Feed on Posts or Comments 25 October 2014

Christianity Thomas on 25 Jun 2012 12:42 am

The epitome of delusion – Why does God allow evil and suffering?

It’s a common question – why do such terrible things happen to people on earth? Here is the answer:

GODSQUAD: If God fixed every ill, what would we do?

A reader asks the Godsquad a simple question:

Q: I cannot understand why God allows so much suffering in the world. A loving father wouldn’t allow his children to suffer. Yet God does nothing to help His children. One needs only to consider the murder of innocent people at the hands of criminals. God does absolutely nothing to prevent such atrocities.

If someone were to stand idly by and watch another person being killed, such a person would be condemned for not trying to intervene and possibly save the victim. Well, God stands idly by, does nothing, and we’re told not to blame Him. Why are we mere mortals held to a higher standard than God?

Most intelligent people, having asked the question, would take the next step and understand implicitly that God is imaginary. But the Godsquad tries to answer the question from a position of deep delusion. This quote is priceless:

I call it The Superman Problem. It’s the problem of what happens to our free will and our moral fiber when God decides to fix everything. What happens is that we turn into moral couch potatoes.

We’d quickly learn that doing nothing is just fine with God because God, like Superman, would always swoop down in the nick of time, should anything go wrong, and set everything right. This would be possible for God, but it would be horrible for us. Moral indolence would make us weak, passive creatures. This is what children want, but God wants us to grow up and worship God out of love, not need.

We can’t wait for Superman. We must learn to fly ourselves. We must find cures for diseases. We must stop aggressors. We must feed the hungry, cloth the naked and lift up those who sleep in the dust. This is why God has given us the free will and intelligence to end suffering, as well as the knowledge of God’s presence and love to give us the courage and hope to fix our broken world.

This statement is delusional in so many ways. But most importantly, the author is saying two things that are irrevocable:

  1. God purposefully causes all suffering on earth. He is the creator of the universe to religious people, and therefore he created all suffering.
  2. God does nothing in response to that suffering because it would make people into “moral couch potatoes.”

Who would want to worship a being this sadistic?

It is so easy to see what is really happening. There is no God. Things like diseases are a natural part of the natural world. And God does not stop these diseases because God does not exist.

Another marker for delusion is the notion of heaven. Heaven is supposed to be a place where everything is perfect and wonderful for eternity. Wouldn’t everyone in heaven become a “moral couch potato” using the author’s logic?

A third marker for delusion is seen in this statement: “This is why God has given us the free will and intelligence to end suffering.” How does free will and intelligence help to stop a tsunami? And why let something like smallpox kill millions of people over the course of thousands of years, but then have it disappear thanks to science? As medical science cures diseases one by one, there is a huge problem for the author’s logic. Don’t we all become “moral couch potatoes” because there are no diseases to cause suffering?

If you are a Christian, try to think about reality instead of thinking delusionally. This chapter will help.

219 Responses to “The epitome of delusion – Why does God allow evil and suffering?”

  1. on 25 Jun 2012 at 2:48 am 1.Martin said …

    “It is so easy to see what is really happening. There is no God.”

    Really? How so?

    Why is God required to respond as this blogmaster determines?

  2. on 25 Jun 2012 at 1:15 pm 2.Anonymous said …

    Because this existence is indistinguishable from one in which no gods exist. In other words, you are a delusional moron.

    Think your god exists? Then stop deflecting and prove that it does.

  3. on 25 Jun 2012 at 3:19 pm 3.Newq said …

    1.Martin said …

    “Really? How so?”

    Doesn’t he answer that in the very next sentence?

    “It is so easy to see what is really happening. There is no God. Things like diseases are a natural part of the natural world. And God does not stop these diseases because God does not exist.”

    How do you explain the fact that and all-powerful, all-loving God takes no action?

    “Why is God required to respond as this blogmaster determines?”

    Doesn’t God promise he will? Seems like this page explains it:

    http://godisimaginary.com/i1.htm

  4. on 25 Jun 2012 at 3:21 pm 4.Lou(DFW) said …

    1.Martin said …

    “Why is God required to respond as this blogmaster determines?

    The blog-master didn’t make any such determination.

  5. on 25 Jun 2012 at 8:15 pm 5.Martin said …

    “It is so easy to see what is really happening. There is no God. Things like diseases are a natural part of the natural world. And God does not stop these diseases because God does not exist.”

    Newq if this is what is truly happening he or you must present proof to back the truth statement. The above is not satisfactory.

    I readily admit God might not exist, but that statement will not supply the necessary proof.

    The burden of proof is on the one who makes the truth claim.

  6. on 25 Jun 2012 at 8:17 pm 6.Martin said …

    “Because this existence is indistinguishable from one in which no gods exist.”

    Really Anonymous? And how have you set up the God reality vs No God reality to prove this claim?

  7. on 25 Jun 2012 at 8:40 pm 7.alex said …

    “And how have you set up the God reality vs No God reality to prove this claim?”

    you mean zeus reality vs no zeus reality? what’s the default belief?

  8. on 25 Jun 2012 at 9:05 pm 8.Lou(DFW) said …

    5.Martin said …

    “The burden of proof is on the one who makes the truth claim.”

    The “truth claim” is that god exists. That is where the burden of proof lies.

  9. on 25 Jun 2012 at 9:07 pm 9.alex said …

    “The burden of proof is on the one who makes the truth claim.”

    this is so damn old,,,,

    you say some bullshit and i don’t believe. the burden is on me? i don’t believe your god fairy, or your leprechaun, or your cookie monster. i need to prove?

    why do i care? coz morons are dangerous.

  10. on 25 Jun 2012 at 9:11 pm 10.Lou(DFW) said …

    6.Martin said …

    “And how have you set up the God reality vs No God reality to prove this claim?”

    Simple, dummy. The default position is no position – no Santa, no tooth fairy, no bigfoot, no gnome in your dishwasher, no fairies in your garden, and no god.

    The claim is for god – provide evidence for your claim.

  11. on 25 Jun 2012 at 9:12 pm 11.Newq said …

    5.Martin said …

    “I readily admit God might not exist, but that statement will not supply the necessary proof.
    The burden of proof is on the one who makes the truth claim.”

    Apparently you did not read this:

    http://godisimaginary.com/i1.htm

    tl;dr – God/Jesus makes claims about prayer. None of those claims are true. Therefore God is imaginary.

  12. on 25 Jun 2012 at 9:33 pm 12.Martin said …

    “God/Jesus makes claims about prayer. None of those claims are true. Therefore God is imaginary.”

    Do you understand the concepts of proof and evidence? Again your claim is not applicable. No answer is not proof of nonexistence.

    I could provide links to explanations of the requirements for answered prayer for the Christian God but is it necessary?

  13. on 25 Jun 2012 at 9:38 pm 13.Martin said …

    “The default position is no position”

    Obviously not. The vast majority default to a belief in a God. You can make the claim, but again it does not stand.

    However that has no impact on how does one set up the God reality vs No God reality to prove the claim as made by Anonymous?

    You should read before posting.

  14. on 25 Jun 2012 at 9:38 pm 14.Lou(DFW) said …

    12.Martin said …

    “Do you understand the concepts of proof and evidence? Again your claim is not applicable. No answer is not proof of nonexistence.”

    The concept was explained to you. The claim is “god answers prayers.” There is NO EVIDENCE that god answers prayers. What part of that don’t you understand?!

    “I could provide links to explanations of the requirements for answered prayer for the Christian God but is it necessary?”

    No, what you must provide is EVIDENCE THAT GOD ANSWERS PRAYERS. Do you have it or not?

  15. on 25 Jun 2012 at 9:47 pm 15.Lou(DFW) said …

    13.Martin said …

    “The default position is no position”

    “Obviously not. The vast majority default to a belief in a God. You can make the claim, but again it does not stand.”

    Good grief, you are thick as a bucket of rocks. The belief of the majority has no bearing on the CLAIM. The default position is, no matter how many people agree or disagree with it, is no position. The default position is no god. It does not require any evidence NOT to make a claim. The claim is for god, regardless of how many people believe in it; and it requires evidence, not the default position of NO CLAIM.

    “However that has no impact on how does one set up the God reality vs No God reality to prove the claim as made by Anonymous?”

    At least you got that right.

    “You should read before posting.”

    You should THINK before posting.

  16. on 25 Jun 2012 at 9:56 pm 16.Newq said …

    12.Martin said …

    “I could provide links to explanations of the requirements for answered prayer for the Christian God but is it necessary?”

    Please provide.

  17. on 25 Jun 2012 at 10:11 pm 17.alex said …

    “I could provide links to explanations of the requirements for answered prayer for the Christian God but is it necessary?”

    “Please provide.”

    noh!!!!!

  18. on 25 Jun 2012 at 11:36 pm 18.Severin said …

    #12
    “No answer is not proof of nonexistence.”

    I claim there is a pink cat with two heads, three tails and 17 legs, singing “Yellow Submarine” non-stop, orbiting a planet in galaxy Andromeda.
    I also claim there is a parallel universe with parallel god (goddess, in fact!), where everything is opposite to our universe: people hate goddess, and goddess rewards their hate by having sex with them (both males and females), and punishes those who love her by sending them in desperately boring paradise for eternity.

    Those are obviously “truth claims, and I don’t feel obligate to provide any proofs for them, just as you never provide proofs for existence of your god.

    Can YOU prove my claims are false?

    Please note that, if you can’t prove my claims false, it MUST be that that are true!

    According to YOUR logic, of course.

  19. on 25 Jun 2012 at 11:41 pm 19.Martin said …

    Glad to do it Newq.

    http://www.amazon.com/Prayer-Does-Make-Any-Difference/dp/0310271053

    Newq let me ask again.

    Will you be explaining how God not answering prayer as you think he should answer proves his nonexistence?

    Since you answered for anonymous, how do you set up a reality with God vs one without God?

    I do appreciate your willingness to participate in these questions.

  20. on 25 Jun 2012 at 11:53 pm 20.alex said …

    19.Martin said …

    a fucking book? gtfooh. why not the bible? not goot enough?

    newq let me ask you again. when you put on your socks, do you brush off the dust from the bottom of your feet? your answer is really, really impotent.

    martin needs your response in order to formulate his definitive god evidence.

  21. on 25 Jun 2012 at 11:53 pm 21.Severin said …

    #12.
    “I could provide links to explanations of the requirements for answered prayer for the Christian God but is it necessary?”

    So, obviously, you DO admit there is more than one god !!!
    Because, you know, Muslims also can (and do!) provide links and … for answered prayers for Muslim god (apropos, they do not differ a bit from links and … for the Christian god!)

    Ancient Egyptians also provided … for answered prayers for Ra.

    Etc.

  22. on 26 Jun 2012 at 12:07 am 22.Newq said …

    19.Martin said …

    “Will you be explaining how God not answering prayer as you think he should answer proves his nonexistence?”

    1) God claims to be perfect

    http://bible.cc/matthew/5-48.htm

    2) Jesus claims to be God incarnate

    3) Therefore Jesus is perfect

    http://www.bibleschool.org/bibleschool/christianbasics/JESUSDID1.html

    4) Jesus claims that Jesus/God answers prayers

    5) In fact, no prayers are ever answered

    http://godisimaginary.com/i2.htm

    6) A perfect being cannot lie about his powers

    7) God does not exist

  23. on 26 Jun 2012 at 1:47 am 23.Lou(DFW) said …

    19.Martin said …

    “Newq let me ask again.

    Will you be explaining how God not answering prayer as you think he should answer proves his nonexistence?”

    Let ME tell YOU again:

    NO explanations are required – EVIDENCE of answered prayers is required. You have not provided any. Or are you claiming that god does not answer prayers?

  24. on 26 Jun 2012 at 2:02 am 24.Martin said …

    Newq,

    Lets make this really simple. For the sake of argument, let us go with your belief that the Bible is in error.

    How does this now prove God does not exist?

    Let me add comparisons to elves, santa, fsm or abiogenesis are red herrings and not proof.

    I remind you this claim was made by blogamster. I am only asking for evidence/proof of the claim.

  25. on 26 Jun 2012 at 2:03 am 25.Prime said …

    12,13.Martin said …

    “Do you understand the concepts of proof and evidence? Again your claim is not applicable. No answer is not proof of nonexistence.”

    Martin, you keep talking about this “burden of proof” concept. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Since you’re as dense as lead pellets, let me simplify: you have the burden. For fuck’s sake, go look up how this works before you come in here strutting about on the chessboard.

  26. on 26 Jun 2012 at 2:08 am 26.Prime said …

    Not only did Martin claim to “prove” his shit by linking to a book on Amazon, say instead of a peer-reviewed journal article on the matter in a respected non-theological journal, he did so by linking to a book published by an openly Evangelical Christian publisher, Zondervan. http://zondervan.com/

    How’s that Kool-Aid, Martin?

    You should have tried linking to some of the actual peer-reviewed journal articles that exist that indicate that intense praying of the right kind has certain psychological benefits for the person doing it (although has no general effect). When you go find those and trumpet them around like you just won a game of capture the flag by taking off your own underwear and running through the woods to your own base, realize that meditation of all kinds provides the same benefits more efficiently without the religious baggage–and that ONLY meditative prayer actually achieves this, i.e. it’s not the prayer but rather the act of meditating (which requires no belief in God) that provides the benefit.

    Olly-olly-oxen-free!

  27. on 26 Jun 2012 at 2:09 am 27.Lou(DFW) said …

    24.Martin said …

    “Lets make this really simple. For the sake of argument, let us go with your belief that the Bible is in error.

    How does this now prove God does not exist?”

    It doesn’t. Who claimed that it did?

    “Let me add comparisons to elves, santa, fsm or abiogenesis are red herrings and not proof.”

    Again, nobody claimed as much.

    “I remind you this claim was made by blogamster. I am only asking for evidence/proof of the claim.”

    Wrong again. The blogmaster REFUTED the claim that god answers prayer. He didn’t make a claim. Sheesh!

  28. on 26 Jun 2012 at 3:16 am 28.Anonymous said …

    “Lets make this really simple. For the sake of argument, let us go with your belief that the Bible is in error.

    How does this now prove God does not exist?”

    The christian god of the bible does not exist. What god are you talking about?

  29. on 26 Jun 2012 at 11:14 am 29.A said …

    Martin

    This blog is very unique. They (atheists) can make truth claims and not provide evidence. What they will do over a series of post is this. Make a claim, dodge requests for evidence and then completely turn it around by declaring you must provide evidence.

    Happens every time.

    Try asking them for their moral code. lol

  30. on 26 Jun 2012 at 12:28 pm 30.Newq said …

    24.Martin said …

    “Newq,

    Lets make this really simple. For the sake of argument, let us go with your belief that the Bible is in error.

    How does this now prove God does not exist?”

    http://bible.cc/2_timothy/3-16.htm

    “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”

    The Bible is in error. All of Jesus’ claims about prayer are incorrect when tested scientifically:

    http://godisimaginary.com/i1.htm

    A perfect God cannot create a God-breathed book that is provably false. The contradiction proves that the God of the Bible does not exist.

    If you now wish to create a new God not based on the Bible, please define his attributes.

  31. on 26 Jun 2012 at 12:43 pm 31.Lou(DFW) said …

    29.ASStrophysicist said …

    Martin

    “This blog is very unique. They (atheists) can make truth claims and not provide evidence. What they will do over a series of post is this. Make a claim, dodge requests for evidence and then completely turn it around by declaring you must provide evidence.”

    Martin, this blog is very unique. It doesn’t moderate posters like ASS who:

    1. Lie about their credentials. ASS claims that he an astrophysicist.

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=2269

    40.A said …

    PS, this is where I come in. I am an Astrophysicist not a hack mathematician like Prime.

    2. Lie about what atheists write on this blog, and then refuse to answer challenges to their lies.

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=2284#comment-37904

    71.Lou(DFW) said …

    ASStrophysicist, I’m still waiting for your reply to:

    32.ASStrophysicist said …

    “If man is as stupid as Lou(Raël)claims…”

    I didn’t make any such claim. Show us where I did, otherwise that makes you a liar or an idiot – most likely both.

    3. Allows people like ASStrophysicist to advertise their stupidity. For example, ASS thinks that sock-puppetry is appending a name to another poster’s name.

    4. Allows people like ASStrophysicist to claim that disbelief is belief, atheism is a religion, etc., etc., etc.

    5. Allows people like ASStrophysicist to use the intellectually superior debate tactic “I know you are, but what am I?” as he did in the to which I’m replying.

    In summary, Martin, this blog (intentionally?) allows people like ASS to post every kind of lie and nonsense that they want, all in the name of their delusion.

  32. on 26 Jun 2012 at 12:47 pm 32.Lou(DFW) said …

    29.A said …

    “Try asking them for their moral code. lol”

    Martin, it’s very simple to show that, once again, by implying that question isn’t answered, that ASStrophysicist is a pathological liar. Atheists answered that question over and over – not that it is in anyway relevant to the existence of an imaginary god.

  33. on 26 Jun 2012 at 1:09 pm 33.Severin said …

    #24 Martin
    “Lets make this really simple. For the sake of argument, let us go with your belief that the Bible is in error.
    How does this now prove God does not exist?”

    It doesn’t.
    No one can prove nonexistence of anything, including god.
    Try it with my claim about existence of a goddess in a parallel universe: I categorically claim she exists, now you try to prove me wrong, please.
    EXISTENCE of something/someone should be proved, not nonexistence.
    So, it is on you to prove existence of a god you claim (it?) exists.
    It is on me to disbelieve your claim without evidences.

    However, if the Bible is an error, Christianity is a bullshit, because it is essentially BASED ON BIBLE.
    Jewish religion too.

    Now you are free to try “Quetzalcoatl-ism”, or Ra-ism, Zeus-ism, or Islam, or Hinduism, or ANY other religion, but you can expect the same problems there as well.
    You can not PROVE them wrong, at least regarding existence of named gods, you can only say you don’t BELIEVE bullshits, as I say I don’t believe your ones about Christianity.
    What is the difference?

  34. on 26 Jun 2012 at 1:22 pm 34.Severin said …

    #24 Martin
    “I am only asking for evidence/proof of the claim.”

    Everyone knows, and put it finally in your head, that NO ONE in this blog ever claimed that there is no god.
    The claim was that GOD IS DELUSION, not that GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

    It is NORMAL to expect evidences for positive claims, and anyone claiming anything about god HAS to provide those evidences to make people believe it.
    None appeared so far.
    It is NOT NORMAL to expect evidence for lack of believing in something, or for nonexistence of something/someone.
    First is a mental process: I just don’t believe in god EXACTLY the same way I don’t believe in Santa, those things do not differ at all, and all I can tell you is: I don’t believe (accept your claim) because I never saw any evidences for their existence.
    Second is logical oxymoron: you CAN NOT prove using formal logic nonexistence of anything!
    I explained the “problem” to my friend’s 10 year old son, and he understood it instantly, He didn’t need a minute!

  35. on 26 Jun 2012 at 1:41 pm 35.Severin said …

    #24 cont.
    Examples:
    Claim that earth is a globe was considered a delusion until evidences were presented, although, in fact, the opposite opinion, millenniums old, was delusion (“I clearly SEE the earth is flat!”).
    It took time to convince delusional people in that truth, but finally majority accepted it (BECAUSE OF EVIDENCES, not because they were forced to accept it!).

    Hygiene in medicine was considered a delusion until microscope was invented.

    Rotating of the earth around the sun was considered a delusion.

    All religions are delusions, unless evidences for existence of a god, or gods, are presented.

  36. on 26 Jun 2012 at 3:03 pm 36.Lou(DFW) said …

    35.Severin said …

    “Claim that earth is a globe was considered a delusion until evidences were presented, although, in fact, the opposite opinion, millenniums old, was delusion (”I clearly SEE the earth is flat!”).”

    Let’s take your example a little further. Was it ever necessary to “prove” that the earth wasn’t a pyramid, a cube, nor any of any number of other solids? No, of course not. It wasn’t required to provide evidence or proof that the earth was NOT those things. It would only be required to provide evidence or proof FOR those claims. The default position is that the earth was NOT those things. Those shapes would not be considered if and until someone made a claim FOR them.

    Theists are either too stupid to understand this concept or they are too stubborn to admit that they’re wrong.

  37. on 26 Jun 2012 at 3:51 pm 37.Lou(DFW) said …

    34.Severin said …

    “It is NOT NORMAL to expect evidence for lack of believing in something, or for nonexistence of something/someone.”

    Of course it isn’t. If it was, then that’s all we would do for our entire life – provide evidence for all the things for which there is no claim and that we don’t believe in. For example, “a pink cat with two heads, three tails and 17 legs, singing “Yellow Submarine” non-stop, orbiting a planet in galaxy Andromeda,” etc., etc., etc.

  38. on 26 Jun 2012 at 6:50 pm 38.Curmudgeon said …

    ‘God is a delusion not God does not exist”

    Thanks Severin. That clears things right up.

    NOT!

    The deluded atheists still dodging the claims they make. I haven”t missed a thing.

  39. on 26 Jun 2012 at 7:12 pm 39.Olive said …

    @ Blogmaster
    Proverbs 26:4-5
    4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him.
    5 Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes.
    I’m not going to fight with you, you are stubborn in your way of thinking, you are thinking more emotional and not logical. No one has ever been able to prove the bible wrong geographically, unless you can.

  40. on 26 Jun 2012 at 7:34 pm 40.Lou(DFW) said …

    38.Crum said …

    ‘God is a delusion not God does not exist”

    This was actually posted by Severin:

    “The claim was that GOD IS DELUSION, not that GOD DOES NOT EXIST.”

    Crum can’t even C&P without lying and adding punctuation errors.

    “The deluded atheists still dodging the claims they make.”

    In other words, “I know you are but what am I?”

    “I haven”t missed a thing.”

    Nor have we missed you and your stupid comments.

  41. on 26 Jun 2012 at 9:18 pm 41.alex said …

    29.A said …

    “Martin

    This blog is very unique. They (atheists) can make truth claims and not provide evidence. What they will do over a series of post is this. Make a claim, dodge requests for evidence and then completely turn it around by declaring you must provide evidence.”

    I know what you mean, A. I started my own blog called whysantahateslittleblackkids.com and the atheists started screaming that Santa doesn’t exist. I told them that most black kids are bad and that explains why they don’t get presents. Then they started going off into some tangent and when I asked them to prove that Santa doesn’t exist, they couldn’t, so I win.

  42. on 27 Jun 2012 at 12:59 am 42.Ben said …

    “Crum can’t even C&P without lying and adding punctuation errors.”

    How did he lie?

  43. on 27 Jun 2012 at 1:03 am 43.Martin said …

    A,

    I understand what you are saying. I made no claims I only asked a simple question to the blogamster and I have been attacked like I pulled a gun on the president.

    If I had to choose theism or atheism based on character and decent manners, atheism would be out straight away.

  44. on 27 Jun 2012 at 1:49 am 44.Prime said …

    After #42, I’m anxiously awaiting Lou’s post of the WBC guys… or maybe some Islamists blowing up some people… or some priests with some kids (NSFW)… or… you get the idea.

  45. on 27 Jun 2012 at 2:49 am 45.Lou(DFW) said …

    41.Ben said …

    “Crum can’t even C&P without lying and adding punctuation errors.”

    “How did he lie?”

    By editing the comment, he changed the meaning to make it say something it didn’t so he could ridicule it.

  46. on 27 Jun 2012 at 2:54 am 46.alex said …

    “If I had to choose theism or atheism based on character and decent manners, atheism would be out straight away.”

    bet you ain’t gay and trying to get married in north carolina?

    so, try being an amish and get off the internet.

    or go ahead and pledge your allegiance to allah. say it loud, you chicken shit. you know you can always go back to the jc team with your redemption card.

    or that wouldn’t work, would it? the omniscient coach will see right thru your scam?

  47. on 27 Jun 2012 at 2:58 am 47.Lou(DFW) said …

    42.Martin said …

    “I made no claims I only asked a simple question to the blockbuster and I have been attacked like I pulled a gun on the president.”

    You went beyond that. Once it was explained to you that it is theists who make claims about god, and that it was the blog-master who was refuting those claims, you went wouldn’t let it go.

  48. on 27 Jun 2012 at 3:19 am 48.Lou(DFW) said …

    43.Prime said …

    “After #42, I’m anxiously awaiting Lou’s post of the WBC guys…”

    http://tinyurl.com/7wlwdgy

    “or maybe some Islamists blowing up some people”

    http://tinyurl.com/762u7y9

    http://tinyurl.com/7qydln3

  49. on 27 Jun 2012 at 3:20 am 49.Lou(DFW) said …

    “or some priests with some kids (NSFW)”

    http://tinyurl.com/gllu7

    And then there’s this guy:

    http://tinyurl.com/7sagopg

    http://tinyurl.com/7af6geq

    Right, Martin, “If [you] had to choose theism or atheism based on character and decent manners, atheism would be out straight away,” but not theism. And we didn’t even get to all the atrocities of the bible.

  50. on 27 Jun 2012 at 7:30 am 50.Severin said …

    42 Martin
    “If I had to choose theism or atheism based on CHARACTER and DECENT MANNERS (my bold), atheism would be out straight away.”

    Why do you have prejudices? Are you an a priori “atheist-phobic”?
    Maybe you would change your mind if you knew me, and/or some other atheists personally, and took closer watch on their everyday lives, their characters and manners.
    To avoid being a priori phobic without any rational arguments (or without any arguments at all), meet people, know them, talk to them, observe their lives and their characters and manners, then you might be very surprised. You might understand that people’s characters and manners have absolutely nothing to do with their theism or atheism.

    I have no prejudices.
    I have many friends who believe in god (Catholics, Orthodox, Muslims and Jews), some of them very active in their congregations, who I love and share my life with. I NEVER EVER had a thought that I should have any “suspicion” upon their good intentions, their honesty, and, trust me, their manners are perfect (as well as mine, just to mention it).
    I had NEVER EVER tried to “convert” them to atheists, neither did they ever try to convert me to a believer (except once, when my reaction was very kind and friendly).
    I have a lady friend who is very religious, but that is HER problem as far as she thrusts me and I trust her, and none of us forces our opinions upon each other. Trust me, our relation is perfect.

    What I DID notice was that some of my theist friends really have problems with “morality”. One of them, for example, has his own family and a married lady lover. I know them both and I see a really deep love.
    He is destroying himself thinking of his “sin”, but does not know how to solve the problem (which could be easily solved, because they both have no more material responsibility to their families, are financially independent, and, as far as I know, always ready to help or to support their beloved regardless to formal situation).
    “Sin” is not my problem! My problem in such situations is possibility to cause pains or vital problems to my partner, or potential partner, or to myself. If such problems look unsolvable, I quit or give up, and am ALWAYS ready to take responsibility to whatever I caused by my doing or non-doing.
    Always in good manner, of course, NOT “acted”, but from my heart.

    Surprised?

  51. on 27 Jun 2012 at 8:15 am 51.Severin said …

    38 Curmudgeon
    “‘God is a delusion not God does not exist”

    Don’t thank me, please.

    The claim that earth was flat was a delusio.
    If someone claimed the earth does not exist, that would not be a delusion, but nonsense.

    I never claimed there was no god.
    I ONLY dont believe there is one, because my positive knowledge and experiance are both in collision with the idea of a „god the creator“.
    So: I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE IS A GOD without evidence, BUT I do not exclude such possibility. I just DO NOT THINK that way.

    What I ABSOLUTELY EXCLUDE is existence of gods described by religions : there is no SUCH a god as described in ANY religion on earth, ever.
    All religion books and leggends are self-contradictory, contradict our positive knowledge and experiances, contradict logic, and are mutually contradictory.
    How can anyone take them seriously, and why would I trust Muslims and would not trust Catholics, if they make claims that contradict my logic and contradict each other?
    So, I can not, and I will not positively claim even that SUCH gods don’t exist, but using the „method of excluding bullshits“ from my reasoning, I refuse to believe that bullshits, and expect people who make claims to prove them (which is impossible). We can say it this way: if you are not able to prove your claim, it is unacceptable, and is, in fact, a bullshit. It is most probably a false claim.

    So, MAYBE there is a god, but IF there is one, its attributes have NOTHING to do with ANY of attributes of gods described in religious books and legends that ever existed on earth.

    The idea of a god who created universe, then, after billions of years, when human race grew up, started to peep to their beds, is not the idea of a god I would ever accept.

    So, maybe there is a god, I would not know (I still don’t believe there is one), but if there is one, it can not be Christian god, Muslim god, …, and can NOT have „properties“ any religions on earth attributed it.

    Bye bye religions!

  52. on 27 Jun 2012 at 11:10 am 52.A said …

    Martin,

    The reason these guys attack is two-fold. They are fearful they are wrong and this calms their fears. Second, they lack any moral code outside of what they want to do in the moment. They want to attack, call you childish names and then justify it in their mind. A common human frailty of projection.

    Don’t take it personally, just remember who you are dealing with then it becomes entertaining. You never expect a child to write a sonnet and I would never expect these guys to discuss anything rationally and without personal attacks.

    Don’t follow alex’s advice and

    “try being an amish” lol

  53. on 27 Jun 2012 at 11:50 am 53.Lou(DFW) said …

    52.ASStrophysicist said …

    “The reason these guys attack is two-fold.”

    The reason we “attack” is because theists are wrong, and they want to force their delusion upon us.

    “They are fearful they are wrong…”

    Wrong, I have no doubt that we are correct that theism is a delusion. But it would be SO SIMPLE for you to prove that you are correct and we are incorrect – provide evidence of your imaginary god, but you NEVER, EVER do.

    “…and this calms their fears.”

    The fear is that there is no life after death – and it’s not a fear of atheists, but of theists. So that’s why they believe in an imaginary god – just like a child who’s afraid NOT to believe in Santa Claus lest he doesn’t receive any toys on xmas morning. But, at least the child’s delusion is fulfilled (hopefully) by his parents.

    “Second, they lack any moral code outside of what they want to do in the moment.”

    This is an outright lie, and it’s indicative of his lack of moral code.

    Oh yeah, therefore god exists.

  54. on 27 Jun 2012 at 1:07 pm 54.Prime said …

    A said …

    “The reason these guys attack is two-fold. They are fearful they are wrong and this calms their fears. Second, they lack any moral code outside of what they want to do in the moment. They want to attack, call you childish names and then justify it in their mind. A common human frailty of projection.”

    The projectionist psychology involved here goes the opposite direction, and this is perhaps the most stunning, obvious admission of it so far.

    What are we afraid of? Being wrong? That claim doesn’t even make sense. In fact, it only starts to make sense if we accept ridiculous theist claims like that of hell, which is a hugely blown-out-of-proportion just-world fallacy taken to a horrendous social-control end.

    As Lou pointed out just above: the relevant fear is death–note the whole heaven and hell thing addresses this fear, crudely–(along with a few others, like fear of isolation, fear of doing it wrong and having a bad moral code, fear that bad people like Dick Cheney will go unpunished in life, etc.). Those fears are ones possessed by people who haven’t grappled with and dismissed them, and most of those people are theists who have decided that a comforting proxy is superior to facing reality boldly and honestly.

    We do not lack morals, even if lacking a “moral code” is a legitimate statement. As we proved on a fairly recent thread in over 500 comments, the definition for “moral code” isn’t even clear. Atheists may not have a particular creed that provides pseudo-morality, but that’s a far cry from saying we don’t have morals. Indeed, it’s pretty clear (and has been since Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma at the least) that religious “moral codes” are simply the codification of various human morals, but once they are codified, they become stagnant and thus suffer the high likelihood of becoming irrelevant or obsolete, which many Bronze and Iron Age moral systems encoded in “holy” scripture have already succeeded in having had happened to them.

    Maybe you don’t know why we attack. It’s because you’re idiots and often liars as well. So, it comes to banging our own heads against walls in frustration or going for yours. Since our heads seem to be the only ones that work around here, it’s pretty clear where that energy is going. As for the attacks, you’ll notice that most people don’t get attacked at first. It’s only habitual ASShats like yourself that get name-called and slapped around here. Meanwhile, you and your ilk are responsible for a slough of moral evil while parading about as if you have higher morals because of your high score in the “authority/subversion” dimension of modern moral understanding (i.e. because you’re authoritarians, which everyone else in the universe knows is a bad thing)–meanwhile you utterly fail the more salient care/harm, fairness/cheating, and liberty/oppression dimensions.

    To be fair, you appear to do well in sanctity/degredation, but isn’t that at least partly because you guys kind of co-opted the idea into morality before we had a choice about deciding if “sanctity” is really that good of a thing. Actually, because you do stupid shit like sanctifying a set of rather horrible books from the Bronze Age and a bunch of generally unskilled pedophiles known as clergy, perhaps you actually fail this dimension harder than most people.

    Loyalty/betrayal is the last dimension, in case you wonder, and I’d say this one is a toss-up, at best. You seem loyal, but you guys backstab each other more than any groups of people I’m aware of outside of CEOs because of your exclusionist mindsets and exaggerated authority score.

  55. on 27 Jun 2012 at 4:44 pm 55.Curmudgeon said …

    Anyone else notice Prime and Lou do a great deal of patting on the back and use much of the same language?
    Also they repeatedly use the same debunked arguments?

  56. on 27 Jun 2012 at 5:34 pm 56.alex said …

    55 curm..fishing? diversion thwarted!

  57. on 27 Jun 2012 at 6:58 pm 57.Lou(DFW) said …

    55.Crum said …

    “Anyone else notice Prime and Lou do a great deal of patting on the back and use much of the same language?”

    No, but we notice how much you lie about what’s written here. We understand that you’re only trying to get back for being caught sock-puppeting. But how many times must you be told that the “I know you are but what am I?” argument only works on the playground. However, I must admit that we both correctly punctuate our comments.

    “Also they repeatedly use the same debunked arguments?”

    Saying that and showing it are two different things – something you can’t do. And the only thing that you ever debunked was Santa Claus.

  58. on 27 Jun 2012 at 8:53 pm 58.Severin said …

    A et all

    If you insist that believing in god brings morality, and ONLY atheists, who don’t believe in gods suffer of lack of moral code, then ALL Muslims (including those from Al’Qaeda) MUST be highly moral!

    They all, no doubt, DO believe in god.

  59. on 27 Jun 2012 at 10:17 pm 59.Slapnuts McGee said …

    My goodness. I go on vacation for a couple of weeks and come back to this? Where did this Martin toolshed come from?

  60. on 27 Jun 2012 at 10:51 pm 60.alex said …

    “I go on vacation for a couple of weeks and come back to this?”

    welcome back, you godless atheist.

  61. on 28 Jun 2012 at 1:15 am 61.A said …

    “My goodness. I go on vacation for a couple of weeks and come back to this?”

    Slappy, congratulations on making bail. :)

  62. on 28 Jun 2012 at 1:18 am 62.A said …

    Also they repeatedly use the same debunked arguments?

    Cur,

    To be fair, they use no arguments. I must side with them on this one.

  63. on 28 Jun 2012 at 1:51 am 63.alex said …

    “Slappy, congratulations on making bail.”

    btw. while inside, he ran into thousands of yer homies. they all say hey!

  64. on 28 Jun 2012 at 3:10 am 64.Lou(DFW) said …

    62.ASStrophysicist said …

    “Cur,

    To be fair, they use no arguments. I must side with them on this one.”

    Right, it’s similar to using an argument to “debunk” Santa Claus. No one needs such an argument to convince them except for those with the mind of a child. But the difference between you guys and children is that a child never requires such arguments, he eventually understands on his own that Santa Claus is simply an impossible fantasy, just as is your imaginary god.

    Children 1 theists 0

  65. on 28 Jun 2012 at 4:11 pm 65.Prime said …

    I’ve read that one of the primary operational goals of theism is to maintain a childlike-mind (which is far more malleable) in its followers. All one has to do to find support of this claim, which is not proof of intention, is to read the bizarre amount of focus throughout scriptures like the bible put on having a mind like a child (or something akin to that). I have a hard time teasing apart why that is, though. There are certainly legitimate reasons to encourage people to be curious like a child, although this is certainly not what the religions are encouraging (curiosity often leads to questions which leads to free thought which leads to not believing in any of this silliness). It makes me wonder if any legitimate encouragement to that effect was retooled into social control by later authors who saw the value in keeping people dumb so they could keep their thumbs on their backs and hands in their pockets.

  66. on 28 Jun 2012 at 4:12 pm 66.Prime said …

    Maybe, since so much of religion has to do with managing fears, theists have a deep-seated fear of responsibility. That would certainly explain why they trumpet about it so damned much instead of just owning up to it and getting on without all of the loud-mouthing.

  67. on 13 Jul 2012 at 4:51 pm 67.Olive said …

    Prime and Lou, Christians do not have child like minds, and also I would like to see the both of you prove the bible wrong geographically.
    When you do let me know.

  68. on 13 Jul 2012 at 11:08 pm 68.Anonymous said …

    > I would like to see the both of you prove the bible wrong geographically.

    One example – Nazarath did not exist as described in the Bible:

    http://www.nairaland.com/120059/myth-nazareth-did-historical-jesus

  69. on 14 Jul 2012 at 3:16 am 69.Prime said …

    Thanks, Anon.

    Why limits on how the bible has to be proved wrong? Why does it have to be geographical?

    It would be great if I could remember the example I read on that point just the other day, though, where one of the Gospels or Acts indicated that Jesus went to some place by way of some other place that would have taken him, on foot in the desert, out of his way by some 30 or 50 miles… in a matter of hours. That would indicate that the Evangelist that wrote it was not well-versed in Palestinian geography, at the least.

    As to the child-like minds… didn’t Jesus supposedly say a whole bunch of stuff about being like little children? Don’t Christians have a childish fear of dying (for which they invent an afterlife)? Don’t they have a childish fear of people they don’t like going unpunished (for which they invent hell)? Don’t they have a childish desire to absolve themselves of real responsibility for their wrongdoings by accepting a get-out-of-jail-free card via a vicarious redemption through a disgusting blood sacrifice of a human being? Don’t they believe in talking snakes and donkeys and boats that can hold all of the animals on earth for months, at least a long time ago when there was still magic in the world?

    Sounds pretty childish to me.

  70. on 14 Jul 2012 at 3:32 am 70.Anonymous said …

    Congratulations, Olive, you are officially a moron.

    Seriously, leaving aside that the earth isn’t flat, the sun doesn’t revolve around it, the stars aren’t fixed in the sky, rain water doesn’t come through windows in the heavens, what would you prove if the bible had been geographically accurate?

    Would your proof hold for Harry Potter and Sherlock Holmes, making both of those real? How about the Iliad? Egyptian myths?

    No. Those aren’t real, but you’d want a special case because your book of bronze age myths happened to actually have an occasional real place in it. You really are a moron if that’s what you use to cling to your delusional beliefs.

  71. on 14 Jul 2012 at 3:38 am 71.alex said …

    fuck the bible. how about proving that the thing is correct in its entirety? if any part of it is wrong, the whole thing is crap. that’s why genesis must be defended to the end.

    they try to apply the same thing to science, but it fails. if a single scientific theory fails, it doesn’t render science wrong. the main difference is, science attempts to explain with an answer. in religions, the perps already got the answers figured out, therefore they must play defense.

    the morons try to do the same thing with atheists. one wrong or suspect atheist utterance and the idiots jump up, congratulate/fluff each other and rejoice and loudly proclaim that the atheists are wrong.

    once again, gods, leprechauns, unicorns don’t exist.
    the onus, the proof, is on the believer. same with ufos.

  72. on 14 Jul 2012 at 1:48 pm 72.A said …

    Anonymous is correct, Nazarath did not exist in the Bible.

    But Nazareth did exist just as described. Maybe that is why he couldn’t find it. Maybe he was looking for the Scottish rock band.

    DFW, Anonymous and alex you guys are just precious. I need a good laugh now and then.

    Oh, let me debunk the simpleton’s link before signing off for now.

    http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/reviewing-a-scholarly-review-of-rene-salms-the-myth-of-nazareth/

  73. on 14 Jul 2012 at 2:30 pm 73.Ted said …

    “Jesus went to some place by way of some other place that would have taken him, on foot in the desert, out of his way by some 30 or 50 miles”

    Jews did not go through the land of Samaria due to racial tensions between the nations. Yes, they did go around the land of Samara often which took them out of the way.

    The Bible is always correct and even archaeology proves it correct.

  74. on 14 Jul 2012 at 3:56 pm 74.alex said …

    “The Bible is always correct….”

    then you must stone an adulterer. watzamatter, no nerve? your god will protect you. what? taken out of context? which passage is correct? the word ass?
    the foreskins? god rested on the 7th day?

    so if nazareth is indeed a place, this validates the bible? i bet you like bacon? no? work on the sabbath? bet you posted while waiting for your other browser tab to finish your porn download. hyprocrite.

  75. on 14 Jul 2012 at 4:08 pm 75.alex said …

    “DFW, Anonymous and alex you guys are just precious. I need a good laugh now and then.”

    if you really, really need a good laugh, go to your bible. read about the bears and also about how lot offered his daughters to the men who wanted to rape the angels. nothing like porn with a touch of beastiality.

  76. on 14 Jul 2012 at 7:51 pm 76.Prime said …

    Thanks for being presumptuous, Ted. No.

    The story is the one in Mark 7:31, “Then he (Jesus) returned from the region of Tyre, and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the region of the Decapolis” (RSV).

    Tyre is a few miles south of Sidon, the Sea of Galilee is Southeast of Sidon, and the region of the Decapolis is further south and east from the southern border of the Sea of Galilee.

    I suppose it’s possible that Jesus went that way, if he actually existed, and there is plenty of apologetic out there trying to justify that path, which seems not to make sense if read in the straightforward, literal way the words are put down on the paper (Tyre to Sidon to Decapolis to Sea of Galilee).

    It seems also pretty likely that Mark just didn’t know the geography of the area very well.

    But seriously, who the hell cares? It’s been blown way out of proportion already. The bible is well-known not to be a sufficient source for the validity of anything written in it since it is unambiguously a theological treatise first, one that is very poorly corroborated by other, independent sources.

  77. on 14 Jul 2012 at 7:53 pm 77.Prime said …

    For those without maps of the ancient area, fwiw, Jesus’ proposed trip in the book of Mark is rather like heading to Washington D.C. by starting in New York, heading up to Boston, rolling back around to the Blue Ridge Mountain region of Virginia, and then bringing it back up to D.C. Possible, but… really?

  78. on 14 Jul 2012 at 8:17 pm 78.Ted said …

    “It seems also pretty likely that Mark just didn’t know the geography of the area very well.”

    Or that Jesus actually made the trip. Jesus was a Rabbi not a tourist. The distances are not even remotely close to the examples you provide. You are a liar or unknowledgeable. I once drove to California via Wyoming and Washington. Not even close to being the straightest and quickest but necessary for my purpose. Not even a good attempt Prime.

    The Bible is always correct and archaeology continues to verify the contents.

  79. on 14 Jul 2012 at 9:22 pm 79.alex said …

    “he Bible is always correct and archaeology continues to verify the contents.”

    nope. woman from a rib? jesus never existed. no proof.

  80. on 14 Jul 2012 at 9:24 pm 80.Prime said …

    Ted, I’m not a liar or unknowledgable. I adjusted the distances in my analogy for the fact that essentially every one of us would make the trip by car or train instead of on foot.

    Anyone is free to look the story up themselves and make up their own minds, and all I’ve said is that it’s sketchy. I don’t give a crap if Jesus ever walked this road or not because it doesn’t make for the first drop of evidence for anything in any religious context anymore than the existence of King’s Cross in London proves Hogwarts is real (which it doesn’t, fuckwit).

  81. on 14 Jul 2012 at 9:29 pm 81.Ted said …

    “I don’t give a crap if Jesus ever walked this road or not”

    Then you shouldn’t bring it up for scrutiny as if you had a case should you hot shot?

  82. on 14 Jul 2012 at 9:33 pm 82.Prime said …

    Also, go look up Tyre and Sidon (they’re in Lebanon now). They’re 50 km apart. Then check out some of the sites in modern Jordan which would have been in the Decapolis region, about 120-140 km from Sidon. Then back up the Sea of Galilee at another 20-40 km. Conservatively, then, this trip was at least 200 km.

    On foot, at maybe 5 kph, versus on an American interstate highway at 120 kph, we can actually see that if my distances were to be meaningful, I would have to factor up by about 3.5 to give the proper idea. Thanks for the correction.

    The proper analogy, at highway speeds, would be to travel from Richmond, VA, to Tallahassee, FL, by way of first Boston, MA, followed by Miami, FL.

  83. on 14 Jul 2012 at 9:35 pm 83.alex said …

    “Then you shouldn’t bring it up for scrutiny as if you had a case should you hot shot”

    any time an atheist says anything, you fuckers grab a hold of it and try to derail everything just to shift the focus from your bullshit.

    it ain’t gonna work. your god is bullshit. where’s the proof? none. go head, point out my spelling.

  84. on 14 Jul 2012 at 9:36 pm 84.Prime said …

    Ted, you’re ridiculous. Me not personally caring about the matter and the matter shedding doubt on the likelihood that Mark was knowledgeable about Palestinian geography are completely separate matters. Get your stuff straight before calling people a hot shot. Also, I’m not the one that brought up geography, and if you go look at my post about the matter, you can see my incredulity at the idea that the geography of the bible stories makes any difference whatsoever–or that it’s the main condemnation of biblical inerrancy.

  85. on 14 Jul 2012 at 9:46 pm 85.Lou (DFW) said …

    72.ASStrophysicist said …

    “DFW, Anonymous and alex you guys are just precious. I need a good laugh now and then.”

    First of all, I didn’t post anything about biblical geography. Besides that, it’s irrelevant.

    Second, who gives damn if you “need a good laugh now and then.” No doubt that you do, being a delusional fool who can never provide evidence to support your delusion. Yes, it’s sad, and you have my sympathy. Enjoy your laugh – at least it’s more than a delusion.

  86. on 14 Jul 2012 at 11:13 pm 86.RC said …

    heard this before. this may help.

    “While interviewing leading NT archaeologist Dr. John McRay, atheist turned Christian Lee Strobel asked him about Mark 7:31:

    Other scholars have attacked the gospel of Mark, generally considered the first account of Jesus’ life to be written. Atheist Michael Martin accuses Mark of being ignorant about Palestinian geography, which he says demonstrates that he could not have lived in the region at the time of Jesus. Specifically he cites Mark 7:31: “Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis.”

    “It has been pointed out,” said Martin, “that given these directions Jesus would have been traveling directly away from the Sea of Galilee.”

    When I posed Martin’s critique to McRay, he furrowed his brow and then went into a flurry of activity, pulling a Greek version of Mark off his shelf, grabbing reference books, and unfolding large maps of ancient Palestine.

    “What these critics seem to be assuming is that Jesus is getting in his car and zipping around on an interstate, but he obviously wasn’t,” he said.

    Reading the text in the original language, taking into account the mountainous terrain and probable roads of the region and considering the loose way “Decapolis” was used to refer to a confederation of ten cities that varied from time to time, McRay traced a logical route on the map that corresponded precisely with Mark’s description.

    “When everything is put into the appropriate context,” he concluded, “there’s no problem with Mark’s account.”

    Again archaeological insights had helped explain what appeared at first to be a sticking point in the New Testament. I asked McRay a broad question about that: had he ever encountered an archaeological finding that blatantly contravened a New Testament reference?

    He shook his read. “Archaeology has not produced anything that is unequivocally a contradiction to the Bible,” he replied with confidence. “On the contrary, as we’ve seen, there have been many opinions of skeptical scholars that have become codified into ‘fact’ over the years but that archaeology as shown to be wrong.” (Strobel, The Case for Christ – A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus [Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998; ISBN: 0-310-20930-7], p. 100)

  87. on 14 Jul 2012 at 11:51 pm 87.alex said …

    “86.RC said …”

    who the fuck are you? you think you can cut and paste, say lookey, lookey, then puff up your chest and declare your shit is true and historical?

    even if that whole crap was true, how the fuck does it minimize the foreskin obsession, the ark bs, and red sea parting, among other bullshit in the bible?

    why are we arguing about vague shit? your omnipotent god should be clear, powerful, and obvious, and it ain’t. pretty weak when morons have to keep defending it.

    how about a real bad ass god that created the universe that doesn’t give a fuck about you and me? no heaven or hell. we don’t know his intentions because he’a a bad motherfucker?

  88. on 15 Jul 2012 at 1:38 am 88.Hell Yeah said …

    “The Bible is always correct and even archaeology proves it correct.”

    Any idiot can write fiction stories with real places in it, even idiots way back then who wrote the bible. Why is there even a discussion on the topic of places in the bible actually existing?

  89. on 15 Jul 2012 at 1:47 am 89.Prime said …

    Wow, sh*t. One offhanded comment made all casually in reference to what was originally a monumentally stupid question (by a theist) and the theists go nuts trying to thrust their apologetics all up ons like they’ve got something to boast about.

    PS: The known trade routes of Galilee at the time were known to Martin. Who cares if a particular apologist can create a convincing yarn out of a less convincing yarn? That’s their job. That it’s presented by known cherry picker Lee Strobel doesn’t add much weight to that C/P discussion.

  90. on 15 Jul 2012 at 4:13 pm 90.Olive said …

    Ha knew that I would get dive-bombed if I said something.
    To my knowledge there is a special kind of ash on Mount. Sinai that no one but the bible could explain. Moses burned the ten commandments on Mount. Sinai and left the ashes.
    Also they found Noah’s ark in Turky.
    They found a path that was dried for a while with the same elevation when Moses split the Red Sea.
    Most geographers that are athiest become Christians when they tried to prove the bible wrong geographically because they can’t.
    So honestly I don’t care if you guys call me a moron or whatever, buy to me It’s kinda shallow to gang up on one person, all I stated was my opinion.

  91. on 15 Jul 2012 at 7:04 pm 91.Ben said …

    Anonymous’ point to be shown to be wrong and then Prime.

    The Bible is incredible. It changes lives, it is correct historically and answers the big questions of human existence. The amount of hate some have for it shows its remarkable power. It is even against the law in about 50 nations.

    I wish I could remember one place the Bible refers to that was unknown to us in modern day. About 15 years ago archaeologist actually discovered the remains of the town.

    It is also the best selling book of all time.

  92. on 15 Jul 2012 at 7:33 pm 92.God and other Ancient Superstitions said …

    Oh, LOL!!!. The old free will answer to why there is evil. Well, there is evil because your god, pick any, is an egocentric, self-inflated, vengeful, jealous, genocidal, totalitarian madman, who couldn’t care less about you. Well, don’t fret. As he stated, there were no gods before him and none will come after him. That tells me the old SOB. isn’t going to be living much longer if he isn’t already dead as a doornail. As far as the illusion of free will, come on!, you can’t come up with a better excuse that that for your evil god? Try splitting identical twins at birth and raise one with all the love and nourishment, both physically and emotionally; then raise the other by violent, compassionless, lazy, hateful bastards, and when they reach the age of 18, see who makes the better decision on any important subject. None of us have free will. Well, some of you will probably come up with a zinger that you raised yourself in isolation and you came out just fine. Good for you. Now I’ve got better things to do than waste more than 5 minutes talking about the superstitions of ancient, middle eastern yokels and their master who’s always wanting to be praised. If your god was a football player, he’d be the type to dance around every time he did what he gets paid to do. A real hot dog. LOL.

  93. on 15 Jul 2012 at 7:39 pm 93.40 year Atheist said …

    http://plover.net/~bonds/nolongeraskeptic.html

    Stephen Bond was born in Ireland, and admits to an early hatred of Ireland’s drunken culture, Jesus, and Christianity amongst other things. As soon as he was old enough and able, he left all those things behind and moved to France, winding up apparently in Belgium.

    He became a capital-S Skeptic, and for years haunted the internet skeptic sites. But he has left Skepticism behind with a scathing assessment of its inhabitants. It’s not that he has changed any philosophical positions; he merely became skeptical of the Skeptics. He has written an article describing his rejection, and the reasons for it are those which are obvious to those of us who have always been skeptical of the Skeptics, but which apparently are new to him. Nonetheless Bond spares no one any feelings when he slashes the Skeptics’ sexism, racism, elitism, positivism, hate mongering, etc. And yet he still feels that “friars, preachers, despots” … are the ” historical enemies of progress”. Apparently sexism, racism, elitism, positivism are objectionable but don’t get in the way of whatever he thinks progress constitutes.

    There are a couple of other articles in his “opinions” file which are interesting conjunctions to the above article: utopia, and purity. I haven’t read all his work, and I agree with only certain portions, but it is interesting writing and a view into real, if seemingly under-informed, skeptical inquiry.

  94. on 15 Jul 2012 at 7:54 pm 94.God and other Ancient Superstitions said …

    @ Hell Yeah. LOL. I know. It amazes me every time I hear or read some twit that can’t think for themselves preach that scripture proves anything other than the bible is so obviously man made one can’t help but roll their eyes inside out at some of their blind and childish driveling. If you enjoy reading, I recently purchased “The End of Christianity, ” edited by John Loftus. You’ll love it. You’ll also love the fact that the poor Christian apologist are left with the BS’ing lazy, uneducated twerps (like the moron D’Nesh Dsousza; who cares how you spell the liar’s name?) to argue their nonsense, while we have all the Ph.D’s like Dr. Hector Avalos on our side now. Btw, when I say DR. I don’t mean the box-top grads (a 6 month course by mail to be a Dr., LOL) like Lester Dumerall, or the ragin’ Rude Parsley, I mean Avalos and the rest in this great book have graduated from major universities after putting in 10 years and are now professors at Harvard and the likes. I really do recommend it for all non-idiots. The believers would only think they’ll go straight to Jesus’s hell if they so much as touch it. BTW, that’s only an excuse for them not to read. We all know we’re the ones who have read the bible more than they. How do I know? The National Religious quiz given in April of 2011. We agnostics and atheists killed. LOL. They cherry-pick, we read cover to cover/the fastest path to atheism.

  95. on 15 Jul 2012 at 8:21 pm 95.alex said …

    “The Bible is incredible. It changes lives, it is correct historically”

    wrong again, moron. no matter how many times you argue, the bible is bullshit. the koran is bullshit. the iliad is bullshit. why do you keep posting? why don’t you let your god take care of it’s own business? coz you know it’s bull. that’s why you go to a doctor, wear your seatbelt, and you eat bacon.

    at least the amish try to be compliant. you fuckers just flap your gums and declare your righteousness. remember, today is the sabbath. fuckin hyprocrite.

  96. on 15 Jul 2012 at 8:53 pm 96.Hell Yeah said …

    “The Bible is incredible. It changes lives, it is correct historically and answers the big questions of human existence. The amount of hate some have for it shows its remarkable power. It is even against the law in about 50 nations.”

    It changes lives because it gives people false reality in blind faith. If I pretended everything was awesome and believed it, I am sure it would change my life too, but it wouldn’t be reality. Wouldn’t you rather know reality than to pretend reality isn’t true?

    The only thing correct about the bible could be the places and some of the people, since anyone can write fiction stories with real people and places. It is like as if I turn on the TV and watch a superhero movie that takes place in New York and then think to myself, that superhero (isert any here) must be real because New York is a real place! And that actor is a real person, so the story must be real!

    The bible doesn’t answer the big questions of human existance. It gives false explanations
    because the people who wrote it way back then didn’t have any of the scientific breakthroughs we have had since then. We still don’t have all the answers, but know a lot more since it was written and may some day know the real answers, but that doesn’t mean goddidit because you think it is a better explanation to I don’t know.

    There is a lot of hate for the bible because it is shocking how many people believe it to be true, when in fact it isn’t. It is funny to see others literally believe it.

    It is against the law in that many nations because those nations realize it isn’t true and that there are people out there that do stupid shit because they believe it to be true. Or those other nations have other stupid religions they believe to be true.

  97. on 15 Jul 2012 at 9:17 pm 97.Severin said …

    “The Bible is incredible. It changes lives, it is correct historically”

    Indeed!
    Thanks to Bible, which supported slavery, lives of millions of African people were dramatically changed.
    This part, at least, is historically correct.

    I would not wish such sort of changes to your children.

  98. on 15 Jul 2012 at 9:24 pm 98.Severin said …

    ““The Bible is incredible. It changes lives, it is correct historically and answers the big questions of human existence.”

    Such as DNA structure origins from dirt, sun is orbiting earth, the whole human race started from only one pair of genes (incest), …, kangaroos came to Australia from Noah’s arc, …, …, … (no end of INCREDIBLE).

    Really incredible.
    That is why no one normal gives a shit for Bible.

  99. on 15 Jul 2012 at 9:33 pm 99.Severin said …

    “The Bible is always correct … ”

    Are we going back to Genesis?

    Someone took some dirt and make a man, then, after blowing his own saliva through his nostrils, took his rib and made a woman?
    Snake talked to woman?
    A+E’s children had to fuck each other to establish human race?

    All that, and many, many other idiocies are correct?

  100. on 15 Jul 2012 at 10:12 pm 100.alex said …

    “A+E’s children had to fuck each other to establish human race?”

    yes, but man was evil. they had to mate with the animals. the offspring of man and goat made the devil. haven’t you see the depictions?

    then man mated with the birds which created angels. only with the white birds of course.

    fishes were not immune. fucking the fishes begat mermaids. don’t you see, the whole thing makes sense!

  101. on 16 Jul 2012 at 2:12 am 101.A said …

    Wouldn’t you rather know reality than to pretend reality isn’t true?

    Absolutely H Yeah which is why I could never buy into atheism.

    40YA.

    That is a fascinating article by Stephen Bond. I like seeing a guy think for himself even if he is still misguided. I hadn’t had a chance to finish the article but he obviously has done his time in the cyberworld of elitist haters. Most wouldn’t know what the scientific method looks like if they set their Ipad on it.

  102. on 16 Jul 2012 at 2:30 am 102.Hell Yeah said …

    “Wouldn’t you rather know reality than to pretend reality isn’t true?
    Absolutely H Yeah which is why I could never buy into atheism.”

    That is funny that you think theism is reality. Theism is based on faith, which is believing in something that has no evidence. Atheists only believe things are true because evidence is provided. Reality is based on evidence. Atheism is a lack of evidence in a god. If there was evidence, then there would be no atheism.

  103. on 16 Jul 2012 at 2:57 am 103.A said …

    “If there was evidence, then there would be no atheism.”

    If the evidence were lacking there would be no Theism. Just because you don’t accept the evidence does not mean it does not exist.

    You have an opinion. Doesn’t make it realty.

  104. on 16 Jul 2012 at 2:59 am 104.Prime said …

    The exceptional irony about that Stephen Bond diatribe is how he repeatedly portrays how he’s a skeptic while refusing to call himself that because he doesn’t want to associate with a philosophical label. The shit shouldn’t have ever called himself a “skeptic” in the first place and should have just been a freethinker. Then he wouldn’t be putting forth the least bit of irony when he writes a long-winded invective piece about how he’s skeptical of…
    Skepticism as a philosophy,
    The validity of simple explanations for things like wars,
    The “virtues” of intellectual elitism,
    Diversity in the “skeptical” community,
    The possibility of a truly good nature of “skeptics” on internet forums (which might simply be poisoned by having to deal with the same tired shit again and again),
    The motivations of “skeptics” with regard to equality,
    The motivations of “skeptic” blog owners and forum operators,
    The gender-neutrality of “skeptics,”
    The motivation of “(male) skeptics” toward women being anything other than “nerdophilic” sexual,
    The “skeptic’s” ability to understand and put into real perspective what is going on in Islam,
    The motivations of Richard Dawkins, in particular,
    The motivations of Christopher Hitchens, in particular,
    The sociopolitical diversity of “skeptics,”
    That scientific enquiry and “liberal democracy” are separable concepts,
    That we’re not in a better mental place than the middle ages, in a very salient sense,
    That science can proceed apolitically,
    That “liberal democracy” can give us a good view of the human experience,
    That data and conclusions can be presented without significant bias,
    That medical research is not deeply flawed and corrupt,
    That certain scientific fields like evolutionary psychology are possibly legitimate fields,
    That linguistics may have legitimacy as a field of study,
    That capitalism is a perfect economic system,
    That fortune tellers, psychics, etc., can cause real harm that could be prevented by a more skeptical society,
    That fortune tellers, etc., aren’t all charlatans,
    That all “skeptics” require science as a “warm blanket in the dark,”
    That “skepticism” isn’t a quasi-religious phenomenon,
    That “skeptical” thinkers can stand up to philosophy effectively (and aren’t afraid of it),
    That philosophising won’t get people to change their views,
    That some people may not be epicurean, and
    That “skeptics” and religionists aren’t doing something fundamentally different.

    This list probably isn’t exhaustive.

    …all while repeatedly calling people “nerds” throughout, which is pretty much exactly what he’s bashing people for doing in his third section. In short, this dude’s a douche. Nice example, 40YAsshat.

  105. on 16 Jul 2012 at 3:10 am 105.Hell Yeah said …

    “If the evidence were lacking there would be no Theism. Just because you don’t accept the evidence does not mean it does not exist.
    You have an opinion. Doesn’t make it realty.”

    So what is this evidence that you know of? Please enlighten us. I’m all for believing if there is real evidence. The problem is what you and other theists think is real evidence, there is actually an explanation as to why it isn’t real evidence.

  106. on 16 Jul 2012 at 5:02 am 106.Severin said …

    #102
    “Just because you don’t accept the evidence does not mean it does not exist.”

    What evidence could it be?
    You always MENTION evidences, but never show any.

    I can’t wait to hear some!

  107. on 16 Jul 2012 at 6:36 pm 107.Lou(DFW) said …

    102.ASStrophysicist, wrong again, said …

    “If the evidence were lacking there would be no Theism.”

    Yes, there would, and there always has been. Where is the evidence for all the other theistic gods in which people believed and currently believe, but that you don’t?

    “Just because you don’t accept the evidence does not mean it does not exist.”

    Who claimed that?

    “You have an opinion.”

    You have a belief in an imaginary god.

    “Doesn’t make it realty.”

  108. on 16 Jul 2012 at 8:24 pm 108.DPK said …

    106.Lou(DFW) said …

    EXACTLY!!! Where do they come up with this stuff??
    ““If the evidence were lacking there would be no Theism.”

    Yet, history is FULL of people who believed without a doubt in the existence of completely imaginary gods. There obviously was no “evidence” for them because they were, in fact, NOT REAL. So, either the “evidence” for those THOUSANDS of gods was either non-existent, or not very reliable, but people believed it ANYWAY. But now, we are supposed to accept YOUR evidence, for your particular god, without doubt or skepticism, and accept your contention that because a large quantity of people believe it, it must be true? Where is your logical basis for that? Here’s a hint.. there IS none. So stop your ridiculous appeal to majority and admit that your entire belief system is based entirely on FAITH. Faith in “evidences” that history has shown us to be false, time, and time, and time again.
    Unless you have some different evidence that we have not heard before, your empty yammering is nothing but a fart in the wind.
    As Sev would say, “it is bullshits”.

  109. on 16 Jul 2012 at 9:10 pm 109.Curmudgeon said …

    “If there was evidence, then there would be no atheism.”

    Not true. We have conspiracy theist who ignore all evidence. Atheist are the brothers of conspiracy theorist.

  110. on 16 Jul 2012 at 9:47 pm 110.Lou(DFW) said …

    108.Crum said …

    “Not true. We have conspiracy theist who ignore all evidence. Atheist are the brothers of conspiracy theorist.”

    You just pulled that out of your ass just like everything else that post you here, and it’s absolutely meaningless and irrelevant unless you provide some evidence. Or as your “pal” ASStrophysicist wrote:

    “You have an opinion. Doesn’t make it realty.”

  111. on 16 Jul 2012 at 10:39 pm 111.Lou(DFW) said …

    108.Crum said …

    “Not true. We have conspiracy theist who ignore all evidence.”

    Freudian slip?

  112. on 16 Jul 2012 at 10:41 pm 112.Hell Yeah said …

    “We have conspiracy theist who ignore all evidence. Atheist are the brothers of conspiracy theorist.”

    Kind of hard to ignore something, when that something isn’t even provided. What evidence is out there that you are claiming that is ignored? I think what is really going on is that theists are ignorning that what they think is evidence, that there is actually an explanation why it isn’t evidence.

  113. on 16 Jul 2012 at 10:59 pm 113.c said …

    I have exactly what the atheist have been asking for.

    http://bit.ly/Ns28eF

  114. on 16 Jul 2012 at 11:00 pm 114.Lou said …

    I have exactly what the atheist have been asking for.

    http://bit.ly/Ns28eF

  115. on 17 Jul 2012 at 12:07 am 115.Lou(DFW) said …

    112.c said …

    “I have exactly what the atheist have been asking for.

    http://bit.ly/Ns28eF

    113.Louser said …

    “I have exactly what the atheist have been asking for.

    http://bit.ly/Ns28eF

    Louser, the sock is slipping…

  116. on 17 Jul 2012 at 12:19 am 116.Xenon said …

    Lou,

    Even if you google the subject matter for them they will not make an effort. It is why we ignore the “never evers” of Louser.

    40 Year,

    A very interesting analysis from a man who obviously has spent much time with the bomb throwers. I personally see it as an addiction and a derangement syndrome. In time I feel certain in will be recognized as such.

  117. on 17 Jul 2012 at 12:19 am 117.Xenon said …

    Lou,

    Even if you google the subject matter for them they will not make an effort. It is why we ignore the “never evers” of Louser.

    40 Year,

    A very interesting analysis from a man who obviously has spent much time with the bomb throwers. I personally see it as an addiction and a derangement syndrome. In time I feel certain in will be recognized as such.

  118. on 17 Jul 2012 at 12:22 am 118.Xenon said …

    Louser,

    Yes I feel certain Lou was attempting to deceive us all by pasting the exact same post back to back with different monikers.

    I bet he almost had you fooled didn’t he?

  119. on 17 Jul 2012 at 2:13 am 119.alex said …

    “Even if you google the subject matter for them they will not make an effort”

    what the fuck you talking about? you can google santa claus and find all kinds of shit. is this your god proof? your god is a joke, leaving all the arguing to moronic amateurs.

    many more idiotic gods happened before yours and where are they now? you think your god is original? from the freakin halo, the virgin birth, bullshit miracles, the holy book, it’s all stolen. your god is not even original. even now, your god is not even universal. claim all you want, but most of the world doesn’t believe in your god. fact, no?

    go ahead, take a shot. refute away, morons.

  120. on 17 Jul 2012 at 2:32 am 120.Hell Yeah said …

    I opened that link and it went to other various links. They are the same crap that you theists keep bringing up on here, such as you can’t prove there is no god, or there had to be a designer, and crap like that. I think we already covered those topics over the long haul on here. You still call those evidence? I can say you can’t prove the flying spaggetti monster doesn’t exist, so I guess it does exist based on your “reasonable” evidence. It also states you can’t prove god exists either. Sounds like the definition of any made up thing.

  121. on 17 Jul 2012 at 2:35 am 121.Lou(DFW) said …

    116.Xenon said …

    “Even if you google the subject matter for them they will not make an effort. It is why we ignore the “never evers” of Louser.”

    First of all, the first entry of the Google result was a discussion forum. That’s your evidence for god?

    Second, the reason you ignore the “never evers” is simple – you don’t have any evidence.

  122. on 17 Jul 2012 at 2:36 am 122.Hell Yeah said …

    I think something everyone on here should listen to is the weekly podcasts of the Atheist Experience. It is a radio show that has callers, mainly theists, call in and discuss with the atheists various topics.

    You can watch the videos here:

    https://www.youtube.com/user/TheAtheistExperience

    Enjoy!

  123. on 17 Jul 2012 at 2:39 am 123.Lou(DFW) said …

    117.Xenonsense said …

    “Louser,”

    Louser? Really? xenonsense, have you eve had an original thought?

    “Yes I feel certain Lou was attempting to deceive us all by pasting the exact same post back to back with different monikers.”

    The you’re an idiot.

    “I bet he almost had you fooled didn’t he?”

    Go ahead, bet. You also believe in an imaginary god, so you should be used to losing.

  124. on 17 Jul 2012 at 2:46 am 124.A said …

    “listen to is the weekly podcasts of the Atheist Experience.”

    I actually have downloaded their podcast. I do recommend it. It is the equivalent of watching MessNBC. Some hilariously drugged up deluded individuals on that show.

    X and Lou,

    The conspiracy theorist never want evidence. They look for reasons not to belief and then claim anything to the contrary to their ideology is not evidence. They lack the ability to reason. Stephen Bond does a nice job of exposing them in his link.

  125. on 17 Jul 2012 at 4:01 am 125.Prime said …

    116.Xenon said …

    “Even if you google the subject matter for them they will not make an effort. It is why we ignore the “never evers” of Louser.”

    Because the real effort is involved in typing something into Google instead of carefully combing through all the bullshit that might come up in such a search and carefully considering what needs to be considered and what needs to be discarded. Reject. Next.

    Not surprisingly, in 123.ASStrofakist dumps things onto the thread that lack utterly in relevance, substance, and evidence for his god. Reject. Next.

  126. on 17 Jul 2012 at 4:06 am 126.Prime said …

    123.Asstrofool said …

    “Stephen Bond does a nice job of exposing them [conspiracy theorists] in his link.”

    Glad you brought this up Asstro. You’re doing a fine job of demonstrating your functional illiteracy this way.

    Too bad no one that isn’t crazy or stupid listens to conspiracy theorists or takes them more seriously than the potential public safety and security threat that they might be if they get too worked up (read: Birthers). I guess it’s important for people like you that people like Bond exist to expose conspiracy theorists as the crackpots that they are. Maybe if you read some more of this Bond character, you might find him pointing a finger at the crazy people on street corners, at the pulpit, and on the internet running their mouths about their imaginary gods too.

  127. on 17 Jul 2012 at 11:27 am 127.Lou(DFW) said …

    123.ASStrophysicist said …

    “The conspiracy theorist never want evidence. They look for reasons not to belief…”

    Speaking of a “drugged up deluded individual,” you meet that definition perfectly. Even ignoring your belief in an imaginary god, all one must do is read the contradictory, nonsensical comments that you post here. Of course the conspiracy theorists (108.Crum said …
    conspiracy theists) DO want evidence! They, just like theists, are so desperate for evidence that they invent it.

    “…and then claim anything to the contrary to their ideology is not evidence.”

    Evolution, Big Bang, round-earth, heliocentricism, truth, etc., etc., etc.

  128. on 17 Jul 2012 at 12:42 pm 128.Lou(DFW) said …

    123.A said …

    “It is the equivalent of watching MessNBC. Some hilariously drugged up deluded individuals on that show.”

    Romney’s Bain Capital controls the board of directors of Clear Channel.

    http://tinyurl.com/6vsyad8

  129. on 17 Jul 2012 at 11:41 pm 129.MegaByte said …

    Lou actually links to a Daily Kos article as if it is news.

    Besides, Daily Kos didn’t earn their position in entertainment. No No No, it was done by people like me.

  130. on 18 Jul 2012 at 1:03 am 130.Prime said …

    Nice work, 129.MegaByte, not knowing what “news” is and all.

  131. on 18 Jul 2012 at 1:34 am 131.Lou(DFW) said …

    129.Minibit said …

    “Lou actually links to a Daily Kos article as if it is news.”

    Gee, I wonder why I posted that link to that news article? Hint: It’s because the sock-puppets here can’t stay on topic:

    125.Prime said …

    “Not surprisingly, in 123.ASStrofakist dumps things onto the thread that lack utterly in relevance, substance, and evidence for his god.”

  132. on 18 Jul 2012 at 1:53 am 132.Oh Yeah said …

    1. “God purposefully causes all suffering on earth. He is the creator of the universe to religious people, and therefore he created all suffering.”

    2. “God does nothing in response to that suffering because it would make people into “moral couch potatoes.”

    #1 is incorrect. God created people but they just chose to commit evil. If my son goes out and commits evil in spite of my warnings, I am not at fault. #1 has been proven unsubstantiated.

    #2 is incorrect. God provided a perfect sacrifice in His son to free man from the bondage of sin and evil. If man rejects this of free will, they are at fault. #2 has now has been proven unsubstantiated.

  133. on 18 Jul 2012 at 2:26 am 133.Lou(DFW) said …

    132.Oh Yeah said the Kool-Aid Man…

    “#1 is incorrect. God created people but they just chose to commit evil. If my son goes out and commits evil in spite of my warnings, I am not at fault. #1 has been proven unsubstantiated.”

    You are not god. You did not create humans. God IS God, therefore he is responsible. You’re conclusion is incorrect.

    “#2 is incorrect. God provided a perfect sacrifice in His son to free man from the bondage of sin and evil. If man rejects this of free will, they are at fault. #2 has now has been proven unsubstantiated.”

    God obviously DID NOT provide a perfect sacrifice. Furthermore, the idea of an omnipotent, supernatural creator-being requiring a “sacrifice” of his “son” is utterly absurd. You’re conclusion is incorrect.

  134. on 18 Jul 2012 at 11:32 am 134.Oh Yeah said …

    So Lou, if a man breaks into your home and murders your family but the judge at trial declares he is a judge of forgiveness and love therefore requires no punishment you would be OK with that?

    Jesus was the only perfect sacrifice who could make the payment. I am correct on #2.

    You are also wrong on #1. God purposely gives us free will. Since God is god as you admit therefore he can give us free will.

  135. on 18 Jul 2012 at 11:32 am 135.Hell Yeah said …

    Here is an 11 minute video from the Atheist Experience that sums up what we have been talking about lately. A theist caller asks questions to atheists.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs3RKZjSzYg

  136. on 18 Jul 2012 at 11:51 am 136.Lou(DFW) said …

    134.Oh Yeah, said The Kool-Aid Man…

    “So Lou, if a man breaks into your home and murders your family but the judge at trial declares he is a judge of forgiveness and love therefore requires no punishment you would be OK with that?”

    Non sequitur…but by the way, doesn’t your friend Jesus tell you to forgive?

    No, I wouldn’t be OK with that, so what? But if I believed in the imaginary god that you do, then I would be EXTREMELY pissed at him to allow it to happen if I and my family believed in and worshiped him as he commands us to do under threat of eternal damnation, despite the fact that he performed a “perfect sacrifice.”

    “Jesus was the only perfect sacrifice who could make the payment. I am correct on #2.”

    Except that said sacrifice didn’t work. Wrong again.

    “You are also wrong on #1. God purposely gives us free will. Since God is god as you admit therefore he can give us free will.”

    Except, of course, that I only meant that metaphorically as a reply to your idiotic comment.

    Does your imaginary god also give nature “free will” to perform “evil” acts that kill people? For example, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, lightning, germs/bacteria/disease, animal attacks, etc? Is nature “evil?”

    Nature also has “free will” to kill as men do, or such acts, even those of men, are simply part of nature. Which is it?

  137. on 18 Jul 2012 at 1:44 pm 137.Lou(DFW) said …

    135.Hell Yeah said …

    “Here is an 11 minute video from the Atheist Experience that sums up what we have been talking about lately. A theist caller asks questions to atheists.”

    Yes, it illustrates the irrationality and frustration that theists here have in common with that caller.

    They made-up their minds, no matter how their arguments are refuted and debunked.

    They won’t allow themselves to be “painted into a corner” when they know it will lead to the debunking of their argument. For example, the caller wouldn’t agree about the non-existence of big-foot and leprechauns.

    They can’t provide any evidence that supports their belief.

    They get frustrated and resort to irrelevant comments (“It is the equivalent of watching MessNBC.”), and in the case of the caller, when they can’t “win” the argument intellectually, they attempt to “win” it physically.

  138. on 18 Jul 2012 at 3:02 pm 138.Severin said …

    132 OY
    “God provided a perfect sacrifice in His son to free man from the bondage of sin and evil.”

    And did he achieve that goal?
    Perfect job, as I understand it, has to have perfect, or at least very good results.
    Now, please tell us what perfect results has god achieved by his schizophrenic sacrificing of himself to himself?
    Did men become “free from the bondage of sin and evil” (whatever it means)?
    I don’t see the slightest difference between human behavior before and after Christ’s “sacrifice”: they continued to commit adulteries, lie, steal, kill rape, … in the same, if not even bigger extent, as before the “perfect sacrifice”.
    WHAT has changed? WHAT are results? WHY did Jesus die?

    If nothing changed, the job was “shit done”, and you have chosen the wrong event to celebrate: an event that gave NO results at all can’t be called but shit.

  139. on 18 Jul 2012 at 3:23 pm 139.DPK said …

    “Now, please tell us what perfect results has god achieved by his schizophrenic sacrificing of himself to himself?”

    Well, to their deluded mindset, what has changed is now they can be “forgiven” for whatever they do. That’s a pretty good appeal for a religion to hawk, isn’t it? “Join our cult, and it doesn’t matter what you do or have done… Jesus already paid the price FOR YOU. All you have yo do is believe in him (and give us some cash, of course) and you get to go to heaven!” Sounds like a pretty good deal to anyone simpleminded enough to believe it.

    The problem comes with the idea of a “just” god who rewards a mass murderer or child molester with heaven, as long as they accept Jesus into their hearts, while someone like Ghandi is doomed to eternal torment in hell because he did not accept Jesus as his personal god. Not to mention the rather awkward concept of a “just” god who accepts the idea of off-loading your crimes and sins on a whipping boy as an acceptable form of punishment.

    But, no… christians aren’t deluded at all, are they?

  140. on 18 Jul 2012 at 5:34 pm 140.Oh Yeah said …

    Glad to hear it Lou. Now you know why God must punish sin. He loves us enough to provide a substitute to take the punishment. True Christians realize in Christ’s teachings we are not to abuse His grace.

  141. on 18 Jul 2012 at 5:40 pm 141.Lou(DFW) said …

    140.Oh Yeah, said the Kool-Aid Man…

    “Glad to hear it Lou.”

    Oh yeah, another sock-puppet.

    “Now you know why God must punish sin. He loves us enough to provide a substitute to take the punishment.”

    I know no such thing. The idea that an omnipotent, supernatural creator-being requires such a “perfect sacrifice” is ludicrous.

    I also noticed that you didn’t answer my questions:

    Is nature “evil?”

    Nature also has “free will” to kill as men do, or such acts, even those of men, are simply part of nature. Which is it?

  142. on 18 Jul 2012 at 5:48 pm 142.Lou(DFW) said …

    140.Oh Yeah, said the Kool-Aid Man …

    “Now you know why God must punish sin. He loves us enough to provide a substitute to take the punishment.”

    If the substitute “takes the punishment,” then how is it punishment for the sinner?

    Rather than going through this “perfect sacrifice” nonsense, why not simply omit the punishment?

  143. on 18 Jul 2012 at 5:55 pm 143.Scourge said …

    #132 “”Oh Yeah” Was the bubonic plague evil? Is malaria evil? Is cancer evil? Are Tsunamis evil? Are trailer park flattening fatal tornadoes evil? Did people create these things? I believe many people who live in trailer parks are devoutly Christian, although it would be understandable if they thought little of a God who could lift them from their dire straits.

  144. on 18 Jul 2012 at 5:58 pm 144.Scourge said …

    #132 It seems “God” having created nature provides plenty evil for mankind on a daily basis. It is preposterous to claim otherwise.

  145. on 18 Jul 2012 at 6:05 pm 145.Scourge said …

    What is with the theists on this site making arguments that if written in blue books would likely make it onto the bulletin board in the faculty and graduate student lounge next to a few select New Yorker cartoons. Are evangelicals teaching a new course- “Creating Buffoonery Using Terms From Logic”? On second thought, it is an old course. It is called “Christian Theology”.

  146. on 18 Jul 2012 at 6:21 pm 146.Oh Yeah said …

    Nature is not evil, it is nature. All people die, why is that evil? You will die. Better make arrangements for that day.

    Jesus took the punishment for our sin.

  147. on 18 Jul 2012 at 6:35 pm 147.Hell Yeah said …

    So if Jesus didn’t take punishment for our sin, how would it be any different? People would still do bad things, right?

  148. on 18 Jul 2012 at 7:16 pm 148.Lou(DFW) said …

    146.Oh Yeah, said the Kool-Aid Man …

    “Nature is not evil, it is nature.”

    Agreed!

    “All people die, why is that evil? You will die. Better make arrangements for that day.”

    Dying is not a sin. We were talking killing a person. Now, back to the question that you avoided. If, as you agree, nature is not evil when it kills a person, then why is it evil when a person kills a person? Is it evil when a chimpanzee kills a human?

    “Jesus took the punishment for our sin.”

    Then it’s not punishment.

    “Better make arrangements for that day.”

    Why, do I require an appointment?

  149. on 18 Jul 2012 at 7:19 pm 149.Lou(DFW) said …

    147.Hell Yeah said …

    “So if Jesus didn’t take punishment for our sin, how would it be any different? People would still do bad things, right?”

    Correct. But let’s assume god really wanted to punish us. He simply would, right? But why is that necessary? Why didn’t he simply make us good? Because we aren’t, theists invented the idea of “free will” and Jesus “perfect sacrifice.” It’s a slippery slope of excuses to rationalize an irrational delusion.

  150. on 19 Jul 2012 at 1:06 am 150.Oh Yeah said …

    Nature Kills – Not possible since nature is not aware or under the law.

    Man murderers – Yes sin

    Chimp Kills – Not possible since Chimps are not aware or under the law.

    Lou how old are you?

    Other Question

    Yes, Jesus died for our sins and yes men still sin. He paid the price for our sins and sin will remain in the world until His return.

  151. on 19 Jul 2012 at 1:31 am 151.Hell Yeah said …

    “Yes, Jesus died for our sins and yes men still sin. He paid the price for our sins and sin will remain in the world until His return.”

    So basically nothing has changed as far as what happens to people if they do bad things from before Jesus to after Jesus, right? What would have happened if he didn’t pay the price for our sins? I am sure you will give me some B.S. answer, but I can tell you the real answer is nothing.

  152. on 19 Jul 2012 at 1:35 am 152.Hell Yeah said …

    By the way, Oh Yeah is what happens when Hell Yeah drinks the Kool-Aid. I used to be an Oh Yeah until I realized reality. What do they put in that communion wine anyhow? Glad I got off of that when I did.

  153. on 19 Jul 2012 at 2:23 am 153.Oh Yeah said …

    “So basically nothing has changed as far as what happens to people if they do bad things from before Jesus to after Jesus, right?”

    Those who have accepted Christ’s gift of salvation are changed, forgiven, have a new desire and spend eternity with Him. They no longer desire to sin but they do mess up.

    For those who reject His gift, nothing changes. On that you are correct.

    I’m glad you got that off for you too. It was quite impressive.

  154. on 19 Jul 2012 at 2:31 am 154.Hell Yeah said …

    “Those who have accepted Christ’s gift of salvation are changed, forgiven, have a new desire and spend eternity with Him. They no longer desire to sin but they do mess up.
    For those who reject His gift, nothing changes. On that you are correct.”

    So basically, don’t sin and you go to heaven and sin, you are either forgiven if you believe or go to hell if you don’t believe? Sounds like there was no reason for his sacrifice then, since this could have been done without the sacrifice. Or are you saying that after Jesus sacrificed himself, as long as you believe in him you can sin all you want and still go to heaven? Do you see where I am going with this?

  155. on 19 Jul 2012 at 2:50 am 155.Prime said …

    153.Oh Yeah said …

    “Those who have accepted Christ’s gift of salvation are changed, forgiven, have a new desire and spend eternity with Him.”

    So for roughly half, that’s gay.

  156. on 19 Jul 2012 at 2:53 am 156.Prime said …

    My favorite part of this “Oh Yeah” stuff is how he’s presenting this tired-old tripe like we’ve never heard it before. We’ve heard it before. I can’t speak for everyone here, but for at least a few of us, all our freaking lives.

    Boring. Reject. Next.

  157. on 19 Jul 2012 at 2:58 am 157.Hell Yeah said …

    “Those who have accepted Christ’s gift of salvation are changed, forgiven, have a new desire and spend eternity with Him.”

    Spend eternity with him? What would you do to pass the time? You already made it to heaven, so therefore you don’t have to waste all your time trying to impress him to get there anymore. Can you drink there? Are there women to have sex with there? (and yes, both genders love sex with women, so I didn’t need to specify, lol) But if I choose a different relgion, I will get 72 virgins. That’s a toss up there, 72 virgins for eternity, or just one dude with a Mexican name for eternity.

  158. on 19 Jul 2012 at 3:36 am 158.Lou(DFW) said …

    150.Oh Yeah said …

    “Chimp Kills – Not possible since Chimps are not aware or under the law.”

    So, it’s not a sin unless the sinner knows it’s a sin? Chimps and nature do kill. Perhaps you mean murder.

    “Lou how old are you?”

    How old AM I?! I’m not the one who believes in an imaginary god.

    “Other Question

    “Yes, Jesus died for our sins and yes men still sin. He paid the price for our sins and sin will remain in the world until His return.”

    You didn’t answer the questions. It’s as if you have a speech rehearsed that you use to avoid them.

    BTW, if you go to heaven, do you have “free will” there? Can you kill someone while in heaven? If not, then how do you reconcile that with your belief that man must have the “free will” to commit evil?

  159. on 19 Jul 2012 at 5:16 am 159.Severin said …

    146 OY
    “Jesus took the punishment for our sin.“

    Oh, that is the way it works!
    So, he did not die to PREVENT sins, but to take punishment for previous and future sins of people on his back.
    I know (and I knew it when I was very young) that hundreds of millions of those who accepted Christianity „sinned“ a lot (slavery, genocides, murders, torturing, molesting, very frequently even in name of Jesus!), and I was wondering why is that so. I concluded decades ago that no religion, including Christianity, works preventively: people who believe in gods do NOT „sin“ less than people who do not believe.

    I became an atheist when I was about 10 (70 today).
    The very first disgusting thing that „moved“ me towards atheism was Biblical story with Abraham and Isaac. When I first heard that story (I was about 8 or 9 then), I maybe continued believing in god, but HATED him with all my heart. What I concluded then was: if there is a god, he CAN’T be SO evil, and if he was, he does not deserve my love. he IS a monster, I concluded.
    A monster who is able to challenge people by ordering them to kill their own children, can’t be normal by any definition. I (maybe) believed in that god, but REJECTED him.
    The „fact“ that he stopped Abraham’s hand just before he wanted to kill the boy never excused the monster in my eyes. The idea itself is owful and disgusting. It is inhuman. It is … no words!

    Then the story of Jesus’ taking our sins on him, some 2 years later, opened my eyes.
    I directly asked the priest: if I did a big „sin“, for example, if I burned a haus, and someone died in the house, will I go to hell.
    The answer was NO, IF YOU REPENT and sincerely ask Jesus to forgive you.
    I had luck I grew in a normal, very responsible family which never dealed with SUCH „moral values“, so the idea that someone can do what he/she wants without consequences, was also disgusting and repulsive to me.
    I understood when I was 10 that such rules can only lead people to behave irresponsibly: I will do what I want, then repent and ask Jesus for his grace, and I will still go to heaven. Maybe I will go to jale on earth, but who cares: Jesus took my crimes on himself, and it is enough to „accept“ him, to pray, to repent, and to anjoy in „honey and milk“ for eternity in heavens.
    I am a very responsible individual, and I am always ready to pay consequences for my deeds. That was what I learned in MY FAMILY.
    I do not need anyone to pay for what I did. THAT idea, that I (capital „i“!) will ALWAYS pay (or perhaps be rewarded), for my deeds (+ my individual nature, + my home education) makes me a responsible individual, who thinks ten times before doing something.

  160. on 19 Jul 2012 at 5:25 am 160.Severin said …

    OY,

    Of course, years after that, I also understood that your god was a cheater.
    If the primary condition to deserve nice eternal life was to believe in Jesus, why, the hell, Jesus forgot hundreds of millions of people who lived in China, India, Indonesia, Siberia, Americas, Australia, …?

    Those people never had OPPORTUNITY to even KNOW anything about Jesus!
    Poor Indians first heard for Jesus some 1500 years AFTER he died!

    Very clumsy (irresponsible) from a god to FORGET hundreds of millions of his “children” for more than millennium, but to take care for a small group of “chosen” people!

  161. on 19 Jul 2012 at 11:20 am 161.A said …

    Oh yeah

    You did a nice job explaining the who and what and why. Unfortunately you can see these guys are not interested in answers. They are only interested in asking the same questions over and over again. And as always nice personal attacks.

    Oh, since Lou refuses to answer any questions I will share. He is 11 years old.

    Don’t waste too much time with chuckles and company.

  162. on 19 Jul 2012 at 12:21 pm 162.Lou(DFW) said …

    161.ASStrophysicist said …

    “Oh, since Lou refuses to answer any questions I will share. He is 11 years old.”

    First of all, I didn’t refuse to “answer any questions.” His question of my age was a rhetorical one meant as a “personal attack.” You obviously don’t understand the concept of a rhetorical question.

    Second, your comment “And as always nice personal attacks” was a personal attack, just as was his rhetorical question.

    Hypocrites, liars, xtians – all birds of a feather.

  163. on 19 Jul 2012 at 12:48 pm 163.Lou(DFW) said …

    153.Oh Yeah said …

    “Those who have accepted Christ’s gift of salvation are changed, forgiven, have a new desire and spend eternity with Him. They no longer desire to sin but they do mess up.”

    “Mess up?” Do you mean sin? They accepted Jesus’ salvation, they no longer desire to sin, but they still sin – do you not see the self-contradiction of your rationalization? You must see it to some extent because you try to cheat by using “mess-up” instead of “sin,” and “kill” instead of “murder.” It’s all part of the slippery-slope of rationalizing a delusion.

  164. on 19 Jul 2012 at 3:00 pm 164.Scourge said …

    #153 Oh Yeah Accept “Christ’s” salvation from what? Folks did bad things in BCE years, and do bad things in CE years. It is as if you Christian theist folks would rather see a pre-Enlightenment world. Many Christians want to overturn the United States Constitution and run the United States under a form of Christian Sharia. American Family Radio gives a good view into what this would be like.

  165. on 19 Jul 2012 at 7:24 pm 165.Lou(DFW) said …

    153.Oh Yeah, said the Kool-Aid Man…

    “Those who have accepted Christ’s gift of salvation are changed, forgiven, have a new desire and spend eternity with Him.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9gFNwC8Qp4&feature=youtu.be

  166. on 19 Jul 2012 at 8:27 pm 166.Oh Yeah said …

    I get what you are saying A. But there are people out there who would like to have hope and the truth and you never know who might be reading.

    Lou, actually I really did want to know your age it was not meant as an insult. Are you truly 11?

  167. on 19 Jul 2012 at 9:15 pm 167.Hell Yeah said …

    Just because you hope to have the truth doesn’t mean it is the truth. I’m not hoping that my brain will shut down and I will never be conscience ever again when I die ,but I have to accept it. I’d rather have an afterlife, but that doesn’t mean it is going to happen because of that. I’d rather accept reality and live my life making decisions based on reality than a false hope. I am not against real evidence if it comes to light and would accept it, problem is there hasn’t been any. Theists are afraid that they might be wrong, so they do what they can to tell themselves that real evidence is out there. They look for something that isn’t there and trick their mind to their liking. We are not in a pretend life, this is reality.

  168. on 19 Jul 2012 at 9:28 pm 168.alex said …

    “Are you truly 11?”

    it’s not an insult? no offense intended, but are you high? cocaine, is a hella of a drug.

  169. on 19 Jul 2012 at 9:28 pm 169.Lou(DFW) said …

    166.Oh Yeah said …

    “Lou, actually I really did want to know your age it was not meant as an insult. Are you truly 11?”

    Of course not. Why would you believe anything that liar posts here?

  170. on 19 Jul 2012 at 9:36 pm 170.alex said …

    “Christ’s gift of salvation”

    theists understand this. that’s why them morons do all kinds of shits knowing they have the get-out-jail-free card. that’s why it’s total bullshits that a bullshits god can let this happen. what? it’s all in the bullshits plan?

  171. on 19 Jul 2012 at 11:14 pm 171.Salvation said …

    This part of the Bible Christ’s gift of salvation:

    Ephesians 4:17-24
    17 With the Lord’s authority let me say this: Live no longer as the ungodly do, for they are hopelessly confused. 18 Their closed minds are full of darkness; they are far away from the life of God because they have shut their minds and hardened their hearts against him. 19 They don’t care anymore about right and wrong, and they have given themselves over to immoral ways. Their lives are filled with all kinds of impurity and greed. 20 But that isn’t what you were taught when you learned about Christ. 21 Since you have heard all about him and have learned the truth that is in Jesus, 22 throw off your old evil nature and your former way of life, which is rotten through and through, full of lust and deception. 23 Instead, there must be a spiritual renewal of your thoughts and attitudes. 24 You must display a new nature because you are a new person, created in God’s likeness-righteous, holy, and true.

  172. on 19 Jul 2012 at 11:23 pm 172.Hell Yeah said …

    “……Since you have heard all about him and have learned the truth that is in Jesus….”

    Just like a campfire story passed down to others. You’ve heard all about him, and it sounds interesting, so it must be true! Watch out for the guy with the hook as a hand too, he may be hiding out in the darkness of the woods!

    ———–

    “…..Live no longer as the ungodly do, for they are hopelessly confused. 18 Their closed minds are full of darkness; they are far away from the life of God because they have shut their minds and hardened their hearts against him…..”

    What this really means is, don’t listen to those people that realize this is all bullshit, because I am trying to brainwash you and they are trying to stop me from doing that, so I have to make you think they are wrong in order for me to make you believe this false story, otherwise I won’t succeed if people start realizing I am trying to scam you.

  173. on 19 Jul 2012 at 11:28 pm 173.Oh Yeah said …

    “Of course not. Why would you believe anything that liar posts here?”

    What lies? Anyhow, how old are you Lou?

  174. on 19 Jul 2012 at 11:38 pm 174.alex said …

    “What lies?”

    start with a smaller list. what proven truths? your god1, god2, or god3? the bible cited bethlehem? is that it?

    how old is lou? your lame attempt to redirect? what next? how tall? you’re an asshole.

  175. on 20 Jul 2012 at 1:31 am 175.Davo said …

    God will prove himself to you. No one else has the power, but God himself, to prove himself.

    This question isn’t asked in its essence, it is merely rhetoric. If otherwise, you already have the answer.

  176. on 20 Jul 2012 at 1:47 am 176.alex said …

    “God will prove himself to you. No one else has the power, but God himself, to prove himself.”

    same shit goes for santa, elves, unicorns, or mermaids. it don’t mean squat. allah, zeus, or budda have the power to prove themselves, but do they? nope, because, just like your god, they ain’t shit.

    why do you even have to answer? why don’t you leave the clever retorts up to your god? because your god is non-existent and is the result of your guilt-ridden, retarded imagination, just like the ancient goat herder perps who authored your bible.

  177. on 20 Jul 2012 at 3:23 pm 177.Anonymous said …

    “God will prove himself to you. No one else has the power, but God himself, to prove himself.”

    Translation: I’m desperate to believe that what I believe is true. Hence I’ll throw out some meaningless phrase rather than face the reality that belief in the supernatural is both idiotic and delusional.

  178. on 20 Jul 2012 at 3:41 pm 178.Lou(DFW) said …

    175.Davo said …

    “God will prove himself to you. No one else has the power, but God himself, to prove himself.”

    B.S. Anybody alive on earth can more easily “prove himself” to anyone else than can your imaginary god.

  179. on 20 Jul 2012 at 6:08 pm 179.DPK said …

    So, the contention is, as I understand, if you ask god to reveal himself to you, he will. If you ask him to reveal himself to you and he doesn’t, it’s because you didn’t really want him to reveal himself to you.
    So, in order to accept the reality of god, you must first accept the reality of god. Well, ok, that’s quite a catch-22 you have there Davo…. That’s like claiming the bible is the word of god because the bible says it is the word of god, and since it is the word of god, it must be true.
    My dog sometimes likes to chase her tail, but even she is bright enough to realize it’s a fruitless endeavor after a short time…..

  180. on 20 Jul 2012 at 6:33 pm 180.A said …

    Lou

    How old are you fella?

  181. on 24 Jul 2012 at 7:37 pm 181.Anonymous said …

    why do people always think that morals are so intrinsic to humans?isn’t it a matter of convenience. thus moral couch potatoes are really normal couch potatoes. isn’t god the ultimate couch potato? he doesn’t have any goal like us.we have self preserving knowledge thirst power thirst.god has everything he wants.god even has no wants as his want. therefore ,god is static.

  182. on 25 Jul 2012 at 11:51 pm 182.Raul C said …

    As far as I can see, this (interesting and thought provoking) blog focuses on the self-contradictory nature of scripture, which is a pretty easy target for anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

    I once saw a TV documentary where a Christian academic set out to prove “The Word” and found that there is no evidence that anything in the Bible is rooted in provable facts, not even the existence of Jesus. (He retained his faith though, and good luck to him.)

    So I’d just like to suggest that if you strip away the religious context and simply ask: “Is a supreme intelligence beyond the scope of human imagination responsible for the existence of the universe, regardless of its moral stance?” then, no matter how you cut it, no matter how unlikely it may seem, there is no way to know the answer with absolute certainty.

    Which is not so bad, really – I mean, it’s a pretty futile argument when you consider our size and position in the universe. Just sayin’

  183. on 26 Jul 2012 at 12:08 am 183.alex said …

    “then, no matter how you cut it, no matter how unlikely it may seem, there is no way to know the answer with absolute certainty.

    Which is not so bad, really – I mean, it’s a pretty futile argument when you consider our size and position in the universe. Just sayin”

    dude, read the blog. atheists don’t care what you believe in, as long as you keep it to yourself. don’t fucking go around and try to push creationism in schools. don’t try to keep homos from marrying. don’t try to keep science from advancing. don’t beat your kids. don’t marry more than once. blah, blah, etc, etc.

    it’s been said many, many times. it’s possible for a non-interventionist god to exist, but makes it irrelevant. a personal god is contradictory. can’t be omnipotent and omniscient.

    if the muslims and the xtians just kept to themselves and quit the bullshit, everybody will get along better, but no. allah can beat your god and vice versa.

  184. on 26 Jul 2012 at 1:42 am 184.RC said …

    “atheists don’t care what you believe in, as long as you keep it to yourself.”

    Atheist therefore do not believe in freedom of speech, voting your conscious or liberty.

    As long as you don’t exercise these rights, atheist don’t care.

    How very Leninist of them.

  185. on 26 Jul 2012 at 2:42 am 185.Lou(DFW) said …

    184.Retarded Christian said …

    “Atheist therefore do not believe in freedom of speech, voting your conscious or liberty.”

    (sigh) Yet another sock-puppet who lies about atheists when he can’t defend his delusion.

    RC the new sock-puppet always falls back on his tired-old tactic of misquoting, as if we can’t go back and read what the poster wrote, which is:

    “don’t… try to push creationism in schools. don’t try to keep homos from marrying. don’t try to keep science from advancing. don’t beat your kids. don’t marry more than once. blah, blah, etc, etc.”

    It’s free-speech when xtians want it, it’s Leninism when someone else doesn’t want it.

  186. on 26 Jul 2012 at 2:45 am 186.alex said …

    “Atheist therefore do not believe in freedom of speech”

    you’re too dumb to be an atheist. you don’t get it. muslims, jews, scientologists, xtians, or ufoians, should and must have exactly the same freedom of religion without any of them imposing their own brand of shit. read it again moron, and again, and again.

    but you are a righteous piece of shit. you think you and your god has the exclusive freedom to hate, spread, and shoveItDownEveryonesThroat.

    that’s why religion works on you morons. you’re just dense. if i walk in your house spouting islamic shit, you wouldn’t appreciate it, would you, asshole? now, why the fuck do you think atheists would tolerate your shit?

  187. on 26 Jul 2012 at 3:55 am 187.Anonymous said …

    Retarded Christian, another sock puppet, wrote this classic fail: “Is a supreme intelligence beyond the scope of human imagination responsible for the existence of the universe, regardless of its moral stance?” then, no matter how you cut it, no matter how unlikely it may seem, there is no way to know the answer with absolute certainty.”

    Oh, dearie me. In trying to stack the deck in the favor of your delusion of an invisible friend, you shot yourself in the foot. If the answer is beyond human imagination, then you can’t imagine it nor can you can describe it. That means the answer, with absolute certainty, isn’t any god that you can describe and that excludes BibleGod, the dead Jew on a stick and so on.

    Further, seeing that with every passing day science brings us more understanding of the universe and religion stays where it’s always been in terms of explanatory power – zero, none, zip, zilch, nada – it’s patently clear that your explanation isn’t worth following as it can’t be imagined / understood. Hence you might as well give up on the bronze-age mythology and come join us in the present.

  188. on 26 Jul 2012 at 6:06 am 188.Severin said …

    182 Raul C
    “So I’d just like to suggest that if you strip away the religious context and simply ask: “Is a supreme intelligence beyond the scope of human imagination responsible for the existence of the universe, regardless of its moral stance?” then, no matter how you cut it, no matter how unlikely it may seem, there is no way to know the answer with absolute certainty.

    Why should I be interested in being certain about a god?
    If god is uncertain, I don’t give a shit for him/her/it as far as I cant influence him/her/it.
    If god exists, let him doing his job, and I will do mine, why should I care for it?
    To make me believe in a god, the guy/lady/entity (god) should prove himseld to me, or someone else had to prove his existence to me. Then, when I see and understand the nature of that god, I will decide whether or not to accept hm/her/it, and whether or not to do something about it.
    Until then, I don’t care for gods.
    I DO care for what people are doing in name of their gods, because it influences MY life and lives of my children the worst imaginable way (look at this: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dae_1236854361, look at 9/11, look …).
    If there is a god who is omnipotent and just looks all that people are doing in his name, then such a god deserves only my deep hate.
    But I do not believe in gods, and I can only try to weaken the influence of PEOPLE who, deeply senk in their delusions, are doing such terrible things.

    So, with all those blood thirsty gods, I am only interested to wipe those who are pushing their gods through our throats off the scene, because they obviously poison the world.

    What are YOU doing? Believing in a god you can’t know with absolute certainty he (she, it?) exists?

    Strange!

  189. on 26 Jul 2012 at 1:33 pm 189.Raul C said …

    Jesus Christ! You people are so dense.

    First of all – at what point in my earlier post did I say that I believed in God? And as for calling me “Retarded Christian, another sock puppet”, anonymous just proves that he didn’t bother reading my post with even a trace of intelligence. That’s the trouble with entrenched thinking, it colours the way you perceive everything.

    After this post I’m not going to waste any more time with a bunch of intellectually lazy assholes who can’t be bothered to read what I wrote and therefore accuse me of having the “delusion of an invisible friend” when it should be perfectly clear what my views are, to wit:

    (a) that the blog’s principal target is religious teaching, which is a soft target (maybe I should have been more blunt – using religion to “disprove” the existence of God is a harmless enough pastime for teenagers but hardly worth the attention of anyone a little more mature) and,

    (b) there is no way to know whether or not God exists. Far from being a fail, as claimed by that patronising moron “anonymous”, his/her response simply reinforces my point.

    I shouldn’t have to say this, but I am NOT a Christian (or anything else) but it’s a big, big universe, we are all microbes on a speck of dust, and this blog isn’t (unfortunately) going to rectify flawed religious thinking. Do you think creationists come here hoping to be converted? I rather think that they figure they can fix atheism with their puny responses to this blog’s more cogent points.

    That’s the point, Dude – I read the blog – why the fuck do you think I bothered posting? All I’m saying is that this blog isn’t likely to change anyone’s mind on either side of the fence, not least because no-one really knows anything except that scripture doesn’t stack.

    I trust you’ve all read “God Is Not Great” by Christopher Hitchens? If not, do so. It’s more likely to convert Christians than anything I’ve read here. And even Hitchens, while maintaining his atheism on his deathbed, had the good grace to say that although he didn’t believe in God or the afterlife he “liked surprises”. Religion sucks, but here was an atheist who, like Dawkins, was open to the possibility that he could be wrong about Deism.

    And if you really haven’t understood me yet, I side with Hitchens and Dawkins in any debate, but I remain steadfastly agnostic.

    Over and out.

  190. on 26 Jul 2012 at 1:43 pm 190.Lou(DFW) said …

    189.Raul C said …

    “Jesus Christ! You people are so dense.”

    Yes, I noticed that. And you will notice that I didn’t reply to your comment. Apparently a few posters confused “Raul C” with “RC.”

    Yes, they owe you an apology.

  191. on 26 Jul 2012 at 2:52 pm 191.DPK said …

    I agree, you were misunderstood, and are owed an apology. However, I can see, in the context of the arguments GENERALLY presented by theists here, where someone may make a misconception of your point:
    You wrote, “So I’d just like to suggest that if you strip away the religious context and simply ask: “Is a supreme intelligence beyond the scope of human imagination responsible for the existence of the universe, regardless of its moral stance?” then, no matter how you cut it, no matter how unlikely it may seem, there is no way to know the answer with absolute certainty.”

    Here, that is typically followed by the illogical jump to “therefore, since you cannot prove (my) god does not exist, it is perfectly logical to assume he does.” YOU were not making that conclusion, but that is what we DO often hear here.

    I disagree with your contention that the content and discussions here are futile. I have directed many people to the contents of this blog and the sister site, GodisImaginary.com, and have had several tell me it was a thought clarifies or an eye opener for them. If nothing else, it gives voice to many, many people who are like thinking, but due to social constraints, have been kept “in the closet” and made to think they are the only ones with serious doubts about the nonsense spewed forth by organized religions. It’s not worthless. Rationalism and secularism growing worldwide faster than it ever has, and the ability for people to communicate openly, and find resources like this one is an important part of that.

  192. on 26 Jul 2012 at 4:11 pm 192.Raul C said …

    Thanks for the reply. Given the misunderstanding about my name and especially your excellent point, DPK, about the typically illogical jump to theism that so many people make, I have to apologise for my outburst – although being accused of Christianity is one of the greater insults I have had to endure ;-)

    Thanks for taking my points on board and for giving me something new to think about. If it’s working, then I wholeheartedly take back my comment that it seems to be futile.

    Like you, I imagine, I long for a world free of the influence and idiocy of religion. I firmly believe that a near-Utopian world would achievable if mankind could drop religion and greed. Not expecting it in my lifetime though.

  193. on 26 Jul 2012 at 4:13 pm 193.Raul C said …

    PS – Lou (DFW) – I wasn’t pointing the finger at you BTW, but at anonymous – but thanks for clarifying.

  194. on 26 Jul 2012 at 4:37 pm 194.DPK said …

    It’s a common logical fallacy among apologist, here and elsewhere to make the assumption that since the existence or non-existence of a magical deity is not something that can be proved or disproved, then both sides are equally as likely to be true.
    Not so, and a typical 3rd grader can see as much. Sadly, their indoctrination and tendency to spout platitudes and dogma and to grasp at straws muddies their thinking and they loose the clarity of the 3rd grader… as witnessed by the posts in the other thread about the “miracle” that occurred during the Colorado shootings. Really?

  195. on 26 Jul 2012 at 5:29 pm 195.Lou(DFW) said …

    194.DPK said …

    “…the existence or non-existence of a magical deity is not something that can be proved or disproved…”

    It depends on what you mean by “magical deity.” Taken literally, no, it can’t be “proven.” However, if, as you many times commented here, god is a being who acts upon and affects the natural world, then god CAN be “proven.” The theists can’t do that, so they resort to lies and logical fallacies to support their delusion.

    “..then both sides are equally as likely to be true.”

    Yes, they think if Santa Claus can’t be “disproved,” then it’s just as possible that Santa Claus exists because they believe he does. That’s the way a child reasons, not a rational, logical adult.

  196. on 26 Jul 2012 at 5:45 pm 196.Scourge said …

    #184 RC How precisely does anything you wrote, or anyone else wrote, tally to, imply, or in any other way point to Leninism? Was that just something that came to mind? Is comparing someone to Lenin supposed to be insulting?

  197. on 26 Jul 2012 at 6:00 pm 197.DPK said …

    “It depends on what you mean by “magical deity.” Taken literally, no, it can’t be “proven.” However, if, as you many times commented here, god is a being who acts upon and affects the natural world, then god CAN be “proven.”

    That would seem a reasonable assumption… except that those who set the “rules” for how their god is defined then add a caveat… “God interacts in the world, but only in ways that must remain mysterious, otherwise, it would destroy “faith” which he wants us to have.” It’s very hard to chase them around the field while they keep moving the goalposts. Any rational argument you present them they just invent a way around it. Look at what they are saying about the Colorado shooting victim… “why would god “protect” one person by causing her to have a brain abnormality, placed there 22 years ago, that would allow her to get shot in the face and escape significant brain injury, while at the same time, allow other innocent people, including a 6 year old little girl, to be killed or maimed? If he wanted to protect just this one person for some reason, why didn’t he just make the bullet miss her, or just keep her out of the theather that night all together?”
    Their answer, “God indeed works in mysterious and miraculous ways we can never understand.”
    It’s like debating with a 2 year old.

  198. on 26 Jul 2012 at 6:33 pm 198.Lou(DFW) said …

    196.Scourge said …

    “#184 RC How precisely does anything you wrote, or anyone else wrote, tally to, imply, or in any other way point to Leninism?”

    You, as I did many, many times before you, wasted your time asking these questions. Just as these liars never provide evidence for their imaginary god, they NEVER, EVER answer direct challenges to their lies.

  199. on 26 Jul 2012 at 7:19 pm 199.Raul C said …

    I would just like to go off topic and say that being compared to Lenin is pretty insulting – the man was a thug and only Stalin’s power grab prevented him fulfilling his potential as a dictator. An example: a handful of wealthy farmers resisted joining the collectives so Lenin, with no regard for their views or financial status, picked 100 farmers at random and publicly hanged them. And in case any religious people care to point out that this was “Godless behaviour” I’ll just say “Crusades” (not to mention Jihad).

  200. on 26 Jul 2012 at 7:47 pm 200.Curmudgeon said …

    Oh, wow! Thanks for the outburst Raul. What a great laugh. You have revealed the very idiocy that permeates these regulars. They are ready to jump like mice on cheese any chance they get!

    Thanks again

  201. on 26 Jul 2012 at 8:06 pm 201.Lou(DFW) said …

    200.Crum said …

    “You have revealed the very idiocy that permeates these regulars.”

    Let’s assume that’s true. So please show us how we are idiots. You won’t, because like your belief in an imaginary god for whom you NEVER, EVER provide any evidence, you can’t provide any evidence of this claim, either. Your comment is yet another example of your cowardice.

    Thanks for playing.

  202. on 26 Jul 2012 at 8:08 pm 202.Prime said …

    Uh oh, Raul. Curm likes you. That is, of course, because he can’t read anything except things that make him happy.

  203. on 26 Jul 2012 at 10:40 pm 203.Raul C said …

    If only to defend my honour, I feel duty bound to go off topic yet again and point out that mice don’t like cheese… cf the crappy link below:
    http://www.wayodd.com/study-mice-do-not-like-cheese/v/4047/

  204. on 26 Jul 2012 at 10:42 pm 204.A said …

    Curm,

    They got Cory Bookered!!

    Raul

    Mice don’t like cheese? Then how did I catch an entire family with one piece of cheese and one trap? I did enjoy the hammer, it was a classic.

  205. on 26 Jul 2012 at 10:50 pm 205.A said …

    “After this post I’m not going to waste any more time with a bunch of intellectually lazy assholes who can’t be bothered to read what I wrote”

    I can’t blame you Raul. It is a shame the way they attack everyone without the courtesy of even reading first. Wait until alex gets in here. He is the worst.

  206. on 27 Jul 2012 at 7:23 am 206.Raul C said …

    To be fair, both Lou(DFW) and DPK were courteous and gracious, and gave an understandable explanation for the comments made (not by them) – my rant was primarily directed at anonymous who, as DPK pointed out, took my post differently because of the more general context of this blog (none of which justifies his/her tone, of course). The comment about mice and cheese wasn’t about mice and cheese, of course.

  207. on 27 Jul 2012 at 9:46 am 207.Lou(DFW) said …

    205.ASStrophysicist said …

    “It is a shame the way they attack everyone without the courtesy of even reading first.”

    As usual, you’re wrong again. The “attack” was obviously made AFTER reading his comments, because his comments were INCLUDED in theirs. While their “attack” was incorrect, it wasn’t the result of not “even reading first.”

    On the other hand, your comment was nothing but an ad hominem attack on the atheists (they) who regularly post here, replying to your idiotic claims and comments, while you never respond to any direct questions about your delusion and lies about atheists.

  208. on 27 Jul 2012 at 11:17 am 208.Severin said …

    12 martin
    “No answer is not proof of nonexistence.”

    Maybe not, but it IS proof that, IF god exists, he is a liar.
    Being a liar doesn’t sound very divine.

    Now, if you say there is a god, please give some support to your claim.
    How about evidences?

  209. on 27 Jul 2012 at 11:32 am 209.Severin said …

    13 Martin
    “However that has no impact on how does one set up the God reality vs No God reality to prove the claim as made by Anonymous?”

    When Muslims activate a bomb and kill 12 other Muslims, or they randomly shut in a mass of other Muslims and some of Muslims get killed, some wounded, and some survive untouched, THAT is the proof that no god is involved.
    It would happen exactly the same way with and without god.

    Or, maybe you want to tell us that Allah saved the survivors?

    WHY is THAT different from mutual killing of Christians: some get killed, some wounded, and some survive untouched!?

  210. on 27 Jul 2012 at 12:06 pm 210.Severin said …

    Martin,

    If you FIRST come somewhere and make a claim (that god exists) without any proof for your claim, people who answer it are free to say ANYTHING. Their words, in such a case, are of the same value as yours. So, if you say god exists, someone answers it doesn’t, why, the hell is the burden of proof on that guy, not on you?

    No one came to your church to claim there was no god!
    YOU came here to tell us that god exists, but you never supported your claim with anything.
    What DO you expect us to do?

    You are free to prove your god, but you never ever do.
    WHY is that so?
    Because YOU don’t believe in your own god?

    I am a little bit more cautious. I never claim there is no god. My position is that I don’t believe your bullshit claims unless you prove them. In that case I will immediately accept the fact that god exists, but will probably never worship it.

    YOU have to prove your claim, I do not claim anything but that I don’t trust you, and if someone answered you “no god”, it is still on YOU to prove there is one.

    Good luck!

  211. on 27 Jul 2012 at 12:19 pm 211.Severin said …

    43 Martin
    “I made no claims … ”

    So you never claimed that god exists?
    SORRY if I missed it (although it is not difficult to miss something you never said)!

    Was THAT your starting position in this debate: “I will make no claims, but I will expect others to prove their counter-positions”.

    That is not the way to debate!

    Yes, I posed this question many times, but never got any answer to it:
    WHY, the hell are you interested in ANYONE’s believing or non believing in gods?

  212. on 27 Jul 2012 at 2:21 pm 212.Scourge said …

    199 Raul- I am not sure about the random execution of farmers you mention. Lenin did order the execution of 100 notorious market manipulating Kulaks who were hoarding grain and profiteering during the Russian Civil War. To my mind wartime profiteering at the expense of one’s countrymen, while often lauded in the United States since WWII, is not good form. Say what you will about Lenin, no matter what, he did lead Russia from the Middle Ages into the 20th Century in a few short years and rid the country of royals. Stalin is another matter entirely.

  213. on 27 Jul 2012 at 6:19 pm 213.Raul C said …

    Hi Scourge, thanks for posting. I must concede that my source was a TV documentary, and there have been plenty of recent reports indicating that some documentary producers are happy to skew their work towards sensationalism in the pursuit of ratings.

    But the fact that Lenin was prepared to kill, regardless of poor form on the part of his victims, does mark him out as a bit of a shit in my book.

    Unfortunately for Russia Stalin was a madman, and I would take the Romanovs over him any day. What is odd – to my mind at least – is the way that so many Russians today long for a return of Uncle Joe, even though not one (of the apologists I’ve met) is old enough to remember him.

    I know that I’m miles of topic, but in a way, this reinforces the argument that the gospels are not reliable. There’s me, taking my facts from a report constructed in the most information-rich time mankind has yet seen… and yet it turns out that the recorded and provable facts may well differ from what my source suggested (TBC). My point is that 2,000 years ago, such checks and balances were not available.

    Even if the bible were historically accurate (a claim made for parts of the Koran) I still can’t fathom why so many people today base their values on texts that date from savage times when little was known of human biology, our place in time and space or even – for many people – life in the next village. I’m still agnostic BTW ;-)

  214. on 27 Jul 2012 at 10:06 pm 214.alex said …

    “WHY, the hell are you interested in ANYONE’s believing or non believing in gods?”

    because the fuckers are scared. the implications are unbearable if there’s a possibility that their belief is bullshit. with nothing after death, the pussies cannot handle it. to compensate, they trash the blog with their crap.

    said many times before, it’s possible atheists could be wrong, but so what? a non-interventionist god is nothing to be afraid of.

  215. on 28 Jul 2012 at 1:45 pm 215.Anonymous said …

    Hi Scourge – a quick PS:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin's_Hanging_Order hints at a controversy over the documentary, and further research revealed that one Christopher Marsden of the British Socialist Equality Party wrote to the BBC to complain that he considered the program heavily biased (and it would seem that it was).

    Nonetheless, Lenin could be mercilessly vicious (as the hanging order demonstrates) and to my mind, many of his actions were highly questionable at best.

    Sorry all for going off topic – I just find the whole thing fascinating generally and personally.

  216. on 28 Jul 2012 at 2:19 pm 216.Ian said …

    From what I recall from my Russian history in college, Lenin was brutal dictator once given power (what a surprise). He had ideas which sounded good on paper, but in reality when given power they fell flat as all ideas based on Utopian ideals do.

    He was also a bad judge of character by allowing Stalin to be so close to him. While sick and powerless he finally saw the error of his judgement but was powerless to stop it.

    Anyone who has been to Russia knows that Lenin did not lead Russia from the Middle Ages into the 20th Century, He was not in power long enough for such a feat. That honor if it must be given goes to Stalin. Was it worth it?

  217. on 28 Jul 2012 at 4:28 pm 217.Anonymous said …

    Amen Ian (if you’ll forgive the religious parlance).

  218. on 28 Jul 2012 at 4:31 pm 218.Raul C said …

    Sorry – that was me posting about the hanging order – forgot to put my name to it, not trying to be anonymous (the status or the other poster above). Ditto the post directly above.

  219. on 28 Jul 2012 at 10:21 pm 219.Ian said …

    Raul

    You can Amen all you desire. I am not an atheist. Men + power = evil since the beginning of mankind. The Bible demonstrates this truism well.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply