Feed on Posts or Comments 17 September 2014

Christianity Admin on 09 Jan 2007 07:53 am

10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer

“If you are an educated Christian, I would like to talk with you today about an important and interesting question. Have you ever thought about using your college education to think about your faith? Your life and your career demand that you behave and act rationally. Let’s apply your critical thinking skills as we discuss 10 simple questions about your religion. The answers will amaze you.”

246 Responses to “10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer”

  1. on 09 Jan 2007 at 9:48 am 1.Sam said …

    I have two Christian friends who MUST see this video.

  2. on 10 Jan 2007 at 12:16 am 2.Mushinronjya said …

    That’s a great video.. I hope it’s on the site, easy to find. I love it.

  3. on 11 Jan 2007 at 5:03 am 3.Dave said …

    Educated Christians trained to think rationally and logically? What are the odds of finding any?

    If you’re trying to reach Christians, you may want to omit the rationally and logically part. Just a thought.

    - Dave

  4. on 12 Jan 2007 at 2:22 am 4.a2planet said …

    I watched this video with my roommate (who simply avoids the god question completely) and the girl he’s with whose religious viewpoint I have no idea about.

    I thought the video was brilliant but my roomate said something to the effect of “man, this guy’s kind of a jerk” and his girl said the video was “neither funny nor convincing.”

    But what I find interesting was that neither of them seemed interested in addressing the validity of the points raised in the video.

  5. on 12 Jan 2007 at 11:37 am 5.Mushinronjya said …

    No, they never do seem interested in such.
    I had a guy in the elevator ask me today, who saw I was reading sam harris’ book, “The End of Faith”, he asked: “What if there is a god, and you go to hell?” I tried to point out that not only would I have to assume there is a god, but a hell, and not to mention that but that the god could read my thoughts and would give a shit if I believed it existed or not.

    They don’t seem to want to think of any other god but their own. He pointed that out, too… and then he thinks I’m closed-minded… give me a break.

  6. on 13 Jan 2007 at 12:48 am 6.Edo said …

    One of the amazing things about Internet is while you just surf for any reason there is the possibility to find out a site like this one.

    Sometimes you find people that think exactly in the same way as yourself, then you realise:

    “Hey! There is in this world someone who have the same opinion! I’m not alone! I’m not a monster! There is someone that have an open mind and I can finaly talk about what I really thing!”

    I speak five diferent languages, so if you need any kind of support just let me know.

    Keep up this great work, because in my point of view it’s very important.

  7. on 14 Jan 2007 at 10:00 pm 7.Seeker said …

    But amputees do heal!

    Just ask the salamander who regrew it’s lost limb.

    Trouble is, even though we mimic creation in other areas, we have yet to learn how to do this thing ourselves, which brings me to my next point…

    God works for us by working through us. So it is up to us to:
    1. Learn to heal like the salamader heals.
    2. Feed the hungry.
    3. Understand that the awareness of the people who wrote the Bible were still at a level which reflected how rebellious they were. In other words, all they could hear while God spoke was “KIll THE INNOCENTS!” – a trait which apparently still exists in this day and age.
    4. Understand a different perspective regarding a potential truth. (e.g. Research the Binary Theory as it pertains to the creation of Earth.)
    5. And we are still slaves…We are slaves to our jobs, slave to our customs, and slaves to our beliefs, whether right or wrong.
    6. So everybody can have chance to see what it’s like to run into a fan blade?
    7. Evidence of His Miracles? I think the greatest miracle is that of expressing Love and Forgiveness towards those who were killing Him.
    8. Who says Jesus has not appeared to anyone? If it wasn’t Him, then it musta been somebody else who said it was not yet my time to die, whereupon I woke up in perfect health.
    9. I guess some folks don’t quite understand the metaphor, while others take it very literally.
    10. Because we are human, with human characteristics.

    These answers serve me well enough, and I am very comfortable with the logic and reason behind them, eventhough they may sound bizzare and irrational to others… But that’s just the way the world turns, isn’t it?

  8. on 15 Jan 2007 at 3:59 pm 8.Mushinronjya said …

    Well, if you consider for a moment that there is no logic and reasoning behind them, then yes, it makes perfect sense…

  9. on 16 Jan 2007 at 9:55 am 9.Seeker said …

    This site’s agenda is not a bad thing, in and of itself, but when it is used to discredit and dispirit others through acts of mental and emotional abuse, then it is not such a good thing.

    IOW, I am always willing to answer a question if that question is a bonafide concern, meaning the individual is truly seeking an answer that will satisfy their need to know.

    But I have become hesitant to enter into a dialogue when the questions raised are designed as a means to humiliate and otherwise belittle or mock the individual who has taken it upon themselves to give an answer for the hope that is within them.

    In my estimation, this site is nothing more than a means to discredit anyone who does not think in the same manner as they do, this being something that is becoming more and more prevalent in human societies, and is even somewhat reflected in this, my own post.

    I have no answer to this increasing problem, other than that which we were taught by Jesus Christ, which is to love others as God loves us.

    Unfortunately, there are many who do not know how to do this one small thing, (myself included at times), and there are many more who have no desire to love others at all, instead doing all they can to push others away and to create as much turmoil and chaos as possible.

    And so we often remain as a slave to our own prejudices.

    That said, I would offer the following advice.

    Instead of using the attitude of intellectual superiority in your attempt to help others “See the light” as it were, why not use love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, and goodness, along with a little dash of meekness and self-control?

    In short, few there are who will listen to a man who belittles and beleaguers others as if they were not worthy to live their own lives in the manner they see fit, but birds will flock to those who reach out with tenderness and with love.

    So other than saying it is much easier to attract flies with honey than with vinegar, I pray you will continue in your endeavors, and that you will find a way to do so that is not quite so offensive to others.

    And FYI, I consider myself to be somewhat educated, having a doctorate degree in the sciences as it pertains to healthcare.

  10. on 16 Jan 2007 at 11:50 am 10.Mushinronjya said …

    “Instead of using the attitude of intellectual superiority in your attempt to help others “See the light” as it were, why not use love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, and goodness, along with a little dash of meekness and self-control?”

    Because love, joy, peace, have little to do with figuring out the truth of the reality in which we live in.

    If you are going to make an assertion that (a) exists (a god, for instance), then you need to give evidence of (a). This is called rational thinking, and making a conclusion based on logic. If you cannot give this evidence, then what you believe in is hypothetical, and delusional. This means, in plain English, that you are wrong, according to how logic works. And since we know everything USING logic and reasoning, then this is why you come upon atheists that feel superior – because in all intellectual honesty, they know how to think and figure things out, and from your baseless assertions, they (we) know you cannot… thus, we have a reason to feel superior. It’s kinda like being an IT person like I am. You know (l)users are stupid, so you feel superior. :)

  11. on 16 Jan 2007 at 12:54 pm 11.Seeker said …

    Why must anyone be limited to making a conclusion based upon logic?

    Is it logical to love those who hate you?

    Is it logical to expect others to conform to your way of “right” thinking?

    Is it logical to have an imagination which transcends logic and reason?

    Living in a logical world can be very limiting, and dull…

    However, when one’s mind is allowed to explore the unimaginable, the unthinkable, or even the unknowable, then a truer form of freedom and of life is often discovered and expressed.

    Can you understand this?

    Oh, and I have no fear of being “Wrong”. But I will not tolerate being told how to think and what to do, or being ostracized and condemned simply because my logic does not agree with your logic.

    It reminds me of the playground fights kids have when they argue over who’s dad is bigger and better…

    However, if you want to take it to a forum, then I might be inclined to logically and rationally discuss the various ways of thinking. Then again, I might not…

    But know this, sometimes the proof is NOT what we can hold in our hands or what can see with our eyes.

    Rather the proof is often what we place in the hearts and minds of those we meet.

    So be careful what you place there, lest the proof of your action rears up and bites you…

  12. on 16 Jan 2007 at 2:12 pm 12.Mushinronjya said …

    “Why must anyone be limited to making a conclusion based upon logic?”

    I could go into specifics as to all the reasons why what you just said was so wrong, but I’m not sure any of them would sink into your head. I would have to pretend I’m an elementary school teacher to even start, and I don’t have kids yet, so I am not sure I want to start being your dad.

    Let’s just say, without logic and reasoning, you’re incapable of knowing anything at all. If you don’t understand this, you shouldn’t be here attempting to debate anything at all.

    “Is it logical to have an imagination which transcends logic and reason?”

    Your imagination does not give you knowledge, so that’s just not possible, sorry. Please get off the dream train, and join the rest of us in reality.

    “However, when one’s mind is allowed to explore the unimaginable, the unthinkable, or even the unknowable, then a truer form of freedom and of life is often discovered and expressed.”

    How can your mind explore any of those?
    Oh wait, you don’t know what you’re talking about, do you?
    There mere fact that you said “un” in front of those defines it as impossible.

    “Can you understand this?”

    Can you? If so, please inform the rest of us on how to put it all together. We are not inside of your head – and you surely have not done a good job of showing us what’s in your head – unless you have, then basically you don’t make sense.

    “Oh, and I have no fear of being “Wrong”. But I will not tolerate being told how to think and what to do, or being ostracized and condemned simply because my logic does not agree with your logic.”

    You don’t even know how to test information coming into your head yet, so how can you find out you’re wrong?
    And you need to be told how to think, because you currently do not know.
    If you are using logic, it’s a very molested version of logic. I use “logic”. Logic isn’t something you can twist and turn and use as you see fit. It’s not relative to each individual (even though many people think it should be).

    If you have no proof, then you have no evidence.
    If you don’t think you need evidence, then we don’t need to think you’re sane.

    Please don’t speak metaphorically when speaking of “proof”. It won’t get you anywhere in a debate.

    You aren’t making sense still.

  13. on 16 Jan 2007 at 3:24 pm 13.seeker said …

    And so it goes. On and on and on…

    Always better, always right, never striving for peace, just looking for fights…

  14. on 16 Jan 2007 at 4:10 pm 14.Mushinronjya said …

    Fights?

    It’s called debating.
    Do you know what debating is?

    You speak metaphorically.. and expect us to hold some sort of intellectual discourse with you?

    If you are always on the “being picked on” end, maybe you should think about what you might be doing wrong. I already told you, yet you didn’t address any of my points. So you’re not going to respond at all to what I’ve said?

    How else are you going to know something, without using logic and reasoning? You think you can just daydream about something and get knowledge?

    I care very much about peace, by the way.
    That’s one reason why it’s good to be an atheist, and attempt to educate the world, starting with people like you. If we didn’t have imaginary friends, we wouldn’t be killing ourselves in the name of them. This equals peace. Do you not understand?

    Through education we can have peace.
    And in order to educate, we require debates and people to actually think. That’s the part that you view as “fighting”, which is not a good way of looking at it.

    You need to train your mind to use logic and reasoning effectively. Until you do, you’ll never have the answers to life.

  15. on 16 Jan 2007 at 4:48 pm 15.Mattstarrs said …

    Mushinronjya said:
    “Through education we can have peace”.

    This is an interesting statement of faith.

    Where is your evidence?

    Are we not more educated than any generation before us?

    Where is this “peace” that you speak of?

    Seeker said:

    “In my estimation, this site is nothing more than a means to discredit anyone who does not think in the same manner as they do . . .”

    This seems to be accurate.

    What’s the difference between a fight and a debate?

    Hatred. Mushinronjya likes to fight.

  16. on 16 Jan 2007 at 4:58 pm 16.Loi P said …

    Hello and welcome to http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com Seeker.
    Thank you for posting, I hope you join the forum. (Type in http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum)
    Also, thank you for attempting to answer the video and be logical rather than criticizing the video and leaving it at that (a common Christian response).
    Now that that’s over with on with the responses.
    In your 1-2 answers you use the argument #59 or the “argument through creative interpretation argument” as explained on the TGE project:
    ARGUMENT FROM CREATIVE INTERPRETATION
    (1) God is:
    (a) The feeling you have when you look at a newborn baby.
    (b) The love of a mother for her child.
    (c) That little still voice in your heart.
    (d) Humankind’s potential to overcome their difficulties.
    (e) How I feel when I look at a sunset.
    (f) The taste of ice cream on a hot day.
    (2) Therefore, God exists.
    You particularly used 1d-1e. The problem with this argument is that you can’t back up 1a-1f. How can you say that that’s God? Do you have evidence?
    In this case I could also argue that-
    sadness is God,
    earthquakes are God and
    my annoying comp partner is God.
    It actually tastes very much of a wiccan belief pantheism “All is God and God is all.”
    In #3 you ignore the fact that many people consider the Bible the infallible word of God. If God wrote the Bible why would there be mistakes?
    In #5 you misuse the word “slaves”. Slaves means (from http://www.dictionary.com)- “One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.” I’m not a slave and you’re not a slave.
    I’m assuming that you’re answer to #6 was a joke.
    You misuse the word “miracle” in #7. The correct meaning is (from http://www.dictionary.com) “An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.”
    Forgiving is not a supernatural phenomena, it is one that can be completly explained by psychology
    You’re answer to #8 confuses and sickens me. It sounds as though you were experiencing some intense hallucinations brought on by fever, mental illness or drugs.
    I never quite got the metaphor to #9. How would I benefit from eating jesus in a literal or metaphorical sense.
    You’re answer to #10 is insufficient because Atheists are actually less likely to divorce than Christians, a point apparently forgotten by Marshall Brain when he created the video. The fourth paragraph of http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/CrimeAndDivorce.shtml reads as follows:
    Divorce rate: Is marriage strengthened by mutual faith in God? Are marriages weak without religion? The Barna Research Group conducted a poll of Americans in 1999 in an attempt to show that religious faith reduces the likelihood of divorce. The results shocked them: Atheists had the lowest average divorce rates (defined as the percentage of people who had been divorced at least once in their lives), at 21%. Christian divorce rates averaged about 24% (higher for “born-again” Christians, ie- fundamentalists, at 27%), and even higher for Jews, at 30%. They also collected racial and geographical data, which showed that the white Southern Baptist fundamentalists have no reason to crow about their “family values”. Not only did the Southern Bible Belt have the highest divorce rate in the country, but whites as a race are the most likely to split: 27%, as compared to 22% for blacks, 20% for Hispanics, and only 8% for Asians like me (and you thought I was just blowing hot air about that “till death do us part” stuff). UPDATE: interestingly enough, Barna Research later edited that article to lump all “non-born-again adults” into a single category, thus “accidentally” obscuring the embarrassing fact that atheists had the lowest divorce rates.
    You’re last post saddened me. We’re not trying to fight with you, we’re trying to have a debate with you. In a debate if one sees that their opponent has made an error, it is their job to jump at it. It’s the way debating (and the world) works.

  17. on 16 Jan 2007 at 5:13 pm 17.Mushinronjya said …

    I gave you my reason for what I said. Did you not read it? I will say *once again*, just for you. Education brings peace, because through education we can avoid religious violence, which would bring peace. Which part of that did you miss? Or do you have selective reading skills?

    Man is more educated, but they are still ignorant in many ways. One of those ways is how to use logic and reasoning effectively.

    “What’s the difference between a fight and a debate?

    Hatred. Mushinronjya likes to fight.”

    I don’t “hate”. I just don’t tolerate ignorance.
    I am trying to educate both of you.
    I do like to debate. I get education from it. You learn from discourse. Stop seeing it as a bad thing. Debating is healthy and really good for us as a species.

    Open your eyes, get a clue.

  18. on 16 Jan 2007 at 6:04 pm 18.seeker said …

    Such a condescending attitude will get you nowhere, Mushinronjya.

    You’d be better off using a bit more civility if you wish to make a point, rather than assuming the individual whom you are addressing is totally ignorant or insane.

    As I said earlier, I have a doctorate degree and I’ve been using logic for over 30 years in my career. So I am no stranger to its nuances.

    That said, I also have faith in things that I do not see and for which there is no evidence, such as thinking you might be a kind individual who wouldn’t even consider disrespecting the rights of others to think and speak as they will without, and this is very important, without resorting to demeaning and abusive language.

    IOW, Ad hominem remarks have no place in a debate.

    So I do hope you get a clue yourself in this regard.

    Now, I have a question…

    Is this the area of this site where discussions take place? or is this supposedly where people can freely comment on the video?

    If the latter, then perhaps we should take this conversation elsewhere…

  19. on 17 Jan 2007 at 1:00 am 19.Mushinronjya said …

    “Such a condescending attitude will get you nowhere, Mushinronjya.”

    Stop dwelling on how you think I’m coming across. This isn’t the Love Boat. Stick to the points people make, otherwise you’ll never have a debate. If you keep dwelling on how you think someone is coming across, one can say you’re doing that just to avoid *having* to debate.

    “You’d be better off using a bit more civility if you wish to make a point,”

    Why? My point is still made.

    “As I said earlier, I have a doctorate degree and I’ve been using logic for over 30 years in my career. So I am no stranger to its nuances.”

    So then explain the most idiotic statement I’ve seen in a long time that you’ve made: “Why must anyone be limited to making a conclusion based upon logic?”

    That is a prize winner.

    “That said, I also have faith in things that I do not see and for which there is no evidence”

    Faith is unjustified belief.
    You just told us that you’re irrational.
    Who told you that having unjustified beliefs is some type of virtue?

    “IOW, Ad hominem remarks have no place in a debate.”

    Ad homs are only when you make an attack without content in a debate. I have content in my debate. Therefore, it’s not ad hom. They are merely insults. I make points and respond to every point made to me. I never use an insult as a replacement for a response or of any type of content other than it being just an insult.
    Please learn what an ad hom is before you say I use them.

    “So I do hope you get a clue yourself in this regard.”

    I got a clue that you didn’t respond to *any* of my points. Instead of responding to continue the debate, you have focused on “how I come across” to you. This isn’t carebear land. You either debate or you look like a whiner.

    “Is this the area of this site where discussions take place? or is this supposedly where people can freely comment on the video?”

    What do you think, Einstein? There is a blog, and then a comment section in relation to it. Do I need to draw you a picture?

    “If the latter, then perhaps we should take this conversation elsewhere…”

    If you can’t handle the oven…

  20. on 17 Jan 2007 at 3:19 am 20.Mattstarrs said …

    HAHAHAHAHA!

    Dude, you are the best evidence that I have ever seen that the Bible Proverb:
    “The fool has said in his heart there is no God”
    is a worthy saying!

    You are like an impetuous teenager that can’t be told that his temper tantrums are the reason he is being chastened!

    So is this really a debate?

    When I was at school (long before you were in elementary school Ted) we had “debates”.

    The point of a debate has nothing to do with enlightenment or learning.

    It has everything to do with winning and losing.

    So just this once Ted, PLEASE, without letting your pride fixate you on winning, and without changing the subject because you think of it as losing, address my question:

    You said that education brings peace. Then a second time you repeated that “Education brings peace”. You followed it up with some rhetoric, BUT NO EVIDENCE!

    You make a very strong statement. It is a statement that defies conventions of casual observation. You seem to support it with some kind of logic, but your logic does not seem to be supported by any data.

    In fact it would appear that your only frame of reference for relying on this rhetorical logic is your disdain for religion.

    Have you done the research (a clue: Sociology – [gasp! - An Art, not a Science!])?

    WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR BELIEF?

    If you cannot provide any you make yourself a hypocrite, because you are guilty of the things that you criticise others for, and this is the very reason that I say that you are a zealous, intolerant, religious hypocrite. The only difference is that your religion is atheism.

    Your beliefs are narrow and shallow and are held so insecurely that you feel compelled to attack anyone that refuses to adhere to them.

    Don’t worry, you are not the first in this religion. Some of the recent High Priests of your faith include Stalin and Pol Pot to name just two. Hundreds of millions of innocents died at their hands. And you say:

    Education brings peace, because through education we can avoid religious violence, which would bring peace.

    Communists believed in Education too. They set up camps to reprogram ignorant religious people. “Education” was the M.O.

    Religious violence is a historical fact among atheists. Educated atheists.

    How then can you say that “Education brings peace”?

    Did you do what I suggested and look up Milgram’s Experiment?

    It’s not religion that is the root of violence, although some have used religion to that end.

    It is the Will to Power that brings violence.

    It is your Will to Power that makes you fight so irrationally.

    It is a combination your willingness to be irrational and your willingness to be aggressive that allows you to continue being the very thing you criticise without recognising the contradiction.

    If you disagree, answer the question:

    WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?.

    If you have no evidence, admit it!

    BTW, it is too late now to go looking for evidence if you had not done it already. You have been preaching your doctrine already. It was your belief, but you could not prove it. You took the truth of it for granted. You exercised your faith.

    You are the very thing that you despise.

    The statement that “Education brings peace” is a belief. It may also be an ideal. But it is not a theory which can be supported. I don’t mind you having this belief. However, I disagree with your conclusion.

  21. on 17 Jan 2007 at 10:09 am 21.Mushinronjya said …

    “Dude, you are the best evidence that I have ever seen that the Bible Proverb:
    “The fool has said in his heart there is no God”
    is a worthy saying!”

    If a fool can figure out there is no god, what’s your excuse?

    “You are like an impetuous teenager that can’t be told that his temper tantrums are the reason he is being chastened!”

    You’ll say anything to avoid the issue and play on words, won’t you?

    “The point of a debate has nothing to do with enlightenment or learning.

    It has everything to do with winning and losing.”

    If that’s how you wish to think about it, you may. But there’s a lot to learn from debating. Sorry you feel that way.

    “You said that education brings peace. Then a second time you repeated that “Education brings peace”. You followed it up with some rhetoric, BUT NO EVIDENCE!”

    I already explained the reasoning behind it.
    I will not repeat myself.
    I gave no rhetoric, but apparently you’d like to think I did.

    “The only difference is that your religion is atheism.”

    Atheism isn’t a religion… if it is, then bald is a hair color. Sorry, but atheism does not contain doctrines of any kind. You just continue to show yourself as more of an idiot every time you post.

    Starting your post off with “hahahaha” isn’t going to make your post seem anymore valid, either.
    You’re a really sad character. :/

    “How then can you say that “Education brings peace”?”

    It’s pretty easy. I already explained how.

    “It’s not religion that is the root of violence, although some have used religion to that end.”

    That is, of course, your opinion. You just made a statement without any type of foundation. When I made my statement, I gave a foundation. A strong one at that.

    If those people of 9/11 didn’t think they would go somewhere after they die, it won’t have happened. It’s their religion which caused them to kill all of those people. Without hope for an afterlife, it was just a bad career move on their part. When you take away hope for a rewarding afterlife, it makes religion lose all of its power and bait.

    “It is your Will to Power that makes you fight so irrationally.”

    I haven’t seen anything irrational that I have said.
    You only assert that I’ve said something irrational – but have not shown it to be so. This is really quite ridiculous.

    “You are the very thing that you despise.”

    You are really making yourself look like an idiot more and more. Apparently you don’t care.

    “The statement that “Education brings peace” is a belief.”

    …backed up by sound reasoning, of which I have expressed.

    Of course you disagree with my conclusion.
    You want to keep your imaginary friends.
    You probably feel lost without them.
    You probably feel like you can’t go on in life without your imaginary friends.
    There is hope and love without them.
    In fact, life is better without them.

    Why don’t you use logic to its obvious extension, and get past your illusion of the need for an imaginary friend, and a fictional afterlife?

    You can be a better person.. why not start now?

    http://www.godisimaginary.com

  22. on 17 Jan 2007 at 3:04 pm 22.Loi P said …

    Mushinyroja, how’d you do that bold thing, it was neat.

  23. on 17 Jan 2007 at 3:33 pm 23.Mattstarrs said …

    He didn’t do the bold thing. I did. He doesn’t know how. (yet he is “educated” in I.T!).

    You have to use html code.

    To do bold or italics or change font style or size or whatever you use the “greater than/lesser than signs which are situated on the shift/comma and shift/dot keys as brackets. I can’t show you by example because if I do it won’t appear on the svreen. So let me demonstrate:

    I will use the ( symbol instead of the correct one so that you can see.

    If I want to say “Mushinyroja doesn’t know the difference between contending and contentiousness” in bold I will write:

    (b)Mushinyroja doesn’t know the difference between contending and contentiousness(/b)

    and it will appear like this:
    Mushinyroja doesn’t know the difference between contending and contentiousness

    Notice the (/b) has to be placed where you want the bold font to end.

    If I want to say “Mushinyroja doesn’t much at all so he just gets disagreeable” in italics I will write:

    (i)Mushinyroja doesn’t much at all so he just gets disagreeable(/i)

    and it will appear like this:
    Mushinyroja doesn’t much at all so he just gets disagreeable

    If I want to say “Mushinyroja doesn’t have any evidence to support his beliefs, that’s why he likes to argue on a site that is geared towards his beliefs. This is a sign of weakness and insecurity.” in large font, in another colour, in bold italics I will write:

    (i)(b)(font size = 20) (font color=”#996633″)Mushinyroja doesn’t have any evidence to support his beliefs, that’s why he likes to argue on a site that is geared towards his beliefs. This is a sign of weakness and insecurity.(/i)(/b)(/font size = 20) (/font color=”#996633″)

    and it will appear like this:
    Mushinyroja doesn’t have any evidence to support his beliefs, that’s why he likes to argue on a site that is geared towards his beliefs. This is a sign of weakness and insecurity.

    Now I am no I.T. man, so I don’t feel superior, but I think it’s hilarious that Ted is but he doesn’t know the basics. It’s a bit like his philosophy.

  24. on 17 Jan 2007 at 3:36 pm 24.Mattstarrs said …

    Looks like size and colour has been disabled in this blog. You can learn html quite easily the way I did. Just right click and select “View Source”. This will show you the code for the page you are on.

  25. on 17 Jan 2007 at 4:22 pm 25.Mushinronjya said …

    I know how to do HTML, so don’t use strawman arguments you complete dumbass.
    I did ask a question about how to quote people in here, that was about it. Do not let that make you think I don’t know HTML, retard.

    Matts, as well as his butt buddy, obviously cannot debate me in any real fashion, and have given up. Seeker has stopped responding to my points, and Matts is just tossing around ad homs.

    They got their butts kicked a long time ago.
    These guys are just stamping their feet, screaming that it just isn’t so.

  26. on 17 Jan 2007 at 4:37 pm 26.Mattstarrs said …

    So Mushinyroja

    you admit by default.

    You have no evidence.

    It is just a belief that you rationalise with reasoning.

    NO EVIDENCE!

    If you are the best atheism has to offer, it is clear that you don’t need to have a clue to pe a proponent of atheism. All you need is a belief in what your parents/teachers told you . . . sound familiar?

  27. on 17 Jan 2007 at 7:43 pm 27.Loi P said …

    I see that Seeker hasn’t responded to my post. That’s what I get for writing overly long posts. :P

  28. on 17 Jan 2007 at 8:08 pm 28.mattstarrs said …

    “They got their butts kicked a long time ago”
    Said Saddam to George W!!!!!

  29. on 17 Jan 2007 at 10:56 pm 29.Mushinronjya said …

    “So Mushinyroja

    you admit by default.

    You have no evidence.

    It is just a belief that you rationalise with reasoning.”

    Hah, I rationalize what I say with reasoning, you’re right! Thanks!
    And atheism isn’t a belief… so I don’t require evidence.
    You’re not very bright.

    “If you are the best atheism has to offer, it is clear that you don’t need to have a clue to pe a proponent of atheism. All you need is a belief in what your parents/teachers told you . . . sound familiar?”

    It sounds like you’re attempting to turn the table.. but it fails, because I don’t have beliefs.

    But although you can try to turn the table, you look like a dumbass trying, since I don’t have beliefs in this regard, then everyone is wondering what the hell you’re talking about, since I don’t fit, whatsoever, what you’re talking about. Thusly, you lose.

    Loi: Seeker isn’t equipped to fight either.

  30. on 18 Jan 2007 at 12:45 am 30.Mattstarrs said …

    Really . . . .you don’t have beliefs, huh?

    hmmphppllpp!!!! (muffled laugh).

    I think you really believe that you don’t have beliefs!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    So apart from you, me and Loi . . . who is the “everyone” you are referring to?

    I think you must be suffering from delusions of grandeur. No-one really gives a rats ar$e either way what you and I say to each other.

    Who is the one with imaginary friends????

    Little boy – you lose. Over and over and over.

    Because you lack a few things.

    Like the ability to think critically (which is different to criticising).

    Like the ability to produce evidence.

    Like the ability to understand an opposing argument before blindly launching into an acidic outburst.

    You take comfort from vitriol as if it achieves something.

    You use insults as subterfuge. Yet your ruse has so many gaping holes that only a moron would fail to see the hypocrisy of your position.

    Ted, forgive your parents. Your anger has made you blind.

  31. on 18 Jan 2007 at 12:51 am 31.Mattstarrs said …

    Oh yeah . . . .you still haven’t given any evidence for your belief that “education brings peace”.

    Just admit you don’t have any. It’s OK to have an opinion that you BELIEVE to be true.

  32. on 18 Jan 2007 at 10:01 am 32.seeker said …

    Originally posted by Loi P:

    I see that Seeker hasn’t responded to my post. That’s what I get for writing overly long posts. :P

    Sorry, I totally missed that post, plus I’ve been very busy helping sick people to get well.

    Originally posted by Mushinyroja:

    Loi: Seeker isn’t equipped to fight either.

    It’s not that I am not equipped to fight, it’s more that I choose not to fight, having had enough of killing and contention during the Vietnam conflict.

    Now I must head to the church and pass out food from our ‘Pantry’ to help feed the hungry. So I’ll be back a little later with a little feedback.

  33. on 18 Jan 2007 at 2:03 pm 33.Mushinronjya said …

    Mattstars says:
    “Really . . . .you don’t have beliefs, huh?

    hmmphppllpp!!!! (muffled laugh).

    I think you really believe that you don’t have beliefs!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!”

    I have knowledge and ideas. Not beliefs. People die for beliefs. Technically speaking, knowledge is verified true beliefs, so you could hold me to a technicality, but only if you wanted to get semantical on me more than we are currently. My point is that I do not have beliefs which aren’t verified – at least in this area.

    Again, please don’t end with “hahaha”, it doesn’t make you look intelligent.

    “Who is the one with imaginary friends????”
    Yourself.

    “Like the ability to produce evidence.”
    For what?

    “Like the ability to understand an opposing argument before blindly launching into an acidic outburst.”
    I have understood the arguments just fine.
    Just because I don’t have to ask a billion questions doesn’t mean I don’t know what’s going on.

    “Ted, forgive your parents. Your anger has made you blind.”
    Now you’ve resulted to babbling.

    “Oh yeah . . . .you still haven’t given any evidence for your belief that “education brings peace”.

    Just admit you don’t have any. It’s OK to have an opinion that you BELIEVE to be true. ”

    I have told you how education can bring peace to our species. With educating young children (and even adults) about how to think logically and critically, on how to tell the difference between truth and falsity, we can get our species to begin losing its imaginary friends – thus stopping such things as 9/11 and the like. I’ve explained this way too many times for you. Do you just forget what I tell you? O_o

    Seeker writes:
    “It’s not that I am not equipped to fight, it’s more that I choose not to fight, having had enough of killing and contention during the Vietnam conflict”
    You equate debating with vietnam violence?

    You don’t need a church to feed the hungry, just its money.

  34. on 18 Jan 2007 at 2:03 pm 34.seeker said …

    I’m back..there were only a few dozen families that showed up this morning needing a handout.

    Loi P,
    Before I respond to your post, please be aware that I speak from experience and from a perspective whereby I am not out to convince others to change their beliefs about something, unless that change is beneficial for them according to their own needs and beliefs.

    IOW, I am opposed to demanding that others believe what I think they should believe, and I am opposed to the use of force and insults when others endeavor to use that methodology.

    I am also of the opinion that “belief”, in and of itself, and whether or not the object of that belief is tangible or intangible, is a very necessary component of life.

    For example, one of the effects of belief is that of altering our physiology, hopefully in manner that will beneficially support and maintain our existence.

    IOW, what we believe can cause actual physiological changes within our own body and mind, via the creation and release of hormones and neurotransmitters, and that change can lead to improved health and life or it can lead to illness and death, this coming from 30 years of observing and knowing how the human body works.

    Now, here are a few responses to that post I evidently overlooked.

    You said: “In your 1-2 answers you use the argument #59 or the “argument through creative interpretation argument” as explained on the TGE project…”

    I am of the opinion that God is, meaning “God Exists”.

    To use the Jungian concept of Collective Conciousness to exemplify, I believe God is the “Ultimate Conciousness” or “Supreme Intellect”, if you will, and that individual consciousness arises from, stems from, or is a fractal part of this One Consciousness.

    Using logical progression within this viewpoint, we come to ultimately understand that we are all one and the same, meaning there is no difference between you and me because our individual consciousness comes from or arises from the same source. So we are, in a sense, one and the same because our ultimate or beginning source is the same.

    Yet I believe God exists, not because you or anything else exists, but because I exist as a self-aware individual. Therefore my argument can be summed up by saying: “If I exist, then God exists.”

    And so to prove that God exists, I need only prove that I exist. Furthermore, I only need to prove that I exist – to myself – in order to know that God exists. Only then will the circle of knowledge and awareness about me and God become complete, or “I am that I am”.

    You said: “…you ignore the fact that many people consider the Bible the infallible word of God. If God wrote the Bible why would there be mistakes?”

    These concerns have been around for as long as the Bible has been around, and so it is a very difficult task to address them in an easily understood manner. But I will try to do so.

    For starters, I do not believe God wrote the Bible simply because it is known to be written by men and perhaps by a few women. However, I do believe the writers were inspired to write what they wrote as their awareness evolved to higher levels of conciousness and of truth.

    As to the mistakes or errors found within the Bible, there are none.

    Now, before you get all excited and count off the some 600+ Scriptural discrepancies which keep Apologeticists (?) in business, let me see if I can explain what I meant by saying “There are none.”

    You have already read where I mentioned the concept of “Evolving Awareness”, this being a term I use to describe the FACT that our conscious awareness ‘expands’ as we age, at least in some it does…:P

    For example, all a child knows and cares about are what he or she can readily see and touch, or what’s within eyesight and hearing distance. So his or her conscious awareness is defined by his or her immediate surroundings.

    However, the expanded consciousness of an adult can encompass the community, the nation, and maybe even the world, while the expanded awareness of the spiritual seeker often encompasses the universe and beyond as well.

    Now, for simplicity’s sake, let’s assume that the lowest level of awareness is ’1′ while the greatest level of awareness is ’10′, where ’1′ is at a point just after becoming self-aware, or the point where we realize that the moving fingers we are looking at actually belong to us, and where ’10′ is being aware that the self, the universe, and God are “One and the same”, or the awareness achieved by Buddha, Christ, and Krishna, for example.

    Now consider that each writer of Scripture was at a specific level of awareness, maybe 2 or 3 or maybe even 5 or 9. Yet each thing a particular writer wrote about was perfectly and totally true for them, due to the level of awareness they had achieved.

    This simply means that each level of awareness has its own truths, but those truths may not hold true at higher or lower levels of awareness.

    In short, what we hold as being true at one level of awareness may seem totally absurd or even untrue at a higher or lower level of awareness.

    So by reading Scripture with this understanding, we come to realize that what each writer wrote was perfectly true for them, eventhough it may seem absurd and ridiculous to us. And yet those who are at the same level of awareness will wholeheartedly agree that what was written is without question, being perfectly whole and totally true.

    Do you understand this?

    It is similar to the awareness of a child versus that of an adult, where one can only understand certain truths, while having difficulty explaining what they know to be true to the other.

    The previous example I used was that of God telling a writer one thing, but all the writer could hear and understand was “KILL THE INNOCENTS!”, not hearing or understanding the “THOU SHALT NOT” at the beginning of the ‘revelation’.

    The writer was like a child who could not understand the total truth the father was conveying, because his ability to understand was limited by the level of his own awareness.

    A funny way of looking at this same idea, is envisioning Bart Simpson telling his dog not to eat food on the couch, but all the dog hears is “Blah, blah, EAT!, blah blah blah, FOOD!, blah blah blah blah, ON THE COUCH!”

    So on the basis of this type of reason and understanding, I do not question the beliefs of others, nor do I call them idiots, insane, or stupid, recognizing that we all experience reality at various levels of awareness: That we can understand only so much truth at a certain level of awareness, and that what is real and true will differ between people depending upon their own unique level of awareness.

    Having said all this, you may be shocked to hear that “Reason”, or the capacity to intellectually understand reality and abstraction is NOT the highest level of awareness, eventhough this is the level attained by such greats as Einstein, Freud, Supreme Court Justices, and many other great and noted thinkers throughout history. In fact, reason is only at about 6 or 7 on the Awareness Scale of 1 – 10.

    Rather, the greatest awareness is that of knowing we are all one and the same with God, A.K.A. The Supreme Consciousness.

    And so what we read in Scripture about “Doing unto others…”, “You help me when you help them…”, etc, are statements coming from an individual who has attained the greatest possible level of conscious awareness in human form, who is then considered to be an avatar worthy of emulation.

    If you are interested in learning more about this, perhaps you can start by reading David R. Hawkin’s book entitled “Power VS. Force”. (He’s an M.D. with a PhD in Psychology) And although I am skeptical as to his use of Applied Kinesiology, what he wrote pretty much sums up what I have come to understand and believe over the last three or four decades…

    Sorry for the long post, but because I have this understanding, and because I have experienced the validity of its truth, I choose not to have a pissing contest in order to defend my beliefs and come out on top as I recognize we are all expressing the truth as we see it, and because we are seeing only a fraction of the truth due to our own unique level of conscious awareness.

    And while I am by no means “at the top of the chart”, I do recognize that the ONLY way for our awareness to ‘evolve’ to the level of knowing we are all one and the same, is by expressing love, compassion, kindness, and even forgiveness, in all we think, say, and do.

    So it is I try to ‘correct’ others to express life in this manner, knowing that expressing love, compassion, understanding, and forgiveness is the most peacable way to get beyond what we think is real and true.

    And as time goes on, and as we get better and better at expressing these attributes, then we can truly understand what the writers of old were trying to say as it pertains to God.

  35. on 18 Jan 2007 at 3:52 pm 35.Loi P said …

    Are you a doctor?

  36. on 18 Jan 2007 at 4:07 pm 36.Mushinronjya said …

    mattsters… I have no beliefs which need evidence that you suggest I do.
    I don’t have imaginary friends – you do.

    Everything you said is pretty ridiculous.
    How old are you?

    Seeker… why equate vietnam with debating?

    All you need to feed the hungry is the money from the church, you don’t need the church.

  37. on 18 Jan 2007 at 5:36 pm 37.seeker said …

    Lio P,
    Yes. I am a doctor.

    Mushinronjya,
    It’s the principle of the thing. I’m just not into creating, supporting, or entering into conflict and contention of any kind.

    Besides, most of my life has been dedicated to doing the exact opposite: That of creating peace and harmony where it is found to be lacking.

    So think and believe what you will. That is your right and I will support that right.

    However, I have no desire to engage you or your beliefs as being an ‘enemy’, for that would be creating something that is in direct opposition to my own purpose in life.

    Again, belief is good for us, or bad for us, depending upon how one puts those beliefs into practice. And it is totally O.K. to believe in something for which there is no evidence.

    That said, I will leave you with a bit of council:

    Learn to help and assist one another, even if that means showing them a better way to express their own beliefs.

    IOW, help others to see the good of the path they are on, rather than trying to stop and kick them off the path they have chosen for themselves. For it is their right to make that choice and to live by it, and so all we can do is be supportive. (Unless, of course, that path leads them to hurt or kill others, whether mentally, physically, or spiritually.)

    If you can do this one small thing, then you will be a far better person than most of us who live on this planet, and others may even want to emulate you.

    ;)

  38. on 18 Jan 2007 at 7:58 pm 38.Pangolin said …

    This video claims that the world makes no sense unless you assume that God is imaginary. The website claims in section that the human soul and afterlife are also imaginary. Given these assumptions, I conclude that a rational reason for anyone to care is imaginary.

    If there is no God, no soul, and no afterlife, then there is no reason to help people out of a delusion, because they will very soon become absolutely nothing. So will you, also very soon. And so will everyone. If you convince some, all you’ve done is waste their time, recruiting them to a pointless, worthless cause, freeing them from a lie into nothingness. Any goal, including the following of a lie, is equally valid. Why should I be inclined to take into consideration anything but my own gratification? I don’t have to take anything besides what I want RIGHT NOW (instant gratification) into the equation of how I’ll live my life. This includes whether I harm others in any way during my deluded attempts to convert them to my religion, or anyone of a different belief that I may offend. If my delusion helps me sleep at night, and keeps me reasonably happy during my terrifyingly brief existance, then it should be literally the only thing that matters to me.

    If there is no God, then every action by every human being who ever walked the face of this earth means absolutely nothing.

  39. on 18 Jan 2007 at 8:08 pm 39.Mushinronjya said …

    Pangolin says:
    “If there is no God, no soul, and no afterlife, then there is no reason to help people out of a delusion, because they will very soon become absolutely nothing.”

    I fail to understand that. We strive to make people aware of the truth so that we can make all of our lives more beneficial. Our ability to know real from fake helps us to make better decisions concerning our actions. Sure, they will die eventually, but while they are alive they will benefit themselves and others by knowing the truth.

    You look at life very negatively. I pity you.

  40. on 18 Jan 2007 at 8:09 pm 40.Mushinronjya said …

    Seeker says:
    “It’s the principle of the thing. I’m just not into creating, supporting, or entering into conflict and contention of any kind.”

    Through debating and the exchanging of ideas, we are able to learn and to grow. Figuring out how to know the truth from fiction will allow us to know the answers. That’s why debating is necessary. Don’t see it as unnecessary ridiculous conflict.

    “Again, belief is good for us, or bad for us, depending upon how one puts those beliefs into practice. And it is totally O.K. to believe in something for which there is no evidence.”

    No, it’s not good for us. It does more harm to us than good. Look at 9/11. Was that good for us? Do you think you can actually stop religious violence by promoting moderation? No, you cannot. The only way to stop religious violence is to stop religion. We must educate people and let them know it’s not right or good. We’ve tried it your way for a long, long time. Where has it got us? Nowhere. More violence. You protect the people who believe in things that aren’t real. How are we going to help stop religious violence if you tell us we shouldn’t question belief itself? You aren’t helping the problem, you’re making it worse.

    “Learn to help and assist one another, even if that means showing them a better way to express their own beliefs.”

    They need to analyze their own beliefs, and find out if they stand up to questioning, to logic and reasoning. That’s how we can best help that person, and in turn, all of mankind.

    Being delusional is not a beneficial path. You might be thinking you’re giving good, kind words. You might think that you’re giving good, fluffy advice. But that doesn’t work anymore. It never has, and it never will. We found that out from experience. No, being supportive isn’t going to help. We need to question and get people to think.

  41. on 18 Jan 2007 at 9:56 pm 41.seeker said …

    Mushinronjya said: “We strive to make people aware of the truth so that we can make all of our lives more beneficial. Our ability to know real from fake helps us to make better decisions concerning our actions. Sure, they will die eventually, but while they are alive they will benefit themselves and others by knowing the truth.

    This is a very interesting statement.

    It is interesting because I have heard this same line from religious leaders, business associates, cultists, and even politicians, just to name a few.

    It seems like there are many people who want everyone else to learn and know “The Truth” so the world can be transformed into a better place.

    But like Pontious Pilate, I often ask; “What is Truth?”

    And what makes you believe you have the market on “The Truth”?

    How do you even know it is “The Truth”?

    What if what we perceive as being real and true is not even real or true at all?

    Consider the atoms which help make up this universe. As we delve deeper and deeper into their substructures via the use of quantum physicics, there comes a point where nothing at all can be found.

    IOW, when the last substructure has been ‘dissected’, and there is nothing else there to detect, then what will we make of it all?

    Could it be that the structure of the universe is constructed from absolutely nothing?

    No one really knows this answer yet, but the question has been formed and the answer is being sought, with some answers pointing towards the energy of thought as being “the source” of it all.

    Just a bit more to think about in your off time…

  42. on 18 Jan 2007 at 10:01 pm 42.seeker said …

    Hey Mushinronjya,

    Have you ever seen the video called “Loose Change” or “Loose Change 2″?

    Try googling for it and watch it sometime. It’s about 911.

    Then get back to me about what is real and true…

  43. on 18 Jan 2007 at 11:42 pm 43.Thomas Fahy said …

    Mushinronjya’s position is a very interesting and compelling one. It is also unpopular. Nevertheless, there is much in the content of what he says that should be considered carefully. Mushinronjya’s interest is in facts. What is a fact? A fact can be equated with an incontrovertible truth; something that has been determined to be so; that has been defended by the human mind with evidence sought by the same mind. Fact.

    There is nothing banal about facts. The perception of facts make our world a habitable place. Facts enable each and every one of us to negotiate the world in which we live. Facts, facilitated by language, enable us to describe and study the world as it is. Facts inherit nothing from presumption; their genes are inherited from those minds that determined that to live justly is to exercise fully the intellect that was their inheritance, and with which quality could be introduced into life on earth, not subsistence. Animals subsist. Human beings, with reason at their disposal, no longer subsist. They do not graze. They do not forage. They do not herd. And by the grace of reason only a small fraction still serve as shepherd’s and fishers of men.

    Faith does not now, nor has it historically, achieved the aim that it promised to deliver: peace. Why? Because it repeatedly and effectively proscribes reason from our everyday discourse. Mushinronjya is one of a small chorus of new voices in this country that is growing intolerant; intolerant of the license that has been bestowed upon faith; intolerant of the moderation with which the world’s faith’s are regarded; intolerant of the ability of faith to eviscerate reason from the mind of man. Mushinronjya represents a new type of evangelist: An evangelist for reason. His concern is the ability of religious moderation to short-circuit debates that must be had if indeed our interest is in the longevity of the species on planet earth. Do not assume that Mushinronjya doesn’t care. He does. In fact, he is clearly impassioned and by defending reason and its utilities–logic and rationality–he is revealing a sincere interest in the fate of his race: humankind.

    Mushinronjya’s dissatisfaction is palpable to everyone that reads his posts, but at the same time, it seems his voice is lost in the crowd. He is bringing many novel ideas to the table, or at least novel only in so far as most of the ideas have fallen victim to historical relativism in a progressive way since the nineteenth century. So, in a manner of speaking, he is resurrecting old ideas that are the children of one of the greatest legacies of humankind: reason. And in order to properly champion reason in the twenty-first century, a new and unpopular type of debate must be forced on the public in venues such as WWGHA. Here, Mushinronjya’s philosophy may be facilitated. Here, where faith has been consciously rejected, he may attempt to describe the underpinnings of a new type of discourse that must be adopted in short-order if indeed conflicts of a global nature are to be suspended. Mushronjya speaks to that element in each man that flickers with the light of consciousness; that revels in the liberty that is each man’s inheritance by virtue of his ability to think. Mushinronjya is fully aware that his life is finite. And for this reason, he would ask that mankind adopt that modicum of reason that would ensure quality of life for all men, on earth, and while they are alive!

    Faith has been shown conclusively to serve as a delimiter to the acquisition of knowledge, era after era. And it achieves this end by starving each child, each man, of the wonder that comes naturally to him at birth; the awe that visits each child upon perceiving the world, as it is, with only language at his disposal, not preconceived notions. Language, not dogma. The language with which he can achieve a record of what he sees and touches and smells. A record that will serve as a testimony to his interest in life and his deep respect for the right of others to live theirs to the fullest, but not in a conditional way, not by the grace of God, not for the sake of Christ. This child’s interest is in the good. He understands fully the value of life on earth and consequently, he understands the value of the lives of others. From childhood, he has been encouraged to exercise his powers of reason. He does not see Christians, or Jews or Muslims or Hindus. He sees only people possessed of a curiosity to further the capabilities of a species that possesses consciousness. His life is finite and he realizes this. But his sights are not trained on an afterlife. Rather, his sights are trained on what he is able to produce of value for his successors, for they will inherit the earth: the producers, the intellectuals, the visionaries, the industrialists, NOT the meek. For the meek will have produced nothing of lasting substance, as their interest has not been in this earthly life, it has been in the next life. And consequently, they die equals to their aspirations: starving, empty, and hopeful.

    The rational do not believe that some things can not be answered. The reasonable do not acknowledge that there is an ineffable or an unknowable anything. The reasonable concede that man is limited by his knowledge in the present, but that his successors, given that they were descended from caretakers of reason, will have the tools at their disposal to answer the questions about which their ancestors were forced to wonder. To live not for an afterlife but for the sake of your great, great, great grandchildren is to live a moral life, by standards that sought nothing less than the truth–a truth that must be worked for, not bought on the cheap on Sunday morning.

  44. on 18 Jan 2007 at 11:54 pm 44.Mushinronjya said …

    “It is interesting because I have heard this same line from religious leaders, business associates, cultists, and even politicians, just to name a few.

    It seems like there are many people who want everyone else to learn and know “The Truth” so the world can be transformed into a better place.

    But like Pontious Pilate, I often ask; “What is Truth?””

    I can help you understand this so you don’t make the mistake of saying this again.

    Truth is the degree to which a statement corresponds with reality. That is the truth. Religion likes to use the word “truth”, but it molests it in order to use it.

    Religion uses the word “truth” because it knows that that’s what people like. It “sounds” nice. And, in actuality, it *is* nice. However, when you dumb-down your followers so they don’t know how to arrive at the truth, which religion does, and then tell them that they have truth… they DON’T KNOW ANY BETTER! So they just nod their head like stupid little sheep.

    So I hope that helps you to understand.
    Science brings truth, and can prove it.
    Religion can only attempt to molest and hijack the word. It can never stand up to questioning.

    “And what makes you believe you have the market on “The Truth”?

    How do you even know it is “The Truth”?”

    See above.
    We use objective evidence. Logic and reasoning.
    Religion does not.
    That’s how I know.
    That’s why I know I’ll win just about any debate I have with someone that has imaginary friends.

    “What if what we perceive as being real and true is not even real or true at all?”

    Then I wouldn’t view it as real or true.
    I go by what corresponds with reality, what shows to be real. I don’t “guess” at what’s real, like religion does. Big, big difference.

  45. on 18 Jan 2007 at 11:59 pm 45.Mushinronjya said …

    Seeker said:
    “Hey Mushinronjya,

    Have you ever seen the video called “Loose Change” or “Loose Change 2″?”

    Yea, I’ll start giving that a lot of attention as soon as I start giving attention to the conspiracy theories of us never going to the moon.

  46. on 19 Jan 2007 at 12:24 am 46.Mattstarrs said …

    First let me turn off the italics that Seeker left on . . . Ok then.

    Mushy Ted . . . the winner of a debate is not the one that convinces themselves that they have won, it’s the one that the judge says has won.

    I don’t see how you can think you are winning debates by refusing to consider other peoples perspectives, relying wholly on scraps of anecdotal evidence, casting insults, declaring yourself a bigot and refusing to give evidence for your eroneous beliefs.

    It’s a good thing you are playing with us kindly christian folk that have learned to tolerate fools.

  47. on 19 Jan 2007 at 12:36 am 47.Mattstarrs said …

    So Ted, would you be bold enough to answer my request to give us some evidence for your belief that education brings peace now? Or are you still resigned to eratic rationalism?

  48. on 19 Jan 2007 at 8:37 am 48.Mushinronjya said …

    Mattstarrs says:
    “I don’t see how you can think you are winning debates by refusing to consider other peoples perspectives, relying wholly on scraps of anecdotal evidence, casting insults, declaring yourself a bigot and refusing to give evidence for your eroneous beliefs.”

    I don’t know what makes you think that I have not understood what everyone has said. Again, I haven’t given claims that require evidence that I have not given. It’s a poor debate tactic to assert that someone has made unfounded claims, and then not present the unfounded claims. It is a poor debate tactic to claim that I don’t understand something, and then not present what I don’t understand and why you feel that way.

    “So Ted, would you be bold enough to answer my request to give us some evidence for your belief that education brings peace now? Or are you still resigned to eratic rationalism?”

    Again, I have explained this roughly 20 times to you already. I tired of you asking me the *same* question, over and over, and completely disregarding my answer. It’s a very, very poor debate tactic. You are turning rather pathetic.

  49. on 19 Jan 2007 at 9:56 am 49.seeker said …

    Thomas Fahy said: “Human beings, with reason at their disposal, no longer subsist. They do not graze. They do not forage. They do not herd.”

    This could be argued in the sense that humankind is always seeking out new resources to consume, and the fact that humans ‘herd’ in the form of cities and nations, sticking together and moving as one in times that demand they stick together and move as one.

    But this is just a minor point…

    Other than that, you wrote a most excellent post and I would not disagree with it, save for the fact of the insults Mushinronjya throws around.

    Such insults would tend to negate what you have said about Mushinronjya being respectful and valuing the lives of others, and it is this I was trying to get him to understand.

    Personally, I have no problem with those who choose to speak out against certain belief systems and actions and, as I said earlier, I will support their right to do so, although there are better ways of going about it if one wants to get results.

    There really isn’t much more I can do here except to leave this small gift for Mushinronjya, a quote by Winston Churchill:
    “Most men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and continue as if nothing happened.”

    Hopefully he will find a good use for this small gift.

    All:
    Please continue in your work, and may you find and express the peace you are hoping to create and experience through your endeavors, although for the life of me I cannot see how peace can be achieved by attacking and condemning that which is not like ourselves.

  50. on 19 Jan 2007 at 10:05 am 50.Mattstarrs said …

    I keep asking the question because you have not answered it once.

    Where is the evidence for your belief that education brings peace?

    Not rhetoric.

    Not rationalisation.

    Not conjecture.

    Evidence.

    As yet you have produced NONE!

    You say “It’s a poor debate tactic to assert that someone has made unfounded claims, and then not present the unfounded claims”.

    Your unfounded claim is that you say you only believe what can be supported by evidence. You say that you believe that education brings peace. You have yet to produce a single piece of evidence to support this belief. This effectively undermines your premise for dismissing a belief in the existence of God, because the same logic can be applied to dismiss your own beliefs.

    You also said “It is a poor debate tactic to claim that I don’t understand something, and then not present what I don’t understand and why you feel that way”..

    To the contrary. I have not withheld what it is that I feel that you don’t understand, or why I feel that way. Actually, I don’t think it is so much that you don’t understand. I think you are a little bit smarter than that. I think you are trying to sidestep my request.

    It is as plain as day what it is that I am objecting to, and what I am asking of you. To make it easy for all to see I have done a review and cut and pasted past comments here:

    Recently I alleged that you were:
    refusing to give evidence for your eroneous beliefs.

    I also reminded you that:
    Oh yeah . . . .you still haven’t given any evidence for your belief that “education brings peace”.

    I don’t think there would be too many people that wouldn’t understand what I am getting at here:

    you admit by default.

    You have no evidence.

    It is just a belief that you rationalise with reasoning.

    NO EVIDENCE!

    This statement was directly to the point:

    Mushinyroja doesn’t have any evidence to support his beliefs

    I think that this statement that I made makes it crystal clear:

    “You said that education brings peace. Then a second time you repeated that “Education brings peace”. You followed it up with some rhetoric, BUT NO EVIDENCE!”

    I also made it clear when I said:

    If you disagree, answer the question:

    WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?.

    If you have no evidence, admit it!

    Again I asked:

    How then can you say that “Education brings peace”?

    The closest I could find to you even trying to justify your belief was when you said:

    I gave you my reason for what I said. Did you not read it? I will say *once again*, just for you. Education brings peace, because through education we can avoid religious violence, which would bring peace. Which part of that did you miss? Or do you have selective reading skills?

    This of course is just speculation. Opinion. Conjecture. A theory. That is why I asked if you have any evidence. You can see quite clearly in that post you are promising to deliver when you say “I will say *once again*”, yet you fail to produce evidence *once again* and try to change the subject with the taunt “do you have selective reading skills”.

    We began down this road when in response to Seekers protest to your style of debating, which is more akin to fighting, you made this assertion:
    Mushinronjya said:
    “Through education we can have peace”.

    I stated that:
    “This is an interesting statement of faith.”and asked

    “Where is your evidence?”

    This is where my questioning began. I have searched the entire thread. There is nothing anywhere that any evidence is offered in support of this belief of yours.

    I hope that answers your question about exactly what it is that I am calling you on. You have made an unfounded claim. You said that “education brings peace”. You say that you have supplied an answer, but your answer is nowhere to be found.

    I am calling your bluff.

    Because bluffing is a poor debating tactic.

  51. on 19 Jan 2007 at 10:17 am 51.Mushinronjya said …

    “I keep asking the question because you have not answered it once.

    Where is the evidence for your belief that education brings peace?”

    Ok. I will answer *one* more time. Do *not* ask me the same question again after this, got it?
    *sigh*
    I’ll try to talk in Retardese for you.

    When people believe in things that aren’t real, it could cause them to do things which aren’t beneficial to mankind. Let’s take religion for example. Many times, throughout history and even presently, as we see with 9/11, the wars in the middle east, etc, we see people killing others because of what they believe or don’t believe. Do you know that the Koran and the Buybull say to kill unbelievers?

    Through the education of people, through teaching them logic and reasoning, and the ability to tell reality from fiction, we can help to stop religious violence. When we take away the god mythology, and the afterlife mythology, there suddenly is no reason to kill others… because you’re not promised a “reward” by this fictional god in a fictional afterlife.

    I could name examples after examples of suicide bombings and other killings done in the name of religion, even today… and don’t even get me started on touching upon the history of such actions.

    It is not a statement of faith that through education we can bring peace. It is a matter of common sense. For you to sit here and say it is otherwise is completely ridiculous.

    Now that I’m done explaining this to you, for the umpth time, please stop asking the same question again and again. You won’t get anywhere by doing such. You just look like a fool.
    *sigh*

  52. on 19 Jan 2007 at 1:24 pm 52.Mushinronjya said …

    Seeker wrote:
    “Such insults would tend to negate what you have said about Mushinronjya being respectful and valuing the lives of others, and it is this I was trying to get him to understand.”

    Respect is earned with me, not given freely. If it was said I was respectful, then perhaps that was in err. I fail to see how me not being respectful in a way that pleases you has anything to do with not valuing the lives of others. But we’ll leave that for your head to play with.

    “although there are better ways of going about it if one wants to get results.”

    That is, of course, your opinion. There are many ways to skin a cat.

    “although for the life of me I cannot see how peace can be achieved by attacking and condemning that which is not like ourselves.”

    I already explained how. I don’t understand why you would ask that question. We must have discourse. You can call it “attacking” or “fighting”, but it’s actually discussion and debating. Just because I’m not all peachy fluffiness to you, doesn’t mean we aren’t holding discourse. If you require fluffiness in every debate you have, you won’t have that many debates.. especially online. I’m sure you’ll find people that will respect your need to feel fluffy, but when you come from a standpoint of having imaginary friends, I wouldn’t expect it all that much.

    What you decide is up to you, however.
    I don’t let how someone comes across from stopping me from expressing myself and getting my points across. I’m still able to read what they have to say and respond to their points. Trust me, I get buttcracks all the time.

  53. on 19 Jan 2007 at 2:52 pm 53.Pangolin said …

    I don’t look at life negatively. I’m saying that your position leads to a negative view of life. I’m sorry for not making it clear enough, but I am a Christian. And I can answer your questions, every one.

    1. Why won’t God heal amputees?
    He will. Just not yet. Even those who went to their grave with one leg or one arm, and believed, He will heal. Every Christian will get a new body. Not just a new part, but a new everything. On top of that, it will be absolutely incorruptible. No disease, no damage, no aging. Ever.

    2. Why are there so many starving people in our world?
    The Bible says things are NOT going to improve on this earth. God is NOT coming down to fix everything until his plan is complete. He may fix some things here and there, but he’s done the flashy thunder-and-lightning thing before. Very few believed. Now he’s leaving it up to his servants, to do what they can.

    3. Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?
    When I first saw this, I thought it was going to talk about the canaanites and amalekites and whatever. Instead, I found something very interesting. Calling sin ‘trivial.’ It’s the nature of our society today. Almost all of our jokes
    are about deception, pain, and suffering. You are as likely to see sex as not if you turn on the TV. We’ve made the things which God calls the worst of the worst into meaningless little matters. The only answer I can give is that they’re not trivial in the slightest, and it’s only our own minds that want to call them so.

    4. Why does the Bible contain so much antiscientific nonsense?
    It doesn’t. It contains an account of the creation of a universe by an all-powerful God. This includes the scientific laws, or the way things work. There can be no argument of anti-science against the creation account because science literally couldn’t exist yet. Later accounts of miracles just mean God suspended the laws temporarily. Not hard for an all-powerful being.

    5.Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?
    God is not a proponent simply because he allows it. He also allowed divorce in the old testament law even though he hates it, for reasons I don’t entirely understand. Is allowing something for a time the same as promoting it? Is telling slaves that know who their real master is to act uprightly in their situation the same as promoting slavery?

    6. Why do bad things happen to good people?
    It’s another state of the world thing. It’s not getting any better. Why don’t more bad things happen to everybody? Because we’re not that close to the end yet.

    7. Why didn’t Jesus’ miracles leave any evidence?
    When all you do is heal people or make more food, your evidence tends to eventually die or be quickly consumed. After about 2000 years there just isn’t much left.

    8. How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you?
    Jesus never promised me a personal visit in this life. Why should I expect one, or try to explain its absense?

    9. Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?
    He doesn’t. It’s impossible, anyway, he kind of left with the whole package. The Bread and Wine are symbolic of his body and blood, but more importantly symbolic of the covenant sealed by the sacrifice of said elements.

    10. Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians
    Everyone is equally capable of failing to do right at any time. Even Christians can ignore God if they want. In these times especially, when so many people add something or take something away from the Bible, so much wrong teaching is out there under the guise of Christianity, and so many people in America call themselves Christians when they only go to churhc on Christmas and Easter, it’s no wonder these rates are the same.

  54. on 19 Jan 2007 at 3:52 pm 54.Aleksandra said …

    I want to respond. I really do. But I can’t. I just can’t. I am laughing so hard! So hard. Laughing. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! I love Christian apologists. They taste so good. I eat them for breakfast. Pangolin. You are precious. You’ve got everything tied up so neatly–an answer for EVERYTHING. I bet you can walk on water, too. Extraordinary. Really. I think the presses can stop now. An early weekend for everyone. Imagine a world in which Muhammed did not have a night journey; a world in which Christ did not spend 40 days and 40 nights in the desert. Imagine such a world. A world without apostles. Imagine. Had there been no Christ, how would people do things differently? How would they conduct themselves? I am from Odesa. A very Christian town. And I ask people this often. Some have answers, some don’t. One person gave me a very good answer: Christ is a tool. A tool? The man said, “Yes, a tool. Or a swiss-army knife. He does everything and fits in your pocket, too.” Very convenient. Ha! A tool. Yes. Most governments have proven poor at what they do, so they always need to offer their people a supplement. The supplement that has been found to work best, with a sugar-coating and which requires only a first-grade education is Christianity. A supplement to the political diet. Unfortunately, more supplement than diet is being consumed and policy is being shaped by politicians with empty bellies and elevated blood Christianity levels. I guess my question is, why are you a Christian, Pangolin? Was it upbringing? Were your parents Christians? Had you been given up for adoption and been adopted by a Muslim family, you would probably be a Muslim. You would be on the “Why Won’t Allah Save My Sister” Blog right now defending Honour Killing. You are an automaton. You do not think critically. You have been shaped like clay and fired in a kiln filled with the flames of ignorance. I bet you’d taste great for breakfast. Mmmmm.

  55. on 19 Jan 2007 at 4:58 pm 55.Mushinronjya said …

    Pang, I posted a response, looks like it needs to be approved first.

  56. on 19 Jan 2007 at 8:29 pm 56.Mattstarrs said …

    Pangolin is right on the money!
    Well said.

    There would only be minor differences in my view and his.

    Pangolin has given solid reasoning for his beliefs.

    He has explained his reasons for not needing scientific evidence, although much of what he believes can be evidenced with science.

    It is acceptable for him to present arguments this way because he never said that the foundation of all of his reasoning was “science”, which of course is what Mushy has gone to great lengths to argue in other threads.

    That’s why I have taken exception and gone to such lengths to show Mushy’s lack of consistency in this thread.

    Mushy can only offer his reasoning for his beliefs, and some interpretations of anecdotal evidence – but no research, no data, no scientific evidence.

    This is VERY IMPORTANT because it means that the rules that he uses for dismissing arguments for the existence of God or the veracity of the Bible may also be used to dismiss the arguments that he holds as foundational in his worldview that religion and belief in God is a bad thing.

    The reasoning that Mushy uses hangs largely on the way many people have used religion to do evil. There are a few major flaws in this argument big enough to float a small planet through.

    Firstly, for the argument to have any credence there would need to be no other reasons for people to do evil. Unfortunately there are a myriad of motivations for people to commit violence or evil in general. They may include the Will to Power (as I have already mentioned), greed, jealousy, pride, or as Milgrams Experiment which was conducted across multiple cultures and ethnaes in the 1950′s demonstrated, there is a universal ability for humans to commit unspeakable atrocities not unlike those committed by the Nazi’s, when under pressure from authoritarian leadership. In Milgrams experiments the subjects were told that they were participating in a scientific experiment. They were shown a person strapped to a chair with electrodes hooked up to their bodies. They were taken into the next room and sat down at a desk with an electrical device, which included a button that they had to press and a dial with which they were to increase the voltage of electric shocks that were administered to the person strapped in the chair. The subject was given a demonstration and would feel a small shock to show them that the shock was “real”.

    Of course the person in the chair never really received a shock, but the subject did not know this. The person in the chair would be asked a question. If they answered incorrectly the subject was instructed to turn up the voltage on the dial. The person in the chair would play along with screams and groans, but the subject could only hear them not see them.

    If the subject protested that they ought not be doing this for any reason the “researcher” in his white lab coat had 3 relatively benign responses that he was allowed to issue, like “You must continue the experiment”.

    A huge proportion of participants in the study continued to administer shocks after winding the dial into the zone marked “Danger” and more than 40% continued to administer shocks in the zone marked lethal.

    They did this in the name of science!

    This of course does not make science responsible for the actions of those people. The people are responsible for their own actions. The thing that was affecting them to the point that they would commit atrocities was the desire to obey the authority. This dynamic can be used by military authorities, religious authorities, familial authorities or as in this experiment, even scientific authorities.

    To lay all of the blame for violence in the world on religion, or to say that eradicating religion would end violence and bring peace is a terribly naive misnomer.
    naive
    Secondly, there would need to be an absence of violence among educated atheist, but this is clearly not the case. I have already argued this point strongly by citing the connection between communism and it’s emphasis on both education and atheism, and the fact that more than 100 million innocent people died as a direct result of communism last century. Many of those were Christians and other religious people that would not be educated.

    Thirdly, there needs to be a complete dismissal of the powerful force for good that Christianity and benevolent religion bring to the modern world. The overwhelming majority of those that give to charitable causes are religious people. What other groups in society are impacting so many people to make it their personal agenda to help those less fortunate than themselves, or to maintain sobriety, tolerance or fidelity? I don’t see too many atheist organisations having an impact on people’s lives in a way that compels them to “live peaceably with all men” as the Bible says.

    That is why I challenged Mushy to supply evidence. I knew that there was no evidence that “education brings peace”.

    I challenge anybody else that reads this to supply some real evidence. Show me the research!

    Without evidence you will probably say dumb things like Mushy when he said:

    “When we take away the god mythology, and the afterlife mythology, there suddenly is no reason to kill others…”

    But you only have to go to your favourite news site and you will see examples of people being killed that have nothing to do with a belief in God or an afterlife. Logically, a belief in those things is more likely to be a deterrent to commit such acts.

    Mushy said that:
    “It is not a statement of faith that through education we can bring peace. It is a matter of common sense. “

    Many things that we hold as common sense rely wholly on faith. Yet without solid evidence we have nothing but faith and its reasoning’s to support our beliefs. One such belief that was accepted as common sense was the belief that the world was flat. It was “common sense” for millennia. That’s the problem with common sense. The masses get it wrong and use social pressures to maintain the status quo. This is exactly how evolution is supported in the absence of a single event where a species developed a new attribute that was not already in it’s DNA. We only see the cessation of attributes, not the appearance of new ones. Therefore evolution is problematic for explaining the ontology of life. Still, faith is the mainstay of the masses belief in evolution. Very few people would be aware of any compelling evidence to support evolutionary theories. They may have seen a presentation of phenotypes, which is circumstantial evidence at best, but after that there is a blind trust in the “authorities”. Remember, I said for most people. There are serious researchers that would have more compelling arguments, but these arguments also have their difficulties, and that is why we refer to evolution as a theory.

    Mushy said:
    “Now that I’m done explaining this to you, for the umpth time, please stop asking the same question again and again. You won’t get anywhere by doing such. You just look like a fool.”

    A fool I may be, but I wasn’t asking for an explanation. Clearly I asked over a dozen times for evidence. You have none. Does anybody else want to have a go at supply evidence for Mushy that “education brings peace”?

  57. on 19 Jan 2007 at 10:47 pm 57.Mushinronjya said …

    Mattstars says:
    “Pangolin has given solid reasoning for his beliefs.

    He has explained his reasons for not needing scientific evidence, although much of what he believes can be evidenced with science.”

    First off, Pang posted this same response to at least two different threads, so it wasn’t directed at myself. I just responded to it.

    And no, he did not give “solid reasoning”. You would only assert this because he believes in the same imaginary friend that you do.

    “It is acceptable for him to present arguments this way because he never said that the foundation of all of his reasoning was “science”, which of course is what Mushy has gone to great lengths to argue in other threads”

    Haha… science means “to know”, you fool! hah
    What the hell ELSE are you going to base anything on, and expect to be taken seriously!

    haha that’s so funny man.

    “That’s why I have taken exception and gone to such lengths to show Mushy’s lack of consistency in this thread.”

    I have not been.
    It’s only you asserting that I have.
    You have given no statements of inconsistencies by myself.
    You’ll say anything, won’t you? Even if it doesn’t make any sense?

    “The reasoning that Mushy uses hangs largely on the way many people have used religion to do evil. There are a few major flaws in this argument big enough to float a small planet through.

    Firstly, for the argument to have any credence there would need to be no other reasons for people to do evil”

    I fail to see how that makes any sense whatsoever.
    I didn’t say that religious violence is the *only* form of violence on the planet. Your entire post is tossed because you created a strawman argument. Nice job. I guess your whole argument was based on your thinking I said something I did not.

    Congrats. :)

    You know people, it’s funny how these imaginary friend believers will do anything in an attempt to ask for evidence of something, yet when it comes to their own imaginary friends, they won’t require a SHRED. Very hypocritical.

    ““When we take away the god mythology, and the afterlife mythology, there suddenly is no reason to kill others…”

    But you only have to go to your favourite news site and you will see examples of people being killed that have nothing to do with a belief in God or an afterlife.”

    I meant in the context of religion, you complete moron. Stop taking what I say out of context. You’re an idiot.

    I’ve made my statement and backed it up.
    You, however, have done nothing but re-ask the same question, say I haven’t said what I’ve said, and then in the end, in an attempt to save face from looking stupid again, you attempt to say I have said something I didn’t, as well as take some things I’ve said out of context.. just so you’d have something to argue again. Yet I called you on it, everyone’s reading it, and you again look like an idiot.
    Congrats.

    Do you know that you’re here freely, because atheists tend to encourage debate? They like to arrive at the truth? If I was in a theistic forum, I’d most likely get banned. But we keep you around, because we like discourse; even though you have nothing much to offer us intellectually, we still get the experience to see how some people think from your presentations.

  58. on 20 Jan 2007 at 6:59 am 58.Mattstarrs said …

    Mushy Ted said:

    “I fail to see how that makes any sense whatsoever”.

    Therein lies the problem.

    And still no evidence. Just a lousy sidestep.

    Now Mushy Ted, I said:

    “It is acceptable for him to present arguments this way because he never said that the foundation of all of his reasoning was “science”, which of course is what Mushy has gone to great lengths to argue in other threads”

    which you quoted back and responded with:

    Haha… science means “to know”, you fool! hah

    Which is interesting for two reasons. Firstly, because you are the one who said:

    “Again, please don’t end with “hahaha”, it doesn’t make you look intelligent.

    And secondly, because you are now trying to apply a different definition to the word “science” than you previously went to great lengths to expand on when you said:

    “Why would you choose something other than science in order to obtain knowledge?”

    And:

    “You don’t know enough about science in order to debate the topic”.

    I might also remind you of:

    “We use the facts we obtain in science in order to create theories based on those facts.
    Using scientific theories is the *only* way of knowing the truth. You cannot know truth in any other way. It’s just not possible.”

    Which you also reinforced with:

    “Firstly, you have to explain what theory you are referring to. Secondly, you have nothing else to go on other than what science provides. Lastly, any alternatives you offer *have to be scientific*.”

    And said of yourself in great swelling pride:

    “I know science, apparently a bit better than you do.”

    I responded with a brief overview of my academic history, and your interpretation of the word “science” became even more specific when you said:

    “Why would you tell me about degrees you’ve gotten when my specific request for your education revolves around science – of which you have *no* education on?”

    Sometimes when you spoke of “science” it was less clear, like in this tantrum:

    “Are you freakin *STUPID*?!?!?!?!
    How *ELSE* are you going to know ANYTHING AT ALL *WITHOUT SCIENCE*?!?!”

    But other times it really contradicts what you say in your last post. Like this one where you are commenting on evolution:

    “Evolution is a science where the data we have on it is up for scrutiny and testing. It has been tested and proven to be accurate.”

    This one is a little ripper too:

    “Using scientific theories is the *only* way of knowing the truth”.

    And you can’t tell me that your new definition of the word is what you meant when you said:

    “It’s your complete ignorance over science that is disturbing.

    So really, it is clear that you are just trying to put up smokescreens with those kinds of jibes.

    BY THE WAY, YOU STILL HAVE NOT GIVEN A SINGLE SCRAP OF EVIDENCE FOR YOUR BELIEF THAT “EDUCATION BRINGS PEACE”.

    I am sure that if you had some you would certainly give it, because it was YOU THAT SAID:

    “Why *would* we accept something as truth without evidence, anyhow?”

    Why indeed, Mushy Ted. Why indeed.

  59. on 20 Jan 2007 at 10:07 am 59.Mushinronjya said …

    “Mushy Ted said:

    “I fail to see how that makes any sense whatsoever”.

    Therein lies the problem.”

    Correct. If you made sense, I would understand.

    “And secondly, because you are now trying to apply a different definition to the word “science” than you previously went to great lengths to expand on when you said:”

    No, I did not.
    You’re just confused and upset that your imaginary friend has no room within the confines of logic and reasoning. You’re playing with words as best as you can, and it’s failing.

    ” BY THE WAY, YOU STILL HAVE NOT GIVEN A SINGLE SCRAP OF EVIDENCE FOR YOUR BELIEF THAT “EDUCATION BRINGS PEACE”.”

    You’re an idiot. I’ve already explained it at greath lengths. You have given no valid argument at all in your post. You attempted to state that I have defined science incorrectly, and I have not. All you have accomplished is that you have admitted your confusion over what science is and you have no idea why we need to use it to discover the Universe around us.

    I don’t know why you feel that I need to give more reason why I stated that education brings peace. Wait, I think I do. I think that maybe the education I bring to the table would destroy all that you hold dear. You don’t want to admit that what you believe in is the very pain of our societies. Your religion is evil, and for you to accept what I’ve said, will cause conflict within that pea brain of yours.

  60. on 20 Jan 2007 at 3:45 pm 60.Loi P said …

    I just wanted to point out that I think Atheism would help people very much:
    Atheists are more likely to stay married. (http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/CrimeAnd
    Divorce.shtml)
    Atheists are less likely to commit murder, be sexually promiscuous, commit suicide, have an abortion, get pregnant as a teen, get infected with STDs etc., etc.
    Religion is actively hurting our nation. The following study comments that “belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.”
    Look at England, despite having a population mostly made up of Agnostics and Atheists (more Agnostics than Atheists) they’re doing a great deal better than we (America) are.
    (http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2006/06/religious
    -people-less-intelligent.html)
    Atheists and Agnostics have higher IQs.
    (http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/religious_peopl
    .html)
    After truly thinking about it I have come to the conclusion that the world probably would be better off with religion. Note that I say “religion” and not a “belief in God”. I do not believe that the belief in God is harmful, especially when compared to the harms of religion. I believe for two major reasons:
    In my 2nd source they mention that Deists (The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation, definition from http://www.dictionary.com) also have a disproportionately high percentage of intelligent people.
    I also happen to know a few deists who seem to conduct themselves in an intelligent, kindly manner.
    I believe that we would live in a better world if everyone were Atheists, Agnostics or Deists. I have provided you with the reasons I believe this but it is up to you to decide.

  61. on 20 Jan 2007 at 5:18 pm 61.Mattstarrs said …

    Mushy said:

    “I don’t know why you feel that I need to give more reason why I stated that education brings peace.”

    Although it is clear as day to anybody that can read, I will say again just to prove that you have no right to continue your ill founded assertations.

    You yourself said that:

    “Why *would* we accept something as truth without evidence, anyhow?”

    You have put forward a theory that underpins your worldview. You said that:

    “Education brings peace”./i>

    I have challenged yourself and all other readers if they can supply any evidence for this belief. So far none has been produced. Yet you still cling to this belief as a fact. You give all kinds of reasoning, but it is debatable reasoning. It is not solid evidence. You even stoop as low as to claim it as “common sense” . . . but still no evidence.

    There are three really important reasons for us to establish whether or not you are willing to accept that you may be wrong in some points.

    Firstly, there is no point debating a person that cannot admit that they may have something left to learn.

    Secondly, you have clearly stated through your various references to science the rules you desire for attaining and accepting knowledge. If you yourself do not follow these rules you are not maintaining enough integrity for us to consider you a valid source of reliable information. By your own standards you are simply making things up as you go, and believing they are true just because you said so.

    Thirdly, your arguments against Christianity, religion and God all fall in a heap because the rules that you refuse to obey are the very ones that you apply when dismissing the beliefs of others. In other words, you say we have imaginary friends because we have not given you scientific evidence for our beliefs. I say you have imaginary beliefs for the exact same reasons.

    I have reasons for my beliefs. I also have evidence. I have thousands of pieces of evidence. One of the first of these evidences came AFTER I became a Christian. I was 19 years old and raised an atheist. When I was 12 I broke my arm at the elbow and had a pin put in and my arm was set in a cast for 6 weeks.

    When I was 17 I tried to join the army. I was rejected on the grounds that I had a 15% permanent disability. I only had about 30 degrees of movement in that elbow. A couple of weeks after I became a Christian a friend was in my home teaching me from the bible. We talked about the idea of God healing people. I said to him “if this is true you can pray for me and I will be healed”. He said “that’s right”. He prayed for me and my arm straightened completely. 7 years after it was crippled.

    Now I came to this site because I think it is in interesting question “Why won’t God healy amputees”. And although I too have never seen an amputee healed I am not convinced that God won’t, nor that he has not healed amputees.

    I have personally seen a crippled woman who had not stood or walked for 10 years get up and run in Indonesia. I have seen a 48 year old man born deaf get completely healed in India. His whole village witnessed this miracle and verified that he was born deaf. I saw an old blind man in a refugee camp in Burma have his sight completely restored. News of this miracle got to General Bo Mya, the late President of the Karen Union, who knew that the man had been blind and he invited me to speak to his KNLA troops behind enemy lines in Burma.

    I have seen hundreds of miracles that you could not explain away, including cancerous tumours vanishing before the eyes of hundreds of witnesses in Brazil.

    So here I am arguing about arguing with a blind man. Yes – a blind man. Because there is none so blind as those that say “I can see”.

    But you have only thoughts and theories.

    I have evidence. Thousands of pieces of evidence BESIDES the healings I mentioned.

    The thing you fail to see is that God says clearly in His Word that He is a God that Hides Himself. He says that these things are kept hidden from the wise and made known to the simple. He says that no man comes unless the Father draws him.

    You are like Thomas that said “show me the evidence and I will believe”. Only Thomas was genuine. You are already militant in your unbelief.

    Jesus said “Blessed are those that believe without seeing”.

    Not because they were naive enough to believe anything, but because faith is a gift from God. You don’t get it from your parents. You don’t get it through reasoning or any human endeavour.

    The funny thing is, once you belong to Him the evidence comes continually.

  62. on 20 Jan 2007 at 6:20 pm 62.Loi P said …

    I would like to correct my last post. I would like everyone to be Atheist, Agnostic, Deist, Secular or a part of the Left-Hand Path (a group of religions which encourage free-thinking outside of religious teachings).

  63. on 20 Jan 2007 at 7:15 pm 63.Mushinronjya said …

    Mattstarss said:
    ““Why *would* we accept something as truth without evidence, anyhow?”

    You have put forward a theory that underpins your worldview. You said that:

    “Education brings peace”./i>”

    Right, and I explained how education brings peace.
    People murder in the name of their god all the time.
    Through education, through learning that gods are not real via learning how to use logic and reasoning, we will lessen, even eliminate religious violence.

    You seem to struggle with this. I think it has to do with the fact that you don’t think it’s true. Yet, it’s common sense that it’s true. One only need to look at the world to see that if we rid ourselves of imaginary friends in the religious department, we avoid many, many killings of others.

    It’s not a belief.
    It’s common sense. Logic. You figure it out. If people kill because of their gods, and we show them that there are no gods.. guess what? Yea, you get it now? If you still require proof for common sense, you’re an idiot.

    “He said “that’s right”. He prayed for me and my arm straightened completely. 7 years after it was crippled.”

    There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a god had anything to do with your arm being fixed. Did you know that the body is capable of many things?
    Do you know any amputees that got their arms back?

    You can’t say that because someone talked to an imaginary being, that that’s why your arm is better. That is just *YOU* trying to make the link… when there is none.

    There has to be a god to give credit to.
    There is no indication that there is a god at all.
    Therefore, for you to give credit to one is irrational.

    “I have seen hundreds of miracles that you could not explain away, including cancerous tumours vanishing before the eyes of hundreds of witnesses in Brazil.”

    Doesn’t mean it has anything to do with a god of any kind.

    Telling us about healings is not evidence.
    Stories about healings is not evidence.
    You don’t know what objective evidence is.
    You don’t know that it’s required in order to substantiate a belief.
    Therefore, you are not equipped to debate properly.

    Your “word” also says to kill all those that don’t believe.
    Would you kill an atheist if you heard of one near you?

    Evidence comes when you believe, I know.. a gullible, irrational kind of evidence, that is.

    You are not any different than any other xian. Just because you have stories to tell us, doesn’t mean you have anything new to offer.

  64. on 20 Jan 2007 at 7:21 pm 64.Mushinronjya said …

    Mattstarss said:
    ““Why *would* we accept something as truth without evidence, anyhow?”

    You have put forward a theory that underpins your worldview. You said that:

    “Education brings peace”./i>”

    Right, and I explained how education brings peace.
    People murder in the name of their god all the time.
    Through education, through learning that gods are not real via learning how to use logic and reasoning, we will lessen, even eliminate religious violence.

    You seem to struggle with this. I think it has to do with the fact that you don’t think it’s true. Yet, it’s common sense that it’s true. One only need to look at the world to see that if we rid ourselves of imaginary friends in the religious department, we avoid many, many killings of others.

    It’s not a belief.
    It’s common sense. Logic. You figure it out. If people kill because of their gods, and we show them that there are no gods.. guess what? Yea, you get it now? If you still require proof for common sense, you’re an idiot.

  65. on 20 Jan 2007 at 7:21 pm 65.Mushinronjya said …

    continued…

    “He said “that’s right”. He prayed for me and my arm straightened completely. 7 years after it was crippled.”

    There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a god had anything to do with your arm being fixed. Did you know that the body is capable of many things?
    Do you know any amputees that got their arms back?

    You can’t say that because someone talked to an imaginary being, that that’s why your arm is better. That is just *YOU* trying to make the link… when there is none.

    There has to be a god to give credit to.
    There is no indication that there is a god at all.
    Therefore, for you to give credit to one is irrational.

    “I have seen hundreds of miracles that you could not explain away, including cancerous tumours vanishing before the eyes of hundreds of witnesses in Brazil.”

    Doesn’t mean it has anything to do with a god of any kind.

    Telling us about healings is not evidence.
    Stories about healings is not evidence.
    You don’t know what objective evidence is.
    You don’t know that it’s required in order to substantiate a belief.
    Therefore, you are not equipped to debate properly.

    Your “word” also says to kill all those that don’t believe.
    Would you kill an atheist if you heard of one near you?

    Evidence comes when you believe, I know.. a gullible, irrational kind of evidence, that is.

    You are not any different than any other xian.

  66. on 20 Jan 2007 at 7:22 pm 66.Mushinronjya said …

    There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a god had anything to do with your arm being fixed. Did you know that the body is capable of many things?
    Do you know any amputees that got their arms back?

    You can’t say that because someone talked to an imaginary being, that that’s why your arm is better. That is just *YOU* trying to make the link… when there is none.

    There has to be a god to give credit to.
    There is no indication that there is a god at all.
    Therefore, for you to give credit to one is irrational.

    “I have seen hundreds of miracles that you could not explain away, including cancerous tumours vanishing before the eyes of hundreds of witnesses in Brazil.”

    Doesn’t mean it has anything to do with a god of any kind.

  67. on 20 Jan 2007 at 7:22 pm 67.Mushinronjya said …

    “He said “that’s right”. He prayed for me and my arm straightened completely. 7 years after it was crippled.”

    There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a god had anything to do with your arm being fixed. Did you know that the body is capable of many things?
    Do you know any amputees that got their arms back?

    You can’t say that because someone talked to an imaginary being, that that’s why your arm is better. That is just *YOU* trying to make the link… when there is none.

    There has to be a god to give credit to.
    There is no indication that there is a god at all.
    Therefore, for you to give credit to one is irrational.

  68. on 20 Jan 2007 at 8:33 pm 68.Loi P said …

    Why in the world was my last post in italics?
    Besides that, I would like to respond to your post, Mattstarrs. I will skip your first few paragraphs which I agree with and get right down to it.

    I have reasons for my beliefs. I also have evidence. I have thousands of pieces of evidence. One of the first of these evidences came AFTER I became a Christian. I was 19 years old and raised an atheist. When I was 12 I broke my arm at the elbow and had a pin put in and my arm was set in a cast for 6 weeks.

    When I was 17 I tried to join the army. I was rejected on the grounds that I had a 15% permanent disability. I only had about 30 degrees of movement in that elbow. A couple of weeks after I became a Christian a friend were in my home teaching me from the bible. We talked about the idea of God healing people. I said to him “if this is true you can pray for me and I will be healed”. He said “that’s right”. He prayed for me and my arm straightened completely. 7 years after it was crippled.

    I wouldn’t say that that’s evidence for God existence. On the topic, “Religious now, atheist before” Hellbore said “…what I have read from atheist-turned-Christians has gone something like this; ‘I was an atheist for many years, but after having a few problems I asked God to prove if he was actually there or not and he did! Now I’m a Christian.’
    “Problem being that no-one who was actually an atheist would ask questions of God. This would suggest you already had a lingering belief that God, at least, might exist.” (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.php?topic=4151.0)
    This is not where my argument ends so keep reading.
    There was a test run on a school. It contained 40 “Developmental Assets”. These assets were things like “family support”, “neighborhood boundaries” and “positive peer relationships”. The results were that children with more assets were less likely to partake in risky behavior (examples- drugs, promiscuity, shoplifting, etc., etc.), more likely to do well in school and happier in general than children who had less. (http://www.search-institute.org/assets/)
    What does this have to do with what we’re talking about? One of the Developmental Assets was “self-esteem”. Self-esteem is “1. A realistic respect for or favorable impression of oneself; self-respect.” Note the connection between self-esteem and doing well in school. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self-esteem)
    Let’s get back to your story, you were asking God because you already had a belief in him (reread: Hellbore’s comment). You ultimately had the impression (Note how the word impression appears in both this sentence and the definition of self-esteem.) that God was going to heal you. The kid who has self-esteem is more likely to succeed in school while you with your belief that God was going to heal you were successful in healing yourself.
    Here’s the argument in a nutshell:
    1) You were praying to God.
    2) The fact that you were praying to God meant that you had some faith in him already. (Hellbore’s comment.)
    3) Children who have a better impression of themselves are less likely to engage in risky behavior, more likely to do well in school and are happier in general.
    4) You had an impression that God would help you.
    5) Like the child who does better in school because he believes in himself (3) you’re body healed because it believed that God was helping it.

    Now I came to this site because I think it is in interesting question “Why won’t God heal amputees”. And although I too have never seen an amputee healed I am not convinced that God won’t, or that he has not healed amputees.

    I would like to see your evidence for God healing an amputee.

    I have personally seen a crippled woman who had not stood or walked for 10 years get up and run in Indonesia. I have seen a 48 year old man born deaf get completely healed in India. His whole village witnessed this miracle and verified that he was born deaf.

    Somebody probably told the village to say that.

    I saw an old blind man in a refugee camp in Burma have his sight completely restored. News of this miracle got to General Bo Mya, the late President of the Karen Union, who knew that the man had been blind and he invited me to speak to his KNLA troops behind enemy lines in Burma.

    I have seen hundreds of miracles that you could not explain away, including cancerous tumors vanishing before the eyes of hundreds of witnesses in Brazil.

    Did you see this tumor vanish away or did somebody else? Because if somebody else saw it I’ve already explained the probable reason.

    So here I am arguing about arguing with a blind man. Yes – a blind man. Because there is none as blind as those that say “I can see”.

    But you have only thoughts and theories.

    I have evidence. Thousands of pieces of evidence BESIDES the healings I mentioned.

    The thing you fail to see is that God says clearly in His Word that He is a God that Hides Himself. He says that these things are kept hidden from the wise and made known to the simple. He says that no man comes unless the Father draws him.

    This has already been explained on http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com. Read the following comment from Marshall Brain (author of this website) for my response:
    “…God seems to have no problem doing things that are obvious. Think about the Bible. Writing the Bible and having billions of copies published all over the world is obvious. So is parting the Red Sea. So is carving the Ten Commandments on stone tables. So is sending your son to earth and having him perform dozens of recorded miracles.” (http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god5.htm)

    You are like Thomas that said “show me the evidence and I will believe”. Only Thomas was genuine. You are already militant in your unbelief.

    Why would an Atheist be militant in his/her unbelief? What comforting delusion could Atheists derive from their beliefs? We have to deal with the fear of “Pascal’s Wager”, the fear of death, anger at the world for constantly lying to us (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.php
    ?topic=3646.0)but more than all of that we have to deal with reality, the truth that we are alone. That no one will ever truly understand, unconditionally love us, that no one will protect us, that everything that happens to us is caused by us and that once Mom and Pop are gone, they’re gone. No fairy tales of a cloudy place where all our loved ones will be waiting for us, no supernatural being that loves and protects us.
    In one of the scenes from Donnie Darko (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246578/)
    Roberta Sparrow, an old woman (101 years old to be exact) who goes by the name “Grandma Death” whispers into Donnie Darko’s ear “Everyone dies alone.” When theists die they believe that they’re going to meet God and all they’re loved ones but when an Atheist dies, he knows that he will face Grandma Death’s truth. As Vexen Crabtree once said “This eternal truth is more meaningful and potent than deceitful symbols of life, reincarnation or other spiritual pipe dreams.” (http://www.vexen.co.uk/life/death.html)
    Sorry about that, I launched into a rant. Anyway, the following link explains why people believe in religion (yes he does mention the death reason that I just went into a rant about): http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/religdes
    .htm
    This article is Atheist speaking about why he became an Atheist. He mentions some reasons he thinks other people believe. I believe after reading this article you will see that the process one goes through to become an Atheist is much more logical than the “epiphanies” and “feelings” of Christians: http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/why_become
    .html

    Jesus said “Blessed are those that believe without seeing”.

    In other words, “Ignorance is bliss”?

    Not because they were naive enough to believe anything, but because faith is a gift from God. You don’t get it from your parents. You don’t get it through reasoning or any human endeavor.

    In other words, it’s not my choice about whether I go to hell or not it’s God’s? You’re argument is much like the “God’s Will” argument. Marshall Brain has already dealt with this, see: http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/video3.htm

    The funny thing is, once you belong to Him the evidence comes continually.

    That is why there are so many Christians turned Atheist. See the “Former Christians” section in the forum (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.
    php?board=14.0). If you are even thinking of using the never-been-saved argument just read the following comment from human “’All dogs are green,’ the deluded person insists. ‘No, my dog isn’t green’, you say. ‘Then your dog isn’t really a dog,’ they answer.’” Also read hellbore’s comment “For those of you who claim to know the minds of others, I have news. You are arrogant and deluded. Don’t ever tell anyone else what they believed or felt. You risk making yourself look foolish.” (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.
    php?topic=4334.0)

  69. on 20 Jan 2007 at 10:21 pm 69.Mattstarrs said …

    I’m not sure why you posted the same junk over and over. Perhaps you think if we read it enough it will make sense. Well I tried that but it didn’t help. It is still apparent that you are dodging the issue.

    You also said that:

    “Your “word” also says to kill all those that don’t believe.
    Would you kill an atheist if you heard of one near you?”

    Firstly, where in my “word” does it say that?

    Find one place in the bible that Christians are told to kill anyone. It doesn’t exist.

    You are either making a gross mistake or telling a lie.

    Secondly, you ask if I would kill an atheist. Of course I would not. There is nowhere in the bible that Christians are told to kill anyone. The Jews of the Old Testament were given specific commands of when someone ought to be killed, but atheism is not listed among them. In fact I have known personally Christians (well at least one, anyway) that was killed by an atheist for his beliefs but I have not even heard of a single example of an atheist that was killed by a Christian because of his unbelief. There may be cases out there, but I have never heard of any.

    Around 100 000 Christians every year are murdered for their faith. These crimes range from honour killings by Muslims in Pakistan to Schoolgirls getting shot in the face at Columbine High by a deranged atheist for giving the wrong answer to the question “Do you believe in God?”.

    Most of the atrocities you would blame Christians for in history were committed on religious people, and very commonly other Christians. Not targeting unbelievers at all. The perpetrators of those crimes were usually easily identifiable as wolves in sheeps clothing. They were Christian in name only, usually for political expediency.

    Your arguments are pretty pathetic Ted. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, and have no interest in finding out.

  70. on 21 Jan 2007 at 6:22 am 70.Mattstarrs said …

    Mushy Ted said:

    He prayed for me and my arm straightened completely. 7 years after it was crippled.”

    There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a god had anything to do with your arm being fixed. Did you know that the body is capable of many things?”

    Sure. It was just a coincidence. 7 years of being crippled. A doctors report that said it was a permanent disability. A prayer to an “imaginary friend”. And the arm is healed. Sure thing Mushy. Just a coincidence. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

  71. on 21 Jan 2007 at 11:33 am 71.Mushinronjya said …

    “Sure. It was just a coincidence. 7 years of being crippled. A doctors report that said it was a permanent disability. A prayer to an “imaginary friend”. And the arm is healed. Sure thing Mushy. Just a coincidence. Whatever helps you sleep at night.”

    Sorry, the body is capable of doing many things.
    You have to have evidence that it was from a god.
    How do you know your arm just didn’t do it on its own?
    How do you know Peter Pan didn’t do it?

    It’s called logic and reasoning, use it sometime.

  72. on 21 Jan 2007 at 2:48 pm 72.Mattstarrs said …

    Logic and reasoning says that you are blind.

  73. on 21 Jan 2007 at 3:00 pm 73.Loi P said …

    “Around 100 000 Christians every year are murdered for their faith. These crimes range from honour killings by Muslims in Pakistan to Schoolgirls getting shot in the face at Columbine High by a deranged atheist for giving the wrong answer to the question “Do you believe in God?”.”
    Sir, that is hear-say.
    “In the aftermath of the Columbine High School tragedy, a story came out about Cassie Bernall, a young woman who allegedly professed her belief in God in the moments before she was shot dead. Hailed a modern-day martyr by Christian groups and the media, detectives revealed months later that she may never have had such an exchange with her killer. Bernall’s parents responded to the news with a statement:
    ‘Our intent was to share Cassie’s story in an effort to encourage parents and teenagers. If any of our actions have hurt or offended anyone, we sincerely apologize.’”
    Please, next time you make a statement like that check the facts behind it.

    (http://www.amazon.com/She-Said-Yes-Misty-Bernall/dp/0874869870)

  74. on 21 Jan 2007 at 3:12 pm 74.Loi P said …

    I would also like to add that if the conversation did happen. It would mean that God had lied. Think: 91st Psalm, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2091&version=31

  75. on 21 Jan 2007 at 3:39 pm 75.Mushinronjya said …

    “Logic and reasoning says that you are blind.”

    Unless you can show this, then you’re just stomping your feet like an immature little boy.

  76. on 21 Jan 2007 at 3:40 pm 76.Mushinronjya said …

    You have to show this, otherwise you look foolish.

  77. on 21 Jan 2007 at 4:18 pm 77.Watcher said …

    Mattstars said: “…but I have not even heard of a single example of an atheist that was killed by a Christian because of his unbelief.

    Hey Matt, Read this article:

    http://www.parallelpac.org/murder.htm

  78. on 21 Jan 2007 at 8:10 pm 78.Mattstarrs said …

    Hi Watcher.

    Thanks for that. As I said:

    “In fact I have known personally Christians (well at least one, anyway) that was killed by an atheist for his beliefs but I have not even heard of a single example of an atheist that was killed by a Christian because of his unbelief. There may be cases out there, but I have never heard of any.”

    I am sure that there are other examples out there also of similar detestable acts.

    The account presented was an incredible depiction of humanity gone insane. (Although I expect certain aspects were highlighted or ommitted according to the authors individual perspective). There is no excuse for the behavior of either the assailant or his sympathisers. The judge seems to have made a good choice with his severe sentence.

    I have no doubt that the assailant suufered from a mental illness. His religion may have even been a contibuting factor in that illness, judging from his supporters. I don’t know. I don’t know any details of his beliefs other than that he believes in a ‘god’ and calls himself a ‘christian’ and his peers are pretty freaky too. You have to assume a lot to generalise his actions to all religious people or even all Christians.

    Thanks again for your input.

    Matthew Starrs.

  79. on 21 Jan 2007 at 8:45 pm 79.Mushinronjya said …

    Wow, great article.. I made it a blog on my site.

  80. on 21 Jan 2007 at 8:49 pm 80.Mushinronjya said …

    Mattstars says:
    “The account presented was an incredible depiction of humanity gone insane”

    Yes, well, when it’s a lot of people who are insane, it’s called religion. Otherwise it’s called psychotic, insanity. Religion itself is mass insanity.

    Those people were just following their religion. Do you know that your holy book says you should kill me? If you followed it like it says, you would do it, just like that guy did.

    It’s not “abnormal” behavior to kill someone because their book says so, that’s what their book says. It’s fundamentalism. You are just a failed fundamentalist if you don’t support what he did.

    “I have no doubt that the assailant suufered from a mental illness”

    Yes, it’s called religious belief.
    Fundamentalism.

    “His religion may have even been a contibuting factor in that illness, judging from his supporters.”

    His religious belief had everything to do with it.
    Did you not read the story?
    Read it again.
    If he didn’t believe in a god or was religious, he wouldn’t have done it. He actually believed that his chosen deity cared about him killing atheists, because his book tells him so.

  81. on 21 Jan 2007 at 9:42 pm 81.Watcher said …

    Mattstars said: “The account presented was an incredible depiction of humanity gone insane.”

    This is very true.

    It could even be said that it is the insane expression of a given belief, rather than the belief itself, which has caused most of the problems pertaining to religious barbarism through the ages.

    I say this, because in the hands of a sane humanitarian, that same belief might be used for beneficial purposes which could help to diminish human suffering and death.

    So to throw out a given belief because it has been used improperly would be like, and pardon the old cliché, like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

    Unfortunately, sometimes all we can do to stop such acts of insane behavior is to throw away the good with the bad until such time that humankind becomes responsible and sane enough to express itself in a more life-giving manner.

    Yet everything has its own season, or its own cycle of life and death, even that of arguing the existence of God. And so some things must continue to exist until its time has been fulfilled, to die out and possibly to be reborn again.

    All I am saying here is that even if the people at this site accomplish what they set out to do, and the world finally does becomes a place where no one at all believes in God, there will come a time when such belief will inevitably arise once again and become manifest in the world, this being the cyclic truth of life and death.

    So there are those who will try to hasten the life of one while killing off the other. Yet no matter what we do, each will have its own time, and each will be reborn once again should it be killed off, that is it will be reborn unless life itself has been totally destroyed in the process.

  82. on 21 Jan 2007 at 10:07 pm 82.Mattstarrs said …

    Hi again Loi P

    Sorry to takes so long to post back
    You must have got held up for moderation. Between that and pulling my hair out with Ted . . .

    I can see where you are coming from when you say:
    “Here’s the argument in a nutshell:
    1) You were praying to God.
    2) The fact that you were praying to God meant that you had some faith in him already. (Hellbore’s comment.)
    3) Children who have a better impression of themselves are less likely to engage in risky behavior, more likely to do well in school and are happier in general.
    4) You had an impression that God would help you.
    5) Like the child who does better in school because he believes in himself (3) you’re body healed because it believed that God was helping it.”

    You may be right. I don’t know. All I know is that my arm was crippled for 7 years. 4 years in to the disability a Doctor reported that it was permanent. After I was prayed for it was healed. Sure I have made assumptions about it, but I must acknowledge that your theory is not outside of the realms of possibility.

    Could you please explain further your point number 5 about how my body healed my calcified elbow joint because it believed that God was helping it. By that I mean the biological process that it underwent.

    You also said:
    “I would like to see your evidence for God healing an amputee.”

    I never professed to have any. I have never seen such a thing and have not been able to adequately verify any stories of such a thing happening.

    What I said was:
    “And although I too have never seen an amputee healed I am not convinced that God won’t, or that he has not healed amputees.”

    It’s the same as saying “I have never seen a man walk on the moon, but I am not convinced that a man can’t or never will walk on the moon.”

    I am not implying any evidence that a man can walk on the moon, I am just saying that I am not discounting the possibility.

    You asked:
    “Did you see this tumor vanish away or did somebody else? Because if somebody else saw it I’ve already explained the probable reason.”

    Actually there were several occasions on my last trip to Brazil where tumours vanished. One of them I did not see because it was in a girls nasal passage, but she did go to her scheduled appointment for surgery and they decided not to operate because there was no longer any sign of the tumour. One of them I saw vanish. It was a lump about 3 inches by one inch on a ladies collar bone. It vanished when I touched it. One of them was like a large goiter protruding out the side of a womans neck. I blew down her throat through her mouth and when I finished it was gone. My interpreter who had never seen a miracle, and as a good Baptist was taught that miracles no longer happen, nearly fell over with shock when she saw what happened. There were several hundred people present in that meeting in a town hall, including several prominent local politicians that were not Christians that witnessed this event. I only saw the “before and after” as I could not see the protrusion while I was blowing, but the witnesses say it went down like a ballon over a few seconds while I was blowing.

    BTW, I always encourage people to go to their Doctors to verify their healing. Of course they can’t explain what has happened. They can only say what the condition was before and what it is now. They often are left perplexed by what they see. I admit that there are cases where people only believe they are healed and in fact they are not, but there are many inexplicable events that occur. Of course, I believe that I have an explanation.

    You also said:
    “I have seen a 48 year old man born deaf get completely healed in India. His whole village witnessed this miracle and verified that he was born deaf.

    Somebody probably told the village to say that.”

    That is an interesting speculation.
    I cannot prove that this did not occur but I think it highly unlikely.

    The village in question is in a region near Orrissa which is a strong RSS Hindu stronghold and Christians are severely persecuted there. In fact we had a poor attendance at that meeting because the last Christian gathering in that village was broken up when about a hundred young Hindu militants beat the Christians at a baptismal service and forced them to leave the town. There was no Christian organisation in that village.

    Like you, I can only speculate, but I was there.

    You said that:
    “This has already been explained on http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com. “

    You can have an explanation that is either:
    a) true in all situations
    b) true in some situations
    c) may be true, but we cannot tell for sure, or
    d) not true at all.

    Most of the explanations that I have read on this site would fall into the b) and c) categories. Just giving a theory or an explanation a name does not make it more plausable.

    You also asked:
    ” What comforting delusion could Atheists derive from their beliefs?”

    Firstly, let me say thankyou for tolerating my assertion that atheism is a belief system.

    To answer the question, by denying the existence of a God that requires justice, the atheist is relieved of the eternal consequence of the things for which they are responsible. That’s the first thing that comes to mind, but I am not suggesting that anyone consciously goes “Hmmm . . . I shouldn’t have done that bad thing. No-one saw me do it, but if I am a theist God will get me later so I better be an atheist”.

    I do think that it may be a subconcious factor, but i don’t have enough to write a book on, that’s for sure. I do however think that you made a good list of the emotional and psychological benefits of believing (even if you think the belief in God is false) and I congratulate you on your ability to see things from a different perspective. It makes me take you seriously. I think a lot of people “believe” because they want the comfort they get from those kind of thoughts. I don’t think that this is sufficient to claim to be a Christian though. Jesus said “if anyone wants to be my disciple, let him take up his cross and follow me”. The prognosis is pretty grim.

    You said:

    “I believe after reading this article you will see that the process one goes through to become an Atheist is much more logical than the “epiphanies” and “feelings” of Christians:”

    Actually, I already think that the process that one goes through to become an atheiest is much more logical than the “epiphanies” and “feelings” of Christians. However, I think that there is excellent logic in good theology that surpasses both that employed by atheists and some of the nonsense we all endure in the name of religion.

    And finally to your post on the Columbine Story, you say:

    “Please, next time you make a statement like that check the facts behind it.”

    I do apologise for reporting information that may in fact be hearsay.

    I have read printed articles and seen televised reports to that end. I have never seen anything to the contrary until now. Thank you for alerting me to this.

    I should point out however that what you cited was merely one of many reviews of a book written by her mother. Many of the other reviews available on the Amazon site that you referred to said quite the opposite. Like this one:

    “YA-It would be hard to find anyone in the U.S., teen or adult, who does not know what happened at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO, on April 20, 1999. This biography was written by the mother of Cassie Bernall, who was shot by one of the two teen gunmen after answering yes to the question, “Do you believe in God?” A touching foreword by author Madeleine L’Engle sets the tone of the book. Cassie is a very real teen, one who had been as deeply troubled as her killers, but who managed to work her way through it. She had dabbled in “black arts,” exchanged letters with a friend about “murdering” a teacher, and loved the shock rock group Marilyn Manson. Once aware of her problems, her parents contacted the authorities, restricted her movements, and closely monitored her friends and activities. Miraculously, a weekend retreat with a church group and newfound friends turned her life around. The story is told through many of her writings and letters, so readers begin to feel as though they know this girl, and understand her. It is a poignant story that will touch teens and leave them wondering if they would have the inner strength and bravery that Cassie showed at her death. Carol DeAngelo, Kings Park Library, Burke, VA
    Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc.”

    or this one:

    “In the sad and overwhelming story of Columbine High School in Littleton, CO, there was an unlikely moment of religious courage that caught much of the nation’s attention: Cassie Bernall’s refusal, under threat of death, to deny her belief in God. This short account of Cassie’s brief life by her mother seriously takes up the question of the meaning of her death. In it we find a typical adolescentAfinding and shedding the wrong friends, quarreling with her family, and responding to her inner dedication to Christianity. Her mother’s book is remarkably balanced and restrained: “Before she was a martyr, she was a teen.” This book will beAdeservedlyAin high demand. For most collections.
    Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc.”

    or this one:

    “USA Today
    “Cassie Bernall is a modern-day martyr . . . her last words have developed a life of their own.”

    I have Googled a few different combinations trying to find the claim made at the start of the Amazon.com and I can’t find anything on the web. It does seem to go against the trend. How did you verify the claim? I am sure you did, because you told me:

    “Please, next time you make a statement like that check the facts behind it.”

    I really am genuinely interested.

    Also the review said that:

    “detectives revealed months later that she may never have had such an exchange with her killer.”

    I noted that the word “may” is used. This means that they are not saying that it never happened, just that there is some reason for them to doubt it. I wonder what evidence they turned up “months” later that could have brought the alleged exchange into question.

    The parents response is not really an admission of guilt either. It could be portrayed that way, but I would like to read an original transcript.

    The example was merely anecdotal in my argument however, and the argument still stands without that particular case in point.

    I also took an article in another thread for granted (about a christian going nuts and killing an atheist). I hope that one checks out (actually I hope it’s not true. Did you read it? As we say in Australia . . . only in America!). It could be hearsay for all I know too.

    I am sure that we all occasionally make similar blunders.

  83. on 21 Jan 2007 at 10:17 pm 83.Mattstarrs said …

    Thanks Watcher,
    When you said:
    It could even be said that it is the insane expression of a given belief, rather than the belief itself, which has caused most of the problems pertaining to religious barbarism through the ages.

    I say this, because in the hands of a sane humanitarian, that same belief might be used for beneficial purposes which could help to diminish human suffering and death.

    So to throw out a given belief because it has been used improperly would be like, and pardon the old cliché, like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

    I thought . . . that’s exactly what I would have wanted to say.

  84. on 22 Jan 2007 at 9:47 am 84.Mushinronjya said …

    Watcher said:
    “So to throw out a given belief because it has been used improperly would be like, and pardon the old cliché, like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.”

    The belief is delusional, and hurts us as a species, that’s why it need to be tossed out. There may seem to be some benefits that come from it, but it’s overall bad for us.

    To assert that theism will “rise again” if it’s destroyed is speculation at best.

  85. on 22 Jan 2007 at 10:49 am 85.Watcher said …

    I’m not so sure it is speculation at best, Mushinronja.

    Consider the many religions that have died out, only to resurface later but in a different form, the idea here being that people often come to realize that there is something greater than themselves, and that something is responsible for what transpires in the universe.

    Then there’s the idea that religion adapts and evolves over time, and depending upon the regions and the people who live in those regions, there often arises a set of ‘standards’ to define God as well as a way to best understand and interact with God.

    Then there’s the fact of life, death, and rebirth, something which is not limited solely to plant and/or animal life, but to concepts and ideas as well.

    So saying theism will rise again if it is destroyed is not really speculative in nature. Rather, it is a rational and logical statement based upon observed phenomenon that has pretty much already occurred across the board.

    So rather than being speculative, it is more of a prediction based upon what has already transpired, this being part of what defines the scientific method.

  86. on 22 Jan 2007 at 11:48 am 86.Watcher said …

    Mushinronja,
    You also said: “The belief is delusional, and hurts us as a species, that’s why it need to be tossed out. There may seem to be some benefits that come from it, but it’s overall bad for us.

    There are many beliefs out there that are considered to be delusional and bad for us, and not just the belief in God. And yet people will persist in maintaining their beliefs, even if it kills them.

    But isn’t it their own choice to have that belief?

    Do not take this as an affront, but what gives you the right to tell others what they should or should not believe?

    Let me say this in a different way.

    Another old cliché is “One man’s meat is another man’s poison.”

    So if one man believes something that is meat to him but poison to you, what gives you the right to take his meat away while telling him not to eat it?

    I would think you would be satisfied with not eating it yourself, rather than telling everyone else that it is poison.

    After all, it is only poison to you and those like you, but it may not act as a poison to everyone else, and in fact it may even be essential for their own survival.

  87. on 22 Jan 2007 at 3:03 pm 87.Mushinronjya said …

    “Consider the many religions that have died out, only to resurface later but in a different form, the idea here being that people often come to realize that there is something greater than themselves, and that something is responsible for what transpires in the universe.”

    Please be a bit more accurate. It’s not that people “realize” that there is something “greater than themselves”, it’s that they, without proper logic being applied, conscientiously decide that there “should” be something to that effect existing.

    Let’s also note that “greater than themselves” really doesn’t define anything specific. The word “greater” is relative to each individual. Therefore, to use a relative word to define something said to exist in the world is not really giving us any information whatsoever about said thing. This hints to us that the thing in question is completely an emotional construct, due to what the user wants to feel or think. This does not give us knowledge of “realization”, this gives the person, due to the lack of proper application of logic and reasoning, a delusional belief.

    “Then there’s the fact of life, death, and rebirth, something which is not limited solely to plant and/or animal life, but to concepts and ideas as well.”

    Ok, I’m not sure where you’re going with this, or what that’s supposed to mean in relation to what we are discussing, but concepts and ideas rely upon the functionality of a brain; which is largely regarded as the ‘mind’… which can die, which thus loses such things as concepts and ideas (unless you write them down!). :)

    “So saying theism will rise again if it is destroyed is not really speculative in nature. Rather, it is a rational and logical statement based upon observed phenomenon that has pretty much already occurred across the board.”

    I still disagree. I think, with enough education and common sense brought to our children at a young age and through the education of society itself, we can greatly reduce or even eliminate religion. If people choose to later to keep religion going, that is of their own accord. I feel that it will never be as grand as it is today, and they will be referred to as insane or kinda crazy if they did mention such things.

    There will come a time, I kid you not, when people will look back at those that have imaginary friends of today and earlier, and laugh and poke fun. We just have to get there. I know the time will exist, because delusion is a product of err.

    “So rather than being speculative, it is more of a prediction based upon what has already transpired, this being part of what defines the scientific method.”

    We haven’t gotten to a point where religion has been destroyed yet, so…

  88. on 22 Jan 2007 at 3:15 pm 88.Watcher said …

    Mushinronja said:“There will come a time, I kid you not, when people will look back at those that have imaginary friends of today and earlier, and laugh and poke fun. We just have to get there. I know the time will exist, because delusion is a product of err.”

    It’s nice to see you have faith in something that does not (yet) exist.

    Still, it could be that this idea you have is also delusional, in that it may never come to pass or be realized as a truth.

    But I bet you still feel it’s nice to think about.

  89. on 22 Jan 2007 at 3:19 pm 89.Mushinronjya said …

    “There are many beliefs out there that are considered to be delusional and bad for us, and not just the belief in God. And yet people will persist in maintaining their beliefs, even if it kills them.”

    That’s sort of like the smoker saying: “Many things can kill us, smoking is just one of them”, as he continues to smoke…

    “But isn’t it their own choice to have that belief?”

    Technically speaking, belief isn’t a conscious choice.
    Although they have the freedom of such, people aren’t necessarily “free” to believe in anything they want, since that’s dependent on their brain and what it decides is necessary to allot them such a beliefk.

    And although one has freedom *to* believe, that doesn’t mean they should, nor does it mean it’s not hurting mankind by doing so, just because it was a freedom of theirs.

    “Do not take this as an affront, but what gives you the right to tell others what they should or should not believe?”

    By whether it hurts us as a species or not, that’s how.

    “After all, it is only poison to you and those like you, but it may not act as a poison to everyone else, and in fact it may even be essential for their own survival.”

    No, it would therefore, in the reality of religion, be poison to us all as a species, not just to one person. And no, theistic religion is not essential for anyone’s survival.

  90. on 22 Jan 2007 at 3:21 pm 90.Mushinronjya said …

    “I know the time will exist, because delusion is a product of err.”

    It’s nice to see you have faith in something that does not (yet) exist.”

    It’s not faith, it’s really a prediction based on the fact that we are continually learning and educating ourselves. We are becoming less and less religious it seems, mind you, so I’m going off merely on that.

    I do not use faith in any way. I have reasoning.

    “Still, it could be that this idea you have is also delusional, in that it may never come to pass or be realized as a truth.”

    Backed by logic and reasoning, it is not delusional. We merely need to educate the public on how to think more as time goes on. By taking action now, we can make it sooner instead of later, thus avoiding more violence if possible.

  91. on 22 Jan 2007 at 3:26 pm 91.Mattstarrs said …

    Watcher said:
    “Mushinronja said:“There will come a time, I kid you not, when people will look back at those that have imaginary friends of today and earlier, and laugh and poke fun. We just have to get there. I know the time will exist, because delusion is a product of err.”

    It’s nice to see you have faith in something that does not (yet) exist.

    Still, it could be that this idea you have is also delusional, in that it may never come to pass or be realized as a truth.

    But I bet you still feel it’s nice to think about.”

    Oh boy. here comes the tantrum. this is where we all get to see how irrational and hypocritical Mushy is when he responds.

  92. on 22 Jan 2007 at 3:31 pm 92.Mushinronjya said …

    “Oh boy. here comes the tantrum. this is where we all get to see how irrational and hypocritical Mushy is when he responds.”

    Unfortunately you won’t see that, because I am not irrational when I post, nor hypocritical in any way.

    It’s funny how only theists seem to assert that I am, and not any atheists here on the board… might want to think about that one…

  93. on 22 Jan 2007 at 4:20 pm 93.Mattstarrs said …

    Hmmm . . . could be selective reading:

    Loi P said:
    “Besides that, I would like to respond to your post, Mattstarrs. I will skip your first few paragraphs which I agree with and get right down to it.”

    And what were those paragraphs? Let me remind you. Here is a cut and paste of my post up to the point where Loi P began to express disagreement:

    “Mushy said:

    “I don’t know why you feel that I need to give more reason why I stated that education brings peace.”

    Although it is clear as day to anybody that can read, I will say again just to prove that you have no right to continue your ill founded assertations.

    You yourself said that:

    “Why *would* we accept something as truth without evidence, anyhow?”

    You have put forward a theory that underpins your worldview. You said that:

    “Education brings peace”./i>

    I have challenged yourself and all other readers if they can supply any evidence for this belief. So far none has been produced. Yet you still cling to this belief as a fact. You give all kinds of reasoning, but it is debatable reasoning. It is not solid evidence. You even stoop as low as to claim it as “common sense” . . . but still no evidence.

    There are three really important reasons for us to establish whether or not you are willing to accept that you may be wrong in some points.

    Firstly, there is no point debating a person that cannot admit that they may have something left to learn.

    Secondly, you have clearly stated through your various references to science the rules you desire for attaining and accepting knowledge. If you yourself do not follow these rules you are not maintaining enough integrity for us to consider you a valid source of reliable information. By your own standards you are simply making things up as you go, and believing they are true just because you said so.

    Thirdly, your arguments against Christianity, religion and God all fall in a heap because the rules that you refuse to obey are the very ones that you apply when dismissing the beliefs of others. In other words, you say we have imaginary friends because we have not given you scientific evidence for our beliefs. I say you have imaginary beliefs for the exact same reasons.”

    All talk and no listen makes Ted a dull boy!

  94. on 22 Jan 2007 at 4:48 pm 94.Mushinronjya said …

    “Secondly, you have clearly stated through your various references to science the rules you desire for attaining and accepting knowledge. If you yourself do not follow these rules you are not maintaining enough integrity for us to consider you a valid source of reliable information”

    I really am tired of this.
    My assertion does not entail the expression of a said thing existing in the universe, much like your mythology, which requires evidence of which you’re asking for.
    My assertion is based on common sense, of which I have explained thoroughly for you and the audience. If you fail to acknowledge this, which I’m sure you will, then that’s your problem.

    I don’t see *anyone atheist* pointing out an error in what I’ve said in this regard. If they did, they’d make a bit more sense than you, I’d gather though.

  95. on 22 Jan 2007 at 5:05 pm 95.Mattstarrs said …

    With apologies to Loi P who has not given endorsement for me to say so, but . . .

    1) You said:

    “Unfortunately you won’t see that, because I am not irrational when I post, nor hypocritical in any way.

    It’s funny how only theists seem to assert that I am, and not any atheists here on the board… might want to think about that one…”

    2) I showed you where Loi P did express agreement with my assertations in regard to you.

    3) You responded with more justification (whether it is good or bad justification is irelevant) of your previous discourse

    4) You failed to acknowledge that a fellow atheist has indeed asserted an agreement with the original premise, that you are irrational and hypocritical.

    I am not suggesting in any way that Loi P supports or agrees with anything else that I have said. If she wanted to she would tell you herself.

    Again, my apologies to Loi P for taking the liberties that I have taken.

  96. on 22 Jan 2007 at 5:19 pm 96.Watcher said …

    Mushinronja,
    I apologize for saying that you have faith in something that does not yet exist.

    However if faith is defined by what is said Hebrews 11:1, then it appears you are hoping for something to occur (i.e A world where no one believes in God), with the conviction that it will happen via the application of education, eventhough there is no evidence to date that the application of education can accomplish such a world-wide goal.

    Granted, it will occur here and there with certain individuals or groups of individuals, but to think education will create a world where no one at all believes in God also borders on the delusional.

    I do not say this to mock you, nor do I imply that you should give up your quest. Rather I say it as a matter of fact due to human behavior, and more specifically, it is due to resistance against forced changes.

    The bottom line is that even though we might have all the knowledge at our disposal to disprove every single point and nuance of religion, there will always be those who will choose to believe despite all that evidence, simply because they are being forced to accept it as truth.

    It is the nature of man that makes such a task highly improbable, because when a man holds fast to what he believes, then no power on earth will be able to sway him away from that belief.

    Case and Point: Look at believers and non-believers.
    Look at you and look at me.

    How many believers have been swayed into becoming non believers through the centuries?

    And how many non-believers have become believers?

    Seems like this ‘war’ has been going on since the beginning of recorded history, and still no real progress has been made, other than there are a lot more believers than there are non-believers.

    Ever hear of the man who wanted to drain the ocean with a spoon?

    Seems pretty futile if you ask me…and thus such an act could be considered as being insane or delusional because of the underlying futility of that task.

    Do you really believe all persons will become non-believers via the application of education?

    Doesn’t this seem like a futile and insurmountable task?

    Yet by maintaining your belief that the world can and will soon be full of non-believers, you are expressing faith in something that is currently unrealistic and fantastic.

    There is simply no real proof or evidence that it ever will come to pass, nor is there any evidence that such a state of being ever existed at all.

    And eventhough you can provide us with a few anecdotes and stories that indicate world-wide non-belief may come to pass, and although you believe it would be great if everyone was a non-believer, can’t you see that you are expressing faith, hope, and trust in something that does not at all exist? (i.e a world of non-believers)

    Deny that you have faith and belief all you wish, but it is not really a bad thing to have and express these attributes of human behavior.

  97. on 22 Jan 2007 at 5:53 pm 97.Mushinronjya said …

    “2) I showed you where Loi P did express agreement with my assertations in regard to you.”

    He did not specify exactly what he agreed with you about, sorry. He did not present anything to me.

    This hardly helps you.

    “4) You failed to acknowledge that a fellow atheist has indeed asserted an agreement with the original premise, that you are irrational and hypocritical.”

    Show me where I was told to be irrational *and* hypocritical by said person, and exactly what was said?

    So far I only see wishful ramblings from you.

  98. on 22 Jan 2007 at 8:35 pm 98.Mushinronjya said …

    Watcher said:
    “Granted, it will occur here and there with certain individuals or groups of individuals, but to think education will create a world where no one at all believes in God also borders on the delusional.”

    Well, maybe not everyone perhaps, but the majority. And with the current course of the world, it’s not so far off to see this happening. We all know that with proper and correct thinking, atheism prevails.

    “there will always be those who will choose to believe despite all that evidence, simply because they are being forced to accept it as truth.”

    They will only believe without evidence *because* they don’t know how to arrive at the truth, not because they were simply “told” it was the truth.

    And if they said they believed, even when they know they are wrong, then they are lying.

    “Do you really believe all persons will become non-believers via the application of education?”

    Quite a many of them, yes. Through time of course, eventually, but the sooner we push it, the sooner it gets done.

    “Doesn’t this seem like a futile and insurmountable task?”

    No, it is a necessary task.
    For the survival and happiness of our species, we must.

    “Yet by maintaining your belief that the world can and will soon be full of non-believers, you are expressing faith in something that is currently unrealistic and fantastic.”

    It’s more like forecasted knowledge, not belief. Beliefs are unfounded, my assertion that through education we can create a world of mostly atheists instead of theists is backed by the steady decline in religious persons that are already occurring.

    “Deny that you have faith and belief all you wish, but it is not really a bad thing to have and express these attributes of human behavior.”

    I go by logic and reasoning.

  99. on 22 Jan 2007 at 9:02 pm 99.mattstarrs said …

    Loi P is female. Are you being ignorant, offensive or both? It’s hard to tell with you because so many of your posts contain nothing but ignorance and offence.

  100. on 22 Jan 2007 at 9:26 pm 100.Mushinronjya said …

    I didn’t know that he was a she. How would I know? People are referred to as a he until otherwise known.

    No, my posts contain a lot more than offensiveness, but you ignore that part because it conflicts with your imaginary friend.

    And none of my posts entail ignorance – that would be from posts like yours, trying to tell us you know there is a god because your arm is better – idiot.

  101. on 22 Jan 2007 at 9:56 pm 101.Watcher said …

    Mushinronja,
    Thank you for making the point I stated earlier which was: “when a man holds fast to what he believes, then no power on earth will be able to sway him away from that belief.”

    As you have proven by your many posts here, there is nothing I or anyone else could say that will sway you from what you believe must be. And similarly, there is little you can say that will sway others away from what they believe, as is also proven the preponderance of their posts.

    Again, all this discussion is nothing more than a lesson in futility, as neither side will budge an inch from what they believe.

    What, therefore, is there left for us to do?

    One answer is to simply learn to live together, allowing others to think and believe as they will, letting time sort it all out in the end.

  102. on 22 Jan 2007 at 10:00 pm 102.mattstarrs said …

    1. You referred to Loi P as a he = ignorance.
    Therefore:
    “And none of my posts entail ignorance” is a false statement.

    2. I offered the story about my arm as an interesting case in point. A small piece of evidence among thousands of pieces of evidence that I find supportive of my assumptions. To say that I am:

    “trying to tell us you know there is a god because your arm is better”

    is a gross misrepresentation of what I have said.

    At least I do you the courtesy of quoting what you actually said when demonstrating the holes in your arguments.

    3. And where does this rule come from:

    “People are referred to as a he until otherwise known.”

    Is that what they taught you at your community college?

    I was taught in my academic studies that sexist language was offensive and should be avoided.

    I tend to agree with that.

    Loi P pointed out that she was female so you are ignorant.

    You assumed that she was a he because she is very articulate and intelligent, and your sexist preconceptions are not conditioned to associate those things with femininity.

    Once more, the hallmark of Mushy Teds communications: Ignorance and offensiveness.

  103. on 22 Jan 2007 at 10:38 pm 103.Mushinronjya said …

    Watcher said:
    “As you have proven by your many posts here, there is nothing I or anyone else could say that will sway you from what you believe must be.”

    And what is it that I said that I can’t be swayed from, specifically? You need to be specific in what you state.

    That’s kind of a low debate tactic, what you said above – without addressing what it is you’re referring to. If you’re not going to carry on the debate, don’t stop and say: “ahh told you so!”.

    “What, therefore, is there left for us to do?”

    …to actually continue a debate and finish it.
    You, however, have stopped.
    You didn’t address anything I’ve said. You’ve merely made an unfounded assertion that I will “not change my mind”. Change my mind about what, praytel?

  104. on 22 Jan 2007 at 10:42 pm 104.Mushinronjya said …

    “1. You referred to Loi P as a he = ignorance.”

    Um, hardly. I just said people refer to others as a “he”. It’s not ignorance in the context of which you’re attempting to apply it, you little shit.

    “2. I offered the story about my arm as an interesting case in point. A small piece of evidence among thousands of pieces of evidence that I find supportive of my assumptions.”

    It’s not even evidence of any god in any way whatsoever. For you to think it is shows how ready you are to draw the line from reality to fiction, without requiring a shred of evidence.

    ““People are referred to as a he until otherwise known.”

    Is that what they taught you at your community college?”

    That’s the way people generally handle situations, especially here online. Deal with it and stop lying about the obvious.

    “Loi P pointed out that she was female so you are ignorant.”

    Not to me you little shit.

    “You assumed that she was a he because she is very articulate and intelligent, and your sexist preconceptions are not conditioned to associate those things with femininity.”

    I told you why I did. Now you’re looking like an ass by trying to tell me why I did something. Nice pop psychology attempt.

    You’re wrong, you lose.

    “Once more, the hallmark of Mushy Teds communications: Ignorance and offensiveness.”

    I’ll take the offensive part.
    But the ignorance part you’re on your own there. I’m far from that.

    I’m not the one with imaginary friends here, now am I?

    hrmmm?

  105. on 22 Jan 2007 at 11:15 pm 105.Watcher said …

    I didn’t think this needed to be said, Mushinronja, as I pegged you to be a thinker and a discerner of what’s going on. Nevertheless, I will tell you because you have asked.

    You have not changed your mind about making non-believers out of believers via the use of applied education.

    In other words, you seem to resist what others tell you, always having a reason which is opposed to what others say.

    This is the resistance I spoke of earlier.

    Similarly, there will always be those who will resist what you try to tell them, simply because it goes against what they already believe.

    Hence, it is often futile to try and change the belief structures of others, unless they are willing participants.

    So in order to help others change their mind about their beliefs, they first have to WANT to change their beliefs, otherwise it’s often a no go.

    Does this help to clear it up a bit?

  106. on 23 Jan 2007 at 12:25 am 106.Mushinronjya said …

    “You have not changed your mind about making non-believers out of believers via the use of applied education.”

    No, why would I? Theism is bad for our species. I can list a few ways why, if you’d like. It’s not healthy to promote delusion. So why would I be wrong about that? You have to show me I’m wrong, not just say I should “seem like I would change my mind”. Just because I come across as type A doesn’t mean I have no content or argument.

    “In other words, you seem to resist what others tell you, always having a reason which is opposed to what others say.”

    Hah, that doesn’t mean that I don’t take what other people say into consideration! Of course I do! But do you *really* think that what you and that matt guy are saying to me are things I haven’t heard before? Just because I respond back to your posts quickly, you’re going to say that I don’t understand what you’ve said? Don’t mistaken someone who knows what they’re talking about for someone that doesn’t listen. That’s a grave mistake to make in a debate.

    “Similarly, there will always be those who will resist what you try to tell them, simply because it goes against what they already believe.”

    I will believe in anything, in a god tomorrow if you will, if one shows to exist. I’m willing to change my mind about anything if I’m shown to be wrong. But you have to *show* me I’m wrong, not just “say” I am wrong. Do you understand? Now we’re back to the part where I remind you that you have not responded to my earlier posts to you, you’ve stopped responding to content and started reacting to how you think I come across to you and others. That’s not part of the debate.

    “So in order to help others change their mind about their beliefs, they first have to WANT to change their beliefs, otherwise it’s often a no go.”

    No, it’s not about wanting to change one’s beliefs. It’s about one knowing how to think, and being able to come to the conclusion, logically, that they are wrong. People don’t “want” to change their beliefs, except where they want to be right, like I do.

    Does *THIS* help to clear it up a bit for YOU?

  107. on 23 Jan 2007 at 9:53 am 107.Watcher said …

    Mushinronja,
    Yes it did clear it up. In fact, what you said totally reinforces what I have been trying to say.

    I guess to put it even more simply, is that both parties in a debate believe they are the one’s who are right while the other is wrong.

    However, what I am trying to convey is not about being right or wrong, but more about being tolerant of one another to the point whereby we can live together in peace, without having to change the thought patterns of the other.

    I do not know where you live on this planet, but here in the U.S. we initially created a constitition whereby folks can pretty much believe what they want without fear of supression, oppression, or persecution.

    We have the inalienable right to believe what we want to believe, whether right or wrong, good or bad, or even real or unreal. And it seems that folks like you would see that inalienable right taken away and replaced with your own brand of rights, just as does an oppressive dictator.

    So I’m merely trying to help educate you in this concept, but it appears you do not want to learn about it, proving once again that people must WANT to learn what is taught before they will accept what is taught, and before they will come to think in the same manner as what is taught.

    So if you truly want to be right, then you will have to accept the idea that people have the right to think as they will think, as well as believe what they will believe, good or bad, right or wrong, or real or unreal.

    So, do you “get it” yet?

  108. on 23 Jan 2007 at 1:17 pm 108.Mushinronjya said …

    “Yes it did clear it up. In fact, what you said totally reinforces what I have been trying to say.”

    Sorry, it has not.

    “I guess to put it even more simply, is that both parties in a debate believe they are the one’s who are right while the other is wrong.”

    You have to show that someone is wrong, not just tell them that they should think they are wrong. That’s not logical. Take Matts for example, he says that he thinks his arm getting better is evidence for a god, or that prayer works. This is illogical, but since he’s not thinking logically, he doesn’t know that. Had I been in his position, and been thinking logically about it, I would have changed my mind. Then again, if I was logical to begin with, I wouldn’t believe in imaginary friends.

    I live by logic and reason. If you want me to think I’m wrong, show me I’m wrong. If you want me to say that I think i can be wrong, I will freely admit to that, sure. I can be. But before you try to go further and say I am, you have to show it. But when you give up on the debate like you have, you don’t get anywhere.

    “However, what I am trying to convey is not about being right or wrong, but more about being tolerant of one another”

    Yes, you’re sitting on the fence.
    I’ve had enough discussion with fence-sitters for awhile. You accomplish nothing, except to further the course of religion by telling others they should just leave other people alone. This helps nothing. This stops us from discussing the truth and questioning theists’ beliefs.

    “we can live together in peace, without having to change the thought patterns of the other”

    Is that what you think they did on 9/11?

    Sorry, but your wishful thinking about living in a world of delusion and reality together doesn’t work too well, as we’ve seen all throughout history, and even currently.

    But you go ahead and tell me I am not willing to think or listen, if it makes you feel better. I am, and I have, and that’s why I have the position I do – because I think just a bit more about yourself on how to come to a logical resolution to religious violence in this world.

    I don’t sit on the fence.

    “We have the inalienable right to believe what we want to believe, whether right or wrong, good or bad, or even real or unreal. And it seems that folks like you would see that inalienable right taken away and replaced with your own brand of rights, just as does an oppressive dictator.”

    I never said anything about taking away someone’s right to believe in whatever. However, I will tell them that their belief in Peter Pan is silly, and attempt to educate them properly. No dictator here. You’re being extreme with no foundation. You’re being ridiculous.

    “So I’m merely trying to help educate you in this concept, ”

    You are the one being educated.

    “proving once again that people must WANT to learn what is taught before they will accept what is taugh”

    Give me something to learn other than the promotion of fence sitting, which accomplishes nothing.

    *You* think you are right, and that you have the answers, and because I don’t agree with your wishful carebear ideas that don’t benefit the world, that therefore I’m not thinking or understanding. However, it is you that feels you are right without question.

    I have given solid reasoning for why we need to do away with delusion. You have given nothing but an idea that we all can “live together peacefully”, when reality is slapping you in the face, meantime, showing you that your way has never worked and never will.

    You don’t get it yet, fence sitter, but I’m here to school you.

  109. on 23 Jan 2007 at 2:54 pm 109.Watcher said …

    Well, this has gotten nowhere fast…
    Anyone else think they can get through?

    Mushinronja,
    To me, having a debate as to whether or not God exists is irrelevant and futile. I simply don’t go there anymore.

    However, I do see the merit in having a debate as to whether or not one has the right to believe as they see fit.

    I guess it’s just a matter of taste.

    However, if you require evidence that a greater intelligence exists, one that permeates the entire universe, then try reading up on the works of James Maxwell, Michael Faraday, Max Plank, Albert Einstein, and Nicholas Gisin just to name a few.

    Basically they all say the same thing: “That there exists thoughout all of space and time, a type of intelligent energy that currently defies all known conventional methods of detection, but is nonetheless present.

    Better yet, if you aren’t into doing all that research, you could spend $18.00 and buy a book or two that summates what all these scientists and more have discovered, such as Gregg Braden’s “The Divine Marix”, which is one of the most recent releases in the area of quantum physicis which presents the information in terms easily understood by the lay person.

    Other than that, I guess I’m done with beating my head against the wall, so I will bid you adeiu.

  110. on 23 Jan 2007 at 2:56 pm 110.Watcher said …

    Make that the “The Divine Matrix”

  111. on 23 Jan 2007 at 3:32 pm 111.Loi P said …

    “However, if you require evidence that a greater intelligence exists, one that permeates the entire universe, then try reading up on the works of James Maxwell, Michael Faraday, Max Plank, Albert Einstein, and Nicholas Gisin just to name a few.”
    Please tell me you were joking when you said Albert Einstein.
    “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
    -Albert Einstein
    For more Atheist quotes by Albert Einstein see:
    http://atheisme.ca/citations/cit_en_Einstein.html

  112. on 23 Jan 2007 at 3:39 pm 112.Mattstarrs said …

    No Watcher.

    No one can get through.

    He is an atheist.

    A proud tradition of shutting out all opposing arguments without considering them.

  113. on 23 Jan 2007 at 4:02 pm 113.Mushinronjya said …

    “Well, this has gotten nowhere fast…
    Anyone else think they can get through?”

    Get through? You are promoting “tolerance”, but that doesn’t solve religious violence, now does it?

    “Mushinronja,
    To me, having a debate as to whether or not God exists is irrelevant and futile. I simply don’t go there anymore.”

    That’s fine. But it’s through this type of discourse that we will educate the masses, including our children.

    “However, I do see the merit in having a debate as to whether or not one has the right to believe as they see fit.”

    People have the right to believe in Peter Pan or that jumping off cliffs is ok, that doesn’t mean it’s beneficial to mankind.
    I concede the assertion that everyone has the right to be insane, but that doesn’t mean it’s “ok” and appropriate to be such.

    “However, if you require evidence that a greater intelligence exists, one that permeates the entire universe, then try reading up on the works of James Maxwell, Michael Faraday, Max Plank, Albert Einstein, and Nicholas Gisin just to name a few.”

    Really? What evidence do they give?

    And why did you list an atheist as someone to read? How does that help you?

    “Basically they all say the same thing: “That there exists thoughout all of space and time, a type of intelligent energy that currently defies all known conventional methods of detection, but is nonetheless present.”

    Arguing via authority will never give you evidence of a deity. You are posting in these forums, pretending to be an all-wise individual, even being condescending in some ways, and the best you’ve got… is… “this person says so”.

    Give us a break.

    “Other than that, I guess I’m done with beating my head against the wall, so I will bid you adeiu.”

    Your lame attempts at promoting fence sitting, then giving us the ‘ol arguing by authority fallacy, is never going to get you anywhere. So yes, you *are* beating yourself against the way.. because the people here think a bit too critically for such bs.

  114. on 23 Jan 2007 at 4:04 pm 114.Mushinronjya said …

    “No Watcher.

    No one can get through.

    He is an atheist.”

    Nope, you can’t feed an educated atheist BS and demand he conform, without backing it up with a good solid, logical foundation.

    “A proud tradition of shutting out all opposing arguments without considering them. ”

    This would be your kind.
    I’m willing to change my mind, given proper evidence via logic.
    You don’t even know how to use logic.

  115. on 24 Jan 2007 at 10:03 am 115.Watcher said …

    Loi P,
    I am well aware that Einstein was not a believer in a personal God, and I am also also aware of his reasons for making the statement he did.

    Yet in his own style, Einstein also said:
    Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust – we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.” – The Expanded Quotable Einstein, p. 204

    Please read again what I wrote, and note that I did not say “God”, but “a greater intelligence exists, one that permeates the entire universe”. Note also that I said ‘works’ and not ‘words’.

    By ‘works’, I mean the experiments and conclusions drawn from those experiments which each of the scientists and physicists I mentioned above performed, many of which were in the area of quantum physics, and they have been repeated time after time with the same results.

    Taken as a whole, the data indicate and confirm that there is a conscious intelligence responsible for all that is. However, none of them call this conscious intelligence “God”.

    Again, if you want the details, details which are too extensive to present in a short post on a blog, I would suggest picking up any number of books on the subject.

    I mentioned “The Divine Matrix” (www.greggbraden.com) simply because I am currently reading this particular work.

    It won’t break you or kill you to read it, and you might even find it as fascinating as I do, not because it indicates “God” exists, but because of the potential applications of the experimental findings.

    I will, however, leave you with a quote from Physicist Max Plank, as well as the author:

    “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Max Plank, 1944

    Max said this because of the results he obtained through scientific investigation and experimentation, and those experiments are mentioned in this book.

    And this quote, taken from the last page of the Introduction to “The Divine Matrix”, is very similar to the principle Mushinronja has stated:

    “The key to surviving our time in history is to create a new way of thinking while we’re still living in the conditions that threaten our existence.”

    Granted the title of the book may make you shy away from reading it, but I can assure you that its well referenced contents will most likely support your own position.

    So other than a few bucks and a couple of hours, what have you got to lose by reading it?

  116. on 24 Jan 2007 at 10:05 am 116.Watcher said …

    Sorry, I hit the submit button before checking all the codes.

  117. on 24 Jan 2007 at 10:15 am 117.Mushinronjya said …

    Watcher said:
    “Please read again what I wrote, and note that I did not say “God”, but “a greater intelligence exists, one that permeates the entire universe”. Note also that I said ‘works’ and not ‘words’.”

    Einstein didn’t believe in a “greater intelligence” either, my friend.

    “Taken as a whole, the data indicate and confirm that there is a conscious intelligence responsible for all that is. However, none of them call this conscious intelligence “God”.”

    What data says that a “conscious intelligence” is responsible for “all that its”? Or are you just saying “taken as a whole” so you can end with: “you’ll have to read it all”. Sorry, that doesn’t quite work. Nothing “taken as a whole” will show that such exists. You either have evidence to back it up, or you have subjectiveness, which I think is what you’re referring to.

    We aren’t here to make subjective opinions about what does or doesn’t exist. We are here to get to the truth.

    “Again, if you want the details, details which are too extensive to present in a short post on a blog, I would suggest picking up any number of books on the subject.”

    Ahh.. just as I thought.
    No, thanks. I already know you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    ““All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind.”

    You can keep giving quotes, it doesn’t help the validation of any such being.

  118. on 24 Jan 2007 at 10:35 am 118.Watcher said …

    The validation, Mushinronja, (can I call you Mush for short?) is found through objective experimentation and accurately drawn conclusions via the use of logic.

    In short, what was said is based on objective data, NOT subjective data.

    So if you would like to know the objective data of those experiments and their logical conclusions, then read the book, as there is way too much to post in a short blog.

    Other than that, I will leave you with this bit of “ammo” quoted by Søren Kierkgaard (1813-1855), philosopher:

    ” There are always two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

    So if you are into seeking out the truth, then spend a few bucks and read the book. Then you can argue with those who are actually doing the science.

  119. on 24 Jan 2007 at 10:45 am 119.Mushinronjya said …

    “The validation, Mushinronja, (can I call you Mush for short?) is found through objective experimentation and accurately drawn conclusions via the use of logic.”

    You are going to prove a god exists using logic alone? No evidence? I’d love to see this. Please, do so.

    “In short, what was said is based on objective data, NOT subjective data.

    So if you would like to know the objective data of those experiments and their logical conclusions, then read the book, as there is way too much to post in a short blog.”

    What objective data is that?
    Why is it too long to post?
    Do you *really* think you need to post their entire works?

    I’ll tell you why you need to post their entire works.
    Because you feel it, taken as a whole, is evidence of a god. However, due to your vagueness of the content, and your “taken as a whole”, it’s easy to conclude that you’re referring to a subjective assessment, and not a reference to objective data that really *is* evidence of a god.

    And by telling people: “Oh, you just need to read *all* of those works!”, you’re attempting to just shield yourself from having to actually explain your rather ridiculous statement.

    “So if you are into seeking out the truth, then spend a few bucks and read the book. Then you can argue with those who are actually doing the science.”

    Well, I know I won’t get it from you at least, since you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about.

  120. on 24 Jan 2007 at 11:33 am 120.Watcher said …

    Mush,
    The best I can do is summarize the experiments and the data, and I am not too sure how much detail to present.

    However, even this bit of work will take up a few hours of my time, and I feel it may be time wasted simply because you seem to find any excuse at all for trashing whatever is presented.

    Therefore, unless you agree to pay me my going rate for researching and writing out that summation, you will have to buy and read the book yourself, which I can assure you will be a lot cheaper.

    Suffice it to say, experiments have been done utilizing quantum methods the gained data of which reveals beyond a shadow of doubt that a Mind, a Consciousness, an Intellect, an Intelligence, or whatever term you wish to use, exists and that it is the ‘source’ of all that exists.

    Could it be that you are afraid to read this book?

    Or is it more likely that because you already have your mind made up that you won’t even consider it as being an authentic, reliable, or credible source?

    You said that we are here to discover the truth.

    And I am offering a source where you can read up on scientific evidence of a truth.

    Are you that skeptical or lazy that you won’t even do this one thing for yourself? Do you really have to be spoon fed by others?

    Still, if you want to pay me for doing the work, then we can work through Paypal and I will spend a few hours doing the research and typing it all up to place on this blog.

    I may even have to contact all the involved authors of the work so I won’t infringe on any copyright laws, so it may take even more time.

    My current rate is in direct proportion to how much I make per hour at my job, which averages $125 per hour, and I estimate that it will take approximately four hours to do the research and type it all up, as well as a few days to a few weeks of getting the permission to post it.

    So, will that be by check or by credit card?

  121. on 24 Jan 2007 at 8:08 pm 121.Mushinronjya said …

    “However, even this bit of work will take up a few hours of my time, and I feel it may be time wasted simply because you seem to find any excuse at all for trashing whatever is presented”

    Just because all you and your buddy Matts have given me is crap, doesn’t mean that everything you give me is crap. When you give me crap, I tell you specifically why it’s crap, I don’t just say it’s crap for no reason whatsoever. You can count on my response to be backed up with good reasoning.

    You might surprise me and actually give me something that’s backed up by something more than just wishful thinking on your part.

    “Suffice it to say, experiments have been done utilizing quantum methods the gained data of which reveals beyond a shadow of doubt that a Mind, a Consciousness, an Intellect, an Intelligence, or whatever term you wish to use, exists and that it is the ’source’ of all that exists.”

    Bull.
    Shit.

    “Could it be that you are afraid to read this book?”

    Could it be that you’re full of crap?
    You don’t come onto a forum, make an assertion that a “book” backs up your assertion, and *then* say that you don’t have any information, that it’s all in the “book”.
    You’ll only get laughed at.

    You’re an idiot.
    You went from a person who tried to post like you are an all-wise individual sitting on the fence, and I have brought you down to a sniveling little “told you so, it’s in a book!” mentality. It didn’t take too long.

  122. on 24 Jan 2007 at 11:44 pm 122.Mushinronjya said …

    “However, even this bit of work will take up a few hours of my time, and I feel it may be time wasted simply because you seem to find any excuse at all for trashing whatever is presented.”

    That assumes that you already gave me objective evidence and logic to support your assertions. You have not. Until you can do this, then for you to say I won’t accept anything is pretty ridiculous, and just makes you look foolish.

    “Therefore, unless you agree to pay me my going rate for researching and writing out that summation, you will have to buy and read the book yourself, which I can assure you will be a lot cheaper.”

    You are a complete idiot. You don’t come into a debate, telling people you have evidence that there is a god, and then tell them you don’t know it, that we have to read some books.

    It’s a complete stalling tactic. You want to make an assertion and then get away with it. Instead of having to actually back up your assertion, you create this bs to try to avoid having to be responsible for the assertions you’ve said.

    You’ve went from someone who thinks they can promote fence sitting, into a sniveling little idiot that shows he has no idea what he’s talking about. It didn’t take me too long to get you into that position. Your colors shine bright now.

  123. on 29 Jan 2007 at 11:58 pm 123.enfant said …

    mushinronjya.

    do you believe in evolution?

  124. on 31 Jan 2007 at 1:00 am 124.Mushinronjya said …

    efant…

    Evolution isn’t something that requires belief.
    It is science.
    It is knowledge.

  125. on 03 Feb 2007 at 2:45 am 125.kahuna553 said …

    Where is the logic in your reasoning? You just repeat yourself over and over again. Being intelligent and logical you must ask yourself “If something has a design then there must have been a designer!” So where did man come from? Just by chance? Atheism has never been able to explain life and its origins. How does science explain the origins of life? Speculation and theory that’s all they have because they weren’t there and they can’t reproduce it in the lab. Of all the achievements that man has made he can still not duplicate the complexities of the hand. It is a great design by a great Designer. Happen by chance, I think not, that takes more faith to believe that than anyone can get from any religion.

  126. on 03 Feb 2007 at 2:48 am 126.kahuna553 said …

    Evolution is not sicence it is just theory!

  127. on 06 Feb 2007 at 4:22 am 127.kahuna553 said …

    This is for you Mushy O god of logic… Being the intelligent person that you claim to be I hope that you will be able to understand what I am about to write.

    All the knowledge that is taught in our schools, colleges and universities has been gained through our Five Senses. It is what they call “Sense Knowledge”. Everything that you have learned has come from your senses. Sight; Touch; Smell; Hearing; Taste.

    Few of us have realized that the great body of knowledge that has been accumulated through the ages has come to us through the Five Senses. The human body has really been the laboratory for the testing and investigation of all human activities.

    Every step in the fields of Chemistry, Mechanics, Metallurgy, Medical, Mental Sciences, and the Arts has come from this one common source.

    The Five Senses, the humbled, abused, Senses, are the five servants that have been conveying knowledge of every sort and kind to the brain for it to classify, number, and file away for future use.

    It is said that Mr. Edison experimented more than three thousand times with the incandescent lamp before he arrived. Each mechanical invention no matter how small or insignificant you might think it is has gone through a series of experimentations and developments before any of them where able to be used by mankind.

    This will cause you to see the painstaking, patient research work that men have done in order to give us what we have today in the fields of Mechanics, Medicine, Science and so on. We should pay tribute to the hard working men who have given us the benefits of their labor in their respective fields.

    The Five Senses -Sight; Touch; Smell; Hearing; Taste, are parents of all this knowledge. But they are not always reliable. The senses become impaired by accident, carelessness, overwork, or dissipation, so we cannot always depend on them. They are not absolutely true. Their findings are continually being revised. They have limitations. Yet, what great ministers they have been. We should not for one moment, criticize them. But we know what their limitations are.

    They cannot know the beginning of things. They can only speculate when they arrive at the last frontier of experimentation.

    They know nothing of:
    The Reason for Creation
    The Reason and Origin of Man
    The Origin of Life
    The Origin of Motion
    The Origin of Matter
    The Origin of Force

    Standing on the edge of the last frontier of their limitations, the mind is unsatisfied. It craves knowledge, and so, unconsciously, it becomes speculative. It begins to evolve theories. Reason has no data, no absolute facts on which it can build. It can only dream and theorize.

    Dr. Darwin stood out on the last frontier of human experimentation. He had reached the very limit. The Darwinian theory of Evolution was born out of his lack of knowledge of the reason of creation, the origin of matter, of light, of motion, of gravitation. Darwin’s Sense Knowledge could not find God, so he could not believe in God. Because Sense Knowledge cannot find God, it can see the handy work of God and can see the design in creation, but it cannot find the Designer. Sense Knowledge can only take you so far, and when you can’t find answers all that are left is speculation and theory.

    There is a second kind of knowledge; it is called “Revelation Knowledge” or “Spiritual Knowledge”.

    There seems to be a lot of inconsistency in men who refuse to admit anything beyond the range of Sense Knowledge. You say Christians are idiots who mindlessly follow an imaginary God but yet you limit yourselves by attacking and criticizing things that you have no knowledge or understand of.

    What do atheists believe? Nothing!

  128. on 06 Feb 2007 at 10:22 am 128.Mushinronjya said …

    Kahuna said:
    “Evolution is not sicence it is just theory!”

    You have a lot to learn about science, my friend.
    Theories are conclusions based on facts.
    Evolution is a science supported by overwelming data.

    You are using the word “theory” incorrectly.

    Please go read: “Evolution and the myth of creationism” by Tim M. Berra.

  129. on 09 Feb 2007 at 12:31 am 129.kahuna553 said …

    Hey Mushy, please read (The Lie – Evolution) by Ken Ham. Oh yea, I forgot, you only read what’s on the internet!

  130. on 09 Feb 2007 at 1:57 am 130.Mushinronjya said …

    “Hey Mushy, please read (The Lie – Evolution) by Ken Ham. Oh yea, I forgot, you only read what’s on the internet!”

    Why should I?
    How is it a lie?

    You are an idiot.
    You say over and over that evolution is a lie, yet you have nothing to back it up, except to refer us to a book. When I referred you to a book, I said more than that in addition. You’re just an idiot, looking for a way to avoid having to back up your assertions.

    You and matts make plenty of unsupported assertions.

    You’re our forum kickbags.

  131. on 09 Feb 2007 at 2:08 am 131.kahuna553 said …

    Hey Matt, you really need to read this. These are my questions and Mushy’s answers!

    1. Is the reason scientific theories change because scientists don’t know everything?
    1. “we don’t know everything, that is correct.” Mushy, you should always start a sentence with a capital letter, Oh god of grammar.

    2. Will scientists ever know everything?
    2. “we will always be learning and obtaining new information. Whether we’ll know “everything”, who knows.. but nothing stops us from learning more, which is what science continues to do.” Again Mushy you use no capital.

    3. Will scientists always continue to find new evidence?
    3. “Of course.”

    Mushy, you have just stated in your answers that scientists can’t be sure about anything which means that scientists can’t be sure about evolution.
    That is very logical and I accept your answers as proof that evolution is a belief and not a fact. Evolution is a religion to which evolutionists are committed. Thanks Mushy!

    Hey Mushy, since you believe in evolution so strongly then I would guess that you also believe in aliens. As a matter of fact you have probably been abducted by aliens and have been anal probed!

    “You’re such an uneducated layman.” Another condescending remark from Mushy who is legend in his own mind. I noticed in your answers about scientists that you use the word “we” as if to suggest that you are a scientist. Give me a break oh delusional one. You are some computer geek who sits in a cubicle all day researching the great philosophies of Madeline Murray O’Hare. Oh that’s right, there aren’t any!

  132. on 09 Feb 2007 at 6:22 am 132.mattstarrs said …

    Mushy said “You’re our forum kickbags.”

    But the way I see it, it’s been just the three of us for ages. Who’s the one with imaginary friends?

  133. on 09 Feb 2007 at 9:25 am 133.Mushinronjya said …

    “Mushy, you have just stated in your answers that scientists can’t be sure about anything ”

    Wrong. We talked about knowing everything, not about “being sure of anything”. You’re an idiot.

    “which means that scientists can’t be sure about evolution”

    Wrong. We know evolution occurs. That’s why it is science. You’re an idiot, again.

    “That is very logical and I accept your answers as proof that evolution is a belief and not a fact.”

    It is science, not a belief.
    You’re an idiot.

    You play on words, as you did above. You said one thing (about not knowing everything), then later pretend you were talking about another thing (about not being sure of ‘anything’). You created a strawman.

    You’re a complete idiot.

    “I noticed in your answers about scientists that you use the word “we” as if to suggest that you are a scientist. ”

    We all are, to some degree. I suppose, minus you. You see, again, the word science means “to know”. The word “we” was used to signify us as a species, and what we know *from* the use of science.

    Your understanding of science is very, very elementary, if not absent altogether.

    “You are some computer geek who sits in a cubicle all day researching the great philosophies of Madeline Murray O’Hare. Oh that’s right, there aren’t any!”

    You spelled her name wrong.
    She did something great – helped to make our country more secular. That only benefits us all.

  134. on 09 Feb 2007 at 3:14 pm 134.mattstarrs said …

    Lets pretend we’re Mush Brain for a minute and answer like he does . . . and just write “you’re and idiot” after everything without giving a scrap of evidence to support our BELIEFS!

    Mushed Logic’s imaginary friends have been using us as a kick bag . . . . Ouch! My imaginary bruises are hurting from the imaginary points that Mushed Grammar has made!

    Really Mushy Wushy, you haven’t succeeded even ONCE in backing up a single one if your FALSE BELIEFS you FALSLEY call SCIENCE!

    I know why you won’t even consider the Ken Ham material. We all do. It’s because YOU KNOW THAT YOUR BELIEFS ARE WRONG and you are avoiding facing the truth! – YOU’RE A COMPLETE IDIOT!

  135. on 09 Feb 2007 at 4:38 pm 135.Mushinronjya said …

    I’m not the one with imaginary friends.

  136. on 10 Feb 2007 at 3:26 am 136.kahuna553 said …

    Mushy said:
    “Wrong. We talked about knowing everything, not about “being sure of anything”. You’re an idiot.”

    What a stupid comment; we can’t know everything but we can be sure of everything. That’s a contradiction in any language. Now who’s the idiot?

    “Wrong. We know evolution occurs. That’s why it is science. You’re an idiot, again.”

    Mushy, did you ever here the expression “It’s not an exact science.” That pertains to evolution, it’s not exact because it is only theory and theory is not science. Let me give you a definition of the word theory; Encarta Dictionary: theory (noun) an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture. I can’t say any plainer than that, that is what theory is moron!

    Kahuna said, “I noticed in your answers about scientists that you use the word “we” as if to suggest that you are a scientist.”
    Mushy said, “We all are, to some degree. I suppose, minus you. You see, again, the word science means “to know”. The word “we” was used to signify us as a species, and what we know *from* the use of science.”
    Definition of the word Scientist: Encarta Dictionary: scientist; (noun) somebody who has had a scientific training or who works in one of the sciences. I don’t see you fitting in there Mr. Mushy Scientist.

    Definition of the word Science: Encarta Dictionary: science (noun) the study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment. I don’t see where the definition of science means “to know”. Mushy where did you get your education? I know, you road the little yellow bus to school. Did they make you where a helmet also?

    Mushy said, “Madeline Murray O’Hare; She did something great – helped to make our country more secular. That only benefits us all.” You are so right mushy, since they took prayer out of school in the early sixties the teen pregnancy rate is up 200%, drugs have ravaged our schools, teen suicide up over 100% teens bringing guns to school and killing other innocent people has become an everyday occurrence, and let us not forget that the GPA in our high schools has dropped dramatically to where we are now ranked 14th in the world, violence against teachers is common place etc. and all statistics show that it began to change when prayer was taken out of our public schools. We owe madeline murray o’ hare a lot. By the way Mushy, what ever happened to old madeline, oh yea she was killed by one of her own people for her money, that’s a great atheist story!. Did you know that her one son is a Born Again Christian? He renounced everything she stood for!

  137. on 10 Feb 2007 at 8:34 am 137.mattstarrs said …

    Check it out Kahuna . . .

    Here are some quotes from Mushies Myspace site.

    They’re pretty good . . .

    “I didn’t lie, even though, well, I’m pretty good at lying . . .”
    - We already knew that.

    “The dude probably checked every orphus possible to see if there was anything on me . . .”
    - that one was funny ‘cos of the spelling and the homo-erotic repression thing.

    “. . . my car is a piece of shit and all dirty and stuff, because I’m too lazy to freakin wash the thing.”
    - I’m not surprised.

    But this is where it gets tasty!
    Remember how I said Mushy had a blog that was so sexist and bigoted on his Myspace and he denied it?

    He didn’t just deny it – he deleted it and then emphatically denied it ever existed. What a liar!

    Then later he said that he didn’t delete it, it just set it to private . . . remember that?

    Check out this quote . . .

    “I’ve wrote a blog on here about it before, but deleted it. . .”
    - Confessions of a pathological liar . . .

    So what was so controversial? Mushy says about Child Support:
    “I want to start by saying that in the past, I can see the sense of having child support. In the past, it was difficult to get an abortion, and they didn’t have the pill back then either. Perhaps also it was harder for women to get on birth control, I’m not sure.”
    - So if a woman gets pregnant and the guy doesn’t want to take responisibility for the child, Mushy Morals says that she should KILL the developing child!

    Unfortunately this new version is a much shorter, sanitised version, but it still shows what a sexist bigot Mushy is.

    The responses Mushy makes to others comments are good too. Here a couple of little rippers:

    ” . . . marriage itself shouldn’t mean that you will support children you have with her.”

    “I fail to see why her getting pregnant is at all the man’s problem.”

    “It’s just the way nature works that women are the ones that get pregnant. You can’t take it out on a guy by making him pay for 18 years.”

    Then there’s the self inflated egotism and his behaviour in traffic:

    “I was doing the speed limit! They were all scared, apparently. They aren’t used to driving in the ice and sludge. I, however, having years upon years of experience, knew exactly what to do!”
    – No risk of Ted having an accident. He’s in control! He can even stop for something unexpected on ice and sludge in the same distance that he can in the dry!

    Of course if he got pulled over for speeding it would have been by:
    “a pig with nothing better to do than look for “reckless” drivers ”
    – Yeah, they’re such spoilsports! Probably has nothing to do with saving people from idiots behind the wheel.

    Mushy says about driving in “ice and sludge”:
    “It’s weird to see people being so cautious.”

    Mushy has had a bit of bad luck with the police:
    “So I got a ticket for going 72 in a 60, on a *fucking* highway.”
    - Awww . . . .Poor widdle Mushy. That nasty powice man!

    Yep. Mushy thinks it’s just not fair because:
    “I’m a great driver. Great drivers with nothing on their record should be exempt from speeding tickets.”

    HAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Anyhow, the most fun is in his profile blurb:

    “If you can’t be honest and blunt with me, you’re wasting my time; because I’ll be honest and blunt with you.”

    I guess 1 out of 2 ain’t bad. He sure is blunt – nothing sharp about him – but there is no way anyone could call him honest!

    But the really funny thing is where he says:
    “(I) Hate when people don’t answer all questions asked in a conversation.”

    SO MUSHY . . .

    Where is your evidence for your rant that “Education brings peace”

    Or your reference to the earth being flat according to the bible?

    Or at least one point in which the bible is not accurate?

    AND WHO ARE THESE IMAGINARY FRIENDS OF YOURS THAT YOU KEEP REFERRING TO?

    BTW, how tall are you? I know your profile says 6 foot, but it also says your 99 years old (I note that you changed your DOB so it doesn’t say you’re 31 any more). I would say from your photos that your about 5 foot 6? Maybe 5’4″?

  138. on 10 Feb 2007 at 11:33 am 138.Mushinronjya said …

    matts..
    ok, you’re getting out of line by posting such crap to these forums. You need to grow up and realize what board you’re on, and how to act.

  139. on 10 Feb 2007 at 3:57 pm 139.mattstarrs said …

    Well you wanna rant and then refuse to comply with honest requests to either put up or shut up . . .

    SO MUSHY . . .

    Where is your evidence for your rant that “Education brings peace”

    Or your reference to the earth being flat according to the bible?

    Or at least one point in which the bible is not accurate?

    AND WHO ARE THESE IMAGINARY FRIENDS OF YOURS THAT YOU KEEP REFERRING TO?

  140. on 10 Feb 2007 at 7:14 pm 140.Mushinronjya said …

    I already responded to your questions.
    You just keep asking the same questions, over and over again, because you didn’t like my answers.

    You want to stomp your feet and say “no no!” like a little child, then when I don’t respond to your tantrum, you start posting immature posts on here, that are way off topic.

    You need to grow the fuck up.-

    And again, you’re the one with the imaginary friend you call a god, that you cannot defend.

  141. on 11 Feb 2007 at 1:02 am 141.kahuna553 said …

    Hey Matt, you really struck a cord with old Mushy. He doesn’t like the fact that you are quoting his myspace, he’s about ready to blow a gasket. Here is a lesson to you Mushy, if you don’t want to be quoted don’t write it down and shut the ____ up! Otherwise quit crying about your dirty little secrete being found out. I thought that it was really funny.
    Thanks Matt for your superb detective work!

  142. on 11 Feb 2007 at 1:15 am 142.mattstarrs said …

    C’mon Mushy. My point is that you HAVE NOT answered the questions. If you say you have just cut and paste your answers and if they are serious answers I will shut the F up.

    You offered the Burning Bush as one, but you totally distorted the story so that doesn’t count.

    You haven’t produced a biblical reference for a flat earth. The scripture you referred to said no such thing. You simply assumed that the author was thinking that, but that is neither the topic he was speaking about, nor do his words suggest such a thing.

    You gave your circular reasoning for your statement “education brings peace”. It was badly flawed. You said that if you educate people not to be religious there would be no violence. The list of mass murderers posted in “God murdering millions” proves you wrong. My challenge was for you to produce a single piece of evidence that supports your theory or else admit that this is your BELIEF, but you don’t want to admit that you have beliefs that you haven’t got supporting evidence for. I don’t think anybody with you believing that “Education brings peace”. There are plenty of worse things a person can believe. But the problem is that it highlights your hypocrisy on the subject of BELIEFS, EVIDENCE and SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.

    Finally, you have never even attempted to explain who these imaginary friends are that you keep referring to when you say things like “We use you for our kickbag”.

    So just this once, either answer the questions, or we will take it as an admission of your complete and utter ignorance in action, dodging questions that you have no answer for to avoid admitting defeat.

  143. on 11 Feb 2007 at 1:17 am 143.mattstarrs said …

    Sorry. Should have read:
    “I don’t think anybody would have a problem with you believing that “Education brings peace”.

  144. on 11 Feb 2007 at 3:44 am 144.Mushinronjya said …

    You kids have already been shown to come to the fight unarmed. I have no need to allow you to continue your immaturities as you refuse to accept reality. Now stop posting forum messages in the comments of this site.

  145. on 11 Feb 2007 at 6:26 am 145.mattstarrs said …

    Listen little boy,

    You have had your little spats, casting insults and obscenities, now you think you can act all condescending and tell others what they can do?

    Get a grip junior.

    You lost your right to influence my actions a long time ago.

    If you want to win back some credibility, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

    The only one who has come ill equiped is yourself.

    You have nothing – we know this from failure to produce the goods.

    You are nothing – we know this from your demonstrated character.

    We tolerate you like a Garbo tolerates the maggots in the bottom of a garbage can.

    I probably shouldn’t insult maggots that way. At least they don’t claim to be something they are not.

    You Ted Petersen are a complete LOSER!

    Go back to your fantasy Warcraft computer games. Your fantasies here are boring us all.

  146. on 11 Feb 2007 at 10:21 am 146.doc said …

    It seems as if the folks who own this site want to do away with the system of religion.

    However, I think the only system that needs to be done away with, is the one that teaches us we are somehow ‘better’ than someone else.

    For example, there are Atheists who have knowledge of science that believe themselves to be better than those who put thier faith and trust in God, just as there are those who have knowledge of God that believe themselves to be better than Atheists who put their faith and trust in science.

    Yet I was raised up in a church that taught us to not discriminate or have prejudices against one another: That we are all equal in this universe, and that we should endeavor to develop the understanding and discipline it takes to know and remember this as a truth.

    We all have a right to live, we all have roots that go back to the beginning of time itself, and we all have the right to persue whatever makes us joyous and happy.

    It is unfortunate, however, that many find their joy and happiness by exerting their influence and control over others, rather than being a servant to one another. Aand this is one of the many dichotomies the Bible reveals to us.

    The Bible shows us via the stories of death and oppression what happens when we try to forcefully exert our control over others.

    Likewise, it also shows us the unity and harmony created when we voluntarily express ourselves from the humble position of love, forgiveness, and servitude towards one another.

    In short, the Bible reveals that when we live by the sword of power and oppression, then we will die by that sword, just as it reveals that when we live by the plowshare of love, mercy, and forgiveness then we will reap a more abundant life.

    And so we are given, through the teachings of the Bible, a choice to live or to die. And the choice we make is often revealed and exposed by how we express ourselves towards one another, with some choosing to share the water of life while others choose to swing the axe or scythe of death.

    Thus it is said that we prove to the world who we are by what we do to one another, and we are judged and condemned by those actions as we live and breath.

    Therefore, choose peace that both may live, unless of course, one believes that death is more preferable than life.

  147. on 11 Feb 2007 at 12:44 pm 147.Mushinronjya said …

    doc says:
    “For example, there are Atheists who have knowledge of science that believe themselves to be better than those who put thier faith and trust in God”

    Well, “better” is relative, really.
    But as far as being on par with reality, atheism is, of course, the more sane position.

    “Therefore, choose peace that both may live, unless of course, one believes that death is more preferable than life.”

    Many people in the name of their religion. Fence-sitting is not an option, if we want to do away with religious violence. We must combat religion with reason, in hopes that we can one day be without it.

    Yes, your idea of sitting around and “tolerating” others might sound good at first glance, but it’s not realistic, because it will never become so. Theists will always try to spread their disease. It must be fought.

  148. on 11 Feb 2007 at 2:11 pm 148.kahuna553 said …

    Mushy said: “Yes, your idea of sitting around and “tolerating” others might sound good at first glance, but it’s not realistic, because it will never become so. Theists will always try to spread their disease. It must be fought.”

    Even when someone like Doc tries to be nice, Mushy still has to spew his hatred towards people of faith!

    Let me ask you some questions Mushy; what is it that you bring to humanity?

    The world is full of hurting people, starving children, rampant disease, wars, the politically oppressed etc.

    What is it that atheism does to help any of these causes?

    I have never seen or heard of a charity that is sponsored by atheists. Although there are thousands of religious organizations that help around the world!

    Just what is your contribution to the human race?

  149. on 11 Feb 2007 at 2:32 pm 149.doc said …

    It seems to me, then, that you will never understand what it means to “Love your Enemy.”

    You also do not seem to understand that peace is gained, not by fighting and eradicating an enemy, but by helping to express the higher path of their own beliefs by promoting the good in them instead of pointing out the bad.

    I do agree that reason is a useful tool, but it should not be used as a weapon of combat. Rather, it should be used for guidance and to stimulate inner reflection. So try beating it into a plowshare to pave a more peaceful path to your goal.

    Otherwise you’ll just end up looking like a bully who is playing “King of the Hill”, not realizing he is standing on a rather large pile of manure.

    If you want others to take you more seriously, rather than being ridiclued and laughed at, then you need to have more respect for those who choose to question what it is you are trying to say, and how you are saying it.

    ‘Till then, watch your step…cuz I’d hate to see you fall flat on your face, or lose an audience that could actually benefit by what you have to say.

    IOW, it’s more about how to service the greater good, and less about controlling others cuz you don’t like who they are, what they are, and what they do.

    If you truly want to see change, then show others how to act by the actions you take, rather than telling them how they should think.

    Cuz right now, the only thing I have learned from you while reading this rather lengthy post, is how to spit out demeaning and abusive language, this being something for which I have no use, and something which I have seen destroy many a well-meaning individual.

  150. on 11 Feb 2007 at 2:42 pm 150.Mushinronjya said …

    “Even when someone like Doc tries to be nice, Mushy still has to spew his hatred towards people of faith!”

    I didn’t “spew” hatred towards “people” of faith, but towards faith itself.
    Please try not to be such an idiot.
    Read it for how it is.

    “What is it that atheism does to help any of these causes?”

    Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It holds no doctrines. If you’re looking for a type of positive atheism or sorts, you might want to look into American Atheists, and how they portray themselves.

  151. on 11 Feb 2007 at 2:45 pm 151.doc said …

    Mushy said: “Fence-sitting is not an option, if we want to do away with religious violence. We must combat religion with reason, in hopes that we can one day be without it.

    So, your solution is to replace religious violence with rational violence? (Now there’s an oxymoron if I ever heard one. :D)

    As I said, you need to learn what it means to love one’s enemy by using more peacful methods that will result in everyone living together in peace.

    In short, be a Peacemaker rather than a Warmonger…

    This is not impossible to do, only being as difficult as we make it out to be, and damn near impossible for those who enjoy fighting and eradication of perceived and imaginary enemies.

  152. on 11 Feb 2007 at 3:09 pm 152.Mushinronjya said …

    “So, your solution is to replace religious violence with rational violence? (Now there’s an oxymoron if I ever heard one. :D)”

    I have no idea what you’re talking about.
    Could you please specify?
    You made an assertion but forgot to tell us what you’re talking about.

    “As I said, you need to learn what it means to love one’s enemy by using more peacful methods that will result in everyone living together in peace.”

    First of all, I’m not violent, so I don’t need to learn “peaceful methods” that I already live by. In theory, it would be great for everyone to “love thy enemy”, but it’s not realistic. It cannot be achieved. Theism is the tool by which many engage in violence. Since we can’t stop religious violence by encouraging moderates, then the only way is to educate people to rid ourselves *of* theism.

    “In short, be a Peacemaker rather than a Warmonger…”

    I support this.
    But since it won’t work, we need other methods.

    “This is not impossible to do”

    Yes, it is impossible.
    Sorry.
    It hasn’t been successful thus far, has it?
    We’ve tried it your way, and we have failed.
    Now it’s time for education and the destruction of theism if we are going to live peacefully. But don’t read me wrong, I don’t mean destruction of “theists”, but of “theism”, so I’m not encouraging or engaging in violence of any way.

  153. on 11 Feb 2007 at 3:12 pm 153.mattstarrs said …

    Mushy has had it explained to him many times that religion is not the cause of religious violence.

    Religion is merely the catalyst.

    Usually the driving force behind “religious violence” is political power, racial discrimination or some other motivation that (often illogically)uses religion as a subterfuge for “less” acceptable root causes.

  154. on 11 Feb 2007 at 3:53 pm 154.Mushinronjya said …

    matts said:
    “Mushy has had it explained to him many times that religion is not the cause of religious violence.”

    You’re right, it’s not.
    It’s the people that cause violence, in the name of religion.
    You need to learn how to read what people write.

    Then again, you are a xian.

  155. on 11 Feb 2007 at 4:26 pm 155.mattstarrs said …

    Mushy temporarily made sense by saying:

    “You’re right, it’s not.
    It’s the people that cause violence, in the name of religion.”

    But then assures us he was not clarifyi8ng but contradicting what he previously wrote by saying:
    “You need to learn how to read what people write.”

    What did he suggest I learn how to read? I think it was this:
    “Fence-sitting is not an option, if we want to do away with religious violence. We must combat religion with reason, in hopes that we can one day be without it.”

    Which clearly demonstrates that he does not understand that without religion as a guise, human violence would simply be expressed in some other guise.

    Religion itself is not the problem. People with problems abuse religion (and every other thing).

  156. on 11 Feb 2007 at 5:43 pm 156.Mushinronjya said …

    “But then assures us he was not clarifyi8ng but contradicting what he previously wrote by saying:
    “You need to learn how to read what people write.””

    Dude, you play on words so much. Nobody has any idea what the hell you’re talking about.

    “Which clearly demonstrates that he does not understand that without religion as a guise, human violence would simply be expressed in some other guise.”

    Nope.
    There is going to be violence for a long time until we learn otherwise as a species, but killing off religion will rid ourselves of much of it. Your suggesting that violence will always exist in the same level, and just needs a vehicle to ride in, is a complete and absolute hypothetical. It is not substantiated. *You* have not substantiated it. You are merely assuming, merely guessing. This is what is wrong with your posts – you have no reason to them, nothing to back them up. This is why you lose every debate.

    “Religion itself is not the problem. People with problems abuse religion (and every other thing).”

    Religion *is* the problem.
    No, it’s not only “some people abuse it”. Many do, and will continue to. Did you know that the buybull and the koran say to kill those that do not believe as they do? Religious moderation is not the answer. In fact, it only encourages more violence. As long as you support those that do believe, that tell us we shouldn’t question theism, then you support religious violence.

    You are nothing but a failed fundamentalist.

  157. on 11 Feb 2007 at 6:18 pm 157.doc said …

    Mushy,
    You asked for a clarification of the following.

    You initially said:
    “We must combat religion with reason, in hopes that we can one day be without it.

    I responded by asking:
    “So, your solution is to replace religious violence with rational violence?”

    When I said this was an oxymoron, I was referring more to “Rational Violence”, as violence is rarely, if ever, rational.

    However, the main point I was addressing is that you seemed to imply that fighting fire with fire in order to put out the fire is the best way to go.

    While this may have some literal validity, especially in forest fire situations, peace between people and ideas can only be achieved through peaceful means, while combative warring can only result in the death of one or both parties.

    I also think fighting religion as if it were an enemy to be a futile gesture, simply because there are over 6 billion people on this planet, the majority of whom are believers in one faith or another. So to combat religion seems foolhardy in that it would be like trying to get rid of the ocean, one bucketful at a time.

    However, it might be a lot easier to initiate a reformation of sorts whereby the goal is to decrease human suffering as much as is possible.

    IOW, perhaps religious teachers could preach in a way whereby members of humankind won’t kill each other just because of the way the other thinks and believes.

    The bottom line is that there is no way to stop religion, as it is much too big. But perhaps there is a way to make it work for the better.

    And yes it is a very slow process. Even after two thousand years or so we’re still not getting it right.

    But there are those of us who are working from the inside to initiate and implement the necessary changes which help to effectively decrease human suffering, and advances are being made.

    Suffice it to say, you are just going to have to accept the fact that people are going to believe in something that cannot be proven, as that is an inherent trait of humanity itself, meaning people are always going to hope for something that does not yet exist in their lives, with God being the ultimate representation of this I-don’t-see-it-but-I-believe-it-to-be-real concept.

    And if you cannot accept this, then you are in for a life-time of disappointment and frustration that will eventually rob you of all your hopes and joys, for when you are fighting and combating something, then how are you able to express and experience love and caring?

    Or are you trying to become a martyr? :-p

  158. on 11 Feb 2007 at 6:37 pm 158.doc said …

    To all believers who are reading this thread and have perhaps become upset by this site’s agenda.

    Please meditate upon, and take comfort in, what the good doctor said in Acts 5:38-39.

    Then do your best to rightly express those life-giving principles given to us by Our Lord and Savior in all you say and do.

    And if anyone wants to continue communicating, then feel free to join us over at http://www.xnforums.com, atheists included.

    Good luck people!

  159. on 11 Feb 2007 at 6:56 pm 159.Mushinronjya said …

    doc said:
    “When I said this was an oxymoron, I was referring more to “Rational Violence”, as violence is rarely, if ever, rational.”

    You assume that without religious violence, we would replace it with other violence. This is simply an assumption on your part. You said it should be “rational violence”, which didn’t mean to make much sense. And if it’s not rational to have violence, and we are attempting to educate people to have reason instead of faith, then if what you admit is true, that with reason we could achieve less violence, then ridding religion and replacing it with reason would only help our species. It would therefore not make sense to say that we would “replace” the lack of violence with more violence.

    “However, the main point I was addressing is that you seemed to imply that fighting fire with fire in order to put out the fire is the best way to go.”

    I didn’t promote violence, so I’m not fighting fire with fire.

    “I also think fighting religion as if it were an enemy to be a futile gesture, simply because there are over 6 billion people on this planet, the majority of whom are believers in one faith or another.”

    Think globally, act locally.
    Don’t you read those bumper stickers?

    People are becoming less religious as time goes on, anyhow. It’s just a matter of time. However, education will have a lot to do with how long it will take.

    “So to combat religion seems foolhardy in that it would be like trying to get rid of the ocean, one bucketful at a time.”

    I don’t think so.

    “But there are those of us who are working from the inside to initiate and implement the necessary changes which help to effectively decrease human suffering, and advances are being made.”

    Promoting religious moderation is not the answer.

    “Suffice it to say, you are just going to have to accept the fact that people are going to believe in something that cannot be proven”

    Maybe so, but we can sufficiently downgrade the amount of people doing so, thereby ridding the governments and ways of people from barbarian lifestyles that hinder our species. There would only remain those that are laughed at for their irrational beliefs. That, I can live with.

    It won’t be at the scale you assume it is today, forever.

    “And if you cannot accept this, then you are in for a life-time of disappointment and frustration that will eventually rob you of all your hopes and joys”

    I have more realistic goals in mind.

    “for when you are fighting and combating something, then how are you able to express and experience love and caring?”

    So you’re saying if you’re a soldier in a war, you can’t love your family?

    “Then do your best to rightly express those life-giving principles given to us by Our Lord and Savior in all you say and do.”

    There is no lord.
    You are delusional.

  160. on 11 Feb 2007 at 9:59 pm 160.mattstarrs said …

    Mushed logic said:
    “Did you know that the buybull and the koran say to kill those that do not believe as they do?”

    Yes and no. The Quran definitely says it, but I will promise you that there is nowhere in the bible where either Jews are told to kill unbelievers purely for their failure to believe in the God of the Jews, nor is there anywhere that Christians, either Jewish or Gentile are told to do such. Quite the opposite in fact.

    No wonder you are so hostile to Christianity. You don’t know the first thing about it and actually believe your own lies.

    Think I am wrong. Here is yet another challenge for you. So far you haven’t been able to respond to a single one of my challenges.

    Find a scripture from the Bible that proves me wrong.

    You can’t do it.

    Because you are a liar.

    Don’t bother posting anything if you can’t back up this most absurd of claims that you have made.

  161. on 11 Feb 2007 at 10:29 pm 161.doc said …

    Mushy,
    You said:“…thereby ridding the governments and ways of people from barbarian lifestyles that hinder our species.”

    Tell me, how can believing and expressing faith through love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, and self-control be considered as a barbarian lifestyle?

    You also stated: “So you’re saying if you’re a soldier in a war, you can’t love your family?

    No, I am saying it’s real hard to love the individual you are in the process of killing.

    You also said: “There is no lord. You are delusional.”

    Well then, let’s just leave it where I tend to follow what He said and stood for.

    As to the first part of that last post of yours where you said: “You assume that without religious violence, we would replace it with other violence.”

    I assumed no such thing. Rather, I read the words you wrote, and those words reflected the desire to combat, eradicate, and destroy religion, these being terms that are used to descibe an act of violence.

    Still, as was written by another poster, violence is a result of fear and hatred, and this is seen whether or not the person, people, or nation in question subscibes to a religion.

    Furthermore, those who express their hatred and fear by killing others may or may not justify those killings with religious dogma.

    In short, there are many reasons why people kill others, with religion only being a small part of those reasons, while the majority of reasons have more to do with control, power, money, land, resources, politics, etc., etc.

    When all is said and done, it is not religion that kills, but the people themselves, this being a lot like saying “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

    If I were truly looking for something to blame for what has happened through the centuries, I think I’d take a closer look at pathological and sociopathic human behavior, cuz people who kill are just plain insane, and one doesn’t have to have religious beliefs to be insane. They just need to be scared, angry, paranoid, arrogant, and greedy, just to name a few.

    But the main reason people kill people, is because they do not value life.

    Yet folks like myself, who have seen and been in many battles where the dead and dying lay all around us, have come to understand that life is very sacred, even the life of an enemy.

    If it were up to me, I would see that no one suffered any harm at all, but that is not possible. So I am limited to helping those who cross my path, while hoping/praying others will do the same with those who cross their path.

    So I would ask, if religion has helped me to come to this understanding, and if religion has helped me express the above mentioned attributes towards my fellow man, then why would you see it eradicated?

  162. on 11 Feb 2007 at 11:07 pm 162.Mushinronjya said …

    “but I will promise you that there is nowhere in the bible where either Jews are told to kill unbelievers purely for their failure to believe in the God of the Jews, nor is there anywhere that Christians, either Jewish or Gentile are told to do such. Quite the opposite in fact.”

    Luke 19:27
    Don’t promise what you cannot keep.
    I’ll expect an apology forthcoming for your completely inaccurate assertion.

    “No wonder you are so hostile to Christianity. You don’t know the first thing about it and actually believe your own lies.”

    I know more about it than you do, especially since I’m objective about it.
    I’m hostile to *all* religions, not just yours, that tell people to believe in imaginary friends.

    “Think I am wrong. Here is yet another challenge for you. So far you haven’t been able to respond to a single one of my challenges.”

    You’ve already been spanked by me in any discussion you attempted to bring up.
    Your denying of that fact doesn’t change reality.

    “Find a scripture from the Bible that proves me wrong.”

    Done, next.
    Please drive thru.

    “Don’t bother posting anything if you can’t back up this most absurd of claims that you have made.”

    It’s funny, because it’s always you making absurd claims like a god existing, and then this crap about the buybull. You don’t know jack about logic, you don’t back up your deity, yet you think you can apply logic to anything else? How …selective.

    This is why you’re a joke.

  163. on 11 Feb 2007 at 11:25 pm 163.mattstarrs said …

    Worng again Mushy.

    This is what you always do.

    Get it completely wrong and then later say that you already answered the question. Well let’s put the scripture you referred to out there yo see if anyone else thinks that it is telling Christians to kill unbelievers.

    Remember, this is what Mushed logic said:
    “Did you know that the buybull and the koran say to kill those that do not believe as they do?”

    I said:
    “but I will promise you that there is nowhere in the bible where either Jews are told to kill unbelievers purely for their failure to believe in the God of the Jews, nor is there anywhere that Christians, either Jewish or Gentile are told to do such. Quite the opposite in fact.”

    And I challenged him to:
    “Find a scripture from the Bible that proves me wrong.”

    This is the best he could find. A parable. Not injunction to kill, but a picture of the kingdom of God at the end of the age and the destruction that will come on those that reject Christ at that time. It in now way suggests that anybody should kill anybody else for their beliefs. It is not an injunction to do anything but to remain faithful while the Lord is absent. The parable tells of a ruler who put down a sedition on his return.

    The Parable of the Ten Minas
    11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’
    14″But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

    15″He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

    16″The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’

    17″ ‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’

    18″The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’

    19″His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’

    20″Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’

    22″His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’

    24″Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’

    25″ ‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’

    26″He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”

    This is definitely NOT saying that Christians should kill anyone.

    The Bible teaches the exact opposite of that, saying to love your enemies and FRORGIVE them because we know the terrible judgement that awaits them in the day of reckoning, and we should strive to be reconciled with them, and to reconcile them with God before that time.

  164. on 11 Feb 2007 at 11:27 pm 164.Mushinronjya said …

    “Tell me, how can believing and expressing faith through love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, and self-control be considered as a barbarian lifestyle?”

    It’s funny how you only choose to look at what you feel are positives of theistic religion. But please don’t fail to ignore events such as 9/11, the inquisition, etc. Such acts are nothing new to world history. Violence associated with religion results from the fundamental structures of the belief system of all major religions.

    You can’t cure this by promoting religious moderation – which is what you’re trying to do.
    This was exactly my point.

    So please, your theism is not fluffy and nice.
    Maybe the way *you* choose to interpret it.
    But when it comes down to it, you believe in a lie. You are off the path of realism. You care more about your imaginary friend in the sky than an accurate interpretation of reality. Because of this, you are damned to live in this virtual reality you have created for yourself.

    “You also stated: “So you’re saying if you’re a soldier in a war, you can’t love your family?

    No, I am saying it’s real hard to love the individual you are in the process of killing.”

    I’m glad you cleared that up.
    I would agree to that point.

    “You also said: “There is no lord. You are delusional.”

    Well then, let’s just leave it where I tend to follow what He said and stood for.”

    All you know is what “we” said ages ago, in a book, and have revised a lot since then. You assume your deity ever said anything at all.

    “I assumed no such thing. Rather, I read the words you wrote, and those words reflected the desire to combat, eradicate, and destroy religion, these being terms that are used to descibe an act of violence.”

    That is how you interpret it, or molest it, as you will.
    However, that is not what I wrote.

    You can’t physically cause violence to religion.
    O_o

    “In short, there are many reasons why people kill others, with religion only being a small part of those reasons”

    Wrong.
    The largest part.
    Nice try.

    “while the majority of reasons have more to do with control, power, money, land, resources, politics, etc., etc.”

    You will find that people were killed less for those things than religion, even today.
    Take off your rose-colored glasses.

    “When all is said and done, it is not religion that kills, but the people themselves, this being a lot like saying “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.””

    And that is what I blame, religion and the ignorance and gullibility that people use in order to buy into such a thing.

    “So I would ask, if religion has helped me to come to this understanding, and if religion has helped me express the above mentioned attributes towards my fellow man, then why would you see it eradicated?”

    Religion has caused us to lose an enormous amount of people today, in history, and will continue throughout the future.

    That is why it must be eradicated.

    But you go ahead and think that you are following religion “the right way”. Meanwhile, the fundamentalists will tell you that you’re not, since you’re not doing what your book tells you to do, and will continue to cause violence.

    I don’t want your rose-colored glasses, so don’t pass them to me.

  165. on 11 Feb 2007 at 11:28 pm 165.mattstarrs said …

    You lose again and again and again Mushy.

    You know the bible? Tell us again about the talking bush!

  166. on 11 Feb 2007 at 11:28 pm 166.mattstarrs said …

    If any other atheists think they can come to Mushies rescue I would welcome your input.

    Otherwise let’s all just agree that he is clueless.

  167. on 11 Feb 2007 at 11:32 pm 167.mattstarrs said …

    My response is awaiting moderation Mush brain.

    You might want to go and read the passage you ripped that scripture from to see what it is really saying before my reply gets up. You won’t look so dumb if you acknowledge your stupidity before hand.

  168. on 11 Feb 2007 at 11:36 pm 168.mattstarrs said …

    Mushy said:
    “You’ve already been spanked by me in any discussion you attempted to bring up.”

    I’ll tell you what.

    You cut and paste when you “spanked” me and then I will cut and paste my response that showed that you were deluded and your argument didn’t stand up.

    You are the “spankee” little boy..

  169. on 12 Feb 2007 at 12:50 am 169.Mushinronjya said …

    Matts, you’ve become not worth my time.
    I respond to your replies and input, and you still stray from reality.
    You cannot debate.

  170. on 12 Feb 2007 at 1:28 am 170.mattstarrs said …

    W have a name for people like you in Australia. We call you “Gutless Wonders”. It means basically that you are a spineless coward.

    You can’t stand in a fight so you run and hide.

    What a wimp.

    Your hopeless attempt at a scripture telling Christians to kill was a parable! A story which represents a spiritual reality. It was not an injunction to kill. Read it in context moron.

    Twisted little mind twisting scriptures taken out of context.

    Anything to try and shield yourself from the truth, Oh deluded Woossie!

  171. on 12 Feb 2007 at 1:30 am 171.mattstarrs said …

    This is what Wussie Mushy says when he knows he has been conclusively beaten:

    “Matts, you’ve become not worth my time.
    I respond to your replies and input, and you still stray from reality.
    You cannot debate. “

  172. on 12 Feb 2007 at 1:34 am 172.mattstarrs said …

    Hey Mushy,

    You said:
    “I’ll expect an apology forthcoming for your completely inaccurate assertion.”

    Does that mean that I can expect the same from you now that I have proven once again that you are making completely inaccurate assertions?

    Or do you hold a double standard there too?

  173. on 12 Feb 2007 at 1:42 am 173.Mushinronjya said …

    “You can’t stand in a fight so you run and hide.”

    I bet you used to get beaten all the time as a kid at any game, and then you stomped your feet and said it wasn’t fair, and you wanted a “do-over”.

  174. on 12 Feb 2007 at 1:43 am 174.Mushinronjya said …

    “Twisted little mind twisting scriptures taken out of context.”

    Ah yes, always the “it’s not really meant to mean that” reasoning. I love it! :)

  175. on 12 Feb 2007 at 3:32 am 175.kahuna553 said …

    Mushy gives this scripture to assert that Jesus tells His believers to kill His enemies.
    Luke 19:27
    “Don’t promise what you cannot keep.
    I’ll expect an apology forthcoming for your completely inaccurate assertion.”

    Mushy, this is even more absurd then when you tried to say Matthew 4:8 proves that the Bible says the earth is flat!

    Luke 19:11-27 is a parable; it is about not using your God given gifts to advance the Kingdom of God. Jesus is telling the people how serious this infraction is and what will happen at the final judgment! Do you even know what a parable is?

    Encarta Dictionary: parable (noun) a short simple story intended to illustrate a moral religious lesson.

    Mushy you have shown over and over that you do not have a clue about what the Bible says or any understanding of it. You go to some web site and find the scriptures that they have laid out to confuse non believers and you believe the drivel that they print.

    You try to sound intelligent but you come across as unknowledgeable and pathetic.
    You need to stop writing in this blog; you are embarrassing atheists around the world.

  176. on 12 Feb 2007 at 3:48 am 176.mattstarrs said …

    Mushy:”I bet you used to get beaten all the time as a kid at any game, and then you stomped your feet and said it wasn’t fair, and you wanted a “do-over”.

    I don’t want a do-over. You haven’t given us a do yet, loser boy!

  177. on 12 Feb 2007 at 3:49 am 177.mattstarrs said …

    Ah yes, it’s the “Ah yes, always the “it’s not really meant to mean that” reasoning. I love it! :)” response instead of biting the bullet ‘cos you don’t have a clue how to read literature.

  178. on 12 Feb 2007 at 3:59 am 178.Mushinronjya said …

    “Encarta Dictionary: parable (noun) a short simple story intended to illustrate a moral religious lesson.”

    I am sure many of us would agree that the entire buybull is just a story, but unfortunately we have ignorants such as yourself that decide to take selective pieces seriously (there being a god, for once), whilst disregarding the rest (which you feel is negative, etc).

    Hah, it’s funny, “they put scriptures out to confuse non-believers”. :) I will let you know that most of us atheists know more about your buybull than you do.

  179. on 12 Feb 2007 at 7:47 am 179.mattstarrs said …

    You sure haven’t shown it yet . . .

  180. on 12 Feb 2007 at 7:48 am 180.mattstarrs said …

    How do you come to that conclusion, oh king of unsubstantiated BS!

  181. on 12 Feb 2007 at 7:50 am 181.mattstarrs said …

    I guess Mushies failure to produce a single example of the Bible telling Christians to kill people of differing beliefs is conclusive evidence that he is a whack job that dribbles rubbish without understanding.

  182. on 12 Feb 2007 at 11:42 am 182.Mushinronjya said …

    “How do you come to that conclusion, oh king of unsubstantiated BS!”

    I’m not the one who believes in invisible sky daddies. How can I be the one with unsubstantiated bs?

    You’re very immature.
    And you have a kid?

  183. on 12 Feb 2007 at 4:46 pm 183.mattstarrs said …

    Once again you fail to answer the question, proving there is nothing in your mixed up mind that can help you with your false claims. (We already knew there was nothing in the Bible).

  184. on 12 Feb 2007 at 4:47 pm 184.mattstarrs said …

    This post got held up for ages, so here it is again:
    Worng again Mushy.

    This is what you always do.

    Get it completely wrong and then later say that you already answered the question. Well let’s put the scripture you referred to out there yo see if anyone else thinks that it is telling Christians to kill unbelievers.

    Remember, this is what Mushed logic said:
    “Did you know that the buybull and the koran say to kill those that do not believe as they do?”

    I said:
    “but I will promise you that there is nowhere in the bible where either Jews are told to kill unbelievers purely for their failure to believe in the God of the Jews, nor is there anywhere that Christians, either Jewish or Gentile are told to do such. Quite the opposite in fact.”

    And I challenged him to:
    “Find a scripture from the Bible that proves me wrong.”

    This is the best he could find. A parable. Not injunction to kill, but a picture of the kingdom of God at the end of the age and the destruction that will come on those that reject Christ at that time. It in now way suggests that anybody should kill anybody else for their beliefs. It is not an injunction to do anything but to remain faithful while the Lord is absent. The parable tells of a ruler who put down a sedition on his return.

    The Parable of the Ten Minas
    11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]’Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’
    14″But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

    15″He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

    16″The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’

    17″ ‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’

    18″The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’

    19″His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’

    20″Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’

    22″His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’

    24″Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’

    25″ ‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’

    26″He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”

    This is definitely NOT saying that Christians should kill anyone.

    The Bible teaches the exact opposite of that, saying to love your enemies and FRORGIVE them because we know the terrible judgement that awaits them in the day of reckoning, and we should strive to be reconciled with them, and to reconcile them with God before that time.

  185. on 12 Feb 2007 at 4:53 pm 185.mattstarrs said …

    Mushy asks (I think he is actually so deluded as to be genuine):
    “How can I be the one with unsubstantiated bs?”

    Let me explain it in words with less than two syllables:

    YOU SAY THINGS THAT ARE WRONG AND THAT YOU CAN’T PROVE!

    It’s not about your beliefs, it’s about your posts.

    Your beliefs are also unsubstantiated BS, but at least you can blame that on the anti-theist propaganda pill you have swallowed.

    I was only referring to the things you say on this site that are completely and diametrically opposed to reality.

  186. on 12 Feb 2007 at 5:26 pm 186.Mushinronjya said …

    “(We already knew there was nothing in the Bible).”

    I already gave the quote.

    “YOU SAY THINGS THAT ARE WRONG AND THAT YOU CAN’T PROVE!”

    Isn’t that what you do about your deity?
    Can you prove it’s real?
    Don’t say I am what you are – that won’t help you.

    “I was only referring to the things you say on this site that are completely and diametrically opposed to reality.”

    Since I am on par with reality, and I back up what I say, and I don’t have imaginary friends in the sky like you do, then it looks like you’re describing yourself.

  187. on 12 Feb 2007 at 6:47 pm 187.mattstarrs said …

    Saying “I already gave the quote”, when the quote you gave has been clearly shown by several readers to be taken out of context is not helping your cause.

    You have nothing.

    You ask:
    “Isn’t that what you do about your deity?
    Can you prove it’s real?”

    1. You are changing the subject. We were talking about your claim that the Bible tells Christians to kill unbelievers.
    2. He proves Himself real. He doesn’t need my help.
    3. He has proven it to me, to my satisfaction, and I am not forcing my reality on you. I am defending myself against your assertions that my beliefs are misguided, including your fallacious assertion that the Bible tells Christians to kill unbelievers. Stop changing the subject and admit defeat.

    Also you say:
    “Since I am on par with reality”,

    - NO, YOU ARE NOT! You have removed all doubt from our minds long ago.

    “and I back up what I say”,

    - NO YOU DO NOT! If you do then give the reference to where the Bible tells Christians to kill unbelievers, explain what you were on about with the talking bush, cut and paste where you say you “spanked” me, give a biblical reference for the bible claiming that the earth nis flat, tell us who your imaginary friends are that you keep referring to, give us one reference where the bible is inaccurate, and give just one piece of evidence (not your circular rationale) for the assumption that “education brings peace”.

    You have failed to “back up” what you say in ALL seven of those points.

    “and I don’t have imaginary friends in the sky like you do”
    - My so called imaginary friend is omnipresent – not just in the sky. But let’s get back to your imaginary friends . . . that speak to you . . . that tell you that you are doing good in debates that you are a dismal failure in . . .

  188. on 12 Feb 2007 at 11:40 pm 188.kahuna553 said …

    Mushy, Jesus Loves You!

  189. on 13 Feb 2007 at 12:25 am 189.Mushinronjya said …

    How can a fictional character from religious mythology love anyone at all?

  190. on 13 Feb 2007 at 6:59 am 190.mattstarrs said …

    My post has been held up for about 16 hours so here it is in pieces:

    Mushy: Saying “I already gave the quote”, when the quote you gave has been clearly shown by several readers to be taken out of context is not helping your cause.

    You have nothing.

  191. on 13 Feb 2007 at 7:00 am 191.mattstarrs said …

    Continued:

    You ask:
    “Isn’t that what you do about your deity?
    Can you prove it’s real?”

    1. You are changing the subject. We were talking about your claim that the Bible tells Christians to kill unbelievers.
    2. He proves Himself real. He doesn’t need my help.
    3. He has proven it to me, to my satisfaction, and I am not forcing my reality on you. I am defending myself against your assertions that my beliefs are misguided, including your fallacious assertion that the Bible tells Christians to kill unbelievers. Stop changing the subject and admit defeat.

  192. on 13 Feb 2007 at 7:01 am 192.mattstarrs said …

    Continued:

    Also you say:
    “Since I am on par with reality”,

    - NO, YOU ARE NOT! You have removed all doubt from our minds long ago.

    “and I back up what I say”,

    - NO YOU DO NOT! If you do then give the reference to where the Bible tells Christians to kill unbelievers, explain what you were on about with the talking bush, cut and paste where you say you “spanked” me, give a biblical reference for the bible claiming that the earth nis flat, tell us who your imaginary friends are that you keep referring to, give us one reference where the bible is inaccurate, and give just one piece of evidence (not your circular rationale) for the assumption that “education brings peace”.

    You have failed to “back up” what you say in ALL seven of those points.

  193. on 13 Feb 2007 at 7:02 am 193.mattstarrs said …

    Continued . . .

    “and I don’t have imaginary friends in the sky like you do”
    - My so called imaginary friend is omnipresent – not just in the sky. But let’s get back to your imaginary friends . . . that speak to you . . . that tell you that you are doing good in debates that you are a dismal failure in . . .

  194. on 13 Feb 2007 at 7:05 am 194.mattstarrs said …

    Sorry about the patchwork My comment has been held up for moderation since 12 Feb 2007 at 6:47 pm.

  195. on 13 Feb 2007 at 10:12 am 195.Mushinronjya said …

    matt, do not abuse the comments section by doing repeat postings.

    “and I don’t have imaginary friends in the sky like you do”
    - My so called imaginary friend is omnipresent – not just in the sky. B”

    It’s also omni-nonexistent.
    It’s funny how you can ask for proof for other things, but not this thing.
    You don’t even know what something being omni-present means in a being.

    You need to grow up, realize that there are no imaginary friends in the sky.

  196. on 13 Feb 2007 at 3:20 pm 196.mattstarrs said …

    Where do you get off saying:
    “matt, do not abuse the comments section by doing repeat postings.”

    Is it because I did that thing of breaking my post up so it wouldn’t be delayed? I got the idea from when you did it. So how come you get one set of rules and when I do the same it is “abuse”?

    Or is it because I keep pointing out that you make ridiculous statements and then refuse to provide supporting evidence when challenged, even after being proven wrong.

    You’re an idiot.

    What is an atheist? Judging from Mushy an atheist is someone that knows evcerything and nothing at the same time.

    You are so dogmatic. You refuse to look at evidence others refer to. You obviously haven’t read the bible and just cite scripture references from other sites without even checking them out. You fall back on the only thing we can’t do without your complicity and ask us to prove the existence of God to you.

    Meanwhile your every accusation against God has been trashed and your arguments have been clearly shown to be nothing but empty talk from an empty mind.

    I leave you to your deluded pride.

    You said of yourself “I am a retty good liar”, but it seems that the only one that believes your lies is yourself.

    I want to sincerely thank you and the author of this site for removing all doubt from my mind that atheism is nothing but bitter dribble propagated by a prideful ignorance which still cannot offer a viable alternative for explaining the big questions of life, nor can it succeed in detracting from the eternal truth of the Bible.

    I actually came here thinking at some point I would be challenged.

    I was wrong.

  197. on 13 Feb 2007 at 10:48 pm 197.Mushinronjya said …

    “I actually came here thinking at some point I would be challenged”

    When you learn how to use logic, you will be challenged.

  198. on 14 Feb 2007 at 1:38 am 198.mattstarrs said …

    I was hoping that at some point you might challenge me (I mean besides just challenging my patience).

    As I said, “I was wrong”.

    You say when I learn to use logic I will be challenged.

    My error was thinking that you might have some kind of evidence or at least an intelligent argument. You did not. So in one respect you are quite right. When I provide myself with the questions you failed to provide I will be challenged.

    I actually want to test the fabric of my faith. I want to be sure my life is being built upon something that can withstand scrutiny. So far you have proven to me that the Bible is without fault, and that what it has to say about the world we live in and it’s inhabitants is reliable beyond doubt.

    I may at some point be challenged in a way that takes some effort to either reconcile or come to terms with. This has not happened here.

    You lack the substance.

  199. on 14 Feb 2007 at 10:15 am 199.Mushinronjya said …

    “I actually want to test the fabric of my faith.”

    Faith is believing in something when there is no evidence for it. So how can you be challenged? You need to realize that logic says you must toss faith.

    You are immature and unreasonable.

  200. on 14 Feb 2007 at 5:25 pm 200.Mushinronjya said …

    “So far you have proven to me that the Bible is without fault”

    Without fault.. what kind of fault?
    It’s mythology.
    What can mythology be at fault for?

  201. on 15 Feb 2007 at 2:50 pm 201.stvnhthr said …

    This sounds fun, what happens when you get intelligent answers to your questions? Are you willing to make a life change or are you just throwing up an intellectual smoke screen?

  202. on 15 Feb 2007 at 2:56 pm 202.Mushinronjya said …

    As I thought.

  203. on 15 Feb 2007 at 11:26 pm 203.kahuna553 said …

    Mushy said:
    “Faith is believing in something when there is no evidence for it. So how can you be challenged? You need to realize that logic says you must toss faith.” (Oh master of grammar your sentence should read Faith believes in something… not is believing!)

    That is why evolution is a faith or belief system, because you “believe in something when there is no evidence for it.”

    Logic says no such thing, when one reaches the pinnacle of sense knowledge the next logical move is revelation knowledge (The Word of God)

    You Mushy just refuse to accept that. You are so busy trying to disprove God that you are blinded by all evidence that surrounds you. “You can’t see the forest because of all the trees!” You are a pathetic lost little boy!

  204. on 15 Feb 2007 at 11:31 pm 204.kahuna553 said …

    Hey Mushy, do you believe in life on other planets?

  205. on 16 Feb 2007 at 1:08 am 205.Mushinronjya said …

    “Mushy said:
    “Faith is believing in something when there is no evidence for it. So how can you be challenged? You need to realize that logic says you must toss faith.” (Oh master of grammar your sentence should read Faith believes in something… not is believing!)”

    No, my sentence was grammatically correct.

    Yours is wrong because faith isn’t a person, as your context suggests.

    “That is why evolution is a faith or belief system, because you “believe in something when there is no evidence for it.””

    Sorry, but there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. Please read http://www.talkorigins.org and “Evolution and the Myth of Creationism” by Tim M. Berra. You don’t know what evolution is, so *PLEASE* stop trying to debate it.

    “Logic says no such thing, when one reaches the pinnacle of sense knowledge the next logical move is revelation knowledge (The Word of God)”

    No, it does not.
    You’re an idiot.
    We don’t go believing in something without evidence.
    There is no evidence for a god, so to posit one is to harbor an irrational belief.

    “You Mushy just refuse to accept that.”

    I accept that you’re ignorant.

    “You are so busy trying to disprove God that you are blinded by all evidence that surrounds you.”

    I can’t disprove a negative – nobody can.
    It’s up to you to prove a deity.
    Since you cannot, then atheism is the most logical position to have.

    “Hey Mushy, do you believe in life on other planets?”

    Statistically speaking, there has to be life on other planets.

  206. on 16 Feb 2007 at 5:10 am 206.Wordsworth said …

    “Hey Mushy, do you believe in life on other planets?”

    Statistically speaking, there has to be life on other planets.

    ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    We don’t go believing in something without evidence.

    ????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    Did somebody change their mind?

    ????????????????????????????????????????????????????

  207. on 16 Feb 2007 at 11:28 am 207.kahuna553 said …

    There is absolutely no proof that life exists on other planets but Mushy says:

    “Statistically speaking, there has to be life on other planets.”

    What statistics would that be?

    I am an idiot because I believe in God but can’t give mushy any physical proof even though the evidence surrounds him. Yet there is no physical proof of alien existence but that is a rational and logical thought according to Mushy the king of logic!

    Give me a break old Mush Brain!

  208. on 17 Feb 2007 at 3:16 pm 208.Mushinronjya said …

    “Statistically speaking, there has to be life on other planets.”

    “Woods said:
    We don’t go believing in something without evidence.
    Did somebody change their mind?”

    I’m talking about statistics, I didn’t say I had evidence, nor did I say that I “believe” or “know” that there is life on other planets, I merely pointed out that statistics says the probability of there being life on other planets is so good, that we can safely assert there is such, and not be illogical.

    Kahuna says:
    “There is absolutely no proof that life exists on other planets but Mushy says:

    “Statistically speaking, there has to be life on other planets.””

    Correct.
    What is the problem?

    “I am an idiot because I believe in God but can’t give mushy any physical proof even though the evidence surrounds him.”

    Yes, you believe in something for which there is no definition for, nor any evidence of. And no, there is no evidence for a deity. This is where you err.

    “Yet there is no physical proof of alien existence but that is a rational and logical thought according to Mushy the king of logic!”

    We are on a planet, are we not?
    We are living things on this planet, are we not?
    We are alive because our planet is suitable for life, are we not?
    Since there are almost countless other solar systems inside of almost countless other galaxies within the Universe, then what do you think, statistically, is the conclusion of how many of said solar systems would entail suitable planets for life? Quite a lot, wouldn’t you think? To think otherwise, you’d have to be an idiot that thinks a magical being called a god created only life on this planet – which would make you an idiot.

    “Give me a break old Mush Brain!”

    You are an idiot.

  209. on 18 Feb 2007 at 3:23 am 209.kahuna553 said …

    Now I Understand why captain Kirk said “Beam me up Scotty, there’s no intelligent life down here.”

    He must have been transported to Mushy’s house.

  210. on 18 Feb 2007 at 3:32 am 210.kahuna553 said …

    Mushy said,
    “I’m talking about statistics, I didn’t say I had evidence,”

    Encarta Dictionary: Statistics (noun)a branch of mathematics that deals with the analysis and interpretation of numerical data in terms of samples and populations, a collection of numerical data.

    Sounds like evidence to me you moron!

    Of course you don’t have evidence, because there isn’t any. But go on believing in your imaginary little green men, I know that it is comforting to you.

  211. on 18 Feb 2007 at 4:37 am 211.Mushinronjya said …

    “Now I Understand why captain Kirk said “Beam me up Scotty, there’s no intelligent life down here.”

    He must have been transported to Mushy’s house. ”

    That made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    Then again, you are working from a limited mindset. An uneducated one at that. You continue to show your low IQ.

  212. on 18 Feb 2007 at 4:53 pm 212.mattstarrs said …

    Hi Guys! Me again!

    Just thought I’d drop in and see if the Mushed One had painted himself into a corner yet.

    Well done Kahuna!

    Mushy, I have had my IQ measured at 165. Can I play?

    Previously my favorite Mushy quote was “atheism isn’t a belief… so I don’t require evidence.
    You’re not very bright”.

    I laughed long and hard when I read that.

    But I laughed so mch I nearly cried when I read “Statistically speaking, there has to be life on other planets”.

    Do you even have a clue what the statistical probability of life existing on any planet is? Do you have even a basic understanding of the countless variables that need to be in place to the most stringent measures for life to exist on earth?

    As for your use of the wording “almost countless” – are you acknowledging that there is indeed a finite number of said solar systems and galaxies? Why the subterfuge?

    It means your statistical probability has a cap.

    If you knew the very basics of quantum physics you might make less sweeping conjecture about the statistical probabilities of what you don’t know.

    The following quote is just a great example of the hyprocrisy atheists employ when choosing their beliefs:

    “I’m talking about statistics, I didn’t say I had evidence, nor did I say that I “believe” or “know” that there is life on other planets, I merely pointed out that statistics says the probability of there being life on other planets is so good, that we can safely assert there is such, and not be illogical”.

    How do you assert something – calling on statistical probability for support – and then tell us in the same sentence that it is neither a belief nor knowledge?

    I quote you one more time:
    “You’re not very bright”.

  213. on 19 Feb 2007 at 12:47 am 213.Mushinronjya said …

    Matts said:
    “Previously my favorite Mushy quote was “atheism isn’t a belief… so I don’t require evidence.
    You’re not very bright”.

    I laughed long and hard when I read that.”

    Really? You don’t say why you laughed “long and hard”, and since what I said was very accurate, you sound like you looked like a fool for doing such.

    “Do you even have a clue what the statistical probability of life existing on any planet is? Do you have even a basic understanding of the countless variables that need to be in place to the most stringent measures for life to exist on earth?”

    For *this* type of life to exist, we are here because of such variables. If things were slightly different in the solar system, life would be slightly different, or non-existent. Point is, that since we exist, that there has to be other planets in rotation around other suns that are have life as well. This is simple math.

    “As for your use of the wording “almost countless” – are you acknowledging that there is indeed a finite number of said solar systems and galaxies? Why the subterfuge?”

    There is not infinite, but there are so many that we would have a hard time counting that high… I’m sure you wouldn’t get even halfway, though.

    “How do you assert something – calling on statistical probability for support – and then tell us in the same sentence that it is neither a belief nor knowledge?”

    Because I do not hold belief. One could argue that statistics on the matter could give us knowledge, but only about the probability of other life existing. Since the probability is fairly high, then it would be pretty ridiculous to question that.

    You’re right, you’re not very bright. :/

  214. on 19 Feb 2007 at 1:32 am 214.mattstarrs said …

    Mushman . . . Master of the Punyverse says:
    “Point is, that since we exist, that there has to be other planets in rotation around other suns that are have life as well. This is simple math”.

    1. Hmmmm . . . . Didn’t you say that only 2% of your posts have bad grammar? Seems like more than 1 in 50 to me.

    2. “This is simple math”. Get a dictioary and look up a definition for the word math. What you are spruiking is simple but it’s not math. Why not also say that since Mushy exists, there has to be other braindead morons named Ted Peterson in a parallel existence on another planet somewhere else in the universe. That is using identical logic. Yes, Ted, you use logic – but it is completely twisted.

    3. You seem to be confused about what the word “believe” means also. (It’s in the dictionary too. Go back to your left after you look up “math”). Please tell us plainly: Do you or do you not believe that life exists on other planets?

    4. In response to:
    “Really? You don’t say why you laughed “long and hard”, and since what I said was very accurate, you sound like you looked like a fool for doing such.

    It looks like it sounds like you look like I sound too hard for you to understand. I am really surprised, ‘cos you demonstrate such a powerful grip on the english language!

    Let me make it plain: You said you do not require evidence to argue your position.

    Seriously Mushy, how old are you really? I know your Myspace site said 31 before you changed it. You accused me of being 12. Is that how old you are?

    I must say that for a 12 year old you have shown remarkable tenacity to take such a lickin’ and keep on tickin’!

    I am sure that when you grow up you will be way smarter than all of us, so don’t quit now. Just take my advice and learn about how important it is to have evidence if you want to convince people (they don’t have to agree with why you believe something, but you do need to point out that your belief is founded on something) and also how important it is not to contradict yourself every time you say something.

    Don’t give up! By the time you’re a teen you will be doing great!

  215. on 19 Feb 2007 at 9:42 am 215.Mushinronjya said …

    “Do you or do you not believe that life exists on other planets?”

    Already answered.

    I really grow tired of your ignorance and word playing.

  216. on 19 Feb 2007 at 12:29 pm 216.kahuna553 said …

    Matt said’
    “Why not also say that since Mushy exists, there has to be other brain-dead morons named Ted Peterson in a parallel existence on another planet somewhere else in the universe.”

    I laughed so hard I nearly peed my pants. Trying to debate Mushy has become pointless; he is void of any rational or original thoughts.

    Mushy said, “Because I do not hold belief. One could argue that statistics on the matter could give us knowledge, but only about the probability of other life existing. Since the probability is fairly high, then it would be pretty ridiculous to question that.”

    What a moronic statement! Mushy is so afraid of the word belief that he won’t even admit to believing in anything except; atheism, evolution, little green men from outer space, that God doesn’t exist. According to Mush brain none of these things require belief because statistically they are all probable in Mushy’s peanut sized brain.

    Encarta Dictionary; belief (noun) 1. Acceptance of truth of something; acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty; 2. Something that somebody believes in; a statement, principle, or doctrine that a person or group accepts as true.

    Again, Mushy the master of grammar and spelling and the god of all things intelligent shows his ignorance; “I hold no belief” so it is safe to assume that all things that Mushy holds dear to him are untrue and don’t exist. You lose again Teddy. If you accept something to be real or true then you believe in the particular something, whether it is God, the Bible, evolution, or little green men, it is a belief. Just because you mush-head won’t accept that makes it no less true! Idiot!

  217. on 19 Feb 2007 at 3:16 pm 217.mattstarrs said …

    What a wimp.

    When you say:
    ““Do you or do you not believe that life exists on other planets?”

    Already answered.

    I really grow tired of your ignorance and word playing.”

    I could ask is that a:

    1. Yes?

    2. No?

    But I already know it’s a:

    3. Acknowledgement of being forced to look like a complete idiot.

  218. on 19 Feb 2007 at 5:51 pm 218.Mushinronjya said …

    A belief is an unsubstantiated claim.
    Knowledge is a true, verified belief.
    I don’t have beliefs.
    I have knowledge and ideas.

    We are life on this planet, so obviously life *can* exist on planets.
    All that is necessary for other life out there is to emulate, in some ways, how our our solar system works (to the best of our knowledge presently, anyhow).
    This being the case, and there being so many solar systems in the universe, that therefore the probability of other life existing is pretty high.

    To think we are the only life in the whole universe is stupid.
    I’m not saying I know there is other life, nor am I saying I believe in other life, just saying the probability is fairly high *for* other life.

    You guys aren’t very bright.

  219. on 20 Feb 2007 at 12:22 am 219.kahuna553 said …

    Hey Mushy, what Pabulum puke was that? Your writing is full of contradictions and double talk. You have a one track mind of endless BS. You have not met one challenge on this site with any coherent answers.

    Here’s another question; Do you think that Big Foot exists?

  220. on 20 Feb 2007 at 12:39 am 220.Mushinronjya said …

    kah…
    nope, no contradictions here. You can claim it is all day long, but there’s something you still haven’t learned – that when you say someone did a fallacy, you have to quote them on it exactly.

    But you never seem to be able to do that. Funny thing.

    Maybe it’s just that you *want* me to be such, since you can’t handle the truth?

  221. on 20 Feb 2007 at 1:56 am 221.mattstarrs said …

    Mushy says:
    “A belief is an unsubstantiated claim”.

    What dictionary did you get that from Mushy?

    I bet it was Ted Petersons book of Make It Up As You Go!

    Here is a definition of a “belief” from the Writing Centre:

    A BELIEF is a conviction based on personal, religious, or cultural faith; morality; or values. Many beliefs are irrevocably tied to the holder’s ego; that is, you cannot challenge the belief without challenging the person who holds the belief. A belief is inarguable, as it is not necessarily based on facts or other evidence. Statements such as “Capital punishment is legalized murder” and “The primary goal of government is to leave its citizens alone” are often called opinions because they express viewpoints. Unlike opinions, however, such beliefs cannot be disproved by facts or even contested on the basis of facts. Thus, they are not arguable, not open to challenge, and should not serve as the central assertion of an argument. However, if the audience already knowingly shares the writer’s feelings, statements of belief can serve as a kind of evidence in an argument, and they often form the assumptions linking assertions and evidence.

    Now here is a definition of an “unsubstantiated claim” from the same article:

    “An UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM is almost the same as a prejudice–without the negative connotations. If I were to accuse someone of being prejudiced, he or she would be branded as a bigot, or racist, or sexist, etc. If, on the other hand, I were to accuse someone of making unsubstantiated claims, he or she would be seen as being uninformed (possibly lazy, in not doing his or her “homework” before speaking). Like prejudices, unsubstantiated claims are testable: they can be contested and disproved by facts. This is the chief cause of bad grades in persuasion essays: writing something and not being able to back it up.”

    If you have trouble telling the difference get your Mummy to help you.

    Now the way I see it, your assertion that there is life on other planets must fall into at least one of those categories. We could call it an unsubstantiated claim if we view it separately from the way you administered it (with your rationale), but I think it is clear when we look at the total of what you have said on the topic that this is your BELIEF.

    It “cannot be disproved by facts or even contested on the basis of facts.”

    This of course is also the reason why you are wrong to say that Christians have the burden of proving the existence of God to you.

    If you want to refute their belief do it with facts.

    We can’t prove to you that God exists anymore than you can prove to us that there is life on other planets.

    We have answered your every criticism with answers that favour our beliefs. We even showed you why your accusations were often ill founded.

    Nonetheless, we are not ridiculing your belief. It may well be that there is life on other planets. We have no evidence that there is not.

    We are however deriding your inability to see the elephant in the room, as once again you have been shown to be guilty of the very thing you criticise others for.

    The standard you set for your own beliefs does not measure up to the standard you set for the beliefs of others.

    This is commonly known as “hypocrisy”. In your case it has manifested several times as “bigotry”.

    You would do well to acknowledge that you do not have all of the answers, and may never have all of the answers.

    As long as you think you are all wise you will continually demonstrate to the world that you are a mere fool.

  222. on 20 Feb 2007 at 11:44 am 222.Mushinronjya said …

    matts said:
    ““A belief is an unsubstantiated claim”.

    What dictionary did you get that from Mushy?

    I bet it was Ted Petersons book of Make It Up As You Go!”

    No, a belief is something that is not justified. If it were, it would be known as what we call “knowledge”. Do you understand?

    “A BELIEF is a conviction based on personal, religious, or cultural faith;”

    Correct. Unsubstantiated.

    “This of course is also the reason why you are wrong to say that Christians have the burden of proving the existence of God to you”

    The one with the positive assertion has the burden of proof. The skeptic does not. This is common knowledge. Please acknowledge it before you attempt to debate further.

    “We can’t prove to you that God exists anymore than you can prove to us that there is life on other planets.”

    We know what life is and that it can exist on a planet. We don’t know what a god is, so it’s not a parallel.

    You have much to learn.

  223. on 20 Feb 2007 at 3:05 pm 223.Wordsworth said …

    matts said:
    ““A belief is an unsubstantiated claim”.

    What dictionary did you get that from Mushy?

    I bet it was Ted Petersons book of Make It Up As You Go!”

    What’s the matter Mushinronjya? Are you afraid to answer the question? Is Matts right? Do you just make it up as you go? Who is ted petersen?

    You make me embarrassed to be called an atheist.

  224. on 20 Feb 2007 at 3:29 pm 224.Mushinronjya said …

    Already answered above.
    I’m sure you’re just an alias.

  225. on 21 Feb 2007 at 3:18 am 225.mattstarrs said …

    Really? Where did you answer that above? What dictionary was it? You’re full of crap Mush head.

    I thought Kahuna was an alias?

  226. on 21 Feb 2007 at 10:29 am 226.Mushinronjya said …

    You re-stated what I already said.
    You said:
    ““A BELIEF is a conviction based on personal, religious, or cultural faith;””

    You answered it for me.
    That’s the same thing I said, but in different words.

    “personal”, “religious”, “faith”.. these are subjective things, not objective. Therefore, it’s unsubstantiated.

    You still have a lot to learn.

  227. on 21 Feb 2007 at 2:17 pm 227.kahuna553 said …

    Encarta Dictionary; belief (noun) 1. Acceptance of truth of something; acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty; 2. Something that somebody believes in; a statement, principle, or doctrine that a person or group accepts as true.

    Get it right Mushy, the above definition is what a belief is, or do you have your own dictionary that you wrote (Mushy’s Dictionary of Moronic Definitions)

    Every time Mushy is handed a definition of a word that he misuses he comes back with his on spin on the word

    Mushy said;
    “A belief is an unsubstantiated claim”. See above definition;

    Kahuna said;
    Encarta Dictionary: Statistics (noun)a branch of mathematics that deals with the analysis and interpretation of numerical data in terms of samples and populations, a collection of numerical data.

    Mushy Said;
    “I’m talking about statistics, I didn’t say I had evidence, nor did I say that I “believe” or “know” that there is life on other planets, I merely pointed out that statistics says the probability of there being life on other planets is so good, that we can safely assert there is such, and not be illogical”.

    Mushy said; “the word science means “to know”.

    Kahuna said; Encarta Dictionary: science (noun) the study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment. I don’t see where the definition of science means “to know”.

    What dictionary do you use old Mush Head?

  228. on 21 Feb 2007 at 3:40 pm 228.mattstarrs said …

    Mushy . . . GET A DICTIONARY!

    You don’t have the credibility to expect us to take your definition that you made up after the need for it arose.

    At least you have now admitted that you are making it up as you go.

    I may have a lot to learn, but it is a lot less than yourself.

    Unfortunately you are incapable of learning because your ego is your authority.

  229. on 21 Feb 2007 at 5:01 pm 229.Mushinronjya said …

    I told you that a belief is unsubstantiated.
    You replied with the same, saying:
    ““A BELIEF is a conviction based on personal, religious, or cultural faith;”””

    It’s unsubstantiated because it is not backed by objective evidence in support. Subjectiveness is not a good foundation to have for such things… yet you used subjectiveness in your reply.

    “You don’t have the credibility to expect us to take your definition that you made up after the need for it arose.”

    You supported my definition by your definition.
    Are you retarded?

    “At least you have now admitted that you are making it up as you go.”

    Um, you are seriously disturbed.

    “Unfortunately you are incapable of learning because your ego is your authority.”

    I come across as confident and secure. You interpret it as ego, that’s fine. I admit I have some. That’s only because I actually do know what I’m talking about, as you do not.

  230. on 22 Feb 2007 at 12:29 am 230.mattstarrs said …

    OMG! Your stupidity is tedious to the point of pain!!!!!

    FIRSTLY:

    I was not referring to your arrogance when I said that your ego is your authority!!!

    What sort of an intellectual midget are you?

    Everybody has an ego. You can’t be that thick.

    GO AND BUY A FREAKIN’ DICTIONARY and add “ego” to the long list of words that you have no idea about that you need to look up!

    My point was that your only point of reference in so many of your disturbingly twisted justifications for your ridiculous beliefs is located somewhere in the depths of your own self will.

    That’s why it is pertinent that you won’t even so much as quote a dictionary when defining words that we all know you PLAINLY do not understand.

    Secondly:

    When you say:

    “… yet you used subjectiveness in your reply.”

    1. It should have read “… yet you used subjectivity in your reply.” (Yeah right, only 2% of your posts are gramatically incorrect).

    2. What was that subjectivity?

    My definition did NOT support your definition. I gave you a reference that distinguished between “beliefs” and “unsubstantiated claims”.

    You seem to be unable to comprehend the difference.

    Am I retarded?

    No. You are on your own there.

    “Um, you are seriously disturbed.”

    No, only mildly disturbed, if not a little frustrated with your limited intelligence.

    Hang in there little fella.

    Things will get better if you get over yourself.

  231. on 22 Feb 2007 at 12:46 am 231.Mushinronjya said …

    “My definition did NOT support your definition.”

    Yes, it did. Sorry to break it to you, yet again.

    When you say that belief is founded by faith, etc, that is unsubstantiated. Faith is without reason. Thus no substantiation for beliefs.

    You’ve become a joke.

  232. on 22 Feb 2007 at 7:50 am 232.mattstarrs said …

    OK, to go over that again would be both boring and unproductive, but you agree with the other points, right?

    Those points were:
    FIRSTLY:

    I was not referring to your arrogance when I said that your ego is your authority!!!

    What sort of an intellectual midget are you?

    Everybody has an ego. You can’t be that thick.

    GO AND BUY A FREAKIN’ DICTIONARY and add “ego” to the long list of words that you have no idea about that you need to look up!

    My point was that your only point of reference in so many of your disturbingly twisted justifications for your ridiculous beliefs is located somewhere in the depths of your own self will.

    That’s why it is pertinent that you won’t even so much as quote a dictionary when defining words that we all know you PLAINLY do not understand.

    Secondly:

    When you say:

    “… yet you used subjectiveness in your reply.”

    1. It should have read “… yet you used subjectivity in your reply.” (Yeah right, only 2% of your posts are gramatically incorrect).

    2. What was that subjectivity?

    Also, when you say I’ve become a joke – does that mean that you didn’t mean it all the other times you said it? Otherwise you would have said that I am continuing to be a joke, huh?

    Aww shucks Mushy! You’re getting all soft and mushy!

  233. on 22 Feb 2007 at 10:44 am 233.Mushinronjya said …

    You can’t deal with the fact that you’re always wrong, so you try to argue other points, like grammar and things, thinking you’re getting ahead.

    Unfortunately, however, you still look like an ass.

    The topic is about belief and how beliefs are unfounded. You backed it up with your definition of belief, which shows it’s an unfounded claim (which is what belief is).

    Your whole positing of a deity is completely without any justification, and you can’t deal with that. You can’t admit that you are gullible, ignorant, and delusional in this respect… so you stomp your feet, act like a 5 year old, and post stupid, immature posts.

  234. on 22 Feb 2007 at 5:06 pm 234.mattstarrs said …

    Once again you totally miss the point.

    The grammar is irrelevant.

    Your claim that your grammar is perfect (later revised to nearly perfect) is pertinent. It proves that you are deluded. Your delusion is tied up in your self will. It is the root cause that prevents you from providing references outside of your own musings. It allows you, among other things, to posit the existence of extra-terrestrial life despite breaking the rules you apply to those who wish to posit the existence of a diety.

    This mindset is the foundational part of your arguments that leads you consistently into error and blinds you to things that would otherwise be readily apparent.

    You post regularly giving only your rationale in support of your arguments. This means your arguments are unreliable. Even if you are accurate in one point, there is a shadow over everything you say because of your lack of scruples in the foundational structure of your thinking process.

    For your information – I have never stomped my feet when on this site. You have said it repeatedly. That doesn’t make it true. No – really, your saying things does not make them true. This is something you have yet to learn.

    Now, when you say:

    “My definition did NOT support your definition.”

    Yes, it did. Sorry to break it to you, yet again.

    And:

    The topic is about belief and how beliefs are unfounded. You backed it up with your definition of belief, which shows it’s an unfounded claim (which is what belief is).

    You clearly demonstrate that you either did not read or did not comprehend the article I quoted from. Here it is again. This time do wat I suggested last time and get your Mummy to explain it to you. Also do what I previously suggested and GET A DICTIONARY and look up the word “ego” so you will have some hope of understanding what is being said.

    I know you think I am playing games with words, but words are all we have here, and your poor workmanship in giving and recieving words is a major obstacle in this process.

    A BELIEF is a conviction based on personal, religious, or cultural faith; morality; or values. Many beliefs are irrevocably tied to the holder’s ego; that is, you cannot challenge the belief without challenging the person who holds the belief. A belief is inarguable, as it is not necessarily based on facts or other evidence. Statements such as “Capital punishment is legalized murder” and “The primary goal of government is to leave its citizens alone” are often called opinions because they express viewpoints. Unlike opinions, however, such beliefs cannot be disproved by facts or even contested on the basis of facts. Thus, they are not arguable, not open to challenge, and should not serve as the central assertion of an argument. However, if the audience already knowingly shares the writer’s feelings, statements of belief can serve as a kind of evidence in an argument, and they often form the assumptions linking assertions and evidence.

    Now here is a definition of an “unsubstantiated claim” from the same article:

    “An UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM is almost the same as a prejudice–without the negative connotations. If I were to accuse someone of being prejudiced, he or she would be branded as a bigot, or racist, or sexist, etc. If, on the other hand, I were to accuse someone of making unsubstantiated claims, he or she would be seen as being uninformed (possibly lazy, in not doing his or her “homework” before speaking). Like prejudices, unsubstantiated claims are testable: they can be contested and disproved by facts. This is the chief cause of bad grades in persuasion essays: writing something and not being able to back it up.”

  235. on 22 Feb 2007 at 9:23 pm 235.Mushinronjya said …

    “It proves that you are deluded.”

    I’m not the one with imaginary friends, you are.

    “A BELIEF is a conviction based on personal, religious, or cultural faith;”

    Correct. It is unsubstantiated. If it were substantiated by objective evidence, then it would be knowledge, not belief.

    I don’t have beliefs.
    You do.
    You believe in an invisible skydaddy.
    I do not.
    You have no evidence of said being.
    Conclusion: You are deluded.

    “A belief is inarguable, as it is not necessarily based on facts or other evidence. ”

    Exactly, it’s not. That’s why it’s a “belief”.

  236. on 22 Feb 2007 at 10:33 pm 236.mattstarrs said …

    I have beliefs.
    So do you.
    You believe in life on other planets.
    I do not.
    You have no evidence of said beings.
    Is the conclusion: You are deluded?

  237. on 22 Feb 2007 at 10:36 pm 237.mattstarrs said …

    I’m not the one with imaginary friends, you are.

    Actually, we established a few weeks ago that you do.

  238. on 22 Feb 2007 at 10:39 pm 238.mattstarrs said …

    “A belief is inarguable, as it is not necessarily based on facts or other evidence. ”

    This time read it without ommitting the word “necessarily”.

    “A BELIEF is a conviction based on personal, religious, or cultural faith;”

    “Based on” does not mean wholey relient on.

    You are reading what you want to believe into what is being said.

  239. on 23 Feb 2007 at 3:05 am 239.Mushinronjya said …

    “I have beliefs.
    So do you.
    You believe in life on other planets.”

    Stop trying to change the subject, just because you cannot defend your imaginary friend; your invisible sky daddy.

    I do not have beliefs.
    I have already explained my position on life on other planets, and there is no belief nor irrationality entailed, unless your being which you have no evidence for.

    ““A belief is inarguable, as it is not necessarily based on facts or other evidence. ”

    This time read it without ommitting the word “necessarily”.”

    If a belief was based on objective evidence, it wouldn’t be belief, but knowledge.
    How many times must you be told this?

    ““I’m not the one with imaginary friends, you are.”

    Actually, we established a few weeks ago that you do. ”

    You continue to make yourself look like a fool.

    You act soooooooo young and immature.

  240. on 04 Jun 2008 at 6:04 pm 240.The Audience said …

    Hi Folks

    Sorry I took so long to get here, I’m the audience…. the one you are trying to convince. Since this is a public forum, conducted in a debate style, I assume it’s all being done for my benefit. I’ll drop by every now and then and let you know how you’re all going.

    Whew!! Reading all of that took quite awhile!!!!! I must say.

    So far I am much more convinced by The Seeker than by Mushinronjya

    Why? Well reaction and shifted conviction for me, the audience, are based on more than just the content. It’s also based on personal style and subtext.

    The Seeker is very open and engaging. He seems to be genuinely looking for a way forward.

    Mushinronjya is a fundamentalist. He seems to believe that logic is the only criteria for judging validity. His personal style is anything but welcoming. He is dismissive, quallrellsome and patronising.

    As a result It doesn’t bring me to his arguments with any degree of empathy. His response to challenge is simply abuse.

    Loi P on the other hand is a worthy adversary for the Seeker. He is similarly engaging although still commited to his position of logic as ascendent

    Mattstars is very much in the Mushinronjya mould, except with a far better sense of humour, which has the capacity to aid his case since it identifies and highlights the pretentiousness of pontificating on any subject in we have only the tiniest grasp of the facts and where a our understanding of the nature of reality can shift in a nannosecond. (Consider the way in which Quantam machanics has shifted our perceptions concerning that which was once considered patently absurd.) This gains him some points.

    After reading all of the above my current judgement is that Logic has it’s place as one, and merely one, way of understanding the world that all of us experience. It is part of the toolbox that we bring to human experience.

    But like all tools it is only useful for the right application. Other tools such Love, Hope, Faith seem to be the right tools for other applications. To state that any one of these (including Faith or Logic) is the only tool for dealing with our understanding is Fundamentalism of the most blinkered kind.

    At the moment, on points, I am most impressed by The Seeker and therefore declare him to be the most convincing so far….but… I will be back again so don’t lose heart, Mushinronjya. Try and work on your personal style. You may yet win me over by addressing my concerns in a compassionate, empathic and engaging manner.

    The Audience

  241. on 27 Jan 2009 at 5:33 am 241.revolverBTE said …

    I got caught up in all of this because of the simplicity of the very first question. Obviously to regrow a limb would be ludicrous. The human body can’t do it. But God could do it if He/She/It so desired. And we are all justified in asking Christians why this has never happened–not a god, per se. If even one miracle existed today it would call into question all the previous ones. I recall hearing that the age of miracles was over (about ten or fifteen minutes after Christ was pulled off the cross). The point is to say that too much proof would be out there if someone regrew a limb. Further more it would be too much proof if this person, who got their limb back, also asked God for it back. It is too much proof for a man to have showed up about 2000 years ago, perform so many miracles, and somehow miss the historical record. But I’m preaching to the choir, so to speak. The point is to do as any intelligent person should do: Take an unflinching look at the origins of this outdated belief system.

  242. on 04 May 2010 at 2:27 am 242.Lance said …

    Hi well I’m Christian Jesus believing and living person. Honestly everyone is being subjective, you would think I am because I’m a Christian. Quite the contrary, you should look at everything through an objective view and that’s how you come up with your True answer. Science and Creation are not opposites, but science helps prove creation. Same as politics and God are not meant to be opposites, but only a supporting building blocks for greater understanding in how we are to live for God.

  243. on 04 May 2010 at 3:00 am 243.A real-ist said …

    “you should look at everything through an objective view and that’s how you come up with your True answer.”

    You do realize that the definition of being objective is that something is verifiable by lookiing up facts or performing mathematical calculations. That is what Atheists have done to realize God doesn’t exist. Subjective means it cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures. This describes you believers.

    “Science and Creation are not opposites, but science helps prove creation.”

    Science does not help prove creation! You only think it does because we know science is real and the only way you can tell yourself creationism is real in your own mind is to link the two. Science has not proven things in the bible to be true! In fact, it proves a lot of it to be false.

    “politics and God are not meant to be opposites, but only a supporting building blocks for greater understanding in how we are to live for God.”

    They are MEANT to NOT be together. That is why we have separation of church and state in the United States. It isn’t right to make community decisions based on a false reality.

  244. on 04 May 2010 at 11:32 am 244.Lou said …

    “Science and Creation are not opposites, but science helps prove creation.”

    Well stated. Darwin had no clue life was so complex! The more we discover and see the complexity of life the more we see the hand of God. It real is a great tool for evangelism. Francis Collins has a great book on this.

  245. on 05 Sep 2011 at 9:21 am 245.C I said …

    The things you are claiming are facts are not. They are lies. Question after question is twisted and formed and framed as if what is being asked is true. When a lie is a part of that question and worded as if it were a fact it cannot be answered to start. The whole thing is biased BS. No logical person would frame any question in such a way or they would be kicked out of school. They would just be hearing what they wanted, not what is true. Just like this site. There is noting in the way of science or logic in this entire rant. It is ranting for the sake of one egotistical person desire to hear themselves. Why is God cruel? But only if He a Christian. Really? There is no answer to why He is, because He is not and He is a Christian. The question does not apply and is void. Such nonsense. If you bought into this you are going to be miserable in life. No, I’m not going to waste my time on such stupidity. That does not make this any closer to being true. There are just too many lie to even begin to address this. Just read the questions backwards.

  246. on 05 Sep 2011 at 12:19 pm 246.Lou (DFW) said …

    Because CI replied to such an old comment written by some one who signed it from Lou, I want to clarify that it was not written by me, a different Lou currently posting comments. From now on I will sign my comments as Lou (DFW).

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply