Feed on Posts or Comments 31 July 2014

Christianity &Islam Thomas on 22 Mar 2012 12:03 am

A Christian explains where Christians get their morals from, and proves that Christians are evil in the process

In this post there is an interesting comment discussion about morals. A Christian explains the source of his morality in this way:

Notice this post starts with moral authorities determine our morals. Well I do agree to a point, Jesus Christ. No Jesus didn’t put out a list, he taught principles about stealing, honesty, murder, loving, etc, etc and that is where moral principles are derived from. Many you practice are those taught by Christ.

Example: Buying a paper online and turning it into your your professor as your own work is a lie and would be wrong.

This brings up an obvious set of questions:

Where does jesus say slavery is wrong?

Where does jesus say rape is wrong?

Where does jesus say racism is wrong?

Where does jesus say sexism is wrong?

Where does jesus say contraception is wrong?

Where does jesus say homosexuality is wrong?

Where does jesus say polygamy is wrong?

Where does jesus say that drunk driving is wrong?

Where does jesus say that prostitution is wrong?

Where does jesus say that destroying another person’s property is wrong? Doesnt jesus destroy a fig tree? Doesnt jesus kill a herd of pigs?

It should bring up another set of questions as well. If Jesus is the source of morals for Christians, why do so many Christians ignore many of the things that Jesus directly tells them to do? The following video explores this issue. It is entitled: “Why does every intelligent Christian disobey Jesus?”

What becomes evident is that Christians are devoid of morals, and therefore they can be quite dangerous. Christians claim to have a divine source for their morality. Yet their divine source is completely silent on many issues. Their divine source is unquestionably evil on many other issues (e.g. slavery, misogyny). And then when Christians do not like what their divine source declares, they completely ignore what they are told to do.

What should we do with this large group of delusional, immoral, dangerous people running around in our society?

108 Responses to “A Christian explains where Christians get their morals from, and proves that Christians are evil in the process”

  1. on 22 Mar 2012 at 2:08 pm 1.BrianE said …

    Well, going so far as to say christians have no morals is a bit of trolling. Rather, they are misguided and deluded as to where their morals come from. Yes, they cherry-pick examples from the OT and NT to establish their base, and from there they try and extrapolate to situations not covered in the bible. Of course, because it’s the bible this leads to some very strange morals indeed…

    It’s really the same process for people of different religions and no religion. Start with a few examples (holy book, non-holy book, parents, teachers, scholars, philosophers, etc), and extrapolate from there.

    The real difference is, the religious just can’t seem to admit that this is exactly what they do, and that its exactly what everyone else does as well. They HAVE to believe that Jesus is ACTIVELY guiding them in regards to their morality, otherwise Jesus is as imaginary as we all know him to be, and they’d have to admit that.

  2. on 22 Mar 2012 at 2:37 pm 2.nibb said …

    well put !

  3. on 22 Mar 2012 at 7:25 pm 3.Asher said …

    “Don’t be drunk with wine, because that will ruin your life. Instead, be filled with the Holy Spirit” Ep 5:18

    “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” Mat 5

    What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” Mat 7

    Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” John 7

    “Love your neighbor as yourself” Mat 22

    There you go. Done and done.

  4. on 22 Mar 2012 at 7:40 pm 4.Lou (DFW) said …

    3.Asher said …

    “Don’t be drunk with wine, because that will ruin your life. Instead, be filled with the Holy Spirit” Ep 5:18

    Actually, there’s some truth to that. Don’t be drunk and impaired on alcohol, be drunk and impaired on religion. It, like alcohol, falsely isolates you from reality.

    “All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

    Then they must come from god if god created man.

  5. on 22 Mar 2012 at 8:25 pm 5.BrianE said …

    Asher,

    Thank you for proving my point about cherry-picking the bible to find verses that fit the morality that you already subscribe to. I’m sure Fred Phelps has a fantastic set of verses that he could post as well to justify his morality. What does that tell you about where morality comes from?

  6. on 22 Mar 2012 at 9:10 pm 6.Asher said …

    How did I cherry-pick verses?

  7. on 22 Mar 2012 at 9:45 pm 7.alex said …

    “How did I cherry-pick verses?”

    oooh, pick this one. 1 Samuel 18:27

    you xtians are so krazy!!

    this one too. Genesis 38:9-10

    now, close that porn tab.

  8. on 22 Mar 2012 at 10:41 pm 8.Asher said …

    v10.

    “What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.”

    The Lord punished a wicked man. Not an innocent baby like we do in the US. OK, so again how did I cherry pick? alex, you are a mess. You are a classic example of cherry picking from atheists websites. At least be honest with yourself.

  9. on 23 Mar 2012 at 12:39 am 9.alex said …

    “alex, you are a mess”

    ….asshole

    I tolerate just about anyone, except for morons. I’m suspicious of the big bang, weapons of mass destruction, aroma therapy, and other things. I’m especially dubious of gods including the biblical one.
    When I die, like everyone else, that’s it!

    You quote the bible like you do everything by the book. Stoned an adulterer lately? Where is your conviction? Pray in the closet or in a church?

    You cherry pick the bible because the numerous contradictions make it impossible to follow. You can always justify the idiocy by interpreting it differently, but at the end of the you cherry pick.

    I don’t advocate violence and I’m very much in favor of equal rights for everyone.

    I may spout off now and then, but this is the frustration manifesting.

    …ok, I’m a mess so what? Your imaginary, murderous, and intolerant god directs your life. You are so indoctrinated that you start quoting your bible in an atheist site? What does that make you?

    Delusional.

  10. on 23 Mar 2012 at 1:25 am 10.Asher said …

    “you start quoting your bible in an atheist site?”

    Well more on the site, not in it. However, Alex my boy, back away from the ledge. Me quoting the Bible is answering the questions posted on the thread. Scroll back to the top and look for yourself, I’ll wait……………………………………………………………………………………………………

    See those questions up there beginning with “Where did”. I used Scripture from the NT to answer the questions. The fact the Bible makes you so angry is troubling considering you claim it is all nonsense. Would you be rebelling against authority figures?

  11. on 23 Mar 2012 at 1:29 am 11.crystal said …

    If you are SO sure, why then do you put in all this effort to convince people of what you think. If you think that there is no God because you dont think there is physical proof, why take all this time since you are soooo decided. Come on, wake up and stop being so hard hearted and stubborn. You must have a personal vendetta. What is that scar you are hiding, what is that thing that has happened to you that you cannot forgive or forget? Stop trying to drag people down with you. It is not good.

  12. on 23 Mar 2012 at 1:42 am 12.alex said …

    “Well more on the site, not in it”.

    …you a smug motherfucker. that’s right rekegnize the vernacular?

    “Alex my boy, back away from the ledge.”

    your bible, your god, and the resulting activities is what makes me so angry. when you and your ilk molest kids, repress women and minorities, blow up clinics, and roll fags, it’s….

    but, not you though. you wink and fantasize and hope that you don’t get caught and if and when you do, you can always invoke that wildcard god for the free pass they call redemption.

    now, I am not your Boy! I bet you think I’m a negro and you’re fantasizing again?

    …back on point! where da proof.

  13. on 23 Mar 2012 at 1:51 am 13.alex said …

    “If you are SO sure, why then do you put in all this effort to convince people of what you think. If you think that there is no God because you dont think there is physical proof, why take all this time since you are soooo decided.”

    because you nut jobs are dangerous. your tag suggests that you’re a woman and it always amazes me when I see women, black folk and homosexuals theists. the bible (and the koran) hates women, other nationalities, and homosexuals. just because you can’t face reality, god is not the answer. atheism may not be the answer either, but pick some other god that’s harmless like the marijuana god or something.

    “Come on, wake up and stop being so hard hearted and stubborn.”

    wtf?

    i believe in the great pumpkin! why don’t you?
    quit being so stubborn and hard hearted.

  14. on 23 Mar 2012 at 1:53 am 14.Lou (DFW) said …

    11.crystal said …

    “If you are SO sure, why then do you put in all this effort to convince people of what you think. If you think that there is no God because you dont think there is physical proof, why take all this time since you are soooo decided.”

    crystal, are you really that dense? Atheists don’t “put in all this effort to convince people of what [we] think.” Atheists do that to prevent religious nuts from forcing their religion upon us.

  15. on 23 Mar 2012 at 1:58 am 15.Lou (DFW) said …

    11.crystal said …

    “If you are SO sure, why then do you put in all this effort to convince people of what you think.”

    Unlike xtians who think they are commanded by god to spread the gospel – idiot.

  16. on 23 Mar 2012 at 2:58 am 16.Asher said …

    “that’s right rekegnize the vernacular?”

    No, not really. After you back away from that ledge, try spell checker.

    One day you will grow up, and your rebellious ways will hopefully depart. A little education will clean up your vulgar vernacular. Its a cry for help because you feel inadequate and that you have nothing to offer.

    Let the anger go. Remember, God is not real, right?

    Crystal, excellent call.

  17. on 23 Mar 2012 at 3:05 am 17.Lou (DFW) said …

    16.Asher said …

    “No, not really. After you back away from that ledge, try spell checker.

    One day you will grow up, and your rebellious ways will hopefully depart. A little education will clean up your vulgar vernacular. Its a cry for help…”

    Writes Hor who doesn’t know the correct usage of it’s and its.

    Where is your evidence for your imaginary god?

  18. on 23 Mar 2012 at 4:12 am 18.Slapnuts McGee said …

    How can you delusional idiots seriously continue ignoring the demand of any, ANY proof of god?

    Santa Claus says that you’d better be good for goodness’ sake. Should I start worshipping him and his “moral code” blindly?

  19. on 23 Mar 2012 at 4:18 am 19.Slapnuts McGee said …

    10.Asher…

    I am going to begin quoting the Lord of the Rings novels in a feeble attempt to prove my points since you get to use the bible.

  20. on 23 Mar 2012 at 5:01 am 20.Anonymous said …

    Christians ignoring jesus

    http://i.imgur.com/EfyRL.jpg

  21. on 23 Mar 2012 at 6:52 am 21.Severin said …

    6 Asher
    “How did I cherry-pick verses?“

    I will tell you:
    You picked and showed us several verses which you think are basically highly moral and even represent a sort of moral code we should accept and follow. It was your try to show us how Jesus’ teaching represents the moral code we should accept anf dfollow.
    Right?

    Your jesus confused apples and oranges.
    Some things he mentions are highly immoral (murder), some are bad/immoral (deceit, slander), but I knew it without Jesus.
    Aborigines knew without Jesus, some 40,000 years ago, that murder was immoral.

    Other things he mentions are not immoral.
    Why is coveting immoral? I was taught by my parents that strong wishes, for example for women, and for material goods, are normal, nothing to shame about, BUT parallel to such teaching, I was taught that I can have only those women who agree to be „taken“, and can have only those material goods that I earn by my work.
    I shared joy with really many women in my life, and both I and those ladies have nothing but nice memories. No harm to anyone, ever. Nothing immoral!
    I never stole anything in my life.
    So, coveting, limited by additional rules is NOT immoral. On the contrary! It can lead to wonderful experiences and nice life.

    Why is foolishnes immoral? Isn’t it directly connected to I.Q.? Shall we judge people for what they are by nature?
    What, except raping, is „sexual immorality“? What is wrong in consent sex, especially if partners are responsible and take care for protection?
    Why is adultery immoral? O.K., maybe because it can induce pain in cheated partner, but genarlly immoral…? How? Why?

    What is wrong with pide? I was taught to be „proud with coverage“, not for what I am or for what I have, but or what I do. I was taught to show my pride at avery occasion when someone tried to humiliate me, to make me fool or to offend me. What is wrong with it?

    How can I love my neighbor who beats his children and his dog? I never hated anyone, including that idiot, but to LOVE HIM? No, thanks! Such a demand is unnatural. It is also immoral, becaue if I loved him, I would feel like confirming (agreeing with) his deeds.

    Etc, etc.
    So, your examples do NO represent universal moral rules, nothing that we should unconditionally accept and follow!

    In fact, you PICKED out very bad examles.

  22. on 23 Mar 2012 at 8:01 am 22.Severin said …

    6 Asher

    A “moral code” understands also definition of terms, which we don’t see clearly in Jesus’ words.
    What are „evil thoughts“, and should we torture people to tell us their thoughts to punish them for „evil“ ones? How shall we distibguish „evil“ from „non evil“ thoughts?
    You did not pick Jesus’ verses in which he, highly immoraly, demands from people to stop worring for their lives (irresponsibility), to stop defending themselves (other cheak), to gouge their eyes and cut their hands (instead to resist doing wrong by their will), etc.
    You did not mention the fact that Jesus never mentioned any other love but love to „his father“ and to „naighbor“.
    You did not mention his verse in which he calls to him only the haters of their parents, children and friends.

    You never found verses in which Jesus’ as expected from someone highly moral, condemns slavery as an institution of highest imaginable immorality.
    So, yes,to „prove“ your Jesus’ as moral athority, you did cherry –pick verses!

  23. on 23 Mar 2012 at 10:15 am 23.Anonymous said …

    Nothing in the bible is original.

    Example,, the golden rule

    http://i.imgur.com/fAkTj.jpg

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

  24. on 23 Mar 2012 at 12:25 pm 24.Pryor said …

    “Aborigines knew without Jesus, some 40,000 years ago”

    They did not even exist as a people group 40,000 yrs ago. Continue on, the banter is scholarly and enlightening.

  25. on 23 Mar 2012 at 1:29 pm 25.DPK said …

    “The history of Indigenous Australians is thought to have spanned 40?000 to 45?000 years, although some estimates have put the figure at up to 80 000 years before European settlement and as low as 10,000 years.”

    So, in any event…. well predating the time of Jesus, so the pint is valid. BTW, do you have one, (a point) or is this just another diversionary tactic because once again you have failed to provide any reason to believe that supernatural gods actually exist?

  26. on 23 Mar 2012 at 2:47 pm 26.RC said …

    “Aborigines knew without Jesus, some 40,000 years ago”

    They did? Where is the written documentation. Produce and we will accept your “off the cuff” remark.

    The pint remains invalid.

    However, this is apple and oranges since atheists tend not to really know the teachings of Christ. Jesus said to LOVE your enemy as self. No other claim that. Secondly, He said to LOVE your enemy. No others claim that. Severin even admitted he would NEVER do that.

  27. on 23 Mar 2012 at 2:56 pm 27.Anonymous said …

    Jesus said to LOVE your enemy as self. No other claim that. Secondly, He said to LOVE your enemy. No others claim that. Severin even admitted he would NEVER do that.

    Christians dont LOVE TEH ENEMY either because christians ignore Jesus. Did you watch the video??

  28. on 23 Mar 2012 at 3:09 pm 28.Lou (DFW) said …

    26.RC said …

    “They did? Where is the written documentation. Produce and we will accept your “off the cuff” remark.”

    Let’s take the theist approach to logic – PROVE that Aborigines DID NOT know without Jesus, some 40,000 years ago. According to theistic logic, unless you can prove that’s NOT true, then it MUST BE TRUE.

    Seriously, dispense with any “written documentation.” Simply show us any evidence for your imaginary god. You can’t produce any evidence that your imaginary god lived on earth as Jesus 2,000 years ago, but here you are demanding “written documentation” for something that allegedly happened ~40,000 years ago.

  29. on 23 Mar 2012 at 4:33 pm 29.Anti said …

    This guy Lou cannot be legitimate. How can anyone be so far off track on a discussion that only goes back 5 or 6 posts. He has to be a theist plant. He has to be, please!

  30. on 23 Mar 2012 at 6:26 pm 30.Godless Monkey said …

    I’ve yet to understand why xtians come onto an atheist blog and spew all their insanity. Is it part of their “great commission”? I have not once gone to a christian blog and tried to convince xtians of reality. Really, what’s the point? They are buried deep in a hole of indoctrination, so why bother.

  31. on 23 Mar 2012 at 6:56 pm 31.Severin said …

    24 Pryor
    “They did not even exist as a people group 40,000 yrs ago.”

    Maybe not, I used sources from Internet that maybe were not very exact.
    Can you accept that Aborigines lived in Australia 1,000 or 2,000 years before Christians came there without knowing anything about Jesus?
    Well, if you accept that, then how did they survive without Jesus’ “moral code”?

    Will you deny that both North and South American Indians were present on both continents at least some 10,000 years before they ever heard about Jesus? They did not live in love, BUT they did not tolerate murder, stealing, cheating, adultery, …
    How was it possible that they had their moral code so similar to Christian moral code without knowing Bible and Jesus?
    Will you deny that Chinese people survived for 5-6,000 years without Jesus’”moral code”. They too did not tolerate murders, cheating, stealing, adultery. WHO taught them all that? Obviously not Jesus!

    My point is: no gods necessary to live according to moral code.
    Many societies developed very similar moral codes despite worshiping many different gods, which direct us to conclusion that gods are not responsible for morality of human beings.
    Human societies developed their specific, in many cases very similar moral codes, which changed through history following the degree of development of the society.

  32. on 23 Mar 2012 at 7:36 pm 32.Severin said …

    26 RC
    “They did? Where is the written documentation.”

    No written documentation about Aborigines!
    Yet, there are millions of written documents about “moral codes” of big and long-lasting societies such as in China, Persia, Ancient Greece, Egypt …

    None of these civilizations tolerated murders, cheating, adultery, stealing …
    Their “moral codes” (AND their laws) were very similar to each other.

    HOW was it possible without Jesus?
    How did ancient Persians know that murder was immoral without Jesus?
    Jesus is not necessary to have a moral code, THAT is the point!

  33. on 23 Mar 2012 at 7:47 pm 33.Severin said …

    26 RC
    “Jesus said to LOVE your enemy as self. No other claim that.”

    Yes, I know that, it is exactly what I said, and I can add that I think Christianity was the ONLY religion that posed such a obligation to its congregation: to love their enemies!
    I do not know any other religion with “moral code” that proscribes love for enemies.

    Which is, of course stupid and HIGHLY IMMORAL!
    Asking people to love someone who came to your home to rob your goods, rape your women and kill your children is HIGHLY IMMORAL demand! It weakens the ability of the society to defend itself: how can I defend my child from enemy if I love the enemy?
    I personally think that I am unable to hate, but I am not sure. I think that some dose of hate, or at least some hostility would be welcome to increase my wish to defend my family, my society and myself from someone who came to kill me.

    WHO, in reality, ever really applied such highly idiotic “moral code”?
    Your father or your grandfather when Japs bombarded Pearl Harbor?
    I doubt it!

  34. on 23 Mar 2012 at 7:51 pm 34.Severin said …

    And, again, how, the hell can I love my neighbor who beats his wife, his children and his dog twice a week.

    I refuse to love him no matter who asks it from me!
    It would be IMMORAL from my side to love such an idiot, because with my love, which I certainly and necessarily should EXPRESS, I would show the guy that I accept his evil, and would encourage him to continue his evil job.
    No chance! Thanks for such a “morality”! Keep it for yourself (although I doubt you really practice it that way – or, do you?)

  35. on 23 Mar 2012 at 7:52 pm 35.Severin said …

    Or, maybe Jesus had in mind some sort of secret love to neighbors who beat their family and their dogs?!

  36. on 23 Mar 2012 at 7:58 pm 36.Severin said …

    “Jesus is not necessary to have a moral code, THAT is the point!”

    In my poor English that means that we don’t need Jesus to have a moral code, or, that Jesus is not responsible for morality of nations and individuals. I hope you understood it.

  37. on 23 Mar 2012 at 8:12 pm 37.alex said …

    “Your father or your grandfather when Japs bombarded Pearl Harbor?”

    …You mean plural Japanese?

  38. on 23 Mar 2012 at 9:03 pm 38.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    Where does jesus say slavery is wrong?

    Where does jesus say rape is wrong?

    Where does jesus say racism is wrong?

    Where does jesus say sexism is wrong?

    Where does jesus say contraception is wrong?

    Where does jesus say homosexuality is wrong?

    Where does jesus say polygamy is wrong?

    Where does jesus say that drunk driving is wrong?

    Where does jesus say that prostitution is wrong?

    Where does jesus say that destroying another person’s property is wrong? Doesnt jesus destroy a fig tree? Doesnt jesus kill a herd of pigs?

    All of these things are implied by the ethics and morals he taught us. BASIC SPIRITUAL TRUTHS

  39. on 23 Mar 2012 at 9:09 pm 39.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    We don’t need him to have a moral code,

    we need him to motivate us to follow that moral code

    and think of others before we think of ourself

    win-win situations

  40. on 24 Mar 2012 at 12:41 am 40.DPK said …

    Speak for yourself… I don’t.

  41. on 24 Mar 2012 at 3:50 am 41.Anonymous said …

    39.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    We don’t need him to have a moral code,

    we need him to motivate us to follow that moral code

    and think of others before we think of ourself

    You need a imaginary person who by definition is silent, invisible and non-existing to motivate you?

    How does an imaginary, silent, invisible, non-existing person provide you with motivation? Do tell.

  42. on 24 Mar 2012 at 4:18 am 42.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    Because I understand the logic behind the story the Gospel provides.

    I need to love others
    I love myself more
    I can’t do what I need
    I need grace to keep trying
    God says He forgives me for making mistakes because,
    A perfect human gave his life up for them.

    Christianity preaches a God that gives grace to the humble, because humility allows for learning to take place.

    I don’t need factual information to see that, I just need a logical context that makes sense with what I experience.

  43. on 24 Mar 2012 at 4:19 am 43.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    To me, something I can imagine based on logical reasoning used to interpret the universe is good enough to believe.

  44. on 24 Mar 2012 at 4:21 am 44.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    If silence is defined by only auditory sensations, then we are always communicating with silence. Thoughts are the universe communicating with us.

  45. on 24 Mar 2012 at 4:35 am 45.Lou (DFW) said …

    44.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    “If silence is defined by only auditory sensations, then we are always communicating with silence. Thoughts are the universe communicating with us.”

    You obviously don’t know the difference between silence and not hearing.

  46. on 24 Mar 2012 at 4:37 am 46.Lou (DFW) said …

    43.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    “To me, something I can imagine based on logical reasoning used to interpret the universe is good enough to believe.”

    What you believe and imagine is not reality – it’s only what you believe and imagine, and it’s not in any way related to “logical reasoning.”

  47. on 24 Mar 2012 at 4:40 am 47.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    Lou (DFW) you’d be better off listening more if you want to understand what I am trying to say.

    It has to be taken as a whole, it cannot be interpreted as individual conclusions.

  48. on 24 Mar 2012 at 4:44 am 48.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    Logic has basic techniques that we use to communicate with computers.

    examples:

    Class- Abstract Data Type- used to define an object by it’s individual properties and characteristics.

    Example: A Stack can be…
    a stack of chairs
    a stack of paper
    a stack of bricks

    but a stack is still a stack

    this logic can be used coupled with interpretating the context of humanity to imagine a best possible explanation

  49. on 24 Mar 2012 at 4:49 am 49.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    And I was refering to the fact that the term ‘silent’ is being used loosely when talking about God.

    Silence is a lack of sound, but if you look at that abstractly you can say
    silence is a lack of communication

  50. on 24 Mar 2012 at 4:50 am 50.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    God does not audibly speak to us, we are too logical.

    He speaks in metaphors, which logic rejects as impossible.

    You have to understand the logic of metaphors to hear God.

  51. on 24 Mar 2012 at 5:48 am 51.Lou (DFW) said …

    47.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    “Lou (DFW) you’d be better off listening more if you want to understand what I am trying to say.”

    I’m only interested in evidence for your imaginary god. The rest is irrelevant double-talk.

  52. on 24 Mar 2012 at 5:52 am 52.Lou (DFW) said …

    49.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    “Silence is a lack of sound, but if you look at that abstractly you can say silence is a lack of communication”

    We’re very familiar with that here. It’s the reply we receive when we ask theists for evidence of their imaginary god. Sure, we receive a lot of comments, but “you can say” their lack of evidence is “silence.”

  53. on 24 Mar 2012 at 5:55 am 53.Lou (DFW) said …

    50.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    “God does not audibly speak to us, we are too logical.”

    Well, some of us are.

  54. on 24 Mar 2012 at 7:45 am 54.Severin said …

    49.It is Painful to Be Human said …
    “Silence is a lack of sound, but if you look at that abstractly you can say silence is a lack of communication”

    You just watch what is going on!
    All theists stopped to communicate when I asked them for explanation about similarity of Christian moral code and moral codes of societies that never knew anything about Jesus and Christianity.

    No sound from them!
    It must be that they are occupied by looking for their enemies and offering them their other cheek.
    Or by declaring love to their neighbors who steal tools from them, drop garbage to their gardens, and piss behind their garages, not to mention poisoning of their cats and dogs.
    Or by teaching their children how wonderfully moral (and how easily easy!) is not to care for food and clothing.

  55. on 24 Mar 2012 at 8:15 am 55.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    Lou (DFW) admitted he is too logical. My work here is finished.

    Severin, you rock.

    Judge by fruit and not by tree

  56. on 24 Mar 2012 at 8:22 am 56.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    If we cannot reach a common ground as a society, we will never become a community.

  57. on 24 Mar 2012 at 12:33 pm 57.Suh said …

    Painful

    No need to reason with Louis. It is over his head

  58. on 24 Mar 2012 at 1:38 pm 58.alex said …

    “If we cannot reach a common ground as a society, we will never become a community.”

    …dude, you’re not deep. quit it. pray in your closet and leave folk alone.

  59. on 24 Mar 2012 at 2:59 pm 59.Lou (DFW) said …

    55.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    “My work here is finished.”

    Incomplete, not finished – you were unable to provide any evidence for your imaginary god.

  60. on 24 Mar 2012 at 3:04 pm 60.Lou (DFW) said …

    56.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    “If we cannot reach a common ground as a society, we will never become a community.”

    WOW! So deep and insightful you are! If the world only knew that for the last 10,000 years, imagine how much better off it would be. But wait, there’s still that issue of so many different imaginary gods and religions that prohibits “common ground.”

    DAMN! For a minute there I thought you were really on to something.

  61. on 24 Mar 2012 at 3:14 pm 61.DPK said …

    “Incomplete, not finished – you were unable to provide any evidence for your imaginary god.”

    “Lou (DFW) admitted he is too logical. My work here is finished.”

    So, Born Painful at least admits belief in god in not logical… that’s a start.

    “I can’t do what I need
    I need grace to keep trying
    God says He forgives me for making mistakes because,
    A perfect human gave his life up for them.”

    Does anyone else see an element of lunacy here? A jump in rationality several light years across? Why would the all powerful, perfect creator of the universe need a “perfect human” to give his life because he made you imperfect? That’s like Chevy constructing a “perfect” car, then smashing it to bits to make up for the Corvair.
    Really? That’s what you’re going with as evidence of a god?

  62. on 24 Mar 2012 at 3:26 pm 62.Lou (DFW) said …

    57.Suh said … with an overdose of cleverness

    “No need to reason with Louis. It is over his head”

    God is not an issue of “reason.” But what is reasonable is to expect people who make extraordinary claims to provide some evidence for them – but theists NEVER, EVER do. That is unreasonable. Even believing such nonsense in the first place is unreasonable.

  63. on 24 Mar 2012 at 4:15 pm 63.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    What if everybody is trying to tell the same story, and we are all wrong about different parts of it?

  64. on 24 Mar 2012 at 4:16 pm 64.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    The I Am doesn’t need a perfect sacrifice, we do.

  65. on 24 Mar 2012 at 4:41 pm 65.DPK said …

    “The I Am doesn’t need a perfect sacrifice, we do.”

    Well, that’s even crazier than your first proposition. Seriously, makes no sense at all.
    D

  66. on 24 Mar 2012 at 5:18 pm 66.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    Sorry, I forget there is an entire lifetime between you and I.

    What I mean is, God doesn’t need anything.

    We need Grace.

  67. on 24 Mar 2012 at 5:31 pm 67.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    Join in imitating me, brothers, and observe those who live according to the example you have in us. For I have often told you, and now say again with tears, that many live as enemies of Love. Their end is destruction; their god is their stomach; their glory is in their shame. they are focused on earthly things.

  68. on 24 Mar 2012 at 5:46 pm 68.It is painful to read this said …

    I’m calling for a retreat. Nutbar here has fouled up this whole place.

  69. on 24 Mar 2012 at 5:53 pm 69.alex said …

    “What if everybody is trying to tell the same story, and we are all wrong about different parts of it?”

    ..typical theist M.O. hammer away until you find some moron to believe the shit. or guilt them. or threaten them.

    doesn’t work here, idiot. go find some aborigines or bush men to work on. maybe some uneducated trash.

    you feel guilty about something? dat why you’re crapping on this blog? molest some kid and feel guilt?

  70. on 24 Mar 2012 at 5:53 pm 70.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    … If I donate all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

  71. on 24 Mar 2012 at 6:49 pm 71.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    Better yet, what if nobody is wrong.

    What if we are all telling the same story with different words.

  72. on 24 Mar 2012 at 6:51 pm 72.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    Yes, I feel very guilty.

    I started drinking at 13, by 14 I was smoking pot, snorting coke, taking ex, and pretty much anything else I could find to pull me out of a reality where Love is not apparent. I am just coming around to sanity at 21 in college, and I realize we are only arguing over words not concepts

  73. on 24 Mar 2012 at 7:31 pm 73.They're all wrong said …

    71.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    “Better yet, what if nobody is wrong.
    What if we are all telling the same story with different words.”

    Hmm… consider…
    “They do blaspheme who say: ‘God is Christ the son of Mary.’ They do blaspheme who say: ‘God is one of three in a trinity’: for there is no God except one God Allah. If they do not desist from their word of blasphemy, verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. Christ the son of Mary was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him.” (The Qur’an, Sura 5:72-75)

    It takes one heck of a feat of mental gymnastics to read that claim of the Muslims alongside the claims of the Christians and think “yeah, they’re both right; neither is wrong.”

  74. on 24 Mar 2012 at 7:32 pm 74.They're all wrong said …

    Correction: in the above, Sura 5:74 was left out because of irrelevance. That’s 5:72-73,75.

  75. on 24 Mar 2012 at 7:47 pm 75.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    Well assuming we cannot interpret intangible things with tangible techniques, we are all wrong in some way

  76. on 24 Mar 2012 at 8:12 pm 76.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    Not gymnastics, mathematics

  77. on 24 Mar 2012 at 9:20 pm 77.They're all wrong said …

    I think we can officially declare this a case of the “blinding by idiocy” fallacy.

  78. on 25 Mar 2012 at 12:51 am 78.40 year Atheist said …

    Morals are considered passé by secularists because morals are derived not by human logic, they are rules pronounced on the authority of a supreme being that is declared non-existent. The traditional consequences for not observing these rules are declared to be too onerous for the value of the infraction. If such a being did exist, the moral authority of that being would be high, much higher than man-made authority, and the benefits and consequences would apply to all humans, universally.

    Now for the question of the applicability of ethical authority. An example has been given of ethical behavior being driven by a political philosophy, in this case, Libertarianism. Assuming that the principles for Libertarianism are consistent across all Libertarians, what is the source of authority for declaring those principles to be unassailable, universal and valid ethics? The answer has to be the human mind, operating on principles thought to be logical.

    So the human mind, or at least a subgroup of human minds, has declared an ethic. No matter how compelling the logic behind the ethic, what gives those rules or principles universal moral authority?

    There are a couple of possible ways to achieve universal moral authority for human-derived principles. First is through the appeal to the collective conscience for voluntary righteous behavior vs. guilt for non-compliant behavior. This is not a likely source of universal authority for the machinations of human minds.

    The second way to achieve universal moral authority for human-derived principles is through the use of force. And this is the way that is historically implemented.

    It is easy to conclude that political philosophies are not actually imperatives without the injection of force into the equation. This realization is what drives Atheist/Materialists ever Leftward, regardless of their starting philosophy.

    But the larger conclusion remains that personal absolutes are not the same as universal absolutes, and that principles that derive from personal absolutes are as likely to evaporate as any other personal opinion. As bedrock foundations for universal principles of behavior, personal absolutes or opinions won’t suffice.

    Regardless of the Atheist and Materialist subpopulation that adheres to personal principles, the potential volatility of such principles suggests that they haven’t the persuasive force to be a source of universal voluntary submission or guide for universal conscientious righteous behavior. It is the weightless, empty nature of Atheism / Materialism itself that renders any adopted personal, man-derived principles to be of no weight in evaluating the character or potential behavior of the Atheist.

    Certainly these arguments apply somewhat to Christians as well, and this statement always surfaces despite being a tu Quoque fallacy. With Christians, at least the principles are not volatile and can be found easily. And the same goes for Muslims. Whether or not a Christian or Muslim behaves according to their universal principles does not remove the expectation that they would, and ordinarily do, and moreover the principles give a baseline for a metric of character evaluation that does not exist for Atheist / Materialists.

  79. on 25 Mar 2012 at 1:32 am 79.DPK said …

    “Morals are considered passé by secularists …”

    As usual for Stan, he starts off with either a false promise, outright lie, or invalid assumption and then proceeds to build an entire house of cards on it.
    You need read no further than his initial attempt at outright deception, which is his claim that morals are considered passe’ by secular people. What an outright steaming pile of unadulterated bullshit.
    Stan, how do you sleep at night if you believe your god is watching and judging you?

  80. on 25 Mar 2012 at 1:35 am 80.alex said …

    “Stan, how do you sleep at night if you believe your god is watching and judging you?”

    God’s free pass(es).

  81. on 25 Mar 2012 at 1:59 am 81.Boz said …

    “he starts off with either a false promise, outright lie, or invalid assumption and then proceeds to build an entire house of cards on it.”

    You speaking about origins again DPK? Still believe man is just a highly evolved ape?
    I think you meant premise but your entire statement is bunk so it fit right in.

    40YA

    Another good posts. I enjoyed reading it and couldn’t agree more. Atheists and predictable moral behavior are like water and oil. They just don’t mix.

  82. on 25 Mar 2012 at 2:30 am 82.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    Words connote context

    Context requires interpretation

    Interpretation requires individuals

    Individuals interpret separately

    It is unreasonable to think that using words only to communicate is efficient for individual interpretation of words

    Conclusion:

    Talking about your beliefs is waisting your time,
    Acting on your beliefs is the logical solution.

    Your proof is in your actions

  83. on 25 Mar 2012 at 2:31 am 83.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    Or, as Granny would say it, “The proof is in the pudding’”

  84. on 25 Mar 2012 at 2:32 am 84.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    abstractly, she is saying the proof is in the putting into existence

  85. on 25 Mar 2012 at 2:33 am 85.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    Word origins man

  86. on 25 Mar 2012 at 2:33 am 86.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    I’m obsessed with it

  87. on 25 Mar 2012 at 2:41 am 87.DPK said …

    Once again boz shows his complete ignorance. Yes, man is a species that shares a common ancestry with apes. Man is not more “highly evolved” than any other creature. To say so shows your complete lack of understanding of that which you mock. Such is the sign of the truly willfully ignorant.
    And yes, I meant “premise” not promise. Typing on an iPad sometimes results is auto correct doing strange things. You agreement with idiot Stan on the lie that all non religious people are therefore amoral also says much about your ignorance and utter stupidity. Not surprising for someone who denies the fact of evolution and believes there is an invisible man in the sky who listens to your thoughts and loves you.

  88. on 25 Mar 2012 at 5:59 am 88.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    If intelligence aims at perfection, and to achieve that perfection it must test itself to see it is perfect in a world that is finite in material and linear in time, then one can logically conclude that we are a part of a system of the universe and a process of evolution aiming to fix the universe.

    Agreed?

  89. on 25 Mar 2012 at 6:02 am 89.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    By intelligence I mean all, animal to human.

  90. on 25 Mar 2012 at 6:05 am 90.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    by one I mean an individual perspective

    by logical conclusion I mean based on the intelligence evolved in human learning and reasoning.

  91. on 25 Mar 2012 at 3:44 pm 91.alex said …

    89.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    90.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    …please, please, heavenly father, the omnipotent, and exhalted, webmaster of all the internet.

    blacklist this moron’s ip, please, i’m a prayin…
    if you don’t answer my prayer, I know it’s not in your will…..????

  92. on 25 Mar 2012 at 5:17 pm 92.DPK said …

    “Atheists and predictable moral behavior are like water and oil. They just don’t mix.”

    Unlike theists and religious whack-jobs who have no problem with lying as long as it is about atheists, and who find it necessary to cherry pick the parts of their “god-given” moral code to actually obey in order to not end up in prison for following it as actually prescribed by their maniacal mass murdering god.
    Careful Boz, your utter hypocrisy is showing. Stone anyone to death recently? Presented your god with any foreskins recently? Have you sold everything you own, given it to the poor and gone forth penniless to follow Jesus? Goodness.. why not?

  93. on 25 Mar 2012 at 6:02 pm 93.DPK said …

    “It is Painful”… to read your endless rambling and non-sequential blabber. Unless you have some sort of actual argument to present as to why anyone should believe any of your claims about supernatural gods, redemption, human sacrifices as requirements for “forgiveness” or any other of your silly ancient legends, then please just stop wasting the bandwidth.
    How about this, why don’t you go to your prayer closet and pray for god to reveal himself to me and the other lost souls here? That shouldn’t be too hard, now should it? I mean he walked side by side with Adam… spoke to Noah, Moses, and Abraham in person. All it would take for me to believe and be saved is for him to show up and make himself known. Pray for him to stop sending earthquakes and tornadoes and tsunamis to punish us into submission and just show the fuck up. That should be too difficult for an all powerful being, right?
    As Granny used to say, “Put up or shut up.”
    Granny also used to say, “Shit, or get off the pot.”

  94. on 25 Mar 2012 at 7:15 pm 94.40 year Atheist said …

    Historydeniers!”; “40percenters!”; those are the Ad Hominem Abusives of the new Dawkins battlefront: history as Richard Dawkins decrees it is not to be denied. To deny evolution is unconscionable: evolution is fact and is the backbone of biology which is the foundation of science and all truth in the universe. Maybe all the universes. Maybe it’s even more true than that. It certainly is in Dawkins’ universe.

    Comparing the “fact” of evolution to the fact of the size of the moon being smaller than the earth, Dawkins clearly goes out of his way to obscure the difference between measurable facts vs. non-measured inferences, experimental data vs. conjecture. Or perhaps he truly doesn’t know the difference, being a life-long evolutionary proponent who has never been forced to be subject to actual experimental proofs of his proclaimed scientific “facts”. He does admit that all the evidence for evolution is inferential, and he makes the standard claim that mountains of such conjecture make it fact.

    But that is not true. It fails the basic tests of logic. Let’s run some tests:

    First, Dawkins seems to think that declaring a tautology based on conjecture creates a truth, or at least a fact. First Principle #1 (identity or tautology) states that “If it is true, then it is true” . This is not the same as “If I declare it true, then it is true” . False tautology: Logic failure #1.

    Next let’s try First Principle #2, which states that “a proposition cannot be both true and false”. Now, without experimental verification can we know if a principle is true or false, fact or fallacy? The Atheist / Materialist / Empiricist viewpoint is that evidence of a material nature is required in order to believe a thing. The evidence offered for evolution is inference: conjecture. This is not physical, material evidence, it is non-physical, non-material; moreover it smacks of being religious, a belief without empirical, experimental, substantive, material evidence. Dinosaurs? DNA? Do inferred relationships prove descent? Or are they conjecture? Clearly the latter.

    The inference / speculation issue is one that Dawkins cannot dodge and cannot win, straight on. It violates the concept that science is the search for “what is” by inserting extrapolative speculation as a substitute for experimental data. It contradicts the concept of science itself. It fails the Non-Contradiction Principle hands down. Logic failure #2.

    The third First Principle states that a “thing cannot be partly true and partly false”. Dawkins violates this by stating that evolution is true, when evolution is hardly even defined properly at this late date. We don’t need to understand mechanisms to know that it happened – is his response (elsewhere). Thus evolution is commonly compared to gravity, which we know exists without knowing the mechanism. But this is a false comparison; we can experimentally measure gravity but we cannot produce any experiments that even produce evolution much less measure it. So evolution falls back again onto “mountains of inference”, ie. conjecture, as its source of truth. Is evolution completely true? No one really knows other than accepting the religious stance that sufficient conjecture proves the case. So the third First Principle is an unknown and possibly unknowable source of validation or invalidation for evolution.

    The only case made by Dawkins is the assertion of the sufficiency of inference and conjecture. He ignores the probabilistic issues surrounding evolution, especially the issues of first life: an existence philosophy limited to material causes requires a material cause for first life, an occurrence attributed to magical, fortuitous, undefined replicators in Dawkins’ earlier works. Also ignored is the problem of too-rapid evolution in the Cambrian period, a problem requiring special convolutions in speculatory inferences.

    Dawkins’ real case is contained in his adjectives. He claims straight out that evolution is believed by “reputable” scientists, and “unbiased” readers of his book. If you disagree, you are designated a dreaded “historydenier” status, or the new pejorative, “40Percenter”. These Ad Hominem Abusives, hurled from an agenda-driven position of logical weakness, are a specialty of the Atheist Left, of which Dawkins is a prime example. If you cannot convince with logic, then first ridicule and second go for legal restrictions on non-congruent thought, such as removing children from homes of “historydeniers”, who Dawkins has previously declared are child abusers.

    Dawkins does not use logic to seal his argument. He uses the religious credentials of “sufficient inference” coupled with ridicule and defamation of dissent and dissentors. He is a religious zealot selling a religious program which claims exclusive, absolute truth.

    Dawkins has not yet slipped the reigns of rationality to the point of professing eugenic solutions for “historydeniers”. However, we should watch for that in the future, because his grip on logic and rational thought is virtually non-extant. Or maybe that idea is toward the back of his new book.

    Richard Writes A Book:

    Logic, principles of rational thought, discernment, critical thinking, the First Principles – all these are not taught or mentioned on Dawkins’ website, at least the last time I searched his “oasis of clear thinking”. They are presumed present due to the Materialism espoused there. But a perusal of Dawkins’ writings reveals not a familiarity with logic, but a rabid defense of a cherished agenda along with associated rationalizations in support of it

  95. on 25 Mar 2012 at 7:20 pm 95.alex said …

    94.40 year Atheist said …

    more blabbery blab. stop it. you’re making the ink run out on my screen…….

  96. on 25 Mar 2012 at 11:03 pm 96.DPK said …

    Note what our wordy friend Stanley is actually saying, dear readers. Then judge for yourself the logic of his position.
    There is no way to test or falsify belief in Santa Claus. We cannot observe Santa Claus not delivering toys on Christmas. Because as we all know, Santa will not come if anyone is watching! Therefore since Santa cannot be real and unreal at the same time, and, we have just proven that you cannot prove that he is unreal, the only logical conclusion is that he must therefore exist.
    There! According to logical reasoning by Stan, I have just proven conclusively that Santa is real.
    The only real problem with my “proof” is that Santa is in fact, NOT real!
    Oh well… So much for that one, huh Stan?

  97. on 26 Mar 2012 at 12:52 am 97.Ted said …

    “The only real problem with my “proof” is that Santa is in fact, NOT real!”

    The only problem with your proof is it’s mere stupidity. First, we all know the origin of Santa. Santa’s legend is documented. I have yet to dialogue with any adult who still believes. If there are any, they fit in the same category as atheist.

    Second, the legend of Santa is one of a material being, not a non-physical, non-material entity. Therefore you do not understand the logic 40YA has so superbly provided.

    You have been refuted, disproven and marginalized.

  98. on 26 Mar 2012 at 2:19 am 98.TedStand said …

    Actually, DPK has neatly summarized exactly what Stan presented. It’s essentially known as the ontological argument for the existence of God, and it’s been heavily thrashed for as long as it has been around (at least 900-1000 years).

    To counter your claim, Ted, how do you know so much about Santa? Maybe St. Nick is the physical embodiment of Santa come to earth to bring the legends to life and the real Santa Claus is a incorporeal, non-physical spirit of Christmas entity that stands behind the scenes.

    The thing is, of course, that’s all just an appeal to the Neoplatonism that Christianity absorbed in the first two centuries after Jesus died. Of course, as well, the only connection between that Platonic God and the God of Christianity is the declaration by fiat made by good folks like Philo, Plotinus, Justin Martyr, etc. That’s historical code for saying “there’s no connection–they made it up.”

    Of course, there’s no evidence that Plato was right in the first place. His ideas about “Forms” have been thoroughly thrashed. The Neoplatonist idea of “The One,” from whence the God of Christianity was born out of Yahweh and the desperate need for history along with some political gerrymandering by Constantine, et al., is similarly on weak philosophical footing. That’s philosophy code for saying “there’s no reason to believe it even makes any sense–it was the wild guesses of ancients reckoning outside of what they could understand.”

    All that’s smart-person code for: “God is imaginary.”

  99. on 26 Mar 2012 at 2:50 am 99.DPK said …

    “The only problem with your proof is it’s mere stupidity”
    I agree 100%… isn’t that ironic?
    “First, we all know the origin of Santa.”
    And we don’t all know the origins of god legends? What a curious statement.
    “Santa’s legend is documented. ”
    The various god legends are not documented? What has that got to do with anything?
    “I have yet to dialogue with any adult who still believes.”
    Yes, most adults leave childish and silly legends about magical creatures behind when they reach the age of reason.
    “If there are any, they fit in the same category as atheist.”
    So, your contention is that adults that DO believe in the idea of a magical being are equivalent to adults that do NOT believe in the idea of a different magical being. You DO have some very strange ideas of equivalence. No wonder the idea of rational thought is lost on you.
    “Second, the legend of Santa is one of a material being, not a non-physical, non-material entity.”
    Well, first, according to the bible, god manifests himself in the physical world all the time, and Jesus was supposedly a real person… so what is your point? Come on now, god is either non-material, non-physical, which means he cannot be part of the physical existence we live in, or he is not. Which is it? You guys keep waffling.
    “Therefore you do not understand the logic 40YA has so superbly provided.”
    You are absolutely right. Don’t understand it at all. But that’s because it is demonstrably false and senseless, as are most of Stanley’s diatribes.
    “You have been refuted, disprove and marginalized.”
    Really?? You really are deluded. THAT’s your idea of a refutation? God is a non-material, non-physical entity? Until you provide some evidence that there is any such thing, your claim is no more valid than flying reindeer.

  100. on 26 Mar 2012 at 8:32 pm 100.Boz said …

    Ted

    Good Job! Sadly, you will find the atheist cult is so deluded, they don’t even now when they have been marginalized.

  101. on 26 Mar 2012 at 8:37 pm 101.Lou (DFW) said …

    94.40 year Atheist said …

    “But a perusal of Dawkins’ writings reveals not a familiarity with logic, but a rabid defense of a cherished agenda along with associated rationalizations in support of it”

    Ironically, that’s EXACTLY what your rambling comments reveal about your belief in your imaginary god. But, for the purpose of discussion, let’s assume that you’re correct about Dawkins – SO WHAT?! It wouldn’t change anything.

    You can continue to make false logical arguments, deny evolution, lie about Dawkins and other atheists, and explain that god exists beyond space and time until you’re blue in the face. But there is one absolute, indisputable, and irrefutable fact – you have no evidence for your imaginary god. Everything else you post here is nothing but meaningless, pseudo intellectual b.s. So forget about Dawkins, evolution, and logical fallacies. Present some evidence for your imaginary god, not defenses and attacks on criticisms of your faith – and that’s all it is, faith.

  102. on 26 Mar 2012 at 8:46 pm 102.Lou (DFW) said …

    100.Boz said …

    “Ted

    Good Job!”

    And there you have it – Ted’s comment is now legitimized by Bozo. Ted, you must feel so very proud!

    Oh, but wait. What’s missing from Ted’s alleged good job? Evidence for his imaginary god.

    “Sadly, you will find the atheist cult is so deluded, they don’t even now when they have been marginalized.”

    See how Boz can’t actually present a retort other than “I know you are, but what am I?” He must use the same words such as “cult” and “deluded” that atheists historically used to describe theists and theism. Such is the weakness of his position – promotion of an imaginary god.

  103. on 26 Mar 2012 at 9:34 pm 103.alex said …

    “Good Job! Sadly, you will find the atheist cult is so deluded, they don’t even now when they have been marginalized.”

    Cult? I am a cynic who happens to be an atheist. You are a moron who’s afraid because your people might see the light and abandon your idiotic ways.

    Marginalized? Is that why you keep trolling under different guises spouting off nonsense while defending your feeble/impotent god?

    Too many shots your helpless god is taking. yodaish.

  104. on 27 Mar 2012 at 12:37 am 104.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Careful Alex. Boz, or Ted, or Hor, might call upon his god to smite you. It’s only because he’s too busy curing Alzheimer’s, fighting cancer, feeding the starving, ending poverty, and finding lost car keys, that you get away with such words.

    He could smite you know, he used to be real big into that, but just like any other force for good in the universe, he doesn’t like being tested. Hey, wait a minute…

  105. on 27 Mar 2012 at 12:48 am 105.alex said …

    …oh shit, i’m hit(smitten), atheist down……mayday…

    forgive me lord, i’m dying, i got nothing to lose. allah, rah, sis boom bah. i disown all these damn atheists……

  106. on 27 Mar 2012 at 2:15 am 106.ReligionIsStupid said …

    101/102 Lou — if we can discount evolution then, according to theist “logic” of “older is better”, then that must mean that we are all descended from the Python according to the creation myth of the San in Ngamiland.

    Still not clear how any of that helps Boz with his continuing to refuse to supply proof of the existence of his imaginary god or an explanation for his trolling and use of sock-puppets.

  107. on 07 Apr 2012 at 2:21 pm 107.JB said …

    //Jesus said to LOVE your enemy as self. No other claim that. Secondly, He said to LOVE your enemy. No others claim that.//

    Actually – the idea is a pre-Xian Hellenic idea described by Plato as having come from Socrates.

    ..as,indeed, is the Golden Rule Pre-Xian.

    Just sayin’…….

  108. on 29 Apr 2012 at 5:31 pm 108.John said …

    ..and where do your morals come from again?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply