Feed on Posts or Comments 21 October 2014

Christianity Thomas on 06 Jun 2012 12:23 am

The utter irrationality of Christians

In this article we see the utter irrationality of Christians vividly displayed:

God’s heart breaks over our moral demise

This section is priceless:

In addition, the Bible clearly forbids homosexuality (Lev. 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:25-27; I Cor. 6:9, 10; I Timothy1:8-11). This is not a grey area open to interpretation. Homosexual behavior is seen as deviant, sinful, and outside the will of God. God calls it an “abomination.”

God wants what is best for our lives, and He gave us the Bible not only to know Him, but also to have guidelines and guardrails for daily life.

Deliberately stepping beyond God’s plan for marriage and venturing into what He clearly prohibits is a slap in the face of a Holy God. We are basically saying, “I am smarter than God. He doesn’t know what He’s talking about.” That’s pride and arrogance at its worst. God is God and we’re not, but we try to be.

Here is a Christian freely quoting from the Bible as a justification for social policy, while at the same time ignoring all of the other things the Bible and “God” demand. Death for people who work on the Sabbath is a classic. The 10 Commandments ban all work on the Sabbath and the Bible demands death for anyone who breaks this commandment. Why isn’t this man, and every Christian, sitting at home on the Sabbath and demanding death for everyone who works on the Sabbath? This video explains the problem with quoting from the Bible:

Why can’t Christians see such blatant irrationality and hypocrisy in themselves? How can they quote one part of the Bible so fervently while ignoring all the other parts of the Bible that they don’t like? This kind of behavior seems like it should be a marker for insanity.

394 Responses to “The utter irrationality of Christians”

  1. on 06 Jun 2012 at 12:46 pm 1.Lover said …

    The laws cited in the OT were for the Jewish nation ONLY as they were to be set apart and different from the other nations.

    So I agree with you and your post. The quoted person is cherry picking verses to make their OWN point.

    Sadly this does happen in Christianity. However, this is an issue with the person and they wishing to be able to pass judgement upon others. An action we do not get to do.

    We are called to love and love alone.

    Judgement is reserved for God. And to pick out Bible verses to pass judgement on other – as Christians do is circumventing God and taking his place.

    “Why can’t Christians see such blatant irrationality and hypocrisy in themselves? How can they quote one part of the Bible so fervently while ignoring all the other parts of the Bible that they don’t like? This kind of behavior seems like it should be a marker for insanity.”

    Under this thought, then all of us are insane. Everybody is a hypocrite about something – and rarely see it.
    Everyone cherry picks things in life they like/dislike – not just Christians. Are Christians hypocrites? Of course! Everyone is about something.

    Churches are full of SINNERS not SAINTS.

    Which is why I feel comfortable entering one.

  2. on 06 Jun 2012 at 2:04 pm 2.BrianE said …

    @Lover – your entire post is nothing more than a No True Scotsman fallacy. So YOU’RE the one who’s got christianity all properly figured out, huh? Well great – stop wasting your time posting here and get out there and get all christians to understand christianity as you do. If you can do that, all of us, theists and atheists, will be better off for it. Good luck!

  3. on 06 Jun 2012 at 3:02 pm 3.DPK said …

    “The laws cited in the OT were for the Jewish nation ONLY as they were to be set apart and different from the other nations.”

    So all knowing and all powerful god had 2 DIFFERENT sets of morality? You’re saying that it was moral for Jewish people to stone someone to death for being an adulterer, or not being a virgin on her wedding day, or talking back to their parents… but it is IMMORAL for us to do it?

    Just to be clear… is that your claim? Two different and incompatible versions of right and wrong from the same omniscient source?

  4. on 06 Jun 2012 at 3:09 pm 4.Lou(DFW) said …

    1.Lover said …

    “Under this thought, then all of us are insane.”

    Oh please, you’re only trying to rationalize the bad behavior of xtains, and more generally, theists by saying “hey, everybody does it!”

  5. on 06 Jun 2012 at 4:55 pm 5.Lover said …

    “So all knowing and all powerful god had 2 DIFFERENT sets of morality? You’re saying that it was moral for Jewish people to stone someone to death for being an adulterer, or not being a virgin on her wedding day, or talking back to their parents… but it is IMMORAL for us to do it?”

    Not different moralities – different rules, yes. the morality has always been the same: love.

    the OT was not like it is today, quite obvious. Which is why it sometimes is difficult to see and understand why certain rules were put in place at one point in time which may/may not be followed today.

    Example: parent and child. Parents have different rules for their child at age 5 than that of age 23. Different moralities? Not necessarily. Rules that are applicable to a child do not necessarily apply to an adult and vice versa.

    Rule that applied to the Jewish Nation do not necessarily apply to us today. For many reason. Not least of which the Jewish nation was to be “set apart” from other nations at that time.

  6. on 06 Jun 2012 at 4:57 pm 6.Prime said …

    1.Lover said …

    “The laws cited in the OT were for the Jewish nation ONLY as they were to be set apart and different from the other nations.”

    The quote in the original post says:
    “In addition, the Bible clearly forbids homosexuality (Lev. 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:25-27; I Cor. 6:9, 10; I Timothy1:8-11)”

    Last time I checked, Romans, I Cor., and I Tim. are all in the NEW TESTAMENT, where the NEW LORD made clear the laws for Christian people as well.

    Nice try to dodge that one. Fail.

  7. on 06 Jun 2012 at 4:59 pm 7.Lover said …

    Brian -

    “So YOU’RE the one who’s got christianity all properly figured out, huh?”

    Certainly not. There is much I don’t know, and possibly got wrong. My main point however does hold…judgement is reserved for God, not for me or any other Christian.

    I disgaree with many Christians that homosexuality is a sin. being filled with Lust is and I believe that the quoted verses speak to THAT rather than two loving same sex adults have sex is a sin.

    Am i right?

    Well, I can state my reasons for this belief, but I certainly could be wrong.

    However, as i stated, judgement is NOT for me to do, but only God. I am to worry about MY sins over worrying about other people’s. Jesus said as much as well.

  8. on 06 Jun 2012 at 5:03 pm 8.Lover said …

    prime -

    You are correct, THOSE in the NT do not speak to the Jewish nation only. it was the OT that I was originally speaking to.

    As for the NT quoted – I do not believe that they deal with two loving same sex people having sex as an expression of their love, but rather a lustful act bewtween two people.

    Sorry I didn’t parce them out, thank you for calling attention to that!

  9. on 06 Jun 2012 at 5:41 pm 9.Megabyte said …

    Thomas begins another thread by mixing two different covenants from the Bible. Ignorance or deliberate Thomas?

    Yes homosexuality is an abomination to God along with other sexual sins. What’s the issue?

  10. on 06 Jun 2012 at 6:45 pm 10.Prime said …

    8.Lover said …

    “As for the NT quoted – I do not believe that they deal with two loving same sex people having sex as an expression of their love, but rather a lustful act bewtween two people.”

    You might want to go read those things again, then. Romans 1 is particularly disgusting.

  11. on 06 Jun 2012 at 6:46 pm 11.Prime said …

    9.Megabyte said …

    “Thomas begins another thread by mixing two different covenants from the Bible. Ignorance or deliberate Thomas?”

    Let’s try a word game:
    Christianity operates by mixing two different covenants from the Bible, at need. Ignorance or deliberate, Christians?

  12. on 06 Jun 2012 at 9:34 pm 12.Sam said …

    Why can’t Christians see that if they want to quote one part of the Bible, claim it is the word of almighty God, and then declare we all must obey it, that Christians must then do that with every part of the Bible?

    If we must follow Lev. 18:22, then we must also follow all the crazy in Leviticus. If we must follow I Timothy1:8-11, then we must follow I Corinthians 14:33-35.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

  13. on 06 Jun 2012 at 9:35 pm 13.Anonymous said …

    Lover…”Rule that applied to the Jewish Nation do not necessarily apply to us today. For many reason. Not least of which the Jewish nation was to be “set apart” from other nations at that time.”

    See that “necessarily” there? That’s a weasel-word (will the sock-puppets now copy that term?) that allows for all sorts of rationalizations and excuses and Christian-style cherry-picking.

    So, Lover, let’s quit the ambiguity and rationalizations and we will proceed as if you didn’t insert that word. Otherwise, as above, your statement is meaningless and serves only to muddy the waters. Since, you are speaking of rules and laws, which come from your perfect god, it ought to be clear which apply and which do not. Fair statement, correct me if I am wrong? We’ll get back to this in a moment.

    Lover, you appearing to be saying that the old-testament laws ONLY apply to the Jewish Nation? You can back this up then? That being the case, then you renounce the applicability of the ten-commandments, right? Those are OT, after all. Agreed – the 10 commandments – according to Lover – do not apply to Christians and this is per the teachings of Jesus as these are OT not NT?

    If that is not what you are saying, then you need to be clear and explain the following.
    - Which of the OT laws apply and which do not?
    - Where is this specified?
    - Why did a perfect god change course mid-stream?
    - If the Nation of Israel still follows the OT, where do they stand in your god’s eyes regarding sin, heaven, hell and redemption and how do you square that with regard to Jewish teaching?

    Lover, this is an either-or situation. Either these rules and laws apply or they do not. Which is it?

  14. on 07 Jun 2012 at 1:09 am 14.A said …

    Megabyte,

    They recognize many of the answers to the questions they solicit. This may be difficult to comprehend, but they purposely play ignorant. Then again, when you spend all your time on atheist’s blogs you do tend to stay ignorant.

    I have seen real issues in the Scriptures which are much more challenging than what they typically post, they just do not know about them because they really have never examined the Bible. They just regurgitate the same old tired arguments that have been debunked time and time again.

  15. on 07 Jun 2012 at 1:21 am 15.Lou(DFW) said …

    14.ASSrophysicist said …

    “They recognize many of the answers to the questions they solicit.”

    Here’s one you NEVER, EVER answer, and yeah, I know the answer:

    Where is your evidence for your imaginary god?

    You don’t have any.

    “…they just do not know about them because they really have never examined the Bible.”

    But when they post comments about the bible that display their superior knowledge about the it, you conveniently ignore the their comment – fraud.

  16. on 07 Jun 2012 at 1:55 am 16.Prime said …

    A real issue with the Scriptures: almost any modern writer can write a better book than the Scriptures.

  17. on 07 Jun 2012 at 5:31 am 17.Sister Chromatid said …

    Lover,
    How do you decide what parts of the bible your god really meant– and what’s just for fun? Was “thou shall not suffer a witch to live” just a passage for giggles.

    Speaking of giggles: http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/internet-memes-a-chapter-makes-a-verse-of-difference.jpg

  18. on 07 Jun 2012 at 10:55 am 18.A said …

    “Where is your evidence for your imaginary god?”

    That depends. Who is judging the evidence? What us the criteria?

  19. on 07 Jun 2012 at 11:44 am 19.Anonymous said …

    Very simple, ASStrophysicist, post *your* evidence, what convinced *you*, or admit you have nothing.

  20. on 07 Jun 2012 at 1:23 pm 20.Anonymous said …

    18 is one of our resident troll/sock-puppet’s standard attempts at evasion when cornered for evidence.

    He tries to divert the conversation onto “what is evidence” then he chimes in with his other socks in order to prolong that conversation or insert the red-herring claim that he’d produce evidence but the atheists won’t believe it and so on. They then proceed to chat amongst themselves and throw out their standard barbs and childish taunts.

    As Lou (DFW) has put it, what he NEVER, EVER, does is to produce any evidence.

    A – put up, or shut up.

  21. on 07 Jun 2012 at 1:31 pm 21.Anonymous said …

    I am not A or a sock puppet, but here is strong evidence for God

    http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/index.php?title=Evidence_for_God%27s_existence&oldid=22553

    Anyone can read that and know that God exists

  22. on 07 Jun 2012 at 2:21 pm 22.Anonymous said …

    Prime -

    Romans (as you requested)

    “25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

    KJV

    Vile affections, I would argue is Lust. And lust is even EXACTLY used in verse 27.

    So I would ask you Prime – where do you see in these verses it condeming two same-sex people engaged in the act of love making?

    I don’t see it. I see lust – sex being used selfishly, rather than an expression of love.

  23. on 07 Jun 2012 at 2:24 pm 23.Anonymous said …

    Prime -

    “Christianity operates by mixing two different covenants from the Bible, at need. Ignorance or deliberate, Christians?”

    Christianty does not operate in such a way, though I would agree that many Christians do.

  24. on 07 Jun 2012 at 2:32 pm 24.Anonymous said …

    Anon -

    “If that is not what you are saying, then you need to be clear and explain the following.
    - Which of the OT laws apply and which do not?
    - Where is this specified?
    - Why did a perfect god change course mid-stream?
    - If the Nation of Israel still follows the OT, where do they stand in your god’s eyes regarding sin, heaven, hell and redemption and how do you square that with regard to Jewish teaching?”

    Okay: 1) No OT Law applies to any gentile. Never did, never will. the only law that applies to all of us: Love. Through loving we make any/all rules moot, unecessary.

    2) It’s specified in the fact that the OT laws were part of the Covenant with God as being part of His chosen nation.

    3) he didn’t change his course. He dealt with the Jewish nation one way, for a specific purpose. He now deals with us ALL under a new covenant (relationship)brought about through Jesus “this is the new covenant”. Gentiles were ‘grafted’ into this covenant. (as described in Acts).

    4) My eyes don’t matter, it’s Jesus’ eyes that matter. However, to answer you: the Jewish nation still has a role to play before this is all said and done. So many will be redeemed as well.

    Hope that helps, thanks for the questions!

  25. on 07 Jun 2012 at 2:37 pm 25.Anonymous said …

    Sister -

    “How do you decide what parts of the bible your god really meant– and what’s just for fun? Was “thou shall not suffer a witch to live” just a passage for giggles.”

    For the witch – as you will read in my post above – that was an OT law given only the Jewish nation. Therefor, as a Gentile, even back then, this would not apply to me. Nor does it apply today, under the New Covenant.

    I don’t decide what God really meant. I read, pray, study, and search. But in all that I do: I love.

    Will I get it all right? Nope.

    But thankfully, I don’t have to. Getting everything right is not needed. The purpose is to have a loving relationship with God and others…not to be doctrinally correct.

  26. on 07 Jun 2012 at 2:38 pm 26.Anonymous said …

    prime -

    “A real issue with the Scriptures: almost any modern writer can write a better book than the Scriptures.”

    Better in what way exactly?

  27. on 07 Jun 2012 at 3:15 pm 27.Sam said …

    > Better in what way exactly?

    Better in this way:

    http://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm

  28. on 07 Jun 2012 at 3:17 pm 28.Lover said …

    Sorry folks I made a goof and forgot to put my name to the posts. Those are me! Sorry if there was confusion!

  29. on 07 Jun 2012 at 3:59 pm 29.Lover said …

    Prime, Sister, Anon, etc…

    Sorry, but I forgot to put my name to the posts in answering your questions. Sorry if there was any confusion! But the last few post or so, in direct responses to each of you were from me.

  30. on 07 Jun 2012 at 4:06 pm 30.Lover said …

    Sam -

    For one thing, your “reason” starts off with a faulty premise.

    “Me: It is a manual for living a better life. It is also a guide to creating a better society for ourselves and our children. It has changed my life! ”

    Actually the Bible is not a manual for living a better life, nor creating a better society. It’s sole purpose is to point to Jesus and to assist us in following him. Can we learn from it? Sure, but again, being a “manual” is not it’s purpose.

    Then your “reason” says this: “You open the book to a random page, and you find this…”

    There is another issue. Most books if you just open random pages and read from them will make little sense. Especially as one as large as the Bible.

    Also, using this as your example just serves to prove what I have been saying about the OT vs NT and folks confusing the two in their application.

    As that is all this example you have provided shows: confusion if one just randomly reads passages from the Bible.

    however, despite what you have provided it doesn’t show how it could be better written.

    Better how exactly?

  31. on 07 Jun 2012 at 5:02 pm 31.Prime said …

    29.Lover said …

    “Actually the Bible is not a manual for living a better life, nor creating a better society. It’s sole purpose is to point to Jesus and to assist us in following him. Can we learn from it? Sure, but again, being a “manual” is not it’s purpose.”

    That’s rather funny to claim, Lover, given the obscene lack of clarity that a perfect God provides for us in how to follow this Jesus character, including the fact that there is nothing, nothing there that provides the least bit of scholarly foundation for us to believe that any of it is legitimate. Surely God foresaw the modern era in which we would see the scriptures as failing in almost every scholarly regard and thus have to be rendered as inadmissible as evidence? Surely God foresaw the modern era in which science repeatedly repudiates scriptural attempts to explain the world?

    Surely God foresaw that all of this would undermine the ability of most people to believe, and thus instead of having “saints” like Paul write tens of thousands of words of invective against philosophy, reason, and thereby the early foundations of science, He would have just (had) written a book that isn’t essentially identical in every way to contemporary mythology and theologizing.

  32. on 07 Jun 2012 at 5:14 pm 32.Prime said …

    You should spend some time, Lover, reading through this site. You don’t even have to go back too far to find the place where I’ve already detailed very carefully what the bible would most likely look like if it was written by God for the purpose you indicate. I’ll summarize here:

    1. The primary theme of the book would be clearly, unambiguously, step-by-step, and without contradictory or confusing material (no exegesis or hermeneutics necessary) an instruction manual to live by in order to get into heaven and avoid hell or destruction. The number of Christian denominations (over 40,000), the shifts in orthodoxy, the number of heresies (more than 80 by the time of Augustine in the fourth/fifth centuries!), etc., all show beyond question the bible’s utter failure in this regard.

    Since this is all bullshit stuff anyway, as in heaven and hell don’t exist, there are no modern books that do a better job of it, although there are philosophical treatises written by believers that blow the bible out of the water in quality and clarity (Kung, Lewis, etc.). As far as understanding life and death, almost every secular book on the matter destroys the bible in quality measured in terms of salience and coherence, at the very least.

    2. The secondary theme would be how to live life properly and successfully on this planet for the short time we have on it. There would necessarily need to be clear instructions that actually advance medicine (there are none), that answer difficult questions about economics and politics (instead of creating more division on the matter), that indicate the importance of managing population and resource allocation, that indicate the damage of pollution, that illustrate the unsustainability of economic models that aren’t closed-loop, etc. There would be unambiguous moral instruction included in this part too, with none of this crap that can be so easily misinterpreted to support the biggest moral failures we’re aware of (slavery, genocide, bigotry, failure to protect our only environment, etc.). The bible fails utterly in this regard.

    All of this is known because modern books destroy the bible in these capacities. Destroy it–to the point where it’s amazing anyone today is like you, deluded enough to believe the bible has any more substance to it than any other piece of ancient literature.

    That said, we’re not done with how the bible fails compared with modern books.

    To keep this brief-ish, I’ll only mention this for now: we can point out that most modern works of literature, even some aimed at children, are more coherent, believable, and instructive in terms of moral and emotional challenges than the bible. The bible isn’t really that great, even, as a piece of literature when viewed completely objectively. It’s good for antique literature, though it pales against epic works like the Iliad, but it fails in most other regards.

  33. on 07 Jun 2012 at 5:16 pm 33.Prime said …

    22.Anonymous/Lover said …

    “I don’t see it. I see lust – sex being used selfishly, rather than an expression of love.”

    No, you see invective. You see polemic. You see an angry Paul venting his spleen about how much he hates gay people, most likely because they are giving into the same lusts that he has, although he has been brainwashed by his religious tradition to believe those lusts are immoral.

    Love (eros) without lust? Hardly. It doesn’t exist. Look up dopamine and the reward cycle.

  34. on 07 Jun 2012 at 5:26 pm 34.Sam said …

    29.Lover said …

    “Actually the Bible is not a manual for living a better life, nor creating a better society. It’s sole purpose is to point to Jesus and to assist us in following him. Can we learn from it? Sure, but again, being a “manual” is not it’s purpose.”

    The NIV Bible is “the world’s leading contemporary English Bible translation.” Under the section “What is the Bible?”

    http://www.biblica.com/bibles/faq/1/

    “It is a guide for living life to the full. It gives us a road map for the perilous journey of life.”

    In the OP the speaker says, “God wants what is best for our lives, and He gave us the Bible not only to know Him, but also to have guidelines and guardrails for daily life.”

  35. on 07 Jun 2012 at 8:59 pm 35.Lou said …

    “Love (eros) without lust? Hardly.”

    Now this is really scary. Please Please tell me you don’t have a daughter Prime.

    And if no, please don’t reproduce!

  36. on 07 Jun 2012 at 9:10 pm 36.Lover said …

    Prime -

    “No, you see invective. You see polemic. You see an angry Paul venting his spleen about how much he hates gay people, most likely because they are giving into the same lusts that he has, although he has been brainwashed by his religious tradition to believe those lusts are immoral.”

    I appreciate you telling me what I see. However, I don’t. Again, please show me where this is Paul stating that he hates gay people?

    I told you I don’t see that. You believe I do, yet haven’t showed how this is – despite me telling you i don’t see it, only putting words in “my mouth.”

    As for Love without Lust – I think you wish to simplify matters rather than get to the heart of it.

    I make love to my wife…Yes I may lust after her as well, but when we have sex it isn’t SOLEY for my sexual gratification, but rather to share something special.

    What Paul talks about, I believe, isn’t that – but hedonistic lust. No love, just sex with someone else for the pure selfish pleasure of it.

    Now, we can disagree if THAT is right/wrong – but don’t put words in my mouth that I clearly haven’t said to try and bolster your point.

    Please, show how we are to read Paul here saying he hates gay people vs. that he is arguing against lustful acts.

  37. on 07 Jun 2012 at 9:22 pm 37.Lover said …

    Sam -

    I guess you settled it, didn’t you?

    I appreciate you doing some searching to find something that said what you wanted it to.

    However, what you have posted does nothing to dimish what I said.

    “Guidebook” not manual. Now, you might think this is splitting hairs, but it’s not. It’s putting perspective on the matter.

    A manual it is not, and I don’t care what biblica says – I didn’t know they existed until you linked them up.

    The Bible points to Jesus – that is it’s main mission. Though we can find it helpful to us in our daily lives – and it is, I will not dispute that – it is no manual. It never was meant to be.

    I find talking to people helps me in my daily life – yet I don’t follow such discussion as a manual for my life.

    Sometimes we use it as such, but that is wrong to do.

    Can we use it to guide our lives? Yes, in that way it can be a “guide” – but again, it’s no manual. And in your post, even link, they don’t say this either. Guidance from the Bible vs. the Bible being a manual: vast difference.

    If biblica meant to say “manual” I’m sure they would have.

    And of all that I posted, that is the only part you could respond to?

    But again, I appreciate your link. But you still haven’t shown how something better than the Bible could be created by man.

  38. on 07 Jun 2012 at 9:27 pm 38.Lover said …

    Also -

    ““God wants what is best for our lives, and He gave us the Bible not only to know Him, but also to have guidelines and guardrails for daily life.”

    It’s hard to specifically reply to this as I don’t exactly know what they mean by “best for our lives”

    I would have to look through the site to find out more – or maybe you know.

    But that statement alone is vague if we don’t know what they mean by “best.” Financially? At my job? At home? A better car? Or maybe just spiritually…

    That sentence doesn’t tell us does it. So if we don’t know what they mean by that – the rest might be looked at incorrectly.

    Guidlines and guardrails – well I addressed that vs. manual.

    But again, the Bible points to Jesus first and foremost…all else is second.

    In your first link the the “dialogue” it is presented SOLEY as a manual for life – and it is not.

  39. on 07 Jun 2012 at 9:40 pm 39.Lover said …

    Prime –

    “1. The primary theme of the book would be clearly, unambiguously, step-by-step, and without contradictory or confusing material (no exegesis or hermeneutics necessary) an instruction manual to live by in order to get into heaven and avoid hell or destruction. The number of Christian denominations (over 40,000), the shifts in orthodoxy, the number of heresies (more than 80 by the time of Augustine in the fourth/fifth centuries!), etc., all show beyond question the bible’s utter failure in this regard.”

    —Problem one – the Bible isn’t a manual. And no matter what, no matter how clearly you thought you wrote it as a manual, others would not completely agree with you. Such the phrase “there is more than one way to skin a cat.” If life were to be lived in a step by step process, maybe you could write one, but that isn’t the purpose of the Bible. It’s to point to Jesus..and it does that perfectly. So the reason you believe it “fails” as a manual, is because it isn’t. Your perspective of it is wrong.

    “although there are philosophical treatises written by believers that blow the bible out of the water in quality and clarity (Kung, Lewis, etc.).”

    It’s not a philosophical book either, thus it doesn’t apply as such – it points to Jesus. It’s not meant to by philosophy but truth.

    “2. The secondary theme would be how to live life properly and successfully on this planet for the short time we have on it. There would necessarily need to be clear instructions that actually advance medicine (there are none), that answer difficult questions about economics and politics (instead of creating more division on the matter), that indicate the importance of managing population and resource allocation, that indicate the damage of pollution, that illustrate the unsustainability of economic models that aren’t closed-loop, etc. There would be unambiguous moral instruction included in this part too, with none of this crap that can be so easily misinterpreted to support the biggest moral failures we’re aware of (slavery, genocide, bigotry, failure to protect our only environment, etc.). The bible fails utterly in this regard.”

    -True it fails in this regard because it’s not meant to be. A map makes a poor Almanac too, it’s an utter failure in that regard. Why? Becaues it’s meant to be a map, not an almanac. You are confusing the purpose for the Bible. It isn’t meant to show us how to get rich, have a happy life, be a economic manifesto, but an arrow pointing straight to Jesus. And I would add, everything wrong with world that you see? Our fault, we screwed it up from the beginning and still do – no modern day book with ever correct that, no matter how well written. That is a theme well revealed in the Bible. It speaks more to the heart of matters of life than I think you realize.

    “we can point out that most modern works of literature, even some aimed at children, are more coherent, believable, and instructive in terms of moral and emotional challenges than the bible. The bible isn’t really that great, even, as a piece of literature when viewed completely objectively. It’s good for antique literature, though it pales against epic works like the Iliad, but it fails in most other regards.”

    -Correct, as it isn’t meant to be literature. As for coherency…I would disagree with that. Bopping around and reading random pages and verses from ANY book would make it seem incoherent – as we have seen on here already. As for moral and emotional challenges, I would disagree as well – since the Bible does reveal much. So again, it’s YOUR perspective of the Bible that is shown to be incorrect. Not the Bible.

    You are giving it purposes and duties it never was meant for, nor is meant for. You are looking at a letter from God as if it was a manual in how to start a business, country, act at a party, increase your portfolio, etc.

    That’s why it doesn’t make sense to you, that’s why it “fails” according to you.

  40. on 07 Jun 2012 at 9:46 pm 40.Lover said …

    Now, given all that I have replied to let me quickly say this.

    Can we learn from the Bible? Certainly.

    do people use it as a manual? Yep. But they too are guilty of seeing it incorrectly. People do this all the time with other things other than the Bible.

    I can see and understand why to some of you on here see the Bible as so confusing (in it’s main message) and purpose. Maybe somewhere along the lines you were told it was a manual, or any other thing as listed by Prime.

    And certainly if you were too look at the Bible that way, it doesn’t make any sense.

    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. There is no other book like it. no other book so studied.

    But all the study etc. is worthless, if you are looking at it incorrectly.

  41. on 07 Jun 2012 at 11:01 pm 41.alex said …

    ….all this chatter legitimizes the bible? me don’t think so. (go ahead lou the editor, point out my errors)

    it is bullshit. lover, says “if you are looking at it incorrectly”, wtf? are there instructions? from who?

    it really doesn’t matter if the bible contains legitimate entries. fact is, it’s full of shit.

    theists, start your diversions.

  42. on 08 Jun 2012 at 3:14 am 42.Prime said …

    Lover is demonstrating the No True Scotsman for us beautifully. I like how he also thinks that he is right and essentially everyone else is wrong no matter what. Lover, did you used to post on this blog by the name of Chris?

  43. on 08 Jun 2012 at 11:49 am 43.Lou(DFW) said …

    42.Prime said …

    “Lover, did you used to post on this blog by the name of Chris?”

    I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing.

  44. on 08 Jun 2012 at 12:40 pm 44.Sam said …

    30. Lover said…

    “There is another issue. Most books if you just open random pages and read from them will make little sense. Especially as one as large as the Bible.”

    If we open Wikipedia to a random page it makes complete sense. In fact most people experience Wikipedia by opening random pages and even random sections of articles.

  45. on 08 Jun 2012 at 12:45 pm 45.Lover said …

    Sam -

    “If we open Wikipedia to a random page it makes complete sense. In fact most people experience Wikipedia by opening random pages and even random sections of articles.”

    And there is a reason for that.

    It’s not a book. There’s no narrative. There’s no underlying message or point it’s trying to make. It’s only a collection of writings on topics to be read when you open that topics page, and each topic is independent of the others (generally) thus whatever your read, doesn’t need the other topics to put it into perspective.

    Quite different than picking up War and Peace and just randomly opening and reading pages.

  46. on 08 Jun 2012 at 1:00 pm 46.Lover said …

    Prime -

    “Lover is demonstrating the No True Scotsman for us beautifully. I like how he also thinks that he is right and essentially everyone else is wrong no matter what.”

    -Part one putting forth one’s point of view is believing one is correct. Otherwise the point of view is worthless. You believe you are correct and I am wrong do you not? Of course you do. So why am I any different? I’m not.

    Now, you provided reasons that you thought the Bible failed – and you believe you are correct in this. I provided reason why I believe you are wrong and yes, I too, believe I am correct in this.

    Well, one of us is wrong Prime – especially given the opposite viewpoints we have.

    That’s what makes it a debate.

    So of course I think I’m right, just as you do as well and thus we defend our positions based on that belief.

    “Lover, did you used to post on this blog by the name of Chris?”

    Yepper!

    Quite funny I wondered how long it would take before this question came up. I did debate with myself on whether or not I would answer it. (as I saw the presumptive posts as to my disappearance as it were)

    I could go into why I hadn’t replied for awhile, but it would most likely bore you.

    Now, you’re asking: why change your name? You hiding?

    In fact, no.

    I changed to Lover because as you are aware I am a proponent of such. Thus, in my posts, as using Lover as a name, I will remind myself to Love you all on here – and to be nonjudgmental, compassionate, and loving in my posts.

    So why didn’t I say that up front?

    Because of the presumptive posts. And as I was posting to specific topics, I wished the conversation to be detracted from those posts as to “why didn’t you finish your other posts” – or similar questions that may have arisen.

    I may or may not get back to those…I suppose if you folks on here really want to we can. Maybe it can be a thread of it’s own.

    So, yes I am Chris – however, I will remain Lover on here…even if I do “disappear” for awhile and come back, I’ll keep with Lover.

    If any of you would like to return to the old topics that I was apart of awhile back, let me know and let’s see where we can pick it up.

    Otherwise, I will just move along on here as Lover.

    Good catch Prime! In all honesty I figured you would catch it first.

    (I even thought of disguising my writing style to make it trickier – but then thought naw…I like how I write)

  47. on 08 Jun 2012 at 1:01 pm 47.Lou(DFW) said …

    Why does this alleged god require a book to communicate with us? He’s an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent god, isn’t he?

    The idea that a god requires a book such as the bible is simply ridiculous. Any further consideration for the bible as a book from god is for weak-minded simpletons.

  48. on 08 Jun 2012 at 1:02 pm 48.Lover said …

    “And as I was posting to specific topics, I wished the conversation to be detracted from those posts as to “why didn’t you finish your other posts” – or similar questions that may have arisen”

    OOOPS!

    Should read “not to be detracted”

  49. on 08 Jun 2012 at 1:05 pm 49.Lover said …

    Lou -

    “Why does this alleged god require a book to communicate with us? He’s an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent god, isn’t he?

    The idea that a god requires a book such as the bible is simply ridiculous. Any further consideration for the bible as a book from god is for weak-minded simpletons.”

    So you believe I am a weak-minded simpleton? Interesting.

    Anyhow…why a book?

    First, God didn’t require it. People were inspired to write it. Just like today when people are inspired to write about things they love, and enjoy, and experience…so did the authors of the Bible.

    God didn’t require it though.

    No it’s not needed, but it’s sure nice to have, especially for us simpletons.

  50. on 08 Jun 2012 at 2:22 pm 50.Lou(DFW) said …

    49.Lover said …

    “People were inspired to write it.”

    Who inspired them to write it?

  51. on 08 Jun 2012 at 4:22 pm 51.Lou(DFW) said …

    49.Lover said …

    “So you believe I am a weak-minded simpleton?”

    If you believe that the bible is the word of god, yes. Do you?

  52. on 08 Jun 2012 at 6:01 pm 52.Lover said …

    Lou -

    “Inspired by who?”

    God was their inspiration. But being INSPIRED BY and COMMANDED BY are quite different would you not agree?

    “If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, yes, do you?”

    REVEALED word of God, yes. Not a verbatim God dictated the Bible to the various authors of the Bible word.

    The authors were recording their relationship with God. And through these relationships God reveals himself to us and points to Jesus.

  53. on 08 Jun 2012 at 6:03 pm 53.Lover said …

    Lou -

    Have you ever been inspired to write something? Or record something? taken a picture of a person or a place?

    I’m sure you have.

    It’s not so different with the authors of the Bible.

    why did you record, in whatever manner you chose, such and even, person, or place?

  54. on 08 Jun 2012 at 6:19 pm 54.Lover said …

    Prime -

    But we are detracting from what you and I were originally discussing.

    Show me where in Romans, as we were talking about, does it show that it’s homosexuality and not lust that Paul is talking about:

  55. on 08 Jun 2012 at 6:47 pm 55.Lou(DFW) said …

    52.Lover said …

    “God was their inspiration. But being INSPIRED BY and COMMANDED BY are quite different would you not agree?

    “If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, yes, do you?”

    REVEALED word of God, yes. Not a verbatim God dictated the Bible to the various authors of the Bible word.

    The authors were recording their relationship with God. And through these relationships God reveals himself to us and points to Jesus.”

    I have never seen so much B.S. double-talk posted here.

    I asked why does god require such a book. After trying to dance around the question you finally wrote:

    “And through these relationships God reveals himself to us and points to Jesus.”

    Your imaginary DOES require a book to reveal himself! You just wrote as much. Why all the B.S.? Why not simply reply with a yes?

    Chris, I don’t know why you come here and post so much crap. Is this a church class assignment? The more you post, the more obvious it is that you are a deluded person. You only make xtians and theists look even more irrational than atheists here thought. You aren’t convincing any atheists here of anything other than the stupidity of religion and of the people who promote it.

  56. on 08 Jun 2012 at 6:59 pm 56.Lou(DFW) said …

    54.Lover said …

    “Show me where in Romans, as we were talking about, does it show that it’s homosexuality and not lust that Paul is talking about:”

    Let’s assume that Paul is only referring to “lust,” and not homosexuality. Is your claim therefore that homosexuality is “biblically” normal/moral or abnormal/immoral?

    Only a simple answer is required, not a sermon.

  57. on 08 Jun 2012 at 9:12 pm 57.Lover said …

    Lou -

    I am beginning to wonder if you are purposely trying not to understand or what is going on here.

    God can chose to reveal himself in many, many ways and the Bible is just one of those ways. But is it required to reveal himself? Clearly not and I said as much. not sure what is so confusing about that.

    People WANTED to write about God and reveal and share with others.

    God uses the Bible as ONE WAY to reveal himself. But did he require it as you claim?

    nope.

    “Chris, I don’t know why you come here and post so much crap. Is this a church class assignment? The more you post, the more obvious it is that you are a deluded person. You only make xtians and theists look even more irrational than atheists here thought. You aren’t convincing any atheists here of anything other than the stupidity of religion and of the people who promote it.”

    Then I would think you would WANT me on here if I am helping make your case for you. LOL I think you would be happy about my posts then…rather this seems that you are trying to rid of me, hmmm…

  58. on 08 Jun 2012 at 9:20 pm 58.Lover said …

    Lou -

    “Let’s assume that Paul is only referring to “lust,” and not homosexuality. Is your claim therefore that homosexuality is “biblically” normal/moral or abnormal/immoral?”

    Well, i don’t know what you are getting at with “biblically” as even when Christians use it I start to wonder about what they are going to say as it does imply possible cherry picking.

    Anyway:

    No it is not abnormal nor immoral. I do not see evidence in the Bible that it’s abnormal/immoral.

    LUST however IS – and this is quite clear in the Bible.

    And this lust can be of either sexuality – one is no worse than the other.

    Lust is the sin and Lust has many forms.

    Romans, in this light, clearly speaks of lust and NOT two same-sex people loving each other.

    Hope that makes it clear.

  59. on 08 Jun 2012 at 9:24 pm 59.Prime said …

    If I remember correctly, Lover/Chris, you went on like a lark previously about how important it was that you were using your “real name.” So much for that.

    The rest of your diatribe is the same kind of time-wasting that you did before.

    As for us thinking you’re wrong and you thinking you’re right, we’re not the ones begging the question or otherwise committing circular logic here. Since you can’t establish your central principle, everything on top of that is empty fluff.

  60. on 08 Jun 2012 at 9:52 pm 60.Prime said …

    So, Lover, I expect you think you’re coming in here and dodging bullets like Neo from the Matrix and running all around us and stuff with your “superior” understanding (i.e. highly developed ability in overcoming reasonable doubt) of your theism. Let me tell you also that you are wrong.

    Look up gish-galloping (which I prefer to call blinding with bullshit) and see what you’re doing for what it is. You are the pigeon on the chessboard, and we’re all holding our faces and hoping you don’t keep this up too long.

    If television references work better for you, your presentation is a lot like Elaine (from Seinfeld) dancing. That’s you. You’re Elaine. You’re showing us a full-body dry heave set to music.

  61. on 08 Jun 2012 at 10:18 pm 61.alex said …

    ha ha ha. lover got busted. even with all the fluffs. thought i recognized the odor.

    these atheists don’t play. they can smell recycled bullshit.

  62. on 09 Jun 2012 at 2:49 am 62.Lou(DFW) said …

    57.Lover said …

    “God can chose to reveal himself in many, many ways and the Bible is just one of those ways.”

    How do you know that? As you said, just saying so doesn’t make it true.

  63. on 09 Jun 2012 at 2:59 am 63.Lou(DFW) said …

    57.Lover said …

    “Then I would think you would WANT me on here if I am helping make your case for you. LOL I think you would be happy about my posts then…rather this seems that you are trying to rid of me, hmmm…”

    Then you are mistaken. We don’t need you to make our case. Religion and theism, in and of themselves, already do a “magnificent” job of that. You making a fool of yourself doesn’t make a case against religion. It only serves to reinforce the idea that people who believe in such things are either delusional, frauds, ignorant, psychotic, or any combination thereof. Believing in and arguing for Santa Claus isn’t evidence that he doesn’t exist – it isn’t a “case” against Santa Claus existence.

    Either way, you greatly overestimate your contribution to the argument for religion and theism.

  64. on 09 Jun 2012 at 3:03 am 64.Lou(DFW) said …

    60.Prime said …

    “Look up gish-galloping (which I prefer to call blinding with bullshit) and see what you’re doing for what it is.”

    Yes, that is a tactic he used as Chris, and was just one of the m.o. that revealed Lover as Chris. In that way he deluges the blog with comments so that he can have a way to claim that you don’t reply to all of his points, hoping that his “opponents” will eventually tire of him and leave. But, it’s he who leaves, only to return as a different fraud.

  65. on 09 Jun 2012 at 3:09 am 65.Lou(DFW) said …

    57.Lover said …

    “God uses the Bible as ONE WAY to reveal himself.”

    What are the other ways?

  66. on 09 Jun 2012 at 4:25 am 66.Prime said …

    65.Lou(DFW) said …

    “What are the other ways?”

    They are just as effectual as the bible. That’s why God is so “mysterious.” He reveals himself in many ways and does so exactly in the way that makes his revelation least apparent.

  67. on 09 Jun 2012 at 12:38 pm 67.Mitch said …

    The only thing sillier than the deluded is those who spend valuable time and energy arguing with those they know to be deluded.

    Lover has done a fine job keeping an engaged audience.

  68. on 09 Jun 2012 at 1:15 pm 68.Lou(DFW) said …

    67.Mitch said …

    “The only thing sillier than the deluded is those who spend valuable time and energy arguing with those they know to be deluded.

    Lover has done a fine job keeping an engaged audience.”

    Mitch, not necessarily. There are people like Chris/Lover who eventually understand their delusion and discard it. It’s also possible other readers who have similar delusions might learn something, too.

  69. on 09 Jun 2012 at 1:27 pm 69.Lou(DFW) said …

    66.Prime said …

    “They are just as effectual as the bible. That’s why God is so “mysterious.” He reveals himself in many ways and does so exactly in the way that makes his revelation least apparent.”

    Agreed, but my question was mostly rhetorical. The truth is that their imaginary god doesn’t reveal himself at all, except through the bible. Chris/Lover has agreed as much.

    So why would such a god require a bible? If such a god existed, he wouldn’t. Even IF for some reason he did, it would be a much “better” bible, one that I think you described.

    The bible isn’t the word of god or inspired by god, it’s inspired by a belief in god. That makes it no better than a book any other believer would be inspired to write. It’s certainly not “magnificent” as Chris/Lover describes it. IMHO, the bible and qur’an are the two most despicable, harmful books ever written. They promote violence and hatred, while impeding knowledge and understanding. One can only imagine how much better-off humanity would be if it wasn’t for religion – someone should write a song about that.

  70. on 09 Jun 2012 at 2:30 pm 70.Mitch said …

    “Mitch, not necessarily. There are people like Chris/Lover who eventually understand their delusion and discard it.”

    So you do this ascetically for others Lou?
    If so, do you appreciate that belief in God is not a delusion as determined by any Psychology Organization?
    Then you may want to reflect on this. You could be driving unbelievers to become believers. It cuts both ways my friend.

  71. on 09 Jun 2012 at 2:59 pm 71.Lou(DFW) said …

    70.Mitch (yet another sock-puppet) said …

    “So you do this ascetically for others Lou?”

    I don’t know who “others Lou” is, but I don’t.

    “If so, do you appreciate that belief in God is not a delusion as determined by any Psychology Organization?”

    No, because psychology is quackery. So I really don’t care what any “Psychology Organization” might determine.

    “Then you may want to reflect on this. You could be driving unbelievers to become believers.”

    LOL! I doubt it.

    “It cuts both ways my friend.”

    Really? Show me show me an atheist who will admit to you that anything I posted here converted him to theism.

  72. on 09 Jun 2012 at 3:03 pm 72.alex said …

    “The only thing sillier than the deluded is those who spend valuable time and energy arguing with those they know to be deluded.”

    …another typical bullshit proclamation.

    delusional activities are harmful and yet you suggest that I’m wasting my time? that’s right atheists, do not fight the bible placements in hotels, turn the other cheek when homosexuals/women are mistreated, blah, blah, fucking blah! the death penalty is JUST because colored people are represented statistically, more fucking blah!

    what do i bring to the conversation? i lay out all your bullshit on the table and point it out for what it is.

    please don’t give me that shit that i’m doing more harm than good.

  73. on 09 Jun 2012 at 3:13 pm 73.Prime said …

    I can’t answer for Lou, but these questions pertain to me too, so I’ll answer for me.

    70.Mitch said …

    “So you do this ascetically for others Lou?”

    This is a secondary motivation for me. My experience with online debate forums is that for every one person talking, there is a handful reading. I’ve watched it happen, live, for real, and I’ve watched fence-riders consider what is there and see whose arguments are better. The line that stands out in my mind is “every time [believer] writes something, I feel like I’m not learning anything; every time [atheist] writes something, I learn something new. It’s not hard to see who makes more sense and who is just playing in their beliefs.” This came from a woman that went from being a rather casual Christian to an outright, outspoken atheist in about 3-4 months, watching these kinds of discussions unfold on her Facebook account.

    Perhaps these kinds of discussions drive people to believe, but it seems that they will only drive people to believe if they want to believe, in which case they’d find another excuse eventually anyway. People with genuine questions will evaluate what’s there and make a decision, probably through a question-asking phase at some point. In my experience, by the time the questions start coming out of people who are actually interested in learning something, they’ve tended to have made up their minds that the theists are delusional.

    Since you’ll ask what my main motivation is: I like to argue. A lot.

    “If so, do you appreciate that belief in God is not a delusion as determined by any Psychology Organization?”

    So what? Religious privilege exists everywhere in our society, and it’s a well-known maxim that if only one person believes something crazy, it’s a psychological disorder, if a small number believe it, it’s a cult, and if a significant chunk of the population subscribes, it’s a religion, at which point we’re supposed to give it special treatment. Psychology will take off its kid gloves one of these days, probably when the Millennials grow up and take over the central voice (in approximately 10-30 years) of the professional world.

    Religion is the organized belief in a set of delusions of huge numbers of people, usually at least hundreds of thousands or millions. Since so many people have religious beliefs, it’s not exactly “abnormal” to have them… yet. Just look at the language people use, though, and you can see where this is going: just about every denomination of every religion I’m aware of (though not every person in those denominations, just most of them) refers to others as “nuts.” Christians talking about Muslims, about Mormons, about other more fundamentalist Christians, about Scientologists, etc., or any of the others in reverse. They all look at other religions and ask “how can anyone believe that nonsense? Those people have got to be crazy!” They’re just not looking in the mirror when they say it.

  74. on 09 Jun 2012 at 4:10 pm 74.Lou(DFW) said …

    73.Prime said …

    “They all look at other religions and ask “how can anyone believe that nonsense? Those people have got to be crazy!” They’re just not looking in the mirror when they say it.”

    Right, everyone is an atheist about all gods except theirs. Yet they can’t accept that anyone is an atheist about their god.

    So whose god is real? Ignoring the obvious answer, the most simple answer is that if all gods except yours is real, then, barring any contradictory evidence, it must be just as true that your god isn’t real either.

    Where’s the contradictory evidence?

  75. on 09 Jun 2012 at 4:12 pm 75.DPK said …

    It has been amusing watching Chris/Lover ride the carousel of circular rationalization while at the same time, dodging any real meaningful explanations to the challenges presented with excuse after excuse. Nothing I haven’t heard/seen before.
    Personally, I’m inclined to agree with a FB post I saw recently:
    “Religion is like a dick. Nothing wrong with having one, and it’s ok to even be proud of it. But please don’t whip it out and wave it around in public and don’t try to shove it down my throat.”

  76. on 09 Jun 2012 at 4:49 pm 76.Suh said …

    “So whose god is real? Ignoring the obvious answer, the most simple answer is that if all gods except yours is real, then, barring any contradictory evidence, it must be just as true that your god isn’t real either.”

    Can’t argue with such deep and rich logic.

    Hawking’s theory of black holes was wrong.
    Therefore, all his theories on black holes are false.

    I need to start using this new logic technique when logic doesn’t matter.

    FYI, I for one became a Christian in my 20s. One of the reasons was all the hate offered by atheist. I didn’t want to be associated with that. I knew there had to be something better. Another was atheism offered no answers.

  77. on 09 Jun 2012 at 4:59 pm 77.alex said …

    “One of the reasons was all the hate offered by atheist.”

    yeah right. atheists hate all the shit that comes with religion.

    “Hawking’s theory of black holes was wrong.”

    who gives a fuck? your attempt is old and lame.

    “Another was atheism offered no answers.”

    i don’t offer shit. you’re the one with all the answers and i don’t believe any of it.

    i tolya, your stinkin shit is on the table.

  78. on 09 Jun 2012 at 5:14 pm 78.Lou(DFW) said …

    76.Suh said …

    “Can’t argue with such deep and rich logic.”

    It’s not deep logic. But rather than argue with it, present some evidence for your imaginary god.

    “FYI, I for one became a Christian in my 20s. One of the reasons was all the hate offered by atheist. I didn’t want to be associated with that. I knew there had to be something better. Another was atheism offered no answers.”

    You’re either a dumb-ass or a liar. Why advertise it in public?

  79. on 09 Jun 2012 at 6:03 pm 79.Prime said …

    76.Suh said …

    “FYI, I for one became a Christian in my 20s. One of the reasons was all the hate offered by atheist. I didn’t want to be associated with that. I knew there had to be something better. Another was atheism offered no answers.”

    All the hate? Did you ever bother to actually find out what’s going on in the world in your 20s? “The hate” is actually anger, and that anger is at religious privilege. You didn’t want to be associated with breaking down sanctioned delusion and bigotry, true hate masked as “love,” and the anger involved in that, so you decided just to believe some stuff that’s absolutely ridiculous? Why didn’t you choose Islam instead?

    There is something better than “atheism” in terms of offering answers (because atheism doesn’t offer answers, it’s a null position). Most atheists are also humanists. Humanism offers answers. Most atheists espouse scientific ideals and reasoning, even if they are not scientists themselves. Science offers answers.

    Religion, however, doesn’t offer answers. It offers empty proxies of answers. It’s like in your 20s you wanted some medicine because you were having a problem, so you went and got some pills, pulled out the cotton stuffing, threw away the pills, and kept the cotton, claiming that because it feels good to your fingers that it’s better than getting involved in the dirty work of actually curing the disease.

    Indeed, Lou in #78 is right: you’re either an idiot or a liar.

  80. on 09 Jun 2012 at 7:25 pm 80.Dr. Zhicago said …

    I’m just a couple of chapters into “The End of Christianity,” edited by John Loftus, and I don’t understand why these arrogant, ignorant, delusional, wishful thinking, inane, superstitious, compulsive lying believers have to be labeled either idiots or liars, according to one reader, when they have gone out of their way to prove they are both and much more. All should make “the End of Christianity” a must read. If we had to pick one word to describe these egomaniacal hate mongers there’s no doubt “dangerous” would top the list, and they along with their childhood, brainwashed beliefs will only become more dangerous as they continue to ignore the Constitution in order to force their fairy tales off as the truth. I’m in touch with a certain group to end the unconstitutional “Faith Based Organization” in the government, take the money given to the thieves who won’t say who received it, and what it was spent on, and ask that I take control of all funds to make sure only the needy (like orphans, homeless schoolchildren, children who go to bed hungry every night in this theocratic acting country, etc.) get the money, so Pat the TV. Prophet Robertson cannot buy another thoroughbred with a single dime from the illegal organization. It’s war my freethinking brothers and sisters. I know George Washington would feel that way.

  81. on 09 Jun 2012 at 7:28 pm 81.DPK said …

    The reality is Suh, like it or not, the universe doesn’t owe you any “answers”. It matters not one wit to the universe if you are here or not, if you are happy, or if you want to live forever. All that is simply stuff people made up to make themselves feel better. Reality doesn’t care.
    “reality is whatever remain true whether you believe it or not.”
    Now, if you CHOOSE to believe nonsense simply because you don’t like the alternative… that’s called being deluded. And that is what you just, in essence, admitted.

  82. on 09 Jun 2012 at 9:48 pm 82.Suh said …

    “All that is simply stuff people made up to make themselves feel better. Reality doesn’t care.”

    Yes DPK, atheists make this claim all the time. But I have found that they don’t really believe that is reality, they are just trying to convince themselves it is reality.

    Now if atheism offered something, made a claim or could define reality, it would be more appealing. But it cannot and it is just an empty and pointless existence.

    As one says above, atheism is the null set and just shoots at those who do have something to offer and do offer a definition for reality. It could be summed up “We believe nothing and we don’t want you to believe anything either”.

  83. on 09 Jun 2012 at 10:44 pm 83.alex said …

    “As one says above, atheism is the null set and just shoots at those who do have something to offer and do offer a definition for reality. It could be summed up “We believe nothing and we don’t want you to believe anything either”.”

    that’s why you’re a moron. nobody gives a shit what you believe, as long as you keep it to yourself. what the fuck is so hard to understand? that’s the reason you’re religious, because you’re a moron.

    i don’t believe in santa claus, but i let it slide. you fucking religious nuts are dangerous and must be dealt with.

  84. on 09 Jun 2012 at 10:58 pm 84.DPK said …

    Let me put your mind at ease. I most certainly do believe that is reality. I don’t need an invisible make believe friend to be happy or to enjoy life. My existence is not empty and meaningless, it is rich and full, even though I know and acknowledge that when it is over, it is over, and I return to the nothingness that was me for at least 13 billion years before I was born. You have been lucky enough to have been born a sentient creature, yet you believe that your life is meaningless without the possibility of another, eternal one after this one is done. That is unbelievably sad. I fell truly sorry for you.

  85. on 09 Jun 2012 at 10:58 pm 85.DPK said …

    Let me put your mind at ease. I most certainly do believe that is reality. I don’t need an invisible make believe friend to be happy or to enjoy life. My existence is not empty and meaningless, it is rich and full, even though I know and acknowledge that when it is over, it is over, and I return to the nothingness that was me for at least 13 billion years before I was born. You have been lucky enough to have been born a sentient creature, yet you believe that your life is meaningless without the possibility of another, eternal one after this one is done. That is unbelievably sad. I fell truly sorry for you.

  86. on 10 Jun 2012 at 2:38 am 86.Suh said …

    I fell(sp) truly sorry for you DPK because for you, your life ends here. My life is blessed beyond description and is counting for eternity. You still buy into the atheist worldview that you as a man are the supreme being. It so arrogant and so silly to think we are here and created by nothing/luck. Anyone with just a moderate amount of common sense can recognize it is practically impossible.

    Notice how alex replies? Another reason I want no part of such an arrogant and myopic worldview. I would never want to be that bitter and hateful of others.

  87. on 10 Jun 2012 at 2:47 am 87.alex said …

    “My life is blessed beyond description and is counting for eternity”

    you must be the chosen one. lots of people are fucked in life and you are blessed and counting on eternity? come on man, you’re really a comedian aren’t you?

    “atheist worldview that you as a man are the supreme being”

    another example of you fuckers making up shit all the time. a worldview of being a supreme being?

    “Notice how alex replies”

    what, you can’t handle it? what have i done other than call you fuckers out? other than bad prose, what atrocities have i committed in being an aytheist?

  88. on 10 Jun 2012 at 3:03 am 88.alex said …

    “I would never want to be that bitter and hateful of others.”

    ..translation, you don’t want the red pill. you want to stay in your delusion. when alex complains about the fag beatdown, you will stay silent and complicit. when alex supports women equality, you will loudly complain about the bitterness and the hatred.

    go pray in your closet like you’re supposed to.

  89. on 10 Jun 2012 at 3:45 am 89.Lou(DFW) said …

    82.Suh said …

    “All that is simply stuff people made up to make themselves feel better. Reality doesn’t care.”

    “Yes DPK, atheists make this claim all the time. But I have found that they don’t really believe that is reality, they are just trying to convince themselves it is reality.”

    This is the essence of Suh’s reply –

    Your rejection of my fictional belief is fiction. Really? That’s it?

    Suh, please provide us any evidence of your “blessing” or “counting for eternity.”

    “You still buy into the atheist worldview that you as a man are the supreme being.”

    Suh, show us where any atheist here claimed that we “as a man are the supreme being.” Unless you do do, that makes you nothing but a damned liar.

    “It so arrogant and so silly to think we are here and created by nothing/luck. Anyone with just a moderate amount of common sense can recognize it is practically impossible.”

    What is so arrogant and so silly is to believe that some god grants you blessings and eternal life, while not providing it to me, any animal, insect, or any other life form.

    “Notice how alex replies? Another reason I want no part of such an arrogant and myopic worldview. I would never want to be that bitter and hateful of others.”

    Yet you and your ilk go out of your way to make people who don’t share your delusion feel that way.

    This is the “worldview” of which you are a part:

    http://tinyurl.com/6rvxqfh

  90. on 10 Jun 2012 at 7:28 am 90.Anonymous said …

    Suh is another sock. What a pathetic life. Suh, Mitch, Lou, A Cleo, and the others, are all needed in defence of hor’s delusion, that a bunch of illiterate, fucking stupid, goat herders, who believed in talking snakes, unicorns, and a god who kept fucking up, somehow stumbled onto the secrets of the universe, all whilst believing that the world was flat and the sun revolved a stationary earth with stars fixed to the sky.

    So, yes, go ahead and believe that you were chosen by the one god out of tens of thousands who loved foreskins, hated walking around in shit, and needed to sacrific himself to himself in order to keep youin fear for yourentire life calso loved you enough to make it all better after you die.

    That’s not just stupid, that’s insane.

  91. on 10 Jun 2012 at 2:43 pm 91.DPK said …

    86.Suh said …
    “I fell(sp) truly sorry for you DPK because for you, your life ends here. My life is blessed beyond description and is counting {sic} for eternity.”

    Sure it is Suh. Click your ruby slippers 3 times though, just to make sure.

    “You still buy into the atheist worldview that you as a man are the supreme being. It so arrogant and so silly to think we are here and created by nothing/luck.”

    You’re not much on reading comprehension, are you? First, where did I, or anyone say “man is the supreme being”? In fact, I specifically said in a prior post that humans are insignificant to the vastness of the universe. We are nothing but a blink of the eye in cosmological time, and not even a speck of dust in cosmological space. On the other hand YOU are the one who seems to believe that a magical man created the entire universe and everything in it with US as the ultimate goal. Now which one of us is being silly?

    “Anyone with just a moderate amount of common sense can recognize it is practically impossible.”

    And anyone with a curiosity, and open mind, and the ability to read can discover that your idea of common sense is no different from saying that anyone with common sense can see the world is “obviously” flat and the sun “obviously” circles the earth. What you call common sense, I call being willfully ignorant.

    “Notice how alex replies? Another reason I want no part of such an arrogant and myopic worldview. I would never want to be that bitter and hateful of others.”

    The tone or demeanor of Alex’s reply has no more to do with the reality of anyones “worldview” any more that Fred Phelps’ picketing the funerals of fallen soldiers with “god hates fags” posters reflects on your belief in an afterlife, now does it? So why would you resort to such an idiotic statement?

    I hope you get the eternal life you seem to so desperately need. For your sake I hope you don’t meet a very angry Allah when you pass onto eternity… that would suck for you, huh?

  92. on 10 Jun 2012 at 5:40 pm 92.Suh said …

    “You’re not much on reading comprehension, are you? First, where did I, or anyone say “man is the supreme being”?”

    Man is not for you? Then what is? Apes? Kangaroos? What? Would you be equal with the Ape? How does that work?

    Here is some good news for you since you reject the great news. If by some incredible stroke of craziness, you are right, well then you will be right, I will be wrong and the end will be the same for both of us.

    If I am correct, which I am, unfortunately your fate is horrible because you reject the truth.

    If another religion is somehow correct, we both still get the same fate.

    “The tone or demeanor of Alex’s reply has no more to do with the reality of anyones “worldview” any more that Fred Phelps’ picketing the funerals of fallen soldiers with “god hates fags””

    There is a huge difference. I would call Phelps out (and do) for using Christ as a platform to spew hate. That is because my worldview is not the null-view. It means something and makes a difference. Too bad atheists cannot do the same.

  93. on 10 Jun 2012 at 5:51 pm 93.alex said …

    92.Suh said …

    unfortunately for the homos, women, colored people, atheists, muslims, jews, hindus, etc they have to put up with morons like you.

    if you would just shut the fuck up and worship in your own personal space, nobody would care. no, it’s because of your hatred. you would like to say you’re a good xtian, but when it gets down to it, you approve the ban on gay marriages, women as leaders of anything makes you vomit, transexuals horrify you, and i bet you like capital punishment because blacks, mexicans, etc get what they deserve. no?

    my fate is horrible? still tryin the scary shit? reminder, this is an atheist site.

  94. on 10 Jun 2012 at 6:49 pm 94.A said …

    DPK you got one thing accurate. Comparing alex to Fred Phelps is a fitting association. I noticed how quickly you went to such a low life human being. Look at the commonalities:

    Hateful
    Clueless
    Shameless
    Low IQ
    Low Life
    Cult associates

    Maybe alex is Fred Phelps’ boy.

  95. on 10 Jun 2012 at 8:05 pm 95.alex said …

    94.A said …

    i’m the fag that you hate, the nigger on death row that you gleefully look forward to frying, i’m the woman you want to slap around, the muslim whose koran you burn to incite your brothers, and i’m the little kid you molest. you like name calling?

    anonymous what? what are you afraid of? atheists here are experts at rooting out sock puppets. your diversion attempt is pitiful.

    i’m fred phelp’s boy? call me obama’s boy, the devil incarnate, destined for hell, whatever. does that change anything? nope, you’re still full of shit.

  96. on 10 Jun 2012 at 8:27 pm 96.Lou(DFW) said …

    91.DPK said …

    “You’re not much on reading comprehension, are you?”

    92.Suh said …

    “Man is not for you? Then what is? Apes? Kangaroos? What? Would you be equal with the Ape? How does that work?78.Lou(DFW) said …”

    DPK was correct.

    78.Lou(DFW) said …

    “You’re either a dumb-ass or a liar. Why advertise it in public?”

    79.Prime said …

    “Indeed, Lou in #78 is right: you’re either an idiot or a liar.”

    That 92. settles it – idiot.

  97. on 11 Jun 2012 at 1:13 am 97.A said …

    alex

    The would be President Obama’s boy to you.

    :)

    I defecated alex. Happy? You seem obsessed with bowel movements.

    :)

    Say Hi to Fred & President Barack Hussein Obama for me. You can be both of their boys and tell President Barack Hussein Obama to stop leaking top secret info!

    :)

  98. on 11 Jun 2012 at 1:56 am 98.Scourge said …

    Dr. Zhicago seems to be onto something with his pleasant screed on the vileness of Christians.

    Suh- What is this about Hawking being wrong about blackholes? It is ongoing research best as anyone in the field will tell you. Hawking continues to contribute. He even updated his theories significantly circa 2004. What are you on about?

  99. on 11 Jun 2012 at 1:58 am 99.Scourge said …

    Suh- Read more of your posts. It seems implausible anyone can believe what you write. Are you an imposter?

  100. on 11 Jun 2012 at 2:40 am 100.DPK said …

    94.A said …
    DPK you got one thing accurate. Comparing alex to Fred Phelps is a fitting association.

    Wow. Way to completely miss the point.
    I guess it’s understandable why you all believe in invisible, magical beings. You’re basically as dense as a rock, as this statement demonstrates aptly.

  101. on 11 Jun 2012 at 3:49 am 101.Prime said …

    Indeed. Zhicago made good points. Loftus is well worth reading. It’s a shame they’ve driven him off.

  102. on 11 Jun 2012 at 9:34 am 102.Lou(DFW) said …

    100.DPK said …

    “Wow. Way to completely miss the point.
    I guess it’s understandable why you all believe in invisible, magical beings. You’re basically as dense as a rock, as this statement demonstrates aptly.”

    They’re too dumb to realize how dumb they are.

  103. on 11 Jun 2012 at 10:52 am 103.Lou(DFW) said …

    92.Suh said …

    “I would call Phelps out (and do) for using Christ as a platform to spew hate.”

    Then why don’t you? Phelps does more harm to your religion, yes YOUR religion, than does any atheist.

    “That is because my worldview is not the null-view.”

    Non sequitur

    “It means something and makes a difference.”

    What does it mean and how does it make a difference?

    “Too bad atheists cannot do the same.”

    The same what?

  104. on 11 Jun 2012 at 10:58 am 104.Lou(DFW) said …

    94.ASStrophysicist said …

    “Comparing alex to Fred Phelps is a fitting association. I noticed how quickly you went to such a low life human being.”

    Do you mean the Fred Phelps who is an xtian like you are, who believes in the same god, Jesus, and bible that you do?

  105. on 11 Jun 2012 at 11:03 am 105.Lou(DFW) said …

    97.ASStrophysicist said …

    “Say Hi to Fred & President Barack Hussein Obama for me. You can be both of their boys and tell President Barack Hussein Obama to stop leaking top secret info!”

    ASStro, is it ever possible for you to stay on topic?

    But oddly enough, you do make for a great poster-boy poster about the topic -

    The utter irrationality of Christians

  106. on 11 Jun 2012 at 5:53 pm 106.DPK said …

    Dallas Lou…… I don’t know why you have such a hard time understanding the clear and simple logic of the xtians. It’s very easy to understand.
    Alex is mean and uses nasty language. Therefore, atheism has “nothing to offer”. So, who would want to believe in that? No one. Therefore, it must be false.
    On the other hand, theists, like Fred Phelps and say, the Taliban, who accept what they believe is god’s word in holy books like the bible or the Koran, and are mean, use nasty language, and even kill people because god commands them… well, they are simply misguided and don’t really understand what god REALLY meant when he says to do those nasty things to non-believers. The fact that they have “nothing to offer” except hatred, bigotry, and condemnation has absolutely no bearing on the matter.

    The reason it means something when Alex does it, but not when some silver haired preacher man does it is because… well, it’s just because, that’s all.

    Really… could it be any clearer?

  107. on 11 Jun 2012 at 6:22 pm 107.Curmudgeon said …

    Suh said

    “Now if atheism offered something, made a claim or could define reality, it would be more appealing. But it cannot and it is just an empty and pointless existence.”

    Now since they do claim they make no claims, they lack belief and they don’t know what the truth is regarding a deity, anything they claim really is just hot air.

    They need to either live by “we lack belief” and stop passing judgment on those who do, or make a claim and support it. They want it both ways because they are cowards.

    But we know the truth don’t we? They don’t lack a belief. They make a definitive statement but don’t have the stones to support it.

  108. on 11 Jun 2012 at 7:02 pm 108.Prime said …

    107.Curmudgeon said …

    “Now since they do claim they make no claims, they lack belief and they don’t know what the truth is regarding Santa Claus and garden fairies, anything they claim really is just hot air.

    They need to either live by “we lack belief” and stop passing judgment on those who do, or make a claim and support it. They want it both ways because they are cowards.

    But we know the truth don’t we? They don’t lack a belief. They make a definitive statement but don’t have the stones to support it.”

    This is to be contrasted with theism, where “stones” to support claims are all you have, including any evidence or support. Support your claims, Curmudgeon. Show us your “stones” and give us proof of your imaginary God.

  109. on 11 Jun 2012 at 7:30 pm 109.The Judge said …

    Scientists get excited about finding stone tools in a cave because these speak of intelligence a tool maker. They could not have designed themselves. Neither would anyone believe that the carved Presidents’ heads on Mt. Rushmore were the product of millions of years of chance erosion. We can recognize design the evidence of the outworkings of intelligence in the man-made objects all around us.

    A code system is always the result of a mental process it requires an intelligent origin or inventor. It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.

    There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this outside of God.

  110. on 11 Jun 2012 at 8:45 pm 110.Prime said …

    That argument, Judge, could not be more thoroughly debunked. All you’re saying is that you’re too lazy or stupid to understand how things work.

  111. on 11 Jun 2012 at 9:07 pm 111.alex said …

    “…any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this outside of God.”

    …oh shit, now you converted me. i’m a 20 year old deformed, bald, 2 foot dwarf, with 20 known birth defects, with an estimate life span of 5 more years. i require a creator!

    oh, look up in the sky. it’s the magnificent sun. there is nothing like it. indeed unique, it must have been created by Him.

    moron. you think you’re original? read the damn internet.

  112. on 11 Jun 2012 at 9:23 pm 112.alex said …

    “stop passing judgment on those who do, or make a claim and support it”.

    try raising hell in just about any neighborhood, hollering “in the name of allah, die infidels” and see what happens. you will get judged AND prolly get an ass whoopin. there will be no claim.

  113. on 11 Jun 2012 at 10:04 pm 113.DPK said …

    107.Curmudgeon said …

    Suh said

    “Now if atheism offered something, made a claim or could define reality, it would be more appealing. But it cannot and it is just an empty and pointless existence.”

    We do define reality… it is that which continues to be true whether you believe it or not… like all life evolved from simpler forms, like a god was not necessary to create the universe, like the god described in the bible is completely unsupported by evidence… in fact the god of the bible contradicts its own definition.

    “Now since they do claim they make no claims, they lack belief and they don’t know what the truth is regarding a deity, anything they claim really is just hot air.”

    Well,actually we do make a claim… the claim is that you have no evidence to support the reality of your god. You also deny the existence of OTHER gods based on the exact same lack of evidence that we deny YOUR particular flavor of god. In absence of reason to accept that ANY of the absolutely ridiculous claims you make about the very nature of reality are in any way actually true, we simply see all the crazy ass stuff that you claim is real as having no foundation in fact. So, why should anyone believe it? Because you want to? Because it makes you feel good? Because you’d rather think you will live forever rather than accept the reality that you won’t? Because some atheist speaks harshly to you? You get angry when we tell you you are deluded… but you are the definition of deluded. You claim to believe something simply because you want to. Tragic.

  114. on 11 Jun 2012 at 11:33 pm 114.Lou(DFW) said …

    107.Curmudgeon said …

    “But we know the truth don’t we? They don’t lack a belief. They make a definitive statement but don’t have the stones to support it.”

    Atheists are people who do not believe in the existence of gods. That does not require any “stones to support it” anymore than does not believing in Santa Claus.

    Theists are people who believe in the existence of gods. That does require “stones to support it.”

    They live by “we believe.” Stop passing judgment on those who don’t, or support your claim. They want it both ways because they are cowards.

    But we know the truth, don’t we? They don’t have any evidence for their belief. They make a definitive statement but don’t have the stones to support it.

  115. on 12 Jun 2012 at 12:07 am 115.Curmudgeon said …

    “all life evolved from simpler forms, like a god was not necessary to create the universe,”

    Oh goody! A claim. Now prove it DPK. You never ever provide any proof! Prove to us that this first gooh cell created itself out of the mud.

    I look forward to reviewing your evidence. This will be exciting.

  116. on 12 Jun 2012 at 12:10 am 116.Curmudgeon said …

    “A code system is always the result of a mental process it requires an intelligent origin or inventor.”

    Judge of course this is always the case. Atheists somehow suspend that truth when it comes to the most complex code systems in the universe. They are completely delusional. It is nice to have a logical reasonable poster.

  117. on 12 Jun 2012 at 12:36 am 117.alex said …

    “Oh goody!” wtf?

    for the nth time, let’s say evolution is wrong. now prove your god.

    let’s say seat belt statistics are wrong. now, do me a favor, take a long drive without your seatbelts.

    let’s say modern medicine is wrong…….

  118. on 12 Jun 2012 at 2:00 am 118.Lou(DFW) said …

    115.Curmudgeon said …

    “Oh goody! A claim.”

    Translation – I now have another self-perceived reason to avoid admitting that I don’t have any evidence (“stones”) for my imaginary god.

    Let’s help Crum – AGAIN. This blog…explores God and religion in our world today. This blog is not your personal play-pen in which you challenge any off-topic “claim” in order to avoid providing evidence for your imaginary god.

    The reason you can’t show us your “stones” is because you haven’t a pair. As you wrote – you want it both ways because you are a coward.

  119. on 12 Jun 2012 at 2:05 am 119.Lou(DFW) said …

    109.The Joke said …

    In case any of you want to read where he C&P his comment…

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-there-really-a-god

  120. on 12 Jun 2012 at 2:06 am 120.Curmudgeon said …

    for the nth time, let’s say God is wrong. now prove DPK’s claim above. Either add to the claim or zip your lip Louis.

    You have an inferiority complex and it is fully justified.

  121. on 12 Jun 2012 at 2:08 am 121.Curmudgeon said …

    “In case any of you want to read where he C&P his comment…”

    No, non-sequitur. What I would like to see is you debunk it.

    This should be fun!

  122. on 12 Jun 2012 at 2:10 am 122.Curmudgeon said …

    “all life evolved from simpler forms, like a god was not necessary to create the universe,”

    Let me repost DPK’s claim for consideration by the new atheists who now have made a claim!

  123. on 12 Jun 2012 at 2:17 am 123.alex said …

    “let’s say God is wrong. now prove DPK’s claim above”

    is this whywontdpkhealamputees? your god can’t be wrong anymore than allah or zeus is wrong.

    “You have an inferiority complex and it is fully justified.”

    because i will die one day and you get to live on?

  124. on 12 Jun 2012 at 2:17 am 124.DPK said …

    The claim that all life that we know of evolved from simpler forms is well documented and universally accepted among all educated people.

    I have said (many times) before, that I don’t know how the first cell originated.
    But, neither do you.

    You don’t know what causes quantum entanglement. That doesn’t mean I can claim fairies are therefore the only possible explanation.

    And, as has been pointed out, even if by some unimaginable discovery, tomorrow the idea of evolution was conclusively proven to be absolutely wrong, that would still not mean that some magic god was therefore required.

    If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means, let’s hear it.

  125. on 12 Jun 2012 at 2:36 am 125.Curmudgeon said …

    Oh, so you have no proof?

    Very disappointing but at least you have admitted to believing that the first cell just popped into existence? You can’t have evolution without the first cell.

    Where is your proof that second cell combined with a few more to form that fist organism? Any proof there DPK?

  126. on 12 Jun 2012 at 2:38 am 126.Anonymous said …

    107.Curmudgeon said …

    “But we know the truth don’t we? They don’t lack a belief. They make a definitive statement but don’t have the stones to support it.”

    Oh goody, Curmudgeon is back having said he was gone.

    So, “Curmudgeon”, you believe that people who make definitive statements should have the stones to support them?

    OK, then, back in November 2011 you had a “conversation” with “Ted”, “Horatiio”, and other instances of yourself, when you said you would provide proof for your god. You’ve had 7 months, and we are still waiting. Do show us YOUR proof, let’s see that you have the “stones” to support your position. Show us how it is done.

    Prediction: Evasion, red-herrings, diversions, or complete avoidance.

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=2038#comment-31849

  127. on 12 Jun 2012 at 2:39 am 127.Lou(DFW) said …

    121.Crum said …

    “No, non-sequitur.”

    You obviously don’t understand the definition non sequitur. Just because you read comments in which others correctly apply the term doesn’t mean that you know how to.

    “What I would like to see is you debunk it.”

    First of all, I don’t have to “debunk it.” It’s already been “debunked.”

    Second, whether or not it’s been debunked is irrelevant. What is required is evidence FOR a “claim.” On this blog we discuss claims about god and religion. You and Joker made “claims” about the existence of your imaginary god and for ID. So, where is your evidence?

  128. on 12 Jun 2012 at 2:42 am 128.Curmudgeon said …

    “The claim that all life that we know of evolved from simpler forms is well documented and universally accepted among all educated people.”

    This is also Non sequitur. You are appealing to authority. This does not prove your claim.

    Second, many with many letters after their name have offered differing opinions.

  129. on 12 Jun 2012 at 2:46 am 129.Curmudgeon said …

    “OK, then, back in November 2011 you had a “conversation” with “Ted”, “Horatiio”, and other instances of yourself, when you said you would provide proof for your god.”

    Good evening Mouse. Sure, answer the question then we will lay it out. Still waiting for that question to get answered to set the ground rules. You OK with that right Mousey?

  130. on 12 Jun 2012 at 2:52 am 130.alex said …

    curm, every nonbeliever is full of shit.

    then,
    christ exists.
    allah exists.
    zeus exists.
    ra exists.
    santa exists.
    tooth fairy….blah, blah, blah

  131. on 12 Jun 2012 at 3:52 am 131.DPK said …

    Oh Curmudgeon… Don’t you see, YOU are proof that the first cells eventually combined to form a more complex organism. did you just magically appear one day?

  132. on 12 Jun 2012 at 4:28 am 132.Prime said …

    I get a surreal delight out of watching Curm get all excited here like he thinks he has something. If he wasn’t so annoying, I’d kind of feel sorry for him.

    Curm, this whole demand you’re making is a classic case of the expelliarmus fallacy. FFS.

  133. on 12 Jun 2012 at 5:39 am 133.Anonymous said …

    Poor Curmudgeon, busted again for sock-puppetry, made to look a fool (like that was hard), and still “thinks” that he’s in a position to make demands whilst trying to divert attention with childish (but to him mentally advanced) taunts and kindergarten debate tactics.

    The only demand you can make as this point is that we stop calling you a delusional moron but why should we stop telling the truth.

    Keep it up, Curm, all you are doing here is making theists look even more stupid that we already know that you are.

  134. on 12 Jun 2012 at 12:35 pm 134.Lou(DFW) said …

    128.Curmudgeon said …

    “The claim that all life that we know of evolved from simpler forms is well documented and universally accepted among all educated people.”

    “This is also Non sequitur.”

    No, it isn’t. You have twice demonstrated that you don’t understand a non sequitur.

    “You are appealing to authority. This does not prove your claim.”

    Now you demonstrated that you don’t understand the “appeal to authority” fallacy.

    It’s bad enough that you can’t support your primitive belief with any evidence, but then you make a fool of yourself with errors in logic while trying to deflect attention from your lack of evidence.

  135. on 12 Jun 2012 at 12:44 pm 135.Lou(DFW) said …

    129.Curmudgeon said …

    “Sure, answer the question then we will lay it out. Still waiting for that question to get answered to set the ground rules.”

    Let’s start with any evidence you have that isn’t “biblical” or anecdotal. And don’t tell us that your imaginary god can’t be tested or that he operates outside of time and space.

  136. on 12 Jun 2012 at 12:47 pm 136.Lou(DFW) said …

    125.Curmudgeon said …

    “Very disappointing but at least you have admitted to believing that the first cell just popped into existence?”

    He admitted no such thing. Why must you so often resort to lying?

  137. on 12 Jun 2012 at 1:00 pm 137.Lou(DFW) said …

    131.DPK said …

    “Oh Curmudgeon… Don’t you see, YOU are proof that the first cells eventually combined to form a more complex organism. did you just magically appear one day?”

    As you know, Crum’s claim is an argument from ignorance or “god of the gaps” argument. Not only is it the basis for theist arguments about abiogenesis, but also for claims of intelligent design – if a natural processed is unexplained, then “goddidit.”

    One thing for Crum is that he’s consistent. All of his arguments rely on the lack of knowledge.

  138. on 12 Jun 2012 at 2:22 pm 138.DPK said …

    It goes way beyond “lack of knowledge” and is more accurately characterized by “willful ignorance” or perhaps sheer stupidity. There is no shortage of knowledge on the process of evolution, and even almost all mainstream religions accept it as fact. Even the pope accepts the big bang and evolution as fact. Although, predictably, they try to claim it as the work of their deity. But current day evolution deniers are exactly like flat-earthers. Stubbornly holding onto their ignorance and brandishing it as a weapon. That is why they have been marginalized to the point of being the laughing stock of the world. No one takes them seriously, and they don’t even realize that their continued willful ignorance does more to harm their cause then to help it. I mean, who are they able to attract to their cult belief system spouting such nonsense? Crazies and nutjobs… the ones with a trailer park Jesus in their front yard and a “god hates fags” tattoo.

  139. on 12 Jun 2012 at 3:39 pm 139.Anonymous said …

    DPK, it’s more than willful ignorance, it’s out-and-out trolling.

    Curmudgeon and his aliases post the same nonsense time and time again. At no point do they ever try to engage in anything other than mud slinging and name calling.

    You do a great job in pointing out his irrational comments but he’s not looking to make a point, he’s looking for an argument and to wind people up.

  140. on 12 Jun 2012 at 5:34 pm 140.Curmudgeon said …

    “Oh Curmudgeon… Don’t you see, YOU are proof that the first cells eventually combined to form a more complex organism. did you just magically appear one day?”

    Thank you DPK. But I see this as proof that God does indeed exist. I needed a Designer and Creator to amass my 70 trillion cells and to produce information code to program each cell to perform it’s very unique duties.

    Now that we know your burden of proof does not need to be tested or verifiable you should be able to deduce easily that a Creator with does indeed exist.

    Thank you again DPK. You made this demonstration so much easier.

  141. on 12 Jun 2012 at 5:57 pm 141.DPK said …

    “Thank you DPK. But I see this as proof that God does indeed exist.”

    Yes, like I said, willful ignorance.

    Tell you what Curm…
    Prove to me that the variola virus causes smallpox. Until you do, I see this as proof that smallpox is a curse from the flying spaghetti monster as punishment for those that do not like pasta. Obviously, something as small an insignificant as a virus, which technically isn’t even alive, could cause a deadly disease. Such a notion is just silly. Therefore, spaghetti monster wins by default.

    The only thing you have “demonstrated” is your ignorance and stupidity… and since I’ve made that easier for you, you are welcome.

  142. on 12 Jun 2012 at 6:12 pm 142.Curmudgeon said …

    “The only thing you have “demonstrated” is your ignorance and stupidity”

    Well DPK, I can’t claim the credit. I only used your logic.

    Tell ya what.

    You take your claim, you know,

    these fist cells that combined to form an organism of which you don’t know the origin,

    Take that and run it through the scientific method. This will be fun!

  143. on 12 Jun 2012 at 6:14 pm 143.Curmudgeon said …

    “I see this as proof that smallpox is a curse from the flying spaghetti monster”

    No DPK No! This is Non sequitur. Try to stay on track.

  144. on 12 Jun 2012 at 6:20 pm 144.Prime said …

    143.Curmudgeon said …

    “No DPK No! This is Non sequitur. Try to stay on track.”

    He’s just running everything through the mill of calling it a non sequitur until he gets it right.

    Curm, are you the kid that when told to guess a number between 1 and 10 to win a prize thought you were being clever by saying 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, missing entirely that you only got one guess and therefore made yourself look like a prat?

    I don’t think you understood what DPK was doing there, btw. That’s not really surprising, though.

  145. on 12 Jun 2012 at 7:09 pm 145.DPK said …

    Prime.. we all kind of understand Crum doesn’t get it. He subscribes to the belief that if you can’t prove it’s red, then it must therefore be blue. Myopia induced by delusions and the willingness to disengage his brain from his mouth. Not unexpected, though. He just drops in every few weeks to spout the same tired claims as if they had someone gained validity since the last time… then he makes a claim that he can prove god, then disappears after no such proof is ever offered.

  146. on 12 Jun 2012 at 7:16 pm 146.A said …

    Curmudgon,

    I think what DPK is attempting to communicate is this. Human beings existing is proof that the first cells which formed into organism and over time become more complex until they formed men.

    Would that be what you are communicating DPK?

  147. on 12 Jun 2012 at 7:17 pm 147.Lou(DFW) said …

    140.Curmudgeon said …

    “But I see this as proof that God does indeed exist. I needed a Designer and Creator to amass my 70 trillion cells and to produce information code to program each cell to perform it’s very unique duties.”

    Actually, you’re “proof” that there’s no intelligent designer.

  148. on 12 Jun 2012 at 7:29 pm 148.DPK said …

    Maybe someone should explain to Crum that his assessment that THIS:

    ““Oh Curmudgeon… Don’t you see, YOU are proof that the first cells eventually combined to form a more complex organism. did you just magically appear one day?”

    Thank you DPK. But I see this as proof that God does indeed exist. I needed a Designer and Creator to amass my 70 trillion cells and to produce information code to program each cell to perform it’s very unique duties.”

    IS in actuality a non-sequitur… a conclusion that does not follow from it’s premise… “You cannot explain fully the exact process by which the first cell formed… therefore ‘I see this as proof that God does indeed exist’.”

    See how it works Curm? A non-sequitur is not just a position you don’t agree with.. it is a faulty conclusion that cannot be derived from the evidence presented.

    When I say, “Concluding a “god did it” because the mechanics of a-biogenesis are not yet fully understood is the same as saying the spaghetti monster causes smallpox because you can’t comprehend how a virus could possible be the actual cause.” well, that is not a non-sequitur. That is a comparative analogy. We understand, thinking clearly is hard for you… but keep trying, we’re here to help you, really. Everyone here wants to help you to rid yourself of your delusions. Really we do… But the first step is acknowledging your invisible friends are just figments of you imagination.

  149. on 12 Jun 2012 at 7:34 pm 149.DPK said …

    “Would that be what you are communicating DPK?”

    Well, duh. He asked for “evidence” that at some point simpler life evolved to form more complex life. Open your eyes… all the “evidence” you seek is around you. I don’t see any humans in the pre-cambrian time, do you?

  150. on 12 Jun 2012 at 10:21 pm 150.Lou(DFW) said …

    148.DPK said …

    “But the first step is acknowledging your invisible friends are just figments of you imagination.”

    They’re not even figments of his imagination, not unless he’s schizophrenic. For sane people, the belief in a god mostly relates to a form of “willful ignorance.”

    I grew-up going to an xtian church, believing in god. I prayed in church, Sunday school, VBS, and at home. But I NEVER, EVER once heard or sensed god communicating with me, nor anyone else that I ever asked. I was simply taught to believe in god – that’s it.

    None of these people here, including Cur, actually “imagine” god or experience god in anyway whatsoever. They were simply taught/programmed to respond to and defend the idea of a god in a certain way. When we imagine something, it’s not something that we expect or believe will happen – that’s why we imagine it.

  151. on 12 Jun 2012 at 10:32 pm 151.Curmudgeon said …

    “I think what DPK is attempting to communicate is this. Human beings existing is proof that the first cells which formed into organism and over time become more complex until they formed men.”

    A, yes DPK is communicating such a position. Ironically this individual who only believes what he can prove with facts cannot produce any. His conclusion would be non-sequitur. That is a Lou fav so I take pleasure in bringing it up.

    A human being who is observably designed with very intricate cells, systems and information systems is sequitur. Why? Because looking around me as DPK suggests, I see less complex systems made by men and thus all have a designer. None are more complex than a human being.

    I only employ the same logic as DPK. I wait to see if DPK can prove any of his claims using the scientific method. I bet he doesn’t.

  152. on 12 Jun 2012 at 10:40 pm 152.40 year Atheist said …

    From Karl Popper’s “Logic of Scientific Discovery”:

    “The old scientific ideal of episteme – of absolutely certain, demonstrable knowledge – has proved to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative forever. It may indeed be corroborated, but every corroboration is relative to other statements which, again, are tentative. Only in our subjective experiences of conviction, in our subjective faith, can we be ‘absolutely certain’.

    “With the idol of certainty (including that of degrees of imperfect certainty or probability) there falls one of the defences of obscurantism which bar the way for scientific advance. For the worship of this idol hampers not only the boldness of our questions, but also the rigour and the integrity of our tests. The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth.

    “Has our attitude, then, to be one of resignation? Have we to say that science can fulfil only its biological task; that it can, at best, merely prove its mettle in practical applications which may corroborate it? I do not think so. Science never pursues the illusory aim of making its answers final, or even probable. Its advance is, rather, towards an infinite yet attainable aim: that of ever discovering new, deeper, and more general problems, and of subjection our ever tentative answers to ever renewed and ever more rigorous tests.

  153. on 12 Jun 2012 at 10:51 pm 153.Lou(DFW) said …

    151.Curmudgeon said …

    “His conclusion would be non-sequitur. That is a Lou fav so I take pleasure in bringing it up.”

    And we take pleasure laughing at you when you do.

    For another laugh:

    “A human being who is observably designed with very intricate cells, systems and information systems is sequitur.”

    A human being, regardless of how it’s designed or created cannot be sequitur.

    When did you observe a human being designed?

  154. on 13 Jun 2012 at 12:13 am 154.Prime said …

    151.Curmudgeon said …

    “Because looking around me as DPK suggests, I see less complex systems made by men and thus all have a designer. None are more complex than a human being.”

    Societies are more complex than human beings as they are emergent phenomena made up of thousands, millions, or even billions of human beings. Ecosystems are more complex than that. All of that was possible without a designer. If you want to say it required a designer, it’s you that requires proof, not us.

  155. on 13 Jun 2012 at 12:18 am 155.DPK said …

    “Ironically this individual who only believes what he can prove with facts cannot produce any.”

    Who ever said I “only believe what I can prove with facts?”
    The only claim I have ever made here to you is that I don’t believe there is ANY reason to believe that the god you claim exists, actually does?
    I believe many things without “facts”.. that is a reality of living in a modern world and a community in which one must trust others. As an example, I believe that a virus causes smallpox. I have no “facts” that I can demonstrate myself. But I accept it as true. Does that take “faith”? Sure. But it’s reasonable faith.
    I have no idea “what” gravity is, in the sense that I cannot define the exact nature of it. But I can reasonably place my “faith” in its existence.
    But your god FAILS every test for reasonable belief… just like ALL the OTHER gods that have ever been hypothesized that you also reject on the same grounds. The ONLY thing Curm seems to hang his belief in god on, and why he keeps coming back to it, is that he is too dim to understand how complexity in life arose, over enormous time, from simpler forms. Scientifically though, this process is well understood and well documented. It is fact… as close to fact as the existence of gravity is, and as the existence of the variola virus as the cause of smallpox. But, because this idea threatens the existence of Curm’s imaginary god, and therefore his chance of eternal life, he needs to refuse to accept this as fact, because otherwise his delusion collapses. So instead he focuses on whatever tiny “cracks” or gaps in knowledge he can discern. We don’t fully understand the exact process that resulted in the origin of life… yet. But we will.
    The fact is that every single gap in human understanding that was always attributed to gods or magic, has eventually given way to scientific understanding, and they ALWAYS have a natural, non-magical, and natural explanation. So, does this amount to “faith”. I suppose, but there is a huge difference between reasonable faith, and unreasonable. All other gods that have existed throughout human history have been imaginary. Crum even believes that all other gods that currently “exist” in human culture… except of course his, are also imaginary. Draw your own conclusions.

  156. on 13 Jun 2012 at 12:24 am 156.alex said …

    “None are more complex than a human being.”

    says who? you spout off shit like you’re some kind of fuckin expert.

    you’ve been told many fucking times, just because something is not 100%, for sure, explained, it doesn’t mean your god did it. you’re a fucking idiot. because I can’t explain how you got that way, allah must have designed you, no?

    there are scientific explanations of course and you dismiss them. fine, just don’t give me that god bullshit. i don’t have to explain to you any alternatives to your god any more than i have to explain alternatives to santa claus. you’ve heard this crap before…..

  157. on 13 Jun 2012 at 12:31 am 157.Lover said …

    DKP -

    “Who ever said I “only believe what I can prove with facts?”

    and

    “I believe many things without “facts”

    Yet, if you don’t produce facts for your belief, DPK will point that out to you. And call you delusional for believing in things without “facts.”

    So DPK can have his beliefs without facts and his beliefs are valid.

    You?

    Nope. If your beliefs DO NOT contain facts (or even if you produce facts as a basis for your belief) then you are delusional.

    Then DPK says this:

    “But your god FAILS every test for reasonable belief”

    But what is reasonable belief? One based on facts ONLY? Or can there be a reasonable belief WITHOUT facts?

    If DPK believes things without facts (as just admitted) then are DPK’s beliefs unreasonable?

    Either beliefs without facts CAN be reasonable they aren’t.

    Which is it DPK?

    Can beliefs without facts be reasonable?

    PS what is this “test” for reasonable belief?

  158. on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:21 am 158.DPK said …

    No one here has ever asked for “facts” other than Curm and the other evolution deniers… what we ask for is “evidence”…
    What is a test for reasonable belief? That’s a good question, and a fair one, I suppose. But I guess the answer is kind of like Justice Stewart trying to define obscenity… “I know it when I see it.”
    Sorry if that’s not black and white enough for you. But, for a list of things that make a belief “unreasonable”, I’ll refer you back to the host site of WWGHA and Godisimaginary to start. There are many many examples there… which are never addressed by the theists here, that demonstrate why belief in gods is not reasonable. So in that respect there are MANY different tests that would point to the reasonableness of a particular belief.
    For example… to “test” the belief that the bible is the inerrant word of a perfect god, one would expect its contents to be perfect. Since it is not, it i not reasonable to believe it is the perfect word of god.
    To “test” the idea that there was an intelligent designer, one would expect to see evidence of design. There is none, so the belief in a designer is not reasonable. When one adds the idea that the designer is perfect, omniscient and omnipotent, then the bar is set higher, and the belief becomes more unreasonable.
    When one postulates the belief in a perfect loving god, the test would be to examine what we would expect a world controlled by a perfect loving god would look like. Since this one fails miserably,that belief is unreasonable.
    When one postulates the idea of a god that answers prayers and performs miracles, the “test” would be to examine the results of prayer and look for evidence that prayers are in fact answered. When the evidence shows that prayers have no effect, then the belief is not reasonable.
    Do I have to go on, and on???

  159. on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:29 am 159.Boz said …

    “The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth.”

    40YA, Popper never quoted a more accurate view of where many in science have gone. It is so well represented by the nags here that make a maintain no proof for God exists and then admit they accept as true much without any proof. They then contend the human cell created without a creator is reasonable. It’s pure craziness.

    It’s not proof they lack, it’s just defiance.

    Popper has a way of clearing away the stupidity.

  160. on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:40 am 160.Lover said …

    DPK -

    “Sorry if that’s not black and white enough for you”

    I’m not the one with the issue of “black and white enough” you are. YOU are the one that expects ONLY black and white when it comes to God.

    Not clear enough…you reject it and point the finger at those of us who believe.

    “But, for a list of things that make a belief “unreasonable”, I’ll refer you back to the host site of WWGHA and Godisimaginary to start. There are many many examples there… which are never addressed by the theists here, that demonstrate why belief in gods is not reasonable.”

    This is untrue. In the recent post I show how the video is void of logical thinking. So in this instance, it has been addressed. Perhaps they haven’t been addressed because they might not be great questions to answer – such as the video in the latest post. If you disagree, start with the video I address and please show, logically, how that video demonstrates belief in God is unreasonable…

    “When one postulates the belief in a perfect loving god, the test would be to examine what we would expect a world controlled by a perfect loving god would look like.”

    Since you claim it fails, this means you KNOW what the world would look like if it were “controlled’ By a perfect God – how WOULD it look like DPK?

  161. on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:42 am 161.Lover said …

    “To “test” the idea that there was an intelligent designer, one would expect to see evidence of design.”

    Dawkins wrote: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”

    What more do you expect to see?

  162. on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:46 am 162.Lover said …

    DPK -

    “to “test” the belief that the bible is the inerrant word of a perfect god, one would expect its contents to be perfect.”

    For it’s purpose yes, and the Bible does this. What do you expect the Bible to be? It’s meant to point to Jesus – it does that.

    What more?

    It’s not a manual for living.
    It’s not a science book.
    It’s not a history book.

    It doesn’t HAVE TO BE perfect at EVERYTHING to be inerrant in it’s purpose.

    Say we have the most perfect map in the world. It is perfect. Nothing wrong with it.

    It is a perfect representation of the world?

    Of course not!

    It’s not meant to be. It’s meant to get you from point A to point B.

    It’s not meant to show you the beauty of the mountains of Montana or the shoreline of Miami.

    If you think the Bible should be PERFECT in everything, why?

    When it’s purpose is to point to Jesus.

  163. on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:56 am 163.Prime said …

    158.DPK said …

    “What is a test for reasonable belief? That’s a good question, and a fair one, I suppose. But I guess the answer is kind of like Justice Stewart trying to define obscenity… “I know it when I see it.””

    Eh, you can do better.

    Belief is reasonable when the quantity of data genuinely in support of a statement, concept, or hypothesis is sufficiently large to outweigh the consequences of belief or acceptance.

    Example: “I went to the store today.”
    Consequence for believing me even if I’m lying or wrong: none, so belief is reasonable.

    Example: “If you send me $10 in the mail, I’ll send you a cool CD of music I made that I’m sure you’ll like!”
    Consequences for believing me if I’m lying or wrong: I might provide no CD; I might provide a CD you don’t like, so belief without some kind of additional evidence is not warranted. Not a ton of evidence is required, perhaps just a check on my legitimacy as a business and on the quality of my music, perhaps by providing samples.

    Example: “If you believe this stuff and live the way you’re ‘supposed to,’ by some given definition, you’ll live forever.”
    Consequences for believing me if I’m lying or wrong: Looking like an idiot for believing stupid things, being in a cult, living your life according to an external authority that might or might not carry with it various amounts of problematic baggage, so belief without evidence in (a) being able to live forever and (b) that my path offers it genuinely. Thus, belief is not reasonable without substantial evidence.

  164. on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:58 am 164.Prime said …

    Another example: “I went to the moon today.”
    Consequence for believing me if I’m wrong or lying: Being an idiot for believing in something that is substantively unlikely to be true. Belief without further evidence is not reasonable because of the well-known difficulty in getting to the moon and the well-known likelihood that a moon mission would be publicized.

  165. on 13 Jun 2012 at 2:11 am 165.Lover said …

    Prime -

    “Another example: “I went to the moon today.”
    Consequence for believing me if I’m wrong or lying: Being an idiot for believing in something that is substantively unlikely to be true.”

    However, I suffer no REAL consequence. Sure, look like an idiot – however, tomorrow I will still have a job, a wife, a dog, a house, etc.

    You are thus equalizing “reasonable” with “safety” or “comfort” as a result of my belief.

    If I care what others think of me for my beliefs, I will judge my beliefs – whether they are correct or not – and this would be reasonable. (NOT whether they are correct beliefs or not.)

    Thus I won’t concern myself if my beliefs are correct or not, just what people and society will “accept.” IE if I look like and idiot or “smart.”

    I should concern myself with the “outcome” of my beliefs – not whether or not they are true.

    Is that what you are saying?

  166. on 13 Jun 2012 at 2:18 am 166.Prime said …

    I guess one more, since it’s pertinent.
    “Human beings are apes and, like all other life on this planet, evolved into their current form from simpler life forms.”
    This is a substantive claim, and it is rather enormous in terms of scope and consequence. It’s also very, very hard to answer by any “obviously” statements. However, not just a few, but rather LIBRARIES of peer-reviewed scientific evidence reflecting a general consensus exist on the matter. It is therefore quite reasonable to believe this claim once one has seen the science, even if one doesn’t understand it. Everyone should be skeptical and look for themselves, but what they’ll find is confirmation after confirmation after confirmation–unless they have a hidden agenda not to accept what is in front of them.

    There is a fundamental (and currently growing, as theism gets more desperate) lack of trust of science and the scientific method in our culture, and this is enormously problematic. Science doesn’t get everything right at first, but at that stage, it doesn’t call what it’s working with a “theory.” Only rarely are actual “theories” overturned (essentially never, actually, and usually only in theoretical physics). This lack of trust in science is the last temper tantrum of the young childhood of our species, a lot like a pre-teen wanting to be a young child again because things were “easier,” at least in perception and in terms of responsibilities, back then.

    In other words, once science puts the stamp of “theory” on something, it is well beyond any lay person to be able to claim disbelief (which includes belief in alternate or altered variants of the theory) reasonably. Thus, we can all accept claims made by established science where a decent and strong consensus exists reasonably, and no lay person is required to present evidence beyond “essentially every non-cracked scientist in the field says so.”

    To call this an appeal to authority is incorrect because the authority in question here is a generally unbiased, self-correcting authority and one that is open at all times to independent verification or disproof, so it’s not exactly an authority as in the sense of the fallacy. In other words, if you don’t want to believe a claim like evolution or global warming, you’re welcome to try to do science to disprove it, bring the science to the table, put it up for peer-review, and see how it fares.

    Where the line is drawn between peer-reviewed, accepted, and with-consensus science is a bit fuzzy, which is what DPK means by saying “I’ll know it when I see it.” Fuzzy boundaries work like that… approached from either side, they don’t look like a boundary, but once well on either side, it’s clear that it was crossed. It’s a bit like deciding where green stops and yellow starts on the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum of visible light. You can’t do it, but that doesn’t mean green and yellow don’t meaningfully exist as separate colors.

  167. on 13 Jun 2012 at 2:20 am 167.Prime said …

    Lover, you’re too much of a literalist. Your reputation would suffer rather substantially if you went around telling people you met a guy on the internet that went to the moon today and held to that claim with the same seriousness that you tell them that Jesus is really the savior of the world.

    Because of the rather stark implausibility of that claim, you’re justified in requiring evidence from me before believing it. The claim itself is outlandish and therefore is unlikely. If you really believe it, since it is outlandish, you’re likely to repeat it and look like a moron, like you do when you talk about Jesus being savior or the bible being evidence for God when you come here.

  168. on 13 Jun 2012 at 2:22 am 168.Prime said …

    If you were my employee, for instance, and I could find a way to fire you for being a dumbass (which I can in the state I live in, which is right-to-work), I probably would if you came in and told me you really believed that a guy on the internet went to the moon yesterday. If I was married to you, and you really believed it, there would be a big fight when I started to tell you what a moron I think you are, in a nice, married-gentle kind of way.

  169. on 13 Jun 2012 at 2:45 am 169.Lover said …

    “There is a fundamental (and currently growing, as theism gets more desperate) lack of trust of science and the scientific method in our culture, and this is enormously problematic.”

    I’m not sure where you are getting this idea – data to show this as fact? Or is it wishful thinking. I am not afraid of science by any means. Not sure where you get this idea, please share.

    Regarding your longer stance on science that we theists are afraid of -

    “To call this an appeal to authority is incorrect because the authority in question here is a generally unbiased,”

    Um…you can’t show that it’s unbiased. You claim it so, but don’t know the mentality of every SCIENTIST…so yes, it is an appeal to authority, despite what you might wish it to be or claim.

    “In other words, once science puts the stamp of “theory” on something, it is well beyond any lay person to be able to claim disbelief (which includes belief in alternate or altered variants of the theory) reasonably.”

    So ALL scientific theories are correct and NEVER changed?

    You have shied away from answering the question that I posed to you – should I worry about consequence or truth as it pertains to my belief?

    You are still arguing consequence and yes arguing from the stance of “authority”.

    “Where the line is drawn between peer-reviewed, accepted, and with-consensus science is a bit fuzzy, which is what DPK means by saying “I’ll know it when I see it.”

    Peer-reviewed has it’s faults, or is it infallible? consensus is NEVER science and a scientist will say the same.

    “Your reputation would suffer rather substantially if you went around telling people you met a guy on the internet that went to the moon today and held to that claim with the same seriousness that you tell them that Jesus is really the savior of the world.

    Because of the rather stark implausibility of that claim, you’re justified in requiring evidence from me before believing it. The claim itself is outlandish and therefore is unlikely. If you really believe it, since it is outlandish, you’re likely to repeat it and look like a moron, like you do when you talk about Jesus being savior or the bible being evidence for God when you come here.”

    Again, here is the argument that the OUTCOME of a belief is greater than the validity of the belief. I’m not worried if I look foolish or not if the claim is true or not.

    Say I did meet someone who said they went to the moon today.

    Now, I could look foolish.

    But what if they did? What if they could prove it to me that they did, yet, I couldn’t prove it to ANYONE else?

    Should I still believe it? Despite the fact that noone would believe me? Or should I disbelieve it because no one else will believe me because I can’t prove it to them?

    And you have dodge the question: so I will ask it again.

    What is the reason to believe something: because it’s true? or the result of the belief?

  170. on 13 Jun 2012 at 2:46 am 170.Lover said …

    Funny too, how you are wasting your time with me on here, but not on the other post…

    I thought I wasn’t worth your precious time?

  171. on 13 Jun 2012 at 2:55 am 171.Lover said …

    “If you were my employee, for instance, and I could find a way to fire you for being a dumbass (which I can in the state I live in, which is right-to-work), I probably would if you came in and told me you really believed that a guy on the internet went to the moon yesterday. If I was married to you, and you really believed it, there would be a big fight when I started to tell you what a moron I think you are, in a nice, married-gentle kind of way.”

    Certainly this could be the case if you didn’t know me very well.

    However, if your wife came to you and said that she “heard” from God – would you believe her or just write her off?

    Say your daughter came to you and said that God revealed himself to her – you going to just dismiss that? You raised her, you taught her to critically think for herself (or did you indoctrinate her into “knowing” God didn’t exist)is she reasonable for her belief? or did you fail as a parent?

    Not a fair question is it? Why? Because it’s a fake one.

    Come up with any senario you wish – you don’t answer the question put before you and can’t show that belief in God is unreasonable.

    Only claim it.

    Well, given all that you have said – why should I believe YOU that God doesn’t exist?

    Why are YOU such an authority on EVERYTHING in the world that I should listen to YOU?

    I’m interested in that answer…

  172. on 13 Jun 2012 at 2:58 am 172.Lover said …

    Also, your “employee” argument only shows that you aren’t open minded.

    The fact that you would fire an employee for claiming such a thing (rather than their actual work ethic, quality) just shows how “unbiased” your thoughts really are.

    I have supervised employees, I wonder if you have. Do you care what they think at home, or in their private life, or whether or not they can do their job?

    You still are on “outcome” not truth in these examples.

    Answer the question: do I believe in something because it’s true? or because it’s “acceptable?”

  173. on 13 Jun 2012 at 2:58 am 173.DPK said …

    Lover’s expectations are rationalized by what he actually finds. It is only reasonable to expect that a bible written by a perfect, omniscient and omnipotent being would indeed be a perfect and dazzling work. One would not expect to find factual errors, contradictions, and instructions on how to properly take and beat slaves, prepare animal sacrifices that are pleasing to the lord, and a host of other ridiculous idea that clearly come not from a perfect eternal being, but from primitive tribesman with no concept of the nature of the universe and a primitive sense of morality.
    But to reconcile this, Lover simply rationalizes…. Well, that’s not what the bible was meant to do. Bull. Lover has Avery strange definition of the word perfect. To him, perfect, means whatever he has to offer at the moment. Very much like the promise of god answering prayer…. What do we mean by that? Well, it means sometimes you get what you want, sometimes you don’t, and sometimes you get something completely different. All contingencies are covered, so answering prayer is simply redefined to fit what occurs.
    A perfect, all good god would not ever condone slavery, for example. But in the bible he clearly does. So how do we manage that? Simple, we either redefine slavery to mean something else.. Like employment, or we say that it isn’t relevant anymore, because it was condoned under a different concept of morality. Or, even worse, we reside morality as whatever god says at any time, therefore the problem of immorality is negated.
    But it’s all smoke and mirrors. A dancing act of verbal gymnastics that you must accept first…. Before you can accept. If you accept the idea that god only does good.. Then you will be able to accept whatever god does as good. If you accept the idea that god answers prayers, then you will find prayers that seem to be answered.
    Sorry lover, your double talk and Jedi mind games don’t work here. You’ll have to do way better that simply make up endless excuses and employ circular reasoning to try and explain away the myriad problem with your silly claims about the supernatural.

  174. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:04 am 174.Prime said …

    I’m not really wasting my time on here. I was talking to DPK, primarily. You’re fun sometimes, though.

    Let me get something straight with you: I didn’t read much of what you wrote above. It’s crap. In fact, it helps substantiate my first claim that you claim I can’t prove: a rising disbelief in science in general. There are a lot of articles coming out now about “scientism,” itself not a new idea, often attacking “New Atheists” like Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett. This is the last stand of theism: try to undermine science on a philosophical level even though philosophers of science dealt with that problem back in the 80s (to no one’s general knowledge because no one gives a rat’s patoot about philosophy of science except the people who do it).

    The fact that you’re going off on science like that, presumably untrained since you clearly, clearly misunderstand what it is, how it works, and what it accomplishes, substantiates the very claim you’re telling me I can’t prove. Search for articles about “scientism.” See how many have been published, mostly in the UK, in the last two years, mostly aimed at Dawkins. It’s on the rise.

    America, Creation Museum and all, is a veritable hotbed of anti-scientific and anti-intellectual thinking. Isaac Asimov astutely and eloquently noted that it is a uniquely American concept, a genuine perversion of the notions of freedom (particularly the freedom of speech) and equality: it is a uniquely American, and uniquely stupid and embarrassing, attitude that ignorance and qualified opinions are considered on a level. Look up “Isaac Asimov” along with “anti-intellectualism,” and you’ll easily find the piece.

    This, though, is why I’m done reading you and 40YA: your ignorance is not on our level and deserves very little of our time. You may possess vast amounts of warped knowledge about your Bible, but I don’t care because from your presentation, it’s all based upon circular logic and arguments from authority, to be contrasted against what the scientific community is. You guys were worth our time when we were under the impression (because of our general goodwill toward people) that what you wanted was discussion instead of a pulpit on the internet. Now, we’re done, or at least I am.

  175. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:04 am 175.Lover said …

    DPK -

    Wonderful change of subject and not have to defend anything you have stated.

    the questions posed to you still remain unanswered by you.

    A nice monologue or diatribe if you will, but it only serves to put the spotlight away from YOU and your inability to answer the questions put forth to you.

    Say what you will – I don’t have a face to save on here. I’m not among friends, as it were, you are – and while you may state something that others on here may agree with you on – the fact still remains – you are in a corner and can’t get out.

    I can go back and ask the question again, and quote you as to what you said about “facts” and how they pertain to beliefs if you need.

    Or you can just answer the question posted to you and stop trying to dodge.

    All you posted – dodge, big time.

  176. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:08 am 176.Prime said …

    173.DPK said …

    “Sorry lover, your double talk and Jedi mind games don’t work here.”

    Jedi mind games are performed by mentally superior Jedis, not circularly reasoning fools. Lover: these are not the discussions you’re looking for.

    At least Jedis are cool because they have the rather awesome quality of having the integrity to admit that they’re actually fictional.

  177. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:09 am 177.Prime said …

    175.Lover said …

    “Wonderful change of subject and not have to defend anything you have stated.
    the questions posed to you still remain unanswered by you.
    A nice monologue or diatribe if you will, but it only serves to put the spotlight away from YOU and your inability to answer the questions put forth to you.
    Say what you will – I don’t have a face to save on here. I’m not among friends, as it were, you are – and while you may state something that others on here may agree with you on – the fact still remains – you are in a corner and can’t get out.”

    How to deal with a lion or bear when in the wilderness: try to make yourself look bigger than you are and yell a lot to try to scare it off.

  178. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:14 am 178.Lover said …

    Prime -

    “The fact that you’re going off on science like that, presumably untrained since you clearly, clearly misunderstand what it is, how it works, and what it accomplishes, substantiates the very claim you’re telling me I can’t prove.”

    Where did I go off on science? I know exactly what science is INCLUDING it’s limitations – which you seem to not be able to admit. What part of science do I disgree with (sans facts) that we have discussed? None. I’m not sure where you get this argument from.

    “America, Creation Museum and all, is a veritable hotbed of anti-scientific and anti-intellectual thinking. Isaac Asimov astutely and eloquently noted that it is a uniquely American concept, a genuine perversion of the notions of freedom (particularly the freedom of speech) and equality: it is a uniquely American, and uniquely stupid and embarrassing, attitude that ignorance and qualified opinions are considered on a level. Look up “Isaac Asimov” along with “anti-intellectualism,” and you’ll easily find the piece.”

    None of which I brought up…so, I’m not sure why you felt compelled (other than lack of “winning” your argument by any other means) did you bring up Creation Museum or America and the rest of your quote.

    “This, though, is why I’m done reading you and 40YA: your ignorance is not on our level and deserves very little of our time. You may possess vast amounts of warped knowledge about your Bible, but I don’t care because from your presentation, it’s all based upon circular logic and arguments from authority, to be contrasted against what the scientific community is. You guys were worth our time when we were under the impression (because of our general goodwill toward people) that what you wanted was discussion instead of a pulpit on the internet. Now, we’re done, or at least I am.”

    This gets broken down into a couple pieces.

    You claim “warped knowledge” about the Bible. Okay, you may disagree with certain aspects about it, but do you study the Bible day in and out? Doubtful. Thus, where do YOU get the authority to claim that my knowledge is “warped” and yours is correct?

    I have always wanted a discussion and can point to where I have said so – because you can’t defend your position past opinion and want, you run…

    Cool.

    I should expect no further comment from you…since you claim that I am no longer worth your time.

  179. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:16 am 179.Lover said …

    Prime -

    “How to deal with a lion or bear when in the wilderness: try to make yourself look bigger than you are and yell a lot to try to scare it off.”

    EXACTLY my point!

    Thank you for making it! Lots of words by DPK, yet still didn’t answer the question did he?

    Nope.

  180. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:22 am 180.Prime said …

    Lover, recently, said …

    “You claim “warped knowledge” about the Bible. Okay, you may disagree with certain aspects about it, but do you study the Bible day in and out? Doubtful. Thus, where do YOU get the authority to claim that my knowledge is “warped” and yours is correct?”

    I don’t think you study the bible day in and out either. In fact, every bible study I’ve ever attended is more like an “overcoming doubts” meeting than a bible study–because if your findings don’t meet your preconceived ideas about the existence and “perfection” of God, then the whole point of the “study” it to warp your findings to match those ideas. That’s not a study. Entire bullshit universities like Lee and Liberty exist almost expressly for that purpose. It’s such a shame.

  181. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:25 am 181.Lover said …

    Prime -

    Question: Where do you get the authority?

    Your answer:

    “I don’t think you study the bible day in and out either. In fact, every bible study I’ve ever attended is more like an “overcoming doubts” meeting than a bible study–because if your findings don’t meet your preconceived ideas about the existence and “perfection” of God, then the whole point of the “study” it to warp your findings to match those ideas. That’s not a study. Entire bullshit universities like Lee and Liberty exist almost expressly for that purpose. It’s such a shame.”

    Okay, that’s the study YOU attended. However, this claim doesn’t 1) show how YOU are the authority to believe about the Bible. 2) how any of what I say is wrong or “bullshit” about the Bible. ( Since you can’t point to anything)

    Nothing I claim is to “overcome” doubt and never claimed is as such….

    So, again, why should I or any other believer believe YOU on how to interpret the Bible? Your post didn’t answer that…

  182. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:31 am 182.Prime said …

    Pigeon-shaped shoehorn, Lover.

  183. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:32 am 183.Prime said …

    In fact, you’re dangerously close to that full-body dry heave set to music all over again.

  184. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:35 am 184.DPK said …

    I was under the impression that what you wanted to know was what my definition of a “test” for a reasonable belief would be. That’s what I answered… the test would depend on what the belief being proposed was. Your claim of a dodge is a dodge. You have never addressed ANY of the direct challenges I have placed before you, in this thread or any other, except by trying to move the goalposts. Not surprising, I understand it’s the only option open to you other than to shrug your shoulders and admit that all you really have is a willingness to believe with absolutely no good reason. Which, I understand, is the definition of faith. The problem is you think of that as a virtue, I consider it a flaw.

  185. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:36 am 185.Prime said …

    A conversation with Lover:

    Lover: [Bunch of circular reasoning or other nonsense] You can’t prove I’m wrong!
    Me: I’m not reading your crap anymore. (though, obviously, I skim it)
    Lover: [Quotes me] You can’t prove that you shouldn’t talk to me.
    Me: “What?”
    Lover: [Quotes me] So I’m right! You can prove that you shouldn’t talk to me, so you should talk to me. [Inane details no one cares about, followed by pigeon-chessboard dance]
    Me: Snarky comment about something Lover wrote.
    Lover: YOU DO READ ME, so you’re a liar and thus can’t prove why you shouldn’t read me because you’re too busy being a hypocrite and reading me. [Pigeon dance]
    Me: :facepalm; [Writes this]
    Lover: [.... this should be good ....]

  186. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:48 am 186.Lover said …

    And again, here is prime putting words in my mouth. Cool. It makes you look good on here – which you care deeply about.

    Call me a liar, you admit to not reading my posts. So, how would you know?

    You keep addressing me, despite the fact I”m not worth your time.

    Keep showing your Bias…it’s not helping you.

  187. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:50 am 187.Lover said …

    DPK -

    “I was under the impression that what you wanted to know was what my definition of a “test” for a reasonable belief would be. That’s what I answered… the test would depend on what the belief being proposed was. ”

    In my post I asked you a direct question – should I repost it here, or will you go back and find it regarding facts and beliefs?

    Also:

    Please post two questions you feel I didn’t directly address and I will right now.

  188. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:52 am 188.Lover said …

    Here it is:

    “Either beliefs without facts CAN be reasonable they aren’t.

    Which is it DPK?

    Can beliefs without facts be reasonable?”

  189. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:53 am 189.Lover said …

    DPK

    I asked others, but since you wish me to answer you as well, I will hold off on mine until you 1) answer the question posed to you, 2) post two questions to me.

  190. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:55 am 190.Prime said …

    Ahhh, shit. Missed it. I knew the response would be something, but couldn’t put my finger on it. “Putting words in my mouth” and “not addressing my arguments.” Damn doing two things at once and missing the chance to predict that.

  191. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:56 am 191.Prime said …

    188.Lover said …

    “Here it is:
    “Either beliefs without facts CAN be reasonable they aren’t.
    Which is it DPK?
    Can beliefs without facts be reasonable?””

    This has got to be the most idiotic thing I’ve seen in a while. A perfect example of patently black and white thinking that appears AFTER a discussion of what typically constitutes reasonable belief. I assume you’re warming up your pigeon dance now.

  192. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:07 am 192.DPK said …

    “Either beliefs without facts CAN be reasonable they aren’t.

    uh.. sorry, that’s not a question.

    I assume you mean “Can a belief that is not supported by facts ever be reasonable?”

    Well, if you took the time to read anything I wrote, you would see that I did answer that, in depth. First, I explained that we ask for evidence, not always facts. So, it depends. Yes, a belief that is not supported by unquestionable facts but is supported by evidence can be reasonable. I gave (among other examples) the idea of gravity. The actual nature of gravity is not understood, so would you consider that a “fact” or an inference? No denying it exist. But there is no current way to discern if the “fact” of gravity is a natural law, or perhaps tiny angels flapping their wings. Which do you think it is.

    Your unanswered questions… let’s start with an easy 2. Is your god both omniscient and omnipotent? Does he know everything and can he do anything? Simple enough, huh?
    Then, is the bible the inerrant word of a perfect god? And in this case “perfect” is not defined as your moving target definition…let’s call perfect as everyone else in the world defines it: excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement: entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings.
    Go

  193. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:10 am 193.Lou(DFW) said …

    170.Lover said …

    “Funny too, how you are wasting your time with me on here, but not on the other post…

    I thought I wasn’t worth your precious time?”

    Herein lies the essence of Chris/Lover’s reason for being here. While he pretends to be here for “intellectual” discussion, his comments most often degenerate into juvenile taunts when he realizes that his arguments are no match for the likes of Prime and DPK.

    How long until he runs away again, only to start over?

  194. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:15 am 194.Lover said …

    DPK -

    Ah word games you play.

    You believe without facts, as you have stated then say: “First, I explained that we ask for evidence, not always facts. So, it depends. Yes, a belief that is not supported by unquestionable facts but is supported by evidence can be reasonable. I gave (among other examples) the idea of gravity. The actual nature of gravity is not understood, so would you consider that a “fact” or an inference?”

    I didn’t ask that did I? Nope, dodge. You stated you believed in things that weren’t backed by facts. Thus is one reasonable to believe in something not backed by facts? That was the question I clearly asked.

    No answer. I won’t press. You won’t answer.

    Okay, to your questions that I WILL answer:

    “Is your god both omniscient and omnipotent? Does he know everything and can he do anything? Simple enough, huh?”

    Is this two or one questions? I’ll answer both.

    Yes. and yes.

    Okay, so let’s move on….

    “Then, is the bible the inerrant word of a perfect god? And in this case “perfect” is not defined as your moving target definition…let’s call perfect as everyone else in the world defines it: excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement: entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings.”

    Well, this shows you haven’t read any of my posts about the inerrant Bible. OR you wouldn’t have asked the question as you did.

    1) beyond practical and theoretical improvement?

    How so? It’s job is to point to Jesus. Does it do so? Yes. What more do you believe it is supposed to do? And why are you correct in thinking it HAS TO do what you think it should?

    So, you still didn’t answer my question and I answered yours…

  195. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:15 am 195.Lover said …

    Shall I quote what you said? DPK? or do you remember what you wrote?

  196. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:16 am 196.Prime said …

    Lou(DFW), you didn’t answer anything Christlover said, so you don’t care about truth or logic. Sheesh.

    Check out my pigeon dance. It can do the robot.

  197. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:18 am 197.Lover said …

    “Lou(DFW), you didn’t answer anything Christlover said, so you don’t care about truth or logic. Sheesh.

    Check out my pigeon dance. It can do the robot.”

    Well, Lou did make a point that I didn’t answer HIS questions – so is it fair in only ONE direction?

    That is, it’s a problem if I don’t answer a questions, but yet Lou doesn’t have to?

    Dance away Prime!

    You’re good at it!

  198. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:19 am 198.Prime said …

    Lover, what makes YOU an authority enough on the Bible to know exactly what it’s real purpose is, given that about a bajillion people think it’s for other purposes than the one you learned at overcoming-doubt camp?

    How do you know you’re not wrong about what the Bible is for? You studied it? Critically? Considering it might have been written for different purposes? Examining the angle that your presumed purpose for it might be one you or someone you listen to tacked onto it?

  199. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:19 am 199.Prime said …

    197.Lover said …

    “Dance away Prime!
    You’re good at it!”

    The best part of this is that you honestly don’t realize how stupid it makes you look to have written that. Poor Christlover.

  200. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:30 am 200.Lover said …

    Prime -

    “Lover, what makes YOU an authority enough on the Bible to know exactly what it’s real purpose is, given that about a bajillion people think it’s for other purposes than the one you learned at overcoming-doubt camp?”

    I’ve’ never been to such a camp. I don’t even belong to a church. Guess that blows that theory of me out….

    “How do you know you’re not wrong about what the Bible is for? You studied it? Critically? Considering it might have been written for different purposes? Examining the angle that your presumed purpose for it might be one you or someone you listen to tacked onto it?”

    I’m don’t know that I’m wrong. I could be wrong. But the difference is, I STUDY the Bible. You don’t. If you did, you wouldn’t make the arguments you do. Nothing on here, do I see that makes me think I should even question my faith. I put forth an argument of logic regarding the last posted video – who ignores it? Not Christians – atheists. No one has yet ventured an argument against the logic…why? I don’t agree with EVERY Christian, so obviously I don’t just buy what comes down the pike – as my stance on homosexuality.

    I disagree with other Christians about things in the Bible, sure, but that doesn’t make the Bible wrong.

    Heck, I go on atheist blogs such as this to find arguments against it…yet find nothing but the same old arguments that have been ditched by serious scholars long ago.

    I COULD BE WRONG and I admit so. No one on here who’s an atheist have I seen admit as such.

    “The best part of this is that you honestly don’t realize how stupid it makes you look to have written that. Poor Christlover.”

    And here again, you are worried more about what people think than truth. I don’t care if you or anyone on here think I’m stupid or crazy or otherwise. If I beleive it’s the truth I will defend it as such until I am faced with something that truly challenges my belief – because I am interested in the truth.

    If I believe what I know is the truth, you would have me deny it, just to save face on here?

    If that what you do?

  201. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:32 am 201.Lover said …

    And Prime -

    ““How do you know you’re not wrong about what the Bible is for? You studied it? Critically? Considering it might have been written for different purposes? Examining the angle that your presumed purpose for it might be one you or someone you listen to tacked onto it?”

    I would ask the same as you, since you are the one that listed all those issues with the Bible – how do you know that you are right?

    Will you admit you could be wrong too?

    Or just save face on here?

  202. on 13 Jun 2012 at 11:06 am 202.Boz said …

    “Example: “I went to the store today.”
    Consequence for believing me even if I’m lying or wrong: none, so belief is reasonable.”

    Prime makes the above argument. It is ironic observing an atheist using a twisted version of Pascal’s wager.

  203. on 13 Jun 2012 at 11:42 am 203.Lover said …

    Boz -

    Good point.

    However, as we have seen Prime isn’t even interested in facts or logic:

    ““Lover, all I “proved” is that I’m not interested in what you had to say. What you had to say is not representative of or identical to “facts and logic,” even if it was factual and logical.”

    But since his belief has no “consequence” Prime is quite reasonable in his belief. After all, that’s why we believe things don’t we? Because we are worried about the consequence of our beliefs, NOT because they are based on facts and logic.

    And if facts and logic are used…we’ll just ignore them.

    But at least Prime did admit as such. I give him credit for that.

  204. on 13 Jun 2012 at 11:47 am 204.Lou(DFW) said …

    202.Boz said …

    “It is ironic observing an atheist using a twisted version of Pascal’s wager.”

    What’s ironic is observing a theist arguing with atheists while NEVER, EVER providing any evidence for his fictional god.

    Oh, wait – no it isn’t.

  205. on 13 Jun 2012 at 11:54 am 205.Lover said …

    “What’s ironic is observing a theist arguing with atheists while NEVER, EVER providing any evidence for his fictional god.”

    Ah, yes – and so far you have provided vast amounts of evidence AGAINST God correct?

    Besides, why discuss any evidence for God – Primes not interested in facts or logic.

    Perhaps you are?

    If so, then let’s look at the logic of the video posted under the last thread – I await your response there…

  206. on 13 Jun 2012 at 12:11 pm 206.Lou(DFW) said …

    203.Lover said …

    “After all, that’s why we believe things don’t we? Because we are worried about the consequence of our beliefs, NOT because they are based on facts and logic.”

    Chris/Lover, that’s what your beliefs are based upon – consequences, not facts and logic.

    My life isn’t based upon “beliefs.” I don’t “believe” in gravity because, in fact, it works. I don’t “believe” in god because, in fact, it doesn’t work. I don’t “believe” in evolution because, in fact, it works. I don’t “believe” in prayer because, in fact, it doesn’t work.

    It’s that simple.

    It doesn’t require an ancient goat-herders book of myth and superstition. It doesn’t require a threat of eternal punishment. It doesn’t require worshiping a supernatural being. It doesn’t require the acceptance of a zombie-savior.

    It’s that simple.

    All of these long tirades by the likes of you and 40YA are nothing but attempts to justify your belief in things that do not exist and attempts to debunk things that do exist. That is the essence of your religion.

    Religion had two purposes – to explain nature and control people. It no longer works for the former. But, sadly, it continues to control people like you.

  207. on 13 Jun 2012 at 12:26 pm 207.Lover said …

    lou -

    “Chris/Lover, that’s what your beliefs are based upon – consequences, not facts and logic.”

    Incorrect. my belief is NOT based on consequences – as you may wish it so.

    “All of these long tirades by the likes of you and 40YA are nothing but attempts to justify your belief in things that do not exist and attempts to debunk things that do exist. ”

    What am I trying to debunk that exists? I’m not aware that anything like this has occurred on my part.

    “I don’t “believe” in god because, in fact, it doesn’t work.”

    How would it work? How is it supposed to work? Do you have facts to back up your disbelief in God or not – i suspect not.

    In fact, I haven’t seen one of you on here actually defend your stance that God doesn’t exist – only make claims and misquote the Bible and attack other theists. Not once have I seen any actual defense of your belief.

    Except to say “It doesn’t work.”

    That’s not a defense, that’s a cop out.

    “It doesn’t require an ancient goat-herders book of myth and superstition”

    Here again, you are taking things out of context to suit YOUR purpose – however it isn’t factual. You are making facts up to shore up your belief.

    As I pointed out in the other thread – the Bible is written by over 40 DIFFERENT authors – and not all of them were goat-herders. Some where kings as well, others fisherman.

    Proof that it’s myth and superstition?

    You have none. Of you would have posted them already.

    “Religion had two purposes – to explain nature and control people”

    Religion maybe – but I don’t follow religion, nor do I have faith in it. I have faith in God and in Jesus and neither of those two are to “control” my life – I humbly submit to them, but I don’t expect you to understand why.

  208. on 13 Jun 2012 at 12:26 pm 208.Lover said …

    And of course Lou -

    Another post that disregards the logic that I presented in the other thread…

    Ignoring what you can’t answer to and misrepresenting what you can…

  209. on 13 Jun 2012 at 12:42 pm 209.Lou(DFW) said …

    207.Lover said …

    The pigeon just knocked over the chess pieces…

    “but I don’t follow religion, nor do I have faith in it. I have faith in God and in Jesus and neither of those two are to “control” my life – I humbly submit to them, but I don’t expect you to understand why.”

    But you’re not religious…right

    208.Lover said …

    And crapped all over the chess board.

    “Another post that disregards the logic that I presented in the other thread…”

    Saying that you aren’t religious and that you use logic doesn’t make it so. What you demonstrate is the opposite.

    Chris/Lover, nobody here has to argue with you or attempt to disprove what you post here anymore than anyone must debunk the idea that gravity doesn’t exist and that neither prayer nor astrology works.

    It’s that simple.

  210. on 13 Jun 2012 at 12:47 pm 210.Lou(DFW) said …

    200.Lover said …

    “I COULD BE WRONG and I admit so. No one on here who’s an atheist have I seen admit as such.”

    I admit it – you’re wrong.

  211. on 13 Jun 2012 at 12:52 pm 211.Lou(DFW) said …

    162.Lover said …

    “What do you expect the Bible to be? It’s meant to point to Jesus – it does that.

    What more?

    It’s not a manual for living.
    It’s not a science book.
    It’s not a history book.”

    After all the blustering b.s. of Chris/Lover, we’re back to this – why does Jesus/god require a book to reveal himself to us?

  212. on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:01 pm 212.Lover said …

    Lou -

    “But you’re not religious…right”

    Yep, got me there. Wow, what a point you just made.

    “Saying that you aren’t religious and that you use logic doesn’t make it so. What you demonstrate is the opposite.”

    ACtually I presented logic in the other thread – no one has yet disputed it. I showed that the video used faulty logic. Claiming I did the opposite without showing how doesn’t make it so.

    I did use logic and am still waiting for you or anyone to show my logic faulty…

    “Chris/Lover, nobody here has to argue with you or attempt to disprove what you post here anymore than anyone must debunk the idea that gravity doesn’t exist and that neither prayer nor astrology works”

    Correct, no one has to. However, if you are going to claim that my posts aren’t logical (as you just did) you should be able to back it up. But no, you don’t have to…but then again, if you could, you would.

    “I admit it – you’re wrong.”

    And again, I’ll ask on what evidence do you base your belief that God doesn’t exist? You have yet to provide any…which leaves us to think your belief is NOT based on facts nor logic.

    “After all the blustering b.s. of Chris/Lover, we’re back to this – why does Jesus/god require a book to reveal himself to us?”

    And I showed you that it wasn’t required – if you choose to not understand the difference, I can’t help that.

    Nor have you cited what more you expect for God to work…again, NO facts or logic for your belief. It’s just a belief and you are sure to hold onto it as long as you don’t think about it too much.

    But since you are dodging, I will just await in the other thread for you to address my logical argument – if you can.

  213. on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:03 pm 213.Lover said …

    Lou -

    You have not defended your belief – only pointed out what “faults” may be in others.

    Faults in MY belief doesn’t make your correct.

    If you have no foundation for your belief, then why do you believe it? Why won’t you defend it? Why shy away from questions and critique of your belief?

    Perhaps it isn’t as solid as you would want us to think…

  214. on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:07 pm 214.Lou(DFW) said …

    213.Lover said …

    “You have not defended your belief – only pointed out what “faults” may be in others.”

    What belief?

  215. on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:28 pm 215.azriel said …

    Yeah lover, what belief are you talking about?

  216. on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:59 pm 216.Lover said …

    Lou and Azriel,

    the belief that God doesn’t exist. and this is a belief..or if you wish call it knowledge…or just a claim…

    Either way you should be able to defend WHY you assert that God doesn’t exist…just saying it doesn’t make it so, does it?

    Can you do that?

  217. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:02 pm 217.Lou(DFW) said …

    216.Lover said …

    “the belief that God doesn’t exist. and this is a belief..or if you wish call it knowledge…or just a claim…”

    It’s not a belief, not a claim, not a knowledge.

    I do not believe in the existence of god. I am not making a statement of belief. I am stating the absence of belief. There is no claim that requires proof for my statement.

    Not believing in something is not a belief. I’m not required to defend everything that I DON’T BELIEVE IN. If we all did that, then that’s all we would be doing – defending an infinite number of things in which WE DON’T BELIEVE.

    Because you have have no “proof” for your claim, you are attempting to shift the burden of proof. So stop shifting the burden of proof, and provide it for YOUR CLAIM that god exists.

  218. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:07 pm 218.Lou(DFW) said …

    216.Lover said …

    “the belief that God doesn’t exist. and this is a belief..or if you wish call it knowledge…or just a claim…”

    Why can’t you understand the simple concept the lack of “knowledge” is not “knowledge?”

    Chris/Lover, if you can’t understand that, then at some point we must admit that we are wasting our time dealing with an irrational person. Irrational people are not worth the time to debate.

  219. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:13 pm 219.Lou(DFW) said …

    Now that Chris/Lover has returned, we’re back to where he started:

    1. God requires a book a to reveal himself to us.

    2. God is real unless we can prove that he isn’t.

    Isn’t it amazing how much he’s written that can be summarized into two sentences?

  220. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:18 pm 220.DPK said …

    194:
    “I didn’t ask that did I? Nope, dodge. You stated you believed in things that weren’t backed by facts. Thus is one reasonable to believe in something not backed by facts? That was the question I clearly asked.”

    The fact that you demand a black and white answer to a question that doesn’t have a black and white answer is typical of someone conditioned by dogmatic thinking, like you. But I have answered your question abundantly and in depth. The fact that you don’t comprehend the answer is not my fault.

    ““Is your god both omniscient and omnipotent? Does he know everything and can he do anything? Simple enough, huh?”

    Is this two or one questions? I’ll answer both.

    Yes. and yes.

    Good… it is one question, simply restated because I know you like to redefine terms to suit your conclusions, so I wanted to make sure you understood by what I meant by “omniscient and omnipotent.”
    Thank you for a concise answer. Unfortunately for you, that of course negates the concept of free will. I of course cannot be free to decide what I will do tomorrow if god already knows what I will do tomorrow. This is a problem for you, along of course with the problem of an omnipotent god who allows evil to exist. Spare us all your convoluted excuses, no theologian or philosopher has ever adequately reconciled these concepts. Your very definition of god is impossible.

    “Okay, so let’s move on….

    “Then, is the bible the inerrant word of a perfect god?”

    Nice dodge… you do exactly what you accuse me of doing. I didn’t ask you what you thought the bible’s purpose was… I asked you what, in this case, IS in fact a yes or no question. Is the bible the inerrant (contains no errors) word of a perfect (no flaws, defects or shortcomings). Is everything in the bible true and factual?
    Simple question… yes, or no?

  221. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:52 pm 221.Prime said …

    Oh snap, Christlover is one of those Jesus-believing not-religious people, i.e. someone who doesn’t know what the definition of “religion” is and who has bought into the post-modern idea that Christianity is a “relationship” and not a “religion.” Wrong. It’s a religion. It satisfies the definition, is the most commonly held religious position in the world, and is essentially universally acknowledged as such… except by young, hip believers (and some older folks upon whom the marketing worked) who want to try to take the stodgy flies-planes-into-buildings part of religion and separate their beliefs from that, even though their beliefs are, in essence, the foundation for that very behavior.

    Christlover, I haven’t revealed a disdain for logic, knowledge, or facts. I’ve only revealed a disdain for your presentation of logic, etc. You’re a presumptuous, and surprisingly self-centered, moron if you can’t tell the difference.

    Further, your critiques of my way of studying the bible are bogus. Yes, I’ve studied the bible. I even believed it when I started that process. I was just lucky enough to know better than to assume that everything in it must be correct from the outset, and the glaring problems became more and more apparent as I went on. I don’t study it much now, much like I don’t keep harping on the Iliad or Epic of Gilgamesh or Harry Potter novels, though I might read some of those occasionally (particularly the last) for their entertainment value, engaging nature, and ability to present moral and emotional challenges in a more meaningful way than the older books, including the bible.

    Boz: you’re as stupid as ever. Bless your little heart. A twisted version of Pascal’s wager…. I have to admit that I had to think about that one for almost a whole minute before I figured out what you’re accusing me of, and then I laughed a sad little laugh for you.

  222. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:53 pm 222.Prime said …

    Christlover: Your homework is to go look up “burden of proof” and read it for 100% as long as you would have posted on this blog for the next week. When you’ve done that, you can come back and post some more.

  223. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:00 pm 223.Lover said …

    “Christlover: Your homework is to go look up “burden of proof” and read it for 100% as long as you would have posted on this blog for the next week. When you’ve done that, you can come back and post some more.”

    Ah so it is this game. The burden of proof game.

    Again, never said I was here to Prove God – not my Job. However, I can and do defend my beleif and point out errors by you and others on here regarding faith, the Bible, etc.

    I’m not asking any to disprove God either – only defend their belief and their claims.

  224. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:04 pm 224.Lover said …

    Prime -

    I didn’t say you had a distain – I said you didn’t care about it. You quote says as much.

    “I don’t study it much now, ”

    So you know all there is to know about the Bible? Really? So the rest of the scholarly world can stop and just ask you questions?

    if don’t currently study the Bible now, then tell me how my critique would be wrong? You misunderstand parts of the Bible – you would, you don’t study the Bible.

    or as I stated, do you know all there is to know about the Bible?

    “Further, your critiques of my way of studying the bible are bogus.”

    I didn’t crituque your way of studying the Bible – which you don’t currently do, as you admit – I critiqued your CONCLUSIONS you arrive at from the Bible.

    There is quite a difference.

  225. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:06 pm 225.Lover said …

    DPK -

    “I know you like to redefine terms to suit your conclusions…”

    Example please of this? Then I will respond to the rest of your post.

    A quote would be nice so I can see where I changed the terms of something to suit my conclusion…

  226. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:09 pm 226.Prime said …

    223.Lover said …

    “Ah so it is this game. The burden of proof game.”

    This isn’t a game. This is how logical discussions work. If I was you at this point, I would say I’ve seen all your cards now and know that you don’t value or understand logical discussion.

    “So you know all there is to know about the Bible? Really? So the rest of the scholarly world can stop and just ask you questions?”

    Don’t be stupid. I know all I need to know about it to get on with my life. I know what it is: it’s a book of ancient fables and stories and theological ramblings. I don’t need to continue studying it ad nauseum because I don’t make the mistake of recognizing it as more than that. There are infinitely more valuable things to study deeply than old myths and ramblings.

    “I didn’t crituque your way of studying the Bible – which you don’t currently do, as you admit – I critiqued your CONCLUSIONS you arrive at from the Bible.
    There is quite a difference.”

    Never do this again. It’s the central reason you’re so fucking annoying.

  227. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:11 pm 227.Lover said …

    DPK -

    “Thank you for a concise answer. Unfortunately for you, that of course negates the concept of free will. I of course cannot be free to decide what I will do tomorrow if god already knows what I will do tomorrow. This is a problem for you, along of course with the problem of an omnipotent god who allows evil to exist. Spare us all your convoluted excuses, no theologian or philosopher has ever adequately reconciled these concepts. Your very definition of god is impossible”

    Okay – it doesn’t follow that because God KNOWS what you are going to do tomorrow that you don’t willingly chose it. His knowledge doesn’t change the fact you CHOSE it. He knows it’s a choice YOU are going to make and knows, under certain conditions what decisions you WILL make.

    If you disagree, please show how his knowledge of your actions negates your free will. You just state it, but don’t show it.

    Now, as for allowing evil to exist, this is no way and issue for and omnipotent God. because God is omnipotent, doesn’t mean he can’t allow for certain conditions or siuations to take place. You are trying to place an “ought to be” for his power. Well why then?

    Why would an all powerful God NOT allow for evil? Or more to the point, why MUST HE NOT allow for it?

  228. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:16 pm 228.Lover said …

    Prime -

    “This isn’t a game. This is how logical discussions work.”

    Correct, however you haven’t addressed any issues…in fact you admit to not reading my posts and don’t care if they ARE logical and or factual.

    What issue specifically would like addressed? pick on, and we will discuss it logically as you wish.

    “Don’t be stupid. I know all I need to know about it to get on with my life. I know what it is: it’s a book of ancient fables and stories and theological ramblings. I don’t need to continue studying it ad nauseum because I don’t make the mistake of recognizing it as more than that. There are infinitely more valuable things to study deeply than old myths and ramblings.”

    Again, I will ask then on what authority should we beleive you about this conclusion you draw regarding the Bible?

    This could be our first logical discussion: why is YOUR view of the Bible correct?

    “Never do this again. It’s the central reason you’re so fucking annoying.”

    And yet you continue to waste your precious time with me…

    And never do what? Critique your conclusions? Why?

  229. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:20 pm 229.Prime said …

    Lover, free will doesn’t even require ramblings about God to be incoherent. It’s been dashed upon the rocks of understanding, just like so many heads of babes.

    Again, you need to look up burden of proof. Denying that there is free will is not a claim that needs support. Demonstrating, beyond an appeal to personal experience, which is very, very imprecise and misguided, that you have free will is necessary. You cannot do that, though. You cannot explain why you think what you think, how you thought it, or what caused you to think it. Your thoughts are beyond your control until you become consciously aware of them, and you cannot choose to think of anything until you think of it. By extension, you cannot choose to do anything until you think to do it, save autonomic functions and reflexes, which you don’t choose to do anyway and only become aware of relatively long after they happen.

    If we throw an omniscient and omnipotent God into the mix, disproving the existence of free will is insanely easy. It should be homework for you, in fact.

  230. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:22 pm 230.Prime said …

    Re: the bible.

    I claim it’s a book of stories, etc. That is clear and obvious. All one has to do is pick it up and see: it is a book, and it contains stories, etc.

    You claim that it is more. I don’t have to disprove that; you have to prove it. Until then, I’m justified by default.

    Again, the f-ing burden of proof thing. Didn’t I tell you to stop wasting your time on here until you’ve read up on it?

  231. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:23 pm 231.Prime said …

    I’ll remind you also that you tried previously to prove that the bible is more than a book of stories, and you got your crap so thoroughly destroyed that you fixed a drain and disappeared for weeks before resurfacing under a different handle.

  232. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:40 pm 232.Lou(DFW) said …

    227.Lover said …

    “Why would an all powerful God NOT allow for evil?”

    An “all powerful God” would allow for it if he is evil.

    “Or more to the point, why MUST HE NOT allow for it?”

    Because an “all powerful God” would not prevent evil if he is not loving.

  233. on 13 Jun 2012 at 5:04 pm 233.Lover said …

    Lou -

    “because an “all powerful God” would not prevent evil if he is not loving.”

    But if he prevents evil, then I don’t have a choice to be evil do I? If I am to have free will, i MUST be free to be evil – yet, if God ALWAYS stops me from being evil, then do I have free will?

    Do parents, who love their child, allow for their child to do bad things? And yet we still say they are loving – in fact the love of a parent is one of the most powerful loves in the world – yet parents let their children be free and choose to be bad and “evil.”

    so you want God deny our free will and stop us from choosing evil?

  234. on 13 Jun 2012 at 5:08 pm 234.Lover said …

    Prime -

    “I’m justified by default.”

    LOL.

    really? Gonna hang your hat on that?

    Won’t even try, huh?

    Sounds real secure in your belief. Won’t defend your own position…

  235. on 13 Jun 2012 at 5:11 pm 235.Lover said …

    Prime -

    “f we throw an omniscient and omnipotent God into the mix, disproving the existence of free will is insanely easy. ”

    So are you taking the Sam Harris view that we don’t have free will?

  236. on 13 Jun 2012 at 5:12 pm 236.Lover said …

    prime -

    let me add.

    We are throwing in God – now please show how God knowing what I am going to do disproves my free will.

    You said it was easy, so you should be able to now. Or will this be another claim that I MUST have to prove otherwise.

  237. on 13 Jun 2012 at 5:13 pm 237.Ben said …

    Lover,

    They don’t defend their claims because they cannot using the same criteria they require of others. I have run into this before. They quickly change the subject

  238. on 13 Jun 2012 at 5:13 pm 238.Prime said …

    234.Lover said …

    “Prime -
    “I’m justified by default.”
    LOL.
    really? Gonna hang your hat on that?
    Won’t even try, huh?
    Sounds real secure in your belief. Won’t defend your own position…”

    Seriously. Go learn how the burden of proof works and stop wasting our time until you do.

  239. on 13 Jun 2012 at 5:15 pm 239.Prime said …

    235.Lover said …

    “So are you taking the Sam Harris view that we don’t have free will?”

    This is not only a “Sam Harris view.” Outside of theology, it’s becoming generally accepted that free will is an illusion.

  240. on 13 Jun 2012 at 5:16 pm 240.Lover said …

    Prime -

    “I’ll remind you also that you tried previously to prove that the bible is more than a book of stories, and you got your crap so thoroughly destroyed that you fixed a drain and disappeared for weeks before resurfacing under a different handle.”

    I’ll have to go read back on those posts as I’m sure it’s pretty easy to argue a side when there aren’t responses and feel that you have made great arguments.

    The truth is: I read NOTHING on the post AFTER I posted that i was fixing a drain and didn’t come back on until Lover – so, no.

    But again, arguing one side without retort is easy – glad you had fun doing it.

  241. on 13 Jun 2012 at 5:16 pm 241.Prime said …

    I’m not doing your homework for you. You can cheat and look it up. It’s all over the web, and it’s already been presented a few times (at least) on the comments on various posts on this blog.

  242. on 13 Jun 2012 at 5:19 pm 242.Lover said …

    Lou -

    “I do not believe in the existence of god. I am not making a statement of belief. I am stating the absence of belief. There is no claim that requires proof for my statement.

    Not believing in something is not a belief. I’m not required to defend everything that I DON’T BELIEVE IN. If we all did that, then that’s all we would be doing – defending an infinite number of things in which WE DON’T BELIEVE.”

    “There is no claim that requires proof for my statement.”

    “I do not believe in the existence of God.”

    Why? Can you justify your “lack” of belief?

    “I’m not required to defend everything that I DON’T BELIEVE IN.”

    But there are justifications for such – I have reasons why I don’t’ believe in Santa, which is WHY I don’t believe in Santa – do you for God?

    Or you just say” I don’t believe” and have no justification for such a statement?

  243. on 13 Jun 2012 at 5:20 pm 243.Lover said …

    Lou -

    And SINCE you say it’s not a statement of knowledge, you then must admit that God could VERY WELL exist, as since you don’t KNOW that he doesn’t, then he could.

    So, Lou, could God exist?

  244. on 13 Jun 2012 at 5:25 pm 244.Prime said …

    242.Lover said …

    “Why? Can you justify your “lack” of belief?”

    FFS go look up the burden of proof thing and stop making a fool of yourself. You want us to read what you write? Make it worth reading!

    My PhD advisor once sat me down in his office and bitched me out, and hard. The conclusion: Be thankful anyone will ever read anything you write. Prove it by doing your best to make it worth their time.

  245. on 13 Jun 2012 at 5:30 pm 245.Lou(DFW) said …

    233.Lover said …

    “Do parents, who love their child, allow for their child to do bad things? And yet we still say they are loving – in fact the love of a parent is one of the most powerful loves in the world – yet parents let their children be free and choose to be bad and “evil.”

    That is a faulty analogy. If your pre-teen daughter was being savagely gang-raped, and you had the power to stop it, would you stop it because you love her or would you allow it to happen in the name of free-will?

    “so you want God deny our free will and stop us from choosing evil?”

    Here you again, re-framing the discussion.

    If there’s not evil, then we couldn’t choose it. Choices can’t be limited by something that doesn’t exist.

    If I went to an ice cream store that serves every ice cream flavor that there is, is it limiting my choice by not having a flavor that doesn’t exist?

  246. on 13 Jun 2012 at 5:35 pm 246.Lou(DFW) said …

    242.Lover said …

    “Why? Can you justify your “lack” of belief?”

    Yes – there’s no empirical evidence for god.

    “But there are justifications for such – I have reasons why I don’t’ believe in Santa, which is WHY I don’t believe in Santa – do you for God?”

    Yes, but again, I’m not required to defend or justify everything that I don’t believe anymore than you are.

    “Or you just say” I don’t believe” and have no justification for such a statement?”

    No, I don’t. There’s no empirical evidence for god or Santa, so I don’t believe in them.

  247. on 13 Jun 2012 at 5:37 pm 247.Lou(DFW) said …

    243.Lover said …

    “And SINCE you say it’s not a statement of knowledge, you then must admit that God could VERY WELL exist, as since you don’t KNOW that he doesn’t, then he could.

    So, Lou, could God exist?”

    No, in my opinion the “God of the Bible” cannot exist anymore than can Santa Claus.

  248. on 13 Jun 2012 at 5:40 pm 248.Lou(DFW) said …

    237.Has-Ben said …

    “They don’t defend their claims because they cannot using the same criteria they require of others. I have run into this before. They quickly change the subject”

    And we “have run into” you lying about what we post on this blog.

  249. on 13 Jun 2012 at 6:25 pm 249.Prime said …

    I wonder if God created us this way on purpose, as biospheres for microbes….
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/health/human-microbiome-project-decodes-our-100-trillion-good-bacteria.html?_r=2&hpw

  250. on 13 Jun 2012 at 7:09 pm 250.Lou(DFW) said …

    233.Lover said …

    “Do parents, who love their child, allow for their child to do bad things? And yet we still say they are loving – in fact the love of a parent is one of the most powerful loves in the world – yet parents let their children be free and choose to be bad and “evil.”

    How many of those loving parents of children who choose to be “bad and evil” submit those children to damnation and torture?

    If your neighbor’s child did something “bad and evil,” and then locked that child into a closet without food, water, or toilet facilities for a month while beating the child daily, is that justified? What would you do if you had the power to stop it? Would you report the parent to the authorities? Why or why not?

  251. on 13 Jun 2012 at 7:18 pm 251.DPK said …

    “If you disagree, please show how his knowledge of your actions negates your free will. You just state it, but don’t show it.”

    The concept is quite simple. Fore knowledge requires certainty. If an action is certain, it cannot be changed. If god knows that tomorrow I will murder my neighbor, I cannot choose not to murder my neighbor without falsifying god’s perfect knowledge. Likewise, god cannot change his mind.. he cannot be all powerful. If god knows that for example, he will be here at the end of the world to judge us, he cannot decide to end his own existence and not be here for that. Therefore he is not all powerful. On the other hand, if he CAN decided to change what will happen, he cannot know what will happen, because he can decide to change it. It’s very simple really… the idea of fore knowledge and free will are mutually exclusive. So, fail.

    Now, as for allowing evil to exist, this is no way and issue for and omnipotent God. because God is omnipotent, doesn’t mean he can’t allow for certain conditions or siuations to take place. You are trying to place an “ought to be” for his power. Well why then?

    Why would an all powerful God NOT allow for evil? Or more to the point, why MUST HE NOT allow for it?
    Because you said he is perfect. A perfect being would not allow evil to exist if he had the power to stop it. If you had the power to end starvation but refused to do so, you would not be all good and you would not be perfect. Your god not only allowed for evil… he created it, because he created everything. And, he created it with foreknowledge of exactly the suffering it would create. That is evil. If evil exists, it is because god created it… by your standards, anyway. Free will is a circular dodge… there may be an infinite number of realities we cannot choose because they do not exist. Does god deny my free will because I cannot choose to tele-port myself to distant galaxies? God did not make this possible. Has he then denied me the free will to do so? But he specifically created evil, but not faster than light tele-portation? Hmm…
    Nope, a perfect all loving god who is all powerful and all knowing cannot coincide with a world were randomness or free will exist… not possible

    Now, dodger… is the bible the inerrant word of a perfect god, or is it not?

  252. on 14 Jun 2012 at 1:46 am 252.Dez said …

    I think one of the cutest and naive beliefs here is atheist who believe they are so intelligent and omniscient. This carries over to the point that in their mind the deity should think and act as they would.

    Does it get any more arrogant? I would think just the opposite. If a deity did act as the atheist, then it would not be a deity and our very existence would be snuffed out.

  253. on 14 Jun 2012 at 2:07 am 253.alex said …

    “I think one of the cutest and naive beliefs here is atheist who believe they are so intelligent and omniscient.”

    who said that? i’m the dumbest atheist in here, but I don’t believe in a nonsensical god. theists just love to point out irrelevant shit, hoping and hoping that the focus shifts from their delusion.

    ok, bring it back out. what do i bring to the table? ….nothing,.. but common sense to call out your dangerous beliefs and maybe, just maybe, to get some people thinking.

  254. on 14 Jun 2012 at 2:15 am 254.alex said …

    “Does it get any more arrogant? I would think just the opposite.”

    You must be the Jesus rep. We all just need to listen to you because you have an advanced degree? Because you had an experience you’d like to share? Because you really can’t think for yourself, but rather dimly, repeat the J&C Company line.

    C’mon, no cheating. Write something clever, no c/p.

  255. on 14 Jun 2012 at 3:20 am 255.Lou(DFW) said …

    252.Dez said …

    “This carries over to the point that in their mind the deity should think and act as they would.”

    As opposed to the theists who in their mind thinks that should a deity exists?

    “Does it get any more arrogant? I would think just the opposite. If a deity did act as the atheist, then it would not be a deity and our very existence would be snuffed out.”

    Your “very existence will be snuffed out,” and it won’t require a deity, not even one acting like an atheist nor a theist.

  256. on 14 Jun 2012 at 3:23 am 256.DPK said …

    252.Dez said …
    I think one of the cutest and naive beliefs here is atheist who believe they are so intelligent and omniscient.

    It doesn’t matter one bit what you think is cute or naive. It is not a question of god behaving the way I want him too, it is that god as defined by Lover is an absolute contradiction of terms that simply cannot be. Perhaps you have a different definition of god? Do you agree with Chris that god is BOTH all knowing and all powerful? If so, please explain the paradox and refrain from making witless inferences drawn from a lie you fabricated in the first place. Where did any atheist here ever claim they are omniscient? If you cannot produce such a statement, then your observation is nothing more than a lie. Typical.

  257. on 14 Jun 2012 at 3:50 am 257.Lou(DFW) said …

    256.DPK said …

    “Where did any atheist here ever claim they are omniscient? If you cannot produce such a statement, then your observation is nothing more than a lie. Typical.”

    Right – suddenly Diz and Has-Ben reappear to comment with outright lies.

  258. on 14 Jun 2012 at 4:15 am 258.Prime said …

    257.Lou(DFW) said …

    “Right – suddenly Diz and Has-Ben reappear to comment with outright lies.”

    They were hypnotized by Christlover’s pigeon dance up until the moment he shut up again, probably just for the night. During the intermission, they got bored and decided to shovel some of the pigeon poop off the board and into the air.

  259. on 14 Jun 2012 at 10:56 am 259.A said …

    Dez,

    Would that not be what you would expect? Atheist making the claims “God doesn’t act as X therefore he cannot exist”?

    They see themselves as intelligent and that all intelligence would act and rspond as they would. It is ultimate ignorance wrapped in arrogance.

    Of course the wise realize God would not act as man. That would be the last thing we need.

  260. on 14 Jun 2012 at 11:52 am 260.Lou(DFW) said …

    259.ASStrophysicist said …

    “Would that not be what you would expect? Atheist making the claims “God doesn’t act as X therefore he cannot exist”?”

    As opposed to theists making claims for a god for which they NEVER, EVER provide evidence?

    “They see themselves as intelligent and that all intelligence would act and rspond as they would.”

    No, we see you as ignorant, and you act and respond as ignorance does.

    “It is ultimate ignorance wrapped in arrogance.”

    The ultimate arrogance is for theists to think that you were designed and created by a supernatural being with whom you have a personal relationship, but with whom we don’t.

    “Of course the wise realize God would not act as man.”

    Man was not made in God’s image? (Who is “of course the wise?”)

    “That would be the last thing we need.”

    What we “need” is evidence for your imaginary god that you NEVER, EVER provide.

  261. on 14 Jun 2012 at 12:44 pm 261.DPK said …

    Is that supposed to be an answer to the paradox presented by the idea of god’s fore knowledge of events negating the concept of free will? That I’m arrogant?
    Seriously? That’s not an answer. That’s not even an attempt at an answer… that’s all you have? Aren’t you even going to try and throw the standard shit at us about god not being bound by the constraints of logic or time? That he can know what will happen without affecting our free will because he can?
    Your not even going to try huh?

  262. on 14 Jun 2012 at 1:00 pm 262.Lou(DFW) said …

    258.Prime said …

    “They were hypnotized by Christlover’s pigeon dance up until the moment he shut up again, probably just for the night.”

    He’s watching the video over and over again trying to find some way to recover from all the stupid comments that he posted about it.

  263. on 14 Jun 2012 at 1:57 pm 263.DPK said …

    More likely he’s praying for inspiration from the Holy Ghost on how to deal with the infidels.

  264. on 14 Jun 2012 at 2:00 pm 264.DPK said …

    Curious too that Curm and Boz and the other evolution deniers never jumped on Chris when he claimed that homosexuality is not a sin. Seems like they don’t really care WHAT you actually believe about god and what the bible commands, as long as you believe something. That would be why they see atheists are far more of a threat than religious suicide bombers and terrorists. It’s a curious bubble they live in, indeed.

  265. on 14 Jun 2012 at 2:42 pm 265.Prime said …

    I think he’s working on sharpening his “no true argument” dodge.

  266. on 14 Jun 2012 at 6:52 pm 266.A said …

    “Seriously? That’s not an answer. That’s not even an attempt at an answer… that’s all you have?”

    You seriously thought I was answering a question. I didn’t even see one. Wow, what more arrogance.

    No DPK, I made an observation about atheists to Dez. That is all.

    As Prime so eloquently put and I paraphrase. All the answers to the questions you seek have been answered numerous time and are available all over the web.

    Now the question Curmudgon posed on the other thread is priceless and I would really see you attempt to answer that. You keep dancing away. You NEVER EVER answer that question :)

  267. on 14 Jun 2012 at 6:55 pm 267.A said …

    “They were hypnotized by Christlover’s pigeon dance up until the moment he shut up again, probably just for the night.”

    Ldfw, it probably that he has a life and a job and cannot monitor WWGHA 24/7 like you can. Its not like he needed help.

    :)

  268. on 14 Jun 2012 at 7:26 pm 268.Lou(DFW) said …

    267.ASStrophysicist said …

    “Ldfw, it probably that he has a life and a job and cannot monitor WWGHA 24/7 like you can.”

    Right…it COULDN’T be that he realized the stupidity of his comments and the strength of the arguments against his comments…nah, it COULDN’T be that. NOooo, nobody can be wrong if they believe in god.

    “Its not like he needed help.”

    Not from the likes of you.

  269. on 14 Jun 2012 at 7:32 pm 269.DPK said …

    “You seriously thought I was answering a question. I didn’t even see one. Wow, what more arrogance.”

    No, I didn’t “seriously” think you were answering a question… LOL. I knew what you were doing… making an observation based on a flat out lie… that atheists believe they are omnipotent. I was just calling you out for being a liar… that’s all.
    I have no delusions about your inability or unwillingness to answer questions, primarily because you HAVE no answers.

  270. on 14 Jun 2012 at 7:46 pm 270.DPK said …

    Sorry… you said atheists believed they are omniscient, not omnipotent. Still a lie, just wanted to call you on the correct one.

  271. on 14 Jun 2012 at 7:47 pm 271.Lou(DFW) said …

    266.A said …

    “Now the question Curmudgon posed on the other thread is priceless and I would really see you attempt to answer that. You keep dancing away. You NEVER EVER answer that question :)”

    Yeah, DPK, you remember, don’t you? That “other” question on that “other” thread.

    He would like to see you answer that, but he wouldn’t reference it here and now so you can.

  272. on 14 Jun 2012 at 8:15 pm 272.A said …

    “Sorry… you said atheists believed they are omniscient, not omnipotent. Still a lie, just wanted to call you on the correct one.”

    Great DPK. I am an honorable man. Prove me wrong and I will apologize.

    Will you provide proof that I am wrong or will you run again? It took you (2) attempts to even get the quote right.

    I predict run.

  273. on 14 Jun 2012 at 8:50 pm 273.Lou(DFW) said …

    272.ASStrophysicist said …

    “Great DPK. I am an honorable man. Prove me wrong and I will apologize.”

    Yeah, and he’s an astrophysicist, too!

  274. on 14 Jun 2012 at 9:31 pm 274.40 year Atheist said …

    So, let’s do this:

    Atheists: There is physical evidence at Lourdes: show us how you falsify it empirically, OK? Surely science will rescue your ideology, yes? Or maybe you just choose to declare it “not evidence”, and move far away from it quietly and rapidly?

    Let’s see some data.

  275. on 14 Jun 2012 at 9:37 pm 275.alex said …

    “Atheists: There is physical evidence at Lourdes”

    What? More cut and paste? Why don’t you declare the bullshit and I’ll call it like it is. I know your game, and it’s an endless link list.

    Santa’s physical evidence at the North Pole!

  276. on 14 Jun 2012 at 10:13 pm 276.Lou(DFW) said …

    274.40 year Atheist said …

    “Let’s see some data.”

    Let’s see some evidence.

  277. on 14 Jun 2012 at 10:37 pm 277.Lover said …

    Wow, lots of post – see what I can get to.

    This stuck out:

    “This is not only a “Sam Harris view.” Outside of theology, it’s becoming generally accepted that free will is an illusion.”

    But do YOU subscribe to it was the question.

    Do you?

  278. on 14 Jun 2012 at 10:39 pm 278.Lover said …

    DPK -

    Your contention seems to be that God’s knowledge of future events is CAUSAL of those events. However, you didn’t show how or why this has to be.

    Say I am going to pick a letter from the alphabet. Any one of them, at random. Now, God knows which letter I’m going to ultimately choose. However, despite this knowledge I am 1) still free to chose ANY letter of the alphabet. 2) his knowledge does not effect my choice. 3) I’m not even influence by his knowledge of my choice (as I don’t know what he knows).

    So where is my freewill negated?

    Now, you might say – But you CAN’T choose something other than what God knows. But this is an incorrect way of looking at it. The fact is I WON’T choose other than what God knows. Quite a difference.

    Let’s take God out of the equation for a second.

    Say I chose the letter D.

    Since, as you believe, there is no God, my freewill is intact. As I was free to chose ANY other letter in the alphabet, so I chose D.

    Now, putting God back into the picture. Is my freewill negated?

    No. I still could have chosen ANY letter at all. I wasn’t forced to chose D. I could have picked A – but I didn’t, I chose D.

    God knew I would pick D, yet this knowledge doesn’t stop me from choosing any other letter, because I wasn’t going to chose any other letter.

    To defend your position, you’ll have to show a causal relation and a restrictive as one as well.

    Now, all of this, so far, only argues on the premise that everything that happens is ONLY what COULD happen. We aren’t even into the potentiality of what COULD happen, given certain circumstances. Should we include that, we now could state that God – being ALL KNOWING would know every POSSIBLE outcome of my choices in any and all given situations. Thus, should something unforeseen by me – I do not choose D, but choose A instead, God would have known that under that other circumstance I would have chosen A.

    And yet, I am still free to choose ANY letter that I wish, as my choice is not contingent upon His knowing what I will pick.

    Such as your example – “If god knows that tomorrow I will murder my neighbor, I cannot choose not to murder my neighbor without falsifying god’s perfect knowledge.”

    it’s not that you CAN’T chose not to, it’s that you WON’T chose not to.

  279. on 14 Jun 2012 at 10:40 pm 279.Lover said …

    lou -

    “How many of those loving parents of children who choose to be “bad and evil” submit those children to damnation and torture?

    If your neighbor’s child did something “bad and evil,” and then locked that child into a closet without food, water, or toilet facilities for a month while beating the child daily, is that justified? What would you do if you had the power to stop it? Would you report the parent to the authorities? Why or why not?”

    You didn’t answer the question.

    Please answer the question first, then we can move on to these other questions…and I’m blamed for moving goalposts?

  280. on 14 Jun 2012 at 10:51 pm 280.Lover said …

    DPK -

    Here’s to your evil…

    “Why would an all powerful God NOT allow for evil? Or more to the point, why MUST HE NOT allow for it?
    Because you said he is perfect. A perfect being would not allow evil to exist if he had the power to stop it. If you had the power to end starvation but refused to do so, you would not be all good and you would not be perfect.”

    I submit this to you.

    without God evil doesn’t. So, given that, we can move on.

    1) An ALL LOVING God would give his creation free-will. that is ability and allowance to chose without restraint.

    2) To have complete free will without restrain, I MUST be able to chose AGAINST God’s wants and desires.

    3) God does NOT desire evil. (which I would argue is the opposite nature of God)

    4) Because God has granted me free-will without restraint, I am ABLE and ALLOWED to chose evil if I want to.

    5) Therefor and all loving God allows for evil as part of free will.

    Because evil exists is because we CHOOSE it. If we didn’t CHOOSE it, it wouldn’t matter. We HAVE to be allowed to go against God’s wishes and BE evil.

    Even your example shows that 1) we CHOSE evil.

    All the evil in the world you see? OUR DOING, not God’s.

    Now, your arguments assumes God should clean up the mess we make, to NOT let our decisions and actions have consequences.

    That’s all loving to you?

    And all loving God would stop YOU from making a decsion YOU wanted to do? then you wouldn’t have free will, would you? Nope. Only ALLOWANCE as GRANTED.

    So why would allowance as granted be more perfect and loving then letting us be bad and evil toward one another?

    See we AREN’T perfect and your example just helps prove that point.

    You can’t know PERFECTION without IMPERFECTION to be compared against.

    God is PERFECT because he is perfect in his nature and actions and isn’t evil.

    We aren’t – as shown by the evil we do.

    But, you think God should clean up our mess evidentally, because that’s what an all loving God does – clean up messes we imperfect people create -so we don’t have to see the consequences of our actions.

  281. on 14 Jun 2012 at 10:56 pm 281.Lou(DFW) said …

    279.Lover said …

    “You didn’t answer the question.

    Please answer the question first, then we”

    Yes I did. My answer was that evil shouldn’t be an available choice, one for which we are eternally damned to punishment if we choose. So what I would want of a god as you describe it is not have a choice of evil at all.

    If you have young children, do you provide them with alcohol and allow them to choose to drink it? Of course not.

    Would you provide a gun to them and allow one to shoot the other if they want to? Of course not.

    Would you provide your children with a safe home or kick them to the curb?

    If a gunman who threatens my life demands my wallet and I give it to him, is that free choice?

    If I give my neighbor money to repair his car, is that free choice?

    Choosing to do an “evil” thing, in and of itself, is free choice.

  282. on 14 Jun 2012 at 10:58 pm 282.Lou(DFW) said …

    We should expect at least as much from a god as we do of our parents.

  283. on 14 Jun 2012 at 10:59 pm 283.Lover said …

    Lou -

    ““I do not believe in the existence of god. I am not making a statement of belief. I am stating the absence of belief. There is no claim that requires proof for my statement.

    Not believing in something is not a belief.”

    “I do not believe in the existence of god.”

    can be written

    “I believe God doesn’t exist.”

    Anyway, thanks for giving me an out here lou because of how you worded your sentence I will word mine as such

    “I don’t believe God doesn’t exist.”

    I am stating the absence of belief as well. Thus I am not making a claim that requires proof for my statement.

    Also -

    “No, in my opinion the “God of the Bible” cannot exist anymore than can Santa Claus.”

    So, YOU – Lou – ADMIT that 1) you are NOT making a statement of knowledge about the existence of God – nor a belief. 2) you ONLY hold an opinion that God cannot exist.

    Well, given as such Lou, you logically nor actually make statements such as follows.

    “God doesn’t exist.” – this is a statement of fact, requiring defense…but you don’t “believe” this statement, so for you to say it is silly.

    Or any statement as such that denote knowledge or claims fact.

    Should you make such statements, you DO then have to back such statement up – or we can disregard your statement altogether and treat it the same as if you said, “the color blue sucks>”

    because opinion is all you have just left yourself.

    In ANY argument or discussion regarding God’s existence you are ONLY arguing from a point of opinion.

  284. on 14 Jun 2012 at 11:01 pm 284.Lover said …

    Lou -

    “We should expect at least as much from a god as we do of our parents.”

    Then you agree with me that God MUST allow for us to chose evil…as parents when their children reach 18 and let them out of the house (even before then) allow for the same do they not?

  285. on 14 Jun 2012 at 11:03 pm 285.Lover said …

    Lou -

    “Yes I did. My answer was that evil shouldn’t be an available choice, one for which we are eternally damned to punishment if we choose. So what I would want of a god as you describe it is not have a choice of evil at all.”

    This contradicts your statement I quoted above.

    If I CANT chose evil, then I don’t really have choices – as I am then ONLY left with choices that ONLY God wants me to chose – is that still free will?

    Should a loving parent ONLY let a child choose what the parent WANTS the child to choose?

  286. on 14 Jun 2012 at 11:05 pm 286.Lover said …

    “one for which we are eternally damned to punishment if we choose. ”

    So here is the crux of your issue Lou.

    You don’t want there to be CONSEQUNCES for your choices.

    You don’t WANT free will then Lou.

    Every choice we make has a consequnce…some positive, some negative.

    If you only want positive consequences – then you do not support nor want free will. As to remove the choice to do bad to someone or something stupid, reduces us to ALLOWANCE as DIRECTED.

    Should parents do the same?

  287. on 14 Jun 2012 at 11:11 pm 287.alex said …

    lover, your god & bible are bullshit. i tire of your wordplay. you have nothing on me. you and i are both gonna die and that’s it. it’s a short life. let the gays wed. ease up on the muslims, jews, mormons, and atheists. keep creationism to yourself. quit posting signs and don’t put the bible in the hotels. just try to be cool. why can’t you? because your delusion won’t let you. you think you’ll go to hell if you don’t do the things you do…..so, people are going to keep fuckin with you. me included.

  288. on 14 Jun 2012 at 11:15 pm 288.Lover said …

    Lou -

    “”So what I would want of a god as you describe it is not have a choice of evil at all.””

    But this is a matter of opinion not of whether or not God is perfect for allowing evil.

    just because YOU don’t want it, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be allowed to exist.

    We only know what wrong and evil is BECAUSE we see the consequence of it, because we are free to CHOOSE it over God’s will.

    Remember God’s will ISN’T that we chose evil, but love.

    But freedom has it’s risk…for sure.

  289. on 14 Jun 2012 at 11:17 pm 289.Lover said …

    “you and i are both gonna die and that’s it. it’s a short life.”

    “because your delusion won’t let you. you think you’ll go to hell if you don’t do the things you do…..so, people are going to keep fuckin with you. me included.”

    1) you don’t know what I believe or why I believe it.

    2) I am honored that you feel the need to keep fucking with me during your short life!

  290. on 14 Jun 2012 at 11:19 pm 290.alex said …

    lover says….

    you some kind of smug blog dear abby? blasting away with your nonsensical logic. you pick up on a word or a sentence fragment and you twist it around, reframing it against some faulty premises?

    please, don’t start that shit about where? when? who? how? fuck all that shit. these arguments always degrade to she said, i said, blah, blah.

    your god is not even slightly compelling, otherwise these endless arguments aren’t. save your shit for somebody else.

  291. on 14 Jun 2012 at 11:20 pm 291.Lover said …

    Alex -

    Are you really gonna look back when your old, and nearing the end of your short life and say,” I’m so glad I spent so much time fucking with that guy Lover on that blog! That was time, during my short life, well fucking spent! Oh, you should have read the things I say to that delusional fella! Oh, you know, I could have done other things during that time, but no…fucking with Lover was how I wanted to spend that time – in this short life. I’m so glad I did it.”

    Well, if you do Alex, I hope you do enjoy the little time you have fucking with me…

  292. on 14 Jun 2012 at 11:21 pm 292.alex said …

    ” I am honored that you feel the need to keep fucking with me during your short life!”

    beat up a fag, kid, or woman around me and see what happens.

  293. on 14 Jun 2012 at 11:22 pm 293.Lover said …

    Alex -

    “save your shit for somebody else.”

    You do know that just because I post it you don’t have to read it, right?

    I mean, if you don’t want to read what I post…then don’t.

    But if i did stop, then you wouldn’t get your opportunity to fuck with me…and I can’t rob you of that Alex…

  294. on 14 Jun 2012 at 11:23 pm 294.Lover said …

    Alex -

    “beat up a fag, kid, or woman around me and see what happens.”

    1) a fag? Really?

    2) why would I do such a thing?

    Nice threat…thats all you can do, swear, cuss, and threat…

    and you call that fucking with me?

    Wow…

  295. on 14 Jun 2012 at 11:27 pm 295.alex said …

    “Are you really gonna look back when your old, and nearing the end of your short life and say,” I’m so glad I spent so much time fucking with that guy Lover on that blog!”

    no asshole, i will reflect at how i fought a good fight against the religious idiots even though i was vastly outnumbered. i fought for equals rights and treatment for the gays, colored people, women kids, etc. i sought to open peoples minds that science offers way more benefits than the alternatives offered by religion.

    i know your game. you post fast and furious just fishing for some kind faulty response on my part because I’m trying to keep up with your volume. but it doesn’t change a thing.

    you’re full of shit.

  296. on 14 Jun 2012 at 11:27 pm 296.Lou(DFW) said …

    283.Lover said …

    “I do not believe in the existence of god.”

    “can be written”

    “I believe God doesn’t exist.”

    No, it’s not the same, and I’m not proceeding any further with you in that regard.

  297. on 14 Jun 2012 at 11:28 pm 297.Lou(DFW) said …

    284.Lover said …

    “Then you agree with me that God MUST allow for us to chose evil…as parents when their children reach 18 and let them out of the house (even before then) allow for the same do they not?’

    NO! How damn dense are you?

  298. on 14 Jun 2012 at 11:31 pm 298.Lou(DFW) said …

    285.Lover said …

    “Should a loving parent ONLY let a child choose what the parent WANTS the child to choose?”

    We were speaking of EVIL. A parent should not allow a child to choose evil nor provide said choice.

  299. on 14 Jun 2012 at 11:32 pm 299.Lou(DFW) said …

    286.Lover said …

    “So here is the crux of your issue Lou.”

    No, the crux of the issue is that you arguing about nonsense in order to avoid the fact that you don’t have any evidence for your imaginary god.

  300. on 14 Jun 2012 at 11:53 pm 300.alex said …

    “Nice threat…thats all you can do, swear, cuss, and threat…”

    nother sample of your twisted logic. you concluded falsely that I threatened you. there are many outcomes, not just the one you picked.

    sorto like your god. you think everything that happens is the work of your god. there are no other reasons.

  301. on 15 Jun 2012 at 12:50 am 301.Lover said …

    Lou -

    “No, it’s not the same, and I’m not proceeding any further with you in that regard.”

    Figured as much.

    “NO! How damn dense are you?”

    Yes they do, Lou – when a parent let’s their child out the house they give that child the freedom to choose. Among those choices are choices to hurt others, to do evil things.

    The fact you don’t think so, well, then why are there so many people doing evil things? Where are their parents stopping them? They should lock them up and keep them in the basement so they CAN’T EVER do something bad or wrong – just as you would want.

    Lou, kids to bad things too. They make a choice. And when they become adults, do their parents still make ‘rules’ for them? Hold them to THEIR authority? No. they LET the child, now adult, out into the world where they can CHOOSE EVIL or LOVE.

    I think you misunderstood what I said, hope that clears it up.

  302. on 15 Jun 2012 at 12:53 am 302.Lover said …

    Lou -

    “We were speaking of EVIL. A parent should not allow a child to choose evil nor provide said choice.”

    But they DO! Unless you believe that a parent ALWAYS should ENFORCE their beliefs on the child even to when they are an adult…do your parents? Do you still do EVERYTHING your parents say?

    Parents RAISE their kids, then let them out in the world to CHOOSE for themselves…You know this.

    And guess what?

    Some choose evil – otherwise.

    So I guess you are then arguing that parents should NEVER let their children EVER leave the house. Just lock them up inside and provide for them and never veture out into the world – because to do otherwise Lou?

    Is to provide opportunity to do evil.

  303. on 15 Jun 2012 at 12:56 am 303.Lover said …

    Lou -

    “No, the crux of the issue is that you arguing about nonsense in order to avoid the fact that you don’t have any evidence for your imaginary god.”

    We are discussing the evidence – EVIL.

    I’m showing you how evil is allowed by God – because we have this free choice (which I offer up as evidence as well).

    Perhaps as we continue, we can get into how evil ONLY exists if there is a God.

    However, I am providing the foundation.

    You contend that Evil can’t exist with an all loving God – i’m showing you it MUST exist as a choice.

    As well as Freewill.

    This is evidence Lou – just what you asked for. We are discussing the evidence.

  304. on 15 Jun 2012 at 12:58 am 304.Lover said …

    Alex,

    ““beat up a fag, kid, or woman around me and see what happens.”

    You are right. I jumped to a conclusion. As given that you used the word “fag” you COULD run up and hug me and thank me for doing so.

    Not sure what issues you have with kids or women however, I suppose if I were to beat them up, you might give me a million dollars.

    So, I’m sorry Alex if I jumped to a conclusion that you were threatening me…perhaps you were just being hopeful.

  305. on 15 Jun 2012 at 12:59 am 305.Lover said …

    Alex -

    And out of my sense of non-violence…I guess I might be missing an opportunity to gain a friend…and a MILLION DOLLARS!

  306. on 15 Jun 2012 at 1:02 am 306.Lover said …

    “no asshole, i will reflect at how i fought a good fight against the religious idiots even though i was vastly outnumbered. i fought for equals rights and treatment for the gays, colored people, women kids, etc. i sought to open peoples minds that science offers way more benefits than the alternatives offered by religion.”

    Um…where have I denied ANY rights you claim to be “fighting” for on here? Run up to a “colored person” and tell them “hey, I’m fighting for your rights by “fucking with” this guy named lover on this blog…you’re welcome.”

    See how that goes.

    “i know your game. you post fast and furious just fishing for some kind faulty response on my part because I’m trying to keep up with your volume. but it doesn’t change a thing.”

    I don’t have to fish Alex. That’s the thing. I just repost what you say EXACTLY as you have said it.

    Your posts are generally short and succinct. I don’t have to put words in your mouth, i don’t have to cherry pick.

    You but keep fucking with me…seems to be going well for you.

  307. on 15 Jun 2012 at 1:06 am 307.Lover said …

    Alex -

    Again, why do you think I would even beat up “a fag” or a kid or a woman anyway?

  308. on 15 Jun 2012 at 2:18 am 308.alex said …

    “Again, why do you think I would even beat up “a fag” or a kid or a woman anyway?”

    your pseudo-indignation on fag is ignored.

    you make ridiculous, smug statements about how my old age could play out and you’re surprised at my reaction?

    i respond typically and you goad some more?

    the charge of beating up a fag is symbolic. if i stand idly by, it makes me complicit therefore i won’t do it.

    religious people do harmful things. now focus, i know atheists do too, but remember there’s more of y’all. focus again, don’t ask me to list them.

    until you can prove the religion is a good thing, i ain’t buyin. don’t even try to distract me with science, evolution and all that.

  309. on 15 Jun 2012 at 2:29 am 309.Lover said …

    Alex -

    “your pseudo-indignation on fag is ignored.”

    How do you know I’m NOT gay, or that i don’t have a gay brother? Or if my sisters a lesbian?

    You don’t.

    “you make ridiculous, smug statements about how my old age could play out and you’re surprised at my reaction?”

    You said you were going to “fuck with” me. Guess you can give it, but can’t take it. All the stuff you have said to me – all I did was poke a little fun at your statement. I haven’t called you a name, I haven’t threatened you…give you a little ribbing…you show you can’t take it.

    “i respond typically and you goad some more?”

    Typcially? So you are admitting that you can’t take it when someone digs a little at you? Again, I didn’t swear AT you, call you names (such as you have done to me) or threaten you (as you have to me)

    “the charge of beating up a fag is symbolic. if i stand idly by, it makes me complicit therefore i won’t do it. religious people do harmful things. now focus, i know atheists do too, but remember there’s more of y’all. focus again, don’t ask me to list them.”

    Of course relgious people do harmful things, I’ve never said otherwise, nor will I.

    But symbolic? I think you are backtracking now, as in your other reply you didn’t claim symbolism – you said I got it wrong (your intentions toward me). But I won’t press.

    “until you can prove the religion is a good thing, i ain’t buyin. don’t even try to distract me with science, evolution and all that.”

    I’m not saying religion is a good thing. It’s a thing, just as you say. God is GOOD. God is Love as revealed to us by Jesus – that is all I have ever said and will say. I’m not asking you to join a church – but to look to Jesus.

    Distract you?

    Alex, you and I haven’t even talked about ANYTHING – you wanted to fuck with me – I gave you a little (and mildly) back. that’s all you and I have done.

    Now, you want to keep fucking with me or do you actually want to have a conversation- your choice.

  310. on 15 Jun 2012 at 2:39 am 310.Lou said …

    Lover

    Don’t mess with alex. He is a tough guy and I fear quite unstable. I don’t want him putting a gun to his head or jumping off a ledge. It is best just to ignore his post and he will lose interest.

    Lover you are above his level. Don’t get in the mud with him.

  311. on 15 Jun 2012 at 2:44 am 311.alex said …

    309.Lover said …

    the gay, fag shit is a diversion. dismissed.

    you can’t fuck with me. whatchagonna do? invoke elisha’s bear?

    backtracking? again a diversion and dismissed.

    back on track, religion is good? nope, and you’re out of material.

  312. on 15 Jun 2012 at 2:45 am 312.Anonymous said …

    “God is Love as revealed to us by Jesus – that is all I have ever said and will say”

    Well, now you’ve said it, and if you have nothing more to say, and that is all you are going to say, then your presence here is pointless.

  313. on 15 Jun 2012 at 2:46 am 313.alex said …

    “Don’t mess with alex. He is a tough guy and I fear quite unstable”

    lou, you so crazy.

  314. on 15 Jun 2012 at 3:35 am 314.Prime said …

    Lover: Before continuing with your idiotic rant about free will and evil, please prove that you can choose anything.

  315. on 15 Jun 2012 at 3:40 am 315.Prime said …

    Your entire premise, Lover, depends upon the notion that you are able to make a choice, particularly a free choice, and I guarantee you that beyond a bunch of gish-galloping, you cannot prove this claim.

    Also, your arguments that God has to allow us to choose evil suck. Your arguments that you were free to choose, instead of merely falling for an illusion of free choice, if God already has determined and knows the outcome, are also lacking.

  316. on 15 Jun 2012 at 3:59 am 316.Lou(DFW) said …

    302.Lover said …

    “So I guess you are then arguing that parents should NEVER let their children EVER leave the house. Just lock them up inside and provide for them and never veture out into the world – because to do otherwise Lou?”

    I never wrote nor implied any such thing.

    Is that the only way you can debate – by moving the goal-posts, shifting the burden of proof, re-framing the discussion, misrepresenting what people write, and redefining words? That’s not a debate, and that’s why Prime compares you to the pigeon on the chess board.

    I surmise that you think that it’s in the interest of the greater good (free-will), that god allows evil things to happen to innocent people and children.

    If you ever have children, and one is raped and murdered, killed by an uninjured drunk driver to whom god gave free-will to drive drunk, or burned alive in an accident (natural evil), then you will simply accept it as god’s plan for our greater good. Will you pray to god, thanking him for free will, that he allowed your child to be raped and murdered, or killed by a drunk driver? That is, in effect, what such delusional people do when their child dies – claim that it’s part of god’s plan.

  317. on 15 Jun 2012 at 11:26 am 317.Lou said …

    “Lover: Before continuing with your idiotic rant about free will and evil, please prove that you can choose anything.”

    Prime I have a better idea. You prove I was forced to post this response.

  318. on 15 Jun 2012 at 11:53 am 318.Lou(DFW) said …

    317.Louser said …

    “Lover: Before continuing with your idiotic rant about free will and evil, please prove that you can choose anything.”

    “Prime I have a better idea.”

    I have an even better idea. Prove that your imaginary god exists.

    “You prove I was forced to post this response.”

    According to your standards of “proof,” it isn’t necessary. Is it not your god’s will that you did it?

  319. on 15 Jun 2012 at 2:41 pm 319.Prime said …

    Ahhh… now I understand your problem with saying “there’s no free will.” You think you had to be “forced” to do something that you didn’t perceive you wanted to do.

    Lou, it’s really not that hard.

    Some neurons in your brain that you are completely unaware of and essentially have no control of fired when you read what I wrote. Those fired off that idea that I should have to prove that you were “forced” to write what you wrote because you thought it was ridiculous. Interestingly, your limbic system, judging by the quality and tone of your response along with your normal m.o. on here, was heavily involved, well beyond your control. Because you like to stir up shit on here and recognize the safety built in on this virtual forum where no one really knows who you are, the inhibitory neurons in your prefrontal cortex failed to indicate to you that writing such a stupid thing might not be in your best interest. The rest was you “deciding” to act upon your thought, which actually happened seconds before you became aware of deciding it (via cascades of activity in the neurons that do the deciding), and the activation of the motor neurons, also outside of your conscious control, that actually typed and clicked to get that idiot idea-paste on here.

    All of this happened outside of your conscious control, your dimwitted consciousness only becoming aware of it after your brain had, in fact, decided to do it with or without you, supposing you, like most people, actually identify yourself with your sense of consciousness. Since you’re a theist and believe in funny things like “minds” and “souls” in a meaningful, existential context, that means you are a slave to your mind and/or your soul, and they forced you to type that stupid pair of sentences on this blog thread.

    You can choose to identify your mind as an emergent phenomenon of distorted, filtered, and modulated awareness of what’s going on around and inside your mind if you want, but then you’re really faced with the very difficult questions of what made you think those exact words (would you have thought them if I never put up my challenge?), why you didn’t think of others, why they came out in English instead of some other language, maybe one you don’t even know (but that actually exists instead of psychological malfunctions like glossolalia that do not produce a language at all), why you felt compelled to share that minor stroke of non-genius with us, and why you weren’t inhibited from doing so by other parts of your mind, when you know good and damned well you’ve been inhibited on other matters that are similar, in the past.

    So… can you get back to proving that you actually can make conscious choices and get off your shifting the burden of proof game that you always play. I’ve provided, if not proof, sufficient cause for doubt that we actually have free choices, given that we don’t understand the complex interactions of neurology and neurochemistry involved, all of which are dependent upon various prior states mostly out of our control and entirely out of our conscious control (did you, for instance, pre-load your brain with a particular amount of serotonin so that you would be able to have exactly the kind of CNS activity required to create that particular emotional response which led you to your counter “challenge”?).

  320. on 15 Jun 2012 at 2:41 pm 320.Prime said …

    I think part of the problem with the theists trying to argue with us here is that they’re unable to realize that other types of minds exist, and so based on their own experience, they simply assume everyone is stupid and frequently wrong about things.

  321. on 15 Jun 2012 at 3:10 pm 321.Lou(DFW) said …

    319.Prime said …

    “Some neurons in your brain that you are completely unaware of and essentially have no control of fired when you read what I wrote.”

    Isn’t how god forces his will upon us? ;>)

  322. on 15 Jun 2012 at 4:07 pm 322.DPK said …

    Wow, way too much shit thrown on the screen to wade through.. no time, but let me address 2 points for Chris:
    1st… the semantics of using the word “won’t” instead of “can’t” is bull. The end result is the same. Knowledge requires certainty. If I “know” that yesterday you farted in the elevator at work, you cannot choose not to have farted in the elevator at work. If an omnipotent being “knows” that tomorrow I will have a bagel for breakfast, I cannot choose not to have a bagel for breakfast. I may think I have a choice, but IF I do in fact have a choice, then god cannot “know” what my choice will be. Sorry… semantics aside… fail. Either free will is an illusion, or god cannot be omnipotent.

    2nd: “I submit this to you.
    “without God evil doesn’t. So, given that, we can move on.”

    No, that assume facts not in evidence. 1st, god is imaginary and does not in fact exist.. but evil does. Therefore your statement is false… given that, we can move on.

    “1) An ALL LOVING God would give his creation free-will. that is ability and allowance to chose without restraint.

    5) Therefor and all loving God allows for evil as part of free will.”

    Again.. false assumption. As has been demonstrated god has presented many restraints to free will. We cannot choose to defy gravity. We cannot choose to move mountains (even though god specifically we could). We cannot choose to exist in 2 places at the same time, we cannot choose to travel faster than the speed of light. Need I go on… we do NOT have “unrestrained free will.”
    But… according to YOUR interpretation, despite ALL the things that god choose NOT to make available to us to choose, he specifically decided to create evil as an item on our rather limited menu. AND he did this with FULL knowledge of exactly what would ensue… indeed, according to most christian doctrine, he not only did it with knowledge… he PLANNED it to happen and decreed that everything should unfold exactly as he planned.
    Which also negates, by the way, his omnipotence… because if he knows what will happen, he is powerless to change it. If he has the power to change it, he cannot know what will happen.
    Sorry Chris… epic, epic fail on all points.
    Your god is either not at all what you think he is, or far more likely, is simple a complete product of your imagination.

  323. on 15 Jun 2012 at 6:44 pm 323.Lou(DFW) said …

    280.Lover said …

    “An ALL LOVING God would give his creation free-will. that is ability and allowance to chose without restraint.”

    Chris/Lover, how does one choose their sex?

  324. on 15 Jun 2012 at 7:16 pm 324.DPK said …

    Indeed… how does one choose their parents, or perhaps if they are going to be a dwarf, or a victim of childhood cancer? And does one get to “choose” if they are going to be a victim of another’s free will? For instance, did the 6 million Jews who perished in the Nazi death camps have free will as to whether they would be subjected to Hitler’s free will? How come god decided Hitler’s free will was more important than theirs?
    Chris… you are soooo deluded and caught up in your silly rationalizations and trying to invent arguments to back up what you want so desperately to believe, you’ve completely lost sight of reality. You are willing to grasp at something as silly as semantics and word play to try and justify your baseless claims. This should be a lesson to those that argue that religious beliefs are benign and harmless. A mind is a terrible thing to squander.

  325. on 15 Jun 2012 at 8:25 pm 325.Lou(DFW) said …

    283.Lover said …

    “I don’t believe [DISBELIEF] God doesn’t exist [DISBELIEF].”

    “I am stating the absence of belief as well.”

    No, you are stating the absence of DISBELIEF, not BELIEF.

    “Thus I am not making a claim that requires proof for my statement.”

    Except that you are because a “double-negative rejection” is a “single-positive claim.”

    “I don’t believe God doesn’t exist” equates to “I believe god exists.”

    Elimination of the double negatives from

    “I do not believe god does not exist”

    is equal to

    “I do believe god does exist.”

    “I do not believe that god exists”

    cannot be reduced to

    “I believe god exists”

    because they are irreducible and opposite of each other, and thus UNEQUAL.

    Disbelief is not belief.

    You can’t win a debate nor support your position with semantics.

    Similarly, almost all, if not all of your arguments are fallacious. If someone had the time and wanted to, your arguments could be easily debunked. Not only are you deluded about your theism, you are deluded about your ability to defend your delusion.

  326. on 15 Jun 2012 at 9:00 pm 326.DPK said …

    Doesn’t really say much about the validity of one’s position when one must resort to wordplay or outright lies to support it, does it?
    Like an addict, Chris will go to any length to support his addiction… even lying to himself.

    I may have missed the answer in all the bullshit chicken dancing that ensued yesterday while I was pre-occupied with stupid computer issues… did Chris ever respond to my question about whether he believed that the bible was the perfect word of a perfect and omniscient god?

    I know he tried before by playing his word games and saying it was more or less, “perfect enough” for the task he assigned to it. Then he tried to pretend that there are degrees of perfection, and we all aspire to become more perfect. I think perhaps we need to point Chris to an online dictionary to look up the meaning of some of the words he like to use rather liberally. Chris, “perfect” is a superlative. One cannot strive to me “more perfect” anymore than you can kill someone into a state of being “more dead”.

  327. on 15 Jun 2012 at 9:10 pm 327.Lover said …

    Lou -

    “Not only are you deluded about your theism, you are deluded about your ability to defend your delusion.”

    See, here is a claim of FACT Lou. you are making the claim that my belief is DELUSIONAL – this is no longer a statement of disbelief or of opinion.

    Back it up. back up your statement, if you can’t you can’t then you can’t say I’m delusional.

    Not factually, since it’s ONLY your opinion that God doesn’t exist.

  328. on 15 Jun 2012 at 9:12 pm 328.Lover said …

    Ah – lost of posts…sorry won’t be able to really get to them until Monday or so.

    But I do look forward to them!

  329. on 15 Jun 2012 at 9:15 pm 329.Lover said …

    Prime -

    before I check out for the weekend I will just say this -

    if I don’t free will, then why are were holding ANYONE for their actions? They didn’t chose their actions, they had no choice, thus how are they responsible?

    But, I will answer to the other posts later when i get a bigger chunk of time.

  330. on 15 Jun 2012 at 9:24 pm 330.Lou(DFW) said …

    327.Lover said …

    “See, here is a claim of FACT Lou. you are making the claim that my belief is DELUSIONAL – this is no longer a statement of disbelief or of opinion.”

    By definition, you are delusional about your theism because you haven’t provided any evidence for it. That is a FACT, not an opinion nor a belief.

    “Back it up. back up your statement, if you can’t you can’t then you can’t say I’m delusional.”

    I just did.

    “Not factually, since it’s ONLY your opinion that God doesn’t exist.”

    What is it with your inability to write complete, coherent sentences?

    Anyway, I disbelieve in your imaginary god. That’s not an opinion.

  331. on 15 Jun 2012 at 9:26 pm 331.Lou(DFW) said …

    328.Lover said …

    “Ah – lost of posts…sorry won’t be able to really get to them until Monday or so.”

    Then you’ll deluge the blog with long comment after comment, only to complain that your questions contained therein weren’t answered, and then proclaim that you “won.”

  332. on 15 Jun 2012 at 9:29 pm 332.Lou(DFW) said …

    329.Lover said …

    “if I don’t free will, then why are were holding ANYONE for their actions? They didn’t chose their actions, they had no choice, thus how are they responsible?”

    Why don’t you exercise your “free-will” and choose not to be so irrational in your replies?

  333. on 15 Jun 2012 at 10:39 pm 333.DPK said …

    I, for one, did not contend that we do not have free will. I contend that since we do have free will, your god cannot be omniscient, as you claim he is. This is paradox that you can’t dismiss with semantics. Your claim is that we have free will AND that god knows everything and everything happens only according to his will. Impossible contradiction for you. Not possible, except perhaps in your deluded mind.

  334. on 15 Jun 2012 at 10:57 pm 334.Prime said …

    329.Lover said …

    “if I don’t free will, then why are were holding ANYONE for their actions? They didn’t chose their actions, they had no choice, thus how are they responsible?”

    Because those people engage in actions that are detrimental to the social structure we call society and to the individuals in it–in short, we are all highly likely to be better off if we separate those people from society, using their past behaviors, their attitudes about those behaviors, and other data from their mental states to determine the likelihood that they can be productively rehabilitated.

    Because we’re stuck in this archaic model of believing that people actually have “free will” to “choose” any and all of their actions, we’re trapped in an archaic model where we “hold people responsible” instead of simply mitigating the problem caused by the fact that their particular nervous systems are more damaging than productive and thus need to be segregated from society for essentially everyone’s well-being.

    You’re absolutely right: retributive models of criminal justice based upon “holding people responsible” don’t actually make any sense in the real situation that we have in our lives. That’s why we really should remodel the entire system to match with current understanding instead of primitive guesses and think of prisons more as asylums. Some people can be treated, and what good does it serve not to treat them as a punishment? Some people are probably beyond treatment, and so they are held separate from society for everyone’s good (including their own, frankly). We contribute to pay for this as a collective society (through tax dollars) because we’re smart enough to understand that the collective enterprise known as society functions better this way.

    Religious thought and perhaps the inability to solve difficult, but tractable, problems (these two facets are likely to be related) have poisoned your ability to make rational discussion on these matters.

    Oh, and since you like “logic” and “reason” so much, do you realize that even if you prove that we do have free will and are responsible for our decisions, you haven’t yet provided a drop of evidence for your God?

  335. on 15 Jun 2012 at 11:15 pm 335.Prime said …

    Actually, it’s worse than that.

    Even if you can prove that we should have a retributive (instead of compassion-based) criminal justice system, that lends to credence to the doctrine of free will. All it does is establish that in the context of how we actually operate, personal responsibility for certain modes of behavior makes sense as a model for applying criminal justice.

    All your work is ahead of you still, Christlover. You haven’t established free will, and you certainly haven’t established the first shred of evidence for your God.

  336. on 16 Jun 2012 at 9:06 am 336.alex said …

    it’s a weak and subsequently nonexistent god that knowingly would allow somebody to massacre many people who never had a chance of redemption.

    god’s plan invalidates prayer along with sensibilities such as seat belts, exercise, diet, and looking both ways before crossing the street.

    i’m supposed to be afraid?

  337. on 16 Jun 2012 at 12:00 pm 337.The Judge said …

    I think part of the problem with the atheists trying to argue with us here is that they’re unable to realize that other types of minds exist, and so based on their own experience, they simply assume everyone is stupid and frequently wrong about things.

  338. on 16 Jun 2012 at 12:23 pm 338.Lou(DFW) said …

    337.The Judge said …

    “I think part of the problem with the atheists trying to argue with us here is that they’re unable to realize that other types of minds exist,”

    No, we realize that.

    “and so based on their own experience, they simply assume everyone is stupid and frequently wrong about things.”

    No, not everyone, just delusional, irrational, fanatical theists. So, if the shoe fits, wear it.

    Most people are stupid and frequently wrong about things. History and religion is proof of that.

  339. on 16 Jun 2012 at 5:36 pm 339.DPK said …

    It occurred to me that arguing with the likes of Chris about the qualities and properties of his imaginary god is much like arguing about how Santa manages to fit down the chimney. It gets to the point of absurdity. Here I am trying to convince an obviously delusional person and talking about things like free will, foreknowledge and omnipotence as if there was actual validity to the fact. Kind of like arguing with someone over whether Captain Kirk or Captain Picard were smarter.
    I’m done. Until someone provides any actual evidence that in any way demonstrates that their god is any different from the literally thousands of other gods that humans have invented over the course of history, it is completely fruitless to argue about the properties and characteristics of a completely imaginary being.

  340. on 16 Jun 2012 at 6:31 pm 340.Prime said …

    That’s why I don’t care one bit for religious debates about religion. The religious guy is always just allowed to assume his conclusion, and then the whole thing is judged according to how well people argued, not whether or not the conclusion was actually supported by valid evidence. The whole charade presupposes that the religious guy is right until someone can prove him wrong, which is the usual shenanigans we run into here: failure to understand the burden of proof while begging the question.

    William Lane Craig beat so-and-so in this-or-that debate. I don’t fucking care. William Lane Craig can’t, and didn’t, provide any evidence for God’s existence and only won because our society, even the academic, rigorous end of it, still extends religious privilege to questions like the existence of God.

    Luckily, it appears (again, unfortunately) that those days might be about to end. More and more people are getting hard-ass about it, like they should.

  341. on 16 Jun 2012 at 6:42 pm 341.The Judge said …

    Prime

    How do those sour grapes taste?

    You lose because you have no position. The charade is the new atheist who lacks a belief by using fallacies like FSM and Santa. Atheist use to have some stones and took a position but not you new wimps. In order to win a debate and gain credibility you must stand for something. Until then you will lose and lose big.

  342. on 16 Jun 2012 at 7:33 pm 342.Prime said …

    What the hell are you talking about, The Judge?

    The only way that atheism “loses” in this regard is in terms of being able to capture a majority of the population’s interest, since most people are interested not in truth but rather in a system that tells them some things, like
    1. How to live a better life/be a decent human being (see secular humanism);
    2. How stuff works (see science);
    3. Community (secular community structures exist but need to be pushed harder);
    4. How to deal with the reality of death (see psychology),
    among perhaps a few other vital functions.

    Atheism doesn’t lose because it isn’t a position. It’s a lack of belief in God. If you don’t think holding this position takes some stones, dress up in a shirt that says “atheist” on it and go wander around in public, preferably in Texas. Call your friends and tell them you don’t believe in God and try to keep count of how many of them stay your friends. This happens with family members too.

    Why? Because you’re in a cult.

  343. on 16 Jun 2012 at 7:35 pm 343.Prime said …

    PS: Majority interest does not indicate what is real and what isn’t. It only indicates what large number of people believe at the same time.

  344. on 16 Jun 2012 at 7:50 pm 344.The Judge said …

    “most people are interested not in truth but rather in a system that tells them some things,”

    From the atheist perspective share what this truth claim would be Prime. I would like to be able to share in this discovery.

    You can stop with the propaganda. Atheism is a position or atheist would not spend so much time defending the lack of belief. Maybe your truth claim could shed more light on this.

  345. on 16 Jun 2012 at 8:22 pm 345.Prime said …

    344.The Judge said …

    “From the atheist perspective share what this truth claim would be Prime. I would like to be able to share in this discovery.”

    I didn’t say I have truth. I said that most people aren’t interested in finding out what’s true. They just want to live their lives. Some of us care. We seek what we can know, where the boundaries of knowledge and understanding are, and how we can push those, and those of us in that group have to be able to learn to be settled with the fact that we don’t know “truth” and don’t need to invent proxies for it to shove into that psychological hole.

    Don’t be such a dolt.

    “You can stop with the propaganda. Atheism is a position or atheist would not spend so much time defending the lack of belief. Maybe your truth claim could shed more light on this.”

    We don’t defend a lack of belief as if it is a position: we say it’s better than believing things on insufficient evidence. Our position, then, is that it’s better to be doubtful than fooled, that it’s better to try to be right than to just accept something that claims to be right, and that’s just about as patently obvious a valid position as one can hold. Given the number of ways that humans are duped, much to their loss, the verification of this position is abundant.

  346. on 16 Jun 2012 at 8:54 pm 346.The Judge said …

    “I didn’t say I have truth. I said that most people aren’t interested in finding out what’s true.”

    Then you cannot Judge the truth of others since you do not know. Claiming most others are not interested in finding truth because they don’t take your position is just arrogant elitism.

    “We don’t defend a lack of belief as if it is a position: we say it’s better than believing things on insufficient evidence.”

    Insufficient for you, but plenty sufficient for others. Better to be reasonable than to be a fool.

  347. on 16 Jun 2012 at 8:57 pm 347.alex said …

    “Atheism is a position or atheist would not spend so much time defending the lack of belief.”

    Ok, wise guy, I’ll play.

    In the beginning God created the elements that allowed the universe to form and life to originate and develop.

    God is ambivalent. He doesn’t care about cosmic events and even less so about creatures that happen to live in any of the habitable planets. All living things that exist eventually die and will never be seen again. Eventually, all the elements in the universe will decay into nothing.

    Your witness. What part do you question? Which part is unbelievable? Where is the magic? Where is the fear? Where is the hate?

    I’m an atheist. You think I believe?

  348. on 16 Jun 2012 at 10:00 pm 348.Prime said …

    346.The Judge said …

    “Then you cannot Judge the truth of others since you do not know. Claiming most others are not interested in finding truth because they don’t take your position is just arrogant elitism.”

    Wrong. Wrong answers are easier to judge than right answers are to obtain. This is the ENTIRE mechanism behind the peer-review process that allows us to be clear on just about everything we’re able to be clear on.

    “Insufficient for you, but plenty sufficient for others. Better to be reasonable than to be a fool.”

    This isn’t a relativist game. There’s evidence or there isn’t. In the case of God, there is no evidence, only tricks to make people believe that there is.

    Indeed, it is better to be reasonable than to be a fool, but only fools believe in things without sufficient evidence–including the existence of God.

  349. on 16 Jun 2012 at 10:01 pm 349.Prime said …

    346.The Judge said …

    “Then you cannot Judge the truth of others since you do not know. Claiming most others are not interested in finding truth because they don’t take your position is just arrogant elitism.”

    Re: “arrogant elitism,” nice try at poisoning the well. You’re about as skilled at it as you are at rational debate, though.

    Do you like how much more elegantly I just did it?

  350. on 17 Jun 2012 at 1:48 am 350.A said …

    “Then you cannot Judge the truth of others since you do not know. Claiming most others are not interested in finding truth because they don’t take your position is just arrogant elitism.”

    That’s good Judge. Those who believe in nothing and have no clue what truth is telling everyone else they are wrong. Everyone else must meet the atheist’s level of proof which they don’t even adhere to. Hypocritical at best.

    Check out a Philadelphia Eagle’s game on a Sunday. Everyone in the stands knows more than Coach Reid but then again they are all high.

  351. on 17 Jun 2012 at 1:51 am 351.A said …

    “there is no evidence, only tricks to make people believe that there is.”

    Actually there are only tricks to make people believe there is not a God.

    I projected that much more skilfully than Primate.

  352. on 17 Jun 2012 at 1:52 am 352.Prime said …

    Asstrophysicist, I’d love to see a list of things you think are “good.” No doubt jello is on the list, but what else?

  353. on 17 Jun 2012 at 1:53 am 353.Prime said …

    Hey, cool… you figured out that we are primates. Good work, A. You’re getting somewhere!

    What tricks do we employ to make people believe there is no God?

  354. on 17 Jun 2012 at 5:10 pm 354.MrQ said …

    What tricks do we employ to make people believe there is no God?

    I don’t know if thinking should be classified as a trick. ;-)

  355. on 18 Jun 2012 at 11:32 pm 355.Lover said …

    Prime -

    “Because those people engage in actions that are detrimental to the social structure we call society and to the individuals in it–in short, we are all highly likely to be better off if we separate those people from society, using their past behaviors, their attitudes about those behaviors, and other data from their mental states to determine the likelihood that they can be productively rehabilitated.”

    Ah, majority opinion rules. Because since you can’t point anything TRULY wrong, we are only left with opinion – and if majority opinion says it’s wrong, then it’s wrong. However, you are still punishing someone for something they had no choice, no free will, thus you are taking away their freedom over others, via opinion.

    “You’re absolutely right: retributive models of criminal justice based upon “holding people responsible” don’t actually make any sense in the real situation that we have in our lives.”

    Yet, this doesn’t stop you from IMPOSING YOUR OPINION upon others – for actions they have no responsibility for. You don’t like it, so you punish it – but you have no true basis for this punishment. “It’s not good for society…”

    “good” is irrelevant here as “good” implies “bad” but since we don’t have choice, or free will, no action can be “good” or “bad” thus we are back at opinion – of which YOU want to hold people responsible for certain actions you deem “bad” – yet, it’s still your opinion, NOT FACT.

    So, you still haven’t provided justification beyond your opinion as to how we can hold people responsible for their non-free will actions.

    “Oh, and since you like “logic” and “reason” so much, do you realize that even if you prove that we do have free will and are responsible for our decisions, you haven’t yet provided a drop of evidence for your God?”

    Perhaps not as you see it. However, if we are to discover that there is EVIL, via free will – there can ONLY be evil, if there are actually good and bad behaviors. To this, there must be a moral giver – beyond and outside of ourselves.

    Do you believe in absolute right and wrong?

  356. on 18 Jun 2012 at 11:38 pm 356.Lover said …

    Lou -

    “By definition, you are delusional about your theism because you haven’t provided any evidence for it. That is a FACT, not an opinion nor a belief.

    “Back it up. back up your statement, if you can’t you can’t then you can’t say I’m delusional.”

    I just did.

    Actually you didn’t.

    You committed a logical fallacy. My lack of evidence to back up my claim doesn’t mean my claim is wrong.

    I could fail to provide evidence of where I live (especially on here) however, the fact is I may very well live where I claim to.

    Or prove I did something yesterday.

    What you have failed to provide (because you can’t) is reason/evidence why I should reject my faith.

    Because to do so, you would be taking a side – of which you claimed you are not doing.

    Unless you KNOW that God doesn’t exist – regardless of my reasons for or lack of evidence for, I am rational to believe God does.

    God could very well exist…unless you know otherwise, Lou.

    How do you know YOU aren’t delusional and God does exist?

  357. on 18 Jun 2012 at 11:44 pm 357.alex said …

    “How do you know YOU aren’t delusional and God does exist?”

    i could be delusional and santa exists? this is so damn old. elves could very well exist? and i’m out of line to not believe?

  358. on 19 Jun 2012 at 12:00 am 358.DPK said …

    “Unless you KNOW that God doesn’t exist – regardless of my reasons for or lack of evidence for, I am rational to believe God does.’

    This, ladies and gents, is why you can’t play chess with a pigeon.

  359. on 19 Jun 2012 at 12:19 am 359.Lover said …

    “This, ladies and gents, is why you can’t play chess with a pigeon.”

    You first have to put your pieces on the chessboard DPK for there to even be a match…

  360. on 19 Jun 2012 at 12:24 am 360.Lover said …

    Alex -

    “i could be delusional and santa exists? this is so damn old. elves could very well exist? and i’m out of line to not believe?”

    Not an answer, a dodge to not answer.

    Evidence against Santa exists. Same with elves.

    Are you out of line not to believe?

    Don’t know, you haven’t presented reasons why you don’t. Only have said it.

    However, that statement doesn’t answer the question. I could give any number of reasons I don’t believe in something – though that something might well exist.

    But again, how do you KNOW you aren’t delusional that God doesn’t exist.

    Simple question – can you answer it? Will you answer it?

  361. on 19 Jun 2012 at 12:34 am 361.alex said …

    “How do you know YOU aren’t delusional and God does exist?”

    you think you’re clever?

    i could be delusional, but i’m not sure about what?
    by definition if i’m delusional, i must have strong convictions and you are suggesting that god has clear evidence?

    see, how you’re twisting this shit around?

    i don’t believe your god, or any god, period. the premise that your god is clear and evident is false, otherwise we won’t be having this.

    you are the dodge. you play word games hoping and fishing for something.

    i told you before. forget about my faults, blemishes, etc. what/where is your god?

  362. on 19 Jun 2012 at 12:45 am 362.alex said …

    “Evidence against Santa exists. Same with elves.”

    oh really? santa lives in the north pole. if you really, really, look real close, you’ll see it. but, you must believe 100% before you can see it.

    it’s written in the santa handbook, so it must be true. also notice a passage in the handbook. it says very clearly, that there will be people that will doubt the existence of santa and beware of those people for they will try to lead you astray. it’s been prophesied, and therefore must be true…

  363. on 19 Jun 2012 at 12:52 am 363.Lover said …

    “where is your god?”

    Everywhere.

    I thank you for admitting that you could be delusional. Very honest. Not trying to be clever, it was a question, only that. Thank you for answering.

    Alex, if you truly wanted to find God you would. I believe that. If you truly want God to reveal himself to you, he will if you let him – I believe that.

    As for my proof, or evidence. Fact is, no matter what I put up, you can reject it.

    Doesn’t mean there isn’t evidence though. Or that it isn’t evidence.

    I believe that I have reasonable evidence for God’s existence – I even listed some in a prior post.

    I left for some time to which there were many posts and replies that went unchallenged by me as I was not on here.

    I even said that I would be glad to return to that discussion – guess how many took me up on that Alex?

    None.

    Sure, they could say “Your evidence sucked.”

    However, can they defend it? I doubt it.

    What would you like to discuss Alex? I’m sure you’ve heard arguments from Christian’s before – pick one that THEY have claimed as evidence and let’s discuss it.

    Here’s your chance Alex…you know what the “evidence” claims are – pick one and we will discuss it.

  364. on 19 Jun 2012 at 12:53 am 364.A said …

    “You first have to put your pieces on the chessboard DPK for there to even be a match…”

    Excellent analogy. They will not put their pieces on the table so they will not have to defend what they cannot defend.

    They are more like the terrorist. They hide behind the woman and children and take shots.

  365. on 19 Jun 2012 at 12:55 am 365.Lover said …

    “oh really? santa lives in the north pole. if you really, really, look real close, you’ll see it. but, you must believe 100% before you can see it.

    it’s written in the santa handbook, so it must be true. also notice a passage in the handbook. it says very clearly, that there will be people that will doubt the existence of santa and beware of those people for they will try to lead you astray. it’s been prophesied, and therefore must be true”

    Do you really want to go down this road and try to “apologize” for Santa?

    Your track record for fucking with me isn’t good – so if you want to try this on one, we can…

  366. on 19 Jun 2012 at 12:58 am 366.alex said …

    okay, wise guy. you are the champeen debator, writer, et all. all awards/kudos go to you.

    now, where/what is your god evidence? simple question.

  367. on 19 Jun 2012 at 1:01 am 367.alex said …

    “now, where/what is your god evidence? simple question.”

    no bibles or testimonials allowed. otherwise, the santa handbook and 6 year olds also validates santa.

  368. on 19 Jun 2012 at 1:01 am 368.DPK said …

    No Chris, you can put all the pieces on the board, but you still can’t play chess with a pigeon. We are just tired of you absolute insanity.

  369. on 19 Jun 2012 at 1:39 am 369.Anonymous said …

    In response to #360 lover:

    “Evidence against Santa exists. Same with elves.”

    I would be interested to learn about this evidence. Can you please list some of it?

  370. on 19 Jun 2012 at 1:43 am 370.Prime said …

    355.Lover said …

    “Ah, majority opinion rules. Because since you can’t point anything TRULY wrong, we are only left with opinion – and if majority opinion says it’s wrong, then it’s wrong.”

    That is NOT what I said.

    As you cannot even represent my relatively simple statements correctly, you give me no reason to take you seriously.

    I said that there are salient reasons for removing criminals from society, and you call it “majority opinion [ruling].” No. If someone damages another person or their property in a sense that we don’t normally consider to be inadvertent, then there are clear-as-day reasons to remove that person from the society, particularly if the behavior is repetitive.

  371. on 19 Jun 2012 at 2:08 am 371.alex said …

    “where is your god?”

    363.Lover said …
    Everywhere.

    seriously? santa is everywhere too. he knows when you’ve been bad or good.

    “Alex, if you truly wanted to find God you would. I believe that. If you truly want God to reveal himself to you, he will if you let him – I believe that.”

    examine closely. this is no different than what a muslim would say. i told you before, if you look really closely, you will find santa in the north, but you must really, really believe – and I believe that.

  372. on 19 Jun 2012 at 2:29 am 372.Lou(DFW) said …

    356.Lover said …

    “How do you know YOU aren’t delusional and God does exist?”

    Because I don’t have a belief in a god for which there is no evidence. That, by definition, is delusion. Damn, you are stupid.

  373. on 19 Jun 2012 at 2:30 am 373.Lou(DFW) said …

    355.Lover said …

    “Ah, majority opinion rules. Because since you can’t point anything TRULY wrong, we are only left with opinion – and if majority opinion says it’s wrong, then it’s wrong.”

    That’s not what he wrote. You’re either an out-right liar or an idiot. Very likely both.

  374. on 19 Jun 2012 at 2:47 am 374.alex said …

    “Evidence against Santa exists. Same with elves.”
    I would be interested to learn about this evidence. Can you please list some of it?”

    nobody has seen santa. only little/ignorant kids believe in santa. the santa handbook is full of baloney and nonsense. santa only gives presents to believers and not to good palestinian kids….

    wait…this looks familiar…..

  375. on 19 Jun 2012 at 3:05 am 375.Lou(DFW) said …

    363.Lover said …

    “where is your god?”

    “Everywhere.”

    One thing is for sure, your imaginary god most definitely occupies the empty space between your ears.

  376. on 19 Jun 2012 at 3:13 am 376.Lou(DFW) said …

    365.Lover said …

    “Your track record for fucking with me isn’t good – so if you want to try this on one, we can…”

    Please do! Maybe you can do better with S. Claus than you do with J.H. Christ. You couldn’t do any worse.

  377. on 19 Jun 2012 at 3:15 am 377.Feelingsorryforyou said …

    If I may just add that you are all wasting your time arguing. Not one of you is going to convert the other. But to the unbelievers…don’t wait till you’re in Hell to find out you were wrong!!

  378. on 19 Jun 2012 at 3:36 am 378.Prime said …

    If you look at #364, you can find Asstrophysicist attempting to fluff Christlover. There are few surer ways to know you’re wrong than to be fluffed by Asstrophysicist.

  379. on 19 Jun 2012 at 4:17 am 379.Feelingsorryforyou said …

    Prime, what is your real issue? Why are you so afraid of God? If you know in your heart that something isn’t real, why do you go to such lengths to prove it to others? Does it really matter? As I said, eventually everyone will know if you’re right or wrong!! I can understand that if you weren’t brought up believing in God it would be hard to just believe one day without a life changing experience. But having said that, why is it your mission to prove God doesn’t exist. Have you ever tracked your ancestry back to the monkeys that you evolved from? If so, I’d love to see it. Have you ever wondered why humans haven’t continued to evolve? If evolution was correct, humans would have started evolving years ago. And why are there still monkeys? If evolution was real there would be no more monkeys because they evolved into humans. Why don’t we see evidence of evolution today. If we all came from something else why aren’t we seeing dogs change into something else, or horses changing into something else? Do you really believe the earth was made by a big bang? If so, where did the first animals come from? Where did your monkey ancestors come from? They can’t have just been there because the earth wasn’t there!!
    Creation is all the proof you need to know God exists.

  380. on 19 Jun 2012 at 11:09 am 380.Lou(DFW) said …

    377.Prime said …

    “If you look at #364, you can find Asstrophysicist attempting to fluff Christlover. There are few surer ways to know you’re wrong than to be fluffed by Asstrophysicist.”

    ASStrophysicist wouldn’t know a chess piece if it was shoved-up his…

    But, as Chris/Lover would put it, it does not makes sense that ASStrophysicist does not support him.

  381. on 19 Jun 2012 at 4:31 pm 381.Boz said …

    “They are more like the terrorist. They hide behind the woman and children and take shots.”

    They also think they determine what is and is not evidence for God. To me this is the funniest. Think about it. DFW thinking he knows what passes for evidence and Prime fluffing his claims. DFW wouldn’t know evidence if he passed it out of his rear.

    A clear sign you are out of touch is teaming up with Prime and DFW.

  382. on 19 Jun 2012 at 4:42 pm 382.Lou(DFW) said …

    379.Bozo said …

    “DFW wouldn’t know evidence if he passed it out of his rear.”

    Ironically, your evidence for god EXACTLY resembles what is passed out of my rear.

    “A clear sign you are out of touch is teaming up with Prime and DFW.”

    Bozo, you’re not exactly an original thinker, are you? No wonder you’re a sheep in a flock.

  383. on 19 Jun 2012 at 7:47 pm 383.Boz said …

    You might want to quit inspecting what comes out of your rear DFW.

    It might be the reason you can’t recognize the evidence for God the rest of humanity has from the beginning.

    It is OK to be an atheist when you are born but then you are suppose to grow up.

    Words like delusion, idot, four lettered profanities don’t help your case. You are suppose to out grow those too.

  384. on 19 Jun 2012 at 9:17 pm 384.Prime said …

    The degree of unoriginal thinking here deserves some kind of medal.

    Bozo, you get a brown, rusty star.

  385. on 19 Jun 2012 at 9:39 pm 385.Anonymous said …

    381.Bozo said, perhaps after soon forgetting what he wrote in 379.

    “You are suppose to out grow those too.”

    Infants don’t “grow” out of lack of knowledge for imaginary beings, they are indoctrinated with them – god, Jesus, tooth fairy, Santa Claus, etc., as they grow-up. It’s not possible to lose something never processed. To claim otherwise is part of the stupidity of being a theist, and attempting to defend that delusion.

  386. on 19 Jun 2012 at 10:17 pm 386.alex said …

    “You might want to quit inspecting what comes out of your rear DFW”

    your fraternity burns korans to incite. your handbook is so full of shit even you morons can’t agree and you retort with ?????

    “…you can’t recognize the evidence for God”

    you can’t recognize who the park drunk is talking to?

    you need a sanity drink. maybe then it will clean you out and maybe the bible will come out of your ass and free your mind.

  387. on 20 Jun 2012 at 6:34 am 387.Severin said …

    #125Where is your proof that second cell combined with a few more to form that fist organism? Any proof there DPK?”

    You are the proof. Aren’t you a combination of cells?

    There only are no cells inside your scull.

  388. on 20 Jun 2012 at 6:39 am 388.Severin said …

    #128
    “This is also Non sequitur. You are appealing to authority.”

    Fine, let’s say it is appealing to authority (although it isn’t, but for the sake of debate).

    Now, what, the hell are you appealing to to prove your god?

  389. on 20 Jun 2012 at 1:39 pm 389.Martin said …

    Thank you for your posts alex. I don’t know if you are a theist plant but you keep me laughing.

  390. on 21 Jun 2012 at 12:10 am 390.A said …

    alex is one of the best friends the theist has at their disposal.

  391. on 24 Jun 2012 at 3:07 pm 391.First Manmade Cause said …

    I’d hate to break the flowing verbal nonsense on defecating, calling the President Barrack Hussein Obama, that’s so original, clever and innocuous, you should apply for a job as a Spurious Scientific Commentator on a Pseudoscience-Christian site I visited recently. You get to push such overtly humorous crap like “Since Stephen Hawking proved the Big Bang happened, (blatant lie) then that proves First Cause is true (blatant lie squared).” As were on a scientific roll I thought I’d give my theory on the belief in belief. We now know that most people have genes that could cause sociopathic violent behavior, but thankfully most of us have many mitigating factors, also in our genes, that prevent us from acting upon these impulses.
    I’m curious if there are genes so powerful in some that they are unable to challenge the religious tales passed from generation to generation. In that case I think we should do less arguing and have a bit more compassion, but lies are lies and I don’t excuse any behavior we use to benefit our personal interest over our ideals. Call me naive, but I wouldn’t want to live in a world where I’ve become so jaded I no longer have any hope in mankind. I’m tired of arguing for today, and I want to leave a disclaimer that if I insulted anyone for no reason, I sincerely apologize. I am just as flawed as any man, but a few thing I won’t tolerate are intentional lies and disrespecting the privacy of another. I don’t want to insult anyone, but I’m working on that. It would be nice to disagree civilly and stop the insults, because we seem to lose any respect for the one trying to make his argument and we all know there’s a better way, but I’m not yet sure what it involves. Till then, best of times to all.

  392. on 24 Jun 2012 at 3:48 pm 392.Lou(DFW) said …

    390.ASStrophysicist said …

    “alex is one of the best friends the theist has at their disposal.”

    True or not, theists like ASS need all the “best friends” they can get, because they obviously don’t have an actual evidence for their imaginary god.

  393. on 24 Jun 2012 at 6:41 pm 393.Lou(DFW) said …

    389.Martin (another sock-puppet) said …

    “Thank you for your posts alex. I don’t know if you are a theist plant but you keep me laughing.”

    Good for you, it keeps you from despairing over your inability to provide any evidence for your imaginary god.

  394. on 10 Jul 2012 at 6:01 am 394.Anonymous said …

    We have sanctification through Jesus, so that many of the laws of the old testament are no longer necessary for us to achieve righteousness (ex: women not cutting hair, not eating certain foods, or like you mentioned not working on the sabbath) Because of Christ we no longer have to live by laws because His death freed us of that.

    Also as you pointed out the Bible clearly does call homosexuality an abomination, but it is no greater a sin than lust, pride, lying, or sex before marriage. I as a christian, get upset when others put homosexuality on a pedestal, as the sin above all sins. That is not right, and I hate that we live in a world where we feel such a need to judge others. God clearly calls us love others, not judge. And often times I find the ones who are the quickest to judge, are those with the biggest insecurities. I apologize for any bad experiences you have ever had with a christian that misrepresented what my faith is all about. I’m not trying to convince you of my beliefs or prove anything to you, just wanted to share a little bit! :)

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply