Feed on Posts or Comments 21 October 2014

Christianity Thomas on 04 Jun 2012 12:22 am

Who is this devil person? Who created him? Is he immortal? Who gave him power?

Reading this article, you realize there are people who believe “the devil” is as real as god:

Billy Graham | Ask God for strength to battle temptations

DEAR BILLY GRAHAM: Does the devil cause every temptation we face? I admit I don’t do a very good job of fighting temptation. — C.G.

DEAR C.G.: The devil certainly wants you to give in to temptation and do what is wrong, because his main goal is to turn us away from God. When we yield to temptation, you can be sure we make the devil happy.

Who is this devil person? Who created him? Is he immortal? Who gave him power?

Why would any human being believe such nonsense?

88 Responses to “Who is this devil person? Who created him? Is he immortal? Who gave him power?”

  1. on 04 Jun 2012 at 5:50 pm 1.Anonymous said …

    God is the first cause for the universe. Therefore God must be the first cause for the devil.

  2. on 04 Jun 2012 at 6:48 pm 2.A said …

    Anonymous!

    You have now come around to realizing God is first cause! Congratulations on your step into reality.

  3. on 04 Jun 2012 at 9:56 pm 3.Anonymous said …

    Now please explain why, in your mythology, your omnibenevolent, all-loving God created the devil.

  4. on 04 Jun 2012 at 10:22 pm 4.Lou(DFW) said …

    2.ASStrophysicist said …

    “You have now come around to realizing God is first cause! Congratulations on your step into reality.”

    “Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.”

    God is not real. There is no evidence for him.

    “Reality is often contrasted with what is imaginary, delusional, (only) in the mind, dreams, what is abstract, what is false, or what is fictional. The truth refers to what is real, while falsity refers to what is not. Fictions are considered not real.”

    Until you provide any evidence of your “Yes God,” he is fictional, just as is the devil, leprechauns, Santa Claus, and the tooth fairy.

  5. on 04 Jun 2012 at 10:31 pm 5.40 year Atheist said …

    Since Rational thought requires valid logical propositions, and logic is based on the presupposition of universal truth in the form of the First Principles, it is necessary to fully understand what these principles entail and their impact. This section will list and then discuss the basic principles that make Rational thought possible and intelligible.

    The First Principles can be categorized as follows:

    1. The Intuitive Principles.

    These principles, while not provable, are known to be valid intuitively.

    a. Identity. If it is true, then it is true; if it exists, then it exists.

    b. Non-Contradiction. If it is true, then it cannot be false; if it exists, it cannot NOT exist.

    c. Excluded Middle. A (singular, unity) concept cannot be somewhat true and somewhat false; a (singular, unity) thing cannot somewhat exist and somewhat not exist.

    d. Cause and effect. Every effect has a cause that is both necessary and sufficient.

    e. Cogito (Descartes). Because I doubt my own doubt, it is true that I think; because I think (truth), I must exist (fact).

    2. The Probabilistic Principles.

    These Principles seem to encompass both truth and existence.

    a. The Immutability of math throughout the universe.

    b. The Immutability of physical law throughout the universe.

    c. The mutability of all levels of verifiability (Godel’s laws).
    3. The Presuppositional Principles.

    These principles are declared either as empirical constraints, or as part of a worldview.

    a. No form of reality exists that cannot be either observed and measured directly or by the use of instrumentation.

    b. No Singularities (temporary violations) exist in the physical laws of the universe.
    4. The Principle of Rational Thought; Skepticism; and Rational Deniability

    These two principles demonstrate the philosophical tension between the Rational Empiricists and the Anti-Rationalists.

    a. No premise should be accepted without evidence.
    ( This is the Principle of Rational Thought, and the basis for “skepticism”: Hume, Russell, Ayer)

    b. Existence of evidence via intuition is denied.
    (This is the basis for Anti-Rationalism: Nietzsche)(Notice that deniability is declared true as a rational premise, which premise requires the intuition of its truth; so intuition is denied via the use of intuition, which is a paradoxical process to Rationalists – but not to Anti-Rationalists who deny that paradox exists).

    5. The Principles of Evidence

    Evidence is demanded by Rationalists and Skeptics. Anti-Rationalists deny all basis for evidence, except (paradoxically) Darwinism; Anti-Rationalists also deny paradox, having denied the First Principles due to their intuitive basis. So the following principles are Rational principles only, and are not necessarily accepted by the Anti-Rationalists.

    a. All evidence ultimately devolves to the First Principles and is therefore intuitively based.

    b. “Universals” can be assumed valid without proof. These include Mathematics, Logic, and Language (a syllogistic form of logic deriving from the First Principle of Cause and Effect). (Notice that this is an intuited principle).

    c. Empirical evidence:
    1. Physical; Sensate only: Therefore, measurable.

    2. Local (inductive)

    3. Repeatable (deductive)

    4. Universality cannot be proven so must be assumed (intuited, based upon probability, which can be increased by numerous replications of tests)

    5. Validity is probabilistic only (intuited, based upon statistical probability, which can be increased by numerous replications of tests)

    6. Assumes the validity of the Presuppositional Principles, # 3 above.

    7. Valid Empirical evidence can be falsified, but has not been. (Popper).

    Second Level Effects of the First Principles

    a. If the First Principles are true, it follows that truth exists.

    b. If truth exists, then falseness also exists.

    c. If falseness exists, then skepticism is justified.

    d. However, if the First Principles are true, then intuition of truth is assumed a valid technique; therefore, skepticism is neither absolute nor is it immune to argument.

    e. If the First Principles are NOT true, then any and every argument is not based on rational precepts, and skepticism becomes (1) absolute, and (2) Anti-Rational.

    f. If Principle 4a, above, is valid, then ethical considerations can be intuited as First Principles. This is because Principle 4a expresses an “ought” imperative, which is an ethical statement, and which is considered to be valid for the foundation of Naturalism, and thus is considered to be a universal truth. It is intuited, and cannot be proven by itself, by empiricism, by Naturalism, or by Materialism. Thus the basis for Naturalism and Materialism (worldviews) as well as empiricism (a discipline) are based upon an intuited ethical value.

    g. Because Naturalism, Materialism and empiricism are all based upon an intuited ethical value, then intuited ethical values exist, and can be valid (true).

    h. Because intuited ethical values are seen to exist, then intuition exists, ethics exists, and values exist – outside and beyond the constraints and limits of Naturalism, Materialism and Empiricism; also transcendence is proven to be a valid source of both information and ethical value statements. I.e., Transcendence exists and can be valid.

    Empiricism, Naturalism and Materialism

    Because the “ought imperative” of Principle 4a is the necessary and sufficient principle upon which Naturalism and Materialism are based, it is easily shown that the transcendent nature of the underlying foundation of these concepts produces a contradiction that violates the anti-transcendent worldviews themselves.

    In other words, Naturalism and Materialism declare that intuition and other transcendences cannot exist, yet the basis for Naturalism and Materialism is itself necessarily intuitive and transcendent.

    So Naturalism and Materialism deny their own foundational validity, and thus are paradoxical (violate the Principle of Non-Contradiction), and so are neither coherent nor valid.

    This paradox is fatal, rationally speaking, for Naturalism and Materialism, but not for Empiricism, because Empiricism has voluntarily chosen to limit its range of investigation, and, in theory any way, does not say anything at all about transcendences or about value systems, except that they are out of the range of the testability and verification constraints placed upon Empirical processes. (Empiricism is a process, not a worldview or value system).

    In this manner Empiricism retains its validity as a process for obtaining information about physical reality. Naturalism and Materialism are seen to be invalid, non-coherent worldviews, spun off from Empiricism, but no longer identical to it.

  6. on 04 Jun 2012 at 11:07 pm 6.Lou(DFW) said …

    40YDA,

    The questions were:

    “Who is this devil person? Who created him? Is he immortal? Who gave him power?

    Why would any human being believe such nonsense?”

    5.40 year Atheist said …

    “Naturalism and Materialism are seen to be invalid, non-coherent worldviews, spun off from Empiricism, but no longer identical to it.”

    Theism, a “world view,” is simply a rationalization of what you want to believe.

  7. on 04 Jun 2012 at 11:42 pm 7.A said …

    “Now please explain why, in your mythology, your omnibenevolent, all-loving God created the devil.”

    In mythology I dunno Anony. But glad to see you have accepted the cause of First Principles.

    40YA

    Thanks for the rationale well thought out post. I am not so sure Empiricism has limited itself. It very well may be by its own definition, limited. Then, of course, it could be argued that science has just transgressed it’s own boundaries as philosophy and science have split from their congruent path. A paradox to be thought through for sure.

  8. on 04 Jun 2012 at 11:55 pm 8.Xenon said …

    I think the answer to the question is already known but if not:

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=origins+of+satan

  9. on 05 Jun 2012 at 2:02 am 9.Lou(DFW) said …

    Let’s try it again, Xenon:

    “Who is this devil person? Who created him? Is he immortal? Who gave him power?

    Why would any human being believe such nonsense?”

    You bozos never can answer a simple question. Why is that? Because it would expose the fraud that’s theism.

  10. on 05 Jun 2012 at 2:13 am 10.Lou(DFW) said …

    7.A said …

    “Thanks for the rationale [sic][,] well thought out post. I am not so sure…”

    One thing that’s sure, you first must be capable of rational thought before you can recognize it.

    Back in line, ASStrophysicist. You must complete a remedial grammar course before you can ever hope to compose a rational, well thought-out post.

    At least you’re always good for a laugh – even one at your own expense.

  11. on 05 Jun 2012 at 4:21 am 11.Prime said …

    Hmm… someone said “First Cause” near the top, Stan posted some tripe about “first causes.” We should play a game to try to figure out what keywords get him to post his crap.

    I can almost see him sitting there getting all excited to have seen “first cause of everything” in the first comment and then rushing off to his blog to find the relevant post to C/P here. Giddy. Like an idiot.

    That Let Me Google That For You was awesome. Google knows a lot of stuff, in a manner of speaking, but it didn’t do such a great job with that one. Maybe you should go read some of the links it provided. You might notice something interesting: Satan, like his buddy God, is a myth, and every intelligent, educated person knows it.

  12. on 05 Jun 2012 at 4:22 am 12.Prime said …

    …I take it back. Google did a great job with that one, after realizing that the top link outs Satan as a myth.

  13. on 05 Jun 2012 at 10:52 am 13.alex said …

    it’s the ego/blame thing.

    i’m so great (even with my diabetes and viagra induced boner) that i require a creator.

    the devil made me molest the kid/wife/dog next door. since I have a creator with the power to forgive, I get to ctrl-z and do it again. fuckin shit.

    hey, i ain’t no damn saint. sometimes, i do stuff that bothers people. when i see that, i try not to do it anymore. i don’t blame the devil, my upbringing, my genes, my nationality, or obama.

    obviously, theists must be messed with.

  14. on 05 Jun 2012 at 7:04 pm 14.Lou said …

    “Empiricism has voluntarily chosen to limit its range of investigation, and, in theory any way, does not say anything at all about transcendences or about value systems, except that they are out of the range of the testability and verification constraints placed upon Empirical processes.”

    I don’t think so 40. Dawkins, ethicists and others are attempting to define what is and is not ethical. Society has redefined words like baby in order to kill the child in the womb and now some are proposing woman get a week to determine if they want to keep the child. Homosexuality was considered an abnormal condition until the APA was pressured to change it supposedly based in empiricism

    Maybe their methods are not empirical but they will make the claim they are developed in empiricism not opinion.

  15. on 05 Jun 2012 at 7:46 pm 15.Lou(DFW) said …

    14.Lou said …

    “Maybe their methods are not empirical but they will make the claim they are developed in empiricism not opinion.”

    Your entire comment is nothing but opinion. And as you never do with all of your other nonsensical comments, you won’t substantiate this one.

    Now, do you want to qualify your comment as one “developed in empiricism not opinion?”

  16. on 05 Jun 2012 at 7:47 pm 16.Prime said …

    14.Lou said …

    “I don’t think so 40. Dawkins, ethicists and others are attempting to define what is and is not ethical.”

    Only smart thing you’ve ever said on here, although Dawkins is an odd choice.

    “Society has redefined words like baby in order to kill the child in the womb”

    They have? When? Prove this idiotic claim. Why don’t you also provide for us your definition of “baby.” Elaborate on how it compares with the actual definition: “Noun:
    A very young child, esp. one newly or recently born.” Please distinguish from the definition of “fetus.”

    “and now some are proposing woman get a week to determine if they want to keep the child.”

    And some others are proposing that humans rode on dinosaurs with saddles. It doesn’t really matter what “some” propose.

    “Homosexuality was considered an abnormal condition until the APA was pressured to change it”

    And epilepsy was considered to be demon possession until psychologists realized it wasn’t and pressured everyone to change that understanding too, based in empiricism.

    Yet again, you try to sound intelligent and fail almost as utterly as is possible.

  17. on 05 Jun 2012 at 9:16 pm 17.Lover said …

    “Who is this devil person? Who created him? Is he immortal? Who gave him power? Why would any human being believe such nonsense?”

    Great questions, but the answers are pretty esoteric in that for an atheist there IS NO answer to these questions, as to the atheist there IS NO Satan.

    However, if we look at the Judeo/Christian belief to answer these we can come up with answers (REGARDLESS if you believe in Satan or not).

    So, who is the devil person?

    To put it simply, Satan or Lucifer is an angel gone bad – that is, decided to go again God. And as the Bible implies, is quite powerful, though not as powerful as God.

    Who created him?

    A bit tougher to answer as the Judeo/Christian would assume that God created Lucifer. However, before jumping on why would God create something “bad”…he didn’t. Lucifer means “light-bearer.” However, Lucifer…because he has the free choice to do so, decided to go AGAINST God. Just like we do, according the the J/C belief.

    Who gave him his power?

    Same answer. God. However, Lucifer has decided to use his powers AGAINST God and us, rather than FOR.

    “Why would any human believe such nonesence?”

    Well, that’s quite a leading question isn’t it? This question implies that Lucifer doesn’t exist (or God for that matter)…if God DOES exist, then the notion of Satan isn’t nonesence.

    Peace and Love all!

  18. on 05 Jun 2012 at 9:32 pm 18.Lover said …

    I forgot one:

    “Is he immortal?” —

    Again, under the J/C belief, we assume not – that is, he CAN BE destroyed. Now, outside of destruction from God is he immortal – could he still exist? There’s no answer given. While the Bible speaks of angel and “principalities” – the Bible doesn’t go into great detail about them…as describing the life/death etc. of angels is not it’s primary purpose.

  19. on 05 Jun 2012 at 10:31 pm 19.Anti-Theist said …

    Your posts seem desperately naive, even while perfectly responsible. Sceptics are rarely ignorant of even the most minuscule aspects of Christianity.

  20. on 05 Jun 2012 at 10:54 pm 20.alex said …

    17.Lover said …

    a house of cards. premise upon premise. mucho mumbo jumbo.

    there ain’t no damn devil. stop the bullshit. leer and/or drool over the hottie because your’re a horny mofo. take the last two donuts because you’re hungry and/or a pig?

    next.

  21. on 05 Jun 2012 at 11:05 pm 21.Lover said …

    “Your posts seem desperately naive, even while perfectly responsible. Sceptics are rarely ignorant of even the most minuscule aspects of Christianity.”

    Certainly I am naive about what every atheist believes or thinks…however, what is naive about the answers to the questions themselves?

  22. on 05 Jun 2012 at 11:34 pm 22.alex said …

    “what is naive about the answers to the questions themselves?”

    …uhmmm, this is an atheist site and you’re spouting off biblical crap? how about keeping it to yourself and quit spreading the shit around?

    your comments just riles up the natives and gives them an excuse to blame the devil.

    now, if you had said that the devil was zeus’ illegitimate son…….

  23. on 05 Jun 2012 at 11:40 pm 23.Lover said …

    “…uhmmm, this is an atheist site and you’re spouting off biblical crap? how about keeping it to yourself and quit spreading the shit around?”

    Yes, but the questions were asked presumably to theists…or were they just rhetorical?

    As yes, it is an atheist site, however I didn’t see where theists were banned from posting and or answering questions posted on here.

    Even the description under the title says: Exploring God and religion in our world today.

    Is this a one sided exploration?

  24. on 05 Jun 2012 at 11:45 pm 24.Slapnuts McGee said …

    Lover, you are clearly delusional. Please do yourself a favor and go to the non-blog portion of this website and take a few hours to read it critically, logically and rationally, if you can. Then come back here and complete some posts that don’t make you sound like a fucking idiot.

  25. on 05 Jun 2012 at 11:52 pm 25.alex said …

    “Is this a one sided exploration?”

    i seriously doubt that theists are looking for an explanation and you already know what atheists think and yet you insist on posting? what is your game?

    just admit you’re crazy and you hear voices and i will feel bad for you. even if you bomb a clinic.

  26. on 06 Jun 2012 at 12:20 am 26.Lover said …

    “i seriously doubt that theists are looking for an explanation and you already know what atheists think and yet you insist on posting? what is your game?”

    No game. Questions were asked and I answered. Again, were they only rhetorical in nature? If so, then what purpose is it for you to post as well?

    If they are meant for a discussion, then are not ALL perspectives allowed? Or again, is this a one-sided exploration?

    However, I answered. If you have an issue with the answers we can go into them…if you just have an issue with me posting in general, (or any theist for that matter) is an different issue.

  27. on 06 Jun 2012 at 12:21 am 27.Boz said …

    @Lover,

    alex and slappy are our most scholarly atheists here. They add nothing to the discussion but like a train wreck they are fascinating to watch.

    Don’t waste your time on other portions of the blog. They are full of fallacies, strawmen and distortions.

    @40Year great post,

    It is obvious you have been an atheist and understand the illogical thought processes they possess.

  28. on 06 Jun 2012 at 12:24 am 28.Lover said …

    Anti-Theist

    “Sceptics are rarely ignorant of even the most minuscule aspects of Christianity.”

    While some may be knowledgeable about certain aspects of Christianity,many aren’t, nor about the Bible as well.

    If the answers to the questions were known, why were they asked?

    If NO answer is needed…even by an atheist..asking such questions is a moot point and dare I say waste of time, if the questions are not meant to bring about discussion.

  29. on 06 Jun 2012 at 12:29 am 29.Lover said …

    Boz -

    I understand what you are saying, and appreciate your input.

    However, if Alex is secure in his disbelief, then he shouldn’t have a problem discussing issues brought up on this blog.

    He shouldn’t have a problem “exploring” God and religion in our world today – as the blog claims it’s intent is to do.

  30. on 06 Jun 2012 at 1:08 am 30.Slapnuts McGee said …

    Boz,

    Like adding nothing to the discussion when you disappear after being asked to provide ANY proof of your delusional god?

    And if you want fallacies and distortion, open your bible. Have you even explored the other areas of this website critically, logically and rationally? Surely if you have, and your verbal regurgitation is still focused on stupid statements such as your previous post, your are not being honest with yourself.

  31. on 06 Jun 2012 at 3:29 am 31.Lou(DFW) said …

    27.Bozo/Louser/ASStrophysicist said …

    “40Year great post,

    It is obvious you have been an atheist…”

    It’s not all obvious that he was an atheist – he simply claims that he was. But to one of his fluffers, what’s the difference? They don’t care as long as they get to fluff him.

    “…and understand the illogical thought processes they possess.”

    That he clearly “understand[s] the illogical thought processes” is demonstrated in comment after comment. It’s one thing to understand it, but why practice it? Yet, you somehow see that as an attribute.

  32. on 06 Jun 2012 at 10:20 am 32.alex said …

    “alex and slappy are our most scholarly atheists here. They add nothing to the discussion but like a train wreck they are fascinating to watch.”

    …says the self professed great contributor, or is it the master sock puppeteer?

    “he shouldn’t have a problem discussing issues brought up on this blog….”

    ok wise guy. here’s my post.

    the devil is this little red horny dude that comes out of my closet every night. he rapes my wife periodically and beats my kids mercilessly. he then defecates on my food, spoiling them. he sucks moisture out of the air, causing drought and ruining my crops. he then summons vermin to spread diseases and pestilence througout the land. this devil is evil, wears a blue hat, and looks like a goat.

    (whine!), can we have an intelligent conversation?

  33. on 06 Jun 2012 at 3:12 pm 33.DPK said …

    Not quite Lover… according to the links Boz posted, the origin of Satan in the Jewish tradition (on which christianity is based) is that Satan is
    “a member of the Divine Council, “the sons of God” who are subservient to God. Ha-Satan, in this capacity, is many times translated as “the prosecutor”, and is charged by God to tempt humans and to report back to God all who go against His decrees.”

    Remember the story of Job?
    “God therefore grants ha-Satan the chance to test Job.[11] Due to this, it has been interpreted that ha-Satan is under God’s control and cannot act without God’s permission. This is further shown in the epilogue of Job in which God is speaking to Job, ha-Satan is absent from these dialogues. “For Job, for [Job's] friends, and for the narrator, it is ultimately Yahweh himself who is responsible for Job’s suffering; as Yahweh says to the ‘satan’, ‘You have incited me against him, to destroy him for no reason.’” (Job 2:3) [7]”

    Further:
    “The Talmud mentions the Satan in many places. In all of these places, the Satan is an agent of God, and has no independent existence. Sometimes the Satan is conflated with various demons, such as Asmodai. At times there is even some sympathy for him. Commenting on the Book of Job, the rabbis express sympathy that his job was to “break the barrel but not spill any wine.”[20]

    In Kabbalistic literature and its derivative, Hasidic literature, the Satan is seen as an agent of God whose job is to tempt one into sin, and then turn around and accuse the sinner on high. An additional understanding of Satan is from a parable to a prostitute who is hired by the King (God) to tempt his son (a Jew). The prostitute has to do the best she can to tempt the son; but deep down she hopes the son will pass the test. Similarly, Kabbalistic/Hasidic thought sees the Satan in the same situation. His job is to tempt us as best he can, and then turn around and accuse us; deep down, however, he hopes we will resist his blandishments.”

    So, on what foundation do you base your assertion that Satan was an “angel gone bad” who rebelled against god? According to the history of your own myths and legends, God created Satan as his agent and he acts specifically as god intended him to.

    You all need to get your fairy tales straight.

  34. on 06 Jun 2012 at 3:27 pm 34.Anti-Theist said …

    All I wished to convey was that the question was obviously crass in nature. It was a self indulgent poke at theistic delusion which I’m sure you were well aware. That said, why you would answer the question if not to roll in the shit with pigs? If you would partake in intellectual discussion with mindful atheists, you would do it by being mindful you’re self.

  35. on 06 Jun 2012 at 5:06 pm 35.Lover said …

    “ll I wished to convey was that the question was obviously crass in nature. It was a self indulgent poke at theistic delusion which I’m sure you were well aware. That said, why you would answer the question if not to roll in the shit with pigs?”

    If for nothing more than to show the questions to be just as you stated they were meant to be and not a true “exploration of God and religion in our world today” as touted by the blog.

  36. on 06 Jun 2012 at 5:10 pm 36.Lover said …

    DPK -

    “Jewish tradition (on which christianity is based)”

    Incorrect. Tradition is NOT doctrine. Christianity is not based on Jewish tradition as when one reads the accounts of Jesus he often acts against Jewish tradition – which was one of many reasons the Jewish leaders of the day disliked him.

    The Christian faith is based SOLEY on Jesus and nothing more – NOT Jewish tradition.

    Here’s a different link: http://www.faithclipart.com/guide/christian-ministries/angels/lucifer-the-fallen-angel.html

  37. on 06 Jun 2012 at 5:16 pm 37.Lover said …

    DPK -

    I’m sorry, I’m not finding the links Boz posted – i see one link and that just redirects me to Google search.

    Boz – did you post links? If so, could you link them up again? Thanks!

  38. on 06 Jun 2012 at 5:45 pm 38.Megabyte said …

    “mindful you’re self”

    Really?. That is really bad.

  39. on 06 Jun 2012 at 5:50 pm 39.DPK said …

    Lover…
    Ok, so you are saying then that the stories in the old testament are not true then?
    Just so we understand each other… the story of Job which depicts Satan as acting under god’s direction and control did not happen?
    I’m enjoying watching you dig yourself in deeper and deeper.
    Do you believe the bible is the inerrant word of god?

  40. on 06 Jun 2012 at 5:53 pm 40.DPK said …

    and Lover… please direct me to which books of the new testament describe the origin of Satan, and also please show us where Jesus said that the Jewish traditions and teachings were wrong.
    I’ll make popcorn……..

  41. on 06 Jun 2012 at 5:57 pm 41.DPK said …

    38.Megabyte said …

    “mindful you’re self”

    Really?. That is really bad.

    Typical of Megabyte to ignore the topic, criticize someone for a typo, and then follow a question mark with a period. What a douche.

    Megabyte… since you are back… whatever happened to your long ago promised evidence for god? How come that never materialized?[.] (Just in case you can’t understand a question without a period after it.)

  42. on 06 Jun 2012 at 6:36 pm 42.Lou said …

    You don’t understand mindful you are self?

    Let us use it in a sentence.

    Ma, me an da boys goin down Tu da fish in hole. Now Yu be mindful of you’re self.

    It’s OK. Atheist poke fun at grammar regularly. They don’t take it to well. Alex is just too easy.

    Congrats to Governor Walker!

  43. on 06 Jun 2012 at 6:51 pm 43.Prime said …

    40.DPK said …

    “and Lover… please direct me to which books of the new testament describe the origin of Satan, and also please show us where Jesus said that the Jewish traditions and teachings were wrong.”

    Additionally, while you look for that, why don’t you go ahead and point out the verses in Gospels in which Jesus affirms the Jewish traditions and teachings, particularly every last jot and tittle of the old law. Hint: it’s in the Sermon on the Mount.

    The “devil” is a mythologized personification of the planet Venus in much the same way that God is a mythologized personification of the sun. Yesterday, with accuracy only science, not religion, can provide, we predicted to the millisecond when and for how long Lucifer (a.k.a. Venus) would pass right in front of God (a.k.a. the Sun). God did nothing, as we can expect, and Lucifer rode right on by, just like they’re celestial bodies instead of magic beings in the sky.

  44. on 06 Jun 2012 at 7:01 pm 44.DPK said …

    42.Lou said …
    “You don’t understand mindful you are self?
    Let us use it in a sentence.
    Ma, me an da boys goin down Tu da fish in hole. Now Yu be mindful of you’re self.”

    And Lou’s true racist nature once again peeks out from under the covers. I guess the only thing Lou finds funnier than a homosexual burning in hell would perhaps be a black homosexual burning in hell.

    You all could take a lesson from Loverboy… he is every bit as deluded as you all, but at least he isn’t hateful about it.

  45. on 06 Jun 2012 at 7:29 pm 45.Lou(DFW) said …

    PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS AND PRIME IS WRONG!

    http://tinyurl.com/6w6oueu

    He has been photographed in the heavens.

    43.Prime said …

    The “devil” is a mythologized personification of the planet Venus in much the same way that God is a mythologized personification of the sun. Yesterday, with accuracy only science, not religion, can provide, we predicted to the millisecond when and for how long Lucifer (a.k.a. Venus) would pass right in front of God (a.k.a. the Sun). God did nothing, as we can expect, and Lucifer rode right on by, just like they’re celestial bodies instead of magic beings in the sky.”

  46. on 06 Jun 2012 at 7:43 pm 46.DPK said …

    From Lover’s link about the reality of the origin of Satan:

    “To dwell in the awesome presence of a perfect and holy God, Lucifer had to be perfect. There was nothing ordinary or plain about his appearance. Adorned with gold and precious stones, he truly fit the name, ‘Son of the Morning.’ He was a step above the other angels, not only in appearance but also in intellect. Lucifer’s wisdom far exceeded that of other angelic beings. He understood the ways of God.”

    So, in the non-material, non temporal alternate reality of heaven, we have a “perfect” being who wears gold and precious stones… Really? Gold and stones are considered precious in heaven? Why? And since god created Satan to be “perfect”… why did he fall? Can’t this god do ANYTHING right? Seems to me everything he does fails miserably. Doesn’t seem too omniscient or omnipotent to me.

    “Lucifer was established by God to be the angel of worship, one whose ministry surrounded the heart of heaven. Lucifer was created to dwell eternally in the throne room of heaven, in the very presence of God (Ezekiel 28:14).”

    Really? There is a “throne room”?

    “Lucifer had wisdom, beauty, ability, perfection, and yet he wanted more; he wanted to be worshiped like God. But God does not share His glory, nor does He permit another to receive worship.”

    Again… didn’t god know this before he created him in the first place? Lover… what kind of a screw-up god do you expect us to believe in? How can one want “more” than perfection? Maybe god doesn’t understand the meaning of the word. One cannot be “more” than perfect. And his immense hang-up with glory and worship sounds more like an insecure school boy than a perfect being. Is someone who REQUIRES and demands worship, perfect? I think not.

  47. on 06 Jun 2012 at 8:33 pm 47.Prime said …

    It’s interesting how that whole “fall of Lucifer” thing, and even the shining gold and gems, all makes sense if you think the people that made this story up were mythologizing on the appearance, rising, and disappearance of the “Morning Star,” Lucifer, now known as the planet Venus.

  48. on 06 Jun 2012 at 9:19 pm 48.DPK said …

    Interesting, yes, but tragically sad to think that so many, many people still wallow in ignorance and superstition and believe nonsensical, ancient myths as reality? One need look no further than the description of Lucifer adorned in “gold and precious stones”… and living in the “throne room” with God.
    I thought god was non-physical and beyond space and time, as the theists here have often claimed to justify their inability to provide any actual evidence for his existence. Now they tell us they have rooms, and gold, and precious stones in heaven, and they presumably wear clothes since they “adorn themselves”. And on what do they wear these clothes and jewels? I thought they were non-physical? Do they now posses bodies as well? And why does their perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent god have such an unbelievably screwed up track record of abject failure after failure? Indeed, why, after an INFINITE time existing in a state of perfection, did he decide to invent time and space and fuck everything up for everybody? If he was perfect, why didn’t he just remain perfect?

  49. on 06 Jun 2012 at 10:08 pm 49.Anonymous said …

    The anthropomorphic nature of these deities and spirits seems such a giveaway to their origin in myth and superstition, yet people still continue to cling to excuses such as metaphor or literal as needed to rationalize their beliefs.

    Translation for ASStrophysicists; there’s a reason that these gods are described in human terms and that reason is that they are projections of the primitive peoples that wanted (needed) to believe in them in order to explain their world. SPAG, anyone?

  50. on 07 Jun 2012 at 1:01 am 50.A said …

    “And Lou’s true racist nature once again peeks out from under the covers.”

    DPK that was a black? Why and how do you know? Is this how YOU view blacks.

    Lou makes no claim to skin color, but you do and now you are exposed.

    You are a racist bigot but as many atheists have shown so often, this is not news.

  51. on 07 Jun 2012 at 1:08 am 51.DPK said …

    Please. He makes a racist comment (agin) and you turn it on me? You’re unbelievable…
    Here’s one that trancends race… you’re a dick.

  52. on 07 Jun 2012 at 4:39 pm 52.Lover said …

    Prime -

    “Additionally, while you look for that, why don’t you go ahead and point out the verses in Gospels in which Jesus affirms the Jewish traditions and teachings, particularly every last jot and tittle of the old law. Hint: it’s in the Sermon on the Mount.”

    Correct LAWS not traditions…a difference. Also, Jesus did that, he fulfilled the law. Read where he references the Fulfilling of law – which he then did.

  53. on 07 Jun 2012 at 4:43 pm 53.Lover said …

    DPK -

    Now, I can answer the questions you have asked, however, I doubt that you would be sati”sfied by any of my answers. Instead, if you truly wish to know those answers…you’ll look for them.

    But his one strikes me -

    “How can one want “more” than perfection?”

    We want this all the time. Better and more every searching for perfection…and if we were ever to reach perfection would we be satisfied? Probably not we’d only want more and more.

    Consumerism thrives on this notion: better and more.

    Satan wants more…

    Not so hard to comprehend.

    As for your other questions, they have answers: do you really want them?

  54. on 07 Jun 2012 at 4:56 pm 54.Prime said …

    52.Lover said …

    “Correct LAWS not traditions…a difference. Also, Jesus did that, he fulfilled the law. Read where he references the Fulfilling of law – which he then did.”

    So Jesus says that he came to uphold the law, the last jot and tittle of it, which form the traditions that the Jewish people had adhered to in varying ways for a time, and yet you claim he says those laws don’t apply to anyone but Jews.

    Then Christianity happens, and Gentile (Paul) Christianity squashes Jewish Christianity, which we might call the real vision of Jesus, out of existence, giving modern Christians this duplicitous ability to claim the old laws when they suit you and to decry them when they don’t? This is mish-mash at its finest.

    What, exactly, do we mean by Jesus “fulfilling” the law? Is that the part where he supposedly lets himself be put to death for everyone? In other words, is that the part where he affirms that God is a blood-lord who requires blood sacrifices of innocents in order to be appeased? That’s a pretty goddamned far cry from “morally perfect” in any sense of morality that has existed in a mainstream way in the world in a long, long time. When, exactly, did God change his mind and decide that blood sacrifices aren’t cool? When he supposedly accepted a blood sacrifice of his own son, himself, to himself? More mish-mash.

    Why can’t you Christians admit the following:
    1. You have no evidence for any of your stuff;
    2. Your stuff is nonsense born in superstition and ignorance and fluffed upon for centuries;
    3. Your stuff comes to you all thanks to political installations;
    4. Your stuff fails to satisfy any salient definition of morality;
    5. Your stuff fails to provide even one useful or viable prediction about anything (which is funny given how much you prognosticate about the end of the world, which some people try to claim was predicted by biblical prophesy every time there’s a major natural catastrophe)?

  55. on 07 Jun 2012 at 8:55 pm 55.Lover said …

    Prime -

    “Why can’t you Christians admit the following:
    1. You have no evidence for any of your stuff;
    2. Your stuff is nonsense born in superstition and ignorance and fluffed upon for centuries;
    3. Your stuff comes to you all thanks to political installations;
    4. Your stuff fails to satisfy any salient definition of morality;
    5. Your stuff fails to provide even one useful or viable prediction about anything (which is funny given how much you prognosticate about the end of the world, which some people try to claim was predicted by biblical prophesy every time there’s a major natural catastrophe)?”

    1. yes, there is evidence. While you might not see it, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
    2. please show how this is. You state it, but please show with evidence that this is born out of superstition and ignorance. Make a statement doesn’t make it so.
    3. “Your stuff comes to you all thanks to political installations.” what do you mean by this?
    4. no, it’s people that fail morality. However, without a moral giver, there is no morality only wishful thinking and consensus. The morality is there, we just don’t follow it as we should.
    5. “Stuff fails predictions” — I guess we could discuss prophecies if you’d like. Though what “predictions” should the Bible speak of that it doesn’t?

  56. on 07 Jun 2012 at 8:56 pm 56.Lou said …

    @ A

    Typical DPK comment. He takes my comment and attempts to make it racist. Then he shows himself to be a true racist by calling my words those of a black. He must be an Obama supporter.

    He is pathetic but you expect a racist to act like a racist.

  57. on 07 Jun 2012 at 9:03 pm 57.Lover said …

    Prime -

    “So Jesus says that he came to uphold the law, the last jot and tittle of it, which form the traditions that the Jewish people had adhered to in varying ways for a time, and yet you claim he says those laws don’t apply to anyone but Jews.”

    —–Correct. The gentiles truly never enter the picture of this plan until AFTER the resurrection as described in Acts. Up until Acts, it was all dealings with the Jewish nation ONLY.

    “Then Christianity happens, and Gentile (Paul) Christianity squashes Jewish Christianity, which we might call the real vision of Jesus, out of existence, giving modern Christians this duplicitous ability to claim the old laws when they suit you and to decry them when they don’t? This is mish-mash at its finest.”

    —-I would be interested in you expanding this a bit more. Given that Paul was a devout Jew, one who persecuted the “Jewish Christianity” as you call it. Paul, preaching to the Gentiles, NEVER was duplicitous about the old laws…in fact, he preaches specifically Jesus and the new covenant NOT the laws. But again, please explain this a bit more I would be intersted in understanding it a bit more.

    “What, exactly, do we mean by Jesus “fulfilling” the law? Is that the part where he supposedly lets himself be put to death for everyone? In other words, is that the part where he affirms that God is a blood-lord who requires blood sacrifices of innocents in order to be appeased? That’s a pretty goddamned far cry from “morally perfect” in any sense of morality that has existed in a mainstream way in the world in a long, long time. When, exactly, did God change his mind and decide that blood sacrifices aren’t cool? When he supposedly accepted a blood sacrifice of his own son, himself, to himself? More mish-mash”

    —One, you need to understand the purpose of sacrafices. They were never cool with God, though they were suffered by Him. This is a deeper question that could be it’s own thread, as with any of your questions – as they are good and do deserve and have answers. But yes, in short, when Jesus took the sin upon himself on the cross – the punishment for us all – he fulfilled the law.

  58. on 08 Jun 2012 at 3:32 am 58.Prime said …

    55.Lover said …

    “1. yes, there is evidence. While you might not see it, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.”

    It never satisfies anyone but people who already believe in it, who are thus seeing it as evidence via confirmation bias. It cannot satisfy and has never satisfied any independent source, and the people (like Antony Flew) who waffle about atheism fall prey to complexity arguments, not to believing the Christian dogmas, which have no evidence to support them. Not one jot, not one tittle. The link you provided of “evidence” before was all the same tripe that isn’t evidence by anyone’s standards and never has been.

    “2. please show how this is. You state it, but please show with evidence that this is born out of superstition and ignorance. Make a statement doesn’t make it so.”

    All you really have to do to understand this is to understand how the world was back then–almost everyone mega-superstitious and believes in magic out of everything. This, of course, doesn’t prove that it’s born from superstition, but it certainly makes it the most likely explanation. As for it being born of ignorance, that’s obvious. They knew almost nothing about the working of the natural world (they thought there was water over the sky, ffs).

    “3. “Your stuff comes to you all thanks to political installations.” what do you mean by this?”

    I mean Christianity was installed in the Roman Empire for political motives, probably ONLY political motives, and sustained therein for the same reasons for decades, if not centuries, before it became a religious force on its own. Had Constantine seen Mithraism as equally exploitable politically as was what was to become Catholic Christianity, we’d be arguing about your beliefs about Mithra, not Jesus. This is especially clear when you study how Constantine squashed the Arian heresy (for political motives) and established early orthodoxy, how he and his sons modified orthodoxy, and how his proclamations intentionally equivocated between pagan and Christian ideas to keep both camps happy. It’s utterly transparent to anyone who studies the matter without their Jesus-goggles on.

    “4. no, it’s people that fail morality. However, without a moral giver, there is no morality only wishful thinking and consensus. The morality is there, we just don’t follow it as we should.”

    No. Vicarious redemption is a disgusting concept at the core of your religion. Disgusting, immoral, awful, fail. Fail, fail, fail. The notion of an afterlife: immoral because it displaces now for a fantasy of later. The notion of orthodoxy and thus punishments for heresy, sin, blasphemy and other non-crimes with no victims: immoral thought policing. “Take no thought for the morrow”: immoral instruction in a world that isn’t ending next week. Morals come from divine command instead of from a rational consideration of self, others, and the consequences of our actions with regard to the well-being and suffering of sentient beings: immoral. That we’re all fallen sinners, filth that requires redemption: immoral. That we don’t deserve the redemption that we are forced to beg for: immoral. It’s almost all immoral.

    Your claim about morality only existing if there is a moral giver is a common, but egregious, mistake that proves that you, probably because of your religious indoctrination, do not understand morality. You’ve been living through a proxy your whole life and become deeply morally confused as a result. That it happened to you is also a moral failure on the part of the organization that did it to you. You seem sharp, so you’d probably have a clear understanding of morality if you hadn’t been poisoned by this divine moral lawgiver shit.

    “5. “Stuff fails predictions” — I guess we could discuss prophecies if you’d like. Though what “predictions” should the Bible speak of that it doesn’t?”

    Um, name a *USEFUL* prediction the bible has made about anything. Anything. You can’t do it. It makes NONE.

    It could make all kinds of predictions, though, like science does. It could predict how global markets would fare under various economic systems. That’d be right useful. It could predict what the outcomes of various energy policies are. Also useful. It could predict just about anything, like when Venus transited the sun yesterday. Religion provides no mechanisms to do ANY of that. It fails.

    This is what I’m talking about: why can’t you see that your stuff doesn’t do this? You didn’t answer my question. You just tried to bully an attempt at explaining that it does. Why can’t you see it, Lover? Why?

  59. on 08 Jun 2012 at 3:42 am 59.Prime said …

    57.Lover said …

    “—-I would be interested in you expanding this a bit more. Given that Paul was a devout Jew, one who persecuted the “Jewish Christianity” as you call it. Paul, preaching to the Gentiles, NEVER was duplicitous about the old laws…in fact, he preaches specifically Jesus and the new covenant NOT the laws. But again, please explain this a bit more I would be intersted in understanding it a bit more.”

    I didn’t say Paul was duplicitous about the old laws. I said Paul’s ramblings that constitute about 25% of the New Testament open the door to allowing Christians to be duplicitous about following the old laws.

    His ministry opened the doors to the destruction of Jewish Christianity, the Christianity of Peter and the alleged actual apostles, meaning the ones that actually ran with Jesus, if all of that isn’t just a legend. That’s exactly what happened too: Jewish followers of Jesus’ message, following Peter and the other apostles, lost in the grand scheme to the vastly broader reach of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. So when Jerusalem met its match in 70 CE after picking a fight with Rome, not many Jewish Christians were left. Almost all of the Church Fathers espoused Paul’s teachings first and foremost, probably because they were Gentiles in the main, and then their views became orthodox while Jewish Christianity–Jesus’ message to his own people where it was still followed–was stamped out as another heresy. Another instance of the political installation of your religion that you don’t even realize is how it got to you!

    Do you even know the history of Christianity? Have you ever read the history of your religion from any source that isn’t wrapped up in it and hoping to sweep the ugly truths of the matter under the rug? There are great biblical historians, some who are Christians, that have examined the matter in tremendous detail.

    That is perhaps second on my list of things that absolutely stuns me about Christians: they don’t know the history of their religion, which they often consider to be the most important aspect of their lives, or at least they don’t know it beyond what they hear at church and read in self-confirmatory treatises designed to protect the faith. It’s absolutely stunning!

    (The first most stunning thing is that the vast majority haven’t read even a tenth of the bible, or even a tenth of that. Most important book ever… so important that you don’t even have to read it. Hell, it was a punishable offense (by death) to possess or print a copy of it that you could read until only about 200 years ago, so it’s not like people want you reading it. The Catholics still frown on people actually reading the bible, although they grudgingly allow it.)

  60. on 08 Jun 2012 at 1:46 pm 60.Lover said …

    “Do you even know the history of Christianity?”

    Quite well, yes.

    You are however, missing a large part of Paul’s message – revelation.

    Certainly, in Acts we see that not all was agreed upon as who should be taught – mainly, some of the apostles didn’t believe that the Gentiles should receive the Gospel. Paul and Peter believe we were.

    But Paul was Jewish – thus to say he wasn’t a Jewish Christian is faulty. Was he an original apostle? Nope. But he did receive revelation from Jesus and was converted as such.

    You point may hold more if Paul were a Gentile and just ran with the Gosple but that isn’t what happened. Yes many Gentiles were ‘converted’ to Christianity because of the Gospel.

    But it’s all one Christianity = Jesus. And that is what Paul preached in his letters. And even in his letters, he firmly held to being a Jew as well as a follower of Christ.

    “I mean Christianity was installed in the Roman Empire for political motives”

    Ah, the Constatine argument. Constatine didn’t “make up” Christianity. It was around before then, as you know. Now, regardless of Rome’s motives, it doesn’t make Christianity false – though it certainly may have helped it spread, and I won’t argue that. But it wasn’t “installed” and you know that.

    “It could make all kinds of predictions, though, like science does. It could predict how global markets would fare under various economic systems. That’d be right useful. It could predict what the outcomes of various energy policies are. Also useful. It could predict just about anything, like when Venus transited the sun yesterday. Religion provides no mechanisms to do ANY of that. It fails.”

    it could, yes…but why should it? Just because it doesn’t make such predictions does that mean the rest of it’s wrong? No. It only fails if it SHOULD make those predictions.

    But why stop there? We could make a laundry list of predictions it COULD make. I’m not interested in could, i’m insterested in SHOULD.

    Are their any it SHOULD make that it hasn’t or doesn’t?

  61. on 08 Jun 2012 at 1:46 pm 61.Lover said …

    -I’ll try to get to your other points later today.

  62. on 08 Jun 2012 at 2:19 pm 62.Cleo said …

    Prime said

    “It never satisfies anyone but people who already believe in it,”

    Actually a demonstrably untrue statement. Numerous atheists and unbelievers have attested coming to Christ as a result of a quest to disprove God and Christianity. The quest actually proved to them the existence of God. Among these have been Lee Strobel, Nancy Pearcy, William Murray and CS Lewis just to name 4 of a great many.

    Then you have a great number of atheist who have become theist/deist based on the evidence of science. Antony Flew and Francis Collins comes to mind.

  63. on 08 Jun 2012 at 2:30 pm 63.Lou(DFW) said …

    62.Cleo said …

    “Then you have a great number of atheist who have become theist/deist based on the evidence of science. Antony Flew and Francis Collins comes to mind.”

    B.S. – show us where Flew converted to theism because of that.

    “Then at the age of 27, after a good deal of intellectual debating with myself about the plausibility of faith, and particularly with strong influence from C.S. Lewis, I became convinced that this was a decision I wanted to make. And I became, by choice, a Christian, a serious Christian, who believes that faith is not something that you just do on Sunday, but that if it makes any sense at all, it’s part of your whole life.” -Francis Collins, PBS interview

  64. on 08 Jun 2012 at 5:58 pm 64.Lou said …

    MR. COLLINS: “I was not raised in a particularly religious household. I went to church, but it was mostly to learn music, which was a good place to learn music. But I didn’t learn a whole lot about theology. And for quite a while, in my early 20s, I was a pretty obnoxious atheist. Then at the age of 27, after a good deal of intellectual debating with myself about the plausibility of faith, and particularly with strong influence from C.S. Lewis” Francis Collins, PBS interview

    The obnoxious sounds a lot like DFW. Conveniently left out the top of the interview eh DFW? You are so deceitful.

    Busted!

  65. on 08 Jun 2012 at 6:05 pm 65.Lou(DFW) said …

    64.Lou said …

    “The obnoxious sounds a lot like DFW. Conveniently left out the top of the interview eh DFW? You are so deceitful.

    Busted!”

    WRONG! I only omitted what was obvious – that he was previously an atheist.

    I included the pertinent part of the interview where he said:

    “And I became, by choice, a Christian, a serious Christian”

    He converted “BY CHOICE,” not by any alleged “evidence of science.”

    If you want to dispute that with something other than your usual lies, then please provide evidence that he converted as such. Otherwise – STFU!

  66. on 08 Jun 2012 at 6:15 pm 66.Lover said …

    “That is perhaps second on my list of things that absolutely stuns me about Christians: they don’t know the history of their religion, which they often consider to be the most important aspect of their lives, or at least they don’t know it beyond what they hear at church and read in self-confirmatory treatises designed to protect the faith. It’s absolutely stunning!”

    In this we agree, however it not as unusual as you would think. Most people do not read or study AGAINST their beliefs. Sure many Christians don’t read the Bible the believe in. Neither do atheists read the Bible they criticize.

    How much credit would you give my arguments regarding any book say by Sam Harris, or any other atheist you read, if I have NEVER read the book myself? I doubt you’d give me much at all. And for good reason.

    “o. Vicarious redemption is a disgusting concept at the core of your religion. Disgusting, immoral, awful, fail. Fail, fail, fail.”

    Well, just making a statement doesn’t make it so, and shows an incomplete understanding. Also, as the other threads have revealed – the atheists can’t claim “morality” beyond opinion which is all you have here. Call it a fail, but again, with an incomplete understanding much like your perspective of the Bible you are making a weak and incomplete argument.

    “All you really have to do to understand this is to understand how the world was back then–almost everyone mega-superstitious and believes in magic out of everything. This, of course, doesn’t prove that it’s born from superstition, but it certainly makes it the most likely explanation. As for it being born of ignorance, that’s obvious. They knew almost nothing about the working of the natural world (they thought there was water over the sky, ffs).”

    You have an interesting view of the ancient world. They weren’t stupid people. Did they understand everything? Nope. But this statement doesn’t SHOW how the Bible was born out of this. Others? Certainly, and we can show them and even again bring evidence to bear against them. Lumping the Bible in with all of them is not intellectually honest. It, like the others at their time, are to be looked at separately. This idea, born out of ignorance, can be speculated…but you have shown nothing more than to just claim it.

    If you have some information to back up this statement I would like to see it.

  67. on 08 Jun 2012 at 6:15 pm 67.Lou(DFW) said …

    64.Louser said …

    “The obnoxious sounds a lot like DFW. Conveniently left out the top of the interview eh DFW? You are so deceitful.

    Busted!”

    Besides that, you idiot, do you think I would provide an exact quote and source if I was attempting deceive anybody? You’re even much dumber than I previously thought.

  68. on 08 Jun 2012 at 6:19 pm 68.Lou(DFW) said …

    66.Lover/Chris said …

    “Well, just making a statement doesn’t make it so, and shows an incomplete understanding.”

    Except that’s how you operate. For example, you wrote:

    “Only when we look at the Bible for it’s intended purpose can we even begin to try and understand it.

    The Bible is a magnificent book – even if you don’t believe any word of it.”

  69. on 08 Jun 2012 at 6:23 pm 69.Lover said …

    “Only when we look at the Bible for it’s intended purpose can we even begin to try and understand it.

    The Bible is a magnificent book – even if you don’t believe any word of it.”

    It is a magnificent book – and I would admit that last statement is a matter of opinion, certainly. But the fact that it’s one of the most studied books, points that many believe this as well – even atheists.

    As for the first statment, certainly by itself is meaningless – hence discussion of the Bible and what it does/doesn’t point to.

    Two sentences picked out the MANY i have written – though perhaps not read by you – does not make your case, but show you are grasping to make a weak point.

    But if you’d like to begin to know how to look at and being to understand the Bible I would be glad to get you started!

  70. on 08 Jun 2012 at 6:36 pm 70.Lou(DFW) said …

    69.Lover/Chris said …

    “Two sentences picked out the MANY i have written – though perhaps not read by you – does not make your case, but show you are grasping to make a weak point.”

    Lover, it’s SO very obvious that you’re “Chris.” Who will you be when you reappear after being chased-off again?

    Were you also “Ted?”

  71. on 08 Jun 2012 at 7:16 pm 71.A said …

    Good catch Lou! lou (dfw) likes to call everyone else the liar. Typically those constantly making the claim are the principal offenders. Astoundingly his cut was right below the “obnoxious atheist”.

    It just underpins what has already been known lou (dfw) the liar.

  72. on 08 Jun 2012 at 7:18 pm 72.A said …

    Lover,

    lou (dfw) will start calling you a Hor next. He has some sort of sexual attraction to the Hor.

    Chris is a new one. Possibly a new infatuation.

    It is best just to swat him away.

  73. on 08 Jun 2012 at 7:30 pm 73.Lou(DFW) said …

    72.ASSrophysicist said …

    “It is best just to swat him away.”

    But he can’t, because exactly like you, he has no evidence for his imaginary god.

    I would love for you or any other theist here to swat away any atheist here – all you must do is provide evidence for your imaginary god. But no, what do we get from the likes of you?

    “lou (dfw) will start calling you a Hor next. He has some sort of sexual attraction to the Hor.”

    What you fail to mention is that it was your (ASStrophysicist) buddy Hor who expressed his “Broadway In The Basement” fantasy of seeing various atheist posters here “dancing with wiccans.”

  74. on 08 Jun 2012 at 7:39 pm 74.A said …

    Lou

    You have completely lost your mind on top of being a liar. So now this Hor is an astrophysicist? Now you have this thing about Broadway, basements and Wiccans?

    You are a certifiable nut job. Get some help.

  75. on 08 Jun 2012 at 7:55 pm 75.Lou(DFW) said …

    74.A said …

    “You have completely lost your mind on top of being a liar. So now this Hor is an astrophysicist? Now you have this thing about Broadway, basements and Wiccans?

    You are a certifiable nut job. Get some help.”

    Once again, you respond like this instead of providing evidence for your imaginary god. Not much of a swatter, are you?

  76. on 08 Jun 2012 at 9:03 pm 76.Lover said …

    “Lover, it’s SO very obvious that you’re “Chris.” Who will you be when you reappear after being chased-off again?

    Were you also “Ted?””

    Can’t say I was chased off if I came back – AND am still open to finishing off whatever discussing was left hanging should someone be insterested…so “chased-off?” mmmmm…not so much.

    But if it makes you feel better to think so, have at it…i don’t mind.

    As for Ted – nope. Just Chris and now Lover.

    I digress.

  77. on 08 Jun 2012 at 9:06 pm 77.Lover said …

    “Lover, it’s SO very obvious that you’re “Chris.” Who will you be when you reappear after being chased-off again?

    Were you also “Ted?”

    -It’s ALSO very obvious because I admitted as such in response to Primes claim, or did you not read that?

  78. on 08 Jun 2012 at 9:35 pm 78.Prime said …

    I’m not interested in debating your theology with you until you can demonstrate that God actually exists. You can’t do that, but you’ll keep dancing around the same tired bull, so there’s no point.

    You’re flatly wrong about atheists and (not) reading the bible. The vast majority of the hundred or so that I know have done so, or at least significant parts of it.

    As for whether or not theism should be able to make useful predictions if someone is going to waste their time with it, YES, it should, it must, unequivocally. Why else waste our time with it?

    Science, empricism, etc., give us an approach to the world that allows us to make viable predictions about the world. Theism USED to try to do that: appease this god or that in this way or that and this or that will or will not happen. To wit: it was believed that God’s wrath over misdeeds could be mitigated by making various sacrifices (that’s what most of the Pentateuch is about) in various ways, where God’s wrath expressed itself as bad luck or bad weather. In short, people believed that doing the right kinds of rain dances and sacrifices could influence the weather, which was a superstition (a false prediction) supported on confirmation bias. That’s why theism rocked it out for centuries: we hadn’t invented science yet and theism offered the best alternative at the time to trying to understand a complicated and dangerous world.

    So, if theism makes absolutely no useful predictions AND comes with a load of worthless and/or damaging baggage while being entirely untenable save by faith (i.e. without evidence), then it’s time to kick it out and replace it with evidence-based systems that actually work for something–by making predictions that we can actually use to benefit people instead of just a pile of ridiculous rules for people to be stymied by in order to try to appease a magic man/power/entity/non-entity that no one can prove exists or operates in the world in any way.

    So, YES, ABSOLUTELY YES, theism SHOULD make predictions, or at least offer explanations (it doesn’t–it offers shadows of them, proxies that explain nothing). It doesn’t and cannot–it doesn’t even possess the necessary mechanisms to do so.

  79. on 08 Jun 2012 at 9:39 pm 79.Prime said …

    PS: Since you UTTERLY missed it the last two times I posted it, “your stuff” is bigger than “the bible,” so I’m not only talking about whether or not the bible makes predictions or prophesies (it doesn’t, anyway).

    When religion comes up with a way to tell us how to solve our energy crises, environmental crises, etc., or even something significantly smaller than all of that where the solutions have escaped the purview of science, then maybe, maybe we’ll talk about the value of theism.

    What does theism offer us? A way for us to pretend we don’t die, when you really get down to it. That’s it. That’s all. Everything else is a desperate attempt to retain credibility on top of that.

  80. on 08 Jun 2012 at 10:27 pm 80.Lou said …

    @ A

    Certifiable is certainly not a stretch for DFW. I don’t mind debate and discussion but outright deceit and his many childish ad hominems are just ridiculous. Go to Fb and argue with your School friends or grow up.

    I wouldn’t doubt alex is his double. The same grasp of the English language.

    He has been busted and now needs to quickly change the subject.

  81. on 08 Jun 2012 at 10:31 pm 81.Lou said …

    “What does theism offer us?”

    Something for you to whine and complain about. A hobby to keep you occupied. Now what has or does atheism offer?

    Communism?
    Fascism?
    Genocide?
    Suppression of Religious rights?
    Christmas Whiners?

    Go ahead, I’ll get the popcorn.

  82. on 08 Jun 2012 at 11:12 pm 82.alex said …

    “Now what has or does atheism offer?
    Communism?
    Fascism?
    Genocide?”

    …you are an idiot, a liar and a troll. here’s a logical extension of your statement.

    atheism offers athlete’s foot, mismatched clothes, and bad tv reception…. lou, you’re a fucking joke.

  83. on 09 Jun 2012 at 2:20 am 83.Lou(DFW) said …

    77.Lover said …

    “-It’s ALSO very obvious because I admitted as such in response to Primes claim, or did you not read that?”

    No, I don’t all all of your nonsense. But isn’t it odd how he and I knew you were Chris, yet when we call out all the other sock-puppets, they deny it?

  84. on 09 Jun 2012 at 2:29 am 84.Lou(DFW) said …

    80.Louser said …

    “I wouldn’t doubt alex is his double. The same grasp of the English language.

    He has been busted and now needs to quickly change the subject.”

    You haven’t busted anybody. You were called for being a sock-puppet, and for your obviously poor writing skills that you share with your sock-puppets. And this is all you have, the “I know you are, but what am I defense?”

    As I previously wrote, once again, you respond like this instead of providing evidence for your imaginary god. That’s because you don’t have any such evidence. If you had it, then you would present it and make fools of us all, but you don’t. Instead, you make a fool of yourself with your sock-puppeting. You, like Chris/Lover, resort to personal attacks when you can’t defend your indefensible position. So why don’t you put-up or STFU?

  85. on 09 Jun 2012 at 2:33 am 85.Lou(DFW) said …

    1.Lou said …

    “Now what has or does atheism offer?”

    It doesn’t offer anything. It isn’t a delusional religion nor a philosophy. Atheism is not believing the crazy stuff that you believe. But at least you graduated from the “I know you are, but what am I” defense to a straw-man argument.

    “Go ahead, I’ll get the popcorn.”

    Go ahead and enjoy it, because that’s all you have. And please, try to be original at your attempts at wit.

  86. on 15 Jun 2012 at 3:27 pm 86.Prime said …

    I was just studying ye olde bible and found some interesting and pertinent stuff as to who this devil person is, particularly in light of some of the discussion above.

    II Corinthians 4:4
    “The *god of this age has blinded* the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”

    And, my favorite New Testament piece of filth, which the Catholics claim has “pride of place,” from Romans 1.. that “lust” thing Christlover was talking about ad nauseum a while back. Good thing I decided to get around to reading that again. Check this out:
    Romans 1:21-32
    “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

    “*Therefore God gave them over* in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

    “Because of this, *God gave them over* to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    “Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so *God gave them over* to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”

    Who gave them over? God gave them over. It says so plainly in the bible over and over again. Who? God.

    Who is this devil guy… hmm?
    Who gave him power… hmm?
    Murmurs about free will… hmm?

    How free is your will, Christlover, if God can “give you over” to all kinds of evil and yet cannot raise a finger to stop evil in the world?

  87. on 21 Sep 2014 at 11:58 pm 87.joanna said …

    Why don’t you read the bible and you could answer all the questions yourself. It is written for all to read . If you don’t believe you chose your fate. The bible has stated many facts about our recent history. Not to mention the countless unexplainable events . I my self have experienced God and if your open to receive it he will be there. Your doubt is what keeps God from you. When the pope goes to Israel you will hear God’s voice. All of the sinners and nonbelievers will be cast into the lake of fire. I don’t claim a religion My religion is Jesus Christ The holy bible and my heart. God is real and if you won’t except him ad tour lord and savior you are doomed. and I feel so sorry for you.. I really do.

  88. on 22 Sep 2014 at 10:09 am 88.alex said …

    “Why don’t you read the bible and you could answer all the questions yourself.”

    uhhmmm, i tried, but the moronic self appointed bible translator, messenger, insist that he’s the only one that is allowed to interpret the bullshit.

    never mind that the motherfucker says “catholic church and many Jewish groups oppose the literal interpretation of the creation story and the ark.” and then follows it up with:
    “The animals who were on the ark evolved into the animals that are on the earth today”

    when others try to discuss the readings, the other dumbass motherfucker, also known as hor, pricky, et all, says ” I don’t discuss theology with an atheist”.

    so what is an atheist to do? just swallow the shit just like you?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply