Feed on Posts or Comments 01 May 2016

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 14 May 2013 at 4:15 am 1.Anonymous said …

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

  2. on 14 May 2013 at 5:08 am 2.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.

  3. on 14 May 2013 at 7:27 am 3.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?

  4. on 14 May 2013 at 11:14 am 4.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.

  5. on 14 May 2013 at 11:18 am 5.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.

  6. on 14 May 2013 at 11:21 am 6.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.

  7. on 14 May 2013 at 11:32 am 7.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].

  8. on 14 May 2013 at 11:41 am 8.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?

  9. on 14 May 2013 at 11:47 am 9.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.

  10. on 14 May 2013 at 11:48 am 10.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.

  11. on 14 May 2013 at 12:01 pm 11.s0l0m0n said …

    Shutterfly,

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

  12. on 14 May 2013 at 12:04 pm 12.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.

  13. on 14 May 2013 at 12:05 pm 13.s0l0m0n said …

    alex,

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

  14. on 14 May 2013 at 12:55 pm 14.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.

  15. on 14 May 2013 at 1:32 pm 15.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?

  16. on 14 May 2013 at 3:30 pm 16.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?”

  17. on 14 May 2013 at 4:53 pm 17.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.

  18. on 14 May 2013 at 6:05 pm 18.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.

  19. on 14 May 2013 at 6:45 pm 19.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.

  20. on 15 May 2013 at 1:12 am 20.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”.

  21. on 15 May 2013 at 2:11 am 21.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.

  22. on 15 May 2013 at 2:15 am 22.CastBound said …

    Sorry for the spelling it is the phone

  23. on 15 May 2013 at 2:20 am 23.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.

  24. on 15 May 2013 at 2:35 am 24.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.

  25. on 15 May 2013 at 4:39 am 25.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?

  26. on 15 May 2013 at 7:13 am 26.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.

  27. on 15 May 2013 at 10:15 am 27.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.

  28. on 15 May 2013 at 11:29 am 28.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.

  29. on 15 May 2013 at 11:34 am 29.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?

  30. on 15 May 2013 at 11:40 am 30.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.

  31. on 15 May 2013 at 12:01 pm 31.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.

  32. on 15 May 2013 at 12:54 pm 32.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.

  33. on 15 May 2013 at 1:31 pm 33.Fluttershy said …

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

  34. on 15 May 2013 at 1:36 pm 34.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?

  35. on 15 May 2013 at 1:39 pm 35.A said …

    Butterfly,

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

  36. on 15 May 2013 at 3:07 pm 36.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…

  37. on 15 May 2013 at 3:16 pm 37.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.

  38. on 15 May 2013 at 4:46 pm 38.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.

  39. on 15 May 2013 at 5:19 pm 39.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.

  40. on 15 May 2013 at 5:24 pm 40.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.

  41. on 15 May 2013 at 5:29 pm 41.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.

  42. on 15 May 2013 at 6:00 pm 42.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___.”

  43. on 15 May 2013 at 6:02 pm 43.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!!!!

  44. on 15 May 2013 at 6:10 pm 44.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?

  45. on 15 May 2013 at 8:20 pm 45.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.

  46. on 15 May 2013 at 8:39 pm 46.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.

  47. on 15 May 2013 at 9:05 pm 47.alex said …

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

  48. on 15 May 2013 at 9:17 pm 48.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.

  49. on 16 May 2013 at 1:43 am 49.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.

  50. on 16 May 2013 at 2:02 am 50.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.

  51. on 16 May 2013 at 2:45 am 51.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

  52. on 16 May 2013 at 2:52 am 52.Fluttershy said …

    That logic makes more sense than.

    1 Magic
    2 Hur
    3 God exists…

  53. on 16 May 2013 at 4:50 am 53.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.

  54. on 16 May 2013 at 5:19 am 54.Fluttershy said …

    ‘The other salesman represents you, the atheist who offers “they suck” as their selling point.’

    Dont make statements that are untrue please…

  55. on 16 May 2013 at 11:17 am 55.Fluttershy said …

    9_6 <– (derp eyes)

    I still ponder why a single theist cannot spell my name, maybe they failed english class? IDK…

  56. on 16 May 2013 at 12:13 pm 56.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.

  57. on 16 May 2013 at 12:32 pm 57.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…

  58. on 16 May 2013 at 12:46 pm 58.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.

  59. on 16 May 2013 at 2:20 pm 59.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.

  60. on 16 May 2013 at 4:18 pm 60.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?

  61. on 16 May 2013 at 5:12 pm 61.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.

  62. on 16 May 2013 at 8:51 pm 62.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?

  63. on 16 May 2013 at 10:38 pm 63.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.

  64. on 16 May 2013 at 11:48 pm 64.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.

  65. on 17 May 2013 at 12:01 am 65.alex said …

    begone messenger. take castmotherfucker with you. tell s0l to leave the sheep alone.

  66. on 17 May 2013 at 1:11 am 66.A said …

    Another flashback huh alex? I bet you hear the sound of bacon 24/7. LOL!!

  67. on 17 May 2013 at 1:21 am 67.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.

  68. on 17 May 2013 at 1:41 am 68.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!!!!!!!!

  69. on 17 May 2013 at 2:49 am 69.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.

  70. on 17 May 2013 at 7:23 am 70.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…

  71. on 17 May 2013 at 12:10 pm 71.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.

  72. on 17 May 2013 at 12:39 pm 72.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.

  73. on 17 May 2013 at 1:12 pm 73.A said …

    Anonymous was me as well.

  74. on 17 May 2013 at 2:57 pm 74.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

  75. on 17 May 2013 at 3:40 pm 75.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.

  76. on 17 May 2013 at 3:42 pm 76.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…

  77. on 17 May 2013 at 4:03 pm 77.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?

  78. on 17 May 2013 at 5:54 pm 78.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.

  79. on 17 May 2013 at 6:30 pm 79.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!

  80. on 17 May 2013 at 8:06 pm 80.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.

  81. on 17 May 2013 at 9:45 pm 81.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.

  82. on 17 May 2013 at 10:02 pm 82.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?

  83. on 17 May 2013 at 11:31 pm 83.40 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.

  84. on 17 May 2013 at 11:46 pm 84.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………

  85. on 18 May 2013 at 12:51 am 85.s0l0m0n said …

    But why does atheists does’nt accept the evidence that everything except god have to be created by somebody.

  86. on 18 May 2013 at 1:34 am 86.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!

  87. on 18 May 2013 at 2:02 am 87.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.

  88. on 18 May 2013 at 2:03 am 88.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…

  89. on 18 May 2013 at 2:09 am 89.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.

  90. on 18 May 2013 at 2:16 am 90.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?

  91. on 18 May 2013 at 2:44 am 91.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.

  92. on 18 May 2013 at 3:22 am 92.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.

  93. on 18 May 2013 at 1:16 pm 93.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.

  94. on 18 May 2013 at 1:34 pm 94.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.

  95. on 18 May 2013 at 3:29 pm 95.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.

  96. on 18 May 2013 at 6:14 pm 96.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?

  97. on 18 May 2013 at 7:37 pm 97.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.

  98. on 18 May 2013 at 8:57 pm 98.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.

  99. on 18 May 2013 at 9:53 pm 99.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?

  100. on 18 May 2013 at 10:59 pm 100.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.

  101. on 18 May 2013 at 11:33 pm 101.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?

  102. on 19 May 2013 at 1:37 am 102.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!!!

  103. on 19 May 2013 at 2:27 am 103.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?

  104. on 19 May 2013 at 3:50 am 104.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.

  105. on 19 May 2013 at 5:54 am 105.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…

  106. on 19 May 2013 at 5:58 am 106.Fluttershy said …

    (ohh, and Gays, certain fetishes and witches)
    Forgot a few…

  107. on 19 May 2013 at 2:53 pm 107.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.

  108. on 19 May 2013 at 3:01 pm 108.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.

  109. on 19 May 2013 at 3:03 pm 109.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.

  110. on 19 May 2013 at 7:18 pm 110.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?

  111. on 19 May 2013 at 8:27 pm 111.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.

  112. on 19 May 2013 at 10:59 pm 112.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.

  113. on 20 May 2013 at 7:04 am 113.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

  114. on 20 May 2013 at 11:37 am 114.The messenger said …

    230.Fluttershy, I have shown you proof.

  115. on 20 May 2013 at 11:38 am 115.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

  116. on 20 May 2013 at 11:57 am 116.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.

  117. on 20 May 2013 at 1:03 pm 117.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…

  118. on 20 May 2013 at 4:37 pm 118.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?

  119. on 04 Jun 2013 at 6:31 pm 119.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.

  120. on 30 Oct 2013 at 5:47 pm 120.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.

  121. on 30 Oct 2013 at 5:52 pm 121.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