Feed on Posts or Comments 20 September 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 05 Aug 2012 12:34 am

How theists attempt to rationalize their nonsense

Here is another Christian minister trying to rationalize the atrocities that occur on earth and happen, supposedly, during the reign of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God. In this case the minister is Timothy Keller from Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York:

My Faith: The danger of asking God ‘Why me?’

Danger? What could possibly be wrong with asking a sensible question?

The conclusion of the article is comical:

“If God actually explained all the reasons why he allows things to happen as they do, it would be too much for our finite brains.

What we truly need is what little children need. They can’t understand most of what their parents allow and disallow for them. They need to know their parents love them and can be trusted. We need to know the same thing about God.”

It’s the “infinite wisdom” rationalization. God is too huge and awesome for pipsqueak humans to understand. Never mind that Christians claim to understand God all the time, for example by demanding that homosexuals be discriminated against or even stoned to death, or that foreskins need to be cut off baby’s penises, etc. Christians claim knowledge of all sorts of God’s thoughts, but strangely, the explanation for the atrocities and horrors that we see every day are just too complicated.

The second part is especially amusing: “They need to know their parents love them and can be trusted.” How can anyone love and trust a “God” who allows hundreds of thousands of people to die in a tsunami, or dozens of people to get shot innocently in a movie theater? What parent would allow your siblings to die while the parents looked on laughing.

How can Christian leaders spew such idiocy with a straight face? How can Christian followers accept it? How can the followers hear such nonsense without turning on their brains and laughing out loud?

This page can help you understand what is really going on:

Why do bad things happen to good people?

123 Responses to “How theists attempt to rationalize their nonsense”

  1. on 05 Aug 2012 at 11:14 am 1.Lou(DFW) said …

    “Why do bad things happen to good people?”

    They don’t. Things that happen to people are the result of the processes of nature. Yes, even mass shootings. Those processes are neither “good” nor “bad.” They simply are. Nature doesn’t have morals because morals are an invention of man. Consequently, and in the same context, people are neither “good” nor “bad.”

    The idea that “bad things happen to good people” is a rationalization of that – it was god’s will. That’s where the concept of good and evil is derived – the devil made me do it!

    Neither nature (nor god) has a conscience.

  2. on 05 Aug 2012 at 5:16 pm 2.Matt B. said …

    The last part of your post reminds me of Dawkins’ famous letter to his daughter about good and bad reasons for believing something is true. In that letter, he uses “love” as an example of something people believe is based on “revelation” but should really be based on evidence (e.g., “He really does love me, he just doesn’t know how to show it”). Those who believe that someone loves them when all evidence is to the contrary are probably deluded.

    A just and loving God who allows horrific things to happen? Don’t worry, he loves me, he just doesn’t know how to show it.

  3. on 06 Aug 2012 at 12:26 am 3.Slapnuts McGee said …

    “God did not create a world with death and evil in it. It is the result of humankind turning away from him.”

    There are so many contradictions in this excerpt from his article I don’t even know where to begin.

  4. on 06 Aug 2012 at 1:01 am 4.40 year Atheist said …

    The basics of the argument go like this (or variations of this): evil exists; a deity could stop it but doesn’t; therefore the deity is either evil or doesn’t exist; most likely the deity doesn’t exist. There are lots of offshoots that discuss omnipotence, omniscience, free will and so forth, but the basics remain pretty much the same.

    For Christmas I received a book documenting a debate between two scholars on the existence of a deity.

    As I sometimes do, I read the frontispiece of a book and then go to the back to see if an index contains items that interest me. In this particular book the Atheist participant claims up front that his 8 year old son was brilliant enough to develop his own argument from evil; at the back of the book he claims that while Materialism might be a shaky position, the argument from evil is solid and irrefutable.

    Simultaneously with receiving the book, the argument from the perspective of evil has arisen on other blogs, with the proponents confident that the argument is absolutely insurmountable and is concrete proof that there is no deity.

    The argument from evil seems to be even more persuasive to Atheo-materialists than either the flying spaghetti monster/ orbiting teapot argument or the who-made-God argument. The argument has several aspects to be addressed:

    1. Atheists are more moral than God.
    2. Atheists are more omniscient than God.
    3. Omnibenevolence is a lacking characteristic, yet necessary of a God.
    4. Earth as a protected playground, a requirement of a God.

    Some questions arise quite naturally from this. First, what are the standards for morality that are being used? Next, what evidence is produced that supports the claims? Are the claims coherent using standard logic? Do the claims in fact prove what they purport to prove?

    1.Declaring that God is immoral presents an immediate cognitive dissonance. Since Atheists do not accept any morality as absolute, much less binding, they are certainly stretching credibility by declaring that God is immoral, especially by their standards. Most Atheists admit that there are no absolute moral standards common to all Atheists. So there is no standard by which to judge a deity, other than his own standard.

    To claim that Atheists – if they were God – would not allow mass murder is absurd, given the history as recent as the last century which was drenched in Atheist bloodbaths. To claim that Atheists would not allow suffering, rape, torture, etc ad nauseum, is equally absurd. Atheists cannot be more moral than anyone, period. They have no common morality from which to make that claim. And their history belies their claim, in spades. Evidence for Atheist morality is contrary to the assertion made or implied by the argument from evil.

    But more to the point, a deity in possession of the roots of morality cannot be faulted for whatever he chooses to do, since his morality is his decision. He cannot be immoral by his standards, since he created the standards for humans, not for himself. For the deity, morality is tautological. The claims made by the argument from evil are not logically coherent.

    By the way, this is the exact position taken by Atheists, who feel they are moral. They cannot fail to be moral by their standards, since they invent the standards to suit their own convenience: they are moral by their own definition, not by any absolute standard. This argument for Atheist morality fails even amongst other Atheists whose standards differ, person to person; the morality is relative to the individual, and so is not morality at all. It is just behavior being justified with words conjured in its favor. This position is not coherent.

    But back to God. If God commands one thing, then countermands that command for specific situations, is that hypocrisy as Atheists charge? The deity in charge of the roots of morality cannot be a hypocrite. It is a definitional pot hole into which the Atheist’s argument disappears.

    As for material proof, are natural disasters, diseases, pain and suffering immoral in and of themselves? These are the material manifestations that are found objectionable by the argument from evil. But these material objects and actions are not evil, they just are. They have no motivations, no evil objectives. Even evil people are not evidence of an evil deity unless they are puppets of that deity; and the puppet theory is transparently false.

    The lack of standards, evidence, coherence and material proof contradict the presumed validity of the argument from evil. But there is more.

    2. By claiming to know more than a deity about what is Right For Mankind, the Atheist is asserting a superior omniscience to that of the deity in question. Need I say more about such a fallacy? OK, I will say this: Philosophical Materialism is the opposite of omniscience. The act of denying a deity does not add either knowledge or wisdom to an individual. It artificially constricts knowledge to material objects and actions, while denying subjective space experiences.

    3. The primary rationalized disconnect in the argument from evil is the concept of omnibenevolence. This position maintains that because I don’t like certain aspects of living in the material world, the deity SHOULD NOT have allowed those aspects to exist. In fact the Atheist, if promoted to the position of the deity, would have eliminated all such discomforts from the world. This includes such things as natural disasters, disease, predators, entropy, aging, death and other unpleasantness. Obviously any deity that would allow such nasty obstacles to complete happiness for each human cannot be any good. Any really good deity would grant every wish and remove all unpleasantness from our experiences: no stubbed toes, no scraped knees, no burnt fingers; only pleasantness would occupy our days. So from this the Atheist concludes that no deity exists, since the world does not conform to the Atheist’s standards and specifications for a deity. No omnibenevolence, no deity.

    As any parent knows, omnibenevolence is a sure path to creating a totally selfish, self-centered offspring, one that demands ever more since happiness is so elusive when sought in material things. The inability of the recipient to become happy even when awash in material goods results in resentment of the provider, and ultimately in separation and hatred by the recipient who feels denied of real happiness and blames it on the provider. Omnibenevolence is an evil itself. Demanding omnibenevolence from a “good” deity is irrational.

    4. Even in the face of the evil of omnibenevolence, Atheists claim that a moral deity would not allow any consequences for bad decisions. This has been called the “perfectly protected playground”, where the deity cushions all falls and no one ever learns how not to fall in the first place.

    The argument from evil ties-in perfectly with humanism, which requires happiness as the ultimate good. Not the happiness of the individual, mind you, but the generalized happiness of the bulk of mankind. In fact, individual happiness is to be sacrificed for that of overall mankind. It is this sacrifice, it is claimed paradoxically, that provides happiness to the individual. Humanism has resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of millions of humans, all for the good of mankind. Humanism is one of the worst evils visited upon this planet; it is directly connected to Atheism, and is justified by the argument from evil.

    The argument from evil, is itself, evil. It is illogical, and it is false.

  5. on 06 Aug 2012 at 1:11 am 5.Prime said …

    I think the real reason Stan posts his bullshits here is because he knows no one reads them on his blog. As he’s desperate for any kind of audience, particularly the fluffing kind, he posts them here so that superstars like ASSCurm can congratulate him on his half-baked puckey.

  6. on 06 Aug 2012 at 1:32 am 6.Anonymous said …

    4.40 year Atheist said …

    “As any parent knows, omnibenevolence is a sure path to creating a totally selfish, self-centered offspring, one that demands ever more since happiness is so elusive when sought in material things.”

    As any parent also knows, killing 100,000 of your children (for example in a tsunami) is evil.

    Also, if omnibenevolence is bad for children, it seems strange that it would be an attribute of God.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributes_of_God_in_Christianity#Omnibenevolence

  7. on 06 Aug 2012 at 2:54 am 7.Lou(DFW) said …

    4.40 year A-hole said …

    A lot of b.s. not even worth quoting because his comment ignores the atheist position – rejection of the idea that god exists. That single concept renders his entire comment null and void.

    1.,2.,3. and 4. are red-herrings.

  8. on 06 Aug 2012 at 2:57 am 8.Lou(DFW) said …

    A question for theists – is it a “bad” thing when “good” people are killed by a tsunami?

  9. on 06 Aug 2012 at 3:21 pm 9.RJ said …

    Mr. Keller dropped the ball with “God did not create a world with death and evil in it. It is the result of humankind turning away from him. ”

    God warned Adam & Eve they would die if they ate from a particular tree in the garden. Obviously death had to exist at that point in order for God to use it as a deterrent. Otherwise, how would they know or understand death was not something they’d want if they had no concept of it? Nothing would have died up to that point, right?

    Also, if Adam & Eve had no knowledge of right of wrong prior to eating from the tree, how could they possibly know what disobeying god meant? How does one KNOWINGLY do something wrong if they don’t know what “wrong” is?

    Lastly, if evil didn’t exist beforehand, how does one explain the existence of the evil serpent and its evil intentions? Evil would have had to exist to some degree in order for evil intentions to be present, no?

    So the idea that death and evil did not exist in the beginning and is all “our fault” is clearly contradicted by the very text it’s derived from.

  10. on 06 Aug 2012 at 7:27 pm 10.DPK said …

    Not only are they red herrings, they are ridiculous assertions that assume facts not in evidence:
    “1. Atheists are more moral than God.”
    Since atheists reject the existence of gods, they cannot claim to be “more moral than…”.
    A more correct statement would be “A God would not do or condone things that the normal person would consider immoral.” I think both theists and atheists, regardless of their personal morality, would agree that things like slavery, genocide, infanticide, and the concept of off loading punishment for your crimes to another person are all things that are innately “wrong”.

    “2. Atheists are more omniscient than God.”
    40 year needs to look up the definition of “omniscient” and explain how one can be “more omniscient”. Then he needs to demonstrate where ANY atheist has ever claimed to be “more omniscient” than any imaginary god.

    3. Omnibenevolence is a lacking characteristic, yet necessary of a God.

    If you are going to define a god as being benevolent, as every modern definition I have ever seen does, than non-benevolent acts would certainly defy that nature. Which non benevolent god are you now talking about?

    4. Earth as a protected playground, a requirement of a God.

    Not at all. A deist god would have no such requirement. But an omni-benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent god would by definition, need to act with benevolence if he were able, or contradict his nature.

    Wonder if there is a point here? I haven’t read any actual answer to the argument from evil.

  11. on 06 Aug 2012 at 8:09 pm 11.Spherical Basterd said …

    “How can Christian leaders spew such idiocy with a straight face?”

    All cons are performed with a straight face.

    Also; “you can’t cheat an honest person”

  12. on 06 Aug 2012 at 9:45 pm 12.Lou(DFW) said …

    9.DPK said …

    A more correct statement would be “A God would not do or condone things that the normal person would consider immoral.”

    That’s right, especially when theists claim that we get our morals from their imaginary god. But, whenever what actually happens in the real world conflicts with our morals, then theists claim that god is god, therefore he can do whatever he wants. In other words, their imaginary god can be immoral.

    Have you noticed how quiet the theists have been lately? It’s as if they’re all one person.

  13. on 07 Aug 2012 at 2:22 am 13.DPK said …

    Yes, it seems that the theists all decided to take vacation at the same time.
    Either that, or Hor’s computer is broken.

  14. on 07 Aug 2012 at 2:37 am 14.Lou(DFW) said …

    13.DPK said …

    “Either that, or Hor’s computer is broken.”

    Maybe Hor is “broken.”

  15. on 07 Aug 2012 at 7:50 pm 15.Xenon said …

    “By claiming to know more than a deity about what is Right For Mankind, the Atheist is asserting a superior omniscience to that of the deity in question.”

    40YA

    The whole post was filled with so many good observations I wan’t sure where to comment. Atheist determining what is and is not moral is immensley hypocritical and ironic. A group of people that cannot express a moral code but then judge a deity as immoral.

    We have seen in the last century how well such a system works in reality.

  16. on 07 Aug 2012 at 9:10 pm 16.Severin said …

    15 Xenon
    “A group of people that cannot express a moral code but then judge a deity as immoral.”

    Lies, again?!
    We never judged deities as immoral, because we never believed in any.

  17. on 07 Aug 2012 at 10:14 pm 17.Lou said …

    Some atheist actually claim there is no good or evil. That is mere stupidity. The once who created the universe and man is free to give life, take life and allow man as much free-will as He deisres. He doen’t need the approval of atheist on this small little planet in the Milky Way galaxy tucked away in this small little solar system.

  18. on 07 Aug 2012 at 10:22 pm 18.DPK said …

    “The whole post was filled with so many good observations I wan’t [sic] sure where to comment.”

    Cue the fluffers, a little late, but they never disappoint. Thanks Xenon, always good for a hearty laugh. It’s no wonder you believe in imaginary gods and magical beings… you are easily impressed and more easily duped.

    Since Xenon is obviously impressed, perhaps he can explain exactly what “superior omniscience” is? Kind of like claiming one person is “more dead” than another, no?

  19. on 07 Aug 2012 at 10:29 pm 19.MattD said …

    “Atheist determining what is and is not moral is immensley hypocritical and ironic.”

    Why is that?

    “A group of people that cannot express a moral code but then judge a deity as immoral.”

    Do you consider mass genocide moral?

    “We have seen in the last century how well such a system works in reality”

    Where has this been seen?

  20. on 07 Aug 2012 at 10:57 pm 20.Lou(DFW) said …

    15.Xenonsense said …

    17.Louser said …

    18.DPK said …

    “Cue the fluffers, a little late, but they never disappoint.”

    Yep, it’s odd how they haven’t posted in days, then suddenly after 40 Year A-hole posts, they suddenly appear. And, as usual, they don’t respond to any other comments except his, congratulating him. No doubt that the other sock-puppets will soon appear.

  21. on 07 Aug 2012 at 11:01 pm 21.Lou(DFW) said …

    17.Louser said …

    “He doen’t need the approval of atheist on this small little planet in the Milky Way galaxy tucked away in this small little solar system.”

    It’s funny how when atheists make a similar argument to support their disbelief in god that theists don’t accept it. But now, suddenly it’s acceptable to use as an argument for their imaginary god to ignore us.

  22. on 07 Aug 2012 at 11:02 pm 22.Lou(DFW) said …

    18.DPK said …

    “Kind of like claiming one person is “more dead” than another, no?”

    Or that one sock-puppet is more brain dead than the others.

  23. on 08 Aug 2012 at 1:38 am 23.Xenon said …

    “Some atheist actually claim there is no good or evil. That is mere stupidity.”

    Lou,

    The entire atheist argument is mere stupidity with no supporting evidence. This site is great for educating our young people. I have a young man working on his PH.D at UVA coming the next two weeks to thwart the top ten arguments made by atheist. Some of this material is great for such education. We must prepare them while they are young for the lies.

  24. on 08 Aug 2012 at 2:16 am 24.Prime said …

    22.Xenon said …

    “I have a young man working on his PH.D [double sic] at UVA coming the [sic] next two weeks to thwart the top ten arguments made by atheist. [sic]”

    Meanwhile…

    17.Lou said …

    “Some atheist [sic, same as 22.Xenon] actually claim…”

    This error is so common that it is beyond any statistical reasonability to even realistically entertain the notion that “Lou” and “Xenon” are different people. Do you enjoy talking to yourself LouserXenonsense? Such an enormous failure that it’s not even funny anymore.

    I look forward to this “PH.D at UVA coming the next two weeks” and his thwarting of the “top ten arguments made by atheist.” I wonder if this fellow is Stan….

  25. on 08 Aug 2012 at 2:39 am 25.Lou(DFW) said …

    22.Xenonsense said …

    “The entire atheist argument is mere stupidity with no supporting evidence.”

    Disbelief in god isn’t an argument anymore than is disbelief in Santa Claus.

    You and theists, however, argue that god exists, but you NEVER, EVER provide any evidence for him. But you’re bragging that “I have a young man working on his PH.D at UVA coming the next two weeks to thwart the top ten arguments made by atheist.”

    Why don’t you have somebody to argue FOR theism? Simple – because you don’t have any such arguments.

  26. on 08 Aug 2012 at 3:06 am 26.MrQ said …

    Xenon/Lou/Hor

    It makes so much sense in light of their insipid posts. They are one and the same. Good catch by Prime. Easy to fluff an id when it is yourself.
    Xenon/Lou/Hor, does your arm get tired from so much solo backslapping?

    Makes me think the sob story that Xenon had about the death (murder?) of his parents was just another BS attempt. Even if it wasn’t, just remember it was god’s plan.

  27. on 08 Aug 2012 at 5:25 am 27.Severin said …

    23 Xenon
    “We must prepare them while they are young for the lies.”

    But they will have good teachers!

  28. on 08 Aug 2012 at 2:24 pm 28.DPK said …

    “The entire atheist argument is mere stupidity with no supporting evidence.”

    The only “atheist argument” ever presented is that there is no reason to believe in your imaginary gods.
    Until you provide that, there is no need “thwart” and 10 ten arguments.

    What you perceive as “top ten arguments” is really nothing more than people ridiculing and poking holes in your ridiculous claims. Do we need to offer “supporting evidence” that Captain Kirk can’t accelerate from a stand still to 100 times the speed of light while sitting comfortably in his armchair? “Discussing” anything with you is no different from “discussing” whether Superman or The Flash are faster. They are both make-believe characters… just like your god and all the other gods that came before. Until you show that your god is different, and actually exists, all the “arguments” are really just us pointing out how stupid you are… seriously.

  29. on 08 Aug 2012 at 4:52 pm 29.jOv said …

    Whenever I stumble accross this type of blog I always wonder why people waste so much time arguing points that cannot be proven. There is a degree of evidence on both sides of the coin, points and counterpoints, never anything 100% on either spectrum — only things that will never truly be known without question; since, for every answer, there are two more questions. Consequently, in both schools of thought, you have to decide on what is most comfortable to your own life based upon (hopefully) your own unbiased investigative research. The biggest problem I see, one which should be evident to anyone with a brain, is that no matter which position you take, why try so hard to change everyone else? If you’re on the religion, christianity, faith side – biblical scripture dicates that, yes, you are commanded to try to bring others to Christ, but if they don’t listen, you move on. The attempt doesn’t hurt or stiffle anyone — after all, there will always be athiests, who obviously will feel uncomfortable that there may be something bigger than themselves and try to bring it crashing down to make themselves feel better. So the attempt can only serve to the betterment of peace and morality of humanity. If an athiest think those people crazy, they’re totally free to just ignore them, turn it off, change the channel… On the flip side, athiests who try to get others to side with their views and remove anything biblically based from society, can only bank on the results of their efforts in the long run to be: continually increasing self-centeredness, moral discord, ethical abandonment, social decay, disrespect for anyone and everything — all of which (any social scientist will tell you) leads to increased disregard for general law and order, which in turn heightens thefts, murders, corruption — the list of “evils” goes on. Just observe children and today’s daily desensitization to violence. There is absolutely no practical sense or advantage for athiests to open their mouths. The world is bad enough, why contribute to making it worse? Ironically, in continuing to do so, athiests are actually fulfilling bible prophesy!

  30. on 08 Aug 2012 at 5:41 pm 30.Anonymous said …

    29.jOv said …

    “never anything 100% on either spectrum”

    You’re mistaken.

    First of all, disbelief in god is neither a claim nor an argument. It doesn’t require any evidence to disbelieve in something. Evidence is required for belief. Based on your first comment alone, we can easily dismiss the rest of your comments.

    Second, there is 0% evidence for god, or 100% no evidence for god.

    The other point in your comment that I want to address is that:

    “If an athiest think those people crazy, they’re totally free to just ignore them, turn it off, change the channel… ”

    It’s not that simple. When someone wants to force their religion upon society, and when the government subsidizes their religion, then it’s not possible to ignore.

    Your suggestions are too simplistic and not practical or realistic.

  31. on 08 Aug 2012 at 5:53 pm 31.DPK said …

    One look no further than the events of 9-11 to understand why simply ignoring deluded religious people is not an option. Atheists “care” about what other people believe only in so far as their beliefs are constantly being used to influence world affairs. People are killed, children are indoctrinated, education is bastardized by religious nonsense, women and homosexuals are disenfranchised, and crimes against humanity are perpetrated.
    Sorry, truth matters.
    Your statement is nothing more than the old theist fall back… the persecution complex. Why can’t you just leave us alone to spread our lies and deception without criticism? Why ya gotta be so mean?

  32. on 08 Aug 2012 at 6:46 pm 32.A said …

    Jov,

    I can help. It is fear that they are wrong so their community attempts to calm their own with absurdity.

    X,

    Investing in truth with our young people is to be saluted.

  33. on 08 Aug 2012 at 7:16 pm 33.Severin said …

    A,

    Exactly as I predicted:
    You spitted out some shit about a week ago, you provoked me to give you evidences for something, you “triumphed” a little bit too early (“plop”, “Severin, you are awfully quiet”), just “a minute” before I GAVE the evidences for what I claimed, then, after YOU “plopped” down, like a shit, you were somewhere in a mouse hole for some times, hoping we will forget your shame.
    Now, you “courageously” peep out from your hole and are trying to get back with your bullshit comments.

    What material are you made from?
    Mucus?
    Shit?

  34. on 08 Aug 2012 at 8:13 pm 34.DPK said …

    “I can help. It is fear that they are wrong so their community attempts to calm their own with absurdity.”

    Another statement you can add to the long list of things you think you know about which you are completely wrong.

    What is the problem with you people? If your god is real, just show us proof and there will be no atheists left. Why is impossible for you to demonstrate that the god you claim is real and is your friend and interacts with the world, actually exists? Why can’t even all the billions of people on the planet who claim to believe in a supernatural god even agree on which one is real and which ones are completely imaginary? Why can’t you agree on who he is and what he wants us to do? Even the thousands of sects of just christianity can’t agree. Why?

  35. on 08 Aug 2012 at 8:22 pm 35.Lou(DFW) said …

    32.ASStrophysicist said …

    “It is fear that they are wrong so their community attempts to calm their own with absurdity.”

    If we feared that we were wrong, then we would believe.

    “Investing in truth with our young people is to be saluted.”

    http://tinyurl.com/7wlwdgy

  36. on 08 Aug 2012 at 10:12 pm 36.jOv said …

    Anonymous:
    (1) You took the 100% thing out of context and turned it into what i assume you feel is an attack on your particular stance; a normal response to being threatened.
    (2) Only someone who thinks they’re smarter than everyone else, and who is obviously full of themselves would dismiss further comments due to their own misunderstanding.
    (3) You can indeed change the channel. You just choose not to. You have made this you personal war, or hobby, or affliction … and for no good reason, which is evident by ignoring the last half of my earlier post.
    (4) I you had read carefully, you would have seen that I did not take a stand on either side. I didn’t even mention God. I mearly stated the obvious, proven throughout history, reprocussions resulting from an atheistic world view, so again, I don’t know why any retional sane person would promote it — hence, again, there is absolutely no practical sense or advantage for athiests to do it; and to contribute to making things worse? Maybe you should read more.

    DPK: You’re worse than Anonymous. It seems you put eveyone of any “religion” into the same catagory. BTW: All Asians know Kung Fu, all blacks love fried chicken, and everyone who wears a turbin is a muslim terrorist. PS: Of all world religions, only Islam promotes the examples you belched out. As you put it, truth does matter. I, for one, research all topics from both sides to get a theistic as well as atheistic view, then double-check the facts. Try it.

    Severin: What can I say, it seems that you’re just a moron. Take you hand out of your pants and go finish the 3rd grade.

  37. on 09 Aug 2012 at 12:22 am 37.Hell Yeah said …

    “It is fear that they are wrong so their community attempts to calm their own with absurdity.”

    Many atheists used to be Christians. Why would they stop believing because of lack of evidence and then be afraid they are wrong? If that was the case, why stop believing in the first place? I wish it were true that I would get an afterlife when I die, but there is no evidence for it and the religions that support it. The 72 virgins thing sounds the best, though. I think it is the opposite, where theists are afraid their claim of an afterlife is wrong. I am afraid of dying and don’t want to, but that doesn’t mean I should tell myself an afterlife is real because I want it to be.

  38. on 09 Aug 2012 at 12:36 am 38.Hell Yeah said …

    “reprocussions resulting from an atheistic world view”

    The main point everyone is here for is to discuss the big question at hand, is there or was there a god or not. There can only be one correct answer. But which god is it? Is is a god that created the universe and then left it alone to never have interfered with it again? That because there had to be a beginning that no one really knows the cause, that there is an afterlife? After all, an afterlife is the only reason why theists worship a god. Take away the afterlife part, would there even be a real need to want to believe anymore? Proof of an afterlife should be the real discussion here. Which there isn’t proof.

    So does it matter if some atheists do bad and some do good, as well as theists? There can only be one real answer, so does it really matter what extremests do on either side? By being extreme isn’t going to make the other side right. Evidence is what is needed to answer the big question. Until real evidence is provided, then the belief isn’t there. Simple as that.

  39. on 09 Aug 2012 at 2:28 am 39.Curmudgeon said …

    “BTW: All Asians know Kung Fu, all blacks love fried chicken, and everyone who wears a turbin is a muslim terrorist”

    Very fuuny jOv.

  40. on 09 Aug 2012 at 2:42 am 40.Lou(DFW) said …

    36.jOv said … blah-blah-blah…

    29.jOv said …

    “Whenever I stumble accross this type of blog I always wonder why people waste so much time arguing points that cannot be proven.”

    Yet here you are – arguing against people who disbelieve something for which there is no evidence.

    BTW – there’s no such thing as an “atheistic world view.”

    “I don’t know why any retional sane person would promote it”

    So what? It doesn’t matter what you don’t know. It only matters what you know. Do you know if there is a god? It’s a simple yes or know question. Will you answer it?

  41. on 09 Aug 2012 at 3:33 am 41.Lou(DFW) said …

    36.jOv said …

    “DPK: You’re worse than Anonymous. It seems you put eveyone of any “religion” into the same catagory.”

    Let’s make clear so that it doesn’t “seem” a certain way to you – belief in an imaginary god is a delusion.

    Do all religious people do any of the things that he said? No, of course not, nor did he imply that. You’re putting words in his mouth to promote your agenda. But, all of those things were done and will be done by religious people in the name of religion. So, religion can’t simply be ignored as you suggested. Such a proposal is preposterous.

  42. on 09 Aug 2012 at 3:34 am 42.DPK said …

    I said, “Atheists “care” about what other people believe only in so far as their beliefs are constantly being used to influence world affairs. People are killed, children are indoctrinated, education is bastardized by religious nonsense, women and homosexuals are disenfranchised, and crimes against humanity are perpetrated.”

    Job said, “PS: Of all world religions, only Islam promotes the examples you belched out.”

    So, your assertion is that only Islam has killed people in the name of their god, only Islam indoctrinated children into their belief systems, only Islam treats women as inferior, only Islam condemns homosexuality and seeks to limit their rights and freedoms, only Islam tries to influence the education system to include beliefs based on their religious beliefs, and only Islam has been guilty of crimes against humanity?
    Really? Can I ask what planet you currently live on?

  43. on 09 Aug 2012 at 3:39 am 43.Lou(DFW) said …

    39.Crum said …

    Now that Hor repaired his PC or paid his ISP invoice, he can finally resume the sock-puppet parade.

    “Very fuuny jOv.”

    And after those few days away he posts (as Crum) this jewel.

  44. on 09 Aug 2012 at 4:49 am 44.Severin said …

    36 Jov,
    “Severin: What can I say, it seems that you’re just a moron.”

    Thank you J!
    Can you elaborate your statement more closely. Why am I a moron?

  45. on 09 Aug 2012 at 12:42 pm 45.Lou(DFW) said …

    42.DPK said …

    “Really? Can I ask what planet you currently live on?”

    A planet whose human population consists of mostly delusional theists who will lie about anything to support said delusion.

  46. on 09 Aug 2012 at 4:39 pm 46.Ben said …

    “The main point everyone is here for is to discuss the big question at hand, is there or was there a god or not.”

    Huh? Severin?

    I’m still waiting for somone on the blog to defend the 50 proofs that prove God is Imaginary. I will take the defense of just 3 of the prooofs. Any takers?

  47. on 09 Aug 2012 at 4:59 pm 47.Prime said …

    36.jOv said …

    “Anonymous:
    (1) You took the 100% thing out of context”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o

  48. on 09 Aug 2012 at 6:00 pm 48.DPK said …

    “I’m still waiting for somone on the blog to defend the 50 proofs that prove God is Imaginary.”

    And we are still waiting for you to provide any evidence that your imaginary god actually exists. Until you do that, any “proofs” you demand are as meaningless as demanding “proof” that unicorns are imaginary. How long are you going to beat this dead horse Ben? You’ve been proven a liar and a fraud over and over and over. You’d think you’d think you and your sock puppet personae would tire of it by now.

    Now, if you want to discuss evidence for the existence of your god, fine… let’s do that… but we must start by you defining what you mean by “God”, so that we are all talking about the same thing.
    And let’s keep it simple and start off slow… is your definition of God a being who is both omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent?

    Hint… before you run away or try to divert attention with your usual lies… these are yes or no answers… so… you game Ben? Or are you going to evade the discussion yet again?

    (Spoiler alert… Ben will not answer this simple question, because he knows that any answer he gives will put him in a very bad position as far as defending the existence of his imaginary god. He will either disappear for days or weeks, or reappear as a different sock puppet and try to throw some red herrings about to try and change the subject. Watch……

  49. on 09 Aug 2012 at 6:02 pm 49.Lou(DFW) said …

    46.Has Ben said …

    “I’m still waiting for somone on the blog to defend the 50 proofs that prove God is Imaginary. I will take the defense of just 3 of the prooofs. Any takers?”

    Defend them against what?

  50. on 09 Aug 2012 at 6:12 pm 50.Anonymous said …

    Warning long; 40YA long.

    29. – What we have here is a typical theist passive-aggressive post whereby they start off with fax-reasonableness and end with direct and indirect jabs at people who don’t share their delusion. Along the way they throw out some disingenuous variation of “can’t we all get along / respect one-another” which is simply a cover for special treatment whereby their religion is exempt from critical analysis.

    It’s worded so when critiqued they retreat to “but that’s not exactly what I said” / “where did I mention god?” but it’s clear from their context and responses that’s exactly what they are discussing.

    So, you see, jOv, maybe you are just reciting what you’ve “learned”, but if you want your views “respected” then you need to demonstrate that they deserve respect. Just claiming respect because they represent your “religion” immediately puts you in the position of demanding special treatment because they have no basis with which to support themselves other than circular arguments, appeals to ignorance, and a plethora of common logical fallacies.

    Appealing to “respect” in order to insulate them from critical examination – your examination as well – just demonstrates how weak and ill-conceived they actually are. Disagree? Note how jOv hasn’t once offered any proof that any of his statements have a basis in reality, but he throws out his vitriolic comments and then hides behind his wall of projected emotions “but you hate/disrespect/dislike me” (you’re talking about how you view others, just to be clear). Yes, I know you’re going to whine (play the martyr in school did you?) that’s not exactly what you said but let’s cut the crap and move this discussion along to its end-game.

    Your attempts at equivocation are dishonest in the extreme. Where is the “unbiased investigative research” supporting any aspect of an interventionist god?

    Show us the peer-reviewed “unbiased investigative research” that shows that prayer to one god in preference to another achieves repeatable, falsifiable, and clearly significant results and that these results are clearly distinguishable from the results you’d get if no gods exist. “Yes, but” whines jOv in response, “I didn’t claim that. Gotcha!”. No of course not – that’s your game. You and your ilk allude to claims that such things exist and that they are ignored but when pressed you never, ever (tm Lou (DFW)” produce it, nor can you.

    Let’s examine some of this crass hypocrisy now, shall we?

    (3) You can indeed change the channel. You just choose not to.

    Well, first, why should anyone? Once again you want people to not examine your claims but be free to spread them as if they were true. No, not going to happen. Get over it, religious claims deserve scrutiny just as any claim does.

    In fact, I’d be disappointed if people didn’t attempt to educate me should I claim an understanding that is out of touch with reality. So, jOv, I’m prepared to treat you as how I want to be treated. Educate us, provide proof, but not some vague “beyond our understanding” crap. Actual proof. You know, like the stories in bible claim to be possible but in the here and now. By the way, just when and why did the supposed-god Yahweh go from being such a show-off in the bible to being an absentee landlord?

    biblical scripture dicates that, yes, you are commanded to try to bring others to Christ, but if they don’t listen, you move on.

    Practice what you preach, jOv? No, of course you don’t – hypocrisy in action “excused” by virtue of “religious” beliefs.

    (4) I you had read carefully, you would have seen that I did not take a stand on either side.

    Perhaps this is more of a bare-faced lie, let’s read on:

    …On the flip side, athiests (sic) … can only bank on the results of their efforts in the long run to be: continually increasing self-centeredness, moral discord, ethical abandonment, social decay … leads to increased disregard for general law and order, which in turn heightens thefts, murders, corruption — the list of “evils” goes on. (Edited for brevity)

    So, that’s you, above, not taking sides. Yeah, right.

    Of all world religions, only Islam promotes the examples you belched out. As you put it, truth does matter. I, for one, research all topics from both sides to get a theistic as well as atheistic view, then double-check the facts. Try it.

    DPK clearly called you on this nonsense. In other parts of this website this effect is referred to as the “bubble of delusion”. How can you say this shit with a straight face? Do you belive it, or do you have an “excuse”? “Context, then and now? Whatever.

    As for “double checking the facts”. Really? Then shows us these “facts” but dispense with this silly game of false-equivalence. Cherry-picking some faith-based article on Google, calling out an anomaly, citing something that cannot be repeated or tested, does not make “facts”. Further, resorting to “but you can’t explain” or “how do you explain” is not support for your position. Something that is unknown is, wait for it, unknown. We see this with so much pseudoscience too. It’s a hallmark of a cult and of beliefs not based on fact.

    So let’s skip to the chase. You’re pushing a faith-based agenda. I’m not sure if you’re going for a JW position or if you’re a hybrid of “Chris/Lover” and the paranoid “Matt” character but this is an either / or case – God(s) exist,\ or they do not, so muddying this in order to prevent close examination of your arguments shows how weak your case is. And, please, don’t piss around with “you (atheists) claim that there is no god, prove it” or “you can’t disprove that my (untestable, unfalsifiable, undetectable) god doesn’t exist”. Those are dishonest attempts to dodge the question and shift the burden of proof. So, JOv, prove that these beings exist, that they interact with us (if that is the claim) or accept that what you have is a belief about a belief garnished with copious amounts of “Self Projection As God (SPAG)”

    Finally, let’s focus on the crowning hypocrisy of all of this “respect” nonsense and its close cousins and other relatives.

    What we have (Xtianity, for example) are the views of the world of a group of bronze-age desert dwellers. The stark reality is that by comparison to today they would be uneducated, mostly illiterate, superstitious primitive people. What the theist position boils down to is accepting the cosmological arguments from 2000 years ago (and more, many religious myths and stories are based on earlier ones) from people who *knew* that the sun revolved around a flat earth and that was pretty much all that existed. Without an explanation of the natural processes that govern our world, they can be seen as primitive attempts to provide a vehicle by which they could influence events. Yet, we have progressed from that to a people that can put a man on the moon, land a vehicle on mars, send craft out of the solar-system, determine the composition of stars in other galaxies, and we are working at understanding how this universe came to be. We also understand why volcanoes errupt and that gods are not part of that equation.

    Unlike theology, we don’t want answers to questions to be a mystery, we actually want to know what happened. Now, to save Hor’s sock puppets some time, most scientists don’t care which answer turns out to be correct, one doesn’t need to be married to any particular theory, we just want to know what and how it happened – and yes, that includes “a god did it”, if that is what can be ***PROVEN***. Cue Hor’s sock puppets with tiresome red-herring diversions on origins. And, yes, if the answer is “a god did it”, then I’d have to accept it. You see, non-believers don’t desperately “need” the answer to be something that we want to hear so much that we must go out of our way to prevent critical examination of our claims.

    So, to the chase. Theists want (need?) to accept the cosmological arguments of thousands of years ago but those arguments are not supported by the scientific world that we live in. Similarly, they espouse belief in books that prescribe a way of life that few will actually undertake. What is it with theists that they want to accept all the benefits of science; longer life, comfort, technology, medicine: the list goes on. Yet, when it comes to the argument of that security blanket of being special to some magic man in the sky, suddenly that same approach is dismissed and ignored. Hypocrisy at its finest.

    The most meaningful answer I can think of why most theists want to accept the scientific and technological advances of today yet disregard them in favor of bronze-age platitudes when it makes them feel all warm and cosy inside, is that they are, whether they realize it or not, – to be blunt – totally fucking delusional.

  51. on 09 Aug 2012 at 6:23 pm 51.A said …

    Finally! Took forever to get past Anonymous’ rambling and babbling.

    “I didn’t even mention God. I mearly stated the obvious, proven throughout history, reprocussions resulting from an atheistic world view, so again, I don’t know why any retional sane person would promote it”

    Jov,

    Don’t take it personal. They do the same thing to their own and last time “their own” tore them a new one! It was a classic!

    They read one sentence if it isn’t too difficult and then type as swiftly as they can comments full of rubbish, sock puppet rumors and pats on the back. It is the impetus I have just to pick at them rather than attempting rational conversation.

    Ben,

    The 50 reasons God does not exist IS their defense. I and others have poked holes exposing the fallacies, distortions and outright lies but they cannot do anything with them.

  52. on 09 Aug 2012 at 6:35 pm 52.Anonymous said …

    Ah, “Ass…” one of Hor’s sock-puppets, trolls an attempt at a red-herring diversion as predicted above. Let’s just ignore him which is easy due to the lack of substance in his posts.

  53. on 09 Aug 2012 at 6:51 pm 53.Severin said …

    A,

    You are SO pathetic in your misery!
    Why are you still here?

    You are unable to answer the simplest and the most logical question:
    Who answers the prayers of Muslims?

  54. on 09 Aug 2012 at 6:52 pm 54.Lou(DFW) said …

    51.ASStrophysicist said …

    “Finally! Took forever to get past Anonymous’ rambling and babbling.”

    A point-by-point rebuttal to a theists almost equally long post is “rambling and babbling,” but 40 Year A-Hole posts a long-winded, off-topic tirade about “EAT MOR CHIKEN, and you think think it’s philosophical genius?

    It’s no wonder you are in awe of those same things as were ancient goat-herders.

    Hey ASS, please prove a link the comment in which you “poked holes” in the 50 proofs. Unless you do, then you faithfully remain, a bald-faced liar.

  55. on 09 Aug 2012 at 6:52 pm 55.Severin said …

    jOv,
    What makes me a moron, as you said?

    I kindly expect your explanation.

  56. on 09 Aug 2012 at 7:21 pm 56.Lou(DFW) said …

    50.Anonymous said …

    :29. – What we have here is a typical theist passive-aggressive post whereby they start off with fax-reasonableness and end with direct and indirect jabs at people who don’t share their delusion.”

    I noticed the exact, same thing (I think you meant faux-reasonableness). But when exposed, and exactly like “Chris/Lover,” when their nonsense is challenged they suddenly become defensive and resort to the same, tired old theist arguments and insults.

  57. on 09 Aug 2012 at 11:02 pm 57.CastBound said …

    It would seem that atheists should be put in the same category as the Moon landing deniers. When actuality is faced there really is no disparity. Atheists attempt to depict the huge majority as delusional. The Moonlanding deniers attempt to depict those who accept the moon landing as duped.
    The moon landing deniers will look at all the evidence of a moon landing and deny all with great vigor. NASA and Feds are all in on the conspiracy. The atheist will look at all the obvious intelligence in creation and deny it all with great vigor. They will claim there is no intelligence in creation. It was by happenstance and possibility that life formed.

    The Moon landing and God deniers all see themselves as more intelligent than the rest of us. Let us just let them be in their little bubbles.

  58. on 10 Aug 2012 at 2:22 am 58.Lou(DFW) said …

    57.CastBound said …

    “It would seem that atheists should be put in the same category as the Moon landing deniers.”

    When are you people going to abandon your Moon-denier analogy? It’s incorrect.

    There are no such things as Moon-landing deniers. They’re Moon-landing conspiracy theorists. They, EXACTLY like theists, believe in an incredible claim for which there is no evidence. There’s no evidence at all for any such conspiracy, nor is it even plausible – it sounds exactly like belief in an imaginary god!

    So, give it a rest and simply present your evidence for your imaginary god.

    And try to get your analogies straight.

  59. on 10 Aug 2012 at 2:25 am 59.Hell Yeah said …

    “It would seem that atheists should be put in the same category as the Moon landing deniers.”

    Not even close. The moon is proven to exist. Humans going into space is proven to exist. The supernatural isn’t proven to exist. See where I am going with this?

  60. on 10 Aug 2012 at 2:36 am 60.Hell Yeah said …

    46.Has Ben said …

    “I’m still waiting for somone on the blog to defend the 50 proofs that prove God is Imaginary. I will take the defense of just 3 of the prooofs. Any takers?”

    It is easier to just start with one topic and go from there. Just because I have been waiting to hear theists stance on Noah’s Ark, let’s start with #45 Consider Noah’s Ark. It is impossible in almost every way. Please tell me why it was possible. Let’s see if you can pick apart this short video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I225Vcs3X0g

  61. on 10 Aug 2012 at 2:49 am 61.Lou(DFW) said …

    59.Hell Yeah said …

    “Not even close. The moon is proven to exist. Humans going into space is proven to exist. The supernatural isn’t proven to exist. See where I am going with this?”

    In reality, all the alleged evidence that Moon-landing conspiracy nuts claim to have doesn’t support their claim, but in fact matches exactly what is expected to result from an actual manned moon-landing.

    This the same for theists. None of their claims and ideas about nature and its origins match those of a supernatural being who loves us, but rather, nature and its laws operate exactly as if no god exists. That’s what befuddles theists (as demonstrated in the desperation of their flawed analogy), and it causes them to lie about atheists or any other theists who don’t believe in their particular god fairy-tale.

    Oh yeah, and then there’s that problem about not having evidence for their imaginary god. It ALWAYS rears its ugly head for them.

  62. on 10 Aug 2012 at 3:31 am 62.Prime said …

    That moon post by CastBound… didn’t someone post that, or very nearly that, almost or entirely word-for-word a little while back? If not, this is some crazy deja-vu I’m having just now.

  63. on 10 Aug 2012 at 3:38 am 63.Prime said …

    Evidently not, at least not this summer. My mistake. The topic just came up and got hammered in much the same way a few weeks ago–ASS brought it up.

  64. on 10 Aug 2012 at 10:46 am 64.Lou(DFW) said …

    62.Prime said …

    “That moon post by CastBound… didn’t someone post that, or very nearly that, almost or entirely word-for-word a little while back?”

    Yes, on Jul 9, it was the same moniker, except typed all in capital letters.

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=1731&cpage=1

    It was also posted by Louser (coincidence?) in 2009:

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=453

    36.Lou said …

    “Appreciate Anony, we have those who claim we never walked on the moon, the earth is flat, the Holocaust never took place, etc but they offer no verifiable proof either.”

    And here:

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=1079

    26.Burebista said …

    “It is true we have those who do not believe the holocaust, moon landing or even believe the world is a sphere.”

    See sock-puppeteer?

  65. on 10 Aug 2012 at 12:02 pm 65.Lou said …

    Castbound,

    Moon landing conspirators make more sense than atheists. Conspiracies while not probable are possible. The Moon landing, 911, Kennedy among others is possible because evil men desire power and could plot such events.

    However, atheism is the extreme in outlandish. When you cut to the chase atheists would have us believe that creation and life came into existence without a supreme deity. When you see such a statement you recognize the utter stupidity of such a belief that conflicts with simple common sense. They cannot provide a single example of something as complex as a cell being created from? Until they can, they cannot be taken seriously.

    Atheists are conspiracy theorist of the greatest magnitude. Their conspiracy is that the vast majority of all mankind is running a Creator conspiracy.

  66. on 10 Aug 2012 at 12:38 pm 66.Lou (DFW) said …

    62.Prime said …

    “That moon post by CastBound… didn’t someone post that, or very nearly that, almost or entirely word-for-word a little while back?”

    Yes, on Jul 9, it was the same moniker, except typed all in capital letters.

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=1731&cpage=1

    It was also posted by Louser (coincidence?) in 2009:

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=453

    36.Lou said …

    “Appreciate Anony, we have those who claim we never walked on the moon, the earth is flat, the Holocaust never took place, etc but they offer no verifiable proof either.”

    And here:

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=1079

    26.Burebista said …

    “It is true we have those who do not believe the holocaust, moon landing or even believe the world is a sphere.”

    See the sock-puppeteer?

  67. on 10 Aug 2012 at 12:39 pm 67.Lou (DFW) said …

    62.Prime said …

    “That moon post by CastBound… didn’t someone post that, or very nearly that, almost or entirely word-for-word a little while back?”

    Yes, on Jul 9, it was the same moniker, except typed all in capital letters.

    It was also posted by Louser (coincidence?) in 2009:

    36.Lou said …

    “Appreciate Anony, we have those who claim we never walked on the moon, the earth is flat, the Holocaust never took place, etc but they offer no verifiable proof either.”

    And here:

    26.Burebista said …

    “It is true we have those who do not believe the holocaust, moon landing or even believe the world is a sphere.”

    See the sock-puppeteer?

  68. on 10 Aug 2012 at 12:44 pm 68.Lou(DFW) said …

    65.Louser lied when he said …

    “Conspiracies while not probable are possible. The Moon landing, 911, Kennedy among others is possible because evil men desire power and could plot such events.”

    Despite Louser’s lies to the contrary, such conspiracies are impossible. It’s not possible for that many people to be involved in conspiracies of such magnitude. Not that it’s relevant to the fact that he doesn’t have any evidence for his imaginary god.

    Disbelief in your imaginary god is not a conspiracy anymore than disbelief in Santa Claus is a conspiracy.

  69. on 10 Aug 2012 at 1:13 pm 69.Lou(DFW) said …

    65.Louser said …

    “Atheists are conspiracy theorist of the greatest magnitude. Their conspiracy is that the vast majority of all mankind is running a Creator conspiracy.”

    HA-HA-HA!

    Yes folks, that’s it! The conspiracy is that everybody else are consipracists!

    According to Louser Logic, it works like this – the conspiracy is that the world is in a conspiracy against “The Moon landing, 911, Kennedy” conspiracists! See the craziness of Louser Logic?

    First of all, that most of the population believes in an imaginary god is not a CONSPIRACY, it’s a DELUSION.

    Second, that atheists reject said belief is also not a conspiracy.

    Last, the similarity between moon-landing conspiracists exists between them and THESITS, not atheists, because like moon-landing conspiracies, there’s no evidence to support either belief.

  70. on 10 Aug 2012 at 1:22 pm 70.Lou(DFW) said …

    65.Louser said to his other self …

    Castbound,

    “When you see such a statement you recognize the utter stupidity of such a belief that conflicts with simple common sense.”

    According to Louser Logic, it’s utter stupidity to believe that the faster an object travels, the slower its perception of time becomes, its size begins to shrink in the direction of its motion, and its mass increases, because that all conflicts with “common sense.”

    But, after you reject Special Relativity, you must accept that Jesus, the son of god, was born of virgin birth and later arose from the dead, Noah built a boat that saved all the animals in the world during a world-wide flood, god helps athletes win games, and that you will live in heaven forever if you only believe and repent.

    How’s that for “common sense?”

  71. on 10 Aug 2012 at 1:43 pm 71.Severin said …

    64 Lou
    “When you see such a statement you recognize the utter stupidity of such a belief that conflicts with simple common sense.”

    That is exactly what an intelligent individual says after hearing your statements, if any.

    Typically no statements from theists. They expect people to believe in their heaven daddy by default.
    AND, look what happens: people, in most cases, DO!

    They only can not agree about who is their “daddy”, then hate and kill each other to impose their one.

    Believing in many gods and mutual hate among believers in different gods speaks for itself: THAT is the utter stupidity of believing in god(s).

    Which god answers the prayers of Muslims, Lou?

  72. on 10 Aug 2012 at 2:10 pm 72.Severin said …

    64
    “They cannot provide a single example of something as complex as a cell being created from?”

    What would be YOUR evidence that god(s) made the cells?

    Is it only that YOU think cells are too complex to emerge spontaneously in nature?
    THAT can’t be count an evidence, even not an argument.
    Many things were considered too complex to appear spontaneously in nature (rainbow, diseases, …), then we saw they were not.

    So, your evidence that god(s) made cells are?

  73. on 10 Aug 2012 at 2:19 pm 73.Severin said …

    Lou,
    If god created a cell, or cells, WHEN was it?
    Do you refer to Genesis’ abracadabra, or was it before Genesis?

  74. on 10 Aug 2012 at 2:23 pm 74.Lou(DFW) said …

    70.Severin said …

    “They only can not agree about who is their “daddy”, then hate and kill each other to impose their one.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7muTOh-qDGI

  75. on 10 Aug 2012 at 4:18 pm 75.DPK said …

    JUst a sad rehash of the argument from ignorance… “you cannot fully explain_______________, therefore the only possible answer is god.”

    The only problem with this jump to conclusion is that historically, it has been proven wrong time and time and time again. Everything in history that was not completely understood, starting with the sun rising and setting, weather, seasons, diseases, natural events like earthquakes, thunder and lightning, mental illness, crop failures, insect infestations… everything… was attributed to gods. The only thing in common with all these examples is that they all had rational explanations that did not require gods. And let’s not even begin with the huge leap from the idea of a creator to the concept of a personal god who wants you to eat his body and drink his blood, reads your thoughts, and helps you win gold medals.

    I wonder what will happen if Curiosity actually finds evidence of ancient life on Mars? What will the theists claim then about the impossibility of living molecules arising from simpler forms? They’ll probably claim Mars was just god’s testing grounds. I’d dare say an “intelligent designer” with an over 98% failure rate would certainly need a lot of testing…. so much for omniscience.

    Please not too that, as predicted, Ben has run away from his bravado and failed to engage in any response or defense of his imaginary god. As transparent as glass.

  76. on 10 Aug 2012 at 4:24 pm 76.A said …

    Lou

    Can’t you see DFW’s argument? Most of the world is delusional. That make a lot of nonsense. How psychotic must a small group of people be to view the majority of world as delusional? You must take on his psychosis to be normal. I don’t view them as moon landing conspiracy theorist, they are more like a cult.

    DFW is one of my favorite comedians.

  77. on 10 Aug 2012 at 4:37 pm 77.Lou(DFW) said …

    75.ASStrophysicist lying again said …

    “Can’t you see DFW’s argument? Most of the world is delusional.”

    That’s not an argument, it’s an observation, and one that you must agree with. If your imaginary god is the “real” god, then all the other gods cannot be real. Therefore, anyone who believes in any other god (and more of them do than don’t), then they must be delusional.

    You must agree that most of the people in the world are delusional. If you don’t, then why not?

    The argument is simply this – you don’t have any evidence for your imaginary god. Your one and only rebuttal to that argument is to provide evidence for your imaginary god. But, you can’t because no such evidence exists because there’s no such god.

    Despite all of your lies and double-talk, it’s that simple.

  78. on 10 Aug 2012 at 4:50 pm 78.Lou(DFW) said …

    75.ASStrophysicist said …

    “DFW is one of my favorite comedians.”

    And you are my favorite theist – you are the easiest to embarrass.

  79. on 10 Aug 2012 at 5:59 pm 79.DPK said …

    Yes, Astrophysicist makes an utter fool of himself yet again with the logical fallacy of the argument from majority… The position is dismissed as easily as pointing out (yet again!) that the vast majority of people on the earth once believed it was flat and at the center of the universe, and the “small group” of people who claimed it was not so were not simply deemed psychotic, they were deemed dangerous heretics deserving of death.

    As Lou has also pointed out, even IF “a majority of people believe it” had ANY actual bearing on what was in fact, true (which history proves repeatedly, it does not) that STILL puts you in the awkward position of having to accept that the MAJORITY of people in the world do NOT believe in your Jesus god. So, if your position holds any weight at all, that means you are deluded and psychotic. According to you, 2/3rds or more of the worlds population believes you have it 100% wrong.

    You’re such a complete asshole. You can’t even try to make a point without sabotaging your own position. Best you go pray on it awhile… see if that helps. Thanks for the laugh though.

  80. on 10 Aug 2012 at 11:06 pm 80.A said …

    DFW

    DFW you are so precious. As typical you are wrong once again. I recognize a Deity who created the world. So does the majority of the world. I, with the majority of the world are on the same wavelength. You and your cult don’t even have power to your tuner. Now watch this closely……. The argument is not that the majority is correct. The argument is that you have never proven the majority wrong and persist with your cultish claims.

    DPK

    We have you back attempting the same tired fallacy. Because the world has been wrong about A it must be wrong about B? How silly! You know how it got changed? Proof to the contrary was presented. There you go! Bring the proof! :)

    Good to see you buddies posting back to back again. Or are you?

  81. on 10 Aug 2012 at 11:13 pm 81.A said …

    I forgot one. No, I don’t perceive the majority of world as delusional; just atheists and those who the medical community has diagnosed as delusional. The majority are wonderful, lovely people. You don’t see the world in this manner which is why you guys are so mordant

  82. on 11 Aug 2012 at 12:06 am 82.Anonymous said …

    “You are so precious”, now where have we heard that before? In fact, lets look for all the uses of that phrase on this blog. There’s only a few of them:

    05 May 2011 at 2:38 pm 309.Biff “Observer, You are so precious”

    24 May 2011 at 10:33 am 232.Biff Lou you so precious.

    23 Jul 2012 at 11:32 pm 67.A “How old are you Lou? … You are so precious with your silly claims.”

    But the most “precious” example is this post where where “Ben” replied to himself and outed himself as “Martin”. Along the way he said:

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=2177#comment-33684
    09 Feb 2012 27Ben “Lou, of course you are my buddy. You are my little project. You are so precious”

    So, there we have the same phrase used by “A”, “Ben” & “Biff” who we also know as “Lou”, “Martin”, “Hor” and others.

    Poor Hor, busted again for being a troll and a sock-puppet. How long will he run away for this time, or will he just recycle one of the other sock-puppets? All that effort just to divert from his total failure at providing any kind of evidence to disabuse us that he’s suffering from a dellusional belief in an imaginary friend.

  83. on 11 Aug 2012 at 12:18 am 83.alex said …

    give it up hor. why so worried about a few atheists? is it because they keep busting you?

  84. on 11 Aug 2012 at 12:23 am 84.Lou(DFW) said …

    81.ASStrophysicist said …

    “No, I don’t perceive the majority of world as delusional; just atheists and those who the medical community has diagnosed as delusional.”

    You’re such an idiot. In the context of this discussion, delusion means having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions. It doesn’t require “the medical community” to make any such diagnosis.

  85. on 11 Aug 2012 at 12:36 am 85.MrQ said …

    Poor Horatio (aka the Hor),

    Hor called me precious a few times. Now the “precious” insult (?) is making the rounds again. I sure do miss the Hor and his remarks but I do “sense” his presence here, disguised as some of the other posters.

    Props, however, to Hor for his admission as to the billions of years old age of the Earth. Something the other theists here will never subscribe to (or openly admit).

    An aside: Hor (I know you’re looking/posting), did you notice that there was a Harley Davidson that washed up on a beach fairly recently – see the article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137513/Shipping-container-Harley-Davidson-golf-clubs-camping-equipment-inside-washed-BC-shore-Japanese-Tsunami-year-later.html
    Unfortunately, it was traced to Japan and did not miraculously spring out of the ocean.

  86. on 11 Aug 2012 at 2:28 am 86.DPK said …

    “A”, please try to follow along now. We know rational thought is a challenge for you, but this has been explained to you SO many times before, you’re really embarrassing yourself.
    No one has EVER said, as you lied, that BECAUSE the majority of people in the world have believed things that are absolutely, completely wrong, that they are THEREFORE wrong about the existence of gods ( and a host of other supernatural things). What was said was that the fact that many people believe something does not give make it so.

    Man, I’d hate to have to work with you on one of your Astrophysist projects! You’re actually pretty fucking stupid. I bet your fellow Astrophysists laugh at you a lot, huh?

    What a douche.

  87. on 11 Aug 2012 at 2:54 am 87.DPK said …

    Remember back in post #48 I predicted…

    (Spoiler alert… Ben will not answer this simple question, because he knows that any answer he gives will put him in a very bad position as far as defending the existence of his imaginary god. He will either disappear for days or weeks, or reappear as a different sock puppet and try to throw some red herrings about to try and change the subject. Watch……

    Now Ben is back as the capital A Astrophysist trying to pass off the stupid argument from majority as a reason to believe in his nonsensical zombie god… Exactly as predicted. Wanker.

  88. on 11 Aug 2012 at 2:03 pm 88.Dez said …

    “The argument is not that the majority is correct. The argument is that you have never proven the majority wrong and persist with your cultish claims.”

    In order for a belief to change, evidence to the contrary must be presented. In order for the majority to change their position, atheist will need to present a solid case. This has yet to be done. Personal lack of belief is fine, but one cannot expect the vast majority to follow this dead end. Not one single new discovery in the last 1000 years has eliminated the validity of a Creator.

  89. on 11 Aug 2012 at 2:54 pm 89.Lou(DFW) said …

    87.Dizzy said …

    “In order for a belief to change, evidence to the contrary must be presented.”

    First of all, that condition has no bearing on whether or not the belief is true.

    Second, that condition is invalid. Beliefs are not usually based upon evidence. For example, you believe in god, but you don’t have any evidence for him. That’s why your belief is a delusion.

    No evidence is required to negate a belief for which none exists. For example, if you believe that leprechauns exist, then what evidence can I provide to change your mind?

    Last, “evidence to the contrary” was and is presented.

    Quit making excuses for your inability to present any evidence for your imaginary god. Simply admit that you don’t have any.

    “Personal lack of belief is fine, but one cannot expect the vast majority to follow this dead end.”

    Which dead end – xtianity, islam, hinduism, buddhism, shinto, judaism, etc., etc., etc.?

  90. on 11 Aug 2012 at 2:56 pm 90.alex said …

    “The argument is that you have never proven the majority wrong and persist with your cultish claims.”

    Atheists are not required to prove the Santa or your imaginary god delusion. It doesn’t matter if you’re 1% or 99% of the population.

    “In order for the majority to change their position, atheist will need to present a solid case.”

    Most of the populace don’t believe in any one god. Using your logic, every single god is bullshit.

    “Not one single new discovery in the last 1000 years has eliminated the validity of a Creator.”

    I agree, but creator is not capitalized. This creator is a laissez-faire god. He rules over Allah, Jesus, Ra, and Chuck Norris. Belief is not required.

  91. on 11 Aug 2012 at 5:36 pm 91.MrQ said …

    Dez,

    In order for a belief to change, evidence to the contrary must be presented.

    Not one single new discovery in the last 1000 years has eliminated the validity of a Creator.

    Religions and beliefs have been crumbling and fracturing, and will continue to do so into the future. The religious practices and rituals of today have changed so much from 1000 years ago that today’s christian would be unrecognizable and considered a heretic by a believer from days of old. So much for the inerrant word of a creator.

    Dez, what does evolution and age of the Earth say about your beliefs? Try again. Ask Hor for clarification, he’s probably sitting beside you.

  92. on 11 Aug 2012 at 7:51 pm 92.Anonymous said …

    85.Q “I sure do miss the Hor and his remarks but I do “sense” his presence here, disguised as some of the other posters.”

    Perhaps in the way that as soon Ass he was called on his current sock-puppets he was replaced by Dez who makes the same arguments, in the same style, and with a particularly telling mistake of grammar?

    Hor, what’s the point of this all? It’s clearly a game as you don’t seem to have any interest in partaking in a discussion. Is internet trolling all that your life has to offer?

  93. on 11 Aug 2012 at 8:02 pm 93.40 Year Atheist said …

    When we think of evidence, first of all we decide who or what to trust. Evidence must be trustworthy if it is to be held as credible. So now we will consider not “what can be trusted”, but ”how do we trust?”

    Then what is “trust”? If we are to trust a piece of evidence or a source of evidence, we have to go through our discernment process.

    Then what is “discernment”? Discernment[1] is an internal human faculty that first allows discrimination between data inputs and then allows judgment to be made on these discriminated inputs. These data inputs are restricted to sensory inputs only if the dogmatic worldview is Philosophical Materialism. But there is no rational reason to lock out non-sensory input from the discernment process.

    If evidence is sensory, then all the questions surrounding the quality and reality of the sensory inputs come into play. These have been discussed in detail before, including the errors that are possible; the techniques, including the scientific method, for minimizing the potential errors; the problems of dogma and ego which sacrifice accuracy for agenda.

    But there is another source which is non-sensory. It is intuitive, intellectual.

    If the evidence is intellectual (non-sensory) then new questions arise. For example, how can these purely intellectual understandings be tested physically? How do they interact with the material world? How can I know if they are valid?

    I can document my contact with the First Principles and my comprehension of the nature of those principles. But I cannot supply physical evidence for impartial testing. I can do the same with logic. I can do the same with math, especially higher math. [2] Nor can I share my actual experience of comprehension – the moment of understanding; I can relate that experience as an historical anecdote, but the personal nature of apprehending and comprehending – say math or logic, for example – means that it is up to each individual to capture the experience for himself. This is entirely different from physically existential experiences, which can be shared simultaneously, although viewed from separate personal viewpoints.

    None of these entities, First Principles, logic, math, were discovered by examining the physical world. They were discovered by examining the non-physical, intellectual region of existence – a reality that is non-material.

    How to deny this reality? Is there a rational way to deny this non-material reality without denying the source of rationality itself which is non-material? The only philosophers to deny non-material reality and its contents are those who devolved into Anti-Rational philosophies.

    Even evolutionists and scientism-ists agree that logic exists, math exists. But then they must develop new denials, such as Dennett’s idea that consciousness is only an illusion, or Minsky’s idea that the mind is merely a meat machine, and that free agency doesn’t exist – all attempts to kill the idea of dual realities. And all without a hint or jot of material evidence to support them.

    So on what rational basis can the non-physical intellectual region of reality be denied? Here is their problem: Because that position involves denial of the reality space that contains rationality, no denial of the existence of non-physical reality can be rational.

    Now an impertinent question: What is it that has NEVER BEEN WRONG? The laws of physics crumble in black holes. The laws of biology haven’t even been completely written yet, and the ones that have been are contradictory.[3] Clearly only the non-physical reality entities – the First Principles, logic, math – are universal, correct throughout space and time, have always been and always will be (in this universe) valid. And again they are understood to be so without the possibility of materialist, empirical testing.

    To repeat a prior theme, if you don’t value Truth, then what is it that you value? In order to value a thing, that thing must be worth defending and defended: in this case defending the existence of non-material reality and the value of its entities is essential to rationality and a rational worldview. It is the use of these non-material entities that determines the true value of evidence, including both material and non-material evidence.

    And this leads to the final magnificent question: what is the source of these perpetually valid axioms? Can we just a deny a source and move on? (Caution: inserting ego always corrupts an intellectual process). Are these coherent entities an accident? Should we give credibility to new fables such as multiverses and other untestable tales designed to refute a source?

    It becomes clear that there is an undeniable liklihood that they do have a source, just as the universe has a source. And because we must and have restricted their validity to this universe, then they are probably epiphenomenal to the initiation of the universe.

    So the material reality and the non-material reality were likely initiated simultaneously – gaseous mass and energy, time and space all in one reality, and valid, cognizable relationships in a second, co-reality.

    And again, what is the source of these realities?

    Let’s investigate some responses that are possible.

    First: “There is no “proof”.
    This always means material, empirical proof. And no, physical proof of non-physical axioms is not expected. And empirically, proof is never expected since every experiment provides only an instance of falsification or non-falsification.

    [As a side issue, there is no material, experimental empirical “proof” of evolution, either; it is all conjecture, extrapolative inferences that do not, of necessity, follow categorically from the data. It is based on a random occurrence in minerals producing random life forms that ultimately produce intelligence randomly, non-purposefully.]

    But back to Materialist proof of non-material entities: that requirement is a tactic used to identify science with a cult, the cult of pure Philosophical Materialism that dogmatically restricts all reality to material reality – which science does not do. Science voluntarily accepts material limits to its investigations, which cannot be applied to non-physical phenomena due to the measurements and replicability required by empirical investigation. Philosophical Materialism is a parasite on science – it is not science nor scientific.

    Second: This is all inferential.
    Yes it is; in fact it is intuitive and it survives both the process of discernment and the concept that a rational, coherent universe exists, based on rational principles. There is no rational way to exclude a purposeful creation without also excluding rationality itself, as Materialism does.

    Third: This is just another God-dunnit.
    It is actually the use of all possible reality information to base a rational conclusion on all evidence available. The charge of “God-dunnit” is a simplistic statement of refusal to acknowledge certain evidence because it is contrary to Philosophical Materialism. The refusal to acknowledge data is irrational and cultish.

    Fourth: Science will prove you wrong
    I will not hold my breath for the day that science changes its position on measuring the unmeasurable. Absolute belief in science for all answers to all realities is “scientism”: a sub-cult of Philosophical Materialism. It is based on incorrect “axioms” and is speculative in a highly credulous and dogmatic fashion, eschewing intellectual humility for arrogance and locked-down intellects. Science will never answer the question “How should we live?” through laboratory experimentation.

    There is no rational way to deny that the source for rational thought exists in a non-material reality. Similarly there is no rational way to deny that the source of the dual realities was powerful and rational and purposeful.

    But there also is no way to provide physical evidence of that which must be personally experienced intuitively to be known to be valid.

    Seeking a personal experience then, makes more sense than seeking physical evidence.

  94. on 11 Aug 2012 at 8:14 pm 94.alex said …

    now, pinch hitting for Hor, is 40yearAtheist.

    plonk! upside the head, first pitch. you’re outta here.

  95. on 11 Aug 2012 at 8:16 pm 95.Anonymous said …

    40YAsshole said … absolutely nothing of value nor interest then ran away to hide, as he always does.

  96. on 11 Aug 2012 at 8:38 pm 96.MrQ said …

    40YA,
    Summing up….Science is worth shit. When you REALLY wanna know something about “the unknown(TM)” you gotta go to ancient texts, superstitions, beliefs, and practices of the desert dwelling nomads. Those guys had the best explanations.

    Intuition will only get you so far. Look up Quantum Mechanics. It’s a weird, counter intuitive world out there. Good luck with your search.

    BTW, whose intuition is correct? Some sense a god, others a multitude of gods. Whose intuition do we trust and why?

  97. on 11 Aug 2012 at 10:05 pm 97.Anonymous said …

    jOv, are you going to come back and answer #50.

    Also, please do demonstrate the “unbiased investigative research” that you claimed earlier.

  98. on 12 Aug 2012 at 5:00 am 98.Cory Tucholski said …

    I’m probably just going to get lost in the sea of comments, but as I have no other way to contact Thomas, I wanted to make him aware of my two-part reply to this post.

    Part one, where I correct the half-truths and misconceptions of Christian doctrine found in the OP.

    And Part two, where I discuss the only point made worth an answer: Why does God allow evil and suffering? I’m afraid part two is lacking a bit right now, as I only set out a rudimentary synthesis between two popular defenses to the problem of evil. Hopefully I can write more on my synthesis at another time.

  99. on 12 Aug 2012 at 1:52 pm 99.Anonymous said …

    For Cory in #98:

    “On a personal note to the blog author: Thomas, please find me a Christian who, in the last 20 years, actually called for a gay man to be stoned to death. If you can’t, then please withdraw that ridiculous claim.”

    http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/70-year-old-stoned-to-death-because-the-bible-says-to-stone-gays/news/2011/03/18/18138

    Christians are insane:

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202

  100. on 12 Aug 2012 at 2:11 pm 100.Anonymous said …

    Well, Cory (and is Josiah Ministries Jov by any chance). First, you need to understand that marriage is not “divinely” ordered. That is a ridiculous argument and shows you really don’t even know what marriage actually is.

    Your school project: how many non-christian cultures can you find that have an institution of marriage? When did marriage first come about? What is the difference between the marriage contract and the ceremony?

    Second, you argument in two is basically. Well, there must be a reason but we don’t understand it. Enter the argument from ignorance – religion’s greatest ally.

    By the way; try not to get into circular arguments as you have done in your blog. Using the bible to defend the bible or whatever is in it (your god, for example) is a lost cause.

  101. on 12 Aug 2012 at 6:50 pm 101.Curmudgeon said …

    Cory

    The answer is no. WWGHA does not understand basic Christian doctrine. Read Dawkins and you will see that the High Priest of Atheism is seriously lacking in this arena. Most have no desire to understand, they only desire to criticize what they perceive.
    Thomas will not respond to you just as pigeons drop their load and fly away.

  102. on 12 Aug 2012 at 7:05 pm 102.alex said …

    “WWGHA does not understand basic Christian doctrine”.

    Atheists DO understand. That’s why the bullshit is rejected.

  103. on 12 Aug 2012 at 7:36 pm 103.MrQ said …

    Cur :

    Thomas will not respond to you just as pigeons drop their load and fly away.

    …so says one of the leaders of the snipe and hide clan.
    Cory, allow me to demonstrate with a toughie: Cur, what is the age of the planet Earth?
    The age of our Earth is
    (a) less than 10,000 years old.
    (b) between 10,000 and a million years old.
    (c) between a million and a billion years old.
    (d) older than a billion years.

    Cory, how do you suppose Curmudgeon will answer? I would say that we can count on Cur to do a disappearing act or he may (if he’s stupid enough to re-appear) try to digress, stall, obfuscate, or get generally pissy about my simple inquiry. End result…..no answer.

  104. on 13 Aug 2012 at 1:07 am 104.DPK said …

    We understand very well basic Christian doctrine. Accepting doctrine is call indoctrination:

    “The term indoctrination came to have awkward connotations during the 20th century, but it is necessary to retain it, in order to distinguish it from education. In education one is asked to stand as much as possible outside the body of accumulated knowledge and analyze it oneself. In indoctrination on the other hand, one stands within the body of knowledge and absorbs its teachings without critical thought.”

    Absorbing without critical thought. This is considered a virtue?

  105. on 13 Aug 2012 at 12:17 pm 105.Lou(DFW) said …

    101.Crum said …

    “WWGHA does not understand basic Christian doctrine.”

    Specify – what does WWGHA not understand about xtianity?

    You “will not respond…just as pigeons drop their load and fly away.”

  106. on 13 Aug 2012 at 12:38 pm 106.DPK said …

    Simple, what wwgha does not understand about Christian doctrine is that, as doctrine, it does not need; to make sense, fit observable evidence, be demonstrably true, have any evidence to support it in the least, or not even be in agreement with the doctrine of other Christian sects. It does however, require that others “respect” it and needs to be above criticism based entirely on the idea that religious beliefs should be immune to critique, simply because they are, religious. What we all seem to not understand is that religions think they get a free pass, and should be treated differently from any other type of claim or assertion people make.

    You are not only rude and mean spirited for pointing out that it is actually rubbish, you are evil for wanting to rip the joy that is faith in Jesus from the hearts of the true believers.

  107. on 13 Aug 2012 at 12:50 pm 107.DPK said …

    Please note that in posts 48,75, and 87, I have now three times offered to discuss the “evidence” for god referenced by Ben and his alter- egos by having him simply define his god with a simple definition of his god like attributes.

    Please note too, that as predicted; he has failed to answer even the simplest of questions, engage in any actual discussion, and has tried repeatedly to change the subject to something irrelevant to the discussion.

    Now the theists have attempted to the last resort of the desperate: ” you don’t understand, so why can’t you just give us respect and stop criticizing?”

    Sad, but so predictable.

  108. on 15 Aug 2012 at 4:13 am 108.Zeus is real said …

    The Jesus freaks are wrong.

    Zeus is the real god and here is the proof:
    1) Zeus hates people who don’t believe in him.
    2) Zeus controls lightning
    3) Every person that has been recorded as being struck by lightning didn’t believe in Zeus.

    Take that bible-babies.

    P.S. This is a joke post (for the theists too stupid to figure it out)

    P.P.S. No god is real

  109. on 15 Aug 2012 at 2:42 pm 109.DPK said …

    Ever wonder why the theists here never answer any questions, but only throw out red herrings and unsupported allegations?

  110. on 15 Aug 2012 at 3:09 pm 110.Anonymous said …

    Ever wonder why the theists here never answer any questions, but only throw out red herrings and unsupported allegations?

    Because they are trolling? Deliberately here just to cause disruption with no intention of providing you with an honest answer?

    Because it’s a game to see who they can bait into taking on a discussion that leads off to the same questions each and every time?

    Because they want to make sure any reasonable discussion here is squashed through the volume of troll-like responses?

    Because they have no answer that doesn’t make them look ridiculous. They then lash out at those that are taking away their security blanket, hence the points above?

  111. on 15 Aug 2012 at 3:40 pm 111.Lou(DFW) said …

    105.Lou(DFW) said …

    101.Crum said …

    “WWGHA does not understand basic Christian doctrine.”

    Specify – what does WWGHA not understand about xtianity?

    You “will not respond…just as pigeons drop their load and fly away.”

    Crum, we’re still waiting for your reply…

  112. on 15 Aug 2012 at 6:35 pm 112.Lou(DFW) said …

    110.Anonymous said …

    “Because they want to make sure any reasonable discussion here is squashed through the volume of troll-like responses?”

    Unfortunately, the trolls Crum/Biffer/Louser/Asstrophysicist/Etc. cannot be held accountable for anything they post here. Even though we attempt to do it by insisting that they answer questions, there’s only a few ways to handle them – moderator ban, ignore, or embarrass them. The last option is ineffective because they’re anonymous. However, it must affect them to some degree because one sock-puppet will hide after such an event, only to later reappear hoping that nobody remembers. It’s similar to what a child does – if he hides under a blanket so he can’t see you, then he assumes you can’t see him. But we see them for what they are – frauds.

  113. on 16 Aug 2012 at 7:49 pm 113.DPK said …

    Everyone please take note. Today is August 15th, 2012.
    On August 9th, 2012 I replied to the sock puppet Ben:

    “And we are still waiting for you to provide any evidence that your imaginary god actually exists…
    Now, if you want to discuss evidence for the existence of your god, fine… let’s do that… but we must start by you defining what you mean by “God”, so that we are all talking about the same thing.
    And let’s keep it simple and start off slow… is your definition of God a being who is both omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent?

    Hint… before you run away or try to divert attention with your usual lies… these are yes or no answers… so… you game Ben? Or are you going to evade the discussion yet again?”

    Then, in true seer like fashion, I predicted:

    “(Spoiler alert… Ben will not answer this simple question, because he knows that any answer he gives will put him in a very bad position as far as defending the existence of his imaginary god. He will either disappear for days or weeks, or reappear as a different sock puppet and try to throw some red herrings about to try and change the subject. Watch……”

    Note that Ben has disappeared, and now, on other threads, Biff has appeared trying to pass off the “you can’t explain how life originated” argument from ignorance… and other sock puppets with the same grammatical mistakes as Biff and Ben, and our fried the capital “A” Astrophysicist have appeared throwing red herrings around like dollar bills at a strip bar… hoping in vain they get lucky and someone forgets that once again, they have failed to answer even the simplest of questions to defend their silly claims about magic men in the sky.

    No one has forgotten how you run away from reality Ben. Maybe it’s time you admit it to yourself that the reason you cannot defend your claims is actually because they are simply not true. Your god exists only in your mind.

  114. on 26 Aug 2012 at 5:09 pm 114.Chelle said …

    @ RJ… God wasn’t speaking of death in the physical sense when talking about Adam & Eve. When u have time, read the bible, the story of Adam & Eve and u will understand the meaning behind the type of death God was warning about

  115. on 26 Aug 2012 at 8:08 pm 115.alex said …

    “God wasn’t speaking of death in the physical sense when talking about Adam & Eve.”

    so, you’re the grand puppa god interpreter? you get to say what’s what in the bible? did god really create the universe about 10,000 years ago? what’s with the foreskins? so, start listing the literal translations. go ahead.

  116. on 13 Sep 2012 at 3:49 pm 116.Cindy said …

    You assume God laughs at disaster. How do you know he is not weeping with the rest of us. When something “bad” happens to my “good” children, I don’t laugh at their distress though I may not stop it from occurring (either because I can’t or because I have chosen not to even though I’d like to intervene).

  117. on 13 Sep 2012 at 4:08 pm 117.Lou(DFW) said …

    116.Cindy said …

    “I may not stop it from occurring (either because I can’t or because I have chosen not to even though I’d like to intervene).”

    First of all, you aren’t god. But if you were, or if you the ability, you would do anything to protect your children from harm.

    LOL! Theist hypocrisy and rationalization at it’s best.

    It’s OK for you to tell us what god should or shouldn’t do, but when atheists do, we’re attacked for it.

  118. on 13 Sep 2012 at 4:49 pm 118.Severin said …

    116 Cindy
    Tsunamis, hunger, cancer, earthquakes, … , are not “bad”, they are BAD (for human race), and are not selective: they kill both “good” and “bad” “children” and (absolutely innocent) children.
    Why would we care whether or not god weeps, if he, unlike me and you, HAS THE CHOICE, but still kills according to statistics, not according to the attributes people gave him?
    What a hypocrisy: god watches children dying from hunger, then he weep after them, although he, as an almighty (and all loving), could (SHOULD!) have saved them!
    Either he is stupid/sadist/totally unrighteous (etc), or there is no god.

  119. on 13 Sep 2012 at 5:42 pm 119.Anonymous said …

    That’s an awful lot of assumptions and excuses Cindy. Do you actually believe them?

    Your assuming: (1) Despite a complete lack of evidence, that a god exists, (2) that the god cares, (3) that he sees everything, (4) that he’s capable of human emotions (being sad), (5) that he could act, (6) that he’s chosen not to, (7) despite 1-6 he’s still worthy of worship.

    There’s a much simpler explanation that fits exactly with reality and doesn’t require any excuses at all:

    There is no god.

  120. on 13 Sep 2012 at 6:14 pm 120.Lou(DFW) said …

    118.Severin said …

    “Tsunamis, hunger, cancer, earthquakes, … , are not “bad”, they are BAD (for human race)”

    Sev, she understands that. That’s why she placed the word bad inside quotation marks – because she didn’t mean it as commonly accepted.

  121. on 13 Sep 2012 at 9:53 pm 121.alex said …

    “You assume God laughs at disaster. How do you know he is not weeping with the rest of us.”

    he spared the singlewide after letting the tornado wipe out the trailer park and weeps like a pussy?

    or maybe, in a disaster, your god doesn’t do shit, like a Zeus or a nonexistant god?

  122. on 14 Sep 2012 at 3:15 am 122.Anonymous said …

    Lou (DFW), as a former believer, you probably made the self-same excuses and justifications as does Cindy and so many Xtians.

    My question to you: Did you really believe that cockamamie story full of “could have” and “might have” as compared to the show-off depicted in the bible or, deep down, did you know it was a lie but you needed to pretend otherwise to keep the dream alive?

    In case you are wondering, I’ve never understood how anyone could believe such nonsense but I’ve also never believed in a magic man in the sky who is his own son either.

  123. on 14 Sep 2012 at 3:40 am 123.Lou(DFW) said …

    122.Anonymous said …

    “Lou (DFW), as a former believer, you probably made the self-same excuses and justifications as does Cindy and so many Xtians.”

    No, I never got into such discussions because when I rejected the belief in god I was 12 – 13 years old.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply