Feed on Posts or Comments 21 September 2014

Christianity Thomas on 24 Nov 2011 12:58 am

Why Christians drive everyone else nuts – Rick Perry’s Hypocrisy

If you are not a Christian, chances are that Christians can drive you nuts. But have you ever wondered why? What is it that is so annoying? This image summarizes one major element of the problem:

Rick Perry’s Hypocrisy

The dictionary defines hypocrisy as:

“a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.”

Also:

“the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one’s real character or actual behaviour, esp the pretence of virtue and piety.”

Christians claim that the Bible is the word of their “god”. They pick parts out of the book that they claim to be vitally important, and often try to ram these parts down the throats of everyone else in society. But then Christians ignore all the parts of the Bible that they find uncomfortable. If the book contains the word of God and if Christians are not a hypocrites, Christians should follow the whole book – every single part of it.

Any intelligent person has two problems with the hypocritical cherry-picking approach. First, it smacks of hypocrisy of the highest order. Second, many of the “words of God” in the Bible are obviously repulsive and/or insane. Any intelligent person rejects the entire Bible because of the insanity it harbors. These two videos explain how ridiculous the Bible is:

When a book is that ridiculous, that repulsive and that insane, the entire book is thrown away and ignored by any intelligent person.

57 Responses to “Why Christians drive everyone else nuts – Rick Perry’s Hypocrisy”

  1. on 24 Nov 2011 at 10:54 am 1.Anonymous said …

    The conclusion that we can draw is that Christians are not intelligent.

  2. on 25 Nov 2011 at 8:47 am 2.Aaron Brown said …

    Hey everybody, i don’t know how many people will actually read this, and i haven’t watched the above video. I just saw this place to comment and i just had to put something. I’m not going to preach about God, and I’m not going to push Him onto you. I just gotta say one point, and that’s this, “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.”That quote sums up this whole nonsense that God isn’t real. I could preach until I was blue in the face, but it would not make a difference, because the people who are dead set on not believing in God, Jesus himself could walk up to them, perform a miracle, and they’d still wouldn’t believe. If you say oh, well I’d like to see that happen, and then yes of course I’d believe. No, you wouldn’t…look around you. Your gonna say this all happened by accident, that it was a big coincidence? I admire your faith if you believe that all this happened on its own. If you believe the Big Bang Theory, then you must believe that at one point there was nothing, and then after there was something. Existence just doesn’t come to exist on its own, and by the way the Big Bang Theory is just that…a theory. And one last example, my body is more complex than this Macbook that i’m typing on, and that required a designer, a very good one in fact, and your trying to tell me that I just happened by chance. As I stated earlier, I admire your guys’ faith. Love you all, and maybe this will speak to you, and I’ll see you in heaven one day because you decided to transform your life from being an atheist to a believer like i did. God bless, and have a great thanksgiving day weekend! :) P.S. I’m leaving my name, and my email in case anybody would like to better educate me to becoming an atheist…i’ll gladly preach the bible to you, and weaken your argument against God.

  3. on 25 Nov 2011 at 11:34 am 3.Obvious said …

    AB, Have you sold everything and given it to the poor? Why not?

  4. on 25 Nov 2011 at 1:25 pm 4.Severin said …

    2 A.B.
    ” If you believe the Big Bang Theory, then you must believe that at one point there was nothing, and then after there was something.”

    Wrong!
    I, and everybody else who believe in big bang, believe that there was something all the time, before and after the BB, that only changed its form. It was matter/energy, in one moment “condensed”, in next moment “exploded”.
    Unlike theists, we do NOT believe in “something from nothing” (“goddidit”, but no answer: what/who is god, where he/she/it comes from, who made him/her/it, if god was not created why abything ales must have been created…?!).

    Another correction: I do not “believe” in BB. There is enough evidences to KNOW it happened.
    It is you who believe something without evidences.

  5. on 25 Nov 2011 at 1:51 pm 5.Severin said …

    2 A.B.
    “And one last example, my body is more complex than this Macbook that i’m typing on, and that required a designer, a very good one in fact, and your trying to tell me that I just happened by chance.”

    Here we have at least 2 problems:
    1.
    A “very good creator” who created so complex things like you and me, must be at least of the same complexity as his creation, or much more complex than his creation. Don’t you tell me that some primitive entity created me (or you)!
    How “very good creator” was needed to make the one who created me and you?
    How clever and complex was the one who created that one?
    Where is the end of “creator of the creator’s creator …” line?
    If you now tell us that a complex and omnipotent creator does NOT need a creator, why do we need a creator for anything else, including you and me?

    2.
    No one ever mentioned “chance” (except theist who want to caricaturize science)! NOTHING is happening thanks to “chance”, but according to laws of chemistry, physics, math …
    So, step by step, during many bilions of years, both you and I, “came” (developed, evolved) from other forms of matter, by following laws of chemistry, physics, math, biology…
    I do not say that chance had absolutely no role in that: presence of some chemicals, temperatures, catalists…, BUT chemistry and physic DO work totally spontaniously NOT following chances, but LAWS.
    Put a glass of water on your table and ask yourself will it evaporate “by chance” (maybe it will, maybe not), or because laws of physics are doing their job spontaniously, and ALWAYS exactly the same way.

  6. on 25 Nov 2011 at 2:27 pm 6.Horatiio said …

    “Christians should follow the whole book – every single part of it.”

    LOL!! I always get a joy out of atheist who like to tell Christians how to live.

    So I need to go and smite the Philistine in the valley today because the Bible said David did. (History)

    LOL!!!

    Or or I should go and sacrifice Doves on the altar at the Temple today. The Jews did. (Ceremony)

    Atheist really can drive you nuts. But have you ever wondered why? It is because they try to tell everyone else what the Bible means.

    Well, I got a nice laugh for the weekend. Atheist find something to be thankful for and have a great Christmas. Throw out a few insults, it might make you feel good about yourself.

    LOL!!

  7. on 25 Nov 2011 at 3:25 pm 7.Lou (DFW) said …

    6.Horatiio said … (after hiding-out for so long after being unable to prove god as he wrote that he could)

    “Christians should follow the whole book – every single part of it.”

    “LOL!! I always get a joy out of atheist who like to tell Christians how to live.”

    Hor must quote out of context in order to lie. The entire quote is:

    “If the book contains the word of God and if Christians are not a hypocrites, Christians should follow the whole book – every single part of it.”

    And right – it’s atheists telling xtians how to live, not xtians telling everybody else how to live.

  8. on 25 Nov 2011 at 3:41 pm 8.DPK said …

    And, Horatiio… no one is “telling you how to live”… you are free to live as you choose. But, we have the right to point out the absurdity and hypocrisy of your beliefs. And, if you have no interest in “telling others how to live”… why are you here on this forum telling your lies and half truths and deliberately misquoting people in order to try and make your own position look less foolish?

    You’re a fraud.

    “Atheist really can drive you nuts. But have you ever wondered why? It is because they try to tell everyone else what the Bible means.”

    Actually, anyone can read what the bible says. It takes a deluded christian to try and tell you what god “really” meant when he instructs you, for example, on the proper and moral way to beat your slaves or sell your daughter into prostitution.

  9. on 25 Nov 2011 at 8:49 pm 9.Burebista said …

    “Atheist really can drive you nuts. But have you ever wondered why? It is because they try to tell everyone else what the Bible means.”

    Hor,

    You think the atheists would call us hypocrites if I eat an apple this afternoon? :)

    Half-truths and lies indeed.

  10. on 25 Nov 2011 at 10:16 pm 10.DPK said …

    “You think the atheists would call us hypocrites if I eat an apple this afternoon? :)”

    No, but we WOULD call you nuts if you told us a talking snake told you to do it………..
    D

  11. on 26 Nov 2011 at 3:48 am 11.Lou (DFW) said …

    9.Burebista said …

    “You think the atheists would call us hypocrites if I eat an apple this afternoon? :)

    Half-truths and lies indeed.”

    Except that no atheist did any such thing. Hor and many monikers lie again.

  12. on 26 Nov 2011 at 4:23 pm 12.Scott said …

    “Christians ignore all the parts of the Bible that they find uncomfortable.”

    Not true at all. The Bible is not one “book,” it is a “library” of sixty-six books that were written over a period of more than a 1,500 years by many different authors. This creates the marvelous depth and wonder of Scripture and of how God chooses to use us when He does not need to.

    They Bible is made of many types of literature. The Bible consist of Law, History, Wisdom, Poetry, Gospel, Epistles, Prophecy, and Apocalyptic Literature. Consequently, the words of the bible do not consist of one type of literature wherein Christians are suppose to put every word in physical action. History is for study and learning and for background information, Poetry for mediation and so on.

    Aaron and Horatio make some other good analysis of scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This idea the Bible is just some sort of rule book is nonsense and written by one who has never spent any time in study of what they speak.

  13. on 26 Nov 2011 at 5:25 pm 13.Severin said …

    12 Scott
    “The Bible is not one “book,” it is a “library” of sixty-six books that were written over a period of more than a 1,500 years by many different authors.”

    Really?
    I was told that Bible was word of god himself!

    Now, when we’ve heard from Scott it wasn’t, can somebody tell me why, the hell, is the book relevant for anything!?
    How can, for example, a very old book, written by many authors through more than 1500 years, represent a source of morality for me or anyone else TODAY?
    What makes THAT book more relevant than any other book?

    Specify! Elaborate!

  14. on 26 Nov 2011 at 5:29 pm 14.Lou (DFW) said …

    12.Scott said …

    “This creates the marvelous depth and wonder of Scripture and of how God chooses to use us when He does not need to.”

    Why does a god need to “use us when He does not need to”?

  15. on 26 Nov 2011 at 5:34 pm 15.Obvious said …

    Scott, Do the 10 commandments apply to people today or not?

  16. on 26 Nov 2011 at 6:23 pm 16.Scott said …

    Obvious,

    Check out Matthew 5. Jesus took the 10 Commandments and raised them to a greater level. Also the two great commandments of Christ contain the the 10 commandments. SO when you ask if the 10 commandments are still relative, yes, but they are in the NT.

  17. on 26 Nov 2011 at 7:11 pm 17.Lou (DFW) said …

    12.Scott said …

    “Aaron and Horatio make some other good analysis of scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

    Complete and utter b.s. Hor did no such thing. And most of his comments here are apparently made under the influence of spirits, but not the imaginary “Holy Spirit.”

  18. on 26 Nov 2011 at 7:23 pm 18.Obvious said …

    Scott@16:

    “Check out Matthew 5.”

    OK I did. In Matthew 5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NIV):

    “17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

    And:

    “27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”

    Are you doing any of this?

  19. on 26 Nov 2011 at 7:52 pm 19.Zed said …

    12.Scott said …

    “Aaron and Horatio make some other good analysis of scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

    In which part of his post above where he didn’t quote or reference any scripture, did he do that?

    What does “scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” actually mean? Specifically, what do you mean by “under inspiration”?

    “They Bible is made of many types of literature. The Bible consist of Law, History, Wisdom, Poetry, Gospel, Epistles, Prophecy, and Apocalyptic Literature. Consequently, the words of the bible do not consist of one type of literature wherein Christians are suppose to put every word in physical action. History is for study and learning and for background information, Poetry for mediation and so on.”

    Where is it written which parts are to be put into physical action and which are not? Likewise, you define different categories above, where does one see the accepted definitions and assignments? If you leave that open to interpretation, then you may not be doing “it” correctly.

  20. on 26 Nov 2011 at 8:48 pm 20.Scott said …

    Obvious

    I’m glad to see you are looking at Scripture. A step in the right direction.

    You might look at John 1, Romans 1 & 3 as well. Ask God to give you understanding and He will.

    Zed,

    Scripture was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by many authors. How do I know history from wisdom literature? I’m not sure how that should be answered since just about every Bible scholar agrees. Maybe the same way I know the moon from the sun.

    May God bless you on your journey.

  21. on 26 Nov 2011 at 8:51 pm 21.Scott said …

    Obvious

    One other thing. You might want to look at all of Matthew 5. That might be of help.

  22. on 26 Nov 2011 at 9:10 pm 22.Obvious said …

    Scott@20:

    “You might want to look at all of Matthew 5. That might be of help.”

    Let’s look at the two parts I quoted. They are valid scripture quotations from a chapter that you recommended.

    “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.””

    Does your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees? Are you following every law in the Bible down to the smallest letter, the least stroke of a pen?

    “If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away.”

    Have you gouged out because you looked lustfully at a woman?

    Are you doing these insane things? How could you subject such a ridiculous book for examination and not realize that it is insane?

  23. on 26 Nov 2011 at 10:40 pm 23.Zed said …

    Scott, thanks for your reply. You didn’t explain the reference to Aaron’s scripture analysis that you found so compelling. Where was that?

    I’m confused on this point: “How do I know history from wisdom literature? I’m not sure how that should be answered since just about every Bible scholar agrees. Maybe the same way I know the moon from the sun”.

    If just about every bible scholar agrees, then it should be written down somewhere, no? Where is that? You reference the sun and the moon. If it that’s obvious then, again, you should be able to point us at the definitions. After all, how many conflicting definitions of the sun and the moon do you know?

    Finally, be aware that if you are going to post “blessings” then you invite people to respond to you in kind, or to point out the inconsistencies in your comment. For example, which god do you wish your blessings to come from? Why that one, why not Zeus, why not Thor? These are serious questions. If you think your god is real, then where is your proof? How do you know which god responds to your requests for blessings? Why are you so presumptuous to feel that people welcome these blessings?

  24. on 27 Nov 2011 at 12:06 am 24.Lou (DFW) said …

    20.Scott said …

    “Scripture was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by many authors. How do I know history from wisdom literature? I’m not sure how that should be answered since just about every Bible scholar agrees.”

    So says you.

  25. on 27 Nov 2011 at 12:44 am 25.Tom said …

    “Does your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees? Are you following every law in the Bible down to the smallest letter, the least stroke of a pen?”

    No, which is why Jesus came. Nobody can and that includes Scott.

    “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” Rom 3:23

    “The wages of sin is death” Rom 6::23

    Rom 10:, Rom 5:8 explain the cure.

    History literature: Teaches about history.

    Wisdom literature: Teaches one how to be wise.

    I hope that fills in the gaps above.

  26. on 27 Nov 2011 at 1:16 am 26.Zed said …

    Tom, “I hope that fills in the gaps above.”

    Do you? Do you feel that your explanation is satisfactory that anyone, anyone at all, could pick any verse from the bible and be able to determine – with consistency – which of Scot’s offered categories it applied to? If not, what was the point of your reply?

    Let’s try an experiment Tom. Using your system, please show us how to categorize the following:

    Ezekiel 23
    20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.

    Tom, is this history or wisdom? In either case, what do we learn? Please advise.

  27. on 27 Nov 2011 at 4:10 am 27.Tom said …

    Ezekiel is prophecy because he was a prophet. A simple reading tells us this is the case.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oholah_and_Oholibah

    The language is vivid, but it strikingly directs the reader to the issue the prophet is calling attention to–namely the breaking of a covenantal relationship by repeatedly engaging in the sin of idolatry. The prophets Ezekiel and Hosea saw idol worship and ritual impurity as Israel’s primary sin.

    What did I learn? Maybe you find sexual references dirty? Its’ not, when practiced as God created it to be practiced. Also, you are scared you are wrong. You should be.

  28. on 27 Nov 2011 at 7:35 am 28.Anonymous said …

    Tom #27

    The LORD sees Oholibah ( Jerusalem) behaving in a way he does not approve of and decides on a punishment:

     22 “Therefore, Oholibah, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will stir up your lovers against you, those you turned away from in disgust, and I will bring them against you from every side— 23 the Babylonians and all the Chaldeans, the men of Pekod and Shoa and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them, handsome young men, all of them governors and commanders, chariot officers and men of high rank, all mounted on horses. 24 They will come against you with weapons,[d] chariots and wagons and with a throng of people; they will take up positions against you on every side with large and small shields and with helmets. I will turn you over to them for punishment, and they will punish you according to their standards. 25 I will direct my jealous anger against you, and they will deal with you in fury. They will cut off your noses and your ears, and those of you who are left will fall by the sword. They will take away your sons and daughters, and those of you who are left will be consumed by fire. 26 They will also strip you of your clothes and take your fine jewelry. 27 So I will put a stop to the lewdness and prostitution you began in Egypt. You will not look on these things with longing or remember Egypt anymore. 28 “For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am about to deliver you into the hands of those you hate, to those you turned away from in disgust. 29 They will deal with you in hatred and take away everything you have worked for. They will leave you stark naked, and the shame of your prostitution will be exposed. Your lewdness and promiscuity 30 have brought this on you, because you lusted after the nations and defiled yourself with their idols. 31 You have gone the way of your sister; so I will put her cup into your hand.

    These are the actions of a “loving god”?

    You worship this being?

  29. on 27 Nov 2011 at 6:26 pm 29.Lou (DFW) said …

    27.Tom said …

    “Ezekiel is prophecy because he was a prophet. A simple reading tells us this is the case.”

    Don’t be ridiculous. A simple reading clearly indicates that Ezekiel is a description of an encounter with an alien spacecraft!

    http://www.spaceshipsofezekiel.com/

  30. on 27 Nov 2011 at 7:31 pm 30.Curmudgeon said …

    Lou makes a point worth noting. I know difficult to believe.

    Lou’s claim above goes along what the atheist scientist on LSD claimed. No other than Francis Crick.

    http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/28/was-life-on-earth-an-alien-creation-a-critical-look-at-directed-panspermia/

  31. on 27 Nov 2011 at 7:34 pm 31.Curmudgeon said …

    Tom,

    #28 still does not get the symbolism even after you posted the link. Give up and spend your time in more productive pursuits.

  32. on 27 Nov 2011 at 8:04 pm 32.Lou (DFW) said …

    30.Curmudgeon said …

    “Lou makes a point worth noting. I know difficult to believe.”

    Correct, that all such interpretations, traditional or sci-fi, of biblical scripture are nonsense.

    But what is most easy to believe is that you and Hor never present any evidence for god, but instead engage in all matters of nonsensical discussions to divert attention from that fact.

  33. on 28 Nov 2011 at 12:00 am 33.Zed said …

    It’s interesting that Curmudgeon makes the point that he does. It’s a good one in that it shows how easy it is for someone to step outside their area of expertise.

    Another good example of the point Curmudgeon makes would be to take the explanations of primitive people, for example the bronze and iron-age goat herders of biblical times, and to expect their thoughts to stand up to scrutiny in the light of today’s scientific knowledge. Doing so would be utterly foolish as they were a people mired in a world they did not understand. Today we know that theirs was a world of stories and superstition and nothing more.

    Going forward it’s interesting to see that Crick did, in fact, modify his views as new knowledge came to light. That’s also a good point that knowledge and evidence moves us forward rather than clinging to the past.

    Still, Curmudgeon has made his distaste of Panspermia clear. The next logical step would be for him to explain the process that he would substitute in its place. In doing so, Curmudgeon, please do cite your references and show your sources.

  34. on 28 Nov 2011 at 2:41 am 34.Biff said …

    “Doing so would be utterly foolish as they were a people mired in a world they did not understand.”

    A very interesting claim. So we understand our world now Zed?

    I wonder, what exactly did these goat herders claim that is now in error in this enlightened age?

    Zed, please do cite your references and show your sources.

  35. on 28 Nov 2011 at 2:43 am 35.Biff said …

    BTW,

    Hor and others have presented a vast amount of evidence for God over the past on this blog. Your acceptance is not the criteria for the evidence’s relevance.

  36. on 28 Nov 2011 at 3:02 am 36.Anonymous said …

    >I wonder, what exactly did these goat herders claim that is now in
    >error in this enlightened age?

    Answer:

    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/highlights.html

  37. on 28 Nov 2011 at 3:55 am 37.Lou (DFW) said …

    35.Biff said …

    “Hor and others have presented a vast amount of evidence for God over the past on this blog. Your acceptance is not the criteria for the evidence’s relevance.”

    Vast amount?! Hilarious stuff, Biff. Bible stories, personal experiences, and anecdotal evidence are not acceptable evidence for god anywhere.

  38. on 28 Nov 2011 at 4:03 am 38.Lou (DFW) said …

    34.Biff said …

    “I wonder, what exactly did these goat herders claim that is now in error in this enlightened age?”

    Really?! You wonder?! Almost everything they believed. You need a source and reference for that, but you claim that “Hor and others have presented a vast amount of evidence for God?”

    Outrageous. Simply outrageous. But, when considering the source of this comment (Biff), then it’s understandable that Biff identifies with bronze and iron-age goat herders of biblical times rather than modern-day scientists.

  39. on 28 Nov 2011 at 4:29 am 39.Observer said …

    #35 Biff “Hor and others have presented a vast amount of evidence for God over the past on this blog. Your acceptance is not the criteria for the evidence’s relevance.”

    I see you are still playing the haughty pathetic weasel loser. Splendid.

  40. on 28 Nov 2011 at 12:27 pm 40.Zed said …

    Biff, didn’t we just go over this?

    Throwing out accusations and claims as an attempt to change the subject and shift the burden of proof isn’t going to work.

    If “Hor and others have presented a vast amount of evidence for God over the past on this blog”, then it ought to be easy for you to point to that. Right?

    Likewise, Curmudgeon should find it easy to provide his alternative to Panspermia. He’s long on criticism, thus he ought to be able to back up his complaints with an alternative.

    Seeing as Horatio and Curmudgeon both recently offered to provide evidence of their god, the only reason for this song and dance would be if they, and you, didn’t have any. If so, admit it.

    So, prove all the doubters wrong. Stop playing the abusive narcissistic who thinks he can bully others around. Show us how wrong we’ve been.

    Unless, of course, you have nothing?

  41. on 28 Nov 2011 at 9:03 pm 41.Horatiio said …

    Thank you Biff but it is not just me. Great men throughout history have presented the evidence for God. It is just stronger to day than ever with all the new scientific break throughs.

    Just as I will not argue with a child who continues with “no its not” I will not continue with these who claim “No its not”.

    LOL!! Panspermia is quite funny. That ol’ LSD hound Francis Crick should of got that monkey off his back much earlier in life. Sounds like a nose Buster attempt at removing God! LOL!!

    I offered to be the judge of Cur’s evidence for God. I still lend my antipartisan analysis when the audience meet his criteria.

  42. on 28 Nov 2011 at 9:05 pm 42.Horatiio said …

    “Zed, please do cite your references and show your sources.”

    Biff

    It will not happen. I have asked the same question numerous times. I get nothing, so there answer is “nothing”.

  43. on 28 Nov 2011 at 9:36 pm 43.DPK said …

    “Just as I will not argue with a child who continues with “no its not” I will not continue with these who claim “No its not”.

    And yet…. here you are, spouting the same nonsense, lies, half truths and completely unsubstantiated claims… over and over, despite having them dismantled time and time again. Sad.

  44. on 28 Nov 2011 at 10:07 pm 44.Zed said …

    Horatio, if you had any evidence you’d present it, but you haven’t.

    Your attempts at diversions, changing the subject, moving the goal-posts, name calling, lies, half-truths, claims that you refuse to back up, shifting the burden of proof – even aping the language of informed discussion – simply show your desperation to avoid discussing your failure. And be honest, it’s a failure of epic proportions.

    Only those desperate to keep hiding behind the wall of their delusion are likely to even consider your posts anything other than the ramblings of a bitter, angry, old man. No wonder you are bitter, too. You’ve spent your entire life desperate to believe a lie. And all it took to shatter this illusion was two words: “prove it”.

    Your posts, your obstruction, your lies, your whole attitude and game-playing towards providing proof of your god show just one thing.

    You’re afraid to try because you know that you’ll fail.

    Of course you’ll fail. That a bunch of uneducated, nomadic, goat herders that thought the world was flat, that snakes talked, would somehow be in possession of the secrets of the universe is not just laughable, it’s pathetic.

    So, yes, as you continue with your obstruction, all you do is prove that you have less than nothing. If you had anything else, you’d present it for all to see.

    Sad, indeed. Beyond sad, really. As I said above, it’s actually quite pathetic.

  45. on 28 Nov 2011 at 10:11 pm 45.Lou (DFW) said …

    41.Horatiio said …

    “Just as I will not argue with a child who continues with “no its not” I will not continue with these who claim “No its not”.

    Yes, especially after you claimed that you had proof of god, but would only provide it if a specific question was answered. So, so much for your self-comparison to “[g]reat men throughout history.”

    Do you cavort with them in your “Broadway In The Basement” fantasy?

  46. on 28 Nov 2011 at 10:13 pm 46.40 year Atheist said …

    If there were evidence of a transcendent entity, what would it look like? We have established that it probably won’t be material evidence. Is there any evidence that we might think to be transcendent?

    At this point the materialists will complain that if a thing is knowable, then it is material. This drags the argument into the realm of opinion, the opinion that the mind is material, the opinion that information is material, the opinion that time is material. These are non-empirical and fruitless arguments, and they depend on the faith in the omniscience of the scientist… in the future. This is not provable. Being not provable, it is not empirical. Being not empirical, it is not a valid argument for the exclusively material nature of reality. So these arguments will be ignored by a true sceptic in search of valid realities.

    There are certain categories of evidence that are not material. These are accepted by the courts. Non-material categories include information/data and witness testimony, as well as circumstantiality of material evidence.

    Let’s focus on witness testimony. Can a witness be disqualified due to the nature of the testimony he brings forth? If he testifies to an unpopular conclusion, does the unpopularity of the conclusion disqualify the witness? Obviously not. A witness may be disqualified for several reasons, such as lack of integrity, bad motive, not having been an actual witness, incompetence or insanity, etc. But the testimony itself does not disqualify the witness.

    If there are multiple witnesses, there are several possibilities. If they agree in substance on the issue at hand, then the testimony is strengthened. If they disagree entirely on the substance of the issue, then the further question arises as to why.

    Testimony may disqualify itself if it is seen to be non-coherent, self-contradictory, or not pertaining to the substance of the issue. But testimony of a non-material entity cannot be disqualified for not being material.

    The genius mathematician Blaise Pascal underwent a religious experience. Despite his obvious intellect, he was subjected to derision because of the nature of the testimony. Because the testimony was a priori false due to axiomatic dogma, the testimony was considered unbelievable.

    A.J. Ayer, staunch materialist that he was, experienced an out-of-body episode, but denied its transcendence in keeping with his prior belief.

    Isaac Newton was convinced of transcendence and “although a critic of accepted Trinitarian dogmas and the Council of Nicaea, he possessed a deep religious sense, venerated the Bible and accepted its account of creation. In late editions of his scientific works he expressed a strong sense of God’s providential role in nature,

    Much of the a posteriori knowledge is based on the universe being a “closed system”. But is there evidence for that? And how would verification of that evidence be accomplished? Moreover, if information – and by extension, knowledge – is independent of the media on which it resides, then information and knowlege are both transcendent, beyond the material realm and thus strong indicators of an open system.

  47. on 28 Nov 2011 at 10:53 pm 47.Zed said …

    OK, so 46 can be summed up as: “There’s no evidence or proof of god therefore blah, blah, blah”.

  48. on 28 Nov 2011 at 11:10 pm 48.Observer said …

    #46 40YA There was an interesting tidbit in the NYTimes Magazine over the weekend on a recent biography of Kurt Vonnegut. It mentioned Vonnegut’s style of trying to communicate much in as little text as possible. COMPARE that to the imbecile 40YA who tried to pad out his utter insipid drivel with a few purloined phrases to make his writing seem, what? intellectual? It is pathetic.

    At any rate 40YA, while it would be a waste of your time to pick up Hawking’s Theory of Large-Scale Space Time as you could not get anywhere with it, his notion of the universe is that it is an open set. I think this is the case for cosmologists in general. To say it is an open system, as you do, is spectacularly idiotic. It is the Universe; by definition it is not an open system. It is as if you experience the world as a two-year old, there is nothing beyond what you perceive or know. The span of your knowledge makes for your infinitesimal world view.

  49. on 28 Nov 2011 at 11:23 pm 49.Horatiio said …

    The span of your knowledge makes for your infinitesimal world view.”

    And yours nose buster spans across my thumbnail.

    Those who profess to know much only make themselves fools. You are done, your 15 minutes are up. 40 YA runs circles around you.

  50. on 29 Nov 2011 at 12:23 am 50.Zed said …

    48 – And not just his science.In one of his trademark cowardly (no trackback, no links) attacks on some informal essays on Pharyngula, poor little 40YA got quite a spanking when some folks came by to pay him a visit.

    A classic, and telling comment, was as following: “After reading Stan’s last two comments I deduce that Stan has never taken or passed a philosophy course. Am I right?”

  51. on 29 Nov 2011 at 12:46 am 51.DPK said …

    40Y has a propensity for starting his long winded manifestos with a completely false and unsupported statement, and then tediously building a house of cards on it. Let’s see:
    “If there were evidence of a transcendent entity, what would it look like? We have established that it probably won’t be material evidence.”

    We have? What exactly is “non-material evidence”? A wish? We have said repeatedly, that a transcendental entity that only affects some transcendental world would therefore be completely irrelevant. But theists routinely insist that “god” interacts routinely with the PHYSICAL world…. indeed that he created it and affects events in it constantly. Some even claim that it (the physical, material world) would not exist except by his will.

    This type of “god” would most certainly leave “material evidence.” So, the founding basis for the argument is simply incorrect, leaving everything that follows nothing more than verbal diarrhea and nonsensical ramblings.

    So Hor, yeah… I suppose 40Y runs “circles around us” much in the way a dog chases it’s tail, and with the same unsatisfying conclusion. Eventually he gets tired and just gives up.
    Oh yeah….. almost forgot….. LOL.

  52. on 29 Nov 2011 at 3:33 am 52.Lou (DFW) said …

    49.Horatiio said …

    “Those who profess to know much only make themselves fools.”

    Much like you did when you claimed to be able to prove god, but you never did.

    “You are done, your 15 minutes are up. 40 YA runs circles around you.”

    No doubt this is because you are imagining “Buster” being chased by 40 YA in your “Broadway In The Basement” fantasy. Get tired imagining him “dancing with Wiccans?” Can’t get-off to it anymore, so now you must involve 40 YA?

  53. on 29 Nov 2011 at 3:46 am 53.Xenon said …

    40,

    I saw where you referenced AJ Ayer and the out-of-body experience episode. I thought you might find this link interesting. It goes into his episode and the history.

    http://www.near-death.com/experiences/atheists01.html

  54. on 29 Nov 2011 at 3:47 am 54.Xenon said …

    “This type of “god” would most certainly leave “material evidence.”

    Very true. You live in it everyday.

  55. on 29 Nov 2011 at 3:50 am 55.Lou (DFW) said …

    46.40 year Atheist said …

    “Isaac Newton was convinced of transcendence and “although a critic of accepted Trinitarian dogmas and the Council of Nicaea, he possessed a deep religious sense, venerated the Bible and accepted its account of creation. In late editions of his scientific works he expressed a strong sense of God’s providential role in nature,”

    40YA C&P that from:

    http://www.newton.ac.uk/newtlife.html

    But 40YA conveniently omitted this, from the same site:

    “He began intensive experimentation in 1669, continuing till he left Cambridge, seeking to unravel the meaning that he hoped was hidden in alchemical obscurity and mysticism.”

    Of course, we know that no such “meaning that he hoped was hidden in alchemical obscurity and mysticism” exists. Furthermore, if any “witness” today made such a claim, then he would “be disqualified due to the nature of the testimony he brings forth.”

  56. on 29 Nov 2011 at 3:52 am 56.Lou (DFW) said …

    54.Xenon said …

    “This type of “god” would most certainly leave “material evidence.”

    “Very true. You live in it everyday.”

    Yet you never present it.

  57. on 29 Nov 2011 at 2:39 pm 57.Lou (DFW) said …

    53.Xenon said …

    “I saw where you referenced AJ Ayer and the out-of-body experience episode. I thought you might find this link interesting. It goes into his episode and the history.”

    I’m not sure what your point is, if any. But NDE is not evidence of an afterlife. It’s only anecdotal evidence of what happens to the brain NEAR DEATH.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply