Feed on Posts or Comments 29 March 2015

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 21 Jan 2013 12:06 am

Deepak Chopra starts making excuses for God

Deepak Chopra has started a new series of Blog Posts in which he asks the following question:

We Could Use God’s Help – Where Is He?

What if we erase the slate and look clearly at the situation. Something terrible happens, people suffer, they implore God for help, but no help comes. If such a thing occurred when a house caught fire and the fire trucks never came, naturally the blame would fall on those who are assigned to rescue us. Is it fair to apply the same standard to a God who fails to show up?

Is it fair to apply the same standard to a God who fails to show up? Yes, of course it is. God is supposed to be omnibenevolent and perfectly moral. If God sees suffering and takes no action, then he violates these principles. There is no way that a perfectly moral being (who is also omnipotent) can see someone suffering and stand by without helping. This is explained by God himself (in the form of Jesus) in this parable:

Luke 10:25-37
New International Version (NIV)

The Parable of the Good Samaritan

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

If God exists, then “Go and do likewise” applies to God as well. The fact that God ignores all of the tragedy on earth proves that God is imaginary. Strange that Chopra cannot see that.

671 Responses to “Deepak Chopra starts making excuses for God”

  1. on 21 Jan 2013 at 5:09 pm 1.The messenger said …

    God is in heaven. He is all ways watching over us.

  2. on 21 Jan 2013 at 6:00 pm 2.JALindsay said …

    I know you’re aware of it already, but it’s only as “strange” as Deepak Chopra is intellectually honest about a line of BS he makes a whole lot of money on.

  3. on 21 Jan 2013 at 8:09 pm 3.Martin said …

    “God is supposed to be omnibenevolent and perfectly moral.”

    Whose morality? Atheist’s or God’s?

  4. on 21 Jan 2013 at 9:50 pm 4.Anonymous said …

    Once again we see the fucktard troll Martin ignore the subject of the OP and try to divert the subject with a desperate strawman.

    Martin, try not to be such an asshole, it’s really getting boring.

    (1) Explain to us the moral values that go along with a so-called god that ignores all the tragedy on this earth and whose interaction is completely indistinguishable from non-existence.

    (2) Martin, do *you* consider a god that ignores suffering to be an exemplar of moral values?

  5. on 21 Jan 2013 at 10:13 pm 5.Martin said …

    “whose (God) interaction is completely indistinguishable from non-existence.”

    Since you have only witnessed existence or non-existence, how can you make the argument you can distinguish existence from non-existence? Would this claim not be fallacious since you cannot have such data available?

    “do *you* consider a god that ignores suffering to be an exemplar of moral values?”

    Whose morality would I be using? Atheist’s or God’s?

  6. on 21 Jan 2013 at 10:36 pm 6.DPK said …

    “do *you* consider a god that ignores suffering to be an exemplar of moral values?”

    Whose morality would I be using? Atheist’s or God’s?

    Nice try at a dodge… how about “yours”?

    Do you consider a god that ignores suffering and inflicts pain to be exemplary of your moral values? Simple question… “yes” or “no” will suffice.
    But I predict neither will be forthcoming.

  7. on 22 Jan 2013 at 1:51 am 7.A said …

    ‘If God exists, then “Go and do likewise” applies to God as well.”

    So blogmaster has given God a command. Let me know how that goes. But blogo respond to this question. How are you doing with “go and do likewise?” If past research is any indicator, atheists as a group are the worst when it comes to generosity.

    But blogo inadvertently does present a point in the theist’s favor. God has commanded man to take care of those in need. We do not do our job and somehow God is supposed to defer his command since his creation will not conform. Such a childlike view of the Supreme deity is creepy.

  8. on 22 Jan 2013 at 3:10 am 8.Anonymous said …

    Oh dear, A (Martin, by another name), you’ve gone and fucked yourself royally here:

    “God has commanded man to take care of those in need.”

    (1) Which god? Ra, Zeus, Odin? You need to be specific.

    (2) Where are these commands. SPECIFICALLY what did he command ((or are you just making shit up?)

    (3) How do you KNOW that this was a command from some god and not the ramblings of the mentally ill or uneducated bronze-age desert nomads?

    “We do not do our job and somehow God is supposed to defer his command since his creation will not conform.”

    (4) So this is not an omnipotent or omniscience god? Which makes (1-3) even more puzzling. WHICH god are you talking about here?

    (5) Why is this god giving orders that are not being followed? Is he impotent or just imaginary?

    (6) Why does this god’s followers have such terrible moral values that they disobey their god? He’s not much of an inspiring leader, is he?

    Please break with your tradition and answer questions.

  9. on 22 Jan 2013 at 4:38 am 9.DPK said …

    ASShole farted:

    “If past research is any indicator, atheists as a group are the worst when it comes to generosity.”

    http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kz8r6uEV8Z1qabgb9o1_500.jpg

  10. on 22 Jan 2013 at 9:02 am 10.Anonymous said …

    Oh, and Martin, which morality is on display here?

    Would that be “god’s” morality, or just plain old child-raping Christian morality?

    Is your obsession with getting others to define morality simply to divert from your personal acceptance of child-rape?

    How many little boys do you consider it moral to fuck? At what point does it become “creepy” and child-like in your mind to disagree with a so-called supreme deity that directs his followers to stick their dicks in the behind of children? 100, 1000? – it’s clearly not zero. As emotional disturbing as it will be, do please clue us in on your hypocritical theology.

    Better yet, perhaps you should stop digging yourself into a hole and try to provide us evidence for the existence of sky daddy? Whilst that’s going to be a barrel of laughs, at least we won’t be so disgusted with your obvious double standards.

  11. on 22 Jan 2013 at 11:40 am 11.Martin said …

    (1) Which god? Ra, Zeus, Odin? You need to be specific.

    That would be the one the thread is addressing in Luke 10 above.

    (2) Where are these commands. SPECIFICALLY what did he command

    They are in Luke 10 as posted in the subject of the thread.

    3) How do you KNOW that this was a command from some god and not the ramblings of the mentally ill or uneducated bronze-age desert nomads?”

    The blogmaster has agreed that this was the command of Jesus as posted in the thread above. I take it you don’t agree with the teaching?

    Rather than getting off topic with the rest of your questions, see post #5.
    ___________________

    “whose (God) interaction is completely indistinguishable from non-existence.”

    Since you have only witnessed existence or non-existence, how can you make the argument you can distinguish existence from non-existence? Would this claim not be fallacious since you cannot have such data available?

    “do *you* consider a god that ignores suffering to be an exemplar of moral values?”

    Whose morality would I be using? Atheist’s or God’s?

  12. on 22 Jan 2013 at 1:24 pm 12.Anonymous said …

    Once again Martin tries to duck the questions and refers to other people’s comments. It’s all about avoidance isn’t it?

    What’s the matter, afraid to commit to an answer because you know once you do you’ll be asked to tell us why YOU believe what YOU do.

    Seeing as A/Martin refuses to provide direct answers, yet demands answers to his/her/its strawman arguments, the point is proven. “Martin” is another dishonest poster only intent in diverting the OP away from the theist’s burden of proving the existence of their imaginary friend.

  13. on 22 Jan 2013 at 4:35 pm 13.DPK said …

    11 Martin:
    6.DPK said …
    “Whose morality would I be using? Atheist’s or God’s?
    Nice try at a dodge… how about “yours”?
    Do you consider a god that ignores suffering and inflicts pain to be exemplary of your moral values? Simple question… “yes” or “no” will suffice.

    But I predict neither will be forthcoming….”

    My prophetic powers are undeniable, eh?

    Martin, you are such a fraud. Why are you theists always so afraid to answer a direct question? What is it that you are trying to hide?

  14. on 22 Jan 2013 at 5:00 pm 14.Anonymous said …

    “Martin, you are such a fraud”

    No doubt.

    This is the same poster who wants to proclaim himself a judge of “logical arguments”, yet all he does is to create strawman versions of other people’s positions. Note how he quickly he runs for cover when challenged to perform the task he claims others cannot.

    Come-on Martin. We are still waiting for you to (a) directly name the deity that you vaguely reference in your diversions and (b) provide the logical argument for the existence of said deity.

    If you can’t prove it, then admit it. But you also need to stop arguing that people can’t disprove these claims until you can prove the positive.

    People like you who make up fake versions of other people’s arguments yet refuse to even try prove the existence of this supposedly omnipowerful “god” are not only utterly dishonest and untrustworthy, but most likely extremely delusional.

  15. on 22 Jan 2013 at 6:41 pm 15.Martin said …

    If fraud in your vernacular means I stay on subject and asking probing question regarding comments made on this post, OK I agree.

    You refuse to answer two simple question pertinent to the discussion as outlined in the thread. I do believe you would rather discuss people, use fallacies and dismiss uncomfortable questions. I will again reference you to #5 or #3 if you care to answer either question. I will not be wavering off topic so you can chase your rabbits.

  16. on 22 Jan 2013 at 7:24 pm 16.Anonymous said …

    Typical troll remarks by “Martin”. He refuses to answer questions and tries to avoid facing his delusion by insisting that everyone else is beholding to him.

    Again, we are waiting for you to prove that your god exists. We are waiting for you to provide specifics regarding your religion’s moral code. We are waiting for you to explain why your theology allows and celebrates child rape. The list goes on.

    That you squirm and lie to avoid taking responsibility for your burden just adds to your embarrassment and hopelessness.

  17. on 22 Jan 2013 at 8:01 pm 17.Martin said …

    Anonymous I understand your frustration. The questions have you upset and confused. I will stick with the thread topic. It is possible another poster might want to engage in a real discussion and not your hijacking tactics.

  18. on 22 Jan 2013 at 9:05 pm 18.DPK said …

    Oh Martin, you sad troll… we ARE on topic… let’s review:
    in your post “3.Martin said …“God is supposed to be omnibenevolent and perfectly moral.”
    Whose morality? Atheist’s or God’s?

    Now, since you have not shown that there is any such thing as either an “atheist’s morality” or a “god’s morality”, the question was answered “your morality”… assuming you have one. You made vague reference to Luke 10 with “love your neighbor as yourself”. If that 3rd grade concept of morality is all you got, then this should be easy for you.

    On topic… which btw, is “making excuses for god”:

    Do you consider a god that ignores suffering and inflicts pain to be exemplary of your moral values? Simple question… “yes” or “no” will suffice.
    But again, I predict neither will be forthcoming.

  19. on 22 Jan 2013 at 10:07 pm 19.Martin said …

    “The fact that God ignores all of the tragedy on earth proves that God is imaginary.”

    Lets look at this statement from the blogmaster

    1. God ignores all tragedies (his claim)
    2. If God was real, He would not ignore tragedies (his claim)
    3. Therefore, God is not real

    Once again, fallacious reasoning. Human beings all over the world ignore tragedies right in front of their eyes and yet they do exist. I thought I would add this to the long lists of problems with the blogamsters claims.

    How does He know God ignores ALL tragedies?
    How does He know God’s plan?
    How does He know God is doing nothing?

  20. on 22 Jan 2013 at 10:16 pm 20.DPK said …

    Martin, your ADD is showing.
    Why won’t you answer the question?

    “Do you consider a god that ignores suffering and inflicts pain to be exemplary of your moral values?”

    It’s really not that hard of a question. Once you come to grips with that, then we can discuss whether or not your postulated god does or does not in fact “ignores suffering and inflicts pain”. But can we agree at least, that an omni-benevolent god who is perfectly moral, according to YOUR definition of morality, would not “ignore suffering and inflict pain”?

  21. on 22 Jan 2013 at 11:51 pm 21.Martin said …

    DPK, there is no question to answer. You must first establish the question is legitimate by supporting the question’s premises. You and the others have failed to do so. If you can offer some solutions to the problems I have provided we might be able to proceed.

    DPK unfortunately you and anonymous seem more interested in juvenile taunts and names rather than a real discussion.

  22. on 23 Jan 2013 at 12:13 am 22.DPK said …

    And you seem more interested in evading question that you think will expose your delusion. There is no premise to be validated here. The question is simple and straightforward and does not need conditions.

    “Do you consider a god that ignores suffering and inflicts pain to be exemplary of your moral values.”

    Your refusal to answer even he simplistic of yes or no questions is very puzzling.
    Haha… No actually it int puzzling at all, is it. We all know exactly why you won’t answer. Because to do so will lead to you, like the charlatan Chopra, having to start the circular path of making excuses for god.

    So thank ou Martin, for making the point for us in a very poignant way.
    You may now leave and return as Ass or Rostram to try and change the subject.
    My, you are tedious.

  23. on 23 Jan 2013 at 12:55 am 23.alex said …

    evading, ignoring, covering. see: http://goo.gl/WPelN

    but redemption is but a prayer away. puleez.

  24. on 23 Jan 2013 at 2:09 am 24.DPK said …

    “Once again, fallacious reasoning. Human beings all over the world ignore tragedies right in front of their eyes and yet they do exist.”

    True, so then the only logical conclusions are; if this god does exist, he is either not perfectly moral, like people, or he is not omnipotent, like people. Either that, or he simply does not exist. Which is it, Martin?

  25. on 23 Jan 2013 at 2:43 am 25.Lou said …

    “This is explained by God himself (in the form of Jesus) in this parable:”

    How does a command given by God to men apply to God? God has his role but so does men. What a ridiculous example.

  26. on 23 Jan 2013 at 3:40 am 26.Lou(DFW) said …

    25.Louser said …

    “How does a command given by God to men apply to God? God has his role but so does men. What a ridiculous example.”

    http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-910282

  27. on 23 Jan 2013 at 4:03 am 27.DPK said …

    So, your excuse for your god now is “do as I say, not as I do.”
    Ok. That the best you got?

  28. on 23 Jan 2013 at 12:07 pm 28.A said …

    “Once again Martin tries to duck the questions and refers to other people’s comments. It’s all about avoidance isn’t it?”

    Imagine that anon-ymouse, he actually responds to the subject of the thread rather than the atheist parrots.

    What does anony-mouse do? He responds to other peoples comments, namely martin! Secondly, he ducks Martin’s questions! lol!!

    Let me speak in your language. AWK!!!

  29. on 23 Jan 2013 at 12:46 pm 29.MrQ said …

    A *cough cough* What happened to you and Castbound when we were all attempting to have a rational discourse on a previous thread? *cough cough* AWK!!! indeed.

  30. on 23 Jan 2013 at 3:49 pm 30.DPK said …

    The faithful’s responses in this thread serve as a perfect example of exactly what the topic was about… making excuses for god.
    Rules about god.
    1.God is perfect, moral, and all loving.
    2. If god exhibits behavior that is obviously not perfect, moral, and all loving… refer to rule #1.

    More left turns than a Nascar race.

    And, after being asked flat out multiple time to answer a simple yes or no question, Martin disappears and “Ass” shows up to try and divert attention. Just as predicted. This troll is as obvious as a turd on a white carpet, and just as foul.

  31. on 23 Jan 2013 at 5:07 pm 31.Lou(DFW) said …

    3.Martin/Mitch/ASS said …

    “Whose morality? Atheist’s or God’s?”

    ASS you intentionally worded the question so it can’t answered, well at least not honestly, something that you’re not capable of.

    1. There’s no such thing as atheist morality.
    2. There’s no such thing as god’s morality.

    If there is, then please provide it. But, you won’t. You will remain as always, a troll, a liar, a fraud, and a theist.

  32. on 23 Jan 2013 at 7:00 pm 32.Lou said …

    Well can’t argue with DFW there. No such thing as atheist morality

  33. on 23 Jan 2013 at 7:21 pm 33.Lou(DFW) said …

    32.Louser said …

    “Well can’t argue with DFW there. No such thing as atheist morality”

    That’s right, there’s no such thing as atheist morality anymore than there is god’s morality or xtian morality. So what? How is that evidence that your imaginary god is real, or are you simply attempting to divert attention to the fact that you have none?

    Louser, is there a god-given absolute morality? It’s a simple yes or no question. Unless you answer, then I can only assume that you agree with my comment 31.Lou(DFW) to which you referred.

  34. on 23 Jan 2013 at 9:58 pm 34.Lou(DFW) said …

    3.Martin/Mitch/ASS said …

    “Whose morality? Atheist’s or God’s?”

    Both your comment and the one to which you referred are irrelevant because the imaginary god’s reactions to “Something terrible happens, people suffer, they implore God for help…” is EXACTLY the same as if god doesn’t exist – “…no help comes.” But, it’s not because imaginary god is or isn’t “omnibenevolent and perfectly moral.” It’s simply obvious that god is imaginary. If he isn’t, then please present your evidence for your imaginary god – it’s that simple, but you can’t do it.

  35. on 24 Jan 2013 at 12:30 am 35.alex said …

    jesus proof: http://goo.gl/zjTE2

    har fucking har.

  36. on 24 Jan 2013 at 3:14 am 36.Curmudgeon said …

    I use to believe alex was the most intellectually challenged atheist here but I now think it must be Lou(dfw). He once claimed Metaphysics is useless and now he claims atheist morality doesn’t exist.

    Amazing, how to battle such ignorance?

  37. on 24 Jan 2013 at 3:20 am 37.The messenger said …

    God doesn’t igrore us, Thomas.

    He loves us all and after death, he lets us go to heaven if we have been good people on earth. If we live siful lives we will go to hell and stay there until our sentence is up.

  38. on 24 Jan 2013 at 3:37 am 38.DPK said …

    Curm reappears after “Martin” and the other socks are humiliated.
    Curm, despite your myopic inability to think on your own, please show us “atheist morality” that you claim exists.
    You are an idiot. Atheism is disbelief in supernatural gods. No more, no less. There is no “atheist morality” any more than there is a “people who don’t like broccoli” morality, or a “people who don’t believe in fairies” morality.
    Care to show us otherwise?

  39. on 24 Jan 2013 at 3:37 am 39.alex said …

    “I use to believe alex was the most intellectually challenged atheist…”

    and? i already tolya. i’m the dumbest motherfucker in here. is this your god proof? i’m also wrong on all counts, so that confirms your bullshit monotheistic god, yes? since all the other gods exist.

    fucken sock puppet moron.

  40. on 24 Jan 2013 at 3:52 am 40.The messenger said …

    Brother 39.alex, I don’t mean this as an insult ok, I am really serious when I say this, you need help. I honestly do not think that you are mentally alright, please get help as soon as possible.

  41. on 24 Jan 2013 at 4:11 am 41.Lou(DFW) said …

    36.Crumb said …

    “I use to believe…”

    Nobody cares what you “use” to believe.

    “Lou(dfw)…claims atheist morality doesn’t exist. Amazing, how to battle such ignorance?”

    Easy, you moron, provide the “atheist morality!” Indeed, how to battle such ignorance?! It baffles the imagination to think that you can be so utterly stupid, so you really can’t be, can you? The only other explanation is that you are simply a pathetic liar.

  42. on 24 Jan 2013 at 4:43 am 42.Lou(DFW) said …

    36.Crumb said …

    “Lou(dfw)..once claimed Metaphysics is useless”

    Actually, I didn’t make that claim. Regardless, your prior use of it then and reference to it now hasn’t served to distract anybody from the fact that you don’t have any evidence for your imaginary god, and that you can’t provide your alleged god-given absolute morality nor alleged atheist morality – fraud.

  43. on 24 Jan 2013 at 4:15 pm 43.DPK said …

    41.Lou(DFW) said …

    “Easy, you moron, provide the “atheist morality!”

    Should we tell him about the secret atheist handshake and what REALLY happens in the restaurant once all the theists leave? I mean when we roast the babies on the BBQ pit and drink the blood of virgins and all that atheist stuff?

  44. on 24 Jan 2013 at 4:58 pm 44.Anonymous said …

    Well, better for Curm to try to change the subject from the the non-existent Christian moral code, or proof of the existence of their supposed-god, then attend to actual matters of reality.

    It’s astonishing that someone can be so deluded to claim that their imaginary god is the source of morality when that god’s earthly representatives systematically abuse their power to rape children with impunity. That the church had no issue covering up these acts further questions just how seriously (or not) the church believes its own propaganda about sin.

    But then, the church is all about power, isn’t it?

    On the other hand, our little troll Messenger will probably now tell us that as the ten commandments doesn’t specifically say “priests should not stick their dicks up the ass of little boys” so, maybe, it’s not against the Xtian moral code after all? That – and their god being imaginary – would explain why their god didn’t stop those rapes, right?

    So Curm, just where was your god when those priests were speaking for him by raping some 100,000 little kids in the last half-century in the name of the church?

    http://www.bishop-accountability.org/AtAGlance/data.htm

  45. on 24 Jan 2013 at 5:36 pm 45.Lou(DFW) said …

    44.Anonymous said …

    “So Curm, just where was your god when those priests were speaking for him by raping some 100,000 little kids…?”

    I just want to see the god-given absolute moral code. It’s written-down somewhere, right? So what’s the problem Crumb-fraud producing it?

  46. on 24 Jan 2013 at 5:38 pm 46.DPK said …

    37.The messenger said …
    “God doesn’t igrore us, Thomas.
    He loves us all and after death, he lets us go to heaven if we have been good people on earth. If we live siful lives we will go to hell and stay there until our sentence is up.”

    William, you have been told over and over… according to the official DOCTRINE of the Catholic Church… no one gets out of hell. Hell is forever, for ALL Eternity…. A DOCTRINE is something you MUST believe if you are a catholic. If you defy DOCTRINE, you are excommunicated, and you will be joining all us atheists in hell… for ALL ETERNITY.
    How does that strike you? A god who will punish you for your transgression for ever and ever and ever. Doesn’t sound too merciful and loving to me.

    Notice that your posted ten commandments have a whole bunch of directives aimed at making sure you don’t worship any other gods (seriously, wouldn’t ONE have done) but none that say “thou shalt not own slaves” or “thou shalt not ass rape little children” or “thou shalt not protect pedophiles from legal authorities”, or even, “thou shalt not adorn thyself in gold, precious jewels, and Gucci loafers and amass a fortune larger than many entire nations while children starve to death daily”. Hmmm.. seems these commandments were more likely written by clerics interested in maintaining control over their “flocks” than by some perfect, magnanimous being. You are what is known in the vernacular as a “sucker”, and indeed, there is one of you born every minute.

  47. on 24 Jan 2013 at 6:14 pm 47.Lou(DFW) said …

    40.The messenger said …

    “Brother 39.alex, I don’t mean this as an insult ok…”

    Yes you do.

    “I am really serious when I say this, you need help. I honestly do not think that you are mentally alright, please get help as soon as possible.”

    Why don’t you simply pray for him?

  48. on 24 Jan 2013 at 6:55 pm 48.DPK said …

    “Why don’t you simply pray for him?”

    Why would he pray for him? Didn’t god make Alex exactly as he is for a reason? Messenger already told us many times that everything that happens, yes, even the Holocaust, happened because god had a reason for it, and it happened exactly the way god wanted? Why would messenger want Alex to defy almighty god and “get help”. If Alex is supposed to “get help” won’t god provide it for him?

    Since god created me with a skeptical personality, and um, a brain… and god never “revealed” himself to me, I can only assume god WANTS me to be atheistic. Right? All these stupid theists are trying to battle against gods plan… aren’t they? They are all doing the work of….. SATAN!!!!
    Go to confession right now, all of you. Confess to the evil you have done and pray that god will forgive you for working against his holy plan.

  49. on 24 Jan 2013 at 9:19 pm 49.Dez said …

    After reading Chopra’s blog post I fail to see any excuse? What I saw was a resolution enlightening the nature of God. Where was the excuse he made?

  50. on 24 Jan 2013 at 9:23 pm 50.Anonymous said …

    A, Chris, Curmudgeon, Dez, Rostam, Lou, Xenon – No wonder there’s a strange odor in here, the place is full of socks!

  51. on 24 Jan 2013 at 9:55 pm 51.Lou(DFW) said …

    49.Dizzy said …

    “After reading Chopra’s blog post I fail to see any excuse? What I saw was a resolution enlightening the nature of God.

    First of all, what Chopra writes is mostly nonsensical babbling of little or no substance. That’s how makes a living off of suckers like you. But hey, what’s new in theology and religion?

    “Where was the excuse he made?”

    “[Y]ou take on faith that his infinite wisdom reaches beyond our limited perspective – in other words, suffering fits into the divine plan.”

    Apparently, imaginary god doesn’t hold himself to the same moral standards to which he holds man. But, if man causes suffering to the extent that imaginary god does, then it’s also part of imaginary god’s plan.

    Or –

    30.DPK said …

    The faithful’s responses in this thread serve as a perfect example of exactly what the topic was about… making excuses for god.

    Rules about god.
    1.God is perfect, moral, and all loving.
    2. If god exhibits behavior that is obviously not perfect, moral, and all loving… refer to rule #1.

    More left turns than a Nascar race.

  52. on 25 Jan 2013 at 2:24 am 52.The messenger said …

    Brother 46.DPK, it is not me who fails to understand Catholic doctrine, it is you who fails to understand it.

  53. on 25 Jan 2013 at 2:27 am 53.The messenger said …

    Brother 47.Lou(DFW), I honestly did not mean that as an insult. I honestly think that there is something wrong with Alex and I think that he should get help.

    I did pray for him, and I prayed for you too.

  54. on 25 Jan 2013 at 2:28 am 54.The messenger said …

    I am still praying now.

  55. on 25 Jan 2013 at 5:12 pm 55.DPK said …

    52.The messenger said …

    Brother 46.DPK, it is not me who fails to understand Catholic doctrine, it is you who fails to understand it.

    Here is the official teaching of your church according to Pope Joh Paul II. I know most of the words are too big for you, so I have pasted the important, relevant section for you:
    http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm

    Hell is the State of Those who Reject God

    …It is precisely this tragic situation that Christian doctrine explains when it speaks of ETERNAL damnation or hell. It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life…

    Hell is a state of ETERNAL DAMNATION.

    …the New Testament presents the place destined for evildoers as a fiery furnace, where people will “weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 13:42; cf. 25:30, 41), or like Gehenna with its “unquenchable fire” (Mk 9:43). All this is narrated in the parable of the rich man, which explains that hell is a place of ETERNAL suffering, with NO POSSIBILITY of return, nor of the alleviation of pain (cf. Lk. 16:19-3 1).

    “Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God’s initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice FOR EVER. God’s judgement ratifies this state.

    Now William… go look up the definitions of ETERNAL and FOREVER. Then admit you are wrong and go tell the priest you need to be forgiven for being a heretic.

  56. on 26 Jan 2013 at 7:38 am 56.My loving brother,U gave many explanations that god is imaginary,but brother just think if you were an orphan your mother and father left you,if somebody comes to u and ask u that if u are an orphan then where are you from or who gave u the birth,I don't said …

    Brother never think that god is no where or he is imaginary but it has been also said: that never think that nobody has seen him(GOD) but the one who is from the father they have seen him.

  57. on 27 Jan 2013 at 7:28 pm 57.Scourge said …

    # 56 Your obvious brilliance outshines the likes of the cleverly encoded brilliance of #36 Cur-Mudgeon

    cur- a mongrel dog, especially a worthless or unfriendly one.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cur

    mudgeon- vagina

    “Any doctor that claims he or she can assist you in your mythical creature quest via nip/tuck to the mudgeon is steering you wrong.”

    -Vesta Vayne

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mudgeon

  58. on 31 Jan 2013 at 1:41 pm 58.Lesbian carwasher said …

    43.DPK said …

    41.Lou(DFW) said …

    “Easy, you moron, provide the “atheist morality!”

    “Should we tell him about the secret atheist handshake and what REALLY happens in the restaurant once all the theists leave? I mean when we roast the babies on the BBQ pit and drink the blood of virgins and all that atheist stuff?”

    i lol’d

  59. on 07 Feb 2013 at 9:03 pm 59.MattD said …

    Mental illness and christianity….obviously a bad mix.

  60. on 12 Feb 2013 at 11:43 pm 60.Anon said …

    It’s simple, christards like The messenger and s0l0m0n are just fucked up in the head.

  61. on 03 Mar 2013 at 11:01 pm 61.the messenger said …

    Brother 55. DPK, Hell was eternal; until God came down from Heaven as Jesus and open the gates of heaven, proved to creation that he can forgive all sins, and started the tradition of baptism (the washing away of sins).

    God loves all people, nomatter who they are or what sins they have committed. therefore he will forgive all people.( in heaven or in hell )

  62. on 05 Mar 2013 at 3:01 am 62.alex said …

    go to your room messenger. quit making up shit. you and your brother s0l are nongratis. shut the fuck up.

  63. on 16 Mar 2013 at 12:57 pm 63.Ambassador said …

    1 Timothy Chapter 4
    1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

    2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

    3 Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

    4 For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

    5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

  64. on 16 Mar 2013 at 1:03 pm 64.Ambassador said …

    Romans 3:23
    King James Version (KJV)
    23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

  65. on 16 Mar 2013 at 1:10 pm 65.Ambassador said …

    John 16:33
    King James Version (KJV)
    33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

  66. on 16 Mar 2013 at 1:24 pm 66.Ambassador said …

    Romans Chapter 1
    24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

    25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

    27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

  67. on 16 Mar 2013 at 1:46 pm 67.Ambassador said …

    King James was sickly having crippling arthritis, weak limbs, abdominal colic, gout, and a number of other chronic illnesses. He also had physical handicaps which affected his legs and tongue. Coupled with numerous attempts on his life, he required constant attention and watchcare.

  68. on 16 Mar 2013 at 1:49 pm 68.Ambassador said …

    King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
    And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

  69. on 16 Mar 2013 at 1:50 pm 69.Ambassador said …

    2 Corinthians 12:6-8
    King James Version (KJV)
    6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.

    7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

    8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.

  70. on 16 Mar 2013 at 1:58 pm 70.Ambassador said …

    Obadiah 1:15 “The day of the LORD is near for all nations. As you have done, it will be done to you; your deeds will return upon your own head.

  71. on 16 Mar 2013 at 2:00 pm 71.Ambassador said …

    (1 John 2:18 KJV) Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

  72. on 16 Mar 2013 at 2:03 pm 72.Ambassador said …

    Luke 23:34
    King James Version (KJV)
    34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

  73. on 16 Mar 2013 at 2:13 pm 73.Ambassador said …

    It’s important to remember that an Atheist needs to honestly accept Christ into their heart to become a Christian. This act is not something that can be forced on another person. At some point, you may need to accept and respect their decision to not seek salvation through Christianity.

    Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. (Leviticus 19:17-19)

  74. on 16 Mar 2013 at 2:30 pm 74.Ambassador said …

    I did not believe Santa was real when I was a
    kid. But I still Got presents under the tree.
    Just like you don’t have to believe in God,
    but he still left a present on the tree.
    HONOR THY MOTHER AND FATHER>
    Thanks mom and dad for the Christmas gifts even though
    I was a hard-headed son who didn’t deserve it!
    LOVE THY LORD WITH ALL YOUR HEART>
    Thanks God For sending your son to die for my sins
    even though I am a Hard-headed son who doesn’t deserve
    it! – GOD BLESS YOU ALL especially Atheist!!!

  75. on 16 Mar 2013 at 2:31 pm 75.MrQ said …

    What a load of shit from the ambassador. Loads of bible quotes to try and prove what exactly?

    Ambassador: Why didn’t act honestly, open your heart and eyes, and accept Allah into your heart? At some point Muslims will need to accept that you will remain a blind christian (equal in value to a slimy atheist, in their view). The Muslims will need to accept and respect your ignorance of religion.

    Between you and me, though, if you see a Muslim and hear that he/she is ticking, you better run like hell. Just a little free advice.

  76. on 16 Mar 2013 at 2:50 pm 76.alex said …

    Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, motherfucker. if i find your ass, fucking around on sunday, i will stone you with little rocks until you ouch.

  77. on 16 Mar 2013 at 5:58 pm 77.DPK said …

    “74.Ambassador said …

    I did not believe Santa was real when I was a
    kid. But I still Got presents under the tree.
    Just like you don’t have to believe in God,
    but he still left a present on the tree.”

    WTF?
    This is the stupidest thing I’ve heard yet from a theist. You STILL got a present…. BUT SANTA ISN’T REAL!!!
    Just like your imaginary god… who you ALSO think gives you presents… he doesn’t… because, just like SANTA, if is imaginary.
    How come you were bright enough to figure out Santa wasn’t real, but you still think there is an invisible man who listens to your thoughts, answers your prayers (while letting almost 10 million people starve to death every year, no less) and will take you away to a magical kingdom in the sky when you die… IF you worship him and try not to do bad things.
    Seriously?
    Unless you want to start a bible quoting war, take your King James crap elsewhere. For every inspirational quote you can cut and paste I can find one that will make your hair stand on end.

  78. on 16 Mar 2013 at 8:56 pm 78.The messenger said …

    77.DPK, I feel sorry for you.

  79. on 16 Mar 2013 at 11:58 pm 79.alex said …

    go away messenger, nongratis#1.

  80. on 23 Mar 2013 at 12:43 am 80.Adam said …

    There was a hurricane. A man was trap on his roof, praying to God to come to rescue him, and suddenly some people on a boat come around the corner asking if he needed help, he said no I’m waiting for God to save me, so they went on their way. The storm is starting to get worse so the man again prays to God to rescue him, another boat comes along and ask if he needs help, just like the first time the man says no I’m waiting for God to save me. The storm now is great really really bad. The man prays to God, please God help me! A helicopter comes by and ask if he needs help, and just like the first and second time the man says no I’m waiting for God to help me. Now the hurricane is here and its so bad that the man drowned, when he got to Heaven he ask God, God why didn’t you help me when I prayed to you? God replied I sent 2 boats and a helicopter, what more do you want?

  81. on 23 Mar 2013 at 12:50 am 81.alex said …

    “God replied I sent 2 boats and a helicopter, what more do you want?”

    in other words, anything that happens is because god did it? is that it? if not, then god didn’t really send the fucking boats/chopper did he? if it’s true, then do you have insurance? do you fasten your seat belts? put on your condom before fucking a prostitute? why do you do all these things if god does everything?

    you don’t really think, he sent the boats/choppers? why do you go around telling bullshit stories? dude, this is an atheist site.

  82. on 23 Mar 2013 at 4:16 am 82.The messenger said …

    81.alex, you are so misinformed.

    God does not do everything, he just plans out everything.

    God wants us to better ourselves and the rest of mankind by learning how to keep our selves safe from harm.

    Buckling our seat belts, and having insurance is a part of God’s plan.
    God wants us to learn to make smart, and safe decisions.

  83. on 23 Mar 2013 at 4:29 am 83.The messenger said …

    Brother 76.alex, Jesus taught us not to stone people in this passage.

    8 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees *brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, 4 they *said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” 6 They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. 7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. 10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11 She said, “No one, [b]Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.”]

    This passage means that only people who have never sinned are allowed to punish or order someone else to punish bad people. Therefore, sense God is the only man who has never sinned, he is the only person who can punish bad people, or order someone else to punish bad people.

  84. on 03 May 2013 at 5:28 pm 84.A Fellow Sinner said …

    Let me ask you something. Would you rather live in a country where a dictator rules over you and tells you ever move you must make and your family must make? Or would you prefer to live in a free society where you can make your own decisions and raise your family as you please?

    Our Father in Heaven is not a dictator. He created GOOD and we have a choice. We can choose darkness or we can choose light.

    In this parable our Lord and Savior is HELPING us by guiding us toward that light, as he did constantly during his ministry.

    If he were speaking to the righteous, who are humble and had already accepted God’s Word, then you might have a point. Because God DOES direct those people. But he was not. He was speaking to those who had not accepted His Word:

    “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Luke 5:32

  85. on 20 Oct 2013 at 11:02 pm 85.7 heavens said …

    May it come to all and will come to all but by thy own earnship that at that moment when your gift of life expires and suddenly it all comes to real that you find yourself standing in front of the most high and then reality hits home like a thunder bolt that therr is no second chance at your previous doings I only pray that our lord has pitty on yous all, a very sad night for me to hav left this notice I will indeed pray for every 1 connected to the site good nite to you all and god bless, and remember that satan is out to deceive as many as he can please dont be 1of them

  86. on 21 Oct 2013 at 12:19 pm 86.Angus and Alexis said …

    You realize atheists do not believe in prayer, Satan or your god, right?

    Your prayer is meaningless to me.

  87. on 10 Nov 2013 at 12:50 am 87.anonymus said …

    This website is stupid GOD IS REAL AND SO IS JESUS U WILL BE PUNISHED WHEN HE COME AND HE WILL BE COMING SOON AND SO YOU WILL BE SENT TO HELL IF YOU DONT FORGIVE TO YOUR CREATOR AND SAVIOR! DO YOU UNDERSTAND! YOU MADE THE WRONG CHOICE AND WHEN HE COMES YOU WILL REGRET IT WITH YYOUR LIFE AND YOUU WILL REMEMBER THIS MESSAGE. GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOU! SATAN HAS CLOSED YOUR EYES TO NOT SEE REALITY BUT IN THE NAME OF JESUS TO WHOEVER IS READING THIS IN THE NAME OF JESUS I DECLARE YOU FREE OF ANY DEMON! AMEN.

    FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HOS ONE AND ONLY SON,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. JOHN 3:16

  88. on 10 Nov 2013 at 4:59 am 88.Angus and Alexis said …

    Awww, how loving of god, he gives you eternal pain for not worshiping him like some form of dictator.

    So, any proof of this god?

  89. on 09 Dec 2013 at 2:35 pm 89.beediee said …

    I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of God. I think I can pretty much confirm that the multiple religious points of view about God and the peripheral belief systems concerning God are hog wash.

  90. on 22 Feb 2014 at 4:09 pm 90.Ravi said …

    Have you ever thought of the world you are living in? First of all, have u ever thought of the living room or bedroom you are enjoying? Do you know that the bedroom,living room,kitchen, your city, your territory, your city, your country, and of course the earth is revolving and rotating constantly? What happens if this earth stops rotating or revolving? What happens if the speed of rotating or revolving decreases or increases? You may not be afraid of anyone but you have to fear the Creator of this Universe you are living in.

  91. on 22 Feb 2014 at 4:27 pm 91.alex said …

    “What happens if the speed of rotating or revolving decreases or increases? You may not be afraid of anyone but you have to fear the Creator of this Universe you are living in.”

    dude, if atheists aren’t afraid of eternal hell, what the fuck are you talking about? you know what i’m scare of? the dumbasses that drive the streets.

    you think you can convince the atheists here with your lame ass shit? i’m supposed to be afraid of your creator that can’t even wrestle? oh, maybe not. you’re prolly one of them raghead, fuckheads that believes in the magifucking horse that mohamadfuck was riding on.

  92. on 22 Feb 2014 at 5:45 pm 92.A said …

    Ravi

    let me sum up what Alexis will hive you.

    f-bomb
    f-bomb
    f-bomb
    f-bomb
    f-bomb
    f-bomb
    f-bomb

    MF
    MF
    MF
    MF
    MF

    The end. Its all Alexis has to offer. Good luck Ravi.

  93. on 22 Feb 2014 at 7:05 pm 93.alex said …

    sorry, ravi, whom i suspect is the same dumb motherfucker as hor/martin/etc. keep posting, sooner or later, you’ll slip and predictably you’ll whine, “i’m this and that. i’m evewybody…wah, you caught me in a bad time. right after i’ve been watching debbie does xtian, wah!”.

    all the fuckhead theists here have to offer is strawman, strawman, bullshit, bullshit, deny, divert, strawman, bullshit, dna programmer, ocean swimming, hitler, foreskins, repeat, rinse……

  94. on 22 Feb 2014 at 8:05 pm 94.DPK said …

    “What happens if the speed of rotating or revolving decreases or increases?”
    It most certainly has, and it most certainly will… nothing I can do about it. Did you think the earth was always hospitable to life?? Do you think it will remain so forever? Let me ask, how old do you think the universe is?? 6 thousand years???

    “You may not be afraid of anyone but you have to fear the Creator of this Universe you are living in.”

    You mean the all know, all loving god who loves me unconditionally and sacrificed himself to himself to appease himself for the sin that the first human committed, exactly as he had been designed to do, and exactly as god KNEW he would for an infinite time before he made him… exactly as he planned?
    I should fear THAT Creator?? Why? According to “A” and Messy, he already knows everything that will ever happen down to the most miniscule detail. Again, I am powerless to change any of it.
    You people are such a tangle of contradictions….

  95. on 22 Feb 2014 at 10:29 pm 95.A said …

    Ravi,

    Forgot to add, alexis/ dpk (Moe) will claim we are the same poster. That sums up their contribution. Good luck! They are fun to just mess with.. .:)

  96. on 22 Feb 2014 at 10:35 pm 96.alex said …

    “Forgot to add, alexis/ dpk (Moe) will claim we are the same poster”

    do you deny all the other imposters you’ve used? or will you blurt out the same “i’m evevyone”? should i trot the “Book of Hor” which you are so afraid of? so afraid you won’t even open it? you’re so stupid, you think clicking on a link will fuck up your jesus freakon?

  97. on 23 Feb 2014 at 12:54 am 97.A said …

    “should i trot the “Book of Hor” which you are so afraid of? ”

    ROTFL!!!!!!!! This is some of the best stuff ever on this blog!

    Sure I’m still everyone including Ravi. And yeah bring me the book!!!!! The Book of Whore! Great! Sounds like a great movie!

    This is so fun! Lol!!!!!!!!

  98. on 23 Feb 2014 at 2:32 pm 98.DPK said …

    Not nearly as much fun as busting you for sock puppetting, watching as you fail to provide :
    Evidence your god exists.
    Explanations of how he could be omniscient and omnipotent simultaneously.
    The absolute code of morality you claim exists and was presented by your supposed god being.
    An explanation of how you reconcile this mysterious, yet absolute code of morality with the obviously immoral things, liks slavery, genocide, infanticide and such that this same supposed god instructs in the bible.
    Your explanation for exactly how the first cell formed, which you claim to know.
    Your explanation for the diversity of life, from simple to complex, without the process of evolution, which you claim is a lie.
    Your explanation, and evidence, to your claim that the current concensus of historians about the authorship of the gospels is wrong.

    These are actually the “best stuff” on this blog!

  99. on 23 Feb 2014 at 3:02 pm 99.alex said …

    free will to choose eternal bliss or punishment? how the fuck are they different? virgins will not stay pure forever, torture becomes bearable over time, and jesus’ incessant sermons will drive you insane. my proof? i don’t have to prove shit. heaven/hell is your bullshit, you prove it.

    even if you throw out the eternal shit, how the fuck is it free will when your choice is obvious. don’t even try trotting out the dog meat shit. a comparable choice is, giving the dog a choice of two rooms. one with food and the other with a deep pit full of scary creatures/monsters including hor and messenger. which choice do you think for the dog?

    unless of course, if the dog is retarded, he might not pick rightly. hey wait! isn’t that what retards do? go to hell, because in their retarded heart, they never accepted hesus?

    fucking, morons.

  100. on 12 Sep 2014 at 5:15 am 100.Anonymous said …

    hope you got my message on the blog. hope it goes all over the world. God saved me from drowning twice by miracles. i can’t swim and God kept me up in two rivers. i cried out twice to HIM THAT IS JUST THE WAY IT IS FOLKS. I HAVE Asked Him to forgive me and I love Him but have not spent enough time in prayer with Him. Stupid heh,especialy when i know He is there in Heaven and can help us down here.

  101. on 12 Sep 2014 at 5:17 am 101.Janet Mather said …

    MY NAME i’M NOT ASHAMED OF THE GOSPEL-IT HAS THE POWER TO SAVE.

  102. on 12 Sep 2014 at 5:18 am 102.JANET MATHER said …

    TO YOU ALL; I CAN’T SWIM AND JUMPED INTO TWO DEEP RIVERS SYNDEHAM IN DRESDEN ON. AND THE DETROIT RIVER IN WINDSOR. GOD KEPT ME UP AND IN THE SYNDEHAM I WENT BACK AND FORTH AND NOT BY MY OWN WILL. SO NONE OF YOU CAN TELL ME GOD DOESN’T EXIST AND HE LOVES US TO LOVE LIFE AND HAS LOVED MAKING US AND THEN DIED TO SAVE US, AND YES I HATE TO ADMIT IT THE BOOK OF REVELATION IS TRUE. I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO COURT TO REVISE THE MONKEY TRIALS-ALL I WOULD HAve to do is bring my experience and those of others that have been healed by God,including the ones that God used EVANGELISTS TO BE PART OF. YES, THEY ARE ONLY HUMAN BUT THEY WERE USED STILL TO ALLOW GOD(JESUS) TO DO HIS WORK. i am not lying and feel so sorry for people who do not believe in Him and what He did for them. the only thing i wish is that i would have prayed more to Him for direction in my life. HE IS A GREAT AND AWESOME
    GOD AND I FEEL SORRY FOR THE ONES THAT DON’T KNOW HIM AND I WANT TO BE CLOSER TO HIM AND WISH I WOULD HAVE DONE SO BEFORE THIS. I HAVE ONLY SPENT A LITTLE TIME WITH HIM AND WISH NOW I WOULD HAVE WRITTEN PRAYERS IN A JOURNAL TO HIM. I CRY OVER THAT.

  103. on 12 Sep 2014 at 6:11 am 103.JANET MATHER said …

    BY THE WAY I WENT BACK AND READ SOME OF THE BLOGS. WHO ARE WE THAT WE CAN TELL GOD Anything-He made all of us. i am ashamed and cry for all of us. i have told you all the truth and i’m am not saying all evangelists that saw miracles were true but many were AND ARE, LIKE KATHERINE KULMAN, FROM YEARS AGO. MANY OF YOU YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE NOT HEARD OF HER BUT GOD DID MANY HEALING MIRACLES IN HER MEETINGS. THAT IS JUST THE WAY IT IS. MANY HAVE DIED NOW BUT THERE ARE SOME STILL ALIVE. SO I SAY TO HAWKINS AND OTHERS THAT I KNOW GOD IS REAL AND THAT JESUS DIED FOR MY SINS. AND NOTHING CAN STOP ME FROM KNOWING THAT. I AM STUPID FOR NOT PRAYING TO HIM MORE, IT IS NOT HIS FAULT. I WANT TO CRY FOR ALL OF YOU WHO DO NOT BELIEVE AND FOR MYSELF FOR NOT TALKING AND PRAYING TO HIM MORE. I AM TELLING YOU ALL THYE COMPLETE TRUTH. AND THAT IS JUST THE WAY IT IS………………………………………….

  104. on 12 Sep 2014 at 6:13 am 104.JANET MATHER said …

    BY THE WAY I WENT BACK AND READ SOME OF THE BLOGS. WHO ARE WE THAT WE CAN TELL GOD Anything-He made all of us. i am ashamed and cry for all of us. i have told you all the truth and i’m am not saying all evangelists that saw miracles were true but many were AND ARE, LIKE KATHERINE KULMAN, FROM YEARS AGO. MANY OF YOU YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE NOT HEARD OF HER BUT GOD DID MANY HEALING MIRACLES IN HER MEETINGS. THAT IS JUST THE WAY IT IS. MANY HAVE DIED NOW BUT THERE ARE SOME STILL ALIVE. SO I SAY TO HAWKINS AND OTHERS THAT I KNOW GOD IS REAL AND THAT JESUS DIED FOR MY SINS. AND NOTHING CAN STOP ME FROM KNOWING THAT. I AM STUPID FOR NOT PRAYING TO HIM MORE, IT IS NOT HIS FAULT. I WANT TO CRY FOR ALL OF YOU WHO DO NOT BELIEVE AND FOR MYSELF FOR NOT TALKING AND PRAYING TO HIM MORE. I AM TELLING YOU ALL THYE COMPLETE TRUTH. AND THAT IS JUST THE WAY IT IS………………………………………….
    WANTED TO SAY IT AGAIN BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

  105. on 13 Sep 2014 at 1:54 pm 105.jeremy crofutt said …

    God is real and if you read the bible and do what it says then you will see and hear that god is real. God is a just god. God also is a loving god. A merciful god. Why was jesus bones never found? Cause his body was taken by god.

  106. on 13 Sep 2014 at 3:45 pm 106.alex said …

    “if you read the bible and do what it says…”

    says, quit being a bitch ass hypocrite and go to your room and pray. matthew 6:5-6

    now, shut the fuck up, asshole.

  107. on 13 Sep 2014 at 3:57 pm 107.alex said …

    matthew 6:5-6

    oh, sorry. i’m not a qualified theologibullshitian. only messenger, tj, and the rest of the morons are allowed to quote and/or translate the bullshit bible.

    10,000 year old earth, anyone?

  108. on 14 Sep 2014 at 2:34 am 108.TJ said …

    If your going to bring me into this this Alex, don’t be shy. Include my link so they can access all the bullshit words I’ve spoken. The ones you saw fit to record if you needed to destroy what I attribute to God.

    You’ve recorded all the links so it’s legit.

    They can surly judge for them selves?

  109. on 14 Sep 2014 at 12:00 pm 109.alex said …

    “I don’t discuss theology with an atheist.”

    your dipshit cousin said this. it’s not even about discussion. when your same, fucked up bible is quoted for the bullshit, you motherfuckers always resort to “out of context”, “this is the real interpretation”, or “not literal”.

    “Include my link…”

    do it yourself, you dumb motherfucker.

    “if you needed to destroy what I attribute to God.”

    are you denying your claim of the 10,000 year old earth? what exactly do i need to destroy? bullshit, after bullshit, you spew i don’t need to destroy, you dumb motherfucker.

  110. on 14 Sep 2014 at 11:21 pm 110.the messenger said …

    106.alex, you stupidity never leaves. Both you and fred are so dense in the head. its actually funny.

  111. on 14 Sep 2014 at 11:30 pm 111.the messenger said …

    109.alex, I already told you and Fred, the “Adam and eve and Noah story” is just a story that Moses used to teach the Jews about certain moral teachings.

    IT IS NOT LITERAL.

    THIS IS NOT A SELF INTERPRETATION, YOU IDIOTIC BULLCRAP, THIS INTERPRETATION HAS BEEN AROUND FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

  112. on 15 Sep 2014 at 2:01 am 112.DPK said …

    Now messy, you have repeatedly told us here that all the species we see in the world today evolved from the animals that Noah had on the ark.
    Now you are saying it’s just a myth? Make up your mind. Lol!

  113. on 15 Sep 2014 at 2:00 pm 113.alex said …

    “these few species of animals that were on the ark multiplied and evolved into different kinds of animals and kept multiplying and changing and forming new species, and eventually formed into the animals that are with us today.”

    “I already told you and Fred, the “Adam and eve and Noah story” is just a story that Moses used to teach the Jews about certain moral teachings.”

    courtesy of the same moron who spewed:
    “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her”.

    don’t take my word for it. it’s all here: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    shut your ass, dumbass, messenger.

  114. on 16 Sep 2014 at 2:42 am 114.the messenger said …

    112.DPK, when I wrote about the “all the species we see in the world today evolved from the animals that Noah had on the ark ,theory” I was attempting to inform you all of some of the corrupted beliefs of some of the protestant minorities. I guess that I should have made that clear.

  115. on 16 Sep 2014 at 2:46 am 115.the messenger said …

    112.DPK, yes the Noah and Adam and eve story is not a historical account. It is in fact a metaphorical story, used by Moses, to teach the ancient Jews morality. It was not viewed as literal by them, and it is not viewed as literal by the catholic church.

  116. on 16 Sep 2014 at 2:49 am 116.the messenger said …

    113.alex, I here by dubth thee ,yonder idiot, “King of out of context”.

    Go forth, yonder simpleton, and wallow in the filth that spews from you mouth.

  117. on 24 Sep 2014 at 3:52 am 117.chelsea said …

    Gods not but he is alive

  118. on 24 Sep 2014 at 3:55 am 118.chelsea said …

    God is the king of kings and no matter what anyone says gods alive a
    nd does exist

  119. on 24 Sep 2014 at 3:58 am 119.chelsea said …

    Your getting this from a 16 year old and there you guys go acting like kids

  120. on 24 Sep 2014 at 4:00 am 120.chelsea said …

    God is real and that is that one day or a another you’ll find that to be true to, have you ever saw the movie gods not dead based on a true story stop denying the fact that GODS NOT DEAD

  121. on 24 Sep 2014 at 4:02 am 121.Anonymous said …

    GOD IS REAL you’ll Realize that one day but when the time is right

  122. on 24 Sep 2014 at 5:42 am 122.alex said …

    “GOD IS REAL”

    i’m wit ya, my mooslum bruh! let’s fuck up some xtian infidels. you wit me?

  123. on 25 Oct 2014 at 2:00 am 123.God is real said …

    God does answer your prayers it all depends what you ask for,what reason,if it will help you or harm you, and how your asking Him. You cannot deceive he knows the intentions for which you pray to Him. He does answer your prayers it all depends. God is the real god because all of the others have flaws. For example the Egyptian gods weren’t perfect they didn’t answer prayers,nor did miracles,they were just statues. Science has flaws as well. Their human,tell me one human that is perfect. In the bible it says ‘…they will be put to death’ yet that doesn’t mean we have to kill them, God takes care of that. Abortion is Gods plan,but it’s for a reason,it’s either a punishment or to prove to them that God exist. The stories you think is not true, are true because God is God he makes the impossible possible. The most unbelievable things,that you might not believe,but they are true. Even now people have experienced unnatural experiences,such as I. Many people have experienced near death experience in Africa,a place where it is not all that advanced. How can this drug be used there? As I said earlier God does answer prayers it all depends on the prayer. If you pray for money and he gives it to you what would you do with it? Waste it with prostitutes? Beer? Drugs? And you complain that God doesn’t give it to you,when in reality you should be thankful that He won’t let you fall into sin. The money we give is to expand His kingdom, so no one gets left behind. For example if we do events to evangelize people,that’s where the money comes from. But the hospital ask for sooo much money for something simple and everything for scientist revolves around money. Isn’t that a little weird? There is for a fact that scientist confess that God is real, But don’t wanna say anything because they’ll lose costumers. Christianism contains NO magic. It isn’t ‘the magical star’ it was the North Star,the resurrection, a miracle etc. there’s proof that God exist through the miracles that people,such as I, have experienced. He appeared to humans when he was on earth, not now because He’s not on earth anymore and nobody is ready to see him. Just like the president,what things do you have to do just to see the president? When back in the day they would walk their dogs outside and meet people just like regular people. People see angels, though. If you don’t believe about the flood and Noah’s Ark well, then why is there more water than earth? In the end if you read the bible and the history and everything, it will make sense.
    God is real
    God bless you
    And I hope you will open your eyes
    Satan is the father of lies, darkness and destruction, be careful.

  124. on 27 Oct 2014 at 11:17 am 124.freddies_dead said …

    123.God is real said …

    God does answer your prayers it all depends what you ask for,what reason,if it will help you or harm you, and how your asking Him.

    Watch as God is real sets it up so that absolutely any answer, including no answer, is an actual answer to your prayer.

    You cannot deceive he knows the intentions for which you pray to Him.

    It is also claimed that He has a plan so why are you trying to get Him to alter that plan just so you can find your keys?

    He does answer your prayers it all depends.

    Any answer at all, including no answer. How convenient.

    God is the real god because all of the others have flaws.

    Like being genocidal perhaps? Or, despite being allegedly perfect, managing to create something that isn’t?

    For example the Egyptian gods weren’t perfect they didn’t answer prayers,nor did miracles,they were just statues.

    I guess God is real hasn’t really checked out the Egyptian Gods. Horus (an Egyptian precursor to Jesus) was said to heal the sick, walk on water and raise the dead (Christians might recognise those feats). The Egyptians also prayed to their Gods and interpreted what happened next as answers to those prayers – just like Christians do.

    Science has flaws as well.

    And, unlike the Bible, a way to overcome them.

    Their human,tell me one human that is perfect. In the bible it says ‘…they will be put to death’ yet that doesn’t mean we have to kill them, God takes care of that.

    Humpty Dumpty…

    Abortion is Gods plan,but it’s for a reason,it’s either a punishment or to prove to them that God exist.

    Lolwut?

    The stories you think is not true, are true because God is God he makes the impossible possible. The most unbelievable things,that you might not believe,but they are true. Even now people have experienced unnatural experiences,such as I. Many people have experienced near death experience in Africa,a place where it is not all that advanced.

    And where those “experiences” cannot be verified. Convenient.

    How can this drug be used there? As I said earlier God does answer prayers it all depends on the prayer. If you pray for money and he gives it to you what would you do with it? Waste it with prostitutes? Beer? Drugs? And you complain that God doesn’t give it to you,when in reality you should be thankful that He won’t let you fall into sin.

    See? Any answer. You pray for money and getting it is God answering your prayer. However, so is God not giving you money. Where’s the control here?

    The money we give is to expand His kingdom, so no one gets left behind.

    Why does your omnipotent God need money to achieve His goals?

    For example if we do events to evangelize people,that’s where the money comes from. But the hospital ask for sooo much money for something simple and everything for scientist revolves around money. Isn’t that a little weird? There is for a fact that scientist confess that God is real, But don’t wanna say anything because they’ll lose costumers.

    And Heaven knows they won’t be able to continue without costumers. After all where will they get the lab coats and stethoscopes?

    Christianism contains NO magic. It isn’t ‘the magical star’ it was the North Star,the resurrection, a miracle etc. there’s proof that God exist through the miracles that people,such as I, have experienced. He appeared to humans when he was on earth, not now because He’s not on earth anymore and nobody is ready to see him. Just like the president,what things do you have to do just to see the president?

    Turn on the TV? Can God not figure out how to work a camera?

    When back in the day they would walk their dogs outside and meet people just like regular people. People see angels, though. If you don’t believe about the flood and Noah’s Ark well, then why is there more water than earth?

    This is wrong. While roughly two thirds of the earth’s surface is covered in water only about 0.5% of the planet overall is water.

    In the end if you read the bible and the history and everything, it will make sense.
    God is real
    God bless you
    And I hope you will open your eyes
    Satan is the father of lies, darkness and destruction, be careful.

    How can I distinguish between your God and something you may simply be imagining?

  125. on 31 Jan 2015 at 8:35 am 125.Martin Jacobus van Staden said …

    Who ever runs this site is really trying to understand what God is all about, and is looking for the answers here with arguments and real life situations.
    This person and so many others will tear apart anything that goes against his believes because he / she is too scared that they might have been wrong about every thing and how it supposed to be.

    I cannot cure cancer trough one prayer for some one else. It is that persons will that can cure him of sin, and start living in the truth and be protected by the blood of God’s Lam Jesus.
    But now it is sites like these that will be one of the obstacles for a person with cancer to allow a person to start the processes of forgiveness from God, and to forgive his sisters and brothers (human beings) that has wronged him, and very importantly self forgiveness, to recognize the sins of his fore fathers and to ask for forgiveness for that as well.

    God is mush deeper than you think and way bigger, to compare him with a human is a sin and who ever you are you will answer for that, I have no doubt that you do recognize him. Even though you are fighting it with all you got. If you really knew Him you will fall on your knees and ask for forgiveness and start live your gift (life) in His light.
    He will forgive you and we will never see you here again, well maybe if you are like me and is wondering what is up with this site.

    Seek and you shall find!!!!!!!!!
    Don’t darken all the clues in the bible with earthly argument to send you on another road. We all know how strict the bible makes God sound.
    Complete obedience is all he requests for ever lasting live. If you have sinned, ask for forgiveness and feel it and do your utmost best not to sin again for sins have their punishment and toxic thoughts their bad out comes. But God always want to turn you back to him cause his road is hard to understand and difficult to walk, his gift is very expensive for the ” in the moment person.”
    But ones you know him you realized you lost nothing but gained what was unthinkable to you before.

    Free will (obey or disobey) its that simple.

    Amen

  126. on 31 Jan 2015 at 3:22 pm 126.alex said …

    “Who ever runs this site is really trying to understand what God is all about, and is looking for the answers here with arguments and real life situations.”

    wrong, motherfucker. gods are bullshit and you’re challenged to prove it otherwise, which you haven’t. that’s gods, you bitchass. includes ra, jesus, and zeus.

    “This person and so many others will tear apart anything that goes against his believes because he / she is too scared…”

    wrong again, bitchass. hell is as fearsome as they get. where the scared atheists?

    “God is mush deeper than you think and way bigger..”

    you motherfuckers claim god is omnipotent, how much bigger can you get, you dumbass?

    fucking asshole. stick your bible in it, motherfucker.

  127. on 31 Jan 2015 at 5:10 pm 127.Anonymous said …

    believers rule the world
    athiest take it up the anus

  128. on 31 Jan 2015 at 6:52 pm 128.LoveUvGod said …

    You athiest are crazy.

    Who is going to believe your paranoid drivel making out like Christians are some beast or something.

    Pound for pound person for person it is athiests (those who call them selves christian or otherwise) not true believers who are responsible for 99% of the evil in the world.

    You speak things you do not know of.

  129. on 01 Feb 2015 at 1:34 am 129.Hell Yeah said …

    “Pound for pound person for person it is athiests (those who call them selves christian or otherwise) not true believers who are responsible for 99% of the evil in the world.”

    Define evil. Is it drinking? Is it watching porn, going to strip clubs, or having casual sex? Or are priests that are pedophiles, or people that kill in the name of religion worse? There are people that kill no matter what belief they have. Yes, atheists are included. But you don’t have people killing others in the name of no belief of a god. And many of your priests are just gay guys who wanted to hide being gay from their family so they decided to be a priest, just not all act on being gay. There are pedophiles in every kind of belief, including atheism. So how can you claim that 99% of the evil in the world is caused by non-true believers. Suicide bombers are true believers in their religion.

    The point is, the evil which you speak of doesn’t come from non-belief in a higher power. Non-evil, or morals, comes from wanting to survive in society and live as long as you can.

  130. on 01 Feb 2015 at 1:37 am 130.Hell Yeah said …

    “believers rule the world
    athiest take it up the anus”

    Your mom must be an atheist then, because she took it up the anus last night. LOL

  131. on 01 Feb 2015 at 2:43 pm 131.alex said …

    “Pound for pound person for person it is athiests (those who call them selves christian or otherwise) not true believers who are responsible for 99% of the evil in the world.”

    what? because you says so? virgins in heaven? because you says so? earth is less that 10,000 years old? because you says so? you’re going to heaven? because you says you do the shit that that you think you need to do to get it? regardless that most of your moronic xtian homies have different requirements for getting in?

    how about you stick your bible up your ass, pull it out and see if the likeness of the shit jesus is imprinted on the page. take a picture, upload it to your google drive and url shorten the motherfucker and post it here.

    then i will bow and pray to your shit god.

  132. on 02 Feb 2015 at 5:52 pm 132.freddies_dead said …

    128.LoveUvGod said …

    You athiest are crazy.

    What about us atheists? And what credentials do you have that enable you to diagnose mental health issues based on posts on a website?

    Who is going to believe your paranoid drivel making out like Christians are some beast or something.

    It’s not Christians that are beasts but the imaginary God they claim to believe in. A beast that, according to his alleged own word, condones slavery and commits genocide. A beast that will torture you for all eternity regardless of what kind of person you may be – depending only on whether you suck up to Him or not.

    Pound for pound person for person it is athiests (those who call them selves christian or otherwise) not true believers who are responsible for 99% of the evil in the world.

    I see LoveUvGod is confused by the concept of atheism, so confused that he/she cannot even spell it correctly, so confused in fact that he/she seems to think that it includes people who call themselves Christians. And he/she then goes on to double down on that confusion by pulling a random statistic out of his/her arse and presenting it as if it’s a fact.

    You speak things you do not know of.

    That would be the pot calling the kettle black.

  133. on 02 Feb 2015 at 6:12 pm 133.THE DEVIL said …

    That’s not my word on your lips athiest guys.

    That my cock up your arse, coming through your stomach up your throat and spouting my devil spawn through your front teeth.

  134. on 02 Feb 2015 at 7:00 pm 134.LUCIFER said …

    Swallow my spunk properly now athiest guys we need you to be burping blasphemies.

  135. on 02 Feb 2015 at 7:25 pm 135.Anonymous said …

    Well my mother is a believer and I was beside my mother last night and nothing like that happened.

    However I have personally serviced quite a few athiest up the ass.

    Do you need the statistics? Cause I have never sodommed a believer in my life.

    But I have devastated quite a few athiestic anuses with my oversize rod of Iron.

  136. on 02 Feb 2015 at 7:26 pm 136.Anonymous said …

    Not every person who says they are a Christian really believe dumbass.

  137. on 02 Feb 2015 at 7:36 pm 137.Anonymous said …

    i may have buggered one or two believers not more than you can count on one hand.

    believers tend to have that hey hey did you pray kind a butt

    athiest have the legs high in the air and fill her up mister kind of butt.

    believers butts tend to be hard like Pharaoh’s heart

    the athiest butts tend to be juicy, tender, savoury usually because they have already been broken in.

  138. on 02 Feb 2015 at 11:35 pm 138.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    LoveUvGod,

    Well, you are correct. Pound for Pound, atheists are responsible for more death and pain than any other group. Realize it is their delusion, their own god complex that allows them to redefine good and evil based on their own personal self-serving preferences. No standard exists for atheists therefore they define the rules as they see fit. They do not see their evil for what it is, rather as their delusion demands.

    Can they do good? Sure, but they have no standard to condemn evil therefore all actions can be good if the individual defines it.

    They truly are quite the mess….:)

  139. on 03 Feb 2015 at 2:49 am 139.Hell Yeah said …

    “Can they do good? Sure, but they have no standard to condemn evil therefore all actions can be good if the individual defines it.
    They truly are quite the mess….:)”

    Yes, I am such a mess. Me and my fellow atheists can’t stop from killing others and giving others pain. And we can’t stop declaring wars on the non-existent of a god.

    Good is about surviving in society and not harming others in order for the society to flourish. Why would that need invisible magic? Evil is about selfishness. Anyone, including believers in invisible magic, can have selfishness.

  140. on 03 Feb 2015 at 5:16 am 140.Hell Yeah said …

    “Well my mother is a believer and I was beside my mother last night and nothing like that happened.”

    That is because it was the night before, which would have been the previous night. By the way, you sleep with your mother? You sure she didn’t ask you what that was poking her?

  141. on 03 Feb 2015 at 5:27 am 141.Hell Yeah said …

    “However I have personally serviced quite a few athiest up the ass.”

    Aren’t you a true believer who believes in a god that hates gays? So what you are saying is your god hates you?

  142. on 03 Feb 2015 at 10:17 am 142.freddies_dead said …

    136.Anonymous said …

    Not every person who says they are a Christian really believe dumbass.

    Oh look, Anonymous can tell exactly who is a true believer and who isn’t.

    Is it just the ones like you who fantasise about having “devastated quite a few athiestic anuses with my oversize rod of Iron” that are the true believers?

    Is this the one true test of your belief?

    Doesn’t sound very Christian to me and if you’re not a true Christian then I guess that makes you an atheist. Makes you the very thing you hate and want to fuck up the arse.

    You’re definitely a strange one.

  143. on 03 Feb 2015 at 11:09 am 143.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    LoveUvGod,

    Yeah kindly provide us with his definition of Good. Surviving……what did that mean to Lenin? To Mao? Hitler? All thought they were doing Good. Remember, if you have an atheist over to the house count the silverware when they leave…:)

  144. on 03 Feb 2015 at 3:27 pm 144.freddies_dead said …

    138.A The Lying Prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    LoveUvGod,

    Well, you are correct.

    He simply isn’t.

    Pound for Pound, atheists are responsible for more death and pain than any other group.

    Coming from a Christian this is utterly hilarious.

    The lying prick believes in a God that created and planned everything. Is the cause of everything. Nothing happens but for the will of this God.

    His God created death, famine and disease and inflicted it on humans because one of them ate a piece of fruit.

    Not content with simply committing genocide whenever His temper gets the best of Him, this God also created every murderer and planned for their murders to occur. Created every disease and picked who would suffer and die from them. Planned famines and picked who would starve to death because of them.

    On the Christian worldview God is responsible for every single death ever, including the ones LoveUvGod and the lying prick are trying to pin on atheists.

    And then, after the innumerable deaths this God has planned, He then goes on to torture vast numbers of humans for all eternity too.

    Realize it is their delusion, their own god complex that allows them to redefine good and evil based on their own personal self-serving preferences.

    Oh the irony. The lying prick’s God gets to redefine good and evil at will depending on it’s own self-serving preferences – murder is bad mmm’kay, unless it’s done by God of course. Then it’s good and just.

    No standard exists for atheists therefore they define the rules as they see fit.

    This is simply a lie. I have an objective standard. A standard that holds regardless of what anyone wishes, wants or demands. A standard the lying prick cannot match because he professes to hold a worldview that is mired in subjectivism.

    As noted, good is whatever his God does or says and on that basis abhorrent practices such as slavery and genocide are just fine according to God’s own word in the Bible.

    They do not see their evil for what it is, rather as their delusion demands.

    Of course the lying prick doesn’t have a standard by which he can call anything or anyone evil.

    After all his worldview says it’s OK to torture someone for all eternity simply because they didn’t believe a certain way. They may have lived their lives being productive members of society, committing no crimes, helping those less fortunate etc… but it’s still the lake of fire and eternal torment for them after God kills them. Apparently that’s fine, but daring to question the existence of his God makes you evil.

    Can they do good? Sure, but they have no standard to condemn evil therefore all actions can be good if the individual defines it.

    This is simply the lying prick making an autobiographical statement. In fact he needs to steal objectivity from the atheist’s worldview in order to formulate a standard which he then uses to try and deny atheism.

    They truly are quite the mess….:)

    And the autobiographical statements just keep coming.

  145. on 03 Feb 2015 at 3:42 pm 145.freddies_dead said …

    143.A The Lying Prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    LoveUvGod,

    Yeah kindly provide us with his definition of Good.

    Why doesn’t the lying prick present his own standard instead? Probably because he knows that his own worldview gives him nothing. That he needs a solid foundation on which to build his house of cards. That he’ll need to steal from my worldview to build that foundation or he’ll be stuck with the shifting sands of his inherently subjective Christian worldview.

    Surviving……what did that mean to Lenin? To Mao? Hitler? All thought they were doing Good.

    Well Hitler at least felt he was doing God’s work and, on the Christian worldview, regardless of what any of them thought, they were all doing God’s work. Carrying out God’s plan to keep filling that lake of fire.

    Remember, if you have an atheist over to the house count the silverware when they leave…:)

    Remember, if you have a Christian over to your house he thinks you’ll burn for all eternity in a lake of fire and that will be a good thing as his God decreed it.

  146. on 03 Feb 2015 at 4:53 pm 146.Anonymous said …

    “137.Anonymous said …

    i may have buggered one or two believers not more than you can count on one hand.

    believers tend to have that hey hey did you pray kind a butt

    athiest have the legs high in the air and fill her up mister kind of butt.

    believers butts tend to be hard like Pharaoh’s heart
    the athiest butts tend to be juicy, tender, savoury usually because they have already been broken in”

    NOW

    1 Timothy 3 TEACHES

    3 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

    JUST A JOKE IF A MAN DESIRES THE OFFICE OF A BISHOP;

    The OFFICE Not the ORIFICE As In The RECTAL ORIFICE

    AND

    2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

    3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

    4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

    5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

    6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

    7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

    8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

    9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

    10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

    11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

    12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

    13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

    14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

    15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

    16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

    AS YET THESE MEN ARE NOT AS EVIL HOPEFULLY AS THEY ARE MISGUIDED.

    WITH TIME WITH CONFRONTATION OF THE WORD OF GOD THEY WILL HOPEFULLY INCREASE IN UNDERSTANDING. BUT WE MUST CONFRONT THEM WITH THE SPIRITS OF HOLINESS NOT THE SPIRIT OF LUCIFER

    :(

  147. on 03 Feb 2015 at 4:55 pm 147.Anonymous said …

    “137.Anonymous said …
    i may have buggered one or two believers not more than you can count on one hand.”

    ANONYMOUS I TAKE IT YOU MEAN YOU FANTASISED WHILE MASTURBATING

    AT LEAST

    DON’T LET THESE MEN PERTURBED, DISTURB, UPSET, FRUSTRATE, OR ANGER YOU

  148. on 04 Feb 2015 at 12:26 am 148.TJ said …

    freddies_dead said …

    “On the Christian worldview God is responsible for every single death ever, including the ones LoveUvGod and the lying prick are trying to pin on atheists.”

    This is simply not true.

    Believers recognize God as the supreme authority, having a plan, which includes humanities personal free will to choose eternity in fellowship with God… or choose eternal separation from God, via rejection, denial and accusations as above.

    It is the atheistic view of “Christianity” that is reflected in the statement quoted above, and not the “Christian worldview”.

  149. on 04 Feb 2015 at 10:21 am 149.freddies_dead said …

    148.TJ said …

    freddies_dead said …

    “On the Christian worldview God is responsible for every single death ever, including the ones LoveUvGod and the lying prick are trying to pin on atheists.”

    This is simply not true.

    Except that it really is when we consider the claims of Christianity and the meaning of words like “create”, “omniscience” and “plan”. The Bible states quite clearly that God did the first, is the second and has the third. It tells us that God introduced death, disease and famine when He ejected Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden for the crime of eating a fruit. It tells us that God created everyone and everything and has things all planned out to achieve His own glory. If that is truly the case then logically God is ultimately responsible for every single death ever as I correctly noted.

    Believers recognize God as the supreme authority, having a plan, which includes humanities personal free will to choose eternity in fellowship with God… or choose eternal separation from God, via rejection, denial and accusations as above.

    As it’s already been shown that omniscience + a plan is entirely incompatible with the concept of free will then this claim doesn’t even get off the ground. There is simply no way you can have free will when an omniscient entity has already planned what will happen. It’s just a failed attempt to absolve God of the consequences of His actions and put the blame on His failed creation instead.

    It is the atheistic view of “Christianity” that is reflected in the statement quoted above, and not the “Christian worldview”.

    It is actually the logical conclusion based on Christianity’s claims. That believers don’t like this fact doesn’t change this fact in any way.

  150. on 04 Feb 2015 at 4:02 pm 150.DPK said …

    TJ like to present a viewpoint far different from mainstream Christian beliefs (as contradictory as they are) in his own self admitted effort to “rationalize” the obvious contradictions of the properties normally attributed to the christian god. But, look at what he considers the ultimate authority and infallible source of truth about the matter, and we find that god has indeed pre-determined who will be saved and who will not… even “before the foundation of the world”. Sorry, TJ, your claim of god giving us free will doesn’t pass biblical muster.

    “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”

    “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.”

  151. on 04 Feb 2015 at 10:48 pm 151.alex said …

    “Sorry, TJ, your claim of god giving us free will doesn’t pass biblical muster.”

    but his omnipotent god can do anything. even contradictions are cake for his god. any evidence presented, he reserves the right to doubt, thereby casting his god view as a viable alternative.

    in his mind, dating methods are iffy, therefore, his 10,000 year old earth is an equivalent alternative to the 4 billion+ year old dated earth. ark and the animals? why is that so hard for a god? evolution is iffy for the motherfuckers anyways, so why is the ark so far fetched?

    fuck these motherfuckers.

  152. on 04 Feb 2015 at 11:01 pm 152.DPK said …

    “but his omnipotent god can do anything. even contradictions are cake for his god.”

    But TJ has tols us time and again, that only truth is found in the bible, and the bible tells us flat out that god has predestined those who will be saved… even “before the foundation of the world.” So how does that fit with the idea of free will? What now, the claim will be that god determined who will be saved, but also that those who will be saved will be saved of their own free will! Simple.. LOL! Or perhaps he will chime in with some other nonsensical explanation about what god “really” meant. Or, perhaps the last resort of christian brainwashing…. “It is not possible for us to understand it, but we trust it is true anyway…”

  153. on 05 Feb 2015 at 2:15 am 153.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Alex!

    I luv you man! Sorry your sex life is so scant brother but keep you head up! Things will get better. Hey, maybe you will meet a guy or gal on this blog. Good luck With that bra!

    Hey, isn’t it funny how atheists spend so much time arguing about Santa?

    Lol!!!!!!!!!

  154. on 05 Feb 2015 at 3:02 am 154.alex said …

    Scant sex life? No complaints from your mom. Call me dad, ya bitch motherfucker.

  155. on 05 Feb 2015 at 4:16 am 155.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Oh Alex you smooth talking Casanova! You are such a card! Luv ya bra!

  156. on 05 Feb 2015 at 4:50 am 156.Hell Yeah said …

    “Hey, isn’t it funny how atheists spend so much time arguing about Santa?”

    Seems Santa hasn’t been brought up in a long time until you just brought it up. But since you mention it, do you believe in Santa? I assume not because you were told as a kid he doesn’t really exist and then you thought things through and realized the stories are just stories and that Santa can’t really deliver all those presents in one night. In order for Santa to be real, magic would have to be real. And the same logic can be applied to the stories of the bible, which then correlates to the god of the bible or any god for that matter. Problem is, no one you looked up to told you that Jesus and god aren’t real, so that is why you still believe. Both Santa and religion are brainwashed into kids’ heads at a young age. That is why Santa is brought up as a comparison.

  157. on 05 Feb 2015 at 5:03 am 157.Hell Yeah said …

    “Good luck With that bra!”

    Are you referring to the piece of clothing that women wear, or did you mean “bro”?

    Remember, if you have a Christian over to the house, make sure the little boys that were present weren’t touched before they leave.

    ——————–

    Also, the Pope said that atheists can get into heaven. So either you believers are wasting your time going to church every Sunday while we sleep in, or the Christian god doesn’t really know who he appoints to represent him in present day. And if the Pope is wrong, then how can you believe the bible isn’t wrong? Both were inspired by god, right?

  158. on 05 Feb 2015 at 9:35 pm 158.DPK said …

    “Also, the Pope said that atheists can get into heaven”

    Messenger told us everyone goes to heaven eventually, and also that it is perfectly acceptable to own someone as a slave and force them to work for you as long as you need them to support your family. Also that rapists should be forced to marry their victims.
    This Pope seems to be somewhat less of a douchebag as previous ones… although I am frequently mystified by some of his shit.. Like chastising people for having children irresponsibly while still claiming it is sinful to use birth control. WTF? In my catholic upbringing we were taught that availing oneself of the pleasure of marital relations without the act being “open to the transmission of life” was a sin. Seems not being “open to the transmission of life” shouldn’t matter if it is withdraw, the rhythm method, or a rubber or diaphragm. If your intent is to have the pleasure of sex without making a baby… that’s against god’s law, ain’t it? LOL
    I suppose we should be thankful the Vatican finally agreed they were wrong about Galileo, although I think they still have some apologies due Bruno…. whatever happened to that whole “Papal Infallibility” principal? I guess maybe it doesn’t apply to the idea of a geocentric model of the universe??

  159. on 05 Feb 2015 at 10:52 pm 159.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Lol!!!!!, the atheists still debating Santa!! Too much.

    Now we get a Pope blast. I wonder why the Pope is an obsession for atheists? Shouldn’t atheists be moving on to things they believe are actually real? Very funny stuff but we all know why they ate obsessed with God. :)

    Luv ya Alex!

  160. on 06 Feb 2015 at 2:33 am 160.Hell Yeah said …

    “Lol!!!!!, the atheists still debating Santa!! Too much.”

    Aren’t you the one who brought up the subject? Usually with debates, when one brings up a subject, that gives the next person a turn to talk about the subject. Or is that all you have to say because you have nothing?

    —————-

    “Now we get a Pope blast. I wonder why the Pope is an obsession for atheists?”

    It’s called bringing up topics in a debate where the person who brings it up has good points that they want to address.

    I am surprised you Christians aren’t all up in arms about the Pope saying atheists can get into heaven. He is basically throwing away your way of life of worshiping when both theists and atheists can get into heaven (if it turns out that magic is real where a heaven actually exists). You are doing all the work while we live normal lives without having to worry about if we prayed enough, and yet have the same outcome. Now that deserves a LOL!!!!!!

    I wonder why Jesus is an obsession for Christians? He is basically a messenger of god like the Pope, and it seems like it doesn’t matter what the Pope says. Maybe in a hundred years from now a book will be written about the current Pope and a religion will form…..oh, wait….LOL.

  161. on 06 Feb 2015 at 2:42 am 161.Hell Yeah said …

    “Very funny stuff but we all know why they ate obsessed with God. :)”

    We ate god? Ah, that is why we can’t find him. He turned to shit.

    So why do you think atheists are obsessed with god? Is it because we waste numerous hours out of our precious lives every week praying to him? Oh, wait, that is theists. But the question you probably meant is “why do atheists bring up to theists that their beliefs aren’t real?” That is because a big mass of people are misinformed and make decisions that affect other people in a negative way because of it.

  162. on 06 Feb 2015 at 4:18 pm 162.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Lol!!!!!

    Oh! Atheist come to this blog and obsess over God to save the misinformed….here….on WWGHA. Well…..how is that working out? Atheists reassuring atheists they are correct! Lol!!!!!

    First thing Mr Yeah you need to be informed with more than “aien’t no god” pooh jokes and momma jokes…lol!!!!

    Now you brought up the pope. Why should I care about the pope? Is he coming to your atheist church Sunday? Hmm? Will he he training atheists pastors? Website for that down for atheist pastor training?

    ROTFL!!!!!!!

    Luv Me Yeah!

  163. on 06 Feb 2015 at 4:22 pm 163.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Oh Mr Yeah,

    I forgot the funniest claim you made. This is not a debate…..this is a BLOG and a dead one at that. OMG!

    Get a hold of yourself my boy. You claim you can carry on a debate with pooh jokes as your best research……ROTFL!!!!!!

  164. on 07 Feb 2015 at 1:32 am 164.Hell Yeah said …

    “Why should I care about the pope? Is he coming to your atheist church Sunday? Hmm? Will he he training atheists pastors? Website for that down for atheist pastor training?”

    I guess you don’t know his this works. This site is about backing up claims for the existence of god by the theists and showing why the theists have no proof by the atheists. The pope is just one example that can be used. Also, atheists don’t have churches and pastors. Why should we care about Jesus or god? Are any of them going to actually show up anywhere to prove they exist? Why are you on this site? Is it because you question your beliefs?

    ———————-

    “this is a BLOG and a dead one at that”

    It is dead because of people like you who have no substance.

    ———————

    “First thing Mr Yeah you need to be informed with more than “aien’t no god” pooh jokes and momma jokes…lol!!!!”

    I guess you don’t read everything I write then, because I have actual information while you give nothing other than Lol, OMG, and ROTFL. Until you give something with substance, you will be ignored until then. By the way, are you afraid to say shit so instead you have to say pooh? Now that is funny. And you can’t say my full name because you can’t say hell? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

  165. on 07 Feb 2015 at 2:12 pm 165.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Lol!!!!!, its hilarious watching atheists scramble.

    “This site is about backing up claims for the existence of god by the theists ”

    Actually its about exploring religion. And have you read the “proofs” of Gods non-existence? Hilarious verbal fallacies…lol!!! But I will examine your claim when you provide a wwgha link that supports……”snicker”

    “atheists don’t have churches and pastors”

    Still in the Dark Ages? Atheist have churches and pastors. Try a quick google search. Before you come back do your due diligence. You ignorance is embarrassing……lol!!!!!

    OH!, your pope does nothing to disprove god. Feel free to follow Mr Yeah. :)

  166. on 09 Feb 2015 at 11:01 pm 166.alex said …

    “your pope does nothing to disprove god”

    oh, it’s our pope now? like messenger is ours too? like obama is ours too? what about mitt? is he ours too?

    you’re a dumbass motherfucker. you think you know what a real xtian is, and anybody that doesn’t agree with you is fulla shit. that includes atheists and other motherfuckers that don’t agree with your dumbass.

    dumbass, motherfucker, dumbass.

  167. on 13 Feb 2015 at 12:34 am 167.TJ said …

    DPK said…

    TJ like to present a viewpoint far different from mainstream Christian beliefs (as contradictory as they are) in his own self admitted effort to “rationalize” the obvious contradictions of the properties normally attributed to the christian god. But, look at what he considers the ultimate authority and infallible source of truth about the matter, and we find that god has indeed pre-determined who will be saved and who will not… even “before the foundation of the world”. Sorry, TJ, your claim of god giving us free will doesn’t pass biblical muster.

    “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”

    “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.”

    Tell me DPK, is it your personal interpretation of the above passages that make you assume that they apply to every individual ever born?

    I see reference to “saints” and the elect, those chosen to fulfill God’s purpose throughout the ages. Surly the wording of these passages does not imply all of mankind, but instead a select few chosen to be predestined for Gods purpose.

    ?

  168. on 13 Feb 2015 at 4:35 am 168.DPK said …

    “Tell me DPK, is it your personal interpretation of the above passages that make you assume that they apply to every individual ever born?”

    Hmmm… So your contention is now that some of us have free will and our future actions have not been determined by god, while others do not?
    Curious.

    So how are we to determine which of us are acting “according to the purpose of his will” and which of us are not? I mean, the 9/11 bombers were supposedly doing gods will, and they were very successful, certainly god did nothing to stop them, so a rational assumption would be that they were indeed chosen by God and acting in accordance with his will. No?

    Since it is clear from the bible, that if not ALL of us, at least SOME of us are in fact predestined to think a certain way, act a certain way, and do specific things that God has determined “even before the foundation of the world”, perhaps my atheism is actually predetermined by God. Isn’t it awfully presumptuous of you to assume otherwise?

  169. on 13 Feb 2015 at 11:59 am 169.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Tsk, Tsk, Tsk, what happened to atheists who are suppose to know more about theology than Christians? Anyhow, there is not a present past and future with God therefore God exists in all states of time. God also gives all men a free will but also knows the choices since God exists in all realms. God’s knowledge does not eliminate free will.

    But Dippity Dew claims no free will so lets test his theory shall we.

    Dip, make a choice for us. You can wear your pink dress today or your black dress today. Make the choice and report back.

    We then will move to step 2.

    Late!

  170. on 13 Feb 2015 at 12:01 pm 170.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Oh, please tell the atheists to stop murdering Americans is the streets. Geez, of all the moral codes to choose they go with survival of the fittest.

  171. on 13 Feb 2015 at 2:10 pm 171.freddies_dead said …

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

    Tsk, Tsk, Tsk, what happened to atheists who are suppose to know more about theology than Christians?

    Of course we’re all still here, but A will continue to deny reality as long as it clashes with his Christian delusion i.e. all the time.

    Anyhow, there is not a present past and future with God therefore God exists in all states of time.

    Mmmm, yummy word salad. There isn’t a present, past and future with God is somehow equal to “God exists in all states of time”. I guess He exists in all states of time except the present, past and future then.

    God also gives all men a free will but also knows the choices since God exists in all realms.

    All realms except the present, past and future of course.

    God’s knowledge does not eliminate free will.

    But as we know it’s God doing the knowing then the fact He has a plan does eliminate free will.

    But Dippity Dew claims no free will so lets test his theory shall we.

    Of course DPK already presented a test on free will theory for A (and any other Christians willing to give it a go):

    “If God knows I will choose A is there any way I can choose B instead?”

    A did his usual cowardly job of avoiding answering the question and running away – although tbf I don’t recall any of the other Christians giving it a go either.

    Dip, make a choice for us. You can wear your pink dress today or your black dress today. Make the choice and report back.

    We then will move to step 2.

    Late!

    Lets plug these choices into DPK’s original test shall we and see if A is prepared to answer it this time?

    If God knows that DPK will choose to wear the pink dress today is there any way DPK can choose to wear the black one instead?

  172. on 13 Feb 2015 at 2:15 pm 172.freddies_dead said …

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

    Oh, please tell the atheists to stop murdering Americans is the streets. Geez, of all the moral codes to choose they go with survival of the fittest.

    Oh, please tell the Christians of the Central African Republic to stop murdering muslims in the streets. Geez, of all the moral codes to choose they go with God’s choice of “might makes right”.

    Oh, please tell the muslims of ISIS to stop murdering people in the streets. Geez, of all the moral codes to choose they go with Allah’s choice of “might makes right”.

  173. on 13 Feb 2015 at 3:56 pm 173.DPK said …

    “Dip, make a choice for us. You can wear your pink dress today or your black dress today. Make the choice and report back.
    We then will move to step 2.”

    Ok, I have made a choice. Now, if god knows which choice I will make, does there exist any possibility that my choice will be different and that he is wrong?

    Answer and THEN we will move to step 2.

  174. on 13 Feb 2015 at 7:45 pm 174.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Ok, I have made a choice”

    Than you Dip. In your own words you just acknowledged you had a choice….and thus a free will.

    No chance God was wrong. He exists in all realms of time and knew your choice. No need to rehash that fact.

    Lets continue the test and see. You went with dress ????.

  175. on 13 Feb 2015 at 8:30 pm 175.DPK said …

    Nope…. if god actually knew which dress I would choose, if I was indeed free to choose any other, or perhaps a smart pair of slacks and a crisp shirt, (and don’t think your misogynistic dress comment goes unnoticed haha.. true to your christian core values that lesser creatures wear dresses, that) that would mean god was wrong, which is not possible. Therefore, if your god indeed knew what I would pick I was never in any sense free to choose.

    In fact though, I AM free to choose.. because no gods have a perfect knowledge of what I will do, because they are nothing more than a figment of your imagination. So, you are right, but for the completely wrong reason. LOL. Now, go beat up some gays. LOL…

  176. on 13 Feb 2015 at 9:06 pm 176.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    lol!!!!

    I thought you to be a woman. That insults you, huh? lol!!!!

    The fact you view a dress as misogynistic just goes to prove you are. If I had stated “pants” you would not have felt devalued. Then you come back with a gay blast out of nowhere. You are a misogynistic homophobe!

    Well, you refuse to complete the test…probably part of your misogynistic homophobia but I am correct once again. You made a choice, you wouldn’t share the choice but you made one and you continue to have free will although God did know, does know and will know.

  177. on 13 Feb 2015 at 10:28 pm 177.alex said …

    “…you made one and you continue to have free will although God did know, does know and will know.”

    what a fucking moron. god knows beforehand, but you still have free will. what a fucking idiot.

    according to your dumbass, god can’t murder, but he kills people anyways. what a fucking moron you are. should i continue?

  178. on 14 Feb 2015 at 1:52 am 178.DPK said …

    “I thought you to be a woman. That insults you, huh? lol!!!!”

    You’re not even a good liar… hahaha… with all your practice that’s surprising. Usually one gets good at what they make a habit, but you don’t. LOL

    Now, the test is complete and you have lost. You said clearly “No chance God was wrong. He exists in all realms of time and knew your choice.”

    So, if he knew my choice in all realms of time (not sure what that even means.. LOL.. but whatever) then there is no possibility I can choose anything else. How can your myopic brain insist that I have free will to choose anything else, when I cannot? There is no chance god could be wrong, therefore I cannot choose anything OTHER than what he knows. You can ramble on incoherently all you want about living outside of time, but if something is known, it is fixed and cannot be changed. PERIOD.

  179. on 14 Feb 2015 at 5:01 am 179.TJ said …

    The question is?… when does God “know” what choice you have made?

    “Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all.”

    Does this show conclusively that the words are pre-determined? by God?

    Or

    If the following is true…

    Colossians 1:16-17
    “16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”

    Hebrews 4:13
    “And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.”

    Then? Is it possible that by simply consciously making a choice, it is immediately known to God? Just as changing your mind would also be immediately know to God… faster than the time it takes to process a thought into speech?

    To say any more is to speculate… surly?

  180. on 14 Feb 2015 at 12:31 pm 180.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Misogynistic homophobe,

    You forgot to end your post with a gay slur….lol! Learn to see all as equal to you Dip. You think too highly of yourself.

    And don’t feel bad that you cannot understand…….you continually use the concept of a man for God. Until your mind can evolve and grasp concepts more complex you will continue to fall short in your understanding.

    You already demonstrated us you could chose a dress and you could chose either color. And you acknowledged you have free will. The next step will come.

    Then again, you are the same Dippity who believes nature (without intelligence) wrote high information DNA coding for 70 trillion cells in the human body. lol! The concept of God should be much simpler to grasp. You have more faith than I can muster!

  181. on 14 Feb 2015 at 3:53 pm 181.Hell Yeah said …

    “nature (without intelligence) wrote high information DNA coding for 70 trillion cells in the human body.”

    You would be surprised what millions of years of natural selection can do. I can see where you are confused if you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

  182. on 14 Feb 2015 at 4:05 pm 182.DPK said …

    179.TJ said …
    The question is?… when does God “know” what choice you have made?”

    Well, obviously, if I have free will, then he cannot. To “know” what will happen means that the future already exists… it is fixed just as the past is to us. If we have knowledge of something that happened in the past, we do not have free will to change it, do we? If god exists in “all realms of time” then to him, the past, present and future are all the same thing, meaning they all exist simultaneously… the future exists just as surely as the past, and since it exists, then any perception that we have of free will is an illusion. Of course, that doesn’t really make much sense and doesn’t fit at all with the idea that a god created us in his image, but it’s not my claim, now is it?

    Now, you present a different interpretation… one that says god doesn’t really know the future, but only the present, instantaneously. This is an interesting workaround, and certainly is marginally more believable that the generally accepted definition of omniscience. But what does the bible, which you claim is the ultimate authority, actually say? You have not addressed this, instead preferring to skirt the issue with more nebulous claims… but let’s review:

    “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”

    “foreknew and predestined” are the key words here… and of course, this is far from the only biblical verse where god is said to have planned, predetermined, or foreknew something. If not, what good would prophecies be?

    Now, your suggestion that this predestination only applies to certain individuals is interesting, but does not really solve your problem. How can an omniscient and omnipotent being pre-know the fates and actions of certain individuals, and not others?? That doesn’t make sense. Certainly the act of pre-knowing or pre-determining anything at all brigs us back to the implication that future events are knowable, and if they are knowable, they are fixed. If they had not in fact, “already happened” from god’s perspective, they could not be knowable.

    I offer a far simpler and more logical conclusion that doesn’t involve all this torturous double think. Your god does not know the future. Nothing is pre-destined, no ones actions are predetermined, no ones thoughts are instantly read by a cosmic intelligence who knows what you think before you think it (whatever the hell that even means.. LOL)… because there are no gods.

  183. on 14 Feb 2015 at 4:20 pm 183.DPK said …

    “You would be surprised what millions of years of natural selection can do.”

    Actually it’s BILLIONS of years, that’s THOUSANDS of millions of years but “A’s” complete ignorance of science is nothing new. I mean you are talking about someone who claims that a being can know with 100% certainty what I will do tomorrow, but I am free to do something completely different if I want, except of course I really can’t, but I could, but not really… and this is because I am too dumb to understand the idea that god can do anything… including, presumably, make a square circle… just because he says so…. LOL….

  184. on 14 Feb 2015 at 5:22 pm 184.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Lol!!!!!!!

    OH, so natural selection writes high information coding? Not just one program, but MANY different programs. That’s the scientific answer? Proof? Did it write Linux OS too?……:)

    ROTFL!!!!!!

    I offer a more logical conclusion that doesn’t require jumping thru hoops or require imagining absurdities such as momma nature writing programs, lightning creating lfe and the simple becoming complex by…….natural selection.

    Creation requires a Creator
    Programs require Programmer
    Life requires a Life giver

    Just like the REAL work we live in.

  185. on 14 Feb 2015 at 6:25 pm 185.DPK said …

    Did it write Linux OS too?……:)

    Humans wrote Linux, and since humans are a product of nature, of course nature wrote it. Do you think Linux just appeared in a magical garden one day with a talking snake and a magical fruit tree? LOL………..!! You are just too funny, in a sad way.

  186. on 14 Feb 2015 at 6:51 pm 186.NOT IN THE BOOK OF LIFE said …

    Question Time

    Please say what was wrong in common with the following list of men.

    • Thanthai Periyar (1879-1973) Indian philosopher, social activist, politician and businessman affectionately called by his followers as Periyar or E. V. R., who started the Self-Respect Movement or the Dravidian Movement. He is also the founder of political party, Dravidar KazhagamPeriyar E. V. Ramasamy
    • John Anderson (1893–1962): Scottish-born Australian philosopher, founder of the empirical philosophy known as ‘Sydney realism’.[1]
    • Hector Avalos (1958–): Mexican-American professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University and author of several books about religion.[2]
    • A. J. Ayer (1910–1989): British philosopher and an advocate of logical positivism. Though technically he viewed the concept of God existing as meaningless, he was happy to call himself an atheist.[3][4]
    • Alain Badiou (1937–): French philosopher.[5]
    • Julian Baggini (1968–): British writer specialising in philosophy, author of Atheism: A Very Short Introduction.[6]
    • Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876): Russian philosopher, writer and anarchist.[7]
    • Bruno Bauer (1809–1882): German philosopher, theologian and historian, the first propounder of the Jesus myth hypothesis.[8]
    • Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986): French author and existentialist philosopher. Beauvoir wrote novels and monographs on philosophy, politics, social issues and feminism.[9][10]
    • Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832): English author, jurist, philosopher, and legal and social reformer. He is best known for his advocacy of utilitarianism.[11][12][13]
    • Simon Blackburn (1944–): British academic atheist philosopher known for his efforts to popularise philosophy.[14]
    • Célestin Bouglé (1870–1940): French philosopher known for his role as one of Émile Durkheim’s collaborators and a member of the L’Année Sociologique.[15]
    • Yaron Brook (1961–): Israeli-born president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.[16]
    • Ludwig Büchner (1824–1899): German philosopher, physiologist and physician who became one of the exponents of 19th century scientific materialism.[17]
    • Rudolf Carnap (1891–1970): German philosopher who was active in central Europe before 1935 and in the United States thereafter. He was a leading member of the Vienna Circle and a prominent advocate of logical positivism.[18][19][20]
    • Robert Todd Carroll (1945–): American writer and academic, professor of philosophy at Sacramento City College until 1997, and keeper of the Skeptic’s Dictionary website.[21]
    • David Chalmers (1966–): Australian philosopher of mind.[22]
    • Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya (1918–1993): Bengali Marxist philosopher.
    • Nikolay Chernyshevsky (1828–1889): Russian revolutionary democrat, materialist philosopher, critic, and socialist.[23]
    • Auguste Comte (1798–1857): French positivist thinker, credited with coining the term “sociologie” (“sociology”).[24][25]
    • André Comte-Sponville (1952–): French philosopher, author of L’Esprit de l’athéisme (2006) and The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality (2007).[26]
    • Marquis de Condorcet (1743–1794): French philosopher, mathematician, and early political scientist who devised the concept of a Condorcet method.[27]
    • Benedetto Croce (1866–1952): Italian philosopher and public figure.[28]
    • Donald Davidson (1917–2003): American philosopher.[29]
    • Gilles Deleuze (1925–1995): French philosopher of the late 20th century. From the early 1960s until his death, Deleuze wrote many influential works on philosophy, literature, film, and fine art.[30]
    • Daniel Dennett (1942–): American philosopher, author of Breaking the Spell.[31]
    • Henry Louis Vivian Derozio (1809–1831): Anglo-Indian poet and teacher.[32]
    • John Dewey (1859–1952): American philosopher, psychologist and educational reformer whose ideas have been influential in education and social reform. Dewey was an important early developer of the philosophy of pragmatism and one of the founders of functional psychology. He was a major representative of progressive education and liberalism.[33]
    • Diagoras of Melos (5th century BC): Ancient Greek poet and sophist known as the Atheist of Milos, who declared that there were no Gods.[34]
    • Denis Diderot (1713–84): editor-in-chief of the Encyclopédie.[35]
    • Theodore Drange (1934–): Philosopher of religion and Professor Emeritus at West Virginia University. Drange authored Nonbelief & Evil: Two arguments for the nonexistence of God.[36]
    • Paul Edwards (1923–2004): Austrian-American moral philosopher and editor of The Encyclopedia of Philosophy.[37]
    • Empedocles (c. 490–430 BC): Greek pre-Socratic philosopher and a citizen of Agrigentum, a Greek city in Sicily. Empedocles’ philosophy is best known for being the originator of the cosmogenic theory of the four Classical elements.[38][39]
    • Dylan Evans (1966–): British philosopher, known for his work on emotion and the placebo effect.[40]
    • Fan Zhen (circa 450 – 515): Chinese philosopher remembered today for his treatise Shén Miè Lùn (“On the Annihilation of the Soul”).[41]
    • Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach (1804–1872): German philosopher whose major work, The Essence of Christianity, maintains that religion and divinity are projections of human nature.[42]
    • Friedrich Karl Forberg (1770–1848): German philosopher and classical scholar.[43]
    • Michel Foucault (1926–1984) : French philosopher and social theorist famous for his influential analysis of power and discourse. He is best known for his revolutionary philosophical analyses of social institutions such as Discipline and Punish and The History of Sexuality.[44]
    • William Godwin (1756–1836): English journalist, political philosopher and novelist. He is considered one of the first exponents of utilitarianism, and the first modern proponent of anarchism.[45]
    • A. C. Grayling (1949–): British philosopher and author of, among others, Against All Gods: Six Polemics on Religion and an Essay on Kindness.[46]
    • John Harris (1947–): British professor of bioethics at the University of Manchester, and member of the UK Human Genetics Commission.[47]
    • Sam Harris (1967–): American author, philosopher, and neuroscientist. He is the co-founder and CEO of Project Reason.[48]
    • Claude Adrien Helvétius (1715–71): French philosopher whose ethical and social views helped shape the school of utilitarianism later made famous byJeremy Bentham.[35]
    • Heraclitus (c. 535 BC–c. 475 BC): pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, a native of the Greek city Ephesus, Ionia, on the coast of Asia Minor. He was of distinguished parentage. Little is known about his early life and education, but he regarded himself as self-taught and a pioneer of wisdom. From the lonely life he led, and still more from the riddling nature of his philosophy and his contempt for humankind in general, he was called “The Obscure” and the “Weeping Philosopher”.[49]
    • Eric Hoffer (1902–1983): American moral and social philosopher. He was the author of ten books and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in February 1983. His first book, The True Believer, published in 1951, was widely recognized as a classic, receiving critical acclaim from both scholars and laymen.[50]
    • Baron d’Holbach (1723–1789): French philosopher and encyclopedist, most famous as being one of the first outspoken atheists in Europe.[51]
    • Alexandre Kojève (1902–1968): Russian-born French philosopher and statesman.[52]
    • Corliss Lamont (1902–1995): American humanist and Marxist philosopher, and advocate of various left-wing and civil liberties causes.[53]
    • David Kellogg Lewis (1941–2001): American philosopher. One of the leading thinkers of the second half of the 20th century.[54]
    • Peter Lipton (1954–2007): British philosopher, the Hans Rausing Professor and Head of the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at Cambridge University until his unexpected death in November 2007. He was “one of the leading philosophers of science and epistemologists in the world.”[55]
    • Kazimierz ?yszczy?ski (also known in English as “Casimir Liszinski”; 1634–89): Polish-Lithuanian nobleman and philosopher, author of a philosophical treatise, De non existentia Dei (On the Non-existence of God), who was condemned to death and brutally executed for atheism.[56][57][58]
    • John Leslie Mackie (1917–1981): Australian philosopher who specialized in meta-ethics as a proponent of moral skepticism. Wrote The Miracle of Theism, discussing arguments for and against theism and concluding that theism is rationally untenable.[59]
    • Michael Martin (1932–): analytic philosopher and professor emeritus at Boston University, author of, amongst others, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (1989) and The Impossibility of God (2003).[60]
    • Harriet Martineau (1802–1876): an English writer and philosopher, renowned in her day as a controversial journalist, political economist, abolitionist and lifelong feminist.[61]
    • Karl Marx (1818–1883): philosopher, political economist, sociologist, humanist, political theorist and revolutionary. Often called the father of communism, Marx was both a scholar and a political activist. In 1843, Karl Marx published Contribution to Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, in which he dealt more substantively with religion, describing it as “the opiate of the people”.[62]
    • Colin McGinn (1950–): British philosopher and author, best known for his work in the philosophy of mind.[63]
    • Jean Meslier (1678–1733): French village Catholic priest who was found, on his death, to have written a book-length philosophical essay, entitledCommon Sense but commonly referred to as Meslier’s Testament, promoting atheism.[64][65]
    • Julien Offray de La Mettrie (1709–51): French physician and philosopher, earliest materialist writer of the Enlightenment, claimed as a founder ofcognitive science.[66][67]
    • John Stuart Mill (1806–1873): The famous philosopher declared his atheism, and that of his father, in a famous essay published posthumously.[68][69][70]
    • Ted Nelson (1937–): American sociologist, philosopher, and pioneer of information technology. He coined the terms “hypertext” and “hypermedia” in 1963 and published them in 1965.[71]
    • Michael Neumann (1946–): American professor of philosophy at Trent University, noted for his work on utilitarianism, rationality and anti-Semitism.[72]
    • Kai Nielsen (1926–): adjunct professor of philosophy at Concordia University in Montreal and professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Calgary.[73]
    • Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900): German philosopher whose Beyond Good and Evil sought to refute traditional notions of morality. Nietzsche penned a memorable secular statement of the Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence in Thus Spake Zarathustra and is forever associated with the phrase, “God is dead” (first seen in his book, The Gay Science).[74]
    • Piergiorgio Odifreddi (1950–): Italian mathematician and popular science writer.[75]
    • Michel Onfray (1958–): French philosopher, founder of Université populaire de Caen, and author of Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.[76][77]
    • Graham Oppy (1960–): Australian philosopher and Associate Dean of Research at Monash University, and Associate Editor of the Australasian Journal of Philosophy. His main area of research is the philosophy of religion.[78]
    • Leonard Peikoff (1933–): an Objectivist philosopher, Ayn Rand’s legal heir. He is a former professor of philosophy, a former radio talk show host, and founder of the Ayn Rand Institute.[79]
    • Herman Philipse (1951–): professor of philosophy at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. Philipse has written many philosophical works in Dutch, including the widely read Atheist Manifesto and the Unreasonableness of Religion (Atheistisch manifest & De onredelijkheid van religie).[80]
    • Protagoras, (died 420 BC), Greek Sophist and first major Humanist, who wrote that the existence of the gods was unknowable.[81]
    • Willard Van Orman Quine (1908–2000): American philosopher and logician.[82][83]
    • James Rachels (1941–2003): American philosopher who specialized in ethics.[84]
    • Ayn Rand (1905–1982): Russian-American founder of Objectivism and novelist.[16]
    • John Rawls (1921–2002): American philosopher and a leading figure in moral and political philosophy.[85]
    • Jean-François Revel (1924–2006): French politician, journalist, author, prolific philosopher and member of the Académie française.[86]
    • Richard Rorty (1931–2007): American philosopher.[87]
    • Alex Rosenberg (1946–): Philosopher of science, author of The Atheist’s Guide to Reality
    • Michael Ruse (1940–): English philosopher of science, known for his work on the argument between creationism and evolutionary biology.[88]
    • Bertrand Russell (1872–1970): British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic.
    • Nathan Salmon (1951-): American philosopher and distinguished professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, whose writings include work on fictional characters and mythical objects.
    • George Santayana (1863–1952): Philosopher in the naturalist and pragmatist traditions who called himself a “Catholic atheist.”[89][90]
    • Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980): French existentialist philosopher, dramatist and novelist who declared that he had been an atheist from age twelve.[91]Although he regarded God as a self-contradictory concept, he still thought of it as an ideal toward which people strive.[92] He rejected the Nobel Prize forLiterature in 1964. According to Sartre, his most-repeated summary of his existentialist philosophy, “Existence precedes essence,” implies that humans must abandon traditional notions of having been designed by a divine creator.[93]
    • Moritz Schlick (1882–1936): German philosopher, physicist and the founding father of logical positivism and the Vienna Circle.[94]
    • Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860): Pessimistic German philosopher and author of the book The World as Will and Representation.[95][96][97][98][99]
    • John Searle (1932–): American philosopher, Slusser Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, widely noted for contributions to the philosophy of language, the philosophy of mind, and to social philosophy.[100]
    • Peter Singer (1946–): Australian utilitarian philosopher, proponent of animal rights, and Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University.[101]
    • George H. Smith (1949–): Libertarian philosopher, author and educator. Smith authored Atheism: The Case Against God.[102]
    • Quentin Smith (1952–): Philosopher and professor of philosophy at Western Michigan University. Smith co-authored the book Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology with William Lane Craig.[103]
    • Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), English philosopher, biologist, sociologist, and prominent classical liberal political theorist of the Victorian era.[104]
    • Max Stirner (1806–1856): German philosopher, who ranks as one of the fathers of nihilism, existentialism, post-modernism and anarchism, especially ofindividualist anarchism. Stirner’s main work is The Ego and Its Own.[105]
    • Theodorus the Atheist (lived around 300 BC): Philosopher of the Cyrenaic school who taught that the goal of life was to obtain joy and avoid grief.[106]
    • Lucilio Vanini (1585–1619), Italian philosopher, brutally executed for his atheism.[107][108]
    • Sir Bernard Williams FBA (1929–2003): British philosopher, widely cited as the most important British moral philosopher of his time.[109]
    • Sherwin Wine (1928–2007): Founder of the non-theistic Society for Humanistic Judaism, who has also called himself an “ignostic”.[110]
    • Slavoj Žižek (1949–): Slovenian sociologist, postmodern philosopher, and cultural critic.[111]

    THE ANSWER IS THAT THESE MEN WERE ALL ATHEIST WHO CLAIMED TO BE PHILOSOPHERS. THEY SOUGHT WISDOM BUT THEY FORGOT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN WISDOM. THAT THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM IS THE FEAR OF GOD.
    WHAT ALSO IS WRONG WITH THEM IS THAT THEY WILL EACH BURN IN THE LAKE OF FIRE FOR AN ETERNITY FOR THEIR DELUDED REJECTION OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST CHOOSING RATHER TO FOLLOW THE FALSE PROPHET.

  187. on 14 Feb 2015 at 7:22 pm 187.Anonymous said …

    I CAN HEAR THEIR SCREAMS

  188. on 14 Feb 2015 at 10:04 pm 188.Hell Yeah said …

    “THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN WISDOM. THAT THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM IS THE FEAR OF GOD.”

    How can you fear something that doesn’t exist? That is like saying you are only wise if you believe in and fear the boogie man. Wisdom comes from experience in realism.

    “WHAT ALSO IS WRONG WITH THEM IS THAT THEY WILL EACH BURN IN THE LAKE OF FIRE FOR AN ETERNITY”

    I hope they bring marshmallows.

  189. on 14 Feb 2015 at 10:19 pm 189.DPK said …

    “WHAT ALSO IS WRONG WITH THEM IS THAT THEY WILL EACH BURN IN THE LAKE OF FIRE FOR AN ETERNITY”

    But of course, as your fellow theists will tell you, “eternity” does not mean forever, just a long time, which, oddly, is a curious concept for a being who exists both outside of, and within, all realms of time simultaneously. A being who, after an infinite time of living a perfect existence in a state of perfection, for some reason decided to create an imperfect world full of evil and sin, and then punish the creatures he created for doing what he knew, for all eternity mind you, exactly what they were created to do in the first place. And if that doesn’t strike you as mind boggling stupidity, this being decided to create a world in which he knew, with 100% accuracy, every single thing you will ever do, or think, but also gave you complete freedom to do anything you want to, even though you can’t. So there you go.

  190. on 14 Feb 2015 at 11:21 pm 190.TJ said …

    DPK said…

    “Hmmm… So your contention is now that some of us have free will and our future actions have not been determined by god, while others do not?
    Curious.”

    Not my contention. It is what you have read into what is written.

    You said…
    “This is an interesting workaround, and certainly is marginally more believable that the generally accepted definition of omniscience.”

    Not a workaround. A literal reading.

    Re-read the wording again.

    “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”

    Words like “called”… “conformed”… “might”

    are used in reference to individuals who are foreknown. The actions of the individuals are not presented as foreknown. Instead the individuals are foreknown to God as predetermined to be instruments he uses to carry out his will.

    You ask…

    “If god exists in “all realms of time” then to him, the past, present and future are all the same thing, meaning they all exist simultaneously… the future exists just as surely as the past, and since it exists, then any perception that we have of free will is an illusion.”

    When A The Prickly Science Guy presented this view you dismissed it as” word salad”.

    Yet now, you attempt to use it as an argument against what you can clearly read for yourself? Where does the bible say the future exists? From a literal reading I can only say that God has plans and intentions for the future.

    You continue to present more questions without addressing our current issue…

    Do you still feel the passage clearly supports your claim that all actions of mankind are pre-determined?

  191. on 15 Feb 2015 at 12:13 am 191.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Kudos to Dippity!

    He recognized that Linux was written by men who possess intelligence! Yay!!!!! (men created by GOD btw)

    But sadly, he still believes DNA was written by primordial ooze……(snicker..) ROTFL!!!!

    “Dippity definitions”

    Word Salad – Words to big and hard for Dippity…..lol!!!!

  192. on 15 Feb 2015 at 1:43 am 192.Hell Yeah said …

    “Kudos to Dippity!
    He recognized that Linux was written by men who possess intelligence! Yay!!!!! (men created by GOD btw)
    But sadly, he still believes DNA was written by primordial ooze……(snort..) ROTFL!!!!”

    How old are you Prickly Penis Guy? You write like a teenager.

    I think you have it backwards. Men created God(s).

    The universe has all the elements that we humans are made up of. It just took the right conditions to form the first form of life and it took billions of years of evolving in different earth environments and through natural selection (that is too bad if you don’t know too much about what natural selection is and can do over a long period of time, look it up).

    If you really think men were created by a god, there are many things you need to take into consideration. A couple of them are, what created that supposedly intelligent god and how did that god gain intelligence?, why did that god wait billions of years after creating the universe and having other life forms around before creating men?, and how come there is no real evidence of a god? Those are just a few of the holes.

  193. on 15 Feb 2015 at 4:02 am 193.TJ said …

    Hell Yeah said…

    “If you really think men were created by a god, there are many things you need to take into consideration. A couple of them are, what created that supposedly intelligent god and how did that god gain intelligence?, why did that god wait billions of years after creating the universe and having other life forms around before creating men?, and how come there is no real evidence of a god? Those are just a few of the holes.”

    Your questions are made up.

    God does not claim to have been created.

    God does not claim to have obtained intelligence.

    God does not claim to have waited billions of years after creating the universe.

    Your questions do not address any of the biblical claims.

    The “hole”, is the “whole” of your argument.

    All this…

    “The universe has all the elements that we humans are made up of. It just took the right conditions to form the first form of life and it took billions of years of evolving in different earth environments and through natural selection (that is too bad if you don’t know too much about what natural selection is and can do over a long period of time, look it up).”

    …is theory. According to your fellow non-believers, science does not promote these things as fact (with the exception of the elements that humans are made of).

  194. on 15 Feb 2015 at 4:30 am 194.Hell Yeah said …

    “Your questions are made up.”

    I am asking the questions, so yeah, of course I made them up. duh!

    “God does not claim to have been created.”

    I never said he claimed so. I don’t get all my knowledge from the bible like you do. I actually use observation to ask questions. For instance, in this case, the claim is that god created man. The claim is made because something with intelligence must have created man. I observed, like wise people do, that if something of intelligence had to create something else with intelligence, then something else with intelligence must have created that thing, and so on. Somewhere along the way, something without intelligence had to have the properties to make something that could eventually evolve into intelligence. So, therefore, it is possible that the universe has always existed in some form of matter and energy.

    “God does not claim to have obtained intelligence.”

    Again, never said god claimed that. But theists believe that something with intelligence had to create humans with intelligence.

    “God does not claim to have waited billions of years after creating the universe.”

    I never said that either. In this case, I am pointing out that billions of years in the universe’s existence is a fact, so if there really is a god, he would have had to wait the billions of years before creating humans.

  195. on 15 Feb 2015 at 7:27 am 195.TJ said …

    “I am pointing out that billions of years in the universe’s existence is a fact”

    Really?

  196. on 15 Feb 2015 at 7:58 am 196.Hell Yeah said …

    Yes. The only ones who don’t agree are the ones who believe in a book written by Palestine goat herders about 2,000 years ago. Scientific peers agree that the universe is in the billions of years old. The only disagreement could be the number of billions. The theist argument of being 10,000 or less is a lot different than being somewhere in the billions.

  197. on 15 Feb 2015 at 9:12 am 197.TJ said …

    “Scientific peers agree that the universe is in the billions of years old.”

    = FACT?

    I can agree with…

    “So, therefore, it is possible that the universe has always existed in some form of matter and energy.”

    If this is true…

    Colossians 1:16-17
    “16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”

    Then it stands to reason that if the source has always existed, which produced all the matter and energy of the universe. Then all the matter and energy of the universe has also existed in one form or another.

    The difference is, you say intelligence arose from eternal matter and energy. The Bible says that intelligence gave matter and energy it current form.

    Freddies dead says, we cannot deny existence. Because existence exists.

    Intelligence also exists, and I do not deny it.

  198. on 15 Feb 2015 at 11:13 am 198.Anonymous said …

    This blog is worthless.

    How often have you said that God is imaginary?
    That God does not exist?

    Is this true?

    Where is your proof that God is imaginary or non-existent?

    Unless you can prove that your claims are useless, presumptuous and non-intellectual.

    Don’t tell me what else is imaginary or non-existent tell me how do you know that God is imaginary or non-existent?

    If you can’t tell me that your claims are valueless, your blog is valueless and you have a deceptive, treacherous and evil agenda, may God never let you achieve it.

  199. on 15 Feb 2015 at 1:56 pm 199.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “The universe has all the elements that we humans are made up of. It just took the right conditions to form the first form of life and it took billions of years of evolving in different earth environments and through natural selection”

    lol!!!!

    Notice what Mr Yeah want us us to believe. He would like use to ignore everything we observe in the real world and for us instead to believe that high information coding was done by pure chance. Namely DNA. His proof? None…… we are just to believe because his worldview demands he believe.

    In forensic science, men study patterns, gather evidence and make determinations, if, for example, if a fire was accidental or purposeful. Men using reason can make the determination and can recognize design vs random chance.

    Mr Yeah would like us to ignore the obvious evidence of design in Creation i.e DNA

    I just don’t have that much faith…:)

    BTW,

    Who are the Palestinian Goat herders? Is it a new band? ….:)

  200. on 15 Feb 2015 at 1:58 pm 200.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “then something else with intelligence must have created that thing”

    The Kal?m Cosmological Argument states that only things with a beginning, like the universe, need a creator. God had no beginning therefore needs no creator.

    Tada!

  201. on 15 Feb 2015 at 3:38 pm 201.Hell Yeah said …

    “= FACT?”

    Are there any scientists that study astronomy for a living that have come to the conclusion that the bible is right in it being only in the thousands of years old instead of billions?

    ——————

    “The difference is, you say intelligence arose from eternal matter and energy.”

    The definition of intelligence is:
    the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

    So through billions of years of evolution and natural selection, a living thing in certain environments can do those things. Humans, in the right environments and through natural selection, evolved bigger brains than other living things. Over a large amount of time as the brain grew, so did our intelligence.

    —————-

    “Where is your proof that God is imaginary or non-existent?”

    It is the other way around. Theists are making the positive claim that something exists. Atheists are saying there is no proof of this existence, so the theists are the ones that need to provide proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    —————–

    “that high information coding was done by pure chance. Namely DNA. His proof? None……”

    DNA definition:
    a substance that carries genetic information in the cells of plants and animals

    A life form over billions of years of evolution and natural selection eventually has numerous life forms that came from it in a form of a family tree. Each life form is different from the last, and the difference in each one is shown in the cellular make up. What is so wrong with that?

    ————–

    “God had no beginning therefore needs no creator.”

    If something needs no beginning, then why can’t matter and energy? Yes, the big bang was the beginning of the current state of matter and energy. But that matter and energy could have existed in some form before it was small matter that exploded and expanded into larger matter. Just because we haven’t figured out the exact cause yet, doesn’t mean a magic being is the only answer. For example, it is hard for humans to explore what is on the other side of black holes. It would be hard to figure out if maybe the big bang came from matter and energy in another universe was sucked into a black hole and became compressed and at a certain breaking point exploded and became a new universe. It is actually being studied currently the possibility of multi-universes.

    ——————-

    “Who are the Palestinian Goat herders? Is it a new band?”

    What do you think humans in the Middle East did 2,000 years ago? The goat herders had 24 hours in the day just like us. They didn’t have television and the internet to keep them busy, so when not working they could only sit around and dream up stories and write them down. I am sure they had some form of music, so maybe there was a band back then named that. Lol.

  202. on 15 Feb 2015 at 7:07 pm 202.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    ROTFL!!!

    Lets look at the mental gymnastics given by Mr Yeah to avoid God.

    Matter and Energy COULD have existed in eternity past. He offers no proof (Remember as a materialist all explanations must be proven scientifically) and we would have suspend laws of science as we know them to even entertain the idea. Reminiscent of the Einstein fudge factor he had to admit was wrong……(snicker) :)

    He tries to explain DNA coding by pointing to previous life forms and asks “Whats wrong with that”. Whats wrong is you have not explained how high information complex coding originated from primordial soup!…lol!!!

    Mr yeah then brings up multiverses. lol!!!, completely theoretical and has absolutely no proof to support the theory. Even if so, it in no way eliminates God.

    He left out another scientific theory, alien seeding proposed by Francis Crick (Panspermia). So, let me do it! It too does not answer the questions, only pushes the scenario back in time.

    Last one, Mr Yeah believes folks 2000 years ago sat around and made up stories. Thats all they had to do. lol!!!!!!! He is unaware of the Roman Empire and the complex systems of the culture that were in place at the time. Tax Collectors, Fisherman, Doctors and Teachers were actually writing the Biblical literature in that day. He is also unaware of much of the Biblical record predates 2000 years ago! lol!! How can we take him seriously?

    Folks, do you see the faith of atheists? They will entertain ANY theory with the exception of one…….God.

  203. on 15 Feb 2015 at 7:36 pm 203.DPK said …

    TJ…
    I do no intend to argue the age of the earth or the fact of common descent. To do so is to give credence to idiocy. That the earth is billions of years old, and the process of evolution is true are facts. I will not be drawn in a discussion about these anymore than I will debate the fact the the earth orbits the sun.

    Now back to the question directed specifically at me:
    Re-read the wording again….

    Words like “called”… “conformed”… “might”
    How about the words “Re-read the wording again.
    “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined… whom He predestined, these He also called…”

    Words like “called”… “conformed”… “might”
    so? words like foreknew, predestined… and of course this is far from the only verse in the bible that claims that god already knows the future. Your point is what exactly? If you say there is no god that knows the future because the future is not knowable… no argument from me.
    “Instead the individuals are foreknown to God as predetermined to be instruments he uses to carry out his will.” And can he be wrong? Your argument for god is making him sound less and less godlike all the time… I think you’re making progress.

    “If god exists in “all realms of time” then to him, the past, present and future are all the same thing…”

    “When A The Prickly Science Guy presented this view you dismissed it as” word salad”.

    Actually, I think it was Freddy who called it word salad, I think I called it nonsense… same difference, doesn’t matter of course, the argument was meant to show that “A”‘s position is unworkable EVEN using his own terms and conditions. I can’t very well argue the reality of the temporal properties of a god that doesn’t even exist. “A” use the circular reasoning tactic of inventing properties for god simply to circumvent problems presented by other properties of god… like, “Can god create a boulder so big he can’t lift it?” “God can do anything.” So he can make a boulder too big even god can’t lift it? Yes. Then there could be a boulder god can’t lift? No.. god can do anything.”
    Even IF there were a god who existed in all “realms of time” concurrently.. two assertions presented without ANY evidence at all… that STILL would present the problem of the future pre-existing and being fixed so that it could be “knowable”.

    “Do you still feel the passage clearly supports your claim that all actions of mankind are pre-determined?”

    As with most everything within the bible, you can pick and choose verses to support almost any claim you wish to make. Is it your contention that the bible shows that god does NOT know, as “A” says, that god knows which dress I will wear tomorrow, how and when I will die, and according to “A” and every other theist I have encountered, “everything”? If so, we agree… but I suspect for the wrong reasons. The bible is full of prophecies… are these just god’s hope?

  204. on 15 Feb 2015 at 8:55 pm 204.Hell Yeah said …

    “Whats wrong is you have not explained how high information complex coding originated from primordial soup!…”

    How many times do I have to point out evolution and natural selection over billions of years? Just because you don’t understand the concept, doesn’t mean I didn’t give proof and that somehow an invisible being waving his magic wand is your best solution to everything. I also asked you previously how old you were since you talk like a teenager. Also, what science courses have you taken? I know bible belt states like to dumb down their youth and not include real science in their education.

    The one thing I will give the theists on here prompts is that they are at least willing to hear what the other side has to say. I know many theists, including my sister and her husband who are Baptists, that refuse to be open minded and even hear the other side. Here are some wacky things about Baptists: My sister cannot wear pants and only can wear a jean skirt down to her ankles. My nephews are not allowed to wear shorts in public because it is indecent to show skin. My nephews cannot listen to music because it is the devil that causes people to dance. My nephews cannot watch anything Disney because Disney supports the gays. They go to church 3 times a week and cannot miss any of those 3 times. It is a cult! All religions are just cults that brainwash people. I used to be a Christian until half way through college, so I know where theists are coming from. Do you not think I want an afterlife after I die and not turn to nothing for the rest of eternity? Just because I would rather have it one way than the other, doesn’t make it real. I am a realist.

  205. on 15 Feb 2015 at 9:33 pm 205.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    LOL!

    Now Mr Yeah states that “Natural Selection diddit” fall back for everything he cannot understand. DNA is very high information code but we are suppose to accept “Natural Selection diddit” as the cause with no proof. lol!!!!! Sorry Mr Yeah, that is not science.

    Do you understand the scientific method Mr Yeah? You do understand that “Natural Selection diddit” is just a claim without supporting evidence? Right?……

    My credentials are not in play. Your burden of proof is in play but it seems you do not understand even rudimentary science.

  206. on 15 Feb 2015 at 11:05 pm 206.Hell Yeah said …

    “DNA is very high information code but we are suppose to accept “Natural Selection diddit” as the cause with no proof. lol!!!!! Sorry Mr Yeah, that is not science.”

    You forgot evolution and billions of years. Should I add in RNA and replication as well while we are at it? Does that make it more sciency for you? Do some research, there is plenty of information on the topic, but you have to open books that don’t have the name “bible” written on them.

  207. on 16 Feb 2015 at 1:47 am 207.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Should I add in RNA and replication as well while we are at it? ”

    Mr Yeah continues to throw stuff at the wall and hope it sticks. “Time Diddit” “Evolution Diddit”

    True Mr Yeah, a lot of information out there and you haven’t a clue of any of it or even the scientific method.

    We all know how DNA and cells replicate. That was never the question..and I doubt you have the capacity to understand the original question…..sigh…..lol!!!

    I can also copy and paste a Linux program multiple times. The does not explain who or how the program was written.

    But never mind, no need to discuss the obvious observerance of design within the DNA structure.

  208. on 16 Feb 2015 at 3:15 am 208.Hell Yeah said …

    “Mr Yeah continues to throw stuff at the wall and hope it sticks. “Time Diddit” “Evolution Diddit””

    Yeah, that’s it. LOL. You got me. Using the Goddidit, but instead putting in terms you don’t feel like researching, so instead you ignore. That is why you and your like think a god did it, because you don’t feel like researching evidence you don’t understand. Or maybe you are too afraid to want to understand it because it would turn your whole world upside down. Seems like you are backed into a wall and losing the argument. And no “snicker” in your last reply, or was that a silent “whimper”? Keep in mind, theists have something to lose, which is their afterlife they think they will get. Atheists have nothing to lose, so we don’t mind if a god suddenly appears. I already lost something when I finally realized the afterlife isn’t real. That really does suck, but it is reality.

    —————–

    “We all know how DNA and cells replicate. That was never the question”

    But DNA replicating over billions of years of evolution and natural selection. I know it is hard for you to put all those pieces together, but it isn’t hard if you put the effort into learning what can cause the high information code you are wondering about.

  209. on 16 Feb 2015 at 3:44 pm 209.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Lol!!!!

    Now Mr Yeah wants me to research his claim and prove his point for him! lol!!!!! This is just to good. Has biology found something new Mr Yeah?

    He claims time diddit, evolution diddit and natural selection diddit……… wrote high information coding over millions of years but he is unable to provide one shred of evidence.

    Then he changes the subject to afterlife, his life sucks, I am afraid, he backs me into a wall….ROTFL!!!

    FOR something he claims is fact, Mr Yeah sure has a really tough time do anything but providing “diddits”

  210. on 16 Feb 2015 at 4:29 pm 210.Hell Yeah said …

    “He claims time diddit, evolution diddit and natural selection diddit……… wrote high information coding over millions of years but he is unable to provide one shred of evidence.”

    The evidence is out there. Kind of hard to put all the information about the discoveries down in a paragraph on here. LOL. I gave you the main ideas. If you want to gain knowledge, you will have to do the hours of reading yourself. I am not here to write scientific papers. LOL.

    —————

    “Then he changes the subject to afterlife, his life sucks, I am afraid, he backs me into a wall….ROTFL!!!”

    I never said my life sucks. In fact, my life is great. Yes, the ending will suck when I will turn to a rotting body with no more consciousness like everyone else will, but until then life is great. Knowing that I don’t need to spend my time worshipping a made up god, I am free to do what I want within certain social constraints. That is something that is definitely a positive when I came to the conclusion there is no god or afterlife, or at least no proof of any. If proof ever actually does present itself, hey, I will be the first one to jump “back” on board. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Until then…….

  211. on 16 Feb 2015 at 6:32 pm 211.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Mr Yeah now claims that there is just SOOOOO much evidence out there he just doesn’t know where to begin….something more than “diddits” would work…..:)

    You main idea of time diddit, evolution diddit and natural selection diddit are extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence. Until then……

    I promise…….we don’t want you attempting to write scientific papers….:)

    What Mr Yeah is really expressing is that he believes the “diddits” because he was told to. He has no evidence to present.

    Mr Yeah then attempts to steer the conversation from his claims with being free from God, his life is now great, and the most funny……..His desire for proof. (snicker) Mr Yeah, his is proof you can understand……”God diddit”.

  212. on 16 Feb 2015 at 8:16 pm 212.alex said …

    dumbass, motherfucking prick.

    even if evolution is crap, it doesn’t prove your bullshit god, does it? you dumbass.

    even if the dating methods are crap, does it prove your 10,000 year old earth? you dumbass.

  213. on 16 Feb 2015 at 9:55 pm 213.Hell Yeah said …

    “You main idea of time diddit, evolution diddit and natural selection diddit are extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence”

    Yes, because the parts that make up time, evolution, and natural selection can’t be studied in the real world while magic dirt, other realms, and anything supernatural all have elements that can be studied in the real world. I don’t think you know what extraordinary means.

    ———–

    “something more than “diddits” would work”…….”his is proof you can understand……”God diddit”.”

    You are the one who is saying didits such as your goddidit. God is and always has been, since mankind made him up, just a copout until the real answer is found. Like I said before, scientific studies can’t be summed up in a paragraph in order to have a full understanding. I pointed out that you can research those scientific studies so I don’t have to copy and paste all the knowledge you are seeking. You can go to a library, search carefully on the internet, or even go ask an actual scientist. The main thing is that you will have to stop rolling on the floor snorting, otherwise you might hurt yourself. Then you wouldn’t be able to leave your mom’s basement and go seek out the answers you are looking for. And your god won’t strike you down for looking elsewhere, just so you know. To make it simple for you in your search, use key terms such as DNA, Billions of Years, Evolution, and Natural Selection together in the same searches. Then you actually have to spend real time reading. I hope that isn’t too hard of a concept.

    I don’t even know why I keep wasting my time with you. You notice all the other atheists gave up replying to your posts because you are just a waste of time. Other than Alex at times, who makes good points, but doesn’t realize by swearing every other word that it hurts his credibility a bit for trying to make points to the other side.

    By the way, what is your proof that goddidit? Let’s take, for (example), that an intelligent being did create the universe.
    Where is your proof that it is the god of the bible? It could be a god that created the universe and left it alone. Not only do you need proof of a god, you need proof that your heaven exists as well. And if your heaven doesn’t exist, but a god does, then you are still screwed. Your whole reason for wanting to believe in a god is so you can get an afterlife. I don’t know about you, but every time I fly above the clouds in a plane I keep looking for that heaven everyone keeps pointing up to the sky at. Aren’t the angels supposed to be hanging out on top of the clouds? (Disclaimer: Don’t take my idea of heaven on the clouds serious, since I know you will try to roll on the floor snorting and saying that I believe that is what theists think heaven looks like LOL).

  214. on 16 Feb 2015 at 10:22 pm 214.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Mr Yeah now makes more claims and continues with no proof.

    “God is and always has been, since mankind made him up”
    Proof?

    “evolution, and natural selection can’t be studied in the real world”
    Then where is the evidence DNA was written by the (3) Diddits?

    “go ask an actual scientist”
    I have many do not believe DNA was done by the Diddits. You didnt know? even so the Appeal to Authority is a fallacy

    The reason you look bad in your interaction with me is because you cannot even tell us why you believe. You believe because you were told to. What a clone! Lol!!!! You only have yourself to blame

    Mr Yeah then resorts to ad homenim, change the subject and gossip of on other atheists…lol!!!!

  215. on 16 Feb 2015 at 10:26 pm 215.alex said …

    “…Other than Alex at times, who makes good points, but doesn’t realize by swearing every other word that it hurts his credibility a bit..”

    which credibility is that? the fact that i don’t believe in the bullshit god and that my cursing makes me look a little bit like i believe in the said god?

    or is it that my cursing makes me less credible and that it makes me look like i’m really a theist?

  216. on 16 Feb 2015 at 10:51 pm 216.alex said …

    “The reason you look bad in your interaction with me is because you cannot even tell us why you believe.”

    you’re a dumbass motherfucker. it doesn’t matter what anybody elses believes. your bullshit god has been called out countless times and all you ever do point out other irrelevant shit like it’s supposed to prove your fucked up god. you havent offered anything! none, ya bitchass.

    oh, look! alex says his magical horse coughed up the universe. har! har! alex’s fulla shit because everybody knows god created the universe!! is that your proof?

    dumbass bitch.

  217. on 16 Feb 2015 at 11:29 pm 217.Hell Yeah said …

    “which credibility is that?”

    Alex, what is meant is that theists might not take you too seriously if you swear in most of your points.

    ————-

    “I have many do not believe DNA was done by the Diddits”

    LOL. Oh yeah, what scientist would that be? You have actually talked to an expert in the field and they deny DNA evolved over billions of years through natural selection? Was it all of that, or parts of that statement? And how did you go about talking to that scientist? Just curious. LOL.

    And why do I believe that DNA was created that way? Because experts in the field determined that the universe is that old, that evolution did happen, and natural selection does happen. They make sense and are based on real world applications. goddidit isn’t based on real world applications. Why is it harder for you to believe in real world studies than in magic that can’t be seen or have any proof of happening?

    ————

    “You believe because you were told to.”

    Are you talking to yourself? Isn’t that how most people believe in any religion? Muslims have their own religion, and it is because of the family they happen to be born in. Same thing with most everyone else. They take on the religion they were born into. They were told as a kid to believe it, and so they do.

    —————

    “Then where is the evidence DNA was written by the (3) Diddits?”

    I keep giving you hints, but you keep ignoring it. Start reading. You have a lot to catch up on! (but of course once he is done rolling on the floor snorting, he will come back and ask “where is the evidence?” What a moron.

  218. on 16 Feb 2015 at 11:45 pm 218.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Lol!!!!!! Alex to the…….rescue????

    There you have it readers……evolution diddit. No proof from the atheists just fallacies like appeal to authority! Lol!!

    And that’s ok, if nature is their god and can write high information code without intelligence. I respect all religions but I am a man of science… Remember too, suspend the laws of science to help maater/energy become eternal….lol!!!!!

    Last step, claim ever one else has not done their due diligence so they can hold on to their fairytale.

    I want to believe!……..but Mr Yeah cannot provide even one argument using the scientific method!…..love ya buddy!

    Luv you too Alex you smooth talking rascal!

  219. on 17 Feb 2015 at 12:15 am 219.Hell Yeah said …

    “but of course once he is done rolling on the floor snorting, he will come back and ask “where is the evidence?””

    Only took 16 minutes for my prediction to be tested. Analysis shows: “……evolution diddit. No proof from the atheists” I wonder if he ate a snickers during that time, too, since he likes to bring them up a lot. Maybe I should ask god since he knows everything. God should come down and tell us all about the real science since humans seem to be missing out on what he knows. I bet he is up there on the clouds laughing at us humans for collectively coming up with real world applications instead of just asking to use some of his magic during our experiments. LOL.

  220. on 17 Feb 2015 at 12:51 am 220.alex said …

    “….what is meant is that theists might not take you too seriously if you swear…”

    as opposed to these motherfuckers taking any other points seriously? please remind me. which other points have they taken seriously?

  221. on 17 Feb 2015 at 2:40 am 221.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Readers notice how Mr Yeah continues to change the subject and claim man does not know real science.

    As a man of science I am quite familiar with real science and its use. Mr Yeah obviously is not familiar especially with Information systems theory.

    Lets see if Mr Yeah will answer this question……..Mr Yeah, a majority of scientist believe in God. So shouldn’t you? A lot of proof for God out there….you should do your research…..:)…..(snicker)

    Alex luv ya buddy, not ignoring your cry for attention buddy….:)

  222. on 17 Feb 2015 at 2:55 am 222.alex said …

    Again, dumbass, motherfucker. Ya got something to say about your bitchass god? Chirp? Say you chirp?

  223. on 17 Feb 2015 at 4:20 am 223.Hell Yeah said …

    A survey in mid-1998 found that 93% of U.S. scientists do not profess belief in God, and 92.1 percent do not profess belief in immortality.

    A survey conducted in mid-1998, reported by Edward J. Larson of the University of Georgia in a letter to the journal Nature, indicates that very few senior scientists in the United States profess a belief in God or immortality.
    Larson said the survey asked members of the National Academy of Sciences to indicate if they believe, disbelieve or are agnostic regarding the existence of God and immortality. Overall, 93 percent of the scientists either disbelieve or are agnostic on the existence of God (72.2 percent disbelieve), while 92.1 percent disbelieve or are agnostic regarding immortality (76.7 percent disbelieve).

    Of those who profess a belief in God, the highest percentage was found among mathematicians (14.3 percent) and the lowest was found among biological scientists (5.5 percent). Among physicists and astronomers, 7.5 percent profess belief in God.

  224. on 17 Feb 2015 at 4:33 am 224.Hell Yeah said …

    Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in “creation-science” or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

  225. on 17 Feb 2015 at 9:45 am 225.freddies_dead said …

    Hell Yeah,

    You’re wasting your time with the lying prick. I went through evolution with him quite comprehensively on another thread – all the way down to the basic chemistry that fuels life – he offered nothing to support his own drivel and showed such a sensational lack of understanding that it seemed he’d never taken a science class in his life … which makes his “science guy” claims all the more hilarious.

    He will make baseless assertion after baseless assertion without offering a single jot of evidence for his claims whilst insisting that you account for every last atom of anything you mention. He will deny science in one heartbeat before relying on science in the next. He will then most likely create a sockpuppet to come along and pat him on the back as if he hadn’t been having his arse handed to him over and over again.

    He’s a deluded liar, plain and simple.

  226. on 17 Feb 2015 at 1:16 pm 226.Anonymous said …

    How many roads must a God fly down (while flapping the six wings on his back) before you can call him a god

    How many waters must a prophet walk on before you can call him the son of god.

    How many saints must a dove land on before you can call it the Holy spirit

    the answer my friend is blowing in the wind the answer is blowing in the wind.

  227. on 17 Feb 2015 at 1:24 pm 227.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Lol!!!!!!

    Who asked about creationist, evolutionist or ID believers? I said God and according to Pew Research just a few years ago, only 41% did not believed in some God. Of course scientist have no special skills to analyze if God exists but since they are your priests lets use them for this case. So……you are in the minority….again.

    So answer the question……or course you wont, you will dodge it as well.

    But what is a “relevant” scientist Mr Yeah? Hmmm? Relevant scientist used to believe the universe is static while the religious scientist believed in the expanding universe…..lol!!

  228. on 17 Feb 2015 at 1:50 pm 228.A Prickly Scince Guy said …

    “I went through evolution with him quite comprehensively on another thread – all the way down to the basic”

    He did, he told a fish fossil with a bump was becoming tetrapod…….no seriously lol!!!…I think he is the one who claimed life was seeded by a meteor? That was his proof of DNA? I have bony process on my knee from my baseball playing days. In a few thousand years maybe I will evolve into Aquaman?

    Don’t worry Mr Yeah, you age doing better than Fred.

  229. on 17 Feb 2015 at 3:58 pm 229.freddies_dead said …

    228.A the lying prick posting as A Prickly Scince Guy said …

    “I went through evolution with him quite comprehensively on another thread – all the way down to the basic”

    He did, he told a fish fossil with a bump was becoming tetrapod…….no seriously lol!!!

    You see Hell Yeah? This is the kind of dishonesty you can expect from A the lying prick. He asked for evidence of evolution found using the scientific method. I gave him Tiktaalik, a transitional fossil found when scientists a) studied the fossil record, b) hypothesised where they would find an intermediate fossil and c) went out and tested their hypothesis only to find it was right. A first tried to claim that the process of observation –> forming a hypothesis –> testing that hypothesis isn’t actually the scientific method. When everyone laughed at him for that he moved on to trying to claim that Tiktaalik wasn’t transitional because it was no more than “a fish fossil with a bump”. So he went from misrepresenting the scientific method to misrepresenting the find itself which actually has a neck, shoulders and wrists along with primitive lungs as well as gills.

    …I think he is the one who claimed life was seeded by a meteor?

    I never did but A loves him some dishonesty. During a discussion of amino acids A claimed that UV rays meant there was no way amino acids could have survived under early earth conditions. I pointed out that amino acids have been found on meteors which travel through space surviving much higher levels of UV radiation than those found on earth. He also tried to claim that water was the death knell for amino acids which is news to those that form quite happily in deep sea hydrothermal vents.

    That was his proof of DNA?

    Of course DNA is proof of DNA but this is A the lying prick so he has to use dishonesty to maintain his delusion. What actually happened was that I showed how we can go from simple amino acids through to DNA using chemistry alone i.e. no need for his imaginary God.

    I have bony process on my knee from my baseball playing days. In a few thousand years maybe I will evolve into Aquaman?

    And yet more dishonesty. The lying prick has been told many times that populations evolve, not individuals, but he’s so desperate to try and mock what he blatantly doesn’t understand that he doesn’t realise he just comes off looking like a complete fool.

    Don’t worry Mr Yeah, you age doing better than Fred.

    A doesn’t seem to understand that it isn’t a competition – if it was he’d have finished dead last – it’s a matter of what the facts support and they simply don’t support his delusional imaginings which is probably why he sticks to baseless assertions instead.

  230. on 17 Feb 2015 at 4:51 pm 230.Hell Yeah said …

    “Who asked about creationist, evolutionist or ID believers? I said God and according to Pew Research just a few years ago, only 41% did not believed in some God.”

    Mr. Prick is scrambling again. He brings up about percentage of scientists believing in god, I then in my first reply point to a source that found that 93% of U.S. scientists do not profess belief in God. So instead he skips to my second reply because it states “Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists”, where instead of using his word God, it uses the word creationist, even though his whole previous topic was about a god creating DNA which is creation. He needs to find something to try to point out while scrambling. LOL.

    Then Mr. Prick tries to point out that he has a survey from just a few years ago which means my results from 20 years ago are out of date. But yet a 2,000 year old book isn’t out of date? Surveys don’t necessarily have to be done to the same group of people on a constant basis, unless it is for political reasons every 4 years.

    Also, when surveying scientists about their belief in a higher power, the ones you want to survey are the ones relevant to the study. Many surveys, including the one Mr. Prick probably found, doesn’t specify which group of scientists were surveyed. There are surveys out there with the same question that are asked to scientific associations, where groups like high school science teachers including ones in the bible belt that teach creationism science, are part of the survey.

    It sure is funny to see theists scramble on the internet. There is a lot of crap on the internet where theists are trying to find ways to fit their bible to everything, even if it means re-writing meanings. The high level of scrambling just shows that theists are getting worried. One of my favorites for theist evolution claims is that how come monkeys don’t evolve to humans? I suppose I better not change the subject, because it is just too much for Mr. Prick to process, just like the questions I have posed in previous replies where instead of answering them he just states that I shouldn’t be changing the subject. So keep scrambling all you want Mr. Prick.

  231. on 17 Feb 2015 at 7:05 pm 231.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Ouch!!! Mr Yeah doesn’t like the results of study done by Pew. Pew, a reputable firm, who put together a controlled scientific study with results showing only 41% of scientist do not believe in God.

    Mr Yeah claims only certain scientist should be asked about God….????? Atheist maybe? Lol!!!!!!!!!! That would help his numbers……

    As a scientist we recognize Pew to be more recent, more controlled and therefore more accurate. The UGA study did not meet nearly the same criteria and is dated.
    This infuriates Mr Yeah because if doesn’t give him the numbers he desires

    ROTFL!, so will Mr Yeah believe in God? Scientist do so shouldn’t he?

    But what does he do? Brings up the Bible, claims of wrong scientist (snicker), monkeys

    Lets watch his next response….popcorn popping!

  232. on 17 Feb 2015 at 7:43 pm 232.Hell Yeah said …

    Is your popcorn done popping yet?

    So, if Pew is your source, the first one I found when doing a search is from 2009 and states this:

    Pew Survey: A Huge God Gap Between Scientists and Other Americans
    83 percent of Americans believe in God, but just 33 percent of American scientists do.
    An eye-opening new Pew survey on science and religion reveals a huge God gap between scientists and other Americans. Eighty-three percent of Americans say that they believe in God, while just 33 percent of scientists do. Just 17 percent of Americans are religiously unaffiliated, while nearly three times as many scientists are.
    A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.

    It still doesn’t say what actual scientists were surveyed as part of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Membership in AAAS is open to all individuals who support the goals and objectives of the Association and are willing to contribute to the achievement of those goals and objectives. So basically anyone can be a part of this association. The different types of memberships are Professional, Postdoc, Student, Emeritus, and K12 Teacher with Science Books and Films. So as you can see, students and teachers belong to this association and were probably part of this survey, so it doesn’t give a real representation of relevant scientists.

    But this still even shows a major majority of scientists don’t believe in god including those students and teachers put into the mix. Which survey are you referring to? LOL.

  233. on 18 Feb 2015 at 12:31 am 233.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Popcorn was great but your reply is lacking.

    Mr Yeah, go to the search engine google. Search for the study and look at the results.

    believers in God or a higher power made up 51%. Atheist were about 17% with some other cats being named as well.

    But I see you want to determine who is and isn’t a “relevant” scientist. So at your Community College you should not pay attention, no relevant scientist their, right? I suppose none of our students in High schools are getting a real education. No relevant scientist there….right Mr yeah? lol!!!!!

    But this begs a even bigger question. Why is a scientist qualified to be your priest? How are they more qualified than others to determine if God exists?

    New bag of popcorn, lets see if he even attempts to answer any question posed so far……:)

    Prediction; No!

  234. on 18 Feb 2015 at 1:29 am 234.Hell Yeah said …

    “believers in God or a higher power made up 51%. Atheist were about 17% with some other cats being named as well.”

    33% who believe in no god
    18% who don’t believe in god, but do believe in a universal spirit or higher power
    41% who don’t believe in either
    7% don’t know/Refused

    Your 18% can’t be added to the 33% to make your results sound better. Those 18% don’t believe in a god. Universal spirit or higher power can mean anything.

    ————–

    “But I see you want to determine who is and isn’t a “relevant” scientist”

    Yes, a high school student does not have the same complete education and life experiences as someone who has a high degree and years of experience in the field. Notice in the age breakdown that the younger someone was, the more likely they believe in a god.

    Also, certain sciences don’t relate as closely as other sciences in studying if a god could have created nature or not.

    And to point out again, membership in AAAS can be any kind of high school science teacher, such as creation teachers. Which means those creation high school students can also be a member.

    —————

    “Why is a scientist qualified to be your priest? How are they more qualified than others to determine if God exists?”

    Scientists in their field are the smartest and most knowledgeable on those topics and spend their life studying those real world applications and adding upon others. Priests are just people who have read the bible too many times and memorize and recite versus from it.

    —————

    Your prediction was wrong, just like your belief in an invisible magic being.

    You can go back to eating more popcorn and snickers now, but you have to wait 30 minutes before you roll on the floor otherwise you might get cramps. You might as well add scrambled eggs to your meal since you like to scramble a lot. LOL.

  235. on 18 Feb 2015 at 2:12 am 235.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Your 18% can’t be added to the 33% to make your results sound better.”

    tada! 51% which is why I said God or higher power. It can’t be anything. I can’t be atheism….or can it……ooohhhhhh! lol!!!

    So, you are a minority, the majority are not atheist so why have you not recanted and acknowledged what the majority of us already know? Why hold on to your cult beliefs?

    “Scientists in their field are the smartest and most knowledgeable on those topics”

    So I will ask again. Scientist are no more experts in the existence of God than alex is on the English language. So why does their opinion matter. I know they are your priests, but why?

    Prediction: Mr Yeah will STILL NOT answer one single question.

    Summary of unanswered questions
    1. Provides no evidence that DNA coding was written by his diddits (really need some background on information theory)

    2. Will not answer what makes scientist experts on the existence of God.

    3. Why he will not recant atheism when 51% of scicntist are not athests.

  236. on 18 Feb 2015 at 2:59 am 236.Hell Yeah said …

    “So, you are a minority, the majority are not atheist”

    The point was believing in god or not, not who is atheist or not. You do know not believing in god does fall into other categories other than atheist. I am not even an atheist. I am an agnostic atheist, which falls into both the agnostic and atheist categories. What is an agnostic atheist you might ask? I do not know if a god exists or not because of the lack of evidence. I am not saying for sure there is no god, but the lack of proof makes me believe there isn’t. That is why I said in the past that if evidence does present itself, I will believe again, but until then I don’t. Remember, you are the one who is supposed to provide proof of a god, not where I am suppose to provide proof of no god. So where is your “extraordinary” evidence?

    —————

    “Prediction: Mr Yeah will STILL NOT answer one single question.”

    I guess you didn’t fully read my last reply. This just goes to show more and more why you are just a complete waste of time. At least others who read these will get a good laugh at you, too, so at least that isn’t a waste. Good luck with your afterlife when you die. I will be laughing when you realize there is none….oh, wait, you can’t realize that when your conscience will forever seize to exist. But hey, if you do get an afterlife, make sure to come back and tell us. That would be great “extraordinary” evidence. According to the Pope, atheists get into heaven anyways, so if it is real, I will see you there!

  237. on 18 Feb 2015 at 7:16 am 237.TJ said …

    Regardless of what you believe, if…

    The Pope claims to represent the God of the Bible.

    God says he sent his Son, Jesus as a perfect sacrifice for our sins.

    Jesus claims that ‘He’ is the way, that there is no other way unto the father but through him.

    The Bible claims that faith/belief in Jesus’s resurrection from the dead is all that is required for salvation and to avoid judgment.

    How can the Pope claim to represent the God of the Bible, and say that a lack of belief in a Deity can still get you into heaven?

  238. on 18 Feb 2015 at 12:47 pm 238.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “What is an agnostic atheist you might ask?”

    No, that is not one of the questions asked. Quite familiar with atheist word salads as I was once so silly too. Lol!!; you actually thought you had something?

    Notice readers Mr Yeah does not answer the 3 simple questions but goes on about the after life, the pope, heaven….everything except what we asked him.

    I have picked up Mr Yeah is not even vaguely familiar withe Information systems theory which is why he believes the 3 diddits wrote DNA coding….more complex than anything Microsoft puts out….lol!!!

    He listens to his priests concerning the 3 diddits but not God. To be fair all atheist do. Lack of evidence is not the issue, but rather anger, pride and defiance.

    Lastly scientist are no more experts is God than the high school kid. Biology, Physics, etc do not prove or disprove God’s existence. Education does for the weak minded bring arrogance and elitism that gives some cognitive “beer muscles”.

  239. on 18 Feb 2015 at 1:01 pm 239.Just to Say said …

    Happy Lent Folks!!!!!!!

  240. on 18 Feb 2015 at 4:01 pm 240.freddies_dead said …

    Don’t you just love it when A thinks he’s found a magic phrase?

    “High information coding” is one. Has he ever bothered to define the term? Of course not. A definition would require some understanding of what he’s blathering about and, as is abundantly clear, A never bothers to understand anything, even if he’s going to rely on it during a discussion. Has he ever shown why it’s some sort of barrier for evolution? Again it’s a no. Simple gene duplication with a mutation to the duplicated gene generates novel information in DNA, meaning there is absolutely no reason why we should think “high information” cannot occur naturally. But here’s A throwing out his phrase as if simply saying it makes it an issue.

    “Information systems theory” is another. Again we don’t get any kind of definition, not even a narrowing of the field to which part of this theory he thinks is applicable here and of course there’s absolutely nothing specific about how information systems theory either disproves evolution or, more importantly here, proves the existence of his God.

    That’s because it doesn’t. There is no empirical evidence for A’s God so “information systems theory” and codes containing “high information” which take account of actual empirical data cannot help him. Instead we get unsupported assertions and these hopeful magic phrases which do nothing to change the imaginary nature of A’s God.

    He listens to his priests concerning the 3 diddits but not God. he accuses Hell Yeah, but just how is Hell Yeah supposed to listen to God? I guess he could imagine one, like A does, but that’s not going to help him learn anything about reality. When it comes to scientists though, we know they exist. We can go and talk to them without having to imagine them first. We can also test their claims against the very same physical evidence that they have used, to see if they are being consistent. They are generally people who have spent years studying the nature of reality, as opposed to A’s priests who have spent years studying the imaginary.

    Education does for the weak minded bring arrogance and elitism that gives some cognitive “beer muscles”. I guess this is why A avoids any kind of education like the plague.

    As usual it all comes down to A trying to avoid his burden – that of proving his God exists – and no doubt he’ll keep banging on about his slight majority of scientists who believe in God (or a higher power of course, mustn’t forget that higher power as it’s the only way he scrapes a majority) instead of shouldering that burden.

  241. on 18 Feb 2015 at 4:29 pm 241.WrongBeliever2F***With said …

    WELL I MAY OR MAY NOT BE A CHRISTIAN BUT I AM A MOBSTER WHO BELIEVES IN GOD AND HIS SON JESUS CHRIST. IT IS GOD AND HIS SON JESUS WHO PROTECTS ME IN MY ROLE ON THE STREETS.

    I LET JESUS INTO MY LIFE ALTHOUGH MY LIFE COMPRISES OF ROBBING, KILLING ETC.

    I AM A DECENT GANGSTER AND I KEEP ALL THE MAFFIA CODES.

    BUT YOU GET HERE AND INSULT MY MAKER MAKING OUT LIKE HE IS NOT ALIVE.

    AND YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DOUCH BAGS, ALEX, LOUISE, HELL YEAH, FREDDIES DEAD AND DPK I AM GOING TO HUNT YOU DOWN.

    I AM GOING TO KIDNAP YOU. ENTER YOUR HOUSES. I AM GOING TO BREAK YOUR KNEE CAPS WITH A STEEL PIPE. I AM GOING TO AMPUTATE YOU ONE LIMB EACH WITH A HACK SAW BLADE. I AM GOING TO PUT A BAG ON YOUR HEAD EACH AND SMASH UP YOUR FACES. I AM GOING TO LEAVE RAZOR BLADE MARKS OVER YOUR FACES. I AM GOING TO SMASH IN YOUR PINNOCIO NOSE BRIDGES. I AM GOING TO USE THE GARDEN HEDGE CLIP ON YOUR TONGUES. I AM GOING TO PULL YOUR PANTS DOWN THE GIRLS I AM GOING TO GET GANG RAPED AND MAKE THEM LIKE THE JUICE OF THE D_ _ _ _ OF ME AND MY BUDDIES. I AM GOING TO GET THE MEN BUGGERED BY THE MEANEST MOTHER-F_ _ _ _ _ _ _ GAY GUY. AND MAKE THEM LICK THEIR OWN S*** OFF OF HIS D***. I AM GOING TO CUT THERE TOES OF AND SHOOT OFF THEIR LIMBS FOR TARGET PRACTICE. I AM GOING TO CUT THEIR ENTRAILS OUT AND STUFF IT DOWN THEIR THROATS. I AM GOING TO PUT THEIR BODY PARTS INTO THE MEAT GRINDER AND THEN COOK THEM AND FEED THEM TO MY DOGS. YOUR D***** GO IN TO THE MEAT GRINDER WHEN YOU ARE STILL ALIVE. I AM ALSO GOING TO F*** YOUR ASSES WITH A PAIR OF FIRE HEARTH TONGS BOTH GIRLS AND BOYS. I HAVE A GAY DOG THAT COMES OFF ON PEOPLE’S LEGS ONCE HIS GENITALS ARE STIMULATED. I AM GOING TO GET HIM TO F*** YOU UP THE ASSES TOO BEFORE YOU DIE.

    YOU STUPID BLASPHEMOUS MOTHER FUCKER A*******

  242. on 18 Feb 2015 at 4:50 pm 242.DPK said …

    “How can the Pope claim to represent the God of the Bible, and say that a lack of belief in a Deity can still get you into heaven?”

    I dunno.. maybe you should ask him. If all that is required is to believe in Jesus, there wouldn’t be much use for churches and priests, would there?

    But that brings up a good point, the bible instructs you to do a lot of things that I’ll bet you probably don’t do. How do you decide which of god’s commandments are to be followed and which can be ignored? Have you sold everything you own and given it to the poor? Do you ever do work on Sunday? Wear clothes made of different fabrics? Eat shrimp?

  243. on 18 Feb 2015 at 5:12 pm 243.Anonymous said …

    So, Mr. Prick, still no “extraordinary” evidence for your god or heaven?

    —————–

    “As usual it all comes down to A trying to avoid his burden – that of proving his God exists – and no doubt he’ll keep banging on about his slight majority of scientists who believe in God (or a higher power of course, mustn’t forget that higher power as it’s the only way he scrapes a majority) instead of shouldering that burden.”

    And don’t forget Mr. Prick is okay with including any kind of high school science student or high school science teacher in his group of scientists that should be polled as having expert knowledge in the main scientific fields that deal with biology and astronomy. It gives a false impression when you tell others that “scientists” in the majority believe in a god. The exact poll results, including students and teachers, are 33% of American scientists who believe in god. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops. This is why details are important. Theists are scrambling to try to prove their bible correct and they do so by skewing to fit their claims.

    ——————–

    “How can the Pope claim to represent the God of the Bible, and say that a lack of belief in a Deity can still get you into heaven?”

    The Pope is just a human just like Jesus probably was back in the day. Just preachers given higher authority in their religion. I can just imagine the goat herders back then when they saw someone like Cris Angel and David Copperfield doing illusions with magic tricks and they thought they had to be god-like because they didn’t have an explanation. That is the problem with theists, they assume because they currently have no explanation, that it must have been goddidit with no proof, or without seeking an actual real-world explanation.

  244. on 18 Feb 2015 at 5:14 pm 244.Hell Yeah said …

    The last post, #243, was me. I hate that when you don’t realize the name wasn’t filled in and it automatically puts Anonymous. LOL.

  245. on 18 Feb 2015 at 5:32 pm 245.That's It said …

    In Nigeria we say that the devil will always retreat when he comes in touch wit da higher madness.

    These athiest will come on their death beds to realise that God alone possesses the higher madness.

    Their trick is really played out. Where is their proof that God doesn’t exist.

    They actually made up a website to announce the non-existence of God and they haven’t even proved that he doesn’t exist.

    They are looking for stepping stones to prop up their crazy idea.

    It won’t be me.

  246. on 18 Feb 2015 at 5:41 pm 246.DPK said …

    245.That’s It said …

    “Their trick is really played out. Where is their proof that God doesn’t exist.
    They actually made up a website to announce the non-existence of God and they haven’t even proved that he doesn’t exist.”

    Take your statement above and substitute “Santa” or “Leprachauns” in place of “God” and you will see how stupid and baseless your question is. One cannot “prove” a negative. One cannot “prove” a god doesn’t exist anymore than you can “prove” Santa doesn’t exist.
    You are the one asserting that a magical supernatural being not only exists, but exhibits a host of specific properties and requires obedience and worship. It’s up to you to show us how we can distinguish this god you claim is real from all the other imaginary constructs people have claimed are real. But you won’t, because you can’t. You offer no more evidence for the existence of your god than I can offer for garden gnomes and fairies.

  247. on 18 Feb 2015 at 5:57 pm 247.That's It said …

    So you can’t provide evidence to prove that god doesn’t exist yet you set up a blog to this effect.

    You admit your presumption you admit you failed.

  248. on 18 Feb 2015 at 6:19 pm 248.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    ROTFL!

    Now Mr Yeah resorts to lying while avoiding the 3 questions. Check out his moral code from our atheist friends.

    “any kind of high school science student or high school science teacher in his group of scientists that should be polled as having expert knowledge in the main scientific fields that deal with biology and astronomy.”

    Actually I claimed they are equally qualified to make a determination on God. THAT WAS THE POLL QUESTION NOT BIOLOGY OR ASTRONOMY. LOL!!!!!!!
    I have asked Mr Yeah numerous times why they would not be.

    Why does mr Yeah lie? The atheist moral code is so subjective and corrupt. that they resort to smear and lies to cya. How sad!!

    Lets give him another chance to answer the 3 questions!! OK, Mr yeah, popcorn popping…….

  249. on 18 Feb 2015 at 6:53 pm 249.Hell Yeah said …

    Mr. Prick brings up about a poll of scientists to use the term scientists to show atheists that scientists believe in god more often than they don’t, but when he is pointed out that isn’t the case (33%), and that anyone off the street can be part of that poll her refers to, he then resorts to saying anyone can be equally qualified to make a determination on God. So why bring up scientists then?

    Still no “extraordinary” evidence from Mr. Prick for his god or heaven. Kind of hard for him to come up with that evidence when he is constantly rolling on the floor and eating popcorn. He can do those at the same time? He must be a god himself then, because I have no explanation why he hasn’t choked yet. Although, his replies do choke by themselves. LOL.

    —————

    #241. Death threats by a theist. But yet atheists are the ones going around killing people with no morals, supposedly. Go figure. Gotta love the theist scrambling.

  250. on 18 Feb 2015 at 7:28 pm 250.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Oh Mr Yeah, you are so…um…er…challenged!

    After his blatant lie, Mr Yeah comes back with”

    “So why bring up scientists then?”

    Because they tell you what to believe and not to believe. You are not capable of independent thought. I showed you are a minority compared to scientists. Do you see now my little apple blossom?

    “Still no “extraordinary” evidence from Mr. Prick for his god or heaven.”

    Readers, notice how Mr Yeah continues to dodge the 3 questions he was asked and change the subject and resorts to parroting other atheist posters with name-calling. More evidence he is not capable of originality. A very common practice among atheist when they are backed into a corner. It just gets sadder.

    LOL!!!, in our discussions I never claimed I would be providing evidence for God. He did make claims about DNA coding, scientist are atheists, and others………………LOL!!!!!!!!

  251. on 18 Feb 2015 at 8:28 pm 251.Hell Yeah said …

    Sorry, Mr. Prick, that you are hurt by calling you something with a Mr. and then part of your name, just like you do with me. LOL.

    I think Mr. Prick is afraid of relevant scientists because they figure out more and more every day how our universe and world works.

    Mr. Prick thinks by believing in results from real-world studies by the most expert people in the field is not capable of independent thought, but yet when you go to church it is just people chanting back what the leader of the cult started. And then most of the theists constantly use bible quotes on here, which are supposed to be independent thoughts?

    I also still like how Mr. Prick claims he showed I am a minority compared to scientists. Someone needs to go back to high school math and learn that 2/3 isn’t a minority. He can then join the other high school students that are part of the poll!

    I don’t know why Mr. Prick keeps on insisting I haven’t answered any of his questions. All one has to do is go back to previous replies. Just because he doesn’t like the answers doesn’t mean they aren’t answers.

    Still no “extraordinary” evidence from Mr. Prick for his god or heaven. He is dodging my question because he has none to offer. He wants me to provide evidence for the non-existence of god, but he doesn’t realize that he needs to provide evidence for his positive claim that god exists, not the other way around.

    Who is backed into a corner? Wasn’t I the first one of us recently to use that phrase or something similar? Sheesh, and for some reason Mr. Prick thinks I am the one not capable of originality. LOL. You can be sad all you want, Mr. Prick.

  252. on 18 Feb 2015 at 9:13 pm 252.DPK said …

    247.That’s It said …
    “So you can’t provide evidence to prove that god doesn’t exist…”

    Perhaps… let me ask you.. what evidence would you accept that would prove to you that god doesn’t exist? Be specific.

  253. on 18 Feb 2015 at 10:09 pm 253.alex said …

    We already know what the dumbass accepts as proof for his god, but when applied to other gods, it doesn’t count.

    His fucked up bible is sacrosanct, but every other motherfucking holy book, the dipshit readily dismisses.

    Fucking asshole.

  254. on 18 Feb 2015 at 10:21 pm 254.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    OK readers, notice Mr yeah now sees atheist as a 2/3 majority. We now have a young fella suffering from serious delusions.

    Second, Mr yeah believes there has been “real world” studies that have disproved God’s existence. Mr Yeah has not answered any of the other questions but I sure would like to see theses “real world” studies.

    Would you share these Mr yeah?

    Lastly, Mr Yeah’s delusion leads him to believe he has answered questions with “Diddits” and attempts at changing the subject….(snicker)

    Let me do this again with the addition of Mr Yeah’s claim

    Summary of unanswered questions

    1. Provides no evidence that DNA coding was written by his diddits (really need some background on information theory)

    2. Will not answer what makes scientist experts on the existence of God.

    3. Why he will not recant atheism when 51% of scientist are not atheists.

    4. Has yet to provide a few “real world” studies disproving there is a god.

    snicker….snicker….

    Prediction: Changes the subject, bring up the pope, bring up religion, blah blah blah….:)

  255. on 18 Feb 2015 at 10:28 pm 255.alex said …

    ‘Summary of unanswered questions’

    And this proves that your Allah exist? Is that it?

  256. on 18 Feb 2015 at 10:31 pm 256.alex said …

    Oops, forgot your customary greeting.

    Dumbass motherfucker, respond back, bitch. You know who you are.

  257. on 18 Feb 2015 at 11:37 pm 257.Hell Yeah said …

    “notice Mr yeah now sees atheist as a 2/3 majority. We now have a young fella suffering from serious delusions.”
    “Why he will not recant atheism when 51% of scientist are not atheists.”

    Mr. Prick, you do realize anyone can go up and read the past comments. Let’s see….lets look up what the original poll you posted about was…..
    “Mr Yeah, a majority of scientist believe in God. So shouldn’t you? A lot of proof for God out there….you should do your research”
    …………okay, research done and here were the actual poll results:
    33% who believe in god (which include high school students and anyone else who wants to join the AAAS)
    18% who don’t believe in god, but do believe in a universal spirit or higher power
    41% who don’t believe in either
    7% don’t know/Refused
    ……..so doing the math of 100% – 33% = 67% which translates to 2/3 of scientists who don’t believe in god. I never said “atheists” were the whole 2/3. There are other categories other than atheists that fall under not believing in god. I am not even an atheist. I am an agnostic atheist. But, we have gone through all this before. Mr. Prick just has no comebacks, so he only resorts to skewing and scrambling. Who has serious delusions?

    ————-

    Still no “extraordinary” evidence from Mr. Prick for his god or heaven.

  258. on 19 Feb 2015 at 12:22 am 258.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Lol!!!!!!!!

    Such a liar! Go tell your mom!

    You just stated in 251 that you were 2/3 and not the minority. Do you type and the lies just come out………(snicker, lol!!!)

    I am on the other hand part of the 51% or about 90% of the entire population. Face it, you are in a cult.

    And as predicted folks, no “real world” studies to disprove God as Mr Liar claimed. Four questions…..no answers. Readers the atheist lose again. I want to believe again……but atheist have no evidence, no prospects and no reasons to believe.

    …..sigh…….

  259. on 19 Feb 2015 at 12:55 am 259.Hell Yeah said …

    “You just stated in 251 that you were 2/3 and not the minority.”

    Mr. Prick: “I showed you are a minority compared to scientists.”

    Me: “I also still like how Mr. Prick claims he showed I am a minority compared to scientists. Someone needs to go back to high school math and learn that 2/3 isn’t a minority.”

    The 2/3 is scientists who don’t believe in god. I don’t believe in god. Keep trying. LOL.

    ———–

    “I am on the other hand part of the 51%”

    So are you the part of the 51% that don’t believe in god, but do believe in a universal spirit or higher power, or are you a high school student or patron who was able to use their credit card to join the AAAS and was part of the random poll?

    Don’t forget that to be part of AAAS where the poll took place, you do not have to be a scientist or have any qualifications whatsoever to be a member. You can be a patron or a student member or a K-12 teacher. How does that represent leading scientists and make the poll valid for saying “scientists” as the poll results? You know that just sways the real results of not believing in god even less, just like the other two polls I gave you as examples.

    ————

    “Face it, you are in a cult.”

    LOL. Yeah, that makes sense. Do we need to go over what a cult is?

    ————–

    “Mr Yeah, a majority of scientist believe in God. So shouldn’t you? A lot of proof for God out there….you should do your research”

    Let’s examine this post by Mr. Prick again. He says a lot of proof for God is out there. So where is it? Remember, you are making the positive claim a god is responsible for DNA and everything else.

    ————

    “Such a liar! Go tell your mom!”

    You are going to tell my mom I am lying? LOL. First, where am I lying? Second, how old are you? I am assuming you are a middle aged computer programmer that claims he is a scientist from what I gather, but I could be wrong.

    You also like to snicker a lot. According to the urban dictionary, snickering means:

    1. Using a snickers bar as a dildo, usually as a last resort.

    2. The art of freezing a turd and upping yourself with it. Male or female. Make sure the snickering is completed before the turd thaws.

    3. The act of dipping your shit covered dick in someone’s coffee in order to make it taste both of wood and ass.

    4. To keep going on and on and on about something.

    Which one is your meaning? LOL.

  260. on 19 Feb 2015 at 1:01 am 260.DPK said …

    At the start of Lent, my facebook feed is blowing up with people reminding us that Jesus sacrificed his life for us. Which leads me to wonder, what does it mean for an immortal being who has and will exist for all eternity, to “sacrifice his life”?

    Sounds like a meaningless gesture to me, especially since the sacrifice is made to himself.

  261. on 19 Feb 2015 at 1:16 am 261.DPK said …

    I am assuming you are a middle aged computer programmer that claims he is a scientist from what I gather, but I could be wrong.”

    He has told us in the past he is an Astrophysicist… with a capital “A” mind you… which is where his “A” moniker came from. But of course, his profound and mind boggling misunderstanding of basic scientific principals, as well as the fact that a real astrophysicist would not refer to his field of study as a proper noun, shows us that that, like almost everything that comes out of his mouth, is a lie. He is just inherently dishonest. No one here takes him seriously. Even his fellow theists find him borish, obnoxious, and a poor reflection on their respective beliefs.
    He lies and will not engage in any honest debate or discuss anything with any integrity or intellectual honesty. My advice is to do as I do and just ignore him.. that gets him more furious than anything…. LOL

  262. on 19 Feb 2015 at 1:29 am 262.Hell Yeah said …

    “He has told us in the past he is an Astrophysicist”

    Ah, so he thinks he is in the same category as Neil DeGrasse Tyson. LOL. That is too funny.
    A favorite quote of mine from Neil is “If your belief system is not founded in an objective reality, you should not be making decisions that affect other people.”

    ————

    “My advice is to do as I do and just ignore him.. that gets him more furious than anything”

    Oh, I think I am making him pretty furious, can’t you tell. LOL. I can just picture the steam coming from his head as he is “snickering” and rolling on the floor. I wonder if he found any pieces of popcorn in his snicker?

  263. on 19 Feb 2015 at 1:43 am 263.DPK said …

    :Ah, so he thinks he is in the same category as Neil DeGrasse Tyson.”

    No, he thinks Tyson is one of those idiots who believe in evolution, and don’t understand the scientific method. We don’t see monkeys giving birth to humans, so evolution isn’t science…. LOL. He thinks he is in a category WAY above Tyson… one who understands that any scientific theory must begin with “First, god decided that……”

  264. on 19 Feb 2015 at 1:52 am 264.TJ said …

    A favorite quote of mine from Neil is his constant reference during the “Cosmos” series to the “ship of the imagination”.

    Ironic, as how imagination used to explore the possibility of the existence of God is viewed as such an unfeasible method of rationalization.

    ———————-

    As for the numbers being argued above. Surly truth itself is not subject to the sway of what a majority or minority may or may not believe?

    At one point, ~100% believed the sun rotated around the earth.

    The numbers are not proof of anything in of themselves… why all the argument? Let it go.

  265. on 19 Feb 2015 at 2:07 am 265.Hell Yeah said …

    “A favorite quote of mine from Neil is his constant reference during the “Cosmos” series to the “ship of the imagination”.”

    Since it is kind of hard to film the show in actual space, he was showing what it would look like if he were in space showing the different parts from the ship. He had to explain to kids watching the show that he wasn’t in actual space while filming. Us adults knew what he meant. And we can see space and objects in space to know that they exist. Man has also been in space.

    —————–

    “At one point, ~100% believed the sun rotated around the earth.”

    Yeah, back when scientific instruments were limited by the goat herders.

  266. on 19 Feb 2015 at 2:19 am 266.DPK said …

    “The numbers are not proof of anything in of themselves… why all the argument? Let it go.”

    Exactly why I stayed out of the “discussion”. The argument from popularity and the argument from authority are both logical fallacies. Of course “A” thinks it is a vital point that somewhere between 80 and 90% of the earth’s population believes is some kind of god, as if this is proof that it is true. Of course, he ignores the fact that the majority of the earth’s population disbelieve in HIS particular god. It is curious to me that among tolerant religious people they have no problem when others disbelieve in THEIR god, as long as they profess belief in some OTHER god…. but believe in NO god is simply unacceptable. Odd, because both of us are saying we don’t believe in your god, so what is the difference?

  267. on 19 Feb 2015 at 2:27 am 267.alex said …

    ‘.., because both of us are saying we don’t believe in your god, so what is the difference?’

    Because with atheists, they share no common delusional denominator? Even though atheists exercise the same moral judgment, atheists have no magical, bullshit, god given moral directives? And bleh, bleh….

  268. on 19 Feb 2015 at 2:35 am 268.Hell Yeah said …

    “At one point, ~100% believed the sun rotated around the earth.”

    After doing a quick search, it seems there was a survey done a couple years ago that resulted in a quarter of Americans still believe that. I hope that isn’t true.

    Genesis-Creation-Proof dot com.
    I found this site while doing a quick search on the topic as well. This is the reason why the bible and creationism need to stay out of the schools.

  269. on 19 Feb 2015 at 9:14 am 269.That's It said …

    247.That’s It said …
    “So you can’t provide evidence to prove that god doesn’t exist…”
    Perhaps… let me ask you.. what evidence would you accept that would prove to you that god doesn’t exist? Be specific.

    YOU HAVE SET UP A STALL TO SELL LEMONADE AND YOU DON’T HAVE ANY LEMONADE.

    SO STICK YOUR BLOG WHERE THE SUN DOESN’T SHINE.

  270. on 19 Feb 2015 at 12:14 pm 270.freddies_dead said …

    Never mind That’s It, here’s some lemonade for you:

    Premise 1: If the primacy of consciousness is invalid, then the claim that God exists is false.

    Premise 2: The primacy of consciousness is invalid.

    Conclusion: Therefore, the claim that God exists is false.

    I suspect That’s It isn’t going to like the taste very much and I’m pretty sure he’ll try to claim that it isn’t the lemonade he asked for … now won’t that be a surprise? Not.

  271. on 19 Feb 2015 at 2:25 pm 271.DPK said …

    YOU HAVE SET UP A STALL TO SELL LEMONADE AND YOU DON’T HAVE ANY LEMONADE.
    SO STICK YOUR BLOG WHERE THE SUN DOESN’T SHINE.

    How do you know? Have you considered what “evidence that god doesn’t exist” would look like? Tell us specifically exactly what evidence you would accept that God does not exist and then let’s see if we can meet the challenge, or not. Otherwise your claims are empty and hollow. What would convince you? Anything?

  272. on 19 Feb 2015 at 3:50 pm 272.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    I am flattered! Dippity Dew has taken my question from way back……

    “What evidence would you accept for God’s existence”

    …and used it for proof God does not exist.

    Unlike the atheists, I will offer a valid response. But be forewarned, you cannot prove something does not exist that does indeed exist.

    Dippity, have you seen the 4 questions Mr Yeah refuses to answer? Lets try these three. Answer these, and I will return to atheism. Lets go!

    1. Provide evidence that meets the scientific method that DNA coding (not the carriers) was written by Mr yeah’s diddits. Look up SM if you don’t know what it entails

    2. Explain why we should take a scientist word concerning the existence of God over anyone else.

    3. Provide a few of the “real world” studies claimed by Mr Yeah disproving there is a god. That would really convince me!!

    God Luck!

  273. on 19 Feb 2015 at 4:08 pm 273.Hell Yeah said …

    I see Mr. Prick doesn’t want to reply to me anymore. LOL.

    “Unlike the atheists, I will offer a valid response. But be forewarned, you cannot prove something does not exist that does indeed exist.”

    So if god does “indeed” exist, there would be “extraordinary” evidence. You said there is a lot of proof for god out there, so quit holding back. Where is this proof of the supernatural? You can give proof of anything supernatural if that would make it easier for you.

    You can go back to snickering while rolling on the floor now. But keep in mind, make sure the snickering is completed before the turd thaws.

  274. on 19 Feb 2015 at 4:34 pm 274.DPK said …

    I am reminded of the recent Bill Nye / Ken Ham “debate” (one must use the term loosely) about creationism vs evolution. The moderator posed both participants the question “What would make you change your mind?”
    Nye answered “evidence”.
    Ham answered “nothing”.

    … there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.”

    ? Neil deGrasse Tyson

  275. on 19 Feb 2015 at 4:54 pm 275.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Mr Yeah!

    I luv you as much as I luv alex and dippity dew. You are welcome to answer the questions too! Dippity didn’t even make an attempt! lol!!!!!

    Now Dippity stated, and I quote:

    “Tell us specifically exactly what evidence you would accept that God does not exist and then let’s see if we can meet the challenge, or not.”

    So I presented 3 questions. Answering these would lead me to return to the cult of atheism. Stay focused! Don’t attempt to change the subject. Here we go!

    1. Provide evidence that meets the scientific method that DNA coding (not the carriers) was written by Mr yeah’s diddits. Look up SM if you don’t know what it entails

    2. Explain why we should take a scientist word concerning the existence of God over anyone else.

    3. Provide a few of the “real world” studies claimed by Mr Yeah disproving there is a god. That would really convince me!!

    Lets see what you can do!

    God Luck!

  276. on 19 Feb 2015 at 5:40 pm 276.Hell Yeah said …

    Mr. Prick, the reason why we aren’t answering your questions currently is because we already went through that exercise with you. And if for some odd reason current science is completely wrong on how DNA coding was created, it still doesn’t mean the only other explanation would be a god. And if it was a god, which god? If you can prove a god exists, any of them, that could be proof that DNA coding wasn’t created the way scientists currently think. Not only do you need to prove that a god exists, you also need to prove it is the god you believe in. And even if it is proven a god did create everything, you then need to prove that it was a god who also created an afterlife for humans called a heaven. That is a lot of proving to do. There is a lot of supernatural claims out there, but not one shred of evidence proves anything supernatural exists. So pull that snicker out of your ass and start researching.

    And since you are an “ass”trophysicist, you can even teach us all about how the sun rotates around the earth like the creationists teach. Let’s start with all the god evidence on Genesis-Creation-Proof dot com.

  277. on 19 Feb 2015 at 6:57 pm 277.DPK said …

    Ok, so in response to the query of “specifically what evidence would you accept as sufficient to show that gods do not exist, A offers up the following:
    Let’s clarify exactly what he is asking for.

    “Provide evidence that meets the scientific method that DNA coding (not the carriers) was written by Mr yeah’s diddits.”

    Not sure what “Mr. yeah’s didits” actually refer to, but let’s assume he is talking about the natural process of gene mutation, natural selection, transposons, and polyploidy over the course of billions of years. So, if we were to present evidence that information can be added to DNA by natural (non-supernatural) causes, THIS would be sufficient for you to accept as “proof” that god is imaginary? Is that right?

    2. Explain why we should take a scientist word concerning the existence of God over anyone else.

    Not sure anyone ever claimed you should. I think the assertion is we should accept the word of scientists in regards to science over the words written by unknown sources with no education over 2 thousand years ago. But, if somehow we could give you a valid reason why you should accept the word of a scientist about the existence of the supernatural in comparison to say, a fortune teller, seer, or swami… would THAT be sufficient “proof” for you to disbelieve in god?

    3. Provide a few of the “real world” studies claimed by Mr Yeah disproving there is a god.

    You will need to be more specific. Are you referring to studies that discredited the specific properties usually associated with god, like the efficacy of prayer or the like? I am aware of no study ever done that purports to “disprove there is a god”. Again, anyone with an education level above 5th grade understands the concept that you can’t prove a negative. This has been pointed out to you over and over again, but you still cling to it like a life preserver of some sort. It’s sad. But, if we could provide you some actual studies that show that any of the properties normally associated with god, like answering prayers or performing miracles, actually do not occur, would that be sufficient evidence for you to doubt the existence of god?

    Not claiming any of this can be done, just want to be crystal clear on exactly what you would require that would be acceptable to you as “proof” of the non-existence of something.

    On an aside, and just so we can understand where you place the burden of proof, please tell us what you would accept as PROOF that Bigfoot does not exist? I just want to be able to make a comparative analysis and see if Bigfoot is held to a different standard for disbelief.

  278. on 19 Feb 2015 at 7:13 pm 278.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    LOL!!!!

    Well, Mr Yeah has caved in and well, Dippity Dew just doesn’t understand the subject matter.

    Lets take a look see!

    1. “So, if we were to present evidence that information can be added to DNA by natural ”

    ….sigh……no Dippity not at all. Lets try again. Matter and energy can carry information, but they are not the same as information itself. Your assignment is to provide evidence that a DNA coding system and semantic information could originate from matter with absolutely no intelligence involved. Simple, yes?

    2. Not sure anyone ever claimed you should. I think the assertion is we should accept the word of scientists in regards to science”

    I too, but wrong again, Mr Yeah believes scientist have the inside track on the existence of God. Why?

    3. “You will need to be more specific. Are you referring to studies that discredited the specific properties usually associated with god”

    Wish I could but it wasn’t my claim. Those are Mr yeah’s words, he refuses to even acknowledge he made the claim!! lol, you guys need to talk.

  279. on 19 Feb 2015 at 8:06 pm 279.Hell Yeah said …

    Notice how Mr. Prick still avoids proving his god “indeed” exists. So because he doesn’t understand how nature could possible do something, that only something supernatural could have done it. How does Mr. Prick know that the supernatural exists? Last I knew, there aren’t any supernatural elements in the periodic table. Just think, Mr. Prick, if you found that element, you would be able to name it! I can see it now, element Prick(Pk).

  280. on 19 Feb 2015 at 8:41 pm 280.DPK said …

    “Matter and energy can carry information, but they are not the same as information itself.”

    I think you need to define exactly what you think “information” is. If an atom of hydrogen “knows” how to bond with an atom of chlorine, is that because of the nature of covalent bonds, or because there is information that tells it to do so?
    If once can deduce the chemical composition of a compound by reading it’s spectrum, is that because the information about the compound has been added by a supernatural entity, or because the information is part of the nature of matter and energy? Is an object’s temperature “information”? How about it’s ph?

    “Mr Yeah believes scientist have the inside track on the existence of God. Why?”

    You would need to ask him… the argument from authority is a logical fallacy, but is one that YOU included as one of your required evidences that god does not exist. You just keep getting sillier and sillier…. LOL

    Are you referring to studies that discredited the specific properties usually associated with god”
    Wish I could but it wasn’t my claim.

    Of course not. That evidence can be produced, so obviously you would reject them… hahaha. Just like you always retreat from any specifics when questioned about the actual properties of your god. Remember “kind of powerful, sort of intelligent….” LOL!

    So, the third requirement that you would accept as sufficient evidence for the non-existence of god would need to be a definitive scientific study that shows that god does not exist… is that it? LOL… you neglected to answer the question about Bigfoot. By comparison, would you require a definitive scientific study to conclude Bigfoot does not exist? Since none exists, can we assume you are a Bigfoot believer?

  281. on 19 Feb 2015 at 10:02 pm 281.alex said …

    both camps will never accept what the other has to offer, so why not turn it around? what proof do i need to acknowledge a god? i’m easy, just levitate, baby! i’m not talking about copperfield or david blaine on tv. just let me see levitation and i’ll bow down and recognize. should be cake for a god.

    other atheists would prolly require different proofs, but all them proofs would still be cake for a god.

    what about you xtians? what would allah have to do to prove hisself? what? i can’t hear ya. speak up, bitch.

  282. on 19 Feb 2015 at 10:17 pm 282.DPK said …

    I’d be convinced by an overnight worldwide end to cancer in response to prayer. Or maybe a church that has burned to the ground being magically restored instantly. If the planes headed toward the twin towers had suddenly been stopped in their flight and returned safely to earth, or even Jesus riding down from heaven in his golden chariot and raising the dead would even do it for me.
    Interesting how with the advent of communications and recording technology Jesus’ miracles have reduced from walking on water and raising the dead to occasional appearances on burnt toast.
    Saw a story on the news last week were a local congregation was inside a church actively praying that god spare their decades old church spire from a wind storm the area was experiencing. As the congregation prayed, a gust of wind came and the entire spire came crashing down. The minister’s take on it? It was truly a miracle that no one was killed… god was indeed looking over them. I mean, how do you argue with that?

  283. on 19 Feb 2015 at 10:24 pm 283.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    ROTFL!!!!

    “I think you need to define exactly what you think “information” is.”

    OMG, next Dippity will ask me to define “is” for him. This is too good! Dip, go check out a book on Amazon about DNA coding. I never asked about a H atom. I asked about DNA. If you can’t figure out what information is, you should just stop now. Try to focus. lol!!!!

    “You would need to ask him… the argument from authority is a logical fallacy”

    LOL!!!!!, I did ask. Got nothing. I also never used the the study as an argument from authority, Mr Yeah attempted to do that…..:)

    “Are you referring to studies that discredited the specific properties usually associated with god”

    I don’t know, Mr Yeah brought the studies up and claimed they existed. Sorry,…….you will need to go to Mr Yeah to see which studies he has read……(snicker, lol!)

    “By comparison, would you require a definitive scientific study to conclude Bigfoot does not exist?”

    You mean to tell me you don’t believe in Mr Foot? Isn’t he just a product of evolution? Cousin of the Great Ape, right? lol!!!!!
    Oh, I don’t require any evidence. I suppose I don’t ask for evidence for things inconsequential to me. Whatever dude, you gonna finally answer a question?

    Readers, how much longer will dippity drag this out before he goes away and provides nothing?

  284. on 19 Feb 2015 at 10:37 pm 284.alex said …

    oh, you’ll know god when you see him, the dumbass theist is righteously thinking. but, even h,e doesn’t know. he just clings to the notion that he’ll know. an xtian thinking about allah proving hisself as god is just plain blasphemous.

    he sees jesus heal a leper, but the theist is unconvinced. i still don’t feel it, he says. he see’s jesus lift a jet, but the theist is unconvinced, and on and on and on. what does jesus have to do?? i don’t feel it in my heart? what a crock! me? levitating a jet would do it!

    the point is that the dumbass, motherfuckers won’t accept anything. everything in the bible, you can strike out as bullshit, but these motherfuckers will will believe in their god.

    that’s why an all knowing god giving free will is no problemo for the mofo.

  285. on 19 Feb 2015 at 11:24 pm 285.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    this has so paradigm.

    you are no different form sinners lost in sin.

    filled with delusion and mistakes.

    delusions and mistakes mirrored in the action of your friends and company but delusions never the less.

    blinded by satan’s blind folds.

    made to see the actions of false christians, made to confuse true christianity with false.

    made bitter by what seems to you like wrongs you have sustained.

    saturated by misunderstandings till there is no place for understandings.

    drifting further and further away.

    hypocritical in your search for truth.

    jumping to conclusions and choosing to be excluded from gods love because it doesn’t sail your ship although your ship is headed for destruction other wise.

    look at it honestly you are like a drowning man delirious and not willing to catch to a straw but demanding pure oxygen although pure oxygen is never good to breath.

    refusing a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen and helium although it is healthier.

    you have been given the prescription yet you demand a non-existent medicine

    you have been offered food fit to feed your structure yet you demand to feed on the husk given to pigs insisting that no real food exists.

    look at it reasonably whether or not god exists or does not exist there is no physical evidence either way.

    a great philosopher however once said of surviving ideals no optimistic ideal has ever survived.

    it is be far more optimistic to believe in the non-existence of god than it is to believe in the existence of god.

    for if you don’t believe in god then you have him to face if he is real.

    if you believe in god and he isn’t real what is another non-existence god going to judge you.

    are you going to be judged by fellow athiest and throw into hell?

    are you going to be judged by the non-existence of god because you didn’t believe in the non-existence of god?

    therefore you stand to lose more by believing in the non-existence of god if you are wrong and to act contrary to this reality is to be too optimistic no optimistic ideal/kingdom/or venture has ever survived the golden rule is still to rid yourself of risksss living life without god is a risk a big risk!!!!!

    too big a risk i am afraid for your souls

  286. on 19 Feb 2015 at 11:56 pm 286.Yeah Hell said …

    Okay, this is getting old. Mr. Prick obviously does not want to show proof of the supernatural because he has none, but instead thinks by not completely understanding that something can be a natural process, automatically thinks an element that has never been discovered has something to do with it. Until the supernatural element has been discovered or any combination of an element already in the periodic table that can be made into something supernatural ever happens, the supernatural has the same properties as anything else that doesn’t exist, which is non-existent. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has just as much “real-world” proof as any gods.

    Mr. Prick seems to think that DNA cannot be created by billions of years of evolution and natural selection, and that relevant leading scientists are not the smartest people when it comes to deciding if an element or any combination of elements has supernatural powers or not. Keep dreaming theists.

  287. on 20 Feb 2015 at 12:18 am 287.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    86.Yeah Hell said …
    Okay, this is getting old.

    You are getting Old.

    Older should equal Wiser.

    Instead you are getting dumber and dumber you have paradigmed.

    We don’t have the same problems you do.

    We can see clearly your issues.

    The wise man searches out pride and lays it bare.

    Never criticise unless you qualify to do so.

    You are boxing with the wind.

    The few points you have don’t hold any water although this is not about holding water this is about saving your soul.

    You refuse to see wisdom. You have enough space for your unconvincing arguments and you try to bridge the gap between your un-reason and imbalanced view with profanity your are a profane person.

    The writing is on the wall you have been weighed in the balance and found wanting.

  288. on 20 Feb 2015 at 12:25 am 288.Yeah Hell said …

    I didn’t realize attempting to write poems is proof for the supernatural. LOL. I can copy and paste poetry on here to:

    I see the hate and fear in your eyes
    If only you would take a look and realize the lies that lie behind your eyes.
    the holder of the scripture is the breeder of hate.
    He fills you with the misinformation, falsification And fabrication.
    you take the bait.
    The hate spreads lIke a virus.
    A neurological disease
    I am now a demon to the world.
    If only you would take A look and realize the lies that lie behind your faithful eyes.

  289. on 20 Feb 2015 at 12:42 am 289.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    Any body can write poetry about anything.

    About gravity or the lack of it.

    About the earth being round of flat or not really existing all or distributed to suit mental fancy.

    This is not poetry and the worship of God is not a competition.

    It is quite the opposite.

    ‘No one gets into heaven for I am a better christian than he is.

    Or O God I love you more than him’

    However you need to move away from the delusion that god does not exist.

    You have clearly identified your paradigm.

    But it is a rather childish paradigm.

    It is like the 15th century man who believed that the known world was all there was.

    Who clung to that belief in frightening earnestness.

    Who even killed for that belief.

    Whether it was speculation, clairvoyance, inspiration, or faith other people thought other wise and sought to prove it.

    By sailing out.

    So too today some of us know that god is real whether by clairvoyance, inspiration or faith and we are living our lives in accordance.

  290. on 20 Feb 2015 at 12:45 am 290.alex said …

    jesus shows up on your door. how would you know if it’s him? you would just know? same shit with the spaghetti monster, you dumb motherfucker.

  291. on 20 Feb 2015 at 1:05 am 291.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    This is all your paradigm.

    Same ole same ole.

    It has lost its power to offend, to shock, to perturb.

    We don’t suffer form the same problems you do.

    You need to study, research with an open mind, maybe you can find the straight and narrow.

    Learn from men of experience.

    Think a little more deeply.

    Meditate a little.

    Spend some time alone.

  292. on 20 Feb 2015 at 1:07 am 292.Yeah Hell said …

    “The Bible has noble poetry in it… and some good morals and a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of a thousand lies.”
    ? Mark Twain

    “Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”
    ? Isaac Asimov

    “For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can’t readily accept the God formula, the big answers don’t remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command nor faith a dictum. I am my own god. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.”
    ? Charles Bukowski

  293. on 20 Feb 2015 at 1:18 am 293.Yeah Hell said …

    We’re here on this blog together because we don’t believe in Dog, right? Strike that, reverse it, reinstate.

    I don’t believe in anything supernatural. I don’t think the universe can think. I don’t believe there is some special being that is separate from the universe and knows about us and cares about us and made us. All of that is the imaginative fantasy of one group of animals on planet Earth.

    There is a fungus growing on the third stone from Sol in an outer arm of the Milky Way, a medium-sized galaxy among millions.

    Like all matter, this fungus changes, the stuff of the universe is not static, energy and matter are what is the universe and the state of normal is a bubbling cauldron of interactions.

    Floating gasses, flowing water, growing crystals, and life (mold, trees, monkeys) are all patterns that fall into self-replicating relationships. The systems are little vortices in the weather of what is. Whatever works keeps working for a while because it works.

    It is all explicable in terms of matter and energy, it falls into patterns that generate sameness and that can get really intricate and amazingly fine tuned. It’s amazing, but given infinite time, and the fact that it is true, and there you go, we have to accept that it is possible. The patterns get so fancy that one day they are you. They look up and say, How do you do?

    Now that is very strange, but okay, okay fine. Okay, the pattern that is life, that is you, is awakened to itself. It makes friends with other sentient beings. It invents agriculture. It invents writing. It writes Shakespeare’s plays and Bach’s sonatas.

    When this being, the fungus that knows itself and makes art, you, when this you lays down for sleep, goes dormant for a third of every daily cycle, it dreams.

    It sees pictures in its head while it is unconscious to the world. These pictures are borrowed from the previous day’s sightings and from a whole life of experience, but they are not just pictures. They are stories. And these stories are strange and sometimes horrifying. They waken the fungus, you, us, me, the person awakens in the night, having dreamed of patricide, and is shaken, is quaking.

    What is reality? What is real? The universe is real, the speed of light is constant. The universe is big and true.

    Also big and true is what is going on in the dark room in the middle of the night awakened by a terrifying vision.

    The experience of being human, truthfully rendered, is as much about the feelings in the room as it is about what the universe can be measured to be.

    What is truth? What is your truth? Your truth is that you are a life form that knows itself. You are a miracle fungus. You. We have met some smart dolphins and clever whales. If there is life in the universe other than us it is likely to be even weirder than the dolphins and whales.

    No one but us is talking, doing, making, trying to get other animal’s attention. It’s just you, fungus. Just us hairless monkeys.

    What comes into being when matter and energy fall into such patterns that they look up and say hi and write symphonies? Art happens. It’s very strange and wonderful.

    The truth may be real but it is not “matter of fact.” What in fact we have here is a billion fantastically sexy weird interesting stories all going on at once in a great cacophony of experience. How do we make sense of what it is to be human, to be this thing, this sentient matter?

    Well I certainly don’t think the magic of consciousness should be considered evidence for something hidden, something else. The magic of consciousness is magic enough. Nothing is gained by adding fantastical imaginative inventions to the wonders that actually are.

    But the truth, the what actually is is very strange and overloaded and wondrous indeed.

  294. on 20 Feb 2015 at 1:37 am 294.alex said …

    “This is all your paradigm.”

    wrong, again, motherfucker. disbelief in your bullshit god is not a paradigm. go fuck yourself.

  295. on 20 Feb 2015 at 3:40 am 295.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Isn’t Alex just adorable!…..I could just eat’em up!

    Lol!!!!

  296. on 20 Feb 2015 at 5:16 pm 296.freddies_dead said …

    285.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    this has so paradigm.

    Mmmm, tasty word salad.

    you are no different form sinners lost in sin.

    Do you have any objective means by which we can distinguish your God from something you may merely be imagining? If not then why should we entertain this imaginary sin claim?

    filled with delusion and mistakes.

    delusions and mistakes mirrored in the action of your friends and company but delusions never the less.

    I notice the Venerable one fails to elucidate. Not a single delusion or mistake identified or shown to be such. I’m unsurprised.

    blinded by satan’s blind folds.

    He believes Satan exists too. I wonder if he has an objective means by which we can distinguish his Satan from something he may merely be imagining? Who am I kidding? Of course he won’t.

    made to see the actions of false christians, made to confuse true christianity with false.

    Maybe the Venerable one has an objective means by which we can distinguish between the so-called true and false Christians? I won’t be holding my breath on that either.

    made bitter by what seems to you like wrongs you have sustained.

    Why am I supposed to be bitter about your imaginary God?

    saturated by misunderstandings till there is no place for understandings.

    Note that the Venerable one once more failed to identify or explain even a single one of these alleged misunderstandings.

    drifting further and further away.

    From the God you can’t demonstrate the existence of? Oh, the horror.

    hypocritical in your search for truth.

    Does he demonstrate any hypocrisy? Of course not. He’s as bad as A for the baseless assertions.

    jumping to conclusions and choosing to be excluded from gods love because it doesn’t sail your ship although your ship is headed for destruction other wise.

    Do you have any objective means by which we can distinguish your God from something you may merely be imagining? Unless you do the conclusion I have come to remains the correct option.

    look at it honestly

    I have. Your God didn’t make the cut.

    you are like a drowning man delirious and not willing to catch to a straw but demanding pure oxygen although pure oxygen is never good to breath.

    refusing a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen and helium although it is healthier.

    Actually it’s more like I’m standing here on dry land, perfectly fine while you shout incoherently about how I’m going to drown if I don’t buy your imaginary lifesaver.

    you have been given the prescription yet you demand a non-existent medicine

    Oh the irony.

    you have been offered food fit to feed your structure yet you demand to feed on the husk given to pigs insisting that no real food exists.

    On the contrary I’m quite happy with this sandwich while you rave on about your non-existent banquet.

    look at it reasonably whether or not god exists or does not exist there is no physical evidence either way.

    A would disagree with you. He seems to think the information found in DNA is physical evidence of his God. Of course he can’t explain why or how – hell he can’t even define what he means by information – he simply appeals to ignorance instead i.e. he has no idea how the information got there so it must have been his God.

    a great philosopher however once said of surviving ideals no optimistic ideal has ever survived.

    Citation?

    it is be far more optimistic to believe in the non-existence of god than it is to believe in the existence of god.

    for if you don’t believe in god then you have him to face if he is real.

    Wait, what?

    if you believe in god and he isn’t real what is another non-existence god going to judge you.

    Hold on, is this some roundabout attempt at Pascal’s wager?

    are you going to be judged by fellow athiest and throw into hell?

    Now you’re just getting weird.

    are you going to be judged by the non-existence of god because you didn’t believe in the non-existence of god?

    That shark you just jumped looks really confused.

    therefore you stand to lose more by believing in the non-existence of god if you are wrong and to act contrary to this reality is to be too optimistic no optimistic ideal/kingdom/or venture has ever survived the golden rule is still to rid yourself of risksss living life without god is a risk a big risk!!!!!

    too big a risk i am afraid for your souls

    Reading through that dross it turns out it was Pascal’s wager all along. How sad, but let’s see. What if you’ve picked the wrong God? What if the real God really hates people who have picked the wrong guy? But He doesn’t mind if you decided to stay neutral on the matter due to the lack of evidence? What then O Venerable one? Quite frankly you can take Pascal’s false dichotomy and shove it … sideways.

  297. on 20 Feb 2015 at 9:57 pm 297.alex said …

    why don’t you eat the ISIS motherfuckers, you dumbass Prick?

    try eating Terry, motherfucking, Jones. Mitt Romney fits your palate? the pope is one of your homies, but you won’t eat him?

    fucking asshole.

  298. on 21 Feb 2015 at 2:28 am 298.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    God gave me a small prickly penis.

  299. on 21 Feb 2015 at 2:06 pm 299.Yeah Hell said …

    LOL! I knew it! I figured there had to be a reason why Mr. Prick was against natural selection! LOL.

  300. on 21 Feb 2015 at 3:20 pm 300.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    You guys are like the primary school kids who have a problem with their assignment.

    You are stuck because of certain problems you can’t get your head around or understand.

    Because you can’t get your head around it at first doesn’t mean it won’t make sense.

    You have identified the problems you have with a God

    You having problems with a God due to insufficient knowledge – I say knowledge not evidence does not mean that there is not a Supreme Power.

    Do what I did experiment with other ideas. I have probably one of the most scientific perspectives of God any one I have ever met or read has.

    Talk about the Supreme Power, Talk about Infinite Intelligence, Talk about the Absolute, Talk About The Totality, Talk About the Origin, Talk About The thing On which all things are contingent.

    I have no problems with talking about Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Allah, Rah, Putua, Yahweh, Christ, God by his 72 Hebrew names or his 99 Islam names.

    Look at it mathematically put everything on the scale.

    Realise the virtue of Humanism, Athiesm, Wicca, Scientology (Ron Hubbard has done some great work) I don’t care if you read Harry Potter or Pink Whistle.

    Do your maths, Look carefully at the numbers 1, 3, 7, 0 and Infinity.

    Play the lottery do stats.

    Study the seven major physical disciplines in the world the seven seals on our world.

    Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Geography, Sociology, Economics and Politics.

    Study the subjects which are the keys to spirituality.

    Study the 1. elemental, the 2. cosmic, the 3. constellatory, the 4. philosophical, the 5. Ethical/Moral (Especially or Your Mind Won’t Work You Will Remain Profane), the 6. philosophical, the 7. metaphysical.

    Not two that this 14 subjects are very cleverly contained in the bible.

    Try something mind altering not alchohol I suggest something soft like safe estacy or pot. or at best computer animated mind altering programms.

    Think deeply on the subject of contingency. Shake up everything you have learned. Instead of saying the sky or the solar system, or the observable universe or talking about dark matter ask yourself does the sky really exist? Does the solar system necessarily exist? Does ‘the observable universe’ really exist as suggested. Wear some very dark shades probably raban from time to time, study quantum science deeply with a really questioning mind. From time to time look at your self as a serious mental case because you don’t have the trick of understanding God.

    Allow your self to fall in love with something or someone, read the classics expecially the classic love stories. Read history not to remember dates but look for connections between events including cosmic and constellatory events and natural events including eclipsis and natural disasters. Do the Enron Thing ASK YOU SELF WHY?

    Put a Sticker on your wall saying ‘Must Find God If He Exist.

    Put another Sticker on your Wall Saying Will Try Not To Be Arrogant Today.

    Think deeply about the poles of human existence.

    Love and War.
    Joy and Tragedy.
    Sympathy and Tenderness and Savageness.
    Ask your self what kind of reality is the eternal or that which comprise of infinite time.
    Try deeply once more to understand contingency or providence over all.
    Understand Magnitude, Significance and Insignificance in all of this.
    Understand consistency and ask what is this consistence contingent on?
    Ask Your Self What Does It Takes.
    Ask How Hopeful We Can Be Ask How Fearful We Might Need To Be.

    Associate your self with Religious Folk With a 180 degree attitude.

    Ask you self what do you have to lose by doing such. Ask your self are you a punk athiest, trying to be a rock star athiest, a fanatic athiest or can you be like Lazzaro Spallanzani and swallow the sponge on a string to test your own Gastric Juices only in the context of the search of truth more than evidence of god present in the world.

  301. on 21 Feb 2015 at 3:36 pm 301.alex said …

    300.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    you’re another dumbass. it’s all very simple, you fuckhead. you assholes anoint your god with an ‘all knowing’ attribute. do you know what that means? atheists didn’t make up this attribute. you assholes, then declare that humans have ‘free will’. again, this is you fuckers’ declaration. these two are incompatible! you’ve made up some shit situation that’s an impossibility and then you same motherfuckers say that it is possible because a god can do anything. what the fuck?

    you same motherfuckers then say that god is everywhere and nowhere. the same god answers prayers unless it’s not in his plan/will. you see the pattern? of course, you don’t. that’s why you’re a dipshit.

  302. on 21 Feb 2015 at 3:49 pm 302.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    You see you have just showed what is bothering you.

    You can’t see how lets not say god. But how there can be an Origin and and Absolute, All Powerfull being who can grant free will.

    However I have absolutely no problem with this.

    The question I would ask is how can some one who is allknowing and all powerful fail to be able to do such.

    He wouldn’t be very all powerful if this wasn’t possible for him.

    I have seen ventroliquist do quite similar with their puppets far less an all powerful being I would imagine conjuring up this reality would not only be no skin off the nose of such a being but really no sweat at all to pull off.

    Why?

    I can see completely pass this I don’t have a problem with it.

  303. on 21 Feb 2015 at 4:04 pm 303.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    Do you look to a world devoid of God and do you see that you have free will. How far do you take the context of free will.

    Is the word free will included in the scriptures.

    The scriptures which are interpreted loosely as free will were they meant to be interpreted that loosely.

    What about truth as a metaphysic does all knowledge reside in truth? Then does freewill exist?

    Do you believe that you are bound by physical laws then does free will exist. If it doesn’t on what pillar does the penal system stand or how seriously should the penal system be taken.

  304. on 21 Feb 2015 at 4:24 pm 304.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    How can something be nowhere and everywhere and everywhere and nowhere you need to study relativity deeply.

    Where is reason does reason exist, have you ever seen reason any more than you have seen the flying spaghetti monster?

    Are all objections to a court decision accepted unless it is in the constitution these are simple things.

    I don’t want to insult you by saying these are childish things we are all children we learn we discover we are moulded by god’s love on a daily basis. As a child is moulded by love, care and discovery.

  305. on 21 Feb 2015 at 5:15 pm 305.alex said …

    “You see you have just showed what is bothering you.”

    really? then you wouldn’t have any problems with with 911 motherfucking, suicider? the isis beheadings don’t bother you? if they taught, hindu creationism is schools, would that be ok by you?

    since the pope says you don’t need belief to go to heaven, why do you care that atheists don’t believe in your shit?

    speak up, dumbass, motherfucker.

  306. on 21 Feb 2015 at 5:38 pm 306.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    I believe that what happened on the 11th of sept was part of gods plan and part of prophecy.

    frankly the isis beheadings don’t bother me no. i am so safe in gods love that i believe the best and that i believe that i and all gods children are kept from the hour of evil.

    I believe that hindus are part of the household of faith.

    i believe that god decides ultimately who goes to heaven or not. not us.

    however belief is our ticket to heaven as our minutest sacrifice.

    if you think about it belief is our ticket to practically everything. even if you want to turn the teli on using the remote your first port of call is to get your belief bearings right you need to believe that you can turn it on, you need to believe that you want to turn it on.

    jesus didn’t only say believe to be saved, or believe to go to heaven he said as you believe so be it unto to you much as in the psalms as a man thinketh so is he

    and

    much as quantum scientist are finding out today

    belief seems to be the smallest common fraction to effort action and self directed activity

    i believe that belief in jesus is the safest spiritual ground for a human being. interestingly hindus believe in jesus, muslims believe in jesus, buddist reflect jesus teaching, and some jews find jesus teaching compatible to their own teachings and own idea of salvation history

    personally i am very meta oriented that means that i see things for what they are not what they appear and i seek knowledge and communication not because of what people say but for what they mean that includes god not what god says but what he means.

    seek and ye shall find but does it resonate with you deeply not only superficially but deeply sometimes that which does not resonate with you superficially resonates with you deeply.

    sometimes that which does not resonate with the unobservant mind resonates with the observant mind and that which does not resonate with the untrained mind resonates with the trained mind, that which does not resonate with the stubborn soul resonates with the seeking soul.

    and sorry to dissappoint you but i am not a fuckhead, dipshit, asshole, dumbass or a motherfucker I am quite a creature holy and separated unto god and i am quite virginal actually I have never fucked a mother not phisically/biologically or as stipulated in the bible or delineated in the 6th commandment.

  307. on 21 Feb 2015 at 5:39 pm 307.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    Or the seventh commandment actually.

  308. on 21 Feb 2015 at 5:48 pm 308.alex said …

    ” i am quite virginal actually I have never fucked a mother not phisically/biologically or as stipulated in the bible or delineated in the 6th commandment.”

    all the bullshit you just spewed and nowhere is the proof for your god? i guess zeus is as good as your shit god?

  309. on 21 Feb 2015 at 6:01 pm 309.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    I have no problems with Zeus.

    Every God on Mount Olympus, Every God in the Greek Pantheon, Every Ancient African God, Every God of Ancient Mesopotamia and the Surrounding Regions, Every Ancient Aztec, Mayan and Inca God, Fit easily into my belief system. As Machivellie said sometimes you need to view the mountain from the plain and the plain from the mountain.

    Put these elements, truths and beings on the scale, weigh them and then look at them through the eyes of contingency and look at contingency through the eyes of them many of these gods mirror certain facets, powers and personal attributes of the the supreme power after all.

    Differently many of them represented what monothiestic christianity came to represent as angels

    constellations, dominions, powers, seraphins, cherubims, principalities, angels, arc angels, mystics, etc.

    Question do you have a toilet problem whey are your always referring to excrement do you have a problem with your sexual and reproductive organs are your cursing your own ability to defecate or to bear children don’t be too bothered when you bear a child with downs syndrome.

  310. on 21 Feb 2015 at 6:05 pm 310.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    Thrones and Virtues Also.

  311. on 21 Feb 2015 at 6:13 pm 311.alex said …

    “Question do you have a toilet problem whey are your always referring to excrement do you have a problem with your sexual and reproductive organs ”

    english is my second language. maybe you’re a bad motherfucker and can speak quite fluently in various languages, but i guess i can’t?

    besides, what the fuck does my language have to do with anything? maybe my language is offensive, but do you see me pushing it to be taught in school? other than the shit i post here, what offenses have i committed that is attributable to my bad language?

    do i beat up gays because of my bad language? do i doubt evolution because of my bad language? go ahead bitch. other than your pswedo, indignation, what is the side effect of my language?

  312. on 21 Feb 2015 at 6:17 pm 312.alex said …

    “I believe that what happened on the 11th of sept was part of gods plan and part of prophecy.”

    then what the fuck are you doing posting here? if everything that happens is part of the plan, everything that happens on this blog is predetermined. why are you fucking with the plan?

    dumbass.

  313. on 21 Feb 2015 at 6:36 pm 313.alex said …

    “if everything that happens is part of the plan, everything that happens on this blog is predetermined. why are you fucking with the plan?”

    never mind, i withdraw. like the rest of the self appointed theist motherfuckers, you get to say what events are part of the plan………..

    just like messenger determines who the real xtians are…

    just like the dipshit Hor, who determined that the pope is fulla shit….

    and on, and on….

  314. on 21 Feb 2015 at 6:42 pm 314.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    WHAT DO YOU INFER FROM THIS.

    1 Corinthians 6:10 (AMP)

    10 Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.

    IT IS DISGUSTING, SOCIALLY INEPT, SOCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE, POLITICALLY INCORRECT AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE SOBER; IT IS VILE AND REPRESENTING OF MENTAL WEAKNESS AND MORAL CALLOUS, OVER ALL IT IS INAPPROPRIATE AND BURDENSOME ON OTHERS, IT IS UNHEALTHY TO USE THE KIND OF LANGUAGE YOU ARE USING. IT IS HURTFUL TO A DECENT AND CIVIL SOCIETY SUCH AS OURS IT SHOWS CONTEMPT AND A LACK OF RESPECT FOR OTHERS; IT IS A MADNESS, IT IS TREACHOUROUS. IT DOES NO GOOD. IT IS NEGATIVE AND DOES NOT SPEAK OF A GOOD CHARACTER BUT MAY SPEAK OF THE WORK OF DARKNESS AND MAY BE INDICATIVE OF , THE CARNAL, THE DEMONIC, THE DEVILISH.

  315. on 21 Feb 2015 at 6:49 pm 315.alex said …

    “WHAT DO YOU INFER FROM THIS.
    1 Corinthians 6:10 (AMP)”

    why would i infer/analyze something that’s bullshit? if i asked you to analyze the book of santa clause, how would you respond? or the book of elves? or bigfoot’s handbook? or the ufo archives?

    next.

  316. on 21 Feb 2015 at 6:53 pm 316.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    WHAT IS WRONG WITH SANTA

    I INFER THINGS FROM THE SANTA LEDGEND

    I VISITED THE WEBSITE JUST THE OTHER DAY AND PUT MY NAME IN THE WEBSITE TO SEE IF SANTA REMEMBERED ME AND IF I WAS GOOD IN HIS BOOKS APPARENTLY I AM.

    WHAT DO YOU INFER FROM SANTA WHAT IS SANTA.

    IS SANTA GOOD OR BAD DOES HE PROMOTE GOOD OR BAD

    DO YOU REALISE THAT SANTA SINGLE HANDEDLY BOOSTS THE ECONOMY BY PROBABLY ABOUT 5% OR 10% EVERY NOV/DEC.

    A BOOST IN THE ECONOMY THAT YOU BENEFIT FROM.

  317. on 21 Feb 2015 at 6:56 pm 317.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    THERE IS NOTHING THAT EXIST THAT DID NOT EXIST BEFORE THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES.

    THAT WHICH WAS SHALL BE.

    BUT IS THE THING GOOD OR IS IS BAD. SHOULD IT BE PROMOTED.

    BUT THE MAGIC WORD IS CONTINGENCY. BY UNFLOUTABLE DEFINITION THAT WHICH SPEAKS OF GOD SPEAKS OF THAT ON WHICH ALL THINGS ARE CONTINGENT. SANTA IS A CONTINGENT BEING IN WHAT EVER CONTEXT YOU CONSIDER HIM GOD IS NOT A CONTINGENT BEING.

  318. on 21 Feb 2015 at 7:02 pm 318.alex said …

    “WHAT IS WRONG WITH SANTA”

    you’re absolutely right. why don’t they teach it in school? should be a requirement, ya? you should be good because you get presents ya? you should have student expeditions searching for santa’s headquaters ya?

    moron. you see why you’re a dumbass, motherfucker?

  319. on 21 Feb 2015 at 7:03 pm 319.alex said …

    “THERE IS NOTHING THAT EXIST THAT DID NOT EXIST BEFORE THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES.”

    oh, there ya go. bullshit proof from the bullshit bible.

    you see why you’re a dumbass, motherfucker?

  320. on 21 Feb 2015 at 7:12 pm 320.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    SHOULD THIS FOUL LANGUAGE BE PROMOTED IN SCHOOLS?

    OR IS THIS A POLITICAL WEBSITE OR IS THIS A SEARCH FOR TRUTH.

    YOU HAVE A POLITICAL AGENDA SO YOU DON’T CARE WHO’S TOES YOU STEP ON OR EVEN IF IT IS BASED IN TRUTH OR NOT.

  321. on 21 Feb 2015 at 7:14 pm 321.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    DO YOU WANT KIDS ENTERING INTO LIFE NOT CARING ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE WORLD THEY ARE LIVING IN?

    WHAT IS THE SEARCH FOR THE ORIGINATOR OF THE WORLD? RELIGION?

    I SUPPOSE YOU ASS CAN SPEAK.

    SHOULD I REFER TO YOU AS CHATTY CHATTY ASS.

  322. on 21 Feb 2015 at 7:17 pm 322.alex said …

    SHOULD THIS FOUL LANGUAGE BE PROMOTED IN SCHOOLS?

    who’s advocating that?

    “OR IS THIS A POLITICAL WEBSITE OR IS THIS A SEARCH FOR TRUTH.”

    who says that? all you’ve done here is post more bullshit. how is that that truth? coz you say so? just like you get to say which events are part of god’s plan?

    “SHOULD I REFER TO YOU AS CHATTY CHATTY ASS.”

    should i refer to you as the dumbass motherfucker with the broke ass caps key?

  323. on 21 Feb 2015 at 7:38 pm 323.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    I personally have never seen religion taught in school. I have only seen religious studies taught in schools. Usually it is open to lively debate sometimes eclectic and dialectic debate.

    You want to see charles darwin’s never proven and discredited theories taught as doctrine.

    That man is in his grave having a laugh though not so much a laugh as when he is hauled before the all highest judge and banished to his eternal mis-reward.

    You are deluded and misguided.

    I have never met any sane person who took Charles Darwin’s theories seriously. It was always taught and believed by the rebellious, the deluded, or the troublesome, the psychotic, the counter-cultured who were looking for parity and didn’t want to accept the truth foolishly, childishly.

  324. on 21 Feb 2015 at 8:04 pm 324.alex said …

    “I personally have never seen religion taught in school.”

    of course you’ve never heard of theists advocating that creationism should be taught with the same equality as evolution?

    “You want to see charles darwin’s never proven and discredited theories taught as doctrine.”

    if pieces or even entire theories are discredited, the teaching stops. you’re speaking in generalities. why don’t you point out specifics and we can discuss it. what the crocoduck hasn’t been found? is that your problem?

    “You are deluded and misguided.”

    because i don’t believe in your bullshit gods zeus or allah or yahweh or el, etc? which one? or all?

    if i don’t believe in ra, am i still misguided? thor? tell me. do i have to believe in all gods past, present, and future gods to be as enlightened as your motherfucking ass?

  325. on 21 Feb 2015 at 8:23 pm 325.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    teaching creationism with the same equality as evolution is not religion.

    it is religious debate.

    there is a big difference.

    you speak of evolution almost as if it is holy.

    evolution is nothing but the pseudo-science of a blind and un-scholarly compulsion to jump to conclusions because of a rabbied and maniacal conviction that all that speaks of god is too authoritative to be comfortably respected, too holy to be tolerated and should therefore be academically distanced by the next best excuse for an explanation to the origin and destiny of the universe, of life, of man, flora and fauna and of premordial and civil history no matter how sorry or pathetic that explanation is just for the drunken and rebellious comfort it gives or affords.

  326. on 21 Feb 2015 at 8:36 pm 326.alex said …

    “you speak of evolution almost as if it is holy.”

    even if evolution is 100% bullshit, how the fuck does that prove that allah and/or yahweh did it?

    even if i’m 100% full of shit about everything, it doesn’t prove your god did it. so, now you’re out of diversions aren’t you? your god is still bullshit and you still got nothing.

  327. on 21 Feb 2015 at 8:41 pm 327.alex said …

    “evolution is nothing but the pseudo-science of a blind”

    more predictable baseless bullshit? why don’t you write down your criteria for what should be taught in schools?

    here’s one. must be repeatable and not disproven. you think the pythagorean theorem should be taught? should gravity be taught. natural selection should not be taught because?

    step up motherfucker. post what you think is the criteria for what should be taught.

  328. on 21 Feb 2015 at 8:46 pm 328.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    it is toxicly poisonous for those who are stupid enough for those who choose to swallow it but delicious to those who have conspired to dish it out.

    you seem to show all the signs of the first category. Charles Darwin was nothing but an illuminati mercenary hired to massacre the thinking potential of the masses and their ability to discover the truth of god, creation and our origin, man’s own mimicry of god’s destruction of babel, man’s own mimicry of god’s confusion of the languages of the arrogant builders of babel.

    you see there are some of us who have hacked away of gods truth only to impose themselves in god’s position.

    who have tried to carry on a ceaseless apologetic against god’s truth, and god’s existence and then have tried to snatch for themselves the very charteristics which should only be ascribed to god.

    man has in vain tried to wear a crown which he cannot own, does not deserve and is too ignorant to uphold. he has tried to fight a god he is not worthy to oppose, is to weak to overpower in all ways, is too simple to understand a god he cannot even exist without far less take effective action without a god who is supreme in every way a god who has existed an eternity before him and who will exist for an eternity after the destruction of all wicked and perverse men. it is a case of a drop of water trying to exalt itself beyond the ocean it lies in.

  329. on 21 Feb 2015 at 8:48 pm 329.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    The truth of god cannot be disproven the truth of god is not only repeatable it is eternal it is eternally abiding.

  330. on 21 Feb 2015 at 8:49 pm 330.alex said …

    “you seem to show all the signs of the first category. Charles Darwin was nothing but an illuminati mercenary hired to massacre….”

    focus, motherfucker. i already conceded that evolution is 100% bullshit. now step up and prove why your god did it.

    oh, and don’t forget your criteria for what should be taught or not. you’re prolly thinking: if it’s bullshit, it should be taught. you’ve concluded that evolution is bullshit, therefore, the equally bullshitty god should be taught too. is that it? no? then print your criteria, ya, bitchass, shit talking, motherfucker.

  331. on 21 Feb 2015 at 9:06 pm 331.alex said …

    329.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    why do you insist of posting your bullshit? is that suppose to change anything? did you do something bad that you feel you have to do penance by posting your shit?

    would you rejoice if thousands of motherfucking muslims and mormons posted their shit here?

    dumbass, motherfucker.

  332. on 21 Feb 2015 at 9:08 pm 332.alex said …

    ….still waiting for your criteria for what should be taught in schools……

    same shit about your fucked up absolute morals…..

    asshole, shit posting, motherfucker.

  333. on 21 Feb 2015 at 11:27 pm 333.Yeah Hell said …

    “Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time!

    But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money!”
    ? George Carlin

  334. on 21 Feb 2015 at 11:30 pm 334.Yeah Hell said …

    “Is man merely a mistake of God’s? Or God merely a mistake of man?”
    ? Friedrich Nietzsche

    “Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead.”
    ? Kurt Vonnegut

    “Owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god. Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realize that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they draw the conclusion that they are gods.”
    ? Christopher Hitchens, The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever

  335. on 21 Feb 2015 at 11:33 pm 335.Yeah Hell said …

    “We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
    ? Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

    “Atheism is more than just the knowledge that gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature.”
    ? Emmett F. Fields

    “If it turns out that there is a God…the worst that you can say about him is that basically he’s an underachiever.”
    ? Woody Allen

  336. on 22 Feb 2015 at 12:04 am 336.Corbis said …

    A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell. C.S. Lewis

    The atheist can’t find God for the same reason that a thief can’t find a policeman. Author Unknown

    “The question of whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.” –Charles Darwin

    “This sense of wonder leads most scientists to a Superior Being – der Alte, the Old One, as Einstein affectionately called the Deity – a Superior Intelligence, the Lord of all Creation and Natural Law.” –Abdus Salam

    “A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.”
    –Joseph H. Taylor, Jr

    “The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who – in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ – cannot hear the music of the spheres.” –Albert Einstein

    In other words, by looking at the order in the world, we can infer purpose and from purpose we begin to get some knowledge of the Creator, the Planner of all this. This is, then, how I look at God. I look at God through the works of God’s hands and from those works imply intentions. From these intentions, I receive an impression of the Almighty.” Arno Penzias,

  337. on 22 Feb 2015 at 2:17 am 337.Yeah Hell said …

    “The atheist can’t find God for the same reason that a thief can’t find a policeman. Author Unknown”

    Huh? The thief, a human, can either walk into a police station or when they eventually get arrested they will see that policeman, another human. Keep trying.

    ——————–

    “The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who – in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ – cannot hear the music of the spheres.””

    Religion is like a slave owner and that atheists just need to be happy that they broke free. What other meaning did you think this was?

    —————–

    “The question of whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.”

    You might want to put the full quote to get the actual meaning. Stupid creationists trying to pull crap like that just like Fox News does.

    “There is no evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the existence of an Omnipotent God. On the contrary there is ample evidence, derived not from hasty travellers, but from men who have long resided with savages, that numerous races have existed, and still exist, who have no idea of one or more gods, and who have no words in their languages to express such an idea. The question is of course wholly distinct from that higher one, whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the universe; and this has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.”

  338. on 22 Feb 2015 at 8:46 am 338.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    I pray for you guys

    329.Alex said …
    why do you insist of posting your bullshit? is that suppose to change anything? did you do something bad that you feel you have to do penance by posting your shit?

    we all have eternity to face

    the concept of eternity and preparation is not new to religion in christianity

    nor uncommon to religion

    it is contained in many metaphysical principles and if you examine it many science and common sense principles

    it basically states that while a thing inhabits the temporal zone it is subject to change, adaptation, improvement, and convertion.

    much like an empty glass is potentially able to be filled.

    an empty glass may be filled with water, with salt water, with fruit juice, with wine

    an empty glass filled with water becomes a glass of water,

    an empty glass filled with salt water becomes a glass of salt water

    an empty glass filled with fruit juice becomes a glass of fruit juice etc

    however this can be changed a glass filled with water can be emptied and refilled with salt water

    then it becomes the glass that was empty that became filled with water that became refilled with salt water and which is open to being filled with something else

    however if you smash that glass while it is a glass of water it will always be the glass that was filled with water it will never be given the chance to be a glass that is filled with salt water or something else

    that is the principle of identity, death the temporal and eternity.

    the enlightenment takes pride in the ability we have to self determine and there in lies its major appeal.

    however we need to consider that when death steps in the ability to self determine is over.

    thus religion has been concerned with two main things looking at one’s life and deciding whether the condition is acceptable or whether it needs to be changed during ones lifetimes so that when death steps in the identity which passes from the temporal to the eternal is something we can appreciate

    the other thing is not passing a dead person from life into death and beyond but passing a person who has acquired immortality into the great beyond

    >the present life being concerned with acquiring immortality which transcends death so that when death steps in it looks into the face not of a guy who blogged a lot, or a guy who swore like a pirate, or a guy who voted republican, or a guy who watched football on sundays, or a guy who was promoted to general manager last year

    >but the face of a guy who spent his time on earth acquiring immortality.

    Death basically seals conditions and passes these conditons into the eternal realm

    this can be proved both metaphysically and logically as well as scientifically.

    i believe that i am soon ready to trod the vale as well.

    my spirit has basically left the room i a in the waiting room and my physical prescence is on its way

    the egyptian spoke of the the Ren, the Ba, the Ka, the Sheut, and the Ib

    why do i spend my time with a bunch of blaspehmous, revilers, misguided lost sinners

    the truth is each of us has a litte of the other in all of us

    it is my duty to be a suffering servant serving the lowest and vilest of men while at the same time perfecting my life

    i go where the holy spirit bids me i do what it instructs me, i don’t seek earthly glory nor do i lay treasures up on earth where there is the search for the immortal glory i will be there and where the name of our lord and saviour jesus christ must be defended i will be there, where the work of the holy spirit must be accomplished i will be there and where the burden of the saints needs to be borne i will be there labouring to do so

  339. on 22 Feb 2015 at 9:01 am 339.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    And again I am not mother fucker I have never fucked a mother, I am not married and I have never broken the 7th commandment, I am not dipshit, not dumbass.

    Maybe you need to check your psychological profile you show all the signs of being an anal retentive.

    Verbose Ass

  340. on 22 Feb 2015 at 11:15 am 340.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    don’t worry i am not trying to start a new religion or anything.

    nor do i expect to.

    quite the opposite

    i am just a humble and studious soul

    trying to deal with the problem of life and with the prospect of eternity

    i am quite willing for you to turn a deaf ear to what i have to say as well

    that is your right

    but once you have made your choice you will have to deal with your consequences

    good luck

  341. on 22 Feb 2015 at 12:01 pm 341.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    all the sages have warned us against opportunism.

    i don’t care that i have witnessed the world and that my witness is more right or more superior to the witness of others.

    i don’t care that i can extract what i wish from the world

    i don’t care that i can fashion the world

    i am just profundly grateful that i have gotten a chance to be in the world and to witness the world and to experience the world both its goods and its bads, it sorrows and its joys to learn of the world its triumps and its tragedies.

  342. on 22 Feb 2015 at 3:16 pm 342.Yeah Hell said …

    “but once you have made your choice you will have to deal with your consequences”

    It is not as if it was choosing to believe or not, it is realizing what is real or not. If realizing that there is no proof of an afterlife and that there is a very high chance we will all seize to exist as a conscience and rot in the ground when we die, then that is a consequence of that realization of reality. If you think it is better to give yourself a false perception of reality until you die, hey, that is your choice.

    And so again, “If your belief system is not founded in an objective reality, you should not be making decisions that affect other people.”
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

  343. on 22 Feb 2015 at 4:16 pm 343.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    A track athelete has a chance to make good on a race time.

    He can train well for the race run his heart out during the race but once he has crossed the line its over he has clocked say 9.45 secs and that stays that is what history will remember that is what eternity can vouch and no more.

    There is no greater reward than the eternal and no greater it can vouch than that it owes us the reward given to those who lived good and god-fearing lives obedient and in service to him.

    For those to whom has been borne the gospel anything less is a shame and a tragedy.

  344. on 22 Feb 2015 at 4:45 pm 344.Yeah Hell said …

    “There is no greater reward than the eternal and no greater it can vouch than that it owes us the reward given to those who lived good and god-fearing lives obedient and in service to him.”

    72 virgins seems to be a nice reward. There are many religious people around the world that think that is what they will get in their afterlife. Do you believe in that? Of course not, it sounds ridiculous, right? And there is no proof of that just like any other afterlife including the one you believe you will get. You are just a slave (obedient and in service) to a book written by humans around 2,000 years ago. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

  345. on 22 Feb 2015 at 4:49 pm 345.Yeah Hell said …

    And the only thing external you will get when you die is knowing that you get to exist in eternity again as star dust just like the particles you came from. There is your reward for not knowing that this is the only life you get and you can make whatever heaven you want on earth while you are still alive.

  346. on 22 Feb 2015 at 8:45 pm 346.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Mr Yeah is so silly! Lol!!! More claims about eternity with still..no proof, no evidence. So we just still just call all his claims more lies.

    :)

  347. on 22 Feb 2015 at 9:33 pm 347.Yeah Hell said …

    “Mr Yeah is so silly! Lol!!! More claims about eternity with still..no proof, no evidence. So we
    just still just call all his claims more lies.”

    Did you just get back from repeating phrases and going back and forth sitting, standing, and kneeling at your cult? I think Mr. Small Prick is still in denial. First off, lying means purposely not telling the truth. Second, again, I am not making a positive claim about something that has no proof for like an afterlife. Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and still no evidence by the theists for an afterlife or a god. And not even attempting to find objective reality evidence to display, but resorting to thinking atheists need to have proof for something not existing that someone else claims is existing without their objective reality evidence. How does that not make sense? It’s like the theists are constantly attempting to run into a wall and each time don’t realize from the last time that there is still a wall there. LOL.

  348. on 22 Feb 2015 at 9:37 pm 348.Yeah Hell said …

    P.S. Shouldn’t you be calling me Mr. Hell now, Mr. Small Prick? You will be referred to as Mr. Small Prick now since you claimed in #298 that you have a small prickly penis. LOL.

  349. on 22 Feb 2015 at 10:44 pm 349.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Oh no!!, Mr Yeah is making fun of my penis…..lol!!!!!.. OMG!, I am dealing with a Jr High kid!…lol!!!!!! This is funny to Mr Yeah and says all that is needed about his mental facilities. :)

    I understand the anger, he has been backed into a corner and retaliates with the only weapon he has left, insults. You couldn’t order a more picture perfect portrayal of the atheist retaliation. It is quite funny…..

    But enough with the Jr High humor from Mr Yeah.

    Readers notice I have made no claims regarding the afterlife, however Mr Yeah has made numerous claims and has yet to support one of them.

    Let me summarize again the claims made by Mr Yeah that he quickly changes the subject on in order to avoid supporting the claims.

    1. Provides no evidence that DNA coding was written by his diddits (really need some background on information theory)

    2. Will not answer what makes scientist experts on the existence of God.

    3. Why he will not recant atheism when 51% of scientist are not atheists. (Not to mention 90% of the world believes. Not that in itself makes it true, but when 90% or the world agrees on anything it should give one pause.)

    4. Has yet to provide a few “real world” studies disproving there is a god. He stated they existed….Where?

  350. on 22 Feb 2015 at 11:16 pm 350.Yeah Hell said …

    Mr. Prick a while back pointed out that this is a blog. But yet doesn’t seem to like humor. There is nothing wrong with combining humor and reality (example: Daily Show). I seem to remember recently that Mr. Prick thought he was funny because he was going to tell my mom that I was lying, even though he doesn’t understand what lying is. LOL.

    “Mr Yeah has made numerous claims and has yet to support one of them.”

    Let’s see, in a recent previous post I put:

    Mr. Prick seems to think that DNA cannot be created by billions of years of evolution and natural selection, and that relevant leading scientists are not the smartest people when it comes to deciding if an element or any combination of elements has supernatural powers or not. Keep dreaming theists.

    I still don’t know why he keeps thinking and pointing out that 51% of scientists are not atheists. We went over that a couple times already about the logistics of that poll. I also still don’t know why he thinks 90% of the world believes…..believes in what?…..certainly not the Christian god he believes in. And the majority believing in something doesn’t necessarily mean it is true. Take flat earth and earth being the center as examples. And actually, if you take all animals, I bet you the majority of animals don’t believe in a god. News flash: We are just animals that evolved a bigger brain. Although, sometimes mass groups of humans seem to be just as smart as animals that are non-humans. LOL.

  351. on 22 Feb 2015 at 11:28 pm 351.Yeah Hell said …

    “Readers notice I have made no claims regarding the afterlife”

    Oh, so you don’t think there is an afterlife then? So you believe in a god but not an afterlife? What is the point of that? What do you gain from that? Or is it that you do believe in an afterlife, but since you didn’t come out of the closet about the afterlife yet, it shouldn’t be discussed? LOL. Or maybe you don’t know if there is an afterlife, just like an agnostic? It can only be one of those choices.

    And again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and still no evidence by the theists for an afterlife or a god. And not even attempting to find objective reality evidence to display.

  352. on 22 Feb 2015 at 11:43 pm 352.TJ said …

    “The atheist can’t find God for the same reason that a thief can’t find a policeman. Author Unknown”

    Huh? The thief, a human, can either walk into a police station or when they eventually get arrested they will see that policeman, another human. Keep trying.

    They read the words, but miss the meaning. A thief neither seeks to find a policeman nor desires to.

    Eventually, when they are judged they will see God.

    They apply their same foolish wisdom to the Bible.

    A book written across many generations, unchanging, has stood the test of time. A testimony unmatched.

    How long will their “wisdom’s” last? They readily accept that their theories and facts are subject to change if new evidence comes to light. They readily accept that their conscious thoughts are the results of chemical reactions which are the unguided results of eons of un-testable time and chance… yet?

    They can trust that when Darwin sat at a desk, drew a rough outline of a tree of life and wrote “I think” above it. They believe it to be truth. Truth derived from the same imagination that they accuse others of confusing and applying to what they read regarding, origins from an ancient source… saying “how can we distinguish”.

    If they have read the Bible and dismissed it as nonsense then they should be happy to move on and live the one opportunity at life they believe to have.

    Instead they persist to attend a web site blog dedicated to discussion regarding the possible existence of God.

    Foolish wisdom.

  353. on 23 Feb 2015 at 12:48 am 353.Yeah Hell said …

    “A book written across many generations, unchanging, has stood the test of time.”

    You sure about that? The bible has been translated from different languages and parts have been cut out over time, maybe not recently, but they have been cut out.

    —————

    “They can trust that when Darwin sat at a desk, drew a rough outline of a tree of life and wrote “I think” above it. They believe it to be truth.”

    And this is coming from someone who believes a book written by humans about 2,000 years ago, where there has never been any proof of the supernatural, but yet when it comes to Darwin’s theories, scientific peers have been finding a lot of evidence.

    ————

    “If they have read the Bible and dismissed it as nonsense then they should be happy to move on and live the one opportunity at life they believe to have.”

    Finally a theist on here made somewhat of a good point. Maybe we can’t do anything individually, but it is too bad that theists make decisions that affect other people, and those consequences is what makes atheists angry that a mass amount of people are being misinformed about reality and making bad decisions because of it that affect others. Otherwise I don’t really give a crap about what others believe. You can do what you want to yourself, but just don’t affect others. And brainwashing others to believe the same bullshit, is affecting those others whether they realize it or not. You were one of those others until you were brainwashed. Your non-brainwashed self is also one of those others currently. You are affecting yourself by not believing in reality.

  354. on 23 Feb 2015 at 12:53 am 354.Yeah Hell said …

    “Instead they persist to attend a web site blog dedicated to discussion regarding the possible existence of God.”

    So why are you visiting this site? Just curious.

    Also, it isn’t the “possible” existence of god.

  355. on 23 Feb 2015 at 1:31 am 355.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “DNA cannot be created by billions of years of evolution and natural selection”

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far you have provided no evidence and your appeals to authority are fallacious. Lastly, you want us to ignore what we observe everyday in life concerning complex code and and believe your claim that unintelligent systems wrote the code?

    Lol!!!! Love to believe. But again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and still no evidence by the atheists

    “a while back pointed out that this is a blog.”

    That’s because it is a blog Mr Yeah. Are blogs conducive to adolescent humor? I’m no longer into poop jokes either but you and alex go ahead. I expect certain behaviors out of some people. :)

  356. on 23 Feb 2015 at 2:04 am 356.Yeah Hell said …

    “DNA cannot be created by billions of years of evolution and natural selection. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

    There is quite a bit of studies out there on these topics. I know you want me to put all the evidence down, but it can’t be done in a few paragraphs. If part of it is put down, everything else would need to as well to have it make sense. That is I kept saying you need to research this stuff so it can make sense to you after you spend the hours reading.

    How can studying things that are natural be considered extraordinary? The reason why your claim is extraordinary is because it involves something that is unnatural and has no proof of existing. We all know the parts of DNA exist, etc. That is the difference.

    And even if scientists for some reason aren’t 100% correct, that just means that they haven’t figured out everything completely yet. They have come a long way, though. You can’t substitute “god did it” just because you don’t have an understanding of it completely yet. There would have to be some evidence of a god doing it, which there is none. If scientists realize when their study is complete that the “god particle” is actually a supernatural element from god, then hey, you would be right. But until then, there is no evidence that your positive claim of a god or an afterlife is real.

    I used to believe as well, and it didn’t happen over night where I all of a sudden realized it wasn’t real. It was a process over a couple years of examining both sides. But once you overcome that hump and you finally realize how all religions are fabrications throughout history because of a lack of understanding of how the real world works, things start to make more and more sense.

    I still would like to know why theists come to this site. What is their agenda? Is it because they are trying to spread their word of a god? Is it because they think their god demands them to spread the word? It is like when sometimes you go in public and there is that one guy on the street preaching about Jesus and such. What is the point?

  357. on 23 Feb 2015 at 2:53 am 357.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “How can studying things that are natural be considered extraordinary?”

    Never said it was. Claiming natural processes can write complex coding requires extraordinary evidence. And see, you don’t even know if it is true. You keep telling the rest of us to study.

    I have and there is no evidence to support your claim.

    Francis Crick thinks DNA came from aliens sources. Very prominent) science. You support that?

  358. on 23 Feb 2015 at 3:11 am 358.Yeah Hell said …

    “Never said it was. Claiming natural processes can write complex coding requires extraordinary evidence. And see, you don’t even know if it is true. You keep telling the rest of us to study.”

    The coding is still part of the natural world. There is no evidence something supernatural did it and there is no evidence of the supernatural. You do agree billions of years is a long time, right? Can you imagine what something can evolve to over that amount of time, from very small changes to something complex. It is possible. Now if it were proven that the earth is only 10,000 years old, then you would have more of an argument about the period of time something can become complex like that. And, you also have to keep in mind, the complexity is what humans have perceived as complex from what they are able to understand. If nature could speak, it might not agree that it is complex.

  359. on 23 Feb 2015 at 6:15 am 359.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “The coding is still part of the natural world. There is no evidence something supernatural did it”

    Actually no evidence exists that nature, could, did od ever will write code that complex. The problem here is you do nit understand the high information coding in DNA. Mutations and natural selection does no write code UNLESS you have proof? Throwing out billions of years, mutations and such is not evidence. You’d own claim now is is must have?

    And science is now uncovering that it is not just one program but two programs on top of one another.

  360. on 23 Feb 2015 at 9:03 am 360.TJ said …

    “A book written across many generations, unchanging, has stood the test of time.”

    You sure about that? The bible has been translated from different languages and parts have been cut out over time, maybe not recently, but they have been cut out.

    Have you read the Bible?

    Have you read any of the books that were cut out?

    If you have, then you would know that claiming it was merely written by goat herders is an extraordinarily ignorant claim.

    ———————–

    “They can trust that when Darwin sat at a desk, drew a rough outline of a tree of life and wrote “I think” above it. They believe it to be truth.”

    And this is coming from someone who believes a book written by humans about 2,000 years ago, where there has never been any proof of the supernatural, but yet when it comes to Darwin’s theories, scientific peers have been finding a lot of evidence.

    “There is quite a bit of studies out there on these topics. I know you want me to put all the evidence down, but it can’t be done in a few paragraphs. If part of it is put down, everything else would need to as well to have it make sense. That is I kept saying you need to research this stuff so it can make sense to you after you spend the hours reading.”

    This I agree with, but it is true for both side of the argument. There is much convincing material to be read from both sides. However all evidence requires interpretation. Interpretation is the active application of one’s imagination to mentally weigh up the possibilities and reach a conclusion that is acceptable to one doing the interpretation.

    You are not unique to reach your conclusion and nor am I in reaching mine. I have read much scientific research and theories and the Bible also. Both require an active application of the imagination to reach any conclusions.

    My conclusions regarding the current scientific outlook on origins is that it is flooded with competing theories that are built upon the acceptance of other theories, which in turn rely on other theories for credibility. If this was not true there would not be a desire within the scientific community to unify all under one.

    I also conclude that whilst the search for truth is often “claimed, it is only pursued within a limited belief system which at it’s core denies the possibility of a God.

    I conclude that there is nothing contained within the scientific theories regarding origins that leads me to conclude that the origin scenario presented in the Bible is false.

    —————-

    “You were one of those others until you were brainwashed. Your non-brainwashed self is also one of those others currently. You are affecting yourself by not believing in reality.”

    Who do you think brain washed me?

    I do belong to a church. I am not associated with any religious organisation.

    My faith is derived from a literal reading of the Bible. I have self determined what I accept and what I do not. The final say on what I believe is ultimately mine. I have free will.

    Either the Bible was able to brain wash me with the words contained within, or I reached a conclusion that was acceptable to me. This conclusion has been validated thought interaction with the Holy Spirit. However I do not expect that you will take my word over claiming I have the ability to determine the difference between an interactive spiritual experience and my imagination.

    I will argue that organised religion and the majority of churches teach very little of what the Bible actually says. They have their own agendas. And, Yes! they brain wash the masses for their various twisted reasons.

    Constantly I am asked here “how do tell the real Church from the fakes?”

    EASY! Familiarize yourself with what they claim is their holy book and measure them against it’s teachings.

    Isn’t that how we measure any organisation. What is their mission statement? And, how does it compare to their practices?

    Look to any religious organisation and run the test. You will find very few that pass.

    ———————-

    “So why are you visiting this site? Just curious.”

    If people like me, didn’t…. would you still?

    I visit for the same reason you do. I believe something, feel strongly and do not require you permission to express that.

    I would rather speak openly with non-believers, then treat through the mine field of stupidity that worldly religion has to offer. While the brain washed remain exactly that.

    At least the majority of non-believers are open minded, most have simply not spent any time pondering or researching their origin, or have adopted the ideas, assumptions and ignorance of others, while some have not been exposed to what the Bible literally says. While others are extremely faithful in their “science has the answers” beliefs.

    Which are you? Where does your faith lie? The imagination of others or your own?

  361. on 23 Feb 2015 at 1:55 pm 361.freddies_dead said …

    Holy crap! (Literally)

    You go away for the weekend and all Hell breaks loose.

    Did the Venerable one stop taking his meds? Another load of bullshit starting at #300 where he utterly fails to note what he thinks the atheist ‘problem’ is, other than it’s something he thinks is a problem.

    He brags that his perspective is majorly scientific but offers no science to back his claims.

    He dabbles with numerology as if the numbers 1, 3, 7, 0 and infinity have some supernatural connection. It would be nice if he’d actually demonstrate this alleged connection instead of simply asserting it as if his assertion is all that’s needed.

    He then advises us to use drugs no less! Now we can see where his rambling bullshit comes from and it seems very much like he must have dropped something himself at that point because he totally goes off on one.

    He argues with alex about how he has no problem with someone all knowing and all powerful granting free will, but his example is of a ventriloquists dummy! It’s possibly the lamest attempt so far to rescue the absurdity of Christian free will. The irony of a puppet used to illustrate free will also seems lost on him. And then he questions whether free will exists anyway. So much for consistency.

    Next he begins wittering on about belief. Attempting to conflate religious belief i.e. belief without evidence, with standard everyday beliefs that are based on evidence.

    hindus believe in jesus, muslims believe in jesus, buddist reflect jesus teaching, and some jews find jesus teaching compatible to their own teachings and own idea of salvation history

    It should be noted that this ‘belief’ manifests in different ways, Hindus see Jesus as just another guru, the Muslims see him as a prophet and the Buddhists, despite Jesus not appearing in any Buddhist texts, figure the Christian stories are of a possibly enlightened being. The one thing in common is that all deny Jesus’ divinity, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Venerable one was OK with that, after all His faith is so great nothing could cause him to lose it.

    Not long after that he goes ALL CAPS!!!! – maybe the come down made him angry? – before embarking on the usual looney tune assault on Darwin. He misunderstands science – scientific theories aren’t ‘proven’ – and then flat out lies about evolution being discredited, of course he offers no evidence to support this mental assertion. Instead he goes on to insult the overwhelming majority of scientists and any others who accept evolution, claiming any who accept it are insane – does he bother to substantiate his claim? Of course not, that would actually take some effort and maybe some time off the drugs.

    Although some time off the drugs may be a real necessity as the Venerable one then goes on to adjust his tin foil hat and bring up the Illuminati! The Illuminati for fuck’s sake. What a nutter.

    Then we get baseless assertion after baseless assertion, some drivel about glasses, more bullshit and something random about a track athlete.

    And yet, through all that shite, through all those posts, the Venerable one fails to point to a single piece of objective evidence that would allow us to distinguish his God from something he may merely be imagining. The one thing that may give any of his rambling some credence and he simply can’t manage it. Given his drug habit I’m not surprised.

  362. on 23 Feb 2015 at 1:58 pm 362.freddies_dead said …

    So, the lying prick’s claim is that DNA couldn’t possibly be caused naturally. Where’s his proof? Where’s his argument showing that there is a barrier that nature can’t cross?

    Watch him dodge this burden just like he dodges offering proof of his God’s existence.

  363. on 23 Feb 2015 at 2:55 pm 363.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    In response to Freddies Dead. Are You Freddie?

    As someone else on this website said.

    You guys have set up a lemonade stall and you don’t have any lemonade.

    You are the ones claiming that the Almighty Creator God does not exist.

    You not only claim that but you go about preaching it to the whole world.

    You claim a scientific approach and you claim that your whole ‘ministry’ is based on evidence.

    Yet where is your evidence that God does not exist.

    It is more like you are driven by internal forces more than anything.

    More like Demonic Forces than anything else.

    Lemonade no lemons nor evidence of Lemons who claims that every thing they do is based on evidence.

    Thank God Jesus Quenches my thirst and I don’t need to depend on Lemons.

  364. on 23 Feb 2015 at 2:57 pm 364.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    Lemonade for the whole world anybody!!!! Only problem no lemons yet.

    :(

    In the face of such an example is it any wonder the punishment false prophet gets along with the beast?

  365. on 23 Feb 2015 at 3:13 pm 365.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    Thank God Jesus Quenches My Thirst and I don’t Need to Depend on Lemons (Your Lemons).

    Not even Green Lemons or Sour Lemons.

    No Lemons at All.

    Who’s the Nutter?

  366. on 23 Feb 2015 at 3:19 pm 366.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    You are going to base your entire salvation before existence, truth, reality, the universe, time, eternity and god on what someone else did or didn’t do the typical clique mentality. Oh ho ho we atheist are so smart together. The Christian down the road didn’t make God physical for our lab tests, so we don’t have to worry about saving our souls.

    You scored full 100% in complacence and a little more than that in arrogance.

    You are not smart together your shall all fail together.

  367. on 23 Feb 2015 at 3:24 pm 367.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “So,” Mr Wonderful’s “claim is that DNA couldn’t possibly be caused naturally. Where’s his proof?”

    Oh, Silly-freddie!, I didn’t say it could not happen. Its possible a hundred monkeys punching on typewriters could reproduce 100 Shakespearean sonnets, but I just don’t see it happening….unless you have evidence? However, you and dippity and Mr yeah have failed to provide even a shred of evidence it did happen. Not one iota of data showing energy and mass can created complex information coding. Bring it on!

    What about Panspermia? It is scientific, right? Crick was convinced that was the avenue for DNA. Got proof for that?

  368. on 23 Feb 2015 at 3:44 pm 368.freddies_dead said …

    363.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    In response to Freddies Dead. Are You Freddie?

    As someone else on this website said.

    You guys have set up a lemonade stall and you don’t have any lemonade.

    You are the ones claiming that the Almighty Creator God does not exist.

    Yes. I also gave an argument to the person that made the lemon comment, some lemonade for him, so to speak. He’s not been back to complain about it.

    You not only claim that but you go about preaching it to the whole world.

    So this one blog constitutes the ‘whole world’ now? Wow, it really is getting smaller.

    You claim a scientific approach and you claim that your whole ‘ministry’ is based on evidence.

    I may use a modern scientific approach when the topic is scientific i.e. when evolution is bought up and any time the alleged effects of God’s actions are tested i.e. when we study the efficacy of intercessory prayer (hint, the studies don’t favour the ‘God exists’ claim). Let’s face it though, when it comes to God’s existence, the total lack of empirical evidence for God makes the modern scientific approach somewhat difficult. To what ‘ministry’ are you referring?

    Yet where is your evidence that God does not exist.

    I’ve already presented the argument from the fact of existence.

    Premise 1: If the primacy of consciousness is invalid, then the claim that God exists is false.
    Premise 2: The primacy of consciousness is invalid.
    Conclusion: Therefore, the claim that God exists is false.

    It is more like you are driven by internal forces more than anything.

    More like Demonic Forces than anything else.

    Do you have any objective means by which we can distinguish these ‘Demonic Forces’ from something you may merely be imaging? Or can we safely dismiss your statement as the attempt to poison the well that it so clearly is?

    Lemonade no lemons nor evidence of Lemons who claims that every thing they do is based on evidence.

    Thank God Jesus Quenches my thirst and I don’t need to depend on Lemons.

    Do you have any objective means by which we can distinguish your Jesus from something you may merely be imaging?

  369. on 23 Feb 2015 at 3:45 pm 369.freddies_dead said …

    364.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    Lemonade for the whole world anybody!!!! Only problem no lemons yet.

    Of course this is only true if you ignore the argument I have already presented.

    :(

    In the face of such an example is it any wonder the punishment false prophet gets along with the beast?

    Is this piece of incoherent blather supposed to mean something? Or are the drugs taking effect?

  370. on 23 Feb 2015 at 3:59 pm 370.freddies_dead said …

    365.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    Thank God Jesus Quenches My Thirst and I don’t Need to Depend on Lemons (Your Lemons).

    Not even Green Lemons or Sour Lemons.

    No Lemons at All.

    Who’s the Nutter?

    Still you. Any objective means by which we can distinguish your Jesus from something you may merely be imagining yet?

  371. on 23 Feb 2015 at 4:01 pm 371.freddies_dead said …

    366.O Venerable Athiest Lend Me Your Ears said …

    You are going to base your entire salvation before existence, truth, reality, the universe, time, eternity and god on what someone else did or didn’t do the typical clique mentality.

    Where do you get such bullshit? My worldview is based on the self evident axioms – existence, consciousness and identity. What someone else did or didn’t do makes no odds to me – unless of course they provided an objective means by which I can distinguish their God from something they may be imagining.

    Oh ho ho we atheist are so smart together. The Christian down the road didn’t make God physical for our lab tests, so we don’t have to worry about saving our souls.

    Nope, you’ve offered absolutely no objective evidence – physical or otherwise – for your God. Why should I accept your claim that my ‘soul’ even needs saving on that basis?

    You scored full 100% in complacence and a little more than that in arrogance.

    Says the man who can’t even backup his claim that his God exists yet continues to blather on about it all the same.

    You are not smart together your shall all fail together.

    On what basis shall we ‘fail together’? If it’s a God thing then you know what you need to do – an objective means etc… etc…

  372. on 23 Feb 2015 at 4:01 pm 372.freddies_dead said …

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

    “So, the lying prick’s claim is that DNA couldn’t possibly be caused naturally. Where’s his proof?”

    Oh, Silly-freddie!, I didn’t say it could not happen.

    Thanks for conceding that DNA forming naturally is entirely possible. Game over for you A. Bye.

  373. on 23 Feb 2015 at 4:04 pm 373.Anonymous said …

    I’ve already presented the argument from the fact of existence.
    Premise 1: If the primacy of consciousness is invalid, then the claim that God exists is false.
    Premise 2: The primacy of consciousness is invalid.
    Conclusion: Therefore, the claim that God exists is false.

    COME AGAIN?

    YOU HAVE SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN AWAY RELIGION WHICH EXISTED SINCE THE BEGINNINNG OF TIME IN THOSE 4 SENTENCES YOU FOUND ON YOUR TOILET PAPER AFTER TAKING A WHIPE

    THOSE PREMISES ARE EMPTY AND MEANINGLESS.

    HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THE PRIMACY OF CONCIOUSNESS IS INVALID.

    THAT CLAIM IS NEITHER SUPPORTED BY RELIGION, SCIENCE NOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE COMMUNITY OF PHILOSOPHERS

    WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE YOU

    AND EXPLAINING OR NOT EXPLAINING GOD AWAY IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS SAYING THAT IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE PRIMACY OF CONSCIOUSNESS

    DROP IN THE OCEAN

    IN YOUR CASE DROP IN THE OCEAN OF ILLUSION

  374. on 23 Feb 2015 at 4:32 pm 374.Anonymous said …

    WHY DON’T YOU PUT YOUR ADDRESS ON THE BLOG AND I WILL COME AND PERSONALLY DELIVER YOU PROOF OF GOD.

    COME ALONE.

  375. on 23 Feb 2015 at 4:35 pm 375.freddies_dead said …

    373.Anonymous said …

    “I’ve already presented the argument from the fact of existence.
    Premise 1: If the primacy of consciousness is invalid, then the claim that God exists is false.
    Premise 2: The primacy of consciousness is invalid.
    Conclusion: Therefore, the claim that God exists is false.”

    Woah, the Venerable one has lost his moniker and gone ALL CAPS!!! on us again.

    COME AGAIN?

    Premise 1: If the primacy of consciousness is invalid, then the claim that God exists is false.
    Premise 2: The primacy of consciousness is invalid.
    Conclusion: Therefore, the claim that God exists is false.”

    YOU HAVE SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN AWAY RELIGION WHICH EXISTED SINCE THE BEGINNINNG OF TIME IN THOSE 4 SENTENCES YOU FOUND ON YOUR TOILET PAPER AFTER TAKING A WHIPE

    And I’m the arrogant one? lol.

    THOSE PREMISES ARE EMPTY AND MEANINGLESS.

    Because you say so?

    HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THE PRIMACY OF CONCIOUSNESS IS INVALID.

    Because existence holds metaphysical primacy. Things are what they are regardless of what anyone may think, wish, want etc…

    As Anton Thorn expands in his argument:

    I. If the primacy of existence is valid, then the primacy of consciousness is invalid.

    A. If the primacy of existence and the primacy of consciousness constitute exhaustive metaphysics and are contradictory to each other, then the primacy of consciousness is invalid if the primacy of existence is valid.

    B. The primacy of existence and the primacy of consciousness constitute exhaustive metaphysics.

    1. There are two fundamentals which a proper metaphysic must identify and distinguish in the foundation of a rational philosophy: that which exists (existence), and that by which one is aware of that which exists (consciousness).

    2. There is no third alternative to this distinction. (Axioms of existence and consciousness)

    3. The issue of metaphysical primacy states that, in any idea, doctrine or philosophy, one or the other (existence or consciousness) will hold metaphysical primacy over the other.

    4. Therefore, the primacy of existence and the primacy of consciousness constitute exhaustive metaphysics.

    C. The primacy of existence and the primacy of consciousness are in contradiction to each other.

    1. The primacy of existence holds that existence exists independent of consciousness.

    2. The primacy of consciousness holds that existence in some way is dependent on an act or form of consciousness.

    3. Therefore, the primacy of existence is in contradiction to the primacy of consciousness.

    D. Therefore, if the primacy of existence is valid, then the primacy of consciousness is invalid.

    II. The primacy of existence is valid.

    A. If existence holds metaphysical primacy, then the primacy of existence is valid. (Peikoff)

    B. Existence holds metaphysical primacy.

    1. If existence exists, existence holds metaphysical primacy.

    2. Existence exists.

    3. Therefore, existence holds metaphysical primacy.

    4. Therefore, the primacy of existence is valid.

    THAT CLAIM IS NEITHER SUPPORTED BY RELIGION, SCIENCE NOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE COMMUNITY OF PHILOSOPHERS

    One, why on earth would an atheist make a claim regarding the non-existence of God that is supported by religion? That’s absurd. Two, we’re dealing in metaphysics, not science. Three, your argument from authority (the philosophical community claim) is a fallacy … not to mention false.

    WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE YOU

    I never claimed you should. You’re quite welcome to deny reason if you want. It’s no skin off my nose.

    AND EXPLAINING OR NOT EXPLAINING GOD AWAY IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS SAYING THAT IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE PRIMACY OF CONSCIOUSNESS

    It does when you understand metaphysics.

    DROP IN THE OCEAN

    IN YOUR CASE DROP IN THE OCEAN OF ILLUSION

    The only illusion here is your God. Unless you’ve suddenly thought of an objective means by which we can distinguish your God from something you may merely be imagining of course?

  376. on 23 Feb 2015 at 4:37 pm 376.freddies_dead said …

    374.Anonymous said …

    WHY DON’T YOU PUT YOUR ADDRESS ON THE BLOG AND I WILL COME AND PERSONALLY DELIVER YOU PROOF OF GOD.

    COME ALONE.

    Oh look, a man so insecure in his faith that he’ll resort to threats when it’s questioned. What’s the matter? Your God not capable of fighting His own battles?

  377. on 23 Feb 2015 at 5:09 pm 377.Anonymous said …

    Do you believe in the primacy of emotion over reason

  378. on 23 Feb 2015 at 5:12 pm 378.Anonymous said …

    If so then reason is not supreme.

  379. on 23 Feb 2015 at 5:14 pm 379.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Thanks for conceding that DNA forming naturally is entirely possible.”

    You are Welcome!!…….ROTFL!!!!!!!!!! Now this from a mouse who believes he is offering scientific proof.

    Lets look at his logic. Shall we?

    1. Is it Possible? (Anything is Possible…(snicker))
    2. Do I want it to happen this Way?
    3. Then is did it happen.

    Then freddie the mouse must accept ALL things as possible. Truth is not based of frederick the mouse’s personal preference. Because as the anti-God God cult has conceded, ANYTHING is possible and that of course include the must likely scenario, God.

  380. on 23 Feb 2015 at 5:14 pm 380.Anonymous said …

    if you believe that reason is supreme where does the difference lie.

    reason is supreme then consciousness must be supreme.

    read the opening lines of the dammappada

    “All things are preceded by the mind, led by the mind, created by the mind.”

  381. on 23 Feb 2015 at 5:16 pm 381.Anonymous said …

    My proof for god is copper nine millimeters long and fits snuggly between the eyes and into the frontal cortex lobe off all athiest and pagans. Trust me you won’t live to doubt god’s existence again.

  382. on 23 Feb 2015 at 5:32 pm 382.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Let me bust up another fallacy from Fred.

    The leaset he can do is give credit to Bethrick (Ayn Rand)….(snicker)….. who fred stole this from…..:)

    The following is not all my original work

    A Straw Man Fallacy

    P1 & 2 is not in keeping with all the relevant characteristics of the God described in scripture. Theism affirms the existence of a being known as “God” who is eternal who can neither logically nullify Himself out of existence nor create Himself ex nihilo. If God exists eternally and cannot create or destroy Himself, then in what possible manner does Theism affirm a metaphysical primacy of consciousness? It does not, unless we avoid discussing ultimate reality here for Theism, God’s eternal nature.

    A False Dilemma Fallacy

    Metaphysical reality is not limited to only two choices. Ayn Rand objectivists are the only ones continuing to pretend that this false-dilemma primacy of existence vs. primacy of consciousness is a valid philosophical dichotomy. This type of irrational tunnel vision underscores the cult-like nature of Rand objectivism.

    The Fallacy of the Unsupported Assertion

    Materialists basically tend to assume that truth, logic and information are derived from the material world. However, some physicists are now claiming the opposite is implied by material universe. It is not so much that information is derived from the physical world, but that physical world is derived from information. In the MIT Technology Review in an article entitled, The Foundation of Reality: Information or Quantum Mechanics?, the following quote was among the concluding statements:
    “All this work stems from the growing realization that it is not the laws of physics that determine how information behaves in our Universe, but the other way round.”

    That’s only a few of the fallacies. Fred is dismissed……:)

  383. on 23 Feb 2015 at 6:07 pm 383.freddies_dead said …

    377.Anonymous said …

    Do you believe in the primacy of emotion over reason

    What does this have to do with metaphysics? What exactly is the “primacy of emotion” and how does it relate to reason in the manner you are using it here?

  384. on 23 Feb 2015 at 6:07 pm 384.freddies_dead said …

    378.Anonymous said …

    If so then reason is not supreme.

    What is this supposed to even mean? Has someone suggested reason is “supreme” in some way?

  385. on 23 Feb 2015 at 6:08 pm 385.freddies_dead said …

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

    “Thanks for conceding that DNA forming naturally is entirely possible.”

    You are Welcome!!…….ROTFL!!!!!!!!!! Now this from a mouse who believes he is offering scientific proof.

    Wait, what? Where did I claim any such thing during this exchange? I didn’t. I merely asked a question and A’s answer was that DNA forming by natural means is possible. If that’s the case then A’s rejection of naturally formed DNA is nothing but an argument from ignorance i.e. he simply can’t see how DNA can form naturally yet he concedes that it is possible for it to do so.

    Lets look at his logic. Shall we?

    Oh do lets…

    1. Is it Possible? (Anything is Possible…(snicker))

    And as usual the lying prick cannot help but be dishonest. I never said anything was possible. I was very specific. The question concerned DNA alone and A’s answer was that DNA forming by natural means is possible.

    2. Do I want it to happen this Way?

    I have always maintained that what I want, wish, demand etc… is irrelevant. Things are as they are, independent of what anyone wants, wishes, demands etc… That’s the primacy of existence at work. This has nothing to do with what I want and all to do with whether it’s possible for DNA to form naturally and A conceded that it was.

    3. Then is did it happen.

    Then freddie the mouse must accept ALL things as possible.

    A’s conclusion here doesn’t follow as his premises are, well, bullshit. Dishonest bullshit for the most part.

    Truth is not based of frederick the mouse’s personal preference.

    Truth isn’t dependent on anyone’s personal preferences. This is something I have said numerous times.

    Because as the anti-God God cult has conceded, ANYTHING is possible and that of course include the must likely scenario, God.

    And devoid of anything approaching honesty A simply repeats his bullshit conclusion as if simply repeating it makes it any less bullshit. ROFLCOPTER.

  386. on 23 Feb 2015 at 6:08 pm 386.freddies_dead said …

    380.Anonymous said …

    if you believe that reason is supreme where does the difference lie.

    As I noted before I don’t believe anyone has claimed reason is “supreme”.

    reason is supreme then consciousness must be supreme.

    In what way? You throw out these statements as if you think they mean something.

    read the opening lines of the dammappada

    “All things are preceded by the mind, led by the mind, created by the mind.”

    Presumably you mean the Dhammapada. Is there some reason I should simply accept that words on a page accurately reflect reality? Because when I test them I find that existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness instead.

  387. on 23 Feb 2015 at 6:09 pm 387.freddies_dead said …

    381.Anonymous said …

    My proof for god is copper nine millimeters long and fits snuggly between the eyes and into the frontal cortex lobe off all athiest and pagans. Trust me you won’t live to doubt god’s existence again.

    And back to the useless threats. Why is it your God can’t win via reason? Why is it you feel the need to threaten death to those who do not believe as you do? Is your faith that weak that it cannot stand up to scrutiny? If so you would be better served finding new beliefs than making futile death threats on an anonymous website.

  388. on 23 Feb 2015 at 6:14 pm 388.Anonymous said …

    If you don’t believe that reason is supreme then I am afraid we can all see where you went wrong.

  389. on 23 Feb 2015 at 6:28 pm 389.freddies_dead said …

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

    Let me bust up another fallacy from Fred.

    That would be a first.

    The leaset he can do is give credit to Bethrick (Ayn Rand)….(snicker)….. who fred stole this from…..:)

    Odd. I quite clearly quoted Anton Thorn who actually formulated the argument. I’m sure there is plenty over at Bethrick’s site – Incinerating Presuppositionalism – that I could use but he is not the only Objectivist in existence.

    The following is not all my original work

    Now there’s a surprise.

    A Straw Man Fallacy

    P1 & 2 is not in keeping with all the relevant characteristics of the God described in scripture. Theism affirms the existence of a being known as “God” who is eternal who can neither logically nullify Himself out of existence nor create Himself ex nihilo. If God exists eternally and cannot create or destroy Himself, then in what possible manner does Theism affirm a metaphysical primacy of consciousness? It does not, unless we avoid discussing ultimate reality here for Theism, God’s eternal nature.

    What has this got to do with God as a conscious being? Where does the Objectivist argument accuse God of being non-eternal or of creating Himself? It doesn’t. This attempt to paint the argument as a strawman simply fails to understand the argument. God is claimed to be a conscious being who created everything else through His will. It is this relationship between God as consciousness and the objects that He is conscious of that shows that Theism affirms the metaphysical primacy of consciousness.

    A False Dilemma Fallacy

    Metaphysical reality is not limited to only two choices. Ayn Rand objectivists are the only ones continuing to pretend that this false-dilemma primacy of existence vs. primacy of consciousness is a valid philosophical dichotomy. This type of irrational tunnel vision underscores the cult-like nature of Rand objectivism.

    I note that the accuser here utterly fails to offer up another choice. One can only assume that this is because the accuser doesn’t have one.

    The Fallacy of the Unsupported Assertion

    Materialists basically tend to assume that truth, logic and information are derived from the material world. However, some physicists are now claiming the opposite is implied by material universe. It is not so much that information is derived from the physical world, but that physical world is derived from information. In the MIT Technology Review in an article entitled, The Foundation of Reality: Information or Quantum Mechanics?, the following quote was among the concluding statements:
    “All this work stems from the growing realization that it is not the laws of physics that determine how information behaves in our Universe, but the other way round.”

    Objectivism is not materialism. And does the accuser have an actual argument here? I don’t see anything that shows the argument has any unsupported assertions, just some statements regarding what some physicists are claiming about information.

    That’s only a few of the fallacies. Fred is dismissed……:)

    A should read other people’s work before he falsely presents it as some sort of valid response.

  390. on 23 Feb 2015 at 6:37 pm 390.freddies_dead said …

    388.Anonymous said …

    If you don’t believe that reason is supreme then I am afraid we can all see where you went wrong.

    As an Objectivist I affirm that:

    Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

    I have no idea what you mean when you talk about reason being supreme other than as an Objectivist whereby reason is supreme only in it’s position as one of the 3 ruling values of life. Maybe you’d like to explain what you mean by the statement?

  391. on 23 Feb 2015 at 7:07 pm 391.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “God is claimed to be a conscious being who created everything else through His will.”

    By who? Conscious like a man? Um, never heard anyone claim this. God is a deity and as a deity God cannot be pigeon-holed into the properties of a man. That is why God is called a God and not man. Man actually has a very limited knowledge of God. Ayn Rand philosophy debunked…..again.

    “I note that the accuser here utterly fails to offer up another choice.”

    Sure I did. I just posted it above.

    “Objectivism is not materialism.”

    Then you must use another word that means materialism. What else is there…..to the the Ayn Rand disciple?

    As I have pointed out before, Rand is a joke to her own colleagues and is not considered to be a serious discussion in philosophy.

  392. on 23 Feb 2015 at 7:22 pm 392.Anonymous said …

    If you don’t believe in the supremacy of reason and logic you have already admitted your ‘badluckkyness’ in your attempt to apprehend truth.

    Supreme means supreme.

    There is no way around it.

    The spirit of supremacy does not succour contenders.

    Supremacy understands supremacy.

    Inferiority cannot comprehend supremacy.

  393. on 23 Feb 2015 at 8:29 pm 393.Anonymous said …

    YOU HAVE MISSED IN YOUR WAY.

    YOU HAVE MISSED THE WAY.

    YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT IN YOUR CRAFTINESS.

  394. on 23 Feb 2015 at 9:41 pm 394.alex said …

    “If you don’t believe in the supremacy of reason and logic you have already admitted your ‘badluckkyness’ in your attempt to apprehend truth.”

    if you don’t believe in allah, no virgins for you, bitch, motherfucker. loser. i guess you no likey virgens?

  395. on 23 Feb 2015 at 9:43 pm 395.alex said …

    “Ayn Rand philosophy debunked…..again.”

    okay, motherfucker. you’ve debunked everybody. you’re a bad motherfucker. how’s that god shit going? oh, still no proof eh? what? dna high programming shit again? chevy again? monkeys typing again?

    still no god proof, dumbass.

  396. on 24 Feb 2015 at 1:01 am 396.Hell Yeah said …

    Wow, lots of activity today.

    To sum up, still no evidence outside of the natural world for the supernatural. Come on, at least give one piece of evidence. A real ghost, a real angel coming down from the clouds flapping it’s wings, anything like that. I dare you to find evidence of the supernatural. Until then, we live in an objective reality in the natural world. You found something complex that you don’t understand? Did you find that a god did it? If not, how about keeping searching for the real answer instead of being too lazy and thinking a being with a magic wand did it. Quite giving excuses for a 2,000+ year old book written by humans that has plenty wrong with it.

  397. on 24 Feb 2015 at 1:06 am 397.Hell Yeah said …

    Our History by Years Ago – Your god supposedly had to do it this way:

    13,800,000,000 (13.8 Billion) – Big Bang (Exact cause yet to be determined)

    4,500,000,000 (4.5 Billion) – Earth began formation (Think of how small Earth is compared to rest of Universe)

    3,500,000,000 (3.5 Billion) – Life on Earth began – plants before animals (Are we alone in the Universe?)

    230,000,000 (230 Million) – Dinosaurs evolved and began to roam the Earth

    65,000,000 (65 Million) – Dinosaurs became extinct (Human ancestors did not)

    200,000 – Human ancestors started to look like modern humans through evolution (Universe has been around 69,000 times longer than humans)

    50,000 – The first religions formed (How many religions have been created by humans?)

    2,000 to 3,000 – Christianity formed (This current popular religion formed about a person or character named Jesus that was born and a book was written)

    Present – And here we are. Advancement in Science over the last 100+ years has answered many questions with more yet to come.

    Future – How long can humans live on Earth and how long will our Sun be around? The Universe will still go on a lot longer after that.

    ————————

    “If your belief system is not founded in an objective reality, you should not be making decisions that affect other people.”
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

  398. on 24 Feb 2015 at 2:30 am 398.TJ said …

    13,800,000,000 (13.8 Billion) – Big Bang (Exact cause yet to be determined)

    Please, if you will. Explain in your own words how you believe this figure is derived.

  399. on 24 Feb 2015 at 2:48 am 399.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    TJ,

    Lol!!!, scientist telling us what happened 4.5 billion years ago and Mr Yeah says God HAD to do it that way. That is rich! Notice how he believes without question? We have such a great record on knowing what happens millions /billions of years ago.

    Prediction: Mr Yeah continues to answer no questions…:)

    PS: Earth is small.

  400. on 24 Feb 2015 at 3:00 am 400.Hell Yeah said …

    Mr. Prick, as an astrophysicist, please tell us how old you think the universe and the earth is and how you came to that conclusion. I am very curious since it is right up your alley. Do you think it is around 6,000 years old like the bible says? LOL.

  401. on 24 Feb 2015 at 3:03 am 401.Hell Yeah said …

    PS: You are correct, the earth is very small compared to the rest of the universe. Why would a god create a universe with 99.9999999999999% waste in it? But he is so intelligent, isn’t he? LOL.

  402. on 24 Feb 2015 at 3:19 am 402.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Sure Mr Yeah, unlike you I answer questions.

    “please tell us how old you think the universe and the earth is”

    Not sure, too many assumptions and unknowns. Really pretty irrelevant.

    “Why would a god create a universe with 99.9999999999999% waste in it? ”

    So why is it wasted? Are you so arrogant that you think because you are on earth this part os not wasted? The chutzpah of these atheists…lol!!!

    You really should seek out knowledge….:)

  403. on 24 Feb 2015 at 3:36 am 403.Hell Yeah said …

    “please tell us how old you think the universe and the earth is”
    “Not sure, too many assumptions and unknowns. Really pretty irrelevant.”

    Oh, so you are agnostic when it comes to scientific claims? You aren’t sure, but there is no doubt a god did it? LOL. What a cop out.

    And how is it irrelevant? Billions of years compared to thousands as in the case of what bible believers think is a big difference. Especially when you are talking evolution, DNA coding, what else happened during those billions of years, and how long the earth has been around compared to humans. It sure is one of the most relevant topics when discussing if a god exists or not.

    —————

    “Why would a god create a universe with 99.9999999999999% waste in it? ”
    “So why is it wasted? Are you so arrogant that you think because you are on earth this part os not wasted?”

    Oh, I get it. God had a plan for the rest of space and the billions of other stars and planets. Please tell me what his use for those and the large space in between is? Why are there other solar systems besides are own? I mean, don’t we really only need the sun and the moon for us humans to survive? Didn’t god supposedly create everything for humans? LOL.

    ———

    Of course, even though Mr. Prick did attempt to answer the questions, should I keep trying to say he didn’t answer them? There are follow up questions, but I do know what answering original questions means, unlike Mr. Prick.

  404. on 24 Feb 2015 at 4:08 am 404.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “so you are agnostic when it comes to scientific claims?

    Mo I am agnostic about the age of the universe. Comprehension issue Mr yeah? ….lol!!!

    “Billions of years compared to thousands as in the case of what bible believers think”

    Ok, take it up with those who care Mr Yeah….:)

    “Didn’t god supposedly create everything for humans? ”

    Um, not that I am aware of, where did you get this information? An atheist blog?….lol!!!!!
    Is this something you think is in the Bible

  405. on 24 Feb 2015 at 10:40 am 405.TJ said …

    Mr Hell Yeah,

    Would you like to take an objective look at what science claims and what the Bible claims… you and me, together?

    It is what you have asked for. It is what I offer.

  406. on 24 Feb 2015 at 10:51 am 406.freddies_dead said …

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

    “God is claimed to be a conscious being who created everything else through His will.”

    By who?

    God’s own word i.e. the Bible.

    Conscious like a man? Um, never heard anyone claim this.

    Conscious like a conscious being. If A has some evidence that there are different types of consciousness at the conceptual level then he’s welcome to present it – I’ll predict he won’t – otherwise the Bible describes God in terms of a conscious being, speaking of His mind, will, awareness, thoughts, judgements, morality, ability to plan and having emotions.

    God is a deity and as a deity God cannot be pigeon-holed into the properties of a man.

    It is unfortunate for A that Objectivism makes no attempt to do that. It is only the fact of God’s consciousness and that consciousnesses relationship with the objects it is aware of that is addressed by the Objectivist position.

    That is why God is called a God and not man. Man actually has a very limited knowledge of God. Ayn Rand philosophy debunked…..again.

    As usual A claims victory without ever addressing what Rand’s philosophy actually says.

    “I note that the accuser here utterly fails to offer up another choice.”

    Sure I did. I just posted it above.

    Actually A didn’t offer anything even approaching another metaphysical choice. He seemed to question whether His God is conscious and whether his God created everything through His will, both of which are pretty standard tenets of the Christian Bible.

    Now I can imagine an unconscious, non-creator God just as easily as A can, but this isn’t an extra metaphysical choice either. If A wants to save the argument he borrowed then he’s going to have to actually present this 3rd metaphysical choice he claims there is. Show how it is self evident and how it relates to both existence and consciousness in an exhaustive metaphysic. I’ll predict once again that he won’t. I suspect all we’ll get is another argument from ignorance along the lines of how A doesn’t know what his God has instead of consciousness, but God isn’t a man so it must be different. He won’t define what this mystical ‘thing’ is or how it fits with consciousness and existence. He’ll also continue to fail to address how this mystical ‘thing’ relates to the objects it’s aware of.

    “Objectivism is not materialism.”

    Then you must use another word that means materialism. What else is there…..to the the Ayn Rand disciple?

    I simply use the word Objectivism. As Peikoff notes in his book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR):

    “This does not mean that Objectivists are materialists.
    Materialists … champion nature but deny the reality or efficacy of consciousness. Consciousness, in this view, is either a myth or a useless byproduct of brain or other motions. In Objectivist terms, this amounts to the advocacy of existence without consciousness. It is the denial of man’s faculty of cognition and therefore of all knowledge.
    Ayn Rand describes materialists as ‘mystics of muscle’ — ‘mystics’ because, like idealists, they reject the faculty of reason. Man, they hold, is essentially a body without a mind.
    — (OPAR, p. 33)”

    As I have pointed out before, Rand is a joke to her own colleagues and is not considered to be a serious discussion in philosophy.

    And, as I’ve noted before, I couldn’t give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut what A or anyone else thinks of Rand. Unless he has a serious argument against what Objectivism affirms his whining about Rand doesn’t get him any closer to proving his God is anything more than something he is merely imagining.

  407. on 24 Feb 2015 at 10:53 am 407.freddies_dead said …

    392.Anonymous said …

    If you don’t believe in the supremacy of reason and logic you have already admitted your ‘badluckkyness’ in your attempt to apprehend truth.

    Supreme means supreme.

    So you’re advocating that reason – a faculty of consciousness – and logic – which has it’s basis in identity, which in turn is a corollary of the self evident fact that existence exists – actually come before both existence and consciousness in the metaphysical hierarchy? Do you even understand what you’re claiming here?

    There is no way around it.

    The spirit of supremacy does not succour contenders.

    Supremacy understands supremacy.

    Inferiority cannot comprehend supremacy.

    Your word salad doesn’t help your initial claim. Do you still contend that both reason and logic came before the existence and consciousness that they rely on?

  408. on 24 Feb 2015 at 12:22 pm 408.Anonymous said …

    if there is a primacy of existence and therefore a supremacy of existence – by you

    where would reason and logic come in

    reason and logic would run second

    and that which runs second in the race will always remain behind in the race

    your reason and logic would therefore fail to comprehend existence and you would be a sorry creature with no help for your disease

  409. on 24 Feb 2015 at 12:43 pm 409.Anonymous said …

    May your river water your fruit juice and your wine turn to blood
    May frogs consume you and yourse
    May you be plighted with gnats
    May your cattle die
    May you be filled with boils and sores
    May your cities be smitted with thunder and hail
    May locust consume all your crops and make your life misarable
    May you be plunged in blindness and darkness
    May all you first born die
    And may you drown in the lake of burning sulphur
    You and Yours

  410. on 24 Feb 2015 at 2:55 pm 410.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    I got fred a little fired up. He gets upset when they criticize Ayn. She is what she is and she and her philosophy is a joke. Put on the big boy pants Fred….:)

    “God is claimed to be a conscious being who created everything else through His will.” Fred claims this is in the Bible.

    Now my understanding the Bible says this “God is not a man,” nor would I expect anyone to think a deity is a man and being is defined as “the nature or essence of a person.” The consciousness of a deity is not that of a man. Case closed.

    ” A wants to save the argument he borrowed then he’s going to have to actually present this 3rd metaphysical choice he claims there is.”

    LOL!!!, Fred has not yet proven the first two! When I destroyed Rand’s philosophy on another thread I waited for this proof. It never came. Check with Ayn, get your arguments together and get back with us.

    “Materialists … champion nature but deny the reality or efficacy of consciousness.”

    Completely untrue, materialist view consciousness through the framework of material interactions. You are a materialist Fred.

    “He won’t define what this mystical ‘thing’ is or how it fits with consciousness and existence.”

    True, I am not a deity and therefore limited in defining the deity. I have indicated the actions of the Deity as the one who created the universe and provided the intelligence to put together the complex intricate systems and laws we interact with daily.

    “Unless he has a serious argument against what Objectivism affirms”

    Um, yeah, its not objective! lol!!!!

  411. on 24 Feb 2015 at 4:32 pm 411.freddies_dead said …

    408.Anonymous said …

    if there is a primacy of existence and therefore a supremacy of existence – by you

    where would reason and logic come in

    As already noted reason is a faculty of consciousness i.e. there must first be a consciousness in order for it to have the faculty of reason. Similarly logic requires existence. If nothing exists then there is nothing to have identity. Identity (A=A) is the bedrock of logic.

    reason and logic would run second

    and that which runs second in the race will always remain behind in the race

    There is no race. There are things that rely on other things i.e. a hierarchy, which starts with existence.

    your reason and logic would therefore fail to comprehend existence and you would be a sorry creature with no help for your disease

    This simply doesn’t follow. If existence didn’t first exist then there would be nothing that had identity and logic wouldn’t have a starting point. If existence didn’t first exist then consciousness wouldn’t have anything to be conscious of. A consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms as, in order to identify itself as conscious, it must first be conscious of something.

    Existence exists, it’s a self evident fact, to deny it requires you to first affirm it. It’s the same with consciousness i.e. to question the existence of consciousness you must first be conscious. Once you recognise those irreducible primaries you can move on to understanding the relationship between them i.e. that existence exists independently of consciousness, things are what they are regardless of what anyone may wish, want or demand.

  412. on 24 Feb 2015 at 4:33 pm 412.freddies_dead said …

    409.Anonymous said …

    May your river water your fruit juice and your wine turn to blood
    May frogs consume you and yourse
    May you be plighted with gnats
    May your cattle die
    May you be filled with boils and sores
    May your cities be smitted with thunder and hail
    May locust consume all your crops and make your life misarable
    May you be plunged in blindness and darkness
    May all you first born die
    And may you drown in the lake of burning sulphur
    You and Yours

    There’s that “Christian Love” we hear about, thanks for playing fella.

  413. on 24 Feb 2015 at 4:39 pm 413.Anonymous said …

    King James Bible 48:10

    Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.

  414. on 24 Feb 2015 at 4:41 pm 414.freddies_dead said …

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

    I got fred a little fired up.

    I see A can’t distinguish between boredom and being fired up – not surprising when he can’t distinguish between the real and the imaginary either.

    He gets upset when they criticize Ayn. She is what she is and she and her philosophy is a joke. Put on the big boy pants Fred….:)

    As noted I couldn’t care less what anyone says about Rand – this includes A – it’s whether anyone can deal with the Objectivist philosphy on it’s own terms that interests me and so far A is failing as usual.

    “God is claimed to be a conscious being who created everything else through His will.” Fred claims this is in the Bible.

    Because it is.

    Now my understanding the Bible says this “God is not a man,”

    Of course neither I nor Objectivism has argued otherwise…

    nor would I expect anyone to think a deity is a man and being is defined as “the nature or essence of a person.”

    And? Once more neither I nor Objectivism has argued otherwise…

    The consciousness of a deity is not that of a man.

    So A says and if wishing made it so maybe his statement would hold water. However, wishing does not make it so and A utterly fails to back up his statement in any meaningful way. Does A even understand what the concept “consciousness” means? It doesn’t seem so. He makes absolutely no attempt to state and demonstrate the differences he claims are there. Now consciousness is defined as the condition of being conscious, having a quality of awareness, of having emotions, thoughts, a mind. Does A’s God not have these qualities? Is A’s God unconscious, unaware, emotionless, thoughtless and mindless? Maybe, it’s his imaginary God after all, however, the God in the Bible is described essentially as form of consciousness with emotions and thoughts, a mind etc….

    Case closed.

    Indeed.

    ” A wants to save the argument he borrowed then he’s going to have to actually present this 3rd metaphysical choice he claims there is.”

    LOL!!!, Fred has not yet proven the first two!

    They are self-evident. If A wants to deny existence then he has to first exist in order to do so. If he wants to deny consciousness he must first be conscious to formulate the argument. I didn’t think A was stupid enough to doubt his own existence and his own consciousness, but you can never say never when it comes to A’s idiocy.

    When I destroyed Rand’s philosophy on another thread I waited for this proof. It never came. Check with Ayn, get your arguments together and get back with us.

    Of course A never “destroyed” anything on another thread. He made the same lame ad hominem remarks about Rand’s reputation among the philospohical community and utterly failed to deal with what Objectivism says. Still, he believes that wishing makes it so and here he’s wishing like mad.

    “Materialists … champion nature but deny the reality or efficacy of consciousness.”

    Completely untrue, materialist view consciousness through the framework of material interactions.

    I guess A doesn’t understand that the “material interactions” he mentions are the signals within the brain making consciousness “a useless byproduct of brain” as Peikoff noted in the the full quote that I gave.

    You are a materialist Fred.

    I’m actually an Objectivist, but, because A doesn’t understand Objectivism, he continues to make untrue statements like this.

    “He won’t define what this mystical ‘thing’ is or how it fits with consciousness and existence.”

    True, I am not a deity and therefore limited in defining the deity.

    So, as I already noted, an argument from ignorance.

    I have indicated the actions of the Deity as the one who created the universe and provided the intelligence to put together the complex intricate systems and laws we interact with daily.

    He keeps saying it. Proving it is utterly beyond him though.

    “Unless he has a serious argument against what Objectivism affirms”

    Um, yeah, its not objective! lol!!!!

    Yet another statement he cannot prove. You’d think he’d learn to stop making claims he can’t back up.

  415. on 24 Feb 2015 at 4:42 pm 415.Corbis said …

    Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder therefore is a matter of opinion based on personal experience. Ayn Rand was never objective in her writings.

    Atheist based their objectivity around “God does not exist” but in reality they cannot rely on the senses being truthful or even all encompassing of reality. Our senses provide data to the brain which in many instances cannot interpret the data correctly.

    The Christian has personal experiences with God through the spirit which an atheist will accept as a valid form of evidence. However for the Christian it is valid and objective.

    It is much akin to the news media claiming they are objective and unbiased.

  416. on 24 Feb 2015 at 4:44 pm 416.Anonymous said …

    “All things are preceded by the mind, led by the mind, created by the mind.”

    ‘There is no race.’

    So Naive.

    Athiesm = The Blind Leading the Blind and Trying to Tempt Those With Vision Into Blindness.

  417. on 25 Feb 2015 at 1:07 am 417.Hell Yeah said …

    “The Blind Leading the Blind and Trying to Tempt Those With Vision Into Blindness.”

    Let’s see (pun?), one side claims something exists, but this something that they say exists can’t be seen to provide evidence of that something. Are you saying the side that can’t see the something is blind? Because sight of this claimed supernatural would be “great” evidence of it existing, otherwise everyone is blind in that case. #416 claims that the phrase equals Atheism, but what he really doesn’t know is that phrase actually equals belief in the supernatural, which is blind faith.

  418. on 25 Feb 2015 at 10:24 am 418.freddies_dead said …

    Corbis said …

    Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder therefore is a matter of opinion based on personal experience.

    Right there was when I knew Corbis hadn’t got a clue.

    Apparently objectivity is actually subjective opinion. Is his claim true regardless of what anyone else may want, wish, demand etc…? So, when I say that “objectivity isn’t in the eye of the beholder” I must be wrong because Corbis has already said that it is and, as the beholder of his own claim, he must be right? But then I’m the beholder of my claim, so I must be right too, yes? He’s making a truth claim whilst denying the existence of truth. It’s hilarious.

    Ayn Rand was never objective in her writings.

    Quite apart from being a baseless assertion, does Corbis think this claim is true regardless of what anyone else may want, wish, demand etc…? Or is it only true because, as the beholder, he says so? Which means it’s not true when I say it isn’t. I love this – everything gets to be true and/or false dependent on who is saying it. It’s not going to help the discussion much but hey! everyone gets to be right regardless of the absurdity of their claims.

    Atheist based their objectivity around “God does not exist”

    Nope, this Objectivist atheist bases his objectivity on the irreducible primaries of existence and consciousness coupled with the metaphysical primacy of existence. I then go from there to the logical conclusion that “God does not exist”.

    but in reality they cannot rely on the senses being truthful or even all encompassing of reality.

    Our senses provide data to the brain which in many instances cannot interpret the data correctly.

    Here Corbis has cut his own legs off at the knees. Apparently he can neither trust his own senses, nor his interpretations based upon the data provided by those untrustworthy senses. Maybe someone could tell me why I should accept any of his claims on that basis? Is objectivity in the eye of the beholder when the beholder cannot trust his eyes or the conclusion that he comes to based on the data from those untrustworthy eyes? I’m wondering how Corbis manages to survive with his useless senses and inability to interpret data correctly.

    The Christian has personal experiences with God through the spirit which an atheist will accept as a valid form of evidence.

    This atheist won’t. Why should I accept Corbis’ subjective experience as evidence for anything when not only is he incapable of offering me any means by which I can distinguish his God from something he may merely be imagining, he also doesn’t trust his own ability to interpret his experience?

    However for the Christian it is valid and objective.

    So Corbis has already claimed that objectivity is really subjectivity, that he can’t trust his senses, or even the interpretations of the data provided by his untrustworthy senses. Why then would I accept his claim that his personal subjective experience is “valid and objective”? It’s nonsense.

    It is much akin to the news media claiming they are objective and unbiased.

    Corbis is finally right about something. His personal subjective experience is as objective and unbiased as the average news media claim i.e. it is neither valid nor objective.

  419. on 25 Feb 2015 at 10:28 am 419.freddies_dead said …

    416.Anonymous said …

    “All things are preceded by the mind, led by the mind, created by the mind.”

    ‘There is no race.’

    So Naive.

    Baseless assertion. Note how Anonymous utterly fails to show there is actually a “race” as he claims and makes no attempt to show how his claim about the mind is “winning”.

    Athiesm = The Blind Leading the Blind and Trying to Tempt Those With Vision Into Blindness.

    Is this true regardless of what anyone may want, wish, demand etc…? If so you’re simply stealing from my worldview in a failed attempt to deny my worldview. Thanks for playing though.

  420. on 25 Feb 2015 at 12:19 pm 420.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “I love this – everything gets to be true and/or false dependent on who is saying it”

    Hey, he just described atheist morality! lol!!!!!!

    Corbis,

    Don’t you understand? Objectivity is found ONLY in atheism. They are not wrong and there senses are infallible :). They want to tell everyone what is truly Objective because they have these wonderful gifts…..lol!!

    It’s like a bump on a fossil transitioning to another species…..:)

  421. on 25 Feb 2015 at 12:24 pm 421.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “I knew”

    Right there!!! I knew Freddie had no clue.

    Lol!!

  422. on 25 Feb 2015 at 12:48 pm 422.freddies_dead said …

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

    “I love this – everything gets to be true and/or false dependent on who is saying it”

    Hey, he just described atheist morality! lol!!!!!!

    Is that true regardless of what anyone else wants, wishes, demands etc…? Or is it only subjectively true like Corbis claims? If A claims it’s the first then he’s caught using my worldview to deny my worldview (as he does every time he makes an objective truth claim). If it’s the second we can happily dismiss A’s claim as, in affirming subjectivity, he’s denied truth exists so the claim is worthless.

    Corbis,

    Don’t you understand? Objectivity is found ONLY in atheism.

    I don’t recall making such a claim but A is welcome to show how he accounts for objectivity from within his inherently subjective Christian worldview – I predict that he won’t.

    They are not wrong and there senses are infallible :).

    It seems A doesn’t trust his senses either. If that’s the case why should we accept any of his claims? He may simply be getting faulty data from his untrustworthy senses.

    They want to tell everyone what is truly Objective because they have these wonderful gifts…..lol!!

    And here A attempts to tell me what I am thinking when he has practically admitted he’s not even sure he’s sensed what’s been posted here correctly. The fun never stops with A.

    It’s like a bump on a fossil transitioning to another species…..:)

    I wonder whether this false restatement of what I presented is down to A’s untrustworthy senses or simply down to his untrustworthy nature.

  423. on 25 Feb 2015 at 12:51 pm 423.freddies_dead said …

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

    “I knew”

    Right there!!! I knew Freddie had no clue.

    Lol!!

    I guess this means something to A. I’d ask for an explanation but that would mean I’d need to trust that A’s faulty senses are capable of understanding my question and producing one.

  424. on 25 Feb 2015 at 5:09 pm 424.Corbis said …

    LOL!!!, let’s blow fred out of the seat again……becoming a full time job! :)

    “Is that true regardless of what anyone else wants, wishes, demands etc…?”

    Short answer, Yes! But this statement is not your developed worldview, it has been around for centuries. Where your worldview falls apart is …..wait for it…….you are not Objective and what you call Objective/conclusions are incorrect until you prove it. And you are not Objective regardless of how many times you make the claim. (Please no more Rand quotes!!)

    “I don’t recall making such a claim”

    So you are saying atheism is not Objective? Which is it fred?

    “It seems A doesn’t trust his senses either.”

    No, because a wise man realizes his senses can lead to incorrect interpretation. Senses do deceive us from time to time, color is deceptive, eyewitness accounts are deceptive, interpretation of data can be subjective and wrong. Wise up freddie boy!….lol!!!!

    “A attempts to tell me what I am thinking”

    Fred just proved my point by wrongly interpreting my response. I didn’t tell him what he thought, I reaffirmed what he is claiming.

    “I wonder whether this false restatement of what I presented”

    Claiming you witnessed macroevolution by looking at a fossil is not Objective. You have a fossil in the here and now with a bump you claim is macroevolution. Nope! And it is not Objective no matter how many times you claimed it.
    You COULD try to claim it is a snapshot of macroevolution but of course you have no proof!

  425. on 26 Feb 2015 at 12:07 pm 425.freddies_dead said …

    424.A the lying prick posting as Corbis said …

    LOL!!!, let’s blow fred out of the seat again……becoming a full time job! :)

    Oh look. It turns out Corbis is just another one of A’s little army of sockpuppets. What a dishonest little prick he is.

    “Is that true regardless of what anyone else wants, wishes, demands etc…?”

    Short answer, Yes!

    So A/Corbis admits he’s using my worldview to deny my worldview. Thanks for that.

    But this statement is not your developed worldview, it has been around for centuries.

    The statement forms part of the basis of my worldview alongside the self evident axioms of existence and consciousness. It’s the affirmation that objects are independent of the subjects that are aware of them. Just because A/Corbis doesn’t understand this doesn’t make it any less true (which of course is just another example of the principle).

    Where your worldview falls apart is …..wait for it…….you are not Objective

    Which just shows that A/Corbis doesn’t actually know what objectivity is. Hint: it’s mind independence, it’s objects being independent of the subjects that are aware of them. My worldview absolutely affirms this principle based on the self-evident and irreducible primaries of existence and consciousness.

    and what you call Objective/conclusions are incorrect until you prove it.

    Is this true regardless of what anyone may wish, want, demand etc…? See, this is all the proof that is required. A/Corbis is relying on there being such a thing as objective truth, i.e. truth which doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks, wants, wishes etc…, in order to make this claim. In doing do he’s presupposing the metaphysical primacy of existence in order to try and deny a worldview which absolutely affirms the metaphysical primacy of existence. You really couldn’t make this shit up.

    And you are not Objective regardless of how many times you make the claim. (Please no more Rand quotes!!)

    In what way is basing my statements on facts which don’t rely on the subjects that are aware of them not Objective? In essence A/Corbis is trying to say that black is white and up is down (see A/Corbis’ assertion that objectivity is just subjective opinion). All the while relying on the very basis of my worldview in order to make the claim. I’m loving it.

    “I don’t recall making such a claim”

    So you are saying atheism is not Objective? Which is it fred?

    Ah, more dishonesty. The original statement made by A/Corbis was “Don’t you understand? Objectivity is found ONLY in atheism.” which is a claim I’ve never made. I must admit that I don’t see how a Christian could account for objectivity when their worldview is rooted in subjectivism but I did give A/Corbis the chance to give it a try. As usual, instead of attempting to justify his own position, A/Corbis chose to lie about mine. Ho hum.

    “It seems A doesn’t trust his senses either.”

    No, because a wise man realizes his senses can lead to incorrect interpretation.

    Just how did A/Corbis come to this conclusion? Did he use his senses at any point? If so how can he trust the conclusion when he doesn’t trust the senses he’s relying on to form it? The self-defeating nonsense from A/Corbis just keeps on coming.

    Senses do deceive us from time to time,

    In what way? A/Corbis doesn’t bother to explain the statement. Are our eyes deceiving us when they perceive light perhaps? Or maybe our ears are deceiving us when they perceive sound? How would /Corbis know his senses are deceiving him when he doesn’t trust his senses in the first place? He’s blind because he can see, deaf because he can hear.

    color is deceptive,

    What does this even mean? Colours are merely the spectrum of light interacting with the eye’s light receptors. Is blue pretending to be red perhaps? Or maybe greeen really wants us to believe it’s puce?

    eyewitness accounts are deceptive,

    Of course this has nothing to do with the senses, they simply perceive things.

    interpretation of data can be subjective and wrong.

    Just how does A/Corbis come to the conclusion that “interpretation of data can be subjective and wrong” when he doesn’t trust the senses which provide the data he needs to come to that conclusion in the first place? Whilst objectively it’s true that interpreting data can sometimes go wrong, this has absolutely nothing to do with sense perception somehow being “wrong”. And, as sense perception actually works just fine, we can test and retest our conclusions to make sure they actually fit with objective reality. A/Corbis can’t though, apparently his senses don’t work properly so he has absolutely no way of testing his conclusions to see if they’re right. How does he even survive crossing the road?

    Wise up freddie boy!….lol!!!!

    Being told to wise up by a fool. Priceless.

    “A attempts to tell me what I am thinking”

    Fred just proved my point by wrongly interpreting my response.

    Lets see shall we?

    I didn’t tell him what he thought,

    A/Corbis claimed “They want to tell everyone what is truly Objective because they have these wonderful gifts…..lol!!” He suggests that I, as a member of “they”, “want” to tell everyone something. Now if I “want” to do something, that’s a conscious activity, i.e. I have to be thinking about how I “want” to tell everyone something and what it is I “want” to tell them. So he really was trying to tell me what I was thinking. I guess it’s his faulty senses stopping him from realising it.

    I reaffirmed what he is claiming.

    This is just plain wrong too. I wasn’t actually telling anyone what is “truly Objective” because I had some supposedly “wonderful gifts” as A/Corbis claims here. I was merely attempting to explain what objectivity actually is as A/Corbis doesn’t seem to have a clue. Again, maybe this is because his senses are continually trying to deceive him in some way?

    “I wonder whether this false restatement of what I presented”

    Claiming you witnessed macroevolution by looking at a fossil is not Objective.

    And the false restatements, i.e. lies, just keep coming. Hardly surprising given A/Corbis’ dishonest nature. Such an egregious lie too. I have never, ever claimed to witness macroevolution by looking at a fossil – either objectively or subjectively. A/Corbis originally asked for evidence that supported evolution found using the scientific method. I presented Tiktaalik, a transitional fossil (transitional between fish and tetrapods) that was found after observation, hypothesis and testing i.e. the scientific method.

    You have a fossil in the here and now with a bump you claim is macroevolution.

    The dishonesty just keeps on coming. I’ve never claimed that any fossil with a bump is macroevolution. Instead I had a transitional fossil. A fossil of a lobe-finned fish that had tetrapod features – a neck, shoulders, wrists and primitive lungs as well as it’s gills – which is evidence in favour of the Theory of Evolution. Exactly as A/Corbis had asked for.

    Nope! And it is not Objective no matter how many times you claimed it.

    And, despite objectivity not being an issue at the time, a fossil certainly is objective in nature. It doesn’t conform to the will of the subjects that are aware of it. That’ll be why the neck, shoulders, wrists and primitive lungs are still there despite all of A/Corbis’ wishing that they’d turn into a “bump”.

    You COULD try to claim it is a snapshot of macroevolution but of course you have no proof!

    What? I can use it exactly as I did? Exactly as A/Corbis requested? As a piece of evidence (snapshot if you will) in favour of the Theory of Evolution that was found using the scientific method? How very magnanimous of him.

  426. on 26 Feb 2015 at 1:34 pm 426.Corbis said …

    LOL!!!!

    Freddie the hypocrite. They can hijack my name to weirdly obsess over my penis but I cannot become Corbis? ROTFL!!!!!

    Hypocrite much freedie…er uh I mean anonymous?
    For an the objectivist why is it objectionable?

    Fred should consider changing his name to Kiki Shrugged. For our readers, a quite funny comic strip on Rand..:)
    _____________________________________________
    Objectivism: A Summary of the axioms

    Axiom of Identity:

    A is A.

    Axiom of Object:

    I am aware of stuff.

    Axiom of Subject:

    I am aware of stuff.
    _______________________________________
    Don’t be fooled into believing rheAxiom of Object & the Axiom of Subject are identical. The Axiom of Subject emphasizes “I”, whereas the Axiom of Object emphasizes “stuff”.

    Now everyone should understand Kiki clearly. Let me sum it up.

    !. Things are what they are. A=A
    2. There is only one reality, namely the way things are.
    3. Knowledge is obtained by reasoning in accordance with how things are.
    4. Man has capacity to reason and use logic.
    5. Knowledge is objective and attainable by man.
    _________________________________________

    There you go folks . We are all Objectivist. I think I subcombed to the reality many threads back :)

  427. on 26 Feb 2015 at 4:16 pm 427.freddies_dead said …

    426.A the lying prick posting as Corbis said …

    LOL!!!!

    Freddie the hypocrite. They can hijack my name to weirdly obsess over my penis but I cannot become Corbis? ROTFL!!!!!

    Hypocrite much freedie…er uh I mean anonymous?

    No hypocrisy here. I may have accidentally posted without my username in the field a couple of times, which results in a post being accredited to “anonymous”, but I have never systematically posted under many different names in a deliberate attempt to deceive people about my real identity like A/Corbis has.

    For an the objectivist why is it objectionable?

    As an Objectivist dishonesty is an attempt to fake reality. It is therefore irrational, an attempt to claim things are other than they are, such as when A pretends to be someone other than A in an effort to try and deceive people into thinking this might be someone who isn’t dishonest like A is.

    Fred should consider changing his name to Kiki Shrugged.

    For our readers, a quite funny comic strip on Rand..:)

    It is actually quite amusing. I wonder whether A/Corbis noticed that Bun-Bun actually ended up using objectivist concepts to exorcise Kiki? Probably not as he doesn’t seem to have any clue what Objectivism is, as we’ll see next.
    _____________________________________________
    Objectivism: A Summary of the axioms

    Axiom of Identity:

    A is A.

    Hey! He got one right! W00t!

    Axiom of Object:

    I am aware of stuff.

    Axiom of Subject:

    I am aware of stuff.

    Wait, what? So, despite me providing the axioms many times A/Corbis still can’t get them right and instead decided to pull some random shit out of his arse about “Axiom of Object” and “Axiom of Subject”. Maybe his untrustworthy senses have deceived him into thinking these are correct? Who knows? Never mind. Who wants to bet he’s going to totally burn this little strawman as if it’s relevant to the conversation? Yeah, me too.
    _______________________________________
    Don’t be fooled into believing rheAxiom of Object & the Axiom of Subject are identical.

    There’s the petrol…

    The Axiom of Subject emphasizes “I”, whereas the Axiom of Object emphasizes “stuff”.

    Match lit…

    Now everyone should understand Kiki clearly.

    Wooomph! There goes the strawman. I hope A/Corbis’ senses aren’t deceiving him right now so he can see the blaze.

    Let me sum it up.

    !. Things are what they are. A=A

    There’s the axiom of identity again. I guess one thing actually managed to get past A/Corbis’ deceptive senses. I wonder how he accounts for it though? After all his God is supposedly capable of changing things by will alone. Grass is green. Oh wait, God has decided grass is actually water. Shit what happened to identity? Oh, that’s right, someone decided things are what they are depending on subjective opinion, so A=A except when someone decides that A=Z (and C, sometimes F and every now and then it might be P).

    2. There is only one reality, namely the way things are.

    Objectivism actually affirms there is an objective reality where things are what they are independent of the consciousnesses that may be aware of them. Again A/Corbis will struggle to account for this when his religion affirms the exact opposite i.e. that objects are subject to the consciousnesses that are aware of them.

    3. Knowledge is obtained by reasoning in accordance with how things are.

    Close. Objectivism affirms that reason is mans only source of knowledge. This kinda puts a dent in the whole revelation thing.

    4. Man has capacity to reason and use logic.

    Which is just fine for the Objectivist, but how does that work when your worldview affirms that there’s a God who can bypass reason and change the nature of everything, including logic? I doubt A/Corbis will answer.

    5. Knowledge is objective and attainable by man.

    Once again A/Corbis’ God gets in the way of objectivity and makes the concept of knowledge impossible. How can you “know” something if your God can simply change what you think you “know”? Grass is green? Not when God decides it’s water. Sky is blue? What sky? God just decided to do away with it.
    _________________________________________

    There you go folks . We are all Objectivist.

    Well, I’m an Objectivist. A/Corbis still doesn’t seem to understand that the worldview he professes to hold i.e. Christianity, precludes the concept of objectivity through it’s affirmation of the primacy of consciousness.

    I think I subcombed to the reality many threads back :)

    A/Corbis succumb to reality? If only.

  428. on 26 Feb 2015 at 5:04 pm 428.Corbis said …

    ROTFL!!!

    It’s fun messing with Rand.

    Lets blow’em up again! Notice he had no problem with someone hijacking my handle but more with me changing mine? That is what he calls objective…wink…wink….

    1. “Corbis still doesn’t seem to understand that the worldview he professes to hold”

    Uh Oh!, he is getting ready lose his Objectivity by telling me I am wrong. Well, we will need to take his Rand Society card! :)

    2. “As an Objectivist dishonesty is an attempt to fake reality.”

    My name is not A or Corbis. Is yours dead freddie? Faker! Liar! lol!!!! Again he never called out the one who “faked” being me…wink…wink…

    3. “There’s the axiom of identity again…..his God is supposedly capable of changing things by will alone. Grass is green.

    lol!!! A=A and God=God. Sometimes water looks blue, green, brown and sometimes grass looks brown, yellow and even black. oops! But thanks for A=A….

    4. “your worldview affirms that there’s a God who can bypass reason”

    Impossible, God only exercises the attributes of a deity. Your lack of Objectivity and understanding does not hinder that reasoning. On the other hand, your Unobjective worldview does not affirm reason by claiming complex information coding is a result of evolution…..(snicker)…lol!!!)

    5. “How can you “know” something if your God can simply change what you think you “know”?”

    Because knowledge increases over time. Did you know that? Darwin thought the cell to be a very simple structure…….Baaahhh!, he was wrong. God did not change it. Darwin was just unaware. But I am sure Rand already knew that….:)

    We can only hope fred grows out of his illogical claims that altruism doesn’t exist, selfishness is a virtue & rational egoism is a righteous pursuit.

  429. on 27 Feb 2015 at 12:03 am 429.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    I still have a small prickly penis. Prove that I am wrong! That is why I am against evolution and natural selection. Corbis is what I named mini-me. It’s fun messing with Corbis. Lets blow him again!…wink…wink ROTFL!!!…..(snicker)…lol!!!

  430. on 27 Feb 2015 at 10:57 am 430.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    A = A

    A is A

    But what of A’s origins?

    If matter precedes consciousness, then surly the laws that govern matter precede matter itself?

    Can we say that these laws constitute information?

  431. on 27 Feb 2015 at 10:30 pm 431.DPK said …

    I see “A” is back to his old tricks of posting under multiple sock puppets in order to try and deceive people. Tragic.

    430.TJ said …

    But what of A’s origins?
    If matter precedes consciousness, then surly the laws that govern matter precede matter itself?

    Why? An element’s spectrum provides information about the element, must it exist before the element does? Or is the information simply a product of the elements properties? It is only “information” if there is a consciousness to perceive it as such. But even without a mind to perceive it as information, it still IS.

    Why couldn’t matter, and the “laws” that govern the way it behaves, both have been produced at the big bang. We deem those properties “laws” which is a name we provide in an effort to understand the nature of matter and energy. To the matter and energy, they are not “laws” in the sense that one can decide to follow them or break them. They are rather just a property of the way things are… which exist whether there is a consciousness to observe them or not

  432. on 28 Feb 2015 at 12:27 am 432.TJ said …

    Observation and consciousness are not relevant.

    The “laws” exist despite what is thought, believed, observed… etc etc.

    How can the matter or energy exist before the “laws” that govern their formation exist?

    Are the “laws” reliant or independent of the matter and energy they govern?

    How can physics and chemistry occur to produce the elements, without the governing laws being upheld by existence first?

    Even if created in the big bang, then they must have been created with primacy. Even if by the smallest amount of time.

    If you put the big bang as the creator of “laws”, energy and matter, than the POE is the fundamentals responsible for the big bang.

    If what I say is wrong, then it should be self evident. When viewed objectively.
    —————————-

    Below is some bias stuff I’d like to add.

    Interestingly, the “laws” do not change, they are timeless, unaffected by the passing of time, they are invisible and formless and they are bound to and cannot go against their own nature, and they are the source of all knowledge of all that can be “known”, they are everywhere at once, yet invisible.

    We look to the these “laws” as absolutes to explain our universe around us.

    The attributes of these “laws” provide real world evidence of the possibility of some of the attributes associated to the God of the Bible.

    Regardless of beliefs, “laws” exist. They must take primacy over that witch they determine.

    Unless it can be demonstrated that matter and energy can exist independent of these laws and that they can write their own “laws”. This would be consistent with the evolution claim, that matter can give rise to information.

  433. on 28 Feb 2015 at 12:32 am 433.TJ said …

    “Why? An element’s spectrum provides information about the element, must it exist before the element does? Or is the information simply a product of the elements properties? It is only “information” if there is a consciousness to perceive it as such. But even without a mind to perceive it as information, it still IS.”

    What about an element known as God? If what you claim is possible for matter and energy, why not God’s claim of existence with a few extra properties which include consciousness?

  434. on 28 Feb 2015 at 12:40 am 434.TJ said …

    If God does not exist. The only conclusion to be objectively drawn is…

    That, the properties of matter and energy must include consciousness, or consciousness could not exist.

    That, the properties of matter and energy must include emotion, or emotion could not exist.

    That, the properties of matter and energy must include imagination, or imagination could not exist.

    …and so on.

  435. on 28 Feb 2015 at 12:49 am 435.TJ said …

    To Fred,

    DPK said…

    “Why couldn’t matter, and the “laws” that govern the way it behaves, both have been produced at the big bang.”

    Hell Yeah said…

    “13,800,000,000 (13.8 Billion) – Big Bang (Exact cause yet to be determined)”

    Objectively, this would make the POE “yet to be determined”?

  436. on 28 Feb 2015 at 4:34 am 436.DPK said …

    Observation and consciousness are not relevant.
    The “laws” exist despite what is thought, believed, observed… etc etc.

    But they are not “laws” they are simply the way things are. Only a consciousness can perceive them as being “rules”, or to put it another way, being one way instead of another. In an objective universe, these laws are not laws, they are simply the way things are. Does 1+1=2 because it does, or because someone decided it is?

    How can the matter or energy exist before the “laws” that govern their formation exist?

    What laws govern the formation of matter and energy? We don’t know. We only know of the laws that govern the behavior of matter and energy, and those laws could certainly have been formed in the same process that created the matter and energy.
    We do know that when we run the clock backward toward the conditions that would exist closer to the Big Bang, the laws we understand break down and no longer make sense.

    Your attempt to suddenly insert a god into the discussion is unfounded and is just an argument from ignorance.

  437. on 28 Feb 2015 at 5:49 am 437.TJ said …

    “What laws govern the formation of matter and energy? We don’t know. We only know of the laws that govern the behavior of matter and energy, and those laws could certainly have been formed in the same process that created the matter and energy.”

    So..? POE is? Whatever created matter and energy?

    Objectively, this would make the POE “yet to be determined”?

    Right?

    ————————-

    “Your attempt to suddenly insert a god into the discussion is unfounded and is just an argument from ignorance.”

    My attempt is neither sudden (I have asserted the existence of God from the beginning) nor unfounded, given the nature of the discussion and forum in which it is taking place.

    ignorance = lack of knowledge or information.

    “What laws govern the formation of matter and energy? We don’t know.”

    I am a black kettle, you are a pot.

  438. on 28 Feb 2015 at 8:11 am 438.TJ said …

    “In an objective universe, these laws are not laws, they are simply the way things are. Does 1+1=2 because it does, or because someone decided it is?”

    Of course 1+1=2, regardless of if it is two apples, two ants, two atoms it doesn’t matter. The maths exists independently regardless of the subject matter it quantifies.

    The maths does not however constitute something tangible.

    “We only know of the laws that govern the behavior of matter and energy, and those laws could certainly have been formed in the same process that created the matter and energy.”

    But, the process, or at least the maths/laws that describe the process must also exist independently of the matter and energy for the act of creation to be possible.

    If you state that something is created, then you must have something that takes primacy over it in order to carry out/dictate the act of creation. Otherwise you have something from nothing.

    Beyond this point, my argument remains ignorant.

    I am not sure if you are agreeing, disagreeing or simply reacting to my biased input regarding my personal belief in God, as the creative entity that takes primacy over all that has been made?

    John 1:1-5

    “1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.”

    “In an objective universe, these laws are not laws, they are simply the way things are”

    The “Word”, the authority on the way things are, takes primacy over all things.

    The reason God looks less and less like a God to you is because the caricature you illustrate with your imagination for God is that of a magical man in the sky with an invisible wand.

  439. on 28 Feb 2015 at 4:52 pm 439.DPK said …

    “If you state that something is created, then you must have something that takes primacy over it in order to carry out/dictate the act of creation. Otherwise you have something from nothing.”

    You cannot show that there is such a thing as “nothing”. We know now that that which we have thought of as “nothing”.. empty space.. is indeed “something”. It has properties, it is not nothing. Neither of us know what existed prior to the big bang which caused the matter and energy, space and time that we see in our observable universe exist. I don’t know… and neither do you. It could well be that whatever exists prior to the big bang is simply a reality that creates big bangs now and again.

    Your insertion of a magical god into the scenario is no less an argument from ignorance than if I were to assert it was a fart from an interdimensional cow. No basis, no reason to accept your creation myth over any other of the hundreds humans have imagined.

    “ignorance = lack of knowledge or information.
    “What laws govern the formation of matter and energy? We don’t know.”
    I am a black kettle, you are a pot.”

    No, I am truthful… my assertion is “I don’t know.”
    You present an assertion based on an argument from ignorance “You don’t know… therefore – god.”
    Unfounded. Is my contention that I don’t know unfounded, TJ?

  440. on 28 Feb 2015 at 11:37 pm 440.TJ said …

    :Unfounded. Is my contention that I don’t know unfounded, TJ?”

    I did not accuse your argument of being unfounded.

    I simply agreed with you about not knowing. ie I am ignorant like you.

    I presented an objective view. Which I thought I made clear. I also thought I clearly stated my biased view and kept the two separate.

    My God assertion is in keeping consistent with my beliefs. You guys continually ask for the how’s and whys for our beliefs. I am simply sharing with you.

    Your acceptance or rejection of my beliefs are entirely up to you.

    To try to down play, by submitting inter-dimensional cow farts and hundreds of other creation myths is as relevant as Zeus and all the other Gods alex likes to submit.

    You know and I know that when push comes to shove, Santa Claus is more relevant. If this was not so, then we would be discussing these other subjects you mention and you would not be trying to down play the God of the Bible at every opportunity, for it would not play any significant part over the other subjects.

    Subjects are as relevant as the quantity of their discussions. We do not focus on much other than evolution and the biblical God.

    The Bible is also a tangible thing. It is not something that you or I imagined and we have no means of disproving/proving it’s claims. If this was not so, it would have been disproved/proved already at some point in the last 2000 years.

    But, you can read it, I can read it and it is still discussed. It has endured before you and I came along and it will endure after we are gone. And it will still be discussed.

    you said…
    “It could well be that whatever exists prior to the big bang is simply a reality that creates big bangs now and again.”

    Then POE would be “whatever exists prior to the big bang”.

    I still don’t know if you agree with my objective views. You seem focused on my beliefs, for something so irrelevant, you give it priority.?.

    It could well be that the big bang is a creation myth imagined by ignorant men.

    You also said…

    “You cannot show that there is such a thing as “nothing”. We know now that that which we have thought of as “nothing”.. empty space.. is indeed “something”. It has properties, it is not nothing. ”

    Yes. I am glad you brought that up. The speed of light has been measured in a vacuum and proven to be consistent. Space is not exactly the vacuum it was once thought to be. The speed of light slows as it passes through sub-straights and either bends or slows according to it’s interactions with the sub-straight. Light has also been shown to bend with gravity as an influence.

    I make no assertions. Just thought I would mention this.

    Beside I never asserted that “nothing” existed in space?

    I asserted that (quote) “If you state that something is created, then you must have something that takes primacy over it in order to carry out/dictate the act of creation. Otherwise you have something from nothing.”

    How you got to “nothing in space” is a mystery to me.

  441. on 02 Mar 2015 at 1:56 pm 441.freddies_dead said …

    428.A the lying prick posting as Corbis said …

    ROTFL!!!

    It’s fun messing with Rand.

    You’ve got to wonder how A thinks he’s “messing with Rand” when she’s been dead for 33 years.

    Lets blow’em up again!

    Having utterly failed to blow anyone up during any of the other attempts he’s made this will be no different.

    Notice he had no problem with someone hijacking my handle but more with me changing mine? That is what he calls objective…wink…wink….

    I did not actually notice anyone “hijacking” A’s handle. Maybe he could give a post number so that I can go back and see for myself. If someone did then that is wrong. Now, it should be noted that I couldn’t actually care less about A simply changing his handle. It’s the dishonest attempt to get people to think that the new handle is someone other than A that’s the problem. The attempt to represent himself as someone other than the thoroughly dishonest person that I know him to be.

    1. “Corbis still doesn’t seem to understand that the worldview he professes to hold”

    Uh Oh!, he is getting ready lose his Objectivity by telling me I am wrong.

    Note that A utterly fails to explain how showing his worldview to be false somehow means I lose objectivity.

    Well, we will need to take his Rand Society card! :)

    Oh no, not my Rand Society card … please don’t. Oh wait, those cards are every bit as imaginary as A’s God.

    2. “As an Objectivist dishonesty is an attempt to fake reality.”

    My name is not A or Corbis. Is yours dead freddie?

    No, but it is my internet handle. It is the name I use to represent myself online.

    Faker! Liar! lol!!!!

    As usual A fails to explain his claim. Just how is using a consistent means of referring to myself online, faking or lying? After all, I haven’t made up a number of different internet handles and tried to pretend that they refer to actual humans other than myself.

    Again he never called out the one who “faked” being me…wink…wink…

    Again, I did not notice it happen.

    3. “There’s the axiom of identity again…..his God is supposedly capable of changing things by will alone. Grass is green.

    lol!!! A=A and God=God. Sometimes water looks blue, green, brown and sometimes grass looks brown, yellow and even black. oops! But thanks for A=A….

    Notice the pathetic game of semantics to try and avoid the fact that his inherently subjective worldview precludes identity from being consistent? A’s welcome to A=A of course, it’ll save him having to steal it from my worldview as he doesn’t have such an axiom in his own.

    4. “your worldview affirms that there’s a God who can bypass reason”

    Impossible, God only exercises the attributes of a deity.

    I recall quite clearly that one of those attributes was that of being all powerful. Is A claiming that being all powerful doesn’t actually mean being all powerful? It’s definitely a theme among Christians on here.

    Or maybe A doesn’t believe in revelation? If that’s true then he’s relying solely on his self-admitted “faulty” senses to perceive the words in the Bible. How does he know that he’s come to the correct conclusion? In fact how does he even know he’s read the Bible? After all his faulty senses could have been wrongly perceiving Harry Potter as the word of God.

    Your lack of Objectivity and understanding does not hinder that reasoning.

    Note that, as usual, A has utterly failed to demonstrate that I have exercised a lack of objectivity or understanding. This is because I haven’t. Christian theology holds that the Bible is divinely inspired i.e. it was a revelation from God. Such revelations are claimed to come directly from God and don’t require the person to actually perceive or reason about the information contained within the revelation i.e. revelations bypass reason.

    On the other hand, your Unobjective worldview does not affirm reason by claiming complex information coding is a result of evolution…..(snicker)…lol!!!)

    What a bizarre statement. Of course my worldview does not affirm reason by claiming complex coding is a result of evolution. Instead Objectivism affirms reason as mans only source of knowledge as it’s man’s only means of perceiving reality. I’m also not sure why A puts such faith in his “complex information coding” dogma when he’s already conceded that there’s no barrier to it forming through natural means.

    5. “How can you “know” something if your God can simply change what you think you “know”?”

    Because knowledge increases over time.

    Lolwut? That doesn’t even address the question, let alone answer it. How can your knowledge increase over time when there’s a God capable of changing what you think you know. You start with a piece of knowledge and start to build from there, only when you come back you find that God has changed something so that the original piece of knowledge is now invalid. So what you have is no longer knowledge and everything that relies on it is now suspect too. So you have to start again … and again … and again.

    Did you know that? Darwin thought the cell to be a very simple structure…….Baaahhh!, he was wrong. God did not change it. Darwin was just unaware. But I am sure Rand already knew that….:)

    This has precisely nothing to do with the question I asked but then I am sure A already knew that – well, as far as anyone who doesn’t trust their senses and insists there is a being capable of changing anything at will can know anything.

    We can only hope fred grows out of his illogical claims that altruism doesn’t exist,

    As usual A misrepresents me. I have never claimed that altruism doesn’t exist.

    selfishness is a virtue & rational egoism is a righteous pursuit.

    The two are, if you understand Objectivism, one and the same and, as usual, A makes absolutely no attempt to justify his claim that saying rational selfishness is a virtue is illogical in some way. If he has an argument to present why hasn’t he simply presented it instead of baselessly asserting something instead?

  442. on 02 Mar 2015 at 1:56 pm 442.freddies_dead said …

    429.Someone pretending to be A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    I still have a small prickly penis. Prove that I am wrong! That is why I am against evolution and natural selection. Corbis is what I named mini-me. It’s fun messing with Corbis. Lets blow him again!…wink…wink ROTFL!!!…..(snicker)…lol!!!

    Presumably this is someone posting as A rather than A himself. If so they’re being as dishonest as A has been and are bringing nothing to the conversation.

  443. on 02 Mar 2015 at 8:10 pm 443.Corbis said …

    LOL!!

    OK, lets blooowww up unsteady freddie again!!

    1. “No, but it is my internet handle. It is the name I use to represent myself online.”

    Oh, so there is a rule that on all websites the same handle must be used? I missed that, where would that be? Is there a rule atheist can post as another poster under a theist handle or as ….Anonymous which you have been busted doing? ROTFL!!!! Anywho, enough with the names.

    2. A’s (Corbis)is “welcome to A=A of course, it’ll save him having to steal it from my worldview as he doesn’t have such an axiom in his own.”

    LOL!!!, A=A existed and was believed before your or your girl Ayn even existed. Fred is in a delusion.

    3. I recall quite clearly that one of those attributes was that of being all powerful. Is A claiming that being all powerful doesn’t actually mean being all powerful”

    Yes, that is an attribute of the Deity. Very good Fred!

    4. ” If that’s true then he’s relying solely on his self-admitted “faulty” senses to perceive the words in the Bible.”

    Proof? Anyone? Senses can be faulty, just as fred claimed the grass was green but it was actually brown in this case. fred was wrong, he failed, just as he has with Rand’s philosophy.

    5. How can your knowledge increase over time when there’s a God capable of changing what you think you know.

    Give an example what he changed then we can examine the implications.

    6. I have never claimed that altruism doesn’t exist.

    Hmmm, has he abandoned Rand’s philosophy or does he pick and chose?

  444. on 02 Mar 2015 at 10:50 pm 444.freddies_dead said …

    443.A the lying prick posting as Corbis said …

    LOL!!

    OK, lets blooowww up unsteady freddie again!!

    I see A hasn’t given up on a first. Shame he’s not capable of blowing up a paper bag.

    1. “No, but it is my internet handle. It is the name I use to represent myself online.”

    Oh, so there is a rule that on all websites the same handle must be used? I missed that, where would that be?

    And, as usual, I never made any such claim.

    Is there a rule atheist can post as another poster under a theist handle

    Something else I’ve never claimed.

    or as ….Anonymous which you have been busted doing?

    Busted doing? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Apart from the very first time it happened, when I didn’t even realise I’d done it, I’ve been the one pointing out the times where it has happened. And, unlike A, I’ve never dishonestly tried to pretend that it’s not me.

    ROTFL!!!! Anywho, enough with the names.

    Yeah, I can see why A wants it to be enough. After all it only highlights his dishonesty.

    2. A’s (Corbis)is “welcome to A=A of course, it’ll save him having to steal it from my worldview as he doesn’t have such an axiom in his own.”

    LOL!!!, A=A existed and was believed before your or your girl Ayn even existed. Fred is in a delusion.

    Note that, as usual A utterly fails to show how he can account for identity in a worldview that professes to contain an entity capable of changing the nature of anything it wants, whenever it pleases.

    3. I recall quite clearly that one of those attributes was that of being all powerful. Is A claiming that being all powerful doesn’t actually mean being all powerful”

    Yes, that is an attribute of the Deity. Very good Fred!

    So A concedes that his deity has the ability to change anything he knows. So how does he account for knowledge? That’s right he doesn’t, he just ignores the implication as if he thinks it’ll go away.

    4. ” If that’s true then he’s relying solely on his self-admitted “faulty” senses to perceive the words in the Bible.”

    Proof? Anyone? Senses can be faulty,

    In what way? A keeps making this claim without ever offering the proof he demands of others. It’s also just another case of A denying something while relying on it i.e. how could he even claim that his senses were faulty without first relying on his senses giving him the correct information to come to that conclusion in the first place?

    just as fred claimed the grass was green but it was actually brown in this case.

    Oh look, A’s misrepresenting what I said again. That was an example of his God being able to change what A knows making knowledge impossible in his worldview, but he can’t counter that so he tries to make out I said it about an entirely different subject.

    fred was wrong, he failed, just as he has with Rand’s philosophy.

    Except that I’m not and I haven’t. A just makes this claim every single time without ever offering even the simplest of arguments to support his claims. He seems to think that simply asserting something makes it true – hardly a surprise when his worldview is based on the idea that wishing makes it so.

    5. How can your knowledge increase over time when there’s a God capable of changing what you think you know.

    Give an example what he changed then we can examine the implications.

    I already gave examples, A dodged them. He even misrepresented one to try and prove his senses were faulty. Although given how he shows such a complete lack of understanding on every topic he decides to bring up maybe he’s actually right about his senses.

    But back to the request. It’s not a case of what such an entity has changed, as obviously A’s imaginary God hasn’t actually changed anything – let alone the identity of an object, but it’s what such an entity could change. The claim is that the Christian God is all powerful. It is said to have created everything by an act of will. It could, if it felt so inclined, change anything it wanted. So lets suppose that A knows that ‘blue’ is the name given to the colour humans see when they perceive light at wavelengths between 450 and 495 nanometres (yeah, I know, A doesn’t trust his senses so he could be seeing red or dogs or a high C) but lets suppose for arguments sake. Now his all powerful God decides to change ‘blue’ to a chemical compound that smells of rotten eggs. What happened to A’s knowledge of what ‘blue’ is? Oh, that’s right, it’s now wrong. So how can A ever really know anything?

    6. I have never claimed that altruism doesn’t exist.

    Hmmm, has he abandoned Rand’s philosophy or does he pick and chose?

    Yet another example of how A doesn’t really know anything about Objectivism. Rand never denied the existence of altrusim either, she just pointed out that it was bullshit.

  445. on 02 Mar 2015 at 11:34 pm 445.Corbis said …

    More fun….

    1. “Note that, as usual A utterly fails to show how he can account for identity in a worldview that professes to contain an entity capable of changing the nature of anything it wants, whenever it pleases.”

    Simple, Dead Fred = Dead Fred. A = A So simple even a 5 year old can understand :)

    2. “So A concedes that his deity has the ability to change anything he knows. So how does he account for knowledge?”

    Through empiricism, rationalism and logic using a quality of evidence in the forms of physical, inductive, deductive and historical.

    3. “how could he even claim that his senses were faulty without first relying on his senses giving him the correct information”

    Readers we all know our senses fail us. Science has demonstrated this repeatedly. In fact, we cannot prove our senses even provide us with all necessary data to obtain all available knowledge.
    What we need from unsteady freddie is proof our senses are infallible……..lets watch this unfold as freddie proves his claim……:) lol!!!!

    4. “It’s not a case of what such an entity has changed, as obviously A’s imaginary God hasn’t actually changed anything”

    If God has not changed anything then fred is only introducing a red herring. Because God CAN do something does not mean God does. God could have made grass pink 5000 years ago but fred would have never known so it is……immaterial….:)

    5. “Rand never denied the existence of altrusim either, she just pointed out that it was bullshit”

    Yes, Rand, the Mother of Selfishness and MEism. Bless her heart! lol!!!

  446. on 03 Mar 2015 at 1:00 am 446.Corbis said …

    Even more fun….

    I like to get blown by A The Prickly Science Guy. Corbis = A The Prickly Science Guy’s penis. If only god made me bigger, A wouldn’t have to hurt his back so much. ROTFL!!!! LOL!!

  447. on 03 Mar 2015 at 10:52 am 447.freddies_dead said …

    445.A the lying prick posting as Corbis said …

    More fun….

    1. “Note that, as usual A utterly fails to show how he can account for identity in a worldview that professes to contain an entity capable of changing the nature of anything it wants, whenever it pleases.”

    Simple, Dead Fred = Dead Fred. A = A So simple even a 5 year old can understand :)

    And any 5 year old is going to notice the total and utter lack of a God in that account. I’m not surprised, identity goes out the window when you try to crowbar a God into the equation.

    2. “So A concedes that his deity has the ability to change anything he knows. So how does he account for knowledge?”

    Through empiricism, rationalism and logic using a quality of evidence in the forms of physical, inductive, deductive and historical.

    That 5 year old is going to notice that, once again, A seems to have missed out his God in that account. Once more this isn’t surprising as knowledge goes the same way as identity when you throw a God into the mix. How can anything be called evidence when it’s subject to being changed by an all powerful deity? What happens if the deity decides not only to change the physical evidence but to screw around with the methods of induction and deduction? Where’s A getting his knowledge from at this point?

    Quite simply A has had to ditch his God in order to retain identity and knowledge.

    3. “how could he even claim that his senses were faulty without first relying on his senses giving him the correct information”

    Readers we all know our senses fail us.

    Do we? In what way? A keeps asserting this as though he thinks simply asserting it will somehow make it true.

    Science has demonstrated this repeatedly.

    Where? And what could possibly have stopped A providing an actual citation here? Why do we have nothing more than a baseless assertion instead?

    And did A use his senses when he perceived these alleged scientific demonstrations? You know, his faulty senses? If so how does he even know that what he thinks he perceived is actually what happened when he can’t trust his senses? How can anyone not realise the absurdity of such a claim?

    In fact, we cannot prove our senses even provide us with all necessary data to obtain all available knowledge.

    Did A use his senses while coming to this conclusion? If so how does he know that what he sensed was enough necessary data to come to such a conclusion? After all his senses can’t be trusted, right? Sheesh.

    What we need from unsteady freddie is proof our senses are infallible……..lets watch this unfold as freddie proves his claim……:) lol!!!!

    And, as usual, A demands proof where apparently his own claims don’t require such. However, the validity of the senses is axiomatic. Any attempt to prove their validity first assumes their validity – for how else are we to perceive the data for this proof except through the senses? This is why A’s claim to have faulty senses if self-defeating. He’s first relying on his senses being valid in order to obtain the data he thinks shows that they’re faulty.

    4. “It’s not a case of what such an entity has changed, as obviously A’s imaginary God hasn’t actually changed anything”

    If God has not changed anything then fred is only introducing a red herring.

    Of course A’s God hasn’t changed anything, He doesn’t exist. However, that’s not how arguments work. A knows this but pretends otherwise in order to dodge the implications of his professed worldview.

    Because God CAN do something does not mean God does.

    No one has actually claimed otherwise, however, this is irrelevant. The simple fact is that A’s God can still change things, meaning that what A ‘knows’ is only transitory and subject to being invalidated at the whim of an all powerful deity.

    God could have made grass pink 5000 years ago but fred would have never known so it is……immaterial….:)

    Except that it’s very material. The simple fact that A’s God can change things whenever it feels like it makes A’s claim to have knowledge laughable.

    5. “Rand never denied the existence of altrusim either, she just pointed out that it was bullshit”

    Yes, Rand, the Mother of Selfishness and MEism. Bless her heart! lol!!!

    I’m sure that kind of mockery would cut her to the bone … if she wasn’t dead.

  448. on 03 Mar 2015 at 1:37 pm 448.Corbis said …

    Ew goodie, he comes back for more.

    1. “And any 5 year old is going to notice the total and utter lack of a God in that account.”

    No, the vast majority of us thinking beings recognize God in the existence of all things. Your myopia does not change that fact.

    2. ” How can anything be called evidence when it’s subject to being changed by an all powerful deity?”

    Again, us rationale, thinking beings recognize God created all things, laws, logic, rationalism, evidence, etc and therefore has already “screwed around” with the methods. If God did change these, how would fred know? HMMMM????

    3. “Do we? In what way? A keeps asserting this as though he thinks simply asserting it will somehow make it true.”

    Readers, notice fred’s myopia or just plain ignorance. This is an individual who views himself as infallible. He can’t even derive there there is a God…..(snicker) He has yet to prove we can trust his infallible senses :) Remember, we are just a product of random, chaotic unplanned mutations…….hardly sounds like something infallible and reliable, eh? lol!!!

    4. “However, the validity of the senses is axiomatic. Any attempt to prove their validity first assumes their validity”

    Readers notice our myopic freddie goes to circular reasoning. His claim, “My senses are infallible because I sensed it to be true”. lol!!!
    Would fred allow circular reasoning for the Deity? HMMMMMMMMM….lol!!!

    5. “what A ‘knows’ is only transitory and subject to being invalidated at the whim of an all powerful deity.”

    Fred has yet to prove the nature of the Deity is to operate on “whims”. Of course all knowledge is transitory. There was a time when no universe existed. Was grass green (or whatever color fred claims, lol!), did dogs have four legs? No, but myopic fred believes this will last forever..(snicker)

    6. “I’m sure that kind of mockery would cut her to the bone”

    The character of a person is never mockery.

  449. on 03 Mar 2015 at 5:32 pm 449.freddies_dead said …

    448.A the lying prick posting as Corbis said …

    Ew goodie, he comes back for more.

    1. “And any 5 year old is going to notice the total and utter lack of a God in that account.”

    No, the vast majority of us thinking beings recognize God in the existence of all things.

    Once more A simply asserts his claim as if his assertion makes it true. It’s especially humourous when he’s already said he can’t trust his senses. So any claim to ‘recognize God’ can easily be countered with ‘how do you know?’. After all, if you can’t trust your senses, how can you possibly trust what you think they may be telling you, whether that be about God or anything.

    Your myopia does not change that fact.

    Of course it’s not really a fact. God’s existence is something A takes purely on faith as he certainly can’t trust his senses to come to the conclusion that a God exists.

    2. ” How can anything be called evidence when it’s subject to being changed by an all powerful deity?”

    Again, us rationale, thinking beings recognize God created all things, laws, logic, rationalism, evidence, etc and therefore has already “screwed around” with the methods. If God did change these, how would fred know? HMMMM????

    Ignoring that this suffers from exactly the same problems as point 1 i.e. how does A know any of this when he insists his senses are faulty? It also just emphasises my point. If there was a God, I couldn’t claim to know anything because there’s an entity capable of changing anything and everything I might possibly think I know or knew.

    3. “Do we? In what way? A keeps asserting this as though he thinks simply asserting it will somehow make it true.”

    Readers, notice fred’s myopia or just plain ignorance.

    The only one who cannot see past the end of his nose here is A – he even insists that he can’t. I’m simply trying to get A to explain his position, to make an actual argument, to present something that would give us an idea of how he thinks his senses are faulty? He refuses to answer except to simply repeat the claim. And, as I’ve already noted, simply repeating an assertion doesn’t magically make it true.

    This is an individual who views himself as infallible.

    And just where does A think I’ve made such a claim? He seems to be so determined to prove his senses are completely useless he simply doesn’t care how fatal that is to his claims.

    He can’t even derive there there is a God…..(snicker)

    Because one does not exist. If A disagrees he’s welcome to present any evidence he thinks proves his claim. He won’t, of course. Actually making an argument is not in A’s nature. He prefers to keep asserting his claim over and over as if that’s the same thing.

    And even if he managed to get past his pathological fear of making an argument there’s still the issue of why we should accept any claims from someone who denies the trustworthiness of their own senses?

    He has yet to prove we can trust his infallible senses :)

    How does A know this? Did he use his senses to come to this conclusion? If so, why should we take the claim seriously when he assures us his senses are faulty?

    You’d think he’d have realised by now that every time he claims his senses don’t work properly he simply undermines every single claim that relies on those self-same senses.

    Remember, we are just a product of random, chaotic unplanned mutations…….hardly sounds like something infallible and reliable, eh? lol!!!

    And now he misrepresents evolution. I guess he doesn’t understand how it works because his senses are giving him the wrong information.

    4. “However, the validity of the senses is axiomatic. Any attempt to prove their validity first assumes their validity”

    Readers notice our myopic freddie goes to circular reasoning.

    So now we know that A doesn’t understand the concept ‘axiomatic’. He’s also trying to accuse me of circular reasoning when, in fact, I actually pointed out that you would need to make a circular argument in order to prove the validity of the senses. As Peikoff explains in OPAR (p.39) “The validity of the senses is an axiom. Like the fact of consciousness, the axiom is outside the province of proof because it is a precondition of any proof. Proof consists in reducing an idea back to the data provided by the senses. These data themselves, the foundation of all subsequent knowledge, precede any process of inference. They are the primaries of cognition, the unchallengeable, the self-evident.”

    His claim, “My senses are infallible because I sensed it to be true”. lol!!!

    Oh look, that’s not what I said, but hey! A says his senses don’t work properly and he’s damned well going to demonstrate it at every opportunity.

    Would fred allow circular reasoning for the Deity? HMMMMMMMMM….lol!!!

    I’d actually be quite happy to see any argument from A concerning his God – even one that is ultimately circular – because at least then we’d be past the whole ‘asserting makes it true’ attitude to argumentation that he currently employs.

    5. “what A ‘knows’ is only transitory and subject to being invalidated at the whim of an all powerful deity.”

    Fred has yet to prove the nature of the Deity is to operate on “whims”.

    A has yet to prove the existence of a Deity for us to truly discuss it’s ‘nature’. If, however, he’s referring to the God of the Bible then there is ample evidence within it that his God acts on ‘whims’. Like when He ejected Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden and cursed them and everyone else for eating some fruit – fruit He’d placed there along with a serpent He knew would tempt them into eating the fruit, or when He decided to drown the entire planet because His creation had done exactly what He had planned they would do, or when he decided to allow Job to be kicked around because Satan goaded Him into it, or when He sent 2 she bears to maul 42 kids to death because they called a prophet a baldy etc… etc…

    Of course all knowledge is transitory. There was a time when no universe existed.

    Does A have anything to backup this claim? After all, the scientists admit to having no clue what there was before a very small fraction of a second after the universe started expanding, so they’d be utterly fascinated with what A knows about the universe before that moment.

    But I digress. Lets assume A’s right (yeah, I know it’s a stretch) and there was a time when no universe existed. Does he not realise that there’s still ‘a time when no universe existed’ and there will always be ‘a time when no universe existed’. How is that transitory? Of course it’s not to those of us with valid senses.

    Was grass green (or whatever color fred claims, lol!)

    It’s actually irrelevant what colour it was. Without a God it will always have been that colour, no matter what happens from now until whenever there will always have been a time when the grass was that certain colour. Once you add a God to the mix there’s no certainty in that. A God could change that. A God could change things so that the grass was now a different colour and what you thought you knew is, and was, wrong.

    , did dogs have four legs? No, but myopic fred believes this will last forever..(snicker)

    But dogs do have 4 legs. They always have had four legs and that piece of knowledge won’t change, ever. Even if they eventually evolve another leg for some reason (and can still be called dogs of course) then there will still have been a time when dogs had 4 legs. That knowledge cannot be changed … unless there’s an all powerful God of course. If there is then you cannot know that dogs once had 4 legs, God could decide that they only had 3 or that they weren’t animals at all but that dogs were an inert gas.

    6. “I’m sure that kind of mockery would cut her to the bone”

    The character of a person is never mockery.

    No, nope. It doesn’t matter which way I try to parse the sentence it doesn’t actually make sense. Maybe A’s senses were playing up again and he thought he was writing something that had meaning?

  450. on 04 Mar 2015 at 12:51 am 450.Corbis said …

    RPTFL!!! fred wastes an entire post making the same claim over and over.

    Observe readers…

    1. “As Peikoff explains in OPAR (p.39) “The validity of the senses is an axiom.

    He now resorts to the fallacy of argument from authority to back up his circular reasoning. why should we listen to Peikoff, another delusional rand follower…lol!!!? i will spare the readers from this fallacy.

    2. “Like when He ejected Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden”

    Now fred resorts to the Bible, which he does not accept as evidence to prove God acts on “whims”. Does fred even know what he believes….I know readers he is a complete mess….lol!!!

    3. “Does he not realise that there’s still ‘a time when no universe existed’”

    Wow! Really? And during that time will grass be green fred? (snicker…)

    4. “there will always have been a time when the grass was that certain colour.”

    Notice, the term was. But in the “then” it will not. In fact, even now grass is NOT always green…..(snicker) Proof his senses are indeed in error….:) Hey, the color blind individual views grass as color X, why are they not correct?

    5. “They always have had four legs and that piece of knowledge won’t change, ever”

    Nope, some dogs are born with 3 or even 2 legs. His senses are again wrong…..lol!!!

    6. “(and can still be called dogs of course)”

    Why wouldn’t we? No evidence to suggest dog have been anything but dogs.

    But readers, realize fred continues to argue his senses are infallible put has yet to provide proof other than circular reasoning. He percieves that he can tag his claim with axiom and and in this way escape the need to prove his claim……we won’t let him :). The process of selecting premises to support a conclusion is a logic failure called “rationalizing”. Fred, time to prove your claim……..

    7. “The character of a person is never mockery.”

    fred’s senses prove problematic again. Not a good start for a guy with infallible senses. :)

  451. on 04 Mar 2015 at 2:36 pm 451.freddies_dead said …

    450.A the lying prick posting as Corbis said …

    RPTFL!!! fred wastes an entire post making the same claim over and over.

    ROFLCOPTER!!! This is because A insists over and over that his senses are faulty while making claim after claim that require his senses to be valid. It’s seriously hilarious.

    Observe readers…

    1. “As Peikoff explains in OPAR (p.39) “The validity of the senses is an axiom.

    He now resorts to the fallacy of argument from authority to back up his circular reasoning.

    And now we know that A doesn’t understand what an argument from authority is or indeed what a circular argument looks like – those damned faulty senses again.

    I never claimed anything was true simply because Peikoff said it – which would be an actual argument from authority. Instead I correctly cited Peikoff when presenting his statement of the Objectivist argument regarding the axiomatic nature of the senses. And that argument isn’t circular, it simply points out that your senses are a precondition to proof so asking you to prove your senses requires you to use your senses – which would be circular. You might want to remember that the next time A asks me to prove my senses are valid. He’s actually asking me to present a circular argument.

    why should we listen to Peikoff, another delusional rand follower…lol!!!?

    Because A asked me – an Objectivist – to prove my senses were valid. I then cited Peikoff’s statement regarding the axiomatic nature of the senses according to Objectivism. This is the Objectivist position. This is what A is asking for. But, because he cannot deal with the argument, he throws out an ad hominem and runs away.

    i will spare the readers from this fallacy.

    But of course we now know A doesn’t understand the argument from authority fallacy and I’ve also shown that I never employed it.

    2. “Like when He ejected Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden”

    Now fred resorts to the Bible, which he does not accept as evidence to prove God acts on “whims”.

    Yet another misrepresentation of my position. I do not accept the Bible as evidence of the Christian God’s existence. However, if we’re going to discuss the nature of the Christian God as if it exists – which we do for the sake of argument – then surely the book which is alleged to be it’s Word would be the place to start. I guess A just doesn’t like the fact that his Bible does indeed characterise his God in the manner I described.

    Does fred even know what he believes….

    Of course I do, because I can account for knowledge and trust the means by which I gather data. A, of course, is still insisting that his senses are untrustworthy – which undermines everything he claims to know. Every time he makes a truth claim he contradicts his own claim to have faulty senses. I’m really enjoying watching him do it. I think it could only get funnier if A tried to prove his senses were faulty because he’d have to rely on his senses being valid to do it.

    I know readers he is a complete mess….lol!!!

    Ah, the usual autobiographical statement makes an appearance. He thinks that his own senses are untrustworthy and then attempts to project this ridiculous claim onto me. I’ll stick with knowing mine are valid thanks.

    3. “Does he not realise that there’s still ‘a time when no universe existed’”

    Wow! Really? And during that time will grass be green fred? (snicker…)

    Holy shit! A thinks picking out random bits of my argument and writing “(snicker…)” at the end is an actual response. What an idiot.

    4. “there will always have been a time when the grass was that certain colour.”

    Notice, the term was. But in the “then” it will not.

    Wait, what? No, nope. Meaningless rubbish.

    In fact, even now grass is NOT always green…..(snicker)

    And again with the “(snicker)”. Like he thinks he’s made some clever point when all he’s done is display his ignorance for everyone to see. Like his little semantic trick isn’t just his way of avoiding the implications of his own worldview. A worldview that denies identity and knowledge. Hey A, did you use your senses to find out that “grass is NOT always green”? If so how do you know that your conclusion is sound when you can’t actually trust the senses you’re relying on? What a dumbass.

    Proof his senses are indeed in error….:)

    And now we know A doesn’t understand the concept of “proof”. Hey A did you use your senses when you came to that conclusion? You know, the senses you say aren’t at all trustworthy? Sheesh.

    Hey, the color blind individual views grass as color X, why are they not correct?

    So this is A’s problem? Colour blindness? This isn’t a flaw in the senses. No form of perception is complete. We don’t hear ultrasonic frequencies or have x-ray vision either but we don’t consider those to be flaws. A colour blind person simply has to find a different way to know about the colour(s) they can’t see, in exactly the same way other people find out about ultrasonic frequencies or x-rays e.g. by gaining knowledge of light wavelengths or vibrations and using colour/sound detection sensors.

    5. “They always have had four legs and that piece of knowledge won’t change, ever”

    Nope, some dogs are born with 3 or even 2 legs. His senses are again wrong…..lol!!!

    And the useless semantics continue. As if the odd birth defect changes the general conception of “dog” as an animal with 4 legs. Also, how does A know there are dogs born with 3 or even 2 legs? Wouldn’t he have to see pictures of them or read about them or hear about them? But that means he’d be relying on his senses. The same senses that he insists are faulty. How does he actually know anything? A insists he is totally cut off from reality. Not only can he not trust his sensory awareness of it, but he also believes that there’s an entity that can change reality whenever it feels like it. I’m so glad I don’t have the same problems.

    6. “(and can still be called dogs of course)”

    Why wouldn’t we? No evidence to suggest dog have been anything but dogs.

    He still has no understanding of evolution.

    But readers, realize fred continues to argue his senses are infallible put has yet to provide proof other than circular reasoning.

    But readers, realise A continues to argue his senses are faulty, but then continues to make claims that rely on his senses being valid.

    Remember earlier when I noted that every time A asks me to prove my senses are valid he’s actually demanding that I make a circular argument? Well here he is again asking me to prove one of the preconditions of proof.

    He percieves that he can tag his claim with axiom and and in this way escape the need to prove his claim……we won’t let him :).

    I didn’t just randomly claim “axiom”, I actually presented an argument to show why the senses are axiomatic. A ran away from rebutting the argument screaming “fallacy” even though there was none. He’s now absurdly demanding that I make a circular argument to “prove” the validity of my senses. It’s not my problem that he can’t see that the senses are a precondition to any proof – I guess it must be because his senses are faulty.

    The process of selecting premises to support a conclusion is a logic failure called “rationalizing”. Fred, time to prove your claim……..

    And, as already pointed out, the senses are axiomatic. This isn’t a premise. It isn’t a rationalisation. They are actually a precondition to proof. Any attempt to form a proof of the validity of the senses would automatically entail assuming the validity of the senses. If A disagrees then he’s welcome to demonstrate by proving something without using his senses in any way.

    7. “The character of a person is never mockery.”

    fred’s senses prove problematic again. Not a good start for a guy with infallible senses. :)

    So, A still can’t see that his sentence makes no sense whatsoever. When we look up “mockery” on the merriam-webster site it gives a definition of “behavior or speech that makes fun of someone or something in a hurtful way” so his sentence reads “The character of a person is never behavior or speech that makes fun of someone or something in a hurtful way”. Does that make any more sense? Of course not. It’s still gibberish. Maybe A sees something else when he reads the sentence he wrote – courtesy of his faulty senses – if so he’s going to have to find another way of expressing it because this way is just useless.

  452. on 04 Mar 2015 at 4:15 pm 452.Corbis said …

    Readers, for the good of us all I will cut to the chase and challenge freddie very clearly so he cannot run.

    1. Fred are you senses infallible? Is it impossible for them to be wrong? If so, prove this to be true.

    This should be good! I have my popcorn ready…munch…munch….

    2. When I point out the character of Rand (the Mother of Selfishness and MEism, that is in no way mockery (a word I never used) but an observation of the person she was (Character). Fred is unable to discern this do to his faulty senses and perceptions. The fact he believes it to be mockery says a lot of what he thinks about his hero….:)

  453. on 04 Mar 2015 at 7:21 pm 453.DPK said …

    “1. Fred are you senses infallible? Is it impossible for them to be wrong? If so, prove this to be true.”

    hahahahahaha! If he did, how would you even know? You already told us your senses are never to be trusted! Perhaps that explains why you perceive an invisible god where none exists!

    It’s been fun watchin A/Corbis/Xenon/whoeverthefuck else he is at the moment tie himself up in knots with his own arguments, but seriously Freddie… why bother arguing with idiots and liars? You can’t even hold a credible discussion with the imbecile because he won’t discuss anything with any level of integrity. Waste of time. Everyone knows it, even the theists… that’s why A has to continually invent sock puppets to make it seem like anyone can stomach him.

  454. on 05 Mar 2015 at 11:01 am 454.freddies_dead said …

    452.A the lying prick posting as Corbis said …

    Readers, for the good of us all I will cut to the chase and challenge freddie very clearly so he cannot run.

    The only one who keeps running from the challenge is A. I have answered every single request while he’s answered none … as usual.

    1. Fred are you senses infallible? Is it impossible for them to be wrong? If so, prove this to be true.

    This should be good! I have my popcorn ready…munch…munch….

    And here we are again. I’ve already explained – over and over – that it is not possible to “prove” the validity of your senses via some deductive argument. Any attempt to do so requires you to already presuppose that your senses are valid. It just means A is demanding that I make a circular argument – no doubt so he can say I’m making a circular argument. Unfortunately for A I don’t have to.

    The senses work automatically and without volition. They simply do what they do. They do not censor or ignore any part of the stimulus. They are also self-validating through direct awareness e.g. you see an apple in front of you, you reach out and pick it up, you smell it’s aroma, you take a bite and taste it, hear the crunch etc…. You first perceive it visually, that is confirmed by the tactile experience, there is then further confirmation through the olfactory and gustatory experiences. Hell, you even get the auditory experience when you bite into it. Each of those validates the others in a non-circular manner.

    Quite simply, as long as I’m experiencing awareness of any object then my senses are valid.

    Further, I have offered A the opportunity to show that the validity of the senses is not axiomatic by presenting a proof that doesn’t use the senses. Any proof. Of pretty much anything. Unsurprisingly he has run away from that opportunity too. Instead he keeps insisting his senses are invalid and then relying on those invalid senses to claim that my senses are invalid too. Yes, I know it’s ridiculous. However, if A’s senses were invalid, as he claims, then how would he even know they were invalid? He insists he can’t trust his senses but he’s trusting them in order to say that they’re invalid? The absurdity just keeps on rolling.

    2. When I point out the character of Rand (the Mother of Selfishness and MEism, that is in no way mockery (a word I never used) but an observation of the person she was (Character). Fred is unable to discern this do to his faulty senses and perceptions.

    Lets remind ourselves of what A wrote originally Yes, Rand, the Mother of Selfishness and MEism. Bless her heart! lol!!!.

    Now “mockery” is defined as “behavior or speech that makes fun of someone or something in a hurtful way”. Knowing, as we already do, A’s contempt for both Rand and her philosophy – calling her personally a joke several times on this thread, saying how it’s “fun messing with Rand” and then coming up with a title for her “the Mother of Selfishness and MEism” – does anyone else think that it was meant in anything but a mocking manner? No, me neither. A can claim it all he likes but it’s mockery all the same.

    The fact he believes it to be mockery says a lot of what he thinks about his hero….:)

    Nah, me pointing out his obvious mockery is just me pointing out his obvious mockery. If A thinks there’s something more to it then that’ll be his faulty senses getting it wrong.

  455. on 05 Mar 2015 at 11:15 am 455.freddies_dead said …

    453.DPK asked …

    It’s been fun watchin A/Corbis/Xenon/whoeverthefuck else he is at the moment tie himself up in knots with his own arguments, but seriously Freddie… why bother arguing with idiots and liars? You can’t even hold a credible discussion with the imbecile because he won’t discuss anything with any level of integrity. Waste of time. Everyone knows it, even the theists… that’s why A has to continually invent sock puppets to make it seem like anyone can stomach him.

    Quite frankly it’s a bit of fun. I get to hone my own arguments while demonstrating A’s dishonesty and faulty reasoning for all to see. And maybe there are some following along who haven’t seen some of the failed claims A has thrown in shown up for what they are. Maybe they’re looking for an answer to a question they’ve been asked themselves and we end up covering it here. If even 1 person gets to understand something better through my back and forth with A then I don’t see it as a total waste time.

  456. on 05 Mar 2015 at 11:27 am 456.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Well, Fred sharing with us how the senses work is all well and good but it does nor answer:
    “Fred are you senses infallible? Is it impossible for them to be wrong? If so, prove this to be true.”

    Readers, we know scientist have done work in this area, so why does Fred believe his senses are infallible? Too much Spiderman?

    Maybe Freddie can share with us how we can have infallible senses too? He mocks us because we realize we do not have infallibility so maybe he could aid us in this next evolutionary step…:)

    To make Fred feel better, you wanna believe I mocked Tans, have at it:). More accurately I pity her.

  457. on 05 Mar 2015 at 1:47 pm 457.Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    Hey, I think I like the new handle until Dippity comes along and steals it again.

    But back to the adult world.

    An axiom is a statement that is regarded as being established as self-evidently for being true.”

    Fred’s claim is that the 5 senses are always 100% accurate is an axiom. Actually, while the 5 senses may be axiomatic HOWEVER their accuracy of 100% as fred has claimed is not axiomatic. Therefore, it is incumbent upon fred to prove his claim to be true.

    I just wanted to go ahead and blow that ship out of the water now before he attempts to misrepresent this claim along with his many other misrepresentations…:)

  458. on 05 Mar 2015 at 2:46 pm 458.freddies_dead said …

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

    Well, Fred sharing with us how the senses work is all well and good but it does nor answer:
    “Fred are you senses infallible? Is it impossible for them to be wrong? If so, prove this to be true.”

    Of course I did more than just share how the senses work. I actually answered A’s question by demonstrating, once again, that you cannot prove the senses are valid using a deductive argument. This is because you’re already presupposing the validity of the senses in order to construct the argument. A doesn’t like this answer so he continues to demand I make a circular argument for something I don’t need to make an argument for. And he makes this demand despite insisting he wouldn’t be able to understand whatever I gave him because he cannot trust his own senses enough to know he’s even being given something in the first place.

    The senses qua senses cannot be “wrong” in any meaningful way. If A doesn’t accept this then he’s welcome to show just how he feels the senses can be wrong. The only thing he’s mentioned so far is colour blindness and I already demonstrated that this isn’t the senses being “wrong”, just limited. The same way our senses aren’t “wrong” because we can’t hear ultra high frequencies or see infrared or ultraviolet.

    This is just another case where A commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. He’s relying on his senses in order to attack the validity of the senses.

    Readers, we know scientist have done work in this area,

    How does A know this? Did he use his senses to find out perhaps? His senses that he insists are faulty? What about those scientists? Did those scientists use their own senses while doing this work? If they came to the conclusion that their senses are invalid, then how do they know that the work they’re doing is correct? After all they may have sensed something wrongly?

    A’s argument – or rather his assertion – that his senses are faulty is utterly self-defeating. He could only come to the conclusion if he first presupposed that his senses were giving him the data correctly.

    so why does Fred believe his senses are infallible? Too much Spiderman?

    No, it’s because I have no choice. It’s just like questioning existence – in order to do so I must first exist. It’s the same with your senses. They’re our fundamental means of awareness. You need to be aware before you can question awareness.

    Maybe Freddie can share with us how we can have infallible senses too?

    You don’t need to do anything. Simply being aware of things is your senses being valid.

    He mocks us because we realize we do not have infallibility so maybe he could aid us in this next evolutionary step…:)

    I’m only mocking A. And why not? He insists that his senses don’t work, but apparently he can tell I’m mocking him. How? Did he use his senses perhaps? If so, how can he know that he’s sensing correctly? After all his senses don’t work, he insists that they’re faulty.

    A’s self-defeating position is worthy of mockery.

    To make Fred feel better, you wanna believe I mocked Tans, have at it:). More accurately I pity her.

    I wasn’t feeling bad in the first place, because I already knew it was mockery.

  459. on 05 Mar 2015 at 3:44 pm 459.Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    Well readers, gotta blow up fred again….:)

    1. “you cannot prove the senses are valid using a deductive argument. This is because you’re already presupposing the validity”

    freddie, by faith, believes his senses are always correct. They are infallible. How does he know?????? Actually his claim is wrong as science has demonstrated the fallibility of the senses repeatedly i.e. Cartesian doubt. Fred is the exception, of course.

    2. “he senses qua (sic) senses cannot be “wrong” in any meaningful way”

    Meaningful? Who gets to define meaningful, feddie? lol!!! fred is beginning to CRACK, he is beginning to accept he is not infallible! progress!!

    3. “he only thing he’s mentioned so far is colour blindness”

    Oh, there is much more than that but we don’t want you introducing red herrings, we need you to focus. But who is correct about the color? The majority or the minority? They both uses senses which is decoded by the optic cortex??

    4. “No, it’s because I have no choice.”

    fred resorts to the cop out. He has no choice! lol!!!! Many have question the validity of everything, including the senses much like Descartes. If we cannot test the senses then what are scientist doing in the lab? Since fred just accepts he is infallible, but he can offer no proof, we can only assume he is delusional.

    Conclusion:

    According to fred we are only the product of unintelligent random mutations that formed by chance over a long period of time. Why should we believe fred has senses that are infallible?

  460. on 05 Mar 2015 at 5:20 pm 460.freddies_dead said …

    459.A the lying prick posting as Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    Well readers, gotta blow up fred again….:)

    Lol, how would A even know? He still insists his senses are faulty. His senses are so bad he doesn’t realise he keeps blowing his own legs off every time he makes a knowledge claim.

    1. “you cannot prove the senses are valid using a deductive argument. This is because you’re already presupposing the validity”

    freddie, by faith, believes his senses are always correct.

    How does A know this? Did he use his senses to come to this conclusion? In which case how does he know he’s right when his senses aren’t trustworthy? This is how ridiculous A’s assertion is: “My senses don’t work and I’ve concluded yours don’t either”, yet if A’s senses don’t work how can he trust this conclusion? Nothing. We get assertion after assertion all based on A’s faulty senses.

    They are infallible. How does he know??????

    They are axiomatically valid because to try and determine them to be invalid requires you to presuppose them to be valid.

    Actually his claim is wrong as science has demonstrated the fallibility of the senses repeatedly i.e. Cartesian doubt.

    I note A utterly fails to give an example of where science has “demonstrated the fallibility of the senses” even though he claims that it has been done “repeatedly”. You’d think it’d be easy to give us a citation or even just an example of how the senses are wrong. He can’t manage that so instead he gives us “Cartesian doubt”. Now Cartesian doubt isn’t science, it’s actually methodological scepticism i.e. we’re supposed to doubt everything we think we know. To assume it’s “wrong” or in “error”. And this is where Descartes gets it all wrong. As Peikoff notes in “The Objectivist Forum” from April 1981:

    “Observe that Descartes starts his system by using “error” and its synonyms or derivatives as “stolen concepts.”

    Men have been wrong, and therefore, he implies, they can never know what is right. But if they cannot, how did they ever discover that they were wrong? How can one form such concepts as “mistake” or “error” while wholly ignorant of what is correct? “Error” signifies a departure from truth; the concept of “error” logically presupposes that one has already grasped some truth. If truth were unknowable, as Descartes implies, the idea of a departure from it would be meaningless.

    The same point applies to concepts denoting specific forms of error. If we cannot ever be certain that an argument is logically valid, if validity is unknowable, then the concept of “invalid” reasoning is impossible to reach or apply. If we cannot ever know that a man is sane, then the concept of “insanity” is impossible to form or define. If we cannot recognize the state of being awake, then we cannot recognize or conceptualize a state of not being awake (such as dreaming). If man cannot grasp X, then “non-X” stands for nothing.

    Fallibility does not make knowledge impossible. Knowledge is what makes possible the discovery of fallibility.”

    Fred is the exception, of course.

    Not at all. The only exception here seems to be A, who is adamant his senses are faulty. How does he know this? He won’t tell us. If his senses are incapable of perceiving what is “true”, as he insists, then how does he know that what he’s perceiving is “false”? He’s basically stumbling around in the dark shouting nonsense at us.

    2. “he senses qua (sic) senses cannot be “wrong” in any meaningful way”

    Meaningful? Who gets to define meaningful, feddie? lol!!! fred is beginning to CRACK, he is beginning to accept he is not infallible! progress!!

    A believes victory is near, but how does he know this? Did he use his senses to determine it? He insists his senses can’t be trusted so how does he know I’m “beginning to CRACK” as he puts it? Of course he doesn’t, he’s just clutching at straws. If he thinks he has a meaningful way to show how our senses can be “wrong” why hasn’t he presented it yet? He’s had ample opportunity but has dodged it every time.

    3. “he only thing he’s mentioned so far is colour blindness”

    Oh, there is much more than that but we don’t want you introducing red herrings, we need you to focus.

    Why is A so cowardly? If he’s so sure that he has the ammunition that proves that the senses can be “wrong” why doesn’t he just present it and be done? Although, this ammunition, how did A become aware of it? Did he use his senses at all? If so how does he know it’s actually correct? Why should we believe him when he insists he can’t even trust his own senses? A’s absurdity just goes on and on and on.

    But who is correct about the color? The majority or the minority? They both uses senses which is decoded by the optic cortex??

    What has majority or minority got to do with anything? We know that “blue” is the colour perceived when observing light with a wavelength of 450 – 495 nanometres. We don’t need a vote on it, we can just use a device capable of distinguishing that wavelength if we have to. Oh, and how does A know “both uses senses which is decoded by the optic cortex”? Did he use his senses to find it out? In which case how can he be sure he’s right? After all his senses don’t work properly, as he keeps telling us. Sheesh.

    4. “No, it’s because I have no choice.”

    fred resorts to the cop out.

    Except it’s no cop out. I simply recognise that attempting to invalidate my senses requires me to first accept the validity of my senses and that continuing to deny my senses is self-defeating. I’d be presupposing the validity of my senses every time I made the claim that they were faulty. Exactly as A is doing here.

    He has no choice! lol!!!! Many have question the validity of everything, including the senses much like Descartes.

    I’ve got no problem with people questioning things but, when you’re having to presuppose the validity of something in order to test it – like you have to do with your senses – then you should realise that you’re wasting your time and go and test something else instead.

    If we cannot test the senses then what are scientist doing in the lab?

    We have no idea what the scientists are doing in the lab because A refuses to say. Just how are these scientists testing the senses and how are they coming to the conclusion that they are wrong? Are they using their own senses in the process? I guess we’ll never know because A won’t say.

    Since fred just accepts he is infallible, but he can offer no proof, we can only assume he is delusional.

    Odd, I’ve never once claimed to be infallible. I simply accept the axiomatic nature of the validity of my senses. As A doesn’t accept the validity of his senses I’d like to know how he thinks I’m delusional? Did he use his senses to make this determination? But he keeps telling us his senses simply don’t work properly?

    Conclusion:

    According to fred we are only the product of unintelligent random mutations that formed by chance over a long period of time.

    I see A is still determined to show his senses are utterly useless by misrepresenting me at every opportunity. How did A reach this conclusion? Did he use his senses at all? The senses he keeps telling us simply aren’t trustworthy? Why should we accept a conclusion built, as it is, on absolutely nothing? It might as well be something A pulled out of his arse. Although to be fair, it probably is.

    Why should we believe fred has senses that are infallible?

    A can believe whatever he wants. Makes no odds to me. He’s already conceded he has no route to knowledge as he can’t trust anything his own senses tell him. I’m just glad that’s not my problem.

  461. on 05 Mar 2015 at 8:32 pm 461.Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    oh, freddie, you make this too easy!

    1. They are axiomatically valid because to try and determine them to be invalid requires you to presuppose them to be valid.

    The existence of senses is axiomatically valid. The infallibility of the senses is not axiomatically valid. This has been shown to fred.

    So, you job is to prove they are infallible and can always be trusted. Well? The proof?

    2. “Now Cartesian doubt isn’t science”

    Who claimed it was….hmm?…anyone? Claiming your (5) senses are infallible is not science either but it hasn’t stopped you from the claim…..ROTFL!!!

    3. Why is A so cowardly? If he’s so sure that he has the ammunition that proves that the senses can be “wrong” why doesn’t he just present it and be done?”

    You are making an “argument from ignorance” which puts the burden of proof on you. Anyhow, why do we need more? Color blindness is enough. You haven’t even dealt with that ONE! lol!!! Fred looking wiggle away by dropping some herrings :)

    4. “bserving (sic) light with a wavelength of 450 – 495 nanometres.”

    WoW!!! Thanks so much. What does the wavelength have to do with the Cortex’s processing the wavelength into color differently?….hmmmmmm….anybody? Soooooooo, color blind folks perceive the color differently which means their senses were not …….infallible?……Hmmmmmm…..Yes?

    5. Odd, I’ve never once claimed to be infallible. I simply accept the axiomatic nature of the validity of my senses.

    Translation: fred claims his senses are infallible! Still waiting for the proof.

    Conclusion: Fred is a man of great faith. He is the product of random mutations over a great period of time yet through it all he was given senses which are infallible!
    Why him? Why not the rest of us?

  462. on 06 Mar 2015 at 1:32 am 462.Hell Yeah said …

    Wow, seems to be a lot of back and forth about senses. I will sum up senses and god for you. Has anyone seen, touched, heard, smelled, or tasted god? If they think they did, can they duplicate that and also have a peer test the same results? That is the problem with theists. In order for an object to currently exist, it needs to be tested by one of the senses, or like some gases, be mixed with something that already is proven to exist by one of the senses to turn into something else that can be tested by one of the senses. An object might exist that hasn’t been yet tested by the senses, but until then you can’t say it exists.

  463. on 06 Mar 2015 at 11:06 am 463.TJ said …

    What of Born again Christians who claim to have felt God?

    There is more than one of them. They claim faith as a criteria of the life changing experience.

    How do account for all the claims?

    Many have claimed to have felt God through faith. Many have heard this, found faith and had the experience too. Does this count as the process being duplicated?

    “An object might exist that hasn’t been yet tested by the senses, but until then you can’t say it exists.”

    Is this also true for process’s that cannot be reproduced such as life from non-life? …or is it strictly objects?

    Is it ok? to promote that the only option is that emotion, imagination, senses, life, maths, natural laws and every other thing you might also list are all the product on matter and energy that at a point very far in the past formed a singularity.

    Is it that far fetched? to promote that the only option is that emotion, imagination, senses, life, maths, natural laws, matter, energy and every other thing you might also list are all the product of a singularity that consisted of all these things.

    As Colossians 1:16-17 suggests…

    “16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. “

  464. on 06 Mar 2015 at 12:58 pm 464.Corbis The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Well readers, according to Mr Yeah, before the 1960s, gamma rays did not exist and before the 1920a DNA did not exist. Logic and rationalism do not exist today because his 5 senses cannot detect them……..and there you go…..Objectivism in the atheist mind…:)

    Did I mention the stars beyond our telescopes? Yep, not there either…:)

  465. on 06 Mar 2015 at 3:12 pm 465.freddies_dead said …

    461.A the lying prick posting as Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    Right, before we get started here’s a little heads up. You’re going to see me doing a lot of asking how A knows what he claims. There’s a very good reason for this. It’s because he is insisting he can’t know anything. His senses are faulty he says, so how can he actually know something when he can’t trust his means of being aware? If he’s used his senses in any way then he’s being performatively inconsistent with the position he professes to hold i.e. he’s trusting his senses to give him valid data when he insists he can’t trust them. Just remember that every time A makes a claim – how does he know?

    oh, freddie, you make this too easy!

    How does A know this is “easy”? After all he keeps telling us he can’t know anything. I’m really enjoying this.

    1. They are axiomatically valid because to try and determine them to be invalid requires you to presuppose them to be valid.

    The existence of senses is axiomatically valid.

    Is this meaningless statement A trying to prove the uselessness of his senses again? The claim is that the validity of the senses is axiomatic, i.e. any attempt to prove the senses are invalid first requires you to presuppose the senses are valid. A has had numerous chances to prove how he can’t know anything, as he claims, but instead he keeps making knowledge claims. I wish he’d make up his mind.

    The infallibility of the senses is not axiomatically valid.

    Another meaningless statement. But it’s still a knowledge claim, which means we have to ask, how does A know that “[t]he infallibility of the senses is not axiomatically valid.”?

    This has been shown to fred.

    A has shown me nothing. Not a thing. He hasn’t even shown us how he thinks his senses are faulty. Instead he keeps claiming he can’t know anything and then turning round and making knowledge claims.

    So, you job is to prove they are infallible and can always be trusted. Well? The proof?

    And once more A demands an argument that I don’t have to make. Insists on a proof for the preconditions of proof. Also, how does A know that this is my job? After all he keeps telling us he can’t know anything due to his faulty senses. Did he come to the conclusion that it’s my job based on what he’s seen written here? But then he insists he can’t trust the data his eyes are presenting to him. His position is utterly absurd.

    2. “Now Cartesian doubt isn’t science”

    Who claimed it was….hmm?…anyone?

    That would be A when he stated:

    science has demonstrated the fallibility of the senses repeatedly i.e. Cartesian doubt.

    Of course he never explained how he could know this when he also insists his senses are faulty and can’t be trusted.

    Claiming your (5) senses are infallible is not science either but it hasn’t stopped you from the claim…..ROTFL!!!

    Oh look, A’s wrong again. I’ve not made a scientific claim. The claim that the validity of the senses is axiomatic is a philosophical one. It’s self evident. Claiming otherwise – as A keeps doing – is self-defeating. He’s jumped to science despite the fact that you cannot actually do science unless you first presuppose that your senses are valid. It’s quite simple, if you claim your senses are invalid then there’s no point trying to do science. If you can’t actually trust anything you become aware of through your senses how are you supposed to trust the outcome of any experiment? Unless A thinks science is done without observation or awareness of any kind?

    3. Why is A so cowardly? If he’s so sure that he has the ammunition that proves that the senses can be “wrong” why doesn’t he just present it and be done?”

    You are making an “argument from ignorance” which puts the burden of proof on you.

    I’m not making an “argument” at all. As I’ve shown time and time again. The validity of the senses is axiomatic. To deny their validity is to assume their validity. You can’t “prove” them without first presupposing them. A is demanding an argument that doesn’t exist because an argument presupposes “proof” and, as Peikoff noted: “Proof consists in reducing an idea back to the data provided by the senses. These data themselves, the foundation of all subsequent knowledge, precede any process of inference. They are the primaries of cognition, the unchallengeable, the self-evident.” Any attempt to make an argument for/against the senses will necessarily presuppose the validity of the senses.

    Anyhow, why do we need more?

    We actually need something because so far all A has done is claim he can’t know anything before turning around and claiming to know things. Now A claims to have plenty that proves his senses are faulty – not sure how he would know this if he couldn’t trust his senses of course – but his abject refusal to present anything tells me that he doesn’t actually have anything.

    Color blindness is enough.

    Well I’ve already explained why colour blindness isn’t a flaw in the senses, just like our inability to hear high frequencies or see infrared/ultraviolet isn’t a flaw either. However, how does A know that colour blindness is a flaw? A keeps telling us he can’t know anything because he can’t trust that his senses are giving him valid data, so how does he even know colour blindness exists? Did he read about it? But he can’t trust his sight. Did he hear about it? But he can’t trust his hearing. I have to say, for someone who insists he’s unable to know anything, he’s remarkably quick to claim that he knows things.

    You haven’t even dealt with that ONE! lol!!! Fred looking wiggle away by dropping some herrings :)

    And, in a desperate bid to prove his senses don’t work, he claims I haven’t dealt with colour blindness. You know what’s coming don’t you? Yes, that’s right. How does A know I haven’t dealt with colour blindness? How does he even know that he presented colour blindness in the first place? After all he keeps demanding that he can’t know anything but, somehow, he certainly knows this. And on and on A’s absurdity goes.

    4. “bserving (sic) light with a wavelength of 450 – 495 nanometres.”

    I do like the “(sic)”. Implying I spelt “observing” wrong when in fact it was A who copy/pasted it incorrectly. Nice touch. But how did A know it was spelt wrong when he pasted it incorrectly? After all he insists he can’t know anything let alone how to spell words.

    WoW!!! Thanks so much. What does the wavelength have to do with the Cortex’s processing the wavelength into color differently?….hmmmmmm….anybody? Soooooooo, color blind folks perceive the color differently which means their senses were not …….infallible?……Hmmmmmm…..Yes?

    Who said everyone’s senses worked exactly the same? Nope, that’s right, not me. Some people can hear a larger range of sound frequencies and some can smell way better than others. What has this got to do with their validity? Absolutely nothing. As long as you have awareness then your senses are working qua senses. As I’ve already noted, several times now, we don’t consider the inability to hear ultra-high frequencies as a flaw in our hearing, meaning we understand that our sensory organs are limited. Of course that says absolutely nothing about whether what they are sensing is valid. This is because you have to presuppose that you’re getting valid data from the senses unless you want to be like A and insist you cannot know anything at all. Speaking of which, how does A know that cortices process light wavelengths differently? Did he read about it somewhere? Maybe he heard about it? But he doesn’t accept the validity of his senses. So how could he trust that he’d read or heard correctly? We get nothing. Just claim after claim despite the insistence that he can’t know anything to make claims about.

    5. Odd, I’ve never once claimed to be infallible. I simply accept the axiomatic nature of the validity of my senses.

    Translation: fred claims his senses are infallible! Still waiting for the proof.

    No, as usual A is misrepresenting what I’ve said. I accept the validity of my senses because not only must I accept their validity to even deny them, but also because to deny them is to deny the possibility of knowledge. There can be no proof when you’re trying to “prove” the preconditions of proof. You’d think A would have gotten this by now, but hey! he does keep telling us he can’t know anything so maybe that’s why he doesn’t get it.

    Conclusion: Fred is a man of great faith. He is the product of random mutations over a great period of time yet through it all he was given senses which are infallible!
    Why him? Why not the rest of us?

    Now, regardless of the fact that A’s conclusion is just plain wrong, just how did A come to a conclusion at all? After all a conclusion assumes that there are premises that have been argued for and proven. Yet proof presupposes awareness of facts, it presupposes the validity of the senses that give us awareness of those facts. But A is adamant his senses are invalid. And around and around and around we go. With A contradicting himself at every turn.

    Rather than just keep on going around and around, with A insisting he can’t know things before contradicting himself and making knowledge claims, the only response A is going to get from me from now on is one asking “How do you know?”. The only way that is going to change is if A actually makes some attempt to demonstrate how/why his senses are invalid. Of course he’s going to have to do that without using his senses in any way – because they’re supposedly invalid and can’t be trusted.

    I suspect A’s going to be seeing that question an awful lot.

  466. on 06 Mar 2015 at 5:10 pm 466.Hell Yeah said …

    “Well readers, according to Mr Yeah, before the 1960s, gamma rays did not exist and before the 1920a DNA did not exist. Logic and rationalism do not exist today because his 5 senses cannot detect them……..and there you go…..Objectivism in the atheist mind…:)
    Did I mention the stars beyond our telescopes? Yep, not there either…:)”

    Did you not read my whole statement? The last sentence was “An object might exist that hasn’t been yet tested by the senses, but until then you can’t say it exists”

    You and others claim a god exists today. None of the senses detected a god yet, so you can’t say it exists. If someday one of the senses detects a god, then hey, the god will then exist. But don’t go around today saying a god exists when there is no proof yet.

    ———————-

    “Many have claimed to have felt God through faith. Many have heard this, found faith and had the experience too. Does this count as the process being duplicated?”

    A couple things to point out here. When the process is duplicated, a peer has to test the same results. For example, if someone claims he saw god, a peer would have to have seen that same god at the same time. Another thing is that when something is wanted to be seen bad enough, the mind can play tricks on you to see it. For example, someone who has been in the desert for a long time without water and then they think they see a pond of water up ahead, but when they get to it, it really isn’t there. Did they actually see water? No. They wanted to bad enough that it became an illusion to them. If it was a real pond and they went back on a different trip to the desert and saw the same pond of water in the same exact spot again and if someone else was in the desert with them and saw the same exact pond of water, then that would be a peer test of results. Does that make sense? I am just using a pond of water in the desert as a comparison to god, where the mind can play a trick on you where you think you sensed that object.

    —————

    “Is this also true for process’s that cannot be reproduced such as life from non-life? …or is it strictly objects?”

    We know the objects that make life up, and we know those objects exists by themselves. These have been tested by senses. The supernatural element hasn’t been discovered yet. Until then, you can’t say the supernatural exists.

  467. on 06 Mar 2015 at 7:18 pm 467.Corbis The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Did you not read my whole statement? The last sentence was “An object might exist that hasn’t been yet tested by the senses, but until then you can’t say it exists””

    I just did. An object exists or is doesn’t. It doesn’t matter if your senses detect it or not….:)..You so silly!

    Ex: Gamma rays existed before 1960.

  468. on 06 Mar 2015 at 8:20 pm 468.Hell Yeah said …

    “An object exists or is doesn’t. It doesn’t matter if your senses detect it or not….:)..You so silly!
    Ex: Gamma rays existed before 1960.”

    Mr. Prick, I think you are missing the point. Using your example of gamma rays being discovered in 1960. We didn’t know they existed before 1960, but couldn’t say until 1960 that they did exist. And now we know they exist. Now going back to god, right now we are in the not knowing if god exists phase. If someday the supernatural element is proven, then we can say god exists. Until then, it is in the not knowing phase, so in conclusion, one can’t claim a god for sure exists. Otherwise, you can say a flying unicorn exists by using your scenario.

    Also, you are correct in stating something either exists or not. Based on the current evidence, god and heaven don’t exist just like flying unicorns don’t exist. If you want to say god exists, then where is your proof? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

  469. on 06 Mar 2015 at 8:56 pm 469.DPK said …

    “If you want to say god exists, then where is your proof?”

    The only “proof” ever offered by believers is that they have had some sort of profound personal experience that cause them to “know” that god is real.
    The only problem with this is, A has told us repeatedly that his senses are unreliable and cannot be trusted to give him an understanding of reality. So, we are left to accept the personal experience of someone who believes that one cannot believe the information that their senses provide. So how are we to tell the difference between what is real, and what they are hallucinating, or simply imagining because they want to believe it?

    What a quandary for poor A. Gored by the horns of his own dilemma! Again!!

  470. on 06 Mar 2015 at 9:36 pm 470.Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    LOL!!!

    1. “We didn’t know they existed before 1960, but couldn’t say until 1960 that they did exist. ”

    Weather we acknowledged they existed or not is irrelevant. The fact is they existed. That really is the end of the story. So, the five senses not picking upon them them in the 1940s did eliminate the existence. See where you claim fails…….again? Its much like God (since you brought God up). His existence is not based upon your acknowledgement.

    2. “If someday the supernatural element is proven, then we can say god exists.”

    Proven? Which sense would that be? The Deity sense? lol!!! Is proven like atheist believe DNA was written/programmed by nature is proven? Maybe like reason and logic are proven by the 5 senses?

    Your five senses are useless again. Atheist make up just a little more the the color blind population which stands at about 5%. The color blind have the senses to pick up color, but supposedly their sense fail in the process. The reason 90% of the world knows God exists is Why?

    Lets see what you atheist claim…..90% of the world is delusional….(snicker)……..that, Mr Yeah is the claim of cults. Hint: Don’t drink the juice…..oh and the color is red….wink, wink…:)

  471. on 06 Mar 2015 at 10:37 pm 471.DPK said …

    Funny that A’s junior college education leads him to believe humans have only 5 senses, but tell us, dishonest one, if you in fact DID have a Deity sense, how could you know it was reliable, or giving you false information??
    You couldn’t, could you?
    And how do you know that a person with color blindness isn’t receiving a “correct” perception of reality, and that perhaps it is YOURS that is faulty? You can’t can you? LOL.. in fact, as you have already told us, we can’t trust ANYTHING you say or believe, because 1, you can’t believe your senses, and 2, your magical god can change reality any time he wishes. How do you ever manage to find your way home? It must be very awkward to live in your world, not knowing if that car coming down the street is real, or just your eyes playing tricks on you. Good thing you have your invisible friend to watch out for you, right? hahaha

  472. on 06 Mar 2015 at 10:37 pm 472.Hell Yeah said …

    Mr. Prick seems to think because some things haven’t been detectible by humans in the past and then became detectible by a device or mixture, that all of a sudden anything goes as far as existing, because it could be proven in the future. If that isn’t the definition of delusional, I don’t know what is. Flying unicorns must exist because they haven’t been proven to not exist yet. LOL. I still don’t know where he gets the idea that 90% of the world “knows” god exists. 90% of the world doesn’t even believe in his god or let alone a god. By the way, what is the point in his color-blind example? Sight is the sense and color-blind can still see colors exist, right? Oh, I get it, 10% of the world can’t see god, because 90% of the world can see god? Is that it? God is a new color? Or maybe the rainbows are God. Oh, wait, we know how rainbows are made now, but those who wrote the bible thought it was a sign from God. LOL. It is probably more like 90% want to believe a god exists….but wanting to believe and knowing are two different things. I want to believe, but I don’t know if it is real, so until there is evidence, I don’t believe it is real. I want there to be evidence, but it has to be real evidence, not illusions.

  473. on 06 Mar 2015 at 11:09 pm 473.Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    Dippity! You agree with me!

    “how do you know that a person with color blindness isn’t receiving a “correct” perception of reality, and that perhaps it is YOURS that is faulty? You can’t can you?”

    We will have to ask freddie. I have already tried to get him to answer who perceives correctly…….someone is in error and it cant be freddie according to him…he is infallible….:)

    Thanks mate!

    LOL!

    Mr Yeah is on an LSD trip, unicorns…..rainbows….blue diamonds! lol!!! Sorry Mr yeah, I am a man of science and can’t live in your fairytale…:)

  474. on 07 Mar 2015 at 12:04 am 474.DPK said …

    It seems we are on the verge of a breakthrough!
    A the prick seems to be finally admitting that his perception of an invisible god who reads his thoughts, knows the future while still allowing us to change it if we wish, can change reality on a whim, loves us unconditionally but will send us to an eternity of torment and suffering if we don’t worship him, may actually be a complete figment of his imagination and he has absolutely now way of knowing!
    That god who is all good, but created evil, that god who punishes all humanity for the crime of a woman eating a piece of fruit… exactly as he designed her to do, and exactly as he knew for all eternity that she would do… that god who impregnated a virgin with himself so she could give birth to himself so that he could sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself for the sins he created and created mankind to commit… may actually be nothing more than A’s faulty senses telling him something that is simply not true!
    Oh, the tragedy…………. To live you whole life not knowing what is real, and what is simply an illusion.

  475. on 07 Mar 2015 at 12:22 am 475.TJ said …

    It is interesting that Hell Yeah provides a scenario of senses failing due to the mind, in post #466.

    So? Senses can fail if the mind is playing tricks?

    Fred seems to disagree?

    I would agree.

    Also Hell Yeah, no-one I know has ever claimed to have seen God.

    1 Corinthians 2:9

    “9but just as it is written, “THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.” 10For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God”

    The “virtual reality” that makes up the essence of your consciousness, imagination, emotions, life force, perception, ability to rationalize and determine logic is what the Bible refers to as your spirit. It is what is missing when the body dies. It is the invisible part of us that reflects the image of the invisible spirit of God .

    I claim to have had some sort of profound personal experience that cause me to “know” that god is real, as DPK describes in #469. A personally received revelation through the Holy Spirit from a Personal God.

    I trust my own senses above all others as they are the only ones I have access to. I claim that I have the ability to distinguish the experience from my imagination.

    I know many who have had similar experiences.

    “if someone claims he saw god, a peer would have to have seen that same god at the same time.”

    It would seem unlikely that two would have the same personal spiritual experience at the same time however. As the concept of personal, separates the two from sharing the experience. This is not to rule out that two may each experience an individual personal spiritual experiences at the same time.

    The only way for you to determine if this what I say is real is to read the Bible and determine for yourself what is required an follow through. I say this because you cannot trust my senses as you do not have access to them.

    However this requires a willingness that can only come from you, intimately, faithfully, spiritually and personally. Concepts that science leaves at the door.

  476. on 07 Mar 2015 at 1:46 am 476.Hell Yeah said …

    So that is all Mr Prick got out of that was unicorns, rainbows, and something I didn’t even mention in blue diamonds. LOL. No wonder he is so delusional. And yet he claims evidence in reality is a fairytale while a God that has no evidence isn’t. What a dumbass.

  477. on 07 Mar 2015 at 1:49 am 477.Hell Yeah said …

    TJ, personal experiences of the mind are just mind tricks. Try getting drunk and tell us what you see. You might be seeing many gods then. LOL.

  478. on 07 Mar 2015 at 2:23 am 478.DPK said …

    “I trust my own senses above all others as they are the only ones I have access to. I claim that I have the ability to distinguish the experience from my imagination.
    I know many who have had similar experiences.”

    I’ve no doubt that you have. Seriously, I believe you. But I know others who claim very similar experiences as your which have led them to different gods, and some to no gods at all. These are all sincere people who claim to have the same kind of “personal experience” as you have.
    You act as if I have not read the bible… I have, twice in fact. You act as though I have not had exposure to religious experiences… I have. I have knelt and asked god into my heart… in sincerity, and on more than one occasion. I got nothing. Which, if I were to actually believe in god, I would need to wonder what he finds so special about you, and not me. I would also wonder why he would allow other sincere seekers of truth to be led astray down the path to a different god than yours, to their ultimate doom.
    Now, it is obvious that you cannot all be right, but it is equally obvious that you can easily all be wrong. So, what method is the common man to use to determine if your claims are real, or just some part of your imagination… as I’m sure you yourself must think about others who’s “personal experiences” have led them to a different conclusion.
    I ask again, if god’s will is with the true believers… I gotta give cred to those believers that flew the airplanes into the twin towers. It would seem that their god got his way, while your god of love and kindness stood by powerless. I also didn’t see your god anywhere during the rash of recent be-headings at the behest of that “other god”.
    What do you say to that?
    D

  479. on 07 Mar 2015 at 1:09 pm 479.TJ said …

    “I have knelt and asked god into my heart… in sincerity, and on more than one occasion. I got nothing. Which, if I were to actually believe in god, I would need to wonder what he finds so special about you, and not me.”

    I don’t know. I can’t answer this. Except to say that it appears as though you have not entirely abandoned a desire to seek God. If you had, I would not expect you to bother questioning others. I hope that you do find God.

    You say you read the Bible twice?

    Do you consider yourself, by Bible standard, to be a sinner?

    ————————–

    “I ask again, if god’s will is with the true believers… I gotta give cred to those believers that flew the airplanes into the twin towers. It would seem that their god got his way, while your god of love and kindness stood by powerless. I also didn’t see your god anywhere during the rash of recent be-headings at the behest of that “other god”.
    What do you say to that?”

    You say you read the Bible twice?

    Then you should be able to answer why God does not intervene.

  480. on 07 Mar 2015 at 1:19 pm 480.TJ said …

    DPK,
    “You act as if I have not read the bible… I have, twice in fact.”

    Sorry if I gave you that impression. I would have been directing that at Hell Yeah. I tend to reply in a general sense as apposed to specific people from time to time.

  481. on 07 Mar 2015 at 1:22 pm 481.TJ said …

    DPK,

    Having read the Bible twice you would have noted that what religion’s teach is often vastly in contrast to what is actually written.

    What is your opinion on this?

  482. on 09 Mar 2015 at 4:06 pm 482.DPK said …

    “DPK,
    Having read the Bible twice you would have noted that what religion’s teach is often vastly in contrast to what is actually written.
    What is your opinion on this?”

    I think it is not a difficult task to find passages in the bible that support almost any “teaching” one might claim. It just requires a bit of cherry picking. Which is why, to accept it as the perfect word of a prefect being is absurd.

    …”Then you should be able to answer why God does not intervene.”

    “And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him.”
    “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.”
    Before they call I will answer; while they are yet speaking I will hear.”

    I’ve no doubt many of the innocents beheaded by ISIS prayed fervently to be saved… don’t you?
    I’ve no doubt the 9-11 hijackers prayed that they would be successful in their plans, don’t you?
    Steeping outside of the bias of your pre-determined conclusions and looking objectively at the evidence, what would you conclude?

  483. on 10 Mar 2015 at 12:25 am 483.TJ said …

    “I think it is not a difficult task to find passages in the bible that support almost any “teaching” one might claim. It just requires a bit of cherry picking. Which is why, to accept it as the perfect word of a prefect being is absurd”

    Have I not?, from the beginning maintained that the only way to approach any document, text or scripture is to take it based on what it literally says? Not to be influenced/bias by what others may say, teach or promote.

    Haven’t I said that the only way to truly perceive something is to experience it for yourself as you cannot trust the interpretations of others solely based on their word?

    You say, you read the Bible twice. So, I am asking you, not ‘any “teaching” one might claim’. Why doesn’t God intervene?… based on your reading of the Bible twice.

    —————————-

    “I’ve no doubt many of the innocents beheaded by ISIS prayed fervently to be SAVED… don’t you?”

    Of course I agree. But is it Gods will to protect their physical body’s from death? Or by saved do you mean their souls?

    “I’ve no doubt the 9-11 hijackers prayed that they would be successful in their plans, don’t you?”

    I agree, but to who, do they pray? Having read the Bible twice would you say it was Gods will for them to succeed? If not, why didn’t God intervene?

    “Steeping outside of the bias of your pre-determined conclusions and looking objectively at the evidence, what would you conclude?”

    You made the claim you have read the Bible twice. I was looking for an unbiased opinion regarding your understanding of concepts presented in the Bible, in relation to “why God won’t intervene?”

    I conclude that you gave me a bias opinion laced with non-objectivity whilst avoiding the question. I see nowhere in your answer any attempt to address the issue in question. I must conclude that you either don’t know, lied about reading the Bible twice or your comprehension was influenced by your pre-determined conclusions.

  484. on 10 Mar 2015 at 3:21 am 484.DPK said …

    Of course I agree. But is it Gods will to protect their physical body’s from death? Or by saved do you mean their souls?

    Of course, I mean what they prayed for, which was not to be violently beheaded… Because after all, ” everybody want to go to heaven, but nobody wants to go now..!”
    So, is your claim that god wanted them to be beheaded? What a bastard.

    “I’ve no doubt the 9-11 hijackers prayed that they would be successful in their plans, don’t you?”
    I agree, but to who, do they pray? Having read the Bible twice would you say it was Gods will for them to succeed? If not, why didn’t God intervene?

    Well if you accept the idea of an omnipotent god who answers prayers in accordance with his will …. Which is a rather meaningless concept, btw… Than of course one must conclude it was his will that they succeed, because they did. What other conclusion can be drawn? Lol.

  485. on 10 Mar 2015 at 3:27 am 485.DPK said …

    “Have I not?, from the beginning maintained that the only way to approach any document, text or scripture is to take it based on what it literally says? Not to be influenced/bias by what others may say, teach or promote.”

    You have indeed, so, have you stoned any adulterers to death at the village gates lately, or have you loved them as yourself? Do you do work on the sabbath, and do you avoid wearing clothing of different materials? Have you sold all that you own and given it to the poor? Have you killed your children when they were disrespectful to you? Do you follow the biblical guidelines for beating your slaves, or do think it is immoral for one human to own another? have you killed any homosexuals, or do you abide by “thou shalt not kill?” So many questions…

  486. on 10 Mar 2015 at 3:28 am 486.TJ said …

    “So, is your claim that god wanted them to be beheaded? What a bastard.”

    Not my claim at all.

    Conclusion, avoidance yet again.

  487. on 10 Mar 2015 at 3:33 am 487.TJ said …

    “You have indeed, so, have you stoned any adulterers to death at the village gates lately, or have you loved them as yourself? Do you do work on the sabbath, and do you avoid wearing clothing of different materials? Have you sold all that you own and given it to the poor? Have you killed your children when they were disrespectful to you? Do you follow the biblical guidelines for beating your slaves, or do think it is immoral for one human to own another? have you killed any homosexuals, or do you abide by “thou shalt not kill?” So many questions…”

    No, I have not religiously followed laws given to the Israelite’s in preparation for the coming of God in the flesh from within their midst.

    But I do try to do unto others as I would have done unto me and I try to love my neighbor. But I mostly fail at these things.

    More avoidance and misdirection.

  488. on 10 Mar 2015 at 3:43 am 488.TJ said …

    You guys say “Gods plan is everything that happens”, then you say he is a “moral monster” for not intervening. You can’t have it both ways.

    I’ve asked a specific question based on your claim to have read the bible twice…. “why doesn’t God intervene?”.

    It’s in there.

    If you don’t know, then say so.

  489. on 10 Mar 2015 at 3:45 pm 489.freddies_dead said …

    473.A the lying prick posting as Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    DPK asked:

    “how do you know that a person with color blindness isn’t receiving a “correct” perception of reality, and that perhaps it is YOURS that is faulty? You can’t can you?”

    We will have to ask freddie.

    Why? I’ve already demonstrated that colour blindness isn’t a flaw in anyone’s senses. The senses are still working qua senses, it’s just that a colour blind person has to do something else in order to be aware of the colour they can’t perceive – just like we have to find some other means to be aware of ultraviolet light.

    I have already tried to get him to answer who perceives correctly…….

    Quite apart from being untrue – A actually keeps demanding that I prove one of the preconditions of proof – how does A know he’s tried to do anything? He keeps telling us he can’t trust his only means of awareness but apparently he knows he tried to do something, I’d like to know how. While he’s explaining that he can throw in an explanation of how he knows his senses are faulty. I’d wager that he used his senses in order to come to the conclusion that they don’t work, which just undermines the conclusion as he’s having to rely on his senses in order to conclude that they’re faulty. Is everyone else enjoying the sheer absurdity of A’s position? I know I am.

    someone is in error and it cant be freddie according to him…he is infallible….:)

    And again, this statement isn’t true, but how would A know if I had actually claimed to be infallible? After all he’s adamant that his senses don’t work properly (something else he can’t explain having knowledge of) but he believes himself certain enough to make the accusation.

    How does A know anything? If he doesn’t trust the only means he has to be aware of reality, how can he actually be sure he’s even having this online discussion?

  490. on 10 Mar 2015 at 3:46 pm 490.DPK said …

    God doesn’t intervene because god is imaginary. That’s the truth of the matter. LOL

    “No, I have not religiously followed laws given to the Israelite’s in preparation for the coming of God in the flesh from within their midst.”

    Why not? “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Last I checked heaven and earth are still here??

    ““So, is your claim that god wanted them to be beheaded? What a bastard.”
    Not my claim at all.”
    Curious, let’s review:
    “that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him.”
    We agree that we can assume that those recently beheaded, in all likelihood prayed to god to not be beheaded or otherwise violently murdered.
    We also agree that the bible clearly says that if you pray to god for something, you can be assured you will get what you asked for if it is in accordance with his will (which begs the question… why bother? But that’s a different discussion).
    We can further agree that they were in fact, beheaded.
    Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that them having their heads violently hacked off, on video, for the world to see, was in fact in accordance with his will.
    But that is not your claim? Odd.

    “I’ve no doubt the 9-11 hijackers prayed that they would be successful in their plans, don’t you?”
    I agree, but to who, do they pray?
    They prayed to god…. obviously.

    Having read the Bible twice would you say it was Gods will for them to succeed? If not, why didn’t God intervene?

    Since the god of the bible has promised to answer prayers in accordance with his will, then there is no other conclusion to be drawn that the planes flying into the Twin Towers would be in accordance with his will. Since he obviously didn’t intervene, one can only conclude that he didn’t want to.
    No doubt you have rationalized this somehow, but there is a far simpler answer.

  491. on 10 Mar 2015 at 5:08 pm 491.Anonymous said …

    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them”. Jesus

  492. on 10 Mar 2015 at 9:03 pm 492.Anonymous said …

    Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

    Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish.

  493. on 10 Mar 2015 at 11:16 pm 493.Dave said …

    I’ve spent many hours over the last few says reading the exchanges on this page, LOVE IT! I especially love Alex, the cusser, anti-cussing is such a tiresome prohibition, is “derriere” less offensive than “ass” and is the product more pleasant if called “stool” instead of “shit”?

    Why is Alex so disdainful, even abusive? He answers honestly, not like the theists who call people despicable names using polite-sounding phrases that really are much worse, more condemning, eternally offensive but sound so “theological” that they can tell you to “go to hell, be punished forever, I’ll dance on your grave..BUT hey, I love ya bro.”

    Atheists can NEVER hate the way religious people do, they simply don’t have a belief system that allows them to curse people effectively, to hate them irrationally or condemn them eternally so nothing an atheist says can be hurtful and destructive like god-believers.

    Alex shows the most contempt he is able with coarse words but the theists show ultimate contempt for everyone not of their narrow group, wishing death, eternal torture and degradation even on the nicest people who dare to disagree.

    As far as a god existing, it depends, whose god? I still haven’t heard one theist name the god they believe exists, Jehovah, Allah, Zeus or the half-gods, Mithras or Jesus. They won’t submit to any authority (i.e. the pope) but each has there own personal interpretation of the bible. Discussing anything with them is like trying to keep jello on a hot knife, they have no agreed set of beliefs to examine.

    Alex’s contempt is the only correct response to nonsense, cursing or not.

  494. on 11 Mar 2015 at 2:15 am 494.Dave said …

    Here is the basic problem with the belief in a revealed god like Allah, Jehovah or even philosophers and prophets, the material to be studied for wisdom is microscopically small and viewed through skewed cultural lenses on both ends. Whatever was written is finished and if it isn’t clear, then time will only muddy the lens further.

    You can comment forever on what this or that means but the god whose finger supposedly wrote has moved on and won’t be answering any questions. Every possible interpretation of whatever was written will be embraced by some group and used in some way to further whatever cause they are pursuing and the god won’t object or hurl lightning.

    Is it perhaps the death of the “messenger” whether Moses, Mohammed, Jesus or Joseph Smith that cause the god to quit communicating? Funny.
    Let’s talk about what Moses said or Mohammed but don’t tell us god said it but suddenly gets tongue-tied when Moses dies and can’t explain why he said that slavery and rape were OK.

    That’s just stupid, words are written by human hands with human thoughts and human motives and telling us that god said this or that is just double-speak for “I thought it and it sounded great!” Maybe it’s double-speak for “I hallucinated but didn’t realize it.”
    God is no excuse for your unwillingness to accept responsibility for your own thoughts and actions as atheists must do, what do YOU believe about what Moses or some scribe wrote about rape and slavery? God didn’t carve no stone either, Moses did it all himself and Moses had serious moral and mental problems.
    If you can’t condemn the laws of Moses because you think god spoke to him, remember what Jesus said, “Fill yourself up, then, with the sins of your forefathers!”
    Nope, YOU are responsible, god-believer, for the evil you accept because you won’t take responsibility for yourself and your own thoughts, beliefs and morals but try to shuffle off responsibility to some god-man, seer or prophet who is long decayed to dust.

    A creator may exist but I highly doubt that he will be impressed by a bunch of non-thinking followers whose beliefs are someone else’s hallucinations, I’m certain that she will put an atheist at her right hand at the banquet before some religious nut. If there is a god, atheists will be first into heaven as the most honest and courageous of the human race.

  495. on 11 Mar 2015 at 7:05 am 495.TJ said …

    DPK,

    “Since the god of the bible has promised to answer prayers in accordance with his will, then there is no other conclusion to be drawn that the planes flying into the Twin Towers would be in accordance with his will. Since he obviously didn’t intervene, one can only conclude that he didn’t want to.”

    “Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that them having their heads violently hacked off, on VIDEO, for the world to see, was in fact in accordance with his will.”

    I can conclude that it was not Gods will to stop them. But I cannot conclude that it was Gods will that caused then to do it. I can conclude that it was the will of those involved.

    “I’ve no doubt the 9-11 hijackers prayed that they would be successful in their plans, don’t you?”
    “I agree, but to who, do they pray?”
    “They prayed to god…. obviously.”

    Having read the Bible twice and assuming you are somewhat familiar with the claimed beliefs of the 9-11 hijackers. Would you conclude that they believe in and pray to the same God of the Bible, Jesus Christ the creator God?

    ——————————————–

    “Why not? “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Last I CHECKEDheaven and earth are still here??”

    Last I checked (the Bible), Jesus was all about saving sinners through the free gift of salvation. I am a sinner in need of salvation.

    But lets look at your cherry picked passage used to support your own agenda.

    Matthew 5: 17-19

    “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18″For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19″Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven”

    Acts 15…

    “5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

    6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

    7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

    8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

    9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

    10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

    11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”

    It would seem that the “Law of Moses” is the standard of perfection, regardless of our ability to keep/follow it or not. It would also seem that failings among believers will not be without consequence… even in heaven.

    But then again, you believe…

    “God doesn’t intervene because god is imaginary. That’s the truth of the matter. LOL”

    Given this, you must find it truly amazing how many people and the profiles of the prominent figures, throughout the centuries, who have been duped by the creative writings of uneducated goat herders?

  496. on 11 Mar 2015 at 3:39 pm 496.DPK said …

    “I can conclude that it was not Gods will to stop them. But I cannot conclude that it was Gods will that caused then to do it. I can conclude that it was the will of those involved.”
    Quibble quibble. Little distinction for an omnipotent being. We can certainly assume that at least some of those innocent people aboard the planes where Christians and prayed that the hijacker’s evil plans would fail and that they would not be successful in killing thousands of innocents in their quest to glorify their god.
    So, we most certainly have a scenario that day in which two separate groups are praying to god for different outcomes. The bible quite plainly assures us that whatever we ask of god in accordance with his will, we will have it. Jesus himself repeats this multiple times, “And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.”
    So, we have a situation where 2 conflicting prayers are offered. Obviously, one set of prayers was answered… the planes crashed into the buildings causing great death and suffering, and the other was denied, the people on the planes were also killed in a horrific manner. So, the prayers of the innocents on the planes, and in the towers (at least those who were aware of the impending attack) must not have been in accordance with god’s will, and the prayers of the hijackers to succeed must have been in accordance with his will.
    From this, one can only conclude that Allah is in fact the “real” god and the god of Abraham is the “wrong” god… or that both of them are imaginary and there is in fact no god answering prayers. In which case, events unfold without any divine intervention.
    I fail to see how you can reach any other logical conclusion.

    “I agree, but to who, do they pray?”
    “They prayed to god…. obviously.”
    Having read the Bible twice and assuming you are somewhat familiar with the claimed beliefs of the 9-11 hijackers. Would you conclude that they believe in and pray to the same God of the Bible, Jesus Christ the creator God?”

    I’m confused, are you implying that there is more than one god? Or are you saying that god is unable to hear the prayers of those who call him by a different name? You seem to pile a lot of restrictions and limitations on your omnipotent god in order to explain your bizarre rationalizations. In any event, if one is to assume that there is a god who answers prayers in accordance with his will… which prayers were answered? It must be the prayers of the ones who prayed to the “real” god, no?

    “But lets look at your cherry picked passage used to support your own agenda.”
    “………………………It would seem that the “Law of Moses” is the standard of perfection, regardless of our ability to keep/follow it or not.”

    Nothing you have posted explains to me why you do not kill adulterers, homosexuals, and insolent children, keep and own slaves, offer burnt offerings and animal sacrifices, abstain from wearing different fabrics of clothing, refuse to eat shellfish, and all the other nonsense prescribed by Mosaic Law. I mean, ok, maybe your bible says it is impossible to follow all this bullshit perfectly… I agree, it’s hard to own slaves in a society that recognizes slavery is immoral, and that whole stoning to death thing has dire consequences, and it really kind of impossible to not do anything regarded as work on Sunday, and animal sacrifices will get PETA on your ass pretty quick. But shouldn’t you at least be making an effort?

    “Given this, you must find it truly amazing how many people and the profiles of the prominent figures, throughout the centuries, who have been duped by the creative writings of uneducated goat herders?”

    Not really amazing given the fact that at one time, everyone on earth believed with absolute certainty that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. Many prominent historical figures and millions of others believed in the reality of Zeus and Apollo and the assorted Greek and Roman gods… with conviction. And, if you are going to actually play the tired and discredited Argument from Majority fallacy, you must explain why the majority of people on the planet even today, who profess a belief in god, believe in a different god that yours.
    You would also need to explain how there came to be thousands and thousands of different sects of your own religion of Christianity, and they cannot even agree among themselves on the meanings of the words provided by the perfect creator god of he universe. That would seem to be a problem one would more likely expect from “the creative writings of uneducated goat herders” rather than the divinely inspired inerrant word of god.
    Nice try, but once again, your arguments simply fall apart with any level of honest evaluation.

  497. on 11 Mar 2015 at 6:06 pm 497.Cobis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    Alex

    You don’t need to post as Dave. Come on back buddy, we love ya! How many times have I told ya that? So silly….:)

  498. on 12 Mar 2015 at 6:30 am 498.TJ said …

    DPK,

    “honest evaluation”

    Are you serious?

    I asked you from an objective point of view as someone who had read the Bible twice “why won’t God intervene”?

    The answer of course is that the personified God ie. Jesus Christ was put to death, rose again and left to prepare a place for us with the promise to return at a future time.

    You however you turned the focus to the recent beheading’s to try to disguise your lack of understanding/knowledge of what you’ve claimed to have read twice.

    You acknowledged the error of “cherry picking” and then proceeded to do exactly that.

    You claim God is imaginary, but at the same time claim to know what is and what is not the will of said imaginary being.

    You completely ignore…

    Hebrews 9:27
    And as it is APPOINTED unto men once to die, but after this the judgment. The fixed order for all men is to die once only, and to be judged after death. When they die, finality is stamped, on their life work.

    Matthew 24:11
    and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.

    John 16:2
    They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God.

    Matthew 10:22
    You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

    … and practically everything regarding free will.

    Do you think “saved” means not to die as all have been appointed to?

    You ignore that God has said all things must come to pass. Read revelations again. It doesn’t sound good.

    Earlier you made the claim…

    “I have knelt and asked god into my heart… in sincerity, and on more than one occasion. I got nothing. Which, if I were to actually believe in god, I would need to wonder what he finds so special about you, and not me.”

    Sincerity? Followed by …if I were to actually believe in god…

    You’ve clearly demonstrated the difference between you and me.

    May you find God and salvation before your end. Amen.

  499. on 12 Mar 2015 at 3:33 pm 499.Hell Yeah said …

    “and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.”
    “You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.”

    These types of bible passages were put in the bible because the bible writers realized there will be people out there that know the bible isn’t real and will tell the bible believers, and in order to keep people believing they need to make it look like they predicted the false prophets and doubters. This is how the bible keeps is mass amount of gullible followers. They also threaten them with hell if they question or stop believing. It is brainwashing at it’s best.

  500. on 12 Mar 2015 at 3:53 pm 500.DPK said …

    498.TJ said …
    “I asked you from an objective point of view as someone who had read the Bible twice “why won’t God intervene”?
    The answer of course is that the personified God ie. Jesus Christ was put to death, rose again and left to prepare a place for us with the promise to return at a future time.”

    “The answer of COURSE?” What about wherever two or more of you are gathered in my name, I am among you?” What about the idea that god is omni-present and exists throughout ALL time? Now he has to go to prepare a place and he’s too busy??? Again, you must pile up so many restrictions on your omnipotent god in order to justify the obvious contradictions.

    So, now your claim is that god no longer intervenes in human affairs at all? That business about promising to hear and answer prayers was a lie? In sort, god in modern times acts exactly like no god at all? So how are we to know the difference? Why do you pray if god has left the building? Why does god instruct us to pray with the assurance that whatever we ask for in accordance with his will, will in fact be done? Your claim now seems to be that that is a meaningless exercise. What of all the people who have claimed miracles and direct answers to prayers between the time that god left and now? Are you saying that their answered prayers where in fact just a co-incidence that they were able to interpret as god’s intervention and that miracles currently do not in fact occur?

    A while back you asked me if I thought there were religions who’s teachings were not in accordance with a literal interpretation of the bible as written.

    I replied that, having read the bible and being somewhat aware that there somewhere around 42,000 different Christian sects, and many of them disagree significantly on what the bible says as the actual word of god, that it was a very simple matter to use the bible to support or deny almost any claim your choose to make. To this you scoffed.

    There is probably no greater evidence of this than during the fight over abolition in the US. Both sides of the slavery issue claimed god supported their side and could produce biblical quotes to back it up.

    Now, I have presented you with questions based directly on promises made by god in the bible. Rather than address the issues presented, you deflect with “You completely ignore…” a rather disingenuous tactic of “but, but, but….” followed by threats of fire and brimstone and a suggestion of repentance before its too late.

    So, you are guilty of the same tactic of providing contrasting cherry picked verses from the bible to support your own agenda, while at the same time completely ignoring the verses from the very same book that say just the opposite. Pot, meet Kettle.

    That’s not an answer, and it doesn’t even approach an explanation.

    There is one however. It is simple and explains all the problems and contradictions. You will simply not consider it though, so you must continue this torturous, twisting dance of contradictions and circular logic. Which you are certainly entitled too if it suits you. Just don’t get all indignant when someone like me points out that the Emperor has no clothes.

    I am not the least surprised that your only option in response the the very real questions posed you is to try and move the goalposts.

    “You claim God is imaginary, but at the same time claim to know what is and what is not the will of said imaginary being.”

    Don’t be disingenuous. I have never been deceptive. I do not believe that your god, or any god actually exists, but I am open to the idea if you can provide me with any valid evidence that he does.

    I do not “claim to know” the will of an imaginary being… that is your domain. You claim to know what god wants us to do. Despite that, you also admit to ignoring the laws that god clearly prescribed in the bible because you say they don’t apply to you, even though Jesus himself said that those laws will not change until “Heaven and Earth pass away.”

    The questions I have presented you here recently are not based on what I think the will of god is. They are based on things god has supposedly said, quite plainly, in the bible… his supposed instructions to man. And you answer to them is………..?

  501. on 12 Mar 2015 at 4:07 pm 501.DPK said …

    “These types of bible passages were put in the bible because the bible writers realized there will be people out there that know the bible isn’t real and will tell the bible believers, and in order to keep people believing they need to make it look like they predicted the false prophets and doubters. This is how the bible keeps is mass amount of gullible followers. They also threaten them with hell if they question or stop believing. It is brainwashing at it’s best.”

    It’s pretty brilliant really. The ultimate con game. If I wanted to convince someone to buy my bullshit story, the first thing I’d do is make not believing it the ultimate, unforgivable sin with no chance for redemption. Check.
    Next I would “predict” that some people will call “bullshit” and that listening to them would be the path to certain doom. Miraculously, my prediction would come true. Check.
    Next, I would promise a spectacular reward, something really amazing… like an eternal life of joy and happiness in a magical kingdom with no worries and nothing but bliss for those that believed, but an eternity of torment and suffering forever and ever, and ever for those that doubted. Of course, there would be no possibility of actually verifying these claims until after you are dead. Check.
    I would also promise an extra special reward for those who gave their lives, or their money, or their property to the cause. Special treatment…. after you’re dead of course.
    PT Barnum’s got nothing on religions.

  502. on 12 Mar 2015 at 5:32 pm 502.Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    Lol!!!! I love the conspiracy theories of the radical atheist.

    OK, lets make up a false religion where the leader is murdered and hung on a cross. Then lets show how all His disciples accept for one died martyrs deaths because they followed the Leader.

    Oh, yeah, the perfect marketing schemes that would give the great conspirators control!

    ROTFL!!!!

    One of the greatest proofs for Gods existence is the insistence of non-believers to continue to argue there is no God with such passion. People are only passionate about things that bring emotion. Atheist truly know they are living a lie and thus the passion.

  503. on 12 Mar 2015 at 8:23 pm 503.Hell Yeah said …

    “One of the greatest proofs for Gods existence is the insistence of non-believers to continue to argue there is no God with such passion.”

    All this time we have been waiting for Mr. Prick to come up with proof that a god exists, and this is the best he can do? He claims the evidence is because of insistence with passion from the group that doesn’t believe because of lack of evidence? I didn’t realize trying to point out to the other group they are probably wrong and because of the importance and consequences of the wrong beliefs brings out passion, that it is proof that the wrong beliefs are real. Keep trying. LOL. You are just in denial.

    ————–

    “Atheist truly know they are living a lie and thus the passion.”

    Yes, you got us. Many of us who used to believe decided to believe the lie that god probably isn’t real even though there is so much evidence for god. Now why would we do that? LOL. Or did we just wake up to reality because of the lack of evidence?

  504. on 12 Mar 2015 at 11:37 pm 504.DPK said …

    Another gem of reasoning from A, or whoever he is masquerading as today:
    “One of the greatest proofs for Gods existence is the insistence of non-believers to continue to argue there is no God with such passion.”
    Yes indeed, that is the greatest proof you have ever actually offered for gods existence. Just as one of the greatest proofs that the earth is the center of the solar system is the fact that those cranky scientists like Galiello and Copurnicus argued so strongly against it. Lol
    Remember readers, this is from the “science guy” who think that evolution and common decent is “just a theory”… Like some wild ass idea someone dreamt up while on a 3 day bar crawl.
    Notice too, there is not one single shread of evidence or explanation offered. Just the empty assertion. What a buffoon!

  505. on 13 Mar 2015 at 12:35 am 505.Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    I forgot to add

    “cue the God deniers with their passionate pleas of denials”

    They are right on time, passionately denying Gods existence. Don’t we all feel so special they come to cuss at us, and make fun of the God that does not exist….(snicker)

    Lol!!!!! Thanks guy!

  506. on 13 Mar 2015 at 12:56 am 506.Hell Yeah said …

    Is that all Corbis the Prick has now is to come back predicting others will come back to this site? That is a sign of “having nothing to contribute so lets find a way to think something was pointed out”. LOL. My prediction, Corbis the Prick will be back again on this site and will have no proof of the supernatural once again. Hahahahaha!!!! Take that. LOL. What a troll. He is probably getting off while “snickering” as you read this.

  507. on 13 Mar 2015 at 3:09 am 507.DPK said …

    And speaking of nothing to contribute, this little gem really needs to be repeated, lest it is lost in the pile of bullshit offered up recently?
    “Jesus Christ was put to death, rose again and left to prepare a place for us with the promise to return at a future time.”

    This from a god who is all powerful, omnipresent, and lives outside of time. And he needs 2000+ years or more to “prepare a place”! What’s he doing, making beds? Lol maybe all the bathrooms in heaven are pretty dirty and Jesus has been busy cleaning toilets and showers so the guests won’t think he’s a slob!
    That’s why he let those crazy Muslims take down the twin towers, and didn’t notice all the recent beheadings, not to mention the Asian tsunami, the earthquakes in Hati, or the AIDS epidemic in Africa! He’s been too busy “preparing a place”.
    Hysterical.

  508. on 13 Mar 2015 at 3:28 am 508.Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    They’re baaaaccckkkk…. still arguing about a God that does not exist….now its Tsunamis, Muslims, Hati, yada yadda yadda…..ROTFL!!!

    Maybe if they keep talking to one another…reassuring each other they will actually believe what they claim… But we all know that will never happen…:)

  509. on 13 Mar 2015 at 3:41 am 509.DPK said …

    Why don’t you just pray to Jesus that we find the truth and are saved? As long as it is gods will he promised he will do it? Unless he’s too busy cleaning toilets and making sure there are clean towels for your arrival and doesn’t have time to answer your prayers.

  510. on 13 Mar 2015 at 6:02 am 510.TJ said …

    Why don’t you just pray to Jesus that we find the truth and are saved?

    Would you expect that to work?

    If he wants you to choose him of your own free will?
    ——————-

    “Jesus Christ was put to death, rose again and left to prepare a place for us with the promise to return at a future time.”

    “What about wherever two or more of you are gathered in my name, I am among you?” What about the idea that god is omni-present and exists throughout ALL time?”

    The Father = the invisible God that has always been, and will always be.

    This is the natural state of God. Without form, but consisting of all things. The original singularity.

    The Son = The image God created for himself so that he had a form to personify/interact and perform the acts of creation. This is also the form which God uses throughout the old testament Eg. Jacob Wrestles With God, The Lord appears to Abraham etc.

    The Holy Ghost = Is God interacting with the individual on a personal level.

    If two people are gathered and both are filled with the Holy spirit then of course God is technically among them.

    The Holy spirit does not override your personal free will. We would not expect the Holy spirit to take physical form and stop the hands of the be-header.

    John 20:17
    “17Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'””

    Jesus returns to the Father.

    John 14:3
    “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. 3″If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.

    Are dwelling places similar to what we would consider dimensions? I don’t know.

    But we would not expect Jesus to stop the hand of the be-header if he was… elsewhere.

    The Heavenly Father is without form, invisible and residing in Heaven. What action would you expect the Heavenly Father to take that would not conflict with…

    Colossians 1:15
    “15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together”

    Romans 8:29
    29For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

    If part of Gods pre-destined plan was to suffer death in order to rise again creating a pathway for us to follow, and it is his will that we take this offer of our own free will based on faith and trust alone. Then…

    What would asking to be “saved” by God in the face of being be-headed mean? Can you say with any certainty that the ones beheaded where believers or not? Or that they even prayed? As a non-believer what would you have expected to see in order that you may have become a believer?
    ————

    In post 501.

    “It’s pretty brilliant really.” “The ultimate con game”

    Bloody clever goat herders.
    —————

  511. on 13 Mar 2015 at 6:11 am 511.TJ said …

    “The questions I have presented you here recently are not based on what I think the will of god is. They are based on things god has supposedly said, quite plainly, in the bible… his supposed instructions to man. And you answer to them is..?”

    God instructions are based on the way he intended his creation to live. God does not deal in grey areas. Black, white, right and wrong. There is no middle ground. There is no fence sitting.

    “Revelation 3:15-16
    “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold not hot. I wish you were either one of the other! So, because you are lukewarm – neither hot nor cold – I am about to spit you out of my mouth” ”

    It is a pity Alex no longer has a link compiling all that I had written. I could have pointed to where I had been over these things before.

    lets look at Homosexuality.
    He made them male and female. Not male and male.

    God promises Abraham to make him the father of a great nation. Homosexuality impedes this goal. It must have been present within the Israelite’s community for a rule to be established. Other nations and people groups where known to have practiced Homosexuality.

    The rule was zero tolerance and maximum deterrence. Homosexuality is as against God purpose for man and woman today as it was then and at the very beginning. It has not changed.

    cont…

  512. on 13 Mar 2015 at 6:12 am 512.TJ said …

    Why do I tolerate Homosexuality in my community?
    Jesus established a new covenant with all people of the earth. We live in what is known as the “age of grace” (look it up). We longer are required to perform acts, rather faith and trust in God are pre-requisite for salvation.

    Also according to the law, all have sinned. There is no grey area to say one thing is worse than another. All are worthy of death and destruction from the presence of God.

    Jesus warns, “Judge not lest you also be Judged”. I was lost in my sin, but have been accepted and forgiven. There is no reason to expect that a Homosexual may also be accepted and forgiven through faith.

    “John 8:7
    “But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.””

    I am not willing to throw any stones, are you?

    I am not ignoring God’s laws saying “they do not apply to me”. I understand they are as relevant as they have always been. I understand that they are unobtainable in the “fallen world” we live in. As sinners, we cannot uphold them. And it is not my place nor do I have the authority, nor have I been commissioned, ordained, sanctioned, certified or otherwise permitted to pass Judgement or sentence.

    Besides, I am to try to love others as myself.

    My reasoning remains the same for any other Law you may consider.

    Do you accept my answer?

  513. on 13 Mar 2015 at 6:45 am 513.TJ said …

    “I replied that, having read the bible and being somewhat aware that there somewhere around 42,000 different Christian sects, and many of them disagree significantly on what the bible says as the actual word of god, that it was a very simple matter to use the bible to support or deny almost any CLAIM YOURchoose to make. To this you scoffed.”

    Copy of post 481…

    “DPK,
    Having read the Bible twice you would have noted that what religion’s teach is often vastly in contrast to what is actually written.
    What is your opinion on this?”

    Copy from 483

    “I think it is not a difficult task to find passages in the bible that support almost any “teaching” one might claim. It just requires a bit of cherry picking. Which is why, to accept it as the perfect word of a prefect being is absurd”
    Have I not?, from the beginning maintained that the only way to approach any document, text or scripture is to take it based on what it literally says? Not to be influenced/bias by what others may say, teach or promote.
    Haven’t I said that the only way to truly perceive something is to experience it for yourself as you cannot trust the interpretations of others solely based on their word?
    You say, you read the Bible twice. So, I am asking you, not ‘any “teaching” one might claim’. Why doesn’t God intervene?… based on your reading of the Bible twice.”

    Is this what you consider scoffing?

  514. on 13 Mar 2015 at 3:43 pm 514.DPK said …

    “Why don’t you just pray to Jesus that we find the truth and are saved?
    Would you expect that to work?”

    Honestly, I would not expect it to work, but worth a try, isn’t it? I mean god seems to help people find their car keys every day, and narrowly avoid traffic accidents. I would believe of my own free will if god would just give me a reason to.

    “If two people are gathered and both are filled with the Holy spirit then of course God is technically among them.
    The Holy spirit does not override your personal free will. We would not expect the Holy spirit to take physical form and stop the hands of the be-header.”

    I won’t bother re-stating all these mind bending restrictions and excuses as to why god does not do what he plainly states in the bible on many occasions he will do But let me get this straight:

    God the Father lives in all places and at all times, but he is not of the physical world, so he does not interfere in human events like he did in the old testament because he made Jesus to do that.
    Jesus is also God, but he lives in a physical world and performed many miracles and made many promises, including “whatever you ask of the father in my name, I will do it.” But he doesn’t do that because he isn’t here… he is physically off in some other physical realm, presumably building dormitories or something in preparation for “us”. So he doesn’t hear our prayers, or is unable to do anything about them because he is busy. But he is also in reality god the father too, but that doesn’t count.
    God the Holy Spirit is also with us at all times, but he doesn’t actually do anything but make us feel warm and fuzzy inside. Intervening in the physical world is just not in his job description. Am I on track so far?

    “If part of Gods pre-destined plan was to suffer death in order to rise again creating a pathway for us to follow, and it is his will that we take this offer of our own free will based on faith and trust alone.”

    Ok, so back to the predestined plan again. You need to decide if he has one or he doesn’t dude. Can’t have it both ways. If his predestined plan was for you to suffer beheading, then it was his predestined plan for the executioner to behead you. What about his free will? He couldn’t have any if god predestined he would kill you…. dude, you’re talking like a crack head.
    If god’s predestined plan was that the WTC towers fall and thousands die because of some greater plan, then the hijackers are blameless puppets who were acting in accordance with god’s will.

    So, let’s try and review. God promises on many many occasions to listen and answer our prayers if they are in accordance with his will… which basically means he will do exactly what he was going to do regardless of if you pray for it or not. But he doesn’t actually interfere in the physical world because he doesn’t want to interfere with our free will. Now this same god who will not reveal himself to me in order to save my eternal soul because I must choose him of my own will completely on faith, but showed up to Abraham and told him to kill his own son and then stopped him at the last minute. This eternal and unchanging god who used to show up all the time, now doesn’t. Ok.
    Then we have Jesus, the same god, who also promised to answer our prayers, but doesn’t because he is no “here” and is busy with a project that is taking a very long time to complete. (I bet they have union workers in heaven and they’re just milking the overtime)
    Then we have the Holy Spirit, who is only where we ask him to be, but doesn’t actually do anything because he can’t.

    So, I ask you again directly:
    So, now your claim is that god no longer intervenes in human affairs at all? That business about promising to hear and answer prayers was a lie? In sort, god in modern times acts exactly like no god at all? So how are we to know the difference? Why do you pray if god has left the building? Why does god instruct us to pray with the assurance that whatever we ask for in accordance with his will, will in fact be done? Your claim now seems to be that that is a meaningless exercise. What of all the people who have claimed miracles and direct answers to prayers between the time that god left and now? Are you saying that their answered prayers where in fact just a co-incidence that they were able to interpret as god’s intervention and that miracles currently do not in fact occur?

    “God instructions are based on the way he intended his creation to live. God does not deal in grey areas. Black, white, right and wrong. There is no middle ground. There is no fence sitting.”
    Ok, so then, I ask you once again. Why haven’t you stoned anyone to death as god commands you to?:
    “They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. … And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones…. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses”
    “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
    “And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.”
    “If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.”
    Black and white, I agree…. you need to get busy. Or is that not waht god “really” meant? Kind of like when he promises to answer prayers, but doesn’t.

    Don’t you see how deep your rabbit hole is getting. Advice, when you dig yourself into a hole, step one is to stop digging.

  515. on 13 Mar 2015 at 4:03 pm 515.DPK said …

    “Besides, I am to try to love others as myself.
    My reasoning remains the same for any other Law you may consider.
    Do you accept my answer?”

    Of course I accept your answer. I don’t think you are a blood thirsty killer. LOL
    But do you see that you have done EXACTLY what I said you would do? You have choosen selected verses from the bible to support your OWN sense of what is right and wrong, and selectively ignored others that CLEARLY contradict them. The bible is FULL of such contradictions, and one can use it to support almost any agenda or idea.
    We can show that god condemns homosexuals, but Jesus loves everyone. We can show that god promises to answer prayers, but won’t interfere in human affairs because he wants us to have free will. We can show that god has a plan, and everything unfolds exactly according to his plan, but we have free will to change it if we want to, except we can’t, but we can…. but not really.
    We can see that god has laid down rules for us to live by, and declared that they are eternal and unchanging, except we don’t have to actually follow the anymore because after all, everyone knows that it would be wrong to kill a woman for being raped, or to own slaves, no less beat them to withing an inch (or more accurately, three days) of their lives. We can show that god wants us to kill non-believers and anyone who worships other gods, but we have no right to judge them and of course, killing is wrong… unless god specifically commands it, then it isn’t wrong, because god can’t be wrong, but we still shouldn’t do it.
    Man…. this makes my head spin. No wonder Twain said “Faith is believing in stuff you know ain’t so.”

    Again, there is a far simpler explanation that avoids all these contradictions and mind numbing mental gymnastics you must do. It fits perfectly with reality as we observe it and does not require endless amounts of rationalizations. Perhaps one day you will come to realize that reality exists despite what you wish.

  516. on 14 Mar 2015 at 9:49 am 516.TJ said …

    There is every chance that I may be completely wrong.

    Jesus’s last words where, “it is finished”.

    Many believe that this indicates that Jesus had completed all the works required to fulfill mankind’s redemption.

    Prayers being answered, miracles worked are often claimed to be God working through people via the Holy spirit.

    I do not claim to have witnessed any miracles. I would say some prayers have been answered. This often takes time and it is usually based upon what I most needed as apposed to what I may have desired. You may say it is coincidence or whatever. It makes no difference to me.

    I do not have all the answers, if any. You’ve asked questions, I’ve attempted to answer. But on a personal level I have all the evidence I need.

    Call it blind faith if you will. But my eyes are open. I have never said I was unbiased.

    Let’s say your simple explanation is correct. Where does this leave you? As far as origins are concerned, you still don’t know?

    If I was out killing people you would condemn me, no? But what would be the basis of your condemnation. After all animals kill each other all the time. What makes one thing wrong or another right? Is morality a product of the imagination? What are the rationalizations one must use to wade through the moral complexities that make up the human condition?

  517. on 14 Mar 2015 at 3:04 pm 517.Anonymous said …

    You guys are hitting the heart of the matter.

    Instead of a fallen world saving Jesus/God

    You are proposing a fallen God/Jesus and a saved world.

    Like your style.

    At this rate we will all be able to do pot, engage in free love, gamble and swear like pirates without the voyeur church looking over our backs.

    Bye Bye papacy, bye bye bible belt, bye bye creationism in schools.

    DYG.

  518. on 14 Mar 2015 at 3:46 pm 518.DPK said …

    on 14 Mar 2015 at 9:49 am 516.TJ said …
    There is every chance that I may be completely wrong.

    Thank you for your honesty.

    Jesus’s last words where, “it is finished”.
    Many believe that this indicates that Jesus had completed all the works required to fulfill mankind’s redemption.

    But according to Revalations, there is much that must occur before ” all is finished”.

    Prayers being answered, miracles worked are often claimed to be God working through people via the Holy spirit.

    And they are also often claimed to be Allah destroying the infidels, just as in the past they were claimed to be angry volcano gods and other gods which we now know we’re also completely imaginary. So Your point is rather diluted.

    I do not claim to have witnessed any miracles. I would say some prayers have been answered. This often takes time and it is usually based upon what I most needed as apposed to what I may have desired. You may say it is coincidence or whatever. It makes no difference to me.

    The fact that it makes no difference to you whether it is actually a Devine being intervening in the physical world or simply a coincidence because, well sometimes good thing happen and sometimes bad thing happen, and other times different things happen is rather startling. You really care so little about truth that it “makes no difference?
    I do not have all the answers, if any. You’ve asked questions, I’ve attempted to answer. But on a personal level I have all the evidence I need.

    And how do you conclude that your “personal level” is any more valid, than mine, which leads me to the conclusion that gods are imaginary, or of the Muslim who’s personal experience leads him to conclude that god wants him to behead infidels and fly planes into buildings?

    Call it blind faith if you will. But my eyes are open. I have never said I was unbiased.
    Let’s say your simple explanation is correct. Where does this leave you? As far as origins are concerned, you still don’t know?

    Origins again? Is that your last retreat? No, I don’t know… And respectfully, neither do you. Pretending you do doesn’t make it so.

    “Science works on the frontier between knowledge and ignorance. We’re not afraid to admit what we don’t know. There’s no shame in that. The only shame is to pretend that we have all the answers.”.

    If I was out killing people you would condemn me, no? But what would be the basis of your condemnation. After all animals kill each other all the time. What makes one thing wrong or another right? Is morality a product of the imagination? What are the rationalizations one must use to wade through the moral complexities that make up the human condition?

    Morality and ethics is not a simple subject and is based on society. You profess an absolute morality that is black and white, while at the same time instructs us to kill homosexuals, adulterers, and rape victims, while admonishing us not to kill and love our neighbors. You have a god who instructs slaves to be obedient to their masters and provides instructs us on the proper way to beat them and how to sell our daughters into slavery, but tells us we are all loved equally in his eyes. You offer an all loving god who instructed his followers to rip open the bellies of pregnant women and dash their babies upon rocks. The same god who punishes all humanity for the “sin” of a single individual who did exactly what he knew she would do for all eternity before he even created her.
    So, what are the rationalizations you must wade through to explain the moral complexities that make up your religious beliefs?

  519. on 14 Mar 2015 at 4:02 pm 519.Anonymous said …

    Confrontation does it every time.

    Confront your fears.

    Confront the myths.

    Confront the straw men.

    Confront your habits.

    Confront the leaches on your psychology on your thinking.

    Confront the monsters and slay them and the dragons and slay them.

    Confrontation is man’s last hope

  520. on 14 Mar 2015 at 4:03 pm 520.Anonymous said …

    No confrontation, No victory.

  521. on 14 Mar 2015 at 8:55 pm 521.Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    Ok

    I am inspired, I am confronting.

    Anony (Freddie)

    Give me any evidence the Deity does not exist. Maybe prove the origin of life was not from the Deity or show us the remarkable programmer that nature is hiding.

    Going for the victory here big guy. Time to bring it!

    Lol!!

  522. on 14 Mar 2015 at 9:19 pm 522.Hell Yeah said …

    “Give me any evidence the Deity does not exist.”

    Here we go again. How does one not understand that you are making the positive claim a deity exists. You are the one that needs evidence. Otherwise I can say prove that “insert anything here that is invisible” exists. You are making the extraordinary claim, so you need the extraordinary evidence.

  523. on 14 Mar 2015 at 9:22 pm 523.Hell Yeah said …

    “Otherwise I can say prove that “insert anything here that is invisible” exists.”

    I meant to say “doesn’t exist”.

  524. on 14 Mar 2015 at 9:52 pm 524.Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    “How does one not understand that you are making the positive claim a deity exists. ?

    Um, no, Fred aka Anony asked me to confront so I confronted. He said it was the last hope, so lets see if he can bring it.

    I haven’t asked you to prove anything exists other than scientific evidence supporting a DNA programmer in nature…? Well?…..

    Anything you believe in that I do not believe in concerns me not in the least. That’s real unbelief….lol!!!!!….still hoping to convince yourself, eh?…:)

  525. on 15 Mar 2015 at 12:05 am 525.Anonymous said …

    Prick/Wooten/Horatio/whoever you post as:

    People are only passionate about things that bring emotion.

    And if that passion involves a single person with an invisible friend, they’re psychotic. When a group has an invisible friend, it’s called religion.

  526. on 15 Mar 2015 at 1:35 am 526.Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    Fred the anonymous one:

    I gave you a challenge just as you asked for but all you can provide is fallacies? We are talking about a Deity not any religion….try and focus here? Lol!!!!

    That’s it huh?

    You have been confronted with a challenge and your response to this point has been non-existent.

    Lets watch what Fred mouse comes up with this time……….:)

  527. on 15 Mar 2015 at 4:01 am 527.Anonymous said …

    Prick/Wooten/little “a”/ etc:

    Where did Corbis come from? Why not just revert back to Horatio? Oh yeah, the excess baggage with that sock puppet built up way too much…..Are you back on the sauce?

  528. on 15 Mar 2015 at 9:49 am 528.Anonymous said …

    All those voyeur christians that make other peoples lives their business and other peoples sex lives their business should be bent over and fucked up the ass by a bunch of aids victims, and gay aids victims.

    I think that is the proper use of aids.

    Let them also greet ebola aids victims with a holy kiss on the ebola victim’s asshole.

  529. on 15 Mar 2015 at 10:30 am 529.Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    Readers,

    There you go. Diversions, fallacies and hate is all Fred the anony one has to offer.

    He is right though, the challenge I gave home gave me another victory..:)

  530. on 15 Mar 2015 at 10:34 am 530.Anonymous said …

    i believe jesus was a really nice guy.

    but the bible and the basic christian tenents are the closest the 1st century had to offer mankind in terms of spiritual malware, emotional malware, cultural malware social malware.

    maybe jesus was a great guy and a social charmer but modern day christians and modern day christianity are nothing but bewitchery and psychosis combined in a really dangerous.

  531. on 15 Mar 2015 at 10:36 am 531.Anonymous said …

    i believe jesus was a really nice guy.

    but the bible and the basic christian tenents are the closest the 1st century had to offer mankind in terms of spiritual malware, emotional malware, cultural and malware social malware.

    maybe jesus was a great guy and a social charmer but modern day christians and modern day christianity are nothing but bewitchery and psychosis combined in a really dangerous way.

  532. on 15 Mar 2015 at 10:38 am 532.Anonymous said …

    i believe jesus was a really nice guy.

    but the bible and the basic christian tenets are the closest the 1st century had to offer mankind in terms of spiritual malware, emotional malware, cultural malware and social malware.

    maybe jesus was a great guy and a social charmer but modern day christians and modern day christianity are nothing but bewitchery and psychosis combined in a really dangerous way.

    the virus is even affecting my use of the computer.

    yep religion remains public enemy no 1.

  533. on 15 Mar 2015 at 8:02 pm 533.Hell Yeah said …

    “He is right though, the challenge I gave home gave me another victory..:)”

    A victory in what? LOL. You can tell yourself whatever you want. Just like believers think they are talking to god when they are actually talking to themselves.

    ————

    “We are talking about a Deity not any religion”

    Umm…usually religions have a deity. Trying to play word games doesn’t make you victorious. LOL.

    ————

    Still waiting for proof for the supernatural, Mr. Prick. Come on, any kind of supernatural. It doesn’t matter how things were made if it had nothing to do with the supernatural. And it doesn’t matter if a deity for some reason did create the universe and left it alone, where is the proof that there is an afterlife for the human species? That is a lot you need to prove there. First, a deity, then the afterlife. A deity doesn’t automatically mean an afterlife exists, too, and an afterlife is what all believers are banking on.

  534. on 15 Mar 2015 at 10:26 pm 534.Anonymous said …

    Corbis/science guy/Horatio/Wooten and the other puppets:

    There you go. Diversions, fallacies and hate

    The things you put down on this blog make you the King of Obfuscation. Do you ever read any of the rants you submit? The words drip stupidity and irony…. like calling yourself a science guy is over the top irony.
    Everyone here gets that you need a god to protect yourself from the evils of thunder water, Kemosabe. Next step for you is to reject logic and reason and accept jesus to help the “recovery” process.

  535. on 16 Mar 2015 at 12:45 am 535.TJ said …

    DPK,
    “And how do you conclude that your “personal level” is any more valid, than mine, which leads me to the conclusion that gods are imaginary, or of the Muslim who’s personal experience leads him to conclude that god wants him to behead infidels and fly planes into buildings?”

    I conclude that my “personal level” is more valid to me, in the same way that you conclude that your “personal level” is of more value to yourself than mine is.

    We must all take responsibility for our own ability to use our faculties that enable us to determine logic and reason. If we don’t, then who’s should we substitute for our own?

    The Bible’s truths or lack of, do not depend on my ability to explain them. I have simply reached a conclusion. It is different to yours. I can respect that.

    I wish you well DKP.

  536. on 16 Mar 2015 at 12:46 am 536.TJ said …

    My bad… I meant DPK not DKP.

  537. on 16 Mar 2015 at 2:56 am 537.Anonymous said …

    TJ:

    We must all take responsibility for our own ability to use our faculties that enable us to determine logic and reason. If we don’t, then who’s should we substitute for our own?

    God, or, rather, a belief in a god, lays outside of the realms of logic and reason. Isn’t it called FAITH after all????…meaning it requires no reasonable explanation to accept. The threshold of acceptance is lowered and completely outside of scientific testability. Hence the preponderance of young earth’s, Phelps Baptists, Televangelists such as Hinn, etc, etc….

    Say, TJ, that you’ve accepted the Christian view of a god. How did you choose which version to support? That’s right, it’s the one that makes you feel warm and fuzzy. To the outside observer it requires no explanation from you.

    Further observation of the god believer can reveal the depth of the infection. Just ask “science guy” the age of the planet Earth and then sit and watch the dance begin. Science guy indeed….pffffft!!!

  538. on 16 Mar 2015 at 2:57 am 538.Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    “A victory in what?”

    lol!!!, you atheists need to talk. That is your buddy, fred (aka anony)’s claim. Not my claim. I was hoping you guys might share what the victory is all about…:(

    “Umm…usually religions have a deity.”

    Buddhism, Jain & Taoism have no deity. Some forms on Hinduism as well. Really, you would do well to remain silent rather than responding and showing such ignorance…..:)

    Then Mr Yeah babbles on about an afterlife, maybe dragons and bunnies will come up to. Focus is a real problem for Mr yeah, and lack of knowledge…:)

  539. on 16 Mar 2015 at 2:58 am 539.Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    So lets remind Fred, er uh, Anony of his “challenge”. Also Mr Yeah and I would like to know what the “victory” would encompass. But, again here is the challenge you asked for Mousey!

    I am inspired, I am confronting.

    Anony (Freddie)

    Give me any evidence the Deity does not exist. Maybe prove the origin of life was not from the Deity or show us the remarkable programmer that nature is hiding.

    Going for the victory here big guy. Time to bring it!

    Lol!!

  540. on 16 Mar 2015 at 3:01 am 540.Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    Mousey’s guidelines,

    Your confrontation must meet the guidelines of the scientific method. You are a materialist and have no other choice. I am a man of science and will accept nothing less.

    Late!

    lol!!

  541. on 16 Mar 2015 at 4:11 am 541.Anonymous said …

    Corb the Prick:

    I am a man of science and will accept nothing less.
    Late!

    man of science (suppressing a chuckle!!!): the age of the Earth is_________. What’s your guess? Let’s examine how reason and logic doesn’t work when god is the final and only outcome (aka FAITH in action)….. See, TJ, the infection runs deep with this one. The dance of obfuscation has started.

    Wooten, again:

    Give me any evidence the Deity does not exist.

    Whoa, there Kemosabe. First of all: You should be asking for evidence of “a god” not of “the god”. Which is “the deity” you want disproven? If it’s one of the numerous christian gods, just read the bible.

  542. on 16 Mar 2015 at 4:47 am 542.Hell Yeah said …

    “A victory in what?”
    “That is your buddy, fred (aka anony)’s claim. Not my claim. ”

    And to quote you again: “He is right though, the challenge I gave home gave me another victory..:)”

    So when you say “gave me another victory”, it wasn’t you claiming a victory? LOL.

    ————-

    “Buddhism, Jain & Taoism have no deity. Some forms on Hinduism as well. Really, you would do well to remain silent rather than responding and showing such ignorance…..:)”

    There goes Mr. Prick with word games again. I said “usually” religions have a deity because you mentioned it has to be a deity talked about, not religions. And I was pointing out that for the most part religions are about a deity.

    ————

    “Then Mr Yeah babbles on about an afterlife”

    Yeah, because I keep on trying to bring up the afterlife topic since that is the major reason for following a deity, isn’t it? Otherwise, even if there was a deity but no afterlife, would anyone really give a damn about the deity existing or not? I was trying to point out that in order for there to be that afterlife everyone wants, there needs to be proof of that deity first and then there needs to be proof of the afterlife. Two separate extraordinary claims by “believers” that need extraordinary evidence. So, please tell me, why keep on dodging the whole afterlife question, but you have so much passion for trying to point out a deity must exist?

    ————–

    “Give me any evidence the Deity does not exist.”

    Again, you are making the claim a deity exists, so you need proof. It doesn’t matter if the origin of life isn’t 100% explainable at this point in human history (notice I said at this point in human history and 100%). Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean goddidit. You need “scientific” proof for that deity to exist.

    ————–

    “I am a man of science and will accept nothing less.”

    So where is your “scientific” proof for a god or any kind of supernatural? What part of science did you use to determine this deity? Did you find a new supernatural element that you can add to the periodic table that you can name? By the way, creationism isn’t science incase you were thinking that.

  543. on 16 Mar 2015 at 11:31 am 543.Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    LOL!!!

    Look at Fred ak anonymous! He puts out these two posts about garnering victories, confrontation and mind you twice I give him a chance to earn those victories, and he swings right through the pitch. The dude cannot even foul one back.

    So he can’t handle the fast ball so what does he do? Like a good atheist he change the subject, the subject he brought up I the first place! Lol!!!!

    It just too good!

  544. on 16 Mar 2015 at 11:38 am 544.Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    “I said “usually” religions have a deity ”

    Then no need to bring it up. You point is moot! Lol!!! Add atheism to the list.

    “So where is your “scientific” proof for a god or any kind of supernatural?”

    Readers, notice how the atheist, strict materialist, rather than addressing the two questions concerning DNA and Origins revert to once again at an attempt to change the subject…..sigh……

    #Timediddit

  545. on 16 Mar 2015 at 2:51 pm 545.freddies_dead said …

    I see A’s dishonesty is making him look like an idiot again. Just because he dishonestly pretends to be other users he thinks everyone else must do the same thing. He’s wrong, but there’s nothing new there.

    As for his original “request”…

    521.A the lying prick posting as Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    Ok

    I am inspired, I am confronting.

    How does A know this? After all he’s told us he can’t trust his senses, so how does he know he’s doing anything specific? He could be fishing or salsa dancing for all he knows as he demands that his senses are faulty. Not that he’d be able to know that either as he’d be relying on those same senses to make the determination that they don’t work. I do love the absurdity inherent in A’s position.

    Anony (Freddie)

    Give me any evidence the Deity does not exist.

    Just how will A know whether I’ve presented evidence or not? After all he insists he cannot know anything as his senses are invalid.

    However, I have already given an argument which demonstrates that creator Deities such as the Christian God do not exist – thanks to the metaphysical primacy of existence.

    Premise 1: If the primacy of consciousness is invalid, then the claim that God exists is false.
    Premise 2: The primacy of consciousness is invalid.
    Conclusion: Therefore, the claim that God exists is false.

    I also gave the expanded version which demonstrated the validity of the premises – feel free to scroll up to post #375.

    A ran away from interacting with that argument, preferring instead to ad hominem Rand. I know this is because he does not have any response. Not even his imaginary God could help him.

    Maybe prove the origin of life was not from the Deity or show us the remarkable programmer that nature is hiding.

    Firstly, why is A still making this request when he’s already conceded that there is absolutely no barrier to DNA (and hence life) forming naturally (back in post #367)?

    Secondly, having already demonstrated the non-existence of a creator Deity, then I’ve also proven that the origin of life wasn’t divine.

    Going for the victory here big guy. Time to bring it!

    I already brought it. A lost this argument a long time ago, I guess it’s his faulty senses that stop him from realising that fact.

    Lol!!

    Indeed.

  546. on 16 Mar 2015 at 2:57 pm 546.Anonymous said …

    Corb the Prick

    …rather than addressing the two questions concerning DNA and Origins revert to once again at an attempt to change the subject

    I lobbed a slow floater and you still weaved, ducked, and dodged. From your post in #526:

    You have been confronted with a challenge and your response to this point has been non-existent.

    Any discussion for these subjects begins with time frames such as the age of the Earth and Universe……any REAL science guy knows that. Who knows….Maybe you’re a young earther? In that case there would be no point carrying on.
    Will you remain non-committal to answering? YES
    Will you stall? YES
    Will you answer? NO

    I totally get that you don’t want to isolate yourself from other christians. Yes, the infection is very deep with you.

  547. on 16 Mar 2015 at 4:19 pm 547.Hell Yeah said …

    “Corb the Prick
    …rather than addressing the two questions concerning DNA and Origins revert to once again at an attempt to change the subject
    I lobbed a slow floater and you still weaved, ducked, and dodged. From your post in #526:
    “You have been confronted with a challenge and your response to this point has been non-existent.”
    Any discussion for these subjects begins with time frames such as the age of the Earth and Universe”

    Anonymous, I already went through this with Mr. Prick. Billions of years doesn’t matter to him. And that billions of years along with evolution and natural selection somehow confuses him. And so because he doesn’t completely understand yet what that could mean for DNA, he automatically claims it was a deity, with no evidence of a deity. He wants 100% evidence for his DNA and Origins, but yet he accepts 0% evidence for a deity as an alternative resort.

    ————–

    “Readers, notice how the atheist, strict materialist, rather than addressing the two questions concerning DNA and Origins revert to once again at an attempt to change the subject”

    Mr. Prick, we already went through this before. Is your mind like a gold fish where you forget all past conversations after a couple days? First of all, there is plenty of information on your complex DNA out there. Just because it isn’t 100% at this time in human history doesn’t mean a deity did it. Where is your proof that a deity did it then? You keep dodging that. Also, what is your stance on the afterlife? Would it even matter if a deity did somehow do it and when this deity did create the universe left it alone, and then there is no afterlife? It could be a deity that isn’t even associated with any religions. Would it really matter if a deity exits or not without the afterlife? So again to sum up, you first need to prove a deity, then you need to prove this deity created an afterlife for humans. You want 100% proof for your complex DNA, but yet you don’t need any proof for a deity? That doesn’t make sense. If you don’t understand something in the natural world, then keep looking for the natural answer instead of assuming something supernatural did it without any proof.

    You also keep dodging the question in what scientific method did you use for evidence of this deity? You claim to be a man of science and that your confrontation must meet the guidelines of the scientific method. Your not understanding of complex DNA by the natural method isn’t scientific proof for your supernatural alternative.

  548. on 16 Mar 2015 at 5:56 pm 548.Anonymous said …

    define deluded – christians expecting joy on an athiest website.

  549. on 16 Mar 2015 at 6:42 pm 549.Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    ROTFL!!!!!

    We now have Fred posting under two handles to cover….lol!!!

    As Fred he brings up Rand again where he failed to prove his senses are infallible.

    As anony he continues to ignore the confrontation I have given him that he asks for???? Rather he babbles about the age of the earth/universe/teddy bears….snicker….

    Mousey, come on now, follow through on your request then we can move on to age. A reminder….

    You have been confronted with a challenge and your response to this point has been non-existent.

  550. on 16 Mar 2015 at 7:54 pm 550.Hell Yeah said …

    “We now have Fred posting under two handles to cover….lol!!!”

    Any normal person can clearly see the new recent Anonymous and freddies_dead are two different people. Two different writing styles and why would Fred need to do that? Clearly the default is Anonymous for anyone who doesn’t enter a name, which seems to happen quite often, so it can sometimes be hard to keep track which Anonymous is which. So anyone who reads this that uses Anonymous, please use a different name so the default can be easier to distinguish for Mr. Prick since he has a learning disability.

    —————

    “As anony he continues to ignore the confrontation I have given him that he asks for???? Rather he babbles about the age of the earth/universe/teddy bears….snicker….”

    Teddy bears? Mr. Prick is so delusional he doesn’t even understand what he is reading. And apparently he doesn’t like to answer for where his proof is for a deity and doesn’t like to talk about an afterlife. I take it this means Mr. Prick doesn’t believe in an afterlife just like us Agnostics/Atheists, but yet believes in a deity because humans haven’t discovered 100% of everything there is to know yet, so automatically there must be a deity with no proof. How does Mr. Prick know there is a deity? He can’t provide any proof. Or is he saying that he doesn’t know, but there could be? Welcome to being an Agnostic, Mr. Prick! LOL.

  551. on 16 Mar 2015 at 11:16 pm 551.alex said …

    thats why the dipshit hor/prick/etc got nothing on me. i refuse to indulge the bitch ass motherfucker in the validity of evolution, gravity, dna programming, and some other fucked up bullcorn he insist on bringing up. when called out on it, all he’s got the some bullshit about people playing the sock puppet when he’s the only proven asshole that’s been caught time and time again.

    the other motherfucker tj insist on posting his biblical quotes like it fucking means anything on this goddamn blog. that’s right tj bitch. alls you got is try to bring up the possibility that all scientific methods are possibly wrong. you’ve been told many fucking times. even if everything in science is 100% wrong, it don’t mean your bullshit god is responsible, you dumbass.

  552. on 16 Mar 2015 at 11:26 pm 552.alex said …

    “We now have Fred posting under two handles to cover….lol!!!”

    you dumb bitch. how many times have you been caught sock posting? congrats martin? while posting as martin? not only are you a lying bitch fuck, you’re a proven stupid fuck. remember, ya bitch, when trying to pretend to speak to somebody, check the name box, you asshole. make sure it aint the same as your fluff target. do i need to translate for your dumbass?

    your deflection shit ain’t gonna work, ya stupid motherfucker.

  553. on 17 Mar 2015 at 12:49 am 553.Anonymous said …

    Hell Yeah

    So anyone who reads this that uses Anonymous, please use a different name so the default can be easier to distinguish for Mr. Prick since he has a learning disability.

    Just call me the anonymous guy who uses the quoting option. Yeah I know it’s difficult for Corb, but this is actually helping him out with his ADD/ADHD issues – making him concentrate. Speaking of helping out poor old Corb/Prick/Wooten/little “a” I will throw him a lifeline and stop asking for scientific information. He is sinking and unable to tread water for much longer. Especially when I saw he had the doozy:

    Rather he babbles about the age of the earth/universe/teddy bears….snicker….”

    It’s abundantly clear that the realm he inhabits is the one with magic unicorns, fairy dust, and a deity. Like Tinkerbell, god also goes away when you don’t believe in it.

  554. on 17 Mar 2015 at 3:29 am 554.Hell Yeah said …

    “It’s abundantly clear that the realm he inhabits is the one with magic unicorns, fairy dust, and a deity.”

    I know, and Mr. Prick thinks we are the ones living in fairytale land for not thinking a deity is real because of the lack of evidence. It is clear Mr. Prick is just a believer in the “God of the Gaps”. The gaps are shrinking over time, and he is worried he has been wrong this whole time.

  555. on 17 Mar 2015 at 11:02 am 555.freddies_dead said …

    549.A the lying prick posting as Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    ROTFL!!!!!

    We now have Fred posting under two handles to cover….lol!!!

    Even if this was true (it’s not), how would A know this? After all he’s adamant that he can’t actually know anything. He insists his senses are constantly feeding him false information but apparently this doesn’t stop him from making knowledge claims. It’s hilarious.

    However, and as usual, A is simply wrong, but his inherent dishonesty leads him to believe that everyone else is equally as willing to lie about their identity as he is. Hint: they’re not.

    As Fred he brings up Rand again where he failed to prove his senses are infallible.

    How does A know this? With his utterly useless senses how does he know he’s reading a message board and not just looking at melted ice-cream? A won’t tell us, just insists his senses don’t work while continuing to make claims that rely on those senses working all the same. It’s brilliant.

    Of course I never even tried to prove my senses were infallible. What would be the point? Any attempt to prove the senses requires you to use your senses. You’d be trying to prove one of the preconditions for proof. Similarly you’d also need to trust your senses to prove your senses to be wrong – another self-defeating task. The senses are axiomatically valid. If A disagrees with this position then he’s welcome to present an actual argument as to how his senses are faulty and how he knows this to be true. He won’t, because he can’t.

    As anony he continues to ignore the confrontation I have given him that he asks for???? Rather he babbles about the age of the earth/universe/teddy bears….snicker….

    How does A know Anonymous (with the quoting option) is ignoring him? Are his senses telling him that? If so how can A trust them when he insists that they’re faulty? As usual A makes no sense.

    Mousey, come on now, follow through on your request then we can move on to age. A reminder….

    I’m now wondering who A is talking to. I’ve certainly made no request. All I did was answer his “confrontation”. I once more presented the argument from the fact of existence to show that creator deities cannot exist. The corollary of that is that, without a Deity, the origin of life couldn’t possibly be divine.

    You have been confronted with a challenge and your response to this point has been non-existent.

    I see A has absolutely no answer to the argument so instead chooses to ignore the fact that one was presented. Pretty much standard fare from the dishonest one.

  556. on 17 Mar 2015 at 11:21 am 556.Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    Readers.

    Notice how sadly Freddie…..er anonymous run swiftly from their own declarations? They continue to change the subject and resort to ad hominem to muddy the waters. All fallacies of a sort. Let me repost fred..er mouses’s great declaration.

    “Confront your fears.

    Confront the myths.

    Confront the straw men.

    Confront your habits.

    Confront the leaches on your psychology on your thinking.

    Confront the monsters and slay them and the dragons and slay them.

    Confrontation is man’s last hope”

    I provided two questions to confront all of these but they scurry down rabbit trails running from those ominous questions that give them great pause and threaten their worldview. Mouse is indeed an accurate name for this one…..:) lol!!!

  557. on 17 Mar 2015 at 11:29 am 557.MeyrrowLevel said …

    You Christians are too big for yuuur boots.

    Do you think God is going to reward you for running to the internet every day to show off to athiest who are doing their thing?

    Even after the athiest have stepped on your toes your feet still look a bit big for your boots.

    Why not take a fast for the lent season and take a quiet read of the fairytale book with 66 books in it.

    Shuckks..

    You may discover something new.

  558. on 17 Mar 2015 at 3:17 pm 558.freddies_dead said …

    556.A the lying prick posting as Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    Readers.

    Notice how sadly Freddie…..er anonymous run swiftly from their own declarations?

    How does A know this is happening? How does he know he’s not a mental patient dreaming he’s the President while he sits in a corner and drools? After all he keeps insisting that his senses don’t provide him with trustworthy information. So just how does A know anything?

    Moving on, notice how, typically, A doesn’t support his claims with any evidence or an argument. Just what declarations am I supposed to have “run swiftly from”? If he’s talking about his “confrontation” then I answered it in full. Of course the observant amongst you will also have noticed how A has ignored that entirely and done exactly what he accuses me of next instead…

    They continue to change the subject and resort to ad hominem to muddy the waters. All fallacies of a sort.

    How does A know this, etc… etc…?

    The only one changing the subject here is A. He “confronts” me and, when I respond, instead of dealing with the argument I put forward he falsely accuses me of doing the very thing he keeps getting caught doing, i.e. changing his online name in an effort to dupe other readers into thinking he’s someone other than the demonstrably dishonest A. He should also go and read up on what ad hominem actually means as I haven’t committed that fallacy either, 1) because simply pointing out A’s documented history of dishonesty isn’t an attack on his character, it is his character and 2) because he hasn’t actually provided an argument for anyone to avoid by attacking said character. It is A who is trying to muddy the waters by deliberately attempting to conflate Anonymous (with the quoting option) and my responses and then refusing to respond to either, claiming instead that no-one has answered his “confrontation”. It is A who is adamant he can’t know anything, but when pressed on how he knows this he refuses to answer.

    Let me repost fred..er mouses’s great declaration.

    “Confront your fears.

    Confront the myths.

    Confront the straw men.

    Confront your habits.

    Confront the leaches on your psychology on your thinking.

    Confront the monsters and slay them and the dragons and slay them.

    Confrontation is man’s last hope”

    I provided two questions to confront all of these but they scurry down rabbit trails running from those ominous questions that give them great pause and threaten their worldview. Mouse is indeed an accurate name for this one…..:) lol!!!

    Of course A knows full well I didn’t write that comment, but he’s only too happy to continue pretending that Anonymous (with the quoting option) and I are the same person and then dishonestly claiming that no-one has answered his 2 “ominous” questions in order to avoid dealing with the fact that he’s been answered. Maybe it’s his faulty senses that cause him to get all confused about who is who, or maybe it’s just his own inherent dishonesty and the fact that he’s changed his monicker on here so many times maybe he’s no longer sure who even he is anymore? Whatever it is I’m sure he’ll keep on using it to try and claim his “confrontation” remains unanswered despite the fact that I have answered it at least twice on this thread so far.

  559. on 17 Mar 2015 at 3:50 pm 559.Hell Yeah said …

    “Notice how sadly Freddie…..er anonymous run swiftly from their own declarations?”……….”I provided two questions to confront all of these but they scurry down rabbit trails running from those ominous questions that give them great pause and threaten their worldview.”

    Does Mr. Prick like to keep running into the same wall even knowing he can’t get through it? This is just a sign that he knows he has nothing so he pretends he has something and ignores the real questions presented to him constantly. He cherry picks what other people put, just like bible thumpers cherry pick the bible. Watch out, Mr. Prick, you might damage your brain even more if you keep hitting your head against the wall.

    Again, we addressed that Freddie isn’t anonymous. It was also addressed numerous times that complex DNA doesn’t prove a deity, that billions of years of evolution and natural selection can create complex DNA. We aren’t 100% there yet, but keep getting closer every day. Mr. Prick keeps getting asked where his proof is that a deity did it and what part of science he used to determine that, but again he completely ignores it because he has nothing. He is just a believer in the “God of the Gaps”. Our world view isn’t threatened, it is his that is threatened since the gaps keep getting smaller and smaller every day.

  560. on 17 Mar 2015 at 4:24 pm 560.Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    ” billions of years of evolution and natural selection can create complex DNA.”

    LOL!!, Mr Yeah, the apologist for freddie mouse, continues to make the claim that billions of years can write genetic information coding more complex, according, to Bill Gates, than anything man can write.

    Now, what are the materialistic mechanisms available in this billions of years of evolution that can make this happen? Information cannot be considered in the same category as matter and energy. It’s true that matter or energy can carry information, but they are not the same as information itself. Mr Yeah fails to comprehend this truth.

    But according to Mr Yeah……we are closer than ever……..um, right! Then prove it! He believes just saying the same line over and over again some how makes it true, possible and likely…..lol!!!!

  561. on 17 Mar 2015 at 4:31 pm 561.freddies_dead said …

    560.A the lying prick posting as Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    LOL!!, Mr Yeah, the apologist for freddie mouse, continues to make the claim that billions of years can write genetic information coding more complex, according, to Bill Gates, than anything man can write.

    And back in post #367 A conceded that there is no barrier to nature forming DNA, so what exactly is his beef here?

  562. on 17 Mar 2015 at 4:57 pm 562.Hell Yeah said …

    “He believes just saying the same line over and over again some how makes it true, possible and likely…..lol!!!!”

    1+1=2, 1+1=2, 1+1=2, 1+1=2, 1+1=2, 1+1=2………oh, shit, I said the same line of 1+1=2 over and over again, so only that makes it true, instead of logically realizing it is true. LOL.

    Again, Mr. Prick is just a believer in the God of the Gaps and has no proof his God created the Gaps. Just imagine for a minute, all those gaps that we as humans have closed. In the past it was thought that a god created rainbows…..now we know how rainbows are made. That is just one of numerous examples, and the gaps keep on closing. Just face it, that is reality.

  563. on 17 Mar 2015 at 5:10 pm 563.Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    Readers,

    Notice how Mr Yeah keeps changing the subject by introducing a God of the gaps? He is the only one. This is how Mr Yeah admits he cannot prove his claim therefore he will enter a red herring so he does not have to defend his claim.

    Now, what are the materialistic mechanisms available in this billions of years of evolution that can make this happen? Information cannot be considered in the same category as matter and energy. It’s true that matter or energy can carry information, but they are not the same as information itself. Mr Yeah fails to comprehend this truth.

  564. on 17 Mar 2015 at 9:59 pm 564.Hell Yeah said …

    “Notice how Mr Yeah keeps changing the subject by introducing a God of the gaps? He is the only one. This is how Mr Yeah admits he cannot prove his claim therefore he will enter a red herring so he does not have to defend his claim.”

    LOL. We already went over complex DNA with you numerous times. You just keep on hitting the same wall and think by asking the same question about complex DNA over and over again that somehow that is going to provide proof for your god. There is ample evidence out there that points to how DNA can be complex. It isn’t 100% known yet, but that doesn’t mean the missing percent (gaps) is a goddidit. We are learning more and more every day closing the gaps. I don’t know why that is so hard for you to understand? Where is your proof that the gaps are a goddidit? Let’s just say for example DNA was created in a different way than currently thought. Is that other way only a god? That is why you believe in the “God of the Gaps”. I know this new term to explain things to you is above your head, but you need proof that the gaps are caused by a god. Sun God, gone. God of Thunder, gone. Today’s gods, someday gone. Mr. Prick’s brain, going going……

  565. on 17 Mar 2015 at 11:57 pm 565.Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    “We are learning more and more every day closing the gaps. I don’t know why that is so hard for you to understand?”

    Who is we? Certainly not you…lil!!!! That’s quite easy to understand. You don’t have a clue what you are talking about…lol!!!

    You don’t understand the scientific method, you don’t understand DNA and you have no idea about information theory

    All you have is an obsession with God….:(

  566. on 18 Mar 2015 at 12:24 am 566.Hell Yeah said …

    “Who is we?”

    The human species. Duh!

    —————

    “You don’t understand the scientific method, you don’t understand DNA and you have no idea about information theory”

    Ah, I get it. You used the scientific method to understand that DNA was created by a god. Now I understand. LOL. And this information you found is top secret to everyone else. Just think, though, your name could live forever in the periodic table for finding this supernatural element!

    ———–

    “All you have is an obsession with God….:(”

    Awe, Mr. Prick is sad and thinks the non-belief is an obsession with god, but those that read the bible every day, pray every day, go to church multiple times a week….don’t have an obsession with god. What are you smoking, Mr. Prick? LOL. Just another sign Mr. Prick has nothing once again and can’t stand not having last word.

  567. on 18 Mar 2015 at 12:48 am 567.Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    “Ah, I get it”

    Um, unfortunately no…..:(. Lol!!!

    The scientific method must support your claim Tinediddit, Evolution diddit when it comes to information theory and DNA. Understand? Your claim should be verifiable with SM. Look into it and get back with us! Lol!!!

    Try to get over your obsession with God. My question to you doesn’t require you to go there. This should be east for you since you are an unbeliever, yes?……lol!!!

  568. on 18 Mar 2015 at 1:01 am 568.Anonymous said …

    Corb/Prick

    You don’t understand the scientific method, you don’t understand DNA and you have no idea about information theory

    Whoa there, Kemosabe. Were you looking in the mirror when you wrote this? You meant to say, perhaps, that the readers of the blog don’t understand “creationist information theory”. Right? Maybe you can explain how “fixed species” is a better definition for biodiversity than the Theory of Evolution?
    Popcorn is on and anxiously awaiting your response. Oh, and try to use the scientific method not the “creationist scientific method” in your analysis.

  569. on 18 Mar 2015 at 1:27 am 569.Hell Yeah said …

    Creationists, in an attempt to coat their myths with a veneer of science, have co-opted the idea of information theory to use as a plausible-sounding attack on evolution. Essentially, the claim is that the genetic code is like a language and thus transmits information, and in part due to the usual willful misunderstandings of the second law of thermodynamics (which is about energy, not information), they maintain that information can never be increased.[10] Therefore, the changes they cannot outright deny are defined as “losing information”, while changes they disagree with are defined as “gaining information”, which by their definition is impossible. Note that at no point do creationists actually specify what information actually is and often (even in the allegedly scientific case of complex specified information) will purposefully avoid defining the concept in any useful way. The creationists tend to change their meaning on an ad hoc basis depending on the argument, relying on colloquial, imprecise definitions of information rather than quantifiable ones — or worse, switching interchangeably between different definitions depending on the context of the discussion or argument.

    The deliberate conflation of the totally unrelated concepts of thermodynamic and informational entropy is, while an obvious flaw in the argument, a flaw that the creationists’ intended audience is less likely to pick up on, so it remains a popular argument, as seen in Ken Ham’s… debate with Bill Nye at the Creation Museum.

  570. on 18 Mar 2015 at 11:02 am 570.Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    “don’t understand “creationist information theory”. Right”

    Readers, where did this come from? Oh yes… Freddie the mouse and then Mr Yeah comes along to tag along for the “Lets change the subject” defense. The red herring if you will.

    Again readers, we have a communication breakdown. I want to believe Timediddit and Evolutiondiddit but these two refuse to offer any defense!

    I am a man of science and I must adhere to the SM in a purely materialistic world. Again, I offered up a confrontation for Fred mouse many post back. He is running away as fast as he can….lol!!!!!

  571. on 18 Mar 2015 at 11:07 am 571.Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    Oh forgot to give props to Mr Yeah.

    Just to prove he has no understanding for which he argues he has to plagerize other websites.

    ROTFL!!!!

    Mr Yeah one does not lear by spitting out website talking points….:)

  572. on 18 Mar 2015 at 2:57 pm 572.Anonymous said …

    The REAL ANONYMOUS:“creationist information theory”. Right?”

    Corb/Prick: Readers, where did this come from?

    It’s your idea – since you’re completely clueless. If you had a clue, you’d expand your ideas but ALL you’ll do is throw out a few LOLs and ROFLs and come to a full stop. Excuse me,Kemosabe, but those aren’t answers. That’s Corb/Prick being the pidgeon shitting on the chessboard.

    AGAIN: Have you noticed the biodiversity? Look around. You say it’s the work of a god’s planned “fixed species” work and I say thank-you Evolution. Don’t run “creationist science guy”.

  573. on 18 Mar 2015 at 3:01 pm 573.freddies_dead said …

    563.A the lying prick posting as Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    Information cannot be considered in the same category as matter and energy. It’s true that matter or energy can carry information, but they are not the same as information itself.

    Firstly, these are quite clearly knowledge claims, but how does A know them? After all he’s adamant that he cannot know anything. Did he read it in a book perhaps? Or maybe someone told him about it? But then A doesn’t think his eyes or ears are passing him trustworthy information, so how has he come to these conclusions given he denies that he can have knowledge?

    Secondly, ignoring A’s performative inconsistency – whereby he insists he can’t know anything but continues to make knowledge claims anyway – what is A’s argument that demonstrates the truth of his claims? Just what facts of reality can A point to that prove that “[i]nformation cannot be considered in the same category as matter and energy”? Which category does it fit in? What characteristics are we using to determine these categories? What is “information” in this context? Just where is the argument that backs up his assertion? An actual science guy would present the evidence.

  574. on 18 Mar 2015 at 3:02 pm 574.freddies_dead said …

    565.A the lying prick posting as Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    You don’t understand the scientific method, you don’t understand DNA and you have no idea about information theory

    I do love it when A makes one of these autobiographical outbursts. He’s described himself perfectly.

  575. on 18 Mar 2015 at 3:04 pm 575.freddies_dead said …

    570.A the lying prick posting as Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    “don’t understand “creationist information theory”. Right”

    Readers, where did this come from? Oh yes… Freddie the mouse and then Mr Yeah comes along to tag along for the “Lets change the subject” defense. The red herring if you will.

    Whilst I have pointed out on several occasions that A doesn’t seem to understand actual “information theory” and have also requested that he define information in the context he’s using it – something he has never gotten around to doing – I don’t recall ever having used the term “creationist information theory” although I must say it’s pretty spot on. Maybe A can tell us exactly where he believes I did – post title and comment number would suffice.

    Again readers, we have a communication breakdown. I want to believe Timediddit and Evolutiondiddit but these two refuse to offer any defense!

    I am a man of science

    ROFLCOPTER!!!

    and I must adhere to the SM in a purely materialistic world.

    I thought A believed in God? How does he account for his deity in a purely materialistic world? In fact where’s his argument that the world is purely materialistic?

    Again, I offered up a confrontation for Fred mouse many post back. He is running away as fast as he can….lol!!!!!

    Now this is just a lie. I answered A’s “confrontation” (not for the first time either) in post #545. The only one running away here is A.

  576. on 18 Mar 2015 at 3:51 pm 576.Hell Yeah said …

    “Readers, where did this come from? Oh yes… Freddie the mouse and then Mr Yeah comes along to tag along for the “Lets change the subject” defense. The red herring if you will.”

    “Mr Yeah one does not lear by spitting out website talking points….:)”

    You wanted to talk about Information Theory and DNA, didn’t you? What did you expect? Were we supposed to write our own research papers after doing research on what is out there? LOL. Notice how Mr. Prick doesn’t even want to bring up the actual meaning to what I found, he just notices that it is not my own words and dismisses it as nothing and claims it is changing the subject somehow.

    Also, should we start calling you TJ the Prick, even though we obviously know you and TJ are two different people?

    ————-

    “Again readers, we have a communication breakdown. I want to believe Timediddit and Evolutiondiddit but these two refuse to offer any defense!

    Again, what do you expect, that we are supposed to write our own research papers on how it is possible billions of years of evolution and natural selection can create complex DNA?

    What part of science did you use to determine a goddidit? You keep ignoring that, but we know you are ignoring it because you have nothing to give.

  577. on 18 Mar 2015 at 4:41 pm 577.Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    Freddie….um….er…..mosey chimes in:

    “Have you noticed the biodiversity? ”

    Yes, yes I have. Thanks….. How does this prove evolution produced DNA coding? Maybe do some study or maybe plagerize like Mr Yeah…:)

    “and I say thank-you Evolution.”

    You do? Hmmmmmmmm…. So does this evolution god speak back? Can you ask him/her who was able to write such an incredible program?……snicker…….

    Such a simple question but they continue to refuse to provide an answer…..:)

  578. on 18 Mar 2015 at 5:34 pm 578.Anonymous said …

    The REAL ANONYMOUS: “Have you noticed the biodiversity? ”
    Corb, creationist guy: Yes, yes I have. Thanks….. How does this prove evolution produced DNA coding?

    Silly creationist guy. Evolution and abiogenesis are two different branches of SCIENTIFIC inquiry, right?
    BTW, Still missing an explanation on biodiversity from you, got one? No, that’s what I thought. The idea of “fixed species” was settled in the 1800’s, no? And you keep trying to bring it back to life. And your “creationist information theory” idea belongs on the same trash heap as the “irreducible complexity” idea. Just desperate attempts by the creationists to keep their agenda afloat.

    The REAL ANONYMOUS: “and I say thank-you Evolution.”
    YAWN, Corb, creationist: You do? Hmmmmmmmm…. So does this evolution god speak back? Can you ask him/her who was able to write such an incredible program?……snicker…….

    I am a science guy so no god is necessary for me. You, on the other hand, insist that god is responsible for biodiversity, hence your new handle “creationist science guy”…..or just “creationist” for short.

  579. on 18 Mar 2015 at 5:46 pm 579.Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    “Evolution and abiogenesis are two different branches of SCIENTIFIC inquiry, right??

    Yes what does that have to do with DNA program coding?

    “BTW, Still missing an explanation on biodiversity from you, got one?”

    Readers notice a pattern? Another red herring…lol!!!!! Ok, no.

    “fixed species” was settled in the 1800’s”

    What does that have to do with DNA program coding?

    “I am a science guy so no god is necessary for me”

    No, you just talk to evolution….perfectly normal….ROTFL!!!!

  580. on 18 Mar 2015 at 6:04 pm 580.Hell Yeah said …

    Anyone else notice Mr. Prick declares “red herring or changing the subject” when he discovers he has been schooled and has no comeback? Either that or he just ignores your points hoping that enough posts are made that your point is forgotten. Keep running into that wall and banging your head, Mr. Prick! LOL.

  581. on 18 Mar 2015 at 6:31 pm 581.Anonymous said …

    The REAL ANONYMOUS: “Evolution and abiogenesis are two different branches of SCIENTIFIC inquiry, right??
    Corb, creationist: Yes what does that have to do with DNA program coding?

    Well, duh, Corb. You did state “How does this prove evolution produced DNA coding?” Concentrate on the word “PRODUCED” in YOUR question. (My definition of produce is: a particular result (or situation) to happen or come into existence. What’s yours? Your position always distills down to obfuscation; confusing abiogenesis and evolution….Wonder why that always is? Answer: You’ve got nothing.

    The REAL ANONYMOUS: “BTW, Still missing an explanation on biodiversity from you, got one?”
    Corb, creationist: no.

    That’s what I thought.

    The REAL ANONYMOUS: “fixed species” was settled in the 1800’s”
    Corb, creationist: What does that have to do with DNA program coding?

    Well, duh, again. You say “the program” is fixed for each species, that evolution does not occur. I can only presume, since you are unable to expand on ideas (yeah, we all know you’ll look the fool in trying to explain your position) that you accept a god somehow writes a new program each time a new species comes into existence. Your muddled thinking about DNA is from the 1800’s. Congratulations!

  582. on 18 Mar 2015 at 9:45 pm 582.Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    Freddie the cowardly mouse:
    “My definition of produce is: a particular result (or situation) to happen or come into existence. What’s yours?”

    freddie the mouse’s opinion is irrelevant and once again…..hold on……..wait for it………..fails to provide any evidence time and evolution write programs as DNA. Second, Information theory shows us that information is not in the same class as matter and energy. Matter and energy can convey information, but is not the same as information itself. Much in the same manner radio waves carry information but are not the wave itself.

    Try again freddie mouse! lol!!!

    Freddie the mouses’ second colossal failure

    “You say “the program” is fixed for each species, that evolution does not occur.”

    No, I asked you to provide evidence that time and evolution can write a comprehensive program known as DNA. You guys all need to learn English…..LOL!!!!!!

    Mr Yeah,

    You are a plagiarizer, also known as a thief, so you are pretty much done bro. Sorry.

  583. on 19 Mar 2015 at 3:51 am 583.Anonymous said …

    The REAL ANONYMOUS:“You say “the program” is fixed for each species, that evolution does not occur.”
    Corb, creationist: No

    Stop the presses. Now you’re saying evolution does occur? Wow, such progress. Or did you suffer another brain spasm?

    I asked you to provide evidence that time and evolution can write a comprehensive program known as DNA.

    Are you asking about abiogenesis or evolution? Maybe English isn’t your first language, so I will forgive you. It’s the kind of guy I’am.

    Let’s agree that we don’t know how life (DNA) initially formed. Now TRY and focus here (CONCENTRATE Corb) – Is there anything we can INVESTIGATE to see why we have such biodiversity today? Any smoking guns out there? Any reasoning we can implement? Any comparative analysis which we can perform? We both reached conclusions that life, somehow, emerged on our planet Earth billions of years ago. Neither one of us can prove how. Moving onto Evolution now: Are the two options your “fixed species” scenario or evolution?

    I do admire your LOL usage, but no …snickers and ROTFLs lately. What gives? I will take it that as the cute added content count goes up it’s a sure sign that you’ve nothing relevant to add due to your arguments inevitable demise, “creationist science guy”.

  584. on 19 Mar 2015 at 11:38 am 584.Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    Readers

    Note that freddie the mouse continues to stall, and change tactics. Lets look at a few.

    “Now you’re saying evolution does occur?”

    Never once stated otherwise…..ROTFL!!! I did ask, however, how did timediddit and evolutiondiddit write complex DNA code???

    “Let’s agree that we don’t know how life (DNA) initially formed.”

    Whoa there cowboy!! freddie mouse, Mr Yeah states there is plenty of information about how this complex DNA program was written by timediddit and evolutiondidit. So now you have no clue????……snicker……ROTFL!!! What happen to your atheism? Remember, there is no God? So that would eliminate a Creator, right? Of course there is always panspermia, very scientific….:)

    Think freddie mouse……Could such complex coding arise from soup by chance? Is there any mechanism in nature to produce information like this? Any smoking guns out there? Any reasoning we can implement? Any comparative analysis which we can perform?

    “I do admire your LOL usage,”

    Thanks! And I admire you ability to cause me to use them…:)

  585. on 19 Mar 2015 at 1:08 pm 585.Anonymous said …

    The REAL ANONYMOUS“Let’s agree that we don’t know how life (DNA) initially formed.”
    Corbis/Prick: Whoa there cowboy!!

    Kemosabe, I was talking about you and me – Let’s YOU and I agree that WE don’t know the mechanism of abiogenesis. Are-you-with-the-program? I typed that real slowly so you’d comprehend. Hell Yeah and anyone else is entitled to their views. This is just you and me, snuggling, and chatting.

    I was wondering about your “creationist information theory” idea- From the list below, please indulge and enlighten me with what’s correct:

    a) There is no way that DNA can form without divine intervention.
    b) DNA cannot become more complex without divine intervention
    c) There has not been enough time since Earth was formed for the DNA to become as complex as it has.

    Expand a little. Teach the unwashed masses who wait with bated breath for your next missive, mighty guru of “creationist information theory”.

  586. on 19 Mar 2015 at 3:56 pm 586.Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    “This is just you and me, snuggling, and chatting”

    I Luv ya, and that is sweet and all but I live in the real world cowboy. Sides, you don’t seem to snuggly….lol!!!! It was not Mr Yeah’s opinion, it was fact and he is not the only atheist here with the same claim. Is Mr Yeah lying and plagiarizing again???

    So lets go back to this question you keep running from. You asked us to confront, right?

    Could such complex coding arise from soup by chance? Is there any mechanism in nature to produce information like this? Any smoking guns out there? Any reasoning we can implement? Any comparative analysis which we can perform?

  587. on 19 Mar 2015 at 3:57 pm 587.Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    Oh, Freddie mouse…..if you are unwashed try a shower bro……lol!;!!!!

  588. on 19 Mar 2015 at 5:51 pm 588.Hell Yeah said …

    Watch out Anonymous, Mr. Prick ignores any points you made and won’t stop banging his head on Information Theory as if he thinks it is the smoking gun on ID. I found something on his “Information Theory” and all he does is ignore the actual message and declares plagiarism because I copied the points and didn’t create the points in my own writing, even though I didn’t declare it was my own writing. Mr. Prick doesn’t want to admit he is just a believer in the “God of the Gaps”. Fill in that percentage that is unknown out there with a deity, even though there is no proof of a deity. He claims to be a man of science, but has to evidence using science to prove that a god exists. It is just a complete waste of time trying to argue with him. If you go back and read all the comments over the last couple months, it is just the same thing over and over.

  589. on 19 Mar 2015 at 7:08 pm 589.alex said …

    i’ve said many times before. even if everything we know today is all bullshit, how the fuck does that prove his bullshit god?

    martin/hor/prick/fuckhead is a demonstrated piece of shit.

    go fuck yourself, hor motherfucker. lol proves your god? snicker proves your god? god/venus/budda is your dna programmer because science is bullshit?

    dumbass.

  590. on 19 Mar 2015 at 8:50 pm 590.Anonymous said …

    Corb/Prick: Could such complex coding arise from soup by chance?
    The REAL ANONYMOUS: Let’s YOU and I agree that WE don’t know the mechanism of abiogenesis.

    Unless you actually have some proof for how life/DNA arose. Do you? Didn’t think so.
    So, since we both agree that we don’t understand how life began, we must look at life as it exists TODAY, you know, biodiversity. Do you think that could accomplish something? I won’t even bring up the topic of “creationist information technology” or modulated radio waves in the discussion ;-)

  591. on 19 Mar 2015 at 9:00 pm 591.Anonymous said …

    The REAL ANONYMOUS: Teach the unwashed masses who wait with bated breath for your next missive, mighty guru of “creationist information theory”.
    Corbis/Prick: if you are unwashed try a shower

    Kemosabe, been nipping into the fire water again? “Unwashed masses” – look it up….do I really need to educate you about science and English also now? BTW, your shower comment just shows how stupid you really are….epic failure – one of the unwashed masses.

  592. on 19 Mar 2015 at 9:05 pm 592.Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    “we must look at life as it exists TODAY, you know, biodiversity. Do you think that could accomplish something?”

    OK, like what? Expound on how biodiversity creates complex DNA programming,

    Do tell, how does you not understanding how life began” deter you from explaining what possible mechanism in nature can write DNA code? You do know the difference, right?…..(snicker)

  593. on 19 Mar 2015 at 9:10 pm 593.Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    “do I really need to educate you about science and English also now?”

    Um, well, freddie mouse……..that was a funny, but since the joke was on you you wouldn’t find it funny. So be it……:)

    Please do educate me on science! Will you tell us what mechanism in nature can write complex DNA code Mr freddie the Mouse!…Please!?

  594. on 19 Mar 2015 at 9:19 pm 594.Anonymous said …

    The REAL ANONYMOUS: “we must look at life as it exists TODAY, you know, biodiversity. Do you think that could accomplish something?”
    Corbis/Prick: OK, like what?

    Oh right. My bad. You’re an Theory of Evolution adherent now.

    Do tell, how does you not understanding how life began” deter you from explaining what possible mechanism in nature can write DNA code? You do know the difference, right?…..(snicker)

    This is where I say that not knowing doesn’t make it a god. And you say it was “the god”….your god. (Is this where I should snicker?). The volcano god, god of thunder, and hundreds of others have come and gone as science (Creation science to you- should I snicker again?) advances. Your personal creator god will fall and then you’ll move the goal posts again. God of the gaps arguments never work.

  595. on 19 Mar 2015 at 10:32 pm 595.Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    “This is where I say that not knowing doesn’t make it a god.”

    Readers notice rather than answering what mechanisms In nature could write a very complex program, he instead goes on a rant about God.

    It’s an obsession with them. Try to have a conversation about science but they insist on going to theology…… Lol!!!!

  596. on 19 Mar 2015 at 10:35 pm 596.Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    “God of the gaps arguments never work.”

    Lol!!!!!!, which is why I have never claimed any such silliness. Readers again, I am a man of science attempting to get a question answered. I implore the atheist to stop the madness….lol!!!

  597. on 19 Mar 2015 at 11:08 pm 597.Corbis the Prickly Science Guy said …

    The only gap I believe in is the gap in between my legs….lol!!!…(snicker…snort)….ROTFL!!!!

  598. on 19 Mar 2015 at 11:37 pm 598.Anonymous said …

    Corb/Prick: how does you not understanding how life began” deter you from explaining what possible mechanism in nature can write DNA code?

    I’d rather not explain something that science continues to investigate. Wouldn’t that be guessing and run counter to your rigid creationist standards? ;-) Pretty sure they’re still investigating and will continue to investigate, it’s the way of REAL science. Putting a god as the cause and then finding support for your idea is how a creationist would operate….sound familiar, “creationist science guy”? Like putting the cart before the horse.

    Or is it like some Excellent Adventure idea proposed by some Wooten fellow, remember him? Your groups of ideas, Corb/Prick, blend into a quagmire of creationist rhetoric.

  599. on 20 Mar 2015 at 12:53 am 599.Anonymous said …

    The only gap I believe in is the gap in between my legs….lol!!!…(snicker…snort)….ROTFL!!!!

    And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the moment that the attending nurse unlocked the door and gave poor or Corb/Prick his next prescribed doses of lithium and diazepam.

  600. on 20 Mar 2015 at 1:07 am 600.Anonymous said …

    The REAL ANONYMOUS: “God of the gaps arguments never work.”
    Corb, creationist: Lol!!!!!!, which is why I have never claimed any such silliness.

    Silly Corb/Prick. It’s not something one claims to do. However, it’s what you do when you insist that your god is the originator of life on Earth. YOU’RE putting “the god” into an uncomfortable position when science solves the mystery. Such silliness indeed.

    When the meds wear off and your head clears maybe you’ll understand…..nah, on second thought, I doubt it.

  601. on 20 Mar 2015 at 1:40 am 601.Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    Silly atheists, they plagarize, they lie and now steal handles……sigh……when you have an atheist to the house, count the silverware when they leave…..:)

    “I’d rather not explain something that science continues to investigate.”

    Hmmm, so you claim you can explain it but since we are investigating you chose not too? lol!!!!

    what about natural selection, timediddit, survival of the fittest? I thought we KNEW all the mechanisms of the process. Sounds like to me, there is not a process that can create complex information coding…….lol!!!

    “However, it’s what you do when you insist that your god is the originator of life on Earth.:

    The only ones bringing God into it are the atheists, not me. You wre suppose to teach us but you are only a tease! lol!!!!!!!!
    I am a man of science, not guesses and speculation. If the systems exist that create complex information systems, then show them. But lets face it, you believe in FAITH. You have no clue how complex information systems were written by the primordial soup.

    Time to bring back the Crick alien theory, which passes for……..science! lol!!!!

  602. on 20 Mar 2015 at 1:56 am 602.Corbis the Prickly Science Guy said …

    I do have a huge gap in between my ears, though, but I don’t believe it….lol!!!…(snicker…snort)….ROTFL!!!!

  603. on 20 Mar 2015 at 2:08 am 603.Anonymous said …

    Corb/Prick: Silly atheists, they plagarize, they lie and now steal handles

    Really? What are you saying exactly?…..as usually your confusion is probably due to the meds engaging or wearing off. You forgot Wooten? Not that I blame you for “forgetting, That was the handle you admitted to using for some confusing idea that, like all your others, went to Hell.

    The REAL ANONYMOUS: “I’d rather not explain something that science continues to investigate.”
    Corb, creationist: Hmmm, so you claim you can explain it but since we are investigating you chose not too? lol!!!!

    I am not giving “the deity” credit until I see some reason to. In the meantime, let’s agree we (that would be You and ME) have no proof. Remember, we were snuggling and chatting and agreed that we didn’t know the reason life arose. But somehow it did.

    what about natural selection, timediddit, survival of the fittest? I thought we KNEW all the mechanisms of the process.

    That might be a good summary for evolution for a “creationist science guy” like you Corb/Prick.

    I am a man of science, not guesses and speculation.

    Yet you’re guessing that “the deity” did it. Man of science? Maybe a man of “scicne” like the name says. All jumbled and everything.

  604. on 20 Mar 2015 at 2:31 am 604.Corbis the Prickly Science Gu said …

    “In the meantime, let’s agree we (that would be You and ME) have no proof. ”

    Hmmmmmm, have you told the other atheist? See, your buddies who like to steal handles to tell penis jokes and plagiarize insist this is all fact???????? Maybe you can join with me to set them straight? Whadda ya say?

    Even you atheist priests claim it is fact.

    I Dunno Freddie the mouse, as a strict materialist, your case for nature writing such a complex program as found in DNA is not promising. Something with such ability should be readily apparent, yes?

    Maybe Crick had it right, Huh? Aliens maybe? Lol!!!!!

  605. on 20 Mar 2015 at 2:53 am 605.Anonymous said …

    Corb/Prick: See, your buddies who like to steal handles Wooten, at this point your credibility is, and has been, at zero. Like your life…..epic failure. Stay away from the sharp objects, the people with the gowns are there to help. There, there…….

    your case for nature writing such a complex program as found in DNA is not promising. Something with such ability should be readily apparent, yes?

    Just like when people ascribed the work/wrath of a god to volcanoes, thunderclouds, famines, etc, etc. Because they didn’t understand natural phenomena was reason enough to insert the god of the moment, much like your attempting now. Get over it. We don’t fully know – one day we will.

  606. on 20 Mar 2015 at 3:02 am 606.Corbis the Prickly Baffoon Guy said …

    I got a snake, man!

    One time I fed it some beer man! It was slithering this way and that! It was all fucked up!

    I had diarhea last month. I had to shit all fucking day!

    I’ve got a big fucking boner right now.

    One time I ate my neighbors shit!

    I bet you got really hairy balls.

    lol!!!…(snicker…snort)….ROTFL!!!!

  607. on 20 Mar 2015 at 10:36 pm 607.Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    ” Like your life…..epic failure.”

    ROTFL!!!!! Atheist are a scream! They are now judging the lives of those who dare ask questions!!! How do atheists live with such hate in their hearts? I know demolishing their worldview hurts but they should have the courage to ask these questions of their worldview.

    “Because they didn’t understand natural phenomena was reason enough to insert the god of the moment, much like your attempting now.”

    I did? Where?……….Oh!!!!!, you mean asking you questions is inserting a god????……..(snicker)…………lol!!!!!

    I Dunno Freddie the mouse, as a strict materialist, your case for nature writing such a complex program as found in DNA is not promising. Something with such ability should be readily apparent, yes? But all you can do is lash out with hate……..sad……

    Maybe Crick had it right, Huh? Aliens maybe? Lol!!!!!

  608. on 21 Mar 2015 at 2:57 am 608.Corbis the Prickly Baffoon Guy said …

    [eating popcorn]

    This popcorn’s fuckin’ terrible. It tastes like someone jizzed all over it.

    [continues to eat popcorn]

  609. on 21 Mar 2015 at 1:16 pm 609.Anonymous said …

    The REAL ANONYMOUS: “Because they didn’t understand natural phenomena was reason enough to insert the god of the moment, much like your attempting now.”
    Corb, confused creationist: I did? Where?

    MEGA-DUH, another in a string of epic fails. Can your credibility dip even more? So stupid you don’t understand your own position and need others to explain it to you. Maybe it’s the meds. Do you remember asking for proof that “the deity” doesn’t exist? How about this, …program requires a programmer, creation requires a ___________. Sound familiar?

    ……….Oh!!!!!……..(snicker)…………lol!!!!!

  610. on 21 Mar 2015 at 3:46 pm 610.Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    GIGA-DUH…….you claim I insert the god of the moment which I have never done. In fact, in this discussion no need to bring up the Deity since your failure is complete without. Never heard of such a phenomena. So you, once again are a liar.

    Now,

    Really it is just an attempt to hide from the question that terrifies you. Indeed, how can anything is nature create complex DNA code through time and evolution. The mechanism you seek, what could it be?

    Panspermia? Hmmm, is it not odd that aliens pass for science? lol!!

    I wonder what would pass for evidence of the deity?????……..hmmmmmmmmm

  611. on 22 Mar 2015 at 1:03 am 611.Corbis the Prickly Baffoon Guy said …

    Fuckin’ Shit-DUH. I am GOD!

  612. on 23 Mar 2015 at 11:26 am 612.freddies_dead said …

    In post #610 A asks:

    Indeed, how can anything is nature create complex DNA code through time and evolution.

    Why does A think that, because no-one here has answered his question, it means it couldn’t have happened? It’s strange because A has already conceded that there is no barrier to DNA being formed by natural means. The implication – that A keeps denying of course – is that, because A can’t think how it happened and none of the atheists here have given an answer, it must mean there’s a supernatural answer i.e. A’s God. That implication is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.

    Let’s take a closer look at A’s claim. He insists that DNA is a “complex program” (post #604), a “very complex program” (post #595) etc…

    So how does A know this?

    Firstly we have the problem whereby he denies his ability to know anything. You know? The whole bit where he claims he can’t trust his faulty senses. The very senses he’s relying on to conclude that DNA is a “complex program”. So how has A gotten the information that DNA is a code, is complex etc… and it’s not just a different flavour of custard? After all he demands that he can’t trust what his eyes and ears are telling him.

    Secondly, the question he’s asking i.e. “what mechanism in nature can write complex DNA code”, is itself a fallaciously complex question. Hidden within it are assumptions that simply haven’t been argued for – such as DNA being a program that is written. The implication is very clear, a program requires a programmer, but if we assume the existence of said programmer then everything must be programmed – rain drops, grass, beetles, snowflakes, rainbows, rocks, puddles etc… In which case how do you determine if anything is programmed? Is DNA programmed but rivers aren’t? Are rocks not the same work of this complex programmer? The way we determine what is programmed and what isn’t now is by comparing a program with a non-program, but if everything is programmed that’s not possible. So A can’t just point at DNA and say “program” when everything is a program. Also, what makes it “complex”? Why is it more complex than, say, the crystalline structure of a rock? Or the chemical makeup of a specific river perhaps? In other words, in order to demonstrate that DNA is a complex program, A would need to first prove the existence of his programmer. He won’t of course.

  613. on 23 Mar 2015 at 2:04 pm 613.TJ said …

    “Why is it more complex than, say, the crystalline structure of a rock? Or the chemical makeup of a specific river perhaps?”

    DNA is more complex because of the role it plays in the reproduction of life.

    Whereas the structure of a rock or the chemical make up of a river is the result of the programs/laws that define nature.

    If a program needs a programmer, does a law require a lawmaker?

    If everything is the result of natural fundamental laws, and a program defines outcomes, then what is the difference?

  614. on 23 Mar 2015 at 4:30 pm 614.freddies_dead said …

    613.TJ said …

    “Why is it more complex than, say, the crystalline structure of a rock? Or the chemical makeup of a specific river perhaps?”

    DNA is more complex because of the role it plays in the reproduction of life.

    So basic chemistry is equally complex then? As it too plays a role in the reproduction of life.

    Whereas the structure of a rock or the chemical make up of a river is the result of the programs/laws that define nature.

    And why can’t those very same natural laws define DNA and it’s interactions? A keeps making out like they can’t, despite his concession that there is no barrier to them doing so.

    If a program needs a programmer, does a law require a lawmaker?

    I’ve seen the implication used. It’s a fairly standard creationist tactic – take something that we know is done by a person (painting, building, programming) and try to intimate that natural things which are somewhat analogous obviously indicate a similar relationship.

    If everything is the result of natural fundamental laws, and a program defines outcomes, then what is the difference?

    This is my point. A keeps calling it a complex program and yet he offers no argument to set DNA apart from any other natural process. So why is DNA somehow different? What makes it so special that A keeps implying it could only be supernatural in origin? Instead of making an argument A simply repeats his unargued for assertions.

  615. on 23 Mar 2015 at 5:38 pm 615.Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    So what we freddie aka anonymouse saying is this:

    “we don’t know how nature wrote a complex code but just accept that nature did”

    He obviously does not understand the difference between DNA and the code carried by DNA. Well, we can’t expect to much…:)

    The really hilarious proposition by fred mouse would never be accepted for anything they “did not” want to believe in…..lol!!!

    fred mouse wants us to believe a language composed of 3 billion genetic letters not fashioned in a repetitious manner but as high information coding was all by time and evolution. Anything we can point to in nature that could produce something this complex?

    I am a man of science. I need evidence to buy such a maerialistic fairytale…..:)

  616. on 23 Mar 2015 at 7:44 pm 616.alex said …

    “fred mouse wants us to believe a language composed of 3 billion genetic letters not fashioned in a repetitious manner but as high information coding was all by time and evolution.”

    …and if fred is wrong, how the fuck does that prove that allah is the programmer?

  617. on 23 Mar 2015 at 7:45 pm 617.alex said …

    oops sorry, i forgot. you dumbasss, hor motherfucker.

  618. on 23 Mar 2015 at 10:51 pm 618.Hell Yeah said …

    “fred mouse wants us to believe a language composed of 3 billion genetic letters not fashioned in a repetitious manner but as high information coding was all by time and evolution.”

    Mr. Prick should go back and read what I found on his “Information Theory”. I found it on a website, but this site doesn’t seem to allow web addresses on here, so here it is again:

    “Creationists, in an attempt to coat their myths with a veneer of science, have co-opted the idea of information theory to use as a plausible-sounding attack on evolution. Essentially, the claim is that the genetic code is like a language and thus transmits information, and in part due to the usual willful misunderstandings of the second law of thermodynamics (which is about energy, not information), they maintain that information can never be increased. Therefore, the changes they cannot outright deny are defined as “losing information”, while changes they disagree with are defined as “gaining information”, which by their definition is impossible. Note that at no point do creationists actually specify what information actually is and often (even in the allegedly scientific case of complex specified information) will purposefully avoid defining the concept in any useful way. The creationists tend to change their meaning on an ad hoc basis depending on the argument, relying on colloquial, imprecise definitions of information rather than quantifiable ones — or worse, switching interchangeably between different definitions depending on the context of the discussion or argument.

    The deliberate conflation of the totally unrelated concepts of thermodynamic and informational entropy is, while an obvious flaw in the argument, a flaw that the creationists’ intended audience is less likely to pick up on, so it remains a popular argument, as seen in Ken Ham’s debate with Bill Nye at the Creation Museum.”

  619. on 23 Mar 2015 at 11:18 pm 619.DPK said …

    The prick has been directed time and again to information that fully explains why his creationist babble is not a credible argument for either a “designer” or for his particular god. He has flat out stated he has no intention of “wading through it”. So he continues in his willfull ignorance, and continues to spout his unfounded and completely discredited assertions. That’s why he is the town idiot. LOL….

  620. on 23 Mar 2015 at 11:35 pm 620.Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    Alex,

    Love ya babe! Oh your flowery grasp of the English language is a site to behold. Thanks for dropping by honey! lol!!!

    “The prick has been directed time and again to information that fully explains why his creationist babble is not a credible argument for either a “designer” or for his particular god.”

    That’s great Dippity but it never happened. However the question in play is this. Explain how your nature can write a language composed of 3 billion genetic letters not fashioned in a repetitious manner but as high information coding all by time and evolution. That’s Mr Yeah’s claim, maybe you can help him?

    Notice: I am not evoking any God here. I’m asking how nature did this……:)

    Fred mouse already attempted to change the subject at every turn. We are on to your fallacious turns……:)

    Prick Out!

  621. on 24 Mar 2015 at 12:12 am 621.Hell Yeah said …

    “Explain how your nature can write a language composed of 3 billion genetic letters not fashioned in a repetitious manner but as high information coding all by time and evolution.”

    I bet you Prick didn’t even read the info on Information Theory. But I will respond to his question ONCE AGAIN. So, 3 billion genetic letters seems a lot to him, but 4 billion years of certain elements mixed together that the universe is made up of and being at the right spot for where our sun is, evolution over that time with mutations and natural selection doesn’t seem plausible? 4 billion years of changes can do a lot. Even if there are some tweaks that need to be figured out yet, doesn’t mean that isn’t the general idea of what happened.

    ————-

    “Notice: I am not evoking any God here. I’m asking how nature did this……:”

    So what else can do this but nature? Are you saying it could be something other than nature or a god?

    —————

    “Fred mouse already attempted to change the subject at every turn.”

    I didn’t realize talking about something other than what you are looking for is changing the subject in a way that shouldn’t be done on here? LOL. Or maybe Prick thinks he is a god?

  622. on 24 Mar 2015 at 12:56 am 622.alex said …

    You mock my language and then you blurt:

    ‘is a site to behold’?

    Dumbass bitch. Try ‘sight’, ya fuckhead.

  623. on 24 Mar 2015 at 1:18 am 623.Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    alex

    Still luv ya babe! You are my hero, a true icon of manhood and elegance. Still real babe! lol!!!

    Mr Yeah

    Son…….are you not even embarrassed? No disrespect buddy, but you haven’t the faintest clue to be able to dissimulate matter and energy from information. Try a book or at least take a class or something my man. Cut & Paste off a website is not your answer buddy…..:)

    I know I know, your claim if we get 10,000 monkeys banging on typewriters we will get a Shakespearean sonnet…..eventually, right? lol!!! Let me know when it happens…..:)

    Yes, 3 billion letters is a lot, WHEN arranged in the correct order and not in a repetitive state. But not to you, huh? ROTFL!!!!!!! And that is just one of many different codes. But nah, its not that much….

    ROTFL!!!!!!!

    Hey, do you have a scientist who claims this happened?

  624. on 24 Mar 2015 at 1:37 am 624.TJ said …

    “So, 3 billion genetic letters seems a lot to him, but 4 billion years of certain elements mixed together that the universe is made up of and being at the right spot for where our sun is, evolution over that time with mutations and natural selection doesn’t seem plausible? 4 billion years of changes can do a lot. Even if there are some tweaks that need to be figured out yet, doesn’t mean that isn’t the general idea of what happened.”

    Creationist believe that change, mutation and natural selection are undeniable. These can result from parental, environmental and internal/errors variations.

    Creationist believe that these processes are limited to the possible variation within the available genetic information.

    What creationist do not believe is that these processes can advance a single celled organism to a multiple-cell to all the variant life forms we see today.

    A simplified illustration of the concept…

    if i had 100 apples, they may be different colors, different types, some may be big or small, ripe or rotten. It doesn’t matter how I order or arrange them, blend or juice them I still will only have 100 apples.

    Evolution claims that by rearranging the apples I can end up with more apples or even some that are no longer apples but something new.

  625. on 24 Mar 2015 at 1:55 am 625.Hell Yeah said …

    Here is an interesting article from Science News recently. Since I cannot paste the link on here (Is that all Prick has now is to criticize cutting and pasting?, this is part of the story:

    ‘Cooking up life’s ingredients, all in one pot’

    “Key cellular components could be created by same set of chemical reactions, study suggests.

    Nearly 4 billion years ago, the chemical precursors to life may have all formed together in trickles of water and puddles on Earth’s cracked and pummeled surface.

    Scientists have long mulled over whether the protein or its genetic code came first. Or maybe it was the cell that houses them both. Now chemists may have the answer: The components for life all arrived together.

    A series of primordial chemical reactions can generate the building blocks of the three necessary components for a living cell — genetic material, proteins and cellular compartments, researchers report online March 16 in Nature Chemistry. It’s the first experimental evidence that these chemical precursors to life could have arisen at the same place and time from the same ingredients.

    That place and time could have been a network of streams and pools on Earth’s surface nearly 4 billion years ago, about the time when life started, the study’s authors suggest.”

  626. on 24 Mar 2015 at 2:12 am 626.Hell Yeah said …

    “I know I know, your claim if we get 10,000 monkeys banging on typewriters we will get a Shakespearean sonnet…..eventually, right? lol!!! Let me know when it happens…..:)”

    “if i had 100 apples, they may be different colors, different types, some may be big or small, ripe or rotten. It doesn’t matter how I order or arrange them, blend or juice them I still will only have 100 apples.
    Evolution claims that by rearranging the apples I can end up with more apples or even some that are no longer apples but something new.”

    Those aren’t how evolution works. In the words of Prick, try a book or at least take a class or something.

  627. on 24 Mar 2015 at 6:18 am 627.TJ said …

    I said it was a…

    “A simplified illustration of the concept…”

    in the same vein as your…

    “Even if there are some tweaks that need to be figured out yet, doesn’t mean that isn’t the general idea of what happened.”

    you also said…
    “Those aren’t how evolution works. In the words of Prick, try a book or at least take a class or something. ”

    I was talking “concepts” not process’s or workings.

    Question? In post #625, Do you believe what the “study’s authors suggest”. Or do you recognize it as an interpretation of the evidence, to support a theory?

  628. on 24 Mar 2015 at 12:00 pm 628.freddies_dead said …

    615.A the lying prick posting as Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    So what we freddie aka anonymouse saying is this:

    “we don’t know how nature wrote a complex code but just accept that nature did”

    Of course that wasn’t what I wrote at all, but we’re dealing with A who is notoriously dishonest. I actually asked A a number of questions, mostly regarding how he knew the claims he was making – I note he didn’t actually answer any of them. One question I asked was why A feels that the current lack of an answer from the atheists on this site automatically means that there isn’t an answer? It’s an especially odd position to take given he has already conceded that natural processes may well have formed DNA as there are no barriers he knew of to stop it happening.

    He obviously does not understand the difference between DNA and the code carried by DNA. Well, we can’t expect to much…:)

    Then why doesn’t A educate us all by demonstrating this difference? He keeps telling us that there is one and he obviously feels that he understands it well enough, but he has so far refused to either demonstrate this difference or even explain why this concept is important.

    The really hilarious proposition by fred mouse would never be accepted for anything they “did not” want to believe in…..lol!!!

    Is this the proposition from earlier? The proposition I didn’t actually make? I hope A is enjoying burning up his little strawman but it doesn’t help his claims* one little bit.

    *I have to say claims as A hasn’t even come close to giving us anything like an argument as yet.

    fred mouse wants us to believe a language composed of 3 billion genetic letters not fashioned in a repetitious manner but as high information coding was all by time and evolution.

    Firstly, genetics isn’t a language. This claim has been debunked over on the TalkOrigins site for years now (along with all the other information that A refuses to “wade through”). As that site notes:

    1. The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a “stop” marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step — from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal — is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.

    Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act.

    An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language.

    2. The word frequencies of all natural languages follow a power law (Zipf’s Law). DNA does not follow this pattern (Tsonis et al. 1997).

    3. Language, although symbolic, is still material. For a word to have meaning, the link between the word and its meaning has to be recorded somewhere, usually in people’s brains, books, and/or computer memories. Without this material manifestation, language cannot work.

    Secondly, there’s actually quite a lot of repetition within DNA e.g. tandem repeats which can result in satellite DNA.

    Anything we can point to in nature that could produce something this complex?

    Simple chemistry. The reactions that form chemical compounds and simple organic molecules i.e. nucleotides, those same nucleotides then join with other nucleotides – chemistry again – to form molecules of RNA and DNA. And, as A has conceded that there’s no barrier to natural processes forming DNA, he’s going to have to work extra hard to show how DNA can’t result from simple chemical processes.

    I am a man of science. I need evidence to buy such a maerialistic fairytale…..:)

    ROFLCOPTER!!! A puts such great store in evidence yet refuses to supply any to back up his own claims. The irony, it burns.

  629. on 24 Mar 2015 at 4:28 pm 629.Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    “I asked was why A feels that the current lack of an answer from the atheists on this site automatically means that there isn’t an answer?”

    LOL!!, of course there is an answer!..Problem is, the atheists are all over the board. Mr Yeah says the answers are on the web while fred aka mouse claims we don’t know. Maybe they can get together and figure out what their true position would be….:)

    “Then why doesn’t A educate us all by demonstrating this difference? He keeps telling us that there is one and he obviously feels that he understands it well enough”

    Sure, DNA is a macromolecule which makes up chromosomes and carries the genetic traits in all life forms. The code is the arrangement of the genetic letters or information that is carried by the DNA macromolecule as a language. The arrangement is much like a book.

    The human body has between 70-100 trillion cells all with this “language” a term used by Dr Francis Collins.

    So who or what wrote the language? Crick says Panspermia? Mr Yeah says by chance in the primordial soup? Are these both credible scicntific theories?

    “A has conceded that there’s no barrier to natural processes forming DNA”

    I did? Barrier? Barrier over what? I have yet to even see a starting point from whence this molecular program can be written much less a barrier……..lol!!! Freddie the mouse is on the pipe again……:)

  630. on 25 Mar 2015 at 12:26 am 630.Corbis The Prickly Sickly Guy said …

    I am a man of creation science.

    I suck shit!

    I put a firecracker in a bullfrog’s mouth and blew his fuckin’ head off.

    Your mom has big fuckin’ tits!

    I looked at my asshole in the mirror today. It blew my fuckin’ mind!

    My father’s shit stinks up the bathroom all fuckin’ day!

    ….lol!!!…(snicker…snort)….ROTFL!!!!

  631. on 25 Mar 2015 at 11:53 am 631.freddies_dead said …

    629.A the lying prick posting as Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    “I asked was why A feels that the current lack of an answer from the atheists on this site automatically means that there isn’t an answer?”

    LOL!!, of course there is an answer!..

    Note that A never actually tells us what the answer is. I wonder why that would be? He seems to be pretty certain he’s got one. Maybe it’s a secret that only A is allowed to know? Or maybe it’s just like every other claim A makes i.e. bullshit.

    Problem is, the atheists are all over the board. Mr Yeah says the answers are on the web while fred aka mouse claims we don’t know. Maybe they can get together and figure out what their true position would be….:)

    What difference does this make? If A has the answer – as he claims – then why doesn’t he just tell us instead of whining about what other people think? Anyone would think his claim is nothing but hot air.

    “Then why doesn’t A educate us all by demonstrating this difference? He keeps telling us that there is one and he obviously feels that he understands it well enough”

    Sure, DNA is a macromolecule which makes up chromosomes and carries the genetic traits in all life forms. The code is the arrangement of the genetic letters or information that is carried by the DNA macromolecule as a language. The arrangement is much like a book.

    The request was for A to explain how DNA differs from the alleged code it apparently carries and why he thinks this is an important distinction. Instead A simply tells us what DNA is and continues to assert that it’s like a language, despite having been given evidence that shows DNA isn’t an actual language. There’s no explanation here, but then I didn’t really expect to get one.

    The human body has between 70-100 trillion cells all with this “language” a term used by Dr Francis Collins.

    Well the science shows DNA isn’t a language, but it’s unsurprising to hear Dr. Collins, an evangelical Christian, uses such terms. Collins is also a critic of intelligent design, preferring instead to believe in a form of theistic evolution i.e. that “evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God” (Collins’ own words). I wonder why A doesn’t agree with Dr. Collins on that?

    So who or what wrote the language?

    There is no language. It’s just chemistry. Chemistry bonds nitrogenous bases with sugars and phosphates to form nucleotides. Chemistry then causes nucleotides to bond with other nucleotides to make polynucleotides. Chemistry then causes two polynucleotides to bond together in a double helix giving us DNA. DNA can self-replicate and now we have something that mutation and selection can work on.

    Crick says Panspermia?

    So what?

    Mr Yeah says by chance in the primordial soup?

    So what?

    Are these both credible scicntific theories?

    No, they’re hypotheses and I haven’t seen anyone claim otherwise as yet.

    However A claims to have the actual answer. Instead of fannying about whining about other people you’d think he’d just give us the answer along with the evidence that proves it, but no, he does everything but produce this answer. I think it’s because his “answer” is just an assertion that he has absolutely no evidence for.

    “A has conceded that there’s no barrier to natural processes forming DNA”

    I did?

    Yes, A did. Back in post #367.

    Barrier? Barrier over what?

    A seems confused. I asked back in post #362 for A to show there was some barrier preventing natural processes from forming DNA and in post #367 A conceded that DNA forming by natural means was possible. His exact words were “I didn’t say it could not happen.”.

    I have yet to even see a starting point from whence this molecular program can be written much less a barrier……..lol!!! Freddie the mouse is on the pipe again……:)

    And, as usual, A ignores everything that shows his claims to be utter drivel. No doubt he’ll continue to do so.

  632. on 25 Mar 2015 at 2:46 pm 632.Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    “I wonder why that would be?”

    Hmmmm, we know DNA exists, and we know there a a high level language carried by the DNA, but fred aka mouse does not think there is an answer? Fred!, we are working through the process my boy! lol!!!!!

    “What difference does this make?”

    For atheists, none. They are use to chaos and fairytales and lack of continuity. For us men of science we demand order and rationality.

    “Instead A simply tells us what DNA is and continues to assert that it’s like a language”

    Well, only because it is. It is high information code that provides the data necessary for the cell to produce molecules. You can dance and spin all you like, but reality slaps you right in the face….:) language was not even my initial word, byt Collins refers to it as such….:)

    “It’s just chemistry. Chemistry bonds nitrogenous bases with sugars and phosphates to form nucleotides.”

    Yes, it is chemistry. Thanks….again showing fred aka mouse does not understand the difference between matter & energy vs. Information…..(snicker)

    “No, they’re hypotheses”

    LOL!!!, oh I stand corrected. So these are viable scientific hypothesis? lol!!!

    “A conceded that DNA forming by natural means was possible.”

    Yes, and so is a flying ninja turtle traveling at light speeds across the galaxies! No barriers to that right, just time and evolution? lol!!! According to atheists, anything is possible…..that would include God! lol!!! So why the denials?

    As we know, the burden for fred is to show us that something DID HAPPEN not that a barrier exists not to happen. So who/what this very complex code? Are we to believe chance? time? evolution? Certainly they have more than this??????

  633. on 25 Mar 2015 at 11:33 pm 633.Hell Yeah said …

    “For atheists, none. They are use to chaos and fairytales and lack of continuity. For us men of science we demand order and rationality.”

    I think Mr. Prick is confused. Science proves that fairytales like the ones in the bible didn’t exist. Science studies the real world. Last I checked, there is no proof of the supernatural in the real world. Belief in the supernatural is the real fairytale. How is that hard to understand? LOL.

    —————

    “Yes, it is chemistry. Thanks….again showing fred aka mouse does not understand the difference between matter & energy vs. Information…..(snicker)”

    Let’s see if Mr. Prick picks up the information below after my third time posting it on his topic:

    The claim is that the genetic code is like a language and thus transmits information, and in part due to the usual willful misunderstandings of the second law of thermodynamics (which is about energy, not information), they maintain that information can never be increased. Therefore, the changes they cannot outright deny are defined as “losing information”, while changes they disagree with are defined as “gaining information”, which by their definition is impossible. Note that at no point do creationists actually specify what information actually is and often (even in the allegedly scientific case of complex specified information) will purposefully avoid defining the concept in any useful way. The creationists tend to change their meaning on an ad hoc basis depending on the argument, relying on colloquial, imprecise definitions of information rather than quantifiable ones — or worse, switching interchangeably between different definitions depending on the context of the discussion or argument.
    The deliberate conflation of the totally unrelated concepts of thermodynamic and informational entropy is, while an obvious flaw in the argument, a flaw that the creationists’ intended audience is less likely to pick up on, so it remains a popular argument.

    ———————

    “Yes, and so is a flying ninja turtle traveling at light speeds across the galaxies! No barriers to that right, just time and evolution? lol!!! According to atheists, anything is possible…..that would include God! lol!!! So why the denials?”

    Mr. Prick, who thinks he is a man of science, thinks the possibilities of the real world are equal to the possibilities of a “flying ninja turtle traveling at light speeds across the galaxies”? LOL. What a joke.

    —————

    “As we know, the burden for fred is to show us that something DID HAPPEN not that a barrier exists not to happen. So who/what this very complex code? Are we to believe chance? time? evolution? Certainly they have more than this??????”

    And there is the “God of the Gaps” argument once again without any proof that there is/was a god that did it.

  634. on 26 Mar 2015 at 3:02 am 634.Austin said …

    Obviously all these accusations come from someone who has never experienced god in their life before. you don’t just pray to god and expect him to give you anything you want, especially if you are atheist and have never attempted to follow him. he promises stuff to those who follow him. reguardless of what you think about god he loves you atheist or not. and when it comes to heaven or hell, if for whatever reason us Christians are wrong, then ok we were wrong about what happens to us when we die. but if YOU the atheist is wrong, and you go to hell, well, then you’re screwed. And don’t blame god for all of lifes problems. hunger, obesity, cancer, war all of these things are created by satan, and YOU the majority who focus on all of lifes obstacles alone fail to realize the big picture. it is entirely up to you guys as a civilization to end obesity, so get off the couch and do something. if you don’t want war, don’t give a country a reason to go to war with you. if someone smokes crack and they get you to do it, and you get hooked, that was YOUR fault not gods. and as far as what the bible says, it is all true. as I said before, if you want to see god perform miracles in your life, get saved. just because your mom had cancer and died despite you praying does NOT mean god doesn’t exist. everyone dies. if it was her time to die then it was her time to die. oh and if you haven’t seen it, watch gods not dead. that will make all of you have second thoughts. this is annoying.

  635. on 26 Mar 2015 at 4:21 am 635.Hell Yeah said …

    “Obviously all these accusations come from someone who has never experienced god in their life before………oh and if you haven’t seen it, watch gods not dead. that will make all of you have second thoughts. this is annoying.”

    Ah, another one of those types. I like how you are accusing us to be those who have never experienced god. LOL. I was a god follower until half way through college. It is called being educated on both sides and knowing which side is more realistic. And no, I will not waste my time watching a movie like that. I feel sorry for you that you believe brainwashing propaganda like that. That is what is really annoying, people like you who are brainwashed to believe something is real when there is no proof of it.

    ————-

    “reguardless of what you think about god he loves you atheist or not. and when it comes to heaven or hell, if for whatever reason us Christians are wrong, then ok we were wrong about what happens to us when we die. but if YOU the atheist is wrong, and you go to hell, well, then you’re screwed.”

    Oh, so he loves you atheist or not, but even though he loves you, you still go to hell? LOL. Yeah, that makes sense. Didn’t the Pope just recently say atheists can go to heaven?

    ———-

    “And don’t blame god for all of lifes problems. hunger, obesity, cancer, war all of these things are created by satan”

    Wow, Satan is the most evil thing around and that is all he can do? I’ve seen many movies where the bad monsters do a lot worse. Maybe you should watch those movies. LOL.

    I was wondering when someone like yourself was going to appear on here again. I was getting tired of it only being Mr. Prick with the same lines over and over, and sometimes TJ.

    P.S. You can tell when the uneducated Christians come on here, because it is annoying trying to read their poor writing style.

  636. on 26 Mar 2015 at 11:12 am 636.freddies_dead said …

    632.A the lying prick posting as Corbis The Prickly Scicne Guy said …

    “I wonder why that would be?”

    Hmmmm, we know DNA exists,

    How does A know this? After all he insists that he can’t trust the senses he needs to trust in order to come to this conclusion. Yup, there’s not much that’s funnier than watching A start another post with a self-defeating argument.

    and we know there a a high level language carried by the DNA,

    We actually know it isn’t a language at all. It’s a set of symbols we’ve arbitrarily assigned to map the 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal. The protein that the symbol refers to is a physical thing whose function is determined by it’s own physical properties. Also, in a proper language, a word can refer to anything but you can’t do that in genetics. You could change the mapping code but that would change the meaning of every single sequence that codes for proteins.

    but fred aka mouse does not think there is an answer?

    Lol, A the lying prick lies as usual. It’s amusing to see him telling me what I think. This is a man who demands that he can’t trust what his own eyes and ears tell him, but he’s absolutely sure he knows what I’m thinking. You couldn’t make this shit up.

    Fred!, we are working through the process my boy! lol!!!!!

    The only process A is working through here is his usual set of avoidance tactics. He claims to have an answer, but then refuses to say what it is. Instead he lies about knowing what I think in an attempt to divert the conversation away from his failure to produce the answer he assures us he has. Why? As I said, it’s most likely because what he thinks is an answer is actually nothing more than one of his unsupported claims.

    “What difference does this make?”

    For atheists, none.

    It’s not just for atheists. Honest people wouldn’t see the need to whine about others instead of simply providing the answer and evidence they claim to have either.

    They are use to chaos and fairytales and lack of continuity.

    Of course we are, we have to listen to theists spouting their incoherent fairytales and myths as if they were fact. We have to sift through the chaos and point out the inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in their little stories about imaginary deities.

    For us men of science we demand order and rationality.

    Surely a man of science would satisfy that need for order and rationality by giving the answer and the evidence that proves it. Which is exactly how we know A isn’t a man of science. Giving answers and supporting evidence is not something A does.

    “Instead A simply tells us what DNA is and continues to assert that it’s like a language”

    Well, only because it is.

    It still isn’t – unless A suddenly has evidence that DNA conforms to Zipf’s Law like all natural languages do? I’ll predict that he doesn’t.

    It is high information code that provides the data necessary for the cell to produce molecules.

    Lolwut? The symbols we’ve assigned to DNA are simply a way for us to describe the natural physical properties of the components that make up the molecule. It’s a description not a prescription. The code doesn’t determine how the physical components react with one another, instead the physical properties of the components determine how they interact.

    You can dance and spin all you like, but reality slaps you right in the face….:)

    It really does but A keeps spinning and dancing all the same, ignoring reality at all costs. That kind of deliberate ignorance is hard to find, but in A we’ve found someone with great mastery of the skill.

    language was not even my initial word, byt Collins refers to it as such….:)

    Your insistence on sticking with an argument from authority to try and support a failed claim is duly noted.

    “It’s just chemistry. Chemistry bonds nitrogenous bases with sugars and phosphates to form nucleotides.”

    Yes, it is chemistry.

    So now we have A conceding that DNA can be formed by a natural process – in this case chemistry. I wonder how long it will be before he totally ignores this fact and starts fantasising that there’s no natural process which can create DNA? My guess is it won’t be long.

    Thanks….again showing fred aka mouse does not understand the difference between matter & energy vs. Information…..(snicker)

    Except that A hasn’t actually demonstrated that there is a difference between the matter and energy that makes up DNA and the information that it carries. He seems to be claiming that the physical properties of the proteins aren’t the basis of the information carried in DNA. That the information somehow determines how the underlying matter and energy will react. Of course he refuses to explain how he has come to this conclusion and also can’t seem to tell us why this unsupported claim is actually relevant to the discussion. This is nothing new when dealing with A though.

    “No, they’re hypotheses”

    LOL!!!, oh I stand corrected. So these are viable scientific hypothesis? lol!!!

    Any hypothesis that can produce clear and testable predictions is a viable scientific hypothesis. If you can’t test it there’s no way of validating or falsifying it.

    “A conceded that DNA forming by natural means was possible.”

    Yes, and so is a flying ninja turtle traveling at light speeds across the galaxies!

    A obviously doesn’t understand the concept “possible”.

    No barriers to that right, just time and evolution? lol!!!

    So A actually does believe there’s a barrier to DNA forming naturally – despite having said that there isn’t one and also conceding that it’s formed by chemistry in this post. Will A tell us what he thinks this barrier is? Or will he do another U-turn and say that there isn’t one again? He’s doing 360’s like a boss. Spinning like a top.

    According to atheists, anything is possible…..that would include God! lol!!! So why the denials?

    This is a lie. I have never once claimed that “anything is possible”. In fact there are a large number of things that are logically impossible, starting with deities and the supernatural.

    As we know, the burden for fred is to show us that something DID HAPPEN not that a barrier exists not to happen.

    A’s dishonest attempt to shift the burden of proof is duly noted. He’s the one making the claim that DNA is a complex code and that the physical properties of the components are somehow different to the information that it carries. I’ve asked several times now for an explanation as to what A means by a “complex code”, how it differs from other codes such as crystalline structures or chemical compositions and for him to demonstrate that the information in DNA is somehow different from the matter and energy that makes up the physical components. So far he’s provided absolutely nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. He simply repeats the claim as if repeating it endlessly will make it true. Of course this is hardly a surprise for someone who’s professed worldview rests on the concept that wishing makes it so.

    So who/what this very complex code?

    Still waiting for A to explain what he means when he calls it a “very complex code”? What is his standard of “complexity” and how is DNA different from complex crystalline structures or complex chemical compositions? What makes DNA special when it comes to “complexity”? And why is “complexity” supposedly a problem for nature?

    Are we to believe chance? time? evolution? Certainly they have more than this??????

    A is free to believe whatever he wants – after all this is a man who believes “a flying ninja turtle traveling at light speeds across the galaxies” is possible.

  637. on 26 Mar 2015 at 11:39 am 637.freddies_dead said …

    634.Austin said …

    Obviously all these accusations come from someone who has never experienced god in their life before.

    Maybe you have an objective means by which we can distinguish your God from something you may be merely imagining.

    you don’t just pray to god and expect him to give you anything you want, especially if you are atheist and have never attempted to follow him. he promises stuff to those who follow him.

    And yet studies on intercessory prayer show it is utterly ineffective. It seems your God is making promises he simply can’t keep.

    reguardless of what you think about god he loves you atheist or not.

    How lovely.

    and when it comes to heaven or hell, if for whatever reason us Christians are wrong, then ok we were wrong about what happens to us when we die. but if YOU the atheist is wrong, and you go to hell, well, then you’re screwed.

    Hold on, you just said that your God loves me whether I’m an atheist or not. Now you’re telling me my disbelief means I’m screwed. Which one is it Mr. Contradictory?

    Also Pascal’s wager is a total bust. Starting with the fact that it’s a false dichotomy. It’s not just a case of God or nothing. What about if there is a God, but he’s not the one you believe in? And this God doesn’t mind those who don’t believe, but has a real issue with those who believe in the wrong deity? Now it’s you who’s screwed. And remember, there aren’t just 1 or 2 Gods to choose from, there are thousands that have been advanced by billions of believers over the history of the world, so just how in the hell do you know you’ve picked the right one?

    And don’t blame god for all of lifes problems. hunger, obesity, cancer, war all of these things are created by satan,

    So your God didn’t create Satan? This is bad news for your God. We don’t need him to create things anymore … and *poof* your imaginary God is gone.

    and YOU the majority who focus on all of lifes obstacles alone fail to realize the big picture. it is entirely up to you guys as a civilization to end obesity, so get off the couch and do something.

    What an odd charge to make. As atheists we generally do realise that we can’t rely on fictional deities to help us out. We know that the only way we’ll lose weight is by doing it ourselves. Same with ending the big issues like racism, sexism, inequality and poverty etc… There’s no point praying, get off your arse and actually do something instead.

    if you don’t want war, don’t give a country a reason to go to war with you.

    What if God tells you to go to war, but you don’t want to?

    if someone smokes crack and they get you to do it, and you get hooked, that was YOUR fault not gods.

    Ooh look, maybe Austin can explain how we can have free will in light of an omniscient God with a plan. Go on Austin, if your God knows I will get hooked on crack is there anyway I can choose not to get hooked on crack?

    and as far as what the bible says, it is all true.

    Even the bit about bats being birds? Or the whole mustard seed being smallest debacle? Lets face it, if it can’t get the little details right why should I believe it about the big stuff?

    as I said before, if you want to see god perform miracles in your life, get saved.

    Just believe and then you’ll believe! Your argument is just soooo compelling.

    just because your mom had cancer and died despite you praying does NOT mean god doesn’t exist.

    True, your God doesn’t exist due to the metaphysical primacy of existence.

    everyone dies. if it was her time to die then it was her time to die.

    So very deep.

    oh and if you haven’t seen it, watch gods not dead. that will make all of you have second thoughts.

    Wait, what? All this was just a plug for an awful film. That’s disappointing.

    this is annoying.

    Indeed.

  638. on 26 Mar 2015 at 12:51 pm 638.ShamelessSockpuppeter said …

    You guys are crap.

    I write in and pretend to be an atheist and you atheist take my praises over the moon.

    While I am cussed out by Christians.

    Then I write in and pretend to be a Christian and the Christians praise me and the atheist cuss me out.

    ~So much for your almighty god and your almighty science.

  639. on 26 Mar 2015 at 1:08 pm 639.ShamelessSockpuppeter said …

    You are all a bunch of filthy dreamers you should be working comedy gigs in the slums. Not smuttying up the internet with your filth.

  640. on 26 Mar 2015 at 3:31 pm 640.Corbis The Prickly Science Guy said …

    LOL!!!!

    Finally!, the atheist have gone to the farce of Zipf’s law. Another attempt by the Dawkins of the world to play down the complexity of life to save their worldview. The beauty of science as we discover more and more the complexity of life it tears at the very heart of atheism! lol!!!!

    Zipf’s law has nothing to do with the definition of language. Furthermore, depending on the analysis used, DNA does in fact follow Zipf’s law. It must be considered that DNA has more in common with ancient languages rather than the more modern languages. In fact, it parallels machine code or BCD beautifully.
    When DNA is translated into proteins it fits perfectly with Zipf’s law as some genes are used more than others. However the point is moot.

    Glad to see you guys are learning though.

    But freddie mouse, lets work through this together.

    Do you agree that we have not discovered any systems in nature that could write a complex code like DNA?

    Yes or no…..then we can continue on working through to a resolution……:)

  641. on 26 Mar 2015 at 6:18 pm 641.Anonymous said …

    i am anonymous not freddie or alex or no body else. didn’t your bible come with a clairvoyant switch…

  642. on 26 Mar 2015 at 8:15 pm 642.Anonymous said …

    “Even the bit about bats being birds? Or the whole mustard seed being smallest debacle?”

    The Bible uses the word “owph” which translated actually means to cover or to fly.

    The mustard seed is part of the herb group “lachana” and is the smallest of all in that group.

    No contradictions. Hope this helps.

  643. on 26 Mar 2015 at 8:19 pm 643.Austin said …

    if you watch gods not dead then you’d see. I can’t explain it like they did but it’s the exact same situation we are in right now. there is a guy who is a devote Christian a college student to be exact, trying to prove to a pre-existing Christian who is a senior college science professor. everything is science based since all you simple minded atheist seem to believe science has all the answers. if you watch it you’d understand that even science points towards to the odds of there being a higher power likely. if you haven’t listened to what steven hawking has to say about it, use him for logic. especially you Freddie. and Christians don’t put atheists down like you try to do. they are some of the nicest people you will ever meet. don’t base your own experiences off of what little you’ve experienced. I cannot 100 percent prove that god exists but you cannot 100 percent prove god doesn’t. my beliefs stand as they always will.

  644. on 26 Mar 2015 at 9:18 pm 644.alex said …

    “I cannot 100 percent prove that god exists but you cannot 100 percent prove god doesn’t.”

    you dumb motherfucker. your god is supposed to know everything, but he also give you free will. it can’t happen, you dumbass. might as well say that your god answers all prayers, but he also doesn’t. oh wait! it’s the same bullshit god, ain’t it?

    dumbass.

  645. on 26 Mar 2015 at 9:25 pm 645.alex said …

    “there is a guy who is a devote Christian a college student to be exact,”

    who gives a shit?

    “you simple minded atheist seem to believe science has all the answers.”

    let’s say i don’t believe in science. how the fuck does that prove your allah did everything? and btw, how the fuck do you know which shit is supposedly allah’s creation? volcanos? tides? clouds? semen? flowers? the big bang? galaxies?

    go ahead, bitch motherfucker. list all of your god’s creations. everything? fucking programming a non-language dna code? how about a frozen popsicle? your motherfucking god created that too?

    bitch.

  646. on 26 Mar 2015 at 9:28 pm 646.alex said …

    “The Bible uses the word “owph” which translated actually means to cover or to fly.”

    tell me more, dumbass. fucking bears mauling youths translates to what? stoning sunday working people translates to what?

    why don’t you pull your own personal translated bible out of your ass and pass it out to all the fucked up xtian variants and see if they’ll agree to your translations. no? why not? because you’re a dumb motherfucker.

  647. on 26 Mar 2015 at 10:28 pm 647.Hell Yeah said …

    “I cannot 100 percent prove that god exists but you cannot 100 percent prove god doesn’t.

    Hmmm….another one of those “you can’t prove something doesn’t exist” claims. When are your like going to learn that you can’t prove a negative and that it is up to those who make the positive claim that something exists to give proof of that something existing.

    ————-

    “if you watch gods not dead then you’d see.”

    See what? Did this movie film an actual real supernatural being? Otherwise it is just brainwashing propaganda to keep you believing. Nothing more.

    ————

    “You are all a bunch of filthy dreamers you should be working comedy gigs in the slums. Not smuttying up the internet with your filth.”

    Do you work comedy gigs in the slums? Because I can’t stop LOL at your comments.

  648. on 26 Mar 2015 at 10:48 pm 648.Hell Yeah said …

    “if you watch gods not dead then you’d see…… if you haven’t listened to what steven hawking has to say about it, use him for logic.”

    Okay, what do you have to say about this? Below is part of what was written on the site “God’s Not Dead? Neither Is Philosophy”.

    Evaluating the Arguments: Josh’s First Lecture

    In his first lecture, Josh begins by observing that you can’t disprove God and then asks us to consider that the early “steady state” models of the universe, which suggested that it had always existed, were disproven by the discovery of the Big Bang. This means, he suggests, that the Bible (Genesis) got it right and science got it wrong. He then goes on to point out that since ordinary objects don’t pop into existence from nothing, it would be crazy to think that the universe did. And when a student points out that, “If you can ask what created the universe, then I can ask what created God” Josh argues such an objection only applies if God began to exist, which he did not.

    What mistakes does Radisson miss? First of all, the fact that you can’t disprove something’s existence is not a reason to think that it exists. That’s called an appeal to ignorance. The burden of proof lies on the one making the existential claim, and without evidence, disbelief is the rational position. If Josh fails to make his case, atheism is a rational response.

    Next, Josh’s claim that Genesis got it right when science got it wrong is ludicrous. First of all, science didn’t get it wrong; scientific reasoning is what demonstrated the occurrence of the Big Bang. Yes, scientists have gotten things wrong in the past, but science itself continually moves us closer to the truth. But once science has discovered something, you don’t get to retroactively reinterpret your scripture and say that it predicted what you just discovered. That’s what people do with Nostradamus—take his vague quatrains, and then after something occurs (like WWII) they interpret them to fit the bill. It’s called postdiction(link is external), and it’s the pinnacle of stupidity. Now, if Genesis has said “God created the universe 13.8 billion years ago by generating all matter in the universe through the creation of a single point that subsequently expanded…” then, okay. But Genesis in no way gives an accurate account of what happened when the universe first came into existence. In fact, it gives two contradictory accounts(link is external)—dogmatic adherence to which held back science for centuries. Yes, like just about every other creation myth, it suggests that there was a moment of creation—but that doesn’t count as a “hit.” That’s is not predicting the discovery of the big bang.

    Josh’s argument that “ordinary objects don’t pop into existence and neither could the universe” is based on a category mistake. When ordinary objects come into existence it is because matter that already exists has come to be arranged in a certain way. (When you build a house, you don’t create new matter. You rearrange already existing wood and brick and stone into a new form: a house.) But that tells us nothing about whether matter itself can come into existence, unexplained, from nothing. In fact, quantum mechanics has shown us that matter indeed does come into existence—unexplained, from nothing—during what is called a vacuum fluctuation(link is external). In fact, it is quite possible(link is external) that the existence of our universe is due to a larger version of just such a fluctuation.

    Lastly, Josh’s “Dawkins dodge” is based on the assumption that God is non-created—but Josh is merely stipulating that this is so. Josh might insist that this is true of God by definition, since God is a perfect being, but the god that stands at the origins of his religion (the one worshiped by early Jews and Christians) was not perfect. The idea of a perfect being was imported…you guessed it…from philosophy. Besides, although our current model suggests that the matter of the universe came into existence, the quantum foam from which it likely sprung has always existed. And if the theist demands that the foam still needs an explanation, he must also require an explanation for God. If the ever-extant foam warrants an explanation, so too must an ever-extant God.

    Evaluating the Arguments: Josh’s Second Lecture

    Radisson replies to Josh’s first lecture by pointing out that Stephen Hawking concluded that the universe can and must explain itself. But Josh begins his second lecture by quoting Gavin Jenson, a “philosopher, scientist and mathematician,” who claims that Hawking’s argument about a self-explanatory universe is circular. Josh then goes on to quote Hawking’s claim that “philosophy is dead” and so concludes that, if Hawking is such an authority, “there is no need for this class.” He then goes on to point out that evolution can’t account for life’s origins, and that Darwin himself said that “nature does not jump,” yet in the cosmic scheme of things, “life did appear suddenly.”

    The flaws in Josh’s second argument are numerous: First of all, Gavin Jenson is not a philosopher, scientist, or mathematician. He is a BYU graduate with a degree in Graphic Design and his response to Hawking has not been peer reviewed and is not published anywhere besides his right-leaning blog(link is external)—which as far as I can tell is the extent of his “academic” accomplishment. In addition, his critique of Hawking is quote mining at its worst. He takes Hawking out of context and interprets his statement as uncharitably as possible. Best of all, if Jenson’s argument refutes Hawking, it also refutes theism. He suggests that it is logically impossible for something to be self-explanatory—yet that is exactly what Christians claim is true of God.

    (I should also mention that since Hawking is not a philosopher, he is not in a position to declare whether philosophy is dead—being an authority on one subject does not make him an authority on all others. But we will return to that claim in the conclusion.)

    Josh’s argument about evolution is equally bad. First of all, Darwin did not develop a theory of evolution – it was already established. Darwin discovered the mechanism for evolution: natural selection. Second of all, evolution does not account for the origin of life because that is not what the theory is about. Criticizing it on this basis would be like criticizing the germ theory of disease because it can’t account for the effects of brain injuries. That’s not what the theory is about. And while it is true that we have yet to discover how life first appeared on our planet—although there are many viable theories(link is external) about how that could have occurred—that is no reason to conclude that “God did it.” This kind of reasoning commits what I call the “mystery therefore magic fallacy,” a variety of appealing to ignorance. That you can’t figure something out is not a reason to conclude that your favorite supernatural entity—whether it be aliens, ghosts, or God—is responsible. The better explanation is your own ignorance. Such reasoning holds back science by discouraging any attempt to discover the real explanation.

    Josh’s claim that the appearance of life on earth violates Darwin’s “nature does not jump” rule is also preposterous. First of all, life has been evolving since about 3.6 billion years ago(link is external), when simple life first emerged on Earth. The universe is 13.8 billion years old. So it’s taken 25% of the universe’s existence to produce life on Earth in its current form—hardly the wink of an eye, even in cosmic terms. But even if we limit ourselves to the last 600 million years—the time it took to go from simple animals to Homo sapiens—yes, that is a short amount of time when compared to the age of the universe. But that can hardly be considered the kind of jump that Darwin said nature avoids. In fact, it is exactly such grandiose time frames that Darwin suggested natural selection would need to accomplish evolution. Josh’s argument equivocates on the term “jump.” Is like me saying, “I can’t leap from my house to my office in a single bound” and you saying, “Sure you can. Think of how hard it would be to leap across America in a single bound.”

    Of course, Radisson doesn’t bother to point any of this out, but simply observes that, “most atheists are Christians who simply took off their blinders.” I don’t know if this is true. I do know that it is irrelevant.

    Evaluating the Arguments: Josh’s Third Lecture

    In his last lecture, Josh answers the problem of evil with the free will defense. God allows evil to occur because he wants us to have the free will to choose him and thus enter heaven. God simply wants the students to have the choice to choose to accept or reject him—a choice that Radisson wants to take away. Josh then argues that atheists like Radisson have no grounds for moral absolutes and yet would obviously claim that a student cheating on a test was “wrong.” He follows this with the famous Dostoyevsky quote “without God everything is permissible.” Josh then confronts Radisson directly, claiming that: “Science proves God’s existence and you know it. So why do you hate him?” When Radisson admits it’s because God took everything away from him, Josh simply asks: “How can you hate someone if he doesn’t exist?” It was at this point that everyone in the theater, on that chilly Sunday afternoon, applauded vigorously.

    What’s wrong this time?

    Josh admits that the problem of evil is the atheists’ strongest argument, but he neglects to mention that the classic “free will defense” is only effective against one version: the logical problem of moral evil (and some philosophers(link is external) even question its effectiveness in that regard.) It does not address the logical problem of natural evil or the evidential problem of evil at all. Many philosophers think these arguments are conclusive.

    Secondly, the “everything is permissible without God” argument is one of the worst arguments for God. Not only are there many secular ethical theories, but divine command theory—the idea that God grounds all ethical truths—is one of the most discredited positions in all of philosophy. Not only is it subject to the Euthyphro problem (which suggests that God determining morality makes morality arbitrary) but it’s not clear that divine command theory is any better than a “God of the gaps” argument: “What makes a good, good and the bad, bad? I don’t know, God did it.”

    Josh “wins” the debate, not surprisingly, with a lie and a logical fallacy. Science has not proven God and his final question is a loaded one: “Why do you hate God?” clearly assumes that the person being questioned believes that God exists. Again, Radisson is the worst philosopher in the world if he doesn’t see this trap coming. The correct answer is simply: “I don’t hate God, but the evil I and others have suffered is good reason to conclude that God doesn’t exist. No minimally decent person, much less a perfectly benevolent being, could ever allow such things to happen.”

  649. on 26 Mar 2015 at 11:24 pm 649.Corbis The Prickly Science Guy said …

    LOL!!!!,

    luv ya alex! Thanks for spreading the wonderful atheists happiness, love and hope all around the blogosphere. You are the best thing to happen to all of us!

    Austin said” I cannot 100 percent prove that god exists but you cannot 100 percent prove god doesn’t. my beliefs stand as they always will.”

    Of course you CAN prove a negative and Mr Yeah is 100% wrong. Such an old and silly belief…lol!!! For instance “You cannot prove a negative” is actually a negative claim. Therefore, according to Mr Yeah that is unprovable…….

    Belief in God should be simple for atheists. They believe life jumped out of the primordial soup and wrote complex programs in the form of DNA. They can’t prove it, but they insist the fairytale is true….:)

  650. on 26 Mar 2015 at 11:30 pm 650.alex said …

    “Thanks for spreading the wonderful atheists happiness, love and hope all around the blogosphere.”

    says the dumbass hor/prick/martin/etc. spread the non-belief of your fucked up god is what i do. of course, you’ve been proven many times to be the lying bitch-ass motherfucker that you are.

    go ahead and bring up the atheist church that we all go to. and while you’re at it, the atheist high priest. all fucking lies of course. shall i trot out your fucked up “book of hor, the motherfucker, redux?”.

    asshole.

  651. on 26 Mar 2015 at 11:35 pm 651.Corbis The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “I should also mention that since Hawking is not a philosopher, he is not in a position to declare whether philosophy is dead—being an authority on one subject does not make him an authority on all others.”

    Hey freddie….er ah aka Mouse.

    You see the statement above? Rand was also no philosopher….she only had a degree in history as i recall, Therefore she is not qualified to make any judgments on philosophy.

    Sorry, not my claim, it is Mr Yeah’s,,,,,:)

  652. on 26 Mar 2015 at 11:36 pm 652.Corbis The Prickly Science Guy said …

    alex

    Oh yes!! Bring out the book please!! Thank you, I had forgotten all your hard work to produce your first Rand like novel…..:)

    Lov ya alex!

  653. on 26 Mar 2015 at 11:39 pm 653.alex said …

    and don’t forget, you dumbass hor. your pope, not mine, says belief is not necessary. it just irks the fuck out of you doesn’t it? i plan on dying before your motherfucking ass and i’ll be in heaven ahead of you to screw all the virgins and leaving none for you?

    you say i ain’t going to heaven? then trot out your goodness/morality test, bitchass motherfucker. we’ll both take it together and compare scores and we’ll see who gets to go to heaven. you up to it?

    fuckhead.

  654. on 26 Mar 2015 at 11:45 pm 654.alex said …

    “Thank you, I had forgotten all your hard work to produce your first Rand like novel”

    it wasn’t hard, you dumbass. you supplied all the material. you think the blog webmaster is hard at work? you are the source of all the contemptuous ass material while badly masquerading as numerous posters fluffing your own self. now you’re going to ask me to prove it? look it up your own damn self, you lazy, dumbass motherfucker.

  655. on 27 Mar 2015 at 3:35 am 655.TJ said …

    ” First of all, science didn’t get it wrong; scientific reasoning is what demonstrated the occurrence of the Big Bang.”

    (external quote)
    “If most galaxies are moving away from us, it means that the Universe is expanding. If the Universe is expanding, then in the past it must have been much smaller. Go back far enough, and there was a moment when all the matter in the Universe was packed into a point and expanded outwards. That moment was the Big Bang.”

    The Bible claims that God stretched forth the “heavens”. This implies that the “heavens” were created closer together and then spread apart. At what speed did this occur and what would we expect to observe if this was true?

  656. on 27 Mar 2015 at 4:22 am 656.Hell Yeah said …

    “The Bible claims that God stretched forth the “heavens”.”

    Ah, so heaven is the universe and we are in heaven. I get it. LOL. Or maybe god got sick of living in a small room and decided to make more room to stretch his legs. It was probably rough having angels as roommates so he wanted more privacy. Maybe that was the real reason why he banned Lucifer. Lucifer probably had a lot of gas which is why he is red all the time. LOL.

  657. on 27 Mar 2015 at 7:08 am 657.Anonymous said …

    I humbly take on board your judgements o thou great gods of athiesm.

  658. on 27 Mar 2015 at 11:17 am 658.freddies_dead said …

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

    LOL!!!!

    Finally!, the atheist have gone to the farce of Zipf’s law.

    Note how A utterly fails to show that Zipf’s law is a “farce”, he merely asserts it as if it has been established as fact. And also note that later on he’s going to do another U-turn and claim DNA does fit this allegedly farcical law. Yes, A will contradict himself again and no, it’s nothing new.

    Another attempt by the Dawkins of the world to play down the complexity of life to save their worldview.

    Nowhere have I tried to “play down the complexity of life”, I’ve merely asked A to explain his claims. Like how he defines complexity and what makes the complexity in DNA different to other complex systems like complex crystalline structures or complex chemical solutions. As usual A can’t or won’t explain or defend his claims, preferring instead to rail at those who ask him to explain/defend them and then simply repeat the claims as if his moaning has somehow validated them.

    The beauty of science as we discover more and more the complexity of life it tears at the very heart of atheism! lol!!!!

    Another baselessly asserted claim. In what ways do the things we discover about the complexity of life “tear at the very heart of atheism”? A doesn’t elaborate as usual. The only way these discoveries could affect atheism is if they showed that a God did, in fact, exist. If A thinks that this is the case then why doesn’t he demonstrate exactly which findings he means and just how they are doing it? Instead of doing that he just keeps harping on about the complexity of DNA while giving us no context and no explanation.

    Zipf’s law has nothing to do with the definition of language.

    So it’s a “farce” and it “has nothing to do with the definition of language” yet A is going to claim DNA fits it all the same. Yes he’s that hypocritical.

    Of course I never claimed that Zipf’s law defines a language, I simply pointed out that all natural languages conform to Zipf’s Law. It is a fairly well defined metric that we can test possible languages against to see if they fit. It’s not the only test but it’s a reasonable start. Of course DNA deviates from the pattern which suggests it’s not a natural language.

    Furthermore, depending on the analysis used, DNA does in fact follow Zipf’s law.

    And here we have it. This so called farcical law which doesn’t define language – all of a sudden A wants us to believe DNA fits with it. Why? If it’s so useless why is A trying to make it fit?

    Also notice how, as usual, A completely fails to back up his claim. He conveniently leaves out exactly what analysis needs to be used in order to force DNA to conform to Zipf’s Law.

    What he’s actually referring to is the fact that non-coding portions of DNA do seem to fit with Zipf’s Law while the coding areas don’t. That means that the bits of DNA that do fit Zipf’s Law are the bits that don’t actually do anything. How apt. The “language” portion of DNA is pretty much meaningless. Defunct pseudogenes that have lost their ability to code for proteins and are free to acquire genetic noise through random mutations. This is A’s DNA language.

    It must be considered that DNA has more in common with ancient languages rather than the more modern languages.

    Why must it be considered thus? Because A says so? In what ways does DNA have more in common with ancient languages? And why does this even matter as Zipf’s Law covers natural languages both ancient and modern? Once more A doesn’t say and DNA as a whole still doesn’t fit the pattern.

    In fact, it parallels machine code or BCD beautifully.

    It does? Where is A’s evidence for this claim? Once more he merely assets it as if we should accept his say so as authoritative.

    When DNA is translated into proteins it fits perfectly with Zipf’s law as some genes are used more than others. However the point is moot.

    But the coding portion of DNA i.e. the part where proteins are actually translated, doesn’t fit with Zipf’s law. So A’s point is not moot, just plain wrong.

    Glad to see you guys are learning though.

    Nah, I already knew A was dishonest and hypocritical. His comments here simply confirm that.

    But freddie mouse, lets work through this together.

    Well I keep trying to, but A can’t/won’t demonstrate any of the claims he makes.

    Do you agree that we have not discovered any systems in nature that could write a complex code like DNA?

    Yes or no…..then we can continue on working through to a resolution……:)

    I’ve already said that simple chemical reactions are quite capable of forming nucleotides and then polynucleotides before finally we have DNA. A even conceded it was chemistry and he’s admitted that he knows of no barrier to natural processes forming DNA.

    So the question has been resolved even though A has tried very hard not to participate in the process. If he disagrees then he’s very welcome to present his own hypothesis and the evidence he believes supports it. Of course I expect he’ll simply go back to implying nature couldn’t possibly have formed “complex code” DNA and refusing to say who or what he thinks actually did do it.

  659. on 27 Mar 2015 at 11:18 am 659.freddies_dead said …

    642.Anonymous said …

    “Even the bit about bats being birds? Or the whole mustard seed being smallest debacle?”

    The Bible uses the word “owph” which translated actually means to cover or to fly.

    Odd, when I looked up the word in Strong’s it says the word “owph” translates to “a bird (as covered with feathers, or rather as covering with wings), often collectively:–bird, that flieth, flying, fowl. Still no mention of bats and the implication is clearly that of feathered animals.

    The mustard seed is part of the herb group “lachana” and is the smallest of all in that group.

    Why would Jesus say “smallest of all seeds” if He only meant the smallest in a certain group?

  660. on 27 Mar 2015 at 11:29 am 660.freddies_dead said …

    643.Austin said …

    if you watch gods not dead then you’d see.

    I’ve seen enough clips and reviews to know I’d be seeing an awful film with a plot straight out of a Chick tract.

    I can’t explain it like they did but it’s the exact same situation we are in right now. there is a guy who is a devote Christian a college student to be exact, trying to prove to a pre-existing Christian who is a senior college science professor.

    Exact same situation? Seriously? a) I’m not a college science professor and b) neither is the character in God’s Not Dead, he’s a philosophy professor – I thought you’d seen it?

    everything is science based since all you simple minded atheist seem to believe science has all the answers.

    And where has anyone on here made such a claim? If you read a few of alex’s posts you’ll notice that, among the gloriously profane outbursts, he’s quite happy to ditch everything we know from science and see what happens. So am I. My argument against God (which you’ll find further up this comment section) is based on philosophy not science.

    In fact the only reason we end up having discussions about science is because A is incapable of anything else. He’s fixated on picking out something that science hasn’t fully explained yet and forcing the idea of a God into the gap. Of course he never actually presents any evidence to show his God actually exists and belongs in the gap. All he does is shout “nature can’t do it” without ever explaining why.

    if you watch it you’d understand that even science points towards to the odds of there being a higher power likely.

    When I looking at actual science and not films made with a very definite religious bias, I see the gaps where people try to stuff their gods getting smaller and smaller.

    Not that the science matters as metaphysics has already shown me that God does not exist.

    if you haven’t listened to what steven hawking has to say about it, use him for logic. especially you Freddie.

    Don’t you mean Stephen Hawking? The world renowned scientist who said “Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation.” and “What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”. That Stephen Hawking?

    and Christians don’t put atheists down like you try to do.

    From the fellow who called us atheists “simple minded”. Hypocrite.

    they are some of the nicest people you will ever meet.

    And some turn out to be the worst.

    don’t base your own experiences off of what little you’ve experienced.

    Lolwut? Don’t base my experiences off what I’ve experienced? What is that supposed to even mean?

    I cannot 100 percent prove that god exists

    Why not? Isn’t He supposed to be all powerful?

    but you cannot 100 percent prove god doesn’t.

    My argument demonstrates the logical impossibility of God.

    my beliefs stand as they always will.

    If you’re not even open to evidence why are you even here?

  661. on 27 Mar 2015 at 1:00 pm 661.Corbis The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Of course I never claimed that Zipf’s law defines a language”

    Great! We can move on from fred aka mouse’s red herring….:)

    “I’ve already said that simple chemical reactions are quite capable of forming nucleotides and then polynucleotides before finally we have DNA.”

    Finally?, They are? Where did they come from? How did they come together? How did they write a complex language? Where is the evidence, provide the evidence using the scientific method. I am a man of science, unsubstantiated claims will not cut it….lol!!!

    “Don’t you mean Stephen Hawking? The world renowned scientist who said “Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation.”

    It does? Please share. Notice freddie offers no explanation but only an appeal to authority. What explanation is better? Where is the evidence it is better? This is the same authority who says philosophy is dead, yes? Therefore so is freddie’s so-called Rand objective philosophy…..:) That was dead before hawking declared it so……

    “My argument demonstrates the logical impossibility of God.”

    It does? Then please share so we can put this to rest.

    Got the popcorn popping ready to learn….:)

    munch…..munch…….lol!!

    “Odd, when I looked up the word in Strong’s it says the word “owph” translates to “a bird”

    Odd, I looked it up and one of the definitions from Brown’s Hebrew Lexicon is ” flying creatures”. Last check, that is a bat….lol!!!! freddie is just full of lies.

  662. on 27 Mar 2015 at 4:46 pm 662.freddies_dead said …

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

    “Of course I never claimed that Zipf’s law defines a language”

    Great! We can move on from fred aka mouse’s red herring….:)

    Note how A never actually shows that my mention of Zipf’s Law was a red herring, merely asserts it without evidence. Because it wasn’t. All natural languages fit the pattern of Zipf’s Law while DNA doesn’t. That makes Zipf’s Law relevant to the discussion. I’d love to move on but A has claimed that Zipf’s Law is “farcical”, “no definition of a language” and now “a red herring” while at the same time insisting that DNA fits the pattern. I’m not sure why he insists on contradicting himself like this but it sure is amusing.

    “I’ve already said that simple chemical reactions are quite capable of forming nucleotides and then polynucleotides before finally we have DNA.”

    Finally?, They are?

    Yes, they are. And A agreed it was all chemistry in post #632. Now, as predicted, he’s doing another U-turn. As I said before he’s welcome to give his own hypothesis. Tell us who or what created DNA and how they or it did it. He won’t of course, he’ll just keep asking how nature did it as if that’s some sort of argument against it happening naturally.

    Where did they come from?

    The chemicals reactions? They’re a function of the chemicals themselves which ultimately came from the singularity that expanded during the event known as the Big Bang.

    How did they come together?

    How did what come together? Chemical reactions are processes. They’re a function of the chemicals themselves.

    How did they write a complex language?

    Note how A does exactly as I predicted. A has singularly failed to explain what he means by complexity, why it’s even important or that DNA is a language. Yet here he is, demanding an explanation for something he hasn’t shown needs explaining. We know that chemicals join together to form chains. Those chains can join together to form even longer chains. And A has admitted during this discussion that he knows of no reason to assume this cannot result in the formation of DNA. So why should we assume that nature can’t? A offers no help there either. He insists he hasn’t bought God into the discussion. He makes no attempt to put forward an alternative explanation of any kind, let alone offer up any evidence to support one. He simply doesn’t believe that nature can form DNA. So what? Why should we care what A believes. He claims to be a man of science so why does he shrink away from doing anything scientific like stating a hypothesis and finding the evidence that supports/invalidates it?

    Where is the evidence, provide the evidence using the scientific method. I am a man of science, unsubstantiated claims will not cut it….lol!!!

    ROFLCOPTER!!! This from the man who claims everything, but never provides evidence for anything. All we get from A is unsubstantiated claims. It’s how we know he’s anything but “a man of science”. Hell, he even insists that he can’t trust the senses he’d need to use to do science.

    “Don’t you mean Stephen Hawking? The world renowned scientist who said “Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation.”

    It does? Please share.

    If A wants to know what Hawking means he can go and read Hawking’s books. No doubt he won’t want to “wade through” them either because his claim to be a man of science is just so much horse shit.

    Notice freddie offers no explanation but only an appeal to authority.

    And once more A offers up evidence that he doesn’t understand how fallacies work – no wonder he commits so many of them himself.

    It was Austin who said I should listen to Stephen Hawking. Apparently doing that would help me to understand “that even science points towards to the odds of there being a higher power likely.”. I merely pointed out 2 statements made by Dr. Hawking – a world renowned scientist and therefore a valid authority on science – which show that he doesn’t believe in any higher power. That, in fact, he actually believes that science points to there not being one.

    What explanation is better?

    Hawking says it’s science.

    Where is the evidence it is better?

    I’d suggest A go reads Hawking’s books as this is Hawking’s claim, but you just know that, man of science that he is (lol), he’s not prepared to “wade through” them.

    This is the same authority who says philosophy is dead, yes? Therefore so is freddie’s so-called Rand objective philosophy…..:)

    You know that argument from authority fallacy that A accused me of committing earlier? Well, here’s an actual example. It should come as no surprise that it is A committing it either. Apparently because Hawking said that philosophy is dead it must be true. Now, as far as I’m aware (and as Hell Yeah pointed out in post #648), Hawking isn’t a philosopher, he’s a scientist. So why should we accept Hawking’s claim? A offers no explanation, no substance to support the claim we’re just supposed to accept Hawking’s authority … and this from the man who insisted that unsubstantiated claims just wouldn’t cut it.

    That was dead before hawking declared it so……

    Is this true regardless of what anyone may think, wish, demand etc…? Because if it is then A is stealing from my worldview to deny my worldview and if it isn’t then it’s simply not true. I do so love it when A makes such self defeating statements.

    “My argument demonstrates the logical impossibility of God.”

    It does? Then please share so we can put this to rest.

    Got the popcorn popping ready to learn….:)

    munch…..munch…….lol!!

    Already done at least twice on this thread and A has run away from it both times.

    “Odd, when I looked up the word in Strong’s it says the word “owph” translates to “a bird”

    Odd, I looked it up and one of the definitions from Brown’s Hebrew Lexicon is ” flying creatures”. Last check, that is a bat….lol!!!!

    I also looked at Brown’s and the full definition given there is:

    1. flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds
    a. fowl, birds
    b. winged insects

    Last time I checked bats were neither fowl, birds or winged insects, but I guess context doesn’t matter when you’re as desperate as A.

    freddie is just full of lies.

    Of course I didn’t lie at all. When you look at Strong’s you’ll see that owph translates exactly as I said it does, but because A is inherently dishonest he simply assumes that everyone else must be too. They’re not.

  663. on 27 Mar 2015 at 6:31 pm 663.Corbis The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “A never actually shows that my mention of Zipf’s Law was a red herring,:

    Oh, but I did, when fred aka mouase admitted “Of course I never claimed that Zipf’s law defines a language”
    Red Herring…lol!!!! An attempt to change the subject in order not to answer the question I must of asked at least 15 times, now he has found his Zipf to hang on to….:)

    “I’ve already said that simple chemical reactions are quite capable of forming nucleotides and then polynucleotides before finally we have DNA.”

    Awesome! Using SM show us how the code was written. Mere claims will not do it, again I am a man of science….:) Reader: I am beginning to think fred mouse is not familiar with the SM….:)

    “If A wants to know what Hawking means he can go and read Hawking’s books.:

    Another claim and again no evidence using the SM.

    “Apparently because Hawking said that philosophy is dead it must be true”

    Well, you just made a claim about Hawking and wanted us to believe it to be true. Readers notice the double standard…lol!!!

    “Already done at least twice on this thread:

    Fred is dreaming, he made claims, but again they were not logical. No surprise coming from fred aka mouse…..:) Besides, Rand doesn’t have a phiosophy degree….lol!!!!1

    “Last time I checked bats were neither fowl, birds or winged insects”

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!, yes but they are flying creatures which was first on the list. lol!!!! What a maroon!

    Thanks fred mouse!

  664. on 27 Mar 2015 at 6:32 pm 664.Corbis The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Here is a great link to the double meaning of the DNA code. Hey! It is not by creationist! lol!!!1

    Uses the word language and code….:)

    http://www.washingtonedu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/

  665. on 27 Mar 2015 at 7:22 pm 665.Anonymous said …

    can somebody open up one of the other topics again.

  666. on 28 Mar 2015 at 11:01 pm 666.TJ said …

    To Corbis The Prickly Science Guy,

    Freddie asks…

    “Like how he defines complexity and what makes the complexity in DNA different to other complex systems like complex crystalline structures or complex chemical solutions.”

    You are dealing with someone who cannot determine the complexity differences between DNA, essential to life, and the physical structures/makeup of the non living.

    Freddie clearly asserts in regard to DNA…

    “We actually know it isn’t a language at all.”

    He then cuts and pastes from various websites with cherry picked snippets to support his view.

    As you demonstrated (with your link), you too could cheery pick from the web to assert the opposite.

    Science itself is filled with opposing theories and opinion which could be assemble to support any claim, similar to how the Bible is cherry picked by atheists and theists alike to support their views.

    One must ask…

    Does freddie have an objective means by which we can distinguish his assertions from something he may be merely imagining?

  667. on 29 Mar 2015 at 1:12 am 667.Hell Yeah said …

    “Does freddie have an objective means by which we can distinguish his assertions from something he may be merely imagining?”

    Putting aside all the discussions we had and the questions theists brought up, does it really matter what caused what in the natural world when we have no proof of the supernatural? We have a natural world, so things being produced in a natural way isn’t an extraordinary claim. The “God of the Gaps” claim is the extraordinary one since there is no proof anything was done outside the natural world.

  668. on 29 Mar 2015 at 1:21 am 668.alex said …

    “He then cuts and pastes from various websites with cherry picked snippets to support his view.”

    you’re a fucking moron. i’ve already told you that establishing the distance of space objects have been proven, well known, and unshakable. and also that the speed of light has been measured repeatedly and has never been debunked.

    add to that the established dating methods which are stone cold facts that totally debunks your young earth bible bullshit.

    and your typical retort was that all these facts are somehow suspect and yet you offer not a single iota of evidence that renders them crap.

    what are you going ask next? i prove the speed of light? i prove the accuracy of star distances? i prove the dating methods? guess what, motherfucker? i ain’t smart enough. other folks smarter than me have done it. you’re the smart motherfucker. under your own fucked up, made up, conditions, why don’t you show us that their calculations would be wrong? no can do? all you can say is that you don’t believe these scientific facts and therefore your fucked up 6000 year old earth is correct?

    stupid ass bitch.

  669. on 29 Mar 2015 at 1:52 am 669.Coebis The Peickly Science Guy said …

    “We actually know it isn’t a language at all.”

    TJ its just desperation. Fred mouse ignores all the scientist who refer to DNA as code, language and complex. Next he will ask for definition of “is”

    The purpose is evident. Atheist must downplay complexity because they realize nature has no answers outside of fairytalea to explain such a complex language in every cell. The probably believe Linux eose from the primordial soup. Right? Everything is natural so, yeah we could get them to believe it……lol!!!

  670. on 29 Mar 2015 at 2:00 am 670.alex said …

    “Fred mouse ignores all the scientist who refer to DNA as code, language and complex.”

    is this all you got? arguing about code and language? call it what you want, you dumbass. now prove that your allah did it? no? more lol?

    then how about you go fuck yourself.

  671. on 29 Mar 2015 at 2:11 am 671.alex said …

    “now prove that your allah did it?”

    ok. i’ve come to my senses. i’ll finally admit that allah is the Creator and all that. can I get a collective amen from all the theists in here?

    dumbass motherfuckers.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply