Feed on Posts or Comments 16 September 2014

Christianity Thomas on 27 Nov 2012 12:02 am

Is the belief in the Christian God rational?

Certainly not

Further evidence

220 Responses to “Is the belief in the Christian God rational?”

  1. on 27 Nov 2012 at 7:12 pm 1.A said …

    Lol!!! How many times can Thomas post the same fallacious video in defense of Atheism?

    Thelma-Lou now post your empty paragraph…….

  2. on 27 Nov 2012 at 8:00 pm 2.Lou(DFW) said …

    1.ASS said …

    “How many times can Thomas post the same fallacious video…”

    As many times as he wants to, it’s his blog. Don’t like it? Go away.

    How many times must you be asked to post your evidence for your imaginary god before you ever do?

    “…in defense of Atheism?”

    How many times must you lie about “Atheism?”

    “Thelma-Lou now post your empty paragraph…….”

    There you go – a response to your usual empty comment. If you want some reply other than what you consider to be an “empty paragraph,” for example, evidence for your imaginary god, and not the usual lies about atheists or a President Obama rant, then post something that might be worthy of what you consider to be of more substance.

  3. on 27 Nov 2012 at 8:16 pm 3.DPK said …

    I would wager he can post it at least until you understand the meaning of “fallacious”.
    Know what? There is one quick and easy way you can stop Thomas from posting that video. Show the class how it is fallacious, and demonstrate to the rest of us why anyone should believe any of the claims you make about the existence of your magical god.
    Why don’t you just do that?
    Oh, that’s right, you can’t, because of one small problem. Your god, like all of the thousands of other god claimed to exist throughout human history, isn’t real. That’s a problem for you, huh? Well, as they say, “Put up or shut up.” Since you have had ample time and innumerable opportunities to put up, perhaps it’s time for you to consider the 2nd option.
    Idiot.

  4. on 27 Nov 2012 at 8:39 pm 4.John-boy said …

    Great video, but I wish he wouldn’t talk so fast.

  5. on 28 Nov 2012 at 12:18 am 5.Lou said …

    Dillahunty states nothing of substance and the second video has been shown to be faulty in logic many times over.

    I am surprised Thomas would post a video of Dillahunty. I posted some videos of him being smoked. I remember when Thunderfoot was the darling of the atheist internet world and now has been booted from the community after being smoked by Ray Comfort.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSo9hW2dOBo

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqNjebKc9rU

  6. on 28 Nov 2012 at 2:01 am 6.The messenger said …

    65.Anonymous, 64.DPK, and Lou(DPK) I cannot believe that you have fallen to this level.

    You have finally realized that you cannot win a single argument, so you have decided to make a feeble attempt at convincing these people that I am mentally disturbed in order to cover up your failure.

    Stop spreading these awful lies.

  7. on 28 Nov 2012 at 2:07 am 7.The messenger said …

    The reason that some people do not believe in God is because they are afraid to believe.

    Nothing in science contradicts Jesus’s existence.

  8. on 28 Nov 2012 at 9:35 am 8.The messenger said …

    There is plenty of proof that supports Jesus’s existence.

    Unfortunately when Atheists are shown this proof they either ignore it, or they claim that it is false because they are afraid to put there faith in God.

  9. on 28 Nov 2012 at 4:01 pm 9.Lou(DFW) said …

    5.Louser said …

    “I am surprised Thomas would post a video of Dillahunty. I posted some videos of him being smoked.”

    But for some reason you never post any evidence for your imaginary god.

    Apparently, “him being smoked” is evidence enough for you to believe in an imaginary, omnipotent being.

  10. on 28 Nov 2012 at 6:36 pm 10.DPK said …

    5.Lou said …
    “Dillahunty states nothing of substance and the second video has been shown to be faulty in logic many times over.
    I am surprised Thomas would post a video of Dillahunty.”

    Says Lou-Who while failing to counter even a single point made by him in the video, nor providing any evidence or reason to accept his completely unfounded assertion that the 2nd video is “fallacious”. Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

    I can post a video of banana man Ray Comfort smoking HIMSELF by making the ridiculous claim that a banana peel is proof of intelligent design… so what? If you have a point, make it, otherwise stop trying to divert the discussion with straw men and outright lies.

  11. on 28 Nov 2012 at 6:59 pm 11.A said …

    Lou ,

    He is all they have left. They get crushed in debates regularly. If they stood on what they claim that it is impossible to disprove God they might save face. It will not happen because they have a need to argue.

  12. on 28 Nov 2012 at 7:46 pm 12.DPK said …

    11.A said …

    “Lou ,

    He is all they have left.”

    Says Lou’s right hand to his left hand. You are so laughably predictable it is not even amusing anymore.
    Once again, without any evidence or arguments of substance to back you up, your post is nothing more than a fart in the wind… unpleasant, but without substance. Soon gone and completely forgotten.

  13. on 28 Nov 2012 at 8:28 pm 13.Anonymous said …

    So, at what point are the believers in imaginary friends going to put some substance to their claims? Are we going to see a point by point rebuttal or is the sum conversation that A has with himself as Lou “its fallacious”, “yes, good point me”?

    Dillahunty was a fundamentalist who recognized that his faith did not stand up to scrutiny whilst at seminary studying to become a minister. You believers need to provide a little more detail why he is wrong considering how much this man knows about the religion that some of you claim as” true”.

  14. on 28 Nov 2012 at 9:28 pm 14.The messenger said …

    on 28 Nov 2012 at 2:01 am 6.The messenger said …
    65.Anonymous, 64.DPK, and Lou(DPK) I cannot believe that you have fallen to this level.
    You have finally realized that you cannot win a single argument, so you have decided to make a feeble attempt at convincing these people that I am mentally disturbed in order to cover up your failure.
    Stop spreading these awful lies.

  15. on 28 Nov 2012 at 9:28 pm 15.The messenger said …

    on 28 Nov 2012 at 2:07 am 7.The messenger said …
    The reason that some people do not believe in God is because they are afraid to believe.
    Nothing in science contradicts Jesus’s existence.

  16. on 28 Nov 2012 at 9:29 pm 16.The messenger said …

    on 28 Nov 2012 at 9:35 am 8.The messenger said …
    There is plenty of proof that supports Jesus’s existence.
    Unfortunately when Atheists are shown this proof they either ignore it, or they claim that it is false because they are afraid to put there faith in God.

  17. on 28 Nov 2012 at 10:17 pm 17.DPK said …

    13.Anonymous said …

    “So, at what point are the believers in imaginary friends going to put some substance to their claims?”

    Based entirely on past experience, never.

    “Are we going to see a point by point rebuttal or is the sum conversation that A has with himself as Lou “its fallacious”, “yes, good point me”?”

    That will be about it. Just empty blabber. All there ever is.

    “Dillahunty was a fundamentalist who recognized that his faith did not stand up to scrutiny whilst at seminary studying to become a minister. You believers need to provide a little more detail why he is wrong considering how much this man knows about the religion that some of you claim as” true”.”

    If they had anything at all they would have presented it by now. All they have is “Well, you can’t explain how_____________” (Fill in the blank with the diversion of the moment).

    Why they persist despite being called again and again and again is beyond me. Perhaps they think their baseless claims actually impress someone? Maybe someone with the mental capacity of the messenger. Yeah, that’s impressive.

  18. on 29 Nov 2012 at 12:03 am 18.The messenger said …

    on 28 Nov 2012 at 10:17 pm 17.DPK please brother, stop speeding these lies.

    God is real, and I do not think that he is happy with you.

  19. on 29 Nov 2012 at 3:50 am 19.The messenger said …

    Jesus guides us everyday.

    Everything that happens to us happens for a reason.

    It is all part of our Father’s plan.

  20. on 29 Nov 2012 at 3:53 am 20.The messenger said …

    Everything that happens to us happens for a reason. Everything that Jesus does, he does because he loves us and he wants us to become better people.

    When I say better people I mean kind, generous, forgiving, loving people.

  21. on 29 Nov 2012 at 3:56 am 21.The messenger said …

    There is proof of Jesus everywhere. Atheists are unfortunately to arrogant, doubtful, and misguided to see it.

  22. on 29 Nov 2012 at 12:38 pm 22.MrQ said …

    From The MESS (guiding us through the minefield of faith):

    God is real, and I do not think that he is happy with you.

    Problem is that you cannot know the mind of your god. Could be that your god favours folks who actually think ;-) such as atheists

    Jesus guides us everyday.
    Everything that happens to us happens for a reason.
    It is all part of our Father’s plan.

    In other words, your god is an asshole; guiding people who guide airplanes into buildings. Some plan.

    There is proof of Jesus everywhere. Atheists are unfortunately to arrogant, doubtful, and misguided to see it.

    Looks like this statement contradicts the previous one. Atheists are misguided. Better that than have your god in control.

  23. on 29 Nov 2012 at 12:56 pm 23.Anonymous said …

    In our species infancy, we generally remain unable to cope with our utter insignificance / mortality. The bliss of a poorly realized eternal life must be heavenly. If the opiate of religion works for you great. Get out of hear, go smell the flowers. Why do you linger in conflict. Every thought you get across only solidifies our rejection of your beliefs.

  24. on 29 Nov 2012 at 12:58 pm 24.Anti-Theist said …

    Post 22 is mine. Apologies…

  25. on 29 Nov 2012 at 3:48 pm 25.DPK said …

    19.The messenger said …

    Jesus guides us everyday.

    Everything that happens to us happens for a reason.

    It is all part of our Father’s plan.

    Messenger, you have been asked many times before.. please explain Jesus’ plan for these children:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-Dqntok-aHM/TA88fYbXhlI/AAAAAAAAEyk/m0tF_pXjG8A/s320/sudan.jpg

  26. on 29 Nov 2012 at 5:37 pm 26.Lou(DFW) said …

    6.The messenger said …

    Naw, I’m not crazy, then he said….

    7.The messenger said …
    8.The messenger said …
    14.The messenger said …
    15.The messenger said …
    16.The messenger said …
    18.The messenger said …
    19.The messenger said …
    20.The messenger said …
    21.The messenger said …

    Does this remind you of a scene from “The Shining?”

  27. on 29 Nov 2012 at 8:12 pm 27.DPK said …

    now we have the messenger and the prophet arguing over which one of them god “actually” talks to…. and when prophet challenges messenger… what does messenger demand? Proof!!! imagine that… ironic?

  28. on 29 Nov 2012 at 8:22 pm 28.Anti-Theist said …

    I’m sure “Messengers” comments were staged for comedic value.

  29. on 29 Nov 2012 at 9:27 pm 29.The messenger said …

    24.DPK I have given you this answer many times. Stop asking me the same questions over and over again.

  30. on 29 Nov 2012 at 9:34 pm 30.The messenger said …

    Brother DPK, Jesus’s plan is, he wants us to come together and help people like those kids in that picture. If you people would just help each other then those kids would not be suffering like that. Donate food and supplies to those people and try to help others.

    Jesus wants us to help others.

  31. on 29 Nov 2012 at 9:52 pm 31.The messenger said …

    Attention all athiests on this site, the reason that many of you do not believe in our Father is because you are afraid, you are afraid to put your faith in Jesus.

    Another reason that you do not believe in God is because you think that he is cruel.

    God is not cruel, he is a kind, loving, forgiving Father.

    God is not the one who causes suffering, mankind is the cause of suffering. You are the cause of our suffering.

    You Athiests are self centered, greedy, hateful, impatient people. Change your ways, become good, God wants us to be kind and loving people.

  32. on 29 Nov 2012 at 9:53 pm 32.The messenger said …

    Do not be afraid to put your faith in God, he still has faith in you.

    Do not let you fear rule you.

  33. on 29 Nov 2012 at 10:00 pm 33.The messenger said …

    God is not the one who causes suffering, mankind is the cause of suffering. You are the cause of our suffering.

    You Athiests are self centered, greedy, hateful, impatient people. Change your ways, become good, God wants us to be kind and loving people.

  34. on 30 Nov 2012 at 1:57 am 34.The messenger said …

    27.Anti-Theist I do not make comical statements on this site, I am completely serious.
    If you fail to see this, I feel pity for you.

  35. on 30 Nov 2012 at 3:44 am 35.Ian said …

    Blogamster you use the phrase “Further evidence” as you present your 2nd video. If that passes for evidence for no God, then all the traditional arguments from the Cosmological to the Teleological also are evidence for God. You can’t have it both ways and be academically honest.

  36. on 30 Nov 2012 at 3:51 am 36.Ian said …

    “If they stood on what they claim that it is impossible to disprove God they might save face.”

    A,

    It is impossible to disprove God and it is impossible to prove God within the parameters of science. If God exists then it is highly unlikely Science could be used to prove it’s own creator. Writings, indirect evidence and personal experience are the only possible sources of evidence man can hope for.

  37. on 30 Nov 2012 at 4:07 am 37.The messenger said …

    36.Ian here is the proof that you want.

    Miracle of the Sun

    Location of Fátima, Portugal
    The Miracle of the Sun (Portuguese: O Milagre do Sol) was an event on 13 October 1917 in which 30,000 to 100,000 people, who were gathered near Fátima, Portugal, claimed to have witnessed extraordinary solar activity.

    According to these reports, the event lasted approximately ten minutes.[1] The three children also reported seeing a panorama of visions, including those of Jesus, Our Lady of Sorrows, Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, and of Saint Joseph blessing the people.[2]

    The event was officially accepted as a miracle by the Roman Catholic Church on 13 October 1930. On 13 October 1951, the papal legate, Cardinal Tedeschini, told the million people gathered at Fátima that on 30 October, 31 October, 1 November, and 8 November 1950, Pope Pius XII himself witnessed the miracle of the sun from the Vatican gardens.[3]

    HideThe event

    People witnessing the event.
    The people had gathered because three young shepherd children had predicted that at high noon the Blessed Virgin Mary would appear in a field in an area of Fatima called Cova da Iria. According to many witnesses, after a period of rain, the dark clouds broke and the sun appeared as an opaque, spinning disc in the sky.[4] It was said to be significantly duller than normal, and to cast multicolored lights across the landscape, the shadows on the landscape, the people, and the surrounding clouds.[4] The sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth in a zigzag pattern,[4] frightening those who thought it a sign of the end of the world.[5] Witnesses reported that their previously wet clothes became “suddenly and completely dry, as well as the wet and muddy ground that had been previously soaked because of the rain that had been falling”.[6]

    Estimates of number present range from 30,000 to 40,000 by Avelino de Almeida, writing for the Portuguese newspaper O Século,[7] to 100,000, estimated by Dr. Joseph Garrett, professor of natural sciences at the University of Coimbra,[8] both of whom were present that day.[9]

    The event was attributed by believers to Our Lady of Fátima, a reported apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to the children who had made predictions of the event on 13 July 1917,[10] 19 August,[11] and 13 September.[12] The children stated that the Lady had promised them that she would on 13 October reveal her identity to them[13] and provide a miracle “so that all may believe.”[14]

    ShowMedia

    ShowSee also

    ShowReferences

    ShowBibliography

    ShowExternal links

    ShowRead in another language

    Show

  38. on 30 Nov 2012 at 4:10 am 38.Lou(DFW) said …

    36.Ian said …

    “Writings, indirect evidence and personal experience are the only possible sources of evidence man can hope for.”

    No need to hope for it, it’s all you have, and it’s all you ever will have. In other words, you have nothing but faith.

  39. on 30 Nov 2012 at 4:21 am 39.The messenger said …

    Mother Teresa
    Not to be confused with Maria Theresa (disambiguation).
    Mother Teresa

    Mother Teresa at a pro-life meeting in 1986 in Bonn, West Germany
    Religion Christian (Roman Catholic)
    Order Sisters of Loreto
    (1928–1950)
    Missionaries of Charity
    (1950 – 1997)
    Personal
    Nationality Albanian
    Born Agnes Gonxhe Bojaxhiu
    26 August 1910
    Skopje, Ottoman Vardar Macedonia
    Died 5 September 1997 (aged 87)
    Kolkata, India
    Senior posting
    Title Superior general
    Period in office 1950 – 1997
    Successor Sister Nirmala
    Blessed Teresa of Calcutta,[1] born Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (Albanian: [a???s ????d?a b?ja?d?iu]) and commonly known as Mother Teresa of Calcutta (26 August 1910 – 5 September 1997), was an Albanian-born Indian Roman Catholic nun. “By blood, I am Albanian. By citizenship, an Indian. By faith, I am a Catholic nun. As to my calling, I belong to the world. As to my heart, I belong entirely to the Heart of Jesus.”[2] In late 2003, she was beatified, the third step toward possible sainthood. A second miracle credited to Mother Teresa is required before she can be recognized as a saint by the Catholic church.[3][4] Mother Teresa was fluent in five languages: Bengali, the local language of the people of Kolkata,[5]Albanian, Serbo-Croatian, English, and Hindi.[6]

    Mother Teresa founded the Missionaries of Charity, a Roman Catholic religious congregation, which in 2012 consisted of over 4,500 sisters and is active in 133 countries. Members of the order must adhere to the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, and the fourth vow, to give “Wholehearted and Free service to the poorest of the poor”. The Missionaries of Charity at the time of her death had 610 missions in 123 countries including hospices and homes for people with HIV/AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis; soup kitchens; children’s and family counselling programmes; orphanages; and schools.

    For over 45 years, she ministered to the poor, sick, orphaned, and dying, while guiding the Missionaries of Charity’s expansion, first throughout India and then in other countries. Her beatification by Pope John Paul II following her death gave her the title “Blessed Teresa of Calcutta”.

    She was the recipient of numerous honours including the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize. She refused the conventional ceremonial banquet given to laureates, and asked that the $192,000 funds be given to the poor in India. Her awards include the first Pope John XXIII Peace Prize, the Philippines-based Ramon Magsaysay Award, the Pacem in Terris Award, an honorary Companion of the Order of Australia, the Order of Merit from both the United Kingdom and the United States, Albania’s Golden Honour of the Nation, honorary degrees, the Balzan Prize, and the Albert Schweitzer International Prize amongst many others.

    Mother Teresa stated that earthly rewards were important only if they helped her help the world’s needy. When Mother Teresa received the Nobel Peace Prize, she was asked, “What can we do to promote world peace?” She answered “Go home and love your family.” In her Nobel Lecture, she said: “Around the world, not only in the poor countries, but I found the poverty of the West so much more difficult to remove. When I pick up a person from the street, hungry, I give him a plate of rice, a piece of bread, I have satisfied. I have removed that hunger. But a person that is shut out, that feels unwanted, unloved, terrified, the person that has been thrown out from society—that poverty is so hurtable [sic] and so much, and I find that very difficult.” She also singled out abortion as ‘the greatest destroyer of peace in the world’.

    During her lifetime, Mother Teresa was named 18 times in the yearly Gallup’s most admired man and woman poll as one of the ten women around the world that Americans admired most. In 1999, a poll of Americans ranked her first in Gallup’s List of Most Widely Admired People of the 20th Century. In that survey, she out-polled all other volunteered answers by a wide margin, and was in first place in all major demographic categories except the very young.

    HideEarly life

    Memorial House of Mother Teresa, in her native Skopje.
    Part of a series on
    Christianity
    in India

    Background
    Saint Thomas Christians (Nasrani) Synod of Diamper Coonan Cross Oath Saint Thomas Christian churches Malankara (historical)
    People
    St. Thomas the Apostle St. Francis Xavier St. Gonsalo Garcia Devasahayam Pillai St. Alphonsa Muttathupadam Thomas of Cana Mother Teresa Palackal Thoma Malpan Mar Augustine Kandathil Mar Sapor and Proth Marthoma Metrans St. Gregorios of Parumala St. Baselios Eldho Fr. Kuriakose Elias Chavara Fr. Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly Mgr. Joseph C. Panjikaran St. Geevarghese Mar Dionysius William Carey
    Denominations
    Saint Thomas Christian churches: Chaldean Syrian Jacobite Syrian Malankara Orthodox Syrian Malabar Independent Syrian Mar Thoma St. Thomas Evangelical Syro-Malabar Catholic Syro-Malankara Catholic
    Latin Church: Catholic Church in India
    Protestant denominations: Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church of North India Church of South India Garo Baptist Pentecostal Church of God North Bank Baptist Christian Northern Evangelical Lutheran Presbyterian The Pentecostal Mission Seventh-day Adventist True Jesus United Evangelical Lutheran
    Indian Christianity portal
    v t e
    Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (gonxha meaning “rosebud” or “little flower” in Albanian) was born on 26 August 1910, but she considered 27 August, the day she was baptized, to be her “true birthday”.[7] She was born in Skopje, now capital of the Republic of Macedonia, but at the time part of the Ottoman Empire.[8][9]

    She was the youngest of the children of Nikollë and Dranafile Bojaxhiu (Bernai).[10] Her father, who was involved in Albanian politics, died in 1919 when she was eight years old.[11][12] After her father’s death, her mother raised her as a Roman Catholic. Her father, Nikollë Bojaxhiu was possibly from Prizren, Kosovo[a] while her mother was possibly from a village near ?akovica, Kosovo.[13]

    According to a biography by Joan Graff Clucas, in her early years Agnes was fascinated by stories of the lives of missionaries and their service in Bengal, and by age 12 was convinced that she should commit herself to a religious life.[14] Her final resolution was taken on 15 August 1928, while praying at the shrine of the Black Madonna of Letnice, where she often went on pilgrimage.[15]

    She left home at age 18 to join the Sisters of Loreto as a missionary. She never again saw her mother or sister.[16]

    Agnes initially went to the Loreto Abbey in Rathfarnham, Ireland, to learn English, the language the Sisters of Loreto used to teach school children in India.[17] She arrived in India in 1929, and began her novitiate in Darjeeling, near the Himalayan mountains,[18] where she learnt Bengali and taught at the St. Teresa’s School, a schoolhouse close to her convent.[19] She took her first religious vows as a nun on 24 May 1931. At that time she chose to be named after Thérèse de Lisieux, the patron saint of missionaries,[20][21] but because one nun in the convent had already chosen that name, Agnes opted for the Spanish spelling Teresa.[22]

    She took her solemn vows on 14 May 1937, while serving as a teacher at the Loreto convent school in Entally, eastern Calcutta.[11][23][24] Teresa served there for almost twenty years and in 1944 was appointed headmistress.[25]

    Although Teresa enjoyed teaching at the school, she was increasingly disturbed by the poverty surrounding her in Calcutta (Kolkata).[26] The Bengal famine of 1943 brought misery and death to the city; and the outbreak of Hindu/Muslim violence in August 1946 plunged the city into despair and horror.[27]

    Close this section
    HideMissionaries of Charity

    Main article: Missionaries of Charity

    Missionaries of charity with the traditional sari.
    On 10 September 1946, Teresa experienced what she later described as “the call within the call” while traveling by train to the Loreto convent in Darjeeling from Calcutta for her annual retreat. “I was to leave the convent and help the poor while living among them. It was an order. To fail would have been to break the faith.”[28] As one author later noted, “Though no one knew it at the time, Sister Teresa had just become Mother Teresa”.[29]

    She began her missionary work with the poor in 1948, replacing her traditional Loreto habit with a simple white cotton sari decorated with a blue border. Mother Teresa adopted Indian citizenship, spent a few months in Patna to receive a basic medical training in the Holy Family Hospital and then ventured out into the slums.[30][31] Initially she started a school in Motijhil (Calcutta); soon she started tending to the needs of the destitute and starving.[32] In the beginning of 1949 she was joined in her effort by a group of young women and laid the foundations to create a new religious community helping the “poorest among the poor”.

    Her efforts quickly caught the attention of Indian officials, including the prime minister, who expressed his appreciation.[33]

    Teresa wrote in her diary that her first year was fraught with difficulties. She had no income and had to resort to begging for food and supplies. Teresa experienced doubt, loneliness and the temptation to return to the comfort of convent life during these early months. She wrote in her diary:

    Our Lord wants me to be a free nun covered with the poverty of the cross. Today I learned a good lesson. The poverty of the poor must be so hard for them. While looking for a home I walked and walked till my arms and legs ached. I thought how much they must ache in body and soul, looking for a home, food and health. Then the comfort of Loreto [her former order] came to tempt me. ‘You have only to say the word and all that will be yours again,’ the Tempter kept on saying … Of free choice, my God, and out of love for you, I desire to remain and do whatever be your Holy will in my regard. I did not let a single tear come.[34]
    Teresa received Vatican permission on 7 October 1950 to start the diocesan congregation that would become the Missionaries of Charity.[35] Its mission was to care for, in her own words, “the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone.”

    It began as a small order with 13 members in Calcutta; by 1997 it had grown to more than 4,000 sisters running orphanages, AIDS hospices and charity centers worldwide, and caring for refugees, the blind, disabled, aged, alcoholics, the poor and homeless, and victims of floods, epidemics, and famine.[36]

    In 1952 Mother Teresa opened the first Home for the Dying in space made available by the city of Calcutta (Kolkata). With the help of Indian officials she converted an abandoned Hindu temple into the Kalighat Home for the Dying, a free hospice for the poor. She renamed it Kalighat, the Home of the Pure Heart (Nirmal Hriday).[37] Those brought to the home received medical attention and were afforded the opportunity to die with dignity, according to the rituals of their faith; Muslims were read the Quran, Hindus received water from the Ganges, and Catholics received the Last Rites.[38] “A beautiful death,” she said, “is for people who lived like animals to die like angels—loved and wanted.”[38]

    Mother Teresa soon opened a home for those suffering from Hansen’s disease, commonly known as leprosy, and called the hospice Shanti Nagar (City of Peace).[39] The Missionaries of Charity also established several leprosy outreach clinics throughout Calcutta, providing medication, bandages and food.[40]

    As the Missionaries of Charity took in increasing numbers of lost children, Mother Teresa felt the need to create a home for them. In 1955 she opened the Nirmala Shishu Bhavan, the Children’s Home of the Immaculate Heart, as a haven for orphans and homeless youth.[41]

    The order soon began to attract both recruits and charitable donations, and by the 1960s had opened hospices, orphanages and leper houses all over India. Mother Teresa then expanded the order throughout the globe. Its first house outside India opened in Venezuela in 1965 with five sisters.[42] Others followed in Rome, Tanzania, and Austria in 1968; during the 1970s the order opened houses and foundations in dozens of countries in Asia, Africa, Europe and the United States.[43]

    The Missionaries of Charity Brothers was founded in 1963, and a contemplative branch of the Sisters followed in 1976. Lay Catholics and non-Catholics were enrolled in the Co-Workers of Mother Teresa, the Sick and Suffering Co-Workers, and the Lay Missionaries of Charity. In answer to the requests of many priests, in 1981 Mother Teresa also began the Corpus Christi Movement for Priests,[44] and in 1984 founded with Fr. Joseph Langford the Missionaries of Charity Fathers[45] to combine the vocational aims of the Missionaries of Charity with the resources of the ministerial priesthood. By 2007 the Missionaries of Charity numbered approximately 450 brothers and 5,000 sisters worldwide, operating 600 missions, schools and shelters in 120 countries.[46]

    Close this section
    ShowInternational charity

    ShowDeclining health and death

    ShowRecognition and reception

    ShowSpiritual life

    ShowMiracle and beatification

    ShowLegacy and depictions in popular culture

    ShowSee also

    ShowNotes

    ShowReferences

    ShowFurther reading

    ShowExternal links

    ShowRead in another language

    Show

    Tell me, is there anything bad about this woman and her faith?

    She is truly one of the greatest people who ever lived.

  40. on 30 Nov 2012 at 4:39 am 40.Anonymous said …

    In other words, you have nothing but faith.

  41. on 30 Nov 2012 at 4:44 am 41.The messenger said …

    40.Anonymous correction, I have faith, and I have proof.

    Unfortunately you refuse to accept it.

    You pity you.

  42. on 30 Nov 2012 at 5:15 am 42.Anti-Theist said …

    My apologies to messenger. I meant that prophet was being less than genuine when acting dilutional. Can I sic myself? It probably prudent.

  43. on 30 Nov 2012 at 7:38 am 43.Severin said …

    Messenger
    “Brother DPK, Jesus’ plan is, he wants us to come together and help people like those kids in that picture.”

    Yet, we never “come together”!
    The plan obviously does not work!
    What an idiot is planning for millenia something that never happens?

    “If you people would just help each other than those kids would not be suffering like that.”

    Some of us do help, a lot.
    God/Jesus obviously does NOT!

  44. on 30 Nov 2012 at 10:46 am 44.The messenger said …

    42.Anti-Theist I except your apology, thank you brother.

  45. on 30 Nov 2012 at 11:00 am 45.The messenger said …

    43.Severin we have come together many times, and there are a lot less starving people in Africa because of it.

    Tell me, what have you done to help those people?

    If you did not come together to help those people, that is your fault, you chose not help those people and it is because of you, they are starving.

    Stop blaming Jesus for mankind’s mistakes.

    You are like a child, you are always blaming everyone but your self.

  46. on 30 Nov 2012 at 12:41 pm 46.A said …

    Ian.

    I agree Ian. Writings, indirect evidence and personal experience are all we have for origins, microevolution, Socrates, existence and so on. maybe it is easier to believe in nothing?

    So why are Atheists obsessed if God’s existence cannot be proven and God’s nonexistence cannot be proven?

  47. on 30 Nov 2012 at 1:22 pm 47.Anti-Theist said …

    We care because dilutional masses who believe themselves above others based on literature filled with the types of vile teachings the bible is filled with are dangerous and stupid.

  48. on 30 Nov 2012 at 4:14 pm 48.Lou(DFW) said …

    46.ASS said …

    “Writings, indirect evidence and personal experience are all we have for origins, microevolution, Socrates, existence and so on.”

    Then you must also believe in Allah and Muhammad, correct?

    “maybe it is easier to believe in nothing?”

    Maybe it’s easier for you lie about atheists (and practically everything that you post here) than it is to provide any evidence for your imaginary god?

    “So why are Atheists obsessed if God’s existence cannot be proven and God’s nonexistence cannot be proven?”

    Another lie. Atheists are NOT obsessed with disproving gods existence anymore than we are with disproving or proving leprechauns.

    What we are “obsessed” with is preventing you and your deluded ilk’s obsession with forcing your delusion upon us, and for attempting to influence, if not control, our government and schools, with your primitive superstition.

  49. on 30 Nov 2012 at 4:17 pm 49.Lou(DFW) said …

    36.Ian said …
    “Writings, indirect evidence and personal experience are the only possible sources of evidence man can hope for.”

    38.Lou(DFW) said …

    “No need to hope for it, it’s all you have, and it’s all you ever will have. In other words, you have nothing but faith.”

    39.The messenger C&P a lot religious propaganda…

    Messenger, thank you for supporting my point.

  50. on 30 Nov 2012 at 4:29 pm 50.Lou(DFW) said …

    46.A said …

    “I agree Ian. Writings, indirect evidence and personal experience are all we have for origins, microevolution, Socrates, existence and so on.”

    Poor ASS, he still can’t understand that this blog is about discussing God and religion in our world today.

    It’s not about discussing “origins, microevolution, Socrates, existence and so on.”

    And then there’s your President Obama obsession…

  51. on 30 Nov 2012 at 4:45 pm 51.DPK said …

    So messenger, let’s be clear so we all understand… you said, “Everything that happens to us happens for a reason. It is all part of our Father’s plan.”

    So, you are now saying that Jesus, or god the father, or the holy ghost INTENTIONALLY cause innocent children to suffer and die of starvation and disease just to teach us to be kinder? What does it teach them? Why doesn’t he at least give the suffering to those that deserve it, instead of inflicting it on innocent children?
    How about when he gives an innocent child cancer? What lesson is he teaching them? What, he wants us to learn how to cure cancer? Is that it? But we wouldn’t need to learn to cure cancer if he hadn’t invented it in the first place.
    How about innocents who are killed in natural disaster, fires, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes? There is no “lesson” there. They are just killed. What is he trying to teach us?
    And lastly, as Severin alluded to… he has been inflicting these “lessons” of pain and torment on innocents for untold thousands of years. Shouldn’t he have known it wouldn’t work? Why does he continue to do it, knowing full well what the outcome will be?
    You are so silly with your ridiculous explanations. They make no sense what so ever. You are a fraud who claimed to speak to god and to have visited heaven. Now you admit it might have just been a dream. You claim to be a Catholic, and know everything about Catholicism, but you do not even know the most basic, fundamental tenets of your own supposed faith. You claim to speak for god, but you speak nonsense… a real god would not arm you with such weak explanations. If you spoke for a real god your words would be enlightening and brilliant. You need to stop these lies and false claims. If your god is real, you are doing more to harm his cause than any of the atheists here.

  52. on 30 Nov 2012 at 5:05 pm 52.The Prophet said …

    42.Anti-Theist said …

    “My apologies to messenger. I meant that prophet was being less than genuine when acting dilutional. Can I sic myself? It probably prudent.”

    Let me assure you that I am in no way being disingenuous. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour instructed me to deliver a message to William, the messenger.
    I did so according to his instructions. It does not matter to Our Lord and Father if anyone else believes me or not. William knows in his own heart that I speak the truth, and if he continues to falsely claim to be a messenger of the Lord, the consequence will be upon him solely.
    “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

    That is all that is required of me at this moment. I am neither diluted nor deluded, I am just a prophet of the Lord and I do only his bidding. Peace be to all of you.

  53. on 30 Nov 2012 at 5:11 pm 53.Lou(DFW) said …

    51.DPK said …

    “a real god would not arm you with such weak explanations.”

    Not to mention all of those “[sic]s!” LOL!

  54. on 30 Nov 2012 at 5:23 pm 54.Lou(DFW) said …

    52.The Prophet said …

    “If your god is real, you are doing more to harm his cause than any of the atheists here.”

    Notice how the resident sock-puppets usually support and back-slap each other, but they rarely, if ever, support Messed-up.

  55. on 30 Nov 2012 at 5:24 pm 55.Lou(DFW) said …

    54.Lou(DFW) said …

    Correction: that was 51.DPK said …, not 52.The Prophet said …

  56. on 30 Nov 2012 at 7:40 pm 56.Ian said …

    A
    I would probably be characterized as Agnostic. I am not obsessed with disproving God’s existence. I can only deduce that others have an obsession with God as possibly having a personality flaw. OCD can occur across an very broad range of subjects. A much larger number of us live our life without need to participate in bickering over God.

  57. on 30 Nov 2012 at 8:37 pm 57.Anti-Theist said …

    Why is your being here not a contradiction?

  58. on 30 Nov 2012 at 8:43 pm 58.Lou(DFW) said …

    56.Ian(aka, ASS) said …

    “OCD can occur across an very broad range of subjects.”

    President Obama?

    “A much larger number of us live our life without need to participate in bickering over God.”

    Except when done here?

    We don’t “bicker” over god, per se. We don’t care whether or not anyone believes in god. What we care about is theists who want to force their delusion upon us and everybody else, even to the extent of affecting our government and education. Sometimes that requires “bickering” over lies and falsehood promoted by theists on this blog and others like it.

    There’s no more reason to “bicker” over god than there is for astronomers to “bicker” with astrologists, except to the extend that they promote it.

  59. on 30 Nov 2012 at 8:44 pm 59.DPK said …

    56.Ian said …

    “I would probably be characterized as Agnostic. I am not obsessed with disproving God’s existence. I can only deduce that others have an obsession with God as possibly having a personality flaw.”

    And yet… here you are, stalking an atheist website… hmmmmm.

  60. on 30 Nov 2012 at 9:52 pm 60.A said …

    “Why is your being here not a contradiction?”

    Thelma-Lou along with his partners in his trinity DPK and Antimatter, showing up and posting that God existence or nonexistence cannot be proven by science is actually the sign of someone who is reasonable. I don’t completely agree because my background in science suggest otherwise. However, I can respect someone who might interpret the data differently. Ian might be 40YA since he wouldn’t engage you guys either.

  61. on 30 Nov 2012 at 9:57 pm 61.Anti-Theist said …

    I not sure I understood you. If I did your point seems to be lacking substance.

  62. on 30 Nov 2012 at 10:15 pm 62.Anti-Theist said …

    What does your background in science suggest??

  63. on 30 Nov 2012 at 10:37 pm 63.The messenger said …

    52.The Prophet I am a messenger of God in the same way that Preists are. My perpose in life is to spread God’s messege to all of the people in the world.

    I now think that the vision I saw was just a dream and I have stopped talking about it.

    I now only spead the messeges that are contained in the bible.’

  64. on 30 Nov 2012 at 10:43 pm 64.Lou(DFW) said …

    60.ASS said …

    “posting that God existence or nonexistence cannot be proven by science is actually the sign of someone who is reasonable.”

    Only to the point that it avoids all the other b.s. about Bible stories, miracles, and personal experiences.

    “I don’t completely agree because my background in science suggest otherwise.”

    First of all, you haven’t demonstrated in any way whatsoever that you have a “background in science.”

    But if you did, and if you are an honest person and not the lying fraud that you portray here, then you would simply admit that you don’t have any evidence for your imaginary god.

    So, which is it? Are you a lying fraud or an honest person who will admit that you don’t have any evidence for your imaginary god?

    “Ian might be 40YA since he wouldn’t engage you guys either.”

    But, for some mysterious reason here he is having a dialog with you! GEE! I wonder why that is?

  65. on 30 Nov 2012 at 11:41 pm 65.The messenger said …

    God speaks to all of us, everyday.

    God usually does not speak to us by using his voice. Instead of talking to us he gives us signs of what he wants us to do.

    Here is an example.

    Today I was in a bad mood and I was about to get mad at one of my family members, I was just about to yell at her when all of a sudden I started having a feeling of regret, I remembered all of the times I have lost my temper and I felt bad about letting my anger overtake me.

    God was the one who caused me to feel that regret.

    That feeling was a sign from God that I should stop my anger.

    Jesus reminded me that I should forgive others instead of getting mad at them.

    That is how God speaks to most of us, he speaks to us through signs that he gives us everyday. You do not have to be a prophet, God speaks to all of us everyday.

    I am not a prophet.

  66. on 01 Dec 2012 at 12:15 am 66.Severin said …

    Messenger
    ““Everything that happens to us happens for a reason. It is all part of our Father’s plan.”

    “Tell me, what have you done to help those people?”

    What can I do against god’s plan?
    If everything that happens for a reason and is part of god’s plan, what do you expect ME to do?
    Change god’s plans?

    If it is god’s plan, it is also his responsibility, especially because, unlike me, he is almighty.

    Yet, because I am not a hypocritical theist, but a normal, very compassionate and very responsible individual, I AM helping those children the best way I can.

  67. on 01 Dec 2012 at 1:21 am 67.The messenger said …

    67.Severin Jesus allowed me to come here and tell you that you need to help those people. That is also a part of Jesus’s plan.

    You still have not answered my question.

    Why have you not helped those people?

  68. on 01 Dec 2012 at 8:20 am 68.Severin said …

    Messenger
    Are you blind, or are you just an idiot?

    You first asked me what am I doing for those children.
    I answered:
    “… I AM helping those children the best way I can.”

    After I confirmed I DO help them, you asked me why haven’t I helped them?

    Is that the way theist of all sorts communicate people?

    Yes, it is!

    But, as always, it is YOU who is avoiding answes, so I will be direct:

    Didn’t you say:
    ““Everything that happens to us happens for a reason. It is all part of our Father’s plan.”
    Everything?
    Including starving children?
    Including holocaust?

    (Sentences ending with a “?” mark are direct questions, and I expect direct answers)

    If I believed in god and accepted that EVERYTHING is a part of god’s plan (as YOU said!), I would be pretty cautious in interfering his plans and purposes, to avoid his anger.
    If god decided to keep those people starving as a part of HIS PLAN, for some misterious PURPOSE, who am I to question his decisions and to try to feed them?
    Again: I do NOT believe in god, I am a compassionate and responsible individual, and I DO help them, you moron!

    Shall I deserve hell by interfering god’s plans?

  69. on 01 Dec 2012 at 8:41 pm 69.The messenger said …

    68.Severin reworded my question to make it simpler so you would be able to understand.

    I have come to the conclusion that you are brain dead.

  70. on 01 Dec 2012 at 11:38 pm 70.The messenger said …

    Serven, I reworded my question so even you will be able to understand it.

  71. on 02 Dec 2012 at 6:55 am 71.Severin said …

    43 Severin: Some of us do help, a lot (to starving children)
    45 Messenger: Tell me, what have you done to help those people?
    66 Severin: I AM helping those children the best way I can.
    67 Messenger: You still have not answered my question.
    68 Severin: … and I DO help them, you moron!
    70 Messenger: Serven, I reworded my question so even you will be able to understand it.

    Does it happen, or is it just a nightmare?

  72. on 02 Dec 2012 at 7:06 am 72.Severin said …

    Messenger,
    “Everything that happens to us happens for a reason. It is all part of our Father’s plan.”

    Are starving children part of god’s plan?
    Was holocaust a part of god’s plan?

    Simple “yes” or “no will do.

  73. on 02 Dec 2012 at 2:21 pm 73.Lou(DFW) said …

    72.Severin said …

    “Are starving children part of god’s plan?
    Was holocaust a part of god’s plan?

    Simple “yes” or “no will do.”

    The theists here NEVER answer simple yes or no questions because they know it will expose their delusion.

  74. on 02 Dec 2012 at 5:00 pm 74.DPK said …

    He already did answer that question. The messenger, who claims to speak for god directly said:

    “Everything that happens to us happens for a reason. It is all part of our Father’s plan.”

    Can’t get much plainer than that, so YES, god intentionally inflicts pain, starvation, and horrific deaths on innocent children as part of his plan, and yes, the Holocaust was also part of god’s plan, as was 9-11, all the world wars, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Obama re-election. They all fall under the definition of “everything that happens” so therefore, by official decree, they all happened EXACTLY according to god’s will and his plan.

    To claim otherwise is to doubt god’s omnipotence and omniscience.
    Next.

  75. on 02 Dec 2012 at 5:18 pm 75.The messenger said …

    74.DPK, God wants us to ome together so we can help percent bad things from happening.

    If people would stop hating each other, nothing bad would ever happen again.

  76. on 02 Dec 2012 at 5:18 pm 76.DPK said …

    The bigger problem that arises for the theists here however, is how do you justify your endless efforts to change god’s plan? I mean, if god gives your kid cancer, why do you defiantly try to utilize science to try and achieve a cure? If a kid gets cancer, it happens according to god’s plan. How arrogant must you be to try and upset that plan? If god wants your child to be cured, it will happen without silly medicine. And if he wants them dead… why do you pray so for him to change his mind? He knows better than you, doesn’t he?

    Or, is your belief in the majesty of god’s perfect plan just a platitude that you tell yourself at church on Sunday, and then forget about when you venture back into the “real” world, where you actually know it is really just empty words? Hmmmm… think that could be it, Curm? Tell us Curm, when you get sick, do you go to a doctor, or a minister? Your answer or lack thereof will be very telling.

  77. on 02 Dec 2012 at 6:12 pm 77.Asher said …

    Atheist talk a great deal about not needing God to be moral but when the rubber meets the road a vast majority do nothing and keep their money in their wallet. A few exceptions, but travel the world and see who is feeding the hungry, providing medical services for Aids victims and providing the basic needs of the poor. It is Christians who are doing these things and that is not opinion, it is fact I have witnessed on numerous occasions.

  78. on 02 Dec 2012 at 6:22 pm 78.The messenger said …

    76.DPK, God allows struggles to occur in our lives so that we will learn from our mistakes and become better people.

  79. on 02 Dec 2012 at 7:44 pm 79.DPK said …

    Asher, unable to provide any meaningful or relevant answer to the problem of “god’s plan” resurrects a tired and silly straw man argument. Christians are good, atheists are bad. Even if it were true, and maybe we should talk about the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, founded by and funded in a large part by, atheists (gasp!).
    But even if it where true, all atheists are stingy, tight fisted and selfish bastards, and all christians are giving, loving and generous people (dream on Archer).. so what? Does it prove anything?
    If it did, then the percentage of pedophiles that exist within the structure of christian organization, like the Boy Scouts of America and the Catholic Church must surely point to the non-existence of god, no?
    Anyone with even a marginally functioning cerebral cortex can see Archer’s post for exactly what it is, a hopeless attempt at a diversion to steer attention away from the fact that he has nothing to offer in the way of a valid argument for the existence of his magical god.
    I’d love to say “Nice try.” Archer, but sadly, can’t even muster that for you. In reality, you offer nothing but utter and complete bullshit.

  80. on 02 Dec 2012 at 7:51 pm 80.Anonymous said …

    77, dpk, lets not let the curm persona off the hook here. Part of Ass’s diversion is to steer the conversation away from uncomfortable questions.

  81. on 02 Dec 2012 at 7:56 pm 81.The messenger said …

    79.DPK, many Christians donate to the bill and Melinda foundation.

    You are such a mindless fool.

  82. on 02 Dec 2012 at 7:59 pm 82.The messenger said …

    Mrs. DPK, Yes it does prove something.

    The fact that Christisns are kinder and more generous than Atheists proves that Christianity and Jesus are better than Atheism.

  83. on 02 Dec 2012 at 8:12 pm 83.DPK said …

    Curm is on a hook he has been impaled on many times before. He will not answer the question, he will disappear and a different sock puppet… like Archer… haha, will emerge with a desperate attempt to sidetrack the conversation.
    Oh wait. Yeah, that already happened… hahahaha, as predictable as the phases of the moon.
    Let’s ask Curm another question, since he won’t answer that one… I’m surprised he didn’t say “God provides doctors….” that’s the canned response. But let’s give him that one… let’s say you justify going to the doctor instead of the priest in the effort to thwart god’s plan. What would you say to a doctor who said, “Curm, you have diabetes, which god, in his wisdom, has decided to inflict on you as part of his perfect and holy plan. I recommend you pray real hard. That will be $200 please.”? Would you accept that as an acceptable treatment? If not, why?

    I predict a prolonged silence from Curm and the other socks…

  84. on 02 Dec 2012 at 8:15 pm 84.Lou(DFW) said …

    76.Asser said …

    “Atheist talk a great deal about not needing God to be moral…”

    Except that we don’t. This is another ASS lie.

    “but when the rubber meets the road a vast majority do nothing and keep their money in their wallet.”

    Please show us anywhere in your book of religious delusion:

    1. morals
    2. that morality is measured by money

    BTW – why does god require humans to compensate for his inability to do what he allegedly wants us to do?

    Morality is the distinction between “right” and “wrong.” How is it “wrong” not to compensate for your imaginary god’s incompetence?

    OTH – according Messy, EVERYTHING is a result of your imaginary god’s plan. So, if I don’t help those people that you mentioned, it’s not my fault – it’s the fault of your imaginary god’s plan.

  85. on 02 Dec 2012 at 8:25 pm 85.Lou(DFW) said …

    69.The messenger said …

    “I have come to the conclusion that you are brain dead.”

    Your conclusions are irrelevant.

    We are only interested in direct answers to direct questions.

    For example, why does god need a spokesman? Being god, why does he require one?

  86. on 02 Dec 2012 at 8:29 pm 86.Suh said …

    What a stupid question. It sounds like something a preschool child might say. Why should someone go to their pastor when they have bronchitis when God has provided medicine and MDs? Luke who wrote Luke and Acts was a MD. MDs and medicine are part of God’s plan. The Apostle Paul, who served God faithfully, had some sort of illness (thorn in the flesh) God did not cure. As to why, I and Paul do not now but Paul wisely determined it was to increase Paul’s reliance on God.

    The stupidity and irrationality of the atheist worldview is stupefying. I think I better understand why atheist cannot grasp the reality of God.

    I now understand why atheist don’t help the needy. Lou summed it out with “it’s not my fault”. I’ll pass that on to the child I support through Compassion International. Better yet, no, I hate the thought of Aldrin thinking people like that exist.

  87. on 02 Dec 2012 at 8:39 pm 87.alex said …

    “Why should someone go to their pastor when they have bronchitis when God has provided medicine and MDs?”

    i know what you mean. when an md is treating people for cancer, why the fuck would morons pray?

    “The stupidity and irrationality of the atheist worldview is stupefying.”

    i know what you mean. damn atheists like to argue that the earth is billions of years old. fuck that. the bible says around 64 generations from adam to jesus. who the hell can argue with that. sheyat.

  88. on 02 Dec 2012 at 8:44 pm 88.DPK said …

    Suh, you are avoiding the issue. Messenger said that “Everything that happens to us happens for a reason. It is all part of our Father’s plan.”

    Do you agree?

  89. on 02 Dec 2012 at 8:58 pm 89.Lou(DFW) said …

    82.Duh said …

    “It sounds like something a preschool child might say.”

    For example, such as – I believe in Santa, I believe in the Tooth Fairy, I believe in god, Jesus loves the little children of the world, red and yellow, black and white –

    http://tinyurl.com/cajed5k

    “Luke who wrote Luke and Acts was a MD.”

    Really? From which university did he receive his doctoral degree?

    “Why should someone go to their pastor when they have bronchitis when God has provided medicine and MDs?”

    Really? Why do people pray to god to cure their illness? For how many thousands of years was there not medicine and MDs? Why are there cures for some diseases, but not for others?

    “…God did not cure. As to why, I and Paul do not [k]now…”

    Why didn’t they go to their MD for some medicine and a cure?

    “The stupidity and irrationality of the atheist worldview is stupefying.”

    “The stupidity and irrationality of” your comment “is stupefying.” You’re a liar. There’s no such thing as “the atheist worldview.”

    “I think I better understand why atheist cannot grasp the reality of God.”

    It doesn’t matter what you think you understand. It only matters what evidence you can provide that your imaginary god is real.

    “I now understand why atheist don’t help the needy.”

    No, you don’t because that statement is a lie.

    “Lou summed it out(?) with “it’s not my fault”. [sic] LOL!

    You conveniently omitted and ignored “it’s the fault of your imaginary god’s plan.” Pass that along to Aldrin.

  90. on 02 Dec 2012 at 11:14 pm 90.The messenger said …

    89.Lou(DFW) I never said any of that you stupid, brain dead, fool.

    I have given answers to all of the questions that I have recieved.

  91. on 02 Dec 2012 at 11:14 pm 91.The messenger said …

    89.Lou(DFW) I never said any of that you stupid, brain dead, fool.

    I have given answers to all of the questions that I have recieved.”

  92. on 02 Dec 2012 at 11:57 pm 92.Anonymous said …

    “Luke who wrote Luke and Acts was a MD.” – do you just throw out a non sequitur here and there to reinforce our perception of you as an idiot, or do you actually have a point?

  93. on 03 Dec 2012 at 3:11 am 93.A said …

    “I now understand why atheist don’t help the needy. Lou summed it out with “it’s not my fault”.”

    Let us be thankful that Thelma-Lou is just one a few hate-filled uncaring individuals who looks out for himself and ignores the plight of others. Now we better understand why China is selling fetuses as a delicacy in china. They live in an atheist society and this is where the moral code of atheists always regresses to – death, destruction and disaster.

  94. on 03 Dec 2012 at 3:25 am 94.The messenger said …

    89.Lou(DFW), god did cure some people.

    People die in this world because it is their time to leave thier bodies and go to either Heaven, hell (aka lucifer’s kingdom), or purgatory( the space between heaven and hell.

    Do not blame our Father for people suffering, Lucifer was the one who started sin in the first place.

    If you want to blame anyone, blame Lucifer.

  95. on 03 Dec 2012 at 3:28 am 95.The messenger said …

    on 03 Dec 2012 at 3:11 am 93.A said …
    “I now understand why atheist don’t help the needy. Lou summed it out with “it’s not my fault”.”
    Let us be thankful that Thelma-Lou is just one a few hate-filled uncaring individuals who looks out for himself and ignores the plight of others. Now we better understand why China is selling fetuses as a delicacy in china. They live in an atheist society and this is where the moral code of atheists always regresses to – death, destruction and disaster.

    Well said brother.

    Keep up the Good work.

    I made a copy of this because when there are more copies of something it is more likely to be seen.

  96. on 03 Dec 2012 at 3:29 am 96.The messenger said …

    Good work brother A.

    God bless you and all of the other Christians on this site.

  97. on 03 Dec 2012 at 9:33 pm 97.Severin said …

    93 Asshole,

    You are a hate-filled sick liar.
    You are a shame even for theists.

    Only a sick mind can write soemthing like that.

    Now we can all see what religion can make from an unballanced individual: a monster who (probably influenced by “gentle” Bible stories full of god’s love) thinks that atheists eat fetuses.

    Go to meet a shrink urgently!

  98. on 03 Dec 2012 at 9:46 pm 98.DPK said …

    hahahahaha…. idiot “A” with his “background in science” falls for an internet myth. In his hate filled desire to rationalize his hatred of anyone who threatens his delusion, he is willing to believe anything. Worse still, he is willing to pass it on as truth to his likewise feeble minded minions.

    http://www.urbanmyths.com/index.php?/Food/fetus-soup-anyone-the-myth-of-chinese-baby-soup.html

  99. on 03 Dec 2012 at 9:52 pm 99.DPK said …

    and yes, Luke was an MD… he graduated from Fred Flintstone University, where he held advanced degrees in blood letting, enchantments, and chasing out demons.
    Hey, if you buy that ASS is a capital A Astrophysicist, I guess you can buy that a 1st century primitive was an “M.D.”
    Tell us Suh, where did Luke do his internship and residence?

  100. on 03 Dec 2012 at 10:07 pm 100.Ben said …

    “atheists eat fetuses.”

    You eat eggs Severin?

  101. on 03 Dec 2012 at 11:26 pm 101.DPK said …

    I eat eggs, idiot. Does that prove your god is real?
    Curious you appear with your nonsense the minute Curmudgeon runs away after being embarrassed almost to the point of absurdity for his idiocy. And now here you are again, sounding exactly like him.

  102. on 03 Dec 2012 at 11:30 pm 102.Lou(DFW) said …

    95.DPK said …

    hahahahaha…. idiot “A” with his “background in science” falls for an internet myth.

    It’s not a myth. Haven’t you ever heard of egg-drop soup served in Chinese restaurants? !LOL!

  103. on 04 Dec 2012 at 1:17 am 103.A said …

    Oh Thelma-Lou are you not tired of embarrassing yourself? HA HA HA, where did you come up with some guy making soup? Try again. Second, did you even read your link?

    ROTFL, thank you Thelma-Lou for another great laugh. perfect timing.

    More importantly on to SEVERIN! You seem to express moral outrage at Chinese atheist who do market and sell fetuses for a number of reasons. Is it not true, as Atheist in the US claim, that fetuses are just tissue nothing more? Why is it OK to kill the fetus and trash it over Chinese atheist who will ingest them? I bet you do eat the eggs you Monster!

  104. on 04 Dec 2012 at 1:56 am 104.Anti-Theist said …

    Wow.

    It’s rare to see atheists covered in the same shit xtians roll around in all day. Blood thirsty much tonight guys.

  105. on 04 Dec 2012 at 3:18 am 105.Lou(DFW) said …

    103.ASS said …

    “…where did you come up with some guy making soup?”

    You are confused, I didn’t “come up with some guy making soup?”

    “Second, did you even read your link?”

    I didn’t post any link.

  106. on 04 Dec 2012 at 6:12 am 106.Severin said …

    So, idiots even don’t distinguish between eggs and fetuses.
    If we accept their twisted “morality”, each menstrual cycle will be called murder.
    But women don’t direct those cycles, so who is a murderer?

    Idiots!

  107. on 04 Dec 2012 at 11:37 am 107.A said …

    Actually you are wrong Severin. I do know the difference between humans and chickens. It would be the Chinese atheists who find no difference. But how do you? Are you not just a product of random evolution? So I will ask again.

    Is it not true, as Atheist in the US claim, that fetuses are just tissue nothing more? Why is it OK to kill the fetus and trash it over Chinese atheist who will ingest them?

  108. on 04 Dec 2012 at 12:42 pm 108.Lou(DFW) said …

    107.ASS said …

    “I do know the difference between humans and chickens. ”

    And so do I. A chicken is one who doesn’t substantiate extraordinary claims – “god is real.”

    “So I will ask again.”

    You are in no position to demand answers from anyone until you answer the question that was asked of you many times – where is your evidence for your imaginary god?

    “Is it not true, as Atheist in the US claim, that fetuses are just tissue nothing more? Why is it OK to kill the fetus and trash it over Chinese atheist who will ingest them?”

    No it’s not true. You are a liar. If it is true, then show us. And just as you do with your lie about god being real, you attempt to shift the burden of proof – fraud.

  109. on 04 Dec 2012 at 1:32 pm 109.Severin said …

    A(sshole),

    1. Yes, according to still valid laws in MY country, I do not consider fetuses more than a tissue, and do NOT consider distroying of fetuses a murder.
    It does not mean at all that I generally support abortion.
    2. I also know the difference between human being and chicken. It seems that some theists, who pose idiotic questions, such as: “Do you eat eggs”, don’t see the difference between an ovum and a fetus. Moreover, those idiots put the “=” sign between the fetus and the chicken egg, otherwise their questions would have no meaning at all.
    Why don’t you ask Ben about it?
    He probably avoids eating chicken eggs because he equates them with eating fetuses.
    3. Do you have any real evidences that chinese (theist or atheists) eat human fetuses?
    I disgust the idea of eating ANY fetuses, but in many countries ANIMAL fetuses were (and in some cases still are) delicacies.
    Not in my country that I would know it.

    So, Americans sell (human?) fetuses to Chineses so they could ingest them?
    Disgusting, but interesting!
    I’ve never heard anything like that.
    Now you only need to show us some evidences that something like that really happens.
    Otherwise you will, as always, remain in our mamory as a sick liar.

  110. on 04 Dec 2012 at 2:58 pm 110.Anonymous said …

    “A”, since the first comment (yours) you have been trying to change the subject to avoid backing up YOUR claim the the video is fallacious. You have been called on it before, and I’m calling you on your trolling again.

    You post diversion after diversion. Enough is enough!

    If you can’t back up your claims that your god is real, and you are not prepared to do anything other then post lies and nonsense in order to deflect from substantiating your claims, then please take your sock puppet supporters and go away.

  111. on 04 Dec 2012 at 3:44 pm 111.DPK said …

    19.The messenger said …
    “Jesus guides us everyday.
    Everything that happens to us happens for a reason.
    It is all part of our Father’s plan.”

    Then he said:

    94.The messenger said …
    “Do not blame our Father for people suffering, Lucifer was the one who started sin in the first place.

    If you want to blame anyone, blame Lucifer.”

    Perfect example of deluded theist reasoning, make two completely contradictory claims, and believe they are both true. Thank you messenger, for the crystal clear demonstration.

    But let’s be clear messenger… according to your story, who created Lucifer?

  112. on 04 Dec 2012 at 3:57 pm 112.Lou(DFW) said …

    111.DPK said …

    “But let’s be clear messenger… according to your story, who created Lucifer?”

    He wrote “blame Lucifer” because “Lucifer was the one who started sin in the first place.” So his reasoning is that the entity who starts something deserves the blame. His imaginary god started and planned everything. Therefore, according to his own reasoning, his imaginary god, not imaginary Lucifer, not humans, must be blamed.

    But let’s place the blame for “sin” and a belief in an imaginary god exactly where they exist – in the minds of men, and especially crazy, deluded men like Messenger.

  113. on 04 Dec 2012 at 6:01 pm 113.DPK said …

    But he also claimed he had been to heaven personally and then said it may have been a dream, then he said he spoke to god directly and then said he was not a prophet. Poor messenger is just full of contradictions. He seems very very confused for someone whom the creator has chosen as a spokesman.
    That Yahweh has to be the most incompetent god ever created by man.

  114. on 04 Dec 2012 at 7:17 pm 114.A said …

    Severin I travel to China regularly. If you don”t believe then google it for plenty of articles.

    You express more outrage of ingestion than sticking a knife in the skull and killing it. You employ the moral relativism well. You called another a monster?

  115. on 04 Dec 2012 at 7:48 pm 115.Lou(DFW) said …

    114.ASS said …

    “Severin I travel to China regularly.”

    Who gives a shit?

    “If you don”t believe then google it for plenty of articles.”

    LOL! Poor ASS, when he can’t provide any evidence to support his lies, then he tells YOU to find it for him!

  116. on 04 Dec 2012 at 7:54 pm 116.Lou(DFW) said …

    Sev,

    I regularly go to church.

    If you don’t believe in god, “then google it for plenty of articles.”

    LOL!

  117. on 04 Dec 2012 at 8:48 pm 117.DPK said …

    Ass is getting more and more desperate for some kind of validation. Can’t blame him since all his nonsensical arguments get shredded routinely.
    Let’s look at this one for what it in essence is:
    1: There are vague internet rumors about some Chinese ingesting tissue from aborted fetuses. Hey… if it’s on the internet, it must be true… and of course if a Chinese guy tells you fetus tissue has magical powers and he actually has some to sell you… why would he lie?
    2: Since China is a secular government, therefore all Chinese must be atheists, therefore the only people who would ingest human fetal tissue are atheists. (Neglects the concept that atheists are by and large skeptics and most wouldn’t buy into the magic powers of consuming fetuses to begin with.
    3: Therefore, all atheists must approve of eating the tissue of aborted fetuses, proving that they are all immoral Satan worshipers, and that Jesus rose from the dead, and apparently doesn’t want us to eat any human flesh but his own… which he commanded us to do.
    4: Therefore, god is real… talking snakes, resurrections, yada, yada, yada…

    Follow? If that makes no sense to you whatsoever, well, congratulations, there is hope for you yet.

    And furthermore, how does people ingesting fetal tissue in China have bearing on the validity of atheism, but christians burning witches in Africa, or priests ass raping little boys in Ireland and America has no bearing on the validity of theism?

    Only in ass-world friends, only in ass-world.

  118. on 04 Dec 2012 at 9:56 pm 118.Anonymous said …

    The “atheists eat babies” diversion? Really? Bad move, Hor. Bad move.

    This latest attempt to divert attention away from the non-existence of this god thing, is strange coming from someone of the religion that glorifies cannibalism

    “And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.” — Leviticus 26:29

    “And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them.” — Deuteronomy 28:57

    “This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him.” — 2 Kings 6:28-29

    And more!

    It’s just as well that the bible is a bunch of stories and myths and that their god is simply imaginary, isn’t it?

    Cue the context and metiphorical defense team.

  119. on 04 Dec 2012 at 11:07 pm 119.The messenger said …

    118.Anonymous, that bible passage does not mean canablism.

    It means that your sons and daughters are a part of you because they come from you and It is your job to raise them and teach them right from wrong.

  120. on 04 Dec 2012 at 11:10 pm 120.The messenger said …

    Brother A, do not let their insults bring you down.

    Please continue to help fight Atheism.

  121. on 04 Dec 2012 at 11:20 pm 121.The messenger said …

    111.DPK, what I ment was do not be angry at Jesus for your suffering.

    Jesus wants us to learn from the bad things that happen to us so that we may become morally better people.

  122. on 04 Dec 2012 at 11:45 pm 122.DPK said …

    Silly messenger, back peddling once again. Who said I was angry at Jesus for any suffering? That would be equivalent to being angry at Santa for not giving me a pony.
    Now you on the other hand said that everything that happens to us happens according to god’s plan. Then you said suffering wasn’t gods fault… Blame lucifer, he causes suffering? Well both of those statements clearly cannot be true. Either one, or both, must be false. Why are you spreading falsehoods, William? Did god tell you to lie?
    Now answer the question. According to your belief, did god create Luicifer?

  123. on 05 Dec 2012 at 12:37 am 123.A said …

    Anonymous,

    ROTFL!!!!!

    Thanks for another great laugh from Anony/DPK/Thelma-Lou. Just when I thought atheists have topped themselves with ignorance they top themselves again.

    Their defense for atheist in China ingesting fetuses? The Bible tells us to!

    Maybe the other atheists could tell us why ingesting a fetus is wrong but putting a knife in the skull is OK? I would love to hear that defense.

    DPK used the word silly. He must be a Hor! LOL!!!!

  124. on 05 Dec 2012 at 12:43 am 124.Anonymous said …

    “A” you are supposed to be providing a point-by-point rebuttal to the video posted above. If you are not going to do this, then you must withdraw your opening comment that the video was fallacious. You made this claim in post #1 and have retreated from backing it up ever since.

    Additionally, you have still to provide proof and evidence that your god exists. You’ve been failing to do this task for as long as you have been posting here under your various aliases.

    Everything else from you is an attempt to distract from your dishonesty and doesn’t deserve attention.

  125. on 05 Dec 2012 at 12:44 am 125.The messenger said …

    122.DPK, I have observed your attitude toward Jesus and that is how I came to the conclusion that you are angry at God.

    How stupid are you?

  126. on 05 Dec 2012 at 12:47 am 126.The messenger said …

    122.DPK, I never said who’d fault it was.

  127. on 05 Dec 2012 at 12:49 am 127.The messenger said …

    God did not tell me a lie you idiot.

    Are you mentally damaged, 122.DPK.

  128. on 05 Dec 2012 at 1:28 am 128.Lou(DFW) said …

    123.ASS said …

    “Their defense for atheist in China ingesting fetuses? The Bible tells us to!”

    Liar, show us where anybody wrote that. Besides, nobody wrote that because they wrote that it doesn’t happen in the first place. We don’t have to invent an excuse for something that we didn’t write. Having any kind of intelligent discourse with you is the same as dealing with a four year old brat.

  129. on 05 Dec 2012 at 1:29 am 129.A said …

    Anonymous/DPK/Thelma-Lou,

    You are suppose to provide a point by point summation of the video showing it to be rational and logical. Until then you will be an object of laughter. You are an atheist, a young fella who lives by reason and logic so act like it. Show the error in my analysis to all!!

    So you failed to tackle the moral dilemma of the fetus. What’s wrong? No answer for the hypocrisy in the atheist worldview.

    Munch, munch…… I have popcorn ready……

  130. on 05 Dec 2012 at 1:31 am 130.Lou(DFW) said …

    123.ASS said …

    “Maybe the other atheists could tell us why ingesting a fetus is wrong but putting a knife in the skull is OK?”

    Again, you are lying about atheists to avoid facing your idiotic claims. There is no such atheist position to defend.

    “I would love to hear that defense.”

    And you would also love for someone to provide evidence for your imaginary god, because you are obviously incapable of doing so.

  131. on 05 Dec 2012 at 1:34 am 131.Lou(DFW) said …

    126.ASS said …

    “You are suppose to provide a point by point summation of the video showing it to be rational and logical.”

    Wrong, moron. Who first wrote “How many times can Thomas post the same fallacious video in defense of Atheism?” Answer: 1.ASS said …

    “Show the error in my analysis to all!!”

    Show us your analysis that you were asked to provide.

  132. on 05 Dec 2012 at 2:27 am 132.Right said …

    Atheism Fails to account for rationality, As a worldview, atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems.
    I can summarize by saying that atheism cannot account for rationality. You see, logic is based upon universal truth statements which we call the laws of logic. Such laws are, for example, the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle. These universal truth statements are what rational arguments are based upon. If these additional laws changed depending upon the situation, location, time, or an individual’s personal preferences, then there is no basis for rationality and truth could not be known. Truth would then depend upon situations and personal opinions. If that were the case, then I could say that blue sleeps faster than Wednesday and whatever I say is always true because I claim it.

    But, this is not rational and you and I both know that isn’t.

    In the Christian worldview, the universal truth statements are derived from God. These universal truth statements, these laws of identity, are conceptual by nature. Why? Because they are statements. Statements require minds and since logic is the process of the mind, the logical foundations upon which rationality depends, is of the mind and is conceptual by nature. If the atheist were to say that logical processes are not of the mind or that the truth statements which are the foundations of logic are not of the mind, then he is being irrational. After all, truth is a statement which agrees with reality. And because truth is constructed in statements, a mind is required for such statements to be made.

    Let me clarify. If a rock is all that exists in the universe, it is true that a rock is the only thing that exists. But saying that it is the only thing that exists is a statement which requires a mind. If there are no minds, and the rock is all that exists, no statements can be made about the rock. It would not be known that it was the only thing existing. But truth statements are known. Therefore, all such truth statements require minds and the universal, logical absolutes, truth statements that form the basis of rational thought, require a mind to be made and known.

    Atheism has no way of accounting for these universal truth statements. Atheists can try and state that the laws of logic are based upon human minds, but this cannot be because human minds are different and contradict each other as well as themselves. Since logical absolutes are universally true, they cannot be the product of human minds because human minds are limited, are not universally true, and often contradict each other. If the atheist wants to say that the logical absolutes are merely descriptions of behavior of the universe, then how would an atheist, by observation determine the third law of logic, the law of excluded middle, which says that statements are either true or false? He couldn’t. If the atheist wants to say that logical absolutes are the result of chemical processes in the brain, that can’t work because it would mean that logic could be altered by brain chemistry. Some atheists say that logic is a product of human language, but that doesn’t work because languages are subjective and culturally variable where logic is not. If the atheist says that logic is a property of the universe like motion and gravity, the problem here is that you cannot measure the laws of logic where such things like weight, mass, heat, and cold can be measured.

    So, atheists repeatedly try to respond to the issue of trying to account for rationality founded in universal truth statements also known as logical absolutes. But in all their trying and all their attempted logical outcry, they fail. Why? Because atheism doesn’t have the substance to account for rationality. It is deficient as a worldview.

    But, Christianity comes to the rescue and states that the universal truth statements reflect the universal mind. We, as God’s creation, are able to recognize them because we are made in God’s image. Where Christianity provides an answer to this important issue, atheism clearly fails to deliver.

  133. on 05 Dec 2012 at 2:43 am 133.Lou(DFW) said …

    129.Wrong said …

    “Atheism Fails to account for rationality, As a worldview, atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems.”

    There’s no reason to read the rest of your rant, because it’s fundamentally flawed. “Atheism” isn’t a “worldview.” And it can’t be anymore “intellectually bankrupt” or “wrought with philosophical problems” than can be disbelief in Santa Claus – unless you think that disbelief in Santa Claus is a “worldview.” If you do, then that’s more evidence of your flawed thinking.

    But, let’s skip to the end:

    “Christianity comes to the rescue [as does all the other false religions] and states that the universal truth statements reflect the universal mind [WTF?]. We, as God’s creation, are able to recognize them [I don't] because we are made in God’s image. Where Christianity provides an [incorrect] answer to this important issue, atheism clearly fails to deliver [just as with disbelief in Santa Claus].”

    This is circular reasoning. More evidence of your faulty thinking.

  134. on 05 Dec 2012 at 2:47 am 134.The messenger said …

    122.DPK, yes you idiot.

    God did create lucifer, lucifer was once Jesus’s greatest angel until he became jelous of mankind and was banished from heaven.

  135. on 05 Dec 2012 at 3:17 am 135.DPK said …

    So god screwed up?
    Didn’t god know that would happen?
    Why do you get so mad when people ask you questions? Could it be because you don’t like the answer, or because you don’t like thinking about it. And, how does the fact that your god supposedly created lucifer, with full knowledge of how that would turn out, make me an idiot? Seems like that’s a pretty idiotic thing for your all knowing god to do.
    And William, since god made me an atheist, and everything happens according to his plan, why are you here trying to interfere?
    You are a walking contradiction.

  136. on 05 Dec 2012 at 3:31 am 136.Anonymous said …

    So “A” gets cornered, starts channeling Curmudgeon, then hands off to another sock-puppet in a desperate attempt to change the subject.

    Come on “A” – yours was the very first comment in this thread. You claimed the video was fallacious. We’ve had 130+ responses since then and you have consistently avoided backing up your claim.

    You have a lot of claims that need justifying. We’ll start with the one you made in post #1.

    Put up, or shut up. And shut up includes your sock-puppets.

  137. on 05 Dec 2012 at 4:28 am 137.Anonymous said …

    By the way “A”, you just shot yourself in the foot again by trying to bring in one of unslick’s arguments.

    In trying to claim the moral high-ground “A” but we’ll call him “Right” even though he is “wrong” brought up this load of camel shit:

    “Atheism Fails to account for rationality, As a worldview, atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems.”

    Which was said by someone who also believes that it’s OK to treat people as property and to stone people to death. Note to messy, this is the actual stoning as depicted in the bible not your troll-bait metiphorical [sic] version.

    Critics of the Bible must be careful not to impose their present day moral system upon that of an ancient culture found in Scripture and then judge Scripture as though it is inferior to their own subjective morality.

    So, great, hitch your morality wagon to someone whose view of rationality and morality says it’s OK to stone women to death for not being virgins because it happened somewhere else. That’s as repugnant as William Lane Craig’s defense of biblical genocide as being a good thing in that the murdered children went to heaven.

    Now, lets get back to “A” and his defense of his post #1

    You have two choices to continue in this debate. Either provide backup the rebuttal to the video that proves your point or withdraw your comment and admit that your words were a pack of lies.

  138. on 05 Dec 2012 at 12:18 pm 138.Right said …

    Again more fallacies from the 3 headed anonymous/DPK/Thelma-Lou.

    Lets look at this logically. It is not required to prove to the fool that grass is green nor that a gii video if fallacious. It is your duty to prove it is not. Your video makes claims it cannot substantiate. In fact, the library of gii videos makes dozens of fallacious claims. It is up to you to support these claims logically and rationally. Stop poisoning the well by seeing every poster as a puppet to change the subject. Those who protest the loudest are the greatest offender.

    You still failed to tackle the moral dilemma of the fetus. What’s wrong? No answer for the hypocrisy in the atheist worldview?

    Munch, munch…… I have popcorn ready……

  139. on 05 Dec 2012 at 12:22 pm 139.Right said …

    Right:

    “I can summarize by saying that atheism cannot account for rationality. You see, logic is based upon universal truth statements which we call the laws of logic. Such laws are, for example, the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle.”

    Right,

    I can only say right on. Thelma-Lou is quite proud of standing for nothingness. One who stands for nothings lives a life not worth anything.

    Right Out…

  140. on 05 Dec 2012 at 12:56 pm 140.Patrick Flannery said …

    132. Right:
    “Atheism Fails to account for rationality”

    Fair enough. Humans do not have complete answers for why the universe is the way it is, or why it always operates according to certain rules.

    “In the Christian worldview, the universal truth statements are derived from God.”

    Oops. First you have to show there is a God. Then you have to explain where he came from and how he can do what you say he does without the violating the rules we both agree govern the universe. If you can’t do these things, then your “explanation” doesn’t really explain or account for anything.

    “Since logical absolutes are universally true, they cannot be the product of human minds because human minds are limited, are not universally true, and often contradict each other.”

    You have left out an important element: logical absolutes are the product of human minds *interacting with the real world.* They refer to the real world and must agree with the world in order to be useful. That is why they are the same, everywhere, even as human minds differ. Human minds might be different, but they all have to deal with the same world.

    If you are trying to say that the rules of logic exist independently of human minds, then I want you to show me where they are when there is not a mind there to create them. A rock by itself has no need of logic.

    There are two elements necessary for universal logical rules: a human mind, and a single universe for it to look at.

    “Where Christianity provides an answer to this important issue, atheism clearly fails to deliver.”

    Christianity does not provide an answer, it provides a cop-out. God is not an answer, only a method for kicking the question down the road. We don’t have ultimate answers for the questions you pose, and Christians like you are at best mistaken when you say you do.

  141. on 05 Dec 2012 at 1:23 pm 141.Anonymous said …

    And in #139 “Right” gets confused and responds to himself. Same old shit, different sock-puppet.

  142. on 05 Dec 2012 at 2:30 pm 142.Anonymous said …

    By the way, right, unless you claim original authorship, then your wholesale use of copy-paste arguments as above, without citation or attribution, is plagiarism. Plagiarism is theft. Don’t you Christians claim to have some rule about not stealing?

  143. on 05 Dec 2012 at 3:32 pm 143.Lou(DFW) said …

    139.Right said …

    “Right:

    Right,

    Right Out…”

    LOL! The socket-puppet Martin/Mitch/ASS again exposes himself for the fraud that he is.

  144. on 05 Dec 2012 at 3:37 pm 144.DPK said …

    141.Anonymous said …

    And in #139 “Right” gets confused and responds to himself. Same old shit, different sock-puppet.

    He seems to have a pathological need to make people think there are actually other people who agree with him, when in fact he is not even bright enough to disguise his own use of multiple identities. He has been busted on this multiple times now… forgetting to change his identity when replying to himself in an effort to agree with himself. It’s kind of tragic and sad.

    Then of course, there is this gem:

    Lets look at this logically. It is not required to prove to the fool that grass is green nor that a gii video if fallacious.
    Translation… I really have no idea what fallacious means, but I’ll just throw it about in the hope that someone believes it. Really?

    It is your duty to prove it is not. Your video makes claims it cannot substantiate.
    Such as? You keep saying that, but you never mention even one actual “claim” the video makes that is false, despite being asked repeatedly to do so. Why don’t you get to the point and tell us specifically what you are referring to.
    And while we are on the subject of making claims that cannot be substantiated, since you brought it up and all… how about your claim that life continues after death, that god exists, that god answers prayers… on and on and on.

    In fact, the library of gii videos makes dozens of fallacious claims.
    Such as?
    It is up to you to support these claims logically and rationally.

    Which claims are you talking about? You just said one doesn’t need to prove that grass is green. One also doesn’t need to prove that something does NOT exist if there is no evidence that it does. One need not prove that there are no Martians living in Portland just because someone claims there is with no additional evidence to support the claim. For someone with a “background in science” you have a very poor understanding of how reality works.

    Stop poisoning the well by seeing every poster as a puppet to change the subject.

    He says after just being busted for doing EXACTLY that in 138-139. Excuse us while we have a hearty laugh at your expense. liar.

    Those who protest the loudest are the greatest offender.

    So true, ASS… thanks for making that point so abundantly clear.

  145. on 05 Dec 2012 at 3:39 pm 145.Lou(DFW) said …

    139.Right said …

    “I can only say right on.”

    Agreed, that’s all you can say.

    “Thelma-Lou is quite proud of standing for nothingness. One who stands for nothings lives a life not worth anything.”

    Even if true, irrelevant to the lack of evidence for your imaginary god and to the delusion that is theism.

    I’m here only to challenge the lies posted here by you and your ilk about god and religion. I’m not here to give meaning to your life nor to anyone else.

    Do you have anything to offer other than insults? If not, then it’s obvious that it’s you “who stands for nothings lives a life not worth anything.[sic]“

  146. on 05 Dec 2012 at 4:48 pm 146.Lou(DFW) said …

    144.DPK said …

    “And in #139 “Right” gets confused and responds to himself. Same old shit, different sock-puppet.
    He seems to have a pathological need to make people think there are actually other people who agree with him”

    He’s simply a pathological liar who has definite mental issues. I posted this here a long time ago – he uses this blog as a place to act-out.

  147. on 05 Dec 2012 at 7:53 pm 147.DPK said …

    And after having been once again outed for sock puppeting one would think he would simply disappear in shame after being caught doing exactly what he accuses others of.
    One can only hope.
    I know… let’s all pray real hard that he goes away for good after this public humiliation.
    I predict the return of Horattio is in the near future…. hahaha

  148. on 05 Dec 2012 at 7:59 pm 148.Lou(DFW) said …

    147.DPK said …

    “And after having been once again outed for sock puppeting one would think he would simply disappear in shame after being caught doing exactly what he accuses others of.”

    He will disappear, just as did Mitch/Martin.

  149. on 05 Dec 2012 at 8:01 pm 149.Xenon said …

    Patrick,

    God is not an answer? God being the intelligence and designer is most definitely an answer. Kicking the can down the road would be “we don”t know how the universe came about but we will one day.”

  150. on 05 Dec 2012 at 8:26 pm 150.DPK said …

    Xenon appears instead of Horattio… I stand corrected.

    “God being the intelligence and designer is most definitely an answer.”

    Except you provide no reason for anyone to believe your god in fact exists and is in fact the “intelligence and designer”. “we don”t know how the universe came about but we [probably] will one day.” is called honesty. “God did it” is called making shit up rather than seeking the truth.
    Without evidence to back you up, saying “a magical god did it” is no different than saying “the spaghetti monster did it.” Neither is an answer, they are in fact simply willful ignorance, a concept you are more than casually familiar with, no?
    Goodness, you are tiresome in your never ending idiocy.

  151. on 05 Dec 2012 at 9:24 pm 151.Lou(DFW) said …

    As if on cue, suddenly appears – 149.Xenon

    …and the sock-puppet parade continues.

  152. on 05 Dec 2012 at 10:27 pm 152.Patrick Flannery said …

    Overheard at Xenon’s house:

    child: “Mommy, where do babies come from?”

    mommy: “Snarfwidgits.”

    child: “Thanks, Mom, good answer!”

    There is a difference between labels and answers.

  153. on 05 Dec 2012 at 11:37 pm 153.DPK said …

    Patrick, don’t you recognize the theistic rules of logic in place here? If you imply that snarf widgets are not the source of babies, then it is upon you to prove they are not. And you can’t do that can you?
    Now, properly chastised, you may return to your dinner of tasty fetus soup, you heathen.

  154. on 06 Dec 2012 at 1:30 am 154.Anonymous said …

    Welcome to the argument that says that the universe is so complex that the only explanation for its existence is that it was designed and created by an even more complex, more powerful, entity that exhibits intelligence and purpose. It’s further claimed that the thing that is more complex than the thing that is too complex not to have been designed, has a complexity that doesn’t have to have been designed.

    Theists refer to this story as “truth”. In other circles it’s known as a complete and utter load of bollocks.

    Still, let’s let them have their playground. Please do provide the proof and evidence as to which god created the universe, how it was created, how you know which god did it, how we can know that the other religious stories of creation are false and, of course, do explain how we can verify that these explanations are correct.

  155. on 06 Dec 2012 at 2:59 am 155.Xenon said …

    Overheard at Pat’s house:

    child: “Mommy, where do babies come from?”

    mommy: “Don’t know but we will one day”

    child: “Thanks, Mom, good answer!”

    There is a difference between willful ignorance and real answers.

    It works both ways Pat. You might to enter into reality where God is a REAL option and stop making up child-like words. It only proves you do not have the maturity to have a real conversation.

    The reason the majority of people believe the universe was created by God is because it looks created. It is hard to believe people would make this leap.

  156. on 06 Dec 2012 at 3:59 am 156.Lou(DFW) said …

    155.Xenonsense said …

    “The reason the majority of people believe the universe was created by God is because it looks created.”

    The reason that the majority of the people once believed that the earth was flat is because it looks flat.

    The reason that the majority of the people once believed that the the sun and the heavens orbited the earth is because it looks like it does.

    It’s not hard to believe that people would make this leap is because things are often not as they seem.

    “It is hard to believe people would make this leap.”

    For ignorant people like Xenonsense, it’s not at all hard to believe such Xenonsesne.

  157. on 06 Dec 2012 at 5:00 am 157.Anonymous said …

    Xenon (also known as Truth, A, and others) posts his proof of god and it’s totally devoid of reason.

    “The reason the majority of people believe the universe was created by God is because it looks created. It is hard to believe people would make this leap”

    No wonder we can’t have a sensible conversation with him. That is so utterly beyond stupid that there’s little more to be said. Well, except for. Fuck, that’s pretty much the most stupid argument on the planet.

  158. on 06 Dec 2012 at 5:30 am 158.DPK said …

    The other reason people commonly believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe was because the churches said it was so, and were happy to burn you as a heritic for suggesting otherwise. Such is the nature of dogmatic thinking, where, like Xenon, you start with a conclusion and then look for reasons to believe it, while ignoring reasons that dispute it.
    Now that Xenon has been rebuked, anyone want to take bets on which sock puppet will magically appear next? Ben, Curm, Hor?

  159. on 06 Dec 2012 at 3:05 pm 159.freddies_dead said …

    132.Right (the sockpuppet) said …

    … a whole load of presuppositional bullshit.

    Atheism Fails to account for rationality,

    “Atheism” doesn’t need to account for rationality, however, an atheistic wordview i.e. a worldview not premised on a deity of some kind, is perfectly capable of accounting for rationality.

    As a worldview, atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems.

    As has been pointed out previously, atheism isn’t a worldview, it is a negation/rejection of theistic worldviews. There are atheistic worldviews but “atheism” is no such thing.

    I can summarize by saying that atheism cannot account for rationality.

    Why would you bother when atheism has no need to account for anything?

    You see, logic is based upon universal truth statements which we call the laws of logic.

    Why call them “universal truth statements” when it’s neither accurate nor necessary?

    Such laws are, for example, the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle. These [laws of logic] are what rational arguments are based upon. If these additional[?] laws changed depending upon the situation, location, time, or an individual’s personal preferences, then there is no basis for rationality and truth could not be known.

    Probably without realising it you have just described the objective nature of logic. Logic is what it is regardless of what people may want it to be. Of course this raises some huge problems for Christianity because Christianity affirms a worldview where consciousness holds primacy i.e. the subject (consciousness) holds primacy over the objects that it is aware of. As a result it is inherently subjective. Any laws of logic based on such a worldview would themselves be subjective and liable to change at the whim of consciousness.

    Truth would then depend upon situations and personal opinions. If that were the case, then I could say that blue sleeps faster than Wednesday and whatever I say is always true because I claim it.

    But such a claim would be fine within the inherently subjective Christian worldview.

    But, this is not rational and you and I both know that isn’t.

    So you agree that Christianity isn’t rational, great!

    In the Christian worldview, the [laws of logic] are derived from God.

    Ignoring the fact that you have no biblical basis to make this claim, it also implies that the laws of logic are entirely subjective and can change whenever a consciousness feels like it … but you just said that was irrational? You seem very confused Right.

    These [laws of logic], these laws of identity, are conceptual by nature.

    1. Can you please give us the Christian theory of concepts?
    2. The laws of logic are axiomatic i.e. to argue against them you first need them to hold. They follow from the axiom “Existence exists”. To exist is to be something specific i.e. the law of identity followed by it’s corollaries the law of non-contradiction (that A cannot be A and ¬A at the same time and in the same way – mutually exclusive) and the law of the excluded middle (A must be either A or ¬A it cannot be B – jointly exhaustive). The fact that we can integrate a self evident fact of reality into our conteptual framework does not necessarily make that self evident fact conceptual in nature.

    Why? Because they are statements.

    Can you please explain how the law of identity is a statement?

    Statements require minds and since logic is the process of the mind, the logical foundations upon which rationality depends, is of the mind and is conceptual by nature.

    But you said earlier that logic doesn’t depend on personal opinions? Now you say logic depends on minds (and is therefore subject to opinions). Whilst I accept that this is consistent with the Christian worldview, you’ve also conceded that the Christian worldview is irrational so why should we listen to you about this? In fact, why should be listen to you about anything?

    If the atheist were to say that logical processes are not of the mind or that the truth statements which are the foundations of logic are not of the mind, then he is being irrational.

    Recognising that, to be objective, logic must be mind independent isn’t irrational. It isn’t irrational to affirm that things are what they are independent of consciousness. After all, if objects were subject to the consciousnesses that were aware of them, they could be anything those consciousnesses desired – something you’ve already stated is irrational despite it being what your Christian worldview requires. Your inconsistency is marvellous to behold.

    After all, truth is a statement which agrees with reality. And because truth is constructed in statements, a mind is required for such statements to be made.

    Whilst this is trivially true, I’m unaware what you think this has to do with the self evident axiomatic nature of logic?

    Let me clarify.

    Please do.

    If a rock is all that exists in the universe, it is true that a rock is the only thing that exists.

    OK.

    But saying that it is the only thing that exists is a statement which requires a mind. If there are no minds, and the rock is all that exists, no statements can be made about the rock.

    Right, but what bearing does this have on the fact of reality that the rock is the only thing that exists? Does it suddenly stop being the only thing that exists if no consciousness is there to apprehend that it’s the only thing that exists?

    It would not be known that it was the only thing existing.

    And? Would this not knowing somehow affect the fact of reality that the rock is the only thing that exists?

    But truth statements are known. Therefore, all such truth statements require minds and the universal, logical absolutes, truth statements that form the basis of rational thought, require a mind to be made and known.

    It seems you don’t understand the difference between facts of reality and statements made about those facts of reality. That, coupled with your constant conflation of logic with propositional statements that have a truth value, has made your attempt to “clarify” things a bit of a disaster really.

    Atheism has no way of accounting for these [laws of logic].

    Ignoring the fact that atheism does not need to account for anything, why do you think the axiomatic laws of logic need to be accounted for?

    Atheists can try and state that the laws of logic are based upon human minds,

    Why on earth would they do that when they can identify and integrate the axiomatic and objective nature of logic?

    but this cannot be because human minds are different and contradict each other as well as themselves. Since logical absolutes are universally true, they cannot be the product of human minds because human minds are limited, are not universally true, and often contradict each other.

    Oops, your set up for a bit of fallacious reasoning is showing…

    If the atheist wants to say that the logical absolutes are merely descriptions of behavior of the universe, then how would an atheist, by observation determine the third law of logic, the law of excluded middle, which says that statements are either true or false? He couldn’t.

    But by observing that “to exist” is to be something specific (identity) means you’re already there – the corollaries follow on from identity.

    If the atheist wants to say that logical absolutes are the result of chemical processes in the brain, that can’t work because it would mean that logic could be altered by brain chemistry.

    But apparently it’s OK for logic to be the product of a mind where it’s only subject to whims and opinions rather than brain chemistry.

    Some atheists say that logic is a product of human language, but that doesn’t work because languages are subjective and culturally variable where logic is not.

    But being the product of a mind isn’t subjective at all *rolls eyes*

    If the atheist says that logic is a property of the universe like motion and gravity, the problem here is that you cannot measure the laws of logic where such things like weight, mass, heat, and cold can be measured.

    This statement is utterly incoherent.

    So, atheists repeatedly try to respond to the issue of trying to account for rationality founded in universal truth statements also known as logical absolutes. But in all their trying and all their attempted logical outcry, they fail.

    This is according to you, of course. Reality disagrees with you.

    Why? Because atheism doesn’t have the substance to account for rationality. It is deficient as a worldview.

    And, as you have been told repeatedly, atheism isn’t a worldview. It has no need to “account for rationality”, it’s merely the negation/rejection of theistic worldviews.

    But, Christianity comes to the rescue and states that the universal truth statements reflect the universal mind.

    Aaaaand here’s that fallacious reasoning you set up earlier. This is a perfect example of the relatavist fallacy i.e. your mind cannot have primacy over the objects it’s aware of but God’s can. No explanation of why/how this is possible, it’s just barely asserted.

    We, as God’s creation, are able to recognize them because we are made in God’s image.

    Another relativist fallacy – apparently theists can observe the laws of logic while atheists can’t, despite us all being made in God’s image (according to Christian theism at least).

    Where Christianity provides an answer to this important issue, atheism clearly fails to deliver.

    Christianity’s “answer” is to steal concepts (objectivity, logic etc…) from an atheistic worldview (not atheism) which affirms that existence holds primacy i.e. that objects are what they are independent of consciousness. It then denies the truth of the very worldview it has stolen from by suggesting that logic actually depends entirely on consciousness (in this case the consciousness of their God).

  160. on 06 Dec 2012 at 7:54 pm 160.Xenon said …

    “Xenon, you start with a conclusion and then look for reasons to believe it, while ignoring reasons that dispute it.”

    DPK, that was true when I was an atheist, not today. You say I am ignoring reasons that dispute my conclusion. What would those be?

  161. on 06 Dec 2012 at 8:58 pm 161.DPK said …

    Oh god, well, shall we start THIS dance again Xenon? Why bother? But, since you brought it up… it depends specifically, on which flavor god you claim is real. Remember, you would never ever give us any specifics. Lets start with the basics… is the god in which you believe omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent? Does he intercede in human affairs? Does he answer prayers? Does he have a plan, and does everything happen according to his plan, as messenger and others claim? Or, is yours simply a creator god who set the big bang in motion and walked away? Tell us specifics about your god, and we will happily point out all the reasons you are ignoring that would tend to dispute them.
    But you won’t, will you, Mr. Xenothing?

  162. on 06 Dec 2012 at 9:06 pm 162.Xenon said …

    DPK if you claim I ignore reasons that dispute my claim should you not be able to outline the reasons?

    I will keep it simple. Show me the reasons that dispute my conclusion that a Creator designed and created the universe.

  163. on 06 Dec 2012 at 9:40 pm 163.DPK said …

    Be happy to, once you define specifically which creator god we are talking about.
    Why is this such an issue for you? You seem very reluctant to tell us anything about the characteristics of this being you claim designed and created the universe. We need definitions in order to be on common ground, no? Define your god.

  164. on 06 Dec 2012 at 10:02 pm 164.Lou(DFW) said …

    162.Xenonsense said …

    “Show me the reasons that dispute my conclusion that a Creator designed and created the universe.”

    Because the Sky God Tengri designed and created the universe. Until you can prove that he didn’t, it’s true because I say so.

  165. on 06 Dec 2012 at 10:03 pm 165.Xenon said …

    You know DPK, you didn’t need any characteristics to make the claim. Now you are just attempting to change the subject. I would ascertain the Creator must be intelligent, powerful and quite creative. Our founders felt like our human rights came from the Creator too.

    There are no reasons I neglected to consider as you claim. I thought not.

  166. on 06 Dec 2012 at 10:51 pm 166.Lou(DFW) said …

    165.Xenonsense said …

    “I would ascertain the Creator must be intelligent, powerful and quite creative.”

    Who gives a shit what you ascertain. It matters what evidence or proof that you have.

    The Xenonsense sock-puppet suddenly reappeared in reply to 140.Patrick Flannery with Xenonsense 149. Notice how he avoided directly answering any of the points in 140.Patrick.

    “Our founders felt like our human rights came from the Creator too.”

    Liar, show us. You can’t. But even if true, so what? It’s no more relevant what they thought about the “Creator” than what you think about it.

    Oh, and why is it that their slaves didn’t have those same rights? Were their slaves not considered to be human? What about women?

  167. on 06 Dec 2012 at 11:12 pm 167.Anonymous said …

    Xenon hasn’t demonstrated how he reached the conclusion that a particular god designed the universe, yet he wants people to show why he is wrong – that is blatantly dishonest, and he has been told this countless times before. All he has done is to state two unproven assertions. (a) this god exists (b) this god designed the universe. It’s not the most stupid argument on the planet, it’s been promoted to the most stupid in the universe.

    What’s more, he absolutely refuses to define this god in anything other than a circular fashion. What he’s asking for is to reverse the burden of proof. But then, that’s what he does when he’s defending his other sock-puppets and trying to change the subject.

  168. on 06 Dec 2012 at 11:42 pm 168.DPK said …

    Yeah, kind of nebulous… Intelligent, powerful, and creative… Could be Steve Jobs, but I suppose he isn’t quite old enough.
    Ok, so Xenon does not define his god as perfect, all powerful, all knowing, or all good… Just clever and possessing some power or technology we do not. Lets go with that then. IF we were postulating a designer for the universe, that would certainly fit better with the universe we see than the omnipotent, omniscient , benevolent god that the Christians claim. At least Xenon has distanced himself, wisely, from that.
    So, we have a less than perfect, somewhat powerful, and somewhat clever being postulated. Now, what evidence do you have that this being actually exists, and did, in fact, create the universe? For example, if I postulated a magical inter dimensional sea turtle farted the universe into existence, what do you have to convince me your theory is any more valid then mine?

  169. on 07 Dec 2012 at 12:13 am 169.DPK said …

    The reality that Xenon will not acknowledge is that a complete absence of evidence is in fact, evidence. If one postulates the existence of garden fairies, the complete lack of any evidence that garden fairies actually exist is a reason that must be ignored in order to continue to believe in garden fairies.
    Please note too, that xenon has intentionally distanced himself from the “standard” definition of almost all gods, and in particular, the Christian god of the bible. An astute observer would wonder why he has been so careful to do this, given his assertion that he has not disregarded any reasons to reject a belief in a creator god.
    Could this be him being intentionally intellectually dishonest, or does he really reject the definition of the Christian god? We don’t know, because he will refuse to answer. That way he can leave himself wiggle room because he knows full well his position is indefensible. Another devious, self deluded theist.
    Next.

  170. on 07 Dec 2012 at 3:17 am 170.Xenon said …

    DPK,

    I had to call, you out. Let me show you where you discover yourself. You claim I “ignore reasons that dispute my claim”. You made this claim with no reference by me to any one particular God. If that was essential, how can you make this claim? When called out on your claim abruptly you begin scrambling in an attempt to gain more information about God in order to grasp at any opening to support your false statement.

    The bottom line here is you have again made a claim you again cannot support. The Creator could be a God that has identified or maybe not. That doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that you have inadvertently acknowledged that a Creator is a real possibility. Next time save face and comment only when you have something relevant and practical to offer. Sorry to embarrass you but you needed the lesson.

  171. on 07 Dec 2012 at 3:33 am 171.Anonymous said …

    Then given the above, Xenon must restate his position as “…being designed and created by some unknown, non-specific, non-nameable, entity” but he can’t label it as capital G god, because he has not provided any way to tie those together. Thus his position most likely reflects a form of deism, not an argument for the biblical god.

    However, if it goes with the vague and nebulous approach – which appears to be an attempt to leave open a back door in which to redefine his god and move goal posts – then he now has an infinite amount of “gods” that could be the creator; and he still hasn’t provided a non-circular definition of “god”. Hence, the probability of him being able to tie this act to a specific god is virtually, if not actually, zero.

    Finally, as nowhere does he provide any way to get to his conclusion from his premise, he loses there too.

  172. on 07 Dec 2012 at 3:36 am 172.Anonymous said …

    In “171″ all references to “god” should be quoted so as to make it clear that this “god” could be anything, anything at all, which reduces the ability to claim it being supernatural. At that point “god” goes out of the equation.

  173. on 07 Dec 2012 at 3:37 am 173.Anonymous said …

    Oh, and in 170 Xenon is back to his old game of playing semantics in order to avoid making an, you know, argument. Basically, he’s trolling.

  174. on 07 Dec 2012 at 3:58 am 174.The messenger said …

    173.Anonymous do you think that Jesus has an easy job?

    Jesus puts up with us everyday because he loves us.

    If he did not love us he would simply destroy us all.

    Jesus forgives you.

  175. on 07 Dec 2012 at 4:34 am 175.Anonymous said …

    “For example, if I postulated a magical inter dimensional sea turtle farted the universe into existence, what do you have to convince me your theory is any more valid then mine?”

    At first I thought DPK was being sarcastic then I sat down to think about it using the rules of logic as implemented by Mitch/Martin/Lou/CastBound/Curmudgeon/Xenon/40YA/ and others. Upon reflection, DPK has hit upon a beautiful and universal truth.

    I cannot refute DPK’s claim, so it must be true according to the rules of Christian logic.

    Now, what about the Big Bang? I’ll be honest, at first I thought I had DPK but then I saw that he said “inter dimensional” and a whole new avenue of possible explanations was opened to me.

    So, I thought to myself, how would this appear to someone “with a background in science”? perhaps even an Asstrophysicist?

    Then it hit me – if the sea turtle’s fart “appeared” to us as the Big Bang, that would explain EVERYTHING!!11!!

    The expansion of the universe? Farts expand to fill the room. But if we were IN the fart we’d only see the fart expanding.

    Dark matter? Bits of poop mixed in the fart.

    Gravity? Farts interact with everything around them.

    Anything I didn’t understand was explained by the fact that the workings of magical inter-dimensional sea turtle farts were clearly beyond us puny peoples.

    Try as I could. I could not disprove this modification of DPK’s theory. Thus, according to Xenon-style logic, it must be true.

    So now I wonder how best to express my appreciation for this magical fart. In doing some research I found out that the recently popular, but now debunked and clearly inferior Yahweh, loved – just loved – it when he got his subjects to kill in his name. In particular, he seemed quite fond of familiar sacrifices.

    Does anyone here know if the preferred form of attribution with “gods” is still burning one’s first born alive?

  176. on 07 Dec 2012 at 8:43 am 176.Severin said …

    170 xenon
    ” The Creator could be a God that has identified or maybe not. That doesn’t really matter.”

    Thank you Xenon!
    You have just said that it is quite possible that your creator may be ANYTHING.
    Or, maybe he(she, it?) does not exist at all?

    Be careful!
    With such a “definition” you could have a problem with Spaghetti Monster, who is only waiting for you to send you to spaghetti hell.

  177. on 07 Dec 2012 at 1:06 pm 177.boyer said …

    The Bible says not to argue with disbelievers, he does not need us to argue for him. First all people are born with the knowledge of God. Bible states that. so even if you state that you do not believe in God, you do. you have already shown that to me, with this web site. I do have one question for you and the people on this site that do not believe that God and Jesus are real and involved in this world. If you do not believe in God or Jesus, why have you spent so much time trying to convince yourself and others that he does not exist? on one of your post, you stated that people that believe in God live a dilusional life and we have waisted it. I ask, have you not waisted your life in the pursuit of proving God does not exist? I read an article not long ago about a person that was working with DNA. he stated “we can duplicate DNA, except the God factor” and here you still are trying to disprove God. May God bless you all and open your hearts to Christ. the power of prayer is great, and I will remember all here that do not believe that Christ might touch your heart with his love and mercy.

  178. on 07 Dec 2012 at 1:43 pm 178.Lou(DFW) said …

    177.boyer said …

    “The Bible says not to argue with disbelievers, he does not need us to argue for him.”

    Then why are you here arguing?

    Why do so many liars such as messenger, Pat Robertson, etc., claim to speak for god?

    “First all people are born with the knowledge of God.”

    Thank you for stating that in the beginning of your comment. Now we can disregard it as untrue xtain propaganda.

  179. on 07 Dec 2012 at 2:40 pm 179.Anonymous said …

    If we are all believers and your god needs no help and you are not to argue with non–believers, which you proudly stated don’t exist, then your are either disobeying your god, or this is all a “dilusion”.

    Assuming that you actually believe your own nonsense, this discussion can’t actually be happening, so it must be your own imagination that is telling you to go get an education and come back when you have a coherent non–contradictory argument.

  180. on 07 Dec 2012 at 2:51 pm 180.DPK said …

    Oh Xenon, you are like a poor, sad clown. THAT was the point of your ever so carefully worded exercise in semantics? To get me to admit that it is “possible” the universe was created by “something”.
    hahahah… I have never denied that, even once. As an open minded person, I accept all possibilities as “possible”… (hence the word “possibilities”). What I, and as far as I know, practically every other atheist here as said repeatedly, is there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest such a creature exists, or that such a creature did in fact, create the universe. As such, while it is certainly possible to accept the possibility, there is no reason to believe it is in fact so.
    You,on the other hand, have indeed started with a CONCLUSION… that a god created the universe, and you ignore the total lack of evidence that would suggest otherwise. So, my comment stands.
    Now, given that you have not shown that my inter-dimensional sea turtle hypothesis has any less substance than your, somewhat clever, somewhat powerful, and amazingly clever “something’ creator, will you yield that it is also a possibility? If not, why?
    And, since I have again ceded that there are indeed an infinite number of “possibilities” to explain creation, will you also now admit that it is also entirely possible that your postulated creator god is completely imaginary? Or will you continue to cling to your dogmatic belief and ignore all other evidence?

  181. on 07 Dec 2012 at 3:59 pm 181.Xenon said …

    “you ignore the total lack of evidence that would suggest otherwise.”

    DPK no need to get nasty or angry. OK, I’ll bite. What is the evidence that suggest otherwise? I’m willing to consider this evidence I missed.

  182. on 07 Dec 2012 at 4:10 pm 182.Lou(DFW) said …

    181.Xenonsense said …

    “you ignore the total lack of evidence that would suggest otherwise.”

    “What is the evidence that suggest otherwise? I’m willing to consider this evidence I missed.”

    Xenonsense, are you actually that illiterate, or do you intentionally lie about what he wrote?

    Try to slowly read it again aloud – “LACK OF EVIDENCE,” not evidence.

  183. on 07 Dec 2012 at 4:17 pm 183.DPK said …

    You are so dense… why don’t you try reading what I wrote instead of what you want to claim I said.
    I said you ignore the total LACK OF EVIDENCE that would suggest otherwise. That is all that can be said about the nebulous, unspecific, “somewhat intelligent, kind of powerful, and basically cleaver something” that you have put on the table.
    Now, if you want to discuss the Christian god of the bible… different story, because there are specific attributes attributed to him. But you are too devious and intellectually dishonest to allow your self to be backed into that corner, so you wisely tried to redefine your postulated creator to be some shape shifting phantom in order to avoid any possible clash with your existing delusion. How stupid are you?
    Now, why won’t you address the issue of my sea turtle hypothesis? Wouldn’t you agree that it is a real possibility, or at least one supported by as much evidence as your “something” hypothesis? Indeed, since my sea turtle would fit the definition of “something” they may well be one in the same. No?
    After you are done eating that shoe, will you further admit, that it is also a “real possibility” that the biblical god is completely imaginary? (btw, you never explained to us what exactly, an un-real possibility is, other than a contradiction in terms).
    Focus Xenon… you can do this. Just make a resolution not to lie and the realization will dawn on you.

  184. on 07 Dec 2012 at 4:24 pm 184.DPK said …

    You are so dense… why don’t you try reading what I wrote instead of what you want to claim I said.
    I said you ignore the total LACK OF EVIDENCE that would suggest otherwise. That is all that can be said about the nebulous, unspecific, “somewhat intelligent, kind of powerful, and basically cleaver something” that you have put on the table.
    Now, if you want to discuss the Christian god of the bible… different story, because there are specific attributes attributed to him. But you are too devious and intellectually dishonest to allow your self to be backed into that corner, so you wisely tried to redefine your postulated creator to be some shape shifting phantom in order to avoid any possible clash with your existing delusion. How stupid are you?
    Now, why won’t you address the issue of my sea turtle hypothesis? Wouldn’t you agree that it is a real possibility, or at least one supported by as much evidence as your “something” hypothesis? Indeed, since my sea turtle would fit the definition of “something” they may well be one in the same. No?
    After you are done eating that shoe, will you further admit, that it is also a “real possibility” that the biblical god is completely imaginary? (btw, you never explained to us what exactly, an un-real possibility is, other than a contradiction in terms).
    Focus Xenon… you can do this. Just make a resolution not to lie and the realization will dawn on you.

  185. on 07 Dec 2012 at 4:41 pm 185.Anonymous said …

    Xenon is just playing at his usual reversal of the burden of truth game.

    He wants you to critique the argument he isn’t prepared to make.

  186. on 07 Dec 2012 at 4:57 pm 186.DPK said …

    I replied to Xenon’s Z-nonsense, but it’s “awaiting moderation” WTF?

  187. on 07 Dec 2012 at 5:07 pm 187.Lou(DFW) said …

    186.DPK said …

    “I replied to Xenon’s Z-nonsense, but it’s “awaiting moderation” WTF?”

    Every once in a while I get that…your comment is visible.

  188. on 07 Dec 2012 at 5:17 pm 188.Anonymous said …

    Actually, if he wants to go the “disprove it” route then nonsense needs to address the expanded version of your sea-turtle #175 because that explains much more than his vague claim. Until he does that, his claim is too weak by comparison to be considered.

    He can’t have it both ways no matter how hard he tries.

  189. on 07 Dec 2012 at 6:50 pm 189.Lou(DFW) said …

    181.Xenonsense said …

    “I’m willing to consider this evidence I missed.”

    As usual, you have it wrong.

    It’s YOUR evidence that WE missed. Where is it? I’m willing to consider it if you ever provide it.

  190. on 07 Dec 2012 at 6:58 pm 190.Xenon said …

    DPK, you continue to run from you comment. What you stated was:

    “Xenon, you start with a conclusion and then look for reasons to believe it, while ignoring reasons that dispute it.”

    Even in my dense moment I can read you did not say lack of evidence you stated ignoring reasons. I know the atheist protocol is to go back to the talking points presented by the atheist community. Maybe you should stick with them to avoid further embarrassment

    You continue to attempt to amend your dishonest comments to save face. If you would like to be a man and support your original statement I will reply. If you continue in dishonesty, the scolding I gave you will speak for itself.

  191. on 07 Dec 2012 at 7:52 pm 191.DPK said …

    You are either unbelievably dense or unbelievably dishonest.
    As I, and others here have explained to you repeatedly, the complete lack of evidence that something exists most certainly qualifies as a “reason that disputes it.”
    Despite the fact that you tried to be 100% intellectually dishonest by attempting to stage the question in such a away that all other logical contradictions associate with the concept of the biblical god could be dodged (how convenient you foresaw this and tried to circumvent it in typical theist fashion)by trying to make your “creator” as nebulous as possible, the simple fact that there is no actual evidence that such a being exists, or that one created the universe, as you claim, amounts to you most definitely “ignoring reasons that dispute it”.
    Man, I’d like to offer you a “nice try”, but you’re not even close. Thanks for the laugh though. Now stop embarrassing yourself and go away.
    Cue sock puppet #4.

  192. on 07 Dec 2012 at 8:09 pm 192.Xenon said …

    I understand DPK. You make a claim you cannot possibly support now you strike out at others and bring your friends in to bail you out not to mention change the subject to draw away attention. One more time for others to see what you refuse to support.

    *********************************************************
    “Xenon, you start with a conclusion and then look for reasons to believe it, while ignoring reasons that dispute it.”
    *********************************************************

    The question is not rephrased or twisted in any respect. His entire post can be found at 158.

  193. on 07 Dec 2012 at 8:10 pm 193.DPK said …

    Interesting to note that the current persona of Xenon not only strategically forsakes his own christian god as creator of the universe because he knows that a defense of his widely held characteristics is impossible, but he also refuses to answer even the simplest, most direct question posed him. One can only conclude that this is because he is afraid that any possible answer he can give will only serve to destroy his illusion.

    And the rest of the theists remain unusually silent, probably either because they actually ARE all Xenon, or because they do not want to be associated with not only a liar, but a liar who is willing to abandon the idea that the Christian god, who is omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent, created the universe. That very idea is a violation of the Judeo-Christian first commandment about having other gods.
    Seems Xenon is not even fooling his own camp with his weak and transparent attempt at a semantic victory. Sad even the pathetically small sanctification of even such an intellectually insignificant accomplishment escapes him.
    Cue tragic music…………..

  194. on 07 Dec 2012 at 8:15 pm 194.DPK said …

    “Xenon, you start with a conclusion and then look for reasons to believe it, while ignoring reasons that dispute it.”

    Which is exactly what you did. Your premise was that the universe was created by a somewhat intelligent, somewhat powerful, and rather clever being.
    The reason you accept to believe that is because “the universe looks designed”.
    The reason you ignore that dispute it is that there is a complete absence of evidence that such a being exists, and there is a complete absence of evidence that any being “created” the universe.
    All conditions met. Take your fingers out of your ears, you are not fooling anyone.

  195. on 07 Dec 2012 at 8:18 pm 195.Lou said …

    Watching DPK squirm is rather entertaining.

    Richard Dawkins was in Atlanta just recently. He even stated the universe looks created but we must all remember it was not. He never stated why we must remember that or gave us an alternative. I ask why?

  196. on 07 Dec 2012 at 8:31 pm 196.DPK said …

    Watching you lie is even more entertaining. Don’t you think that the necessity of you to flat out lie in order to try and make your point is rather telling?
    No one is impressed by an argument supported entirely by falsehoods.

  197. on 07 Dec 2012 at 8:44 pm 197.DPK said …

    Remember, any of you reading this… the basis of Xenon’s total argument is now distilled to this:

    The complete absence of evidence for something is NOT a reason to doubt that it exists.

    Following this line of reasoning, let’s look at the parallels. Xenon claims that the complete absence of evidence that there exists a being that created the entire universe is no reason to doubt that such a being actually exists.
    Therefore one could also conclude:
    The complete absence of evidence that there is life on the moon is no reason to doubt that there is life on the moon.
    The complete absence of evidence that volcano gods cause volcanic eruptions is no reason to doubt the existence of volcano gods.
    The complete absence of evidence that garden fairies exist is no reason to doubt the existence of garden fairies.
    In short, the absence of evidence for ANYTHING is in fact, not a “reason” to conclude, or even doubt, that very things existence. In order to prove something does not exist, one must demonstrate it does not exist in any fashion, anywhere in the universe or beyond.
    Ok… then why won’t he admit that my magical, flatulent sea turtle has equal footing with his somewhat clever creator god? Seems it meets all his criteria for belief.

  198. on 07 Dec 2012 at 10:12 pm 198.Anonymous said …

    This is pathetic even for Xenon aka Lou. It looks like the recent outing of his continuing sock-puppet act must have really burned him badly.

  199. on 07 Dec 2012 at 10:24 pm 199.Lou(DFW) said …

    195.Louser said …

    “Richard Dawkins was in Atlanta just recently. He even stated the universe looks created but we must all remember it was not. He never stated why we must remember that or gave us an alternative.”

    Really? Show us.

    “I ask why?”

    Good for you. I’m not Richard Dawkins, so I can’t answer for him. Unlike you, I don’t pretend to be someone I’m not.

    We ask why don’t you ever present any evidence for your imaginary god? So, if you don’t present it, we “naturally” assume that you don’t have any – it’s part of the absolute moral code, as Xenonsense would say.

    So, if you won’t answer that question, then you can provide an answer to this question because you must know the answer: Why don’t you ever present any evidence for your imaginary god?

  200. on 07 Dec 2012 at 10:45 pm 200.Lou(DFW) said …

    192.Xenonsense said …

    “You make a claim you cannot possibly support now you strike out at others and bring your friends in to bail you out not to mention change the subject to draw away attention.”

    LOL! He doesn’t need anybody to help him, especially with the likes of you.

    “The question is not rephrased or twisted in any respect. His entire post can be found at 158.”

    FINALLY! Xenonsense can C&P a comment without distorting it to fit his lies. But wait. Now he’s suddenly jumped all the way back to #158, while ignoring that his last comments, wherein he intentionally changed the wording, were answers to subsequent comments.

    Let’s review DPK’s comment:

    “Xenon, you start with a conclusion and then look for reasons to believe it, while ignoring reasons that dispute it.”

    Xenonsense, how many times must you be told that the main reason to dispute it is that there is no evidence for it, just as there isn’t for your imaginary god! What part of LACK OF EVIDENCE don’t you understand? How is your creation belief any different than any of these?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

    BTW – the universe looks anything BUT designed. That’s another reason to dispute your belief.

  201. on 07 Dec 2012 at 10:50 pm 201.Lou(DFW) said …

    195.Louser said …

    “Richard Dawkins was in Atlanta just recently. He even stated the universe looks created but we must all remember it was not. He never stated why we must remember that or gave us an alternative.”

    Poor Louser, when all else fails, he resorts to that tired, old, useless, fallacy – an appeal to authority.

  202. on 08 Dec 2012 at 2:25 am 202.Anonymous said …

    Without explaining his point and providing a proper citation where we can see the actual words used and their context, Xenon’s supposed quote of Dawkins means nothing. Unless he’s prepared to provide that, his comment is valueless.

    Now some questions for Xenon.

    The universe is vast, infinite even, and your assertion that it looks designed is vague and unquantifiable. Right now it’s simply an intellectually lazy way to dodge a lack of evidence.

    1) What do you mean by “designed”, don’t be circular, tell us what is “designed” about the universe. It being what it is is NOT helpful. Back up your assertion with detail.

    2) Which parts look “designed”? All, some, what?

    3) How did you verify that it looks designed? For example, how many other universes have you examined to see if they look designed, or is this a sample of one?

    4) What would an undesigned universe look like? We need both to form a valid comparison.

    Experience shows that Xenon won’t provide meaningful answers. That being the case, he’s not honestly making a case but simply trolling. Again.

  203. on 08 Dec 2012 at 2:27 am 203.Anonymous said …

    In 202, the quote was from Lou. But as Lou and Xenon are sock-puppets, it’s the same difference.

  204. on 08 Dec 2012 at 2:07 pm 204.Burebista said …

    “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” Richard Dawkins

    What are those properties? So what would it look like if it it was designed, had purpose, had evil and had good? How does Richard know this or is it that he thinks he is God?

  205. on 08 Dec 2012 at 2:16 pm 205.Anonymous said …

    So, when xenon is to justify his “designed” comments, he posts as Burebista in order to ask a question of someone who is not here, so that he can run away and hide. Again.

    What a cop-out. What a troll.

  206. on 08 Dec 2012 at 2:18 pm 206.Burebista said …

    “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins

    “We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose… any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object.” Richard Dawkins

  207. on 08 Dec 2012 at 2:23 pm 207.The messenger said …

    Brother 206.Burebista, keep up the good work.

  208. on 08 Dec 2012 at 2:42 pm 208.DPK said …

    On cue., sock puppet 5 appears after Xenon is totally embarrassed and tries to divert attention away from that fiasco by steering the discussion to an irrelevant topic.
    Why don’t you heard over to the Richard Dawkins site and ask him yourself?
    http://richarddawkins.net/discussions
    I’m sure you will receive a warm welcome, and quite possibly an education there.
    This is the why won’t god heal amputees forum, not the Richard Dawkins forum.

  209. on 08 Dec 2012 at 3:21 pm 209.Anonymous said …

    So. “Xenon”, please answer the questions in #202. After all, how can we understand how you arrived at your conclusion if all you state is a so-called conclusion?

    Now, if Xenon was honest, he’d provide honest answers and not try to change the subject or attack someone else. However, what usually happens at this point is that the sock-puppet army arrives and starts slinging accusations by having a conversation amongst themselves in order to bury their embarrassment.

  210. on 08 Dec 2012 at 3:33 pm 210.Lou(DFW) said …

    204.Burp said …

    “What are those properties? So what would it look like if it it was designed, had purpose, had evil and had good? How does Richard know this or is it that he thinks he is God?”

    LOL! The parade of the sock-puppets continues. As usual, they attempt to divert attention away from the fact that “they” have no evidence for “their” imaginary designer god.

    Burp, please answer the questions about which this blog is intended – god and religion.

    What are the properties that make the universe appear designed by your imaginary god?

    What would it look like if it it was designed by your imaginary god?

    What is the purpose for your imaginary god to design evil and good?

    What is the purpose of your imaginary god’s design that includes natural disasters that kill your imaginary god’s living creations, including you?

    All of these questions should be extremely easy for you to answer because you claim that your imaginary god designed and created the universe. Go ahead, we’re waiting. We know you won’t answer because it isn’t true and you are a lying, coward, fraud.

  211. on 08 Dec 2012 at 4:45 pm 211.The messenger said …

    206.Burebista, do not listen to lou(DPK).

  212. on 08 Dec 2012 at 5:52 pm 212.DPK said …

    206.Burebista said …
    “…We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose…”

    Hahahahaha…. Burebista is quoting (100% out of context, mind you) from “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins.
    I’m sure he just pulled this partial quote from some wack job creationist website, because if he had actually read the book, he wouldn’t be here demanding others to educate him.
    Blurby… why don’t you do the intellectually HONEST thing for just once in your life… go read the book, and then come back and tell us HONESTLY what Dawkins means… and THEN tell us why you think you know more about design in nature and biology than a PhD from Oxford, based on your keen observation and years of study, and the writings of 1st century goat herders, of course. Oh yeah, and let me add this. Hahahahahahahahahahaha.
    Hahahahahahahahahah…..

  213. on 08 Dec 2012 at 6:45 pm 213.Anonymous said …

    I think, but could be mistaken, that sock-puppets united are using Behe’s infamous quote mining from the Dover trial. That notwithstanding, it’s just their standard acknowledgment of having trapped themselves being expressed as a flurry of diversionary posts.

    Xenon, we are waiting for the answers to the questions raised by your claim.

  214. on 08 Dec 2012 at 9:14 pm 214.The Vet said …

    “…We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose…”

    Dawkins knows there is a God. Even his mentor admitted to it before he died. Richard makes his living selling to atheists so he must keep the revenue flowing.

  215. on 08 Dec 2012 at 9:55 pm 215.Severin said …

    Finally, it seems thatDawkins did not say the UNIVERSE looks like designed, as Lou said!
    Dowkins said it for a living body that “slightly” differs from the niverse.

    They lie and twist everyone’s words in attempt to somehow defend their delusion.

    What can we expect from them but lies?

  216. on 08 Dec 2012 at 10:19 pm 216.Severin said …

    204 Burebista
    First, thank you for discovering Lou as a liar. From your citation we can clearly se that Dawkins did NOT say that universe looks like created. He (indirectly) said the universe does NOT look like created, while Lou lied that he said universe looks like created.
    We will not confuse living bodies with universe, will we?

    “What would it (universe) look like if it was designed…?” is something you should tell us.
    That was the question that Anonymous, #202, posed to Lou, who said his lie in #195.

    Really, how should universe look like to look like created?

  217. on 09 Dec 2012 at 1:56 am 217.Dez said …

    “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

    If it gives the appearance of being designed for a purpose is it not likely it was? They seem so desperate to ignore the obvious to come up with some ridiculous alternative explanation of the moment.

  218. on 09 Dec 2012 at 4:04 am 218.Anonymous said …

    Let’s recap, shall we.

    Xenon tries to diver the conversation and gets his knickers all wet when he thinks he’s caught DPK in a game of words. Well, even if he had, how desperate he must be for validation if he needs to make that many posts to crow about his perceived “win”. Of course, no where in his victory did he actually provide any backing for his position.

    Unfortunately for Xenon, his game isn’t anywhere near as good as he thinks it is. So instead of his “ha ha, you can’t prove me wrong” taunt going over as a hit in his “good point, other me” club, he gets asked perfectly reasonable, on-point, questions which stump him and make his point seem ridiculous both inside and outside of his echo chamber.

    So, what happens next? Well, he gets asked again to respond but he goes into hiding, as is the pattern with the sock-puppet clan. Instead, a sock-puppet emerges to try to taunt the conversation astray. When that doesn’t work, another is fired up with the same point, then another, and so on. Huge giveaway. Huge.

    Unfortunately, whilst Xenon may think he is cleverly frustrating the conversation with these games what he actually is doing is drawing a huge target with a bring red arrow saying “look, sock-puppets trolling with no intention of honest argument”. So, thank you, for confirming the connection to each other, once again.

    Sure, he’ll come out with some excuse, and inevitably some pretty low and disgusting personal attacks, but really with this last round of games he has shown his hand and there’s no way left for anything anything any of his persona say to be taken seriously. At all. Ever.

    So, thank you, Xenon. You have provided a perfect demonstration of the desperation and extent someone putting forward your views has to go to to stave of having to lucidly examine their claims. Your only way out now is if you come clean as being someone impersonating a theist. If that’s not it, then you’ve provided an enduring record of deceit, game-playing, and a perfect example of why the term mental illness and delusional come up so often in conversations with people who reason as if they were still living in the bronze age.

  219. on 09 Dec 2012 at 6:40 pm 219.Lou(DFW) said …

    217.Diz said …

    “If it gives the appearance of being designed for a purpose is it not likely it was? They seem so desperate to ignore the obvious to come up with some ridiculous alternative explanation of the moment.”

    Actually, it’s you who is desperate to avoid answering the obvious question – what is the purpose for which “it” was designed, and where is your evidence for the designer?

    Apparently, you were designed for deceit.

  220. on 31 Jan 2013 at 2:06 pm 220.Anonymous said …

    jesus is my hero

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply