Feed on Posts or Comments 24 November 2014

Christianity Thomas on 27 Oct 2012 12:44 am

The insanity of religion – forcing their beliefs upon others

Every intelligent, rational person understands that God is imaginary – God is as imaginary as Rudolf the red nose reindeer or Jack’s beanstalk. And yet, here in the most powerful nation on earth, we still include “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Now there is a new challenge to this long-standing practice:

Massachusetts Supreme Court Will Hear Case to Stop Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in Public Schools

This one is so simple to understand. If the Pledge was changed to say “under Allah”, the Christians would all be howling with rage. They would instantly understand the problem that intelligent people have with being forced to say “under God”.

This situation demonstrates one of the big problems with religion: Religious people want to force their bizarre, delusional beliefs upon everyone else. Why do they feel this compulsive need?

343 Responses to “The insanity of religion – forcing their beliefs upon others”

  1. on 27 Oct 2012 at 10:43 pm 1.Asher said …

    OK, two questions for Thomas.

    1. Who forces anyone to say those words? One can remains silent.

    2. What religion is being forced on others with “under God”? To be true to the Constitution, What law is being enforced to establish a religion?

    More tax dollars being wasted on atheist stupidity. We need a law stopping atheist stupidity so we can focus of jobs, deficit reduction and human suffering.

  2. on 27 Oct 2012 at 11:01 pm 2.Anonymous said …

    Does the puppet master ever actually read the posts and follow the links? Probably not considering that he’s going to post his strawman arguments anyway. Anything to divert the conversation away from their irrational beliefs, so it seems.

    “Asher”, how about you answer the question posed in the blog post?

  3. on 28 Oct 2012 at 12:26 am 3.alex said …

    “Religious people want to force their bizarre, delusional beliefs upon everyone else. Why do they feel this compulsive need?”

    deep down, they know it’s bullshit. they have to continuously remind themselves that it’s not. what better way to do this than constantly harass folk. if somebody complains about the bullshit pledge, or the bullshit on the coin, it reminds them about the reality and finality of death, and they can’t handle it.

    plus it’s convenient. you can be a racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and a dumbass and say it’s all in the bible. everybody else is a liberal atheist.

  4. on 28 Oct 2012 at 1:18 am 4.The messenger said …

    Catholics and Hebrews do not force their religion on anyone, we only present it to people and hope that they realize God’s teachings are true and that they should believe in God.

    We do not force our religion on anyone.

  5. on 28 Oct 2012 at 11:10 pm 5.TheJesusFreak said …

    @alex
    Deep down, I consider the Bible to be nothing less than pure and absolute truth. And yes I agree, Christians often tend to use the Bible for their own selfish means which is sad really. Fact of the matter, all that stuff isn’t actually in the Bible, in any sort of conclusive way. I would ask you to not look at Christians as role models or examples, and instead look at Christ as such.

  6. on 29 Oct 2012 at 2:29 am 6.The messenger said …

    5.TheJesusFreak well said my friend.

  7. on 01 Nov 2012 at 3:32 am 7.inbtwn said …

    Atheism’s goal is to ridicule God and ppl who believe in Him. Atheists r on their mission to spread a satanic gospel. Should we listen them when they show their earthling view on their simple and plain “interface” of life? I think atheists can shut the hell up and leave religious ppl alone. There definitely is not a single good reason, why they must try to prove God doesn’t exist. Atheists r lonely and sad ppl, who afraid of the moment of death, bcs death means “total nothing” after they r gone.

  8. on 01 Nov 2012 at 8:31 am 8.tony said …

    Inbtwn, what part of atheist don’t you understand? Spreading a satanic gospel, you moron? We don’t believe in your man made religion, including satan. Every other week I am harrassed on my doorstep by creepy people who believe in magic. You know immediately what they are trying to sell because of the dazed look they all have.

  9. on 01 Nov 2012 at 1:08 pm 9.Anonymous said …

    Inbtwn, you are confused and misinformed. Atheists are not “trying” to prove that (your) good doesn’t exist. One of the things we are pointing out, is that it is YOUR responsibility to prove that your god exists. The fact is, though, that you can’t prove it. Why? Because your god is imaginary. Rather obvious really.

    As for the rest of your immature screed. Yeah, whatever. Projection at its finest.

  10. on 01 Nov 2012 at 4:06 pm 10.Lou(DFW) said …

    5.TheJesusFreak said …

    “I would ask you to not look at Christians as role models or examples, and instead look at Christ as such.”

    Xtians are real, and they are real examples of xtianity.

    Jesus is not real.

  11. on 01 Nov 2012 at 4:08 pm 11.Lou(DFW) said …

    7.inbtwn said …

    “Atheism’s goal is to ridicule God and ppl who believe in Him.”

    The goal of atheists, not “atheism,” is to prevent theist nuts such as yourself from foisting your delusion upon us.

  12. on 01 Nov 2012 at 4:10 pm 12.Lou(DFW) said …

    1.Asshole said …

    “More tax dollars being wasted on atheist stupidity.”

    Liar – show us.

  13. on 01 Nov 2012 at 4:12 pm 13.Lou(DFW) said …

    1.Asher said …

    “OK, two questions for Thomas.
    1. Who forces anyone to say those words? One can remains silent.”

    Show us where Thomas made such a claim.

    “2. What religion is being forced on others with “under God”?

    Duh! All religions that believe in “God.”

  14. on 01 Nov 2012 at 7:36 pm 14.The messenger said …

    on 28 Oct 2012 at 1:18 am 4.The messenger said …
    Catholics and Hebrews do not force their religion on anyone, we only present it to people and hope that they realize God’s teachings are true and that they should believe in God.
    We do not force our religion on anyone.

  15. on 08 Nov 2012 at 6:00 am 15.SmartGirl said …

    The love of God can’t be taught, it must be caught! Lighten up and pray…you never know when God is going to do a work in your life! I certainly didn’t know it was coming in my own when it did! He works in miraculous ways, and I never understood Him until He met me halfway :) There are people of faith who push their faith on you, and then there are people of faith who just love you…those are the people God is using to touch people’s lives!

  16. on 08 Nov 2012 at 6:03 am 16.SmartGirl said …

    Our nation was founded on faith in God. We are a Christian nation, and I can guarantee you that in a Muslim world they would not alter their beliefs or daily rituals to suit others… Why in America are we not allowed to stand up for what we believe?

  17. on 08 Nov 2012 at 1:09 pm 17.Lou(DFW) said …

    16.SmartGirl said …

    “Our nation was founded on faith in God. We are a Christian nation”

    It’s not, but let’s assume that it. So what?

    “Why in America are we not allowed to stand up for what we believe?”

    You are, moron. What do you think you’re doing now?

  18. on 08 Nov 2012 at 2:07 pm 18.Lou(DFW) said …

    16.SmartGirl said …

    “Our nation was founded on faith in God. We are a Christian nation”

    You are either sadly informed or a liar. Please show us in the Constitution or in the Declaration Of Independence even one mention of Jesus or xtianity.

    If you can’t, then tell us if you are simply misinformed or a liar. Which is it?

  19. on 09 Nov 2012 at 7:15 am 19.none said …

    poor poor athiest to say there is nothing higher than yourself then you yourself are declaring you are god. you state that goddosnt exist with 100% conviction you therefore are declaring you are all knowing and all seeing so i have one question if you are a god then when will your mom or loved one die you should know this seeing how you are all knowing. also i amnot christian or mainstream religion i believe in something higer than myself until one of your kind can stand up and tell us all you are god and know everything on live tv then ill believe you are right but that day will never comefor your people

  20. on 09 Nov 2012 at 11:30 am 20.Lou(DFW) said …

    19.none said …

    “also i amnot christian or mainstream religion i believe in something higer than myself”

    Who gives a shit what you believe? We only care about the evidence you have for this “higher” being. Where is it?

  21. on 09 Nov 2012 at 1:03 pm 21.Anonymous said …

    “also i amnot christian or mainstream religion i believe in something higer than myself”

    Like someone who can use punctuation and capital letters perhaps?

  22. on 24 Dec 2012 at 2:35 pm 22.greg said …

    I DO AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THE HEINOUS ATROCITIES THAT HAPPENED. I AM TOTALLY APPALLED BY THESE TYPE OF THINGS. I AM 100% AGAINST ANY TYPE OF AGGRESSION , POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS OR ANY OTHER. BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RELIGION NOW.

  23. on 24 Dec 2012 at 2:35 pm 23.Severin said …

    26 RC
    “If not. You are liar.”
    “Nobody remembers the Inquisitions they were 1000 yrs ago.”

    The last auto-da-fé took place in 1826 in Valencia. About 35,000 people were burned in Spain from 1481 to 1808.
    1000 years ago? Who did you say was a liar?

    Those people burning other people alive TODAY are RELIGIOUS people, not atheists:

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0aa_1319664670

    “Nobody remembers the Inquisitions they were 1000 yrs ago. We do remember the gulags, Mao and Red China.”
    EVERYBODY remembers that.
    Yet, none of these crimes, including Hitler’s crimes (who declared himself a Christian) was done in name of atheism, even not Hitler’s ones, to be honest.
    Those crimes were done in name of criminal ideology.

    It is interesting how theists always forget that there were almost absolutely no atheists in those countries (Russia, Germany, China, …) in times when “atheist regimes” took power!

    How did those regimes get power?
    In one case (Hitler), Christian nation (not atheist, because there were NO ateists to “overvote” Christians!) VOTED for him in legal elections!
    In other cases (Stalin, Mao), deluded Christian masses (or other highly riligious people, in case of China), supported revolutions by thier lives, and DIED for them to bring them to power.

    RELIGIOUS MASSES brought “atheist regimes” to power, one way or another. So called “atheists” were such an extreme minority in their countries, at that time, that thay could only brake winds and dissapear if they didn’t have support from religious masses.
    Yes, they were criminals, but poor, uneducated and deluded Christians did not recognize the fact before it was too late!

    That much about lying and about “atheist crimes”.

  24. on 24 Dec 2012 at 2:44 pm 24.greg said …

    ONCE YOU TELL ME YOU DON’T WANT SOMETHING I’M TRYING TO PERSUADE YOU TO ACCEPT I WILL NEVER DO IT AGAIN, NEVER!!!!! PERSUADE: TO CAUSE TO DO OR BELIEVE BY MEANS OF REASONING, ARGUMENT, OR ENTREATY.

  25. on 24 Dec 2012 at 2:52 pm 25.Severin said …

    Miracle! God exists!

    I’ve just C/P a few words from a post from some RC (see #23) as the base for my comment, and when I clicked “Submit comment”, it (post from RC, under #26) dissapeared.

    What are those people from WWGHA doing? Playing god?

  26. on 24 Dec 2012 at 5:37 pm 26.Lou(DFW) said …

    24.greg said …

    “ONCE YOU TELL ME YOU DON’T WANT SOMETHING I’M TRYING TO PERSUADE YOU TO ACCEPT I WILL NEVER DO IT AGAIN, NEVER!!!!! PERSUADE: TO CAUSE TO DO OR BELIEVE BY MEANS OF REASONING, ARGUMENT, OR ENTREATY.”

    If there was evidence for your imaginary god, then you wouldn’t have to persuade anybody of his existence. Your reasoning, argument, or entreaty is irrelevant.

  27. on 25 Dec 2012 at 12:23 am 27.greg said …

    VERY TRUE, THANK YOU.

  28. on 25 Mar 2013 at 11:02 pm 28.jessie said …

    we live in a mexican Trailer park in Alvin Texas called pine colony and if your not a christian ,your harassed to death. Day and night to the point that you want to pull your hair out.If that pile of shit jesus was real , I would like to go back in time and make sure that son of a bitch wasnt born. So vast were the military and logistical resources ordered to be deployed to this “Great Inquisition” from Rome from 1939 to 1945 that it played a major part to the eventual downfall of the Nazi Third Reich. The effort to efficiently sacrifice the largest number of non-Catholics in 24 x 7 purpose-built ovens [24 hours a day, 7 days a week] was a massive logistical effort- not the least of which required the complete genealogy analysis of most of Europe.

    If not for the genius of fledgling American technology companies such as Innovative Business Machines, who created the first computers for the task of confirming who were to be saved and who were to be slaughtered, if not for the hundreds of millions of dollars in research by pharmacetical companies into advance nerve agents to render people unconscious in “gas” chambers for easy transport to the ovens, then the plan would have been impossible.

    But most of all, if not for the willing and complicit support by Allied leaders not to interfere with the Vatican project, the Nazis managed to kill more innocent people by fire in 1944 and 1945 than all the other years combined

  29. on 26 Mar 2013 at 1:03 am 29.alex said …

    28.jessie said …

    what in the fuck are you talking about? my simple mind cannot understand your shit.

    i’ve been so busy battling the twin fuckheads, s0l & mess, that my comprehension abilities have been compromised. try again?

  30. on 25 Aug 2014 at 11:13 am 30.JONATHAN said …

    TO BEGIN WITH, PREACHING IS NEVER FORCING SOMEONE TO COME TO YOUR RELIGION. IT IS SIMPLE A WAY OF SELLING WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN. GOD HAD HEALED ALL FORMS OF DISEASES AND HE IS STILL DOING IT.
    FOR YOUR INFORMATION, THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF AMERICA WERE THE ONES WHO PUT THE PHRASE “IN GOD WE TRUST” BECAUSE GOD IS THE ONE WHO HELPED THEM TO MAKE AMERICA A REALITY. I AM AFRAID THAT YOU ARE A GENERATION THAT SEEK TO REMOVE THE “ANCIENT LAND MARK” PLACED BY YOUR PREDECESSOR. GOD IS THE REASON WHY EVERY HUMAN EXIST INCLUDING THE ATHEISTS. BUT IF YOU SAY THERE IS NOT GOD THEN WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF CERTAIN THINGS? IF YOU HAVE NO CREATOR THEN YOU MUST HAVE CREATED YOURSELF AND WILL FEAR NO ONE CAUSE IF YOU ARE DESTROYED YOU CAN RECREATE YOURSELF AGAIN! BUT YOU ARE AFRAID OF DEATH BECAUSE YOU HAVE ONLY ONE LIFE GIVEN TO YOU WHICH YOU MUST GUARD.
    WHERE EVER YOU ARE NOW, YOU ARE LIVING BECAUSE GOD PUTS THE LIFE IN YOU AND HE CAN TAKE IT AT ANYTIME. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT YOU WOULD HAVE FALLEN DEATH BECAUSE THERE WAS INSTANT JUDGMENT FROM GOD TO THOSE WHO TREATED GOD WITH CONTEMPT. BUT NOW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, GOD CHOSE TO RESERVE ALL REBELLION AGAINST HIM UNTIL A TIME APPOINTED FOR JUDGMENT.
    YOU CAN REPENT AND BE FORGIVEN NOW.

  31. on 25 Aug 2014 at 11:15 am 31.alex said …

    “PREACHING IS NEVER FORCING SOMEONE TO COME TO YOUR RELIGION.”

    then bow your head to the great “ambi”, ya bitch motherfucker. preach that.

  32. on 25 Aug 2014 at 2:07 pm 32.TruthNProof said …

    I have knocked you atheists a lot in the past as I believe in the creator, the God, the absolute, the prime mover.

    But I have been knocked by religions in the world left right and centre for my maverick ways.

    Lately the Pope Francis called Ideological Christianity a sickness.

    I am realising this to be true.

    It is a bit of circular logic but there must be a non contingent fact or reality on which all other facts stand.

    The bible the Koran and other scriptural books can deepen the open mind.

    But to accept them word for word and on face value is to play into the hands of someone who was just having a laugh.

    Can you imagine the Jews are in the middle east killing and oppressing every day because a book said that a plot of land belonged to them.

    If we give them the land what are they going to demand next. That the heathen be given into their hands for them to break them into pieces. Move over supreme court, move over UN a book says the land is ours a book says we can break the Arabs in pieces a book says that the other nations have to bring their strength into our land. We don’t need to work for it and our nation is blessed above theirs and they are basically inferior to us

    That is major league bull shit.

    Who says that Hitler did not have a sense of effective activity?

    Give the jews the land they are going to sit and their fat asses and demand from the other nations every blessing a book written by a group of creative writers and poets who were having a laugh wrote.

  33. on 25 Aug 2014 at 2:12 pm 33.TruthNProof said …

    What do you guys have to say to that?

    Both Athiest and Christians.

  34. on 25 Aug 2014 at 2:15 pm 34.TruthNProof said …

    And my God, my Absolute, my Prime Mover, My Creator is your God,Absolute, Prime Mover and Creator it doesn’t matter if you are atheist. We are all in this thing together..

    We need to be wise though.

    I was a big bible basher for what it is worth.

    But I have to admit that I am agnostic, I simply don’t know for sure that God exist.

    But only a fool goes to war with out his weapons and to work with out his tools.

    And so I keep an open mind for the prexistent, and realise that life might be an amoral affair and that God may not necessarily be prejudiced against any of us regardless of what we know or believe.

  35. on 25 Aug 2014 at 2:25 pm 35.alex said …

    34.TruthNProof said …

    bleh, motherfucking bleh.

    bow your head and acknowledge “Ambi”, your Ambivalent god.

    moron.

  36. on 25 Aug 2014 at 2:29 pm 36.TruthNProof said …

    What we know we know what we don’t know we don’t know.

    I am more an open minded labourer than a believer.

    I don’t know if God exist and I don’t believe I ever will.

    But I say God for want of a better word.

    And if you think thing, Yahweh, Allah, or Zeus or Rah because I say God my apologies.

    What I mean is there must be a beginning if we have a continuation…

  37. on 25 Aug 2014 at 2:33 pm 37.TruthNProof said …

    If you have a slice of cheese you must have a chunk of cheese to take that slice from. Vegan Cheese though.

    But Yahweh may be fictionary, imaginary I don’t care, Zeus may be fictional imaginary I don’t care.

    It’s all there we just need to be wise as open minded labourers.

    Living in a church for 17 odd years (literally) did not wipe my open mindedness and make me a believer.

    That fact could make me a hero for agnostics or athiest.

    But I am an open minded labourer not a believer either way.

  38. on 25 Aug 2014 at 3:18 pm 38.alex said …

    “If you have a slice of cheese you must have a chunk of cheese to take that slice from.”

    If you have a slice of creator you must have a chunk of creator to take that slice from.

    moron. bow before “Ambi”, the ambivalent god.

  39. on 25 Aug 2014 at 3:23 pm 39.TruthNProof said …

    :)

    Well that depends if you want to talk in terms of slices or not.

  40. on 25 Aug 2014 at 3:33 pm 40.Anannymust said …

    Not every religious way seeks war, or rule, or the proving of a point.

    Some religious orders seek peace, and extinguishing, the realisation that there is no point, a giving up.

  41. on 25 Aug 2014 at 3:43 pm 41.Anannymust said …

    When we see the magnitude of the universe and of its creator if there then was a creator. Why won’t we give up?

    What point is there to prove?

    Can we affect so grand a universe?

    Can we affect so grand a creator?

    Does it matter if we live or die?

    IT WOULDN’T BE US THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT IT WOULD BE THE UNIVERSE.

    IT WOULDN’T BE US THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT IT WOULD BE THE CREATOR.

    IT WOULDN’T MATTER IF WE LIVE; ONCE THE CREATOR LIVES FOR EVER – WE LIVE THROUGH THE FACT THAT HE LIVES.

    THERE IS NO POINT.

    REALLY!!!!!!!

  42. on 25 Aug 2014 at 3:44 pm 42.Anannymust said …

    …….Not trying to affect your faith

    …you do your thing…

    …but mannn!!!!!!!

  43. on 25 Aug 2014 at 5:43 pm 43.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “If we give them the land what are they going to demand next”

    Um, Annany the Jews were also given that land after WWII legally. IT IS THEIRS. All they want is to keep what belongs to them……sort of like the US wants to keep Texas.

    You sound a little like an anti-Semite.

    Those in the middle always end up falling for everyrhing

  44. on 25 Aug 2014 at 8:06 pm 44.Anonymous said …

    The Jews are a bunch of fat, lazy, deceitful, greedy, thieving, bigoted, self-serving sorcerers.

    And those who fall under their spell are a bunch of Jack-asses.

  45. on 25 Aug 2014 at 10:13 pm 45.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    F&M a hateful bigot or better described antisemite. Are any of us surprised by atheist hate spurred by insecurity and low self-esteem? No, not at all.

    They are all formed in the mold of s Communist-Nazi worldview. It cannot be hid very long and is only paralleled by the hate of Muslims. Just two peas on a pod.

    I thought atheists did not believe in sorcery and spells?
    lol!!!!!!!!!!

  46. on 28 Aug 2014 at 11:54 am 46.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    This is a childish blog,

  47. on 28 Aug 2014 at 5:34 pm 47.Anonymous said …

    The fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom.

    That means foolish is the body that does not respect its head or brain.

    Your hand may belong to the same body as your brain but your brain can decide to push your hand into a pot of boiling water or fire and your hand would be powerless to stop it.

    God is the source, the prime mover, the origin, the creator, the head, the leader, the ruler, the beginning, the oversight, the decider of destiny.

    That is all.

    It doesn’t matter if you call him Allah, God, Jesus, Rah, Putah, Brhama etc.

    There was a beginning of the creation of God it is your guess as well as mine who that was exactly but we know how to condition our hearts so that in the evil day and in the day of judgement we will not be found wanting.

    I find jesus life to be excellent preparation for this does not mean that I care if jesus is actually god. It means if you let jesus into your life God becomes favour towards you rather than a combination.

    There was no greater open example of Agape love given in the scriptures.

  48. on 28 Aug 2014 at 5:34 pm 48.Anonymous said …

    It means if you let jesus into your life God becomes favour towards you rather than a condemnation sorry.

  49. on 28 Aug 2014 at 5:46 pm 49.Anonymous said …

    I don’t believe that God necessarily wants to make him self known to man nor do I believe that the scriptures available to man are scriptures that will point to him directly or that he would have wanted this.

    What I know is that there was once one.

    One person.

    Then there became One person and One thing then One Person and some things.

    Then there became One person, some things and another person and by this the creation of God began and continued.

    The Universe we see has undoubtely been created not accidentally made.

    Yet it is possible that you can have an awesome accident if the source of that accident is a totally rich sourse.

    Think the vial of the chief wizard falls breaks on the ground and because it was full of spells it creates an intelligent alien race.

    An accident but a superior being and a lucrative prime movement

    I don’t need to know that the creator was jesus, allah, yaweh, bramah

    It probably wasn’t any of them…

    …but Jesus said I have not spoken to you except in a parable.

    The unintelligent make no use of parables

    The fool makes no use of salvation

  50. on 28 Aug 2014 at 5:54 pm 50.Anonymous said …

    I am also quite comfortable with the idea of infinite regress as well.

    The bible teaches that Our High Priest goings forth were from everlasting.

    Yet the infinite regress does not seek to find the original thing.

    But teaches that God is best know through understanding the spirit of origination or through the spirit of eternal giving.

  51. on 28 Aug 2014 at 6:48 pm 51.alex said …

    “It doesn’t matter if you call him Allah, God, Jesus, Rah, Putah, Brhama etc.”

    then it doesn’t matter if you call him “Ambi”, the ambivalent god that acts like he doesn’t exist, yes?

  52. on 28 Aug 2014 at 7:06 pm 52.Anonymous said …

    God is interested in the heart. Have you ever heard of the Master that left a servant who was getting married soon $1,000,000 to build a house in the best quality and design that he could.

    The servant took the opportunity to construct the house in a very cheap way and pocketed the rest of the million pounds.

    Later the master congratulated the servant on his return and take the keys young man the house is yours.

    The young man was immediately sorrow full because he had botched the job which turned out to be his wedding gift.

    Each of us needs to search and to make sure that we are doing a good job with the talents that the creator places in us.

    We are not serving god for his sake god doesn’t need us.

    We were given our lives as a mercy and salvation benifits us more than it benefits god.

    God knows if you are serious or making a mockery etc.

  53. on 28 Aug 2014 at 7:14 pm 53.alex said …

    52.Anonymous said …

    blathering testimonial, pontificating. is that all you got?

    Ambi doesn’t give a fuck about you. now go lead a good life and shut the fuck up.

  54. on 28 Aug 2014 at 7:19 pm 54.Anonymous said …

    No some one made us. we may not know what he thinks of us but we know that our lives are in his hands.

    No one is good who does not offer the sacrifice of praise worship and devotion to their creator in the best way they can.

  55. on 28 Aug 2014 at 7:28 pm 55.alex said …

    “No some one made us.”

    fine. “Ambi” made us. This bullshit claim is just as valid as yours.

    “No one is good who does not offer the sacrifice of praise worship and devotion to their creator in the best way they can.”

    bullsheeyat.

  56. on 29 Aug 2014 at 6:49 am 56.Anonymous said …

    It is not the name that is important. I once had a vision of God’s name and it was not a 5 or 7 letter word.

    It was a word that had trillions of characters attached to it and it seemed as though it was a running name like another letter was attached every second.

    That is what I call a name.

    But the main thing is the condition of our hearts and I think Jesus’ ‘Agape Love Training School’ is best for that.

    Get your sins covered.

    As the great universe will uplift you if you are covered. But the great universe and the great god will be nothing but a condemnation for you if you are not covered.

    This is not religion this is common sense is there anything in the world that says that dangers and possibly eternal dangers don’t exist?

    Get Covered Mann!!!

  57. on 29 Aug 2014 at 11:24 am 57.alex said …

    “Get your sins covered.”

    in other words. a free pass. look we all try to do good, but i don’t need no theist card to redeem my bads, so go fuck yourself.

    “This is not religion this is common sense is there anything in the world that says that dangers and possibly eternal dangers don’t exist?”

    you’re a dumb motherfucker. you say common sense and then you follow it up with the nonsensical eternal danger? life isn’t enough for your ass? you have to have eternal? this is the source of all your bullshit. with the promise of eternal life, you make up all kinds of bullshit.

    you said you don’t need a name, but of course, this doesn’t stop your ass from blathering the jesus shit. you think you’re shit is original? read the motherfucking blog, you dumbass.

  58. on 29 Aug 2014 at 2:43 pm 58.Anonymous said …

    You have lost when you try to bad mouth me this is not about me.

    I am pushing on to where I need to be. Life is a mystery we all stand alone.

    You stand alone.

    If you were born once who is to say you can’t be born twice.

    If you live for 80 yrs in one life time there is nothing ruling out living for ever its not that hard really.

    Shame on us if we deny the age old wisdom and mess it up mess up our own destiny.

    Who cares about the fellow that doesn’t care I am seeking coverage I am heading on to where I need to be.

    It really isn’t funny it isn’t a joke it is as serious as eternal damnation really:(

  59. on 30 Aug 2014 at 6:45 am 59.Anonymous said …

    It is not surprising that some of my ideas are not new. I have visited this sight before but I always forget my previous names not sock-puppetting though.

    I guess I bow to ambi but in the name of Jesus.

    Yet God in the Bible is pretty secret to those who don’t know him.

    Romans 11:33

    O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God? How unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out?
    FOR WHO HATH KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD? OR WHO HATH BEEN HIS COUNSELLOR.

    Psalms 145:3 Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised; and his greatnesss is unsearchable.

    2Thessalonians 1 11-13 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, bretheren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth?

  60. on 30 Aug 2014 at 1:07 pm 60.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    Alex:

    But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

    Jesus iiisssssss the final settlement.

    Who are you? Are you God to tell us who we should worship?

    What chance do we have of making it with Ambi better than we have with Jesus?

    What chance do we have of making it with any God rather than with Jesus?

    If we are throwing our lives away following Jesus???????

    Then Let Us….

    On the penalty of sounding negative>>>

    For though there may be something else there is nothing more convicting nor is there anything better //(*_*)\\

  61. on 31 Aug 2014 at 2:19 pm 61.alex said …

    “What chance do we have of making it with Ambi better than we have with Jesus?”

    that’s why you’re a dumbfuck. didn’t you see where i said ambi acts like a nonexistant god? he doesn’t give two shits about you.

    but it all boils down to your fucked up testimonials doesn’t it? you xtian morons think you have this god given right to paste your shit everywhere? for every bible righteous shit you quote, i can post some fucked up shit right out of your book. hows about deuteronomy 25:11-12? if your wife saves your motherfucking ass by grabbing your attacker’s nuts, you must cut off her hands.

    you like that shit?

  62. on 01 Sep 2014 at 12:10 pm 62.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    Alex what a person doesn’t don’t know can kill them.

    Alex what YOU don’t know is making YOU look stupid.

  63. on 01 Sep 2014 at 11:01 pm 63.alex said …

    “Alex what a person doesn’t don’t know can kill them.”

    i don’t know how the stonehenge rocks got there. is it going to kill me? i don’t know the thousands of gods that motherfuckers like you stupidly worship. are all those gods going to kill me? did the saxon god put those rocks there?

    how are these things making me look stoopid? is it because you say so? what exactly do you bring to the table? another helping of the bullshit?

    you want me to publish your own personal bullshit collection? just like your heroes: messenger, tj, and hor? keep posting, bitch ass, motherfucker.

    i suspect you’re the dumbass messenger. this looks and smells like something the bitch would write: “doesn’t don’t know”.

  64. on 02 Sep 2014 at 1:00 am 64.TJ said …

    Alex said…

    “i can post some fucked up shit right out of your book. hows about deuteronomy 25:11-12? if your wife saves your motherfucking ass by grabbing your attacker’s nuts, you must cut off her hands.”

    Do you view deuteronomy 25:11-12 in a modern day context?

    Or in the context of which it is written?

    And yes it does matter. Context provides meaning and understanding of who things are written for and why.

  65. on 02 Sep 2014 at 1:14 am 65.alex said …

    “Context provides meaning and understanding of who things are written for and why.”

    in other words, motherfuckers like you, messenger and the rest, get to make up shit on how the fucked up bible is supposed to be interpreted?

    explains why you fuckers can’t agree whether the earth is supposed to be 10,000 years old, ain’t it?

    any xtians you know buying messenger’s rape shit?

    you ain’t got shit so go ahead with your self righteousness and post your testimonials like it means anything. sorto like muslims posting their nonsense ain’t it?

  66. on 04 Sep 2014 at 11:00 pm 66.TJ said …

    So Alex,

    You think this is bullshit?

    “Context provides meaning and understanding of who things are written for and why.”

    And explains…

    “explains why you fuckers can’t agree whether the earth is supposed to be 10,000 years old, ain’t it?”

    C’mon, really? You believe this? This is logic to you?

  67. on 04 Sep 2014 at 11:04 pm 67.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    If I asked you in what context would the US constitution hold any meaning for a Chinese peasant, how would your logic deal with that?

  68. on 05 Sep 2014 at 10:58 am 68.alex said …

    “If I asked you in what context…”

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. your homie posted some bible shit and when i posted from the same source, you tried to make up silly ass predictable context bullshit. chinese diversion dismissed, you asshole.

    go ahead the, you dumbass. context the fucking deuteronomy 25:11-12 and then explain why your translation is better than anybody else. maybe, you’re a messenger wannabe self appointed xtian spokesman?

    dumbass.

  69. on 05 Sep 2014 at 11:00 am 69.alex said …

    btw, that’s “joan rivers dead”. not joan rivers passed away or joan rivers is in a better place. unless of course you got some shit you wanna present?

  70. on 05 Sep 2014 at 11:51 am 70.alex said …

    “Context provides meaning and understanding of who things are written for and why.”

    you want further proof that bible context is bullsheet?

    “Lakewood Church co-pastor Victoria Osteen received backlash from the Christian community…”

    contextual bullshit is xtian double talk. period. dumbass motherfucker.

  71. on 05 Sep 2014 at 1:19 pm 71.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Yeah TJ don’t you know reading in context is just BS?

    lol!!!!!!

    Oh Alexander I love you buddy. You bring a smile whenever I take the time to read your comic strip.

  72. on 05 Sep 2014 at 1:45 pm 72.alex said …

    “Yeah TJ don’t you know reading in context is just bs”

    ironic ain’t it? i’m talking about translating the bible passage in some bullshit made up contexts and you run with it and blatantly lie and say that i’m saying that all “reading in context” is bs.

    of course, given your history, lying is your modus operandi. see: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    still smiling? run away bitch.

  73. on 05 Sep 2014 at 9:30 pm 73.DPK said …

    Hey TJ… no one is claiming things should not be taken in context, so here is your chance… explain to us in exactly what “context” the almighty and all merciful creator of the universe would command this:

    “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.” (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

    “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.” (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

    “However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.” (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

    Of course, I could go on and on and on and on… but you get the point. So show us the context in which slavery is ok. When you’re done making excuses for your god’s obvious love of slavery, we can tackle other things,like capital punishment for trivial offenses…
    “Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.” (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

    As Ricky Ricardo used to say, “You got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do……….”

  74. on 05 Sep 2014 at 9:34 pm 74.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “ironic ain’t it?”

    No, not at all. Irony is just another word you fail to recognize the meaning of, Alexander!

    lol!!!!

    I luv ya alexander. So cute.

  75. on 05 Sep 2014 at 11:47 pm 75.alex said …

    “Irony is just another word you fail to recognize the meaning of…”

    ok. i don’t know anything. you happy? guess what, ya bitch motherfucker. your forgetful, omnipotent, all knowing god is and always will be a contradictory bullshit. yes?

    oh look, the camaro, the dna programmer, the ape, the ocean, the TOE….http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  76. on 06 Sep 2014 at 11:38 am 76.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “ok. i don’t know anything. you happy?”

    Well, yes, quite happy, but that is not dependent on your self-deprivation Alexander. You are attempting a connection that just does not exist. ????

    But since you don’t know anything, we can disregard all past, present and future comments as the babblings of one who knows nothing?

    lol!!!!

  77. on 06 Sep 2014 at 12:34 pm 77.alex said …

    “But since you don’t know anything, we can disregard all past, present and future comments as the babblings of one who knows nothing?”

    sure thing, but i’ll do better. poof!, i’m hereby disregarded and even better, poof!, all atheists non-xtians are gone!

    guess what, ya bitch motherfucker? your xtian god is still bullshit and this cannot be disregarded. and all the whiny, stupid, bitch ass comments you’ve uttered cannot be disregarded.

    remember your “China is selling fetuses as a delicacy”?

    you posted as martin and then wrote “Martin,
    Good one!”

    and all the other bullshits you posted as science guy, biff, xenon, little ‘A’, Sweetness, boz, RL Wooten, ‘Everyone’…….can’t be disregarded.

    and no matter how much you pray to your bullshit god, you just can’t disregard your pile of shit: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    lol, indeed, ya bitch, motherfucker.

  78. on 06 Sep 2014 at 5:59 pm 78.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “sure thing”

    Great we agree! Your comments are disregarded. I can give you a link if you don’t know the meaning….:)

    I still love ya alexander! You are what every little boy hopes and dreams they can become. :)

    See ya buddy!

  79. on 06 Sep 2014 at 9:42 pm 79.alex said …

    “Your comments are disregarded.”

    how do you get others like tj, to disregard the bible bullshit? 10,000 year old earth, anyone? back to your wife grabbing your attacker’s nuts while defending your ass. do you cut off her hands, per deuteronomy 25:11-12? or do you just disregard that too? do you disregard messenger’s biblical interpretation that you don’t have to believe in god to go to heaven? do you believe messenger’s biblical interpretation about rapists marrying their victims? how do you disregard isis beheadings? snap your fingers? dumbass, motherfucker.

    disregard all you want, bitch motherfucker. your god bullshit smells and you can’t do anything about it. i told you before, you can get rid of all the atheists, but your god is still bullshit.

    “You are what every little boy hopes and dreams they can become.”

    sticks and stones, bitch motherfucker. you on the other hand, is the admitted, convicted, lying piece of shit that has been outted many times, posting as different assholes. the question is, what will you become next? in case you’ve forgotten who you are, here’s a reminder: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    did i say you’re a bitch motherfucker?

  80. on 08 Sep 2014 at 12:06 am 80.TJ said …

    If god is bullshit Alex, how do you explain where we come from, our origins?

    This is the original question I asked you. You claim I distract you… from what?

    How come you won’t answer?

    Are you afraid we will make fun of you?

  81. on 08 Sep 2014 at 1:01 am 81.TJ said …

    DPK said…

    “Hey TJ… no one is claiming things should not be taken in context, so here is your chance… explain to us in exactly what “context” the almighty and all merciful creator of the universe would command this:”

    Well for a start I don’t start from a point of view that God is imaginary. Nor do I trivially dismiss the claims of the bible or any other ancient text. I do not consider from a point of view that limits an omnipotent God from creating a situation were free will exists.

    I look at what we think we know about ancient BC civilisations. I realise how today many western cultures rules and laws are base on concepts like…

    - treat others as you would want to be treated
    - love thy neighbour
    - all men are equal
    ie. Christen values

    I look at how western cultures and non western cultures are often at odds with each other and how they contrast against one another. Arabic society vs American displays great contrast.

    I read through the bible with an expectation that it is to be interpreted literally… as any other ancient text regarded as scripture. Surly the writers believed what they wrote and expected their readers to as well.

    Do we say that ancient Hindu scripture, the Bible, Koran, Eastern, Egyptian, Greece, Aztec, Mayan or any other ancient writings were not believed by those cultures that wrote them?

    I do not say all ancient writings are true. Simply that those who wrote them believed them to be. As much as our current science books are believed to be accurate.

    In the Bible quotes you mention and even those that we don’t have room to list, because as you say there are many. If we put them up against our western cultural system for comparison, they seem quite bizarre.

    Today we value individualism and have many laws to protect the rights of individuals.

    If we look at what we believe to have been going on in the world prior to BC. We see nations enslaving each other, worship of many strange Gods, human sacrifice, prostitution based temple practices, sorcery, witchcraft, ancestor worship, seers and all sorts of other strange belief systems.

    Having come from this background and having been a people in bondage and as strangers in a strange land is it no wonder that God would need to separate his people from the world and re-educate them.

    God gives instruction on marital conduct, finance, battlefield hygiene, treatment of servants including those taking into bondage and almost every other aspect of life.

    If these God given instructions are compared to the practices of the nations that surrounded them, how would they compare.

    Remember that God claims to have chosen the Israelites not because they were the best or strongest, but because they were the among the most wretched. God claims to have chosen them to be his instrument of destruction against those nations he had judged to be blotted from existence for their sins.

    His instructions are part of his plan to clear a path for the messiah by raising the Israelite nation into a great and powerful nation.

    Alex points to deuteronomy 25:11-12.

    And yes it means what it says, that there is no just reason for a woman to destroy the reproductive ability of an Israelite male.

    God has a zero tolerance policy in regard to this. Consider that one of the few instructions given to Adam and Eve was to be “fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth”.

    Again when Noah steps off the ark he is again instructed to be “fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth”

    Gods will is that the Israelites become a great and powerful nation greatly multiplied in number and morals as representative of his glory. His instructions reflect this.

    The Bible also makes it clear that the Israelites struggle with the expectations of these instructions and consistently fall short.

  82. on 08 Sep 2014 at 11:51 am 82.alex said …

    “how do you explain where we come from, our origins?”

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. i already said many times, ya bitch motherfucker. i don’t know. you seem to know, so why don’t you prove it? how is your claim any better than the aborigines, the navajos, the muslims and the hindus?

  83. on 08 Sep 2014 at 2:46 pm 83.DPK said …

    “Well for a start I don’t start from a point of view that God is imaginary.”
    Neither do you start from the point of view of being open to the possibility either. Everything is colored for you by what you want to believe. But, you are unable to offer any actual evidence to suggest your god is actually real. But let’s assume, for the discussion, that he is.

    Nor do I trivially dismiss the claims of the bible or any other ancient text.”

    Neither do I. That is why the writings contained within them must be considered from the perspective of coming directly from the mind of an infinitely intelligent, eternal, perfect being.

    “I do not consider from a point of view that limits an omnipotent God from creating a situation were free will exists.”

    This is another topic, but let’s deal with it… again. This notion has been clearly and definitely shown, over and over again, to be impossible. You have not even attempted to explain how a god can be both omnipotent and omniscient, which is impossible, and how you can possibly reconcile that with the notion of free will. You refuse to answer the question posed, “If an omniscient god knows that tomorrow I will do X, is there any scenario that exists where I will not do X?”
    Your refusal to answer is very telling.
    Is “A” is the set of all possible events, and “B” is the subset of things a perfect omniscient god knows will occur, or have occurred, then “A – B” is the set of things that CANNOT occur. Since there exists a set of things that cannot occur, how can you say this god in omnipotent? There exists an entire set of things he cannot do without violating his own omniscience.

    “I read through the bible with an expectation that it is to be interpreted literally… as any other ancient text regarded as scripture. Surly the writers believed what they wrote and expected their readers to as well.”

    Then you must conclude that the will of god was for people to own other humans as property, sell their children as sex slaves, etc… it is pretty clearly outlined in the bible, no?

    “If these God given instructions are compared to the practices of the nations that surrounded them, how would they compare.”

    Why should it matter? If they are god given, they are perfect and according to the will of god. Are you saying that the often touted, but never produced “absolute code of morality” handed down to us from the infinitely loving and intelligent creator of the cosmos “depends” on where you live and what other people do? In other words, there is nothing “absolute” about it at all?

    “I do not say all ancient writings are true. Simply that those who wrote them believed them to be.”

    Make up your mind. Is the bible the word of god, or not? You seem to indicate it is, then seem to say perhaps it isn’t. How do we know which parts are true, and which parts are just the writings of ancient sheepherders?

    “If we put them up against our western cultural system for comparison, they seem quite bizarre.”

    If you look at them as historical documents reflecting the culture of the time, they do not seem bizarre, simply barbaric, ignorant, and primitive. If you look at them as the instructions of a perfect omniscient being, then yes, you are right, bizarre doesn’t even begin to describe it.

    “His instructions are part of his plan to clear a path for the messiah by raising the Israelite nation into a great and powerful nation…”

    Why would he need to endorse slavery, animal and human sacrifice, genocide, and all the other countless moral atrocities to do that? And how did that plan work out??

    “Gods will is that the Israelites become a great and powerful nation greatly multiplied in number and morals as representative of his glory. His instructions reflect this.”

    The fact that you can reconcile that in your mind is a true testament to how powerful your delusion affects your ability to reason clearly.

  84. on 08 Sep 2014 at 7:55 pm 84.DPK said …

    “80.TJ said …
    If god is bullshit Alex, how do you explain where we come from, our origins?”

    Not Alex, but this has been asked and answered many times.
    We don’t know… AND NEITHER DO YOU. Stop pretending like you know, or like any gap in human knowledge automatically defaults to “god did it.” It doesn’t.

    If you are gong to claim to know how life originated, you need to provide evidence to support your claim. Otherwise you are simply pretending you have knowledge you do not have. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly, but you still flog the dead horse.

  85. on 08 Sep 2014 at 11:04 pm 85.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Lets look at Dippitys claims for grins and giggles shall we?

    “Neither do you start from the point of view of being open to the possibility either.”

    Atheist here are not here to learn. Case closed. Pot meet kettle…lol!!!

    “You have not even attempted to explain how a god can be both omnipotent and omniscient”

    Quite simple really, a deity who can create a universe is certainly not limited as a human…lol!!!!
    You have free will and the deity knows your choice. Since the deity is the only one who knows future events, this is mo problem….:)

    “Then you must conclude that the will of god was for people to own other humans as property”

    what??? Lol!!!!!!! Another blunder from the Atheist school of theology. They cannot think past 20th century cultural context….lol!!!!

    “If they are god given, they are perfect and according to the will of god”

    Anyone know if Dippity realizes humans are not perfect? They cannot keep even human laws? Lol!!!!

    “If you look at them as historical documents reflecting the culture of the time, they do not seem bizarre, simply barbaric, ignorant, and primitive”

    Is Dippity referring to legalized abortion in our modern cuture or is he judging others???? Nothing better than an atheist, who admits to no moral absolutes, passing judgment on God!!

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I’ll just stop there! That’s is just too good!

  86. on 09 Sep 2014 at 2:32 am 86.alex said …

    “Quite simple really, a deity who can create a universe is certainly not limited as a human..”

    that’s why you’re a dumbass, motherfucker. you attached these mutually exclusive attributes to your god and when called out on it, you desperately blurt out that the same god is not limited to such. sound like a circle god with four corners?

    “You have free will and the deity knows your choice.”.

    this shit is unbelievable. your god knows you’re going to die and you pray? your god knows you’re going to hell and you’re still fucking with this blog? how’s that a choice, you dumb, motherfucker?

    did i say you’re a dumb motherfucker? you constantly whine about atheists wrongly interpreting the bible, but you sure have no problem with the dipshit messenger with his interpretations, do ya, you dumb motherfucker? and the other dipshit, tj, with with 10,000 year old earth, you don’t have a problem with that either, don’t ya?

    need more proof? see martin, hor, et all at: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  87. on 09 Sep 2014 at 2:47 am 87.alex said …

    for those that missed it. courtesy of the king dipshit, motherfucker hor, aka, martin, rl, etc.

    “You have free will and the deity knows your choice.”

  88. on 09 Sep 2014 at 11:08 am 88.freddies_dead said …

    85.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Lets look at Dippitys claims for grins and giggles shall we?

    Oh, this should be fun…

    “Neither do you start from the point of view of being open to the possibility either.”

    Atheist here are not here to learn.

    I note the lying prick offers no evidence for this baseless assertion. Despite repeated attempts from the atheists on this blog the theists still fail to bring any education to the table. For e.g. where is A’s argument demonstrating the existence of his God? All we’ve had is some half arsed claim of intelligent design followed by his inability to show how he can even discern design in the first place. How can we distinguish his God from something he may merely be imagining? He never lets on.

    Case closed. Pot meet kettle…lol!!!

    Translation: I have no way of proving my claim so I’ll attempt to end the conversation right here. Perhaps no-one will notice the complete lack of supporting content.

    “You have not even attempted to explain how a god can be both omnipotent and omniscient”

    Quite simple really, a deity who can create a universe is certainly not limited as a human…lol!!!!

    Of course A fails to show how his deity can overcome the inbuilt limitations provided by the competing attributes given to his God. Obviously the cognitive dissonance caused by thinking about it leads him to not think about it all.

    You have free will and the deity knows your choice. Since the deity is the only one who knows future events, this is mo problem….:)

    This is breathtakingly stupid, but it’s what we’ve come to expect from the lying prick. He consistently avoids answering the question: “If an omniscient god knows that tomorrow I will do X, is there any scenario that exists where I will not do X?” and simply re-asserts that his deity is omniscient and we have free will. If it truly was possible he’d answer that question instead of desperately dodging it.

    “Then you must conclude that the will of god was for people to own other humans as property”

    what??? Lol!!!!!!! Another blunder from the Atheist school of theology.

    Does the lying prick deny that the Bible offers instructions for owning slaves? Or has he simply failed to read his Bible? Maybe he has decided, like messy, that certain words mean only what he wants them to mean, so when the Bible talks of slaves it’s really describing something else?

    They cannot think past 20th century cultural context….lol!!!!

    So morality is dependent on cultural context now? What the Bible actually says, i.e. that you can own other humans, isn’t important? So much for the theistic claim of absolute morality.

    “If they are god given, they are perfect and according to the will of god”

    Anyone know if Dippity realizes humans are not perfect? They cannot keep even human laws? Lol!!!!

    A neglects to mention how the fallibility of humans excuses his God from condoning the immoral activity of owning other humans. If only we humans could have failed to keep that divine law a bit more, maybe so many millions wouldn’t have suffered under the yoke of slavery.

    “If you look at them as historical documents reflecting the culture of the time, they do not seem bizarre, simply barbaric, ignorant, and primitive”

    Is Dippity referring to legalized abortion in our modern cuture or is he judging others????

    I’m sure the lying prick knows very well that DPK was referring to the barbaric, ignorant and primitive morality espoused by the Bible. The condoning of slavery, genocide and the subjugation of women to the extent that they are even forced to marry their rapists or stoned to death for not shouting loudly enough when being raped.

    Nothing better than an atheist, who admits to no moral absolutes, passing judgment on God!!

    The hypocrisy here is brilliant. Earlier A chides DPK for ignoring “cultural context” when judging that the Bible’s view that slavery was perfectly OK is wrong. Now he attempts to chide A for his alleged failure to adhere to moral absolutes. Is it absolutely moral for someone to own someone else? Or does “cultural context” mean it was OK once but it’s not OK any more? Once again the lying prick resorts to Humpty Dumptyism in order to have moral absolutes that aren’t actually absolute never mind moral.

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I’ll just stop there! That’s is just too good!

    Oh please don’t, I’m loving watching the lying prick contradict himself at every turn.

  89. on 09 Sep 2014 at 4:05 pm 89.DPK said …

    “Atheist here are not here to learn. Case closed. Pot meet kettle…lol!!!”

    Nothing like making a broad generalization to make your point look ridiculous. TJ has said on several occasions that he will not consider any possibility that god is imaginary. I, on the other hand, and many others here, have repeatedly said we will believe if you give us evidence that your claims are true. So, once again, that make you a liar. No surprise there. Next.

    “Quite simple really, a deity who can create a universe is certainly not limited as a human…lol!!!!”

    So, you answer the the problem that if a god knows what will occur with certainty, then it cannot “not occur”, and the problem of god being unable to change anything he already knows will happen is “because he’s god.” 2nd grade logic. “My dad can do anything.” Not to worry, we expect no less. LOL!!!!!

    “Then you must conclude that the will of god was for people to own other humans as property”
    what??? Lol!!!!!!! Another blunder from the Atheist school of theology. They cannot think past 20th century cultural context….lol!!!!”

    So, are you going to explain how god’s instructions on how to enslave people, subjugate women, and all the rest is actually NOT his will because of the context in which it was given? No, didn’t think so. Glib comments do not make for much of an argument. LOL… perhaps TJ will give it a try though. He has to do better than you LOL!!!!

    “If you look at them as historical documents reflecting the culture of the time, they do not seem bizarre, simply barbaric, ignorant, and primitive”
    Is Dippity referring to legalized abortion in our modern cuture…”

    Actually, no he wasn’t.. but your attempt at throwing a rd herring into the net is duly noted and ridiculed. If you can’t actually respond to the argument, change the subject. LOL…. Hor, you are just so predictable and pathetic. … and oh yeah, once again LOL!!!!

    How about it TJ? A the prick has not only failed miserably to address the problems, but has made your position look even more ridiculous by asserting lies, straw men and red herrings, coupled with the circular logic of “god can do anything because god can do anything…” Care to take a crack at it?

  90. on 10 Sep 2014 at 12:17 am 90.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Dippity Dew!!

    OK, Lets break this down.

    “I, on the other hand, and many others here, have repeatedly said we will believe”

    Yeah? Obama claims he would cut our deficit in half as well….lol!!!! Words mean nothing Dippity. evidence is everywhere and abundant and your refusal to accept means you remain ignorant.

    I, on the other hand stated I would convert when given some good reasons. Still waiting…….

    “god being unable to change anything he already knows will happen is “because he’s god.”

    LOL!!! How did that come from God is not human and not limited as a human? So God knowing the future but giving man free will is more problematic for you than creating this universe? huh? lol!!!!!

    “explain how god’s instructions on how to enslave people, subjugate women, and all the rest is actually NOT his will”

    Couple of things to help you become educated. How do you define a slave? Second, where did God claim it is his will? Third, and most important…..assume God wants us all to be slaves…….tell us why it is wrong and make his existence unlikely……Good Luck! lol!!!!!!

    “Actually, no he wasn’t.. but your attempt at throwing a rd herring into the net”

    Dippity likes to use Red Herring in order not to be confronted with his hypocrisy. Dippity judges God but refuses to give us his guidelines for judging God. You know, God wants to enslave all humans…..

    Let see if he comes through with his criteria. This will be good!!

    Popcorn popping……..

  91. on 10 Sep 2014 at 10:46 am 91.alex said …

    “Obama claims he would cut our deficit…”

    back to your pathetic diversionary, eh? even though obama is a xtian and messenger is obviously a dumbfuck, you just have to keep bring up the potus, ya?

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. your god knew all atheists are going to hell and yet you insist on fucking with this blog, ya righteous ass. your perfect god is not, you dumbass. your all knowing god is incapable of handing out free will, you dumbshit. your good god is bad, you dumb motherfucker. the same bible you assholes wave about is the proof of all this.

    “I, on the other hand stated I would convert when given some good reasons.”

    bullshit. even if zeus showed up and shoved a thunderbolt up your ass, it still won’t be a good reason, so what would be a reason for you to convert?

    dumbass, motherfucker. oh, look, your pile of shit grows: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  92. on 10 Sep 2014 at 11:26 am 92.freddies_dead said …

    90.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Dippity Dew!!

    OK, Lets break this down.

    Oh goody, the lying prick has decided to make himself look stupid again…

    “I, on the other hand, and many others here, have repeatedly said we will believe”

    Yeah? Obama claims he would cut our deficit in half as well….lol!!!!

    So he starts with a nice fat red herring … class.

    Words mean nothing Dippity.

    Oh, the irony…

    evidence is everywhere and abundant and your refusal to accept means you remain ignorant.

    To what evidence is A referring to here? Despite repeated requests he’s singularly failed to offer any way we can distinguish his God from what he may be imagining. I’ve shown that his intelligent design argument is self defeating and the rest is just baseless assertions he has refused to give any argument for.

    I, on the other hand stated I would convert when given some good reasons. Still waiting…….

    Because showing how his God is logically impossible isn’t a good enough reason. Obviously “good reasons” mean something else in the lying prick’s world.

    “god being unable to change anything he already knows will happen is “because he’s god.”

    LOL!!! How did that come from God is not human and not limited as a human?

    DPK’s original statement was “You have not even attempted to explain how a god can be both omnipotent and omniscient” to which A responded “Quite simple really, a deity who can create a universe is certainly not limited as a human…lol!!!!”. I have to say that DPK is slightly off here. A hasn’t claimed that his God is ‘unable to change anything he already knows will happen … “because he’s god”‘. No, it’s better than that. A the lying prick has simply waved the problem away, i.e. he’s implying that his God is able to change anything he already knows will happen … because he’s God. He’s pretending that the omniscient/omnipotent problem simply doesn’t exist. Of course he doesn’t offer any reason as to how this might be so.

    So God knowing the future but giving man free will is more problematic for you than creating this universe? huh? lol!!!!!

    On the contrary, the problem here is all A’s, but he has no way to show how free will can exist given an omniscient deity so he attempts mockery instead. Of course the joke is all on him.

    “explain how god’s instructions on how to enslave people, subjugate women, and all the rest is actually NOT his will”

    Couple of things to help you become educated. How do you define a slave?

    Humpty Dumpty makes another appearance… It’s especially stupid as DPK has already stated that he sees the owning of other people – as if they were property – as slavery.

    Second, where did God claim it is his will?

    So the Bible isn’t the word of God now? It wasn’t divinely inspired? So the instructions on slavery etc.. weren’t written by people under the direction of God? It’s great how the Bible both is and isn’t absolute depending on how the believer wishes to cherry pick it.

    Third, and most important…..assume God wants us all to be slaves…….

    Of course A doesn’t say why we should assume this. In fact he’s the one arguing that God grants us free will. If God wanted slaves why would He even do that? It makes no sense, but then very little A says makes any sense so it’s something we’ve come to expect.

    tell us why it is wrong and make his existence unlikely……Good Luck! lol!!!!!!

    Of course we don’t need to show why slavery is wrong in order to demonstrate that God’s existence is unlikely, simple logic already does that. We also don’t need any luck.

    However, we can easily show why slavery is wrong – indeed other people have already done the legwork on this.

    From the BBC page on ethics and slavery:
    Slavery increases total human unhappiness.
    The slave-owner treats the slaves as the means to achieve the slave-owner’s ends, not as an end in themselves.
    Slavery exploits and degrades human beings.
    Slavery violates human rights: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly forbids slavery and many of the practices associated with slavery.
    Slavery uses force or the threat of force on other human beings.
    Slavery leaves a legacy of discrimination and disadvantage.
    Slavery is both the result and the fuel of racism, in that many cultures show clear racism in their choice of people to enslave.
    Slavery is both the result and the fuel of gender discrimination.
    Slavery perpetuates the abuse of children.

    Now God is – at least according to the Bible – all good (omnibenevolent) as well as omnipotent. Why would an omnibenevolent God allow the existence of slavery? His alleged omnipotence means He could find a way to achieve His own glory without the suffering of countless millions of humans under slavery. Slavery is part of the problem of evil that makes a God – at least one alleged to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent as the Christian God is – highly unlikely.

    “Actually, no he wasn’t.. but your attempt at throwing a rd herring into the net”

    Dippity likes to use Red Herring in order not to be confronted with his hypocrisy.

    The hypocrisy of the lying prick accusing others of hypocrisy is delicious.

    Dippity judges God but refuses to give us his guidelines for judging God.

    Of course A has also judged his God – and found Him to be good – but doesn’t give us the guidelines for how he came to that conclusion. Pot calling the kettle black indeed.

    You know, God wants to enslave all humans…..

    Where has A gotten this idea from? It wasn’t part of anything DPK said, either explicitly or implied. It’s just another red herring A is using to avoid showing how we can distinguish his God from something he may just be imagining.

    Let see if he comes through with his criteria. This will be good!!

    I’ll leave DPK to provide his criteria but note that, unless A also supplies his criteria, then there will be no way to determine which is the better way to judge God’s actions.

    Popcorn popping……..

    Nope, that’s the sound of the bubble wrap surrounding the lying prick’s absurd worldview being popped by logic and reason. At some point it’ll offer no protection at all. Will A embrace the logic and reason or simply bring out more bubble wrap to try and make the cognitive dissonance go away? My money is on the latter.

  93. on 11 Sep 2014 at 4:04 pm 93.DPK said …

    Yeah? Obama claims he would cut our deficit in half as well….lol!!!!

    Obama again huh? LOL… forget to take your ADD meds again, Hor.

    Words mean nothing Dippity. evidence is everywhere and abundant and your refusal to accept means you remain ignorant.

    You keep claiming this, yet you fail to provide any other than “you can’t explain ______ therefore god exists by default.

    I, on the other hand stated I would convert when given some good reasons. Still waiting…….

    Well, the comment was directed at TJ who specifically stated he would NOT consider any position or argument that involved his god being imaginary. I suspect you actually are of the same mindset, although you have stated you could be convinced. TJ has stated his mind is closed, and nothing will change it, so my point is valid.

    “god being unable to change anything he already knows will happen is “because he’s god.”
    LOL!!! How did that come from God is not human and not limited as a human?

    Well, god being “not human and not limited” is certainly equivalent to being god, no? So how is that conclusion wrong. You’re saying that your answer to the problem is not “because he is god, but rather “because he is not human.” What’s the distinction? You still fail to explain…

    So God knowing the future but giving man free will is more problematic for you than creating this universe? huh? lol!!!!!

    “More” problematic? It’s not problematic , it is not possible. It is a contradiction in terms. If it is “known” what will occur, it cannot be changed… if it can be changed, it cannot be known. Period.

    “explain how god’s instructions on how to enslave people, subjugate women, and all the rest is actually NOT his will”
    Couple of things to help you become educated. How do you define a slave?

    A slave is a human who is owned by another person as property… LOL How do YOU define a slave??

    Second, where did God claim it is his will?

    Well, since you claim the bible is the word of god, and in it god give specific instruction on the acquiring, buying and selling, and treatment of slaves, how could you conclude anything else? Your squirming is getting uncomfortable.

    Third, and most important…..assume God wants us all to be slaves…….tell us why it is wrong and make his existence unlikely……Good Luck! lol!!!!!!

    Who said god wants us ALL to be slaves? Clearly, god wants only some of us to be enslaved and others of us to be slave owners. Why is this wrong? LOL.. you have no idea? LOL

    So, A the prick seems to have admitted that god actually has no problem with slavery, but his excuse seems to be that if god is ok with slavery, then who are we to judge him, and on what basis?

    Ok… can’t argue with that…. if god is indeed real, then we should all be owning slaves and beating them strictly according to gods instructions. We should also be killing homosexuals, and people that work on the Sabbath, and forcing women to marry their rapists and killing them if they are not virgins on their wedding day. Who are we to judge this divine instructions to be immoral, and by what authority. Indeed, if one is to conclude that these kinds of acts are in fact, immoral and wrong, then one must conclude that the god of the bible is either immoral, or perhaps, completely imaginary… just like all the other gods now residing on the dungheap of imaginary gods and mythical beings.
    And certainly, any rational person can see why we need to make sure that lunatics that think that way are kept at bay.

  94. on 11 Sep 2014 at 7:26 pm 94.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Dippity Dew!!!

    “Obama again huh?”

    Lol!!!! Funny how 3 of you latched on to the one line failing to see the actual point…..Talk is Cheap! lol!!!! You guys had a lot of fun when Bush was in office, what happened? No sense of humor left? Your offense and disappointment in the Great Hype is duly noted! lol!!!!

    “he would NOT consider any position or argument that involved his god being imaginary.”

    I’m sure he would as well, but you guys offer nothing. Even now your outrage at God’s actions provide no evidence of his non-existence. Get cracking babe! lol!!!

    ““not human and not limited” is certainly equivalent to being god, no?”

    Yeeesssss, which is why the laws which man must adhere to is not laws God must adhere to. For instance, GRAVITY! It is the reason we call the diety GOD……lol!!!

    “acquiring, buying and selling, and treatment of slaves, how could you conclude anything else?”

    Other than you cultural misunderstanding of slaves in the Hebrew culture, God also made a provision for divorce in the Mosiac law, he did not condone divorce but due to the “Hardness of the Hebrews hearts” he provided guidelines to protect the woman.
    There ya go…….provision without condoning.

    And I have not forgotten the most important question you again dodge Dippity.

    Why is slavery wrong? How can you judge God on this issue unless you have a moral basis for doing so. Until then, we can not entertain any objections. You claimed there are NO moral absolutes…..so why is it wrong Dip?

    To the audience: Watch as dippity and the rest AGAIN fail to answer this most important question. Until they can provide their ethical paradigm for the judgment, their words are meaningless.

  95. on 12 Sep 2014 at 12:17 am 95.alex said …

    “Why is slavery wrong? How can you judge God on this issue unless you have a moral basis for doing so.”

    this is why you’re a dumbass motherfucker. reasonable folk know slavery is wrong and you don’t need no damn divine guidance. you don’t see slavery today because it’s wrong, period, you dumbass.

    you don’t stone sunday workers because it’s wrong, you dumb motherfucker.

    despite messenger’s fantasies, you don’t allow rapists to marry their victim because it’s wrong.

    “You claimed there are NO moral absolutes…..so why is it wrong…”

    another m.o. of yours, eh? the wild goose chase? are you going to ask if it’s wrong to cut off your wife’s hands when she grabs your attacker’s testicles?

    would you ask why it’s wrong to kill people that curse their parents? why is it wrong to silence women in church? and on and on…

    did i mention that you’re a dumbass, motherfucker?

    here’s your magical shitpile http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  96. on 12 Sep 2014 at 12:28 am 96.TJ said …

    “Well, the comment was directed at TJ who specifically stated he would NOT consider any position or argument that involved his god being imaginary. I suspect you actually are of the same mindset, although you have stated you could be convinced. TJ has stated his mind is closed, and nothing will change it, so my point is valid.”

    You guys been busy since I was on last.

    Yes I am bias and closed minded in my belief.

    However I do consider and analyse the alternatives. Alex calls me a dumb-ass mother-fucker nearly everytime I do.

    When confronted with…

    “You have not even attempted to explain how a god can be both omnipotent and omniscient, which is impossible, and how you can possibly reconcile that with the notion of free will.”

    I clearly showed that the commonly held definition of omniscient is inconsistent with the actual meaning. Omniscient means a full knowledge of laws that govern natural phenomenon. Not a knowledge of the future.

    The God of the Bible, the one I read about… not imagined by me, but recorded about long before any of us where born. This is how you know it is not a God I simply imagined and can be easily checked by reading the bible for yourself.

    This well documented God, claims to have perfect knowledge of all things knowable. The word “omniscient” used to describe an “omniscient God” in it’s original meaning defines this. And NOT a God that knows the future as you guys claim.

    We discussed “is the future knowable”, I was in agreement that intention is not the same as knowledge. I also agree that if God declarers his intention, has the knowledge, authority and power to ensure it, and it comes to pass. than it could be considered the same as knowing. Intention and knowing, I believe both concepts can co-exist. But I remain in the “I don’t know for sure” as far as “is the future knowable”.

    Further more, you guys claim that God controls or directs the actions of man. Again this is in direct contrast with what the God of the bible claims. God claims man has free will independent of Gods and that man is accountable for his choices and the related consequences. God also claims to judge each individual based on their choices and choose those worthy to reside with him for all eternity. He also offer a free pass on judgement.

    “You have not even attempted to explain how a god can be both omnipotent and omniscient, which is impossible, and how you can possibly reconcile that with the notion of free will.”

    Statement like “You have free will and the deity knows your choice.” are based on misconceptions.

    I offered this to Alex earlier on…

    “Just as a video game coder can predict the events and their order of flow within his created game. In turn does not take away the game players ability to play to their own style within the limitations/laws of the coding that governs the video game.
    Who would enjoy a game that required you to press the green button at exactly 15sec after starting followed by left, right, up, red button etc. And that being the only possible way to play with no other options available.
    Surely this logic is such that even a child can follow.”

    How much more complex and dynamic is the universe compared to a video game?

    The essence of the questions you guys ask are as follows…

    How can a God who knows the future, knows all your actions in advance, controls all your choices claim that you have a free will?

    To top it off you guys state that God is imaginary, God is bullshit or that matter gave rise to conscience and God is again an imaginary construct of the mind which is the result of matter, time and chance.

    “If an omniscient god knows that tomorrow I will do X, is there any scenario that exists where I will not do X?”

    Alex once asked me if I expect wisdom from the bible. I replied “yes I would.”

    Proverbs 26:4
    “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him. 5Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes”

    Why would I address any of your questions based on your presuppositions? I would be a fool to do so.

    Instead I point out the contrast between your and my stand points as to why your questions are often loaded with falsehoods and pre-defined conclusions.

    Anything beyond this point in discussion, either from me or any of you guys will be contextually based on our existing presuppositions. I am fully aware of this and claimed my bias from the very beginning.

    Do you guys agree that you too are bias in your beliefs?

    Do you still feel I’ve dodged your questions?

  97. on 15 Sep 2014 at 3:35 pm 97.freddies_dead said …

    94.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Dippity Dew!!!

    “Obama again huh?”

    Lol!!!! Funny how 3 of you latched on to the one line failing to see the actual point…..Talk is Cheap! lol!!!! You guys had a lot of fun when Bush was in office, what happened? No sense of humor left? Your offense and disappointment in the Great Hype is duly noted! lol!!!!

    Despite A’s claim I’m neither offended by nor disappointed in Obama, he’s not even my president. A talks a lot about how “Talk is Cheap!” – the irony is not lost on me.

    “he would NOT consider any position or argument that involved his god being imaginary.”

    I’m sure he would as well, but you guys offer nothing.

    This is a lie. I have already shown how God is logically impossible given the reality we experience. That leaves us with no option but to imagine God and that leaves us with a God that is purely imaginary. If A had an actual argument which shows how we can distinguish between his God and something he may merely be imagining why hasn’t he presented it? Instead he simply asserts that his God exists over and over as if the repetition would magically make it come true.

    Even now your outrage at God’s actions provide no evidence of his non-existence. Get cracking babe! lol!!!

    Of course, pointing out how God’s actions contradict the moral standard He supposedly embodies isn’t at all “outrage”. Instead it’s a demonstration of the stupidity shown by theists when they claim their God is an absolute source of morality and then have to back pedal when shown that God’s own actions go against those so called absolute morals. If they’re suggesting that morality is only possible if their God exists then it doesn’t bode well for that claim when their God cannot conform to His own moral commands.

    ““not human and not limited” is certainly equivalent to being god, no?”

    Yeeesssss, which is why the laws which man must adhere to is not laws God must adhere to. For instance, GRAVITY!

    And logic too. How can you possibly expect a deity said to be responsible for logic to actually conform to that logic? I mean why shouldn’t a God know what’s going to happen and then someone go ahead and do something different to what that God knows will happen? Makes perfect sense … not.

    It is the reason we call the diety GOD……lol!!!

    Well, A has to call his illogical, imaginary friend something I guess.

    “acquiring, buying and selling, and treatment of slaves, how could you conclude anything else?”

    Other than you cultural misunderstanding of slaves in the Hebrew culture,

    Ah, another Humpty Dumptyism. Slavery is exactly what A says it is, no more and no less. He’s referring to the claim that Biblical slavery was more like indentured servitude i.e. they were owned for a set time, after which they were set free. However, it should be noted that the non-Hebrew slaves were treated far more harshly i.e. much more like the slaves of modern history.

    God also made a provision for divorce in the Mosiac law, he did not condone divorce but due to the “Hardness of the Hebrews hearts” he provided guidelines to protect the woman.
    There ya go…….provision without condoning.

    Quite simply, the ownership of another human being as property is wrong. Giving guidelines on how to treat said slaves doesn’t change that. The “provisioning doesn’t equal condoning” argument might hold water if God had no choice but to accept the things He didn’t like, however, He’s supposed to be omnipotent. Why not cover slavery in a commandment if you don’t want it to happen? Why offer instructions on how to do it instead? Once more A’s claim makes no sense.

    And I have not forgotten the most important question you again dodge Dippity.

    Why is slavery wrong? How can you judge God on this issue unless you have a moral basis for doing so. Until then, we can not entertain any objections. You claimed there are NO moral absolutes…..so why is it wrong Dip?

    The hypocrisy again. Accusing DPK of dodging the question while he himself dodges the fact that I supplied an answer to this question.

    To the audience: Watch as dippity and the rest AGAIN fail to answer this most important question. Until they can provide their ethical paradigm for the judgment, their words are meaningless.

    I’m fairly sure the audience will notice that this is a lie. I have already given reasons why slavery is wrong. A is yet to deal with them.

  98. on 15 Sep 2014 at 6:28 pm 98.DPK said …

    “And I have not forgotten the most important question you again dodge Dippity.
    Why is slavery wrong?”

    Silly A. Slavery is wrong because it increases human suffering and subjugates the freedom of one class of people to the will of others.

    But the bigger question that YOU refuse to answer, is that since you claim their ARE moral absolutes handed to us by an omnicient and omnipotent being… one who clearly has no problem with slavery at all, how is it that YOU determine that slavery is wrong? Is there a missing commandment that says “Thou shalt not own slaves?” Even gentle Jesus, meek and mild, instructed slaves to be obedient to their masters. He could have easily said, “Masters, set free your slaves and do not enslave others… it is wrong.” But he didn’t.

  99. on 15 Sep 2014 at 10:57 pm 99.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Ohhhh!! This is so juicy! We have another claim!

    “I’m neither offended by nor disappointed in Obama, he’s not even my president.”

    Then don’t use Barrack as your red herring. lol!!!

    “Of course, pointing out how God’s actions contradict the moral standard”

    Nope, God never does…..of you refer to the “murder” claim. Nope, God gives life which is why taking is his prerogative. Argument destroyed again!

    “the ownership of another human being as property is wrong”

    Why F&M? Who gets to make the call? Suppose a person decides to sell themselves into slavery as happened in the Hebrew culture? Are they both wrong.

    But alas, we have ANOTHER moral claim by F&M but refuses to provide more than…..OPINION>>>>lol!!!!!!!

    “I supplied an answer to this question.”

    You mean this pain? Suffering as Dippity cut & paste? So if something is painful it is immoral? Is that your moral absolute. I need to know so we can explore further. Lets see if he answers……lol!!!

    No, you made a claim but since moral absolutes do not exist in the atheist fairyland, it cannot be immoral….RIGHT?!!!!!!! I love this!

  100. on 16 Sep 2014 at 2:01 am 100.DPK said …

    Why F&M? Who gets to make the call? Suppose a person decides to sell themselves into slavery as happened in the Hebrew culture?

    So, are you saying that slavery is not immoral, or it is immoral in some circumstances, and not others? What is the absolute moral code that determines this?

    No, you made a claim but since moral absolutes do not exist in the atheist fairyland, it cannot be immoral….RIGHT?!!!!!!

    Once agai, you demonstrate that you are either a liar or a total imbecile. The only person who ever claimed nothing is immoral is you. The FACT that morality is relative does not mean nothing is immoral. That’s only your bible addled brain trying to rationalize your beliefs which are incompatible with reality. Lol too funny though.
    Here’s a hint, when you dig yourself into a hole, step one is to stop digging! Rotflol.

  101. on 16 Sep 2014 at 2:53 am 101.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “So, are you saying that slavery is not immoral, or it is immoral in some circumstances, and not others?”

    Oh Dippity Dew! Let me say it again, maybe you can go to Wiki again and do a cut & paste…lol!!!

    “Why F&M? Who gets to make the call? Suppose a person decides to sell themselves into slavery as happened in the Hebrew culture? Are they both wrong.”

    So Dippity, why is it wrong?

    “The only person who ever claimed nothing is immoral is you.”

    Again you are a sorry liar! ROTFL!!!!!!

    But great, since you NOW claim things are immoral (You atheists should talk) tell us, how is immoral differentiated from moral?

    If you plan on judging God (ROTFL!!!) you should at least provide your guidelines, yes?

  102. on 16 Sep 2014 at 2:53 am 102.the messenger said …

    Catholics and Jews do not force their religion on anyone, we only present it to people and hope that they realize God’s teachings are true and that they should believe in God.

    We do not force our religion on anyone.

    You atheists on the other hand try to force your atheism on us, by terrorizing us and murdering us like Hitler and Stalin did.

    Stalin and Hitler’s actions are the true face of atheism.

  103. on 16 Sep 2014 at 3:02 am 103.the messenger said …

    Catholics and Jews do not start terrorizing people simply because we disagree with them.

    Anyone who hates anyone in GOD name has no connection to GOD whatsoever.

    Jesus(and many other rabbis) have taught the Christians and Jews to love one another and to respect and except the views of others, unless those view are evil like the views of the Nazis, ISIS, Hammas, Iran, the dictator of north Korea, the Taliban, Jihads, the black panthers, the klu klux klan, and the soviet union.

  104. on 16 Sep 2014 at 3:17 am 104.the messenger said …

    100.DPK, you keep trying to argue with outdated information. Yes, slavery was allowed in the old covenant, but not in the new covenant.

    The new covenant teaches that we are all brothers and sisters spiritually under GOD, and are not allowed to hurt our brothers and sisters. Slavery hurts our brothers and sisters, which strongly implies that we are not suppose to enslave them.

    Also slavery has never been a big thing in Jewish culture, and if you study Jewish teachings you will see that slavery was only allowed in the most desperate times(like when a person was injured and could not provide for himself and would starve unless he got someone to work for him for free until he could recover) , and then the slave would be released after a seven year period. In modern times, slavery is all but extinguished from Jewish life.

  105. on 16 Sep 2014 at 3:19 am 105.the messenger said …

    100.DPK, you keep trying to argue with outdated information. Yes, slavery was allowed in the old covenant, but not in the new covenant.

    The new covenant teaches that we are all brothers and sisters spiritually under GOD, and are not allowed to hurt our brothers and sisters(except in self defense, or in a sport (like a martial arts, where the wounds are mostly nonfatal). Slavery hurts our brothers and sisters, which strongly implies that we are not suppose to enslave them.

    Also slavery has never been a big thing in Jewish culture, and if you study Jewish teachings you will see that slavery was only allowed in the most desperate times(like when a person was injured and could not provide for himself and would starve unless he got someone to work for him for free until he could recover) , and then the slave would be released after a seven year period. In modern times, slavery is all but extinguished from Jewish life.

  106. on 16 Sep 2014 at 2:16 pm 106.DPK said …

    “100.DPK, you keep trying to argue with outdated information. Yes, slavery was allowed in the old covenant, but not in the new covenant.”

    Well, first… what changed? You have said repeatedly that the moral code directed by god is perfect and absolute. How is it that slavery was ok once, and now it is not?

    Second, where in the New Testament does it say not to own slaves? Even St. Paul sent a runaway slave back to his master, rather than help him escape.

    Messenger, let me state the obvious. You are full of shit. LOL

  107. on 16 Sep 2014 at 2:21 pm 107.DPK said …

    “Suppose a person decides to sell themselves into slavery as happened in the Hebrew culture? Are they both wrong.”

    Yes, a person cannot sell themselves or another as property, and a person cannot own another human as property.

    So Dippity, why is it wrong?

    Asked and answered.
    Most certainly, it cannot be considered wrong because it is forbiden in the bible!!! LOL.

    Now, answer the question… do you think slavery is either NOT immoral, or the instructions about slavery in the bible are wrong? It has to be one or the other! LOL

  108. on 16 Sep 2014 at 3:01 pm 108.freddies_dead said …

    99.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Ohhhh!! This is so juicy! We have another claim!

    It’s a statement of fact, I’m English, I live in England, I get to be offended and disappointed by my own government instead.

    “I’m neither offended by nor disappointed in Obama, he’s not even my president.”

    Then don’t use Barrack as your red herring. lol!!!

    A must have the memory of a goldfish as it was he that bought up Obama in the first place (back in post 90) in an effort to divert the conversation away from his failed claim that atheists aren’t here to learn.

    “Of course, pointing out how God’s actions contradict the moral standard”

    Nope, God never does…..

    So when God orders the genocide of the Canaanites he’s not contradicting His command to not murder? Once again A attempts to redefine the meanings of words to absolve his God of breaking the allegedly absolute laws He gave us.

    of you refer to the “murder” claim. Nope, God gives life which is why taking is his prerogative.

    And once again we see that the absolute laws given to us by God aren’t actually absolute as they don’t pertain to God Himself. Might makes right and we can see how Christianity actually espouses moral relativism.

    Argument destroyed again!

    Calling A’s claims an argument would be generous and inaccurate. However, those claims have, once more, been destroyed, as A himself notes.

    “the ownership of another human being as property is wrong”

    Why F&M?

    Why is the lying prick asking again? I gave several reasons as to why slavery is wrong back in post 92.

    Who gets to make the call?

    Who says anyone gets to make the call? Once you allow someone to dictate what is right and wrong you are left with arbitrary moral dictates which are a) subject to the whims of the one who is dictating them and b) relativistic when they don’t apply to the morality giver. For example, the Christian God commanded people not to kill each other but then insisted that his people slaughter the Canaanites. The commandment changed due to the whim of God. Then there are examples of God killing people Himself (see: everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah). People like A give their God a free pass. It’s his “prerogative” to ignore His own moral commandments whenever He sees fit. It’s moral relativism plain and simple.

    Suppose a person decides to sell themselves into slavery as happened in the Hebrew culture?

    This is a dodge. The idea that those people who “sold themselves” had a choice is disingenuous at best. The choice was to “sell themselves” into slavery to pay off debts or be forced into slavery through defaulting on those debts. The only difference was the possibility of freedom once the debt was repaid. However, there was no defined period of repayment which meant the debt could pass from generation to generation – essentially slavery in all but name only.

    Are they both wrong.

    Despite A’s dodges and red herrings, yes, slavery is still wrong.

    But alas, we have ANOTHER moral claim by F&M but refuses to provide more than…..OPINION>>>>lol!!!!!!!

    Of course A doesn’t explain how my claim that slavery is wrong along with the reasons I gave is just my opinion. In fact he didn’t respond to any of the reasons I presented as to why slavery is wrong. Instead he posts his opinion that my moral stance is an opinion. Rank hypocrisy as usual.

    “I supplied an answer to this question.”

    You mean this pain? Suffering as Dippity cut & paste?

    I have literally no idea what this is supposed to mean.

    So if something is painful it is immoral? Is that your moral absolute.

    Where on earth is A getting this from? Most likely his fertile imagination. The moral absolute is that slavery is wrong. Some reasons for that were outlined back in post 92.

    I need to know so we can explore further. Lets see if he answers……lol!!!

    Well, based on previous interactions with the lying prick, this is merely another dodge. He asks questions, insisting he needs the answers before we can move on, only to ignore the answers before trying to divert the conversation elsewhere.

    No, you made a claim but since moral absolutes do not exist in the atheist fairyland, it cannot be immoral….RIGHT?!!!!!!!

    I love this!

    I have to note that A makes no effort to back up his claim that “moral absolutes do not exist in the atheist fairyland”. I, on the other hand, have already shown how Christianity devolves to relativism – God’s commandments are subject to whim and don’t apply to God Himself – now we’ll see if A can do the same regarding Objectivism specifically (my worldview) … or even atheism in general.

    Then he can explain how, as DPK noted in post 98, he can say that slavery is immoral when nowhere in the Bible does his God condemn it.

  109. on 16 Sep 2014 at 4:41 pm 109.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Dippity Dew doubles down on a claim and STILL refuses to back his claim……sigh…..nothing new.

    “a person cannot sell themselves or another as property, and a person cannot own another human as property.”

    Why? It’s their body, so why do YOU get to tell them to do with his/her body? Dip, we need more than your authority to set a moral absolute. Get back to us, maybe a cut & paste is due…lol!!!

  110. on 16 Sep 2014 at 4:55 pm 110.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    And then F&M graces us with this:

    “it was he that bought up Obama in the first place (back in post 90)”

    Yes, I did as an example (ignoring the real point) that none of you could leave alone, swing-ana-miss for you. Obsession with our messiah?

    “So when God orders the genocide of the Canaanites he’s not contradicting His command to not murder?”

    LOL!!!, sigh……again for the ones with low IQs, God creates life and takes it whenever He desires. So, NO, life belongs to God and He takes them everyday.

    “Despite A’s dodges and red herrings, yes, slavery is still wrong.”

    Why is it wrong? Dodge what? Your no answer? or some British study?….lol!!!!!! No, we can’t take you word for it we need real authority, Its their body so why do you get to tell them what to do with their body? lol!!!!!

    PS, better check that time reference you made. A little more googling might help :)

    “Where on earth is A getting this from? Most likely his fertile imagination.”

    LOL!!!!! from Dippity Dew’s post silly. Read much? I guess your moral code and his just don’t line up…..ROTFL!!!!!

    “only to ignore the answers before trying to divert the conversation elsewhere”

    Sorry, A British study is not a sufficient source for a moral absolute. Got anything else?

    “A makes no effort to back up his claim that “moral absolutes”

    Another Red Herring, the readers can note you and Dippity claim God is immoral AND Hebrew slavery is immoral but cannot show why your moral judgment is superior to other moral judgments. Now you are telling others what to do with their own bodies!!!

    Still waiting……….and waiting……and waiting……

  111. on 16 Sep 2014 at 5:20 pm 111.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    Alex and Friends.

    A question when you have a personal problem that is solved how many people benefit?

    When an actual solution not a number of possible solutions an actual solution is realised how many solutions are there. How many people can solve any one of your problems at any one time.

    ere fore why is it difficult to believe that there is only one author of salvation. You atheistic vision is darkened.

  112. on 16 Sep 2014 at 5:48 pm 112.alex said …

    “..why is it difficult to believe that there is only one author of salvation….”

    because your bullshit xtian god claim ain’t no different that all the other bs gods. why don’t you ask yourself a similar question: why is it so difficult to believe in a non-interventionist god? a non meddling god is kinda hard to shoot down, ain’t it? go head, give it a try.

    since a non-interventionist god doesn’t give a fuck, you think this changes the atheists’ position?

    stupid, motherfucker.

  113. on 16 Sep 2014 at 6:03 pm 113.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    Do I think it changes the positions of those who are eventually going to burn in the lake of fire? No I don’t.

  114. on 16 Sep 2014 at 7:21 pm 114.alex said …

    “Do I think it changes the positions of those who are eventually going to burn in the lake of fire?”

    bullshit premise. would you like to prove that people are going to hell? why is your hell premise any more valid than the hindu endless reincarnation?

    what do i think happens when you die? i don’t know and i don’t care. what? not good enough for your ass?

    dumb, motherfucker.

  115. on 16 Sep 2014 at 7:56 pm 115.the messenger said …

    106.DPK, true, the new testament does not specifically say that slavery is not allowed, but it strongly hints it.

    Though it is true that Paul sent the slave “Onesimus” back to his master “Philemon”, he later tells “Philemon” the following statement that strongly hints that “Philemon” should set “Onesimus” free and treat him as a “beloved brother”.

    Philemon 1:15-16New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)

    15 Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back forever, 16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother—especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

  116. on 16 Sep 2014 at 7:58 pm 116.the messenger said …

    106.DPK, true, the new testament does not specifically say that slavery is not allowed, but it strongly hints it.

    Though it is true that Paul sent the slave “Onesimus” back to his master “Philemon”, he later tells “Philemon” the following statement that strongly hints that “Philemon” should set “Onesimus” free and treat him as a “beloved brother”.

    Philemon 1:15-16New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)

    15 Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back forever, 16 NOLONGER AS A SLAVE but more than a slave, a BELOVED BROTHER—especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

  117. on 16 Sep 2014 at 8:07 pm 117.the messenger said …

    106.DPK, you fail to understand that GOD gave humans only a fraction of the moral code in the old covenant.

    But GOD gave us the rest of it in the new covenant.

    Romans 10:4 states this. Christ the end of the law, as in the last piece of the law. Sort of like the end chapter of a book.

  118. on 17 Sep 2014 at 12:17 am 118.DPK said …

    “sigh……again for the ones with low IQs, God creates life and takes it whenever He desires. So, NO, life belongs to God and He takes them everyday.”

    and curiously, “god told me to kill him” is not an acceptable defense in any court in any civilized nation on earth. LOL… why is that?

    “Why is it wrong? Dodge what? Your no answer? or some British study?….lol!!!!!! ”

    Despite your outright lies, both Freddie and I have told you EXACTLY why we feel slavery is wrong. The only one who HASN’T told us how he concludes slavery is wrong is YOU! harharhar…. that’s because you can’t point to your bible, because it clearly and without question condones slavery. So where is the absolute moral code handed down by god that leads you to conclude slavery is ok… or do you agree with Messy that it ok to own another human as proper and force him to work for you, but only if you really need it. LOL! You deluded imbeciles are just so funny. You all insist you know the answers to everything you don’t know and you can’t even agree with one another.
    Now stop.. I’m laughing too hard!

  119. on 17 Sep 2014 at 2:03 am 119.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “both Freddie and I have told you EXACTLY why we feel slavery is wrong.”

    I know! It’s just your opinions. You also want to tell others what to do with their own body! No surprise there. Atheist do like control of the masses.

    Sigh…..great! Stalin had opinions, ISIS has opinions and then there was Hitler, Mao, and many other opinions, but what makes your opinion the moral holy grail Dippity Dew?

    What’s that? More deflection? More Red Herrings?

    Lol!!!! You really should quit because you have no answer that works there Dip!

  120. on 17 Sep 2014 at 2:59 pm 120.DPK said …

    Well, I am an individual, so anything I say is naturally an opinion.
    Your belief in a supernatural moral god who instructs us to own slaves and provides detailed instructions on the proper way to sell your daughters as sex slaves, is just an OPINION… LOL. The only thing more astounding that your hypocrisy is your stupidity, Mr. ASStrophysicist.

    But, don’t think we haven’t noticed that you have once again dodged the question:
    In your opinion, do you think Messy is correct in his assertion that it is ok to own another human and force him to work for you as long as your circumstances are dire enough that you need that to survive, or do you think that slavery is in fact immoral?
    IF your opinion is that slavery is immoral, what are YOU basing this opinion on?

    harharhar Watch him change the subject… what’s it going to be this time, Benghazi?

  121. on 17 Sep 2014 at 3:39 pm 121.freddies_dead said …

    110.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    And then F&M graces us with this:

    “it was he that bought up Obama in the first place (back in post 90)”

    Yes, I did as an example (ignoring the real point) that none of you could leave alone, swing-ana-miss for you.

    Nope, the lying prick is lying again. He bought up Obama to try and divert the conversation away from his inability to back up his claim the atheists weren’t here to learn. It’s still not working.

    Obsession with our messiah?

    To what messiah is A referring to here? He hasn’t actually demonstrated that one exists for us to be obsessed with. Just how can we distinguish between his messiah and something he may merely be imagining?

    “So when God orders the genocide of the Canaanites he’s not contradicting His command to not murder?”

    LOL!!!, sigh……again for the ones with low IQs,

    So A is talking to himself…

    God creates life and takes it whenever He desires. So, NO, life belongs to God and He takes them everyday.

    Yup, proving my point that the so-called absolute laws are anything but as they don’t apply to his God. Quite simply, might makes right. A truly poor moral standpoint.

    “Despite A’s dodges and red herrings, yes, slavery is still wrong.”

    Why is it wrong?

    Asked and answered.

    Dodge what? Your no answer? or some British study?….lol!!!!!!

    They were actual reasons why slavery is wrong but of course A is entirely incapable of dealing with them so he’s blatantly dodging the issue.

    No, we can’t take you word for it we need real authority, Its their body so why do you get to tell them what to do with their body? lol!!!!!

    Of course I’m not actually telling anyone what they can or can’t do with their body, merely pointing out that slavery is wrong and giving reasons why, so this is nothing more than another red herring from the lying prick.

    PS, better check that time reference you made. A little more googling might help :)

    Having re-read my previous post I don’t see what “time reference” A might possibly be referring to.

    “Where on earth is A getting this from? Most likely his fertile imagination.”

    LOL!!!!! from Dippity Dew’s post silly.

    Once more the lying prick makes no sense. Firstly, I’ve gone back and can’t see anything in DPK’s posts that suggest he subscribes to “if something is painful it is immoral” so he’s not getting it from there and secondly, even if DPK thought like that, why would that mean I’d have to feel the same? While we’re both atheists the only thing that says about us is that we don’t believe in God(s). It says nothing about what system of ethics we subscribe to.

    Read much? I guess your moral code and his just don’t line up…..ROTFL!!!!!

    So. Close.

    “only to ignore the answers before trying to divert the conversation elsewhere”

    Sorry, A British study is not a sufficient source for a moral absolute.

    Notice that A gives no indication what he means by “a sufficient source” here. I suspect the only source he’s willing to consider sufficient is his God, even though any moral dictate handed down by his God is, by definition, non-absolute as it a) is subject to his God’s whim and b) doesn’t necessarily apply to his God.

    Got anything else?

    Well the reasons I gave were all objective – i.e. independent of what anyone may think, wish, want etc…, not subject to whim and applicable to all – and as such they are sufficient reasons to call slavery immoral. Of course A will deny this although he won’t even attempt to back up his denial with a reasoned argument.

    “A makes no effort to back up his claim that “moral absolutes”

    Another Red Herring,

    Not in the slightest. The lying prick made the claim that “moral absolutes do not exist in the atheist fairyland”. Nowhere does he give us any reason to accept this statement. Just where is his argument showing how, in principle, atheism rules out moral absolutes? I say he won’t provide it because he can’t.

    the readers can note you and Dippity claim God is immoral AND Hebrew slavery is immoral but cannot show why your moral judgment is superior to other moral judgments.

    Correction: “all” slavery is wrong. A’s attempt to blur the distinction is yet another red herring. Once you judge an action to be immoral, lets say killing someone (number 6 in the protestant list of commandments), then logically anyone who carries out that act is immoral. Well, there are numerous instances of God killing people in the Bible which makes God immoral. Of course A will simply keep on giving his God a free pass – might makes right in his worldview after all – all the while undermining his own claim to moral absolutes into the bargain.

    Now you are telling others what to do with their own bodies!!!

    This is simply a lie. Pointing out slavery is wrong does not stop anyone from enslaving (or being enslaved), just like pointing out murder is wrong doesn’t stop anyone from murdering (or being murdered).

    Still waiting……….and waiting……and waiting……

    Why yes, yes we are. We’re waiting for A to explain how slavery is wrong given his Bible doesn’t condemn it. We’re waiting for him to show how his worldview accounts for “absolute morals”. We’re waiting for him to show how atheism makes absolute morals impossible and of course we’re waiting for him to show how we can distinguish his God from something he may merely be imagining. As usual I advise that no-one holds their breath during the wait.

  122. on 18 Sep 2014 at 1:41 am 122.the messenger said …

    120.DPK, you are such a liar.

    When you stated “god who instructs us to own slaves and provides detailed instructions on the proper way to sell your daughters as sex slaves” you were lying.

    GOD did not instruct us to own slaves, and GOD never commanded anyone to sell anyone as a sex slave.

    Once again I state that the new covenant does not allow slavery(for proof of that, look at some of my past comments).

    Although the old covenant did not condemn slavery, it did not command or instruct us to have slaves. But it does set rules on how to treat them. But you forget that the old covenant is no longer in power, due to the fact that it only contained a part of the moral code and thus did not condemn slavery. But the new covenant contains the full moral code, and thus does condemn slavery( as shown when Paul tries to convince a slave owner to set his slave free and treat him as a brother(Philemon 1:15-16New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)15 Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back forever, 16 NOLONGER AS A SLAVE but more than a slave, a BELOVED BROTHER—especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
    )).

    Tell me, in front of all that are present on this site, where in the bible does it command us to own slaves?

  123. on 18 Sep 2014 at 3:21 am 123.DPK said …

    Meesh, for someone who supposes to come here and preach the bible and tell us what god “really” means… You’d do well you actually read it sometime.

    “… for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.”

    I’ll await your appology, but I’ll bet you will tell us that’s not literal, or needs to be taken ” in context” lol

  124. on 18 Sep 2014 at 11:41 am 124.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “I’ll await your appology, but I’ll bet you will tell us that’s not literal, or needs to be taken ””

    Apologize for what? You keep this claim that your moral OPINION is superior to God. Why? What makes you special? Lol!!!! Maybe you mom told you that you were special……but I just don’t see it.

    SO, to have a discussion about ethics and morality we need to know why your opinion is superior to Stalin Lenin, Mao and yes God. For arguments sake, lets assume God condones slavery and murder. You may begin.

    Please no cut&paste, think for yourself.

    Lol!!!!

  125. on 18 Sep 2014 at 2:44 pm 125.DPK said …

    “Apologize for what?”

    I know you suffer from a severe inability to follow topics, but the apology is due for calling me a liar for stating that according the the bible, the biblical god condones slavery and instructs people on how to acquire, own, and even beat their slaves, and instructs Hebrews on the proper way to not only acquire slaves, but to sell their own daughters as sex slaves to others. It’s all there.

    “122.the messenger said …
    120.DPK, you are such a liar.
    When you stated “god who instructs us to own slaves and provides detailed instructions on the proper way to sell your daughters as sex slaves” you were lying.”

    Now, Messy contention is that while slavery used to be ok, but god changed his mind between the old and the new testament doesn’t sit well with your contention of an absolute moral code, because absolutes can’t change, can they?

    Now try and stay focused… and don’t forget, we are all still waiting for your response:

    “do you think Messy is correct in his assertion that it is ok to own another human and force him to work for you as long as your circumstances are dire enough that you need that to survive, or do you think that slavery is in fact immoral?
    IF your opinion IS that slavery is immoral, what are YOU basing this opinion on?”

    Very curious that you won’t answer. I guess this is what earned you the moniker of “A the lying prick” LOL!

  126. on 18 Sep 2014 at 4:39 pm 126.alex said …

    “You keep this claim that your moral OPINION is superior to God.”

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. you’ve yet to produce these god given absolute morals, but you insist that these same non existent absolute morals are clearly superior.

    if i claim i can kick your nonexistent, bullshit god’s ass, why would you ask me why i think my jiu-jitsu is superior to Stalin Lenin, Mao and yes the bullshit God?

    dumbass motherfucker.

  127. on 18 Sep 2014 at 6:38 pm 127.DPK said …

    You keep this claim that your moral OPINION is superior to God. Why?

    Where did I say my opinion is superior to your imaginary god? I said slavery is wrong. Your god clearly thinks its ok. So, our opinions are different. Naturally I think my opinion is correct… that’s why is is my opinion and not yours. You really are dense, aren’t you.

    “lets assume God condones slavery and murder. You may begin.”

    Ok… god condones slavery and murder, and you apparently are just fine with that. OK. That is very telling about the difference between you and me. Nothing more needs to be said here. LOL So, if you have no moral problem with slavery and murder, than you should have no problem accepting the idea of a perfect god who endorses them, along with many other horrific acts and practices.

    But, anyone who is of the opinion that slavery, murder, and even selling your own daughters as sex slaves is immoral, has to have doubts about the reality of your omnipotent and omniscient god.

    BTW, notice that A the lying prick has again dodged the direct question asked of him, what, 4 or 5 time now..

    “do you think Messy is correct in his assertion that it is ok to own another human and force him to work for you as long as your circumstances are dire enough that you need that to survive, or do you think that slavery is in fact immoral?
    IF your opinion IS that slavery is immoral, what are YOU basing this opinion on?”

    My guess is that A either has no answer that makes any sense at all, or A is actually quite ok with the idea of humans being bought, sold, owned, exploited, and beaten as property. I’d hate to be his dog… LOL that poor guy must get some abuse!

  128. on 18 Sep 2014 at 7:33 pm 128.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Where did I say my opinion is superior to your imaginary god?

    I never claimed that…..however

    OH!!! OK, your opinion. Opinions are like butt holes, everyone has one. Remember, you are the one always hollering for proof! Lol!!!
    We can decide if we should listen to your opinion about God, the Bible and Hebrew culture OR we can listen to God and the scholars on Hebrew culture.

    Hmmmm, let me think this one over.

    Lol!!!! You can’t even make a case why we should listen to you over Mao!

    Lol!!!!!!!!

  129. on 18 Sep 2014 at 7:38 pm 129.the messenger said …

    123.DPK, once again you quote the old covenant in your attempt to convince us that slavery is allowed, according to the bible. But I already explained that the old covenant is no longer in power and that new covenant(which we live in now) condemns slavery, as shown when Paul tries to convince a slave owner to set his slave free and treat him as a brother(Philemon 1:15-16New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE).

  130. on 18 Sep 2014 at 8:06 pm 130.alex said …

    “…once again you quote the old covenant in your attempt to convince us…”

    he may be quoting, but you’re the dumbass, self appointed, translator motherfucker that said:

    “I have concluded that evolution did occur after God created the original animals and after Noah’s flood. Due to the early time period at which the first animals were made, I have concluded that my theory contained within comment 221 is correct. Even though the bible does not state that God created the ansestors of the animals of 2013, it is logical to say that he did infact create the ansestors of the modern day animals, and those animals that God created in the beginning did infact evolve into the modern animals that we know today.”

    what does that make you? and going from the rest of your bullshit, it makes you, the resident dumbass. no? check it here, beeyatch: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

  131. on 18 Sep 2014 at 8:14 pm 131.alex said …

    “You can’t even make a case why we should listen to you over Mao!”

    then, don’t, ya bitch, motherfucker. how does that prove your bullshit god? who the fuck cares about mao? your diversions are old. you need new material. the bears, motherfucker. fuck up them youths, ya bald motherfucker.

  132. on 18 Sep 2014 at 8:56 pm 132.DPK said …

    “A the lying pick says:
    “Where did I say my opinion is superior to your imaginary god?
    I never claimed that…..however…

    Yet in post 124.The Prickly Science Guy said …
    “You keep this claim that your moral OPINION is superior to God. Why? What makes you special? Lol!!!! Maybe you mom told you that you were special……but I just don’t see it.”

    So you can’t even go two consecutive posts without telling outright lies. LOL…

    “We can decide if we should listen to your opinion about God, the Bible and Hebrew culture OR we can listen to God and the scholars on Hebrew culture….”

    Well of course you can. Where does god say “Do not own slaves?” I have quoted you many direct quotes from your own holy book where god quite specifically directs us to capture, buy, sell, beat, and sometimes free slaves, and repetedly refers to them as property. Your opinion is that this is not what he “really” meant… but you offer no evidence to support it other than your own opinion, which are indeed, like assholes… everyone’s got one, but some stink a lot worse than other… har har har.
    Still no answer huh?
    “do you think Messy is correct in his assertion that it is ok to own another human and force him to work for you as long as your circumstances are dire enough that you need that to survive, or do you think that slavery is in fact immoral?
    IF your opinion IS that slavery is immoral, what are YOU basing this opinion on?”
    Love watching you squirm btw………

  133. on 18 Sep 2014 at 9:03 pm 133.DPK said …

    129.the messenger said …
    “123.DPK, once again you quote the old covenant in your attempt to convince us that slavery is allowed, according to the bible. But I already explained that the old covenant is no longer in power and that new covenant…”

    Yeah Messy, you have a long history of trying to tell us what god “really means when he says this and that, which parts of the bible are literal and which are not, and which parts actually happened (like Noah’s Ark) and which part are just stories, (also like Noah’s Ark.. whoops.. seems you claimed that one was both real and make believe… how embarrassing.)
    Ok, well, I’m glad to hear your god doesn’t approve of slavery any longer (based on one obscure passage and despite the fact that Jesus himself told slaves to be obedient to their masters and serve them without question…hmmm) So, that begs the question… in the OT god was ok with slavery, but in the NT he changed his mind… is that right? Just to make sure I understand it. It used to be moral, now it isn’t. Just like stoning homosexuals and women who weren’t virgins on their wedding night to death used to be ok, but now it isn’t ok. Is that correct? Just trying to understand.

  134. on 18 Sep 2014 at 9:41 pm 134.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Yet in post 124.The Prickly Science Guy said …”

    You are a liar again. I never used the word imaginary….you did.

    I expect an apology :). Lol!!!!

    So you can’t even go two consecutive posts without telling outright lies.

    “but you offer no evidence to support it other than your own opinion,?

    Lol!!!!!! I need to offer evidence to contradict your opinion? I don’t think do. Now if you provide an informed opinion might carry on a theological debate with an atheist. Would you like some resources to get you up to speed? Be glad to provide a few.

    Prediction: He will not because Dippity Dew Da has no interest in actual learning. He only goes to atheist blogs to cut&paste naughty Bible verses… Lol!!!!!!!!…….so predictable

  135. on 18 Sep 2014 at 11:38 pm 135.alex said …

    “You are a liar again.”

    you dumb motherfucker. call everybody a liar, but it doesn’t do a damn thing for your god, does it?

    you otoh, are the king of lying. your fucked up collection you can’t duck, can’t you? here it is again: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    presenting: Hor, martin, science guy, biff, xenon, little ‘A’, Sweetness, boz, RL Wooten, ‘Everyone’, and of course Horatio.

    his favorite diversions and the number of times used:
    TOE:126
    macro:130
    soup:52
    programmer:14
    obsess:32
    chevy:18
    moral:277

    he’s posted 1055 times and because his all knowing god knows he’s supposed to post 10,695 times, the stupid motherfucker can’t help himself. free will what?

    cheer up folks, 9640 more times he has to post. dumbass.

  136. on 19 Sep 2014 at 2:50 am 136.the messenger said …

    130.alex, dude, I already told you that when I stated “I have concluded that evolution did occur after God created the original animals and after …….” I was simply trying to show some of the corrupt protestant beliefs regarding the “adam, noah, and eve” story.

    I further stated that the catholic church and many Jewish groups has never interpreted that story as literal.

    That is not my own personal interpretation, unless you think that I was the one that wrote it thousands of years ago. In which case you are crazy and need medical help as soon as possible(no joke).

  137. on 19 Sep 2014 at 3:06 am 137.the messenger said …

    133.DPK, every time that I claim that something in the bible is a metaphor I prove my claim with either TEXT EVIDENCE or THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED LIKE THAT FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

    Furthermore there is nothing “obscure” about “Philemon 1:15-16New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)”, it is a very clear passage.

    The verse “Ephesians 6:5″ that you spoke of actually goes along with “Philemon 1:15-16″ because in “Philemon 1:15-16″ Paul wants the slave owner to free his slave and treat him as a brother. “Ephesians 6:5″ is not a support of slavery, rather it shows that GOD does not want the slave to free himself, he wants the slave owner to do the right thing and free the slave himself, as shown in “Philemon 1:15-16″.

  138. on 19 Sep 2014 at 4:36 pm 138.DPK said …

    and I’ve shown you many passages where god endorses slavery and other horrific acts.. like forcing rape victims to marry their rapists and murdering people for working on the Sabbath or being disrespectful to their parents… so? What are you saying?? You can support almost any claim you want depending on which verses you cherry pick and which ones you selectively ignore? I wouldn’t disagree.

    BTW.. you failed to answer the direct question:
    ” So, that begs the question… in the OT god was ok with slavery, but in the NT he changed his mind… is that right? Just to make sure I understand it. It used to be moral, now it isn’t. Just like stoning homosexuals and women who weren’t virgins on their wedding night to death used to be ok, but now it isn’t ok. Is that correct? Just trying to understand.”

    You seem to be taking a page from A the lying picks’s playbook and refusing to answer questions that make you uncomfortable…. Did god change his mind about slavery and the other things, like ripping open the bellies of pregnant women and smashing their babies on rocks? Yup, that’s in your bible too…………LOL

  139. on 19 Sep 2014 at 7:11 pm 139.DPK said …

    In post 124.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “You keep this claim that your moral OPINION is superior to God. Why?

    to which I replied:

    “Where did I say my opinion is superior to your imaginary god?

    and A the lying pricks lies:

    “I never claimed that…..however…”

    and A the lying prick’s answer to being caught in an outright lie is… wait for it……….

    “I never used the word imaginary….you did.”

    tada!!! Brilliant…. that is honesty in the eyes of a theist… LOL!! What a sack of feces….

  140. on 19 Sep 2014 at 10:19 pm 140.the messenger said …

    138.DPK, I already proved that the stoning(and other execution teachings) verses are metaphorical, when I presented John 8:1-11.

    John 8:1-11 shows that we humans do not have the authority to execute anyone, due to the fact that we are all sinners(except Jesus).

    It is clear that the stoning verses cannot possibly be literal, due to the fact that we do not have the authority to execute others according to John 8:1-11.

    Lastly, you presented evidence from the old covenant, which is not in power anymore. I presented you with clear evidence from the new covenant that shows GOD’s disapproval of sin.

    You attempted to use Ephesians 6:5 to support your claim, but I proved that “Ephesians 6:5? is not a support of slavery, rather it shows that GOD does not want the slave to free himself, he wants the slave owner to do the right thing and free the slave, as shown in “Philemon 1:15-16?.

  141. on 19 Sep 2014 at 10:21 pm 141.the messenger said …

    138.DPK, I already proved that the stoning(and other execution teachings) verses are metaphorical, when I presented John 8:1-11.

    John 8:1-11 shows that we humans do not have the authority to execute anyone, due to the fact that we are all sinners(except Jesus).

    It is clear that the stoning verses cannot possibly be literal, due to the fact that we do not have the authority to execute others according to John 8:1-11.

    Lastly, you presented evidence from the old covenant, which is not in power anymore. I presented you with clear evidence from the new covenant that shows GOD’s disapproval of sin.

    You attempted to use Ephesians 6:5 to support your claim, but I proved that “Ephesians 6:5? is not a support of slavery, rather it shows that GOD does not want the slave to free himself, he wants the slave owner to do the right thing and free the slave, as shown in Philemon 1:15-16.

  142. on 19 Sep 2014 at 11:57 pm 142.DPK said …

    138.DPK, I already proved that the stoning(and other execution teachings) verses are metaphorical, when I presented John 8:1-11.

    Really? That’s what you think you did huh? LOL think again Messy…. So when god specifically said “They are to be stoned at the village gates… until they are DEAD” you are presumptuous enough to claim that that is not what god meant? How exactly do you stone someone to DEATH metaphorically again? hahahaha… you and A should have adjoining rooms in the loony bin with your nonsensical rantings. LOL

  143. on 20 Sep 2014 at 4:36 am 143.the messenger said …

    142.DPK, tell me, where does in the bible does it state that the stoning verses are not metaphorical?

    I presented clear evidence(John 8:1-11) that proves that humans do not have the authority to punish sinners by the death penalty, due to the fact that we are all sinners(except Jesus).

    Due to the fact that Jesus(aka GOD) told us that humans do not have the authority to sentence other humans to death, it proves that the stoning verses are not literal.

    The stone could represent a hard punishment, and the death could be referring to the death of evil within a person. Or the execution metaphors could be similar to the “kicked the can metaphor”(which is a metaphor for someone dying) and have absolutely no similarity to it’s meaning.

  144. on 20 Sep 2014 at 4:42 am 144.the messenger said …

    142.DPK, tell me, where in the bible does it state that the stoning verses are not metaphorical?

    I presented clear evidence(John 8:1-11) that proves that humans do not have the authority to punish sinners by the death penalty, due to the fact that we are all sinners(except Jesus).

    Due to the fact that Jesus(aka GOD) told us that humans do not have the authority to sentence other humans to death, it proves that the stoning verses are not literal.

    The stone could represent a hard punishment, and the death could be referring to the death of evil within a person. Or the execution metaphors could be similar to the “kicked the can metaphor”(which is a metaphor for someone dying) and have absolutely no similarity to it’s meaning.

  145. on 21 Sep 2014 at 1:03 am 145.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “DPK, tell me, where does in the bible does it state that the stoning verses are not metaphorical??

    lol!!!!! I Just what to know why it is wrong outside of Dippity Dew Da’s opinion? Dippity seems to see his opinions as superior and all humanity should follow the moral teachings of the Dip!

    Of course, he will offer no explanations…..sigh…..:)

  146. on 21 Sep 2014 at 2:08 am 146.DPK said …

    The fact is, if A the lying prick does not see anything wrong with stoning people to death, then his problems go way beyond believing an invisible man is his best friend. Lol

    Btw, how come you ever answered this:
    ““do you think Messy is correct in his assertion that it is ok to own another human and force him to work for you as long as your circumstances are dire enough that you need that to survive, or do you think that slavery is in fact immoral?
    IF your opinion IS that slavery is immoral, what are YOU basing this opinion on?”

    I told you exactly why slavery is wrong in my opinion, but you haven’t told us if you think it is right or wrong, and why, since your god clearly endorses it. I wonder why you refuse to answer.

  147. on 22 Sep 2014 at 3:06 am 147.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “does not see anything wrong with stoning people to death”

    Well then……..you should be able to tell us(outside of mete opinion why it is wrong, yes?

    Am example, suppose we have a rival opinion Dip that stoning is only survival of the fittest in action. How would you convinvince him his opinion is wrong and your opinion is correct?

    Prediction: Dippity again will not answer sonce sadly he has no answer…….sigh……

  148. on 22 Sep 2014 at 10:19 am 148.alex said …

    “you should be able to tell us(outside of mete opinion why it is wrong, yes?”

    this is why you’re a dumbass motherfucker. you keep bringing up these wild goose chases and you keep failing. now you’re asking to prove why stoning is wrong?

    youse all the dumbasses that insist that the morals handed down by your bullshit god determines what is right or wrong. when your bullshit morality claim is called out, you turn it around and try to argue that atheists need to prove why it’s wrong.

    stoning is wrong and everybody knows it and yet you plead for proof? what is the opinion?

    did i say youse a dumb motherfucker. and this proves it: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  149. on 22 Sep 2014 at 3:54 pm 149.DPK said …

    Once again the lying prick demands answers to questions already asked and answered, while he himself refuses to respond to the most basic questions.

    In simple terms, is stoning someone to death immoral? According to the absolute moral code that A claims is handed to us by the all powerful creator, the answer is clearly “No”, because it is prescribed in the bible for many offenses. But most modern believers of course have found a way to rationalize around that little problem… meaning of course that the absolute moral code is anything but absolute.
    As a realist, I can certainly conceive that there might be circumstances where stoning someone to death may be morally acceptable, but of course, that would be some extraordinary circumstances… for example to save the life or lives of an innocent where stones were the only available weapon. But the point is, the morality of such an act would depend entirely on a judgement in relation to circumstances, and yes, it may be entirely possible for 2 people of good intentions and good morality to come to different conclusions about the morality of the same act.
    Now, notice once again that A the lying prick has once again FAILED to answer the question presented to him, what 6 or 7 times now. Any reasonable person would have to wonder why this is such a problem for him.

    “do you think Messy is correct in his assertion that it is ok to own another human and force him to work for you as long as your circumstances are dire enough that you need that to survive, or do you think that slavery is in fact immoral?
    IF your opinion IS that slavery is immoral, what are YOU basing this opinion on?”

    There will be no answer… as usual.

  150. on 22 Sep 2014 at 4:20 pm 150.DPK said …

    “According to the absolute moral code that A claims is handed to us by the all powerful creator, the answer is clearly “No”, because it is prescribed in the bible for many offenses.”

    Typo.. of course that should read:
    According to the absolute moral code that A claims is handed to us by the all powerful creator, the answer is clearly “YES”, because it is prescribed in the bible for many offenses.
    duh.

  151. on 22 Sep 2014 at 10:19 pm 151.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “the morality of such an act would depend entirely on a judgement in relation to circumstances, and yes, it may be entirely possible for 2 people of good intentions and good morality to come to different conclusions about the morality of the same act.”

    And there you go folks! In Dippity Dew’s world there is no such thing as immorality but only different levels of morality. Hitler had reasons for his horrendous acts, he was cleansing the genome pool. Stalin was attempting to keep an unstable USSR together. Hey folks! They had reason so it must be OK to murder and commit genocide in Dippity’s world!

    Therefore, Dippity has no grounds on which to judge God, Messenger or anyone else for that matter! lol!!!!!

    But he will…….watch his hyporcrisy as he judges others………popcorn ready…….lol!!!!

  152. on 22 Sep 2014 at 10:28 pm 152.alex said …

    http://goo.gl/UYo1uS lies, lies and more lies.

    the world according to the resident, dumb, motherfucker hor. enough said.

    look, it magically updated itself. must be god doing it.

  153. on 23 Sep 2014 at 12:48 am 153.the messenger said …

    145.The Prickly Science Guy, sorry for taking so long to comment again. I was busy laughing my butt off.

    Once again you pull the opinion card.

  154. on 23 Sep 2014 at 1:15 am 154.alex said …

    “I was busy laughing my butt off.”

    you realize that you’re the resident laughing stock? see http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    “if you have a glass of salt water and you pour more water in(fresh water), it does not change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry”

    “Hell does not last forever.”

    “evolution did occur after God created the original animals”

    “I have also seen heaven my self and it is amazing.”

    choke on those, your own words, bitch, motherfucker.

    and lastly, your sorry, stupid ass, motherfucking comment that nobody agrees with:

    “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage)”

    what? hollerin, out of context again? here’s your entire post, bitch. http://goo.gl/FEHaJc

  155. on 23 Sep 2014 at 3:43 am 155.DPK said …

    They had reason so it must be OK to murder and commit genocide in Dippity’s world…

    That’s your conclusion? You’re even dumber than I thought! Lol

    Anyway, let’s see if you can explain for us, since you claim to have an absolute moral code:
    “do you think Messy is correct in his assertion that it is ok to own another human and force him to work for you as long as your circumstances are dire enough that you need that to survive, or do you think that slavery is in fact immoral?
    IF your opinion IS that slavery is immoral, what are YOU basing this opinion on?”

    Since you won’t answer, why should anyone accept your claim of an absolute morality given by a perfect being?

  156. on 23 Sep 2014 at 12:03 pm 156.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “The Prickly Science Guy, sorry for taking so long to comment again. I was busy laughing my butt off.

    Once again you pull the opinion card.”

    You are right on time Mess. Dippity Dew Da wants to continue a discussion on ethics, continuing to judge others while maintaining everyone has their own moral code and they are all correct as long as they justify their own reason. everyone is right! yay!!!!

    See how continues to attempt to get me to judge you? It is desperation to take the spotlight off his hypocrisy.

    LOL!!! He doesn’t even like his own rules!

  157. on 23 Sep 2014 at 1:37 pm 157.alex said …

    “martin: martin, good one!”

    hypocrisy?

  158. on 23 Sep 2014 at 2:21 pm 158.DPK said …

    “See how continues to attempt to get me to judge you?”

    Not at all. I’m simply trying to get you to explain how your absolute code of morality works. You and Messy both subscribe to the same absolute code, yet he says it’s ok for one human being to own another in certain circumstances. He also says rape victims should be forced to marry their rapists, and many other strange ideas. Now, I can see where he gets these ideas, as they are plainly written about in the bible. I just want to know your take on it. Can two people following the same absolute moral code come to different conclusions about what is moral and what is not? How does that happen… and how are we to know which one of you is right, and which one is wrong??

    Why won’t you answer a simple direct question?
    “Do you think Messy is correct in his assertion that it is ok to own another human and force him to work for you as long as your circumstances are dire enough that you need that to survive, or do you think that slavery is in fact immoral?
    IF your opinion IS that slavery is immoral, what are YOU basing this opinion on?”

    Just tell us what your absolute code of morality says, ans show us where is says it. Since you either can’t or won’t, why do you continue to blabber about it. Put up or shut up, as they say………

  159. on 23 Sep 2014 at 3:38 pm 159.alex said …

    “Now, I can see where he gets these ideas, as they are plainly written about in the bible. I just want to know your take on it.”

    the idiot hor doesn’t have a take on it. he just love to pontificate about how atheists are this and that.

    a morality test: cursing. should i? nope. no different than an xtian, eh? should i be greedy and take the last two free donuts? nope. no different, eh?

    either way, did i need the bullshit god given morals? another test. should i prevent gays from marrying? nope. oh, motherfucking no! some xtians would! now where in the fuck did they get that idea from? should the courts allow rapists to marry their vic? nope. oh, no! not again! where in the fuck did some of those moronic xtians get that idea from?

    idiot, motherfucking hor.

  160. on 23 Sep 2014 at 4:43 pm 160.TJ said …

    Doesn’t the Bible teach that all are born into sin by default, because of mankind’s fall from grace in the garden of Eden at the very beginning?

    Doesn’t this make no-one able to uphold the moral code?

    Isn’t this the reason given for why mankind is in need of salvation?

    Or can it be shown to say something else?

  161. on 23 Sep 2014 at 4:59 pm 161.alex said …

    “Doesn’t the Bible teach that all are born into sin..”

    didn’t the same bible say that the mustard seed is the smallest seed? we know this is bullshit. why don’t you tell me how i can tell biblical bullshit from all the other passages?

    jericho and the still sun? moses walking on water? jacob wrastling the angel? elisha’s bones reviving the dead?

    go head and publish your bible checklist so that we can use it to test the veracity of the bible. it doesn’t exist does it? motherfuckers like you, messenger, and the rest insist that you alone (no atheists allowed) are the sole interpreters of the bible. wonder why you motherfuckers can’t even agree?

    dumbass, motherfucker.

  162. on 23 Sep 2014 at 7:09 pm 162.DPK said …

    160.TJ said …
    “Doesn’t the Bible teach that all are born into sin by default, because of mankind’s fall from grace in the garden of Eden at the very beginning?”

    What is your definition of “sin”? Is it the failure to follow god’s laws as laid out in the bible, or something else? Because to me, if one follows god’s instructions about say, stoning adulterers and those who work on the Sabbath to death, or on how to properly acquire and punish slaves, how can you then say those acts are sinful?

    Furthermore, since god specifically created man to be sinful, and to be born into sin because of the act of his distant ancestors, how are we to blame? If an engineer designs an car so that the engine explodes when you start it, is it the car’s fault when the engine explodes, or the engineer’s?

  163. on 23 Sep 2014 at 7:28 pm 163.alex said …

    What is your definition of “sin”?

    it’s the first part of the xtian double indemnity insurance. any fucked up thing these morons do, it all points to the adam singularity, rendering the xtian motherfucker blameless. exercise the second clause and viola! all them sins are washed away!

    nice, eh? and how much is the premium? pay with your brain. empty out all logical content and fill it with the xtian, toxic, smothering anesthesia. you’ll feel better. NOT!

    fucking assholes.

  164. on 23 Sep 2014 at 9:17 pm 164.alex said …

    i’m sorry. it’s really a trifecta. after playing the redemption card, the xtian moron proclaims any/all events that unfold are his god causation.

    i got caught kissing another woman because i was born a sinner. god has forgiven me. i’m blessed to have such an understanding wife. courtesy of your boy, vance.

    priest molests a child because of his original sin. god forgives him. authorities convicts his motherfucking ass. dipshit proclaims that god wanted him to get caught so that others may learn.

    fucking shit.

  165. on 23 Sep 2014 at 9:27 pm 165.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Doesn’t this make no-one able to uphold the moral code?”

    TJ who said anything about about anyone always acting morally?

    I only point out that atheists have no ability to judge another individuals actions. Everyone is moral in atheist world because no personal opinion is more valid than another individual’s opinion.

    Sounds really good, huh? Do anything, anywhere, anytime, make up a reason and you are good to go!

    I seem to remember Srewtape mentioning such a scenario :)

  166. on 23 Sep 2014 at 9:42 pm 166.alex said …

    “Everyone is moral in atheist world…”

    this is why you’re a dumb motherfucking, liar. who said a rich atheist shoplifter is moral? your absolute morals don’t exist and your dumbass interprets this as everyone being moral? did i say you’re a dumb motherfucker?

    an atheist rapist is definitely not moral. according to the other motherfucker, messenger, a rapist (atheist or not) may marry their victim as the punishment. is this your idea of moral? it sure as hell ain’t no atheist definition.

    dumbass, motherfucker.

  167. on 23 Sep 2014 at 11:10 pm 167.DPK said …

    “Everyone is moral in atheist world because no personal opinion is more valid than another individual’s opinion.”

    You continuing to lie and espouse this kind of nonsense doesn’t make it so, anymore than you claiming that an invisible man is your best buddy and will reward you with eternal life where you get to ride rainbow ponies with Jesus after you die makes it so either.

    Now, let’s try again… we have already given you reasons why, say slavery, the act of one human owning another as property, is immoral. We want to know your take.

    “Do you think Messy is correct in his assertion that it is ok to own another human and force him to work for you as long as your circumstances are dire enough that you need that to survive, or do you think that slavery is in fact immoral?
    IF your opinion IS that slavery is immoral, what are YOU basing this opinion on?”

    It is so so funny that you steadfastly refuse to answer a question about morality as basic as slavery. Instead you avoid the question and falsely claim that “everything is moral in atheist’s world…” which is a lie. Since you claim possesion of an absolute code of morality, tell us specifically what it says about slavery… then we can address all the other problems… but tell us exactly what it says. Either it agrees with Messy or it doesn’t right?
    LOL

  168. on 24 Sep 2014 at 2:06 am 168.TJ said …

    I don’t answer for what others say or believe.

    The Bible teaches that all are condemned through the actions of one man… Adam. And all can have salvation through the sacrifice of one man… the last Adam… Christ.

    Sin by definition is disobedience to God. You are either in line with Gods instruction or you are not. There is no middle ground or fence to sit on.

    The Bible teaches that all, are already condemned. Not by choice but by circumstance. Salvation through Christ is the solution promised to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden by God.

    If you where an Israelite charged with purging the promised land, ridding it of those God had Judged for destruction. And you failed to kill all the women and children as instructed… would you consider yourself to be in line with Gods instruction?

    The Bible talks of such a scenario. What does it say?

    Today we live in an age of Grace where God has fulfilled the promise to Adam and Eve. We are not instructed to treat anyone in any harsh way, rather to treat others how we want to be treated and to love our neighbors.

    Why is it that blame falls on God for ALL things Judged as wrong by us?

    “Who says anyone gets to make the call? Once you allow someone to dictate what is right and wrong you are left with arbitrary moral dictates which are a) subject to the whims of the one who is dictating them and b) relativistic when they don’t apply to the morality giver. For example, the Christian God commanded people not to kill each other but then insisted that his people slaughter the Canaanites. The commandment changed due to the whim of God. Then there are examples of God killing people Himself (see: everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah). People like A give their God a free pass. It’s his “prerogative” to ignore His own moral commandments whenever He sees fit. It’s moral relativism plain and simple.”

    A whim? No reasons given in the Bible?

    So a computer game programmer should be subject to the same laws , settings and attributes that govern characters in a game too?

    Should God have been subject to the Laws given to Man before or after creating man?

    Should not the programmer of life have the the right to edit, delete and bug fix?

    Does God not declare the creation to be “very Good” in the beginning, and then pass the earth over to the responsibility and stewardship of Man and his free will, for whom it was created?

    Or am I just making up stuff not written in the Bible?

    When you begin to insert opinions and interpretations that are far removed from what is written, it all falls apart when logic is applied.

  169. on 29 Sep 2014 at 3:55 pm 169.freddies_dead said …

    168.TJ said …

    I don’t answer for what others say or believe.

    The Bible teaches that all are condemned through the actions of one man… Adam. And all can have salvation through the sacrifice of one man… the last Adam… Christ.

    So the only way an omnipotent God can prevent the condemnation of the entire human race over the actions of one man is for God to torture and execute Himself (in the form of Jesus – the one supposedly sinless man) and yet everyone is still born into sin so the plan failed anyway.

    Sin by definition is disobedience to God. You are either in line with Gods instruction or you are not. There is no middle ground or fence to sit on.

    The Bible also says we’re all incapable of avoiding sin (so much for free will again). Are God’s instructions moral because they conform to an objective moral standard or simply because God says they are good?

    The Bible teaches that all, are already condemned. Not by choice but by circumstance.

    And once more we see free will abrogated by the whim of God.

    Salvation through Christ is the solution promised to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden by God.

    The bit where He’s going to sacrifice Himself to Himself because His creation did exactly as He knew it would do … still makes no sense.

    If you where an Israelite charged with purging the promised land, ridding it of those God had Judged for destruction. And you failed to kill all the women and children as instructed… would you consider yourself to be in line with Gods instruction?

    The Bible talks of such a scenario. What does it say?

    This doesn’t address the problem whereby God’s instructions contradict His earlier commandments. This invalidates the notion that the moral laws handed down from God are absolute. It just proves my point about them being subject to God’s whims.

    Today we live in an age of Grace where God has fulfilled the promise to Adam and Eve. We are not instructed to treat anyone in any harsh way, rather to treat others how we want to be treated and to love our neighbors.

    A concept that predates Christianity and appears in most of the worlds major religions.

    Why is it that blame falls on God for ALL things Judged as wrong by us?

    Because if the Christian claims are true, i.e. that God exists, that He is omniscient and omnipotent and that He has a plan to bring about His own glory then everything that happens – be it considered good or bad – is attributable to God. The problem for Christians is that God is also said to be omnibenevolent (which amusingly contradicts God’s own claim to be a jealous God). Which begs the question of how evil can exist when God is said to be all good? It makes no sense, but then neither do many of the Christian claims regarding God.

    I said the following to A the lying prick who insists that God’s morality is absolute so my answers will use that as a contextual basis.

    “Who says anyone gets to make the call? Once you allow someone to dictate what is right and wrong you are left with arbitrary moral dictates which are a) subject to the whims of the one who is dictating them and b) relativistic when they don’t apply to the morality giver. For example, the Christian God commanded people not to kill each other but then insisted that his people slaughter the Canaanites. The commandment changed due to the whim of God. Then there are examples of God killing people Himself (see: everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah). People like A give their God a free pass. It’s his “prerogative” to ignore His own moral commandments whenever He sees fit. It’s moral relativism plain and simple.”

    A whim? No reasons given in the Bible?

    What have these “reasons” got to do with absolute morality? Either something is wrong or it isn’t. For morality to be absolute there can’t be excuses which suddenly make immoral acts moral. This idea that there’s a morally sufficient reason for any action, no matter how abhorrent, contradicts the claim of absolute morality.

    So a computer game programmer should be subject to the same laws , settings and attributes that govern characters in a game too?

    If you want to call those laws “absolute”, then yes.

    Should God have been subject to the Laws given to Man before or after creating man?

    Either the laws are absolute, in which case God is subject to them regardless of when He created man, or they’re simply not absolute.

    Should not the programmer of life have the the right to edit, delete and bug fix?

    As already noted, not if the morals are claimed to be “absolute”. Also, why would a perfect being need to “edit, delete and bug fix”? Especially when everything that happens is part of it’s plan?

    Does God not declare the creation to be “very Good” in the beginning, and then pass the earth over to the responsibility and stewardship of Man and his free will, for whom it was created?

    What does this have to do with morality? Ignoring the absurdity of a supposedly perfect being creating a less than perfect creation and the nonsensical claim for free will in the face of an omniscient being with a plan, there’s nothing in that question that addresses the problem of a God commanding others to commit immoral acts, or indeed, of Him committing them Himself.

    Or am I just making up stuff not written in the Bible?

    The problem lies with what is written in the Bible. The passages that show God breaking His own supposedly absolute laws.

    When you begin to insert opinions and interpretations that are far removed from what is written, it all falls apart when logic is applied.

    Hell, just applying logic to what appears in the Bible causes it’s claims to fall apart.

  170. on 29 Sep 2014 at 7:02 pm 170.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “For example, the Christian God commanded people not to kill each other but then insisted that his people slaughter the Canaanites.”

    Actually God said not to murderer which is the taking of innocent life…..you know…..like abortion. God judged the Canaanites and destroyed them which He can do because all life belongs to Him.

    “Then there are examples of God killing people Himself”

    Incorrect, all life belongs to God therefore He can take life whenever He desires. Since it belongs to Him, He cannot murder. Man murderers because life does not belong to Him. So simple alex could grasp it….:)

    lol!!!!! Where is that post about atheist knowing theology? lol!!!!!! They can’t even handle the basics…..

    Anywho…..

    Assume God did all the terrible things Freddie the Mouse claims, why are they wrong atheists……still waiting for the answer….lol!!!!

  171. on 29 Sep 2014 at 7:28 pm 171.alex said …

    “Man murderers because life does not belong to Him.”

    good one martin. one fell swoop, you’ve justified owning slaves and killing them. high fives all around. moron.

  172. on 29 Sep 2014 at 8:31 pm 172.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “you’ve justified owning slaves and killing them.”

    I did? Do tell alexander? Please share how I did this and then tell me WHY it is wrong.

    Watch this everyone………get your popcorn!

  173. on 29 Sep 2014 at 9:43 pm 173.alex said …

    “Do tell alexander? Please share how I did this and then tell me WHY it is wrong.”

    oh, look. another failed wild goose chase attempt, by the resident, dipshit, motherfucker hor, a.k.a. martin, science guy, biff, xenon, little ‘A’, Sweetness, boz, RL Wooten, ‘Everyone’.

    why don’t you look it up yourself? all 42 references from your shitpile collection at: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    popcorn? 30 motherfucking times, you mentioned it, you dumbass, motherfucker.

    so tell us again about your all knowing god giving free will? he can, because he’s god? that’s why you’re a dumbass motherfucker. it’s not murder because god owns the life? did i mention that you’re a dumbass motherfucker?

  174. on 29 Sep 2014 at 10:48 pm 174.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “why don’t you look it up yourself?”

    Lol!!!!!!!! Once again…….alexander cannot perform…….sigh…….lol!!!!!

    Luv ya Alex! See ya buddy!

  175. on 29 Sep 2014 at 10:58 pm 175.alex said …

    “alexander cannot perform”

    it’s all here bitch, motherfucker. http://goo.gl/UYo1uS. the fact that you defend the bible’s stance on slavery is implicit, you dumbass.

    go ahead and look it up in your shitpile http://goo.gl/UYo1uS. turn it in for review and ask the question: does the dipshit motherfucker believe in slavery as stated in the bible. what would the reviewers answer? did i say you’re a dumbass, motherfucker?

    what are you going to ask next? evolution? gravity?

    fucking asshole, motherfucker.

  176. on 30 Sep 2014 at 12:41 am 176.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead said,

    Man, I totally see your line of logic in relation to absolute morality. I’ve though as you do.

    Call me crazy if you will. I also see the logic in Alex’s “Possible, Creative non-interactive God”. I’ve pondered such things too.

    Logic is logical by default, but this is subjective to the individual applying their version of logic. Not necessarily correct or true. There is no proof to say I’m correct. There is no proof to say your wrong.

    As Alex points out I only have my personal testimony, which I claim to be a revelation in regard to my salvation. Beyond that I only have the same bible as everyone else to read from.

    I would not be claiming what I claim unless I believed it, I know how crazy it sounds, and I said before…

    “What we believe is determined more so by what we reject as opposed to what we can provide proof for.”

    It’s often about what we can prove via reason and logical determining to ourselves, not to others.

    Thanks for sharing.

    I respect your position. But, does it provides you with answers to those burning questions we all ask ourselves?

  177. on 30 Sep 2014 at 1:57 am 177.alex said …

    “It’s often about what we can prove via reason and logical determining to ourselves, not to others.”

    fair enough. considering the dreadful eternal damnation, many atheists arrive at their conclusion via careful and thoughtful considerations.

    you’ll find that a lot of atheists don’t really care about your beliefs. it’s the behavior that goes along with it that is hard to ignore. xtians resolve this by proclaiming that such peeps are not the real deal. similarly, muslims proclaim that other religions are bogus.

    to resolve this, tolerance is a must. secularism explains this by separating government from religion. additionally, and to be fair to others, all religions must tone it down. in your face evangelism has been demonstrated to work mostly on fools and the desperate.

    by treating all religions as equal without preference, it would be logical to extend this same treatment to non-believers.

    a step towards this equality could be achieved by accepting that certain properties attributed to gods are not. this includes morals, events, origins, and after death destinations.

  178. on 30 Sep 2014 at 2:14 am 178.the messenger said …

    169.freddies_dead, in this comment I will address your claims.

    Claim 1:”The Bible teaches that all are condemned through the actions of one man… Adam.”

    That is completely false. Original sin is not mentioned in the bible, nor is it a catholic doctrine. Also, Deuteronomy 24:16 makes it clear that we(and we alone) are responsible for our own sins. Also, the Adam and eve thing is a metaphor (as I explained and proved many times before.).

    Claim 2:”Sin by definition is disobedience to God. You are either in line with Gods instruction or you are not. There is no middle ground or fence to sit on.”

    This is correct.

    Claim 3:”The Bible also says we’re all incapable of avoiding sin (so much for free will again). Are God’s instructions moral because they conform to an objective moral standard or simply because God says they are good?”

    Sin is unavoidable just like stop signs on the road. The inevitability of sin does not remove free will, due to the fact that we can resist sin, and can choose to sin or not sin.

    Claim 4:”So the only way an omnipotent God can prevent the condemnation of the entire human race over the actions of one man is for God to torture and execute Himself (in the form of Jesus – the one supposedly sinless man) and yet everyone is still born into sin so the plan failed anyway.”

    First of all, Jesus(GOD in human form) allowed himself to be taken by the romans and crucified by them, while holding all of the sins and evil of the world on his back, because he wanted to prove to the whole world that he loves humanity enough to suffer unimaginable pain for us and to start the new covenant( a covenant that brings cleansing of sins, and that brings us to salvation and eventually moral perfection).

    Claim 5:”The Bible teaches that all, are already condemned. Not by choice but by circumstance.”

    The purpose of the new covenant is not to condemn us, but to condemn evil.

  179. on 30 Sep 2014 at 2:23 am 179.the messenger said …

    continued……

    Claim 6:”Today we live in an age of Grace where God has fulfilled the promise to Adam and Eve. We are not instructed to treat anyone in any harsh way, rather to treat others how we want to be treated and to love our neighbors.

    A concept that predates Christianity and appears in most of the worlds major religions.”

    GOD taught the golden rule to the first humans, so it makes sense that it would be passed to many later cultures and religions of the world.

    Also, Judaism(which Christianity came from) had the golden rule, and it is thousands of years older than Christianity.

  180. on 30 Sep 2014 at 2:36 am 180.alex said …

    178.the messenger said…

    bleh, bleh, motherfucking bleh. you’ve demonstrated many times that you’re a cherry picking bible idiot as seen in your past postings: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    discussing the questionable bible with you is pointless. a universal, fully agreeable, biblical translation is unachievable and you’re probably not the most qualified to do it. case in point, ridiculous marriage rape shit.

    end of story. dumbass, motherfucker.

  181. on 30 Sep 2014 at 2:43 am 181.alex said …

    “GOD taught the golden rule to the first humans, so it makes sense that it would be passed to many later cultures and religions of the world.”

    wrong AGAIN, motherfucker. there are other religions that predate xtianity and they have similar “golden rules”. this is an example of your circular, dumbass logic. you posit, without proof, that your god created the first humans and then you extend it with more crap.

    would it make sense if i were to declare that “RA”, who predates your god, taught the golden rule to the first humans, and bleh, bleh, bleh?

    no, it wouldn’t, would it? dumb, motherfucker.

  182. on 30 Sep 2014 at 5:35 am 182.TJ said …

    Alex,

    “you’ll find that a lot of atheists don’t really care about your beliefs. it’s the behavior that goes along with it that is hard to ignore.”

    Yes I agree. Many religions do play the damnation card and use the “in your face approach”.

    And yes. I have been guilty of such behavior.

    I also believe religions have been used to invoke fear and control upon individuals, groups and nations. And that most religions demonstrate actions that are in direct contrast to what they state to believe.

    I said earlier that I don’t belong to any religious group. I have often regarded religious groups as most hypercritical. The idea that you can turn up to church on Sunday and it’s all good, regardless of your activities the following week. In truth, I am not any better.

    Personally I believe that I have found salvation in Christ. The opposite of salvation is the bad news however. Just as if I saw you heading towards a fallen power line, I would try to warn you of the danger.

    I’m glad we could talk reasonably to each other. I am interested in all views, even if I don’t always portray it or agree with them.

    Personally, one of the biggest issues I consider with atheism, is the logical conclusion that at any point any country could declare that they are the most advanced, technological, populated, or just plain better than everyone else.

    The atheist world view requires no higher moral or authority by which to measure itself against. Virtually any action taken, hostile, aggressive or otherwise can be justified and explained away through logic, reason, need or requirement.

    Combined with Evolutionary logic, it all leads to the conclusion that we are all the product of accidental mutations, putting mankind as his own absolute authority. But who gets to make decisions. The fittest?

    Whatever the fittest says goes? This is a scary scenario to me, and it is well on the way with each new generation being taught that as individuals, they ultimately don’t matter.

    The implications could lead a society in any number of directions, perhaps some good, some not so.

    And yes, I know that religion has many terrible examples of what it can produce.

    Just my thoughts.

  183. on 30 Sep 2014 at 8:16 am 183.TJ said …

    To the messenger,

    Mate, your addressing freddies_dead regarding comments I made. If look at post #168 you’ll see what I mean. If you address your concerns to me I’ll happily answer.

    To freddies_dead,

    Both the messenger and The Prickly Science Guy contend that Genesis is not to be regarded as literal.

    This whole issue regarding absolute moral laws. I’m not so sure about, for a start they disregard Genesis as non literal yet proclaim it’s moral and educational value. By doing this they discredit Jesus’s claims and undo the entire Gospel message from the beginning.

    What Genesis does imply is that God is the ultimate authority. The problem begins when Adam and Eve disobey God. Plain and simple. The penalty was death. But rather than destroy them instantly, (because he loved them) God separates himself from man instead (the bible speaks of imperfection being unable to exist in the presence of God, whatever that means), and promises to restore the connection through a kinsman redeemer.

    It seems all other laws are passed to man as God sees fit. Not from the very beginning as if handed to man as a moral hand book.

    Jesus’s role is to then enter into death, being sinless, the penalty for sin does not apply and he is able to reestablish a connection back to the Father (original formless God).

    By deflating the importance of Genesis none of it makes any sense.

    But if you prefer the messengers and The Prickly Science Guy’s take on what is written, then by all means disregard me completely.

  184. on 30 Sep 2014 at 4:10 pm 184.freddies_dead said …

    170.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “For example, the Christian God commanded people not to kill each other but then insisted that his people slaughter the Canaanites.”

    Actually God said not to murderer which is the taking of innocent life…..you know…..like abortion.

    Even if we’re kind and accept A’s translation here, what he’s still ignoring is that God orders the slaughter of every Canaanite – men, women, children – innocent and guilty alike i.e. He still orders murder according to A’s own definition, which apparently is one of those laws A claim’s is absolute. As usual A is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He’s doing exactly what I’ve been saying all along – affirming that might makes right – and displaying the moral relativism Christianity actually holds to while claiming otherwise.

    God judged the Canaanites and destroyed them which He can do because all life belongs to Him.

    By this “logic” there’s absolutely nothing wrong with slave owners destroying their slaves because they belong to them. That’s some “morality” A has there.

    “Then there are examples of God killing people Himself”

    Incorrect, all life belongs to God therefore He can take life whenever He desires. Since it belongs to Him, He cannot murder.

    God gets a free pass on breaking His own rules again. Might makes right once more. So much for Christian moral absolutes.

    Man murderers because life does not belong to Him.

    And yet slavery – as condoned in the Bible – is ownership of another human being, slaves belong to their owners. As noted, according to A’s earlier “logic”, it’s not murder when a slave owner kills a slave.

    So simple alex could grasp it….:)

    And yet still too complicated for A it seems.

    lol!!!!! Where is that post about atheist knowing theology? lol!!!!!! They can’t even handle the basics…..

    I have to wonder what basics A is referring to here. I’ve simply shown that his claim of moral absolutes isn’t upheld by what we find in the Bible – instead we find might makes right moral relativism. So, it seems that by “theology” A means trying to hold 2 contradictory ideas at once. In which case I’m quite happy to be told I “can’t even handle” it.

    Anywho…..

    Assume God did all the terrible things Freddie the Mouse claims, why are they wrong atheists……still waiting for the answer….lol!!!!

    A knows this has been asked and answered. The terrible things God does are objectively harmful to humans. That makes them wrong. If he objects then he’s welcome to demonstrate how being killed is a good thing.

  185. on 30 Sep 2014 at 4:21 pm 185.freddies_dead said …

    178.the messenger said …

    169.freddies_dead, in this comment I will address your claims.

    As TJ has noted you’re actually addressing mostly his claims but I have to point out just how wrong you are from the very start.

    Claim 1:”The Bible teaches that all are condemned through the actions of one man… Adam.”

    That is completely false. Original sin is not mentioned in the bible, nor is it a catholic doctrine.

    Holy cow. It’s in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Available on the Vatican’s own website FFS.
    Your own church says you are dead wrong.

    PART ONE
    THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

    SECTION TWO
    THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

    CHAPTER ONE
    I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER

    ARTICLE I
    “I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH”

    Paragraph 7. The Fall

    Original sin – an essential truth of the faith

    388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story’s ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.261 We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to “convict the world concerning sin”,262 by revealing him who is its Redeemer.

    389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

    You’d think a self professed Catholic would have a rudimentary knowledge of what is and isn’t Catholic doctrine.

  186. on 30 Sep 2014 at 5:30 pm 186.A Prickly Science Giy said …

    “The terrible things God does are objectively harmful to humans. That makes them wrong”

    Lol!!!!!! Now we have AMOTHER definition of what is moral. Now Freddie & Mouse get to impose their own definition on us and God.

    Atheism is harmful to humans therefore Freddie is living immorally! Lol!!!!

    Oh but wait……

    Omly Freddie and his Mouse get to determine what is and is mot harmful to humans.

    I bet he has set himself up as the judge and jury……lol!!!!

    Lets see if he answers who is judge and jury on what is harmful to humans…….:)

    Based on China and the USSR, I already know the answer……..sigh…….popcorn ready

  187. on 30 Sep 2014 at 10:12 pm 187.alex said …

    “Omly Freddie and his Mouse get to determine what is and is mot harmful to humans.”

    another example why you’re a dumb motherfucker. you wrongly contend that atheists make up their own morals. you’re going to ask me to cite that? look it up, you beeyatch. it’s all here: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    atheists don’t make up their own morals, you fuckhead. you’ve been challenged to produce your god given absolute morals, which of course, you predictably failed. cite an example when an atheist committed a crime and attributed it to his own, arbitrary morals? you want me to cite an example of a criminal theist that said he did it because of god?

    your exclusive xtian god given morals are bullshit. other religions have morals and atheists have them too. your motherfucking god does not have a morals monopoly, so shut the fuck up already.

    you contend that historically, atheists committed atrocities and atheists retort the same about theist atrocities, but it doesn’t matter. prison population reflects that most crimes are committed by theists. crime rates in mostly atheist countries, like norway, sweden, and finland, are lower in comparison to religious countries. draw your own conclusion, dumbass.

    now, go fuck yourself, bitch.

  188. on 30 Sep 2014 at 11:22 pm 188.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “cite an example when an atheist committed a crime and attributed it to his own, arbitrary morals?”

    lol!!! That is WAY to easy but Sure thing:

    Madalyn Murray O’Hair murdered by atheist David Waters

    Alfred Kinsey Molested kids and fraudulent research

    Kim Jong Il – Name he has done it

    Jeff Dahmer – Killed and ate human beings.

    A short list for the sake of time.

    “atheists don’t make up their own morals”

    Well now we have ANOTHER claim by an atheist no less. OK, Alexander, my little pony, where do athesit morals come from cutie?

    Looking forward to learning…….popcorn ready……this will be exciting……..:)

    “draw your own conclusion”

    OK, I usually do but thanks for the invite. Alex is clueless! lol!!!

  189. on 30 Sep 2014 at 11:54 pm 189.alex said …

    dumbass hor failed again. did David Waters say the reason he killed was because he said he’s an atheist? did Alfred Kinsey molest because he said he’s an atheist? did Kim Jong Il say he’s doing all these things because he said he’s an atheist? and on and on. does the ebola virus kill because it says it’s an atheist? even if all these people and the ebola virus said that they did what they did, how the fuck does that prove your assertion that ONLY people with your god given morals behave morally? you going to ask me to cite this assertion? look it up, bitch. it’s right here: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    in your delusional up mind, buddhists, moslems, non-xtian people, and atheists lacking your, imagined, god given morals, behave wrongly. yeah, right, beeyatch. citation again? http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    you’re a dumbass motherfucker. you claim that atheists make up their own morals, but you can’t produce your own god given absolute morals. where did you get it then, you dumb motherfucker? no, bitch. you use judgment, just like everybody else. no? present a hypothetical situation and test a buddhist, moslem, and an atheist. do it, bitch, coward, motherfucker, and see how they all would behave. no? go fuck yourself.

  190. on 01 Oct 2014 at 12:24 am 190.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “prove your assertion that ONLY people with your god given morals behave morally?”

    UM, Never made such a claim, it is your cluelessness shining through again….lol!!!!!

    Lets review the question you are running from….lol!!!!

    OK, Alexander, my little pony, where do athesit morals come from cutie?

    Looking forward to learning…….popcorn ready……this will be exciting……..:)

  191. on 01 Oct 2014 at 12:26 am 191.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Oh, luv ya babe!!!!!

    You are what children dream of becoming…:)

  192. on 01 Oct 2014 at 12:41 am 192.alex said …

    about your assertion that only people with your god given morals behave morally….

    “Never made such a claim, it is your cluelessness shining through again….lol!!!!!”

    i knew you were going to deny it. that’s why i referenced your pile of shit at http://goo.gl/UYo1uS. submit the entire content and send it to a peer review of your choice and ask them to conclude your stance on morals.

    “where do athesit morals come from cutie?”

    i don’t know. your turn, bitch, motherfucker. present your god’s absolute morals? chirp, chirp, asshole.

  193. on 01 Oct 2014 at 12:54 am 193.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “i don’t know you turn”

    Thanks….

    I spread knew that:). Just wanted you to admit it.

    Lets let you buddies give it a shot eh? I mean it can’t be every atheist makes up what is moral and what is immoral? That would make everything possibly moral…..that’s craziness!! Lol!!!

    Luv ya buddy!!

  194. on 01 Oct 2014 at 12:59 am 194.alex said …

    “I mean it can’t be every atheist makes up what is moral and what is immoral?”

    that’s why you’re a dumbass, motherfucker. all this righteous blabbering about morals and you can’t even produce it?

    then what the fuck are you talking about? from your non production of this so called morals, one could conclude that it’s a made up, bullshit, ya?

    dumbass, motherfucker.

  195. on 01 Oct 2014 at 1:46 am 195.alex said …

    and so, the nonexistent, biblical, god given absolute morals, championed by the resident dumbass, hor, is put to sleep again.

    but, do not be fooled. when the hor motherfucker runs out of material, he will surely resurrect the shit yet again. check it for yourself: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    allahu akbar. yours truly, the atheist moslem.

  196. on 01 Oct 2014 at 1:44 pm 196.freddies_dead said …

    186.A the lying prick posting as A Prickly Science Giy said …

    “The terrible things God does are objectively harmful to humans. That makes them wrong”

    Lol!!!!!! Now we have AMOTHER definition of what is moral.

    As usual A is being disingenuous here. He has not actually asked for a definition of morality. He previously asked how I came to the conclusion that slavery is wrong and had no valid response which would lead me to discard the reasons I presented. He also dodged answering how he himself could claim that slavery is wrong given his Bible specifically condones slavery. This time he asked what made the terrible things done by his God wrong and is falsely equivocating my answer with a definition of morality. Actions like killing a human, enslaving a human or forcing a human to marry their rapist are objectively harmful i.e. they are harmful regardless of what anyone thinks, wishes, believes. They are harmful (according to Objectivism) because the retard, degrade or destoy human life. These aren’t definitions of morality they are statements of fact. I even gave A the chance to explain how they are not morally wrong if he disagreed with my conclusion. I note he ran away from that offer – as he does pretty much whenever he’s questioned on anything. I suspect A would agree that killing people, enslaving them or forcing rape victims to marry their abusers is wrong, however, he has no Biblical basis for making those conclusions. Indeed his Bible explicitly condones the latter two while also offering a “morally sufficient” reason for the first i.e. because God says to do it.

    Now Freddie & Mouse get to impose their own definition on us and God.

    Another lie. I haven’t tried to impose my definition on anyone a) because I haven’t actually been asked for a definition, b) it would not be my definition, it would be the definition according to Objectivism and c) how does A think I’m going to impose a definition on anyone? I can argue that it’s the correct definition but there’s no way I can force anyone to agree with me about it.

    Atheism is harmful to humans therefore Freddie is living immorally! Lol!!!!

    And what argument does A advance to show atheism is harmful to humans? That’s right, none. It’s pretty obvious how murder, slavery and forced marriage to your rapist are harmful but we’re given absolutely no clue as to how disbelieving in god(s) is actually harmful. A simply makes this baseless claim as if it’s self evident. It’s not.

    Oh but wait……

    Omly Freddie and his Mouse get to determine what is and is mot harmful to humans.

    Once again with the lie. The whole point of Objectivist ethics is that the “harm” part is objective i.e. that it’s not dependent on what anyone wants, wishes, believes etc… No-one has ever claimed that this is necessarily easy to determine but we’re talking about being killed, being enslaved and being forced to marry your rapist. There are very few, if any, actions that are more obviously harmful.

    I bet he has set himself up as the judge and jury……lol!!!!

    As usual A would lose that bet.

    Lets see if he answers who is judge and jury on what is harmful to humans…….:)

    No-one gets to be judge and jury. Why would you want your standard to be dependent on the whims of anyone?

    Based on China and the USSR, I already know the answer……..sigh…….popcorn ready

    And, as usual, by “know” A actually means he’s decided for himself that his own opinion is king – the very thing he’s accusing me of doing – the hypocrisy is once more breathtaking.

  197. on 01 Oct 2014 at 3:46 pm 197.freddies_dead said …

    178.the messenger said …

    Claim 3:”The Bible also says we’re all incapable of avoiding sin (so much for free will again). Are God’s instructions moral because they conform to an objective moral standard or simply because God says they are good?”

    Sin is unavoidable just like stop signs on the road. The inevitability of sin does not remove free will, due to the fact that we can resist sin, and can choose to sin or not sin.

    Way to contradict yourself there messy. If sin is unavoidable how can we avoid it like you claim? Even if we want to avoid it the Bible says we can’t, but why is that? Because God has planned it that way of course, hence making the claim of free will a pile of bollocks.

    Claim 4:”So the only way an omnipotent God can prevent the condemnation of the entire human race over the actions of one man is for God to torture and execute Himself (in the form of Jesus – the one supposedly sinless man) and yet everyone is still born into sin so the plan failed anyway.”

    First of all, Jesus(GOD in human form) allowed himself to be taken by the romans and crucified by them, while holding all of the sins and evil of the world on his back, because he wanted to prove to the whole world that he loves humanity enough to suffer unimaginable pain for us and to start the new covenant( a covenant that brings cleansing of sins, and that brings us to salvation and eventually moral perfection).

    I like the way your “First of all” petered out into a bunch of drivel that didn’t address what I’d written in any way, shape or form.

    Why couldn’t your omnipotent God find a way to forgive humanity (for doing exactly as He’d planned) that didn’t require the torture and execution of the one supposedly perfect man (who was also Himself)? And why, since this was supposed to cleanse the world of sin, is the world still full of sin? It’s a load of old nonsense.

  198. on 01 Oct 2014 at 5:45 pm 198.alex said …

    guess which moron will pipe in and say that atheists are not qualified theologians and therefore cannot interpret and/or quote the bible.

    guess which other moron will whine that the passages/readings quoted are not to be taken literal or taken out of context or are no longer in effect or read out of the wrong translated bible.

  199. on 02 Oct 2014 at 2:35 am 199.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “And why, since this was supposed to cleanse the world of sin, is the world still full of sin?”

    Lol!!!!!!! Lets just check out this one theological tidbit. According to atheists, they know theology better than the Christians. Just curious: Any Christians here (or anywhere) believe the death of Christ was to remove all sins from this world? That’s a new one to me……lol!!!!!!!

    Still waiting for any atheist to share with us where the atheist morals come from. Alex doesn’t know, Freddie the mouse just keeps making moral judgments…..never provides a source……..beginning to think it is all Relativism.:)

  200. on 02 Oct 2014 at 11:59 am 200.alex said …

    “According to atheists, they know theology better than the Christians. Just curious: Any Christians here (or anywhere) believe the death of Christ was to remove all sins from this world?”

    typical hor modus operandi. a wild goose chase to divert attention to his bullshit. look it up your damn self, ya bitch motherfucker. if there’s only one meaning to this, why do xtians have different explanations for the bullshit death of christ. did the preacher, (your hero messenger) know that there was a donkey in the bible, talking snakes, or that hell is eternal? here’s your hero’s biblical translations: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    “Still waiting for any atheist to share with us where the atheist morals come from.”

    asked and answered, you dumbass, motherfucker. ya mock and feign righteousness and when you’re asked to produce your bible absolute morals, you duck and weave and slink back to you hole and stew for a bit. as i said before:

    guess which moron will pipe in and say that atheists are not qualified theologians and therefore cannot interpret and/or quote the bible.

    guess which other moron will whine that the passages/readings quoted are not to be taken literal or taken out of context or are no longer in effect or read out of the wrong translated bible.

  201. on 02 Oct 2014 at 12:22 pm 201.freddies_dead said …

    199.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “And why, since this was supposed to cleanse the world of sin, is the world still full of sin?”

    Lol!!!!!!! Lets just check out this one theological tidbit.

    Yes, lets all watch A dodge any of the questions I asked in my response to his last post so he can try to steer the conversation somewhere he feels more comfortable. Because, quite frankly, he’s a coward. If A believes that slavery is wrong, just what is he basing this on given the Bible clearly condones it? A refuses to say. I think that’s quite telling.

    According to atheists, they know theology better than the Christians. Just curious: Any Christians here (or anywhere) believe the death of Christ was to remove all sins from this world? That’s a new one to me……lol!!!!!!!

    John 1:29, “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”

    1 Peter 2:24, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.”

    I guess A simply doesn’t believe the idea of substitutionary atonement, the idea that Jesus died on the cross to free us from our sins. An odd stance for a self-professed Christian but I suppose it takes all sorts.

    Still waiting for any atheist to share with us where the atheist morals come from.

    They come from the only place they’re able to come from, humans. A doesn’t seem to like the fact that atheists simply don’t pretend that their morals come from an imaginary deity.

    Alex doesn’t know, Freddie the mouse just keeps making moral judgments…..never provides a source……..

    This is, of course, a lie. I have said all along that I’m an Objectivist and, as such, my morality comes from Objectivism. Now a real “science guy” would have no problem going away and reading up on Objectivist ethics but, as we’ve already seen, our own “science guy” isn’t prepared to “wade through” anything he doesn’t already agree with.

    beginning to think it is all Relativism.:)

    A is welcome to think what he likes. Unfortunately for him reality couldn’t give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut what he thinks, that’s the beauty of the metaphysical primacy of existence. Judging by his inability to see how Christian morality is rooted in subjectivism and boils down to might makes right relativism I suspect he doesn’t actually understand what relativism entails. If he did understand and could find it then he’d have demonstrated any relativism in the moral judgements I have presented, instead he has only implied (dishonestly) that it’s there.

  202. on 03 Oct 2014 at 12:02 am 202.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “If A believes that slavery is wrong, just what is he basing this on given the Bible clearly condones it?’

    Why do I need to? I haven’t been given a reason why God is wrong and you are right????????

    Just exercising my Objectivism Fredddie da Mpuse. So what you got my bahrohther? you still haven’t told us why other than you believe anything you view is bad for humanity is immoral. Why? Who determiens what is bad for humanity? Atheism is bad for humanity so why are you an atheist?

    “I guess A simply doesn’t believe the idea of substitutionary atonement,”

    lol!!! So he now takes a theological right turn, leaves behind that Jesus died therefore the world should be sinless to I am assuming Penal substitutionary atonement????? lol, OK Which is it Dr Mouse?

    “I’m an Objectivist and, as such, my morality comes from Objectivism”

    Translation: Freddie Mouse’s opinion is moral, anyone who deviates is not. We know have Opinion, I don’t know, Laws of land and evolution on this over time. Which is it boys?

    “They come from the only place they’re able to come from, humans”

    Another admission to relativism therefore God cannot be immoral because he does not have any authority to judge another’s morality unless he sees himself superior to all other humans??? Hmmmm…..

    “Unfortunately for him reality couldn’t give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut what he thinks”

    Freddie Mouse now shows the frustration of his failing belief system and takes the alex tactic. Since I too am human, my morality is just as authoritative as his……..but we all know he is in reality of the Leninist/Stalinist ilk when is comes to reality….:) lol!!!

  203. on 03 Oct 2014 at 4:07 am 203.TJ said …

    Hey everyone,

    Just a curious observation…

    Alex said…
    “guess which moron will pipe in and say that atheists are not qualified theologians and therefore cannot interpret and/or quote the bible.”

    And sure enough this is exactly what happened.

    Earlier we had a discussion, where the question was raised…

    “is it possible to know the future?”

    1. Alex knew the future. The evidence supports this claim.

    or…

    2. Alex had enough reliable information and experience/knowledge to accurately predict the future. The evidence supports this claim also.

    or…

    3. The evidence can be interpreted to support both claims but proves neither, either way, conclusively.

    Anybody like to share thoughts?

  204. on 03 Oct 2014 at 11:45 am 204.freddies_dead said …

    202.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “If A believes that slavery is wrong, just what is he basing this on given the Bible clearly condones it?’

    Why do I need to?

    And now A shows his ignorance of how discussions work. With both sides asking questions and answering those asked of them. Instead A opts for a double standard whereby the atheists have to define and account for every single thing they say while A seems to think he gets a free pass. Why? Well, just look at his next remark.

    I haven’t been given a reason why God is wrong and you are right????????

    The pure dishonesty. He’s been given reasons why God’s actions are wrong, including having it pointed out that God’s actions are wrong even within his own worldview and yet here he is claiming he’s been given no reasons. I know why he resorts to dishonesty, it’s because he’s too cowardly to actually try and deal with the points made.

    Just exercising my Objectivism Fredddie da Mpuse.

    A lie. A has repeatedly demonstrated his absolute ignorance of what Objectivism entails.

    So what you got my bahrohther? you still haven’t told us why other than you believe anything you view is bad for humanity is immoral. Why? Who determiens what is bad for humanity?

    And we’re back to A proudly displaying his ignorance for all to see. In this case it’s ignorance of objectivity – the concept that things are what they are regardless of what anyone may think, wish, demand. We can use objective facts to determine what is bad for humanity. Unlike Christianity there’s no need to rely on anyone’s subjective preferences or whims.

    Atheism is bad for humanity so why are you an atheist?

    This is a claim that A has failed to substantiate before and yet he trots it out again as if it’s beyond questioning. If he could substantiate it I’m sure he would. Instead he’ll mention Stalin as if that proves his point. Of course he’ll fail to show how they committed their atrocities solely in the name of atheism but think that throwing out huge numbers in an appeal to emotion is the same thing. To preempt that nonsense here’s Steve Pinker (author of The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.) in his FAQ about the book:

    Atheist regimes in the 20th century killed tens of millions of people. Doesn’t this show that we were better off in the past, when our political and moral systems were guided by a belief in God?

    This is a popular argument among theoconservatives and critics of the new atheism, but for many reasons it is historically inaccurate.

    First, the premise that Nazism and Communism were “atheist” ideologies makes sense only within a religiocentric worldview that divides political systems into those that are based on Judaeo-Christian ideology and those that are not. In fact, 20th-century totalitarian movements were no more defined by a rejection of Judaeo-Christianity than they were defined by a rejection of astrology, alchemy, Confucianism, Scientology, or any of hundreds of other belief systems. They were based on the ideas of Hitler and Marx, not David Hume and Bertrand Russell, and the horrors they inflicted are no more a vindication of Judeao-Christianity than they are of astrology or alchemy or Scientology.

    Second, Nazism and Fascism were not atheistic in the first place. Hitler thought he was carrying out a divine plan. Nazism received extensive support from many German churches, and no opposition from the Vatican. Fascism happily coexisted with Catholicism in Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Croatia. See p. 677 for discussion and references.

    Third, according to the most recent compendium of history’s worst atrocities, Matthew White’s Great Big Book of Horrible Things (Norton, 2011), religions have been responsible for 13 of the 100 worst mass killings in history, resulting in 47 million deaths. Communism has been responsible for 6 mass killings and 67 million deaths. If defenders of religion want to crow, “We were only responsible for 47 million murders—Communism was worse!”, they are welcome to do so, but it is not an impressive argument.

    Fourth, many religious massacres took place in centuries in which the world’s population was far smaller. Crusaders, for example, killed 1 million people in world of 400 million, for a genocide rate that exceeds that of the Nazi Holocaust. The death toll from the Thirty Years War was proportionally double that of World War I and in the range of World War II in Europe (p. 142).

    When it comes to the history of violence, the significant distinction is not one between theistic and atheistic regimes. It’s the one between regimes that were based on demonizing, utopian ideologies (including Marxism, Nazism, and militant religions) and secular liberal democracies that are based on the ideal of human rights. On pp. 337–338 I present data from Rummel showing that democracies are vastly less murderous than alternatives forms of government.”

    “I guess A simply doesn’t believe the idea of substitutionary atonement,”

    lol!!! So he now takes a theological right turn, leaves behind that Jesus died therefore the world should be sinless to I am assuming Penal substitutionary atonement????? lol, OK Which is it Dr Mouse?

    Another lie. I didn’t once claim A assumed “Penal substitutionary atonement”. Instead I offered 2 Bible verses which supported my point – that Jesus died to free people from sin – and wondered if A actually understood the concept since he seemed to disagree with his own Bible.

    “I’m an Objectivist and, as such, my morality comes from Objectivism”

    Translation: Freddie Mouse’s opinion is moral, anyone who deviates is not. We know have Opinion, I don’t know, Laws of land and evolution on this over time. Which is it boys?

    Aaaaaah, look at the way A gleefully constructs his poor little strawman. Any chance of him actually interacting with my actual basis for morality? Not likely.

    “They come from the only place they’re able to come from, humans”

    Another admission to relativism therefore God cannot be immoral because he does not have any authority to judge another’s morality unless he sees himself superior to all other humans??? Hmmmm…..

    Another claim that A fails to substantiate. In acknowledging humanity as the only possible source of morality there is no admission of relativism, just the understanding that there are no gods to give us morality. A simply confirms that he doesn’t understand relativism. The Christian moral commandments that apply to humans but not the God that expresses them are a perfect example of moral relativism – morality that applies to some (humans) but not others (God). Whereas Objectivist morals apply to all humans and would apply to gods too if any existed.

    “Unfortunately for him reality couldn’t give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut what he thinks”

    Freddie Mouse now shows the frustration of his failing belief system and takes the alex tactic.

    There’s no frustration here, only amusement in A’s continuing belief in his “wishing makes it so” worldview.

    Since I too am human, my morality is just as authoritative as his……..

    In what way? Does A’s morality use objective means to determine right or wrong? On the contrary, it is based on the arbitrary commandments of his deity? Does it apply to everyone equally? Once more we have have to reply in the negative as it certainly doesn’t apply to the deity who is allegedly it’s source. It’s also subject to that deity’s whims so that it doesn’t apply to people who are carrying out it’s orders – even when those orders directly contradict the supposedly absolute moral commandments it has handed down. So we can see A’s morality is relative, subjective and arbitrary, why on earth would he consider that authoritative?

    but we all know he is in reality of the Leninist/Stalinist ilk when is comes to reality….:) lol!!!

    And by “we all know” A actually means “I wish it were so”. Of course reality still couldn’t give a shit about A’s wishes. As an Objectivist I subscribe to capitalism and individualism rather than the communism and collectivism that Lenin/Stalin advocated. A would know this if he could be bothered to do any kind of research concerning the topic he’s commenting on. Instead he prefers to revel in his ignorance.

  205. on 03 Oct 2014 at 5:26 pm 205.alex said …

    “is it possible to know the future?”

    i suppose.

    “Alex knew the future.”

    i made a prediction, based on the numerous times, the moron responded after an atheist quoted the bible. it doesn’t mean i know the future.

    “Alex had enough reliable information and experience/knowledge to accurately predict the future.”

    don’t think so. i can’t reliably predict it enough times to be confident. the pythagorean theorem is some kind of prediction, ain’t it? it’s considered rock solid, but i guess on a quantum level (or vast distorted distances), it could be wrong.

    “The evidence can be interpreted to support both claims but proves neither”

    both points are wrong, so there’s no consideration.

    about the xtian god. accordingly:

    “No thought can be withholden from thee.”

    “The eyes of the Lord are in every place.”

    “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.”

    all point to an omniscient god or an all knowing god, mostly universal xtian viewpoint. (since i’m not a theologian, the moron hor, will dispute my assessment)

    an omniscient god is possible. the problem is the free will. if the omniscient god has laid out your lifeplan, you cannot deviate from it. given the infinite number of permutation events that can play out for every person that ever lived and to be born, multiply it by the infinite number of times the same god may intervene, it comes up to an unimaginable number that only a god could comprehend.

    but the same god already knew that from these infinite permutations, you will eventually follow one. kinda renders the entire calculation moot? you still don’t have a choice, you must do it or the omniscient god is wrong.

    of course, hor will dispute this and assert that the omnipotent god can do anything, but he’ll conveniently ignore that his perfectly good god made mistakes. and the excuses/crap keeps piling on…..

    add the eternal hell damnation after the same god already knew beforehand, it becomes a nonsensical sell and that’s why only brainwashed xtians are buying it on faith alone. of course, there are other things that has been discussed ad nauseam.

    wouldn’t it be easier to sell a creation god that doesn’t intervene? no jumping around, explaining/translating and/or making up excuses? no defending, no crusades, condemnation, etc in the name of this god? and atheists wouldn’t give a shit, unless the followers of the non-interventionist god seek preferential treatment……

  206. on 03 Oct 2014 at 5:33 pm 206.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    lol! Freddie the mouse continues to return to have his distorted view of reality destroyed again and again his child-like embrace of Objectivism and its inadequate picture of human nature. ! lol!!!

    “With both sides asking questions and answering those asked of them”

    That would be great, but Freddie the Mouse refuses to share why God’s actions are wrong and his actions are right. Freddie believes his view of the world is superior to all others. Watch: He will toss out his child-like world and claim Objectivism as his answer….lol!!

    “Instead I offered 2 Bible verses which supported my point – that Jesus died to free people from sin:

    Actually he claimed there should be no sin in the world. He now changes his position. Facts are stubborn thing for Freddie and his mouse. :)

    “Any chance of him actually interacting with my actual basis for morality?”

    Sure! As soon as Freddie and his mouse states more than “Objectvism” Should we all go back and read “Atlas Shrugs” to determine what is and is not moral? lol!!!!!

    “In acknowledging humanity as the only possible source of morality there is no admission of relativism”

    While denying Relativism Freddie and his mouse then admits to it. If all humans determine morality, then all have an opinion. Will Freddie and/or his Mouse tell us which human view of Objectivism is moral and which are not? No, he will not.

    “Objectivist I subscribe to capitalism and individualism rather than the communism and collectivism that Lenin/Stalin advocated.”

    I never made any claims about his economic views. How silly. As an a Objectivist (lol!) he has a child-like view of human nature. But, that is obvious to all.

  207. on 03 Oct 2014 at 5:38 pm 207.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Case Study:

    Freddie and his Mouse claim:

    God is a murderer because He takes life, even though it belongs to Him. No pass for God.

    Counter: Freddie and His Mouse come home to his trailer….unlocks the door and walks inside. Freddie and his mouse are then arrested and booked for B&E. Freddie and his mouse make the argument “But I own the trailer”. The argument is rejected because we give no one a pas for B&E.

    That is the Objectivist worldview of Freddie And His Mouse! lol!!!

  208. on 03 Oct 2014 at 11:28 pm 208.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    “wouldn’t it be easier to sell a creation god that doesn’t intervene? no jumping around, explaining/translating and/or making up excuses? no defending, no crusades, condemnation, etc in the name of this god? and atheists wouldn’t give a shit, unless the followers of the non-interventionist god seek preferential treatment……”

    Yes, of course it would be.

    “No thought can be withholden from thee.”

    A claim to know all things.

    “The eyes of the Lord are in every place.”

    A claim to see all things.

    “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.”

    A claim to have a plan for all individuals.

    I totally see your point.

    However to embrace these quotes on their own Merritt and reach a conclusion, ignores all the other quotes that could be considered to support Gods claims to have enabled free will. Also ignoring quotes that could support man’s ability to land himself in hell for all eternity despite God’s plan for the individual.

    It could also be quoted to show that part of God’s plan for all was to reestablish a pathway back to the father through Christ, this is what Jesus was referring to when he said “it is done”.

    “but the same god already knew that from these infinite permutations, you will eventually follow one.”

    It could be shown to quote that few will follow God’s plan, many or most will perish in the burning lake. That hardly sounds like “eventually follow” unless you buy into the messenger’s “hell not eternal” nonsense.

    I’ve often considered that in the garden of Eden as it is written. That, free will could not have truly existed until it was first exercised. That is, that free will came into existence through Adam and Eve, only when it was first expressed. Prior to that all other actions could be considered obedient to Gods instruction which is hardly exercising free will.

    Perhaps our current situation that we all experience is not the only way for free will to exist. But it is certainly the situation that God claims to have chosen.

    I don’t understand how The Prickly Science Guy and the messenger can defend, yet rewrite the Bible simultaneously.

    I respect your stance that either the Bible as written is either True or False.

    However picking a few lines as proof of a whole concept without consideration for the remaining information. Is a bit like building a TV unit with only half the pieces. It might support your TV, but it won’t be same as the picture on the box.

  209. on 04 Oct 2014 at 12:39 am 209.alex said …

    “It could also be quoted to show that part of God’s plan for all was to reestablish a pathway back to the father through Christ…”

    except it runs smack into the final known eventuality, which cannot be changed because the god’s beforehand knowledge would be false . when odin loses the sucker bet to yahweh on alex’s eventual destiny, it cannot be undone, especially when the ante was the title “king of the gods”. if that’s the case, i don’t have a choice as i type.

    “However picking a few lines as proof of a whole concept without consideration for the remaining information.”

    i am not. if the bible stated that a square has four corners, and then says “here’s a circle and it’s a square” and i say bah!, i’m not picking and choosing. four corners are the observable attributes. can you really spin that the circle really has four invisible corners? the emperor has no clothes, therefore, he’s naked, not clothed. maybe an invisible suit? getting ridiculous, eh?

    why is it so necessary for your god to have both attributes? i don’t have a problem with an omniscient god or even a god that dispenses free will. a god that does both is a problem.

    many xtians and i’m sure including you, have taken to ignoring or reinterpreting many parts of the bible. stoned anyone lately? seems crystal to me, but of course, i ain’t no theologist.

    omniscience? too hard to sell. free will? maybe, but not both.

  210. on 04 Oct 2014 at 4:03 am 210.TJ said …

    “why is it so necessary for your god to have both attributes? i don’t have a problem with an omniscient god or even a god that dispenses free will. a god that does both is a problem.”

    Depends, what’s your definition of omniscient?

    I mean, the word omniscient does not appear in the Bible. Instead the word was invented to describe attributes associated to God.

    “except it runs smack into the final known eventuality”

    This final known eventuality is either “eternal fellowship with God”… or “eternal damnation, absence from God”.

    Who? Who does the Bible say has the responsibility over where you end up? Is this not “free will”, as black and white as can be? True or false. With or without God.

    A choice only exists when an option is available. Free will can only take place in the absence of influence. Perhaps God’s apparent absence is required for free will to exist. After all, wouldn’t we all be convinced of his existence if he was available to be questioned and poked in the ribs?

    I would say that free will can only exist in the current premises. Even if God knows what choice I will make. Can anyone say that God has influenced my choice, without conceding the Bible as containing truths?

    The alternatives are as you say, a God other than, the one described by the Bible or…

    …as DPK asserted: God, Gods and religions, and all the temples, pyramids ancient old and new, are all the product of man fertile imagination.

    “if the bible stated that a square has four corners, and then says “here’s a circle and it’s a square” ”

    If the Bible stated that… then we would be discussing that. But it doesn’t, so we are not.

    “many xtians and i’m sure including you, have taken to ignoring or reinterpreting many parts of the bible.”

    I don’t know about ignoring, but I certainly try to interpret for myself based on, “as it is written” and in the context of when it was written, and who was it written for.

    I believe many parts of the bible where written with a different audience with different backgrounds and experiences in mind to you and me.

    If I was an Israelite back in the day and all my relatives, the whole community and even my entire nationality was involved in waging a holy war and spoke authoritatively of a God who recently brought my people out of Egypt, empowered them and blessed them… then there is every chance I may have stoned someone lately if there was cause to, in accordance to the laws describe as being given to the Israelite’s.

    However as I sit at my pc, the reality is no, I haven’t stoned anybody lately. And if I had, it would be in direct contrast to Jesus’s instructions to leave ultimate Judgement to Him and His authority, and to treat others as I would want to be treated.

    I must say, I am impressed. We are finally having a discussion.

  211. on 04 Oct 2014 at 2:09 pm 211.alex said …

    “the word omniscient does not appear in the Bible.”

    dude, you’re picking. most if not all the english words do not appear.

    “Perhaps God’s apparent absence is required for free will to exist.”

    many atheists consider the possibility of a non-interventionist god. not your god from the many previous discussions.

    “interpret for myself based on, “as it is written” and in the context of when it was written, and who was it written for.”

    and you don’t see the problem with that. you just mentioned others misinterpret the thing and now you get to interpret it for yourself? how’s your interpretation any better than the fundamentalist amish? is the amish wrong? is messenger’s interpretation wrong? is the catholic church wrong? of course, the atheist literal quotation is wrong.

    disregard the word omniscience. in your own interpretation, does your god know all and every outcome?

  212. on 04 Oct 2014 at 3:20 pm 212.TJ said …

    “and you don’t see the problem with that. you just mentioned others misinterpret the thing and now you get to interpret it for yourself?”

    The very first thing I said to you, was that I was biased and self determining. I asked who should I trust to interpenetrate for me, if I cannot trust my own interpretation?

    If I trust any other than myself I am blindly following whoever that is.

    Who? If not me?

    Who do you trust other than yourself?

    “disregard the word omniscience. in your own interpretation, does your god know all and every outcome?”

    Well you see, I can’t disregard the word omniscience. I can’t simply pick and choose what to regard and disregard.

    Omniscience either means “all knowledge of natural laws”.

    Or it means “all knowledge of past, present and future”.

    It makes more sense to me, that an all powerful God would create a situation where independent, free willed, spirited individuals would have the ability to choose to either accept or reject his offer of ruler-ship and authority over them for all eternity.

    If they didn’t have an option, they would simply be slaves to his authority.

    “how’s your interpretation any better than the fundamentalist amish? is the amish wrong? is messenger’s interpretation wrong? is the catholic church wrong? of course, the atheist literal quotation is wrong.”

    Y’know, I’m not saying all these are wrong. I not saying your wrong. I’m not even saying I’m right. I’m just giving my interpretation as I see it.

    In fact I agree with what the so called “atheists” on this site, and what they have been interpreting from literal quotations. They’ve been bang on the money.

    It seems this whole idea that “Free will” and “Omniscient” can’t co-exist is the main stumbling block for some of the guys on here.

    And if I assign your meanings to “Omniscient”, I totally see your point. However I don’t believe the meaning assigned, reflects accurately upon the broadness of the Bible’s account.

    Consider this, if we take the quotes as literal. And consider free will as simply an illusion as you go through the motions of performing God’s script. Then the whole Bible make no sense what so ever.

    Why give any further instructions at any point after creation?

    Why test Abraham to sacrifice his son in the first place? Why use an angle to stop his hand and not Abraham’s own hand?

    It is only in the light of man exercising independent free will that any of the Bible begins to make literal sense.

    As for messenger, he boggles my mind. I mean, what he says and what can be clearly shown are so far apart. I was beginning to think I knew nothing about catholic beliefs.

    It’s funny how we can discuss the many and vast interpretations/opinions of the Bible and it somehow makes the Bible false or wrong. But when an analysis of scientific evidence can be illustrated to harbor doubt, it’s not upheld to the same vigor of scrutiny as the Bible. Any skepticism towards science is taboo it seems.

    I would say this is the reason behind A The Prickly Science Guy’s attempt to blend God and evolution. The two are mutually exclusive, unless he is talking of a different God to the one of the Bible…but I don’t think he is. Although he would re-write the bible to reflect this.

    “many atheists consider the possibility of a non-interventionist god.”

    I’m curious…
    A big bang kick-starter? or something else?

  213. on 04 Oct 2014 at 4:05 pm 213.alex said …

    “But when an analysis of scientific evidence can be illustrated to harbor doubt, it’s not upheld to the same vigor of scrutiny as the Bible”

    au contraire. scientific evidence is subject to peer review and undergoes rigorous testing and if wrong, it’s discarded. many people, especially me, reserve a small percentage of doubt. to me, nothing is 100%. i’m waiting for the 50/50 heads/tails coin flip to land on its edge.

    you want to doubt carbon dating? fair enough. under what repeatable, measured, circumstances? in these situations, does it render ALL, ancient rock dated measurements to 10,000 years or less? no? based on every doubt, should all scientific evidence be discarded? no? do you have a suggestion what criteria should be use to determine what should be taught in schools?

    “this whole idea that “Free will” and “Omniscient” can’t co-exist is the main stumbling block”

    for xtians because you can’t reconcile it. the “all knowing” cancels out free will illusion. if you knew that your free willed child will pick up the cookie and the child didn’t, it means you’re wrong. you didn’t “knew”.

    “A big bang kick-starter? or something else?”

    could be anything, i suppose. i’m not 100% convinced of the big bang. i can’t speak for others.

  214. on 05 Oct 2014 at 3:13 am 214.TJ said …

    ” if you knew that your free willed child will pick up the cookie and the child didn’t, it means you’re wrong. you didn’t “knew”.”

    Ok, the conclusion in this concept is sound. But this scenario makes two assumptions.

    1. the child has free will
    2. the parent knows all the child’s future actions

    Obviously one of these assumptions are wrong in the scenario.

    Another scenario…

    “God commands Onan to go into his dead brother’s wife so that his brothers name will live on. Onan pulls out and spills his seed. God is wroth with him and kills him.”

    Assumptions
    1. Onan is exercising free will
    2. Gods foreknew Onan’s actions in advance

    Conclusion?
    ——————————————-
    Another scenario…

    “The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.
    The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.”

    Assumptions
    1. Man is exercising free will
    2. God foreknew every action of every individual.

    Conclusion?

    Now, I know what many religions say regarding this issue. But, like you! I’m an individual and I see issues with other’s interpretations.
    ——————————————-

    “do you have a suggestion what criteria should be use to determine what should be taught in schools?”

    With my own children I make a conscious effort to present to them the difference between practical science and theoretical science. We watch, discuss and comment together on documentaries, sci-fi, stories and evaluate where they originate from and what, if any beliefs are accosted with them.

    I am also up front with my beliefs and share them and compare them to the alternatives with them.

    I think that perhaps creation and evolution and any other reasonable origins theories should be presented in a class focused on Origins. Both theories mentioned can be supported by practical science and the same physical evidences can be presented for both. It is purely the assumptions regarding evidences that separate the two theories.

    I think anyone who is shown only one theory is only shown a percentage overall.

    OR, don’t teach either. I mean we have a whole rang of subjects reserved for high education. I am assuming your question is directed to public primary and secondary education.

    I think schools should focus more on how to critically think and analyse rather than what to think.

    In Australia it seems education is evaluated on how well information can be retained and regurgitated.
    ———————————————–

    ” i’m waiting for the 50/50 heads/tails coin flip to land on its edge”

    Reminds me of a saying from an old guy I used to work with.
    He said “just like a coin, every story has two sides, but it’s the small edge around the outside, that both, brings together and separates the two. But it is still just a coin.”
    ————————————-

    “au contraire. scientific evidence is subject to peer review and undergoes rigorous testing and if wrong, it’s discarded.”

    Yes your right, it is. However just like religion, it’s core beliefs do not waver. Science does not consider the possibility of the supernatural. And rightly so perhaps, if it cannot test, measure or reproduce it, why concern itself with it.

    Are you aware that the scientific method was founded and reasoned by creationists who argued that if a God of laws and order created the universe than evidence of that natural order and laws should be observable, testable and reliable?
    ——————————————-

    “under what repeatable, measured, circumstances? in these situations, does it render ALL, ancient rock dated measurements to 10,000 years or less? ”

    In any dating test situation assumptions must be made. They talk about parent and daughter elements. It is the rates at which one transmutes into thew other that data is derived from. How do you determine how much was parent and how much was daughter element from the point of the rock forming? Then you must assume a steady rate of elemental change. This can vary, in the lab it is controlled.

    There are over 100 different dating methods, Ken Ham from “Answers in Genesis” claims that 90% disagree with long age. I don’t have enough information to say either way.

    Other than that I am far less than 100% convinced of long ages and deep time. I’m also Biased seek answers to these long age questions because it does contrast with the Biblical time frame so heavenly. A literal reading does not allow for the long ages assigned by the dating methods used to support such claims.

    The dating methods allow room for doubt. Room for doubt seems good enough for many to reject God and the Bible.

    I think long ages is an attractive scenario, because it does remove the threat of Damnation, Gods authority over us and opens up the possibility of an abundance of other worlds just waiting to be discovered and explored across the universe. It lets us progress forward without moral restriction, along with all the potential good and bad that may arise from progress.

    However, I believe the opposite.

    But here in lies a disturbing thought. If there is no God. If DPK is right and imagination is the key to religion, worship and Gods. Than where are we headed?

    If the past has shown that we can invent and imagine all the scenarios that justify death and destruction of our fellow man. What hope of a peaceful future do we have? If the past is the key to the present and ultimately the future. How do we rationalize Good. How do we rationalize Bad or Evil, or are these simple imaginative constructs of the mind.

    What is to stop a genetically engineered, possibly bionic population from determining the “naturals” to be obsolete and due for the recycle bin? Morality obsolete?

    Perhaps, I am assuming too much, distorting my conclusions.

  215. on 05 Oct 2014 at 10:03 am 215.alex said …

    “Ok, the conclusion in this concept is sound. But this scenario makes two assumptions.
    1. the child has free will
    2. the parent knows all the child’s future actions”

    there’s no assumption. the bible says your god knows everything, yes? and you state that you have free will, yes? if your god knows that you’re going to heaven, how can you not? if your god knows that you’re going to respond to this post, how can you not?

    “But, like you! I’m an individual and I see issues with other’s interpretations.”

    do you interpret that an all knowing god dispenses free will? or not?

    “I think that perhaps creation and evolution and any other reasonable origins theories should be presented in a class focused on Origins.”

    creationism is not testable. alien creation isn’t either, nor dpk’s flying teacup. it would be absurd to include all manners of origins. surely the vedas would be presented? the navajos version? the aborigines? the muslim magic flying horse? the very convincing mormon golden plates? and on, and on, and on? what is the criteria for inclusion? testing perhaps? none? or something in between that excludes everything but the xtian creationism?

    “In Australia it seems education is evaluated on how well information can be retained and regurgitated.”

    isn’t that what culture is? the ability to build upon previous knowledge? increased crop yields, medicine, the internet, space exploration, et all are all built upon these retentions and repeatabilities, aint it?

    “How do you determine how much was parent and how much was daughter element from the point of the rock forming? Then you must assume a steady rate of elemental change. This can vary, in the lab it is controlled.”

    suppositions and speculations. under controlled, measured, and repeated conditions, failed dating methods would be declared bogus and discarded immediately.

    “But here in lies a disturbing thought. If there is no God. If DPK is right and imagination is the key to religion, worship and Gods. Than where are we headed?”

    disturbing to you, but not to me. if you are asking “headed after death?”, it’s nowhere and it bothers you because you want more. can’t you just live your life proper? it irks you because religion is not on equal footing with science. why? you live in a world that’s mostly a product of science?

    “How do we rationalize Good. How do we rationalize Bad or Evil, or are these simple imaginative constructs of the mind”

    good, bad, or evil have been been demonstrated as NOT being absolutes. this is not the same as rationalizing it. killing somebody because they’re trying to kill you is not rooted in the biblical/xtian “Good”. giving a helping hand is non-denominational. that’s why xtians here refuse to publish a morality situational test. of course, they tried with the “xtian cursing test” which i failed. btw, my xtian co-worker did too.

  216. on 05 Oct 2014 at 4:01 pm 216.TJ said …

    “do you interpret that an all knowing god dispenses free will? or not?”

    I interpret that an all knowing God has provided a situation in which free will can exist. After all he would know how to achieve such a thing.

    I do not interpret that God controls our actions.

    I interpret that God hold us responsible for our own actions.

    I interpret that he will judge us on our actions.

    I interpret that a free pass can be obtained in this life through faith ie. the ability to hold fast to a belief which cannot be proved until it has come to pass.

    I interpret that faith is not of the mind or the body but of the spirit.

    I interpret that God is also Merciful and Just in his judgement.

    What do you interpret?

  217. on 05 Oct 2014 at 4:33 pm 217.alex said …

    “What do you interpret?”

    i don’t interpret the bible. it clearly says that god is all knowing. and you’re sayin you got free will?

    wouldn’t it be easier for you if your god is NOT all knowing? just like your god didn’t really mean:

    “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent.” or

    “He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”

    you don’t believe in these, do you?

  218. on 06 Oct 2014 at 1:34 am 218.TJ said …

    “i don’t interpret the bible. it clearly says that god is all knowing. and you’re sayin you got free will?”

    It also clearly says mans has free will?

    How can you pick one of these as being clearly stated, but not the other? Sounds like picking.

    “wouldn’t it be easier for you if your god is NOT all knowing?”

    Easier for who? It is you who CAN accept…
    —————————————–
    “A big bang kick-starter? or something else?”
    could be anything, i suppose. i’m not 100% convinced of the big bang. i can’t speak for others.
    —————————————–

    Could be ANYTHING? Anything except an all knowing God.

    But you CANNOT accept…
    An all knowing God by default would know how to implement free will, or he could not be considered all knowing, right?

    You can’t say the bible says one thing whilst ignoring another. You then pick and point to instructions given to a people from a different point in time to illustrate what?

    Then you assume I don’t believe what is written. Hasn’t it been my claim from the beginning that a literal reading is what should be considered for interpretation, and, not claims that the Bible doesn’t mean what it says?

    And, you claim not to interpret. But your interpretation is that it is all bullshit, trivially dismissed, based on your inability to fathom free will and an all knowing God, declaring them to yourself as impossible.

    You said from the start, that this was your issue, the two are mutually exclusive. How did you arrive at this conclusion without reasoning and interpreting for yourself? Are you blindly following the beliefs of others?

  219. on 06 Oct 2014 at 2:56 am 219.TJ said …

    Alex,
    Why is is that when you make an accurate prediction based on past knowledge and habits of an individuals posting practice… it is not an ability to know the future.

    Why is is that when I present a scenario where I plan to do something, and I do… it is not an ability to know the future.

    Why is it that when God states a plan to do something and it comes to pass… it is considered an ability to know the future.

    I said I don’t know if the future can be known.

    How can we consider Gods actions as knowing and man’s as not. Especially when it has been asserted that God should be held to the same morals as dictated to man. Why not the same ability to know or not know?

    Unless God is greater than man and not limited to the same limitations. Does’t the Bible state that through God all things are possible. As much as it states “free will” for man and a God as “all knowing”. Why do you pick, choose, isolate and separate and not consider them all together in light of each other?

    Your stand point and views are cherry picked interpretations and do not take consideration all things written.

    I’m sorry, but I do not see it any other way.

    Let me illustrate…

    “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent.”

    You want me to concede that I do not believe that a women should’t be allowed to teach and have authority. Our previous prime minister in Australia was a women.

    You want me to follow your logic interpretation that in today’s society we see women in all sorts of positions of power. And that this would go directly against Gods instructions.

    But lets look closer.
    Are you married, had a girlfriend? If yes then you would know that a women has the ability to make you abandon good reason and do things you would normally not consider.

    Adam is created before Eve. Adam is declared by God the Authority, having been created first and that Eve is to have come from Adam’s rib.

    Eve is tempted by the serpent and in turn temps Adam and he willingly follows her lead.

    The instruction in question is given to the Israelite people. The Israelite people are charges with being Gods people. Their task is to willingly follow God’s instruction and clear the promised land of the people groups God has Judged as an abomination, and assigned for destruction.

    God’s commandment to the Israelite’s is not directed to you, me or even the Gentiles of the day. But is to safe guard God’s chosen people against prior knowledge of woman’s influence against God’s instructions. The commandment could be interpreted to say “don’t let a women lead you astray from God’s commandments”.

    God tells the Israelite that if they follow all his instructions, they will be blessed greatly. But if they don’t, there will be trouble ahead.

    King Solomon is stated to have hundreds of wives and concubines from many nations and as a result he chases after false Gods and their practices. The Israelite’s follow the example of their king, also taking after false Gods.

    Also, Solomon was going against God’s revealed will regarding monogamy. As a result God divided Solomon’s Kingdom and causes the Israelite people to suffer.

    Where, in all this does a God control the actions of man?
    How can you state such a thing, without interpreting something unsupported by the Bible?

  220. on 06 Oct 2014 at 4:29 am 220.alex said …

    “It also clearly says mans has free will?

    How can you pick one of these as being clearly stated, but not the other?”

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. you do agree that the bible says god knows everything and you also say that man has free will.

    who the fuck is choosing? both attributes are not compatible. been discussed already.

    “You can’t say the bible says one thing whilst ignoring another.”

    who the hell is ignoring shit? any atheist in here ever told you to ignore this passage or that passage? on the contrary, many things have been pointed out and you motherfuckers are the ones the chose to ignore.

    go fuck yourself. there’s nothing to discuss.

  221. on 06 Oct 2014 at 8:49 am 221.TJ said …

    “any atheist in here ever told you to ignore this passage or that passage?”

    You! Alex, you clearly ignore that the Bible states that man has “free will”.

    You are no better than the messenger saying hell is not eternal.

    Your digression back to cursing shows your frustration and level of critical thinking.

    And yes, you, Alex the self confessed atheist, who also considers an absent God as a possibility. You, who does not have 100% faith in science. You are telling me to ignore the clearly stated premise of mans “free will”.

    You, Alex are telling me to believe that the “All knowing” of God, trumps the ability of mans ability to exercise “free will”. You, Alex are telling me, “the bullshit Bible”, is to be trivially dismissed. Either you dismiss it all or you do not. Instead you sit half way and profess to know things you cannot possibly know.

    I stand by all I have said and believe it to be self evident with a literal reading of the Biblical text, anybody can read for themselves and reach their own conclusions.

    You however, have proved to be nothing more than a loud, foul mouthed lying hypocrite, self evident by the sum of every word you type.

    Go back to your Java code. But do not take the time to consider that for your code to function all outcomes must be accounted and coded for. Do not consider the correlations for how every particle and element seems to have a coded account for it behavioral outcomes. Do not consider how these things arose without a coder. Just keep making phone apps for Bums who clearly rip off the system, whilst believing your doing your good deeds.

    Good luck, God bless and I still hold hope for you. Even if that makes me a Dumabss motherfuck, so be it.

  222. on 06 Oct 2014 at 11:51 am 222.alex said …

    “You! Alex, you clearly ignore that the Bible states that man has “free will”.

    this is why you’re a dumbass, motherfucker.

    since it’s been established that an all knowing god is incompatible with free will, i suggested that you either ignore one of the other. you ignored the stoning, didn’t you? you ignored the praying in the closet, didn’t you? did i tell you to ignore the sun standing still?

    whether or not science is 100% bullshit, your god is still bullshit. even if every word i say is chickenshit, your all knowing god giving free will is still bullshit, ain’t it?

    you got nothing to discuss here. this is an atheist site. you can go back to your cave and wake up your other dumbass, brother, messenger. all your shit eventually boils down to more testimonial bullshit. go argue with other moron, xtian.

    “Your digression back to cursing…”

    and your digression back to testimonials is what? go fuck yourself. did i mention that you’re a dumbass, motherfucker?

  223. on 06 Oct 2014 at 3:09 pm 223.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    I Luv you Alex! You are so cute and precious! Your flowery grasp of the English language and impeccable personality is a wonderful example for children everywhere!

    Stay thirsty my friend :)

    A

  224. on 06 Oct 2014 at 3:20 pm 224.alex said …

    “Your flowery grasp of the English language..”

    thanks. and thank you for confirming your stupid ass self, as demonstrated at: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    fetus delicacy indeed! brought to you by: motherfucking martin, science guy, biff, xenon, little ‘A’, Sweetness, boz, RL Wooten, ‘Everyone’, hor.

  225. on 06 Oct 2014 at 3:26 pm 225.freddies_dead said …

    206.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    lol! Freddie the mouse continues to return to have his distorted view of reality destroyed again and again his child-like embrace of Objectivism and its inadequate picture of human nature. ! lol!!!

    The only thing A has ever managed to destroy on this blog is his own reputation. He’s known to be a liar and a coward due to his continued dishonesty and refusal to answer any points asked of him. You’ll also notice that his comment contains a number of claims, however, there’s a distinct lack of anything to back them up. This is unsurprising. Can A show how a worldview based on reason gives a “distorted view of reality”? Can he also show how it gives an “inadequate picture of human nature”? Naturally I won’t be holding my breath whilst awaiting A’s explanations.

    “With both sides asking questions and answering those asked of them”

    That would be great,

    If A really thinks this then why does he continuously avoid answering any questions asked of him? And why does he feel the need to lie about what others have said and what they actually believe?

    but Freddie the Mouse refuses to share why God’s actions are wrong and his actions are right.

    This is a flat out lie. I have shown that God’s actions aren’t just wrong in my worldview, but that they are wrong in A’s worldview too. A doesn’t like this so he lies. It’s his standard MO.

    Freddie believes his view of the world is superior to all others.

    This is a flat out lie. However, I will admit that I believe a worldview based on reason is better than one rooted in the arbitrary, subjective whims of an imaginary deity, but I’m open to having that view changed. For example A could present a means by which I can discern his God from something he may be imagining, however, after many months of asking him to do just this he is still running away from the question so I doubt I’ll be changing my mind any time soon.

    Watch: He will toss out his child-like world and claim Objectivism as his answer….lol!!

    A has no idea what Objectivism actually is – we have seen this from earlier comments – which is why he attempts to poison the well here by claiming it to be “child-like”. If only he’d read his own Bible properly he’d know that Jesus was the one who insisted on a child-like view “And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 18:3. Fortunately for A he already subscribes to just such a child-like worldview – a cartoon-like universe where wishing makes it so – when he professes to be a Christian.

    “Instead I offered 2 Bible verses which supported my point – that Jesus died to free people from sin:

    Actually he claimed there should be no sin in the world.

    That’s what being “free from sin” means. Either A’s ability to read for comprehension is truly appalling or he’s trying to dishonestly twist what I said for his own ends. I believe it to be the latter.

    He now changes his position.

    Not if you understand that what I originally wrote and what I subsequently wrote are fundamentally the same thing i.e. freeing people from sin = a world with no sin. If the people are free from sin then where is the sin in the world?

    Facts are stubborn thing for Freddie and his mouse. :)

    A has only a very casual relationship with facts. The ones he think support his position are fine, but he’ll be damned if he’s going to accept the ones which show him to be dead wrong. Such a shame for him that those facts aren’t dependent on what A wants, wishes, demands etc… they carry on showing him to be dead wrong no matter how he tries to twist them.

    “Any chance of him actually interacting with my actual basis for morality?”

    Sure! As soon as Freddie and his mouse states more than “Objectvism”

    And, as usual A refuses to “wade through” the evidence and pretends I’ve not given him what he has asked for; specifically reasons for why slavery is wrong and reasons why the terrible acts of genocide ordered/carried out by his God are also wrong. The best thing is that, unless A thinks slavery and genocide are just fine (in which case he’s a terrible individual), then he agrees with me that his God is wrong to condone/expressly order them. This puts him at odds with the worldview he professes to hold. In order to try and dodge the issue A has to resort to relativism to give his God a free pass to break His own commandments. I’m glad these aren’t my problems.

    Should we all go back and read “Atlas Shrugs” to determine what is and is not moral? lol!!!!!

    Why not? After all I’ve been happy enough to read the Bible to show where God breaks his own supposedly absolute commandments. However, there are other resources online where A could get an overview of what Objectivism says about morality without having to read the whole of Atlas Shrugs. A reasonable start could be made at aynrandlexicon dot com.

    “In acknowledging humanity as the only possible source of morality there is no admission of relativism”

    While denying Relativism Freddie and his mouse then admits to it.

    Not in the slightest but lets watch A try and twist what I said anyway.

    If all humans determine morality, then all have an opinion.

    If this was actually something that I said was the basis for Objectivist morality A might have a point. Of course A has totally ignored one of the main tenets of Objectisvism i.e. that things are what they are independent of consciousness. That means that people’s opinions have no weight when determining what is moral and what isn’t. Instead we look to objective facts about humanity – like man’s fundamental choice between life and death etc…, and derive a morality from those. Opinion isn’t necessary no matter how many times A wishes it were.

    Will Freddie and/or his Mouse tell us which human view of Objectivism is moral and which are not? No, he will not.

    And once more A demonstrates his ignorance of what Objectivism states i.e. that Objectivism does not depend on a specific human view to be valid. It would be funny if A wasn’t so thoroughly dishonest about it.

    “Objectivist I subscribe to capitalism and individualism rather than the communism and collectivism that Lenin/Stalin advocated.”

    I never made any claims about his economic views.

    This is irrelevant. A attempted to equate my worldview with that of Lenin and Stalin, most probably as a pathetic attempt to tar atheism with the atrocities carried out by the communist regime they headed. I simply supplied 2 major ideological differences that show my worldview is in fact fundamentally different from theirs. I suppose I could again ask A to demonstrate exactly how being an Objectivist means I am “in reality of the Leninist/Stalinist ilk when is comes to reality….:) lol!!!” but he’s already run away from the chance to explain it once.

    How silly.

    Once more A plumps for an autobiographical statement. It’s usually the only time he is right and yes, it is silly to try and conflate Objectivism with Communism. Even a rudimentary understanding of either would show that.

    As an a Objectivist (lol!) he has a child-like view of human nature. But, that is obvious to all.

    And once more A fails to back up his claim. Just how does being an Objectivist entail having a “child-like view of human nature”? A never explains, instead he barely asserts this rubbish and runs away. Because he’s dishonest and cowardly.

  226. on 06 Oct 2014 at 3:29 pm 226.freddies_dead said …

    207.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Case Study:

    Freddie and his Mouse claim:

    God is a murderer because He takes life, even though it belongs to Him. No pass for God.

    That would be the correct conclusion based on the claim of an absolute morality. That morality would necessarily apply to everyone (including God) under every circumstance (including being the owner of someone). However, A doesn’t seem to actually subscribe to the absolute morality he claims Christianity has. Instead he gives his God a pass on killing because that life apparently “belongs to Him”. We’ve already seen that, by the same logic, it’s OK for a slave owner to kill their slaves because they “own” them too. It’s also apparently OK for humans to commit genocide as long as God orders it because God has the right (read might) to order such an atrocity. A never explains what it is that makes this OK – just claims that God can do whatever He likes. In doing so A has demonstrated that his claim of an absolute morality is just bullshit. He actually subscribes to a system whereby he happily accepts the arbitrary demands of his deity, relatively applied depending on the whims of the deity at the time. In other words, if God told him to kill a baby, A would be “morally wrong” to disagree with the order and it would be “morally right” to kill the baby. I have to say that seems a pretty disgusting morality to me.

    Counter: Freddie and His Mouse come home to his trailer….unlocks the door and walks inside. Freddie and his mouse are then arrested and booked for B&E. Freddie and his mouse make the argument “But I own the trailer”. The argument is rejected because we give no one a pas for B&E.

    That is the Objectivist worldview of Freddie And His Mouse! lol!!!

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. A is actually making my point for me. Ignoring the ridiculousness of the situation he’s concocted, if the law covering breaking and entering were actually defined in such a way that unlocking your house and walking in qualified as a transgression of that law, then of course I’d be arrested, and rightly so, because Objectivism states that moral dictates apply equally to everyone. Hell, God Himself would be arrested for unlocking my door and walking into my house.

    However, A doesn’t subscribe to such a standard. A’s actual position would not only allow me to burn down my house, I could actually do it with my slaves still inside and the police couldn’t do a damned thing about it because I “own” them.

    I think A was trying to show how his morality is superior here but he has made a complete balls up of it. Fucking classic.

  227. on 06 Oct 2014 at 6:17 pm 227.alex said …

    prediction.

    moron #1 will pipe in and say that according to him, certain bible passages are not to be taken literal and that they are no longer in effect.

    moron #2 will lol to hisself and proclaim that atheists are not qualified to quote the bible and that they are immoral even though he can’t produce his own god given absolute morals that he’s using to measure against.

    moron #3 will whine about atheists ignoring certain parts of the bible and that when pointing out certain passages, atheists should quote the entire bible in order not to leave anything out.

    dumbass, motherfuckers.

  228. on 06 Oct 2014 at 10:21 pm 228.TJ said …

    Alex,

    “since it’s been established that an all knowing god is incompatible with free will, i suggested that you either ignore one of the other.”

    This is neither established or proven.

    Al least have the balls to admit that this is your belief/interpretation and that your asking me to blindly follow it. It is self evident.

  229. on 06 Oct 2014 at 10:25 pm 229.TJ said …

    Oh…um, prediction.

    Some nonsensical irrelevance as to why that makes me a dumbass, motherfucker.

    Go fuck myself

  230. on 06 Oct 2014 at 10:50 pm 230.alex said …

    here’s the xtian sale. feel free to do whatever the fuck you want and then truly ask the xtian god for forgiveness and it shall be granted. do it as many times as you want and you may even be a multiple murderer, and just as long as you redeem yoself right before you die, ya shall be given a ticket to the eternal heaven. did i get that right?

    and if you don’t believe in the xtian god, and even though you led a good life and follow the same set of so called xtian morals and not commit any noteworthy crime, you get to fry in the xtian hell, because you were born a sinner and you didn’t acknowledge?

    did i get that right? go ahead and sell it, bitch, motherfucker. sell your merciful and fair god. who’s buying? you, three morons, in the back! we all know who you are? anybody else?

    did i conveniently leave out the other biblical shit? like the motherfucking bears that mauled the youths? shall i quote the entire gospel so that your motherfucking ass would quit whining about me leaving shit out?

    dumbass, bitch, motherfucker.

  231. on 06 Oct 2014 at 11:08 pm 231.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    TJ,

    Relax…..understand where alex is coming from. You attempted to engage him in dialogue. You caught him in desperate straights……namely inconsistencies in his worldview which began to press upon him. Following the natural tendencies of the atheist, he reverts to swearing and insults to deviate from the dialogue that was making alex uncomfortable. A natural and predictable response which was very much predictable from alex. :)

    guess what his next response will be :)

  232. on 06 Oct 2014 at 11:13 pm 232.alex said …

    relax martin. or is it science guy? biff? xenon! where have you been? little ‘A’? Sweetness? boz? RL Wooten? ‘Everyone’?

    hor, you dumbass, you forgot to change your handle!

    heh! heh! panicked didn’t you! oh, no! the motherfucker’s all puckered up.

    thanks for the reminder. here’s your pile of shit, again! http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  233. on 06 Oct 2014 at 11:13 pm 233.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “if the law covering breaking and entering were actually defined in such a way that unlocking your house and walking in qualified as a transgression of that law, then of course I’d be arrested”

    lol!!!! There you go, my point made. Freddie & his Mouse are not locked up for entering their trailer…..why? Because they own it. It doesn’t meet the standard of B&E.

    God cannot be charged with murderer…..Why? He owns all life. It doesn’t meet the definition of murder.
    If another human being takes life, which doesn’t belong to them it is murder.

    Thanks Freddie!!

  234. on 06 Oct 2014 at 11:15 pm 234.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Luv ya alex…..you must be on here ALL the time! lol!!!

    Prediction comes true TJ!!

    lol!!!

    Later Guys, you too alex!

  235. on 06 Oct 2014 at 11:24 pm 235.alex said …

    “Prediction comes true TJ!!”

    you’re late, you dumbass. he already acknowledge it. here it is again, per “203.TJ said …”

    Alex said…
    “guess which moron will pipe in and say that atheists are not qualified theologians and therefore cannot interpret and/or quote the bible.”
    And sure enough this is exactly what happened.

  236. on 07 Oct 2014 at 9:07 am 236.Anonymous said …

    Atheist are cool.

  237. on 07 Oct 2014 at 9:08 am 237.Anonymous said …

    More like Athiest are fool.

  238. on 07 Oct 2014 at 9:32 am 238.TJ said …

    Alex, Do you believe you have a soul?

  239. on 07 Oct 2014 at 11:12 am 239.freddies_dead said …

    233.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “if the law covering breaking and entering were actually defined in such a way that unlocking your house and walking in qualified as a transgression of that law, then of course I’d be arrested”

    lol!!!! There you go, my point made.

    Just what point does A think he has made here? I have no idea because A keeps moving the goalposts and running away. Does he think he’s demonstrated that his morality is actually absolute despite all the thigs he does to make it relative? If so why does he still insist on giving his God a free pass every time it breaks one of its own commandments?

    Freddie & his Mouse are not locked up for entering their trailer…..why? Because they own it. It doesn’t meet the standard of B&E.

    Wait, what? Does A not understand his own scenario? His original claim was that I unlocked and walked into my trailer and was arrested for B&E. I then point out to the police that I own the trailer but the police ignore that information and charge me with B&E anyway. This would be all well and good if the action I’d carried out actually fell within the definition of B&E. If it didn’t then why are the police arresting me in the first place, let alone ignoring my claim of ownership? As usual A never explains this. However, now, all of a sudden, the scenario has changed. Apparently now I’m not being locked up for entering my own trailer because I own it i.e. it’s now the opposite of the scenario he originally came up with. Before the police were happy to ignore my claim of ownership, now ownership suddenly matters. What happened between A setting up his original scenario and now? Just why is A moving the goalposts?

    A’s actions here are actually a good example of the Christian morality that A is trying to distance himself from. Consider. God sets up a supposedly absolute commandment saying that “you shall not murder” (there’s no caveat in there talking about how “owners” get a free pass – you can look at the commandments, it ain’t there). Then God goes out and takes someone’s life (with malice aforethought i.e. the very definition of a murder). Now, if the commandment is truly absolute, that makes God a murderer. Someone didn’t like this logical consequence and came up with an excuse for God, allowing Him to do anything He wants simply because He’s God. Unfortunately for A’s claim of absolute morality this means the moral commandment isn’t absolute anymore. It’s relative. There are now “morally sufficient” reasons that allow God to kill who He likes when He likes. In A’s words, simply being the “owner” of someone/something is enough to be able to kill/destroy it. So my original comment (notably ignored by A) still stands – A’s actual position would not only allow me to burn down my house, I could actually do it with my slaves still inside and the police couldn’t do a damned thing about it because I ‘own’ the house and the slaves that are currently burning to death in it. It’s a pretty horrific moral standard that would allow such a thing so it’s no surprise to see A desperately trying to distance himself from it.

    God cannot be charged with murderer…..Why? He owns all life.

    And here is A doing exactly what I’ve said he’s doing. He’s setting up the moral standard that he then runs away from when it’s pointed out to him.

    It doesn’t meet the definition of murder.

    Just for fun, why doesn’t A show us where the common law definition of murder is altered by the concept of “ownership”. No breath holding of course, partly because he won’t bother to try but mostly because ownership simply doesn’t affect the common law definition of murder. There are exclusions – self-defence, lack of intent, during war etc… but I’m not seeing anything about “ownership”. Indeed this insistence that “ownership” makes a difference is nothing more than a piss poor excuse thought up to give God a free pass on breaking His own supposedly absolute commandments. Pretty sad really.

    If another human being takes life, which doesn’t belong to them it is murder.

    Thanks Freddie!!

    A is very welcome. I’d like to think he’ll now understand where he’s going wrong. However, I suspect he already knows but refuses to amend his fatally flawed outlook due to his confessional investment in his imaginary deity.

  240. on 07 Oct 2014 at 11:24 am 240.alex said …

    “Do you believe you have a soul?”

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. read the fucking blog.

    do you believe you have an imaginary friend? wait, withdrawn…

    dumbass.

  241. on 07 Oct 2014 at 11:32 am 241.TJ said …

    freddies_dead and A The Prickly Science Guy…

    “Now, if the commandment is truly absolute, that makes God a murderer.”

    “Unfortunately for A’s claim of absolute morality this means the moral commandment isn’t absolute anymore. It’s relative.”

    So, the question is: Is the commandment relative to man acting upon his own free will?

    Or…

    Is the commandment absolute and applicable even if the man is acting upon the will of God and not his own will?

    Or…

    Could the commandment being relative be cancelled out, if the man has willingly surrendered his free will and become a servant of the will of God, as the Bible Claims of the Israelite s?

  242. on 07 Oct 2014 at 11:43 am 242.TJ said …

    Oh, and the logical conclusion of course is, that if God is imaginary, so are the questions.

  243. on 07 Oct 2014 at 12:03 pm 243.alex said …

    “the will of God and not his own will?”

    what’s all knowing? your god! knows the past. knows everything that’s going on. knows the future.

    this is your motherfucking definition. not postulated by atheists, muslims, hindus, aborogines, or filipinos.

    your shit definition, bitch.

    can’t reconcile it, can you? you pray like a motherfucker and when your stricken acquaintance dies, you justify. it’s god’s will! he planned it! you all knew it, but as dumbass xtians, you still pray. and then you cry. your dead was righteous and you know he/she is going to heaven, but you cry anyways. you’re not 100% dumbass. you’re prolly never going to see them again, but it’s ok to cry. your bullshit god will understand.

  244. on 07 Oct 2014 at 1:12 pm 244.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    lol!!!….sigh…..I believe Freddie & Anonymous are also alex as well……….hahahahah. Ok, let me walk the three amigos through the intent of the post.

    “A not understand his own scenario? His original claim was that I unlocked and walked into my trailer and was arrested for B&E.”

    True, my original scenario was applying Freddie & his mouse’s Objective morality. Even in ownership, Freddie and his mouse are charged with B&E.

    Why is this his Objective morality?

    Because even though God creates and gives life for a time, He owns life, in Freddie & his Mouse’s Objective morality God still murderers.

    Therefore, Freddie & his mouse commit B&E everyday.

    So simple, alex can understand.

    “He’s setting up the moral standard”

    No, actually, I am using the standards of common sense and not to mention judicial precedent. The owner has jurisdiction over his possessions :)

    “show us where the common law definition of murder is altered by the concept of “ownership”

    Sure, in man’s laws, taking one’s own life is suicide not murder. We are stewards of the life given. You can charge God with murder…….good luck with that one…..lol!!!

    Let us watch as Freddie and his amazing mouse attempts to show us a common law definition where God is charged with murder???

    lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  245. on 07 Oct 2014 at 2:40 pm 245.alex said …

    murder is killing someone and it’s bad. good is not bad. god is good. god murders but he really don’t because he own everybody. man murders own slave, but it’s bad because man not god. god realizes man is hip to this shit, so god sends lions and bears to do his dastardly deeds. can’t be murder, right? there’s no witnesses and evidence that god ordered them maulings and shit. move to dismiss god’s murder charge. but wait, your honor, it’s all in the bible. messenger objects! heresay! out of context! no longer in effect! murder charge dismissed. xtians rejoice. god is great. him fuck up his enemies.

  246. on 08 Oct 2014 at 1:03 am 246.TJ said …

    So Alex you logic is…

    “An all Knowing God cannot possibly know how to create a situation of man’s free will”… so much for all knowing.

    But…

    “A God that is not all knowing, but an absent non-interactive God , could create a situation of mans’ free will”

    Does this Absent God allow for souls too, or doesn’t he know how to make them?

    Are you an Atheist or not? You seem to know a lot about a God of perfect knowledge, but yet, claim he doesn’t exist. Seems to me your saying you know all about imaginary things. And I don’t even need to ask how to differentiate between your Absent God and the one your imagining because they are one and the same. As you stated, you can CONCEIVE an absent God.

    And yep, that makes me a dumbass for pointing it out to you.

    Should I go procreate asexually now, or wait till you tell me to?

  247. on 08 Oct 2014 at 2:01 am 247.alex said …

    “Does this Absent God allow for souls too, or doesn’t he know how to make them?”

    this is why you’re a dumb motherfucker. who the fuck said anything about souls? i said that i have no problem with a non-interventionist god. are you going to ask me next if this god likes the smell of burning flesh?

    “Are you an Atheist or not?”

    are you an idiot? do your homework. you want me to curse your god? ok. your hesus sucks ass.

    “You seem to know a lot about a God of perfect knowledge..”

    what is there to know? you morons declare that your god has perfect knowledge. i didn’t make it up. is there something i’m missing about the definition?

    “And I don’t even need to ask how to differentiate between your Absent God and the one your imagining”

    this is why you’re a dumbass, motherfucker. a non-interventionist god behaves like he doesn’t exist. who the fuck is imagining? the motherfucking god couldn’t care less if anybody believed in him. that’s why he’s a non-interventionist, you dumbass. why would i conceive a god? if i gave you that impression, then poof, the god is gone.

    “Should I go procreate asexually now, or wait till you tell me to?”

    should i call you a dumbass again?

  248. on 08 Oct 2014 at 4:12 am 248.TJ said …

    Alex says,
    ” i said that i have no problem with a non-interventionist god.”

    “many atheists consider the possibility of a non-interventionist god. not your god from the many previous discussions.”

    I’m just trying to understand your “considered God”.

    This non-interventionist god, that you have no problem with. Creates the universe? Then behaves like he doesn’t exist and then what? Deep time, evolution and here we are? Sounds a lot like A the prickly science guy’s reinterpreted Genesis account, but with an absent God twist.

    If you didn’t make this up and conceive it within your own capacity to reason. Where can I research more information? Who else should I talk to, to get more answers? Because if your right, I’m wasting my time with the Bible, and there is a different God, and I would want to know what that means for me personally.

    Are you an idiot? Are you an Atheist or not?

  249. on 08 Oct 2014 at 4:15 am 249.TJ said …

    Atheist: meaning
    “a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.”

    ” i said that i have no problem with a non-interventionist god.”

    “many atheists consider the possibility of a non-interventionist god. not your god from the many previous discussions.”

    Things that make me go, hmmmm.

  250. on 08 Oct 2014 at 11:25 am 250.alex said …

    “Sounds a lot like A the prickly science guy’s reinterpreted Genesis account…”

    no it doesn’t, ya bitch ass. what did i claim? you keep trying to equate this possible non-interventionist god with your own and you keep failing

    i’ve considered the possibility of a god that created the universe. period, bitch. unlike your god, this god behaves like it doesn’t exist. for all intents and purposes, it doesn’t exist, you dumb, motherfucker. this possible god doesn’t care if you acknowledge or not. i could care less if this possible doesn’t exist or not. since the possible god is non-interventionist, it has no consequences. give it up. what’s there to learn? morals? if allah were to show up today and proved your christ is bullshit, would you lose all morality? case closed, bitch.

    you’re all fucked up because i won’t even consider your all knowing god that dispenses free will. would you equally consider somebody’s god whom they say stays luminously bright all the time, but yet lives in the dark? would you even consider the muslim god that’s merciful and loving, but then orders the killing of his enemies? uhhmmm, wait… isn’t that your motherfucking god?

    dumbass. yes i’m an atheist, ya fuckhead. i’ve considered the possibility of a god, ya asshole. that doesn’t disqualify me from being an atheist.

  251. on 08 Oct 2014 at 12:36 pm 251.freddies_dead said …

    244.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    lol!!!….sigh…..I believe Freddie & Anonymous are also alex as well……….hahahahah.

    More projection from the lying prick.

    Ok, let me walk the three amigos through the intent of the post.

    “A not understand his own scenario? His original claim was that I unlocked and walked into my trailer and was arrested for B&E.”

    True, my original scenario was applying Freddie & his mouse’s Objective morality.

    I’m not sure how A thinks he was doing this as so far he’s demonstrated an almost total ignorance of what Objectivism entails.

    Also his original scenario made very little sense; I was arrested for performing an action that isn’t even illegal, let alone morally wrong, only for A to turn around and admit that, actually no, I wouldn’t be locked up. None of it demonstrated any point.

    Even in ownership, Freddie and his mouse are charged with B&E.

    Hold on, I’m back to being locked up for unlocking and walking into my own trailer again. When did that happen? Why does the definition of B&E keep changing? Or maybe all the police in A’s imagination are as dumb as rocks? A seems to have loaded his goalposts onto a crane so he can move them around at will.

    Why is this his Objective morality?

    I’d like an answer too as I have literally no idea how this is supposedly my Objective morality.

    Because even though God creates and gives life for a time, He owns life, in Freddie & his Mouse’s Objective morality God still murderers.

    I’ve actually demonstrated that God is a murderer under the so called absolute morality that A has claimed is Christian i.e. to be considered absolute, God’s commandment would necessarily apply to everybody, including God. If God then goes out and deliberately takes a life, He is, by definition, a murderer. I’m not sure which bit A is struggling with here. He claims God isn’t a murderer but has been totally unable to demonstrate how “ownership” mitigates the deliberate taking of a life. He’s welcome to try any time he feels up to it. With a supposedly absolute moral edict and under the common law definition of murder it’s not controversial to call his God a murderer.

    Of course A doesn’t actually subscribe to an absolute morality. He can’t because he realises that it shows his God to be a murderer. So instead He introduces a “get out of murder free card” for his God. God “owns” everyone so He can kill them with impunity. That absolute morality disappears in a puff of smoke and is replaced with moral relativism. Of course the same logic allows slave owners to kill their slaves – not a problem in A’s world as they own the slaves and A figures that ownership makes killing them just fine and dandy.

    Therefore, Freddie & his mouse commit B&E everyday.

    And the award for Non Sequitur Of The Year goes to … A the lying prick.

    We already know that unlocking your own door and walking into your own trailer does not fall under the purview of B&E (either legally or morally). However, if for some reason it did, then the police would be right to arrest people for it. Similarly an absolute moral edict against B&E (that included people going into their own houses) would also be a transgression of that moral edict.

    Similarly we know what constitutes a murder and there’s nothing in that definition which absolves “owners”. If it did then slave owners who killed their slaves would be free to do so without fear of retribution, either in this world or the next.

    The main point here is that, as well as dropping his absolute morality in favour of relativism, A is having to redefine murder in order to give his God a free pass. He insists that “ownership” plays a part, however, when asked to show how this is so he simply re-asserts his claim as if this will somehow make it true. To be fair that’s completely in line with his “wishing makes it so” worldview but sadly for A his worldview doesn’t comport with reality and the definition of murder doesn’t change just because A wishes it would.

    So simple, alex can understand.

    I expect alex probably does understand why A is so glaringly wrong here. Just a shame that A seems to be struggling with it.

    “He’s setting up the moral standard”

    No, actually, I am using the standards of common sense and not to mention judicial precedent. The owner has jurisdiction over his possessions :)

    Hahahahahaha, common sense? That’s brilliant. As for his claim of judicial precedent, A will have no trouble presenting us with a case – preferably a recent one – whereby someone was charged with murder but was subsequently let off because they “owned” the person they killed. As usual I won’t be holding my breath.

    “show us where the common law definition of murder is altered by the concept of “ownership”

    Sure, in man’s laws, taking one’s own life is suicide not murder.

    Lol. That’s a really poor attempt from A. Firstly, suicide isn’t covered by the common law definition of murder so it’s an invalid answer in that respect.

    Secondly, you should note that A doesn’t actually show how “ownership” actually makes a difference here (which is what I actually asked for). I’m not surprised because it does his “argument” no favours. In his answer he implies that suicide is treated differently because you “own” yourself. Of course this idea totally contradicts his claim that God can kill you because He “owns” you. How can that be true if you already “own” yourself? As usual A makes no attempt to explain because any attempt to explain is just going to show the issues up even more.

    We are stewards of the life given.

    I wish A would make his mind up. Either we “own” ourselves which somehow turns (self)murder into suicide (and coincidentally means God can’t kill us whenever He feels like it), or God “owns” us and suicide actually is (self)murder i.e. we’re taking a life that belongs to someone else.

    I’m not surprised by this flip-flopping of claims. I’m just glad I don’t have to live with the cognitive dissonance generated by the need to hold so many contradictory stances at the same time.

    You can charge God with murder…….good luck with that one…..lol!!!

    I’m not sure why A thinks luck comes into it? Murder is defined as intentionally taking a life and that’s exactly what God is said to have done. When you throw in a claim to absolute morality and fail to mention that “ownership” makes a difference then you’ve made God a murderer.

    Lets face it, if He wasn’t simply imaginary He’d be charged not just with murder but with genocide.

    Let us watch as Freddie and his amazing mouse attempts to show us a common law definition where God is charged with murder???

    lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    That last sentence is pretty nonsensical (and I’m not talking about the ridiculously exclaimed ‘lol’). Does anyone know of a definition of an action which directly accuses someone of actually carrying out that action? I don’t mean as an example but as a direct accusation, as A has asked for here? No? Me neither. However, the common law definition says what constitutes a murder and the Bible itself gives us examples of where God commits murders.

    The real reason that God hasn’t been charged with murder is that He doesn’t exist.

  252. on 08 Oct 2014 at 1:38 pm 252.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Wow!, either F&M has the IQ of an iguana or he recently took a blow to the head!

    OK….

    Let me summarize Freddie and his Amazing Mouses’s post:

    “Swing-ana-a-Miss” F&M you are outta there!! lol!!!!! B&E is B&E regardless of who does the B&E in the world of Objectivism! And amazingly he doesn’t understand the concept of “steward” lol!!!!!

    Well, since F&M cannot not follow a very simple, elementary and brilliant parallel to his claim “God is a murderer” then maybe we can just go to common law.

    Maybe, F&M can produce a precedent or a current case where God has been charged with murder? If indeed He is a murderer, and the vast majority of human beings believe in a God…..yes? (few are in an atheist cult)…..such precedent should be in place.

    Now, in my experience, laws are for for the most part are for human beings which is why Tigers are not brought upon on murder charges (uh oh, just gave liberals an idea) therefore common law is for human beings.

    Lets see what the Amazing Freddie & his mouse can come up with…..popcorn ready………will it be another strike out???

  253. on 08 Oct 2014 at 3:52 pm 253.freddies_dead said …

    252.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Wow!, either F&M has the IQ of an iguana or he recently took a blow to the head!

    OK….

    Let me summarize Freddie and his Amazing Mouses’s post:

    “Swing-ana-a-Miss” F&M you are outta there!! lol!!!!!

    Oh look, A doesn’t know what a summary is and he still can’t comprehend the concept of backing up his claims. He asserts that there’s a “Swing-ana-a-Miss” without saying exactly what I am supposed to have swung at … or how I apparently missed whatever it was. This isn’t a surprise. A’s assertions are regularly shown to be utterly wrong and this is his stock response – ignore everything that shows his claims are dead wrong and simply claim victory instead.

    B&E is B&E regardless of who does the B&E in the world of Objectivism!

    Finally A gets something right. I’m not sure why he thinks this is news though. It’s what I’ve been pointing out all along. B&E is B&E regardless of who does the B&E when morality is claimed to be absolute too i.e. the morality A claims Christianity advocates. So just why would A give someone a free pass for B&E when it’s contradictory to his professed morality? It’s because the morality he actually subscribes to is different from that which he professes to follow. He has no choice but to advocate moral relativism if he’s to avoid having to defend his God for the moral transgressions the Bible shows He has committed. However, his attempts to blur the lines are so transparent that they fool no-one but himself.

    And amazingly he doesn’t understand the concept of “steward” lol!!!!!

    I’m pretty sure that it’s not me that’s struggling here. A insisted that “ownership” mitigates murder when it comes to taking one’s own life. I then pointed out that if we do actually “own” ourselves, as he’s implied, what gives God the right to kill us? A never answers. Then A changes his mind and we no longer “own” ourselves we are merely “stewards” of the life given to us. The main principle in stewardship is that stewards don’t actually own that which it is that they are stewarding. In which case we now don’t have the right to kill ourselves because we’re no longer “owners” but merely “managers” of a life that belongs to someone else (in this case, God).

    Of course A doesn’t seem to notice the contradiction. He’s too busy ignoring the cognitive dissonance.

    Well, since F&M cannot not follow a very simple, elementary and brilliant parallel to his claim “God is a murderer” then maybe we can just go to common law.

    It may have been simple and elementary but it most certainly wasn’t brilliant. What is was, was wrong. A was forced to concoct an absurd situation and then keep changing his definitions to try and demonstrate a point he doesn’t seem to understand. It’s no wonder he failed.

    Maybe, F&M can produce a precedent or a current case where God has been charged with murder?

    And here A tries to shift the burden of proof. It was he who claimed “ownership” mitigated murder. Indeed he claimed that he was “using the standards of common sense and not to mention judicial precedent” in claiming it. Of course, as soon as he’s called on the claim he desperately tries to make it somebody else’s problem. It’s not going to happen. If A has a judicial precedent he should present it or admit he was being dishonest when he claimed to have one.

    If indeed He is a murderer, and the vast majority of human beings believe in a God…..yes? (few are in an atheist cult)…..such precedent should be in place.

    I have no idea why A believes this would be so. The majority of human beings who believe in a God are just like A. They are happy to give their God a free pass. They’re not going to charge their allegedly perfect being with a crime no matter how insignificant. Instead they will maintain that their God’s moral edicts are absolute and simply make up excuses whenever someone points out that their God has broken one of It’s own commandments.

    Now, in my experience, laws are for for the most part are for human beings which is why Tigers are not brought upon on murder charges (uh oh, just gave liberals an idea) therefore common law is for human beings.

    Ignoring the fact that tigers who kills humans are usually shot for their actions we now see A coming up with yet another excuse for his God’s immorality. His God isn’t human. He’s apparently more like a tiger. So what is the excuse? He can’t control Himself? He doesn’t understand morality? What is it about the supposed absolute standard of morality that excuses Him from that very same standard? Watch as A runs away from these problems too.

    Oh and thank you for reiterating your moral relativism A.

    Lets see what the Amazing Freddie & his mouse can come up with…..popcorn ready………will it be another strike out???

    On the contrary, like every other piss poor excuse A has dribbled out on this thread, this one has been knocked for 6 as well.

  254. on 08 Oct 2014 at 6:05 pm 254.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “I’ve been pointing out all along. B&E is B&E regardless of who does the B&E”

    ROTFL!!!!!

    F$M admits he comitts B&E everyday when he god into his trailer. Lol!!!! What a mess! More swings and misses.

    “Ignoring the fact that tigers who kills humans are usually shot for their actions”

    So Tigers only kill humans? Lol!!!!!! Hmmmm, so why are humans special? Why isn”t ALL killing murders? And no….Tigers who kill humans are not always tracked down and killed for …..murder? Lol!!!!! F$M just wrong again :)

    “Lets see what the Amazing Freddie & his mouse can come up with…”

    Unfortunately nothing. Condemns God, has mor moral basis and stands by his ignorance.

    Being an Objectivist, I will need to call 5-0 today so when he breaks into his trailer today he can be arrested. Lol!!!!! Ownership is mot relevant…..sorry Freddie and your amazing mouse!!

    Lol!!!!!, and he is part of society folks, so when will F$M bring God upon charges???

    Lol!!!!!

  255. on 08 Oct 2014 at 6:10 pm 255.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “The majority of human beings who believe in a God are just like A.”

    This a cult response. All of us are wrong, bit Fred’s cult is right about all. Next he will be telling his cult family to take the red pill and go to sleep…………shhhhhhhhh not sudden movements……..

  256. on 08 Oct 2014 at 10:57 pm 256.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    You say to me in your defense…

    “you’re all fucked up because i won’t even consider your all knowing god that dispenses free will. would you equally consider somebody’s god whom they say stays luminously bright all the time, but yet lives in the dark? would you even consider the muslim god that’s merciful and loving, but then orders the killing of his enemies? uhhmmm, wait… isn’t that your motherfucking god?”

    But your standard assualt on others with differing beliefs is…

    “Yahweh, Zeus, Ra, and Jesus are a bunch of bullshit. If you argue for one, prepare to use the same argument for all of them.”

    You are a hypocrite, all who can be bothered to read your responses can clearly see it.

    “All knowing” must mean “all knowing”. But you don’t see the problem with atheists presenting a different God as a substitute, declaring you see “no problem”.

    You claim it is all bullshit and say “sticks and stones”, abusing everyone with a different outlook, but then say the most abusive thing anyone can do is point out the God offers you FREE forgiveness and eternal salvation, with the natural alternative being eternal damnation and eternal separation from God.

    This terrifies you so much that you sit in a glass house hurling stones at everybody with a belief. When I hurl a few back at you, you sulk and cry and aggressively assault me with your stick and stone offenses.

    God offers you salvation Alex. Your free will is, the ability to reject this offer. God does not want his eternal kingdom to include anyone who doesn’t want to reside under his Authority and Ruler ship. King of kings, no other before him, a jealous God and all that.

    Salvation Alex, Take it or leave it. But why do you have to be so aggressive towards others points of view.

    1 Corinthians 8:12
    “If you sin against your brothers or sisters in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.”

    1 Samuel 2:25
    “If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him?”

    2 Corinthians 5:10
    Verse Concepts
    For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

    Scary stuff eh? Still doesn’t sound like God controls the actions of man, but instead hold him responsible and judges accordingly. Where do you stand?

  257. on 08 Oct 2014 at 11:11 pm 257.TJ said …

    freddies_dead and The Prickly Science Guy,

    “However, the common law definition says what constitutes a murder and the Bible itself gives us examples of where God commits murders.”

    What about a Judge and capital punishment?

    Does the Judge get charged with murder?

    Does the executioner get charged with murder?

    Who does the Bible claim to be Judge, Jury and Executioner?

    Unless you disregard the Bible and place God and man on equal ground, the issue is clearly resolved.

  258. on 09 Oct 2014 at 12:32 pm 258.alex said …

    “Yahweh, Zeus, Ra, and Jesus are a bunch of bullshit. If you argue for one, prepare to use the same argument for all of them.”

    +++You are a hypocrite, all who can be bothered to read your responses can clearly see it.

    this is why you’re a dumb, motherfucker. you’re refering to my “alahu akhbar”? my “odin kicks ass” or the mighty “Ra”? is that why you ask if i’m an atheist? hor motherfucker baits you with the “alex is a muslim” and you bite like the dumbass you are? are we at least in agreement that gods zeus, ra, and thor are bullshit?

    “…point out the God offers you FREE forgiveness and eternal salvation, with the natural alternative being eternal damnation and eternal separation from God.”

    ok, i’m wrong. what is the worst thing an xtian can tell me? me momma wears combat boots? my daughter is gay? my asian ass is too short? tell me what’s the worst thing an xtian can say here, ya bitch motherfucker.

    you act like cursing is so abhorrent. dude, it’s language flavor. just like the lower case, it’s an internet thing. the dipshit hor won’t point out my misspellings and faulty language construction, so instead he tries insulting by describing my “flowery grasp of the language”.

    why would i be scared of your bullshit hell? should i be scared of running into the yeti? ufos keep me awake?

    “this terrifies you so much that you sit in a glass house hurling stones at everybody with a belief.”

    what’s my belief again? my belief in the countless bullshits, including your god? i forgot what’s on my belief list. what’s on it again? your god? along with what others? please publish it so all the atheists can look at the items on the list and collectively say “amen”?

    you got nothing, so you predictably revert to your testimonial bullshit. you refuse to get it. your bullshit quotes are no more valid than a muslim posting his koran shit and hindus posting their vedas shit.

    still don’t understand the morality discussion? let me try. if allah showed up and proved that he’s god, would you start acting immoral? still don’t get it? if allah proved that your xtian morals are bull, would you start acting a fool?

    why would i consider a non-interventionist god? because whether or not it exists is inconsequential. i told you to look it up. you’ve probably never heard of people that believe in this god? because they don’t do shit in the name of said god. how’s that different from an atheist that don’t believe in any god? hitler and mao again? prove that they did what they did because they don’t believe in god. what? people turn into hitler if they don’t believe in the xtian god? is that it? why not, people turn into hitler if they don’t believe in zeus?

    alahu akbar, dumbass, motherfucker.

    salvation is thru the allah. get it? doh! salvation is thru christ. there! much better, eh, motherfucker?

  259. on 09 Oct 2014 at 2:33 pm 259.freddies_dead said …

    254.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “I’ve been pointing out all along. B&E is B&E regardless of who does the B&E”

    ROTFL!!!!!

    F$M admits he comitts B&E everyday when he god into his trailer.

    Oh look, A is lying again. A resorts to a strawman because he can’t deal with my actual position. He claims absolute morality and then proceeds to give his God a free pass. He concocts a scenario where B&E equates to unlocking your trailer and walking through the door then gets all “gotcha” when I say that, as long as that is the definition of B&E, then it’s right to say that I have broken the law. I’m following his absolute morality claim to it’s logical conclusion but he doesn’t like the conclusion. He claims “ownership” makes a difference. I own the trailer so now I’m not committing B&E and I happily agree that I won’t be charged under those circumstances. He reaches for another “gotcha” moment but fails miserably once more by singularly failing to show how ownership changes the concept of murder. It doesn’t change it in the Bible (just check those commandments – no mention of ownership there) and it doesn’t change it in common law either. He suggests we own ourselves so that suicide isn’t murder which, of course, contradicts his claim that God owns us so can kill us whenever He wants. In the next breath we’re stewards – back to God owning us so suicide is suddenly murder as we don’t own ourselves any more. He wants to have his cake and eat it too.

    And he thinks he’s making sense, lol. It’s been wonderful to watch.

    Lol!!!! What a mess! More swings and misses.

    This is an autobiographical statement from A.

    “Ignoring the fact that tigers who kills humans are usually shot for their actions”

    So Tigers only kill humans?

    Note how A has totally avoided pretty much anything of relavence from my post, including explaining why he bought up tigers in the first place. He goes for the red herring he threw in to derail the conversation. Unfortunately I’m not going to be diverted. Just why are tigers at all important here? Is his God like a tiger in some way? Maybe He’s like a Tiger in that neither understands right from wrong? If so why would you accept any moral edicts it might make? A doesn’t answer the questions I asked because this tiger nonsense is a red herring. He’s desperate to absolve his God of breaking It’s own commandments so asks why we don’t charge tigers with murder? We don’t charge tigers with murder because they don’t know right from wrong. Does his God have the same problem?

    Lol!!!!!! Hmmmm, so why are humans special?

    Just where do human’s get their rights? Well, Christianity claims humanity to be special because we get our rights from God. The first problem with that is the complete lack of evidence for the existence of said God. Rights which rest on an unevidenced source are not rights but wishes … nothing but hopes and dreams. Further, should rights actually come from an all powerful God they are subject to repeal at any time. We see this time and time again in the Bible when God takes away those rights in order to kill people or allow them to be killed, enslaved or raped by others. Rights that can be revoked aren’t rights, they’re permissions. And when a supposedly all good God commits or permits these very same immoral acts they become, by definition, morally good. It’s a ridiculous mess.

    Objectivism holds that man has one fundamental right – a right to his own life. Any other rights are consequences or corollaries of that. Rand states that: “Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)”. Unlike the Bible which used some nebulous concept of a “soul” to differentiate between man and animal Objectivism uses rationality. Man uses reason to determine what actions he should take, animals simply act.

    Why isn”t ALL killing murders?

    Because murder has a specific definition. One that rules out things like self defence, accidental killing etc… This is where A keeps fucking up. He thinks that by changing the definition in a way he thinks suits his argument is going to go unnoticed. But it hasn’t worked. I’ve simply noted the deception (in the B&E nonsense) and asked him to validate his redefinition of murder. Ole Humpty Dumpty keeps running away from that burden because he knows he can’t carry it.

    And no….Tigers who kill humans are not always tracked down and killed for …..murder? Lol!!!!! F$M just wrong again :)

    More dishonesty. I never once claimed that tigers are always tracked down and killed for killing humans and I certainly didn’t suggest they were killed for committing murder. As usual A is incapable of dealing with my actual position so chooses to dishonestly attack a strawman instead.

    “Lets see what the Amazing Freddie & his mouse can come up with…”

    Unfortunately nothing. Condemns God, has mor moral basis and stands by his ignorance.

    So which is it? Nothing? Or comndemning his God? As usual A contradicts himself. Just like when he claims to have absolute morality and then gives his God a free pass to ignore those very same absolute commandments.

    Being an Objectivist,

    This is, as with a lot of A’s claims, a lie. He knows almost nothing about Objectivism, which is why he is forced to set up strawman versions in order to knock them down.

    I will need to call 5-0 today so when he breaks into his trailer today he can be arrested.

    So it seems I won’t be simply unlocking and walking into my trailer today. A has moved the goalposts yet again because he can’t defend his initial position.

    Lol!!!!! Ownership is mot relevant…..sorry Freddie and your amazing mouse!!

    A is right to apologise. He has been nothing but deceitful throughout this entire exchange. He claims he holds to absolute morals but gives his God a free pass to murder. He sets up a scenario whereby unlocking my door and going into my trailer constitutes B&E … but when I point out that absolute morality would condemn me for that same action it’s suddenly not B&E … but then it is B&E again and now, finally I’m actually B&Eing my trailer instead of unlocking the door and walking in. He changes his story in every post. Again it’s because he can’t defend his own claim, in this case the claim that “ownership” somehow mitigates murder. How? A never explains. He just makes shit like this up instead.

    Lol!!!!!, and he is part of society folks, so when will F$M bring God upon charges???

    Lol!!!!!

    No-one will ever bring A’s God up on charges because A’s God doesn’t exist. It’s nothing more than a product of A’s imagination. There’s no-one to arrest, no-one to bring to trial, no-one to put in a cell. However, A figures that God’s alleged “ownership” of everyone gives licence to murder. So why doesn’t A put this to the test and go out and kill someone? Surely all he’d need to do to avoid being charged with the crime is point out that his God – who owns everyone – told him he could kill that person. We know why he doesn’t do it, it’s because he’d soon see just how much stock is put in “God’s ownership” by his own legal system.

    And he is part of society folks. A person who believes an imaginary being gives us an excuse to enslave, rape and murder without fear of retribution. I just hope he never decides to act on what that voice in his head claiming to be God orders him to do.

  260. on 09 Oct 2014 at 2:56 pm 260.freddies_dead said …

    257.TJ said …

    freddies_dead and The Prickly Science Guy,

    “However, the common law definition says what constitutes a murder and the Bible itself gives us examples of where God commits murders.”

    What about a Judge and capital punishment?

    What about them? The common law definition of murder excludes capital punishment specifically. A’s definition, however, uses “ownership” as the key to exclusion.

    Does the Judge get charged with murder?

    Does the Judge “own” the people he condemns to death? If not then, by A’s logic, the Judge is guilty of ordering murder.

    Does the executioner get charged with murder

    Does the executioner “own” the people he executes? If not then, by A’s logic, the executioner is guilty of murder.

    Who does the Bible claim to be Judge, Jury and Executioner?

    God, however, by A’s logic, God being Judge, Jury and Executioner is irrelevant, He is still guilty of murder.

    Unless you disregard the Bible and place God and man on equal ground, the issue is clearly resolved.

    It is A’s claim to absolute morality that places God and man on equal ground here. Either an absolute commandment applies to everyone (including God) or it simply isn’t absolute. If you are saying the Bible doesn’t actually advocate absolute morality then I would agree. Instead it describes a brand of moral relativism where actions are bad or good according to the arbitrary whims of the Christian God i.e. murder is morally wrong except when God does it or orders it, in those cases it’s morally good.

  261. on 09 Oct 2014 at 3:16 pm 261.freddies_dead said …

    255.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “The majority of human beings who believe in a God are just like A.”

    This a cult response.

    In what way? As usual A fails to back up his claim. He also ignores the meat in the argument – no surprise there though.

    He had initially claimed to have judicial precedent of someone being acquitted of a crime because of their “ownership”. We were talking about murder at the time so I aked him to produce his judicial precent whereby someone was given a free pass on murdering because they “owned” the person they killed. Regulars will be unsurprised to hear that he ran away from this burden. Instead, he tried to pass the burden onto me. Insisting I show precedent for God being charged with murder. He seemed to think that, as God has committed murder and the majority of people believe in God, there should be some legal record of God being charged for his crime. It’s a ridiculous idea to put out there as I pointed out: “The majority of human beings who believe in a God are just like A. They are happy to give their God a free pass. They’re not going to charge their allegedly perfect being with a crime no matter how insignificant.”

    If A disagrees then maybe he can show us where a majority of Christians will accuse their God of committing any crime?

    All of us are wrong, bit Fred’s cult is right about all.

    This is a pathetic strawman of my position. A does this because he’s unable to interact with my actual position.

    Next he will be telling his cult family to take the red pill and go to sleep…………shhhhhhhhh not sudden movements……..

    And this is just the gibbering ravings of an idiot. Move along folks, nothing to see here…

  262. on 09 Oct 2014 at 3:24 pm 262.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Rand states that:”

    So now Freddie and His Spectacular Mouse claims Rand develops our morality for us. OK, why Rand????

    “Objectivism holds that man has one fundamental right – a right to his own life.”

    Why does man have a right to his life? Why can’t the Tiger eat the man if he is hungry? Isn’t that survival of the fittest? Is Freddie disregarding his evolutionary heritage. He is full of contradictions. Why is it a baby in the womb can be murdered but destruction of an eagle egg carries a $25K fine? So much for Objectivism… :)

    “Because murder has a specific definition. One that rules out things like self defence, accidental killing etc”

    OK, Freddie and his spectacular mouse is offering a definition of murderer, He has ruled out a couple of things here. Let see if he can provide a definition where a God can be subjected to a murder charge? Isn’t murder rellegated to the domain of mankind?

    Lets start with this definition:

    noun
    noun: murder; plural noun: murders

    1.
    the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

    Lets all watch this unfold as Freddie & the Mouse proceed to to unpack theses scenarios for us…:)

    popcorn is hot………munch munch munch…….

  263. on 09 Oct 2014 at 3:32 pm 263.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Well, let me destroy his next post :)

    “Does the Judge “own” the people he condemns to death? If not then, by A’s logic, the Judge is guilty of ordering murder.”

    Where did I claim ownership was the ONLY condition? Well, I didn’t silly Freddie…..

    LOL!! Judges and Juries carry out a punishment of the guilty. Murder is taking innocent life and in this case the person is not innocent. So silly Freedie….:)

    “In what way? As usual A fails to back up his claim. He also ignores the meat in the argument – no surprise there though. ”

    What claim? You claimed God murders therefore the onus is on Freddie and His SPECTACULAR mouse! You have not proven that God, who is not a man and owns all, is capable of murder silly. Until then, you are a cult member….:)

  264. on 09 Oct 2014 at 3:36 pm 264.TJ said …

    freddies_dead said ,

    “If you are saying the Bible doesn’t actually advocate absolute morality then I would agree. Instead it describes a brand of moral relativism where actions are bad or good according to the arbitrary whims of the Christian God i.e. murder is morally wrong except when God does it or orders it, in those cases it’s morally good.”

    Yes basically, only I would add that the Bible would advocate that God’s actions are “morally Just”, which I suppose could interpret to ultimately mean morally good.

    The Bible also portrays that before the Law of Moses, the moral justice was an “eye for an eye”… which should only leave two people blind and not the whole world, as is often stated.

  265. on 09 Oct 2014 at 11:37 pm 265.TJ said …

    Alex said…

    “are we at least in agreement that gods zeus, ra, and thor are bullshit?”

    –No, absolutely not. We are not in agreement.

    –if the Nephilim were indeed half human/half fallen angel then it would give great understanding to the many ancient religious views after Babel and demi-gods.

    see 2 Peter 2:1-11

    see also Jude 4–8

    This is also the basis for my argument for all false Gods.

    As you stated…”If you argue for one, prepare to use the same argument for all of them.”

    You say that they are all bullshit. And you believe this offers a better explanation for all the religions, and all the worship, and all the temple building that has gone on in the past. Sounds like a you reject all evidence to reach your belief.

    I’m sorry but I don’t agree with your belief. Evidence shows that man had devoted so much time, labor, resources and effort across the ages to…? What,… “bullshit”, “imagination” and “fantasy”?

    And before you cry that this isn’t a belief. Consider that if you reject all other accounts than what your left with is your current accepted belief… even if you can’t prove it to yourself or anybody else. Otherwise your just lying to yourself, and you shouldn’t be offering it as evidence to disprove someone else’s view.

    When I offered DPK the Ancient Alien scenario, I offered it as an alternative to his imaginary God view. I didn’t claim it was proof against his claim, (as I believe something else entirely) but just a consideration, as was the nature of our discussion.

    You offer “what if” scenarios with vile tones as if they offer something other than an alternative. Made up, and imagined as proving a point. But, ultimately pointless.

    And that is all I have to offer on the subject. Anything else would be extended speculation and interpretation on my part.

    Alex said…

    “what’s my belief again?” …in addition to the the one above…

    “yes i’m an atheist, ya fuckhead. i’ve considered the possibility of a god, ya asshole. that doesn’t disqualify me from being an atheist.”

    –No, it doesn’t.

    ” i said that i have no problem with a non-interventionist god.”

    –But it is a problem, for an atheist to believe it.

    “many atheists consider the possibility of a non-interventionist god. not your god from the many previous discussions.”

    –To consider is different to believing.

    “i told you to look it up. you’ve probably never heard of people that believe in this god? because they don’t do shit in the name of said god. how’s that different from an atheist that don’t believe in any god?”

    –??? EH ???

    How would an Atheist who believes in a God be different? OMG, by failing the definition alone! Square circle? Luminously bright all the time, but yet lives in the dark? A god that exist, but behaves like it doesn’t exist?

    What behavior illustrates non-existence? That’s right, square circles.

    This is why I asked is your an atheist, wasn’t sure if you truly understood the meaning. It’s why I presented the meaning. Here it i s again…

    Atheist: meaning
    “a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.”

    See the difference?

    Look man, I don’t need to point to your fails to feel secure in my beliefs. I do it to highlight for your own benefit, so you might see your lack of respect for others and their personal views.

    I’ll just completely ignore you from now on. Otherwise I’m just whipping that dead horse your trying to ride.

    Your entitled to believe whatever you want. Good luck with that.

  266. on 10 Oct 2014 at 1:02 am 266.alex said …

    “are we at least in agreement that gods zeus, ra, and thor are bullshit?”

    –No, absolutely not. We are not in agreement.

    ok. case closed. you believe in the xtian god. you believe in zeus. you believe in ra and you believe in thor. you’re a dumbass.

    “and all the worship, and all the temple building that has gone on in the past. Sounds like a you reject all evidence to reach your belief.”

    this is your proof? temples and worship proves all gods exists? what do you think this is? a fucking baptist, redneck site? you’re so smart, you bought this shit and now you expect everybody else to do the same?

    “How would an Atheist who believes in a God be different?”

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. you didn’t look it up. an atheist may believe/consider a non-interventionist god. an atheist may not believe/consider all gods. whether or not they’re different or the same, their behavior is the same when it comes to your god. no? state their behavioral differences towards your god?

    the atheist definition is your desperate attempt to steer the conversation away from your bullshit list of gods. i thought it was a list of one, but you corrected me. sounds like it’s a long ass list.

    Atheist: meaning
    “a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.”

    your dumbass pasted the first result out of google and you proudly proclaimed it. read the rest of the results, you dumbass, motherfucker.

    “I’ll just completely ignore you from now on.”

    you’ve said that before but you won’t. it irks your motherfucking ass when i point the obvious bullshit you keep spouting. go ahead bitch. post some more “god knows your final outcome”, but you get to choose what it is.

    other than xtians or atheists, anybody else buying this all knowing god that dispenses free will? aborigines, bushmen, hindus? do you think allah is all knowing?

    did i mention that you’re a dumbass, motherfucker? ignore that, beeyatch!

    “–??? EH ???”

    same expression you had when reading the discussion about morals? translation. that’s your clueless expression.

    asshole.

  267. on 10 Oct 2014 at 1:08 am 267.alex said …

    “other than xtians or atheists, anybody else buying this all knowing god that dispenses free will?”

    obvious error. go ahead xtians, jump on it. the proof that your god exist.

  268. on 10 Oct 2014 at 1:13 pm 268.freddies_dead said …

    262.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Rand states that:”

    So now Freddie and His Spectacular Mouse claims Rand develops our morality for us. OK, why Rand????

    First the lie i.e. the claim that I said Rand develops our morality for us. Rand advanced the Objectivist position based on observations of reality. Reality is the final arbiter here, not Rand. And secondly, A can’t deal with the actual arguments so he opts to go for the classical ad hominem and questions the person offering them instead. He’s such a coward.

    “Objectivism holds that man has one fundamental right – a right to his own life.”

    Why does man have a right to his life?

    This is a dishonest question. The rest of the paragraph after the sentence A has quoted here explained man’s fundamental right to life.

    However, to reiterate what Objectivism says about rights:
    A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

    It is self-evident. There is no “why”. We have the right to life due to our nature as living humans.

    Why can’t the Tiger eat the man if he is hungry?

    Whoever said the tiger can’t eat a man if he is hungry? I certainly didn’t. Of course a tiger’s attempt to secure food in no way affects a man’s right to life as the man is still allowed to defend his right i.e. defend his life.

    Isn’t that survival of the fittest?

    No. A’s grasp of evolutionary concepts is truly comical.

    Is Freddie disregarding his evolutionary heritage.

    What the hell is A wittering on about? He has shown that he doesn’t understand evolution and makes no attempt to show how evolution has anything to do with a person’s self-evident right to life. It seems A doesn’t understand rights any more than he understands how evolution works.

    He is full of contradictions.

    If only A could actually show a contradiction instead of waffling on about tigers and evolution when we’re talking about a man’s fundamental right to life.

    Why is it a baby in the womb can be murdered but destruction of an eagle egg carries a $25K fine?

    Of course A’s government doesn’t see abortion as murder. It doesn’t recognise that blastocysts and embryos are equivalent to actual babies. This is little more than an appeal to emotion. It’s especially egregious as studies estimate that somewhere between 30% and 50% of all conceptions spontaneously abort. So if A’s claim is true and A’s God actually exists, then A’s God is responsible for the vast majority of all abortions.

    I also have no idea why he’s trying to compare abortion to conservation efforts either. Should we ignore the possible destruction of an entire species because abortion is legal? Why can we not deal with both? And why can’t A obey the commands of his God as outlined in Romans 13, where he is told to obey the laws of his land – like legal abortion – as the rulers are alleged to have been appointed by his God. As usual A makes no sense.

    So much for Objectivism… :)

    Once again A is back to wittering. Nothing he has said since his ad hominem attack on Rand has had anything to do with Objectivism. He hasn’t related his whinings about tigers and evolution or his bizarre abortion vs conservation rant to Objectivism in any way. Just what is his point here?

    “Because murder has a specific definition. One that rules out things like self defence, accidental killing etc”

    OK, Freddie and his spectacular mouse is offering a definition of murderer, He has ruled out a couple of things here. Let see if he can provide a definition where a God can be subjected to a murder charge?

    Lets have a look at commandment number 6 (depending on which set of commandments you read of course) It’s the one that reads “Thou shalt not murder”. Of course the Bible doesn’t really bother to define the term but the word used translates as “to kill deliberately”. So by God’s own commandment God is guilty of murder. Note also how the definition makes absolutely no reference to “ownership” and yet A maintains that it’s a key concept.

    Isn’t murder rellegated to the domain of mankind?

    In common human law? Why yes, yes it is. As humans we like to distinguish between ourselves and animals – it’s why tigers don’t get charged with murder. However, why is A desperate to move away from his God’s allegedly absolute moral edicts? We already know he’s not going to accept his God being charged under any earthly conception of law but that still doesn’t absolve his God from being guilty of breaking it’s own commandments.

    Lets start with this definition:

    noun
    noun: murder; plural noun: murders

    1.
    the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

    Lets all watch this unfold as Freddie & the Mouse proceed to to unpack theses scenarios for us…:)

    popcorn is hot………munch munch munch…….

    Yup, that’s a definition alright. Note how – just like the Biblical definition – it doesn’t make any reference to “ownership”. Has A given up trying to say that it’s a key concept? Is he claiming his God didn’t mean to kill the people he killed? Or, as I suspect, is he gearing up to try and absolve his God on the grounds that He’s not human?

  269. on 10 Oct 2014 at 1:21 pm 269.freddies_dead said …

    263.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Well, let me destroy his next post :)

    Lol, it’s the Dunning Kruger effect in full flow…

    “Does the Judge “own” the people he condemns to death? If not then, by A’s logic, the Judge is guilty of ordering murder.”

    Where did I claim ownership was the ONLY condition? Well, I didn’t silly Freddie…..

    And here comes the dishonesty. I’ve shown how ownership makes no difference at all – whether we’re discussing the Biblical commandment or common human law – so here’s where A needs a new excuse for his God’s immorality.

    LOL!! Judges and Juries carry out a punishment of the guilty. Murder is taking innocent life and in this case the person is not innocent. So silly Freedie….:)

    What? So murderers only ever kill the innocent? What a stupid claim. Also A has never set out a specific case so what does he mean when he says “and in this case”. Maybe he means the babies and unborn God ordered to be murdered when God decided to wipe out the Canaanites? Of course they’d be guilty … of what I have no idea, but they must have been, right? I mean A says Judges and Juries only punish the guilty, yes, surely he can’t be wrong about this? Surely no innocent has ever been wrongly judged. Maybe it was all the babies and unborn God drowned in the flood? They must have been guilty too … maybe A can tell us what they were guilty of? Breath. Holding. Not.

    “In what way? As usual A fails to back up his claim. He also ignores the meat in the argument – no surprise there though. ”

    What claim?

    Note that A has ripped out all context here. He likes to do that in the hope that people don’t realise when he’s being dishonest. The claim I was responding to at the time (post 261) was A’s assertion that “This is a cult response.” when I said that “The majority of human beings who believe in a God are just like A.” which itself had been torn from its true context. It was all part of an attempt by me to get A to prove his claims that “ownership” affects a murder charge such that it exempts his God from that charge when He kills people.

    We’re still waiting for A to back up that claim. It’s not mentioned in the Biblical commandment. Ole number 6 doesn’t state “Thou shalt not murder people you don’t own”. Hell, even the rules for slaves said they had to live for a few days before dying from the beating you gave them. It also wasn’t present in the common laws set up by humans either. We’ve also never been given the “judicial precedent” that A claimed to have that proves “ownership” will get murder charges dropped.

    Quite simply A has failed to demonstrate that “ownership” has any affect on a charge of murder and yet he continues to claim the concept excuses his God’s actions.

    You claimed God murders therefore the onus is on Freddie and His SPECTACULAR mouse!

    I’ve already shown – several times now – that, by His own commandment, the Christian God has committed murder. A doesn’t like this fact so is trying to bury it in a bunch of contextless nonsense and drivel about tigers and evolution. It’s so transparent.

    You have not proven that God, who is not a man and owns all, is capable of murder silly.

    Now what did I say at the end of my previous comment? Yes, that’s right: “is he gearing up to try and absolve his God on the grounds that He’s not human?”. And what do we have here? “God, who is not a man”. He’s still trotting out the ownership claim despite having singularly failed to back it up in any way and now we get the claim that God is not a man. This may come as a bit of a surprise to Jesus who is said to have been wholly God and wholly man the so-called doctrine of the hypostatic union. This union of the divine and the human is referenced in John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” and John 10:29-30 “My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one. It seems that, once more, A doesn’t accept what his Bible teaches. I sometimes wonder why he calls himself a Christian.

    Until then, you are a cult member….:)

    OK A, substantiate your claim, show how I am a member of a cult. I have asked A to demonstrate the truth of this claim before and you’ll be unsurprised to note that he has never done so. This time will be no different.

  270. on 10 Oct 2014 at 8:27 pm 270.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Sigh…..let me furter destroy Freddie and his mouses’ further lies and misinformation.

    “I’ve shown how ownership makes no difference at all”

    Actually, Fred has not done anything of the kind. We HAVE established the fact that owner has all rights to the property which is why Fred is not in prison for B&E.

    Notice the definition i provided uses the word “take” which implies something that does not belong the one acting…:) next…..

    “So murderers only ever kill the innocent?”

    Yes…..thus the definition of murder…lol!!!!

    “Surely no innocent has ever been wrongly judged.”

    Sure they have, humans are fallible. Another “Duh” moment from Fred….lol!!!!

    “he claim I was responding to at the time (post 261) was A’s assertion that “This is a cult response.” ”

    Yes, you are part of a cult. with churches, priests and evangelism. It’s all on the web, look it up.
    However, I have gone back much further, looking for you supporting evidence can murder. Definition I provided says No, what will fred provide???????…..lol!!!!

    “Ole number 6 doesn’t state “Thou shalt not murder people you don’t own”.”

    Yes, that is true. The point? OH!!!!, this makes God a murderer? Again, we already looked at the definition of murder, it is by human beings……not God (Creator of all) or animals……silly freddie!! lol!!!

    “we get the claim that God is not a man.”

    Yes, I went out on a limb…..lol!!!!

    “This may come as a bit of a surprise to Jesus”

    Didn’t you hear? God the man was “murdered”. He no longer resides as a man. Christians on the blog: This is still true, yes?….lol!!!

    Wow!! This is the best fred can do?

  271. on 10 Oct 2014 at 9:02 pm 271.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Part II of the destruction:

    “Reality is the final arbiter here, not Rand.”

    Translation: The reality as Freddie and his spectacular mouse see it which is cultic in nature. Lol!!, that is freddie’s Objectivism”.

    “opts to go for the classical ad hominem and questions the person offering them instead.”

    lol!!!!, I know what ad hominem means obviously ol’ freddie seems clueless. How dare we question Rand! lol!!!!

    “to reiterate what Objectivism says about rights”

    Irrelevant until he provides legitimate reasons why Objectivism should be accepted as a moral authority.

    “makes no attempt to show how evolution has anything to do with a person’s self-evident right to life.”

    freddies ignorance shines forth again. He is completely unaware of the attempts to tie morality to evolution. So silly again….

    “It doesn’t recognise that blastocysts and embryos are equivalent to actual babies”

    Translation: Killing a baby in the womb is OK. They can survise at 15-18 weeks outside the womb. Maybe before, just my personal knowledge. However, the eagle egg is much more important to freddie. This is Objectivism folks!

    “Why can we not deal with both?”

    I dunno, why do we protect an eagle egg but not a bay? Tell us fred!

    “since his ad hominem attack on Rand”

    lol!!, Can’t wait to hear what that was to fred and his spectacular mouse. Was she his Auntie?

    “Bible doesn’t really bother to define the term”

    Ayn doesn’t define all her words either silly. For that matter, you have not either …..lol!!! The word murder is Hebrew is “ratsach”, an imperative against murder. Most educated folks can figure that one out…:)

    “no reference to “ownership””

    lol!!!, again it is built right into the definition…..silly freddie

    Here is another:

    “deliberate and premeditated taking of human life.”

  272. on 10 Oct 2014 at 9:55 pm 272.alex said …

    “Yes, you are part of a cult. with churches, priests and evangelism. It’s all on the web, look it up.”

    the lying bitch motherfucker proves himself again. this is your proof that freddie is part of a cult? quickly double posting to try to hide it, eh?

    you cannot hide, bitch, lyin ass, motherfucker. it’s all here: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS, dumbass hor. or is it martin, science guy, biff, xenon, little ‘A’, Sweetness, boz, RL Wooten, ‘Everyone’?

    you forgot to change your handle, bitch. psyched! dumbass motherfucker puckered again.

  273. on 10 Oct 2014 at 10:01 pm 273.alex said …

    “We HAVE established the fact that owner has all rights to the property which is why Fred is not in prison for B&E.”

    we have? since you’ve been OWNED countless times on this blog, why don’t you bend over so everybody will kick your ass. remember, you’re owned, therefore no crime there, eh buddy boy, motherfucker?

    again, your pile of shit: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    dumbass, motherfucker.

    go ahead, tj, bitch. you’re itching to get in. genesis this, joshua that. watch it. i will summon those bear to maul your dumbass.

  274. on 13 Oct 2014 at 12:16 pm 274.freddies_dead said …

    270.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Sigh…..let me furter destroy Freddie and his mouses’ further lies and misinformation.

    More of the Dunning Kruger effect in action…

    “I’ve shown how ownership makes no difference at all”

    Actually, Fred has not done anything of the kind.

    Actually I have – especially in the context of murder – but A doesn’t like this fact so he denies reality instead.

    We HAVE established the fact that owner has all rights to the property which is why Fred is not in prison for B&E.

    We’ve actually done no such thing and all A would need to do is burn down his own trailer to see just how far his rights extend concerning his property. Ownership may confer some rights in certain situations but it certainly doesn’t confer “all rights” as A would like us to believe and it confers absolutely no rights when we’re talking about murder.

    The B&E thing was just a pile of nonsense that had precisely nothing to do with being charged with murder. The crimes are in no way comparable. Me owning a trailer meaning that I can walk in and out anytime I want is in no way the same as me owning another human being and having the right to murder them any time I please. A knows this but he’s desperate to excuse his God so he persists with piss poor analogies. Next up was his attempt to claim suicide proves ownership exempts you from a murder charge. Of course he couldn’t get that right either. If we own ourselves – so can’t be charged with murder for killing ourselves – then God doesn’t own us and isn’t allowed to kill us. Of course A then changed his claim so that we’re only stewards of our lives which means God can kill us as He’s the actual owner. Of course that would turn suicide back into murder as we no longer own ourselves. The contradiction couldn’t be much clearer but A is manfully struggling with the cognitive dissonance anyway – either that or he’s too stupid to realise he’s contradicting himself.

    Notice the definition i provided uses the word “take” which implies something that does not belong the one acting…:) next…..

    That “take” implies non-ownership really has nothing at all to do with murder. It doesn’t matter if the murderer takes, steals, snuffs or rips the life from another, there’s absolutely no exemption for “owning” the victim.

    “So murderers only ever kill the innocent?”

    Yes…..thus the definition of murder…lol!!!!

    As usual A is wrong i.e. the definition of murder doesn’t include any stipulation that the murder victim must be an innocent. However, it’s an amusing turn because this would only make his God’s crimes worse. By A’s definition, every time his God murders someone he’s taking the life of an innocent. Way to make your god even more evil A.

    “Surely no innocent has ever been wrongly judged.”

    Sure they have, humans are fallible. Another “Duh” moment from Fred….lol!!!!

    Just what does human fallibility have to do with this? I was talking about how God murdered the innocents during the slaughter of the Canaanites and the great flood – which, if we’re to believe God is acting as Judge and Jury, contradicts A’s claim that Judges and Juries punish the guilty. Perhaps A is suggesting that his God can wrongly punish innocents just like human Judges and Juries have done? If so why should we accept the moral edicts of an entity that can get it wrong?

    “he claim I was responding to at the time (post 261) was A’s assertion that “This is a cult response.” ”

    Yes, you are part of a cult.

    This is simply wrong.

    with churches, priests and evangelism.

    What churches? I’m not a member of any church – atheistic or otherwise. Also, to what priests is A referring to here. I don’t have a priest and am not a priest myself. Finally, evangelism is defined as the preaching of the Christian Gospel or some other doctrine. Since, as an atheist, I don’t have a doctrine I cannot be said to be evangelising.

    It’s all on the web, look it up.

    Because if it’s on the web it must be true, lol.

    However, I have gone back much further, looking for you supporting evidence can murder. Definition I provided says No, what will fred provide???????…..lol!!!!

    I think this gibberish is meant to mean that A thinks he’s provided a definition of murder that absolves his God of guilt. Once more this is simply untrue. Firstly, his claim that ownership is key certainly doesn’t excuse A’s God as it’s not been part of any definition of murder presented and secondly, the claim that God is not human contradicts what the Bible actually says about Jesus (i.e. God) so his God cannot be excused on that ground either. I’m at a loss as to which definition A thinks he’s provided that supports his point.

    “Ole number 6 doesn’t state “Thou shalt not murder people you don’t own”.”

    Yes, that is true.

    And here A admits that I’m right and God is convicted by His own commandment. Want to guess what happens next? I suspect A’s still going to try and excuse his God. Shall we see?

    The point? OH!!!!, this makes God a murderer?

    Why yes, yes it does.

    Again, we already looked at the definition of murder, it is by human beings……not God (Creator of all) or animals……silly freddie!! lol!!!

    And there it is – the claim that God is not human.

    We actually started by examining God’s commandment – a commandment that makes absolutely no reference to either ownership or being human – and God clearly breaks His own commandment when He slaughtered the Canaanites and drowned the world.

    Then we looked at the human concept of murder which, once more, made absolutely no reference to ownership. However, it does reference the taking of one human life by another human, but, even by that definition, God is still guilty of murder due to one of His aspects – that of Jesus – being wholly man (more on this later).

    “we get the claim that God is not a man.”

    Yes, I went out on a limb…..lol!!!!

    A picked a truly weak limb and we watched it give way beneath him.

    “This may come as a bit of a surprise to Jesus”

    Didn’t you hear? God the man was “murdered”. He no longer resides as a man. Christians on the blog: This is still true, yes?….lol!!!

    The Bible claims Jesus’ physical body rose from the dead – John 2:19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. and Luke 24:39 “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” Then Hebrews 6:20 states Jesus went to Heaven as a high priest “where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”. So Jesus entered Heaven as a high priest and in order to be a high priest Jesus has to be a man. If He’s not a man He can’t be a high priest and so can’t intercede on our behalf. Without His intercession humanity is screwed. Jesus is still a man and still God meaning He’s still guilty of murder.

    Wow!! This is the best fred can do?

    It doesn’t really matter if it’s the best I can do as it is easily sufficient to show God is a murderer under the the same moral standard that A claims we should all be held to.

  275. on 13 Oct 2014 at 12:23 pm 275.freddies_dead said …

    271.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Part II of the destruction:

    I think A is trying to get himself a spot on a Dunning Kruger study.

    “Reality is the final arbiter here, not Rand.”

    Translation: The reality as Freddie and his spectacular mouse see it which is cultic in nature. Lol!!, that is freddie’s Objectivism”.

    Translation: A can’t defend his ad hominem fallacy and has no idea what Objectivism entails so he’s just going to make some idiotic claims about it instead.

    “opts to go for the classical ad hominem and questions the person offering them instead.”

    lol!!!!, I know what ad hominem means obviously ol’ freddie seems clueless. How dare we question Rand! lol!!!!

    I actually do understand what ad hominem means. That is why I pointed out that A had committed the ad hominem fallacy by questioning Rand’s authority instead of attempting to deal with the arguments Rand put forward.

    “to reiterate what Objectivism says about rights”

    Irrelevant until he provides legitimate reasons why Objectivism should be accepted as a moral authority.

    Firstly lets review the hypocrisy. A makes no attempt to show why we should accept his God as a moral authority – especially when that God is guilty of breaking its own moral commandments. In fact A doesn’t even try to show that his God is anything more than something he is imagining, but now he questions why we should accept anything Objectivism might have to say on the matter.

    Secondly, it’s what Objectivism has to say on morality which makes it a better moral authority than that of A’s immoral (and imaginary) God.

    A simply wants to shut down the conversation because he knows his God will not come out of it well.

    “makes no attempt to show how evolution has anything to do with a person’s self-evident right to life.”

    freddies ignorance shines forth again. He is completely unaware of the attempts to tie morality to evolution. So silly again….

    I’m aware of some attempts to “tie morality to evolution”, however, A once again shows his complete ignorance of Objectivism. Objectivism makes no attempt whatsoever to “tie morality to evolution” so evolution has no place in a discussion of Objectivist ethics.

    “It doesn’t recognise that blastocysts and embryos are equivalent to actual babies”

    Translation: Killing a baby in the womb is OK.

    And once more A ignores the distinction between what he claims is a “baby” and what his own country says legally constitutes a “baby”, in order to make an appeal to emotion.

    They can survise at 15-18 weeks outside the womb. Maybe before, just my personal knowledge.

    I wouldn’t trust A’s personal knowledge as far as I could throw it. Just where is A’s evidence for this claim? I did a quick search and as far as I can tell the most premature baby to survive was one James Elgin Gill, a Canadian born at just 21 weeks and 5 days back in 1987. The Wiki article concerning foetal viability states that 15-18 weeks equates to a 0% chance of survival. In fact it states that anything less than 21 weeks isn’t considered survivable. When we also consider that 98%+ of all medical abortions take place prior to 20 weeks then we can see that the evidence shows that “viability” isn’t an issue.

    However, the eagle egg is much more important to freddie.

    This is simply a lie. I never once suggested that an eagle egg is more important than a “baby” to me (even a “baby” who happens to be a blastocyst, embryo or foetus). I’d personally prefer that routine abortions became unnecessary through family planning, contraception and education. However, I also wholeheartedly support a woman’s right to choose whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy.

    This is Objectivism folks!

    This is not Objectivism folks because A hasn’t got a clue about Objectivism.

    “Why can we not deal with both?”

    I dunno, why do we protect an eagle egg but not a bay? Tell us fred!

    But we do protect both babies and eagle’s eggs. A seems confused. He still seems to think that his definition of baby is the one we’re using here. It’s not.

    “since his ad hominem attack on Rand”

    lol!!, Can’t wait to hear what that was to fred and his spectacular mouse. Was she his Auntie?

    A doesn’t like it when his dishonesty is highlighted.

    “Bible doesn’t really bother to define the term”

    Ayn doesn’t define all her words either silly.

    Even if A is right here and Rand didn’t define all her words, what has this got to do with the Bible failing to fully define what it means by murder? Especially when A is trying to claim that the concept of “ownership” is a key part of the definition and exempts his God from being accused of murder. A never does explain why the Bible doesn’t show that “ownership” matters. I wonder why that is?

    For that matter, you have not either …..lol!!!

    This is a lie as, whenever A has asked me to define a term, as I’ve used it, I have given him the definition. That he doesn’t like those definitions does nothing to change the fact that they were provided.

    The word murder is Hebrew is “ratsach”, an imperative against murder. Most educated folks can figure that one out…:)

    “no reference to “ownership””

    lol!!!, again it is built right into the definition…..silly freddie

    Yes, a truly comprehensive explanation that. Murder is an imperative against murder. Such explanatory power. Hold on … where’s the bit about “ownership”? A says it’s built “right in”. So where is it? A seems to think it’s the key to excusing his God. If it’s not actually in the definition – as it isn’t here – then how can he continue to excuse his God’s immoral actions? What’s that you say? Cognitive dissonance, eh? I guess that’ll do it.

    Here is another:

    “deliberate and premeditated taking of human life.”

    Oh look, another definition that condemns A’s God. Unless A believes his God is killing by accident or doesn’t know He’s going to take a life before He takes it?

    You’d think that whenever A reached the bottom of a hole he’s been digging himself into he’d actually stop.

  276. on 13 Oct 2014 at 6:57 pm 276.alex said …

    oh, no! vatican says gays are cool. the morons’ world is falling apart. what will be next? a woman potus?

    any luck with the rape marriage shit?

    morons.

  277. on 13 Oct 2014 at 10:51 pm 277.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    ROTFL!!!!!!

    Oh, there is so much good stuff here, ignorance of words, fallacies and hypocrisy….I wish I had more time…… Lets get to more destruction……

    “I pointed out that A had committed the ad hominem fallacy by questioning Rand’s authority”

    LOL!!!! Ok, now according to Fred, if you question ones authority this is ad hominem which is why he such a patsy. Ad hominem is the rejection of an argument based on…..watch this….an irrelvant fact and rand’s credibility is very much relevant. He provides no credibility for Rand even now. Fred’s critique is inadmissible and Dismissed!! lol!!!!

    “I wouldn’t trust A’s personal knowledge as far as I could throw it.”

    Ad hominem, dismissed! lol!!!!!

    “It doesn’t matter if the murderer takes, steals, snuffs or rips the life from another, there’s absolutely no exemption for “owning” the victim.”

    True, the exemption is for the deity who owns all things. until he can prove the definition includes the deity who owns all, he has no case….Dismissed!! lol!!!

    “What churches? I’m not a member of any church – atheistic or otherwise. Also, to what priests is A referring to here.”

    Irrelevant, you cult has churches, dogma, evangelism, and priests. Don’t be afraid to google for yourself or are….you…..scared….lol!!!

    “98%+ of all medical abortions take place prior to 20 weeks then we can see that the evidence shows that “viability” isn’t an issue.”

    Translation of Objectivism in the world of Fred. Murderer of only 2% of babies is OK because the baby is too much trouble. Nice!!

    “A’s still going to try and excuse his God.”

    ROTFL!!!!!!, oh…..right…..like God needs me to defend him. Oh! Freddie! youda funny one!

    ” (even a “baby” who happens to be a blastocyst, embryo or foetus)”

    Translation: Man-made terms make the baby non-life so we can kill it! Nice work using “Objectivism” Of course if you murderer a pregnant woman you get charged with 2 murderers. More Objectivism…….wink wink..

    Now watch this hypocrisy from Fred:

    “Because if it’s on the web it must be true, lol.”

    Then he comes back with:

    “I did a quick search and as far as I can tell the most premature baby to survive was one James Elgin Gill, a Canadian born at just 21 weeks and 5 days back in 1987.’

    lol!!!!, on the internet must be true. What a mess.

    Lets see if he can do better this time.
    1. Prove God can murder.
    2. Why is Rand credible.
    3. Why Objectivism should be our system of morality.
    4. Who gets to decide what is good for human beings.

  278. on 13 Oct 2014 at 10:53 pm 278.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Hey alex! Luv ya babe! Didn’t want ya to get left out my boy!

    Be good!

    Later

  279. on 14 Oct 2014 at 1:38 am 279.TJ said …

    To A The Prickly Science Guy and freddies_dead

    A The Prickly Science Guy said…
    “Ad hominem is the rejection of an argument based on…..watch this….an irrelvant fact and rand’s credibility is very much relevant. He provides no credibility for Rand even now. ”

    Objectively and relatively… Rand’s credibility is measured by the same test as any of us. By who, and how many pay attention and invest thought as to what they have to say.

    Agree or disagree?

  280. on 14 Oct 2014 at 11:25 am 280.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    “The Bible claims Jesus’ physical body rose from the dead – John 2:19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. and Luke 24:39 “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” Then Hebrews 6:20 states Jesus went to Heaven as a high priest “where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”. So Jesus entered Heaven as a high priest and in order to be a high priest Jesus has to be a man. If He’s not a man He can’t be a high priest and so can’t intercede on our behalf. Without His intercession humanity is screwed. Jesus is still a man and still God meaning He’s still guilty of murder.”

    Your argument is that God has killed man, as God. God then becomes a man(Jesus).

    Objectively speaking, If a soldier kills whilst performing his role/duty, he is not branded a murderer. However if he becomes a civilian and kills, it is considered murder.

    Is it objectively sound to call Jesus a murderer? How many people has he killed… what is the body count at?

  281. on 14 Oct 2014 at 12:01 pm 281.freddies_dead said …

    277.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    ROTFL!!!!!!

    Oh, there is so much good stuff here, ignorance of words, fallacies and hypocrisy….

    Well yes, A commits all these errors, it’s one of the reasons I find it amusing to read his posts.

    I wish I had more time…… Lets get to more destruction……

    And by destruction he means of his own credibility. It’s got to the point where Messrs. Dunning and Kruger could use A as a case study all by himself.

    “I pointed out that A had committed the ad hominem fallacy by questioning Rand’s authority”

    LOL!!!! Ok, now according to Fred, if you question ones authority this is ad hominem which is why he such a patsy.

    Obviously questioning authority isn’t always an ad hominem i.e. questioning the authority of someone who knows nothing of brain surgery when they start making pronouncements on what brain surgery entails would not be a fallacious use of ad hominem. However, A is yet to say why Rand has no authority in this area and he is also yet to explain why he feels he does he have that authority while Rand doesn’t. If he can’t show his reasoning here then my accusation of fallacious ad hominem stands.

    Ad hominem is the rejection of an argument based on…..watch this….an irrelvant fact and rand’s credibility is very much relevant.

    Of course that’s not the only form that ad hominem could take, however, note that A simply asserts that Rand’s credibility is relevant without ever explaining why this is so. It’s A’s MO. Assert and run. Never try to explain. Especially when there’s no explaination – like in this instance.

    He provides no credibility for Rand even now.

    Until A actually shows why credibility is an issue here I’m under no obligation to provide any. However, we’re talking about ethics. One of the fields of philosophical study is ethics and Rand was a philosopher (amongst other things). That gives her the credibility to talk about ethics and shows A’s claim that she has no authority to be a fallacious ad hominem.

    Fred’s critique is inadmissible and Dismissed!! lol!!!!

    A’s cry of victory is, as usual, premature.

    “I wouldn’t trust A’s personal knowledge as far as I could throw it.”

    Ad hominem, dismissed! lol!!!!!

    Unfortunately for A and as I’ve already noted above ad hominem isn’t always fallacious as I demonstrated with my brain surgery example.

    Now, to show why my statement isn’t a fallacious ad hominem.
    First we have A’s stamentent that, according to his personal knowledge, foetuses are capable of surviving outside the womb from just 15-18 weeks maybe even earlier.
    Second we have A’s track record of dishonesty on this site.
    Third we have the fact that A is not an authority on pregnancy or developmental embryology (if he is then he can a) produce his credentials proving this and b) start looking for a refresher class because it seems he’s forgotten his training).

    Considering 2 and 3 then there’s absolutely no reason for me to accept his original claim. So I looked it up. Guess what? He was wrong. I was right to dismiss his personal knowledge claim as he’s not a credible authority on the topic he was commenting on. He’s like the know nothing claiming to know what brain surgery entails in my example.

    “It doesn’t matter if the murderer takes, steals, snuffs or rips the life from another, there’s absolutely no exemption for “owning” the victim.”

    True, the exemption is for the deity who owns all things.

    Mind the crane! A is moving his goalposts again. However, I note he doesn’t show where the commandment to not murder gives an exemption for “the deity who owns all things”. Why doesn’t he show us this exemption clause? What does he have to lose by backing up his claims?

    until he can prove the definition includes the deity who owns all, he has no case….Dismissed!! lol!!!

    A’s cry of victory is, as usual, premature. Ignoring for a moment that this is A trying to shift the burder of proof, A’s claim is that Christian morality, as handed down by his God, is absolute. In which case it applies to all, including any “deity who owns all”. Therefore the definition is proved to include the “deity who owns all”. The alternative is to admit his morality isn’t absolute which, as already noted, uncovers a whole slew of problems.

    Now, back to that pesky burden of proof thing that A hates shouldering. I am not the one claiming that an exemption exists when it comes to the commandment “thou shall not murder”. Instead this is A’s claim, but where is his evidence that such an exemption exists? He doesn’t present any, merely asserts that this is so. Am I supposed to simply take A’s word for this? If so, why? Surely if the exemption exists A should be able to show it?

    “What churches? I’m not a member of any church – atheistic or otherwise. Also, to what priests is A referring to here.”

    Irrelevant, you cult has churches, dogma, evangelism, and priests.

    Baseless assertion after baseless assertion. As an atheist the only thing I share with my fellow atheists is the lack of a belief in any God. There’s no dogma, nothing to evangelise. No cult.

    Don’t be afraid to google for yourself or are….you…..scared….lol!!!

    I went ahead and Googled “atheist priests” and all I found was sites talking about clergymen who had lost their faith but continued to preach. Is this what I was supposed to find? As I don’t see how it helps A’s point. A search for “atheist church” doesn’t do A’s point any favours either. The Sunday assemblies are an attempt by some nonbelievers to promote a sense of community without religion. They’re not for me but each to their own. A can call them churches if he wants but there’s nothing in that that proves I’m part of any “cult”, as he keeps wrongly asserting.

    “98%+ of all medical abortions take place prior to 20 weeks then we can see that the evidence shows that “viability” isn’t an issue.”

    Translation of Objectivism in the world of Fred.

    And we’re back to A showing his ignorance of Objectivism.

    Murderer of only 2% of babies is OK because the baby is too much trouble. Nice!!

    Watch out for the crane again! A’s goalposts get another shift because his “viability” claim is shown to be wrong. How quickly he abandons the other 98%. He’s still not addressed the problem of the millions of spontaneous abortions that, should his worldview be true, are directly attributable to his God either. That’s because this abortion tangent is yet another diversionary tactic to try and steer the conversation away from his God’s atrocities.

    “A’s still going to try and excuse his God.”

    ROTFL!!!!!!, oh…..right…..like God needs me to defend him. Oh! Freddie! youda funny one!

    Well it’s probably for the best that A’s God is imaginary and doesn’t really need any help from A as He’d be well and truly fucked based on this performance.

    ” (even a “baby” who happens to be a blastocyst, embryo or foetus)”

    Translation: Man-made terms make the baby non-life so we can kill it!

    What a hugely dishonest piece of quote mining, but then I don’t call him a lying prick for nothing. Lets see what I said in full shall we “I never once suggested that an eagle egg is more important than a “baby” to me (even a “baby” who happens to be a blastocyst, embryo or foetus).”. So I say that I don’t consider an eagle’s egg to be more important than a baby – at whatever level of development – and A claims I’m using made up terms to somehow makes babies “non-life” so they can be killed. He truly is a disgusting liar. I guess commandment number 9 “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” doesn’t count when you’re lying to try and excuse your God of breaking His own commandments.

    Nice work using “Objectivism”

    What is this even supposed to mean? That I used Objectivism to create terms that make a baby “non-life”? This is just an extension of A’s pathetically dishonest quote mining. I didn’t create the terms. I certainly didn’t use Objectivism to do it and the terms don’t even make babies “non-life”. Why is A lying about all this? Does he think it brings glory to his God when he lies while trying to defend Him?

    Of course if you murderer a pregnant woman you get charged with 2 murderers.

    Of course this claim depends on where you live.

    More Objectivism…….wink wink..

    Just what does the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 have to do with Objectivism? The answer of course is nothing, but when you’re trying to steer the conversation away from your God’s failure to adhere to it’s own commandments any old lie will do.

    Now watch this hypocrisy from Fred:

    “Because if it’s on the web it must be true, lol.”

    Then he comes back with:

    “I did a quick search and as far as I can tell the most premature baby to survive was one James Elgin Gill, a Canadian born at just 21 weeks and 5 days back in 1987.’

    lol!!!!, on the internet must be true. What a mess.

    Of course there’s no actual hypocrisy here. There’s a difference between simply accepting something you find on the web and using the web to find something out. It’s especially helpful if what you find on the web can be corroborated by more than just another website which also doesn’t cite any actual sources. So where is A’s corroboration for his failed claim that I’m a member of a cult? His original evidence for this failed claim was “It’s all on the web, look it up.”. When I did look it up (as I did earlier) I found nothing about me being part of a cult or of “atheist priests” and “atheist church” turned out to be the Sunday assemblies. If A is to rescue his failed cult claim then he’s going to need something more than a couple of unevidenced web pages.

    Conversely, when it comes to the fact that James Elgin Gill is the most premature baby to survive, well that’s a claim that isn’t just made on a website, it’s corroborated. The wikipedia article actually cites a source for the claim. Where are A’s citations for my status as a cult member? I guess you’ll be unsurprised to hear that there are none.

    Lets see if he can do better this time.
    1. Prove God can murder.

    Asked and answered, but for the hard of thinking:
    P1. God’s commandment is “thou shall not murder”.
    P2. God’s commandment is absolute.
    P3. To be absolute the commandment must apply to everyone, including God.
    C1. God’s commandment on murder applies to God
    P4. Murder is the premeditated taking of a human life.
    P5. God has deliberately taken a human life.
    C2. God can and indeed has murdered.

    2. Why is Rand credible.

    Asked and answered. And in order for A to avoid a double standard he’ll need to provide his own credentials for discussing ethics.

    3. Why Objectivism should be our system of morality.

    Of course I’ve never claimed that it should be. I do say it is a better system than subscribing to the subjective and relative whims of an imaginary deity, but that’s different from claiming everyone should necessarily follow it.

    4. Who gets to decide what is good for human beings.

    Reality. We can look to reality and see what is good for humans.

  282. on 14 Oct 2014 at 12:06 pm 282.freddies_dead said …

    279.TJ said …

    To A The Prickly Science Guy and freddies_dead

    A The Prickly Science Guy said…
    “Ad hominem is the rejection of an argument based on…..watch this….an irrelvant fact and rand’s credibility is very much relevant. He provides no credibility for Rand even now. ”

    Objectively and relatively… Rand’s credibility is measured by the same test as any of us. By who, and how many pay attention and invest thought as to what they have to say.

    Agree or disagree?

    As an Objectivist I disagree. Someone’s credibility isn’t affected by what others think, feel, hope, demand. That’s why A simply claiming Rand has no credibility holds no weight. As I pointed out to A, Rand was a philosopher. Philosophers study ethics (amongst other things). That fact alone gives Rand credibility in the field. It doesn’t lend credibility to her arguments of course, they stand or fall on their own merits.

  283. on 14 Oct 2014 at 12:51 pm 283.freddies_dead said …

    280.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    “The Bible claims Jesus’ physical body rose from the dead – John 2:19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. and Luke 24:39 “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” Then Hebrews 6:20 states Jesus went to Heaven as a high priest “where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”. So Jesus entered Heaven as a high priest and in order to be a high priest Jesus has to be a man. If He’s not a man He can’t be a high priest and so can’t intercede on our behalf. Without His intercession humanity is screwed. Jesus is still a man and still God meaning He’s still guilty of murder.”

    Your argument is that God has killed man, as God. God then becomes a man(Jesus).

    Not quite as I don’t think that’s what the Bible claims. The doctrine of eternal Sonship claims that Jesus is and always has been the Son of God. Other passages claim that Jesus is God. Others still that Jesus is wholly God and wholly man. The fact that there was a point in time where Jesus took on a flesh and blood form therefore makes no difference. I get that this makes very little sense – not much about the triune God does IMO – but the combination means that Jesus was God and also man when God killed hence it is reasonable to call God a murderer even under human law when it talks of “the taking of one human’s life by another human”.

    Objectively speaking, If a soldier kills whilst performing his role/duty, he is not branded a murderer. However if he becomes a civilian and kills, it is considered murder.

    Agreed, but of course soldiers are a poor representation of the triune nature of God when building an analogy.

    Is it objectively sound to call Jesus a murderer?

    Based on His alleged nature i.e. the triune nature of God Himself, and other claims made in the Bible, then yes.

    How many people has he killed… what is the body count at?

    I have no idea exactly how many people God (and by triune extension Jesus) has killed – some estimates are well over 2 million and they don’t include the victims of Noah’s flood, Sodom and Gomorrah or any of the plagues or famines etc… However, it only takes one to be a murderer.

  284. on 14 Oct 2014 at 4:03 pm 284.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    “As an Objectivist I disagree. Someone’s credibility isn’t affected by what others think, feel, hope, demand.”

    Hmmm, considering…

    credibility: meaning
    The quality of being trusted and believed in.
    the quality of being convincing or believable.

    Isn’t being convincing or believable subject to what others may think, feel, hope, or demand?

    I would have thought the fact that her books continue to sell by the pallet load. Being bought by and influencing many people outside the field of philosophy and the fact that her arguments are deemed worthy to be discussed in the classroom suggest that she has credibility.

    I believe she has some credibility, regardless of how I may think, feel, hope, or demand. Wishing won’t make it so.

  285. on 14 Oct 2014 at 4:27 pm 285.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    “Agreed, but of course soldiers are a poor representation of the triune nature of God when building an analogy.”

    Ok, what about…

    First, let’s say that once conception has begun, the expected outcome is a human life. Regardless of the issue surrounding “when does life begin”. Objectively, a human life is the expected result, following conception and a natural, trouble free pregnancy.

    A scientist harvests 7 eggs from the mother to artificially fertilize with sperm from the father. The eggs are inserted into the mother. 6 of the 7 eggs adhere to the womb and begin to divide showing the beginnings of life.

    Further into the pregnancy a decision is made to remove several fetuses to give the remaining fetuses a better chance of resulting in 1 or more human lives.

    How do we objectively view the actions to remove potential human lives?

  286. on 14 Oct 2014 at 4:52 pm 286.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    ““As an Objectivist I disagree. Someone’s credibility isn’t affected by what others think, feel, hope, demand.”

    Which is why Fred is so gullible. Rand wrote some nonfiction and then decided to come up with her own philosophy based on her nonfiction. So why should we all follow Rand? Not my place to qualify her, the impetus is on Fred but we know he cannot and will not…:)…lol!! And still not one question answered.

    TJ,

    Most who follow Rand are young idealist. She is a cult like figure but those who grow up enter the real world and disregard her egotistical philosophy.

  287. on 14 Oct 2014 at 5:04 pm 287.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “I am not the one claiming that an exemption exists”

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!, well sure he has. He claims tigers can’t murder…..lol!!!!!

    Oh unsteady Freddie, atop before you embarrass yourself even more……:) no restriction here, its about definition silly!

    And he still has not shown where murder can be by a diety. I….on the other showed a definition where murder was restricted to human beings only……as all thinking beings already know….:)

  288. on 15 Oct 2014 at 12:25 am 288.TJ said …

    To, freddies_dead said,

    “The fact that there was a point in time where Jesus took on a flesh and blood form therefore makes no difference. ”

    Right here is where your argument falls apart. You clearly agree that it states he “took on”. In this context, To “take on” mean to add something. Something that was not before.

    freddies_dead said,

    “Agreed, but of course soldiers are a poor representation of the triune nature of God when building an analogy.”

    As in the soldier example, an opposite, in which authority and immunity is lost when he becomes a civilian. Jesus is the fleshly embodiment of the spirit of God (AKA Son of God, transformed to flesh from the form that God had originally created for himself as the very first act of creation), having not lost any of his Authority. If he had, he would not have been able to perform the miraculous acts attributed to him.

    This is why no analogy between man and God can be made. God declares that he is unique, there is none other who is like him.

    Objectively, you must consider that Jesus was also God, and this must be taken into consideration as much as you take his humanity into consideration, if not more so as his God status has not changed and pre-existed his humanity. Who then, can be compared to him?

    God’s commandment is “thou shall not murder”.

    God’s commandment was relative to humans. Not angels, not Himself, not tigers, lions or bears, but humans.

    We all understand that murder is judged according to intent and motive. Unintentional killing is classified as manslaughter.

    God in human form, Jesus, did not and has not yet killed anybody. God, prior to this transformation, caused the death of many, as the Bible clearly claims. But we must consider if His intentions and motives constitute murder, if we assume we can hold God to these accusations at all.

    The scenario at post#285 provide a better comparison to God than the soldier.

    Unless of course you can provide an analogy that is better suited for comparison.

    Your thoughts?

  289. on 15 Oct 2014 at 1:16 pm 289.freddies_dead said …

    284.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    “As an Objectivist I disagree. Someone’s credibility isn’t affected by what others think, feel, hope, demand.”

    Hmmm, considering…

    credibility: meaning
    The quality of being trusted and believed in.
    the quality of being convincing or believable.

    Isn’t being convincing or believable subject to what others may think, feel, hope, or demand?

    How so? Would you only be convinced about someone because of what you or others think or feel of them? Or would you look for some reasons to be convinced. Do they tell the truth? Do they act how they say they will act? It’s the same with trust. People tend to look for objective reasons to grant credibility to someone.

    I would have thought the fact that her books continue to sell by the pallet load.

    An objective reason to grant credibility. Not because of what people think or feel but because they actually go and buy the book.

    Being bought by and influencing many people outside the field of philosophy and the fact that her arguments are deemed worthy to be discussed in the classroom suggest that she has credibility.

    You can then test those arguments against reality. Either they stand up to the test and justify the initial credibility (granted due to her status as a philosopher and the continued sales of her books), or they don’t and she can be dismissed. This is what I’ve been trying to get A to do – test Rand’s arguments. Instead of that though he prefers to dismiss Rand’s ideas simply because he feels Rand herself has no credibility.

    I believe she has some credibility, regardless of how I may think, feel, hope, or demand. Wishing won’t make it so.

    This is one of the core concepts of Objectivism.

  290. on 15 Oct 2014 at 1:19 pm 290.freddies_dead said …

    285.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    “Agreed, but of course soldiers are a poor representation of the triune nature of God when building an analogy.”

    Ok, what about…

    First, let’s say that once conception has begun, the expected outcome is a human life. Regardless of the issue surrounding “when does life begin”. Objectively, a human life is the expected result, following conception and a natural, trouble free pregnancy.

    A scientist harvests 7 eggs from the mother to artificially fertilize with sperm from the father. The eggs are inserted into the mother. 6 of the 7 eggs adhere to the womb and begin to divide showing the beginnings of life.

    Further into the pregnancy a decision is made to remove several fetuses to give the remaining fetuses a better chance of resulting in 1 or more human lives.

    How do we objectively view the actions to remove potential human lives?

    You could claim that the action is bad but necessary in order to preserve actual human lives further down the line perhaps, but I still don’t see how that would fully absolve God.

    There may have been times – the flood for example – where the idea behind the killing was to “save” the human race, i.e. it was “a necessary evil”.

    However, a) it didn’t work – and God being omniscient knew it wouldn’t work, b) it can’t be said of every instance e.g. God sending 2 bears to kill a bunch of kids for taking the piss out of a bald man and c) if there is a “morally sufficient reason” for things like genocide then it is morally sufficient for everyone – unless you’re just going to fall back into relativism.

  291. on 15 Oct 2014 at 1:22 pm 291.freddies_dead said …

    286.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    ““As an Objectivist I disagree. Someone’s credibility isn’t affected by what others think, feel, hope, demand.”

    Which is why Fred is so gullible.

    The usual baseless assertion from A.

    Rand wrote some nonfiction and then decided to come up with her own philosophy based on her nonfiction.

    Which just goes to show that A knows as little about Rand as he does about Objectivism. Rand had already “come up” with her philosophy before she wrote either the Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. Indeed the novels were informed by her philosophical perspctive i.e. they were based on her philosophy not the other way round.

    So why should we all follow Rand? Not my place to qualify her, the impetus is on Fred but we know he cannot and will not…:)…lol!!

    This is a strawman. I have not once claimed anyone should “follow Rand”. I advocate Objectivism due to it’s commitment to reason but it’s up to people themselves if they want to reject that.

    And still not one question answered.

    Note how A simply denies reality. He’s had every question answered and has singularly failed to absolve his God from the charges against Him, so instead he pretends like it hasn’t happened. However, reality doesn’t care about A’s wishes and his God remains a murderer, which would be a huge issue were it not for the even bigger problem of his God being entirely imaginary.

  292. on 15 Oct 2014 at 1:24 pm 292.freddies_dead said …

    287.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “I am not the one claiming that an exemption exists”

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!, well sure he has.

    The usual dishonest quote mining from A. Why don’t we check what I actually said:

    “I am not the one claiming that an exemption exists when it comes to the commandment “thou shall not murder”.”

    Oh look. I was quite specific about what the exemption was in reference to. Of course A can’t actually deal with what I said so he’s quote mined it to produce a strawman.

    He claims tigers can’t murder…..lol!!!!!

    Look at that strawman burn ladies and gentleman. All it took was a dishonest quote mine and 5 exclamation points to set it off.

    Now A’s finished with his strawman do you think he’ll actually respond to what I did say? No? Me neither.

    Oh unsteady Freddie, atop before you embarrass yourself even more……:) no restriction here, its about definition silly!

    Oh I’m well aware of it being about definition here, but then the definitions are all on my side too. Neither the Biblical commandment nor the human law exempt anyone on the basis of “ownership” so that claim of A’s simply doesn’t hold water. To try and compensate he’s moved the goalposts and thrown in red herrings and diversions in a failed attempt to save his God. All to no avail.

    And he still has not shown where murder can be by a diety.

    This is a lie. A is once more denying reality:
    P1. God’s commandment is “thou shall not murder”.
    P2. God’s commandment is absolute.
    P3. To be absolute the commandment must apply to everyone, including God.
    C1. God’s commandment on murder applies to God hence God “can” murder.
    P4. Murder is the premeditated taking of a human life.
    P5. God has deliberately taken a human life.
    C2. God has indeed murdered.

    I….on the other showed a definition where murder was restricted to human beings only……as all thinking beings already know….:)

    And here, despite A desperately resorting to human law instead of his God’s supposedly absolute commandments, I showed how his God – in the guise of Jesus who is both God and man – is still guilty under human law. I don’t think A could fail any harder but I’m sure he’ll try.

  293. on 15 Oct 2014 at 1:54 pm 293.freddies_dead said …

    288.TJ said …

    To, freddies_dead said,

    “The fact that there was a point in time where Jesus took on a flesh and blood form therefore makes no difference. ”

    Right here is where your argument falls apart.

    Of course this isn’t my argument. It’s what the Bible apparently tells us. If you disagree then by all means tell us how Jesus’ flesh and blood body affects His humanity.

    You clearly agree that it states he “took on”. In this context, To “take on” mean to add something. Something that was not before.

    I understand that’s what those words mean in general but then I’ve also mentioned that the alleged triune nature of God doesn’t make any real sense. It is this nature that throws up the ridiculous position of Jesus being wholly God, wholly man and for those attributes to be eternal i.e. He has always been the Son of God meaning He’s always been wholly God and wholly man.

    freddies_dead said,

    “Agreed, but of course soldiers are a poor representation of the triune nature of God when building an analogy.”

    As in the soldier example, an opposite, in which authority and immunity is lost when he becomes a civilian.

    Not quite true. Soldiers aren’t immune from murder charges if they kill whilst serving in circumstances not recognised as a valid combat situation. Similarly a civilian wouldn’t be charged with murder should they find themselves caught up in combat and having to kill someone as a result. The law applies to everyone equally but it’s the circumstances of the action that decides if people are charged with the offence.

    Jesus is the fleshly embodiment of the spirit of God (AKA Son of God, transformed to flesh from the form that God had originally created for himself as the very first act of creation), having not lost any of his Authority. If he had, he would not have been able to perform the miraculous acts attributed to him.

    This is why no analogy between man and God can be made. God declares that he is unique, there is none other who is like him.

    And yet it is also claimed that we are made “in His image”. Analogies are never quite the same as the original but there are certain comparisons that can be made i.e. both God and man are conscious beings. And when the claim is that God’s moral commandments are absolute then those commandments should apply equally to that God. If not you’re just advocating relativism and need to explain a) why God isn’t subject to His own morality and b) why we should be. If God is held to a different moral standard then why shouldn’t we use that standard instead of the abitrary commandments that He’s supposedly not subject to?

    Objectively, you must consider that Jesus was also God, and this must be taken into consideration as much as you take his humanity into consideration, if not more so as his God status has not changed and pre-existed his humanity.

    And where is the Biblical backing for suggesting that Jesus’ God status “pre-existed his humanity”? According to the doctrine of eternal Sonship this isn’t possible as Jesus has always been the Son of God and as Jesus is wholly God, wholly man then his humanity must be co-eternal. Like I’ve said before, the triune nature of God makes little sense but throws up plenty of problems. I’m just glad they’re not mine.

    Who then, can be compared to him?

    God’s commandment is “thou shall not murder”.

    God’s commandment was relative to humans. Not angels, not Himself, not tigers, lions or bears, but humans.

    So why is it OK for God to murder but not humans? What reason does God have that we can’t use? Why can’t we use the standard God is subject to instead?

    We all understand that murder is judged according to intent and motive. Unintentional killing is classified as manslaughter.

    Is it even possible for an omniscient deity to take a life without intending to?

    God in human form, Jesus, did not and has not yet killed anybody.

    Except that, according to the Bible, God is Jesus, Jesus is God. As such they are equally culpable.

    God, prior to this transformation, caused the death of many, as the Bible clearly claims.

    He killed plenty afterwards too, when Jesus was said to be a high priest dwelling in Heaven – still all God, still all man.

    But we must consider if His intentions and motives constitute murder, if we assume we can hold God to these accusations at all.

    I repeat, why is it OK for God to murder but not humans? What reason does God have that we can’t use? Why can’t we use the standard God is subject to instead?

    The scenario at post#285 provide a better comparison to God than the soldier.

    If, as I answered in that post, you’re suggesting God did a bad thing in order to bring about better things down the line then:
    a) you admit God did a bad thing – alternatively you’re saying bad things are good when God does them (which has it’s own issues).
    b) you’ve pretty much admitted God knew what His actions would bring about (yet you claimed that God doesn’t necessarily know the future – maybe that’s why the flood failed?)
    c) you have failed to explain the situations (bear mauling) where God’s actions don’t seem to have had any relatively greater beneficial effects later on – unless you consider the prophet Elisha’s feelings to be worth more than the lives of 42 children?

    Unless of course you can provide an analogy that is better suited for comparison.

    I prefer to stick to the actual situation. Which is that, by God’s own commandment, God is guilty of murder and claiming that what God has done doesn’t constitute murder or exempting God entirely has it’s own implications.

    Your thoughts?

  294. on 16 Oct 2014 at 2:03 am 294.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    ““I am not the one claiming that an exemption exists when it comes to the commandment “thou shall not murder”

    Again Freddie exempts tigers from murder…….or does he? We know he includes God but are Tigers murderers too? He wont say but since he claims no exceptions exist he must want to punish murdering tigers…..lol!!!!!!

    Hw still attempts to sell Rand but refuse to provide an argument for her credentials. Academia never gave her much credence and why would that be? Hmmmm? Lets see what Freddie comes up with.

    He talks reason, but he is not reasonable. He talks reality but does not recognize it.

    Again, he is the typical Rand follower. A young ideologue with egocentric tendencies

  295. on 16 Oct 2014 at 3:07 am 295.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    “regardless of how I may think, feel, hope, or demand. Wishing won’t make it so.”

    “This is one of the core concepts of Objectivism.”

    Of course it is. That is why I threw it in there.

    May I make a proposal to you?

    First of all I acknowledge that I am bias in my beliefs. And that that you too, are bias in yours.

    However, I propose that together we both test the statement “God is a Murderer”. I propose that we both attempt to be as objective as possible.

    I propose that we present each other with summary statements regarding what the Bible says. We can discuss the summery to reach an agreement as to weather or not the summary is an accurate reflection of what is written.

    I would propose that we try to follow or at least begin with the order of events as the Bible historically portrays them to have occurred.

    Together we would attempt to discuss the implications objectively, and how they support or don’t support the statement “God is a Murder”.

    What do you say?

  296. on 16 Oct 2014 at 11:10 am 296.freddies_dead said …

    294.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    ““I am not the one claiming that an exemption exists when it comes to the commandment “thou shall not murder”

    Again Freddie exempts tigers from murder…….or does he?

    As usual A tries to steer the conversation away from his God. Of course “thou shall not murder” is not my commandment. It’s A’s God’s commandment. Why isn’t A explaining the exemptions that he claims exist for this commandment? He’s been unable to show “ownership” makes a difference so decided to try and absolve his God’s guilt by switching to human laws. Why? Are human laws of a higher standard than his God’s moral edicts? If so why does he still worship a God that can’t define a morality better than it’s creation? No, he switched because he thought he could exempt his God for not being “human”, which denies the Bible’s claims regarding Jesus, who of course is God.

    Does A have anything to absolve his God of breaking his own commandment on murder? So far he’s come up empty.

    We know he includes God but are Tigers murderers too?

    Not according to Objectivism. Of course A hasn’t told us why they’re exempted from his God’s commandments, just like he hasn’t explained what exempts his God from it’s own commandments.

    He wont say but since he claims no exceptions exist he must want to punish murdering tigers…..lol!!!!!!

    A loves to hide behind pointless irrelevancies. Is his God like a tiger? A mindless animal killing by instinct? Or is his God actually a purposeful consciousness that is allegedly capable of creating universes out of nothing? In which case how can God be exempted from His own morality?

    Hw still attempts to sell Rand but refuse to provide an argument for her credentials.

    This is not just a lie but a moving of the goalposts at the same time. A started by questioning Rand’s credibility, not her credentials. However, Rand’s credentials are the same thing that granted her credibility when I first answered A’s objection. Rand was a philosopher. Indeed A has already conceded that she developed a new philosophy. And now he seeks to dismiss that philosophy by questioning the credentials of the woman that developed it. You couldn’t make this shit up.

    Academia never gave her much credence and why would that be?

    And just why does this matter? A doesn’t explain. Just makes the statement as if it somehow justifies itself. So where are A’s academic credentials on this subject? Has acadmemia given him credence? If not then why should we listen to anything he says? No doubt he considers himself well placed to make pronouncements on philosophy yet denies the same ability to someone who was not only a philosopher but actually developed a new philosophy during the course of her life. Such a pathetic double standard but just what we’ve come to expect from A.

    I can only conclude that he doesn’t want to try and deal with what Objectivism teaches. Just what is he afraid of? Surely a woman that academia never gave much credence to couldn’t possibly put forward an argument that A’s massive intellect was incapable of refuting? So why is he so desperate to exclude Rand’s ideas from the conversation?

    Hmmmm? Lets see what Freddie comes up with.

    A says this like he’ll actually consider it. This is, of course, dishonest. A has demonstrated time and time again that he’ll ignore every word that shows him to be wrong. Every question that he cannot answer. This time will be no different.

    He talks reason, but he is not reasonable. He talks reality but does not recognize it.

    I’d say that this was yet another autobiographical statement but A talks neither reason nor reality whilst he is denying them both.

    Again, he is the typical Rand follower. A young ideologue with egocentric tendencies

    Another useless irrelevance – not to mention wrong. I’m by no means “young” nor am I a “Rand follower”, I’m an Objectivist. It is the philosophy I subscribe to, not Rand. Is this supposed to be a reason to dismiss Objectivism? As it’s certainly no attempt to deal with it on it’s own terms.

  297. on 16 Oct 2014 at 12:34 pm 297.alex said …

    it’s all about your god being this and that. all of these attributes are what you xtians tie to your god. your assertions, not mine.

    god is perfectly good. no he ain’t. you state it yourself that the world is full of sin. imperfection from perfection?yeah right, your perfectly good god is not, but according to you morons, he is perfectly good anyways.

    god is all powerful. iron chariots anyone? god’s angel homie getting wrestled and owned? god’s other fine ass hapless angel getting threatened with rape that Lot had to intervene by offering his virgin daughters? but accordingly, he is all powerful anyways.

    god is all knowing. adam, where are you? he knew everything that is to be played out. he knew which prayers he will answer and ones he will not. he knows which football teams will win and he knows which sorry ass cancer patients will die. but your god continously tested folk like adam, eve, abraham, etc. your all knowing god doesn’t look like it, does he? but he is all knowing, anyways.

    god gives free will. i’m writing this shit on my own, but god already knew which keys i would hit, errors i would make and the fucked up responses i would get. looks like free will doesn’t jive with all knowing does it? but according to you fuckers, god can do both if he wants to. he can be anything you imagine him to be. can be anywhere and nowhere if he wants to. god can divide by zero if he wants to. god can look like a square and a circle if he wants to. jesus can be the son of god to xtians and just a generic prophet to jews if he wants to. god can be allah, yahweh, zeus, odin, et all if he wants to. what a crock.

    god is merciful. eternal hell anyone? you can lead a good moral life and not believe in god and guess where you’re going? you can be lifelong murdering criminal and the dumbass god can forgive you and viola!, you’re saved like a muthafucka. merciful god, my ass, but according to you fuckers, he is merciful always. redemption card is handy. don’t leave home without it. what’s in your wallet?

    god is moral. no killings, cept god and his thugs that carry them out. doesn’t smell moral, but according to you bozos, god is exempt from killing, which makes him moral.

    what? if you don’t believe in god, stalin is the result? you mean stalin didn’t believe in the hot, bodacious, god, venus? if he was a venus believer, he wouldn’t have done what he did?

    dumbass.

  298. on 16 Oct 2014 at 1:20 pm 298.freddies_dead said …

    295.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    “regardless of how I may think, feel, hope, or demand. Wishing won’t make it so.”

    “This is one of the core concepts of Objectivism.”

    Of course it is. That is why I threw it in there.

    May I make a proposal to you?

    First of all I acknowledge that I am bias in my beliefs. And that that you too, are bias in yours.

    However, I propose that together we both test the statement “God is a Murderer”. I propose that we both attempt to be as objective as possible.

    I propose that we present each other with summary statements regarding what the Bible says. We can discuss the summery to reach an agreement as to weather or not the summary is an accurate reflection of what is written.

    I had thought that this was what we were doing although I concede it wasn’t in a particularly organised manner.

    I would propose that we try to follow or at least begin with the order of events as the Bible historically portrays them to have occurred.

    Together we would attempt to discuss the implications objectively, and how they support or don’t support the statement “God is a Murder”.

    What do you say?

    We can but try I suppose.

  299. on 16 Oct 2014 at 3:46 pm 299.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “As usual A tries to steer the conversation away from his God. Of course “thou shall not murder” is not my commandment.”

    lol!!!! is his point that Objectivist do murderer??? We all hope not!!
    But, notice Freddie still has not explained why he believes the command is for human beings and the deity but not for Tigers? According to Freddie’s theology he has interpreted the commands to be for humans and the Deity but not Tigers. Why the exemption freddie?
    He also cannot tell us when life begins but has determined that abortion before 24 weeks is not murder. How do you know freddie?
    No answers coming from fred……sigh……

    “In which case how can God be exempted from His own morality?”

    Ummmmm, He is not. He would actually need to break a command. But since freddie is NOT Objective, he is unable to grasp the one who creates all life is the only who can take a life and not be guilty of a command given to man who did not create all life………..sigh……..lol!!!

    “Rand was a philosopher. Indeed A has already conceded that she developed a new philosophy”

    lol!!!!!!, anyone can a a philosopher…….alex is a philosopher……lol!!! She didn’t even value education and let me burst you philosopher bubble. Most philosophers she despised especially Kant.
    So why do we all embrace her egocentric philosophy over Kant or Christ? You are not building her credentials here fred……..:)

    “I can only conclude that he doesn’t want to try and deal with what Objectivism teaches.”

    Actually folks, I have asked fred numerous questions but he will not answer. Because in the end, fred and Rand get to decide who is and is not Objective. That’s why Objectivism fails and is for the young ideologues and never given serious consideration.
    But maybe fred will prove us wrong…….popcorn popping…….:)

    Hey alex,

    R U and Objectivist too? Maybe you can add something to the view :)

  300. on 16 Oct 2014 at 4:28 pm 300.alex said …

    “Hey alex, R U and Objectivist too?”

    stupid ass moron. about as relevant as “are you a minimalist?”.

    so where is this absolute god morals you keep blabbering about?

  301. on 17 Oct 2014 at 2:55 pm 301.freddies_dead said …

    299.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “As usual A tries to steer the conversation away from his God. Of course “thou shall not murder” is not my commandment.”

    lol!!!! is his point that Objectivist do murderer??? We all hope not!!

    Does anyone else speak A’s special dialect of idiocy? If so I’d love a translation.

    But, notice Freddie still has not explained why he believes the command is for human beings and the deity but not for Tigers?

    Oh look, A is trying to shift the burden of proof again. It is A’s God’s commandment. It is A’s job to explain who or what it applies to. I understand why he’s trying to dodge his responsibility, it’s because he can’t find any justifiable way to excuse his God from breaking it’s own commandments.

    According to Freddie’s theology he has interpreted the commands to be for humans and the Deity but not Tigers. Why the exemption freddie?

    And as usual A is wrong. I haven’t given an exemption to anyone or anything – the commandment certainly doesn’t grant an exemption – but A figures his God should get a free pass. Why? A doesn’t give a reasoned argument. We’re just supposed to accept his baseless assertion.

    He also cannot tell us when life begins but has determined that abortion before 24 weeks is not murder. How do you know freddie?

    Of course I’ve not actually been asked when “life begins” so this is just more dishonesty from A the lying prick. I know abortion isn’t murder because of what Objectivism teaches. If A disagrees then it’s his job to show why that is wrong. He won’t. Just like he won’t explain why he believes abortion to be wrong when his God has a distinct fondness for it. Approximately 50% of all fertilised eggs die and are lost in spontaneous abortions so if A’s God exists he’s quite a fan of abortion.

    No answers coming from fred……sigh……

    A denies reality … again.

    “In which case how can God be exempted from His own morality?”

    Ummmmm, He is not.

    Oh, if only A would stand behind this pronouncement. Of course we all know he won’t.

    He would actually need to break a command.

    See, there he goes. We know from the Bible that God has declared murdering to be wrong, however, He doesn’t seem capable of sticking to His own rules. Like when He murders someone – say by getting a couple of she bears to maul them to death for insulting a bald man – and this despite His own commandment not to murder. Now if I commanded a couple of she bears to kill 42 kids for insulting a bald man that would most definitely be classed as murder, but according to A it is perfectly right and just for God to kill 42 kids with she bears. That makes a mockery of the claim that God’s commandments are absolute.

    But since freddie is NOT Objective, he is unable to grasp the one who creates all life is the only who can take a life and not be guilty of a command given to man who did not create all life………..sigh……..lol!!!

    So here it is. If God does it, or orders it done, it’s fine but if you or I do it it’s wrong. So much for absolute. Might makes right in A’s morality. If A’s God ordered him to kill his family, would he do it? If not, why not?

    “Rand was a philosopher. Indeed A has already conceded that she developed a new philosophy”

    lol!!!!!!, anyone can a a philosopher…….alex is a philosopher……lol!!!

    SO if this isn’t the issue then what is? A doesn’t explain. He simply questions “credibility” and “credentials”. We’re talking about philosophy and apparently being an actual philosopher doesn’t get you into the conversation. Again A doesn’t explain, just hides behind his as yet unjustified assertion. So just what is it that A has and Rand doesn’t that allows him to take part in a discussion on ethics while Rand is excluded. It can’t just be a belief in God as he concedes that alex can join in and alex has already shown his contempt for God belief.

    She didn’t even value education

    This is incorrect. While she regularly lambasted the American education system for it’s failure to teach critical thinking, Rand valued an education that taught a person how “to think, to understand, to integrate, to prove”, an education that equipped a person to gain further knowledge through their own efforts.

    and let me burst you philosopher bubble. Most philosophers she despised especially Kant.

    To what bubble could A be referring? I simply pointed out that philosophers had the credentials A insisted on for discussing philosophy. I’m also well aware that Rand held many philosophers in contempt, but this is not the same as showing disdain for philosophy itself.

    So why do we all embrace her egocentric philosophy over Kant or Christ?

    I know why I embrace Objectivism – because of it’s unswerving adherence to reason.

    You are not building her credentials here fred……..:)

    And as I have pointed out time and again, I don’t need to build any credentials, Rand’s credentials are there regardless of what A might wish, hope, demand.

    “I can only conclude that he doesn’t want to try and deal with what Objectivism teaches.”

    Actually folks, I have asked fred numerous questions but he will not answer.

    This is a blatantly dishonest denial of reality. Exactly what we’ve come to expect from A. I have answered every one of A’s objections. That he doesn’t like the answers does not change the fact that they have been given.

    Because in the end, fred and Rand get to decide who is and is not Objective.

    Once more A shows his almost total ignorance of what Objectivism is or what it teaches. Unlike the arbitrary pronouncements of religion, reality is the final arbiter of what is/isn’t objective under Objectivism, but A doesn’t understand this, which is why he keeps making the mistake of thinking someone gets to decide.

    That’s why Objectivism fails and is for the young ideologues and never given serious consideration.

    And here A is back to his wishful thinking. He hasn’t even addressed what Objectivism teaches let alone shown it to be wrong. It certainly doesn’t fail because someone gets to decide what is objective or not because that’s not how Objectivism works. So A keeps pronouncing that it fails as if repeating this baseless assertion will make it so.

    But maybe fred will prove us wrong…….popcorn popping…….:)

    I’ve already shown A to be wrong. Of course he will continue to deny reality and claim that I haven’t answered every question I’ve been asked. Because he’s dishonest.

  302. on 17 Oct 2014 at 10:09 pm 302.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    My my, Fred is still on the run. No answers, backing evidence for his theology and ad hominem attacks. lol!!! what a mess.

    “Does anyone else speak A’s special dialect of idiocy?”

    Personal attacks! So ugly :). Still luv freddie boy!

    “It is A’s God’s commandment”

    It is? You spend all your time making the accusations and offering theology classes here. :)

    “It is A’s job to explain who or what it applies to.”

    lol!!!, you made the claim God murders, therefore it is your job to back the claim. All I have done is ask for the proof…..silly freddie!

    ” I haven’t given an exemption to anyone or anything – the commandment certainly doesn’t grant an exemption”

    True, all human beings are accountable. But you do believe the command was given to tigers, bears, sharks, etc? So the do murder? Explain yourself freddie! lol!!!

    “I know abortion isn’t murder because of what Objectivism teaches.”

    Oh goodie!! Certainly freddie will share with us what the Objectivist view is on abortion and murderer? I hope so!!!!!! I sincerely doubt it though……….sigh….

    “We’re talking about philosophy and apparently being an actual philosopher doesn’t get you into the conversation.”

    lol!!!, did anyone her kick Rand out of a conversation? She is dead so i doubt she will contribute. HOWEVER, when you come in claiming her philosophy is the correct one you gotsta put up or shut up. Credentials? Why Rand not Kant of Christ/ Time to put up Fred. Obviously her credentials are weak of Fred would have shared by now! lol!!!!

    “He doesn’t seem capable of sticking to His own rules. Like when He murders someone”

    Ummm, nope God can’t murder because God owns and created all and is not a man. Fred has a comprehension problem…:)

    “I’m also well aware that Rand held many philosophers in contempt”

    Ad hominem, shame on her….Why is she “The One”

    “I know why I embrace Objectivism – because of it’s unswerving adherence to reason.”

    Prove it, you seem quite unreasonable and thus the very foundation of Objectivism fails…..unless……fred and Rand get to define what is and is not reasonable?…….. Hmmmmmmmm

    “Of course he will continue to deny reality and claim”

    And again, Objectivism allows its adherents to define reality to fit there own little world. Objectivism fails again. This is why fred continues to claim I am wrong but fails to provide reason backed with evidence.

    That’s why Objectivism fails and is for the young ideologues and never given serious consideration.

  303. on 18 Oct 2014 at 12:40 am 303.TJ said …

    The following has been entered into evidence, claimed to support the statement “God is a Murderer”.

    2 Kings 2:24

    “Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. 25He went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.”

    A recent account from reality. Appears in Creation magazine Vol. 36 No.4 2014.

    The article appears on page 14. It is about Rod & Nancy, an Australian retired couple that tour around the country promoting a recent creation in their “Ark Van”. The “Ark Van” harbors a scale model of Noah’s Ark complete with scale animals and such.

    The article reads…

    “And then there was that incident of the sparrow, chip and scoffer.
    In a small town, Rod and Nancy stopped outside a pub, opened up the sides of the van and started to engage drinkers in an outside area.
    One got really loud and shouted, “We all know there’s no God; I’m going to throw this chip into the middle of the road and, if there is a God, God will pick it up straight away.” As soon as the chip landed, a sparrow swooped and flew off with it. When Rod turned to point it out to the scoffer, he went quiet and the mocking stopped.”

    Objective view:

    Reality clearly confirms that sparrows, crows, magpies and seagulls are just a few of the birds that will readily swoop in and claim discarded food. The only remarkable thing about the story is the scoffers proclamation at the time.

    A large, noisy group of children follow Elisha up a road. Two female bears come out of the Forrest and ferociously attack the group of mocking children. Bears are known to attack when threatened. Bears are also very protective of their young. The scale of the attack, and the fact that the bears are female, suggest they may have had young near by. The only remarkable thing about the story is the timing of Elisha’s cursing them in the name of the Lord.

    Coincidence or causation?

    Objective claim:

    God is a murderer.

    Guilty or not Guilty?

  304. on 20 Oct 2014 at 12:48 pm 304.freddies_dead said …

    302.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    My my, Fred is still on the run.

    1 sentence in and A is already denying reality.

    No answers, backing evidence for his theology and ad hominem attacks. lol!!! what a mess.

    This is yet another autobiographical statement from A.

    “Does anyone else speak A’s special dialect of idiocy?”

    Personal attacks! So ugly :). Still luv freddie boy!

    “It is A’s God’s commandment”

    It is? You spend all your time making the accusations and offering theology classes here. :)

    Yes, it is. You would have thought a self professed Christian would know that. Unless A is denying that “thou shall not murder” is one of his God’s commandments, in which case just what kind of Christian is he?

    “It is A’s job to explain who or what it applies to.”

    lol!!!, you made the claim God murders, therefore it is your job to back the claim. All I have done is ask for the proof…..silly freddie!

    Once more A dodges his burden of proof and then denies reality for the second time during this post. I have proved that his God is guilty of breaking it’s own commandment to not murder and that all of A’s excuses contradict the Christian claim that God’s commandments are absolute.

    ” I haven’t given an exemption to anyone or anything – the commandment certainly doesn’t grant an exemption”

    True,

    Yes, it is but watch as A starts granting exemptions anyway…

    all human beings are accountable. But you do believe the command was given to tigers, bears, sharks, etc? So the do murder? Explain yourself freddie! lol!!!

    It is not my job to do A’s work. His God, his commandment, his job to explain how an allegedly absolute commandment somehow doesn’t apply absolutely.

    “I know abortion isn’t murder because of what Objectivism teaches.”

    Oh goodie!! Certainly freddie will share with us what the Objectivist view is on abortion and murderer? I hope so!!!!!! I sincerely doubt it though……….sigh….

    Oh goodie, A’s trying for yet another diversion away from why his God can break it’s own commandments.

    It’s pretty simple really. Under Objectivism it is a woman’s right to life that gives her the right to terminate a pregnancy. An embryo in the first trimester isn’t the same as a human i.e. the potential isn’t the same as the actual.

    Rand’s view:
    “An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

    Abortion is a moral right – which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?”

    Note that when A responds to this he will almost certainly ignore the original issue – that of his God being a murderer – to try and divert the conversation even further into a discussion of abortion. I will be ignoring any such diversions.

    “We’re talking about philosophy and apparently being an actual philosopher doesn’t get you into the conversation.”

    lol!!!, did anyone her kick Rand out of a conversation?

    A certainly tried, first by questioning her credibility and then by questioning her credentials.

    She is dead so i doubt she will contribute.

    Her arguments are very much alive but A can’t handle those which is why he keeps questioning Rand instead.

    HOWEVER, when you come in claiming her philosophy is the correct one you gotsta put up or shut up.

    Which is exactly what I’ve done by demonstrating that A’s God is purely imaginary.

    Credentials? Why Rand not Kant of Christ/ Time to put up Fred.

    Because both Kant and Christianity are wrong. Kant made a fundamental error by failing to distinguish between the perceptual and the conceptual and Christianity is simply a subjective philosophy based on the imaginary.

    Obviously her credentials are weak of Fred would have shared by now! lol!!!!

    And back to A denying reality.

    “He doesn’t seem capable of sticking to His own rules. Like when He murders someone”

    Ummm, nope God can’t murder because God owns and created all and is not a man. Fred has a comprehension problem…:)

    And here is the unevidenced assertion once more. He has singularly failed to show his God is anything more than a figment of his own imagination never mind that it’s the creator/owner of everything. Even if we grant the existence of God, for the sake of argument, then why can’t A explain how his God is exempt from His own allegedly absolute moral dictates. His claims that “ownership” or God’s “inhumanity” grant exemption deny the claim of absolute morality. How does he deal with the contradiction? Who knows? He simply acts like there isn’t one. He has, in effect, conceded that his God’s morality is arbitrary. Might makes right. Whatever his God does – or orders – is fine, simply because He’s God. So what makes A’s God’s morality the “correct” one? A must have decided it somehow so what absolute standard did A use to decide that his God’s arbitrary, subjective standard is the “best” one? Just another question that A will run away from answering.

    “I’m also well aware that Rand held many philosophers in contempt”

    Ad hominem, shame on her….Why is she “The One”

    As usual A shows his ignorance of what ad hominem entails. Rand didn’t dismiss their philosophical arguments because she held them in contempt. She held them in contempt because she had shown their philosophical arguments to be wrong.

    “I know why I embrace Objectivism – because of it’s unswerving adherence to reason.”

    Prove it,

    I already have by remaining true to the core concepts of Objectivism whilst making my arguments.

    you seem quite unreasonable and thus the very foundation of Objectivism fails…..

    Of course the reasonable looks unreasonable to those like A who have abandoned reason in favour of wishful thinking.

    .unless……fred and Rand get to define what is and is not reasonable?…….. Hmmmmmmmm

    And once again A throws out this strawman. He’s been informed that this claim is incorrect several times now so his continued use of it is nothing but dishonest.

    “Of course he will continue to deny reality and claim”

    And again, Objectivism allows its adherents to define reality to fit there own little world.

    It’s that strawman again. Reality defines the world we have to fit in with not the other way around. I get why A makes this mistake – it’s because his self-professed worldview makes it as well. In A’s worldview “wishing makes it so” thereby making reality fit with what he wants. Of course reality doesn’t care one bit about A’s wishes (hopes, dreams, demands etc…) which is why A’s God remains purely imaginary.

    Objectivism fails again.

    But A hasn’t yet shown that Objectivism fails, so how can he claim that it has “failed again”? Where has he shown how the axioms – existence, consciousness and identity – aren’t self-evident, primary or fundamental? Or that existence doesn’t hold metaphysical primacy? Does he think that Objectivism fails regardless of what anyone may think, wish, demand etc…? Because if he does then he’s denying the basis of concepts like truth while relying on those very same concepts to make his claim.

    This is why fred continues to claim I am wrong but fails to provide reason backed with evidence.

    Back to A denying reality. I have shown A’s God is a murderer according to His own commandment when we accept Christianity’s claim that God’s morality is absolute. In response A simply keeps denying that God’s morality is absolute i.e. denying what his self-professed wordlview claims, as if this solves the problem.

    That’s why Objectivism fails and is for the young ideologues and never given serious consideration.

    How does A’s incorrect claim that I haven’t shown him to be wrong mean that Objectivism fails? The conclusion wouldn’t follow the premise even if the premise was correct – which it’s not. His claim is a non sequitur.

    Also does A think that Objectivism is for “young ideologues” and “never given serious consideration” regardless of what anyone thinks, feels, demands? If so, where is his account for objectivity? After all, his self-professed Christian worldview is inherently subjective. That leaves him having to borrow the concept from my worldview in order to deny my worldview. That’s the absurdity of A’s attempt at an argument.

  305. on 20 Oct 2014 at 5:33 pm 305.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    lol!!!!, Fred comes back with more silliness and claims with no evidence watch these!

    ______________________
    “Once more A dodges his burden of proof and then denies reality for the second time during this post.”

    Sigh…….freddie my boy…….you claimed God murders even though the deity does not meet the definition. So prove it.

    And if you can prove God murders, you will need to prove Tigers murder.

    I have proven fred is wrong with the definition right out of the dictionary. Notice:

    “1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.”

    Watch freddie squirm!!! lol!!!!
    ____________________________

    ““An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born.”

    EW!!, this is good……so who gets to make this call?? Rand?? What about philosophers that argue just the opposite Fred?? What about MDs who say just the opposite? Rand has the absolute right to decide when something lives and doesn’t live? lol!!!! Is she a MD? Is she the Deity?? Again….no credentials therefore she is dismissed. So why are murders charged with double homicide when they murder a pregnant woman???

    __________________________
    “Whatever his God does – or orders – is fine, simply because He’s God.”

    Fred’s claims Rand makes right because fred calls it “Reason” and “Reality” when in reality it is fantasy……everyone else is wrong but fred has no proof other than his opinion…..lol!!!!

    __________________
    “She held them in contempt because she had shown their philosophical arguments to be wrong.:

    ROTFL!!!!!!!, I could sell fred some swamp land in FL. He is so gullible!! Let me know when she disproves Kant and Christ so we can let the philosophy community know! Man that is SO funny!! Rand was just a hater pure and simple!
    ___________________________________

    That’s why Objectivism fails and is for the young ideologues and never given serious consideration. The more fred types the more his argument is “Rand and Fred say Objectivism is right therefore it is”

  306. on 20 Oct 2014 at 5:35 pm 306.Anonymous said …

    If you don’t believe in God an atheist is one of the 9 great wonders of ancient.

    if however you do believe in God an atheist is one of God’s great blessings to Christians. They remind me of dogs puking all over them selves for food they should not have stolen in the first place.

    Personally I think we should properly tease our atheist until they explode in a cocktail of emotive malfunctioning from our favourites the seven deadly sins pride covetousness lust anger greed envy and the sloth that could be better spent hasting to save their souls.

    I think the believer’s teeth should be well sharpened on atheist before moving on to cultist and then on to the Satanist.

    every article of faith on these websites may be used to stoke the fire that will burn up the souls of these arrogant little pigs

  307. on 20 Oct 2014 at 8:30 pm 307.Anonymous said …

    303.TJ said …

    The following has been entered into evidence, claimed to support the statement “God is a Murderer”.

    2 Kings 2:24

    “Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. 25He went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.”

    A recent account from reality. Appears in Creation magazine Vol. 36 No.4 2014.

    The article appears on page 14. It is about Rod & Nancy, an Australian retired couple that tour around the country promoting a recent creation in their “Ark Van”. The “Ark Van” harbors a scale model of Noah’s Ark complete with scale animals and such.

    The article reads…

    “And then there was that incident of the sparrow, chip and scoffer.
    In a small town, Rod and Nancy stopped outside a pub, opened up the sides of the van and started to engage drinkers in an outside area.
    One got really loud and shouted, “We all know there’s no God; I’m going to throw this chip into the middle of the road and, if there is a God, God will pick it up straight away.” As soon as the chip landed, a sparrow swooped and flew off with it. When Rod turned to point it out to the scoffer, he went quiet and the mocking stopped.”

    Objective view:

    Reality clearly confirms that sparrows, crows, magpies and seagulls are just a few of the birds that will readily swoop in and claim discarded food. The only remarkable thing about the story is the scoffers proclamation at the time.

    A large, noisy group of children follow Elisha up a road. Two female bears come out of the Forrest and ferociously attack the group of mocking children. Bears are known to attack when threatened. Bears are also very protective of their young. The scale of the attack, and the fact that the bears are female, suggest they may have had young near by. The only remarkable thing about the story is the timing of Elisha’s cursing them in the name of the Lord.

    Coincidence or causation?

    Objective claim:

    God is a murderer.

    Guilty or not Guilty?

    I’m wondering why we’re comparing apples to oranges.

    My claim is based on more than that one verse. It’s based on the contents of the Bible being the Word of God. The Bible making the claim that God’s morality is absolute and that one of those moral commandments is “thou shall not murder”. There are then instances in the Bible of God murdering or ordering murder. One of them was when He uses 2 she bears to slaughter 42 children for calling Elisha a baldy.

    Now if God’s morality is absolute – as the Bible claims – then why is God apparently exempt from having to adhere to it? If there’s some other morality – one that must be better if it’s the one God does adhere to – then why shouldn’t we be using that one?

    TJ’s submission is from Creation magazine. I must have missed the memo mentioning that Creation magazine was now part of the Bible canon. It’s an anecdote purporting to demonstrate God’s possible existence not His innocence and I’ve already conceded God’s existence for the sake of this argument. It wouldn’t be much of an argument if I didn’t.

    Now if TJ is claiming that the Elisha inspired bear attack was a mere coincidence then fine but what about the flood? What about the slaughter of the Canaanites? Were they coincidences too? Nope, it’s going to take more than a anecdotal possible coincidence to overturn the evidence against God.

  308. on 20 Oct 2014 at 9:27 pm 308.Anonymous said …

    305.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    lol!!!!, Fred comes back with more silliness and claims with no evidence watch these!

    More of A denying reality. It’s a very prominent feature of this conversation.

    ______________________
    “Once more A dodges his burden of proof and then denies reality for the second time during this post.”

    Sigh…….freddie my boy…….you claimed God murders even though the deity does not meet the definition. So prove it.

    I’ve already demonstrated that the definition in no way exempts God. And if it did it would contradict the claim that God’s morality is absolute. A loses either way. Either his God’s a murderer or his God’s morality isn’t absolute, in which case why should we be subject to it?

    And if you can prove God murders, you will need to prove Tigers murder.

    This is utter nonsense. I’ve already done the first, whether tigers murder or not is an irrelevant diversion A keeps throwing in to try and take the focus of his murdering God.

    I have proven fred is wrong with the definition right out of the dictionary. Notice:

    “1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.”

    Watch freddie squirm!!! lol!!!!

    Why should I squirm? I’ve already skewered A’s God with His own commandment. I’ve also shown Him to be a murderer under human law – through the aspect of all God, all man Jesus who is also God. But why is A trying to absolve his God through human laws in the first place? Does he believe human laws are better than God’s moral commandments? If he does why is he trying to defend God’s morality? As usual A is all over the shop, desperately trying to find some reason to absolve his God of having done something wrong. I’m enjoying the show.
    ____________________________

    ““An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born.”

    EW!!, this is good……so who gets to make this call??

    No-one, reality is the final arbiter.

    Rand??

    Nope.

    What about philosophers that argue just the opposite Fred??

    What about them? What are their arguments? What do they base those arguments on? What about other philosophers who argue the same as Rand? Do they not count because they don’t agree with A’s position?

    What about MDs who say just the opposite?

    Again, what about them? What are their arguments? What do they base those arguments on? What about other MD’s who argue the same as Rand? Do they not count because they don’t agree with A’s position?

    A doesn’t actually explain his objection here, just throws them out as if he’s made some sort of point. He hasn’t.

    Rand has the absolute right to decide when something lives and doesn’t live? lol!!!!

    The strawman is back. No-one has ever claimed Rand gets to decide who lives and who doesn’t.

    Is she a MD?

    Irrelevant.

    Is she the Deity??

    No, she has nothing in common with imaginary beings. For one thing she actually existed.

    Again….no credentials therefore she is dismissed.

    And again A dismisses Rand for her “credentials” instead of addressing her arguments. This is just A staying consistent with his “wishing makes it so” worldview. He wishes Rand’s credentials made a difference and believes that it’s so. He’s wrong as usual.

    So why are murders charged with double homicide when they murder a pregnant woman???

    The United States Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 is a federal law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction. It also doesn’t apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. Only 38 states have fetal homicide laws and only 23 of them include early pregnancy in those laws. This means that not all murders of pregnant women where the foetus dies too lead to double homicide charges. If we look elsewhere in the world i.e. to England we see that the death of unborn foetuses doesn’t count as murder at all.
    __________________________
    “Whatever his God does – or orders – is fine, simply because He’s God.”

    Fred’s claims Rand makes right because fred calls it “Reason” and “Reality” when in reality it is fantasy……everyone else is wrong but fred has no proof other than his opinion…..lol!!!!

    Notice how A doesn’t answer the charge. Instead he builds another strawman to try and divert focus away from his beliefs. I’ve never claimed “Rand makes right”. I’ve always said that reality is the final arbiter i.e. it doesn’t make any difference what I want or think or believe. Things are what they are independent of any consciousness. No opinion necessary.

    __________________
    “She held them in contempt because she had shown their philosophical arguments to be wrong.:

    ROTFL!!!!!!!, I could sell fred some swamp land in FL. He is so gullible!!

    Based on A’s performance so far he couldn’t sell food to a starving man.

    Let me know when she disproves Kant and Christ so we can let the philosophy community know!

    I’ve already said where Kant and Christianity are wrong. Did A miss it? If so here it is again. Kant made a fundamental error by failing to distinguish between the perceptual and the conceptual and Christianity is simply a subjective philosophy based on the imaginary.

    Man that is SO funny!! Rand was just a hater pure and simple!

    And again, Rand’s arguments don’t depend on her perceived personality.
    ___________________________________

    That’s why Objectivism fails and is for the young ideologues and never given serious consideration. The more fred types the more his argument is “Rand and Fred say Objectivism is right therefore it is”

    Nope, this is still an unargued assertion followed by A’s well burned strawman.

  309. on 20 Oct 2014 at 11:24 pm 309.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    lol!!! freddie posts 3 times and doesn’t change his handle of the 3rd!! lol!!!!!1 Busted!

    Well let us bust the deluded fred…er Mouse again!
    _____________________

    “I’ve already demonstrated that the definition in no way exempts God.”

    Actually, no…..you didn’t. I provided a definition from the dictionary showing murder to be human on human. Facts are stubborn things Freddie….I mean Anony! lol!!!

    _______________________
    “What about them? What are their arguments? What do they base those arguments on?”

    Many claim sine we DONT know when life begins, we should not kill the baby in the womb. So prove Rand’s point to be true and others to be wrong. I’m waiting……….lol!!! Remember Eagle eggs!!
    ___________________________________

    “And again A dismisses Rand for her “credentials” ”

    Well yeah, what makes her more qualified than alex? Yep, much like I dismiss a teenage boy attempting to explain nuclear physics. I demolished her arguments until you prove otherwise. Pretty simple too!
    _________________________________
    “I’ve already done the first, whether tigers murder or not is an irrelevant diversion”

    Untrue, we need to see if freddie er.. Mouse will be consistent and calls anything that takes life a murder. He wont answer because he would look even more ignorant. Uncomfortable corner fred….er Mouse?
    __________________________________
    “Only 38 states have fetal homicide laws”

    Again I ask, why does a murderer get charged with a double homicide when they murder a pregnant woman if it is not a baby? Geez….cant get Fred…er Mouse to answer any questions!! lol!!!!
    _______________________________
    “I’ve always said that reality is the final arbiter”

    So do I….Fred…er Mouse hasn’t proven his reality to be accurate. Still waiting……lol!!!!
    _________________________________
    “Kant made a fundamental error by failing to distinguish between the perceptual and the conceptual and Christianity”

    There is your problem. You think saying it makes it true. Prove it! ROTFL!!!!!!!

    So Hilarious!

    That’s why Objectivism fails and is for the young ideologues and never given serious consideration. The more fred types the more his argument is “Rand and Fred say Objectivism is right therefore it is

  310. on 21 Oct 2014 at 3:30 am 310.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead posting as Anonymous,

    You claimed that “God is a Murderer”.

    You also claimed that this was an Objective view point.

    You also accused me of dodging the Bear mauling issue.

    You told me that you preferred real scenarios rather than analogies.

    I accused you of not adhering to an objective view point, so I presented one to you using the bear mauling as an example, killing several birds with one stone, so to speak.

    Was I wrong, did I not use my faculties to perceive that which exists.? Did I not apply an implicit understanding of causation, derived from my primary observations of causal connections among entities.?

    I was highlighting your abandonment of “Objectivity”, a philosophy you claim supports your beliefs.

    Which issue would you like me to objectively tackle next?

    1. God’s authority
    2. The failure of the flood
    3. slaughter of the Canaanites

    Conceding that God exists for the sake of argument is a poor position. Why argue from a point you don’t support, I certainly wouldn’t (except to point to it’s folly), but I can attempt to be objective. Perhaps we should start with an objective look at the origin alternatives to the God of the Bible.

    Unless of course, you find A The Prickly Science Guy to be more stimulating.

  311. on 21 Oct 2014 at 4:23 am 311.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    Does an aborted fetus die?

  312. on 21 Oct 2014 at 4:25 am 312.TJ said …

    was doing some reading and found this…

    According to Rand, “it is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible,” and, “the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do.”[49] Rand writes: “there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action… It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death…

  313. on 21 Oct 2014 at 1:42 pm 313.freddies_dead said …

    309.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    lol!!! freddie posts 3 times and doesn’t change his handle of the 3rd!! lol!!!!!1 Busted!

    Well let us bust the deluded fred…er Mouse again!

    Nope, just posting from home and forgot to put in my user name.
    _____________________

    “I’ve already demonstrated that the definition in no way exempts God.”

    Actually, no…..you didn’t.

    Actually, yes I did.

    I provided a definition from the dictionary showing murder to be human on human.

    And I showed how God – through the wholly man, wholly God aspect of Jesus – still qualifies. Although I also asked why A insists on judging his God against human laws? I notice A dodged all of the issues that brings up.

    Facts are stubborn things Freddie….I mean Anony! lol!!!

    Yes they are and they continue to show A’s God is a murderer, both by His own commandment and under human laws.
    _______________________
    “What about them? What are their arguments? What do they base those arguments on?”

    Many claim sine we DONT know when life begins, we should not kill the baby in the womb.

    Who are these “Many”? What are their arguments? What do they base those arguments on? What about the “Many” who claim otherwise? Once more A doesn’t actually answer the questions asked of him, simply rewords his original assertion.

    So prove Rand’s point to be true and others to be wrong. I’m waiting……….lol!!! Remember Eagle eggs!!

    The Objectivist position is that there is no basis on which to grant rights to a foetus/embryo/blastocyst. Individual rights can only be possessed by individuals whereas the foetus is a physical part of the body of a woman. Therefore it is that woman who has the right; she is the individual.

    Also individual rights can only be possessed by living entities. As already noted, on Objectivism life is a process of self-sustaining, self-generated action. The foetus does not sustain itself, it is sustained by the mother. She is the only living entity to speak of.

    Further, rights are possessed by living humans who are considered human by virtue of their rationality not their DNA. The need to think in order to survive necessitates rights. A foetus may have the potential for conceptual thought but is incapable of using that capacity due to the fact that it is denied any sensory input to think about by being in the womb.

    As the foetus lacks rights the woman is well within her rights to have an abortion.

    No doubt A will whinge about “opinions” once more. However, this isn’t an opinion, it’s a conclusion built on the premises that inform Objectivism.

    Remember Eagle eggs!!

    I remember that they were a pointless diversion. I see they still are.
    ___________________________________

    “And again A dismisses Rand for her “credentials” ”

    Well yeah, what makes her more qualified than alex?

    Who claimed she was “more” qualified than anyone else? I have always maintained that she was sufficiently qualified to talk about philosophical issues like ethics courtesy of her being a philosopher.

    Yep, much like I dismiss a teenage boy attempting to explain nuclear physics.

    So A would dismiss an explaination from a teenage boy who was actually a nuclear physicist? Age here is irrelevant, a nuclear physicist is qualified to talk about nuclear physics just like a philosopher is qualified to talk about philosophy.

    I demolished her arguments until you prove otherwise. Pretty simple too!

    This is simple alright, a simple lie. A hasn’t even attempted to address Rand’s arguments. Instead he’s questioned her credibility and her credentials and dismissed her for failing to meet his own personal standards. He then refuses to explain this standard that allows him to comment on philosophy but not an actual philosopher.
    _________________________________
    “I’ve already done the first, whether tigers murder or not is an irrelevant diversion”

    Untrue, we need to see if freddie er.. Mouse will be consistent and calls anything that takes life a murder.

    We really don’t. The issue was “is God a murderer” which, based on His own allegedly absolute moral commandment to not murder then He is. Of course the Biblical commandment doesn’t seem to exempt tigers either – it’s not “thou shall not murder unless you’re a tiger” – so there’s an argument to be made that Christian morality may well apply to them. Of course human laws already exempt tigers as they’re not human and Objectivism would exempt them on the same grounds.

    He wont answer because he would look even more ignorant. Uncomfortable corner fred….er Mouse?

    I’m not in any way uncomfortable about the Bible commandment against murder possibly applying to animals because it’s so ambiguous. After all I don’t accept the alleged words of imaginary deities as a valid platform for morality so I’m not the one having to find some other get out clause for tigers.
    __________________________________
    “Only 38 states have fetal homicide laws”

    Again I ask, why does a murderer get charged with a double homicide when they murder a pregnant woman if it is not a baby?

    And again I’ll point out that not all of them do. I pointed out that many states either don’t have foetal homicide as a part of law and that some of those that do don’t cover embryos in early stages of development. I also noted that the UK doesn’t have any such law so people are only charged with 1 murder when a pregnant woman is murdered and the foetus dies. In short there is nothing here which universally accepts a foetus as having full personhood so just what is A’s point?

    Geez….cant get Fred…er Mouse to answer any questions!! lol!!!!

    This is a lie.
    _______________________________
    “I’ve always said that reality is the final arbiter”

    So do I….Fred…er Mouse hasn’t proven his reality to be accurate. Still waiting……lol!!!!

    How odd. Does A think there are competing ‘realities’? There is only one, anything else is purely in A’s imagination. In the reality we live in objects are independent of the consciousnesses that are aware of them, existence holds metaphysical primacy and A’s God does not exist. His ‘morality’ is merely the subjective whims ascribed to an imaginary authority.
    _________________________________
    “Kant made a fundamental error by failing to distinguish between the perceptual and the conceptual and Christianity”

    A really should be more careful about quoting. The ‘and Christianity’ above does not belong with the initial statement regarding Kant.

    There is your problem. You think saying it makes it true. Prove it! ROTFL!!!!!!!

    No, it’s Kant’s philosophy that makes it true. He separated out the universe into the “phenomenal” (physical reality, mann’s senses, perceptions, reason and science), the “noumenal” (some sort of ‘higher’ reality) and threw in the “categorical imperative” (some special manifestation of that ‘higher’ reality i.e. a feeling). Kant then claimed that the “phenomenal” world wasn’t really real but a collective delusion, i.e. that man’s perceptions were “wrong” making man’s concepts “wrong” too, however, he also claimed we had no choice but to use these “wrong” concepts. Instead it was this “noumenal” realm that was the “real” reality although he also claimed it was unknowable. The only way to access this really real reality was via a non-rational method i.e. men could believe (according to their need) without ever proving the truth of said belief. “I have,” writes Kant, “therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.”.

    His entire argument amounts to a negation of consciousness. As Rand said “[Kant's] argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes — deaf, because he has ears — deluded, because he has a mind — and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them.”

    So Hilarious!

    It really is.

    That’s why Objectivism fails and is for the young ideologues and never given serious consideration. The more fred types the more his argument is “Rand and Fred say Objectivism is right therefore it is

    Yawn, this is still an unargued assertion followed by A’s favourite strawman (it must be charcoal by now).

  314. on 21 Oct 2014 at 1:43 pm 314.freddies_dead said …

    310.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead posting as Anonymous,

    You claimed that “God is a Murderer”.

    Based on what Christianity claims about it’s God as demonstrated in the Bible.

    You also claimed that this was an Objective view point.

    In the context in which the claim was made, yes.

    You also accused me of dodging the Bear mauling issue.

    I did.

    You told me that you preferred real scenarios rather than analogies.

    Also true.

    I accused you of not adhering to an objective view point, so I presented one to you using the bear mauling as an example, killing several birds with one stone, so to speak.

    And I explained that one example suggested God caused the slaughter of 42 children using a couple of she bears whilst the other only suggested the existence of God, through a bird eating a chip at an opportune time. If you’re attempting to suggest that the first situation may have been mere coincidence then you appear to be denying what Christianity claims about the Bible and it’s contents.

    Was I wrong, did I not use my faculties to perceive that which exists.? Did I not apply an implicit understanding of causation, derived from my primary observations of causal connections among entities.?

    The comparison was invalid. The first situation already assumes the existence of God and makes it fairly clear that it was God who killed those children (using she bears as a weapon). The second makes no such assumption, in fact the whole point of the anecdote is to suggest the existence of God.

    I was highlighting your abandonment of “Objectivity”, a philosophy you claim supports your beliefs.

    In what way do you believe I have abandoned Objectivity?

    Which issue would you like me to objectively tackle next?

    1. God’s authority
    2. The failure of the flood
    3. slaughter of the Canaanites

    I was rather hoping you’d tackle the original question regarding God’s status as a murderer. Instead you seemed to be suggesting he’s not a murderer because the bear thing might be a coincidence.

    Conceding that God exists for the sake of argument is a poor position.

    Fair enough. Please explain how we can distinguish your God from something you may merely be imaginging. Please bear in mind that you have already conceded that you take the existence of God on faith following a subjective personal experience so you might have your work cut out here.

    Why argue from a point you don’t support, I certainly wouldn’t (except to point to it’s folly), but I can attempt to be objective.

    The discussion required God’s existence to be assumed. If it is not then the claim “God is a murderer” is clearly false as imaginary entities cannot commit murder. I didn’t think you’d accept “God isn’t a murderer because He doesn’t exist” as some sort of conclusion but I’m happy to accept it.

    Perhaps we should start with an objective look at the origin alternatives to the God of the Bible.

    To what end?

    Unless of course, you find A The Prickly Science Guy to be more stimulating.

    I definitely find him more amusing.

  315. on 21 Oct 2014 at 1:44 pm 315.freddies_dead said …

    311.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    Does an aborted fetus die?

    In what sense? The tissue that makes up the foetus dies just like any living tissue may die.

    312.TJ said …

    was doing some reading and found this…

    According to Rand, “it is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible,” and, “the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do.”[49] Rand writes: “there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action… It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death…

    Of course here Rand was referring to life in the metaphysical sense, as it pertains to values. Also Objectivism defines life as a process of self-sustaining, self-generated action. As I’ve already noted to A a foetus does not sustain itself. On Objectivism a foetus isn’t an individual living being – it can’t ‘die’ in that sense.

  316. on 22 Oct 2014 at 12:16 am 316.TJ said …

    Nor does a baby outside the womb sustain itself, weather it is full term or premature. It is completely reliant on parents for survival. At what point can life be determined based on…

    “Objectivism defines life as a process of self-sustaining, self-generated action. ”

    Where does one draw the objective line?

  317. on 22 Oct 2014 at 1:02 am 317.TJ said …

    Fredies_dead said,

    If I build a sand castle and you knock it down, I get pissed with you. If I knock it down, it is my whim to do so.

    “I was rather hoping you’d tackle the original question regarding God’s status as a murderer.”

    and also said…
    “My claim is based on more than that one verse.”

    I’ve been saying all along that whole Bible, requires a literal reading and contextual consideration to form a basis for any claim, belief or interpretation.

    I can’t possibly list all relevant passages here.

    The bible claims that in the beginning the only thing that existed was God. God claims to be light, knowledge, power, and a self aware consciousness. Formless does not mean necessarily consisting of nothing. In fact God says that he creates from himself… not out of nothing as commonly claimed.

    Romans 11:36
    New American Standard Bible
    For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

    Colossians 1:16 ASV
    American Standard Version
    for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;

    Genesis 1:27
    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    Genesis 6:3
    Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”

    Philippians 2:5-8
    “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

    If “for the sake of argument” God was all alone and solely created all things from himself, for himself, from himself. Then I fail to understand how you can claim he does not have ultimate authority. God is not subject to gravity laws or laws of motion or physics any more than he is subject to Laws given to man. With the very clear exception of his time on earth as Jesus.

    If “for the sake of argument”, Judgement Day comes and Jesus (the appointed judge of man) asks who calls him a murderer?… I will take the biggest step in a direction away from you.

  318. on 22 Oct 2014 at 1:30 am 318.TJ said …

    “In what sense? The tissue that makes up the foetus dies just like any living tissue may die.”

    According to Rand, “it is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible,” and, “the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do.”[49] Rand writes: “there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action… It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death…

    Rand’s view:
    “An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

    The above says that although a fetus, actually being consisted of living tissue and while faced with the issue of life or death and that it has existence and if left unhindered what it ought to become is a human. Does not constitute value or rights… until it does what it ought to do… emerge from a womb?

    If a distinction between God and Jesus cannot be considered at any given point in time, why can humans? Aren’t all that we are, contained within the embryo and fully expressed over time?

  319. on 22 Oct 2014 at 1:40 am 319.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Nope, just posting from home and forgot to put in my user name.”

    Sure ya did freddie…er Mouse. Same old tired excuse.
    ______________________________
    “And I showed how God – through the wholly man, wholly God aspect of Jesus – still qualifies.”

    Now freddie moves the goal posts. Remember when he claimed God was the murderer? fred is still WRONG since Jesus never killed anyone as a man the 33 years he lived on earth.

    Fred is running out of ideas…:) Still claiming Tigers murder too fred?
    _____________________________________
    “And again I’ll point out that not all of them do.”

    Again no answer. Many of them do….so…Again I ask, why does a murderer get charged with a double homicide when they murder a pregnant woman if it is not a baby?
    __________________________________
    “How odd. Does A think there are competing ‘realities’?”

    lol!!!!! No, I do not. You have a perception, but it is a cult….not reality! sorry mate!
    ________________________________________

  320. on 22 Oct 2014 at 1:55 am 320.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    I purposely waited to address Rand, who fred obviously holds up as a great cult leader. Calling her credentials into question is not even allowed in his little world. She does have her little band of followers who follow and defend her with a cultish fervor.

    Metaphysics of Rand and Freddie is no more than work of a egotistical loon . The purpose of the study of metaphysics (which atheist here have claimed is irrelevant) is to determine the objective reality from the subjective reality which men gain from their physical senses. The most influential philosophers in this effort have been Descartes, Hume and Kant (yes the same fred believes to be completely wrong). Rand held none of these men in regard…..naturally!!

    Descartes, a rationalist doubted everything and determined that everything was in doubt and famously concluded “I think therefore I am”. All knowledge had to come from that position. Hume went a step further and doubted his own existence. For Hume consciousness was nothing more than sensory information which could not affirm even his existence.

    Kant comes along and attempted to work out the discrepancies that exist between rationalist (Descartes) and the empiricists (Hume}. Here is where the rubber meets the road. Kant’s work has become the basis of modern day analytical philosophy. Rand has become a punch-line when things get slow around the office.

    Freddie and Rand’s metaphysics is based on this Objectivism Freddie keeps parroting like a good cult member (Yes, Rand led a cult). Individualism and consciousness are the foundation of metaphysics Rand and freddie’s philosophy does not even attempt to develop an objective reality or even what such reality would entail. Rand and Freddie make the claim their metaphysics are, yes, objective and founded in Reality. Now, they give no argument or evidence for why this is objective at all or why even Descartes and Hume are in error.

    So what did Kant say, and why is he held in high regard while Rand is a joke? The perception of man is incomplete. The methodologies man uses to gain information are likely not the only methods knowledge can be obtained. The position Kant takes is that while we can obtain knowledge about reality using reason; man cannot gain information about reality that is beyond his perception. It is why science is often wrong and much of science we believe today will be wrong in the future. It is the reason Rand and fred are wrong about God are cult members.

  321. on 23 Oct 2014 at 11:15 am 321.freddies_dead said …

    316.TJ said …

    Nor does a baby outside the womb sustain itself, weather it is full term or premature. It is completely reliant on parents for survival. At what point can life be determined based on…

    “Objectivism defines life as a process of self-sustaining, self-generated action. ”

    Where does one draw the objective line?

    At birth. Once born a baby is granted rights according to it’s new status as a living human individual. It’s newly acquired right to life includes a right not to be killed.

  322. on 23 Oct 2014 at 11:27 am 322.freddies_dead said …

    317.TJ said …

    Fredies_dead said,

    If I build a sand castle and you knock it down, I get pissed with you. If I knock it down, it is my whim to do so.

    I don’t see that as a reasonable assessment of my argument. I built a sand castle (God’s a murderer) using A’s sand (the Bible and what it claims about God/Jesus). A has then kicked over a different sandcastle (ownership) and, when I pointed out that hadn’t affected my sandcastle, he kicked over yet another sandcastle (God is not human) instead. I pointed out that there was a bit of his sandcastle still left standing because it matched part of my sandcastle. Then you came along and took a small part of my sandcastle (the bear mauling), put it down next to a deckchair (bird grabbing chip) and seemed to suggest that they were both coincidences. You then said it was folly to grant things for the sake of argument so I duly took away the foundations of my sandcastle (God’s existence) and happily watched the rest of the sandcastle (the case against your God) collapse.

    “I was rather hoping you’d tackle the original question regarding God’s status as a murderer.”

    and also said…
    “My claim is based on more than that one verse.”

    I’ve been saying all along that whole Bible, requires a literal reading and contextual consideration to form a basis for any claim, belief or interpretation.

    And I used the claims made in the Bible regarding it being God’s Word, regarding God’s absolute morality and regarding the actions attributed to God.

    I can’t possibly list all relevant passages here.

    The bible claims that in the beginning the only thing that existed was God. God claims to be light, knowledge, power, and a self aware consciousness. Formless does not mean necessarily consisting of nothing. In fact God says that he creates from himself… not out of nothing as commonly claimed.

    Romans 11:36
    New American Standard Bible
    For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

    Colossians 1:16 ASV
    American Standard Version
    for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;

    Genesis 1:27
    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    Genesis 6:3
    Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”

    Philippians 2:5-8
    “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

    If “for the sake of argument” God was all alone and solely created all things from himself, for himself, from himself. Then I fail to understand how you can claim he does not have ultimate authority.

    On the contrary I’ve granted God the ultimate authority. Indeed it is His own Word and His own commandment that condemns Him. If God is the ultimate authority and His moral edicts are absolute – as the Bible claims – then “Thou shall not murder” applies to everyone, including God. After all it’s supposed to be His morality that is reflected in the commandments. However, you’re claiming that He isn’t actually subject to His own morality. Which means the moral edicts He issues can’t be absolute – for there are exemptions (in this case God Himself). So how are God’s moral edicts the ultimate authority on morality if God Himself isn’t subject to them?

    God is not subject to gravity laws or laws of motion or physics any more than he is subject to Laws given to man.

    Then the laws He has given to man aren’t the ultimate authority on morality. Why should we accept these commandments when there is a greater standard? One that God adheres to (albeit this seems to be a standard which seemingly allows murder as long as you have sufficient reason).

    With the very clear exception of his time on earth as Jesus.

    If “for the sake of argument”, Judgement Day comes and Jesus (the appointed judge of man) asks who calls him a murderer?… I will take the biggest step in a direction away from you.

    Well, with “for the sake of argument” being, according to you, “folly”. I won’t be worrying about Judgement Day as it isn’t coming because your God doesn’t exist.

  323. on 23 Oct 2014 at 11:28 am 323.freddies_dead said …

    318.TJ said …

    “In what sense? The tissue that makes up the foetus dies just like any living tissue may die.”

    According to Rand, “it is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible,” and, “the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do.”[49] Rand writes: “there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action… It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death…

    Rand’s view:
    “An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

    The above says that although a fetus, actually being consisted of living tissue and while faced with the issue of life or death and that it has existence and if left unhindered what it ought to become is a human. Does not constitute value or rights… until it does what it ought to do… emerge from a womb?

    A foetus doesn’t face the life or death issue. It isn’t an individual living human. It certainly has the potential to become one but, as you have already noted “Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not yet living (or the unborn).”.

    If a distinction between God and Jesus cannot be considered at any given point in time, why can humans?

    The lack of a distinction between God and Jesus is insisted upon by the Bible and, unless I grant God existence for the sake of argument – utter folly I believe – we have no reason to accept that the Bible has any authority over what we do as humans.

    Aren’t all that we are, contained within the embryo and fully expressed over time?

    Not exactly. I’d say it’s more like “all that we might possibly be” is contained in the embryo and once more, potential is not the same as actual.

  324. on 23 Oct 2014 at 11:32 am 324.freddies_dead said …

    319.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Nope, just posting from home and forgot to put in my user name.”

    Sure ya did freddie…er Mouse. Same old tired excuse.

    It is certainly the same reason that I gave last time and it is exactly the same set of circumstances this time. Somehow this bothers martin/biff/xenon/a…
    ______________________________
    “And I showed how God – through the wholly man, wholly God aspect of Jesus – still qualifies.”

    Now freddie moves the goal posts.

    Not in the slightest. Anyone checking back will see that I have made this same argument on several occasions.

    Remember when he claimed God was the murderer?

    Remember? I still do.

    fred is still WRONG since Jesus never killed anyone as a man the 33 years he lived on earth.

    Of course I never once claimed Jesus “killed anyone as a man”. Instead I pointed out what the Bible has to say about Jesus’ “wholly God, wholly man” nature and also how Jesus is God and always has been. It is these claims regarding God’s Triune nature that mean we can still accuse God of murder under human laws i.e. Jesus is God (and always has been) + Jesus is wholly man + human laws say murder is by one human of another = God is a murderer. I happily concede that the Trinity ends up throwing out all kinds of interesting and, at times, ridiculous conclusions due to it’s utterly irrational nature, but of course this isn’t my problem.

    Fred is running out of ideas…:) Still claiming Tigers murder too fred?

    Of course this is a strawman as I never claimed tigers murder, merely pointed out that A’s God’s absolute commandment to not murder doesn’t exclude them. Of course this isn’t my problem either.
    _____________________________________
    “And again I’ll point out that not all of them do.”

    Again no answer.

    This is a lie.

    Many of them do….

    And many of them don’t. Not to mention that these fetal homicide laws actually have no effect on the legality of abortion.

    so…Again I ask, why does a murderer get charged with a double homicide when they murder a pregnant woman if it is not a baby?

    And I’ll ask why do murderers not get charged with a double homicide when they murder a pregnant woman if it is a baby?

    That there are differing laws and different ways of classifying the unborn for legal purposes isn’t at issue. However, A keeps bringing it up as if it means something without ever saying exactly what that is. Why does he think that “some murderers get charged double when a foetus dies” is relevant here? It says nothing about the legality of abortion. It doesn’t change the personhood status of foetuses in general, it only changes it under very specific circumstances. And then we have the fact that what is legal isn’t necessarily what is moral e.g. speeding is illegal but what makes it immoral?
    __________________________________
    “How odd. Does A think there are competing ‘realities’?”

    lol!!!!! No, I do not.

    If he doesn’t then why state that “Fred…er Mouse hasn’t proven his reality to be accurate”? That implies that there is more than one reality i.e. at least 2 (A’s and mine), and that I haven’t shown my reality to be the correct one.

    You have a perception, but it is a cult….not reality! sorry mate!

    Wait, what? What on earth is that supposed to mean? How can a perception be a cult? I, erm, nope.
    ________________________________________

  325. on 23 Oct 2014 at 11:39 am 325.freddies_dead said …

    320.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    I purposely waited to address Rand,

    What an odd claim given A’s continued attempts to keep her out of the discussion. Maybe this means A has actually been looking at what Rand’s arguments are but I suspect I’ll be disappointed as usual.

    who fred obviously holds up as a great cult leader.

    Wrong as usual.

    Calling her credentials into question is not even allowed in his little world.

    A can call her credentials into question all he likes but I’ll just go on pointing out that, as well as being simply wrong i.e. philosophers have sufficient credentials to talk about philosophy, it’s also an ad hominem fallacy to dismiss her for this alleged credentials issue rather than dismissing her after showing her arguments are wrong.

    She does have her little band of followers who follow and defend her with a cultish fervor.

    Just like Christians follow and defend Jesus eh? Of course I don’t actually follow Rand, or defend her for that matter – pointing out a philosopher is sufficiently qualified to talk about philosophy isn’t a defence it’s a simple statement of fact. Instead I affirm Objectivism to be the basis of my worldview and defend what Objectivism teaches.

    Metaphysics of Rand and Freddie is no more than work of a egotistical loon .

    Where is A’s argument that shows that his claim is true? As usual he simply throws out a baseless assertion as if it were fact.

    The purpose of the study of metaphysics (which atheist here have claimed is irrelevant)

    Which atheists have made this claim? And where? I certainly haven’t.

    is to determine the objective reality from the subjective reality which men gain from their physical senses.

    I thought A said he didn’t believe in competing realities? Here he claims there is an objective and a subjective reality and it appears that he believes man only has access to the subjective reality. What is his argument for this? What is his starting point? How does A explain how he can determine the objective from his subjective reality?

    The most influential philosophers in this effort have been Descartes, Hume and Kant (yes the same fred believes to be completely wrong).

    What does alleged influence have to do with being correct?

    Rand held none of these men in regard…..naturally!!

    Why should she when their arguments were wrong?

    Descartes, a rationalist doubted everything and determined that everything was in doubt and famously concluded “I think therefore I am”. All knowledge had to come from that position.

    As noted in Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: “Observe that Descartes starts his system by using “error” and its synonyms or derivatives as “stolen concepts.”

    Men have been wrong, and therefore, he implies, they can never know what is right. But if they cannot, how did they ever discover that they were wrong? How can one form such concepts as “mistake” or “error” while wholly ignorant of what is correct? “Error” signifies a departure from truth; the concept of “error” logically presupposes that one has already grasped some truth. If truth were unknowable, as Descartes implies, the idea of a departure from it would be meaningless.”

    Hume went a step further and doubted his own existence. For Hume consciousness was nothing more than sensory information which could not affirm even his existence.

    As far as I’m aware this simply isn’t true. Hume actually accepted the first part of Descartes’ proof i.e. that the ability to question existence required him to be, however, Hume didn’t think Descartes was right to state that he must have been created on that basis. As such Hume’s work suffers from the same problem Descartes’ did. Rather amusingly Hume’s work also caused him to reject the notion of God. I wonder if A shares Hume’s scepticism? I seriously doubt it.

    Kant comes along and attempted to work out the discrepancies that exist between rationalist (Descartes) and the empiricists (Hume}. Here is where the rubber meets the road. Kant’s work has become the basis of modern day analytical philosophy.

    I’ve already dealt with Kant.

    Rand has become a punch-line when things get slow around the office.

    Freddie and Rand’s metaphysics is based on this Objectivism Freddie keeps parroting like a good cult member (Yes, Rand led a cult).

    On the contrary Objectivism is a philosophical system based on the axioms (existence, consciousness, identity) and primacy of existence metaphysics. If A had bothered to do a little research he wouldn’t still be making such fundamental mistakes.

    Individualism and consciousness are the foundation of metaphysics

    What is this supposed to mean? Especially in light of the definition of metaphysics A gave earlier. There is no “foundation of metaphysics”, metaphysics is a foundation in itself. People base their worldview on what their metaphysic tells them about existence.

    Rand and freddie’s philosophy does not even attempt to develop an objective reality or even what such reality would entail.

    Holy shit I didn’t think A could get any more wrong. Objectivism affirms an objective reality right from the start – hell, it’s part of the name given to the philosophy. The explicit recognition of the primacy of existence affirms that reality is objective.

    Rand and Freddie make the claim their metaphysics are, yes, objective and founded in Reality. Now, they give no argument or evidence for why this is objective at all or why even Descartes and Hume are in error.

    This is a lie. I have given A the Objectivist axioms and the metaphysical primacy of existence principle. These form the basis of the Objectivist argument. A would know this if he’d bothered to look it up. As for Descartes and Hume, this post is the first time they’ve been mentioned. As such A is being disingenuous in claiming that neither I nor Rand have dealt with them.

    So what did Kant say, and why is he held in high regard while Rand is a joke? The perception of man is incomplete.

    How does Kant know this? He’s making a knowledge claim whilst denying man’s ability to have that knowledge.

    The methodologies man uses to gain information are likely not the only methods knowledge can be obtained.

    What other methods could be A referring to here? How else does he think man can acquire knowledge if not through his own actions?

    The position Kant takes is that while we can obtain knowledge about reality using reason; man cannot gain information about reality that is beyond his perception.

    Why is A strawmanning Kant? Kant felt we never perceived anything properly. Instead everything we perceived was shaped by our minds. Kant believed in a priori knowledge i.e. knowledge which is independent of experience. This is almost exactly the opposite of A’s claim that Kant felt “man cannot gain information about reality that is beyond his perception.”.

    It is why science is often wrong and much of science we believe today will be wrong in the future.

    Lol, now A rejects science – despite claiming to be a science guy – you couldn’t make this shit up. Yes, science gets things wrong … and then it corrects its errors based on new information. That’s why science works. It’s why we take science’s word over the claims made in ancient Holy books.

    It is the reason Rand and fred are wrong about God are cult members.

    A’s so desperate to get an insult in he almost makes the sentence incomprehensible, genius. If Rand and I are wrong about God then A will have no problem showing that consciousness holds metaphysical primacy. That objects are subject to the consciousnesses that are aware of them. Watch him dodge that burden too.

  326. on 23 Oct 2014 at 11:54 pm 326.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    ROTFL!!. WOW!! Free…er <ouse cannot be serious? lol!!!!

    OK, lets start…

    " A has actually been looking at what Rand’s arguments are"

    Have they changed over the last 30 years? No need, she makes no valid arguments. You have already proven that.
    ____________________________________
    "philosophers have sufficient credentials to talk about philosophy"

    Never said fred and rand cannot discuss it…..it also means they must defend their claims with valid supporting evidence. None has come as i have shown. She is a philosopher just as alex is a philosopher……:)
    _____________________________________
    "Just like Christians follow and defend Jesus eh?"

    No, Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh for 33 years and has many more followers.
    ___________________________________
    "As usual he simply throws out a baseless assertion as if it were fact."

    Now freddie recognizes his poor arguments. Good! We are making headway!!
    ________________________________________
    "I thought A said he didn’t believe in competing realities? Here he claims there is an objective and a subjective reality"

    ROTFL!!!!! fred doesn't read well, I stated this is what Descartes and Kant did! lol!!!
    ___________________________________________
    "What does alleged influence have to do with being correct? "

    Those if the field of philosophy recognize their work as thoughtful, intelligent and worthy of study. That is what it means. Rand is still a punchline…lol!!
    _____________________________________
    As noted in Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: “Observe that Descartes starts his system by using “error” and its synonyms or derivatives as “stolen concepts.”

    Wonderful! But she is wrong…..again….. Just saying so doesn't make it so freddie boy.
    ____________________________
    "As such Hume’s work suffers from the same problem Descartes’ did."

    Wonderful! But she is wrong…..again….. Just saying so doesn't make it so freddie boy.
    ________________________________
    "On the contrary Objectivism is a philosophical system based on the axioms (existence, consciousness, identity) and primacy of existence metaphysics."

    lol!!!! right off her website. Very good loyal cult member. A tautological and meaningless statement.
    ___________________________________
    "The explicit recognition of the primacy of existence affirms that reality is objective."

    Notice he tosses out the term "Reality". Of course he makes the assumption his and rand's reality is the actual reality while in "reality" it is a fairytale. Rand and fred never prove their reality is true and therfore it is not Objective. This is why he fails from the start.
    _______________________________________
    "Lol, now A rejects science – despite claiming to be a science guy"

    ROTFL!!!! Nearly spit out my coffee laughing! For fred, the fact I understand science to him means I reject it! Can he be more silly???!!! Another protruding bony process becoming another entire species!! lol!!! This is why science is not truth but about obtaining knowledge.
    __________________________________

    This is why Objectivism is for young ideologues and not given serious consideration by those in Reality.

    Objectivism is how a child in the womb is no more than tissue in one setting but considered life in another setting.

    Objectvism is how fred can see the definition of murder is man against a man but he continues to claim a deity murders but a Tiger does not.

    A very silly, undeveloped and very child-like…..um….er…..philosophy???

    lol!!!!!

  327. on 24 Oct 2014 at 12:00 am 327.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    You say…
    ” I won’t be worrying about Judgement Day as it isn’t coming because your God doesn’t exist.”

    Fair enough, believe what you will, I’ll leave you be, to amuse yourself with A.

  328. on 24 Oct 2014 at 12:03 pm 328.alex said …

    “because your God doesn’t exist.”

    “Fair enough, believe what you will”

    another fearless argument from the dumbass, motherfucker, tj, who possesses an infinite list of gods. i guess i don’t believe in all the bullshit gods in the past, all the bullshit gods currently and all the bullshit gods in the future? is that the atheist belief?

    dumbass bitch.

    reminder for the dipshit hor. even if all theists are wrong, your god is still bullshit, unless of course you got something? all this shit that your god is supposed to guide you in your moral life? if thor were to show up and stuck his hammer up your ass, would you turn immoral?

    dumbass bitch.

  329. on 24 Oct 2014 at 3:08 pm 329.freddies_dead said …

    326.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    ROTFL!!. WOW!! Free…er <ouse cannot be serious? lol!!!!

    OK, lets start…

    ” A has actually been looking at what Rand’s arguments are”

    Have they changed over the last 30 years?

    No, the Objectivist arguments haven’t changed, but as A hasn’t yet shown he even knows what the Objectivist arguments are it doesn’t actually matter.

    No need, she makes no valid arguments.

    I notice that A utterly fails to explain which argument he feels is invalid, or what his reasoning is behind his claim. Is it the affirmation of the axioms which is wrong? In which case which one does A take issue with? Existence? Consciousness? Or identity perhaps? Maybe he thinks that existence doesn’t hold metaphysical primacy? Who knows? A never says, just asserts they’re wrong as if his wishing makes it so.

    You have already proven that.

    Proven what? A hasn’t even said which Objectivist arguments he feels are invalid or how they are invalid and now he’s claiming I’ve proven that they’re invalid. Which arguments have I proven to be invalid? And how? This kind of absurd baseless asserting is what we’ve come to expect from A.
    ____________________________________
    “philosophers have sufficient credentials to talk about philosophy”

    Never said fred and rand cannot discuss it…..

    And yet A is the one who keeps insisting Objectivist arguments can’t be used because Rand doesn’t have the right credentials. His hypocrisy seemingly knows no bounds.

    it also means they must defend their claims with valid supporting evidence.

    I have already done this so A is just being dishonest here.

    None has come as i have shown.

    A has shown us nothing. Not a thing. He’s made claims he refuses to backup. Insisted that Objectivism is wrong because of Rand – instead of actually dealing with what Objectivism says – and thrown in a few diversions that were easy to spot and even easier to show to be wrong.

    She is a philosopher just as alex is a philosopher……:)

    Well, A can’t deal with alex’s arguments any more than he can those made by Objectivism so I can understand why he sees them as similar.
    _____________________________________
    “Just like Christians follow and defend Jesus eh?”

    No, Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh for 33 years

    Is this true regardless of what anyone may wish, hope, feel etc…? Once more A relies on the primacy of existence in order to deny the primacy of existence.

    and has many more followers.

    Of course truth isn’t a popularity contest.
    ___________________________________
    “As usual he simply throws out a baseless assertion as if it were fact.”

    Now freddie recognizes his poor arguments. Good! We are making headway!!

    Now freddie recognises A’s dishonesty in his claiming my dismissal of his baseless assertion is some kind of admission that I’ve noted some flaw in my own argument.
    ________________________________________
    “I thought A said he didn’t believe in competing realities? Here he claims there is an objective and a subjective reality”

    ROTFL!!!!! fred doesn’t read well,

    On the contrary it is A’s inability to write for comprehension that is the issue here. If he didn’t mean to imply there was more than one reality then he should have taken more care.

    I stated this is what Descartes and Kant did! lol!!!

    Actually A claimed that it was what the study of metaphysics was all about. There was no mention of Descartes and Hume when he wrote “The purpose of the study of metaphysics (which atheist here have claimed is irrelevant) is to determine the objective reality from the subjective reality which men gain from their physical senses.”
    ___________________________________________
    “What does alleged influence have to do with being correct? ”

    Those if the field of philosophy recognize their work as thoughtful, intelligent and worthy of study. That is what it means.

    So it doesn’t have anything to do with it being correct then. Thanks for that admission.

    Rand is still a punchline…lol!!

    And A sticks with his “wishing makes it so” worldview. He wishes that what he thinks of Rand actually made a difference to the arguments Objectivism makes. Of course he’s just wrong as usual.
    _____________________________________
    As noted in Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: “Observe that Descartes starts his system by using “error” and its synonyms or derivatives as “stolen concepts.”

    Wonderful! But she is wrong…..

    How so? As usual A just asserts that Rand is wrong without ever making any kind of argument to back up his claim. Hardly surprising as he has no answer which doesn’t first rely on Objectivism’s axioms and the primacy of existence in order to make any sense.

    again….. Just saying so doesn’t make it so freddie boy.

    Oh the irony.
    ____________________________
    “As such Hume’s work suffers from the same problem Descartes’ did.”

    Wonderful! But she is wrong…..again…..

    How so? Once more A makes the claim and once more he barely asserts it. He offers no argument to back up his claim. Add to that he wants everyone to accept that Rand was wrong regardless of what anyone wishes, hopes, demands etc.. i.e. he’s having to affirm the primacy of existence in order to deny the primacy of existence. I do enjoy it when he does that.

    Just saying so doesn’t make it so freddie boy.

    Oh the irony … again.
    ________________________________
    “On the contrary Objectivism is a philosophical system based on the axioms (existence, consciousness, identity) and primacy of existence metaphysics.”

    lol!!!! right off her website.

    Eh? Rand doesn’t have a website. She’s dead. If A means you’ll find what I said on Objectivist websites then duh, what did A expect? Also why is he getting it wrong when he acknowledges that my correction of his mistake can be easily found on Objectivist websites? Maybe he should try reading the Objectivist websites before he makes a fool of himself getting the fundamentals wrong.

    Very good loyal cult member. A tautological and meaningless statement.

    Oh look, A doesn’t understand what the words “tautological” and “meaningless” mean. A claimed that Rand’s metaphysics was based on Objectivism. I simply pointed out that it was actually the other way round i.e. that Objectivism was based on Rand’s metaphysics. That correction of A’s error was not just saying the same thing in 2 different ways and as it conveyed information it cannot be described as meaningless either.
    ___________________________________
    “The explicit recognition of the primacy of existence affirms that reality is objective.”

    Notice he tosses out the term “Reality”.

    We’re talking about reality, it is therefore, not at all strange to see the word used.

    Of course he makes the assumption his and rand’s reality is the actual reality while in “reality” it is a fairytale.

    I haven’t assumed anything. Objectivism holds that reality exists as an objective absolute. Facts are facts regardless of what anyone may wish, hope, dream etc… If A believes that there’s some “other” reality in which we exist then it is his burden to demonstrate the existence of this “other” reality.

    Rand and fred never prove their reality is true and therfore it is not Objective. This is why he fails from the start.

    What on earth does it mean to “prove reality is true”? An apple isn’t true, a tree isn’t true etc… Self-evident facts don’t require proof. Existence exists. If it didn’t then we wouldn’t be here to talk about it. Reality is that which exists; the unreal does not exist. Acknowledging that it exists independent of the consciousnesses that are aware of it – the metaphysical primacy of existence – is what makes it objective i.e. an apple is an apple regardless of what I may wish, hope, demand.
    _______________________________________
    “Lol, now A rejects science – despite claiming to be a science guy”

    ROTFL!!!! Nearly spit out my coffee laughing! For fred, the fact I understand science to him means I reject it!

    A is the one who said science was often wrong due to his strawman version of Kant’s argument. It’s not my fault if he doesn’t seem to understand either.

    Can he be more silly???!!! Another protruding bony process becoming another entire species!! lol!!!

    Well at least I can never be sillier than A’s ridiculous strawman version of evolution.

    This is why science is not truth but about obtaining knowledge.

    How can A make the claim that science is about obtaining knowledge when he says “science is often wrong and much of science we believe today will be wrong in the future”. Where’s the knowledge in A’s version of science?
    __________________________________

    This is why Objectivism is for young ideologues and not given serious consideration by those in Reality.

    Does A think this is true regardless of what anyone may want, wish, hope etc…? Because if he does he’s affirming the very axioms that inform Objectivism. If not then we can simply dismiss his subjective claim.

    Objectivism is how a child in the womb is no more than tissue in one setting but considered life in another setting.

    This is dishonest. Whilst it is true that Objectivism doesn’t see the unborn as an individual, it is consistent in that designation. It is certain legal systems – not Objectivism – that choose to treat foetuses in different ways under different conditions.

    Objectvism is how fred can see the definition of murder is man against a man but he continues to claim a deity murders but a Tiger does not.

    This is also dishonest. I judged A’s God according to it’s own allegedly absolute morality. I pointed out how that morality didn’t allow any exemptions i.e. for ownership or lack of being human, so it is A’s God’s morality that condemns god and tiger along with human. After failing to save his God that way A then chose to judge him according to human law, which does of course exempt non-humans from being charged with murder. Once again A’s own Bible pulled the rug from under his feet by demanding that Jesus is wholly man to go with being wholly God and that He’s always been the Son of God. Such is the absurdity of the Trinity that God can even be charged with murder using nothing but the laws of men.

    A very silly, undeveloped and very child-like…..um….er…..philosophy???

    Another autobiographical statement from A.

    lol!!!!!

    Indeed.

  330. on 27 Oct 2014 at 11:46 pm 330.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Well, one more time attempting to help fred….er..mouse see the ligt.

    “I notice that A utterly fails to explain which argument he feels is invalid, or what his reasoning is behind his claim.”

    Not my job is not to sell your product fred. You believe in Objectivism then sell it by providing proof of your claims. You can start by proving life begins at conception (as Rand claims). Certainly you can prove this?…lol!!!
    _________________________________
    “A doesn’t understand what the words “tautological” and “meaningless” mean.”

    Understand them perfectly just like I understand the word “murder”….lol!!!
    _________________________________________
    “Objectivism holds that reality exists as an objective absolute. Facts are facts”

    LOL!!!, is this your Objectivism? Of course there is only one reality. You and Rand missed it completely which is why your Objectivism fails. When you prove your fairytale reality is in fact genuine, you can begin to sell your Objectivism.
    _____________________________________
    “A is the one who said science was often wrong”

    It is, duh!
    ______________________________________
    “And yet A is the one who keeps insisting Objectivist arguments can’t be used because Rand doesn’t have the right credentials.”

    She can use any argument, when you and Ayn prove the argument. You have not as evidenced in your fairytale reality.
    _____________________________________
    “Whilst it is true that Objectivism doesn’t see the unborn as an individual, it is consistent in that designation.”

    It also provides no proof this child is not a human being deserving of being protected. The Eagle egg takes precedent, eh?
    ______________________________________________
    “A then chose to judge him according to human law, which does of course exempt non-humans from being charged with murder.”

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!

    This is the funniest and silliest but he does admit HE WAS WRONG!!! lol!!!!
    fred….er…mouse seemed to believe there is a human law for murder and a God view of murder? Where does this scamp come up with such silliness?

    The Hebrew was translated in to hundreds of languages keeping the meaning of the text precise by using the corresponding dialect. The word murder means taking the life of one human by another. stealing a life that does not belong to one is murder.

    Now, if fred….er….mouse can show us where God had a differing definition let us all ask him to provide it……:)

    Popcorn popping, we are ready………

  331. on 28 Oct 2014 at 11:46 am 331.freddies_dead said …

    330.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Well, one more time attempting to help fred….er..mouse see the ligt.

    A couldn’t help anyone see the “ligt” even if he had a 10 million candle torch.

    “I notice that A utterly fails to explain which argument he feels is invalid, or what his reasoning is behind his claim.”

    Not my job is not to sell your product fred.

    And here goes A desperately trying to avoid the burden of proof he took upon himself by claiming that Rand “makes no valid arguments”. Which arguments does A think are invalid and why? Until he can tell us this the arguments stand unchallenged.

    You believe in Objectivism then sell it by providing proof of your claims.

    Of course I have already done this, but A is trying to divert the conversation away from the claims he has made and utterly failed to back up.

    You can start by proving life begins at conception (as Rand claims).

    Lolwut? Where is A’s evidence that Rand ever made this claim? As usual he provides none.

    Certainly you can prove this?…lol!!!

    Can I prove something Rand never claimed? Why no, no I can’t.
    _________________________________
    “A doesn’t understand what the words “tautological” and “meaningless” mean.”

    Understand them perfectly just like I understand the word “murder”….lol!!!

    So A claims to know what they mean and yet he still uses them incorrectly? Why?
    _________________________________________
    “Objectivism holds that reality exists as an objective absolute. Facts are facts”

    LOL!!!, is this your Objectivism? Of course there is only one reality.

    So A agrees with Objectivism. In which case why is he denying what Objectivism affirms? As usual A makes no sense.

    You and Rand missed it completely which is why your Objectivism fails.

    Missed what completely? A never actually says what “it” is but apparently we missed “it” all the same. As usual this is just A trying desperately to avoid having to back up his unevidenced claims.

    When you prove your fairytale reality is in fact genuine, you can begin to sell your Objectivism.

    First A admits that “Of course there is only one reality”. Now he starts waffling on about another reality. To what “fairytale reality” is A referring? And where is his evidence for it? Why the contradiction to his earlier concession? All these questions and many more will only be ignored by A.
    _____________________________________
    “A is the one who said science was often wrong”

    It is, duh!

    So why does A accept it as a source of knowledge when he claims that it “is often wrong” and “much of science we believe today will be wrong in the future”? A wants to both rely on science when he thinks it support his claims and also reject it when it disproves any part of his professed Christian worldview.
    ______________________________________
    “And yet A is the one who keeps insisting Objectivist arguments can’t be used because Rand doesn’t have the right credentials.”

    She can use any argument, when you and Ayn prove the argument.

    So now A doesn’t understand how arguments work. You provide the premises and the conclusion follows. If A disputes any of the premises why doesn’t he state which one(s) he rejects and give his reasons as to why he believes them to be incorrect? Instead he simply keeps baselessly asserting that Objectivism is wrong as if his repeating it ad nauseum will make it true. As such the arguments stand unchallenged.

    You have not as evidenced in your fairytale reality.

    And now A repeats his earlier baseless assertion. After admitting that “Of course there is only one reality”. A starts waffling on about another reality. To what “fairytale reality” is A referring? And where is his evidence for it? Why the contradiction to his earlier concession? All these questions and many more will only be ignored – more than once – by A.
    _____________________________________
    “Whilst it is true that Objectivism doesn’t see the unborn as an individual, it is consistent in that designation.”

    It also provides no proof this child is not a human being deserving of being protected.

    This is a lie. Objectivism provides an argument as to why a foetus has no rights and A has made no attempt to interact with that argument. Instead he simply asserts that the argument is wrong without ever giving a valid reason. “It’s a child” he whines as if his wishing makes it so.

    The Eagle egg takes precedent, eh?

    And A predictably tries to fall back on a diversion. The eagle egg takes precedent over what? A foetus? In what way does this claim even make sense? Where have I claimed that this is so? And why is A upset that there are laws protecting the eggs of an endangered species at the same time as there are laws that allow for abortions? Is there some reason that he believes that they can’t co-exist? He seems to think he’s made some sort of valid analogy but he hasn’t. No-one has claimed eagle eggs are more valuable than a foetus but A tries to make a link all the same.
    ______________________________________________
    “A then chose to judge him according to human law, which does of course exempt non-humans from being charged with murder.”

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!

    This is the funniest and silliest but he does admit HE WAS WRONG!!! lol!!!!

    Of course A doesn’t show where I “admit [I] WAS WRONG!!!” because I didn’t do any such thing. A is simply lying. Instead I pointed out how his God is still every bit as guilty under human law as He is under His own Biblical commandment.

    fred….er…mouse seemed to believe there is a human law for murder and a God view of murder? Where does this scamp come up with such silliness?

    So A doesn’t recognise the difference between human laws and Biblical commandments now? In which case why jump from trying to defend his God Biblically to trying to defend him using human laws? As usual A manages to contradict himself at every turn.

    The Hebrew was translated in to hundreds of languages keeping the meaning of the text precise by using the corresponding dialect. The word murder means taking the life of one human by another.

    The original hebrew word “ratsach” means “manslayer” it doesn’t make any reference as to what the one doing the killing may be – human, God … tiger. Translation often leads to concepts being changed over time. It makes his claim of precision laughable. Of course this evolution of the word away from its original meaning doesn’t change that original meaning.

    Now the modern legal definition of murder was deliberately created and includes several caveats, including that of the perpetrator being another human, in order to make it very obvious what exactly constitutes a “murder”. In that respect it in no way reflects the original ambiguous meaning of the Biblical commandment. A’s attempt to conflate the two is disingenuous at best.

    stealing a life that does not belong to one is murder.

    And here A contradicts himself again. So much for keeping the text precise. Instead he tries to reintroduce his “ownership” excuse. It’s a caveat which doesn’t exist, either in the original Biblical commandment or in the human legal definition we use now. It’s A trying to give his God a get out of jail free card.

    Now, if fred….er….mouse can show us where God had a differing definition let us all ask him to provide it……:)

    Popcorn popping, we are ready………

    Already done. We’ve compared the Biblical commandment to the human legal definition several times now and every time, using whichever definition, A’s God is still found guilty of murder.

  332. on 30 Oct 2014 at 7:20 pm 332.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Of Fred…er Mouse, still scurrying….

    “And here goes A desperately trying to avoid the burden of proof he took upon himself by claiming that Rand “makes no valid arguments”.”

    Notice how Fred continues to ask others to prove his claims to Objectivism? If the system is logical and reasonable why does he not offer a valid argument? fred is an atheist which shows he lives in a fairytale world.
    _____________________________________________
    “So A agrees with Objectivism. In which case why is he denying what Objectivism affirms?”

    I also agree with a broken clock twice a day but I still know the clock to be broken. So when will fred offer evidence to show Objectivism is based in reality and is reasonable? Desperation here….
    ___________________________________________
    “So why does A accept it as a source of knowledge when he claims that it “is often wrong” and “much of science we believe today will be wrong in the future”

    Because it is a source of knowledge AND much of it does get proven wrong by future generations? History shows this to be true. fred does not understand science either….lol!!!
    _____________________________________
    “So now A doesn’t understand how arguments work. You provide the premises and the conclusion follows.’

    lol!!!, now fred does not understand the structure of an argument. We have premises, conclusions and infernces which are statements of reason that tie the premises into the conclusion. Take fred and rand’s claim:

    Premise: A Fetus is not human being
    Conclusion: It is OK to take the life of an unborn fetus

    How was the premise proven to be true? Where is the reasoning that leads to the conclusion. It is non-existent.
    __________________________________________
    “The original hebrew word “ratsach” means “manslayer” it doesn’t make any reference as to what the one doing the killing may be – human, God … tiger.”

    ROTFL!!!!!!, no it did not say “except for Tigers and Deity”, lol!!!! That is because the word translates into “to murder, slay, kill” which…..again……..is man upon man.

    I have some homework for fred. fred see if you can find the Hebrew word used when God destroyed the Cannanites. You like that story so the task should be difficult.
    ___________________________________________
    “Instead he tries to reintroduce his “ownership” excuse. It’s a caveat which doesn’t exist,”

    No, not at all since ownership still and always applies. The unlawful taking of life that does not belong to you is murder or ratasch. fred, its ok, this reasoning thing is difficult for you. :)
    ________________________________

    Fred, I do have some good news for you. A survey came out where college students are beginning to accept the idea of post-birth abortion. Yep, all we need to do if change the status of a baby to something like post-zygote, declare it is not a human since it cannot take care of itself and walllah……Obejectivism defines another moral dilemana. No lol here since I find it quite sad.

    Late fred

  333. on 03 Nov 2014 at 3:42 pm 333.freddies_dead said …

    332.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Of Fred…er Mouse, still scurrying….

    “And here goes A desperately trying to avoid the burden of proof he took upon himself by claiming that Rand “makes no valid arguments”.”

    Pointing out A’s dishonesty can hardly be called “scurrying” but such is A’s desperation.

    Notice how Fred continues to ask others to prove his claims to Objectivism?

    Notice how A keeps lying about what I’ve said. He is the one claiming Rand “makes no valid arguments”. He doesn’t make any attempt to actually back up this claim. He makes absolutely no attempt to say what it is about the claims that makes them invalid. Absolutely nothing. Because he’s got nothing. He has shown that he doesn’t understand Objectivism and has no way to counter the claims it makes. Instead he baselessly asserts it to be wrong and then runs away from his burden to prove his claims.

    If the system is logical and reasonable why does he not offer a valid argument?

    Of course I have given the Objectivist argument and A has run away from it. As such the argument remains unchallenged.

    fred is an atheist which shows he lives in a fairytale world.

    Yet another baseless assertion. I affirm the existence of an objective reality where facts are facts regardless of what anyone thinks about them. A falsely equates this as living in a “fairytale world”. This is just projection on his part. His ridiculous worldview claims that a consciousness wished everything into existence and that everything is therefore subject to consciousness. Quite literally his inherently subjective Christian worldview advocates that “wishing makes it so”. Because he knows no different he thinks everyone else’s worldviews suffer from the same problems. He’s wrong.
    _____________________________________________
    “So A agrees with Objectivism. In which case why is he denying what Objectivism affirms?”

    I also agree with a broken clock twice a day but I still know the clock to be broken.

    Ignoring the fatuous analogy A is still agreeing with Objectivism while claiming Objectivism to be false. How does he reconcile these 2 contradictory positions? He doesn’t even try. Instead he simply asserts it to be so with absolutely no attempt to back up his unevidenced claims. I suspect that he holds so many contradictory positions that the increase in cognitive dissonance due to this one is probably unnoticeable.

    So when will fred offer evidence to show Objectivism is based in reality and is reasonable?

    I have already done so but, in keeping with his absurd worldview, A thinks that wishing that wasn’t so actually makes it so. He’s wrong.

    Desperation here….

    Indeed, A does seem very desperate at this point.
    ___________________________________________
    “So why does A accept it as a source of knowledge when he claims that it “is often wrong” and “much of science we believe today will be wrong in the future”

    Because it is a source of knowledge AND much of it does get proven wrong by future generations?

    Firstly, why is this a question? Does A not understand why his “often wrong” version of science is a source of knowledge so he’s asking for help? Secondly, does he not see the inherent contradiction? A source of knowledge that gets proven wrong by future generations? How is that knowledge exactly?

    History shows this to be true.

    History shows what to be true? That A’s version of science – the version that’s “often wrong” and “much of it” keeps being shown to be wrong by future generations – is real? On the contrary history shows us that science is often right and, while some of it turns out to be wrong, unlike religion it has an inbuilt means of correcting those errors which actually give us a valid means of accruing knowledge.

    fred does not understand science either….lol!!!

    More projection from A.
    _____________________________________
    “So now A doesn’t understand how arguments work. You provide the premises and the conclusion follows.’

    lol!!!, now fred does not understand the structure of an argument.

    Except I noted the structure of an argument when I pointed out that A doesn’t seem to understand how they work.

    We have premises, conclusions and infernces which are statements of reason that tie the premises into the conclusion.

    Erm, what is this mess? We have premises which, if they are true, lead to conclusions. This is the process of inference – working from premises to a conclusion.

    Take fred and rand’s claim:

    Premise: A Fetus is not human being
    Conclusion: It is OK to take the life of an unborn fetus.

    Strawman, A has missed out all the premises (provided during the discussion) that lead to the conclusion that a foetus isn’t a human being.

    How was the premise proven to be true?

    By offering facts that show how a foetus has no rights as it isn’t an individual human in it’s own right. The potential is not the same as the actual.

    Where is the reasoning that leads to the conclusion.

    It was given during the discussion.

    It is non-existent.

    And A resorts to lying about the discussion because he has no valid response to what Objectivism actually teaches.
    __________________________________________
    “The original hebrew word “ratsach” means “manslayer” it doesn’t make any reference as to what the one doing the killing may be – human, God … tiger.”

    ROTFL!!!!!!, no it did not say “except for Tigers and Deity”, lol!!!! That is because the word translates into “to murder, slay, kill” which…..again……..is man upon man.

    A seems to think that the ancient hebrew word “ratsach” has exactly the same definition as the modern legal definition of murder simply because he says so. It really doesn’t but it’s also entirely irrelevant. Even if I grant A his wish that “ratsach” means exactly the same as the modern legal definition of murder it doesn’t help his God avoid the charge of murder as I’ve already shown thanks to Jesus’ status as wholly God and wholly man.

    I have some homework for fred. fred see if you can find the Hebrew word used when God destroyed the Cannanites. You like that story so the task should be difficult.

    Having utterly failed to absolve his God of the charge of murder A decides to try and divert the conversation instead. Although pointing it towards a genocide ordered by his God seems an odd way to go when you’re trying to show your God isn’t the immoral murderer the Bible shows him to be. I won’t be bothering with this red herring. If A thinks he has a point he’s welcome to make it himself.
    ___________________________________________
    “Instead he tries to reintroduce his “ownership” excuse. It’s a caveat which doesn’t exist,”

    No, not at all since ownership still and always applies.

    Except that A has offered nothing but his assertion that this is so. There is no such caveat to be found – either in the Bible or in human law. A simply wishes it were so in order to give his God a get out of murder free card.

    The unlawful taking of life that does not belong to you is murder or ratasch.

    Ignoring for a moment that A has singularly failed to make an argument for “ownership” as a caveat to murder, is A saying it’s perfectly fine to murder someone you do own? So the slave owners (yet another immoral act condoned by A’s Bible) were perfectly within their rights to murder the slaves they owned? Where is the morality in this claim?

    fred, its ok, this reasoning thing is difficult for you. :)

    More projection from A. His worldview offers no path to truth and no ground for reason so he thinks everyone else has the same problem. He’s wrong.
    ________________________________

    Fred, I do have some good news for you. A survey came out where college students are beginning to accept the idea of post-birth abortion.

    Note that A gives no citation for this claim so I decided to have a look and see if it’s actually accurate. Guess what? It’s not. Snopes has already shown the claim to be utter bullshit but A doesn’t care because he thinks it somehow makes a point in his favour. Relying on lies does nothing for his credibility. In fact it simply reinforces the fact that he’s a dishonest prick.

    Yep, all we need to do if change the status of a baby to something like post-zygote, declare it is not a human since it cannot take care of itself and walllah……Obejectivism defines another moral dilemana. No lol here since I find it quite sad.

    Late fred

    The sad thing here is that A thinks his demolition of a ridiculous strawman version of Objectivism is the same as an actual attack on Objectivism. It is nothing more than the wishful thinking that pervades his absurd worldview.

  334. on 04 Nov 2014 at 1:15 am 334.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    lol!!!

    Well Fred…er Mouse continues to avpoid providing anything but platitudes for Rand and their version of Objectivism. bUt why? It seems fred…er Mouse really doesn’t understand anything about Objectivism outside of throwing around the words reason & Reality.

    I must be Objectivist since I too embrace Reality and Reason!!
    _______________________________________
    “So the slave owners (yet another immoral act condoned by A’s Bible) were perfectly within their rights to murder the slaves they owned?”

    Silly freddie, they do not own the life!! Ownership goes to the one who created the life. Only God owns life since God created it all. Therefore, your analogy fails again.

    Let me know when the def of murder changes. Maybe you can then bring charges of God! lol!!1 good luck!
    ______________________________________

    “Note that A gives no citation for this claim so I decided to have a look and see if it’s actually accurate.”

    lol!!!!1, Fred….er Mouse is just to easy to make look foolish. Peter Singer (an atheist philosopher….and professor, hey like Rand, right!) has taught this since the 70s I believe and the view has been building momentum for decades!! lol!!!
    Fred…er Mouse apparently did not look to hard!!! Seems UT Austin and James Madison was two of the institutions. Look HIM UP freddie boy! lol!!!

    Lets give Objectivism another test, maybe it will pass at least one test….:)

    Fred & Rand claim life begins at birth. Part of the Objective model fred parrots. He provided no argument, just Rand’s assertion.

    Singer claims that infants lack the necessary characteristics of personhood such self-awareness and rationality. Therefore killing the infant is not murder.

    Sooooo, what makes Rand’s view Objective and Singer’s not Objective? We need premises that use inferences to build arguments. Just stating Rand’s opinion will not cut it fred….:)

    This should be good! pop! pop!

  335. on 04 Nov 2014 at 4:37 pm 335.freddies_dead said …

    334.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    lol!!!

    Well Fred…er Mouse continues to avpoid providing anything but platitudes for Rand and their version of Objectivism. bUt why?

    And once more A runs away from what he has claimed regarding Objectivism. Where is his argument demonstrating Objectivism’s arguments to be invalid? He is adamant enough that Objectivism is wrong but when I ask for an argument to back up that claim he dodges and attempts to shift the burden of proof instead. Why is he such a coward over this?

    It seems fred…er Mouse really doesn’t understand anything about Objectivism outside of throwing around the words reason & Reality.

    And as usual A lies about what he’s been given concerning the Objectivist position and continues to project his inadequacies onto others. He has repeatedly demonstrated his lack of understanding of the Objectivist position and because he doesn’t understand it he attempts to project that ignorance onto me.

    I must be Objectivist since I too embrace Reality and Reason!!

    In what way does A believe he embraces reality and reason? He professes a worldview which denies the metaphysical primacy of existence. A worldview that affirms the idea that everything was wished into existence and that objects are subject to the consciousnesses that are aware of them. It’s a worldview that quite literally affirms that “wishing makes it so”. By denying the primacy of existence and affirming subjectivism in this way A’s Christian worldview has no way to determine truth or accrue knowledge. He’s mired in his own imagination with no way out.
    _______________________________________
    “So the slave owners (yet another immoral act condoned by A’s Bible) were perfectly within their rights to murder the slaves they owned?”

    Silly freddie, they do not own the life!!

    And here A shows his hypocrisy. He has spent much of this discussion desperately trying to equate the modern legal definition of murder with the ancient hebrew word “ratsach” because he thinks it helps his argument (it doesn’t). Now though, he wants us to accept that “ownership” has more than one meaning. That when applied to humans it is different from when it is applied to his God. Again A offers no argument for this, he simply asserts it as we’ll see.

    Ownership goes to the one who created the life. Only God owns life since God created it all. Therefore, your analogy fails again.

    And there it is. A’s unevidenced assertion regarding the concept of ownership. Does he even attempt to make an argument? Nope, we’re simply supposed to accept his definition on his own say so. Of course there are problems with A’s definition. Firstly it implies that no-one other than God can “own” living things. This contradicts his own Bible i.e. why does the Bible allow a slave owner to beat his slave to death (as long as the slave doesn’t die too quickly) if the slave owner doesn’t actually “own” the slave? Why is it OK to murder them in this context? In fact how come it’s OK to kill animals? People don’t own them – after all God created their lives too, right? A really didn’t think this through.

    Let me know when the def of murder changes. Maybe you can then bring charges of God! lol!!1 good luck!

    But A has already changed the definition of murder – from the Biblical definition to the modern legal definition – and still his God is guilty of murder.
    ______________________________________

    “Note that A gives no citation for this claim so I decided to have a look and see if it’s actually accurate.”

    lol!!!!1, Fred….er Mouse is just to easy to make look foolish. Peter Singer (an atheist philosopher….and professor, hey like Rand, right!) has taught this since the 70s I believe and the view has been building momentum for decades!! lol!!!

    This is A’s citation? Where is his evidence that it is “building momentum”? Are we supposed to just accept it as fact on his say so? Why?

    Fred…er Mouse apparently did not look to hard!!! Seems UT Austin and James Madison was two of the institutions.

    Two of the institutions that what? A doesn’t explain, just throws them out there as if they’re proof of something. If there was an actual study then on what campuses was it conducted? How many students were involved? Where are the results? How was the study carried out? If by questionnaire then what questions were asked? This should be bread and butter for a “science guy” but all we get is baseless assertions from A.

    Having already looked at the original article I know that it admits there was only “anecdotal evidence” from a couple of anti-abortion groups claiming they’ve encountered students who held this view. There was no actual survey as A originally claimed. In fact one of the people whose testimony the article is based on could only point to a single individual (a student at the University of Minnesota) as his evidence of this so-called trend.

    Look HIM UP freddie boy! lol!!!

    Why? I already know who Singer is and I’ve read his views on infanticide. I don’t agree with him and unless A has some actual evidence that this is actually becoming a trend – that survey he claims exists would be a start – then whatever Singer teaches is irrelevant.

    Lets give Objectivism another test, maybe it will pass at least one test….:)

    Fred & Rand claim life begins at birth. Part of the Objective model fred parrots. He provided no argument, just Rand’s assertion.

    This is a lie. I gave the Objectivist reasoning behind that conclusion. A had no response so he now dishonestly claims that the reasoning wasn’t given.

    Singer claims that infants lack the necessary characteristics of personhood such self-awareness and rationality. Therefore killing the infant is not murder.

    Sooooo, what makes Rand’s view Objective and Singer’s not Objective?

    I’ve already given the Objectivist view. As for Singer? Well firstly Singer contradicts himself. He bases the right to life on a being’s ability to hold preferences – which are essentially tied to the capacity to feel pain or pleasure. A newborn can feel pain, it can feel pleasure. By his own measure it has a right to life. Secondly Singer holds to preference utilitarianism which has no objective means by which to evaluate “preference satisfaction” i.e. it devolves into subjectivism.

    We need premises that use inferences to build arguments. Just stating Rand’s opinion will not cut it fred….:)

    Of course I haven’t actually been presenting Rand’s “opinion” during this discussion. Instead I’ve arguing in a manner consistent with what Objectivism teaches. If A actually knew anything about Objectivism he would have understood this and wouldn’t have to resort to dishonesty when commenting on what I have presented.

    This should be good! pop! pop!

    That popping sound is A’s little bubble of Christian subjectivism failing to cope with the reality of the primacy of existence.

  336. on 06 Nov 2014 at 8:27 pm 336.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    And once more fred…er…ah Mouse runs away from what he has claimed regarding Objectivism. Where is his argument demonstrating Objectivism’s arguments to be valid? He is adamant enough that Objectivism is true but when I ask for an argument to back up that claim he dodges and attempts to shift the burden of proof instead. Why is he such a coward over this?

    When TJ was here he defended his beliefs, sadly fred….er…ah…Mouse will not. We know why..:)
    _____________________________________
    “He has repeatedly demonstrated his lack of understanding of the Objectivist position”

    Fair enough, explain it to us, but……you must provide supporting evidence to back your claims. As a man of reason and science, I will accept nothing less. PREDICTION: Fred…er…ah…Mouse will not do so.
    ___________________________________
    “How many students were involved? Where are the results? How was the study carried out?”

    The number is Irrelevant and an attempt at a Red herring. Fact of the matter is infanticide has it supporters like Singer and here is the US has been discussed by ethicist and politicians. Fred….er…..mouse has yet to prove why his philosophy is superior to Singer????
    _________________________________________
    “Why? I already know who Singer is and I’ve read his views on infanticide. I don’t agree with him”

    I don’t care if you agree. Why is your philosophy Reality and Rationale and Singer’s is not? Come on!! Put the Objectivism to work! lol!!!
    ___________________________________________
    “whatever Singer teaches is irrelevant.”

    “Ad Hominem, lol!!, Singer has a philosophy that contradicts Objectivism and he is your fellow atheist. Objectivism should be able to prove itself superior. Can it…..?????
    ______________________________________
    “I’ve already given the Objectivist view.”

    lol!!!, you stated a position but never stated why it is true. Why is your view of reality and rationale and Singer is not???

    I would claim you contradict yourself but you take no stand and provide no evidence.
    ______________________________________________
    “A newborn can feel pain, it can feel pleasure. By his own measure it has a right to life.”

    Actually the “Fetus” fells pain at 20 weeks.
    ___________________________________
    ” He bases the right to life on a being’s ability to hold preferences – which are essentially tied to the capacity to feel pain or pleasure”

    Not true

    Actually Singer claims are that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness therefore killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person. You can find that on his Princeton FAQ page. Why is he wrong, to you, an Objectivist?

  337. on 07 Nov 2014 at 4:10 pm 337.freddies_dead said …

    336.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    And once more fred…er…ah Mouse runs away from what he has claimed regarding Objectivism. Where is his argument demonstrating Objectivism’s arguments to be valid?

    It was presented. Anyone reading can scroll back up and see where I gave Objectivism’s starting point. They can read the self evident axioms and understand how the metaphysical primacy of existence describes the relationship between objects and the subjects that are aware of them. Obviously A doesn’t understand the nature of axioms and how they wouldn’t be axiomatic if they were based on prior arguments.

    He is adamant enough that Objectivism is true but when I ask for an argument to back up that claim he dodges and attempts to shift the burden of proof instead. Why is he such a coward over this?

    This is blatant dishonesty from A (as usual). He was given the arguments and all he could manage was to say they were wrong. He offered no argument to back up this claim. Gave no reasons. Simply asserted that Objectivism was wrong and despite me asking for his reasons on multiple occasion he has continued with this line of evasion. He simply lies and claims the arguments haven’t been presented. Exactly what I expect from such a dishonest prick.

    When TJ was here he defended his beliefs, sadly fred….er…ah…Mouse will not. We know why..:)

    Lol, I haven’t had to defend my beliefs from A because he offers no challenge to them beyond baseless denial. I present the arguments as Objectivism makes them and A can do no more than assert that they’re invalid. Then he promptly runs away from defending those baseless assertions. I don’t see that changing any time soon.
    _____________________________________
    “He has repeatedly demonstrated his lack of understanding of the Objectivist position”

    Fair enough, explain it to us, but……you must provide supporting evidence to back your claims.

    Already done. Anyone can scroll up and see that. A refuses to accept this fact because he has no answer so instead he lies about what has been presented.

    As a man of reason and science, I will accept nothing less.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh shit, stop. I’ll crack a rib.

    PREDICTION: Fred…er…ah…Mouse will not do so.

    Why is A predicting I won’t do something I have already done? Oh, that’s right. It’s his “wishing makes it so” worldview. He wishes I hadn’t already given the arguments so it must be true that I haven’t. Of course the reality is that I have regardless of what A wishes and that A has no answer to them.
    ___________________________________
    “How many students were involved? Where are the results? How was the study carried out?”

    The number is Irrelevant and an attempt at a Red herring.

    Lol, how is this a red herring? A claims a study was done but when I ask what the study entailed – where it was carried out, how many were involved, what questions were asked etc… it suddenly becomes irrelevant. Only this study is A’s entire reason for claiming that there is a trend among students whereby they’re becoming more receptive to the idea of post-birth abortion. So, what? Are we supposed to just accept this trend is a fact without any supporting evidence? Lets remind ourselves of A’s commitment to reason and science when he said “…you must provide supporting evidence to back your claims. As a man of reason and science, I will accept nothing less.” Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh the hypocrisy.

    Fact of the matter is infanticide has it supporters like Singer and here is the US has been discussed by ethicist and politicians.

    And how is this evidence of a trend amongst students whereby they’re becoming more receptive to the idea of post-birth abortion? I should think there are a great many controversial concepts discussed by ethicists and politicians but none of that demonstrates that students are accepting any of them either.

    Fred….er…..mouse has yet to prove why his philosophy is superior to Singer????

    I’ve already done that. Once more A can only lie about what has been presented.
    _________________________________________
    “Why? I already know who Singer is and I’ve read his views on infanticide. I don’t agree with him”

    I don’t care if you agree.

    I don’t care if you don’t care.

    Why is your philosophy Reality and Rationale and Singer’s is not? Come on!! Put the Objectivism to work! lol!!!

    I’ve already done that. Once more A can only lie about what has been presented.
    ___________________________________________
    “whatever Singer teaches is irrelevant.”

    “Ad Hominem, lol!!,

    That truly is a lol. There’s no ad hominem in stating that Singer’s teachings are irrelevant to A’s claim that there is a study showing that students have become more accepting of the idea of post birth abortion. Either he has that study (although apparently it’s now irrelevant, lol) or he’s changing his claim and now needs to demonstrate that what Singer teaches has led to a trend in which students have become more accepting of the idea of post birth abortion. A study might be helpful here, lol. Considering that he couldn’t even produce the original study he said backed this claim (and now says that study is irrelevant) then he’s really got his work cut out to show how Singer’s teachings are somehow involved in a trend that doesn’t seem to exist.

    Singer has a philosophy that contradicts Objectivism and he is your fellow atheist. Objectivism should be able to prove itself superior. Can it…..?????

    I’ve already done that. Once more A can only lie about what has been presented.
    ______________________________________
    “I’ve already given the Objectivist view.”

    lol!!!, you stated a position but never stated why it is true.

    Does A mean ‘true’ in the objective sense i.e. where it is true regardless of what anyone thinks, wishes, wants etc…, or does he mean ‘true’ in accordance with what his professed Christian worldview affirms i.e. that it’s true if one wishes it to be. My position is true because it is based on the self evident axioms and affirms the primacy of existence. Without doing those 2 things the concept of truth makes no sense. Truth becomes whatever one wishes and won’t hold if someone wishes different. Without the axioms and the primacy of existence we end up mired in the subjectivim that plagues both A’s and Singer’s worldviews.

    Why is your view of reality and rationale and Singer is not???

    I love a bit of word salad in the afternoon.

    I would claim you contradict yourself but you take no stand and provide no evidence.

    Once more A can only lie about what has been presented.
    ______________________________________________
    “A newborn can feel pain, it can feel pleasure. By his own measure it has a right to life.”

    Actually the “Fetus” fells pain at 20 weeks.

    Why is A telling this to me? I’m not the one basing a right to life on possible pleasure/pain perception. He should go tell Singer that he’s wrong.
    ___________________________________
    ” He bases the right to life on a being’s ability to hold preferences – which are essentially tied to the capacity to feel pain or pleasure”

    Not true

    In what way? A doesn’t explain, merely makes the assertion. Just what does A think preference utilitarianism is? Does he not understand how utilitarianism bases what is “good” or “bad” based on pleasure and pain? Or that the preferences in preference utilitarianism are still broadly based on what one would find pleasurable verses what one would find painful? P.U. does add in an extra layer to basic utilitarianism in that it takes into account potential pain/pleasure when defining what is “good” or “bad” but it still boils down to what someone likes and dislikes.

    Actually Singer claims are that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness therefore killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person. You can find that on his Princeton FAQ page.

    i.e. that newborns lack the ability to form preferences, e.g. that, unlike an adult, they can’t form the preference to “go on living”.

    Why is he wrong, to you, an Objectivist?

    I have already stated why. Singer’s worldview both contradicts itself and affirms subjectivism. When it comes to newborns he is basically saying that it’s OK to kill babies because he can form preferences about things while they can’t even form the preference to “not be killed” and as such his preferences somehow “win”.

  338. on 07 Nov 2014 at 6:51 pm 338.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    sigh, not much to comment on and just more claims of “Fred done done it” but yet there is nothing. Reason is reason and reality is relaity about sums up fred….er…..Mouse’s “philosphy”……Duh!! ….lol!!!
    ________________________________________

    “and as such his preferences somehow “win”.”

    Hmmm, sounds like Fred & Rand’s Objectivism. Their view of reality is reality simply because they claim it to be so. Singer = Rand? No, not really, I clear showed him what Singer claims but he is not able to follow along.

    So, we have Singer and a new generation claiming we can kill babies and Fred…..er….Mouse who claims we can kill them right up until birth. Objectivism cannot even handle one ethical dilemma…..

    sigh….lol!!!

    _______________________________________________
    “‘true’ in the objective sense i.e. where it is true regardless of what anyone thinks, wishes, wants etc…, or does he mean ‘true’ in accordance with what his professed Christian worldview affirms”

    HAHAHAHAHAH!!!, please stop! Now we see the Objectivist problem, fred…er…..Mouse……..Rand thinks there is more than one “True”? Hmmmm

    True is truth regardless of what Fred & Rand think, wish or wants but he cannot show his view of truth to be “truth”…..HAHAHHAHAHA Is it a tetrapod with a bony process becoming another species? :)

    And again we see why atheists are a small cult and Objectisism as a smaller subset within this cult and why Rand and Objectivism is a punchline among those who study philosophy seriously.

  339. on 10 Nov 2014 at 12:09 pm 339.freddies_dead said …

    338.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    sigh, not much to comment on

    Cue A running away from any questions he’s been asked and lying about what has been presented.

    and just more claims of “Fred done done it” but yet there is nothing.

    It didn’t take A long did it? This is a lie. Anyone can go back and see where I’ve presented my position while A has done nothing but make assertions. They can also see how A has repeatedly refused to back up his baseless assertions when questioned on them.

    Reason is reason and reality is relaity about sums up fred….er…..Mouse’s “philosphy”……Duh!! ….lol!!!

    A’s utter ignorance of Objectivism isn’t an argument against Objectivism no matter how much A wishes that it was.
    ________________________________________

    “and as such his preferences somehow “win”.”

    Hmmm, sounds like Fred & Rand’s Objectivism. Their view of reality is reality simply because they claim it to be so.

    And again A has to create a strawman version of Objectivism. Reality doesn’t depend on what Objectivism claims – it’s the other way around. Objectivism explicitly affirms that things are what they are independent of what anyone may think, wish, want, demand etc… Objectivism’s claims are identifications of reality. If A disagrees he’s welcome to show where those identifications don’t match the underlying reality. However, he doesn’t seem capable of that so he resorts to lying about what Objectivism is instead.

    Singer = Rand? No, not really,

    In which case why is A trying (and failing due to his ignorance of both philosphies) to make the case that Objectivism is somehow the same as Singer’s Preference Utilitarianism?

    I clear showed him what Singer claims but he is not able to follow along.

    Note how A utterly fails to say what it was he claims I was unable to follow? He merely asserts it as if his asserting it makes it true.

    However, I’ve shown where Singer contradicts his own claims and where his philosophy is mired in subjectivism. Which part of that does A think is wrong?

    So, we have Singer and a new generation claiming we can kill babies

    No we do not. Singer makes that claim, but A has singularly failed to present the study he claimed showed this trend of students becoming more accepting of post birth abortion. This is because there is no study and therefore no evidence that this trend exists. Of course A doesn’t like this fact and prefers to stick with his “wishing makes it so” worldview. As such he simply repeats the unevidenced claim as if it will somehow make it true. So much for his commitment to evidence.

    and Fred…..er….Mouse who claims we can kill them right up until birth. Objectivism cannot even handle one ethical dilemma…..

    sigh….lol!!!

    Of course this is a lie. Objectivism has handled the “ethical dilemma”. It has a conclusion based on objective facts. That A doesn’t like the conclusion is irrelevant. His dislike doesn’t make the conclusion disappear. His wishes do not take precedence over the facts. If only A could grasp this concept we might make some headway.
    _______________________________________________
    “‘true’ in the objective sense i.e. where it is true regardless of what anyone thinks, wishes, wants etc…, or does he mean ‘true’ in accordance with what his professed Christian worldview affirms”

    HAHAHAHAHAH!!!, please stop! Now we see the Objectivist problem, fred…er…..Mouse……..Rand thinks there is more than one “True”? Hmmmm

    On the contrary I’m pointing out that the concept of “truth” only makes sense in an objective worldview. A explicitly understands this as we see in his next comment but he continues to affirm the opposite whenever he claims to be a Christian. Christianity is inherently subjective. It affirms the primacy of consciousness by having God bring everything into existence through an act of will. It affirms that objects are therefore subject to the consciousnesses that are aware of them. “Truth” makes no sense under these circumstances. How can anything be “true” when anyone can change the fundamental essence of the object of a truth statement using only their minds. The sun is yellow – a true statement? Not under A’s worldview as it affirms a consciousness capable of turning the sun blue by will alone. Gravity means letting a ball go will see it fall to the floor – true? Again, not in A’s worldview as it affirms a consciousness capable of changing gravity so that the ball doesn’t fall or even rises instead.

    True is truth regardless of what Fred & Rand think, wish or wants but he cannot show his view of truth to be “truth”…..HAHAHHAHAHA

    As I said, A explicitly understands that truth only makes sense when it’s not subject to the whims of consciousness. My worldview is true based on the self evident axioms. It is their self-evident nature which shows that my view of truth – based as it is on those axioms – is true. If A disagrees then it is his burden to show where my worldview is invalid – another burden of proof he will run away from no doubt. Simply making the claim that it’s not true isn’t the same as demonstrating it. Maybe he disagrees that “existence exists” – although surely he would need to exist in order to disagree? Or maybe it’s consciousness he disagrees with? Although it does require him to be conscious in order to disagree with consciousness. Mmmm. That leaves “identity”. Does A disagree with that? That A is A? Maybe he thinks A can be B instead? That would fit with his “wishing makes it so” worldview at least.

    Is it a tetrapod with a bony process becoming another species? :)

    I still don’t get why A thinks showing his ignorance of science somehow proves whatever point he thinks he’s making. It is amusing though.

    And again we see why atheists are a small cult and Objectisism as a smaller subset within this cult and why Rand and Objectivism is a punchline among those who study philosophy seriously.

    And again we see A resort to mindlessness. As if adding up who believes what has any bearing on the truth of their beliefs. He can’t argue against what Objectivism teaches so he seeks to make the discussion some kind of popularity contest.

  340. on 10 Nov 2014 at 12:51 pm 340.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    lets keep this short. Maybe we can get Fred…er….Mouse to give us some specifics rather than the same tired generalities…wink wink.

    “show where those identifications don’t match the underlying reality.”

    I too identify reality! I must also be objectivist!

    __________________________________________________
    “However, I’ve shown where Singer contradicts his own claims”

    Freddie Boy again makes the claim but I will repost what singer actually claims. Fred is still a lair.

    Actually Singer claims are that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness therefore killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person. You can find that on his Princeton FAQ page. Is that not Objective??????????
    ________________________________________________

    “Of course this is a lie. Objectivism has handled the “ethical dilemma”. It has a conclusion based on objective facts.”

    Well……if he did, he never posted them here. We got his conclusion but the only fact was the baby had not left the womb. And??????
    ____________________________________________
    “My worldview is true based on the self evident axioms.”

    I agree!! I must also be this Objectivist Freddie Boys yammers about! :}
    ______________________________________________
    “Is it a tetrapod with a bony process becoming another species?”

    The tetrapod evolving into a fish over time is Freddies’ Objectivism. Yep, his evidence is a fossil and he knows, objectively,that this tetrapod was producing transitional species that would become fish. Sounds like he is “wishing” it to be so? lol!!1 :)
    ______________________________________________
    “Maybe he disagrees that “existence exists””

    No, I agree! Am I now a Objectivist? I agree I exist, I identify reality and my worldview is based on the self evident axioms!!

    Yep! I have it all! :)

  341. on 11 Nov 2014 at 11:55 am 341.freddies_dead said …

    340.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    lets keep this short. Maybe we can get Fred…er….Mouse to give us some specifics rather than the same tired generalities…wink wink.

    What could be more specific that giving the very foundations of my worldview?

    “show where those identifications don’t match the underlying reality.”

    I too identify reality! I must also be objectivist!

    Where in reality does A find his God? I’ve asked this question many times and A still hasn’t demonstrated how we can distinguish his God from something he may merely be imagining.
    __________________________________________________
    “However, I’ve shown where Singer contradicts his own claims”

    Freddie Boy again makes the claim but I will repost what singer actually claims. Fred is still a lair.

    I wonder what kind of “lair” I am? Something like the dark and brooding Batcave perhaps? Or possibly the mountaintop lair of SPECTRE’s supervillain Blofeld? Someone should make a website.

    Actually Singer claims are that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness therefore killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person. You can find that on his Princeton FAQ page. Is that not Objective??????????

    Oh dear. It seems A is struggling to read for comprehension again. As I have previously noted, Preference Utilitarianism bases a being’s right to life on it’s ability to hold preferences – which essentially boils down to it’s ability to experience pain or pleasure (without that ability it’s impossible to determine what is painful or pleasurable and which you prefer). As a newborn can feel pleasure or pain it has a right to life under Preference Utilitarianism. Singer then claims that you can kill newborns as they lack several other faculties (rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness). This contradicts his professed worldview as it has already granted the newborn a right to life.
    ________________________________________________

    “Of course this is a lie. Objectivism has handled the “ethical dilemma”. It has a conclusion based on objective facts.”

    Well……if he did, he never posted them here. We got his conclusion but the only fact was the baby had not left the womb. And??????

    This is a lie. I started explaining Objectivism’s position back in post 304 and continued in post 313. As usual A prefers to deny reality whenever it contradicts his wishes.
    ____________________________________________
    “My worldview is true based on the self evident axioms.”

    I agree!! I must also be this Objectivist Freddie Boys yammers about! :}

    Note how A does not explain this outburst. To what is he agreeing? If it’s the foundations of Objectivism then how can he still claim to be a Christian when Objectivism shows that the Christian God isn’t possible? As usual A makes no sense.
    ______________________________________________
    “Is it a tetrapod with a bony process becoming another species?”

    The tetrapod evolving into a fish over time is Freddies’ Objectivism.

    Yet another lie. The transitional nature of Tiktaalik was part of a discussion on evolution and has absolutely nothing to with why I’m an Objectivist. However, A has shown himself to be utterly unable to deal with Objectivism’s arguments so he’s left scrabbling around for anything to divert the conversation.

    Yep, his evidence is a fossil

    My evidence of what? Of course A doesn’t explain because any explanation he attempts will most likely show his dishonesty.

    and he knows, objectively,that this tetrapod was producing transitional species that would become fish.

    If I were being very favourable I might view this as some barely comprehensible strawman version of my use of Tiktaalik during our discussion of evolution but mostly it’s just word salad. A is so desperate that he’s reduced to typing absurdities to avoid dealing with Objectivism.

    Sounds like he is “wishing” it to be so? lol!!1 :)

    And as usual A throws in an autobiographical statement. He wishes that my Objectivism rested on some bizarre strawman account of Tiktaalik’s place in evolutionary history so he could actually attempt a refutation. Of course reality simply doesn’t care what A wishes.
    ______________________________________________
    “Maybe he disagrees that “existence exists””

    No, I agree! Am I now a Objectivist? I agree I exist, I identify reality and my worldview is based on the self evident axioms!!

    Yep! I have it all! :)

    And finally the fake concession. Utterly unable to deal with Objectivism intellectually A pretends to give up. Except this is yet more dishonesty. No doubt A will be back, denying Objectivism whilst relying on it’s foundations to make his claims.

  342. on 11 Nov 2014 at 3:41 pm 342.freddies_dead said …

    And once more with formatting…

    340.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    lets keep this short. Maybe we can get Fred…er….Mouse to give us some specifics rather than the same tired generalities…wink wink.

    What could be more specific that giving the very foundations of my worldview?

    “show where those identifications don’t match the underlying reality.”

    I too identify reality! I must also be objectivist!

    Where in reality does A find his God? I’ve asked this question many times and A still hasn’t demonstrated how we can distinguish his God from something he may merely be imagining.
    __________________________________________________
    “However, I’ve shown where Singer contradicts his own claims”

    Freddie Boy again makes the claim but I will repost what singer actually claims. Fred is still a lair.

    I wonder what kind of “lair” I am? Something like the dark and brooding Batcave perhaps? Or possibly the mountaintop lair of SPECTRE’s supervillain Blofeld? Someone should make a website.

    Actually Singer claims are that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness therefore killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person. You can find that on his Princeton FAQ page. Is that not Objective??????????

    Oh dear. It seems A is struggling to read for comprehension again. As I have previously noted, Preference Utilitarianism bases a being’s right to life on it’s ability to hold preferences – which essentially boils down to it’s ability to experience pain or pleasure (without that ability it’s impossible to determine what is painful or pleasurable and which you prefer). As a newborn can feel pleasure or pain it has a right to life under Preference Utilitarianism. Singer then claims that you can kill newborns as they lack several other faculties (rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness). This contradicts his professed worldview as it has already granted the newborn a right to life.
    ________________________________________________

    “Of course this is a lie. Objectivism has handled the “ethical dilemma”. It has a conclusion based on objective facts.”

    Well……if he did, he never posted them here. We got his conclusion but the only fact was the baby had not left the womb. And??????

    This is a lie. I started explaining Objectivism’s position back in post 304 and continued in post 313. As usual A prefers to deny reality whenever it contradicts his wishes.
    ____________________________________________
    “My worldview is true based on the self evident axioms.”

    I agree!! I must also be this Objectivist Freddie Boys yammers about! :}

    Note how A does not explain this outburst. To what is he agreeing? If it’s the foundations of Objectivism then how can he still claim to be a Christian when Objectivism shows that the Christian God isn’t possible? As usual A makes no sense.
    ______________________________________________
    “Is it a tetrapod with a bony process becoming another species?”

    The tetrapod evolving into a fish over time is Freddies’ Objectivism.

    Yet another lie. The transitional nature of Tiktaalik was part of a discussion on evolution and has absolutely nothing to with why I’m an Objectivist. However, A has shown himself to be utterly unable to deal with Objectivism’s arguments so he’s left scrabbling around for anything to divert the conversation.

    Yep, his evidence is a fossil

    My evidence of what? Of course A doesn’t explain because any explanation he attempts will most likely show his dishonesty.

    and he knows, objectively,that this tetrapod was producing transitional species that would become fish.

    If I were being very favourable I might view this as some barely comprehensible strawman version of my use of Tiktaalik during our discussion of evolution but mostly it’s just word salad. A is so desperate that he’s reduced to typing absurdities to avoid dealing with Objectivism.

    Sounds like he is “wishing” it to be so? lol!!1 :)

    And as usual A throws in an autobiographical statement. He wishes that my Objectivism rested on some bizarre strawman account of Tiktaalik’s place in evolutionary history so he could actually attempt a refutation. Of course reality simply doesn’t care what A wishes.
    ______________________________________________
    “Maybe he disagrees that “existence exists””

    No, I agree! Am I now a Objectivist? I agree I exist, I identify reality and my worldview is based on the self evident axioms!!

    Yep! I have it all! :)

    And finally the fake concession. Utterly unable to deal with Objectivism intellectually A pretends to give up. Except this is yet more dishonesty. No doubt A will be back, denying Objectivism whilst relying on it’s foundations to make his claims.

  343. on 14 Nov 2014 at 3:23 am 343.Timeline said …

    Our History by Years Ago – Does this really look like a “God” of a religion did this? —————————————————————–

    13,800,000,000 (13.8 Billion) – Big Bang (Exact cause yet to be determined)

    4,500,000,000 (4.5 Billion) – Earth began formation (Think of how small Earth is compared to rest of Universe)

    3,500,000,000 (3.5 Billion) – Life on Earth began – plants before animals (Are we alone in the Universe?)

    230,000,000 (230 Million) – Dinosaurs evolved and began to roam the Earth

    65,000,000 (65 Million) – Dinosaurs became extinct (Human ancestors did not)

    200,000 – Human ancestors started to look like modern humans through evolution (Universe has been around 69,000 times longer than humans)

    50,000 – The first religions formed (How many religions have been created by humans?)

    2,000 – Christianity formed (This current popular religion formed about a person or character named Jesus that was born and a book was written)

    Present – And here we are. Advancement in Science over the last 100+ years has answered many questions with more yet to come.

    Future – How long can humans live on Earth and how long will our Sun be around? The Universe will still go on a lot longer after that.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply