Feed on Posts or Comments 23 July 2016

Christianity Thomas on 08 Mar 2013 01:27 am

The insanity of religion – God’s plan edition

Here we find a great example of the insanity of religion:

God’s existence addressed

Through reflection, study and reading the works of C.S. Lewis, Lee Strobel and others, Kraftson said he found solid answers to his questions early in his college career.

“Which brought up the question: What do I want to do with my life?” Kraftson said. “I graduated college in 1970, which some of you may recall was a pretty turbulent time in our country, but also a time when many were joining the Peace Corps and things like that.”

Having concluded that God exists and does have a plan for everyone, Kraftson decided to share that message through interacting with people.

“Having concluded that God exists and does have a plan for everyone…” Imagine the level of insanity it takes to look at our world and reach that conclusion. Think of the 10 million children per year who die of starvation, the millions more who die senselessly of cancer and heart attacks, the millions slaughtered in war, and the millions more who perish in natural disasters. God says, “yes, my plan for you is to grow to age three and then to be crushed when your apartment collapses in an earthquake.” Only insanity could see that as a plan.

490 Responses to “The insanity of religion – God’s plan edition”

  1. on 21 Mar 2013 at 8:28 pm 1.The messenger said …

    Mr. 198.alex, stop talking like a neandrathal.

  2. on 21 Mar 2013 at 9:08 pm 2.alex said …

    “Mr. 198.alex, stop talking like a neandrathal.”

    because every fucking thing that comes out of your mouth is pure bullshit. it makes me curse/cringe/puke. until you say something with substance, all you get is scorn and/or cursing.

    btw, how the fuck do you talk like a “neandrathal”?

    why do you talk like a bullshitting fuckhead?

  3. on 21 Mar 2013 at 9:17 pm 3.alex said …

    “It’s you that is ((((INSANE)))) thinking that your own existence is not a product of creation ”

    motherfucker, it ain’t up to you to say who’s insane. the essense of this site is “your god is bullshit”. that include your bullsheyat allah, you fucking desert dweller who’s afraid to admit it and who’s afraid ole mess won’t be his buddy anymore.

    unless, you got some shit, shut the fuck up. using your bullshit bible/koran to buttress your bullshit assert is bullshit X bullshit.

    now go back to your sheep.

  4. on 21 Mar 2013 at 11:08 pm 4.DPK said …

    why do you talk like a bullshitting fuckhead?

    Alex gets the award for the most creative use of profanity!!!
    Solomon gets the award for the biggest sheep fucking, shit talking, bullshitting fuckhead!
    Rock on Alex…..
    I def have to remember that one.

  5. on 21 Mar 2013 at 11:18 pm 5.The messenger said …

    202.alex, why do you speak with such hate?

  6. on 22 Mar 2013 at 12:57 am 6.s0l0m0n said …

    It’s crystal clear alex & DPK is out of argument.
    2 – nil
    I (((WIN))).

    Whaaaaa….ka…ka…ka…

  7. on 22 Mar 2013 at 5:28 am 7.Xcanthean Zeno said …

    Again, s0l shows his deluded mind by claiming biology and physics as God’s…

  8. on 22 Mar 2013 at 6:56 am 8.s0l0m0n said …

    Xcanthean Zeno,

    Don’t try to twist my statement.

  9. on 22 Mar 2013 at 8:21 am 9.Xcanthean Zeno said …

    s0l said…
    Physics or biology is just a process or laws of God governing the essence of happenings or phenomenons.

    nope, god has nothing to do with it, being that he is an imagination…

  10. on 22 Mar 2013 at 9:40 am 10.s0l0m0n said …

    Xcanthean Zeno,

    ((((NOPE))))….it’s impossible everything that exists except God with it’s intricate designs or systems is not created by one powerful intelligent deity.

  11. on 22 Mar 2013 at 1:15 pm 11.Xcanthean Zeno said …

    No, organisms, even as complex as us, are immensely simple when it comes to design, as a matter of fact, humans are one of the most inefficient designs i have seen for an organism.
    Being that you believe god made us, i assume you do not believe in evolution? or that you believe that in one day, God made every organism?

  12. on 22 Mar 2013 at 3:27 pm 12.s0l0m0n said …

    “No, organisms, even as complex as us, are immensely simple when it comes to design, as a matter of fact, humans are one of the most inefficient designs i have seen for an organism.”

    That is the most irresponsible blatant blind statement.Make a blob of clay walks on its belly if you think it’s simple enough.

    Nothing starts with evolution. Everything except God must start with the 1st. design or blueprint. God don’t just make every organism but he made everything other than himself.

  13. on 22 Mar 2013 at 5:37 pm 13.freddies_dead said …

    210.s0l0m0n said …

    Xcanthean Zeno,

    ((((NOPE))))….it’s impossible everything that exists except God with it’s intricate designs or systems is not created by one powerful intelligent deity.

    So it takes intelligence to create intricate designs. In which case it must take something super intelligent to create the intelligence that can create intricate designs.

    With that in mind, who (or what) created your God? And why don’t you worship that being?

    Of course once you explain that, you can then explain who (or what) created the Super-God that created your bog standard God …. and so on and so forth.

    Infinite regress says you’re talking out of your arse.

  14. on 22 Mar 2013 at 10:27 pm 14.The messenger said …

    Mr. 211.Xcanthean Zeno, you are extremely misinformed.

    God created the ansestors of the animals that are on the Earth today. Gradually the animals that God created evolved into the different kinds of species that are on the Earth today.

  15. on 23 Mar 2013 at 12:24 am 15.s0l0m0n said …

    freddies_dead,

    You’re the ((((DUMBEST)))) person I have ever come across in my entire life. It’s a fatigue job to make you understand.

    1st. I stressed intricate design is limited to things other than God.

    2nd.How many times do I have to stress that God can’t be created coz’
    ((((GOD = NOTHING))))

    Case closed.

    Phewwww…tiring

  16. on 23 Mar 2013 at 12:27 am 16.Adam said …

    There is sin in the world and that’s why bad things happen.

  17. on 23 Mar 2013 at 12:30 am 17.s0l0m0n said …

    “Infinite regress ”

    Ahhh…..some primitive concept gathered by freddies_dead which is barely relevant.

  18. on 23 Mar 2013 at 2:39 am 18.s0l0m0n said …

    Sorry…

    “…….which is barely irrelevant.”

  19. on 23 Mar 2013 at 7:36 am 19.Xcanthean Zeno said …

    s0l said…
    ((((GOD = NOTHING))))

    How many times do you have to say this, if God is nothing, how can he create anything or exist in some form for that matter.

  20. on 23 Mar 2013 at 10:32 am 20.s0l0m0n said …

    Xcanthean Zeno,

    That’s the wonders of God.
    He exists and could create anything but yet he is not equivalent to any of his creations.

    ((((GOD = NOTHING))))

  21. on 23 Mar 2013 at 2:04 pm 21.The messenger said …

    on 22 Mar 2013 at 10:27 pm 214.The messenger said …
    Mr. 211.Xcanthean Zeno, you are extremely misinformed.
    God created the ansestors of the animals that are on the Earth today. Gradually the animals that God created evolved into the different kinds of species that are on the Earth today.

  22. on 24 Mar 2013 at 2:43 am 22.Hell Yeah said …

    “God created the ansestors of the animals that are on the Earth today. Gradually the animals that God created evolved into the different kinds of species that are on the Earth today.”

    Why didn’t God create the animals in the present form from the beginning? Why did he make them so they evolved? I think it is funny how creationists think the answer for everything is goddidit.

    Check this video out. This explains everything:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m0YYy9lqqs

    You must like humor that proves a point, though.

  23. on 24 Mar 2013 at 4:16 am 23.Xcanthean Zeno said …

    Lier.
    Show me one bible passage that says that.

  24. on 24 Mar 2013 at 4:21 am 24.s0l0m0n said …

    “Gradually the animals that God created evolved into the different kinds of species that are on the Earth today.”

    ((((Nope))))

    God created new species ” that are on the Earth today.”

  25. on 24 Mar 2013 at 4:44 am 25.The messenger said …

    222.Xcanthean Zeno, I am not a Liar.

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

    Scientific evidence supports this theory.

    Do not live in DENIAL.

  26. on 24 Mar 2013 at 12:16 pm 26.MrQ said …

    To The Mess, who claims:

    those animals that God created in the beginning did infact evolve into the modern animals that we know today.
    Scientific evidence supports this theory.

    Better be careful. This site is populated (polluted?) by strident Hell and Brimstone types who will only concede “micro-“evolution as fact. Be prepared to suffer their scorn and wrath with your flippant comment. You’ll have to back up this assertion. What do you have, science-wise?

  27. on 25 Mar 2013 at 12:48 pm 27.Xcanthean Zeno said …

    Sigh…

    i wonder when thiests will look at the facts and see how noahs ark is simply not possible…

  28. on 25 Mar 2013 at 3:44 pm 28.s0l0m0n said …

    Ahhhhh…

    Don’t just know how to rant “noahs ark is simply not possible…” Let’s debate on it and point out which part is impossible.

  29. on 25 Mar 2013 at 9:49 pm 29.The messenger said …

    Yes it is possible.

    Comments (9,184)
    Robert Ballard, one of the world’s most famous underwater explorers, has set his sights on proving the existence of one of the Bible’s most well known stories.
    In an interview with ABC’s Christiane Amanpour the archaeologist who discovered the Titanic discussed his findings from his search in Turkey for evidence of a civilization swept away by a monstrous ancient flood.
    “We went in there to look for the flood,” Ballard said. “Not just a slow moving, advancing rise of sea level, but a really big flood that then stayed… The land that went under stayed under.”
    Many have claimed to have discovered evidence of Noah’s Ark, the huge ship that Noah filled with two of each creature to repopulate the planet following God’s devastating flood. But in the 1990s, geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman gathered compelling evidence that showed a flood–if not an ark–may have occurred in the Middle East region about 7,500 years ago, PBS reports.
    The theory, the Guardian reports, is that a rising Mediterranean Sea pushed a channel through what is now the Bosphorus, submerging the original shoreline of the Black Sea in a deluge flowing at about 200 times the volume of Niagara Falls and extending out for 100,000 square miles.
    Ballard has been exploring this theory for more than a decade, National Geographic reports, first discovering evidence of a submerged ancient shoreline in 1999. At that point, Ballard was still not convinced this was a biblical flood, according to the Guardian. Last year, his team found a vessel and one of its crew members in the Black Sea, according to ABC.
    Ballard is using advanced robotic technology to travel back nearly 12,000 years to a time when much of the Earth was covered in ice, ABC reports. If and when this ice started to melt, massive floods may have surged through parts of the globe, wreaking havoc on anything and anyone in its way.
    With an impressive track record (besides the Titanic, Ballard also found the wreck of the battleship, Bismarck, and a U.S. fleet lost off Guadalcanal in the Pacific) and plenty of confidence, Ballard remains unfazed by critics. He plans on returning to Turkey next summer.
    The story of Noah and his ark is a building block of Genesis, in the Old Testament. It is similar in some respects to the Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh, according to National Geographic, and the ancient Greeks, Romans and Native Americans all have their own variations on legendary flood stories.
    View Gallery
    Jesus Discovery

    CORRECTION: A previous headline on this story suggested that Ballard believed he found evidence of Noah’s Ark. He only found evidence of the flood.

  30. on 26 Mar 2013 at 1:46 am 30.Xcanthean Zeno said …

    Why the flood couldnt of happened.

    1: animals would have killed noah
    2: he couldnt have got the animals

  31. on 26 Mar 2013 at 2:23 am 31.The messenger said …

    Brother 230.Xcanthean Zeno, that is a very weak argument.

    God brought the animals to the ark and helped Noah guide them into the Ark.The animals would not have hurt Noah or his family because God was probably controlling the animals and kept them from hurting Noahsnf his family.
    There, I have just proved that your statements are false.

  32. on 26 Mar 2013 at 2:26 am 32.The messenger said …

    on 26 Mar 2013 at 2:23 am 231.The messenger said … Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Brother 230.Xcanthean Zeno, that is a very weak argument.

    God brought the animals to the ark and helped Noah guide them into the Ark.The animals would not have hurt Noah or his family because God was probably controlling the animals and kept them from hurting Noah and his family.
    There, I have just proved that your statements are false.

  33. on 26 Mar 2013 at 3:01 am 33.Anonymous said …

    “Let’s debate on it and point out which part is impossible.”

    No. First you need to explain what you believe happened, how it happened, when it happened, and provide verifiable details. Please provide citations so that we can independently read your submission.

    When you have done that, then you can legitimately ask for critique. Until then, you are simply trying to reverse the burden of proof.

  34. on 26 Mar 2013 at 6:58 am 34.Xcanthean Zeno said …

    as many have said from over time.

    God did it, doesn’t count.

    it never has, and never will.

    There has never been a widely known recorded example of god being able to do anything, hence saying god did it doesn’t count.

  35. on 26 Mar 2013 at 1:17 pm 35.MrQ said …

    To The Mess:
    Just asking what science you are using to supported the Ark fable? How did, for example, polar bears and kangaroos manage to swim, hop, and walk from their environmental niches to the mid-east?

    Please enlighten me with this new branch of scientific inquiry. Bibliology?

  36. on 26 Mar 2013 at 5:12 pm 36.DPK said …

    He doesn’t need science. “God did it” overrides any requirement of feasibility, rationality, or actual evidence.

    It’s the ultimate “no-brainer” answer as it doesn’t require the proponent to actually use a brain. Just shrug and say, “I don’t know.. but god can do anything…” except apparently heal amputees or provide any believable evidence that he in fact exists.

    I wonder why messenger failed to answer my direct question in the other thread about the morality he claimed comes from the bible? I mean, all I did was ask him about actual instructions from god himself directly from the bible. But he chose to ignore them. Wonder why that is?

  37. on 26 Mar 2013 at 8:27 pm 37.A said …

    “i wonder when thiests will look at the facts and see how noahs ark is simply not possible…”

    Sigh!, about when atheist look at facts and realize our existence is not possible without a omnipotent Creator.

    Then again, you can prove me wrong.

    First you need to explain what you believe happened, how it happened, when it happened, and provide verifiable details. Please provide citations so that we can independently read your submission. This would be called science, not some philosophy like abiogenesis or macroevolution.

    When you complete this task, I will review it and let you know if you pass your burden of proof.

    Good Luck!

  38. on 26 Mar 2013 at 9:04 pm 38.Anonymous said …

    “Sigh!, about when atheist look at facts and realize our existence is not possible without a omnipotent Creator.”

    Great, finally a statement that has some meat behind it. You know the drill, first you need to explain what you believe happened, how it happened, when it happened, and provide verifiable details. Please provide citations so that we can independently read your submission.

    You made the claim, now lets see the proof for your “omnipotent Creator”.

  39. on 26 Mar 2013 at 9:44 pm 39.The messenger said …

    233.Anonymous, I do not know the exact date when the flood happened, but I estimate that it was several billion years ago.

    I believe that durring this time period, many humans were corrupt, and GOD deciedesd that humans needed to be given another chance to be righteous. So GOD caused the flood and allowed only four humans to live.

  40. on 26 Mar 2013 at 9:47 pm 40.A said …

    LOL! I knew I could stir up Mouse!!

    OK, now that you are here no running. Let me see you prove that our existence CAN and DID happen without an omnipotent creator. As a guide (although on a much smaller level) picture the entire MS Windows 8 OS being created by you randomly typing on your keyboard!

    Remember! you need to explain what you believe happened, how it happened, when it happened, and provide verifiable details. Please provide citations so that we can independently read your submission.

    Got the popcorn! Looking forward to a great exposition!

  41. on 26 Mar 2013 at 9:54 pm 41.The messenger said …

    235.MrQ, those creatures did not exist at that time.

    Their ansestors did, those ansestors later evolved into the hundereds and thousands of species that we know today. Even if those animals were around durring that time period, the wouldn’t have had to swimm to their destination because the contenets had probably not seperated yet.

  42. on 27 Mar 2013 at 12:06 am 42.Anonymous said …

    Not even a good try, Hor. No one need to prove that something didn’t happen according to YOUR contention until you first prove your point has validity. Everything else is your attempt at diversion.

    You keep getting busted and slapped down by me. At some point you’ll realize that your childish insults only reinforce your desperation. But, if all you have are empty retorts, then thanks for showing us how intellectually bankrupt your game actually is.

    Still, you made a statement and we’re willing to let you go ahead and expand upon it. It’s your claim, the burden is all yours. We’re waiting.

  43. on 27 Mar 2013 at 12:29 am 43.alex said …

    “Remember! you need to explain what you believe happened, how it happened, when it happened, and provide verifiable details.”

    you’re a moron. some atheists might claim to know, but they’re suspect too, just like you.

    no one knows, except you. now, who’s got something to prove? your god, the mayans, the greeks, the vikings, dpk’s turtle are all bullsheeyyaat.

    stop the nonsense about atheists not taking a stance. i just know you’re about to roll it out again. you’re the one with the bullshit claim, now back it up.

    just because i can’t explain the gifts under the tree doesn’t mean santa did it, you fuckhead.

  44. on 27 Mar 2013 at 1:22 am 44.A said …

    Popcorn in hand, waiting for a great show and Mouse drops a dud!

    Sigh!

    You were not asked to prove something did not happen. You were, however, asked to explain what you believe happened, how it happened, when it happened, and provide verifiable details. Please provide citations so that we can independently read your submission.

    Simple? If there was no God, then nature must be responsible right? Try again and be a man this time.

  45. on 27 Mar 2013 at 1:24 am 45.A said …

    alex!

    Still clever as ever! You are such a breath of fresh air. You really are the poster child for atheism. Please never leave the blog.

    Love ya bro!

  46. on 27 Mar 2013 at 1:25 am 46.A said …

    “just because i can’t explain the gifts under the tree doesn’t mean santa did it”

    Seriously? You don’t know how the gifts got under your tree?

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

  47. on 27 Mar 2013 at 1:43 am 47.alex said …

    “You really are the poster child for atheism.”

    no. there’s no atheist poster child, there’s no atheist bullshit pope, no atheist leader, none. atheists don’t believe in your bullshit god, got it?

    “Seriously? You don’t know how the gifts got under your tree?”

    no, motherfucker, i’m an idiot. what does that make you, with your “goddidit” bullshit?

    now, tell me how the gifts got there?

  48. on 27 Mar 2013 at 1:47 am 48.alex said …

    “Try again and be a man this time.”

    as oppossed to being a woman, a fag, a nigger, a wetback, a liberal? c’mon theist, don’t stop there, bring it all the way…. fucken shit.

  49. on 27 Mar 2013 at 2:09 am 49.The messenger said …

    242.Anonymous, you constant babbling and lack of grammar is appalling and filled with failed attempts at fabricating a sturdy and unbreachable/ impregnable fortress compiled of an inain, whimsical diversion. Your pitiful, feeble attempt has failed. I pity you.

  50. on 27 Mar 2013 at 4:37 am 50.DPK said …

    The Astrophysicist returns after his last trouncing to once again attempt to shift the burden of proof and declare his version of reality must be true unless someone can prove it false.
    I have already given you a complete explainaton of creation without need of an omnipotent god… The magical inter dimensional sea turtle. You have yet to disprove any of it… So by your reasoning, it is true.
    “A”do you also subscribe to messengers contention that Noah existed “several billion years ago” and that all humans are then direct descendants of the 4 people that survived the flood?
    I take it you do, since you have not offered any evidence to the contrary.
    You don’t learn much in Astrophysict school, did ya there, big boy?

  51. on 27 Mar 2013 at 4:52 am 51.The messenger said …

    Brother 250.DPK, I have given you all proof of Jesus’s existance. You are in denial.

  52. on 27 Mar 2013 at 4:54 am 52.The messenger said …

    250.DPK, humans multiply quickly.

  53. on 27 Mar 2013 at 5:08 am 53.DPK said …

    Messenger… Do you realize that Homo sapiens first appeared only about 200 thousand years ago, and that nothing even remotely akin to a human existed “several billion” years ago?
    Seriously, your asshole must be really sore from you constantly pulling all this utter bullshit out of it. Thank you though, for demonstrating once again the utter insanity of of religious beliefs. You do atheism proud son. You are the poster child of theist stupidity.

  54. on 27 Mar 2013 at 7:52 am 54.Xcanthean Zeno said …

    “several billion” years ago

    I think you went full retard…

  55. on 27 Mar 2013 at 12:08 pm 55.freddies_dead said …

    215.s0l0m0n said …

    freddies_dead,

    You’re the ((((DUMBEST)))) person I have ever come across in my entire life.

    Have you looked in a mirror lately?

    It’s a fatigue job to make you understand.

    I understand your rubbish perfectly. I guess you just don’t like the fact that I’m happy to show you that it’s rubbish.

    1st. I stressed intricate design is limited to things other than God.

    So God isn’t intricate? So intricate design can come from simpler beginnings? Thanks for admitting evolution is true.

    2nd.How many times do I have to stress that God can’t be created coz’
    ((((GOD = NOTHING))))

    You can stress it till your balls go green and turn up at the corners it won’t make it any more true.

    Case closed.

    Lol, you didn’t have a case in the first place.

    Phewwww…tiring

    I’m sorry you find thinking hard. Maybe if you stopped trying to cram all those logical fallacies into your worldview it’d be a bit easier.

    217.s0l0m0n said …

    “Infinite regress ”

    Ahhh…..some primitive concept gathered by freddies_dead which is barely relevant.

    It doesn’t matter how primitive you believe the concept to be, it still destroys your creationist claims.

    218.s0l0m0n said …

    Sorry…

    So you should be.

    “…….which is barely irrelevant.”

    Meaning you’ve finally grasped how it is relevant. Well done you. Now answer the criticism that your creationist claims end up as an infinite regress.

  56. on 27 Mar 2013 at 1:43 pm 56.MrQ said …

    Mess, I asked you about Noah’s Ark. How did polar bears and kangaroos manage to make the journey?
    You replied:

    235.MrQ, those creatures did not exist at that time.

    I ask you what is “that time”? Are we talking billions of years ago? Thousands? Where did your information come from? Please provide a source. Are you a bibliologist?

  57. on 27 Mar 2013 at 2:03 pm 57.s0l0m0n said …

    MrQ,

    “Just asking what science you are using to supported the Ark fable? How did, for example, polar bears and kangaroos manage to swim, hop, and walk from their environmental niches to the mid-east?”

    It’s purely simple.

    Polar bears and kangaroos exists within the area where the arc is build.

    Case closed.

    Whaaaa….ka…ka…ka…

  58. on 27 Mar 2013 at 2:07 pm 58.s0l0m0n said …

    Ahhhh…!!!!

    What freddies_dead can only do is just twisting of words without substance.

    No need to bother…no doctrines or impact at all to the truth of the true religion…..relax….

    Na…na…na…na…na…

  59. on 27 Mar 2013 at 5:32 pm 59.Anonymous said …

    A said “Sigh!, about when atheist look at facts and realize our existence is not possible without a omnipotent Creator”.

    We are still waiting for you to tell us what those “facts” are, and to prove to us how that leads to an “omnipotent creator”.

    Why are you so afraid to provide proof for your claims?

  60. on 27 Mar 2013 at 5:42 pm 60.A said …

    Aw!!! another failure for Mouse. Why are you so afraid Mouse to defend anything? It is all materialism and science, Right? That should be simple to defend. One more shot for you mate and then we will have to label you a failure.

  61. on 27 Mar 2013 at 6:13 pm 61.Anonymous said …

    Thanks for proving that all you have are lies and excuses, Horatio. You can’t honestly think anyone falls for your nonsense, can you.

    If it makes you feel good to call someone a failure for not attempting your diversion about something they never said, go ahead. If it helps ease your embarrassment at the ease with which we call out your games, then have that one for free. After all, your only approach these days seems to be to parrot what people say to you. As a theist, thinking for yourself wouldn’t exactly be your strong point would it?

    So, threaten people with insults all you like. It’s not like anyone should be upset by being called names by someone who suffers from the personality disorders you consistently demonstrate to the world. So, have at it. Your insults have as much truth as do your claims.

    Finally, you may think it’s a victory to divert attention from Solomon and Messenger’s predicaments, but we know than none of you answer questions anyway. But then, it’s increasingly looking as if all of those are more of your sock-puppets or butt-buddies anyway.

  62. on 27 Mar 2013 at 6:26 pm 62.DPK said …

    Just curious why ASSman isn’t demanding that messenger provide proof of his absolutely absurd claim that Noah and the great flood occurred “at least several billion years ago” which would put it somewhere squarely in the Precambrian era.
    See, messenger gets a free pass from the Asstrophysicist because he believes in Jeezhus, so Ass doesn’t feel threatened by him.
    God, ASS, you’re such a total dickhead. You, messenger and Solomon would make a great sideshow on the Christopher Hitchens memorial book tour! They could charge $5 for people to just laugh at you.

  63. on 27 Mar 2013 at 6:50 pm 63.Anonymous said …

    “They could charge $5 for people to just laugh at you”.

    They should sell season tickets.

  64. on 27 Mar 2013 at 6:54 pm 64.A said …

    Mouse,

    You personal attacks and diversions will not take us from the facts. You failed and horribly. Your own words have been required of you and you cannot fulfill the requirement.

    I had to embarass you to show just what a fraud and troll you really are. You and Alex are free to go trolling. It is what you and Alex do best.

  65. on 27 Mar 2013 at 8:01 pm 65.MrQ said …

    A (aka The Hor, likely) has become the equivalent of the pigeon on the chessboard, strutting and shitting.
    This little man (and I do mean little in every form imaginable ;-) ) prances around like a little git, tries to ridicule opponents, and then runs. Hey, that defines exactly what he is – a troll.
    In summary (and it’s really easy to summarize this) he says I am smart and you’re not….so there. The default argument, and that is all he’s got, is goddidit. Arks, winged horses, zombies, no problem.
    Too bad he won’t honestly engage in a debate, but then he would look even more ridiculous, if that’s at all possible.

  66. on 27 Mar 2013 at 10:05 pm 66.alex said …

    “Why are you so afraid to provide proof for your claims?”

    there is no atheist claim! all these things that atheists say is a direct result of the bullshit you fuckers keep slinging about.

    atheists don’t believe in your bullshit god and all that other shit you keep bringing up is just fluff.

    now, who put the gifts under the tree? god? you said it wasn’t santa.

  67. on 27 Mar 2013 at 10:07 pm 67.DPK said …

    He has, in the past, attempted to engage in debate, and has been trounced multiple time on all points, and now even his sock puppets have holes in them from being through the ringer so many, many times. That’s why now he only resort to trolling and never engages anyone in anything remotely like an honest attempt at debate.
    “La, la, la, la… I can’t HEAR you cause my fingers are in my ears.” is all this sad man has left. Which is pretty disgusting, considering that the only 2 places his fingers reside are in his ears and up his arse.

    Hey Ass… do they have any statues of 2 billion year old humans in the Creation Museum there at Liberty? Preferably ones who could build an ark the size of an aircraft carrier out of wood?

  68. on 27 Mar 2013 at 10:22 pm 68.The messenger said …

    253.DPK, I never said that it was 7 billion years ago.

    The bible states that God created the Earth first. But it does not say how long it was before he did anything with it.

  69. on 27 Mar 2013 at 10:24 pm 69.alex said …

    if somebody says “i believe something created the universe”, i’ll prolly agree because it’s one of the last two defaults after all the other possibilities are postulated. the other one is: “nothing created the universe”.

    which of the last two defaults has the higher probability? are they the same?

  70. on 28 Mar 2013 at 1:49 am 70.Biff said …

    Atheists,

    Here is your big chance. You can actually engage in credible discussion rather than attacks and crude language.

    If you can answer one question we can put this entire matter to rest. How did evolution create DNA? Now you must be able to to develop a credible theory that starts immediately after the Big Bang and that would account for the multiple DNA codes realizing the DNA varies based on what task the cell is to perform.

    Anyone with any education this field would naturally assume something this complex and high functioning would require an Intelligent agent to write this code,

    You are, however, asked to explain what you believe happened, how it happened, when it happened, and provide verifiable details. Please provide citations so that we can independently read your submission.

    If successful, I will take up your cause.

    Good Luck.

  71. on 28 Mar 2013 at 2:04 am 71.DPK said …

    Biff buffed
    “Anyone with any education this field would naturally assume something this complex and high functioning would require an Intelligent agent to write this code,”

    Actually not even close to true. A recent poll of 270 highly educated scientists in the field of evolutionary biology shoed that 80% of them do not believe in god. In fact, only two of those that responded to the poll claimed to be “theists”.
    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/06/evolutionary-biologists-flunk-religion.html

    So, now that your premise is trashed, care to provide any evidence or credible scientific research that shows your “required intelligent agent” actually exists?
    Then you can explain how such a highly complex intelligence came to be without an even higher intelligence to design it, since your claim is that such a thing would be impossible.

    Otherwise, you are once again talking out of your ass. No surprise there.
    Good luck.

  72. on 28 Mar 2013 at 2:33 am 72.alex said …

    “How did evolution create DNA?”

    how the fuck do i know? this is a legitimate answer to your full fledged diversionary tactic.

    you want me to say evolution is bullshit? fine, i’ll say it. but, it doesn’t validate your burnt flesh craving, virgin promising, foreskin obsessed, murderous, fantasy god!

    biff, give it up. why do you keep fucking with atheists. are you concerned? shouldn’t you be happy i’m going to your fantastic hell?

  73. on 28 Mar 2013 at 7:25 am 73.Xcanthean Zeno said …

    Biff

    please remember this Blog is not about evolution, it is about god, and how he does not exist.
    Not all atheists believe in evolution, but all have the disbelief of god.

  74. on 28 Mar 2013 at 7:34 am 74.MrQ said …

    From The Biffy

    How did evolution create DNA?

    Evolution and abiogenesis confusion again?

    Evolution deals with changes in DNA. Shall we start that debate? If so (and don’t you run away, Biffy) let’s agree that our planet Earth is a few billion years old and humans have been around for less than one million years.

    I provide a reference from a christian (no less) website so that you can study the information and we’ll get the ball rolling.
    Check out: http://biologos.org/questions/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe

    Don’t disappoint the character “A” who earlier on this thread posted comments such as:

    OK, now that you are here no running.

    I had to embarass you to show just what a fraud and troll you really are

    One more shot for you mate and then we will have to label you a failure.

    Or you too will suffer his stinging wrath in a personal attack!!!!

    Balls in Biffy’s court.

  75. on 28 Mar 2013 at 7:40 am 75.Anonymous said …

    Have you guys noticed that when Solomon and Messenger were running around squawking that A and his cronies were absent? Then, Solomon and Messenger both got cornered and ran away to be replaced themselves by Lou, then A, then Biff who, when cornered, ran away thus repeating not just the cycle but the exact same arguments?

    Lou and A and Biff are the same person, we already know that. Messenger has been posting as four different people already, I’m not sure about Solomon but a pattern emerges.

    Engaging these sock-puppets is pointless, it gives them the attention they can’t get in real life.

  76. on 28 Mar 2013 at 10:32 am 76.A said …

    B,

    A nice try but these atheist only desire adolescent games. Rhonda likes Rich and A is really Lou etc etc. Notice they never answer a question nor engage in any discussion. The blog for them is trying to guess which poster is another poster.

    It takes courage to stand for something and they repeatedly show they have none. alex, the one with such a limited vocabulary, at least admits his own ignorance. It does getting boring in here with the same old prairie dogs.

  77. on 28 Mar 2013 at 1:37 pm 77.alex said …

    “alex, the one with such a limited vocabulary, at least admits his own ignorance.”

    more attacks because you ain’t got shit. are you saying that having your beliefs is far and away better than ignorance of such subject matters as evolution or quantum mechanics.

    you don’t know shit about me or my intelligence, yet you continually spout off more bullshit? but it doesn’t really matter does it? i already admitted, i’m the most ignorant, crazy, broke, ugly, etc person on the planet, but it doesn’t change a thing about your bullcorn, god does it?

  78. on 28 Mar 2013 at 3:00 pm 78.DPK said …

    ” Notice they never answer a question nor engage in any discussion.”

    It does not serve your position very well when the only way you can try to make a point is by lying about it.
    When, posing under your alter ego of “Biff” you stated;
    “Anyone with any education this field would naturally assume something this complex and high functioning would require an Intelligent agent to write this code,”

    I answered your question and engaged you by pointing out the flaw in your straw man argument. The fact is the majority of people with “eduction in this field” in fact do NOT believe it requires am “Intelligent agent” to explain. So why would I spend time debating against a demonstrably false premise.

    If I said “Anyone with an advanced degree in meteorology would assume that lightning bolts do not strike the earth with the agency of a god of thunder and lighting, like Thor or Zeuss, to create them and hurl them toward the earth.” Would it then be reasonable of me to demand that you “explain what you believe happened, how it happened, when it happened, and provide verifiable details. Please provide citations so that we can independently read your submission.”, or would it be acceptable for you to simply reject my claim out of hand because I haven’t provided any evidence or reason to believe that Thor or Zeuss actually exist?

    You are such a twit, straw me, special pleadings, reversing the burden of proof…. fact is, if you had any evidence for your imaginary god you would have presented it long ago and shut everyone up… but you have none, so instead you flog your dead horse and do the pigeon dance… but no one is buying it “A”, except maybe messenger… but he thinks Noah and his family lived several billion years ago… so much for your supporter’s level of intellect.

  79. on 28 Mar 2013 at 3:03 pm 79.DPK said …

    Correction:

    ” …lightning bolts do not strike the earth withOUT the agency of a god of thunder and lighting, like Thor or Zeuss, to create them…”

  80. on 28 Mar 2013 at 4:14 pm 80.freddies_dead said …

    258.s0l0m0n said …

    Ahhhh…!!!!

    What freddies_dead can only do is just twisting of words without substance.

    At least you concede that your words are without substance. There was no need for me to twist them to show this. Just demonstrating where they conflict with reality was enough.

    No need to bother…no doctrines or impact at all to the truth of the true religion…..relax….

    An admission that s0l has no answer. Not a surprise. If he did have a way to rebut the criticism he would be only too happy to give it.

    Na…na…na…na…na…

    Maybe if you took your fingers out of your ears and stopped muttering your mantra you might learn something – like how your God is purely imaginary.

  81. on 28 Mar 2013 at 7:49 pm 81.Biff said …

    So not a single atheist could answer one question to put the entire argument to bed? It is all materialism, natural laws and evolution. Are these not all facts? Why is the one question so difficult for highly evolved atheists?

  82. on 28 Mar 2013 at 8:04 pm 82.DPK said …

    “So not a single atheist could answer one question to put the entire argument to bed?”

    Certainly we did… can’t you read?
    There is no evidence to suggest that your magical god exists. Until you provide that, there is no “argument”.

    How dense are you?

  83. on 28 Mar 2013 at 8:39 pm 83.A said …

    Zeno said:

    “Not all atheists believe in evolution, but all have the disbelief of god.”

    Who are these atheist who deny evolution and what do they believe? According to High Priest Dawkins, evolution is fact.

    Why can’t atheist get together on what they believe?

    Biff,

    DNA was created by Time & Chance is atheist land. I understand many atheists are waiting for Ferraris to evolve in their driveways

  84. on 28 Mar 2013 at 9:11 pm 84.alex said …

    “According to High Priest Dawkins, evolution is fact.”

    more bullshit. dawkins is not a high priest. based on the bullshit you spout on a regular basis, you are the bullshit high priest.

    “Who are these atheist who deny evolution and what do they believe? ”

    who gives a fuck? just you and youse attempts to derail. your god is bullshit and it doesn’t matter what i think, what i wear, or what i believe in.

    “I understand many atheists are waiting for Ferraris to evolve in their driveways”

    is this your proof? pfft! failed diversion, again.

  85. on 28 Mar 2013 at 9:19 pm 85.DPK said …

    “I understand many atheists are waiting for Ferraris to evolve in their driveways”

    You can add that to the long list of things that you claim to understand about which you are 100% wrong. Can’t you ever type even 2 sentences in sequence without one of them being an absolute lie?

    “Why can’t atheist get together on what they believe?”

    Atheists are quite “together” on what they believe. They believe that your postulated god is just another in a long line of myths and fairytales… just like all the other gods in which you also disbelieve.

    God you are tiresome. Don’t you ever get weary of just being WRONG… all the time? Surely it must weigh on you, otherwise you wouldn’t be on here looking for validation from people who think humans were building giant boats in the Precambrian period. Such a waste of a life.

  86. on 28 Mar 2013 at 9:27 pm 86.The messenger said …

    284.alex, you have once again failed to answer A’s questions.

    And you make excuses and diversions in a lame attempt at covering it up.

  87. on 28 Mar 2013 at 9:32 pm 87.The messenger said …

    285.DPK, you are the one who speaks lies.

    Me and A only speak the truth.

    You on the other hand, fail to realize that GOD is real, even through I have presented proof of him.

    You and Alex are both delusional, ignorant, and in denial.

  88. on 28 Mar 2013 at 11:27 pm 88.A said …

    “They believe that your postulated god is just another in a long line of myths”

    Actually that is untrue too. 21% of atheist even believe in God. They are quite a confused bunch.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/23/new-pew-survey-21-of-atheists-believe-in-god/comment-page-1/#comments

    Can’t answer any questions
    Don’t believe in evolution or maybe they do
    Believe in God
    Some do believe in Buddhism and Taoism.
    We do agree they are a complete mess.

  89. on 28 Mar 2013 at 11:29 pm 89.A said …

    “Not all atheists believe in evolution, but all have the disbelief of god.”

    Actually that is incorrect. A Pew survey found 21% of atheist believe in God.

    Couldn’t add the link due to moderation but check it for yourself.

    Can’t answer any questions
    Don’t believe in evolution or maybe they do
    Believe in God
    Some do believe in Buddhism and Taoism.
    We all do agree they are a complete mess.

  90. on 29 Mar 2013 at 12:00 am 90.DPK said …

    “Actually that is incorrect. A Pew survey found 21% of atheist believe in God.”

    Probably the dumbest thing you have ever written, and for you, that is saying something!
    Atheist: noun
    a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

    If a person believes in gods, they cannot by definition, be atheist.
    Really getting desperate now, Hor… Hahaha. It’s ok. We expect no less of you.
    Now, are you going to provide any actual evidence that your god actually exists? Or will you continue to be just a fart in the wind.

  91. on 29 Mar 2013 at 12:03 am 91.DPK said …

    Most likely explanation is that 21% of theists are too stupid to know what “atheist” means.
    Hahahahaha!

  92. on 29 Mar 2013 at 12:10 am 92.alex said …

    “284.alex, you have once again failed to answer A’s questions.”

    i don’t give a fuck about your questions because it doesn’t matter. what matters is that your god is bullshit and you can’t do nuttin about it.

    troll motherfucker 20X. that’s right, profanity is all you get.

  93. on 29 Mar 2013 at 12:25 am 93.alex said …

    Can’t answer any questions
    Don’t believe in evolution or maybe they do
    Believe in God
    Some do believe in Buddhism and Taoism.

    focus, you lamebrained theist. how do the above statements prove your god? it’s another failed diversion. your god/hell/heaven bullshit is slowly being exposed as to what it is, and you can’t do shit about it. you keep trying anyways, but fuck you and your god(s)? all thousands of them.

  94. on 29 Mar 2013 at 12:38 am 94.alex said …

    “Actually that is incorrect. A Pew survey found 21% of atheist believe in God.”

    let’s say 99.99999999999% of all people believes in God, you happy? now, where’s your god proof?

  95. on 29 Mar 2013 at 12:52 am 95.A said …

    Oh DPK you are Such an old fart (pew!)

    We simply redefine the word like”gay marriage” Atheist just means clueless now!! Lol!!

    The most likely explanation is atheists don’t believe anything because they don’t know anything. They prove that here daily.

  96. on 29 Mar 2013 at 12:58 am 96.Fluttershy said …

    Some stupid guy said..
    Who are these atheist who deny evolution and what do they believe?

    Please read what an atheist is…

    (Btw, this is Xcanthean Zeno’s new permanent name…)

  97. on 29 Mar 2013 at 1:01 am 97.MrQ said …

    From The Biffy:

    not a single atheist could answer one question to put the entire argument to bed?……..Why is the one question so difficult for highly evolved atheists?

    Errr, ummmm, scroll up to #274.

    Biffy, careful not to get “A” angry with you (He is a highly educated Astrophysicist after all). He’s all about the cohesive nature of theistic belief. Let’s take a moment so we can examine that statement:

    Theists all believe in winged horses, oh but maybe some don’t.
    Some catholics and baptists are evolution advocates, A says it’s a shit theory.
    Zombies, arks, talking snakes, Vishna, Thor, Allah, jayzus, jehovah, .
    Holy crap, maybe -understandably- they can be just a little confused about what pony to put their money on…
    But we know know how messed up that theist group can be, don’t we Biffy?

  98. on 29 Mar 2013 at 1:22 am 98.alex said …

    “The most likely explanation is atheists don’t believe anything because they don’t know anything.”

    wrong again, asshole, with your typical bullshit nonsense. line up your favorite fellow fuckshits here and let’s compare IQs, GRE scores, salaries, criminal records or any other “knowing” metric you like, with some random atheists here and see how they compare. wanna try it?

    i recognize you’re trolling, but your bullshit will not be tolerated.

  99. on 29 Mar 2013 at 1:32 am 99.The messenger said …

    Mr. 292.alex, Jesus could turn you into a block of salt. Yet he chooses to show you mercy, despite your stupidity and arrogance.

  100. on 29 Mar 2013 at 1:39 am 100.The messenger said …

    297.alex, Here is a list of some of the most decpicable, murderuos people who ever lived, and they are all Athiests. Athiest are cold blooded.

    Mass killings under Communist regimes
    Part of the series on
    Communism

    Concepts
    Marxist philosophy
    Marxian economics
    Historical materialism
    Surplus value
    Mode of production
    Class struggle
    Classless society
    Proletarian internationalism
    Workers’ self-management
    World revolution
    People’s democratic dictatorship
    Aspects
    Communist state
    Communist party
    Communist revolution
    Communist symbolism
    Communism and religion
    History of communism
    Variants
    Marxism
    Leninism
    Marxism-Leninism
    Anti-Revisionism
    Stalinism
    Maoism
    Hoxhaism
    Trotskyism
    Luxemburgism
    Titoism
    Socialism with Chinese
    characteristics
    Castroism
    Guevarism
    Left
    Council
    Anarchist
    Religious (Christian)
    Euro
    World
    Stateless
    National
    Primitive
    Scientific
    List of communist parties
    Internationals
    Communist League
    First
    Second
    Third
    Fourth
    Leaders
    Gracchus Babeuf
    Karl Marx
    Friedrich Engels
    Peter Kropotkin
    Rosa Luxemburg
    Karl Liebknecht
    Antonio Gramsci
    Vladimir Lenin
    Leon Trotsky
    Joseph Stalin
    Leonid Brezhnev
    Kim Il-Sung
    Mao Zedong
    Deng Xiaoping
    Ho Chi Minh
    Palmiro Togliatti
    Josip Broz Tito
    Fidel Castro
    Che Guevara
    Related topics
    Anti-capitalism
    Anti-communism
    Cold War
    Communitarianism
    Criticisms of communism
    Criticisms of communist party rule
    Dictatorship of the proletariat
    Left-wing politics
    New Class
    New Left
    Socialism
    Socialist economics
    “Workers of the world, unite!”
    Maoist-Naxalite
    insurgency (India)
    Bourgeoisie
    Communism portal
    v
    t
    e
    Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million.[1] Scholarship focuses on the causes of mass killings in single societies, though some claims of common causes for mass killings have been made. Some higher estimates of mass killings include not only mass murders or executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, but also lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps. There are scholars who believe that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion combine all these deaths under the categories “mass killings”, democide, politicide, “classicide”, or loosely defined genocide. According to these scholars, the total death toll of the mass killings defined in this way amounts to many tens of millions; however, the validity of this approach is questioned by other scholars. As of 2011, academic consensus has not been achieved on causes of large scale killings by states, including by states governed by communists. In particular, the number of comparative studies suggesting causes is limited. The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People’s Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million.[2][dubious – discuss] There have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.

    ShowTerminology

    ShowProposed causes

    ShowComparison to other mass killings

    ShowStates where mass killings have occurred

    ShowControversies

    ShowNotable executioners

    ShowLegal prosecution for genocide and genocide denial

    ShowSee also

    ShowFootnotes

    ShowBibliography

    ShowFurther reading

    ShowExternal links

    ShowRead in another language

    Last modified 6 hours ago

  101. on 29 Mar 2013 at 1:42 am 101.The messenger said …

    Alex, here is one of those idiotic, murderuos Athiests that I mentioned.

    Mao Zedong
    “Mao” redirects here. For other uses, see Mao (disambiguation).
    This is a Chinese name; the family name is Mao.
    Chairman
    Mao Zedong
    ???

    Official 1960–1966 portrait of Mao Zedong
    1st Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China
    In office
    June 19, 1945 – September 9, 1976
    1st vice-chairman Liu Shaoqi
    Lin Biao
    Zhou Enlai
    Hua Guofeng
    Preceded by Himself (as Central Politburo Chairman)
    Succeeded by Hua Guofeng
    1st Chairman of the Central Politburo of the Communist Party of China
    In office
    March 20, 1943 – April 24, 1969
    Preceded by Zhang Wentian
    (as Central Committee General Secretary)
    Succeeded by Himself (as Central Committee Chairman)
    1st Chairman of the CPC Central Military Commission
    In office
    August 23, 1945 – 1949
    September 8, 1954 – September 9, 1976
    Preceded by Position created
    Succeeded by Hua Guofeng
    1st Chairman of the National Committee of the CPPCC
    In office
    September 21, 1949 – December 25, 1954
    Honorary Chairman
    December 25, 1954 – September 9, 1976
    Preceded by Position Created
    Succeeded by Zhou Enlai
    1st Chairman of the People’s Republic of China
    In office
    September 27, 1954 – April 27, 1959
    Premier Zhou Enlai
    Deputy Zhu De
    Preceded by Position Created
    Succeeded by Liu Shaoqi
    Member of the
    National People’s Congress
    In office
    September 15, 1954 – April 18, 1959
    December 21, 1964 – September 9, 1976
    Constituency Beijing At-large
    Personal details
    Born December 26, 1893
    Shaoshan, Hunan
    Died September 9, 1976 (aged 82)
    Beijing
    Resting place Chairman Mao Memorial Hall, Beijing
    Nationality Chinese
    Political party Communist Party of China
    Spouse(s) Luo Yixiu (1907–1910)
    Yang Kaihui (1920–1930)
    He Zizhen (1930–1937)
    Jiang Qing (1939–1976)
    Religion None (atheist)
    Signature

    This article contains Chinese text. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of Chinese characters.
    Mao Zedong
    Simplified Chinese ???
    Traditional Chinese ???
    Hanyu Pinyin Máo Zéd?ng
    [m??? ts??t???]
    Transcriptions
    Hakka
    – Romanization Mô Chhe?t-tûng
    Mandarin
    – Hanyu Pinyin Máo Zéd?ng
    [m??? ts??t???]
    – Wade–Giles Mao Tse-tung
    Min
    – Hokkien POJ Mô? Te?k-tong
    Cantonese (Yue)
    – Jyutping mou4 zaak6dung1
    Chairman Mao
    Chinese ???
    Transcriptions
    Mandarin
    – Hanyu Pinyin Máo zh?xí
    Cantonese (Yue)
    – Jyutping Mou4 zyu2zik6
    Mao Zedong (simplified Chinese: ???; traditional Chinese: ???; pinyin: Máo Zéd?ng, also transliterated as Mao Tse-tung listen (help·info)), commonly referred to as Chairman Mao (December 26, 1893 – September 9, 1976), was a Chinese communist revolutionary, and political theorist. The founding father of the People’s Republic of China from its establishment in 1949, he governed the country as Chairman of the Communist Party of China until his death. In this position he converted China into a single-party socialist state, with industry and business being nationalized under state ownership and socialist reforms implemented in all areas of society. Politically a Marxist-Leninist, his theoretical contribution to the ideology along with his military strategies and brand of policies are collectively known as Maoism.

    Born the son of a wealthy farmer in Shaoshan, Hunan, Mao adopted a Chinese nationalist and anti-imperialist outlook in early life, particularly influenced by the events of the Xinhai Revolution of 1911 and May Fourth Movement of 1919. Coming to adopt Marxism-Leninism, he became an early member of the Communist Party of China (CPC), soon rising to a senior position. In 1922, the Communists agreed to an alliance with the larger Kuomintang (KMT), a nationalist revolutionary party, whom Mao aided in creating a revolutionary peasant army and organizing rural land reform. In 1927 the KMT’s military leader Chiang Kai-shek broke the alliance and set about on an anti-communist purge; in turn, the CPC formed an army of peasant militia, and the two sides clashed in the Chinese Civil War. Mao was responsible for commanding a part of the CPC’s Red Army, and after several setbacks, rose to power in the party by leading the Long March. When the Empire of Japan invaded China in 1937, sparking the Second Sino-Japanese War, Mao agreed to a united front with the KMT, resulting in a CPC-KMT victory in 1945. The Chinese Civil War then resumed, in which Mao led the Red Army to victory as Chiang and his supporters fled to Taiwan.

    In 1949 Mao proclaimed the foundation of the People’s Republic of China, a one-party socialist state controlled by the Communist Party. After solidifying the reunification of China through his Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries, Mao enacted sweeping land reform, overthrowing the feudal landlords before seizing their large estates and dividing the land into people’s communes. He proceeded to lead a nationwide political campaign known as the Great Leap Forward from 1958 through to 1961, designed to modernize and industrialize the country, however agrarian problems worsened by his policies led to widespread famine. In 1966, he initiated the Cultural Revolution, a program to weed out counter-revolutionary elements in Chinese society, which continued until his death.

    A deeply controversial figure, Mao is regarded as one of the most important individuals in modern world history.[1] Supporters praise him for modernizing China and building it into a world power, through promoting the status of women, improving education and health care, providing universal housing and raising life expectancy.[2][3] In addition, China’s population almost doubled during the period of Mao’s leadership,[4] from around 550 to over 900 million.[3] As a result, Mao is still officially held in high regard by many Chinese as a great political strategist, military mastermind, and savior of the nation. Maoists furthermore promote his role as a theorist, statesman, poet, and visionary, who has inspired revolutionary movements across the globe.[5] In contrast, critics have labeled him a dictator whose administration oversaw systematic human rights abuses, and whose rule is estimated to have caused the deaths of 40–70 million people mainly through starvation, forced labor and executions, placing his rule at the top of the list of most people killed by democide in human history.[6][7][8][9]

    ShowEarly life

    ShowEarly revolutionary activity

    ShowCivil War

    ShowLeadership of China

    ShowDeath

    ShowLegacy

    ShowGenealogy

    ShowPersonal life

    ShowWritings and calligraphy

    ShowPortrayal in film and television

    ShowSee also

    ShowReferences

    ShowExternal links

    ShowRead in another language

    Last modified 7 hours ago

    DesktopMobile
    Page by contributors like you
    Content available under CC BY-SA 3.0 | Terms of Use
    PrivacyAboutDisclaimers

  102. on 29 Mar 2013 at 1:47 am 102.The messenger said …

    Alex, here is another one of your murderuos brethren.

    Joseph Stalin
    “Stalin” redirects here. For other uses, see Stalin (disambiguation).
    Joseph Stalin
    ????? ????????????? ?????? (Russian)
    ????? ?????????? ?? ??????? (Georgian)

    General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
    In office
    3 April 1922 – 16 October 1952
    Preceded by Vyacheslav Molotov
    (as Responsible Secretary)
    Succeeded by Nikita Khrushchev
    (office reestablished)
    Chairman of the Council of Ministers
    In office
    6 May 1941 – 5 March 1953
    First Deputies Nikolai Voznesensky
    Vyacheslav Molotov
    Preceded by Vyacheslav Molotov
    Succeeded by Georgy Malenkov
    People’s Commissar for Defense of the Soviet Union
    In office
    19 July 1941 – 25 February 1946
    Premier Himself
    Preceded by Semyon Timoshenko
    Succeeded by Nikolai Bulganin
    after vacancy
    Member of the Secretariat
    In office
    3 April 1922 – 5 March 1953
    Full member of the Presidium
    In office
    25 March 1919 – 5 March 1953
    Member of the Orgburo
    In office
    16 January 1919 – 5 March 1953
    Personal details
    Born 18 December 1878
    Gori, Tiflis Governorate, Russian Empire
    Died 5 March 1953 (aged 74)
    Kuntsevo Dacha near Moscow, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union
    Resting place Kremlin Wall Necropolis, Moscow, Russian Federation
    Nationality Georgian
    Political party Communist Party of the Soviet Union
    Spouse(s) Ekaterina Svanidze (1906–1907)
    Nadezhda Alliluyeva (1919–1932)
    Children Yakov Dzhugashvili, Vasily Dzhugashvili, Svetlana Alliluyeva
    Religion None, formerly Georgian Orthodox
    Signature
    Military service
    Allegiance Soviet Union
    Service/branch Soviet Armed Forces
    Years of service 1943–1953
    Rank Marshal of the Soviet Union (1943–1945)
    Generalissimus of the Soviet Union (1945–1953)
    Commands All (supreme commander)
    Battles/wars World War II
    Awards

    Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (Russian: ????? ????????????? ??????; born Ioseb Besarionis je J?u?ašvili, pronounced [i?s?b b?sari?nis dze d?u?a?vili] Georgian: ????? ?????????? ?? ?????????; 18 December 1878[1] – 5 March 1953) was the de facto leader of the Soviet Union from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953. Among the Bolshevik revolutionaries who took part in the Russian Revolution of 1917, Stalin was appointed General Secretary of the party’s Central Committee in 1922. He subsequently managed to consolidate power following the 1924 death of Vladimir Lenin through expanding the functions of his role, all the while eliminating any opposition. He held this nominal post until abolishing it in 1952, concurrently serving as the Premier of the Soviet Union after establishing the position in 1941.

    Under Joseph Stalin’s rule, the concept of “socialism in one country” became a central tenet of Soviet society. He replaced the New Economic Policy introduced by Lenin in the early 1920s with a highly centralised command economy, launching a period of industrialization and collectivization that resulted in the rapid transformation of the USSR from an agrarian society into an industrial power.[2] However, the economic changes coincided with the imprisonment of several million people in Soviet correctional labour camps[3] and the deportation of many others to remote areas.[3] The initial upheaval in agriculture disrupted food production and contributed to the catastrophic Soviet famine of 1932–1933, known as the Holodomor in Ukraine. Later, in a period that lasted from 1936–39, Stalin instituted a campaign against alleged enemies of his regime called the Great Purge, in which hundreds of thousands were executed. Major figures in the Communist Party, such as the old Bolsheviks, Leon Trotsky, and several Red Army leaders were killed after being convicted of plotting to overthrow the government and Stalin.[4]

    In August 1939, Stalin entered into a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany that divided their influence within Eastern Europe, but Germany later violated the agreement and launched a massive invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. Despite heavy human and territorial losses, Soviet forces managed to halt the Nazi incursion after the decisive battles of Moscow and Stalingrad. After defeating the Axis powers on the Eastern Front, the Red Army captured Berlin in May 1945, effectively ending the war in Europe for the Allies.[5][6] The Soviet Union subsequently emerged as one of two recognized world superpowers, the other being the United States.[7] The Yalta and Potsdam conferences established communist governments loyal to the Soviet Union in the Eastern Bloc countries as buffer states, which Stalin deemed necessary in case of another invasion. He also fostered close relations with Mao Zedong in China and Kim Il-sung in North Korea.

    Stalin led the Soviet Union through its post-war reconstruction phase, which saw a significant rise in tension with the Western world that would later be known as the Cold War. During this period, the USSR became the second country in the world to successfully develop a nuclear weapon, as well as launching the Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature in response to another widespread famine and the Great Construction Projects of Communism. In the years following his death, Stalin and his regime have been condemned on numerous occasions, most notably in 1956 when his successor Nikita Khrushchev denounced his legacy and initiated a process of de-Stalinization. He remains a controversial figure today, with many regarding him as a tyrant;[8] however, popular opinion within the Russian Federation is mixed.[9][10][11]

    ShowEarly life

    ShowRevolution, Civil War, and Polish-Soviet War

    ShowRise to power

    ShowChanges to Soviet society, 1927–1939

    ShowCalculating the number of victims

    ShowWorld War II, 1939–1945

    ShowPost-war era, 1945–1953

    ShowDeath and aftermath

    ShowPersonal life

    ShowHabits

    ShowHypotheses, rumors and misconceptions about Stalin

    ShowWorks

    ShowSee also

    ShowReferences

    ShowExternal links

    ShowRead in another language

    Last modified 7 days ago

    DesktopMobile
    Page by contributors like you
    Content available under CC BY-SA 3.0 | Terms of Use
    PrivacyAboutDisclaimers

  103. on 29 Mar 2013 at 2:08 am 103.The messenger said …

    Alex, here is one more evil man, I mean Athiest. Due to the crazed look in his eye, and the apperiance of a primitive savage, I would suspect that you and him share similar thoughts.

    Karl Marx
    “Marx” redirects here. For other uses, see Marx (disambiguation).
    Karl Marx

    Marx in 1875
    Born Karl Heinrich Marx
    5 May 1818
    Trier, Kingdom of Prussia
    Died 14 March 1883 (aged 64)
    London, United Kingdom
    Residence Germany, United Kingdom
    Nationality Prussian, German
    Era 19th-century philosophy
    Region Western Philosophy, German philosophy
    Religion Protestantism; later, none (atheist)
    School Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Materialism
    Main interests Politics, economics, philosophy, sociology, labour, history, class struggle,
    Notable ideas Co-founder of Marxism (with Engels), surplus value, contributions to the labor theory of value, class struggle, alienation and exploitation of the worker, The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, materialist conception of history
    Influenced by
    Hegel, Feuerbach, Spinoza, Proudhon, Stirner, Smith, Voltaire, Ricardo, Vico, Rousseau, Shakespeare, Goethe, Helvetius, d’Holbach,[1]Liebig,[2]Darwin, Fourier, Robert Owen, B?lcescu, Hess, Hupay, Guizot, Pecqueur,[3]Aristotle, Epicurus
    Influenced
    Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Tito, Hoxha, Castro, Guevara, Ho, Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Luxemburg, Lukács, Gramsci, Korsch, Bloch, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Marcuse, Deleuze, Debord, Negri, Taussig, Roy, Laclau, Bourdieu, Schumpeter, Habash, Aflaq, Newton and many others
    Signature
    Part of a series on
    Marxism

    Theoretical works
    The Communist Manifesto
    A Contribution to the
    Critique of Political Economy
    Das Kapital
    The Eighteenth Brumaire of
    Louis Napoleon
    Grundrisse
    The German Ideology
    Economic and Philosophical
    Manuscripts of 1844
    Theses on Feuerbach
    Concepts
    Dialectical materialism
    Economic determinism
    Historical materialism
    Marx’s method
    Marxian socialism
    Overdetermination
    Scientific socialism
    Technological determinism
    Proletariat
    Bourgeoisie
    Economics
    Capital (accumulation)
    Capitalist mode of production
    Crisis theory
    Commodity
    Exploitation
    Means of production
    Mode of production
    Law of value
    Socialist mode of production
    Surplus product
    Surplus value
    Value form
    Wage labor
    more…
    Sociology
    Alienation
    Base and superstructure
    Bourgeoisie
    Class
    Class consciousness
    Class struggle
    Commodity fetishism
    Cultural hegemony
    Exploitation
    Human nature
    Ideology
    Immiseration
    Proletariat
    Private property
    Relations of production
    Reification
    Working class
    History
    Marx’s theory of history
    Historical materialism
    Historical determinism
    Anarchism and Marxism
    Socialism
    Dictatorship of the proletariat
    Primitive capital accumulation
    Proletarian revolution
    Proletarian internationalism
    World revolution
    Stateless communism
    Philosophy
    Marxist philosophy
    Dialectical materialism
    Philosophy in the Soviet Union
    Marxist philosophy of nature
    Marxist humanism
    Marxist feminism
    Libertarian Marxism
    Democratic Marxism
    Marxist autonomism
    Marxist geography
    Marxist literary criticism
    Structural Marxism
    Situationist International
    Young Marx
    Open Marxism
    Variants
    Classical
    Orthodox
    Marxism–Leninism
    Libertarian
    Revisionism
    Western
    Analytical
    Neo-Marxism
    Post-Marxism
    Movements
    Council communism
    Democratic socialism
    DeLeonism
    Impossibilism
    Left communism
    Leninism
    Revolutionary socialism
    Social democracy
    Trotskyism
    People
    Karl Marx
    Friedrich Engels
    Karl Kautsky
    Eduard Bernstein
    James Connolly
    Georgi Plekhanov
    Rosa Luxemburg
    Vladimir Lenin
    Joseph Stalin
    Leon Trotsky
    Che Guevara
    Mao Zedong
    Louis Althusser
    Georg Lukács
    Karl Korsch
    Antonio Gramsci
    Antonie Pannekoek
    Rudolf Hilferding
    Guy Debord
    more…
    Socialism portal
    Philosophy portal
    v
    t
    e
    Karl Heinrich Marx (German pronunciation: [ka???l ?ha?n??ç ?ma???ks], 5 May 1818 – 14 March 1883) was a Prussian-German philosopher and revolutionary socialist. His ideas played a significant role in the establishment of the social sciences and the development of the socialist movement. Marx’s work in economics laid the basis for our understanding of labor and its relation to capital, and has influenced much of subsequent economic thought.[4][5][6][7] He published numerous books during his lifetime, the most notable being The Communist Manifesto (1848) and Capital (1867–1894).

    Born into a wealthy middle-class family in Trier in the Prussian Rhineland, Marx studied at the University of Bonn and the University of Berlin, where he became interested in the philosophical ideas of the Young Hegelians. After his studies, he wrote for a radical newspaper in Cologne, and began to work out his theory of dialectical materialism. He moved to Paris in 1843, where he began writing for other radical newspapers and met Fredrick Engels, who would become his life-long friend and collaborator. In 1849 he was exiled and moved to London together with his wife and children where he continued writing and formulating his theories about social and economic activity. He also campaigned for socialism and became a significant figure in the International Workingmen’s Association.

    Marx’s theories about society, economics and politics—collectively known as Marxism—hold that human societies progress through class struggle: a conflict between an ownership class that controls production and a proletariat that provides the labour for production. He called capitalism the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie,” believing it to be run by the wealthy classes for their own benefit; and he predicted that, like previous socioeconomic systems, capitalism produced internal tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement by a new system: socialism.[8] He argued that under socialism society would be governed by the working class in what he called the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, the “workers’ state” or “workers’ democracy”.[9][10] He believed that socialism would eventually be replaced by a stateless, classless society called communism. Along with believing in the inevitability of socialism and communism, Marx actively fought for the former’s implementation, arguing that social theorists and underprivileged people alike should carry out organised revolutionary action to topple capitalism and bring about socio-economic change.[11]

    Revolutionary socialist governments espousing Marxist concepts took power in a variety of countries in the 20th century, leading to the formation of such socialist states as the Soviet Union in 1922 and the People’s Republic of China in 1949. Many labour unions and workers’ parties worldwide were also influenced by Marxist ideas, while various theoretical variants, such as Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, and Maoism, were developed from them. Marx is typically cited, with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, as one of the three principal architects of modern social science.[12] Marx has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history.[13][14]

    ShowEarly life

    ShowCommunist agitation

    ShowLife in London

    ShowThought

    ShowLegacy

    ShowSelected bibliography

    ShowSee also

    ShowReferences

    ShowFurther reading

    ShowExternal links

    ShowRead in another language

    Last modified 4 days ago

    DesktopMobile
    Page by contributors like you
    Content available under CC BY-SA 3.0 | Terms of Use
    PrivacyAboutDisclaimers

  104. on 29 Mar 2013 at 2:33 am 104.DPK said …

    So, assman admits that the only way his claims can possibly make any sense is if he “redefines” words to mean what they actual don’t. Typical theist self delusion.
    Now, why should anyone think you are anything more than a complete imbecile?
    Maybe we should redefine the word “lie” to mean anything horatiio says.

  105. on 29 Mar 2013 at 11:49 am 105.alex said …

    “Mr. 292.alex, Jesus could turn you into a block of salt. Yet he chooses to show you mercy…”

    and i could turn you into a piece of turd, but i can’t because your stupidity cloak is neutralizing my power. your threats are laughable. why not zeus’ lightning bolts? try meeting me somewhere and physically threaten me and see what happens.

    your cut/paste shit is garbage. the compilation of evil theists way outnumber yours, but it doesn’t matter and any sane person understands that. not you of course, the saltBlock ass-assin.

    you don’t believe in santa? hitler didn’t either, so using your logic, you must believe. what kind of fucking thinking is that?

    i know, i know, don’t feed the troll, but the bullshit must pass no mo.

  106. on 29 Mar 2013 at 12:55 pm 106.Biff said …

    The reason atheist claim to believe in God in a Pew survey is embarrassment. If we have any let me offer up the question posed earlier. This question can convert me and every other Christian to your position.

    How did evolution create DNA? Now you must be able to to develop a credible theory that starts immediately after the Big Bang and that would account for the multiple DNA codes realizing the DNA varies based on what task the cell is to perform.

    Anyone with any education and an understanding of Information theory would naturally assume something this complex and high functioning would require an Intelligent agent to write this code. SAS, Oracle, etc don’t wait on nature to develop their codes.

    You are, however, asked to explain what you believe happened, how it happened, when it happened, and provide verifiable details. Please provide citations so that we can independently read your submission.

  107. on 29 Mar 2013 at 1:16 pm 107.alex said …

    306.Biff said …

    your pseudo intellectual pleading is crap. a nonbeliever on ANY subject matter is not obligated to provide any alternatives to the postulated position.

    if you say the face on mars was created by aliens, the non believer’s stance is solid. to advance the cause, the alien proponents must provide proof.

    same shit with your god. i could offer zeus or s0l could offer his sheep/allah god, but foolish we will all look.

    let’s just say that evolution, DNA, aliens, spontaneous appearances, worms holes and everything else we know are all bullshit. it still doesn’t prove your god.

    “…would naturally assume something this complex and high functioning would require an Intelligent agent…”

    and who coded your god? see this shit?

  108. on 29 Mar 2013 at 2:40 pm 108.DPK said …

    “306.Biff said …

    The reason atheist claim to believe in God in a Pew survey is embarrassment.”

    The only thing that is an embarrassment is you thinking this lame statement means anything. An atheist who claims to believe in god is like a singer who is mute… a contradiction in terms. It is embarrassing to theists that they are so stupid and deluded they can’t even comprehend what “atheist” means. Let’s spell it out for you again Biff/A… if you believe in god, you are NOT an atheist. Period.

    “Anyone with any education and an understanding of Information theory would naturally assume something this complex and high functioning would require an Intelligent agent to write this code.”

    How stupid are you? This is a straw man argument. It is simply NOT true. The overwhelming majority of people with advanced degrees in biology do not believe in the requirement of this “intelligent agent”. So, once again, you lie. And the fact that you continue to try and rely on a straw man to rail against after being outed for the utter stupidity it is only shows the level of desperation you apply to maintain your delusion.

    There was a time in human history when no one understood the mechanics of geology, geothermal activity, and plate tectonics. That did not then mean that magical volcano gods where real.

    The level to which your idiocy rises is really beyond comprehension.

    Now, if you have evidence that 80% of the most highly educated, knowledgeable scientists in the field of evolutionary biology are wrong, and that you can demonstrate that a non-physical, non-temporal, non-created, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent being actually created the first strand of DNA… well, show us.
    Otherwise we simply continue to laugh at your inane ramblings.

  109. on 29 Mar 2013 at 4:37 pm 109.MrQ said …

    Biffy bleated:

    How did evolution create DNA?

    It didn’t. I think evolution deals with genetic changes over time. Like when us -humans- evolved. Some, such as yourself, still need to evolve further ;-) .

    The greatest and most magnificent record of history is written in your DNA. You cannot run from it, no matter how many gods you choose to believe in.

  110. on 29 Mar 2013 at 5:01 pm 110.A said …

    Biff I would like to answer. It never happened. DNA being orderly, precise and complex would require intelligence. I observe that truth in life and unless one of our scholars lol!! presents a a better answer, I will stick with it.

    Amazing, not one even attempts an answer.

  111. on 29 Mar 2013 at 5:36 pm 111.DPK said …

    “309.A said …

    Biff I would like to answer.”

    Biff say, “Sure, other me… I’m sure whatever you say will fit perfectly with the inane statements I have made, since we have in fact been shown to be the same person.”

    “A” “Yes Biff, you are certainly the smartest person here, next to me. You know how to show those dirty atheists that we don’t need to worry about things like logic, or truth, or even if our statements are provably false. After all, we believe in Ja-heez-zus, so if we want to claim human were here on earth and sufficiently evolved enough to build a wooden boat big enough to carry 2 of every species of animal on the earth with some stone tools and a forearm for measurements… during the Precambrian period no less.. well we can, because you and I know these thing better than any stupid scientist… right, other me?”

    “A” you are certainly welcome to wallow in your own willful ignorance. No one is denying you that right… but here is the reality.

    According to your line of reasoning, if you cannot explain the exact nature and function of dark matter in the universe, then that means that my sea turtle hypothesis is correct, because it explains it perfectly. Dark matter was expelled from the turtle’s ass at the moment of the big bang… it is “dark” because, well, turtle poop is dark, and it provides a repulsive force to all the matter in the universe in much the same way as people avoid you when you walk into a room. It’s very nature is repulsive.

    Until you present a better answer, it is undeniably obvious that I am correct. So, what do you say… wanna explain dark matter and dark energy?

    Maybe you could pray to Jeeh-zus to help you out of the hole you’ve dug your self into.

  112. on 29 Mar 2013 at 6:01 pm 112.MrQ said …

    Allow me to analyze what we all know as “the ridiculously obvious”:

    A/Biff come from the same lineage of human ancestors who looked at the volcano and boldly proclaimed that the wrath of (insert name of some god here) is upon us for our insolence/lack of belief/hairy knuckles.

    Wonder what would happen if NASA did indeed find evidence of life on Mars? No doubt the goal posts would require a major retrofit, yet again!! We all know that their faith would remain -slightly shaken and permanently confused- but the parameters to test and question their belief of a god change. Tis’ the life of the theist – wilful ignorance is truly blissful.

  113. on 29 Mar 2013 at 6:47 pm 113.alex said …

    “Amazing, not one even attempts an answer.”

    what about, “the mooslim motherfucking goddit”. allah met your jesus and proceeded to kick the shit out of him? like it? moron.

  114. on 29 Mar 2013 at 8:01 pm 114.The messenger said …

    305.alex l am not the stung you .

    I was warning you .

  115. on 29 Mar 2013 at 8:13 pm 115.DPK said …

    “willful ignorance is truly blissful…”

    Probably not as much as you might think… if they had “bliss” they would not be here in a seemingly endless, and apparently fruitless, search for validation. Truth is, they are simply trying to convince themselves.

    When the day comes that science explains the exact process from which life evolved from simpler chemistry, they will either deny it, or claim it as the brilliant work of their god, scrambling for whatever nook and cranny they can find to sequester their faith in the god with the ever shrinking role in reality. But, for them, there will always be a crack or crevice to stick him in… because they want there to be.

    You need no more proof of their self fulfilling delusion than their continued assertion that anyone educated in life sciences would “naturally assume” that organic chemistry would require an “Intelligent agent” when the simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of those highly educated people in fact believe exactly the opposite. But they are never ones to let a little thing like truth or reality get in the way of their delusion.

    What is surprising to me is that they keep coming back for more and more embarrassment… and they make no apologies for the outright lies they tell in order to try to maintain the facade of their delusion. Biff/Boz/Hor/Ass cannot write a single post here without getting outed for the liar he is… but it doesn’t seem to phase him. No wonder he thinks he has a personal relationship with the creator of the universe… who loves him, no less!

  116. on 29 Mar 2013 at 10:26 pm 116.The messenger said …

    Here is an Athiest who is a mass murder.

  117. on 29 Mar 2013 at 10:35 pm 117.The messenger said …

    Joseph Stalin
    “Stalin” redirects here. For other uses, see Stalin (disambiguation).
    Joseph Stalin
    ????? ????????????? ?????? (Russian)
    ????? ?????????? ?? ??????? (Georgian)

    General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
    In office
    3 April 1922 – 16 October 1952
    Preceded by Vyacheslav Molotov
    (as Responsible Secretary)
    Succeeded by Nikita Khrushchev
    (office reestablished)
    Chairman of the Council of Ministers
    In office
    6 May 1941 – 5 March 1953
    First Deputies Nikolai Voznesensky
    Vyacheslav Molotov
    Preceded by Vyacheslav Molotov
    Succeeded by Georgy Malenkov
    People’s Commissar for Defense of the Soviet Union
    In office
    19 July 1941 – 25 February 1946
    Premier Himself
    Preceded by Semyon Timoshenko
    Succeeded by Nikolai Bulganin
    after vacancy
    Member of the Secretariat
    In office
    3 April 1922 – 5 March 1953
    Full member of the Presidium
    In office
    25 March 1919 – 5 March 1953
    Member of the Orgburo
    In office
    16 January 1919 – 5 March 1953
    Personal details
    Born 18 December 1878
    Gori, Tiflis Governorate, Russian Empire
    Died 5 March 1953 (aged 74)
    Kuntsevo Dacha near Moscow, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union
    Resting place Kremlin Wall Necropolis, Moscow, Russian Federation
    Nationality Georgian
    Political party Communist Party of the Soviet Union
    Spouse(s) Ekaterina Svanidze (1906–1907)
    Nadezhda Alliluyeva (1919–1932)
    Children Yakov Dzhugashvili, Vasily Dzhugashvili, Svetlana Alliluyeva
    Religion None, formerly Georgian Orthodox
    Signature
    Military service
    Allegiance Soviet Union
    Service/branch Soviet Armed Forces
    Years of service 1943–1953
    Rank Marshal of the Soviet Union (1943–1945)
    Generalissimus of the Soviet Union (1945–1953)
    Commands All (supreme commander)
    Battles/wars World War II
    Awards

    Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (Russian: ????? ????????????? ??????; born Ioseb Besarionis je J?u?ašvili, pronounced [i?s?b b?sari?nis dze d?u?a?vili] Georgian: ????? ?????????? ?? ?????????; 18 December 1878[1] – 5 March 1953) was the de facto leader of the Soviet Union from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953. Among the Bolshevik revolutionaries who took part in the Russian Revolution of 1917, Stalin was appointed General Secretary of the party’s Central Committee in 1922. He subsequently managed to consolidate power following the 1924 death of Vladimir Lenin through expanding the functions of his role, all the while eliminating any opposition. He held this nominal post until abolishing it in 1952, concurrently serving as the Premier of the Soviet Union after establishing the position in 1941.

    Under Joseph Stalin’s rule, the concept of “socialism in one country” became a central tenet of Soviet society. He replaced the New Economic Policy introduced by Lenin in the early 1920s with a highly centralised command economy, launching a period of industrialization and collectivization that resulted in the rapid transformation of the USSR from an agrarian society into an industrial power.[2] However, the economic changes coincided with the imprisonment of several million people in Soviet correctional labour camps[3] and the deportation of many others to remote areas.[3] The initial upheaval in agriculture disrupted food production and contributed to the catastrophic Soviet famine of 1932–1933, known as the Holodomor in Ukraine. Later, in a period that lasted from 1936–39, Stalin instituted a campaign against alleged enemies of his regime called the Great Purge, in which hundreds of thousands were executed. Major figures in the Communist Party, such as the old Bolsheviks, Leon Trotsky, and several Red Army leaders were killed after being convicted of plotting to overthrow the government and Stalin.[4]

    In August 1939, Stalin entered into a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany that divided their influence within Eastern Europe, but Germany later violated the agreement and launched a massive invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. Despite heavy human and territorial losses, Soviet forces managed to halt the Nazi incursion after the decisive battles of Moscow and Stalingrad. After defeating the Axis powers on the Eastern Front, the Red Army captured Berlin in May 1945, effectively ending the war in Europe for the Allies.[5][6] The Soviet Union subsequently emerged as one of two recognized world superpowers, the other being the United States.[7] The Yalta and Potsdam conferences established communist governments loyal to the Soviet Union in the Eastern Bloc countries as buffer states, which Stalin deemed necessary in case of another invasion. He also fostered close relations with Mao Zedong in China and Kim Il-sung in North Korea.

    Stalin led the Soviet Union through its post-war reconstruction phase, which saw a significant rise in tension with the Western world that would later be known as the Cold War. During this period, the USSR became the second country in the world to successfully develop a nuclear weapon, as well as launching the Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature in response to another widespread famine and the Great Construction Projects of Communism. In the years following his death, Stalin and his regime have been condemned on numerous occasions, most notably in 1956 when his successor Nikita Khrushchev denounced his legacy and initiated a process of de-Stalinization. He remains a controversial figure today, with many regarding him as a tyrant;[8] however, popular opinion within the Russian Federation is mixed.[9][10][11]

    ShowEarly life

    ShowRevolution, Civil War, and Polish-Soviet War

    ShowRise to power

    ShowChanges to Soviet society, 1927–1939

    ShowCalculating the number of victims

    ShowWorld War II, 1939–1945

    ShowPost-war era, 1945–1953

    ShowDeath and aftermath

    ShowPersonal life

    ShowHabits

    ShowHypotheses, rumors and misconceptions about Stalin

    ShowWorks

    ShowSee also

    ShowReferences

    ShowExternal links

    ShowRead in another language

    Last modified 9 hours ago

  118. on 29 Mar 2013 at 10:39 pm 118.The messenger said …

    I have heard some people say that GOD did not cause the Black Plague in Europe.

    I disagree. I believe that GOD manipulated those infected fleas to latch on to those rats and guided them to the Italian boats so that Europe would be cleansed of all the despicable people there.

  119. on 29 Mar 2013 at 11:00 pm 119.Nan said …

    The greatest thing about science is it continues to point to God. In Darwin’s s day they once claimed infinite universe, simple cells, etc but now science claims a definite beginning just as God stated. The cell is incredibly complex, pointing to a Creator.

    Cheering on science to reveal more of God’s incredible work.

  120. on 29 Mar 2013 at 11:04 pm 120.DPK said …

    As predicted, not one of the theist will even attempt an answer as to the nature of dark matter and dark energy. Proof the turtle did it!
    How sad for them and their impotent god.

  121. on 29 Mar 2013 at 11:14 pm 121.alex said …

    “… science claims a definite beginning just as God stated.”

    nice! so you believe in the god, Isis? well, hallelujah! when’s the trip to egypt?

  122. on 29 Mar 2013 at 11:21 pm 122.Biff said …

    Let me rephrase the question so it is even simpler.

    When I look at DNA and the high information content, why should I believe it was created by nature? What in nature would suggest it is even possible? No God claim here, asking how nature could pull this off. For a reference check into information theory.

    Unfortunately what we will see is volcano god, santa, elves and profanity but at least they are being exposed for those who may be lurking.

  123. on 29 Mar 2013 at 11:39 pm 123.alex said …

    “Unfortunately what we will see is volcano god, santa, elves and profanity”

    these are the direct result of your(s) bullshit assertions. they are exactly like your god, meritless!

    don’t you get it? other postulations have varying degrees of suspect, but your god is at the top of the heap, along with the others you mentioned. nobody truly knows how it all began, but your god(s) didn’t do it because god(s), santa, & elves don’t exist. just because i don’t know what causes thunder doesn’t mean thor did it.

    profanity too much for you? give me a fucken break. request a site audit from your internet provider and publish it. let’s see how righteous you truly are.

  124. on 29 Mar 2013 at 11:59 pm 124.Anonymous said …

    Nan:

    In Darwin’s s day they once claimed infinite universe

    In those days they also believed in “fixed species”. And that, my friend, is one of the contributing reasons why we have The Theory of Evolution, as original explained by Mr Darwin.

    We should all cheer on the scientists and their incredible work. Looking forward to the Mars Curiosity rover’s latest findings.

    Slightly re-phrasing Biff’s comment, we get:
    Volcanoes; why should I believe they were created by nature? What in nature would suggest it is even possible? God is angry with us!!!!
    Different era, same thought process.

  125. on 30 Mar 2013 at 12:24 am 125.Anonymous said …

    Biff

    When I look at DNA and the high information content, why should I believe it was created by nature? What in nature would suggest it is even possible

    In other words, I don’t understand.

    Look Grog. Ukk see fire in mountain. Sky Guardian unhappy with group. Sky Guardian make fire.
    In other words, I don’t understand.

  126. on 30 Mar 2013 at 2:25 am 126.DPK said …

    “When I look at DNA and the high information content, why should I believe it was created by nature?”

    Ok.. Fair enough I suppose. Since we currently do not have a thorough explanation, why should anyone assume there is a natural explanation?

    Well, lets look at the reality. We know for sure that life evolved here, and we know the natural world exists. So that is real. We also know that historically, every “mystery” which was thought to be the agency of supernatural gods has always turned out to have a natural, rather than a supernatural explanation. The rise and set of the sun, weather, storms, earthquakes, volcanos, droughts, diseases, crop failures… They all were once ascribed to gods, and now we know better.
    Next, lets look at the evidence that supernatural gods actually exist. Zero. None. Zip. That is why religious belief requires faith. Plus, there have been thousands of gods proclaimed and worshiped throughout history. Many natural phenomena have been ascribed to the action of these gods. They have all been completely, totally imaginary.

    So, why should you believe that DNA evolved through natural, rather than supernatural causes, even though the exact process is not yet fully understood? For the same reason you should believe that a star releases energy via fusion rather than a magical sun god riding a chariot of fire.

    Now, lets pose the question even simpler for you. Forget explaining exactly how the complexity of DNA evolved through natural causes… Just focus on this…… Why should we believe that a magical god, who you cannot even demonstrate actually exists, did it? And, IF you can do that, then tell us why we should believe that it was in fact YOUR particular god that did it, rather than some other god, or even an inter dimensional sea turtle?

  127. on 30 Mar 2013 at 2:54 am 127.Fluttershy said …

    WOW
    DPK
    i never thought of that, but if that doesnt make a theist think.
    all hope is lost.

  128. on 30 Mar 2013 at 3:24 am 128.The messenger said …

    Mr. 320.DPK, dark matter cannot be seen by us because it is only visible in a part of the light spectrum that we cannot see.
    Dark matter cannot be contain by any container made out of the elements that we know of.

  129. on 30 Mar 2013 at 3:51 am 129.Anonymous said …

    “i never thought of that, but if that doesnt make a theist think. all hope is lost.”

    For a theist it’s rarely about thinking but about how they *feel*. So, even whilst others are laughing at their ignorance and superstitions, the theists asinine beliefs make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

    That’s the part about religion that is stark raving bonkers mad. Anything else and the claim of an adult having an invisible best friend who was his own father and who sacrificed himself to himself to atone to himself would get you locked up for life in a mental hospital. Put the label religion on it and somehow those crazy people are allowed in the outside world so that they can rape little children and all the other shit the religious get away with in the name of their mental illness.

  130. on 30 Mar 2013 at 4:19 am 130.DPK said …

    Exactly… They seem unable to accept the fact that in science “we don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable and appropriate answer. The fact you don’t fully understand something does not then mean you get to just make shit up and demand others believe it.
    The process of claiming to know what is in fact, not known, is the province of religion, not science.
    Now, since this is a forum for discussing god and religion, and not the chemistry of DNA, can we recognize this as simply another attempt by Boz/Ben/biff/curm/Hor to distract attention from the fact that he has failed to answer every question posed of him, and more importantly, has utterly failed to provide any evidence that the god he wants everyone else to worship, actually exists.
    Until he does that, all the yammering about DNA is just a dog barking in the distance…. An unpleasant fart in the wind… Momentarialy unpleasant, but of little substance and gone with the next breeze.

  131. on 30 Mar 2013 at 3:47 pm 131.The messenger said …

    329.Anonymous, GOD made the universe, and if we study it, we must praise him.

  132. on 30 Mar 2013 at 4:03 pm 132.Anonymous said …

    On the subject of feeling, I have a friend who is feeling uncomfortable about her realization that her god doesn’t answer prayers. She is also uncomfortable about the amount of “evil” in the world.

    In order to reconcile her feelings with reality, she attended bible classes. Those classes made her feel worse because it was basically “shut up and believe”. She doesn’t want to discuss her feelings with her pastor because her pastor and her don’t agree on what it takes to get to heaven.

    So, what is she going to do? Try to come up with an explanation of why things are as they are?

    No. She’s currently church shopping. She doesn’t want to not believe in a god and baby Jesus nor does she want to give up the myth of heaven. Instead, she is going to various different churches to find one that believes in what she wants to believe.

    She’s not stupid, yet she can’t see how fucked up her thinking is. She claims to be “searching for answers”, yet the reality is she is trying to find someone who will tell her that the god that she wants to believe in exists and with all the rules and benefits that she wants to believe are true.

  133. on 30 Mar 2013 at 9:01 pm 133.A said …

    322 Biff,

    Seems the atheist cannot even answer why we should believe by faith that nature can write the program for DNA.

    Is it not incredible just how screwed up the atheist mind really is. That would not include the 21% of atheist who do believe in God. :)

  134. on 30 Mar 2013 at 9:40 pm 134.alex said …

    “Seems the atheist cannot even answer why we should believe by faith that nature can write the program for DNA.”

    if atheists cannot answer any of your questions, then your god must exist? is that it, you moron?

    “21% of atheist who do believe in God.”

    how many more times must your lie? is this the same as a theist who doesn’t believe in god?

    are you some kind of wannabee programmer?

    for(theist=0;theist<100;theist++){echo('theist is a liar');}

    how many times did the theist lie?

  135. on 30 Mar 2013 at 10:00 pm 135.The messenger said …

    331.Anonymous,Brother, GOD answers all prayers. Sometime he answers them in way that we do not expect. But he does answer all prayers. your friend seems to have little faith, perhaps you could allow me to contact her so that I could offer her some advice.

    I suggest that you tell me why she is loosing faith, so that I will know what advice to give her.

  136. on 30 Mar 2013 at 10:08 pm 136.The messenger said …

    331.Anonymous, priests and nuns of the Catholic Church are here to preach the gospel, and offer counsel to the troubled. Ask her to go to a Catholic church.

  137. on 31 Mar 2013 at 12:31 am 137.alex said …

    “Ask her to go to a Catholic church.”

    you dumbfuck, giving church advise on an atheist site? try a hindu or a moslem site next, you moron.

  138. on 31 Mar 2013 at 2:27 am 138.Anonymous said …

    “Ask her to go to a Catholic church.”

    How would being raped by a Catholic priest make things better?

  139. on 31 Mar 2013 at 2:54 am 139.The messenger said …

    337.alex, your stupidity infects you like canser to a human.

    Your arrogance will consume you, and you will feel regret.

  140. on 31 Mar 2013 at 3:16 am 140.The messenger said …

    338.Anonymous, any follower of GOD knows that lust is a sin. Therefore a real Catholic priest would never raped anyone.

    Only a godless human such as yourself would do something as disputable as rape.
    I pray on your behalf, for tomorrow he was resurrected on Easter Day.

  141. on 31 Mar 2013 at 3:19 am 141.The messenger said …

    Latest News
    updated 7:46 PM EDT 03.28.13
    Pope washes youths’ feet at detention center
    By Laura Smith-Spark, CNN

    A A A (resize font)
    (CNN) – Pope Francis washed the feet of a dozen prisoners, including young women, at a youth detention center in Rome as part of a Holy Thursday Mass ahead of Easter.

    The pontiff poured water over the young offenders’ feet, wiped them with a white towel and kissed them.

    The act of foot-washing at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper is part of the Christian tradition that mirrors Jesus’ washing of his disciples’ feet.

    Francis’ decision to celebrate the Mass with young offenders at the Casal del Marmo center represents a break with tradition but is in step with his record in embracing simplicity and humility.

    Read: Pope Francis to shun luxury papal apartment

    The service has in past years been held at the grand Basilica of St. John Lateran, the official seat of the bishop of Rome.

    This time, the Mass “will be, by his express desire, very simple,” the Vatican said before the service.

    The young offenders were expected to give the pope a wooden crucifix and kneeler, which they made themselves in the detention center’s workshop.

    In return, Francis was to bring Easter eggs and colomba, traditional Italian Easter cake in the shape of a dove, for all, the Vatican had said.

    The Casal del Marmo center houses close to 50 inmates, who range in age from 14 to 21. The young people who had their feet washed were chosen from different nationalities and diverse religious backgrounds. Two young women and two Muslims were included in the rite, according to the Vatican.

    Journalist Livia Borghese contributed to this report.
    1 2 3
    CNN Home Full Article

    Email »
    From the Web
    25 Most Breathtaking National Geographic Photographs (Daily Fun Lists)
    10 Impressive Tattoos (PHOTO GALLERY] (DexKnows)
    10 Common Weight Loss, Nutrition, & Diet Myths (ActiveBeat)
    And so it Goes (AARP)
    More from CNN
    Pope’s sister prayed he wouldn’t be picked; now she’s proud, from afar
    Pope Francis to shun luxury papal apartment, for now
    Brazilian doctor killed 7 patients to free up hospital beds, police say
    A grisly crime surges into spotlight as Mexico shifts drug war strategy
    [What’s this?]
    Related Videos
    Pope Francis to wash feet of prisoners
    Pope Francis rejects papal apartment
    Priests hope to clear Pope Francis’ name

  142. on 31 Mar 2013 at 3:35 am 142.The messenger said …

    Athiests such as christifer Hitchens, and Alex, take pleasure in condemning the kind people of this world, such as mother teresia. Mother teresia gave millions of dollars to the people of India so that they could find their way out of poverty and distress.

    But Christofer Hitchens took pleasure in spreading lies and unproved rummers, such as secret baptisms and favoring the Indian people. Mother teresia never favored any one race of people; she loved them all equally. She gave hope and financial support to those in need for it, and she taught people how to be kind again.

    Kindness is a trait that have obviously aluted Mr. Hitchens. He would rather focus on his own wealth and the alcohol that he treasured so much in life.

    Christofer was also an enemy of democracy. He believes that the government should rule over us. He fails to realize that citizens rule the government, the government will never rule us.

  143. on 31 Mar 2013 at 2:25 pm 143.Anonymous said …

    From “A”, the learned Astrophysicist, we get:

    That would not include the 21% of atheist who do believe in God

    In other Pew survey polls it was found that 23% of virgins have had sex and 35% of dead people are alive. Surprisingly, only 15% of lesbians are attracted to men.

  144. on 31 Mar 2013 at 5:38 pm 144.DPK said …

    Hahaha… Yeah, he is an idiot, inst he?
    I just did my own informal poll. I asked 50 random people coming out of church this morning if they believed in Zeuss. ALL of them said, “no.”
    So there you have it. 100% of theists questioned denied belief in god!
    So can we now say that surveys indicate that virtually all theists do not believe in god?
    As ass man would say, “redefining terms, like gay marriage”.
    I forgot to ask him before when her said that, what he thought “gay marriage” means now that it has been redefined?

  145. on 31 Mar 2013 at 5:39 pm 145.Fluttershy said …

    14% of sprinters cannot run.
    34% of soldiers cant fight.
    9_9

  146. on 31 Mar 2013 at 5:53 pm 146.Anonymous said …

    100% of polls and surveys found on the internet are 100% accurate.

  147. on 31 Mar 2013 at 6:28 pm 147.DPK said …

    on 30 Mar 2013 at 3:24 am 328.The messenger said …
    Mr. 320.DPK, dark matter cannot be seen by us because it is only visible in a part of the light spectrum that we cannot see.
    Dark matter cannot be contain by any container made out of the elements that we know of.

    Sigh… You really haven’t got a clue have you?
    You are too dim to even realize you don’t have the slightest idea of what we are talking about. Go away, you useless troll.

  148. on 31 Mar 2013 at 6:32 pm 148.Biff said …

    Professing atheist believing in God only means they are now honest.

    But rather than insults and diversions will any atheist answer why we should believe in faith that nature can write DNA code? If no God exists, that is the only answer, yes?

    Why are the atheists so scared?

  149. on 31 Mar 2013 at 7:17 pm 149.Anonymous said …

    “Why are the atheists so scared?”

    anything more scary than everlasting torment? why ain’t i scared? because like the nonstop bullshit the theists keep dropping in here, surely i’ll get used to the hellish torment after a couple of thousand years?

    seriously, as a homeless bum, i found a gift outside my tent and for the life of me, i cannot answer the question of where the gift came from. is it god?

    my cousin, the african bushman, had the same question. him and his homies were starving and a damn gnu ran into a tree and killed itself thereby providing a big feast. i told him it was the xtian god’s work. he cursed me with those clickety clackety words.

    fucken bushman going to hell.

  150. on 31 Mar 2013 at 7:23 pm 150.alex said …

    oops. damn new windoze 8 computer. 345 be me.

  151. on 31 Mar 2013 at 7:40 pm 151.Anonymous said …

    Biffy:

    answer why we should believe in faith that nature can write DNA code?

    We should apply logic and reasoning. Faith means accepting goddidit. Shall we try and see where we get with what we know today?
    Prediction: There goes Biffy, running away again now that we try and apply thought to the issue. Blind faith will only carry you so far, especially when you objectively search for real answers.

    For instance, speaking of objective and commonly understood facts, let’s agree that the first lifeforms on Earth emerged BILLIONS of years ago and were simple single celled organisms. No humans, gazelles, or, earthworms at that time.

    Let’s also agree that the issue of “fixed species” was taken care of with the Theory of Evolution.

  152. on 31 Mar 2013 at 7:40 pm 152.The messenger said …

    347.DPK, the information that I stated about the nature of dark matter is completely true.

    It was told to me by one of my friends who happens to by a theoretical physicist.

  153. on 31 Mar 2013 at 7:56 pm 153.The messenger said …

    347.DPK, if my answer is false then please tell me the true nature of dark matter.

    When dark matter collides with the elements that are visible to us, it imedeanity vaporizes its self and the atom that it collided with. Dark matter is admited from our sun, and from dead stars.

  154. on 31 Mar 2013 at 11:08 pm 154.DPK said …

    Go back and read the posts again William.. And try to concentrate. Here’s a clue, it isn’t about dark matter at all.

    Now, since you brought it up, it is obvious your “friend” is not a theorietical physicist, or you just made that up. Why do you always have to lie about things to try and make people believe you? That’s a sign of a serious mental illness.

  155. on 01 Apr 2013 at 2:18 am 155.The messenger said …

    354.DPK, you asked a question that you thought a man of faith could not answer.

    I proved you wrong three times now.

    First, by giving the correct answer to your dark matter question.

    Second, after you failed to provide an answer to the dark matter question that would contradict mine.

    Third, you stated that I either made up my friend, or he is not a theoretical physisist.

    I promise, in the name of GOD, our father in heaven, that I do not lie on this site.
    I only preach the word of The Lord, the truth.

  156. on 01 Apr 2013 at 2:31 am 156.The messenger said …

    Read this, brothers.

    The Rage Against God
    The Rage Against God

    Front cover of the UK edition
    Author(s) Peter Hitchens
    Country United Kingdom
    Language English
    Subject(s) Religion, autobiography
    Genre(s) Apologetics
    Publisher Continuum (UK); Zondervan (US)
    Publication date 15 March 2010 (UK); 1 May 2010 (US)
    Pages 256
    ISBN 1-4411-0572-7 (UK); 0310320313 (US)
    Preceded by The Broken Compass
    The Rage Against God (subtitle in US editions: How Atheism Led Me to Faith) is the fifth book by Peter Hitchens, first published in 2010. The book describes Hitchens’s journey from the militant atheism of the far political left and bohemianism to Christianity, detailing the influences on him that led to his conversion. The book is partly intended as a response to God Is Not Great, a book written by his brother Christopher Hitchens in 2007.

    Peter Hitchens, with particular reference to events which occurred in the Soviet Union, argues that his brother’s verdict on religion is misguided, and that faith in God is both a safeguard against the collapse of civilisation into moral chaos and the best antidote to what he views as the dangerous idea of earthly perfection through utopianism. The Rage Against God received a mostly favourable reception in the media. Hitchens was praised for making a forceful and intelligent case, in particular with respect to questions concerning morality and God. Some critics contended that the author was misguided in drawing a link between state atheism and totalitarianism.

    ShowBackground

    HideSynopsis

    Part One: A Personal Journey Through Atheism

    In the book Hitchens describes how the painting The Last Judgement played a significant part in his conversion to Christianity.
    In Chapter 1 Hitchens describes abandoning religion in his youth, and promoting “cruel revolutionary rubbish” as a Trotskyist activist.[4] He claims his generation had become intellectually aloof from religion, rebellious and disillusioned[5] and in Chapter 2 explores further reasons for this disillusion, including the Suez Crisis and the Profumo Affair.[6] In Chapter 3, Hitchens recounts how he embraced scientific inquiry and adopted liberal positions on issues such as marriage, abortion, homosexuality, and patriotism.[7] Chapter 4 is a lament for the “noble austerity”[8] of his childhood in Britain. Chapter 5 explores what Hitchens views as the pseudo-religion surrounding Churchill and World War II heroes – a “great cult of noble, patriotic death”[9] whose only equivalent, he claims, was in the Soviet Union.[10] Hitchens then asserts that, “The Christian Church has been powerfully damaged by letting itself be confused with love of country and the making of great wars”.[11] In Chapter 6 Hitchens recalls being a foreign correspondent in the Soviet Union and a trip to Mogadishu, and how these experiences convinced him that, “his own civilisation was infinitely precious and utterly vulnerable”.[12] In Chapter 7 Hitchens charts his return to Christianity, and makes particular reference to the experience of seeing the Rogier van der Weyden painting The Last Judgement:[4] “I gaped, my mouth actually hanging open. These people did not appear remote or from the ancient past; they were my own generation … I had absolutely no doubt I was among the damned”.[4] In Chapter 8 Hitchens examines the diminishing of Christianity in Britain and its potential causes.[13][14]

    Part Two: Addressing Atheism: Three Failed Arguments

    In the book Hitchens cites atrocities committed under the Khmer Rouge as an example of crimes against humanity perpetrated by atheist states (skulls of victims shown).
    In Chapter 9, Hitchens contends that the claim that religion is a source of conflict is a “cruel factual misunderstanding”,[15] and that a number of conflicts, including The Troubles and the Arab–Israeli conflict, were not motivated by religion but tribal in nature and disputes over territory.[16] Chapter 10 discusses whether morality can be determined without the concept of God. Hitchens asserts that atheists “have a fundamental inability to concede that to be effectively absolute, a moral code needs to be beyond human power to alter”.[17] He also describes as flawed his brother’s assertion in God is Not Great that “the order to love thy neighbour ‘as thyself’ is too extreme and too strenuous to be obeyed”.[6][18] Hitchens ends the chapter by stating, “in all my experience in life, I have seldom seen a more powerful argument for the fallen nature of man, and his inability to achieve perfection, than those countries in which man sets himself up to replace God with the State”.[19] Hitchens begins Chapter 11 by asserting, “those who reject God’s absolute authority, preferring their own, are far more ready to persecute than Christians have been … Each revolutionary generation reliably repeats the savagery”.[20] He cites as examples the French revolutionary terror; the Bolshevik revolution; the Holodomor and the Soviet famine of 1932–33; the barbarity surrounding Joseph Stalin’s five-year plans, repeated in the Great Leap Forward in China; atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge; and human rights abuses in Cuba under Fidel Castro. Hitchens then quotes a number of prominent communist thinkers’ pronouncements on morality, including George Lukacs stating, “Communist ethics make it the highest duty to accept the necessity of acting wickedly. This is the greatest sacrifice the revolution asks from us”, and Leon Trotsky’s claiming that “morality, more than any other form of ideology, has a class character”.[21][22]

    Part Three: The League of the Militant Godless

    Demolition of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow. In the book Hitchens details various attempts by the Bolshevik regime to expunge religion from Soviet society.
    Hitchens writes “the biggest fake miracle staged in human history was the claim that the Soviet Union was a new civilisation of equality, peace, love, truth, science and progress. Everyone knows that it was a prison, a slum, a return to primitive barbarism, a kingdom of lies where scientists and doctors feared offending the secret police, and that its elite were corrupt and lived in secret luxury”.[23] He then cites Walter Duranty’s denying the existence of the great Ukrainian famine,[24] and Sidney and Beatrice Webb’s acceptance that the 1937 Moscow show trials were “genuine criminal prosecutions”.[24] Hitchens then examines Lenin’s suppression of religion in the Soviet Union, which included making the teaching of religion to children punishable by the death penalty and the creation of an antireligious organisation of Soviet workers. Hitchens begins Chapter 13 by quoting William Henry Chamberlin: “In Russia, the world is witnessing the first effort to destroy completely any belief in supernatural interpretation of life”,[25][26] and then examines some consequences of this, including intolerance of religion, terror, and the persecution of priests and bishops at the Solovetsky concentration camp. Hitchens asserts that in the Soviet Union “the regime’s institutional loathing for the teaching of religion, and its desire to eradicate it, survived every doctrinal detour and swerve”.[27] In the final chapter, Hitchens analyses a number of his brother’s arguments, and contends that “the coincidence in instinct, taste, and thought between my brother and the Bolsheviks and their sympathisers is striking and undeniable”.[28] He then records how his brother nominated the “apostle of revolutionary terror”[28] Leon Trotsky for an edition of the BBC radio series Great Lives;[29] praised Trotsky for his “moral courage”;[28][30] and declared that one of Lenin’s great achievements was “to create a secular Russia”.[28][31] Hitchens speculates that his brother remained sympathetic towards Bolshevism and is still hostile towards the things it extirpated, including monarchy, tradition, and faith.[32] He ends the chapter by claiming a form of militant secularism is becoming established in Britain, and that “The Rage Against God is loose”.[33]

    Epilogue

    In the epilogue, Hitchens describes how after a 2008 debate with Christopher Hitchens “the longest quarrel of my life seemed to be unexpectedly over”[34] and that he held no hope of converting his brother, who had “bricked himself up high in his atheist tower, with slits instead of windows from which to shoot arrows at the faithful”.[35]

    HideCritical reception

    After its UK publication in March 2010 the book received a number of mostly favourable reviews in British newspapers.

    In The Daily Telegraph Christopher Howse concentrated on the moral arguments in the book, and agreed with Hitchens that “to determine what is right and what is wrong without God, is difficult”.[36] Also in The Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore wrote that the book “tries to do two things at once. One is to bash up modern militant atheism with all the author’s polemical skill. The other is to give an autobiographical account of how, in our time, an intelligent man’s faith may recover”.[37] In a positive review in Standpoint magazine, Michael Nazir Ali wrote, “One of the abiding canards nailed by Peter Hitchens is that religion causes conflict. He does this by showing that so-called “religious” wars had many other elements to them, such as greed for territory, political ambition and nationalism. His repeated references to Soviet brutality reveal that secular ideologies have caused more suffering in recent times than any conflict associated with religion.”[38] In a more critical review in The New Statesman Sholto Byrnes wrote, “Hitchens makes his case forcefully, passionately and intelligently”, but “makes too much connection between the ill deeds of atheists and their atheism”.[39] Byrnes also reviewed the book in The Independent, where he questioned the validity of a number of Hitchens’s conclusions, including that “atheists ‘actively wish for disorder and meaninglessness'”.[40] In a sympathetic review in The Guardian, Rupert Shortt wrote, “Hitchens does not seek to mount a comprehensive defence of Christianity. He is wise to avoid deeper philosophical and theological waters, because his strengths lie elsewhere. His more manageable aim is to expose what he holds to be three major fallacies underlying God Is Not Great: that conflict fought in the name of religion is really always about faith; that “it is ultimately possible to know with confidence what is right and what is wrong without acknowledging the existence of God”; and that “atheist states are not actually atheist”.[41] In The Spectator, Quentin Letts reviewed the book very positively, describing it as “a magnificent, sustained cry against the aggressive secularism taking control of our weakened culture”.[42]

    Reviews of the book in North American publications subsequent to its stateside release were more mixed.

    In The New York Times, Mark Oppenheimer commented, “American readers will notice a lack of enthusiasm in Peter’s Christian apologetics. He proceeds largely from historical, rather than personal, evidence: here are the fruits of Christianity, and here is what one finds in its absence”.[43] In a negative review in the Winnipeg Free Press, Ted St. Godard wrote, “What Hitchens can’t seem to appreciate is that, even if ‘Soviet Communism is organically linked to atheism, something his brother and others argue against (if somewhat feebly), and even if one accepts that Soviet tyranny was horrible, this says little about the existence of God”.[44] In a The Washington Times review entitled “Cain and Abel: The sequel?”, Jeremy Lott wrote, “Hitchens refuses to make a full-throated case for faith. He explains that ‘those who choose to argue in prose… are unlikely to be receptive to a case that is most effectively couched in poetry’ … Peter does hope that Christopher might one day arrive at some sort of acceptance that belief in God is not necessarily a character fault—and that religion does not poison everything”.[45]

    ShowRelease details

    ShowSee also

    ShowBibliography

    ShowReferences

    ShowExternal links

    ShowRead in another language

    Last modified 15 days ago

  157. on 01 Apr 2013 at 3:01 am 157.The messenger said …

    on 01 Apr 2013 at 2:18 am 355.The messenger said … Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    354.DPK, you asked a question that you thought a man of faith could not answer.
    I proved you wrong three times now.
    First, by giving the correct answer to your dark matter question.
    Second, after you failed to provide an answer to the dark matter question that would contradict mine.
    Third, you stated that I either made up my friend, or he is not a theoretical physisist.
    I promise, in the name of GOD, our father in heaven, that I do not lie on this site.
    I only preach the word of The Lord, the truth.

  158. on 01 Apr 2013 at 3:17 am 158.The messenger said …

    354.DPK, I know why you asked the dark matter question.

    You thought that you could make us seem unintelligent for not answering.

    So therefore, I provided an answer to your question as a way to show you that we theist are more inteligent than any Athiest.

    We posses know lage of science, and a knowlage greater than science. We posses the knowlage of love, peace, kindness, humility, and forgiveness. These virtues have eluted atheist.

  159. on 01 Apr 2013 at 3:20 am 159.The messenger said …

    354.DPK, I know why you asked the dark matter question.
    You thought that you could make us seem unintelligent for not answering.
    So therefore, I provided an answer to your question as a way to show you that we theists are more inteligent than any Athiest.
    We posses knowledge of science, and a knowledge greater than science. We posses the knowledge of love, peace, kindness, humility, and forgiveness. These virtues have eluted atheists.

  160. on 01 Apr 2013 at 4:21 am 160.Anonymous said …

    Messenger has a friend who is a physicist in the same way that “A” is an Astrophysicist and that A, Lou, Curmudgeon, Martin, Xenon, Biff, Ben and friends answer questions.

    It’s also the same version of “completely true” that Messenger uses when he claims to be a Catholic.

  161. on 01 Apr 2013 at 4:28 am 161.Fluttershy said …

    347.DPK, if my answer is false then please tell me the true nature of dark matter.
    When dark matter collides with the elements that are visible to us, it imedeanity vaporizes its self and the atom that it collided with. Dark matter is admited from our sun, and from dead stars.

    THATS ANTIMATTER YOU IDIOT.
    Darkmatter is COMPLETELY different.

  162. on 01 Apr 2013 at 12:53 pm 162.Biff said …

    Fluttershy,

    Why we should believe in faith that nature can write DNA code? If no God exists, then it must be a natural process, right?

    You will need to explain what you believe happened, how it happened, when it happened, and provide verifiable details. Please provide citations so that we can independently read your submission.

  163. on 01 Apr 2013 at 12:55 pm 163.DPK said …

    Shhh.. Don’t give him any help. It’s fun watching him scramble. His “friend”, the theorietical physicist, is named Mr. Google.
    Messenger has long had a propensity to lie in order to further his propaganda. Remember when he first came here he claimed that he had personally been to heaven and spoken with god?

  164. on 01 Apr 2013 at 12:56 pm 164.Biff said …

    “Why do you always have to lie about things to try and make people believe you?”

    Why is lying wrong DPK? I believe it was you who once made the claim lying was OK in the right situation?

  165. on 01 Apr 2013 at 1:08 pm 165.The messenger said …

    361.Fluttershy, the fact that you have once again failed to provide an answer to the nature of dark matter question, and due to the fact that you try to contradict my answer by just stating that it is false, is proof that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

    If dark matter is completely different than antimatter, please explain to us why they are different.

  166. on 01 Apr 2013 at 1:12 pm 166.The messenger said …

    363.DPK, we all speak to GOD, whether it be directly or indirectly.

    He gives us signs of what is right and what is wrong, that is how he communicates with us.

  167. on 01 Apr 2013 at 1:32 pm 167.Anonymous said …

    Biffy:

    Why we should believe in faith that nature can write DNA code? If no God exists, then it must be a natural process, right?

    Why don’t you re-read post #351 above? Perhaps an avenue you want to avoid?
    Believers keep on believing, thinkers keep on thinking. Never the twain shall meet.

  168. on 01 Apr 2013 at 1:37 pm 168.Anonymous said …

    Biffy:

    I believe it was you who once made the claim lying was OK in the right situation?

    But, Biffy-boy, you’re a xtian. Oh wait…lying is an integral part of that package. Lie to those around you and lie to yourself. We all know that. And you’re a pro at it.

  169. on 01 Apr 2013 at 3:39 pm 169.Fluttershy said …

    Biff said
    Fluttershy,
    Why we should believe in faith that nature can write DNA code? If no God exists, then it must be a natural process, right?
    You will need to explain what you believe happened, how it happened, when it happened, and provide verifiable details. Please provide citations so that we can independently read your submission.
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    As said multiple times by different people, this blog is about god, not evolution, not antimatter, not santa clause, not jeffry the magical giant squid, and not DNA.

    So would you kindly tell US about god and explain what you believe happened, how it happened, when it happened, and provide verifiable details.
    *sigh* of course you are unable to do so…

  170. on 01 Apr 2013 at 5:04 pm 170.DPK said …

    359.Biff said …

    “Why is lying wrong DPK? I believe it was you who once made the claim lying was OK in the right situation?”

    Indeed it is there Biffy? I take it you disagree?
    So, when the Nazi stormtroopers are at the door, Jesus wants you to say “I cannot lie, Mr. Nazi… Yes, the Jews are hiding in the basement!”

    Well, so much for your absolute moral code that prohibits lying. Oops.

  171. on 01 Apr 2013 at 5:09 pm 171.DPK said …

    And I assume Biff is now saying it is ok for messenger to lie about shit as long as it benefit the spread of his religious beliefs. What kind of god do you all believe in that you have to lie to people to get them to believe it? Seems if he was real you could convince people with the truth, rather than having to always make up lies and be endless trying to explain away problems. Not much of a god you’re working for there dude.
    Biff… are you off your meds again? Maybe too many chocolate eggs from the holy bunny yesterday? Or maybe the Holy Ghost just filled you with the spirit and told you it’s ok to lie for Ja-heez-hus!

  172. on 01 Apr 2013 at 6:16 pm 172.Biff said …

    “As said multiple times by different people, this blog is about god,”

    That is a claim made by posters who are cowards, not Thomas. Actually this blog is about just anything Thomas would like to post. Politics, Morality, Messenger lying, Sock puppets,Magical Turtles, etc. However, origins and creation tie into God and if you claim there is no God, you have quite the task explaining how DNA was programmed. What you are saying is that nature can write programs.

    So Flutter, where is an answer. Must I believe in faith nature created DNA? Stop with the excuses.

    __________________

    “Indeed it is there Biffy?”

    Is that a question?????? Well, I don’t know if he lied but if he did why do you have a problem? You don’t agree with when he chose to lie? What are the guidelines for lying properly DPK?

    I like Biffy, sort of rings with spiffy. Thanks boys.

  173. on 01 Apr 2013 at 7:02 pm 173.Anonymous said …

    I like Biffy, sort of rings with spiffy.

    bif·fy (bf) also biff (bf)
    n. pl. bif·fies also biffs Upper Midwest
    1. An outdoor toilet; an outhouse.
    2. An indoor toilet.

    Works for me!

    Now let’s examine the trail which leads to your assumption.

    you have quite the task explaining how DNA was programmed. What you are saying is that nature can write programs.

    Re-read and answer Post #351, please. Stun the audience with your revelation of some (or any) god’s existence.

  174. on 01 Apr 2013 at 7:26 pm 174.DPK said …

    Yes Biffy… the guidelines for when it is moral to lie and when it is not come from something called ethics, which is not absolute. I take your admission means you would have turned in the postulated jews in the basement rather than lie and violate the absolute biblical moral code. Sad.

    ““Indeed it is there Biffy?”

    Is that a question??????”

    Tragically, rather than answer, you choose to focus on a punctuation error. That’s telling.

    “if you claim there is no God, you have quite the task explaining how DNA was programmed.”

    No, we don’t. We know DNA exists, we know nature exists, and we know nature behaves according to natural laws. This is undeniable. So, anything that exists in nature is by definition “natural”. No proof is required.

    You, on the other, are claiming there is a super-natural cause. Therefore, YOU have quite the task of demonstrating that such a thing exists and that such a thing actually interacted with the physical world to do so. Good luck with that. The fact that you are too dim to imagine any other possibility doesn’t count as “evidence” otherwise there would be sufficient evidence that Thor hurls lightning bolts from his chariot of thunder. I know you hate the analogy, but that is only because you have no answer for it, likely because it is absolutely true.

    So, once again Biffy… time to put up or shut up. Based on past experience with you, you’ll be gone a while. See ya.

  175. on 01 Apr 2013 at 8:22 pm 175.Biff said …

    “Tragically, rather than answer, you choose to focus on a punctuation error. That’s telling.”

    Is it DPK? I didn’t know what you were attempting to get across. Probably more evasion, ignoring of the question and childish rants. But let us examine your attempt at, an answer?

    “No, we don’t. We know DNA exists, we know nature exists, and we know nature behaves according to natural laws. This is undeniable.”

    This is well deserving of a duh!

    Nature behaves in accordance with natural law! Hey my laptop behaves like a laptop! Thank you Albert. What natural law programmed DNA? Let is assume God did not do it. Notice I am not making a God claim, as you like to allude to. I am asking you how did it happen?

    ________________

    Again you do not offer guidelines for lying. Your assumption without proof Messenger lied has outraged you? Why? When is it OK to lie?

  176. on 01 Apr 2013 at 8:50 pm 176.DPK said …

    “What natural law programmed DNA? Let is assume God did not do it. Notice I am not making a God claim, as you like to allude to. I am asking you how did it happen?”

    And as I have told you many times before… I don’t know.
    Newsflash Biffy… neither do you.
    So what?

    I also don’t know how gravity hold planets in orbit around the sun. That doesn’t mean angels hold it in place by flapping their wings.

    Do you have a point here, other than your bullheaded clinging to your tired argument from ignorance. No one here is claiming to know the exact process by which DNA evolved over thousands of millions of years. What exactly do you think that then proves there Biffer?
    D

  177. on 01 Apr 2013 at 9:35 pm 177.Biff said …

    “And as I have told you many times before… I don’t know.”

    Well, I think you believe you do. You have eliminated a programmer. Therefore, you have accepted that is must be natural and that nature can somehow write the complex code of DNA. Yes? So nature must have done it, Right?

  178. on 01 Apr 2013 at 9:37 pm 178.Biff said …

    “And as I have told you many times before… I don’t know.”

    Well, I think you believe you do. You have eliminated a programmer. Therefore, you have accepted that is must be natural and that nature can somehow write the complex code of DNA. Yes? So nature must have done it, Right?

  179. on 01 Apr 2013 at 10:01 pm 179.Anonymous said …

    Biffy:

    Therefore, you have accepted that is must be natural and that nature can somehow write the complex code of DNA. Yes? So nature must have done it, Right?

    Can we agree that nobody knows exactly how it all began?

    no entirely plausible hypothesis for the spontaneous origin of life has been found. But this does not mean that supernatural activity is the only possible explanation.

    A simple response would be to give a God-of-the-gaps explanation: that some supernatural force, namely God, must have intervened to bring life into being.
    From: http://biologos.org/questions/the-origin-of-life

    On faith, you claim a god. Should we attempt to apply logic and reason and see what makes the most sense? Are you ready, Biffy, for that exercise?

  180. on 01 Apr 2013 at 10:15 pm 180.alex said …

    “You have eliminated a programmer. Therefore, you have accepted that is must be natural and that nature can somehow write the complex code of DNA. Yes? So nature must have done it, Right?”

    wrong. he might have eliminated a programmer, but i’ll add santa to your bullshit, elimination list. after your god, plenty of room for more.

    you refuse the “i don’t know”, but you insist on knowing the answer. stop the runaround and provide the proof for your god, who is labeled bullcrap until you have proven otherwise.

    remember dpk’s turtle, whom you readily dismissed? of course, the turtle has no proof and you are right in dismissing it. bullshit turtle & bullshit god, both equally dismissed.

  181. on 01 Apr 2013 at 10:21 pm 181.DPK said …

    I have absolutely not eliminated a programer.
    Why do you have to lie about what I said in order to try and make your point?
    I said, “I don’t know.” What does that mean? It means I don’t know.
    What I do know is there is plenty of evidence that natural laws exist and they can do amazing things. I also know that lots and lots of other stuff that has, in the past, been declared to be the province of the supernatural by ignoramuses, like you have always had a non-supernatural explanation. I also know that neither you, nor anyone else here has provided even one shred of credible evidence that the supernatural god that you claim as a programer actually exists.

    So therefore, I think it far more likely that there is also a natural explanation for the evolution of information in DNA than there is that it was programed by a supernatural force, of which there is ZERO evidence.

    Now, here is a structure that appears to be designed. It is complex and information rich. Who programed it?
    http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=CUxQnQyEaTE9ZM&tbnid=HmR52qxWNk78pM:&ved=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.denofimagination.com.pl%2F2012%2F10%2Fdesert-sand-dunes.html&ei=UAhaUdarJcny0wGawIHAAg&bvm=bv.44442042,d.dmQ&psig=AFQjCNEuPpR0qUFNATC-ZJSFrwJ2N2klmg&ust=1364941265126487

  182. on 01 Apr 2013 at 11:03 pm 182.DPK said …

    I have absolutely not eliminated a programer. I don’t pretend to know thing that I do not know.

    Why do you have to lie about what I said in order to try and make your point?

    I said, “I don’t know.” What does that mean? It means I don’t know. Neither do you.

    What I do know is there is plenty of evidence that natural laws exist and they can do amazing things. I also know that lots and lots of other stuff that has, in the past, been declared to be the province of the supernatural by ignoramuses, like you, have ALWAYS had a non-supernatural explanation.

    I also know that neither you, nor anyone else here has provided even one shred of credible evidence that the supernatural god that you imply as a programer actually exists.

    So therefore, I think it far more likely that there is also a natural explanation for the evolution of information in DNA than there is that it was programed by a supernatural force, of which there is ZERO evidence. Unless you have any actual evidence to the contrary, your endless yammering is really tiresome and completely pointless.

    How about it Biffy, do YOU care to give us an explaination about where the information in DNA came from, specifically?

    I’ll give you an even easier task to start… good natured fellow that I am. A sand dune is complex, appears “designed” and contains lots and lots of information in its structure… who programed it?

  183. on 02 Apr 2013 at 2:42 am 183.fluttershy said …

    “Well, I think you believe you do. You have eliminated a programmer. Therefore, you have accepted that is must be natural and that nature can somehow write the complex code of DNA. Yes? So nature must have done it, Right?”

    Well, in MY opinion, being that every thing is consisted of atoms, it is not impossible, that in sheer chance and randomness, that enough combined to form a single cell.
    However, not every one believes in this, just to warn you…

    One thing i can, without fear of actual retaliation, say is that a “God” did not form ANYTHING in this universe, ever.

  184. on 02 Apr 2013 at 12:08 pm 184.Biff said …

    “I have absolutely not eliminated a programer.
    Why do you have to lie about what I said in order to try and make your point?
    I said, “I don’t know.””

    I don’t lie, you and others have stated repeatedly there in no God on this blog. However, so you are agnostic not an atheist? or would you be one of the 23% of atheists who responded they believe in God?

    Or, would you being putting you faith in nature having the ability to write multiple high information coding? Your faith in the propability of nature is based on what?

    How can we place out faith in nature when is shows absolutely no ability whatsoever to perform such a task?

  185. on 02 Apr 2013 at 12:14 pm 185.Biff said …

    “I have absolutely not eliminated a programer.
    Why do you have to lie about what I said in order to try and make your point?
    I said, “I don’t know.””

    I don’t lie, you and others have stated repeatedly there in no God on this blog. Fluttershy seems pretty sure right above this post. However, so you are agnostic not an atheist? or would you be one of the 23% of atheists who responded they believe in God?

    Or, would you being putting you faith in nature having the ability to write multiple high information coding? Your faith in the probability of nature is based on what?

    How can we place out faith in nature when is shows absolutely no ability whatsoever to perform such a task?

    _________________________

    “Well, in MY opinion, being that every thing is consisted of atoms, it is not impossible, that in sheer chance and randomness, that enough combined to form a single cell.”

    Astonishing, Fluttershy can you provide for us a step by step process for how this would happen? Please provide citations so that we can properly review your work.

  186. on 02 Apr 2013 at 12:22 pm 186.Fluttershy said …

    as i said…that is my opinion.
    physically and biologically it is possible, however unlikely.

  187. on 02 Apr 2013 at 12:24 pm 187.Fluttershy said …

    i think its called abiogenesis or something, not heaps sure, but i understand atoms and biology enough to make sense of it.

  188. on 02 Apr 2013 at 12:29 pm 188.Fluttershy said …

    Being that i have answered you question fairly and with enough words for you to do some R/D.
    may you please say how exactly your god made the earth and everything else?

  189. on 02 Apr 2013 at 12:37 pm 189.DPK said …

    Biff you are so dense. As has been said her repeatedly, show us your god and we will believe. What has been said is, we do not believe your god is real, because there is no evidence to suggest he is real. I do not believe your claim, just as you do not believe Zeuss an Apollo are real. Why do you not believe in them biff? Are you one of the mono theists that believe in more than one god, or are you simply agnostic when it comes to Zeuss and Thor and the other gods you don’t believe in.

    You claim nature shows no ability to assemble complexity from simplicity? Are you blind, or stupid? Well, we know the answer there, you’re not blind.

  190. on 02 Apr 2013 at 12:50 pm 190.DPK said …

    And biff, you against dodged my question. I always answer our questions, you always dodge mine. Where did the information in the sand dunes come from?
    When light travels from a distant star, it contains information about the nature of the star. Who programmed it? A geological core sample contains information about conditions in the past. How did the information get there? When two atoms of hydrogen react with one atom of oxygen to form a water molecule, is that directed by someone?

  191. on 02 Apr 2013 at 1:22 pm 191.Anonymous said …

    Biffy

    nature having the ability to write multiple high information coding? Your faith in the probability of nature is based on what?

    Pssst, Hor, err, I mean Biffy…”Pillars of Creation”. Google it!!! Gas, dust, and gravity (aka Natural Elements and Forces). Poof a new star is born. Fucking magic, I don’t understand it either.
    We can observe the events with our own eyes, Nature in action. Faith is saying goddidit, ain’t it?

  192. on 02 Apr 2013 at 2:01 pm 192.Fluttershy said …

    Being that i have answered you question fairly and with enough words for you to do some R/D.
    may you please say how exactly your god made the earth and everything else?

    Please every athiest here, keep this here and await a response.

  193. on 02 Apr 2013 at 2:34 pm 193.DPK said …

    Let me pose another question for you to ignore there A-Biff… (I wish you’d choose just one of your personalities, its tiresome keeping track of which sock you are pretending to be today).

    Do you believe that time is eternal? I assume that you believe in the “standard” definition of god, that he is eternal and has existed for an infinite time? In that case, there must have been a time “before” the big bang yes? In fact, there must have been an infinite amount of time before the big bang… would you agree? Don’t be afraid there Biff… you either do, or you don’t… just tell us, if you want, you can answer all the other direct questions posed of you first. But, I predict you will either ignore them and refuse to answer, or you will disappear and magically reappear as Ben, or Boz, or Hor, or ASS and try to change the subject.
    Let’s take at look at all the direct question you have refused to answer… just n recent days:

    You cannot explain the nature of dark matter and dark energy. Why then do you not believe in the inter-dimensional sea turtle, which explains it perfectly?

    Why do you accept Yahweh as the creator god, and not Allah or some other creator god? You must have a reason to pick one over thousands of others?

    Why do you continue to assert that anyone educated in life sciences would “naturally assume” that organic chemistry would require an “Intelligent agent” when the simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of those highly educated people in fact believe exactly the opposite? Do you have a reason for this?

    Volcanoes; why should we believe they were created by nature? What in nature would suggest it is even possible?

    Why should we believe that a magical god, who you cannot even demonstrate actually exists, did it (bio-genesis)? And, IF you can do that, then tell us why we should believe that it was in fact YOUR particular god that did it, rather than some other god, or even an inter dimensional sea turtle?

    What is YOUR definition of “atheist”? (Since it obviously does not agree with the rest of the world’s understanding of what it means).

    What do you think “gay marriage” means, now that it has been “redefined”? (Not sure if you, or other you made this idiotic claim… either of you can answer)

    When the Nazi stormtroopers are at the door, Jesus wants you to say “I cannot lie, Mr. Nazi… Yes, the Jews are hiding in the basement!”, correct Biff? If not, how do you know?

    How about it Biffy, do YOU care to give us an explanation about where the information in DNA came from, specifically?

    A sand dune is complex, appears “designed” and contains lots and lots of information in its structure… who programed it?

    When light travels from a distant star, it contains information about the nature of the star. Who programmed it? A geological core sample contains information about conditions in the past. How did the information get there? When two atoms of hydrogen react with one atom of oxygen to form a water molecule, is that directed by someone?

    May you please say how exactly your god made the earth and everything else? (Seems only fair since you are demanding answers from us and do not accept “I don’t know” as an acceptable answer. The implication is that of “I don’t know” is not an acceptable answer from us, then you must therefore have a better answer… let’s see it.)

    Lastly Biff… where is the evidence that your magical god, who must be far more complex than anything in THIS universe, but managed to exist without a “programer” or a “designer”, actually exists.

    Sooooo many questions…. and not a single answer.
    Why is that Biff-o?

  194. on 02 Apr 2013 at 3:56 pm 194.Fluttershy said …

    ….maybe ask one at a time and insist on answering it?…

  195. on 02 Apr 2013 at 4:07 pm 195.DPK said …

    We’ve been asking one at a time what evidence the have for their imaginary god as long as I have been frequenting here… they never answer that.
    I just wanted to make a spectacle of the fact that none of the Asstrophysicist’s sock puppet persona EVER answer any questions about their claims. All they EVER do is deflect and dodge. That is very telling.

    At least the poor idiot messenger makes an attempt… as clueless as he is, he will at least make an effort to make some shit up, or offer some of his typical circular reasoning, or cut and paste some bullshit. I’ll at least give him that. The other socks, in addition to writing in the exact same style, using the same grammatical errors, and from time to time being caught responding under the wrong moniker, never actually engage in anything but straw man arguments and special pleadings.

  196. on 02 Apr 2013 at 5:43 pm 196.Fluttershy said …

    Hmmm….
    I did seem to get somewhere (bluntly…) with Biff…
    but you are correct with messenger being an idiot, he doesn’t know left from right ;D
    I wonder where S0lom0n is…

  197. on 02 Apr 2013 at 5:46 pm 197.Fluttershy said …

    Hey DPK, i, as much as you do, want an answer from Biff ;D
    So maybe can we simply ask one question at a time and continue doing so until a logical answer is found? (might take….15? lifetimes but whatever…)

  198. on 02 Apr 2013 at 6:24 pm 198.Biff said …

    Dpk you cannot keep A separate from Biff? Two names are that difficult while I must keep up with 3-4?

    Let me recap. Anon uses starlight as an answer for how DNA was written, DPK doesn’t know and Flutter uses abiogenesis. Those have nothing to do with DNA.

    How can I put faith in natural processes writing DNA code when zero proof exists? We have eliminated God so how could it be possibly done? Could it be possible you are not familiar with high information coding?

  199. on 02 Apr 2013 at 6:33 pm 199.Biff said …

    DPK you very obviously are not familiar with high information coding. You actually compared it to a sand dune.

    OMG, that is so ludicrous and frankly ignorant. Do u even know anything about coding?

  200. on 02 Apr 2013 at 7:09 pm 200.DPK said …

    “How can I put faith in natural processes writing DNA code when zero proof exists?”

    You don’t believe DNA exists? You are a strange one.

    Told you, I haven’t “ruled out” anything… show me this god actually exists and that he wrote this program you are talking about. If the evidence is compelling, I’ll believe it. You haven’t done that.

    On the other hand, DNA exists, chemistry exists, nature exists. There is abundant evidence as to how DNS replicates, and how that replication process can result in changes over time… in other words, evolve.

    Why should I believe some god did it? Why don’t you believe the sea turtle is responsible Biff?
    Why don’t you ever answer any questions, but always demand answers of others? Lastly, why don’t you just show us your god exists, Biff? Why don’t you answer the question about time, Biff? Why don’t you explain who coded your imaginary god, Biff?

    “DPK you very obviously are not familiar with high information coding. You actually compared it to a sand dune.”

    Did I Biff? Where did I “compare it” Biff? You were the one who said there is no evidence that nature “shows absolutely no ability whatsoever to perform such a task.”

    Is time infinite Biff? It must be, because god is infinite, no? You always balk at pinning down any specifics about your god, don’t you Biff?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply