Feed on Posts or Comments 04 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.

450 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. :)

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply