Feed on Posts or Comments 28 November 2014

Christianity Thomas on 07 Aug 2012 12:43 am

God reaches down and heals Olympic triathlete – ignores 10 million starving children and lets them die

Imagine the unbelievable arrogance it takes to make a statement like this one by Hunter Kemper:

U.S. triathlete says God healed him of injury

Kemper sustained an injury to his arm that required surgery, with a plate and 13 screws inserted into his elbow. Two months later he developed a staph infection. He began to think that his chances for a 2012 Olympic appearance were over.

But Kemper says God healed him from the injury and enabled him to compete in the Olympic trials, where he earned a spot on the Olympic team for the fourth time. He will compete in the triathlon event on Tuesday (Aug. 7) — one of only two athletes to participate all four times since the sport became an Olympic event in 2000.

“What a journey I’ve been on the past six months,” Kemper said. “For me to overcome that, and feel like I have God every step of the way with me, it’s been real eye-opening.”

According to Kemper, God reached down and healed him. If that it true, then God watched 10 million children die of starvation and cholera last year and did nothing. God oversaw millions of miscarriages. God let cancer kill millions more.

Why would anyone want to be associated with a God who is such a capricious monster?

54 Responses to “God reaches down and heals Olympic triathlete – ignores 10 million starving children and lets them die”

  1. on 07 Aug 2012 at 11:26 am 1.Lou(DFW) said …

    “Triathlon doesn’t define who I am as a person,” Kemper said. “It doesn’t define me, and that’s what’s so comforting in my life. I’m not defined by wins and losses.”

    No, he defines himself based upon an irrational, delusional belief in an imaginary god who helps athletes play games. But even then, his imaginary god didn’t simply heal him. It required the work of engineers and scientists to heal him. And why does god stop there? If it’s so important to god that he heals Kemper to compete in games, then why doesn’t he also ensure that he wins them all?

    In other news, Kemper joined Duracell’s “Rely on Copper to Go for the Gold” Olympic Games Program.

    “Whether in training or using battery power in their everyday lives, athletes
    trust in Duracell to make sure they are always prepared for what life has to
    offer,” said Volker Kuhn, General Manager for Duracell North America.

    In Duracell we trust! What happened to god?

  2. on 07 Aug 2012 at 3:55 pm 2.DPK said …

    One also can’t help but wonder why god didn’t just prevent his injury in the first place?
    Like the woman in Aurora whom god gave a brain abnormality some 22 years ago for the express purpose of allowing her to get shot in the head without serious brain damage… if he cared THAT much about her well being, why didn’t he just stop the bullet… or even make the gun jam, or, I dunno, maybe keep her out of the theater altogether that night?
    Seems to me god is not only mysterious, he’s not too bright either………..
    D

  3. on 07 Aug 2012 at 5:01 pm 3.Galvão said …

    A doença teísta é tão forte que quando acontece uma coisa boa ele atribui a Deus e se for uma coisa ruim, ele ainda agradece, com suas habitais racionalizações do tipo ” não era a vontade dele”. Dawkins tem razão, Deus é imbatível!
    (Galvão)

  4. on 07 Aug 2012 at 6:56 pm 4.Lou(DFW) said …

    2.DPK said …

    “if he cared THAT much about her well being, why didn’t he just stop the bullet”

    Yes, Why can’t god ever perform any real miracles, like this?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guVAeFs5XwE

  5. on 07 Aug 2012 at 7:30 pm 5.Mark said …

    “Kemper says God healed him from the injury and enabled him to compete in the Olympic trials, where he earned a spot on the Olympic team for the fourth time”

    Glory to God. I am so happy for Kemper.

  6. on 08 Aug 2012 at 3:57 am 6.Slapnuts McGee said …

    And it is now clearly established that Mark is an idiot. Well done, Mark. Well done. Did that post get you bonus points on your way to heaven?

  7. on 08 Aug 2012 at 2:49 pm 7.John Gabriel said …

    Marx was one of the greatest minds that ever existed. No other saying of his was truer than the following:

    “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

    http://thenewcalculus.weebly.com

  8. on 10 Aug 2012 at 12:34 pm 8.Scourge said …

    #7 Das Opium des Volkes!

  9. on 10 Aug 2012 at 12:47 pm 9.Scourge said …

    John Gabriel- I appreciate the Marx quote. Your spiel on calculus is so misguided (and pathetically wrong) as to be unspeakable. You should not waste your time on the idiocy you wrote. Did you have any math beyond high school? You really should be embarrassed by your website, but it seems you do not know enough to realize your grave lack of knowledge.

    The time you wasted making the powerpoints and website could have been used learning some math. Instead, that time and your effort have been wasted for eternity. You are the type of person old mathematicians with a sense of humor sometimes write about in their twilight years. They are called cranks.

    What is more, you are doing a disservice to kids. Some poor bastard who is being home-schooled by some low-life Christian might run into your website and think it is correct. This is an awful thing to do.

    Of course, this could be an elaborate hoax, but it is a bit like putting impediments in front of the blind.

  10. on 10 Aug 2012 at 12:58 pm 10.Scourge said …

    #7 Are you an engineer? I see from your website that some mathematicians have already identified you. If you could get a real analysis class you might understand where calculus comes from. Get an old copy of Bartle. It is well written advanced undergraduate text. Also, the Dover edition of Kolmogorov and Fomin’s book translated by Silverman while more advanced would help you out enormously too.

    By the way, is .499999(infinite 9s) exactly equal to 1/2?

  11. on 10 Aug 2012 at 1:05 pm 11.Scourge said …

    #7

    http://thenewcalculus.weebly.com/uploads/5/6/7/4/5674177/new_calculus_-_a_short_course.pdf

    You are a moron. I am surprised you are not an evangelical Christian.

  12. on 10 Aug 2012 at 5:32 pm 12.ConK said …

    I dont care how much you dont believe in god or how billions on people do but how could you be so insensitive about it, Just because you believe in one thing doesnt give you the right to call down people who believe another. whether god does believe or not doesnt matter nobody has the right to talk down to people like that. Ill be the first to admit classic religions such a christianity is flawed but only by humans the bible is flawed again only by humans. I dont know if you had a bad experience with some religious figures in your life but that still give you no right to call down anybody on there beliefs. Why wouldnt god help 10 million children everyday from dying nobody knows and guess what neither will you, There is no proof god exsists or doesnt exsist you have no case here period. You want to continue this debat? feel free to email me.

  13. on 12 Aug 2012 at 1:16 pm 13.John Gabriel said …

    Scourge:

    There are many fools like you who believe they actually know mathematics. I am a mathematician but what are you?

    Several professors of mathematics have endorsed my views. Again, what are you? Just a silly coward who goes by the name of scourge.

    When you do not understand knowledge, this can generally mean a few things. In your case, I can spare you the grief, you are an idiot.

    John Gabriel

  14. on 13 Aug 2012 at 1:05 am 14.gex said …

    You know what? If you are being told not to wait for them, it’s as good as not believing in them at all. If, by chance, you should experience a “miracle” then you can reevaluate at that time.

    Walking around believing in something you are also certain you will never experience or have proof of is insanity.

  15. on 13 Aug 2012 at 1:09 am 15.gex said …

    Well, ConK,

    We don’t need to imagine bad religious figures in our past. I see a majority Christian nation terrorizing gays.

    I see the RCC being basically immune from being penalized for being the worlds oldest and largest, and perhaps only, child rape ring.

    Religious people talk about their religions all the time. They talk about who’s going to hell. That is impolite, don’t you think?

    But if we start to defend ourselves, if we so much as ask to not have to live by YOUR religion, you get cranky. But when Christians are arguing that the Ten Commandments and the Bible are the basis for our Constitutional Democracy, we need to fight back.

    Christians wage war on the “others”. The whole point to being a Christian is to put yourself in an “us” group who believes the correct thing and the others. And the others have been persecuted throughout history and still are today. American evangelicals are urging African nations to kill gays.

    So perhaps, when religious people actually decide that they CAN coexist with non-believers without forcing their beliefs on us, we’ll stop being rude.

  16. on 13 Aug 2012 at 3:21 am 16.Anonymous said …

    Conk, you agree that your god can’t be proven yet you expect people to be “nice” to you when they point out how utterly, fucking, moronic a belief in an invisible best friend who does fuck all to help anyone is?

    Have you any idea how utterly, fucking, moronic that request of yours is?

    You want us to be nice to you? Then stop pushing your utterly fucking moronic beliefs onto vulnerable minds and get with reality.

  17. on 13 Aug 2012 at 2:01 pm 17.Anonymous said …

    ConK “There is no proof god exsists or doesnt exsist you have no case here period. You want to continue this debat? feel free to email me.”

    Here we have a classic deceitful, manipulative, dishonest, emotionally-laden Christian approach to heading off genuine discussion of their claims. This is not an appeal for understanding, it’s an appeal to designed to stop reasonable inquiry.

    It’s a sign of desperation that ConK would claim that someone else “has no case” because he is the one that has no case. The burden is on YOU Conk, no-one else need to disprove your non-existent god. None at all. Christians know this, yet they persist with manipulative appeals.

    You can’t prove your god exists for the simple reason that it’s all imaginary.

    That you have no facts, no logic, no proof, no evidence, no legitimate reason for your claims only underscores how disgusting, and I’ll repeat that, how disgusting your attempt at emotional blackmail actually is.

    Finally, look at the appeal to stop discussing this in public. How pathetic! ConK doesn’t want a debate, ConK wants people to stop pointing out the obvious.

    Belief in gods is a delusion. People who believe in gods are delusional. That statement may hurt their feelings but boo, hoo, hoo. That’s life.

  18. on 13 Aug 2012 at 3:38 pm 18.Scourge said …

    #13

    http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2010/02/04/a-crank-among-cranks-debating-john-gabriel/

    Yes, this amply demonstrates that john gabriel is a crank. He is the sort of fellow who has above average intelligence, is surrounded by well below-average intelligence, assumes the below-average pool he is immersed in is representative of the rest of the world, then concludes he is some sort of genius. Poor fellow doesn’t even have an inkling of what he doesn’t know.

    Folks interested in psychopathology should read the above blog to see how someone well out on the spectrum of narcissistic personality disorder behaves.

    Yes I am a mathematician, have taught at university, and have done and do research, for more than two decades now, in the private sector. I do not reply with my name for reasons which should be obvious (Think private sector). Quit wasting your time writing the nonsense you do then try wading through the texts I mentioned above.

  19. on 13 Aug 2012 at 4:23 pm 19.DPK said …

    I’d respectfully suggest that unless your little math tiff has anything to do with “Exploring God and religion in our world today” that this is perhaps not the place for it?

  20. on 13 Aug 2012 at 8:18 pm 20.John Gabriel said …

    Scourge:

    Don’t make me laugh. You are no mathematician and have no idea what you are talking about. Also I suggest you follow DPK’s advice and stick to the topic. If you had any courage, you would email me privately and reveal your true identity. How else can I know whether you are a mathematician or not?

    You accuse me of BPD and yet your language shows what an imbecile you are! Did you think that calling me a moron in one post and above-average intelligence in another post would curry favour on your behalf?

    Little boy, I have studied all the materials you mentioned long before your “2 decades of teaching”. If you had any real intelligence, you would go back to my site and study it as if your life depended on it.

    By the way, the link you mentioned is on my website. If you had bothered reading till the end, you would have known.

    This is my final response to you!

  21. on 13 Aug 2012 at 11:38 pm 21.A said …

    Scourge put up or shut up. Until you show legitimate credentials you are nothing but a crank with the credentials of a Jr High match teacher. You and Prime probably co-teach.

    Calculus was discovered by a Pascal and you are no Pascal. All you atheists throwing around your credentials is so boorish and reveals huge insecurities.. Your appeals to authority are denied!!

    Let’s go back to what you can prove.

    John Gabriel has nothing to do with you proving why the vast majority in society should disregard God for your fantasy. What lit bit of science has eliminated God from the possibilities? Whadda you have math boy?

  22. on 14 Aug 2012 at 12:05 am 22.DPK said …

    A… does the “A” stand for “Ass-brain”?
    What part of “burden of proof” do you not get, despite it being explained to you over and over?

    “What lit bit of science has eliminated God from the possibilities?”

    Here;s a clue, it’s the same “lit bit of science” (whatever the hell that means) that has eliminated Santa Claus and garden fairies from the list of “possibilities”. Unless, of course, you are claiming that everything you can imagine is equally possible until scientifically proven otherwise?
    If you can scientifically prove that Santa or the tooth fairy do not exist, then we can talk about gods. If you cannot, then that puts the likelihood of either one actually existing on the exact same level of probability… virtually none.

    Positive claims require evidence… you have none. Until you do, you are just a fart in the wind… unpleasant, but of little consequence, and best ignored. Feel free to come back when you have something to offer.

  23. on 14 Aug 2012 at 2:16 am 23.Lou(DFW) said …

    20.ASStrophysicist said …

    “Let’s go back to what you can prove.”

    Excellent suggestion! ASS, prove that god exists!

    “What lit bit of science has eliminated God from the possibilities?”

    Science?! LOL! It doesn’t require any “science” to eliminate your imaginary god from “the possibilities” anymore than it requires “science” to eliminate the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny from “the possibilities.” If you required “science” before you rejected those imaginary beings, then you really need to have your head examined. No doubt the result will be “E” for empty.

  24. on 14 Aug 2012 at 2:20 am 24.Anonymous said …

    “All you atheists throwing around your credentials is so boorish and reveals huge insecurities.. Your appeals to authority are denied!!”

    Said the troll and sock-puppeteer who stated that they were an Astrophysicist.

    Yet, it’s puzzling that an Asstrophysicist would make such a claim regarding Pascal. It’s as if his misunderstanding was born from having a first language that wasn’t English. That’s also so odd considering how many of the troll-like posts here are written in a similar vein.

    So, A, show us how it’s done. Put up or shut up. Your credentials and your proof for the existence of your sky-daddy. You’ve claimed to have proof, you’ve claimed to have provided it, yet you go remarkably absent when asked specifically to provide it.

  25. on 14 Aug 2012 at 4:22 am 25.Severin said …

    A
    “Let’s go back to what you can prove.”

    Why don’t you prove existence of your god?

    Oh, yes, you only pose questions, you never answer them.

    Answer to question:

    Which god answers the prayers of Muslims?

    is much simpler then giving evidences for existence of god, but you can’t even answer to that question.

    Miserable!

  26. on 14 Aug 2012 at 11:22 am 26.Lou(DFW) said …

    20.ASStrophysicist said …

    “John Gabriel has nothing to do with you proving why the vast majority in society should disregard God for your fantasy.”

    Should disregard?

    News-flash for ASS – the “vast majority” has disregarded your xtian version of an imaginary god.

  27. on 14 Aug 2012 at 12:05 pm 27.40 Year Atheist said …

    The First Principles are the axioms upon which reason and rational thought are based; these are known to be true by inspections and cannot be proven either true or false using materialist techniques (empiricism).

    Reason requires intellectual integrity and rigor. Objectivity must be maintained and agendas shed.

    Reason abdicates rationalization which reifies a conclusion and creates support for it. Reason insists on a conclusion drawn from sufficient and necessary premises to cause that conclusion, regardless of the emotional desirability of the conclusion.

    Reason is enabled as a human capability by innate faculties of apprehension, discrimination and judgment, which taken together we might (and will for our purposes) call “discernment”.

    Now we need to consider what we might allow to be “valid” evidence in support of premises for a conclusion, and what we might consider to be “non-valid” evidence.

    What Is Evidence?
    Humans have long employed theories of evidence. These have been fundamental to both philosophy and to legal systems. I have pointed out elsewhere that all it takes to be a philosopher is to deny all previous philosophies and then whip up one of your own. So there is little agreement philosophically on any issue, down to the denial of our very existence. But legally there is a better basis.

    Legally speaking,

    “There are four traditional types of evidence: real, demonstrative, documentary, and testimonial.”
    http://library.findlaw.com/2001/Jan/1/241488.html

    1. Real evidence is material in nature; empirical.

    2. Demonstrative evidence illustrates the testimony of a witness:

    Typical examples of demonstrative evidence are maps, diagrams of the scene of an occurrence, animations, and the like. Because its purpose is to illustrate testimony, demonstrative evidence is authenticated by the witness whose testimony is being illustrated. (ibid)

    3. Documentary evidence is real evidence in the form of say, a contract, and is verified by a witness or a chain of possession up to a witness.

    4. Testimonial evidence is direct witness statement. Testimonial evidence is the most basic form of evidence and the only kind that does not usually require another form of evidence as a prerequisite for its admissibility(ibid)

    A witness is said to be competent if:

    “In general, a witness is competent if he meets four requirements:

    1. He must, with understanding, take the oath or a substitute. Evid. Code §§ 710, 701; Fed. Rules Evid. 603.

    2. He must have personal knowledge about the subject of his testimony. In other words, the witness must have perceived something with his senses that is relevant to the case. Evid. Code § 702; Fed. Rules Evid. 602.

    3. He must remember what he perceived.

    4. He must be able to communicate what he perceived. Evid. Code § 701(a)(1).(ibid)

    Why is this important to the concept of Reason? As we will see, evidence is not as easily pinned down as one might think.

    Material and Empirical Evidence
    The legal designations of real, demonstrative, and documentary are all forms of physical evidence. For our purposes here, these three will be lumped together under “material and empirical” evidence. Forensic evidence combines instances of material evidence with testimony. So we can reduce the categories from the four legal categories to two: (a) material and empirical evidence; and (b) testimony.

    We have previously established that empiricism itself is based on the axioms of the First Principles. For example, empiricism depends upon cause and effect to be valid; that it be valid for all times and places in the universe; that existence and fact not ever be partial. These are the principles that cannot be reduced or tested, yet are known to be valid; they are axiomatic to reason, empiricism, and logic.

    So empirical evidence, while demonstrated physically and repeatably, relies on non-provable “truths”, in Locke’s words: “intuited”, as implicit axioms.

    The very definition of empiricism insists that the material cause of the material effect be repeatable. But no effect can be verified by experiments repeated everywhere and at all times; so it must be assumed to probably be valid (if it is not falsified at some point). So empirical evidence is probabilistic in nature. It is never certain beyond any possible refutation.

    And empiricist David Hume observed that the constant conjunction between a certain cause and a certain effect in no way guarantees a future such conjunction. This is a verification of sorts of the probabilistic nature of empirical findings. However, Hume agreed that cause and effect, while not certain in his mind, is a “useful construct”. In fact, despite Hume’s concerns, it remains a First Principle because no falsification of it is possible; the failure of a particular proposed “constant conjunction” would merely mean that it does not represent a law of nature, not that the principle of cause and effect has failed.

    Non-material and Non-Empirical Evidence
    If the First Principles are believed to be valid – and they must be if empiricism is to be considered valid – then valid truths can be known outside the realm of materialism and empiricism. This is a radical thought to Philosophical Materialists and Logical Positivists who reject any thought of any possible existence beyond the physical material world. For them, reality stops at the end of the physical. Metaphysical reality is rejected.

    But this rejection of the obvious leads directly to the logical downfall of such ideologies.

    First, the rejection of the validity of the First Principles leads straight and immediately to anti-rationalism, as Friedrich Nietzsche proved. This removal of the basis for rational thought collapses logic into a subjective gumbo of personal opinions based on no absolute foundation whatsoever. Without logic based on the First Principles, contradiction, paradox and non-binary logic become acceptable modes of thought.

    Second, the concept of a “philosophy” is itself non-material, having no length, width, breadth or mass. So a non-material philosophy that requires that only material entities exist, self-refutes and dies a death of non-coherence and paradox. The idea that science, a material pursuit, produces axiomatic truth is false.

    Witness Testimony
    Now where does witness testimony fall into the realm of rational evidence? Just as is indicated in the legal evidence shown above, credible witnesses can be thought to produce credible testimonial evidence. But what makes up the spectrum of credibility?

    Again the integrity of the witness and the coherence of the testimony are the metrics by which such credibility might be judged. But while the coherence of the testimony can be judged using rational, absolute standards, what standards are available for determining the integrity of the witness? Beyond the legal requirements stated above for witness credibility there are other tests for filtering out non-credible testimony:

    Negative attributes:
    1. Personal irrationality or insanity.
    2. Personal agenda to be served.
    3. Denial of absolutes.
    4. Rationalization instead of Rational thought process.
    5. Denialism and fallacious premise usage; acceptance of non-coherent and/or paradoxical premises.
    6. Persistent combativeness instead of striving for a common goal of truth.

    Positive attributes:
    1. Witness values virtues of integrity, rigor and truth.
    2. Testimony is internally coherent.
    3. Testimony is externally coherent with the basic First Principles.
    4. No disjunction between testimony and sensate or physical evidence.
    5. Falsifiable, but not falsified.
    6. Multiple witnesses are in substantial agreement on the fundamentals.

    Some agendas would have all witnesses in a certain category denied, merely on the basis of rejecting the category. This is non-rational. Everyone is obliged at some point to accept witness testimony: on the news; on scientific breakthroughs; on family occurrences; on historical accounts; in a distributed workplace. All these and many others require a deference to the presumed and probable validity of witness testimony.

    Testimony may be rejected on the basis of lack of integrity of the witness; lack of coherence of the testimony; falsification through contrary physical evidence or contrary witness testimony; agenda driven testimony.

    But when should evidence be rejected due only to the incredulity of the observer? How should probabilities of the validity of the testimony be weighted? Is it rational or “reasonable” to reject testimony to a truth that is metaphysical (such as the First Principles)?

    Observers can be agenda-driven also, and can reject on the basis of presuppositions and prejudice rather than on the rational attributes of coherence, integrity etc. This is probably the most error prone portion of the evidentiary process. Yet it can be overcome by applying the same rigor and integrity that is required of the witness.

    But objectivity can only happen if the observer is open to the rigorous pursuit of truth, whatever that truth is, outside the influence of prejudice, presuppositions and agendas.

    Notes of interest:
    As seen below, all evidence is probabilistic, except axiomatic evidence. In other words, only the metaphysical First Principles are certain, and known to be true. Also there are untruths that are used in agenda-driven thought that are false axioms. Some of these are shown below also.

    Evidence characteristics:
    1. Empirical evidence: probabilistic / physical
    2. Testimonial evidence: probabilistic / physical or metaphysical
    3. Axiomatic evidence: tautological (certain) / metaphysical

    False axioms (agenda-based or false philosophy-based ):
    1. Science can reveal all truth.
    2. Reality is totally physical.
    3. There is no first cause.
    4. Science entertains no beliefs or belief system.
    5. Certain scientific “theories” are settled and may not be questioned.
    6. The human mind is deterministic.
    7. Nothing is absolute [including this “axiom”].
    8. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

    An example of an agenda-driven thought process:

    “Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “just-so stories.” When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.”
    Stephen Jay Gould (1980)

  28. on 14 Aug 2012 at 12:48 pm 28.Lou(DFW) said …

    26.40 Year A-hole babbled …

    “Now we need to consider what we might allow to be “valid” evidence in support of premises for a conclusion, and what we might consider to be “non-valid” evidence.”

    Translation: I don’t have any evidence for my imaginary god so I posted this long, irrelevant tangent instead.

  29. on 14 Aug 2012 at 2:18 pm 29.John Gabriel said …

    A fool:

    1. Rejects the existence of a creator entity

    2. Thinks the creator is a benevolent being

    3. Thinks that certain works are inspired by a creator.

    4. Believes that evolution is a valid theory.

    5. Believes in any religion.

    An intelligent human:

    1. Is an agnostic.

    2. Is always rational and uses reason as the main tool of thought.

    3. Never rejects or accepts an argument unless he can prove the truth of it.

  30. on 14 Aug 2012 at 2:56 pm 30.Scourge said …

    #19 Point well taken
    #20 Pascal? Leibniz was the guy who came up with calculus some 30 years after Pascal was dead. Newton came up with a yeoman’s version nearly at the same time as Leibniz.

    As for science and the various gods bandied about by theists of various stripes, science has consistently explained away gods throughout history. Hence roughly 80% of the people on the planet live in cultures where monotheism is predominantly practiced. The Christian God, not truly monotheistic but distinct from the Abrahamic God, has been consistently proven to have no effect when invoked through prayer. When science posits something and it does not come to bear, it is typically discarded as not useful and unlikely real. The same is clear for gods of all types.

    The problem lies in the fact that there are people who possess the vote who will impede progress. These folks elect Muslim Brotherhood types or Tea Party Republicans. (As a side note it is also worth noting that the only worldview that was explicitly excluded from the Nazi’s Schutzstaffeln (SS), some of the most morally degraded people ever, were atheists. The SS was mostly Roman Catholic and Lutheran, with a smattering of Bosnian Muslims, some Eastern Orthodox, and some Hindus, Sikhs and possibly some more Muslims in the Indische Korps.

  31. on 14 Aug 2012 at 3:54 pm 31.Anonymous said …

    27.Lou (DFW) “Translation: I don’t have any evidence for my imaginary god so I posted this long, irrelevant tangent instead.”

    And this is the problem with 40YAsshole and his clan. Unable to prove the existence of their imaginary friends, they demand that you disprove this god using methods that they arbitrarily declare their delusion to be invisible to.

    In a nutshell, Stan hides his nonsense in word-salad but the essence is: “I define god as something that you cannot disprove using science. Now, atheists, disprove my god using science. Aha – gotcha! I win”. Poor pathetic soul. His desperation is legion.

    It’s dishonest and that anyone thinks it’s a sensible argument is further evidence of their lack of integrity and their need to maintain their delusional beliefs.

    This redefinition to be “outside of science” is also what we see with pseudoscience and new-age metaphysics. It’s a common theme with cranks of all kinds. Unable to prove their point, they redefine their totem to be “outside of ” conveniently ignoring the point that they are also declaring that they can’t possibly know that to be true. In other words, they just made it up.

    So, back to the thread and “A” who having been called out on his sock-puppetry and challenged to provide answers has conveniently vanished.

    Who’s he going to substitute to continue the game of avoidance?

  32. on 14 Aug 2012 at 4:30 pm 32.DPK said …

    “But when should evidence be rejected due only to the incredulity of the observer? How should probabilities of the validity of the testimony be weighted? Is it rational or “reasonable” to reject testimony to a truth that is metaphysical (such as the First Principles)?”

    hahahahha…. Stan is attempting to describe “evidence” in legal terms, and then drops this gem.
    Stan… try a criminal defense based on “God told me to do it”, and see how far it gets you. Why is that?
    If metaphysical “truth” based on intuition or some self defined axioms are evidence… why does “god told me to kill that bitch” not cut it?

    Why am I even asking… Stanley never answers questions or defends his rambling nonsense. I really picture him living in a mini-van covered in bible quotes and preaching on the street corner with a bullhorn, a bible, and a bottle of Thunderbird in a brown paper bag.

  33. on 14 Aug 2012 at 11:03 pm 33.A said …

    “science has consistently explained away gods throughout history.”

    I can also differentiate between a real Rolex and a fake. Fakes do not mean the genuine article does not exist. But, give it a shot Scourge. Lets see you pull this off for the Christian God.

    40 Year

    I enjoyed your presentation on the nature of evidence. However, these fellas have no clue what evidence entails much less first principle.

  34. on 14 Aug 2012 at 11:46 pm 34.alex said …

    “I can also differentiate between a real Rolex and a fake. Fakes do not mean the genuine article does not exist.”

    You’re a moron. You can’t explain why god doesn’t bless others, but the lucky ones are blessed. How is that any different than having no god?

  35. on 15 Aug 2012 at 12:33 am 35.Anonymous said …

    All Ass has is excuses, have you noticed that?

    Anyway, A, you wanted Scourge to present his credentials. Surely you wouldn’t ask him to do something you wouldn’t do, would you? That would make you out to be trolling, amongst other things.

    So, let’s see your credentials. You’ve claimed to be an Astrophysicist. Now prove it or admit that you lied.

    When you’ve done that, demonstrate to us that your god exists. Your Rolex analogy requires the demonstrable and unambiguous existence of a real Rolex with a definable and repeatable process to demonstrate that. So, let’s see your proof for the real god. Or again, you’re trolling and dishonest.

    Do what you ask of others – Put up, or shut up.

  36. on 15 Aug 2012 at 2:41 am 36.Lou(DFW) said …

    31.ASStrophysicist said …

    “I can also differentiate between a real Rolex and a fake.”

    You couldn’t tell the difference between a Timex and a fake Rolex, much less a real and a fake Rolex. And you will REALLY be confused when you discover that they have hands – and some of them don’t point to numbers!

    “Fakes do not mean the genuine article does not exist.”

    Who, other than you, claimed that it did?

    “But, give it a shot Scourge. Lets see you pull this off for the Christian God.”

    Do you mean your imaginary god that the majority of the people on the planet don’t believe in? The one that you believe because in because you aren’t delusional but everyone else is?

    “However, these fellas have no clue what evidence entails much less first principle.”

    Then demonstrate that we don’t, but you do – coward.

  37. on 15 Aug 2012 at 3:55 am 37.MrQ said …

    A,

    Do tell, how did you go through the list of all other gods and come to the conclusion that the christian god is “the one”? I am interested in the process that it takes to say “This god isn’t real” as one goes through the numerous possibilities until, finally, you have that moment of indisputable discovery.

    Does one need to become involved in a 12 step program? Or does one have to have a close relative, such as a parent, killed? Bad car crash? Near death experience?

    A physical object such as a fake Rolex is relatively easy to spot.

    Looking forward to your reply.

  38. on 15 Aug 2012 at 4:38 am 38.Severin said …

    31 A
    “Lets see you pull this off for the Christian God.”

    Let’s see you proving such a god exists.

    Which god answers the prayers of Muslims?

  39. on 16 Aug 2012 at 1:41 pm 39.John Gabriel said …

    “According to Kemper, God reached down and healed him. If that it true, then God watched 10 million children die of starvation and cholera last year and did nothing. God oversaw millions of miscarriages. God let cancer kill millions more.

    Why would anyone want to be associated with a God who is such a capricious monster?”

    The first paragraph states facts only.

    The second paragraph is a question that arises naturally in the mind of any rational human being. It is also a question based on a limited perspective. Of course God had nothing to do with Kemper, much as God has little or nothing to do with most of what transpires here on this insignificant watery orb.

    The fact that a creator is absent from our affairs does not mean there is no creator. Our thoughts of morality, ethics and goodness do not necessarily apply to higher beings. After all, we kill and eat animals that have far lesser IQs than we do. We don’t think twice about our actions. Yet some imagine that we are so special that a creator or higher being would never allow bad things to happen to us.

    As I write this, another Syrian rebel fighter has half his face blown off and struggles to take his last few breaths. From the creator’s perspective, this is just another “random” casualty much like roadkill would be to a motorist.

    To say the creator is just and kind and merciful is to project our own thoughts from our very different perspective.

    I am convinced there is a creator. I am not convinced there is a plan for us. There may be a reason from the creator’s perspective, but no one knows what it is.

    Of course religion is clearly garbage and as Marx correctly stated, it is the opium of the people.

    We can choose to treat each other better or choose to forget we are not all equal in intelligence and thereby unwittingly assume the position of miniature creators ourselves.

    The question should not be whether God exists or not (God may as well not exist because he is absent from human affairs). The question is how do we live out our few futile years in the most peaceful and productive way. For what reason you may ask? Simply because the alternative (that is, war, suffering and misery) is not what most people want. We can choose to make out temporary reality “heaven” or “hell”.

  40. on 17 Aug 2012 at 1:26 am 40.Anonymous said …

    Biff,

    This video would answer your questions if you would take the time to watch it:

    http://youtu.be/ZQGJnE8Y6n8

    There are many others with similar points of view.

  41. on 17 Aug 2012 at 6:54 pm 41.garg saab said …

    if u cut ur hand with knife and ask god to fix it. then does god will do so or not. god will say that i have given you intellect and knowledge to understand the fact that the hand with knife will give pain and human organs does not grow again.

    similarly god granted us enough intellect that eating non-veg, killing peoples, anger, greedy, hate, etc all are crime and if u do so then u will be punished by diseases or accidents or sudden deaths or financial losses etc kind of problems.

    if u take 1 Million money from somebody and after enjoying that money u did suicide by assuming that after death u will be free from debts. DO U THINK THAT U REALLY FREED URSELF FROM DEBTS AND THAT PERSON REALLY BECOME FOOL.

    Actually u will be liable to pay the debts with interest to that person in next birth even if that person too in its next birth. u both will met by any reason in next birth due to that pending debt.

    god says ur court cant do anything after death, but in my court the soul is liable to sins not just the body….

    so all the problems in this world to everybody are the cause of their old and new sins.

    U CANT BLAME GOD FOR ANYTHING. GOD JUST GIVE U UR GIFT FOR GOOD ACTIONS DONE IN CURRENT OR OLD BIRTHS AND ALSO TO GIVE U PUNISHMENT WHICH U AWARDED TO URSELF BY MAKING SINS.

  42. on 28 Sep 2012 at 7:44 pm 42.jesus rocks said …

    Why is it hard to believe in god when we accept things are life everyday that we can’t explain.not everything has a answer as we no it.you can’t explain something you are not..some things just can’t be answered.that’s why god wanted you to have faith ..or why would there be a purpose..

  43. on 28 Sep 2012 at 7:57 pm 43.Lou(DFW) said …

    42.jesus rocks said …

    “Why is it hard to believe in god when we accept things are life everyday that we can’t explain.”

    For example?

  44. on 28 Sep 2012 at 11:22 pm 44.alex said …

    “Why is it hard to believe in god when we accept things are life everyday that we can’t explain.”

    because i realized i’m not a moron. new guinea tribesmen have no problem. little babies have no problem. you’re just a damn moron. oh, autistic folk have no problem. they not afraid.

  45. on 29 Sep 2012 at 12:26 am 45.Anonymous said …

    Here we go again “You can’t explain x therefore my imaginary god is real”.

    This is THE most asinine and fucking stupid excuse on the planet. Alex is right, only morons and fools sign up for that explanation.

  46. on 29 Sep 2012 at 5:43 am 46.Severin said …

    42 Jesus Rock
    “… some things just can’t be answered.”

    … said millions of deluded ignorant 1543., about orbits of earth and other planets,
    then Copernicus published his discoveries.

    … said millions of deluded ignorant abou the earth,
    before they were informed it was not flat

    … said millions of deluded ignorant about diseases,
    before someone informed them it was necessary to wash their hands before the meal (and before an operation, and …)

    etc, etc

    If I don’t understand something, I am looking for answers, not for god.

  47. on 29 Sep 2012 at 1:36 pm 47.Right said …

    That is like learning how the navigational system on a Lockheed Martin operates but refusing to acknowledge the design team.

  48. on 29 Sep 2012 at 2:02 pm 48.alex said …

    “That is like learning how the navigational system on a Lockheed Martin operates but refusing to acknowledge the design team.”

    ok. it’s like looking at my turd pattern and seeing the virgin mary, jesus, and allah at the same time. no? it’s as valid as your bullshit.

  49. on 29 Sep 2012 at 2:06 pm 49.Lou(DFW) said …

    47.Right said …

    “That is like learning how the navigational system on a Lockheed Martin [?] operates but refusing to acknowledge the design team.”

    WTF are you talking about?

  50. on 29 Sep 2012 at 4:26 pm 50.Anonymous said …

    When their first argument fails, they try another one. When that fails they switch to another one. When that fails they try another one. What these delusional Christians fail to acknowledge is that each argument is weaker than the previous one.

    They can’t accept that they are wrong, so they keep throwing up silly argument after silly argument. Do they not understand how ridiculous that is?

  51. on 29 Sep 2012 at 9:11 pm 51.A said …

    Right

    Attempting to reason with these cult followers is pointless. They don’t even realize how ridiculous there beliefs are and how they have been examined and rejected by the vast majority. It is best just to poke fun at them. They have not interest in discussion or learning.

    Promo: See 2016. A great eye-opener for the intelligent.

  52. on 29 Sep 2012 at 9:35 pm 52.Lou(DFW) said …

    51.ASS said …

    “They don’t even realize how ridiculous there beliefs are and how they have been examined and rejected by the vast majority.”

    You moron, disbelief isn’t a belief, and you demonstrate your stupidity by claiming that the majority is correct, because if they are, then your xtian belief cannot correct.

    “It is best just to poke fun at them.”

    Yes, that’s true – for you, because that’s the only way you can attempt to defend your defenseless delusion.

    “They have not interest in discussion or learning.”

    Of course we do! Please provide evidence for your imaginary god, then we will discuss it. But you NEVER, EVER do because no such evidence exists.

    “Promo: See 2016. A great eye-opener for the intelligent.”

    ASS, you simple cannot control your OCD, can you?

  53. on 28 Dec 2012 at 8:19 pm 53.Wouldubelieveit said …

    God reaches down and heals Olympic triathlete – ignores 10 million starving children and lets them die. God’s word heal the triathlete or starve the children that is not God’s Will. If you can listen and read? You will know how it all works. You don’t have to go to church every Sunday. Know your bible back to front up or down side ways and back ways are what ever ways. There are 3 chapters in the bible that explains it all. It is your Choice, NOT God’s choose wisely. Those Chapters are Matthew 13, Mark 4, Luke 8.

  54. on 28 Dec 2012 at 9:08 pm 54.Lou(DFW) said …

    53.Wouldubelieveit said …

    “It is your Choice, NOT God’s choose wisely.”

    OK, then I choose to be an evil person AND go to heaven. My choice, NOT god’s, correct?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply