Feed on Posts or Comments 25 October 2014

Christianity &Science Thomas on 08 Nov 2011 01:45 am

How to become a rational human being – simply read the Bible

If you talk to people who have abandoned religion and replaced it with rational, delusion-free thinking, many of them have something in common: they took time to read through the Bible. That is enough to convince most people that the Bible is nonsense. Once they realize that the Bible is nonsense, religion rapidly collapses. This is such a powerful technique that it has become part of an advertising campaign:

Atheism ad

Don’t believe me? This page will get you started in about 2 minutes:

Read the Bible

The amount of nonsense in the Bible boggles the mind. How can anyone believe this book or or believe in the God it purports to describe?

107 Responses to “How to become a rational human being – simply read the Bible”

  1. on 08 Nov 2011 at 7:26 pm 1.Anonymous said …

    What you learn from the Bible:

    “Either god doesn’t exist or he is unimaginably cruel” – House

    Any smart person can see that.

    “If religious people could be reasoned with there would be no religious people” – House

  2. on 10 Nov 2011 at 6:33 pm 2.Ted said …

    “Once they realize that the Bible is nonsense, religion rapidly collapses.”

    Well, lets examine this claim. The OT has been around for 4000 years. The NT has been around for 2000 years. The Bible is the best selling and most read book of all time. Yet, there are more Christians today than ever.

    No other book has more sources, approximately 30,000 manuscripts backing up today’s translations. The Iliad is second with about 600.

    No, the claim does not hold. This claim will do down with Nietzsche’s claim.

  3. on 10 Nov 2011 at 7:21 pm 3.Lou (DFW) said …

    2.Ted said …

    “Once they realize that the Bible is nonsense, religion rapidly collapses.”

    “Well, lets examine this claim.”

    OK, let’s do.

    “The OT has been around for 4000 years. The NT has been around for 2000 years. The Bible is the best selling and most read book of all time. Yet, there are more Christians today than ever.”

    That’s your examination?

    More children than ever believe in Santa Claus. More people than ever believe in Bigfoot, “UFOs,” alien abduction, etc. So what? Doesn’t make any of them true.

    “No other book has more sources, approximately 30,000 manuscripts backing up today’s translations. The Iliad is second with about 600.”

    And, how does that make the bible a book of fact rather than of fiction? Some examination.

    “No, the claim does not hold. This claim will do down with Nietzsche’s claim.”

    The claim does “hold.” Regardless of the number of people who believe it, the xtain religion “rapidly collapses” when examined – really examined, not some half-ass commentary on it by the likes of you.

    1.5 billion – 1.6 billion people believe Islam. Does that make it true?

  4. on 10 Nov 2011 at 8:10 pm 4.DPK said …

    Let’s look at the other books that share the top ten along with the bible:

    2. Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong by Mao Zedong

    3. The Qur’an

    4. Xinhua Zidian

    5. The Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith, Jr.

    6. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone by J. K. Rowling

    7. And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie

    8. The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien

    9. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince by J. K. Rowling

    10. The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown

    Are we to conclude that all of these books are also to be taken as fact because of their popularity?? What a ridiculous claim. Right up there with “Everything happens according to God’s plan.”

  5. on 10 Nov 2011 at 9:16 pm 5.Observer said …

    #2 Ted You are a pathetic tosser. 30k manuscripts backing up today’s translations? There was a saying in the early days of programming, Garbage In, Garbage Out. You can translate garbage, and if done accurately, you still end up with garbage.

    Popularity means something is the acme? I think the New Testament is just like Coca Cola and McDonald’s- it may even be worse.

  6. on 10 Nov 2011 at 9:37 pm 6.Ted said …

    Observer-DPK

    You hate many things don’t you Observer? You are an obviously angry young man. Hate is a sign of great weakness. You should lose it.

    Would it be because I destroyed this claim that:

    “Once they realize that the Bible is nonsense, religion rapidly collapses.”

    Yes, I know, it hurts. The Bible is powerful, it changes lives, it predicted Christ and still is as relevant today as it has been for thousands of years. You will be dead and gone and the Bible will live on. That is the reality you must come to grips with.

    Leave the hate behind. It is unseemly.

  7. on 10 Nov 2011 at 11:13 pm 7.Anonymous said …

    Ted, can you remind us what evidence you used to destroy that claim?

    I see the parts where Lou and DPK left you in the dust by pointing out that by your argument should to believe in Islam and Harry Potter. Perhaps you meant that you destroyed your own claim? That would match the facts.

    This part we agree on: [The Bible is] still is as relevant today as it has been for thousands of years

    Absolutely. The bible is a sterling source of superstitious folk-lore and examples of how to dumb-down and control the populous. It’s obviously not accurate, nor is it true, nor is a good source of moral guidance. It’s irrelevant to how we live our lives today and has been irrelevant for eons.

    By the way, can you also explain how vague story lines, written after the time they supposedly refer to, count as prophecy? Help me out here, who do we worship on account of the following prophecy?

    “The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches … born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies … and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not … and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives … the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies …”

    The characters in the book? The actors on the screen who portrayed them? Maybe J.K. Rowling?

    Oh, don’t forget, we’re still waiting on you to provide evidence for the existence of this alleged god of yours.

  8. on 10 Nov 2011 at 11:28 pm 8.A said …

    A.

    Can YOU tell us why Christianity has not rapidly collapsed?

  9. on 10 Nov 2011 at 11:34 pm 9.Cleo said …

    Here is all the evidence one needs. One man fulfilled over 300 prophecies written by men who live hundreds of years before Jesus was born.

    http://evidence4christianity.blogspot.com/

    There is no dispute. That shuts the door on all denials.

  10. on 10 Nov 2011 at 11:38 pm 10.Lou (DFW) said …

    8.A said …

    “Can YOU tell us why Christianity has not rapidly collapsed?”

    Because people are basically just a stupid now as they were then.

  11. on 10 Nov 2011 at 11:41 pm 11.Lou (DFW) said …

    9.Cleo said …

    “http://evidence4christianity.blogspot.com/

    There is no dispute. That shuts the door on all denials.”

    Let’s start with:

    “1. The Bible is Divinely inspired.”

    That idiotic statement precludes reading any further. There can’t be any legitimacy for the rest of it.

  12. on 11 Nov 2011 at 12:39 am 12.Anonymous said …

    Cleo, when posting links to comedy sites, could you please let the readers know that they shouldn’t take your posts seriously?

    I laughed so hard at that website that I thought that I was going to crack a rib.

  13. on 11 Nov 2011 at 12:47 am 13.DPK said …

    Ted, I honestly don’t “hate” anyone… I do despise ignorance though… glad you could tell. But add these to the long list of things you are wrong about:
    I am not Lou or Observer.
    I am not young … I’m in my 50′s.
    I am not angry or bitter. I have a wonderful life and a loving family and many friends. Just my friends are real, not imaginary.

    Now that you are done making a fool of yourself on so many levels, please give us some evidence as to why believe that gods exist. We have been asking for a very long time.

  14. on 11 Nov 2011 at 1:04 am 14.DPK said …

    I liked that “Millions of Muslims are having dreams of Jesus and converting to Christianity every day. … surprised there are any left to blow shit up then.

    Cleo.. thanks for the laugh.. you make Ted look absolutely sane.
    Please don’t have children.

  15. on 11 Nov 2011 at 1:30 am 15.Observer said …

    #6 Ted- This really is getting old. The same old tired canards…

    1. The bullshit that the OT predicted Jesus
    a. Isaiah says Mary is a maiden, not a virgin.
    b. Mossiach is to be born into the house of David.

    According to the NT and other contemporaneous accounts:
    a. Jesus was a mamzer, hence big deal about the
    virgin birth, a slut hairdresser for a mother?
    b. Mamzer or sired by cosmic jism, can’t be in the
    House of David.

    Next you will trot out some nonsense from an apologist from an esteemed institution like Liberty or Wheaton who will have a new insight that has escaped 20+ centuries of the real OT scholars.

    Oh, and now the precious lecture on hate. I suppose that since you are outclassed on brains and credibility, you need to look for something to try to find superiority. It is your only defense against our letting you continually embarrass yourself.

    Although I am not sure why hate correctly directed is necessarily a bad thing, but I have never been particularly clear on what actually denotes hate beyond a 15year-old girl hating her former best friend. You can be sure though that I find you revolting. Revulsion is distinct from hate to the best of my understanding.

    And pray tell, what arguments have you destroyed on this website? You have yet to defend your idiotic ontology comments. And where is your fellow-traveling dog-eating Suh?

  16. on 11 Nov 2011 at 1:36 am 16.Observer said …

    #9 Cleo No other website has ever captured the astonishing level of intellect and reason possessed by xtians they are to be sure “EXTRA ORDINARY”(sic).

    Glad the website also goes to pains to clarify you folks believe that Jesus, distinct from the Buddha, Zoroaster, Mohammed, et. al. was a fucking ZOMBIE!

  17. on 11 Nov 2011 at 1:37 am 17.Observer said …

    #9 and Cleo, thanks for the good laugh.

  18. on 11 Nov 2011 at 2:03 am 18.Ted said …

    Observer-DPK

    Still angry? You really need to seek some counseling young fella. The fact you don’t know why hate is bad is all the evidence I need Chuckles.

    Do you have any actual evidence for your dopey allegations? I know you might find your word to be sterling but I need more. Your Biblical knowledge is quite lacking?

    Isaiah never uses the word maiden, it is in Hebrew. The word “almah” means virgin young woman of marriageable age. Check out Strongs.

    You have just over 300 more prophecies to deal with.

    Offer something and let go of your anger. It will kill you while you are still young.

  19. on 11 Nov 2011 at 2:41 am 19.Anonymous said …

    Ted, before you run away and come back as another character, please answer the questions in #4, #7, #13, and #15.

    These should be easy for you to answer. What’s keeping you from doing so?

  20. on 11 Nov 2011 at 3:45 am 20.Lou (DFW) said …

    18.Ted said …

    “You have just over 300 more prophecies to deal with.”

    And you have only one, AND ONLY ONE, claim for which you cannot provide evidence – that god exists.

    When you get to that ONE, then I get to the other 299 “prophesies.”

  21. on 11 Nov 2011 at 3:48 am 21.Lou (DFW) said …

    18.Ted said …

    “Still angry?”

    Oddly enough, you’re the one who seems to be angry because you can’t provide any evidence for your imaginary god. You lash out at anyone that you perceive to be attacking your fantasy, when all you have to do is provide evidence for it.

    Ever heard the expression that the best defense is a good offense? So far, you haven’t had any.

  22. on 11 Nov 2011 at 4:00 am 22.sherrie said …

    it says god created everyone with a plan “in mind”..he also gave us the right (ability) to sin. therefore murder was “chosen against gods plan.as an example.

  23. on 11 Nov 2011 at 12:40 pm 23.Anonymous said …

    Ted, aka Horatiio said…

    Still angry? You really need to seek some counseling young fella. The fact you don’t know why hate is bad is all the evidence I need Chuckles.

    Typical example of projection from a delusional Christian. Your anger shows in almost every post.

    Do you have any actual evidence for your dopey allegations? I know you might find your word to be sterling but I need more. Your Biblical knowledge is quite lacking?

    It’s quite obvious that it’s you that has no evidence. You throw around your claims hoping something will stick. All that happens is that the shit sticks to you.

    Offer something and let go of your anger. It will kill you while you are still young.

    Well, you keep making age references so we’ll assume that you are “older”, whatever that means. It must be quite scary to think that you’ve spent an entire lifetime believing in something so foolish. Should you be angry at yourself, your parents, your priest? Who knows, “Ted”. Either way, your anger is a good example of the damage religion does to people’s lives.

    You must be really scared, “Ted”. You’ve been asked countless times to provide proof of your claims. You never do. Running away from the question won’t make it go away though.

    You have no proof of your god because all gods are imaginary. The story of little baby Jesus is nothing more than a fairy tale. The bible is nothing more than fairy tales.

    You know all this to be true. Avoiding the question shows how desperate you are to believe in lies. Sorry, “Ted”, there’s no heaven, no hell, no Jesus and no gods.

  24. on 11 Nov 2011 at 3:52 pm 24.Observer said …

    #18 Ted You are letting your moron flag fly, and doing precisely what I said you would do: You are trotting out xtian-prop from none other than Thomas Nelson publishing ( you suckers are a good business, it was sold a couple years ago to Kohlberg of KKR fame, and nor Rupert Murdoch owns it ). Try looking at a reference written by folks who are “Hebrews” (idiot). Almah does not connote virgin.

    Now what about your bastard-Jew-zombie combo you worship? How precisely does he fit into the House of David?

    Also, thanks, but I was pretty clear already that the OT was not written in English. Otherwise, why would I be pointing out the incorrect translation in the xtian versions? (see first line of this entry re: flag)

    Finally, dullard that you seem to be, the notion that spirited debate is equivalent to “hate” and “anger” is beyond me. I think my earlier observation that at a loss for any sort of intellectual or conceptual advantage, you are feebly attempting to create and capture a bogus high-ground of “non anger”. Yet again you look foolish.

  25. on 11 Nov 2011 at 8:11 pm 25.Curmudgeon said …

    Ted,

    Don’t expect answers. They cannot even begin to deal with the overwhelming evidence that the Scriptures are powerful and divine. They deny God exists so you are dealing with delusional people here.

    Lou,

    I would be glad to give you proof for God. Tell me before I begin, what is no allowed?

  26. on 11 Nov 2011 at 9:26 pm 26.Observer said …

    25 Cur- Please prove there is a “God”, or any god for that matter. The only thing that is allowed is reason and logical and consistent arguments. This will obviate the use of all the rancid “reasoning” that xtians use. Specifically, but not exclusively, this rules out all circular reasoning, as in “the Bible is the divine word of GAWD and it sez…”, all assertions need to be verifiable and testable which will rule out nonsense like “Sometimes GAWD sez yes, no, or wait” since the wait is always employed as a cover for a negative result which would invalidate faeries, God, etc. Further, all “God of the Gaps” arguments invalid as they only elevate human ignorance to the level of the “divine”.

    Of course Cur, we all know you will provide nothing other than pure unadulterated stupidity, but give it a shot.

    Glad you took up Ted’s banner. He is a wanker. Trots out a couple big-boy words, gets called on his ignorance and BS, tries to deflect the arguments away from having to back-up what he says, then walks away. Typical week kneed nelly theist.

  27. on 11 Nov 2011 at 10:01 pm 27.DPK said …

    Haha… Observer… haven’t heard the term “wanker” since my friend Nigel moved back to the UK. Thanks for the memory.

    I will wait with anticipation for Curmudgeon’s proof. Of course, if he makes an attempt it will be some metaphysical bullshit doubletalk.
    I actually thought that since Curmudgeon hasn’t been around since Andy Rooney passed, they might have been one and the same. But then I remembered Andy was way too smart to be Curm… and Andy was atheist too, so no such luck.

    Thanks for taking Ted down again, although it mystifies me as to how they thing arguing about the translation of a Hebrew word from an ancient text makes something so significant that they hinge their whole belief system on it. Tragic, no?

  28. on 11 Nov 2011 at 10:02 pm 28.MrQ said …

    Cur states::

    I would be glad to give you proof for God. Tell me before I begin, what is no allowed?

    Wow, I am making some pocorn for this!!! Finally evidence will be presented for “proof of God”. Maybe we’ll generate a new branch of human inquiry during our search for The Theory of God. Any idea of what we’ll call it? Perhaps Godology?

    Ok, Cur start. Oh yeah, you’re not allowed to use scripture to back up your claim. Just stick to the facts, if you would. See Observer’s post for more guidance.

  29. on 11 Nov 2011 at 10:35 pm 29.Curmudgeon said …

    Just Scripture, Are you sure Mr Q? I feel certain you have other things up your sleeve.

    Come on Observer, stop with the generalities. Your ideas of reason and logic have never been, well, reasonable and logical. Specifics other than “verifiable” and “testable”. Your standard cannot be higher than what you use for current beliefs.

    Let me knock you down another notch. ALL reasoning is circular. The only question is how big is the circle.

    Observer it was a good post. Your middle school boy got a laugh out of wanker. And I in turn got a laugh from DPK. Adults don’t use or find wanker to be very funny since there adolescent years.

    DPK could you bring out Lou? I want to be sure we get his list of don’ts for the game.

    I doubt I’ll get answers. Ted never got any and Observer still has anger issues. Don’t beat the dog when you get home Observer.

  30. on 11 Nov 2011 at 10:52 pm 30.MrQ said …

    Confused, Cur asks:

    Just Scripture, Are you sure Mr Q? I feel certain you have other things up your sleeve.

    Good popcorn….Munch, munch, crunch….cough. WTF? No, CUR. NO scripture. BTW, I have a short sleeved shirt on at the moment.

    Stick to facts and start presenting the FACTS and EVIDENCE, you Godologist, you. I’ll make some more popcorn.

  31. on 11 Nov 2011 at 11:12 pm 31.DPK said …

    “Adults don’t use or find wanker to be very funny since there adolescent years.”

    Adults usually also know the difference between there and their too. Sorry… cheap shot and I admit it… it’s the adolescent in me! Or should I blame Satan? haha. Since Horatiio is absent at the moment, I’ll through in a LOL for his sake.

    Speak for yourself as to what adults find funny. I enjoyed it immensely especially since it was used to describe the kind of mental masturbation that describes Ted’s effort at logical reasoning. You don’t appreciate the metaphor, I take it? No surprise there.

    Now where is this proof you promised?

  32. on 11 Nov 2011 at 11:14 pm 32.DPK said …

    Damn.. I wish this site had an “edit” function. I used “through” instead of throw and now I am going to pay for it.

    Look out everyone… here comes another diversionary tactic…..

  33. on 11 Nov 2011 at 11:18 pm 33.Horatiio said …

    LOL!!

    Ted you didn’t really expect answers from Nose Buster did you? LOL!!

    Cur,

    I tell you what I will do. I will be the official non-partial judge on the evidence. I feel certain everyone will be fine with that.

    Cur if you are looking for the presuppositions atheist invoke, they have been posted before. I will acknowledge in advance, we have laughed at them because their beliefs don’t line up with their own presuppositions. They are not a very consistent.

  34. on 11 Nov 2011 at 11:21 pm 34.Horatiio said …

    DPK!!!

    Really? Slamming another for their grammar?

    LOL!!!! Oh my gosh! That is just too easy!

    Cur, maybe he is a grade school boy?

  35. on 11 Nov 2011 at 11:32 pm 35.DPK said …

    Told ya……. hey, I said it was a cheap shot.
    hahaha……..
    what’s that to do with god, btw??

  36. on 12 Nov 2011 at 12:02 am 36.Observer said …

    #27 DPK Glad to oblige. I see Cur begged off…

    #29 Cur You pathetic tosser…
    “Come on Observer, stop with the generalities. Your ideas of reason and logic have never been, well, reasonable and logical. Specifics other than “verifiable” and “testable”. Your standard cannot be higher than what you use for current beliefs. ”

    and

    “Let me knock you down another notch. ALL reasoning is circular. The only question is how big is the circle.”

    I am glad you specify that verifiable and testable do not fit into your world view of reason and logic. That is particularly telling.

    The second quote that all reasoning is circular, what does that mean to you? Is that actually how you see the world? If so, it is astonishing, and very interesting.

  37. on 12 Nov 2011 at 1:50 am 37.Lou (DFW) said …

    29.Curmudgeon said …

    “Let me knock you down another notch. ALL reasoning is circular. The only question is how big is the circle.”

    It’s obvious that Crum has been searching the web for another angle to defend his god fantasy.

  38. on 12 Nov 2011 at 1:52 am 38.Lou (DFW) said …

    33.Horatiio said …

    “I tell you what I will do. I will be the official non-partial judge on the evidence. I feel certain everyone will be fine with that.”

    Nobody but other fruitcakes such as yourself who imagine “Buster” dancing with Wiccans in your “Broadway In The Basement” fantasy “will be fine with that.”

  39. on 12 Nov 2011 at 3:52 am 39.Curmudgeon said …

    “I am glad you specify that verifiable and testable do not fit into your world view of reason and logic.”

    O,
    They fit great into my worldview where they belong. However, you, an atheist, do not live by verifiable, testable and most importantly falsifiable. Even Hor acknowledges this to be true. You are a phony.

    So Lou, DPK and Observer will you be laying out specifics for what can and cannot be used to prove God and we will begin. Don’t be afraid. You have asked enough, you should be ready for ground rules.

    We have The Bible so far.

    Hor,

    I have no problem with you reviewing the evidence. But, I am beginning to think it will not be necessary.

    DPK,

    :) Those who live by the sword die by it. I hope my grammar was OK.

  40. on 12 Nov 2011 at 4:19 am 40.DPK said …

    Before we can establish what would constitute acceptable evidence, you need to define for us specifically who and what “god” is. What characteristics define your god? Is he omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect? Is he eternal? Does he answer prayers and intercede in events in the physical world, or did he just create the universe and leave? Does he reward goodness and punish sin? Is he entirely good? Did he alone create everything that exists?

    Give us the definition of what you consider your god to BE, and we will tell you from that, what evidence would be reasonable to expect to demonstrate that his existence is actually likely.

  41. on 12 Nov 2011 at 4:22 am 41.DPK said …

    :) Those who live by the sword die by it.

    True, but nobody gets out alive anyway. I was just making a joke and I said right off it was a cheap shot….. don’t get your panties in a wad……

    D

  42. on 12 Nov 2011 at 4:36 am 42.Observer said …

    Cur- You really are not a very clear thinker are you? Anyway,

    “O,
    They fit great into my worldview where they belong. However, you, an atheist, do not live by verifiable, testable and most importantly falsifiable. Even Hor acknowledges this to be true. You are a phony.”

    I am glad you mustered a spirited response. Again, your worldview puzzles me. On one hand, you show a disdain for verifiable and testable, this is the gold standard from a materialistic point of view, by admitting the possibility it does not have relevance when thinking about whether or not “God” exists. Then you recast verifiable and testable as some sort of life creed and something I do not “live by” and therefore, I am a “phony” (with the soul-crushing acknowledgement from Hor that you are correct). But seriously, what is going on between your ears that you come up with this stuff? This is well beyond the goofiness and buffoonery of Hor and the stupidity of Ted. It is simply bizarre. It is as if there is a scramble function in your thought process.

  43. on 12 Nov 2011 at 4:39 am 43.Observer said …

    #41 I think Cur probably twists his knickers. He likely has a collection of size 18s.

  44. on 12 Nov 2011 at 4:12 pm 44.DPK said …

    Seems that Cur and his brethren, or aliases, are reluctant to pin any specific characteristics on their god that would lead to conclusions about what kinds of evidence would then be expected.

    Seems to their advantage to keep everything murky and nebulous in order to avoid being placed into a corner from which this is little room to wiggle out.

    No surprise there, huh?

  45. on 12 Nov 2011 at 4:23 pm 45.Curmudgeon said …

    “On one hand, you show a disdain for verifiable and testable, this is the gold standard from a materialistic point of view”

    disdain? really? Just where you derive this insightful buffoonery? You make me laugh so O. Try following since you are such a strict materialist.

    Lets try again. My time is valuable and I will not offer this much longer. Let me put it in grade school format so Lou-Observer_DPK can understand.

    What stuff cannot be used to prove a Creator. It is such a simple question a nine year old can understand. Don’t fear. DPK wants to jump into theology of Gods. No DPK NO!

  46. on 12 Nov 2011 at 4:25 pm 46.Curmudgeon said …

    “I was just making a joke”

    No, you made a error and you got busted! Embarassed? Keep your wanker in your pants and it won’t get stepped on. Now that is funny.

  47. on 12 Nov 2011 at 4:58 pm 47.DPK said …

    “Keep your wanker in your pants and it won’t get stepped on.”

    I thought adults didn’t find amusement in the word wanker? You should also familiarize your self with the term…. because you’re using it wrong. A wanker is one who masturbates, not a penis. One does not “keep his wanker in his pants.” You should really stop talking about things you don’t know anything about. Makes you look even sillier, if that’s possible…….

    Maybe you should pray to Jesus to give you a sense of humor.

    Moving on……..

    “DPK wants to jump into theology of Gods. No DPK NO!”

    I want no such thing. I don’t care to discuss theology any more than I’d care to have an in depth discussion about alchemy or astrology.

    I think though you should agree that the evidence one would expect to find for a deist god would be of necessity, a different sort from what one would expect from an intercessory god, like the god of the bible, and different from what you would expect from say a Roman or Greek god. No?

    Are you limiting your definition to simply a creationist god? How can we describe the evidence you want defined without a definition of what the evidence should support. Stop playing your silly word games… it won’t work.

  48. on 12 Nov 2011 at 7:12 pm 48.Anonymous said …

    Curmudgeon@25

    I would be glad to give you proof for God

    Now@48 and still waiting.

  49. on 12 Nov 2011 at 7:30 pm 49.Observer said …

    #45 Cur- Quit dottering about and refer to #26 above which lays out the parameters for what you need to show. You might also address whether it is the “Hand of God” that is responsible for every snowflake- each is unique! Many are gorgeous and they always have that wonderful hexagonal symmetry! Oh yeah, the mean angle between the two hydrogens in water is 120 degrees. But it must be “GAWD” anyway.

  50. on 12 Nov 2011 at 10:06 pm 50.Horatiio said …

    “You should also familiarize your self with the term…. because you’re using it wrong. A wanker is one who masturbates, not a penis.”

    LOL!! DPK do you enjoy being the blog jester. Listen, I am proud you knew this information, I did not. We found a subject of which you excel.

    CUR,

    That was funny. DPK did indeed get his wanker whacked off. He deserved it though. They will not lay out their presuppositions because they would like to move the goal posts if necessary.

    I can prove God is real Only need one question answered. Nose buster let try you. Do you believe the multi-verse theory is genuine science?

  51. on 13 Nov 2011 at 7:22 am 51.Severin said …

    Gentlemen theists,

    I would suggest all of you to read “The Fabric of Cosmos” by Brian Greene.

    No, there is no proofs for existence or non-existence of god there, but it seems that IF some god ever created universe, it (universe) was pretty small and pretty light, and evolved spontaniously for next 14 billion years following well known and well understandable laws of physics.

    I mean, IF there was a god, ever, and IF he created anything, it was ALL he ever did. He never interfered his deed afterwords!

    I doubt it, of course! If a “god” ever existed, it was in form of a “gravel” of matter/energy without “personality”, “will”…just matter/energy and natural laws.

    We don’t exactly know (yet) what was on the very “beginning” (before some 10^-40 seconds “after beginning”) of the universe we know, but no trace of gods there! ONLY matter/energy.

  52. on 13 Nov 2011 at 1:04 pm 52.Lou (DFW) said …

    50.Horatiio said …

    “LOL!! DPK do you enjoy being the blog jester. Listen, I am proud you knew this information, I did not. We found a subject of which you excel.”

    Confirmed by the blog expert who shares with us his masturbatory fantasy of watching “Buster” dancing with Wiccans in his “Broadway In The Basement.”

    “I can prove God is real Only need one question answered. Nose buster let try you. Do you believe the multi-verse theory is genuine science?”

    (Were you drinking when you typed that?)

    Hor ALWAYS has some excuse for NEVER, EVER providing evidence of god, much less proving god. How long has he been posting his lies on this blog? And NOW he can PROVE god exists? Really? This would earth-shattering news, yet in a drunken stupor he’s going to PROVE it on this blog?! Oh, and only if “Buster” will answer HIS QUESTION FIRST.

  53. on 13 Nov 2011 at 1:06 pm 53.Anonymous said …

    26 posts ago, Curmudgeon promised to provide proof for his god. Doesn’t look like it’s coming anytime soon.

  54. on 13 Nov 2011 at 3:45 pm 54.DPK said …

    Curmudgeon apparently is going to refuse to define his god or god. I don’t know why this should be a problem. If one believes in something, you must have an idea of what it is you have unquestionable faith in!
    Since the knowledge and evidence you claim to posses would not only be an earth shattering revelation that would change the course of human history, not to mention save the immortal souls of many of us here and well as millions around the world, why don’t you be a good christian and just go ahead and share what you’ve got. If it is indeed proof, as you claim, I’m sure it will be elegant and self evident and irrefutable.
    What’s the problem Crum? You opened your mouth, now you seem reluctant to taste your own shoe leather. How bad can it be? Seriously, no one here could possibly think any less of you.

    D

  55. on 13 Nov 2011 at 3:51 pm 55.DPK said …

    “I can prove God is real Only need one question answered. Nose buster let try you. Do you believe the multi-verse theory is genuine science?”

    I’m not nose buster, but I’ll answer that ridiculous question, if you’d like.
    I don’t know. I’m not familiar enough with “M” theory, other variants of string theory, or advanced theoretical physics to make that judgement. Unlike you, I do not pretend to know things I do not know. Now, what has that got to do with the existence of gods, magic, non-physical spirit beings, unicorns, witches, vampires, leprechauns, or spaghetti monsters?

    Since you won’t answer, I’ll answer for you.

    Absolutely nothing.

  56. on 13 Nov 2011 at 5:31 pm 56.Observer said …

    #50 Hor- Do I think the multiverse theory is real science? Well, first I don’t know anything about string theory much beyond what is on NOVA or in the NYTimes, therefore, I cannot speak to it on its merits. I do know that extremely bright folks like Witten have developed it to explain what is seen in the world. It is now being tested in part at the LHC. The multiverse hypothesis is part of it, but I do not know the details beyond, I believe, it being the result of a type inhomogeneity in the intial expansion of the “Universe” proper. So as far as science goes, it is the correct path- create theories that explain observation, hypothesize what will be found through experimentation and further observation (prediction). The theory holds until it doesn’t. That is science.

  57. on 13 Nov 2011 at 6:40 pm 57.Horatiio said …

    Great Nose Buster although these multiverse theories all share the same fundamental problem, that is they can be neither proven or falsified, this is indeed science to you? Science fiction, imagination unconstrained by evidence is science? I want to be sure your are understood.

    DPK

    Sorry you have no idea about multiverse. I suggest “Hidden Reality” by Brian Green. It covers most of them well.

  58. on 13 Nov 2011 at 6:53 pm 58.DPK said …

    Explain to us how you “know” that they can be neither proven or falsified?
    And, what the hell does any of that have to do with gods, eternal life, judgement for sins, raising the dead, or answering prayers? Or even better, what has it got to do with the topic of this thread… the bible as the inerrant word of some god?
    Are you a theoretical physicist? Where, please tell us, did you do your doctoral work Hor?
    Why don’t you stop pretending to know things you do not know? And why, no matter what the topic, does your position always retreat to “we don’t know exactly how the universe began? Is that ALL you have? Do you concede every other point of evidence against the existence of gods?

  59. on 13 Nov 2011 at 6:59 pm 59.Lou (DFW) said …

    57.Horatiio said …

    “Sorry you have no idea about multiverse. I suggest “Hidden Reality” by Brian Green. It covers most of them well.”

    Hor, why do you lie about comments when any reader can see that you lie? DPK didn’t write that he has “no idea about multiverse.”

    And Hor-fraud, you didn’t post your proof for god. It doesn’t matter if by your judgement Observer is “understood.” Again, you lied. Are you now saying that god “can be neither proven or falsified?” Or are still consumed with your fantasy of “Buster” dancing with Wiccans in your “Broadway In The Basement” to compose your “proof?”

    Your “multiverse” schtick is yet another diversion to hide that fact that you have no evidence for god.

  60. on 13 Nov 2011 at 7:06 pm 60.DPK said …

    Curious that Hor should recommend Brian Greene:

    “”Every piece of data that we have indicates that the universe operates according to unchanging, immutable laws that don’t allow for the whimsy or divine choice to all of a sudden change things in a manner that those laws wouldn’t have allowed to happen on their own.” Brian Greene

    Is that also unprovable and un-falsifiable, Hor?

  61. on 13 Nov 2011 at 7:36 pm 61.A said …

    “Why don’t you stop pretending to know things you do not know?”

    Could u do the same?

  62. on 13 Nov 2011 at 7:48 pm 62.DPK said …

    What is it exactly that I have claimed to “know” that I do not, Mr. A?

  63. on 13 Nov 2011 at 8:39 pm 63.Anonymous said …

    Horatio, your equivocation regarding falsifiable theories and whether anyone, does or does not, subscribe to a particular hypotheses, does nothing to advance your cause. It’s also absurd to compare the ramblings of a bunch of goat herders who couldn’t even graduate today’s kindergarten with a mathematical construct that’s way above your pay scale.

    It seems all you do is throw stones.

    Why don’t you present your proof? You say you have proof, yet you retreat to word games and finger pointing. Let’s see what you’ve got. If it’s valid, it’ll stand on its on. Let’s see it.

  64. on 13 Nov 2011 at 8:41 pm 64.Curmudgeon said …

    A I must agree with DPK-Lou. They really don’t take a position on anything. I can prove it with this.

    Still no poster would like to lay out any specific presuppositions in order to discuss the existence of God. I can only assume you would like to add these mid-stream if caught in a bind. I think this clearly proves the anti-theist on this blog are not interested in true discussions. They are afraid of being caught in an intellectually hypocritical scenario.

    Reminds of the little kid in the neighborhood who likes to play games but likes to make up rules as he goes along.

    Nevertheless, Horatio has pretty much checkmated Observer on the multi-verses.

  65. on 13 Nov 2011 at 8:50 pm 65.Anonymous said …

    So, about 40 posts later on, Curmudgeon retreats from his offer of proof. Is anyone surprised?

    Had his proof been sound, he’d have not needed to waste time with trying to set up his goal posts on shifting sand.

    As ever, it’s a case of “I could tell you but…”.

    Whatever his excuse is, it’s no matter. Curmudgeon failed to prove his case. He said he’d provide proof and he didn’t even try. That’s a definitive fail in anyone’s book.

  66. on 13 Nov 2011 at 9:01 pm 66.DPK said …

    We have also asked him repeatedly to define his god or gods and he has refused. Does anyone else find this comical? You profess a belief in something, offer to provide proof that it is true, then refuse to say what exactly it is, while at the same time demand to know what evidence one would find acceptable as sufficient evidence.
    What a crock of utter and complete bullshit. Crum… you are busted! Amazing that the only one accepting your convoluted and idiotic line of reasoning is Horiatiio, the village idiot and pathological liar who seems to peg the existence of alternate universes on the existence of gods… or visa versa, not really sure. What the hell is that about? And, how do you perceive that Hor has “checkmated” Observer on string theory and multiverses? You ARE an idiot!

    Now, are you going to produce your evidence for god, or are you going to try and take things off on another ridiculous tangent… like evolution or the “theory” of gravity or something else unrelated to the existence of your imaginary gods?

  67. on 14 Nov 2011 at 2:02 am 67.Observer said …

    #57 Hor- You seem truly dense. If you read Greene’s book, then you do not know more about multiverses than I do, or anyone else who is a regular viewer of PBS. Try rereading #56 and comprehend what is written. Then try boning up on what science is.

    Who would have thought in the day of the soon-to-be-wish-fulling Zombie that the rainbow is composed of electromagnetic radiation? of different frequencies? and that they are particles too? You are too dense for words. Had someone theorized such a thing, folks like you would have had them stoned to death as heretics or some other hare-brained offense. Regardless, there are often considerable amounts of time between theory hypothesis and validation. So what? How does that in any way invalidate String Theory?

  68. on 14 Nov 2011 at 2:03 am 68.Observer said …

    Hor and Cur- Where are your proofs of God? Do you have any idea what a proof is yet?

  69. on 14 Nov 2011 at 2:05 am 69.Anonymous said …

    Yes, it’s comical. How hard would it be to simply type the proof in the web form and hit submit?

    It’s also staggeringly hypocritical. Imagine the howling from the theists if their every post was met with the response “define exactly what you’ll agree is acceptable, then we’ll talk”.

    As for Horatiio. I’m not sure, but I think he’s trying to argue that the totality of the three words “Gawd did it” sufficiently describes the minutia of all that we already know and wish to know about the structure of the universe so that is may qualify for equal consideration as a Theory of Everything. How Horatiio’s theory explains and predicts relativistic effects whilst being equally applicable at the Planck scale isn’t exactly clear, but I’m not a theist.

  70. on 14 Nov 2011 at 2:30 am 70.Horatiio said …

    “Hor and Cur- Where are your proofs of God? Do you have any idea what a proof is yet?”

    LOL!! Oh yeah I have plenty for me and the majority of humanity. However you guys don’t want proof, you like to argue. Now you will consider multi-verses to be valid science, but not God. Me, the open minded type believes multi-verses could be true even with Zero proof. Buster thinks they are valid with even with zero proof. God? No he doesn’t. He is hypocritical.

    Follow the evidence where it leads. Cur asked for presupps, you refuse because all of you are cowards! You are afraid of a set up. I don’t blame you. LOL!!

    Bye Bye my friends.

  71. on 14 Nov 2011 at 2:33 am 71.Observer said …

    #69 Anonymous- While there is some sport in all this blog stuff, and there is the hope that someone reading it will get a bit of enlightenment, or the impulse to do some research leading to credible sources and more knowledge, when I see the likes of Hor, Cur, et al., assuming they are not artificial illustrative constructs, it makes one wonder whether the majority of faith-worldview oriented folk are capable of improving their lot. (apologies for the Germanic length sentence)

    I know people who have gone to good schools never really received a decent education beyond how to read a balance sheet or basic option pricing, or are in law, etc. engineers are often of the same ilk- they receive vocational training in school. They don’t really learn to think critically. These same folks sometimes will astonish me with professions of faith. It always floors me.

    If you have not watched it, there is a great interview with Steven Weinberg on Dawkins website under the RDF productions tab. Great overview of modern physics. SW also makes the point that most physicists do not even think about whether there is a “God” or not. Even better, he metions an orthodox Jew he knows who is essentially an atheist, but likes living by the old law.

  72. on 14 Nov 2011 at 2:36 am 72.Observer said …

    #70 Hor The multiverse is an attempt to explain something in the context of a theory that makes predictions and allow measurement. God only makes superficial explanations, and predicts absolutely nothing. That is the difference. God is a balm for ignorance, science is the attempt to abolish ignorance.

  73. on 14 Nov 2011 at 3:32 am 73.Lou (DFW) said …

    70.Horatiio said …

    “Hor and Cur- Where are your proofs of God? Do you have any idea what a proof is yet?”

    “LOL!! Oh yeah I have plenty for me and the majority of humanity.”

    Enough said.

  74. on 14 Nov 2011 at 3:40 am 74.Observer said …

    #73 There is nothing better to be expected from the like of that guy. He makes teats on a boar look essential.

  75. on 14 Nov 2011 at 3:43 am 75.Lou (DFW) said …

    70.Horatiio said …

    “Follow the evidence where it leads. Cur asked for presupps, you refuse because all of you are cowards! You are afraid of a set up. I don’t blame you. LOL!!”

    The evidence you present leads us to a one and only conclusion – that you suffer from delusions of grandeur.

    Now Hor, when faced with his claim that he has proof of god, now backs out claiming that everyone else is a coward when it is he who cannot back-up his outlandish claim. Hor, the pathological liar, the fraud, claims that EVERYONE ELSE is a coward. No wonder he always retreats to his “Broadway In The Basement” when he can’t back-up his lies.

    “Bye Bye my friends.”

    Bye-bye indeed. If only you weren’t lying this time. But, I have no doubt that you will hide-out again, only to return after a few strong drinks, with more lies and drunken ramblings.

  76. on 14 Nov 2011 at 4:18 am 76.40 year Atheist said …

    Why should there be any multiverses? Is there evidence for them? Can the theory be falsified? Is the theory logically necessary? Where did this story originate, and why?

    Multiverses are an attempt to get around the need for extra-universal intervention in producing a life-friendly universal environment, including fine-tuning the constants that make the universe what it is. The idea that an intelligence greater than Dawkins and Hawking and all the other skeptics combined and raised to the nth power… exists and even meddles, is anathema to those skeptics. So they invented a story out of whole cloth: multiverse theory, with, oh let’s say, an infinite number of universes, where ours just happens to be the one out of the infinity that is capable of life. There, that kills off the need for any intelligence greater than the sum of the skeptics’.

    Skeptics are materialists. The mind is material. If all material is removed from the universe, nothing is left. Oh, maybe the Higgs Field, or whatever; the point is that man is purely material, and this is necessary in the light of the absolute truth value of the Atheist position. (The conclusion proves the premise).

    Now Atheism is not provable, nor is it falsifiable, empirically, because it is not a material object. So evidentiarily, Atheism is not a sustainable theory, especially by materialistic evidence. But it is nonetheless an article of absolute faith that Atheism is the only truth. This trickles down into the necessity of multiverses, not empirically necessary, not logically necessary, but necessary to the Atheist faith. Again the conclusion proves the premise.

    But the materialists blindly assume that their multiverses are parallel material universes. Understanding that all infinity stories are flawed from the get-go, let’s assume that there really are an infinite number of universes. And we will not let it go at that, we will pursue it to its logical conclusion.

    First off, multiverse theory projects an infinity of material universes, existing in the same three dimensions plus time, that our universe exists. Is it necessary to stop there? Absolutely not! There must also be universes that exist in dimensions 1 thru 3, without time; dimensions 2 through 4, with and without time; dimensions 2 through 5, with and without time; dimensions 17 through 92, dimensions 42 through 964, sans 457 through 598, with and without time. You get the picture. An infinity of dimensions is just as predictable as an infinity of universes.

    So, given a separate universe of say, conservatively, dimensions 4 through 26 without time, because it is not material in our 3-D sense, there is no reason to predict that it could not coincide and overlay our universe of paltry dimensions 1 through 3 plus time.

    Moreover, there is no reason to predict that this superimposed universe, (4 through 26, no time) could not sustain life. And there is no reason to predict that the life contained in such a universe would not be far different from any concept we could possibly entertain of living entities.

    And even more moreover, this projected life would of necessity be non-material…!

  77. on 14 Nov 2011 at 5:29 am 77.DPK said …

    “Why should there be any multiverses? Is there evidence for them? Can the theory be falsified?”

    “Why” is a meaningless question. There is no “why”. There is only is, or is not. Why are there atoms, stars, galaxies? We can only attempt to answer the how.

    You seem to imply that the multiverse hypothesis was simply an attempt to explain away the fine tuning argument for the existence of a creator god. This is not true. The multiverse hypothesis is not a theory, but a prediction of other theories… quantum mechanics, inflation, and string theory. If these theories remain well supported, then so does the idea of parallel universes. If these theories fail, then so will the concept of multiverses.

    Not an expert on any of it, but what I have read is that the jury is still out as to whether the idea is in fact falsifiable or not. Science, unlike religion, is allowed to say “we don’t know yet.”

  78. on 14 Nov 2011 at 6:19 am 78.Severin said …

    25 Curmudgeon
    „I would be glad to give you proof for God.“

    (25 – 63 Curmudgeon doesn’t say anything, and all the others are challenging, asking, begging… him to give what he promissed).
    Then:

    64 Curmudgeon
    „I think this clearly proves the anti-theist on this blog are not interested in true discussions.“

    No, Cur, we are interested. We can not wait your proofs. Only it seems you don’t have any.

    You are a liar.

  79. on 14 Nov 2011 at 6:30 am 79.Severin said …

    70 Horatio
    “LOL!! Oh yeah I have plenty for me and the majority of humanity.”

    Then you share yours with us, or stop fucking the rest of humanity with your hallucinations?

    BTW, Christians are NOT the majority of humanity, and Muslims, for example, would NOT agree with you.

  80. on 14 Nov 2011 at 1:02 pm 80.Anonymous said …

    Isn’t it typical of the delusional believers that they promise but never come through.

    They make elaborate excuses for why their god can’t deliver and they make elaborate excuses for why they can’t deliver their “proofs”. The circle is complete.

    However, as absent as they are with their proofs, as soon as there’s a chance for them to throw stones, out they come in their masses to deliver their frenzied attacks upon anything science.

    It doesn’t matter that they don’t understand the science. It doesn’t matter that whatever they attack is built upon actual research and already provides way more detail than their childish “god did it” mantra. It doesn’t matter that their attacks are pointless and irrelevant.

    All that matters is that they can run around like headless chickens cackling some nonsense that makes them feel as if their superstitions have any relevance in the modern world.

    It’s truly pathetic to see the extent the theists here go to try to convince themselves that their ramblings make sense, and it’s themselves that they are trying to convince. Horatiio and his aliases spew nonsense and hate. Curmudgeon nothing but excuses and projection. The 40 year idiot, well he’s naught but fallacy and proof that the Sokal Hoax continues to reel in suckers desperate for validation of their ideological preconceptions.

    So, thanks Christians. You are making our job easier and demonstrating why it is that religion needs to go. Keep up the good work, your excuses go a long way to proving to the believers that all gods are imaginary.

  81. on 14 Nov 2011 at 3:50 pm 81.A said …

    It seems to be very simple Curmudgeon asked the bloggers to present some guidelines for what they would accept as God. They refused. Why? All the talk of wanting proof was just a farce?

    If multiverses are science then the God hypothesis is science. There are no two ways about it.

  82. on 14 Nov 2011 at 4:00 pm 82.DPK said …

    “It seems to be very simple Curmudgeon asked the bloggers to present some guidelines for what they would accept as God. They refused. Why?”

    This is a lie, flat out, complete falsehood. Observer provided a specific answer as to what he would find acceptable. Myself, I asked for a definition of what Curmudgeon considered “god” to be.

    HE refused to answer… not me? How can one establish what evidence would support a proposition of you don’t define what the proposition is? The evidence one would expect to see from a deist concept of god would be quite different from what one would expect from the biblical god, and would be different from the Islamic god.

    What evidence would YOU accept for the existence of fairies?

  83. on 14 Nov 2011 at 4:01 pm 83.Observer said …

    #81 A Well, I specified at the outset of Cur’s offer what would be acceptable ground rules and it basically was that there would be no circular arguments, and there needed to be some way to verify the claims before they would be accepted as true. Pretty simple. Cur and others have not even put up a weave and dodge, they just avoid verifying their claims since they know they are BS.

  84. on 14 Nov 2011 at 4:02 pm 84.DPK said …

    “If multiverses are science then the God hypothesis is science. There are no two ways about it.”

    Really? What generally accepted and well supported current scientific theory supports the conclusion that gods must exist?

    Bullshit.

  85. on 14 Nov 2011 at 4:41 pm 85.Lou (DFW) said …

    81.A said …

    “It seems to be very simple Curmudgeon asked the bloggers to present some guidelines for what they would accept as God. They refused. Why? All the talk of wanting proof was just a farce?”

    Hor, being “A” is a farce. It’s very simple to tell when you post under multiple personas.

  86. on 14 Nov 2011 at 4:42 pm 86.Anonymous said …

    If multiverses are science then the God hypothesis is science

    That sounds suspiciously like someone just repeating something they heard but don’t understand.

    A, could you please give us a rundown on the different multiverse hypotheses and, specifically, would you explain – with examples – which parts you object to? At what point do you feel this work veers from acceptable to unacceptable? You’re criticizing it, so you’ve read and understood it, right?

    What do you mean by “this isn’t science?”.

    Explain how “the god hypothesis” is “science”?

    Particularly, please explain WHAT the god hypotheses is, what it predicts, what the evidence is, and where we can read about it.

    You made a statement about this god hypothesis, so please back it up by describing it.

  87. on 14 Nov 2011 at 6:56 pm 87.Paul said …

    I would like to explain what people refer to as “The Gospel” or “Good News”. In this explanation, I will discuss God’s grace, which unfortunately so many people do not understand or have never been clearly explained.

    Unfortunately, many people attend a Christian church regularly (or attended one in the past) but have never been clearly taught what the Bible stresses as the most important decision that one could ever make. It is only in making this decision that one actually becomes one of God’s children and is “saved” from His eternal judgment. This decision deals with what is referred to as “The Gospel”. If you have never heard “The Gospel” before, here it is. Around 33 AD, Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate, paid the price for every single person’s sin in history by dying the death of crucifixion at the hands of the Romans. He willingly died for every person’s sin that has ever lived and every will live. That includes both you and me. He willing died a death that we deserve for our moral failures in life. Jesus was brutally beaten, whipped, mocked, spit upon, nailed to a wooden cross, and then died. Three days later, He rose from the dead, as He foretold His disciples (group of followers). Jesus then ascended into heaven forty days later. He currently lives with God, His father, in heaven today. During Old Testament times (times prior to the birth of Jesus Christ – B.C.), people had a keen awareness of their moral guilt, as any honest person still does today. I know that I have wronged many people and have felt a deep-seated guilt within many areas of my life. Many people during Old Testament times sacrificed animals to God as a form of limited atonement for their immoral actions. God often accepted these sacrifices, but only in a temporary and limited way. Over time, God changed this extremely limited form of atonement, as He had planned from the very beginning of time. Moreover, God sent His one and only son Jesus Christ down to the Earth. Since Jesus was both sinless and blameless, He willingly died on the cross as an unlimited atonement. It was in God’s will for His son to die in this way. This unlimited atonement is available to any person who whole-heartedly repents of their sins (moral failures) and then asks God to personally apply Jesus’ undeserved death and resurrection as a payment for their sins. It is imperative here that one believes the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was ultimately an act of God’s grace. God did not have to offer an escape from our moral guilt and eternal punishment. However, God is gracious. He has a compassion and love for people that is indescribable. God wants to “wipe the slate” clean for us, in regards to our moral failures. Through this action, we could then enter a personal relationship with His son Jesus Christ and escape his eternal judgment. The Bible refers to moral failures as ‘sin’, or missing the mark of God’s perfect standard of morality. “Sin” is an ancient archery term for an arrow that missed the target. God is loving in the purest sense of the word and would like to grant us victory over the sins that still haunt us from our past. All we have to do is accept this gift of grace from Him. It is free.

    God promises us a way to become morally blameless and gain entrance into heaven after living our physical live here on Earth. Here is what we must willingly do on our part. First off, we must truly believe that God is gracious and extended His grace by allowing His one and only son to die as a ransom for our sins on the cross. We must admit to God that we have failed morally during our lifetime and that Jesus Christ’s brutal death on the cross is the only sacrifice that could ever forgive our sins. After making this decision (accepting God’s grace), we are immediately forgiven of all past, present, and future sins. In addition, we would be guaranteed entrance into heaven after our physical death here on Earth. We would then live with both God and His son Jesus forever. We would be guaranteed to see all of our loved ones who had made this decision during his or her physical lives on Earth.

    You could make this decision today. Please do not wait for the “perfect time”. You could ask God for eternal forgiveness through applying the death and resurrection of Jesus to your life within the quietness of your bedroom tonight. This is the most important decision that you will ever make.

    So you might be asking, “Where in the Bible does it explain what has just been summarized?” Here are some passages clearly stating that Jesus seeks a personal relationship with us:

    “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
    – Romans 10:9-10

    “Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; “
    - Acts 3:19

    “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
    – John 3:16

    As long as you repent of your past sins (moral failures) from the heart, confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and apply Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection on the cross as a payment for your sins, you are guaranteed eternal life with God in heaven. You can make this decision at any time, anywhere. You can make this decision alone with God or within a group setting.

    Please know that one cannot sit the fence on making this decision of accepting God’s gift of grace. If one chooses not to decide, he or she has still made a choice. This would be like receiving a check (hearing “The Gospel”) but never endorsing and cashing it in at the bank (personally applying Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection towards one’s sins).

    “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
    - John 3:18

    The result of not choosing to accept Gods gift of grace, which offers eternal life with both Him and Jesus in heaven is clear. You will live the remainder of your life here on Earth apart from Jesus Christ and His empowerment. You will then follow your life plan and not His plan for you. After you physically die, you will then be brought to a dark place where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth”. It is a place of eternal regret. Here, you will remember this very letter and how you were told the truth but chose not to repent and begin a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Remember, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You could be diagnosed with a terminal illness tomorrow or be the recipient of a head-on collision while returning home on that all too familiar, two-lane highway this Friday night. If you are considering starting your personal relationship with Jesus Christ, please do not wait to make this decision. You never know what tomorrow will bring.

    The following passage outlines the only requirements Jesus Christ has set to both gain eternal life and begin a personal relationship with Him while you are still alive here on Earth. He makes it crystal-clear in the Bible what is required…

    “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
    – Romans 10:9-10

    God has a plan for your life. You can watch this plan unfold once you accept His gift of grace. This great plan involves your life experience while here on Earth and continues after your physical death on into heaven.

    “For I know the plans that I have for you”, declares the Lord, “plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.”
    - Jeremiah 29:11-13

    Please consider what I have said here. I am not sure if you have ever made this decision before, but I needed to make sure that you had the facts. If you should decide that you want to learn more about the life of Jesus and gain a better understanding of authentic Christianity, I strongly recommend reading the book of John within the Bible (NASB or NIV translation).

    In closing, here is a verse that someone once shared with me that finally brought me into a relationship with God during an extremely low point physically and emotionally. The understanding of Jesus’ desire to know me personally changed my life forever. Here it is:

    “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.”
    - Revelation 3:20

  88. on 14 Nov 2011 at 7:28 pm 88.DPK said …

    Mind numbing…….. Paul, what evidence do you have that ANY of the voluminous verbiage you just spewed forth is actually TRUE? And why should we accept your version of reality over the many others that have also been offered as the TRUTH?

    I confess, I didn’t read it all… I just skimmed it. It’s the same utter nonsense we’ve all heard before. Forget what the bible says… anyone can tell a story. Case in point… do you think the story of Joseph Smith and the golden plates from heaven is actually true? There’s a book, after all.

  89. on 14 Nov 2011 at 8:14 pm 89.Observer said …

    #87 Paul the Blight Quite posting that inane bullshit all over the blogs.

    “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.”
    - Revelation 3:20

    Was the Revelation writer a street person? If one of those guys knocks on my door, and invite him in for dinner, it might go something like your description. I must confess though that it is not too impressive, and that someone would think it profound verges on very unsettling.

  90. on 14 Nov 2011 at 9:21 pm 90.DPK said …

    I think Paul is likely Hor or Curm posting something to try and divert attention away from their recent crash and burn.
    Typical.
    This site needs a “bullshit” filter.

  91. on 15 Nov 2011 at 5:08 pm 91.DPK said …

    I guess we are not going to get our promised “proof” of god, or even a definition of what “god” is, or what characteristics would define him.

    Are we surprised?

    No.

    For a bunch of bible thumpers, these guys seem to have missed the part about “bearing false witness.” Doesn’t the bible warn something about “the great deceiver”?

  92. on 15 Nov 2011 at 11:05 pm 92.Anonymous said …

    I guess we are not going to get our promised “proof” of god, or even a definition of what “god” is, or what characteristics would define him.

    It’s as if the theist’s purpose here is simply to bury any questions and points about imaginary gods under a pile of irrelevant questions, red herrings, and non sequiturs.

    The hypocrisy of theists never answering questions or providing any proof whilst continually raising the same queries is staggering.

    It seems all they’ve got is you can’t prove that god doesn’t exist and you can’t explain [x], therefore god. That’s just as mind-boggling when one considers that they can’t explain [x] either and they have absolutely no proof whatsoever for the existence of their imaginary gods.

  93. on 16 Nov 2011 at 1:28 am 93.40 year Atheist said …

    First: “There is no “proof”.
    This always means material, empirical proof. And no, physical proof of non-physical axioms is not expected. And empirically, proof is never expected since every experiment provides only an instance of falsification or non-falsification.

    As a side issue, there is no material, experimental empirical “proof” of evolution, either; it is all conjecture, extrapolative inferences that do not, of necessity, follow categorically from the data. It is based on a random occurrence in minerals producing random life forms that ultimately produce intelligence randomly, non-purposefully.

    But back to Materialist proof of non-material entities: that requirement is a tactic used to identify science with a cult, the cult of pure Philosophical Materialism that dogmatically restricts all reality to material reality – which science does not do. Science voluntarily accepts material limits to its investigations, which cannot be applied to non-physical phenomena due to the measurements and replicability required by empirical investigation. Philosophical Materialism is a parasite on science – it is not science nor scientific.

    Second: This is all inferential.
    Yes it is; in fact it is intuitive and it survives both the process of discernment and the concept that a rational, coherent universe exists, based on rational principles. There is no rational way to exclude a purposeful creation without also excluding rationality itself, as Materialism does.

    Third: This is just another God-dunnit.
    It is actually the use of all possible reality information to base a rational conclusion on all evidence available. The charge of “God-dunnit” is a simplistic statement of refusal to acknowledge certain evidence because it is contrary to Philosophical Materialism. The refusal to acknowledge data is irrational and cultish.

    Fourth: Science will prove you wrong
    I will not hold my breath for the day that science changes its position on measuring the unmeasurable. Absolute belief in science for all answers to all realities is “scientism”: a sub-cult of Philosophical Materialism. It is based on incorrect “axioms” and is speculative in a highly credulous and dogmatic fashion, eschewing intellectual humility for arrogance and locked-down intellects. Science will never answer the question “How should we live?” through laboratory experimentation.

    There is no rational way to deny that the source for rational thought exists in a non-material reality. Similarly there is no rational way to deny that the source of the dual realities was powerful and rational and purposeful.

  94. on 16 Nov 2011 at 1:51 am 94.DPK said …

    “First: “There is no “proof”.
    This always means material, empirical proof. And no, physical proof of non-physical axioms is not expected.”

    Let’s stop right there. As has been offered before, this holds some truth ONLY if you speak of a god definition that does not interact with the physical world. As soon as your god definition is extended to include a god that interacts (regularly) with the physical world, AND in particular, one that specifically intercedes in human affairs, then your statement is false and physical, material evidence is not only expected, it is required. Your entire position is based on a false assumption, and is meaningless.

  95. on 16 Nov 2011 at 5:30 am 95.Anonymous said …

    93 is also just another of those “other ways of knowing”, or “alternate Truths” arguments. It’s just word salad.

    There’s absolutely no meat to this claim and it’s complete conjecture. In the middle of his claim, this so-called ex-atheist (funny how he never explains what caused him to change his mind, isn’t it?) can’t help but throw out some digs at evolution based on his flawed thinking and using his own definition of proof that he, himself, rejects when applied to his own claims. Hypocrisy, anyone?

    Out of nowhere he throws in “There is no rational way to exclude a purposeful creation without also excluding rationality itself, as Materialism does”. Talk about a non sequitur! Pure assertion. No facts. Nothing other than a desire to believe it to be true. This whole diatribe is a cover for the statement “I believe because I have faith”.

    Arguing that something that can’t be proven to exist exists, and can’t be disproved therefore it’s correct, is the height of nonsense – it’s a really good example of delusional thinking. For all the red herrings and diversions, that’s what the theists are reduced to arguing about.

    They’ll keep crowing “but you haven’t proven god doesn’t exist” but they define their god in such a way as to be untestable so that they can reverse the burden of proof. Somehow, though, that argument only holds water for their god. When applied to other gods, then it’s a whole different story.

  96. on 16 Nov 2011 at 3:03 pm 96.Lou (DFW) said …

    93.40 year Atheist said …

    “First: “There is no “proof”.
    This always means material, empirical proof. And no, physical proof of non-physical axioms is not expected. And empirically, proof is never expected since every experiment provides only an instance of falsification or non-falsification.”

    Yes, and that is exactly the same reason that nobody can prove that Santa Claus exists. Santa operates outside the realm of the physical universe, except when he appears at the mall, even though he does it at many malls simultaneously. Kind of like how god/Jesus performed miracles in biblical times (but oddly enough, they never happen now). At least Santa still makes appearances.

  97. on 16 Nov 2011 at 6:05 pm 97.Lou (DFW) said …

    94.DPK said …

    “First: “There is no “proof”.
    This always means material, empirical proof. And no, physical proof of non-physical axioms is not expected.”

    “Let’s stop right there. As has been offered before, this holds some truth ONLY if you speak of a god definition that does not interact with the physical world.”

    Why is these bozos like Hor, Crum, and 40YA attempt to repost the same arguments that have clearly been debunked? Do they think some new blog readers will fall for it?

  98. on 16 Nov 2011 at 6:08 pm 98.DPK said …

    I think the 40 year atheist probably dropped a little too much acid in the 70′s, which possibly explains his reasoning ability and his conversion to idol worship. Just a bunch of garbage polished up with a community college vocabulary.

  99. on 16 Nov 2011 at 8:18 pm 99.Lou (DFW) said …

    93.40 year Atheist said …

    “Philosophical Materialism is a parasite on science – it is not science nor scientific.”

    Like Intelligent Design is?

    “The refusal to acknowledge data is irrational and cultish.”

    Like rejecting evolution is?

    “It is based on incorrect “axioms” and is speculative in a highly credulous and dogmatic fashion, eschewing intellectual humility for arrogance and locked-down intellects.”

    Just like religion and a belief in god is?

    “Science will never answer the question “How should we live?” through laboratory experimentation.”

    Nor should it. So what?

  100. on 16 Nov 2011 at 10:40 pm 100.Observer said …

    #100 40YA The better part of your ran down the inside of the thigh of the poor woman who gave you birth. You are imbecilic posturing filth, as we can see below:

    “First: “There is no “proof”.
    This always means material, empirical proof. And no, physical proof of non-physical axioms is not expected.”

    This is utter nonsense. Axioms are not proven- they are AXIOMS moron. What pray tell is a physical axiom? You are a revolting cretin aping intelligent and educated people. You are disgusting, and even worse, there might be folk out there who think better of what you write and who you are than I do. And is impossible as it seems, they are an even worse lot than you.

  101. on 17 Nov 2011 at 2:24 am 101.Joel said …

    4o Year atheist,

    Your post are always well reasoned, intelligent and without ad homenim which is why I always read them.

    You are correct that science has come to a point in history where it attempts to explain phenomena outside of its realm. Scientism in a number of cases is a fair descriptor. However I don’t think scientism to be a negative. We only need to acknowledge the work for what it is. A blend of philosophy and science I find to be a positive as long as we keep it in its proper characterization.

  102. on 17 Nov 2011 at 4:20 am 102.Lou (DFW) said …

    101.Joel said …

    “You are correct that science has come to a point in history where it attempts to explain phenomena outside of its realm.”

    For example?

    “A blend of philosophy and science I find to be a positive as long as we keep it in its proper characterization.”

    Philosophy – mostly irrelevant conjecture and opinion

    Science –

    1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

    2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

    3.any of the branches of natural or physical science.

    4.systematized knowledge in general.

    5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

  103. on 17 Nov 2011 at 4:51 am 103.DPK said …

    I don’t really understand why this concept is so hard for theists to comprehend. None of them have ever attempted to rebut it or present a counter argument, so I assume they find no fault, yet they still cling to their claim that the claims of the supernatural are “beyond” the realm of science.

    Here’s the thing… there is no doubt that there is order in the universe. By that, I mean the natural laws, ultimately the weak and strong nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity which “govern” the universe. They define the way matter and energy behave in the universe. If you care to call these “god” in the sense that Einstein, and even Sagan and Hawkings have… I don’t think anyone has an issue with that. Call it what you will. It is real, and it is undeniable.
    BUT… when you make claims that that “creative force” loves you, listens to your thoughts, answers your prayers, judges you for your thoughts and actions, sometimes suspends the natural laws in order to create miracles, demands that you worship him, requires blood sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins of your ancestors, and will provide you with an eternal life of either bliss or torment after you die, (oh yeah, and needs MONEY from you)… well now you are in the PHYSICAL realm and that IS the domain of science.
    Science is nothing more than the search for what is TRUE… nothing more. If what you call god interacts with the physical world, then there by definition will be evidence of that which can be observed and tested. You cannot claim god intrudes on the physical world and claim there will be no physical evidence of it. That’s ridiculous.
    If you wish to claim a god who created the universe and then left it completely alone to unfold according to the natural laws that define it… well that god would be unprovable and un-falsifiable and also completely irrelevant.

  104. on 17 Nov 2011 at 2:56 pm 104.Observer said …

    #101 Joel Reread 100. Your praise of 40YA is apt.

    “and even worse, there might be folk out there who think better of what you write and who you are than I do. And is impossible as it seems, they are an even worse lot than you.”

  105. on 19 Nov 2011 at 6:40 am 105.Anon said …

    Christards are screwed up in the head since the cradle and upwards.
    Is Christian morality psychopathic? (Sam Harris)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUVXEmJRGns

  106. on 02 Dec 2011 at 8:15 pm 106.TheDoorKeeper said …

    After reading this it is evident that the claim that God is not real has once again been established by someone that has not read the entire Bible, nor have they had any experience with what it says. The more they respond the more foolish they become.

    “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:18, NIV)

    “For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. (1 Corinthians 1:25, NIV)

  107. on 02 Dec 2011 at 11:33 pm 107.Lou (DFW) said …

    106.TheDoorKeeper said …

    “After reading this it is evident that the claim that God is not real has once again been established by someone that has not read the entire Bible, nor have they had any experience with what it says. The more they respond the more foolish they become.”

    And the more foolish theists look when they continue to use the bible as evidence of god. One must believe that the bible is the word of god in order to believe it’s evidence of god. It’s a form of circular reasoning. It’s a logical fallacy.

    “For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom…” In the context of theists circular reasoning, yes, I agree.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply