Feed on Posts or Comments 24 October 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 30 Dec 2012 12:19 am

Why don’t we end the debate and simply ask God to appear?

According to Christians, Muslims, Mormons and Jews, God exists. Approximately half of the human population on earth believes in God or Allah. According to believers, this God answers prayers, performs miracles, reads minds, has ongoing personal relationships with believers, etc.

So, if this God really exists, why don’t we simply ask him to appear to the world and show himself? All these believers simply pray or relate to him, and ask that he appears to everyone in an undeniable form.

Why can’t God do this? According to the Bible, God appeared all the time in the past. He even incarnated himself. So clearly there is nothing “wrong” or “impossible” about God appearing. God even appeared on command in the past, as described in the Bible in 1 Kings chapter 18:

[22] Then Elijah said to them, “I am the only one of the LORD’s prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. [23] Get two bulls for us. Let them choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. [24] Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD. The god who answers by fire—he is God.”
Then all the people said, “What you say is good.”

[25] Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire.” [26] So they took the bull given them and prepared it.

Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “O Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.

[27] At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” [28] So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. [29] Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.

[30] Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come here to me.” They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the LORD, which was in ruins. [31] Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, “Your name shall be Israel.” [32] With the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD, and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs [a] of seed. [33] He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, “Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood.”

[34] “Do it again,” he said, and they did it again.

“Do it a third time,” he ordered, and they did it the third time. [35] The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench.

[36] At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: “O LORD, God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. [37] Answer me, O LORD, answer me, so these people will know that you, O LORD, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.”

[38] Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.

[39] When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, “The LORD -he is God! The LORD -he is God!”

Why don’t we do the same thing today? Why wouldn’t God, if he is real, appear to the world? Then we could end all of this religious bickering and doubt once and for all.

If we read the New Testament of the Bible, Jesus makes it clear that he should appear to us if we ask him to. This video explains how in less than 5 minutes:

The fact that neither Jesus nor God appears demonstrates clearly that God is imaginary. Yet religious people refuse to accept this clear, unambiguous evidence. If you are religious, please use the comment area to explain why you cannot accept this evidence and continue to believe in your imaginary God.

453 Responses to “Why don’t we end the debate and simply ask God to appear?”

  1. on 30 Dec 2012 at 7:15 pm 1.Martin said …

    A recycling of one of the 50 proofs from the sister site. Let us analyze the logic again.

    1. We asked Jesus to appear
    2. He did not appear
    3. Therefore Jesus does not exist.

    Is this logic valid? No not to any rational individual. Would the atheist believe if Jesus did appear? Of course not. even when Jesus appeared and performed miracles many still did not believe.

    Just for arguments sake, let us say their claim is true. How would that disprove a God exists? It does not. Again, another logical fallacy.

  2. on 30 Dec 2012 at 8:58 pm 2.Lou (DFW) said …

    1.Martin/Mitch/ASS said …

    “1. We asked Jesus to appear
    2. He did not appear
    3. Therefore Jesus does not exist.

    Is this logic valid?”

    Another lie by ASS. Nowhere in that entry does that “logic” appear as he claims it does.

    The entry also stated “[E]xplain why you cannot accept this evidence and continue to believe in your imaginary God.”

    Notice that Martin/Mitch/ASS did not respond, just as he never responds to any comment that requires him to defend his delusion.

    “Just for arguments sake, let us say their claim is true. How would that disprove a God exists? It does not.”

    That’s right, it doesn’t. Because you are confused about what a logical fallacy is, you can’t see that your argument is one – a straw man.

  3. on 30 Dec 2012 at 10:42 pm 3.Anonymous said …

    Martin, we are *still* waiting for you to prove to us via logic that Jesus/God exists. We keep asking you and you continue to make excuses or go into hiding.

    Until you can prove the positive that a god exists, you are simply attempting to reverse the burden of proof. That’s the logical fallacy in evidence here. Your supposed deconstruction of strawman arguments is simply a diversion that you employ in order to hide the fact that you can’t make a valid logical argument in your favor.

    All you need do is advance this argument that proves that a god exists. Then we can examine how well you know the subject that you mistakenly judge people on, despite being sorely lacking in its execution yourself.

  4. on 30 Dec 2012 at 11:38 pm 4.alex said …

    right back at you. would a xtian believe if allah showed up?

  5. on 31 Dec 2012 at 3:45 am 5.The messenger said …

    Brother Thomas, God will appear to us in his Jesus form, at the end of this world. That is Jesus’s second coming.

    He will return with his army of heaven to battle against the forces of hell.

    The universe will be wiped clean of evil, and goodness will spead throughout all creation.

    God appears to us everyday, just not in his physical Jesus form. He gives us signs of what to do in our life and he causes things to happen to us that guide us on the path of goodness.

  6. on 31 Dec 2012 at 7:51 am 6.Anonymous said …

    1 Martin, you did not watch the video. That is not the logic the video uses at all. Try watching it.

    Also, why can’t we call on god to appear today as in 1 kings chapter 18? What is the difference?

  7. on 31 Dec 2012 at 12:32 pm 7.alex said …

    its the same shit like not going to the doctor. martin does not wanna find out about the real deal. la la la, my daughter is not having sex, my wife does not have breast cancer, my prostate is fine, blah, blah.

  8. on 31 Dec 2012 at 4:21 pm 8.Scourge said …

    1. Martin. Do not Christians believe that Jesus and God (and the Holy Spirit) are one and the same just like Hindus believe Vishnu has several manifestations? At any rate, if Jesus did not exist, then the Christian God would not exist since the theology has it so that there is necessity and sufficiency in the assertion.

    Are you some benighted Liberty U grad? Teach at Furman?

  9. on 31 Dec 2012 at 7:51 pm 9.The messenger said …

    on 31 Dec 2012 at 3:45 am 5.The messenger said …
    Brother Thomas, God will appear to us in his Jesus form, at the end of this world. That is Jesus’s second coming.
    He will return with his army of heaven to battle against the forces of hell.
    The universe will be wiped clean of evil, and goodness will spead throughout all creation.
    God appears to us everyday, just not in his physical Jesus form. He gives us signs of what to do in our life and he causes things to happen to us that guide us on the path of goodness.

  10. on 31 Dec 2012 at 8:05 pm 10.Asher said …

    Anonymous & Blogmaster here is your answer:

    Luke 16:31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

    “Also, why can’t we call on god to appear today as in 1 kings chapter 18?”

    Anyone who has read I Kings 18 realizes God did not appear. He showed his power but did not appear. Today, like then, the hard-headed would only claim it was a trick.
    God has shown his power in creating the universe and atheists still do not believe. Why would any other demonstration change the hard-headed mind? Luke 16 still holds true.

  11. on 31 Dec 2012 at 8:07 pm 11.Asher said …

    “Teach at Furman?”

    Furman has not been a Baptist institution in quite a long time and requires qualifications I doubt seriously you could hope to meet.

  12. on 31 Dec 2012 at 8:31 pm 12.Lou(DFW) said …

    10.Asher said …

    “Furman has not been a Baptist institution in quite a long time…”

    Show us who claimed that it is.

  13. on 31 Dec 2012 at 8:42 pm 13.Lou(DFW) said …

    9.Asher said …

    “Anyone who has read I Kings 18 realizes God did not appear.”

    Genesis 17:1
    Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram…

    Genesis 18:1
    Now the Lord appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day.

    Exodus 24:9–11
    9 Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel,
    10 and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself.
    11 Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank.

    Etc., etc., etc.

    “God has shown his power in creating the universe and atheists still do not believe.”

    Except that you don’t have any evidence for that, liar.

  14. on 31 Dec 2012 at 8:54 pm 14.DPK said …

    Uh… My kid went to Furman. He actually got a very good education with no religious indoctrination. They actually have a secular humanist group on equal footing with other “religious” type groups, and he was never taught pseudo-science or other bullshit like Liberty.
    Just sayin….

  15. on 01 Jan 2013 at 1:08 am 15.Severin said …

    9 Asher
    “God has shown his power in creating the universe …”

    The whole universe? With sextilions os stars? Supernovas included? Neutron stars too? Black holes?

    I mean, there is nothing about creation of universe in the Bible.
    According to Bible, a god created earth (waters, animals, plants, man, woman, …, some 6000 year sago.
    Was it the same god who crated the rest of the universe, then, some 13.7 billion years after he finished THAT creation, he came to earth to make the man from dirt, and woman from his rib, to blow his saliva into man’s nose, to peep who is fucking with who, and to enjoy smelling burned meet?
    Yes, and to teach people how to beat their slaves so they don’t die.

    Same god?

  16. on 01 Jan 2013 at 1:50 am 16.The messenger said …

    15.Severin, The bible gives us the information that involves mankind.

    The knowledge of the univer outside of the earth is not necessary for humans to know.

    The only knowlage that mankind needs to obtain is that of morality.

    The knowlage of morality is contained within the bible.

  17. on 01 Jan 2013 at 3:27 am 17.The messenger said …

    15.Severin, God did not teach anyone how to beat slaves, you idiot.

    God has always opposed slavery. That is why he sent Moses to free the Hebrews from Egypt.

    He also sent many other people to free slaves and support freedom for all people; who are similar to Moses but are not mentioned in the bible.

    Here are some examples……..

    Harriet Tubman

    Abraham Lincoln

    Martin Luther King Jr.

  18. on 01 Jan 2013 at 4:40 am 18.Asher said …

    DPK,

    My wife graduated from Furman and maintained her strong Christian worldview. She graduated with honors and has been highly sucessful. Seems we both agree Scourge is full of dung.

  19. on 01 Jan 2013 at 4:44 am 19.Asher said …

    Lou

    Good to see you agree with me. Why do you think the blog.aster lies about Scripture?

  20. on 01 Jan 2013 at 7:47 am 20.SisterChromatid said …

    Any deity that acts exactly like an imaginary deity is imaginary. Real things are distinguishable from imaginary things when scientifically tested.

    All real beings have mass and are made of cells. All imaginary beings are identical to god in every measurable way. Ergo the gods that people believe in are as imaginary as the ones they dismiss as myths. There is no evidence that any gods exist outside the human imagination.

  21. on 01 Jan 2013 at 1:32 pm 21.Lou(DFW) said …

    19.Asher said …

    “Lou
    Good to see you agree with me. Why do you think the blog.aster lies about Scripture?”

    He doesn’t lie about scripture. But more importantly, why do you? Do you actually think that you can change the nature of all your comments with yet another lie?

  22. on 01 Jan 2013 at 1:34 pm 22.Lou(DFW) said …

    18.Asher said …

    “She graduated with honors and has been highly sucessful.”

    LOL!

  23. on 01 Jan 2013 at 1:44 pm 23.Lou(DFW) said …

    18.Asher said …

    “Seems we both agree Scourge is full of dung.”

    Let’s assume that he agrees with you. So what?

    If he is “full of dung,” then how does that make you any different than him?

    Show us that you’re not “full of dung.” Where is your evidence for your imaginary god? Hint: neither you, your allegedly “highly sucessful” wife, DPK, his son, the blog-master, me, scripture, nor any other diversion that you introduce to the discussion are not part of your evidence.

    Go ahead, I’m waiting. Show us that you’re not “full of dung.” You can’t, can you? Well, at least your wife is “highly sucessful.”

  24. on 01 Jan 2013 at 1:49 pm 24.Lou (DFW) said …

    23.Lou(DFW) said …

    Correction: are part of your evidence.

  25. on 01 Jan 2013 at 1:54 pm 25.Am_Sci said …

    @17

    I suspect that Severin is referring to the numerous verses in Exodus that deal with the corporal punishment of slaves. Strictly speaking, however, you are correct– as far as I know the Bible doesn’t give instructions on “how” to beat slaves.

    But, you fail to see the deeper point; what room is there in contemporary society for a book filled with instructions on slave ownership? Some Christian’s will assert that the contents of much of Exodus, Leviticus, etc. no longer apply. However, even if they are correct, there are still two problems. Firstly, why leave text in a holy book that does not apply? Secondly, how can one worship a god who has ever condoned slavery? Whether god’s law has changed or not is no excuse.

    And, sure, some historical figures have managed to use their Christian faith in opposition to slavery. But, they only did so through selective use of the Bible’s teachings. It is far easier to use the Bible to argue for slavery. After all, the Bible reigned supreme for millenia in Europe and slavery opponents were few an far between until after the Enlightenment.

    In response to your comment before that– are you such a philistine that you don’t see any value in the wonder and beauty that our knowledge of the universe brings? And even if you are, do you not appreciate the utilitarian side of pursuits beyond earth? Think of our GPS, solar monitoring capabilities, near earth object warning systems, weather satellites, etc.

  26. on 01 Jan 2013 at 3:29 pm 26.DPK said …

    Asher:
    No, I do not think he is “full of dung” just perhaps mis informed about Furman as a being a religious idiot mill like Liberty. I do however, think you are “full of dung” for professing a version of reality for which you offer no evidence or even compelling argument. I also believe you are intellectually dishonest for using lies, logical fallacies, half truths, distractions, and for making claims and then disappearing when you are questioned or challenged about them. Just wanted to be clear about that.

    Messenger: re slavery in the bible… You once again demonstrate your complete ignorance of your own holy book and the tenants of your own faith. Have you ever actually read the bible, William? Not the illustrated children’s version….

  27. on 01 Jan 2013 at 4:17 pm 27.Lou said …

    “Any deity that acts exactly like an imaginary deity is imaginary. Real things are distinguishable from imaginary things when scientifically tested.”

    Chromatid we shall put this to the test. Prove Socrates existed, scientifically of course.

  28. on 01 Jan 2013 at 4:25 pm 28.Lou said …

    “what room is there in contemporary society for a book filled with instructions on slave ownership?

    He is right. Slavery was eradicated in society back in 1865.

  29. on 01 Jan 2013 at 5:01 pm 29.alex said …

    ok. socrates is fiction. I guess santa, elves, and god exist. is that your proof?

  30. on 01 Jan 2013 at 5:14 pm 30.Lou (DFW) said …

    27.Louser said …

    “Chromatid we shall put this to the test.”

    Let’s put you to the test: do you understand the difference between present and past tense?

    “Prove Socrates existed, scientifically of course.”

    Provide evidence that your imaginary god exists, NOT EXISTED. Or do you claim that he’s dead or never existed?

  31. on 01 Jan 2013 at 5:16 pm 31.Lou (DFW) said …

    28.Louser said …

    “He is right.”

    But, as usual, you’re wrong.

    “Slavery was eradicated in society back in 1865.”

    Slavery exists to this day.

  32. on 01 Jan 2013 at 5:20 pm 32.DPK said …

    True, and just as an aside, where exactly in the “absolute moral code” handed down by god in the bible… The one the theists her often refer to, but curiously never produce, where does it say “thou shat not own slaves”?

  33. on 01 Jan 2013 at 6:39 pm 33.The messenger said …

    25.Am_Sci., the Exodus verses that speak of punishment of slaves is metaphorical.

    The word slavery is used within Exodus as a metaphor for a employee or worker that is not treated with kindness and is not given the amount of respect and or pay that he has earned.

  34. on 01 Jan 2013 at 7:17 pm 34.The messenger said …

    25.Am_Sci, the main message of the bible is not contained within the book of Exodus. The main message of the bible is contained within all of the books that are within the bible.

    The main message of the bible is God loves all people.

  35. on 01 Jan 2013 at 7:29 pm 35.DPK said …

    Well Lou, I don’t see where SisterC claimed anywhere that Socrates existed, so why would you feel it incumbent on her to prove such a thing?
    You, on the other hand, have claimed “Slavery was eradicated in society back in 1865.” an outright lie. Now however, it IS incumbent on YOU to prove that claim, since you stated it as fact. Aren’t you the same one who accused the blogmaster of “lying” about scripture, when in fact the blogmaster actually just quoted scripture, chapter and verse, with citations? Only the truly deluded among us are able to claim that scripture quotations do not say what they do, in fact say, simply because we do not like it.

    While you are at it, you have also in the past claimed that the Christian god of the bible exists, so therefore, again, incumbent on you to prove it.
    Your tired rehash of your moronic “Socrates” strawman is so pathetic.

  36. on 01 Jan 2013 at 8:20 pm 36.DPK said …

    on 01 Jan 2013 at 6:39 pm 33.The messenger said …
    25.Am_Sci., the Exodus verses that speak of punishment of slaves is metaphorical.
    The word slavery is used within Exodus as a metaphor for a employee or worker that is not treated with kindness and is not given the amount of respect and or pay that he has earned.

    How do you know this? Why would god use “the punishment of slaves” as a metaphor for “employees” at a time when slavery was common? Why didn’t he just say, “owning slaves is immoral”? Instead, he chose to say that beating slaves to death was immoral. Indeed, he chose to say that if you beat your slave, but he doesn’t die, but just is bedridden for a few days, you should receive no punishment, because the slave is YOUR property? Why would he say that, if that is not what he meant, William?
    And, why do you get to decide what god “really meant” by his words in the bible? Why can’t your god speak for himself?

  37. on 01 Jan 2013 at 9:08 pm 37.The messenger said …

    25.Am_Sci, science is nothing compared to the knowledge that the bible provides. That knowledge is of morality.

    The knowledge of things outside of our planet is fascinating but it serves no purpose in perfecting mankind.

    The bible provides us with the greatest knowledge on Earth, a knowledge that will bring peace to the world forever; moral knowledge.

    Knowing about the universe does not help humans become kinder, or generous.

  38. on 01 Jan 2013 at 9:09 pm 38.The messenger said …

    36.DPK, go to a church. They will explain it to you.

  39. on 01 Jan 2013 at 10:23 pm 39.Lou said …

    “Slavery was eradicated in society back in 1865.” an outright lie.”

    I must say, DPK and antiLou are as slow as a turtle. Yeah, I know slavery still exists. Thus a need for instructions. Geez, thanks for coming guys.

    However, messenger is spot on regarding slavery in the Bible. The term slavery was more a title of unemployment but I can’t see DPK or antiLou capable of grasping a foreign culture.

  40. on 01 Jan 2013 at 11:12 pm 40.Lou (DFW) said …

    37.Louser said …

    “I must say, DPK and antiLou are as slow as a turtle.”

    Who cares what you “must say” to defend your stupid comments.

    “Yeah, I know slavery still exists. Thus a need for instructions.”

    Yes, we need “instructions” from you in order to determine when your comments are simply inaccurate or as result of your usual stupidity.

    Now, can you please drop the slavery diversion and get to it – where is your evidence for your imaginary god?

  41. on 01 Jan 2013 at 11:20 pm 41.The messenger said …

    Brother 39.Lou, thanks.

  42. on 01 Jan 2013 at 11:51 pm 42.DPK said …

    “The term slavery was more a title of unemployment but I can’t see DPK or antiLou capable of grasping a foreign culture.”

    And by “foreign culture” of course you mean, “completely fabricated rationalization.” Last I checked no concept of “employment” ever entailed one human owning another as property or being able to beat his property with impunity as long as the end result was not death. And if slaves were “employees”.. than why did god need to send Moses to “free” them. Loulou, you are a hoot. You and William should write your own bible since you both seem to be able to communicate what god really meant much better than god does! It should be a very entertaining read. I’d suggest a comic book format in order to best relate to your potential market. Don’t forget to include a disclaimer that any “facts” presented are subject to revision depending on circumstances and whether or not anyone catches on, or not.

  43. on 02 Jan 2013 at 4:19 am 43.The messenger said …

    Brother 42.DPK, the word (slavery) is used in the bible as a way of describing the sever mistreatment of the employees of that time period. If you went to Church you would understand that.

    And by foreign culture, I think that brother Lou means that the culture of Christianity is foreign to your culture of atheism.

    I hope that you understand this now Mrs. (DPK).

  44. on 02 Jan 2013 at 4:53 am 44.The messenger said …

    25.Am_Sci God allows slavery to occur because he wants us to stop it on our own.
    Just because because God is our father, does not mean that he will solve all of our problems. Bad thing occur because we are suppose to learn from them.

  45. on 02 Jan 2013 at 10:19 am 45.Lou (DFW) said …

    43.The messenger said …

    “[T]he word (slavery) is used in the bible as a way of describing the sever mistreatment of the employees of that time period. If you went to Church you would understand that.”

    Show us.

  46. on 02 Jan 2013 at 10:20 am 46.Lou (DFW) said …

    44.The messenger said …

    “Bad thing occur because we are suppose to learn from them.”

    Apparently, Satan and slavery in the bible is imaginary.

  47. on 02 Jan 2013 at 4:28 pm 47.The messenger said …

    46.Lou (DFW), have you been paying any attention to this debate?

    Apparently not.

    Sometimes the word slave is used metaphorically, and sometimes it is litteral like in the story of Moses.

    If you want to know which parts are litteral and which parts are metaphorical go to a Catholic Church.

  48. on 02 Jan 2013 at 4:34 pm 48.The messenger said …

    45.Lou (DFW), I would love to show you all of the passages in the bible that are litteral and all of the parts that are metaphorical, but unfortunately I don’t have the time to type up a comment that large.

  49. on 02 Jan 2013 at 4:48 pm 49.The messenger said …

    Brother Lou (dpk), If you want to know which parts are litteral and which parts are metaphorical go to a Catholic Church.

  50. on 02 Jan 2013 at 5:06 pm 50.DPK said …

    47.The messenger said …

    “46.Lou (DFW), have you been paying any attention to this debate?”

    LOL… I must have missed the “debate”. When did that occur? All I’ve seen recently is Loulou lying and messenger displaying classic theist circular reasoning. Unless your idea of a debate is “uh-uh, uh-uh”. Or things like: “Slavery was eradicated in society back in 1865.”

    Thanks for the first hearty laugh of 2013

  51. on 02 Jan 2013 at 5:23 pm 51.Lou(DFW) said …

    47.The messenger, the consistent fraud said …

    “Sometimes the word slave is used metaphorically, and sometimes it is litteral like in the story of Moses.”

    Exactly as I thought. You can’t show us where “[T]he word (slavery) is used in the bible as a way of describing the sever mistreatment of the employees of that time period.”

    “If you want to know which parts are litteral and which parts are metaphorical go to a Catholic Church.”

    Because you don’t know, and you can’t substantiate your claim.

  52. on 02 Jan 2013 at 6:41 pm 52.DPK said …

    “If you want to know which parts are litteral and which parts are metaphorical go to a Catholic Church.”

    Bring your wallet.

  53. on 02 Jan 2013 at 7:18 pm 53.Lou(DFW) said …

    50.DPK said …

    “Bring your wallet.”

    Protect your young, male children, because “love,” in the catholic church, can metaphorically mean “molest.”

  54. on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:04 pm 54.Am_Sci said …

    @The messenger

    Clearly, you need to study your Bible more. Here are two excerpts from Exodus revealing that slavery means slavery:

    “…but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”

    “And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave…”

    An employee is not property and cannot, by definition, be sold. If the Bible is so damned important, why don’t you actually read and study it?

  55. on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:08 pm 55.DPK said …

    That goes without saying.
    They are much more cautious about preying on children these days… not because of any morality, but because it has hurt them financially. And of course, not ALL priests are pedophiles, but they ARE all interested in your money! hahaha
    I’ll bet they’ve gotten poor messenger’s lunch money more than a few times.
    “and she’s buy-i-ing a stair-air-way… to heaven…”

  56. on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:10 pm 56.Anonymous said …

    I’m wondering how the little boys that were raped by priests, and have to endure life-long trauma as a result of those abuses of trust and power, would feel having messy tell them that their god allowed then to be raped so that we could learn from their experience?

    I also wonder how they would feel hearing that one of the symbols of that abuse of power and morals, is the defining word on Christian moral values?

    Fortunately, messy is a troll, and a bad one at that. The world world really be sad if real people adopted his manufacturer stance

  57. on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:11 pm 57.The messenger said …

    51.Lou(DFW), are you mentally damaged?

    The debate on what the word slave was used for in the bible has been going on since comment 15 you idiot.

  58. on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:32 pm 58.DPK said …

    “their god allowed then to be raped so that we could learn from their experience?”

    Actually, according to William, god actually CAUSED them to be raped, not simply allowed it. It is part of his plan that everything happens for a reason. Unless, of course, they were only metaphorically raped. You know, sometimes ass rape is literal, and sometimes it is metaphorical. If you want to know the difference, go to a catholic church and they will explain it to you.

    (I stand by my original contention however, that messenger is actually a person of somewhat diminished mental capacity. In that regard, I cut him a little slack, but do notice that the other members of the sock brigade always seem to distance themselves from his tiresome trolling. They want nothing to do with him either. haha… How crazy do you have to be that even the other crazy people think you’re nuts?)

  59. on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:48 pm 59.The messenger said …

    Here is the meaning of that bible verse.

    The first verse.

    “…but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”

    That verse does not mean a literal slave. It means that that if an employee is punished and he is still willing and able to keep his job the employer will not be punished.

    Here is a simpler version for all of you brain dead people like Mrs. DPK.

    That verse means that an employer is not allowed to punish his workers too severely, because if he does the employer will be punished for his insain cruelty.

    This is the second verse.

    “And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave…”

    Here is the meaning of that verse. Durring that time period most marriages ere arranged by the father of the bride and the father of the groom. It did not mean that the bride’s father was literally selling his daughter, it ment that the daughterer was forced into that marriage.

  60. on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:51 pm 60.The messenger said …

    58.DPK, life is a hard test, but in the end mankind will overcome the evil within them and all of us will go to heaven.

  61. on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:56 pm 61.The messenger said …

    54.Am_Sci, I hope that you will read comment 61 so you will learn what those bible passages mean.

  62. on 02 Jan 2013 at 9:08 pm 62.The messenger said …

    on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:52 pm 61.The messenger said … Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:48 pm 59.The messenger said … Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Here is the meaning of that bible verse.
    The first verse.
    “…but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”
    That verse does not mean a literal slave. It means that that if an employee is punished and he is still willing and able to keep his job the employer will not be punished.
    Here is a simpler version for all of you brain dead people like Mrs. DPK.
    That verse means that an employer is not allowed to punish his workers too severely, because if he does the employer will be punished for his insain cruelty.
    This is the second verse.
    “And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave…”
    Here is the meaning of that verse. Durring that time period most marriages were arranged by the father of the bride and the father of the groom. It did not mean that the bride’s father was literally selling his daughter, it ment that the daughterer was forced into that marriage.

  63. on 02 Jan 2013 at 9:21 pm 63.The messenger said …

    52.DPK, the Catholic Church does not charge money for attending Sunday mass.

    Mass is free.

    The Catholic Church is a non profit organization.

    They get money for charity and church supplies from donations.
    That is why the pass a dasket around at every mass. Donations are optional.

    True Catholics are not lustful of greedy.

    Mother Teresa is a good example of a true Catholic.

    She was kind, compassionate, peaceful person.
    All Catholics should be like her.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

  64. on 02 Jan 2013 at 11:38 pm 64.alex said …

    “..ass rape is literal, and sometimes it is metaphorical.”

    this is messenger’s game. perv priests get to do it over and over and over without consequences. the church doesn’t give a shit even as they champion the idiotic redemption cards that dipshits like messenger absolutely adore. why not? if you have designs on being the perv, the church/god says “go! don’t leave any single child’s behind!”

  65. on 03 Jan 2013 at 12:12 am 65.The messenger said …

    65.alex, the church is strictly against raped(literal or metaphorical.

    Are you smoking pot or something Mrs. Alex? Because your brain is obviously not functioning correctly.

  66. on 03 Jan 2013 at 12:13 am 66.The messenger said …

    65.alex, most Preists are not lustful in any way.

  67. on 03 Jan 2013 at 12:16 am 67.The messenger said …

    65.alex, if a priest did rape someone God would punish him.

  68. on 03 Jan 2013 at 1:26 am 68.alex said …

    “if a priest did rape someone God would punish him.”

    no, you dipshit, non-bible reading delusional xtian. Matthew 18:21,22.

    if god were to, you wanna be specific? no? you double talking ignorant fuckhead. with karma? more unoriginal stolen material from other older religions?

    mrs alex? a mysogynist crack? “i’m a nigger” is next? you’re pathetic.

  69. on 03 Jan 2013 at 1:44 am 69.Severin said …

    17 Messenger,
    “God has always opposed slavery.”

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

    Said who?

  70. on 03 Jan 2013 at 1:45 am 70.Lou(DFW) said …

    59.The messenger said …

    ‘The first verse.

    “…but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”

    That verse does not mean a literal slave.’

    Let’s get this straight – slave means employee, so according to messenger, property must also means employee!

  71. on 03 Jan 2013 at 1:48 am 71.Lou(DFW) said …

    57.The messenger said …

    “51.Lou(DFW), are you mentally damaged?
    The debate on what the word slave was used for in the bible has been going on since comment 15 you idiot.”

    Poor messenger, I wonder if he can understand what a non sequitur is?

    Regardless, mess, you never did show us where “[T]he word (slavery) is used in the bible as a way of describing the sever mistreatment of the employees of that time period.”

    Mess, you are nothing but a lying fraud – and I don’t mean that metaphorically.

  72. on 03 Jan 2013 at 2:10 am 72.Severin said …

    27 Lou
    “Prove Socrates existed, scientifically of course.”

    Fuck Socrates!
    No one on this blog ever claimed Socrates existed, so no one on this blog has obligation to prove anything about Socrates.

    Now, unless you changed your mind, we all know that you DID claim that god exists.

    Now, please, prove god existed, scientifically, of course.

  73. on 03 Jan 2013 at 2:14 am 73.Severin said …

    Messenger, you coward worm, you answer non-posed questions, but never questions that was actually posed to you.

    You told us that CHURCH, not god, establishes and cancels limbo.
    By saying it, you, in fact, told us that god is not necessary.
    Why would anyone need gods if churches make divine decisions?

    Are you still on that position, or maybe you changed your mind about this question?

  74. on 03 Jan 2013 at 2:49 am 74.Severin said …

    Lou, Messenger,
    You are free to babble anything you want about slave = employee, but god himself confutes you:
    he clearly says that slaves are PROPERTY of their masters.
    No employees were ever the PROPERTY of their employers.

    See Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT and several other verses.
    Even children are treated as PROPERTY of slave holders!

    How miserable and empty are your attempts to show your god in better light than he is showing himself!

  75. on 03 Jan 2013 at 2:55 am 75.Severin said …

    #62
    “That verse does not mean a literal slave”

    No, of course not!
    According to Leviticus 25:44-46,it means “human beings (men, women and children), who are PROPERTY of their master”

    In other words: employees!

  76. on 03 Jan 2013 at 3:05 am 76.Severin said …

    67 Messenger
    “65.alex, if a priest did rape someone God would punish him.”

    In one of your posts you told us opposite: EVERYONE can go to heaven if he/she “sincerely” repents.

    Hitler, for example?

    Oh, yes, I remember, you also said, if they go to heaven it does not mean they will not be punished.

    So, we can expect that god will tell Hitler to pray 100,000 (100,000,000?) “Our Father …”, then will he send him to paradise.

  77. on 03 Jan 2013 at 3:23 am 77.The messenger said …

    68.alex, Matthew 18 21-22 means that we must forgive others just like God does.

    That does not mean that thier sins will go unpunished.

    Just because a person is forgiven does not mean that they will not be punished. They will be punished and forgiven.

  78. on 03 Jan 2013 at 3:29 am 78.Truthlightlove said …

    Please state your definition of God and which God do you want to appear. Do you mean a person looking after mankind? Do you mean the autocratic monarch of some biblical religion? Do you mean an ineffable infinite reality of supreme value underling all things? Do you mean one who creates primal energy and then draws from it communities of persons who are capable of growth towards full consciousness, understanding, happiness and responsible creativity? Do you mean God as the empowering ideal and revelations of divine nature and purpose which occur in religious experience, the ground of being, the Prime Mover, who is in us as we are in God? Please clarify.

  79. on 03 Jan 2013 at 3:53 am 79.The messenger said …

    69.Severin, leviticus 25 44-46 states that you must never treat your family like a slave. We are all related because we are all Jesus’s children and we all come from Adam and Eve, so therefore we cannot treat anyone like a slave because of we are all a part of the same family.

    We can treat people like slaves if they are not related to us, but since we are all related to each other we cannot treat anyone like a slave.

  80. on 03 Jan 2013 at 3:55 am 80.The messenger said …

    70.Lou(DFW), sometimes the word property can mean the word employee.

  81. on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:00 am 81.The messenger said …

    Mrs. 71.Lou(DFW), I have shown you some verses were the word slave means the word servant in the bible.

    I already explained to you that I do not have enough time in my daily schedule to show you all of those verses at one time.

  82. on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:05 am 82.The messenger said …

    74.Severin, the word property means employee in some parts of the bible, and in other parts of the bible it means that the employee is suppose to follow the orders of his employer.

  83. on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:06 am 83.The messenger said …

    on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:05 am 81.The messenger said … Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    74.Severin, the word property means employee in some parts of the bible, and in other parts of the bible it means that the employee is suppose to follow the orders of his or her employer.

  84. on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:17 am 84.The messenger said …

    73.Severin, I never said that the Church or God cancels anything.

    The idea of limbo was used durring the time when the church was corrupt. Now that the church has been reformed back into it’s non-corrupted state, the idea of limbo was done away with. Now the Church teaches directly from the holy scripturs(the bible) and the idea of limbo is not in the bible so therefor it is not teached anymore in the Catholic Church.

  85. on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:22 am 85.The messenger said …

    76.Severin, No, hitler will be burning in hell for a while before he can even go to pugetory. And after he gets out of of purgatory he will finally be able to live in heaen, but I think that he is still in hell doing his time in the freezing pit aka hell.

  86. on 03 Jan 2013 at 5:36 am 86.Am_Sci said …

    @The messenger

    You are dead wrong about those Bible verses. More evidence:

    “You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.” -Leviticus 25

    “If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.” -Exodus 21

    An employee cannot be inherited. An employee cannot be “freed.” Stop with your amateurish exegesis and admit that the Bible fully supports slavery as moral.

  87. on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:22 pm 87.DPK said …

    Messenger is dead wrong about many things. Some of the things he claims absolutely goes 100% against Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine says hell is eternal. No one gets out of hell. Catholic doctrine says you must believe in transubstantiation (messenger does not). In fact, Catholic doctrine says if you accept communion without believing in transubstantiation, you have committed a mortal sin. Poor messenger is destined for hell himself, it appears. He is not only deluded, he is a heretic in the eyes of the church.
    As far as limbo not being in the bible, yet it was taught as doctrine by the church in the past.. messenger, where does it mention purgatory in the bible? (hint.. it doesn’t). You really should read the book you come here to lecture about. It may actually surprise you what is, and is not, in there.

  88. on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:40 pm 88.Lou(DFW) said …

    80.The messenger said …

    “70.Lou(DFW), sometimes the word property can mean the word employee.”

    No, it can’t. An employee, by definition, cannot mean property.

  89. on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:43 pm 89.Severin said …

    79 Messenger
    “We can treat people like slaves if they are not related to us, but since we are all related to each other we cannot treat anyone like a slave.”

    Maybe you think so, which is nice, but your god obviously doesn’t.

    What words from Leviticus 25:44-46 are unclear to you:
    “However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the CHILDREN of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. YOU MAY TREAT THEM AS YOUR PROPERTY, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.”

    God clearly says that people from “the foreigners who live among you” are NOT your relatives, and that you are free to buy them, hold them as slaves, sell tehm, purchase their children, and pass them to your children as permanent inheritance.
    Like sheep!

    God does not share your “global love”.
    The god you defend is god of hate.
    Why are you defending him?
    Are you blind, or just stupid?

  90. on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:45 pm 90.Lou(DFW) said …

    81.The messenger said …

    “Mrs. 71.Lou(DFW), I have shown you some verses were the word slave means the word servant in the bible.”

    No, what I asked you to do was show us where “[T]he word (slavery) is used in the bible as a way of describing the sever mistreatment of the employees of that time period.”

    Now you are so confused that you’re referring to servants.

    You’re nothing but a lying fraud who keeps digging himself into a deeper hole.

  91. on 03 Jan 2013 at 6:01 pm 91.Severin said …

    84 Messenger
    “The idea of limbo was used durring the time when the church was corrupt.”

    So, your church was corrupt once?
    Don’t you tell me!
    They lied to people to get money from them? They ussed to sell god for money (indulgentia, souvenirs, like bones of saints, parts of Jesus’ cross and robes, … etc?

    How do we know they changed?
    Who guarantees for them?
    Because you say so?
    Because they say so?

    Who was the guarantor for church at times when it was corrupt?
    Was god behind them then, or is he behind them now, WHAT is going on?
    Did they become good and incorrupt by themselves, or god intervened? How and when?

    Hmmmm …

  92. on 03 Jan 2013 at 6:44 pm 92.Anonymous said …

    An easy way for messenger to prove that he isn’t simply making this up as he goes along would be to provide citations for his comments. That doesn’t mean saying “go to church”, “ask the pope”, talk to “Joe”, it means providing a link to chapter and page of a reference to something either in print or a recognizable online authority that independently substantiates his comments

    The fact that he doesn’t, and can’t, really ought to make it obvious that he simply goes from one fabricated explanation to another.

    Is he mentally ill, or a troll? In the end, it really doesn’t matter. What is clear is that energy is being wasted on someone who isn’t representative of the intended audience and also isn’t contributing anything of value to the conversation. Conversely, he is helping to drown out what few honest comments are made by actual believers.

    So, messenger. It’s time for you to put up or shut up. Back up your comments with reference that can be checked by multiple people that don’t involve some silly escape clause of “go to x” or “ask y”. If he has real references it will be easy for him to provide them.

    If you answer this with diversions such as plain ignoring it, strawmen, questions, god told me, my pastor told me, a semantic argument, etc; actually in other way other than: “See page [x]” in the [online] publication/book/website then you are clearly just inventing nonsense and there is simply no point in bothering with you.

  93. on 03 Jan 2013 at 7:29 pm 93.DPK said …

    63.The messenger said …
    “The Catholic Church is a non profit organization.
    They get money for charity and church supplies from donations.”

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/vatican_billions.htm

  94. on 03 Jan 2013 at 10:51 pm 94.Todd said …

    God gave us free will and we are not to test God. You spend all this time in the Word and you forgot the scriptures that explain this in detail. Open your heart, you obviously have the knowledge. Now mix it with alot of Love, a dash of Faith, a pinch of Hope and there is the recipe for a spirit filled life with God.

    Respectfully Yours,

    The Believer

  95. on 03 Jan 2013 at 11:24 pm 95.alex said …

    “God gave us free will and we are not to test God.”

    free will and god’s plan are mutually exclusive, you dumb shit. exactly like a round square. get that double talk shit outta here. when you pray, you’re testing your bullshit god.

    why do you cry when someone dies? you’re testing?

  96. on 03 Jan 2013 at 11:34 pm 96.Asher said …

    Actually property does refer to an individual when they have willfully sold themselves as a slave as was customary in ancient culture

  97. on 03 Jan 2013 at 11:43 pm 97.The messenger said …

    86.Am_Sci, in that bible verse when it says that we may treat them like our property, it means that our employees must do what we command of them because we are thier employers.

    It does not mean that they are our property.

    PS. happy new year.

  98. on 04 Jan 2013 at 12:08 am 98.Severin said …

    96 Asher
    “Actually property does refer to an individual when they have willfully sold themselves as a slave as was customary in ancient culture”

    Who got the money?

  99. on 04 Jan 2013 at 12:13 am 99.The messenger said …

    86.Am_Sci, if the bible supports slavery then how do you explain the story of Moses.

  100. on 04 Jan 2013 at 12:16 am 100.The messenger said …

    87.DPK, you fail to understand Catholic doctrine.

  101. on 04 Jan 2013 at 12:17 am 101.The messenger said …

    93.DPK, I forgot to put in frundraises into my comment. Sorry.

  102. on 04 Jan 2013 at 12:22 am 102.Severin said …

    06 Asher
    “Actually property does refer to an individual when they have willfully sold themselves as a slave as was customary in ancient culture”

    Actually, you are desperately lying to somehow make your god a good guy.
    He is not!
    He never said anything about self-purchasing to become an “employee”.
    He clearly said to his favorite tribe:
    “… you may PURCHASE male or female SLAVES (not “servants”, not “employees”, not “assistents”…) from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also PURCHASE the CHILDREN of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. YOU MAY TREAT THEM AS YOUR PROPERTY, passing them on to your children as a PERMANENT INHERITANCE. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.”

    Your god PROPAGUED and supported slavery. Period.

    Very miserable try!

  103. on 04 Jan 2013 at 1:33 am 103.The messenger said …

    91.Severin we know that they have changed because they no longer do things like that anymore.

  104. on 04 Jan 2013 at 1:35 am 104.The messenger said …

    88.Lou(DFW), yes they can when they are used as metaphores.

  105. on 04 Jan 2013 at 10:17 am 105.Severin said …

    #99
    “86.Am_Sci, if the bible supports slavery then how do you explain the story of Moses.”

    No one here is obligate to explain Bible stories, but if you insist, the story of Moses is already explained in the Bible.
    Your god DOES promote and support savery, but forbids Isrealities to take other Israelities as slaves. All non-Israelities are free to be purchased, sold, hold as slaves/property, passed to children as permanent inheritence, …

    What part of Leviticus 25:44 is unclear to you?

  106. on 04 Jan 2013 at 10:26 am 106.Severin said …

    Same as in Islam: Muslims were never allowed to hold other Muslims as slaves, but they were free to hold slaves of any other religion.

    All religions are equally biased.
    And equally rotten.

  107. on 04 Jan 2013 at 12:54 pm 107.Severin said …

    In what way does the story of Moses negate god’s being agreed with general idea of holding slaves? In which part of that story god says anything against slavery?
    Oh, yes, I see! Christian god was against Egyptians holding Hebrew slaves, but Hebrews were free to hold Egyptian, or any other slaves, but Hebrews.
    Egyptian gods had nothing against Egyptians holding any other slaves but Egyptians.

    Poor “employees”!

    Just an “excursion”:
    Omnipotent and all-knowing god was unable to distinguish Hebrews from Egyptians, unless Moses put marks on Hebrew’s doors!

    Veeeery comic! What an idiot god!

  108. on 04 Jan 2013 at 2:47 pm 108.fol de rol said …

    soo funny seeing the theists wriggling on the hook with this one :)

  109. on 04 Jan 2013 at 4:32 pm 109.MrQ said …

    But Severin, god has sent the messenger here to clear up the situation. The messenger will parse the stories and let us all know what is metaphor and what is meant for literal interpretation. You have the floor, mess, now keep digging, errr, I mean explaining “the word” to the uninitiated.

  110. on 04 Jan 2013 at 7:16 pm 110.DPK said …

    like most of the indefensible things about their crazy-ass belief systems, most of them are smart enough not to discuss the problem of slavery in the bible. Messenger doesn’t fit that description however.
    Personally, I don’t particularly enjoy seeing messenger squirm on the hook. He is obviously a mentally challenged person who has sincerely bought into the line of bullshit he has been fed. Nothing really funny about that. But, wading though his troll-shit droppings is tiresome, so I understand the need to point out his lies and contradictions.

  111. on 04 Jan 2013 at 9:01 pm 111.The messenger said …

    105.Severin, I already explained to you what that bible verse really ment.

    Why do you fail to understand.

  112. on 04 Jan 2013 at 9:02 pm 112.The messenger said …

    106.Severin, Islam is corrupt.

  113. on 04 Jan 2013 at 9:25 pm 113.Doug said …

    “Actually property does refer to an individual when they have willfully sold themselves as a slave as was customary in ancient culture”

    Atheist do not have the ability to think past slavery as that which occurred in the southern US (and even the North in some locals). Slavery in Hebrews times was a means of commerce or selling yourself as a servant for money or to pay a debt. It was perfectly legal and willful by the one selling the services. Therefore, guidelines were needed for the Hebrew people.

    Until an atheist can show me in Scripture that God supports the type of slavery which occurred in the Southern US, they nave no case.

    No need to check back because they will not find it. Checkmate!

  114. on 04 Jan 2013 at 9:33 pm 114.Severin said …

    110 DPK
    “Nothing really funny about that.”

    No, and I don’t laugh.
    I even don’t really debate with Messenger.
    I only always have in mind that someone walking on the edge might read all that shit, and fall.

    Maybe I can help someone in keeping balance.

  115. on 04 Jan 2013 at 9:45 pm 115.Severin said …

    #111
    “Checkmate!”

    http://www.google.rs/#hl=sr&gs_rn=1&gs_ri=serp&pq=kolarac%20koncerti&cp=24&gs_id=2u&xhr=t&q=slavery+in+hebrews+times&pf=p&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&oq=slavery+in+hebrews+times&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=cf0f34f5d255fdf0&bpcl=40096503&biw=1280&bih=933

    “The main source of non-Jewish slaves were prisoners of war.[5] Jewish slaves, in contrast to non-Jewish slaves, became slaves either because of extreme poverty (in which case they could sell themselves to a Jewish owner) or because of inability to pay a debt.[4]”
    “In biblical times, non-Jewish slaves were drawn primarily from the neighboring Canaanite nations,[8] and the Jewish Bible provided religious justification for the enslavement of these neighbors: …”
    “Most slaves owned by Jews were non-Jewish, …”
    “Most slaves owned by Jews were non-Jewish, and scholars are not certain what percentage of slaves were Jewish: one scholar says that Jews rarely owned Jewish slaves after the Maccabean era, although it is certain that Jews owned Jewish slaves during the time of the Babylonian exile.[4] Another scholar suggests that Jews continued to own Jewish slaves through the Middle Ages, but that the Biblical rules were ignored, and Jewish slaves were treated the same as non-Jews.[15]“

  116. on 04 Jan 2013 at 9:46 pm 116.Severin said …

    Sorry, I gave wrong source:

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

  117. on 04 Jan 2013 at 10:26 pm 117.Severin said …

    So, yes, maybe SOME slaves were enslaved because they couldn’t pay thir debts (which did not make them “less slaves”), but majority of slaves were not Hebrews. They were prisoniers of war or they were just bought on the slave markets like cuttle.
    #111

    Yes, your god DID support slavery, exactly the same type of it as it was in Americas, which he personally and clearly declared in multiple Bible verses.
    God himself told us that children of slaves become slaves, didn’t he?
    Three characteristic make lavery being slavery:
    - Slaves are PROPERTY of the slave holder
    - Slaves are inherited as all property was inherited
    - Children of slaves were also slaves

    All three charateristic are listed in god’s laws.

    Your god was a highly immoral bastard. He supported slavery, and you can not deny it by falsifying the Bible.

  118. on 04 Jan 2013 at 10:38 pm 118.Severin said …

    http://www.bible.gen.nz/amos/themes/slavery.htm

    “Hebrew debt-slaves were to serve for a 6 year term only (Ex 21:2; Dt 15:12; but cf. Jer 34:14ff.) and freed slaves were to receive gifts (Dt 15:14). Slaves were also to be freed in the Jubilee Year (Lev 25:13, 40) though this passage refers to particular circumstances.”

    How touching!

    Yet, your god does NOT speak about debt-slaves, who had to be freed after six years and get gifts.
    He is talking about slaves who are permanent property of slave holders. He is talking abut INHERITING slaves, and about slave children who continue being slaves only because they had “luck” to have slave parents.

    Very sad!

    More sad is that you are serving such a bastard and are trying to justify his immorality.

  119. on 04 Jan 2013 at 10:49 pm 119.Severin said …

    http://www.answers.com/topic/slavery-and-the-slave-trade#ixzz2H38xGAoV

    Gale Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World:
    Slavery and the Slave Trade

    “Most forms of slavery share the following characteristics: (1) slaves are obliged to live their lives in perpetual service to their master, an obligation that only the master (or the state) can dissolve; (2) slaves are under the complete power of their masters, although the state or community may impose certain restrictions upon the master’s treatment of the slave; (3) slaves are property, which may be sold or passed along as an inheritance at the master’s discretion; and (4) the condition of slavery is transmitted from parent to child.

    Just to avoid missunderstanding: Isn’t it exactly what our god says in the Bible?

    Why are you trying to lie?

  120. on 04 Jan 2013 at 11:26 pm 120.DDoes the Bible condone slavery?oug said …

    The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

    The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrews were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

    In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10).

    Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.

  121. on 04 Jan 2013 at 11:58 pm 121.Severin said …

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

    ” If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.”

  122. on 05 Jan 2013 at 12:31 am 122.Severin said …

    So, dear #120, you may babble whatever you please, but your immoral god said what he said, and you can’t eat his words. They are, black on white, in the Bible, and are very simple to understand, no mediators or interpretors necessary to make them more clear.

    Your god DID support slavery, the most immoral institution of human race.
    He wrote detailed instructions about problems of property, children slaves, inheriting of slaves as someone’s “permanent property”, but he never wrote a single word about immorality of that shameful institution.
    No suggestion to stop slavery. No compassion for slaves and their children.
    Only care for slave holders (… If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own PROPERTY. (Exodus 21:20-21)).

    If he ever existed as described in the Bible, your god was a highly immoral creature, that can’t be a morality model to anyone.

  123. on 05 Jan 2013 at 12:54 am 123.Am_Sci said …

    @120

    Our point is that the Bible is not a reliable moral guide. It is through humanistic values, not divine mandate, that many of us have come to see slavery as morally unacceptable. The authors of the Bible were human beings who could not see beyond the mores of their day– few of us can. But, if you posit that these authors were divinely inspired, you have a major problem; you have to believe that the being you hold as the ultimate moral authority permitted slavery. It follows, then, that either God is immoral, slavery is moral, or you are wrong about the Bible.

  124. on 05 Jan 2013 at 1:00 am 124.alex said …

    the bible is bullshit, period. that’s why you have morons picking and choosing. talking snake? 64 generations from adam to jesus? obsession with foreskins? 500,000 killed in a single battle? noah & the flood? the bullshit keeps on and on…

    go fuck yourself, messenger.

  125. on 05 Jan 2013 at 2:06 am 125.Anonymous said …

    Doug, it is considered unethical to use other people’s work without attribution. Some might even consider it immoral.

    The takeaway here is that, even though it vastly diminishes your post, you should provide citations for where you stole your words from.

    Now, do you have an unbiased source you wish to quote? Probably not. Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that the bible isn’t a moral guide and you don’t have any proof for the existence of the imaginary friend you probably call a god.

  126. on 05 Jan 2013 at 2:22 am 126.The messenger said …

    Well said brother 113.Doug.

  127. on 05 Jan 2013 at 2:25 am 127.The messenger said …

    Doug, these Athiests have no idea what they are talking about.

    Keep up the good work brother.

  128. on 05 Jan 2013 at 2:32 am 128.The messenger said …

    124.Alex, their where no talking snakes in the bible.

    The word snake is a metaphore for a sneaky, deceiving, evil person.

  129. on 05 Jan 2013 at 2:35 am 129.The messenger said …

    124.alex, no one knows how many generations were between Jesus and Adam.

    Do not spead lies Mrs. Alex.

  130. on 05 Jan 2013 at 3:02 am 130.A said …

    “Our point is that the Bible is not a reliable moral guide. It is through humanistic values, not divine mandate, that many of us have come to see slavery as morally unacceptable.”

    LOL! A more idiotic comment has yet to be made here. The Bible is unreliable declared by an atheist. How has that atheist morality worked out the last 100 years? Gulags?, Stalin? Lenin? Pol Pot? here is a name David Waters? When asked here to declare how morality is determined they have not once provided a methodology.

    Why is it morally unacceptable? Because Ami Sci has declared it to be so? What happens if he decides to go Stalin on us? Does that change the morality? How many of us want to rely on self declared ethicist like Ami Sci and Dawkins to declare what is moral?

    No, I’ll go back to our DI and find my rights and morality in our creator.

    Anonymous,

    Find a hole and pull the dirt over the top. It is only immoral if Doug takes credit for the work. The title of the article is right in the name. You are such a child. If you cannot respond to the ideas feel free not to type. It’s OK.

    Adjö

  131. on 05 Jan 2013 at 3:44 am 131.Anonymous said …

    Poor, A, we keep busting his sock-puppets (you blew it here again) and calling him on his plagiarism. All he has left is name-calling.

    Yeah, like anyone would be upset by someone who has to post under multiple IDs just to pretend that there is someone that agrees with him.

    Now that you are back, you still owe us your credentials and the reference where we can read about the scientific law of cause and effect that you claimed exists.

    And of course, your proof that your imaginary friend is anything other than a delusion – as in mental illness.

    For someone who claims to be involved in science, an Astrophysicist no less, you seem to know remarkably little about science and how to cite references.

  132. on 05 Jan 2013 at 4:54 am 132.The messenger said …

    124.alex, there is no obsession with foreskin.

    King Saul told David that he could become his son in law if he killed 100 Philistine solders in battle. King Saul claimed that he wanted revenge upon the philistines, but Saul’s true plan was to have David die in battle. But David and his troops succeeded in battle because God protected them. Saul told David that he had to bring the foreskins of 100 philistine solders as proof of his success in battle.

  133. on 05 Jan 2013 at 4:55 am 133.The messenger said …

    on 05 Jan 2013 at 4:54 am 132.The messenger said … Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    124.alex, there is no obsession with foreskin.
    King Saul told David that he could become his son in law if he killed 100 Philistine solders in battle. King Saul claimed that he wanted revenge upon the philistines, but Saul’s true plan was to have David die in battle. But David and his troops succeeded in battle because God protected them. Saul told David that he had to bring the foreskins of 100 philistine solders as proof of his success in battle, and he did.

  134. on 05 Jan 2013 at 5:30 am 134.The messenger said …

    124.alex,just out of curiosity, why do you cuss so much?

    Cussing does not make you look smarter, stronger, or cooler that anyone else. In fact it actually makes you look weak. You lack the will to stop cussing.

    I pray that you change.

  135. on 05 Jan 2013 at 8:31 am 135.Severin said …

    A
    went out from his mouse hole to tech us about how morality comes from Bible, but he never ever listed the verses from the Bible which he personally takes as moral rules in his own life.
    He never did it, and he never will, a liar and a fraud, who thinks that his word means anything to anyone.

    Yes, A, we did explain where morality comes from for about 10 times.
    As everything connected with life on earth (not only human beings, but life “en general”), morality is the product of evolution, a tool of survival, and it started billions of years ago, when some primitive animal first “learned” how to recognize another primitive animal of same species, to avoid to eat it.
    How is it that (with very little exceptions) animals do not eat their own youngs even when they starve and die of hunger, but will immediatelly eat a near by passing rabbit?
    Isn’t it a sort of “morality”? Distinguishing “bad” from “good”?

    We also asked you many times how can it be that many human societies survived for thousands of years without even hearing for Christianity and Bible?
    Where did Aborigines (Indians, Oceanian people, …) learn about morality? Without moral rules that were “built in” their genes, they would have dissapeared from earth, but they survived for some 40,000 years without Bible and Christianity.

    You never answered it, and you never will, because everything you could say would instantly distroy the idea of Bible being the source of morality.

  136. on 05 Jan 2013 at 1:54 pm 136.The messenger said …

    135.Severin, mortal rules are not built into anyone’s genes.

    Morality is taught to us later in life, not by our genes but by Jesus.

  137. on 05 Jan 2013 at 1:55 pm 137.The messenger said …

    on 05 Jan 2013 at 1:54 pm 136.The messenger said … Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    135.Severin, moral rules are not built into anyone’s genes.
    Morality is taught to us later in life, not by our genes but by Jesus.

  138. on 05 Jan 2013 at 2:29 pm 138.Burebista said …

    Severin

    Where do you get this idea that survival = morality? If survival = morality then killing, cannibalism and stealing are all good. They make the strong stronger.

    If morality is a product of evolution then prove it. I have seen some very weak attempts at this connection but hardly convincing. Compassion and charity are NOT products of evolution but rather defy evolution. But, if you can prove it with facts I could change my mind,

  139. on 05 Jan 2013 at 3:31 pm 139.alex said …

    “If morality is a product of evolution then prove it.”

    who dat say? you making up shit yet again.

    man lived thousands of years without your biblical morality bullshit. oh, i fergit, you idiots believe in the 10,000 year old earth.

    “Compassion and charity”

    xtians have a monopoly on this? i would treat everyone on this blog exactly the same regardless of race, sexual orientation and political/religious affiliation. can you say the same thing motherfucker? when you see a transexual, what are you thinking?

    you’re a fucking delusional, hypocrite.

  140. on 05 Jan 2013 at 4:07 pm 140.The messenger said …

    on 05 Jan 2013 at 5:30 am 134.The messenger said …
    124.alex,just out of curiosity, why do you cuss so much?
    Cussing does not make you look smarter, stronger, or cooler that anyone else. In fact it actually makes you look weak. You lack the will to stop cussing.
    I pray that you change.

  141. on 05 Jan 2013 at 4:11 pm 141.The messenger said …

    139.alex, the bible does not state how old the world is.

    Do not spead lies.

  142. on 05 Jan 2013 at 4:15 pm 142.The messenger said …

    139.alex said… Who dat say?

    Alex, use proper grammar.

    Stop using slang terms, it makes you look even more stupid than you already are.

  143. on 05 Jan 2013 at 7:41 pm 143.Lou (DFW) said …

    130.ASS lied …

    “No, I’ll go back to our DI and find my rights and morality in our creator.”

    No, you won’t because you’re a liar and fraud. But I’ll give you a chance to prove that you’re not. Show us the moral code that you claim to get from your “creator.”

    Oh, never mind. You were asked many times to do that, but you never did. Apparently dishonesty and deceit are part of your “creator’s” moral code.

  144. on 05 Jan 2013 at 7:42 pm 144.Lou (DFW) said …

    142.The messenger said …

    “Alex, use proper grammar.”

    LOL! Pot, meet kettle.

  145. on 05 Jan 2013 at 7:45 pm 145.Lou (DFW) said …

    138.Burp belched …

    “But, if you can prove it with facts I could change my mind,”

    Since when are facts required for you to accept anything? After all, you believe that an imaginary god exists.

  146. on 05 Jan 2013 at 7:48 pm 146.Lou (DFW) said …

    141.The messenger said …

    “139.alex, the bible does not state how old the world is.”

    He didn’t claim that it did. But, just for the record, what do think is the Earth’s age and why?

  147. on 05 Jan 2013 at 7:59 pm 147.Lou (DFW) said …

    138.Burp belched …

    “If survival = morality then killing, cannibalism and stealing are all good. They make the strong stronger.”

    He didn’t claim that survival = morality. As part of your lies, you intentionally distorted what he wrote.

    Second, this blog isn’t here to discuss morality except how it relates to god and religion. You can’t show how it relates to god because you don’t have any evidence for god.

  148. on 05 Jan 2013 at 8:32 pm 148.Severin said …

    136 Burebista
    “But, if you can prove it with facts I could change my mind,”

    1. It is the fact that no carnivores eat their own youngas even if they starve and are dying of hunger. They are never tempted to eat a juicy peace of proteins hopping among their legs, even if they die of hunger, and will rather really die, than eat their own youngs.
    They obiously intuitively “know” that eating of your own youngs could lead to extermination of your species. They are, somehow, able to distinguish “bad” from “good”.
    Isn’t distinguishing bad from good the essencial definition of morality?
    What ELSE could be the “moral code”, but ability to distinguish good from bad?
    So, we can say that animals HAVE their moral code, maybe primitive, but the one that is doing the job. One that saves their species from dying out.
    How did they learn that?
    That “moral code” was slowly “deposited” into their genes through hundreds and hundreds millions of years of evolution.
    That is not a proof, but is a good explanation.
    What is yours?
    Do you have any? Or, will you again just criticize and negate, without giving your own opinion?
    I think you will.
    That is your style.

    2. I know no human society in which murder, rape, stealing, was dominant way of living. There is no human society in which such things were publically tollerated. Even in most primitive societies existed laws (not always in written form) that clearly determined what is allowed to do and what is not, and in no society right to kill, rape, steal, ever depended on the free will of an individual. Societies, all of them, had their mechanisms to distinguish bad from good, and, typically, they not only survived, but progressed (well, dependign very much on natural conditions, but, at least, most of them did not regress, see: Aborigines, Oceanian people, …).
    They all, obviously, HAD THEIR MORAL CODE.

    If most of them never heard for Bible, Jesus, Christianity, HOW did they get their moral codes?

    I say: the ame way as animals did: through evolution.
    Now I kindly expect elaborated opposite opinion from you.

    Which will never come.

  149. on 05 Jan 2013 at 8:49 pm 149.Severin said …

    Correction+:
    They obviously HAD THEIR MORAL CODES that made them survive.
    If they did not have such moral codes, which, b.t.w., were not much different from each other (I mean: EACH human society had practically the SAME moral rules: do not kill, do not steal, do not rape, …!), they would not avoid their own destruction in endless orgies of mutual robbing and killing.
    Yes, their moral codes were their tool of survival.

    In case of opposite opinion please elaborate. I do NOT need proofs, only logical explanations of a counter-opinion.

  150. on 05 Jan 2013 at 8:55 pm 150.Severin said …

    147 Lou (DFW)
    “He didn’t claim that survival = morality.”

    No, I did not, thank you.
    My first impuls was to call him a liar, but I forgot it.

    Never mind, he knows he is.

  151. on 05 Jan 2013 at 9:10 pm 151.Severin said …

    “Moral code” is obviously very, very relative matter.

    “Good” is always something that is good for me and my species (nation, tribe, herd, …), and bad is always something that endangers me and my species (nation, …).

    Your god follows the logic of evolution (because not god, but men wrote the Bible): it is good to have slaves from naighbor tribes, but it is bad to enslave people from your own tribe.

    Evolution in action!

    After a few thousand years, much sooner than expected, evolution broke the limits of tribes and nations, and, unlike some time ago, we are today trying to understand that the whole human race is “one tribe” and are trying to do something to survive as human society, not as nations, tribes, …, because:
    1. We are ALL exposed to same dangers: lack of resources, pollution,
    2. Not a single nation is able to solve global problems without cooperating with each other

    So, if we don’t extermine each other before that happens, we will eventually put our moral codes to still higher level.

    I said: WE, not god.

  152. on 05 Jan 2013 at 9:27 pm 152.Severin said …

    138 Burebista
    “… killing, cannibalism and stealing are all good.”

    Yes, in controlled extent!

    At least your very Bible proves that:

    Kill their children (to disable them to strenghten and to endanger our existence)
    Rob their propery (no explanation necessary)
    Enslave them (to work for us without payment)
    Destroy their towns (to take them the base for progression)

    Etc, etc, I now see that the Bible is, actually, a handbook of evolution.

  153. on 06 Jan 2013 at 12:17 am 153.Burebista said …

    “They obiously (sic) intuitively “know” that eating of your own youngs (sic) could lead to extermination of your species.”

    And this is proof of what Severin? Did you ask them if they “know” this would lead to their extinction? Numerous species do eat their young. Are they attempting to bring about extinction Severin?

    My explanation? My explanation of what? Why they don’t eat their young? I don’t know but I would never buy an explanation of carnivorous sitting around have a discussion in philosophy. Look into instincts Severin.

    “I know no human society in which murder, rape, stealing, was dominant way of living.”

    Do you consider these to be immoral acts? If so why? You need to visit some Argentinian prisons. Just one example among many.

  154. on 06 Jan 2013 at 12:22 am 154.Burebista said …

    “Good” is always something that is good for me and my species (nation, tribe, herd, …), and bad is always something that endangers me and my species (nation, …).

    I like how you defined what is good by using the word “good”. That works very well.

    So stealing from other tribes is good and operating cars is bad. Is that how it works Severin?

  155. on 06 Jan 2013 at 12:24 am 155.Burebista said …

    “So, if we don’t extermine each other before that happens, we will eventually put our moral codes to still higher level.”

    I don’t know what a “extermine” is, regardless yes the morality of man has improved SO much in the last 50 years. You are a nut who is completely out of touch Severin.

  156. on 06 Jan 2013 at 9:05 am 156.Severin said …

    153 Burebista
    “And this is proof of what Severin?”

    It was expected! You are unable to say anything without twisting someone’s words (lying)!
    Where did I wrote it was a proof? I said that was NOT proof, but is, at least, a SOME explanation, that fits reality: carnivores eat rabbits, but do NOT eat their own youngs, and I made an effoort to give MY explanation for that.
    You don’t have any (“i don’t know”), but you KNOW there is a god, for which you, again have nor explanations neither proofs.

    Pretty miserable!

    “Look at the instincts”?
    I DID, but, unlike you, I went a step further, and gave an acceptable explanation about where those instincts could have come from.
    You dont know?
    What DO you know?
    I don’t like debating with someone who “dont’ know” and has no opinion of his own, about anything. You obviously have none, but are only parroting “god exists and morality comes from god”, without ANYTHING to support it.

    If many (all!) societies that have never heard about Christianity, lived for thousand of years (and still live!) having EXACTLY the same moral rules (laws) as Christian societies had (which is absolute truth: murdering, raping, robbing, stealing, …, were forbidden in all human societies ever, on the PERSONAL level), then Christianity and Christian god have NOTHING to do with morality. Period. It must have come from some other source, otherwise all non-christian societies would have dissapeared.

    Don’t you ask me questions, I DID explain my opinion logically, without pretending it to be any proof.
    You refute it by YOUR explanation, not by posing additional questions and telling us that you “don’t know”.
    One who gives acceptable explanation that fits facts, wins the debate against one who “dos not know”, but persists claiming his “blah, blah” (god exists and is responsible for morality).

    IF you give me your opinion AND an explanation to support it, I might reconsider my own. Your leis, your mocking, your posing additional questions, and your “I don’t know” will not do the job.

  157. on 06 Jan 2013 at 9:23 am 157.Severin said …

    156 Burebista
    “Do you consider these to be immoral acts?”

    I do, but your god doesn’t (according to rules of evolution that were valid at THAT time):
    Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

    MY morality evolved to higher level.
    Not thanks to any god, but thanks to some time that passed from THEN to TODAY.

    Unfortunately, evolution is not a straight line. Not everyone evolved to same extent.

  158. on 06 Jan 2013 at 9:30 am 158.Severin said …

    155 Burebista
    “I don’t know what a “extermine” is, regardless yes the morality of man has improved SO much in the last 50 years.”

    “Extermine” = exterminate, and you know it well.

    I am VERY glad to see that you admit how morality, in general, is going improved.

    Bible and “god’s words” did NOT change, yet morality did!

    It speaks for itself!
    I already gave MY explanation for the phenomenon: evolution in action.
    Now I kindly expect YOURS.

    I mean, SAY SOMETHING, man, don’t you say only “I don’t know”!
    What are you doing here if you know nothing?

  159. on 06 Jan 2013 at 9:35 am 159.Severin said …

    Of course, if you don’t give any explanation, but persist on your not knowing anything, and not explaining anything, could it be that I was right?

  160. on 06 Jan 2013 at 9:53 am 160.Severin said …

    155 Burebista
    “…, regardless yes the morality of man has improved SO much in the last 50 years.”

    I mean, YOU just told us how Bible is, obviously, NOT the sorce of morality.

    If morality changes while Bible remains unchanged, it MUST be that morality has some other source.

    Thank you for supporting my thesis!

  161. on 06 Jan 2013 at 9:59 am 161.Severin said …

    Burebista,

    And, you have just destroyed the “eternal” theist’s thesis of “absolute morality”.

    YOU told us morality is NOT absolute, it CHANGES, and I totally agree.

    Thanks again!

  162. on 06 Jan 2013 at 3:40 pm 162.Severin said …

    Burebista
    ” I don’t know (!!!) but I would never buy an explanation of carnivorous sitting around have a discussion in philosophy.”

    No one ever saw Amazone Indians sitting around and discussing phylosophy.
    Yet, they (intuitively) know (or, to be more precise: “know”) how to distiguish what is wrong from what is right, and their “wrong” and their “right” do not differ a bit from “wrong” and “right” defined in Bible, which is: (see #152).
    I doubt they could explain it in a “phylosophical manner”, but they KNOW it, same as a lioness “knows” that she must not eat her young, but can’t explain it.

  163. on 06 Jan 2013 at 3:40 pm 163.Lou (DFW) said …

    155.Burp ranted …

    “You are a nut who is completely out of touch Severin.”

    LOL! Says the religious nut who can’t provide the absolute moral code allegedly supplied by his imaginary god. Yeah, HE’S out of touch, not YOU!

    Burp, your diversionary rants about morality are irrelevant to the ABSOLUTE FACT that you can’t provide any evidence for your imaginary god. In fact, your rants are evidence that there is no such code. Or if there is, then your morality doesn’t adhere to it.

  164. on 06 Jan 2013 at 3:43 pm 164.Severin said …

    Sorry: neither … nor.

  165. on 06 Jan 2013 at 3:46 pm 165.Lou (DFW) said …

    154.Burp said …

    ‘I like how you defined what is good by using the word “good”.’

    Who cares what you like?

    He didn’t define “good.” He placed its meaning in the context in which he meant for it to be used. In other words, there is no absolute good. Burp, like all of your other sock-puppets, you’re a moron, regardless of the context.

  166. on 06 Jan 2013 at 4:02 pm 166.Lou (DFW) said …

    153.Burp said …

    “They obiously (sic) intuitively “know” that eating of your own youngs (sic) could lead to extermination of your species.”

    Burp, your incorrect usage of sic is a weak attack on someone whose native language isn’t English.

    FYI – sic should be enclosed by brackets, not parentheses, when used within a quotation.

  167. on 06 Jan 2013 at 4:48 pm 167.Burebista said …

    Could you be right Severin? Sure I suppose as much as 12/21/12 doomsday prophets could have been right. You don’t seem to have a grasp of instinct vs morality. You also lack understanding when one comments or observes the moral decay of culture. You somehow see this as a win for your view? You need to get a better grasp on ethics and morality.

  168. on 06 Jan 2013 at 6:27 pm 168.Lou (DFW) said …

    167.Burp said …

    “You don’t seem to have a grasp of instinct vs morality.”

    You don’t seem to have a grasp of intelligence “vs” faith – creating a virtue from not thinking.

  169. on 06 Jan 2013 at 7:02 pm 169.Severin said …

    # 167
    “Could you be right Severin? Sure I suppose as much as 12/21/12 doomsday prophets could have been right.”

    Is that all you have to say?
    Pretty miserable.
    Oh, I forgot: you never know anything!

    No, I am not happy with me being right. I would prefer to hear your opinion about the subject of debate.
    But, I expected such a denouement, and it, unfortunatelly, happened: the man with no opinion of his own, who, according to his multiple admission, knows nothing (“I don’t know”), is criticizing someone else’s opinion!

    If it wasn’t sad, you could call it comic.

  170. on 06 Jan 2013 at 7:31 pm 170.Burebista said …

    Severin you made the ridiculous claim not me. Now you strike out in anger when I will not embrace your delusion? If you have the faith to believe such a fairytale feel free. Really, you should do some study on the instincts in animals. You are a little slow picking up the hints here.

  171. on 06 Jan 2013 at 7:32 pm 171.Burebista said …

    What is a denoucement?

  172. on 06 Jan 2013 at 8:50 pm 172.Lou (DFW) said …

    170.Burebista said …

    Prove this, prove that, because I can’t prove that my imaginary god is real or that it issued an absolute moral code.

    Believe in your “farytale [sic](,then) feel free (to do so)” because I have my own fairy tale about an imaginary god in which I believe.

    “Really, you should do some study on the instincts in animals.”

    Who is “Really,” and what kind of study do you suggest that “Really” should perform?

  173. on 06 Jan 2013 at 8:54 pm 173.Lou (DFW) said …

    Correction : “fairytale”

  174. on 06 Jan 2013 at 8:59 pm 174.Lou (DFW) said …

    171.Burebista said …

    “What is a denoucement?”

    Why do you continue to comment about his simple spelling mistakes when you can’t compose a simple, grammatically correct sentence when English is your native language?

  175. on 06 Jan 2013 at 11:00 pm 175.Severin said …

    174 Luo (DFW)
    “Why do you continue to comment about his simple spelling mistakes…”

    Which did not make this time! Pls. see #169 and tell me where did I write “denoucement”.

    Soemthing is always necessary to turn somebody’s attention from someone’s stupidity.

  176. on 06 Jan 2013 at 11:18 pm 176.Severin said …

    Anyone who says my claim is ridiculous, should elaborate THAT claim, to give me opportunity to correct mine, on basis of some arguments, or at least some explanation.
    People who admit they know nothing and have no opinion of their own about anything, but are ready only to patronize other people with their qulaifications told from who knows what hight, such as “you are wrong”, are not qualified to say anything about opinions of other people.

    “You are wrongt” is neither an argument nor an explanation.

    It is bullshit.

  177. on 07 Jan 2013 at 1:10 am 177.Lou (DFW) said …

    175.Severin said …

    ‘Which did not make this time! Pls. see #169 and tell me where did I write “denoucement”.’

    You didn’t. But you wrote denouement, which is a word, but doesn’t seem correct in the context of your comment. Burp must, in his desperation to attack ANYTHING an atheist writes about his delusional position, must attack in knee-jerk fashion anything that you write.

    That’s why I wrote that he doesn’t have a “grasp of intelligence “vs” faith.” Our nut sock-puppet Burp knows that there is no evidence for his imaginary god, nor any that supports his claim for a non-existent moral code. So, all he can do is attack those who don’t accept his nonsense or fill-in the void of evidence with his own perverted agenda(s). It doesn’t require any intelligence, simply the faith with which he was brain-washed.

  178. on 07 Jan 2013 at 2:38 am 178.Wouldubelieveit said …

    Why don’t we end the debate and simply ask God to appear? That’s a good question. Would a angel do the trick for you? This what I’ll do for you. You ask God to show you an angel. One of his cause there are two kinds of angels good and evil. So we most definitely want a good angel not a evil one. So I will agree you will and when you see this angel will you except Jesus as your savor?

  179. on 07 Jan 2013 at 3:14 am 179.Burebista said …

    “Anyone who says my claim is ridiculous, should elaborate THAT claim, to give me opportunity to correct mine, on basis of some arguments, or at least some explanation.”

    It is very simple Severin. You make up stories about animals eating or not eating their young and attempt to make this your staple for animals have a moral aptitude. It is ridiculous because you provide zero evidence. Asking me what I believe does not validate your absurd claims.

    It could be your poor grasp of the English language and words like “denouement”, defining “Good” with good that are your problem. I don’t know but I do know that you have provided zero evidence, only stories.

  180. on 07 Jan 2013 at 3:17 am 180.Burebista said …

    “patronize other people with their qulaifications told from who knows what hight, such as “you are wrong””

    Try slowing down and thinking before typing. Your communication could improve immensely. You can do better. Where did I claim you are wrong? I claim you have not backed up stories with evidence. Now you resort to distortions, pity and deflection.

  181. on 07 Jan 2013 at 3:38 am 181.Anonymous said …

    Burp’s problem is that he has to keep asking questions otherwise he may have to answer questions not just for us, but for himself.

    What is he or any of his imaginary supporters, going to do when he has to explain how his all-powerful god that supposedly created the universe, gets clobbered by bronze ago warriors in Iron Chariots?

    What’s the sock-puppet going to do when called upon to explain how a god so omnipotent that he can answer prayers to find car keys, can never manage to do anything beyond what his believers currently can do without his help? And he certainly can’t heal amputees.

    Without his questions what’s he going to do to explain how he can claim that something can’t come from nothing except when it’s in relation to his imaginary god. Then it’s just obvious that it can. But only when he wants it to.

    Absent diversion how can he explain his aversion to chemical processes yielding life whilst clinging to the delusion that a magic man breathing onto some dust is so obviously the right answer, especially if it isn’t supported by reality or evidence.

    Absolutely he’s going to keep inventing new identities all to keep that cognitive dissonance in bay lest he turn up at a school with a rifle and start shooting, as do his fellow Christians.

    Fortunately, he’s not in the clergy so his neighbors at least don’t need to worry about their children being raped by a priest. Although his blatant anger might make them concerned about other forms of abuse.

  182. on 07 Jan 2013 at 3:54 am 182.alex said …

    “Would a angel do the trick for you?”

    ok, uhhm, sure. now, back at you. if the prophet muhammad showed up and said he, not christ is the one, would it do the trick for you? i be not, because you’re so fucking brainwashed.

  183. on 07 Jan 2013 at 3:56 am 183.alex said …

    “Try slowing down and thinking before typing.”

    you self righteous motherfucker. some of us here are not native english speakers. try typing in another language, you asshole.

  184. on 07 Jan 2013 at 4:05 am 184.Lou(DFW) said …

    179.Burp said …

    “It could be your poor grasp of the English language …”

    It could be that you lack of intelligence is your problem.

    “…and words like “denouement”, defining “Good” with good that are your problem.”

    Repeating yourself doesn’t reinforce your already weak position, but rather reinforces the perception that you are a mentally challenged theist.

    “I don’t know but I do know that you have provided zero evidence, only stories.”

    LOL! Which is it – you don’t know or you do know?

    Moron…

  185. on 07 Jan 2013 at 4:09 am 185.Lou(DFW) said …

    180.Burp said …

    “Try slowing down and thinking before typing. Your communication could improve immensely.”

    Says the guy who wrote “I don’t know but I do know…”

    “I do know” that you’re a moron. And I don’t have to provide any evidence for that claim because you have done that for me.

  186. on 07 Jan 2013 at 6:36 am 186.Severin said …

    Burebista,
    Actually, you’ve done enough for the beginning: you told us that morality of man improved a lot in last 50 years.
    I can imagine it was not easy for you to comprehend the consequences of your claim, but, by saying it spontaniously, you did a good job: you destroyed the theist’s (and your own) favoured “theory” of existence of absolute morality, and the Bible being the source of it.
    By doing that claim, you did a good job for yourself, too!
    The new idea you’ve promoted will free your mind for more new ideas.
    Maybe you will finally start to think, and maybe your predominant answers, in next years, will not be “I don’t know”.

    Which is good for you, and I am glad for you.

  187. on 07 Jan 2013 at 1:02 pm 187.Burebista said …

    “you told us that morality of man improved a lot in last 50 years.”

    I did? I don’t think so Severin which is why this idea of morality evolution has no legs. You did provided a much better job with the typing but it seems you abandoned your theory. A wise move since it has no legs.

    Anonymous I have been on this blog at least five years. Move on sir.

  188. on 07 Jan 2013 at 2:38 pm 188.Lou(DFW) said …

    187.Burp said …

    “You did provided [sic] a much better job with the typing…”

    LOL! Yes, he did. When will you? Burp, you can’t compose a grammatically correct sentence, so what gives you the right to criticize his “typing” when English isn’t his native language?

    “Anonymous I have been on this blog at least five years.”

    So what? How is that relevant?

    During those five years you never, ever provide any evidence for your imaginary god nor provide an alleged moral code. Where is it, fraud?

    “Move on sir.”

    Yes, Burp, it’s definitely time for you to “move on.” Come back when you find some evidence that supports your delusion.

  189. on 07 Jan 2013 at 5:37 pm 189.Anonymous said …

    Ok, burp, you’ve been here at least 5 years posting under a variety of different names, whilst trying to derail the conversation with your stalling and personal attacks. You seem oddly proud of your record of childish behavior.

    Lou is correct, seeing as you’ve yet to come up with a cogent argument to support your delusion, why not move on and face reality. Your god is imaginary. But you know that, that’s why you behave as you do.

    Many theists have never questioned their beliefs. You’ve spent they last five years, using your figure, desperately looking for ever smaller places in the sand to hide your head. Yours is a position of complete intellectual abandonment.

  190. on 07 Jan 2013 at 6:33 pm 190.Burebista said …

    Anonymous,

    More diversions and changing of the subject? If you want to join in a discussion do so. Just do it honestly. How about starting with a real name rather than this anonymous business. When you have done that I will be glad to let you join in. Besides, considering my childishness you certainly wouldn”t desire to lower yourself.

    Now, move on sir.

  191. on 07 Jan 2013 at 7:11 pm 191.Lou(DFW) said …

    190.Burp said …

    “More diversions and changing of the subject?”

    OK, Burp, the subject is:

    The fact that neither Jesus nor God appears demonstrates clearly that God is imaginary. Yet religious people refuse to accept this clear, unambiguous evidence. If you are religious, please use the comment area to explain why you cannot accept this evidence and continue to believe in your imaginary God.

    “If you want to join in a discussion do so. Just do it honestly.”

    Go ahead, join the discussion about the subject. But, you won’t because you can’t be honest.

    So, move on, fraud.

  192. on 07 Jan 2013 at 7:27 pm 192.DPK said …

    155.Burebista said …
    I don’t know what a “extermine” is, regardless yes the morality of man has improved SO much in the last 50 years.

    187.Burebista said …
    “you told us that morality of man improved a lot in last 50 years.”
    I did? I don’t think so Severin which is why this idea of morality evolution has no legs.

    180.Burebista said …
    Try slowing down and thinking before typing. Your communication could improve immensely. You can do better.

    Would almost be funny if it wasn’t so tragic.

    Now here is the clear fact that your sanctimonious word games cannot hide. You have not presented one shred of evidence to cause anyone to accept your idea that an absolute moral code exists, that it was given to us by a transcendent being, that such a transcendent being exists, or that that being is in fact, the christian god of the bible. Until you can provide justification and evidence for those assertions, all your 5 years worth of attempting to divert attention and your topic derailing trolling are just a fart in the wind: unpleasant, but of little consequence. Seriously, you have been called out on this so many times, yet you persist like a Jehovah’s witness hopped up on Red Bull.
    Ding Dong Burpy… nobody’s interested in your bullshit word games.

  193. on 07 Jan 2013 at 9:15 pm 193.Severin said …

    187 Burebista
    “you told us that morality of man improved a lot in last 50 years.”

    “I did? I don’t think so Severin …”

    Before I say anything, I kindly ask people whose native language is English, to judge this sentence of Mr. Burebista, which he wrote in his #155 post, and I c/p it here (but you also can see the original up there):
    “I don’t know what a “extermine” is, regardless yes the morality of man has improved SO much in the last 50 years.”

    Did he, or didn’t he say that morality of man improved a lot in last 50 years?

    If he did not, I will apologize.

    Or, maybe it was some sort of “context” that only Burebista recognizes?!

  194. on 07 Jan 2013 at 9:40 pm 194.Severin said …

    I, with my very poor English, would have put two more commas in that text:
    “I don’t know what a “extermine” is, regardless, yes, the morality of man has improved SO much in the last 50 years.”
    Or maybe this way:
    “I don’t know what a “extermine” is, regardless: yes, the morality of man has improved SO much in the last 50 years.”

    Does the lack of those commas play a role in understanding of this text?
    Does the presence or lack of commas changes the meaning of text?

  195. on 07 Jan 2013 at 9:57 pm 195.Lou(DFW) said …

    193.Severin said …

    “Did he, or didn’t he say that morality of man improved a lot in last 50 years?

    If he did not, I will apologize.

    Or, maybe it was some sort of “context” that only Burebista recognizes?!”

    It’s possible that he was being sarcastic, but it’s irrelevant. Why are you arguing with him about morality? Morality is irrelevant to god and religion unless somebody can show that there is an absolute morality that comes from some god that hasn’t been shown to exist. So far, nobody here has done that, so there’s nothing to debate. It’s not necessary to discuss here on this blog from where morality originates. It no more relevant to god and religion than is to how to bake a cake.

  196. on 07 Jan 2013 at 11:13 pm 196.Severin said …

    Thank you.

    For sarcasm, one needs some sense of humor, which Burebista never showed. He is dark, rather than humorous.
    I don’t think he would, even if he could, use sarcasm for such a claim, risking to be missundestood.

    He clearly said what he said, and is now trying to get out from his own shit.

    But I will not continue feeding the troll.

  197. on 07 Jan 2013 at 11:58 pm 197.Lou(DFW) said …

    196.Severin said …

    “I don’t think he would, even if he could, use sarcasm for such a claim, risking to be missundestood.”

    He obviously does not have any concern about being misunderstood. As a matter of fact, it makes it easier for him to “muddy the water,” thus causing more confusion about and diversion from the fact that there is no such absolute moral code.

    As 181.Anonymous said …

    “Burp’s problem is that he has to keep asking questions otherwise he may have to answer questions not just for us, but for himself.”

    He never answers direct questions, he only asks them in order to avoid the truth.

    He’s nothing but a fraud.

  198. on 08 Jan 2013 at 1:38 am 198.Burebista said …

    “If he did not, I will apologize.”

    I do apologize Sevein that you have such a tough time with English. My sentence was a form of sarcasm which is why the word so was capitalized as in “SO”. Maybe I could have added a few Os?

    But let us stop with the diversions Severin. I simply asked you about a claim and suddenly you get nasty and defensive and start with your troll references. Do you still stand by this claim made by you?

    As everything connected with life on earth (not only human beings, but life “en general”), morality is the product of evolution, a tool of survival, and it started billions of years ago, when some primitive animal first “learned” how to recognize another primitive animal of same species, to avoid to eat it.

    Why is “en general” and “learned” in quotes? What proof have you uncovered from the fossil record that would prove this claim?

  199. on 08 Jan 2013 at 1:45 am 199.alex said …

    burb, you dumbfuck. to shut your mouth, let’s agree that every single atheist in here is full of shit. is this your god proof?

    follow if you can. let’s agree that every single santa claus nonbeliever in here is full of shit. is this your santa proof?

    get the fuck out of here with your diversion.

  200. on 08 Jan 2013 at 2:15 am 200.A said …

    Bur,

    As Thelma-lou would gladly admit, atheists don’t know anything. Please, Never Ever upset the atheists by asking questions! I think we need a sign. This really pisses them off because they want to ask all the questions and defend nothing. Severin should have known better than to act like he knows something. I like the monkey morality though. I can see them sitting in a tree with pipes discussing markets, currency exchange rates and the moral landscape.

    This is their methodology that fits well with their cowardice and dishonesty.

    Let’s see, God doesn’t appear so he doesn’t exist? Hmm, quarks never appeared when I was a kid, they must not exist either. But wait, they did exist, we just couldn’t see them. Hmmm, maybe, eh nah that is too thought provoking for an atheist who know nothing. Columbus has not appeared other than in books therefore he must not have existed either!

  201. on 08 Jan 2013 at 2:27 am 201.alex said …

    “This is their methodology that fits well with their cowardice and dishonesty”

    motherfucker, i have never been afraid to die. you, theists on the other hand, are the ultimate cowards. you want to do all the bad shit, then you call on your nonexistent god for redemption.

    wah! you cry like a bitch when your family member dies. is it because they’re all going to hell. nah, you know the score.

    what the fuck is the atheist methodology. no such thing you dipshit. no atheist leader, priest or any of your theist bullshit equivalent. quit the lies.

  202. on 08 Jan 2013 at 2:43 am 202.alex said …

    “This really pisses them off because they want to ask all the questions and defend nothing.”

    Moron. Atheists stand at the forefront of women, gays, minority, religious, and tax equality. The “nothing” equality you theist fuckers want to keep suppressing. I’m sure there are more.

    Atheists don’t give a shit about your beliefs. Just quit the fucking bible thumping, holier than thou righteousness, tax fucking exemption, and the general religious shoving it down people’s throat. Believe it or not, atheists defend your right to wallow in any fucking religion you want.

  203. on 08 Jan 2013 at 3:16 am 203.Lou(DFW) said …

    200.ASS said after many days of hiding after his last thrashing…

    “As Thelma-lou would gladly admit, atheists don’t know anything.”

    And he’s back to his regular m.o. – lying. Show me where I admitted that, liar.

    “Please, Never Ever upset the atheists by asking questions!”

    We answer all question about god and religion – the purpose of this blog. You, on the other hand, never, ever do.

    “I think we need a sign.”

    Who cares what you think?

    “This really pisses them off because they want to ask all the questions and defend nothing.”

    LOL! Moron, why would we defend your imaginary god or god or religion delusion.

    “Let’s see, God doesn’t appear so he doesn’t exist?”

    Liar, nobody here said that. God doesn’t appear BECAUSE he doesn’t exist.

    How can you be so dishonest or so ignorant? Which is it? Oh, I omitted the most obvious possibility – both!

  204. on 08 Jan 2013 at 3:31 am 204.The messenger said …

    202.alex, we Christians and Hebrews want all people to have the same rights as one another. Why do you fail to see that?

    The only reason that you hate us is because you are a afraid to believe.

    YOU COWARD!

    We are all equal under God, he loves us all equally, why do you fail to see that.

  205. on 08 Jan 2013 at 3:36 am 205.Lou(DFW) said …

    198.Burp said …

    “I do apologize Sevein that you have such a tough time with English.”

    Yes, you should apologize for being such an illiterate asshole.

    “My sentence was a form of sarcasm which is why the word so was capitalized as in “SO”. Maybe I could have added a few Os?”

    Actually, what you should have done is used a little common sense in realizing that when communicating with someone of a different language, you should use concise, succinct, and clear terminology to minimize any confusion. You should be smart enough to consider that someone of a different language doesn’t understand that writing in upper-case letters denotes sarcasm. No, that is beyond your ability to think.

    But, you’re too much of a dolt to realize that. Because you don’t have any actual evidence to substantiate your outlandish claim of absolute morality, you can only pretend to engage in a debate by playing word games with someone who isn’t fluent in WRITING your native language. Yeah, some intellectual you are – one without morals – absolute or otherwise.

    Yes, the Burp moniker perfectly describes you and your comments – an unpleasant, offensive, malodorous, waste gas emitted through the mouth when a child is patted on the back, often accompanied by vomit and bile.

    Now that ASS is back to fluff you, you can run and hide again.

  206. on 08 Jan 2013 at 4:02 am 206.Burebista said …

    “engage in a debate by playing word games with someone who isn’t fluent in WRITING your native language.”

    My native language is Portuguese and Czech is my second. English is my third language. I checked the post, I was communicating in English. I can’t believe that out of 10,000 sperm,you were the quickest. I don’t have time to ignore you now, come back later.

    Severin, hope to hear from you soon!

  207. on 08 Jan 2013 at 4:11 am 207.s0l0m0n said …

    Who are you all people to order God to appear. He will appear as he wishes.

  208. on 08 Jan 2013 at 4:12 am 208.alex said …

    “I can’t believe that out of 10,000 sperm,you were the quickest.”

    more theist bullshit.

    “My native language is Portuguese and Czech is my second. English is my third language.”

    by default and by your track record, nope. you’re not a believable fellow.

  209. on 08 Jan 2013 at 4:41 am 209.DPK said …

    “My native language is Portuguese and Czech is my second”

    Yeah, and in his other life he is a capital “A” Astrophysicist too. I asked my wife, eh, Morgan Fairchild, if she believed it. She didn’t either.

  210. on 08 Jan 2013 at 7:42 am 210.s0l0m0n said …

    The uniqueness of God’s creation, the simplest “housefly” will swallow all the bullshits brought about by atheists.
    They are (((((LOSERS))))

  211. on 08 Jan 2013 at 7:47 am 211.s0l0m0n said …

    Atheists have no evidence or proofs God doesn’t exists.
    Whaa….ka…ka…ka…

  212. on 08 Jan 2013 at 10:36 am 212.Severin said …

    198 Burebista
    “I simply asked you about a claim …”

    … and I stay by my claim, which I explained in details.

    If you don’t like my explanation, give us your own:

    How is it possible that Oceanian people, American Indians, people from China, Indoensia, Aborigines, etc., survived for many thousands of years, all of them having identical “moral codes”, which obviously could not have come from Bible.
    In short: where did THEIR “moral codes” come from?

    I say their genes “learned” (accepted)”moral codes” through many generations.
    “Learned” is in quotes because they never learned anything consciously or intentionally, but their genes accepted and passed the changes further through generations.
    “Moral codes” is in quotes because there is no such a thing as moral code, but, instead, there is a set of rules “tissued” in genes, that enabled a group to survive without exterminating themselves.
    Animals have it unconsciously, people are beginning to understand it consciously, because they have much more developed brain capable to think and to conclude.

    What do you say?
    I pose direct question again: where from did all those people learn their “moral codes” that were equal among all of them, no matter where they lived?

    Or, maybe you don’t know it?

    I would not be surprised.

  213. on 08 Jan 2013 at 10:44 am 213.Severin said …

    Oh, yes, Burebista, WHWERE, the hell, can I find the “absolute moral code” you insist it exists?

    I would like to read it and, who knows, maybe I accept it.

    You don’t know?

  214. on 08 Jan 2013 at 11:56 am 214.Burebista said …

    “How is it possible that Oceanian people, American Indians, people from China, Indoensia, Aborigines, etc., survived for many thousands of years, all of them having identical “moral codes”,”

    Again you start out with wrong information. Morality does not equal existing. Jeffrey Dahmer existed for decades as a cannibal.

    Second, they do not have identical moral codes. You need to check your history.

    “I say their genes “learned” (accepted)”moral codes” through many generations.”

    Third not having an answer to a question does not mean you can make up an answer. You need some evidence.

  215. on 08 Jan 2013 at 12:17 pm 215.Zeno said …

    @Severin

    as an australian, i am capable of knowing that all the races you said were the same, are IMMENSELY different.
    stop making shit up and read some books, helps with school you know.

    From Xcanthean Zeno

  216. on 08 Jan 2013 at 12:39 pm 216.Lou(DFW) said …

    206.Burebista said …

    “My native language is Portuguese and Czech is my second. English is my third language. I checked the post, I was communicating in English.”

    So what? Apparently you don’t understand English as well as you write it. The only thing that you’re “communicating in English” is that you’re a fraud.

    Let’s assume that your language claim is true. How does it change the fact that you debate with someone by playing word games with them when their native language is NOT the one in which the debate occurs?

    “I can’t believe that out of 10,000 sperm,you were the quickest.”

    And I can’t believe that YOUR parents would be proud that you can lie and deceive in three different languages. Where were you raised, in a whore house? Maybe as a child you had to stoop to such behavior in order to survive. Survival of the fittest, eh? So much for your absolute moral code.

    “I don’t have time to ignore you…”

    But, you have time to to trade insults when you can’t provide one shred of proof that your alleged moral code exists. You have time to play word games with someone who isn’t fluent in the written language of the discussion.

    “…now…”

    But you will, just as you always do. Just as you ignore the fact that the way to end the debate is to present your absolute moral code.

    “…come back later.”

    I can come back later, sooner, and many times over, but you will never, ever have said evidence because you are a liar and a fraud, the exact opposite of what your alleged moral code supposedly represents, coward. If you had your alleged absolute moral code, then you would send simply present it and end the debate, but you can’t because it doesn’t exist.

  217. on 08 Jan 2013 at 12:41 pm 217.Lou(DFW) said …

    214.Burp said …

    “Morality does not equal existing.”

    He didn’t write that it does. You just can’t help yourself, not even in three different languages, can you?

  218. on 08 Jan 2013 at 12:46 pm 218.Lou(DFW) said …

    210.s0l0m0n said …

    “The uniqueness of God’s creation, the simplest “housefly” will swallow all the bullshits…”

    If there’s anyone here whose familiar with houseflies, then it must be you because they swarm around bullshit.

  219. on 08 Jan 2013 at 12:49 pm 219.Lou(DFW) said …

    206.Burp said …

    “Severin, hope to hear from you soon!”

    Severin, of course he does, because as long as you play his charade, then you will never, ever “hear” from him about his claim of an absolute moral code.

  220. on 08 Jan 2013 at 1:06 pm 220.Lou(DFW) said …

    198.Burp said …

    “Why is “en general” and “learned” in quotes?”

    LOL! Asks the multilinguist who chides Sev, who writes in, for him, a foreign language why HE can’t understand that his use of upper-case letters denotes sarcasm!

    Maybe Sevin should “apologize…that you have such a tough time with English.”

    In proper English, quotation marks are used to denote that the writer is using a word in a way not commonly used.

    Burp, expert multilinguist, please show us where in proper English that all upper-case letters denote sarcasm. You can add that to the list of things for which you can’t provide any evidence.

    Burp, that list is getting long. Why don’t you go back and start with the first item on that list: where is your evidence for your imaginary god?

  221. on 08 Jan 2013 at 2:28 pm 221.Severin said …

    215 Zeno
    “as an australian, i am capable of knowing that all the races you said were the same, are IMMENSELY different.”

    Yes, some of them have tails, other have horns, and other probably antennas.

    What sort of a racist are you?

  222. on 08 Jan 2013 at 2:37 pm 222.Severin said …

    Or, should I, as suggested, understand the words written in capital letters as sarcasm?

    If not, Burebista’s claim with “… SO improved …” was also not sarcasm, but a straight claim?

    What a mess!

  223. on 08 Jan 2013 at 3:02 pm 223.Severin said …

    214
    “Second, they do not have identical moral codes. You need to check your history.”

    Thanks again!

    You’we just told us that there is no absolute moral code!
    I mean, the absolute moral code must be identical at all places and in all times, otherwise it is not absolute.

    But, some time ago you said that there IS (not sarcasm) absolute moral code!

    Which claim of yours is true?

    Your “absolute moral code” is, obviously, making you sink deeper and deeper in your own shit.

    Expecting you to peep out from your mouse hole in about a month or so, after you estimate that we forgot all your BS.

  224. on 08 Jan 2013 at 3:06 pm 224.Severin said …

    Or, if you prefer nicer English:

    Your “absolute moral code” obviously makes you sinking deeper and deeper to your own shit.

  225. on 08 Jan 2013 at 7:28 pm 225.Burebista said …

    Thank you Zeno. Maybe that will get Severin thinking.

    Severin instead of obsessing over me, would you like to support your claim with facts or are you throwing in the towel?

  226. on 08 Jan 2013 at 8:01 pm 226.Lou(DFW) said …

    225.Burp said …

    “Severin instead of obsessing over me, would you like to support your claim with facts or are you throwing in the towel?”

    Why should he throw in the towel when you didn’t over your claim of a god-given absolute moral code? Oh wait, there’s also that lack of evidence for your imaginary god claim. Make that two towels.

    Hypocrisy can now be added to the list of immoral acts that you regularly commit.

  227. on 08 Jan 2013 at 8:20 pm 227.Lou(DFW) said …

    214.Burp said …

    “You need some evidence.”

    LOL! Just how far does your hypocrisy go? Or do you even understand that concept?

  228. on 08 Jan 2013 at 8:50 pm 228.DPK said …

    This is the same smug word game Burp tried to play with me when he insisted that the complete absence of evidence for something is not in itself “evidence”. He is just a self absorbed troll who argues by sticking his finger in his ears and saying “la, la, la… I can’t hear you.” You will never get an honest answer from him, stop feeding him and he will go back to his cave. He will NEVER engage you in anything like an honest discussion… he cannot, because he KNOWS there is only one place that can lead, and that is to the realization that his delusion is based on nothing.

  229. on 08 Jan 2013 at 10:50 pm 229.The messenger said …

    on 08 Jan 2013 at 3:31 am 204.The messenger said …
    202.alex, we Christians and Hebrews want all people to have the same rights as one another. Why do you fail to see that?
    The only reason that you hate us is because you are a afraid to believe.
    YOU COWARD!
    We are all equal under God, he loves us all equally, why do you fail to see that.

  230. on 09 Jan 2013 at 12:28 am 230.Lou(DFW) said …

    229.The messenger said …

    “We are all equal under God, he loves us all equally, why do you fail to see that.”

    LOL! Because we obviously aren’t equal nor loved by some imaginary god!

    You are the epitome of delusion.

  231. on 09 Jan 2013 at 12:51 am 231.The messenger said …

    230.Lou(DFW), God does exist, I have show you proof of this.

    You are obviously mentally insain. Please do your self and everyone else a favor and check in to a mental institution as soon as possible. Here is a suggestion.

    https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&tbo=d&q=mental+institution+new+york&oq=mental+institution+new&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.1.0.0l2j0i30l3.3257.14695.0.16689.12.8.4.0.0.0.277.1949.0j1j7.8.0.les%3B..0.0…1ac.1.1rtxoojlofU#mldd=1

  232. on 09 Jan 2013 at 1:07 am 232.The messenger said …

    Here is the proof.

    Home
    Random
    Settings

    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 which was attended by 30,000 to 100,000 people, who were gathered near Fátima, Portugal. Several newspaper reporters were in attendance and they took testimony from many people who claimed to have witnessed extraordinary solar activity. This recorded testimony was later added to by an Italian Catholic priest and researcher in the 1940s.

    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]

    The event

    De Marchi accounts

    Critical evaluation of the event

    Media

    See also

    References

    Bibliography

    External links

    Read in another language

  233. on 09 Jan 2013 at 1:18 am 233.The messenger said …

    Here is more proof of heaven.

    CHEAT SHEET
    MORE

    The Science of Heaven
    by Dr. Eben AlexanderNov 18, 2012 10:00 PM EST
    Can consciousness exist when the body fails? One neurosurgeon says he has seen it firsthand—and takes on critics who vehemently disagree.
    facebook
    twitter
    google plus
    email
    At around five o’clock on the morning of Nov. 10, 2008, I awoke with the early symptoms of what proved to be an extremely severe case of bacterial meningitis. As I wrote here three weeks ago, and as I narrate in my book Proof of Heaven, over the next several hours my entire cerebral cortex shut down. The part of my brain responsible for all higher neurological function went every bit as dark as the lower portion of New York City did during Hurricane Sandy.

    Dr. Eben Alexander’s book and article in Newsweek kicked off a fierce debate about the afterlife. ()
    Yet in spite of the complete absence of neural activity in all but the deepest, most primitive portions of my brain, my identity—my sense of self—did not go dark. Instead, I underwent the most staggering experience of my life, my consciousness traveling to another level, or dimension, or world.

    Since telling my story here, I’ve been amazed and profoundly gratified at how powerfully it has resonated with people all over the world. But I’ve also weathered considerable criticism—in large part from people who are appalled that I, a brain surgeon, could possibly make the claim that I experienced what I did.

    I can’t say I’m surprised. As a scientist, I know that the consensus of my tribe is that the self is created through the electrochemical activity of the brain. For most neurosurgeons, and most doctors generally, the body produces the mind, and when the body stops functioning, the mind stops, just like a picture projected on a screen does if the projector is unplugged.

    So when I announced to the world that during my seven days of coma I not only remained fully conscious but journeyed to a stunning world of beauty and peace and unconditional love, I knew I was stirring up a very volatile pot. Critics have maintained that my near-death experience, like similar experiences others before me have claimed, was a brain-based delusion cobbled together by my synapses only after they had somehow recovered from the blistering weeklong attack.

    This is certainly the assessment I would have made myself—before my experience. When the higher-order thought processes overseen by the cortex are interrupted, there is inevitably a period, as the cortex gets slowly back online, when a patient can feel deeply disoriented, even outright insane. As I write in Proof of Heaven, I’d seen many of my own patients in this period of their recovery. It’s a harrowing sight from the outside.

    I also experienced that transitional period, when my mind began to regain consciousness: I remember a vivid paranoid nightmare in which my wife and doctors were trying to kill me, and I was only saved from certain death by a ninja couple after being pushed from a 60-story cancer hospital in south Florida. But that period of disorientation and delusion had absolutely nothing to do with what happened to me before my cortex began to recover: the period, that is, when it was shut down and incapable of supporting consciousness at all. During that period, I experienced something very similar to what countless other people who have undergone near-death experiences have witnessed: the transition to a realm beyond the physical, and a vast broadening of my consciousness. The only real difference between my experience and those others is that my brain was, essentially, deader than theirs.

    Most near-death experiences (NDE) are the result of momentary cardiac arrest. The heart stops pumping blood to the brain, and the brain, deprived of oxygen, ceases being able to support consciousness. But that—as I’d have been the first to point out before my own experience—doesn’t mean the brain is truly dead. That’s why many doctors feel that the term “near-death experience” is essentially a misnomer. Most people who had them were in bad shape, but they weren’t really near death.

    But I was. My synapses—the spaces between the neurons of the brain that support the electrochemical activity that makes the brain function—were not simply compromised during my experience. They were stopped. Only isolated pockets of deep cortical neurons were still sputtering, but no broad networks capable of generating anything like what we call “consciousness.” The E. coli bacteria that flooded my brain during my illness made sure of that. My doctors have told me that according to all the brain tests they were doing, there was no way that any of the functions including vision, hearing, emotion, memory, language, or logic could possibly have been intact. That’s why, just as I now no longer doubt the existence of the world of expanded consciousness that NDE subjects, mystics, meditators, and countless other people have described for centuries, I also feel that my experience adds something new to those stories. It supplies a definitive new form of evidence that consciousness can exist beyond the body.

    Initially, I’d planned on writing my experience up in a scientific paper. But as I struggled to place it within the context of everything I’d learned about the brain and consciousness up to that point, I realized that I needed to reach out beyond my fellow scientists. Specifically, I wanted to reach the public who listen most deeply and attentively to what scientists tell them. And I needed to reach those millions because for a long time now many scientists have been telling the public a story that is not quite true.

    This not-quite-true story is that the brain produces consciousness. Most scientists accept this as dogma. I certainly did, and it’s why so many scientists still refuse to even consider that I really and truly experienced what I say I did. But we in fact have no real proof of this at all, other than our general distrust of anything we can’t put our hands on. But there are many established scientific facts that we haven’t placed our hands on either. No one has ever seen an electron, or touched the force of gravity. The fact is, most doctors, and most scientists today, are confusing the fact that consciousness and brain activity are related (which they certainly are) with the opinion that the brain actually produces that consciousness.

    Crossing Over (PHOTOS)

    Ed Morris / Getty Images
    The conundrum of how the brain relates to consciousness is often called by the nickname “the hard problem.” As Edward F. Kelly and Emily Williams Kelly, researchers in the Department of Psychiatry & Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia, point out in their book Irreducible Mind, “In recent decades brain researchers have begun ‘opening up the black box,’ deploying a formidable array of increasingly sophisticated clinical, pharmacological, biochemical, genetic, neurosurgical, electrophysiological, and behavioral methodologies in efforts to understand what brains can do and how they do it.” Among the most recent and impressive of this new array of tools are high-resolution electroencephalography (or EEG), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and positron emission tomography (or PET). Thanks to these technologies we can now map the regions and follow the activities of the brain on a level undreamed of just a few short decades ago.

    So impressive are these advances in brain mapping and technology that they have persuaded many people—including most scientists—that we are closing in on solid proof that consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon. In an editorial published in Newsweek in 2004, the psychologist Steven Pinker stated straight out that what people think of as the soul is really “the information-processing activity of the brain,” and that we know this because “new imaging techniques have tied every thought and emotion to neural activity.”

    It’s the word “tied” in the sentence above that’s the most troublesome. Brain activity and consciousness are indeed profoundly tied up with one another. But that does not mean that those bonds can’t be loosened, or even cut completely. The question of questions is whether the deep parallelism between brain function and human consciousness means that the brain actually produces consciousness. In the wake of my experiences during my week in a coma, my answer is a very confident “No.”

    Many scientists who study consciousness would agree with me that, in fact, the hard problem of consciousness is probably the one question facing modern science that is arguably forever beyond our knowing, at least in terms of a physicalist model of how the brain might create consciousness. In fact, they would agree that the problem is so profound that we don’t even know how to phrase a scientific question addressing it. But if we must decide which produces which, modern physics is pushing us in precisely the opposite direction, suggesting that it is consciousness that is primary and matter secondary.

    This may sound absurd to some, but it is really no less absurd than the facts—now solidly established by quantum mechanics—of how we see the world around us right now. Every moment of every day, we completely personalize the data coming in at us from the physical world, but we do it far too quickly and automatically to be aware that we are doing so. Physicists discovered just how completely consciousness is wedded to the physical environment at the beginning of the 20th century, when the fathers of quantum mechanics (physicists such as Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein) established that units of light, called photons, can appear either as waves or as particles, depending on how we choose to measure them. The implications of this seemingly minor curiosity are in fact enormous, for they demonstrate that at a subatomic level, perception itself (our inner consciousness) is so wedded to the world that our consciousness of a physical event—say, a moving photon—actually affects that event. The very nonlocal features of consciousness, so well supported in Irreducible Mind and in Pim van Lommel’s wonderful book Consciousness Beyond Life, are the resounding evidence that consciousness itself is a quantum phenomenon. Refinement in our understanding of this mystery proceeds even today, as the 2012 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Serge Haroche and David J. Wineland for their innovative work in isolating the “collapse of the wave function,” or the exact process by which the conscious mind of the observer paints subatomic reality (hint: Einstein would still be frustrated!).

    Totally objective observation remains a simple impossibility. And while in our ordinary earthly life we miss this fact completely, it becomes much more apparent in near-death experiences, when the body and brain cease to mediate our encounter with the larger reality and we encounter it directly.

    Make no mistake: consciousness is a total mystery. As total a mystery now as it was 10, or 100, or 1,000 years ago. We simply do not know what it is. But consciousness is so familiar to all of us, so central to our identities, that we have learned to overlook this most obvious of facts.

    It is a deep mistake to do so. Far from being a shadowy epiphenomenon or “ghost in the machine,” as the philosopher Gilbert Ryle famously called it, consciousness is and always has been our primary link to the larger universe. My seven-day odyssey beyond my physical body and brain convinced me that when the filter of the brain is removed, we see the universe clearly for the first time. And the multidimensional universe revealed by this trans-physical vision is not a cold, dead one, but alive with the force that, as the poet Dante wrote some 600 years ago, “moves the sun and other stars.”

    I am as deep a believer in science, and the truth-respecting values that created it, as I ever was. As such, I want to affirm again—not just to my fellow scientists but to everyone—that there is a larger, more real world out there. Those who have experienced it are neither deluded nor dishonest, but they are hampered by the limits of language to convey the sheer exponential vastness of what they encountered. This world of consciousness beyond the body is the true new frontier, not just of science but of humankind itself, and it is my profound hope that what happened to me will bring the world one step closer to accepting it.

    facebook
    twitter
    google plus
    email
    RELATED
    RIM Teases BlackBerry 10 Launch with Image of First BB10 Smartphone
    (BGR)
    Princess Beatrice and Eugenie Lose Rent-Free Royal Digs As Ousting Continues
    7 Unexpected Moves in Bed Men Love
    (All Women Stalk)
    A Peek at Olympian Suzy Favor Hamilton’s Escort Service
    STORIES YOU MIGHT LIKE

    FORGOTTEN LIVES
    This Week’s Hot Reads
    by Malcolm Jones, Nicholas Mancusi, Jimmy So

    BOO!
    The Year of Bad Fear
    by Jaimal Yogis

    ‘FAREWELL, FRED VOODOO’
    A Haiti Book Bag
    by Amy Wilentz

    SECTIONS
    Politics
    Andrew Sullivan
    US News
    Howard Kurtz
    International
    Daniel Gross
    Business
    Women In The World
    Culture
    Fashion Beast
    Newsweek
    Book Beast
    Back to Top
    FULL SITE
    FOLLOW US
    LIKE US
    HELP
    ABOUT
    CONTACT US
    PRIVACY POLICY
    TERMS OF USE
    COPYRIGHT & TRADEMARK
    © 2012 The Newsweek / Daily Beast Company LLC

  234. on 09 Jan 2013 at 1:20 am 234.40 Year Atheist said …

    TRUST

    Such intentional deception, especially such a transparently dishonest deflection of the person’s intellectual responsibility to support his belief system with logic and/or evidence, reflects directly and immediately on that person’s ability to generate trust for himself, especially in terms of honest intellectual discovery and honest intellectual discourse. And that reflects on the person’s overall honesty, too.

    Under the VOID of Atheism, there are no absolutes. There is no Truth and therefore there are no lies. IF there is no Truth and there are no lies, THEN all Atheist statements are on an equal footing, first having no truth value, and second, deception having the same moral value as accurate representation.

    Coupled with the relativist personal morality of each Atheist (a morality which cannot be known with any certainty by anyone else), the conflation of deception with accurate representation renders the Atheist untrustworthy, by virtue of his worldview alone.

    Certainly any person can engender trust by generating a history of trustworthy behaviors, where a person’s actual behaviors are compared with his professed moral beliefs. However, an Atheist has no guaranteed consistent (coherent) moral system other than that which he generates by himself for himself, a system which can be changed on a whim, a system which might well include deception as equal to accurate representation. Hence the Atheist’s behaviors cannot be compared to his moral system, and no trust can be generated.

    EMOTIONAL ATTACKS

    Because Atheism is not based on Truth values, and has neither logic nor evidence in its support, it is an emotional position, not a rational position. Being an emotional position, Atheism is defended with emotional statements including moral accusations and personal attacks, rather than with logic or evidence.

    When challenged to provide rational support (again, logic and evidence) for his worldview, modern Atheists tend to dive immediately into deception (e.g. “we have no god theories”) rather than produce intellectually honest, disciplined deductive support for their rejectionism. When pushed beyond that, emotional attacks begin, including faux moralizing and attacks on the challenger rather than the challenger’s statements.

    The VOID

    Atheism is freedom. Freedom from everything intellectually and emotionally. When there are no absolutes, then nothing is absolutely True or valid. This is the Atheist VOID. The Atheist is perfectly free to select any position upon which to build his worldview. He is free from, and unencumbered by, external concepts of truth and falseness, right and wrong, moral and immoral, logic and fallacy. In short, the Atheist frees himself in order to indulge himself with himself. The Atheist is free to create a personal morality which is easy on himself and is compatible with his emotional bent and personal proclivities. He then is very “moral”; tautologically so since his “morality” merely describes how he already behaves.

    Because Atheism is usually adopted well before the maturation of the frontal cortex is complete, the freedom of the VOID generally results in juvenile theories and behaviors becoming entrenched and cherished even into full adulthood (frontal cortex maturation is not complete in some until the age of 28).

    The freedom of the VOID also enables the freedom from disciplined logic, an external control which encumbers Atheist thinking. The most common Atheist thought process appears to be rationalization, where evidence is sought which supports a preselected conclusion, and contrary information is ignored or rejected without rational reason.

    Discussion with an Atheist involves an individual who cherishes his freedom of the VOID and will defend it with whatever tactic he thinks might be effective. He is not restricted by any convention external to himself such as disciplined deductive logic, nor will he recognize any actual evidence presented which is inconvenient to his position of VOIDist freedom.

    The EMOTIONAL DEPENDENCY

    Atheism seems be an analogical correlate to other dependencies in these tendencies:

    1. Free use of deception and ignoring rational positions during the defense of the addiction;
    2. Rationalization of justification for the addiction;
    3. Emotional aggression toward those who threaten the addiction;
    4. Seeking the support and company of fellow addicts;
    5. Halting of emotional development until the termination of the addiction;
    6. Feeling of great need for the addiction and release when enabled by the addiction;
    7. Fear of loss of self, caused by loss of the addiction;
    8. Generates further issues such as codependency (victim/savior);
    9. Colors relationships with others who don’t share the addiction;
    10. Results in an abnormally intense focus on the self, and a weakened empathy.

  235. on 09 Jan 2013 at 3:38 am 235.Lou(DFW) said …

    231.40 Year Asshole said …

    “Under the VOID of Atheism, there are no absolutes.”

    Why is that you theists can only resort to lying about alleged “Atheism” when you can’t defend your delusion?

    “There is no Truth and therefore there are no lies.”

    LOL! The truth is that your god is imaginary and that your claim that it exists is a lie.

    Why don’t you simply post a link to your blog instead of regurgitating your crap here?

  236. on 09 Jan 2013 at 4:46 am 236.Lesbian Carwasher said …

    severin

    (this is Zeno btw)
    i did not mean sarcasm.
    and every race is different, skin colour, national foods, social structure, government and genetics (on a low scale)
    please read some books, they are good for your brain.

  237. on 09 Jan 2013 at 8:49 am 237.Severin said …

    #225

    Burebista claimed that there is absolute moral code and that god is the source of it.

    Then he forgot what he first said, and said opposite: no group of human beings has identical moral codes.

    Then, after being caught in lie, he felt attacked and started with childish “(boo hoo, mum), Severin is obsessing over me”.

    I am not a shrink, I can’t help him.
    Sorry if I made his health status worse, it was not my intention.

  238. on 09 Jan 2013 at 9:58 am 238.Anonymous said …

    “Why don’t you simply post a link to your blog instead of regurgitating your crap here?”

    Because as a hatemonger he needs a platform from which to spread his poison.

  239. on 09 Jan 2013 at 12:20 pm 239.Burebista said …

    Severin,

    You find it easier to make false accusations and to hurl personal attacks than to answer a simple question addressed to you? All you had to do is say you were wrong or your opinion cannot be substantiated but that takes courage doesn’t it.

    To be an older man you sure are quite childish. Your past claims of great moral integrity and in great doubt.

  240. on 09 Jan 2013 at 12:51 pm 240.Lou(DFW) said …

    239.Burp said …

    “You find it easier to make false accusations and to hurl personal attacks than to answer a simple question addressed to you?”

    As in “god exists” and “where is your evidence for it?”

    “All you had to do is say you were wrong or your opinion cannot be substantiated but that takes courage doesn’t it.”

    Yes, it does. So, exhibit some courage and at least admit that you don’t have any evidence for your imaginary good. Better yet, exhibit a lot of courage and admit that your imaginary god doesn’t exist.

    “Your past claims of great moral integrity and in great doubt.”

    If ANYBODY knows about the lack of moral integrity, then it’s you.

    Burp, your game is SO transparent and “quite childish” – especially for someone who can read an “absolute moral code,” even in three languages.

    Answer a simple question addressed to you. Where is the absolute moral code to which you don’t adhere?

  241. on 09 Jan 2013 at 12:56 pm 241.Lou(DFW) said …

    238.Anonymous said …

    “Because as a hatemonger he needs a platform from which to spread his poison.”

    Not only that, it’s not on topic. It’s not even about god and religion.

    When one can’t defend their delusion, the only thing left to do is attack and lie about those people whom they believe to be a threat to them – rational, logical, and intelligent people.

    40 year asshole has completely lost it.

  242. on 09 Jan 2013 at 1:33 pm 242.Lou(DFW) said …

    220.Lou(DFW) said …

    “Burp, expert multilinguist, please show us where in proper English that all upper-case letters denote sarcasm. You can add that to the list of things for which you can’t provide any evidence.”

    Burp the Babeler, where’s that rule of proper English about the upper-case letters denoting sarcasm? For someone who’s fluent in three languages, it should be easy for you to provide.

  243. on 09 Jan 2013 at 2:07 pm 243.Severin said …

    #239
    “You find it easier to make false accusations …”

    What was false in my “accusation”, as you call it?Specify, please.

    You can’t say that you did not make two claims that can’t be both right, to support the same idea, because YOU DID IT.
    Then, when I thanked you for it, you childishly accused me that I am obsessing you.
    You are still free to make your choice between the two opposite claims you made, but I can’t continue debating with anyone persisting on opposite claims being both true.
    Tertius non datur, remember?

    “… than to answer a simple question addressed to you?”
    Sorry, what was the question?
    I did not find any unanswered question addressed to me in your posts.
    Are you just a liar, or a pathological liar?

  244. on 09 Jan 2013 at 7:11 pm 244.Burebista said …

    Severin see number 214 for the questions you have failed to address. If you would like to post my contradictory claims on a post with reference I’ll be glad to clear up your confusion.

  245. on 09 Jan 2013 at 7:33 pm 245.Severin said …

    #244
    “Severin see number 214 for the questions you have failed to address”
    Here is the c/p of # 214:
    “Again you start out with wrong information. Morality does not equal existing. Jeffrey Dahmer existed for decades as a cannibal.
    Second, they do not have identical moral codes. You need to check your history.
    “I say their genes “learned” (accepted)”moral codes” through many generations.”
    Third not having an answer to a question does not mean you can make up an answer. You need some evidence.”

    There is no questions here, only your own claims.
    What is it with you, man?

  246. on 09 Jan 2013 at 7:48 pm 246.Lou(DFW) said …

    244.Burp the Babeler said …

    “Severin see number 214 for the questions you have failed to address.”

    It was one thing for you not to answer questions, now you can’t even properly ask them.

    “If you would like to post my contradictory claims on a post with reference I’ll be glad to clear up your confusion.”

    LOL! That’s part of your game. Whenever you can’t logically defend your claim, then, in typical theist fashion, you resort to lies and diversions in a weak attempt to avoid the obvious – that you’re a lying fraud.

    Please clarify this confusion – you claim there is a god-given, absolute moral code. Nobody here has posted it. Please post it here for us all to read and understand.

  247. on 09 Jan 2013 at 8:21 pm 247.Burebista said …

    Severin prove your claim morality is the product of evolution. You have one more shot. I see you did not quote any of my so-called contradictory claims so we seem to be good there.

    I hope not to be disappointed.

  248. on 09 Jan 2013 at 8:23 pm 248.DPK said …

    Well see, Burpman’s “god given absolute moral code” looks exactly one that evolved out of creatures living in society where ethics and morality became good for the survival of the species. Not absolute, because it used to be ok to capture and slaves, sell you daughters, stone sinners. Now of course, it is not. Used to be god delighted in the smell of burning flesh and demanded ritual blood sacrifices… not so much anymore.
    Burps “absolute” moral code behaves exactly like a non-absolute sense of morality, just like his all powerful god behaves exactly like a completely imaginary being. Funny how that works, huh?
    Still waiting for even one theist to show us the absolute moral code they are always raging about. If it was given to us by an all powerful god being, you’d think it would be easier to locate.

  249. on 09 Jan 2013 at 8:47 pm 249.Lou(DFW) said …

    247.Burp the Babeler said …

    “I hope not to be disappointed.”

    Why hope?

    Just as with the truth that your god is imaginary, you won’t be disappointed with the truth that your alleged god-given absolute moral code doesn’t exist. Such is the mind of a delusional theist.

  250. on 09 Jan 2013 at 9:01 pm 250.Severin said …

    247 B
    “Severin prove your claim morality is the product of evolution.”
    I dont have to prove anything, I clearly and honestly said many times it was an EXPLANATION of mine, MY OPINION.
    You never give any explanations and opinions, not to mention proofs.

    What happened now, suddenly, after only a few minutes passed, wiht your “unanswered questions”, when I showed you there were none, and that yo lied about it?

    “I see you did not quote any of my so-called contradictory claims so we seem to be good there.”

    I did, before, but you neglected it, as you always do.

    You are a fraud and a pathological liar, and I am done with you.

    Go find someone else to fuck with your sick jumps from topic to topic and avoiding correct debate.

    Miserable liar, which everybody can see now!

  251. on 10 Jan 2013 at 12:01 am 251.Anonymous said …

    “You never give any explanations and opinions, not to mention proofs.”

    Of course he doesn’t, nor does he intend to. Look back over the years, when did he ever?

    This is a game to him – he’s not interested in proving that any god exists. All he’s interested in doing is baiting people until he can say “you made a claim, now prove it”. If that doesn’t happen, then its time for the sock-puppets or the endless recycling of his loaded questions.

    You good folks are not debating a theist. You’re arguing with a troll.

  252. on 10 Jan 2013 at 12:26 am 252.DPK said …

    Absolutely… remember when he squirmed and wriggled during the exchange when I asked him to define the attributes of his alleged god? He said that god was a “somewhat clever, kind of powerful” being that created the entire universe out of something we don’t understand.
    Why do you think he would be so vague about what he believes the characteristics of a supreme being are? Could it be that he realizes full well that the standard definition of god is completely irrational and self contradicting? Na, that couldn’t be it, could it?

  253. on 10 Jan 2013 at 2:44 am 253.Burebista said …

    “it was an EXPLANATION of mine, MY OPINION.”

    OK, I can accept that you believe this in faith. Opinion is fine, as long as you don’t hold it up as fact or reality.

    Again Severin, I will address any contradictory statement I have made just as I promised. You provide my quotes and I promise to answer the contradictions. Also, any lies I have offended you with feel free to provide those quotes.

  254. on 10 Jan 2013 at 2:46 am 254.Anonymous said …

    DPK brings up two points.

    The first being that the puppet-master gets slammed the moment he says anything concrete, so his method here is to keep throwing out nonsense until someone bites.

    In terms of actual theists. It seems that many insulate their beliefs from examination by reversing the burden of proof AND demanding that someone disprove an ethereal generic god, which doesn’t happen to be the cruel and sadistic monster portrayed in the bible. In other words, even if you show them that that god is impossible they can then retort “yes, but that’s not MY god”. Tiresome, isn’t it?

    An extreme example of the latter kind of disordered thinking can be found in the ramblings of our friend the 40YAhole. There he literally invents something, that he doesn’t believe in himself, deliberately assigns it untestable, unprovable, probably impossible attributes, then squeals in his best playground voice “you can’t disprove that. Nah na nah na nah”. Sigh.

  255. on 10 Jan 2013 at 2:52 am 255.Lou(DFW) said …

    253.Burp the Babler said …

    “it was an EXPLANATION of mine, MY OPINION.”

    “OK, I can accept that you believe this in faith.”

    You can’t accept something that wasn’t proposed, liar. An opinion isn’t faith.

    “Again Severin, I will address any contradictory statement I have made just as I promised.”

    Check the comments – it was YOU who introduced the idea that your comments are contradictory. You lied to create a situation that didn’t happen.

    These are simply more examples of the word games you play in order to avoid defending your claim in an honest, intellectual debate, fraud.

  256. on 10 Jan 2013 at 4:30 am 256.The messenger said …

    248.DPK, it did not mean a litteral stoning.

    Stoning was a metaphore for punishment.

    It is not mankind’s job to punish sinners, it is Jesus’s job.

  257. on 10 Jan 2013 at 4:33 am 257.The messenger said …

    250.Severin, the fact that you are unable to present any proof to back up your so called “explaination” proves that it is false.

    Morality is not something that we are born with, it is something that Jesus teaches us.

  258. on 10 Jan 2013 at 4:39 am 258.The messenger said …

    248.DPK, I have explained that the selling of daughters does not mean actually selling them, it means that the father of the woman decided who she was going to marry for her. In other word it means an arranged marriage.

    If you wish to understand the bible, go to Rome or to St. James church in Elizabethtown Kentucky.

  259. on 10 Jan 2013 at 4:43 am 259.The messenger said …

    254.Anonymous, we have proof of Jesus’s existance but chose to ignore it because of your fear. You are afraid to believe.

    I have given you proof of Jesus and yet you still do not believe.
    You people are not sceptic, you are in denial.

  260. on 10 Jan 2013 at 4:47 am 260.The messenger said …

    Some the proof is located in comments 232 and 233.

  261. on 10 Jan 2013 at 4:51 am 261.The messenger said …

    255.Lou(DFW), we theists have asked you Athiests many questions that you have failed to answer. You Athiest have asked us theists many questions that we HAVE answered.

    It is impossible to have a serious depate with you Athiests because you seldom answer any of our questions.

  262. on 10 Jan 2013 at 11:11 am 262.Severin said …

    #253
    “OK, I can accept that you believe this in faith. Opinion is fine, as long as you don’t hold it up as fact or reality.”

    Opinion is not faith. Unlike with you and your faith, I change my opinion whenever I learn something new and see my previous opinion was wrong.

    So, you have 2 options:
    a) Prove my opinion wrong, and I will instantly change it, or, if unable to prove me wrong,

    b) You keep your opinion, I will keep mine, discussion ended.

  263. on 10 Jan 2013 at 11:31 am 263.Severin said …

    #253
    “Opinion is fine, as long as you don’t hold it up as fact or reality.”

    Of course, what I hold up as fact or reality is my business, not yours.

  264. on 10 Jan 2013 at 11:52 am 264.Lesbian Carwasher said …

    Athiest blog

    *religous people debate here*

    sounds legit

  265. on 10 Jan 2013 at 11:55 am 265.Severin said …

    Correction:

    I change my opinion whenever I learn something new and see my previous opinion was wrong or incomplete.

  266. on 10 Jan 2013 at 12:11 pm 266.Severin said …

    #253
    ” Also, any lies I have offended you with feel free to provide those quotes.”

    Telling me that I don’t answer your questions, and giving your #214 as example was a lie.

    I did not feel offended, but cheated.
    I can not imagine someone (a Christian!) can use deliberately a lie to get some goal.

    I (an atheist!) never do such things.

  267. on 10 Jan 2013 at 12:20 pm 267.Burebista said …

    “Of course, what I hold up as fact or reality is my business, not yours.”

    Yes it is and being a liar is your business. You came on the blog and stated you opinion as a fact until pressed. I engaged you on an honest debate on the point and you dodged, weaved and attack my character to guard you “opinion”.

    You call me a liar and have yet to show a single quote where I did such a thing. At minimum you should show me the lie but you refuse.

    “I (an atheist!) never do such things.”

    Keep telling yourself this Severin. One who thinks so highly of themselves is never to be trusted. You have already proven that.

  268. on 10 Jan 2013 at 2:24 pm 268.Lou(DFW) said …

    267.Burp the Babeler said …

    “You call me a liar and have yet to show a single quote where I did such a thing. At minimum you should show me the lie but you refuse.”

    For starters:

    135.Severin said …

    “morality is the product of evolution, a tool of survival”

    138.Burebista said …

    “Severin

    Where do you get this idea that survival = morality?”

    Curiously, you suddenly appeared when Sev posted that reply to 130.A said …

    147.Lou (DFW) said …

    “He didn’t claim that survival = morality. As part of your lies, you intentionally distorted what he wrote.”

  269. on 10 Jan 2013 at 5:08 pm 269.Anonymous said …

    Messenger, a troll, said: “248.DPK, I have explained that the selling of daughters does not mean actually selling them, it means that the father of the woman decided who she was going to marry for her. In other word it means an arranged marriage.”

    And *you* have been asked to provide citations to where these comments can be independently verified. You do not, hence you are making shit up to advance your trolling. Telling people to go to Rome is just another example of you making ridiculous demands in order to escalate your trolling.

    Provide citations or shut the fuck up.

  270. on 10 Jan 2013 at 5:34 pm 270.DPK said …

    258.The messenger said …

    248.DPK, I have explained that the selling of daughters does not mean actually selling them,

    And I have already told you that you are wrong, why are you so stupid not to understand that? I have also showed you that you are going to hell for disputing church doctrine and for calling people fools, which Jesus specifically forbade.

    In addition to providing some evidence to back up your claim that the bible does not actually mean what it says, explain how stoning someone “to DEATH” can be a metaphor for “punishment”? Isn’t the end result the same, death? Why would god need a metaphor for “punishment”? Couldn’t he just say punishment? Messenger, you are so funny. I do give you credit for your ability to just make up shit as you go along. Unfortunately, as you make up new shit, you also forget about the other shit you made up last week that directly contradicts your new shit.
    BTW, did you ask your priest about the official Catholic doctrine about people getting out of hell? Because either the Pope is wrong, or you are.

  271. on 10 Jan 2013 at 6:48 pm 271.Severin said …

    Burebista,

    You call me a liar AFTER i clearly (and honestly) said I did not state anything but only exposed my opinion and gave explanation on it?
    And AFTER i caught YOU in direct and deliberate lying about your unanswerd questions?
    And AFTER you were caught in twisting my (not only mine) words giving them different meaning (“If morality = survival …”)
    And after YOU made the statemnt that god exists, but never gave any explanation for your claim, not to mention proofs, neither you ever said for this statemnet that it was only your opinion?

    How much deeper are you ready to sink in the shit?
    Keep your breath to be able to get back on the surface!

    You are, really a miserable liar and a fraud, who is trying to use all possible means, including werbal “dribling”, lies, twisting of somebodie’s words, ANYTHING, to achieve his goal.

    Liar!

  272. on 10 Jan 2013 at 6:56 pm 272.Severin said …

    #269

    You should also know that “dash” baby’s head really means “cuddle” baby’s head.

    Bible is so clear and consistant, and you are an ignorant.

  273. on 10 Jan 2013 at 7:33 pm 273.Severin said …

    267 Burebista,
    “You came on the blog and stated you opinion as a fact until pressed. ”

    You came on this blog and stated your opinion that god exists as a fact.

    If your definition of a liar is: “someone who come on blog and staes his opinion as a fact”, what are you?

    A liar.

  274. on 10 Jan 2013 at 7:40 pm 274.Lou(DFW) said …

    Burp,

    Regardless of its source, is morality required for survival?

  275. on 10 Jan 2013 at 8:27 pm 275.Lou(DFW) said …

    267.Burp the Babeler said …

    “I engaged you on an honest debate on the point…”

    Translation: I NEVER, EVER answer any questions in a “debate.” I only demand that you answer mine and then “prove” your answers to MY satisfaction.

  276. on 10 Jan 2013 at 8:32 pm 276.Lou(DFW) said …

    181.Anonymous said …

    “Burp’s problem is that he has to keep asking questions otherwise he may have to answer questions not just for us, but for himself.”

    As in:

    “And this is proof of what Severin? Did you ask them if they “know” this would lead to their extinction? Numerous species do eat their young. Are they attempting to bring about extinction Severin?”

    “Why is “en general” and “learned” in quotes?”

    “Severin instead of obsessing over me, would you like to support your claim with facts or are you throwing in the towel?

    “Do you consider these to be immoral acts? If so why?”

    “So stealing from other tribes is good and operating cars is bad. Is that how it works Severin?”

    “What is a denoucement?”

    “You find it easier to make false accusations and to hurl personal attacks than to answer a simple question addressed to you?”

  277. on 10 Jan 2013 at 8:35 pm 277.Lou(DFW) said …

    Burp the Babeler demands that you answer his questions and then prove your answer. But he won’t answer this:

    What and where is the god-given absolute moral code?

  278. on 10 Jan 2013 at 9:24 pm 278.Lou(DFW) said …

    270.DPK said …

    “In addition to providing some evidence to back up your claim that the bible does not actually mean what it says, explain how stoning someone “to DEATH” can be a metaphor for “punishment”? Isn’t the end result the same, death? Why would god need a metaphor for “punishment”? Couldn’t he just say punishment?”

    Forget metaphors, why couldn’t imaginary god simply create everybody so as to speak the same language? Oh yeah, there’s that Tower Of Babel issue. LOL!

  279. on 10 Jan 2013 at 9:45 pm 279.DPK said …

    “What and where is the god-given absolute moral code?”

    Yes, someone PLEASE answer this. We know Burebista won’t, because he won’t risk his delusion. But ALL the theists talk about it… why can no one produce it? Are you afraid it isn’t so absolute?

    Let’s look at just one part. Is “Thou shalt not kill.” a part of this absolute moral code? Is it always. always, always wrong to kill someone?
    If it isn’t, than that cannot be part of an absolute code, can it? Hmmm… well, how about “Thou shalt not steal.” Is it always, always, always wrong to steal? In each and every conceivable circumstance? If not, then that can’t be absolute either. How about lying? Is it always, always wrong not to tell the truth? Hmmm… Working on the Sabbath… is that always, always wrong? Coveting? Is it always always wrong to want what someone else has? If someone else has a nice, loving home, is it WRONG to want that too?
    Tell is Christians, what exactly is ALWAYS right, and what exactly is ALWAYS wrong.
    If you can’t, then will you finally shut the fuck up about your god given absolute moral law? It doesn’t exist. It never has, it never will.

  280. on 10 Jan 2013 at 9:48 pm 280.Burebista said …

    “You came on this blog and stated your opinion that god exists as a fact.”

    Your continued lying is becoming habitual Sev. Be a man and provide a quote. We can then discuss it. Unless you do, you simply continue to lie. That is a horrible example for others.

  281. on 10 Jan 2013 at 10:23 pm 281.Lou(DFW) said …

    “No, I have the Word of God. God tells me all we need to know. Hardly makes anyone arrogant. It His his revelation to all mankind. Antiross you seem awfully angry. Life can be tough. Turn your life over to Him.
    Sara God is the creator of morality. He is love, mercy & grace and he is also the God of judgement. He is the only one holy enough to bring judgement.”

    Burebista, 24 Nov 2009 at 12:36 am

  282. on 10 Jan 2013 at 10:25 pm 282.Lou(DFW) said …

    “I am a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ. No problem there. I wouldn’t change a thing in my life. Everyone is a slave to something. Am I holy? Only by the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ.
    My intellect is now in question Mark? I never made a claim about my own intellect. You feel the need to go there? Intellect is a passing trait.
    I am immoral for passing my faith as fact? Would that make this site immoral as well? Not a good argument.
    I don’t judge anyone. I claim one must turn their life over to Christ based on His words. You claim I must reject Christ based on your own belief. Another poor argument Mark.

    Open your life to Him. He can bring the peace you seek.”

    Burebista, 24 Nov 2009 at 1:41 am

  283. on 10 Jan 2013 at 10:27 pm 283.Lou(DFW) said …

    “Not a single aspect of science has ever contradicted God.”

    Burebista, 01 Dec 2009 at 1:33 pm

  284. on 10 Jan 2013 at 10:48 pm 284.Severin said …

    # 280
    Was THIS my lie:
    “You came on this blog and stated your opinion that god exists as a fact.”

    You never said god exists?
    If this is true, may we suppose that your opinion is that god does not exist?
    I mean, you can’t belive that god exists AND that god does not exist in the same time.

    I somehow had impression that you believed that god exists, and that you exposed that belief of yours on this blog many times for last few years.

    To solve this dillema, here is a direct question for you:
    Does god exist, Burebista?

  285. on 10 Jan 2013 at 11:11 pm 285.Severin said …

    Thank you, Lou!
    I’ve found another one, but yours are much better to expose Burebista as a liar and a fraud.

    So, Burebista, you DID come to this blog and stated your opinion that god exists as a fact.

    Which makes you a liar.

  286. on 10 Jan 2013 at 11:53 pm 286.Burebista said …

    “So, Burebista, you DID come to this blog and stated your opinion that god exists as a fact.”

    Where? Be clear Severin.

    Severin you are a pitiful little man. See, someone asks you a simple question about a post, in this decade, and rather than answer, you must attack the questioner. What it tells me is you have no answers, you have no proof and you have no character.

    Oh, did I mention you never asked me a question about any of my posts in the last decade? You only bring them up for revenge for your sad performance on this thread. It really is too bad. Sadly, this is all atheism is about.

  287. on 11 Jan 2013 at 12:15 am 287.Lou(DFW) said …

    280.Burp said …

    “Be a man and provide a quote.”

    286.Burp said …

    “You only bring them up for revenge for your sad performance on this thread.”

    As opposed to your sad performance in life?

  288. on 11 Jan 2013 at 12:21 am 288.Lou(DFW) said …

    86.Burp said …

    “It really is too bad.”

    It really is too bad that all you can do is lie about those with whom you disagree.

    “Sadly, this is all atheism is about.”

    You just made a a claim about “atheism” – prove it. Unless you do, you are a “pitiful little man.”

  289. on 11 Jan 2013 at 12:27 am 289.Lou(DFW) said …

    Your comments of 2009, by definition, presuppose that you believe that god is real. Unless your comments are lies, then you proclaimed, by definition of presupposition, that god is real.

    You either claimed that god is real or you are a liar.

    Which is it, you “pitiful little man?”

  290. on 11 Jan 2013 at 1:46 am 290.A said …

    Bur

    Severin is just way to easy of a target. Take it easy on him. You can do a search, if you’re bored, on his claims over the years and you will discover some of the funniest and most bizarre claims you have ever seen. Anytime I see a Severin comments, I by design know he it’s not true but maybe comical.

    He once alleged, and I paraphrase, that almost no atheist existed 200 years ago. He evidently doesn’t even understand everyone has morality; it’s almost like he is another Thelma-lou! lol!

    Give Sev some props though. He has Thelma-lou, his lap dog, doing his work for him. That deserves some kudos!

  291. on 11 Jan 2013 at 2:58 am 291.The messenger said …

    Brother, 269.Anonymous I have told you that you can find that information if you go to Church. Why do you fail to understand that.

  292. on 11 Jan 2013 at 3:02 am 292.The messenger said …

    270.DPK, I am not disputing Church doctrine, I am simply explaining what that bible verse means because you obviously do not understand it.

  293. on 11 Jan 2013 at 3:03 am 293.The messenger said …

    I should’ve have said that you were fools. I pray that God forgives me for that.

  294. on 11 Jan 2013 at 3:07 am 294.The messenger said …

    270.DPK, I have already stated in my past comments that the term stoning does not nessesarally mean a death punishment, it simply means a punishment for sining. I told you were you can learn about this information. Go to a Catholic Church.

  295. on 11 Jan 2013 at 3:25 am 295.Lou(DFW) said …

    290.ASS said … nothing worth quoting

    Ha-ha-ha!

    And on queue, here’s ASS’ sock-puppet tag-team act to defend and support Burp after he was exposed for the fraud that he is.

    If ASS could actually support Burp, then he would show us the god-given absolute moral code that Burp claimed to exist. Of course, ASS can’t do that because it doesn’t exist, and because he and Burp are one and the same fraud.

    Maybe ASS’ finally learned something – not to simultaneously post as his various sock-puppets so as not be busted yet again.

  296. on 11 Jan 2013 at 3:39 am 296.alex said …

    “Sadly, this is all atheism is about.”

    you are a little bitch. there’s no atheist bible like yours. there’s no atheist pope like yours. you speak in generalities like the asshole motherfucker that you are. what? my cursing doesn’t make me cooler? well does it make me worse than anybody else? it doesn’t matter anyways.

    i’ve said many times, no matter fucking what you say about atheism, it’s not proof for your god. let me remind you, i don’t believe in the vulcan god and i’m totally full of shit. is the vulcan god fer real? get the fuck out of here.

  297. on 11 Jan 2013 at 4:09 am 297.s0l0m0n said …

    The atheists have no absolute proofs at all of their denial that God exists.

  298. on 11 Jan 2013 at 4:13 am 298.s0l0m0n said …

    The atheists are just a bunch of fools who are not willing to appreciate what God had done. Indeed they have booked ((((HELL))))

  299. on 11 Jan 2013 at 4:40 am 299.Anonymous said …

    So many attempts to divert the conversation, bring up ridiculous interpretations, and all to hide the lack of evidence for any god. Any god at all.

    What these delusional people (that is code for Christians, by the way) do not understand, is that the more they offer “interpretations” the more ridiculous their silly book of fairy stories becomes.

    Who ever heard of a book from a god that required people to travel the entire world to one place, in one country, to ask one person, what it meant! Let alone a book that is supposed to contain an amazing moral code. A code, of course, that none of these people could know because messy says they need to ask the pope what it means!

    Either that god is incompetent (but if it’s Yahweh, he would be anyway – he gets his ass handed to him by bronze age warriors in iron chariots) or his followers are fucking idiots for believing that shit, mentally defective, or just plain stupid.

  300. on 11 Jan 2013 at 5:23 am 300.Anselm said …

    ontological perspective.

    1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

    2. What cannot be thought not to exist is greater than that which can be thought not to exist.

    3. So if that than which no greater can be conceived could be thought not to exist, then there could conceivably be something greater still.

    4. But it is absurd to say that that there could conceivably be something greater than that than which no greater can be conceived.

    5. So that than which no greater can be conceived cannot be thought not to exist.

    6. So God cannot be thought not to exist.

    7. So God exists.

    -Anselm

  301. on 11 Jan 2013 at 7:59 am 301.Anonymous said …

    If (some) god is the greatest conceivable being…

    and I can certainly conceive of many beings greater than Yahweh…

    The Yahweh, can’t be (a) god.

    Thanks for playing.

  302. on 11 Jan 2013 at 10:37 am 302.Severin said …

    280 Burebista
    ““You came on this blog and stated your opinion that god exists as a fact.”
    “Your continued lying is becoming habitual Sev. Be a man and provide a quote.”

    286 Burebista
    ““So, Burebista, you DID come to this blog and stated your opinion that god exists as a fact.”
    “Where? Be clear Severin.”

    Here:
    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=1001#comments

    #1
    “…we cannot appreciably comprehend God’s will for us while we are still as we are.”
    “Giod may be telling you to examine …”
    #6
    “God cannot do anything contrary to His character. He cannot cheat, steal, etc. “
    “God did not produce robots”
    “God did bring sin to the world,”
    #12
    “No, I have the Word of God.”
    “God tells me all we need to know. “
    “Sara God is the creator of morality.”
    #14
    “I am a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ.” (and J.C = god, according to Bible)
    “ I claim one must turn their life over to Christ based on His words.”
    “Open your life to Him. He can bring the peace you seek.” (to god, my comment)
    #26
    “The love of God expressed through the sacrifice of His own son at Calvary just for mankind.”
    “God loves you …”
    #45
    “The more science uncovers the more is is revealing the majesty of the one who brought it all about.” (“the one” is god, my comment)

    Were yoy talking about the unexisting god?

    Liar!
    Shame on you.

  303. on 11 Jan 2013 at 11:28 am 303.Lesbian Carwasher said …

    Why dont we just end the debate and ask for god to appear?

  304. on 11 Jan 2013 at 12:56 pm 304.Lou(DFW) said …

    300.Anselm said …

    “ontological perspective”

    Word games for god because no actual evidence for god exists.

  305. on 11 Jan 2013 at 1:46 pm 305.Burebista said …

    Severin your claim is material and should be proven by the scientific method. Your claim is believed by you through faith which atheist like to claim they do not use.

    Of course I know God exists. I’m flattered you and Lou took the time to research my comments.

    God is not a material process proven in the lab. I use writings, indirect proofs and personal experience to solidify my belief. But in the end, evolved morality is a question of science but God is not. Never compare apples and oranges Sev.

  306. on 11 Jan 2013 at 2:14 pm 306.Lou(DFW) said …

    305.Burp the Babeler said …

    “Severin your claim is material and should be proven by the scientific method. Your claim is believed by you through faith which atheist like to claim they do not use.”

    Faith is the belief in something for which there is no evidence. Atheist do not believe in your imaginary god – something for which there is no evidence. In and of itself, that’s all there is to being an atheist – disbelief in your imaginary god – NOT HAVING FAITH.

    You can lie about atheists until you’re blue in the face, but it doesn’t change the definition of atheist. One would think that you would understand that your blatant lying doesn’t support your position, but only weakens it. Furthermore, your (non-existent) god-given moral code should prohibit you from such blatant lying.

    “Of course I know God exists.”

    Prove your claim.

    “I’m flattered you and Lou took the time to research my comments.”

    Translation: I’ve been exposed for the fraud that I am, so, in desperation I’m going to try to turn it to my advantage by appearing to be humble.

    “God is not a material process proven in the lab. I use writings, indirect proofs and personal experience to solidify my belief.”

    Translation: Belief in my imaginary god is nothing but faith (i.e., I have no evidence for my imaginary god).

    “But in the end, evolved morality is a question of science but God is not. Never compare apples and oranges Sev.”

    Burp finally admits that morality is evolved.

    Burp, show us where he compared morality to your imaginary god.

  307. on 11 Jan 2013 at 2:18 pm 307.Lou(DFW) said …

    280.Burp the Babeler said …

    “You came on this blog and stated your opinion that god exists as a fact.”

    “Your continued lying is becoming habitual Sev. Be a man and provide a quote. We can then discuss it. Unless you do, you simply continue to lie. That is a horrible example for others.”

    Poor Burp. His only defense is to play word games and lie.

    305.Burp the Babeler said …

    “Of course I know God exists.”

  308. on 11 Jan 2013 at 3:48 pm 308.Severin said …

    #305
    Thank you for finally being honest and saying us that existence of god is something you BELIEVE in.
    (My neighbor’s grandmother also believes that fairies exist. The lady just KNOWS it).

    My first impulse when I hear someone claiming his beliefs, publically or privately, is the question: WHY does that person wants to announce his/her beliefs to other people?
    WHY does this person think other people should be interested in his/her beliefs?
    Everyone is free to believe anything, but WHY would anyone has a need to talk about his beliefs to other people?

    I never came to a theist blog to tell people posting there that I was an atheist and they were wrong.
    I never came to a church or to any sort of temple, to say people that god does not exist, and that they are deluded.
    I never ever asked anyone, in private conversation, for his/her beliefs. If anyone told me his beliefs, I always respected that, and made no attempts to change his/her mind, UNLESS that person made attempts to change mine.
    If I ever discussed anything (and I did, a lot), I NEVER EVER came to discussion to support my claims with my BELIEFS. IF I did, I always honestly said: I am not sure, it is my opinion, I feel that what I said MIGHT be the fact, but I always preferred to have some proofs for my claims, not only opinions and beliefs.

    You came to this blog TELLING US that god exists, that god is source of morality, blah, blah, without EVER (until now) telling us: people, this is what I think, this is what I believe, this is MY OPINION (… and I do NOT pretend to be right with my unsupported claims, would be also correct to add).
    In fact, you came here to aggressively IMPOSE your beliefs to us.
    God exists, period. God is the source of morality, period.

    When someone comes to me with ANY SORT of unsupported claims (for example: “there is a global conspiracy”, “there is a god”, “aliens visited earth”), be it privately or publically, and uses “force” (lying, twisting my words, jumping on different topics, avoiding answering questions, … , everything but arguments and proofs) to make me accept his opinion, I get mad, I admit.
    I am an extremely tolerant person; If you tell me that you THINK that god exists, we may, or may not debate about it, offer arguments and counter-arguments, whatever, but if you come to me to TELL me that god exists, and keep persisting in persuading me to accept YOUR BELIEF that god exists, that is something different. That is VIOLENCE. THEN I might (and I do) use bad words to defend my freedom to have MY opinion.

    So, Burebista, no one ever had any complain to what you believe or don’t believe.
    You are free to believe whatever you please, just, as YOU said, do NOT hold up your beliefs as facts. Don’t impose your beliefs to us.

    That is indecent.

  309. on 11 Jan 2013 at 4:20 pm 309.Burebista said …

    “WHY does this person think other people should be interested in his/her beliefs?
    Everyone is free to believe anything, but WHY would anyone has a need to talk about his beliefs to other people?”

    Probably the same reason you believe everyone cares about your opinions or the post you just shared. Maybe the same reason you announce evolution of morality as your faith. I really don’t care, but since you feel the need to share your faith, I had to correct you.

    “You are free to believe whatever you please, just, as YOU said, do NOT hold up your beliefs as facts. Don’t impose your beliefs to us.”

    “sigh!”, Well, first thank you for that freedom. Second, my belief in God does not come under science, so again don’t compare apples and oranges. But if you don’t want to hear, then why did you ask repeatedly? Why is Lou so obsessed with the question?

    Now the real test. Will you live up to your own advise? Will you stop sharing your beliefs unless they are scientifically proven?

  310. on 11 Jan 2013 at 4:22 pm 310.Burebista said …

    Severin

    Another thing I don’t want to hear about is your neighbor’s grandmother and fairies. Don’t care so stop forcing that on me too.

    Follow your own advise.

  311. on 11 Jan 2013 at 4:29 pm 311.Lou(DFW) said …

    308.Severin said …

    “My first impulse when I hear someone claiming his beliefs, publically or privately, is the question: WHY does that person wants to announce his/her beliefs to other people?”

    They do so because they are insecure about their belief – there is strength in numbers. The foundation of religion is false-witness and hypocrisy.

    When they can’t rationally and logically defend their delusion, then they act-out here and strike-out elsewhere.

  312. on 11 Jan 2013 at 4:30 pm 312.Lou(DFW) said …

    310.Burp the Babeler said …

    “Another thing I don’t want to hear about is your neighbor’s grandmother and fairies. Don’t care so stop forcing that on me too.”

    Liar, nobody forced anything upon you.

  313. on 11 Jan 2013 at 4:37 pm 313.MrQ said …

    “So, Burebista, you DID come to this blog and stated your opinion that god exists as a fact.”

    Where? Be clear Severin.

    From Bur

    Of course I know God exists. I’m flattered you and Lou took the time to research my comments.

    Bur = Troll of epic proportions.

    Bur = Probably The Hor as an alter ego. Part of a 12 step program and needs the magic sky daddy to steer him straight. Would be lost without the illusion that something bigger than this actually cares. Everyone on this blog sees you as the poor little loser that you are.

    BTW, Could you nudge Castbound and A for me? We were on a previous thread and they just dropped off when the going got too heavy.

  314. on 11 Jan 2013 at 4:38 pm 314.Lou(DFW) said …

    309.Burebista said …

    “Probably the same reason you believe everyone cares about your opinions or the post you just shared.”

    Show us where he claimed that “everyone cares about [his] opinions or the post [he] just shared.”

    “Maybe the same reason you announce evolution of morality as your faith.”

    Liar, show us where he made any such announcement.

    “I really don’t care, but since you feel the need to share your faith, I had to correct you.”

    ASS-Burp, you are a mentally ill, pathological liar. For most religious people their delusion is simply a false belief, but for you it’s a manifestation of an obvious psychological disorder. You obviously use this blog as outlet for your inability to reconcile your psychological issues.

  315. on 11 Jan 2013 at 4:43 pm 315.Severin said …

    #309
    “… so again don’t compare apples and oranges.”

    Sorry, I cant.
    How can I distinguish aplles from ornanges if I don’t compare them?

  316. on 11 Jan 2013 at 5:02 pm 316.Severin said …

    #309
    “Will you stop sharing your beliefs unless they are scientifically proven?”

    Yes I will, as soon as you withfrow all your beliefs you presented here, which were not scietifically proven, such as “there is god”, “god is source of morality”, etc.

    And, there are two big differences between exposing my “beliefs” and your ones:
    1. You never (until now) told us you exposed your BELIEFS, but made your claimsa as they were facts, while I said many times, including this time, that I expose opinions, NOT FACTS, when talking things I can not really prove.
    2. I ALWAYS, no exception, expose my opinions in my answers or my reactions to other posts.
    I NEVER EVER came anywhere, or to anyone, to expose my opinions about god, religion, morality, if I was unasked or unprovoked, just because I felt a need to say something. If nobody asks for my opinion (about god, morality, religions, …), I do not give it. Period.

  317. on 11 Jan 2013 at 6:23 pm 317.DPK said …

    ““… so again don’t compare apples and oranges.”

    a more accurate analogy would be don’t compare apples to magical beans”. At least apples and oranges both exists and can, in fact be compared.
    The last refuge of the deluded has been reached, when all else fails, simply declare your claims to be beyond judgement or criticism and instruct people that they cannot pass judgement on them because they are immune to any logic or reasoning.

    Sad. But good that you have finally admitted that’s all you got. But, it’s sad that you had to play out 2 weeks worth of coy word games (did I say that?) in order to try and avoid your ultimate outing as a purveyor of nothing but bullshit. How do you say “lying fraud” in Portuguese?
    mentira, da fraude
    Oh look, Mr Google taught me to be fluent in Portuguese too!

  318. on 11 Jan 2013 at 6:50 pm 318.DPK said …

    and don’t think that the entire world has not noted your inability to show us your “absolute moral code” that you claim is provided by your imaginary god.

    “God is the creator of morality.”

    This despite you having been asked, point blank, innumerable times. Why is this such a problem for you Burebista? Didn’t you say, “God tells me all we need to know.“ So, are you saying god forgot to tell you where to find this absolute moral code that you preach about, or that you don’t need to know how to find it? Let’s take a look at it and see how absolute and perfect it is. Why is this such an impossibility for you? Why do you try so very hard to avoid the question?

  319. on 11 Jan 2013 at 6:59 pm 319.DPK said …

    300.Anselm said …

    ontological perspective.

    1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

    Lie one… there is nothing you can conceive that I cannot conceive something greater than. Conceptualizing an idea is not the same as defining that something “is”

    2. What cannot be thought not to exist is greater than that which can be thought not to exist.

    Lie 2. There is nothing that cannot be “thought not to exist. Show us something that cannot be “thought not to exist” and I will prove you wrong in 2 seconds. haha.

    3. So if that than which no greater can be conceived could be thought not to exist, then there could conceivably be something greater still.

    Lie 3. Conclusions based on false assumptions or facts not in evidence are falacious,

    4. But it is absurd to say that that there could conceivably be something greater than that than which no greater can be conceived.

    Why is it absurd? No matter what you conceive as being the “greatest that there can be” I can simply conceive of “the thing that created THAT”. Infinite regression.

    5. So that than which no greater can be conceived cannot be thought not to exist.

    Word salad. Your terms have no meaning.

    6. So God cannot be thought not to exist.

    7. So God exists.

    yada yada yada… meaningless babble. I conceive Superman to be greater than Jesus, and nothing is greater than Superman. Therefore, Superman exists.
    Except he doesn’t.

    Go back to your community college philosophy department and ask for your money back.

  320. on 11 Jan 2013 at 7:45 pm 320.Burebista said …

    “Yes I will, as soon as you withfrow all your beliefs you presented here, which were not scietifically proven, such as “there is god”, “god is source of morality”, etc.”

    I will as soon as you prove Socrates existed, scietifically. Then I will withfrow my opinion. Again, God is not proven in a lab. I seriously question your intellect at this point.

    But moving on to what is science, anytime you claim a bit of science is true rather than your opinion, I will bust you again if I am here. For the record, nobody asked for your opinion you just offered.

    Funny thing though Severin. This is a blog about God and religion, not science, and you think nobody should express their opinion? A strange little man you are.

  321. on 11 Jan 2013 at 7:49 pm 321.Burebista said …

    Anselm,

    Aosta offered some brilliant insight over the course of his life. I still highly regard Proslogion as his most brilliant work. Maybe I should of had Severin scientifically prove Aosta existed?

  322. on 11 Jan 2013 at 8:00 pm 322.DPK said …

    “when all else fails, simply declare your claims to be beyond judgement or criticism and instruct people that they cannot pass judgement on them because they are immune to any logic or reasoning.”

    and right on cue Burbista states:
    “Again, God is not proven in a lab.”

    Ok, so god is not proven in a lab. You have so far deliberately evaded admitting anything about the nature of your claimed god that would allow anyone to decide if he exists, or is just a figment of your imagination. He is “somewhat clever, kind of powerful…”
    Until you were proven wrong by your own words, you recently even refused to acknowledge that you believed some god existed. “Did I say that? I don’t think so…”
    So, now that you have admitted to the positive claim that some type of god exists, and you have provided yourself a backdoor to slither out of by also claiming this god to be beyond detection… let’s talk specifics. Does your god intercede in the physical world? Is your god both omniscient and omniscient, as opposed to “kind of clever and somewhat powerful”?
    I’ve no doubt you will ignore these direct questions, as you do all the others that threaten your delusion. But every time you open your mouth, if I am here, I am going to remind everyone what a utter and complete fraud you are.
    Because god told me to.

  323. on 11 Jan 2013 at 8:10 pm 323.DPK said …

    “Maybe I should of had Severin scientifically prove Aosta existed?”

    Your tired Socrates argument is really getting tedious. Your claim is that god EXISTS… not existed. You also claim he cannot be detected. Fair enough. A god who cannot be detected is inherently no different from a god who does not exist at all. So, if you care to believe in a god who cannot be detected and does not affect the material world.. well, fine. I think that makes you delusional, but have at it. But, I suspect you actually believe, but will not publicly admit (fraud) that your god DOES intercede in the physical world. Which is it Burp?

  324. on 11 Jan 2013 at 8:41 pm 324.MrQ said …

    you prove Socrates existed, scietifically

    Who cares? Socrates is/was a Brazilian footballer. He had no influence on my life.

    There are people who believe in god(s) who do impact my life. For example, they may be found: Flying planes into buildings, knocking on my door and asking me to convert, attempting to push lazy thinking (ever hear of (un)intelligent design?) onto my children, molesting children, standing in the way of progress, etc, etc.

    The time is NOW to clear religion from the psyche of the majority of humanity. It has served it’s purpose to rally folks around some ideological flag and get them to act en masse. The concept of god should be limited to those individuals in need of mental therapy because they absolutely NEED to cling on to something to keep their lives on the straight and narrow. Think AA and other 12 step programs. Think John Lennon – Imagine

  325. on 11 Jan 2013 at 8:44 pm 325.Severin said …

    320 Burebista
    1. I never claimed Socrates existed, so I have nothing to prove, scientifically or otherwise.
    2. It was YOU who involved science in this debate, not me. Trace the recant posts.
    3. Nobody ever asked for your opinion about god, morality, science, … , ANYTHING, yet you DO post your opinions here.

    What is it with you, man?

    I think (opinion, unable to prove) that Lou’s opinion (#314) that you are a pathological liar, and that you obviously use this blog as outlet for your inability to reconcile your psychological issues, was correct.

  326. on 11 Jan 2013 at 8:50 pm 326.Severin said …

    320 Burebista
    “This is a blog about God and religion, not science, and you think nobody should express their opinion?”

    Where did I say that? When?
    Quote, please!

    You are not only a liar, but insane. You construct lie after lie, after lie, in attempt to prove YOURSELF, not your claims.
    It seems to be obvious.

    I am really sorry for you, because I hate no one, and wish you to get recovered as soon as possible.

  327. on 11 Jan 2013 at 9:03 pm 327.Lou(DFW) said …

    321.Burp the Babeler said …

    “I still highly regard Proslogion as his most brilliant work.”

    Who the hell cares?

  328. on 11 Jan 2013 at 9:07 pm 328.Lou(DFW) said …

    320.Burp the Babeler said …

    “I seriously question your intellect at this point.”

    I serioiusly questioned yours a long time ago.

    “But moving on to what is science, anytime you claim a bit of science is true rather than your opinion, I will bust you again if I am here.”

    LOL! You didn’t “bust” anybody here, certainly not Sev.

    “For the record, nobody asked for your opinion you just offered.”

    For the record, you were asked numerous times to support your god and moral code claims. For the record, you never did. For the record, you are nothing but cowardly fraud. It’s no wonder that you require an imaginary sky-daddy.

  329. on 11 Jan 2013 at 9:29 pm 329.Severin said …

    “… I will bust you again if I am here.”

    AGAIN? When did you bust me BEFORE?
    Quotes, please!

  330. on 11 Jan 2013 at 9:45 pm 330.Severin said …

    Burebista,
    “… and you think nobody should express their opinion?”

    I INSIST on quotes! I INSIST on showing people where, the hell, did I say that I think that nobody should express their opinion.

    What is enough, is enough!
    I will no longer allow you to construct another lie, hoping that no one will see that it is a lie, and then impute me anything you want based on your own lie, endlessly extending this debate to feed your sick ego.

    So, Burebista WHERE DID I SAY THAT I THINK THAT NOBODY SHOULD EXPERSS THEIR OPINION?

    Only quotes, not your “philosophy”, please!

  331. on 11 Jan 2013 at 10:22 pm 331.Burebista said …

    Severin,

    Do you believe Socrates existed? Maybe you are the first to not believe?

    The quote, the #308 post.

  332. on 12 Jan 2013 at 12:00 am 332.DPK said …

    Why don’t you look for a Socrates forum to discuss your O.C.D. Issues with Socrates?
    This is the “why won’t god heal amputees” forum. Unless you are claiming that god doesn’t heal amputees because of something Socrates did, you need to reign in your ADD and try to stay focused.

  333. on 12 Jan 2013 at 12:41 am 333.Happy Christian said …

    I still believe in God and pray, even though it doesn’t seem logical at times. then again nothing seems logical in life,really. At the end of my life if thier is a God, good for me for believing, if not then I probably won’t even know. I’m happy, in good health, families good even though we’ve had some troubling times. All in all I like my religion, made alot of good friends through my church. Not one for preching though, I know scripture says to teach the word of God but I figure it really teachs itsself, either you believe or you don’t. Lifes just to short to debate it. The reason I keep believing though, honestly…I just like it.

  334. on 12 Jan 2013 at 12:45 am 334.Severin said …

    In #320 Burebista said:
    “This is a blog about God and religion, not science, and you think nobody should express their opinion?”

    In #325 I asked Burebista to quote my words, because I know I have never said anything like that, and I did not like him to build his further lies on his previous lies

    In #330 Burebista said:
    “The quote, the #308 post.”

    Guess what?
    There is, of course, NO SUCH A CLAIM in my post #308!!!
    Not only that I did not use the words Burebista imputes me, NO!
    There is NOTHING in that post of mine that could be, using the most twisted immagination, be understood as that I said that I “think nobody should express their opinion”

    How can you live with yourself with so many lies, Burebista?

    Lie, after lie, after lie, after lie, no end.
    I did not react when you called me a “litte man”, it is your right to think I am little.

    Bu, you are not only sick, you are TOTALLY INSANE.

    What will you do next, Burebista?

    Wouldn’t it be better for you to say nothing more, because the pile of your own shit is at this moment far over your mouth.

  335. on 12 Jan 2013 at 12:58 am 335.GOD said …

    Whats Up, I’m here…want do you want? You Winy fucking humans always asking me for shit!!! I give you fucking life and you bitch! I give you salvation You bitch. leave me the fuck alone, suck my God balls, I can’t wait to send you bitchs to hell!!! You don’t want to believe? don’t believe, eat my ass and burn in hell. talking about appear in front of you, please bitch, who the fuck are you to command me? I’M GOD!!!

    Me=GOD
    you=shit human

  336. on 12 Jan 2013 at 1:23 am 336.Severin said …

    Burebista,

    Your insanity is so obvious, go to a shrink befor too late.

    Only a totally insane person can discuss this way:

    Burebista, #309
    “Will you stop sharing your beliefs unless they are scientifically proven?”

    Me, #316
    “Yes I will, as soon as you withfrow all your beliefs you presented here, which were not scietifically proven, such as “there is god”, “god is source of morality”, etc.

    Burebista, #320
    “I will as soon as you prove Socrates existed, scietifically. Then I will withfrow my opinion.”

    ???

    This is not idiocy, this IS insanity.

  337. on 12 Jan 2013 at 4:55 am 337.DPK said …

    on 12 Jan 2013 at 12:58 am 335.GOD said …
    “Whats Up, I’m here…want do you want? You Winy fucking humans always asking me for shit!!! I give you fucking life and you bitch! I give you salvation You bitch. leave me the fuck alone, suck my God balls,”

    Wait, god has balls? WTF does god need balls for?

  338. on 12 Jan 2013 at 10:36 pm 338.Todd said …

    There are over 330 post and I did not read all of them. The reason bible believers give is God said we are not suppose to put him to the test. And God also says no one can see God and live. Xians says Jesus was God because Jesus said I an the father are one. Jesus said if you have seen me you have seen the father. Meaning God. One part of te bible says you can’t see God and live. Then Jesus say if you see him you see God. And they did not die. Xians says Jesus was God but not God. They say God cannot not feel tempted. But Jesus knew what it felt like to experience temptation. Xians imply Jesus was not fully God. But yet not less God. ABd the asking anything in my name and I will do it they says applies only to the will of God. That God will only answer if it is his will. So according to that verse if xians ask in Jesus name that all the starving people in the world recieve food with in the next 24 hours it will be done. But if it does not happen it must have been Gods will it not happen. Or maybe they asked wrong or did not have enough faith. And Jesus name is not Jesus. Jesus is supposedly a transliteration of the origininal name. Which is a different subject. They say his original name was something like Yeshua. or Yehashua. They say Jesus is the english version of the greek name. I don’t agree with what they say.

  339. on 13 Jan 2013 at 1:47 am 339.Anonymous said …

    DPK, God has “God balls” so that you can suck them. Hahahaha….. any way GOD is God and you can’t know him because you are going to hell with the rest of the non believers, tic tock bitchs, soon enough your time will be up. I know, I have to be the evilist Christian ever, thats why I need Jesus so I can repent for being this way, I can’t help it. Its just you athiest fucks are so cocky for being worthless little humans, and you bitchs will be dead before you know it and in hell, yelling please please God i”m so sorry Please….Its just funny to me, anyways praise be to God the almighty. :)

  340. on 14 Jan 2013 at 12:57 am 340.s0l0m0n said …

    Anonymous,

    You too will be in (((HELL))) coz’ you pray to the wrong God.

  341. on 15 Jan 2013 at 4:05 pm 341.fol de rol said …

    and just why is it the god doesn’t appear? didn’t seem to mind doing it a couple of thousand years ago to a select few in a very limited geographical area, funny that when you think about it,

  342. on 15 Jan 2013 at 4:12 pm 342.fol de rol said …

    and S0l0m0n

    you are very funny and quite quite insane; seriously, get help before you hurt yourself or anyone else

  343. on 22 Jan 2013 at 12:45 am 343.Anon said …

    It’s simple, christians are fucked up in the head since the cradle and upwards.

  344. on 22 Jan 2013 at 2:47 am 344.s0l0m0n said …

    Anon,

    It’s you that is fucked up in the head until you see ((((HELL)))).

  345. on 01 Feb 2013 at 4:47 am 345.Lesbian carwasher said …

    Okai
    i want to have an experiment
    TO ALL THEISTS HERE

    as an athiest, i believe in evoloution

    can you please tell me why you do not believe in such a theory?

  346. on 01 Feb 2013 at 5:24 am 346.DPK said …

    It’s called willful ignorance.
    Even the freakin’ Pope acknowledges evolution is a fact.

    The smart theists have simply moved the goal post and claimed evolution as the idea of god. The stupid ones are like the ones 400 years ago that insisted the earth was flat and at the center of the universe.

    Just goes to show…….

  347. on 01 Feb 2013 at 6:13 am 347.Lesbian carwasher said …

    Thats the problem, if god made all creatures instantly in one day, how come we dont find trilobites in our oceans?
    or goldfish in the precambrian era?

    evoloution pretty much contradicts all christian creation methods.

  348. on 01 Feb 2013 at 12:57 pm 348.Lou(DFW) said …

    345.Lesbian carwasher said …

    “can you please tell me why you do not believe in such a theory?”

    This blog isn’t about evolution. And it’s irrelevant as to why they don’t. Why do people believe in astrology? They’re ignorant, stupid, or both.

    The reality of evolution is irrelevant to the FACT that they don’t have any evidence for their imaginary god. Such an argument for them is simply away to avoid facing that FACT.

  349. on 01 Feb 2013 at 1:47 pm 349.s0l0m0n said …

    Not so fast atheists.

    Before you belief in the evolution ((((HOAX)))) answer this first.

    Provide fossil proofs of the gradual transition from ape to man that must have existed in abundance if evolution was true.

  350. on 01 Feb 2013 at 2:13 pm 350.Lesbian carwasher said …

    Ahhh
    but remember, if we exclude the made up new christian beliefs (which would make god pissed off anyway, not that he exists) evoloution proves their religion false ;D

  351. on 01 Feb 2013 at 3:29 pm 351.Burebista said …

    LC,

    Prove evolution makes God false.

  352. on 01 Feb 2013 at 3:34 pm 352.Lesbian carwasher said …

    please, call me rainbowdash ;D

    anyway
    it proves god is false as if god exists (as he made every species in one day) there would be humans in the precambrian era.

  353. on 01 Feb 2013 at 7:06 pm 353.MrQ said …

    LC,
    You’re communicating with someone who thinks “The Flintstones” is a historical documentary.

  354. on 01 Feb 2013 at 8:12 pm 354.Burebista said …

    Ok I’ll bite. Why would human’s exist in the precambrian era in order for God to exist?

  355. on 01 Feb 2013 at 8:56 pm 355.DPK said …

    Why is it the only way you can find to make a “point” about anything is to lie about what the person said? It’s very tiresome.

    He said that if god made every species in a single day, as claimed… there would be human fossils in the Precambrian.
    Therefore: a god who is said to have created every species, at once, on a single day does not exist.

    It does bot say much for your point of view when the only way you can support it is by lying.

    Why won’t you ever answer questions directed at you? Is your “faith” that shaky that you dare not discuss it honestly? Sad.

  356. on 01 Feb 2013 at 8:58 pm 356.DPK said …

    351.Burebista said …

    “LC,

    Prove evolution makes God false.”

    Why should he prove something he didn’t say?

    He said “evolution makes their religion false”.

    Why do you ALWAYS have to LIE to make a point? Why can’t you just discuss something HONESTLY, even once?

  357. on 01 Feb 2013 at 9:55 pm 357.Burebista said …

    “He said that if god made every species in a single day, as claimed… there would be human fossils in the Precambrian.”

    Is that so DPK? So since we have no transitional fossils that means macroevolution didn’t happen, right DPK?

    Let Lesbian Crawler answer the question. He is more qualified.

  358. on 01 Feb 2013 at 10:15 pm 358.DPK said …

    What it means is exactly as he claimed, the christian story of creation, that a god created every species at the same time on a single day, is not true.
    Do you deny this? It’s ok if you do… no one will think any less of you. Just tell us if YOU think every species on earth was created in a single day.

    Where do you get the idea that there are no transitional fossils? Did you read that on a church bulletin somewhere? Don’t believe everything people tell you Burpee.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

  359. on 01 Feb 2013 at 11:08 pm 359.The messenger said …

    352.Lesbian carwasher, the bible does not state that God created every speicies on that day. I believe that the animals that God created durring that time period evolved into the hundereds of different species that are on the Earth today. To summarize itfor you all, God created the ansestors of the animals that we know of in this time period, and over time God made some of his creations evolve into different species.

  360. on 02 Feb 2013 at 3:24 am 360.Burebista said …

    “that a god created every species at the same time on a single day, is not true.”

    No, I doesn’t seem so. Again, Can you tell us how this disproves God?

  361. on 02 Feb 2013 at 3:32 am 361.DPK said …

    It doesn’t disprove god, and no one claimed it did. It disproves the god claimed by creationists to have created every species at the same time…. Which is what was said.

    Are you done beating this dead horse now, and ready to provide some evidence that the god you “seem to” believe in… That “somewhat powerful, kind of clever” being that you say created the universe and answers your prayers… Actually exists? Or are you just going to continue trolling in order to divert attention from the fact that you have none?

  362. on 02 Feb 2013 at 4:17 am 362.Lesbian carwasher said …

    A “true” christian would not believe in evoloution.
    sadly, the modern day ones are getting false information by the modern priests, who only change the bible so that they can get more people in, its realy sad…

  363. on 02 Feb 2013 at 4:39 am 363.DPK said …

    Like gravity, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism, evolution does not give a shit whether someone believes in it or not.
    Religions have a long history of battling science, tooth and nail, until it became completely embarrassing to do so. They then “re-interpret their assorted holy books and declare the “new” scientific discovery to be the brilliant work of their god.

    There are unfortunately, always the idiots left behind who continue to believe things like man was created by some god mixing his god sperm with mud, or some such none sense. Seems some have not evolved all that far from our howling at the moon ancestors as we might hope.

  364. on 02 Feb 2013 at 5:14 am 364.Lesbian carwasher said …

    DPK
    i think this is the start of a great athiest team up ;D

  365. on 02 Feb 2013 at 7:41 am 365.The messenger said …

    Brother 362.Lesbian canopener the bible has never changed.

  366. on 02 Feb 2013 at 3:18 pm 366.Lesbian carwasher said …

    Number one, i am not your brother….
    Number two, it has -__-
    Number three, its carwasher…

  367. on 02 Feb 2013 at 3:32 pm 367.Lesbian carwasher said …

    Or call me rainbowdash the great and fastest

    ….either way….

  368. on 03 Feb 2013 at 4:33 am 368.s0l0m0n said …

    Nothing evolutes…it’s just a new creation.For your info the truth is….a single day to God is equivalent to 1000 years that human counts.

    Atheists are the ignorant.

  369. on 03 Feb 2013 at 6:04 am 369.s0l0m0n said …

    The brilliant works of God……

    DPK’s nose is not installed upside down.

    Whaaaa…ka…ka…ka…

  370. on 05 Feb 2013 at 9:16 pm 370.Anon said …

    It’s very simple, they’re fucked up in the head.

  371. on 06 Feb 2013 at 3:25 am 371.The messenger said …

    370.Anon, there are some misguided religous people out there, but the majority of them are peaceful.

  372. on 06 Feb 2013 at 5:46 am 372.The messenger said …

    Brother 368.s0l0m0n, I mean absolutely no offence, but I do not think that is accurate.

    The bible does not describe the first years as being 1000 years long.

  373. on 06 Feb 2013 at 5:48 am 373.The messenger said …

    352.Lesbian carwasher, the bible does not state that God created every speicies on that day. I believe that the animals that God created durring that time period evolved into the hundereds of different species that are on the Earth today. To summarize itfor you all, God created the ansestors of the animals that we know of in this time period, and over time God made some of his creations evolve into different species.
    .

  374. on 06 Feb 2013 at 2:22 pm 374.s0l0m0n said …

    messenger,

    In the course of time lets see the truthfulness of the equivalent of 1 day to 1000 years. Creation is an undisputed doctrine. I don’t believe something evolute.Every different creation is a creation on its own.

  375. on 06 Feb 2013 at 2:49 pm 375.Anonymous said …

    “To summarize itfor you all, God created the ansestors of the animals that we know of in this time period, and over time God made some of his creations evolve into different species”

    Prove it.

  376. on 06 Feb 2013 at 3:47 pm 376.DPK said …

    Messenger, Solomon, who you respect so much, says that god created man by mixing his sperm with dirt.
    Did that happen?
    Solomon also believes that Jesus is NOT god, and that you are going to burn in hell for all eternity unless you renounce him.
    Is that true?

  377. on 06 Feb 2013 at 5:31 pm 377.s0l0m0n said …

    DPK,

    “Messenger, Solomon, who you respect so much, says that god created man by (mixing his sperm with dirt).”

    I didn’t say that. You said that.

    Don’t try to twist my words you ((((FOOL))))

  378. on 06 Feb 2013 at 9:38 pm 378.DPK said …

    377.s0l0m0n said …

    DPK,

    “Messenger, Solomon, who you respect so much, says that god created man by (mixing his sperm with dirt).”

    I didn’t say that. You said that.

    Oh, ok… what you SAID was:
    “275.s0l0m0n said …

    DPK,

    In the true religion…God created you from dust, then from a sperm drop.
    That means you are created from dust and water.”

    So, taken at your exact words… looks like god created man twice then? Once from dust, and then again from a drop of sperm (presumably his, because there weren’t any people around).

    Are you going to deny that’s what you said? Because there it is… liar.

    “Creation is an undisputed doctrine.”
    hahahaha… it’s only undisputed by idiots like you. Here’s the thing you Muslim lunatic, just because you declare something to be true, doesn’t make it so. And no on here is buying your bullshit. We all know exactly what your are… a crazy ass nut case. Plus, the good christians here “know” that the only path to salvation is through accepting Jesus as your personal savior. So, according to them, YOU are the one who will be burning in hell. They are certain of it. Even poor mentally feeble messenger thinks your religion is evil and corrupt. Why don’t you both go to the Jesus vs Mohammad forum and argue about ti? Everyone else here is just laughing at you….

  379. on 06 Feb 2013 at 10:33 pm 379.alex said …

    “Atheists are the ignorant.”

    atheists are a lot of things you fucken moron. try as you like, you can’t attach a bunch of shit to atheists. ain’t no damn charter, no code, no fucken membership, no pope, we all don’t believe in the big bang, we all don’t believe in cold fusion, blah, blah. keep trying asshole, none of your shit will stick. guess it by now, moron? atheists don’t believe in a bullshit god.

    what? we ain’t no morals? fuckin big ass leap? we let the homos wed, soon they’ll be pologamy? …oh wait..

  380. on 07 Feb 2013 at 5:03 am 380.s0l0m0n said …

    DPK,

    “Creation is an undisputed doctrine.”

    Dispute it if you’re able.

    And remember…..
    Don’t rant ((((RUBBISH)))).

  381. on 07 Feb 2013 at 6:06 am 381.s0l0m0n said …

    DPK,

    You’re lousy in language as well as critical thinking.

    “In the true religion…God created you from dust, (then) from a sperm drop. That means you are created from dust and water.”

    “Are you going to deny that’s what you said? Because there it is… liar.”

    Under which context did I lie??

    Yes I did say God created man from dust & water.

    Do you understand the word (then)?

    When I say from dust and water it must not necessary be dust and water at the same time.
    But later the composition of man is still made up of dust and water.See… how it fits.

    Man is made from 1. dust and 2.also later from water.
    So my doctrine stands.
    You are the losers.

  382. on 07 Feb 2013 at 6:28 am 382.s0l0m0n said …

    Why Creation is an undisputed doctrine?

    We see it daily, man produce cars in the assembly line & build homes. Birds constructing their nests.
    Absolutely no room to dispute it.

    Suddenly the atheists claim there’s no who constructing the universe….???

  383. on 07 Feb 2013 at 7:39 am 383.Lesbian carwasher said …

    Most annoying thing…

    religous people who believe in evolution…

    i mean seriously!!?

    they do realise evolution proves creation from god false right?…right?

    *serious face* RIGHT? -__-

  384. on 07 Feb 2013 at 8:55 am 384.s0l0m0n said …

    Lesbian carwasher,

    Not from the true religion. The true religion does not recognize evolution. There is only creation. That’s why the true religion is true….

  385. on 07 Feb 2013 at 11:13 am 385.alex said …

    contradiction is a minor inconvenience, easily dismissed by the morons. the notion of salvation has to be the greatest one of all. you can fucking do any damn thing you want and still get off. oh sure, they righteously debate about the deadly sins and all that, but it’s all bullshit.

    wait…, atheist this, athiest that. who cares. reminder->atheists don’t believe in a bullshit god, period. my food fetish is irrelevant.

  386. on 07 Feb 2013 at 12:59 pm 386.Lou(DFW) said …

    382.s0l0m0n said …

    “We see it daily, man produce cars in the assembly line & build homes. Birds constructing their nests.”

    Yes, we do. But, we don’t see or observe in anyway whatsoever a “who constructing the universe!”

    Just as your extrapolation is incorrect about god creating the universe, so is the creation myth of a “world egg” or “cosmic egg.” Because the ancients saw animals created from eggs, they believed that the universe was created from an egg. Their belief is no less hilariously stupid, baseless, and backwards than is yours.

  387. on 07 Feb 2013 at 1:04 pm 387.Lou(DFW) said …

    381.s0l0m0n said …

    “Yes I did say God created man from dust & water.”

    It’s ridiculous to think that some omnipotent creator requires “dust & water” to create living creatures.

    Why doesn’t he simply twitch his nose or blink his eyes? Is imaginary god subject to natural laws of chemistry and biology?

  388. on 07 Feb 2013 at 1:06 pm 388.Lou(DFW) said …

    381.s0l0m0n said …

    “DPK,

    You’re lousy in language as well as critical thinking.”

    LOL! You are so confused about what you wrote that now you’re making it worse by trying to explain what you really meant.

    When a man finds himself trapped in a hole, it’s best to stop digging.

  389. on 07 Feb 2013 at 1:33 pm 389.Martin said …

    “Yes, we do. But, we don’t see or observe in anyway whatsoever a “who constructing the universe!””

    Duh!

    Blogmaster, I nominate this quote to the Idiot Hall of Fame.

    Put down the shovel mensa.

  390. on 07 Feb 2013 at 1:39 pm 390.Martin said …

    “We see it daily, man produce cars in the assembly line & build homes. Birds constructing their nests.”

    Yes we do Solomon. And to use the logic for Macroevolution, there is no reason not to assume this a step further. A being with unimaginable intelligence designed and brought the universe into existence.

    What we DO NOT observe is very complex algorithms, code and systems coming into existence without intelligence.

  391. on 07 Feb 2013 at 2:07 pm 391.alex said …

    martin’s back! boo! same ole bullshit. car makers make cars therefore the universe requires a god. got no evidence, but the fucker’s here trumpeting again and again to his fellow homies, like this blog requires morons like him.

    yeah atheists, you can’t explain &*ksk#, or 7#$&(#, therefore the almighty bullshit god exist! it says so in the bullshit book! you atheists are all full of shit, therefore god exist! that about cover it?

    oh, i fergit. alex, put down the gun. you’re so depressed? alex gots kids? off the ledge?

    the default position is no god, no santa, no elves, no bigfoot, no bullshit. of course, i can be convinced. just have god do the shit that was said in the bible. walk on water, feed the multitudes from a basket of fish and bread and shit…. i’m easily fooled.

  392. on 07 Feb 2013 at 2:53 pm 392.Lou(DFW) said …

    389.ASS/Martin/Mitch said …

    “Put down the shovel mensa.”

    What’s a “shovel mensa?”

  393. on 07 Feb 2013 at 3:00 pm 393.Lou(DFW) said …

    390.ASS/Martin/Mitch said …

    “What we DO NOT observe is very complex algorithms, code and systems coming into existence without intelligence.”

    LOL! Because ASS doesn’t observe something, it doesn’t exist. That’s his logic. But, if someone says if god isn’t observed, then he doesn’t exist, then ASS’ ignores his own logic.

    But, back to his comment. ASS, who do you observe creating nature and all of its complex systems? Who did you observe creating the universe, the earth and its inhabitants?

  394. on 07 Feb 2013 at 3:20 pm 394.Martin said …

    “What’s a “shovel mensa?”

    ha, ha, ha, google mensa Lou.

  395. on 07 Feb 2013 at 4:11 pm 395.Lou(DFW) said …

    394.Martin said …

    “What’s a “shovel mensa?”

    “ha, ha, ha, google mensa Lou.”

    Dummy, there is no such thing as a “shovel mensa.”

  396. on 07 Feb 2013 at 4:13 pm 396.Lou(DFW) said …

    390.ASS/Martin/Mitch said …

    “A being with unimaginable intelligence designed and brought the universe into existence.”

    Why do you continuously claim that while ignoring the elephant in the room – if everything requires a creator, who created the creator? The answer is in the book on the shelf next to the god-given moral code.

  397. on 07 Feb 2013 at 4:19 pm 397.s0l0m0n said …

    Martin,

    The atheists are getting intoxicated coz’ they can’t get away from their own thoughts banging their skulls.Look here…their hearts are bleeding, failing to accept the simple reasoning of the necessity of a medium/deity for any existence.

  398. on 07 Feb 2013 at 4:28 pm 398.s0l0m0n said …

    Lou(DFW),

    “….who created the creator?”

    The creator(God) can’t be created coz’ he’s equivalent to ((((NOTHING))))…..

    Whaaaa…..ka….ka…ka…..

  399. on 07 Feb 2013 at 4:35 pm 399.s0l0m0n said …

    Lou(DFW),

    “Is imaginary god subject to natural laws of chemistry and biology?”

    Why not?

    Don’t you know that chemistry & biology is part of God’s lower form of knowledge?

    Atheists are gettin’ nowhere with their narrow views.

  400. on 07 Feb 2013 at 5:03 pm 400.Anonymous said …

    Martin, someone who makes us all laugh when he pretends to understand logic, said:

    “A being with unimaginable intelligence designed and brought the universe into existence.”

    That has to be one of the most asinine and illogical statements that you’ve ever made under any of your different identities.

    1) Explain how it is logical to assert that something with *unimaginable* attributes exists. Sounds like an argument from ignorance – a fallacy you are very familiar with.

    2) Demonstrate to us the proof of the statement that this *unimaginable* being *designed* the universe.

    3) What mechanism did this *unimaginable* intelligence use to *create* the universe.

    4) Why is it a *being”? What is your proof that it isn’t a natural process?

    5) Why do you claim *intelligence*? What is your proof that this is an *intelligent* process?

    6) Why do you claim *existence* had a *beginning*? Your proof for this is what?

    7)What came before existence? How is this even possible? Provide proof and working examples.

    8) What created your creator? How did the creator exist before existence? Provide logic, don’t just resort to special pleading and bleating.

    Note asserting design and intelligence is not proof. Arguing from ignorance is not proof. Special pleading is not proof. Punting to “how do you explain…” is not proof.

    Eight questions, usually we get zero answers. Perhaps today is comedy day and Martin will answer rather than go into hiding. No wonder he has to try to trip people up when this is his example of using “logic”.

  401. on 07 Feb 2013 at 5:21 pm 401.Anonymous said …

    Continued… for Martin

  402. on 07 Feb 2013 at 5:23 pm 402.Anonymous said …

    Continued… for Martin

    9) Which god are we talking about? Please name names.

    10) Which of the creation stories in which holy book describes the god and the process you are claiming?

  403. on 07 Feb 2013 at 5:47 pm 403.Martin said …

    “Why do you continuously claim that while ignoring the elephant in the room – if everything requires a creator, who created the creator?”

    Elephant? A common question answered many times is an elephant? Is it not true many atheist claim the energy and matter existed forever? Why not the Creator? The difference is a Creator is a necessary entity.

  404. on 07 Feb 2013 at 5:59 pm 404.alex said …

    “Is it not true many atheist claim the energy and matter existed forever?”

    true. but it’s not universal posit for atheists.

    “Why not the Creator?”

    because it’s bull? why not the Turtle? why not “I don’t know”? no matter how many times you try to hang shit on atheists, it won’t stick. atheists don’t believe in god or any other bullshit.

    why do i keep posting? i’m waiting on a build.

  405. on 07 Feb 2013 at 7:14 pm 405.Anonymous said …

    Ten questions for Martin, zero answers. What we did get was two logical fallacies: special pleading and an attempted tu quoque.

    Try again, Martin, only this time stop trying to escape by changing the subject or arguing about another position. Your challenge is to prove your case.

  406. on 07 Feb 2013 at 7:32 pm 406.DPK said …

    ” Is it not true many atheist claim the energy and matter existed forever? Why not the Creator?”

    The difference is that we can demonstrate that matter and energy exist. But you cannot demonstrate that this postulated Creator actually exists. All you have are myths and legends.

    “The difference is a Creator is a necessary entity.”

    Prove it. You saying it does not make it so. In fact, most of modern physics disagrees with you and does not find a creator to be a “necessary entity.”
    Could they be wrong? I suppose, if you had evidence to the contrary. Do you?

    Didn’t think so. So stop asserting things not in evidence. If you have proof, or even evidence that a creator is a “necessary entity”. Show us.
    But be prepared to explain why matter and energy requires a creator, but your infinitely more complex creator does not.

  407. on 07 Feb 2013 at 7:47 pm 407.Lou(DFW) said …

    400.Martin said …

    “Is it not true many atheist claim the energy and matter existed forever?”

    Yes, some do, so what?

    (sigh) You’re avoiding the question, to wit – if complex creation requires a designer, then why doesn’t the creator require a creator?

    I’m telling you that Santa Claus is real and he existed forever. Care to debate that?

  408. on 10 Feb 2013 at 11:39 am 408.Lesbian carwasher said …

    now, as we can all see here
    the natural theist in its hunting ground
    this one, which i Dub “Martin” has avoided its predators once again, but the theist will soon attack with its rather pathetic and futile, derail gun

  409. on 10 Feb 2013 at 11:46 am 409.Lesbian carwasher said …

    384.s0l0m0n said …

    “Lesbian carwasher,”

    :Not from the true religion. The true religion does not recognize evolution. There is only creation. That’s why the true religion is true….”

    Evololution is a fact, there is no debating on if it is false or not, so if it is true, which it is, then your religion is false.

    Sorry to burst your bubble…

  410. on 10 Feb 2013 at 3:47 pm 410.Anonymous said …

    “this one, which i Dub “Martin” has avoided its predators once again, but the theist will soon attack with its rather pathetic and futile, derail gun”

    Like the 10 questions above relating directly to his claims? “Martin” consistently disappears when he can’t get people to take him up on his diversions yet he loves to accuse everyone else of his own actions.

  411. on 10 Feb 2013 at 4:02 pm 411.s0l0m0n said …

    Lesbian carwasher,

    If it’s true,then answer this……

    Provide fossil proofs of the gradual transition from ape to men that must have existed in abundance if evolution was true.

    If you can’t answer then you are going to ((((HELL))))

  412. on 10 Feb 2013 at 4:07 pm 412.Lesbian carwasher said …

    Indeed

    XD

    And all the questions i ask, like how did noah not get eaten, how he got all the species of bacteria and aomeba and stuff like that…

  413. on 10 Feb 2013 at 4:43 pm 413.DPK said …

    Lesbo… answer is simple… god did it… god can do anything…
    Do you really expect an actual answer?
    They have the ultimate get out of jail free card… “don’t have to think about that, god did it.”

  414. on 10 Feb 2013 at 4:54 pm 414.Lou(DFW) said …

    on 07 Feb 2013 at 7:47 pm 407.Lou(DFW) said …

    400.Martin said …

    “You’re avoiding the question, to wit – if complex creation requires a designer, then why doesn’t the creator require a creator?

    I’m telling you that Santa Claus is real and he existed forever. Care to debate that?”

    ASS/Mitch/Martin went into hiding – AGAIN! LOL!

  415. on 10 Feb 2013 at 7:47 pm 415.Tom said …

    “Is it not true many atheist claim the energy and matter existed forever?”

    Atheist yes, but not scientist.

  416. on 10 Feb 2013 at 7:59 pm 416.The messenger said …

    Brother 412.DPK, that is an answer.

  417. on 10 Feb 2013 at 8:00 pm 417.The messenger said …

    People, don’t listen to Soloman.

  418. on 10 Feb 2013 at 8:10 pm 418.The messenger said …

    The animals who were on the ark evolved into the animals that are on the earth today, millions of years after the flood.

    The time when the ark was built, there were alot less animals on the earth. But after the flood, they started to evolve into new species ( the animals that are on the earth today).

  419. on 11 Feb 2013 at 12:54 am 419.DPK said …

    Is it true many theists claim that god exists and created the universe?

    Theists yes, but not scientists.

  420. on 11 Feb 2013 at 2:26 am 420.Tom said …

    “Is it true many theists claim that god exists and created the universe? Theists yes, but not scientists.”

    True, only the theistic scientist know.

  421. on 11 Feb 2013 at 2:57 am 421.alex said …

    ok. smart motherfuckers claim that god exist, and?

    we both line up our witnesses and tie goes to your bullshit god?

  422. on 11 Feb 2013 at 3:08 am 422.s0l0m0n said …

    Listen…Listen…Listen……

    Nothing evolutes. It’s just new creations.

  423. on 11 Feb 2013 at 3:16 am 423.s0l0m0n said …

    “The animals who were on the ark evolved into the animals that are on the earth today, millions of years after the flood.”

    This defies logic as well as the creation doctrine.

    If only the animals who were on the arc evolves into other animals, then the number of types of animals remains the same as Noah’s time.There will be no multiplication of types of animals that are found today.

    Messenger, be extra careful on your not so clever claims.Don’t taint the theists image.

  424. on 11 Feb 2013 at 3:18 am 424.s0l0m0n said …

    alex,

    Kick our own ass out of this site.
    You rant ((((RUBBISH))))

  425. on 11 Feb 2013 at 3:20 am 425.s0l0m0n said …

    Sorry….
    “Kick your own ass out of this site.”

  426. on 11 Feb 2013 at 3:39 am 426.DPK said …

    on 11 Feb 2013 at 2:26 am 420.Tom said …
    “True, only the theistic scientist know.”

    They “know” no such thing.
    But since you brought up science, please show us even one current accepted scientific theory that includes “god did it” in any way, shape or form.
    Since you can’t. Please STFU.

  427. on 11 Feb 2013 at 4:04 am 427.The messenger said …

    Here is the scientific theory that you are looking for, brother.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

  428. on 11 Feb 2013 at 11:01 am 428.Lesbian carwasher said …

    thats a form of creationism you tool…

    and thier is NO science that says god did it…
    AT ALL

  429. on 13 Feb 2013 at 6:39 am 429.s0l0m0n said …

    The messenger,

    You better let Jesus alone and come back to the one true God almighty.

  430. on 13 Feb 2013 at 4:16 pm 430.Anon said …

    Hey s0l0m0n and The messenger, take your bible and ram it up your ass.

  431. on 13 Feb 2013 at 4:34 pm 431.Lou(DFW) said …

    429.s0l0m0n said …

    “The messenger,
    You better let Jesus alone and come back to the one true God almighty.”

    Ha-Ha-Ha! Those two are demonstrating the beauty of religion.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmwBPsB0oaE

  432. on 13 Feb 2013 at 5:28 pm 432.DPK said …

    Ha-Ha-Ha! Those two are demonstrating the beauty of religion.

    Yes, obviously they both can’t be right, but they very easily could both be wrong.
    Which seems more likely?

  433. on 13 Feb 2013 at 5:43 pm 433.alex said …

    maybe the polytheists are right?

  434. on 13 Feb 2013 at 5:56 pm 434.DPK said …

    433.alex said …

    “maybe the polytheists are right?”

    Well, you can’t prove they’re not, so I guess so…
    At least that seems to be the extent of critical thinking demonstrated by the ASS sock brigade.

  435. on 13 Feb 2013 at 6:12 pm 435.s0l0m0n said …

    Ahhhh….
    No substance….
    Is this what we call the not ignorant lots?

  436. on 13 Feb 2013 at 11:01 pm 436.alex said …

    the theists’ substance:

    1. bullshit passage(s) from bible/koran/etc.

    2. diversions ranging from big bang, evolution, black holes, biogenesis, etc. if you cannot prove the big bang, goddidit. if you cannot recreate biogeneis, creationism is the ONLY alternative.

    3. trot out multiple socks in a feeble attempt to display unity and fellowship. the mutual ass-patting/high fiving is serious vomit.

    4. proclaim the power, the love, the mystery, and all that other bullshit, about their god. then proceed to trash atheists. carry on christians.

    5. many, many attempts to characterize atheists with various attributes such as liberalism which they then attack, in trying to invalidate the non-belief.

    6. dodge and evade any/all relevant questions. and if they don’t, they answer with one of the above.

    7. refuse to provide evidence, but insist that everyone believe in all of their many gods. not sure if this is even possible, but they insist.

    8. what else?

  437. on 13 Feb 2013 at 11:07 pm 437.Lou (DFW) said …

    435.s0l0m0n said …

    “Ahhhh….
    No substance….”

    Says the person who won’t even admit in which imaginary god he believes nor which religion he follows.

    No substance indeed.

  438. on 13 Feb 2013 at 11:14 pm 438.The messenger said …

    I am on God’s side. Fallen brother 429.s0l0m0n is not.

  439. on 13 Feb 2013 at 11:20 pm 439.The messenger said …

    I take that back.

    Brother Solomon is on GOD’Smind side, but sady his religious group is misguided.

  440. on 14 Feb 2013 at 12:01 am 440.alex said …

    everybody knows it’s allah, but the idiot is ashamed to admit it. he knows that the moronic xtians will descend on him lika the biblical plagues. instead he just keeps mumbling generic shit like abraham, virgins and other shit to keep idiots like messenger at bay. then the utters some shit about hell, god is great, and other bullcorn.

  441. on 14 Feb 2013 at 12:40 am 441.s0l0m0n said …

    Did’nt I say I KIV on the true God’s identity you scum….
    This is called strategy.

  442. on 14 Feb 2013 at 12:42 am 442.s0l0m0n said …

    Points to ponder;

    God have made the housefly fly….
    Than God could make horses fly too.

  443. on 14 Feb 2013 at 1:06 am 443.The messenger said …

    Brother 436.alex, we do not trash anyone.

    You are constantly trashing us Christians and Jews with your insain, hateful, ranting and cussing at everyone you see.

  444. on 14 Feb 2013 at 1:09 am 444.The messenger said …

    Brother 436.alex, I have provided proof of God.
    The fact that you constantly deny it, is proof that you are certifiably insain.

  445. on 25 Mar 2013 at 5:15 am 445.Adam said …

    Jesus says “Do not test the Lord!”

  446. on 25 Mar 2013 at 5:29 am 446.The messenger said …

    445.Adam, I did not test GOD.

    I just provided proof of a miricle that he did.

  447. on 25 Mar 2013 at 12:50 pm 447.Xcanthean Zeno said …

    444.The messenger said …

    Brother 436.alex, I have provided proof of God.
    The fact that you constantly deny it, is proof that you are certifiably insain.

    No, you just copied and pasted random useless shit that has no backing up.

    hey while im at it.

    you know that narwhals are actlual nazi’s?
    i bet you didnt, but because i said so, they must be.

  448. on 25 Mar 2013 at 6:10 pm 448.DPK said …

    444.The messenger said …

    “Brother 436.alex, I have provided proof of God.
    The fact that you constantly deny it, is proof that you are certifiably insain.”

    The fact that you think some cut and paste nonsensical drivel qualifies as “proof of god” is proof that your are completely deluded.

    Here is proof that the flying spaghetti monster exists:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twIdPRCCTTs
    If you do not accept this, that shows you are insane.

  449. on 25 Mar 2013 at 10:00 pm 449.The messenger said …

    Brother 447.Xcanthean Zeno, I do not cut and paste random stuff. I cut and paste links and articles that contain proof of GOD.

    If you would read them, mabe you would understand that Jesus is real..

  450. on 26 Mar 2013 at 2:38 am 450.The messenger said …

    448.DPK, obviously you are not understanding this.

    I will put it into a context the is so simple that even A socialist could understand it.

    The links that I post contain information from respected sites that support the fact that GOD does exist. In order to read this information, you must click on the link and wait for the website to pop up on your screen. The final step in learning how to access information is to read the article.

    Do you still fail to understand this.
    P.S. some YouTube video is not proof of anything. I present information from well respected sites. I hope you comprehend that.

  451. on 26 Mar 2013 at 7:07 am 451.Xcanthean Zeno said …

    Hmmmm.
    nope…
    they aren’t valid at all.
    just more random theist shit that uses sheer coincidence to make statments.

  452. on 08 May 2013 at 12:34 am 452.michael said …

    Heres to putting circumcision into retrospect.

    My parents mutilated my genitals. no more than 24 hours after i was born. sorry, had someone mutliate my genitals. they took a knife and a metal bell and carved off the skin around the head of my penis.

    the area that would contain the most nerve endings was severed from my infant body and tossed into a medical waste can. my wound took a few days to heal, all the while they had to care for it and worry about infection from the meconium streaming out of me no more than an inch away.

    i survived. and to its credit, i have never gotten syphillis, aids, hiv or a UIT.

    perhaps to its credit, perhaps to my parents credit for keeping my crotch clean as a baby. and perhaps credit to me for not having unprotected sex with diseased strangers.

    the point of all of this?

    the next time someone tells you that circumcision is a good thing, that is serves a purpose, agree.

    tell them that it is being recommended in africa, where people dont clean themselves and have lots of unprotected sex.

    tell them that if they expect their child to be very dirty and to have lots of unprotected sex, its a great idea.

    but as for you, you plan on being a good parent, so there is no need to mutilate your child.

    and see what they say.

  453. on 19 Jun 2013 at 5:04 am 453.Anonymous said …

    This is why lucifer exists its his job to create the chaos and confusion. At its most elementary level it’s good versus evil. God’s will is a coping mechanism at times for some at times not all. Your comments are blanket statements.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply