Feed on Posts or Comments 17 September 2014

Christianity Thomas on 24 Apr 2012 12:46 am

Where is the Christian Moral Code?

This article makes a statement about Christian morals:

Without God there can be no good

The statement:

In their attempt to argue that effective and binding codes can be developed without a deity, atheists often mistake inferior codes – “common decency” – for absolute moral systems.

The Golden Rule, or doing as you would be done by, is such a code. But the fact that men can arrive at the Golden Rule without religion does not mean that man can arrive at the Christian moral code without religion.

Christianity requires much more, and above all does not expect to see charity returned. To love thy neighbour as thyself is a far greater and more complicated obligation, requiring a positive effort to seek the good of others, often in secret, sometimes at great cost and always without reward. Its most powerful expression is summed up in the words, “Great love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

Two questions must be asked:

  1. Where in the Bible, or anywhere, is there a succinct, complete description of the Christian Moral Code?
  2. Do all Christians abide by it? Do even half? One tenth? Less?

Christians, care to answer?

570 Responses to “Where is the Christian Moral Code?”

  1. on 24 Apr 2012 at 4:07 am 1.Prime said …

    I fail to see a single thing in the Christian “moral code” that is inaccessible to someone without religion. That claim lays unsupported, and it’s a big one.

  2. on 24 Apr 2012 at 5:26 am 2.Paul D. said …

    I think it’s those ten rules in the Penteteuch that end with a prohibition against cooking a goat in its mother’s milk.

  3. on 24 Apr 2012 at 12:50 pm 3.Anonymous said …

    This should be fun because their moral code is as imaginary as their god. Prediction: no christian can define the christian moral code

  4. on 24 Apr 2012 at 1:42 pm 4.Doug Fo said …

    SPAG will result in SPAMC (Self Projection as Moral Code)

  5. on 24 Apr 2012 at 3:04 pm 5.Prime said …

    Actually, if I’m not much mistaken, the only truly ethical act in Christianity, if taken to its logical conclusion, is to evangelize, at least for people who believe in salvation by grace. Turning the other cheek and all that rot essentially boil down to “nice, but inconsequential” against “winning souls to Christ,” whatever that’s supposed to mean.

    Preeeeeetty disgusting how it completely displaces morality from reality (like the well-being and suffering of actual people and other creatures) and lands it squarely in fantasy camp.

  6. on 24 Apr 2012 at 7:10 pm 6.Doug Fo said …

    Prime thats why the adoption of Christianity, Islam, and the like are detriments to civilization.

    They introduce unprovable infinite absolutes, which can lead to vile decisions. Say to kill one’s children in order to spare them the infinite pain of Hell. If you think about it, by the reasoning of Christianity this was a GOOD act.

    Similarly, but less spectacularly, the unprovable infanites of heaven and hell can, will, and does lead Abrahamic theists to try to limit the rights of individuals who do not share their viewpoint. A wicked and uncivilized act, but nothing compared to the infinite punishment/reward they believe in.

  7. on 24 Apr 2012 at 7:44 pm 7.Tanya P said …

    It also says in 1corinthians 1:18 “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing (going to hell), but to us who are being saved (going to heaven) it is the power of God”. It continues in 2:14 to say “But the natural man (ones who have not accepted the spirit of God through Jesus Christ) does not receive (understand) the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolish to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”. The Holy Spirit teaches the things of God to those that believe. And those who do not believe will not understand. It takes a leap of faith (accepting Jesus) that science simply does not allow for.But the fact that this is being disputed just fulfills the above scriptures.

  8. on 24 Apr 2012 at 7:59 pm 8.Lou (DFW) said …

    7.Tanya P said …

    “But the fact that this is being disputed just fulfills the above scriptures.”

    Congrats, Tanya P!

    You just provided a wonderful demonstration of circular reasoning.

    “It takes a leap of faith…”

    In other words, belief in something for which there is no evidence, even ignoring whether or not science “allows for” it.

  9. on 24 Apr 2012 at 8:40 pm 9.Prime said …

    6.Doug Fo said …

    “Similarly, but less spectacularly, the unprovable infanites of heaven and hell can, will, and does lead Abrahamic theists to try to limit the rights of individuals who do not share their viewpoint. A wicked and uncivilized act, but nothing compared to the infinite punishment/reward they believe in.”

    Indeed, and when you add in a mythology that indicates that an active and living God will punish any nation whose laws are not in accord with His own (imaginary) laws, you find a major push to legislate their anti-empirical, anti-civilized point-of-view.

    That, of course, is compounded hugely by doctrines that enable believers to think of all of their enemies as fundamentally and wholly wrong, corrupted by cosmic forces of evil, and lost to the universe to a pit of eternal suffering.

    So disturbing how many people hear this stuff and think, “Yeah, and that’s the ONLY way to be civilized and moral.”

  10. on 25 Apr 2012 at 1:00 am 10.Gex said …

    It is interesting how they read into the Golden Rule some sort of expectation of pay back. That is not so. It is an acknowledgment that the other is just as human as you, and therefor feels joy or pain like you do. And since you don’t like pain, it makes sense not to cause pain on your fellow men.

    However, being good under threat of eternal torture or in the pursuit of the biggest prize of all is indeed doing some small good in the expectation, not only of getting something in return, but of getting way more than you gave in the first place.

    These people don’t have any clue what good is. Their “moral code” uses extortion and torture as motivators, and you can see clearly via this example how that twists their thinking.

  11. on 25 Apr 2012 at 1:02 am 11.Gex said …

    Christians are the kind of people who, without any irony whatsoever, will spam the Internet with how homosexuality is unnatural.

    Send your message in smoke signals or STFU. They literally don’t understand what words even mean. They look in a book for what’s natural and not in nature itself.

  12. on 25 Apr 2012 at 1:12 am 12.Godless Monkey said …

    And the books they most often look to are written by xtian apologetics thus confirming their biases.

  13. on 25 Apr 2012 at 4:23 am 13.Slapnuts McGee said …

    How do delusional toolsheds like Tonya P even come across this site? They post one comment, usually a useless rambling, and then disappear. Come on people! Stick around and face the facts!

  14. on 25 Apr 2012 at 5:05 am 14.Godless Monkey said …

    Well, Slapnuts, after they’ve posted their mindless dribble… time to grab the sandwich boards, run down to Planned Parenthood to protest and antagonize people, stop by Starbucks for a latte, and while there call out the gay kid behind the counter as a “fag” and then run home and pray for his abominable soul, read their ID workbooks, pray for their sins of the day, feel all fresh, clean and forgiven…and then start all over the next day. Yup, being an intolerant, hate-filled xtian trying to save the souls of the wicked pretty much eats up the day!

  15. on 25 Apr 2012 at 11:42 am 15.40 year Atheist said …

    The purpose of ridicule is two-fold. First it is used to cow the opponent: no one likes to be the object of laughter or derision. It becomes difficult to respond rationally to such irrational attacks. So it is a tool of aggression useful for stifling dissent. In this manner ridicule eliminates – as much as possible – intellectual independence in both the opposing viewpoint and any tendency toward independent thought in wayward subordinates.

    Second, ridicule is used to deflect the argument off the path of a valid subject and onto the person or worldview of the opponent. Deflecting the conversation is a Red Herring fallacy.

    Ridicule has long been a staple in the tool box of the Left, starting with the situation comedies of the 70’s such as “All In The Family”, which positioned the conservative as a buffoon. This methodology has ballooned until every TV show can be seen to have conservative fools and Leftist geniuses (or at least normal appearing folks). Christians invariably are portrayed as psychopathic. Ridicule is the predominant evangelizing tool for the Left.

    Saul Alinski might just be the most influential unknown, dead person in the country today. Alinski wrote “Rules For Radicals”, the philosophy and methodology of agitation and organization. Alinski and his philosophy was the subject of Hillary Clinton’s Master’s Thesis. And Alinski and his philosophy was the subject that Barack Obama taught during his Chicago “community organizer” days.

    Alinski proposed 13 rules in the “Tactics” section of his book. Rule 4 says,

    ”Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage”
    Alinski also proposes an ethic, which he summed up,

    ”The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means”
    But the “most potent weapon” can be disarmed, as it was in the recent debate between Atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett and Alvin Plantinga. Dennett became overwrought and spouted ridicule; Plantinga remained calm and stuck to the subject. By not responding to the ridicule Plantinga actually gained the high ground of intellectual pursuit, and consequently the respect of at least some of the observers.

    Sticking to the subject and not responding to ad Hominems or to other types of fallacies is not just disconcerting to those who reduce themselves to the use of ridicule; it spot lights themselves as being ridiculous, intellectually ineffective, and just basically wrong. Ridicule is not rational thought, it is verbal abuse.

  16. on 25 Apr 2012 at 12:14 pm 16.Lou (DFW) said …

    15.40 year Atheist said …

    “Sticking to the subject and not responding to ad Hominems or to other types of fallacies is not just disconcerting to those who reduce themselves to the use of ridicule; it spot lights themselves as being ridiculous, intellectually ineffective, and just basically wrong.”

    FYI, the subject of this blog is to explore God and religion in our world today.

    FYI, the topic of this entry is “Where is the Christian Moral Code?”

    “Second, ridicule is used to deflect the argument off the path of a valid subject and onto the person or worldview of the opponent. Deflecting the conversation is a Red Herring fallacy.”

    Which is exactly what you with your rambling, nonsensical rants – deflect the conversation from the topic,and ultimately avoid the fact that you have no evidence for your imaginary god.

    But ridicule religion? Sure:

    “It is entirely appropriate to ridicule absurd ideas rather than to treat them as serious and give them respect. Only serious ideas based on reason and evidence are worthy of intellectual respect. The ideas that we critique and ridicule have historically led to or facilitated war, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. They have enslaved millions, impeded medical and scientific research and are now draining vast sums of taxpayer dollars to propagate more of these ridiculous ideas.

    These ideas have resulted in untold amounts of violence, death, torture, and suffering as well as the profound intimidation and physical molestation of our young. Ridicule and even sneering condescension are about the mildest critical reactions that we can have for the enormity of the mind-boggling injustices perpetrated in their name. I can readily empathize with those of us who consider the behaviors prompted by these dogma to be illegal and criminal.” – Christopher Hitchens.

  17. on 25 Apr 2012 at 3:37 pm 17.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Ridicule is an appropriate response to ridiculous claims. If 40YA is offended by that, then he should take responsibility for his own actions and address his insecurities rather than whining about it in public.

  18. on 25 Apr 2012 at 3:46 pm 18.Anonymous said …

    15.40 year Atheist said …

    “Ridicule has long been a staple in the tool box of the Left”

    Rush Limbaugh on Sandra Fluke:

    “So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I’ll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh%E2%80%93Sandra_Fluke_controversy

    Bill O’Reilly: frequent use of the word “pinhead” for everyone with whom he disagrees. Most of his rhetoric is ridicule. His 2010 book is entitled “Pinheads and Patriots”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O%27Reilly_(political_commentator)

    Mark Levin: In his radio show, the consistent use of ridicule, ad hominems and insults is a staple of the show.

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

    The Right is the primary and most egregious user of ridicule.

  19. on 25 Apr 2012 at 4:56 pm 19.A said …

    40 ya

    Plantiga is a man of class. Unfortunately the atheists he debates are so outclassed they resort to ridicule to win points. It is a classless weapon of the leftist.

  20. on 25 Apr 2012 at 5:03 pm 20.Zap said …

    Yes, Rush, Bill and Mark are all leftists.

  21. on 25 Apr 2012 at 5:12 pm 21.DPK said …

    Zap, your are talking to a bag of hammers. Theists are so accustomed to stating an outright lie or fabrication as fact and then deluding themselves into thinking it is true, you cannot really convince them of anything with actual facts. They just ignore them and move on to the next round of distractions.
    40yr does this by lurking here until someone make even a casual mention of a topic he has written about in his mindless blog, and then gleefully proceeds to cut and paste volumes of his manifesto. He very much reminds me of a guy near here who drives around in an RV covered with biblical quotes and has a “the world will end on_______” with a magnetic changeable sign for the date that he has to keep changing. He looks like Charlie Mansion, and never misses an opportunity to pounce on some unsuspecting soul and try to deliver his message of doom. Even the Jehovah’s stay away from him!

  22. on 25 Apr 2012 at 5:42 pm 22.Asher said …

    Who is Charlie Mansion and why is he relevant?

    40 Year you are a seer if I believed in such powers. No sooner have you outted the left that they get busy with their show!

  23. on 25 Apr 2012 at 6:19 pm 23.Lou (DFW) said …

    22.Asher said …

    “Who is Charlie Mansion and why is he relevant?”

    Asher-Hor has time to post a reply to a typo of DPK simply to RIDICULE him for it when he knows damn well that he was referring to Charlie Manson (if he didn’t then he’s an idiot), but he NEVER, EVER provides evidence for his imaginary god.

  24. on 25 Apr 2012 at 7:31 pm 24.DPK said …

    I think it’s comical how they always try to divert the topic to politics and also how they always insist atheists are always part of the “left”.
    If you knew my own political views you would also find it hilarious as I am actually anything but left wing liberal!
    In fact, of all the openly atheists I know, the one thing I can say about them is that they seem to cover a very broad spectrum of the political and social spectrum. The only thing they do have in common is a kind of instinctive nose for bullshit… they can all smell it 10 miles away.

  25. on 25 Apr 2012 at 8:30 pm 25.Lou (DFW) said …

    24.DPK said …

    “I think it’s comical how they always try to divert the topic to politics and also how they always insist atheists are always part of the “left”.”

    That’s the way they think. It’s the same thing as them claiming that “atheism” is a religion. They must label and pigeon-hole everything in order to make it conform to their limited, convoluted way of “thinking.” Unless something has a label attached, they can’t understand it. Everything must somehow fit into their “worldview” before they can attempt to understand it.

    Like you, I’m neither a left-wing liberal nor a right-wing conservative. I’m liberal about some things and conservative about others. What theists here don’t understand is that “atheism” is not a choice based upon politics. It’s based upon (lack-of) evidence (for god), reason, and intelligence. For 99% of theists, it’s not a choice they made. They were, in effect, born that way because they were brainwashed as children to believe whatever religion that their region believed.

    For them, atheists MUST be left-wing liberals because they aren’t atheists and they are right-wing conservatives – such is their limited way of thinking.

  26. on 25 Apr 2012 at 9:22 pm 26.gex said …

    Moreover, what you are seeing with religious nutters assuming everyone else is liberal is that you are seeing how political entities have co-opted their religion and made it a political entity. They don’t know why the hate liberals other than their religion has been twisted (more than it already was) to become a means for one political party to sell policies they can’t sell to a democracy without trying to convince them God wants them to.

  27. on 25 Apr 2012 at 9:33 pm 27.Prime said …

    Indeed, much insight on here in the last few posts. These people can’t tease apart secularism and liberalism not least because the evangelical Christians have bought and pressed the Republican Party into being an extension of their own vision of the GOP: God’s Own Party.

    I am a liberal atheist. I have no problem with conservatism, especially economic conservatism (and am quite economically conservative on some issues), and I highly value the conversation and that there are vocal representatives on both sides (to keep anyone from getting too far out in la-la land). I’m even sympathetic to social conservatism. I’m not sympathetic at all, though, to theocracy, and am ardently committed to secularism. Because of the warping of the current Republican Party, which is unlikely to last forever (or even much longer), it is impossible to support most of the GOP candidates without supporting theocratic endeavors.

    It really makes me want the Republicans to take their party back from these scoundrels that feel overly compelled because of “Christian morals” to shove their religion into society, particularly in civics and education. Of course, their “moral” code teaches them that unless the law of the land concords with “God’s law” (meaning whichever brand the loudest religious mouths are promoting at present), terrible things will happen. Unfortunately, they seem too power-hungry to do it, and they sell us all out in the process.

  28. on 25 Apr 2012 at 9:50 pm 28.Lou (DFW) said …

    27.Prime said …

    “These people can’t tease apart secularism and liberalism not least because the evangelical Christians have bought and pressed the Republican Party into being an extension of their own vision of the GOP: God’s Own Party.”

    “It’s wonderful that we have so many religious people in our party, … They need to leave their theologies in their churches.” – Barry Goldwater – aka Mr. Conservative, 1964 Republican Presidential nominee

  29. on 25 Apr 2012 at 10:43 pm 29.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Two days now and still no theists has posted an answer as to what the Christian moral code actually is? Looks like Anonymous’ prediction in #3 was spot on.

  30. on 25 Apr 2012 at 11:43 pm 30.Lou (DFW) said …

    29.ReligionIsStupid said …

    “Two days now and still no theists has posted an answer as to what the Christian moral code actually is? Looks like Anonymous’ prediction in #3 was spot on.”

    Of course it was.

    But we did get 40DA’s rant about ridicule.

  31. on 26 Apr 2012 at 1:27 am 31.The Judge said …

    Charlie Mansion is hilarious. Charlie did kill in a mansion but he never changed his name.

    I wonder if mansion was ever called Charlie? That might have got you throat cut.

    How does Charlie Mansion prove God does not exist? How does amputees not healed prove God does not exist?

    How does Bachmann and Perry prove God does not exist as this thread claims?http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=2247

    How does this blog prove God does not exist?

    Let me add, Atheists claiming Christian’s have no moral code is like Carlos the Jackal claiming Pat Tillman is a murderer.

  32. on 26 Apr 2012 at 1:36 am 32.Lou (DFW) said …

    31.The Judge said …

    “Let me add, Atheists claiming Christian’s have no moral code is like Carlos the Jackal claiming Pat Tillman is a murderer.”

    Show us in this thread where anyone wrote “Christian’s have no moral code.” If you can’t, the that makes you a liar.

    Let ME add, it has been asked over and over in this thread – “Where in the Bible, or anywhere, is there a succinct, complete description of the Christian Moral Code?”

    Let ME add, you DID NOT answer the question posed in this thread. Can you or can’t you? If you can, then do it. Otherwise, get lost.

  33. on 26 Apr 2012 at 2:48 am 33.DPK said …

    So I get criticized for the typo of putting an errant “i”in Manson by some who writes sentences like this:

    I wonder if mansion was ever called Charlie? That might have got you throat cut.

    I can spell “irony”.
    If the best you have is resorting to criticizing typos, you’d be better served by keeping your yap shut, you just embarrass yourself. Don’t worry, Jesus still loves you.

  34. on 26 Apr 2012 at 3:17 am 34.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Hor’s sock-puppet wrote: “Let me add, Atheists claiming Christian’s have no moral code is like Carlos the Jackal claiming Pat Tillman is a murderer.”

    Your attempt at deflecting the subject at hand with a strawman is noted but by refusing to address the question you, yourself, make the argument that not even a Xtain knows what their supposed moral code actually is. Feel free to speak up and provide the details.

    By the way, when looking for a hero to contrast with Carlos the Jackal, you might want to consider that your mind went straight to Tillman — an atheist.

  35. on 26 Apr 2012 at 11:06 am 35.40 year Atheist said …

    This subject arises du temps en temps and for some reason Atheists cannot believe that they are not considered trustworthy, despite the lack of morality attached to their belief system. They actually think that by creating a personally congenial code of behavior which matches their actual daily doings, that their tautological morality should be obvious to everyone, and that not only are they moral, they are more moral than anyone else, all of whom are admittedly moral defectives, to wit: sinners. (One cannot be a sinner if one declares that there is no sin of course).

    Not only are Atheists, in their own minds, more moral than their inferiors, Atheists are in possession of the moral authority to determine morality for the rest of humanity. For example, take a look at all of the Humanist Manifestos.

    Some Atheists attain accreditation in moral superiority; they call themselves “ethicists”. By pondering – in ungrounded ponders of course, there being no absolute grounds – the value of other humans who are not themselves, they are able to make moral pronouncements on the value of classes of humans, again not themselves.

    In a sense, all Atheists are ethicists, in that they determine at least their own personal ethical systems of behavior. So every Atheist is at least a moral authority unto himself. It is not entirely clear how it is that some, but not all, Atheists acquire the extra moral authority to declare ethics for everyone. Regardless of how that accreditation is acquired, some Atheists have it, and they become career moral authorities for the rest of humanity.

    Now two of these career moral authorities have declared a new class of non-valued humans: the post-natals. Here is a summary of their new revelations:
    Abstract
    Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
    Now, since this new revelation is an intellectual understanding of some sort, we should see how it stacks up before rejecting it as the product of fools. Well, “should” is too strong, that is a moral pronouncement itself; it is not necessary to examine it before rejecting it on the basis of “who do they think they are, God?” – the product of fools… and summarily shit-canning the entire subject.

    But of course, many folks will consider this Atheist revelation to be elegantly compelling, and for that reason alone it needs to be analyzed.

    First off, it presumes that pre-natal abortion of a fetus is a rational and therefore moral action. It explains legally declared ethical reasons to destroy a fetus and then asks, what is the difference between a fetus and a new-born, the answer for which is merely: a breath of air.

    For diseased pre-born fetuses it is presumed ethical to kill them. But some diseases, such as Down’s syndrome, are not 100% detectable prior to birth. So why not kill them post-natally? Since there is no definitive difference between pre-birth canal and post birth canal existence, the value of the critter is the same one second after as it is one second before traversing the canal. So it is not the process of birth that influences the value being placed on the critter.

    Yes, it’s a critter all right. But is it a human? Who is to say? If the mother and the ethicists agree that it is not a person, why then who can disagree? In fact, at what age does this determination procedure become invalid? Well, age is not the criterion. There is no age limit for placing value on a human.

    What is the criterion for personhood? According to these two career moral authorities, it is just whatever they, themselves, figure it to be. Their specific criterion is… well, it just doesn’t matter; they have one today. Now we might sit down and calculate the ROI for a just birthed critter, say on the average of a large population. Or we might do a specific calculation on the ROI for a just birthed critter for the individual case, say based on class, genetic history, family prior contribution to human welfare, needs for balancing the sexual population, needs for dealing with social ills such as poverty, or other social imbalances which this individual might exacerbate, etc. (Can Social Justice be ignored at the valuation of an individual, morally?)

    There is absolutely no restriction which is logically attached to the authoritative determination of the value of humanesque critters, regardless of birth status or time since traversing the birth canal. So it is incumbent upon someone to make the decision, someone with moral authority of course. And we already know who that is, the career moral authorities: the ethicists.

    By measuring the value of individuals (as has already been done by the Emmanuels in the current Democrat administration) those who do not contribute significantly to the betterment of humankind (for example) can be credited with less or no value. This is a simple determination. Equations already exist toward that end.

    The problem then becomes what to do with them, those who are devalued. At what point are their sources of sustenance reduced, or their sources of life maintenance removed, or maybe outright termination is required? Since the age, post natally, is not the issue, then how should the older ones be terminated? Or should they be sequestered in encampments? Perhaps some value might be extracted in terms of labor? And when they no longer can perform that, then extinguish them?

    These issues will be decided by the ethicists, of course.

    Why should we not trust them with our lives as they socially engineer the future for our children… Oh wait… the children, what about the children??

    If social engineering and eugenics is about a better world for the children, it is definitely not for ALL children, is it? Only those finding favor with the Atheist ethicists.

  36. on 26 Apr 2012 at 12:02 pm 36.Lou (DFW) said …

    35.40 year Atheist said …

    “Why should we not trust them [atheists] with our lives as they socially engineer the future for our children… Oh wait… the children, what about the children??”

    There’s this issue with theists who by definition and convention are THEIST ETHICISTS:

    The 2004 John Jay Report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. The surveys filtered provided information from diocesan files on each priest accused of sexual abuse and on each of the priest’s victims to the research team, in a format which did not disclose the names of the accused priests or the dioceses where they worked. The dioceses were encouraged to issue reports of their own based on the surveys that they had completed.

    The 2004 John Jay Report[14] was based on a study of 10,667 allegations against 4,392 priests accused of engaging in sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2002.

    The report stated there were approximately 10,667 reported victims (younger than 18 years) of clergy sexual abuse during this period.

  37. on 26 Apr 2012 at 12:02 pm 37.Lou (DFW) said …

    40 year Atheist,

    “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There’s no point in being a damn fool about it.” – W.C. Fields

    “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull [not to mention out-right lies].” – W.C. Fields

  38. on 26 Apr 2012 at 12:03 pm 38.Lou (DFW) said …

    36.Lou (DFW) said …

    35.40 year Atheist said …

    “Why should we not trust them [atheists] with our lives as they socially engineer the future for our children… Oh wait… the children, what about the children??”

    These children?

    http://tinyurl.com/6rvxqfh

  39. on 26 Apr 2012 at 5:07 pm 39.ReligionIsStupid said …

    So, what part of Stan’s recycled garbage contained the Christian Moral Code?

  40. on 26 Apr 2012 at 5:50 pm 40.DPK said …

    Uh… I phrase searched Stan’s website for the words “Christian Moral Code” and came up empty. So it is safe to say, if it is not already on Stan’s pre-written manifesto, he will not be commenting on that topic. Notice how he attempts to steer the topic toward abortion. The topic is not abortion, it is “where is the absolute Christian code of morality that everyone talks about, but no one can produce?”
    I’m beginning to think perhaps it only exists in their imaginations, much like their invisible god… nebulous and spooky, cannot be disproved because it can shift and change at will. Hardly absolute.
    I will say that I endured many years of christian indoctrination, and never once have I seen such a code outside of the 10 commandments. Are THEY the “superior and absolute moral code” they speak of?

  41. on 26 Apr 2012 at 6:02 pm 41.Prime said …

    Rather curious that their “philosopher” (Stan) doesn’t even take a stab at that one but rather uses the opportunity to do his favorite things ever:
    1. Read things he’s written;
    2. Lie about atheists; and
    3. Divert attention from the onus placed on him by his beliefs.

  42. on 26 Apr 2012 at 7:02 pm 42.Godless Monkey said …

    And I love the way 40YA just naturally assumes that all atheists believe that it’s a free-for-all on abortion. What a truly ignorant prick.

    Little trip down memory lane…bear with me. I’ll try to keep this short.

    When I was in high school one of my best friends, at 15, and a xtian (as were most of us, xtian and white, due to our particular demographics. Amazing how that helps shade who you are, right 40YA? Of course you’d disagree if you’d EVER respond to your dribble) was pregnant with an “uh-oh” baby by her 16-year-old boyfriend. She chose to have an abortion.

    By the time we were 22 she’d had four abortions, while still xtian, strictly using abortion as a form of birth control, which I found abhorrent then, and still do, but that was HER choice, not mine. Had she had proper sex ed perhaps this wouldn’t have happened, but who knows.

    And xtians, don’t come at me with why I find abortion strictly as BC abhorrent. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with my being an “unbeliever in the supernatural” –as using the word *atheist” makes your heads explode.

    Point of this foray into the past is this: When my husband and I found ourselves pregnant with our own uh-oh baby while still in college, I, by then an outed atheist, CHOSE to have my child. So equating xtian = prolife V atheist = baby killer has been proven wrong, at least in this instance.

    40YA, painting all atheists with the same broad brush, stroking your own warped ego while doing so, does not make you right. You are nothing but a propagandist throwing shit at the wall hoping it sticks, and I’m sure it sticks like annointed oil to your lemmings who can no more think for themselves than you can. You really are a pathetic and pitiable descendant of ignorance. Worst part is you are not alone.

  43. on 26 Apr 2012 at 7:18 pm 43.The Judge said …

    “Some Atheists attain accreditation in moral superiority; they call themselves “ethicists”.”

    I almost spit out my coffee. I know that Dawkins calls himself an ethicist. If you need to tell me you are an ethicist, I probably will not be listening to your situational ethics.

    It is nice to read a well reasoned post 40 year.

    “By the way, when looking for a hero to contrast with Carlos the Jackal, you might want to consider that your mind went straight to Tillman — an atheist.”

    RIS,

    A hero? And you call others a liar? I do surprise you no? I expected as much. Some of us have respect for someone who does not believe as they do regarding God and religion. Its called maturity.

  44. on 26 Apr 2012 at 8:07 pm 44.MegaByte said …

    40 YA

    I’m glad you brought this up. The fact that we would even discuss after-birth abortion as possibly being ethical is disturbing.

    I suppose babies are way down on the list when it comes to priorities,

    1. My career
    2. Didn’t want it
    3. Too much trouble
    4. Whatever reason I make up.

    Maybe we need to provide fee contraceptives right to the dorms and homes. Call 911 and have them delivered in person. So let us just give mothers up to a year to decide if they want to kill the baby. I knew it was coming, just not in my lifetime. Even most animals have more sense than this.

    The Judge said “Its called maturity.”

    Great retort their Judge!

  45. on 26 Apr 2012 at 8:22 pm 45.Prime said …

    43.The Judge said …

    “I almost spit out my coffee. I know that Dawkins calls himself an ethicist. If you need to tell me you are an ethicist, I probably will not be listening to your situational ethics.”

    Right, because you rely on people calling themselves “minister of God” to provide you with ethical instruction.

    They become qualified to provide it how? By reading a 3000-year-old manifesto of how the Jews thought they had a divine right to conquer a crappy piece of land in the Middle East, filled with all kinds of mythology and distortion, followed by a contradictory set of rambling accounts of a man (or group of men) who may have lived and died in the first century and some of their followers, replete with psychotic visions (or coded messages) about the end of the world (if coded, about the fall of certain Roman emperors).

    Where do people unqualified in essentially everything but rhetoric and self-importance go to get jobs? Clergy.

  46. on 26 Apr 2012 at 8:23 pm 46.Prime said …

    Correction, sorry, the clergy are also experts in overcoming reasonable doubt. That’s the other thing in their kit of mastery.

  47. on 26 Apr 2012 at 8:28 pm 47.Godless Monkey said …

    Lemmings who’ve been hit by 40YR’s self-confirming shit, chewed it around a while, orgasmed in delight, swallowed it, burped in gratification, then graciously praised the giver of the feces: The Judge and Megabyte.

  48. on 26 Apr 2012 at 9:50 pm 48.Lou (DFW) said …

    44.MegaByte said …

    “Great retort their Judge!”

    Poor Hor, he simply can’t disguise himself.

  49. on 26 Apr 2012 at 9:59 pm 49.Lou (DFW) said …

    43.The Judge said …

    “I know that Dawkins calls himself an ethicist.”

    If you “know” that, then you shouldn’t have any problem showing us where he called himself an ethicist. Go ahead, we’re waiting.

  50. on 26 Apr 2012 at 10:08 pm 50.Godless Monkey said …

    Megabyte said @44: “Maybe we need to provide free conraceptives right to the dorms and homes.”

    Smart way to keep unwanted children from being born, yes, and any intelligent, rational person would agree, and I realize the debate on the “free” part, but Mega and his ilk don’t “believe” in contraceptives, so there goes that grand plan!

    Plus what would they do — once unwanted pregnancies were fewer — on Saturday afternoons if they couldn’t run down and protest at abortion clinics? They need those unwanted babies getting aborted to feel like they’re putting in the work for god.

    Well, there’s always gonna be homos, right, guys? You’d still have your mission :)

  51. on 26 Apr 2012 at 10:51 pm 51.MegaByte said …

    “Smart way to keep unwanted children from being born, yes, and any intelligent, rational person would agree,”

    Awww, monkey I feel badly for you. You must be so embarrassed. You obviously don’t realize contraceptives are already fee at the local clinics and as cheap as aspirin at Wal-Mart.

    Next trick, we will prepare and feed your ilk as well. The nanny state has turned all your ilk in to mindless leeches on society. Diaper need changing too?

  52. on 26 Apr 2012 at 11:01 pm 52.DPK said …

    Ok, so the topic here was:
    “Two questions must be asked:

    Where in the Bible, or anywhere, is there a succinct, complete description of the Christian Moral Code?
    Do all Christians abide by it? Do even half? One tenth? Less?

    Christians, care to answer? ”

    So far, we seem to have narrowed in on abortion and birth control. Are they both part of the “Christian Moral Code?”
    Oh wait… Catholics (christians) say birth control is a sin. Most other more liberal christian sects don’t agree. Well, so much for that… so we’re back to abortion. I assume everyone will agree that it seems abortion goes against the “thou shalt not kill” part of the christian moral code. Ok, at least we are somewhat on topic with one thing… how about capital punishment and war? Are those killings allowed by the christian moral code?
    Just trying to understand this superior moral code you guys all say we lack. Specifics please?
    How about pre-marital sex??? A sin? Homosexuality.. a sin? Does the christian moral code abide killing of adulterers and homosexuals as specifically commanded by god himself? Or did somebody decide that doesn’t count?
    You guys sure have a lot of explaining to do… lemme grab a cup of coffee and wait for you to not answer…. again.

  53. on 26 Apr 2012 at 11:11 pm 53.Godless Monkey said …

    Megabyte, you contrdict yourself…with yourself. But of course contradiction is the forte of your holy book that you swallow hook, line and sinker without question, which speaks highly of your sanity.

    I feel no insults from those that are delusional, so run out and do some gay bashing and get your jollies that way, and do it fast because the winds of change are blowing in the direction of gay acceptance, which must frighten the bejesus out of your ilk :)

  54. on 26 Apr 2012 at 11:20 pm 54.MegaByte said …

    “winds of change are blowing in the direction of gay acceptance,”

    Oh no oh no!!!!! Gay acceptance!

    The only wind that blows is from your monkey flatulence. You are so cute. My little monkey, I work, play and live among gays. The ones I know are wonderful people. You seem quite taken with gays and abortions like they are a circus sideshow. Would this be from some under lying childhood trauma?

    Head down to the clinic and get your contraceptives my girl. Check the yellowpages and get directions. Pick up a burger and fries on me. For goodness sake, Please don’t forget to eat.

    Unfortunately your lame stereotyping will only get worse as you approach your late 20s and on into middle age. Grow up and wise up. I can’t be around to hold your hand.

  55. on 26 Apr 2012 at 11:34 pm 55.Godless Monkey said …

    So I can then only assume, Mega, playing devil’s (in whom I assume you believe exists, could be wrong) advocate here, giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you are one of those rare xtians who don’t believe homosexuality is a sin? You don’t spout out horseshit like “Love the sinner, but hate the sin”?

    You are so enlightened!

  56. on 26 Apr 2012 at 11:47 pm 56.DPK said …

    “I work, play and live among gays.”

    You want a medal, or a chest to pin it on?
    Don’t think much of him Monkey… he might tolerate them, but he still thinks they are all going to hell, which delights him no end. The only people he would take more delight in watching burn is you and me. So much for his christ-like aspirations, huh? Or maybe not… I mean Jesus loves us unconditionally, but his alter ego Yahweh had no trouble with mass murder and infanticide, and sends people to hell by the billions. Is that part of the christian moral code too? “Love your neighbor, but it’s ok to be mockingly smug while he burns in hell though…..”

    Mega-ego… Still waiting for your answers to 52… guess you’re going to dodge again?

  57. on 26 Apr 2012 at 11:50 pm 57.Godless Monkey said …

    P.S. Mega, just stopped at local vegan cafe and picked up a Boca burger. When can I expect your cash? Or are you lying about that as you lie and generalize about most other things? You did say it was on you, afterall :)

  58. on 27 Apr 2012 at 12:03 am 58.Lou(DFW) said …

    51.MegaByte said …

    “Next trick, we will prepare and feed your ilk as well. The nanny state has turned all your ilk in to mindless leeches on society.”

    Yes, similar to the way in which churches suckle at the government tit in the form of tax subsidies. But in your case, you were mindless to begin with.

  59. on 27 Apr 2012 at 12:07 am 59.Godless Monkey said …

    DPK, how could I think highly of such a shrill, contradiction-filled whinebag who earlier advocated the bile that 40YA spewed…and then goes on to resort to playground taunts, which his guru earlier ONLY ascribed to atheists? He doesn’t phase me one bit. But, as stated earlier, so much for those great xtian morals!

  60. on 27 Apr 2012 at 12:28 am 60.MegaByte said …

    “P.S. Mega, just stopped at local vegan cafe and picked up a Boca burger. When can I expect your cash?”

    You did! I’m so proud. I’m good to my word. Post name address and phone and we will get out a check post haste!

    shrill? That hurts, in point of fact I am a baritone but I don’t deem we have met young lady.

    Now monkey, don’t get so flustered. A maturing young lady reads and gives thought to opposing opinions. That is how good quality girls learn and broaden their horizons. Stop looking at others who purport a differing opinion as your enemy. It is so childish. Then be candid with yourself and others.

    I wish I could say you were one of the atypical atheists who is enlightened and mature but sadly you are just another alex. Now come on, what snappy ad homenim will you come back with?

  61. on 27 Apr 2012 at 12:30 am 61.DPK said …

    It is fun watching them twitch and wriggle.
    For people who claim to have such a firm and personal knowledge of their god, they are awfully short on answers about him, and they spend an awful lot of time here looking for validation and acceptance… and correcting typos and grammar as well.
    They also seem to be woefully ignorant of the tenants of their own superior and absolute christian moral code that they spout so adamantly about. Will no one answer?? We got you’re vehemently anti-abortion… ok. What else? We’ve already determined birth control seems to be a maybe/maybe not… so obviously that isn’t spelled out in the absolute moral code you all follow. How about capital punishment? Yes or No? Or is your absolute moral code not clear about that either? How about killing in self defense? That would seem to be ok with most of them… oh, but wait, there’s that whole “turn the other cheek thing, huh?” Ok… how about killing in time of war?? I guess it would depend on who’s side you were on and whether god was on “your” side or the other guys. Oh, yeah, another problem for them… god is always claimed to be on “our” side… even the Nazi’s thought that. Hmmmm… Ok… this should be an easy one… Crusades and Jihad’s… right, or wrong? Oh wait… they can’t both be right huh? Ok, just Crusades and Inquisitions… the OT god sent his people into wars all the time and told them to slaughter everyone, even women and children and animals… unless the girls were virgins, and hot… then they could keep those ones as sex slaves. Sex Slaves!!!??? woah…. you’re allowed to have sex slaves in the absolute christian moral code… oh, that;s right… slavery is ok with the Lord… so I guess sex slaves is a form of slavery and clearly Yahweh has no problem with that as long as you don’t commit adultery… the punishment for that is death… oh, and death for not being a virgin when your father sells you to be married… or working on the Sabbath!! Oh wait!! YES…. that working on the Sabbath IS part of the absolute christian moral code… yeah, you can’t do that. No question there.. it’s written right in the big 10.
    Oh wait.. the only people that actually still obey that absolute moral directive drive horse buggies and use the Sear’s catalog for toilet paper. Problem.
    Oh well, I’m sure Hor and Mega-dick and Ben and the others can explain it all to us perfectly. Let’s wait for it……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

  62. on 27 Apr 2012 at 12:42 am 62.Lou(DFW) said …

    60.MegaByte said …

    “I wish I could say you were one of the atypical atheists who is enlightened and mature…”

    But what we can say without wishing or without any reservation is that you are a typical theist. You NEVER, EVER provide evidence of your imaginary god. You NEVER, EVER answer direct questions about the actual topic. You only provide diversions and distractions in order to avoid the obvious – that your religious belief is a delusion, you have no evidence for your imaginary god. In effect, you are wrong.

  63. on 27 Apr 2012 at 12:51 am 63.Godless Monkey said …

    If I ever feel the need of a mentor, Mega, rest assured that I would not choose you. I’d prefer a mentor SMARTER than I, not dumber and delusional. The only thing I’d learn from you I’d easily recognize as complete nonsense, nonsense that any unbrainwashed 5th grader would see through.

    Your casting yourself in the older, wiser Daddy role, to me, makes me want to curl up in a fetal position, sit under the shower, and wash your creepiness away.

    Go mentor some young girl at your church. I’m sure her parents won’t mind a bit.

  64. on 27 Apr 2012 at 12:53 am 64.Godless Monkey said …

    And Mega, you’ve yet to answer the question of whether you believe homosexuality is a sin? I’m sure the hordes of homosexual friends you have would love to know how you feel about this too.

  65. on 27 Apr 2012 at 1:21 am 65.Godless Monkey said …

    Mega said @54:

    “Oh no oh no!!!!! Gay acceptance!”

    Sounds more “shrill” than “baritone” to me…if I were to imagine you actually saying it outloud :)

  66. on 27 Apr 2012 at 1:48 am 66.DPK said …

    Megabyte in his other persona as Hor has told us all about his “Broadway in the Basement” quasi-sexual fantasies in which Lou, and presumably other atheists here, dance with Wiccans to Broadway show tunes in his mom’s basement rec room. Presumably he moves the ping pong table out of his way when it’s show time. But of course, that’s not gay at all……

    D

  67. on 27 Apr 2012 at 1:52 am 67.DPK said …

    “And Mega, you’ve yet to answer the question of whether you believe homosexuality is a sin?”

    That and at least 100 other direct questions that NONE of them EVER, EVER answer. Why? Because they can’t answer without opening themselves to a barrage of questions, contradictions, and outright lies about their faith, their supposed absolute morality, and the very nature and existence of their imaginary god.

  68. on 27 Apr 2012 at 1:57 am 68.MegaByte said …

    GM

    You are so flustered. You are so silly. Now why would you care about my position on homosexuality? You want to judge me or pat me on the back based on my answer? Frankly, someone as brainwashed as you, obsessed with abortion and homosexuals I find quite disturbed. My homosexual acquaintances are open minded, respectful and humble. They are not looking to you for direction, I feel certain monkey.

    Your elitist arrogant attitude is already acknowledged, no need to trumpet the obvious. You are very young, quite obvious, and female, quite obvious and you think you know it all. So original!

    Your vast database of knowledge and life experience is no match for me. Now how could I even dream of mentoring you:). The fact you think that can/would take place of a blog is even more disturbing. Try logging off and get a life.

    I have wasted enough of my time for the week. Sorry about the unpaid meal. Maybe next time.

    bye bye

  69. on 27 Apr 2012 at 2:09 am 69.Godless Monkey said …

    DPK, @66, that is the best laugh I’ve had all day!! Now I can’t get the visual out of my head.

    Now I’m left to wonder which showtunes this Hor/Mega, multiple personalitied chorus boy prefers? Hummm, I’m guessing anything from Rent or Avenue Q, you know, the “gay” shows.

    Mega, you got any jazz slippers? Do you wanna borrow mine :)

  70. on 27 Apr 2012 at 2:20 am 70.Slapnuts McGee said …

    Dear site admin/poster/article writer person,

    Please do a post about the Emily Herx story. Fucking stupid Catholics.

  71. on 27 Apr 2012 at 2:29 am 71.Godless Monkey said …

    Yes, Mega, that vast database of knowledge you possess must at least fill up half of one 10-page notebook, based on what you’ve posted here, at least. Does that database advocate the belief in fairy tales? Just curious.

    Presumptious of you to assume that I’m some very young, naïve nymphete, but perhaps that is just because you’ve also cast a role for me in your basement production, and you get to play the learned Mr. Higgins to my young, dumb, yet grateful, Eliza.

    You fluster me as much as a fly flusters a lion. Don’t flatter yourself :)

    We know why you won’t answer the question about your homosexual friends and your beliefs about them being sinners. As DPK stated, if you do you open the door to a barage of questions that you cannot answer w/out exposing yourself as the contradictory, lying bigot that you are.

    And on that note, “Good Day to you, Sir! Cite: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

  72. on 27 Apr 2012 at 2:35 am 72.Lou(DFW) said …

    68.MegaByte said …

    “I have wasted enough of my time for the week.”

    Where have we heard that before, Hor?

    “Sorry about the unpaid meal. Maybe next time.”

    But of course, no apology for the unanswered questions. And we know that there won’t be “a next time” that you will answer them.

  73. on 27 Apr 2012 at 3:21 am 73.Godless Monkey said …

    Just how many names does this Hor/Megabyte go by? And why do you think he does that? Curious.

  74. on 27 Apr 2012 at 3:59 am 74.DPK said …

    Not sure. I know we have definitely caught him using at least three. Someone will say something to him as horatiio and he will respond as someone else. Possibly more… But really, there’s not much substance to any of them. Even if they are more than one, they might as well not be.
    Why does he do it. To make it look like other people agree with him, of course. The same reason people go to church, so other people can see that they go to church. Since lots of people go to church, there must be a good reason for it, right?

  75. on 27 Apr 2012 at 5:43 am 75.Godless Monkey said …

    Thanks for the info, DPK. Funny how Mega/Hor/whoever loves to comment about his perception of my maturity level while at the same time basically trying on different costumes…just like a child. But who knows, maybe all his characters here also have major roles in his basement production.

  76. on 27 Apr 2012 at 12:00 pm 76.alex said …

    “Now why would you care about my position on homosexuality?”

    I strongly suspect MegaByte is gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but all the bluster and the condescending tones just seem…..

    MegaByte’s position on homosexuality is prolly on the floor on all fours. Ironic God?

  77. on 27 Apr 2012 at 12:30 pm 77.Xenon said …

    Going back to the original query, I cannot respond for all Christians. The word Christian has been watered down to include all sorts of beliefs. For one who is born-again and has made Jesus Christ Lord of his life it would follow

    “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.”"

    The Beattitudes.

    The other teachings of Christ.

    I haven’t seen Horatio post here in a very long time. It is a bit poignant how 3 bloggers remain so captivated by him/her.

  78. on 27 Apr 2012 at 12:56 pm 78.DPK said …

    Finally!
    Ok, thanks for that Xenon. Now, please explain to us, except for the part about loving god, how that differs from the “Golden Rule” that theists claim is inferior to the absolute christian moral code?

    “In their attempt to argue that effective and binding codes can be developed without a deity, atheists often mistake inferior codes – “common decency” – for absolute moral systems.
    The Golden Rule, or doing as you would be done by, is such a code. But the fact that men can arrive at the Golden Rule without religion does not mean that man can arrive at the Christian moral code without religion.”

    While you are at it, please further explain how an “absolute moral code” handed down by an omnipotent being can be “watered down to include all sorts of beliefs.” Doesn’t seem possible to me that you have the exclusive word of god, while billions of others have different ones.

  79. on 27 Apr 2012 at 1:08 pm 79.Lou(DFW) said …

    77.Xenon said …

    “Going back to the original query, I cannot respond for all Christians.”

    Yet most theists conveniently pigeon-hole atheists into one group of liberal, left-wing, immoral, abortionists.

    The questions are outside the context of “all Christians,” or any xtians for that matter. One doesn’t have to be an xtian to find the xtian moral code in the bible anymore than one must be a muslim to find a similar code in the qur’an.

    “The Beattitudes.

    The other teachings of Christ.”

    Not exactly “a succinct, complete description of the Christian Moral Code,” are they?

    But let’s go back to the ORIGINAL, original “query” – where is your evidence for your imaginary god?

    “I haven’t seen Horatio post here in a very long time.”

    Then you are easily fooled. Even if the common themes of his comments are ignored, he continuously makes a unique, yet noticeable punctuation mistake in comments by his various pseudonyms.

    “It is a bit poignant how 3 bloggers remain so captivated by him/her.”

    Really? How is it “poignant?”

  80. on 27 Apr 2012 at 2:30 pm 80.Xenon said …

    “except for the part about loving god, how that differs from the “Golden Rule”

    Well, except for the artist is no obvious distinction between the Mona Lisa and a fake.

    Then you left out the teachings of Jesus and the Beatitudes.

    But all that aside, did someone here maintain morality could not be had without the Bible? Everyone has morality but why should you pursue the golden rule? How do you discern it didn’t derive from a religion? Why not Kant’s Categorical Imperative? Then one must ask, why should someone follow the golden rule rather than just looking out for number 1? Then ask how many atheists actually follow the golden rule?

    “Then you are easily fooled.”

    Lou, you have called me Horatio, and I am the one easily fooled? If truth be told, you refer to everyone who is a theist as Hor.

    You have a fascination with Horatio. If he is here posting under dissimilar pseudonyms who cares? If it is so evident, why point it out?

  81. on 27 Apr 2012 at 2:35 pm 81.Tom said …

    The Golden Rule was part of the Judeo-Christian worldview way before Buddha, Confusious, and many others wrote about it. In fact, the earliest written reference to the Golden Rule is found in the book of Leviticus dated to about 1400 B.C

    “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.” Leviticus 19:18

  82. on 27 Apr 2012 at 3:17 pm 82.Lou (DFW) said …

    80.Xenon said …

    “Then you left out the teachings of Jesus and the Beatitudes.”

    I didn’t – “Not exactly “a succinct, complete description of the Christian Moral Code,” are they?”

    “But all that aside, did someone here maintain morality could not be had without the Bible?”

    Do you deny that it has not been claimed that god is the source of absolute morality?

  83. on 27 Apr 2012 at 3:24 pm 83.Prime said …

    Since Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in his Sermon on the Mount, which is also where the Beatitudes come from (in Matthew, at least), does that include the entirety of the Deutero-Levitical laws or not in the Christian moral code?

    Your answer was extremely vague, unfortunately, and doesn’t deal with an awful lot.

    Please also indicate to me where Jesus or his moral code comment on copyright laws and where the line between fair-use and intellectual property theft occurs. That particular issue seems to be causing us quite a bit of trouble in this new digital-information age, and I couldn’t find it in my bible. I mean, it says “do not steal,” but it doesn’t define what stealing means except in terms of things like donkeys and wives.

  84. on 27 Apr 2012 at 3:41 pm 84.Lou (DFW) said …

    83.Prime said …

    “Your answer was extremely vague, unfortunately, and doesn’t deal with an awful lot.”

    77.Xenon said …

    “Going back to the original query, I cannot respond for all Christians. The word Christian has been watered down to include all sorts of beliefs.”

    In other words, there is no “succinct, complete description of the Christian Moral Code.” Furthermore, like their religion, the so-called xtian moral code has also “been watered down to include all sorts of beliefs.”

  85. on 27 Apr 2012 at 4:08 pm 85.Xenon said …

    Tom

    Thank you, I did not realize the golden rule has it roots in Christianity after all. I have found most morality does go back to scripture.

    “Please also indicate to me where Jesus or his moral code comment on copyright laws and where the line between fair-use and intellectual property theft occurs.”

    “And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal,”

    For the definition of stealing see this link. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stealing

    Next, since I would not my property stolen or used without permission, I would not do so to others including digital work.

    I noticed not one of you answered one of my questions I asked in 80. That would violate the golden rule.

  86. on 27 Apr 2012 at 4:20 pm 86.Severin said …

    83 Prime
    “Please also indicate to me where Jesus or his moral code comment on copyright laws and where the line between fair-use and intellectual property theft occurs.”

    And please indicate where god says slavery is wrong!?

    Or, if we take in account that there are NO such words of god in the Bible, and that god, in fact, gives us detailed instructions about how to beat our slaves, is slavery moral?

  87. on 27 Apr 2012 at 4:24 pm 87.Lou (DFW) said …

    80.Xenon said …

    “But all that aside, did someone here maintain morality could not be had without the Bible?”

    In effect, yes. Theists here claim that only their (imaginary) god is the source of absolute morality. The bible is allegedly the word of god. Or do you claim that god speaks directly to you (or anybody else)?

    “Everyone has morality but why should you pursue the golden rule?”

    Me personally or people in general?

    “How do you discern it didn’t derive from a religion?”

    First of all, it’s irrelevant. Second, I don’t think it can be discerned where it didn’t come from, but only where it comes from. BTW – religion and god are two different things.

    “Why not Kant’s Categorical Imperative?”

    I give-up, why not?

    “Then one must ask..”

    No, one mustn’t. That’s simply a condition that you set.

    “…why should someone follow the golden rule rather than just looking out for number 1?”

    Do you mean is there an absolute reason or a personal reason?

    “Then ask how many atheists actually follow the golden rule?”

    The majority. I think that it’s basically indisputable that a greater percentage of atheists follow the Golden Rule than do theists. How many atheists are in prison? How many theists?

  88. on 27 Apr 2012 at 4:25 pm 88.Severin said …

    85 Xenon
    “Thank you, I did not realize the golden rule has it roots in Christianity after all.”

    It probably has not.

    As we discussed some 2 years ago, Bible was written far before Christ, and was written through hundreds of years.
    I mean, many great civilizations survived millenniums without Christianity having the “golden rule” in THEIR moral codes.

    As everything in Christianity, “golden rule” was stolen from others.
    Unfortunately it was not followed long enough.

  89. on 27 Apr 2012 at 4:32 pm 89.Lou (DFW) said …

    88.Severin said …

    85 Xenon
    “Thank you, I did not realize the golden rule has it roots in Christianity after all.”

    “It probably has not.”

    Of course it doesn’t. To claim so is absurd, and is part of their delusion.

  90. on 27 Apr 2012 at 4:42 pm 90.Prime said …

    84.Lou (DFW) said …

    “In other words, there is no “succinct, complete description of the Christian Moral Code.” Furthermore, like their religion, the so-called xtian moral code has also “been watered down to include all sorts of beliefs.””

    Indeed, like karma.

    Now a lot of other interesting stuff has happened too, so sorry for not quoting it all.

    Why not Kant? Good question. The point isn’t solid, though, because *NO ONE WORSHIPS KANT AND SAYS HIS IDEAS COME FROM THE PERFECT CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE*
    In other words, Kant’s ideas are out there for criticism and discussion, not mindlessly followed by billions of ditto heads who think the world might end any day and take all the bad people (read: people doing things they wish they were doing) to hell to suffer forever for living their lives.

    The Golden Rule shows up also in Leviticus (a Jewish book) and in Tobit and Serach (other Jewish books). It was well-known to be a proverb at the time of Jesus, indicating that he learned it the same way you did. It’s not got its roots in Christianity, and as demonstrated here, it doesn’t have its roots in Judaism even: every culture that had writing is known to have had it.

    It’s also not that great of a moral code.
    If I like getting slapped in the face and wished people would do it to me, does that mean I should get to slap people in the face?

  91. on 27 Apr 2012 at 5:20 pm 91.Tom said …

    “Tom
    Thank you, I did not realize the golden rule has it roots in Christianity after all.”

    You are welcome Xenon. The only source to the Hebrew origin, older than Leviticus, is Hinduism’s karmic law. However, Hinduism earliest written record is dated around 500 BC. while Leviticus was written well before that. Jesus would have grown up memorizing God’s written word in Leviticus.

    Any morality without a divine origin could never be absolute. The supposed golden rule does have divine origin.

  92. on 27 Apr 2012 at 6:00 pm 92.DPK said …

    “Any morality without a divine origin could never be absolute. The supposed golden rule does have divine origin.”

    And since Prime demonstrated clearly in 90 that it is NOT absolute, your claim of divine origin is meaningless. I mean really… you cannot apply the golden rule in any kind of moral way without some form of relativism. If someone likes having hot wax dripped on their private parts, does that mean you should go around pouring hot wax down people’s trousers? Of course not. But if you ascribe an absolutism to the rule, them that is what you must do. But we all know this is wrong…. why is that?
    Because morality does not come from an absolute moral power. If it did, we would unquestionably still be stoning adulterers at the city gates, selling our daughters into prostitution, and collecting slaves from conquered nations. Do you deny that god instructed us to do these things?
    If he provides an absolute divine morality… what happened? Did he change his mind at some point??
    Doesn’t sound very omniscient to me.

  93. on 27 Apr 2012 at 6:19 pm 93.Xenon said …

    “If someone likes having hot wax dripped on their private parts, does that mean you should go around pouring hot wax down people’s trousers?”

    DPK this cannot be any simpler. If a person wishes not to have something done to them, hot wax, you don’t because you don’t want an act forced upon you. Its the whole reason men should not rape woman. No means no. If you like your relativism, have at it. Just don’t do business with me.

    Now, I answered many questions. When will you answer those in 80?

    Thanks again Tom. True, only the designer and author of the universe can impose absolute laws.

  94. on 27 Apr 2012 at 6:24 pm 94.Lou (DFW) said …

    91.Tom said …

    “The only source to the Hebrew origin, older than Leviticus, is Hinduism’s karmic law. However, Hinduism earliest written record is dated around 500 BC. while Leviticus was written well before that. Jesus would have grown up memorizing God’s written word in Leviticus.”

    This the same argument as “god exists unless you can prove he doesn’t.”

    “Any morality without a divine origin could never be absolute. The supposed golden rule does have divine origin.”

    Then why is it “supposed?”

  95. on 27 Apr 2012 at 6:25 pm 95.Lou (DFW) said …

    93.Xenon said …

    “Now, I answered many questions. When will you answer those in 80?”

    I did answer them in #87.

  96. on 27 Apr 2012 at 7:06 pm 96.Prime said …

    93.Xenon said …

    “DPK this cannot be any simpler. If a person wishes not to have something done to them, hot wax, you don’t because you don’t want an act forced upon you. Its the whole reason men should not rape woman. No means no. If you like your relativism, have at it. Just don’t do business with me.”

    Oh, so the Golden Rule “do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself” is meant to apply very broadly to “forcing anything upon others.”

    I don’t want cigarette smoke in my face, so no one should ever smoke anywhere ever in any circumstance in any environment anywhere within any radius in which I might smell or otherwise be subjected to that smoke? I don’t like the sound of lawnmowers while I’m relaxing or working, so people shouldn’t be allowed to mow their own lawns within any audibility radius of anyone’s house, just in case someone inside feels that way?

    This is what happens when you take your “golden rule” to an absolutist position. It is also the fundamental problem with the notion of liberty that you get when you try to make it absolute through this “libertarian” approach. You have to emphasize “negative liberties” over positive ones, and the result is that no one is ever ethically allowed to do anything that causes anyone the least bit of discomfort in any way. This would apply to poverty as well, and thus this position, taken absolutely and to its logical conclusion, forbids any economic position than strict communism.

    Way to try to “simplify” things and still lose. The simple-enough example wasn’t good for you, so we had to push it all the way to show you how idiotic the entire concept of a moral absolute is.

  97. on 27 Apr 2012 at 7:37 pm 97.Xenon said …

    Prime

    You sound more like a crank. I never claimed the golden rule was absolute source for morality. That was your group.

    I used Jesus’s teachings
    The Beatitudes
    The Great Commandment and the second.

    Jesus teaches me not to just look out for my needs but also for the needs of others. Although I may not like smoke or mowers, I am tolerant of those who do. Christ teaches me such.

    But you have pointed out well how morality, the golden rule, outside of a divine moralist just doesn’t work.

    Lou,

    You didn’t answer my questions but thanks for trying. I expected DPK and Prime to answer but they don’t even follow their golden rule.

  98. on 27 Apr 2012 at 8:13 pm 98.Lou (DFW) said …

    97.Xenon said …

    “You didn’t answer my questions but thanks for trying. I expected DPK and Prime to answer but they don’t even follow their golden rule.”

    I expected as much from you.

  99. on 27 Apr 2012 at 8:25 pm 99.Lou (DFW) said …

    97.Xenon said …

    “Prime

    You sound more like a crank.”

    Right, but to him 40YA doesn’t?

  100. on 27 Apr 2012 at 8:27 pm 100.DPK said …

    “DPK this cannot be any simpler. If a person wishes not to have something done to them, hot wax, you don’t because you don’t want an act forced upon you.”

    Oh, I see. So, if I don’t like paying taxes, it is immoral for someone to make me pay them?

    You are so silly Xenon. In order for you to rationalize your “absolute” moral code you must look at the world from only one perspective. Let me ask you to look at it this way. An enemy combatant certainly does not want anyone to shoot at him. Is firing upon the enemy in war contrary to the absolute moral code? It couldn’t be any simpler. And why do you xtians always skirt the issue of slavery? Clearly your god is in favor of it… why don’t you ever respond.
    I saw many rhetorical questions in #80. To which one are you referring? Why we point out Horatiio’s sock puppets, or how many atheists follow the golden rule?
    To answer the former… because we like showing what a liar and intellectually dishonest person Hor is. To answer the former, I have no idea. Why does it matter any more than how many xtians cheat on their wives? Does doing so invalidate your god contention? Then why would you imply that an atheist who commits an immoral act is any different than a christian who performs an immoral act. You offer such ridiculous diversions. No doubt to draw attention from the fact that your claim of an “absolute moral code” is so full of holes.

  101. on 27 Apr 2012 at 8:53 pm 101.Levi said …

    You have went to great length, in attempt to disprove GOD, which you can’t[.]

    “Great love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

    Most people these days, love there DOG, more than there neighbor, it wasn’t supposed to be so.

    Friends, lol, there is not many, oh you claim a million plus cuz your all that, blah blah blah, you have very few friends[completely trust], thats right completely…don’t have many do ya!

    Friendship, is love., today if you claim to love someone, your dubbed queer or lesbians. what idiots, those peeps has many people they know as there friend , truth is they have very few, possibly none.

    I like how GOD has allowed me to read his word that you do not understand at all,GOD said you wouldn’t, there a pooof for ya.

  102. on 27 Apr 2012 at 9:24 pm 102.Prime said …

    FFS…

    80.Xenon said …

    “But all that aside, did someone here maintain morality could not be had without the Bible?”

    Not yet. Give it time, unless you’re finally wising up about playing that card. Usually it comes in the form of “…without God,” which requires proof of God and that the morals come from God, yadda yadda. What’s your moral code?

    “Everyone has morality but why should you pursue the golden rule?”

    You should, but intelligently. Meaning it’s not a moral absolute. It’s more of a suggestion. It’s pretty low-level in terms of understanding ethics. Cases above have been presented as to what’s wrong with it.

    “How do you discern it didn’t derive from a religion?”

    Burden of proof that it did is on you, not the negative claim. Evidence, however, was presented that it was known to every culture with writing, some predating the Western religions. Then again, you’re vague here. Even if it came from religions, which is how ancient people understood a world they couldn’t grasp scientifically, there’s no reason to believe it came from a divine source, which I’m assuming is what you really mean by this (although you’ll play a technicality card on me because you’re dishonest like that).

    “Why not Kant’s Categorical Imperative?”

    Covered above. Why not… where it applies? You’re making our point for us: without ideas of divinely given morals, atheists are free to use Kant’s imperative when it applies, the Golden Rule when it apples, etc., and to reject them when they don’t.

    “Then one must ask, why should someone follow the golden rule rather than just looking out for number 1?”

    Because (s)he’s not a juvenile asshole.

    “Then ask how many atheists actually follow the golden rule?”

    By not doing things to other people that we wouldn’t want done to ourselves, usually.

    “Lou, you have called me Horatio, and I am the one easily fooled?”

    Well, perhaps not on this point, but generally yes. You believe in magic moral sky daddies.

    “You have a fascination with Horatio. If he is here posting under dissimilar pseudonyms who cares?”

    Because it’s annoying as hell for him to post something, then post a congratulatory statement of himself as another identity. It’s also exposing him as the fraud that he is, although technically it doesn’t really matter.

    “If it is so evident, why point it out?”

    Not everyone that visits a forum is forum-savvy and could be tricked by this disingenuous tactic.

  103. on 27 Apr 2012 at 9:27 pm 103.DPK said …

    Whaaaaat?

    My diswasher gnome told me you wouldn’t believe he is real either… is that proof that he is?

    Levi… wherever you went, or go to school… ask for your money back.

  104. on 28 Apr 2012 at 5:45 am 104.Severin said …

    943 Xenon
    “Now, I answered many questions.”

    An example, please?

    I never saw anyone’s answer to extremely simple question:
    You, gentlemen (including you Xenon), claim that god, through the Bible is the source of absolute morality.
    Right or not?

    Fine, now SHOW US Biblical verses we can read and learn that code of absolute morality!
    HOW, the hell, can I learn the code of absolute morality if I don’t read it?
    And I can’t read it if I can’t find it.

    After I first heard that there is absolute morality and that it can be founding in Bible, I am trying and trying to find it, asking and asking theist to help me to find it, but no trace of it ever.

    Is it SO difficult and complicated?

    There is absolute moral code, you say, so please simply SHOW ME.

  105. on 28 Apr 2012 at 5:58 am 105.Severin said …

    97 Xenon
    “I used Jesus’s teachings
    The Beatitudes
    The Great Commandment and the second.”

    I’ve read them all.

    Now, where can I buy a slave? I necessarily need one.
    I mean, your Jesus never said slavery was wrong, did he?

    IF one part of the Bible instructs me how to buy and how to beat slaves, and the second part of it says nothing about slavery (but does say power comes directly from god!), what can I conclude but that slavery is O.K.

  106. on 28 Apr 2012 at 6:06 am 106.Severin said …

    97 Xenon
    Matthew 22:36-40
    36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
    37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

    Perfect!
    I’ve read it!
    I love god with all my heart … etc.
    I also adore my neighbor like myself.
    BUT I am preparing to stone him tomorrow, because he works on Sabbath (Sunday)?
    I will keep loving him while I stone him, don’t you worry!

  107. on 28 Apr 2012 at 6:08 am 107.Xenon said …

    “You should, but intelligently. Meaning it’s not a moral absolute. It’s more of a suggestion.”

    The burden of proof that we should is on you. Why?

    “Evidence, however, was presented that it was known to every culture with writing, some predating the Western religions.”

    No actually no proof was presented. Tom actually provided the evidence that the oldest recorded writings of this golden rule are in Leviticus. Its fact. If u don’t believe look it up.

    “By not doing things to other people that we wouldn’t want done to ourselves, usually.”

    I asked how many atheist follow the golden rule. You failed to answer and again burden of proof on you. Charities would indicate very few.

    “Because it’s annoying as hell for him to post something, then post a congratulatory statement of himself as another identity.”

    You haven’t met the burden of proof again. Following your example, I suspect you have more than one identity. Am I warm? Calling everyone Hor is not proof.

    “Not everyone that visits a forum is forum-savvy”

    So you are savvy? Then stop doing the same as you accuse others.

  108. on 28 Apr 2012 at 6:18 am 108.Severin said …

    97 Xenon
    “Jesus teaches me not to just look out for my needs but also for the needs of others.”

    Looking for needs of others is an essential social rule. No society would survive without more or less respecting taking care about needs of others. Reasons aren’t altruistic but rather practical: to keep society strong for survival.
    I wonder whether Amazonian Indians, Aborigines, Micronesian people, or Eskimos ever heard that rule from Jesus.
    Ancient Egyptians?

    I follow that rule without from far before I ever heard Jesus said it too. How is it possible?

    Muslims follow that rule. Did Jesus teach them too?

  109. on 28 Apr 2012 at 6:27 am 109.Severin said …

    107 Xenon,

    I promise I will never call you Horatio, but I do kindly expect you to put things on their places for me (have in mind, please, that I am not as versed in Bible, Jesus, Bible/Jesus moral code, etc, as I expect you are!):

    As Jesus never said the law of stoning people for working on Sabbath was wrong, on the contrary, he said old laws will be kept valid for eternity (!!!), AND he also said us to love our neighbors, shall I stone my neighbor who works on Sundays?
    I promise I will keep loving him all the time.

  110. on 28 Apr 2012 at 12:27 pm 110.Lou(DFW) said …

    107.Xenon said …

    “No actually no proof was presented.”

    You have a problem with that, but you NEVER, EVER provide evidence for your imaginary god.

    “Tom actually provided the evidence that the oldest recorded writings of this golden rule are in Leviticus. Its [sic] fact. If u don’t believe look it up.”

    The Golden Rule “can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition”, the rule is “sometimes claimed by Christianity as its own”. – Simon Blackburn, Ethics: A Very Short Introduction.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc2.htm

    The “Golden Rule” (a/k.a. Ethics of Reciprocity)
    Passages from various religious texts

    “Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do.” The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 – 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to circa 1800 BCE and may be the earliest version of the Epic of Reciprocity ever written.

    http://www.scarboromissions.ca/Golden_rule/school_curriculum.php#section3

    ANCIENT EGYPT
    The oldest written record of a recognizable Golden Rule comes from Egypt around 4,000 years ago (2000 BCE). One translation reads:
    “Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do.” (R. B. Parkinson, The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, Griffith Institute, Oxford, pp. 109-110)

  111. on 28 Apr 2012 at 1:07 pm 111.Lou(DFW) said …

    83.Prime said …

    “Since Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in his Sermon on the Mount, which is also where the Beatitudes come from (in Matthew, at least), does that include the entirety of the Deutero-Levitical laws or not in the Christian moral code?”

    Yes, I wonder why it is that none of the xtians here have quoted Deuteronomy?

  112. on 28 Apr 2012 at 1:37 pm 112.Lou(DFW) said …

    83.Prime said …

    “Since Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in his Sermon on the Mount, which is also where the Beatitudes come from (in Matthew, at least), does that include the entirety of the Deutero-Levitical laws or not in the Christian moral code?”

    85.Xenon said …

    “I noticed not one of you answered one of my questions I asked in 80. That would violate the golden rule.”

    We have, but I noticed that you, Xenon, didn’t answer his question in #83.

    Why not?

  113. on 28 Apr 2012 at 2:04 pm 113.Thor said …

    I noticed that there is no way to email whomever runs this site. Let me demonstrate just one area where this site breaks down in its criticism of the Bible. It was stated that many gods were also born on December 25th. If someone did a simple, cursory reading of the Bible, you would discover that the Bible itself does not list December 25th as the day Christ was born. That became oral tradition. My question is: did any of those who tried to disprove the Bible actually take the time to research the original language or the historical context. It would appear that most of the critique came from reading the Bible only in the English translation. Not very good scholarship.

  114. on 28 Apr 2012 at 2:43 pm 114.Vince said …

    Thor

    This is not a scholarly site; it is a site to encourage others to continue being agnostic/atheist or whatever combination they like to see themselves.

    Christ was born somewhere around March/April 3BC which would be know by even most not involved in scholarly research.

  115. on 28 Apr 2012 at 2:54 pm 115.Lou(DFW) said …

    113.Thor said …

    “I noticed that there is no way to email whomever runs this site.”

    This blog or http://whywontgodhealamputees.com ?

    There is a way to email that person, you haven’t found it. It might take even an unintelligent person all of ten seconds.

    “Let me demonstrate just one area where this site breaks down in its criticism of the Bible.”

    Please show us where on http://whywontgodhealamputees.com “It was stated that many gods were also born on December 25th.”

    But if you are referring to this blog, then any “criticism of the Bible” is mostly, if not entirely, posted by people like us, not “whomever runs this site.”

  116. on 28 Apr 2012 at 4:03 pm 116.Debunking NeoDarwinism said …

    Thor Marshall Brain does not accept feedback here or respond to posts unless it is stealthy. Vince is right about the site purpose.

    He does spread his wit to other sites like below, maybe you could catch him there. It is obvious even there he attempts to get more traffic flowing here. Eh, he is about making money, you can’t blame him.

    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?116355-Why-Won-t-God-Heal-Amputees

  117. on 28 Apr 2012 at 4:48 pm 117.Prime said …

    107.Xenon said …

    ME: “You should, but intelligently. Meaning it’s not a moral absolute. It’s more of a suggestion.”

    YOU: “The burden of proof that we should is on you. Why?”

    That proof was provided–there are copious ways to construct examples of why that is a piss-poor moral absolute above. Go read them again.

    YOU: “No actually no proof was presented. Tom actually provided the evidence that the oldest recorded writings of this golden rule are in Leviticus. Its fact. If u don’t believe look it up.”

    I did. Lou(DFW) did most of the work for me above, but I’ll add to that that Leviticus is dated to c. 500 BCE. We have written evidence from the Babylonians of the Golden Rule to c. 1400 BCE, from the Chinese (Confucius) c. 600 BCE, and Egypt at more than 2000 BCE. Also from Greece before 600 BCE, Hinduism in the Mahabharata c. 800 BCE, The Inca Civilization appears to have been built upon the idea. More recently, Frans de Waal has demonstrated that some animals behave as if they understand this rule, even if they cannot articulate it. Great job, Jesus: repeat a well-known proverb that’s obvious enough that chimps can figure it out all by themselves and somehow land a reputation as the world’s greatest ethicist ever for it. For his next trick, he might win a gold medal in the Olympics for sitting on the couch.

    YOU: “I asked how many atheist follow the golden rule. You failed to answer and again burden of proof on you. Charities would indicate very few.”

    First, you’re lying. Atheists just don’t identify with the term atheist (plus it’s a black mark against us because of bigots like you these days). Second, I’m not a sociologist. Third, what the hell does it matter? Atheists that give to charity do so because they know it’s right, not because they’re afraid to burn in hell or want to buy points with an invisible scorekeeper. What does giving to charity have to do with proving God exists or that Christians have a superior moral code.

    I wonder how much “charity giving” Christians exhibit if you don’t include charity to religious organizations.

    The rest of what you asked me about is a ridiculous distraction. Get over your pettiness and get on to describing your clear Christian moral code. Explain what it contains and what it doesn’t and how it answers harder questions on ethics in the modern day.

  118. on 28 Apr 2012 at 5:08 pm 118.Lou(DFW) said …

    116.Debunking NeoDarwinism said …

    “Thor Marshall Brain does not accept feedback here or respond to posts unless it is stealthy.”

    Claims another Hor sock-puppet. Don’t you see how it’s so obvious?

    “Vince is right about the site purpose.”

    No, he isn’t. Atheists don’t require any such encouragement. The site encourages and helps to show believers just what it says – that god is imaginary. It helps people more thoroughly think about the god delusion.

    Study: Analytic thinking can decrease religious belief

    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/27/study-analytic-thinking-can-decrease-religious-belief/?hpt=hp_c2

  119. on 28 Apr 2012 at 5:19 pm 119.Prime said …

    You know what my favorite part of the Bible’s Moral Code is?

    It’s the part where Jesus tells his followers that they are free to do whatever they want while they live so long as they accept him before they die, even murder and rape and massive warcrimes against humanity.

    It’s in there. Look it up!

  120. on 28 Apr 2012 at 8:16 pm 120.Xenon said …

    Prime:”That proof was provided–there are copious ways to construct examples of why that is a piss-poor moral absolute above.”

    No proof was not. You have the burden of proof which you have not met. Try again. Lou’s word is not proof.

    Prime:
    “I did. Lou(DFW) did most of the work for me above, but I’ll add to that that Leviticus is dated to c. 500 BCE.”

    Me:Incorrect.

    http://www.wisegeek.com/when-was-the-bible-written.htm

    http://www.thechristianalert.org/index.php/Bibliography/goldenrulehistory

    Prime:”First, you’re lying. Atheists just don’t identify with the term atheist”

    me: You exhibit anger and incoherence which indicates a sore spot. Still no answer but numerous excuses.

  121. on 28 Apr 2012 at 8:38 pm 121.Prime said …

    120.Xenon said …

    “No proof was not. You have the burden of proof which you have not met. Try again. Lou’s word is not proof.”

    Lou provided links. If “Confucious had it at least 100 years before Leviticus thousands of miles away in a completely independent culture” doesn’t meet your standards of burden of evidence, then your standards have to be set at “unless it supports my claim, it’s wrong,” which is not a real standard for anyone but a deluded denier.

    “Me:Incorrect.”

    Ooh… a link war:
    http://www.arthuralevinebooks.com/book.asp?bookid=6
    and ‘An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BCE): “Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you.”‘ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Ancient_Egypt

    “me: You exhibit anger and incoherence which indicates a sore spot. Still no answer but numerous excuses.”

    Answers! Yes answers! That you don’t like them doesn’t mean that they weren’t given!
    Sore spot? Yes, sore spot! That you constantly lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and then expect to be treated like anything but a liar!

  122. on 28 Apr 2012 at 8:59 pm 122.Xenon said …

    Prime

    Do you read your links? No, you do not. Your link for Confucius claims the golden rule predates Jesus. Duh! Yes, we know this.

    Let me quote 3 scholars. I read my links.

    “the Golden Rule was part of the Judeo-Christian worldview way before Buddha, Confusious, and many others wrote about it. In fact, the earliest written reference to the Golden Rule is found in the book of Leviticus dated to about 1400 B.C. (Davis, MacArthur, Kaiser ).”

    Personally, it is immaterial. I know from the Bible that God writes his moral law in the heats of man. He creates man therefore man would have a tendency toward these truths.

    But, you are a very dishonest individual. Look it up is not an answer. You refuse to answer the same questions you require answers for. You seem to be a very confused individual. I hope you can get it together.

  123. on 28 Apr 2012 at 11:07 pm 123.Prime said …

    I love how Leviticus is part of the Christian moral code when it’s the Golden Rule and not when it’s stoning teenagers to death for drinking.

  124. on 28 Apr 2012 at 11:14 pm 124.Prime said …

    Let’s play duelling citations (not that they prove anything more than that you’re a fool).

    “The oldest written record of a recognizable Golden Rule comes from Egypt around 4,000 years ago (2000 BCE). One translation reads:
    “Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do.” (R. B. Parkinson, The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, Griffith Institute, Oxford, pp. 109-110)”

    Hmm… predates “Judeo-Christian” (nice absorption of a religion yours hates, btw, to try to prove your point about Jesus’ ethics) Leviticus by a good six centuries.

    And you claim God writes his moral code on the hearts of men? Care to elaborate on what that means? Or why some men seem to be sociopaths beyond their choice or control? Or why no two religious organizations in the world can agree upon a set of common morals despite putting a huge amount of time and effort into discovering these laws “written on their hearts”?

  125. on 29 Apr 2012 at 12:19 am 125.Lou (DFW) said …

    120.Xenon said …

    “No proof was not. You have the burden of proof which you have not met. Try again. Lou’s word is not proof.”

    First of all, it wasn’t “my word.” That comment along goes to show you how desperate he is to defend this stupid discussion.

    Prime, no matter how much “proof” you provide to Xenon and his ilk, they will continue to move the goal post because they are intellectually dishonest. We might as well go to an astrology convention and provide evidence that astrology, like their religion, is pure bunk. They will simply ignore it and make illogical arguments against it because that is their gig, just like this is Xenon’s gig.

    But the only relevant FACT here is this – Xenon and his ilk will NEVER, EVER provide evidence for their imaginary god. In order to avoid facing this indisputable fact, they will make meaningless arguments about meaningless b.s. to avoid admitting that they are nothing but frauds.

    Xenon, PROVE ME WRONG – provide evidence for your imaginary god.

  126. on 29 Apr 2012 at 2:29 am 126.Prime said …

    Do me a favor also, Xenon, while you’re proving Lou wrong.

    Explain to me the morals written on your heart by God, or in the Christian code, or whatever, on one small issue.

    If you will, explain to me what the Christian moral code says about human-caused global climate change. NASA scientist and “father of climate science” Prof. Jim Hansen says that the climate change issue is as big a moral issue as slavery, if not bigger.

    What, pray tell, did Jesus say about that? The first thing that comes to mind for me is “take no thought for the morrow,” but what do I know? I’m a godless heathen.

  127. on 29 Apr 2012 at 4:56 pm 127.John said …

    So what is the atheist moral code?

  128. on 29 Apr 2012 at 5:31 pm 128.Prime said …

    127.John said …

    “So what is the atheist moral code?”

    This is how you show a fundamental lack of understanding of just about everything this whole post and thread are trying to teach you.

    1. Atheism is not a positive position. It has no codes in and of its own. That doesn’t mean that atheists are people without morals, though, unless you’re a complete simpleton. To say so is like saying “John doesn’t collect stamps, so he has absolutely no hobbies.”

    Many atheists, like many theists as well, are humanists, which provides a moral code: do what promotes the well-being of humans present and future as well as possible while diminishing their suffering. Many extend that to all sentient creatures with some amount of prioritization (usually depending on apparent level of sentience).

    2. A “moral code” is a silly thing anyway, the way that’s usually meant. Most people use it to mean some absolute code of conduct that tells them how to be and behave (and in some cases (e.g. Christianity), how to think!). That doesn’t mean all atheists (or anyone else for that matter) is without moral sense.

    Morality proves itself again and again to be situational, connected to matters of intention, and extremely complex (and becoming more so as human interactions and increasing technological ability create more difficult moral questions with more subtle nuances to them). An absolute code is ridiculous because it cannot account for the current complexity or the fact that human interaction and behavior necessarily has changing constraints as technology and other avenues of human investigation open them up.

    In other words, your question fails to even make sense on at least two fronts. It simply doesn’t apply and is about as meaningful as “what color is music?”

    You might try to turn this around and say “why can we expect Christianity to have a moral code, then?” Well, first because Christianity is a positive identification (unlike atheism): you say you sign up to believe a certain set of propositions, many of which are moral precepts. Secondly, Christians often claim to possess a moral superiority via “Christian morals” or “Christian values” and try to demonize atheists for not subscribing to that (as you’ve seen here repeatedly). Those “Christian morals” are said to come from a morally perfect God and are usually claimed to be absolute, with tremendous consequences for violating them.

    Thus, the onus is on Christians to explain, at least,
    1. What exactly are these Christian morals? In full detail.
    2. What makes them superior? If divine source is claimed here, then proving such a divine source exists is also required.
    3. How are they to be applied absolutely? (This is why the full detail is required).
    4. Do all Christians follow them? Some of them? Varying amounts of them? Why? Why? Why?

    The point of the entire like of questioning, though, is not to discover what “Christian morals” means but rather to expose the ridiculousness of making the claim that they exist or that anyone has them to begin with.

  129. on 29 Apr 2012 at 5:34 pm 129.Prime said …

    *Correction: The last paragraph should begin: “The point of the entire *line* of questioning…”

    My apologies.

  130. on 29 Apr 2012 at 5:44 pm 130.Biff said …

    John

    I can sum up the moral code this way. Whatever each atheist believes is right is the moral thing to do.

    Consequently, if an atheist believes murdering a pastor lets say because the pastor might lead others astray toward religion then that would be morally OK. Each has their opinion, no higher authority therefore no basis for absolute morality. This was practiced under Communist regimes without consequences.

    They will never admit this to be true, but they will not provide an alternative. Moral relativism leads to immoral acts.

    John, I advise caution. You are coming close to being the called the next horatio.

  131. on 29 Apr 2012 at 6:56 pm 131.Prime said …

    130.Biff meant to say …

    “John

    I can sum up the Christian moral code this way. Whatever each Christian believes is right is the moral thing to do, as long as it furthers belief in the religion.

    Consequently, if a Christian believes murdering a non-Christian, let’s say because that person might lead others astray, away from Christianity, then that would be morally OK. History validates this point repeatedly. Each has their opinion on the higher authority and therefore claims a basis for absolute morality. This was practiced under Christian regimes without consequences for centuries.

    They will never admit this to be true, but they will not provide an alternative. Moral absolutism leads to immoral acts.

  132. on 29 Apr 2012 at 7:03 pm 132.Godless Monkey said …

    And they then go on to cite atheistic regimes, somehow deluding themselves that atheism was THE ONLY reason that terror was perpetrated, while conviently forgetting that, I don’t know, let’s take dear Adolph as an example, thought of himself as a good, bible-believing xtian, etc. So typical.

  133. on 29 Apr 2012 at 7:17 pm 133.John said …

    You guys are really funny.

    This is like listening to Vizzini.

    Let me explain. No let me summarize: “There are no morals that are absolute and we are “absolutely sure” absolutes don’t exist. But we can be moral, but moral is whatever you make it, so my moral may not be moral to you, but it’s still moral. We do ascribe to your morality to justify we can be moral without God, we just don’t know why it matters in the first place. The “point” is it makes a good “point”.”

    Also note, how many times you use words that require a universal moral compass to even understand the meaning of your posts. Your language itself justifies my opinion.

  134. on 29 Apr 2012 at 7:28 pm 134.Biff said …

    John

    Did I predict they would not provide an alternative? They don’t even trust their own kind so it is much easier to attack others with absolutes and claim we don’t all live by them. Human beings have flaws in such a fresh argument.

    Watching a BBC program last Sunday when they bring in an atheist geologist. He started by telling us 3 times I know creation looks designed but you must remember that it was not. In other words, we don’t know how we got here but please don’t believe a deity put creation here.

    No answers, therefore attack those who have one.

  135. on 29 Apr 2012 at 7:30 pm 135.Biff said …

    “somehow deluding themselves that atheism was THE ONLY reason”

    No atheism plus delusions equals mass murdering dictators. But Mr monkey thank you for acknowledging atheism was a factor in the murdering regimes. Few atheist have the courage to at least admit that much.

  136. on 29 Apr 2012 at 7:30 pm 136.Prime said …

    Your “opinion” being what?

    That you cannot know that God doesn’t exist and provide morals and therefore God exists and provides morals?

    Burden of proof fail.

    Our case is: “Don’t be a sucker.”
    Your case is: “You can’t prove I shouldn’t be a sucker, so I can be a sucker if I want to!”

    What’s your moral code, John?

  137. on 29 Apr 2012 at 7:59 pm 137.Prime said …

    134.Biff said …

    “No answers, therefore attack those who have one.”

    No. Wrong.
    “No answers, therefore require people who pretend to have one to put up or shut up.”
    That’s how you needed to word that, at least if you wanted it to have a meaning that is accurate.

  138. on 29 Apr 2012 at 8:00 pm 138.Prime said …

    134.Biff said …

    “No answers, therefore attack those who have one.”

    Or shall we do this in your hypocrisy?

    No answers. Therefore attack the science (evolution) that answers many of those questions.

  139. on 29 Apr 2012 at 8:03 pm 139.Godless Monkey said …

    And Biff, that’s Ms. Monkey to you :)

    Biff, so you will now also acknowledge that religion/theocracy is the reason millions have been killed, both past, present, and most likely someone somewhere in the world right at this minute, right? Seems tit for tat.

    But how does any of that prove that the man-made god of the bible is real?

  140. on 29 Apr 2012 at 8:23 pm 140.Lou (DFW) said …

    130.Biff said …

    “Moral relativism leads to immoral acts.”

    As do xtian morals. So what?

    This entire theist argument is 100% irrelevant until you provide evidence that the god who is their source exists. So far, you haven’t done that. You might as well be arguing that xtian morals are provided by Santa Claus.

  141. on 29 Apr 2012 at 8:25 pm 141.Lou (DFW) said …

    130.Biff said …

    “John, I advise caution. You are coming close to being the called the next horatio.”

    No he isn’t Hor – not unless Hor recently completed a remedial writing class.

  142. on 29 Apr 2012 at 8:41 pm 142.Lou (DFW) said …

    ATTENTION EVERYONE:

    I am officially announcing the source of absolute morality. It is:

    a small leprechaun who wears a green coat, makes shoes, and has a pot of gold stored at the end of the rainbow. He told me that if we follow his moral code we will receive all of his gold.

    Now, all of you theists who believe that your imaginary god is the source of absolute morality, I dare you to prove that I am incorrect about the source of absolute morality. Go ahead, try! I KNOW you can’t because the leprechaun told me so.

  143. on 29 Apr 2012 at 9:11 pm 143.Godless Monkey said …

    Hey, I want some of that gold!

    So what do I have to do, just declare in my heart (that heart that the leprechaun has “written on”) that I believe it to be true, then believe with all my being that it is true, without any evidence, of course, and then declare my belief to the world…and then will I get my reward of gold? Sounds easy enough and totally reasonable. Count me in!

  144. on 29 Apr 2012 at 10:03 pm 144.John said …

    142 and 143:

    Every worldview has the burden of proof. Not just theism. This comments within this article does a good job of exposing the contradictions within the religion of atheism.

    There are some good articles addressing this line of thought of elves, etc. The last I read was a thesis. Try reading a few. Your challenge has already been answered, but you will need to dive a little deeper than just your parroting your atheist evangelists. Sorry there is no spoon feeding answer that you can tear up.

    If you want an original challenge, I encourage you to dig into the religion of atheism and evolution and make logical predications of morality based on it. The question is NOT “can you live a good life?”, the question is, “why do you live a good life and where is good derived?”

    I want to thank you for engaging in conversation with me. It really helps me understand the mindset of evolution.

  145. on 29 Apr 2012 at 10:17 pm 145.Godless Monkey said …

    What does a lack of belief in the supernatural have to do with the “mindset of evolution”?

    And I know this is pointless to address, once again, but atheism is not a religion. Why do theists always insist this is so?

    And while I’m sure the thesis you read on elves was interesting, you do realize that elves do not exist, right? Now I’m just confused, and curious, as to your suggestion that we read about elves.

  146. on 29 Apr 2012 at 11:07 pm 146.John said …

    145:

    Atheism is a religion. I have responded to you in other articles on this issue.

    Elves – read previous posts. You are either being lazy, don’t understand the premise of the leprechaun argument, or just spouting off what you think is clever.

    Also play catchup on the mindset of evolution. No offense, but you guys already skim theism and it looks like you don’t even really know atheism other than one phrase, “We don’t believe in God”.

    I was hoping you guys were a little more intellectual. But you just paraphrase your atheists’ leaders. You do so more than any religion I have experienced. The local agnostics I talk to have unique ideas and have thought through things a little more. You guys just want to complain and talk about how superior you are to other worldviews.

    Wow, imagine that… people hanging out and feeding their egos as the enlightened ones….

  147. on 30 Apr 2012 at 12:33 am 147.Godless Monkey said …

    John, just because you believe that all atheists think and believe the same way does not make it true. Just because you believe an atheist is somehow religious that does not make it true.

    Is it really so hard for you to believe that a person can intellectually choose to not believe in the supernatural… without ascribing to all the attributes you thrust upon them?

    You sound like 40YA who imagines every type of “ism” attached to an atheist.

    And yes, the one phrase, “We don’t believe in God,” is a great definition of atheism. I also don’t believe in ghosts, satan, incubi, sucubi, angels, the chupacabra, esp, magic, reincarnation and a whole host of other supernatural things.

    Theists like to attach a worldview to something that is really quite simple, then convolute it and call it a religon.

  148. on 30 Apr 2012 at 12:42 am 148.John said …

    Godless… I need to apologize first. My last post was a little harsh. Sorry about that.

    I concede the first point and not just because i was a #*%! on the last post. :)

    When I get into these sites, the attacks come fast and furious so I do make certain assumptions at points. So I won’t assume things about you and you don’t assume I am a 6,000 year old, Kirk Cameron watching, creation museum attending Christian and I won’t assume you are an “ism”. Deal? :)

    Of course I don’t agree on the last point (at least in one case) and I am glad to know you are hunting ghosts and worshipping satan riding on a chupacabra. :)

  149. on 30 Apr 2012 at 1:03 am 149.Biff said …

    Ok Ms Monkey, you asked:

    “But how does any of that prove that the man-made god of the bible is real?”

    good question. What would you accept as evidence for God? Would your standards be less, the same or more as say for First Cause?

    One other point. You must define atheism as a lack of belief in God. I have been advised that is the definition at least here.

    I agree with John. Atheism is a religion and is protected as a religion in the US.

  150. on 30 Apr 2012 at 1:20 am 150.Godless Monkey said …

    Apology accepted :)

    And you’ll most likely not agree with this, but the truth is out there (Cite: The X-Files) and is more likely to be based on science, the great advances being made in quantum physics, than Mr. Magicman in the sky. If you’re at all interested, a great book to read is “Universe from Nothing, Why there is Something from Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss. Yes, now you may accuse ME of confirmation bias and take a pass on the reccomendation ;)

    I seriously doubt that all the answers will be found in my lifetime, but I know there are answers that require no belief in the supernatural.

    Let’s agree to disagree :)

  151. on 30 Apr 2012 at 1:40 am 151.Prime said …

    As a religion, exactly which rights do American atheists have protected?

  152. on 30 Apr 2012 at 1:47 am 152.Godless Monkey said …

    Biff,

    The last thing I consider myself is religious. I am simply on a life-long journey of discovery, and as has been stated earlier about following the evidence, that is what I do. The evidence from science continues to elucidate while the unscientific and magic-filled explanations in the holy books remain static. That is what I see. That is where the evidence takes me.

    That that journey has led me away from theism and mythology is not a mark against me. It is a mark against the proofs offered in theism. As has been stated here numerous times, the onus is not on me as an unbeliever to prove the existence of the supernatural.

  153. on 30 Apr 2012 at 1:55 am 153.Biff said …

    Prime

    U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Second Circuit protected the rights of an inmate not to attend rehab since it violated his religion by acknowledging a higher power.

    Kaufman v. McCaughtry in the 7th Circuit Courtof Appeals ruled prison officials violated an inmates rights by not treating atheism as a religion.

    Now how about the other question you and Ms Monkey avoided? What would you accept as evidence for God? Would your standards be less, the same or more as say for First Cause?

  154. on 30 Apr 2012 at 1:57 am 154.Biff said …

    Ms Monkey

    Missed your post. Good enough. Maybe Prime can provide some guidelines for acceptable proof.

  155. on 30 Apr 2012 at 2:35 am 155.Lou (DFW) said …

    154.Biff said …

    “Maybe Prime can provide some guidelines for acceptable proof.”

    We all know what acceptable proof is. That’s why you keep questioning what is acceptable proof.

    Theists – forever moving the goal post.

  156. on 30 Apr 2012 at 2:45 am 156.Lou (DFW) said …

    “149.Biff said …

    “Atheism is a religion and is protected as a religion in the US.”

    Oh Biff, we’ve all been down this road before with the way you guys misrepresenting these court cases as something they’re not.

    You saying that “atheism” is a religion doesn’t make it so. By definition, “atheism” is precisely NOT a religion. It’s not even an “ism.” Just because you can’t defend your faith-based delusion doesn’t mean you can call our rejection of your religion a religion.

    Show me your god, and I will believe in him. It’s that simple.

  157. on 30 Apr 2012 at 2:57 am 157.Lou (DFW) said …

    148.John said …

    “Godless… I need to apologize first. My last post[s] was a little harsh.”

    Harsh? John, how much had you been drinking before you bombarded his blog with your tirades?

  158. on 30 Apr 2012 at 2:58 am 158.Prime said …

    153.Biff said …

    “U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Second Circuit protected the rights of an inmate not to attend rehab since it violated his religion by acknowledging a higher power.
    Kaufman v. McCaughtry in the 7th Circuit Courtof Appeals ruled prison officials violated an inmates rights by not treating atheism as a religion.”

    Could you detail in KvM there how atheism had to be treated as a religion? What rights, exactly, other than rights *not* to have to do something (as in the first example) are atheists guaranteed by religion?

    Are the only rights of atheists as a “religion” the rights “not to have to do anything religious”? That’s weird.

    Hmm… acceptable proof. I ignored that question because your piss-poor grammar made it confusing. I figured you were baiting me.

    I’d accept physical proof, like how you’d prove you have a rabbit in your hands. Show me proof of God physically by praying Jesus into the room like he came into the room for Thomas in the Gospel of made up, I mean John.

    I’d accept proof by necessity, which means you prove that a God is the only possible explanation for a set of phenomena. Don’t get lost here and try to pull a complexity argument on me (the eye would be a stupid one, the laws of physics or “free will” or beauty would be a slightly more sophisticated but still pathetic one). The ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION has to be God, or at least the most parsimonious. (Hint: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parsimony?s=t). This will also require a *clear and unambiguous* definition of the God you’re attempting to prove, so you can bubble one of those up while you’re at it.

    I’d accept strong philosophical proof, even–if it satisfied parsimony and necessity–although all that can prove is that God is an abstract metaphor, not a real entity, so it doesn’t really get you anywhere. (Pro tip: the ontological argument, Pascal’s wager, the teleological (that’s smart-speak for “First Cause”) and cosmological arguments all fail necessity as well as parsimony, so don’t try those). If you want to establish the existence of a particular god this way, you will require a *clear and unambiguous* definition of this God, so you can bubble one of those up while you’re diddling yourself or whatever it is you do while you try to think up your bs.

    See… we’re not unreasonable. We’re also not dogmatically adhered to any idea other than “you shouldn’t believe stuff like a schmuck; demand evidence.”

  159. on 30 Apr 2012 at 3:01 am 159.Prime said …

    I was reading my bible and found this verse: “What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not.” 1 Cor. 7:29. How does this fit with Christian morals?

  160. on 30 Apr 2012 at 5:08 am 160.Severin said …

    93 Xenon
    “DPK this cannot be any simpler. If a person wishes not to have something done to them, hot wax, you don’t because you don’t want an act forced upon you. Its the whole reason men should not rape woman. No means no. If you like your relativism, have at it.”

    What if the person says “yes”?
    Sadists?
    People who tend to suicide but have no courage to do it?

    Would it be immoral to help them?

    I think it would.
    How about you?

  161. on 30 Apr 2012 at 5:53 am 161.Severin said …

    128 Prime
    “Atheism is not a positive position. It has no codes in and of its own.“

    No such thing as „atheist moral code“, because atheism is NOT a „position“ of any kind, “positive” or “negative”, but nothing more and nothing less but disbelief (lack of believing) in something claimed by someone else.
    You say there is Santa, I say I don’t believe unless you prove it.
    I say there is a Spaghetti Monster who created the universe and answers prayers, you say you don’t believe it untill I give some evidences for my claim.
    Fair!
    Only you call me atheist, I will never understand why, and I don’t call you anything but non-believer in Spaghetti Monster.
    As simple as that, no complications!
    I will start believing in your Santa/God/Allah/Odin/Ra/… as soon as yoy bring some evidences they (or some of them) are real.
    I swear I will!
    I am a reasonable human being!
    Yet, you never provide any evidences for your (positive!) claims! So don’t, for example Muslims, and I don’t believe them either.

    I already told you all that I have very well established moral code myself, although I do not believe in any god and do not practice any religion.
    I AM a good man although I do not believe in gods.
    There is absolutely no doubt I spontaniously follow many, if not all, UNWRITTEN moral rules, and many moral rules never presented/told to me by anyone.
    For example, my mother never told me not to rape ladies, but I feel disgust to raping, and my natural, spontanious feeling that raping is wrong, keeps me far of such deeds, and keeps my lust „on leash“. 55 years so, and did not change! I will die disgusting raping.

    All you need is to explain to me WHERE my perfectly working moral code is coming from!
    (I do not lie, steal, rape, kill, cheat, offend people, I am always kind, I, in no way, endanger needs of other people, but help people a lot, spontaneously, disregarding their faith, race, social status, education, …)
    WHERE it all comes from?
    And we both, you and I, know a lot of such GOOD people, with perfectly working moral code, both religious and “atheists”, and many highly immoral people from both sides: religious and atheists!

    Of course, you have to tell us also why many theists DO wrong things! Where their „moral code“, which does NOT stop them to kill and rape, comes from, although they DO believe in god?

  162. on 30 Apr 2012 at 6:17 am 162.Severin said …

    Prime,

    I misunderstood your post, probably because of my poor English.
    I apologize, my words in my post # 161 are for Xenon, Biff, John, not for you.

    One can make mistakes, sorry!

    Anyway, I stay by my opinion that atheism is no “position”, although it is of no great importance for further debate.

  163. on 30 Apr 2012 at 9:09 am 163.Severin said …

    133 John
    134 Biff
    1. I am a good man with perfectly “adjusted” moral code that works for some 65 years.
    I am positive you would approve most of my moral rules: do not lie, do not steal, do not kill, do not torture, do not rape, do not offend, be kind, be tolerant, have in mind needs of other people and help them, …

    I do not believe in any god, I never god any written “moral code” to learn, and although my mother, my father and my grandies did teach me SOME rules, they never mentioned some other ones (for example “do not rape ladies”), which I accepted anywhere, spontaneously, I would not exactly know how and when it happened.

  164. on 30 Apr 2012 at 9:16 am 164.Severin said …

    133 John
    134 Biff

    Sorry, I clicked wrong button.

    Now please tell us where my morality comes from?

    In few words, please!

    The fact that there are very moral atheists and very immoral theists, and v.v., confirms the conclusion that morality has nothing to do with gods.

    How is it possible to conclude that religion and religious books are the sources of morality, if you have huge number of moral and immoral atheists and moral and immoral theists of all possible religions.

  165. on 30 Apr 2012 at 11:45 am 165.Biff said …

    OK Prime, so your requirements are much greater than for your other beliefs. I felt this would be the case since you are looking for reasons not to believe.

    “I’d accept physical proof, like how you’d prove you have a rabbit in your hands.”

    OK, that has been met in Jesus Christ.

    “I’d accept proof by necessity, which means you prove that a God is the only possible explanation for a set of phenomena.”

    Origins, again that has been met.

    “I’d accept strong philosophical proof, even–if it satisfied parsimony and necessity”

    Another easy one.

    “Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism” Alvin Plantiga.

    “Could you detail in KvM there how atheism had to be treated as a religion?”

    You mean other than declaring that his rights were violated because atheism was not treated as a religion?

    When you complete the elementary step of acknowledging God exists, you will be ready to narrow that down to the one true God. Did I mention what a privilege it is to dialogue with someone so highly intelligent? Thank you.

  166. on 30 Apr 2012 at 12:27 pm 166.Lou (DFW) said …

    165.Biff said …

    “I felt this would be the case since you are looking for reasons not to believe.”

    That statement is an absolutely absurd cop-out. Humans are born without belief in gods, Santa Claus, or any other imaginary beliefs. Humans look for reasons to believe things, NOT disbelieve in them. What this is “case” of is intellectual dishonesty on your part.

    “OK, that has been met in Jesus Christ.”

    And Zeus and Ganesha. Your evidence of J.C. is marginal, and that he was god or the son of god is non-existent. Oh, by the way, do ever hear about anyone arguing about the existence of rabbits? I wonder why that is that you don’t?

    “Origins, again that has been met.”

    No, “origins” was explained by the flying spaghetti monster. Oh yea, and Zeus and Ganesha and hundreds of other gods.

    “Another easy one.”

    Easy? Yes, it’s easy to invent imaginary evidence for an imaginary god. But it’s not easy to defend the fact that you don’t have any evidence for your imaginary god.

    “When you complete the elementary step of acknowledging God exists, you will be ready to narrow that down to the one true God.”

    Here we go with the classic circular reasoning that theists use to defend the fact that they have no evidence for their imaginary god.

  167. on 30 Apr 2012 at 3:29 pm 167.Lou (DFW) said …

    165.Biff said …

    “OK Prime, so your requirements are much greater than for your other beliefs.”

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim for a supernatural being is, by definition, extraordinary. Therefore, your evidence must be extraordinary. Anecdotal evidence and bible stories (myth) are not extraordinary evidence. Neither is arguments against/about Big Bang, evolution, xtian morals, U.S. court cases, and all the other irrelevant b.s. that you present here.

  168. on 30 Apr 2012 at 3:54 pm 168.Prime said …

    162.Severin said …

    “Anyway, I stay by my opinion that atheism is no “position”, although it is of no great importance for further debate.”

    I agree. That, indeed, is what I meant by a “negative” position. I didn’t realize until after I posted that those words could be meant in more than one way.

    Atheism is a null position, not a “positive” claim upon reality, so we agree.

  169. on 30 Apr 2012 at 3:57 pm 169.Prime said …

    Biff,

    All you’ve done is say that the evidence is there. You haven’t shown me or anyone else any evidence.

    I’ve read Platinga. He’s smart, seems to be a good man, and well-written, but his arguments are not sufficiently air-tight to be convincing. They either fall for question-begging (circularity) or complexity (argument from ignorance) or, in other cases, they fail necessity (which is really still an argument from ignorance) or parsimony.

    Platinga is a decent scholar, but he assumes what he wants to establish. No matter how hard he works to establish it, then, he cannot.

    My standards for evidence are equal across the board. I’d like for you to try to indicate for me a single idea that I hold a weaker standard of evidence for. I’m sure you’re about to say “evolution” or something stupid like that, but nay, I hold the same standard there. That scientific theory passes the muster.

  170. on 30 Apr 2012 at 4:31 pm 170.Lou (DFW) said …

    169.Prime said …

    “I’m sure you’re about to say “evolution” or something stupid like that, but nay, I hold the same standard there. That scientific theory passes the muster.”

    With all do respect, evolution is not a “scientific theory.” It is a fact. The “scientific theory” to which you refer explains how evolution operates, not whether or not it does.

  171. on 30 Apr 2012 at 5:18 pm 171.Prime said …

    170.Lou (DFW) said …

    “With all due respect, evolution is not a “scientific theory.” It is a fact. The “scientific theory” to which you refer explains how evolution operates, not whether or not it does.”

    Well said.

  172. on 30 Apr 2012 at 5:32 pm 172.Anonymous said …

    We’ve been here before.

    It doesn’t matter what ID he posts under, it’s the same game.

    He throws out a bunch of nonsense about atheists and tries to divert the conversation by getting you to repeatedly defend the same charges. When that’s not working he wants a definition of evidence or to know in advance what evidence you’ll accept.

    Then he tries to derail the conversation by arguing about what does or does not constitute evidence. At the same time he lays the ground work for not presenting his case by saying you won’t believe him and that your standards are somehow unfair or unreasonable.

    All along he’ll say the evidence is there but there’s always a reason why he won’t present his side in the same detail and manner as he demands from others.

    It’s a game. If he actually had something he’d post it.

  173. on 30 Apr 2012 at 5:38 pm 173.Biff said …

    “Platinga is a decent scholar, but he assumes what he wants to establish.”

    Like you do? Prime anyone can see you have a position and it is No God.

    Atheism is not a null position. At best agnosticism would be a null position. How often do atheist write books/blogs and establish billboards in response to agnostics? To quote Severin, it is a cop out and you are delusional if you think anyone is buying it.

    At least Godless Monkey is honest.

  174. on 30 Apr 2012 at 5:41 pm 174.Biff said …

    “evolution” or something stupid like that,”

    well, yes unless you can hold it in your hand like a rabbit. Can you hold it in you hat like a rabbit Prime?

  175. on 30 Apr 2012 at 6:59 pm 175.Lou (DFW) said …

    174.Biff, aka Hor said …

    “evolution” or something stupid like that,”

    “well, yes unless you can hold it in your hand like a rabbit. Can you hold it in you hat like a rabbit Prime?”

    Don’t be so stupid. Can you hold gravity in your hand?

  176. on 30 Apr 2012 at 7:00 pm 176.Prime said …

    Biff, you might be the stupidest person on here. Hor is going to be jealous.

  177. on 30 Apr 2012 at 7:18 pm 177.Biff said …

    I thought I was quite chic.

    But you never answered weather you can hold it like a rabbit Prime?

  178. on 30 Apr 2012 at 7:47 pm 178.Lou (DFW) said …

    177.Biff, aka Hor said …

    “But you never answered weather you can hold it like a rabbit Prime?”

    Yes, he did. So much for you being “chic.” Maybe the “weather” is affecting you.”

  179. on 01 May 2012 at 2:36 am 179.Prime said …

    If you think I never address the “holding it in your hand like a rabbit” thing, you’re either stupid or missing what I said in my original post.

    If you’re wondering why I haven’t addressed it since you worded it so ineloquently, it’s because you did such a poor job of phrasing your question that I wasn’t able to decipher the nonsense you were asking me but guessed correctly at what it might be.

    I second Lou(DFW), then, can you hold any process in your hand like a rabbit? For instance, can you hold photosynthesis in your hand like a rabbit? Can you hold the Krebs cycle in your hand like a rabbit? Can you hold gamma decay in your hand like a rabbit?

    I’m almost feeling embarrassment for you.

  180. on 01 May 2012 at 3:31 am 180.Prime said …

    Biff: “Can’t hold evolution in you hat like a rabbit. Checkmate, atheists.”

  181. on 01 May 2012 at 5:19 am 181.Severin said …

    174 Biff
    “well, yes unless you can hold it in your hand like a rabbit.”

    Neither can you hold your god in your hand like a rabbit.
    Double standards, again (of course, what else?!):
    We say something you have to accept without any proofs and we expect you to believe and to accept it.
    If you did not accept it, some 150 years ago we would have burnt you (or torture you until you accept it).
    If you don’t accept it today, we will keep forcing our claims on you and expect YOU to prove us wrong.

    Is it the way how your logic works?

    Yes, it is!
    It is the way how ALL religions function.

  182. on 01 May 2012 at 5:44 am 182.Severin said …

    165 Biff
    “I felt this would be the case since you are looking for reasons not to believe.“

    I, and every single normal human being, is always looking for reasons to BELIEVE something, not to disbelieve it. There is no need for me to look for „reasons not to believe“.
    I „automatically“ don’t believe without proofs. It is not an effort, it is not „looking for reasons“ to disbelieve something.
    I would consider myself an idiot if I accepted every idiotic claim someone told me, and THEN looked for reasons to disbelieve it. It is NOT the way how logic works. It works much simpler way: you say something, then you prove it to make others believe it.
    If you tell me you walked over the water in your shoes, I need no effort and no need to look for „reasons not to believe“ it, to disbelieve it, I just don’t, as it does not fit in my positive knowledge of universe I am living in (physics, for example), my experiaence, logic, … It is YOU who have to show me how, the hell, you realized walking over the water. I will never look for evidences to disbelieve your ability to walk over water! I will just, simply, refuse it as possibility, totally “automatically”.
    THEN, if YOU bring enough proofs, I might accept your claim.

    Same with (any) god.
    Are you looking for reasons to reject the idea of Quetzalcoatl as your god and creator of universe, who answers your prayers, or you reject it “automatically”, without even thinking about the possibility?

    Why don’t you apply the same logic on YOUR god?

  183. on 01 May 2012 at 6:00 am 183.Severin said …

    165 Biff
    “„OK, that has been met in Jesus Christ.“”

    I can’t see how the existence or non-existence of a tramp can be the proof for existence of god.
    Someone said he was a god and we all have to drop on our asses, goggle our eyes out, snivel, and accept it?
    Ridiculous!

    You may have billions of proofs for existence of Jesus Christ, yet you still have to prove he was a god.

  184. on 01 May 2012 at 11:17 am 184.Biff said …

    “For instance, can you hold photosynthesis in your hand like a rabbit?”

    Well of course not, but I didn’t make that as a requirement for belief. But curiously, you need to hold God in your hand, like a rabbit in order to believe. This illustrates the hypocrisy of atheists.

  185. on 01 May 2012 at 11:47 am 185.Lou (DFW) said …

    184.Biff said …

    “For instance, can you hold photosynthesis in your hand like a rabbit?”

    “Well of course not, but I didn’t make that as a requirement for belief. But curiously, you need to hold God in your hand, like a rabbit in order to believe. This illustrates the hypocrisy of atheists.”

    No, it illustrates your stupidity and illogical thought process.

  186. on 01 May 2012 at 4:44 pm 186.Doug Fo said …

    ERRRNNNT: Wrong Biff. Photosynthesis has demonstrable objective evidence and predictive power.

    Please show us how the hypothesis that Yahweh created and rules the universe lives up to the same standard.

  187. on 01 May 2012 at 5:20 pm 187.John said …

    164… You are missing the entire point. The point is not rather atheists are theists uphold a moral code, the point is you realize there is a moral code. Stop and think about it. You can claim you don’t, but daily life proves the opposite. Now most atheists claim its a social evolution that accompanied human evolution. Would you agree?

    150 Godless… thanks. I will try and check out your book. Personally, do you feel what you are seeing within the scientific method? Not trying to catch you with an aha moment, just more curious.

    Thanks,

  188. on 01 May 2012 at 6:53 pm 188.Lou (DFW) said …

    187.John said …

    “164… You [Severin] are missing the entire point. The point is not rather [whether] atheists are [or] theists uphold a moral code, the point is you realize there is a moral code. Stop and think about it. You can claim you don’t, but daily life proves the opposite.”

    Except that he stated otherwise. In fact he wrote “I have a very solid moral code.”

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=2190&cpage=2

    42.Severin said …

    1 Jim
    “I wonder where you base your morality on?“

    “I am a good man and I have a very solid moral code.
    I do not lie, cheat, steal, kill, ever.
    I am very compassionate and feel pain when I see any kind of violence. I never use violence myself.
    I help people a lot. REALLY a lot!
    I am extremely responsible for everything I do, ready to take consequences for my deeds.
    I am 70 now, and I have the same moral code through my whole life.”

    45.Severin said …

    43 Asher
    “I’ll bite. Which atheists moral code is the standard in this comparison?”

    “My mother’s.
    Her basic moral rule was: never do to others anything you would not like others to do to you.”

    John, I don’t know if you are someone posting under a new name or not. But you came in here one day and posted replies to almost every topic in here, some that hadn’t been active for weeks. Perhaps you should read more and post less about specific posters until you get to “know” everybody here.

    Besides that, this entire discussion about morality is moot. Before anyone claims that god is the source of morality they must provide evidence that god exists. Otherwise, such a claim for morality is no more valid than claiming Santa Claus is the source.

    John, it’s very simple and it will resolve all the problems with your comments – provide evidence for your imaginary god.

  189. on 09 May 2012 at 6:43 pm 189.Chris said …

    Easy:

    Love God, Love your neighbor (including enemies). And yes, it’s right there in the Bible look it up.

    2) No, NONE of us abide by it completely. We fail often. But thats agains us, not God.

    To blame God for that is to take a cop out on our own responsibility. Especially when he made those very clear statements.

    Where isYOUR code? Why must we follow it?

  190. on 09 May 2012 at 8:20 pm 190.Anonymous said …

    Chris, the question in (1) was “Where in the Bible, or anywhere, is there a succinct, complete description of the Christian Moral Code?”

    You didn’t actually answer the “where” though, you simply provided a circular answer to “where in the bible” by replying “in the bible”

    Let’s now examine your answer. You said “Love God, Love your neighbor (including enemies). And yes, it’s right there in the Bible look it up.”

    So, is your answer that what you said above is the *complete* Christian moral code?

  191. on 09 May 2012 at 8:25 pm 191.DPK said …

    Fair enough Chris.
    Two questions for you now.
    Would you agree with your fellow theists here, that that is an ABSOLUTE moral code, and not subject to relativism, because it is given by god, and not open to discussion or thought?
    In other words, are you an absolute pacifist? Do you think there is EVER a moral reason to kill or do harm to someone? Not a “failing” but an instance when it would be more moral “not” to love your neighbor? Be careful, because if you answer “No” you have then discounted the idea of an absolute morality from a supreme being. If you answer “Yes” you are going to be challenged with specific examples that you will likely find tough to defend. Or, you can cede the point now that there is absolutely nothing absolute about your absolute moral code, and it simply evolved from human social order, without need for a magic man in the sky.

    And secondly, what is it about “love your neighbor” that is philosophically so profound, that you feel it had to come from a divine source, because no mortal human could ever have conceived of such a notion? Specifics, please. Time to back your simplistic claims with actual reasons….
    D

  192. on 09 May 2012 at 8:46 pm 192.Lou(DFW) said …

    189.Chris said …

    “Where isYOUR code? Why must we follow it?”

    Here we go again with someone with a reading comprehension problem.

    First, the topic is not OUR code. The topic is about THE XTIAN ORAL CODE.

    Second, NOBODY claimed that you or anyone else must follow anyone else’s code.

    Now, once you understand that, can you answer the questions or not?

    “Where IN THE BIBLE, or anywhere, is there a succinct, complete description of the Christian Moral Code?”

    If you don’t understand “succinct,” then don’t bother to answer.

  193. on 09 May 2012 at 8:46 pm 193.Lou(DFW) said …

    192.Lou(DFW) said …

    Correction: “The topic is about THE XTIAN MORAL CODE.”

  194. on 10 May 2012 at 2:16 am 194.A said …

    “Where isYOUR code? Why must we follow it?”

    Chris,

    Their code is whatever each of them think is right. That is the reason they name call and question the intelligence of their enemy.

    As 40 Year Atheist has pointed out here in great detail, count your silverware if one leaves your home. They might just find a way to justify relieving you of the burden.

    Google some of his post here, they are quite good and well though out.

  195. on 10 May 2012 at 2:28 am 195.Doug Fo said …

    And A, once again, decides to avoid the subject and make cheap shots; demonstrating the fact they are a scumbag

  196. on 10 May 2012 at 2:47 am 196.DPK said …

    “Their code is whatever each of them think is right.”

    And yours is not??

    Let’s see if you have balls enough to answer this. Is it moral to stone hom0sexuals and adulterers to death? Yes, or No.

    I predict none of them will answer.

  197. on 10 May 2012 at 3:08 am 197.Lou(DFW) said …

    194.ASTROPHYSICIST said …

    “Their code is whatever each of them think is right.”

    As is yours (that apparently encourages lying) and everybody elses’s.

    “That is the reason they name call and question the intelligence of their enemy.”

    OK everybody, here’s a lesson in what a Non-Sequitur is. ASTROPHYSICIST thinks that because you choose your moral code that’s why you “name call” and “question the intelligence of [your] enemy.”

    A, for an “Astrophysicist,” you’re incredibly stupid or drunk, or possibly both.

  198. on 10 May 2012 at 4:09 am 198.DPK said …

    I have yet to meet a person who think their moral code is “whatever they think is wrong…”
    Isn’t, “what you think is right” what EVERYONES moral code is? Kind of the definition of morality, no?
    How idiotic are these people? Yet they claim their absolute moral code comes from a god, the same god that commands them to kill people for trivial offenses and ” sins” and instructs them on how to beat their slaves and prostitute their daughters. But somehow, without consulting their OWN sense of morality, they know that THOSE parts of gods specific instructions are to be ignored. I wonder how they come to THAT conclusion, since they state that morality can ONLY come from that same god who once told us to murder insolent and disobedient children.
    Puts a whole new meaning to the word ” assinine”.

  199. on 10 May 2012 at 1:45 pm 199.Chris said …

    If there is no “right code” – that is, we all get our own – then how do any of us get to point to another and say theirs is WRONG?

    In short, we dont’ – however that doesn’t stop us from doing so does it? No, as just shown on here, folks think the Christian code is “wrong” however, it has just been admitted (sans and authority – God) no one can be wrong, only different.

    If I don’t have to follow yours, then why am I wrong for following mine?

  200. on 10 May 2012 at 1:52 pm 200.Chris said …

    “Is it moral to stone hom0sexuals and adulterers to death? Yes, or No.”

    Easy question, however, one needs a bit of OT understanding to fully get the answer.

    Short answer: No.

    Longer answer: The Jews were the chosen nation by God. Part of this “being chosen” – covenant, meant that there were certain rules they had to follow. Certainly with our modern eyes – of which you are looking at ANE times with – many of these rules look barbaric.

    Well, they were barbaric times! However, when one actually starts looking at and comparing many of the rules God laid down for the Jews (at THAT time) many of the rules 1) makes sense for THAT time, 2) move the Jews toward a less barbaric society, 3) was an improvement on what many other nations were doing.

    Yes, this requires a bit of work and study – but when one does, these clearly fall into place.

    So, why don’t we stone people now?

    Easy again: 1) ONLY the Jews were given this “order” as it were. You and I (gentiles, if not a Jew) were not. It was part of THEIR covenant with God – one we are NOT, were NOT a part of.
    2) Jesus made a NEW covenant with EVERYONE – thus chucking out the old one – yes even the one WITH the Jews.

    I could go on, but there’s a quick little answer.

  201. on 10 May 2012 at 1:59 pm 201.Chris said …

    ““Where IN THE BIBLE, or anywhere, is there a succinct, complete description of the Christian Moral Code?””

    Um – I did.

    Love God – Pretty specific there.
    Love your neighbor as yourself – same.
    Love your enemy – same. And I should point out, Jesus even gave examples of who our neighbor was (everyone) and what is expected of us in the presence of our enemies.

    What part of those commands aren’t clear to you?

  202. on 10 May 2012 at 2:12 pm 202.Chris said …

    DPK -

    “Fair enough Chris.
    Two questions for you now.
    Would you agree with your fellow theists here, that that is an ABSOLUTE moral code, and not subject to relativism, because it is given by god, and not open to discussion or thought?”

    —-Certainly it’s open to discussion and thought! But that doesn’t take away from whether or not there is. we can agree/disagree with God, etc. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s there – I don’t read ANYWHERE in the Bible we aren’t supposed to discuss or think about absolute morals.

    “In other words, are you an absolute pacifist?”

    —-we are to be, yes. Personally, I fail as pacifism more than I succeed. Anger does get the best of me at times, however, Jesus called to pacification, yes. As the quote goes: when Jesus said love your enemy, I don’t think it means to kill them.

    “Do you think there is EVER a moral reason to kill or do harm to someone? Not a “failing” but an instance when it would be more moral “not” to love your neighbor?”

    —-No. (and I will address your issue to this below) By “no” I mean, I don’t get to decide when that moment is – how would I? I don’t know every situation. But no, you nor me, get to make this decision on WHEN to kill someone.

    “Be careful, because if you answer “No” you have then discounted the idea of an absolute morality from a supreme being.”

    —-No I don’t. If you are speaking of God ordering peoples death (as in the OT) we are talking about God using the Nation of Israel as a tool of his judgement of other nations, which is perfectly within his authority – unless you disagree that God can judge HIS creation as he sees fit and how. Much of what went on in the OT does NOT apply today. If you aren’t talking about that, then what?

    “If you answer “Yes” you are going to be challenged with specific examples that you will likely find tough to defend. Or, you can cede the point now that there is absolutely nothing absolute about your absolute moral code, and it simply evolved from human social order, without need for a magic man in the sky.”

    —-Well, I didn’t answer yes.

    “And secondly, what is it about “love your neighbor” that is philosophically so profound, that you feel it had to come from a divine source, because no mortal human could ever have conceived of such a notion?”

    —-Have you ever truly thought about what that means? If you have, I don’t think you would ask this. Do YOU love your neighbor AS MUCH as yourself? Nope. Neither do I. So, if humans were so capable of “thinking” of it, why do we suck so bad at DOING it? History shows us again and again how we fail at this. Why? If we can “think” it up then why don’t we?

    Second – even if we COULD think it up (and I certainly think we could), is it BINDING to us all? Nope. Not without an authority.

    So it’s not so much of a “could we think it up” as it is: are we BOUND by it? It is ABSOLUTE?

    Without an authority, it isn’t. It’s just a nice thought, an opinion, but none of us can’t point a finger at someone for NOT doing it.

    THAT is the main difference.

  203. on 10 May 2012 at 6:09 pm 203.Dez said …

    Chris asks an poignant question. What is the Atheists’ moral code? If each does not decide for themselves, then how is it obtained?

  204. on 10 May 2012 at 6:32 pm 204.Lou(DFW) said …

    199.Dez said …

    “Chris asks an poignant question.”

    Actually, you did:

    “An you ask What is the Atheists’ moral code? If each does not decide for themselves, then how is it obtained?”

    Dex, this horse has been beat to death. Go back and read all the previous comments about this.

  205. on 10 May 2012 at 6:33 pm 205.MrQ said …

    #199
    One can surmise that, since we humans arrived (evolved) long before our bibles and religious views, we learned over the past 200,000+ years or so how to get along. If we hadn’t figured that one out, we wouldn’t be typing these exchanges. Morality/ethics was first, the bible came afterwards.

  206. on 10 May 2012 at 7:49 pm 206.Dez said …

    Lou,

    You are a nasty little fellow. I can only imagine you are sexually frustrated or dominated by your mother.

  207. on 10 May 2012 at 8:17 pm 207.Lou(DFW) said …

    201.Dez said …

    “Lou,

    You are a nasty little fellow. I can only imagine you are sexually frustrated or dominated by your mother.”

    That’s all you can do – imagine, and what you imagine is irrelevant to everybody other than you.

  208. on 10 May 2012 at 8:18 pm 208.Lou(DFW) said …

    200.Lou(DFW) said …

    “Dex, this horse has been beat to death. Go back and read all the previous comments about this.”

    Dex, why don’t you stop posting comments about me and go back and read the discussion about morals.

  209. on 10 May 2012 at 8:52 pm 209.Chris said …

    Huh…provided an answer to questions presented to me…where they go?

  210. on 10 May 2012 at 8:55 pm 210.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “Now, once you understand that, can you answer the questions or not?

    “Where IN THE BIBLE, or anywhere, is there a succinct, complete description of the Christian Moral Code?”

    If you don’t understand “succinct,” then don’t bother to answer.”

    What is not “succinct” about the following?

    1) Love God
    2) Love your neighbor AS yourself.
    3) Love your enemies

    And with 2) and 3) Jesus even provided examples explaing WHO our neighbors are (everyone) and how we are to act in the presences of our enemies.

  211. on 10 May 2012 at 9:04 pm 211.Prime said …

    The question has been answered so many f-bombing times that none of us is responsible to answer it for you guys again. Luckily, after a 15-second search on Google for “where to atheists get their morals?” we can find such a clear presentation that we really needn’t keep wasting our time on you people who won’t look around to find answers to your questions.

    If you care, take 10 minutes and watch this.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGuVZmUVwcM

  212. on 10 May 2012 at 9:05 pm 212.Chris said …

    DPK -

    (I submitted an answer prior, but it didn’t post for some reason, so I am again)

    “Fair enough Chris.
    Two questions for you now.
    Would you agree with your fellow theists here, that that is an ABSOLUTE moral code, and not subject to relativism, because it is given by god, and not open to discussion or thought?”

    —-Of course we can discuss and think about moral, but that doesn’t change whether or not they are absolute. We can even disagree with them – but they still hold as absolute REGARDLESS of our opinion is. Yes, I believe morals are absolute as they are given by God. Without God? Nope, no absolute morals.

    “In other words, are you an absolute pacifist? Do you think there is EVER a moral reason to kill or do harm to someone? Not a “failing” but an instance when it would be more moral “not” to love your neighbor?”

    —–No. Neither you nor I have the right to kill someone – thus killing is NEVER moral – for ANY reason.

    “Be careful, because if you answer “No” you have then discounted the idea of an absolute morality from a supreme being”

    —No I don’t. You may think so, but if you are speaking to whether or not God can “kill” someone. Yes, he can and no, it’s not murder. This would be a question of can God judge his creation as he sees fit? You may think not, but that’s a matter of opinion when in fact ANY god would have such authority over his creation. However, no where in the Bible do you see God just “killing” people. I’m sure you’ll want to reference stuff, but I suggest you look before you post as this will hold.

    “If you answer “Yes” you are going to be challenged with specific examples that you will likely find tough to defend. Or, you can cede the point now that there is absolutely nothing absolute about your absolute moral code, and it simply evolved from human social order, without need for a magic man in the sky.”

    —- I didn’t say yes. So let’s deal with the later – if there is nothing absolute about a morall code, then all we have is opinion, as YES you are correct, you don’t need a magic man in the sky to form an opinion – ONLY for absolutes. But if it’s not absolute, then NOTHING is wrong, or evil – just different.

    “And secondly, what is it about “love your neighbor” that is philosophically so profound, that you feel it had to come from a divine source, because no mortal human could ever have conceived of such a notion? Specifics, please. Time to back your simplistic claims with actual reasons….”

    —- You mistake the issue of “thinking of it” with “authority behind it”. Sure we could have thought up Love your Neighbor. However, beyond and authority to ENFORCE it in some way, or to validate it BEYOND opinion, it’s nothing more than just that. So while it would be a nice idea, there’s no teeth or reason behind why I “have to.” Again, no absolutes.

    No absolutes = no evil, bad, etc…

  213. on 10 May 2012 at 9:21 pm 213.Lou (DFW) said …

    205.Chris said …

    “What is not “succinct” about the following?

    “1) Love God”

    Which god, an how is that moral?

    “2) Love your neighbor AS yourself.”

    Many people don’t “love themselves.” Can someone love their neighbor without loving them self?

    “3) Love your enemies”

    Define enemy. Does loving an enemy prevent defending to the death against an enemy’s attack?

    “And with 2) and 3) Jesus even provided examples explaing WHO our neighbors are (everyone) and how we are to act in the presences of our enemies.”

    If our neighbors are everyone, can they also be our enemy?

    “and how we are to act in the presences of our enemies.”

    Succinctly speaking, how is that?

  214. on 10 May 2012 at 9:32 pm 214.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “Which god, an how is that moral?”

    —-Well, considering that this command is given by JESUS, one would easily conclude the Judeo/Christian God. It’s moral BECAUSE God gave the command, and God – as shown to us by Jesus – is a perfect, loving being and our CREATOR. As such, his commands hold authority – ie. morals.

    “Many people don’t “love themselves.” Can someone love their neighbor without loving them self?”

    —Here now you are confusing ABILITY, with CLARITY. the command is quite clear, DESPITE our ability to do so.

    (this one is out of order)

    “If our neighbors are everyone, can they also be our enemy?”

    —-Really? That is EXACTLY the point! Even our ENEMIES are our neighbor…that really confused you?

    “and how we are to act in the presences of our enemies.”

    —-With humility and love, just as Jesus showed us.

    Hope that helps make them clearer for you.

  215. on 10 May 2012 at 9:45 pm 215.Lou (DFW) said …

    209.Chris said …

    “—-Well, considering that this command is given by JESUS”

    He hasn’t given me any commands. There isn’t any evidence that jesus was a god or of a god.

    “—Here now you are confusing ABILITY, with CLARITY. the command is quite clear, DESPITE our ability to do so.”

    Then why is everyone arguing about it. It obviously isn’t

    “If our neighbors are everyone, can they also be our enemy?”

    “—-Really? That is EXACTLY the point! Even our ENEMIES are our neighbor…that really confused you?”

    Our neighbors are everyone, including our enemies. If jesus told us how to treat our neighbors, then why did have to separately tell us how to treat our enemies?

    “and how we are to act in the presences of our enemies.”

    “—-With humility and love, just as Jesus showed us.”

    Jesus showed “us” nothing. In which wars did jesus defend his people against physical attack, rape, and murder?

  216. on 10 May 2012 at 10:01 pm 216.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “He hasn’t given me any commands. There isn’t any evidence that jesus was a god or of a god.”

    1) yes, in the Bible. You can reject it, but it’s there. 2) there is evidence, for one the Bible – you can reject it, but it’s there. Regardless, the answer hold whether you accept it or reject it.

    “Then why is everyone arguing about it. It obviously isn’t”

    Because we are selfish sinful people that truly do not wish to follow such a command. However, that doesn’t take away from it being right there, clear, and plain.

    “Our neighbors are everyone, including our enemies. If jesus told us how to treat our neighbors, then why did have to separately tell us how to treat our enemies?”

    Because he ADDED onto the command- which he can do, he’s God. If you read the Bible – you will see that Jesus took the commands “which the law and prophets hung on” and went even further with it.

    “Jesus showed “us” nothing. In which wars did jesus defend his people against physical attack, rape, and murder?”

    —this question is more telling than you know. I’m glad you asked it.. And if you are willing to drop your previous line of questioning, which you aren’t doing well on – we can dive into this one.

  217. on 10 May 2012 at 10:06 pm 217.Prime said …

    Holy black-and-white batshit, Bullman!

  218. on 10 May 2012 at 10:16 pm 218.Lou (DFW) said …

    211.Chris said …

    “1) yes, in the Bible. You can reject it, but it’s there. 2) there is evidence, for one the Bible – you can reject it, but it’s there. Regardless, the answer hold whether you accept it or reject it.”

    There are various other such commands in other alleged holy books that I don’t follow, and neither do you. Your claim that the bible is the word of a god is merit-less.

    “Then why is everyone arguing about it. It obviously isn’t”

    “Because we are selfish sinful people that truly do not wish to follow such a command. However, that doesn’t take away from it being right there, clear, and plain.”

    No, were’ arguing about the alleged moral code itself, not whether or not we follow it.

    “Our neighbors are everyone, including our enemies. If jesus told us how to treat our neighbors, then why did have to separately tell us how to treat our enemies?”

    “Because he ADDED onto the command- which he can do, he’s God. If you read the Bible – you will see that Jesus took the commands “which the law and prophets hung on” and went even further with it.”

    This nothing but circular reasoning, and thus invalid.

    “Jesus showed “us” nothing. In which wars did jesus defend his people against physical attack, rape, and murder?”

    “—this question is more telling than you know. I’m glad you asked it.. And if you are willing to drop your previous line of questioning, which you aren’t doing well on – we can dive into this one.”

    I have no interest in any further discussion about an alleged moral code provided by an imaginary god. Until you provide evidence for said god, then it’s actually all moot.

  219. on 10 May 2012 at 10:18 pm 219.Prime said …

    Aww… I was kind of hoping to find out which wars Jesus fought in.

  220. on 10 May 2012 at 11:29 pm 220.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “There are various other such commands in other alleged holy books that I don’t follow, and neither do you. Your claim that the bible is the word of a god is merit-less.”

    –Yes they do, obviously I’m speaking of the Christian God, which you knew going into this discussion. You asked questions that had very easy answers to and are now deflecting. You can and do reject God, and rock on with that, just admit it and be happy about it, but don’t ask “ignorant” type questions as if they don’t have an answer.

    “No, were’ arguing about the alleged moral code itself”

    —Correct, and I gave you God’s moral codes – the fact that people argue over them (because they don’t want to love as it is taught) speaks to US not God…though you wish it did speak to God. YOU confused ABILITY with CLARITY – and now are back to square one. I gave you the code SPECIFICALLY, accept it or rejected.

    “This nothing but circular reasoning, and thus invalid.”

    -If I make a game up and make it’s rules, the game has rules because I made them, now as creator of said game I can add rules to the game as CREATOR. Does that make my rules invalid? Of course not! The rules START and END with me, the creator of the game. Same with morals, God MADE morals, and the moral code, it starts and ends with HIM.

    “I have no interest in any further discussion about an alleged moral code provided by an imaginary god. Until you provide evidence for said god, then it’s actually all moot.”

    And that is what I figured you would say…rather just spout off and make your statement rather than have a discussion.

    If it’s a moot point, then why make the comment about “raping and killing” as if there is no real moral code, then those are NOT wrong – despite you wanting them to be, just your opinion and taste of personal behavior.

    But hey, don’t challenge your thoughts or beliefs, just keep rejecting them – it’s much safer that way.

  221. on 10 May 2012 at 11:32 pm 221.Chris said …

    “Until you provide evidence for said god, then it’s actually all moot.”

    –Perhaps that’s where the discussion will lead, Lou, discovering evidence you wish not to exist. Much safer, yes, to hide behind us not “PROVING” God – which isn’t our job anyway.

  222. on 10 May 2012 at 11:33 pm 222.Lou(DFW) said …

    215.Chris said …

    “-If I make a game up and make it’s rules, the game has rules because I made them, now as creator of said game I can add rules to the game as CREATOR.”

    That’s exactly what you do – you “make-up” the rules, starting with an imaginary god.

  223. on 10 May 2012 at 11:44 pm 223.Chris said …

    Lou-

    If he’s imaginary, why so much of the precious little time you have on earth arguing about that he doesn’t exist?

    You get one spin on this planet and THIS is how you spend it?

  224. on 10 May 2012 at 11:56 pm 224.Lou(DFW) said …

    216.Chris said …

    “–Perhaps that’s where the discussion will lead, Lou, discovering evidence you wish not to exist. Much safer, yes, to hide behind us not “PROVING” God – which isn’t our job anyway.”

    Obviously not, theists job is simply to claim that there is a god. That’s a much easier job than actually providing any evidence of it.

  225. on 11 May 2012 at 12:57 am 225.Chris said …

    Lou – YOU are the one not wanting to find out if there’s a God. Won’t even discuss it. Hmm…

  226. on 11 May 2012 at 1:55 am 226.Anonymous said …

    215.Chris said …

    -If I make a game up and make it’s rules, the game has rules because I made them, now as creator of said game I can add rules to the game as CREATOR.

    If you did that as creator of a game, then you’d be viewed as capricious and untrustworthy and people, rightly, would be frustrated and not want to play your game with you. You’d also not be able to claim any degree of forethought, let alone omniscience. So that’s an attribute we can remove from the Christian god according to your analogy.

    Yes they do, obviously I’m speaking of the Christian God, which you knew going into this discussion. You asked questions that had very easy answers to and are now deflecting. You can and do reject God, and rock on with that, just admit it and be happy about it, but don’t ask “ignorant” type questions as if they don’t have an answer.

    Do you “reject” these other gods in the same way that you believe Lou does of yours? Specifically, you seem to be implying that your god must exist for Lou to reject him. Do you, then, agree that Allah, Ra, Zeus, Thor, and others must also exist for you to reject them too? Your line of argument suggests that you do. If not, on what basis do you reject them and why the double standard?

    216 “Until you provide evidence for said god, then it’s actually all moot.”

    –Perhaps that’s where the discussion will lead, Lou, discovering evidence you wish not to exist. Much safer, yes, to hide behind us not “PROVING” God – which isn’t our job anyway.

    Then why are you hiding behind your excuses? You haven’t provided any evidence whatsoever. Please lead us to this evidence.

    Finally, yes, absolutely it’s your job to prove that your god exists. Until you do so it’s a figment of your imagination. There are tens of thousands of gods up for the taking we’re asking you to prove which ever one that you choose.

    Is your god the Christian god as described in the bible? Exactly as in the bible or do you have your own personal interpretation? Most Xtians fall in the later camp, is that where you would place yourself too?

    You make lots of assertions and provide no facts. The obvious connection is that you are afraid to try to prove your point because you KNOW that you will fail. That is why you hide behind the excuse of “I shouldn’t have to….” and “prove me wrong”. The problem there is that you haven’t provided anything other than words and empty ones at that.

  227. on 11 May 2012 at 3:10 am 227.Lou(DFW) said …

    219.Anonymous said …

    “If you did that as creator of a game, then you’d be viewed as capricious and untrustworthy and people, rightly, would be frustrated and not want to play your game with you.”

    Yes, that’s a common characteristic of theists here.

    “Do you “reject” these other gods in the same way that you believe Lou does of yours? Specifically, you seem to be implying that your god must exist for Lou to reject him.”

    Exactly. I don’t claim to “reject” God anymore than I “reject” Santa Claus. In order to reject God, it’s required to believe in him.

    “If not, on what basis do you reject them and why the double standard?”

    Because it’s all part of the intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy that is religion.

    Besides, it’s not required to treat enemies “with humility and love, just as Jesus showed us” when you can simply flood the entire earth and drown them, burn them to death in their cities, or send them to hell for eternity.

  228. on 11 May 2012 at 3:24 am 228.Lou(DFW) said …

    215.Chris said …

    “And that is what I figured you would say…rather just spout off and make your statement rather than have a discussion.”

    Actually, that’s what you hoped I would do.

    Your entire “discussion” is one of circular reasoning. One can only argue for so long and so many times against the theist argument that “because God commands it” or “it’s in the bible.”

  229. on 11 May 2012 at 4:17 am 229.Prime said …

    215.Chris said …

    “—Correct, and I gave you God’s moral codes – the fact that people argue over them (because they don’t want to love as it is taught) speaks to US not God…though you wish it did speak to God. YOU confused ABILITY with CLARITY – and now are back to square one. I gave you the code SPECIFICALLY, accept it or rejected.”

    Wait, Chris, are you suddenly claiming that your little list there “love God, love neighbor” is clear? That’s all the clarity that’s needed? Really? That’s all the clarity God Almighty could provide? Really? Wow… God’s bad at clarity.

    Do tell, is it ethical for me to produce television commercials for a product that I sell knowing full well that I’m targeting those commercials to millions of children below the age of reason in an overt effort, based upon psychological research that shows that it works, to get those children to be unruly and to coerce their parents into spending money on the products that I’m trying to sell? Did God’s laws cover that?

    I’d reckon you’ll argue that “love thy neighbor” covers it, but then surely we can clearly draw the line between when my commercials are wrongly manipulative of the children I seek to influence and when they’re reasonable advertising, and Jesus painted that perfectly clearly for everyone by saying “love thy neighbor.” Is that what you’re saying?

    PS: I know I can improve myself, but get off your weird stance where you feel the need to try to convince people that they suck simply for being born. We’re not all failures, ffs. Can’t you see how inhuman your religion is when you stare at the face of how much it openly hates humans?

  230. on 11 May 2012 at 4:21 am 230.Prime said …

    Let’s toss out another one Jesus was no doubt clear on.

    I love my neighbor like Jesus said.
    I know my neighbor is allergic to wood smoke, but not in a way that will kill him–it just makes him really uncomfortable and the smell bothers him.
    I rather like the smell of wood smoke and find it pleasing. Moreover, I can cut my winter heating costs by 75% and would essentially be unable to pay some of my bills if I didn’t burn wood to stay warm in the winter.

    Should I or should I not burn wood? What sayeth Jesus on that? How much wood is an acceptable compromise?

    How does it change when I realize how carcinogenic wood smoke is? How about when I realize that I expose every person within about half a mile to a significant number of carcinogenic compounds that may exceed those in second-hand tobacco smoke when I burn wood in my fireplace in the winter? What sayeth the Good Lord, clearly like a Good Shepherd would, on that?

  231. on 11 May 2012 at 4:23 am 231.Prime said …

    Actually… one more… a really good one.

    What did Jesus say, specifically, about failing to learn about a group of people thoroughly and then lying about them, intentionally or by repeating the ignorant lies of others? How much of that kind of lying is OK by “love God, love neighbor”?

  232. on 11 May 2012 at 4:27 am 232.Prime said …

    Maybe you can also explain why a far more succinct and meaningful moral code than the one given by Jesus-God would have been, instead of “love God, love neighbor,”

    “Don’t be a jerk. Err on the side of caution.”

  233. on 11 May 2012 at 5:24 am 233.Severin said …

    215 Chris
    “—Correct, and I gave you God’s moral codes“

    Where? When?
    By citing a few bullshits like „love your neighbor“, „love your enemy“, „do not kill“ and „love your god“?

    The moral code I have in my mind is much, much longer list of what is allowed to do and what is wrong.
    MY PERSONAL moral code works perfectly! I never ever had any problems with it and never came to conflict with single people or with society I share the planet with.
    I also never had problems with my conscience.

    I would feel very bad if I had to conclude what to do if I followed Bible. I would feel confused and uninformed and misguided.

    One „part“ of your god („father“?) teaches us how to beat slaves.
    Another part of your god („son“?) never mentions slavery is wrong.
    „Father“ orders us to young ladies who married as non-virgin.
    „Son“ does NOT say that is wrong, on the contrary, he threatens us that such laws will last for ever!
    It is

    There is absolutely no moral code of any kind in the Bible.

  234. on 11 May 2012 at 7:04 am 234.Severin said …

    205 Chris
    “What is not “succinct” about the following?
    1) Love God
    2) Love your neighbor AS yourself.
    3) Love your enemies”

    My problem is in those 3 points are not enough to represent a moral code.
    What else has your god (Bible) to say about morality?

    What about slavery?
    What about stoning of non-virgin brides?
    What about stoning of disobedient children?
    What about “other cheek”?
    It is NOT written in my personal moral code to turn the other cheek when someone attacks me! My reaction would be: 1. to avoid the problem, and try to solve it without force, and without conflicts, or, 2. to defend myself and/or my child and/or my community the best way I can, including the physical means, including weapons if necessary (depending on situation), and including killing if I, or my children, or my community would be mortally endangered.
    What bloody other cheek?! What a bullshit!

    Do you think it would be wrong?

  235. on 11 May 2012 at 7:07 am 235.Severin said …

    Chris,
    In other words, if I love a god (or, must I specifically love the Christian god?), I love my neighbor and I love my enemies, I can have slaves, and I can kill my wife when she commit adultery, because at no place in the Bible such things are said to be wrong (on the contrary, they were said to be O.K.!)?

  236. on 11 May 2012 at 11:54 am 236.Lou(DFW) said …

    226.Severin said …

    215 Chris
    “—Correct, and I gave you God’s moral codes“

    “Where? When?
    By citing a few bullshits like „love your neighbor“, „love your enemy“, „do not kill“ and „love your god“?”

    You must give him credit for being semi-succinct. His answer was definitely brief, but definitely not clear and precise. But that’s they way religion works.

  237. on 11 May 2012 at 12:37 pm 237.alex said …

    The Christian Moral Code is pure b.s. It’s a cover, a smug, “I’m better than you because I got’s the CODE”. Since, the Code came from the Bible, there are other things that you need to do, coz the Bible is the WORD!

    Reminds me of a bumper sticker that says “Be Nice to Bicyclists”. wtf? Ain’t I suppose to? How’s about “Xtians, Be Nice to your kids, Don’t Beat Them”.

    The Christian Moral Code, please list them and the passage where they came from.

  238. on 11 May 2012 at 1:22 pm 238.40 year Atheist said …

    Atheists seem not able to see themselves as anything other than the mythological creatures they create in their own imaginations: rational, good without morals, superior thereby. Why can they not see that by not having moral standards it is perfectly necessary that they do not share the values of the majority of Americans who do have moral standards? What seems so obvious is perfectly opaque to Atheists.

    The Atheist Ethicist is wasting his time crying bigotry for not considering Atheists to be “good”. Rather he should tell us exactly what “good” means to an Atheist. What does it mean to every Atheist? Do they have anything in common, morally? Why do they need Atheist Ethicists? He should tell us exactly why anyone, any Atheist even, is justified in trusting another Atheist, in view of the admitted moral void attached to Atheism.

    With no moral basis, why trust them?

    It seems that Atheists are quite comfortable with their individual, personal “ethics”, all of which are different, yet all of which are “good” by their own definition. They are so comfortable being “good” under these tautological circumstances that they are completely unable to identify with anyone who uses a different authority to establish a stable concept of morality. Such stability in morality is actually feared by Atheists, who get their dander up at the thought of moral absolutes. They would fail under absolutes, and they know it. They could never declare themselves good, all good, billboard good, under absolutes. Those who subscribe to stable concepts of morality are to be feared.

    After all, not all lifestyles would be considered moral under absolutes. Under relativism it is possible to accept whatever is convenient at the moment: homosexuality, then pedophilia; abortion, then infanticide. No problem. It’s all good, just ask the ethicist.

    Well, of course it’s not ALL good. It is bigotry to question the values of an Atheist. Again, just ask the Atheist Ethicist.

    The Atheist Ethicist goes even further: it is bigotry writ into the currency, into the pledge, into the minds of children the moment they enter school the first day. Bigotry institutionalized and focused on the poor Atheist. Apparently the cure would be to institutionalize Atheism instead, to teach relativism and moral voids and fear of absolutes and intellectual grounding. One nation, without God, in the absence of absolutes…? In Atheism We Trust…? No absolutes need apply…? Relativism institutionalized and religion legislated against due to its bigotry? All contrary arguments outlawed due to bigotry? (After all, bigotry is already a hate crime). Consequences can be ornery things. And denying them just makes the suspicion even worse.

    None of this seems to be apparent to the Atheists who see no problems with their own versions of “goodness” conflicting with reality, much less other versions of goodness.

  239. on 11 May 2012 at 1:33 pm 239.Lou(DFW) said …

    231.40 year Atheist said …

    “Atheists seem not able to see themselves as anything other than the mythological creatures they create in their own imaginations: rational, good without morals, superior thereby.”

    Another 40 year dumb-ass straw man argument. And he prides himself on being logical. Nothing could be further from the truth – just like a belief in an imaginary god.

  240. on 11 May 2012 at 1:42 pm 240.Curmudgeon said …

    “He should tell us exactly why anyone, any Atheist even, is justified in trusting another Atheist, in view of the admitted moral void attached to Atheism.”

    We do not. Their noted cheapness to charities reflects their tag line of “Look out for number 1″

  241. on 11 May 2012 at 1:46 pm 241.Chris said …

    Anon -

    ““Then why are you hiding behind your excuses? You haven’t provided any evidence whatsoever. Please lead us to this evidence.”

    1) we were discussing the Christian moral code. Lou didn’t see where it existed, I pointed it out to him, he closed the discussion calling it moot because there’s no evidence for God.

    2) I offered to him to continue the discussion and perhaps he would see some evidence…

    I can’t make Lou discuss what he is afraid to talk about.

    If you would like to, I’m all for it!

    However,

    1) I can’t prove God no more than you can disprove him – it’s just a fact we both should admit.

    2) It isn’t my job to prove God, because God doesn’t NEED me to prove himself.

    3) I can point you TO God and show you what I find to be reasons for belief in him…but you are certainly free to reject it.

    Lou wasn’t willing to, are you?

  242. on 11 May 2012 at 1:49 pm 242.Chris said …

    Sev -

    “In other words, if I love a god (or, must I specifically love the Christian god?), I love my neighbor and I love my enemies, I can have slaves, and I can kill my wife when she commit adultery, because at no place in the Bible such things are said to be wrong (on the contrary, they were said to be O.K.!)?”

    —-This is showing a vast misunderstanding of several things.

    1) understanding of life in the ANE
    2) God’s covenant with the Jewish nation
    3) the new covenant God has made with us all.

    Short answer: No, it would not be “loving” for you to do as you have listed.

    we could go into this more, if you’d like and I can explain why the OT and NOW are quite diffent in terms of how we are to be and how times were in the ANE.

  243. on 11 May 2012 at 1:52 pm 243.alex said …

    1) I can’t prove Allah no more than you can disprove him – it’s just a fact we both should admit.

    …therefore, Allah is the One True God!

    2) It isn’t my job to prove Allah, because Allah doesn’t NEED me to prove himself.

    …Muhammad’s magical horse doesn’t need proof. It’s all written and it’s the Truth.

    3) I can point you TO Allah and show you what I find to be reasons for belief in him…but you are certainly free to reject it.

    …shit, I’m convinced. Praise Allah and damn those Xtian infidels. Allah Akbar!

  244. on 11 May 2012 at 1:54 pm 244.DPK said …

    So Chris… the almighty omnipotent and omniscient eternal creator of the universe changed his mind?

    What about “until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter of the law…………”
    Last I checked, at least the earth is still here.
    And lastly, why does god need you to explain to me what he “really” means when he instructs us on the proper way to beat our slaves and the other moral atrocities prescribed by him in the bible?

  245. on 11 May 2012 at 1:55 pm 245.Anonymous said …

    40YFallacyWeaver..

    The usual stuff. False premise, word salad, erroneous conclusion. No wonder he’s too afraid to debate his comments anywhere other then the place where be bans people for disagreeing with him. What a hypocrite and certainly not someone anyone could hold up as a example of someone with morals.

    Let’s just pick one of his most flagrant falsehoods. “He should tell us exactly why anyone, any Atheist even, is justified in trusting another Atheist, in view of the admitted moral void attached to Atheism.”

    He should? Why should anyone take direction from you? Tell us what makes you an authority on what people should do at your behest. Narcissistic much?

    OK, you feel like handing out challenges, here’s one for you. No doubt you’ll flee as you always do when challenged.

    Why don’t you, Stan, explain to us why supposedly godly-inspired moral Christians are over-represented in the prison population in America whereas the atheists that you falsely accuse (false generalizations – one of Stan’s top fallacies) are under-represented? Also, FFS Stan, learn the proper use of capitalization would you? You embarrass yourself.

    Stan, almost all that you do is attack other people and hide in a mess of rhetoric and misapplied words and concepts. How childish is that? Is the sum of your logic and morals that if someone holds differing views that you must demean them, because we all know you refuse to get off your high horse and prove that your gibberish and nonsense about non-material material entities, and demanding that people prove you wrong by measuring the unmeasurable, and testing the untestable, has any bearing on anything remotely connected to reality.

    No Stan. Until you can demonstrate that have a basis in reality for your platform, you may bluster and bully all you like, but no-one here has anything to justify to someone such as yourself.

  246. on 11 May 2012 at 2:27 pm 246.Anonymous said …

    Chris, you didn’t comment on the following. It’s connected with your next post too.

    Please answer it because it’s key to the comment about people “rejecting” your god and why you “reject” other people’s gods.

    Do you “reject” these other gods in the same way that you believe Lou does of yours? Specifically, you seem to be implying that your god must exist for Lou to reject him. Do you, then, agree that Allah, Ra, Zeus, Thor, and others must also exist for you to reject them too? Your line of argument suggests that you do. If not, on what basis do you reject them and why the double standard?

    Do you agree that your answer has a direct bearing to the following which you posted after you were asked the above?

    1) I can’t prove God no more than you can disprove him – it’s just a fact we both should admit.

    2) It isn’t my job to prove God, because God doesn’t NEED me to prove himself.

    3) I can point you TO God and show you what I find to be reasons for belief in him…but you are certainly free to reject it.

    Can I disprove something that has never been proven to exist? Can you disprove Russell’s teapot? No, you can’t disprove it anymore than you can disprove that I currently have an invisible, undetectable, elf called Simon siting in my jacket pocket. Are those claims true? No, but you can’t disprove them either.

    Also, you didn’t clarify which version of the Christian god you believe in? Is it the god of the bible. No debate, no “interpretation”, as stated in the bible, or do you have your own “personal” relationship / view. It seems that you want to claim that someone can’t disprove something that you won’t define. Is that to leave a get-out-of-disproof-free card on the table?

    Now, point 3. Why are you making this like pulling teeth? Are you one of those believers that constantly claims to have some kind of proof but always finds a way not to provide it? I may ask you this, but I’m trying to respond as if it’s not so.

    If it’s because someone is going to say “the bible isn’t proof of the bible” or “that’s an argument from ignorance / incredulity”, or “how is that any different from what happens if there is no god”, or “how do you know which god is responsible”, or “anecdotes are not evidence”, then what you have are rationalizations or excuses.

    If that’s the case then say that’s the nature of what you believe. You won’t gain any converts but at least you’ll be being honest and not appearing to prevaricate and avoid the question.

  247. on 11 May 2012 at 2:40 pm 247.Prime said …

    He didn’t answer my more specific moral questions either. You’d think, as a Christian who feels like he can summarize the whole of the Christian moral code in three short sentences, that he’d be competent to answer some easy questions like whether or not I’m allowed to make television commmercials or burn wood in my fireplace. He might also comment on how God’s morals, clearly expressed by Jesus, work with moving the goal posts and shifting the burden of proof.

    It’s been a long, long time since the “God is obvious” argument carried any weight. That, in fact, is the great contribution of Pascal with his pathetic (and destroyed) wager: no one can realistically say God is obvious as he very, very clearly laid out in his Pensees, even if he went completely doltish with it afterward.

    Of course, that hasn’t stopped disingenuous hacks like William Lane Craig from using appeals to the “self-authenticating nature of the holy spirit.” My clock elves, which turn the hands in my clock, are self-authenticating too.

  248. on 11 May 2012 at 2:41 pm 248.Anonymous said …

    236.Alex. I can’t accept that.

    The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists outside of space and time and it was His Noodliness who created all the world’s holy books and planted false evidence and beliefs in order to weed out the cognoscenti from the easily led. I feel it in my heart, thus it is true.

    Further, in my FSM study class, we learned how He predicted that the disbelievers would question His existence, thus proving His existence and demonstrating His unfailing record in answered predictions.

    How else would I have felt inspired as to where to find a gas station last night when the orange light was blinking, I was miles from anywhere, and I had just offered a prayer asking for His Noodly Appendage to guide me in the right direction? Explain that away!

  249. on 11 May 2012 at 3:17 pm 249.Boz said …

    Prime & Anon

    You should know by now you fallacies are inadmissible.

    The Verdict:
    @Plop@

    “None of this seems to be apparent to the Atheists who see no problems with their own versions of “goodness” conflicting with reality”

    They know they have no basis of a moral code other than relativity. Therefore when the Atheist happens to be a bad fellow, his morality has the same weight as the guud Atheists. Quite the quandary and quite a problem, so, lets attack the morality of others. It is a typical human reaction politicians employ.

  250. on 11 May 2012 at 3:28 pm 250.alex said …

    “How else would I have felt inspired as to where to find a gas station last night when the orange light was blinking, I was miles from anywhere, and I had just offered a prayer asking for His Noodly Appendage to guide me in the right direction? Explain that away”

    …it’s God’s will that you found the station! Proof enough for these godless atheists? God intercepted your pathetic Noodly Appendage prayer and intervened for your obvious benefit. Rejoice in your good fortune and go Praise the Lord!

    now, go beat the homosexual shit out of your gay son. if that doesn’t work, pray for him and send him to catholic counseling.

  251. on 11 May 2012 at 3:34 pm 251.Prime said …

    242.Boz said …

    “You should know by now you fallacies are inadmissible.”

    Boz, you should know by know that your illiteracy is inadmissible, but….

    Also, show me my fallacies. Show me even one.

  252. on 11 May 2012 at 3:59 pm 252.Severin said …

    235 Chris
    “we could go into this more, if you’d like and I can explain why the OT and NOW are quite diffent in terms of how we are to be and how times were in the ANE.“

    I would not like, thanks.
    NOT because I am stubborn or closed minded, no.
    Why would your „going into this more“ be more correct than mine?
    I am an intelligent, educated man and I am able to understand what is said or written myself.
    Do you have some licence from god to interpret his words?

    Morality is SO IMPORTANT IN MY LIFE, that I expect anyone, especially a god, who wants and expects me to follow a given moral code, to give me clear, complete, undisputed list of rules, wihout a single obscurity, without any contradiction, without any possibility to make mistake (EXCEPT IF I WANT TO, by my free will), to enable me, in case I am not sure what to do in a situation, to make my decision in seconds, by one single look: THIS is O.K., THAT is wrong.
    It is my RIGHT to expect to get clear rules from anyone who expects me to follow them.

    Why should I give a shit for what a god taught goat herders 3000 years ago?
    I might agree that for THAT time, maybe his „moral code“ given to those people was O.K., but it induces vomiting in my body TODAY.
    IT IS DISGUSTING.
    If god wanted me to follow it today, he SHOULD NOT write in the Bible anything about old laws that have to last for ever. It confuses me!
    If god wanted me to accept some other moral rules, he HAD to write somewhere: people, from now on, you have new rules to follow, and the old ones are CANCELED.

    But no!

    What he actually did, he gave us a few confused and contadictory „new rules“, through Jesus’ mouths, like „love your enemy“ (do you love Bin Laden?), „love your neigbor“ (would you love your neighbor who beats his wife and his childre?), „offer another cheek“ (which is totally against my character, and I am absolutely positive it is agains ANYONE’S character), but he NEVER EVER said old rules were invalid. On the contrary, he KEPT the old rules valid (Jesus again!) by saying us that they will last as long as the earth and the sky last!

    Sorry, I can’t follow such confusion!
    I will keep following my personal mral code. Even if god comes tomorrow to me and tels me to follow his moral code, I will refuse, because my moral code I am living accordingly, is far much better than his so called „moral code“.
    My list of moral rules is much longer than god’s one, and is very, very clear: i DO precisely know what is right and what is wrong to do, and rules from my lists do not fit ANY of god’s rules.
    Not a single one!

  253. on 11 May 2012 at 4:09 pm 253.Severin said …

    “Stan, almost all that you do is attack other people and hide in a mess of rhetoric…”

    That is not rhetoric.
    That is pure demagogy, I do not read his blah-blahs and I ignore the guy totally.
    Maybe he would spare us his demagogy if we all ignored him for some time.

  254. on 11 May 2012 at 4:24 pm 254.Severin said …

    Severin 245
    Correction:
    If god wanted me to stop following it (the goat herders “moral code”) today, he SHOULD NOT write in the Bible anything about old laws that have to last for ever. It confuses me!

  255. on 11 May 2012 at 4:32 pm 255.Lou(DFW) said …

    234.Chris said …

    Anon -

    “1) we were discussing the Christian moral code. Lou didn’t see where it existed, I pointed it out to him, he closed the discussion calling it moot because there’s no evidence for God.”

    The discussion was “Where in the Bible, or anywhere, is there a succinct, complete description of the Christian Moral Code?”

    You never did that, and you also continued to answer with circular reasoning.

  256. on 11 May 2012 at 4:35 pm 256.Lou(DFW) said …

    242.Boz said …

    “You should know by now you fallacies are inadmissible.”

    You should know by now that your claims of a god are inadmissible without evidence.

    Come back when you have some.

  257. on 11 May 2012 at 4:37 pm 257.Lou(DFW) said …

    242.Boz said …

    “They know they have no basis of a moral code other than relativity. Therefore when the Atheist happens to be a bad fellow, his morality has the same weight as the guud Atheists. Quite the quandary and quite a problem, so, lets attack the morality of others. It is a typical human reaction politicians employ.”

    First of all, that’s untrue.

    Second, EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE, then it’s irrelevant to the FACT that you NEVER, EVER, present evidence for your imaginary god.

    Come back when you have some.

  258. on 11 May 2012 at 4:39 pm 258.Lou(DFW) said …

    244.Prime said …

    “Boz, you should know by know that your illiteracy is inadmissible, but….

    Also, show me my fallacies. Show me even one.”

    He will not.

  259. on 11 May 2012 at 5:20 pm 259.Prime said …

    Bozland: Where asking questions that some people don’t want to answer constitutes a “fallacy.”
    Bozland: Where fallacy is a word you don’t know but that your opponents use on you a lot so you feel great about using it back on them in odd ways.
    Bozland: Where grammar is optional for making points.

    There you go, Boz. You can call this an ad hominem.
    (Except that it isn’t. I’m merely insulting you. I’m not saying your arguments are wrong because you’re an imbecile, I’m just saying you’re an imbecile.)

  260. on 11 May 2012 at 5:22 pm 260.Prime said …

    PS: If you can find the comma splice I accidentally left in that previous post, I’ll halfway consider taking back the grammar comment on the additional condition that you actually use you, your, and you’re correctly from now on.

  261. on 11 May 2012 at 5:34 pm 261.Chris said …

    sev -

    “If god wanted me to follow it today, he SHOULD NOT write in the Bible anything about old laws that have to last for ever. It confuses me!
    If god wanted me to accept some other moral rules, he HAD to write somewhere: people, from now on, you have new rules to follow, and the old ones are CANCELED.”

    Actually, he did exactly that!

    But hey, that’s fine, rock on with your belief…I offered – can’t force you to try and understand further.

  262. on 11 May 2012 at 5:35 pm 262.Boz said …

    Prime when you resort to commenting on you vs your, I know the Atheist has lost.

    The Atheist moral code of insults, middle school taunts, denial and fallacies brings a tear to my eye.

    You mean I could reject what is so obvious, God, and have all that? Really, is this the selling point on Atheism?

    No thanks! Even if I didn’t believe in God I would want nothing to do with being a 25 yr old adolescent.

  263. on 11 May 2012 at 5:37 pm 263.Chris said …

    Sev -

    “If god wanted me to stop following it (the goat herders “moral code”) today, he SHOULD NOT write in the Bible anything about old laws that have to last for ever. It confuses me!”

    The ONLY laws that have to last forever where the one’s I pointed out.

    The rules you read in the OT were for the Jews ONLY – AT THAT TIME.

    The ones WE have to follow are the one’s I listed – that’s IT.

    See, there is more to understand that what you think you know about the Bible. and I would be happy to help clear some stuff up for you.

  264. on 11 May 2012 at 5:38 pm 264.Chris said …

    Lou

    “You never did that, and you also continued to answer with circular reasoning.”

    No, I DID provide it.

    And even answered your(which God??) questions – in a clear manner.

    What part of ANY of those three commands is still unclear to you?

  265. on 11 May 2012 at 5:41 pm 265.Prime said …

    255.Boz said …

    “Prime when you resort to commenting on you vs your, I know the Atheist has lost.”

    I’ve only ignored it at least a dozen times that I’ve counted before deciding to stick you in the ribs for it. Hey… one for each disciple, and then Judas sticking you. It’s great!

    PS: Great job pointing out my fallacies. Lou(DFW) wins on the prediction–maybe he’s a prophet! He should have added “..he’ll just talk in sweeping generalities that are lies at their cores.”

    Speaking of prophets, didn’t Jesus say something about coming back within that generation, and then that didn’t happen? It wouldn’t be so interesting and significant if the bible didn’t admonish so clearly against believing false prophets. Seems to me that the Muslims (or atheists) score a point on that one. Thanks, Jesus!

  266. on 11 May 2012 at 5:43 pm 266.Chris said …

    Sev -

    If you didn’t want to discuss the answers to your questions, then why ask them?

    Why bother with this at all?

    If God doesn’t exist, why are you wasting so much of the precious little time you have left on this earth arguing with folks like me and re-convincing yourself you don’t believe in him?

    You only get one spin around this earth (as you believe) so why waste ANY time on in on here, arguing with me?

  267. on 11 May 2012 at 5:43 pm 267.Lou(DFW) said …

    257.Chris said …

    “What part of ANY of those three commands is still unclear to you?”

    What part of succinct is not clear to you?

  268. on 11 May 2012 at 5:44 pm 268.Prime said …

    Chris… care to answer my questions about wood burning and television commercials and telling lies about groups of people that you’re misrepresenting, then?

    Oh, and tack on that bit in my last post… explain how Jesus wasn’t a false prophet, and thus shouldn’t be believed, according to his book, because his prophesies about himself didn’t even come true. I know that’s separate from morals, but, you know, you might as well take care of that while you’re here.

  269. on 11 May 2012 at 5:45 pm 269.Chris said …

    Lou -

    As for circular reasoning.

    my morals are grounded in God (outside myself, outside others), while yours are only grounded in YOU and those you already AGREE with – THAT is circular my friend.

  270. on 11 May 2012 at 5:47 pm 270.Chris said …

    Prime -

    “Chris… care to answer my questions about wood burning and television commercials and telling lies about groups of people that you’re misrepresenting, then?

    Oh, and tack on that bit in my last post… explain how Jesus wasn’t a false prophet, and thus shouldn’t be believed, according to his book, because his prophesies about himself didn’t even come true. I know that’s separate from morals, but, you know, you might as well take care of that while you’re here.”

    I’ll have to look back at your posts (there were quite a few addressed to me, so I apologize for missing it).

    Certainly I will address the questions, I am happy to – I haven’t been the one shrinking from ANY conversation on here, so I welcome one with you Prime!

  271. on 11 May 2012 at 6:08 pm 271.Prime said …

    259.Chris said …

    “You only get one spin around this earth (as you believe) so why waste ANY time on in on here, arguing with me?”

    Because you idiots won’t shut up and keep passing laws based on your idiotic book of not-morals that frack up life for everyone, at least when others of you aren’t losing your marbles over the fact that everyone doesn’t think exactly the same way and then going on a shooting spree. That’s why.

  272. on 11 May 2012 at 6:15 pm 272.Lou(DFW) said …

    262.Chris said …

    “my morals are grounded in God (outside myself, outside others), while yours are only grounded in YOU and those you already AGREE with – THAT is circular my friend.”

    First, I haven’t discussed my morals with you. So I haven’t made any arguments about them, much less circular arguments.

    Second, that my morals are “grounded” in me and those I agree with is in no way circular. You obviously don’t understand the meaning of circular reasoning anymore than you understand the meaning of succinct.

    Lastly, discussion about morals are irrelevant to any evidence about god, yet you continue to reply to comments about morals, but you don’t reply with any evidence for your imaginary god. Until you do, then the idea that your morals come from a god are moot until you provide evidence of your god. What part of that don’t you understand?

  273. on 11 May 2012 at 6:17 pm 273.alex said …

    “You only get one spin around this earth (as you believe) so why waste ANY time on in on here, arguing with me?”

    gay marriage ban. bibles in hotels. creationism. god on money, capital punishment, abortion, etc…want more?

  274. on 11 May 2012 at 6:18 pm 274.Lou(DFW) said …

    263.Chris said …

    “Certainly I will address the questions, I am happy to – I haven’t been the one shrinking from ANY conversation on here, so I welcome one with you Prime!”

    The point isn’t whether or not you are “shrinking from ANY conversation,” it’s that you don’t add anything that’s relevant to the commenters’ questions.

  275. on 11 May 2012 at 6:20 pm 275.Prime said …

    Also, since you want to know why we discuss with you, you need to study the pattern on these blog post comment threads. They more or less all go like this.

    1. Blog post.
    2. Some silly/snarky comments by atheist readers, occasionally including witty and/or insightful points. Sometimes zero of these happen before…
    3. Christian supremacy comes in and says a bunch of ridiculous stuff, often involving gross distortions of truth, often about atheists, although sometimes focusing on trying to debunk the actual blog post directly.
    4. These arguments.

    Read that list carefully. See where the arguments start. Why do we let it go from 3 to 4? Well, you Christians (and other religious folk) are kind of used to spilling your theistic garbage all over the place and having it go unchallenged. The point of this website is specifically to challenge theistic garbage, so when you spill it here, it gets challenged. It turns into an argument because you all will never, ever do the one thing you have to do to get your arguments off the ground and yet fight for your point like rabid wolves.

  276. on 11 May 2012 at 6:43 pm 276.DPK said …

    “I’m not saying your arguments are wrong because you’re an imbecile, I’m just saying you’re an imbecile.”

    Thanks for the best laugh I’ve had all day Prime….

  277. on 11 May 2012 at 7:13 pm 277.A said …

    Chris

    I want to be helpful to you my friend. Just admonish Lou with the same out he takes (see 200).

    Tell him to review the site and the Gospels to see what the Christian moral code would be. Don’t waste a lot of time on this farce.

    These people are not REALLY this stupid, they just like to argue and offer up the fallacies that Boz has referenced.

    Then ask them to provide the source for their ethics as 40 YA has asked. During my time here, they always ignore this question.

  278. on 11 May 2012 at 7:22 pm 278.A said …

    Prime

    Thank you for spelling out the purpose of the website. I thought the purpose was to ask “Why won’t God heal amputees”. I thought the secondary purpose would be to answer thread topics ranging from politics to ethics.

    BTW,

    “1. Blog post.” is not a complete sentence. Those who live in glass houses should not cast stones.

    That was just too easy. I noticed Lou and Prime like to use the terms “never ever” quite a bit.

  279. on 11 May 2012 at 7:31 pm 279.Chris said …

    Prime -

    “Because you idiots won’t shut up and keep passing laws based on your idiotic book of not-morals that frack up life for everyone, at least when others of you aren’t losing your marbles over the fact that everyone doesn’t think exactly the same way and then going on a shooting spree. That’s why.”

    Prime, you don’t know me from a hole in the ground. you have NO IDEA what laws I agree with and ones I DON’T agree with. YOU ASSUME I am a certain way because you WANT me to be that way, because it makes it easier for you to hate something that you believe doesn’t exist.

    If it all ends in a zero sum – which you beleive it does…you ARE wasting your time, because in the end, when’s it ALL GONE…your efforts will be what?

    Gone.

    Lost.

    The universe won’t care what you have done.

    Besides, just because you disagree with laws (rant) all you are spouting is OPINION not FACT. So you are now
    1) Wasting your precious time on something you DON’T believe in
    2) are now ARGUING OPINION. Because, if anything has been shown here, it’s that atheist AT LEAST agree there are no “absolutes”. So you are ranting about OPINION.
    3) if you disagree with the laws, actually get out and DO SOMETHING, petition, start a group, whatever…ranting on here won’t get it accomplished.

  280. on 11 May 2012 at 7:36 pm 280.Chris said …

    Lou -

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

    Second: “Second, that my morals are “grounded” in me and those I agree with is in no way circular.”

    Lou you just basically said this: My morals are grounded in ME and I agree with these because they are my morals.

    Yes, sir that IS circular.

    and so you don’t have to click the link Lou -

    suc·cinct? ?/s?k?s??kt/ Show Spelled[suhk-singkt] Show IPA
    adjective
    1. expressed in few words; concise; terse.
    2. characterized by conciseness or verbal brevity.
    3. compressed into a small area, scope, or compass.
    4. Archaic .
    a. drawn up, as by a girdle.
    b. close-fitting.
    c. encircled, as by a girdle.

    take care, bud. when you are ready to talk, I am. seriously, enough of this silliness, you are not helping yourself.

  281. on 11 May 2012 at 7:44 pm 281.Chris said …

    Prime:

    “1. Let’s toss out another one Jesus was no doubt clear on.
    I love my neighbor like Jesus said.
    I know my neighbor is allergic to wood smoke, but not in a way that will kill him–it just makes him really uncomfortable and the smell bothers him.
    I rather like the smell of wood smoke and find it pleasing. Moreover, I can cut my winter heating costs by 75% and would essentially be unable to pay some of my bills if I didn’t burn wood to stay warm in the winter.
    Should I or should I not burn wood? What sayeth Jesus on that? How much wood is an acceptable compromise?”

    —Hmm…well, I can’t say what Jesus would say, because I can’t speak for him. Probably he would heal your neighbor and make it a moot point. As for me what I WOULD DO? Simple, I would talk to my neighbor about the situation as I’m sure he and I could find an agreeable situation.

    “How does it change when I realize how carcinogenic wood smoke is? How about when I realize that I expose every person within about half a mile to a significant number of carcinogenic compounds that may exceed those in second-hand tobacco smoke when I burn wood in my fireplace in the winter? What sayeth the Good Lord, clearly like a Good Shepherd would, on that?”

    —Well, the Lord MIGHT – as he did in the Bible – as YOU how you feel about doing it? Second, there ARE alternative fuels that one can use, so unless you LIKE poisoning your fellow man, you could try one of those – after all, stoves have come a long way.

    Any other silly questions you have?

    I’m curious of your definition of Love…

  282. on 11 May 2012 at 7:47 pm 282.Chris said …

    Prime -

    “What did Jesus say, specifically, about failing to learn about a group of people thoroughly and then lying about them, intentionally or by repeating the ignorant lies of others? How much of that kind of lying is OK by “love God, love neighbor”?

    no lying is okay, that’s not love.

    Again, I wonder about your definition of love. Jesus’ definition is quite different I bet, and one you wouldn’t like…hence why you want to make light of it.

    It calls you to something more than you want to do, and you can, have at it!

    But hey, as an atheist there IS NO STANDARD one needs to worry about – anything goes, because there’s no absolutes, it’s all opinion.

  283. on 11 May 2012 at 7:51 pm 283.Chris said …

    prime -

    Ooops!

    Forgot about the television.

    Well, lying to decieve for one’s OWN goals, is not loving when it takes advantage of others, so…

    Yeah, it’s covered. Quite simple.

    love God
    Love your neighbor
    love your enemy.

    Let me ask you Prime…can you love your enemy? And I mean really? do you love me? you called me and idiot, so it that what a loving person would do?

    well, I love you Prime. i wouldn’t call you an idiot, or anyone on here.

    I love you all!

  284. on 11 May 2012 at 7:53 pm 284.Chris said …

    Alex -

    “gay marriage ban. bibles in hotels. creationism. god on money, capital punishment, abortion, etc…want more?”

    So in the end when the world is gone…it will all be worth it? It won’t MATTER one BIT what you have done.

    YOU might feel better about yourself, tho you seem fairly angry – but woohoo! you feel better about yourself…when it’s all said and done…

    it’s worthless.

    And that is the truth you have before you with your belief.

  285. on 11 May 2012 at 7:55 pm 285.Severin said …

    256 Chris
    “The ONLY laws that have to last forever where the one’s I pointed out.“

    Are you deliberately lying or are you so much deluded that you don’t know what you are talking about, and fall in unintentional lying?
    Or, are you just trying to make me an idiot?

    1. Your god NEVER canceled his OT laws. There is NO such a thing in the whole Bible. There is not a single word about canceling the O.T. laws. So, I am asking you directly now, who, the hell, are you to put words in god’s mouth and to determine what god did and what he did not really say, and which his words are valid and which are not valid. I have my eyes to see it myself.
    2. Jesus CONFIRMED that old laws are still valid and will be valid for some time.

    3. Even if the O.T. laws are invalid (if so, how could I know it? From YOU?), the whole god’s moral code reduces to few confused, inconsistant, illogical „directives“:

    - Love your god (sorry, I do not believe in god, so I can’t love him)
    - Love your enemy (sorry, that is against MY moral code; I usually do not HATE anyone, but who can expect me to LOVE someone who wants to kill me, or my family, or my community)
    - Love your neighbor (sorry again, I am usually indifferent to my neighbors, and I will probably not HATE them, but will never LOVE someone who is evil)
    - Turn the other cheek (sorry, it is against my nature; I would defend myself, my family and my community; I would NEVER turn my other cheek to anyone who want to harm me and my people; it is quite possible that I would even hate him)

    So, i find all the O.T. laws not only highly immoral, but also bestial.
    I find the N.T „directives“ stupid and infeasible, because I’ve never heard for anyone in human history who actually followed them.

    Did your grandfathers love Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor? Turned them another Pearl Harbor?
    Did you love Bin Laden?
    Would you ever turn your other cheek to him?
    If you did not, why didn’t you, if god strictly orders you to do so?
    No, you chased him and killed him eventually (VERY non-Christian, according to N.T. directives, but I would do the same, trust me!).

  286. on 11 May 2012 at 7:57 pm 286.Chris said …

    Finally Lou -

    You haven’t showed any true interest in ANY discussion as you still haven’t address the fact that you only have HALF an argument against God.

    so, again,

    Take care Lou,

    when you are ready, I am here.

  287. on 11 May 2012 at 8:04 pm 287.Chris said …

    Sev -

    Your post shows that you have little understanding of the Bible and God’s covenants. I would suggest that you do a bit of research in these areas, but I doubt you will.

    They are not my words, they are God.

    But regardless, you got your spout posted, it’s nothing new, same old stuff.

    However, just for the record I WILL address the following:

    “Did your grandfathers love Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor? Turned them another Pearl Harbor?”

    -I don’t know. Can’t speak for them. But killing is NOT love, no matter what. Not our right to do so.

    “Did you love Bin Laden?” – I do yes, and I prayed for him after his death that God find him and save him.

    “Would you ever turn your other cheek to him?”
    Hard to say what I would do in a hypothetical, but I am supposed do. Whether or not I do doesn’t matter to the fact that I should.

    “If you did not, why didn’t you, if god strictly orders you to do so?”

    —-Because I’m a selfish, sinful, person that more often that I wish, want to do things MY way and not the way that God calls me to.

    “No, you chased him and killed him eventually (VERY non-Christian, according to N.T. directives, but I would do the same, trust me!).”

    -Nope, I didn’t chase or kill him. Like I said above, I prayed for him.

    THAT’S the kind of love Jesus calls us to. And I bet you don’t like it, which is why many of us don’t follow it (yes even Christians!) because it is “narrow” and there are no exceptions this: LOVE YOUR ENEMY.

    The God many people call “asshole” and other nasty names calls them to LOVE.

    Why?

    Because they are atheist…they don’t bother trying to understand the Bible – only cherry pick the “bad” parts so they can keep hating something they don’t believe in.

    Thank you for the questions, I’m glad I got to answer them.

  288. on 11 May 2012 at 8:07 pm 288.Chris said …

    Sev -

    All that said, I would still like to show you where you have some incorrect notions regarding the Bible.

    or would you rather just believe what YOU want to believe because it suits your purpose?

    i guess it’s a chance to prove that I put words in God’s mouth if you’re up for it.

  289. on 11 May 2012 at 8:13 pm 289.Lou(DFW) said …

    280.Chris said …

    “Finally Lou -

    You haven’t showed any true interest in ANY discussion as you still haven’t address the fact that you only have HALF an argument against God.”

    You continue to invent straw man arguments against me. I didn’t make ANY argument against god anymore than I made one against Santa Claus or leprechauns.

    God is a proposition. Rejection of your proposition (without evidence) is NOT A PROPOSITION. It does not require ANY evidence.

    Can you answer one simple question? Do you have any evidence for god – yes or no? You keep coming back without it.

  290. on 11 May 2012 at 8:16 pm 290.Chris said …

    Lou -

    I will answer you if you answer me: what evidence do you have against God? If none, just say so.

    Then I will answer you.

  291. on 11 May 2012 at 8:31 pm 291.Severin said …

    273 Chris
    “Lou you just basically said this: My morals are grounded in ME and I agree with these because they are my morals.”

    I am almost absolutely positive that YOUR moral code perfectly fits both mine and Lou’s, except maybe some unimportant details.
    I am almost absolutely sure you don’t kill people and do not support killing people. I am sure you do not rape ladies and you do not lough when you see raping in a film.
    I guess you do not lie, steal and fraud.
    I am not sure, but I can imagine that you are a kind man, and that you care for people and you care not to offend people.
    I also can imagine that you are compassionate, and that you, more or less, suffer when you see other people suffering for whatever reason.
    I guess you help people as much as you can.

    I am absolutely positive that you do NOT love your enemy, Mr. Bin Laden (am I wrong?).
    Tell me honestly: would you turn your other cheek to someone who harmed you or someone you love? I can’t believe it!

    So, if all, or almost all those points fit with mine and Lou’s, WHAT IS the real difference between us?

    Isn’t your moral code also circular?
    Where it comes from? If you don’t love Bin Laden, it can’t come from Bible!
    How is it possible that all of us have so similar moral rules?

  292. on 11 May 2012 at 8:41 pm 292.Lou(DFW) said …

    273.Chris said …

    “Lou you just basically said this: My morals are grounded in ME and I agree with these because they are my morals.”

    I didn’t say that, YOU said that. Then you turn around and try to use something I didn’t say against me. Not that it matters, but I received my morals from my parents, Sunday school teachers, and school teachers.

    It’s not possible to discuss anything with some who is not honest about what is said in the discussion.

    “1) Love God”

    Not a moral “code” and not possible

    “2) Love your neighbor AS yourself.”

    aka, The Golden Rule. Source not of the bible. And it’s second to #1.

    “3) Love your enemies”

    See #2

  293. on 11 May 2012 at 8:44 pm 293.alex said …

    278.Chris said …

    You’re a piece of SHIT. Theists campaigning for justice and equality is not worth it? Fuck you and your god.

  294. on 11 May 2012 at 9:31 pm 294.Chris said …

    Sev -

    Thank you for the kind words at the start of your post, and for my part I assume the best of you as well.

    “I am absolutely positive that you do NOT love your enemy, Mr. Bin Laden (am I wrong?).
    Tell me honestly: would you turn your other cheek to someone who harmed you or someone you love? I can’t believe it!”

    -As I said, I prayed for Bin Laden, and yes, I love him despite what he has done. Now, as to “would” I turn the other cheek? Hard to say, however, as I also said in my post, what I WOULD do and what I’m TO DO don’t always mesh, because I am selfish more than selfless.

    “So, if all, or almost all those points fit with mine and Lou’s, WHAT IS the real difference between us?”

    –Probably far less than we actually think.

    “Isn’t your moral code also circular?”

    -No, MY morals are to be ground IN GOD’S – he created them. Without something OUTSIDE MYSELF to ground to, my moral would be circular. They begin with God and end with me following or not, whether I AGREE with them or not, whether I LIKE them or not. Otherwise it starts with me, ends with me, and on – and certainly I will like my OWN morals.

    “Where it comes from? If you don’t love Bin Laden, it can’t come from Bible!”

    -well, I do, and it did!

    “How is it possible that all of us have so similar moral rules?”

    -Quite easy actually, whether you would admit it or not you are influenced by Christians. In fact you are influence by EVERYONE you come into contact in one way or anther, so for some or many of our “morals” to intersect is not so out of the chance of possibility.

    But let’s deal with the REAL difference between our moral codes.

    Would you punish someone for their opinion?

    well, as we see – atheists on here have stated there are no absolutes. Thus we are left with ONLY opinions (sans God). So any thing you deem “bad” by your moral code (opinion) you wish to punish someone for. So you are punishing them for having a different opinion. You can’t point to something, anything and absolutely say it’s wrong – just that you don’t like it (opinion).

    But with God, we can see when we are doing wrong- which is anther difference.

    His code is to know when WE do wrong NOT to point out when OTHERS do.

    As I’ve seen on here, nothing but pointing out how others (that have different OPINIONS) are wrong.

    I’m not to condemn others, only to follow.

    so it breaks down as follows.

    1) not circular because it doesn’t begin with me.
    2) based on authority NOT opinion.
    3) for me to live by, not condemn others to.

    Good question, thank you.

  295. on 11 May 2012 at 9:36 pm 295.Chris said …

    Alex -

    “You’re a piece of SHIT. Theists campaigning for justice and equality is not worth it? Fuck you and your god.”

    - Only IF there is a God and MORE than this world (because we both agree it will end)does anything truly have a value.

    If there isn’t – then no. that just the reality Alex, you don’t have to like it, but it is the truth regardless.

    If we started with nothing, then ended with nothing, nothing that happened in between matters.

    (Let’s play a game where we both start with zero, then despite how many points we both score, we end with both our points being zero with no “winner” then why bother trying to score?)

    And your tone, just shows that you do believe what you are doing has value…yet, how could it, if in the end it WON’T matter? It can’t.

    sorry, but that is your belief, you should be more accepting of it.

  296. on 11 May 2012 at 9:37 pm 296.Chris said …

    To All -

    Have a great weekend!

    Most likely I won’t be back here until monday. Until then, have a good one!

  297. on 11 May 2012 at 10:24 pm 297.Prime said …

    272.Chris said …

    “If it all ends in a zero sum – which you beleive it does…you ARE wasting your time, because in the end, when’s it ALL GONE…your efforts will be what?
    Gone.
    Lost.
    The universe won’t care what you have done.”

    Same goes for you, but I didn’t waste my life trying to make invisible sky gods happy.

    As for why I personally argue with you about this: I derive enjoyment from it. I have one life to live, and I absolutely love telling people who are wrong that they are wrong. I get a lot out of it. It’s the teacher in me.

  298. on 11 May 2012 at 10:34 pm 298.Prime said …

    So… Jesus wasn’t very clear about how to do things then?

    Love your neighbor?
    Where is that line drawn? What do I have to do to satisfy that? I have to go discuss with him or change to an alternative fuel to warm my house because I know I’m doing harm to my neighbors if I don’t? How many neighbors do I have to go talk to? All 900, approximately, that live within the half-mile radius of my house that I’d be affecting adversely by starting a fire?

    When I love my enemies, is that only when they’re over there? What about when they decided that my idiotic code was idiotic, so they attack me because they think my Jesus is stupid? Do I keep loving them, or do I punch them in the throat? How do I express that love? Am I just supposed to assume that everyone would believe and follow Jesus and that would work out great and no one would hate each other? Why do religious people kill each other all the freaking time then? Oh, because humans are fallible? Why didn’t God give us a more clear moral code on how to deal with other fallible humans who we have to live with all the freaking time, then?

    What about the television commericials? I’m not allowed to make commercials that coerce other people, but the whole point of commercials is to coerce people into buying my products? So I can’t make commercials at all? Or maybe I have to talk to every single one of my potential neighbors that would view it, all perhaps hundreds of millions of them, and find out exactly what is appropriate with all of them? Then what? Do I take the average? Do I try to wrangle a compromise of all of that? Do I take the most restrictive answer? In that case, I can’t make commercials to sell my product, certainly.

    Why doesn’t Jesus just tell us clearly and succinctly how we’re supposed to follow those three vague-ass pieces of advice? Why does Jesus leave us to have to listen to popes and politicians and pundits who have to interpret those three vague-ass pieces of advice?

    How do you not see the problem with this?

  299. on 11 May 2012 at 10:36 pm 299.Prime said …

    I define love, by the way, the same way the dictionary does: an intense feeling of deep affection.

    How does your Jesus define love (or Love)?

  300. on 11 May 2012 at 10:41 pm 300.Lou(DFW) said …

    272.Chris said …

    “If it all ends in a zero sum – which you beleive it does…you ARE wasting your time, because in the end, when’s it ALL GONE…your efforts will be what?

    Gone.

    Lost.

    The universe won’t care what you have done.’

    BINGO! YOU GOT IT!

    The universe doesn’t care what ANYBODY does. When we die it’s that same as before we were born. The universe won’t know we were here or that we are gone. Maybe that’s one reason people invent imaginary gods who will take them to imaginary heaven after they die. But the truth is that you were not alive (dead) during all the time in the universe before you were born, and you will be dead again. For the universe, it’s makes no difference.

  301. on 11 May 2012 at 10:49 pm 301.Anonymous said …

    Chris you continue to avoid answering questions about how and why you reject other gods. This will be the third time and you cannot have missed it as it’s key to your points. I’ll ask one more time, but it seems you avoid answering anything that you cannot answer with a platitude or deflect with a trite response.

    Prime. I’m not surprised that Boz-Hor didn’t take on your challenge – you didn’t really leave much to choose from though so it wasn’t exactly difficult. As for the vague and unsubstantiated claims of fallacy. You missed a wonderful chance to channel Inigo Montoya, so I’ll leave that one for your use next time around.

    Chris, this one is all yours:

    Chris, you didn’t comment on the following. It’s connected with your next post too.

    Please answer it because it’s key to the comment about people “rejecting” your god and why you “reject” other people’s gods.

    – Do you “reject” these other gods in the same way that you believe Lou does of yours? Specifically, you seem to be implying that your god must exist for Lou to reject him. Do you, then, agree that Allah, Ra, Zeus, Thor, and others must also exist for you to reject them too? Your line of argument suggests that you do. If not, on what basis do you reject them and why the double standard?

    – Do you agree that your answer has a direct bearing to the following which you posted after you were asked the above?

    **** 1) I can’t prove God no more than you can disprove him – it’s just a fact we both should admit.

    **** 2) It isn’t my job to prove God, because God doesn’t NEED me to prove himself.

    **** 3) I can point you TO God and show you what I find to be reasons for belief in him…but you are certainly free to reject it.

    – Can I disprove something that has never been proven to exist? Can you disprove Russell’s teapot? No, you can’t disprove it anymore than you can disprove that I currently have an invisible, undetectable, elf called Simon siting in my jacket pocket. Are those claims true? No, but you can’t disprove them either.

    – Also, you didn’t clarify which version of the Christian god you believe in? Is it the god of the bible. No debate, no “interpretation”, as stated in the bible, or do you have your own “personal” relationship / view. It seems that you want to claim that someone can’t disprove something that you won’t define. Is that to leave a get-out-of-disproof-free card on the table?

    – Now, point 3. Why are you making this like pulling teeth? Are you one of those believers that constantly claims to have some kind of proof but always finds a way not to provide it? I may ask you this, but I’m trying to respond as if it’s not so.

    – If it’s because someone is going to say “the bible isn’t proof of the bible” or “that’s an argument from ignorance / incredulity”, or “how is that any different from what happens if there is no god”, or “how do you know which god is responsible”, or “anecdotes are not evidence”, then what you have are rationalizations or excuses.

    – If that’s the case then say that’s the nature of what you believe. You won’t gain any converts but at least you’ll be being honest and not appearing to prevaricate and avoid the question.

  302. on 11 May 2012 at 10:52 pm 302.Prime said …

    Anon above, sadly, I never got into The Princess Bride (maybe I would now if I tried it again?). Channel away. I don’t know what I’m supposed to say other than the “…prepare to die” line (I know the whole little three-sentence bit (or one with semicolons?), to be clear).

  303. on 11 May 2012 at 11:11 pm 303.Anonymous said …

    The universe doesn’t care what ANYBODY does. When we die it’s that same as before we were born. The universe won’t know we were here or that we are gone. Maybe that’s one reason people invent imaginary gods who will take them to imaginary heaven after they die. But the truth is that you were not alive (dead) during all the time in the universe before you were born, and you will be dead again. For the universe, it’s makes no difference.

    This is all true, unless you are a new-ager, of course.

    Now, as above, some people are unable to handle the concept that existence is a relatively fleeting event. On the other hand, it always, always, always lasts a lifetime.

    Some people have a need to believe that there is more and that they will be rewarded by another life, even a better one. Those people seem unable to comprehend doing good deeds without some form of eternal reward or fear of eternal punishment.

    On the other hand, there’s the people who are also active in their community, work for the advancement of knowledge, strive to improve the life of others, even dedicate their entire life to working on pieces of a puzzle that are unlikely to be solved before they do, yet do so without that carrot and stick. The second category do not do these deeds because of fear of eternal torment nor are they doing so because they were promised milk and honey, virgins, or vats of chocolate.

    Somehow, some of the people who work for a better world out of fear of punishment (theists) feel that they are morally and ethically superior to the people (atheists) who do so, not out of fear and not out of a promise of eternal reward, but because they are driven to make a contribution to the only lifetime that they can be sure exists.

    It must be really amazing mind-trick to be able to convince yourself that a person is morally superior to someone who does the same, or more, good deeds but without the promise of eternal rewards or the caveat of asking other people to adopt an ancient superstition in return for those favors.

  304. on 11 May 2012 at 11:15 pm 304.Anonymous said …

    In Bozland – Fallacy. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  305. on 11 May 2012 at 11:15 pm 305.Prime said …

    To wit: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120430140035.htm

  306. on 11 May 2012 at 11:24 pm 306.Prime said …

    Oh, and Anonymous, here’s my forum prediction for Chris handling your questions:
    “I reject those gods because they are false because the bible says they are false. No other religion has had their living God come to the earth and perform miracles for all to see. They’re written in the bible for everyone to accept or reject. Jesus proved he is God and verified Christianity for everyone.”

    Except… that’s circular reasoning, so he’ll go on to accuse you of using circular reasoning because you do not accept gods except possibly yourself. You see, in Chrisland, circular reasonong: he keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

  307. on 11 May 2012 at 11:25 pm 307.Prime said …

    Oh snap… I accidentally typed “reasonong” and then posted it. Lest Boz/Hor see it and go ape that he somehow wins some banana chips (as opposed to the consistent overt abuses of English that he demonstrates), let me point out that it was, indeed, a typo that I’m correcting here: “reasoning.”

  308. on 12 May 2012 at 12:16 am 308.Anonymous said …

    298.Prime. I had not see that study but it does a much better job at explaining the point I was driving at. Dogma vs Altruism. Expectation vs Compassion. Oh, I just used capital letters. Perhaps I’ve suddenly became an Astrophysicist too!

    I would like to be wrong but, absent anything else, I think you’ve honed in on the reason Chris (many Xtians too) most likely would give regarding their inconsistent approach to the validity of supernatural claims.

  309. on 12 May 2012 at 12:29 am 309.Prime said …

    I can tell you why they do it too, in all likelihood: they’re scared of dying, mainly, and maybe a little bit that they’re scared justice won’t be done to the bad guys out there. In short, they don’t want to accept that life is finite and that life isn’t fair. There may be some intellectual laziness in there too–not wanting to have to put forth the effort to actually think through what is right and what is wrong, which is often very hard to figure out.

    I guess since they claim we never say what our morality’s source is, I’ll say something about it, even though I posted the video to Matt Dillahunty doing a great job of it (which was summarily ignored, of course): A rational consideration of the existence of other people and their ability to suffer as a consequence of my actions.

    Before they call me a sock-puppet of Lou(DFW), which would be stupid because our logical constructions and syntax are completely different, based upon my use of “never, ever,” let me give some full-disclosure too: I saw his use of it, liked it, and started using it too. Now that they’re keen to the idea of sock puppetry, though, I best not do that in case they’re trigger happy with a new word they don’t really know how to use correctly.

  310. on 12 May 2012 at 12:35 am 310.Biff said …

    Prime

    If only you were fixated with sound arguments like you are with grammar. Good grammar is moot unless you are putting forth serious arguments. You might as well be Sev or alex. Maybe you could work with them.

    I’d rather read solid raison d’être from 40 with Sev & alex’s grammar than your silliness.

    Just to be clear, I’m calling your argument silly, not you.

  311. on 12 May 2012 at 12:49 am 311.alex said …

    “alex’s grammar”. it’s the shits ain’t it. most of it is original. you a fan of 40′s cut and paste, which he prolly stole from other peeps? dat’s right, i says peeps. pisses off the white supremacy in you? just like the blond with the homie? and your gay son?

  312. on 12 May 2012 at 12:55 am 312.Prime said …

    Biff, do me a favor a point to a single bad argument that I’ve made. Show me one… not that I can trust your judgment much.

    As for your attempted insults, they’d work better if you were actually ever original with them. You’ve got no style.

  313. on 12 May 2012 at 1:08 am 313.Anonymous said …

    Speaking about how it easy it is to spot the sock puppets when they post with similar style, substance, argument, and errors. Up comes Biff and proves the point. Oh, welcome back Curmudgeon. Not that you ever really left, that is.

  314. on 12 May 2012 at 1:15 am 314.alex said …

    i guess i’m not that bright. please post example(s) on how to spot biff masquerading as curm. my a.d.d. prevents me from recognizing patterns etc.

  315. on 12 May 2012 at 4:03 am 315.Prime said …

    Christian moral code: use money to feed poor? No, that’s what Jesus said to do.

    Instead, spend $5,000,000 to build giant kitsch cross in Branson, Missouri.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/branson-cross-worlds-largest-cross_n_1510283.html?ref=religion

  316. on 12 May 2012 at 2:28 pm 316.A said …

    Prime you are so predictable! I read the article just a day or two ago and contemplated how long it would be before it got posted here.

    There it is!

    I love it!

    Now, get your groups together to try and stop it. See if you can get the Washington Monument torn down while you are at it. Just a little secret, I saw Scripture inside when I was a little boy.

    Biff,
    I think you wanted those links posted here.

  317. on 12 May 2012 at 3:36 pm 317.Lou (DFW) said …

    317.A said …

    “Just a little secret, I saw Scripture inside when I was a little boy.”

    Why is it a secret? Did you run away from home or something?

  318. on 12 May 2012 at 7:45 pm 318.Prime said …

    317.A said …

    “Prime you are so predictable! I read the article just a day or two ago and contemplated how long it would be before it got posted here.”

    If you don’t want smart, reasonable people to make fun of you for your religion, try to get people in your religion to stop doing idiotic things that fly in the face of the core teachings of what is supposed to be the most important set of guidelines for human beings (in the cult, at least) to follow.

    “Now, get your groups together to try and stop it.”

    If it’s on private property and built with private funds, there’s no reason to try to stop it. People are allowed to waste their own money on their own property while defying the commands they believe their God gave them and make themselves out to look like superstitious hicks and embarrass our country for the world all they want.

    You guys really don’t get it. We don’t want to make religion illegal. We don’t want people not to be able to worship how they want. There’s no war on religion. If there’s a war, it’s on religious privilege, not religion itself. Making religion illegal would be as idiotic as building a 200-foot redneck cross in Missouri.

    If we want anything, we want two things, primarily:
    1. Better for people who believe in religion, since it’s superstitious stupidity; and
    2. Religious privilege in our *secular* society (which we want to keep secular, like it needs to be so we’re not a superpower Iran with a cross instead of a Koran) to go away.

    To summarize, you can worship and believe as you want, but you should want to believe things that are demonstrably true. You can worship and believe as you want, but you can’t expect society to support you for being adults that want to believe in fairy tales. That means no public land, no public funding, no special treatment under the law or from the culture. No one should have to walk on eggshells to avoid offending an adult who believes in talking snakes and magic men coming back to life to save us from being inherently filthy.

  319. on 14 May 2012 at 1:45 pm 319.Anonymous said …

    Anon -

    “Chris you continue to avoid answering questions about how and why you reject other gods.”

    –No, I haven’t avoided it. I’m sorry if I didn’t see your question about “other god.” which I will get to NOW. Woooo!

    “Do you “reject” these other gods in the same way that you believe Lou does of yours? Specifically, you seem to be implying that your god must exist for Lou to reject him. Do you, then, agree that Allah, Ra, Zeus, Thor, and others must also exist for you to reject them too? Your line of argument suggests that you do. If not, on what basis do you reject them and why the double standard?”

    -Long question. But let’s take it slooooooow. One, no, I don’t reject other gods in the same way that Lou rejects mine because 1) for many gods, a la: Zues, Thor, Ra, etc. there IS evidence AGAINST their existence as well as LACK of evidence. Lou ONLY has “lack of evidence” as a reason for rejection. In other words: half a reason.

    Also, other gods “could” exist – that is to say, lesser gods. I believe in the ONE TRUE God. I say that Lou rejects God, because that’s what I believe. Now a believer in Thor could say the same for me, however I still have evidence AGAINST Thor to base my rejection on. Lou doesn’t have the same for God.

    “Do you agree that your answer has a direct bearing to the following which you posted after you were asked the above?”

    **** 1) I can’t prove God no more than you can disprove him – it’s just a fact we both should admit.

    >>>>>>>>>Yep, this is true isn’t it? I am quite comfortable admitting this, aren’t you? How could I prove God if one won’t even list what one would accept as evidence or even DISCUSS God?

    **** 2) It isn’t my job to prove God, because God doesn’t NEED me to prove himself.

    >>>>>>This is true as well. I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but it’s true. No where in the Bible will you see this as a command. We are to make disciples, yes, but that doesn’t mean PROVE. Proving is up to God, when one is ready. Otherwise, they are free to reject him – otherwise that would infringe on free will wouldn’t it?

    **** 3) I can point you TO God and show you what I find to be reasons for belief in him…but you are certainly free to reject it.

    – Can I disprove something that has never been proven to exist? Can you disprove Russell’s teapot? No, you can’t disprove it anymore than you can disprove that I currently have an invisible, undetectable, elf called Simon siting in my jacket pocket. Are those claims true? No, but you can’t disprove them either.

    >>>>>Nope, I can’t disprove it. However, what I can provide is EVIDENCE against it to make it less probable. Such as the ‘teapot’. One could make quite a list of reasons why there ISN’T a teapot between us and the sun. Given such a list, it would be quite reasonable then to not believe that there is a teapot. Same with your Elf, called Simon. First, one could just list evidence against Elves in general, then move on to invisibility. Etc. So, again, one can generate quite a list of evidence AGAINST the existence of both situations – I just asked Lou if he could for God. Can you?

    “Also, you didn’t clarify which version of the Christian god you believe in? Is it the god of the bible. No debate, no “interpretation”, as stated in the bible, or do you have your own “personal” relationship / view. It seems that you want to claim that someone can’t disprove something that you won’t define. Is that to leave a get-out-of-disproof-free card on the table?”

    >>>>>Well, as for which “version” of Christian God, are you speaking denomination wise? As I don’t subscribe to ANY denomination. I’m more along the lines of belief as say: Greg Boyd, or Tony Campolo, if that helps. However, the denominational differences aren’t really all that different in CORE beliefs. It’s other areas, less critical that the differences are present. But Hey, Lou, nor you have even brought up EVIDENCE ONE against ANY version of the Christian God.

    “Why are you making this like pulling teeth? Are you one of those believers that constantly claims to have some kind of proof but always finds a way not to provide it?”

    >>>>>For one, I didn’t make ANY claims to proof, however I did challenge Lou to a conversation (and others) regarding specific questions and what happened in each case? THEY chose not to discuss -clear rejection that even the POSSIBILITY may be true. One not willing to discuss, is rejecting PURELY on WANT of belief and shows one might not be so SECURE in such a belief. Again, I can point to God – but after that, it’s out of my hands. But to ask a question, then RUN from the discussion? Very telling…

    “If it’s because someone is going to say “the bible isn’t proof of the bible” or “that’s an argument from ignorance / incredulity”, or “how is that any different from what happens if there is no god”, or “how do you know which god is responsible”, or “anecdotes are not evidence”, then what you have are rationalizations or excuses.”

    >>>>Certainly the Bible isn’t PROOF! Who said it was? Is it evidence? Yes. Just like other religious texts are evidence for other gods…however the difference there is QUALITY. And no, anecdotes are not necessarily evidence: ie my experiences with God. But then neither are YOUR lack of experiences with God evidence.

    “If that’s the case then say that’s the nature of what you believe. You won’t gain any converts but at least you’ll be being honest and not appearing to prevaricate and avoid the question.”

    >>>>I haven’t avoided any questions. Maybe missed some, but not avoided. I haven’t been the one to avoid ANY conversation…only your fellow atheists have avoided conversations. They ask a question, then don’t want to dive into the answer when it’s presented to them.

    thanks for the questions!

  320. on 14 May 2012 at 1:58 pm 320.Lou(DFW) said …

    320.Anonymous said …

    “for many gods, a la: Zues, Thor, Ra, etc. there IS evidence AGAINST their existence as well as LACK of evidence. Chris,”

    You really are deluded. There’s exactly the same, if not more “evidence AGAINST” your god than for the others.

    “How could I prove God if one won’t even list what one would accept as evidence or even DISCUSS God?”

    This is a convenient cop-out. Just start with your evidence and we’ll proceed from there. But, the bible is not evidence for god.

    “No where in the Bible will you see this as a command. We are to make disciples, yes, but that doesn’t mean PROVE. Proving is up to God, when one is ready. Otherwise, they are free to reject him – otherwise that would infringe on free will wouldn’t it?”

    Here we go again with the circular reasoning.

    “Certainly the Bible isn’t PROOF! Who said it was? Is it evidence? Yes.”

    No, Chris, it’s not evidence of a god or any other supernatural being. It’s anecdotal evidence just as is any personal experience.

    “Again, I can point to God – but after that, it’s out of my hands. But to ask a question, then RUN from the discussion? Very telling…”

    Finishing a discussion is not running from it. If I’m having a discussion with a five-year old kid who won’t admit that the tooth fairy isn’t real, and then I end the discussion, that’s not running from it. It’s the same thing with you.

  321. on 14 May 2012 at 2:18 pm 321.Lou(DFW) said …

    320.Chris said …

    “So, again, one can generate quite a list of evidence AGAINST the existence of both situations – I just asked Lou if he could for God. Can you?”

    Chris, you keep trying to make this discussion about me. It’s not about me, it’s not about you. It’s about the fact that you don’t have any evidence for your imaginary god. You can avoid writing all these long-winded, illogical, dishonest replies and comments by doing ONE simple thing – provide evidence of your imaginary god. Just like the kid and the tooth fairy, you can’t stick to the facts because then you loose the argument for your imaginary god.

    I am not going to C&P all the evidence against YOUR god because there’s plenty of it listed here:

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god-toc.htm

  322. on 14 May 2012 at 2:35 pm 322.Lou(DFW) said …

    320.Chris said …

    “Otherwise, they are free to reject him – otherwise that would infringe on free will wouldn’t it?”

    This is another religious fallacy.

    First of all, “rejection” of god isn’t part of free will.

    Second, there’s no such “law” that we must have free will.

  323. on 14 May 2012 at 3:17 pm 323.Anonymous said …

    Chris, as far as I can tell your whole argument hinges in this point: “1) I can’t prove God no more than you can disprove him – it’s just a fact we both should admit.”

    Well, if you can’t prove this god of yours exist, then there’s no reason to believe in him.

    Next, you really think you can disprove the existence of my invisible elf called Simon?

    Sure, it’s unlikely, certainly you can amass vast amounts of arguments why he doesn’t exist, but I can counter absolutely everyone of them with the argument that “my elf is outside of space and time and cannot be detected or measured by science. However, if you were to open your heart to Simon, then you would know him. The fact that you disbelieve me shows that you are close minded”. Now, substitute Simon for your god, and we’re even.

  324. on 14 May 2012 at 3:54 pm 324.Chris said …

    Anon -

    “Well, if you can’t prove this god of yours exist, then there’s no reason to believe in him.”

    No, I said it’s up to God to do, if you are TRULY interested in discovering if he exists or not.

    I don’t see you doing that, are you?

    You just seem to reject on “lack of evidence” which is half of a reason to disbelieve in something.

    “Next, you really think you can disprove the existence of my invisible elf called Simon? Sure, it’s unlikely, certainly you can amass vast amounts of arguments why he doesn’t exist, but I can counter absolutely everyone of them with the argument that “my elf is outside of space and time and cannot be detected or measured by science. However, if you were to open your heart to Simon, then you would know him. The fact that you disbelieve me shows that you are close minded”. Now, substitute Simon for your god, and we’re even.”

    —wrong, as neither you or anyone on here has stated ANYTHING close to the fact that you could “amass vast ammounts or arguments” of why God doesn’t exist. Rather, you fall back on: YOU can’t prove it, so I don’t beleive it.

    And that is cool, you can do that by all means, but without contrary evidence (as I can “amass” for Simon) against God, you only have HALF a reason to disbelieve.

    I CAN amount evidence again Simon, unless you can for God, then no, it’s not even.

    Same with the 5 yr old you are arguing with on the toothfairy…you have evidence AGAINST the toothfairy, which is why you no longer believe in him/her.

    Do you have such for God? Or do you fall back on the “lack of evidence” as your ONLY reason for disbelief?

    BTW, when one ASKS a particular question and then when I offer to discuss the answer they refuse…yes, that’s running, otherwise why bother asking the question if one has no intention of discussing it.

  325. on 14 May 2012 at 3:57 pm 325.Chris said …

    Prime -

    “Same goes for you, but I didn’t waste my life trying to make invisible sky gods happy.”

    - This could be true, if there is NO God. If there is, then why is my belief ANY worse than yours if in the end beliefs DON’T MATTER?

    “As for why I personally argue with you about this: I derive enjoyment from it. I have one life to live, and I absolutely love telling people who are wrong that they are wrong. I get a lot out of it. It’s the teacher in me.”

    -Cool, well, I would LOVE learn how I am wrong!

  326. on 14 May 2012 at 3:58 pm 326.Chris said …

    “If there ISN’T…”

    is what I meant to say.

  327. on 14 May 2012 at 4:00 pm 327.Chris said …

    Lou -

    Nice list. would you like me to run through it and list OTHER probable answers to said “evidence”? Thus showing that nothing on that list is really evidence, just a list of things you can put in your back pocket and pull out just in case you might start believing?

    I would GLADLY run through the list…just ask, my friend!

  328. on 14 May 2012 at 4:10 pm 328.Lou(DFW) said …

    325.Chris said …

    “Same with the 5 yr old you are arguing with on the toothfairy…you have evidence AGAINST the toothfairy, which is why you no longer believe in him/her.”

    As well as MORE evidence that your imaginary god doesn’t exist. But like the five year old, you made up your mind that the the tooth fairy/god exists, so you STILL believe in it despite their being NO EVIDENCE for them and a mountain of evidence AGAINST THEM.

  329. on 14 May 2012 at 4:11 pm 329.Lou(DFW) said …

    328.Chris said …

    “Lou -

    I would GLADLY run through the list…just ask, my friend!”

    No, READ VERY SLOWLY – provide evidence FOR YOUR IMAGINARY GOD.

  330. on 14 May 2012 at 4:16 pm 330.Lou(DFW) said …

    325.Chris said …

    “—wrong, as neither you or anyone on here has stated ANYTHING close to the fact that you could “amass vast ammounts or arguments” of why God doesn’t exist. Rather, you fall back on: YOU can’t prove it, so I don’t beleive it.”

    Chris, why do you keep lying about this? The evidence against god is on http://whywontgodhealamputees.com and other sites and in many books, and has been provided for you before. But you have yet to provide your evidence for your imaginary god.

    At his point you can do one of two things:

    1. Provide said evidence.

    2. Admit that you have no such evidence and that belief in your god is nothing but faith – belief in something for which there is no evidence.

  331. on 14 May 2012 at 4:40 pm 331.Prime said …

    326.Chris said …

    “Prime -
    “Same goes for you, but I didn’t waste my life trying to make invisible sky gods happy.”
    - This could be true, if there is NO God. If there is, then why is my belief ANY worse than yours if in the end beliefs DON’T MATTER?”

    Because you’re wasting your life trying to make invisible sky gods happy while playing by all kinds of hokey, barbarously inspired rules from the Bronze Age in the process, while telling other people that they’re categorically wrong and likely to burn in hell for it. It’s rather stunning that you think that hugely consequential beliefs, in terms of how you structure and live your life, don’t matter. It’s not from my perspective, though, because your beliefs contain, as the kernel at their center, that this life we all get to live doesn’t matter compared to the unsubstantiated promise of a better afterlife. That alone is a major problem with your beliefs, proving that they do, indeed, matter.

    By the way, you just invoked Pascal’s Wager, more or less, one of the most thoroughly debunked bits of imprecise thinking in the history of mankind.

  332. on 14 May 2012 at 4:48 pm 332.Lou(DFW) said …

    326.Chris said …

    “- This could be true, if there is NO God. If there is, then why is my belief ANY worse than yours if in the end beliefs DON’T MATTER?”

    Because that’s not the extent of it. If you want to sit in your government subsidized church and believe it, then that’s bad enough. But no, xtians think they must force their views upon everybody else.

  333. on 14 May 2012 at 4:59 pm 333.Anonymous said …

    “Well, as for which “version” of Christian God, are you speaking denomination wise? As I don’t subscribe to ANY denomination. I’m more along the lines of belief as say: Greg Boyd, or Tony Campolo, if that helps. However, the denominational differences aren’t really all that different in CORE beliefs. It’s other areas, less critical that the differences are present. But Hey, Lou, nor you have even brought up EVIDENCE ONE against ANY version of the Christian God.”

    You don’t see that you are inventing your own version of a god? You really don’t see that? Why don’t you accept the god of the bible, as written in your magic book? What makes you so sure that you are right and everyone else is wrong?

    Chris, you want people to disprove your own invention. Come on, it’s imaginary. Why do you think that there are literally tens, if not hundreds of thousands of version of the Xtian god? It’s certainly not because one super-powerful omni-max deity is providing direction.

    It’s ridiculous that you think “disprove something that can’t be proven” is a reasoned argument. In fact, it’s absurd. If you are not trolling, then you are delusional.

  334. on 14 May 2012 at 5:07 pm 334.DPK said …

    Chris, there are mountains of evidence pointing away from the existence of gods. You just keep moving the goalposts by changing your definition of god to avoid them. So let’s nail down a definition or two of “your” god, and then let’s examine the evidence.
    Let’s start with the big one… is your god both omniscient and omnipotent?

  335. on 14 May 2012 at 5:08 pm 335.Anonymous said …

    Chris – “Cool, well, I would LOVE learn how I am wrong!”

    Claiming that we must disprove your crackpot arguments in order to disavow you of your bronze-age superstitions is an example of muddled thinking.

    The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.

    If you can’t prove that your god exists, and you admit that you can’t, then your claim fails.

    Now you know.

  336. on 14 May 2012 at 8:30 pm 336.DPK said …

    Notice what will happen here. Jut like Chris conveniently ignored my last direct question about if it was wrong to kill homosexuals or insolent children as god instructed in the bible, he will not answer the simple question of whether god as he defines him is both omnipotent and omniscient.
    He does this because he KNOWS what will happen.
    Safer to ignore the question than to risk having his faith exposed as a fallacy. So, typical to all theists, he will change the subject.

  337. on 14 May 2012 at 9:05 pm 337.Lou(DFW) said …

    338.DPK said …

    “Jut like Chris conveniently ignored my last direct question about if it was wrong to kill homosexuals or insolent children as god instructed in the bible, he will not answer the simple question of whether god as he defines him is both omnipotent and omniscient.”

    If he does answer it will include a song and dance as to how times have changed – that was then, this is now. For example, as he wrote in 200.Chris, he justified “stone[ing] hom0sexuals and adulterers to death” with “a bit of OT understanding.” Even though his answer was no, it isn’t moral “now,” even though nowhere in the bible is that part of the xtian “moral code” retracted or modified.

  338. on 14 May 2012 at 9:20 pm 338.Chris said …

    Anon -

    “What makes you so sure that you are right and everyone else is wrong?”

    - Simple. I don’t. I certainly COULD be wrong. If I am, well at least I’m erring on the side of love.

    “Claiming that we must disprove your crackpot arguments in order to disavow you of your bronze-age superstitions is an example of muddled thinking. ”

    - I’m not asking anyone to do something they can’t do: Disprove God. What I have asked, however, was evidence against God…why is that so bothersome? Not ONCE on here, or anywhere, have I asked someone to DISPROVE God, you won’t, because that isn’t what I have asked.

  339. on 14 May 2012 at 9:25 pm 339.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “If he does answer it will include a song and dance as to how times have changed – that was then, this is now. For example, as he wrote in 200.Chris, he justified “stone[ing] hom0sexuals and adulterers to death” with “a bit of OT understanding.” Even though his answer was no, it isn’t moral “now,” even though nowhere in the bible is that part of the xtian “moral code” retracted or modified.”

    CORRECT Lou! Of course, this is basically theology 101. Where one learns that the OT deals with Nation of Israel as God’s chosen people.

    Now, even if you don’t believe in God this is EXACTLY what it is. This IS the understanding of the OT. In fact, ONLY until Acts, does the Bible even INCLUDE the gentiles (outside of TWO instances in the Gospels).

    This is clear, elementary understanding of the Bible.

    If you would like to claim otherwise, please let’s discuss this.

    I know you want it to be a certain way, but WANT doesn’t make it so.

    The OT is clear: Nation of Israel ONLY.

    Not until ACTS are Gentiles included.

    Just a read through of the Bible shows this.

  340. on 14 May 2012 at 9:28 pm 340.Chris said …

    DPK -

    “Notice what will happen here. Jut like Chris conveniently ignored my last direct question about if it was wrong to kill homosexuals or insolent children as god instructed in the bible, he will not answer the simple question of whether god as he defines him is both omnipotent and omniscient.
    He does this because he KNOWS what will happen.
    Safer to ignore the question than to risk having his faith exposed as a fallacy. So, typical to all theists, he will change the subject.”

    Sorry if I didn’t answer your post, I will now.

    1) It IS wrong to do so now. As we are in an age of grace (free from God’s judgment) whereas in the OT Israel was an intsrument of His judgement.

    2) Those commands were give to Israel ONLY as part of being in a covenant with God. Part of the relationship of being God’s chosen people, they were to be vastly different than other nations around them.

    3) Yes God is both. I’m all for discussing this and any matter.

    4) Didn’t change the subject ANYTHING anyone wants to talk about, I’m all for.

    Did I miss anything else you might have asked?

  341. on 14 May 2012 at 9:30 pm 341.Chris said …

    Anon -

    “If you can’t prove that your god exists, and you admit that you can’t, then your claim fails.”

    No, they may fail, yet they may still be true! I can certainly make a claim I can’t prove and it still can be true: My wife Love’s me.

    I can’t prove it, I freely admit it, but it could be true.

  342. on 14 May 2012 at 9:31 pm 342.Chris said …

    Lou -

    Have any favorites on that list you’d like me to address first, or should I just start at the begining?

  343. on 14 May 2012 at 9:37 pm 343.Chris said …

    Prime -

    “Chris, there are mountains of evidence pointing away from the existence of gods.”

    And yet, only Lou (finally) was able to LINK a list of some. Everyone else has avoided it.

    You claim MOUNTAINS, yet don’t even list an ant hill.

  344. on 14 May 2012 at 9:43 pm 344.Chris said …

    But to be fair, here is a short list of mine: (in no particular order)

    1) Bible.
    2) Jesus
    3) Life.
    4) The existence of the universe.
    5) Love/Hate
    6) Sex
    7) “knowledge” of absolute morality – even if we don’t always follow it. IE rape is ALWAYS wrong.
    8) Emotions. (love/hate are states of being I would argue)
    9) creativity
    10) individual personalities completely unique to each of us.
    11) my own experiences – certainly anecdotal, however, I allow you to use “non” experience as evidence.

    Short list, but there you have it.

  345. on 14 May 2012 at 9:46 pm 345.Lou(DFW) said …

    339.Lou(DFW) said …

    “If he does answer it will include a song and dance as to how times have changed – that was then, this is now.”

    342.Chris said …

    “Sorry if I didn’t answer your post, I will now.

    1) It IS wrong to do so now.”

  346. on 14 May 2012 at 9:47 pm 346.Lou(DFW) said …

    341.Chris said …

    “This is clear, elementary understanding of the Bible.”

    And there you have it folks.

  347. on 14 May 2012 at 9:49 pm 347.Prime said …

    Because you don’t disprove imaginary things.
    Again… you don’t disprove imaginary things.
    You don’t disprove imaginary things.

    Do you disprove the tooth fairy? Nope. Can you? Nope. All you can prove is that the tooth fairy isn’t doing anything with YOUR kids’ teeth. Maybe the tooth fairy only comes to believing houses. You wait until someone proves it to believe it, no matter how many fairy stories there are out there claiming it’s true.

    Do you disprove leprechauns? Nope. Can you? Nope. You wait until someone proves it to believe it, no matter how many fairy stories there are out there claiming it’s true.
    Do you disprove the Loch Ness Monstar? Nope. Can you? Nope. You wait until someone proves it to believe it. You wait until someone proves it to believe it, no matter how many fairy stories there are out there claiming it’s true.
    Do you disprove Ra? Nope. Can you? Nope. You wait until someone proves it to believe it, no matter how many fairy stories there are out there claiming it’s true.
    Do you disprove God? Nope. Can you? Nope. You wait until someone proves it to believe it, no matter how many fairy stories there are out there claiming it’s true.
    (See a pattern yet?)

  348. on 14 May 2012 at 9:51 pm 348.Lou(DFW) said …

    344.Chris said …

    “Have any favorites on that list you’d like me to address first, or should I just start at the begining?”

    Was this not clear to you?

    330.Lou(DFW) said …

    “No, READ VERY SLOWLY – provide evidence FOR YOUR IMAGINARY GOD.”

    It’s amazing that you claim to understand the bible, but you can’t understand that.

  349. on 14 May 2012 at 9:52 pm 349.Chris said …

    Prime -

    HOWEVER, one does compile EVIDENCE AGAINST such things to thus make a reasonable decision to DISBELIEVE.

    Hence there are TWO sides to disbeleif

    1) Evidence against
    2) Lack of evidence for

    I can list a whole slew of evidence AGAINSt what you have listed in your post…can you with God? You have yet to, outside of claiming “mountains.”

    It is very, very simple to do Prime, yet you find ways of NOT doing so…just dodging.

    I’m not asking you to disprove, just provide some of the MOUNTAINS of evidence you have against God…very simple.

    Either list some, or admit you have none. All you are doing now, is dodging..

  350. on 14 May 2012 at 9:54 pm 350.Chris said …

    Lou -

    You provided a list you believed to be evidence against God. I was addressing that, sorry I wasn’t clear.

    Any on the LINK you provided that you wish for me to address first.

    Second, if you read my posts, I DID give a list…

  351. on 14 May 2012 at 10:07 pm 351.Prime said …

    346.Chris said …

    “But to be fair, here is a short list of mine: (in no particular order)”
    “1) Bible.”

    Cf. Quran, books about Ra, books about Zeus, etc., etc.
    The bible proves nothing except that people in the Bronze Age wrote about their beliefs in God.

    “2) Jesus”

    Cf. Muhammad, Sathya Sai Baba, Hercules.
    So what? How do you even know he really existed? Was one person? Said the things the bible says he said? Wasn’t just crazy and blown out of proportion? You can’t know any of that. You have to assume it all a priori, just like the validity of the bible, so it’s circular to assert this as “evidence” of God. It’s evidence of essentially nothing except that probably some crazy Jew or group there of might have lived 2000 years ago, had crazy ideas, and a cult built up around him/them.

    “3) Life.”

    How is this proof for God? What does a universe with life in it with no God look like? If you conclude “probably a lot like this one,” then you see why this is bogus.

    “4) The existence of the universe.”

    Wrong. Cosmology is showing it, and again, it requires an unsustainable a priori assumption to believe God did it. Even if a creator did it, it’s another enormous jump to get to the Christian God did it, particularly based upon the huge list of religions that make different claims about the same naming different gods or no god.

    “5) Love/Hate”

    Human emotions (including hate) are proof for God? What does a world with humans but no God look like? When you concede “exactly the same,” you lose here again too.

    “6) Sex”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
    Step 1: Make people. Step 2: require them to do a biological “nasty” thing that every other animal has to do to reproduce. Step 3: Make it a lot of fun and overwhelmingly driven by their neurochemistry. Step 4: Tell them it’s nasty and sinful and bad and make them hate themselves over it.
    If you want to invoke a magic being for this, try Satan.

    “7) “knowledge” of absolute morality – even if we don’t always follow it. IE rape is ALWAYS wrong.”

    Hmm… I think that’s just common sense. Of course, that “absolute” morality only applies to the most stupid-easy cases out there, like rape. Funny how that absolute morality thing is completely murky on points like whether or not free American citizens in Colorado should be allowed to build rain cachement systems on their homes, given the value of water there.

    “8) Emotions. (love/hate are states of being I would argue)”

    Hmm… same thing with the love/hate thing. Human emotions, like animal emotions, seem not to have anything to do with God and a lot to do with a little thing we call “the limbic system” in the brain. Animal has limbic system => animal has emotions. Good work hiding your footprint there, God.

    “9) creativity”

    Um… what? That doesn’t even make sense. I guess you probably include the creativity necessary to invent and endlessly apologize for the existence of a God you can’t prove exists, right?

    “10) individual personalities completely unique to each of us.”

    Biology and neurology do an infinitely better job of explaining this one. No magic sky daddies needed.

    “11) my own experiences – certainly anecdotal, however, I allow you to use “non” experience as evidence.”

    Certainly guilty of confirmation bias as well. Cf. my personal experiences which tell me you’re dead wrong. Cf. the personal experiences of Muslims who have felt the will of Allah and say you’re dead wrong. Cf. everyone else’s. This argument can substantiate any line of tripe you want it to. Not an argument, certainly not evidence.

    “Short list, but there you have it.”

    Indeed… there you have it. Nothing.

  352. on 14 May 2012 at 10:10 pm 352.Prime said …

    351.Chris said …

    “Prime -
    HOWEVER, one does compile EVIDENCE AGAINST such things to thus make a reasonable decision to DISBELIEVE.
    Hence there are TWO sides to disbeleif
    1) Evidence against
    2) Lack of evidence for”

    Thanks for playing, doofus, Seriously. Way to cotton on here.

    What’s the default position when you don’t know?
    Is it “maybe”?

    Homeopathy… maybe?
    Mormonism…. maybe?
    Pink invisible unicorm… maybe?
    Flying spaghetti monster… maybe?

    So why don’t you put all of your time and effort into supporting those “maybes” instead of the one maybe, probably the one you were born into, that you have decided is a special maybe that you want to cling to?

  353. on 14 May 2012 at 10:15 pm 353.Prime said …

    340.Chris said …

    “- Simple. I don’t. I certainly COULD be wrong. If I am, well at least I’m erring on the side of love.”

    Why don’t you go ahead and define this “love” that you’re erring on the side of, then?

    This is the kind of love that allows people to rape others for their whole lives, pray to Jesus, accept him, and have everything be cool with God at the very last minute, or no?

    This is the kind of love that applies equally to every person everywhere all the time therefore destroying the meaning of that word, or no?

    This is the kind of love that compels you to think that other people are going to hell if they get it wrong, or no?

    This is the kind of love that leaves you nervous with doubt that just in case you aren’t serious enough or not devout enough or careful enough or make a single mistake in thought or behavior or whatever that you’ll go to hell too, or no?

    This is the kind of love that tries to police your thoughts, or no?

    Tell us all about this “love” you err on the side of. Tell us what you mean by that, how you err on that side of it, and why, exactly, it is that your Christian Supremacist stance on the matter enables you to be erring more successfully on the side of love than people who don’t believe in your particular set of religious delusions.

    Go ahead… tell me one way that you can be erring on the side of love that I can’t. I dare you.

  354. on 14 May 2012 at 10:16 pm 354.Prime said …

    340.Chris said …

    “- Simple. I don’t. I certainly COULD be wrong. If I am, well at least I’m erring on the side of love.”

    Statements like THIS one and you wonder why we argue with you, disgusting assumptions of supremacy and everything else.

  355. on 14 May 2012 at 10:31 pm 355.Lou(DFW) said …

    352.Chris said …

    “You provided a list you believed to be evidence against God. I was addressing that, sorry I wasn’t clear.”

    You were clear, as was my answer – PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR IMAGINARY GOD. When you do, there won’t be any reason for you to address each item on the list.

    “Any on the LINK you provided that you wish for me to address first.”

    No, what I want first is YOUR EVIDENCE FOR YOUR IMAGINARY GOD.

  356. on 14 May 2012 at 10:32 pm 356.Lou(DFW) said …

    345.Chris said …

    “But to be fair, here is a short list of mine: (in no particular order)”

    Are you trying to tell me this your evidence for your imaginary god?!

  357. on 14 May 2012 at 11:53 pm 357.DPK said …

    Yes, he is… and flowers and puppy dogs and love. What about smallpox and ebola and dysentery? Are those also “evidence” of an all powerful, all knowing, and all loving god.
    Now let’s review what Chris has actually admitted about the nature of his god. This all knowing creature declared at one time, that it was moral for certain people to kill other people for an endless list of trivial matters, like not being a virgin on your wedding night, being created homosexual (was that a design flaw from the perfect creator, Chris?) being an insolent child, working on the sabath.. on and on and on. He also decided, with his infinite foreknowledge, that it was perfectly moral to own and even beat slaves, rip open the bellies of pregnant women, and dash babies on rocks.
    Then, he changed his mind… and decided that all that was no longer moral and that we now must “love one another.”
    Now, Chris has also admitted that this god creature is all powerful and all knowing and PERFECT. A perfect being cannot change his mind about what is moral and what is not. He either was right before, or he was wrong.
    Let’s address the other bear in the room… the idea of free will. As we all know, it is not philosophically possible to reconcile the idea of free will with the idea of an omniscient being. If god knows everything, then we cannot be free to choose. It is simply not possible. And if he is omnipotent, he can do anything… then he cannot be omniscient, because if he knows what he will do, he is powerless to do anything else. Then of course there is the other insurmountable problem of evil. Since god created everything, he created evil, if he is powerless to stop evil, he is not omnipotent. If he does have the power to stop it, but chooses not to, then he is evil as well.
    Then, let’s consider the idea of an infinite and perfect being… who, after an INFINITE amount of time existing in a state of PERFECTION, decided to fuck it all up by creating an imperfect universe that he knew full well was doomed to fail. Why would he do this, Chris? What changed in his perfect world that he felt the need to embark on this journey. Why did he decide to bring evil into the world? Why did he create the other heavenly creatures who were destined to become the fallen ones? Especially since he knew fully in advance exactly how it was all going to play out.
    The evidence against your god is way more than a lack of evidence FOR your god. Yes, there is a complete lack of evidence that ANY of the things you claim about the nature and reality of your god are actually, in any way, true. That alone is sufficient reason to toss your claims into the trash heap of all the other discarded gods of history. But add to that the logical paradoxes created by a god who possesses the properties you claim, and it is apparent to anyone who care to think honestly about it that your god is simply imaginary, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER GOD and mythical figure that preceded him.

  358. on 15 May 2012 at 1:32 am 358.Anonymous said …

    “- Simple. I don’t. I certainly COULD be wrong. If I am, well at least I’m erring on the side of love.”

    Love? somehow you get love from your belief in the violent, sadistic, xenophobic, narcissistic, bullying, abusive asshole portrayed in the bible as Yahweh?

    But, that’s a distraction.

    As Prime points out, your arrogance speaks volumes and shows how disconnected from reality you’ve become.

    You still haven’t proven that this imaginary bronze age goat-herder’s magic spirit exists. Until you do so, no-one needs to disprove anything at all. It’s all in your mind. It’s a delusion and that’s the reason that you can’t prove your god exists. All you have is disordered reasoning and special pleading.

  359. on 15 May 2012 at 1:21 pm 359.Lou(DFW) said …

    344.Chris said …

    “But to be fair, here is a short list of mine: (in no particular order)”

    Or particular relevance.

    All of the “evidence” on your list as equally or more legitimate explanations, or is simple untrue.

    For example:

    “7) “knowledge” of absolute morality – even if we don’t always follow it. IE rape is ALWAYS wrong.”

    There is no “absolute morality,” and as such, rape is not always wrong.

    “11) my own experiences – certainly anecdotal, however, I allow you to use “non” experience as evidence.”

    Nobody gave you authority to “allow” anything. Such is the arrogance of your position. Regardless, your experience isn’t acceptable evidence. Besides, my “experience” is that god doesn’t exist as you describe, so my personal experience negates yours, at least for the purposes of this discussion.

  360. on 15 May 2012 at 6:09 pm 360.DPK said …

    Think I have to step away from my friend Lou(DWF) on this one. We usually are in agreement, but I can’t think of an instance where rape is not morally wrong, even though I agree that “absolute morality” is a myth. Morality is always tempered by circumstance, and what is morally right in one instance can well be morally wrong in another, and flippy flop. Hence, the idea of an absolute moral code that does not allow for human intelligence and judgement is just an illusion. But rape??? That’s a bit extreme. I can think of a scenario where it is more moral to kill someone, but I honestly can’t think of one where it is more moral to rape someone.

  361. on 15 May 2012 at 6:30 pm 361.Lou(DFW) said …

    360.DPK said …

    “Think I have to step away from my friend Lou(DWF) on this one. We usually are in agreement, but I can’t think of an instance where rape is not morally wrong, even though I agree that “absolute morality” is a myth.”

    And that’s the only context in which I mean that. Of course it’s against my morals, too. But it’s not “absolutely” wrong.

    Aren’t there some cultures wherein the wife must accept the husband’s “advances” regardless of whether or not she wants to? Is that rape?

  362. on 15 May 2012 at 7:19 pm 362.Prime said …

    I had a really nice comment to make here, but it’s apparently a bit spammy, so…
    Free viagra, 100% off.

  363. on 15 May 2012 at 7:21 pm 363.Prime said …

    Let’s concede the idea that this r*pe thing does provide absolute morality and see what happens. Say, “There is an absolute moral position: Do not r*pe people.”

    Then it’s a bit odd how that didn’t make the Ten Commandments (either time, or the Catholic version). In fact, the book in the bible that really, in a sense, should say “do not r*pe people,” Exodus, goes on to describe r*ping people on the very next page.

    Also, if it is an absolute moral precept that r*pe is always a morally losing position, so what? In context, is it supposed to be proof that God exists and “has written an absolute morality on the hearts of men”? That can’t be true anyway since it has actually taken moral reasoning to decide that r*pe is wrong (as proved by the bible), with the first step being that women aren’t property–a point God is particularly bad at.

    Further, this moral “code” sucks because it’s not a code, it’s a precept. It doesn’t answer questions about advertising or about rain barrels in Colorado or about other relatively easy things like murder and larceny.

    And in other news, aren’t there some Christians out there suggesting that “dad” has his friends r*pe his lesbian daughters straight?
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/28/1087234/-Radio-Host-to-Father-Have-Your-Lesbian-Teenage-Daughter-Raped-Straight

  364. on 15 May 2012 at 7:22 pm 364.Prime said …

    Hey look, it was using the word r*pe too many times in a post that tipped off the filter. I even added the link after the fact.

  365. on 15 May 2012 at 10:40 pm 365.Chris said …

    DPK -

    “Now let’s review what Chris has actually admitted about the nature of his god. This all knowing creature declared at one time, that it was moral for certain people to kill other people for an endless list of trivial matters, like not being a virgin on your wedding night, being created homosexual (was that a design flaw from the perfect creator, Chris?) being an insolent child, working on the sabath.. on and on and on. He also decided, with his infinite foreknowledge, that it was perfectly moral to own and even beat slaves, rip open the bellies of pregnant women, and dash babies on rocks.”

    …..well, so we can get into these issue in more depth, please provide us all with the verses of each of these and we can discuss them.

    “Then, let’s consider the idea of an infinite and perfect being… who, after an INFINITE amount of time existing in a state of PERFECTION, decided to fuck it all up by creating an imperfect universe that he knew full well was doomed to fail. Why would he do this, Chris? What changed in his perfect world that he felt the need to embark on this journey. Why did he decide to bring evil into the world? Why did he create the other heavenly creatures who were destined to become the fallen ones? Especially since he knew fully in advance exactly how it was all going to play out”

    ….These are all great questions and I would be more than happy to address all of them. However, given that you asked quite a few I suggest we go through them 1-2 at a time so that they are given their full due. I will let you chose the first two that you would like me to address.

  366. on 15 May 2012 at 10:50 pm 366.Chris said …

    Prime -

    ““- Simple. I don’t. I certainly COULD be wrong. If I am, well at least I’m erring on the side of love.”

    Why don’t you go ahead and define this “love” that you’re erring on the side of, then?

    This is the kind of love that allows people to rape others for their whole lives, pray to Jesus, accept him, and have everything be cool with God at the very last minute, or no?

    This is the kind of love that applies equally to every person everywhere all the time therefore destroying the meaning of that word, or no?

    This is the kind of love that compels you to think that other people are going to hell if they get it wrong, or no?

    This is the kind of love that leaves you nervous with doubt that just in case you aren’t serious enough or not devout enough or careful enough or make a single mistake in thought or behavior or whatever that you’ll go to hell too, or no?

    This is the kind of love that tries to police your thoughts, or no?

    Tell us all about this “love” you err on the side of. Tell us what you mean by that, how you err on that side of it, and why, exactly, it is that your Christian Supremacist stance on the matter enables you to be erring more successfully on the side of love than people who don’t believe in your particular set of religious delusions.

    Go ahead… tell me one way that you can be erring on the side of love that I can’t. I dare you.”

    Prime, it’s not about “ability” its about truth of love. Does love exist? If not, then NOTHING you do is loving. Certainly you can love the same way I am trying to in my life, but from YOUR belief, it can’t exist.

    But how I define love? As best by what I see in Jesus: others before me.

    What it does mean is that no matter WHAT – I will NOT HATE another.

    Others before me.

    Certainly you can do it too, and I welcome you to! Despite your religious belief, I truly believe that more and more love is needed in the world and Love (not violence nor reciprical hate) is needed to combat hate and evil.

    And yes, this can take form in many, many different ways, and yes we can go all night and day with “what if’s” on how this would look. But that’s the long/short of it: others before me.

    Jesus’ teachings are quite clear on the matter WITHOUT exception (enemies included).

    Does this mean I’m perfect at it? Of course not, just as I doubt ANY on here are perfect at THEIR moral code.

    But by all means Prime, jump on in with your love, the world could use it!

  367. on 15 May 2012 at 10:54 pm 367.Chris said …

    Prime -

    “Homeopathy… maybe?
    Mormonism…. maybe?
    Pink invisible unicorm… maybe?
    Flying spaghetti monster… maybe?

    So why don’t you put all of your time and effort into supporting those “maybes” instead of the one maybe, probably the one you were born into, that you have decided is a special maybe that you want to cling to?”

    …Who says I haven’t done so Prime? How do you know I have tested my faith, critically looked into it.

    Your list is proving my point: In each case, there is MORE evidence against than for, which is why most of us are reasonably sure they don’t exist.

    And hey, if you have done the same for God, then you should be able to provide the evidence AGAINST God other than “lack of evidence.”

    That you haven’t, only shows that you can’t. If you can’t just admit you have no evidence against God, if you do why not list it? What’s the harm in listing it? Especially if you want to show I’m wrong and delusional, just list some of the smack down evidence against God…

  368. on 15 May 2012 at 10:55 pm 368.alex said …

    366.Chris said …

    wtf? somebody translate.

  369. on 15 May 2012 at 11:00 pm 369.Chris said …

    Prime -

    Nice run through of my list! Now, do you want to take them one by one? Or did you just want to put your little rant on them?

    And at least I provided a list and am willing to discuss them!

    Still waiting on yours……..

  370. on 15 May 2012 at 11:35 pm 370.Lou(DFW) said …

    367.Chris said …

    “Your list is proving my point:”

    If it really does, then you keep proving that you’re delusional or incredibly stupid.

    “In each case, there is MORE evidence against than for, which is why most of us are reasonably sure they don’t exist.”

    You keep harping on this as if somehow legitimizes a belief in an imaginary god – it doesn’t. It doesn’t matter how much evidence there is AGAINST something, it matters most how much evidence there is FOR something. We don’t have to provide ANY evidence AGAINST god or any other proposition, because as long as there isn’t ANY evidence FOR god or any other proposition, then there’s no case that must be made AGAINST any proposition for which there’s NO EVIDENCE. That’s why nobody but crazies argue for propositions that don’t have any evidence. And we don’t necessarily reject them because there’s more evidence against them, we reject them because there’s NO EVIDENCE FOR THEM.

  371. on 15 May 2012 at 11:43 pm 371.Prime said …

    365.Chris said …

    “DPK -
    …..well, so we can get into these issue in more depth, please provide us all with the verses of each of these and we can discuss them.”

    Beating slaves: Exodus 21:20-21, Luke 12:47-48.
    Ripping open pregnant women: Hosea 13:16.
    Dashing babies against rocks: Psalms 137:9.

    See how easy that was?

    Now, why don’t you address the real question I asked instead of dancing around the periphery? What is the *default position* on a matter of not having any evidence, belief or disbelief?

  372. on 15 May 2012 at 11:45 pm 372.Prime said …

    Chris:
    “Prime, it’s not about “ability” its about truth of love. Does love exist? If not, then NOTHING you do is loving. Certainly you can love the same way I am trying to in my life, but from YOUR belief, it can’t exist.
    But how I define love? As best by what I see in Jesus: others before me.
    What it does mean is that no matter WHAT – I will NOT HATE another.
    Others before me.
    Certainly you can do it too, and I welcome you to! Despite your religious belief, I truly believe that more and more love is needed in the world and Love (not violence nor reciprical hate) is needed to combat hate and evil.”

    All of a sudden from “my belief” love doesn’t exist? You’re good at the non sequiturs, aren’t you?

    What are my beliefs, especially my religious beliefs, since you talk about them like you’re an expert on them?

    I’ll give you a hint: I don’t have religious beliefs. None. Null.

  373. on 15 May 2012 at 11:50 pm 373.Prime said …

    367.Chris said …

    “-Who says I haven’t done so Prime? How do you know I have tested my faith, critically looked into it.”

    You do. You’re not on here arguing for Mormonism or Islam or belief in Ra or Zeus or or Scientology or Thor or Buddhism or Zoroastrianism or Mithraism or Hinduism or anything else. Therefore, you’re taking a maybe, Christianity, and putting it up like it isn’t a maybe. Since you still believe Christianity, you haven’t critically looked into it. It’s just not possible to critically look into it and continue to believe it. You can look into it, but not critically. Once you do the outsider’s test “What does this look like from the outside?” the whole house of cards falls down on itself and you’re done.

    What makes you dismiss Islam? What makes you dismiss Hinduism? Why doesn’t that apply to Christianity?

    I think you’d do yourself a huge favor to actually look into what historians and skeptics say about your Jesus and other religious claims, including the highly political foundations of Christianity. You might be surprised to find out that you’ve been lied to about the whole affair, mostly in terms of lies of omission, for your whole life.

  374. on 15 May 2012 at 11:52 pm 374.DPK said …

    Chris.. it is not necessary to quote the entire text of a post before replying to it. Please save the bandwidth and stop trying to disguise the fact that your actual reply lacks substance.

    “…..well, so we can get into these issue in more depth, please provide us all with the verses of each of these and we can discuss them.”

    Not my job to quote you chapter and verse from the bible. Unless you deny that the bible actually contains these things, in which case the burden is on you… I have read the bible…. have you? Or, more likely you have been spoon fed it by a theologian or minister who was there to explain to you what god “really” meant when he instructs how to prepare burnt offerings so that he may delight in the smell of burning flesh, or how and where to acquire slaves from conquered nations.

    “….These are all great questions and I would be more than happy to address all of them. However, given that you asked quite a few I suggest we go through them 1-2 at a time so that they are given their full due. I will let you chose the first two that you would like me to address.”

    Well, you have been asking for evidence against the existence of your omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent god, and I just gave you several reasons why the god as you defined him is impossible, and now you want to limit it to 1 or 2…? So how about you explain ANY of them without resorting to “god is a mystery that is beyond human understanding”.

  375. on 15 May 2012 at 11:53 pm 375.Prime said …

    369.Chris said …

    “And at least I provided a list and am willing to discuss them!
    Still waiting on yours……..”

    That you think anyone has to put up a list disproving a claim about a being that has no evidence, regardless of what you call evidence, shows that you don’t understand the first thing about looking at a matter critically. Not the first thing.

    Read this, get a grip: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
    ‘When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. “If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.”‘

    You are committing the fallacy of appealing to ignorance every single time you ask us to disprove your imaginary God.

  376. on 15 May 2012 at 11:57 pm 376.Anonymous said …

    Alex said: “wtf? somebody translate”

    Chris seeks to redefine words and meanings in order to insulate them from examination. By arguing that there is more evidence against something else, Chris throws in a red herring and tries to legitimize their position by having everyone else argue against Chris’ unproven assertion.

    In trying to get people to argue against the non-existence of an imaginary being, Chris can then shift goalposts and continue to redefine words at will. It’s all in order to avoid taking on the burden of proof.

    By saying “I (Chris) can’t prove it, but you can’ disprove it, Chris tries to make the positions equal (false equivalence). They are not, and no-one need be baited into Chris’ false position of “prove me wrong or else I am right” or the “other things are more wrong so this more likely right”. The latter is a circular argument in that it assumes what it is trying to prove.

    Bottom line. It’s all about shifting the burden of proof, and a bunch of other fallacious arguments all of which seek to divert attention from the theist’s inability to prove that any god exists.

  377. on 16 May 2012 at 2:42 am 377.Prime said …

    369.Chris said …

    “And at least I provided a list and am willing to discuss them!
    Still waiting on yours……..”

    Watch this. Watch how you react to this list of essentially unrelated ideas that threaten your claims about religion. Watch yourself dismiss them so easily. Watch yourself rationalize them. Then call yourself out, like you tried to do with us, when we tried to tell you why your list doesn’t provide the least bit of evidence for your God.

    1. Dinosaurs.
    2. Ebola and diarrhea.
    3. Dry rot.
    4. Starving children.
    5. Islam.
    6. Chinese people.
    7. Nuclear weapons.
    8. A universe at least some 80B light years across.
    9. Hinduism.
    10. Tsunamis and hurricanes.
    11. Dopamine.
    12. Sex.
    13. Racism.
    14. Solar flares.
    15. Rape, despite claims of “absolute morality.”
    16. Slavery (Cf. the bible).
    17. The shoddiness of the bible.
    18. Ugly, retarded, and deformed people.
    19. The Holocaust.
    20. The complete lack of necessity of your, or any, God.
    21. Thor and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
    22. Science!

    Shall I continue?

  378. on 16 May 2012 at 3:07 am 378.Lou(DFW) said …

    377.Prime said …

    “6. Chinese people.”

    Oh hell, I know it’s “wrong,” but I literally laughed out loud when I read that one.

    OK, it’s not a “wrong” as is rape, but it’s still not “absolutely” wrong.

  379. on 16 May 2012 at 3:25 am 379.Prime said …

    No, seriously. Chinese people.

    The Chinese people, when confronted with Christian missionaries halfway through the second millennium after Jesus, asked fairly enough, to paraphrase, “If God has revealed Himself, how is it that He has allowed so many centuries to elapse before informing the Chinese?”

  380. on 16 May 2012 at 4:00 am 380.Anonymous said …

    379.Prime – perhaps this is related to the mental gymnastics Xtians must go through to get from “Jesus is the [only] way [to salvation]” to “well, except for babies”, and “except for those that have lived a good life that haven’t had a chance to hear the good word”. Perhaps.

    Now, though, by trying to rationalize the first issue, we obtain a tacit admission that morality is possible without knowledge of sky-daddy and the bible but that subsequent rejection could send a previously “saved” individual to eternal torment. That, in itself, brings up other contradictions and so on.

    Thus the house of cards tumbles yet again.

  381. on 16 May 2012 at 5:00 am 381.DPK said …

    Hell with the Chinese, I’m waiting for Chris to explain the dichotomy of an all knowing (and presumably all directing) god with the idea of free will.
    If god “knows” that tomorrow I will step in a pile of dogshit, how can I avoid stepping in dogshit without invalidating god’s power? If he is all powerful, then we are all powerless. It will take a lot more than mental masturbation to explain that problem away. But it will be fun to watch him try. I predict he will disappear now and go back to say a rosary for me.
    Maybe Stan will jump in to explain that such a dichotomy can only exist within a non-physical axiom based non-temporal reality which can only be conceived of if in fact it is real. Because, after all, if it weren’t real, we wouldn’t have words for it, would we?

  382. on 16 May 2012 at 3:48 pm 382.Lou(DFW) said …

    381.DPK said …

    “Maybe Stan will jump in to explain that such a dichotomy can only exist within a non-physical axiom based non-temporal reality which can only be conceived of if in fact it is real.”

    “…while supernatural entities may not be directly observable, any effects these entities might have on the material world should manifest themselves as observable phenomena. Anything observable is subject to scientific inquiry. On the other hand, if the supernatural has no observable effects on the natural world, then why even worry about it?” – Dr. Victor Stenger, Physicist, PhD

  383. on 16 May 2012 at 3:54 pm 383.DPK said …

    Yes… imagine what a universe without any supernatural processes or gods would look like…. hmm, exactly like THIS one.

  384. on 16 May 2012 at 4:39 pm 384.Chris said …

    Prime -

    Thank you for your list.

    Now, unlike you running a quick rant on them, I’m all for discussing them.

    If you have any you would like to discuss first, by all means chose, or should I?

    i don’t dismiss them, I completely understand how you might see them as evidence and would like to dive into it further.

    As to your other posts:

    “All of a sudden from “my belief” love doesn’t exist? You’re good at the non sequiturs, aren’t you?”

    ….No, I said LOVE doesn’t exists within your belief. If it does, where? How? Is it more than just a chemical reaction?

    and…
    “You do. You’re not on here arguing for Mormonism or Islam or belief in Ra or Zeus or or Scientology or Thor or Buddhism or Zoroastrianism or Mithraism or Hinduism or anything else. Therefore, you’re taking a maybe, Christianity, and putting it up like it isn’t a maybe. Since you still believe Christianity, you haven’t critically looked into it. It’s just not possible to critically look into it and continue to believe it. You can look into it, but not critically. Once you do the outsider’s test “What does this look like from the outside?” the whole house of cards falls down on itself and you’re done.

    What makes you dismiss Islam? What makes you dismiss Hinduism? Why doesn’t that apply to Christianity?

    I think you’d do yourself a huge favor to actually look into what historians and skeptics say about your Jesus and other religious claims, including the highly political foundations of Christianity. You might be surprised to find out that you’ve been lied to about the whole affair, mostly in terms of lies of omission, for your whole life.”

    ….Ah, yes the OTF. infallible and completely accurate test. They ONLY way you know you have done it right, is if you disbelieve in your god…if you still do, you did it wrong.

    I do know the foundations of my belief and I do know the critical claims of my faith as well. I would GLADLY go into why I don’t follow the other faiths! Which one would you like to discuss first?

    Pick ANYTHING you think is critical that you think I haven’t considered and let’s discuss it!

    I’m open and willing to discuss ANYTHING anyone thinks is critical and evidence against my faith…yet, no one has truly taken me up on this…

    But, you did Prime, with at least pointing up some verses, so let’s discuss them in the next post.

  385. on 16 May 2012 at 5:10 pm 385.Lou(DFW) said …

    384.Chris said …

    “I’m open and willing to discuss ANYTHING anyone thinks is critical and evidence against my faith…yet, no one has truly taken me up on this…”

    Yes they have. You are a victim of delusion and denial. You are trapped in the xtian bubble. As I said before, discussing your faith with you is like discussing the existence of the tooth fairy with a five year old. The five year old KNOWS that the tooth fairy exists, and nothing will convince him otherwise even though there’s no evidence that the tooth fairy exists except to the five year old who’s been tricked into believing in it.

  386. on 16 May 2012 at 6:12 pm 386.Prime said …

    384.Chris said …

    “If you have any you would like to discuss first, by all means chose, or should I?”

    I don’t want to discuss them. I put them up to make fun of your list.
    23. AIDS.
    24. Tooth decay.
    25. Jellyfish.
    26. Recurrent laryngeal nerve.
    27. Dandruff and body odor.
    28. Ockham’s razor.
    29. Bot fly.
    30. Being biological, just like all the other animals.

    “….No, I said LOVE doesn’t exists within your belief. If it does, where? How? Is it more than just a chemical reaction?”

    You really have no idea how intensely insulting your Christian Supremacy would be if it weren’t for the fact that almost all of society is trained like a little dog to ignore how intensely insulting Christian Supremacy is, do you?

  387. on 16 May 2012 at 6:21 pm 387.Lou(DFW) said …

    386.Prime said …

    “I don’t want to discuss them. I put them up to make fun of your list.”

    31. Menstruation – part of ID?

  388. on 16 May 2012 at 7:12 pm 388.Prime said …

    386.Prime said …

    “I don’t want to discuss them. I put them up to make fun of your list.”

    I wonder if this honesty on my part will somehow be turned against me, accusing me of being dishonest when, indeed, all I’ve been is satirical. (In my experience, religious folks don’t do well with satire.)

  389. on 16 May 2012 at 10:42 pm 389.DPK said …

    “I’m open and willing to discuss ANYTHING anyone thinks is critical and evidence against my faith…yet, no one has truly taken me up on this…”

    Ehem… I’ve presented you several direct challenges to your ideas and definition of god and you have failed to respond to any of them, other than the standard “Old Testament doesn’t apply” dodge.

    Still waiting for you to explain the concept of free will with the concept of an omniscient god, why a perfect being after an infinite time decided to create a flawed universe, why other supernatural beings in a perfect heaven would rebel against a perfect god, and why god created them in the first place knowing they would do exactly that, why god created evil, and why he refuses to stop it, and why a perfect being decided to change his mind about the fundamentals of morality between the time of the old and new testament.
    When you are done with that, explain what a perfect being required a human sacrifice, manifesting himself as a human in order to sacrifice himself to himself in a barbarous and bloody execution in order to appease himself for the “sins” of the creatures he designed and created with full knowledge of exactly what they would do and how they would behave. Then, explain why he judges and holds accountable with the horrific threat of ETERNAL punishment for that which all unfolds strictly according to his divine plan and only according to his will….. um, what with him being omnipotent and omniscient and all.
    Then lastly, for now (I could go on for pages) explain how you reconcile the perfect, all loving and all knowing creator of the universe with a being who finds delight in the smell of burnt flesh. “An odor pleasing to the LORD…”

    Yup, still waiting on all that.

  390. on 16 May 2012 at 10:50 pm 390.Chris said …

    Here’s the original claim

    “This all knowing creature declared at one time, that it was moral for certain people to kill other people for an endless list of trivial matters, like not being a virgin on your wedding night, being created homosexual (was that a design flaw from the perfect creator, Chris?) being an insolent child, working on the sabath.. on and on and on. He also decided, with his infinite foreknowledge, that it was perfectly moral to own and even beat slaves, rip open the bellies of pregnant women, and dash babies on rocks.”

    …..Remember now, the claim is GOD is deciding these things…ordering them and finding them MORAL.

    Here is Prime’s list.

    “Beating slaves: Exodus 21:20-21, Luke 12:47-48.
    Ripping open pregnant women: Hosea 13:16.
    Dashing babies against rocks: Psalms 137:9.”

    …DPK decided NOT to post the verses, he just wants to chuck them out there as if that is a discussion…

    Exodus 21:20-21:
    “And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
    21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.”

    ….So Prime, are you saying you have a problem with a person being punished for beating and killing his slave? Where in this verse does God 1) order one to beat their slaves, 2) find it perfectly moral to do so?

    In any case here is further reading: http://bible.cc/exodus/21-20.htm

    “Luke 12:47-48
    New International Version (NIV)
    47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”

    ……Well, first of all, here is the CONTEXT of the verses quoted: http://bible.org/seriespage/way-wait-luke-1235-48

    Kind of changes the reading doesn’t it? Jesus isn’t really ORDERING or saying it’s MORAL to beat ones slave.

  391. on 16 May 2012 at 10:50 pm 391.Chris said …

    PART TWO:

    Hosea 13:16
    “New Living Translation (©2007)
    The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords.”

    …I will link this up: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom26.xx.xvi.html
    And
    http://bible.cc/hosea/13-16.htm

    …And one must remember that the Prophets – of which Hosea is – is a WARNING first. Basically saying because of your evil and guilt, judgment will happen…if the warned nation would turn away from their EVIL, no such judgment would happen.
    ALSO, this is God’s JUDGMENT. Not ours, nor is it a command to do so in place of his judgment. It’s an INSTRUMENT of judgment.

    Of course this brings up the question: does God have a right to judge his creation as he sees?
    These aren’t just happy-go-lucky people that God just wants killed, rather he WANTS them to turn from evil, thus such a dire warning.

    Psalms. 137:9

    ….Is this God? Nope…just the psalm writer.
    Psalms are Jewish POEMS, NOT dictations/orders/directions from God. Poems.
    What is said here is said BY the psalm writer. Not God CONDONING or saying is MORAL to do so.

    Thank you for the list, if you would like to discuss further I will be happy to further. Otherwise we can move onto more if you’d like.

  392. on 16 May 2012 at 10:53 pm 392.Lou(DFW) said …

    384.Chris said …

    “I’m open and willing to discuss ANYTHING anyone thinks is critical and evidence against my faith…yet, no one has truly taken me up on this…”

    Tell you what, you go pray your ass off for god to appear TO ME, not 2,000 years ago only to ancient goat-herders, and DIRECTLY COMMUNICATE TO ME, not through a book they wrote 2,000 years ago – then we can have a REAL DISCUSSION about god. I’m here. you’re here, god isn’t. Until then, you have nothing but bluster to present here.

  393. on 16 May 2012 at 10:54 pm 393.Chris said …

    Prime -

    “I don’t want to discuss them. I put them up to make fun of your list.”

    Seems to be the MO around here. Throw stuff up but wish NOT to DISCUSS.

    Why not?

    Seems that if you are secure in 1) your belief, 2) that what you are claiming about God and the Bible you should be able to back it up…

    But backing up your arguments don’t seem to be what you do best, or at all.

    And that fine…but strange…after all, it would be a great opportunity to show how silly and delusional I am!

    Naw…I think it’s something else….

  394. on 16 May 2012 at 10:59 pm 394.Chris said …

    DPK -

    “Well, you have been asking for evidence against the existence of your omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent god, and I just gave you several reasons why the god as you defined him is impossible, and now you want to limit it to 1 or 2…? So how about you explain ANY of them without resorting to “god is a mystery that is beyond human understanding”.”

    Then you say:

    “till waiting for you to explain the concept of free will with the concept of an omniscient god, why a perfect being after an infinite time decided to create a flawed universe, why other supernatural beings in a perfect heaven would rebel against a perfect god, and why god created them in the first place knowing they would do exactly that, why god created evil, and why he refuses to stop it, and why a perfect being decided to change his mind about the fundamentals of morality between the time of the old and new testament.
    When you are done with that, explain what a perfect being required a human sacrifice, manifesting himself as a human in order to sacrifice himself to himself in a barbarous and bloody execution in order to appease himself for the “sins” of the creatures he designed and created with full knowledge of exactly what they would do and how they would behave. Then, explain why he judges and holds accountable with the horrific threat of ETERNAL punishment for that which all unfolds strictly according to his divine plan and only according to his will….. um, what with him being omnipotent and omniscient and all.
    Then lastly, for now (I could go on for pages) explain how you reconcile the perfect, all loving and all knowing creator of the universe with a being who finds delight in the smell of burnt flesh. “An odor pleasing to the LORD…”

    Yup, still waiting on all that.

    When I asked, politely to pick 1-2, so we can keep track of the argument. You have thrown up more questions.

    Please, re-ask two, that you would truly like me to address.

    And next time you decide NOT to post up text to back up your claim – I suggest you do so, so you are aware of the text and what it says, rather than what you HOPE or WANT it to say…

  395. on 16 May 2012 at 11:00 pm 395.Prime said …

    393.Chris said …

    “Seems to be the MO around here. Throw stuff up but wish NOT to DISCUSS.
    Why not?”

    Because you don’t discuss. Look at that tripe you put up there about the slave-beating, women-ripping-open, babies-bashed-on-rocks parts in that holy book of yours.

    You don’t want to discuss any more than a pigeon on a chessboard wants to play chess.

  396. on 16 May 2012 at 11:03 pm 396.Prime said …

    Maybe that’s not good enough evidence of your unwillingness to “discuss.” Try this one:

    Evidence for God please?
    “Jesus.”
    But what about Muhammad?
    “Obviously false.”
    Why?
    “Not Jesus.”

    That’s not a discussion. It’s you camping out in your delusion pretending you’re having a discussion and begging people to give you more changes to spout your non-discussed, preconceived notions about how the universe is. …just like a pigeon on a chessboard.

  397. on 16 May 2012 at 11:04 pm 397.Prime said …

    “more chances to spout your…” pardon the typo.

  398. on 16 May 2012 at 11:05 pm 398.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “Tell you what, you go pray your ass off for god to appear TO ME, not 2,000 years ago only to ancient goat-herders, and DIRECTLY COMMUNICATE TO ME, not through a book they wrote 2,000 years ago – then we can have a REAL DISCUSSION about god. I’m here. you’re here, god isn’t. Until then, you have nothing but bluster to present here.”

    …So you are saying THAT would change your mind? Of course it wouldn’t! What if you did see God in some manner tonight? Would you change? Of course not, you would write it off to something…sorry God doesn’t work the way YOU WANT him to.

    You don’t WANT God in your life, thus he let’s you have that. You are getting just what you want…no God.

    You should be happy about it! Instead, I see how “awful” my faith is, not how GREAT your atheism is.

    I see anger. Anger at something you don’t believe in!

    I don’t believe in Allah as the Muslim believes, but I sure don’t have anger toward Him…I don’t believe in him!

    But that’s okay Lou, keep asking God to jump through hoops FOR YOU, for YOU who do not WANT him.

    Tell you what Lou. I dare you to pray for God to reveal himself to YOU, say a week. And really mean it too, if you truly want God to reveal himself to you (as you just posted) than YOU ask him to do so and HONESTLY mean it.

    Doubtful you will, but at least now you either say yes/no…and your answer shows your true colors.

    I dare you, Lou…pray to God, see what happens. If God doesn’t exist, you have nothing to be afraid of….

  399. on 16 May 2012 at 11:11 pm 399.Lou(DFW) said …

    398.Chris said …

    “But that’s okay Lou, keep asking God to jump through hoops FOR YOU, for YOU who do not WANT him.”

    JUMP THROUGH HOOPS?! He allegedly does that throughout the bible stories of 2,000 years. All I want him to do is just show-up once. Your entire reply is nothing but one big rationalization and excuse as to why he won’t.

    In short, your answer is – he won’t.

    Thanks for playing.

  400. on 16 May 2012 at 11:12 pm 400.Chris said …

    Prime -

    “Because you don’t discuss. Look at that tripe you put up there about the slave-beating, women-ripping-open, babies-bashed-on-rocks parts in that holy book of yours.”

    Tripe?

    I showed the versed that YOU quoted and showed how they DON’T portray what you want them to.

    Sorry about that, but then maybe you should read a bit of the verses…

    or show me how what I put up is wrong and the way YOU meant them to be is correct.

    THAT’S called discussion Prime and I continue to offer it..you just are spouting…sorry your verses posted didn’t support your case, but then again I doubt you read and study the Bible, so it makes sense.

  401. on 16 May 2012 at 11:14 pm 401.Chris said …

    Prime -

    Please, outside of the first one in this list, quote where I said:

    “Evidence for God please?
    “Jesus.”
    But what about Muhammad?
    “Obviously false.”
    Why?
    “Not Jesus.”

    …..Please, quote me VERBATIM where I said that Muhammad was “obviously false” because he’s “not Jesus.”

  402. on 16 May 2012 at 11:16 pm 402.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “JUMP THROUGH HOOPS?! He allegedly does that throughout the bible stories of 2,000 years. All I want him to do is just show-up once. Your entire reply is nothing but one big rationalization and excuse as to why he won’t.

    In short, your answer is – he won’t.”

    No sir, it’s a challenge to YOU. I laid it down and YOU are backing away.

    YOU do the praying Lou, if you want God to reveal himself to you DIRECTLY.

    You won’t tho…and use me as your reason. Weak Lou.

    Heck, Lou, you could come back in seven days and say nothing happened! Here’s your chance! Just pray for seven days to God…and you can’t even do that!

    Guess you might think God is real after all…

  403. on 16 May 2012 at 11:20 pm 403.Prime said …

    Cool, Chris is playing “moving the goalposts” again. Quick, everyone watch!

  404. on 16 May 2012 at 11:21 pm 404.Prime said …

    “I see anger. Anger at something you don’t believe in!

    I don’t believe in Allah as the Muslim believes, but I sure don’t have anger toward Him…I don’t believe in him!”

    Actually, Chris, we’re angry at you, not silly non-existent “God” thingies.

  405. on 16 May 2012 at 11:23 pm 405.Prime said …

    “Heck, Lou, you could come back in seven days and say nothing happened! Here’s your chance! Just pray for seven days to God…and you can’t even do that!”

    Or…
    “Heck, Chris, you could come back in seven days and say nothing happened! Here’s your chance! Just pray for seven days to Allah…and you can’t even do that!”

    See how silly that is, Chris? See how you’re asking Lou(DFW) to pray to something he doesn’t believe in and then trying to accuse him of doing it wrong when he doesn’t do it?

  406. on 16 May 2012 at 11:26 pm 406.Chris said …

    Prime -

    “See how silly that is, Chris? See how you’re asking Lou(DFW) to pray to something he doesn’t believe in and then trying to accuse him of doing it wrong when he doesn’t do it?”

    No, Prime, what I doing is showing that Lou DOESN’T WANT God to exist, which fuels his disbelief.

    What harm for Lou is there to pray to God…after all, Lou ASKED ME to…all I’m asking is for Lou to do the work he wants me to do.

    If Lou WANTS God to reveal himself, then he should ask God to.

    If Lou doesn’t, then Lou should be able to say that plainly rather than try to ditch it off on me and use ME as an excuse NOT TO.

  407. on 16 May 2012 at 11:28 pm 407.Prime said …

    No, what I doing is showing that Chris DOESN’T WANT Allah to exist, which fuels his disbelief.

    What harm for Chris is there to pray to Allah…after all, Prime ASKED HIM to…all I’m asking is for Chris to do the work Prime asked him to do.

    If Chris WANTS Allah to reveal himself, then he should ask Allah to.

    If Chris doesn’t, then Chris should be able to say that plainly rather than try to ditch it off on Jesus and use JESUS as an excuse NOT TO.

  408. on 16 May 2012 at 11:29 pm 408.Lou(DFW) said …

    405.Prime said …

    “See how silly that is, Chris?”

    Now it’s clear why I keep referring to any “discussion” with him as being one with a five year old about the tooth fairy.

    It’s similar to the schoolyard “I know you are, but what am I?” defense.

    When someone can’t reply in their own reasonable way, they simply try to reverse the argument on you.

  409. on 16 May 2012 at 11:30 pm 409.Chris said …

    Prime -

    “Cool, Chris is playing “moving the goalposts” again. Quick, everyone watch!”

    This would be funny if only for a couple things.

    1) I again, showed that I am willing to discuss.
    2) You missed quoted me, and I showed that, to even include things I didn’t say.
    3) Tried to post verses to mean ONE THING, when in fact they mean something else…call it tripe to save face, and still avoid discussing ANYTHING but posting these rants

    and, please show, how I have moved the goal posts?

    But it is clear Prime: you want to spout, not discuss…

  410. on 16 May 2012 at 11:30 pm 410.Prime said …

    Nothing “fuels our disbelief,” you simpleton. I thought you were cottoning on to that default position thing where disbelief is what you have before you have any good reasons to believe, but it’s apparent that you don’t get it.

    Why don’t you believe in Allah? Why don’t you want to believe in him?

  411. on 16 May 2012 at 11:31 pm 411.Prime said …

    Okay, speedy, you caught me.

    Cite me a bible verse where God or Jesus *clearly and unambiguously* says “you can’t own slaves” to make up for the 11 (that I know of) where says you can and how hard you can beat them.

  412. on 16 May 2012 at 11:32 pm 412.Chris said …

    Prime -

    “No, what I doing is showing that Chris DOESN’T WANT Allah to exist, which fuels his disbelief.

    What harm for Chris is there to pray to Allah…after all, Prime ASKED HIM to…all I’m asking is for Chris to do the work Prime asked him to do.

    If Chris WANTS Allah to reveal himself, then he should ask Allah to.

    If Chris doesn’t, then Chris should be able to say that plainly rather than try to ditch it off on Jesus and use JESUS as an excuse NOT TO.”

    LOL.

    Still avoiding discussion, though I see…

  413. on 16 May 2012 at 11:33 pm 413.Prime said …

    Again, you don’t want to discuss. If you wanted to discuss, you’d start with providing real evidence for God, then you’d provide real substantiation for why anyone should accept that your bible is a source worth considering on any matter other than ancient literature, laws, and customs. Once you do that, the discussion can begin. Until then, you’re posturing, and we’re making fun of you for it. Don’t keep moving the goalposts.

  414. on 16 May 2012 at 11:35 pm 414.Prime said …

    Here’s the goalpost:

    PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR GOD.

    Here’s you, paraphrased:

    You didn’t discuss with me why this horrible bible verse can be hermeneutically covered up to not be horrible in the context of God, upon whom I simply assume a priori normal rules of good and bad don’t apply.

    You moved the goalpost.

  415. on 16 May 2012 at 11:38 pm 415.Chris said …

    Prime -

    “Again, you don’t want to discuss. If you wanted to discuss, you’d start with providing real evidence for God, then you’d provide real substantiation for why anyone should accept that your bible is a source worth considering on any matter other than ancient literature, laws, and customs. Once you do that, the discussion can begin. Until then, you’re posturing, and we’re making fun of you for it. Don’t keep moving the goalposts.”

    I provided a list of what i believe IS evidence for God…even said we could discuss them. ARe you saying that you don’t want to discuss ANY of my list?

    How do you know the Bible isn’t real evidence? We didn’t discuss it? Or the life of Jesus…we didn’t discuss it…or sex? We didn’t discuss it…you say you want REAL evidence…well, i presented to you a short list of what I beleive evidence is.

    What’s wrong with discussing THOSE?

    Or what’s wrong with ALSO discussing the verses you posted?

    Pick from my list, and we shall discuss…after all the Bible IS REAL. The question is: is it good evidence?

    Let’s talk about it…or pick one from my list.

  416. on 16 May 2012 at 11:41 pm 416.Prime said …

    Chris:

    “How do you know the Bible isn’t real evidence?”

    You didn’t prove that it is. Nobody has proven that it is.

    “We didn’t discuss it?”

    Do you really want to?

    “Or the life of Jesus…we didn’t discuss it…”

    There is no credible evidence for the life of Jesus outside of the bible, so without the previous claim PLUS proof of God (since otherwise Jesus was just a nutbar, if he existed), this is empty.

    “or sex? We didn’t discuss it…”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA… Still laughing about that one. It’s on my list too, you might have noticed. Maybe we should spar over sex! That’s kinky!

    “you say you want REAL evidence…”

    Yes.

    “well, i presented to you a short list of what I beleive evidence is.”

    You suck at knowing what evidence is.

    “What’s wrong with discussing THOSE?”

    Because they’re not evidence.

    Or what’s wrong with ALSO discussing the verses you posted?

    Pick from my list, and we shall discuss…after all the Bible IS REAL. The question is: is it good evidence?

    Let’s talk about it…or pick one from my list.

  417. on 16 May 2012 at 11:41 pm 417.Chris said …

    Prime -

    “ROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR GOD.

    Here’s you, paraphrased:

    You didn’t discuss with me why this horrible bible verse can be hermeneutically covered up to not be horrible in the context of God, upon whom I simply assume a priori normal rules of good and bad don’t apply.

    You moved the goalpost.”

    No, I did provide EVIDENCE, you even made a list to make fun of it – did you discuss it?

    Nope. You made FUN of it.

    It was right there, you saw it…did you continue the discussion? Nope. You made fun of it.

    THEN you interject into DPK’s post. Provided verses you thought meant something they didn’t. I showed you why, offered to discuss it AS WELL (in addition to my list, which still stands) however, you call it tripe because it showed you didn’t really know what you were talking about, thus I can see why you don’t want to discuss it.

    Not moving the goal post, my friend, just offering up a discussion in MANY areas.

    That is, my offer to DISCUSS my evidence is still valid.

    Oh…hows finding that quote of mine going? Find it or did you misquote me?

  418. on 16 May 2012 at 11:43 pm 418.Prime said …

    Oops…
    “Or what’s wrong with ALSO discussing the verses you posted?”

    It’s pointless. That book is a barbaric piece that you can’t prove is anything otherwise.

    “Pick from my list, and we shall discuss…after all the Bible IS REAL. The question is: is it good evidence?”

    It’s not. Throw up whatever you want. I’m not picking from your idiotic list of non-evidence, particularly since you didn’t even attempt to substantiate how any of it constitutes evidence for anything.

    “Let’s talk about it…or pick one from my list.”

    SEX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  419. on 16 May 2012 at 11:45 pm 419.Chris said …

    Prime -

    “Because they’re not evidence.”

    LOL…ah, now I see your issue Prime.

    you want evidence YOU agree with, however none will exist so you get to claim you don’t see evidence and none has been provided.

    That’s just intellectually lazy Prime.

    If the Bible isn’t evidence, why do so many atheist scholars waste so much time on it? If it’s not evidence, it’s waisting their time?

    Bart Ehrman has made a nice living on this “non-evidence” that is the Bible.

    Good enough for him to write books about, but not enough for you to discuss on a blog.

    Okay, Prime. I see we won’t have a discussion.

    I tried.

  420. on 16 May 2012 at 11:46 pm 420.Prime said …

    Chris…
    “No, I did provide EVIDENCE, you even made a list to make fun of it – did you discuss it?
    Nope. You made FUN of it.”

    That’s how much discussion it was worth.

    “It was right there, you saw it…did you continue the discussion? Nope. You made fun of it.”

    Apparently your list of “evidence” didn’t hit me very seriously then, did it?

    “THEN you interject into DPK’s post. Provided verses you thought meant something they didn’t. I showed you why, offered to discuss it AS WELL (in addition to my list, which still stands) however, you call it tripe because it showed you didn’t really know what you were talking about, thus I can see why you don’t want to discuss it.”

    No you didn’t. Those things are in your bible, and they’re disgusting, however much hermeneutical bullshit you learned in bible college to cover up for it.

    “Not moving the goal post, my friend, just offering up a discussion in MANY areas.”

    The goalpost is over there, where you provide evidence for your god (you might want to include how any of those things on your fancy list constitute evidence if you don’t want people making fun of it next time).

    “That is, my offer to DISCUSS my evidence is still valid.”

    Bring it. You start, by telling us HOW IT IS EVIDENCE.

    “Oh…hows finding that quote of mine going? Find it or did you misquote me?”

    I paraphrased.

  421. on 16 May 2012 at 11:46 pm 421.Chris said …

    Prime -

    ““Or what’s wrong with ALSO discussing the verses you posted?”

    It’s pointless. That book is a barbaric piece that you can’t prove is anything otherwise. ”

    Oh, but it was okay to “discuss” it when it seemed to fit what you needed it to, but now THAT was shot down it’s just a barbaric book that I can’t prove otherwise…well, no I can’t Prime if we don’t DISCUSS it.

    So, play it safe, yep…you can’t prove it, so I won’t discuss it so you won’t even have an opporunity to prove it.

    Sound logic

  422. on 16 May 2012 at 11:47 pm 422.Prime said …

    Chris: “I tried.”

    Um, no, you didn’t. Or maybe some advice: Do or do not, there is no try.

  423. on 16 May 2012 at 11:48 pm 423.Prime said …

    Why don’t you stop posturing about all of this “discussion” you want to have and just start a fracking discussion? It’s really, really getting old.

    Give us evidence for your God. Show us how “rainbows” and “unicorns” (also paraphrased) are evidence for the Trinity.

  424. on 16 May 2012 at 11:49 pm 424.Prime said …

    Why do people discuss the bible if it’s not evidence. Could it be because of people like you who assert, simply and without substance, that it’s evidence?

  425. on 16 May 2012 at 11:50 pm 425.alex said …

    Chris, you know why you don’t get Christmas gifts? You’re not fucking good enough. If you are truly, and honestly good, you will. I know you’ve tried in the past, but I’m telling you, honest to God, you will get presents if you are truly, truly good.

  426. on 16 May 2012 at 11:50 pm 426.Lou(DFW) said …

    419.Chris said …

    “If the Bible isn’t evidence, why do so many atheist scholars waste so much time on it? If it’s not evidence, it’s waisting their time?

    Bart Ehrman has made a nice living on this “non-evidence” that is the Bible.

    Good enough for him to write books about, but not enough for you to discuss on a blog.”

    Are you claiming that Ehrman is an atheist scholar on the bible?

  427. on 16 May 2012 at 11:51 pm 427.Chris said …

    Prime -

    “I paraphrased.”

    I’ll take the quote that you paraphrased from. As I don’t remember even mentioning Muhammed, so you then are just putting words in my mouth. Huh.

    “No you didn’t. Those things are in your bible, and they’re disgusting, however much hermeneutical bullshit you learned in bible college to cover up for it.”

    Um, no…no hermeneutics when it comes to 1) Jesus using a PARABLE, 2) PUNISHMENT For beating a slave, 3) A POEM not written by God, 4) A WARNING.

    They were quite clear, no dancing or special thinking needed.

    Or please again, show WHY they are wrong…otherwise you are just ranting…

    “Bring it. You start, by telling us HOW IT IS EVIDENCE.”

    Okay, we’ll start with the Bible.

    Unless you have another one you would like more…

  428. on 16 May 2012 at 11:53 pm 428.Chris said …

    Lou -

    Are you claiming that Ehrman is an atheist scholar on the bible?

    I believe that he is, yes…that’s suprising to you? There are quite a few atheist Biblical scholars, this is not a secret, in fact it is well known to even us who are not scholars who study the Bible.

    I have even heard him in debates if you could beleive that!

    I’m not sure why that’s a suprise to you…

  429. on 16 May 2012 at 11:55 pm 429.Chris said …

    Prime -

    “Why do people discuss the bible if it’s not evidence. Could it be because of people like you who assert, simply and without substance, that it’s evidence?”

    Well, we will be look at it then won’t we?

    Sadly, it won’t be tonight, I have a floor drain that I need to get to. I put it off too long as it is tonight.

    But I look forward to our discussion on the Bible.

    We can call our discussion: The Bible: Is it REALLY evidence?

    Pro: Chris
    Con: Prime

    I look forward to it Prime, I am anxious to read what you have to say.

    Have a good night.

  430. on 16 May 2012 at 11:56 pm 430.Prime said …

    “2) PUNISHMENT For beating a slave,”

    Um… no, punishment for beating a slave too hard, not punishment for beating one, not punishment for owning one, not even a suggestion that you shouldn’t own one.

    Actually, if you look back, since you’re so persnickety about precision on some things (and oddly not others), someone said those things are in the bible (beating slaves, ripping pregnant bellies open, dashing babies on rocks), you said “prove it,” I provided verses, and now you’re trying to tell us that those verses mean something else, but the only proof required was that they’re in there.

  431. on 16 May 2012 at 11:56 pm 431.Chris said …

    Alex -

    “Chris, you know why you don’t get Christmas gifts? You’re not fucking good enough. ”

    You probably are right there…that’s why i just buy my own.

  432. on 16 May 2012 at 11:58 pm 432.Prime said …

    429.Chris said …

    “But I look forward to our discussion on the Bible.
    We can call our discussion: The Bible: Is it REALLY evidence?
    Pro: Chris
    Con: Prime”

    You’re framing the debate? Tell me I’m not allowed to tell you anything you don’t want to hear next.

    Here’s my claim: Prove the bible is evidence or it is not. Good luck.

  433. on 17 May 2012 at 12:04 am 433.Prime said …

    Wait… I’m not getting suckered into one of these b.s. arguments where you play a technicality on us all. “The Bible: Is it REALLY evidence FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE?”

    I’m not disputing that it’s really evidence that there is a city called Jerusalem where Jews and Romans have been. That’s pointless stupidity.

  434. on 17 May 2012 at 12:22 am 434.alex said …

    …but, but, the bible mentions the Earth. Isn’t Earth the Truth? There ya go, Evidence enough? Forget all the other bullshit the atheists keep bringing up, all that stuff is metaphor, similes, and/or taken out of context. Sheeyat!

  435. on 17 May 2012 at 12:31 am 435.DPK said …

    “Tripe?
    I showed the versed that YOU quoted and showed how they DON’T portray what you want them to.”

    Except you didn’t. All you did is attempt to tap dance around the unavoidable fact that the god of the bible is clearly an a-moral monster. Owning, beating… whether few or many blows is immoral. Genocide and infanticide is immoral, whether the victims are “wicked” or not, killing people for; working on the Sabbath, wearing 2 different kinds of cloth, being gay, being disrespectful to one’s parents, etc, etc…. is not to be reconciled with the concept of a perfect and infinite intelligence. Your rationalizations are simply difficult and obtuse attempts to reconcile what you want to believe. Sorry, my my perspective, not convincing and certainly nothing new. Fail.

  436. on 17 May 2012 at 1:07 am 436.Anonymous said …

    Chris, for someone claiming to want to have a discussion, you are spending an inordinate amount of time trying to start anywhere other than “prove me wrong” which isn’t a discussion, it’s you playing games.

    Also, let’s be clear, your proof also needs to support your belief in YOUR god. That means you must first define the god that you are going to use the bible in support of. You need to do this first, else it’ll seem like more goalpost moving

    Further, you should be reminded that earlier you said the following: “As I don’t subscribe to ANY denomination. I’m more along the lines of belief as say: Greg Boyd, or Tony Campolo, if that helps. However, the denominational differences aren’t really all that different in CORE beliefs.”

    Hence, your proof also needs to support your non-denominational stance and show why the other 38,000+ versions are incorrect. While you are at it, please define what you mean by core beliefs (plural).

    Have at it.

  437. on 17 May 2012 at 1:28 am 437.Lou(DFW) said …

    427.Chris said …

    “Okay, we’ll start with the Bible.”

    Why do people think the Bible is a great and powerful weapon?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-ZaZjJg-hk&feature=plcp

  438. on 17 May 2012 at 1:32 am 438.Lou(DFW) said …

    428.Chris said …

    “I’m not sure why that’s a suprise to you…”

    You really are dense. That’s not what I’m surprised at. What I’m surprised at is that you would use him to somehow support your position.

    Hint: he didn’t begin his “career” as an atheist.

  439. on 17 May 2012 at 1:46 am 439.alex said …

    My sister loves to quote the bible when I’m around and so I started reciting random passages from the Illiad just to mess with her. I told her the Illiad is an ancient holy book that predates the bible. She thinks it’s cool that I might actually believe in it and that I may have a purpose in life.

  440. on 17 May 2012 at 1:50 am 440.Lou(DFW) said …

    435.DPK said …

    “Tripe?
    I showed the versed that YOU quoted and showed how they DON’T portray what you want them to.”

    “Except you didn’t. All you did is attempt to tap dance around the unavoidable fact that the god of the bible is clearly an a-moral monster.”

    Of course he didn’t. Let’s look a the first one:

    “Exodus 21:20-21:

    ….So Prime, are you saying you have a problem with a person being punished for beating and killing his slave? Where in this verse does God 1) order one to beat their slaves, 2) find it perfectly moral to do so?”

    You entire response to that verse consisted of questions only. Your reply did not in anyway whatsoever show “how they DON’T portray what you want them to.” In effect, you ONLY DENIED that they don’t say what he claims.

    As I said, discussing this with you is like discussing the tooth fairy with a five year old.

  441. on 17 May 2012 at 2:13 am 441.Prime said …

    37. (or wherever we are) whatever Chris is about to say about the bible.

    Ooh. Look. My first ever poisoning the well!

    38. The tooth fairy.
    39. Bananas.
    40. Adolescents.
    41. Monsanto.

  442. on 17 May 2012 at 2:18 am 442.Anonymous said …

    “Tell you what, you go pray your ass off for god to appear TO ME, not 2,000 years ago only to ancient goat-herders, and DIRECTLY COMMUNICATE TO ME, not through a book they wrote 2,000 years ago – then we can have a REAL DISCUSSION about god. I’m here. you’re here, god isn’t. Until then, you have nothing but bluster to present here.”

    …So you are saying THAT would change your mind? Of course it wouldn’t! What if you did see God in some manner tonight? Would you change? Of course not, you would write it off to something…sorry God doesn’t work the way YOU WANT him to.

    You don’t WANT God in your life, thus he let’s you have that. You are getting just what you want…no God.

    We learn two things from this exchange.

    First, Lou gets what he wants from Chris’ god just by wanting it. Thus he doesn’t need to pray, nor is he subject to “yes, no, or wait”. Lou’s desires trump Christian experiences with prayer.

    Second. By Chris’ account, Lou gets what he wants despite this god’s desire to be loved (narcissistic bastard that Yahweh is). Thus Lou is more powerful than this supposed god.

    Third, sorry Prime but I have my non-material reality-augmented system of counting, Chris has claimed that his god both gives Lou what he wants and simultaneously doesn’t do what Lou wants. Poor Chris, all over the place but not in a place where reality or consistency matter.

  443. on 17 May 2012 at 2:28 am 443.Prime said …

    “Third, sorry Prime but I have my non-material reality-augmented system of counting, Chris has claimed that his god both gives Lou what he wants and simultaneously doesn’t do what Lou wants. Poor Chris, all over the place but not in a place where reality or consistency matter.”

    Nuh uh, Chris’s Allah did it. You can’t prove he didn’t.

  444. on 17 May 2012 at 4:29 am 444.Prime said …

    Of course, Chris, you did put sex on your list, and so did I. Therefore, I’m throwing down my gauntlet there too. I’ll open by mocking the position you espouse, de facto:

    God, in an attempt to make us look totally biological so we can’t be sure he exists so we have to come to him on faith instead of in knowledge, creates us so we have to hump like sweaty beasts in order to procreate, involving all kinds of vaguely icky fluids that the other animals also make, then makes us be equipped to want to do it overwhelmingly via our biological neurochemistry, makes it addictive by that same neurochemistry, makes it inordinately risky and not always successful at the procreation thing, craps on women’s end of the bargain in the whole affair, and then makes it a sin that we are to hate ourselves (and women) over and apologize for repeatedly our whole lives so we don’t burn in a lake of fire forever.
    Seems legit.

  445. on 19 May 2012 at 3:54 am 445.Chris said …

    Sorry for the delay folks,

    Okay, so I was going to present the Bible as evidence for God.

    Here we go!

    Okay, if we are to even THINK of the Bible as being evidence for God, we might want to think of a few things…

    1) what can we expect from a document “inspired” by God?
    2) what can we expect from a document ONLY written by man?
    3) where does the Bible fit into this?

    What I will present is what I would think most people would believe God would make sure of if he did INSPIRE the Bible.

    a) it would stand the test of time…that is, be as relevant TODAY as it was when it was written.
    b) that throughout time, despite the fallibility of man, it would remain INTACT.
    c) no matter WHO was inspired to write, or where they were, or at what time they lived in – it would express the same message, without error, and not contradict itself in such a manner.
    d) be grounded in reality, dealing with real people, places and events.

    Now, perhaps you disagree with the four assertions I have given, if so, please explain why and provide what YOU would think a document inspired by God would contain and be.

    Okay, so, what about the Bible?

    Is it evidence?

    Well let’s take a look at the list above. (though not necessarily in order).

    Let’s look at B first.

    Is the Bible intact?

    Here are some facts:

    Bible contains 66 books.
    Written by 40 authors. from shepherds to kings
    over a span of at least 1500 years.
    in various places
    on three continents
    in three different languages
    at different states of emotion

    Okay, so is the Bible intact? Does it contain the same information as it did when it was first written?

    Short answer: yes.

    But, because you want evidence, let’s look at it:

    In regards to the OT of the Bible: the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date to the 3rd century, match almost EXACTLY to the Bibles that are dated to the 14th century (before mass production of the Bible. Despite one’s belief in the supernatural, that fact alone is unheard of…NO other book of antiguity can make this claim.

    Okay, but what about the NT?

    Well, the NT fairs even better:

    NT alone has over 24,000 manuscripts and partials manuscripts of the NT, with the oldest known partial dating within 100 years of it’s origin, which makes it one of the most reliable texts.

    The second?

    the Iliad has 642 copies and partials and the earliest copy is dated at 500 years from the original.

    And some other NT facts:

    • Greek Manuscripts—partial or complete texts that are hand copied in the language of the originals
    • Papyrus—97 in all—paper manuscripts made of plant material – 2nd to 8th centuries
    • Uncials—manuscripts in Greek capital letters—especially famous ones: Sinaiticus (350), Vaticanus (325), Alexandrinus (425)
    • Minuscules—manuscripts in cursive, 9th-16th centuries—2800 in all
    • Versions—copies in any other language than Greek—Latin principally
    • Lectionaries—selections for church reading—over 2,200 in all
    • Patristic quotations— quotes from early church fathers—could reconstruct practically entire NT from these citations, 1st-4th centuries AD of which there are over a million quotations.

    ….yep, over a MILLION quotations that when put together could almost write the NT ALONE.

    Okay, but there are some issues with the NT aren’t there?

    Yep, there are. But of the “errors” found, only 1% put the text in doubt. and NONE of the 1% make a differnce in doctrine. (despite what Erhman would like you to believe)

    Fine, but how close can the NT get to the originals to that of other works of antiguity?

    Here’s a list:

    Tacitus 700 years
    Livy 400 years
    Caesar 900 years
    Catullus 1,600 years
    Aristotle 1,400 years
    Plato 1,200 years
    Aristophanes 1,200 years
    Thucydides 1,200 years
    Euripides 1,500 years
    Sophocles 1,400 years
    Herodotus 1,300 years

    The NT?

    John’s Gospel, Chapter 18: AD 130
    Complete Manuscripts: AD 350
    Chester Beatty Papyri: has MOST of the New Testament – AD 200 – 250

    So, putting it all together. From its INCEPTION to before the printing press, the Bible as a whole document has maintained the SAME TEXT over the passage of time. Compared to other written works of antiguity over such a period of time is, well, not found.

    In fact, is ISN’T found in ANY OTHER written work.

    While alone, this isn’t proof that God inspired the Bible, it does fit the criteria of what we would see IF GOD DID inspire the Bible.

    Next post I will deal with C.

  446. on 19 May 2012 at 3:58 am 446.Chris said …

    Now, to keep from being considered “spam” I left out links to the information presented.

    However, what is listed is NOT hard to find.

    Though, if you need help, just ask and I will give you the links should you really need them…but hey, do some leg work first…it’s all right there!

  447. on 19 May 2012 at 3:58 am 447.Chris said …

    Now, to keep from being considered “spam” I left out links to the information presented.

    However, what is listed is NOT hard to find.

    Though, if you need help, just ask and I will give you the links should you really need them…but hey, do some leg work first…it’s all right there!

  448. on 19 May 2012 at 4:01 am 448.Chris said …

    Alex -

    “I told her the Illiad is an ancient holy book that predates the bible. ”

    Well, we see how the illiad stacks up against the Bible in regards to reliablity…

  449. on 19 May 2012 at 4:06 am 449.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “You really are dense. That’s not what I’m surprised at. What I’m surprised at is that you would use him to somehow support your position.

    Hint: he didn’t begin his “career” as an atheist.”

    Lou, you are the one that doesn’t understand. If you can’t see why I used him to support my position – which was, the Bible was worthy of DISCUSSION, which Prime disagreed. If Erhman, who is a scholar and has written books believes it’s WORTHY of that type of attention, then certainly prime could see that it’s worthy of a blog.

    That was my only point and you know it. If not, how else did I use him to support my position? hint: you won’t find it because I just RESTATED the position.

    Certainly he didn’t start out an atheist…that’ isn’t unknown, in fact, this is his calling card: once a believer, now isn’t.

    I know all this Lou, but thanks for repeating it for those who might not.

  450. on 19 May 2012 at 4:37 am 450.Lou(DFW) said …

    445.Chris said …

    “Okay, so I was going to present the Bible as evidence for God.”

    But you realized that you didn’t have any. So you simply invented a bunch of nonsense and called it “criteria of what we would see IF GOD DID inspire the Bible.”

    “While alone, this isn’t proof that God inspired the Bible, it does fit the criteria of what we would see IF GOD DID inspire the Bible.”

    No, such a god wouldn’t inspire men to write a holy book. He simply creates it without any doubt whatsoever being present in the mind of any person who reads it. Or he wouldn’t create any book at all, but rather every human being would be born with an innate knowledge of what god wants known from such a book.

    The idea that an omnipotent god needs to inspire men to write a holy book is absurd, almost as absurd as the idea of god himself. Such a god would directly inspire men.

    And why did it take god thousands of years to create this alleged holy book? After all, he allegedly created the entire universe in six days.

    Chris’ circular reasoning:

    1. God is real
    2. The bible is evidence for god because
    3. The bible is inspired by god

  451. on 19 May 2012 at 4:45 am 451.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “But you realized that you didn’t have any. So you simply invented a bunch of nonsense and called it “criteria of what we would see IF GOD DID inspire the Bible.””

    As I posted, if you disagree, please post what YOU would believe God would do if he inspired the Bible….you didn’t, outside of this:

    “No, such a god wouldn’t inspire men to write a holy book.”

    So, Lou, you KNOW what a God wouldn’t do. How YOU would know what a God would/wouldn’t do…

    “He simply creates it without any doubt whatsoever being present in the mind of any person who reads it. Or he wouldn’t create any book at all, but rather every human being would be born with an innate knowledge of what god wants known from such a book.”

    ….Says Lou, who KNOWS what a God would/Wouldn’t do…

  452. on 19 May 2012 at 4:48 am 452.Lou(DFW) said …

    449.Chris said …

    “If you can’t see why I used him to support my position – which was, the Bible was worthy of DISCUSSION, which Prime disagreed. If Erhman, who is a scholar and has written books believes it’s WORTHY of that type of attention, then certainly prime could see that it’s worthy of a blog.”

    You claimed, and you confirmed it as I asked, that he was an atheist bible scholar. That is a deliberate misrepresentation of him. He wasn’t. He was “an Evangelical Christian as a teen. In his books, he recounts his youthful enthusiasm as a born-again, fundamentalist Christian, certain that God had inspired the wording of the Bible [just as you] and protected its texts from all error.”

    He wasn’t an atheist bible scholar.

  453. on 19 May 2012 at 4:54 am 453.Lou(DFW) said …

    451.Chris said …

    “As I posted, if you disagree, please post what YOU would believe God would do if he inspired the Bible….you didn’t, outside of this:”

    Now you’re back to prove god doesn’t exist.

    “So, Lou, you KNOW what a God wouldn’t do. How YOU would know what a God would/wouldn’t do…”

    THE EXACT SAME WAY THAT YOU CLAIM TO KNOW.

    “….Says Lou, who KNOWS what a God would/Wouldn’t do…”

    What I do know for a fact is that you don’t have have ANY EVIDENCE for your imaginary god except circular reasoning, and that’s only evidence of your convoluted way of thinking.

    You are 100% wasting your time in trying to legitimize the bible in order to present it as evidence of your imaginary god.

  454. on 19 May 2012 at 4:56 am 454.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “You claimed, and you confirmed it as I asked, that he was an atheist bible scholar. That is a deliberate misrepresentation of him. He wasn’t. He was “an Evangelical Christian as a teen. In his books, he recounts his youthful enthusiasm as a born-again, fundamentalist Christian, certain that God had inspired the wording of the Bible [just as you] and protected its texts from all error.”

    He wasn’t an atheist bible scholar.”

    Oh my Lou, do you look silly now.

    1) Is Bart Erhman and atheist? Yes.
    2) is he a NT scholar? Yes.
    3) Did I say he currently is? Yes.
    4) was he a Christian? Yes.

    And I said as much in my posts. And you ONLY know him AFTER he became an atheist like the rest of us…

    you are now trying to make it look like you caught me in a corner I wasn’t in. Which is funny.

    I NEVER misrepresented him…he IS an ATHEIST NOW or do you deny that? and WAS a Christian – as I concurred – he didn’t truly make a career in his writings for himself until when? He wrote his books as an ATHEIST.

    Is he STILL a NT SCHOLAR?

    YES!

    Is he CURRENTLY an ATHEIST? Yes!

    Lou, show me where I misreprested him, since you claim I did…please QUOTE IT VERBATIM.

    Thanks

  455. on 19 May 2012 at 4:59 am 455.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “s I posted, if you disagree, please post what YOU would believe God would do if he inspired the Bible….you didn’t, outside of this:”

    Now you’re back to prove god doesn’t exist.

    “So, Lou, you KNOW what a God wouldn’t do. How YOU would know what a God would/wouldn’t do…”

    THE EXACT SAME WAY THAT YOU CLAIM TO KNOW.

    “….Says Lou, who KNOWS what a God would/Wouldn’t do…”

    What I do know for a fact is that you don’t have have ANY EVIDENCE for your imaginary god except circular reasoning, and that’s only evidence of your convoluted way of thinking.

    You are 100% wasting your time in trying to legitimize the bible in order to present it as evidence of your imaginary god.”

    And Lou proves my point for me!

  456. on 19 May 2012 at 5:00 am 456.Lou(DFW) said …

    451.Chris said …

    “….Says Lou, who KNOWS what a God would/Wouldn’t do…”

    Then take your ball and go home. You set the tone for the discussion, then you whine about it when someone uses it to their advantage against you.

    I wrote it before and I’ll write it again – having a discussion with you is like arguing with a five year old about the existence of the tooth fairy.

  457. on 19 May 2012 at 5:01 am 457.Chris said …

    Lou -

    of what i presented for the Bible…please show my me FACTUALLY what is wrong…

  458. on 19 May 2012 at 5:05 am 458.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “having a discussion with you is like arguing with a five year old about the existence of the tooth fairy.”

    then I shall no more expect ANY comments from you than you shall from me…

    Since all you can do is cherry pick, poorly, what I say to make yourself look good.

    IE – where did I misrepresent Bart Erhman again?

    You still haven’t posted that yet.

  459. on 19 May 2012 at 5:07 am 459.Lou(DFW) said …

    454.Chris said …

    “I NEVER misrepresented him…he IS an ATHEIST NOW or do you deny that? and WAS a Christian – as I concurred…”

    Not as you wrote, but that I WROTE. Don’t try your childish game to attempt to turn the table on me by claiming that your omission is now something I did. I NEVER denied nor implied that he wasn’t atheist.

  460. on 19 May 2012 at 5:11 am 460.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “Not as you wrote, but that I WROTE. Don’t try your childish game to attempt to turn the table on me by claiming that your omission is now something I did. I NEVER denied nor implied that he wasn’t atheist.”

    Wow, this is sad.

    Most people, including YOU, only know him as an athiest. IF YOU HAD READ what I posted about hearing his debates, you would have REMEMBERED that I said I HEARD his debates. In these debates, he PROMINANTLY talks about how he was a BELIEVER when he was YOUNGER.

    YOU again, fail at your attempt…

    My OMISSION as you hope it was, was truly an ASSUMPTION YOU knew his history…

    Or didn’t you?

  461. on 19 May 2012 at 5:16 am 461.Lou(DFW) said …

    457.Chris said …

    “of what i presented for the Bible…please show my me FACTUALLY what is wrong…”

    I don’t have the time nor the inclination to go through everything you write about the bible. But there is one relevant point and one relevant point only –

    THE BIBLE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF GOD – PERIOD

    Even IF, BIG IF, god did in fact inspire men to write the bible, then there is no possible way for that to be known to you or anyone else. So as such, it’s pointless for you or anyone to attempt to show that the bible is evidence of god. The bible would still be second-hand, hearsay evidence. What part of that simple concept can you not understand? I can only assume that you are either willfully ignorant or desperate, or both.

  462. on 19 May 2012 at 5:18 am 462.Lou(DFW) said …

    460.Chris said …

    “Most people, including YOU, only know him as an athiest. IF YOU HAD READ what I posted about hearing his debates, you would have REMEMBERED that I said I HEARD his debates. In these debates, he PROMINANTLY talks about how he was a BELIEVER when he was YOUNGER.”

    We don’t know what you heard or read or saw. We only know what you write here.

    Chris, when a man finds himself stuck in a hole, he usually learns to stop digging. You apparently don’t understand that.

  463. on 19 May 2012 at 5:27 am 463.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “I don’t have the time nor the inclination to go through everything you write about the bible.”

    Because YOU CANT! Simple as that….if you could you would…after all, you have misreprested me with Bart…why stop with the Bible?

    ” But there is one relevant point and one relevant point only –

    THE BIBLE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF GOD – PERIOD”

    ….ONLY because YOU say it isn’t.

    “Even IF, BIG IF, god did in fact inspire men to write the bible, then there is no possible way for that to be known to you or anyone else.”

    ….Oooops! Big mistake here, Lou…For one, I said it’s not proof, but evidence because of what I listed…did you list something different? Nope…just made a desperate claim! the fact that this one sentece sums up your DISBELIEF in God is quite telling.

    “So as such, it’s pointless for you or anyone to attempt to show that the bible is evidence of god. The bible would still be second-hand, hearsay evidence. What part of that simple concept can you not understand? I can only assume that you are either willfully ignorant or desperate, or both.”

    of course it would be POINTLESS to YOU! Your “would still” be “second hand” is proof enough to YOU, despite MUCH of what you believe about ancient history is based on FAR LESS. And you call me ingnorant and desperate…

    And before you reply here, you REALLY need to stop for a second and THINK about what you say…

    Do you think Socrates existed? Why?

  464. on 19 May 2012 at 5:29 am 464.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “We don’t know what you heard or read or saw. We only know what you write here.”

    Lou, do you want me to quote EXACTLY where I said that I heard him in a debate? It’s right there, in plain text…

    Or do you know of a debate he was in where he DIDN’T admit to being a Christian before becoming an atheist?]

    Man, lou, this is getting worse….

  465. on 19 May 2012 at 5:33 am 465.Chris said …

    Lou -

    if you recall, I said that I agree with Greg Boyd and Tony Campollo as it comes to Christ?

    Guess which one went to school with Bart….and which one that pastors a church near me….that I have seen in person…

  466. on 19 May 2012 at 5:34 am 466.Chris said …

    Lou -

    You still want to claim that I MISREPRESENTED Bart Erhman?

  467. on 19 May 2012 at 5:35 am 467.Lou(DFW) said …

    460.Chris said …

    “he PROMINANTLY talks about how he was a BELIEVER when he was YOUNGER.”

    Like you, Chris, he was once just as sure of the bible. But he, AS A XTIAN, became a “scholar” on it. We can all read about his credentials. So before you continue to dispute his studies and conclusions about the bible, please present your credentials to us.

    I’ll give you a way out of doing this – it’s irrelevant what your credentials are (not) because the bible isn’t evidence for god.

  468. on 19 May 2012 at 5:35 am 468.Chris said …

    If you do, I can link up the debates I have heard and the ones that Boyd talks about him in…

    Or you do you want to admit that you were wrong?

  469. on 19 May 2012 at 5:37 am 469.Lou(DFW) said …

    465.Chris said …

    “if you recall, I said that I agree with Greg Boyd and Tony Campollo as it comes to Christ?

    Guess which one went to school with Bart….and which one that pastors a church near me….that I have seen in person…”

    We can read what you originally wrote. Keep digging, and the dirt will cave in on you.

  470. on 19 May 2012 at 5:38 am 470.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “Like you, Chris, he was once just as sure of the bible. But he, AS A XTIAN, became a “scholar” on it. We can all read about his credentials. So before you continue to dispute his studies and conclusions about the bible, please present your credentials to us.

    I’ll give you a way out of doing this – it’s irrelevant what your credentials are (not) because the bible isn’t evidence for god.”

    LOL!

    Now, it becomes about ME!

    Wow, again, if you would like I can link up his debates and Boyd – who WENT TO SCHOOL WITH BART at the same time – I will gladly do so.

    It’s not about me, Lou…But please, again show me where I misrepresented Bart?

    Or admit that I didn’t.

  471. on 19 May 2012 at 5:39 am 471.Lou(DFW) said …

    468.Chris said …

    “Or you do you want to admit that you were wrong?”

    SURE – if you will admit that bible isn’t evidence for your imaginary god and that you have no other evidence to present.

    Stop trying to make this about me being wrong and you being right – simply present some real evidence for your imaginary god. Why won’t god inspire you to write something that will convince us?

  472. on 19 May 2012 at 5:40 am 472.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “We can read what you originally wrote. Keep digging, and the dirt will cave in on you.”

    Do you think so? Really?

    Let’s play this game…please quote me VERBATIM on what I said about Bart…and we will go on from there and QUOTE YOU verbatim as well.

  473. on 19 May 2012 at 5:41 am 473.Chris said …

    Lou -

    ““Or you do you want to admit that you were wrong?”

    SURE – if you will admit that bible isn’t evidence for your imaginary god and that you have no other evidence to present.

    Stop trying to make this about me being wrong and you being right ”

    LOL! Yes Lou, I can ACTUALLY prove you were wrong about what YOU thing I said…

    you can’t prove ONE THING of what I said about the Bible….

  474. on 19 May 2012 at 5:44 am 474.Chris said …

    So let’s make it clear lou.

    1) Did I misrepresnt Bart Erhman?

    It’s a yes or no…I bet you won’t answer either way..

    Now, what would Prime say?

    Would Prime agree with you or me? If Prime were honest, which I believe Prime is?

    Quite simple Lou:

    Where did I misreperent Bart Erhman? Please show us again…

    Can you do it?

  475. on 19 May 2012 at 5:45 am 475.Lou(DFW) said …

    470.Chris said …

    “…please present your credentials to us.

    I’ll give you a way out of doing this – it’s irrelevant what your credentials are (not) because the bible isn’t evidence for god.”

    “LOL!

    Now, it becomes about ME!”

    In other words, you don’t have any similar credentials.

    “Wow, again, if you would like I can link up his debates and Boyd – who WENT TO SCHOOL WITH BART at the same time – I will gladly do so.”

    Go ahead, for all the good it will do you, you can link-up his debates until links are flying out of your ass along with the rest of your b.s. But instead, how about you “link up” your credentials?

    What’s next, your dad can beat-up my dad?

  476. on 19 May 2012 at 5:46 am 476.Chris said …

    Disprove about the Bible…as i listed…is what i meant…sorry, thick fingers and fast typing don’t always mix!

  477. on 19 May 2012 at 5:49 am 477.Lou(DFW) said …

    474.Chris said …

    “So let’s make it clear lou.”

    It was clear. You are now trying to muddle it.

    “1) Did I misrepresnt Bart Erhman?

    It’s a yes or no…I bet you won’t answer either way..”

    It doesn’t matter what you or I bet about that because no such bet will ever be collected.

    But there’s one sure thing – you will NEVER, EVER present any evidence for your imaginary god; but rather, you will continue with your childish arguments.

  478. on 19 May 2012 at 5:56 am 478.Chris said …

    Lou -

    Oh my….

    “Now, it becomes about ME!”

    In other words, you don’t have any similar credentials.

    ……1) No I don’t, and I freely admit it… bet you won’t! 2) you still didn’t admit you misrepresented ME! 3) Evidently I know MORE about Bart that you, a fellow atheist does. 4) You still haven’t shown where i misrepresented him…as you claim I did.

    “Wow, again, if you would like I can link up his debates and Boyd – who WENT TO SCHOOL WITH BART at the same time – I will gladly do so.”

    Go ahead, for all the good it will do you, you can link-up his debates until links are flying out of your ass along with the rest of your b.s. But instead, how about you “link up” your credentials?

    MY CREDETIALS have NOTHING TO DO WITH BART ERHMAN’S CREDETIALS! And here you put BART above anyone else! NOT CRITICAL THINKING LOU!

    Also, By this logic, we should dismiss EVERYTHING you have said too, because I’m guessing you have NOTHING near Bart’s credentials…so we shouldn’t pay as much attention to YOU as you would to ME.

    Lou, you aren’t helping your cause…in fact, by your rants (NOT BACKED by fact) are quite childish…I asked you to provide EVIDENCE AGAINST what I proposed…you haven’t.

    ONLY ATTACKED me against Bart.

    Keep going, keep posting about this Lou…Let’s see if any one else backs you in your CLAIMS….

    “What’s next, your dad can beat-up my dad?”

    —–This just shows you still won’t be honest….Did I MISREPRESENT BART ERHMAN or NOT?

    Please answer finally….

  479. on 19 May 2012 at 5:59 am 479.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “This just shows you still won’t be honest….Did I MISREPRESENT BART ERHMAN or NOT?

    Please answer finally….”

    Still holds Lou…….

  480. on 19 May 2012 at 6:04 am 480.Chris said …

    Lou -

    And this will make you feel vidicated, but that’s cool…

    Unless you answer HONESTLY about the questions I posed to you. Which you haven’t, I will ignore your posts toward me…

    If you wish a TRUE discussion, you will be honest about what I have said about whom I have said it…the fact you can’t, won’t, and still haven’t shows you aren’t interested in truth, just in looking “right”….

    However you fail to remember, people CAN and DO look back on these posts on this blog…once you submit, you can’t take back.

    Lou, you are just interested in “looking” good, however fail at it…

    When you are ready to really discuss the evidence for God…I am too

  481. on 19 May 2012 at 6:11 am 481.alex said …

    yawn.. ain’t no evidence here. still waiting.
    bring on the eternal hell…

  482. on 19 May 2012 at 6:14 am 482.Chris said …

    Alex -

    “yawn.. ain’t no evidence here. still waiting.”

    So, just for the sake of discussion: what would consider evidence for God in ancient documents then?

  483. on 19 May 2012 at 6:15 am 483.Prime said …

    What would I say? Two things.

    1. You didn’t prove anything about the bible, as Lou said in his first reply to your little rant up there where you try to frame the debate and then move the goalposts around. It’s not up to us to disprove that what you said is evidence. It’s up to you to make a convincing case that it is evidence. So far, you’ve convinced no one.

    2. Not only is talking with you like playing chess with a pigeon that just knocks the pieces about and craps on the board, you actually go one further and roll in the crap you spill all over the board.

    I don’t know, based on some imprecisely written sentences that are open to interpretation and that appear on a blog comment thread whether or not you or anyone else misrepresented Bart Ehrman, and I don’t care. No one should care. Lou doesn’t care either and has made that plain and only continues to talk about it because you keep ramming it at his face.

    Here’s what I care about: your list of “evidences” for the bible do nothing, not the first thing, to establish the validity of the document as evidence for God since every single thing you mentioned is (a) dubious and (b) easily explained without divine intervention.

    Try again, or don’t, because Lou wasn’t lying when he told you it is a 100% waste of your time to try. You can’t do it, just like golden-boy William Lane Craig can’t do it, just like no one, not no one, can do it.

    Did you know, for what it’s worth, that the entire concept of original sin, and thus the entire doctrine upon which the Christian religion actually rests in its modern form, comes from a mistranslation of a book of Paul from Greek into Latin that Augustine was working with? It turns out that Augustine held the belief that every bible was entirely divinely inspired, and so he held that his poor translation must have been something entirely accurate in the sight of God.

    I don’t want to spam you up with links to prove that, but it’s pretty easy to find. Do some legwork here. Historian Charles Freeman wrote extensively about it, in fact, if you want a starting place handed to you.

  484. on 19 May 2012 at 6:16 am 484.Prime said …

    And it looks like Chris has invented a new variant on the No True Scotsman fallacy: the no true discussion.

  485. on 19 May 2012 at 6:21 am 485.Chris said …

    Prime -

    “1. You didn’t prove anything about the bible, as Lou said in his first reply to your little rant up there where you try to frame the debate and then move the goalposts around. It’s not up to us to disprove that what you said is evdence. It’s up to you to make a convincing case that it is evidence. So far, you’ve convinced no one.”

    Again, where Did i move the goal post? I’m clearly talking about the Bible…Lou, at a loss for evidence attacked me with Bart…which obviously failed.

    So, if you have evidence CONTRARY to what I first presented I’m all for seeing it…otherwise I will move on…

  486. on 19 May 2012 at 6:24 am 486.Chris said …

    Prime

    “Not only is talking with you like playing chess with a pigeon that just knocks the pieces about and craps on the board, you actually go one further and roll in the crap you spill all over the board.

    I don’t know, based on some imprecisely written sentences that are open to interpretation and that appear on a blog comment thread whether or not you or anyone else misrepresented Bart Ehrman, and I don’t care. No one should care. Lou doesn’t care either and has made that plain and only continues to talk about it because you keep ramming it at his face.”

    —Wrong, he DOES CARE otherwise he wouldn’t keep up the appearance that i did something that i didn’t do…the fact that you are now backing him, despite the evidence against Lou, shows you aren’t as honest as you claim to be…which is fine…keep posting on it…as people read this thread they will see…

  487. on 19 May 2012 at 6:27 am 487.Chris said …

    Prime -

    “I don’t want to spam you up with links to prove that, but it’s pretty easy to find. Do some legwork here. Historian Charles Freeman wrote extensively about it, in fact, if you want a starting place handed to you.”

    And what exactly should I pay attention to Freeman about? what in my list of FACTS is wrong?

    Does freeman say something different? If so, please post…nothing in my post, as far as any of you on here have proven is incorrect other than you don’t like the facts.

    Putting names down isn’t the same as being facts…I offer links, if wanted…no one wants me to…interesting.

  488. on 19 May 2012 at 6:30 am 488.Chris said …

    Prime -

    “Did you know, for what it’s worth, that the entire concept of original sin, and thus the entire doctrine upon which the Christian religion actually rests in its modern form, comes from a mistranslation of a book of Paul from Greek into Latin that Augustine was working with? It turns out that Augustine held the belief that every bible was entirely divinely inspired, and so he held that his poor translation must have been something entirely accurate in the sight of God.”

    talk about moving the goal post….I wasn’t yet even talking about original sin…you just DID. I was only talking about written works of antiquity…if you would like to NOW discuss original sin we can, however, deteracting from what I posted…YOU are moving the goal post, not me.

    dispute the fact I listed or don’t…

  489. on 19 May 2012 at 6:36 am 489.Chris said …

    Do we want to talk about the discrepencies of the Bible?

    Would that help?

  490. on 19 May 2012 at 6:48 am 490.Chris said …

    Okay,

    since no one will provide a list of what they will accept as “evidence” from God, we will move on..

    What about the error’s in the Bible?

    (which Bart Erhman has made his living on)

    Well, there really isn’t much there either.

    of what Bart “thinks” is problematic is really nt new to people who study the Bible.

    two, of the 1% that IS PROBLEMATIC to the Bible, is NOTED in the Bible…that is to say, what isn’t attributed to the “original” Bible is said as much….just look at the Bible you hold.

    All one has to do is look for the issues that are “so called” brought up in the Bible and they will find answers…

    the issues brought up are not new…but well answered, even though many wish them NOT to be.

    if links are needed I will provide…unlike what many on here will do.

  491. on 19 May 2012 at 6:51 am 491.Chris said …

    Lou, Prime,

    Or do either of you have something that none of us Christains have ever known that exists in the Bible?

    Google not helping you out?

    Should I continue or wait for you to try and find something?

  492. on 19 May 2012 at 10:21 am 492.Anonymous said …

    Chris is going to play this game forever or until people stop interacting with him. It’s going to be wall-to-wall excuses as to why he can’t produce evidence that his god exists interspersed with “just prove me wrong”.

    What part of You have to prove that your god exists, do you not understand Chris? Fail to do that and you fail to make your case. You can bleat and whine all you like and, gosh, do you bleat and whine, but you can’t redefine that point as much as you clearly wish to.

    No gives a shit if they can’t convince you that your god is made up. You’re delusional or you are trolling. That’s not an insult, it’s a comment on your presentation and argument.

    You want people to prove that the bible is made up but you also say that you don’t follow a particular denomination. In other words you are making up your own version of the 2000 year old goat-herders deity and the bible is a convenient distraction.

    Chris, demonstrate to us how you know this god exists. Provide the linkage between the contradiction that you are claiming divine inspiration with a book that you deviate from when convenient. Here’s my guess. You’re going to equivocate on the meaning of “inspired”. As in, because god exists, people wrote the bible but it’s really the infallible word of god written by fallible man. Or some empty rationalization like that.

    As Lou said. Your games are tiresome. Either prove your god exists or take your ball and your trolling and piss in some other garden.

  493. on 19 May 2012 at 12:56 pm 493.Chris said …

    Anon -

    “As Lou said. Your games are tiresome. Either prove your god exists or take your ball and your trolling and piss in some other garden.”

    Says someone who WONT put their real name to what they post…i put REAL evidence about the Bible on here…NO ONE has yet to dispute it, not even you. Anything I post that is WRONG is fair game…since no one hasn’t said anything CONTRARY to what I posted, guess we call it correct then…

  494. on 19 May 2012 at 1:05 pm 494.Chris said …

    Well since no noe else is bringing this stuff up, I will continue:

    Okay, we have seen that the Bible has withstood the test of time more than ANY OTHER book of antiquity.

    So now: does it stand up, no matter WHO was inspired to write, or where they were, or at what time they lived in – it would express the same message, without error, and not contradict itself in such a manner?

    Yep.

    despite the 40 DIFFERENT AUTHORS the Bible is congruent throughout..if it was’t this would be a major part of the atheist argument AGAINST the Bible…however, as we have seen – the argument AGAINST the Bible doesn’t seem to exist (outside of attacks on me, which we all know, doesn’t truly , logically count).

    But, at least the info is being put out here for those who won’t bother to find out on their own!

  495. on 19 May 2012 at 1:09 pm 495.Scott said …

    Chris I am convinced the Bible is the Word of God. Thanks for providing such compelling evidence.

  496. on 19 May 2012 at 1:14 pm 496.Chris said …

    Okay,

    So, does the Bible speak of REAL people (D)?

    Yes it does!

    In fact the list of REAL people that the Bible talks about is quite interesting…INCLUDING JESUS…

    but we will get to the “evidence” for Jesus later, however, outside of the Bible, there is quite a bit of evidence for Jesus

    So, Prime, if you’d like to continue to say the bible ISN’T evidence for God, you should be able to knock down the veracity of the BIBLE and ANY/ALL claims I have made about it…

    As of yet, no one has done so…just rant about it, but no FACTS to back up the claim…given that, shall we move onto to Jesus as evidence?

  497. on 19 May 2012 at 1:26 pm 497.Chris said …

    Did Jesus truly exist?

    Well, yes.

    It’s pretty much a done deal that Jesus existed. As there IS extra Biblical evidence he lived.

    What NOW is the issue is regarding divinity.

    Can history speak to Christ’s divinity?

    Well, yes, but it can’t PROVE IT which is what atheists hang their hat on…

    But given the fact that the NT ALONE is fairly untouched by the hands of time, SHOULD speak volumes…however, as we have seen on this thread – if it doesn’t FIT with the atheist agenda, then it ISN’T true.

    So far, outside of attacks at ME, we haven’t seen ANY evidence AGAINST the Bible – let alone God.

    I guess I see why no one wants to have a discussion on here about these facts….

    Prime – ready to discuss your EVIDENCE AGAINST GOD? Or should I continue with being the only one that has evidence to back up their proposition?

  498. on 19 May 2012 at 1:42 pm 498.Chris said …

    Scott -

    “Chris I am convinced the Bible is the Word of God. Thanks for providing such compelling evidence.Scott”

    1) I provided no such thing…what I presented are FACTS.
    2) Don’t take ANYTHING I have put up here without looking into it yourself…if I have said something in error, I want to know about it…given that, it doesn’t seem I have…

  499. on 19 May 2012 at 1:52 pm 499.Lou(DFW) said …

    498.Chris said …

    “1) I provided no such thing…what I presented are FACTS.”

    First the delusion…

    “2) Don’t take ANYTHING I have put up here without looking into it yourself…if I have said something in error, I want to know about it…given that, it doesn’t seem I have…”

    Then the denial.

  500. on 19 May 2012 at 1:56 pm 500.Lou(DFW) said …

    493.Chris said …

    “Says someone who WONT put their real name to what they post…i put REAL evidence about the Bible on here…”

    Yes anon, nothing is true unless the poster includes “their real name.” You should know that’s the way things work in Chrisland.

    BTW, “Chris,” maybe I missed them, but I’m still waiting for YOUR credentials as a bible “scholar.” And now, according to your newest condition, your credentials must include your real name, or they’re not true.

  501. on 19 May 2012 at 2:02 pm 501.Chris said …

    Huh…

    “BTW, “Chris,” maybe I missed them, but I’m still waiting for YOUR credentials as a bible “scholar.” And now, according to your newest condition, your credentials must include your real name, or they’re not true.”

    According to Lou, facts are ONLY facts because of someone credentials…not because they are actually facts.

    Also, this is from someone who evidentally doesn’t read what people post…

  502. on 19 May 2012 at 2:08 pm 502.Lou(DFW) said …

    497.Chris said …

    “Did Jesus truly exist?

    Well, yes.

    It’s pretty much a done deal that Jesus existed. As there IS extra Biblical evidence he lived.”

    Even if he did, then that doesn’t make him the son of god anymore than Saint Nicholas actually living makes him Santa Claus. You have a big problem distinguishing between truth and fact.

    And we know that must be true because the bible is the inspired word of an imaginary god for which nobody, including “Chris,” has any evidence. That is a done deal, not just “pretty much” so.

    Chris, the truth is that you are too busy trying to convince YOURSELF, not anybody else, about the bible. So much so that you can’t understand that the bible is PART OF YOUR CLAIM, NOT PART OF YOUR EVIDENCE.

  503. on 19 May 2012 at 2:10 pm 503.Lou(DFW) said …

    501.Chris said …

    “According to Lou, facts are ONLY facts because of someone credentials…not because they are actually facts.”

    Chris, now you are becoming an outright liar. What happened to your xtian morals?

    Regardless, you didn’t provide your credentials. You danced around the issue exactly as you do to avoid providing evidence of your imaginary god.

  504. on 19 May 2012 at 2:12 pm 504.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “Even if he did, then that doesn’t make him the son of god anymore than Saint Nicholas actually living makes him Santa Claus. You have a big problem distinguishing between truth and fact.”

    …Please show me where I have such a problem?

    “And we know that must be true because the bible is the inspired word of an imaginary god for which nobody, including “Chris,” has any evidence. That is a done deal, not just “pretty much” so.”

    …Well, I DID provide evidence as to why the Bible can be trusted…do you have evidence to the contrary?

    “Chris, the truth is that you are too busy trying to convince YOURSELF, not anybody else, about the bible. So much so that you can’t understand that the bible is PART OF YOUR CLAIM, NOT PART OF YOUR EVIDENCE.”

    Lou, I love that you keep posting…please provide where I make a claim FACTUALLY without evidence?

    What, that I have listed about the Bible is NOT TRUE? What did I present that AREN’T facts?

  505. on 19 May 2012 at 2:16 pm 505.Chris said …

    lou -

    “Chris, now you are becoming an outright liar. What happened to your xtian morals?

    Regardless, you didn’t provide your credentials. You danced around the issue exactly as you do to avoid providing evidence of your imaginary god.”

    As I had posted, you DON’T READ what is posted…1) show me to be a liar, 2) I admitted I didn’t have the credentials of Bart Erhman…and said the same of you…or didn’t you see that? Should I quote it for you? It’s right there, did you not see it?

    and again, you are equating credentials with FACTS, which isn’t the case.

    Keep posting Lou, I await for the one where I lied…..

  506. on 19 May 2012 at 2:17 pm 506.Chris said …

    lou -

    I’m still waiting on where I misrepresented B.E on his position…as you claim I did…

  507. on 19 May 2012 at 2:41 pm 507.Lou(DFW) said …

    505.Chris said …

    “As I had posted, you DON’T READ what is posted…”

    Correct, I don’t read ALL of what you write.

    “1) show me to be a liar,…”

    “According to Lou, facts are ONLY facts because of someone credentials…not because they are actually facts.”

    I never wrote nor implied any such thing. What you wrote about me is a lie.

    “2) I admitted I didn’t have the credentials of Bart Erhman…and said the same of you…or didn’t you see that? Should I quote it for you? It’s right there, did you not see it?”

    If you did, I did not see it because if you did you did not do so as a direct reply to my original request.

    “and again, you are equating credentials with FACTS, which isn’t the case.”

    No, I am not. “Credentials” do equate to facts. They “equate” to legitimacy, something you don’t have. The only credentials that I might ascribe to you is being somewhat proficient in the Gish Gallop.

    Chris, you can continue these childish pissing matches as long as you want to, but they won’t change one indisputable, fundamental fact – you have not provided any evidence for your imaginary god.

  508. on 19 May 2012 at 2:42 pm 508.Lou(DFW) said …

    504.Chris said …

    “What, that I have listed about the Bible is NOT TRUE? What did I present that AREN’T facts?”

    The single most important part – that it’s the inspired word of god.

  509. on 19 May 2012 at 2:45 pm 509.Lou(DFW) said …

    506.Chris said …

    “I’m still waiting on where I misrepresented B.E on his position…as you claim I did…”

    I answered you about that. Give it a rest. It wouldn’t matter whether or not you did or didn’t if you would simply provide evidence for your imaginary god. You can wipe the slate clean and the floor with me if you can do that one thing.

  510. on 19 May 2012 at 3:10 pm 510.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “Correct, I don’t read ALL of what you write.”

    Which explains a lot…

  511. on 19 May 2012 at 3:39 pm 511.Chris said …

    So, we should all take what Lou says about me – depsite the fact Lou ADMITS to not reading ALL of what I write – as fact and correct assertions.

    Huh…bet if I said the same thing, I wouldn’t be taken seriously on here…But Lou get’s a pass because he’s an atheist…

  512. on 19 May 2012 at 3:40 pm 512.Lou(DFW) said …

    507.Lou(DFW) said …

    CORRECTION: “Credentials” do NOT equate to facts.

  513. on 19 May 2012 at 3:42 pm 513.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “CORRECTION: “Credentials” do NOT equate to facts.”

    Then why are you bothering with MY credentials in light of the facts I presented?

    Either show what I said is wrong, or admit you can’t…don’t be silly and argue my “credentials”

  514. on 19 May 2012 at 3:43 pm 514.Chris said …

    Lou -

    ““What, that I have listed about the Bible is NOT TRUE? What did I present that AREN’T facts?”

    The single most important part – that it’s the inspired word of god.”

    So at the very least EVERTHING ELSE that I said about the Bible is true?

  515. on 19 May 2012 at 3:45 pm 515.Lou(DFW) said …

    511.Chris said …

    “So, we should all take what Lou says about me – depsite the fact Lou ADMITS to not reading ALL of what I write – as fact and correct assertions.

    Huh…bet if I said the same thing, I wouldn’t be taken seriously on here…But Lou get’s a pass because he’s an atheist…”

    Chris, you AREN’T taken seriously, and now you’re so frustrated about it that you’re taking it personally. And I don’t get “a pass” for something I didn’t do. Rejection of beliefs in imaginary beings and not reading paragraph after paragraph of mind-numbing blabbing doesn’t require a pass.

  516. on 19 May 2012 at 3:48 pm 516.Lou(DFW) said …

    514.Chris said …

    “So at the very least EVERTHING ELSE that I said about the Bible is true?”

    Unfrickin’ believable….

  517. on 19 May 2012 at 3:49 pm 517.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “Chris, you AREN’T taken seriously, and now you’re so frustrated about it that you’re taking it personally. And I don’t get “a pass” for something I didn’t do. Rejection of beliefs in imaginary beings and not reading paragraph after paragraph of mind-numbing blabbing doesn’t require a pass.”

    I love that you keep posting.. I’m not frustrated! i love that you keep posting stuff that shows you 1) admit that you don’t read ALL that I post, 2) Don’t know what YOU posted…

    I posted facts about the Bible, you haven’t yet posted ONE THING that shows 1) that I’m wrong, 2) that the Bible is wrong.

    Please Lou, keep posting…you are doing me and theists a service more than you know…

    You have been shown to NOT be as HONEST as you would like to claim and, if needed, I can quote them for you…

    However, they are right there in print…posted…all you have done so far, in light of what I have presented (facts) is state what you want to BELIEVE, but have not stated any facts…

    Huh…

  518. on 19 May 2012 at 3:51 pm 518.Chris said …

    Lou -

    ““So at the very least EVERTHING ELSE that I said about the Bible is true?”

    Unfrickin’ believable….”

    this is why I LOVE that you post….because this is what you said. You said, I “failed” to show that the Bible is inspired by God, yet didn’t say that ANYTYHING i posted about the Bible was wrong…

    I love ya lou!

    Keep posting, you are helping prove my case more than you know!

  519. on 19 May 2012 at 3:53 pm 519.Chris said …

    Lou -

    since you don’t ever answer a question directly, I will ask you directly.

    1) What did I list about the Bible that is wrong?
    2) how did I misrepresent B.E? (I didn’t, and you can’t show how I did, because you know this)

    Bet you won’t answer either of those…

  520. on 19 May 2012 at 3:58 pm 520.Lou(DFW) said …

    519.Chris said …

    “Bet you won’t answer either of those…”

    I already did, and I’m not going over this again. So take your schoolyard taunts and shove ‘em.

  521. on 19 May 2012 at 4:03 pm 521.Chris said …

    lou -

    “I already did, and I’m not going over this again. So take your schoolyard taunts and shove ‘em.”

    LOL!

    Okay, Lou you’re right, you answered these…serious, do you NOT KNOW that what you post is put up here?

    You said ONE THING about the list I provided: it didn’t PROVE God inspired it…that is IT, that is all you SAID…you haven’t provided ONE CONTRARY PIECE of EVIDENCE against it…

    Just shows that you reject the evidence based on Bias, not facts.

    As for Bart, you were schooled on him…I showed how you think I misrepresented him yet, didn’t because YOU failed to read all that I wrote – which is what you admitted to…You just post, without READING what is ACTUALLY WRITTEN.

    Sad that you can’t even admit when you are wrong…and you call ME Delusional…

  522. on 19 May 2012 at 5:36 pm 522.Scott said …

    Chris

    Just to save you sometime here. Lou is not taken seriously. He is irrational; he knows very little and thinks everyone is a liar who doesn’t agree with him. He doesn’t lack belief as he claims, he is resolute and no amount of evidence will persuade him. This is the point that makes Lou a liar.

    He claims to desire proof but in reality there is no proof that would persuade him since he has no grasp of metaphysics ontology, epistemology or axiology.

    My comments further up were not because of all you presented. I knew these facts and have been convinced the Bible is divinely inspired.

    My counsel is just to ignore Lou and save time and repute.

  523. on 19 May 2012 at 5:45 pm 523.alex said …

    i’m convinced. i’m a fucking christian now. save all your blather. now, where are all the faggots, the adulterers, and the women. let the beatings begin. all ye black people, get ready to be enslaved. the englightenment has begun. hallelujah!

    you children better straighten up, or else. freaking muslims, better not show your face. all you atheists will be rooted out and beaten too.

  524. on 19 May 2012 at 6:01 pm 524.alex said …

    this chris idiot is just another asshole fanatic masquerading as some kinda intellect. he thinks by trolling and antagonizing here, he can somehow make his point and convince people?

    he’s no different than the idiot in the park, trying to talk to people about the “second coming” or the morons holding up signs with biblical verses. so how’s that working out?

    critical thinking is not rocket science. encouraging logical thought is not a revolution, but the morons are scared and their methods show it.

    extolling pseudo converted witnesses, biblical grafitti, passing religious handouts, righteous indignation, etc. the list goes on.

  525. on 19 May 2012 at 6:50 pm 525.Prime said …

    Holy fucking shit.

    Chris, if you wonder why people don’t read all of what you write, it’s because you’re blathering on and on and on and calling pissing contests on people left, right, and center before they have a chance to breathe. There have been 80 comments on this thread, about 75% of them you, Chris, in the last 20 hours.

    How did you move the goalposts:
    1. Did not define the god you’re talking about;
    2. Set up a list of criteria you think would validate the bible as evidence of this god (based on complexity arguments and other mish-mash that is not evidence);
    3. And then said “I’m only wrong if you can prove me false about any of these four points.”

    Then you proceeded to strut around like a pigeon on a chessboard because everyone with any sense knows you’ve already engaged in circular reasoning and haven’t even established a single premise yet.

    I read your list of four things that are supposed to convince me the bible is from God. Even if you were to establish all of those things 100%, it wouldn’t be convincing because “people could have done it just fine” would work just as well. Not only would that work, it would work better because you don’t need magic to make it happen.

    Let me give you one example: your “consistency” claim.
    That MIGHT hold water if you could prove conclusively that the bible was written by 40 authors who had absolutely no knowledge of any of the other authors’ works and no traditions shared in common. Unfortunately for your case, not only were they ALL JEWS in the same tradition, they engaged in all kinds of cross-bred practices like pseudographical additions to and modifications of the text. They also, because they wrote these things, were literate, and thus it is very likely that they had read some of the works of the others, which is exactly part of the Jewish tradition, “inspiring” them in a much more mundane way–the same way you’ve been inspired to spew this trash all over the forum here.

    Here’s another example: “The bible talks about real people.” So what? If I go write a realistic fiction novel set during the American Civil War and talk about Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee, etc., in that book, does it validate it as authentic evidence of the fictional details I write (like maybe if I throw in Superman, he was clearly there, right?). The Harry Potter novels talk about King’s Cross Station, which is real and in London, so there really is a Hogwarts, right? The story of Hercules talks about a lot of real places in and around Greece, so that clearly happened to and Hercules is real, right?

    If you want a real challenge about the bible’s authenticity, try the classic modus tollens one, where you have to overcome the fact that an all-knowing, all-loving God inspired men to write a holy book that he would know would rule history for thousands of years and yet didn’t inspire them to write a single thing about the actual physical world they live in that wouldn’t be available to Bronze-Age people. Antibiotics? No. Advanced agriculture? No. People are often allergic to wheat? No. That sheep that mate in front of a striped stick will come out striped? Oddly, yes, even though that’s not true.

    It’s worded the same way as your first point: “What would we expect if an all-knowing, perfect God wrote the bible?” A damn sight better than what we have, that’s what.

  526. on 20 May 2012 at 12:31 am 526.Lou(DFW) said …

    522.Scott said …

    “This is the point that makes Lou a liar.”

    A “point” doesn’t make make anybody a liar. Lying makes someone a liar. I haven’t lied about anything.

    “He claims to desire proof but in reality there is no proof that would persuade him since he has no grasp of metaphysics ontology, epistemology or axiology.”

    Irrelevant. Philosophy doesn’t have anything to with evidence of god, nor does it have anything to with any of the evidence that Chris presented. On the other hand, if you want to claim that the existence of god is nothing but a philosophical issue, then go for it.

    “My counsel is just to ignore Lou and save time and repute.”

    Yes, Chris, ignore me. As I wrote, this isn’t about me being wrong. It’s about your inability to present any legitimate evidence for your imaginary god.

  527. on 20 May 2012 at 12:41 am 527.Lou said …

    alex

    When you post I always come away enriched and with a warm fuzzy feeling.

    Your love, compassion and class cause me to pause and ask what makes you such a wonderful individual? I desire to know more so I can be more like you.

  528. on 20 May 2012 at 1:31 am 528.Lou(DFW) said …

    525.Prime said …

    “Holy fucking shit.”

    Crude, but accurate.

    “It’s worded the same way as your [Chris'] first point: “What would we expect if an all-knowing, perfect God wrote the bible?” A damn sight better than what we have, that’s what.”

    To put it another way, does the universe, and more specifically, earth and humanity, fit the idea of a creation born of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and all-loving, perfect god? Obviously not.

  529. on 20 May 2012 at 3:00 am 529.Prime said …

    I said…
    “What would we expect if an all-knowing, perfect God wrote the bible?” A damn sight better than what we have, that’s what.”

    I actually think about this a lot as a side project with a friend of mine (an escaped fundamentalist). If the bible was legit, what would it be like.

    If I was going to guess, honestly, it would contain a lot less rambling than it does. It would also contain a lot less pointless history and stuff that is flatly embarrassing to God. It would also surpass all other books in quality, obviously to every reader on the first try, both in terms of prose (or verse) and clarity of message. It would also have to account for a time (ostensibly known to God) that comes later than the Iron Age, in which the men who wrote it lived. It really fails here.

    It would also be organized a lot differently. First and foremost, it would be organized to actually help people instead of to confuse them. In that, I figure it would probably be broken into two parts (maybe more, but I doubt it). The two parts would be of astounding clarity and consistency and would detail (1) EXACTLY how to get into heaven and avoid annihilation or hell, and (2) how to live well, meaningfully well, with long, productive, fruitful lives while here. There would be no King Ahaz, no Judah or jawbones of asses, no Moses the Terrible, and Jesus would be redundant. The matter would just be as clear as day with a high level of specificity and clarity.

    The part dealing with getting into heaven would be an absolutely clear instruction manual of step-by-step instructions with instructions that are clear, abundantly clear, and not pathetically arbitrary. The clarity cannot be understated. There would be NO division on the matter, no interpretation necessary. Thus, there would be one religion. The requirement can’t possibly be something as stupid as belief in the unbelievable and unprovable. That literally flies in the face of anything a loving God could ask.

    The part dealing with life on earth would be an absolutely clear set of instructions that teach us how to optimize life and morality without making unrealistic assumptions about people and nature (again, which were available to people in the Bronze and Iron Ages). Of particular note would be abundantly clear instructions on how to minimize suffering, so I figure a lot of it would be medical in nature. Almost any modern medical textbook completely, utterly outstrips the bible in that regard. It would *have* to talk about microorganisms and not demons as the cause of disease; it would *have* to talk saliently (instead of haphazardly and foolishly) about hygiene. Various bits of (maximally) useful engineering would probably need to be there–including a lesson in renewable, clean energy and closed-loop economic systems from the get-go. It would have to be unflinchingly clear and detailed about a moral code, instead of simplistic, barbarous, and vague in the extreme. There would be *no room for interpretation* because of the clarity and salience.

    I also see absolutely no reason that it would have had to have been “inspired” and thus written by men and subject to clerical errors and translation problems.

    Further, it really would need to be a lot older. Humans lived for tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of years before the bible was written. It seems odd that God couldn’t have written it himself a lot earlier instead of throwing them all under the bus on that one. There’s absolutely no good reason that God couldn’t have had this document clearly available 50,000 or more years ago, in every language, among every people.

    We see none of that. The bible is as bogus as the Iliad as proof of anything.

    Chris, save your breath. Your bible does not meet these requirements by a long shot, even with two millennia of hermeneutics and exegesis trying to make up for that fact.

  530. on 20 May 2012 at 3:45 am 530.Lou(DFW) said …

    445.Chris said …

    “a) it would stand the test of time…that is, be as relevant TODAY as it was when it was written.
    b) that throughout time, despite the fallibility of man, it would remain INTACT.
    c) no matter WHO was inspired to write, or where they were, or at what time they lived in – it would express the same message, without error, and not contradict itself in such a manner.
    d) be grounded in reality, dealing with real people, places and events.”

    529.Prime said …

    “Further, it really would need to be a lot older. Humans lived for tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of years before the bible was written. It seems odd that God couldn’t have written it himself a lot earlier instead of throwing them all under the bus on that one. There’s absolutely no good reason that God couldn’t have had this document clearly available 50,000 or more years ago, in every language, among every people.”

    Prime, I almost started to write something similar, because as you can see in 445.Chris, he refers to “time” several times. The bible fails in meeting the very standards that Chris creates for it. The bible can’t “stand the test of time” because it didn’t exist for all “time.” Right then and there all of the rest of what Chris wrote about the bible can be discounted and ignored.

  531. on 20 May 2012 at 4:02 am 531.Lou(DFW) said …

    529.Prime said …

    “We see none of that. The bible is as bogus as the Iliad as proof of anything.”

    Exactly.

    But how could the bible be evidence for the god who inspired it? Simple – things that happened in “bible times” would happen similarly today. God would make himself known to us now as he did in “bible times.” As such, there wouldn’t even be a requirement for a bible. In effect, the bible is evidence for why there isn’t a god who inspired it.

    Remember in Star Trek V when Kirk asked why does god need a starship? Why does god need a bible? After all, he’s god, isn’t he?

  532. on 20 May 2012 at 4:07 am 532.Prime said …

    Did you notice that the Pyramids of Giza essentially satisfy those four criteria perfectly as well?
    (a) They’re still here, almost to the point where it’s hard to believe how well they were constructed.
    (b) See (a).
    (c) Tombs still mean death. Grandiose tombs still mean death worship.
    (d) I think the Egyptian Pharaohs are unequivocally real (with actual and veridical outside sources to authenticate them–including the bible!) and are really in Egypt.

    Conclusion: Ra is the one true god, with Horus as savior.

    Hey Chris, do you see the non sequiturs I used here? How about the circularity (where I just assumed Ra is real and then concluded Ra is real)? Do you see how they apply to yours?

    Here’s a shift of burden of proof: it’s not my job to prove that I’m right, it’s yours to prove that I’m wrong.

    Here’s a pre-emptive moving the goalposts: That’s not the interpretation of the pyramids I meant when I called them tombs.

    Here’s poisoning the well: Anything you say to contradict this contradicts your own premise as well…
    …except in this case, I’m not committing a fallacy, just putting you in checkmate.

  533. on 20 May 2012 at 4:08 am 533.Prime said …

    531.Lou(DFW) said …

    “Remember in Star Trek V when Kirk asked why does god need a starship? Why does god need a bible? After all, he’s god, isn’t he?”

    No. I’m a mathematician, not a dork. Good point, still.

  534. on 20 May 2012 at 4:26 am 534.alex said …

    My holy? book would contain:

    1. DO NOT impose the contents of this Book to anybody else. In due time, this book will be read and understood.

    2. Respect other people’s beliefs. When other people’s beliefs are imposed upon you, resist vigorously.

    3. All human beings are considered equal and this includes all races, homosexuals, women, dwarfs, atheists, and everyone else.

    4. When you die, THAT’S IT. There is no life after death. Enjoy your life.

    5. If your behavior offends, cease. If someone’s behavior offends you, try to work it out. Let’s all try to be nice.

    6. …..others to follow

    just a start.

  535. on 20 May 2012 at 5:55 am 535.Anonymous said …

    And Chris makes the excuse of not having my “real” name to avoid answering any and all questions that I posed. Nice way to prove yourself a troll and to have absolutely no intention of honest debate.

    More and more this is becoming the same thing as did the other long running “I’ll prove it” farce that I read with Curmudgeon who never, ever, intended on doing anything but be a total asshole. Again, nice way to continue that tradition.

    Still, it’s absolutely my turn. “Chris”, when you provide, and prove without a shadow of doubt, details on your “real” name then you can certainly have mine. But you raised it, so you need to show me how it’s done.

    In the interim, what were your answers to DPK’s question about your god’s attributes? Is it Omniscient? Is it Omnipresent? Afraid to answer or no intention of doing anything other than be a total asshole on an essentially anonymous internet blog?

    Don’t forget, we now need your “real” name to be able to take your posts as being authentic. This is an application of your rule (diversion?) in action.

  536. on 20 May 2012 at 2:30 pm 536.DPK said …

    I was about to comment that in light of Chris’ propensity for demanding people disprove his claims, it seems ironic that he has consistently avoided answering ANY of my direct questions regard what he stated was the very nature of his god. Not only once, but multiple time.
    I think we should rename him “Dodger”.
    Thanks for pointing it out “A”…
    Yes, Chris seems to have failed to win any converts or do anything more than highlight the absurdity of his long winded contentions.

  537. on 20 May 2012 at 4:42 pm 537.Lou(DFW) said …

    536.DPK said …

    “I was about to comment that in light of Chris’ propensity for demanding people disprove his claims, it seems ironic that he has consistently avoided answering ANY of my direct questions regard what he stated was the very nature of his god. Not only once, but multiple time.”

    Just wait, he will either claim that he somehow did answer them, or he will present questions to you that you must answer before he will answer yours.

  538. on 20 May 2012 at 5:11 pm 538.Prime said …

    536.DPK said …

    “I was about to comment that in light of Chris’ propensity for demanding people disprove his claims,”

    This is pretty much the whole religious paradigm caught in a sentence, though, right?
    Step 1: Say stuff about how you think the world/universe/cosmos works without seeing a single piece of data about it.
    Step 2: Demand people disprove it.
    Step 3: Shift the goalposts.

    If I want to say that I think gravity works by a mechanism involving the Higgs boson, then no matter how useful any theory is in terms of explaining the universe w.r.t. gravity, if no one can show evidence for a Higgs boson, I’m back to the drawing board.

    Innocent until proven guilty? That means “false until proven true.” Chris’s reversal here is essentially “true until proven false,” which is the same as guilty until proven innocent–such a bad, pre-Enlightenment way to go about the matter, just like religion.

  539. on 20 May 2012 at 6:43 pm 539.Suh said …

    #527

    Lou,

    :) I don’t know what it is but it is contagious, yes? I almost mistook him for Mother Theresa.

  540. on 20 May 2012 at 8:44 pm 540.Prime said …

    The real reason Chris doesn’t want the bible to be evidence for God is also worth mentioning. Let’s use the New Testament to examine a particular thorn.

    Consider:
    1. Matthew 7:15
    “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.” -Jesus

    2. Mark 9:1
    And [Jesus] said to them, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.”

    Since (2) didn’t happen, and Jesus warned about (1), we can only surmise that Jesus was wrong about himself and that he was, indeed, a false prophet.

    Might we interpret that by the bible as well? Let’s look at Jeremiah 14:14-16, which is relevant to the matter:
    “Then the Lord said to me, “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries[a] and the delusions of their own minds. Therefore this is what the Lord says about the prophets who are prophesying in my name: I did not send them, yet they are saying, ‘No sword or famine will touch this land.’ Those same prophets will perish by sword and famine. And the people they are prophesying to will be thrown out into the streets of Jerusalem because of the famine and sword. There will be no one to bury them, their wives, their sons and their daughters. I will pour out on them the calamity they deserve.”

  541. on 20 May 2012 at 8:47 pm 541.Prime said …

    That Jeremiah verse hits a little close to home, doesn’t it?
    Didn’t Jesus say something about not worrying about the morrow (“no sword or famine will touch this land” seems pretty close to that)? Didn’t he go hungry often and then get put to death involving a spear, which is a weapon, which swords are a metaphor for? Didn’t the disciples scatter from Jerusalem after it happened?

    I mean, that’s a better set of prophesies (post hoc, of course) about Jesus than most of the ones that are alleged to be about him.

    Funny how that exegesis thing works, isn’t it? How you can spend enough time with a sufficiently jacked-up text and find just about anything you want to support within it?

  542. on 20 May 2012 at 11:27 pm 542.Anonymous said …

    Prime said:

    536.DPK said …
    “I was about to comment that in light of Chris’ propensity for demanding people disprove his claims,”

    This is pretty much the whole religious paradigm caught in a sentence, though, right?
    Step 1: Say stuff about how you think the world/universe/cosmos works without seeing a single piece of data about it.
    Step 2: Demand people disprove it.
    Step 3: Shift the goalposts.

    True and it leads to one of the most damaging things in religion in that adherents are led to believe that taking something on “faith” is a good thing. In other words, they are emotionally rewarded for a lack of critical thinking skills.

    I see this in action with some of my Xtian friends. Several are having “a crisis of faith”. Rather than examine the aspects that have led them to that point, they have immersed themselves in evening classes so that they can “learn” how to “correctly interpret” the bible in light of their fears, anxieties, and experiences all of which have led them to have major doubt in their faith.

    It seems that losing their religion is exactly like losing an emotional crutch. They cannot bear to face the world without this “belief” that someone out there loves them and that they are going to go to heaven.

    It’s sad to see nice people so desperate to be convinced that their holy book isn’t anything other than a story book.

  543. on 21 May 2012 at 1:07 am 543.Prime said …

    542.Anonymous said …

    “I see this in action with some of my Xtian friends. Several are having “a crisis of faith”. Rather than examine the aspects that have led them to that point, they have immersed themselves in evening classes so that they can “learn” how to “correctly interpret” the bible in light of their fears, anxieties, and experiences all of which have led them to have major doubt in their faith.”

    Indeed. I read (I believe from Al Stefanelli) a piece that contained a line I really liked: A divinity degree (or other theology degree) is little more than an “advanced degree” in overcoming one’s doubts.

  544. on 21 May 2012 at 4:10 pm 544.Lou(DFW) said …

    “Why I want all our children to read the King James Bible” – Richard Dawkins

    http://tinyurl.com/c8k2whr

  545. on 25 May 2012 at 6:05 pm 545.anthem said …

    Hi there, just was alert to your blog through Google, and found that it is really
    informative. I am gonna watch out for brussels.
    I will be grateful if you happen to proceed this in future.
    Lots of other people shall be benefited out of your writing.
    Cheers!

  546. on 29 May 2012 at 9:53 am 546.Supply Chain Innovation said …

    Thank you for the auspicious writeup. It in fact was
    a amusement account it. Look advanced to more added agreeable
    from you! However, how could we communicate?

  547. on 24 Mar 2013 at 1:57 am 547.Billy Butcher said …

    LOL. Does Jeebus exist? Well, yes said the liar. The facts are that Bible historians have already closed the book on trying to find any evidence for the historical Abraham, David, and Moses (which is the most ludicrous story ever told). Jesus is very near to being the next to close the book on. Over 80 known historians and writers were alive in the area at the time J.C. alledgedly lived, yet not one wrote a word about him while the author and Jeez were alive at the same time. The most read and respected of them was Philo of Judea, or Philo of Alexandria who lived almost exactly at the same time J. was supposed to, and lived in many of the same towns at the same time. He was in Jerusalem the day of the alledged crucifixtion, the attending earthquake, and the dead coming alive. But the greatest investigative writer of the time didn’t see any of it. You can’t call Philo indifferent or biased because he’s considered one of the fathers of Christianity. Apparently when he finally heard of him he backed his teachings (why, I have no idea), but his writings never explained how he could have possibly missed those events. I think he knew he was fictional, but what’s the harm in following. Oh Philo, what a sorry mistake that was.

  548. on 24 Mar 2013 at 4:47 am 548.The messenger said …

    The Christian moral code is located within the entire bible, but mainly the new testament.

  549. on 24 Mar 2013 at 5:11 am 549.The messenger said …

    547.Billy Butcher, the reason that he did not witness it, was because he was not at the location at which the crusifiction took place. And he had no knowledge of the capture of the crusifiction or resurrection, until after it happend. And even after that, he still did not record those events, due to the fact that he was Jewish for his entire life, and he always thought that Jesus was a false prophet.

    You concoct such feeble arguments.

    The reason that Philo is considered a father of Christianity is because his writing influenced how the bible(mainly the old testament), and the original church was organized.

    He never wrote about Christianity directly because he had no affiliation with it and he was loyal to Judism, not Christianity. Philo was Jewish, so the fore he only wrote about issues that conserved the Jewish people, he had no reason to write about the resurrection, or crusifiction.

    I do not know why you forge such feeble arguments.

  550. on 24 Mar 2013 at 5:20 am 550.The messenger said …

    Brother 547.Billy Butcher, here are some philosophers that did write about Jesus.

    Church Fathers

    The Church Fathers, an 11th-century Kievan miniature from Svyatoslav’s Miscellany
    The Church Fathers, Early Church Fathers, Christian Fathers, or Fathers of the Church were early, often influential Christian theologians, some of whom were eminent teachers and great bishops. The term is used of writers or teachers of the Church, not necessarily “saints”, and not necessarily ordained, though many are honoured as saints in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran Churches, and other Churches and groups.

    Origen Adamantius and Tertullian, often considered Church Fathers, were not canonized as saints by the Catholic Church[1][2] due to their holding views later deemed heretical.

    HideApostolic Fathers

    Main article: Apostolic Fathers
    The earliest Church Fathers, (within two generations of the Twelve Apostles of Christ) are usually called the Apostolic Fathers since tradition describes them as having been taught by the twelve. Important Apostolic Fathers include Clement of Rome,[3]Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. In addition, the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas are usually placed among the writings of the Apostolic Fathers although their authors are unknown; like the works of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, they were first written in Koine Greek.

    Clement of Rome

    Main article: Clement of Rome
    His epistle, 1 Clement (c.96),[3] was copied and widely read in the Early Church.[4] Clement calls on the Christians of Corinth to maintain harmony and order.[3] It is the earliest Christian epistle outside the New Testament.

    Ignatius of Antioch

    Main article: Ignatius of Antioch
    Ignatius of Antioch (also known as Theophorus) (c.35-110)[5] was the third bishop or Patriarch of Antioch and a student of the Apostle John. En route to his martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius wrote a series of letters which have been preserved. Important topics addressed in these letters include ecclesiology, the sacraments, the role of bishops, and Biblical Sabbath.[6] He is the second after Clement to mention Paul’s epistles.[3]

    Polycarp of Smyrna

    Main article: Polycarp of Smyrna
    Polycarp of Smyrna (c.69–c.155) was a Christian bishop of Smyrna (now ?zmir in Turkey). It is recorded that he had been a disciple of John. The options for this John are John the son of Zebedee traditionally viewed as the author of the Gospel of John, or John the Presbyter.[7] Traditional advocates follow Eusebius in insisting that the apostolic connection of Polycarp was with John the Evangelist, and that this John, the author of the Gospel of John, was the same as the Apostle John.

    Polycarp tried and failed to persuade Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, to have the West celebrate Passover on 14 Nisan, as in the East. In c.155, the Smyrnans demanded Polycarp’s execution as a Christian, and he died a martyr. His story has it that the flames built to kill him refused to burn him and that when he was stabbed to death, so much blood issued from his body that it quenched the flames around him.[3] Polycarp is recognized as a saint in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

    HideGreek Fathers

    Those who wrote in Greek are called the Greek (Church) Fathers. Famous Greek Fathers include: Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, Peter of Sebaste, Gregory of Nyssa), Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus.

    Irenaeus of Lyons

    Main article: Irenaeus
    Irenaeus was bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, which is now Lyon(s), France. His writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology, and he is recognized as a saint by both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. He was a notable early Christian apologist. He was also a disciple of Polycarp.

    His best-known book, Against Heresies (c.180) enumerated heresies and attacked them. Irenaeus wrote that the only way for Christians to retain unity was to humbly accept one doctrinal authority—episcopal councils.[3] Irenaeus proposed that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all be accepted as canonical.

    Clement of Alexandria

    Main article: Clement of Alexandria
    Clement of Alexandria (Titus Flavius Clemens) was the first member of the church of Alexandria to be more than a name, and one of its most distinguished teachers. He united Greek philosophical traditions with Christian doctrine and valued gnosis that with communion for all people could be held by common Christians. He developed a Christian Platonism.[3] Like Origen, he arose from Catechetical School of Alexandria and was well versed in pagan literature.[3]

    Origen of Alexandria

    Main article: Origen
    Origen, or Origen Adamantius (c.185–c.254) was a scholar and theologian. According to tradition, he was an Egyptian[8] who taught in Alexandria, reviving the Catechetical School where Clement had taught. The patriarch of Alexandria at first supported Origen but later expelled him for being ordained without the patriarch’s permission. He relocated to Caesarea Maritima and died there[9] after being tortured during a persecution.

    Using his knowledge of Hebrew, he produced a corrected Septuagint.[3] He wrote commentaries on all the books of the Bible.[3] In Peri Archon (First Principles), he articulated the first philosophical exposition of Christian doctrine.[3] He interpreted scripture allegorically and showed himself to be a stoic, a Neo-Pythagorean, and a Platonist.[3] Like Plotinus, he wrote that the soul passes through successive stages before incarnation as a human and after death, eventually reaching God.[3] He imagined even demons being reunited with God. For Origen, God was not Yahweh but the First Principle, and Christ, the Logos, was subordinate to him.[3] His views of a hierarchical structure in the Trinity, the temporality of matter, “the fabulous preexistence of souls”, and “the monstrous restoration which follows from it” were declared anathema in the 6th century.[10][11] Because of his heretical views, Origen is technically not a Church Father by many definitions of that term but instead may simply be referred to as an ecclesiastical writer.[1]

    Athanasius of Alexandria

    St. Athanasius, depicted with a book, an iconographic symbol of the importance of his writings.
    Main article: Athanasius of Alexandria
    Athanasius of Alexandria (c.293–2 May 373) was a theologian, Pope of Alexandria, and a noted Egyptian leader of the 4th century. He is remembered for his role in the conflict with Arianism and for his affirmation of the Trinity. At the First Council of Nicaea (325), Athanasius argued against the Arian doctrine that Christ is of a distinct substance from the Father.[3]

    Cappadocian Fathers

    Main article: Cappadocian Fathers
    The Cappadocians promoted early Christian theology and are highly respected in both Western and Eastern churches as saints. They were a 4th-century monastic family, led by Saint Macrina the Younger (324–379) to provide a central place for her brothers to study and meditate, and also to provide a peaceful shelter for their mother. Abbess Macrina fostered the education and development of three men who collectively became designated the Cappadocian Fathers: Basil the Great (330–379) who was the second oldest of Macrina’s brothers and became a bishop; Gregory of Nyssa (c.335 – after 394) who also became a bishop of the diocese associated thereafter with his name; and Peter of Sebaste (c.340 – 391) who was the youngest brother and became bishop of Sebaste.

    These scholars along with a close friend, Gregory Nazianzus, set out to demonstrate that Christians could hold their own in conversations with learned Greek-speaking intellectuals. They argued that Christian faith, while it was against many of the ideas of Plato and Aristotle (and other Greek Philosophers), it was an almost scientific and distinctive movement with the healing of the soul of man and his union with God at its center. They made major contributions to the definition of the Trinity finalized at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 and the final version of the Nicene Creed.

    Subsequent to the First Council of Nicea, Arianism did not simply disappear. The semi-Arians taught that the Son is of like substance with the Father (homoiousios), as against the outright Arians who taught that the Son was unlike the Father (heterousian). So the Son was held to be like the Father but not of the same essence as the Father. The Cappadocians worked to bring these semi-Arians back to the Orthodox cause. In their writings they made extensive use of the formula “three substances (hypostases) in one essence (homoousia)”, and thus explicitly acknowledged a distinction between the Father and the Son (a distinction that Nicea had been accused of blurring) but at the same time insisting on their essential unity.

    John Chrysostom

    Main article: John Chrysostom
    John Chrysostom (c.347–c.407), archbishop of Constantinople, is known for his eloquence in preaching and public speaking; his denunciation of abuse of authority by both ecclesiastical and political leaders, recorded sermons and writings making him the most prolific of the eastern fathers, and his ascetic sensibilities. After his death (or according to some sources, during his life) he was given the Greek epithet chrysostomos, meaning “golden mouthed”, rendered in English as Chrysostom.[12][13]

    Chrysostom is known within Christianity chiefly as a preacher and theologian, particularly in the Eastern Orthodox Church; he is the patron saint of orators in the Roman Catholic Church. Chrysostom is also noted for eight of his sermons that played a considerable part in the history of Christian antisemitism, which were extensively cited by the Nazis in their ideological campaign against the Jews.[14][15]

    Cyril of Alexandria

    Main article: Cyril of Alexandria
    Cyril of Alexandria (c.378–444) was the Bishop of Alexandria when the city was at its height of influence and power within the Roman Empire. Cyril wrote extensively and was a leading protagonist in the Christological controversies of the late 4th and early 5th centuries. He was a central figure in the First Council of Ephesus in 431, which led to the deposition of Nestorius as Archbishop of Constantinople. Cyril’s reputation within the Christian world has resulted in his titles “Pillar of Faith” and “Seal of all the Fathers”.

    Maximus the Confessor

    Main article: Maximus the Confessor
    Maximus the Confessor (also known as Maximus the Theologian and Maximus of Constantinople) (c.580–13 August 662) was a Christian monk, theologian, and scholar. In his early life, he was a civil servant and an aide to the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius. However, he gave up this life in the political sphere to enter into the monastic life.

    After moving to Carthage, Maximus studied several Neo-Platonist writers and became a prominent author. When one of his friends began espousing the Christological position known as Monothelitism, Maximus was drawn into the controversy, in which he supported the Chalcedonian position that Jesus had both a human and a divine will. Maximus is venerated in both Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity. His Christological positions eventually resulted in his torture and exile, soon after which he died. However, his theology was vindicated by the Third Council of Constantinople, and he was venerated as a saint soon after his death. His feast day is celebrated twice during the year: on 21 January and on 13 August. His title of Confessor means that he suffered for the faith, but not to the point of death, and thus is distinguished from a martyr. His Life of the Virgin is thought to be the earliest complete biography of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

    John of Damascus

    Main article: John of Damascus
    Saint John of Damascus (Arabic: ????? ??????? Yu?ann? Al Demashqi; Greek: ??????? ?????????? (Iôannês Damaskênos); Latin: Iohannes Damascenus; also known as John Damascene, ??????????/Chrysorrhoas, “streaming with gold”—i.e., “the golden speaker”) (c.676–4 December 749) was a Syrian Christian monk and priest. Born and raised in Damascus, he died at his monastery, Mar Saba, near Jerusalem.

    A polymath whose fields of interest and contribution included law, theology, philosophy, and music, before being ordained, he served as a chief administrator to the Muslim caliph of Damascus, wrote works expounding the Christian faith, and composed hymns which are still in use in Eastern Christian monasteries. The Catholic Church regards him as a Doctor of the Church, often referred to as the Doctor of the Assumption because of his writings on the Assumption of Mary.

    HideLatin Fathers

    Those fathers who wrote in Latin are called the Latin (Church) Fathers.

    Tertullian

    Main article: Tertullian
    Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (c.160–c.225), who was converted to Christianity before 197, was a prolific writer of apologetic, theological, controversial and ascetic works.[16] He was born in Carthage, the son of a Roman centurion.

    Tertullian denounced Christian doctrines he considered heretical, but later in life adopted views that themselves came to be regarded as heretical. He wrote three books in Greek and was the first great writer of Latin Christianity, thus sometimes known as the “Father of the Latin Church”.[17] He was evidently a lawyer in Rome.[18] He is said to have introduced the Latin term “trinitas” with regard to the Divine (Trinity) to the Christian vocabulary[19] (but Theophilus of Antioch already wrote of “the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom”, which is similar but not identical to the Trinitarian wording),[20] and also probably the formula “three Persons, one Substance” as the Latin “tres Personae, una Substantia” (itself from the Koine Greek “????? ??????????, ?????????; treis Hypostases, Homoousios”), and also the terms “vetus testamentum” (Old Testament) and “novum testamentum” (New Testament).

    In his Apologeticus, he was the first Latin author who qualified Christianity as the “vera religio”, and systematically relegated the classical Roman Empire religion and other accepted cults to the position of mere “superstitions”.

    Later in life, Tertullian joined the Montanists, a heretical sect that appealed to his rigorism.[16] He used the early church’s symbol for fish—the Greek word for “fish” being ????? which is an acronym for “?????? ???????, ???? ????, ?????” (Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Saviour)—to explain the meaning of Baptism since fish are born in water. He wrote that human beings are like little fish.

    Cyprian of Carthage

    Main article: Cyprian of Carthage
    Saint Cyprian (Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus) (died September 14, 258) was bishop of Carthage and an important early Christian writer. He was born in North Africa, probably at the beginning of the 3rd century, perhaps at Carthage, where he received an excellent classical (pagan) education. After converting to Christianity, he became a bishop and eventually died a martyr at Carthage.

    Hilary of Poitiers

    Main article: Hilary of Poitiers
    Hilary of Poitiers (c.300 – c.368) was Bishop of Poitiers and is a Doctor of the Church. He was sometimes referred to as the “Hammer of the Arians” (Latin: Malleus Arianorum) and the “Athanasius of the West.” His name comes from the Greek word for happy or cheerful. His optional memorial in the Roman Catholic calendar of saints is 13 January. In the past, when this date was occupied by the Octave Day of the Epiphany, his feast day was moved to 14 January.

    Ambrose of Milan

    Main article: Ambrose of Milan
    Saint Ambrose[21] was an archbishop of Milan who became one of the most influential ecclesiastical figures of the 4th century. He is counted as one of the four original doctors of the Church.

    Jerome of Stridonium

    Main article: Jerome
    Jerome (c.347–September 30, 420) is best known as the translator of the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into Latin. He also was a Christian apologist. Jerome’s edition of the Bible, the Vulgate, is still an important text of Catholicism. He is recognised by the Roman Catholic Church as a Doctor of the Church.

    Augustine of Hippo

    Main article: Augustine of Hippo
    Augustine (13 November 354–28 August 430), Bishop of Hippo, was a philosopher and theologian. Augustine, a Latin Father and Doctor of the Church, is one of the most important figures in the development of Western Christianity. Augustine was radically influenced by Platonism.[22] He framed the concepts of original sin and just war as they are understood in the West. When Rome fell and the faith of many Christians was shaken, Augustine developed the concept of the Church as a spiritual City of God, distinct from the material City of Man.[3] Augustine’s work defined the start of the medieval worldview, an outlook that would later be firmly established by Pope Gregory the Great.[3]

    Augustine was born in present day Algeria to a Christian mother, Saint Monica. He was educated in North Africa and resisted his mother’s pleas to become Christian. He took a concubine and became a Manichean. He later converted to Christianity, became a bishop, and opposed heresies, such as Pelagianism. His works—including The Confessions, which is often called the first Western autobiography—are still read around the world. After his word work to proclaim the word of God, he is now regarded as a father saint to many institutions, and some have been named after him.

    Gregory the Great

    Main article: Gregory the Great
    Saint Gregory I the Great (c.540–12 March 604) was pope from 3 September 590 until his death. He is also known as Gregorius Dialogus (Gregory the Dialogist) in Eastern Orthodoxy because of the Dialogues he wrote. He was the first of the popes from a monastic background. Gregory is a Doctor of the Church and one of the four great Latin Fathers of the Church (the others being Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome). Of all popes, Gregory I had the most influence on the early medieval church.[23]

    Isidore of Seville

    Main article: Isidore of Seville
    Saint Isidore of Seville (Spanish: San Isidro or San Isidoro de Sevilla, Latin: Isidorus Hispalensis) (c.560–4 April 636) was Archbishop of Seville for more than three decades and is considered, as the historian Montalembert put it in an oft-quoted phrase, “le dernier savant du monde ancien” (“the last scholar of the ancient world”). Indeed, all the later medieval history-writing of Hispania (the Iberian Peninsula, comprising modern Spain and Portugal) was based on his histories.

    At a time of disintegration of classical culture and aristocratic violence and illiteracy, he was involved in the conversion of the royal Visigothic Arians to Catholicism, both assisting his brother Leander of Seville and continuing after his brother’s death. He was influential in the inner circle of Sisebut, Visigothic king of Hispania. Like Leander, he played a prominent role in the Councils of Toledo and Seville. The Visigothic legislation which resulted from these councils is regarded by modern historians as exercising an important influence on the beginnings of representative government.

    ShowOther fathers

    ShowModern positions

    ShowPatristics

    ShowSee also

    ShowReferences

    ShowExternal links

    ShowRead in another language

    Last modified 2 days ago

    DesktopMobile
    Page by contributors like you
    Content available under CC BY-SA 3.0 | Terms of Use
    PrivacyAboutDisclaimers

  551. on 24 Mar 2013 at 1:42 pm 551.alex said …

    more cut/paste, bullshit messenger?

    how this for a simple code? i will not kill, unless i have to. how’s that, asshole?

    or course, you don’t know, but your lame appeal to authority is crap. look it up, you ignorant dick.

    you haven’t noticed, you stupid moron, the other theists have not replied with their moral code, because it doesn’t exist.

    inasmuch as it looks pointless, i will continue to call out your bullshit until my keyboard runs out of ink. fuckhead.

  552. on 24 Mar 2013 at 3:09 pm 552.The messenger said …

    21.alex, all Christians have a moral. It is the bible.

    I pray for you.

  553. on 24 Mar 2013 at 3:50 pm 553.alex said …

    “I pray for you.”

    how about letting the gay people get married? how about condemning the pervert priests? it’s way easier than praying for me, you fucking hypocrite. if you were drowning, i’d still throw you line, you ass.

  554. on 24 Mar 2013 at 8:50 pm 554.The messenger said …

    I do not support false Preists. But I will not support gay marriage.

    Homosexuality is against nature, and it is wrong.

    I do not hate gay people, I just do not support gay marriage, or gay sex.

  555. on 24 Mar 2013 at 9:02 pm 555.The messenger said …

    Alex, In what way am I a hypocrite?

    I support love and kindness.

    You on the other hand, express hate and arrogance towards others in your comments.

    I pray for you, because I want you to become a kinder person.

    You hate your enemies.

    I love my enemies, and I try to help the become better people.

    You show hate towards others.

    I show love and kindness.

    I pray for you to stop your inane hate.

  556. on 24 Mar 2013 at 9:05 pm 556.The messenger said …

    Homosexual sex is awful.

    It serves no purpose in reproduction, and it encourages lust between the same gender.

  557. on 24 Mar 2013 at 11:11 pm 557.DPK said …

    Messenger.. This is from the bible.
    Is this part of your moral code?

    “When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property. “[Exodus, chapter 21]

  558. on 24 Mar 2013 at 11:14 pm 558.DPK said …

    Messenger.. This is from the bible.
    Is this also part of your moral code?

    Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am the Lord your God. Keep my statutes, and observe them; I am the Lord; I sanctify you.
    All who curse father or mother shall be put to death; having cursed father or mother, their blood is upon them.

    If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

    If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them.

    If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. [Leviticus, chapter 20]

    What a laughing stock you are. Have you ever even READ the bible?

  559. on 24 Mar 2013 at 11:17 pm 559.DPK said …

    How about this messenger?
    Is this your moral code?
    When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.

    Or how about:
    also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.

  560. on 25 Mar 2013 at 2:16 am 560.Lou said …

    “Philo of Alexandria who lived almost exactly at the same time J. was supposed to, and lived in many of the same towns at the same time. He was in Jerusalem the day of the alledged crucifixtion”

    Billy you are full of such crap that I can smell you through the keyboard. First learn to spell. You guys cut and paste information from atheist websites and believe you are reporting facts.

    Jesus was not a big deal outside of Israel during his lifetime. He was a traveling Rabbi with 12 disciples. Why would Philo in Alexandia write about him? He was a philosopher not a news reporter. Second, you don’t know for a fact he did not write about him. The manuscripts may have not survived, No evidence exists that Philo was in Jerusalem during the crucifixion. We have numerous authors in Israel who did witness Jesus and write about him. John, John Mark, Levi and Luke. Paul quite possibly witnessed the crucifixion as well.

    Lastly, Rome and the Jews regularly down played all of Jesus’ miracles and resurrection ascribing them to tricks and thieves. Such is to be expected in order to keep the peace and this Philo never heard what Jesus actually accomplished.

    Stop with the MSNBC analysis and your argument from silence. You failed.

  561. on 25 Mar 2013 at 2:19 am 561.alex said …

    “Alex, In what way am I a hypocrite?”

    motherfucker, this has been answered many times, you piece of shit.

    “You on the other hand, express hate and arrogance towards others in your comments.”

    laughable. you theists fuckers already condemn atheists to eternal damnation and you wah wah, over my silly comments? eternal damnation = arrogance.

    you should be happy. i’m using the language of the bible. curse this and curse that. fucken shit.

  562. on 25 Mar 2013 at 2:24 am 562.The messenger said …

    Brother 558.DPK, yes, I have read the bible.

    That bible passage means that if you disrespect your mother and or father, you will be punished by GOD.

    That bible passage also means that if a man and a woman commit adultery together, they will both be punished by GOD.

    That bible passage also means that if a man has sexual intercourse with his daughter in law, they will both be punished by GOD.

    That bible passage also means that if a man and a man have sexual intercourse together, GOD shall punish them.

    Yes brother, that is a part of my moral code.

  563. on 25 Mar 2013 at 2:29 am 563.The messenger said …

    Brother 557.DPK, that bible passage means that if an employer punishes a worker too severely, the employer shall be punished.

    But if the worker is not punished too severly, the employer shall not be punished.

  564. on 25 Mar 2013 at 2:33 am 564.The messenger said …

    Brother 561.alex, I have not condemned you to damnation.

    Only GOD can do that.

    I am teaching you kindness, and I am trying to save you from having to spend time in hell.

    P.S. Hell is only temporary.

  565. on 25 Mar 2013 at 2:36 am 565.The messenger said …

    Brother 561.alex, the launguage of the bible is of peace and love.

    You are utilizing the language of Lucifer.

  566. on 25 Mar 2013 at 3:00 am 566.The messenger said …

    Brother 559.DPK, that first bible passage when it states the selling of a daughter, it does not mean a litteral selling, it means an arranged marriage.

    That first bible passage means that if a woman is forced into an arranged marriage by her father, if she does not please him he has no right to leave her. He must not try to force her to marry anyone else. And if he decides to marry anouther woman, he must treat both of his wife’s equally, and if he fails to do that, the first wife can leave him and will not owe him anything.

    The second bible passage means that a woman should not dress with expensive jewelry, because GOD wants us to be humble and not flaunt our wealth. A woman should not have command over a man, because we are all equal under GOD. And a woman must keep silent in debates, because it is our job as men be the gentalmen and speak for the wemon.

    Both of these passages are a part of my moral code. But the second passage was used more for that time period. Since then, wemon have learned to speak for them selves. That second passage guides us to protect wemon so that they may speak without fear of being attacked.

  567. on 25 Mar 2013 at 3:47 am 567.DPK said …

    ” We have numerous authors in Israel who did witness Jesus and write about him. John, John Mark, Levi and Luke. Paul quite possibly witnessed the crucifixion as well.”

    Lou seems to be claiming that the gospels of the New Testament were written by eye witnesses. Is that what you are claiming. Lou?

  568. on 25 Mar 2013 at 4:12 am 568.The messenger said …

    567.DPK, some of the aposiles did witness the crusifiction.

  569. on 28 May 2013 at 2:52 am 569.lesportsac Canada said …

    I’m curious to find out what blog platform you have been utilizing? I’m having some minor security issues with my latest site and
    I’d like to find something more risk-free. Do you have any solutions?

  570. on 03 Jun 2013 at 12:35 am 570.nadruki na koszulkach said …

    They have also focused on the security aspect apart because of providing a loads of
    free space.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply