Feed on Posts or Comments 20 September 2014

Christianity Thomas on 12 Jun 2012 12:32 am

A Mormon-to-atheist story, times two

In this story, a husband and wife become rational and reject their Mormon superstitions:

I Was a Good Mormon Wife … Until My Husband Stopped Believing in God

“I don’t believe in God,” my husband whispered in the darkness of our bedroom…

When Sean replaced his temple garments — the sacred underwear he’d promised to wear day and night — with boxers, I couldn’t take it anymore. It was too much betrayal. I called up a neighbor with a husband like mine and cried. But instead of empathy, she offered questions that stunned me into silence. Was Sean addicted to pornography? Watching R-rated movies? What sin had brought him to this terrible place?

My tears stopped. Her questions were so off-base that they seemed absurd. She was sincere, and trying to help, but she believed what the Church teaches — that a man would only leave because he’s disobeying the commandments. She couldn’t understand this was a rational inquiry. She saw everything as the result of sin.

This started my brain twitching. I knew Sean was still a good person, that he still maintained the same moral standards he had when he married me. The Church was wrong about him. What else might they be wrong about?

She then tells her story of becoming an atheist like her husband.

And so, another person abandons superstition and mythology and embraces rational thought.

How could any thinking person believe all of the ridiculous and obvious mythology found in the Bible? If you would just take the time to open your eyes and see that it is ridiculous mythology, you would become rational too. This video will help:

135 Responses to “A Mormon-to-atheist story, times two”

  1. on 12 Jun 2012 at 4:25 pm 1.BrianE said …

    I hope someone posts a picture of Mitt Romney in his magical underwear during the campaign season.

  2. on 12 Jun 2012 at 6:19 pm 2.Curmudgeon said …

    Anything like this Brian?

    http://mariopiperni.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/obama_superman.jpg

  3. on 12 Jun 2012 at 11:22 pm 3.Lover said …

    So the logic of the video is as follows:

    A is false as D is false
    B is false as D is false
    Therefor C is false as D is false.

    However, here is the error in such logic.

    A and B are predicated upon C.

    That is to say, WITHOUT C neither A nor B would exist.

    However, neither A nor B PROVE C (as contingency alone is not proof).

    Nor do A and B disprove C either (as contingency cannot disprove)

    But then we have D. Of which is solely independent of any of the other three.

    Thus, neither A, B or C is contingent upon D. Thus if D is false, it doesn’t speak to the validity of A, B or C. Nor if D is true does it speak to the validity of A, B or C.

    Rather, D is alone by itself and has no bearing upon A, B, or C in any way whatsoever.

    This logic does NOT follow.

    BECAUSE:

    A may be true DESPITE B being false and D being false.

    A may be true DESPITE B being false and D being TRUE.

    A may be true as B is true and D is true.

    A may be true as B is true and D is false.

    However,

    A may be true if C is true.

    BUT – A CANNOT be true is C is false.

    (now switch as and B and keep D where it is – all applies)

    HOWEVER.

    C can be true EVEN IF A or B is false (as C is NOT CONTINGENT upon the validity of either A or B).

    AND

    C can be true even if D is true or false (as C is not contingent upon D either)

    Certainly C can be false – however, it can’t be false BECAUSE A, B or D are false, but rather because it is false alone.

    This video argues C is false BECAUSE A, B and D are false.

    However, as the above has shown – that is faulty and incorrect logic.

    C must be shown to be false by some other means than via A, B or D.

  4. on 13 Jun 2012 at 12:14 am 4.Prime said …

    Oh shit. Lover’s back.

  5. on 13 Jun 2012 at 12:20 am 5.Lover said …

    Prime -

    LOL.

    However, I see that there is no actual, logical retort.

  6. on 13 Jun 2012 at 12:28 am 6.Prime said …

    Honestly, Lover, I didn’t bother reading it. I’ve filed you in the same box as 40YA. I don’t read his crap either. Big giant time sink. I was losing precious minutes of my life with that crap.

  7. on 13 Jun 2012 at 12:29 am 7.Prime said …

    *You guys had your chances. You blew them. I think you both could come on here and post that you’re atheists now, that you’re sorry, and what changed your mind, but if it is longer than two sentences, I’m not going to ever find out.

  8. on 13 Jun 2012 at 12:32 am 8.Lover said …

    “Honestly, Lover, I didn’t bother reading it. I’ve filed you in the same box as 40YA. I don’t read his crap either. Big giant time sink. I was losing precious minutes of my life with that crap.”

    Yet, those precious minutes are spent making such statements as above…

  9. on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:31 am 9.Boz said …

    lol, good one Lover.

  10. on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:47 am 10.Prime said …

    Not *nearly* as many.

  11. on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:48 am 11.Lover said …

    “Not *nearly* as many”

    Yet more spent…

  12. on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:50 am 12.Lover said …

    That’s cool Prime.

    I don’t need you to read it. Others are and seeing the problem with the video even if YOU choose to ignore it.

  13. on 13 Jun 2012 at 2:23 am 13.alex said …

    yeah, you clowns are good. now go convince some natives about your god. and when your logic fails, you can always bludgeon or shoot them.

    …wait, didn’t your homies do that successfully back in the day? shit, those poor natives, for hundreds/thousands of years, they all went to hell because of that goddamn original sin.

  14. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:22 am 14.Lover said …

    Prime -

    so much of your precious time in life wasted on the other posts…still can’t come up with any argument here?

    My Logic must be sound then. If that’s the case then, the video’s logic isn’t.

    Thus video is a bad argument against Christianity, logically.

  15. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:29 am 15.Prime said …

    I don’t know if your logic is sound or not. I didn’t read your crap. I’m not going to. It’s possible that it is, but given your record here, you’re probably operating on crap assumptions or choosing to make the points you want to make from what’s provided above. Who cares?

    The problem with arguing with people like you is that if we don’t present “slam-dunk” arguments against you, which take some time and effort to produce, you dance around like you won a major victory and non sequitur (see that, Curm) your God right into the scene. On the other hand, if we do make a slam-dunk argument against you, you pretend it isn’t one and then behave the exact same way. Sometimes, instead, you just change the subject to another diversion, or you drill us on some technical point to the point of it being beyond absurd. In the end, you still do your victory dance (a bit like a kid who stole the basketball and ran down the court the wrong way and threw it in the wrong goal to score his first-ever points in a game) and non sequitur (there it is again, Curm!) your God right in there, usually with a pigeon-shaped shoehorn of sad shame.

  16. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:44 am 16.Lover said …

    Prime -

    “I don’t know if your logic is sound or not. I didn’t read your crap. I’m not going to. It’s possible that it is, but given your record here, you’re probably operating on crap assumptions or choosing to make the points you want to make from what’s provided above. Who cares?”

    Evidentaly you dont’. You are of the mind that it’s the bearer of information that bears truth, not whether or not it IS truth. You show your bias, not because it points to truth, but because you don’t agree with it.

    Thank you for at least admitting it. You care not a wit about logical thinking or truth – just your belief and it’s result.

    “The problem with arguing with people like you is that if we don’t present “slam-dunk” arguments against you, which take some time and effort to produce, you dance around like you won a major victory and non sequitur (see that, Curm) your God right into the scene. ”

    I haven’t seen ANY argument against my belief. Only arguments framed as YOU want them to be framed and “ignoring” when I do make arguments. And questions dodged – and attacks on ME do not disprove God, though I know you wish that so.

    YOU are the one that claimed I’m not worth your time, yet have wasted how much time on me tonight in your spouting of nothing factual, but just rants – and when I call you on your rants (such as when you put words in my mouth) you ignore them and try to change the subject.

    And Prime you are doing nothing more than proving my points when you do as such, so please keep at it. Do not address any points I make and continue to just make statements such as you just have so I can point out the faults in them.

    You are helping more than you know.

  17. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:54 am 17.Prime said …

    “16.Lover said …

    “Thank you for at least admitting it. You care not a wit about logical thinking or truth – just your belief and it’s result.”

    Um, what? How about you back that up with real evidence? Did you miss the part previously on this blog where we discussed that I’m a mathematician and therefore make my living by logical thinking, which I’m pretty clearly concerned about since I am using some of my time (still!) trying to get you to sign up for it–and you’ll actually probably be good at it once you get the circularity issue worked out.

    “And Prime you are doing nothing more than proving my points when you do as such, so please keep at it. Do not address any points I make and continue to just make statements such as you just have so I can point out the faults in them.
    You are helping more than you know.”

    Could be. I bet dollars to donuts that you’re wrong about something of substance, though, and whatever you’re wrong about comes down to the nature of religious belief.

  18. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:01 am 18.Prime said …

    And in other news with camp-weird over there in Utah:
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/club-unicorn-i-am-a-gay-devout-mormon-happily-married-to-a-woman-with-three

  19. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:06 am 19.Lover said …

    Prime –

    “Um, what? How about you back that up with real evidence? Did you miss the part previously on this blog where we discussed that I’m a mathematician and therefore make my living by logical thinking, which I’m pretty clearly concerned about since I am using some of my time (still!) trying to get you to sign up for it–and you’ll actually probably be good at it once you get the circularity issue worked out.”

    1) assumption of your name. However, you didn’t read my logical argument in the newest post did you? Nope. you admitted as such. Thus you aren’t interested in facts or logic – as you admitted. As you stated, my logic may be correct, but you would know- you didn’t read it…that shows you aren’t INTERESTED IN LOGIC really – just what you think you can show in your argument.

    “Could be. I bet dollars to donuts that you’re wrong about something of substance, though, and whatever you’re wrong about comes down to the nature of religious belief.”

    Could be, I would admit – why? Because I’m not afraid of being wrong. Why? Because I’m only interested in truth, NOT being right. I don’t purposely ignore something because of who says it or why they say it. If it rings true, then I test it and see if it is.

    You have shown that this isn’t what you do. You purposely ignore what might/might not agree with you and have blatantly admitted doing so: your logic might be sound, but….

    If I’m wrong, cool, I can still live as I choose. If you are wrong, you lose a large part of your identity…especially on here…I doubt you’d risk that.

    And, by what you have admitted just tonight – you are showing that exactly.

  20. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:13 am 20.Prime said …

    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.

  21. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:55 am 21.Lover said …

    Prime -

    “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.”

    Thank you…you have just shown all your cards…you don’t care about facts or logic, just YOUR belief regardless if it is true or not.

    I could have put facts in front of you – you don’t care.

    Logic?

    You don’t care.

    You ONLY care about YOUR belief and no one will take that away from you.

    That is rational?

  22. on 13 Jun 2012 at 12:29 pm 22.Lover said …

    Right here lou…

    See my critique of the video and it’s faulty logic? Would you care to defend the video?

    Or will you dodge, like Prime. Are you interested in facts and logic?

    If so, then you have to reject the videos logic as it doesn’t follow.

    Or defend it and show how it does.

  23. on 13 Jun 2012 at 12:54 pm 23.Lover said …

    Over here Lou…still ignoring this thread?

    Guess I’ll put this in the win column for me!

    Woohoo!

  24. on 13 Jun 2012 at 12:58 pm 24.Lou(DFW) said …

    22.Lover said …

    “See my critique of the video and it’s faulty logic? Would you care to defend the video?”

    No, because regardless of its logic, it’s true.

  25. on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:00 pm 25.Lou(DFW) said …

    23.Lover said …

    “Over here Lou…still ignoring this thread?

    Guess I’ll put this in the win column for me!”

    There really is something wrong with you or you’re ten years old.

  26. on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:04 pm 26.Lover said …

    Lou -

    “There really is something wrong with you or you’re ten years old”

    Wow we have to be serious ALL the time on this blog? Can’t have a little fun, Lou doesn’t like it.

    Anyway Lou – addressing the logic or ignoring it and conceding the video’s logic is faulty?

  27. on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:06 pm 27.Lover said …

    “No, because regardless of its logic, it’s true.”

    Please defend.

    How is it true?

    Please list the evidence that you have that what the video says about Christianity is true?

    And this statement seems to say that you admit the logic is faulty.

  28. on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:08 pm 28.Lover said …

    and lets not forget the video’s purpose was to PROVE that Christianity was a delusion based on it’s LOGIC. Thus the video fails, and proves no such thing.

  29. on 13 Jun 2012 at 1:38 pm 29.Anonymous said …

    In response to #3 by Lover, when I watch the video the logic looks more like:

    1) Mormonism contains a bunch of magical BS. Everyone but Mormons can see that because Mormons are delusional about their religion.

    2) Islam contains a bunch of magical BS. Everyone but Muslims can see that because Muslims are delusional about their religion.

    3) Christianity contains a bunch of magical BS. Everyone but Christians can see that because Christians are delusional about their religion.

    4) If you want to live a life free from delusion and magical BS, abandon all religion.

    Lover, you agree that Mormons and Muslims are delusional. Otherwise you would be a Mormon or a Muslim. However, you cling to your Christian delusion. Why not release all delusion? Why do you cling to magical BS?

  30. on 13 Jun 2012 at 2:07 pm 30.Lover said …

    “1) Mormonism contains a bunch of magical BS. Everyone but Mormons can see that because Mormons are delusional about their religion.

    2) Islam contains a bunch of magical BS. Everyone but Muslims can see that because Muslims are delusional about their religion.

    3) Christianity contains a bunch of magical BS. Everyone but Christians can see that because Christians are delusional about their religion.

    4) If you want to live a life free from delusion and magical BS, abandon all religion. ”

    Yep that’s a summary of the video. I was addressing it’s logic.

    It stated it’s purpose was to prove Christianity was a delusion – it didn’t. It made claims as such and used faulty logic to make it’s case – yet proving any of them as delusions it failed.

    And used faulty logic to try and do so.

    If you disagree please quote some points that PROVE that Christianity is a delusion…then we can get to why I’m not a Mormon or a Muslim.

  31. on 13 Jun 2012 at 2:22 pm 31.Anonymous said …

    In response to #30 by Lover: Do you agree that the Mormon story’s elements like magical golden plates (which ascended into heaven via angel), magical seer stones and millions of jews living in the United States are imaginary and that the people who believe in them are delusional?

    If you are sane you probably do, but let’s make sure.

  32. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:26 pm 32.Lou(DFW) said …

    30.Lover said …

    “Yep that’s a summary of the video. I was addressing it’s logic.

    It stated it’s purpose was to prove Christianity was a delusion – it didn’t. It made claims as such and used faulty logic to make it’s case – yet proving any of them as delusions it failed.”

    Chris/Lover, please provide the time index of the video wherein it claims that its stated purpose is “prove Christianity [is] a delusion.”

  33. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:38 pm 33.Prime said …

    Christlover’s pigeon is break dancing now. Holy crap.

    This is a perfect demonstration, however, of why “universities” like Liberty are so damaging. Their debate team is considered to be one of the best in the world, often defeating the Ivy League teams resoundingly. The problem is… it doesn’t matter. They’re just learning to talk circles around people and trying to waste their time by getting them to verify and back up every clause of every statement that they make to the point of it being ridiculous and pointless.

    Christlover, do you go to one of those uber-Christian universities, by chance? Do you go to class or club meetings and talk about how you come on here and dance around us, “destroying” our arguments, failing to recognize or point out that you’re the pigeon on the chessboard?

  34. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:50 pm 34.Lover said …

    Prime -

    “Christlover, do you go to one of those uber-Christian universities, by chance? Do you go to class or club meetings and talk about how you come on here and dance around us, “destroying” our arguments, failing to recognize or point out that you’re the pigeon on the chessboard?”

    Nope I do not go to as uber-Christian school, nor do I go to club meetings. Nor do I discuss this with anyone in fact.

  35. on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:50 pm 35.Lou(DFW) said …

    Chris/Lover, please provide the time index of the video wherein it claims that its stated purpose is “prove Christianity [is] a delusion.”

    And…

    27.Lover said …

    “How is it true?

    Please list the evidence that you have that what the video says about Christianity is true?”

    The evidence is in the video. Must I repeat it for you?

    You seem to be ignoring the parts about Mormonism and Islam? Are they true or false?

  36. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:11 pm 36.Lou(DFW) said …

    30.Lover said …

    “If you disagree please quote some points that PROVE that Christianity is a delusion…then we can get to why I’m not a Mormon or a Muslim.”

    Can we assume that you are Christian?

  37. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:21 pm 37.Lover said …

    “Can we assume that you are Christian?”

    I thought this was quite evident. But yes. I believe in Jesus Christ.

    “The evidence is in the video. Must I repeat it for you? ”

    Lou, I showed HOW the video can’t be evidence. Nor is there evidence IN the video that Christianity is a delusion. It only makes the statement as such and falls on the

    A is false as D is false
    B is false as D is false
    Therefor C is false as D is false.

    And then I go on to show how this logically is invalid.

    So repeat away, but your repeating faulty logic without evidence.

    “You seem to be ignoring the parts about Mormonism and Islam? Are they true or false?”

    No, I’m still working on the evidence that Christianity is false because Mormonism and Islam are false.

    But to answer – no, I don’t believe they are true. And we DO have valid reasons why – reasons that you are lacking for Christianity as we will get to I’m sure.

  38. on 13 Jun 2012 at 4:37 pm 38.Prime said …

    Christlover, you’re making the mistake of trying to treat these videos as careful, detailed philosophical treatises instead of plain-language attempts to explain a phenomenon. That’s why you look like an idiot arguing like you are.

  39. on 13 Jun 2012 at 5:13 pm 39.Spherical Basterd said …

    Jesus fucking Christ on a pogo stick. When will you christards get it? We athiests have explained over and over again that we do not believe because you have no evidence of the existance of your god.

    Christianity, as the late great H.L. Mencken stated, is based soley on the premise that a man died and through some supernatural process arose from the grave three days later and then acended into heaven. We DO NOT believe in the supernatural. We DO believe that our world and the universe can be explained through natural processes. We may not understand all of them, yet, but everything that every religion, throughout the history of mankind has tried to explain as the supernatural, from the creation of the universe to human illness has been proven wrong. Dead Fucking Wrong!

    Why you christians continue to come here and shit up the threads is beyond me. We will never go back to superstition, claims without evidence, fear of of life and death, immorality, racism and bigotry and basing our lives on the teachings of ignorant bronze age goat fuckers.

    Get the fuck out of here and go back to your caves with your circular logic, superstitions and fallicious voodoo bullshit!

  40. on 13 Jun 2012 at 5:21 pm 40.Lou(DFW) said …

    37.Lover said …

    “Can we assume that you are Christian?”

    “I thought this was quite evident. But yes. I believe in Jesus Christ.”

    But, you aren’t religious, right? LOL!

    “No, I’m still working on the evidence that Christianity is false because Mormonism and Islam are false.”

    Then you’re working from a faulty premise. Your entire “logical” argument is invalid.

    First you didn’t answer “provide the time index of the video wherein it claims that its stated purpose is “prove Christianity [is] a delusion.”

    Second, the video doesn’t assert that xtianity is false because other religions are false. It asserts that xtianity is false for the same reasons that other religions are false.

    “But to answer – no, I don’t believe they are true. And we DO have valid reasons why – reasons that you are lacking for Christianity as we will get to I’m sure.”

    LOL! That’s where you should have started! But no, you created a faulty premise in order to create an false argument against it.

    But you seem to miss the strongest point of the video – that xtianity and religion “skews your thinking.” You comments here are “proof” of that.

  41. on 13 Jun 2012 at 5:44 pm 41.Anonymous said …

    Second time:

    In response to #30 by Lover: Do you agree that the Mormon story’s elements like magical golden plates (which ascended into heaven via angel), magical seer stones and millions of jews living in the United States are imaginary and that the people who believe in them are delusional?

    If you are sane you probably do, but let’s make sure.

  42. on 13 Jun 2012 at 7:41 pm 42.Scourge said …

    Lover- You do not know much about logic and should not act as if you do lest you continue to make yourself look foolish.

    The argument is actually the following:

    Mormonism=f(magic and crazy unverifiable claims) -> delusion -> !truth
    Islam = g(magic and crazy unverifiable claims) -> delusion -> !truth
    Christianity = h(magic and crazy unverifiable claims) -> delusion -> !truth

    The point is that having a world view based on magic and crazy claims is delusion, and that does not lead you to truth. The overarching assumption is that truth is something desirable and helps one live one’s live. Delusions for some make an otherwise miserable life endurable. This and the need for the ruling classes to maintain control of the masses, as well as to suck wealth from the masses, has always been the main motivator of religion. Christianity is unique in that it is the lowest common denominator of human aspiration. Islam runs a close second.

  43. on 13 Jun 2012 at 9:20 pm 43.alex said …

    religion is bullshit, period. faith healing is bullshit period. go ahead and try to prove for it.

    you say evolution is bullshit. ok, just to shut your fucking mouth, i’ll agree.

    you say the big bang is bullshit. again, i’ll agree.

    you say some atheists are bad. ok, once again.

    religion is bullshit…. your move.

  44. on 13 Jun 2012 at 10:08 pm 44.Lou(DFW) said …

    41.Scourge said …

    Lover- You do not know much about logic and should not act as if you do lest you continue to make yourself look foolish.”

    I don’t think it’s so much about logic as it is about his delusion. I think he already decided what’s wrong with the video before he watched it. Consequently, he was blinded by his religious fanaticism. Unfortunately, he’s just another religious nut-job who’s all wound-up about it to the point that he can’t think straight. See “The utter irrationality of Christians.”

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=2312

    “The argument is actually the following”

    Yes, as I described in:

    39.Lou(DFW) said …

    Second, the video doesn’t assert that xtianity is false because other religions are false. It asserts that xtianity is false for the same reasons that other religions are false.

  45. on 14 Jun 2012 at 1:48 am 45.Dez said …

    “religion is bullshit…. your move.”

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/zoltron/126547679/

  46. on 14 Jun 2012 at 2:41 am 46.Anonymous said …

    Dez, Bozo, Asher, Louser, Hasben, Cleo, Megabyte, Crum, Judge, A; it’s a sock-puppet convention. Still no proof of their imaginary god though. Just bluster.

  47. on 14 Jun 2012 at 2:59 pm 47.Anonymous said …

    Third time:

    In response to #30 by Lover: Do you agree that the Mormon story’s elements like magical golden plates (which ascended into heaven via angel), magical seer stones and millions of jews living in the United States are imaginary and that the people who believe in them are delusional?

    If you are sane you probably do, but let’s make sure.

  48. on 14 Jun 2012 at 11:27 pm 48.Lover said …

    Lou -

    as to the time stamp that you requested: :05 seconds into the video where is states that I am about to find out that my belief in God is a delusion – thus claiming that it will PROVE that God is a delusion.

  49. on 15 Jun 2012 at 12:40 am 49.Lover said …

    Prime -

    “Christlover, you’re making the mistake of trying to treat these videos as careful, detailed philosophical treatises instead of plain-language attempts to explain a phenomenon. That’s why you look like an idiot arguing like you are.”

    Again, I don’t CARE how I look – though I know you are concerned with other people’s perceptions.

    Second, I treated as such to show that it wasn’t. A point you clearly missed.

    The video is void of logic or any real arguments, yet after watching it, I’m supposed to abandon my faith and “realize” that it’s all a delusion…

  50. on 15 Jun 2012 at 12:45 am 50.Lover said …

    “Do you agree that the Mormon story’s elements like magical golden plates (which ascended into heaven via angel), magical seer stones and millions of jews living in the United States are imaginary and that the people who believe in them are delusional?”

    Well, yes I do believe there are millions of Jews living in the United States. There’s quite a bit of evidence to show this. In fact, some are even celebrities – though they could be lying at not really be Jewish.

    No, I don’t believe in seer stones or magical golden plates.

    As a person who works with people with delusions and other mental illnesses, I would say that those who do believe in seer stones and magical golden plates may be delusional regarding THOSE SPECIFICALLY…but in general life, no.

    As if you and I sat down, Anon…I guarantee you we’d find something you are delusional about.

    EVERYONE is delusional about something…not just the mentally insane.

    However, about people who believe there are millions of Jews in the US – no. i don’t believe they are delusional…but maybe because I share the same belief.

  51. on 15 Jun 2012 at 1:21 am 51.Anonymous said …

    In response to #49 Lover, for what reason do you not believe in the seer stones and magical golden plates of the Mormon faith?

    Why do you disregard the sworn testimony of the people who handled the plates?

    http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction?lang=eng

  52. on 15 Jun 2012 at 1:57 am 52.Lover said …

    “Why do you disregard the sworn testimony of the people who handled the plates?”

    well, for several reasons.

    1) they said they ONLY saw the plates. with engravings. And certainly they could. But what they don’t attest to is that they READ them with the seer stones. They don’t SWEAR to what was written on the plates, just that they saw them.

    2) we don’t know if they were really Gold. Even the eight witnesses admit: “which have the appearance of gold”

    Appearance of gold…might not have been.

    Nor do they READ the plates.

    In fact, it is only the testimony of the THREE men that claim revelation.

    So, the 8 testify to nothing.

    So what about the three, then?

    Well, after a quick google search – which you could have done.

    would have given you a link to a site such as this:

    http://www.bible.ca/mor-witness-book.htm

    In which, in case you don’t want to read the whole things says this:

    “Like David Whitmer, Martin Harris later testified that he did not see the plates literally with his fleshly eyes: He said he saw the plates with “the eyes of faith and not with the natural eyes”. This we believe is the truth but it should eliminate him automatically as a witness none the less. This of course proves Mormonism is a fraud and that the Nephi Plates never existed and no one actually saw them. (The Braden & Kelly Debate, p. 173″

    two down…

    What about Cowdry?

    “Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated from the Mormon church and joined the Methodist church.
    In 1841 the Mormons published a poem which stated “Or Book of Mormon not his word, because denied by Oliver”. Seasons and Times, Vol 2, p482
    The Mormon church accused Oliver Cowdery of Adultery and claimed he had joined “a gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs”. ”

    Well, there we have it evidence AGAINST the gold plates.

    Two admitted liars about the stones – 8 people who saw something gold like and ‘looked’ ancient, and one guy who didn’t like being a Mormon – though he “saw” these plates and even swore to “God” it was true.

    How’d I do?

    But they do see:

    “and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship”

    again “appearance” and curious workmanship.

    How would they know? they can’t read the plates. nor will they SWEAR that it IS of ancient work.

    No mention of seer stones in either reply.

    So, if you look at the testimony of the 8. what did they actually see, according to THEIR words?

    gold LOOKING plates that APPEARED to be ancient with curious (?) workmanship.

    Sure, I can buy that they saw that. But what they DON’T say: there are REALLY the gold plates Mr. Smith claims they are.

  53. on 15 Jun 2012 at 1:58 am 53.Lover said …

    Okay – Liars is a bit rough…but they didn’t see them as they claimed and swore to God about…maybe just a large bend in the truth…

  54. on 15 Jun 2012 at 2:01 am 54.Lover said …

    Hey, if the post reads funny – it’s because I messed up my cut/paste with the quotes…but I’m sure you can piece it together and see the point…

    So I don’t disregard. I don’t believe, because of the CONTRA evidence of the three (from their own admission) and because 8 people didn’t claim to see anything special at all. just “appeared” to be.

  55. on 15 Jun 2012 at 3:25 am 55.Prime said …

    Lover, did Paul see Jesus with his fleshly eyes or with eyes of spirit? Did he have a physical body or only the appearance of one?

  56. on 15 Jun 2012 at 12:50 pm 56.Lou(DFW) said …

    51.Lover said …

    “Why do you disregard the sworn testimony of the people who handled the plates?”

    “well, for several reasons.”

    Ignoring that his reasons are typical of his “debating” style, what’s ironic about Chris/Love’s attempt to discredit Mormonism and the video is that he actually substantiates the idea expressed in the video!

  57. on 15 Jun 2012 at 1:15 pm 57.Anonymous said …

    In response to #51 Lover, for what reason do you not believe in Mohammed’s flying horse or Mohammed’s flight on that horse as commemorated by the Dome of the Rock:

    http://witcombe.sbc.edu/sacredplaces/domeofrock.html

    “the rock was sanctified by the story of the Prophet Mohammed’s Miraaj or Night Journey to Jerusalem and back to Makkah [Mecca] (Qur’an 17:1). From the top of the rock, Mohammed began his ascent to Heaven.”

  58. on 15 Jun 2012 at 2:43 pm 58.Prime said …

    Careful now, 56Anonymous, pigeons don’t recognize when they’re in check(mate) and kick over the pieces just the same.

  59. on 15 Jun 2012 at 9:03 pm 59.Lover said …

    Lou -

    I’m not sure why your suprised what I came up with sides with the video. Since the video maker doesn’t beleive the Mormons nor do I – it would stand to reason would it not?

    Certainly it would.

    If you remember READING what I posted about the video was – it’s LOGIC.

    In fact, all the video said was there was no evidence of the battles or Jew living in America at the claimed time.

    I gave further information, so perhaps the video maker could make another one.

  60. on 15 Jun 2012 at 9:06 pm 60.Lover said …

    Anon -

    I will have to answer your next question later, Monday perhaps.

    Prime -

    Ditto.

  61. on 15 Jun 2012 at 9:44 pm 61.Anonymous said …

    “I will have to answer your next question later, Monday perhaps.”

    Presumably after he’s had enough time to use google to come up with some post-hoc rationalizations so as to back up his claim that he’s examined the “contra” evidence.

  62. on 15 Jun 2012 at 10:02 pm 62.Lou(DFW) said …

    58.Lover said …

    “If you remember READING what I posted about the video was – it’s LOGIC.”

    Ironically, the video against which you so vehemently argue is about YOU! You are stuck in one of those bubbles.

    Chris/Lover, we can only rebut your nonsensical arrangements so many times.

  63. on 16 Jun 2012 at 12:09 am 63.Lou said …

    “for what reason do you not believe in Mohammed’s flying horse or Mohammed’s flight on that horse as commemorated by the Dome of the Rock:”

    Speaking just for me, for the same reason I don’t belief life magically appeared out of the primordial soup, created itself, designed itself and then magically added information to itself.

    Now why do you and DPK believe so many things that require faith but not something so obvious as God?

    To quote Pink Floyd “run run run run run”

    Checkmate!

  64. on 16 Jun 2012 at 12:43 am 64.Prime said …

    62.Lou said …

    “Checkmate!” -Says Lou while playing checkers, or perhaps it’s pocket pool.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

  65. on 16 Jun 2012 at 12:45 am 65.Prime said …

    Correction to #63:

    AAAAAAHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhHhahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

  66. on 16 Jun 2012 at 4:12 am 66.Lou(DFW) said …

    62.Louser said …

    “Speaking just for me, for the same reason I don’t belief life magically appeared out of the primordial soup, created itself, designed itself and then magically added information to itself.”

    Because religion is delusional nonsense?

    “Now why do you and DPK believe so many things that require faith but not something so obvious as God?”

    Yes, it’s obvious that belief in god requires faith. We don’t need you to tell us that.

    What we need from you is evidence for YOUR imaginary god or, if not that, then for “Mohammed’s flying horse or Mohammed’s flight on that horse as commemorated by the Dome of the Rock.”

  67. on 16 Jun 2012 at 4:14 am 67.Lou(DFW) said …

    62.Louser said …

    “Checkmate!”

    Squawked Louser as he knocked over all the chess pieces.

  68. on 18 Jun 2012 at 11:22 pm 68.Lover said …

    Anon -

    Okay, to your Muhammad question.

    I could invoke Lou’s way of (not) answering your question: I do not believe Muhammad was a prophet.

    And now since that is EXACTLY the same as Lou’s: I do not believe in the existence of god.

    I can walk away and not answer the question – I don’t need to, as Lou doesn’t need to.

    However, I will. Because I can (where Lou doesn’t because he can’t).

    For one reason I reject the story of Muhammad riding to heaven on a horse (or is it donkey?). Either way – I reject it, because I reject Muhammad as a prophet.

    This story takes place AFTER he was considered a prophet – thus, if he fails as a prophet, this story fails too.

    Certainly we can go into why I reject Muhammad as a prophet – because I can provide reasons and evidence for such a non-belief.

    I’ll also put up a link – which took less than five minutes to find (as support for my non-belief).

    http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zaatari/mo-false1.html

    See?

    Even with a non-belief, I can still SUPPORT my non-belief.

    I could have done the Lou cop out – however, I opted for answering your question.

    So now – Anon – I answered your questions as to why I don’t believe Mormonism and Islam.

    So, now, why do you disregard the Gospels?

  69. on 19 Jun 2012 at 1:39 am 69.Prime said …

    Lover, you’re stupid beyond words if you don’t think we can refute (and haven’t already refuted) the tenants of Christianity just as well as you have done with Islam.

    We don’t believe Muhammad was a prophet any more than you do. We also don’t believe Jesus was the son of God or savior of anything. If I link you to specific articles on Debunking Christianity, will that convince you? Would what you just put convince a devout Muslim?

    The point of this whole exercise, indeed this whole thread, is to reveal how your adherence to Christianity is every bit as flimsily supported as a belief in Islam or Mormonism would be. The idea is to get you to see that your delusion is LITERALLY NO DIFFERENT from the ones you see in other religious traditions. NO DIFFERENT. You think you can defend Christianity, just as Muslims and Mormons think they can, respectively, defend Islam and Mormonism.

    It’s staggeringly sad that you can’t see it, perhaps because you’re too busy doing your pigeon dance.

  70. on 19 Jun 2012 at 2:07 am 70.Anonymous said …

    In response to #68 Lover:

    “why do you disregard the Gospels?”

    Reason #1 – there is no evidence Jesus existed:

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

    Reason #2 – god does not heal amputees:

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/important.htm

    Reason #3 – all of these reasons, but especially #51:

    http://godisimaginary.com/i51.htm

    If you actually take the time to process this information, you will understand that god is imaginary.

  71. on 19 Jun 2012 at 2:27 am 71.Lou(DFW) said …

    68.Lover said …

    “I could invoke Lou’s way of (not) answering your question: I do not believe Muhammad was a prophet.

    And now since that is EXACTLY the same as Lou’s: I do not believe in the existence of god.

    I can walk away and not answer the question – I don’t need to, as Lou doesn’t need to.

    However, I will. Because I can (where Lou doesn’t because he can’t).”

    Are you back on this semantic word-play nonsense again? You ARE an idiot.

  72. on 19 Jun 2012 at 7:36 am 72.Anonymous said …

    “Are you back on this semantic word-play nonsense again? You ARE an idiot.”

    Isn’t that what Chris’ argument has been all along? It’s the same style of inanity that Stan posts.

    So far the bulk of his argument is “prove me wrong” and various other rewordings of “you can’t disprove…”. It’s just one giant Gish Gallop of a reversal of the burden of proof.

    When you add in the childish word-play, shifting definitions and goal-posts, refusal to actually state definable and specific aspects of his belief and of his god (god is love – give me a fucking break, talk about dodging the question), his consistent use of weasel words and phrases, all we have are intentionally vague and amorphous sound bites being floated to prove… well, prove what? Who knows and, at this point, who cares.

  73. on 20 Jun 2012 at 12:11 pm 73.Anonymous said …

    Second time:

    In response to #68 Lover:

    “why do you disregard the Gospels?”

    Reason #1 – there is no evidence Jesus existed:

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

    Reason #2 – god does not heal amputees:

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/important.htm

    Reason #3 – all of these reasons, but especially #51:

    http://godisimaginary.com/i51.htm

    If you actually take the time to process this information, you will understand that god is imaginary.

  74. on 20 Jun 2012 at 1:44 pm 74.Martin said …

    Link #1 is a joke. You cannot be serious that you use this as evidence. If so you lose.

    Link #2 is circular reasoning and begging the question.

    Link #3 is the sister site of this one and only provides propaganda, speculation and hope for atheist.

    Anonymous, is this the type of scholarly work you use to come to your conclusions?

  75. on 20 Jun 2012 at 2:09 pm 75.Prime said …

    Martin: fail.

    Link #1: Not evidence, casting reasonable doubt. It’s your job to provide evidence, which you can’t. Nice try with the poisoning the well there, though.

    Link #2: I don’t think that anything on that link assumes what it wants to show and then claims to show it, but perhaps you can enlighten us on how saying “notice how God doesn’t heal amputees, ever” satisfies your claim?

    Link #3: I’m 100% sure you don’t know what you’re talking about here, which is corroborated by your comments on the previous two links. Care to elaborate?

  76. on 20 Jun 2012 at 2:12 pm 76.Prime said …

    It seems that you, Martin, like Christlover and many of the other theists here might want to stop flapping your lips and spend a couple of afternoons reading up on the “burden of proof” requirement.

  77. on 20 Jun 2012 at 3:42 pm 77.Lou(DFW) said …

    74.Martin said …

    “Link #3 is the sister site of this one and only provides propaganda, speculation and hope for atheist.”

    No, actually, it doesn’t. Atheists don’t operate on “propaganda, speculation and hope.” Atheism is precisely the REJECTION of those things that are characteristics of theism.

    “Anonymous, is this the type of scholarly work you use to come to your conclusions?”

    Hey, Einstein – it doesn’t require any “scholarly work” to reject theism any more than it does for a child to reject the belief in Santa Claus. There simply isn’t any evidence for god or Santa. They only way to conclude that god exists is to examine the evidence for him. So far, nobody, including you, has done that. Please read #76.

  78. on 20 Jun 2012 at 5:48 pm 78.DPK said …

    74.Martin said … “yap yap yap”

    Illuminating the way you dismiss arguments without actually providing any actual reasoning or evidence to the contrary. Says much about your position that the only way you can defend it with platitudes.

    You also clearly don’t understand the concept of circular reasoning or begging the question.

    Empty words.

  79. on 20 Jun 2012 at 6:09 pm 79.Lou(DFW) said …

    78.DPK said …

    “You also clearly don’t understand the concept of circular reasoning or begging the question.”

    Yikes! Let’s hope it isn’t Chris/Lover reincarnated.

  80. on 20 Jun 2012 at 8:43 pm 80.DPK said …

    It’s way too brief a post for Chris/Lover.
    He would require at LEAST 20 paragraphs to say essentially the same thing… which is nothing at all.
    D

  81. on 21 Jun 2012 at 12:08 am 81.A said …

    Martin.

    All (3) of your observations have been pointed out time and again. Link #1 was a great laugh. The worst introduction in human history!

    Then Anony claims this shows God is imaginary. Look up Burden of Proof Anony.

    Anony’s sell is as painful as watching President BHO’s press conference last night.

  82. on 21 Jun 2012 at 2:17 am 82.Prime said …

    81.A said …

    “Then Anony claims this shows God is imaginary. Look up Burden of Proof Anony.”

    Lovely parroting. Original thought much? No.
    Also, maybe you should be the one to look up that burden of proof thing, Asstrophysicist. Honestly. You’ve got it *exactly* backward.

  83. on 21 Jun 2012 at 2:39 am 83.Lou(DFW) said …

    82.Prime said …

    81.A said …

    “Then Anony claims this shows God is imaginary. Look up Burden of Proof Anony.”

    “Lovely parroting. Original thought much? No.”

    382.Lou(DFW) said …

    379.Bozo said …

    “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.”

    384.Prime said …

    “The degree of unoriginal thinking here deserves some kind of medal.

    Bozo, you get a brown, rusty star.”

    Bozo and ASStrophysicist can’t seem to hide their “parroting,” not to mention their inability to correctly punctuate a sentence, much like Hor and the rest of his sock-puppets) from their sock-puppeteer.

  84. on 21 Jun 2012 at 2:45 am 84.Lou(DFW) said …

    82.Prime said …

    “Also, maybe you should be the one to look up that burden of proof thing, Asstrophysicist. Honestly. You’ve got it *exactly* backward.”

    What is it with “their” inability to understand the concept of semantics?

    Atheism is a religion.

    Disbelief is belief.

    It’s as if they’re retarded or something.

  85. on 21 Jun 2012 at 3:58 am 85.Prime said …

    Next we’ll see them thanking you for your admissions in #84.

    I wish there was a cool way to whiff my hand over my head on this comment box.

  86. on 21 Jun 2012 at 10:28 am 86.Lou(DFW) said …

    85.Prime said …

    “Next we’ll see them thanking you for your admissions in #84.”

    You caught that, but missed something else. Will “they?”

  87. on 21 Jun 2012 at 11:42 am 87.Xenon said …

    “Anony’s sell is as painful as watching President BHO’s press conference last night.”

    Whoa! Easy on the president there.

    You need to remember the atheist way. They are allowed to make claims without providing proof. In this case Anonymous actually believes his links are proof, as bad as they are.

  88. on 21 Jun 2012 at 11:51 am 88.Xenon said …

    “Bozo and ASStrophysicist can’t seem to hide their “parroting,” not to mention their inability to correctly punctuate a sentence, much like Hor and the rest of his sock-puppets) from their sock-puppeteer.”

    I bet they can add a second parenthesis.

  89. on 21 Jun 2012 at 11:55 am 89.Lou(DFW) said …

    87.Xenon said …

    “You need to remember the atheist way.”

    You need to remember the theist way – lie about atheists in lieu of providing any evidence for their imaginary god.

    For example:

    “They are allowed to make claims without providing proof.”

    “In this case Anonymous actually believes his links are proof, as bad as they are.”

    And you actually believe in an imaginary god, without any “proof,” bad or otherwise.

  90. on 21 Jun 2012 at 12:00 pm 90.Lou(DFW) said …

    88.Xenon said …

    I bet they can add a second parenthesis.

    86.Lou(DFW) said …

    85.Prime said …

    “Next we’ll see them thanking you for your admissions in #84.”

    You caught that, but missed something else. Will “they?”

  91. on 21 Jun 2012 at 1:17 pm 91.A said …

    Xenon said “Whoa! Easy on the president there.”

    Are you sure it shouldn’t be the other way around?

    “They are allowed to make claims without providing proof.”

    They are not allowed, they just do it. They believe many things without proof then claim no proof for God.

    They really are a cult. If the right people tell them something is true, they believe. No proof needed.

  92. on 21 Jun 2012 at 1:35 pm 92.Lou(DFW) said …

    91.ASSrophysicist said …

    “They are not allowed, they just do it. They believe many things without proof then claim no proof for God.”

    (sigh) Disbelief is not a belief.

    “They really are a cult.”

    (sigh)By definition, “atheism” CANNOT be a cult, religion, etc. Repeating something over and over doesn’t make it true except in the theist mind.

    “If the right people tell them something is true, they believe. No proof needed.”

    As in belief in an imaginary god?

  93. on 21 Jun 2012 at 1:40 pm 93.Lou(DFW) said …

    91.ASStrophysicist said …

    “They believe many things without proof…”

    For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that’s true.

    “…then claim no proof for God.”

    Where is the “proof for God” that you claim we ignore?

  94. on 21 Jun 2012 at 3:27 pm 94.Prime said …

    93.Lou(DFW) said …

    “Where is the “proof for God” that you claim we ignore?”

    Tide comes in, tide goes out. Can’t explain that. Therefore God. Obviously.

  95. on 21 Jun 2012 at 4:30 pm 95.Lou said …

    A cult is a accurate definition of atheism. One of the definitions of a cult is:

    “5.intense interest in and devotion to a person, idea, or activity: the cult of yoga”

    The lack of belief by the new atheists is quite intense I would say. I have never seen the lack of belief produce such intense emotion and obsession as with these new atheists.

  96. on 21 Jun 2012 at 4:38 pm 96.Severin said …

    30 Lover
    A) Muslims say there is a god who created universe, governs it, loves people and answer their prayers. Those who believe in Muslim god will go to paradise, those who don’t will suffer in hell for ever and ever.

    You may make your choice now:
    Muslims are:
    a) Right
    b) Delusional

    B) Christians say there is a god who created universe, governs it, loves people and answer their prayers. Those who believe in Christian god will go to paradise, those who don’t will suffer in hell for ever and ever.

    Christians are:
    a) Right
    b) Delusional

    Problems?

  97. on 21 Jun 2012 at 4:58 pm 97.Scott said …

    “Muslims say there is a god who created universe, governs it, loves people and answer their prayers. Those who believe in Muslim god will go to paradise, those who don’t will suffer in hell for ever and ever.”

    Actually this is terribly incorrect.

    Believing in Allah does not guarantee you paradise. In fact, even following Allah’s commands do not guarantee one paradise. He can at the last moment take paradise away even if you have been faithful if he wishes.

    Allah does not have a personal relationship with his people but views them as servants, not his children. His love must be earned.

    To continue the game.

    1. The start of life on earth began with a lightning strike on the waters.

    Atheists are:
    a) Right
    b) Delusional

    Problems?

  98. on 21 Jun 2012 at 6:11 pm 98.Lou(DFW) said …

    95.Louser said …

    “A cult is a accurate definition of atheism. One of the definitions of a cult is:

    5.intense interest in and devotion to a person, idea, or activity: the cult of yoga”

    That’s evidence of what a lying idiot you are, because the disbelief of something doesn’t involve any of those three characteristics of the least common definition of cult that you chose.

    Listen closely, Louser. I realize that your intellectual style of debate is limited to “I know you are, but what am I,” but because you can’t defend your irrational, illogical, faith-based belief doesn’t mean that you can somehow create a false, balanced argument by lying about atheists.

    Notice how religion IS a cult by all the definitions

    cult (k?lt)
    1. a specific system of religious worship, esp with reference to its rites and deity
    2.a sect devoted to such a system
    3.a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents
    4.sociol a group having an exclusive ideology and ritual practices centred on sacred symbols, esp one characterized by lack of organizational structure
    5.intense interest in and devotion to a person, idea, or activity: the cult of yoga
    6.the person, idea, etc, arousing such devotion
    7.something regarded as fashionable or significant by a particular group

  99. on 21 Jun 2012 at 6:23 pm 99.Lou(DFW) said …

    97.No true Scotsman said …

    “To continue the game.

    1. The start of life on earth began with a lightning strike on the waters.

    Atheists are:
    a) Right
    b) Delusional

    Problems?”

    Yes, “atheism” doesn’t present that premise.

    You lose the game.

  100. on 21 Jun 2012 at 7:41 pm 100.40 year Atheist said …

    Atheism comes with no moral code attached. So any moral code which an Atheist might have must come either from personal subjective invention, or it comes from the personal subjective invention of another Atheist and has been coopted. It is possible to coopt the Judeo-Christian moral code, while rejecting the moral authority which gives that code its teeth.

    So the challenge here is for any or all Atheists to share your personal moral code, and then to defend it however you choose to do so.

    How do you define “morals”?

    What are your top ten principles for your own behaviors and attitudes?

    What are your top ten principles for the behavior of others?

    How many Atheists share your moral code in all aspects?

    How do you define “good” and “bad”?

    Is there an external, physical basis for your definitions of “good” and “bad”, and if so what is it?

    Are “character” traits featured in your moral code? For yourself? For others?

    What, if any, consequences attach to the failure to live to your moral code?

  101. on 21 Jun 2012 at 8:17 pm 101.Lou(DFW) said …

    100.40 year Atheist said …

    “So the challenge here is for any or all Atheists to share your personal moral code, and then to defend it however you choose to do so.”

    I reject your challenge. This blog is not the venue for discussion of moral code except as it relates to “God and religion in our world today.”

    Neither my personal moral code nor its source is any of your business.

    The source of my personal moral code is irrelevant.

    I don’t attempt to force my personal moral code upon anyone else.

    I don’t attempt to legitimize my personal moral code my inventing an imaginary god to give it “authority.”

    I’m not obligated to defend my personal moral code to you.

  102. on 21 Jun 2012 at 8:20 pm 102.Lou(DFW) said …

    100.40 year Atheist said …

    “It is possible to coopt the Judeo-Christian moral code…”

    Just as the xtians co-opted theirs.

    “…while rejecting the moral authority which gives that code its teeth.”

    What moral authority?

    Before you present that premise, please provide evidence of any such “moral authority.”

  103. on 21 Jun 2012 at 8:55 pm 103.Prime said …

    Oh snap. I hope we can get into another 500-comment long argument here about how “the Judeo-Christian moral code” is a phrase that doesn’t even seem to make sense. Anyone care to try to define that again?

  104. on 21 Jun 2012 at 9:23 pm 104.alex said …

    “Believing in Allah does not guarantee you paradise….”

    wow. yours is not the final word! who the fuck are you? another theist with a bad premise!

    anything you say about an atheist is a failed side show. get it thru your head, it’s a nonbelief. an atheist position on science, politics, hygiene, or sexual orientation is a diversion. where/what/who is your god? somebody already tried the retarded “everywhere” and bleh!

    i don’t believe in santa, yet you bring up the irrelevant fact that i buy gifts? what are you going to ask me next, if i don’t believe in santa, you demand that i offer an alternative? there ain’t one, moron. just like there need to be no alternative to god.

  105. on 21 Jun 2012 at 10:32 pm 105.A said …

    “So the challenge here is for any or all Atheists to share your personal moral code, and then to defend it however you choose to do so.”

    40 you successfully shut up the atheists again. You have presented them with another impossible task and they therefore shrink under the burden.

    Rather than examine their irrational worldview, they will hide in the weeds and take shots at others. So predictable, so lame and so little class.

  106. on 21 Jun 2012 at 10:45 pm 106.Severin said …

    97 Scott
    “Believing in Allah does not guarantee you paradise.”

    Who mentioned guarantee?
    Pure believing in Christian god does not guarantee paradise either.

    In principle the two statements of mine, A) and B), are both totally correct: both religion are monotheistic, both claim their gods created universe, both gods are almighty, all-loving, just, in both religions we have paradise and hell, …

    But, to ask you directly: are Muslims delusional?

    If yes, why.
    If not, why are you a Christian?

  107. on 21 Jun 2012 at 10:52 pm 107.Severin said …

    95 Lou
    “The lack of belief by the new atheists is quite intense I would say.”

    How my lack of belief in god can be more intense then your lack of belief in Santa?

    Or, maybe you DO believe in Santa, only less intense then you believe in god?

    How do you measure intensity of disbelieving?

  108. on 21 Jun 2012 at 11:05 pm 108.Severin said …

    #100
    “Atheism comes with no moral code attached. So …”

    How easy and comfortable to just say something (idiocy) that first comes to your mind, then build conclusions on that (idiocy)!

    Let me try:
    “40 year atheist is an idiot. So … (please fill the blank)”

  109. on 21 Jun 2012 at 11:14 pm 109.Lou(DFW) said …

    105.A said …

    “40 you successfully shut up the atheists again. You have presented them with another impossible task and they therefore shrink under the burden.”

    Here’s an impossible task that repeatedly shuts-up theists, and they therefore shrink under the burden – provide evidence for your imaginary god.

    “Rather than examine their irrational worldview…”

    God is real.

    “they will hide in the weeds”

    Theists have shirk from providing evidence of their imaginary god.

    “and take shots at others.

    So predictable, so lame and so little class.”"

    Theists claim that atheists are immoral people, etc., etc., etc.

  110. on 22 Jun 2012 at 12:28 am 110.Curmudgeon said …

    Severin,

    Stop being such a dolt. Because someone has a wrong belief doesn’t make them delusional. Chose Islam or Christianity, it still doesn’t constitute a delusion. If you would like to continue in your doltish claim, provide a recognized psychiatric body that will support your diagnosis.

    You need to put down the Dawkins’ books and try to reflect like a rationale human being.

    40 Year,

    A nice challenge but the guys on this blog don’t believe in anything so how could they provide a coherent answer? They cannot provide any rationale system of beliefs that makes up their lack of moral code.

  111. on 22 Jun 2012 at 1:04 am 111.alex said …

    “Because someone has a wrong belief doesn’t make them delusional. Chose Islam or Christianity, it still doesn’t constitute a delusion.”

    You’re not delusional, you’re fucking crazy. Choose the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus or the Great Pumpkin. It’s not delusion, it’s madness!

    “A nice challenge but the guys on this blog don’t believe in anything so how could they provide a coherent answer?”

    I believe in seat belts. I bet you do too, which means you don’t believe in your god’s plan.

    Don’t even try to spin it.

  112. on 22 Jun 2012 at 1:06 am 112.Lou(DFW) said …

    110.Crum said …

    “They cannot provide any rationale system of beliefs that makes up their lack of moral code.”

    105.ASStrophysicist said …

    “…they will hide in the weeds and take shots at others. So predictable, so lame and so little class.”

  113. on 22 Jun 2012 at 1:15 am 113.Lou(DFW) said …

    110.Curmudgeon said …

    “Because someone has a wrong belief doesn’t make them delusional.”

    Yes, by definition, it does:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion

    1: the act of deluding : the state of being deluded
    2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated
    b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

    And I didn’t have to cherry pick a definition and lie about it like Louser did.

    The pathological lying that you guys exhibit would be “recognized [by a] psychiatric body.”

  114. on 22 Jun 2012 at 1:30 am 114.Prime said …

    It’s lovely when 40YAsshole shows up, drops a red herring intermixed with some lies about atheists and a few relatively big words and all the theists start lining up to congratulate him on how he “defeated” us, even after his b.s. was pointed out in the clear light of day for everyone to see why it falls flat without us having to say a freaking word about it.

  115. on 22 Jun 2012 at 1:53 am 115.A said …

    Good one Cur.

  116. on 22 Jun 2012 at 1:57 am 116.A said …

    Hey, if Dummycrats think Obama is a good president are they therefore delusional?

    What about atheists who believe the universe created itself? Would they be delusional?

    Yep, according to Louie’s definition they would be. His definition states nothing about God so it is flexible.

    Thanks Louie!

  117. on 22 Jun 2012 at 2:12 am 117.alex said …

    116.A said …

    You’re Tiger Wood’s old caddy!

    http://www.ingolfwetrust.com/golf-central/content/binary/Fluff-Cowan-Golf-Caddie.jpg

  118. on 22 Jun 2012 at 2:19 am 118.Lou(DFW) said …

    116.ASStrophysicist said …

    “Hey, if Dummycrats think Obama is a good president are they therefore delusional?”

    No, because that’s an opinion. But if they believed he was born in Kenya, that might be considered a delusion.

    “What about atheists who believe the universe created itself? Would they be delusional?”

    (sigh) No, but for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that they are. How is it relevant to the fact that belief in an imaginary god is delusional? Are you back on the “I know you are but what am I?” defense?

    “Yep, according to Louie’s definition they would be. His definition states nothing about God so it is flexible.”

    It’s not my definition, you moron.

  119. on 22 Jun 2012 at 2:22 am 119.alex said …

    “What about atheists who believe the universe created itself? Would they be delusional?”

    what about atheists who DON’T believe the universe created itself?

    what about atheists who DON’T KNOW how the universe was created?

    it doesn’t change the fact that your god doesn’t exist, does it, moron?

    once again. just because i don’t know, it doesn’t mean your god did it, idiot.

  120. on 22 Jun 2012 at 6:16 am 120.Severin said …

    #110
    “Chose Islam or Christianity, it still doesn’t constitute a delusion.”

    Such a bs doesn’t deserve a comment.

    Maybe a question: if Muslims aren’t delusional AND Christians aren’t delusional, why are the two religions totally mutually antagonistic. Their relations practically exhaust in mutual hate and wars that last for the last 700 years or more.
    Some of them MUST be delusional, otherwise they would have lived as brothers, not as enemies, for centuries.

    Are Mormons delusional? Jews? Thousands of Christian denominations fighting each other/
    They CAN’T be all right, can they?

    Or: why aren’t you a Muslim or a Mormon?

  121. on 22 Jun 2012 at 6:30 am 121.Severin said …

    #110
    “They cannot provide any rationale system of beliefs that makes up their lack of moral code.”

    No one can, including you, because any “system of beliefs” is irrational by definition.

    Please see: Muslims vs Christians story! WHOSE “system of beliefs” is right and provides believers with correct moral code?

    I don’t feel any lack of moral code although I don’t believe in god. I already told you many times that I know exactly how to live. I FEEL my moral code in my mind, AND can define it in words as well.
    Or, maybe you want to tell us that Muslims, because they DO (obviously!) believe in god, are generally MORAL?

    WHAT is YOUR moral code? Where can I find it, please (maybe I do something wrong in my life!?).

    We chewed that many times. If some Muslims are immoral and some Christians (Jews, …) are immoral (some are moral), and some atheists obviously are moral (some are immoral), then morality obviously has nothing to do with gods and/or religions.

  122. on 22 Jun 2012 at 10:15 am 122.Anonymous said …

    Same old nonsense from Hor and his sock-puppets.

    Unable and unwilling to face the lack of evidence for the existence of the bronze-age goat-herder’s god, we see a bunch of posts from IDs who make the same mistakes of grammar and post in the same style, who only ever appear to back each other up and parrot back whatever is raised in objection to their nonsense. “Odd”, how when backed into a corner the same IDs appear to mount personal attacks then fade away when pressed for evidence.

    So transparent, so sad, that the only way Hor and his ilk and “contribute” to this conversation is to tell lies and post antagonistic comments and red-herrings.

    Face it. If there as any evidence, any at all, we’d see it. Instead these theists try to frame the conversation such that the evidence really exists, only everyone else if too blind to see it. Not that they’d be brave enough to list that evidence other than saying “look around you, that proves that the tribal god of those uneducated nomads exists”.

    Silly, silly, people.

  123. on 22 Jun 2012 at 12:43 pm 123.Xenon said …

    The reason belief in God is not a delusion is because the rationale believers recognize the evidence that the atheists will not. Atheists parrot the same tired old lines of Richard Dawkins because they cannot think rationally on their own.

    Someone above pointed out that no psychiatric organization recognizes theism as a delusion. What we have is a small minority insisting the majority believe as they do or they are deluded. Other groups have done the same.

    We conclude atheism is no different than Raëlism, Ordre du Temple Solaire or Branch Davidians.

  124. on 22 Jun 2012 at 12:44 pm 124.Xenon said …

    40YA,

    I think you got your answer. They are delusional.

  125. on 22 Jun 2012 at 12:56 pm 125.Anonymous said …

    100.40YA-hole “So the challenge here is for any or all Atheists to share your personal moral code, and then to defend it however you choose to do so.”

    This coming from the same person who refuses to disclose his beliefs and says things like “…but it is just another fallacy of deflection, an attempt to avoid the actual subject…” when questioned on what he believes.

    When will Stan understand what atheism actually is? It becomes more and more apparent that Stan’s claim to be an atheist was a lie if only from the point of view that he claims to know what absolutely every atheist ever knows and does. That’s absurd. He’s absurd. That anyone takes him seriously is absurd.

    The only way Stan’s claim can be true is via projection. In which case, the disgusting picture he paints may well be a self-portrait. Newsflash: believing that a magical man in the sky is going to punish you for your misdeeds may modify your behavior but those behaviors are still your own.

    Stan, you need to take responsibility for your own actions, thoughts, and deeds. Blaming them on not-believing in superstition is childish and dangerous to the people around you.

  126. on 22 Jun 2012 at 1:19 pm 126.Anonymous said …

    Hor (aka Xenon), feel free to claim that just because children have imaginary friends the world over that those imaginary friends are real. Yours is not even a poor example of appeal to popularity.

    It would be so easy for your to drop the pretense and simply post your evidence but you can’t, so you don’t. Instead you post red-herrings and diversions.

    Again, show your evidence for your god. You claim it exists, then prove it but with something that is unique and assignable to only your god, not some other equally fictitious imaginary friend.

  127. on 22 Jun 2012 at 2:44 pm 127.Prime said …

    The juxtaposition of 122 and 123 could not be better.

  128. on 22 Jun 2012 at 3:26 pm 128.Lou(DFW) said …

    123.Xenonsense said …

    “The reason belief in God is not a delusion is because the rationale believers recognize the evidence that the atheists will not.”

    No matter how many times you try, you cannot redefine delusion.

    “Atheists parrot the same tired old lines of Richard Dawkins because they cannot think rationally on their own.”

    You are a liar. I was an atheist decades before I ever heard of Dawkins.

    “Someone above pointed out that no psychiatric organization recognizes theism as a delusion. What we have is a small minority insisting the majority believe as they do or they are deluded. Other groups have done the same.”

    No, we have a few morons like you who attempt to re-frame delusion as only being a psychiatric disorder, not simply a belief in something for which there’s no evidence.

    “We conclude atheism is no different than Raëlism, Ordre du Temple Solaire or Branch Davidians.”

    And we conclude from the obvious evidence that you presented that you are an idiot.

  129. on 22 Jun 2012 at 7:31 pm 129.A said …

    “We conclude atheism is no different than Raëlism”

    I can go with that. We can vote in Lou(DFW)as Raël?

    That would complete the comparison. There we have it. Lou(Raël) is the new sock for DFW. If he can believe in a creation with no creator, UFOs certainly are no stretch.

  130. on 22 Jun 2012 at 8:03 pm 130.Lou(DFW) said …

    129.ASStrophysicist said …

    “I can go with that. We can vote in Lou(DFW)as Raël?”

    No, because no matter the number of your sock-puppets, you get only one vote.

    “That would complete the comparison. There we have it. Lou(Raël) is the new sock for DFW. If he can believe in a creation with no creator, UFOs certainly are no stretch.”

    Started Friday night happy hour early, have you?

  131. on 22 Jun 2012 at 11:33 pm 131.Prime said …

    Evidently, Asstrophysicist has been “laboring” here this whole time without understanding what a “sock puppet” is, in this context.

    Again, though, they try to equate atheism with a belief system.

  132. on 23 Jun 2012 at 1:44 am 132.MrQ said …

    X chimed in with a gem:

    We conclude atheism is no different than Raëlism, Ordre du Temple Solaire or Branch Davidians.

    WOW. I just have to shake my head. Xenon, are you truly that thick?
    These are BELIEF systems, just like CHRISTIANITY is a BELIEF system. These guys are in your corner – And we might as well include the Mormons, JWs, Phelps Baptists on your side also. Like you, they all have faith that there’s an invisible god looking over and caring about you.
    Atheism, on the other hand, is a lack of a belief system in a god, any god.

  133. on 23 Jun 2012 at 8:52 am 133.Lou(DFW) said …

    131.Prime said …

    “Evidently, Asstrophysicist has been “laboring” here this whole time without understanding what a “sock puppet” is, in this context.”

    I thought as much, too. But, nobody can be that dumb. I figured it must be an act to separate himself from sock-puppetry.

  134. on 27 Jun 2012 at 1:06 pm 134.freddies_dead said …

    100.40 year Atheist said …

    Atheism comes with no moral code attached. So any moral code which an Atheist might have must come either from personal subjective invention, or it comes from the personal subjective invention of another Atheist and has been coopted. It is possible to coopt the Judeo-Christian moral code, while rejecting the moral authority which gives that code its teeth.

    So the challenge here is for any or all Atheists to share your personal moral code, and then to defend it however you choose to do so.

    How do you define “morals”?

    What are your top ten principles for your own behaviors and attitudes?

    What are your top ten principles for the behavior of others?

    How many Atheists share your moral code in all aspects?

    How do you define “good” and “bad”?

    Is there an external, physical basis for your definitions of “good” and “bad”, and if so what is it?

    Are “character” traits featured in your moral code? For yourself? For others?

    What, if any, consequences attach to the failure to live to your moral code?

  135. on 27 Jun 2012 at 1:08 pm 135.freddies_dead said …

    Mmmm, not sure what happened there. So, trying again:

    100.40 year Atheist said …

    Atheism comes with no moral code attached.

    A redundant point.

    So any moral code which an Atheist might have must come either from personal subjective invention, or it comes from the personal subjective invention of another Atheist and has been coopted.

    This is simply untrue. I can understand that you have no concept of objectivity due to the inherent subjectivism of the theistic position. However, atheists have no such trouble and have access to truly objective moral codes as a result.

    It is possible to coopt the Judeo-Christian moral code,

    Why would we want your inherently subjective moral code which teaches that might makes right and that what is moral is subject to the whim of your deity?

    while rejecting the moral authority which gives that code its teeth.

    Please give evidence that your “moral authority” actually exists. Until such time as you do, the teeth you claim back up your moral code are a badly fitting mish mash of dentures that you’ve stolen and borrowed in order to frighten the credulous whenever you

    So the challenge here is for any or all Atheists to share your personal moral code, and then to defend it however you choose to do so.

    As you’ve been told already, this isn’t true. I believe the actual challege here is for theists to give evidence for the existence of their deity. Should you wish to challenge atheists to share and defend their moral code(s) then I suggest you set up your own forum to do so. When you do maybe atheists will wander over and answer the questions you have posed. If you don’t want to do that then you should not be surprised when they are ignored as the pathetic attempt to derail the topic that they so clearly are.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply