Feed on Posts or Comments 19 April 2014

Christianity Thomas on 19 Apr 2013 12:11 am

The insanity of religion – nursing home edition

In this article, a nursing home worker talks about God’s presence and help in the Waco explosion:

Texas nursing home worker: God shielded us

For saying this she appears in articles, the articles make it up to the national news level, her words “God shielded us” appear on the Drudge Report, etc.

How could anyone look at this gigantic catastrophe, with all of the death, injury and damage it has caused, and then claim that “God shielded us”? Rather than making it up to the national news level, why isn’t the woman seen by everyone as completely delusional? The only way to believe that God is shielding is to also believe that God is allowing everyone else to die and suffer in all of the tragedies we see. It is painfully illogical.

321 Responses to “The insanity of religion – nursing home edition”

  1. on 19 Apr 2013 at 11:57 pm 1.the messenger said …

    Thomas, you speak of delusion, yet you contain so much of it your self.

    I tell you now, GOD shielded those people and protected them from being killed in that disaster.

    Thomas, you are blind. people die everyday because it is time for them to go to either heaven, purgatory, or hell.

    God saved those people because he wanted them to stay on earth for a while longer.

    Thomas, you are ungrateful for the things that GOD gave you. You demand miracles from him, even after he died for us. He suffered for us, was crucified for us, and yet you still do not believe him. you are the prince of arrogance and delusion.

  2. on 20 Apr 2013 at 1:11 am 2.Fluttershy said …

    “God shielded us”

    Nope, simply you were in an area where the shrapnel and blast radius were non existant, or that you are simply one lucky bastard and the shrapnel missed you.
    Has happened multiple times in the army, bomb goes off, some one lives due to chance, nothing to do with god is involved here.

  3. on 20 Apr 2013 at 2:00 am 3.the messenger said …

    2.Fluttershy, surviving a disaster like that is unlikely, unless GOD saved you.

  4. on 20 Apr 2013 at 4:19 pm 4.Fluttershy said …

    unlikely?
    that depends on where you are, what the radius is, the type of explosive.
    There are a ridiculous amount of factors that could alter the chances of life or death.
    Now say that a woman survives a bomb at point blank (lets say its about the amount of explosive in your run of the mill grenade) we have to factor in what she was wearing, where it blew up, but i would say she would die regardless of any “Divine intervention”, but at a longer range, i do not doubt a human could survive such a thing, its all a matter of factors.

  5. on 20 Apr 2013 at 4:36 pm 5.The messenger said …

    4.Fluttershy, she stated that the wall not far from her was blown over, and yet she survived.

    GOD saved her.

  6. on 20 Apr 2013 at 6:20 pm 6.Anonymous said …

    Well, it’s that or “my god is an awesome god, why today he just stood by while 15 people were killed and 160 people were injured. Just think, he could have saved those people but, instead, he took time out from his busy schedule of not feeding the starving children in Africa to direct me to a safe spot. He is so awesome”.

    Of course it was more like this; “it’s horrible, those poor people that died like that, and all those awful injuries. Being that I wasn’t in one of the more damaged areas, I did not sustain any serious injury.

  7. on 20 Apr 2013 at 8:05 pm 7.the messenger said …

    5.Anonymous, G

  8. on 20 Apr 2013 at 8:09 pm 8.the messenger said …

    5.Anonymous, he allows people to die when it is their time to go to either heaven, hell, or purgatory.

    GOD shielded that senior, and all of those other people, because it was not their time to leave Earth yet.

  9. on 21 Apr 2013 at 12:32 am 9.Anonymous said …

    messenger, prove it.

  10. on 21 Apr 2013 at 6:18 pm 10.Fluttershy said …

    When you shine the light, the roaches flee.
    Such is the mind of a christian…

  11. on 21 Apr 2013 at 6:29 pm 11.alex said …

    “he allows people to die when it is their time to go to either heaven, hell, or purgatory.”

    what a fucking moron. in other words, no matter what you do, when it’s time, sayonara, mothefucka. excuse my foul 2nd language.

  12. on 21 Apr 2013 at 6:49 pm 12.the messenger said …

    10.Fluttershy, so I guess that the roaches that you spoke of, are atheists.

  13. on 21 Apr 2013 at 6:57 pm 13.the messenger said …

    9.Anonymous, the bible states that eventually all humans will revert back into what we were made from.

    When our body dies, it is just our time to.

    Also, Jesus stated that we can go be with him in paradise, also known as heaven.

    And GOD is all knowing, so therefore GOD already planned out when we will die.

    So when we do leave this world, we will either go to heaven or hell.

  14. on 21 Apr 2013 at 6:57 pm 14.the messenger said …

    9.Anonymous, the bible states that eventually all humans will revert back into what we were made from.

    When our body dies, it is just our time to.

    Also, Jesus stated that we can go be with him in paradise, also known as heaven.

    And GOD is all knowing, so therefore GOD already planned out when we will die.

    So when we do leave this world, we will either go to heaven or hell or purgatory.

  15. on 21 Apr 2013 at 10:21 pm 15.johnboy said …

    God has a plan for everyone: when they will be born, when they will die, and each event in their life. Even who they will marry (as mentioned on Christian Singles) So rapists, murderers, terrorists, etc. are all innocent because what they did was simply part of God’s plan. God planned for those people to rape, murder and terrorize. They were merely puppets of God and His Big Ole Plan.

  16. on 21 Apr 2013 at 10:47 pm 16.alex said …

    “They were merely puppets of God and His Big Ole Plan.”

    you fucken hyprocrite. that’s right, you sealtbelt wearing, tylenol taking, microwaving, insured, look both ways crossing, righteous bitch. take your plan and fly with it since your shit is already preordained. no? why the term “blessed” or why pray?

    is this the kind of participation you want dougie? lyin, masquerading moron. you martin or hor?

    oh, messenger. go fuck yourself and if you see your friend s0l, tell him his sheep loves him.

  17. on 21 Apr 2013 at 11:33 pm 17.Anonymous said …

    Messy, you are quoting the bible to support what you claim the bible says. That is not proof but you’ve been told this before.

    You claim your god is all knowing. Then demonstrate that. Describe a test that will prove this to us.

  18. on 22 Apr 2013 at 1:56 am 18.Martin said …

    “It is painfully illogical.”

    How is it illogical? Please explain.

    1. We all were born
    2. We all will die
    3. Some escape death when it is not their time.
    4. Others don’t escape when it is their time.

  19. on 22 Apr 2013 at 2:01 am 19.alex said …

    “How is it illogical? Please explain.”

    because it doesn’t require a bullshit god?

  20. on 22 Apr 2013 at 2:25 am 20.s0l0m0n said …

    Let’s make this clear cut. Some are shielded due to their faith or their good deeds, God postpone his execution. But some….like alex….given ample of time to repent, are wiped out, coz’ God knows they will not submit.

  21. on 22 Apr 2013 at 2:26 am 21.Fluttershy said …

    10.Fluttershy, so I guess that the roaches that you spoke of, are atheists.

    Your an idiot…
    The quote that i used means that when you ask a question, the christians run away, in other words, you are cowards who never answer a question fairly, but always ask unfair questions to us.

  22. on 22 Apr 2013 at 9:31 pm 22.John-boy said …

    Sorry you guys. I was being facetious and just trying to make a point on how ridiculous the “God’s Plan” argument is. I guess I did not put enough factious-ness into my comment. I’m a friggin’ atheist for god’s sake!

  23. on 22 Apr 2013 at 10:25 pm 23.the messenger said …

    15.johnboy, good things and bad things occur in our lives because GOD wants us to overcome evil, and to be come good.

    eventually we all will go to heaven, and that is Jesus’s plan.

  24. on 22 Apr 2013 at 10:28 pm 24.the messenger said …

    21.Fluttershy, I have given you clear answers.

    The fact that we proved you wrong does not make my answer unfair, it just proves how arrogant atheists are.

  25. on 22 Apr 2013 at 10:31 pm 25.the messenger said …

    21.Fluttershy, tell me, what is an unfair question? And what is an unfair answer?

    And further more, why do you atheists fail to answer our questions?

  26. on 24 Apr 2013 at 4:58 pm 26.John-boy said …

    I was born “non-evil” and have remained so all my life – so how do I “overcome” evil?

  27. on 25 Apr 2013 at 1:30 am 27.alex said …

    “I guess I did not put enough factious-ness into my comment.”

    relax. i mean no harm and i’m sorry. just wait, these morons will seize upon this and trumpet away. see! alex is a moron, therefore god is true!

  28. on 25 Apr 2013 at 2:19 am 28.Martin said …

    “why do you atheists fail to answer our questions?”

    I think Anonymous expressed it best. They are afraid of the gotcha moment. Goes to show they even recognize their beliefs as very weak and not readily supported.

    John Boy said

    “I was born “non-evil” and have remained so all my life”

    How do you know this is true?

  29. on 25 Apr 2013 at 2:26 am 29.alex said …

    ““I was born “non-evil” and have remained so all my life”

    “How do you know this is true?”

    another fucked up wild goose chase question from your resident asshole, martin. don’t do it. it’s the same as “how do you know your mother is not a whore”.

  30. on 25 Apr 2013 at 7:18 am 30.Fluttershy said …

    21.Fluttershy, tell me, what is an unfair question? And what is an unfair answer?
    And further more, why do you atheists fail to answer our questions?

    For example, we ask something like “How do you know God is all knowing?”
    You answer by pasting a bible passage that has 0% reliability.

    You ask us something such as “What is the atheist absolute morals?”
    We respond by claiming that such absolutes do not exist, so you respond by saying that atheists can murder as much as they want and will be punished by god (who exists in your fantasy land), despite the fact that the “Law” exists and unless your insane, you would never kill or rape anyone.

    Also, what have you got to say about the priests raping little boys?

  31. on 25 Apr 2013 at 8:11 pm 31.John-boy said …

    OK Christians – So I don’t believe in your god that was born in the minds of men of the Bronze Age, and then further refined in the Iron Age; when uneducated and ridiculously supersitious people ruled the world. If you want to believe the bullshit written by guys who knew less about science than a 6 year old of today, then go for it. I understand your fears. I too was once afraid to abandon this old religion due to the fear-conditioning I received as a child.

    Read the Bible from an objective viewpoint, and understand it from your own perspective and you’ll begin to see it. Don’t depend on others interpretations. Notice that god’s word often came in dreams. Today we’d call that person crazy.

  32. on 25 Apr 2013 at 8:50 pm 32.The messenger said …

    30.Fluttershy, the bible is a perfect record of all the laws and morals that GOD has given mankind. It is also a great source of information about GOD.

    I know that the bible records GOD’s laws, and comes from GOD. Mankind is such an evil, distructive species and is therefore not smart enouph to have constructed the bible by themselves.

  33. on 26 Apr 2013 at 2:50 am 33.Fluttershy said …

    Mankind is such an evil, distructive species and is therefore not smart enouph to have constructed the bible by themselves.

    Ahem, are you calling me “evil”?
    I dont see myself killing anyone, raping boys, ect.
    So dont go waving around the evil/good card.
    For that matter, how do you describe “evil”? . how does one not be “evil”? , is “evil” a metaphor for “good”?

    Man is such a complex yet simple species, like all other animals, i do not doubt that man could have written the bible for his own benefit, its what we do every day.

    The bible describes things that are impossible due to physics, any claim that such events happened (The ark, water to wine, jesus Zombie, ect) is instantly invalid.

  34. on 26 Apr 2013 at 3:46 am 34.Anonymous said …

    “Mankind is such an evil, distructive species and is therefore not smart enouph to have constructed the bible by themselves.”

    Whilst it is true that the nomads responsible for much of the bible would have been considered educationally subnormal by today’s standards, now you appear to say that even they were not smart enough to come up with that nonsense? Hence, it’s your god who came up with that shambles? I wish he were real so that we could agree with you!

  35. on 26 Apr 2013 at 10:20 pm 35.John-boy said …

    “he bible is a perfect record of all the laws and morals that GOD has given mankind”

    The God’s RULES and MORALS are bit whacky, don’t ‘ya think?

    If we listen to God, we should be putting adulterers and sons who talk back to their parents to death. That’s what the Bible says to do.

    And, Messenger, if you’ve ever sinned with your hands or eyes, I’d expect you’d have cut something off by now – that’s what Jesus suggests you do – or go to Hell instead.

    And we should be owning slaves (since God gave out a lot of rules about that) and we should be doing burnt offerings because God says he likes burnt offerings. Why did we ever stop those burnt offering parties?

    And where did all the friggin demons go? During Biblical times people were constantly being possessed by those gosh darn demons!

  36. on 27 Apr 2013 at 1:57 am 36.Fluttershy said …

    You know what they are going to say, right?
    They will probably claim they are all metaphors.

  37. on 27 Apr 2013 at 3:28 am 37.Mad Max said …

    “Read the Bible from an objective viewpoint, and understand it from your own perspective and you’ll begin to see it.”

    John Boy! Mad Max here. I will take your advice. I read it for myself and I believe it. Does some parts violate physics? Sure it does. Then again science asks me to believe things that violate scientific laws so there is nothing unremarkable there.

    Do I understand or can I explain everything? Nope, but that is true regarding every area of life beginning with science.

    Now I have a challenge for you. You read it, with an open mind and not interpreted for you from blogs that tell you how and what to think. Then maybe you will see it.

  38. on 27 Apr 2013 at 7:25 am 38.Distraught said …

    If there wasn’t so much profanity and obscenity on this blog, I might have actually read it more. Is that required of atheists, to use the most profane language that is possible? Is it in there manifesto or something? Lets use profanity because it makes me look bigger, badder than the religious people.

    Come on moderator, clean the place up.

  39. on 27 Apr 2013 at 2:03 pm 39.Fluttershy said …

    Nope, just that some people have their own opinions.

  40. on 27 Apr 2013 at 3:11 pm 40.alex said …

    “If there wasn’t so much profanity and obscenity on this blog,”

    you’re a hyprocrite, righteous bitch. this is the internet. you no like the vernacular here? but you relish the biblical kind? foreskins, mass killings, hell and damnation, oppression of women/other nationalities, and the endorsement of slaves, your type of reading? move along then, dipshit. you can’t handle the red pill of reality. stick with pbskids.org

    the blue pill, the idiot martin keeps peddling will keep you in the fucked up, make believe world of god. just keep swallowing.

  41. on 27 Apr 2013 at 3:31 pm 41.Martin said …

    Distraught,

    They never police their own. If a theist was doing it they would. They have no standards which shouldn’t be a surprise.

  42. on 27 Apr 2013 at 8:01 pm 42.Scourge said …

    #37 Mad Max What does Science ask you to believe that violates “scientific laws”?

    #38 Distraught As for the profanity, I think much of it results as an exasperated response to the cretinous simpletons who argue the theist side, in particular, the dullard imbeciles arguing for Christian theology. Additionally, any decent, intelligent and thoughtful person would come to this site sick of the Christian low-life, e.g. 700-Club, Focus on the Family-types, et al., who are being fairly successful at undermining decency in this country via their constant attacks on civil society and fundamental human and civil rights.

    As for your squeamishness about earthy language, I presume you don’t read 20C and 21C literature. Your loss. (By the way, the “Left Behind” series fails to attain status of literature.)

  43. on 27 Apr 2013 at 8:26 pm 43.alex said …

    “They never police their own. If a theist was doing it they would.”

    more diversion bullshit. if atheists don’t police their own, god must be real. what a crock. go to your church moron. leave people be.

    you must be the designated police, aren’t you? you go around measuring skirts and shit? you meter and chastise people about their language? what metric do you use? your fantastic, imaginary book of morals?

  44. on 28 Apr 2013 at 2:39 pm 44.Fluttershy said …

    “They never police their own. If a theist was doing it they would.”

    Ever heard of the police?
    As in the local/state/federal police?
    Believe it or not, some of them are atheists (SO WEIRD).
    Soooooo yeah…

  45. on 28 Apr 2013 at 4:25 pm 45.the messenger said …

    35.John-boy, the term”put to death” does not mean kill them, it means put an end to the evil that they are doing.
    To sum it up, put to death means putting the evil to death, not the people.

  46. on 28 Apr 2013 at 4:27 pm 46.the messenger said …

    34.Anonymous, the bible was written by prophets, and GOD told the prophets what to write.

  47. on 28 Apr 2013 at 4:31 pm 47.the messenger said …

    33.Fluttershy, if that offended you, I apologize.

    What I mean is there is good and bad in all humans, and due to the fact that we are flawed and slightly evil, it would have been impossible for humans to have constructed the bible all by themselves.

  48. on 28 Apr 2013 at 6:14 pm 48.the messenger said …

    Flutter, leave.

  49. on 28 Apr 2013 at 11:36 pm 49.John-Bowie said …

    God doesn’t speak in metaphors, just that a bunch of stuff is “lost in translation.” But putting an adulterer to death is pretty clear in any language. That’s the way it was done back in those days.

    I like Alex’s profanity. Like he said, this is he internet.

    By the way, I was wondering about the people BEFORE the Jewish God was invented, and later embellished by Christianity and Islam. Since these religions believe in Heaven and Hell, will our ancesters of 10,000 years ago get to go to Heaven? What about Neanderthals and Grok the Caveman?

  50. on 28 Apr 2013 at 11:58 pm 50.alex said …

    “What about Neanderthals and Grok the Caveman”

    they didn’t exist. god created the fossils just to fuck with atheists. ain’t that right, xtians?

    (messenger, popping his sorry fucking ass) –> but, but, they’re in hell for just a little bit, then when they realize their sins, they’ll be forgiven. messenger go fuck youself.

  51. on 29 Apr 2013 at 6:28 am 51.Fluttershy said …

    Flutter, leave.

    No i will not.

    I have every right to be here, as does yourself.

    At least i attempt to answer your questions in a logical manner, and im not the one copy pasting invalid bible quotes.

    The fact that you deny such phrases like slaves and killing for the Sabbath day proves that you either havent read the bible or that you are not a true christian.

    I am going to ask you a simple question.
    “How did jesus make water turn into wine?”

    You MUST answer logically.

  52. on 29 Apr 2013 at 7:12 am 52.s0l0m0n said …

    “How did jesus make water turn into wine?”

    The messenger did’nt have to answer this coz Jesus did’nt turn any water into wine.

  53. on 29 Apr 2013 at 8:27 am 53.alex said …

    “The messenger did’nt have to answer this coz Jesus did’nt turn any water into wine.”

    yeah, muhammad’s magical horse did it. go sheep!

  54. on 29 Apr 2013 at 2:27 pm 54.Fluttershy said …

    Again, flying horses aren’t physically possible, as are human sized ants, or ant sized humans.

  55. on 29 Apr 2013 at 3:46 pm 55.s0l0m0n said …

    Shutterfly,

    That’s what you think. Look at the bees. With stub bodies and short wings. Anything is possible.

  56. on 30 Apr 2013 at 3:27 am 56.Fluttershy said …

    How many times do i have to say this…

    Due to the square to cube rule, a bee is significantly lighter than a bee, or bird, or flying lump of cake that is double its size. Each time something gets 2X bigger, it gets 8X heavier. The largest winged animal, Quetzalcoatlus, was either a poor flyer, or could only glide. A horse is far larger than Quetzalcoatlus, so it would not be able to fly.

    You might say, make bigger wings, but that would require more muscle to flap the wings, which would mean.
    A: make the horse bigger, however this would require larger wings and more muscle and not work in general.
    B: raise its metabolism to staggering degrees, the level of metabolism would cook the horse alive.

    there is nothing magical or divine about bees, the capability of flight is entirely possible.

  57. on 01 May 2013 at 2:26 am 57.s0l0m0n said …

    Shutterfly,

    Your primitive thinking prevents you from imagining out of the box.You’re talking about muscles to create wings. God could create many other materials other than muscles.Don’t stick to your silly outdated mathematical square to cube rule formula.
    Anyway I have’nt seen a high metabolism barbequed flying eagle.

  58. on 01 May 2013 at 9:26 am 58.freddies_dead said …

    Fluttershy, you’re wasting your time with s0l0m0n.

    He’s not actually interested in what is or isn’t possible according to physics – hence his mindless mention of the myth surrounding flight in bumble bees.

    Physics is irrelevant when you’re imagining what your imaginary God could do.

    You can demonstrate time and time again that a flying horse is impossible but that won’t stop idiots like s0l0m0n imagining that one can and, of course, as they think that imagining their God makes Him real, so imagining a flying horse also makes it real.

  59. on 01 May 2013 at 9:27 am 59.freddies_dead said …

    Fluttershy, you’re wasting your time with s0l0m0n.

    He’s not actually interested in what is or isn’t possible according to physics – hence his mindless mention of the myth surrounding flight in bumble bees.

    Physics is irrelevant when you’re imagining what your imaginary God could do.

    You can demonstrate time and time again that a flying horse is impossible but that won’t stop idiots like s0l0m0n imagining that one can and, of course, as they think that imagining their God makes Him real, so imagining a flying horse also makes it real.

  60. on 01 May 2013 at 11:38 am 60.Fluttershy said …

    If at first you do not succeed, try, try again ;P

  61. on 01 May 2013 at 12:56 pm 61.s0l0m0n said …

    freddies_dead,

    If God says there’s a flying horse, no one could deny it.

  62. on 01 May 2013 at 4:07 pm 62.Fluttershy said …

    If anyone says there is a flying horse, any person with a knowledge of physics and biology can deny it, with certain accuracy.

    Please do not post impossible things here, post any crazy shit that can happen, but not nonsense.

  63. on 02 May 2013 at 2:48 am 63.The messenger said …

    51.Fluttershy, I do not know for certain how he did it, but I do have a few theory.
    I think that he reorganized the molecular structure within the water and transformed it into wine.
    Or he transformed nearby matter into the ingredients the ingredients needed to make wine, and then he added it to the water.

  64. on 02 May 2013 at 2:51 am 64.The messenger said …

    59.freddies_dead, most of modern physics is based on unproven theories, and is therefore useless.

  65. on 02 May 2013 at 3:15 am 65.The messenger said …

    Fluttershy, the phrase “put to death” does not mean kill them, it means put an end to the evil that they are doing.
    To sum it up, put to death means putting the evil to death, not the people.
    Why do you fail to understand the bible.
    If you would go to church, you would learn this.

  66. on 02 May 2013 at 12:56 pm 66.freddies_dead said …

    61.s0l0m0n said …

    freddies_dead,

    If God says there’s a flying horse, no one could deny it.

    Everyone can deny it until you demonstrate that your God is something more than a figment of your imagination. Care to try at any point?

  67. on 02 May 2013 at 1:05 pm 67.freddies_dead said …

    64.The messenger said …

    59.freddies_dead, most of modern physics is based on unproven theories, and is therefore useless.

    Says the man using a computer based on those “unproven theories of modern physics”. Sheesh.

    Do you have to work at spouting this nonsense or does having a vivid imagination – you imagine a God exists after all – mean it comes naturally to you?

  68. on 02 May 2013 at 2:16 pm 68.Fluttershy said …

    Fluttershy, the phrase “put to death” does not mean kill them, it means put an end to the evil that they are doing.
    To sum it up, put to death means putting the evil to death, not the people.
    Why do you fail to understand the bible.
    If you would go to church, you would learn this.

    Let me break this down for you, as it seems you have forgotten how the language “English” works.

    “Put to death”
    This phrase (to anyone who talks and writes the language of “english”) means to kill.
    For example.
    “The man was put to death for working on the sabbath day”
    Why would i go to a church to learn how to not speak english?
    Are you seriously asking me to become dumber?
    I do not fail to understand to bible, i understand it perfectly, and i refuse to listen to it, as it is a truly disturbing book.
    It is full of death, punishment and threatens people with everlasting torture in a place called hell, which according to s0l0m0n sells bacon covered suits of deliciousness.

  69. on 02 May 2013 at 2:22 pm 69.Fluttershy said …

    59.freddies_dead, most of modern physics is based on unproven theories, and is therefore useless.

    Messenger, i do agree with you that indeed some parts of the laws of physics is flawed.

    But please accept that such ridiculous things such as water to wine and flying horses is simply out of the question.

    I am assuming you must have passed high school, so you also agree, no?

  70. on 02 May 2013 at 9:12 pm 70.the messenger said …

    67.freddies, computers are not based on unproven theories, they are based on proven facts. The fact that a computer is able to function, is proof they are tested, and proven.

    69.Fluttey, I do not agree, because it is possible, and I explained it in my previous comments.

  71. on 08 May 2013 at 3:33 pm 71.freddies_dead said …

    70.the messenger said …

    67.freddies, computers are not based on unproven theories, they are based on proven facts. The fact that a computer is able to function, is proof they are tested, and proven.

    In which case, why the fuck are you calling these facts “unproven theories of modern physics” and “useless”? No wait, let me guess. It’s cause you haven’t got a fucking clue how modern computers work or which modern theories they rely on to work. But hey, you believe in a magic man in the sky and it must be that guy who is making the computers work, right? You fucking moron.

  72. on 08 May 2013 at 6:12 pm 72.Gamaliel said …

    I know exactly how computers work, the design, the application and the semiconductor theory.

    Because of this I know that man in all his glory would Not be here unless a being above this creation guided the processes to make it happen. Thanks to science we realize this to be true more than ever.

    That is a fact.

  73. on 08 May 2013 at 10:34 pm 73.michael said …

    scientific theories are made up of facts. they explain the relationships and reactions between understood natural phenemon. theories are more powerful than mere facts alone.

    when people use the phrase ‘well, i have a theory’ they arent saying…’i have a scientific theory that has been proven”

    theories remain valid until disproven, at which point they are discarded.

    its why ideas about god are scientific…there is no evidence. its just an idea.

    its why atheism is just the rejection of an idea…not an idea itself.

    ‘atheism is a religion like abstenience is a sexual position’ – bill mahr

    i hope this helps the people who are confused

  74. on 09 May 2013 at 12:37 am 74.the messenger. said …

    71.freddies, when i stated “unproven theories” I was referring to string theory.

    String theory has yet to be tested or proven,and is therefore, an unproven theory.

  75. on 09 May 2013 at 12:51 am 75.the messenger. said …

    68.Fluttershy, the phrase “put to death” is a metaphorical statement that means destroy evil.

    It is a metaphorical phrase similar to the phrase “he drowned in a sea of guilt”. It does not mean an actual sea, it means he is suffering form a lot of guilt.

  76. on 09 May 2013 at 12:55 am 76.the messenger. said …

    73.michael, string theory is neither dis proven or proven or proven and is therefore useless.

  77. on 09 May 2013 at 1:41 am 77.Lou said …

    Atheism is a a religion according to the Courts. You don’t need a supreme being to be a religion. The dogma is clear as posted by the bloggers and this website. There are even atheist churches and atheists evangelist. Run Michael Run but everyone outside your religion knows it to be a religion.

    I hope this helps you deal with reality.

  78. on 09 May 2013 at 2:21 am 78.alex said …

    who give’s a fuck about your atheism definition? you want me to repeat that? i’m an atheist and i’m not in your bullshit made up definition. i don’t believe in your bullshit god. prove me wrong? then shut the fuck up with nonsensical, diversionary rambling.

  79. on 09 May 2013 at 2:29 am 79.alex said …

    even if all the other atheists believe in a bullshit atheist god (nonsensical ain’t it), how the fuck does that make a case for your own bullshit xtian god?

    once again, the fucked up bullshit false dilemma again. either believe in the atheist god or the equally bullshit xtian god?

    wrong. bullshit is bullshit.

  80. on 09 May 2013 at 2:36 am 80.Dez said …

    No Mike you have not just rejected an idea. You have an obsession to stand for your religion. Simple rejection of an idea is Martians. I don’t believe in them and I don’t ask others to prove their existence. I simply do not care. That is simple refection. You have a religion along with your other friends.

  81. on 09 May 2013 at 2:36 am 81.Anonymous said …

    Well, Alex, Lou’s personal definitions are somewhat irrelevant. As you say, he’s trying to change the subject.

    Here’s the question you need to answer, Lou:

    “Show me proof of God, pure, valid, unbreakable proof.”

  82. on 09 May 2013 at 2:53 am 82.alex said …

    “Simple rejection of an idea is Martians. I don’t believe in them and I don’t ask others to prove their existence. I simply do not care.”

    wrong. you’d care if the martian believers did the exact same shit you fuckers do. this is old. quit recycling it. no wager bullshit either. no bible quotes. messenger, go fuck yourself.

  83. on 09 May 2013 at 5:45 am 83.michael said …

    dear all people.

    don’t fuck with string theory, you cannot even explain it. if you dont know what it is, saying it is ‘useless’ is objectively absurd. there has been little progress made over the past 5 years, but don’t let that fool you, its still quite relevant today.

    additionally, atheism is not a religion. its not an idealogy.

    I can prove it to you.

    I am an atheist.

    try and tell me what i think about the world.

    you are gonna get it wrong over and over again.

    if you dont understand this, you don’t understand anything. atheism is not a religion according to the ‘courts’ unless you can state the case in which non-belief suddenly became a unform and define religion…you are confused.

    what the courts of the US do recognize is the right for people to uphold the seperation of church and state. when an person complains about a crucifix mounted in a public square, they can be atheist, jewish, muslim, zen buddist, etc. they arent stepping forward not as a religion, but as an individual that is trying to protect peoples right to worship.

    here is the idea, you can believe anything you want as long as you do not violate human laws and you keep it to yourself and your pals.

    the moment you take that out of your house and put it into the public square, religion becomes something voted on. it gets ruined. it becomes something you have you have to deal with rather than enjoy.

    if there is anything i can share with theists who have not studied philosophy and religion much, its that we are all the very same. we are all brothers and sisters of the same race. and all atheists are saying is that all we have is each other. we dont know if god exists or not, but he cant be relied on. only we can save each other in this life. only we can determine there future of our species in this life. we need you. there are enough misguided and unfortunate people that we will never be able to save. step forward, no matter what you believe, and help this world, these people, your future, today.

  84. on 09 May 2013 at 8:42 am 84.Ricky said …

    There is one general remark I want to make:
    (it applies to all the arguments made on the site)

    The nature of matter, kosmos, living creatures,

    humans and God is NOT deterministic.

    Not even God knows in advance which decisions

    He will make later.(assuming He exists)

    No future decisions can be predicted with

    absolute certainty.

    Also: Nobody !!!! can predict the future.
    (not even the bible)

  85. on 09 May 2013 at 9:10 am 85.Fluttershy said …

    69.Fluttey, I do not agree, because it is possible, and I explained it in my previous comments.

    No, any scientist can say that the things in the bible are simply nonsense, unless its a religious scientist, then they will say it is possible :\ ehh.

    68.Fluttershy, the phrase “put to death” is a metaphorical statement that means destroy evil.

    I am capable of reading for myself, and put to death means, PUT TO DEATH, aka Kill, murder, destroy from existence, ect…

    81.Anonymous said …
    “Show me proof of God, pure, valid, unbreakable proof.”

    Thanks anon, im still waiting too ;P

    77.Lou said …
    There are even atheist churches and atheists evangelist.

    Atheist churches ehh?
    *sigh* I dont know what to say…
    Arguing to a religious person who doesn’t even know what an atheist is futile i guess…

  86. on 09 May 2013 at 11:35 am 86.The messenger said …

    Mr. 83.michael, tell me, how is it relevant, and how do you know whether I understand it or not?

  87. on 09 May 2013 at 11:42 am 87.A said …

    Lou,

    The religion of atheism is alive and well. The more they fight the label the more they show it to be true. Atheism is being treated as a religion throughout culture. What does a religion need?

    Dogma. Atheist have it. Mostly hate of Christians, So-called Gay rights, Liberals and pro-death.

    A Church building. Yep they are getting those now.

    Atheist preachers. Yep, got those.

    Classes on Atheism, yep got those. They have all the ingredients including the fanatics.

  88. on 09 May 2013 at 11:58 am 88.alex said …

    “Classes on Atheism, yep got those. They have all the ingredients including the fanatics.”

    and this is the proof of your god? try using the same logic with muslims and hindi. you think it will work? NOPE. you’re a moron. try thinking and applying your nonsense first, idiot.

  89. on 09 May 2013 at 12:11 pm 89.Anonymous said …

    Don’t forget that “A”, Lou, Dez, Xenon, Burebista are the same person having a conversation with himself via sock-puppets. He’s trying to draw you off the topic of *his* inability to prove the existence of any god.

  90. on 09 May 2013 at 12:18 pm 90.freddies_dead said …

    74.the messenger. said …

    71.freddies, when i stated “unproven theories” I was referring to string theory.

    String theory has yet to be tested or proven,and is therefore, an unproven theory.

    And once again messenger shows his complete ignorance as to what a “scientific theory” actually is. He doesn’t recognise how much work has been done before something can even be called a “theory” at all. How a theory is an explanation about some aspect of the world which has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

    To simply pick a named “theory” and dismiss it in such a cavalier manner you’d have to be a moron of quite epic proportions.

  91. on 09 May 2013 at 12:20 pm 91.Fluttershy said …

    “Show me proof of God, pure, valid, unbreakable proof.”

    If you may, alex, DPK, anon, anyone who has half a mind.
    Please ONLY post this if some stupid diversion is posted ;P
    thanks in advance

  92. on 09 May 2013 at 12:23 pm 92.freddies_dead said …

    80.Dez said …

    No Mike you have not just rejected an idea. You have an obsession to stand for your religion. Simple rejection of an idea is Martians. I don’t believe in them and I don’t ask others to prove their existence. I simply do not care. That is simple refection. You have a religion along with your other friends.

    As soon as all those people who believe in Martians started trying to get their absurd beliefs enshrined in law and forced on other people you’d change your tune in a heartbeat. You’d start caring alright, you’d soon realise simple rejection isn’t quite enough to stop these loonies from trying to run every aspect of your daily life based on their moronic beliefs in something that simply doesn’t exist.

  93. on 09 May 2013 at 2:12 pm 93.s0l0m0n said …

    (((HHHAAAIII.. HOOO…)))) all atheists….
    Get back to the real god….
    Before you inherit ((((HHEELLL))))

  94. on 09 May 2013 at 4:11 pm 94.michael said …

    i say that atheism isnt a religion and people just disagree.

    i dont think i can say i’m an atheist anymore.

    i will have to come up with a new term.

    these guys refuse to revise their views.

    so i have to change.

    anyone have any ideas on what a non believer can call himself?

    other than ‘non believer’?

    i kinda like ‘infidel.’ it sounds rangy. historic. like im a warrior or something.

    ‘realist’ is one idea, but it has a positive connotation.

    i need to come up with something funny.

    i always liked the term ‘cdesignproponentists’

    can we play off of that? it might be too inside.

    how about ‘btheist’ or it would be funny to call my self a ‘atheistist’

    FUCK!

    thats genious.

    islam is pretty lax, but islamists are ‘radical’

    the term fundamentalist christian is ‘christianist’

    i am a fundamental atheist…i dont believe god exists and THATS ALL!

    Atheistist

    thought?

  95. on 09 May 2013 at 6:17 pm 95.alex said …

    antibs? as in anti bullsheyat?

  96. on 09 May 2013 at 8:03 pm 96.A said …

    Michael and Alex,

    You have been given you marching orders by Butterfly and Anony Mouse. It is not acceptable to them to go off on your own and speak to sock puppets.

    Anywho moving on from their diversions…..Michael have you thought of calling yourself shutterfly or some other mythical pony?

    You realize in order to no longer be a religion you will need to lose your obsession, right?

  97. on 09 May 2013 at 8:42 pm 97.DPK said …

    hahaha… ASSman the Astrophysicist has been slammed on this diversion so many times I’ve lost count… but once again, when the obvious is pointed out that he has totally failed to provide any actual evidence that his imaginary god actually exists, he trots out the old “Well, atheism is a religion…” straw man to rail against.

    Not that it makes any difference, but lest review the definition of “religion”
    “the service and worship of God or the supernatural.”
    Yeah, atheism fits that definition just as well as people who don’t enjoy Nascar. Is not watching cars make left turns at high speeds a religion too, A? According to you, I suppose. How about the religion of all those people who don’t believe in Zombies. Yup… we live in a world riddled with azombiests.

    But, tell you what, just for shits and giggles, let’s assume for a moment that you are right. For the sake of argument, assume atheism is a religion…. so what? Do you have a point? Does that prove your god is real?
    No, it doesn’t, does it? It only proves that you are so insecure in your supposed beliefs that you must project your own need for dogma on others. Sad.

  98. on 09 May 2013 at 9:26 pm 98.alex said …

    “You realize in order to no longer be a religion you will need to lose your obsession, right?”

    i know it, right? you realize now that you’ve stopped molesting little boys, you have got to keep taking your meds, capiche?

  99. on 09 May 2013 at 11:08 pm 99.Lou said …

    Does Mike’s quest for a new term qualify and I must now post the talking points? Sounds like another Benghazi drill.

    Mike, fact is there are atheist churches. Furthermore, atheism is protected as a religion. Also, atheist are more fanatical than the fundies you despise. You guys consider theist without a religious affiliation a religion.

    Your ilk brought it on your sect not us. You reap what you sow. Is that too religious? Why don’t you go with the label Clueless. It fits.

  100. on 09 May 2013 at 11:55 pm 100.alex said …

    go away, moron.

  101. on 10 May 2013 at 12:31 am 101.the messenger said …

    89.freddies, string theory has never been tested.

    String theory is based on observations on how elements react to each other, and what they are made of. But it has never actually been tested because it is impossible to test string theory.

    The only tests that have been done, are on molecular sized samples of elements, and they have not really found much hard evidence to support string theory since the 60′s(besides the higgs boson).

    String most of , and is therefore

  102. on 10 May 2013 at 12:35 am 102.DPK said …

    “Mike, fact is there are atheist churches. Furthermore, atheism is protected as a religion.”

    Now would these “atheist churches” be patronized by the 21% of atheists who believe in god, or the 80% of theists who don’t have a fucking clue what “atheist” means?

    In my town there are a bunch of senior citizens who get together on Tuesday nights to play board games and socialize. By your definition, that would qualify as a church.

    Lets see how the actual language that we speak defines the word “church”

    church
    noun
    1.a building for public Christian worship.
    2.public worship of God or a religious service in such a building: to attend church regularly.
    3.( sometimes initial capital letter ) the whole body of Christian believers; Christendom.

    Hmmmm… no congregation or gathering of atheists could possibly fit any of those definitions, so once again Ass, this time in his “Lou” persona, attempts to validate his lies about atheists by attempting to redefine a word to mean something which may suit his need for projection.

    You shitheads are so transparent… why does it bother you so that we don’t believe in your bullshit god? It really eats you, doesn’t it? That’s very telling.

  103. on 10 May 2013 at 1:53 am 103.Lou said …

    Dork

    As is typical your anger is misplaced. Go have it out with you fellow atheists. They started the churches. I only state what I observe.

    Good luck to you and and the brethren.

    Lou

  104. on 10 May 2013 at 2:47 am 104.DPK said …

    You mistake contempt for anger. I’m not angry, I find your stupidity rather sad, actually.
    Willful ignorance is the lowest point of human existence.

  105. on 10 May 2013 at 2:48 am 105.michael said …

    hey letter ‘a’

    do you know why 7 is afraid of 9?

    because seven ate nine.

    hahaha.

  106. on 10 May 2013 at 2:52 am 106.michael said …

    why fuckin bother with these assholes regarding the term atheist.

    atheism is a religion!

    fine. its fuckin retarded, but fine. its not a goddamn battle worth having with these assholes.

    how about ‘unbelievers’.

    anyone have any other ideas?

    i really like ‘atheistist’

    hitch used ‘antitheist’ but thats kinda specific.

    maybe something off the wall…boo boo kitty fuck?

    haha

  107. on 10 May 2013 at 3:07 am 107.DPK said …

    It’s telling that they have a desperate “need” to redefine other people in order to conform to what their limited minds require… dogma.
    As has been pointed out, atheism is a religion in the same way that not playing the piano is a musical talent.
    And the fact they people with a similar point of view or philosophy may gather in a community format, for whatever reason, does not make the group a “church”. If it did, then every club, association, community group, or political party or political action group would qualify as a “church.”

  108. on 10 May 2013 at 3:43 am 108.Anonymous said …

    OK, Lou, let’s assume you are correct. Now please demonstrate to us that your god exists.

  109. on 10 May 2013 at 7:08 am 109.Fluttershy said …

    A said…
    Michael have you thought of calling yourself shutterfly or some other mythical pony?

    First off, its Fluttershy.
    And secondly, there are no mythical ponies in MLP, considering that they are the major sentient race in the show…(I find it odd that you abuse me of the name Fluttershy, arent you meant to be nice and shit?)

    Ahem, away from the topic of ponies and such…
    “Show me proof of God, pure, valid, unbreakable proof.”
    Im still waiting…as is every atheist here…

  110. on 10 May 2013 at 11:28 am 110.Lou said …

    FYI

    I just visited an atheist church website in Houston. They have an atheist pastor who converted from the Lutherans. He is even ordained by some atheist group. The only thing missing is God and you could be a Christian. There is also a very large movement is based in London and is spreading worldwide. There they claim the biggest opponents have been other atheists who persecute them for their beliefs. It’s sad really.

    It might be something worth checking out.

    Michael go with ” Joe Bag O’ Doughnuts”

    Lou

  111. on 10 May 2013 at 12:48 pm 111.Anonymous said …

    Lou, please demonstrate to us that your god exists.

  112. on 10 May 2013 at 1:07 pm 112.alex said …

    atheists are this and that. atheists do this and that. yeah so? one thing is clear and indisputable. atheists don’t believe in your BULLSHIT GOD. one more time for you assholes. atheists don’t believe in your BULLSHIT GOD.

    now, lou, martin, especially messenger and s0l, go fuck yourselves.

  113. on 10 May 2013 at 1:25 pm 113.Anonymous said …

    Lou believes

  114. on 10 May 2013 at 1:28 pm 114.Anonymous said …

    Lou believes many untrue things, or he is just lying as part of his trolling. Let’s just focus on his most relevant delusion that gods are real.

  115. on 10 May 2013 at 1:37 pm 115.A said …

    Anony Mouse is correct. We should stay on topic.
    Some churches have services in nursing homes. Any chance an Atheist church might be started in some nursing homes? Not many elderly atheists so the congregation would be pretty small.

  116. on 10 May 2013 at 1:40 pm 116.A said …

    Fluttershy thanks for clearing up MLP. Would MLP be a favorite of Atheists? I have never seen it

  117. on 10 May 2013 at 1:40 pm 117.alex said …

    instead of the constant blather, any chance you got proof of your god? whatzamatter? you’re bored because your porn is taking too long to load? don’t have the nerve to beat up gays or blow up an abortion clinic? so you resort to the timeless tactic of anonymously graffiti fucking up blogs and shit?

  118. on 10 May 2013 at 3:51 pm 118.Fluttershy said …

    A said…
    Fluttershy thanks for clearing up MLP. Would MLP be a favorite of Atheists? I have never seen it

    Really? are you simply pulling my leg with this question or are you interested?
    Yes, i would assume a large number of atheists watch the show, as do i.
    But i would also assume an equal amount of religious people as well.
    *sigh*
    As a brony i can recommend you watch some of the episodes…

    Anyway, back on topic.
    “Show me proof of God, pure, valid, unbreakable proof.”
    Again, still waiting…

  119. on 10 May 2013 at 3:53 pm 119.Fluttershy said …

    Oops, forgot to mention something ;D

    The brony community often gets hate mail from religious people saying we will go to hell, die, and such..

    Is there some rule where one must not watch certain shows, or are you simply THAT intolerant?

  120. on 10 May 2013 at 5:39 pm 120.A said …

    A brony huh? Interesting, no I don’t know any men who watch MLP. I do know some children who watch. Are you a child Fluttershy?

    As a brony, think how would Fluttershy feel if his/her/its lines were the same episode after episode?
    That is why many of us don’t engage in God proofs any longer. It has been done repeatedly.

    Here is one you can try. Show me proof life can and did evolve from the primordial soup? That should be easy since there is no God and therefore all proofs readily available. Nobody here can do it, how about you?

  121. on 10 May 2013 at 6:19 pm 121.alex said …

    “Show me proof life can and did evolve from the primordial soup?”

    diversion alert! who cares? show that god created life, moron.

  122. on 10 May 2013 at 6:45 pm 122.matt said …

    What an idiot. Of course we come from the primordial ooze. We are here that is scientific undeniable fact in spades.

  123. on 10 May 2013 at 8:03 pm 123.A said …

    Matt

    Thanks for chiming in. So just being here is scientific proof life formed in the primordial soup. Do me a favor, could you write a paper and inform the scientific community? Your work will save much time and money.

  124. on 10 May 2013 at 9:39 pm 124.alex said …

    “Do me a favor, could you write a paper and inform the scientific community?”

    right back at you? at least an ooze can be recreated. what aspect of god can you even demonstrate? virgin mary on a pancake?

  125. on 10 May 2013 at 9:48 pm 125.michael said …

    jesus appeared on a grilled cheese!

    what a wierd asshole

  126. on 10 May 2013 at 10:13 pm 126.matt said …

    Your an idiot. The big bang formed earth. Earth had boiling ooze on it. Some stuff in the ooze became life. Some life eventually climbed on to dry land and over a few thousand years man formed. Why is it so hard to understand.

  127. on 10 May 2013 at 11:15 pm 127.the messenger said …

    String theory has never been tested and is therefore useless and Pointless.

  128. on 11 May 2013 at 12:53 am 128.Anonymous said …

    Messenger, why are there 41,000 different denominations of Christianity? How can any of you possibly believe you are even remotely sane when you can’t even agree amongst yourselves as to the nature of how you worship your invisible friend?

  129. on 11 May 2013 at 12:59 am 129.DPK said …

    But the god hypothesis has been tested repeatedly and it fails every time, yet you continue to believe it. Why?
    Messenger, why Won’t God Heal Amputees?

  130. on 11 May 2013 at 1:06 am 130.A said …

    Ha Ha Ha

    Alex’s silliness

    “at least an ooze can be recreated.”

    Can it alex? Well how about producing that proof.

    Matt’s silliness

    “Some stuff in the ooze became life. Some life eventually climbed on to dry land”

    OK, Matt we will need to hold you to the same standard your species requires for God. Show me proof of this claim, pure, valid, unbreakable proof. What about the thousands of years you claim? You gonna stick with that? HA Ha Ha!!

  131. on 11 May 2013 at 1:08 am 131.A said …

    DPK & Anony Mouse do you agree with Matt’s assertion of how life formed?

  132. on 11 May 2013 at 1:35 am 132.Anonymous said …

    How many thousands of years have people been trying to prove that gods exists? The Christians have been failing at it for 2,000 of those years, the Jews even longer, before that Greeks and Romans, and so on.

    You’d think believers would get the message that gods are just ancient people’s superstitions and a means to control people through fear and intimidation.

    No wonder they keep trying to change the subject.

    “A”, seeing as you don’t have any proof that your god exists, let’s try this one. Why won’t [any] god heal amputees?

  133. on 11 May 2013 at 2:02 am 133.Fluttershy said …

    A said…
    A brony huh? Interesting, no I don’t know any men who watch MLP. I do know some children who watch. Are you a child Fluttershy?
    As a brony, think how would Fluttershy feel if his/her/its lines were the same episode after episode?

    No, i am a teenager, although i can assure you that men do watch the show, heck, there are some navy seals and army guys who do.
    Anyway, fluttershy is a female, and if her lines were the same each episode, she wouldn’t feel anything, she is a cartoon character, that, and the writer would get fired.

    Although….she doesn’t talk much anyways, hence the “shy” in her name…

    back on topic
    Why won’t [any] god heal amputees?

  134. on 11 May 2013 at 2:14 am 134.Matt said …

    A must be the biggest idiot ever. We don’t nerd any proof life evolved out of ooze. We know it. We know life crawled out of ooze and in a few 1000 years man appeared. What is needed to be proved.

    wake up idiot

  135. on 11 May 2013 at 2:37 am 135.Anonymous said …

    Don’t forget, with “A” you have someone who “knows” that snakes and donkeys can talk, and who “knows” that women are made from ribs, and who “knows” that man was created from dust and who “knows” that there was a global flood that left no trace and who “knows” that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

    A certain level of self-imposed ignorance is to be expected when dealing with someone who “knows” as much as he does.

  136. on 11 May 2013 at 2:41 am 136.DPK said …

    “DPK & Anony Mouse do you agree with Matt’s assertion of how life formed?”

    How about you answer some questions instead of demanding answers from others? Do you agree with messengers statement?

    “most of modern physics is based on unproven theories, and is therefore useless.”

    Simple question…. Are you going to ignore it as usual?

  137. on 11 May 2013 at 4:52 am 137.MrQ said …

    Matt,
    “A” is an idiot, indeed. No question, we agree.
    But, buddy, learn to proof read your material and do a little research.

  138. on 11 May 2013 at 5:42 am 138.michael said …

    you jnownow n

    sorry

    know what? My phone sucks a gigantic fucking cock.

    iI wrote up a whole story and it didntdidn’t post.

    and now you can see the fuck ups.

    goddammit.

    atleastat least iI c

    haha

    fuck

    at least i can sleep happily knowing that today has been another day well done, another day closer to death and i wouldn’t want it any other way.

  139. on 11 May 2013 at 8:01 am 139.Fluttershy said …

    We know life crawled out of ooze and in a few 1000 years man appeared. What is needed to be proved.

    ummmm, it took millions, not thousands…

  140. on 11 May 2013 at 11:55 am 140.Anonymous said …

    Fluttershy, why worry about “A”/Lou/Xenon/Burebista’s diversion?

    Remember, he’s looking for an answer that meets his religious indoctrination and need for simplicity. Anything more complicated than a magic talking snake is going to exceed his intellectual capacity.

    If he wants to learn basic sciences, he can enroll in community college. No, what we are looking for here is why [any] god won’t heal amputees.

  141. on 11 May 2013 at 1:03 pm 141.Martin said …

    Let us look of the logical fallacy atheist are attempting to use again to make the claim God is imaginary.

    A. God does not heal amputees

    B. We think God should heal amputees

    C. Go does not exist.

    Those educated in logic can readily see the fallacious and child-like conclusion. From statement A we don’t know God has never healed an amputee. From B we can see the child-like demand from God to produce or else much like a child stomping their feet to get their demand fulfilled. In C we see the fatal decisiveness of a fallacious conclusion.

    From the entire exercise we see a group of desperados soliciting other mere men to elucidate why God doesn’t fulfill their expectations. Why doesn’t God make all mankind redheads, gives us four arms, etc…

  142. on 11 May 2013 at 1:05 pm 142.alex said …

    “Fluttershy, why worry about “A”/Lou/Xenon/Burebista’s diversion?”

    sometimes you have to. the idiots cannot be allowed free reign anymore. they think it’s their god given right to piss and shit everywhere, wherever and whenever they want with their bullshit misstatements and wild assertions.

    if we never responded, there won’t be anybody to curse , rebuke, and make fun of. plus, some of the posts are funny.

  143. on 11 May 2013 at 1:07 pm 143.alex said …

    “Let us look of the logical fallacy atheist are attempting to use again to make the claim God is imaginary.”

    outta here, you pseudo, spock logical wannabee. enough of your pointless diversion.

    and get back down the “recent comment” stack where you belong, moronic asshole. your porn has finished loading.

  144. on 11 May 2013 at 2:27 pm 144.michael said …

    Martin,

    I agree…that’s stupid.

    That doesn’t make a lick of sense that just because god has historically nevef healed a single amputee doesnt mean he doesnt exist.

    but here is what they are getting at:

    people say that:

    1. god is all powerful

    he has to be. He created everything after all. I mean I personally find this notion bizarre since when you read the bible you see that he rested on the 7th day.

    rested?

    god was tired? From creating the earth? What, was his muscles sore? How come an all powerful, omniscent, omnipotent force needs to rest?

    and why did he create light before the sun? Didnt he know that if he created the sun first, the light woulda took care of itself?

    anyway…

    poeple also say that:

    2. God is all good.

    well, the term good is thrown about like we know what “good” is. Whats good to you (looking forward to death and enjoying owning a mutilate penis) is different from what’s good to me (not murdering babies and being a friendly fellow).

    god isnt “good” like me. he like to kill babies. Its fun. He did is constantly before his some came along…but then when he had jesus he kinda mellowed out…wierd how that happens.

    so here is their bones of contention.

    either god is all good but NOT all powerful, or he is all powerful but NOT good.

    particularly in the way of “good” that is permitted by society today.

    the amputee thing, its just a way to focus on the fact that god being all “good” doesn’t necessarily make any sense based on what we see…

    when people claiming healing events, we can never be sure about the authenticity of them. But someone regrowing a leg…that’s undeniable proof.

    if iI found ONE instance of this happening…iI would admit that god does exist and iI would go back into following a religion.

  145. on 11 May 2013 at 2:28 pm 145.michael said …

    Here is their bone of contention.

    not bones.

    you guys dontdon’t have individual bones of contention… boo

  146. on 11 May 2013 at 3:21 pm 146.Anonymous said …

    But look carefully, the fallacies here are actually strawman argument and reversal of the burden of proof.

    Martin has long conceded that he cannot prove the existence of his god.

    In order to protect himself from the ramifications of believing something that isn’t true, he invents arguments to rail against by way of diversion. This way he doesn’t have to consider the many examples of sloppy theist thinking presented for consideration. To do so would invite introspection that his psyche cannot afford.

    Bottom line. We need not disprove the existence of something that has yet to be proven – the default state for gods is non-existence. The onus is on the theist to explain their many inconsistencies and not attempt to derail the conversation to avoid uncomfortable subjects.

    So, again, explain to us. Why doesn’t [any] god heal amputees? Please answer the question rather than try to take the conversation off on a tangent.

  147. on 11 May 2013 at 3:48 pm 147.alex said …

    “Why doesn’t [any] god heal amputees?”

    because he hate them. colored folk too. and gays, women, retards/defective people and other nationalities.

    he only blesses certain football players, random trailer inhabitants, the rich, statistically insignificant cancer survivors, lottery winners, and sneezers.

    cover everything? oh, and tebow, since he not a football player anymore.

  148. on 11 May 2013 at 3:48 pm 148.Fluttershy said …

    To all the religious people, atheists, every one.
    Read about the church of the flying spaghetti monster, it makes MORE sense than any other religion, and it is legit.

  149. on 11 May 2013 at 3:50 pm 149.Fluttershy said …

    still, god doesnt exist…

  150. on 11 May 2013 at 4:08 pm 150.DPK said …

    It is very telling that Martin can never attempt to make even a single point about the validity of his belief in his imaginary god without constructing some elaborate and untrue straw man argument to try and make a point. Lets look carefully at his latest attempt:

    140.Martin said …
    Let us look of the logical fallacy atheist are attempting to use again to make the claim God is imaginary.

    Show us where even one atheist presented any of this in the form of a logical claim. That’s lie one.

    A. God does not heal amputees.

    Since you cannot provide even one documented case of a human regrowing an amputated limb. This statement stands. God never heals amputees.

    B. We think God should heal amputees.

    Who is “we”? The BIBLE tells us that whatever we ask for in Jesus’ name, god will do. Theists claim that god answers prayers. Theists claim all sorts of miraculous cures that god performs all the time. Theists also claim that god is all powerful and can do anything. Yet, he never heals amputees… or performs any number of other acts that are physically impossible, and never performs any “miracles” that do not always have some other, non-miraculous explanation.

    C. Go does not exist.

    This is not a logical conclusion, this is a practical observation… a hypothesis, if you will, to explain the facts in evidence. Since your proposed god does in fact NOT observably fit the properties and criteria that theists assign him, one could conclude any number of possibilities. However, the simplest explanation is that your god is imaginary. It’s not formal logical conclusion, it’s common sense.
    If you have a better explanation… let’s hear it!

  151. on 11 May 2013 at 5:33 pm 151.Martin said …

    Let us look at the latest fallacy.

    A. God is not good like me

    B. GOOD is how “I” define GOOD

    C. God is not GOOD according to me

    D. Therefore God does not exists.

    Logical fallacies in abundance here. Mike sets himself up as the model of GOOD. Michael has determined God must act as a man to be real. The diety does not meet this Michelian view of Good therefore He must not exist. In order to exist we must be able to completely explain and understand in Michalian logic.

  152. on 11 May 2013 at 5:51 pm 152.DPK said …

    Yet another poorly constructed straw man.
    No one claims that because the god you worship in fact cannot be shown to behave according to the properties you ascribe to him, that he therefore does not exist…. we may conclude that he simply is an asshole god, or that he is actually not able to regenerate amputated limbs, or that he can, but he just happens to be totally skeeved put by amputees and therefore doesn’t want anything to do with them. Lots of possibilities that will explain why he doesn’t behave the way theists claim he does.
    The most likely one, in my estimation, is the simplest one. He, like every other god that has EVER been claimed to exist, is completely imaginary. It’s not a conclusion based on formal logic, no more so that concluding that because there are no pots ‘o gold to be found at the ends of rainbows that therefore leprechauns do not exist. It is rather, the most obvious, simplest, and therefore the most likely conclusion to be drawn.
    Now if you have some actual evidence that either your god, or any other god, or leprechauns actually exist, you can put this argument to rest in about 30 seconds.
    Why don’t you just do that, instead of making up ridiculous straw man arguments so you can imagine you are actually making a point. Because no one here, except maybe messenger, is actually stupid enough to fall for your word games, “Martin”. It doesn’t work when you post as “A” or “Boz” or “Biff” or “Horattio”… either.

  153. on 11 May 2013 at 7:01 pm 153.matt said …

    “We know life crawled out of ooze and in a few 1000 years man appeared. What is needed to be proved.

    ummmm, it took millions, not thousands…”

    Fluttershy you are a big as an idiot as A. No God is needed. Big Bang made ooze. The oozed made life and life crawled out of the oooze and became man. It only took a few thousand years. Picture are all in the science books. Why cant you guys just except the facts.

  154. on 11 May 2013 at 7:56 pm 154.alex said …

    “at least an ooze can be recreated.”

    “Can it alex? Well how about producing that proof.”

    open your skull and you’ll find it, dumbfuck.

  155. on 11 May 2013 at 8:03 pm 155.alex said …

    “Fluttershy you are a big as an idiot as A. No God is needed. Big Bang made ooze. The oozed made life and life crawled out of the oooze and became man.”

    ok, i gots your sarcasm, but it still doesn’t prove your god, does it? maybe i’m wrong in believing that the navajo god did it, but you counting on my bad for your proof? what else you got?

  156. on 11 May 2013 at 8:36 pm 156.Martin said …

    Alex you are idiot. There aient no God. Why do you religious idiots insist on pushing your delusions on the rest of us.

  157. on 11 May 2013 at 10:44 pm 157.michael said …

    bye guys.

    ‘my comment is too short’

    fucking website cuntery

  158. on 11 May 2013 at 11:23 pm 158.DPK said …

    If you are looking for an ACTUAL logical fallacy, try this one:

    No one has yet presented a testable, falsifiable explanation as to exactly how life originated on the planet Earth.

    An omnipotent god, possessing unlimited powers, would be able to create life from nothing.

    Life exists on the earth.

    Therefore, the Judeo-Christian god of the bible must exist.

    How’s that for a logical fallacy, Martin?

  159. on 12 May 2013 at 12:08 am 159.A said …

    Matt

    You agree with DPK? The origin of life has not bee proven? You seem sure your view is correct?

  160. on 12 May 2013 at 2:26 am 160.DPK said …

    “A”. Why don’t you stop circling Matt like a jackal and answer the question you were asked? Do you agree with messenger that “most of modern physics is unproven and useless”?
    While your at it, do you have any evidence to suggest to any of us that your pretend god exists anywhere outside your mind?

  161. on 12 May 2013 at 3:01 am 161.Fluttershy said …

    “Fluttershy you are a big as an idiot as A. No God is needed. Big Bang made ooze. The oozed made life and life crawled out of the oooze and became man.”

    haha…nice one…
    that was a joke, right?…right?
    RIGHT?

    anyways….just read about evolution, that should clear things up…

  162. on 12 May 2013 at 3:15 am 162.Anonymous said …

    ““A”. Why don’t you stop circling Matt like a jackal…”

    That image of “A” as a scavenger seems particular apt.

    Unable to make his own points, he scurries out under cover of darkness to nip away at whatever scraps he can find. Like many scavengers, he retreats and goes into hiding when challenged.

    Perhaps we should call him “Assman the Scavenger” from now on?

    Now, “A”, let’s see you grow a pair and answer the questions put to you.

  163. on 12 May 2013 at 4:39 am 163.s0l0m0n said …

    Atheists are just a bunch of fools. How come everything is created by one lousy word ‘Nature’?

  164. on 12 May 2013 at 10:28 am 164.matt said …

    Why is the consept of evolution so hard for everyone to understand? I don’t care who agrees with me. They can just stay stupid if they want to.

    The origin life has been proven and I can hold my own with anybody.

  165. on 12 May 2013 at 12:17 pm 165.DPK said …

    Matt, evolution is a fact. All live evolved from simpler, common ancestors, but it took hundreds of millions of years, not thousands. And, as of right now, science does not have a definitive answer on how abiogenesis actually occurred. I think if you check your facts, you will find your timeline is a little off.

    The fundamental difference between science and religion is that science searches for truth by following evidence and facts, and it is perfectly acceptable, and even noble, to say “we don’t know”. Wile religions start with predetermined conclusions and then looks for evidence to support them and ignores or rationalizes evidence that does not. The default answer for anything not readily understood is “god did it.” And that is sufficient for them.

  166. on 12 May 2013 at 1:37 pm 166.alex said …

    “How come everything is created by one lousy word ‘Nature’?”

    another blatant false. who ever said that? did anybody ever say Nature created the Seiko Watch? your constant fucked up reference to your bullshit god creating everything will not be tolerated here. go back to your sheep, you desert dweller.

  167. on 12 May 2013 at 2:10 pm 167.DPK said …

    Actually Alex, since nature created creatures that evolved into humans who create Seiko watches, in the truest sense, nature created Seiko watches. Everything that exists in the natural world is by definition, natural.
    If beavers build a damn, that’s a “natural” occurrence. If humans build a damn, why is that not also “natural”.
    Humans altering their environment is no different from bees making honey or termites eating wood.

    It IS funny though that Solomon, who’s stock answer for anything is “god did it” would object to a claim that “everything is created by one lousy word ‘Nature’. When he claims that everything is created by one lousy word, ‘god’.
    Good illustration of the depth of their insanity.

  168. on 12 May 2013 at 3:34 pm 168.Fluttershy said …

    “How come everything is created by one lousy word ‘Nature’?”

    How come everything is created by one pathetic word ‘God’?

    please, amuse me, with bacon preferably…

  169. on 12 May 2013 at 4:08 pm 169.MrQ said …

    matt,
    Move along now. Thanks for dropping by.

    Martin:

    A. God does not heal amputees
    B. We think God should heal amputees
    C. Go does not exist.

    Let’s examine Martin’s logic.
    Point A: Xtians claim a god can perform miracles. Such as cure disease, help people walk/see/have a bowel movement etc. Hard to qualify these so called “miracles”. However, if a god did regenerate a bunch of xtian limbs, we would have undeniable proof that god is good, faith is real.

    Point B: If doubt of a god is to be removed from everyone, a real miracle is required. Otherwise, you’re operating strictly on faith.

    Point C: Wrong. There is no proof of a god, any god. One of the last shadows where a god could be hiding is in the “you don’t know how life began” argument. And we’ll soon have answers for that; just like other things that were once mysterious. For example, most people don’t believe that volcanoes and droughts are signs of a god’s anger.

    Three strikes, Martin. You’re outta here.

  170. on 12 May 2013 at 4:17 pm 170.DPK said …

    I think the point Matt is trying to make, and it is a valid one, is that the fact that life is here proves that life started. Then the question is how? Well, we don’t know EXACTLY, but what would be a reasonable assumption? We know that life is based on chemistry… we know chemistry happens, we know you can get the organic compounds on which life is based through basic chemistry. We also know the universe is so vast and so old that almost any possibility becomes almost a certainty, so it would be a fairly reasonable assumption that because life evolved here and we know for a fact that all the species on earth evolved from simpler organisms, and we know that the further back we go in geological time, the simpler and simpler organisms become, we can assume that life began with simple chemistry.
    Now, the alternative is to assume it was done by magic, of which there is no evidence that such a thing exists.
    Life is here, so it obviously began… somewhere, somehow. Abiogenesis through natural processes would therefore be the default position unless actual evidence of some other cause is shown. If you want to claim a magical god did it, you must first demonstrate that such a thing actually exists, otherwise you are just making shit up and arguing from ignorance.

  171. on 12 May 2013 at 4:59 pm 171.matt said …

    What I meant to say is what I said. Life crawled out of the ooze and became man in a few thousand years. That is a fact and undeniable as verified by science.

  172. on 12 May 2013 at 5:04 pm 172.alex said …

    ” Life crawled out of the ooze and became man in a few thousand years. That is a fact and undeniable as verified by science”

    wrong. check the fossil record, mr. troll.

  173. on 12 May 2013 at 5:50 pm 173.A said …

    That is an interesting conclusion matt. So how do the first cell, protein and amino acid form in the ooze? Last check, scientist in a controlled environment can’t pull it off.

    Francis Crick believed aliens planted the first life. Is this your view. Look forward to your further insight.

  174. on 12 May 2013 at 5:59 pm 174.alex said …

    “Last check, scientist in a controlled environment can’t pull it off.”

    so, in your mind, Zeus created the universe? you’re not looking for insight, you’re just baiting. just prove your god already and stop the trolling.

  175. on 12 May 2013 at 6:36 pm 175.matt said …

    A you are an idiot. It just happened. Chemicals, heat, time makes life. Its so simple.

  176. on 12 May 2013 at 7:53 pm 176.Martin said …

    You can see from Matt’s use of fallacies that the level of proof required for abiogrnesis is zero but for a creator the bar moves up at a rate of 32ft/s.

    Shows their intellectual dishonesty and their incredible faith. Ironically Matt is completely unaware.

  177. on 12 May 2013 at 8:17 pm 177.alex said …

    “You can see from Matt’s use of fallacies…”

    back to your same ole trick, eh? point out some nonsensical, irrelevant diversion, hoping to steer the discussion away from you bullshit god. focus, martin, atheists don’t believe in your imaginary god, “abiogrnesis” or not.

  178. on 12 May 2013 at 8:50 pm 178.DPK said …

    So now it’s obvious. “Matt” is Martin, providing an idiotic statement for Martin to ridicule so he can pretend his god is real.
    Nice try “A” almost believed you for about an hour.
    Troll.

  179. on 12 May 2013 at 9:06 pm 179.alex said …

    damn martin, you busted again. why you keep fucking with atheists? it’s ok to believe in your god, just keep the motherfucker to yourself. it’s not your god given right to pass out bibles, or shit/piss everywhere you want with your bullshit god. get it thru your fucking head, asshole. learn tolerance you fuckhead. i tolerate shitheads like you all the time, but i will not put up with any more of your crap.

    so, who’s your next character?

  180. on 12 May 2013 at 10:49 pm 180.A said …

    No, Matt is me along with all the other posters on here. I have made that clear to you guys many times before. I am everyone on the blog. Now rest easy. Excuse me, I will be talking to my other persons.

    Matt,do you see that your atheists friends even believe you to be a dunce? What you have is an opinion and it is one not even alex believes in public. That is the ultimate in simpletons.

    Martin.

    Give Matt some credit. He is just saying what all the other atheist bloggers believe. They are just too cowardly to admit it.

  181. on 12 May 2013 at 11:09 pm 181.alex said …

    “… it is one not even alex believes in public.”

    who gives a fuck what i believe in? more of the same from the idiot theists. it is what atheists don’t believe in, is the central part of this blog. amputees are not healed by a bullshit god, period.

    now, fuck off.

  182. on 13 May 2013 at 12:38 am 182.Anonymous said …

    Actually, Martin slipped up back in 156 when he posted out of character. The rest was inevitable.

    As for “A”. Yes, this seems to be his new favorite “escape”. He regularly gets busted for being a sock-puppet so he now admits it but adds on some extra as if that, somehow, fools anyone. Sadly, all that does is underline his dishonesty and lack of integrity and puts him in the position that everything he says is suspect.

    So, thank you for admitting that you have been posting as Matt; you probably have in that case. You’ve also been accused of being Martin so that sums up your other comment too.

    Now, of course, all of this was the same boring diversion because the believers got cornered and didn’t want to admit that they have no evidence for this so-called god.

    Why not come out and say it. Your god is but a fairy-story for grown ups which you desperately want to be true.

  183. on 13 May 2013 at 12:55 am 183.alex said …

    “Why not come out and say it. Your god is but a fairy-story for grown ups which you desperately want to be true.”

    wah! coz, i want to live forever and i want to see my loved ones again! i want to see obama go to hell? i want to do all these bad things over and over again because jesus forgives me. fucking morons.

  184. on 13 May 2013 at 1:11 am 184.Matt said …

    All of you are a bunch of idiots. I am matt and nobody talks for me. No God No where. You morons can live in your delusion

  185. on 13 May 2013 at 2:51 am 185.Fluttershy said …

    Give Matt some credit. He is just saying what all the other atheist bloggers believe. They are just too cowardly to admit it.

    No, he believes in a ridiculous theory that NO ONE here else believes in.

    I am not 100% sure if he is a sock puppet, but his arguments is invalid anyway.

  186. on 13 May 2013 at 3:54 am 186.The messenger said …

    174.alex, I have given you proof.

  187. on 13 May 2013 at 9:27 am 187.Fluttershy said …

    i was wondering, how does one make a reply post that makes the text appear in a box like thing?

  188. on 13 May 2013 at 11:27 am 188.The messenger said …

    183.alex, tell me, why are you so delusional?

  189. on 13 May 2013 at 12:37 pm 189.alex said …

    “…a reply post that makes the text appear in a box like thing?”

    box like test?

  190. on 13 May 2013 at 12:40 pm 190.alex said …

    put this around your post:
    <blockquote> </blockquote>

    like this:
    <blockquote>god is bullcrap! </blockquote>

  191. on 13 May 2013 at 1:19 pm 191.Fluttershy said …

    pootis

    like this?

  192. on 13 May 2013 at 1:19 pm 192.Fluttershy said …

    YES IT WORKS

  193. on 13 May 2013 at 1:52 pm 193.s0l0m0n said …

    All atheists especially alex are condemned to ((((HELL)))) fools.Evolution is a ((((HOAX)))) and they believe it.
    Provide fossil proofs on the gradual transition from ape to men that must have existed in abundance if evolution was true.
    Now answer this you stupid fools.

  194. on 13 May 2013 at 11:14 pm 194.CastBound said …

    Hi Guys,

    I asked this question last year but those here then could not provide any good responses. Let me ask, Why become an atheists? How would it improve my life? If my life is full, successful and lifes big questions answered, I cannot fathom a good reason to convert.

  195. on 13 May 2013 at 11:32 pm 195.alex said …

    “I cannot fathom a good reason to convert”

    if you believe that women, gays, peoples from other nations/religions are substandard, and that everything unexplained is because of god, and that your religion should have preferential treatment, then why convert?

    the reason you’re here is because all atheists won’t let you get away with it?

    “How would it improve my life?”

    dunno, but it would improve the lives of many more.

  196. on 14 May 2013 at 12:48 am 196.Anonymous said …

    Lets look at the “logic” of Christians, for a moment. That would include “A”, “Martin” and, of course, “A”s confirmed sock-puppet CastBound (sigh, you are so tedious).

    This is their logic.

    1) A book of questionable origin, of questionable authorship, of questionable content, contains the promise of eternal life providing you start with the premise of (a) man is made from dust, (b) woman are made from ribs and (c) Snakes can talk.
    2) Some people want to believe in that shit
    3) Therefor god exists.

    That *IS* what they believe. Martin believes it, “A” believes it, “CastBound (aka A) believes it.

    No wonder they are always trying to change the subject. It’s embarrassing to be that stupid but if they don’t believe it, then they can’t go to “heaven”.

  197. on 14 May 2013 at 1:25 am 197.DPK said …

    Let me ask, Why become an atheists?

    Well, if truth doesn’t mean anything to you, then you shouldn’t, I guess.

    Why should I not believe in Santa Claus? It’s a nice story, I like getting presents, Santa gives me a nice warm fuzzy feeling at Xmas, and I love the idea that reindeer can fly. Why should I not believe in that? What can asaintaism offer me?

  198. on 14 May 2013 at 2:42 am 198.alex said …

    “All atheists especially alex are condemned…”

    ooh, i scared? you still mad coz your sheep kicked you while you were mounting them?

    “Provide fossil proofs on the gradual transition from ape to men”

    who said man descended from apes? why you keep saying these things? you already have an iron grip on the title of “dumbest theist” ever. btw, i heard that sheephylis fucks up your brain, dat true?

  199. on 14 May 2013 at 4:09 am 199.the christian said …

    if god does not exist , then where did everything [ time,space,and matter ] come from?

  200. on 14 May 2013 at 4:14 am 200.Anonymous said …

    If Solomon really wanted proof then he’d learn to read grown-up books then go read a book on evolution, or he would go to a forum about evolution. That he is asking here shows that his questions are not in any way genuine. That goes too for the rest of the trolls.

    Send them to talkorigins.org – they won’t go, of course, because they don’t actually want to hear the answer. It’s a diversion to avoid being pressed to provide proof for their imaginary friends.

  201. on 14 May 2013 at 4:15 am 201.Anonymous said …

    Well, why don’t you tell us where your god came from.

  202. on 14 May 2013 at 5:08 am 202.Anonymous said …

    Every time some moron, and I’m looking at you “Christian”, comes along and asks such a fucking brain-dead question I wonder just how such people can even dress themselves in the morning.

    Look moron, and I’m looking right at you “Christian”, asking “how else do you explain X” does not mean the answer is “Y”.

    If you are so absolutely fucking stupid to think that a god created anything then tell you what.

    Prove that your god exists. If you can’t. Then shut the fuck up because this question makes you look like a moron – which you probably are if you believe in gods.

    Sheesh. Some people don’t deserve brains if this question is the result of what they do with them.

  203. on 14 May 2013 at 7:27 am 203.Fluttershy said …

    if god does not exist , then where did everything [ time,space,and matter ] come from?

    if god exists, where did he come from?

  204. on 14 May 2013 at 11:14 am 204.the christian said …

    sorry, i went to bed right after i put my post. god had no beginning and he will not have an end he created time. next time don’t deflect my question just because you don’t have an answer.

  205. on 14 May 2013 at 11:18 am 205.Anony said …

    God always existed. It is a better answer than lightning striking some sewage and creating a man like athiests claim.

    come on atheits admit your belief is ridiculous.

  206. on 14 May 2013 at 11:21 am 206.CastBound said …

    DPK you are saying I should become an Atheist for truth? What would that truth be? I think everyone desires to know truth.

  207. on 14 May 2013 at 11:32 am 207.the christian said …

    god did not come from a person or thing, he had no beginning he is eternal.he did not come from a place either , he’s omnipresent[ he's everywhere at once]. who told me these things,…GOD did through his word. how can i trust that ? well i’ve never caught a spirit like him to prove that spirits have beginnings and no other human being has done this either.But we’ve all seen rocks before , and we know there just like all the other matter in the universe … affected by the second law of thermo-dynamics.therefore we could not have come from matter like this, we would have to come from something unaffected by time,space and matter[ maybe someone who created these things].

  208. on 14 May 2013 at 11:41 am 208.Fluttershy said …

    god did not come from a person or thing, he had no beginning he is eternal.he did not come from a place either.

    Then why do you have such a hard time with us atheists believing in cells and abiogenesis and evolution and shit?
    Why cant this happen with no creator?
    Why cant we exist without a creator?
    Why does the creator not have a creator?

  209. on 14 May 2013 at 11:47 am 209.Fluttershy said …

    ‘we would have to come from something unaffected by time,space and matter[ maybe someone who created these things].’

    I disagree, something that is unaffected by such things could not exist, its a blatant lie to claim such things can happen.

    ‘who told me these things,…GOD did through his word.’

    id get that checked out if you hear crazy voices in your head.

    ‘It is a better answer than lightning striking some sewage and creating a man like athiests claim.’

    Sorry to say this, but magic is less valid than a very improbable theory.

    ‘god had no beginning and he will not have an end he created time. next time don’t deflect my question just because you don’t have an answer.’

    if you want to debate like that, so be it.
    evolution had no beginning, and will have no end, it made time. Next time dont deflect my question because you do not have an answer.
    Seriously though, if you are going to make statements like god is infinity, BACK UP YOUR STATEMENT. Your arguments have the validness of myself saying that an invisible pink turtle is living under my bed and he made all time and space.

  210. on 14 May 2013 at 11:48 am 210.alex said …

    “What would that truth be? I think everyone desires to know truth.”

    absolute and irrefutable. you morons have no proof of your god.

  211. on 14 May 2013 at 12:01 pm 211.s0l0m0n said …

    Shutterfly,

    “Why does the creator not have a creator?”
    God=nothing,
    How can nothing be created you fool.
    Waaaa….ka..ka…ka…

  212. on 14 May 2013 at 12:04 pm 212.the christian said …

    look … many think that because theres bad in the world, that means no god can exist.But its the other way around. If you see bad in the world you must assume there’s good , and if you assume theres good in the world you must assume there is a moral law , and if there is a moral law you must assume there is moral law-giver. This is where the atheist comes and takes away the moral-law-giver which means no moral law can be given which also means theres no way of saying anything[ rape, murder, stealing ,ect ] is right or wrong. Without a god you can’t say anything [ like amputees] is right or wrong. If I wanted you to write me a list of ten things that are wrong … uh … before you put anything on the list I want to know how are you deciding [ atheist ] , are you deciding right from wrong based on what congress thinks,are you deciding right from wrong based on what the majority thinks…how do you decide right from wrong without an all powerful all knowing god.

  213. on 14 May 2013 at 12:05 pm 213.s0l0m0n said …

    alex,

    “who said man descended from apes?”
    Your lousy Godfather Charles Darwin said that and it’s too late to deny.

  214. on 14 May 2013 at 12:55 pm 214.Anonymous said …

    Do you have *any* thoughts of your own? Even just one original one? So far, all you have done is regurgitate the rather ridiculous cliche arguments xtians use to prevent thinking for themselves.

    So to every one of your arguments here is the response,

    Prove it.

    Prove that your god exists. Prove your god did those things and not an invisible pink turtle called Elvis.

  215. on 14 May 2013 at 1:32 pm 215.Fluttershy said …

    Actually anon his name is fredwick (yes i know, bad name)

    ‘how do you decide right from wrong without an all powerful all knowing god.’

    i use my brain, you know? that organic super computer that is stupidly complex beyond imagination. what do you use?

  216. on 14 May 2013 at 3:30 pm 216.DPK said …

    206.CastBound said …

    “DPK you are saying I should become an Atheist for truth? What would that truth be? I think everyone desires to know truth.”

    No, most people do not desire to know truth.
    Let me ask you this, if I asked you “Why should I stop believing in Santa Claus? What does not believing in Santa OFFER ME?” What would your answer be?

    When you can answer that honestly, then you will understand. Until then, your delusion simply reinforces itself.

    Here is the thing theists don’t seem to comprehend. Believing in god is not something one can “choose”. I can;t honestly say to myself… “well, this religion promises me forgiveness of all my wrong doings, an eternal life of bliss after I die. But this religion promises reincarnation, and this one promises 72 virgins to fuck endlessly for all eternity, and this one promises I will go to a distant planet and become a god myself…. hmmm… which one should I decide to believe in? Which one has the best offer?”

  217. on 14 May 2013 at 4:53 pm 217.CastBound said …

    Flutter and DPK,

    Again, what is the truth I will discover in Atheism? Lets leave Santa out and focus on one thing at time.

  218. on 14 May 2013 at 6:05 pm 218.DPK said …

    215.CastBound said …
    “Flutter and DPK,
    Again, what is the truth I will discover in Atheism? Lets leave Santa out and focus on one thing at time.”

    Sorry, I forgot your limited mental capacity… but, why do you all so frantically avoid the Santa analogy? That’s a tough one for you, huh?

    Work with us here Biff, uh, A, uh.. Castaway… it’s a process. You want a shortcut, I get it. But, easy does it. A mental illness like yours can only be overcome in steps:

    Step 1. Answer the question. “If I asked you “Why should I stop believing in Santa Claus? What does not believing in Santa OFFER ME?” What would your answer be?

    When you HONESTLY answer this, you will have your answer as to “what you will discover in atheism”.
    The answer is within you already. You must face it by yourself.

  219. on 14 May 2013 at 6:45 pm 219.DPK said …

    the christian said….
    “before you put anything on the list I want to know how are you deciding [ atheist ] , are you deciding right from wrong based on what congress thinks,are you deciding right from wrong based on what the majority thinks…how do you decide right from wrong without an all powerful all knowing god.”

    Stop there. Since you are claiming that there is an absolute moral law given by an absolute moral law-giver… produce it. Where is this absolute moral law that you claim exists. And… if your answer is “the bible” then tell me if you agree that it is moral to kill someone for being homosexual, for working on the sabbath, for being disrespectful to their parents? Is it moral to keep slaves, sell your daughters into prostitution? Is it moral to insist that women should keep silent in church, and should subjugate themselves to their husbands?
    But perhaps your moral law is found elsewhere? If so, you will be the first theist here to produce it for examination.

  220. on 15 May 2013 at 1:12 am 220.DPK said …

    Funny how both castaway and Christman come here demanding answers, but won’t answer even the simplist of questions themselves.
    Dodge and weave, weave and dodge, but never a straight answer from any of them. And the tell others they offer “truth”.

  221. on 15 May 2013 at 2:11 am 221.CastBound said …

    DPK so your reasoning for me to become an atheists is so I can ask Christians why I shouldn’t believe in Santa? If you want to know why you should believe in Santa ask one who does. I didn’t ask you why I should accept Hindu

    I only asked a simple honest question but it seems you have no reasons. You claimed so I could no truth but can’t tell me what that truth is.

    I’m not demanding answer. Sorry if I came across that way. If you have none that is fine.

  222. on 15 May 2013 at 2:15 am 222.CastBound said …

    Sorry for the spelling it is the phone

  223. on 15 May 2013 at 2:20 am 223.DPK said …

    No, faulty reasoning. If I want to know what not believing in Santa has to offer me, I should ask someone who does NOT believe in Santa, not someone who does.
    You don’t believe in Santa Claus, do you, castoff?
    So answer my question and you will find he truth you seek.
    Believing in Santa offers me many wonderful benefits… Why should I reject that belief and accept your belief that Santa is imaginary?
    It’s not a hard question. Why do you refuse to answer it?
    Hahaha.

  224. on 15 May 2013 at 2:35 am 224.MrQ said …

    Castbound

    I asked this question last year but those here then could not provide any good responses. Let me ask, Why become an atheists?

    Didn’t we go through this exercise last year? And you dropped out of the conversation when the heat was turned up?

    I say this (again): believe in whatever floats your boat. Remember? You had an extremely difficult time answering the simplest of questions. We were on the thread: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=2377#comments

    If I remember correctly, that clown/idiot “A” rudely interrupted and distracted our dialog.

  225. on 15 May 2013 at 4:39 am 225.DPK said …

    To frightened to answer, castaway? I promise, it’s not a trick question. Why should I not believe in Santa Claus? What’s in it for me? Why would any sane, mature, intelligent adult decide to disbelieve in Santa?
    It’s a simple answer. Why are you so terrified of it?

  226. on 15 May 2013 at 7:13 am 226.Fluttershy said …

    Again, what is the truth I will discover in Atheism?

    You will discover that there is no life after death, biology will make sense to you, physics will make sense to you, and you will discover that god is a stupid concept and the christian god is insane.

  227. on 15 May 2013 at 10:15 am 227.alex said …

    “Again, what is the truth I will discover in Atheism?”

    you moron. you’ve been told many times, but you won’t listen. flip it and ask. what is the truth about religion? foreskins, virgins, & young earth?

    the truth is up to you. half of eternity = eternity?

    i really don’t give a fuck if you convert, but your continuous nonsensical drivel is monotonous.

    you can play the xtian persecution card all you want, but your throat-fucking religious ways won’t be tolerated anymore. you know what i’m talking about? beat a homo or a woman lately? refuse obvious, medical treatment for your child? even your idiotic ban on gay marriages will soon be over.

    if you say “god shielded us”, you must say “god didn’t shield others”, otherwise you’re a dumb motherfucker. why? if you say the first part and then apologize for the second part, that makes you god’s representative on his intentions, which confirms the “dumb motherfucker” moniker.

    peace.

  228. on 15 May 2013 at 11:29 am 228.A said …

    Castbound,

    We see the archetypal DPK, Butterfly and alex in action. The question is why should one become an atheist?

    DPK counters with so you can discern the truth. He now recognizes a terrible error…..again because now he must fabricate what the truth is in his world. There is none obviously.

    His response, ask a bunch of counter questions to quickly alter the subject. Then moan that nobody will answer his flurry of questions and then resort to more diversion techniques by branding all theists as puppets. It is so banal I can predict it without examining his posts.

    It’s cute how he believes in Santa:). Another diversion from the house clown.

  229. on 15 May 2013 at 11:34 am 229.A said …

    “You will discover that there is no life after death, biology will make sense to you, physics will make sense to you”

    A great statement Butterfly. You have much more courage than DPK.

    1. Prove there is no life after death. Naturally, use unbreakable proofs.

    2. Biology already makes sense with God. It doesn’t make sense without God.

    3. Physics? What? I have a son majoring in Physics at UNC. I want to share this. Please tell me how Physics doesn’t make sense with God?

  230. on 15 May 2013 at 11:40 am 230.Fluttershy said …

    Prove there is no life after death?
    simple, death means the end of life, therefore life cannot happen after death.
    otherwise it is a paradox.

    ‘Biology already makes sense with God. It doesn’t make sense without God.’

    Im calling bullshat.

    ‘Physics? What? I have a son majoring in Physics at UNC. I want to share this. Please tell me how Physics doesn’t make sense with God?’

    Water into wine, creation of everything via magic. i honestly dont want to read more of the bible to find more.

    ‘Butterfly’

    sigh, its fluttershy, is this word really that hard for you to comprehend?
    although, im talking to a man of the religion that hates bronies, but whatever.

  231. on 15 May 2013 at 12:01 pm 231.alex said …

    “1. Prove there is no life after death. Naturally, use unbreakable proofs.”

    moron. life after death is bullshit. god is bullshit. santa is bullshit. quit turning shit around. the onus is on the bullshit perp, you ass.

    same shit as the round earth perps until it was proven, then it’s fact. your god is bullshit no matter how much you scream and holla. now go pray in your closet.

  232. on 15 May 2013 at 12:54 pm 232.Anonymous said …

    Sigh… did you guys really think engaging in a conversation with Horatiio when he was posting as “A” and CastBound at the same time would lead to anything but more diversions?

    He needs to first prove that gods exist. The rest is his usual nonsense.

  233. on 15 May 2013 at 1:31 pm 233.Fluttershy said …

    Yeah, but proving him wrong so many times and mentally laughing at him feels soooooooooooooooooo
    good…

  234. on 15 May 2013 at 1:36 pm 234.A said …

    Butterfly,

    1. The death of the physical body does not prove life after death fails to exist. No paradox try again.

    2. Using alexisms for Biology is nit proof. Try again.

    3. Miracles in the Bible does not disprove God.

    Butterfly, what else do you have?

  235. on 15 May 2013 at 1:39 pm 235.A said …

    Butterfly,

    Again, Anony the Mouse has asked you to refrain from speaking to strangers. You really should obey.

  236. on 15 May 2013 at 3:07 pm 236.freddies_dead said …

    233.A said to Fluttershy …

    1. The death of the physical body does not prove life after death fails to exist. No paradox try again.

    You’re going to have to define what you mean by both life and death in this context. It appears that you think the death of the physical body leaves something else to “live on”. Can you explain exactly what this something is, what it’s made of, what it’s behaviour is, how we can detect it’s existence and how we can know that it does indeed “live on” sans the physical body.

    2. Using alexisms for Biology is nit proof. Try again.

    Nit proof? Can you bottle it? You’ll make a fortune.

    But seriously, biology is the study of life and living organisms. If your God isn’t purely imaginary then He would be capable of changing everything about such things on a whim. Bringing dirt to life, enabling snakes to get all chatty, encouraging bears to kill young children for taunting bald men etc… How can you say anything concrete about a living organism if there’s a possibility that God will change that organism part way through your explaination?

    3. Miracles in the Bible does not disprove God.

    Miracles subvert the uniformity that physics relies on to make sense. If the sun could be stopped in the sky at any moment – as it could be if your God weren’t imaginary – then physical laws are no longer useful. You would not be able to use them to predict anything with any real confidence e.g. this water will still be water in 10 minutes time … unless God decides to intervene and piss all over physics and chemistry by turning it into wine for a laugh. Dropping a stone will mean the stone falling to the ground courtesy of gravity … unless God decides to intervene and piss all over physics again etc… etc… etc…

  237. on 15 May 2013 at 3:16 pm 237.DPK said …

    Right on cue, Tweedle dumb in the form of our Asstrophysicist come to divert attention from the fact the Tweedledumber, in the guise of Castaway has been cornered and in a position that he is unable to debate honestly without exposing the utter irrationality of his beliefs.

    “…..again because now he must fabricate what the truth is in his world. There is none obviously.”

    Holy Shitoly.. do you even realize how completely retarded this statement is? Truth is what is, whether you believe it or not. “Truth” exists in ALL our “worlds”… and it is the same truth for everyone. Only a theists could make such an astoundingly stupid statement.

    “His response, ask a bunch of counter questions to quickly alter the subject. Then moan that nobody will answer his flurry of questions…”

    Do you have a reading comprehension problem? (rhetorical question, obviously you do) There was only one question. The fact that you both refuse to answer it honestly speaks volumes. The question was posed in an effort to teach you to think rationally. Castbound asked why he should accept athesim… in other words, why he should reject belief in supernatural gods… what was in it for him. Like a petulant child who insists he can discuss algebra but refuses to learn his basic arithmetic, he flounders in his own ignorance.

    Let’s try again… here is the answer you seek, right in front of you. Why should any rational, mature adult person reject belief in god? What does it “offer then”.
    The same reason that any rational mature adult should reject belief in Santa Claus. There is only one reason. It doesn’t “offer” you anything because it doesn’t need to. Fill in the blank… I really can’t make this any easier for you.
    A rational, mature adult should not believe in Santa Claus (despite the fact that believing in Santa Claus offers a lot of nice benefits) is because the existence of Santa Claus is simply not ____. (hint… 4 letters, starts with a “T” and it exists whether you like it or not.
    Come on “A”… show us you’re not completely intellectually bankrupt. What’s the answer?

    It’s cute how he believes in Santa:). Another diversion from the house clown.

    It’s cute how you pretend I believe in Santa in order to avoid answering the question that will destroy your silly delusion. It is very telling that you clowns avoid this simple question like the plague… it really, really terrifies you, doesn’t it.

  238. on 15 May 2013 at 4:46 pm 238.CastBound said …

    Good gosh! I ask one simple question and get s barrage of disinformation. All that can be concluded is

    Fluttershy believes all Biologist and Physicists are atheists. He obviously has little education in this realm.

    DPK has a truth found in atheism but won’t share it. It can’t be very desirable or he would readily share. I can’t see any reason to abandon theism for atheism.

  239. on 15 May 2013 at 5:19 pm 239.DPK said …

    “DPK has a truth found in atheism but won’t share it. It can’t be very desirable or he would readily share. I can’t see any reason to abandon theism for atheism.”

    Why won’t you answer the one simple question that so obviously terrifies you Castaway? Is it because you are afraid you won’t get any presents at xmas?

    Come on now… man up and be intellectually HONEST for just once. It won’t hurt that bad.
    Adults should not believe in Santa Claus because the myth (there’s a solid hint for you) of Santa is not ___.

    That is the truth you seek as to WHY you adults should not believe in magical gods. Because the existence of gods is simply not ___.

    You’re almost there… give it a try.

  240. on 15 May 2013 at 5:24 pm 240.DPK said …

    and notice, readers… the theists will not discuss or debate honestly. They will instead try to be coy, as if coyness will disguise their basic dishonesty.

    Whether you believe in gods or not, you must admit it gives one pause to think about the validity of one’s claims when they continuously refuse to discuss them in an adult manner, and instead rely entirely on schoolyard tactics not even worthy of kindergarteners.

  241. on 15 May 2013 at 5:29 pm 241.CastBound said …

    Anyone here have any idea why DPK is so obsesses with Santa?
    Is Santa connected to atheism? I don’t see a connection to Santa and why we should embrace atheism.

    Its OK to say there is no reason to switch to atheism.

  242. on 15 May 2013 at 6:00 pm 242.DPK said …

    See what I mean?
    Yes, Castoff, there is a similarity between Santa and God, and it is the reason that any adult with a rational brain should be atheistic, or at least skeptical.
    You’re sooo clever though! Being coy and playing dumb so people won’t see you are cornered in your delusion like a rat.
    There is only one reason to be atheist. It’s not because it offers you a better “deal” than Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Zeusism, Scientology, Mormonism, Ra-ism, or any other set of beliefs you might try on for size.
    Put on your big boy pants and try again… here’s another hint, you aren’t buying a car, so the reality doesn’t come down to who is making the best offer. It’s something else… (wink wink).
    I know, thinking is HARD… but you can do it… baby steps.
    Won’t any other theists step in to help poor castbound? He’s really struggling with this one people. It seems your fellow theists have hung you out to dry alone on this one…. I’ll try and make it easier for you, but you have to do the work lad. No pain, no gain:

    “Adults should not believe in Santa Claus because the myth (there’s a solid hint for you) of Santa is not t___.”

  243. on 15 May 2013 at 6:02 pm 243.A said …

    DIP is intellectually challenged and thus his Santa obsession. He actually believes he is showing intellect…lol!!!!!

    He tells you why not to be a Santa believer but not why to be atheist. Atheist like Santa, they bring him up a lot.

    Hey DIP, what would you tell a Buddhist is a reason to be atheist? Lol!!!!

  244. on 15 May 2013 at 6:10 pm 244.DPK said …

    “Hey DIP, what would you tell a Buddhist is a reason to be atheist? Lol!!!!”

    Well, I wouldn’t have to tell a Buddhist why he should be atheistic because he already knows. Just like I wouldn’t have to tell any rational adult a reason that he shouldn’t believe in Santa, would I?

    Why shouldn’t I believe in Santa Claus “A”? You seem to have a reason, but are decidedly reluctant to share it.

    Ok, I give. Santa seems to really, really upset you guys. Let’s try something else and see of you can get it. It’s really remarkable how dense you 2 are. You’d almost think you were the same person…. hahaha
    “Adults shouldn’t believe in the mighty god Zeus, because the myth of Zeus is not t___!

    It’s really not that hard “A”… maybe ask your mother to help you?

  245. on 15 May 2013 at 8:20 pm 245.CastBound said …

    DPK attempts to claim is not a car deal when in reality this does parallel a sales transaction. When I go to purchase a new vehicle the salesman will present truths about the vehicle he would like me to purchase. I will accept or reject those truths.

    If all he can offer me is why the dealer across the street sucks, then he really has nothing to offer. How snout it DPK, you once claimed you had truth on your side. Are you just a decietful salesmen wearing a Santa suit? Your posts seem more desperate. The facts would say yes.

  246. on 15 May 2013 at 8:39 pm 246.DPK said …

    You miss the point as usual Castaway. You really aren’t very bright in either of your persona. You don’t get to “decide” what “truth” is. Truth is true whether you accept it or not. Just because your faith in your make believe god promises you a better deal than you think you get from the atheist dealer across the street, doesn’t make it true… anymore than believing that Santa is real will get you a ride in the magical sleigh or presents under the tree.
    Dimwit.

    Now, if you actually have some EVIDENCE that your belief in your magical god is in fact TRUE… well, that would be a game changer… got any?
    Didn’t think so.

  247. on 15 May 2013 at 9:05 pm 247.alex said …

    i’m 100% wrong about everything I believe in. guess what? your god is still bullshit. case closed.

  248. on 15 May 2013 at 9:17 pm 248.DPK said …

    243.A said …

    “He tells you why not to be a Santa believer but not why to be atheist. Atheist like Santa, they bring him up a lot.”

    Actually I haven’t told you why you should not believe in Santa… and the reason you should not believe in Santa is the same reason you should not believe in gods. Answer the question, and you will have your answer… but you have to do the work. WHY should we not believe in Santa?
    According to Castaway, we should… because he is offering the better deal. That’s what you both keep asking… “what does not believing in god offer me?”

    Theists are very afraid of Santa… they avoid the subject frantically… just as you see them doing here.

    Let’s try again… maybe someone else with a higher mental capacity will chime in:
    “Rational adults do not believe in Santa Claus (or Zeus, or any other mythical creature of your choice) because _____________________. (You seem to have a problem with what the meaning of the word “truth” is, so we’ll change the format and you can phrase it any way you want.

    Simple concept…. isn’t it funny that they absolutely refuse to answer it or even discuss the concept in a mature manner. Instead we get snide coyness and schoolyard taunts. Very telling.

  249. on 16 May 2013 at 1:43 am 249.CastBound said …

    “You don’t get to “decide” what “truth” is. Truth is true whether you accept it or not.”

    I apologize DPK. I failed to explicate the paradigm to you. Let me do that for you now. One salesman characterizes Christianity explaining what they believe and the truth structure of their worldview. They offer archeological, textural and apologetic support for their view. We scrutinize and make a call on the data.

    The other salesman represents you, the atheist who offers “they suck” as their selling point with Santa sprinkled throughout your posts. Of course I don’t get to make up truth. I would never be so supercilious. I do get to make the call on what I believe the ultimate truth to be and you have not offered anything of essence. You did say earlier you had truth on your side but you persist on hiding it for inspection. I can only suppose you are mortified by it.

  250. on 16 May 2013 at 2:02 am 250.Anonymous said …

    That Castaway/Assman/Burebista/sock-du-jour makes true/false and right/wrong decisions based on how well someone sells him on personal gains, really goes a long way to explaining why he so resistant to reason.

    That reality and evidence don’t figure at all in his choices no doubt has much to do with why he is so desperate to avoid actually answering any questions or, indeed, providing proof or evidence to back up his choice regarding his self-centered beliefs.

    I had no idea Christians were so shallow.

  251. on 16 May 2013 at 2:45 am 251.Martin said …

    We can again sum up the fallacious nature of the logic provided by DPK.

    1. Zeus was a God
    2. Zeus is a mythical figure
    3. Jehovah is a God
    4. Jehovah must also be a mythical figure

  252. on 16 May 2013 at 2:52 am 252.Fluttershy said …

    That logic makes more sense than.

    1 Magic
    2 Hur
    3 God exists…

  253. on 16 May 2013 at 4:50 am 253.alex said …

    “We can again sum up the fallacious nature of the logic provided by DPK.”

    to sum up the idiotic theist: they believe in a bullshit god. instead of trying to prove their god, they go around pointing out useless shit and in their mind, this certifies their god.

    this is old, but i’ll keep repeating it as long as you assholes insist on pissing on this blog with your nonsense.

  254. on 16 May 2013 at 5:19 am 254.Fluttershy said …

    ‘The other salesman represents you, the atheist who offers “they suck” as their selling point.’

    Dont make statements that are untrue please…

  255. on 16 May 2013 at 11:17 am 255.Fluttershy said …

    9_6 <– (derp eyes)

    I still ponder why a single theist cannot spell my name, maybe they failed english class? IDK…

  256. on 16 May 2013 at 12:13 pm 256.DPK said …

    “We can again sum up the fallacious nature of the logic provided by DPK.
    1. Zeus was a God
    2. Zeus is a mythical figure
    3. Jehovah is a God
    4. Jehovah must also be a mythical figure”

    Your not very good at constructing believable straw men, are you, Martin.
    Unless you want to be once again documented as a liar, show me where I said this.

    I don’t know if you are deliberately deceitful, or too stupid to get the actual point, but your habit of constructing false arguments to rail against is very tiresome.

  257. on 16 May 2013 at 12:32 pm 257.Fluttershy said …

    There is one thing that i want to say…
    If we go by the bible.
    God kills innocents, saves random people without meaning, is genocidal, hates many groups of people to the point of death, and discriminates against poor people via not feeding them.

    Lets for the sake of argument say that he exists, I STILL WOULDN’T WORSHIP THE BASTARD, any one with the tiniest bit of humanity or empathy should see the horrific things he apparently has done and would throw up if told they must worship this disgusting excuse of a god.
    Any of the hindu gods seem far more suited and are rather full of peace, they still dont exist, but who cares.
    Ghandi the great and powerful indian guy made more peace in his lifetime that your god in 10 thousand years, hitler, stalin and every other bastard on earth combined would not have killed the level of humans and animals in comparison to god.
    Im tired so ill be responding tomorrow…

  258. on 16 May 2013 at 12:46 pm 258.Anonymous said …

    This is Martin’s logic:

    1) The conversation is going badly for us believers and we are looking quite silly.
    2) We must change the subject to “what’s in it for us”.
    3) The conversation is now going even worse for believers and we are looking extremely silly.
    4) We must change the subject again.

  259. on 16 May 2013 at 2:20 pm 259.Anonymous said …

    1. Zeus was a God
    2. Zeus is a mythical figure
    3. Jehovah is a God
    4. Jehovah must also be a mythical figure

    5. Allah is someone’s god
    6. Allah is a myth
    7. Ra is someone’s god
    8. Ra is a myth
    9……
    10…..


    Etc, etc

    Keep the list going. You don’t believe mostly all of these myths.

  260. on 16 May 2013 at 4:18 pm 260.CastBound said …

    DPK

    Let us simplify. Focus on your post in #197. You stated by becoming atheist I would get the truth. I am very interested in the truth. For the nth time, what is that truth?

  261. on 16 May 2013 at 5:12 pm 261.DPK said …

    That truth is that all the evidence would suggest that your god is imaginary, just like every other god postulated throughout human history, and just like Santa.

    Now if you have any actual proof that your god actually exists and is all the things that you claim about his nature and what he wants, are true, then you are right, you shouldn’t be atheistic. But if you are in possession of such evidence or proof, we would love to see it.

  262. on 16 May 2013 at 8:51 pm 262.CastBound said …

    You show a lack of understanding from the start. The truth is the evidence has suggested? Evidence does not suggest anything. What men do is make an interpretation of the evidence just as I suggested earlier.

    Could you tell me why I should accept your interpretation over a Christians?

  263. on 16 May 2013 at 10:38 pm 263.alex said …

    “Could you tell me why I should accept your interpretation over a Christians?”

    motherfucker, because the earth was not created in a bullshit week. because there’s better explanation for fossils that your bullshit apologetics. because even though there’s no evidence for life after death, it doesn’t mean it is so. weapons of mass destruction? nuff said, so fuck off.

  264. on 16 May 2013 at 11:48 pm 264.the messenger said …

    263.alex, fossils do not disprove GOD.

    How do you know whether or not the world was made in 6 days?

    I have shown you proof of heaven.

  265. on 17 May 2013 at 12:01 am 265.alex said …

    begone messenger. take castmotherfucker with you. tell s0l to leave the sheep alone.

  266. on 17 May 2013 at 1:11 am 266.A said …

    Another flashback huh alex? I bet you hear the sound of bacon 24/7. LOL!!

  267. on 17 May 2013 at 1:21 am 267.Anonymous said …

    You show a lack of understanding from the start. The truth is the evidence has suggested? Evidence does not suggest anything. What men do is make an interpretation of the evidence just as I suggested earlier.

    Could you tell me why I should accept your interpretation over a Christians?

    The red flag here is your insistence on the word interpretation and labeling it as “Christian”. That’s a huge giveaway that you are operating from a position of confirmation bias. You have a predetermined conclusion in mind and you are looking to interpret data to fit what you want to believe. Operating like that, it’s no wonder you cannot see any answer other than the one you need to hear. But no matter, let’s try to get past that roadblock.

    You claim to have evidence. That’s great. To get your answers you must first list this evidence and you can’t go changing your claim once it is examined. So, step one: list your evidence

    To set a baseline for comparison, you then need to explain the “Christian interpretation” in enough detail for a comparison to be made. Otherwise you are just throwing around vague and meaningless terms and blowing smoke. So, step two: provide the Christian “interpretation”.

    Now we need to understand the basis for your claim. You need to explain and justify why you claim why you do. So, step three: Demonstrate how your claim in (2) supports the existence of a specific and particular god (if that’s your claim, of course).

    When you’ve done that, then your question would make more sense. You say you have evidence, this is great; now you have to follow up on that claim.

  268. on 17 May 2013 at 1:41 am 268.A said …

    Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding.

    Sorry but had to initiate the BS alarm on Anony the Mouse. He has not been a part of the tête-à-tête but as is typical he must commence a diversion with one of my puppets so he must be neutralized. Job is now done. Let us recap:

    Who made the first claim they had truth? DIP
    Who has failed to produce this truth? DIP

    Once we see this truth and the supporting evidence he has acquired we then can put it through the appropriate process to determine the legitimacy of his interpretation.

    DPK, you are up my boy!

    Now I am sure your interpretation will not be influence by atheism. Anony The Mouse is quite concerned about bias here! LOL!!!!!!!!

  269. on 17 May 2013 at 2:49 am 269.DPK said …

    Could you tell me why I should accept your interpretation over a Christians?

    Aparantly not, because you are not interested in finding truth, you are looking for reasons to deny it.

    Can you tell me why I should not believe in Santa? Can you prove he does not exist? Well, I cannot prove your god does not exist. I cannot prove ANY postulated god does not exist. But, to me, as a rational human being, the complete lack of evidence that any exist, coupled with the fact that every other postulated god throughout history did not exist, coupled with the fact that the properties attributed to god do not fit with reality, coupled with the fact that none of the claims made about the nature of gods can be reconciled with actual observable evidence, cause me to conclude that the most likely (by far) explanation is that your god is imaginary, just like every god before him.

    Now, nice try at reversing the burden of proof. If you have evidence that your god exists, present it. Otherwise admit you have nothing but your wishful thinking.

  270. on 17 May 2013 at 7:23 am 270.Fluttershy said …

    *sigh*
    im expecting some diversion, sock puppet, assumption, statement, lack of evidence to be posted…
    But lets see if anything can be gained from your request DPK, i hope we get something…

  271. on 17 May 2013 at 12:10 pm 271.CastBound said …

    DPK I did not ask you about any God. I asked what is the truth. This was the truth that would give me reason to become atheist. I have never asked or spoke of any Gods. Next, who will be qualified to interpret the evidence?

    Fluttershy rather than sighing you might explain how Biology and Physics become clearer as an atheist when most of the greatest discoveries have been from theists. You still never replied to that response.

  272. on 17 May 2013 at 12:39 pm 272.Anonymous said …

    OK, so that Horatiio posts as “A” and CastBound shows that he doesn’t have the integrity, honesty, or intellectual capacity to take part in this conversation without being a lying, dishonest, scumbag. Actually we knew that.

    He got totally owned just now so no wonder he’s squealing like a little pig. But then you get owned, how often, 3-4 times a week?

    When he uses the word “evidence” he means “making shit up”. Of course, if he actually had evidence he’d present it. He never does because he doesn’t have it. That’s why its faith and that’s why clinging to beliefs is so important to him.

    He keeps trying to reverse the burden of proof and this latest revelation when he shows that his most important reason for his faith is “what’s in it for me”, well, that shows that his need is that of emotional two-year-old. But we knew that too.

    Once again, sunshine, let’s see you produce your evidence. Tell us the Xtian “interpretation”. I love, just love, how Horatiio screwed himself by admitting that he deliberately looks for ways to confirm what he needs to believe. Then show us how you get that to confirm the existence of your story book friend.

    Cue diversions, insults, schoolyard taunts, reversal of the burden of proof, “Martin”, “Burebista”, massive amounts of Horatiio’s projection and gaslighting.

    He’ll do anything to avoid presenting the evidence he claims he has but no Christian has ever produced.

    Basically, Horatiio will now respond with everything he has that shows what a despicable, disgusting and desperate person he is.

  273. on 17 May 2013 at 1:12 pm 273.A said …

    Anonymous was me as well.

  274. on 17 May 2013 at 2:57 pm 274.DPK said …

    271.CastBound said …
    “DPK I did not ask you about any God. I asked what is the truth. This was the truth that would give me reason to become atheist. I have never asked or spoke of any Gods.”

    Really? That’s the game you want to play now? That’s kind of desperate. hahahah. So, you want me to present to you a list of everything that I know to be true? That could take a long time and seems pointless, particularly since you asked for truth related to atheism, which is disbelief in gods.

    So, what I think you want is a list of truths presented by a disbelief in supernatural gods that don’t have anything to do with supernatural gods? Sorry, that’s kind of retarded. But, nice try. There is only one reason to “become” atheistic. It is when you realize the truth that the god (sorry, I know you don’t want to discuss gods, but it’s kinda part of the deal here) you imagine to exist, isn’t real.

    There, I answered your questions… are you ever going to answer any of mine? Ever? Or are you just going to continue to play your coy little 3rd grade schoolyard games? Why should I not believe in Santa, Castaway? Why can;t you give me even ONE good reason as to why I shouldn’t believe in him?
    You really got nothing? No idea at all huh?
    How sad.
    Oh well… time to change your socks… this one has gotten shit all over it. hahahaha

  275. on 17 May 2013 at 3:40 pm 275.CastBound said …

    DPK,

    I’m desperate? Why?, I asked why I should become atheist and have been hoping for a little insight.

    You claim to be rationale in your earlier post. This is obviously based on your opinion so we begin with an unqualified.

    You claim evidence does not point to God but have not shared what evidence you have examined. Did you examine biological evidence? forensic evidence? Was it evidence with potential to reveal the possibility of God? What? I would like to know what evidence you examined and then your qualifications for interpreting the evidence. In order to claim a truth, you must have examined the possibility.

    Your rationality comes into question with Santa and his existence which has no impact on your claims. It is a diversion and the verdict provides you no ground. Satellite images of the North Pole might help. Consider a trip to the North Pole and begin an expedition if you feel a cover up might be in effect. I hope this does not hurt but I can personally attest my father put the presents under my tree.

  276. on 17 May 2013 at 3:42 pm 276.Fluttershy said …

    ‘Fluttershy rather than sighing you might explain how Biology and Physics become clearer as an atheist when most of the greatest discoveries have been from theists. You still never replied to that response.’

    O_o?
    I was asked this question?, i didn’t see it…
    Anyway, being honorable i guess i have to answer this, not like you will accept it as valid…

    Ahem, first off, you need to post some “evidence” if you want to make a statement such as “most of the greatest discoveries have been from theists.”.
    Anyway, biology and physics become clearer due to the fact that god throws all of it out the window and replaces it with a hearty dose of magic.
    Anyone who has seen a cell, read about DNA, and some basic chemistry with know that life cannot happen after death, its an absolute rule of organisms.
    Physics becomes clearer in the same manner, anyone who has read the periodic table, or knows about the balance of electrons, protons and neutrons will know that water to wine and walking on water is nonsense and is invalid, and thus disproving the bible, god and christianity as a whole.

    I please beg of you not to write some completely stupid post after this…
    I honestly hate answering your stupid questions that an educated person should already know the answers to…

  277. on 17 May 2013 at 4:03 pm 277.DPK said …

    275.CastBound said …
    DPK,
    “I’m desperate”
    Yes, we noticed. Asking for the what truth is found in atheism while not discussing god is rather desperate and pathetic.

    “Why?”
    I can answer that one. Because you come here asking others to accept your belief in some fantastic magical god with absolutely no evidence to suggest that such a being exists, and then demand that other prove you wrong.

    “I asked why I should become atheist and have been hoping for a little insight.”

    No you haven’t… another lie. You have been playing coy and childish games in an effort to attempt to reverse the burden of proof and try to make it seem that your god is real by default.

    Again, here is the reason that any rational adult should be atheistic… because you have not provided even a shred of evidence that your god exists. Period. Just like I really don’t need to provide satellite images of the North Pole to prove that Santa doesn’t exist. I am confounded as to why this is so difficult for you, and why you have to resort to word games and lies to try and validate your claim. Just present your evidence for god if you have it. Got any satellite image of heaven?

  278. on 17 May 2013 at 5:54 pm 278.CastBound said …

    DPK,

    Just as I had recognized. You have no truth to offer other than “the other guy sucks”. You have done no investigation and no examination of evidence. Another dead end. You are not rationale you are just emotional.

    Fluttershy the fact you are unaware of the great discoveries in Biology and Physics leads me to believe you are only a High school student at best. Somehow you mention physics with periodic tables and wine and wallah! that equals no God.

    I have nothing to prove since the discoveries are public record. I will give you one. Look up the father of the human genome. Again, you are unable to defend your position either.

    Enough time wasted. Unless you can tell me why I should convert please do not respond.

  279. on 17 May 2013 at 6:30 pm 279.A said …

    Butterfly,

    To be a simple question you sure did blow it! Again, how does atheism increase our understanding of biology and physics? Maybe explain the whole cell and life popping out of the lifeless primordial soup thing. This should be good!

  280. on 17 May 2013 at 8:06 pm 280.DPK said …

    Castbound,
    As I suspected, you have no evidence to suggest that your imaginary god actually exists. You ask us to accept this wild story of creating humans from dirt, talking snakes, walking on water, and to accept your god’s commandments regarding killing transgressors of his laws, like working on the sabbath and other silly things, with absolutely no good reason. You also fail to explain to us why YOUR god legend holds any more validity than the countless thousands of other god legends held currently, and also throughout history.
    As suspected, you have nothing of substance to offer us. We might as well believe in Santa Claus and Unicorns, as they are every bit as likely to be true as your Jesus fairy tale.
    No need to respond unless you actually have something in the way of actual evidence or proof to support your claim. You have once again been outed as a fraud and a liar, and an intellectually dishonest and deceitful person. If god were real, and you were an example of what he looks for in a faithful believer, I would turn away and face the fires of hell rather than become a disingenuous slime ball as you.

  281. on 17 May 2013 at 9:45 pm 281.alex said …

    “Again, how does atheism increase our understanding of biology and physics?”

    it’s a wild goose chase, yet again, asked by the idiot theist. what’s next? how does atheism explain why the buttered toast doesn’t land on the edge? wtf? atheists don’t believe in your bullshit god! period. all this other shit is just that. unless you got god proof, your god is bullshit. go home, asshole.

    “Unless you can tell me why I should convert please do not respond.”

    because your bullshit god has no proof, but you’re too dumb to realize it. so don’t convert, motherfucker. just wallow in your ignorant shit. just don’t fling it around here, idiot.

  282. on 17 May 2013 at 10:02 pm 282.Anonymous said …

    CB asked us to:

    Look up the father of the human genome.

    So, I entered “father of the human genome” into Google. First hit was a page for James Watson. James had religious opinions – like

    “Raised Catholic, he later described himself as “an escapee from the Catholic religion.” Watson said, “The luckiest thing that ever happened to me was that my father didn’t believe in God.”

    CB, what was it that you are trying to say?

  283. on 17 May 2013 at 11:31 pm 283.40 Year Atheist said …

    Evidence is the mantra of Atheists: “We must have evidence in order to believe a thing” (Bertrand Russell); and, “Proof! Proof! We must have proof!” (Thomas Edison). But never is there a discussion of how to determine what constitutes valid evidence, nor how evidence is to be gathered, judged and internalized.

    In fact, Atheism is based on the repressive philosophical stance of total materialism, in a single, physical reality, a self-refuting position that is required for support. And Philosophical Materialism attempts to co-opt empirical science as its foundational principle, falsely implying that the voluntary materialism of empirical science translates to total materialism and a single, physical reality – a proposition easily refuted, and one never proposed by science.

    When Atheists demand evidence, they mean physical evidence. If non-physical entities are claimed, Atheists demand physical evidence as proof. This is consistent with their repression of reality into a single, physical reality, and their misapprehension of the principles of science.

    But this post is not about the characteristics of evidence.

    This is about the other side of evidence, the evaluation of it. When we think of evidence, first of all we decide who or what to trust. Evidence must be trustworthy if it is to be held as credible. So now we will consider not “what can be trusted”, but ”how do we trust?”

    Then what is “trust”? If we are to trust a piece of evidence or a source of evidence, we have to go through our discernment process.

    Then what is “discernment”? Discernment[1] is an internal human faculty that first allows discrimination between data inputs and then allows judgment to be made on these discriminated inputs. These data inputs are restricted to sensory inputs only if the dogmatic worldview is Philosophical Materialism. But there is no rational reason to lock out non-sensory input from the discernment process.

    If evidence is sensory, then all the questions surrounding the quality and reality of the sensory inputs come into play. These have been discussed in detail before, including the errors that are possible; the techniques, including the scientific method, for minimizing the potential errors; the problems of dogma and ego which sacrifice accuracy for agenda.

    But there is another source which is non-sensory. It is intuitive, intellectual.

    If the evidence is intellectual (non-sensory) then new questions arise. For example, how can these purely intellectual understandings be tested physically? How do they interact with the material world? How can I know if they are valid?

    I can document my contact with the First Principles and my comprehension of the nature of those principles. But I cannot supply physical evidence for impartial testing. I can do the same with logic. I can do the same with math, especially higher math. [2] Nor can I share my actual experience of comprehension – the moment of understanding; I can relate that experience as an historical anecdote, but the personal nature of apprehending and comprehending – say math or logic, for example – means that it is up to each individual to capture the experience for himself. This is entirely different from physically existential experiences, which can be shared simultaneously, although viewed from separate personal viewpoints.

    None of these entities, First Principles, logic, math, were discovered by examining the physical world. They were discovered by examining the non-physical, intellectual region of existence – a reality that is non-material.

    How to deny this reality? Is there a rational way to deny this non-material reality without denying the source of rationality itself which is non-material? The only philosophers to deny non-material reality and its contents are those who devolved into Anti-Rational philosophies.

    Even evolutionists and scientism-ists agree that logic exists, math exists. But then they must develop new denials, such as Dennett’s idea that consciousness is only an illusion, or Minsky’s idea that the mind is merely a meat machine, and that free agency doesn’t exist – all attempts to kill the idea of dual realities. And all without a hint or jot of material evidence to support them.

    So on what rational basis can the non-physical intellectual region of reality be denied? Here is their problem: Because that position involves denial of the reality space that contains rationality, no denial of the existence of non-physical reality can be rational.

    Now an impertinent question: What is it that has NEVER BEEN WRONG? The laws of physics crumble in black holes. The laws of biology haven’t even been completely written yet, and the ones that have been are contradictory.[3] Clearly only the non-physical reality entities – the First Principles, logic, math – are universal, correct throughout space and time, have always been and always will be (in this universe) valid. And again they are understood to be so without the possibility of materialist, empirical testing.

    To repeat a prior theme, if you don’t value Truth, then what is it that you value? In order to value a thing, that thing must be worth defending and defended: in this case defending the existence of non-material reality and the value of its entities is essential to rationality and a rational worldview. It is the use of these non-material entities that determines the true value of evidence, including both material and non-material evidence.

  284. on 17 May 2013 at 11:46 pm 284.DPK said …

    283.40 Year Atheist said …

    Cut and paste drivel from his website that nobody in their right mind would actually read because it is nothing more than verbal diarrhea.

    Really, “defending the existence of non-material reality”?

    Pass the acid man………

  285. on 18 May 2013 at 12:51 am 285.s0l0m0n said …

    But why does atheists does’nt accept the evidence that everything except god have to be created by somebody.

  286. on 18 May 2013 at 1:34 am 286.Anonymous said …

    40YA:

    In fact, Atheism is based on the repressive philosophical stance of total materialism…..(+ more blah, blah, blah)

    In fact, atheism is the rejection of faith in a deity.

    40YA, Are you ok? Maybe 40 hits of acid is way too much acid, man. But the colours you see, sounds you hear, and dreams you dream must be amazing!

  287. on 18 May 2013 at 2:02 am 287.alex said …

    dipshit 40 Year Atheist said:

    atheism this and atheists that. wrong again as usual. it’ll never stick, you idiot. there ain’t no atheist bullshit bible, no atheist bullshit code of conduct, no atheist bullshit secret handshake, no atheist bullshit communion, no atheist bullshit high-priest, no bullshit atheist political party, or any other bullshit you keep trying to make up. if you find that shit anywhere, it’s bullshit and most atheists will tell you that. exactly like an atheist who believes in god.

    your god is bullshit, made believe and you can’t do anything about it, so you resort to your fucked up cut/paste m.o., desperately trying to be relevant. go fuck yourself.

  288. on 18 May 2013 at 2:03 am 288.Fluttershy said …

    Holy cheesus…
    I answered their question well and truly and they dismissed it like i lied…
    At least now i understand what you guys are talking about…
    Ehh i will still answer their idiotic questions though…

  289. on 18 May 2013 at 2:09 am 289.Anonymous said …

    Perhaps Castbound was referring to the “co-father of the human genome”, Francis Crick. He, too, had opinions on religion, such as:

    Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children.

    And if some of the Bible is manifestly wrong, why should any of the rest of it be accepted automatically? … And what would be more important than to find our true place in the universe by removing one by one these unfortunate vestiges of earlier beliefs?

    What is your point Castbound? YOU brought it up.

  290. on 18 May 2013 at 2:16 am 290.DPK said …

    He was hoping you’d find Francis Collins, who saw a frozen waterfall and decided god must have made it…. Ok….
    Funny that Sir Francis, while supposedly being a Christian, has never published a scientific paper for review that included, “and then god steps in and miraculously… ” as any portion of it.
    What does that tell you?

  291. on 18 May 2013 at 2:44 am 291.Anonymous said …

    Francis Collins does not have any issues with The Theory of Evolution. He is wise enough to NOT attach a god to abiogenesis. His approach, wisely, is “wait and see”.

    The idiot/clown theists posting here (“A”, Castbound, Horatio, etc) will always argue with god-of-the-gaps approach. Lowest common denominator with them is “abiogenesis”. Can’t prove it so goddidit. Mr Collins methods, however, favour a rational, scientific approach.

    There are BIG differences between the gods of the scientists and the gawds of the prancing theist gits posting here.

  292. on 18 May 2013 at 3:22 am 292.Xenon said …

    40YA

    Enjoyed your post and you make some excellent points. We should all value truth but unfortunately too many are ideologues. That is apparent for some who call themselves scientist too.

  293. on 18 May 2013 at 1:16 pm 293.Anonymous said …

    Xenon,

    What is your take on Castbound’s gaffe? He wanted you to look up “father of the human genome”. A wry sense of humour? Or a failure of epic proportions?

    BTW, what excellent point did 40YA make? Other than implying that there’s an invisible little pink unicorn in his underwear drawer.

  294. on 18 May 2013 at 1:34 pm 294.A said …

    Anony Mouse now drags in ToE for more diversions. What a troll.

    Welcome back 40ya. Hope you hang around. Your posts are worth reading.

  295. on 18 May 2013 at 3:29 pm 295.alex said …

    “Welcome back 40ya. Hope you hang around. Your posts are worth reading.”

    and so the sock parade continues. you think by posting your one liners, you can hide your obvious attempt to fluff thyself?

    fucking xtian assholes.

  296. on 18 May 2013 at 6:14 pm 296.Fluttershy said …

    Hmmm well here comes more stupidity filled theist posts…
    But i guess im going to type something on topic now…

    Why would god save a few people yet kill a large number of other people?
    Or for that matter, why are these “miracles” so obviously based on luck? (chance, probability, whatever you want to call it.)

    I also want to know one off topic thing, do you believe that emotions, the soul, thoughts come from the heart?

  297. on 18 May 2013 at 7:37 pm 297.Lou said …

    “clearly only the non-physical reality entities – the First Principles, logic, math – are universal, correct throughout space and time, have always been and always will be (in this universe) valid. And again they are understood to be so without the possibility of materialist, empirical testing.”

    40 Year using the standard of proof in the Atheist community, not only are these entities not always true they don’t exist.

    First principles, logic, math evidently were created from the big bang along with a designed creation, life and of course mankind. It is incredible what chance and happenstance can accomplish.

  298. on 18 May 2013 at 8:57 pm 298.DPK said …

    “the First Principles, logic, math – are universal, correct throughout space and time, have always been and always will be (in this universe) valid.”

    And yet, this would not, and could not be so in a world where a magical god routinely interceded in the physical world causing miraculous events, negating the physical laws of the universe at will, and responding to prayers.

  299. on 18 May 2013 at 9:53 pm 299.Anonymous said …

    “A”:

    Maybe explain the whole cell and life popping out of the lifeless primordial soup thing.

    Lou:

    First principles, logic, math evidently were created from the big bang along with a designed creation, life and of course mankind.

    When in doubt, play the “we don’t understand how life began” card. Ah, the life of the prancing theist gits and their explanations for gauwd.

    From Francis Collins website, however (Note to Castbound: Is this the “genome father” you were referring to?):

    “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.”

    “Although the origin of life is certainly a genuine scientific mystery, this is not the place for thoughtful people to wager their faith.”

    Anyone else see a difference between a god and gauwd?

  300. on 18 May 2013 at 10:59 pm 300.A said …

    LoL!!!!!!!

    Anony Mouse thinks because we recognize design in creation this is where we wager Faith!!!

    Mouse, you are great for laughs. No my boy what we recognize is common sense. God could of used an unknown process. Sorta like my GTO sitting out in the garage was designed although I weren’t there? My faith is used in much more complex matters such as you getting a clue. lol!!!!

    I think gawd is how children spell in K. There is your difference. You are now my new DFW.

  301. on 18 May 2013 at 11:33 pm 301.alex said …

    “No my boy what we recognize is common sense.”

    “no, my bitch”, is what you fantasize how your god would talk to you. is this why you talk in your self righteous way?

    “I think gawd is how children spell in K.”

    so, if you spell it correctly, it means it exist? you can’t spell your name, but “A”, means you’re non-gratis?

    “You are now my new DFW.”

    you’re lumped in with the rest of the theist assholes, who worship the god of foreskins. what does that make you?

  302. on 19 May 2013 at 1:37 am 302.Anonymous said …

    “A”

    Anony Mouse thinks because we recognize design in creation this is where we wager Faith!!!

    *Sigh* As usual, you are wrong again…No surprise. So predictable. When it comes to the wagering, it would be your poster boy for xtian scientists, Mr Collins, who wants you and the other prancing theist gits to employ some of your (nearly non-existant) grey matter.

    God could of used an unknown process. Sorta like my GTO sitting out in the garage was designed although I weren’t there?

    So that’s what it comes down to, isn’t it? “Could of” and “unknown”. There is your faith in action. LOL!!! Love the analogy with the GTO. Sounds like you really understand how gauwd works.

    Mr Collins god might work in a different way than your gauwd. LOL!!!

  303. on 19 May 2013 at 2:27 am 303.Fluttershy said …

    i didnt get any responses earlier, so im going to repost this…

    But i guess im going to type something on topic now…
    Why would god save a few people yet kill a large number of other people?
    Or for that matter, why are these “miracles” so obviously based on luck? (chance, probability, whatever you want to call it.)
    I also want to know one off topic thing, do you believe that emotions, the soul, thoughts come from the heart?

  304. on 19 May 2013 at 3:50 am 304.michael said …

    god doesnt exist. or maybe he did and he died. or maybe he left. the universe is rather large. maybe he just doesnt give a fuck. either way i know a lot of ‘good christians’ that have cancer and it really confuses the shit outta them.

  305. on 19 May 2013 at 5:54 am 305.Fluttershy said …

    304.michael said … (snip)

    Silly michael, god loves all people and is the complete definition of kind.
    (excluding bronies, atheists, other religions, amputees, cancer victims, natural disaster victims, starving children and amputees)
    Other than that list he loves every one, those people in the list? They can go F themselves because god doesnt like them.
    *sigh*
    This logic is depressing…

  306. on 19 May 2013 at 5:58 am 306.Fluttershy said …

    (ohh, and Gays, certain fetishes and witches)
    Forgot a few…

  307. on 19 May 2013 at 2:53 pm 307.DPK said …

    you forgot catholic children. He loves to stand by and watch as they get raped by pedophile priests. And of course, he loves and protects all the people who didn’t get blown up in the Boston bombing, who weren’t shot to death at Sandy Hook, whose homes weren’t destroyed in whatever tornado, flood, earthquake, tsunami, or whatever the fuck natural disaster was on the menu recently… and all the people who did have their lives decimated by such event?? Well, he loves them too… it’s just part of his mysterious plan that we can’t possibly understand.

  308. on 19 May 2013 at 3:01 pm 308.alex said …

    it’s all part of god’s plan for the idiot theists to come in here and get humiliated for their stupid, illogical and mysterious arguments. it’s also god’s plan not to give a fuck or meddle in the affairs of insignificant men or universal events. hey! sorto like the kind of god that doesn’t exist.

  309. on 19 May 2013 at 3:03 pm 309.Anonymous said …

    …it’s just part of his mysterious plan that we can’t possibly understand.

    Ain’t gauwd great?

    “a”

    I think gawd is how children spell in K.

    or you can use gauwd. Pretty swift….I do believe that you’re catching on.

  310. on 19 May 2013 at 7:18 pm 310.Biff said …

    40ya

    It’s good to see you back posting again. Your comment that some believe consciousness is just illusion I tend to believe for many individuals. How else do you explain a group of people obsessed with arguing about a being that does not exist?

  311. on 19 May 2013 at 8:27 pm 311.alex said …

    “How else do you explain a group of people obsessed with arguing about a being that does not exist?”

    welcome back, asshole. do you see anybody arguing about santa, who doesn’t exist? because santa believers are harmless. unlike dangerous, delusional, egotistical, sexist, mysogynistic, motherfuckers like you. shut the fuck up, already.

  312. on 19 May 2013 at 10:59 pm 312.Anonymous said …

    280.DPK, Jesus is not a fairy tail.

    The term stoning does not mean literal stoning, it is a metaphor for punishment.

    One of the ten commandments states that murder is wrong. Therefore a true follower of GOD would never murder.

  313. on 20 May 2013 at 7:04 am 313.Fluttershy said …

    “40ya
    It’s good to see you back posting again. Your comment that some believe consciousness is just illusion I tend to believe for many individuals. How else do you explain a group of people obsessed with arguing about a being that does not exist?”

    Hmm, i dont understand this odd language, so lemme translate it..

    40ya
    It’s Awful to see you back posting again. Your comment is invalid, consciousness is just electrons going around in your head. How else do you explain a group of people obsessed with arguing about a being that does not exist, exists?
    ;P

  314. on 20 May 2013 at 11:37 am 314.The messenger said …

    230.Fluttershy, I have shown you proof.

  315. on 20 May 2013 at 11:38 am 315.The messenger said …

    280.DPK, Jesus is not a fairy tail.

    The term stoning does not mean literal stoning, it is a metaphor for punishment.

    One of the ten commandments states that murder is wrong. Therefore a true follower of GOD would never murder

  316. on 20 May 2013 at 11:57 am 316.michael said …

    i have a general question for the christians on this thread.

    If you were dealing with an issue you were struggling to resolve, would you rather hear someone tell you:

    ‘i’m sorry youre having problems. i will prayer for you and god will help you’

    or

    ‘i’m sorry youre having problems. I will help you’

    you can only pick one.

    i have gotten the same exact answer everytime i ask this question but i get a feeling that persistence will award me with perspective.

  317. on 20 May 2013 at 1:03 pm 317.Fluttershy said …

    314.michael said …
    (snip)

    Ok, well i’m not a theist, but im going to answer your question anyway ;D
    My answer is…

    None of the above, when i have a problem, i FIX it.
    But to legit answer it, i choose the latter…

  318. on 20 May 2013 at 4:37 pm 318.DPK said …

    316.michael said …

    “i have a general question for the christians on this thread.”

    Along those lines, I love to ask theists, if you were sick and you went to a doctor and he said “You have _____ (fill in the blank; cancer, diabetes, an infectious disease… whatever). My medical advice is to go home and pray real hard and don’t worry about it.., god will fix it for you.” Would you take that advice, or look for another doctor?
    hahaha… wasn’t it Hawkins who said something to the effect that he noticed that even people who believe god is looking out for them look both ways before they cross the street?

  319. on 04 Jun 2013 at 6:31 pm 319.Eclio said …

    I wouldn’t call it insanity….it seems more like a primitive way to reduce the stress of surviving an event that killed others, especially if friends and family were involved.

    Assuming you have them, the emotions of guilt that you have survived where others did not or the fear of it occuring again combined wtih the terror of seeing/hearing others in the aftermath….all of these events can cripple someone from functioning in society.

    Regardless of how silly it is to pretend ones religions is more significant or “real” than the other thousand faiths, a human being surviving a traumatic experience can gain strength by having faith they are special. The problem is, such things do not make the experience go away, so passing it off doesn’t actually work..it’s a short term solution unless you have support.

  320. on 30 Oct 2013 at 5:47 pm 320.ArrogantAthiest said …

    Messenger said: ” most of modern physics is based on unproven theories, and is therefore useless.”

    whoa whoa whoa!

    I have been having a great time reading these comments (many lols were had) but i just had to get on my computer for this.

    You are right that scientific theories can’t literally be “proven” (the scientific mindset does not accept that any one thing or observation can function as a “proof” for any one theory, as the concept of a scientific theory in itself is not designed for that) but that does not in itself mean that science is useless.

    Your observation likely stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the psychology of science in general.

    In the same way that Applied Science (engineering for one) depends on the practicality of a scientific fact in order for any one thing that may be under development to function as intended, so do scientific theories rely on the reliability of a certain model to consistently predict relevant phenomena as found in nature, in order to continualy contribute to the base of “knowledge” in that particular field of science.

    This in turn allows for a deeper “understanding” of the relevant phenomena occuring, meaning they get closer and closer to eventually forming a model (whether it be a computer or purely mathematical) that can and will, if run, accurately predict with a very high percentage of similarity (at least 99 percent)to the natural occurence of said phenomena. Only when a model reaches this level of usability is a model said to be a theory. At that point, a theory can either continue to help scientists/engineers better understand other fields of science/nature, of develop better technology.

    The whole point of this is not “truth” but “practicality in context”.

    I hope you get to see this.

  321. on 30 Oct 2013 at 5:52 pm 321.ArrogantAthiest said …

    also, concerning the whole “therefore those theories are useless”, we use those theories in every aspect of our lives. the theory of relativity is used in GPS’s, which are required to and and usually do have a very high percentage of reliability in doing their job. (of course every once in a while it’ll take you down the wrong road :P but not too often!)

    the theory of evolution is vital to pharmeacutical research (you may say “micro-evolution”. the difference is irrelevant, as biologists say both use the same system and the point is that the system works, nothing more)

    theory of gravity has been vital in assisting engineers in calculating the trajectory of many, many spacecraft in navigating the solar system.

    that they are not proven does not mean they are useless, as the standards for practicality are different than those for “truth”.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply