Feed on Posts or Comments 31 May 2016

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 03 Feb 2012 12:59 am

The problem with people who believe the Bible is that they are insane

This graphic nicely sums up the insanity of Bible-believers:

Atheists, can you prove The BIBLE is false?

Any rational person can see that the Bible is false in hundreds of different ways. A simple comparison of Genesis 1 and 2 shows that the Bible itself cannot agree on the order of creation, and both of these creation stories are absolutely false by so many measures.

The only way for a Bible-believer to believe the Bible is to completely abandon reality and the truth. Someone who completely abandons reality and the truth is insane.

386 Responses to “The problem with people who believe the Bible is that they are insane”

  1. on 03 Feb 2012 at 2:09 pm 1.A said …

    “abandon reality and the truth.”

    What is the realty and truth?

  2. on 03 Feb 2012 at 4:32 pm 2.Anonymous said …

    Reality:

    There are no answered prayers, only coincidences.

    Jesus is a fictional character. The stories about him are myths.

    The universe is 14 billion years old.

    All life on earth is the product of evolution.

    Humans are primates.

    There was no Adam, created from dust.

    There were and are no talking snakes.

    God is imaginary.

    Heaven and Hell are imaginary.

  3. on 03 Feb 2012 at 6:26 pm 3.Anon. said …

    Funny how easy it is to talk about reality if we’re honest and self-critical. What’s hard is to talk about truth. The religious make it worse by capitalizing it and then capitalizing on that capitalized “Truth.”

  4. on 03 Feb 2012 at 7:36 pm 4.Curmudgeon said …

    Anonymous

    Glad I found you over here. This reality of which you speak. Lets go through them one by one together.

    1. “There are no answered prayers, only coincidences.”

    Prove it. You may use the scientific method, or you may provide scientific evidence for each prayer that was claimed answered that it was a coincidence. Your choice. This should be fun.

  5. on 03 Feb 2012 at 7:55 pm 5.Anonymous said …

    Curmudgeon is a well known troll who posts here under a variety of sock puppet accounts. Ignore him he is only trying to be disruptive.

  6. on 04 Feb 2012 at 3:17 am 6.Anti-Curm said …

    LOL. You don’t prove negatives. You prove positives, like “there are answered prayers.” Again and again with these turds. One would think they’d learn.

    Curm, that means YOU are up to prove it.

  7. on 04 Feb 2012 at 5:16 am 7.Lol said …

    Even coincidence means miracles, god did say I work in misterious ways, so coincidence is misterious

  8. on 04 Feb 2012 at 11:36 am 8.Yahh said …

    It would be crazy to have no god, and theirs no proof to what atheists say, other then the city you can’t see because you can’t see it with your human form, even science is trying to be like a god, making lotions to make your face look younger when in heaven you’ll be young forever

  9. on 04 Feb 2012 at 4:44 pm 9.JS said …

    RE:“The problem with people who believe the Bible is that they are insane” (Opinion)

    If The Bible is just a silly story book, then why are some people so threatened by it? (Green Eggs & Ham is a story book. Have you ever heard of anyone offended by the words of Dr. Seuss?) The Bible is illegal in over 30 countries. In some parts of the world, you can be put to death for just believing in Jesus.

    01. There are no answered prayers, only coincidences.(Opinion) I’ve had many answered prayers. (not just coincidences)

    02. Jesus is a fictional character. (Are you sure?)

  10. on 04 Feb 2012 at 4:58 pm 10.Anonymous said …

    Ah, typical Christian. Make believe that the world is against you so that you must be right. How pitiful.

    Why don’t you prove that your god is real then?

    Instead of trying to turn the conversation round on others, why don’t you stop with the childish martyr crap and prove this god exists? Why don’t you prove that the Jesus you worship existed and was the son of god? Why don’t you prove it?

    Why? Because you can’t.

  11. on 04 Feb 2012 at 5:42 pm 11.alex said …

    “01. There are no answered prayers, only coincidences.(Opinion) I’ve had many answered prayers. (not just coincidences)”

    01. There are no tooth fairies, only coincidences,
    (Opinion) I’ve had many $$ under my pillow. (not just coincidences).

    “02. Jesus is a fictional character. (Are you sure?)”

    02. Santa Claus is fictional. (Are you sure”)

    …see the pattern? come on man, wake up. you can be good without god, but don’t be bad and use redemption as a hedge. behave.

  12. on 04 Feb 2012 at 8:23 pm 12.Anon. said …

    “If The Bible is just a silly story book, then why are some people so threatened by it? (Green Eggs & Ham is a story book. Have you ever heard of anyone offended by the words of Dr. Seuss?)”

    How many people live and die by Dr. Seuss? How many people run huge organizations to make sure everyone in the world hears Seuss’s rhymes and understands them as literal truth about the world (the Sneeches with stars on their bellies are ministers of evil…)? How many people try to get science disposed from science classrooms so Seuss Theory has equal time and weight? How many people are on boards like this claiming there really are Whos out there and if you can’t prove that there are not then there must be while simultaneously refusing to prove that there are?

    Exactly.

  13. on 04 Feb 2012 at 8:30 pm 13.alex said …

    I think deep down, these xtians know that they have nothing to gain by believing. They push their agenda so that when they do commit all the BS and crap, they can immediately Tebow and proclaim, with great fanfare, that they are redeemed and free to do it again and again.

  14. on 04 Feb 2012 at 9:31 pm 14.Anonymous said …

    Do people go around saying believe in Dr. Seuss or you will die?

    Do people go around saying that if you drink the blood and eat the flesh of the Cat in The Hat you will have everlasting life?

    Do people go around saying that everyone is condemned to eternal torment unless they accept that they are evil and only The Cat In the Hat can save them?

    Do people go around crying that people won’t let them force feed their Dr Seuss obsession down everyone’s throat?

    Do people go around pretending that America was founded to be a nation based on Dr. Seuss?

    Do people go around complaining whenever anyone dares tell them that Dr. Seuss? is only a story?

    Do people go around pissing off people by talking loudly and stupidly about their favorite Dr. Seuss story in public and then get offended when they are asked to keep their fantasy to themselves?

    Do people go around claiming that Dr. Seuss stories are real and that The Cat in The Hat is real yet run away when asked to prove it?

    No, yet Christians think it’s OK to do everyone of those things but get offended whenever anyone else raises a different point of view.

    You know Dr. Seuss is as much about story telling as the bible, right?

  15. on 05 Feb 2012 at 6:34 am 15.Me said …

    But I trust in your unfailing love; my heart rejoices in your salvation. I will sing to the Lord for he has been good to me. psalm 13: 5-6

    This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 1st John 4:10

  16. on 05 Feb 2012 at 7:02 am 16.Me said …

    I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. Mathew 21:21

    When you guys read this I don’t know if you don’t understand it or what but the key here is you have to have faith and you can’t doubt God. You have believe he can answer your prayer. God also doesn’t always answer prayer the moment you pray for it. Sometimes it takes weeks maybe months of faithfully praying for something before he answers.

    Now I know some of you who are reading this are probably thinking to yourselves “ah-ha! If God loves you so much why doesn’t he just answers your prayers right away?” My answer to this is (and I’m not claiming to know God’s thoughts) that God is probably testing you to see if you are going to stay faithful or if you’re going to give up after 2 days of praying. Also I’ve found that if you actually work at it when God does answer your prayers it’s all the better.

    Look I’m not here to force my life choices down your throats or convert you. You can even call me insane if you want to, I don’t really care. I mean I probably didn’t even explain this topic like I wanted to. I’m here because I want to give you something to think about.

  17. on 05 Feb 2012 at 7:29 am 17.Anonymous said …

    You’ve given nothing that hasn’t been soundly dismissed before. So let me sum it up for you.

    The excuses of “yes, no, or wait” cover all the cases that would occur with or without divine intervention. Funny, isn’t it, how an all powerful being never seems to be able to actually do anything than that which is possible without him.

  18. on 05 Feb 2012 at 8:05 am 18.Me said …

    Really. So then you’ve heard of a scientist who has created life.

  19. on 05 Feb 2012 at 11:18 am 19.Ian R said …

    “Believers commit themselves to a lifetime of delusion, instead of commiting their lives to reality.”

    Oh yeah! have you taken a look at reality lately?

    Dump religion but for goodness sake get a good shrink.

  20. on 05 Feb 2012 at 12:38 pm 20.Anonymous said …

    By the way, “me”, you like to quote the bible? Are you consistent or only when it suits you? Let us know your feelings on these…

    Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death.

    Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

    Six days shall work bedone, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

  21. on 05 Feb 2012 at 1:12 pm 21.Lou (DFW) said …

    7.JS said …

    “01. There are no answered prayers, only coincidences.(Opinion) I’ve had many answered prayers. (not just coincidences)”

    Me, too. I prayed that whenever I flip coin that it comes up heads for me. It did a little more than half the time! But then I tried a more stringent test of prayer to prove to you all the parayer works. I prayed to Jesus and god that when I flip that coin that heads would appear so I would win, and for tails to appear so my friend would loose. Guess what? It happened every time! THANK YOU JESUS! PRAYER WORKS!

    “02. Jesus is a fictional character. (Are you sure?)”

    Which Jesus? Do you mean the one who is allegedly the son of god? Yes, I’m just as sure of that as I am that Santa Claus doesn’t do the things attributed to him by the young children who believe it.

  22. on 05 Feb 2012 at 1:39 pm 22.Lou (DFW) said …

    http://www.facebook.com/people/Adam-Hemmer/1061080208 Adam Hemmer

    “Pray in one hand and take a dump in the other….let us know which one fills up first.”

  23. on 05 Feb 2012 at 2:54 pm 23.Anonymous said …

    Here’s a good post that goes hand-in-hand with the above topic. It’s of note that it covers much of the distractions, fallacious reasoning, and extraordinary double standards that we see on here from various theists and their alter egos.

    http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/07/reality-check-what-must-be-case-if_06.html

  24. on 05 Feb 2012 at 8:49 pm 24.Xenon said …

    I got a huge kick out of the above link. William Craig has debated every big name atheist and won in the world, but this John Loftus (owner of the blog) claims William Craig is afraid to debate him. How laughable.

    John it might be because nobody knows who your are. See Dr Craig is a very busy and much in demand speaker.

  25. on 05 Feb 2012 at 8:51 pm 25.Xenon said …

    Never mind. I found the guys problem.

    http://truth-be-told.tripod.com/id11.html

  26. on 05 Feb 2012 at 11:59 pm 26.Anonymous said …

    Ah, classic Horatiio, I mean Curmudgeon, as you were, Xenon. Rather than address the subject, he needs to vilify the messenger via his stock-in-trade combination of poisoning the well and ad hominem attack. Even if his assertions were true, they have nothing to do with the message or the subject.

    Also, somewhat two-faced of you Curmudgeon, sorry, Horatiio, my mistake, Xenon, when you run away from providing evidence for the existence of your imaginary god, and you refuse to give direct answers to direct questions, your attacks on the character of others comes over as empty as your promises and your word.

    Now, where’s that evidence for the existence of your imaginary god that you’ve so far failed to deliver? Let’s see you demonstrate how you’re not afraid to demonstrate that your god is real.

    Evidence. That’s all you need provide. Your refusal to do so speaks volumes about how your god clearly doesn’t exist.

  27. on 06 Feb 2012 at 3:17 am 27.Xenonphobic said …

    If any of you on here haven’t read John Loftus, I heartily encourage it, particularly if you want to see Christianity handled on the terms apologists usually deal. He’s really quite excellent, regardless of what Xenon or trolls like him have to say.

  28. on 06 Feb 2012 at 6:38 am 28.Agnostic said …

    When people really want to believe in something, they stop thinking. But ignorance is bliss I guess. I wish I could be so deluded. But I am too intelligent to believe for a second that the greatest fairy tale ever written could be true.
    Thank you for this site. I have more fun reading the posts here!

  29. on 06 Feb 2012 at 1:39 pm 29.Sl said …

    Truth? Reality? I claim none who argue have neither if they are argueing someone else’s ! Claim what belongs to you, you feeble humans so sure of things you’ve never been able to comprehend. Live for 14 billion years or 6 thousand and you’ll still only be able to account for what you’ve been around for. Stop bickering over details you can’t even prove! Live today! Not yesterday or tommorow . You can read whatever you want and you can see it is truly here,, now. The question and the answer is,, what are you going to do about it? Gonna love? Gonna hate? Change the world today! Change the reason you do things for righteous purpose, stop self righteous delusion and promote healing , not retribution ! Mercy for weak ( we are all). We cannot prove anything, everything proves us, and most everything is proving we are in need. So why not give instead of taking ? The bible is truth, the truth is proving itself and doesn’t care what is perseived by you or me, we are the ones who care, maybe the truth does what it does by showing us “our” true colors ? Do you see fault in others and fail to see your own? You blind man.jesus healed the blind and said you could too! Get it? ( this post is for my benefit and is a way to see the man in the mirror more clearly and to drown out all the fake reflections I’m seeing everywhere) peace!!

  30. on 06 Feb 2012 at 2:16 pm 30.Sl said …

    P.s. not every Christian you meet is quite as dumb as to be a zealot. And to my fellow followers( so called by themselves) for for god’s sake quit quoting bible verses to people! Please it just make you seem retarded And fully incapable of understanding the word. Live it !quit quoting it! And do everyone a favor and just read the red letters( Jesus words) cause everyone forsook him at the critical hour so why listen to cowards on how to fight? And do yourself a favor and stop praying for the physical, it’s the spirit that needs suplication! Dust to dust, get it? Hope peace love and light to all! Peace!

  31. on 06 Feb 2012 at 6:22 pm 31.Lou (DFW) said …

    21.Xenon said …

    “I got a huge kick out of the above link. William Craig has debated every big name atheist and won in the world [sic]….”

    Regardless of whether or not that’s true, being a great debater doesn’t change the fact that he has no evidence for his imaginary god, and that his conclusions, like yours, are absurd. It’s similar to having a good lawyer or a bad one – that doesn’t affect the true guilt or innocence of the defendant, but only how the jury perceives it.

  32. on 06 Feb 2012 at 6:27 pm 32.DPK said …

    Notice Xenon doesn’t refute or address even a single point Loftus makes in the cited article, but instead resorts to “nobody knows who you are” and then posts a link to another site that also doesn’t address a single point but is just a rambling ad homimen attack.
    I’m with Xenophobe, I found his points well thought out and well presented, and very compelling.
    Why don’t you theists ever actually debate the actual point. Like… why WON’T god heal amputees. The closest thing to a rebuttal argument has been “maybe amputees don’t need to be healed”. Not even the point.
    Xenon… why don’t you try actually countering any ONE of Loftus’s points… I’ll make it easy.. let’s just pick one at random:
    “The Christian thinks there is an objective absolute morality that stems from their perfectly good God, which is both eternal and unchangeable. But the morality we find in the Bible is something quite different than what they claim. Morality has evolved. What we find in the Bible is not something we would expect from a perfectly good God, but Christians believe there is a perfectly good God anyway. So Christians must choose, either 1) hold to a philosopher’s god divorced from the historical realities of the Bible, or 2) continue to worship a moral monster.”

    So, Xenon, Hor, or any of your aliases care to actually explain this in light of your faith in a perfect being?

    To the rest of readers…. prepare for a long period of silence from the theists.

  33. on 06 Feb 2012 at 7:45 pm 33.Biff said …

    It seems the Godless gang here has resorted to claiming all the God posters are the one and same. I can say Xenon has been posting here for years while the new Godless gang now here are fairly new. They all seem to have the same boring rhetoric disproven long ago. Scholarly debate is so hard to find.

  34. on 06 Feb 2012 at 8:00 pm 34.Anonymous said …

    Scholarly debate is so hard to find.

    Indeed it is.

    Perhaps you would provide some by either providing the evidence of this god of yours, or answering DPK’s questions in 27?

    Do start.

  35. on 06 Feb 2012 at 8:14 pm 35.Lou (DFW) said …

    28.Biff said …

    “It seems the Godless gang here…”

    Everybody is godless.

    “…has resorted to claiming all the God posters are the one and same.”

    Another lie.

    “I can say Xenon has been posting here for years while the new Godless gang now here are fairly new.”

    So what?

    “They all seem to have the same boring rhetoric disproven long ago.”

    The “same boring rhetoric” is “provide evidence of your imaginary god,” a statement that cannot be “disproven,” and to which theists never, ever directly reply, despite that “Xenon has been posting here for years.”

    “Scholarly debate is so hard to find.”

    “Scholarly debate” on the existence of your imaginary god is akin to “scholarly debate” on astrology – there’s nothing to debate. But if you wanted to begin a debate, then all you need do is provide your evidence. So yes, in that context, “scholarly debate is so hard to find.”

  36. on 06 Feb 2012 at 9:00 pm 36.40 year Atheist said …

    Moderator:
    We are here tonight to debate the issue of whether a deity exists. First, the Theist:

    Theist:
    If the theory of Cause and Effect is consistent enough to be the basis for empirical science, then it should be consistent enough for the justification of the probability that the universe had a cause which was greater than the sum of the components of the universe itself. If that probability is in fact justified and without empirical or rational refutation, then belief that it might be the case is justified.

    Atheist:
    I have no God theory, and I don’t have to prove anything. The theist has to provide proof that meets my personal approval, and I only approve of material evidence, because material stuff is all that exists, and no, I don’t have to prove it.
    (Audience applause)

    Theist:
    That refutes my argument…. How?

    Atheist:
    Your logic sucks.
    (Audience applause and laughter)

    Theist:
    Please provide particulars so we can discuss actual cases.

    Atheist:
    Your logic REALLY sucks.
    (Audience applause and laughter and lighters aflame overhead)

    Moderator:
    Well, that was quick. Thanks for participating, I think we all learned a lot here tonight.
    (Crowd roars and rushes to congratulate the Atheist debater on his clear win)

    Blog Analysts:
    “Well, the Atheist wiped up the floor with the Theist last night. The Atheist was right on the money with his clear answers, while the Theist logic REALLY sucked”.

  37. on 06 Feb 2012 at 9:10 pm 37.DPK said …

    Seems the only way 40 year can win an argument is by playing both sides.
    Now, let’s look at what might really happen……
    Theist: If the theory of Cause and Effect is consistent enough to be the basis for empirical science, then it should be consistent enough for the justification of the probability that the universe had a cause which was greater than the sum of the components of the universe itself.”

    Atheist: “Let’s assume for a moment that that assumption is correct. By your own argument then god must have a cause. What caused god? And what caused that, and what caused that…..?

    Theist: “God has no cause. He is eternal.

    Atheist: “Then you violate your own premise, and your logic does really suck.”

  38. on 06 Feb 2012 at 9:38 pm 38.40 year Atheist said …

    What really happens in the blogosphere is rarely like the formal process. The drive to win is frequently fed by an attachment to an agenda that is not the desire to reveal truth. When an agenda is threatened, the proponent starts to use tactics rather than logic, and to insist that these tactics are not fallacies, they are in fact logic. And it is difficult-to-impossible to ascertain the opposition’s true set of presuppositions, and the opposition might even deny that they have them.

    The result is a chaotic mess that profits neither side, much less the observers.

    It is understandable that a proponent of an idea that is essential to his worldview would become stressed to the point of constant fallacious assertions in order to protect that worldview. After all, to lose such an argument threatens his entire view of the world and of himself. And debating is win/lose argumentation.

    This is the reason that I sometimes cease an argument. When an argument becomes non-rational, in the sense that the niceties of formal arguments are rejected in favor of win/lose tactics, there is no cause to continue because there is no chance of arriving at a rational, valid conclusion in that atmosphere.

    But when a win/lose argument is found unable to be redirected into an analytical channel, I will assert my right to stop it, and move on. This is not about win/lose, it is about discovering the extent of reality and the possible existence of validity and truth despite a culture that denies it.

  39. on 06 Feb 2012 at 9:54 pm 39.Lou (DFW) said …

    33.40 year Atheist said …

    “This is not about win/lose, it is about discovering the extent of reality and the possible existence of validity and truth despite a culture that denies it.”

    That there’s no evidence for god.

  40. on 06 Feb 2012 at 9:59 pm 40.Anonymous said …

    So, which part of 40ya’s latest rambling contained the, you know, evidence? As far as I can see, it’s just another appeal

  41. on 06 Feb 2012 at 10:00 pm 41.Anonymous said …

    Oops, another appeal to ignorance.

  42. on 06 Feb 2012 at 10:26 pm 42.A said …

    Thanks for your posts 40y-a. You show some great insight. A nice reminder not argue with a fool. People might not know the difference.

  43. on 06 Feb 2012 at 10:39 pm 43.Xenonphobe said …

    “Theist:
    If the theory of Cause and Effect is consistent enough to be the basis for empirical science, then it should be consistent enough for the justification of the probability that the universe had a cause which was greater than the sum of the components of the universe itself. If that probability is in fact justified and without empirical or rational refutation, then belief that it might be the case is justified.”

    If I’m not mistaken, Lawrence Krauss’s recent work shows that this is nothing short of the horses**t we’ve all known it to be all along. The cause for the universe is now essentially known: “nothing” is unstable and will decay into “something.” The appeal to ignorance didn’t hold up forever, like it never does, like Stenger keeps pointing out.

    This also, of course, is a classic dodge. “I’ll play with some words, have crappy logic, and conclude based on my ignorance that it must be God. All further investigation can cease, even if the catch-all, explain-nothing God I shoved in that gap isn’t logically consistent or connected to the deity I think (since science showed that “God’s morality” and our own morality are the same) everyone should worship on pain of eternal, nonsensical torture.”

    What’s that they just said? “God doesn’t have to make sense. He’s God!” Yeah. Exactly. Where I come from, we call a spade a spade and a pile of dookie a, well, pile of dookie.

  44. on 06 Feb 2012 at 11:07 pm 44.Curmudgeon said …

    “The cause for the universe is now essentially known:”

    Phobia thanks. Now the proof please. There are many many scholarly scientist out there who are unaware of this finding.

    I’ll get the popcorn.

  45. on 07 Feb 2012 at 12:06 am 45.DPK said …

    33.40 year Atheist said …
    “The drive to win is frequently fed by an attachment to an agenda that is not the desire to reveal truth. When an agenda is threatened, the proponent starts to use tactics rather than logic, and to insist that these tactics are not fallacies, they are in fact logic. …
    It is understandable that a proponent of an idea that is essential to his worldview would become stressed to the point of constant fallacious assertions in order to protect that worldview. After all, to lose such an argument threatens his entire view of the world and of himself. …’

    Finally, 40 year has said something that I agree with…. this is very true, but your myopic worldview and attachment to your non-existent god doesn’t even allow you to comprehend that you are talking about yourself. But thank yu for pointing out the obvious.

  46. on 07 Feb 2012 at 12:10 am 46.alex said …

    “The cause for the universe is now essentially known:”
    meaning it’s not 100%. when i drop an an apple, being the cynic, i’m almost 100% sure it’s gravity. i suppose it could be god, but i doubt it. sometimes, what i see with my own eyes is unbelievable, but they haven’t failed me yet. I saw someone levitate a boat, but i’m sure it’s a trick. if jesus were to show up today, what would he need to do to prove it? for me, jesus would have to throw me in hell and when i’m screaming in agony, i guess I would have to admit my mistake. you like that? what would jesus need to do? theists, please answer.

    p.s. my son is laughing as i’m writing this. i guess he’s not too worried….

  47. on 07 Feb 2012 at 12:43 am 47.Xenonphobic said …

    It’s funny how proof is requested when it comes to science but not when it comes to walled-off theistic beliefs–and no doubt the standard of “proof” is far beyond scientific consensus or anything like that when it comes to scientific findings that debase the ignorantly held pseudo-rational knee-jerk defenses of believers.

    It’s also funny, in one of the least funny ways possible, how these folks will make this request with a straight face while using it as a dodge to avoid presenting any evidence for their beliefs because they have this “get-out-of-thinking-free” card called “faith” that no one need respect in the slightest regard.

    I’m not going to try to argue with you that this constitutes “proof,” as we all know you can’t really “prove” things in science the way you can in, say, mathematics. Indeed, I’m not even hoping it will convince any of you that believe. But, since it is very instructive for anyone to watch this, particularly sensible people that aren’t aware of it, enjoy the following clip of awesome, courtesy of YouTube, Dr. Krauss, and the Richard Dawkins foundation for not being an insufferable idiot.

    Yes. Get popcorn. This is long and spell-bindingly interesting… for anyone with the slightest amount of curiosity about how the world actually works.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg

  48. on 07 Feb 2012 at 1:22 am 48.Curmudgeon said …

    “I’m not going to try to argue with you that this constitutes “proof,” as we all know you can’t really “prove” things in science”

    So you would not agree with Lou’s calls for “proof” on God? As a materialist I would think proof would be quite easy to obtain? No? If everything is material, why is proof difficult to obtain?

    I have seen how it works. Essentially Krauss has established “God” without calling the deity as such. What makes it so beautiful is that for the materialist, they do not need proof because an atheist philosopher has made the hypothesis.

    I have no problem with it. It moves atheist a step closer to God. Remember Parmenides claim that nothing cannot exist; because if nothing existed, it would then be something. But for God, its not that difficult to pull off, quantum or not.

  49. on 07 Feb 2012 at 1:33 am 49.Anonymous said …

    If there was an award for logical fallacies and false premises per square pixel, our Stan would surely be in the running. His latest missive runs his standard gambit – opening fallacy / false premise, word salad, strawman, erroneous conclusion.

    I wasn’t going to comment but perhaps it will be of some use to anyone tempted to be impressed by his use of science-y sounding stuff.

    He starts off with his own curious definition of science. One that, of course, is going to support his conclusion whilst ignoring all the other pesky stuff that doesn’t. How this chump can claim the “science” can somehow vindicate his position when he also hides behind the mantra of science not being able to test his woo we shall leave as an exercise to the reader. Certainly those kind of dishonesty and double standards disqualify him from being taken seriously in debate.

    His opening premise is also curiously circular. He’s assumed what he wants to prove then goes on to say he proved that. Yeah, OK, whatever.

    He also plays word games with equivocation in that he mixes and matches cause and effect with directed action. Nice try, but back to shell-game school for you.

    As has been pointed out, cause and effect, particularly directed certainly isn’t a given for how this universe works. Perhaps it is to those stuck in bronze-age goat-herder land but for anyone with a smattering of science education, it’s simply not so.

    As we get to the juicy word-salad at the end of the first paragraph it’s obvious that he doesn’t actually have anything of substance, just another “maybe, if, perhaps, well, it could be, if only you’d take it my way” appeal to ignorance. So, here we shake our heads and say “yep, 40YA, nonsense as usual” – aka Blah, Blah, Blah

  50. on 07 Feb 2012 at 1:42 am 50.Anonymous said …

    Ah, so now he has a chance to ask someone for “proof” our troll Curmudgeon surfaces.

    Say, Cur, where do you go to when we’re asking you to provide that proof of god we’re still waiting for from November, 2011?

    Also, what’s with the diversions? You’re simply playing a game of shifting the burden of proof. That you keep asking people to educate you when you don’t want to hear the answer only avoid answering questions is sad. It’s actually pitiful in that we all know that these “questions” have nothing at all to do with YOU proving that god exists.

    Someone suggested that you are an atheist in disguise. I think this was raised a while back. I’ll say that I think not as an atheist would make better arguments than you even to support theism. You make none, all you do is make yourself look cowardly and silly.

    Man up and provide proof of your god or you’ll just be ignored as a troll.

  51. on 07 Feb 2012 at 1:52 am 51.Anonymous said …

    Curmudgeon said, in between not answering questions directed at him “I have seen how it works. Essentially Krauss has established “God” without calling the deity as such.”

    So, Curmudgeon, does this god that you claim Krauss established supposedly answer prayers, have a son, have a desperate need to be worshiped, knows everything going on everywhere yet, curiously, is unable to locate the sole man on earth in a garden he just created, have a thing for foreskins, likes killing people, and so on?

  52. on 07 Feb 2012 at 2:41 am 52.A said …

    Anonymous @ #44

    Did you ever actually disprove or debunk anything 40YA stated earlier. You raised many fabulous accusations but you never actually cited examples.

  53. on 07 Feb 2012 at 2:44 am 53.A said …

    William Lane Craig destroys Lawrence Krauss in debate last year at NC state. Listen and enjoy.

    Marshall where you there?

    http://www.apologetics315.com/2011/03/william-lane-craig-vs-lawrence-krauss.html

  54. on 07 Feb 2012 at 2:50 am 54.Xenonphobic said …

    “So you would not agree with Lou’s calls for “proof” on God? As a materialist I would think proof would be quite easy to obtain? No? If everything is material, why is proof difficult to obtain?” -CurmTroll

    Simpleton! Equivocator! Shame! Existence proofs are possible. Explanatory proofs are impossible. Because I’m a nice guy, I’ll elaborate.

    Example. Claim: apples exist. Proof: present apple.

    Existence proofs are possible, even for things that cannot be presented, often but not only by using a modus ponens or modus tollens argument on demonstrable evidence. Example: “Rainbows are only visible when water droplets of a certain kind are suspended in the atmosphere in a certain way. A rainbow is visible. Therefore, there are such water droplets.”

    You are being asked to provide evidence for the existence of your god. You are not doing so.

    Where’s the evidence? One argument or scientific insight after another dismantles claims to ignorance as being “evidence.” What then? Equivocating on the definition of your deity. Luckily for you, your theology is bunk and has lost power–you’d be cast in to hellfire for claims like the one you made about God if it were true and cast as a heretic into a worldly pyre set by priests if it still held real sway.

  55. on 07 Feb 2012 at 3:04 am 55.Anonymous said …

    Horatiio at 47, apparently my reply was over your head. That’s OK, it’s not like you ever actually do anything other than raise diversionary arguments just like this one.

    Still, provide evidence for the existence of your god and I’ll be happy to take it and you on.

  56. on 07 Feb 2012 at 3:26 am 56.40 year Atheist said …

    Empiricism depends upon cause and effect to be valid; that it be valid for all times and places in the universe; that existence and fact not ever be partial. These are the principles that cannot be reduced or tested, yet are known to be valid; they are axiomatic to reason, empiricism, and logic.

    So empirical evidence, while demonstrated physically and repeatably, relies on non-provable “truths”, in Locke’s words: “intuited”, as implicit axioms.

    The very definition of empiricism insists that the material cause of the material effect be repeatable. But no effect can be verified by experiments repeated everywhere and at all times; so it must be assumed to probably be valid (if it is not falsified at some point). So empirical evidence is probabilistic in nature. It is never certain beyond any possible refutation.

    And empiricist David Hume observed that the constant conjunction between a certain cause and a certain effect in no way guarantees a future such conjunction. This is a verification of sorts of the probabilistic nature of empirical findings. However, Hume agreed that cause and effect, while not certain in his mind, is a “useful construct”. In fact, despite Hume’s concerns, it remains a First Principle because no falsification of it is possible; the failure of a particular proposed “constant conjunction” would merely mean that it does not represent a law of nature, not that the principle of cause and effect has failed.

    If the First Principles are believed to be valid – and they must be if empiricism is to be considered valid – then valid truths can be known outside the realm of materialism and empiricism. This is a radical thought to Philosophical Materialists and Logical Positivists who reject any thought of any possible existence beyond the physical material world. For them, reality stops at the end of the physical. Metaphysical reality is rejected.

    But this rejection of the obvious leads directly to the logical downfall of such ideologies.

    First, the rejection of the validity of the First Principles leads straight and immediately to anti-rationalism, as Friedrich Nietzsche proved. This removal of the basis for rational thought collapses logic into a subjective gumbo of personal opinions based on no absolute foundation whatsoever. Without logic based on the First Principles, contradiction, paradox and non-binary logic become acceptable modes of thought.

    Second, the concept of a “philosophy” is itself non-material, having no length, width, breadth or mass. So a non-material philosophy that requires that only material entities exist, self-refutes and dies a death of non-coherence and paradox. The idea that science, a material pursuit, produces axiomatic truth is false.

  57. on 07 Feb 2012 at 3:59 am 57.Lou (DFW) said …

    51.40 year Atheist said …

    Third, you, like all the other theists here, NEVER, EVER present any evidence of your imaginary god. That’s all that matters and that’s all that’s required. The rest of your pseudo-intellectual babbling is nothing but “smoke-filled coffeehouse crap.”

  58. on 07 Feb 2012 at 4:06 am 58.A+ said …

    “William Lane Craig destroys Lawrence Krauss in debate last year at NC state. Listen and enjoy.”

    To claim that Craig won that debate is pretty shaky, but let’s have fun and concede that to you.

    So what?

    A debate, particularly a philosophical debate, despite the value placed on it by some, is a game. It’s very much like verbal chess, in a sense. Winning the debate has nothing to do with anything. Krauss has spent his life studying science; Craig has spent his life studying philosophy for the purpose of attempting to validate Bronze Age myths and storytelling, something that was never intended to be taken as properly valid, in the modern sense (one is particularly reminded of this in the doctrine of the Trinity, which is explicitly meant to be confounding to reason and thus requiring faith). To put the men in the same league is utterly ridiculous, and the only real error here was on Krauss’s part in volunteering to let this buffoon share the stage with him as if his ideas were worthy of anything more than scorn.

    Craig falls back on his stock of philosophical flim-flam arguments that (a) have been slapped around by philosophers, scientists, and other thinking people since their invention and (b) are complete non-starters on getting to any particular theism. Somehow his bullshitting in this regard is tantamount to Krauss’s keen understanding of how complicated parts of nature actually work? I call shenanigans of the highest order!

    Generally, debating with a theist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn’t matter how good a player someone is. The pigeon is still going to hop up on the board, kick some of the pieces over, poop on something, and strut around oblivious to the game acting as if it accomplished something. Bless whoever first wrote that because it’s a gem.

  59. on 07 Feb 2012 at 4:17 am 59.A++ said …

    Also, anyone that points at Craig as a debate-winner as some claim to his superiority or authority is a fool. The man has “won debates” in which he attempts to justify genocide (see Craig v. Harris, Apr. 2011, Notre Dame, e.g.). If you are a human being that stands in front of other people and tries to justify ethnic-cleansing via genocide, then you are a lunatic. Your credibility is utterly lost.

    Craig has also been claimed to have won debates by his appeal to the “self-authenticating nature of the holy spirit,” sometimes called the “inner-witness” of the same. Anyone who puts forth this kind of crap loses all–yes, ALL–credibility.

    He’s gone further with that (because it backed him into a corner) and said that if he was shown absolutely unequivocal and incontrovertible evidence that Jesus never was resurrected that because of his inner witness, he’d still believe Jesus was resurrected. That destroys his credibility even further while branding him as the kind of delusional lunatic that he really is.

    That anyone listens to him after that blows my mind.

  60. on 07 Feb 2012 at 4:34 am 60.Anonymous said …

    That’s the point, Lou. Lots of meaningless babbling, psuedo-intellectual posturing, the double-standard I mentioned earlier, laying the groundwork for excuses to come, and the proof of their god? Not addressed even in the slightest.

    Best Fail, 2012 – YTD.

  61. on 07 Feb 2012 at 12:15 pm 61.Curmudgeon said …

    “Existence proofs are possible. Explanatory proofs are impossible.”

    So Xenophobic, are you saying this universe from nothing event never existed?

    As Lou has been so clear about, why should I believe something you cannot prove?

    I’m with you Lou, I got your back.

  62. on 07 Feb 2012 at 1:10 pm 62.Lou (DFW) said …

    56.Curmudgeon said …

    “So Xenophobic, are you saying this universe from nothing event never existed?”

    He is obviously not saying that.

    “As Lou has been so clear about, why should I believe something you cannot prove?”

    Why do you continue to lie about what I write here? Show me where I wrote “why should [you] believe something you cannot prove?” Unless you can or you don’t retract your comments and cease misquoting me, that makes you a liar.

  63. on 07 Feb 2012 at 1:16 pm 63.Anonymous said …

    Curmudgeon, you keep avoiding the question. Let me help you here:

    “The Christian thinks there is an objective absolute morality that stems from their perfectly good God, which is both eternal and unchangeable. But the morality we find in the Bible is something quite different than what they claim. Morality has evolved. What we find in the Bible is not something we would expect from a perfectly good God, but Christians believe there is a perfectly good God anyway. So Christians must choose, either 1) hold to a philosopher’s god divorced from the historical realities of the Bible, or 2) continue to worship a moral monster.”

    Now, where’s that evidence for the existence of your imaginary god that you’ve so far failed to deliver? Let’s see you demonstrate how you’re not afraid to demonstrate that your god is real

    Say, Cur, where do you go to when we’re asking you to provide that proof of god we’re still waiting for from November, 2011?

    Also, what’s with the diversions? You’re simply playing a game of shifting the burden of proof. That you keep asking people to educate you when you don’t want to hear the answer only avoid answering questions is sad. It’s actually pitiful in that we all know that these “questions” have nothing at all to do with YOU proving that god exists.

    So, Curmudgeon, does this god that you claim Krauss established supposedly answer prayers, have a son, have a desperate need to be worshiped, knows everything going on everywhere yet, curiously, is unable to locate the sole man on earth in a garden he just created, have a thing for foreskins, likes killing people, and so on?

    Would it help if I also linked to your post of November, 2011 where you offered to provide proof of the existence of god? You can’t have forgotten, we keep reminding you of it.

  64. on 07 Feb 2012 at 2:16 pm 64.Xenonphobic said …

    “So Xenophobic, are you saying this universe from nothing event never existed?

    As Lou has been so clear about, why should I believe something you cannot prove?”

    No. That’s not what I said. Shame! Shame again!

    What I was talking about is a simple matter of what can and cannot be established by evidence. Interestingly, 40yA came rather close to what I was talking about by going on a long-winded philosophical babble-fest about whether or not empiricism requires us to believe in metaphysics, specifically when he concludes that science cannot provide axiomatic truth. Maybe you should re-read where I made that statement about “unlike, say, mathematics,” where axiomatic truths are routinely established (though those “truths” still rest upon the agreement upon the axioms). That’s hard to take out-of-context, though, so you keenly ignored it, like you ignore the requests for evidence of your (or any!) deity.

    Since people seem worked up about 40yA’s philosophy, let’s comment briefly on it. First, a dismantling of empiricism as a philosophy doesn’t necessary have anything to do with reality, nor does it have anything to do with establishing a requirement for theology. Let’s suppose he is correct, even, in his analysis, AND that it means something objective (which it doesn’t–Krauss’s big point in his debate with Craig). In that case, he concludes that empiricism, if followed, requires metaphysics–not theology–metaphysics. This metaphysics that is required is simply a set of statements outside of what can be established by the axioms of empiricism (Godel did better, 40yA; you might look at his work to see why EVERY philosophy is necessarily incomplete or inconsistent, which says an awful lot about why theologies, which force completeness, are always so damn inconsistent).

    Those metaphysical statements are only required to be of one of two kinds: true statements that cannot be proved true within the context of empiricism and false statements that cannot be proved false within the context of empiricism. There is no requirement that these metaphysical statements should be theological in nature or that any theological statement in this metaphysics is true. Indeed, proper (meaning not idiotic) theological statements are very likely to be the kind that are false and cannot be proven false within the context of empiricism since immediately upon donning theological axioms (which is how you handle these statements when you screw up and say they’re anything more than undecidable, e.g. by calling them Truth or choosing to worship them–they become axioms in a new system) you run into all sorts of problems of disagreement with reality. That casts a heavy shadow on those axioms and thus on the likelihood of the truth-value of those undecidable statements outside of empiricism.

    Back to Cur’s idiocy and thereby to wit, Krauss’s lecture shows us that evidence points away from the necessity of a Prime Mover or Creator, so we have no reason to feel a requirement to fill in that gap in our knowledge with a fairy tale–a magical story for which there is no evidence. Your God could maybe be established by evidence. We’re all waiting for that evidence. Maybe you can’t hear the repeated injunctions for it, or maybe you’re ignoring them because you know as well as everyone else that you can’t deliver.

  65. on 07 Feb 2012 at 6:51 pm 65.Curmudgeon said …

    Phobic states

    “Krauss’s lecture shows us that evidence points away from the necessity of a Prime Mover or Creator”

    Interesting point after meandering through a long winded post that fails to present proof of a universe from nothing(the Lou rule of proof). You seem to credit this standard to me, but please, all credit goes to Lou. Please, this new evidence Krauss demonstrates that points away from a deity; could you offer this? Or is it too, a form of veracity that just cannot be “established by evidence”?

    See you and Lou keep asking for God evidence but you cannot provide evidence for your own claims so why bother?

    Be aware, you mention metaphysics and Lou does not accept metaphysics. You should stay away from that theme.

    Evidence for God has been offered up many times on this blog. BTW phobia,as you long unremitting tirade attempted to decree, this has nothing to do with theology. It is about did the universe come about by a Creator. Theology is immaterial here. Horatio, Biff, Ben, Xenon, Boz among others all recognize the evidence. I don’t see a need to keep covering the same material.

  66. on 07 Feb 2012 at 7:05 pm 66.Xenonphobic said …

    Go-go-gadget-Curm writes:
    ‘“Krauss’s lecture shows us that evidence points away from the necessity of a Prime Mover or Creator”
    ‘Please, this new evidence Krauss demonstrates that points away from a deity; could you offer this?’

    Again with the shame!

    Read those two sentences. Look at how you have misquoted me. Look at how you are wrong. It is plain as day: “Krauss’s evidence points away from the necessity of…” gets translated into “Krauss demonstrates that points away from.”

    Idiot.

    The rest: more dodges, plus a request to prove a negative claim, which is what we’re all really making: “the creation of the universe DOES NOT REQUIRE a deity.” You don’t prove negative positions, Curm. That’s where you live when there’s no proof of a claim.

    We’re all willing to hear of some evidence. I don’t care, and I doubt anyone cares, how much “evidence” has been presented here before. Apparently no one bought it. We’d all like to hear some from you now.

    Now I’ll get popcorn.

  67. on 07 Feb 2012 at 7:23 pm 67.Lou (DFW) said …

    60.Curmudgeon said …

    “See you and Lou keep asking for God evidence but you cannot provide evidence for your own claims”

    I made no claims except for the Purple Gnome who lives in my dishwasher. I admit I have no evidence for him, but why don’t your prove that he doesn’t exist? Because it’s not possible, no more than it is to disprove your god claim. Therefore, neither your claim nor mine is valid until we provide evidence. I admitted I don’t have any, but you didn’t. I am honest, you are a dishonest fraud.

    “…so why bother?”

    To save yourself from more embarrassment, that’s why. Why don’t you simply end your charade and admit that you have no evidence? Just admit that your belief is one of faith. It’s the only truth that you have.

  68. on 07 Feb 2012 at 7:23 pm 68.Curmudgeon said …

    Phobic,

    Tsk tsk, ad homenim and anger?

    You seem unstable and likely to dodge so let me keep this simple. So let us recap.

    What exactly have you claimed that can backed with evidence?

    Universe from nothing?

    No need for a deity demonstrated by?

  69. on 07 Feb 2012 at 7:24 pm 69.Xenonphobic said …

    Let me make this simple for you, Curm, though it might still be over your head.

    Ideally, we look for explanations that meet conditions of both necessity and sufficiency. Sufficiency here indicates that the explanation would be able to account for an observed phenomenon. Necessity indicates that the hypothesis in question is *required* to account for it. You can call it by it’s name, Ockham’s Razor, or you can call it “common sense,” that we strive to cut away unnecessary hypotheses in explaining things. For example: “the earth completely exploded and reformed” is a sufficient explanation to how the dinosaurs died out, but it certainly isn’t necessary. Since we see no evidence of that claim anywhere else, we reject it, even though it would explain the mass extinction. Incidentally, Noah’s flood is identically sufficient but not necessary in this example. It is therefore summarily rejected based on being unnecessary and generally idiotic.

    A creator god is a would-be sufficient explanation to explain existence, but Krauss’s work undermines its necessity. It turns out that any number of magical explanations that have nothing to do with gods, or God, are also sufficient and yet unnecessary, so people don’t buy them. Examples: “Lord Brahman dreams the whole universe into existence,” “the universe just is and always has been,” and “aliens in another universe intentionally constructed this universe.”

    You might be tempted to argue the “sufficiency” of some of those examples, but the arguments you will construct are applicable to god too, as has been repeatedly shown to you.

    When I say “Krauss points away from the necessity of a deity,” then, that’s not the same thing as saying that he points away from a deity. We have no reason to believe in any hypothesis, including a deity, that isn’t necessary to explain a thing.

    As for Lou’s standard of proof, you’re misinterpreting him (big f-ing surprise there!). He wants some evidence that points to God. You never give it. In the lingo here, he wants sufficient evidence for which a God as a hypothesis is also necessary. That’s what he’s saying you can’t provide. Further, I suspect he’ll quite agree with my assessment of metaphysics, as laid out, as being statements outside of the “physics” created by the axiomatic system of empiricism. If not, he’s free to comment. You’ve proved incapable of grading anything and of speaking for him, so cut it out and stop trying to displace blame repeatedly.

    Now, this is surely something you’ll try to turn back on Krauss, so let’s crap on that move before you do it. Krauss is pointing away from the necessity of the God hypothesis by providing a consistent alternative hypothesis. He is not saying that “this is absolutely certainly how it went down.” His reasoning is simple: “We know this kind of thing happens, and thus it is reasonable to conclude that it happened in the formation of the universe. Examining the data we have available to us, we get a good match between predicted consequences of this model and observed reality, so we have more reason to expect this alternative hypothesis has validity.”

    Why don’t you do the same instead of being insufferably thick-headed?
    1) Provide your god-hypothesis, whatever it is.
    2) Whittle it down to the barest bones of necessity while maintaining sufficiency.
    3) Provide data-based evidence that your god-hypothesis makes decent predictions about real observed and observable phenomena.

    I won’t speak for Lou, but I will bet that this is much more in line of what he’s asking for.

  70. on 07 Feb 2012 at 7:25 pm 70.Curmudgeon said …

    “I made no claims except for the Purple Gnome who lives in my dishwasher.”

    Awesome! I don’t ask for any evidence either. Have fun with him/her.

  71. on 07 Feb 2012 at 7:26 pm 71.Xenonphobic said …

    “Tsk tsk, ad homenim and anger?”

    Looks like Curm doesn’t know the difference between an ad hominem and an insult either.

    I’m not saying your argument is wrong because you’re an idiot. I’m just calling you an idiot.

  72. on 07 Feb 2012 at 7:26 pm 72.Curmudgeon said …

    Phobic,
    Tsk tsk, ad homenim and anger?

    You seem unstable and likely to dodge so let me keep this simple. So let us recap.
    What exactly have you claimed that can backed with evidence?

    Universe from nothing?

    No need for a deity demonstrated by?

    Keep these simple so Lou can follow along. His burden of proof is very high.

  73. on 07 Feb 2012 at 7:31 pm 73.Curmudgeon said …

    I’m not going to try to argue with you that God’s actions constitutes “proof,” as we all know you can’t really “prove” things in science the way you can in, say, mathematics. Indeed, I’m not even hoping it will convince any of you that don’t believe. But, since it is very instructive for anyone to watch this, particularly sensible people that aren’t aware of it, enjoy the following clip of awesome, courtesy of YouTube, Dr. Collins, and the Veritas Forum for not being an insufferable idiot.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGu_VtbpWhE

  74. on 07 Feb 2012 at 7:52 pm 74.Xenonphobic said …

    Collins? Are you kidding me? Seriously? Saw a waterfall in three cascades and remember the Trinity after reading C.S. Lewis and converted from de facto (unexamined) disbelief to Christianity Collins? Wow. Bad move.

    Let’s consider the slide Collins puts up about a third of the way into his talk:
    “Nature provides some interesting pointers to God
    -There is something instead of nothing
    -“The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics”
    -The Big Bang” (cf. something instead of nothing)
    From here, Collins jumps to “so there must be a supernatural something behind it all.”

    So Krauss’s talk, which is considerably more recent, removes the first and third objection Collins has here. That’s the point of Krauss’s findings. They remove the blinders from that situation and give a plausible natural explanation, contrary to what Collins says. So Collins fell for the old God-of-the-Gaps argument there (aka argument from ignorance). Krauss offers a filling to that gap that should make Collins shake in his boots because a “supernatural creator” is no longer the “only ‘reasonable’ alternative” to “something came from nothing.” Krauss showed that something will always come from “nothing.” That’s not so unreasonable, then.

    The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is really surprising to me. We built mathematics specifically to be this kind of effective tool, so when someone is surprised at how effective it is, it’s pretty damn surprising. The fundamental meaning of the concepts in mathematics are designed around understanding fundamental concepts in the world.

    Then Collins goes on to say “there must have been a creator, so let’s call the creator God.” Okay, let’s. That’s a stupid choice of name, though, because “God” already means something else (in theology) and thus is likely to cause confusion (as it clearly did). That leads Collins to read C.S. Lewis and see a waterfall and take the big non sequitur leap from deist, which is all that his little slide could possibly lead him to, to theist to Christian. That’s not evidence. It’s pointing to a lack of evidence as evidence.

    A lack of evidence is not evidence unless we’re making a modus tollens kind of argument, but such arguments absolutely require necessity to get off the ground. Since the god-hypothesis cannot be demonstrated to be necessary, it goes nowhere.

    You’ve got better than this kind of flim-flam holding up your worldview, Curm, don’t you? I hope so. Wow.

  75. on 07 Feb 2012 at 9:08 pm 75.Curmudgeon said …

    Phobia

    I dunno, Collins is much more believable than you. Sort of creative how I took your post and with a few word changes make the my case. And no, if you have read any of Collin’s works, his belief in God consist of more than the natural.

    Yes Phobia, a natural explanation of something from nothing is more believable than a supernatural. How laughable. The natural producing ex nihilo. How quaint! If you can provide me one example….maybe. But you have not. Is this all that holds your atheistic worldview together? No wonder the religion is so small.

    Now for your claim.

    “They remove the blinders from that situation and give a plausible natural explanation, contrary to what Collins says.”

    Which is what?

  76. on 07 Feb 2012 at 9:24 pm 76.Xenonphobic said …

    Can you read, Curm? Collins says “there is no reasonable natural explanation.” That’s what Krauss provided.

    Actually, no one said anything about “ex nihilo.” What Krauss pointed out is that there is a fundamental difference between “nothing” in the “nihilo” sense and nothing in the sense that actually is in the universe. The “real nothing” is unstable and gives rise to things. Everything else is philosophical pissing around that goes nowhere toward any particular theism… only to deism, and only to a deism remote from the original deism since “creation” doesn’t really require too much and even then only when a feeble human mind needs to fill in a gap in his knowledge with some kind of explanation for something that doesn’t necessarily need an explanation (but might end up with one someday anyway).

    So where does that leave your god, for which you’ve provided no evidence except a pointer to gaps? It leaves him as the creator of a universe of nothing but vacuum energy. If you want to call vacuum energy “God,” I suppose you’re entitled to do that, as stupid as it is. So what, though? Vacuum energy doesn’t care what you call it, whether you believe in it, or if or how you worship it.

    “Is this all that holds your atheistic worldview together? No wonder the religion is so small.”

    Are you really that stupid, Curm? Atheism isn’t a religion. This point has been covered about a bajillion times. It’s the rejection of religions. It’s not having a religion. It’s not even a worldview. It’s not embracing any of a particular class of worldviews called theologies.

    As to Collins sounding more convincing than I do, so what? “Sounding convincing” has nothing to do with being correct about something. There’s a whole collection of fields for “sounding convincing,” like marketing and con-artistry.

  77. on 07 Feb 2012 at 10:05 pm 77.Lou (DFW) said …

    71.Xenonphobic said …

    “Are you really that stupid, Curm? Atheism isn’t a religion.”

    No, he’s a pathological liar.

  78. on 07 Feb 2012 at 10:06 pm 78.Lou (DFW) said …

    65.Curmudgeon said …

    “I made no claims except for the Purple Gnome who lives in my dishwasher.”

    “Awesome! I don’t ask for any evidence either. Have fun with him/her.”

    Why not?

  79. on 07 Feb 2012 at 10:19 pm 79.Xenonphobic said …

    73.Lou (DFW) said …

    “Why not?”

    Because he’s an idiot, pathological liar or not.

  80. on 07 Feb 2012 at 11:46 pm 80.Anonymous said …

    So, come on Curm, you made this claim, now let’s see you flesh it out.

    I have seen how it works. Essentially Krauss has established “God” without calling the deity as such.

    First, why do you say that?

    Which god is this? Perhaps you, like Horatiio, have also come round to the conclusion that deism is the only place you can hide your god? Expand, please.

    Tell us about this god you say Krauss established. Define it, tell us about its properties, and tell us what proof you have regarding its continued existence. We’ll start there and proceed.

  81. on 08 Feb 2012 at 1:05 am 81.Curmudgeon said …

    “What Krauss pointed out is that there is a fundamental difference between “nothing” in the “nihilo” sense and nothing in the sense that actually is in the universe.”

    Yes, yes I know. I was being felicitous. I have read some of his work.

    “The “real nothing” is unstable and gives rise to things.”

    Sigh, another claim with no proof.

    “Atheism isn’t a religion.”

    Yawn, yes it is. It is no more than a worldview like Taoism.
    http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/

    “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.”
    1. No Gods, Religion is evil, Theist are delusional, etc.

    Now lets cut to the chase. I am on a blog which is selling atheism. It is supported by supposed proofs of why God is imaginary. All of the “proofs” are fallacious at best. I use your own criteria “proof” since you all are strict materialist to ask you to support valid questions.

    Universe from nothing?

    No need for a deity demonstrated by?

    Mr Q claimed the first lifeforms were single cell. No proof provided

    All any of you have is ad homenim attacks. In fact, Phobia even admits he cannot provide proof.

    In order to leave my worldview, you must provide valid evidence, proof and logic. You provide nothing, especially Lou. You don’t want to support your view, you only want ammo to attack another view. This means you have nothing to offer. Why would anyone want it?

    Most of you are cowards with your redefining of atheism to reflect the words “lack of belief” while the true atheist actually still claim “No God”. That I can respect.

    If you have no proof, then fine. Shut down the blog and participate on a Theistic website.

    So prove me wrong. Offer something substantial. If not, I consider this my victory post and I head back to my occasional pop-in.

    Prediction: More ad homenim blasts!

  82. on 08 Feb 2012 at 2:05 am 82.Curminator said …

    One more time, Curm: only positive claims require proof. You may require convincing to leave your worldview, which if it is an Abrahamic religion you can find simply by honestly reading the bible, but claims like “I don’t believe in gods” do not require evidence. Show the god or admit you have no reason to believe in it. Meanwhile, the rest of us will go on following real evidence to the wonders it will uncover, allowing us to marvel at our universe for what it really is.

    By the way, go look up ad hominems and insults. Really, we’re just insulting you. It’s not the same.

    I hope you enjoy your hollow “victory.” Anything that brings more cheer to the world certainly can’t be too bad. We’ll keep thinking for you, nonetheless.

  83. on 08 Feb 2012 at 2:40 am 83.Anonymous said …

    Interesting; more evasion, more avoiding providing anything to back up his position, more nonsense, more proclamations, and not one iota of evidence or proof. What a total idiot. And, no, that’s not ad hom. either.

    Now, you can bluster all you like and you are fooling no-one – not even yourself – that your comments about who needs to provide proof is in any well either a victory or even rational. You see, you also undermine yourself with your continued attempts to drive the conversation off track and your willful and deliberate attempts to avoid the conversation that show you to be the delusional idiot that you certainly portray here.

    Perhaps you actually believe the nonsense you spew here? Frankly, I doubt anyone can be that dense, hence it does seem that you’re just trolling. Perhaps its a game, perhaps it your obvious anger that you’ve wasted a life believing, what, idiotic bronze age myths. Honestly, no-one cares, it was your choice to remain uneducated.

    So now you claim “victory” as an excuse to withdraw. In other words, you have nothing to offer in support of your god – you are so spectacularly dishonest that you won’t even respond to questions about your own statements – but that’s OK.

    In the end, Crum, you’ve contributed no value to this conversation so you’ll only be missed in terms of lost comedic value.

    You’ll be back, though. New pair of socks next week?

  84. on 08 Feb 2012 at 3:17 am 84.Lou (DFW) said …

    76.Curmudgeon said …

    “Atheism isn’t a religion.”

    “Yawn, yes it is.”

    Yawn, no it isn’t. By definition, it CANNOT be a religion. Atheism isn’t really even an “ism.”

    “Now lets cut to the chase. I am on a blog which is selling atheism.”

    No, you aren’t, regardless of how much you lie about it.

    “In order to leave my worldview, you must provide valid evidence, proof and logic. You provide nothing, especially Lou.”

    Here we go again with a straw-man argument. I am not here to offer anything. I am here to read what YOU HAVE TO OFFER. So far, that has been NOTHING, NADA, ZIP evidence of your imaginary god.

    “Most of you are cowards with your redefining of atheism to reflect the words “lack of belief” while the true atheist actually still claim “No God”. That I can respect.”

    Cowards? Really? That’s rich coming from a pathological liar.

    “So prove me wrong. Offer something substantial.”

    That’s all you have to do in order to demolish everyone who doubts the belief in your imaginary god – offer something substantial.

    “If not, I consider this my victory post and I head back to my occasional pop-in.”

    Who gives a rat’s behind what you consider to be a victory post? There’s no more substance to that than is in your claim that god exists. It’s 100% meaningless. Extraordinary claims require evidence. There’s no more evidence for your “victory post” than there is for your imaginary god. Your “victory post” is nothing but a retreat by an intellectually dishonest coward. You might as well retort to that with your single-cell lifeforms tangent. It’s no more relevant to your victory post claim than it is to your imaginary god claim.

  85. on 08 Feb 2012 at 3:55 am 85.Lou (DFW) said …

    76.Curmudgeon said …

    “In order to leave my worldview, you must provide valid evidence, proof and logic.”

    Another straw-man argument. Nobody here is trying to convince you to “leave my worldview.” We only want to see your evidence for what is the basis of your “worldview” – your imaginary god.

    “If you have no proof, then fine. Shut down the blog and participate on a Theistic [sic] website.”

    “Theistic?” Are you now also redefining theistic so that it requires a capital T? And here you are on a blog that “explores God and religion in our world today,” insistent on discussing big-bang, biology, and evolution, while telling everyone else to take their discussion of evidence for your imaginary god to a “Theistic [sic] website?!

  86. on 08 Feb 2012 at 6:41 am 86.DPK said …

    “So prove me wrong. Offer something substantial. If not, I consider this my victory post and I head back to my occasional pop-in…”

    You are exactly like the chess playing chicken…. enjoy your hiatus, no hurry back though… the only one who thinks you’ve proven something is you…

    Why don’t you take a stab at my question to your other persona, Xenon> in 27, which, as predicted, has been met with silence.

  87. on 08 Feb 2012 at 12:02 pm 87.Anonymous said …

    “So prove me wrong. Offer something substantial. If not, I consider this my victory post and I head back to my occasional pop-in…”

    The fact that god won’t heal amputees proves you wrong.

    The fact that the god portrayed in the bible is a blundering idiot and psychopath proves you wrong.

    The 10,000 children who will die of starvation today prove you wrong.

    The fact that your god never communicates with you or anyone else proves you wrong.

  88. on 08 Feb 2012 at 12:22 pm 88.Anonymous said …

    Actually, current UN figures have it at 25,000 dying of hunger or hunger related causes per day. That’s one every 3.5 seconds. But don’t worry, Xtians will rationalize that to be the fault of man not carrying out their god’s good work or some other utterly delusional excuse.

    But we need to be careful. If we offer the troll something “substantial” he might stay, and we really don’t need the input of someone whose major contribution is to be the kind of moron who believes bronze-age goat-herder’s stories to be the defining act of intellectual attainment.

  89. on 08 Feb 2012 at 5:44 pm 89.Xenon said …

    Good one Curmudgeon.

    Atheism is the worldview of no evidence no morals no future an no hope. Maybe they can use that for a bumper sticker.

    The GII site is good for a laugh.

  90. on 08 Feb 2012 at 5:57 pm 90.A said …

    How does children with no food prove there in not a god?

  91. on 08 Feb 2012 at 5:58 pm 91.DPK said …

    Nice dodge on #27 Xenon. I knew you wouldn’t have the balls to offer an answer. Par for the course.
    I’m an atheist, I have morals, I have a future, in fact, I have a great life full of love and meaning. So that makes you full of shit.
    One thing I don’t have is a need to pathologically lie. So I guess that puts my morals way above yours.

  92. on 08 Feb 2012 at 6:08 pm 92.Lou (DFW) said …

    84.Xenon said …

    “Atheism is the worldview of no evidence no morals no future an no hope. Maybe they can use that for a bumper sticker.”

    The pigeon crapped on the chess board again.

    “The GII site is good for a laugh.”

    Unfortunately, you aren’t. You’re simply pathetic.

  93. on 08 Feb 2012 at 6:14 pm 93.Anonymous said …

    Remember, all he has is insults. That’s absolutely all he has.

  94. on 08 Feb 2012 at 6:21 pm 94.A said …

    Nice dodge of my question. X and Cur are right on about about these posters.

    Let others observe and learn.

  95. on 08 Feb 2012 at 6:36 pm 95.Anonymous said …

    LOLHor – thanks for the confirmation of #88

  96. on 08 Feb 2012 at 6:38 pm 96.Lou (DFW) said …

    85.A said …

    “How does children with no food prove there in not a god?”

    Because it conflicts with the idea and ideals of your imaginary god.

    Now, please provide YOUR evidence to the contrary.

  97. on 08 Feb 2012 at 6:40 pm 97.DPK said …

    85.A said …

    “How does children with no food prove there in not a god?”

    It doesn’t prove there is no god. It proves there is no all loving, perfect god who answers prayers and intercedes in human affairs on a daily basis, who is all good, all loving, and all powerful and helps Tim Tebow win football games and cures old ladies of psoriasis. No one can prove there is no god, because when you do the believers just keep moving the goal post. But you can demonstrate to anyone with an open mind and half a brain that the god of the bible and Koran is not an omniscient, omnipotent, perfect being.

  98. on 08 Feb 2012 at 6:42 pm 98.DPK said …

    Now, Mr. A… since we have answered your question, perhaps you will take a stab at my question to Xenon, aka Hor, aka Curm in #27??? Or will you also be calling the kettle black?
    D

  99. on 09 Feb 2012 at 2:39 am 99.A said …

    “It doesn’t prove there is no god. It proves there is no all loving, perfect god”

    then you said,

    “No one can prove there is no god”

    and previously it was said,

    “children with no food prove there in not a god”

    Do you understand logic? I’ll give you another shot. Which is it. I have never moved a goal post but you are doing a fine job.

  100. on 09 Feb 2012 at 2:40 am 100.A said …

    “Now, Mr. A… since we have answered your question”

    You did? You may have to point that out.

  101. on 09 Feb 2012 at 3:41 am 101.Lou (DFW) said …

    94.A said …

    “Do you understand logic?”

    Do you understand simple English? Apparently not.

  102. on 09 Feb 2012 at 3:55 am 102.DPK said …

    ““children with no food prove there in not a god””

    Where did I say that? In fact, where did anyone say that?

    ““Now, Mr. A… since we have answered your question”
    You did? You may have to point that out.”

    If you can’t read for yourself, sorry, I’m not going to point it out for you. Do you have a rebuttal, or even an actual point, or do you just like to bluster.
    How about a simple answer… why does your all powerful loving god allow innocent children to starve to death every single day?
    We’re waiting.

  103. on 09 Feb 2012 at 12:08 pm 103.Anonymous said …

    “Where did I say that? In fact, where did anyone say that?”

    Actually, he said that as part of his usual “make up stuff that no-one said so that he can divert the conversation away from proving that his god doesn’t exist” routine.

    So, once again we see the intellectual dishonesty and evasion from our resident sock-puppet / troll theist. It should be obvious to anyone, even a believer, that no-one has an answer to these questions which is why they’ll always try to turn the conversation to someone else.

    The fact that they keep coming back with “so how does that prove my god doesn’t exist” when they NEVER EVER offer proof that he does, is more than enough for any sane person to see that gods, Jesus, etc, don’t and didn’t exist.

    They can bitch and moan, shift the burden of proof, but they’ve had two-thousand years and they still won’t address the subject directly?

    It’s a delusion. It’s game over. And we can thank Xenon, Horatiio, Curmudgeon, Q, A, Ben, Boz, whatever and whoever they want to pretend to be, for making it clear what a crock of shit religion actually is.

  104. on 09 Feb 2012 at 5:45 pm 104.Curmudgeon said …

    A,

    Your post in 94 is a perfect example of assertion and then running these atheist participate in. In #82 Lou claims you are wrong with his list including starving kids proves no God.

    I showed some of these posts to my wife and she got a huge laugh out of this perceived logic. Seriously, paste it into a Word doc. and then read it as an argument. It is a hoot.

  105. on 09 Feb 2012 at 6:13 pm 105.DPK said …

    If you do, at least read what is written and stop making things up. I never said starving kids prove there is no god. As been asserted here many times before, you cannot disprove god anymore than you can disprove Santa Clause, the tooth fairy or the Keebler Elves (who’s cookies, at least, are delicious.) What you CAN do, and what I SAID was, you can demonstrate that the properties attributed to a god do not fit the observable evidence. If god is all powerful and all loving, then he would not let innocent children starve to death daily. If he is powerless to prevent it, he is not all powerful. If he can prevent it but chooses not to, he is not all good. So, you god either is a contradiction of your definition of him, in other words, a sadistic monster, or he simply doesn’t exist. Do you, or your wife have a third option to offer for consideration?

    What WAS said, by A I believe, not Lou, was that “The 10,000 children who will die of starvation today prove you wrong.” And by “prove you wrong” I take it to mean that god as you declare him to be, all powerful, all knowing, all loving, who responds to prayers and intercedes in the physical world does not exist. Perhaps you and he are not talking about the same god?? Perhaps yours is in fact a god who delights in pain and suffering, and deliberately inflicts torment on children for his amusement or to teach them some lesson. Remember, I have asked you on this forum multiple times to define your god and what his characteristics are so that we can examine the evidence for his existence, and you have refused to do so, over and over, and over. Why is that Curm? Why haven’t you answered my question in #27, or any other questions posed of you. Do you not have an answer or are you afraid your answer will be exposed for the steaming pile of excrement that it is?

  106. on 09 Feb 2012 at 6:27 pm 106.Lou (DFW) said …

    99.Curmudgeon said …

    “In #82 Lou claims you are wrong with his list including starving kids proves no God.”

    Liar, I DID NOT!

    91.Lou (DFW) said …

    85.A said …

    “How does children with no food prove there in not a god?”

    “Because it conflicts with the idea and ideals of your imaginary god.”

    What I wrote was “…your imaginary god.” Repeating – YOUR IMAGINARY GOD. Not “god.”

  107. on 09 Feb 2012 at 6:29 pm 107.Lou (DFW) said …

    99.Curmudgeon said …

    “I showed some of these posts to my wife…”

    You have a wife?! I supposed it’s too much to hope that you don’t have any offspring.

    “..and she got a huge laugh out of this perceived logic.”

    Who cares? Her judgement is obviously flawed.

  108. on 09 Feb 2012 at 11:28 pm 108.Christianity is Wonderful said …

    I read through a few of through a good majority of these comments, and good Lord, I had a good laugh.
    You men and women, may think you have everything completely figured out, but if you were as smart as you state, you should not become complacent because of someone else’s “research”. Now, I know I won’t be able to convince anyone via internet (I’ve spent many hours barking up that tree.), but if you care to see a well formed argument FOR Christianity, I recommend checking out a few books by C.S.Lewis. (And although the Chronicles of Narnia are a good allusion to the Gospel message, those are not the books I mean.)
    Lastly, I hope you all have wonderful, blessed lives.

  109. on 10 Feb 2012 at 3:39 am 109.Lou (DFW) said …

    103.Christianity is Wonderful said …

    “Now, I know I won’t be able to convince anyone via internet (I’ve spent many hours barking up that tree.)”

    But, here you are anyway, barking up that tree again.

  110. on 10 Feb 2012 at 4:01 am 110.Anonymous said …

    CIW, what books by well-known authors have you read on other religions in order to ensure you have not fallen foul of the issue you bring up when you say “..you were as smart as you state, you should not become complacent because of someone else’s “research””?

    For example, if all you have read is Christian apologetics and writings, it would be hypocritical of you to address people as you just did. So, please, we so rarely (never) get someone coming through who can explain how they reject other gods, but not the one they worship. We’d all be very interested in what you learned from your research. Please do share.

  111. on 10 Feb 2012 at 4:38 am 111.DPK said …

    CIW,
    I read your post and good Lord, I had a good laugh. CS Lewis??
    You may think you have everything completely figured out, but if you were as smart as you state, you should not become complacent because of someone else’s “research”. I recommend checking out:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812976568/103-0510819-9143855?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance

    And when you have studied it sufficiently, please come back and explain to us specifically why you accept your Christian myth and no others.

  112. on 10 Feb 2012 at 6:30 am 112.Curmudgeon said …

    CIW

    Well, you really do have it all wrong. They have nothing figured out, they stand for nothing and defend nothing. The site does make for good entertainment.

    I too like CS Lewis, he did figure it out. Some good works there.

  113. on 10 Feb 2012 at 12:51 pm 113.Anonymous said …

    Curmudgeon, it’s hard for you to keep track of your various guises we know, but you announced you were leaving. Remember?

    If you are staying, you still owe us the evidence of your god that you promised to provide back in November of 2011. Please provide it. It would be so much clearer, not to mention honest, for you to do so rather than your taunts and emotional outbursts.

  114. on 10 Feb 2012 at 12:58 pm 114.Lou (DFW) said …

    107.Curmudgeon said …

    “They have nothing figured out, they stand for nothing and defend nothing.”

    If nothing else, then we have YOU, “Ben,” “figured out” and outed.

    “The site does make for good entertainment.”

    Yes, especially when Frauds (notice the capital F like “Theists”) like Crum make a mistake when commenting as one of their sock puppets – hilarious!

  115. on 13 Feb 2012 at 12:54 am 115.j_lozano713 said …

    “Reality and truth” is the actual world we live in. What you smell, feel, taste, see, and touch is necessary to experience reality and truth. Reality and truth is what rational people strive for. We may not know all the answers, since science is fairly young (500 years), while religion is thousands of years old. Everytime we discover something through science, there is less and less evidence for any god to exist. One day humanity will evolve into all rational beings, but until then, we will keep striving for reality and truth.

    “A foolish faith in authority, is the enemy of the truth”- Albert Einstein

  116. on 16 Feb 2012 at 5:06 am 116.Someone101 said …

    This whole website is down right ignorant and ridiculous. People should believe what they want. You say God is imaginary, please tell me the scientific and mathematical facts that prove this. Oh, what’s Thay you say? You can’t? Hmm what a shame. Even if you could throw some numbers out, who is to say that God did not make it that way? What, you think we are here by coincidence? Chance? What? Are you butt hurt atheists only an atheist because you got dealt a bad hand at life? Woe you. You think that if God existed he’d take care of all your problems but since your problems exist you automatically decide that he must not exist simply because of what you’re going through? That’s real fair. What causes a lot of traumatic things to happen? Sin? Coincidence? I don’t know you makers of the website think you know it all, honestly, you don’t know the half of it. Shame on all of you for taking biblical quotes and twisting them in your favor. Look, if you have nothing good to offer about religion because you don’t believe in it then keep your mouths shut and leave Christians alone. The two groups can coincide in society but its made difficult when people like you with harsh lives try to twist the words of the bible to try and prove a point. Sorry, it doesn’t work like that.

  117. on 16 Feb 2012 at 5:28 am 117.Someone101 said …

    AND BY THE WAY, children not having food if ANYTHING helps provide support for the existence of God. How?

    FREE WILL

    Not God’s fault people are starving, it’s OURS.
    Look, any argument thrown by atheists can be answered. Which is why arguing over the existence of God is a waste of our time because it cannot currently be proved either way. There is only answers that support or refuse either groups hypothesis.

  118. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:02 am 118.alex said …

    “You say God is imaginary, please tell me the scientific and mathematical facts that prove this. Oh, what’s Thay you say? You can’t?”

    Once again, crusaders come in here talkin shit. What is the title of the page? Why won’t god heal amputees!

    Get it thru your thick skull. You can’t prove a negative. Challenge me to prove that Santa doesn’t exist. Oh, what’s that I say? I can’t? Then Santa exists, I can’t prove it. Same shit with you god.

    It’s up to you to prove it. It’s your god.

    “butt hurt atheists”
    Ignorant, homophobic? That’s why you idiots get no more free passes! You walk around talking shit smug in your own flawed beliefs. I bet you’re gay?

    “Look, if you have nothing good to offer about religion because you don’t believe in it then keep your mouths shut and leave Christians alone”.

    Yeah and let you go around doing stupid shit like championing Creationism in school, beat up fags, oppress women, and molest children with impunity. Yeah, then you can do it over and over again, because Jesus forgives you?

    I suspect Someone101 won’t be back, but dozens more like him will be…….

  119. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:07 am 119.alex said …

    “Reality and truth” is the actual world we live in. What you smell, feel, taste, see, and touch is necessary to experience reality and truth. Reality and truth is what rational people strive for.

    Says who? Is this proof of god? This doesn’t tell me shit.

  120. on 16 Feb 2012 at 1:19 pm 120.Someone101 said …

    Who said anything about oppressing women and beating up fags? There is no way to prove or disprove anything. Hence as to why I said WASTING OUR TIME. Yet again you people only read what you want and don’t refute things that you can’t because you have nothing to say. Your talk about people championing creationism in schools is not a religion I belong to. You’re thinking of more extremist. I’m not arguing Thay what they do is right. Yet again, you people putting words in people’s mouths. Oh and guess what else? IM A GIRL. You can’t prove he doesn’t exist and I can’t prove that he can. Yet again, wasting our time. And people comparing god with Santa is ignorant. Since when do we gave a Bible or a book about Santa? I have better things to do than waste valublr time trying to prove things that can’t be proved. You can’t prove he doesn’t exist, I can’t prove that he does.
    I don’t know where you get off saying about molesting children. It takes screwed IP people to do that. Its people like you that give chritins a bad name.om telling you right now that o ado go to church and anyone who degrade women and molest children I’m MY belief will not be going to heaven. Everything you justdescribed does not describe my religion AT ALL.
    Pure ignorance.
    why?
    Because you absolutely have no idea what you are talking about.
    Nothing here can be proved. There is only evidence to support each theory.
    so I am sure you will pick apart every last word here and twist them to your favor. Go ahead. But I’m done arguing with people who have no idea what they’re talking about because they only read about the crazies and don’t pay any mind to the normal Christian people. Besides you have probably never stepped foot into a church or cracked open the bible. So don’t talk shit about something you know absolutely nothing about. You know nothing about religion, clearly, or you’d see that churches help with a lot of things That most people don’t. Donations food to people, etc.
    I may not be back because we are wasting our time so do what you do so well and tear this apart and twist my words to your favor, just like you did with butt hurt. Which was nothing towards gays, it was toward people who are all, “I can’t live with my life cry cry cry.” Vs people that stand up and live with what cards they’re dealt.

  121. on 16 Feb 2012 at 1:27 pm 121.Anonymous said …

    #116 Someone 101 said:

    “You say God is imaginary, please tell me the scientific and mathematical facts that prove this.”

    The fact that god won’t heal amputees proves that your God is imaginary.

    The fact that the god portrayed in the bible is a blundering idiot and psychopath proves that your God is imaginary.

    The 10,000 children who will die of starvation today prove that your God is imaginary.

    The fact that your god never communicates with you or anyone else proves that your God is imaginary..

  122. on 16 Feb 2012 at 1:31 pm 122.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Someone, I’ll be happy to leave you alone. All you need do is wake up, stop believing in magic men in the sky, stop passing off your shit as anything other than a collection of pre-scientific folk stories, dismantle that evil institution of the church, and join us in reality.

    Until then, we owe out to society to free your mind from the abomination that is religion. If it helps you feel better about this, I think that all religions are equally as silly, so there’s no need to feel that anyone is ganging up just on your fantasy.

  123. on 16 Feb 2012 at 1:32 pm 123.Someone101 said …

    1. Our tissues weren’t made for regeneration. We aren’t starfish. Get over it.
    2. Please show me in the bible where Gos is, “A blundering idiotic psychopath.” Oh that’s your opinion? Exactly, THAT’S YOUR OPINION.
    3. Clearly you don’t read well, I addressed this issue, FREE WILL. I don’t are you doing anything about those 10,000 children? But I’d everyone worked together would their be as many children starving? No.
    4. Woopti doo I can’t talk to God face to face, but you can’t talk to someone that was here when the earth “evolved.” Differences? Nope.
    you still failed to show me the SCIENTIFIC (which includes numbers and mathematics for you idiots out there), that he doesn’t exist. Why? BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE DONE. JUST LIKE I CANNOT PROVE HIS EXISTENCE. And I have a thick skull? I think not.

  124. on 16 Feb 2012 at 1:39 pm 124.Someone101 said …

    You think I should join someone that they were going to leave me alone and them bashed me through the rest of the post? Yeah right. If you think every region is equally as silly that proves your ignorance to me. There are crazy religions out there full of a bunch of BS. I dont belong to one. Evil institution of the church? If they’re so evil then why do they give food and money to the poor? Probably because people like you in your ‘reality’ don’t see what reality is really there. Poor starving people that CHURCHES (not you) are trying to help.

  125. on 16 Feb 2012 at 1:49 pm 125.Someone101 said …

    So wake up and smell your “reality” because churches are doing more about the reality than all of you. Who made the earth in the state it is today? WE did, not God. Like I said, we are all just wasting our time here. Nothing is going to prove either hypothesis.

  126. on 16 Feb 2012 at 2:58 pm 126.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Exactly, you can’t prove your god exists because he’s just a delusion.

    You recognize the nonsense in other religions, but not your own. Step outside your delusion and you’ll see yours more clearly.

    Yes, you are wasting your time because all you have are the stories of uneducated goat herders.

    Religion is stupid, but you’re just misguided. But very angry too.

  127. on 16 Feb 2012 at 3:46 pm 127.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Ah, I see. You know what everyone does, who helps, who doesn’t, you know that anything that doesn’t support your claim is either because they are evil or have free will. You know you can’t prove your god exists, so you resort to challlenging people to disprove something that doesn’t exist.

    Your church is good, and priest who rape children? Free will, or not true Christians, which is your favorite excuse?

    You want to claim that things would be different if people read your silly book, but fail to admit you haven’t either. Or did you, and you decided to be ok with all that slavery, misogyny, killing, and barbarism? Oh, perhaps you need a new excuse here? Let’s try context.

    Somehow all these mental gymnastics make more sense to you than it just being the camp fire stories of a group of uneducated nomads? Really?

  128. on 16 Feb 2012 at 4:32 pm 128.DPK said …

    “So wake up and smell your “reality” because churches are doing more about the reality than all of you. Who made the earth in the state it is today? WE did, not God.”

    But doesn’t everything happen according to god’s plan? I’m confused, but apparently not as confused as you are.

    “This whole website is down right ignorant and ridiculous. People should believe what they want. You say Zeus is imaginary, please tell me the scientific and mathematical facts that prove this. Oh, what’s Thay you say? You can’t? Hmm what a shame. Even if you could throw some numbers out, who is to say that Zeus did not make it that way?”

    Do you believe in Zeus, Mr. Someone? Why the hell not? You say people should believe what they want… but then you say “There are crazy religions out there full of a bunch of BS.” Says who? Who is telling you you aren’t allowed to believe what you want? No one. But that doesn’t exempt you from ridicule. You are free to believe any ridiculous nonsense you want to. “Free will” is your answer? Do you think the thousand or so children who will die today of malnutrition do so of their own free will? Really? And isn’t their death and suffering a part of god’s plan? Yes or no.. it is or it isn’t. Make up your mind, you are so full of contradictions.

  129. on 16 Feb 2012 at 6:19 pm 129.DPK said …

    Someone… I’ll repost this for your benefit. Will you answer the questions that Curm, Ben, Xenon, and the other personas just dodge and weave around? If not, why not?

    I never said starving kids prove there is no god. As been asserted here many times before, you cannot disprove god anymore than you can disprove Santa Clause, the tooth fairy or the Keebler Elves (who’s cookies, at least, are delicious.) What you CAN do, and what I SAID was, you can demonstrate that the properties attributed to a god do not fit the observable evidence. If god is all powerful and all loving, then he would not let innocent children starve to death daily. If he is powerless to prevent it, he is not all powerful. If he can prevent it but chooses not to, he is not all good. So, you god either is a contradiction of your definition of him, in other words, a sadistic monster, or he simply doesn’t exist.
    Do you have a third option to offer for consideration?

    What WAS said was that “The 10,000 children who will die of starvation today prove you wrong.” And by “prove you wrong” I take it to mean that god as you declare him to be, all powerful, all knowing, all loving, who responds to prayers and intercedes in the physical world does not exist. Perhaps you and he are not talking about the same god?? Perhaps yours is in fact a god who delights in pain and suffering, and deliberately inflicts torment on children for his amusement or to teach them some lesson. Remember, I have asked on this forum multiple times to define your god and what his characteristics are so that we can examine the evidence for his existence… will you do that? Tell us exactly what properties define your god. Is he omniscient and omnipotent? Does everything in the universe happen according to his plan and his will? Is he perfect? Is he loving? Does he answer prayers and intercede in the affairs of the physical world? Are the bible stories about him communicatiing face to face with people, and doing things directly to the world, like Noah’s flood, killing all the 1st born of Egypt, parting the Red Sea, destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, did they actually happen?
    Lastly, you said, “Who said anything about oppressing women and beating up fags?” The offensiveness of your words aside, this leads me to ask the question, “Have YOU ever actually READ the bible?” Because, if you have, I don’t see how you could possibly say this. The bible is quite clear that god wants, or at the very, very least, wanted, in biblical times, us to oppress women, kill homosexuals and all manner of other “sinners” including our own children, own slaves and all other manner of things that most people today would consider clearly immoral. That fact is simply undeniable. If you continue to try and deny it, then that in itself is clear evidence that you are delusional and not in touch with reality.
    So, what’s it going to be? Are you going to answer these questions, or like the rest of your delusional cohorts here, will you just disappear only to reappear in a few days under a new moniker and try to re-assert your ridiculous positions all over again?

  130. on 16 Feb 2012 at 7:27 pm 130.Anonymous said …

    Someone, let’s also add some of this for clarification. I’m going to post from the perspective of your beliefs being aligned with Christianity. If you are Christian but believe differently, do correct me or explain how you know your version of Christianity is correct.

    Our tissues weren’t made for regeneration. We aren’t starfish. Get over it.

    So, your god made man with dominion over the animals but he gave these unintelligent creatures (Starfish, good example) the ability to regenerate whereas we’d bleed to death? Sound sensible to you? Also, why are you always seeing anger in everyone but you? Sounds like some serious projection going on here.

    Also, how is it that your god can, apparently, do all manner of “miracles” but he can only do ones that man can do? That’s the point you are avoiding. He can, apparently, cure illness, bad colds, fix broken bones, win sports-games, but his miracles are limited to only what we can do without him? Not very omnipotent is he?

    2. Please show me in the bible where Gos is, “A blundering idiotic psychopath.” Oh that’s your opinion? Exactly, THAT’S YOUR OPINION.

    Well, first, that’s a strawman as you decided to get angry about something you pretended someone else said. But let’s give you a couple of examples anyway. First, you missed all that smiting and stuff, did you? What about god not being able to find the only naked man in existence in the garden he created? Not very swift your Yahweh is he?

    3. Clearly you don’t read well, I addressed this issue, FREE WILL. I don’t are you doing anything about those 10,000 children? But I’d everyone worked together would their be as many children starving? No.

    First, which part of the bible do you base this statement on? Second, do you know that DPK and Lou can fly? It’s true, but they are exercising their free-will not to. Please demonstrate that my assertion is untrue without invalidating yours.

    4. Woopti doo I can’t talk to God face to face, but you can’t talk to someone that was here when the earth “evolved.” Differences? Nope.

    At least you admit that you don’t actually come face to face with your god, as others do. But that brings up an interesting point. Why do they get to meet this god and you don’t? That’s not fair.

    Second, what are you on because that’s some good shit. The earth didn’t “evolve”, who the heck taught you that? Also, there’s a lot of things that no-one claimed to be able to do that they can’t do? What is your point here?

    Differences? You appear to be addicted to strawmen and other irrelevant arguments?

    you still failed to show me the SCIENTIFIC (which includes numbers and mathematics for you idiots out there), that he doesn’t exist. Why? BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE DONE. JUST LIKE I CANNOT PROVE HIS EXISTENCE. And I have a thick skull? I think not.

    no-one needs to demonstrate to you that things that don’t exist, don’t exist. Yours is the task to take on to prove that this god exists. Otherwise he joins Thor, Zeus, Ra, Harry Potter, Sherlock Holmes, Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, and a whole load of literary characters that people wrote about but existed only in their imagination.

  131. on 16 Feb 2012 at 7:57 pm 131.randyjordan said …

    are yall so ignorant that the air you breath is not your own. can you make and breath your own air. i bet not. just because you try so hard not to believe doesn’t make god fake. cause if the big bang is true then why is it that when two cars hit head on there isn’t life created but death and serious injuries. please prove that god isn’t real. email me at randyj12345@yahoo.com and prove me wrong. cause i’ve seen the very hand of god move. the problem is your lack of faithfulness. stop saying you’re waiting on god when he is waiting on you to change and accept him.

  132. on 16 Feb 2012 at 8:08 pm 132.alex said …

    we need a filter on this blog to exclude the morons. even though you can’t see this filter, it exists. if you pray hard enough, this filter will materialize and exclude the morons…..

    prove to me that this filter doesn’t exist!

  133. on 16 Feb 2012 at 8:21 pm 133.DPK said …

    “if the big bang is true then why is it that when two cars hit head on there isn’t life created but death”

    Ok… you got me. I’m speechless, and that doesn’t happen often. But there are simply no possible words to respond to this, other than perhaps “WTF” and that hardly does it justice.
    The next time some theist wants me to disprove intelligent design, all we have to do is point them to this post. randy should be the new poster child for theism. That would end it right quick.

  134. on 16 Feb 2012 at 8:30 pm 134.Burebista said …

    “This whole website is down right ignorant and ridiculous.”

    It is Someone but admit it. The site is really is entertaining. Hard to believe these folk walk and talk and everything

    The site is so serious and relevant that its founder will not even ascribe his mane to to it. He did at once, but now he runs and hides.

    Check out Marshall Brain on WWGHA way back. http://web.archive.org/web/20051102090554/whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god.htm

  135. on 16 Feb 2012 at 8:32 pm 135.Burebista said …

    BTW, check out Richard Deem who does not hide. In one page completely debunks the entire WWGHA premise.

    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_wont_god_heal_amputees.html

  136. on 16 Feb 2012 at 9:24 pm 136.Someone101 said …

    Yet again. This is all I have to say. You have all FAILED to disprove God’s existence. Something I have repeatedly asked for over and over. Ignorance and stupidity are two different things. Saying things such as, “He wouldn’t allow this and that if he was all loving.” You all seem to forget who foiled Gods plans in the beginning. Satan anyone? It isn’t God that is punishing and hurting people, its the evils of the world that is. If we all weren’t so selfish would we have starving people or homeless people? Hmm nope. And quit twisting aepund the whole free will thing. Because free will is what got this wprld into this mess. Yiu can reply, but take note I will continue to repeat mtself. Yet again, there is no proving God and there is no disproving God. I can’t do it. AND NEITHER CAN YOU. So quit acting like you know everything there is to know because I know you don’t know it all and neither do I.
    Have fun rotting in hell. Oh, and have a nice day (:

  137. on 16 Feb 2012 at 9:32 pm 137.Someone101 said …

    And I’m done answering questions. I have answers but you’ll only turn it back around. I’m done wasting my time on you people. You don’t want to believe? Fine, then don’t. But you don’t have to start blogs such as these online as a means of offending people. I’m done arguing, you are all ungrateful, clearly. You can’t prove anything. Neither can I. Get over it and move on.

  138. on 16 Feb 2012 at 9:34 pm 138.DPK said …

    “You all seem to forget who foiled Gods plans in the beginning. Satan anyone?”

    hahaha… your god is supposed to be all powerful. Satan foiled his plans? How did that happen? Didn’t god create Satan too? Your logic is so twisted.

    “You have all FAILED to disprove God’s existence.” That’s only because you refuse to look at the evidence and only want proof that something does not exist. As has been pointed out many time, you have failed to disprove Zeus’s existence… does that mean therefore he is real too? How about the Easter bunny? I have a book full of stories (and pictures) about the Easter bunny, and almost any child can tell you the story of how he comes and brings candy… by your logic that must be true as well.
    “Yiu can reply, but take note I will continue to repeat mtself.”
    And we will continue to laugh at you, and the world goes on. You can repeat yourself until your finger wear to a nub, but it doesn’t make you any righter, or any brighter.
    “So quit acting like you know everything there is to know”
    I haven’t seen anyone here other than you and your ilk who is claiming to know things that cannot be known. You have said yourself that you don’t know if god exists or not because it cannot be proven, so… why should anyone believe you?
    “Have fun rotting in hell.”
    hahaha… have anger issues do we? Thanks for the love. Jesus would be so proud.
    BTW.. I noticed you also didn’t answer ANY of my questions. So typical.

  139. on 16 Feb 2012 at 9:37 pm 139.alex said …

    “Yet again, there is no proving ___ and there is no disproving ___. I can’t do it. AND NEITHER CAN YOU”

    You fill in God for the blanks. Using your logic God exist! Try leprechauns, they exist. Try the Tooth Fairy, it exists. Try the might Zeus, he exist. Are you dense?

  140. on 16 Feb 2012 at 9:46 pm 140.Someone101 said …

    I told you I have answers but you don’t want to hear them. Everytime I answer you just pick apart the things you can put down and leave the rest alone. So why should I answer any of your questions? So we can go through this cycle repeatedly? That’s just stupid and A WASTE OF TIME. Damn you people don’t know how to read.

  141. on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:13 pm 141.alex said …

    “I told you I have answers but you don’t want to hear them. Everytime I answer you just pick apart the things you can put down and leave the rest alone.”

    You’re eight years old?

  142. on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:25 pm 142.someone101 said …

    Fine, here’s some questions and answers.
    Who created God?

    A common objection to the “God hypothesis” is the problem of how God came to be. If everything has a cause, why does God get an exception? The problem with such reasoning is that it assumes that time has always existed. In reality, time is a construct of this universe and began at the initiation of the Big Bang.12 A God who exists outside the time constraints of the universe is not subject to cause and effect. So, the idea that God has always existed and is not caused follows logically from the fact that the universe and time itself was created at the Big Bang. The Bible makes these exact claims – that God has always existed13 and that God created time,14 along with the entire universe,15 being described as an expanding universe.16 Why can’t the universe be uncaused? Of course, it is possible that the universe is uncaused. However, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that contradicts that idea (see part 1). So, an atheist who claims to live by logic and evidence cannot arbitrarily assign eternity to a universe that is clearly temporal.

  143. on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:28 pm 143.someone101 said …

    The skeptical worldview

    Before we can get started, we need to agree on some principles that govern (or should govern) a skeptical worldview. The first and foremost principle is that all beliefs should be based upon Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence. Unlike theists, who base some of their beliefs on religious writings, skeptics must rely completely upon physical evidence. The second principle is that skeptics must be logically consistent at all times. In other words, a skeptic may not believe something to be true if it is contradicted by Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence. Most skeptics who are atheists believe that all phenomena have naturalistic causes. This belief is based upon the observation of our world, in which cause and effect are observed on a daily basis, with rare exception, if at all. One must ask the question, “Just because cause and effect overwhelmingly operate in our universe, does this mean that supernatural events never occur?” Even in the Bible, which claims to be a record of God’s supernatural actions, over 90% of what is described is purely naturalistic. So, even the Bible recognizes that the vast majority of events that occur in the universe have a natural cause. However, one who insists that supernatural events never occur is expressing a belief that can never be fully confirmed. To be truly open-minded, one must recognize the possibility that supernatural events do occur.
    Problem with the skeptical worldview

    Let me point out one major problem with the skeptical worldview in order to get you to the point of recognizing that not all the data really fits your worldview. The data we are going to examine is the origin of the universe. Before the 20th century, atheists assumed that the universe was eternal. However, beginning with Einstein’s theory of general relativity,1 and early Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence,2 it became apparent that the universe was expanding. Extrapolating back in time revealed that the universe was merely billions of years old. The data eventually led to the “Big Bang” theory, which is virtually universally accepted by modern day cosmologist.3 Attempts to get around the idea4 that the universe had a beginning3 have all met with observational difficulties.5 The idea that the universe could have gone through an infinite number of births and deaths (the oscillating universe theory) was shown to be false on the basis of the lack of amount of matter within the universe, and the fact that any collapse would have led to a “Big Crunch” instead of another Big Bang.6 So, we have come to realize that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Atheists are left with a dilemma, since their worldview requires that all things that begin to exist must have a cause. So, logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause. Virtually all atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. It is also possible that the cause of the universe was a supernatural intelligence (i.e., God). However, there is no direct Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence for either belief. Those who are “strong atheists” (not working out in the gym, but having a belief that no god exists) have just violated one of the main rules of atheism – that all beliefs are based upon Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview.

    The problem actually gets worse for the atheist. The physical laws of the universe fall within very narrow ranges in order for life (or even matter) to exist, suggesting some level of design (the evidence supporting this statement will be presented in part 2). If true, then the Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence actually leans toward the existence of God, contradicting strong atheism. The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe.

  144. on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:30 pm 144.someone101 said …

    I can continue to blow this blog up with common atheist questions answered, but I bet that will annoy most of you rather quickly. How about rather than starting arguments on religion vs atheism, you just do your own research like I have? Is it really that difficult or do you enjoy the fight?
    I now assume you’ll read the above, please reply if you have any other questions. Have fun debunking all of that. I’m eagerly awaiting your replies.

  145. on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:39 pm 145.someone101 said …

    Atheists tend to fall into one of two camps. First, are the atheists who say that science cannot have anything to say about the existence of God. However, recently, the “new atheists” think that they can prove the non-existence of God through science. Although science cannot directly detect God, it can examine His creation. Consider the non-physical concept of love. We all accept that love exists, although it cannot be directly measured by science. However, if we observe those who love each other, we can indirectly measure the affect of love on these individuals’ actions. For example, we might notice that they spend a lot of time together, they are constantly helping each other in various ways, and they come to each other’s defense when the other is threatened in some way. Although we cannot measure love directly, we can measure the indirect effects of love. Likewise, although we cannot measure God directly, we can examine the universe to detect God’s imprint on the physical world.

  146. on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:41 pm 146.DPK said …

    Some homework for you.. read, and then we’ll talk about the problems with your cut and paste “answers”. Next time, save the bandwidth and just post the link rather than copy and pasting someone else’s ramble. Now, when I show you how your arguments don’t hold wanter, are you going to go all psycho again?

    http://martinspribble.com/archives/1710

  147. on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:44 pm 147.alex said …

    “So, the idea that God has always existed and is not caused follows logically from the fact that the universe and time itself was created at the Big Bang. The Bible makes these exact claims”.

    The bible also makes outrageous claims, read the whole chapter on Genesis. Just because the bible said something like “it rained” and it was true, it doesn’t make the bible the supreme authority. The bible says something like “stone adulterers”, does that mean you do it?

    So what if time is a property of the universe and didn’t exist before the big bang? You suggest that god is the creator? I counter suggest that Obama’s ancestors created the universe. I’m as qualified as you in making this suggestion. I bet you have an advanced degree in theology?

    why won’t god heal amputees? IT’S NOT HIS WILL!

  148. on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:46 pm 148.someone101 said …

    The atheists’ logical argument

    What I have found is that atheists like to say that their arguments against God’s existence specifically exclude the God of the Bible as a God who could exist. However, in reality, atheists produce generic arguments against a generic God whose characteristics and creation do not match those that are described in the Bible. Atheists may not accept what the Bible says, but they cannot say the God of the Bible cannot logically exist and then ignore what the Bible has to say about the characteristics of God. If the atheist states that the God of the Bible is logically impossible, he cannot pick and choose which arguments from the Bible to accept in order to “prove” his point. Let’s formalize the atheist’s arguments:

    1. God is all-powerful, loving, and perfect.
    2. A perfect, loving God would create a universe that was perfect (e.g., no evil and suffering).
    3. The universe is not perfect but contains evil and suffering.

    Therefore, God does not exist.

    The Bible’s Response

    The Bible does state that God is “all powerful.” In the Old Testament, one of God’s titles is “El Shadday,” which is translated “God Almighty.”2 The Bible also states that God is loving.3 In fact, the Bible indicates that God is love.4 The Bible also indicates that God is perfect.5 So, we can agree that the first statement is a correct interpretation of what the Bible says about the characteristics of God.

    The next statement indicates that a perfect, loving God must create a universe that is perfect. This is the statement that is false and invalidates the argument. Nowhere does the Bible state that the universe was created to be perfect. God Himself called it “good”6 and “very good,”7 but never “perfect.” In fact, God Himself stated that part of the original creation was “not good.”8 The Bible states that the current universe is not perfect,9 but was designed to be temporary10 and will be replaced with a perfect universe11 that will be permanent.12 Science also tells us that the universe was designed to be temporary.13
    Why two creations instead of one?

    Why would God create an imperfect, temporary universe only to replace it later with a perfect one? Why wouldn’t God have created a perfect universe in the first place? This is a good question, but shows a lack of understanding of the biblical reason of why God created the universe. One can find the reason for the creation of the universe in the first few chapters of the Bible. God created humans in order to have a personal relationship with them, which He had with Adam and Eve before they sinned (Genesis 2). Jesus said that the first and foremost commandment was to “Love the Lord your God…”14 A personal relationship, characterized by the possibility of love, is only possible if created beings are given free will. If God had created the universe with no possibility of evil or sin, then the created beings would have had no free will, and, as such, would essentially be programmed computers. Such beings would be incapable of love, since love involves making a choice – which requires the ability to choose not to love. For example, I can program my computer to say “I love you” when it starts up. Does this mean that the computer really loves me? Of course not! Likewise, God could have programmed humans to say that they loved Him, without the possibility of rejecting Him or performing evil deeds. However, these programmed beings would exhibit about as much true love as my computer – not a very satisfying relationship. Therefore, God created the universe for the express purpose of allowing free will spiritual beings the opportunity to have fellowship with Him (and likewise, reject Him).
    What does God want?

    God’s purposes in creating the universe go beyond merely creating free will beings that love Him in this temporary universe. Jesus explained the ultimate goal of God in the parable of the banquet:

    Jesus replied: “A certain man [representing God] was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’ But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, ‘I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.’ Another said, ‘I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I’m on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.’ Still another said, ‘I just got married, so I can’t come.’ The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.’ ‘Sir,’ the servant said, ‘what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.’ Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full. (Luke 14:16-23)

    This parable tells that God wants not only a relationship with humans in this universe, but a relationship with billions15 of these creatures in His future, perfect creation. If God’s purpose is to have relationships with free will beings in a future creation, then there must be a means by which these beings can make a choice to enter or not enter into this relationship. The means by which we make this choice is exactly the message of the Bible.

    Therefore. the Bible says that God allows temporary, bounded evil16 in order to allow free will beings to have the ability to love and to make choices. I am going to propose something which seems to support the atheists’ arguments regarding evil. I agree that there is a lot of evil in the world. In fact, there is too much evil in the world from what would be expected from chaos theory or the laws of physics. Evolution does not explain the vast amount of evil done by mankind. None of the other creatures on our planet have the capacity for evil that mankind have. No other mammals kill arbitrarily. They only kill to eat and survive – but not mankind. Just watch the nightly news or read your newspaper. Look at all the evil perpetuated in the last century alone – 6 million Jews killed by Hitler, 40 million Russians killed by Stalin, 2 million Cambodians killed by their own government in the 1970’s. In fact, the Pol Pot regime specifically preached atheism and sought to exterminate all religious expression in Cambodia. In addition to these atrocities, there have been hundreds of massacres committed in virtually every nation of the world. The Bible says that the presence of evil is due to the spiritual component of our nature – something that animals do not possess. God endowed His spiritual creatures (humans and angels) with free will to love God or to oppose Him. The most powerful created being (the angel Satan) rebelled and led one third of the angels into opposition against God. Those humans who oppose or ignore God follow Satan into rebellion – either consciously or unconsciously. Some people blame the evil on “society.” However, society is composed of individuals who make individual choices. Most of the evil is committed by people who oppose the will of society. In contrast, there are many examples of societies in the animal kingdom, especially among the An order of mammals including man, apes, monkeys, etc., often characterized by large brains and flexible hands and feet.primates. None of these societies have the capacity for evil that we have. We are different from all other animals on our planet – a fact that has no scientific or evolutionary explanation.17

  149. on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:46 pm 149.alex said …

    “Atheists tend to fall into one of two camps”.

    false. just like “you’re either an atheist or you’re an idiot”.

    stop the nonsense. homosexuality is not a choice.

  150. on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:51 pm 150.someone101 said …

    Here is an article for you on amputees:

    Marshall Brain, founder of “How Stuff Works” is also the author of an anti-Christian website, “Why Does God Hate Amputees,” which has been renamed to “Why won’t God heal amputees?” Brain’s main point is that God does not (hence the “hate” title) or cannot heal amputees, presumably because He does not exist. Does this argument provide a valid case against the existence of God?
    Amputees have never been healed?

    The premise of the argument is that amputees have never been healed and that all other “healings” throughout the history of mankind have really been due to natural, but rare, events. However, there is at least one healing of an amputee that has been recorded. When Jesus was being arrested prior to His trials, the disciple Peter took a sword and, missing the mark, sliced off the ear of the high priest’s servant:

    And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, “Stop! No more of this.” And He touched his ear and healed him. (Luke 22:50-51)

    Jesus responded by calling a halt to the violence and healing the man’s ear. It should be noted that He did not pick up the severed piece of ear, but merely touched the stump to heal the man’s ear. Although not quite as dramatic as replacing entire legs, it nonetheless represents a miracle that is beyond any possible naturalistic explanation, since humans cannot instantly (or even over time) regrow ears.
    Bible made it up?

    The common objection to his argument is that the Bible just made up this miracles, like all others it reports. Of course, this objection is offered without any proof of being correct. It is just assumed that the disciples would do anything, including lying, in order to propagate their lies. The funny thing about the assertion is that it directly contradicts the teachings of Jesus, which was fiercely against the hypocrites. So, the disciples are being accused of doing exactly what they preached against. Again, no evidence is offered that they ever did any such kind of lying. What they skeptics won’t tell you is that there is actually evidence that directly contradicts this assertion. The problem with the idea that the disciples made up the miracles of Jesus is that the hostile witnesses of the time (the Jewish religious leadership) never denied that those miracles took place, but attributed them to the work of Satan.1 In his rebuttal to Jewish Celsus, Origen reported Celsus as saying Jesus had obtained His miraculous gifts while in Egypt (obviously by the power of sorcery).2 If the miracles of Jesus had been made-up, the Jews would have denied they ever happened, rather than attribute them to the work of the devil. It was, in fact, the miracles of Jesus that convinced a large number of people that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. So, the extra-biblical evidence actually supports the Bible’s claim that Jesus performed numerous miracles, including the healing of an amputee.
    The experiment to “prove” Brain’s point

    Marshall Brain has designed an experiment to “prove” that God cannot heal amputees. The experiment goes something like this. Pick an amputee (must have both legs severed, just one would not be good enough), and have millions of Christians throughout the world pray for his healing. According to Brain, this proves that God does not exist. The main problem is that the experiment has never been done. So, in reality, Brain has proved nothing. Even if the experiment were to be run, there are some problems with its design. The first wrong assumption is that a large number of Christians are able to dictate to God what He should do. Healings do not necessarily require large numbers of people praying, since most recorded healings have involved just one prayer. The second wrong assumption is that God heals all who are prayed for. Even the Bible records examples of Christians – even apostles – who were not healed, despite prayer.3 The third wrong assumption is that every Christian has the gift to heal people. The Bible clearly says that this is not so.6 A fourth wrong assumption is that somebody can be found who is “deserving.” According to the Bible, none of us is worthy of being saved.5 However, God, in His love, saves the undeserving through His mercy.4 God does not heal everybody of every infirmity in this life. I began working for my current boss in 1983 at the UCLA Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center. Within two years, I developed Crohn’s Disease, the most severe form of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, which has no cure. I found myself unable to do things using my own abilities and strength. After two months of being bedridden in severe pain, I cried out to God, even though I was a One who believes in the existence of an impersonal God.deist deist at the time (I had gone from an agnostic atheist to a deist in college). Within three months all symptoms of Crohn’s disease had disappeared. That was over 25 years ago, and no symptoms of the disease have ever reappeared. However, thousands of people have gone through our Inflammatory Bowel Disease clinics and not been cured. I am sure that most of those people have prayed to God, but are still suffering. For some reason, God chose to heal me, so that I would know that He was personally involved in the lives of people. God acts to produce eternal, spiritual outcomes, and not just temporal, physical changes.
    Jesus says to become an amputee!

    The really ironic thing about Marshall Brain’s experiment is that Jesus addresses it exactly opposite from what Brain says. Jesus says there are more important things than having limbs. In fact, He suggested that people amputate their limbs (or gouge out their eyes) if those parts helped them to sin:

    “If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matthew 5:30)
    “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. “If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell. (Matthew 18:8-9)

    The main thing that Mr. Brain has failed to understand is that this life is a mere short prequel to the life that is to come. Nobody is going to avoid all the discomforts or escape life intact. In fact, your destiny is death. If God healed everyone’s illnesses, there would be no death. God wants to do more than just heal your physical bodies, which are temporary. God wants to heal your soul, which is eternal. God wants to make you perfect!7 However, God does not want to force anyone to act against his own will, so He give us choices. Agree to give up your “right” to sin and go along with God’s plan, and He will reward you with a perfect soul in heaven.
    Brain is incognito

    I would have much more respect for Mr. Brain, if he would sign his name to his writings. Originally, he listed himself as author of the pages on his website. However, now, his name has disappeared for some reason. Be a man, Mr. Brain and stand up for what you believe!
    Why does God love Marshall Brain?

    The main question that needs to be asked is not why God hates amputees (which He doesn’t), but why God loves Marshall Brain? As you can probably tell, I am not a great fan of Marshall Brain. However, God loves him dearly8 and wants to spend eternity with him.9 I’m not quite there yet. However, if God can change the author of this article from an atheist into a believer, He can certainly do it for Mr. Brain. If you are a Christian, pray for Mr. Brain. Changing him into a lover of God would certainly be a miracle greater than replacing someone’s legs.
    Conclusion Top of page

    Contrary to the claims of Marshall Brain, God already has healed amputees physically. The objection that the Bible just made up the healing miracles of Jesus was never put forth by the skeptics of Jesus’ day because the people of the time had seen those miracles first hand. Mr. Brain’s experiment to pick a “deserving” amputee and pray to have him healed has never been done. So, his conclusion that God would not ever heal an amputee remains untested. God will heal amputees and everybody else who wants to be healed spiritually, to receive perfect spiritual bodies in heaven.10 It’s quite a deal, and a much better one than the alternative offered by Marshall Brain.11 Mr. Brain thinks that technology will solve all the world’s problems. However, what technology is really good at is giving us “better” ways to kill each other and more free time to commit sin. No thanks, Mr. Brain. I prefer a place in which righteousness dwells.12

  151. on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:55 pm 151.alex said …

    someone101, you’re blabbering.

    It’s your god. You need to prove it. I don’t believe in god and I don’t have to prove shit.

    Your child believes in the Tooth Fairy. I don’t believe in the Tooth Fairy and I don’t have to prove shit.

    Your boy George W. believes in WMD. Regardless of whether they exist or not, which btw didn’t, I don’t have to prove shit.

    …recognize the pattern.

  152. on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:57 pm 152.someone101 said …

    My my, your replies are getting shorter and shorter. Yes I copied and pasted, why? You asked questions, here’s your answers. You put me down for not answering them, I’m answering them now. You’re replies have grown weaker. Im a bit disap. You want me to leave you alone now? Tell me, and I will happily do so.

  153. on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:59 pm 153.someone101 said …

    Your job as an atheist is to PROVE to me that God does NOT exist.
    You have failed to do this just as I have failed to prove he DOES exist.
    Why?
    Because it cannot be done.
    But if you want to ask questions I am more than happy to find answers for you.
    You don’t have to prove “shit”?
    False, you aren’t doing your job then.

  154. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:01 pm 154.someone101 said …

    You find a way to question the existence of God. I find an answer.
    You find a way to question the existence of God. I find and answer.
    You find a way to question the existence of God. I find an answer.

    Take your own advice and RECOGNIZE THE PATTERN.

    And you think I’m the dumbass….

  155. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:03 pm 155.alex said …

    ok. I will repeat your EXACT POSITION.

    I believe in allah and you can ask me anything and I will answer.

  156. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:05 pm 156.alex said …

    atheist: i don’t believe in allah.
    me: allah exist. lookey in koran.

    atheist: i don’t believe in hell.
    me: you will know when your ass isa burnin.

    atheist: i don’t believe in creationism.
    me: you don’t know shit. evolution is a hoax.

    ….and the beat goes on….

  157. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:07 pm 157.someone101 said …

    How about this?

    I RESPECT YOUR BELIEFS and I will NOT question you or YOUR beliefs.

    This is how the world should be. It should not consist of blogs or other means designed to offend Christians or bash their religious beliefs.

  158. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:08 pm 158.someone101 said …

    Are you finally beginning to understand that the religious debate is a never ending battle and we are wasting our time here?

    That’s what I took away from your previous post.

  159. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:10 pm 159.alex said …

    I cannot respect somebody that believes in nonsense.
    all gods are the same, allah, zeus, RA, the sun god etc. i understand this site may be offensive, but the god in the title is really generic.

  160. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:12 pm 160.someone101 said …

    I’m sorry I’m a tad confused by your explanation.
    If you believe in “Allah” it means God.
    We see this 17 times in Genesis.
    How are you an atheist if you believe in Allah?

  161. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:13 pm 161.someone101 said …

    Unless you were taking on a sarcastic way.

  162. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:14 pm 162.alex said …

    I haven’t entirely discounted the possiblity of god. Not the biblical god, or anything, but a true powerfull ass god who is not concerned with my beliefs or my piddly shit activities. the god doesn’t pass judgement, rewards, and/or punishments. if such a god existed, it’s irrelevant whether i believe or not.

  163. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:15 pm 163.alex said …

    “How are you an atheist if you believe in Allah?”

    ….dude/dudette, i was jesting….

  164. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:17 pm 164.someone101 said …

    So you believe there may be a supreme being, just not necessarily Christ? I can respect that believe it or not.

  165. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:19 pm 165.alex said …

    I said I didn’t discount the possibility. Read what I said. If that bad ass god mofo existed, he/she/it could care less about my beliefs.

  166. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:21 pm 166.A said …

    “I haven’t entirely discounted the possiblity of god. Not the biblical god, or anything,”

    Why one but not the other?

    Mr Q, Lou, anonymous you agree?

  167. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:22 pm 167.someone101 said …

    MAYBE. The fact that you don’t discount the possibility of a “God” is what makes it respectable. It just bothers me when people say EVERYTHING happens by chance. I have a hard time grasping that just because the chances were so slim to none.

    Finally, a reasonable discussion.

  168. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:25 pm 168.A said …

    “but the god in the title is really generic.”

    Alex how do you know? Are you Marshall Brain?

  169. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:25 pm 169.A said …

    @134 Burebista,

    What a great find. It had been rumored Brain was behind the site now we have proof. Obviously he doesn’t even believe the nonsense he posts.

  170. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:27 pm 170.alex said …

    see, the difference is I have nothing to defend. i try to be good and I don’t need a holy book. I don’t quote or try to push/legislate biblical based beliefs.

    if somebody says, there’s no possibility of god, i shrugged and say close enough to my belief of .0000000000001% that god exist.

  171. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:30 pm 171.alex said …

    “Alex how do you know? Are you Marshall Brain”.

    no, i admit i don’t know Mr. Brain. maybe, i was presumptous. somebody correct me? is it the egyptian, greek, filipino?

  172. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:32 pm 172.someone101 said …

    I think the .000000001% is a little exaggerated. But if someone were to say that there’s no possibility of God, I’d ask them to prove it. I’m a bit of a bitch if you haven’t noticed already.

  173. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:36 pm 173.alex said …

    someone101, why so touchy? if you’re right, all atheists will all go to hell and there will be more room in heaven for you and your crew. your god can take care of himself. quit defending him and quit quoting and pushing the biblical agenda. (not you personally, but a lot of y’all).

  174. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:40 pm 174.alex said …

    “Why one but not the other?”

    why one but not the other hundreds?

  175. on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:42 pm 175.someone101 said …

    I would just want proof that there was no possibility. The fact is that there is a possibility. I was more so trying to prove a point than push the biblical agenda. The point being that nothing can really be proved when it comes to this subject. People don’t have to agree (obviously) I’m just tired of the bashing on a subject that will never be solved. If that makes sense? I’m not saying Christians don’t bash on atheists, they clearly do and this blog proves that I do it to, however, I only do it when provoked unlike others. I’m not saying it’s all perfect, in the end we are all just people walking the same earth that came from somewhere people may never be able to answer whether it be the big bang theory or creationism or whatever it is that you believe. I just wish more people that strongly disagree with whatever it may be would just say, “Look, I respect that you have an opinion on the subject, however, I disagree.” And leave it at that. Not to turn it into an argument but more of a discussion. And at the end of the day when everyone still disagrees without arguing that the subject just gets left alone, not turn into religious/atheist bashing. It just doesn’t make sense to do that especially on such a touchy subject and on a subject that has no scientific answer.

  176. on 17 Feb 2012 at 2:30 am 176.Lou (DFW) said …

    134.Burebista said …

    “It is Someone but admit it.”

    Hor is back.

  177. on 17 Feb 2012 at 2:32 am 177.Lou (DFW) said …

    140.Someone101 said …

    “Damn you people don’t know how to read.”

    You sir (Hor?), are an idiot.

  178. on 17 Feb 2012 at 2:45 am 178.Lou (DFW) said …

    144.someone101 said …

    “I can continue to blow this blog up with common atheist questions answered, but I bet that will annoy most of you rather quickly. How about rather than starting arguments on religion vs atheism, you just do your own research like I have? Is it really that difficult or do you enjoy the fight?
    I now assume you’ll read the above, please reply if you have any other questions. Have fun debunking all of that. I’m eagerly awaiting your replies.”

    Your comments are nothing but rambling, incoherent nonsense.

    There’s only really one reply required – one that includes evidence of your imaginary god.

    And stop writing that you’re “done” when you you continue babbling on and on. Can’t you help yourself, or are you OCD about this?

    Repeating this one more time – where is your evidence for you imaginary god? That’s not a question that can be “debunked.” Only answers can be “debunked,” not questions. I guarantee that your answer won’t need to be “debunked.”

  179. on 17 Feb 2012 at 2:52 am 179.Lou (DFW) said …

    124.Someone101 said …

    “If you think every region is equally as silly that proves your ignorance to me. There are crazy religions out there full of a bunch of BS. I dont belong to one.”

    You don’t belong to a “crazy” religion, or no religion at all?

    “Evil institution of the church? If they’re so evil then why do they give food and money to the poor? Probably because people like you in your ‘reality’ don’t see what reality is really there. Poor starving people that CHURCHES (not you) are trying to help.”

    The Catholic church is reportedly one of, if not the richest, institutions in the world. Why is that? And how many hundreds of millions, if not billions, has the church paid because of “Priestly Pederasty?”

  180. on 17 Feb 2012 at 3:03 am 180.Lou (DFW) said …

    144.someone101 said …

    “I can continue to blow this blog up with common atheist questions answered, but I bet that will annoy most of you rather quickly.”

    Translation – I will copy & paste so much that most of you will stop reading most of my comments, and eventually ignore me, thus allowing me to declare a victory.

    “How about rather than starting arguments on religion vs atheism, you just do your own research like I have?”

    See above.

    “Is it really that difficult or do you enjoy the fight?”

    Fight? Really? You consider what you do to be a “fight?” Your “fight” is similar to an astrologist debating with an astronomer about Big Bang. You confuse “fight” with the bluster of a school yard bully who has nothing to offer but anger expressed with his fists.

    If you really want to “fight,” then supply a KO that will take us out. Provide evidence of your imaginary god. Until you do that, you can’t even step into the ring.

  181. on 17 Feb 2012 at 4:38 am 181.someone101 said …

    And whose to say you can step into the ring until you provide evidence that god doesn’t exist? I’m just beginning to see this blog as pointless because nothing can be proved. You can believe what you want, and I have every right to believe what I want. You call us names, so what? I just don’t understand this. Why is there a need to debate something such as religion. There is no right or wrong answer because it’s all based on peoples opinions on how they interpret things. There are no observable truths to either side of this debate. Nobody saw the Big Bang happen, nobody witnessed Adam and Eve. Look, you’re an atheist, you don’t believe in God, so why do you do what you do? Why do you even care about who believes and who doesn’t? What difference does it make to you?

  182. on 17 Feb 2012 at 4:40 am 182.thisispointless said …

    It’s true, you can’t prove that evolution exists anymore than you can prove that creationism exists. This whole blog is rather pointless and will never end. It went from discussing amputees into discussing whether or not God exists. It’s easier to say that he doesn’t, but there is still a possibility that he does. So why do you all continue to throw what each other write back into the other person’s face to only begin the cycle all over again?

  183. on 17 Feb 2012 at 4:43 am 183.Anonymous said …

    Randy, thank you so much for the best line ever. I don’t think I’ve ever laughed so hard at a blog post. That was hilarious. I hope you don’t mind if I use that one myself?

    Someone… gosh, so many excuses, so few answers. Why don’t you try answering some questions? Is it, perhaps, because you’ve only been taught how to lash out in anger? Seriously, dudette, you seem really upset by all this. Why is that?

    Again, moan, whine, complain, throw temper-tantrums, cut and past, do whatever you like but you won’t change the fact that no-one is interested in proving a non-existent, illogical, impossible, fairy-story god to be false. You’re going to have to put on your big-girl trousers and take on the challenge and prove it to us.

    Why don’t you prove to us that Zeus isn’t real? Go ahead. We all agree that Zeus does not exist, now you prove it.

    Respect for your beliefs? Without proof that this god of yours exists? No, not a chance. Not going to happen. Get used to it.

    If you don’t like being ridiculed in public then stop saying ridiculous things in public. You see, we don’t need your respect so your offer is empty. Of course, what you are really saying is you can’t defend your irrational belief in a god, so you’re going to make yet-another emotional argument in-lieu of a sensible one.

    You mentioned Satan, I’ve always wondered why Christians hang their hat on this one. You’ve ignored questions so far, but maybe we’ll get lucky and maybe you’ll have some conscience or something… so.

    Why did your god create Satan? If this god knew that Satan was going to rebel, then he’s self-destructive.

    If Satan can trick your god then Satan is more powerful than your god who is neither omnipotent nor god.

    If people are being tricked by Satan then your god is an abusive asshole for punishing them when he, himself, created the problem and can’t contain it on his own.

    So, yes, tell us about Satan.

  184. on 17 Feb 2012 at 4:45 am 184.wow said …

    You all think y’all are so perfect dontcha? Man you all have a lot of learning to do. From the posts I’ve read through this seems far fetched, and yes, pointless. I see both sides, really, I do. However did you know that atheism is considered a religion? Hence as why on social networking when it asks what religion you are, you say atheist.

    Lou(DFW):”You don’t belong to a “crazy” religion, or no religion at all?”

    I find it odd that you would write this. Since Atheism is a religion, and you define all religion as crazy.

    Are you sure you aren’t agnostic?
    Or are you just full of ignorance?(:

  185. on 17 Feb 2012 at 5:03 am 185.someone101 said …

    Look, no matter what I answer you are just going to laugh because you don’t believe in it, so why would I make a laughing stock of myself trying to explain why I believe God did what he did to a group of non-believers? Like, if you want an honest debate, and not a throw it in your face argument, I’m open to that. But if I answer your questions and you make harsh remarks saying that I’m full of ignorance and stupidity, having no validation to what you are saying to me, then why should I waste my time? If you want to ask questions such as, “Why would God create Satan if Satan is destroying everything?” and I give an answer, and you ask another question, fine. I’m cool with that. I’m not cool answering questions that you are going to turn on me and throw into my face.
    Did you ever think that maybe I was just smart enough?
    Look, I can defend God until I’m blue in the face, but it isn’t going to change anything. I can give valid points just as you can as to why he doesn’t exist. If you want to ask questions, then number them so I can answer them. I’m not prepared to read through context to find and dig up every question, I’m a college student, I’m busy. But I can find time to answer questions that you pin on us to try and disprove something that can’t be proven or disproven.

    So for your first question, why did God create Satan?

    He didn’t, he created an arch angel named Lucifer, and the bible as you might all know doesn’t mention this subject much. Satan, wanting God’s powers rebelled against God. To which God cast him out of heaven and down to earth. Where Satan than began to destroy and twist God’s word. Just as we find in Genesis where he tells Eve it is okay to eat from the tree, which she does, and then gives the fruit to Adam.
    For all we know God may have planned this?
    We don’t know, the bible doesn’t specify and I’m sure you will all take that above statement and use that against me, but look, it’s the truth. I don’t read too much into the bible, I take it literally, I don’t see any symbolism, it is what it is.
    Then the question is if God was willing to let this happen then he’s cruel and not what you claim him to be.

    To answer this, it can be seen in today’s world. I believe that God created us in his own image. Whether it be through the works of us or whatever. The destruction in this world is caused by sin. People doing things they shouldn’t. Do christians sin? You bet your ass we do. Nobody is perfect, and, if God made us in his own image, does that make him not perfect? Nope, God even mentioned that first time he flooded the earth it was “no good.” But perhaps when the bible claims a perfect god it refers to Jesus,, who lived a completely holy life without sin. He’s perfect here on earth, he does not sin, he heals not physically perhaps but mentally. I do believe that priests who rape people and other christians committing such things should be punished, and in their own way they will. Have you heard of the different levels of heave? I didn’t think so, well, depending on how you live you life, if you are a believer, you may be in one of the lower levels of heaven. I know the world is all about revenge these days, that’s what it’s all about. The bible however, teaches forgiveness. I’m sure we have all done things, surely not as a bad as rape, but still things we aren’t proud of that we feel the need for forgiveness for. It doesn’t make what that person did right, I never said that. The problem with discussing religion is that it is hard to explain, because there are exceptions, something might seem like a contradicting statement, but it’s hard to explain in a way to make it understandable.

    So go ahead, bash away at this, I know you all will, which is why I didn’t want to post my point of view anyways. this makes sense to me but it won’t make sense to you, and you’ll nail me in the head for that. I know how you people work. And when you can’t argue a statement you ridicule the person who wrote it. I didn’t pick apart any of your statements as I probably should have, because it seems I have recieved ridicule for that as well.
    If you have questions to the above please number them. And I will reply.
    This is all my point of view.

  186. on 17 Feb 2012 at 5:17 am 186.someone101 said …

    May I ask some questions?

    1. How do you explain miracles? Is it just all by coincidence? Such as people coming out of three year comas, etc.

    2. Explain the tragedies of 9/11 and why one of the building stood standing longer, allowing more people to be able to escape. How one of the planes miraculously happened to hit an area in the building that was under construction, meaning noone was present in that area of the building, perhaps saving hundreds of lives?

    3. Explain to me why one of the bill boards in New Orleans after hurricane katrina had the orginal poster ripped off of it and underneath it revealed a billboard saying, “We need to talk… -God.”

    You all really believe this is by coincidence? Or do you have a scientific reasoning? By the way, the above was true.

    Try Snopes.com

  187. on 17 Feb 2012 at 5:18 am 187.Anonymous said …

    (1) Why do Christians have double standards when it comes to proving the existence of their god versus others?

    If you want to insist that your god must be disproved first, then you MUST accept that all other gods, until proven otherwise, also exist. Yet you don’t.

    If you were to ask a Muslim, they would quite likely tell you that Christians are delusional. At a guess, one of the “evil” religions you mentioned earlier might have been Islam? It’s OK, they hate you in return.

    Somehow you expect special treatment. You expect logic to be turned on its head. You expect a pass from rational argument. Why is that?

  188. on 17 Feb 2012 at 5:38 am 188.Anonymous said …

    My “scientific reasoning” tells me that you are so desperate to believe in miracles that you confuse things that happen anyway with things that were caused by some divine intervention.

    An earthquake could hit somewhere and a million people be said to have died. One person could, by luck, be found that survived. You’d call it a miracle, I’d say that that a million minus one being killed was a tragedy of epic proportion.

    This is also known as argument by selective observation, cherry picking, or as the fallacy of counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

  189. on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:01 am 189.someone101 said …

    1. We don’t really have “double standards” as I stated, it’s hard to discuss religion because so many things go into it.

    Answer this for me.

    Assuming you believe in the Big Bang, where did all of the matter come from along with the gases that caused the big bang? Did they just miraculously appear? And you think my logic is flawed?
    What was anything before the earth formed? How did the gasses get there? Logically explain to me what was present before the big bang, and how those elements were placed there?
    What? Out of thin air? That doesn’t seem logic. Are you now going to turn logic on it’s head?

  190. on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:09 am 190.Severin said …

    167 (Horatio?)
    “It just bothers me when people say EVERYTHING happens by chance.”

    WHO said everything happens by chance? Some idiot?
    We discussed it many times, didn’t we?

    Put a glass of water on your kitchen table and estimate the chance to fing the water in the glass after a week.

    NOTHING happens by chance. EVERYTHING is happening according to strict laws of physics, chamistry,…

  191. on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:15 am 191.someone101 said …

    “NOTHING happens by chance. EVERYTHING is happening according to strict laws of physics, chamistry,…”

    Then explain to me how particles that formed together to create the big bang just “according to strict laws of physics and chemistry.” appeared out of thin air and formed together to create the big bang?

  192. on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:15 am 192.Severin said …

    189 Someone 101
    “How did the gasses get there?”

    The same way god did.
    Can you kindly describe for us how did god get there, please?
    Where did he (she, it ?) come from?
    Of thin air?

  193. on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:16 am 193.someone101 said …

    You still didn’t answer my questions as to how gasses became present out of nowhere.

  194. on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:17 am 194.Lou (DFW) said …

    184.wow said …

    “I find it odd that you would write this.”

    Who cares what you “find” to be odd. It’s irrelevant.

    “Since Atheism is a religion, and you define all religion as crazy.”

    By definition, Atheism [sic],is not a religion. It’s really not even an “ism.”

    “Atheism [sic] is a religion” is simply a theist lie used to place the rejection of theism into the same context as the delusion of religion. Just because you can’t defend your bat-shit crazy delusion doesn’t give you the right to label our rejection of it a religion. Labeling Atheism [sic] a religion doesn’t somehow legitimize your religion.

    Your belief in god is a religion that is no different than belief in Zeus, Thor, Allah, Quetzalcoatl, etc. Atheists reject ALL OF THOSE beliefs. Therefore, Atheism [sic] is none of those things. It’s not a religion.

    Anybody who claims that “Atheism [sic] is a religion” is simply being intellectually honest. It’s that simple.

    Now, stop arguing about semantics and present evidence for your imaginary god.

  195. on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:19 am 195.someone101 said …

    The problem here is with a temporal understanding of the universe. Get rid of the concept of time, and there is no problem with things that always were, such as God.

    And recent research, especially at the level of quanta (the very small) shows phenomena which appear to exist independently of time itself.

    Our whole idea of “before” and “after,” while useful at the level of our own existence as a kind of classification system, may not have any actual basis in reality. Get your head around that idea, and God as an “always” kind of being is not so hard to grasp.

  196. on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:22 am 196.Lou (DFW) said …

    189.someone101 said …

    “Assuming you believe in the Big Bang…”

    Big Bang isn’t a belief, not in the way that religion is a belief. Religion, and therefore belief in god, is actually faith.

    “…where did all of the matter come from along with the gases that caused the big bang? Did they just miraculously appear?”

    It’s irrelevant to your claim for god. Knowledge of how that happened, or the lack thereof, is irrelevant to the FACT that you have no evidence for god.

    “And you think my logic is flawed?”

    NO! Not at all. Logic is “the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning.” You have yet to exhibit that.

  197. on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:23 am 197.Lou (DFW) said …

    193.someone101 said …

    “You still didn’t answer my questions as to how gasses became present out of nowhere.”

    I’ll answer it – it’s not really known how.

    Now, please answer my question – where is your evidence for your imaginary god?

  198. on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:25 am 198.someone101 said …

    How about you present evidence of there not being a God? We can’t see him, we can’t hear him, therefore he doesn’t exist right?

    Well we can’t see evolution, we can’t hear the big bang, therefore it must not exist right?

    You call my beliefs bat shit crazy and an illusion simply because you have nothing better to say. You seem to be all talk because you have failed to provide me with evidence that God does not exist. You say you have nothing to prove, yet you continue to try and prove he doesn’t exist.

    “Who cares what you “find” to be odd. It’s irrelevant.”

    This whole blog is based on opinion and has no evidence supporting or disproving the existence of god. This whole blog is irrelevant if it’s based on opinion, since that what you seem to be jumping me for.

  199. on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:27 am 199.Lou (DFW) said …

    195.someone101 said …

    “Get your head around that idea, and God as an “always” kind of being is not so hard to grasp.”

    That’s all you have – an “idea.”

    Now, “[g]et your head around [this] idea.” Your reasoning is circular – a type of formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.

  200. on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:30 am 200.Severin said …

    191
    “appeared out of thin air and formed together to create the big bang?”

    They did not.
    What is wrong with the idea that matter/energy was not created at all? Why would it be necessary for matter/energy to “appear” from somewhere? They did not “appear”, they simply WERE THERE. Always. They never came from anywhere, never went anywhere, just existed, and changed its form according to “built-in” natural laws.
    If this idea of “just being there without comming from somewhere” is good enough for a god, WHY, the hell, is it wrong for anything else, including matter/energy?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply