absolutely.

Are you a Christian? Why? How can your conscience tolerate the bigotry and hatred of the Christian faith? If you would like to break free of your religion and become a far more ethical human being, these sites can help:

110 Responses to “Michigan creates a law designed to allow Christians to bully gays”

  1. on 04 Nov 2011 at 1:18 pm 1.Horatiio said …

    Oh, I just ran out of thread. I’m still looking for the “Christian” reference. Where is it? I’m SURE I just missed it! He admits Jesus commands to love but then states Christians hate. If they hate, they cannot be Christ-ian. See the parallel?

    LOL!!

    Marshall you are so funny.

    He goes off on a rant of bullying to a right to marry rant. There is no such right and you must meet the definition to join in the process. Much like Marshall does not have the “right” to receive a scholarship from the NAACP.

    Sigh! it is too bad atheist only care about the gays being bullied. They are the more PC group to pity. Christians have been taking up for the fat kids, the kid with glasses, the little kid for decades. The atheists have been nowhere to be seen.

  2. on 04 Nov 2011 at 1:42 pm 2.A said …

    Two kids in my community have killed themselves this school year. Neither were gay. Both were related to drugs.

    Sadly, a majority of atheist want to legalize drugs, not restrict them. They do want to stifle all conservative speech and they want to use bullying of gays which is no greater than other kids as an excuse.

    As Horatio alluded to above, not one word about Christians doing the bullying. Based on the nastiness of the cyber speech above, they would seem to be atheists.

  3. on 04 Nov 2011 at 1:51 pm 3.Obvious said …

    If it is not Christians doing the bullying, why do Christians need a special law in Michigan to protect their right to bully?

  4. on 04 Nov 2011 at 2:43 pm 4.RJ said …

    #RE: #2 “A”

    “…bullying of gays…is no greater than other kids.”

    Except for the fact that bullying of gays is condoned—albeit indirectly—by christians by their unceasing proclaiming of gay people as degenerates, abominations, and enemies of God, etc. No, they’re not saying “Hey, go ahead and pound away on them, they deserve it”, but they are encouraging others to look down on and revile them which often can (and does) lead to bullying because that’s what bullies do: harass those they see as inferior or “less than”. And where are potential bullies getting the idea that gay people are “bad”?

    Yes, christians, like everyone else, have the right to disapprove of anyone they want for whatever reason. But why do they always think that means they should go around shooting their mouths off about it?

  5. on 04 Nov 2011 at 2:45 pm 5.Anonymous said …

    Michigan Republicans Pass Law Allowing Christians to Bully Gay Students. Watch This Democrat Stand Up to Them.

    ” The bombshell: ‘This section does not abridge the rights under the First Amendment of the constitution of the United States or under article I of the state constitution of 1963 of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil’s parent or guardian. This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil’s parent or guardian.’ In other words, if my religion says you’re a subhuman sack of shit because you’re gay or wear clothing of mixed fabrics, I and my friends can tell you so until you want to kill yourself and it’s not bullying. Oh, and the teacher can join me in saying you deserve to die, too, and it’s still not bullying.”

  6. on 04 Nov 2011 at 3:18 pm 6.DPK said …

    “Jesus commands to love but then states Christians hate. If they hate, they cannot be Christ-ian.”

    Shade of, if you believe in god, then god will reveal himself to you. Now Hor, maybe this is a revelation to all of us about your mindset. Are you saying that many christians are not “really” christians? I thought christians accepted anyone who wanted to be saved? Now you seem to be putting qualifications on who actually qualifies.
    Would you go further to say that many theists are not “really” theists? Meaning that perhaps they profess a belief in god externally, but internally don’t really buy it. For example, a priest who professes to believe in god, judgment, and eternal damnation and all that, but goes ahead and molests children year after year… or his priestly superiors who protect him and hide his behavior. Would you conclude that they don’t “really” believe the nonsense they preach?

  7. on 04 Nov 2011 at 4:13 pm 7.DPK said …

    And Hor, while we’re at it… the bible says not to bear false witness… lie. I don’t know if Jesus ever addressed lying directly or not.

    Would you say that someone who lies, or perhaps deliberately misrepresents someone else’s words in an effort to say, further their own point of view, also cannot be a “Christ-ian”? Is it only hate that disqualifies you as “Chris-tian”, or do other acts of dishonesty count too?

  8. on 04 Nov 2011 at 5:20 pm 8.Lou (DFW) said …

    1.Horatiio said …

    “Sigh! it is too bad atheist only care about the gays being bullied. They are the more PC group to pity. Christians have been taking up for the fat kids, the kid with glasses, the little kid for decades. The atheists have been nowhere to be seen.”

    Gay rights aren’t really on my list of priorities, but comments like yours are simply outrageous.

    As usual, in his feeble attempt to attack atheists in lieu of presenting evidence for his imaginary god, Hor distorts the truth. Please show us where “Christians have been taking up for the fat kids, the kid with glasses, the little kid for decades.” For example, please show where xtians passed anti-bullying bills that protected kids from bullying because of their appearance, as opposed to allowing it because of “religious belief or moral conviction.”

    “The atheists have been nowhere to be seen.”

    If that was true, so what? How does that change the fact that the Michigan anti-bullying bill “manages to protect school bullies instead of those they victimize?”

    “It accomplishes this impressive feat by allowing students, teachers, and other school employees to claim that “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction” justifies their harassment.”

    There’s something seriously wrong with someone like you who in any way defends this bill or attacks someone who criticizes it. It’s been argued here that religion and god imposes a certain morality upon its followers. If that’s true, then it’s sad comment on their “morality.”

  9. on 04 Nov 2011 at 5:50 pm 9.Curmudgeon said …

    “Oh, I just ran out of thread. I’m still looking for the “Christian” reference. Where is it?”

    Is not there. I was waiting for a liar comment from Lou but he failed. I guess he only calls theist liars, not his own. So hypocritical.

  10. on 04 Nov 2011 at 6:24 pm 10.Lou (DFW) said …

    9.Curmudgeon said …

    “Oh, I just ran out of thread. I’m still looking for the “Christian” reference. Where is it?”

    First of all, Hor, in his typical rambling writing style, isn’t clear as to what xtian reference he is referring.

    “Is not there. I was waiting for a liar comment from Lou but he failed. I guess he only calls theist liars, not his own. So hypocritical.”

    Crum, if he lied, then I would have called him on it. But he didn’t. What he wrote was his opinion about what the bill allows, not what the bill said. If that is incorrect, then show me.

    Regardless, if he lied and I didn’t call him on it, then it would make me a hypocrite, but it doesn’t change the fact that Hor and some other theists who comment here lie about atheists in lieu of providing evidence for their imaginary god.

    Now, do you want to provide evidence for your imaginary god or lie about calling me a hypocrite? Otherwise, why don’t you join Hor in his “Broadway In The Basement” – if you aren’t there already?

  11. on 04 Nov 2011 at 6:53 pm 11.DPK said …

    Ok, the bill refers to “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction” as a free pass to bully or denigrate someone… after all, gotta show respect and tolerance toward religious beliefs, right.

    So, in a way, Hor is kind of right… it doesn’t specifically say “christian” belief… but come on… how many Muslim republicans do you think there are in the Michigan Legislature? I don’t know of any other religions that have taken as strong a stance against gays… do you?

    Hey, do you think we should have a law that says terrorist bombings should be illegal UNLESS they are committed by a person because of “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction…”
    Religious tolerance should extend to everyone, no?

  12. on 04 Nov 2011 at 6:59 pm 12.DPK said …

    Lou… I think Hor’s preoccupation with “Broadway in the (church) basement and Mambian Dailits in indicative that he is probably one of those pseudo-hippie volunteer youth ministers that likes to hang out at bible camp and encourage the young lads to take their shirts off around the campfire while singing “Kumbaya”. And I say that with only the deepest religious and moral conviction…………

  13. on 04 Nov 2011 at 7:35 pm 13.Horatiio said …

    “Michigan creates a law specifically designed to allow Christians to bully gays”

    Cur,

    Just check the headline. LOL!, yes that is exactly what the bill states.

    Since secular humanism is covered under freedom of religious expression, I think I will interpret this bill as a way for Humanist to bully the fat kids. Try this headline:

    “Michigan creates a law specifically designed to allow Atheist to bully fat kids”

    That was easy.
    Have a great weekend.

  14. on 04 Nov 2011 at 7:44 pm 14.DPK said …

    There is nothing in any atheist or secular or humanist philosophy that says it is wrong, sinful or immoral to be fat.
    Now, what does the christian bible say about homosexuality?
    I wonder what Fred Phelps and his cohorts would have to say about Hor and his basement dinner theater fetish?

    Hor, are you going to answer my question posed in #7?

  15. on 04 Nov 2011 at 9:04 pm 15.Lou (DFW) said …

    13.Horatiio said …

    “Since secular humanism is covered under freedom of religious expression, I think I will interpret this bill as a way for Humanist to bully the fat kids.”

    Hor is off on his secular humanism schtick again.

    How is secular humanism “covered under freedom of religious expression” when it isn’t a religion?

  16. on 04 Nov 2011 at 9:23 pm 16.DPK said …

    Hey… maybe we shouldn’t argue… does that mean I can claim tax free status as a religion if I put a sign on my door?

    haha… Silly Hor.

    Merriam defines religion as “the service or worship of God or the supernatural.”

    Hardly think secular humanism applies. In any event, please show us where in the “scripture” of secular humanism it says that believers should bully fat kids? As I recall, the bible says you should stone homosexuals to death…

    This has to rank as one of the stupidest points you’ve ever decided to put forth… and that’s saying something. Yeah, Jesus wants to protect the fat kids, so it’s cool……….

  17. on 04 Nov 2011 at 9:23 pm 17.Anonymous said …

    “How is secular humanism “covered under freedom of religious expression” when it isn’t a religion?”

    It’s an attempt by the troll to steer the conversation away from providing evidence for his imaginary god and to display his contempt of anyone who doesn’t share his delusion.

  18. on 04 Nov 2011 at 10:15 pm 18.Lou (DFW) said …

    16.DPK said …

    Merriam defines religion as “the service or worship of God or the supernatural.”

    Not only that, but secular is opposite of religion. Furthermore, contrary to what Hor claimed in his previous secular humanism schtick, SCOTUS has not “defined” secular humanism as a religion.

  19. on 04 Nov 2011 at 10:16 pm 19.Lou (DFW) said …

    18.Lou (DFW) said …

    CORRECTION: secular is opposite of religious.

  20. on 05 Nov 2011 at 12:28 am 20.Ben said …

    Trolls, read the link and learn. I quote from the link.

    “In the 1960′s, without specific board authorization, a religious tax exemption was successfully attained from the Internal Revenue”

    http://www.americanhumanist.org/hnn/archives/?id=283&article=1

    You guys are oblivious to the simplest things.

  21. on 05 Nov 2011 at 1:26 am 21.Observer said …

    #20 Ben- The IRS determines religious doctrine in the United States and is the arbiter of whether or not a worldview is a religion? If you actually believe that, you truly are too stupid for words. Otherwise, you are yet again demonstrating the lying and bearing false witness recently mentioned on here I believe by “Lou(DFW)”.

    But can you even read, that is “Can you read with the comprehension of a 6th grader?” The point of the article was that they have dropped the “religious” organization classification and the AHA is purely educational now in the eyes of the IRS as they were in their own eyes all along. This change is due to the better treatment of 501(3c) organizations and morons claiming that Humanism is a religion in the same way pistachio ice cream is cheese grits. The link does give a good history of why the religious exemption was sought in the first place as well.

  22. on 05 Nov 2011 at 2:15 am 22.Anonymous said …

    Ben, Horatio, how does this argument work? You want to claim that Humanism is a religion, then what?

    - How does that provide proof of the existence of your god?

    - How does that change the fact that the bible is a collection of myths and stories?

    - How does this argument address the failure of prayer?

    - How does any of this relate to why god won’t heal amputees?

  23. on 05 Nov 2011 at 2:20 am 23.Ben said …

    How about if we quote the Humanist Manifesto.

    Humanism is “a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view”.

    I realize that it is a “living” and “growing” “faith”, to again quote the manifesto, but nevertheless it is no different than any other atheist religion.

    If you believe, Observer that Lou determines who is and is not a liar then you are not too stupid for words. I could find some.

    Your turn Observer.

  24. on 05 Nov 2011 at 2:24 am 24.DPK said …

    A… can’t you follow? Let me spell it out for you.
    Stalin killed millions.
    Atheists make fun of fat kids.
    The IRS granted tax free status to an atheist educational organization.
    Republican Senators in Michigan passed a law exempting religious people from being prosecuted for bullying kids to the point of suicide, but clearly, it wasn’t aimed at Christians.
    You can’t explain what caused the big bang.
    My neighbor’s friend’s brother’s sister in law prayed to Jesus and was cured of her irritable bowel syndrome and constipation.
    Evolution is “just a theory.”

    Therefore, god is real.
    What’s the problem?

  25. on 05 Nov 2011 at 2:47 am 25.DPK said …

    What’s the humanist manifesto, and who wrote it???
    I don’t remember signing it.
    I could write a “christian manifesto”… would you accept that as authoritative?

  26. on 05 Nov 2011 at 2:48 am 26.Anonymous said …

    DPK, I was missing the parts in invisible ink:

    - Whoever isn’t Ben’s kind of (Scottish) True Christian is an atheist

    - All atheists are Humanists, even if they are not

    - All Humanists are members of the American Humanist’s Association, even if they are not, or even not American

    - All Humanist’s subscribe to a sentence in a preface to a superseded publication, regardless of their own personal views, despite the same document stating that it’s a developing point of view, not a creed

    - Ben’s quote isn’t applicable or relevant to the discussion at hand, therefore god?

    Or, in summary, Ben is just talking shit?

  27. on 05 Nov 2011 at 3:32 am 27.DPK said …

    Oh, ok the “humanist manifesto” quoted by Ben was written in 1933 and has been superseded by 2 newer versions by the American Humanist Society (of which, by the way, I am not a member).

    Here is the current version, which makes no mention of being comparable to a religion in any way, shape, or form.
    http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III

    Could this be yet another deliberate attempt by the theists her to misrepresent facts or statements in order to try and further their agenda? Sad that the only way to try to prove a point is to be deceptive, but we see this quite a lot, don’t we? Ever wonder why the theists feel the need to LIE in order to make their points? Why would you trust someone who constantly lies and misrepresents facts?

  28. on 05 Nov 2011 at 3:53 am 28.Observer said …

    #23 Ben It looks like #24-#27 “Anonymous” and “DPK” have pretty much covered it. As they say in the hood ( and most American suburbs ) “You jus talk’in shit” (still).

  29. on 05 Nov 2011 at 1:01 pm 29.Lou (DFW) said …

    23.Ben said …

    “How about if we quote the Humanist Manifesto.

    Humanism is “a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view”.

    How about we quote the bible? It’s just as irrelevant and meaningless as quoting the “Humanist Manifesto.”

    No doubt Ben spent hours searching for proof that SCOTUS ruled secular humanism a religion. But the only thing he found was the “Humanist Manifesto” and an IRS ruling. The most absurd thing about it is that he actually had the stupidity to embarrass himself by posting it here.

    “I realize that it is a “living” and “growing” “faith”, to again quote the manifesto, but nevertheless it is no different than any other atheist religion.”

    Once again, just like Hor, been lies when he can’t find an ounce of truth to support his outrageous claims. By definition, there are no such things as atheist religions.

  30. on 05 Nov 2011 at 1:06 pm 30.Lou (DFW) said …

    20.Ben said …

    “Trolls, read the link and learn. I quote from the link.”

    And I quote from the link:

    “We have educational and scientific exemptions; more important, we wish to dissociate ourselves with any and all attempts to ape religion.” – Council for Secular Humanism Founder Paul Kurtz

  31. on 05 Nov 2011 at 1:11 pm 31.Lou (DFW) said …

    29.Lou (DFW) said …

    CORRECTION: Once again, just like Hor, Ben lies…

  32. on 05 Nov 2011 at 1:44 pm 32.Lou (DFW) said …

    21.Observer said …

    “Otherwise, you are yet again demonstrating the lying and bearing false witness recently mentioned on here I believe by “Lou(DFW)”.

    It was DPK.

    BTW, after reading Ben’s comments I must assume that he some young kid or Hor.

  33. on 05 Nov 2011 at 2:35 pm 33.Anonymous said …

    So, basically, anything that steers the conversation away from providing proof of the existence of any deity, is what passes for debate from the resident theists.

    Name calling, playground taunts, lies, misdirection, irrelevancies, non sequitur; any lie is acceptable when it’s told to defend Jesus from rational examination?

  34. on 05 Nov 2011 at 7:47 pm 34.Anonymous said …

    Observer,

    That’s it? That’$ all you have? I’m disappointed from such a cocky young man.

    Since you couldn’t win that round lets go another direction. You asked earlier who determines what is or is not a religion. What would you like to wager I can find a definition of religion that fits Humanism?

    I already have two sources, I bet I can do it again.

  35. on 05 Nov 2011 at 7:51 pm 35.Ben said …

    Anonymous was Ben just to be sure O didn’t miss it

  36. on 05 Nov 2011 at 8:36 pm 36.DPK said …

    Nobody cares if you can find a source that defines religion in a way you’d like to see. I can find dozens, if not hundreds of sources that say christianity is a bunch of whack job superstitious nonsense… doubt it would impress you.

    Let’s look at a very comprehensive definition of religion and see how much of it fits with atheism or humanism:

    Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.

    Atheism or humanism… nope.

    Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe.

    Atheism or humanism… nope.

    They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

    Ok, humanism maybe. Atheism doesn’t “derive” anything. It is nothing but the rejection of the idea of gods.

    The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect. Most religions have organized behaviors, including clerical hierarchies, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, congregations of laity, regular meetings or services for the purposes of veneration of a deity or for prayer, holy places (either natural or architectural), and/or scriptures.

    Atheism or humanism… uh…nope.

    The practice of a religion may also include sermons, commemoration of the activities of a god or gods, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture.

    Atheism or humanism… (excuse the irony..) GOD NO!

    Ben, we know it seriously pisses off you dogmatic believers that other people don’t conform to your ass backward manner of looking at reality, and it is inconceivable to you that people simply don’t have “religion”… but seriously, get over it. Aside from the fact that your assertion is completely wrong, the reality is, no one cares.

    Now go back to Hor’s Basement Musical Extravaganza… intermission is almost over.

  37. on 05 Nov 2011 at 10:48 pm 37.Lou (DFW) said …

    34.Anonymous said …

    “Since you couldn’t win that round lets go another direction. You asked earlier who determines what is or is not a religion. What would you like to wager I can find a definition of religion that fits Humanism?”

    By definition, secular humanism is not a religion. Why can’t you understand that simple concept?

    “I already have two sources, I bet I can do it again.”

    Again? Do what again? Make an ass of yourself as in #20 and #23?

  38. on 05 Nov 2011 at 11:13 pm 38.Anonymous said …

    ‘License to Bully’: Backlash Over Matt Epling Bill Passed in Michigan Senate

    “The Michigan Senate this week passed a bill to authorize the law, Matt’s Safe School Law, which is named after Matt Epling, a freshman from East Lansing, Mich., who killed himself after being bullied by upperclassmen in 2002.

    But in a change before Wednesday’s vote, Republican lawmakers added a clause ensuring that the bill “does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held belief or moral conviction” of a student or school worker.

    “They kind of snuck in this extra paragraph, really kind of setting apart kids that feel their religious beliefs, their moral convictions, basically, can allow them to bully,” said Matt Epling’s father, Kevin Epling. “That one paragraph, though, negates most of the things that we tried to put in.” “

  39. on 06 Nov 2011 at 3:55 pm 39.Observer said …

    #34 aka Ben- My, my, my aren’t you getting just a wee tad defensive? “DPK” and “Anonymous” took you apart with aplomb. Why should I rehash their good work? IF and when you start reading intelligently written articles, often you will notice they make reference to previous work and unlike the rubbish you wallow in, the references are accurate and in context. This is an aid to progress. As progress is something wanting from your life/worldview, it is no wonder referencing previous work to make your point is lost on you. But the point is, whether or not you quite get it, you made references to the AHA that make you look utterly foolish as it revealed an inability to understand plainly written English.

    With respect to your recent post, first clear up the subjects and predicate objects, then let’s be scientific. Is Humanism a religion? You can find all sorts of BS on the internet. SO, why don’t you first define what a religion is. Then, define what Humanism is. If you define religion so as to include Humanism, then I would be willing to bet we will find several new religions, among them Boy Scoutism. Are new commandments soon to follow:

    “Thou shalt pound tent stakes into thy campground at a 45 degree angle, lest the forces of nature put your shelter atumble!”

  40. on 06 Nov 2011 at 7:12 pm 40.Ben said …

    “SO, why don’t you first define what a religion is.”

    Thank you O, I would be glad to. A religion is nothing more than a worldview. Lets see what some sources say regarding religion.

    Merriam Webster:

    4.: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

    Free Dictionary:

    4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

    Not hard and that makes me 3 for 3. Now I know you and your followers will never admit to “religion” and that is fine. Words scare you. Religion needs no God and does not need to be supernatural. The manifesto, Merriam Webster and government all agree.

    More from O:
    “You can find all sorts of BS on the internet.”

    Yes, I know. I read your posts.

  41. on 06 Nov 2011 at 7:58 pm 41.Anonymous said …

    Collins World English Dictionary:

    1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

    1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

  42. on 06 Nov 2011 at 8:04 pm 42.Lou (DFW) said …

    40.Ben said …

    “Thank you O, I would be glad to. A religion is nothing more than a worldview.”

    B.S. A religion is not “nothing more than a worldview.” Even in the Merriam Webster dictionary it’s much more than that. You’re such an ass. Is xtianity only a “worldview?”

    “Lets see what some sources say regarding religion.

    Merriam Webster:

    4.: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”

    Even by the FOURTH definition it’s more than a “worldview.”

    Furthermore, even that definition doesn’t fit secular humanism.

    Merriam Webster:

    humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion

    It’s a PHILOSOPHY VIEWED AS a religion, but not a religion. Repeat – MW did not define it as a rleigion. Why? Because it’s not.

    “Not hard and that makes me 3 for 3.”

    Correct, three mistakes out of three attempts. You are a dunce.

    Now, regardless of whether or not HS is a religion, please provide any evidence for your imaginary god.

  43. on 06 Nov 2011 at 8:15 pm 43.Ben said …

    Lou thank you you proved me to be 4 for 4. Well, I must give you credit for number 4.

    “humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion”

    There you go O. HR is a nontheistic religion not unlike Taoism.

    That should settle the matter.

  44. on 06 Nov 2011 at 8:17 pm 44.Ben said …

    Anonymous

    Yes, your definitions for religion are valid as well. I’m not sure they were up for debate. Anyone disagree with Anonymous’ definitions provided?

  45. on 06 Nov 2011 at 9:14 pm 45.DPK said …

    Ben, by your definition (and there is a reason the dictionaries list more obscure interpretations of a word lower… as in #4…)

    Neoliberal Globalism, Social Democratic Liberalism, Populist Nationalism, Libertarian Isolationism, and even Environmentalism would qualify as religions.

    So yeah, your point is still absurd.

    BTW, what has ANY of this got to do with your inability to provide any evidence at all that the god or gods you claim control the universe and everything in it actually exists?

    I suspect that convincing yourself through ridiculous assertions and wordplay along with looking up obscure dictionary entries that secular humanism is actually a “religion” that you somehow feel a little less crazy for believing in yours.
    If it makes you happy………….. call it whatever you want. You’re still wrong though, just like you are about the existence of your imaginary god.

  46. on 06 Nov 2011 at 10:18 pm 46.DPK said …

    Lou… just this morning I had a pair of those pesky Libertarian Isolationist knocking at my door wanting to know if I’ve heard the good news. Man, religious whack jobs sure have changed of late huh?
    Makes me wish out her on the east coast we had more relaxed handgun laws like y’all in Texas do. I’d have sent them and their Populist Nationalist friends packing!
    Next thing you know, they’ll be wanting to put “In Isolationism We Trust” on our money or something.

  47. on 06 Nov 2011 at 10:20 pm 47.Observer said …

    #40,43,44 It would appear my prediction you would declare Boy-Scoutism a religion was prescient. It would seem that defining religion as “world-view” is so non-specific and wide as to be entirely meaningless. Removing meaning from language is the only alternative left for theists in order to perpetuate their arguments. Precise, meaningful and intelligent language are completely at odds with theistic thinking.

    One other point, it is preposterous to claim there are “followers” in the non-theist camp on this blog.

  48. on 07 Nov 2011 at 12:35 am 48.Lou (DFW) said …

    43.Ben said …

    “humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion”

    “There you go O. HR is a nontheistic religion not unlike Taoism.

    That should settle the matter.”

    Are you really that dense? Read closely – VIEWED AS A RELIGION means not actually one.

  49. on 07 Nov 2011 at 1:17 am 49.Anonymous said …

    So, it seems that Ben has a bit of a Tu Quoque thing going for him.

    It’s interesting that its the theists that need to label atheists as nihilist or project a so-called religion of Humanism which is really, really, silly when applied to Secular Humanism. Maybe they are unable to comprehend free-thinking and, thus, feel more comfortable attacking a label rather than engaging in discourse? Doesn’t sound very “Christian” to me, but Christianity seems to be one of those things that you make up as you go along.

    Still, it’s all rather moot, isn’t it? Ben, you’ve had your say about Humanism. So now please point us towards the evidence for your imaginary god?

  50. on 07 Nov 2011 at 3:07 am 50.Ben said …

    Atheist Friends,

    Just to make DPK, O and Lou happy I found the evangelism arm of your network. Yes, strong believers need to bring in other converts. A lot of that being attempted on the university campuses.

    http://www.gotatheism.com/evangelism1.asp

    I believe that is 5 points I have now demonstrating the religiosity of atheism.

    It is now undeniable.

  51. on 07 Nov 2011 at 3:19 am 51.Anonymous said …

    Ben, I’ll see your five and raise you some three million

    http://goo.gl/wFWUV

  52. on 07 Nov 2011 at 3:50 am 52.Lou (DFW) said …

    50.Ben said …

    “Just to make DPK, O and Lou happy I found the evangelism arm of your network. Yes, strong believers need to bring in other converts. A lot of that being attempted on the university campuses.

    http://www.gotatheism.com/evangelism1.asp

    Wow, you really do have a reading comprehension problem.

    “I believe that is 5 points I have now demonstrating the religiosity of atheism.

    It is now undeniable.”

    What is undeniable is your delusion. Five points for that, no denying it.

  53. on 07 Nov 2011 at 4:44 am 53.Anonymous said …

    Some random dude’s blog from 2.5 years ago is the the evangelism arm of your network.

    WTF

  54. on 07 Nov 2011 at 5:21 pm 54.Joe said …

    Coming back to the starting point of this thread, here is some food for thought for Christians, written by a conservative Christian.

    http://www.musingson.com/ccCase.html

  55. on 07 Nov 2011 at 7:47 pm 55.RJ said …

    RE: # 54

    Hey Joe, thanks for the link. Was a long, but really satisfying read. Covered all the usual conservative talking points beautifully and provided a uniquely different way of looking at the whole christians vs the gays issue that should satisfy all but the hardest of hearts on either side.

  56. on 07 Nov 2011 at 10:20 pm 56.Cleo said …

    Joe

    Good info but I do not agree. If gays want civil unions I have no problem with that. I will not redefine the word “marriage” in order to include same sex. It is dishonest.

    This thread provides good food for thought for you. Have you noticed how the atheists on this link get angry at the thought of using the word “religion” to include atheism?

  57. on 07 Nov 2011 at 10:37 pm 57.Lou (DFW) said …

    56.Cleo said …

    “I will not redefine the word “marriage” in order to include same sex. It is dishonest”

    Nor should you redefine the word “religion” in order to include atheism or secular humanism. It is dishonest.

    “Have you noticed how the atheists on this link get angry at the thought of using the word “religion” to include atheism?”

    It’s not a matter of getting angry. The point is that it’s an outright lie to call atheism a religion when it isn’t. Disbelief in god is no more a religion than is disbelief in Santa Clause.

    Have you ever noticed how angry theists get when atheists claim there is no evidence for their imaginary god, and that there’s much evidence that their imaginary god doesn’t exist?

  58. on 07 Nov 2011 at 11:22 pm 58.Truth said …

    “there’s much evidence that their imaginary god doesn’t exist?”

    Since I am truth, please elaborate on said evidence.

  59. on 07 Nov 2011 at 11:27 pm 59.Observer said …

    #54 Joe. Yep. Gay marriage is fine in my book as long as it isn’t mandatory. But of course, in reality all marriage is civil. That is what a marriage license is all about.

    I did skim the article, and it is monstrously narcissistic and evil from what I can see. It is ultimately all about the political position of the lunatic right-wing, but with an eye to the pragmatic politics of insidiously insinuating itself into the mainstream instead of remaining appropriately on the fringe as a freak-show worthy only of scorn and derision. This is the embodiment of evil, rising appreciably above the banality described by Arendt.

    Of course, it could all be a cover for Misty S. Irons who likes a musky hairy lipped kiss now and then. In the same vein as your typical evangelical who likes to toke on a pink (or ebony?) pipe now and then for a bit-o-variety.

  60. on 07 Nov 2011 at 11:34 pm 60.Observer said …

    #58 “Since I am truth, please elaborate on said evidence.” We shall all defer…

  61. on 07 Nov 2011 at 11:41 pm 61.DPK said …

    It is curious that the right wing religious is so adamant about refusing to condone gay marriage, while at the same time, you never see them campaigning to outlaw divorce, which is also forbidden in the bible… “what god has joined together…”
    Isn’t that odd? Why don’t they try to legislate their concept of morality when it comes to divorce like they do to marriage?

  62. on 08 Nov 2011 at 12:28 am 62.Horatiio said …

    Truth,

    I hate to burst you bubble, but Lou makes all sorts of claims and never follows through. He is what he would call – a liar. LOL!! His word.

    Gay marriage? Hmmm Now why should the entire country redefine a word so it fits some small minority? Will we redefine it again when some atheist wants to marry an ape? Hey, its just a cousin.

    If it is so important make up a word for gay unions and get the states to recognize the new word. They won’t since they like the chaos.

    Well, since a few states have already done redefined the word, the atheist religion is now the norm. Although, Ben has already made an outstanding case that none could refute.

  63. on 08 Nov 2011 at 12:43 am 63.Lou (DFW) said …

    58.Truth said …

    “there’s much evidence that their imaginary god doesn’t exist?”

    “Since I am truth, please elaborate on said evidence.”

    You aren’t truth. But if you really want to read the evidence, then start here:

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

  64. on 08 Nov 2011 at 12:53 am 64.Lou (DFW) said …

    62.Horatiio said …

    “I hate to burst you bubble, but Lou makes all sorts of claims and never follows through. He is what he would call – a liar. LOL!! His word.”

    Truth,

    Hor IS a compulsive liar as he just demonstrated in his claim that I make “all sorts of claims and never follows through.”

    Here is a claim that I repeatedly make here, and one that Hor cannot claim is a lie – Hor NEVER, EVER provides any evidence for his imaginary god. If I am not lying, then make a liar out of me. Hor, until you can do that, then stay in your “Broadway In The Basement” fantasizing about Buster dancing with Wiccans.

    “Now why should the entire country redefine a word so it fits some small minority?”

    Why do theists attempt to redefine “religion” to include the disbelief in god? Hor’s pal Ben even went to far as to write that religion is nothing more than a worldview. And when I asked Is xtianity only a “worldview?” Did he answer? of course not. It’s typical of Hor and his pals who almost NEVER follow through when their idiotic statements are challenged.

  65. on 08 Nov 2011 at 1:10 am 65.RJ said …

    RE: #61, DPK

    “Why don’t they try to legislate their concept of morality when it comes to divorce like they do to marriage?”

    That’s because any one of them may have a use for divorce at some point, in spite of all their family values moralizing. They will at no time ever have use for same-sex marriage, therefore it’s expendable. It’s the same cherry-picking they do with scripture. Embrace that which is useful to you, discard that which is not.

  66. on 08 Nov 2011 at 2:38 am 66.Truth said …

    Lou I asked for evidence, not a website we are on. You claim there is “much evidence” that God does not exist. Give me a couple.

    Horatio,

    I like to give everyone a chance to back a claim.

  67. on 08 Nov 2011 at 3:23 am 67.Observer said …

    666 Truth I think the way it goes is that there is no evidence for any of the gods historically mentioned in various primitive writings and folklore. I am including L. Ron Hubbard in the primitive category here.

    What is the evidence that pink unicorns with rainbows shining out of their asses do not exist? I have great faith in them.

  68. on 08 Nov 2011 at 4:33 am 68.Lou (DFW) said …

    66.Truth said …

    “Lou I asked for evidence, not a website we are on.”

    If you asked me to explain chemistry, and I then gave you a chemistry textbook, would you claim that you asked for an explanation, not a book, even though the book contains the explanation?

    “You claim there is “much evidence” that God does not exist. Give me a couple.”

    There is no evidence that god exists. That is “much evidence” that god does not exist. It is the ultimate, overwhelming evidence that god does not exist. This evidence is just as strong for the fact that leprechauns and Santa Claus don’t exist. No further evidence is actually required.

    Furthermore, there is no requirement for god anywhere in the universe. There is nothing that requires “god did it” to explain it. That is evidence that god does not exist. (Even when theists claim “god did it,” that’s all they have – a claim.)

    ALL gods that preceded GOD are known to be imaginary. There is no demonstrable difference between GOD and those gods. That is evidence that this GOD doesn’t exist, either.

  69. on 08 Nov 2011 at 11:56 am 69.Truth said …

    Observer has just used Onus Probandi fallacy. Lou uses argument from ignorance, No True Scotsman and the Red Herring fallacies

    It seems you were correct Horatio.

  70. on 08 Nov 2011 at 1:59 pm 70.Lou (DFW) said …

    69.Truth said …

    “Observer has just used Onus Probandi fallacy. Lou uses argument from ignorance, No True Scotsman and the Red Herring fallacies

    It seems you were correct Horatio.”

    Truth-Hor, I provided evidence that god does not exist. Now provide your evidence that god exists.

  71. on 08 Nov 2011 at 2:07 pm 71.DPK said …

    For someone who use the moniker “Truth” you have an ass backward way of looking at things.

    ONUS PROBANDI
    The burden of the proof.
    It is a general rule that the party who alleges the affirmative of any proposition shall prove it. It is also a general rule that the onus probandi lies. upon the party who seeks to support his case by a particular fact of which he is supposed to be cognizant;

    So, if you are making the claim that such a thing as a god or gods exist, the onus probandi is on you to provide the proof. Just as if you are going to claim knowledge of the existence of pink unicorns or Santa Claus, the burden of proof is 100% yours. One cannot prove the non-existence of magical imaginary beings, because, as the dialogue here supports, the definitions of such beings not only constantly shift, they defy any rules of logic or evidence. I could go on indefinitely making up reasons why you can’t disprove unicorns. Doesn’t then make them real.

    So Truth, time to be truthful. Present your evidence for your god so it can be discredited or shut up about it.

    Alex… is this the kind of “knowledge” you seek? Someone who makes extraordinary claims about something and their only response is “well you can’y prove I’m wrong… let’s see you try?” “Truth’s” real name should be “Fraud”. “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”

  72. on 08 Nov 2011 at 2:09 pm 72.Lou (DFW) said …

    64.Lou (DFW) said …

    “Here is a claim that I repeatedly make here, and one that Hor cannot claim is a lie – Hor NEVER, EVER provides any evidence for his imaginary god. If I am not lying, then make a liar out of me. Hor, until you can do that, then stay in your “Broadway In The Basement” fantasizing about Buster dancing with Wiccans.”

    Truth-Hor, I see you responded to my other comments, but I also see that you made no attempt to “make a liar out of me” as described above. As I wrote, Truth-Hor NEVER, EVER provides evidence for his imaginary god. He lies about atheists and evolution, and demands that others prove that his imaginary god doesn’t exist.

    Truth-Hor, it’s a simple task to put this all to rest – provide evidence for your imaginary god. With that, there’s no reason to lie about atheists and evolution, or demand us disprove your delusion. Now, put-up or take Truth back to “Broadway In The Basement” where you “two” can fantasize about “Buster” dancing with Wiccans.

  73. on 08 Nov 2011 at 3:00 pm 73.Lou (DFW) said …

    71.DPK said …

    “Truth’s” real name should be “Fraud”. “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”

    Hor=Truth=fraud. It’s Hor. Truth makes the same grammar mistake as does Hor, not to mention the same tired “arguments.”

  74. on 08 Nov 2011 at 3:42 pm 74.RJ said …

    For the christards here who keep insisting it’s up to non-believers to prove god doesn’t exist:

    What if your 6-year-old came running into your room one night crying and screaming that there was a monster in his closet. Would you believe him? If not, why? Because you know monsters don’t exist? How do you know they don’t? How would you convince him there was no monster? Would you take him by the hand and examine together every inch of the closet, moving clothes and toys to show him there’s nothing there, trying to use the logic that since neither of you can find any evidence of a monster it’s not there? What if his only evidence for it was that he read about a monster in a closet in an old book and that’s what convinces him of its existence? Once again, how would you convince him there’s no monster in his closet and the book is only fiction?

  75. on 08 Nov 2011 at 4:09 pm 75.DPK said …

    But there IS a monster in the closet… as witnessed by the fright felt by the child. If the child feels frightened, is it logical to think that he was frightened by… nothing? Silly atheist. Closet monsters are not of the physical world, and they do not allow themselves to be seen my adults, only children. If you allow yourself the faith to believe in closet monsters with the innocent, open mind of a child, then you too will realize that they do indeed exist.
    Besides, lots and lots of people believe in closet monsters (ok, they are all under the age of 5, but still people)… so many people cannot be wrong. Your silly insistence that evidence be provided for the closet monsters is a classic Onus Probandi fallacy. YOU are making the claim that closet monsters are not real, therefore you must provide the proof that they are not. Yeah, good luck with that, filthy atheist. You can’t do it because you are too busy killing babies and having gay sex and picking on fat kids.
    The fact that other kinds of monsters aren’t real is a classic red herring to divert the attention away from CLOSET MONSTERS, which is what we are talking about dufus. Try to stay on track please.
    And your ridiculous assertion that adults all know that closet monsters don’t exist is a classic “No True Scottsman” fallacy. You can’t prove that no adults believe in closet monsters, so your point is moot.
    The arrogance of you heretics is simply unbelievable, read the bible and pray to Jesus to save you from your own stupidity and stop trying to convert others to your religion of A-closet-monsterism.

  76. on 08 Nov 2011 at 7:31 pm 76.MegaByte said …

    @#57 Lou

    “and that there’s much evidence that their imaginary god doesn’t exist?”

    For an imaginary God maybe, but what about a real God?

    No I have not noticed such evidence. What I have noticed is the same evidence interpreted by beings with presuppositions that support what they already believe.

    You don’t have any such evidence, you only have an opinion. You also don’t want evidence to prove God – You do want evidence to disprove God. A colossal difference.

    I would ask you to be intellectually honest but I doubt you desire that either.

  77. on 08 Nov 2011 at 8:08 pm 77.Lou (DFW) said …

    76.MegaByte said …

    “For an imaginary God maybe, but what about a real God?”

    Really? That’s it? That’s your Retort? Splitting hairs over semantics? Regardless, then please provide evidence for your “real God.”

    “No I have not noticed such evidence. What I have noticed is the same evidence interpreted by beings with presuppositions that support what they already believe.”

    Beings? Presuppositions?! Not believing in god isn’t a belief nor a presupposition.

    “You don’t have any such evidence, you only have an opinion. You also don’t want evidence to prove God – You do want evidence to disprove God.”

    It’s not a matter of what I want. It’s a matter of what’s true – there is no evidence for god. God is imaginary.

    “A colossal difference.”

    YES, it is. Think of what a difference it make if there was any evidence for a “real God.”

    “I would ask you to be intellectually honest but I doubt you desire that either.”

    Again, it’s not a matter of whether or not I AM intellectually honest. That’s an issue for theists to face when they claim that god exists, when in fact there is no evidence for god.

    Now, do you want to continue with your petty arguments, or do you want provide some evidence for a “real” god?

    (I thought not.)

  78. on 08 Nov 2011 at 8:28 pm 78.DPK said …

    The troll Megabyte is back after an absence he thought might be long enough for people to forget about the myriad of unanswered questions and challenges he ran away from.

    I’ll bite Megaman… show us the evidence for your real god. But please don’t resort to the old tired “you can’t explain how….” That didn’t work for lighting, earthquakes or volcanoes, anymore than it did for imaginary gods that swallowed the sun to make the nighttime.

  79. on 08 Nov 2011 at 9:28 pm 79.Observer said …

    69 Truth “Observer has just used Onus Probandi fallacy. ”

    in response to my

    “What is the evidence that pink unicorns with rainbows shining out of their asses do not exist? I have great faith in them.”

    “Truth” It seems you are now saying that xtians and theists in general when making claims theistic and demanding others to prove them wrong are using the Onus Probandi fallacy. That is some progress. If on the other hand you were stating the obvious as insight you are a complete f*cking idiot.

  80. on 09 Nov 2011 at 12:32 am 80.Horatiio said …

    Lou

    Will you be backing up your accusation we have on record, or will you continue to lie and distort?

    Let me repost your words for convenience.

    “and that there’s much evidence that their imaginary god doesn’t exist?”

    Now I went back to your post, nobody asked you for this, you voluntarily made this accusation. So, back it up.

    Prediction: He will not and then claim “theist present evidence for God”

    LOL!!

  81. on 09 Nov 2011 at 12:44 am 81.DPK said …

    Hor, you dim bulb. Can’t you read? He and Observer already did.
    The most overwhelming evidence that your god does not exist is the complete lack of evidence that he does exist. Are you going to provide anything to refute that?
    If not, we’ll take that as a concession… thank you very much.

    Who wants to make a bet that Hor once again does not present any evidence for the existence of gods?

    oh yeah, almost forgot. LOL.

  82. on 09 Nov 2011 at 2:46 am 82.Lou (DFW) said …

    80.Horatiio said …

    “Will you be backing up your accusation we have on record, or will you continue to lie and distort?”

    Hor, I already did. You HAVE been in the “Broadway In The Basement” fantasizing about “Buster” dancing with Wiccans for too long. Or are you trying to cover your “Truth” tracks?

  83. on 09 Nov 2011 at 3:00 am 83.s said …

    Argument from ignorance is a fallacy in informal logic especially among antitheist. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). Appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

    Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does.

    1. I see no proof for God
    2. Here is proof from source A
    3. I do not accept this proof
    4. Therefore God does not exist.

  84. on 09 Nov 2011 at 3:01 am 84.Ted said …

    Argument from ignorance is a fallacy in informal logic especially among antitheist. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). Appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

    Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does.

    1. I see no proof for God
    2. Here is proof from source A
    3. I do not accept this proof
    4. Therefore God does not exist.

  85. on 09 Nov 2011 at 4:28 am 85.Anonymous said …

    ted@84 proves this point beyond any doubt: http://goo.gl/wFWUV

  86. on 09 Nov 2011 at 12:37 pm 86.Anonymous said …

    First, that’s not a valid form of the argument. Hence you are demonstrating your ignorance.

    Second, your construction is poisoning the well, again evidence of your dishonesty.

    Third, your deliberately cherry-picked your definition; more demonstration of your desperation.

    The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell’s teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument’s proponent.

    and, of course, you missed this bit:

    Arguments from ignorance can easily find their way into debates over the Existence of God. It is a fallacy to draw conclusions based precisely on ignorance, since this does not satisfactorily address issues of philosophic burden of proof. In other words, agnosticism is an appropriate response to lack of evidence either way.

    Anyway, it’s all easily settled. Theists are making the claim that god(s) exist. All one would need to do is provide proof of these god(s) existence. Considering the super-powers they are supposed to have, it ought to be easy to provide this – if it were true, of course.

    Of course, god is imaginary. That’s why theists have to construct these elaborate excuses and desperately try to divert attention away from their failure to provide evidence.

    God doesn’t exist. Prove otherwise.

  87. on 09 Nov 2011 at 12:48 pm 87.RJ said …

    It’s really so simple it’s almost laughable.

    All any christian has to do here is provide the requested cold, hard evidence that this god of theirs exists that’s continually asked of them. That’s it. Not keep asking for non-believers to prove the opposite. Not keep quoting scripture (which proves squat), or name-calling, or any of the other fancy footwork. You want to make atheists look like the utter fools you say they are and shut them up for all time, (and, hey, even save their wretched souls)? Just provide the cold, hard proof they keep asking for. Why keep arguing in circles when you can easily prove it and make a laughingstock out these heathen instantly?

    Could it be any easier???

  88. on 09 Nov 2011 at 1:28 pm 88.Anonymous said …

    RJ, makes a sterling point.

    Atheists are saying: “So, show me. Prove it to me. Hey, if it’s real I can be convinced”.

    Theists are saying: “I just know that my god exists. I don’t care about the evidence. I don’t need to prove it. I know it in my heart“.

    Atheists are saying “The description of this god is contradictory. This god doesn’t deliver as promised. Show me that this thing exists”.

    Theists are making excuses “God moves in mysterious ways. We can’t understand him. You’d believe if you believed”.

    As RJ says, it’s laughable. All the theists needs to do is provide the proof. It ought to be easy. All we get though is excuses.

  89. on 09 Nov 2011 at 3:15 pm 89.DPK said …

    Exactly. According to Ted’s incorrect and silly assessment of the argument from ignorance fallacy, we should be uncommitted on the reality of leprachauns, garden fairies, and spaghetti monsters.

    The argument from ignorance might be somewhat useful in protecting the argument for a deist concept of god… a creative force that does not interfere in the physical world at all. But most theologies insist on a personal god who intercedes in human affairs continually, answering prayers, steering events and “causing” things. Such a being must by definition leave evidence, and the complete lack of such evidence is in itself strong evidence that such a being does not exist. With that in mind, the Onus Probandi falls entirely on the party making the affirmative claim.

    Funny to see the theist attempt to run through, and then abandon, every logic principal they can think of to try and shore up their untenable position. Ultimately, they will counter that god cannot be constrained by logic or reason, cannot be detected because such would destroy faith, and refuses to be tested. But that of course, is simply the last resort of an incorrect position.

  90. on 09 Nov 2011 at 4:03 pm 90.Lou (DFW) said …

    78.DPK said …

    “The troll Megabyte is back after an absence he thought might be long enough for people to forget about the myriad of unanswered questions and challenges he ran away from.”

    Yes, it’s noticeable that Megabyte, Ted, Truth, Clausewitz, etc. all drift in and out of the blog with the same inane arguments, complimenting Hor, or Hor complimenting them.

  91. on 10 Nov 2011 at 3:06 am 91.Anonymous said …

    The argument from ignorance might be somewhat useful in protecting the argument for a deist concept of god… a creative force that does not interfere in the physical world at all. But most theologies insist on a personal god who intercedes in human affairs continually, answering prayers, steering events and “causing” things. Such a being must by definition leave evidence, and the complete lack of such evidence is in itself strong evidence that such a being does not exist. With that in mind, the Onus Probandi falls entirely on the party making the affirmative claim.

    Exactly. By portraying the god of the bible as an intercessory, the theist sabotages their own argument.

    The arguments put forth by the many faces of Horatio, sound suspiciously like the story of the emperor’s new clothes. In one fairy tale, the clothes were invisible to anyone unfit for their position, stupid, or incompetent. In the other fairy tale, this god is invisible to anyone who doesn’t “understand”.

    Likewise, in one of the fairy tales, no-two people can agree on what the clothes look like. In the other version, no-two people can agree on what this god is like.

    Truly, the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes.

  92. on 10 Nov 2011 at 3:58 pm 92.RJ said …

    Excellent read here exploring the fact that “In the marketplace of ideas, only religion gets a free ride in an armored tank.”

    http://www.alternet.org/belief/144354/hey_religious_believers,_where%27s_your_evidence_?page=entire

    A very well-written, well-thought out piece.

  93. on 10 Nov 2011 at 6:40 pm 93.Ted said …

    Lou,

    You seem to keep dodging your claim. I may have missed a valid response. Let me post your claim:

    #57
    “and that there’s much evidence that their imaginary god doesn’t exist?”

    Evidence for you would be facts we can examine. So share with us some of this much evidence.

  94. on 10 Nov 2011 at 7:24 pm 94.Lou (DFW) said …

    93.Ted said …

    Lou,

    You seem to keep dodging your claim. I may have missed a valid response. Let me post your claim:

    #57
    “and that there’s much evidence that their imaginary god doesn’t exist?”

    “Evidence for you would be facts we can examine. So share with us some of this much evidence.”

    I did reply. But since I did, neither you nor any of the other theists here have provided evidence for their claim that god exists – and that’s been going on here long before I commented on this site.

    So, are you going to provide any? (I thought not.)

  95. on 10 Nov 2011 at 7:25 pm 95.DPK said …

    Abandoning your argument from ignorance claim huh Ted? I don’t blame you.

    I guess you can’t read either. Lou has already provide ample evidence that gods do not exists, and several others have reiterated it.
    Please review 68, 70, 72, and 81 and stop lying about it.

    If you, or anyone else has some evidence that ANY of the claims about the existence of gods or anything supernatural are actually true… the world is waiting. Until then, the complete lack of such evidence is ample evidence to conclude that such magical beings do not exist.
    D

  96. on 10 Nov 2011 at 9:22 pm 96.RJ said …

    …And ’round and ’round we go…

    If the christians keep insisting they have all this abundant proof, why do they keep arguing and playing these word games instead of just putting said proof out there already?

    Let’s say I told you I had a unicorn tattooed on my ass and you didn’t believe me. How would I go about proving it to you? Would I attempt to describe it to you or draw you a picture of it? Would I describe to you in detail the whole tattooing process? Would I give you the complete history of tattooing (or of unicorns, for that matter)? Would I tell you lots and lots of other people have unicorns tattooed on their asses too? Or maybe I would simply just ask you to prove I don’t have one?

    No…

    I’d just show you the damn thing.

  97. on 10 Nov 2011 at 9:28 pm 97.Ted said …

    DPK-Lou

    You guys must be the one and same. Always defending one another. I understand why.

    DPK-Lou, you did not provide any evidence. Your claim is there is no evidence and that is your evidence.

    No, that is not evidence it is a fallacy and does not follow basic argumentation theory. It is a very childish thought process. I can point you to numerous sites to prove this point.

    So DPK-Lou, if you would like to back your claim we can go further. If not you are no more than a liar. I use this term since you seem to like it, although you don’t understand it.

    Well, balls in your court.

  98. on 10 Nov 2011 at 11:44 pm 98.Lou (DFW) said …

    97.Ted said …

    “DPK-Lou, you did not provide any evidence. Your claim is there is no evidence and that is your evidence.”

    I provided more evidence in the same comment. Can’t you read?

    “Well, balls in your court.”

    Dimwit, the ball has NEVER been in our “court.” The ball is, and always has been, in the theists “court” to provide evidence for their imaginary god.

  99. on 11 Nov 2011 at 12:34 am 99.Anonymous said …

    “Ted” it’s painfully obvious that you cannot defend your position. What’s also painfully obvious is that you know this to be the case.

    At this point you are reduced to playing word games, dishonestly at that. You know that you can’t prove that your god exists which is why you won’t try.

    The good news is that you’ve already accepted your lack of proof, else you’d shut us up by providing some. Further, the more you post your silly equivocations the more people will see how bankrupt your arguments are.

    Keep up the good work, Ted. The more you dodge the question, the more obvious it becomes to those on the fence that Christianity is nothing more than a house of cards.

  100. on 11 Nov 2011 at 12:56 am 100.DPK said …

    Ted.. If I told you that there was a 700 pound invisible gorilla wearing a black fedora and tap shoes standing next to you would the fact that you could not see, hear, feel, smell, or taste it be a sufficient “lack of evidence” for you to conclude that I was making an unfounded claim?

    How can you say that a complete lack of evidence when you would expect there to be evidence is then NOT evidence. The only way you could conclude that my invisible gorilla was a figment of my imagination was by the LACK of evidence that he actually existed.

    You said, “you did not provide any evidence. Your claim is there is no evidence and that is your evidence.
    No, that is not evidence it is a fallacy and does not follow basic argumentation theory. It is a very childish thought process.”

    Now who is being childish? Do you accept the existence of my gorilla? You cannot prove he is not there! All you can do is look at the complete and total lack of evidence that he IS there and conclude that it is more than reasonable to assume I’m nuts. Now, re read the article and substitute Jesus, or Allah, or Zeus, or Thor, or Mango the Volcano god… or any other thing you want for which there is absolutely no evidence and explain to us why YOUR claim is any different.

  101. on 11 Nov 2011 at 3:40 am 101.Lou (DFW) said …

    97.Ted said …

    “DPK-Lou

    You guys must be the one and same. Always defending one another. I understand why.”

    Show me where I defended DPK. Unless you do, that makes you a liar.

  102. on 11 Nov 2011 at 2:01 pm 102.DPK said …

    I too, have yet to see anything stated by Lou that either received, or required, a “defense” from me. Unless you consider the idea that if you agree with someone’s statement or idea to be a “defense.”

    Interesting to note that the only people who are willing to defend your positions and poor claims about logic and reasoning are religious nut jobs and whackos who decry our eternal damnation and wish to instill the fear of god’s wrath as a substitute for rationality. The only “defense” I have seen have been quotes from scripture. Is that really who you wish to be associated with? The “if the child won’t obey, threaten him with a good beating” mindset?

  103. on 05 Feb 2012 at 5:48 am 103.PatricaMOSES27 said …

    Thank you for your good information just about this topic! Did you utilize the submit article service for it?

  104. on 20 Sep 2012 at 9:50 pm 104.Dane said …

    You stated that Christians were the ones who would “write things like that.” What standard are you using to identify these bullies as Christians? It is easy, if one is already on an agenda to bash Christianity, to find any horrendous example and attach Christianity to that. I would like for you to prove that these people are in fact Christians like you boldly assert. And I don’t want you to assume that they are Christians by your own or by society’s standards. If you want to be honest with yourself and others, you should use the standard that Christianity itself provides for determining who is or who is not a Christian.

    And if you appeal to that standard, you will find that these people are in fact NOT Christians. And if these people are not Christians, then your whole article, if used as a means to attack or discredit Christianity, is dishonest.

    As for the standard for who is or who is not a Christian that the Bible supplies is concerned, consider:
    1. Jesus said not everyone who calls Him “Lord” is a true Christian (Matthew 7:21-23).
    2. He who claims to know God but does not keep His commandments (e.g., love your enemies) is a liar and is not a Christian (1 John 2:4).
    3. He who hates others is a murderer and has no eternal life in them; he is not a Christian (1 John 3:15).

    Based upon these few points (there are countless others), you will see that these individuals were not Christians at all. If you want to be honest in your scrutiny of Christianity, please appeal to people who are true candidates of that religion. You using godless bullies like these to discredit Christianity is no different than you trying to use a Caucasian to discredit black Africa.

  105. on 20 Sep 2012 at 10:13 pm 105.alex said …

    “What standard are you using to identify these bullies as Christians?”

    Every self proclaimed xtian is An xtian. You believe in Christ? You a xtian. Ain’t no damn xtian standard and you don’t have the final say.

    Tell me, Chosen One, what is your xtian definition?

    Save your biblical shit. This is an atheist blog. Who the fuck is bullying whom, when just about every atheist in here don’t care if you practice your shit privately. You came in here like you’re somebody, huffin and puffin and getting all persecuted and shit.

    “..to discredit Christianity is no different than you trying to use a Caucasian to discredit black Africa.”

    Says who? Trying to defend xtianity is like eating dog shit? How’s that for nonsense? Get the fuck out of here.

    “I would like for you to prove that these people are in fact Christians like you boldly assert.”

    Okay, I give up moron. They are not xtians. Now prove your god. See, your diversion didn’t work. Your god is still bullshit. Next.

  106. on 20 Sep 2012 at 10:29 pm 106.Anonymous said …

    Dane is playing at “No true Scotsman”, it’s a standard ploy that theists use a lot to avoid taking responsibility for things.

    So, Dane, which commandments does one need to keep to be a Christian? The original 10, the 613, those in Matthew etc? Please elucidate.

    Do you keep all of them, or maybe you’re also not a Christian? You don’t work on the Sabbath, is that what you are telling us? And which day do you proclaim as the Sabbath?

    While your in posting mode, please explain which of the 38,000+ sects of Christianity portrays “True Christians?

    By the way, why are you cherry picking verses to make your point? Shouldn’t it be all or nothing? Kinda weak otherwise, isn’t it?

  107. on 20 Sep 2012 at 11:18 pm 107.Lou(DFW) said …

    Are you an xtian?

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=2365&cpage=1

    Scroll down to the second shaded section.

  108. on 21 Sep 2012 at 2:30 am 108.LL said …

    “So, Dane, which commandments does one need to keep to be a Christian?”

    A Christian is not one who keeps commandments. A christian is one who trusts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. All people have broken every commandment according to the teachings of Christ.

    Second, there are ceremonial laws, judicial laws and then there are the moral laws. With the new covenant which we are in with the coming on Christ, we are to keep the moral laws. Jesus fulfilled the blood covenant therefore we are no longer required to follow ceremonial or judicial laws.

  109. on 21 Sep 2012 at 2:32 am 109.LL said …

    Dane,

    You are absolutely correct. No proof these are Christians. They might be Atheists.

  110. on 21 Sep 2012 at 3:10 am 110.Anonymous said …

    Point proven; Christianity is such an absurd proposition that even its adherents can’t agree on a definition.

    Still, Dane, it will be interesting to hear your answers, and please try not let LL derail the conversation.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply