Feed on Posts or Comments 02 September 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 19 May 2013 12:18 am

When intelligent people look at religion rationally, religion is clearly insane

There is an image on Reddit this week that can be found here and here. The author is Christopher Pool and it says:

Put a steak on the ground in front of a dog.
Tell the dog not to eat the steak.
If the dog eats it, punish [the dog] and every other dog you own and ever will own.
God is great.

Impregnate a dog with your son.
Have your half dog half human son tell your other dogs how loving you are.
Let your other dogs torture and kill your half dog half human son.
Afterwards, forgive them for eating your steak in the first place.
Despite forgiveness, continue to punish every dog you will ever own.
Revive the half dog half human corpse and let it live in your house.
God is great.

Why would anyone believe such nonsense?

530 Responses to “When intelligent people look at religion rationally, religion is clearly insane”

  1. on 19 May 2013 at 7:21 pm 1.Biff said …

    Hmm, people do wicked thugs so God does not exist? Nope, disproven time and time again.

    Wicked people is why Jesus came.

  2. on 19 May 2013 at 7:37 pm 2.DPK said …

    ummm… what exactly was disprove, there Biffer?

    That people do wicked things? Or that god does not exist?

    I’d be interested in seeing how either of these claims was disproved.

  3. on 19 May 2013 at 8:42 pm 3.alex said …

    “Why would anyone believe such nonsense?”

    because the second edition would be the greatest ever! watch how the evil men rape Lot’s virgin daughters as offered. then, the men proceed to violently ravish god’s angels as they hid, shivering in the broom closet. if not for angelic feathers sticking out of the closet door, the evil men would have never found them. god has a wicked sense of humor.

    wait, there’s more! see how god’s army descends from the heavens and smite those barbaric mooslums as they plead uselessly to their nonexistent god! wait, is it the other way around?

    “people do wicked thugs so God does not exist?”

    nope. god doesn’t exist even as you say it over and over again, dorothy.

  4. on 19 May 2013 at 9:31 pm 4.Anonymous said …

    Biffer, you deliberately ignored the question and went off an a diversionary tantrum. Perhaps its uncomfortable for you to be faced with just how ridiculous your beliefs are?

    Let’s repeat the question and have your answer.

    Biffer, just why do you believe such obvious nonsense as contained in the bible? What’s wrong with you that you subscribe to tribal fairy stories? Please explain without red-herrings and diversions.

  5. on 19 May 2013 at 11:16 pm 5.the messenger said …

    3.alex, are you idiotic?

    Lot new that those men were not attracted to females , and therefore knew that they would not rape her. And they did not get raped.

  6. on 19 May 2013 at 11:18 pm 6.the messenger said …

    3.alex, the word Muslim is not in the bible.

    Stupid.

  7. on 19 May 2013 at 11:28 pm 7.the messenger said …

    Thomas, tell me, what bible verses are these, and why do you refuse to list them? I have done much research trying to find this “so called verse”, and have not found it.

    I want you to answer this. Not one of you puppets.

  8. on 19 May 2013 at 11:48 pm 8.alex said …

    somebody must have laid out the idiot bait. predictably, messenger motherfucker, comes sniffing about. what part of the “second edition” is the confusing part? my bad. it’s the idiot messenger, the self proclaimed personal bible translator. he, the idiot, who even the thiests ignore, who says, hell is temporary.

    you deny it, you asshole? look it up your damn self. your fecal posts are all over the place.

  9. on 20 May 2013 at 12:20 am 9.Biff said …

    I think his name is Christopher Fool. That was the stupidest thing I ever read. Well, other when I read alexs posts.

  10. on 20 May 2013 at 1:53 am 10.DPK said …

    Biff, it’s ok you totally miss the point. The title of the thread, after all is ” When INTELLIGENT people look at religion RATIONALLY…” We understand that disqualifies you from the discussion.

  11. on 20 May 2013 at 4:24 am 11.Anonymous said …

    Biff, we are still waiting.

    Just why do you believe the nonsense that is the bible?

  12. on 20 May 2013 at 5:16 am 12.A said …

    I think Chris is alex’s puppet. How did that become a thread? Slow atheist news cycle. Why not stat one on Dawkins chauvinism?

  13. on 20 May 2013 at 7:10 am 13.Fluttershy said …

    A, why do you have an obsession of claim others of yourself are sock puppets?
    We know for a fact that you have several sock puppets, the atheists here?, i honestly don’t know, but i assume that because there is no need for us to have puppets, the fact that we debate fairly, and there is no need for setting people up, we have no puppets.

    ” When INTELLIGENT people look at religion RATIONALLY…”
    /\
    this is the title of this blog post, and i agree with it, rational, intelligent people would see how stupid the bible is, theists on the other hand may be intelligent, but they are too brainwashed to see how disgusting it is.

  14. on 20 May 2013 at 10:40 am 14.freddies_dead said …

    12.A said …

    Why not sta[r]t one on Dawkins chauvinism?

    What has Dawkins’ chauvinism got to do with you believing the nonsense served up in the Bible?

  15. on 20 May 2013 at 11:24 am 15.The messenger said …

    5.the messenger said …

    3.alex, are you idiotic?

    Lot new that those men were not attracted to females , and therefore knew that they would not rape her. And they did not get raped.

    on 19 May 2013 at 11:18 pm 6.the messenger said …

    3.alex, the word Muslim is not in the bible.

    Stupid.

    on 19 May 2013 at 11:28 pm 7.the messenger said …

    Thomas, tell me, what bible verses are these, and why do you refuse to list them? I have done much research trying to find this “so called verse”, and have not found it.

    I want you to answer this. Not one of you puppets

  16. on 20 May 2013 at 11:31 am 16.The messenger said …

    Thomas, tell me, what bible verses are these, and why do you refuse to list them? I have done much research trying to find this “so called verse”, and have not found it.

    I want you to answer this. Not one of you puppets

  17. on 20 May 2013 at 12:03 pm 17.Fluttershy said …

    Another useless diversion that leads us no further into the debate of whether or not god exists….

  18. on 20 May 2013 at 12:33 pm 18.A said …

    Butterfly,

    sigh! Butter, if you had read the thread you would know who Chris was. Hint: Its NOT a poster! Lol!! My post is about the topic and was given tongue-in-cheek. (look it up)

    kids!

    Normally ignore that but just too funny.

  19. on 20 May 2013 at 1:23 pm 19.Fluttershy said …

    :|
    I was also referring to the multiple times you have accused yourself or others as being sock puppets…

    “kids!”
    …wut?

    Your post was complete garbage and the threads post was completely valid in terms of comparison.

  20. on 20 May 2013 at 2:18 pm 20.Scourge said …

    This Biffoon fellow is quite something. The aggressive ignorance is entertaining. Do you think he is using the novel “Biff” as inspiration for his moniker? If he thinks that book is worthwhile, that might explain his insipid comments.

  21. on 20 May 2013 at 6:07 pm 21.A said …

    Lol!!! Fitefly I am the one calling others sock puppets? LOL!! The idea came from you atheists who waste time on the diversion. I figured if I accept the label you guys might be satisfied.

    But your posts directed me to stay on topic and the dopey Chris was part of the topic. Try clicking the link Firefly before you type out another diversion.

  22. on 20 May 2013 at 7:16 pm 22.Lou said …

    What does a pregnant dog eating meat and getting punished have to do with any religion? Was Christopher part of some satanic cult?

    “”i assume that because there is no need for us to have puppets, the fact that we debate fairly”"

    In order to debate you must have a position. No atheist here on this forum anyway, ever supports any position. Fairly is laughable since atheist cannot define fair.

  23. on 20 May 2013 at 7:37 pm 23.DPK said …

    21.A said …
    “But your posts directed me to stay on topic and the dopey Chris was part of the topic.”

    The fact that you think “dopey Chris” was part of the topic says a lot about your inability to think clearly… which actually IS part of the topic, so in a very round about way, I suppose… so thank you for illustrating the point so well.

    and then 22.Lou said …
    “What does a pregnant dog eating meat and getting punished have to do with any religion? Was Christopher part of some satanic cult?”

    Yup folks, you couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.

  24. on 20 May 2013 at 7:51 pm 24.Xenon said …

    Click the link labeled “here” at the top. Some of the most brain dead commentary one you will ever read. Why are those who claim God is not real the most possessed by the topic? Those who believe don’t discuss it as much.

  25. on 20 May 2013 at 9:09 pm 25.the messenger said …

    Thomas, tell me, what bible verses are these, and why do you refuse to list them? I have done much research trying to find this “so called verse”, and have not found it.
    I want you to answer this. Not one of you puppets. Answer me.

  26. on 20 May 2013 at 11:00 pm 26.alex said …

    “Thomas, tell me, what bible verses are these”

    why? so you can make up more fantastically unbelievable fucking shit? according to your moronic, idiot, mind, hell is but a temporary place. with statements like that, how can anybody even take you seriously? go home and read your bible and quit making up excuses for the crazy shit. bears mauling youths, oh my!

  27. on 20 May 2013 at 11:51 pm 27.alex said …

    “Why are those who claim God is not real the most possessed by the topic?”

    coz this is an atheist site, you dumbshit?

    “Those who believe don’t discuss it as much.”

    because most of your dipshit breathren spill their drivel and move on. you, otoh, insist on taking nonsensical potshots with what you think are clever retorts. look again. you have nothing to disprove your bullshit god.

    just like an ayetiist, i don’t have to prove my disbelief, you moron.

  28. on 21 May 2013 at 12:29 am 28.DPK said …

    I HAVE noticed that those who believe are very loath to “discuss” it. Instead, they make unfounded claims and then demand others disprove them. They never answer questions, or debate points with anything close to honesty or integrity.
    No surprise, religious belief does not hold up well to “discussion”.

  29. on 21 May 2013 at 12:43 am 29.Anonymous said …

    26.alex, if tom can not back up his claims with facts, they will be deemed as nonsense.

    A claim without facts has no value, therefore thomas’s statements have no value and should be ignored.

    Alex how stupid are you?

    I know what all of the bible verses mean, you do not.

  30. on 21 May 2013 at 12:43 am 30.the messenger said …

    26.alex, if tom can not back up his claims with facts, they will be deemed as nonsense.
    A claim without facts has no value, therefore thomas’s statements have no value and should be ignored.
    Alex how stupid are you?
    I know what all of the bible verses mean, you do not .

  31. on 21 May 2013 at 12:49 am 31.the messenger said …

    28.DPK, I have dis proven all of your claims, and I am always honest on this site.

    I have shown you proof, and you continue to deny it.
    You are a fool for not realizing that GOD exists.

  32. on 21 May 2013 at 1:00 am 32.Lou said …

    “I HAVE noticed that those who believe are very loath to “discuss” it.”

    Discuss what? A dog who ate some meet and got punished for it? I don’t believe any of that nonsense.

    Is this the equivalent of an Atheist Haiku?

  33. on 21 May 2013 at 1:33 am 33.alex said …

    “alex, if tom can not back up his claims with facts, they will be deemed as nonsense.”

    moron, didn’t you say hell was temporary? when I say bullshit, i don’t have to back it up, you idiot. it’s up to you to prove that it’s not bullshit. where the fuck you from? oh, i fergit. from disneyland.

    “A dog who ate some meet and got punished for it? I don’t believe any of that nonsense.”

    then, don’t motherfucker. even though you pulled it out of context, i’ll let you have it. now about your bullshit god?

  34. on 21 May 2013 at 1:49 am 34.alex said …

    “I have shown you proof, and you continue to deny it.”

    hell is temporary you say? har! you’ll never live it down. change your moniker from messenger? try it. atheists can sniff that bullshit a mile away. of course, you can’t or unable to change your writing style. you are after all, drawing upon your limited comprehension or logical abilities, you asshole.

  35. on 21 May 2013 at 1:55 am 35.s0l0m0n said …

    Those who thinks(boast) that they(atheists) are intelligent are the insane one.

    How come the wondrous creations around them are not triggered by some very very powerful, intelligent deity?

  36. on 21 May 2013 at 3:17 am 36.DPK said …

    See what I mean? Rather than address the actual issue of an insane story about a god who punishes everyone forever for a “sin” the first humans supposedly committed, which he created them to do, knowing full well they would do it, and then fathered himself as a human so he could sacrafice himself to himself to appease himself for this “sin”. Which is crazy stupid… They pretend we’re talking about dogs as a way to be coy, try to look clever, but it’s really about avoiding the issue actually brought up by the post?
    See how it works? They simply will not respond to the topic, but will tap dance around and say, “pay no attention to he man behind the curtain!”

  37. on 21 May 2013 at 4:53 am 37.Anonymous said …

    Of course they will dance around the subject. What kind of fool believes the bible to be anything but the ramblings of primitive goat-herders? Oh, wait, that would be Christians…

  38. on 21 May 2013 at 7:16 am 38.Fluttershy said …

    Lou said…
    “”i assume that because there is no need for us to have puppets, the fact that we debate fairly””
    In order to debate you must have a position. No atheist here on this forum anyway, ever supports any position. Fairly is laughable since atheist cannot define fair.”

    HA
    Its almost as if you are from some dimension where everything is the opposite

  39. on 21 May 2013 at 11:24 am 39.Lou said …

    Flutter

    No. Not it st all. Just guys who believe and support nothing. There is only a small number of yo.

    DPK,

    Oh, this is an atheist analogy. Its a ver bad analogy. So what is the meat? Do atheists believe God foes not allow us to eat?

  40. on 21 May 2013 at 12:16 pm 40.Anonymous said …

    Lou, please prove that your god exists.

  41. on 21 May 2013 at 12:48 pm 41.Fluttershy said …

    “Oh, this is an atheist analogy. Its a ver bad analogy. So what is the meat? Do atheists believe God foes not allow us to eat?”

    Holy po po on a stick, you are THAT ignorant? O,o

    the meat represents the garden of eden fruit that eve had no control over her actions because god planned for her to eat it and her instinct as human made her curious.

    Later the torture of the dog that was made by the guy is jesus and somehow that made all the sins go away, despite sins still being existant and god killing people and stuff.

    “Flutter
    No. Not it st all. Just guys who believe and support nothing. There is only a small number of yo.”

    Honestly, i cant read this, if any one here can get a message out of it, please post it…
    If your trying to say that atheists dont support anything, then you are blatantly wrong and right at the same time, some atheists dont support anything, others do.
    Unlike religions, every atheist is different, has their own beliefs, the only thing they share is the disbelief of god, who is imaginary.

  42. on 21 May 2013 at 2:38 pm 42.DPK said …

    “Unlike religions, every atheist is different, has their own beliefs, the only thing they share is the disbelief of god, who is imaginary.”

    You are forgetting the 21% of atheists who actually do believe in god, much like the 18% of dead people who are still alive.

    38.Lou said …

    “Oh, this is an atheist analogy.”
    Brilliant.

    “Its a ver bad analogy. So what is the meat?”
    Think it over. Come back when you get a clue. Otherwise its really kind of like discussing politics with a clam. Easy to win the argument, but really kind of pointless.

  43. on 21 May 2013 at 4:05 pm 43.Lou said …

    Flutter,

    Meat represents fruit in the garden? My memory recalls that all the trees were OK for eating. Even the vines and bushes. One tree was off limits. God told human beings not to break this one rule.

    Hardly an analogy to a dog who has meat thrown in front of him. Do you view yourself this way? Come on, are you this far gone?

  44. on 21 May 2013 at 4:05 pm 44.Scourge said …

    Thank the atmosphere for a timely reminder of the benevolence of GAWD. I suppose the GAWD fearing part is alive and well in OK. Where was Jesus? How many of the folks who were either killed or had their lives wrecked were praying to Jesus as the tornado ripped through? No doubt there will be prayer vigils galore.

    And remember folks, man-made global warming is purely a fiction created by the 98% of climate scientists who aren’t in the employ of fossil carbon industries or suffering from debilitating delusion. Why doesn’t OK Sens. Inhofe or Coburn pray down some salvation for OK?

  45. on 21 May 2013 at 4:10 pm 45.Lou said …

    Flutter,

    Your analysis of the Dog and Jesus is a mess. You need to try again or maybe it is just a lack of knowledge.

    Curious, were you the guy who put his hand in fire even though you were warned not to because it would burn you?

  46. on 21 May 2013 at 4:13 pm 46.Lou said …

    Oh no, another gobal warming conspiracy theorist. Just like a good liberal, politicize every tragedy possible.

    Tornados are not global warming. They happened before the Industrial Revolution.

  47. on 21 May 2013 at 4:43 pm 47.DPK said …

    46.Lou said …
    “Tornados are not global warming. They happened before the Industrial Revolution.”

    That’s right, they are punishment from god. No doubt some of those 3rd graders were gonna grow up to be homos, or worse yet, liberals. So Jesus smitted them pre-emptively. God is great! Or maybe it’s Allah showing us who’s god is real.

    Now Louie… back to your garden of eden myth. Are you one of those christians who doesn’t believe god is all powerful and all knowing? Straighten us out, when god put the forbidden fruit in the garden of eden, did he not know full well exactly what would happen? Indeed, did he not plan it that way? If you know that dogs eat meat, do you blame the dog for eating the meat that you put in front of him? Or would a more intelligent being say, “Well, if I put the meat in front of the dog and he eats it, like I KNOW he will, it’s actually MY fault for instigating the problem.” Is your god really that clueless?

    I guess maybe you don’t like being compared to a dog, is that it? The whole common ancestor thing bothers you immensely. I know you crazy ass self absorbed theist prefer to think the entire universe was created just for you.

    Well, how about a child then? You folks always love to use the father/children analogy for your imaginary god.
    If you put a child in a room with a tasty treat and tell them not to eat it, knowing full well that they will eat it when you aren’t looking, and when in fact, you have planned for them to eat it… do you then punish the child, and ALL that child’s descendants for untold generations for eating the treat? No? Why not, Louie?

  48. on 21 May 2013 at 7:58 pm 48.Lou said …

    Hmm, D lets examine your logic. God lays down one rule yet he is unfair. Sounds like a typical liberal. BTW, how do u know the fruit was tasty? Please don’t reproduce. The child won’t like the rules and will whine.

    Second, God should not have created a man because he knew they would disobey. Again D, don’t reproduce even if you find a woman. I promise your child will disobey. I like how this going.

    I blame no dog for eating meat. I expect it and I’m good with it. They are like liberals.

  49. on 21 May 2013 at 8:03 pm 49.A said …

    I had to buy tires today. I blame global cooling/warming (pick one) and want Obama to reimburse me. I hear the cooling theory is back and want to cover my bases.

    DIP not reproducing sounds like a great action plan.

  50. on 21 May 2013 at 8:18 pm 50.the messenger said …

    34.alex, you have very bad grammer, and are small minded.

  51. on 21 May 2013 at 8:38 pm 51.michael said …

    haha. great post.

    how stupid is the idea of original sin?

    im gonna create something…but im gonna make it sick. yep…i want my creatures to be innatly flawed and to spend all their time trying to undo the damage i inflicted upon them.

  52. on 21 May 2013 at 8:44 pm 52.michael said …

    hey messenger man.

    why arent you muslim?

  53. on 21 May 2013 at 9:52 pm 53.alex said …

    lou. you, messenger, and s0l must be long lost twins. that’s right, three of you motherfuckers makes twins. makes about as much sense as the shit you spout.

  54. on 21 May 2013 at 11:41 pm 54.DPK said …

    48.Lou said …

    “Hmm, D lets examine your logic. God lays down one rule yet he is unfair. Sounds like a typical liberal.”

    I know your ADD must be kicking, but try to focus Lou. I don’t know if your god is a liberal… I doubt it, I don’t think many liberals tolerate slavery and misogamy the way your god does… on the other hand he DID instruct you to sell everything you own and give it to the poor, so I’m not sure. But that’s not the point.
    Stop dodging the question and tell us the truth, according to your god legend, did your god know in advance that Eve would eat the forbidden fruit, or not? Did the events unfold exactly as he planned for them to unfold, or did they not?
    I mean it’s either yes, or no. Your god either is 100% responsible for the downfall of humanity, or he is impotent and incompetent… which is it? What kind of a god blames his creation for doing exactly what he wanted them to do?

  55. on 21 May 2013 at 11:57 pm 55.Anonymous said …

    Hmmm, God is 100% responsible although he gave specific instruction not to eat? I know liberals hate personal responsibility but you need to explain. He warned and explained the consequences.

    You might want to refrain from insults. It makes you look childish and petty

  56. on 22 May 2013 at 12:17 am 56.alex said …

    “You might want to refrain from insults. It makes you look childish and petty”

    says the delusional, moron, who’s god is “pleased by the odor of burning flesh”. you’re not petty, you’re a hypocrite. even the idiot suicide bombers demonstrate more conviction than you morons.

  57. on 22 May 2013 at 12:24 am 57.Lou said …

    I meant to add, God did not instruct me to sell everything. He spoke directly to one rich man to do so who wanted to follow. Don’t be so delusional and ignorant of what you hate. That is what happens when you get all your talking points from blogs.

    Thinking for yourself is advisable DPK.

  58. on 22 May 2013 at 12:39 am 58.alex said …

    “He spoke directly to one rich man to do so who wanted to follow.”

    that’s rich. all these motherfuckers that have been preaching to “give all your money…” are wrong? who the fuck are you? you and messenger are god’s designated interpreter? lot offered his daughters because he knew the men preferred the angels? this is messenger, your brother’s interpretation. you agree?

  59. on 22 May 2013 at 1:17 am 59.Anonymous said …

    Lou with a bit of (tongue in cheek?) IRONY

    He spoke directly to one rich man to do so who wanted to follow. Don’t be so delusional and ignorant

    So you think that a god ACTUALLY spoke to someone? And you’re calling them delusional? WOW!!!
    Lou, if you hear of someone saying that god spoke to them, it’s a sign they may be delusional or having mental issues. Not judging, just saying….

    Or are you talking about the god that spoke frequently with our ancient sheep and goat herder cousins? You know, the ones who borrowed the bible stories from even earlier cultures.

  60. on 22 May 2013 at 1:29 am 60.DPK said …

    Well, first, if an engineer designs a car so that the shells fall off when it goes around a corner, is it the cars fault when the wheels come off, or the engineer who made the car that way?

    2 nd… Yeah, people asked Jesus how to get to heaven. He, knowing his words would be recorded as his message to humanity said, “we’ll… THAT GUY OVER THERE has to sell everything he has and give it to the poor. The rest of you, fuck that!”
    Sure.

    Last… Answer the question. Did the events you claim occurred in the garden of Eden story unfold according to gods plan, or not? Did not god KNOW that eve would be fooled by the talking snake when he put the forbidden fruit, as well as the talking snake, there in the first place?
    Hint, the answer is either yes or no.

  61. on 22 May 2013 at 2:09 am 61.Lou said …

    Oh Anony Mouse Maximus, you and your diversions. Your puppet actually made the claim first so you and your puppet are both deluded, secluded and booted.
    Then again he did not even know Jesus said it.

    Bye bye find another place to take your diversions.

  62. on 22 May 2013 at 2:32 am 62.alex said …

    “Bye bye find another place to take your diversions.”

    wah, busted again? you’ll be back, moron.

    When intelligent people look at religion rationally, religion is clearly insane, which clearly, you haven’t done dick to prove otherwise.

    you did prove the insane part though. believing that god speaks to people? you’ll agree that the suicide bombers are insane? how do you discern the crazies? you or anybody else can’t, because once again there’s no standard/metric. hearing god is crazy, you moron.

  63. on 22 May 2013 at 2:45 am 63.Anonymous said …

    Oh my! From Lou’s desperate attempts to avoid the question it’s blatantly obvious that he believes the bible to be true. That is so cute!

    Lou, so you believe in talking snakes and donkeys, men who can live in fishes, 500 year old boat builders, and a host of other assorted nonsense. It’s delusional but cute in the way that a 5 year-old tells you about their imaginary friends.

    Speaking of which, here’s another question you seem to afraid to tackle. It won’t go away though.

    Provide proof that your god exists. Let’s see you attempt to show that you are not delusional.

  64. on 22 May 2013 at 2:49 am 64.Anonymous said …

    Lou, OH Lou

    God did not instruct me to sell everything. He spoke directly to one rich man

    he did not even know Jesus said it.

    Neither did you!! LOL!!!

    You believe this though? A god speaking to you? Do your family a favour – Hide the sharp objects in the house and seek help if you start hearing “THE VOICE” of a god demanding you to do things.

  65. on 22 May 2013 at 7:03 am 65.Fluttershy said …

    God has apparently spoken to you, this proves nothing without physical evidence.
    I can claim that the blue oyster that is in my closet is speaking to me, doesnt prove anything.

    If you have anything interesting to post, please do.

  66. on 22 May 2013 at 11:07 am 66.A said …

    Physical evidence Flutter? Is this measuring stick to prove everything?

    Well alright then. Prove Socrates existed.

    What is the oyster saying Butterfly.

    Lou

    Ignore the troll that is Anti Mouse. He asks loaded questions to save his fellow atheist. Watch him scramble to save Butterfly.

  67. on 22 May 2013 at 11:32 am 67.Fluttershy said …

    “Well alright then. Prove Socrates existed.”
    This is irrelevant to the god exist/god is fake topic.

    “What is the oyster saying Butterfly.”
    How the heck am i meant to know? he speaks german.

  68. on 22 May 2013 at 11:38 am 68.The messenger said …

    63.Anonymous, there are no talking snakes or donkies in the bible.

    The word “snake” is used to lable sneaky, dishonest, unholy, corrupt people such as satin.

    The ark was build by supplies and tools that GOD gave to noah and his family.

    And it was built more than 500 hundered years ago. You idiotic snake.

  69. on 22 May 2013 at 11:44 am 69.The messenger said …

    60.DPK, GOD did not mean that we have to sell everything that we own. he told that guy to sell everything because he loved his material possesions more than he love GOD.

    That bible passage means that we should not love our material possesions, we should love GOD.

  70. on 22 May 2013 at 11:52 am 70.A said …

    Don”t dodge the question Butterfly. If we are suppose to be provide physical evidence for God then you should be able to do it for such a well known figure as Socrates. You asking others to do what you will not?
    Get Oyster yo help you.

  71. on 22 May 2013 at 11:59 am 71.Lou said …

    DPK is now comparing us to cars. The ignorance is so thick it is hard to see. At least dogs have a brain!

    Does the car make the choice to kick off the wheels? Typical liberal, sue the company, blame someone else for their choices.

  72. on 22 May 2013 at 12:03 pm 72.alex said …

    pulling out the tired, old, wild goose chase again, with the socrates variation, eh? using your bullshit standard of evidence, allah, the hundreds of hindu gods, ra, and others all exist, you morons.

    as s0l says, y’all will wake up in hell. you’ll wonder where are all the atheists? that’s because you worshiped the wrong god.

  73. on 22 May 2013 at 12:47 pm 73.michael said …

    any theists feel like addressing the main point of the blog? that got seemingly hates amputees? why do you think god refuses to heal people who have lost limbs?

  74. on 22 May 2013 at 1:24 pm 74.Fluttershy said …

    because god is
    A: an asshole
    or
    B: immaginary

  75. on 22 May 2013 at 1:27 pm 75.Fluttershy said …

    68.A said …
    Don”t dodge the question Butterfly. If we are suppose to be provide physical evidence for God then you should be able to do it for such a well known figure as Socrates. You asking others to do what you will not?
    Get Oyster yo help you.

    What question?
    You mean to one that has nothing to do with the topic?
    No, i refuse to answer a question that should not be asked.
    How about you answer this question of you feel like asking stupid questions.
    Show me proof that allah could pull a can of whoopass on your god?

    Again, the talking oyster that i have no evidence for is mute, and speaks german, how do i know? Because i said so, so you must believe me.

    Would you kindly answer why god doesn’t heal amputees?

  76. on 22 May 2013 at 2:06 pm 76.A said …

    Butterfly believes Socrates existed but cannot provide proof. Therefore your request that physical proof must be provided to prove God’s existence is moot. You are right. Your question has zero to do with the topic. You have no grasp concerning the nature of evidence.

  77. on 22 May 2013 at 2:27 pm 77.Anonymous said …

    “A” (aka Lou) makes an attempt at a diversion but in doing so he concedes that he cannot prove the existence of his god. He must be doing that by virtue of his attempted analogy.

    So, “A” admits he cannot prove his god exists. What does that tell us?

    Well, “A” bases his life on the teachings on someone he concedes he cannot know is real. He worships someone he concedes he cannot know is real. He claims to derive morality and values from someone he cannot know is real. He has a “relationship” with someone he cannot know is real.

    Thus, “A” concedes that he is delusional.

  78. on 22 May 2013 at 2:38 pm 78.DPK said …

    Like a carnival magician, “A” attempts to distract attention away from his inability to explain his god, or provide evidence he actually exists.
    Socrates? Again? Really, I don’t recall anyone here making any claims about Socrates. And you deride us for bringing up Santa? You are just full of silliness. Socrates is dead. You claim your god is alive and intercedes in the physical world on a daily basis. That should be simple to demonstrate. What’s the problem?

    Now, I notice again you refuse to answer any direct questions about your god and your beliefs… why?
    “Did the events you claim occurred in the garden of Eden story unfold according to gods plan, or not? Did not god KNOW that eve would be fooled by the talking snake when he put the forbidden fruit, as well as the talking snake, there in the first place?
    Hint, the answer is either yes or no.”

    Notice that whether posting as Ass, Lou, Biff, Boz, or Hor… none of them ever answer the simplest of questions.

  79. on 22 May 2013 at 5:10 pm 79.A said …

    Look Butterfly, you had two come to your defense. Prove them wrong. Show us physical proof for Socrates existence. In order to be true it must exist.

  80. on 22 May 2013 at 5:56 pm 80.the messenger said …

    h52.michael, here are the reasons.

    The lies of Mohammad

    I say on to you people now, the Quran is unholy and false.

    Here is the proof that will compel you to believe the statement above.

    The Quran states the following verse. (Indeed, those who disbelieve – it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them – they will not believe.)
    This appalling, verse compels people to loose faith in non believers. It states that nonbelievers cannot be taught the truth. This is an appalling, disgusting lie. All people can be compelled to believe in the truth: but he Quran states that they cannot be helped. The Quran compels people to loose faith in others. The Quran is false.

    The Quran states the following verse. (Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment.)
    As you now see, the Quran depicts God as a wrathful, unforgiving lunatic. This is wrong. God is not wrathful of hateful; but the Quran depicts him as a cruel tyrant. The Quran is false.

    The Quran states the following verse. (In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie.)
    The Quran states that instead of showing mercy and forgiving sinners, Allah will increase their evil and punish them for it. The Quran is false.

    The Quran states the following verse. [But] Allah mocks them and prolongs them in their transgression [while] they wander blindly.
    Instead of trying to help corrupt people become better, the Quran depicts that GOD mocks them mocks them, instead of helping them. The Quran is false.

    The Quran states the following verse.
    Their example is that of one who kindled a fire, but when it illuminated what was around him, Allah took away their light and left them in darkness [so] they could not see.
    Deaf, Dum, and blind – so they will not return [to the right path].
    The Quran says that GOD will take away any chance of redemption. It says that GOD will not help those people. Instead of helping them, the Quran states that GOD will abandon them. The Quran is false.
    The Quran states the following verses.
    I design for you from clay.
    [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel), etc.] which were sent down before you.
    The Quran states that the torah is true. But it also states that humans were made from clay, and the torah states that humans were made from dust. The Quran has contradicted it’s self by stating one thing, and then stating something else. The Quran is false.

  81. on 22 May 2013 at 6:36 pm 81.michael said …

    poor a can’t afford a full name.

  82. on 22 May 2013 at 7:25 pm 82.DPK said …

    Why won’t “A” answer the question about his god? Why is he obsessed about Socrates? No one here claimed Socrates was real or wasn’t real? It doesn’t matter… no one is discussion the insanity of believing in Socrates, and no one is claiming that Socrates is going to send you to an eternity of torment for the crime of not believing in him.
    I’d suggest you try “why won’t Socrates heal amputees .com instead. The topic here is god and religion in today’s world. Focus A… did your god, according to your garden of Eden legend, KNOW that Eve would consume the fruit and be fooled by the talking snake when he put them both in the garden of Eden? Why did he do that, knowing full well with foreknowledge and certainty, what would occur?
    Why won’t you answer?

  83. on 22 May 2013 at 7:27 pm 83.Anonymous said …

    It’s over “A”. You’ve lost and you defeated yourself.

    In your latest attempt at a diversion you ended up arguing that there isn’t physical evidence for your god. OK, we agree.

    Earlier, Martin had to admit defeat when asked to provide logical proofs for the existence of this god.

    What we have now is you trying to avoid answering questions about the god you still believe in despite your and Martin’s concessions that you can’t prove he exists.

    It’s over. You have a delusional belief in an imaginary friend. You know your god isn’t real because you always run and hide when faced with the task of proving that this god is real.

  84. on 22 May 2013 at 7:43 pm 84.The messenger said …

    Thomas, tell me, what bible verses are these, and why do you refuse to list them? I have done much research trying to find this “so called verse”, and have not found it.
    I want you to answer this. Not one of you puppets. Answer me.
    <

  85. on 22 May 2013 at 7:47 pm 85.The messenger said …

    77.DPK, I gave you proof.

  86. on 22 May 2013 at 7:57 pm 86.The messenger said …

    72.michael, because they do not need them to complete GOD’s test(known as life).

    GOD gives us what we need in order to be good, kind people. And he takes away the things tat we do not need. We all have different destinies, therefore we all have different things.

  87. on 22 May 2013 at 8:10 pm 87.s0l0m0n said …

    If you don’t believe there’s (((hell))), just gaze at the sun. That”s about (((hell))). How could the atheists be so blind.

  88. on 22 May 2013 at 11:12 pm 88.alex said …

    “Show us physical proof for Socrates existence.”

    stop with your bullshit diversion. socrates is fiction, alright, you happy? before you yuck it up, apply your same standard. can you prove your god, no? guess what? bullshit. slink back in 3 days.

  89. on 23 May 2013 at 12:43 am 89.MrQ said …

    Really “a”, Socrates. That’s what you’ve got to try initiating a red herring diversion. Keeping the “you don’t know how life started” card close to the vest – to be played after all your other diversions fail. LOL!!!

    There is no proof of my biological father existing (since he was cremated) yet here I am. I cannot prove his existence nor do I care to prove Socrates existed. Likely the character Socrates was an amalgam of several different characters of the era in which they existed, just like Jayzus.

    Are you saying: Since there is no proof for Socrates/Jayzus/my dad, it logically follows that there’s no proof for the existence of a god?

    What is your unceasing fixation with Socrates anyway? Do ancient Greek philosophers (real or legendary) turn your crank?

  90. on 23 May 2013 at 1:15 am 90.A said …

    Anony the Mouse,

    It seems Butterfly and DPK ran from the question. Your track record is terrible, but maybe you can provide physical proof for Socrates? You wouldn’t expect something for God you can’t offer for Socrates would you?

    How about physical proof for Oort Clouds, Abiogenesis, Panspermia? Just pick one. We need to establish what level of physical proof is acceptable.

    Do you go to blogs and and complain to the scientist that they can’t provide proof?

    This will let us know if you are serious or just a troll.

  91. on 23 May 2013 at 1:18 am 91.A said …

    Oh no he didn’t! DIP Clause complaining about Socrates? DIP are you not Santa’s public relations man? !!!!

    LOL!!!!!

  92. on 23 May 2013 at 6:47 am 92.michael said …

    im not sure im convinced that messenger understands islam.

    but moving along.

    my friend just had a grandchild that has extreme deformities. he and his whole family are christians, and really kind ones to boot.

    for the theists in the room, why’d ya think god would give their child a horrible life threatening syndrome and destory his chances of ever living a full life?

    thanks

  93. on 23 May 2013 at 6:52 am 93.Fluttershy said …

    A said…
    Butterfly believes Socrates existed but cannot provide proof.

    Never knew you could read minds.
    Who said i believed in this man?

  94. on 23 May 2013 at 6:55 am 94.Fluttershy said …

    “Look Butterfly, you had two come to your defense. Prove them wrong. Show us physical proof for Socrates existence. In order to be true it must exist.”

    I dont see anyone here named Butterfly but whatever.

    I never claimed that he existed, therefore i dont need to prove he existed.
    You claim that god exists, so prove it, not post diversions.

  95. on 23 May 2013 at 6:58 am 95.Fluttershy said …

    “It seems Butterfly and DPK ran from the question. Your track record is terrible, but maybe you can provide physical proof for Socrates? You wouldn’t expect something for God you can’t offer for Socrates would you?”

    DPK, nor myself have no reason to answer your question, i myself never claimed he existed, and DPK doesnt have to answer as it is irrelevant.

    I would expect evidence of a all powerful all knowing all loving all seeing god.
    I would not expect evidence of a dead guy from who knows when.

    When i die, it is likely that no one will know i existed after say 200 years, you claim that god is here, and he is all powerful, so prove it.
    (my apologies for the triple post.)

  96. on 23 May 2013 at 7:33 am 96.Fluttershy said …

    “Oh no he didn’t! DIP Clause complaining about Socrates? DIP are you not Santa’s public relations man? !!!!
    LOL!!!!!”

    This makes me ponder the intelligence of A…
    (sorry for the multipost)

  97. on 23 May 2013 at 10:57 am 97.40 Year Atheist said …

    I love it when someone claims that falsification provides truth. It is the sophomore’s answer to God. And interestingly it seems prevalent in the academic atmosphere, where sophomorism is institutionalized by perpetually sophomoric professors.

    It goes like this:

    I believe only that which can be proven empirically, that which is verifiable and falsifiable. God is neither of these, so I don’t believe in God.

    This statement strongly decorates the absence of real education. Because the view of reality presented is too myopic to support even empiricism. Here’s why.

    Empiricism is a functional operation that pursues the cause of material effects which are observed. It has rules: verification and the possibility of falsification. Why is “cause and effect” a legitimate pursuit? Well you might ask, but sophomores rarely do.

    Cause and Effect is a First Principle of logic and rational thought. Hume denied its validity in absolute terms, yet acknowledged its “usefulness”. First Principles are those concepts that are known to be true. They cannot be proven. So they are the base line, the foundation for logic which, in turn, forms the basis for rational thought. Here are some common First Principles; there are others, these are fundamental:

    The first is truth oriented (epistemological); the second, in parentheses, is existence oriented (ontological).

    1. If it is true, it is true. (If it exists, it exists)
    ["Tautology"].

    2. If it true, it is not false. (If it exists, it does not not exist)
    ["Principle of Non-Contradiction"].

    3. It cannot be somewhere between true and false. (It cannot partially exist, and partially not exist)
    ["Principle of the Excluded Middle"].

    4. For every effect there is a cause that is both necessary and sufficient to create the effect, and which pre-existed the effect.
    [Principle of Cause and Effect].

    5. The physical laws of the universe are consistent and persistent, and therefore can be known.
    [Rationality of the Universe]

    These are not provable; they are known true by inspection. And all rational discourse depends upon their truth. Even (gasp) empiricism and its derivative facts.

    Empiricism cannot even prove – empirically – that empiricism itself is true, for any and all cases. Empiricism relies on the Rationality of the Universe, and the principle of cause and effect, neither of which can be proven. In fact these could be falsified, and if they were, the falsification would also then apply to empiricism.

    A falsification of either Cause and Effect or of the Rationality of the Universe would indicate the presence of something akin to miracles. But miracles are denied outright by Atheists, which is thus taking the firm stance that these two First Principles cannot be falsified, although empiricism depends upon them.

    To deny the belief in any entity that cannot be falsified is therefore a self-contradiction, a non-coherence in the position necessary to sustain Atheism using this argument. It is a fallacious stance.

    The use of falsification to define Truth is falsified.

  98. on 23 May 2013 at 11:37 am 98.the Messenger said …

    92.michael, his particular test on earth did not include living like other people.

    He will go to heaven. I am sure of it.

  99. on 23 May 2013 at 11:39 am 99.the messenger said …

    92.michael, islam is bad.

  100. on 23 May 2013 at 11:40 am 100.the messenger said …

    52.michael, here are the reasons.

    The lies of Mohammad

    I say on to you people now, the Quran is unholy and false.

    Here is the proof that will compel you to believe the statement above.

    The Quran states the following verse. (Indeed, those who disbelieve – it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them – they will not believe.)
    This appalling, verse compels people to loose faith in non believers. It states that nonbelievers cannot be taught the truth. This is an appalling, disgusting lie. All people can be compelled to believe in the truth: but he Quran states that they cannot be helped. The Quran compels people to loose faith in others. The Quran is false.

    The Quran states the following verse. (Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment.)
    As you now see, the Quran depicts God as a wrathful, unforgiving lunatic. This is wrong. God is not wrathful of hateful; but the Quran depicts him as a cruel tyrant. The Quran is false.

    The Quran states the following verse. (In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie.)
    The Quran states that instead of showing mercy and forgiving sinners, Allah will increase their evil and punish them for it. The Quran is false.

    The Quran states the following verse. [But] Allah mocks them and prolongs them in their transgression [while] they wander blindly.
    Instead of trying to help corrupt people become better, the Quran depicts that GOD mocks them mocks them, instead of helping them. The Quran is false.

    The Quran states the following verse.
    Their example is that of one who kindled a fire, but when it illuminated what was around him, Allah took away their light and left them in darkness [so] they could not see.
    Deaf, Dum, and blind – so they will not return [to the right path].
    The Quran says that GOD will take away any chance of redemption. It says that GOD will not help those people. Instead of helping them, the Quran states that GOD will abandon them. The Quran is false.
    The Quran states the following verses.
    I design for you from clay.
    [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel), etc.] which were sent down before you.
    The Quran states that the torah is true. But it also states that humans were made from clay, and the torah states that humans were made from dust. The Quran has contradicted it’s self by stating one thing, and then stating something else. The Quran is false.

  101. on 23 May 2013 at 12:15 pm 101.Anonymous said …

    In case anyone is wondering, he is known as the 40Y asshole for a reason. Ignore him, all he posts are logical fallacies and circular arguments.

  102. on 23 May 2013 at 1:41 pm 102.michael said …

    what part of it is circular?

  103. on 23 May 2013 at 5:20 pm 103.Anonymous said …

    :::In order to debate you must have a position. No atheist here on this forum anyway, ever supports any position.:::

    Sure we do. We support reality. And we don’t believe in the genocidal filth you vomit up.

    Those are positions stupid. Remember your Geddy Lee: If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.

    O hail Brother Geddy, he of the great wisdom of Rush.

    :::Fairly is laughable since atheist cannot define fair.:::

    1) I have a dictionary, you illiterate godbot. Why don’t you? Too busy humping your cousin to afford one?

    2) Given the hateful and UNfair behavior routinely demonstrated by you godbots, it seems you haven’t even heard of fairness.

    Thanks for playing, moron christer.

  104. on 23 May 2013 at 5:23 pm 104.Aq8 said …

    :::I believe only that which can be proven empirically, that which is verifiable and falsifiable. God is neither of these, so I don’t believe in God.

    This statement strongly decorates the absence of real education. Because the view of reality presented is too myopic to support even empiricism. Here’s why.:::

    Nope. It’s the scientific method, practiced by the PROPERLY educated, and which gave us more KNOWLEDGE and progress in 400 short years than your genocidal filth ever gave us.

    Thanks for playing. Go get a proper education, if you’re not too stupid from the toxic poisoning of genocidal filth in your already-minuscle brain.

  105. on 23 May 2013 at 7:25 pm 105.DPK said …

    Can’t believe you are actually arguing with the insane rambling of Stan, the 40 year nutcase. The impossibility of proving god’s existence proves his existence? Really?

    Hey “A”… why won’t you answer my question? I answered yours.

    Did your god, according to your garden of Eden legend, KNOW that Eve would consume the fruit and be fooled by the talking snake when he put them both in the garden of Eden? Why did he do that, knowing full well with foreknowledge and certainty, what would occur?
    Why won’t you answer? You must be very afraid of something. Don’t be fearful, I can promise you that no one here will possibly think any less of you for answering honestly.

  106. on 23 May 2013 at 8:17 pm 106.Xenon said …

    “what part of it is circular?”

    Michael none of it is circular. 40YA offers a very good analysis of the nature of proof and evidence. Reality is always dependent on empirical data. Anonymous does not understand it therefore he must denounce it rather than deal with it.

    The inability to defend the existence of Socrates fits well into what 40YA has laid out. We only have the writings of others. Yet, no sane person denies he existed.

  107. on 23 May 2013 at 8:19 pm 107.alex said …

    “Why did he do that, knowing full well with foreknowledge and certainty, what would occur?”

    because he works in mysterious bullshit ways which no mortal can ever explain, but it doesn’t stop the idiots from trying to explain it.

    “what part of it is circular?”

    the useless, pseudo/cut/paste tripe has nothing of value. the fucker cannot post in a short, succint style. check his other posts and see for yourself. he copies his content from his own heavily censored piece of shit page and righteously drops it in here. i don’t remember the moron ever writing something original, just the same old recycled shit.

    when morons cite bible passages to support their god? is this proof? i guess the santa Manual is proof that the jolly old elf is fer real?

  108. on 23 May 2013 at 8:33 pm 108.Lou said …

    God should not have created a man because he knew they would disobey? Another liberal mantra, if it is hard its not worth ding.

    DPK, don’t reproduce even if you find a woman. I promise your child will disobey. Now that you know it will happen, you don’t need to have kids.

    Where is a talking snake in the Bible?

    40 year

    a very good analysis on logic and rationality. It is amusing to watch the struggle of some to understand it.

  109. on 23 May 2013 at 8:55 pm 109.alex said …

    no, dumbass. proper analogy is: if you know your kid is going to hell.

  110. on 23 May 2013 at 9:06 pm 110.DPK said …

    104.Lou said …
    “God should not have created a man because he knew they would disobey? Another liberal mantra, if it is hard its not worth ding.”

    Whoops, A got his socks mixed up again, replying as Lou this time… haha… this is getting old.

    Now, show me where I said “God should not have created a man because he knew they would disobey?”
    Another example of you creating a straw man to rally against? No, what I want to know is if, according to your claims about the nature of your god, and according to the legends of your god which you have faith are TRUE… did god know exactly what would happen when he created Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden of Eden with the talking serpent and the forbidden fruit… and did these events occur EXACTLY as god planned for them to occur, or not? It’s a very simple question and you continually dodging giving a simple answer tells me that you somehow find the answer very insetting for some reason.
    Do you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient god or not?

  111. on 23 May 2013 at 9:29 pm 111.Lou said …

    “It’s a very simple question and you continually dodging giving a simple answer tells me that you somehow find the answer very insetting for some reason.”

    DPK/alex/Anoymous

    The fact you call out puppets so often leads me to believe you are one. This is typical is psychotics. Maybe this is why you cannot keep straight who you speak to. Thus, I want to address all you personality (disorders).

    I answered the question, but you have not answered yours. Oh, let me add man has free will. There, that is how I understand it. When you answer your questions we can move on.

    God should not have created a man because he knew they would disobey?

    God lays down one rule yet he is unfair?

    Where is a talking snake in the Bible?

    The questions are mounting. Are you incapable of simple answers? Oh, Sorry, another question.

  112. on 23 May 2013 at 10:39 pm 112.DPK said …

    “Do you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient god or not?”

    ” man has free will.”

    Ok, we are getting somewhere. So that would be a “No”. God is not omniscient because if man has free will, then god cannot know what he will do with that free will.

    “God should not have created a man because he knew they would disobey?”

    Seeing as how I do not believe a god created man, this would be a silly thing for me to say, no? Again, show me where I said this, or admit you made it up.

    “God lays down one rule yet he is unfair?”
    If things happened according to the idea of an omniscient and omnipotent god, then yes, it would be unfair for god to punish man for behaving exactly as god planned for him to behave. If an engineer designs a car so the wheels fall off… is it the car’s fault when the wheels fall off, or the engineers. But now you seem to be saying that your god is kind of a bumbling fuck-up god, and really had no idea what kind of shit he would be unleashing when he created man and put him in the garden with the forbidden fruit. Kind of like a parent that leave his 3 year old in a room with a loaded gun on the table and then says its not his fault the kid shot himself because he told him not to play with the gun. The parent it innocent because he had no idea what the child would do, right?
    That just leaves the question of why you would worship a fuck up god like that…??

    “Where is a talking snake in the Bible?”
    Genesis describes a serpent talking to Eve… maybe messenger will come by to tell us it was a metaphorical serpent. Whatever… does it matter? The question is your god is either the engineer of everything that happened, or he is a bumblefuck screw up.

    Which is it… and which sock am I talking to now?

  113. on 23 May 2013 at 11:44 pm 113.alex said …

    “God should not have created a man because he knew they would disobey?”

    no. your turn. does god know what is to happen?

    “God lays down one rule yet he is unfair?”

    no. your turn. does god know that the rule will be broken?

    “Where is a talking snake in the Bible?”

    nowhere. your turn. how old is the earth?

  114. on 24 May 2013 at 12:09 am 114.alex said …

    “The questions are mounting.”

    list them all, motherfucker. i’ll answer them all.

  115. on 24 May 2013 at 12:54 am 115.michael said …

    i wonder why god goes to such great lengths to hide himself. i mean, he acts like any other previous god that have been abandoned. Zeus. Allah. Yahweh. Spock. Pretty peculiar.

  116. on 24 May 2013 at 2:01 am 116.CastBound said …

    “For every effect there is a cause that is both necessary and sufficient to create the effect, and which pre-existed the effect”

    Atheist deny this fact or they just remain ignorant clinging to order from chaos. Nice observation 40.

  117. on 24 May 2013 at 2:04 am 117.DPK said …

    I appear to be in “awaiting moderation” purgatory. Didn’t want Lou/A to think I was ignoring him. My direct answers will appear eventually, unlike his.

  118. on 24 May 2013 at 2:21 am 118.DPK said …

    on 24 May 2013 at 2:01 am 112.CastBound said …
    “For every effect there is a cause that is both necessary and sufficient to create the effect, and which pre-existed the effect”
    Atheist deny this fact or they just remain ignorant clinging to order from chaos. Nice observation 40.

    Sigh…. What was the cause of your god then? If every effect must have a cause, then your god must have one, no?

  119. on 24 May 2013 at 11:11 am 119.A said …

    “Atheist deny this fact or they just remain ignorant clinging to order from chaos. Nice observation 40.”

    Cast,

    The Atheists attempt to massage this away. They say idiotic things like the human body is not well designed and anything is possible given enough time.

    In other words they deny everything we observe in the real world and claim just they opposite happened for origins. Anything to deny the obvious.

    Meanwhile Butterfly has been proven wrong again. Apparently something can exist with no physical proof. Socrates, Oort clouds and logic just to name a few.

  120. on 24 May 2013 at 11:37 am 120.freddies_dead said …

    118.DPK said …

    Sigh…. What was the cause of your god then? If every effect must have a cause, then your god must have one, no?

    Don’t be silly DPK you know that God is a special case, which is why the theists will do a bit of special pleading – and throw in a relativist fallacy for good measure – in claiming that, despite everything needing a cause, their God doesn’t need one. Laughable really.

  121. on 24 May 2013 at 12:02 pm 121.freddies_dead said …

    116.CastBound said …

    “For every effect there is a cause that is both necessary and sufficient to create the effect, and which pre-existed the effect”

    Atheist deny this fact or they just remain ignorant clinging to order from chaos. Nice observation 40.

    On the contrary, it is theists who MUST deny the principle of cause and effect in order to crowbar their imaginary God into existence. If cause and effect is truly absolute then their God MUST have a cause. Of course theists simply dodge the issue when it’s pointed out to them.

  122. on 24 May 2013 at 12:53 pm 122.freddies_dead said …

    It’s always fun when 40YArsehole posts some of his pseudo-intellectual bullshit.

    Cause and Effect is a First Principle of logic and rational thought.

    It’s a what now? What the hell is this supposed to even mean?

    First Principles are those concepts that are known to be true. They cannot be proven.

    OK, but hold on as 40YArsehole is about to contradict himself quite beautifully…

    So they are the base line, the foundation for logic which, in turn, forms the basis for rational thought.

    At this point logic isn’t a “First Principle”, instead it’s founded on the “First Principles”.

    Here are some common First Principles; there are others, these are fundamental:

    The first is truth oriented (epistemological); the second, in parentheses, is existence oriented (ontological).

    1. If it is true, it is true. (If it exists, it exists)
    ["Tautology"].

    2. If it true, it is not false. (If it exists, it does not not exist)
    ["Principle of Non-Contradiction"].

    3. It cannot be somewhere between true and false. (It cannot partially exist, and partially not exist)
    ["Principle of the Excluded Middle"].

    1, 2 and 3 are, of course, the classic Laws of Logic – identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle. All of a sudden they’re now “First Priciples” according to 40YArsehole, yet earlier he claimed that the First Principles were the foundation of logic. So which is it? Are the Laws of Logic “First Principles” in their own right? Or are they founded on the Principle of Cause and Effect? Either 40YArsehole isn’t sure or he’s trying to have it both ways depending on how he feels like arguing. As absurd as his “argument” is it’s entirely consistent with a purely subjective Christian worldview. It’s what we’d expect from someone who has thrown the concept of truth under a bus.

  123. on 24 May 2013 at 1:30 pm 123.DPK said …

    “Don’t be silly DPK you know that God is a special case, which is why the theists will do a bit of special pleading – ”

    Yeah, they all argue vehemently that the universe cannot simply exist, it must have a cause and that this is undeniable truth. Then they turn around and contradict their own principle and claim that god exists without a cause. But when you ask them why this principle applies to god, but cannot apply to anything else, they are strangely silent. It’s an old tired argument that gets trounced completely every time they bring it up, which is frequently.
    Now it will be time to ignore this and move onto some other “well, you can’t explain ____” argument.

  124. on 24 May 2013 at 1:37 pm 124.DPK said …

    Hey Lou… I answered every one of your questions.
    Are you ever going to answer mine?

    The question is your god is either the engineer of everything that happened, or he is a bumblefuck screw up.

    Which is it?

    You seem, after your last post, to indicate you think that god was unaware of what would happen because man has free will and god is therefore powerless. But, as usual, you are being very coy and evasive about it. How about you grow a pair and actually take a position, Lou? It’s your faith, after all, you MUST know what it is you actually believe. Why are you afraid to tell us?

  125. on 24 May 2013 at 2:22 pm 125.A said …

    Freddie

    You are dead. There is no contradiction. Lol!!!!

    Lou,

    You got that proof for Socrates yet? Lol!!!!

    If the universe can be eternal (sic), why can’t God?

    Can you find some scientist wh believe the universe can be eternal?

  126. on 24 May 2013 at 2:54 pm 126.DPK said …

    “If the universe can be eternal (sic), why can’t God?”

    God could be eternal, if he existed. The universe is here, god is not. An even bigger question is, why are you so incredibly stupid?

    You stating “there is no contradiction” isn’t an explanation, or even evidence. It’s just an empty claim.
    There certainly is a contradiction. If everything must have a cause, then god must have a cause.
    If a god does not need a cause, then not everything requires a cause. Then you need to show either what caused your god, or why your special exception applies to one thing, but not other things.

    “Can you find some scientist wh believe the universe can be eternal?”
    Oh, now you are putting your faith in science? hahaha. Yes, I can find “some scientist” who believes the universe is eternal. If I did, would you believe it because “some scientist” said so? If not, why bring it up?

  127. on 24 May 2013 at 2:56 pm 127.Lou said …

    Wrong again DPK. God can know what action a man will take but allow him to make his own choice.

    Why is it unfair for God to have one rule and expect a man to obey it? Explain yourself.

    Lets try this again so you cannot slip out. IF God created man would it be wrong for Him to create man knowing man would disobey.

    Convenient when you want to ask questions you have no problem assuming God. You see your cracks, eh?

  128. on 24 May 2013 at 3:04 pm 128.alex said …

    “Lets try this again so you cannot slip out. IF God created man would it be wrong for Him to create man knowing man would disobey.”

    i’m your huckleberry. yes. god knew that the consequence is eternal damnation. don’t even try to mitigate it.

    how old is the earth, moron.

  129. on 24 May 2013 at 3:39 pm 129.DPK said …

    127.Lou said …

    “Wrong again DPK. God can know what action a man will take but allow him to make his own choice.”

    Nice try, nut epic fail. Knowledge requires certainty. If god KNOWS what action a man will take then he has no other choice, because to do so would negate god’s knowledge. If god “knows” that tomorrow I will murder someone, then I have no choice. If I have a choice, then god cannot “know” what I will do.

    So, if god “knew” what would occur, his “one rule” is meaningless, because he gave it knowing full well it was impossible to follow. So, yes, he would bear complete responsibility.

    Sorry Lou, your irrationality is showing. I know you want to have your cake and eat it too, but here is where the shit hits the fan, and sorry, now you are covered in shit.

  130. on 24 May 2013 at 3:43 pm 130.Fluttershy said …

    “They say idiotic things like the human body is not well designed”

    The human body IS NOT well designed, if we had some DNA changes here and there, humans could live forever, not get cancer, be stronger, smarter, faster, better in general.

  131. on 24 May 2013 at 4:10 pm 131.Lou said …

    “If god KNOWS what action a man will take then he has no other choice”

    Wrong again. I made a choice to type that sentence. I made the choice to do it, God knew what choice I would make. God is NOT a man which is where you fail to understand. So simple a child could understand.

    This question is still terrifying you.

    Lets try this again so you cannot slip out. IF God created man would it be wrong for Him to create man knowing man would disobey.

    Convenient when you want to ask questions you have no problem assuming God. You see your cracks, eh?

    “he human body IS NOT well designed, if we had some DNA changes here and there, humans could live forever”

    He can’t be serious. Can you prove this? This is one on the funniest things I have read on this blog. Right up there with the dumbest things I have ever heard. How old are you Flutter?

  132. on 24 May 2013 at 4:14 pm 132.Lou said …

    “Then you need to show either what caused your god”

    Actually no one must answer this. We only need to take the atheist position. We don’t know but we will eventually. We can do that or just ignore the questions as atheists do.

    Now, prove how this universe can be eternal or how it created itself?

    Oh no DPK, stuck with your own sword.

  133. on 24 May 2013 at 4:47 pm 133.DPK said …

    131.Lou said …

    “If god KNOWS what action a man will take then he has no other choice”
    “Wrong again. I made a choice to type that sentence. I made the choice to do it, God knew what choice I would make.”
    Nope sorry, you can try your special pleading, but it doesn’t work. If a god KNEW I would type the sentence then I have no choice in the matter, because to have a choice would be to negate the knowledge. So simple a child can understand.

    “IF God created man would it be wrong for Him to create man knowing man would disobey.”
    Asked and answered. It would be wrong for god to punish man for disobeying, because it was the god who planned it that way and created him that way. If an engineer designs a car so that the wheels fall off, is it “wrong” for him to design the car? No. It would however, ve wrong for him to blame the car for the wheels coming off. It’s the designer’s fault, nit the cars. The car did what it was destined to do. So simple a child can understand.

    ““Then you need to show either what caused your god”

    Actually no one must answer this.

    Well, you do if you want to claim that everything must have a cause. Otherwise you must admit that your argument violates its own premise, so it is, as they say, bullshit. That’s for at least being honest enough to admit it, finally.

    Now, it seems you are caught in the cross hairs of at least 2 blatant and indefensible contradictions in your faith. Boy, that sucks huh? Hurry up.. time to change the subject. Hahahaha.

  134. on 24 May 2013 at 5:01 pm 134.michael said …

    i hope anyone who types the word ‘lol’ gets ass raped with the device the typed it on.

  135. on 24 May 2013 at 6:24 pm 135.40 Year Atheist said …

    I came across another description of having experienced the presence of the deity. It is nothing like the Atheists’ scornful “talking with sky-daddy”. It is not even a two-way communication of ideas in discrete human time clicks. And it is much more than a sudden realization or epiphany. There is one aspect of it that this new description provides: the experience includes what might be described as new knowledge and even a new knowledge type.

    Knowledge of the existence of a mystery beyond myself and beyond Materialism; or rather, the actual existence of something which remains mysterious to us: this is another view of having had an experience of the existence of the deity, an experience which is personal, non-replicable, non-tangible, yet as real as the experiences reached through neural transmission of sensory inputs. It is only a portion of the experience, but a necessary element of it. I repeat, it is only a portion of the experience.

    I am made completely aware that the mysterious element exists, that the element is actual. I am endowed with new knowledge which is inescapable, not a personal conclusion which is revocable.

    Atheism is a denial of the existence of that mystery. There can be no mysterious element in the Atheist worldview. Their evidence for that is merely denial and denigration of the Other; there is and can be no actual physical, replicable evidence to support their denial. The Atheist denial is a personal conclusion, without evidence for its support, a conclusion which is entirely revocable.

    The experience is more than just new knowledge, in the human sense of knowledge. It also appears as a different tool of discernment. As an Atheist I was not open to any analysis of Materialism itself; Materialism was a given, an axiom, a First Principle not to be questioned. This is at least in part because Materialism has no basis for its declaration; it is indefensible yet declared Truth. It is a religious doctrine, which is not to be subjected to the critical analysis so cherished for all other aspects of the universe.

    Atheists are content with this viewpoint. What annoys them is the persistence of those of us who have experienced more than that, outside of the restricted paradigm which materialists need to be the whole truth. Anything which threatens Materialism also threatens Atheism and all that goes along with it.

    The reason that there are so many uber-aggressive Atheists these days seems to be that the Other is a threat to the presupposed rationality of Atheism via the destruction of Materialism. So the Atheists counter-attack with Ad Hominems, False Dichotomies, Straw Men, and other non-sequiturs which they pretend is logic. The Other, they scream, is anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-women’s health, anti-minority, anti-rational. It is child abuse to suggest an openness to such knowledge to your children. Suggesting that such knowledge exists poisons everything. All wars are due to the belief in such knowledge. Poverty and environmental damage are caused by such knowledge. Such knowledge is nullified by the existence of gravity and the gratuitous extrapolations of evolutionary theory. Only fools and the demented believe in the existence of such knowledge.

    But their screams are not themselves based on valid premises and certainly not on any first principles which are logically defensible. Because a blind man has never experienced cobalt blue (one of my favorite colors) does not invalidate the existence of the experiencing of cobalt blue by other humans. Cobalt blue is not a physical actuality because it is actually a reflection of photons acting at a certain wave length. The experience itself as the color, cobalt blue, is internal and personal to each human. So there is no way that I can relate to a blind man what my experience of the color, cobalt blue, is like. There is no comparable internal reference for the blind man to use as a comparison – cobalt blue is like… So the communication between a seeing individual and a blind individual cannot include the experience of seeing cobalt blue.

    Is the blind man justified in denying the existence of the color, cobalt blue? Why would he attempt do this irrational mental jump into the abyss? The reason must be other than logic; it is based on wishfulness, a need for the color not to exist, an emotional drive to make it not exist.

    So it is with Materialism and Atheism. It is just not possible to make Atheism rational. It is possible, however, to defend it irrationally, loudly, and legally (expensive for the Other, of course). And that is the essence of aggressive Atheism.
    Posted by Stan at Thursday, May 26, 2011 43 comments: Links to this post
    Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
    Labels: Atheist Beliefs, Atheist Logic Loops and Lapses, Atheist psychology, knowledge
    Tuesday, November 16, 2010
    What do Atheists know?
    Do Atheists have evidence for their belief that there is no deity? What could possibly serve as firm, material evidence for a negative proposition such as that? If the evidentiary demands are not for physical evidence, then what sort of non-material (aka super-natural) evidence do they embrace?

    As with all things Atheist, there is no common assent to any specific philosophy or even modus operandi. Every Atheist is allowed, and is generally even proud of, his own freedom to create his own philosophy, his own ethic, his own worldview, his own reality and truth. (Well, maybe not truth, some claim that it is true that there is no truth.) In formal debate situations, Atheists will limit their admission of the possibility of real knowledge to be restricted to material, physical knowledge. This knowledge, they will say, is verifiable; no other type of proposed knowledge has this quality.

    Is verifiability a guarantee of knowledge of reality? Is it the most fundamental property of truth? If we declare that it is both the fundamental property of truth and a guarantee of knowledge of reality, how do we know that? How is that declaration verified, itself?

    The question, “how do we know that” leads to either a circular argument, an infinite regress, the need for basic foundational principles, or the concession that we can know nothing. Circular arguments and infinite regressions are unsatisfactory. Basic foundational principles are arguable, even deniable. That leaves us with the inability to know anything with any certainty at all: radical skepticism.

    Radical Skepticism exists based on the rejectability of virtually everything, due to the potential falsity of all input, including sensory (external) input that is our window to the world outside our selves. Radical Skepticism especially rejects internal sources (experiential, intuitive, reflective, abstract) which derive from our own mental activity. Let’s take some examples.

    The Problem of Evidence
    Did Bertrand Russell exist? How can I know with assurance? What is the evidence, and how is it validated?

    Direct Evidence: There is none: The existence of Bertrand Russell has reputedly ceased. But even if he were still (reputedly) alive, and we could touch and hear a person reputed to be him, that sensory input is suspect, as will be shown below.

    Indirect Evidence: There are historical accounts regarding Russell: But history is not reliable. And there are Russell’s writings: books, letters and speeches with “Bertrand Russell” attributions; but are these really written by someone called Bertrand Russell? What evidence is there that proves the validity of this evidence? An infinite regress is required here: how do validate the evidence that is used to validate the original evidence?

    Photos: Is this man Bertrand Russell? Really? For certain? Says who?
    Witness testimony is notably unreliable.

    Both sensory perceptions and internal ruminations are rejectable as potentially erroneous and flawed sources for valid information about anything to be known with certainty.

    If we can’t know anything for certain, can we Know that we can’t know anything? For certain?

    Brain in a Vat: Destruction of sensory knowledge as a valid source.

    The idea behind a Brain in a Vat is the speculation that I might exist in a false universe, one that is created and exists only in my mind. Descartes posited a meddling demon controlling our minds, while the more modern idea is that a horde of scientists are feeding my vat-bound, detached brain with all the neurological signals that make me think that I am interacting with a universe that does not actually exist. Even the date and time are false – the scientists and my actual brain exist far in the future, while my neural inputs make me think I am in the 21st century. Everything I experience is false, a fantasy simulation that is maintained by the myriad scientists feeding signals into my brain.

    How am I to prove, conclusively, that this is not the case? What evidence can I produce and submit to myself that will be adequate to invalidate this idea with absolute certainty?

    G.E. Moore raised a hand; “here is a hand”, he said, then, “here is another hand”. Moore’s point was that some things are undeniable. How is that possible? Moore could have been a brain-in-a-vat, or possibly part of my own brain-in-a-vat simulated but false experiences. What exactly determines deniability?

    Traditional concepts of evidence are wholly inadequate to vanquish this problem: there is no way to prove that the brain-in-a-vat is false. Yet we don’t believe that to be the case. I have never met anyone who thought he was a brain-in-a-vat, and that I was merely a simulation for him to experience in his brain.

    Further, there is no evidence to actually support the concept that I am, in fact, a brain-in-a-vat. It seems obvious that I am able to direct much of my experience myself. I am able to go, at will, to incredibly detailed places, such as giant stores with myriad products that I can touch and manipulate; I can trek to wilderness areas with incredible panoramas of flora, fauna, and geology; there are billions of people that I can interact with in complex modes. There seems to be a limitless unboundedness to this simulation. Plus, I have a strong sense that if my free agency does not exist, then I do not exist. I am not an automaton, performing previously established tasks. Yet I cannot prove this belief.

    Can Knowledge Exist?
    If nothing can disprove the idea that existence as I know it is really a simulation and not real at all, then how can I know anything? What is certainty, anyway? What is the nature of knowledge and how is it validated sufficiently to be allowed as an acceptable belief?

    Original Empiricism, Common Sense, and Worldview Assembly.
    Perhaps I am, in fact, living in a simulation. What can I know about it – what are the characteristics of my environment, whether simulated or real? How would the process of knowledge acquisition and validation differ from that required if I lived in actual reality?

    It would all start with observation, in either reality or simulated reality. What can I observe about the universe that is useful in helping me to understand and deal with it? Is it consistent? Is it contradictory? What elements within the universe determine my abilities to live, to think, and to cope with my environment? Observation is the original empiricism: basic knowledge is that experience which we encounter frequently enough that we grant its existence as real, or at least real enough to expect its existence and recurrence. Babies differentiate between women in general and Mommy by having experienced a relationship between the specific Mommy person and a full stomach, after having expressed the distress of the hunger experience. Observation of repetitive experiences generates expectations of consistency.

    We might come to think that the consistency that we find in our universal environment tends to discount the idea of hordes of scientists feeding us simulation data; there would surely be a rift in the consistency of such a system at some point. Even the ability to test the simulation from within the simulation, destroying pieces of it here, creating new things there, leads to discounting the idea that my universe is not real. What about creating sub-simulations? Or Meta-simulations? At what point is a fantasy disputable enough to discount it altogether, even without the ability to produce physical evidence of its non-existence? Or perhaps, at what point is it necessary to care whether I am living in a simulation or in physical reality? If one is indiscernible from the other, what does it matter, at bottom? And if this is so, then skepticism, especially radical skepticism, has no force.

    And very specifically this exercise shows that knowledge is generated by a free agent mind, through observing, cataloging and judging any and all inputs to the mind, regardless of the source. It is the faculty group within the mind, operating on experiences received by the mind, that determines what can be accepted as knowledge and what is to be rejected as fallacy. It is not the input source that makes the determination: it is the mind.

    Source of Experiences
    Along with the obvious external neural feeds from the environment, are there any other experiences that can generate knowledge? What would the source of such experiences be? For example, working a mathematical solution to proposed mathematical paradoxes: where does this experience come from, if it is not generated as a physical object (or a simulated external object)? Is it the molecular composition of nerves, or the electrochemical discharges that are producing this knowledge? Is there any reason to view molecules or electron/ion flow and declare, this will produce higher mathematics? Or empathy? Or green? Or knowledge in general?

    The brain is molecules and electron/ion flow and blood flow. It is the mind that resides on the brain that produces rational categorization of experiences which turns into knowledge.

    Locke’s hypothesis of the faculties of the mind still stand, except perhaps amongst the chronic skeptics, many of whom deny even consciousness. Locke proposed that the mind (being a blank slate in terms of original knowledge) had the faculties of apprehension, comparison, differentiation, judgment, and comprehension. These, along with various types of memory, form an operational basis for rational assessment of one’s environment. They form an internal intellectual system for generating and validating experiences as knowledge.

    If this is so – and there is no non-chronically-skeptical reason to think it is not so – then knowledge is not determined solely by externally replicated experiences. Knowledge also comes from non-sensory sources, too.

    What are the principles used by the faculties of differentiation and judgment, and what are their sources? Do these not require the same consistency and coherence mentioned above?

    It seems that consistency and coherence are basic requirements for knowledge, for the ability to know anything and to judge its certainty. In fact, they are known as First Principles.

    I recently came across a website that, along with being Atheist, rejects Boolean logic and the First Principles. This apparently is predicated on unknowability principles that are now emplaced in mathematics, those theorems of Godel, and the intuitionist logic of Brouwer, which displaces much of standard mathematics with philosophy based on unknowability presuppositions. But these arguments cannot defeat the standard objection: if one can’t know anything for certain, then one can’t know with certainty that he can’t know anything for certain. This paradox is a logical defeater, but under the radical skepticism principles, paradoxes don’t prove anything either, since logic is unknowable or at least unprovable. So logic doesn’t exist in the world of such skeptics.

    The skeptic’s position of unknowability does not match up with observable knowledge. It is observable that the universe, whether real or simulated, is consistent in its behaviors according to physical laws; that the laws are coherent; and that we can know that, within the limits of induction. We can also know that there are limits to inductive certainty, and that with a huge number of observations of consistency, the certainty, while still not complete, is higher than the certainty of unknowability. Observations trump philosophy, when the philosophy is not congruent with observations.

    It has been observed that skeptics do not behave in a manner consistent with their philosophy. Skeptics do know that the bus is coming and they do not step in front of it in the belief that their senses are faulty. They do not step off of balconies or the edges of cliffs. They do eat food, drive cars in abeyance of the hazard of other vehicles on the road, some even have sex and raise families just as if they actually exist. This failure to behave within the belief system is pointed to as philosophical hypocrisy by dissenting philosophers of the “reality” bent.

    Yet in order for a materialist to salvage a system of beliefs which cannot be proven valid, such as Atheism, one must assert unknowability for at least some of the experiences and philosophies encountered (not his own of course).

    And there it stands, they mired in illogic while being forced to assert that there is no logic, it being unknowable. The rest of us have to proceed without them, in the knowledge that knowledge is possible, rationality is possible, it being based on fundamental principles that are observable in the universe, and which are useful in developing rational worldviews, rather than basking in non-coherence while rejecting coherence as a valid principle. It is one thing to declare oneself and ones position as being rational; it is another to define rationality, to accept its existence, and actually use rationality in creating ones position.

    Note: Some of this is based on ideas in Michael Huemer’s book, “Skepticism and the Veil of Perception”: highly recommended.

  136. on 24 May 2013 at 7:08 pm 136.Fluttershy said …

    “He can’t be serious. Can you prove this? This is one on the funniest things I have read on this blog. Right up there with the dumbest things I have ever heard. How old are you Flutter?”

    Ever heard of a water hydra? Lives forever unless something happens to it.
    Ever heard of a shark? Never gets cancer.
    Problem is that modifying genes and whatnot to that degree is pretty much impossible…
    If you believe that this is the dumbest thing you have heard, i honestly dont want to know how you think biology works…
    And yes, i am serious.
    Back on topic.
    “Actually no one must answer this. We only need to take the atheist position. We don’t know but we will eventually. We can do that or just ignore the questions as atheists do.”

    This is an atheist blog…therefore WE ask the questions and demand the answers, want to learn from us? Send us a link to a theist blog or something.

    “Now, prove how this universe can be eternal or how it created itself?”
    This question is irrelevant and impossible to answer, why you would ask it is beyond me…

  137. on 24 May 2013 at 7:20 pm 137.A said …

    Butterfly,

    You should remain silent rather than showing stupidity. Nothing built, designed or created survives forever. That does not imply bad design. No, DNA manipulation will not lead to living forever. The universe will have an end. Fearing death my little horsey?

    No, lol!!, not looking to learn from you unless it is about ponies.

  138. on 24 May 2013 at 7:53 pm 138.DPK said …

    131.Lou said …
    “If god KNOWS what action a man will take then he has no other choice” “Wrong again. I made a choice to type that sentence. I made the choice to do it, God knew what choice I would make.”

    Nope sorry, your special pleading doesn’t work. If a god KNEW I would type the sentence then I have no choice in the matter, because to have a choice would be to negate the knowledge. So simple a child can understand. Knowledge is certainty. Certainty negates choice. I cannot choose not to write the sentence because doing so would make god wrong about what he knew would happen. By the same law of logic, if a god KNEW that Eve would bite the apple, then Eve had no choice but to bite the apple. Nice try and doublethink, but epic, epic fail. Crash and burn Louie, crash and burn.

    “IF God created man would it be wrong for Him to create man knowing man would disobey.”
    Asked and answered. It would be wrong for god to punish man for disobeying, because it was the god who planned it that way and created him that way. If an engineer designs a car so that the wheels fall off, is it “wrong” for him to design the car? No. It would however, ve wrong for him to blame the car for the wheels coming off. It’s the designer’s fault, nit the cars. The car did what it was destined to do. So simple a child can understand.

  139. on 24 May 2013 at 7:56 pm 139.Fluttershy said …

    “Nothing built, designed or created survives forever.”
    HAHA.
    Well that proves how ignorant you are, as i said earlier, the water hydra (a little creature that lives in water) is biologically immortal, it doesn’t die until something eats it or it gets sick.
    “The universe will have an end.”
    I agree, i never claimed it didn’t :P
    “No, DNA manipulation will not lead to living forever.”
    Its possible, however unlikely.
    “Fearing death my little horsey?”
    You could just state my name, rather than a incorrect spelling of a particular show i watch, but yes, i do fear death, are you saying you don’t?
    “No, lol!!, not looking to learn from you unless it is about ponies.”
    The fact that you used lol in there is a tad bit…odd…
    I have plenty to teach you, you merely wont listen to the damned posts.
    Being that i havent posted any information about Mlp, i dont have much to tell people here, unless you want to learn more about it? other than that, im going to stick to the topic…

  140. on 24 May 2013 at 8:40 pm 140.michael said …

    what do you think heaven is like?

    my guess it is a lot like church.

    singing the praises of god.

    im guessing hell is more like vegas.

    gambling, sex, and magic shows.

    good people that like good things go to a good place.

    and interesting people go to an interesting place.

    the downside is all the nazi’s, but hey, ya gotta take the good with the bad.

  141. on 24 May 2013 at 9:43 pm 141.alex said …

    132.Lou said …

    blah, blah, motherfucking blah. you get your questions answered and you blah some more. go fuck yourself. until you show proof of your god……

    like you said, atheists don’t have to prove shit. again, go fuck yourself.

  142. on 24 May 2013 at 11:53 pm 142.Lou said …

    Nope wrong again DPK. Your continued ignorance on the subject will not change facts. I have multiple choices and I make a choice. God knowing what I will choose doesn’t change the fact I have a choice. With this truth your entire argument collapses and burns.
    I understand liberals hate responsibility and how much they want to blame others.

    Notice multiple uses of “Choice”. I’m sorry if
    you do not have choices. That might be best.

  143. on 24 May 2013 at 11:58 pm 143.the messenger said …

    140.michael, hell is a jail that is burning and full of terrifying creatures.

    Heaven is a place where you can truly be at peace. You can be with your friends, you family, and there is no hate or jealousy, there is only love.

  144. on 25 May 2013 at 12:18 am 144.the messenger said …

    139.Fluttershy, there was a time when I did not believe. I had lost my faith. But even then, I still did not fear death.

    I have faith in GOD, and I still do not fear death.
    Atheists fear GOD, and fear punishment for their sins. That is why they lost faith. They are cowards.

  145. on 25 May 2013 at 1:17 am 145.DPK said …

    Oh Lou.. I agree you indeed have free will and have the ability to make a choice. This is because there is no god with foreknowledge of the event.
    You can deny the logical fallacy of your statement until your brains fall out, if they haven’t already, but if your actions are already “known” then you cannot change them. Simple as that, even a child can understand. If I have a choice to do x or y, then it cannot be known if I will do x or y. If it is already known that I will do x, then I cannot possibly do y, now can I?

    Your argument collapses around you just like your delusional belief in a magical god.
    But your continued denial is very amusing, if somewhat tragic.

  146. on 25 May 2013 at 2:13 am 146.Anonymous said …

    Lou Lou with christian logic in action:

    I have multiple choices and I make a choice. God knowing what I will choose doesn’t change the fact I have a choice.

    The choices you make every day are PRE-DESTINED and play out as part of GODS PLAN for you. Simply put, the all knowing, all seeing, all powerful entity known as god has mapped out each action in advance of the event. If that is not the case, then god’s power is effectively diminished and irrelevant. The christian god knew in advance I would write this, so it must approve of my message.

  147. on 25 May 2013 at 2:24 am 147.Martin said …

    Lets examine DPK’s logic.

    A.DPK has a choice of X or Y
    B.The deity knows the choice of X or Y
    C.DPK doesn’t have the this foreknowledge
    D.DPK’s choice is limited to X

    Naturally, the logic does not follow. No man can know what the deity knows therefore Lou’s decision has not been predetermined. The deity makes options available but the foreknowledge could be X or Y.

    Secondly, we cannot know if the deity purposely decides not to have this knowledge available. This would be like parents expecting a baby but refuse to be told the gender.

    DPK’s position does not hold up.

  148. on 25 May 2013 at 2:43 am 148.DPK said …

    Of course it does.
    I can choose x or y.
    A deity knows I will choose x.
    Regardless of whether I am awarebo it or not, if I choose y, the deity’s knowledge is wrong.
    Since the deity has perfect foreknowledge, this cannot occur.
    I cannot choose y.
    Therefore, m “freedom” to choose is an illusion.
    If there is foreknowledge, ther must be certainty. If there is certainty, there can be no choice.
    Give it up. Your position is simply ridiculous.

  149. on 25 May 2013 at 3:27 am 149.DPK said …

    Perfect example of how insane the belief in an all knowing and all powerful god is. Even when faced with the absolute reality that such a thing cannot be reconciled with the idea of free will, or chance, the still try to cling to self delusion.

    Simple reality, if a deity in fact “knows” what will occur, then there can be no other possibility, and we are nothing more than puppets.

    The insanity of religious belief, illustrated.

  150. on 25 May 2013 at 11:56 am 150.michael said …

    in matthew 5 ol’ jeebis says that those ridiculed are blessed. why dont you religious assholes just sit back and take it? why do you want respect in this life and power in the next.

    you greedy fucks.

  151. on 25 May 2013 at 12:17 pm 151.alex said …

    “you greedy fucks.” granted by the almighty, bullshit god. nobody caught you with that little boy? 30 hail fucking mary’s, clean slate and do it again with a clear conscience. got caught? see the bullshit priest and reprieve is granted. you sick? modern medicine is great! didn’t work? don’t worry, god has other plans and if you pray really hard, god will hook up in heaven. right, morons?

  152. on 25 May 2013 at 12:31 pm 152.Lou said …

    Thank you Msrtin. Well illustrated.

  153. on 25 May 2013 at 1:17 pm 153.alex said …

    let’s examine martin’s/lou’s goody godly stance.

    1) how old is the earth? give or take hundreds of thousands of years.
    2) how about producing your absolute morals? we’ll test it against 10 xtians and 10 atheists and see how it does.

    of course, they won’t reply, the cowardly asses. they’d rather steer the shit towards some bullshit liberal diversion or some other atheist irrelevant shit. if nothing else, they’ll either fire up the sock engine or their cuckoo inside voices and conjure up some more atheist lies.

  154. on 25 May 2013 at 1:18 pm 154.DPK said …

    Yes Martin, ER, other Lou. Your ability to delude yourself has been very well illustrated.
    Thank you.

  155. on 25 May 2013 at 1:19 pm 155.Anonymous said …

    More christian delusion, from Martin:

    No man can know what the deity knows therefore Lou’s decision has not been predetermined. The deity makes options available but the foreknowledge could be X or Y.

    I am not exactly sure what this means “foreknowledge could be X or Y”. Maybe Martin can elaborate.

    The error is in the first sentence from the quote. Lou’s decision HAS been predetermined because the deity knows (wether it’s good or bad) what it will be. Any deviation from that and god loses his power.

    Of course, Lou approves of your christian logic. No surprise.

  156. on 25 May 2013 at 2:37 pm 156.Anonymous said …

    Lou and Martin commenting on free will is like dumb and dumber explaining physics. Now all we need is for “a” to chime in and we’ll have the three stooges.

  157. on 25 May 2013 at 2:39 pm 157.Curmudgeon said …

    The key here is the deity Has given a choice. A choice has been given to the created. The Creator knowing the results of the choice does not negate the free will to chose.

  158. on 25 May 2013 at 3:04 pm 158.DPK said …

    157.Curmudgeon said …

    “The key here is the deity Has given a choice. A choice has been given to the created. The Creator knowing the results of the choice does not negate the free will to chose.”

    Of course it does, because one can NOT choose the option that the deity knows will not occur. How stupid can you be? If the all knowing god “Knows” x will be chosen, then one cannot possibly choose y, therefore free will is impossible. You ignoring the obvious does not make it go away! hahaha… can’t even say nice try to that one, dumbass.

    “Secondly, we cannot know if the deity purposely decides not to have this knowledge available. This would be like parents expecting a baby but refuse to be told the gender.”

    Sorry Martin… it’s not like that AT ALL. What a stupid thing to say. How desperate are you to make up excuses for your delusion?
    A baby’s gender is already determined, whether the parents choose to be informed of it or not. Their knowledge of the sex of the fetus does not affect the outcome. The fetus does not have “free will: to choose to be make of female.
    Now if an all knowing deity “knows”, or CAN KNOW the child will be conceived male before conception… the child cannot possibly be female. Therefore it’s gender is predetermined. Chance plays no part.

  159. on 25 May 2013 at 4:25 pm 159.alex said …

    “A choice has been given to the created.”

    ..therefore, if the same dipshit god saves the lone trailer woman, he fucks up the rest of the park inhabitants by ignoring them, yes? what? he’s got other plans for them? then it ain’t a choice, is it?

    or your god doesn’t really bless, does he? just like a nonexistant, fucking god.

  160. on 25 May 2013 at 4:33 pm 160.Lou said …

    Cur no matter how many ways it is explained, DPK cannot grasp it. I’d suggest a book but he couldn’t grasp the content.

  161. on 25 May 2013 at 4:55 pm 161.alex said …

    no matter how many times the theist assholes get their butts handed to them, they keep coming back. god is great, motherfuckers.

  162. on 25 May 2013 at 5:25 pm 162.DPK said …

    160.Lou said …

    Cur no matter how many ways it is explained, DPK cannot grasp it. I’d suggest a book but he couldn’t grasp the content”

    Well you’re right there. No matter how many ways you try to rationalize it, your position is simply wrong.

    Put it this way, If I can choose between x and y, and your almighty god knows I will choose x, is there any conceivable scenario in which I will choose y?
    No, not without violating your god’s knowledge.
    Therefore it is NOT possible that I will choose y, yet you say I am free to do so? So, I am completely free to choose x or y, except I can only choose x. Is that how it works, Lou?

  163. on 25 May 2013 at 5:29 pm 163.DPK said …

    A perfect example of christian insanity.
    Next it will be, “god know what is best, and has decided what will be according to his divine and perfect plan. But he listen to your prayers, and will answer them.”

    You people are simply insane. There is really no other explanation.

  164. on 25 May 2013 at 5:38 pm 164.DPK said …

    161.alex said …

    “no matter how many times the theist assholes get their butts handed to them, they keep coming back. god is great, motherfuckers.”

    I’m surprised they haven’t pulled the ultimate get out of jail free card yet…. “yes, god can know what will happen AND you are free to choose what will happen because he is god and can do anything.”

    As with most theistic claims, when they debate honestly, it always ends in a train wreck for them… that’s why they are always very reluctant to give an honest answer about their beliefs, and always resort to coyness and diversion. Now it’s “Oh, DPK is too stupid to understand the concept.” Sure… that’s it wink wink…

    And the circus continues…. next on the list is the fetus that will not decide if it is male or female until it is born.

  165. on 25 May 2013 at 6:23 pm 165.DPK said …

    A hypothetical conversation with Lou:

    Me: “Lou, I don’t know if I should have pancakes or eggs for breakfast.”

    Lou: “You can choose whichever you like, and it will be the right choice because god already knows which you will choose.”

    Me: “Scrambled eggs then”

    Lou: “Good choice. God knew you would pick eggs.”

    Me: “In that case, I change my mind… pancakes.”

    Lou: “God knew you would change your mind.”

    Me: “Fuck that then, I’ll have a bagel.”

    Lou: “Ahhh… god knew you would change you mind again. See, you can’t win. Whatever you decide, god already knew it…. hahaha. And my dad can beat up your dad.”

    At which point I’d probably get a bat and beat the shit out of Lou, and then ask if god knew I was going to do that?

    hahahaha. Theism should be classified as a form of mental retardation, seriously.

  166. on 25 May 2013 at 7:06 pm 166.A said …

    DIP is an angry little guy. Frustration with his limited intellect and now lashes out with violence. Violence is part of that stellar atheist morality.

    How sad for him and those who must tolerate him.

  167. on 25 May 2013 at 7:10 pm 167.A said …

    DIP its true, you can’t win. You will never outfox God. Keep trying, maybe you will get it eventually.

  168. on 25 May 2013 at 7:17 pm 168.alex said …

    “You will never outfox God.”

    how can a non-entity be outfoxed?

    “maybe you will get it eventually.”

    how is nothing gotten?

    keep coming, you fuckheads and you will slink away as always. what? the nasty atheists persecuting your ass?

  169. on 25 May 2013 at 7:19 pm 169.alex said …

    “Violence is part of that stellar atheist morality.”

    wah! dpk is threatening me. what a fuckhead. it’s easy to apoligize for the talking donkey, but dpk, advocating violence? what a joke.

  170. on 25 May 2013 at 7:27 pm 170.DPK said …

    I said Lou would say… “And my dad can beat up your dad.”

    Instead “other Lou”, “A” replies… “DIP its true, you can’t win. You will never outfox God.”

    As predicted.

    hahaha… notice though, there is no answer to the paradox:
    ” If I can choose between x and y, and your almighty god knows I will choose x, is there any conceivable scenario in which I will choose y?”
    “How is it that it is NOT possible that I will choose y, yet you say I am free to do so? I am completely free to choose x or y, except I can only choose x. Is that how it works, Lou, uh, A, uh, Crum?

    Explain it to us. This should be good…. Maybe Socrates can explain it?

  171. on 25 May 2013 at 7:55 pm 171.DPK said …

    Hey!
    I’m just as powerful as god, and I’ll prove it.
    I know EXACTLY what Alex will type next.

    Alex… go ahead and type something, and I’ll bet you a million dollars I know exactly what you will say…..

    As soon as you post it I’ll let you know if I was right.

    D

  172. on 25 May 2013 at 8:04 pm 172.alex said …

    allahu akbar?

  173. on 25 May 2013 at 10:42 pm 173.DPK said …

    Here is what I predicted Alex would say

    “allahu akbar?”

    I got this god shit nailed. Ain’t so hard to win when you also get to make the rules!
    I should start a religion. I could sure use some tax free income!

  174. on 25 May 2013 at 10:44 pm 174.DPK said …

    Happy Memorial Day everyone.
    Don’t or get to honor the REAL hero’s who do sacrifice themselves for us every day, and give thanks to those that truly deserve it!

  175. on 25 May 2013 at 10:46 pm 175.DPK said …

    Don’t forget…. Sorry, typing on an iPad is always an adventure.
    I wonder why god didn’t fix that?

  176. on 26 May 2013 at 12:03 am 176.The Messenger said …

    145.DPK, GOD made us.

    He knows us, and what choices will make.

    We have free will because we do not know what our choices will be.

    God knows what they will be, but we do not. He does not force us to do anything, he just knows what we will do,and what we will choose to do, but he does not force it upon us.

    Stop living in denial.

  177. on 26 May 2013 at 12:34 am 177.michael said …

    if god actually existed someone would have caught a miracle on videotape. everyone and their grandmother has a phone with a camera in it. if there was any evidence at all it would have surfaced. the religious organizations would all hail it as absolute proof for their god and it would be one of the biggest discoveries of that humankind with ever make.

    instead…nothing. nada. zero.

    no god. no miracles. pray all you want. its just wishful thinking. something for those with no other recourse. enjoy your delusion.

  178. on 26 May 2013 at 1:21 am 178.Martin said …

    “someone would have caught a miracle on videotape.”

    Michael one reason is few use videotape any longer. However, what would you see on “videotape” that would be evidence?

  179. on 26 May 2013 at 1:22 am 179.Martin said …

    Thank you DPK.

  180. on 26 May 2013 at 1:36 am 180.alex said …

    “Michael one reason is few use videotape any longer.”

    context, dude, damn.

    “However, what would you see on “videotape” that would be evidence?”

    nothing too difficult for a god. levitation maybe? it’s got to be a good one, not the blaine version. just about any magician trick, but you know atheists are hard to trick. let’s turn it around. what would jesus have to do to show theists that he’s back? otherwise, he’d just be some wacko?

  181. on 26 May 2013 at 2:56 am 181.DPK said …

    “However, what would you see on “videotape” that would be evidence?”

    I’d settle for god spontaneously re growing an amputated limb. I’ll bet there are hundreds of deserving vets who would appreciate a Memorial Day miracle like that. But you KNOW that wont happen, don’t you, Martin? I mean you believe god can do it, but you know he won’t, right Martin? “Faith is believing in stuff you know ain’t true.”- Mark Twain

  182. on 26 May 2013 at 4:04 am 182.Anonymous said …

    Now the theist turn.

    Many religions claim some form of miracle. Martin, A, Lou, Curmudgeon etc, what evidence would convince you that the claims of other religions are true?

  183. on 26 May 2013 at 9:04 am 183.Fluttershy said …

    allah coming from space and bitch slapping all the christians ;D

  184. on 26 May 2013 at 12:05 pm 184.alex said …

    “what evidence would convince you that the claims of other religions are true?”

    to even consider answering would be blasphemous. these morons are so brainwashed, when they see questions like this, their focus just fuzz out, you know like japanese porn. this question is off limits to the idiots. however, they will do what they do, derail the shit and spout off some irrelevance.

    what’s that sound i hear? oh, no, the sock brigade is coming. put your gloves on and bust out the air fresheners! hitler, liberals, and bears, oh my.

  185. on 26 May 2013 at 1:34 pm 185.Anonymous said …

    Well the question on what would evidence would change the theist mind is right on topic. Martin’s diversion isn’t.

  186. on 26 May 2013 at 2:07 pm 186.DPK said …

    “We have free will because we do not know what our choices will be.”

    Oh! Now I recognize this. It is a common theological approach to thinking. It’s called bullshit.

    Free will has nothing to do with not knowing what our choices will be if that choice is already known.
    Answer the question.
    If I can choose freely between x and y, but a deity knows I will choose x, is there ANY possibility I will choose y? No, because if I were to choose y, that would falsify the deity’s knowledge.
    How can you claim I have the free will to choose either x or y, when you admit it is NOT POSSIBLE for me to choose the option the deity KNOWS I will not choose.
    If the deity knows I will not choose y, then I cannot be said to have a choice to choose y.

    This is inescapable logic that prevents either foreknowledge or free will. They simply cannot both exist. No way, no how. You coming here and repeatedly claiming otherwise by simply declaring it to be true only shows the depth of you delusion and insanity.

  187. on 26 May 2013 at 3:49 pm 187.michael said …

    no one uses videotape anymore.

    your a dumb motherfucker martin.

  188. on 26 May 2013 at 7:48 pm 188.Martin said …

    We have levitation and regenerating limb as proof. However this would not convince Atheists God exists This would be credited to evolution by Atheists. God knows the heart. They didn’t believe Jesus when he completed miracles and Atheists wouldn’t believe either.
    I have already seen the miracles that proves God’s existence and need no further proof. Thanks for asking. I didn’t even need Michael”s videotape.

  189. on 26 May 2013 at 8:14 pm 189.alex said …

    “They didn’t believe Jesus when he completed miracles and Atheists wouldn’t believe either.”

    so if some dude did these exact bullshit miracles you hold so dear, you would purse your lips, kiss his ass and pronounce him messiah, the redux? what would hesus have to do, for you to believe? of course, you won’t answer, you holier than thou piece of shit.

    you asked what would constitute video evidence and you scoff? tell me then, motherfucker, what should atheists accept as video evidence, since you won’t accept any answer?

  190. on 26 May 2013 at 11:25 pm 190.Anonymous said …

    “I have already seen the miracles that proves God’s existence and need no further proof.”

    Martin, please share them with us. No excuses, no diversionary questions, just share them please.

    Also, you didn’t answer this:

    “Many religions claim some form of miracle. Martin, A, Lou, Curmudgeon etc, what evidence would convince you that the claims of other religions are true?”

    What is your answer, particularly as you already have a standard by which you judge miracles according to your faith?

  191. on 26 May 2013 at 11:30 pm 191.The messenger said …

    Brother 186.DPK, free will is the ability to make a choice without someone forcing an option upon you.

    GOD does not force us to do anything. He only compels us.

    Tell me, if I were to put food in front of a starving dog, I know that the dog would eat it. I know what the dog will do. That does not mean that the dog does not have a chocie whether or not to eat it.

    The fact that I know what will happen does not mean that the dog does not have a choice, it simply means that I know how it will react under certain conditions.

  192. on 26 May 2013 at 11:36 pm 192.The messenger said …

    189.alex, I gave you proof.

  193. on 27 May 2013 at 12:49 am 193.Martin said …

    Anonymous I already know the truth so I’m good. Share my evidence? I will share the answer just like you and others share answers to questions. You just want to poke fun so go ahead.

    And as well, I don’t need your approval of my proofs just stick with your existing labels. I’m good. Why would you want me to shove my beliefs down your throat. Gotcha.

    What I will do when I have time is point out the logical fallacies when you and others present them.

  194. on 27 May 2013 at 12:56 am 194.Anonymous said …

    Martin:

    What I will do when I have time is point out the logical fallacies when you and others present them.

    Such as the concept of “free will”? How’d that go for you?

  195. on 27 May 2013 at 1:39 am 195.40 Year Atheist said …

    Sam Harris bases his argument against free will on two premises: first, there is neuroscience which shows a delay in blood flow in the brain between initiation of blood flow and the declaration of conscious recognition, from fractions of a second to 7 to 10 seconds. Second, because we are ignorant of the causal physics which produces our thoughts and actions fully formed and complete to the conscious mind, there is no freedom involved in our conscious thinking.

    These premises are exercised over and over throughout the book.

    But these premises are defective in the first place and ignore other solutions completely. This book is a rationalization of a position which Harris has chosen in advance, a position which is necessary for his Atheism and Philosophical Materialism, both of which he also exercises in the book

    The first premise is based on the concept that correlation is causation, which Harris embraces completely with no apparent realization of the logical defect, and no explanation for using it as a first principle.

    The second premise is based on the concept that the ignorance of X proves something about X: consequences of X are an illusion. More completely stated, ignorance of the source of Q proves that Q is an illusion despite universal experience of Q and material evidence for Q.

    Harris also demonstrates his ignorance of Christianity in an unjustified complaint, which is neither the case nor necessary to his argument.

    THE BOOK
    This is not, Harris says, philosophical materialism. He explains, on page 11:
    “It is important to recognize that the case I am building against free will does not depend on philosophical materialism (the assumption that reality is, at bottom, purely physical). There is no question that (most, if not all) mental events are the product of physical events. The brain is physical system, entirely beholden to the laws of nature-and there is every reason to believe that changes in its functional state and material structure entirely dictate our thoughts and actions.”
    This is fundamentally flawed from the get-go. First, he contradicts himself completely by claiming no philosophical materialism, then he makes completely materialist claims without any reasoning, any data. He makes red-flag generalizations to bolster his claim with imagined authority: “no question that”; “every reason to believe”. He has established both Philosophical Materialism and internal contradiction to be the foundation for his argument.

    And he continues on page 12:
    “But even if the human mind were made of soul-stuff, nothing about my argument would change. The unconscious operation of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the unconscious physiology of your brain does.”

    And this provides the basis for ignoring the possibility of a non-material mind, which initiates the neural activity which Harris will repeatedly call “mysterious”, ad nauseum. So he has established, apparently in his mind, a blockade for the defense of materialism, which he denies using.

    Harris’ principle for this book is singular and it is knowledge based. Says Harris on pg 8, after referring to the Libet, and two other fMRI brain scan experiments, discussed below:
    “Some moments before you are aware of what you will do next – a time in which you subjectively appear to have complete freedom to behave however you please – your brain has already determined what you will do. You then become conscious of this “decision” and believe that you are in the process of making it.”

    He continues on page 9:
    “…I, as the conscious witness of my experience, no more initiate the events in my prefrontal cortex than I cause my heart to beat.”
    And,

    “…even if all mental states were truly co-incident with their underlying brain states – I cannot decide what I will next think or intend until a thought or intention arises.”
    Harris proceeds to repeat these claims as if they were established fact, incorrigible and unquestionable and not Philosophical Materialist. On page 16:
    “Today, the only philosophically respectable way to endorse free will is to be a compatiblist – because we know that determinism, in every sense relevant to human behavior, is true. Unconsious neural events determine our thoughts and actions – and are themselves determined by prior causes of which we are subjectively unaware.”
    [emphasis added]

    And on page 27:
    “Cause and Effect
    In physical terms we know that every human action can be reduced to a series of impersonal events: Genes are transcribed, neurotransmitters bind to their receptors, muscle fibers contract, and John Doe pulls the trigger on the gun.”

    Determinism is the cheap leisure suit with which Philosophical Materialism dresses itself. (Note 1) Harris leaves no room for conscious decision: everything is predetermined.

    On page 25:
    “How can we be ‘free’ as conscious agents if everything that we consciously intend is caused by events in our brain that we do not intend and off which we are entirely unaware? We cannot. To say that “my brain” decided to think or act in a particular way, whether consciously or not, and that this is the basis for my freedom, is to ignore the very source of our belief in free will: the feeling of conscious agency. People feel that they are the authors of their thoughts and actions, and this is the only reason why there seems to be a problem of free will worth talking about.”
    [emphasis in the original]

    And here it seems necessary to object without going further yet. No, Harris, that is not the reason there is a free will issue. The reason is that the denial of free will is used as a foundational brick in the establishment of Atheism. That is the reason that the New Atheists, now including Harris, are fighting the free will battle: because if there is truly agency which is not deterministic, then there is more to humans and the universe than determinism and materialism and Atheism can account for. Free will MUST be defeated, in order to maintain the Atheist and Materialist narrative.

    Harris repeats his single thought on virtually every page. He tries to drive it home on page 32:
    “As we have begun to see, however, this feeling of freedom arises from our moment-to-moment ignorance of the prior causes of our thoughts and actions. The phrase “free will’ describes what it feels like to identify with certain mental states as they arise in consciousness. Thoughts like ‘What should I get my daughter for birthday? I know – I’ll take her to a pet store and have her pick out some tropical fish’ convey the apparent reality of choices, freely made. But from a deeper perspective (speaking both subjectively and objectively), thoughts simply arise unauthored and yet author our actions”.
    And on page 40 he makes what appears to be a conclusion:
    ”What I will do next, and why, remains a mystery – one that is fully determined by the prior state of the universe and the laws of nature (including the contributions of chance). To declare my ‘freedom’ is tantamount to saying, ‘I don’t know why I did it, but it’s the sort of thing I tend to do, and I don’t mind doing it.”
    Harris has defined the equivalent of an internal homunculus which controls our every action, thought and intention, and then lets us know what was decided outside of our conscious reach. I don’t know why I did it: I have no free will. Only Harris calls the homunculus a “mystery”, and he refers to this mystery on almost every subsequent page. We have this mystery, he says so we have no freedom of our own; every thought and intent has to be predetermined by the universe and chance, purely because we don’t understand this mystery.

    Harris has pushed the agency (new redefinition of deterministic vs fatalistic) back into the mysterious, homunculus zone of the brain – out of our “self” and onto the mysterious Other which inhabits our neurons without our knowledge or control. Yet it is within us, it acts like it is us acting, it deludes us into thinking that we are doing it, thinking it, creating it, responsible for it ourselves. But the self is a delusion too; we are not the actors. We are merely the librarian storing the records, the Boswell to Johnson (neither of whom had agency either, of course), the hobo along for the ride, looking out the side door, not knowing where we are going but remembering where the boxcar has taken us before.

    Harris never mentions that the mystery might in fact be based on non-causal correlation, which is done by non-instrumentation of the actual phenomena being discussed: the mystery might, in actual fact, not even exist. And further investigation will likely produce information on mental processes which are not even considered in the simplistic model which Harris and the neuroscientists are using in their current apologetics.

    But WAIT! On page 42 Harris takes a new turn:
    “There is no question that human beings can imagine and plan for the future, weigh competing desires, etc. – and that losing these capacities would greatly diminish us. External and internal pressures of various kinds can be present or absent while a person imagines, plans and acts – and such pressures determine our sense of whether he is morally responsible for his behavior. However, these things have nothing to do with free will”
    [emphasis added]

    What? Humans can consciously imagine and plan and act? Really?

    Harris has previously defined free will and now re-defines it in light of obvious human agency. Now he defines free will as requiring knowledge of the psychological cause of his behavior, page 43:
    “However, when I look for the psychological cause of my behavior, I find it utterly mysterious”.

    Well, it is now becoming clear that his inability to explain his own psychology leads him to conclude that he cannot make intentional decisions and to affect causal actions based on those decisions. He concludes that chapter with this:
    “- you cannot account for your decision either. You will do whatever it is you do, and it is meaningless to assert that you could have done otherwise.”

    So he has it both ways here. IF/Because he cannot account for the origin of the neural activity, which remains a homuncular mystery to him, THEN he concludes that you will do whatever is predetermined for you to do, without any conscious control or ability to change what you do (it’s already done for you). Except as he also claims, humans can consciously “imagine, plan and act”.

    This is completely dependent upon Philosophical Materialism and the denial that the mind might be other than previous electron positions in the universe, and might in fact cause the neural activity in the first place.

    But that would seem to contradict the “science” Harris quotes. Does it? And does it matter? Harris is comfortable with contradictions, even in the same paragraph.

    What about Libet? Libet’s experiment is now thought of as merely a first attempt, without providing accuracy in instrumentation; the response was measured externally, on the skin. An explanation of the Libet experiment is found here (http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/libet_experiments.html), complete with a timing clock.

    Additional experiments are noted by Harris, and many of them are subliminal tests which measure the subject’s response to very short visual exposures. These are claimed to show that there is mental processing of inputs which is not conscious. Surprisingly enough, Dennett points out that the short exposure might be consciously recognized and then forgotten with the same speed, so that there is no direct causal interpretation of this correlation. Neither Harris nor Dennett appears to recognize any timing difficulty in measuring the first microsecond that conscious recognition occurs. Merely reporting the event of conscious recognition incurs significant delay, itself, and is unaccounted for because it cannot be accurately measured. After all, consciousness seems to occupy much of the entire brain.

    In fact, most, if not all, of these types of “neural science” depend upon correlation in order to “prove” causation. This is necessary, at least at this point in the science, because there is no direct instrumentation which can be connected to the “conscious awareness” in order to determine the exact time of awareness. While some researchers warn against this flaw, others publish papers claiming fact based on correlation alone; Harris refers to the latter.

    Moreover, other correlates are ignored, such as related activity in other portions of the brain which are activated at only sub-threshold levels in terms of increased blood flow (a poor correlate in itself)(Note 2), so that there actually is no understanding of the full mental process. Further, what is being measured is stimulus – response, without acknowledging the full process of rational determination, which necessarily includes comparison with other acquired knowledge (requires a memory search), differentiation between cases, judgment based on a rule set which must be accessed, and refiling into a related memory location. Much less understood is the spontaneous generation of creative, original thoughts. None of these are measured, or even acknowledged as necessary to the making of an intentional decision.

    So not only is the instrumentation not on the right correlate, it doesn’t measure actual mental processing.

    Most glaring is the unanswered issue of how it is that the subconscious mind might be induced to make abstract decisions, create abstract thoughts previously unthought, causally produce action which can be carried out only by the conscious, but parasitic, mind, not to mention why consciousness is there at all given that everything is done subconsciously with the conscious mind merely receiving notice that it was done already.

    This is dismissed as “mystery” by Harris. And if there is mystery, “then,” he asks, “where is the freedom in that?” Why not admit that X exists by universal experience, even if the neurological discharge is still a mystery.

    But those questions are just the start of the hard questions surrounding free will, questions which, if answerable and answered, might turn determinism on its head.

    Why is the dream-world irrational? Is the rational homunculus asleep? Why is consciousness required in order for rationality to be instituted into mental activity? Given that consciousness merely receives information after the fact, why doesn’t determinism work the same without consciousness as it does during consciousness?

    How does determinism of atomic and electron placement clear back to the origin of the universe predict rational intellect? Or is there no rational intellect, purely because of determinism? Why do Harris and Dennett etc. need to make a distinction between complete determinism and “fatalism”, unless they need a hole in their argument to allow for the actuality of agency, even if agency is within the environmental and psychological constraints to which an individual is subject? If “freedom” is an illusion, then why is the distinction – strained as it is – necessary, or even logical, given the abjurance of fatalism and the existence of choice but not freedom?

    And if there is the onerous delay required to initiate action and then conscious recognition of the action, why do carpenters have fingers remaining on their hands? If there is no synchronicity between physical reality and conscious perception of reality, then power tools would be lethal and unusable. There would be no chance to perform any delicate manual procedure consciously. If there are delays, the world would have moved on without waiting for our illusion to appear. We would be “living” some indeterminate time behind the real, physical world. Do we believe that this is actually the case, and if so why? Merely to satisfy Philosophical Materialism, an internally non-coherent ideology?

    Harris says on page 46,
    “Our interests in life are not always served by viewing people and things as collections of atoms – but this doesn’t negate the truth or utility of physics”.

    Physics, Harris says, (or at least some tests somewhere) overrules our personal experience: a philosophical Materialistic and Scientistic statement which Harris follows on the same page with this:
    “A creative change of inputs to the system – learning new skills, forming new relationships, adopting new habits of attention – may radically transform one’s life”.

    This statement of conscious agency is a direct contradiction of his prior statement, and the book is full of similar direct contradictions. Full. For example, two pages later in a new chapter on Moral Responsibility, Harris makes this observation:
    “Judgments of responsibility depend upon the overall complexion of one’s mind, not on the metaphysics of mental cause and effect”.

    By complexion he means, apparently, the prior states; by metaphysics Harris means, apparently, agency;. This is verified by his position that justice cannot assign guilt when there is no conscious agency. This contradicts the prior statement just above, which attributes agency to changing one’s life around.

    And he blames the current justice system for retributive punishment rather than realignment, ignoring the fact that removal from society is the only “punishment” given for almost all moderately serious infractions these days. And even Harris agrees that removal from society is necessary, introducing another contradiction still.

    And by page 56, Harris cannot resist an attack on religion, specifically Christianity:
    “Few concepts have offered greater scope for human cruelty than the idea of an immortal soul that stands independent of all material influences, ranging from genes to economic systems. Within a religious framework, a belief in free will supports the notion of sin – which seems to justify harsh punishment not only in this life but eternal punishment in the next. And yet, ironically, one of the fears attending our progress in science is that a more complete understanding of ourselves will dehumanize us.”

    Harris’ misunderstanding of Christianity is dwarfed only by his misunderstanding of world history. First, the most massive cruelties of history were endured very recently, historically, and were administered by Atheist regimes – Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro; and the psycho regime of Aryan-Nordic-NAZIism. Moreover, the idea of separating criminals is not just a religious premise. And Atheists have no belief in eternal life, so they cannot be threatened by “eternal punishment” in a next life which doesn’t exist. Strike one.

    While the concept of sin, which is actually the concept of personal responsibility for one’s actions, is supported by free will, it is not free will that generated it. But if there is total determinism as the Atheists wish it to be understood, then there is no personal responsibility for anything, whether good or bad. And that is the greatest scope possible for human cruelty.
    Strike two.

    Finally, Christians are not afraid of actual, factual, disciplined, empirical science; it was invented by Christians, and Christians populate industrial R&D where non-ideological science is done successfully. But what is being done more and more is scientism, unsupported by actual disciplined, replicable, falsifiable, objective empiricism. And this is done in academia where results and consequences do not exist, and ideology can corrupt without repercussions. And even Michael Shermer, the Atheist celebrity Skeptic, has termed the fMRI investigations to be the equivalent of phrenology. The categorical, conclusive-types of “studies”, and declarations of “fact” to which the Atheist authors want to apply to non-falsifiable subjects should be anathema to anyone who values valid data provided by disciplined and rigorous empiricism rather than ideology.
    Strike three.

    What Harris has delivered is breathless ideology based on his one single idea, ( based on two fallacies) which is that, given determinism, IF the cause of neural firing or even prior history electron placement is not known, THEN there is no freedom to attach to human will, which therefore is an illusion. This is entirely non sequitur, with the conclusion in no way dependent upon the antecedent, and the antecedent not even being a piece of knowledge which could even conceivably prove the conclusion.

    Finally, Harris makes the astonishing claim that accepting the lack of free will has made him more moral: more empathetic because of his new understanding that people really can’t help what they do. On page 62, for example, he makes this claim:
    “How much credit does a person deserve for not being lazy? None at all. Laziness, like diligence is a neurological condition. Of course, conservatives are right to think that we must encourage people to work at the best of their abilities and discourage free riders wherever we can. And it is wise to hold people responsible for their actions when doing so influences their behavior and brings benefits to society. But this does not mean that we must be taken in by the illusion of free will. We need only acknowledge that efforts matter and that people can change.”

    How many contradictions are contained within that single sub-paragraph? Laziness and diligence are predetermined and not created; but free riders are loafers and must be addressed. People are totally predetermined and not free agents, but if held responsible they can change their behaviors. Free will is an illusion, but “efforts matter” and “people can change” even though their conscious world is totally deterministic.

    Even further it is entirely dependent upon Philosophical Materialism being exactly true, an assertion which is noncoherent in itself (note 3).

    CONCLUSION
    Harris is far from an objective source for information which might reflect on his ideology. He is rather an apologist for his ideology who rationalizes, trying to justify his Atheism and Philosophical Materialism. In his rush to support his ideology, he accepts fallacies and contradictions and questionable science without question.

    Especially disturbing are the glowing endorsements from professors of philosophy on the back cover. The attachment to ideology over logic is palpable.

    I truly resent having to spend money on this book, especially now after reading it, even more than before. It seems that Harris’ books must be read purely because it is Harris who is writing it, and that the Atheist community will read it breathlessly and believe it uncritically, because Harris is one of them. Plus he gained considerable notoriety with his book attacking Christianity, so he is widely known and read. So if one is following Atheism, then one must know what sort of apologetics Harris is pumping out now.

    Not all Atheists buy into Harris’ attempts to justify Scientism and his personal version of logical positivism. Massimo Pigliucci has long been a foe of both scientism and Harris. And evolutionary biologist Austin Hughes stings Harris in his article in New Atlantis. But Harris is a charter member of the inbred New Atheists, who give each other awards and pimp each other’s new books. So of course he gets high marks from the usual suspects. The New Atheists have created nearly as many Atheists as the Catholic church.

  196. on 27 May 2013 at 2:01 am 196.Anonymous said …

    Well Martin, I appreciate that your reply contained less fallacies than normal, and you did address part of the subject – thank you, but tu quoque with a sprinkling of ad hominem, really?

    Anyway, let’s examine Martin’s “Logic”

    Martin has proof that his god exists
    Martin is not willing to share that proof (*)
    Atheists are wrong to reject these secret proofs of god’s existence
    Therefore god exists

    Yeah, real sharp logic that you have going for you there.

    It’s even more hypocritical that Martin claims knowledge of gods that he won’t share in a forum specifically set up to explore those subjects. Instead, Martin throws a hissy fit when people won’t answer his off-topic diversions; diversions designed to hinder this blog’s purpose.

    I also notice that you keep ignoring the question regarding the “proofs” of other religions. Let’s be honest here.

    Martin, like most believers it’s quite likely that your bar for evidence to support your religion is trivially low and the one for other religions is impossibly high. That’s why you think we would make fun of you, yet the question was asked with earnest intent.

    But prove me wrong. If you have seen miracles then those should be inexplicable and beyond question. Of course, it could be that what you call a miracle is different to what you’d accept as a miracle if claimed by a different religion.

    Or you could simply be lying.

  197. on 27 May 2013 at 3:29 am 197.The messenger said …

    on 26 May 2013 at 11:30 pm 191.The messenger said … Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Brother 186.DPK, free will is the ability to make a choice without someone forcing an option upon you.
    GOD does not force us to do anything. He only compels us.
    Tell me, if I were to put food in front of a starving dog, I know that the dog would eat it. I know what the dog will do. That does not mean that the dog does not have a chocie whether or not to eat it.
    The fact that I know what will happen does not mean that the dog does not have a choice, it simply means that I know how it will react under certain conditions.

  198. on 27 May 2013 at 3:31 am 198.Martin said …

    Anonymous you must learn how to analyze logic if you desire to provide an analysis

    1. Martin has proof for God
    2. Martin finds his proofs to be satisfactory
    3. Martin has no need for 3rd party verification.
    4. Martin lives happily with God’s existence.
    5. Martin leaves atheists frustrated.

    If you would like proofs for God to argue against just pick one of the stand bys you typically use. That should be fun for you.

    I apologize for the ad homenim. Your sensitivity was not anticipated. I don’t use those familiar to you from the atheist community like MF or F*.

    If you give me proofs from Buddhism I will give you proofs for these other religions. Would this encompass both of us offering proofs for Buddhism???

  199. on 27 May 2013 at 7:03 am 199.Fluttershy said …

    “We have levitation and regenerating limb as proof. However this would not convince Atheists God exists This would be credited to evolution by Atheists.”

    First off, no matter how you try to make a human levitate, via evolution, it is impossible.
    Secondly, while i have to give it to you with regenerating limbs being from evolution, rapid regeneration like we are after is impossible by complex organisms.

    “If you would like proofs for God to argue against just pick one of the stand bys you typically use. That should be fun for you.”

    We aren’t look to argue, we are looking to debate, learn and be given evidence of god, which so far has given us zilch…

    “1. Martin has proof for God
    2. Martin finds his proofs to be satisfactory
    3. Martin has no need for 3rd party verification.
    4. Martin lives happily with God’s existence.
    5. Martin leaves atheists frustrated.”

    So you are dooming us all to the eternal fire and pain of hell?
    Thats not nice from a christian, tell no lies and what not.

  200. on 27 May 2013 at 8:28 am 200.michael said …

    martin.

    please name the person who recieve limb regeneration.

    thanks.

  201. on 27 May 2013 at 10:12 am 201.Fluttershy said …

    Answer is obviously no one, hence god either hates amputees, which means he is not all loving and therefore doesnt exist.
    Or he cannot heal amputees and therefore is not all powerful.
    Or he doesnt answer all prayers, and therefore doesnt exist.

  202. on 27 May 2013 at 11:57 am 202.Anonymous said …

    So Martin doesn’t like people doing to his posts what he does to others. Well, that’s a surprise. Not.

    But again he makes a claim he won’t back up. In typical school-yard fashion he claims “I know you something you don’t, and I am not telling you what it is”.

    Trolling. 100% trolling and not worthy of anyone’s time.

  203. on 27 May 2013 at 1:03 pm 203.Matt said …

    Why couldn’t a human levitate? Enough time DNA changes it could happen.

    Humans could generate new limbs quickly too.

    Their isn’t any God so get over it.

  204. on 27 May 2013 at 2:29 pm 204.michael said …

    hahaha. matt is hilarious

  205. on 27 May 2013 at 3:08 pm 205.alex said …

    “Why couldn’t a human levitate? Enough time DNA changes it could happen.”

    same way the bad motherfucker, jacob, owned the angel. humans were bad hombres back in the day. lived up to 900 years and shit. then the liberals fucked up the dna and along went the life expectancy.

  206. on 27 May 2013 at 4:12 pm 206.A said …

    Seems right for your ilk Matt. Ferraris and Fiskers will wash ashore if we just wait long enough.

    You guys and your fairy tales tickle me.

  207. on 27 May 2013 at 4:24 pm 207.alex said …

    “You guys and your fairy tales tickle me.”

    summoned bears that fucked up the youths.

  208. on 27 May 2013 at 6:12 pm 208.Matt said …

    Autos are made by natural materials and processes by man so that is even possible.

    There is not a god idiot. Accept nature and what she can do.

  209. on 27 May 2013 at 7:05 pm 209.The messenger said …

    on 27 May 2013 at 3:29 am 197.The messenger said …
    on 26 May 2013 at 11:30 pm 191.The messenger said … Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Brother 186.DPK, free will is the ability to make a choice without someone forcing an option upon you.
    GOD does not force us to do anything. He only compels us.
    Tell me, if I were to put food in front of a starving dog, I know that the dog would eat it. I know what the dog will do. That does not mean that the dog does not have a chocie whether or not to eat it.
    The fact that I know what will happen does not mean that the dog does not have a choice, it simply means that I know how it will react under certain conditions.

  210. on 27 May 2013 at 10:50 pm 210.Anonymous said …

    “a”

    Ferraris and Fiskers will wash ashore if we just wait long enough.

    All Horatio ever hoped for was a Harley. His wish did come true when a HD washed up on Canada’s West Coast. Imagine that – the power of prayer. Maybe your god is freakin’ real.

  211. on 27 May 2013 at 11:27 pm 211.A said …

    Matt

    so you and anonymous both believe vehicles will be manufactured by nature now. I admit that sounds appealing. Save us a lot of money.

    How do you guys see this process going down? I look forward to learning!

  212. on 28 May 2013 at 12:06 am 212.Anonymous said …

    “a”

    so you and anonymous both believe vehicles will be manufactured by nature now.

    Whoa there buckaroo. Slow down. Show me where I said naturedidit.

    Just commenting that dear old Horatio wanted a HD to wash up on a beach and shazam, god provides. Now you’ve upped the ante and are praying for a Ferrari!!! Oh lord won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz.

    I suppose, getting back on semi-topic of the thread, god is giving you Option “X”, the Harley Davidson and Option “Y”, the Ferrari. Since you realized that Hor got what he wanted, you probably decided that you will test god’s generosity by asking for a set of premium Italian wheels. Hope it works out for you – your god already knows the answer.

  213. on 28 May 2013 at 1:26 am 213.Matt said …

    What is so hard to understand. Ore, heat and other materials are available in the earths core. Volcanic action, mixing of raw materials and enough time who knows.

    No God needed.

  214. on 28 May 2013 at 3:08 am 214.DPK said …

    The fact that I know what will happen does not mean that the dog does not have a choice, it simply means that I know how it will react under certain conditions.

    Back pedaling now William? No, gods perfect knowledge is not the same as knowing what a dog is “likely” to do..
    If god “knows,” that tomorrow I will murder someone, it may seem to me that I have a choice, but that choice is an illusion. If I do not murder someone, then that would mean that gods knowledge was wrong. Therefore, I have no choice, I can only choose the option of what god already knows will happen.

    Assuming a hungry dog will eat food is not knowledge. It is an educated guess. You do not “know” with certainty that the dog will eat. The dog may well be fearfully of you and run away. The word “know”implies certainty.

    Now are you saying that god does not really “know” what will happen. What kind of all powerful god is that?

  215. on 28 May 2013 at 3:13 am 215.DPK said …

    so you and anonymous both believe vehicles will be manufactured by nature now.

    Vehicles are manufactured by humans, which are part of nature. Do you think vehicles are manufactured by magical gods, “A”? What a curious idea.
    When bees construct a beehive, is that “nature” or does Jesus actually create the hive?

  216. on 28 May 2013 at 3:23 am 216.The messenger said …

    214.DPK, due to the fact that humans have no knowlage of what the future will be, we are left with the choice of choosing either good, or evil.

    GOD knows us, and how we will react to certain situations. We are free to make our own decisions, GOD just knows what our choices will be. Humans have free will because we do not know what will happen in the future. Yes GOD planned everything out, but we are incapable of knowing what the future will be, so therefore we do have free will because we do not k ow what the future will hold in store for us.

    GOD knows how we will react to certain situations, and therefore knows how we will react.

    GOD’s knowlage is never wrong, and will never be wrong. He has not be wrong so far, and I know that he never will be wrong.

  217. on 28 May 2013 at 3:31 am 217.The messenger said …

    214.DPK, due to the fact that humans have no knowlage of what the future will be, we are left with the choice of choosing either good, or evil.
    GOD knows us, and how we will react to certain situations, and therefore knows what decisions we will make. We are free to make our own decisions, GOD just knows what our choices will be. Humans have free will because we do not know what will happen in the future. Yes GOD planned everything out, but we are incapable of knowing what the future will be, so therefore we do have free will.
    GOD’s knowlage is never wrong, and will never be wrong. He has not be wrong so far, and I know that he never will be.

  218. on 28 May 2013 at 3:32 am 218.The messenger said …

    on 28 May 2013 at 3:31 am 218.The messenger said … Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    214.DPK, due to the fact that humans have no knowlage of what the future will be, we are left with the choice of choosing either good, or evil.
    GOD knows us, and how we will react to certain situations, and therefore knows what decisions we will make. We are free to make our own decisions, GOD just knows what our choices will be. Humans have free will because we do not know what will happen in the future. Yes GOD planned everything out, but we are incapable of knowing what the future will be, so therefore we do have free will.
    GOD’s knowlage is never wrong, and will never be wrong. He has not be wrong so far, and I know that he never will been.

  219. on 28 May 2013 at 10:50 am 219.Fluttershy said …

    “213.Matt said …
    What is so hard to understand. Ore, heat and other materials are available in the earths core. Volcanic action, mixing of raw materials and enough time who knows.
    No God needed.”

    Its sad to see that in a blog made to debate fairly has trolls in it, and at that, idiotic trolls.

    I guess that atleast you said god is not needed…

  220. on 28 May 2013 at 11:10 am 220.A said …

    So Matt, did the volcanos design the cars too? Maybe you could give us a step by step process in nature that would bring us the vehicle. How does it get the fuzzy dice?

    You are at least consistent. Your brethren are running from your car theory but have no problem with life and man being born in hot soup.

  221. on 28 May 2013 at 11:28 am 221.Anonymous said …

    “a”

    have no problem with life and man being born in hot soup.

    Is this where you’re wagering your faith? In the recesses of scientific knowledge? Good luck with that.

    Oh, BTW, life springing forth from magic pixie dust (or was it mud) a few thousand years ago sounds more logical to you, does it not? Or is our Earth several billion years old? It would be nice if you divulged if you’re a Young Earth proponent – But you’ll fail to answer this simplest of questions. No surprise, the real truth is something you always run from.

  222. on 28 May 2013 at 11:45 am 222.freddies_dead said …

    209.The messenger said … (to DPK),

    GOD does not force us to do anything. He only compels us.

    You do realise that “force” and “compel” are synonyms? In essence all you’ve said here is “GOD does not force us to do anything. He only forces us. Well done for that.

  223. on 28 May 2013 at 3:07 pm 223.DPK said …

    Yup… still waiting for anyone to explain to me how if an almighty omniscient being knows for certain that I will do “x” tomorrow, how they can claim I have free will to choose anything other than “x”?

    Haven’t heard a single sane explanation yet. And now you have messenger once again back pedaling like crazy.

    Then you have folks like Martin, who has evidence so compelling that his god is real that he lives his whole life around it, yet refuses to share it with anyone because somehow he “knows” that it won’t actually be very convincing and others will actually laugh at him and point out why his “evidence” is anything but. Must not be very convincing evidence if he knows in advance that it won’t convince anyone else….

    Then, you have “A” who thinks that because Italian sports cars don’t wash up out of the ocean, that that is somehow evidence for his magical god. Guess what “A”, Italian sports cars are built by creatures who evolved from simpler creatures, who evolved from still simpler creatures. What makes you think then that Italian sports cars are not a “product” of nature? By definition, anything that exists in the natural world is “natural”. What’s your alternative? Oh, that’s right… abbracadaberra…. poof… here’s a human! tada!

  224. on 28 May 2013 at 5:00 pm 224.Anonymous said …

    What’s your alternative? Oh, that’s right… abbracadaberra…. poof… here’s a human! tada!

    Now be fair, DPK, that’s only for a man. In “A”s world, the woman was made out of a man’s rib – again through magic.

  225. on 28 May 2013 at 5:14 pm 225.Anonymous said …

    Regarding Martin, I strongly suspect that the reason he refuses to answer the questions about what evidence or miracle would be sufficient to convince him that another religion is true, has its roots in his evidence so “compelling” that he is sure people will laugh at him were he to disclose it.

    What that quite likely means is that he knows he would laugh at similar “evidence” were it produced in support of, say, Islam. Not that that makes Martin unique, as many believers seem to take post-hoc cherry-picked rationalizations and mischaracterize that as “proof” or “evidence”.

  226. on 28 May 2013 at 6:10 pm 226.Matt said …

    A

    I didn’t say cars did spring from the oceans, I said they could. Why not? They don’t need a designer. It just a form of natural selection.

    no god needed.

  227. on 28 May 2013 at 7:29 pm 227.DPK said …

    223.Matt said …

    A

    I didn’t say cars did spring from the oceans, I said they could. Why not? They don’t need a designer. It just a form of natural selection.

    Because Matt, cars don’t reproduce and have the ability to replicate themselves and mutate, and as such are not subject to evolution or natural selection.

    Now, in a very small way, you are in fact correct… given enough time, like infinity, any possible arrangement of atoms that could be possible will eventually happen… like the immortal monkeys pounding randomly on typewriters will eventually produce the Encyclopedia Britannica, but I doubt the universe will stay warm long enough for that to occur.

    Cars however, will never evolve from rocks.

  228. on 28 May 2013 at 9:43 pm 228.The messenger said …

    223.freddies_dead, I misread the definition of compel.

    I thought that the word compel meant the word “convince”.

    I am sorry for that error.

    GOD does not force us to do anything, he convinces us that we must do what he is telling us.

  229. on 29 May 2013 at 12:25 am 229.A said …

    “like the immortal monkeys pounding randomly on typewriters will eventually produce the Encyclopedia Britannica,”

    HAHAHAHAHA along with immortal typewriters and ink! HA HA HA

    Matt,

    Your theory is every bit as plausible at DIPs or life and human beings being birthed out of hot soup.

  230. on 29 May 2013 at 12:50 am 230.DPK said …

    Ass.. your ignorance is showing. Assuming infinite time, every possibility that can happen will happen, in fact, if time is infinite every possibility that can happen has already happened… and guess what? It not only has already happened, it has happened an infinite number of times.
    Infinity is a very big number…………

  231. on 29 May 2013 at 1:13 am 231.Matt said …

    Idiot I never said cars evolve from rocks. Every resource needed to produce a car is found on earth. If everything is possible in time why couldn’t it happen??

  232. on 29 May 2013 at 1:26 am 232.Anonymous said …

    What a surprise. “A” and Martin are cornered and in comes a new character with the evolution diversion. Right on cue.

    Let’s get back to the insanity of religion. In particular, the myths of Christianity.

    So, “A” you believe in the biblical account of creation then? What basis do you have for believing it to be anything other than pre-scientific superstitions of a bunch of nomadic goat-herders?

  233. on 29 May 2013 at 1:47 am 233.DPK said …

    on 29 May 2013 at 1:13 am 227.Matt said …
    Idiot I never said cars evolve from rocks. Every resource needed to produce a car is found on earth. If everything is possible in time why couldn’t it happen??

    You don’t need to call me an idiot. You said it was a form of natural selection. Natural selection only works on living things that reproduce and have the ability to pass genetic information from one generation to the next, as well as to be subject to mutations in order for the forces of natural selection to influence the evolution of living organisms.

    The only way for a car to appear would be if all the atoms that make up a car simply randomly happened to arrive in exactly the right place by sheer random chance.
    Given infinite time, it could happen, but the odds are so ridiculously small of such an event occurring that it is safe to say it would never happen in the lifetime of this universe.

  234. on 29 May 2013 at 2:42 am 234.The Messenger said …

    on 28 May 2013 at 9:43 pm 228.The messenger said …
    223.freddies_dead, I misread the definition of compel.
    I thought that the word compel meant the word “convince”.
    I am sorry for that error.
    GOD does not force us to do anything, he convinces us that we must do what he is telling us.

  235. on 29 May 2013 at 10:53 am 235.Matt said …

    It is every bit as likely as life coming out of the Big Bang. The life did happen and an auto could be completed in the future or may have already. We just never saw it.

  236. on 29 May 2013 at 12:13 pm 236.Anonymous said …

    DPK first

    The only way for a car to appear would be if all the atoms that make up a car simply randomly happened to arrive in exactly the right place by sheer random chance.
    Given infinite time, it could happen, but the odds are so ridiculously small of such an event occurring that it is safe to say it would never happen in the lifetime of this universe.

    Followed by Matt

    It is every bit as likely as life coming out of the Big Bang.

    Matt, do you have reading comprehension problems? Are you praying for your Ferrari, testing a god, just like “a”? NO, it is not every bit as likely…not even close.

    Anyone else notice the fixation “a” has for hot soup? He lumps life and humans together as being birthed out of it. “a” – do you realize that most Homo sapiens are alive?

  237. on 29 May 2013 at 1:30 pm 237.Fluttershy said …

    The most annoying thing is when he assumes we believe in something that he thinks we all believe in…
    Evolution? yeah, you dont need that to be an atheist.
    Soctrates or whatever his name is? Nope
    Big bang, black holes, hot soup, darth vader, ninjas, stalin? nope

    Anyway, Matt.
    Im not sure if you are simpy that unintelligent or a troll, either way, please read up a bit on some biology and then come back to us with the question of “can cars come from hot soup that made all living things that atheists believe in?”
    KK?

  238. on 29 May 2013 at 2:49 pm 238.DPK said …

    I think Matt is just a theist troll who is trying to make the point that life evolving from simple chemicals is as unlikely as Lamborghini’s washing up whole out of the ocean. Where have we heard this argument before? I smell dirty socks.
    In any event, his trolling sadly only serves to illustrate his own ignorance and the fact that those making similar claims (A… you listening?) are doing so from a position of ignorance and misunderstanding.

    Matt… for the last time, the process of evolution via natural selection only works on living things which have the ability to replicate themselves. Not cars, not rocks, not even mountains.

  239. on 29 May 2013 at 6:08 pm 239.Matt said …

    DPK I think idiot fits since some like to call me names. I have never claimed vehicles have been created by nature I said they could. Don’t you realize livings things came from non-living?

    No go so get in the real world.

  240. on 29 May 2013 at 6:26 pm 240.Anonymous said …

    Don’t you realize livings things came from non-living?

    And, not only that, ALL living things are made from non-living things!!! Amazing what evolution can do, ain’t it, Matt?

  241. on 29 May 2013 at 6:36 pm 241.DPK said …

    “I have never claimed vehicles have been created by nature I said they could. Don’t you realize livings things came from non-living?”

    Matt, I’d agree with you, only then we would both be wrong.

    Vehicles are not living things, and that’s where your argument falls apart. You really should stop embarrassing yourself. As for being called an idiot… you are the only one so far in this conversation exhibiting evidence of idiocy. No, Matt, natural selection will never cause a living thing to evolve into an Italian sports car. And you think I’m an idiot?

  242. on 29 May 2013 at 9:12 pm 242.The Messenger said …

    223.freddies_dead, I misread the definition of compel.
    I thought that the word compel meant the word “convince”.
    I am sorry for that error.
    GOD does not force us to do anything, he convinces us that we must do what he is telling us.

  243. on 29 May 2013 at 11:16 pm 243.Matt said …

    Living things derive from non living therefore my argument is sound. Nature could create many things other than autos with enough time and chance. You just want to work god into the mix.

  244. on 29 May 2013 at 11:17 pm 244.the messenger said …

    I will wait for an answer.

  245. on 29 May 2013 at 11:34 pm 245.Anonymous said …

    Matt

    Nature could create many things other than autos with enough time and chance.

    How do you figure?
    Let me ask you: How old do you think the planet Earth is? No answer will lead me believe that you’re related in some way to Castbound/Xenon/”a”/
    and the regular cast of theists who post here.

    What is the most complex non-genetic material that you’ve seen nature create?

    Two simple questions, Matt.

  246. on 30 May 2013 at 1:17 am 246.A said …

    Matt,

    Dude you have some serious faith. Ignore Anonymous, he is a troll. I have repeatedly confessed to him I am everyone on this blog but he continues to play with puppets. He is obsessed.

    I have some much better questions that don’t feed into his fallacy of absence of evidence equals evidence of absence.

    I have listened to atheists claim that anything is possible given enough time but you are the first to carry it to this level.

    Let me ask, how did life evolve from non-life? You can’t just claimed it happened, you must provide some proof it DID evolve from non-living matter.

    Second, who or what wrote the DNA code? Many atheists have become theists based on DNA alone. Are you one of the atheists who believes nature wrote this code?

  247. on 30 May 2013 at 1:40 am 247.Anonymous said …

    Matt,

    Ignore “a”. He is completely off his nut. Claims to be an astrophysicist.

    Let’s see what we can agree on and take the dialog from there. We’ll see where that gets us. NONE of the theists are capable of answering the simplest of questions. They will always default to – We don’t understand abiogenesis arguments. Case in point; see “a” with their

    how did life evolve from non-life?
    who or what wrote the DNA code?

    Lets work our way to that with basics. See the previous note:
    What is the age of the planet Earth and universe?
    What is the most complex non-genetic material you’ve seen nature create?

    Ignore “a”. He has some hot soup on the stove that he needs to attend to. ;-)

  248. on 30 May 2013 at 1:55 am 248.A said …

    Hi Anonymous

    Good to see you are awake. Here is your opportunity to prove you are not a troll.

    How did life evolve from non-life?
    Who or what wrote the DNA code?

    To make it easy, assume I don’t buy into abiogenesis. I’m glad to see you do. Go ahead and prove it to me using the scientific method. Don’t disappoint, answer a few questions….for once.

    This will be fun Matt! But watch, he will not do his part.

    To speed it along:

    Age of Earth? What is the going number now, 4.6Bil?

    Your turn.

  249. on 30 May 2013 at 2:11 am 249.s0l0m0n said …

    Life can originate from non-life and vice versa.
    Clear Cut for those who do not know yet and this is full proof.

  250. on 30 May 2013 at 2:21 am 250.alex said …

    “I will wait for an answer.”

    go fuck yourself, troll.

  251. on 30 May 2013 at 2:32 am 251.Anonymous said …

    “a”

    Age of Earth? What is the going number now, 4.6Bil?

    Good one.
    And we can both agree (along with Matt) that there was absolutely no life on our planet Earth at that time, 4+ billion years ago.

    So, there appears to be a lot of stuff that has occurred. We had no life at one time and there is an abundance of lifeforms today. Let’s fill in some of the blanks and see where we go. Let’s start with with evolution.

    BTW, “a” is slightly off course (maybe intentionally?) with his “How did life evolve from non-life?” query. Evolution deals with the changes in lifeforms over time. Abiogenesis deals with the issue of how life arose on our planet.

    Matt,
    How complex were the initial lifeforms on our planet? Find evidence.
    How many “distinct” lifeforms have existed but are now extinct?
    Let’s find consensus and build a proper model.

  252. on 30 May 2013 at 5:26 am 252.Fluttershy said …

    “Hi Anonymous
    Good to see you are awake. Here is your opportunity to prove you are not a troll.
    How did life evolve from non-life?
    Who or what wrote the DNA code?
    To make it easy, assume I don’t buy into abiogenesis. I’m glad to see you do. Go ahead and prove it to me using the scientific method. Don’t disappoint, answer a few questions….for once.
    This will be fun Matt! But watch, he will not do his part.
    To speed it along:
    Age of Earth? What is the going number now, 4.6Bil?
    Your turn.”

    None of these prove or disprove god…hence they are irrelevant.
    And again, you dont need abiogenesis to be an atheist.

  253. on 30 May 2013 at 10:43 am 253.A said …

    Matt, do you see? Anonymous is no more than a troll. Maybe you can do better. You seem willing to answer a few easy questions.

  254. on 30 May 2013 at 11:58 am 254.Anonymous said …

    And again, you dont need abiogenesis to be an atheist.

    That’s very true. It’s also true that you can be a theist and accept abiogenesis. Just look up biologos.org among other websites.

    “a”

    Anonymous is no more than a troll.

    I am here. Will you follow through, for a change? Where did Matt go? Why aren’t you calling Matt a troll? Hmmmm….very interesting.

  255. on 30 May 2013 at 3:31 pm 255.Fluttershy said …

    Ok…
    Surelt matt is a puppet now?

  256. on 30 May 2013 at 6:40 pm 256.Matt said …

    A you are an idiot

    I don’t need proof of abeogenesis or how DNA evolved. Life could have formed in the Big Bang. DNA could have come from many places. I do know no god did it.

    The rest of you can shove it. I am nobodies puppet.

  257. on 30 May 2013 at 8:25 pm 257.michael said …

    lawrence krauss.

    something from nothing,

    leading idea behind the source of everything.

    by the way, the big bang is widely accepted.

    if people think that god was the cause behind the big bang, think about how nutty that would be.

    “I’m gonna create something really cool,’ god thinks to himself, ‘maybe i should put some elements together implode them…and see what happens.’

    god is a redneck

  258. on 30 May 2013 at 8:47 pm 258.Curmudgeon said …

    Michael throwing out Krauss and his redefinition of the word nothing means zilch. Leibniz’s question still stands because all Krauss did was redefine nothing to mean there was something.

    Duh!

    Krauss wanted to sell some books to make a little money. Even an atheists should be ashamed of his ridiculous book that does nothing to answer the questions he poses.

    Yes, I do realize Michael never read the book but has assumed since Krauss wrote it it must have value.

    Matt,

    You may not need proof, but I do. Until there is some I will discount both theories.

  259. on 30 May 2013 at 11:27 pm 259.Anonymous said …

    Cur

    You may not need proof, but I do. Until there is some I will discount both theories.

    What a load of horse feathers. You, of all people, need proof for something? If you don’t know or understand then you attribute it to god. Tough questions have easy answers when your answer is always the same: goddidit.

    For me personally, if I don’t know or understand, I try and seek real and honest answers. Spiritually more satisfying ;-) . None of this intuition and ESP bullshit 40YA and yourself espouse.

  260. on 30 May 2013 at 11:48 pm 260.A said …

    Matt,

    when you invoke ad homemim you lose Matt. Your atheist theories must be based on facts since you claim all that exists is material in nature. If not, you are believing in faith. You are better than anonymous. Go ahead and provide some evidence. I want to believe.

    Nothing is now Something is earth shattering. The pasting Krauss took from Craig at NC ST really shook him up.

  261. on 31 May 2013 at 1:21 am 261.Anonymous said …

    No, the only folks who need to provide evidence here are you theists. Don’t like that, than go somewhere else. Your diversions are predictable and to be ignored. Yes, I am telling people to ignore these big-bang, evolution, abiogenesis, diversions. Absolutely.

    Also, as has been pointed out before, grown-ups with imaginary friends can’t be right in the head. Consequently, your taunts and other nonsense are wasted. They are as effective as a 3rd grader calling people names. But, if it makes you feel in control, taunt away.

    Now, also, if you are going to misuse a fallacy (not that I recall you ever getting one right no matter who your claimed to be at the time) at least spell it correctly!

    So, back to subject in hand.

    A, Curmudgeon, Martin, we are still waiting for you to produce evidence for the existence of your god. That’s the evidence that we are waiting for – not that after 2000 years we haven’t got the message that it doesn’t exist – but we like a good laugh and Martin did say that his evidence would make us laugh, after all.

    You also keep running away from the following question. So afraid of it are you, that you dance around it. Show us that you are not as close-minded as you appear here. Answer it succinctly, if you dare.

    “Many religions claim some form of miracle. Martin, A, Lou, Curmudgeon etc, what evidence would convince you that the claims of other religions are true?”

    Surprise us. Curmudgeon demands proof. So far, all we have are empty words. Let’s see what proof you have for your god. Then we can compare notes.

  262. on 31 May 2013 at 2:07 am 262.Matt said …

    A – I believe in providing proof and answering whenever possible but we can’t provide proof for something that happened billions of years ago. We have theories and we just have to work with the theories we have. I believe the answer is something concrete but possibly could be from some sort of alien seeding like some have theorized. I believe it is likely that the seeds of life were in the big bang.

  263. on 31 May 2013 at 5:12 am 263.the messenger said …

    256.Matt, tell me, how do you know that GOD did not create life?

    I have given you proof of GOD.

  264. on 31 May 2013 at 5:15 am 264.the messenger said …

    Brother 262.Matt, tell me, how could all of the matter in the entire universe fit into a speck the size of a pin head?

  265. on 31 May 2013 at 5:19 am 265.the messenger said …

    262.Matt, DNA is a set of instructions that tells the body what to grow into.
    Designs do not just come out of nowhere, they are created by some who designed it, his name is Jesus.

  266. on 31 May 2013 at 5:20 am 266.the messenger said …

    Brother Matt, answer my questions.

    Please do no be like “Thomas the coward”.

  267. on 31 May 2013 at 6:36 am 267.michael said …

    krauss redefined nothing?

    ok.

    allow me to explain it simple to you.

    imagine if there was an empty jar sitting in front of you. (for the intelligent…imagine as if the jar is an empty vaccum)

    suddenly, without explaination, a cricket appears in the jar. (for the intelligent…this is particles suddenly appearing in the vaccum of space)

    then, less than a second later…its gone. (for the intelligent…particles in space pop into and out of existence)

    would you define the contents of the jar as ‘something’ rather than nothing? (for the intelligent…is empty space really nothing?)

    This is the dumbed down version.

    I am not a scientist.

    In fact, no one on here is a scientist.

    I know scientists.

    they are busying building amazing shit and getting laid.

    but this is a crude explaination of what dr krauss is talking about.

    his work will win him a nobel prize.

    its an extremely promising field of research.

    i recommend everyone spend atleast a few minutes of their time to understand the cutting edge ideas of the modern day.

    except for the religious.

    they can just fuck off.

  268. on 31 May 2013 at 7:41 am 268.Fluttershy said …

    “A – I believe in providing proof and answering whenever possible but we can’t provide proof for something that happened billions of years ago. We have theories and we just have to work with the theories we have. I believe the answer is something concrete but possibly could be from some sort of alien seeding like some have theorized. I believe it is likely that the seeds of life were in the big bang.”

    Pretty much this, same goes for theists, they cant prove shit, at least we can prove evolution, being that it disproves god…

  269. on 31 May 2013 at 12:14 pm 269.A said …

    Butterfly,

    Tell me how evolution disproves God? Second show me me the proof of macroevolution.

    Matt,

    Since you admit you believe your stories in faith, you cannot call them facts. I know atheist hate the f word but that is what you and the others have to believe as you do.

  270. on 31 May 2013 at 1:07 pm 270.Curmudgeon said …

    Michael appeals to authority do not an argument make. Obama won a Nobel prize too. Krauss redefined ex nihilo and that is the bottom line. To simplify, his nothing is now something. The case is closed.

  271. on 31 May 2013 at 1:21 pm 271.Fluttershy said …

    A said..
    “Tell me how evolution disproves God? Second show me me the proof of macro evolution.”

    It disproves the christian belief of god made all species in 1 day of a week. Thus is disproves god.
    Proof? Ever heard of carbon dating, fossils, imprints in stone? Fossils that go from little algae and jelly fish in the lower levels of rock, to lizards, dinosaurs, fish and mammals in the later sections of rock.
    Saying that evolution is fake is like saying that the earth doesnt revolve around the sun.
    Also, please use my name “Fluttershy” not other names.

  272. on 31 May 2013 at 1:24 pm 272.Fluttershy said …

    A said..
    “Matt,

    Since you admit you believe your stories in faith, you cannot call them facts. I know atheist hate the f word but that is what you and the others have to believe as you do.”

    I have to admit, matt is….uneducated…
    But please do not generalise that all atheists believe in his fantasy world where cars can evolve.

  273. on 31 May 2013 at 2:01 pm 273.A said …

    Butter,

    so you admit it DOES NOT disprove God although you claimed it did. Another lie.

    I did not say macro evolution is fake, I asked for proof. Please, do not use microevolution as your proof. You will want to use the scientific method to be sure.

  274. on 31 May 2013 at 2:08 pm 274.DT said …

    Evidence for the existence of God? Personally that would be us or planets or space or the fact we are alone or anything that is established and cannot be recreated. We as a people seem to be in the business of disproving God verses looking for answers. The human body is too complex to have happen by chance. I use to dabble in both beliefs looking to science for answers and God, and guess what faith is needed for both. Someone asked about the age of the earth, I think it cannot be more than 60,000 years old; one reason is because the earth is slowing down
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/30/extra-second-added-to-clo_n_1639588.html
    Which should mean the opposite, that it was faster some years ago, and if millions or billions of years ago the rotation would be too fast to sustain life.
    A second reason for a young earth would be the salt content of the ocean
    http://www.icr.org/article/5484/
    and again if millions or billions of years old the salt content would be extremely high.
    I have not read every post but will look at a few, I believe questions like these help me think or as the Bible says give an account for what you believe!

  275. on 31 May 2013 at 2:30 pm 275.the messenger said …

    Thomas, tell me, what bible verses are these, and why do you refuse to list them? I have done much research trying to find this “so called verse”, and have not found it.
    I want you to answer this. Not one of you puppets.

  276. on 31 May 2013 at 3:02 pm 276.Fluttershy said …

    O.o
    What are you smoking?
    Lemme repost the sentence i typed…
    “It disproves the christian belief of god made all species in 1 day of a week. Thus is disproves god.”

    A said…
    “Please, do not use microevolution as your proof.”
    You realise that Fossils and algae to man is macro evolution right?
    Remember Macro= Big, Micro= Small.

    “I did not say macro evolution is fake”
    Never said you did, no idea where you are getting this from.

    “I asked for proof.”
    And i gave you it, why you refuse to listen to it is beyond me.

    “You will want to use the scientific method to be sure.”
    You mean what i did?

  277. on 31 May 2013 at 3:11 pm 277.A said …

    Butterfly

    You lie and now you refuse to provide evidence for something you claim is fact.

    You and Matt might be puppets but st least Matt is honest.

    Learn what the scientific method is before you graduate high school. What you proved is things lived and died in the past. Thanks!

  278. on 31 May 2013 at 6:03 pm 278.Fluttershy said …

    “You lie and now you refuse to provide evidence for something you claim is fact.”

    *sigh*

    You made a stupid amount of accusations that were false, believe that some guy in the sky made everything with hur dur magic, and yet you don’t have a basic understanding of biology (hence you believe in souls and heaven like other theists? no?).
    Attempting to disprove evolution is like attempting to prove the earth is flat, dont bother.
    Can we now move away from the topic of evolution? Considering all i can prove is the non-existence of god, and disproving it proves nothing.

    “You and Matt might be puppets”
    Hue, you think im a puppet, how sporadic are you?

    “What you proved is things lived and died in the past. Thanks!”

    No, i proved things lived more than ten thousand years ago, disproving the bible, the theory of creation and god him self…

    Lets consult the magic filled book of brainwashing, burnt meat and death shall we? (bible….)
    It is said that Noah the great and powerful captured two of every animal, where did he keep the dinosaurs? And how did he not get devoured by them?
    Again, goditit, magic and leprechauns dont count as an answer…
    (I wonder…where is alex and DPK….? havent been on for like…a day?)

  279. on 31 May 2013 at 6:44 pm 279.A said …

    Again with you disproved God?

    Well, lets have it! But I am certain it is more lies. Stop with the diversions and lay out proof. Hint: attacking the Bible is not proof God does not exist. We will even assume the Bible is wrong.

    Nodody claimed goddit. You have claimed evolutiondiddit so put up or shut up!

    Hint: look up the scientific method. Any less you fail. Alex and DPK can’t help you.

  280. on 31 May 2013 at 6:59 pm 280.Xenon said …

    Fluttershy thinks all Christians interpret Genesis literally. He is completely unaware there are 4-5 ways The creation account is interpreted. But that is fewer than the number or evolution or Big Bang models we have.

    It is sort of comical he thinks somehow he has disproved God. Its kind of cute really.

  281. on 31 May 2013 at 7:07 pm 281.the messenger said …

    Thomas, tell me, what bible verses are these, and why do you refuse to list them? I have done much research trying to find this “so called verse”, and have not found it.
    I want you to answer this. Not one of you puppets.
    ,

  282. on 31 May 2013 at 7:11 pm 282.the messenger said …

    277.Fluttershy, tell me, where is your proof that GOD did not create the earth?

    I have proof of GOD, and I have provided evidence that the events in geniuses really did happen. You are an idiot.

  283. on 31 May 2013 at 7:13 pm 283.the messenger said …

    277.Fluttershy, the flood happened before the dinosaurs existed.

    You are inane.

  284. on 31 May 2013 at 7:14 pm 284.the messenger said …

    .Brother 262.Matt, tell me, how could all of the matter in the entire universe fit into a speck the size of a pin head?

  285. on 31 May 2013 at 8:49 pm 285.michael said …

    its not an argument of authority.

    its a fact.

    these particles are observable.

    its not a guess.

    its not a theory.

    they have observed these particles blinking into and out of existence.

    its not redefining anything.

    i cannot explain it any better than i did.

    some people just cant handle this.

    there is nothing.

    then something appears out of nothing.

    then disappears.

    its nothing.

    something…coming from nothing.

    the implications are amazing.

    your gleeful ignorance is not.

  286. on 31 May 2013 at 9:33 pm 286.alex said …

    “But that is fewer than the number or evolution or Big Bang models we have.”

    are you fucking moron? is this site called “whywontevolutionhealamputees”? your attempt among your other countless attempts to derail the point has failed yet again.

    “He is completely unaware there are 4-5 ways The creation account is interpreted.”

    are you the motherfucking pope? why does the goddamn genesis have to be interpreted by morons like you, messenger, or any other self appointed dickhead? because genesis is bullshit, no matter how you spin it. prove me wrong, you asshole.

  287. on 01 Jun 2013 at 12:27 am 287.Anonymous said …

    He is completely unaware there are 4-5 ways The creation account is interpreted.

    Well, which is it? 4 or 5, or is it 3 or 6?

    What are you doing complaining that others don’t know the number when you don’t know it either? What a hypocrite.

    Still, now you need demonstrate you actually know what you are talking about. List the 4-5 (or 3 or 6) different interpretations and then tell us why the cornerstone of Christianity has so many variations? Kinda sad isn’t it.

    Also, show us how you have chosen the “correct” interpretation. You don’t even know the number yourself so it seems that you played a game of biblical pin the tale on the (talking) donkey and have probably picked blind.

    Xenon, it sounds like we can dismiss you as “not a true Christian” unless, of course, you can demonstrate that you have selected the correct interpretation.

    Fluttershy, Alex, please don’t let him off the hook. He needs to answer this to have any credibility in the future.

  288. on 01 Jun 2013 at 12:41 am 288.Curmudgeon said …

    You are so gullible. Fact? Maybe you should read reviews of other Physicists like Albert at Columbia. Its just a book to pad his pockets and to redefine nothing. Ex nihilo remains constant regardless of what Krauss tries to slip into it.

    I don’t see a Nobel in his future.

  289. on 01 Jun 2013 at 2:07 am 289.michael said …

    albert? does albert have a last name?

  290. on 01 Jun 2013 at 2:07 am 290.alex said …

    “You are so gullible.”

    focus, moron. atheists not believing in your bullshit is nowhere near the word. gullible is believing multiple biblical interpretations, life after death, redemption and other bullshit.

    Albert, Krauss, bleh, bleh, who cares? your religion and your god, your leprechauns, your yetis, and your ufos are all bullshit. if i’m wrong, i would gladly admit it. my atheist ancestors used to think the earth was flat.

  291. on 01 Jun 2013 at 2:42 am 291.alex said …

    messenger, get lost.

  292. on 01 Jun 2013 at 2:57 am 292.Fluttershy said …

    “277.Fluttershy, the flood happened before the dinosaurs existed.
    You are inane.”
    HAHA
    Are you actually serious?
    You think humans an other modern day animals lived with good old t-rex?
    Man, your funny, are you a stand up comedian?

  293. on 01 Jun 2013 at 3:33 am 293.alex said …

    “Man, your funny, are you a stand up comedian?”

    remember his “temporary hell”? nuff said. don’t encourage the sonofabitch. he’s liable to beat up some gays or bomb a clinic or file for tax exemption.

  294. on 01 Jun 2013 at 3:45 am 294.alex said …

    anybody notice that messenger’s posts are slow to appear? the catholic god is mad at the motherfucker and his dipshit bible interpretation.

    there i said it, so it must be true and just like the idiot messenger, i offer it as proof. now prove me wrong, dumbass.

  295. on 01 Jun 2013 at 3:47 am 295.the messenger said …

    291.alex, go and find a brain.

  296. on 01 Jun 2013 at 3:53 am 296.the messenger said …

    292.Fluttershy, you have not paid any attention to my posts.

    I stated in my past comments that the animals on the ark were not modern day creatures, they predate modern animals.

    They came before the dinosaurs, and before modern day animals.

    The dinosaurs and modern day animals evolved from the animals that were on the ark. Please pay better attention.

  297. on 01 Jun 2013 at 3:55 am 297.the messenger said …

    Brother 294.alex, stop wasting my time with your idiotic, stupid, inane babbling.

  298. on 01 Jun 2013 at 4:03 am 298.the messenger said …

    Mr. 293.alex, GOD does not hate gays, he just does not approve gay sex.

    Gay sex serves no perpose in reproduction and it encourages lust.

    Abortion is murder, and all people who preform abortions, or ask for an abortion should be put on trail for child murder.

    I would happily burn all of the abortion clinics to the ground(when no one is in them).

  299. on 01 Jun 2013 at 4:18 am 299.Fluttershy said …

    If there is one thing i have learnt from here, its that if you debate with someone who believes in magic, you honestly cant get anywhere…

    How was everything made? Magic, durr…
    What about the dinosaurs, what happened to them? Obviously god killed them with magic, also noah put them on his ark, using magic to not be eaten and also to store infinite food to feed the animals.
    But- MAGIC

  300. on 01 Jun 2013 at 11:57 am 300.Curmudgeon said …

    Does Albert have a last name?. Yes, Albert. His name is David Albert. I felt certain a a man of fact you had looked at the dissenting side but no.

  301. on 01 Jun 2013 at 12:12 pm 301.A said …

    Butterfly you must be tired from all the running. I asked you (again) some questions in 279 but you refuse to answer

    Evolution-diddit your answer for all thongs? Where’s the proof my boy? Impossible to debate this magic man.

  302. on 01 Jun 2013 at 12:20 pm 302.the messenger said …

    292.Fluttershy, you have not paid any attention to my posts.
    I stated in my past comments that the animals on the ark were not modern day creatures, they predate modern animals.
    They came before the dinosaurs, and before modern day animals.
    The dinosaurs and modern day animals evolved from the animals that were on the ark. Please pay better attention.,

  303. on 01 Jun 2013 at 12:21 pm 303.Anonymous said …

    “My Boy” – now where have we heard that before?

    Oh, that’s right. Consistently from Horatio, Horatiio, Biff, Boz, Asher, A, Xenon, and Merlin. Oh my, “A” just keeps giving away his past and current identities.

    And you folks wonder why you can’t have an honest conversation with him!

  304. on 01 Jun 2013 at 12:54 pm 304.Matt said …

    “I have to admit, matt is….uneducated…”

    This coming from a guy who watches cartoons. You are a complete idiot. I am smarter than any of you and I know godddit is not the answer to science. You fairytale believers are a arrogant bunch.

  305. on 01 Jun 2013 at 1:04 pm 305.alex said …

    ““My Boy” – now where have we heard that before?”

    “Oh, that’s right. Consistently from Horatio, Horatiio, Biff, Boz, Asher, A, Xenon, and Merlin. Oh my, “A” just keeps giving away his past and current identities.”

    the idiot doesn’t even try very hard, does he? it’s consistent with their schizophrenic god. he of the foreskin obsession, burnt aroma, virgins, loving/killing/maiming/destroying, apocalypse first then heaven/hell.

    <jedispeak>lazy fuckers, these assholes are. themselves, they cannot think for. theists, that’s why they are</jedispeak>. if you’re going to sock puppetry, change your fucking writing, idiot.

  306. on 01 Jun 2013 at 2:10 pm 306.the messenger said …

    292.Fluttershy, you have not paid any attention to my posts.
    I stated in my past comments that the animals on the ark were not modern day creatures, they predate modern animals.
    They came before the dinosaurs, and before modern day animals.
    The dinosaurs and modern day animals evolved from the animals that were on the ark. Please pay better attention.,’

  307. on 01 Jun 2013 at 2:31 pm 307.michael said …

    hey crumwhatever,

    seems legit. i took a look and the man has a point.

    who else has decided that krauss is wrong?

    can you name anyone else?

    i might have to change my mind here.

  308. on 01 Jun 2013 at 2:34 pm 308.Fluttershy said …

    “Butterfly you must be tired from all the running. I asked you (again) some questions in 279 but you refuse to answer”

    Lemme see 279…

    “Again with you disproved God?
    Well, lets have it! But I am certain it is more lies. Stop with the diversions and lay out proof. Hint: attacking the Bible is not proof God does not exist. We will even assume the Bible is wrong.
    Nodody claimed goddit. You have claimed evolutiondiddit so put up or shut up!
    Hint: look up the scientific method. Any less you fail. Alex and DPK can’t help you.”
    there is ONE question there “Again with you disproved God?”
    Answer is yes.

  309. on 01 Jun 2013 at 2:39 pm 309.Fluttershy said …

    Matt (The atheist?) said…
    “This coming from a guy who watches cartoons. You are a complete idiot. I am smarter than any of you and I know godddit is not the answer to science. You fairytale believers are a arrogant bunch.”

    Never knew that cartoons could destroy brain cells simply by watching pixels of light hitting your retina. (good damned cartoon though)

    “You are a complete idiot” Look whos talking ;D

    “I am smarter than any of you” I disagree.

    “I know godddit is not the answer to science.” EXACTLY

    “You fairytale believers are a arrogant bunch.” I know, the theists here are insane.

    *Sigh* talking to you is pointless, by entertaining.

    Ohh, also i bought 2 new Mlp themed shirts today (offtopic FTW)

  310. on 01 Jun 2013 at 2:47 pm 310.Fluttershy said …

    “Evolution-diddit your answer for all thongs? Where’s the proof my boy? Impossible to debate this magic man.”

    Thongs? You mean the underpants for women of the shoes that us Aussies wear?
    Jokes aside.
    No, i do not believe evolution is the excuse for everything, please stop making ridiculous claims.
    However i do believe that evolution is real, and thus humans had a more primitive ancestor species. Which eventually went back until you reach little one celled critters.
    This disproves the bible’s theory of god making every thing 10 thousand years ago in a week, and thus disproves god.
    Proof? Again, fossils, carbon dating, etc.
    And yes, it is impossible to debate with you if you insist on using magic as a scape goat, its impossible for “magic” to occur, yet magic is defined as being able to do impossible things and thus debating it leads to a slugfest of a debate.
    I answered the ONE question that you asked me to answer (that was a tad bit easy dont you think?)
    So may you answer this?
    Ahem, when noah made his ark, how did he fit the stupendous ammount of food in it, how did a human coexist with dinosaurs and prehistoric bugs, how did he not get eaten, and why did god literally exterminate every non modern species (he must have if we have no dinosaurs today, right?) ?

    Thats a rather large amount of information to gather, but magic or god did it are invalid.

  311. on 01 Jun 2013 at 6:35 pm 311.s0l0m0n said …

    “Life can originate from non-life and vice versa.”

    Anybody dares o refute this statement.

  312. on 01 Jun 2013 at 9:35 pm 312.A said …

    Butterfly the pony starts with all joking aside and comes with more jokes

    lol!!!

    When you are ready to defend macro evolution using the scientific method we will begin to take you seriously.

    No Bible no magic for you to use as a diversion.

    Matt,

    I think you are every bit as intelligent as Butterfly the pony guy.

  313. on 01 Jun 2013 at 10:36 pm 313.the messenger said …

    All of these Leaders are atheists, and they mustered hundereds.

    Atheism is evil, all atheists are immoral and evil.

    Gracchus Babeuf
    Karl Marx
    Friedrich Engels
    Peter Kropotkin
    Rosa Luxemburg
    Karl Liebknecht
    Antonio Gramsci
    Vladimir Lenin
    Leon Trotsky
    Joseph Stalin
    Leonid Brezhnev
    Kim Il-Sung
    Mao Zedong
    Deng Xiaoping
    Ho Chi Minh
    Palmiro Togliatti
    Josip Broz Tito
    Fidel Castro
    Che Guevara

  314. on 01 Jun 2013 at 10:37 pm 314.the messenger said …

    on 01 Jun 2013 at 10:36 pm 313.the messenger said … Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    All of these Leaders are atheists, and they mustered hundereds.
    Atheism is evil, all atheists are immoral and evil.
    Gracchus Babeuf
    Karl Marx
    Friedrich Engels
    Peter Kropotkin
    Rosa Luxemburg
    Karl Liebknecht
    Antonio Gramsci
    Vladimir Lenin
    Leon Trotsky
    Joseph Stalin
    Leonid Brezhnev
    Kim Il-Sung
    Mao Zedong
    Deng Xiaoping
    Ho Chi Minh
    Palmiro Togliatti
    Josip Broz Tito
    Fidel Castro
    Che Guevara

  315. on 01 Jun 2013 at 10:38 pm 315.the messenger said …

    on 01 Jun 2013 at 3:53 am 296.the messenger said …
    292.Fluttershy, you have not paid any attention to my posts.
    I stated in my past comments that the animals on the ark were not modern day creatures, they predate modern animals.
    They came before the dinosaurs, and before modern day animals.
    The dinosaurs and modern day animals evolved from the animals that were on the ark. Please pay better attention.

  316. on 01 Jun 2013 at 10:49 pm 316.the messenger said …

    on 31 May 2013 at 7:11 pm 282.the messenger said …
    277.Fluttershy, tell me, where is your proof that GOD did not create the earth?
    I have proof of GOD, and I have provided evidence that the events in geniuses really did happen. You are an idiot.

  317. on 01 Jun 2013 at 10:51 pm 317.Anonymous said …

    All of these Leaders are atheists, and they murdered hundereds.
    Atheism is evil, all atheists are immoral and evil.
    Gracchus Babeuf
    Karl Marx
    Friedrich Engels
    Peter Kropotkin
    Rosa Luxemburg
    Karl Liebknecht
    Antonio Gramsci
    Vladimir Lenin
    Leon Trotsky
    Joseph Stalin
    Leonid Brezhnev
    Kim Il-Sung
    Mao Zedong
    Deng Xiaoping
    Ho Chi Minh
    Palmiro Togliatti
    Josip Broz Tito
    Fidel Castro
    Che Guevara

  318. on 02 Jun 2013 at 12:10 am 318.Anonymous said …

    Come on “A”, stop dodging.

    You made a claim that there are 4-5 different creation interpretations, now you need to back that up.

    How many are there?

    What are they?

    How can we know which one is true?

    If you can’t back it up, all we can is presume that you are lying and that you threw out a lie simply to get out of a difficult position. In which case, we have even more reason not to take you seriously.

    Man up, “A”. Defend your claim.

  319. on 02 Jun 2013 at 3:32 am 319.Fluttershy said …

    “Butterfly the pony starts with all joking aside and comes with more jokes”

    Jokes are funny, funny things make people laugh, laughing causes happiness, happiness causes positive emotions.
    Any way, i only had one joke there, so any others are misinterpretations.

    “When you are ready to defend macro evolution using the scientific method we will begin to take you seriously.”

    I dont need to defend it, it already has enough proof. You simply deny it.

  320. on 02 Jun 2013 at 3:32 am 320.Fluttershy said …

    Can you now answer my question?
    “Ahem, when noah made his ark, how did he fit the stupendous ammount of food in it, how did a human coexist with dinosaurs and prehistoric bugs, how did he not get eaten, and why did god literally exterminate every non modern species (he must have if we have no dinosaurs today, right?) ?”

  321. on 02 Jun 2013 at 4:26 am 321.The messenger said …

    315.Fluttershy, the ark was built before the dinosaurs existed.

    Dinosaurs evolved from the creatures that were on board the ark.

    Further more, there were very few speices on earth, and therefore did not require the “enormous amount of food”that you mentioned.

    Think before you type.

  322. on 02 Jun 2013 at 12:00 pm 322.A said …

    “You made a claim that there are 4-5 different creation interpretations”

    Ummmmmmm, I don’t think so but I’m glad you are here.

    Still waiting for you to show some integrity and answer these questions.

    How did life evolve from non-life?
    Who or what wrote the DNA code?

    Thanks Anony the Mouse. Its time to “Man Up”.

    Butterfly the Pony Guy,

    “I dont need to defend it, it already has enough proof.”

    Good lets see it! Words like rocks, fossils and carbon are not proof. This might make it easier. How does your “proof” (sic) support evolution and eliminate God? Please use the scientific method and show your work.

  323. on 02 Jun 2013 at 12:51 pm 323.Fluttershy said …

    Its intriguing that you constantly ask for irrelevant answers, yet refuse to answer relevant questions.
    Again.
    “Ahem, when noah made his ark, how did he fit the stupendous ammount of food in it, how did a human coexist with dinosaurs and prehistoric bugs, how did he not get eaten, and why did god literally exterminate every non modern species (he must have if we have no dinosaurs today, right?) ?”
    Magic and godidit are invalid…

  324. on 02 Jun 2013 at 1:55 pm 324.alex said …

    messenger, go fuck yourself before you type. asshole.

  325. on 02 Jun 2013 at 2:21 pm 325.Fluttershy said …

    “315.Fluttershy, the ark was built before the dinosaurs existed.”

    I find it sad that people in a modern society can believe that humans existed before dinosaurs…

  326. on 02 Jun 2013 at 2:32 pm 326.alex said …

    messenger: temporary hell and humans before dinosaurs. scorn, pity, school, or a whooping is what the obvious troll needs.

  327. on 02 Jun 2013 at 2:47 pm 327.alex said …

    “All of these Leaders are atheists, and they murdered hundereds.”

    all the fucking criminals in history could all be atheists for all i care. how the fuck is this proof for you shit god?

    wah! all of the bad guys don’t believe in santa claus, therefore he exists. what a load. gtfooh.

    wonder why the sock brigade is silent?

    “My Boy” – now where have we heard that before?
    Oh, that’s right. Consistently from Horatio, Horatiio, Biff, Boz, Asher, A, Xenon, and Merlin. Oh my, “A” just keeps giving away his past and current identities.

  328. on 02 Jun 2013 at 3:51 pm 328.Anonymous said …

    “a”

    When you are ready to defend macro evolution using the scientific method we will begin to take you seriously.

    WTF is “macro-” evolution>? If you mean Evolution, then say so. Not that it needs defending; there is overwhelming evidence for Evolution. To deny it is the equivalent to aligning yourself with the likes of moon landing deniers, flat-earthers, and homeopathy advocates.

    Maybe “a” also needs proof that the Earth orbits the Sun and is not the centre of the universe.

    BTW, From your missive, who is the “we” in “we will begin to…”? Do you have an army of stupid with you?

    “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn” Alvin Toffler

  329. on 02 Jun 2013 at 3:57 pm 329.michael said …

    guess not. oh well

  330. on 02 Jun 2013 at 4:49 pm 330.The messenger said …

    327.alex, it proves that atheists are nothing but evil.

  331. on 02 Jun 2013 at 4:51 pm 331.The messenger said …

    325.Fluttershy, tell me , can you disprove my theory.

  332. on 02 Jun 2013 at 4:52 pm 332.The messenger said …

    I think not.

  333. on 02 Jun 2013 at 5:54 pm 333.The messenger said …

    33.alex, I backed up my claim.

  334. on 02 Jun 2013 at 6:07 pm 334.A said …

    Anony the Mouse is still dodging the questions. He doesn’t eve know what macroevolution means. That’s funny, my spell checker recognized it. One atheist once said micro was proof of macro. Guess he can’t produce.

    Take Toffler’s words to heart Mouse.

  335. on 02 Jun 2013 at 7:28 pm 335.alex said …

    messenger, you know why your posts take so long to show up? your idiotic statements are fucking up the blog’s filtering mechanism. it says:

    “what the shit in this motherfucker poster sayin? he never, ever makes any sense. i keep looking at my memory banks, but he never makes any sense. the shit he says, like ‘hell is temporary’, or ‘dinosaurs descended from the animals on the ark’. i keep cross referencing the internet, but i cannot similar legit, idiotic statements. maybe if i slow down his posts, he will tire and go away.”

  336. on 02 Jun 2013 at 7:36 pm 336.Anonymous said …

    “a”
    Evolution is not only truth for some atheists, it’s also truth for theists, even (gasp) some christians !!! It’s what I have LEARNED ;-) .

    Since you are a doubter of Evolution, I must presume that you are a proponent of “fixed species”. That being the case, it’s way overdue for you to UNLEARN something. As Ben Franklin once said “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid”. NOBODY works harder at that than you do, “a”!!! LOL!!!

  337. on 02 Jun 2013 at 11:16 pm 337.michael said …

    im an atheist. do you think i’m evil? my parents are christian. do you think they should disown me? perhaps even kill me? evil should not be tolerated, no?

  338. on 03 Jun 2013 at 12:57 am 338.The Messenger said …

    337.michael, you stand against GOD, and therefore you stand against humility, love, kindness, and generosity .

    Therefore, you are evil. Your parents should not disown you, or murder you. They should try to save you from the evil that has infected your soul.

  339. on 03 Jun 2013 at 2:04 am 339.A said …

    “Evolution is not only truth for some atheists, it’s also truth for theists”

    Great! Lets see you prove it, using the scientific method. If it is Truth and everything is material, well then, this should be easy short work for you.

    Don’t hold back, bring the noise. Lets start my healing process Mouse! LOL!!

    Although, I never stated anywhere is wasn’t truth. Sounds like you are not to sure about what you believe Mousey?

  340. on 03 Jun 2013 at 2:53 am 340.Anonymous said …

    “a”

    Great! Lets see you prove it

    That’s OK, I am good. Just stay stupid with the rest of your army. I don’t think I need to prove that the Earth is round-ish and orbits the Sun. Just look it up for yourself.

    I’ll count you in with the hopelessly blind and stupid; right there with the flat earthers, young earthers, homeopathy advocates, etc.

    Sounds like you are not to sure about what you believe

    I believe in the Theory of Evolution. Do you believe in “fixed species”? Can’t commit to anything? No surprise!! Stupid little “a”.

  341. on 03 Jun 2013 at 3:00 am 341.Fluttershy said …

    325.Fluttershy, tell me , can you disprove my theory.

    Indeed i can.
    Ever found any human remains in or near a dinosaur fossil?
    Answer is no, therefore humans did not exist with dinosaurs, heck, our race hasn’t even existed for a million years, yet alone multiple millions of years.

  342. on 03 Jun 2013 at 11:22 am 342.A said …

    “That’s OK, I am good.”

    I’m sure you are. What you have is what your call “Truth” (sic)but you are unable to verify it with the scientific method? What you really have mouse is Faith. Its OK, don’t run from the word. Just be mouse enough to admit it. I see now why you avoided this with such gusto.

    Then we have butterfly backing his argument with the fallacy of absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

    Can’t the materialist atheists defend anything without resorting to fallacies?

  343. on 03 Jun 2013 at 11:40 am 343.Fluttershy said …

    “Then we have butterfly backing his argument with the fallacy of absence of evidence is evidence of absence.”

    Are you seriously trying to make me disprove the theory of humans coexisting with dinosaurs?….

  344. on 03 Jun 2013 at 11:47 am 344.Anonymous said …

    what he is doing is diverting the conversation away from his burden of proof and trying to goad you into a never ending series of side discussions. By now you should have caught on to his intentions.

  345. on 03 Jun 2013 at 12:13 pm 345.freddies_dead said …

    315 (plus many others).the messenger whined …

    292.Fluttershy, you have not paid any attention to my posts.

    Nobody pays any attention to your posts mess. They are, without exception, some of the stupidest crap ever inflicted on the internet.

  346. on 03 Jun 2013 at 12:49 pm 346.Fluttershy said …

    “By now you should have caught on to his intentions.”
    I have noticed it….but i find it too entertaining to reply to his ridiculous posts ;D

  347. on 03 Jun 2013 at 1:09 pm 347.Anonymous said …

    “a” asked:

    Sounds like you are not to sure about what you believe Mousey?

    I replied:

    I believe in the Theory of Evolution.

    I have faith in The Theory of Evolution. Now “a”, it seems like you don’t know what YOU have faith in. “Fixed species”, perhaps?

    ME: “Evolution is not only truth for some atheists, it’s also truth for theists”
    “a”: Great! Lets see you prove it

    OK. Ever hear of Francis Collins (Baptist), Ken Miller (Catholic), and the Catholic Church, to name a few. All unequivocally support (and have faith) in The Theory of Evolution.

    What was it again that you support? Oh yeah, you’ve never said. Here’s your chance. Impress the audience.

  348. on 03 Jun 2013 at 1:31 pm 348.The messenger said …

    337.michael, stand against GOD. Therefore you stand against kindness and love. Therefore you are evil.

    No your parrents should not abandon you, they should try and save you from the evil that has infected you.

  349. on 03 Jun 2013 at 1:32 pm 349.The messenger said …

    344.freddies_dead, I was not whining.

    I was simply stating a fact.

  350. on 03 Jun 2013 at 1:37 pm 350.The messenger said …

    340.Fluttershy, they have not found any human fossils because there bodies either decomposed before they got the chance to become a fossil, or scientists have yet to find any.

    I believe that they will find human remains, they just have not found them yet.

  351. on 03 Jun 2013 at 1:39 pm 351.Fluttershy said …

    A, please do not make me wait any longer…

    Again.
    “Ahem, when noah made his ark, how did he fit the stupendous ammount of food in it, how did a human coexist with dinosaurs and prehistoric bugs, how did he not get eaten, and why did god literally exterminate every non modern species (he must have if we have no dinosaurs today, right?) ?”
    And again, magic doesnt count.

  352. on 03 Jun 2013 at 1:46 pm 352.The messenger said …

    .michael, you stand against GOD. Therefore you stand against kindness and love. Therefore you are evil.
    No your parrents should not abandon you, they should try and save you from the evil that has infected you.

  353. on 03 Jun 2013 at 1:50 pm 353.The messenger said …

    350.Fluttershy, GOD commanded them not to eat him.

  354. on 03 Jun 2013 at 8:17 pm 354.A said …

    Mouse welcome to world of faith when you can believe in a worldview with absolutely no proof. So much for being s young man who only believes that which can be proven, eh? Your proof is the names of men, really? The same type of men YOU call delusional? Lol!!!

    Butterfly,

    I never questioned your premise of men and dinosaurs, only the fallacy with which you use to defend it. You would think atheist would understand the scientific method. But sadly, no..

    Now, again, where is that evidence you had that disproves God?

  355. on 03 Jun 2013 at 9:39 pm 355.MattD said …

    348.A said …

    Here’s a better question…what evidence would convince you there isn’t a God?

  356. on 03 Jun 2013 at 9:43 pm 356.Anonymous said …

    “a”

    Mouse welcome to world of faith when you can believe in a worldview with absolutely no proof

    Whoa there, buckaroo. No proof? How can you say that? Oh, I see that you’re working from the definition of Faith in god.
    I meant faith, as in “Complete trust or confidence in something” due to the overwhelming supporting evidence of the position. BTW, I also have faith that the Earth orbits the Sun, is not the centre of the universe, and is the third planet from the Sun in a random solar system within a rather large universe.

    And, again, you seem to support “fixed species” by default. Now that is a position without proof and requires the same Faith as believing in a god.

    The audience is waiting and my popcorn is getting cold. Sooooo……

    What was it again that you support? Oh yeah, you’ve never said. Here’s your chance.

  357. on 03 Jun 2013 at 11:12 pm 357.A said …

    “Whoa there, buckaroo. No proof? How can you say that?”

    How? Quite simple really, You have offered none. Come on slick, do you have one piece of evidence you can offer as the smoking gun? Afraid to share it mousey?

  358. on 03 Jun 2013 at 11:26 pm 358.Anonymous said …

    “a”
    You truly are the definition for stupidity in action.
    Would you also like proof of the orbit of the planet Earth around the Sun? We could play this game all day.

    Quit prancing around like a little git. I know it’s tough and likely impossible, but:

    What was it again that you support? Oh yeah, you’ve never said. Here’s your chance.

  359. on 03 Jun 2013 at 11:29 pm 359.alex said …

    an omniscient god that grants free will is just as bullshitty as a round cube. what the fuck is there to prove. my eyesight is bad? the cube has soft edges?

    save your diversions for your sunday service, assholes.

  360. on 03 Jun 2013 at 11:33 pm 360.40 Year Atheist said …

    Vox asked his opponent to answer several questions regarding evolution; his opponent’s answers are, well, hysterical yet pitiful. If you are interested, read the whole thing.

    The beautiful “science” of evolutionary biology has demonstrated that it is an endeavor of pure induction, with absolutely no deductive capacity of an experimental nature; i.e. the science must be presumed correct, rather than objectively proved conclusively. This renders the answer to Vox’s first question incredibly ignorant:

    Question:
    1. How do creationists “pose a serious threat to society”?

    Answer:
    Society only functions when the majority of the people agree on basic fundamental ideas. A critical mass of people who believe reason and evidence don’t matter is a slippery slope to tyranny.
    Let’s think about this. The fabled Enlightenment was ushered in on bloodbath of the French Revolution and its Reign of Terror by the fanboys of reason and evidence and Atheism. The trend toward socialist control of the Herd is a movement by the Enlightenment enthusiasts who are also are self-endowed messiahs. Not coincidentally, the bloodiest century ever, the 20th, was primarily due to enthusiasts of the Enlightenment philosophers, those who forced New Man philosophy by eugenic homocide.

    And as Vox points out, there is no correlation between social advances and the Atheist Enlightened mind:. For example, slavery was fought and conquered by Christians, not the least of whom was Wilberforce, who led the movement which brought freedom to slaves in Great Britain. Civil Rights in the USA was fought for by the Republicans, not Democrats; the Democrats took credit for it.

    In fact, that statement regarding the slippery slope can handily be applied to the Atheist governments which inhabited and bloodied half of the earth less than a century ago.

    Read the whole thing for further insight into how to avoid any answers at all.

    This individual has received evolution as an ideology which falsifies other ideologies: the ideology of Scientism. This is the hazard of evolution and the high priests of evolution who spend half their time on Atheist proselytising, and the other half on why evolution proves Atheism. The general population (especially the population of maleducated young people, taught by maleducated “educators”) will easily believe in science (it works, right?) and simultaneously be totally incapabable of rational analysis of the actual issues presented by legitimate science vs actual truth. And who wants to ridiculed as a science-denier?

    The predictive value of an hypothesis is the standard of valuation for any hypothesis in science. The white swan hypothesis predicted that the next swan would be white, a deduction based on the induction findings that all swans seen in Britain and Europe were white. This could be falsified, and was falsified by the discovery of black swans in Australia. This is a firm, unquestionable falsification of the white swan hypothesis.

    The commonly claimed falsification which is proposed for evolution is the discovery of a rabbit in PreCambrian deposits. But there is no reason to think that the ever-modified theory of evolution (the heart of biology) would not be modified yet again to accommodate such a thing. Why? Because finding a rabbit in a deposit is not conclusive; it is not an unquestionable falsification of evolution. There is no observation of how the rabbit got into that deposit.

    The falsification of evolution is ignored and derided: it is falsified by its lack of deductive, predictive capability in the actual, real science of biology. One cannot take a rabbit, or a population of rabbits, or a population of Darwin’s Finches, or fish in lake Malawi, and predict a future species which will occur, much less when. The theory of evolution is completely without discrimination when it comes to predicting what will happen to species: anything could come out of evolution. Anything is not an acceptable scientific conclusion, unless there is an ideological component involved.

    As Vox points out, Daniel Dennett claims that because Physics works with precision (Newtonian anyway), that gives credibility to evolution. That is the weakest Appeal To Authority possible. When evolution can predict future consequence of evolution, rather than merely predict other instances of induction, then and only then will it be on a par with physics; then and only then will it be of any significant value to actual biological science, which could then use it to predict biological outcomes. Then and only then will it derive, for itself, credibility and respect outside of the circles of ideology who use it for Scientism, Materialism and Atheism (and its fans). It has interest from an inductive-only standpoint; it has no interest for valid worldviews.

    Worldviews ask questions like “why are there laws of nature?”, rather than merely “What are the laws of nature?”. It is irrational for the knowledge of the laws of nature to include the attitude that “there is no why, there are only ever more whats” of material knowledge. Yet there is no possible knowledge contained within “whats” that addresses the “whys”, much less negates them. The assertion that there can be no “whys” is not a product of either empiricism or logic. It is ideological. And to delare the “why” to be an illegitimate question as some Atheist philosophers have done, is irrational.

    The supposed advocates of “reason and evidence” cannot provide the reason and evidence which can address the supposed lack of “whys”, and they will never be able to: it is a Category Error. The advocates will never, ever, admit that, however. The reason is that they they have accepted the unsupportable Principle Of Materialism, and they have done that without either evidence or logic for its validity. It is thus a religious belief, a faith without evidence or reasoning. And that reflects clear back to the use of evolution for ideological and worldview purposes: it is a religious faith.

  361. on 03 Jun 2013 at 11:51 pm 361.alex said …

    353.40 Year Atheist said …
    blah, motherfucking blah.

    you cannot have free will if the motherfucking god had already planned it out. quit fucking with this blog. your dipshit god had planned this blog all along.

  362. on 04 Jun 2013 at 12:00 am 362.Anonymous said …

    40YA with a question:

    How do creationists “pose a serious threat to society”?

    The kids being taught the creationist/ID line of lazy thinking would bring down the IQ of a nation causing economic collapse!!! Maybe some of the dumbed down grads would construct arks, proselytize, knock on random doors, bomb abortion clinics, fight against advances in science, etc. That’s why it’s not taught at any of the schools where my kids go, Evolution is. Evolution teaching is even included in the local Catholic schools, which, by the way, my kids do not attend.

    Funny you mention slavery. What does your bible have to say about keeping slaves? Hmmmm…..

    “a” What do you think? About Evolution, that is? We’re waiting…..

  363. on 04 Jun 2013 at 12:31 am 363.A said …

    40 your analysis is spot on and is why our Faith Mouse refuses to provide any evidence for his religion using the Scientific Method. I want to highlight this statement:

    “The falsification of evolution is ignored and derided: it is falsified by its lack of deductive, predictive capability in the actual, real science of biology.”

    This statement shows why Faith Mouse will not provide any proof:

    “Physics works with precision (Newtonian anyway), that gives credibility to evolution. That is the weakest Appeal To Authority possible. When evolution can predict future consequence of evolution, rather than merely predict other instances of induction, then and only then will it be on a par with physics”

    This is where the Religion arise for the atheists. Evolution must be true because their atheism is true: LOL!!

    “The reason is that they they have accepted the unsupportable Principle Of Materialism, and they have done that without either evidence or logic for its validity. It is thus a religious belief, a faith without evidence or reasoning.”

    I wonder is the atheist elite are attempting to usher in another bloodbath?

  364. on 04 Jun 2013 at 12:48 am 364.alex said …

    356.A said …
    more bullshit blather, physics, scientific methods, evolution, just more fucked up diversions. let’s just say it’s all bullshit. you happy?

    now back to your bullshit god. if your god knows what is to be, then shut the fuck up already. you are just fulfilling your destiny. it is my destiny to call you a dumb motherfucker. don’t fight it.

    it is also destiny that the other motherfucker, messenger, will pop in with more of his bullshit.

  365. on 04 Jun 2013 at 2:23 am 365.The messenger said …

    364.alex, I pray that your destiny is more productive
    than that.

  366. on 04 Jun 2013 at 3:03 am 366.Anonymous said …

    When Stan has the guts to take part in a debate, then we can talk. Until then, Stan – kindly fuck off back to your censored echo-chamber. There’s a good little 40Y-asshole.

  367. on 04 Jun 2013 at 3:06 am 367.Anonymous said …

    “a”

    40 your analysis is spot on,/blockquote>Appeal to false authority…useless.
    Mouse refuses to provide any evidence

    I don’t know HOW to deal with your level of STOOPID.

    “The falsification of evolution is ignored and derided: it is falsified by its lack of deductive, predictive capability in the actual, real science of biology.”
    This statement shows why Faith Mouse will not provide any proof:

    Say what? The Theory of Evolution is peer reviewed by the minds of highly intelligent and talented people, atheist and theist alike. There will always be fringe elements that will never ascribe. Mostly due to preconceived notions related to religious beliefs.

    This is where the Religion arise for the atheists. Evolution must be true because their atheism is true: LOL!!

    Really? And what do you tell atheists who don’t believe in Evolution? And theists who treat Evolution as truth? Get over it.

    It is thus a religious belief, a faith without evidence or reasoning.

    You wish. LOL!!! A belief in a god is spot on with this description.

    Anyway, “a”, I know you’re scared, but try and answer:

    What was it again that you support? Oh yeah, you’ve never said. Here’s your chance. Impress the audience.

  368. on 04 Jun 2013 at 4:50 am 368.michael said …

    messenger thinks that humanism is an ‘infection’

    is that insulting to anyone else?

  369. on 04 Jun 2013 at 5:19 am 369.The messenger said …

    368.michael, it is an infection.

    If you abandon GOD you also abandon his teachings of love, kindness, generosity, humility, and compassion for all humans.

    If we abandon GOD we will turn humanity into a swarm of evil, disfunctional, murderous, hateful, destructive, demon such as these people.

    Gracchus Babeuf
    Karl Marx
    Friedrich Engels
    Peter Kropotkin
    Rosa Luxemburg
    Karl Liebknecht
    Antonio Gramsci
    Vladimir Lenin
    Leon Trotsky
    Joseph Stalin
    Leonid Brezhnev
    Kim Il-Sung
    Mao Zedong
    Deng Xiaoping
    Ho Chi Minh
    Palmiro Togliatti
    Josip Broz Tito
    Fidel Castro
    Che Guevara

  370. on 04 Jun 2013 at 5:21 am 370.The messenger said …

    Save humanity from murderous atheists.

  371. on 04 Jun 2013 at 6:27 am 371.Anonymous said …

    There are two schools of thought regarding messenger.

    One that he is a troll and is simply here to annoy people.

    The second is that he has a significant mental illness.

    Either way his nonsense doesn’t warrant his posts being taken seriously.

  372. on 04 Jun 2013 at 8:12 am 372.The messenger said …

    371.Anonymous, so you are telling me that all of those atheist leaders did not kill hundreds?

    You are obviously mentally unstable and completely delusional. Please, please seek help AS SOON as possible.

  373. on 04 Jun 2013 at 10:41 am 373.Fluttershy said …

    “371.Anonymous, so you are telling me that all of those atheist leaders did not kill hundreds?”

    Im an atheist, i wouldnt even dare to kill anyone.

    I just blew up your theory of the attack of the killer atheists…

  374. on 04 Jun 2013 at 1:18 pm 374.Fluttershy said …

    “371.Anonymous, so you are telling me that all of those atheist leaders did not kill hundreds?
    You are obviously mentally unstable and completely delusional. Please, please seek help AS SOON as possible.”

    Lemme see what he posted.

    “371.Anonymous said …
    There are two schools of thought regarding messenger.
    One that he is a troll and is simply here to annoy people.
    The second is that he has a significant mental illness.
    Either way his nonsense doesn’t warrant his posts being taken seriously.”

    He did not claim anything, other than that your posts are nonsense and that you should not be taken seriously, this implies that your evidence of any kind is invalid. Again, generalisation leads to nowhere.

  375. on 04 Jun 2013 at 4:09 pm 375.A said …

    Lets see why Mouse is a fierce supporter of ToE. He does so because smart people told him to do so. His kind we should worry about. They don’t think and allow others to do their thinking.

    I bought the propaganda during my years of education. I grew up and practiced independent thought and realized the theory lacked real science and real substance. This is why our Mouse cannot provide any proof. Now all he has is lame attempts at insults.

    It is so sad.

    Mouse what do you have on the abiogenesis front?

  376. on 04 Jun 2013 at 5:18 pm 376.The messenger said …

    374.Fluttershy, I called him mentally delusional due to the fact that he did not realize the clear fact that my comments are true.

    Tell me, can you disprove the fact that all of the atheists that I listed did infact kill hundreds? Can you disprove it?
    For your information, simply labeling a comment as bogus proves nothing. You must present evidence that suggests it is bogus.
    If you fail to disprove the fact that all of the people that I listed did kill hundereds, then it will prove that your are entirely inane.

  377. on 04 Jun 2013 at 5:56 pm 377.Anonymous said …

    “a”:

    I bought the propaganda during my years of education. I grew up and practiced independent thought and realized the theory lacked real science and real substance.

    So what did you come up with? In place of ToE?

  378. on 04 Jun 2013 at 9:17 pm 378.DPK said …

    “So what did you come up with? In place of ToE?”

    He came up with “God did it by magic.”

    Seriously, why do you bother with this ass? He isn’t interested in an honest debate, he is devious, coy and is nothing without lies, and he is clearly insane. I refuse to waste any more time with him. He’s like the guy who lives in his van covered with scripture behind the Superfresh. He isn’t interested in truth, he is interested in preaching and trying to reinforce his own delusions. Even the fucking pope isn’t as deluded as ASS.
    Ignore him. He’s a little man with no purpose in life.

  379. on 04 Jun 2013 at 9:42 pm 379.Anonymous said …

    DPK
    Yes, I totally agree. “a” is so confident in his idea that he won’t even share it. What does that tell you? Tells me that he has nothing.

    No sense in providing any proof or evidence for anything for “a” until he supports a position. I encourage folks to do your own due diligence, come to your own conclusions, whatever they may be. My own conclusion is that the Theory of Evolution is sound. There’s always a minority fringe element to any completely bulletproof Theory, especially when it shakes the foundation of a Faith in god. After all, there are people who still literally believe in the story of Noah’s Ark!!!

  380. on 05 Jun 2013 at 12:17 am 380.A said …

    “There’s always a minority fringe element to any completely bulletproof Theory”

    LOL!!, yes it is so bulletproof you can provide one piece of armor.

    LOL!!, why must I have something in order to support your worldview? If your belief is bulletproof it should stand on its own, no?

    I don’t think you know why you believe it other than it has to be true or your entire worldview will crumble. Me? If there is solid proof then great! I’ll buy in. It has no impact on my worldview.

  381. on 05 Jun 2013 at 12:35 am 381.Anonymous said …

    “a”

    I don’t think you know why you believe it other than it has to be true or your entire worldview will crumble. Me? If there is solid proof then great! I’ll buy in. It has no impact on my worldview.

    My worldview will crumble? Stupid little “a”, did you forget Toffler? Look way up in the thread. Allow me to refresh your rather dim mind – I am willing to UNLEARN and RELEARN quite seamlessly. You, however, ABSOLUTELY NEED a worldview based on a god. Don’t you? LOL!!! That’s why you cannot state a POV on the subject – you KNOW it will sound completely ridiculous. On that we can agree.

  382. on 05 Jun 2013 at 1:40 am 382.A said …

    LOL!!!!, my worldview will crumble if ToE is true? Hardly! Show me the proof mousey and I will buy in slick.

    You are willing to relearn? LOL!!! No, you are the classic elitist. It will never happen. You have no clue why you believe in macro evolution but you blindly follow.

    To be fair, my POV is the jury is still out. Men get crime scenes wrong that are only an hour old so I remain skeptical any man can tell me what process God used to put man on this blue planet.

  383. on 05 Jun 2013 at 2:39 am 383.Anonymous said …

    So, Assman believes his god did something but he has no idea how he did it?

    That’s even more fucking stupid than believing in magic.

    What a fucking fool.

  384. on 05 Jun 2013 at 3:10 am 384.Anonymous said …

    “a”

    If there is solid proof then great! I’ll buy in. It has no impact on my worldview.

    A very telling statement. No impact on your worldview with solid proof? You’ll buy in? To what though? Ultimately god (and Jayzus) is the centre of your worldview. That for sure will never change. It can’t!!

    And now you wager your faith on abiogenesis being unprovable? I doubt it, you’ll just shift the goal posts like you’ve always done. (sigh) It’s the way of the classic theist.

  385. on 05 Jun 2013 at 3:13 am 385.The messenger said …

    Brother Thomas, tell me, what bible verses are these, and why do you refuse to list them? I have done much research trying to find this “so called verse”, and have not found it.
    I want you to answer this. Not one of you puppets.

  386. on 05 Jun 2013 at 5:28 am 386.Fluttershy said …

    “LOL!!, yes it is so bulletproof you can provide one piece of armor.”

    In this case our one piece of armour is made of adamantium and is the size of the yamato battleship….

  387. on 05 Jun 2013 at 11:04 am 387.A said …

    Butterfly,

    You have been silent. Show me this armor that will stand up to the scientific method.

    I want to believe!

    But alas, you have nothing, right?

    Anony Mouse

    Way to lose you cool. You religion gets you fired up!

  388. on 05 Jun 2013 at 11:35 am 388.Anonymous said …

    “a”
    Thank-you for demonstrating the mindset of the strident and steadfast fundamentalist xtian with the posts that you’ve made. You truly are drunk on the spirit of the lord.

    And, NO, religion does not get me fired up, stupidity does.

  389. on 05 Jun 2013 at 11:57 am 389.Anonymous said …

    “a”

    I remain skeptical any man can tell me what process God used to put man on this blue planet.

    There it is. The crux of your problem, the source of your stupidity, the default no questions asked answer to everything: GODDIDIT

  390. on 05 Jun 2013 at 12:23 pm 390.Fluttershy said …

    “Butterfly,
    You have been silent. Show me this armor that will stand up to the scientific method.
    I want to believe!
    But alas, you have nothing, right?”

    Like other people, i have more things to do rather than debate religion.
    Armor? again, reference the bible, it states god made all creatures in a day about 10 thousand years ago. The rather unbreakable evidence of evolution (fossils, bacteria mutating in labs, etc) disproves this, if the bible is the words of god, and god is correct, then he himself is incorrect, and hence doesn’t exist.
    How many ways do i have to post this? I dont know, but i know you will never get past your delusion of god and how it can be used as an answer to everything…

  391. on 05 Jun 2013 at 7:23 pm 391.The messenger said …

    .374.Fluttershy, I called him mentally delusional due to the fact that he did not realize the clear fact that my comments are true.
    Tell me, can you disprove the fact that all of the atheists that I listed did infact kill hundreds? Can you disprove it?
    For your information, simply labeling a comment as bogus proves nothing. You must present evidence that suggests it is bogus.
    If you fail to disprove the fact that all of the people that I listed did kill hundereds, then it will prove that your are entirely inane.

  392. on 05 Jun 2013 at 9:26 pm 392.michael said …

    sorry i missed the followup, but i asked about humanism and messenger went on to list people like hitler

    is he saying hitler was a humanist?

  393. on 05 Jun 2013 at 9:36 pm 393.A said …

    Butterfly,

    Why do you need to reference the Bible to prove macro evolution? Why is this so hard for you if it is the truth? I have not made one reference to the Bible but it seems to be the only out for you and mousey. The only diddit here is your evolution-diddit and that is not science.

    Squirming like mousey Butterfly?

  394. on 05 Jun 2013 at 9:54 pm 394.alex said …

    evolution-diddit or god-didit, is that it? we’re picking sides? with us or against us? how about, i don’t give a fuck. does that prove your god?

  395. on 05 Jun 2013 at 10:18 pm 395.Anonymous said …

    no one here need prove evolution, that’s not the purpose of this blog. That’s just assman trolling. it’s “a” that has the burden of proof with the default position being that no god exists and anyone who believes in that shit being delusional. that’s what is up for debate.

    Fluttershy engages for sport, but no-one here should take “a” and his sock- puppets seriously in a month of Sundays. he’s trolling, 100% trolling.

  396. on 06 Jun 2013 at 1:21 am 396.Xenon said …

    Atheists like to use this false conclusion that because someone believes is God they claim God did it and do not practice science. It is untrue and the vast majority of scientist who have been some sort of theists throughout history prove their claim is untrue. Why can’t atheist make arguments that are honest?

    As for evolution or speciation, it is not provable or falsifiable therefore it does not meet the definition of observable science. It is fine as a theory but anyone who claims it to be fact or truth is just dishonest.

  397. on 06 Jun 2013 at 1:48 am 397.alex said …

    “Atheists like to use this false conclusion that because someone believes is God they claim God did it and do not practice science.”

    you dumb, multiple posting, lying bitch, 20X over. if you believe in god, then the bastard has to do something, doesn’t he?

    theory or fact, what the fuck does evolution have to do with your bullshit god?

    you think the atheists here don’t remember the lying motherfucker that you are?

    here ya go, ya dipshit…

    “My Boy” – now where have we heard that before?
    Oh, that’s right. Consistently from Horatio, Horatiio, Biff, Boz, Asher, A, Xenon, and Merlin. Oh my, “A” just keeps giving away his past and current identities.

  398. on 06 Jun 2013 at 6:44 pm 398.The messenger said …

    392.michael, humanism is A system of thought that rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth.

    All of those murderous atheists that I listed are humanists because they reject religious beliefs.

  399. on 06 Jun 2013 at 6:50 pm 399.The messenger said …

    397.alex, I have never lied.

  400. on 06 Jun 2013 at 6:50 pm 400.The messenger said …

    397.alex, at least not on this site.

  401. on 07 Jun 2013 at 2:26 am 401.Anonymous said …

    Xenon, the inert gas bag comes up with a doozy:

    As for evolution or speciation, it is not provable…… It is fine as a theory but anyone who claims it to be fact or truth is just dishonest.

    How many times do we need to cover this? A scientific theory IS backed by FACTS and EVIDENCE.

    Xenon, did you see the depth of the stupidity from “a” and you wanted to compete?

  402. on 07 Jun 2013 at 2:35 am 402.Anonymous said …

    Xenon and “A”‘s stupidity are on par with each other because “A” and Xenon have been shown many, many, times to be the same person posting under different names. i.e they are just two of his many sock-puppets.

    Once again, he’s trying to lead people down a blind alley so as to disrupt actual discussion on religion and the nutty people who believe in it.

  403. on 07 Jun 2013 at 12:41 pm 403.A said …

    Mousey back with diversions of puppets. Mouse I already confessed to be everyone so let it be or leave.

    Now share some of this massive amounts of facts and evidence that backs the ToE.

    prediction: mouse can’t and will not.

  404. on 07 Jun 2013 at 1:33 pm 404.Anonymous said …

    “a”

    Now share some of this massive amounts of facts and evidence that backs the ToE.

    Just look it up, numb nuts. Why not start with why would the Catholic Church ascribe to the theory? Fossils, geology, DNA, do I really need to go on?

    Oh, and I forgot to mention, like all good scientific theories, ToE is falsifiable. So, if you’ve got something that will knock it off it’s rails, feel free to give it a go. It absolutely does not matter what you nor I think of ToE, it’s here to stay until, of course, you fully engage that brilliant independently thinking mind of yours. What have you got?

    Just wondering, since this is a blog on god, how would god be falsifiable?

  405. on 07 Jun 2013 at 2:00 pm 405.A said …

    Mousey,

    God is not science nor a theory so you can determine how to falsify his existence. Good luck!

    Appeals to a pope is not proof. Rejected.

    Yes, you need to go on. Lets pick one, DNA. How does DNA prove ToE is true?

    Remember I do want to believe but the scientific method must be adhered to.

  406. on 07 Jun 2013 at 2:50 pm 406.Anonymous said …

    “a”

    Yes, you need to go on. Lets pick one, DNA. How does DNA prove ToE is true?
    Remember I do want to believe but the scientific method must be adhered to.

    No, I don’t need to waste my time. Did you see where I said ToE is falsifiable? Fill your boots – Evolution does not need me to defend it. However, YOU can absolutely crush ToE with your wonderfully complex arguments. Why not start right now!! I can hardly wait. LOL!! Good luck.

    You’re correct that god just needs a believer and is NOT falsifiable.

    Apologies for “appealing to a pope”. I just thought a xtian view would HELP YOU understand how to be xtian and a ToE advocate at the same time. Maybe those Catholics are just too stupid?

  407. on 07 Jun 2013 at 3:05 pm 407.A said …

    Oh mouse, get off the pope. Just another diversion. Apology accepted, lol!!

    Again you fail. I have no need to demolish anything util it is built. You have not built a case.

    ToE is built on many assumptions, “might haves” even some guesses. I actually laughed when you chose DNA since it does what to help your case?

    I know independent thinker piss off the herd but I am willing to change when a solid scientific case is provided. ToE is science right?

  408. on 07 Jun 2013 at 3:16 pm 408.Anonymous said …

    “a”
    You are almost completely hopeless.
    Using your particular flavour of religion (whatever that may be) the bottom line is that goddidit. Your faith declares it’s either magic fairy dust or ToE or ?. Does not make any difference to me if your on the right side or not ;-).

    At this moment in time, your level of stupidity does not enable you to fit ToE into the framework of your understanding of god. Maybe try reading and researching some more, you can always shift the goal posts. ToE does not need your approval.

  409. on 07 Jun 2013 at 4:16 pm 409.A said …

    Oh mosey more diversions. God does need your approval but you constantly ask.

    This is strictly for the process to show you have no proof for ToE but you believe in faith. Is is this bad that you can’t provide just (1) piece of evidence?

    Your personal insults are only more diversions to deflect your faith in the ToE. It seems you need to engage in some research to overcome the ignorance.

    (sigh!). oops I think others have sighed here. More calms of puppetry coming….lol!!

  410. on 07 Jun 2013 at 4:17 pm 410.Anonymous said …

    “a”

    ToE is built on many assumptions, “might haves” even some guesses. I actually laughed when you chose DNA since it does what to help your case?

    I cannot and never will be able to INDEPENDENTLY confirm ToE (unless I win the lottery). As a matter of fact, I have never independently verified that the planet Earth revolves around the Sun or that atoms exist. Instead, what I do is study and read and make my decisions on ToE and other branches of inquiry based on the mountains of cold hard emotionless data and facts. Hoping not to disappoint you, “a”, as being just another blind dupe for Evolution.

    Biased research might be what you get from studying a bible. That is a realm where you fail to learn HOW to think and are told WHAT to think. Jayzus is the saviour, Noah’s Ark is true reality, etc, etc. There, we’re back to being a blog on god ;-) .

  411. on 07 Jun 2013 at 4:39 pm 411.Anonymous said …

    “a” asks

    you have no proof for ToE but you believe in faith. Is is this bad that you can’t provide just (1) piece of evidence?

    Mousy responds:

    Fossils, geology, DNA, do I really need to go on?

    I count three branches of inquiry that help build the case for Evolution. Go ahead, “a”, it’s all falsifiable with a sound enough argument. Not even a challenge for a person with your incredible talents. Freely admitting that god is not falsifiable by myself or anyone. People just need to believe to make it real.

    Again, I admit that I cannot disprove a god or that there are little pink unicorns in your underwear drawer. Evolution, on the other hand, is completely open to critique. YOU, “a”, are able to dis-prove it. That does not mean all you need to do is jump up and down yelling that it’s untrue.

  412. on 07 Jun 2013 at 5:16 pm 412.The messenger said …

    392.michael, humanism is A system of thought that rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth.
    All of those murderous atheists that I listed are humanists because they reject religious beliefs.

  413. on 07 Jun 2013 at 5:24 pm 413.The messenger said …

    Brother 411.Anonymous, tell me, how is DNA, geology, and fossils proof against GOD?

    GOD made DNA so that we would grow a certain way.
    He made DNA so that our bodies would function a certain way.

    The animals on the ark evolved into many different species, and over time they continued to evolve to survive, and sometimes a few specieses would die off and formed into fossils due to the surrounding minerals and the pressure that they were under.

  414. on 07 Jun 2013 at 6:42 pm 414.A said …

    Mousey, if the scientific method is not or cannot be applied to test a position then it is not possible to spot likely errors in that position. Without the ability to spot inaccuracy, one position cannot be said to be stronger or weaker than any other position. All faiths or theories become equivalent.

    Then you have the politicizing and biases that come with ToE. Scientist are expected to ToE the line on this position to satisfy the community in which they work and play. Many do just to move up the ladders of their profession. They don’t really believe.

    The next time Richard Dawkins come out and calls this theory fact, do yourself a favor and seriously examine what is fact and what is faith. That takes courage because your worldview depends on ToE being true.

    I won’t ask for proof any longer. You have proven my point.

  415. on 07 Jun 2013 at 7:18 pm 415.Fluttershy said …

    I find it hilarious how “A” continuously asks for proof of things that are blatantly obviously true, and he didnt answer my questions of the Ark that noah made, proving that all he can believe in is magic, or that he does not want to engage in a fair debate.

  416. on 07 Jun 2013 at 7:52 pm 416.Anonymous said …

    “a”

    one position cannot be said to be stronger or weaker than any other position. All faiths or theories become equivalent.

    Really? Let’s give this a go, shall we?

    Let’s agree on some facts to start:
    The planet is billions of years old.
    Humans (Homo sapiens) have existed for about 250,000 years.
    Humans who walked with the dinosaurs 65+ million years ago exist in The Flintstones; it is not a documentary.
    Before Homo sapiens there were other “hybrid” bipedal apes.
    Organized religious practices have existed for about 12,000 years. Xtianity for much less than that.
    Have I made a mistake? Point them out.

  417. on 07 Jun 2013 at 8:20 pm 417.A said …

    Butterfly,

    IF they are obvious then why is it that not you nor mouse will produce any proof? Typing the word fossil or DNA is not proof. Dead things sometimes leave fossils. Cells have codes called DNA. So how are those proof of ToE.

    what is truly hilarious is you are the same guys continually calling for proof of God yet I don’t believe you understand the nature of proof.

    Lets see what you come up with Butterfly.

  418. on 07 Jun 2013 at 8:34 pm 418.Anonymous said …

    “a”
    Still awaiting a response: Trying to help you prove that a belief in a god is as rational as ToE when one looks at the facts. Working by consensus.

    Let’s agree on some facts to start:
    The planet is billions of years old.
    Humans (Homo sapiens) have existed for about 250,000 years.
    Humans who walked with the dinosaurs 65+ million years ago exist in The Flintstones; it is not a documentary.
    Before Homo sapiens there were other “hybrid” bipedal apes.
    Organized religious practices have existed for about 12,000 years. Xtianity for much less than that.
    Have I made a mistake? Point them out.

    Ooops, I think I erred on the time when organized religions arose. Perhaps you can correct that?

  419. on 07 Jun 2013 at 8:47 pm 419.alex said …

    “what is truly hilarious is you are the same guys continually calling for proof of God yet I don’t believe you understand the nature of proof.”

    you’re a dumb motherfucker and you deserve you shitass god. dna and/or bigfuckingbang are nothing but diversions brought on by the incessant pleadings by the you, dipshit theists.

    we ask for proof, simple as that. no different than you, you dumbfuck. if hesus showed up today, how would you know? if he pulls a cross out of his ass, i will recognize. see, it ain’t that hard. you do it, and i will recognize you as hesus. now what about you. what would hesus have to do for you to bow down and kiss his holiness’ ass?

  420. on 07 Jun 2013 at 9:30 pm 420.A said …

    Mousey,

    I apologize, I have give you entirely too much credit.

    Let me understand. Do you understand the difference between history and science? Which does ToE fit under? Focus, stay on topic this time.

    Second, do you believe ToE actually compete with another? Lol!! Do you know the difference between an apple and a tree”

  421. on 07 Jun 2013 at 10:15 pm 421.Anonymous said …

    Little “a”, such a tiny person with an IQ to match ;-) .

    You said something earlier, what was it? Oh yeah:

    one position cannot be said to be stronger or weaker than any other position. All faiths or theories become equivalent.

    And the topic of the thread IS:

    When intelligent people look at religion rationally, religion is clearly insane

    Now that I’ve asked some basic and simple questions, you’ve become hostile and scared. Can you please stay on topic and try your best to focus? You made a statement, I asked a few questions. Time to put some meat behind your words.

    Let’s agree on some facts to start:
    The planet is billions of years old.
    Humans (Homo sapiens) have existed for about 250,000 years.
    Humans who walked with the dinosaurs 65+ million years ago exist in The Flintstones; it is not a documentary.
    Before Homo sapiens there were other “hybrid” bipedal apes.
    Organized religious practices have existed for about 12,000 years. Xtianity for much less than that.
    Have I made a mistake? Point them out.

    Prediction: “a” is all sizzle and no steak. Big hat and no cattle. Won’t answer or stay on topic of the thread. What a troll (sigh!)

  422. on 07 Jun 2013 at 10:25 pm 422.The messenger said …

    Brother 411.Anonymous, tell me, how is DNA, geology, and fossils proof against GOD?
    GOD made DNA so that we would grow a certain way.
    He made DNA so that our bodies would function a certain way.
    The animals on the ark evolved into many different species, and over time they continued to evolve to survive, and sometimes a few specieses would die off and formed into fossils due to the surrounding minerals and the pressure that they were under.

  423. on 08 Jun 2013 at 12:07 am 423.A said …

    Lol!! Oh Mousey! You got backed into a corner and now it is a fallacy to get out of our discussion.

    Is ToE history or science mousey? You came this far, don’t quit now!

    How many beliefs do you have based on what others tell you rather than thinking for yourself?

    Butterfly Butterfly! Where did you fly off to?

  424. on 08 Jun 2013 at 12:33 am 424.Anonymous said …

    As predicted. Another diversion. Try and focus “a”

  425. on 08 Jun 2013 at 1:34 am 425.alex said …

    “Little “a”, such a tiny person with an IQ to match..”

    martin, you’re a bitch. you don’t know shit about me. what i do know is that you believe in bullshit. no matter how much you huff and puff and keep yammering away, you don’t get to ask the questions here. what is the name of the blog, you fuck?

    as usual, your questions are a wild goose chase. in the vein of you asshole brethren, s0l and messenger, they shouldn’t be answered of even considered. like the title says, you are insane.

    butterfly, little a? this is a discussion? how about you stick that cross up your ass? martin? huh?

  426. on 08 Jun 2013 at 1:37 am 426.Anonymous said …

    #419 – you know those signs by the animal cages in the zoo? The ones that read “Don’t Feed The Troll”?

    Well the troll that you are currently feeding has several favorite foods and top of the list are well-meaning atheists who are easily baited into side-discussion via nonsense statements, schoolyard taunts, and childish demands?

    After all, have you ever found someone on a blog related to religion who wont answer questions on religious beliefs yet demands that you answer his on evolution to not be trolling? Ever?

    “Just sayin’”

  427. on 08 Jun 2013 at 2:11 am 427.Curmudgeon said …

    Alex and anonymous are really two peas in a pod. They insult, use terrible profanity and bait well meaning posters.

    I am at a loss why they don’t even attempt to defend the cornerstone of atheism, the theory of evolution. It must be ignorance of the subject or just a weak subject.

  428. on 08 Jun 2013 at 3:02 am 428.Fluttershy said …

    “Butterfly Butterfly! Where did you fly off to?”
    I was sleeping….
    You know? Because time zones exist and im from australia…

    “Dead things sometimes leave fossils. Cells have codes called DNA.”
    Cant disagree here, dead things may leave fossils, and DNA are codes that form cells, and thus organisms.
    You forgot to mention that it take a LONG time to fossilise something, more than the ten thousand years some christians believe in.
    And DNA, given enough mutations can give creatures new forms, traits etc.
    Scientists have observed bacteria mutate to become barely their original form.
    And diseases like the flu have changed symptoms.

  429. on 08 Jun 2013 at 3:03 am 429.michael said …

    ‘the cornerstone of atheism?’

    youre a dumb motherfucker.

    you dont know anything about atheism.

    you cannot even name the central tenants of atheism.

    jackass

  430. on 08 Jun 2013 at 3:06 am 430.Fluttershy said …

    “Alex and anonymous are really two peas in a pod. They insult, use terrible profanity and bait well meaning posters.”
    And you divert, use the excuse of magic, lie, make statements that have literally no backing and fail to debate fairly in any shape or form.

  431. on 08 Jun 2013 at 3:11 am 431.Anonymous said …

    Cur:

    I am at a loss why they don’t even attempt to defend the cornerstone of atheism, the theory of evolution. It must be ignorance of the subject or just a weak subject.

    The Theory of Evolution does not need defending. If you want to shred the theory, it’s pretty easy – all you need to do is find a new way to interpret the evidence. In that vein, you may carry on and answer the questions I posted to “a”, if you dare. They’re re-posted (yet again), below.

    Reminder: This thread relates to: When intelligent people look at religion rationally, religion is clearly insane. Look way up and notice the title.

    “a” stated a position and was smacked down. Now “a” whines, throws hissy-fits, distracts with red herrings, uses fallacies, and won’t return to the topic at hand

    When intelligent people look at religion rationally, religion is clearly insane

    Why don’t you give it a go. Answer the questions, Cur; they’re related directly to the thread. It is why you posted, isn’t it?

    Let’s agree on some facts to start:
    The planet is billions of years old.
    Humans (Homo sapiens) have existed for about 250,000 years.
    Humans who walked with the dinosaurs 65+ million years ago exist in The Flintstones; it is not a documentary.
    Before Homo sapiens there were other “hybrid” bipedal apes.
    Organized religious practices have existed for about 12,000 years. Xtianity for much less than that.
    Have I made a mistake? Point them out

    Of course, you won’t wager an opinion!! That’s abundantly clear. The reason is that you know the responses you provide can only prove that the thread’s title is 100% accurate.

  432. on 08 Jun 2013 at 3:14 am 432.Fluttershy said …

    So, “A”

    How did god do these things?
    Magic isnt valid ;D

  433. on 08 Jun 2013 at 3:32 am 433.alex said …

    “I am at a loss why they don’t even attempt to defend the cornerstone of atheism, the theory of evolution. It must be ignorance of the subject or just a weak subject.”

    i’m at a loss why motherfuckers like you keep coming in here with the same ole tired shit. is the site called whywontevolutionhealamputees? no, dipshit.

    no likey profanity? yet you tolerate your homies sayin people are going to hell? can you think of anything worse than hell? stop the diversion and prove your god. how would jesus prove himself to you, today? cut off some foreskins and let you sniff it? curse a fig tree and see it wilt? watch jesus cower in fear at the sight of metal rims (iron chariots)? what?

  434. on 08 Jun 2013 at 7:41 am 434.Fluttershy said …

    I guess they ignored the multiple times where i stated atheists dont always believe in evolution?

  435. on 08 Jun 2013 at 11:15 am 435.Fluttershy said …

    “I am at a loss why they don’t even attempt to defend the cornerstone of atheism, the theory of evolution. It must be ignorance of the subject or just a weak subject.”

    HAHA, the cornerstone of atheism is that god doesn’t exist, there are no other beliefs that make an atheist.

  436. on 08 Jun 2013 at 1:12 pm 436.Anonymous said …

    How much clearer could they make it? That point had been consistently made for years. Yet there is always someone willing to take the obvious bait, even though it’s nothing at all to do with the subject at hand.

    These characters are trolling. They are not interested in honest debate. It’s a game and when cornered they simply run away and lie in wait for the next person who they can bait into playing their game.

    Please stop feeding the trolls.

  437. on 08 Jun 2013 at 1:12 pm 437.The messenger said …

    434.Fluttershy, therefore, Atheists have no moral rules.

    Therefore, they are most likely to become similar to on of the following Atheists/mass murders.Gracchus Babeuf
    Karl Marx
    Friedrich Engels
    Peter Kropotkin
    Rosa Luxemburg
    Karl Liebknecht
    Antonio Gramsci
    Vladimir Lenin
    Leon Trotsky
    Joseph Stalin
    Leonid Brezhnev
    Kim Il-Sung
    Mao Zedong
    Deng Xiaoping
    Ho Chi Minh
    Palmiro Togliatti
    Josip Broz Tito
    Fidel Castro
    Che Guevara

  438. on 08 Jun 2013 at 1:49 pm 438.Fluttershy said …

    *whispers to anon*
    Dont worry, i put cyanide in the troll food….
    On the serious side though, they are trolls…
    That or they are insanely biased, ignorant bigots…..

  439. on 08 Jun 2013 at 2:36 pm 439.A said …

    Mousey,

    Did you see Buuterfly’s post? He says all atheists don’t believe in ToE. Why is that? I thought it was fact so why would their be atheists who don’t buy into ToE? Does this enrage you mousey? Ate they ignorant? What would you say to these holdouts?

    Your ilk is a very confused bunch.

    lol!!

  440. on 08 Jun 2013 at 3:04 pm 440.Anonymous said …

    “a”

    He says all atheists don’t believe in ToE

    So what? Atheism is the rejection of a deity, not a rejection of ToE. What a moron. Your stupidity is showing again.

    Ate they ignorant?

    No, that would be something that you eat daily…. With a side order of stupid.

    Your ilk is a very confused bunch.

    Humanity in general and theists in particular are confused. What a revelation. Dumbass.

    Still waiting. Don’t show everyone that you’re the troll that they claim you are. Last chance to opine: You made a statement – I made some assertions. See above.

  441. on 08 Jun 2013 at 3:16 pm 441.The messenger said …

    434.Fluttershy, therefore, Atheists have no moral rules.
    Therefore, they are most likely to become similar to on of the following Atheists/mass murders.Gracchus Babeuf
    Karl Marx
    Friedrich Engels
    Peter Kropotkin
    Rosa Luxemburg
    Karl Liebknecht
    Antonio Gramsci
    Vladimir Lenin
    Leon Trotsky
    Joseph Stalin
    Leonid Brezhnev
    Kim Il-Sung
    Mao Zedong
    Deng Xiaoping
    Ho Chi Minh
    Palmiro Togliatti
    Josip Broz Tito
    Fidel Castro
    Che Guevara

  442. on 08 Jun 2013 at 3:27 pm 442.alex said …

    “He says all atheists don’t believe in ToE. Why is that?”

    failed diversion, again, you dumb motherfucker. not all atheists are liberals, you ass. not all atheists believe in the big bang, you dumbshit. not all atheists believe in cold fusion, you shit#5. should i go on, you theist troll?… martin, etc.

    the game is over, you piece of shit. your crap won’t be tolerated anymore so you resort to anonymously posting your shit over here. go fuck yourself, again.

  443. on 08 Jun 2013 at 3:40 pm 443.Fluttershy said …

    “Did you see Buuterfly’s post? He says all atheists don’t believe in ToE. Why is that? I thought it was fact so why would their be atheists who don’t buy into ToE? Does this enrage you mousey? Ate they ignorant? What would you say to these holdouts?”

    Why is that you ask? Because that is how atheists work, you only need to disbelieve in god, anything else is personal opinion.

  444. on 08 Jun 2013 at 3:57 pm 444.alex said …

    “anything else is personal opinion.”

    theists DO NOT believe this simple concept. they insist on deepthroating anybody/everybody else with religion. with their bullshit xtian redemption, they can molest kids, beat gays, oppress women, bomb clinics, blah, blah, then in their fucked up collective mind, they are forgiven. what bullshit! yeah, i know, atheists do bad shit too, but not in the name of Atheism, puleeze. even if they did, who/what atheist ever pulled out their atheist redemption card and smugly proclaim, do over!?

  445. on 08 Jun 2013 at 4:09 pm 445.Fluttershy said …

    Again, i assume they are either trolls, or simply THAT ignorant….

  446. on 08 Jun 2013 at 8:49 pm 446.A said …

    Mousey you heard it here fist. Butterfly has told us ToE is personal opinion. Mousey has acknowledged disbelievers are not ignorant, ToE is just a personal opinion. So past personal attacks fron alex/mousey don’t really hold water.

    Thanks for clearing that all up. ToE is not science, history or truth, it is just opinion.

    I thought you guys would hold to the dogma more vehemently than that.

  447. on 08 Jun 2013 at 10:45 pm 447.Anonymous said …

    “a”, Go fuck yourself.

    Was hoping for more theist involvement in the dialog. Oh well!! Wanted to shit on the Biffy since he made the initial entry on this thread. Ask Xenon if his mommy and daddy had any answers to his plaintive bleats. Like Xenon, Cur momentarily appeared and then quickly dropped off.

    Interesting how the Theist Collective marches lock-step to the beat of whatever idiot sock puppet they use. Yes, they do ask a lot and never provide.

  448. on 09 Jun 2013 at 2:45 am 448.The messenger said …

    alex, what emotions do you feel when you insult people?

  449. on 09 Jun 2013 at 3:23 am 449.Fluttershy said …

    “Mousey you heard it here fist. Butterfly has told us ToE is personal opinion. Mousey has acknowledged disbelievers are not ignorant, ToE is just a personal opinion. So past personal attacks fron alex/mousey don’t really hold water.
    Thanks for clearing that all up. ToE is not science, history or truth, it is just opinion.
    I thought you guys would hold to the dogma more vehemently than that.”

    Evolution is factual, the number of people who believe in it or not doesn’t prove anything.

  450. on 09 Jun 2013 at 4:08 am 450.alex said …

    “ToE is not science, history or truth, it is just opinion.”

    this is your god proof? santa is just an opinion, therefore god is real? you’re a dumb motherfucker, confirmed. like they say, go fuck yourself.

    wah! my name is messenger and nobody is paying attention. i’ll just keep saying stupid shit and maybe somebody will reply. maybe i will just rub shit on my face and yell god is great.

  451. on 09 Jun 2013 at 5:54 am 451.Fluttershy said …

    So, any theists found out how God did his little tricks?
    So far all i have got is magic and God did it.

  452. on 09 Jun 2013 at 1:08 pm 452.The messenger said …

    alex, what emotions do you feel when you insult people? .

  453. on 09 Jun 2013 at 1:09 pm 453.The messenger said …

    alex, I have shown you proof.

  454. on 09 Jun 2013 at 8:43 pm 454.The messenger said …

    451.Fluttershy, I have told you that GOD manipulates nature.

    Here is an example. When Jesus wants rain, he lowers the temperature of air thus causing the molecules to condense and form into water, this the water becomes to heavy and falls from the clouds.

  455. on 09 Jul 2013 at 10:49 pm 455.Tim said …

    My goodness… I can’t even begin to describe how funny I find the moronic arguments I’m reading.

    Are we really saying that a poem about a dog is proof against God? Really? Of course it sounds harsh to punish a dog… the dog doesn’t know any better.

    As Christians, we don’t believe that God “got a dog” and put a steak in front of it. If you think that there is no difference between people and a dog, then maybe you don’t have a great opinion of yourself or the people around you.

    I’ve got to say though… I’m completely convicted in my own stupidity for believing in a God because I read this awesome poem about the dog. There can’t possibly be any other explanation and you’ve certainly not simplified a book with over 750,000 words down to a vague argument with only tenuous links to the original.

    Honestly, the arguments written on this blog are moronic and, quite frankly, hilarious. Apparently science disproves miracles. Which is fantastic because the definition of a miracle is an act outside of the natural world and science, also by definition, is the study of the natural world… so how do you think science could disprove something that doesn’t fall within it’s purview.

    Yes… I’m rambling now… but it is certainly frustrating to read the idiotic arguments of people who clearly wouldn’t know logic if it bit them in the backside.

  456. on 09 Jul 2013 at 11:29 pm 456.alex said …

    “I can’t even begin to describe how funny I find the moronic arguments I’m reading.”

    another driveby, dipshit theist who doesn’t like what he reads, righteously spouting off..

    your god is simply bullshit. your god proof is your statement that the arguments are moronic?

    can i use the same shit with zeus non-believers? the arguments against zeus are moronic therefore zeus is the real deal?

    asshole.

  457. on 10 Jul 2013 at 12:03 am 457.Tim said …

    Well I am certainly undone by the “asshole” argument. I’m cut up and hurting inside.

    If you actually read and understood what I was writing, you’d get that I wasn’t giving proof for God, I was pointing out the spurious argument of using a poem about a dog to prove that God can’t possibly exist.

    There’s no way I’m going to get into a debate with someone who is so obviously against rational argument that “your God is bullshit” is the best he can do to prove his point.

    I’m not going to argue any more, but will assume that there will be some random name calling and more fallacious arguments in return to this comment.

    Before I go though, why don’t you, instead of just mouthing off, have a think about why you believe what you believe. Just as you’ve pointed out, you can’t use circular reasoning to disprove a theory. But circular reasoning is pretty much all I can see on this website… and I’ll include many, if not all, of the theists have a similar problem with their arguments.

    You can’t even disprove God by using Evolution; the two aren’t mutually exclusive. People who believe in God are surprised that people who don’t believe can’t see what they see. And the people who don’t believe in God are exactly the same. The problem that I have with most of the discussion above is that it’s not a discussion with the purpose of finding the truth from objective arguments… it’s a forum for grand statements and name calling that will never amount to any agreement or advancement of knowledge in anyones view. To my disappointment, I got drawn in to the same way of arguing, and so will leave you all with your happy thoughts.

    If you’re argument is going to be that the other party isn’t doing any thinking, however, maybe try doing some of your own before replying. :)

  458. on 10 Jul 2013 at 12:32 am 458.A said …

    Tim,

    Great post! Nobody engages alex here. When you see his name just scroll by it like the rest of us.

    Yes, it is circular reasoning along with all the arguments here and yes it is all fallacious. It is fun to pick at it and show others the childish reasoning employed by atheists.

    Hope you come back.

  459. on 10 Jul 2013 at 12:46 am 459.alex said …

    “It is fun to pick at it and show others the childish reasoning employed by atheists.”

    says the moron who has historically engaged himself, thru his other sock puppet, but is even too stupid to change his moniker.

  460. on 10 Jul 2013 at 12:52 am 460.alex said …

    “..have a think about why you believe what you believe.”

    this just confirms your well deserved hurt inflicted by your well deserved stoopid, shitass, designation.

    your bullshit god is the subject matter here, dimshit. no matter how much you ramble about politics, science, evolution, et all, it don’t mean vagina.

    nonbelievers don’t have to disprove god, santa, elves, or any other countless bullshitiness, you dumb motherfucker. get that thru your head.

    you got a case for god? bring it. otherwise shut the fuck up about my microwave and my belief about the magical cooking rays.

  461. on 10 Jul 2013 at 2:57 am 461.Angus and Alexis said …

    “When you see his name just scroll by it like the rest of us.”

    This is simply irrelevant and a lie.
    Alex has time and time again given important information on several topics and has almost always stayed on topic.
    Yes, he may be rude, but who cares.

    Care to dispel the theist delusion?
    Did you even read the dog poem and comprehend it?

  462. on 11 Sep 2013 at 4:55 pm 462.Intelligent person said …

    According to supervised intelligence tests (i.e sitting in a room and taking it with pen and paper and having a psychologist review it, not the online bs) I have a very high IQ, at the very least higher than 99% of the population. I am also an atheist, but…

    There is nothing logical about rediculing a belief like in the OP. If you want to look at religion in a logical way then look at the benefits of religion for every person. What people are doing wrong is trying to disprove the validity of the belief instead of seeing the effects of the belief. Fine, god doesn’t exist, now what?

    Is religion a force for good in a religious persons life? Does religion give a moral code that that person can adhere to and give a sense of inner peace? What possible benefit is it to try to remove all these things just to prove that god doesn’t exist? I see no reason for this at all. Just as much as you hate evangelic religions I am sure religious people get annoyed when people try to change their beliefs.

    I am an atheist and I expect people to accept this and not give me shit for it, and I think every atheist person should give religious people the same courtesy as well. From my experience this is a good attitude to have, religious people feel they can open up to me and I listen to what they have to say about their beliefs and their outlook on life. It is important to them, faith is very personal, it is actually something that deserves respect no matter if you agree or not.

    So as an intelligent atheist I can safely say I don’t agree with OP.

  463. on 12 Sep 2013 at 11:45 am 463.Angus and Alexis. said …

    An apparently “Intelligent person” Said.
    “I have a very high IQ, at the very least higher than 99% of the population.”

    I severely doubt it.
    And secondly, what has IQ got to do with religion?
    There is no link between IQ and your faith.
    Perhaps you get another test?

    “There is nothing logical about rediculing a belief like in the OP.”

    It made an analogy, you dim witted fool (Perhaps that was too harsh…).

    “What people are doing wrong is trying to disprove the validity of the belief instead of seeing the effects of the belief.”

    We aren’t disproving anything, we are demanding proof and showing how stupid religion is.

    “Fine, god doesn’t exist, now what?”

    More equality, less wars, less brainwashing, those kinds of things for starters.

    “Is religion a force for good in a religious persons life?”

    Can be, but force for good should come standard, otherwise something ain’t right in your head.

    ” Does religion give a moral code that that person can adhere to and give a sense of inner peace?”

    Should come factory standard, and the bible has shit like slavery, stoning, death, worldwide DEATH, etc.

    “What possible benefit is it to try to remove all these things just to prove that god doesn’t exist?”

    The truth.

    “Just as much as you hate evangelic religions I am sure religious people get annoyed when people try to change their beliefs.”

    And i hate when religious asshole say us atheists are Stalinistic Hitler Nazis who are evil and will live in eternal pain after death.
    I don’t think ANYONE should be told such nonsense, nor believe it could happen. I have, personally, been told by a Muslim to stop eating pork, that’s the line, no one messes with a man and his bacon.

    “I am an atheist and I expect people to accept this and not give me shit for it”

    Better get some new pants, as I am lobbing tons of shit at you.

    “faith is very personal”

    Faith is nothing.

    “it is actually something that deserves respect no matter if you agree or not.”

    Guess what, we are not saying “Stop being theists or you will die in eternal fire and we will be watching you in complete bliss”, we are saying “Wake the fuck up and smell the pancakes, its educating time”.
    Secondly, not a single theist has been honest here, what does that tell you?

    “So as an intelligent atheist I can safely say I don’t agree with OP.”

    Your assumption was wrong, very, very wrong.

  464. on 12 Sep 2013 at 5:39 pm 464.Intelligent person said …

    Your title clearly implied intelligent people see religion in a certain light which I refuted. IQ is one way to measure intelligence and it correlates pretty well with the g-factor as well; but that’s another discussion. Besides the IQ test which landed me in mensa I got top score in the militarys cognitive ability test, my countrys version of the SAT and I’m studying to become a doctor. I guess those are some of the arguments for my claim and the reason for me disagreeing with you.

    When it comes to religion I think you need to separate between organized religion and personal religion. The actions of organized religion can be quite devastating, as you described above. Discuss from that perspective, ask if it is correct to kill another person if the religion says it is wrong. Why are they contradicting their own beliefs? No sane person will support a war in religions name. Trying to discuss if god exist or not is fruitless.

    It is utterly retarded to ask for proof when it comes to a persons personal belief. One person might say they had a vision and since then they are religious. The obvious retort is “prove it!”. But no one can do that. You can accept that this person think they had this vision and go from there or you can be a fundamentalist atheist dick (atheist version of the retards who say you will burn in hell).

    I’m not talking about being good or bad, I am talking about the benefits a person might have from their personal belief. If it is a positive influence, why is it more important to be correct than to have one person being happy? I sure as hell don’t agree with religious people but I do see the benefits people reap from their religion. As long as it it doesn’t effect me i will not bother them.

    Maybe people are telling you these bad things because of your attitude and personality. Not a single religious person, from what I can remember, have had a problem with me being an atheist.

  465. on 13 Sep 2013 at 12:12 am 465.Angus and Alexis. said …

    An apparently “Intelligent person” said…

    “Besides the IQ test which landed me in mensa I got top score in the militarys cognitive ability test, my countrys version of the SAT and I’m studying to become a doctor.”

    Congratulations, you know how to type.
    Do you honestly think that anyone will take your word for granted?
    I have a sentient companion named “Alexis” who lives in my head, will you take that for granted?
    Also, please work on your grammar, its making you look as bad as “A”.

    “I guess those are some of the arguments for my claim and the reason for me disagreeing with you.”

    Is that an insult to my intelligence? Aha, insults, nice.

    “No sane person will support a war in religions name.”

    So everyone in the crusades, every religious terrorist, every religious person in the military, etc, is insane?

    “It is utterly retarded to ask for proof when it comes to a persons personal belief. ”

    Guess what mate, its not a personal belief, its a widely held belief that spans the earth.
    A personal belief is something like “I believe too much TV is bad for you” or something similar. Theists go, worldwide, “Believe in god, or you are going to be in pain forever.”

    “You can accept that this person think they had this vision and go from there or you can be a fundamentalist atheist dick”

    Or you know basic knowledge of anatomy, visions and the human brain and say “You had a mirage, congrats, want a medallion or something?”

    “I’m not talking about being good or bad, I am talking about the benefits a person might have from their personal belief.”

    In this case, none.

    “If it is a positive influence, why is it more important to be correct than to have one person being happy? ”

    Because religion is not positive? It accepts slavery, killing and eternal pain.
    Its fascism.

    “but I do see the benefits people reap from their religion.”

    I find it amusing that you do not post such “Benefits”

    “Maybe people are telling you these bad things because of your attitude and personality.”

    Yes, blame it on my attitude, which you can only estimate from a single post (unless you are a blog stalker). And personality? Oh please, if someone dislikes your personality, you don’t say “you will die in hell and never get good stuff, and your evil, your like Hitler, etc”, you say “Work on that personality…asshole…”

    “Not a single religious person, from what I can remember, have had a problem with me being an atheist.”

    Ah, i see, so you are new to the internet?
    Literally, check forums, blogs, etc. If you haven’t had any problems, I would advise actually talking to people…

  466. on 13 Sep 2013 at 9:46 am 466.Intelligent person said …

    Up to you if you want to believe me or not. I really don’t give a shit tbh. I stumbled in here and saw your claims and I disagreed, simple as that.

    No I didn’t insult your intelligence. You shouldn’t really bring up insults considering the language you threw in my direction in your first reply. If you have a problem with my grammar så kanske du borde förstå att engelska är mitt andraspråk och inte någonting som jag kan skriva med perfekt meningsstruktur.

    No, people in the crusades weren’t insane, just badly informed. Terrorists are fundamentalists and fundamentalists in general don’t have a sane mindset. By sane I don’t mean being mentally healthy, I mean showing good judgement. People in the military don’t kill for religion, they kill for the state. It is possible to combine faith and temporal matters.

    Maybe you should stop hanging on forums and blogs then. Internet have a way of making idiots congregate at the same spot. No one listens to them in RL so they seek a forum to vent their views.

    When discussing the benefits of religion I think it’s important to note that there are several ways to get these benefits. For some people religion is the way. For example, iff you need to go to a certain place you might walk, cycle, go by a car or similar. In all these cases you end up at your destination. It’s the same with the benefits be it through religion, atheism or whatever personal belief system you have.

    Some common benefits would include having a certainty in life, having answers to what happens after death, where humans is headed, getting motivation to be a better person, less worries about the future, values and morals which might fit that person, a way to rehab after a traumatic experience, a way to seek repentence for earlier wrongdoings, etc.

    Yeah, your attitude isn’t very appealing, you have the makings of a atheist fundamentalist. You’re becoming the thing you are fighting against. What you and the fundamentalist theists have forgotten is basic respect.

  467. on 13 Sep 2013 at 2:03 pm 467.Angus and Alexis. said …

    An apparently “Intelligent person”
    “så kanske du borde förstå att engelska är mitt andraspråk och inte någonting som jag kan skriva med perfekt meningsstruktur.”

    AKA

    *swedish*
    “so maybe you should understand that English is my second language and not something I can write with perfect sentence structure.”

    To be fair, i cannot hate on Sweden, swedes are bad-ass. But come on, use spell check.

    ” By sane I don’t mean being mentally healthy, I mean showing good judgement. ”

    Twisting words for your own use does not get you very far. Use an actual language.

    “People in the military don’t kill for religion”

    Taliban laugh at this statement.

    “having a certainty in life”

    Lie…

    “having answers to what happens after death”

    Again, a lie…

    “where humans is headed”

    By slowing down the progress of technology and science?

    “getting motivation to be a better person”

    By hating gays and offering slavery?…Aha…

    “less worries about the future”

    Because they think every one else is going to burn?

    “values and morals which might fit that person”

    I love stoning, slavery and killing dozens of innocents, sign me up.

    ” a way to rehab after a traumatic experience”

    By lying to them? Right.

    “a way to seek repentence for earlier wrongdoings”

    By accepting a lie? Yes, that’s great.

    “Yeah, your attitude isn’t very appealing, you have the makings of a atheist fundamentalist.”

    I tend to act badly when encountered by apologetic people. I lack empathy AND sympathy. ;P

    “You’re becoming the thing you are fighting against.”

    I’m fighting against fundie atheists? , how did i not know this, and you know this?
    Stop making such ridiculous claims.

    ” For example, iff you need to go to a certain place you might walk, cycle, go by a car or similar.”

    No, religion is “Take the car, or you die in fire forever, no ifs, buts, or whys, just do it…NOW.”

    “Maybe you should stop hanging on forums and blogs then.”

    You somehow know i hang out on forums and blogs?
    Never knew physics were real, what am i thinking of now?

    ” Internet have a way of making idiots congregate at the same spot.”

    Again, what is with you and your intelligence based logic?
    I’m assuming you think you must have 100 IQ to be on certain sites?

    “You shouldn’t really bring up insults considering the language you threw in my direction in your first reply.”

    I apologize, i must admit, i normally do not type such ridiculous words.

    Are you actually going to type anything meaningful now however? Or more apologetic nonsense?
    We tend to get derailed enough here, we don’t need atheists helping…
    Maybe start by actually comprehending the analogy?
    Then re-post.

    Also, please start quoting people, its annoying to have to read one post, then the other to match up the paragraphs.

  468. on 15 May 2014 at 12:05 pm 468.Anonymous said …

    Your whole site is a reflection of the inner you the disgusting perverted made up deluded insanity your the expert, you believe in every delusion you hear about religion, and you know not.

  469. on 15 May 2014 at 12:07 pm 469.Awake & Alive said …

    your whole site reflects the inner you, every misguided deluded and sickening comment. it must suck being you

  470. on 15 May 2014 at 12:08 pm 470.Awake & Alive said …

    Your whole site is a reflection of the inner you the disgusting perverted made up deluded insanity your the expert, you believe in every delusion you hear about religion, and you know not.

  471. on 15 May 2014 at 12:44 pm 471.alex said …

    “site is a reflection of the inner you”

    a disbelief in your god is reflected how? most of the stuff here is just fluff. not smart enough to wade thru it?

    “you believe in every delusion you hear about religion”

    atheists don’t believe in your yahweh, allah, thor, et all. which part are atheists deluded in? pleez, don’t even try to lie about all atheists being republicans/liberals or ufo proponents. wake up fool, atheists don’t believe in your shit god.

    of course you won’t answer. just another drive by, talking shit, exercising your religious right to cram shit down people’s throat. you’re just another self pitiful theist motherfucker, feeling sorry for thyself, while confusing atheists nonbelief.

  472. on 16 May 2014 at 1:19 am 472.the messenger said …

    Alex, I am convinced that you are oblivious to all logic.

    I pity you.

  473. on 16 May 2014 at 3:46 am 473.alex said …

    “I pity you.”

    because i’ve called out your bullshit, as you’ve demonstrated numerous times on http://goo.gl/ib8BHO?

    for those unfamiliar, some juicy ones, courtesy of the dumbest motherfucker, messenger.

    if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage).

    Her rights are not being violated. She is the one that has power over the person that raped her. She gets to have him as a servant, that is good payback.

    She gets a free servant.

    She can leave him if she wants to.

    HOW IS GETTING A FREE SERVANT HATEFUL?

    …and the motherfucker messenger pities me? said many times before, talk is cheap. come out of your closet, messenger, and publicly state this vile position and see what happens. but, you’d rather hide behind your internet anonymity while taking a break from jacking off on your xtian porn?

    here’s your book again: http://goo.gl/ib8BHO

  474. on 16 May 2014 at 3:55 am 474.alex said …

    guess who said these? messenger motherfucker!

    there are no talking snakes or donkies in the bible.

    Allah and Yahweh are the same GOD

    I have also seen heaven my self and it is amazing.

    if you have a glass of salt water and you pour more water in(fresh water), it does not change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry.

    Hell does not last forever.

    …the motherfucker pities me because i don’t buy his bullshit? hijo de puta. ????. connard. ???????. ?. Arschloch.

  475. on 17 Jun 2014 at 2:06 am 475.the messenger said …

    473.alex, that law gives rape victoms to take justice for what was done to her. She gets to make him serve her for his entire life. That is a good thing.

    P.S., state your real name and personal information first and state your beliefs publically as well, then I’ll do the same.

  476. on 17 Jun 2014 at 2:08 am 476.the messenger said …

    473.alex, that law gives rape victoms a chance to take justice for what was done to her. She gets to make him serve her for his entire life. That is a good thing. She can make him do hard tasks in order to make him fell the same way she felt.

    P.S., state your real name and personal information first and state your beliefs publically as well, then I’ll do the same.

  477. on 17 Jun 2014 at 3:54 am 477.alex said …

    “state your real name and personal information first and state your beliefs publically as well, then I’ll do the same.”

    says the dipshit who proclaims to be god’s messenger. you’re the idiot with the bullshit and you’re challenging people that don’t believe your b.s. to reveal their personal information?

    what are you going to do next? challenge all the muslims that don’t believe your shit into revealing their personal information?

    no, you dumb motherfucker. your disgusting position on rape is not even remotely shared by other catholics which you’re supposed to represent, but you insist that this is the way god meant it to be. but everybody here knows it’s not.

    your “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage)” will never be accepted by any reasonable person and you know it.

    you’re the one thats making all these bullshit proclamation, but you’re too cowardly to publicly state it. i don’t have to do shit. i’m the motherfucker that won’t subscribe to your fucked up belief, dumbass.

    here’s the rest of your bullshit: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

  478. on 17 Jun 2014 at 4:05 am 478.alex said …

    my name is alex and i live in the u.s. i publicly state my nonbelief in bullshit, especially this idiotic statement by the motherfucker, messenger that states that:

    “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage)”

    i also publicly state that i don’t believe the same messenger, motherfucker that said:

    “if you have a glass of salt water and you pour more water in(fresh water), it does not change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry”

    i also publicly sate the i don’t believe the same shit from messenger, who says that “I have also seen heaven my self and it is amazing.”

    i publicly state that i’m not affiliated with any atheist organization.

    now go fuck yourself, messenger, you dumb motherfucker.

    here’s your book again: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

  479. on 22 Jun 2014 at 3:58 am 479.the messenger said …

    478.alex, once again you have continued to throw insults, instead of facts. That is why no one takes you seriously.

  480. on 22 Jun 2014 at 4:15 pm 480.alex said …

    “…you have continued to throw insults, instead of facts. That is why no one takes you seriously…”

    no one? that’s why everyone is swallowing your bullshit bile? the facts are that you are full of shit as demonstrated by your burgeoning pile of excrement in:
    http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    fact is that salt water is diluted by fresh water, but yet you spewed “if you have a glass of salt water and you pour more water in(fresh water), it does not change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry.”

    your toxic “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage)” is bullshit and i’ve yet to hear from any xtian motherfucker in here that even remotely endorses it.

    you said “Hell does not last forever”, but it doesn’t jive with the catholic doctrine which you profess to represent. this makes you a lying beeyatch.

    these are facts, bitch motherfucker. the insults are free, you asshole.

    please, name the motherfuckers in here that takes you seriously? chirp, chirp? hint, do what hor does….

  481. on 23 Jun 2014 at 2:15 am 481.the messenger said …

    480.alex, your stupidity never ceases, does it?

    I pity you.

  482. on 23 Jun 2014 at 2:18 am 482.TJ said …

    Ok, Hi all. First time on this blog site.
    It amazes me after reading most of the responses above as to just how nobody seems to address the actual question posed.
    – Why would anyone believe such nonsense?
    The answer of course is no intelligent person looking rationally at the dog/poem scenario would ever believe it. Surly we can all agree on this.

    But the statement made is…”When intelligent people look at religion rationally, religion is clearly insane”

    Let’s first be sure what we are talking about when we say “religion”. In the dog/poem scenario, the first part is a crude minimal representation of shared religious concepts by Christianity & Islam & Judaism among other religious groups.

    The second part of the poem is crude minimal representation of the New Testament of which is the foundation of Christianity. Both Islam & Judaism reject the Divinity of Jesus Christ, thus the claim of the New Testiment.

    So to be fair we should note the the statement should read… “When intelligent people look at Christianity rationally, Christianity is clearly insane”

    Please let me know if anyone disagrees whit me so far. To recap “No intelligent person would believe such Christian concepts when presented in the dog/poem scenario”.

    However I ask, is the dog/poem scenario an intelligent representation of Christian Concepts? Or is it a misleading statement followed by misrepresentation taken out of context?

    What do I mean by taken out of context? you may ask. First of all does anybody here disagree that you, or anybody you know does not have the power to reason, to rationalise, to weigh up your choices? Would anybody here compare themselves to a dog driven by primal instinct unable to control their own actions based on the premise of “a dog is going to do what a dog is going to do…duh”?

    Secondly a quick read of the Biblical text (google genesis if your unfamiliar… after all it would seem unintelligent to comment without reference/familiarity with the topic) will quickly point out that the relationship between owner and dog is far from close to God and Man. Eg. the dog is not created by the owner to reflect his own image. Therefore the dog does not have the owners ability to comprehend the choice laid out, in fact the scenario completely replaces the concept of choice with the image of a hungry dog and a lonely piece of meat.

    From this point all that follows in the dog/poem scenario is completely misrepresented concepts based on a misrepresented premise designed to invoke an Atheistic base for argument.

    The real question from Atheist to Christians should be…”is this the sort of shit you believe?”
    To which the answer of course is “How could I possibly claim to be Intelligent and Rational and believe such nonsense”.

    For the question and scenario posted is folly, asked by fools.

    I await the insults.

  483. on 23 Jun 2014 at 11:52 am 483.alex said …

    “your stupidity never ceases, does it?”

    my stupidity is that I don’t believe your nonsense? that confirms why you’re the dumbass motherfucker I’ve been calling you all along.

  484. on 23 Jun 2014 at 12:10 pm 484.alex said …

    “Let’s first be sure what we are talking about when we say “religion”.”

    believing in something that’s baseless is called faith, the foundation of religion, which is insane.

    the dog article is fluff. i consider it intellectually amusing. i give props for even rolling out these articles and i guess the writer got tired, hence the absence of new ones.

    the gist of the matter is, that an all knowing god giving free will is an impossibility. that’s why xtian morons constantly struggle with this.

    idiots love to quote that god has a plan (undeviating). idiots love to say that unanswered prayers were NOT meant to be (undeviating). idiots love to say that their loved ones passed because of god’s will (undeviating). what’s left? intercessory, but statistically insignificant prayers?

    insane, anyone?

  485. on 23 Jun 2014 at 1:08 pm 485.TJ said …

    the gist of the matter is, that an all knowing god giving free will is an impossibility.

    Do you have evidence of this authoritatively stated impossibility? Or do you just know it to be true? Which I would assume would somewhat resemble faith… which one could almost consider to be a religion… as we both now know would be insane.

    You see? we could hurl logic traps at each other and come up with some clever comebacks like “you found it intellectually amusing, while I found it intellectually wanting, small things amuse small minds” or “xtian morons” or idiots and I can’t be arsed scrolling up to see what other colourful language you’ve recently used.

    I however would rather attempt to have an Intellectual and Rational discussion.

    Because you know, and I know, “that an all knowing god giving free will is an impossibility” is NOT “gist of the matter”. The gist of the matter is “why wont god heal amputees” IF God exists? True?

    Before we can ask why he won’t help those poor legless/armless people we must ask if God even exists.

    So let’s take a “God” out the picture and see what we are left with? I’m up for a discussion, are you?

    I invite you to start. Please.

    How do you justify your existence? How do explain your being “here”, in this reality?

    Your thoughts?

  486. on 23 Jun 2014 at 1:21 pm 486.TJ said …

    Oh! and the bit about the “idiots love to quote…” I would like to think of myself as not being an idiot, but if I bump into any I’ll be sure to ask on your behalf.

  487. on 23 Jun 2014 at 1:46 pm 487.alex said …

    “the gist of the matter is, that an all knowing god giving free will is an impossibility.”

    “Do you have evidence of this authoritatively stated impossibility?”

    a circle with four corners is an impossibility. if you can’t understand this, then there is no discussion, is there?

    if a god already mapped out your future actions, where the hell is your free will?

    you never heard of mutual exclusiveness? two monotheistic gods co-existing? bleh, bleh, and more fucking bleh.

    troll, motherfucker. you smell like Hor.

  488. on 23 Jun 2014 at 2:31 pm 488.TJ said …

    BTW “my name is alex and i live in the u.s. i publicly state my nonbelief in bullshit, especially this idiotic statement by the motherfucker, messenger that states that:”

    Did you come this “nonbelief in bullshit” of your own free will?

    Or where you pre ordained to feel this way without a choice?

    Or is this a DNA sequence in your genome programming to you to believe this?

    Or is is simply a random chance thing in which case it must be unreliable because it is random?

    Or is it an evolved thought process that has enable a distant relative to not be fooled into religious garble enabling him to better survive and pass on their genes?

    I grow tied of this back and forth nonsense. I choose to believe you are not so narrow minded as to not discuss the alternative to what you say is nonsense, surely?

  489. on 23 Jun 2014 at 9:42 pm 489.alex said …

    488.TJ said …

    you’re either Hor’s sock or you’re just as dumb as he is?

    you hear me proclaim that I do what I do because of xyz? no, you dumbass. you fuckers state that i do it because i have free will and at the same time, you bozos double back and say god has preordained plans.

    i say bull, because the two are mutually exclusive.

    then Hor-like, you attempt to detract by asking me why i do what i do because of possible options 1 or 2 or 3 or 4?

    you then pompously proclaim that you’re tired of the nonsense, when you’re a part of it? how about you go screw your self? you’re about to be added to the book of Hor, mofo.

    i’m narrow minded because i don’t believe in your crap? baseless faith, that’s all you have and i ain’t having it.

    you might as well admit that you’re Hor, coz you know why? you will slip, get caught, and as usual, you’ll try to play it off.

    your destiny, bitch: The Book of Hor at: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  490. on 23 Jun 2014 at 9:49 pm 490.alex said …

    “as to not discuss the alternative to what you say is nonsense”

    i say dark matter is nonsense and i don’t have to discuss shit. bullshit is good enough.

    you say your 3 year old son can dunk and i say bullshit and i’m not obligated to present an opposing view point.

    now, go fuck yourself, Hor, motherfucker. btw, when you sock post as Hor, change the poster name, dumbass.

  491. on 23 Jun 2014 at 10:11 pm 491.alex said …

    if you don’t fess up now and you get caught as hor’s sock, it’s premeditated lying and you will have 100% confirmed that you’re a motherfucking liar.

    are you Hor or not? swear in the name of jesus? ha! ha! bitch, motherfucker, cat got your tongue?

  492. on 23 Jun 2014 at 10:46 pm 492.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “I choose to believe you are not so narrow minded as to not discuss the alternative to what you say is nonsense, surely?”

    Actually TJ he is…….lol!!!!!

    You can read one of his posts and you have then read all he has the ability to contribute….lol!!!

    A small little cult like atheism has a group who teaches evangelism and one would certainly conceive that they jave more than ” uh uh” as the backbone of their apologetic confession. However we continue to wait as it supposedly develops?

  493. on 23 Jun 2014 at 11:01 pm 493.alex said …

    “A small little cult like atheism…”

    heh! heh! all the other atheists here curse your ass like i do? so much for a cult, eh?

    careful, bitch. you are socketeering again. your stench is unmistakable. your tired ass argument that i have nothing to contribute is laughable. when is it a requirement to present an alternative to bullshit?

    of course, tj won’t respond. i guess his silence confirms that you and him are one and the same? so, in addition to your regular bullshit, you pile on some more bullsock?

    oh, look! once again, your book has magically updated itself: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    just a matter of time until tj joins the bullshit purveyor’s list.

  494. on 23 Jun 2014 at 11:31 pm 494.alex said …

    “You can read one of his posts and you have then read all he has the ability to contribute….lol!!!”

    refuting bullshit is predictably not well received in the hor clan, which includes his other selves martin, biff, xenon, boz, rl wooton, sweetness, et all.

    so he resorts to his latest sock, tj. predictably, the stupid ass hor will slip and once again proclaim that he is all of the entire internet.

    the book of hor grows: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    fez up bitch.

  495. on 24 Jun 2014 at 12:34 am 495.the messenger said …

    483.alex, dude, I have given you proof of GOD, within many of my past comments.

    The fact that you ignore hard evidence is proof that you are incompetent.

  496. on 24 Jun 2014 at 1:08 am 496.alex said …

    “I have given you proof of GOD”

    bible quotes? bullshit miracles? personal communication with god? your proofs?

    here’s your pile of shit and it grows http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

  497. on 24 Jun 2014 at 2:22 am 497.TJ said …

    I swear on the name Jesus Christ that I am not this “Hor”, you claim me to be. Nor that I am affiliated with him in any way what so ever. I had not heard of him till you accused me of being him.
    Sorry for taking so long to post reply’s… different time zones plus I have a life.

  498. on 24 Jun 2014 at 2:33 am 498.alex said …

    “plus I have a life.”

    as i sit here posting this shit while i’m working means i don’t have a life? you presumptuous fuck.

    you may not be hor, but you certainly are hor-ish. have you checked out his book? you agree with all his shit? http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    careful now. swearing on jesus don’t mean shit if you get caught socking again. but of course, there’s that redemption shit again. …for all have sinned…

  499. on 24 Jun 2014 at 2:37 am 499.the messenger said …

    496.alex, I provided thousands of eye witnesses(both religious and non religious) of a actual miracle. How is that not proof?

  500. on 24 Jun 2014 at 2:39 am 500.the messenger said …

    497.TJ, just ignore him brother. He is a small minded little man.

  501. on 24 Jun 2014 at 2:54 am 501.alex said …

    “just ignore him brother. He is a small minded little man.”

    but your book (http://goo.gl/7fbnA4), speaks/screams volumes that you truly are a dumb motherfucker.

    you call tj brother? you hope/wish he agrees with your views don’t you? but the motherfucking post of yours just keeps haunting you.

    “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her”

    waah, whines the messenger, motherfucker. alex is taking it out of context…..

    preach on bitch.

  502. on 24 Jun 2014 at 12:24 pm 502.TJ said …

    “plus I have a life.”
    Yes I have a life, interesting how you perceived this as a personal attack and responded as one would expect.

    “of course, tj won’t respond. i guess his silence confirms that you and him are one and the same?”

    Um…what would you like me to say?

    “just a matter of time until tj joins the bullshit purveyor’s list.
    so he resorts to his latest sock, tj. predictably, the stupid ass hor will slip and once again proclaim that he is all of the entire internet.”

    WHAT? I’m sorry but, how does any of this relate to anything I have tried to say to you? You must seriously be the most idiotic, dim witted insecure little wanker I have ever had the experience of wasting my time on. Your display of un-intelligent comment is surely not shared by all your Atheist friends.

    No attempt on your part has been made to participate in a civil discussion. Pointing to another’s material in response to my direct attempts to engage you in conversation displays what limited faculties you posses.

    I do not endorse anything you have pointed out in the link you addressed me to. Not knowing the history behind the page titled messenger, “the self appointed Representative from god. His most dumbass moments in red”, which appears to be a creation of your own as it reflects your stand point more than “the messenger’s”. I can only assume that it is a collection of dribble which may or may not have been said, twisted and contorted to be as hateful as possible much like you are attempting to do with me.

    For this reason I cannot take you seriously any more. Not when I directly engage you to comment on an issue regarding origins on a site self proclaimed to dedicate itself to discussing the existence of God and religious concepts and your response to me is what?

    Lets recap,
    firstly you agree with me, stating the main article topic is fluff. You also take the opportunity to ridicule xtians and their beliefs.

    I said…
    “Let’s first be sure what we are talking about when we say “religion”.”

    your response was…
    believing in something that’s baseless is called faith, the foundation of religion, which is insane.

    Let me say this in terms you will understand…
    You dopey little fuck! I was pointing out that the article said religion, whereas the dog/poem used to illustrate religion, dealt with concepts very specific to one religion only. A point you clearly missed.

    Before again abusing xtians you stated…
    “the gist of the matter is, that an all knowing god giving free will is an impossibility.”

    This religious statement deserves the same treatment/scrutiny as any other religious statement professed by xtians or any other religious group. To suggest otherwise would be hypocritical. To separate your statement from religious context would be perceived ludicrous in the context of this site and discussion.

    When confronted to show the logic behind your statement, as you demand of others. Even the original question posed in this topic demands intelligent rational logic to explain “Why would anyone believe such nonsense?”

    your response to…
    “Do you have evidence of this authoritatively stated impossibility?”

    was…
    a circle with four corners is an impossibility. if you can’t understand this, then there is no discussion, is there?

    Props man! possibly the most irrelevant answer ever posted on any site.

    followed by…
    if a god already mapped out your future actions, where the hell is your free will?

    Where did this quote come from? Not from me? perhaps Hor?

    You also said…
    “you never heard of mutual exclusiveness? two monotheistic gods co-existing?”
    Are you trying to point to the differing views of God held by xtians vs Judism or are you talking specificity about the way in which God describes himself as being the Father, Son and Holy Ghost whilst maintaining an image of oneness?

    Are you trying to convince me that your evidence for the statement…
    “the gist of the matter is, that an all knowing god giving free will is an impossibility.”
    …is based on logic which you yourself have dismissed as bull. I said the gist is “does a God exist?” But you say specificity “an all knowing God” on top of that a “monotheistic God”. Again we come full circle, back to is it religion or is it Christianity you are talking about? Because an “all knowing, monotheistic God” is specific to Christianity.

    You are so well versed in knowledge of all things including those things perceived to be imaginary by your own standards that you can say with certainty that an imaginary all knowing god could not possibly know how to deal with an issue like free will let alone implement it?

    You have a limited imagination.

    In a vain attempt to bring you back on topic with a question on origins and a logic challenge..
    you responded with…
    “you’re either Hor’s sock or you’re just as dumb as he is?”

    You then categorised me with others who hurt your feelings in the past(are you going to be ok?).

    Claimed I…
    “you attempt to detract by asking me why i do what i do because of possible options 1 or 2 or 3 or 4?”

    This was a perfect opportunity for you to say something meaningful and intelligent.

    Instead you…
    Quickly digressed to accuse me of being deceitful, as to conceal my identity from you. Told me to fornicate myself and threatened to add me to some book of which you place a very esteemed value on by consistently referring to with links. A book you have declared to also “be shit anyway”… oh no! if I get added, how will I ever be able to show my face again… the shame.

    You challenged me to swear on Jesus’s name only to deflate it’s worth when I did so.

    You also accused me of “socking”? WTF is this? a term used exclusively in this blog or is my inexperience with blogs in general beginning to show. I assume it is used to describe someone behaving like a sock puppet regurgitating old worn material. Unless it is something you do when your all alone, something which I would assume you are also all knowing in.

    ————————————————-
    Please, are there any Atheist or Agnostics or anyone who would be open to a thought provoking discussion on origins and the possibility of the existence of a God?
    ————————————————-

    Or has” Alex The Great” sucked the intelligence and rational completely and utterly from this blog?

  503. on 24 Jun 2014 at 12:45 pm 503.alex said …

    502.TJ said …

    bleh, bleh, motherfucking bleh.

    started reading your shit and nausea set in.

    you got nothing to say bitch. look at the postings, you dumb motherfucker. most of the shit i’ve posted in here refutes all the crap, bar none.

    yet you come in here like a pompous ass and start lecturing? your ‘you got a life’ comment is snarkly, plain and simple. you got called out on it and you respond with your righteous tirade.

    the collection i’ve listed here is not made up bullshit. i included the original wwgha links to show that it’s legit.

    now go fuck yourself.

  504. on 24 Jun 2014 at 1:13 pm 504.TJ said …

    Your awesome and thought provoking.

  505. on 24 Jun 2014 at 1:51 pm 505.alex said …

    “thought provoking.”

    i say bullshit and you want more? motherfuckers coming in here pontificating and i’m supposed to swallow it?

    look at the countless postings. they all end up nowhere. what else is left to provoke? you want me to cut and paste drivel from some other site?

    why don’t you provoke with some original shit and we’ll see? otherwise your same ole tired crap will get the same dismissive response.

  506. on 24 Jun 2014 at 1:59 pm 506.TJ said …

    “you got nothing to say bitch. look at the postings, you dumb motherfucker. most of the shit i’ve posted in here refutes all the crap, bar none.”

    I looked at the postings and… what have I said that you have refuted?

    I certainly can agree that most of what you posted is shit, and I agree that it refutes crap. Both of which I thought I avoided. You talk of me slipping… careful there’s a bit of shit dribbling off your chin.

    “your ‘you got a life’ comment is snarkly, plain and simple.”

    Did I hurt your feelings… tissue?

    Amazing how your pompous behaviour is legit and mine is bad. How did I lecture you… with logic? That must suck. You really still have nothing meaningful to say directly to me.

    Tell me, where does someone turn when being an asshole no longer achieves the desired results?

    Oh, wait! Why would I expect you to answers any hard questions, right? I mean why start now?

    Hmmm, if only I could think of something stupid to say I might get in that book of yours.

    God bless you and have an awesome day Alex.
    Oops did I just say something stupid?

  507. on 24 Jun 2014 at 2:01 pm 507.TJ said …

    “why don’t you provoke with some original shit and we’ll see? otherwise your same ole tired crap will get the same dismissive response.”

    Hey man I tried to have a conversation with you and shied away.

    If you got a topic to discuss, then let’s hear it?

    Don’t pussy foot with me.

  508. on 24 Jun 2014 at 2:22 pm 508.alex said …

    “God bless you and have an awesome day Alex.”

    nicely done. i will contemplate it. NOT, motherfucker.

    your dog article reference is a lame attempt. i said before, it boils down to an all knowing god giving free will, which of course you dismissed.

    and you had the stupid, to ask how i would know that a god with conflicting attributes CANNOT exist. how do i know that a square circle cannot exist?

    what’s to discuss? fuck yourself with your bullshit.

  509. on 24 Jun 2014 at 10:57 pm 509.TJ said …

    So once again you do not accept the opportunity to choose a topic to discuss openly, rational and intelligently.

    “your dog article reference is a lame attempt” one which you agreed with.

    You are a square! Anything that does fit within your pre defined world view, returns full circle back to “an all knowing god giving free will”! Sounds like a square and a circle can co-exist.

    But my above comment is meaningless bullshit right?

    Let’s be honest here. Your issue is not “an all knowing god giving free will”, it’s not even “if a god already mapped out your future actions, where the hell is your free will?”. Surely even you cannot deny that free will is a reality? Leaving only “a god already mapped out your future actions”.

    Guess what Alex, I agree with you. I do not believe that God has mapped out my future actions.

    ——————————————
    ——————————————
    I publicly challenge any religious group representative or individual to show me evidence that supports a God of any denomination that has ever claimed to have mapped out future actions to a point that negates choice.
    ——————————————
    ——————————————

    Before anybody points to Christianity as a prime example be sure of what you are saying. God says that he has a plan, a plan that is undeviating. He claims that his will is eternal and that his will, will be done.
    At every point in the bible when God commands something to anybody, it is presented as a choice, even to the point of “Do as I say or die”.

    Do you Alex disagree or agree and why?

    or

    Is all what I say bullshit, because the little square that you reside inside does not include the possibility of a God in the first place, therefore you shouldn’t consider thinking outside your own box.

    In which case… How do you justify your existence? How do explain your being “here”, in this reality?
    ————————————–

  510. on 24 Jun 2014 at 11:21 pm 510.alex said …

    “I publicly challenge any religious group representative or individual to show me evidence that supports a God of any denomination that has ever claimed to have mapped out future actions to a point that negates choice.”

    it’s double, bullshit talk. the biblical god is an all knowing god. period. motherfucker. there is no argument there. end of motherfucking story.

    all knowing means, knowing the past, the present and what is to be? do you agree? if you don’t there’s no discussion here, is there?

    your move, motherfucker.

  511. on 24 Jun 2014 at 11:23 pm 511.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    TJ asked:

    “Please, are there any Atheist or Agnostics or anyone who would be open to a thought provoking discussion on origins and the possibility of the existence of a God?

    TJ, that answer would be no!. lol!!! You already have seen all alex has to offer. He is fun to poke a stick at but is full or anger and hate.

    Atheist argument:

    God does not exist because we reject theist arguments.

    Problem:

    Atheist rejection of theist argument does not validate arguments.

    Result:

    The cult of atheism remains small because the vast majority of individuals cannot live in the atheist fantasy world.

    It is really simple logic to reject atheism.

  512. on 24 Jun 2014 at 11:25 pm 512.alex said …

    “How do you justify your existence? How do explain your being “here”, in this reality?”

    i don’t have to justify shit. you don’t see me making up shit. ask yourself the same question. why the fuck would an atheist, a buddist, or a muslim swallow your fucked up bullshit?

  513. on 24 Jun 2014 at 11:29 pm 513.alex said …

    “You already have seen all alex has to offer.”

    and that’s why you keep coming for more, don’t you?

    you keep trying to fuck with me, but it rings hollow. the spectre of your book just destroys your credibility, doesn’t it?

    i have no bullshit to offer so you resort to the “alex has nothing to offer”. i offer you the pile of bullshit, otherwise know as the book of hor: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    stink away, bitch, motherfucker.

  514. on 24 Jun 2014 at 11:33 pm 514.alex said …

    “God does not exist because we reject theist arguments.”

    …same reason i reject ufo motherfuckers, allah motherfuckers, yeti motherfuckers, and other bullshit motherfuckers.

    hey, i must be a buddhist.

  515. on 24 Jun 2014 at 11:55 pm 515.the messenger said …

    Alex, you are just an annoyance. Stop wasting our time and just leave this site. Please.

  516. on 25 Jun 2014 at 12:03 am 516.alex said …

    “Alex, you are just an annoyance.”

    i know, right? every time one of you motherfuckers try to peddle that bullshit, i refuse to buy and it’s driving all your customers away? wrong, motherfucker. it’s the stench from your collection: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    you keep posting, desperately trying to bury your foul, toxic message, but your turds just keep floating to the top of the heap, doesn’t it? here it is again, with your latest addition: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    and to top it off, the hor motherfucker declares that i have no bullshit to offer, therefore his bullshit is the one to buy. what a dumb motherfucker!

  517. on 25 Jun 2014 at 12:22 am 517.the messenger said …

    516.alex, I have no customers. I am not doing this for money. I am doing this for mankind.

  518. on 25 Jun 2014 at 12:32 am 518.alex said …

    “I am not doing this for money. I am doing this for mankind.”

    you’re doing it for your rapist customers. go head, messenger’s cousins, friends, and homies. rape with impunity. messenger says:

    “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage)…”

    and the motherfucker righteously protest that i cut out the rest, like it changes the meaning. here it is, for the motherfucker’s benefit.

    “…and serve her for the rest of his life.
    This is not so much a punishment, but a chance for redemption.”

    …so to mitigate the ridiculous assertion, the messenger, motherfucker declares that the addendum is redemption. it’s not even funny, it vomitomous.

    there ya go, readers. the same messenger motherfucker brings you the word of god, listen up….

  519. on 25 Jun 2014 at 2:11 am 519.the messenger said …

    518.alex, the man is bound to the woman like a slave and is forced to serve her for the rest of his life. How is that bad?

    Lastly, I don’t know any rapists.

  520. on 25 Jun 2014 at 2:47 am 520.TJ said …

    Alex said…
    all knowing means, knowing the past, the present and what is to be? do you agree? if you don’t there’s no discussion here, is there?
    your move, motherfucker.

    I do agree, so we must now have a discussion…

    I accept, with full knowledge that you will dismiss all that I say, keeping true to your boxed world view which requires no justification except that you say so. In your world view, Alex is the beginning and end of all that can be known and reasoned. When asked to, “please explain” the answer will always be “i don’t have to justify shit.”
    “Excrement needs no explanation, for it is, what it is”

    Yet this stand point is unacceptable for any other viewpoint.

    I also acknowledge that when I quote bible passages Alex will dismiss it immediately as bullshit. But if Alex knows some other place to find information claimed to come from the God of the Christen bible, which he has challenge me to elaborate on, then please point me to it and I will look it over.

    I do not accept your book of Hor as a source of Gods word. Already looked it over and rejected it based upon hateful tones that conflict with my own boxed in world view.

    discussion…
    ————————————–
    An all knowing God and Creation.(past)
    ————————————–
    The God of the Christen bible claims to be an eternal God. He also claims to be the beginning and the end, suggesting that time itself as we currently experience it, begins with creation. How else can time be perceived with out anything to perceive or to be perceived as God claims that nothing existed but himself before creation?
    To say that God experienced time before creating the various mechanisms that are used to calculate time (such as the movement of heavenly bodies or the internal clocks of atoms), would be illogical. It is this absence of time as we know it, that leaves us with the concept of eternity.

    “For by him all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things are held together.”
    Colossians 1:15-17 (WEB); compare, Revelation 4:11

    Here it is stated that not only did God create all things for Himself, but also that his power, essence, energy, spirit or whatever you may perceive God to consist of, is woven into every aspect of the creation.

    When we look at the world through scientific lenses, it is noted that every living and non living thing has information based, mathematical limitations & laws associated that separates/distinguishes it from other things. These limitations/laws in turn determine look, smell, taste, boil, melt, diet, decay, transform, radiate, chemically bond, conductivity, colour, adhere, repel and every other property of everything every where.

    This is the Omnipresence aspect of the God of the bible. Defining Gods ability to be aware of all that is happening, because through Him all is held together. God also claims to be Omnipotent, which would make the task of keeping track effortless.

    God claims to given over power & authority enabling us the ability to critically think, rationalise and to self determine a choice. This is the image that uniquely defines God and us from all other created things. This is what free will is.If this was not so then we would all be in agreement of all things as there would no choice.

    Just as a video game coder can predict the events and their order of flow within his created game. In turn does not take away the game players ability to play to their own style within the limitations/laws of the coding that governs the video game.
    Who would enjoy a game that required you to press the green button at exactly 15sec after starting followed by left, right, up, red button etc. And that being the only possible way to play with no other options available.
    Surely this logic is such that even a child can follow.

    God claims that we were created to honour, worship and serve him. He also claims that we have the choice to reject this role for which he created us.

    God did not want mindless ‘yes’ men. He wanted companionship and pleasure from a meaningful relationship. Historically arranged marriages and forced relationships leave one or both parties unsatisfied and/or unfulfilled.

    When God created Adam he gave him a one simple choice, accept or reject me as your God to honour and serve.

    Without the existence of a choice, free will could not logically exist.

    To twist this to say that God had programmed Adam to not choose him negates a choice. To say that God foreseeing Adams rejection is proof of lack of choice is narrow.

    To say that God engineered a tempter, in the form of a serpent, to tempt Eve, in order to tempt Adam. May well be exactly how it went down.
    To say Adam lost his power to choose or that he didn’t have to begin with is akin to saying that an Omnipresence, Omnipotent God lacked the ability to make an informed and intelligent prediction.

    The Bible if full of events that trigger God to take action in response to the action of mankind, of which he willing chose to empower with the ability to choose something different to Gods will.

    All of Gods actions in the Bible are in line with keeping his original self determined unchanging plan from deviating, which was conceived before time began.

    Again God claims that he maintains his plan both in our ‘time’ and outside of time. Within our ‘life times’ we are required to make the same choice as Adam, to choose to honour and serve God or to reject him.

    God also Claims that, by our reckoning of time, in the future he will, to keep with the computer game analogy, reboot the universe, re-edit the corrupted code caused by man’s choice to reject him. Sort through the collection of software(souls), delete/reject those that reject him (eternal separation from God, is to not exist). And finally begin a new ‘time’ which will have no end.

    Alex said…
    all knowing means, knowing the past, the present and what is to be? do you agree?

    When I intelligently and rationally analyse God’s claims, I completely and utterly agree with your above statement.

    I hope this sheds light on my stance.

  521. on 25 Jun 2014 at 3:21 am 521.alex said …

    “I also acknowledge that when I quote bible passages Alex will dismiss it immediately as bullshit.”

    on the money, motherfucker. you recognize, but because you’re a dumb motherfucker, you forge ahead, smug in the knowledge that you’re free to spew your shit.

    “When I intelligently and rationally analyse God’s claims”

    you know my stance on your bullshit god, but yet you continue try to build a bullshit foundation for this discussion. back up bitch. we both agree that your god is all knowing? check?

    that’s all we agree on, so quit the goddamn pontificating on your bullshit bible. if you don’t this discussion is dead, yes?

    this is where your stoopid ass really comes to light. if your motherfucking god knew you were going to be aborted, what the fuck are you doing fucking with this blog?

    you dumbass.

  522. on 25 Jun 2014 at 3:26 am 522.alex said …

    “the man is bound to the woman like a slave and is forced to serve her for the rest of his life.”

    after he rapes her. ok, xtian motherfuckers. speak up and be recognized. here’s your chance. post it your facebook account with hashtag “#agreewitmess”. say you agree with messenger from wwgha.

    you too mess. see how many people think it’s ok. dude, you’re truly fucked up. here’s proof. http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

  523. on 25 Jun 2014 at 3:38 am 523.alex said …

    “I accept, with full knowledge that you will dismiss all that I say, keeping true to your boxed world view which requires no justification except that you say so. In your world view, Alex is the beginning and end of all that can be known and reasoned. When asked to, “please explain” the answer will always be “i don’t have to justify shit.”
    “Excrement needs no explanation, for it is, what it is””

    tell you’re going to die and you’re afraid and i will feel bad for you. is that dismissing everything you say? tell me you know to triple crop yields and i will be amazed. is that a boxed view? that’s why i call you a dumbass. you try to label with shit and it’s not true.

    try telling me that god is the explanation for planetary motion and of course i will say bullshit. press me to explain it, i would mumble something about gravity. is this “i don’t have to justify shit”?

    no you dumb motherfucker. in the context of this blog, your god and everything that goes with it is bullshit. so until you can prove otherwise, it is what it is.

    arsehole.

  524. on 25 Jun 2014 at 3:40 am 524.TJ said …

    that’s all we agree on, so quit the goddamn pontificating on your bullshit bible. if you don’t this discussion is dead, yes?

    Tell me, If you can’t discuss the bible’s claims on this site, which is dedicated to the topic of discussing religious matters between non believes and believers.

    Then WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING HERE ? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

  525. on 25 Jun 2014 at 3:47 am 525.alex said …

    “Then WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING HERE ?”

    i’m waiting on my java build and refuting your bullshit?

    and i bet your god knew you were going to say:
    “Then WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING HERE ?”

    and you had to go along because your god compelled you? so much for free will. don’t feel bad. you couldn’t help yourself.

  526. on 25 Jun 2014 at 4:13 am 526.TJ said …

    Your arguments refute as much as they make sense.

    Why is it that I must provide proof…
    (Alex said)
    no you dumb motherfucker. in the context of this blog, your god and everything that goes with it is bullshit. so until you can prove otherwise, it is what it is.

    Whilst you self justify your stance with…
    “I don’t believe in bullshit and I don’t need to explain.”

    I would like to hear from someone else who shares your views, attitude or concept of double standards.

    and i bet your god knew you were going to say:
    “Then WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING HERE ?”

    I don’t need to be all knowing to predict your response.

    Your childish abuse is of non effect.

    You are an angry little man. What purpose does your presence here fulfil in your life?

    Do you feel better about yourself.

    If you truly believe all I say is shit why do you keep engaging me?

    Do you feel the need to have the last say?

    I’d like to hear from anyone else intelligently comment on…

    How Alex makes a good point… or

    Alex is correct because… or

    Tj, your views are illogical because… or

    Something, anything from someone with a functioning brain.

    I no longer have the time to waste on you directly Alex. Good luck with your Java.

  527. on 25 Jun 2014 at 4:35 am 527.alex said …

    Whilst you self justify your stance with…
    “I don’t believe in bullshit and I don’t need to explain.”

    would it be different if i said:
    I don’t believe in allah and I don’t need to explain? i bet you lika that shit, don’t you.

    “I would like to hear from someone else who shares your views, attitude or concept of double standards.”

    atheists don’t believe in your bullshit. what’s the confusion? any atheists here believe in a personal god? hello? hello? chirp. chirp.

    “You are an angry little man.”

    uhhmmm, you’re the one that caps locked and repeatedly pressed ?????????? and i’m the angry leetle man? hey boss! da plane! da plane!

    “What purpose does your presence here fulfil in your life?”

    you have a.d.d., motherfucker? i’m a java programmer and i’m waiting on my build. what about you, bitch? you fulfilling your god’s plan to aggravate the shit outta me?

    “Do you feel the need to have the last say?”

    right back, at you.

    “How Alex makes a good point… or”
    .. alex is an atheist, but he curses way too much.

    “Alex is correct because… or”
    ..because he doesn’t believe in bullshit, but he curses way too much.

    “Tj, your views are illogical because… or”
    …because you’re fullashit and you haven’t come up with anything original. that’s why you’re fullashit?

    “Something, anything from someone with a functioning brain.”

    so if you don’t like the comment, it’s from someone without a functioning brain?

    “I no longer have the time to waste on you directly Alex.”

    god planned it that way. are you saying god is fullashit?

    goodnight, bitch, motherfucker.

  528. on 29 Jul 2014 at 9:10 am 528.lawyer said …

    Atheist arguments are all presuppositional. None would hold up in court

  529. on 14 Aug 2014 at 1:53 pm 529.freddies_dead said …

    528.lawyer said …

    Atheist arguments are all presuppositional. None would hold up in court

    Do you have an argument that backs up this barely asserted claim?

  530. on 14 Aug 2014 at 2:39 pm 530.DPK said …

    “Atheist arguments are all presuppositional. None would hold up in court

    Do you have an argument that backs up this barely asserted claim?”

    Of course he doesn’t. Why would an “atheist argument” need to hold up in court? What court in the civilized world will accept “god told me to…” as a defense?
    Why do you think that is?

    This ridiculous attempt at reversing the burden of proof is no different that saying “you cannot prove Santa isn’t real.” Of course you can’t. That doesn’t make Santa real by default, does it?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply