Feed on Posts or Comments 19 December 2014

Christianity Johnson on 12 Mar 2009 12:12 am

How we should treat all Christians

The Christian idea that we should kill homosexuals comes from the Bible, and it is ridiculous. The idea is absurd on its surface because it is so obviously, violently unethical. And it is absurd because it comes from a book that is itself ridiculous and repulsive.

Thus, when speaking to Christians who believe in the Bible, there is no reason to pull punches. Their beliefs represent what is surely a form of insanity. This is a model for appropriate treatment:

206 Responses to “How we should treat all Christians”

  1. on 12 Mar 2009 at 8:08 pm 1.kit said …

    I had forgotten about this lovely moment! Leviticus 19:19 is a perpetual crowd-pleaser.

    I wish we really had a President Bartlet. That guy we have right now is a pussy.

  2. on 13 Mar 2009 at 12:25 am 2.Gern Blansten said …

    Well, see, there’s this little thing you’re overlooking, namely that Bartlet was fictional.

  3. on 14 Mar 2009 at 12:50 am 3.Anonymous said …

    One other thing you’re forgetting. This fictional character was an extremely devout Catholic. I believe the title to your post should read, “How we should treat all ignorant, judgmental, ‘holier-than-thou’ Christians.” There are some who legitimately live quiet, well-intentioned lives, wanting to do good in the world. Those who do not recruit or condescend or behave hypocritically. I myself am an agnostic. But this particular scene reminds me that there are two very different kinds of Christians. And I respect the type represented by the fictional character Bartlett. I abhor the one represented by the “Dr.”

  4. on 14 Mar 2009 at 3:37 am 4.Hermes said …

    Anonymous, along those lines, a thread on the forums;

    Attention Christians: This is how to behave…
    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=3455

  5. on 14 Mar 2009 at 1:33 pm 5.Dimms said …

    Hi Johnson
    Hope things are going well.
    Unethical? Within what moral framework? Remember any thinking person (AT LEAST THIS THINKING PERSON) cannot accept categories of ethical (right / good) or unethical (wrong / evil) without some (metaphysical) absolute of ethical (right) or unethical (wrong). So, I ask you: what metaphysical construct are you trying to “convert” people to? Atheism? The assertion that there is “no God” and at the same time the attempt to assert categories of “ethical” or “unethical” is also profoundly illogical (PHILOSOPHICALLY SPEAKING). If there is “no God” then there is no absolute morality, and by extension NO ETHICS (except, of course, the ethics that you believe by faith to be true (within your athiest world view (if, of course, you are athiest. If you are not, my apologies)). REMEMBER, atheism is, at least logically, a form of faith. You cannot prove imperically that there is “no God”. You take it on faith that there is no God (at least no “Christian God”) according to your own subjective faith (i.e. the Atheist construct you might hold to). The clip you posted is powerful in its underlying presuppositions, however, it is not (given the nature of editorial discretion) a robust polemic against the existence of the christian God.You must look at the ethical (moral) treatment of the texts that we collectively understand to be the “Old Testament” by those of the New Testament. For the New Testament texts are the starting point for Christian faith and ethics. Please read these INTELLIGENTLY and IN CONTEXT before assuming a high moral ground. My argument here is NOT TO JUSTIFY the killing of homosexuals (which seems to be one of your legitimate concerns). But that your own assertions of “unethical”, “ridiculus”, “repulsive” and “insanity” are themselves emotive and informed by faith (within whatever epistemological framework you hold to). This can be a Theist, Atheist, Agnostic or Deist framework, however it is ultimately a commitment of “faith”. Please articulate, defend and argue your “faith” – logically and NOT emotively. I anticipate your response. (PS: I do not assume that I know all the answers. I am a finite human being like yourself. Just happen to be a christian (was once an athiest) who is unconviced by the athiest faith.

  6. on 14 Mar 2009 at 2:56 pm 6.Gern Blansten said …

    Dimms, have you honestly not heard rebuttals to all of your claims and assertions before? You sound as if you’re debated all of this before, so I assume you know how most non-believers would respond. It’s just that you’re not willing to accept that response.

    Have you visited Talk Origins?

  7. on 14 Mar 2009 at 3:09 pm 7.Gern Blansten said …

    ‘If there is “no God” then there is no absolute morality’

    Claim CB411:

    Evolution cannot explain moral behavior, especially altruism. Evolutionary fitness is selfish; individuals win only by benefitting themselves and their offspring.
    Source:

    Dembski, William A., 2004. Reflections on human origins. http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.06.Human_Origins.pdf
    Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life–How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 177.

    Response:

    The claim ignores what happens when organisms live socially. In fact, much about morals can be explained by evolution. Since humans are social animals and they benefit from interactions with others, natural selection should favor behavior that allows us to better get along with others.

    Fairness and cooperation have value for dealing with people repeatedly (Nowak et al. 2000). The emotions involved with such justice could have evolved when humans lived in small groups (Sigmund et al. 2002). Optional participation can foil even anonymous exploitation and make cooperation advantageous in large groups (Hauert et al. 2002).

    Kin selection can explain some altruistic behavior toward close relatives; because they share many of the same genes, helping them benefits the giver’s genes, too. In societies, altruism benefits the giver because when others see someone acting altruistically, they are more likely to give to that person (Wedekind and Milinski 2000). In the long term, the generous person benefits from an improved reputation (Wedekind and Braithwaite 2002). Altruistic punishment (punishing another even at cost to yourself) allows cooperation to flourish even in groups of unrelated strangers; the abstract of Fehr and Gächter (2002) is worth quoting in full:

    Human cooperation is an evolutionary puzzle. Unlike other creatures, people frequently cooperate with genetically unrelated strangers, often in large groups, with people they will never meet again, and when reputation gains are small or absent. These patterns of cooperation cannot be explained by the nepotistic motives associated with the evolutionary theory of kin selection and the selfish motives associated with signalling theory or the theory of reciprocal altruism. Here we show experimentally that the altruistic punishment of defectors is a key motive for the explanation of cooperation. Altruistic punishment means that individuals punish, although the punishment is costly for them and yields no material gain. We show that cooperation flourishes if altruistic punishment is possible, and breaks down if it is ruled out. The evidence indicates that negative emotions towards defectors are the proximate mechanism behind altruistic punishment. These results suggest that future study of the evolution of human cooperation should include a strong focus on explaining altruistic punishment.

    Finally, evolution does not require that all traits be adaptive 100 percent of the time. The altruism that benefits oneself most of the time may contribute to life-risking behavior in some infrequent circumstances.

    This claim is an argument from incredulity. Not knowing an explanation does not mean no explanation exists. And as noted above, much of the explanation is known already.
    References:

    Fehr, Ernst and Simon Gächter, 2002. Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature 415: 137-140.
    Hauert, C., S. De Monte, J. Hofbauer and K. Sigmund, 2002. Volunteering as Red Queen mechanism for cooperation in public goods games. Science 296: 1129-1132.
    Nowak, M. A., K. M. Page and K. Sigmund, 2000. Fairness versus reason in the ultimatum game. Science 289: 1773-1775.
    Sigmund, Karl, E. Fehr and M. A. Nowak, 2002. (see below)
    Wedekind, C. and V. A. Braithwaite, 2002. The long-term benefits of human generosity in indirect reciprocity. Current Biology 12: 1012-1015.
    Wedekind, C. and M. Milinski, 2000. Cooperation through image scoring in humans. Science 288: 850-852. See also Nowak, M. A. and K. Sigmund, 2000. Shrewd investments. Science 288: 819-820.
    Wright, Robert, 1994. (see below)
    Further Reading:

    Netting, Jessa, 2000 (20 Oct.). Model of good (and bad) behaviour. Nature Science Update, http://www.nature.com/nsu/001026/001026-2.html

    Sigmund, Karl, Ernst Fehr and Martin A. Nowak, 2002. The economics of fair play. Scientific American 286(1) (Jan.): 82-87.

    Vogel, Gretchen, 2004. The evolution of the golden rule. Science 303: 1128-1131.

    Wright, Robert, 1994. The Moral Animal New York: Pantheon Books.

    Henrich, Joseph. 2006. Cooperation, punishment, and the evolution of human institutions. Science 312: 60-61.

    Nowak, Martin A. 2006. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314: 1560-1563.

  8. on 14 Mar 2009 at 3:10 pm 8.Gern Blansten said …

    The claim ignores what happens when organisms live socially. In fact, much about morals can be explained by evolution. Since humans are social animals and they benefit from interactions with others, natural selection should favor behavior that allows us to better get along with others.
    Fairness and cooperation have value for dealing with people repeatedly (Nowak et al. 2000). The emotions involved with such justice could have evolved when humans lived in small groups (Sigmund et al. 2002). Optional participation can foil even anonymous exploitation and make cooperation advantageous in large groups (Hauert et al. 2002).
    Kin selection can explain some altruistic behavior toward close relatives; because they share many of the same genes, helping them benefits the giver’s genes, too. In societies, altruism benefits the giver because when others see someone acting altruistically, they are more likely to give to that person (Wedekind and Milinski 2000). In the long term, the generous person benefits from an improved reputation (Wedekind and Braithwaite 2002). Altruistic punishment (punishing another even at cost to yourself) allows cooperation to flourish even in groups of unrelated strangers; the abstract of Fehr and Gächter (2002) is worth quoting in full:
    Human cooperation is an evolutionary puzzle. Unlike other creatures, people frequently cooperate with genetically unrelated strangers, often in large groups, with people they will never meet again, and when reputation gains are small or absent. These patterns of cooperation cannot be explained by the nepotistic motives associated with the evolutionary theory of kin selection and the selfish motives associated with signalling theory or the theory of reciprocal altruism. Here we show experimentally that the altruistic punishment of defectors is a key motive for the explanation of cooperation. Altruistic punishment means that individuals punish, although the punishment is costly for them and yields no material gain. We show that cooperation flourishes if altruistic punishment is possible, and breaks down if it is ruled out. The evidence indicates that negative emotions towards defectors are the proximate mechanism behind altruistic punishment. These results suggest that future study of the evolution of human cooperation should include a strong focus on explaining altruistic punishment.
    Finally, evolution does not require that all traits be adaptive 100 percent of the time. The altruism that benefits oneself most of the time may contribute to life-risking behavior in some infrequent circumstances.
    This claim is an argument from incredulity. Not knowing an explanation does not mean no explanation exists. And as noted above, much of the explanation is known already.

  9. on 14 Mar 2009 at 3:11 pm 9.Gern Blansten said …

    The above post addresses Dimms’ remarks about morality.

  10. on 14 Mar 2009 at 3:13 pm 10.Gern Blansten said …

    Regarding Dimms’ remarks about evolution requiring faith…

    The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed. There is a great amount of this evidence. When evidence is found to contradict previous conclusions, those conclusions are abandoned, and new beliefs based on the new evidence take their place. This “seeing is believing” basis for the theory is exactly the opposite of the sort of faith implied by the claim.

    The claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Such faith is better known as gullibility. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings.

    A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay. Such faith is not compatible with most creationism. Creationism usually demands that God acts according to peoples’ set beliefs, and anything else is simply wrong (e.g., ICR 2000). It cannot accept that whatever God has done is okay.

  11. on 14 Mar 2009 at 3:15 pm 11.Gern Blansten said …

    Dimms said: You cannot prove imperically that there is “no God”.

    Well, duh. You’re the one making the extraordinary claim. The burden is on you to prove it. Similarly, you can’t prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist.

    Just for fun, though, if you’ll prove that Zeus doesn’t exist, I’ll use your method to prove that Yahweh doesn’t exist.

  12. on 14 Mar 2009 at 3:16 pm 12.Gern Blansten said …

    I like how Dimms disowns the Old Testament–and I don’t blame him/her.

    Bet he/she doesn’t disown the Ten Commandments, though.

  13. on 15 Mar 2009 at 12:48 am 13.Hermes said …

    Gern Blansten: Well said. Nothing to add.

  14. on 15 Mar 2009 at 12:51 am 14.Hermes said …

    Dimms, I do have one request. Please emphasize paragrapha and hit return a couple times.

  15. on 15 Mar 2009 at 2:49 am 15.Dimms said …

    Hi Gern Blansten,
    Thank you for your response. I honestly found it fascinating and thought provoking (I don’t say this in a condescending way). You are right, I have heard the above arguments in various forms before.For lack of time I will make some brief comments on your posts.
    Points 7. & 9. above seem to be hypotheses based on a modern, imperical, scientific method. This scientific inquiry, like you said, hypothesises based on observable phenomena. I personally do not have any objections to this scientific methodology. If done well such an epistemological framework is beneficial in determining the “truth” of observable phenomena. However, such inquiry neither proves or disproves the existence of a deity.It seems to be ill-equipped to provide conclusive “proofs” for the theist or athiest position. For me as a christian, to articulate and describe observable processes (whether anthropological, socialogical or within the natural sciences)gives me more of an insight into how the world “works”, it can’t, in itself be used to “prove” the existence or non existence of God.
    In my experience the hypotheses you posted in 7. & 9. above can be robustly used as “evidences” by both atheists (yourself included) and christians. I have heard really thought provoking arguments (yours included) on both sides based on the same imperical findings. Sometimes it just comes down to good rhetoric on both sides.
    Once one says “This phenomenon happens THEREFORE, there is (no) god” one is imposing a metaphysical proposition on the physical evidence. It is in this vain that I was asserting that atheism is a “faith” in no god.
    Point 6. above: we are probably both unwilling to accept each others responses if we are honest. The great thing is that we can freely engage in this discourse and disagree on points. I am fine to accept the science (if done well). Please don’t assume that because I am a christian that I don’t think.
    Point 9. above: I did not claim that evolution requires faith, I was asserting that atheism requires faith. Evolution is (theoretically) a scientific hypothesis based on observable phenomenon. Atheism is a metaphysical construct that one could impose on this apparent evidence. Remember there are theists that use the same evidence to assert their position. You may be assuming too much in terms of my understanding of “creation”.
    Finally, I did not “disown” the OT (Point 11.). As a christian I hold this text as canonical. However, the canon of the New Testament (for the christian) is the exegetical reference point for the OT. This exigetical framework is articulated thoroughly in the letter to the Hebrews (NT). In essence the theocracy established in the mosaic law is no longer applicable (for the christian). This is a general explanation I know. Give Hebrews a read to gain more insight into the christian treatment of the OT.
    Anyway Gern Blansten, got to go. I really appreciate your responses. If I have time I’ll vist this site again soon. Didn’t realise this writing blog thing took so much time. If there are spelling mistakes my apologies. I have sincerely enjoyed the chat. Take care.

  16. on 15 Mar 2009 at 5:40 am 16.RLWemm said …

    Dimms, if the NT negates “the theocracy established in the mosaic law” why not discard the O.T. entirely?

    The god described in the O.T. seems to be very different from the one which Christians think is described in the N.T. If Jesus and Yahweh are one and the same then they must be multiple personalities who have some rip-roaring arguments amongst themselves.

  17. on 20 Mar 2009 at 6:00 pm 17.Lou said …

    Bless you heart. I have very dear friend of mine who was once an atheist. He stated that he was constantly waring against Christianity as an atheist. As a now born again believer, he now realizes that was the way God was keeping his need for Him on his conscious. There is hope for you my friend.

    That saddest part I believe is the simplicity in which 90% of your argument can so easily be shot down. Maybe more, I have not the time to file through your catalog. But hang in there, it is a great exercise for Christians to be challenged in apologetics.

  18. on 20 Mar 2009 at 7:01 pm 18.Gern Blansten said …

    “Bless you heart.”

    Intended to sound kind, but actually condescending.

    “I have very dear friend of mine who was once an atheist.”

    Your friend’s atheism or lack thereof has no bearing on whether any god or gods exist.

    “There is hope for you my friend.”

    There will be hope for you, too, if you’ll begin to think rationally.

    “That saddest part I believe is the simplicity in which 90% of your argument can so easily be shot down.”

    Then do it instead of running away.

  19. on 20 Mar 2009 at 10:02 pm 19.Hermes said …

    Lou, I’m not against reality. If you can show that you have a better grasp on reality than the non-theists here, that would go a long way toward converting me to your specific religious beliefs. I encourage you to make your case.

    You can do it here — in the blog — or on the forums;

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php

    If I get no response from you, or the response I get is nothing but assertions that you are right, then expect that at best I won’t be swayed. (Also, lying or showing that you did not actually research any of the points you make is not appreciated. Unfortunately, I have to say that since so many Christians that come here either don’t know what they are talking about or lie to get someone to convert. Consider that neither will work with me.)

    Deal?

  20. on 21 Mar 2009 at 10:53 am 20.Lou said …

    My friends I will never enter to an argument with atheist on the existence of God. Its a pointless endeavor. The interpretation of “proof” is in the eye of the beholder and the interpreter will undoubtedly bring his own biases to the exercise.

    Countless volumes on the subject exists from former atheist on the path you now travel. Why would I reenact the arguments on a blog? Time is a valuable commodity. Anthony Flew claimed just a few years ago “I must follow where the evidence leads” and has entered the theistic sect. Josh McDowell & Lee Strobel, both former atheist have also written many works on the subject. If you truly desire to understand you will investigate on your own with an open mind. You don’t need ‘ol Lou.

    Ultimately I follow Christ because he radically changed my life. If I had continued in my former life; I would have more than likely been dead years ago. I live this life not out of duty but out of desire. I wouldn’t change a thing. My relationship with the Lord is quite real.

    Lastly, as far as the delusion goes, be careful. Lord willing you will never need one but if you do, check out you surgeon carefully. He may be semi-retired but he also may have the first name Lou.

  21. on 21 Mar 2009 at 3:58 pm 21.Hermes said …

    Lou, arrogant ignorance is fun, isn’t it?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

  22. on 21 Mar 2009 at 3:59 pm 22.Hermes said …

    Lou, make no mistake. I take your response as a concession; even you know in your heart that your god isn’t worth defending — because if it were, it could defend itself.

  23. on 22 Mar 2009 at 9:40 am 23.Lou said …

    Hermes my friend, are you resorting ad hominem attacks to somehow hopefully prove a point? Try some civility, I may share a thought or two but I will never enter to ad hominem attacks with you.

    I did reflect on the very title of your blog as well as the center-piece of your argument and thought I would share what I see as the deficiency in this deficient argument. God is love. God does not heal amputees. Therefore there is no God. That looks to be the basis of your conjecture. However, this is wanting logic in that you make the assumption that an individual who is an amputee is somehow inferior or not as blessed or even loved in view of the fact they are deficient a limb. Consequently since He does not add this limb therefore as character would dictate, He must not be. Why not carry the absurdity of this argument to the next level. “Why doesn’t God give men four-legs? or how about this one “Why doesn’t God give men three eyes? Why didn’t God give me a 98mph fastball when I was a young man? The real question might just be “What is God attempting to show an individual who loses a limb?

    I asked a paraplegic friend this very question many years ago. This guy competed in the Boston marathon numerous years and can pull himself in and out of a raft better than I ever could. I have never forgotten his answer. He shared with me then (and I am sure even now) that he would not trade places with any man on earth. He has accomplished more and led a more fulfilling life than a vast majority of the populace with full functioning limbs. Without the accident that paralyzed him, he questions if he would have ever had the drive to accomplish what he did. Through it all he found God which has been his greatest source of joy. There is another gentleman from Australia who travels the world and was born with no arms and legs. His message is that God loves you and that he is also blessed man. Look him up on YouTube.

    You see Hermes, there are individuals with no noticeable disabilities who are the most miserable individuals on earth. There are those without the use of their limbs who among the joyful individuals you will ever meet and often it is through the process of losing something of great value they realize their own true worth. God loves you too Hermes.

  24. on 22 Mar 2009 at 10:52 am 24.Gern Blansten said …

    I think Darrell = Lou.

  25. on 22 Mar 2009 at 10:58 am 25.Hermes said …

    Lou, I treat words seriously. Words like friend. Are we friends? Unlikely. Only one of my good friends is evangelically religious, and I know his writing style. As such, please do not abuse words; don’t call someone a friend when that category to be meaningful must be limited to those people dearest in our hearts.

    As for civility, your interest in preaching at me yet denying any give and take is belittling. It is the kind of thing that you do to ignorant children. Such an attitude deserves mockery, not civility. If you want to really discuss these issues, and not do so in a one-way manner, then you may deserve civility. Till then, you reap what you sow.

    Your arrogant and aloof disinterest is a prize. It is a concession.

  26. on 22 Mar 2009 at 10:59 am 26.Hermes said …

    Gern, likely true. If I had the IP logs, I could check it, yet here I am a mere mortal.

  27. on 22 Mar 2009 at 1:37 pm 27.Darrell said …

    Again Gern you seem to know everything about me, Ill tell you right now I am Darrell, ok ,nice and clear for you now and Lou is Lou, well atleast I think he is because I dont know him.
    I read your comments on this page too, Im still looking for your own personal view not someone elses that you just happen to agree with.

  28. on 22 Mar 2009 at 2:25 pm 28.Darrell said …

    Lou I like how Hermes said to you that he treats words seriously, I got pretty much the same responce from him too.

    So lets cut the crap, Hermes you say your an open person that will only change his mind if given proof of something. Thats the best way to keep everyone around you happy isnt it without ever having to truly be open to anything.
    You know as well as I do that no person can give you any proof of the exsistence of any god or gods, only the gods themselves could deliver this proof to you, so with that knowledge you hide behind your beliefs saying that your open to suggestion but knowing you will never have to change. Thats a cowards way of life, only the brave can accept that anything is possible without ever needing proof.
    Im not claiming to know you but I think Im spot on and I bet you know I am.
    As others have said its pointless to debate this topic with you as you know you will never receive the proof you require and so to go on with it is a dead end.
    People voice there opinions on here and you respond in only 2 ways:
    1 if they have the same beliefs as you you will agree with most of what they say.

    2 if they believe in something other to your beliefs you shut them down, tell them they are wrong,try to make them look like an idiot and then ask for proof of their claims.

    Well Hermes Ill ask you the same question I asked your best mate Gern, where is YOUR proof? Your good at asking others for it.
    You have referred me to other websites and blogs and forums and other things of that nature none of which have any solid proof of any of your claims because in the end its just another persons opinion, idea, belief or point of view which we all know proves nothing.

    So get off your high horse, stop acting like you know every little secret this universe has to offer, stop making people think their beliefs are incorrect and come back to the real world.

    Ive simply had enough of people like you talking of things that you cannot ever know for certain is fact or fiction, if you dont believe in God well so what! others do and others also believe in many different gods and soforth, when it all comes down to it who really cares ?
    Seems to me like your losing your faith in your own beliefs so you need to constantly reaffirm it to yourself by pissing on others beliefs.

    I tell you all now I feel like a real fuckwit ever looking at this site and being caught up in a subject that cant be proved by any human being.

  29. on 22 Mar 2009 at 3:10 pm 29.GotMooo said …

    Thinking in abstracts can be very innovative, but gods are designed beyond the reach of science. So there is no rational reason to believe in something without evidence.

    I don’t believe in the claim that there is a monster in my closet. The reason why is because there is no evidence to support this claim.

    I don’t have a real problem with anyone who believes in a god. However it is a real problem when their beliefs effect my life. Islam is trying to conquer the world and tell us all how to live. I have a problem with that, don’t you? Various sects and denominations of Christianity have some control over governments which effects people of all beliefs. This control correlates with their beliefs.

    You have to isolate religion and gods from government as much as you can and create a secular society, or freedom of religion and from religion is just an illusion.

  30. on 22 Mar 2009 at 5:58 pm 30.Lou said …

    Hermes I don’t use words loosely either. I consider you a friend and I consider one to be a friend unless reason to believe otherwise presents itself. I would not question your decision to do otherwise.
    You seem to imply to have the inability or possibly not the desire to delve into a discussion without becoming uncivil. Is it necessary to attack those you differ with personally? It would seem more prudent to stick to the discussion and not the person.

    You also seem to take some reflection by others upon you own logical assertions as preaching. Yet, I never quoted form a single book or invoked a religious tenet. I simply presented the case that your question of God and your conclusions are illogical. I see no reason at this point to deviate from that conclusion.

  31. on 22 Mar 2009 at 6:34 pm 31.Hermes said …

    Lou, if have a few billion friends — friendship is meaningless. Disagree if you want, but don’t presume that I’m going to abuse words with you or acknowledge that your point on that is a good one or even somehow acceptable. At best, it is a plea for yet more ignorance and at worse a used car salesman’s tactic.

    As for accusing me of wanting to only attack, if that is what you desire, that is fine.

    Yet, make no mistake that I offered to discuss things, and you were the one to reject it. As such, you did concede.

    If that looks to you to be personal, consider your own motivations. Is it honest to use words improperly to cajole someone without a discussion — like a child — when they were up front about wanting a direct discussion?

    Your first words were to first witness to us about a friend of yours that was an atheist and now is not … then in your next sentence to use the word friend again, this time attributing it to any and all readers. How is that not a slimy tactic? That you repeated it in each and every message only shows your are impulsively disingenuous.

    So, no. I do not grant you a pass on that abuse of language and presumption of a relationship. Anyone who treats others so badly at the start does not deserve friendship or civility.

    Yet, back to the point at hand. Reality.

    I’m all for being shown that your religious claims are correct — or baring that — more likely than a few alternatives that seem much more credible to me at the moment.

    Are you with me in an actual discussion, or are you comfortable with your current tactics?

    The choice has always been yours.

  32. on 22 Mar 2009 at 6:44 pm 32.Hermes said …

    GotMooo, I agree wholeheartedly. A secular society need not remove religious people from the discussion or even to reduce their numbers. A secular society allows everyone to be treated equally — and offers them no special privileges above others. A secular society requires that all citizens not take a short cut by using religious dogma or biases when deciding how to interact with other citizens.

  33. on 22 Mar 2009 at 8:45 pm 33.Lou said …

    Hermes, you seem to have more problems with the courteous use of friend than about addressing my argument against your illogical assumptions made of God.
    I must say you seem to playing more a game of bait and switch rather than defending your position. If you decide to defend your position regarding my postulation within entry #22 I’ll check back. If not then we will just leave there.

  34. on 22 Mar 2009 at 9:34 pm 34.Hermes said …

    Lou, you already said you did not want a discussion. I obliged you. If you are saying you are now interested, then by all means … you can start at *my* first reply.

  35. on 22 Mar 2009 at 9:35 pm 35.Hermes said …

    BTW … I accept your future concession when you ignore me yet again.

  36. on 22 Mar 2009 at 10:08 pm 36.Gern Blansten said …

    Hermes,

    Lou wants you to believe in god, just as he does, and he doesn’t like the idea that your logic and rationality are getting in the way. He doesn’t want to have to present any evidence for any god’s existence. He just wants you to believe, like he does. He’ll happily use anecdotes about former atheists, even though those are irrelevant. He’ll call the premise of this site illogical, but he won’t present any evidence to support that claim.

    That about sum it up, Lou?

  37. on 22 Mar 2009 at 10:27 pm 37.Hermes said …

    Gern, agreed; on that I don’t doubt. If he had something beyond mere assertions wrapped in used car salesmanship, I would be more encouraged that there was an earnest intent behind his words. I have yet to see that, though. As such, I have yet to give my best. What would be the point. Pearls before swine, as it were.

  38. on 22 Mar 2009 at 10:38 pm 38.Darrell said …

    GotMooo thats a nice piont and I agree with you.

    Lou you seem to be a well mannered person thats why you write in the style that you do but when you address those with no manners you get the responces like you have received from Hermes and Gern. Keep it up Lou its nice to see there are still some courteous people left in this world.

    As for you Hermes did I touch a sore spot with my last comment? I must have been correct then as you have not denied it.
    As for your comment to Lou you say ” Ive offered to discuss things ” Thats a joke, how can you say that when you have already made up your mind and are unwilling to accept anything that anyone says to you?
    Hermes just refer to my above comment as it says it all and Im still waiting for your answer too, where is your unquestionable proof that there is no god?

  39. on 22 Mar 2009 at 10:48 pm 39.Hermes said …

    Darrell: “As for you Hermes did I touch a sore spot with my last comment? I must have been correct then as you have not denied it.”

    Did you mean this?

    Darrell: “Well Hermes Ill ask you the same question I asked your best mate Gern, where is YOUR proof? Your good at asking others for it.”

    As for the rest, my first reply to Lou (or you if Gern is correct) is the following;

    Hermes: “I’m not against reality. If you can show that you have a better grasp on reality than the non-theists here, that would go a long way toward converting me to your specific religious beliefs. I encourage you to make your case.”

    Is it curious that you did not notice it?

  40. on 22 Mar 2009 at 11:35 pm 40.Darrell said …

    Of course I noticed it, unlike others I can read.

    Yes you say your open to suggestion, I totally agree with you that you said that but you can say whatever you want to say but to act on it is different.

    I dont want to try to convert you to any religious belief, the only point Im trying to make is nomatter what anyone says or does we will all have our own view on it.
    To say that your opinion is right or better or to say that anothers opinion is wrong or illogical, just because you dont agree, simply shows that your arrogant and self absorbed.

    Hermes I hate to repeat myself but Ill say it again, you constantly ask people on here to give you proof of their claims but when your asked you just try to turn it all back onto the other person.

    So Hermes please show me your proof to back your claims, seriously Im honestly interested to see what it is that you have found to make you so damn certain that your right in your beliefs, maybe it might swing me to your line of thought.

    Also I apologise to you if I offened you at all it was not my intention, I just had enough of seeing you putting others beliefs down. Your opinions are as valid as anyother person. You have the right to believe anything you like but just remember so does everyone else.

  41. on 22 Mar 2009 at 11:52 pm 41.Lou said …

    Hermes you seem to fail to realize the position you now occupy. This is your blog, your arguments and your assertions. Your canon is attempting to save me from religion, God and delusions but you fail to even address my initial argument in #22. I now inquire for a credible defense but if you can’t even support the very name of your blog with logical arguments, I fear you have very little to offer than opinions. Nothing wrong with opinion but certainly they cannot be passed for sustainable facts.

    I presented the problem in your argument. It’s now up to you to sustain.

    Darrell,

    Thank you for the kind words. I have always seen it as a duty to act with tribute and respect for all people regardless of their beliefs.

  42. on 23 Mar 2009 at 1:20 am 42.Darrell said …

    Thanks Lou, Im the same mate no point in trying to tell someone what to believe but no harm in giving your side of the story in a polite manner.
    There are to many people wanting to force their view onto others with no regard for others beliefs.

  43. on 23 Mar 2009 at 2:19 am 43.Hermes said …

    Darrell, good. Reading is an important skill. Yet, from your replies to Gern I do suspect your reading abilities. Consider it an insult now, but hold on your indignation till Gern shows you where your comprehension or attention may have been lacking. Who knows, it may be a growing experience.

    Darrell: “To say that your opinion is right or better or to say that anothers opinion is wrong or illogical, just because you dont agree, simply shows that your arrogant and self absorbed.”

    Yet, if I ask to be convinced otherwise and I’m not obliged, what more can I do? I tentatively hold a conclusion that there are no gods and that supernaturalism is not credible.

    In other threads, I’ve even posted a list of reasons why there is no such thing as a soul and thus no afterlife. That list remains unchallenged, unless you accept ignoring it and reasserting that there are too souls or there is too an afterlife a serious challenge.

    I’ve also asked for how theology adds to human knowledge in general, and the responses are very narrow and include documents that can not be built upon — unlike what a plumber or an accountant can do with their respective fields.

    I’ve even asked multiple times what someone means by “exists” in the statement “God exists” (or “Allah exists”). A seemingly simple question get quickly sidetracked by irrelevant answers and a total misunderstanding of what is being asked.

    If this makes me self absorbed — to be ignored and to be given answers that have nothing to do with the topic — well, what action or answer would suffice?

    Now, for the claims being made. I am an agnostic atheist. I don’t know for a fact there are no gods, but I believe there are none. As such, I’m not the one making a positive claim to knowledge. If you know logic and philosophy, you can see multiple reasons why it is the claimant not the questioner that bears the burden of proof.

    Now, if you want to speak about specific deities with specific characteristics — that can be different. Some of them for a fact do not exist as they are impossible.

    Yet, I’m stuck. Instead of a defined deity or group of supernatural entities with clear parameters, I get nebulous claims and bare assertions based on dogma or irrelevant issues such as evolution or the 2nd law of thermodynamics or an assertion that stunningly improbable things such as the Noachian Flood are credible bits of evidence for a deity. Each of these to me show a staggering lack of knowledge and closed mindedness.

    Though, it can’t be my interlocutors, it must be me. Right?

    Pick a subject and stop skirting your own responsibility. I’ve done my work in spades and need not speculate or assert without backing my comments with verifiable information. Can you do the same? Will you?

  44. on 23 Mar 2009 at 2:24 am 44.Hermes said …

    Lou: “Hermes you seem to fail to realize the position you now occupy. This is your blog, your arguments and your assertions.”

    You flatter me. No. I’m a mere mortal here posting messages like you.

    Everything I’ve said I stand by. In the forums, I go by the same avatar. Feel free to look me up.

    As for supporting the name of the blog, the owner of the blog has done so quite well. Can you identify a gap, or did you not bother reading what is out there?

    FWIW;

    1. The videos;

    http://www.youtube.com/user/giivideo

    2. The blog.

    3, The book;

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god-toc.htm

    4. The forums;

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?board=6.0

    Knock yourself out.

  45. on 23 Mar 2009 at 2:27 am 45.Hermes said …

    A reply to Lou is awaiting moderation as it contains links.

    In the meantime, Darrell. Did someone come to your house and drag you to a computer to see the material here? If not, then what do you have against freedom of speech — or is that only for those who agree with your enlightened position?

  46. on 23 Mar 2009 at 3:28 am 46.Darrell said …

    There we go Hermes insult me straight away, Im sorry that I forgot that your the almighty one who knows all, Im sorry to have questioned your beliefs, Oh woe is me I have failed you my great master Hermes.

    Ok my answer ,I looked at this site to see peoples opinions on a subject that cannot be 100% proven to be right or wrong. Just to see how much complete shit people were trying to argue as I find it entertaining.

    Now I came to find you on here, constantly trying to bash your view into others minds. A disgusting act and one that will get you nowhere.

    Im not here to try to prove anything to anyone, especially you, or change beliefs or opinions. My beliefs are my own and I do not expect anyone to even remotely agree with anything I believe.

    My only goal on this website is to shut the mouth of people like you who try to push their beliefs onto others. You may not think that this is what you are doing but the fact of the matter is you are! Set up a poll and prove me wrong if you disagree.

    Now you say your agnostic atheist, exactly right Hermes you dont know for a FACT there is no god but believe there isnt, BELIEVE THERE ISNT Hermes not know for a fact there isnt, yet you talk of all these claims of proof that there is no god. The only proof you have is others theories and opinions that they BELIEVE there in no god.

    This whole website is based on beliefs not facts and there is no way you can ever prove a belief to be wrong or right, a belief is ones own truth and reality is what you choose to make of it.

    In the end I agree with some points you have made and disagree with others but I would never have the nerve to say “Hermes I dont agree with you, all your beliefs are wrong untill you can prove to me otherwise” This is how most normal people would perceive your outlook, comments and responces.

    No one has to prove anything to you Hermes, you are the only one who needs to prove something to yourself.

    Last point of interest Hermes, I really enjoy how you make the point to everyone who disagrees with you that they have a lower intelligence or lower education that you, what grounds do you base this on? just the fact that you cant understand why anyone would have an alternate view to yours so you deem them uneducated?
    Im really finding it hard to understand that, I dont care how much you think you know, you can fill your head with every piece of fact and information and still be the dumbest fuck in the playground.
    Just thought Id throw some insults in since you deem it acceptable behaviour.

  47. on 23 Mar 2009 at 4:10 am 47.Darrell said …

    Also your statment saying ” Im not the one making a positive claim to knowledge” really? Well shut the fuck up then, you have just closed your case.
    Your entire argument is based on all this knowledge you claim to have on the matter, all these other links and websites which you have said prove your point, am I wrong? Does everyone else on this website see that too?

    You now have no grounds to stand on Hermes, with that simlpe statement you just shot yourself in the foot. You can now nolonger refer anyone to any of your so called truths on any subject as you have just clearly said ” Im not the one making a positive claim to knowledge” so simply put ” all knowledge I have referred to is just a possibility and is not a fact in any way “. Nicely said Hermes.

    Funny how easy it is to just take one small piece of the larger picture and turn it into the main focus of the subject, isnt it? Story of the world so far!!

    Hermes thank you for finally admitting your flaws and accepting that your view is nomore true or false than anyone elses.

  48. on 23 Mar 2009 at 4:45 am 48.Darrell said …

    Last comment to you Hermes on your question if I have something agaisnt freedom of speech. Im all for it your the one trying to stifle every else not me.
    Your just upset now that I have come along and shot you down as you have done to so many already.
    I guess you have finally met your match but to be honest with you i dont even class a person like you in the same league as me.
    Keep the responces comming though, if you like Ill continue the pick the shit out of them and turn it into gold, just like you try to do to everyones comments here. Ive known many people like you through my lifetime and I already know what to expect from you, Ill always be 2 steps ahead. Afterall isnt this what this website is all about?

  49. on 23 Mar 2009 at 6:02 pm 49.Hermes said …

    Darrell: “There we go Hermes insult me straight away, Im sorry that I forgot that your the almighty one who knows all, Im sorry to have questioned your beliefs, Oh woe is me I have failed you my great master Hermes.”

    Your supplication is noted and is deemed acceptable.

    Darrell: “Ok my answer ,I looked at this site to see peoples opinions on a subject that cannot be 100% proven to be right or wrong. Just to see how much complete shit people were trying to argue as I find it entertaining.”

    100%/proof is not required, though. Didn’t I mention that? Could have sworn I did. Multiple times in different ways. Well, just in case I did not mention that to you … I’m not asking for proof. Proof is a mathematical concept. What I’m asking for is much less rigorous; pass the sniff test; show me that the claim that one or more deities existing is more likely than not and that the comments of others are not enough to cast sufficient doubt on one or more deities existing.

    Then again, I’m unreasonable. Why trust what I say?

    Darrell: “Now I came to find you on here, constantly trying to bash your view into others minds. A disgusting act and one that will get you nowhere.”

    Actually, it does work. Most of the time, I suspect that I’ll never know the people I help, yet sometimes they stay around in the forums and contribute positively.

    Yet, here and now, you have gotten my worst and most sloven efforts because I don’t find your comments either insightful or challenging. To make up for that, I spend most of my time concentrating on first draft wordsmithing. The phrases, the cadence, and the arrangement — that is fascinating.

    My greatest regrets arise when I am unable to edit my previous sloppy efforts. I do feel bad about those, yet the act of editing is a different skill from the initial effort. Switching from one to the other should be done with care as there is a penalty in shutting down and then ramping up the different skills. As such, I’m not overly distressed.

    Now, if you or Lou (if you are not him as well), were actually interested in a discussion and made an effort to actually discuss, then I might change my focus. Then again, even if you were earnest, I still may not end up learning something new or discovering an insight I had not considered so far.

    [ on that note ... I'll switch to briefly cover the rest of your comments ]

  50. on 23 Mar 2009 at 6:06 pm 50.Hermes said …

    Darrell, do you think freedom of speech is a good idea?

  51. on 23 Mar 2009 at 6:08 pm 51.Hermes said …

    Darrell, before a deity or a pantheon is defined, it can not be addressed;

    “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

    — Christopher Hitchens

  52. on 23 Mar 2009 at 6:08 pm 52.Hermes said …

    Darrell: “In the end I agree with some points you have made and disagree with others but I would never have the nerve to say “Hermes I dont agree with you, all your beliefs are wrong untill you can prove to me otherwise” This is how most normal people would perceive your outlook, comments and responces.”

    Show me where I have been so strident.

  53. on 23 Mar 2009 at 6:09 pm 53.Hermes said …

    Darrell: “Last point of interest Hermes, I really enjoy how you make the point to everyone who disagrees with you that they have a lower intelligence or lower education that you, what grounds do you base this on? just the fact that you cant understand why anyone would have an alternate view to yours so you deem them uneducated?”

    Where did I say that?

  54. on 23 Mar 2009 at 6:14 pm 54.Hermes said …

    “Also your statment saying ” Im not the one making a positive claim to knowledge” really? Well shut the fuck up then, you have just closed your case.
    Your entire argument is based on all this knowledge you claim to have on the matter, all these other links and websites which you have said prove your point, am I wrong? Does everyone else on this website see that too?”

    I know you hate links, yet if you don’t know what fallacies are there’s no point in educating you on each one while you continue to make the same ones over and over. As such;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

    The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. As Bertrand Russel said;

    “If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

    In my case, I’m only saying “show me”. When the teapot or deity is not shown to be credible, what else can I do?

  55. on 23 Mar 2009 at 6:17 pm 55.Hermes said …

    Darrell, I just read your last comments. Very funny, yet sad at the same time. Consider the following;

    http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

    It is quite a humbling document. Well, it is to me.

  56. on 23 Mar 2009 at 6:20 pm 56.Hermes said …

    Lou, my last reply to you is still pending moderation. If it does not clear moderation in a day or so, remind me and I’ll be glad to post an abbreviated version of it without the relevant links.

  57. on 23 Mar 2009 at 8:44 pm 57.Chris said …

    Wow, I just read all of that…

    Hermes: Nothing to add, excellent points =]

    As for Darrell, I regret to inform you that your posts lack the sophistication or intelligence to make any assertions at all.

    The only thing you showed me is that you’re an arrogant 12-year-old that has a masters degree in bitch-assness and lunacy. Good job.

    Lou: I seriously lost all hope for people like you. I salute Hermes and anyone else who bothers to communicate with this idiot. Their heads are like 6-foot concrete walls plus 12-foot steel walls put together. There’s no getting through to him.

    Kudos to all rational people.

  58. on 23 Mar 2009 at 8:57 pm 58.Hermes said …

    [ tips hat to Chris ]

  59. on 23 Mar 2009 at 10:13 pm 59.Lou said …

    Chris I do the best I can partner. I’ll just try to muddle through.
    I must admit my disappointment that not a single feasible defense has been made. I did expect more to be done with my simple remarks.
    But here is another dilemma to consider. Hermes, do you consider yourself to be moral relativist or do you follow that there does exist in some essence absolute morality? I see assertions by atheist and secularist who like to point out the contrast within the Bible of morality defined by the NT as opposed to the morality practiced by many today including Christians. Hypocrisy is often the charge. Now doubt often a true assertion.
    If an atheist is to be consistent, there are only two possible scenarios possible for you to follow. As a relativist you do not have the high ground to use morality as a rationale to embrace atheism or to condemn another group of individuals. Once again this is illogical and even hypocritical. The morality that you now find to be an abomination in the OT is a relative morality and not one that may be held up for judgment.

    On the other hand, if you claim a universal morality, then who is allowed to lay down the framework for morality? Can you or anyone reconcile as an option to trust any human being to make that judgment. In this scenario, someone must take on the role moral monarch. That seems to be quite a risky proposition.

  60. on 23 Mar 2009 at 11:15 pm 60.Hermes said …

    Lou, regarding morality, let me cut to the chase. You are proposing that you have an absolute reference for morality, and that non-Christians do not have that reference (or the reference they use is somehow lacking).

    I contend that no matter where you get your morality from, the results are largely the same as other people who are in all other ways similar to you but may not share your specific religious beliefs (if any). (Note that this specifically covers aberrations such as people suffering from substantial mental diseases or other psychological deviations (regardless of source).)

    Q. If you are familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma, do you have an answer to it, and if so what is it?

    NOTE: As this is an advanced question, I realize you likely have not encountered Euthyphro or if you have, you have not given it much thought or have learned a canned response to it. A reasonable impulse on difficult or unfamiliar problems like Euthyphro is to just do a search of the net to see what is out there, read the commentary, and then accept the opinions of others. This does not work with Euthyphro, ad it takes quite a bit of effort for most people to comprehend, so picking a canned answer or answering quickly after reading it usually reflects a lack of consideration of the nuances of the issues it involves. It is called a dilemma — not a riddle — for a reason.

    Consider this your chance to show that you are not interested in jerking me around or wasting our collective time. Consider it a chance to show that you are earnest about having a discussion with me and not witnessing at me.

    If you understand this, the question to you is this:

    **** Do you have the stamina and interest to address the Euthyphro dilemma? ****

    If so, I will talk with you and answer your questions on morality from my perspective. I expect you to not skirt your responsibility in the conversation though once you get an answer from me.

    For the second time: Do we have a deal?

  61. on 24 Mar 2009 at 12:14 am 61.Darrell said …

    Ok Hermes Ill do my best to address as much as I can from your comments.

    Let me first start off by saying I just made one simple comment on here and from there Hermes turned it into a personal attack, he seems to want to address the issues but clearly has more fun attacking others views.

    You talk of proof to claims, Im not making any claims. You say you want people to show you proof of gods non-existence then turn around and say ” no Darrell Im not asking for proof of anything ” but then still you ask to be shown something to change your views on the matter. What is it that you really want Hermes? Clearly proof is what your asking.

    Ok again you make a snide comment of me being Lou, I assure you Im not, I could easily make the same claim that you are Gern and from this last comment Chris. Would you like Lou and I to send you our birth certificates?

    Free speech. Ill say it again Im all for it your the one who isnt. State your view and leave it at that dont tell someone that their view is wrong and yours is right or better or more logical. Speak your view without disregarding others as no ones view is more valid than anothers.

    Now here is some proof for you Hermes that you dont believe in free speech.
    I mentioned to you how you bash your views into others minds and you agreed completely and even went on to say how much fun it is. You clearly showed your hand Hermes letting everyone know that you have the exclusive right to change the minds views beliefs of others.
    Tell me now who has given you this great power to do such a thing. Your now in the same class as the religious leaders which you despise so much, am I wrong? Only people who think they are god think they have the right to change ones beliefs.

    Your comment at #50, just look at most of your responces to everyones view you disagree with. Simply you say you dont agree untill you can be proved wrong.

    The link you find so humbling, yes you should because it explains you in a nut shell.

    Now you have insulted mine and others intelligence numerous times, which just shows you think your of a higher standard.
    Now on the topic of insults, you have insulted yourself and your own beliefs making anything you say worthless, how you might ask? look at the other blog page The Best Article Ever and your own comment at #7, you say that you have a problem with anyone who insists they have the right to take away the rights of others!!! hello Hermes are you not talking of yourself here, you seem to hate yourself and what you believe in. I know your confused now but its ok Ill explain it to you.
    Just refer back to your disgusting comment not just on this page but the one just refered to aswell, where you say you have the right to push your view onto others and the right to change their minds and beliefs ( while having fun in the process). Have you not shown here that you think you have the right to take away the rights of others? Yet you say you have a problem with people like that. Its everyones right to believe what they want to Hermes yet you seem to think that if it doesnt seem logical to you you can attack their beliefs as to convert them to your line of thinking which is simply removing their right to continue in their own beliefs.
    Tell me if Im incorrect Hermes, Id like to see you try but is impossible as you cannot all of a sudden take back what you have stated.

    Hermes Ill say it again, your done mate.
    How can anyone in their right mind even listen to your views when you dont care about others, you only want to convert.

    To all who agree with Herems I dont want to say your like him as Im sure you dont want to force your beliefs onto others.

    Hermes you truly are one disgusting human being and one that contributes nothing positive to this world.

  62. on 24 Mar 2009 at 12:27 am 62.Darrell said …

    Chris who are you to question my intelligence.
    Who are you to just insult me without revealing any substance of your own.
    Look at all comments mate not just on this blog.
    To be fair though you have come in at the middle of a debate where Hermes, Gern and I are questioning eachothers former comments.

    To comment the way you did is to say your in some way superior to me. Maybe so maybe not. We are all equal and entitled to our own beliefs, if they are right or wrong is a question that no one has the right to challenge, unless your belief is personally attacked then you have the right to defend.

    Chris be carefull when you back up Hermes as he is a very sick individual livivng in his own dream world where he believes he is a god.

  63. on 24 Mar 2009 at 12:34 am 63.Hermes said …

    Darrell, check your reading skills.

  64. on 24 Mar 2009 at 12:43 am 64.Lou said …

    I propose nothing but I must say, you Hermes dodge questions like Barry Sanders dodging tacklers. Have you thought of artful dodger? I am perplexed- Do you refuse to take a position or do you just desire to change the subject? BTW, when did you turn me into a Christian Hermes?

    I’m impressed ………but the Euthyphro dilemma is really quite the challenge for the atheist wouldn’t you agree Hermes? But for the sake of argument, God does indeed exits; I recommend “The Poison of Subjectivism” written by none other than CS Lewis. He completely escapes both horns and he is a brilliant theologian & philosopher to boot. He has the experience of being a former atheist as well. I think you will find it to be a classic.

  65. on 24 Mar 2009 at 12:46 am 65.Gern Blansten said …

    I think Darrell only logs in at the tail end of happy hour.

  66. on 24 Mar 2009 at 1:00 am 66.Hermes said …

    Darrell/Lou, as I said please check your reading skills.

  67. on 24 Mar 2009 at 1:01 am 67.Hermes said …

    Gern, agreed.

  68. on 24 Mar 2009 at 1:08 am 68.Chris said …

    “Free speech. Ill say it again Im all for it your the one who isnt. State your view and leave it at that dont tell someone that their view is wrong and yours is right or better or more logical. Speak your view without disregarding others as no ones view is more valid than anothers.”

    Is it REALLY “FREE” speech if you say moronic comments like this :

    “Chris be carefull when you back up Hermes as he is a very sick individual livivng in his own dream world where he believes he is a god.”

    Doesn’t seem very FREE, does it? Anyways in my opinion it doesn’t.

    Oh and by the way, I think you spell terribly, please do something about it so it does not irk me so.

    Also I don’t like the way you structure your sentences.

    STOP PERSECUTING ME! IT’S MY OPINION! WAHWAHWAH.

    Yeah that’s what you sound like.

  69. on 24 Mar 2009 at 1:17 am 69.Chris said …

    To resume, just because I have nothing else to do…

    1. Darrell is very hypocritical, aiming his posts at Hermes, when he isn’t better himself. (Worse in fact(In fact, Hermes is allowed to say what he wants(Because it’s the internet, dumbass)))

    2…. Meh I’m too lazy to continue, i gotta head to bed anyways it’s way too late.

    Peace out y’all. I am going to post tomorrow don’t worry.

  70. on 24 Mar 2009 at 1:34 am 70.Darrell said …

    Is that all you have Hermes, wow you knocked me off my feet with that responce. Ill just take your silence as proof you agree with all I have said about you. If you dont then go through what Ive said and point out my mistakes. Im quite interested to see how you can you can turn your own words around again to mean something they are not. If you write a statement Hermes it is to be of your own words spoken clearly to mean exactly what is stated, not something you can later turn around and change the complete meaning of.

    Ill just keep referring to your statement of ” yes I can change peoples beliefs”
    You cannot argue that point anymore Hermes as you are clearly selfappointed ruler of all beliefs and the only one to tell us all what is right and wrong.

    Just sit back and keep pulling yourself mate, the only person your fooling is yourself.

  71. on 24 Mar 2009 at 1:35 am 71.Hermes said …

    Reading problem Darrell/Lou?

  72. on 24 Mar 2009 at 2:15 am 72.Darrell said …

    HAHAHA Chris Chris Chris what a delight to get such an insightfull comment from you.
    IM so so sorry for my grammar I wasnt aware that this site was a spelling bee or that I was writing a novel. Sorry if im not like Hermes the master wordsmith who writes his comments down first before putting it on here trying to search for the most complex words he can find even without understanding the meaning.

    Ok looks like you want to join the battle then, Ill take on all challengers so bring it on!!

    So free speech Chris, you dont understand it either.
    We are all free to speak our mind and say anything we like so its coined Free Speech. Now when you direct that view at a specific group or person its no longer free speech but as you quoted yourself PERSECUTION.

    You say Im aiming my posts at Hermes, your damn right I am Chris. He started this little debate with his own sick and twisted views that he can tell people what to believe and change their beliefs while enjoying himself as he strips away the one basic right that all people have, the right to believe in absolutly anything you choose.

    What I find extremely funny is how you said that Hermes can say what he wants. Im pissing myself Chris I laughed that hard. So do I not get that same option?????

    So tell me honestly Chris do you believe that anyone has the right to tell you what you believe in is incorrect?

    Its that question that will allow me to constantly fuck with Hermes. He likes to sit on his throne and deliver judgement with nothing but words he has read, which prove nothing and never can, while telling us all “convince me that Im wrong and I will convert to your belief”.

    Heres the million dollar question…..
    If you believe in something why would you want to be convinced otherwise?
    Only thing I can think of is a simple lack of faith in your own beliefs.
    Is that it Hermes? Is that why your here to try to find an answer because your own beliefs are begining to fail so your searching for something or someone to save you from yourself and to provide you with something you can truly believe in?

  73. on 24 Mar 2009 at 2:17 am 73.Darrell said …

    Chris share your view then, thats if you have anything to say and not just join the heard and insult everyone without stating your case.

  74. on 24 Mar 2009 at 2:36 am 74.Darrell said …

    Hermes you seem to be at aloss for words.
    I really must have you thinking long and hard about yourself.
    Ive asked you many a question yet no answers from you.
    Looks like your method of bashing your views into others minds has no affect on me Hermes and your now comming to realise that you have no chance with someone like me.

    I bet you wish I would just go away so you can go back to your atheist conversion factory hearding in the mindless cattle to be told what to believe. Well sorry Hermes Ive set up camp at the front gate and have no plans of going anywhere.

    As you said you have fun telling others they are wrong well I have fun messing with people like you. Your a disease Hermes infecting the world with your biased propoganda.

    I dont care what you believe OK its your choice but push it onto others and you will confront people like me who will stand up and defend the weak.

    So go back through our debate Hermes and answer my questions, if you cant then piss off I dont want to see another comment from you to anyone!

  75. on 24 Mar 2009 at 2:38 am 75.Darrell said …

    Oh yeah
    Reading problem Darrell?

    Well correct me then dickhead!!!

  76. on 24 Mar 2009 at 2:46 am 76.Hermes said …

    Give it up.

  77. on 24 Mar 2009 at 2:59 am 77.Darrell said …

    Oh have you given up already but we were having so much fun.
    See Hermes its no fun for the person receiving a constant bashing of the mind is it?

    Last chance Hermes just answer all that you disagree with, its that simple.
    Do this to my satisfaction and Ill leave you to your wonderful website to reign supreme.

    Im getting bored but can go on forever if need be but its to much like shooting fish in a barrel.

  78. on 24 Mar 2009 at 7:11 am 78.Darrell said …

    Lou, how have you found Hermes answers to your comments?
    Do you agree with me that he is implying that you and I cant read?
    If Hermes is correct then how bloody good are we to be able to write let alone respond to comments that we cant even read!
    I enjoyed your ‘artful dodger’ comment :)
    you nailed it in one.
    I actually feel bad that Ive had to lower myself to the level of ‘common thug’ just to get a point accross. People who know me consider me to be one of the kindest, most gentle and loving person they know, Im not usually like this. But what am I to do when confronted with such arrogance? I cannot stand by and let him get away with it. Im sure you are feeling quite unsatisfied with Hermes inability to give a straight answer.
    On the other blog page Hermes refers to you and I being one in the same and that we are trying to decieve. I cant see any point you or I have made that is deceptive.

    Ive got a couple of questions for you Lou.
    Are you a believer, non-believer or netural?

    I consider myself to be netural as I believe in the possibility that god may or may not exist. I believe this as I have seen no credible evidence from either side and choose to keep my mind open to all possibilities.
    Lou do you find what I believe illogical?

    Hermes and Gern seem to think so. Gern also goes as far as to tell me ‘there are no possibilities’ and bases his beliefs on science. I may be wrong but I was under the impression that science was the exploration of possibilites.

    Anyway keep asking your questions Lou, Hermes cant dodge you forever, like Ive said ‘Hermes silence only leads us to believe that he has agreed’

    Keep it up you make some interesting points Lou and Im interested in hearing more of your views.

  79. on 24 Mar 2009 at 7:17 am 79.Darrell said …

    did I say netural woops should it be neutral?
    Hermes Gern and Chris will scold me for that Im sure as they seem to care more about words and sentence structure than actual meanings and answering questions.

  80. on 24 Mar 2009 at 10:28 am 80.Hermes said …

    As the following post (#43) has not been approved by the moderator with the links, I’ve stripped the links.

    ———————-

    Lou: “Hermes you seem to fail to realize the position you now occupy. This is your blog, your arguments and your assertions.”

    You flatter me. No. I’m a mere mortal here posting messages like you.

    Everything I’ve said I stand by. In the forums, I go by the same avatar. Feel free to look me up.

    As for supporting the name of the blog, the owner of the blog has done so quite well. Can you identify a gap, or did you not bother reading what is out there?

    FWIW;

    1. The videos;

    [ link removed ]

    2. The blog.

    3. The book;

    [ link removed ]

    4. The forums;

    [ link removed ]

    Knock yourself out.

  81. on 24 Mar 2009 at 10:30 am 81.Gern Blansten said …

    Full meltdown mode is always entertaining.

    Go, Darrell, go!

  82. on 24 Mar 2009 at 10:32 am 82.Hermes said …

    Darrell-Lou, as the last post completes my earlier promise to you from post #55, expect no further replies. Good day gentlemen.

  83. on 24 Mar 2009 at 10:34 am 83.Hermes said …

    Gern, I’m glad the Chernobyl reenactment was enjoyable — one of us got something out of it!

  84. on 24 Mar 2009 at 10:38 am 84.Gern Blansten said …

    Part of the humor is that he thinks we’re actually reading his long-winded posts.

    I’m sure it sounds dismissive to say he’s off his meds or needs professional help, but there ARE people out there who fit that description, and I don’t intend to demean them. It’s entirely possible that Darrell is one of those people. His raving makes me think he isn’t quite stable.

  85. on 24 Mar 2009 at 11:02 am 85.Darrell said …

    Exactly what I expected from you both.

    Hermes you must agree with everything Ive stated as you have not disagreed, so subject closed, pack up your bags and piss off unless you can answer anything Ive said to you.

    Gern, how can anyone take you seriously when you just made the claim you dont even read anything yet your the first one to comment on it.
    I now understand you Gern, all your knowledge is derived from reading only the blurbs of thousands of books, nowonder you truly know nothing. Tell me Gern is ignorance bliss?
    Also am I in full meltdown mode? Ha Ive only just begun.

    Gern go back to the other blog page and just answer the questions, if you cannot answer then join Hermes and leave this website never to return as you have nothing to offer anyone.

    One more time boys, Im giving you the opportunity to disagree with what Ive said to you both thats only if you do disagree. Fail to respond correctly and you prove me to be right.

  86. on 24 Mar 2009 at 11:23 am 86.Hermes said …

    Gern, agreed. As for reading DL’s posts, I’m getting the impression that DL is not taking my earlier comments seriously.

    As he did not care to read my comments, I am really returning the favor.

  87. on 24 Mar 2009 at 11:30 am 87.Gern Blansten said …

    I know, he’d ask for an answer, I’d give him one, then he’d pretend I never gave it. Weird.

  88. on 24 Mar 2009 at 11:35 am 88.Hermes said …

    [ nods in agreement ]

  89. on 24 Mar 2009 at 6:04 pm 89.Chris said …

    Darrell: “What I find extremely funny is how you said that Hermes can say what he wants. Im pissing myself Chris I laughed that hard. So do I not get that same option?????

    So tell me honestly Chris do you believe that anyone has the right to tell you what you believe in is incorrect?”

    I wasn’t jsut talknig about Hermes dumbass, you can whatever you want to, so stop bitching about free speech and saying that I don’t knwo what it means. Because you’re obviously the one who requires a little education on the subject.

    Darrell: “Chris share your view then, thats if you have anything to say and not just join the heard and insult everyone without stating your case.”

    I am not here to argue about God with Lou, my purpose here is simply to point out what a dumbass you are, and what kind of image you’re projecting…

    “WAHHH ITS MY OPINION LEAVE ME ALONE FUCK OFF HERMES YOU ARE TOO SMART FOR ME AND I DONT KNOW WHAT TO SAY SO I REPEAT THE SAME THINGS OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THE HOPES THAT HIS INTELLIGENCE WILL DECREASE”

    Try saying something a little more intelligent.

  90. on 24 Mar 2009 at 8:02 pm 90.Darrell said …

    Chris again mate nothing to offer, if you understand what my point is you would realise Im on a similar wavelength to you. Everyone who tries to argue the point that god does or doesnt exist is a dumbass. It cannot be done! If it can then please tell me.

    Hermesgern, as there is no doubt your are the one person. You say I have failed to read your comments??? have I? I have read in detail every single piece of your garbage including all information you referred me to. I have also answered in full all you have asked of me.

    Is it my fault that you do not wish to do the same?

    I really must have hit a sore spot with you then Hermesgern as you have avoided my comments and still fail to address any of the issues I have directed at you.

    I know your plan. You think if you keep running Ill just go away. Well to bad! Untill you give me some answers Ill continue to comment on everything you say in a negative way as thats the only responces Ive seen you post.

  91. on 24 Mar 2009 at 8:07 pm 91.Darrell said …

    Honestly Hermes are you Gern and Chris?
    Its the funniest thing Ive seen having these 2 clowns sucking up your arse pronouncing how fucking smart you are.
    Gern, Chris if your really are who you say you are you both seem to think Hermes is your god, is that why you constantly defend him?
    Grow a mind of your own dipshits.

  92. on 24 Mar 2009 at 8:40 pm 92.Darrell said …

    Wait a sec, sorry Chris Ive missunderstood you.
    I see now your just attacking my beliefs not actually trying to ask anything of me.

    Heres my point Ive been trying to make Chris, read it nice and slow as you seem to have a real problem grasping the concept of the english language…..

    Everyone has their own beliefs, views, opinions etc.. (they are all one in the same anyway) That is your basic right to believe in whatever you want even if it is fact or fiction. Now simple point YES we all have freedom of speech so we do all have the right to disagree with any belief, I have no problem with that.
    The problem I have is when a person or a group tells you that what you believe is infact wrong and then tells you that what they believe is the correct way to think as its the only logical option. Then these people try to convert you to their beliefs.

    Chris if someone came and told you everything you believe is wrong and you should believe in their way would you be happy?

  93. on 24 Mar 2009 at 9:06 pm 93.Darrell said …

    Now I have already shut down Hermes and Gern with their own words that is why they can nolonger answer anything and only make smartarse comments.
    Victory to me !!!! unless they can respond and point out every mistake Ive made.

    Chris I cant really do that to you now can I. You havent stated anything at all just insults. Your trying to prove in some way that Im a dumbass.
    So go for it Chris I urge you, show me the folly of my ways.

    Chris one more thing I did like how you say that Ive repeated myself over and over. Correct!! Thats because I simply say what I mean.
    Unlike Hermes and Gern who state what they base their beliefs on then tell you later that their basis cant provide evidence for the belief and they never claimed it did.
    Weird!!! if you base your beliefs on something I thought it meant that you also believe in the basis of the belief. PLEASE EXPLAIN, anyone????

  94. on 24 Mar 2009 at 11:24 pm 94.Hermes said …

    Chris, I’m grinning. Thanks for that.

    Darrell, I see you continue to use my name in your messages. I wonder what you’re saying? Well, no, forgive the obvious lie. I don’t wonder.

  95. on 25 Mar 2009 at 4:30 am 95.Darrell said …

    Hermes point out my mistakes thats if Ive made any.

    If Ive missunderstood anything you have said then please inform me in detail to clarify your point.

    Again Hermes failure to address this just gives me more proof Im 100% correct.

    I leave myself open for responce.

  96. on 25 Mar 2009 at 5:56 am 96.Thomas Beha said …

    Lou, I read your responses in this blog.

    “Finding God” is taken out of thin air since it is abstract comment. I have disability and am a former Christian.

    From what I understand, we humans can find ways to rise above problems and succeed by looking up to a goal or a reason. It doesn’t require a belief in god(s).

    Lou – you have to realize you will always be on the defensive, since there are over 6,000 major and minor religious organizations. You will forever have to cut down at least 5,999 of those religious views daily.

    By not believing in those imaginary gods, you are free from having to do that. You get to be a Naturalist and be empowered to be in the wonder of love and life without any attachment to a particular imaginary god.

    Life is too short to be constantly trying to prove your view is right against the background of those major religion believers who may just want to kill you for not being in their side of the “camp”.

    So Lou – free yourself from that bondage and get back to be a humanist.

    Regards,

    Thomas

  97. on 25 Mar 2009 at 9:35 am 97.Darrell said …

    Thomas,
    you make some great points. You seem to have a similar line of thought to myself.
    In the end I dont really care if god does or doesnt exist as it makes do direct impact on my life.

    You said you have a disability? Im sorry to hear that Thomas. If you dont mind me asking what condition do you have?
    If that question is to personal then no need to answer I understand mate, Im just interested.

    For around 7 years I worked with disabled children in a primary school. The most rewarding job Ive ever had. Also an eye opener to some horrible realities.
    It was working with these children which exposed the true nature of religion to me.

    One child I worked with had Muscular Dystrophy. I was in the classroom with him during a religious instructions lesson. The guy giving the lesson was a minister of a local church (couldnt tell you what faith though). His first topic was PRAYER, he said he writes down all his prayers in a book then states that every prayer he made had come true. So I tried this, Im sure you can guess the outcome.
    Then he talked of SIN. Now this is where I became enraged. He stood there in front of all the children including the disabled ones, as there was more than one in the room, and stated “people with a disability are like that as they are paying for the sins of their fathers”. I took the disabled children from the room right away. One little girl with C.P looked at me and asked if it was true while a tear ran down her face.
    The teachers too came out to see me as they were also mortified beyond belief. As the minister exited the room we were there to confront him.
    His answer “I think you 3 need to come with me for some private religious instruction”
    Now I pretty much grabbed him by the throat and brought him before the school princible. I had him banned from ever entering any school again.

    It was just another experience that pulled me further away from religion.
    Also another reason why people should keep their beliefs to themselves as some that it offends cant defend themselves.

  98. on 25 Mar 2009 at 10:13 am 98.Darrell said …

    And that might make you wonder why Im sharing my beliefs here even though i just said people should keep their beliefs to themeslves. obvisouly im more important than other people and what i say is fact. Other people don’t know what they’re talking about, just me. Listen to me and nobody else and you will be fine.

  99. on 25 Mar 2009 at 10:33 am 99.Darrell said …

    Again Hermes or Gern post comments using my name.
    Who are you fooling?

    My beliefs arnt offensive!

  100. on 25 Mar 2009 at 10:37 am 100.Darrell said …

    I agree with what Darell said about Darrell.

  101. on 25 Mar 2009 at 10:38 am 101.Darrell said …

    Thats right, my beliefs arent offensive because i say so, and if you say they are, thats just an opinion. But if I say your beliefs are offeneisve that must be true because I know everything.

  102. on 25 Mar 2009 at 10:38 am 102.Darrell said …

    Darrell gives us other Darrells a bad name.

  103. on 25 Mar 2009 at 10:39 am 103.Darrell said …

    Are you afraid of me? You should be because Im about half psychotic.

  104. on 25 Mar 2009 at 10:40 am 104.Darrell said …

    Thats not funny mate, I would pound you if I had the chance.

  105. on 25 Mar 2009 at 10:46 am 105.Darrell said …

    I was tempted to do the same to you HermesGern and post under your name.
    But if I did that then no one on here could ever take what Ive said seriously.

    again boys ‘your done’

  106. on 25 Mar 2009 at 10:49 am 106.Darrell said …

    I see that somebody is using my name and making stupid arguments. I wish you would stop. I read HermesGern’s arguements and they make sense to me. So Darrell quit using my name. I was here first

  107. on 25 Mar 2009 at 10:57 am 107.Darrell said …

    Hermes if you have a problem with what Ive said then use your own name to confrot me?

    Why do you need to hide?

    Your just proving that everything Ive said about you is correct.

    What a childish method from a selfproclaimed intellectual.

  108. on 25 Mar 2009 at 11:26 am 108.Lumpin said …

    This is very entertaining.

    I’ve read these threads and it appears that several people have answered Darrell’s questions well and thoughtfully. He seems to simply be harassing people. Also, he seems a bit paranoid. Anybody could be posting with the name Darrell. I’ve been reading this blog for a long time, but this is my first time to post. I’m more of a lurker. But it’s quite clear to me that Hermes and Gern Blansten are different people.

  109. on 25 Mar 2009 at 11:28 am 109.Lumpin said …

    I should add that I’m not Hermes or Gern Blansten, but I doubt that Darrell will believe me.

  110. on 25 Mar 2009 at 11:55 am 110.Darrell said …

    Lumpin,
    point taken, I can accept your comment, no problem.

    Please give details of the ‘several people’ that have answered my questions and I will accept it.

    As for harassing people, correct, but only Hermes and Gern as they have in their own words shown that they dont believe in the basis of their claims, also Hermes has admitted to “bashing his views into the minds of others” which any normal person would find a supreme act of arrogance making him no better than the religious zealots he hates so much.

    Please refer above to comment #47, therein is the proof.

    Im open to responce.

  111. on 25 Mar 2009 at 12:19 pm 111.Hermes said …

    # 101: “Darrell gives us other Darrells a bad name.”

    BSEG! [ slams table with hand ]

  112. on 25 Mar 2009 at 12:20 pm 112.Hermes said …

    [ tips hat to Lumpin ]

  113. on 25 Mar 2009 at 12:22 pm 113.Lou said …

    Thomas,

    Thanks for your comments but I don’t have the need or the desire to “cut down” any religious beliefs to bolster my own. That is argument from the negative which proves zero. If I am delusional then I proudly join the ranks of the great men of delusion who have contributed so greatly to mankind.
    I’m not that so insecure in my beliefs where I have this need to bully those with differing beliefs. It in no way disproves my own truth.

    I came to this site because the webmaster happens to live in the same area as myself. Its quite ironic how much this is just like a religious site. Then again, the Supreme Court ruled atheism is now a religion so I suppose the same passion should be expected.

    Lou

  114. on 25 Mar 2009 at 12:25 pm 114.Darrell said …

    Well said, Lou.

  115. on 25 Mar 2009 at 12:27 pm 115.rooney fan said …

    Why do Lou and Darrell always seem to appear at the same time?

  116. on 25 Mar 2009 at 12:34 pm 116.Gern Blansten said …

    Man, what happened here?

    I go away for a while and Darrell earns some new fans. Sort of like Charles Manson fans, I guess.

    Darrell, if you’re having a laugh at our expense, seeming to have an argument with yourself, I’ll admit it’s a good one. But enough is enough.

    Do you really have an Asian wife? I saw that on another thread but didn’t know if it was true or not.

  117. on 25 Mar 2009 at 12:48 pm 117.Darrell said …

    Yes I do. It says so right on the thigh; “Made in Taiwan”.

  118. on 25 Mar 2009 at 12:49 pm 118.Hermes said …

    [ Sorry, I couldn't resist. ]

  119. on 25 Mar 2009 at 1:02 pm 119.Gern Blansten said …

    Now THAT was funny.

    Darrell, you should get a sense of humor like Hermes. No, not that Darrell, the other Darrell.

  120. on 25 Mar 2009 at 7:11 pm 120.Darrell said …

    Thanks Hermes for that, insults work better using your name. Glad you admitted you stupidity.
    Are you racist?

    Gern yeah I do mate, your point?

    Gern again I only see insults here from you, I asked some simple valid questions and you still cant answer yet I can answer yours.

  121. on 25 Mar 2009 at 11:56 pm 121.Chris said …

    Darrell: “Now simple point YES we all have freedom of speech so we do all have the right to disagree with any belief, I have no problem with that.
    The problem I have is when a person or a group tells you that what you believe is infact wrong and then tells you that what they believe is the correct way to think as its the only logical option. Then these people try to convert you to their beliefs.

    Chris if someone came and told you everything you believe is wrong and you should believe in their way would you be happy?”

    I’d just laugh about it and walk away. I wouldn’t throw a temper tantrum like you are. Little baby.

  122. on 26 Mar 2009 at 12:00 am 122.Chris said …

    Darrell: “Unlike Hermes and Gern who state what they base their beliefs on then tell you later that their basis cant provide evidence for the belief and they never claimed it did.
    Weird!!! if you base your beliefs on something I thought it meant that you also believe in the basis of the belief. PLEASE EXPLAIN, anyone????”

    I have no fucking clue what you just said. Are you sure you typed something in English? Please re-phrase that so it’s legible and coherent.

    It’s like if I said:

    “Darrell!!! Why you hapty? I are saying beliefs!! You hermes dumbass! stop acting against speech freedom argh! Mikey-moose in a castle farfar away, dont try contradict meh, you is sst00pid.”

    Yes, your posts resemble something like that.

  123. on 26 Mar 2009 at 12:06 am 123.Chris said …

    Thomas, if you were a woman I would marry you.

    Darrell, that’s a touching story, but I’m pretty sure that a former teacher/teacher would know the correct spelling of “principal”, not “pricible”.

    Anyways, just pointing that out.

    OH and by the way, the only reason why I’m defending Hermes is that I don’t want him to actually believe the shit you’re saying, because after all, even though you may have the mental capacity of a 12-year-old, you sure like to type a lot.

  124. on 26 Mar 2009 at 12:11 am 124.Darrell said …

    Hey I’m Darrell

  125. on 26 Mar 2009 at 12:11 am 125.Darrell said …

    OMG Stop posting as my name!

    It just proves my point how stupid you guys are.

  126. on 26 Mar 2009 at 12:12 am 126.Fat-person anonymous said …

    This whole conversation is extremely stupid.

  127. on 26 Mar 2009 at 12:27 am 127.Darrell said …

    Harrumph!

    Yackity

  128. on 26 Mar 2009 at 12:59 am 128.Gern Blansten said …

    Chris, you are exactly right. Most of the time, I couldn’t even figure out what Darrell was talking about.

    Funny stuff you wrote.

  129. on 26 Mar 2009 at 1:05 am 129.Hermes said …

    Thomas Beha, thanks for the good comments.

  130. on 26 Mar 2009 at 6:00 am 130.Darrell said …

    Chris
    your comment at #119, not a bad answer and also not a bad option to laugh and walk away, I usually do walk away.

    your comment at #120, One question “are you american?”
    I speak real english not american-english. As for not understanding the question, is it my problem you cant grasp it? Is it you dont understand the question or you dont have an answer?

    As for the spelling mistakes, yes I make some as I dont write a first draft then edit it. Sorry Im not perfect.

    Also have you ever thought to ask anyone what country they are from before insulting their grammar?

    Oh yeah as for you defending Hermes as you dont want him to believe the shit Im saying. How nobel of you but I think Hermes can take care of himself Chris.

  131. on 26 Mar 2009 at 6:36 am 131.Darrell said …

    Chris,
    here is the question again, Ill try to put it as simply as possible.

    If you believe in something you must base it on something,
    so you would have to believe in the basis then.

    So how can you believe in something yet not believe in the basis?

    If you still dont understand then I dont know what to say, to insult you would be an option but Im over that now so just say which part you dont understand.

    I came to ask this question to Gern as he said that he bases his beliefs on science then said science cant provide proof of anything just theories.

  132. on 26 Mar 2009 at 6:42 am 132.Darrell said …

    Hermes Gern I commented elswhere

  133. on 26 Mar 2009 at 6:47 am 133.Darrell said …

    LUMPIN

    Im still interested in what you think of my comment at #108

  134. on 26 Mar 2009 at 7:00 am 134.Darrell said …

    Lou,
    if you have the time Id like to know your thoughts of comment #76

  135. on 26 Mar 2009 at 10:22 am 135.ASHLEY said …

    I JUST WANTED EVERYONE IN THE WORLD TO KNOW THAT GOD DOES EXIST. I CAN NOT STAND FOR SOMEONE TO SAY THAT HE DOESN’T. GOD IS THE FATHER AND THE ALMIGHTY. HE WILL COME BACK ONE DAY TO TAKE HIS CHURCH HOME TO HEAVEN. THOSE WHO TRULY BELIEVE AND HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES TO HIM. GOD DOES ANSWER PRAY BUT ONLY IN HIS TIME NOT SOMEONE ELSES TIME. IF YOU ARE NOT A CHILD OF GOD CHANCES ARE YOU WILL NOT GET WHAT YOU NEED WHEN YOU WANT IT. GOD IS REAL AND HE IS THE TRUTH THE WAY AND THE LIGHT. GOD IS NOT LYING. FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE, I REGRET TO INFORM YOU YOU BETTER CHANGE THE WAY YOU THINK BECAUSE IT WOULD BE ASHAME FOR YOU TO DIE AND LIFT YOU EYES UP IN HELL. IT WILL BE TO LATE WHEN THAT HAPPENS NOONE WILL BE ABLE TO HELP YOU. EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE SHOULD START AND REPENT FOR YOUR SINS. GOD IS REAL.

  136. on 26 Mar 2009 at 10:26 am 136.ASHLEY said …

    I JUST WANTED EVERYONE IN THE WORLD TO KNOW THAT GOD DOES EXIST. I CAN NOT STAND FOR SOMEONE TO SAY THAT HE DOESN’T. GOD IS THE FATHER AND THE ALMIGHTY. HE WILL COME BACK ONE DAY TO TAKE HIS CHURCH HOME TO HEAVEN. THOSE WHO TRULY BELIEVE AND HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES TO HIM. GOD DOES ANSWER PRAY BUT ONLY IN HIS TIME NOT SOMEONE ELSES TIME. IF YOU ARE NOT A CHILD OF GOD CHANCES ARE YOU WILL NOT GET WHAT YOU NEED WHEN YOU WANT IT. GOD IS REAL AND HE IS THE TRUTH THE WAY AND THE LIGHT. GOD IS NOT LYING. FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE, I REGRET TO INFORM YOU YOU BETTER CHANGE THE WAY YOU THINK BECAUSE IT WOULD BE ASHAME FOR YOU TO DIE AND LIFT YOU EYES UP IN HELL. IT WILL BE TO LATE WHEN THAT HAPPENS NOONE WILL BE ABLE TO HELP YOU. EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE SHOULD START AND REPENT FOR YOUR SINS. GOD IS REAL.GOD LOVES EVERYONE NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. GOD DOES NOT WISH FOR ANYONE TO GO TO HELL BUT TO GO TO HEAVEN

  137. on 26 Mar 2009 at 11:23 am 137.Hermes said …

    ASHLEY: There is no such thing as a soul, so if your deity exists or not won’t matter when you are dead.

    If you can switch from typing in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, I’d be glad to give you the detailed reasons why I say that is the case. None of the reasons are my opinion. All of them can be verified as happening in the real world.

  138. on 26 Mar 2009 at 11:38 am 138.Gern Blansten said …

    Ashley, which god are you talking about?

    Zeus?

    Mordak?

    Ba’al?

  139. on 26 Mar 2009 at 12:16 pm 139.Lou said …

    Ashley in reality, the question is not “Does God exists” as I see it. Take science for example. Science provides no moral guidelines for our genetic engineering. How do we decide which traits we want? Do we want to create a new Einstein or a super Jack Bauer? These questions assume a standard of values, which science is incapable of providing.

    More importantly here, the attempt to reform human nature through genetics would strip people of their distinction and reduce them to commodities. What happens if this new commodity doesn’t meet the standard or if the parents feel their money was not well spent? Does the child become nothing more than purchased merchandise? As the Bible states human beings are “begotten, not made,” and if we reverse that—if children be¬come products that we manufacture—we do immeasurable damage to human distinction.

    Regrettably, arguments like these are not likely to be raised in a atmosphere where scientists clutch to a faith in unavoidable progress. The Escalator Myth creates the anticipation that change will always result for the better. However, as history shows, change can easily result in deterioration. New forms of technology can be used in the service of either good or evil. Faith that science can save us results when we shut our eyes to the human capacity for evil. Science at this point reaches the point where it plays the role of God.

    Many scientists find it difficult to go along holding on to such a sightless faith. The tendency is rather than look for alternative as truth and the myth is then allocated to a different realm. Enter Carl Sagan and the NASA SETI project. That is for another time.

  140. on 26 Mar 2009 at 1:18 pm 140.Hermes said …

    As this blog points out, often enough religion doesn’t offer moral guidance either.

  141. on 26 Mar 2009 at 9:10 pm 141.Chris said …

    Darrell: “our comment at #120, One question “are you american?”
    I speak real english not american-english. As for not understanding the question, is it my problem you cant grasp it? Is it you dont understand the question or you dont have an answer?

    As for the spelling mistakes, yes I make some as I dont write a first draft then edit it. Sorry Im not perfect.

    Also have you ever thought to ask anyone what country they are from before insulting their grammar?

    Oh yeah as for you defending Hermes as you dont want him to believe the shit Im saying. How nobel of you but I think Hermes can take care of himself Chris.”

    1st of all, no I am not American, I am a Quebecois. And by the way, not all Americans are bad, so that makes you an ignorant fool if you believe that old stereotype.

    As for “speaking real English” or “coming from a different country”, English is my second-language and you’re apparently a teacher… But yet I seem to spell a lot better than you. So yeah. I rest my case on that.

    Osti de bouffon.

    I don’t make a first draft either, but I passed my SEC I English when I was 12, so I have the skills required to know how words are spelled.

    Lastly, if I can’t “grasp” random bullshit that you’re spewing out, that makes you an incompetent loser, not me.

    That is all.

    Prends ca et criss le dans ton cul.

  142. on 26 Mar 2009 at 9:10 pm 142.Chris said …

    I bet you don’t even know what a Quebecois is.

  143. on 26 Mar 2009 at 11:55 pm 143.Darrell said …

    I’m such an ignoranus.

    I’m just going to do my hot Asian wife now.

  144. on 27 Mar 2009 at 12:11 am 144.Hermes said …

    Darrell, do you keep her in Tupperware after you are done, or do you just treat her like any other object — tagged and labeled as such?

  145. on 27 Mar 2009 at 3:47 am 145.Darrell said …

    Good one Hermes you really are brilliant.

    Your the one who gives labels.

    Do you not label yourself an atheist?

    Your a member of the atheist religion or cult as you will.

    Just go back to sucking your boyfriend Gerns dick.

  146. on 27 Mar 2009 at 3:50 am 146.Darrell said …

    Chris your a waste of time, if your an atheist too then go back to your masses.

    Your religion is the one fucking up the world the most your religion offers nothing positive.

  147. on 27 Mar 2009 at 3:56 am 147.Hermes said …

    I should apologise for my insults but I wont as its the best I can do.
    Its really not my fault that im like this its just simple genetics.
    You see my father is my brother and my mother is my sister and also the mother of my children.
    Ive been teaching my kids the atheist way and they are comming along nicely.
    Just wait untill they can voice their views, it shouldnt be long now.
    They have just hit their teengage years and are making variuos grunts and snarls so talking is almost within their hands.

  148. on 27 Mar 2009 at 3:58 am 148.Hermes said …

    as this was just off the top of my head and not part of my usual drafting process Im sorry for spelling various wrong

  149. on 27 Mar 2009 at 8:18 am 149.Darrell said …

    Chris I do apologise for the comment above. I realise you took the time to answer my questions to you so in return I should do the same for you.

    I wasnt aware of the old sterotype that all americans are bad. I wasnt saying that anyway. I said american-english is bad, thats all.

    As for your english I do admit its quite good, well done. I know your from French origin.
    You say your a Quebecois. I thought we were talking about the country your from not the state in Canada your from. I know where Quebec is Chris.
    When you stated your nationality Chris you should have said Canadian not Quebecois.

    I love how you make assumptions too.
    I quoted from the bible so you assume Im christian. Does reading the bible to see what the christians are talking about make you a christian yourself? NO

    I said I worked in a school and you assumed Im a teacher. Do you have to be a teacher to work in a school? NO. I was specialised staff working with the disabled to help them intergrate into a normal classroom environment.

    Last of all you still dont understand the question so you insult me. Again Ill say ‘just ask for help if you dont understand’ and Ill try my best to explain it to you.

  150. on 27 Mar 2009 at 10:30 am 150.Hermes said …

    Darrell, I impersonated you *1* time … and followed it by a comment labeling my deception.

    As I consider the readers here can tell the difference between your posts and mine, I leave it to them to determine if your comments are worthy of reply — be they in your own name or in the guise of another.

    Good day. To you. Sir.

  151. on 27 Mar 2009 at 10:44 am 151.Darrell said …

    You impersonated me one time? I beg to differ.
    In your defence though it may have aslo been Gern and Chris doing it to as they seem to be the number one members of your fan club.
    I only did it once too for your information, I have seen plenty of other people on here that seem to dislike you alot so could be them too.

    So seriously Hermes are you ready to move on?

    I can promise you that Im done with the silly games (if you are too) and want to get back to debate.

    Are you up to it?

  152. on 27 Mar 2009 at 10:49 am 152.Darrell said …

    For the record Hermes mine was at #144 on the other blog. Which one was your work?

  153. on 27 Mar 2009 at 10:50 am 153.Hermes said …

    Darrell: “You impersonated me one time? I beg to differ.”

    Begging or praying has no impact on reality.

    Darrell: “I can promise you that Im done with the silly games (if you are too) and want to get back to debate.”

    In the forums only. I’m done being a catalyst to add garbage to a running conversation here.

    (Note how many on-topic comments were made in the last 151 posts.)

  154. on 27 Mar 2009 at 10:51 am 154.Hermes said …

    116 & 117.

  155. on 27 Mar 2009 at 11:43 am 155.Gern Blansten said …

    Most of the “Darrelling” was me, though I think some other passersby contributed.

  156. on 27 Mar 2009 at 11:46 am 156.Gern Blansten said …

    Because I don’t want to spoil this blog for others, I’m going to disappear for a month or so.

    Hermes, good luck.

    Darrell, believe it or not, no hard feelings.

  157. on 27 Mar 2009 at 10:00 pm 157.Lurker in the dark said …

    Please dont stop boys I was enjoying the Darrelling and Hermes insulting himself. It was about the only entertaining thing on here.
    So what now? Have Hermes, Darrell and Gern all kissed and made up?
    Correction you should be referred to as the Three Stoogers.
    What idiotic gimps you all are.

  158. on 27 Mar 2009 at 10:56 pm 158.Hermes said …

    Lurker, too easy.

  159. on 28 Mar 2009 at 4:49 am 159.Darrell said …

    Gern,
    I believe you, no problem none taken. As Ive said words dont hurt me as Im not that weak.
    Thank you very much for the comment though.
    Same as you I think Im done now for awhile even though its been fun I must get back to the real world.
    So to you Gern same goes mate ‘no hard feelings’

  160. on 28 Mar 2009 at 4:55 am 160.Darrell said …

    Hermes I agree with you on the matter of Lurker, it would be way to easy to take that tosspot appart but feel free to do so but only if you have the energy.

    Hermes same to you to ‘no hard feelings’
    I suggest you sit back for awhile too as I think you know aswell as I do that your pissing into the wind when it comes to some of the religious nuts on here.
    No offence to you nuts as your not all alike.

  161. on 29 Mar 2009 at 8:15 am 161.Lurker in the dark said …

    Too easy you say then have a go.
    So darrel you think you can take me appart then lets see what you have. You too hermes im waiting.

    I would share my views but my the dark lord will finish you all off inn due time.

    no hard feelings no hard feelings no hard feelings, fucking wimps

  162. on 29 Mar 2009 at 7:48 pm 162.Chris said …

    States of Canada? rofl. Try provinces/territories.

    “Chris your a waste of time, if your an atheist too then go back to your masses.”

    First off, I’m a “rational person” not an atheist.

    Second, you said yourself that all religion was a waste of time. So I guess that makes you agnostic, but atheism isn’t a religion anyways. Because it isn’t a belief, it’s a lack of belief. But we’re getting off topic.

    This isn’t even about religion, I couldn’t care less, you just really irk me.

    Darrell: “Your religion is the one fucking up the world the most your religion offers nothing positive.”

    W…O…W…

    This one sentence contradicts EVERYTHING that you are “fighting for”.

    Seriously, are you joking? Do I even need to point out what’s wrong with that?

    Holy crap, you know, I thought we could move on, but just because of that *one* little moronic statement, it’s personal now.

    Cunt-gratulaions, douche-fag.

  163. on 29 Mar 2009 at 9:18 pm 163.Darrell said …

    Lurker, Im not getting into that crap again.

    Chris, states provinces territories all the same thing, doesnt change the fact that your canadian.

    As for the rest of your comment I said ‘IF you were an atheist”. You said your not so why comment on it?

    Im not a member of any religion either ,ok, so its puts you and I on similar ground.

    Last point, you talked about everything Im fighting for.
    Only point Ive been trying to make the whole time Chris is that no one can prove that god does or doesnt exist so why argue about it!!!

    Its pointless and a waste of time. Ive had enough anyway so you wont be seeing me much. Ill just pop in every now and then to see how many more deluded people are trying to prove eachother wrong.

    As for your insult to me, its like water off a ducks back Chris. It doesnt affect me in the slighest. Words from a stranger have no weight and hold no value to me.

    Take care Chris

  164. on 30 Mar 2009 at 11:26 pm 164.Chris said …

    Wow, you are actually a huge idiot and you made me lose all hope in humanity.

    You transform everything I say.

    “what you were fighting for” had nothing to do with religion dumbass, try thinking a little harder, or, even better, go hang yourself.

    Incase you haven’t realised, I haven’t made one single religious-oriented argument, I only called Lou delusional and you many other things.

    I was talking about your whole “F.O.S” crap. You harp and rant about it and take a shit on Hermes, but then do the exact same thing to me.

    Again, cunt-gratulations.

  165. on 31 Mar 2009 at 12:54 am 165.Sarah said …

    Why do yall feel the need to prove whether God does or does not exist? Why do you feel the need to bash others and what they believe! We are not perfect, and no one is! Everyone is just trying to the best they can. Yes some people are too close minded and stuck in their ways and it reflects poorly on those whom they represent. But please don’t try to tell me God isn’t real. I would not be the person I am today if He didn’t exist. Maybe you don’t believe and that is fine, but to go out of your way to create blogs and web sites bashing my God and His Word. I am truly hurt. I am writing a research paper for school and I stumbled across this and it just hurts! These various bloggers are using vulgar language, making fun of other people they have never met and bashing what some people center their lives around. In general Christianity is a good thing. We strive to be more like the most perfect person that walked this earth. How can that be a bad thing? Yes we as a community are not perfect. We, unfortunately, have not handled Homosexuality correctly. I will be the first to say that i am embarrassed by Christian communities way of handling this, but we make mistakes. Every religion, i believe, makes mistakes. Every person makes mistakes. I personally am constantly making mistakes, but i think the difference between me and most people is that when i mess up i ask for forgiveness (Which God always gives me) and then i try so hard to not make the mistake again and learn from it.
    And overall how can you completely denounce the Bible as ridiculous? It is a book filled with great advice on how to live! Be Patient (Ps 37:7) Don’t conform (basically be yourself) (Romans 12:2) Love (1 Cor 13:1-8) It means so much more to me and is so encouraging but if nothing else take the good lessons and leave the rest alone! What is it hurting to let people be Christians? Is it so awful that we are happy and we want to share our happiness? I know some people come on too strong but you know what LET IT GO! Don’t let the mistakes of the few reflect the whole group! I don’t understand how you can never have met me and think you know how you should treat me? If you met me on the street tomorrow and struck up a conversation with me you would not know that i was anything other than a happy possibly overly peppy person. After a few conversations though it would be obvious that I am a Christian (or at least i hope it would). Would you treat me differently because of it? I would not have thrown my Bible at you and told you eternal damnation awaits you if you don’t repent. I simply might have something written on my hand that you would ask me about that would reveal my favorite Bible verse or a song lyric from an encouraging song. You may have asked me about my purity ring which says Woman of God on it. We are not all out there recruiting people. In fact the majority of the people i know feel that it’s better to show God through your actions and your life. I have probably written too much and i am sorry if it does not follow your topic or what ever but it was the first place I saw where I could comment. Some of you will probably make fun of me for what i have said. Just a random tid bit, i am not some sheltered goody goody who lives in a protective Jesus bubble or whatever. I have had some crappy stuff happen to me in my short 18 years of life. Divorced family, abusive step parent, crazy mom, had to move away from my family to get away from the pyscho step mom.. It sucked. But God made His presence known in my life. Say what you want but there is nothing more amazing than knowing that you have probably hit one of the lowest points of your life but someone (God) loves you ceaselessly and will help you through. I am now back with my family and things still suck but God has blessed me. I should be a bitter angry person but i have never been happier. and to me that is proof that God is not Imaginary. He is a living loving hard working God and I’m sticking with it.. I know it’s hard to believe what you can’t see but stop trying to see.. Just let go and let love.. Don’t actively fight it just ugh i don’t know give it a try!
    I love you guys and God does too. You might shake you heads at this but i truly do love you and respect your opinion. Please try to respect mine.
    ~Sarah

  166. on 31 Mar 2009 at 1:47 am 166.Hermes said …

    Sarah: “Why do yall feel the need to prove whether God does or does not exist?”

    I don’t, any more than any other gods.

    Yet, looking at the numbers, 1/3rd of the planet are Christians and in the name of Christianity quite a few bad things are advocated.

    As a Christian yourself, may I ask what you are doing to dissuade your fellow Christians from doing those bad things in the name of Christianity?

  167. on 31 Mar 2009 at 3:00 am 167.Darrell said …

    Chris you are really starting to piss me off now.
    If you dont understand something then dont comment on it!
    You dont seem to understand anything and you havent made any intelligent comment yet!

    Let me put this simply for you (if you dont understand then to bad).
    Chris do you believe in god and if you do how can you prove he exists?
    Chris do you choose not to believe in god and if so how can you prove he doesnt exist?

    In the end I dont care if you answer yes or no to each qusetion as its your choice to believe in either one. The point is you cant prove either one, no person can.

    Chris I see now your not here to talk about anything just to pick fights with others. You are a waste of a human being and your going to die sad bitter and lonely.
    Try to be positive for a change.

    As for the insults, again you must not realise what water off a ducks back means for if you did you would know insults are wasted on me.
    Grow up !!!

  168. on 31 Mar 2009 at 3:07 am 168.Darrell said …

    Sarah,
    nicely said. I dont agree with everything you said but then why should I have to.

    Your beliefs make you happy and seem to have made you into a nice person so dont listen to those who want to prove you wrong. You already know in your heart which path to follow so stick to it.

    There are to many ‘know it alls’ out there and they think they have the right to decide who is right and wrong.
    Sarah dont let the comments of those who disagree with you hurt you in anyway. Use your strong faith in what you believe to sheild you from harm, after all its only words.

  169. on 31 Mar 2009 at 3:21 am 169.Darrell said …

    Hermes
    some valid questions you asked Sarah.
    I could ask you the same thing.
    What are you doing to dissuade your fellow atheists from committing so called bad acts?

    Yes Hermes atheists too also contribute to harmful deeds.

    So tell me what humanitarian acts have you performed during your life?

    I gave 10 years of my life to working with the disabled, working with disadvantaged communities in South East Asia, helping the homeless in Australia.
    Now you know Im not religious but I did assist religious groups in these areas as what they were doing was noble and selfless.

    So tell me what has your atheist beliefs done to contribute to anything positive?

    I know the religious groups do some bad things but atleast they also try to do some good aswell!

  170. on 31 Mar 2009 at 9:32 am 170.Lou said …

    Sarah,

    I mentioned this on here last week as coveyed to me by a very close friend. Many atheist like to continually attempt to discuss God as a way of easing their own conscious. I was an atheist many many years ago and can attest that their was always a restlessness in my own spirit. I certainly cannot speak for everyone both those are my experiences.

  171. on 31 Mar 2009 at 7:32 pm 171.Hermes said …

    Darrell, as you know, atheism is the null set. It’s what’s left after everyone else has claimed they have a deity. You may as well ask me to comment on cross stitching or boomerang making with any authority.

  172. on 31 Mar 2009 at 7:33 pm 172.Hermes said …

    Additonally, one moment of prevention is worth many times that in repair. Consider it economy.

  173. on 31 Mar 2009 at 7:34 pm 173.Hermes said …

    Lou, describe your life as an atheist.

  174. on 31 Mar 2009 at 10:19 pm 174.Lou said …

    Much like yours I would imagine Hermes. By your writings, I gather I am quite a bit older than you. Be specific, I don’t wish to bore others with my life story.

  175. on 31 Mar 2009 at 10:23 pm 175.Lou said …

    Hermes, I meant to address this. Not every religion has a deity. Some believe in impersonal life forces much like many atheist out there. It can be a complicated. Take Buddhism:

    NO Deity
    NO creator
    NO ultimate reality

    I imagine that sounds a bit of familiar.

  176. on 31 Mar 2009 at 11:42 pm 176.Hermes said …

    Lou (#173), how about an answer? Knock yourself out; it’s all about you baby.

  177. on 31 Mar 2009 at 11:46 pm 177.Hermes said …

    Lou (#174), 1/2 (not all) the Buddhists don’t have a deity. They are atheists. Thanks for the example. Details (not definitive) to consider;

    http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/beliefs/atheism.htm

  178. on 01 Apr 2009 at 12:59 am 178.Sarah said …

    To Hermes and Darrell,
    Thank you for not attacking! I was nervous when i said something that I might be yelled at or whatever and possibly would have deserved it for posting randomly on your blog so thank you.
    As far as discouraging fellow Christians from basically being stupid and close minded.. The best example i have deals with homosexuality. Christians are obviously against it because it states very clearly in the Bible that marriage is between a man and a woman. Being gay is a sin. But so is drinking, smoking, doing drugs and being unfaithful to your spouse! And yet at my church i know we have special ministries that help with each of these sins. We work with these people to help them overcome addictions and issues and help them get back to a normal life. We don’t have anything like that for homosexuals.. In fact we reacted completely wrong.. We called them out on be sinners and tell them they need God and church but then when they seek us out we alienate them and make church the last place they want to be. I am not making excuses because believe me there are none, but i think we are more accepting and willing to help with the other sins because it’s kind of easy to relate to an addiction. Homosexuality is not something people can understand and they think it’s something you can just stop being. Personally, i don’t understand it, i think it is wrong, but i would never make someone feel bad or turn them away because they are different. On a somewhat small scale effort I call any one out who uses words like gay or fag in a derogatory manner. It’s rude and wrong. I also get onto any one who makes fun of gay people and i talk as frequently as i can to any Christian i know about my opinions on how to better deal with this issue. It is not something that can be fixed or changed over night. It is a slow process that we can really only affect if we take time to love on everyone, including gay people, and show Christ through our example. Another issue i have with fellow Christians is when someone claims to be Christian but still cusses drinks parties and what ever else high school and college students do but shouldn’t. We are supposed to be the example and it sends the wrong message to claim to be for God but living in worldly sin. I personally try to speak with these people and pray for them. There is not much any one can do when they believe something. These people think they are doing what God wants. I am sorry these people have given you all a bad impression of what being a Christian is. Try to ignore the loud in your face bad examples of Christians and look at the ones honestly trying to make the world and themselves better. As i stated before I am a Christian and i am a better and happier person because of it. haha i promise i will stop posting such long messages from now on.. I kind of get on my soap box and rant a lot! Once again i truly love you guys and God does too. Have a great night and day tomorrow.

  179. on 01 Apr 2009 at 1:04 am 179.Sarah said …

    O and Lou thank you for your comment. I am surrounded by several atheist and it is so frustrating when they try to argue religion. I can tell they are seeking answers and unfortunately I can not give them all the answers they need. I think i understand what you mean by restlessness.. I think i see it in them and i wish so much that I could help them, but i know they have to discover it for themselves.

  180. on 01 Apr 2009 at 1:47 am 180.Hermes said …

    Sarah, thank you for your detailed response.

  181. on 01 Apr 2009 at 1:50 am 181.Hermes said …

    Sarah, in your reply to Lou (#178), people can be jerks in any area. That said, it is nice to see people discover reality for themselves. As such, the forums are full of deconverted Christians — including former priests. (It indeed does go both ways.)

  182. on 01 Apr 2009 at 2:14 am 182.GotMooo said …

    “Homosexuality is not something people can understand and they think it’s something you can just stop being.”

    “It is not something that can be fixed or changed over night. It is a slow process that we can really only affect if we take time to love on everyone, including gay people, and show Christ through our example.”

    Umm, okay. How would you affect someone who is gay? Would a loving church that is supportive be able to convert someone from being gay to straight?

    “Another issue i have with fellow Christians is when someone claims to be Christian but still cusses drinks parties and what ever else high school and college students do but shouldn’t.”

    Is a cuss word bad because of the word or the context behind it? If I said “fuck” and I meant it as “hello”, would it be a no-no?

    If I were a Christian and I only drank enough to get buzzed and relax, would it be a bad thing? My parents’ pastor endorses controlled drinking.

  183. on 01 Apr 2009 at 10:00 am 183.Lou said …

    Thank you Hermes for accepting my point. Buddhist are religious atheists. Not many atheist will admit to that. A deity is not required for a religion. You might want to look into the New Agers as well. Some of those will qualify I feel certain.

    Tell me Hermes, why the interest in my story? A little psychoanalysis from Hermes & Associates? (LOL) If you have a specific question I’ll be glad to oblige. Otherwise, I dom’t have time to post my bio. I think you still owe me a answer from way up the thread. Got to give a little to get a little Hermes.

  184. on 01 Apr 2009 at 10:04 am 184.Lou said …

    GotMooo

    Do you think it is unethical to for a church to have a ministry that helps gays to become straight?

    Would it be equally wrong for gay to attempt to be straight?

  185. on 01 Apr 2009 at 3:16 pm 185.Hermes said …

    Lou: “Thank you Hermes for accepting my point. Buddhist are religious atheists. Not many atheist will admit to that.”

    Lou, of course they are. I was a religious Catholic atheist for a few years. I find it strange that you think otherwise as few atheists I know think that.

    If you want to see yourself, or talk on other issues, go for it. Yet, I still don’t have an answer to my post;

    # 172 – “Lou, describe your life as an atheist.”

  186. on 01 Apr 2009 at 3:18 pm 186.Hermes said …

    The forums are open, Lou. Nobody is hiding a mystery from the world there, and you can get more and better answers instead of limiting yourself to just me.

  187. on 01 Apr 2009 at 3:47 pm 187.Steve said …

    An atheist admitting that atheism is a religion? You are one of the rare ones.

    Lou are you referring to this:

    “God is love. God does not heal amputees. Therefore there is no God. That looks to be the basis of your conjecture.”

    If that is the argument then it is just a flat out ridiculous one. The progression doesn’t necessarily follow. Love is not always an Eros type love and the fact that God doesn’t perform in the way we expect doesn’t lead to the conclusion he does not exist. If that were the case Prez Oboy would not exist either.

  188. on 01 Apr 2009 at 4:14 pm 188.Hermes said …

    Steve: “An atheist admitting that atheism is a religion? You are one of the rare ones.”

    Nope. Atheism is the lack of theism. Atheists can be and some are religious. The two aren’t in the same category.

  189. on 01 Apr 2009 at 7:50 pm 189.Lou said …

    Steve It’s commonly called a false dichotomy and you can find a number of them. Evil in the world, bad things happening to good people, and etc. I’m delighted someone at least considered the argument.

    I don’t spend time arguing God’s existence. It doesn’t lend itself to noteworthy dialogue due to the emotions it tends to expose. I typically do not speak of proofs of God’s existence but rather the expressions of the consistency of belief in God and that such belief may be shown to be justifiable. Theories are not proven but we accept them when the evidence supports their plausibility. Belief is clearly justifiable.

    The arguments are always the same. The leap from complexity to improbability is highly problematic argument from the atheist. Why is something complex improbable? The cell alone debunks that argument. Lex parsimoniae is an often misused farce that cannot be demonstrated to be true when the incredible metaphysical complexity of God-Origins-Life is in question. Owen Gingerich, Francis Collins and Paul Davies all have great books on this and you can even mix in a little Dawkins with a dash of Alister McGrath to get the full essence.

    Anything new in the Forums Hermes?

  190. on 01 Apr 2009 at 9:07 pm 190.Chris said …

    Darrell: “Chris you are really starting to piss me off now.
    If you dont understand something then dont comment on it!
    You dont seem to understand anything and you havent made any intelligent comment yet!

    Let me put this simply for you (if you dont understand then to bad).
    Chris do you believe in god and if you do how can you prove he exists?
    Chris do you choose not to believe in god and if so how can you prove he doesnt exist?

    In the end I dont care if you answer yes or no to each qusetion as its your choice to believe in either one. The point is you cant prove either one, no person can.

    Chris I see now your not here to talk about anything just to pick fights with others. You are a waste of a human being and your going to die sad bitter and lonely.
    Try to be positive for a change.

    As for the insults, again you must not realise what water off a ducks back means for if you did you would know insults are wasted on me.
    Grow up !!!”

    Yes so, if it’s “water off a ducks back” they why did you start your comment with “ok you are reakky starting to piss me off now”?

    Wow, it took you THAT LONG to realise that i’m ONLY here to bicker with you. Took you long enough, I said it like 5 times.

    I’ll repeat it again (4th time), I’m not here to argue about God’s existence, I’m only here to be an asshole.

    Suck doesn’t it? Yes, I’m an jackass to you because you at like a whiny 10-year-old, but I’m actually the friendliest person in real life.

    So, I should go die? I’ll die lonely? LOL. Wow, I love how you just go and contradict your so-called “morals”. About insulting people and stuff.

    Oh well, I just laugh. You must cry though because it would explain your backwardness.

    Stop asking me religious questions, that’s completely IRRELEVANT. The only thing I want to discuss is your foolishness.

  191. on 01 Apr 2009 at 9:08 pm 191.Chris said …

    Correction: “ok you are reakky starting to piss me off now”?”

    Should read “really” not “reakky”, sorry.

  192. on 01 Apr 2009 at 9:22 pm 192.Chris said …

    Sarah, I like your comments =]

    So are we all cool now? (Besides Darrell, I don’t wanna be cool with him.)

    I don’t want to argue with Lou or any other theist anymore, even though most of it was directed towards Darry-berry.

  193. on 01 Apr 2009 at 9:31 pm 193.Chris said …

    Oh and one last thing,

    Can anyone care to explain to me (in simple terms please)what exactly is Deism?

    I read the wiki, but I still don’t understand what differentiates it from normal theism.

    Thanks.

  194. on 01 Apr 2009 at 10:05 pm 194.Hermes said …

    Chris: “Can anyone care to explain to me (in simple terms please)what exactly is Deism?”

    Deism is a type of theism; belief in one or more deities.

    There are basically a few flavors of deism.

    Capital D Deism is basically the prime mover deity that is waiting for the outcome to occur.

    This deity is like a bowler that is waiting for the pins to be knocked down so they can tally the score. What happens after the pins drop is unknown, though there is some sense that justice will be served.

    Alternatively, this deity isn’t seen as a judge only as the prime mover; just there to watch the ball and the pins and to enjoy the game.

    Lower case d deism is a generic form of deism, and it is what most people mean by deism. Like the capital D Deism deity, this deity starts the game yet may not stick around — or even exist — when the pins to drop. It’s intentionally nebulous.

    Different deists/Deists may have a different idea about when the game starts, though in general the start consists of the universe as a whole (big bang or what not), not Earth and humans specifically.

    Deists (d/D) tend to be otherwise atheistic and do not worship the prime mover deity though they consider that a deity is more probable than not (unlike the atheist that flips that probability).

    The deity of a deist/Deist can’t be disproven, yet it also doesn’t have any evidence in support of it either.

  195. on 01 Apr 2009 at 11:03 pm 195.GotMooo said …

    “Do you think it is unethical to for a church to have a ministry that helps gays to become straight?”

    If a gay person wants to be straight, they should go right on ahead. I just don’t see it being practical, or getting any results. I would wager the main reason a gay person would want to be straight would be to fit in and be accepted, and conform with a society’s standards. I don’t see how a loving church is going to do much to change anything. If they are truly loving, they would accept someone for who they are.

    I’m just curious, how would one go about becoming straight? Just pray the gay away?

  196. on 01 Apr 2009 at 11:05 pm 196.Hermes said …

    GotMooo, Jesus works in mysterious ways;

    http://skateboardermag.com/staff-infection/jesus-boner-lightswitch.jpg

  197. on 01 Apr 2009 at 11:09 pm 197.GotMooo said …

    Wow, that was disturbing Hermes… LOL

  198. on 01 Apr 2009 at 11:19 pm 198.Hermes said …

    I’d bet a modest sum that a priest was involved in the design.

  199. on 01 Apr 2009 at 11:22 pm 199.GotMooo said …

    Clearly a priest. It really does take a certain kind of person to design something like that.

  200. on 01 Apr 2009 at 11:38 pm 200.Lou said …

    I wouldn’t know how they go about it. However, a large church in my town has a very large and I understand successful program. Gays bad mouth it even though those seeking help go willing. Such an attitude causes me to lose respect for the gay community. They seem more concerned with their numbers rather than an individual freedom.

  201. on 02 Apr 2009 at 2:27 am 201.Darrell said …

    Oh Chris cant you see that Im fucking with you too?
    I just do it in a more intelligent way.

    As for what you said of my morals, they dont apply to you as your just trying to fuck with me as I you.

    Chris as for what you said about you being friendly well Im the same. I guess we both have a sick sence of humor and enjoy playing games with the weak minded.

    This is the last you will hear from me for awhile so enjoy the hunt Chris and have fun playing with theses clowns on here.

    Aurevior, I would stay but C’est tres ennuyeux dealing with the moronic. Je vous remercie de votre hospitalite Chris jouir de your partie.

  202. on 02 Apr 2009 at 3:23 am 202.ANON said …

    I don’t know French (who would want to?!), but isn’t it it “Au revoir” ? Like 2 different words?

  203. on 02 Apr 2009 at 5:58 am 203.GotMooo said …

    “They seem more concerned with their numbers rather than an individual freedom.”

    I don’t keep much up to date with the gay community, but I don’t think that’s what it is. I would guess many of them just see the programs these churches offer as making things worse. Telling someone to not be who they are can be a lot of pressure and stress on them. If a gay is unable to change their sexual orientation to straight, they have let others down and themselves as well.

    I’m sure many of the gays who go into these programs churches offer at their own volition, are just confused with their sexual orientation in the first place.

  204. on 02 Apr 2009 at 9:25 am 204.Steve said …

    Being pressured to be gay when you no longer want to be can be a lot of pressure as well. I know at the University I am associated with, there is a very large and bullying gay group that recruits by pressuring other students, For a lot of them, it is numbers. The more they have the more power they have in DC.

    A gay who goes to a church program for help has already determined what they want. They should be left alone by the gay bullies.

  205. on 02 Apr 2009 at 9:27 am 205.Steve said …

    “I typically do not speak of proofs of God’s existence but rather the expressions of the consistency of belief in God and that such belief may be shown to be justifiable.”

    Very well stated Lou.

  206. on 02 Apr 2009 at 12:13 pm 206.Lou said …

    Thank you Steve. I try to rationale and realistic. Man probably has at best .5% of all knowledge available to him. Even if one of us was brillant enough to have all of that, not much to be conceded about.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply