Feed on Posts or Comments 27 March 2015

Christianity &Islam Thomas on 10 Aug 2009 12:11 am

Can living things come from non-living matter?

A Christian poses this question in the forum:

So, I woke up the other morning with the thought that living things don’t come from non-living things. This has been standard science since Louis Pasteur convinced us back in the 19th century. I believe this. Spontaneous generation is not science. Living things coming from non-living things has never been observed and has never been reproduced in any of the great laboratories of the world. And believe me there are plenty of scientists working on it. However, the atheist and the evolutionist want me to believe that the source of life is non-living matter. But I say again, that belief is not scientific. Science is observable. Science is reproducible. A living thing coming forth from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced. And somehow some of the same people who believe that living things came from non-living matter think I am delusional for believing in God. The thing about blind spots is that you don’t see ‘em.

See this thread for a discussion:

God vs. Spontaneous Generation

483 Responses to “Can living things come from non-living matter?”

  1. on 10 Aug 2009 at 12:23 am 1.Tommy said …

    There is no bright line between living and non-living.

    Eventually, scientists will create life. I wonder what Christians will do then?

  2. on 10 Aug 2009 at 5:11 am 2.Anonymous said …

    Well, for starters, this is a textbook case of the “God in the gaps” argument. It goes like this: We don’t understand X, therefore God created X.
    Additionally, nobody, especially not any atheists I’ve ever encountered, have ever said that something could be made from nothing. Of course this is a ridiculous statement, but it’s just a straw man that the religious like to stand up and knock down to impress themselves. Life on earth was created by basic elements that are found all over the universe, and scientists have already used experiments to form protobionts in conditions resembling early earth. This took only a matter of days to accomplish. Imagine what can be done in several hundred million years.
    What is particularly curious to me about the “something from nothing” straw man argument is how religious people fail to see it suggests the non-existence of their own god. How could god exist if *everything* must have been *created* from *something*? Who, then, created God?

  3. on 10 Aug 2009 at 12:28 pm 3.Chip E said …

    “How could god exist if *everything* must have been *created* from *something*? Who, then, created God?”

    Quite simple. God is beyond the natural whereas you are arguing that something came from nothing in the natural realm. It is a problem atheist struggle with. They attempt to minimize the problem with much could, may and possibly.

    Man will never create something from nothing in a lab therefore the atheist is backed in a corner with this problem. If man can ever create life from non-living matter in the lab if will just go on to prove intelligence is needed for life to form.

    .

  4. on 10 Aug 2009 at 2:26 pm 4.Kevin said …

    Umm, Argument-Fail. Scientists have never observed God either, nor has he ever been reproduced in a laboratory. From a scientific pov what is more likely: that some combinations of chemicals and energy may have started life – or some invisible, as yet unobserved and undefinable power dunnit. Occam’s razor applies (as well as GOTG).

  5. on 10 Aug 2009 at 2:39 pm 5.Morph said …

    Ockham’s razor states that “entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.”

    We are not creating unnecessarily, in this case one is necessary.

    “From a scientific pov what is more likely: that some combinations of chemicals and energy may have started life”

    Conveniently Kevin has failed to provide origin of chemicals and energy. Kevin also failed to mention this has never been observed much like the undefinable power he goes on to reference.

    Kevin’s fallacy is typical and consequently his argument fails.

  6. on 11 Aug 2009 at 1:37 pm 6.boomer said …

    It seems that none you fully understand that scientist will never be able to create a human from a mound of dirt. Better yet do as God did and you create it from something that you made. They can’t use anything that was made by God or from God. Good Luck!! I would go as far to say that they will not be able to create a human from one rib. If for some odd reason they do I bet it will not be completely different in its DNA. My God is a awesome God and one day you will bow and proclaim that!!!! Philippians 2:10-11 The next time you do a video on how repulsive the Bible is please use your scripture in context! Surely you should know that…..

  7. on 14 Aug 2009 at 9:04 am 7.swbts student said …

    wow boomer nailed it,

  8. on 16 Aug 2009 at 9:10 pm 8.Denis Loubet said …

    All of us create living matter out of dead matter every day. It’s called digestion. You eat dead matter, and it becomes part of the living matter that is you. It’s all completely natural.

    This is not what abiogenesis is about, but it does establish beyond doubt that dead matter can become living matter through natural processes.

    Of course there’s no difference between the atoms of living matter and dead matter, it’s all in the ARRANGEMENT of the atoms that determines what’s alive and what’s not.

    So we see atoms in dead arrangements, and atoms in living arrangements, and we even see a chemical process where atoms in dead patterns can be re-arranged into living patterns.

    I don’t see that much of a stretch to get to abiogenesis. It’s all just atoms being pushed around. It’s all chemistry.

  9. on 18 Aug 2009 at 2:51 pm 9.tdhladhla said …

    First and foremost, to say there is no God, you must know everything. You cannot tell me that you have an explanation to every single thing that exists. You can doubt the existence of God, but dare not dispute it. And your 10 questions on GodIsNotReal are totally out of context. When reading the Bible, you have to read it in context with a wise mind. eg Sure in the OLD TESTAMENT, God commanded people who worked on the Sabbath to be put to death. But between then and now, a Savior came to bear our iniquity. He died on the cross; a righteous man made to carry our filth so much that the Father he had been in fellowship with from the beginning of time turned His face away from Him. Our sin made God turn His face away from us then…. but now, because we have a person who argues our case with Him, we have a chance to be redeemed.
    It is unfair to say we’ve never seen Jesus… He’s in heaven. But he sent Holy Spirit to be with us here on Earth. And to have a personal encounter with God, you need the Spirit.
    It could be looking at the sunrise and realising that certainly it couldn’t have ‘just’ happened.
    And on your point about suffering… the fall of man caused God to curse man but not so much as to kill man. Suffering is under that curse (Gen 3: 14 -21). But God also promised that there would be a Savior and he hasn’t failed us.

    True, there’s always gonna be so much we do not know or comprehend about God. But the fact of the matter is, He gave us enough evidence to make it rational and plausible that He exists but not enough to compel us to believe.
    You believe there is no God… that was a conscious choice you made. An example of the freedom God gave you.
    I believe in God and if you asked me why… I’d take a whole day,2 or even more telling you about what He has done in my life.
    The difference between me and you is that when i do something wrong (sin), i don’t guilty…I am driven to the feet of a Father who is rady and willing to forgive me.
    When you do wrong, all you can do is feel bad and guilty about it.

    It’s a heart matter…. not a mental/intellectual matter. After all, the mind follows the heart; not the other way round.

    Be blessed

  10. on 18 Aug 2009 at 3:16 pm 10.Denis Loubet said …

    “First and foremost, to say there is no God, you must know everything.”

    Let’s see where this “logic” goes.

    “to say there is no Zeus, you must know everything.”
    “to say there is no Odin, you must know everything.”
    “to say there is no Shiva, you must know everything.”
    “to say there is no IPU, you must know everything.”

    Since you ascribe to this logic, I must assume you believe in Zeus, Odin, Shiva, and the Invisible purple Unicorn, along with every other unevidenced supernatural nonsense that comes down the pike.

    That must keep you very busy.

  11. on 18 Aug 2009 at 4:08 pm 11.tdhladhla said …

    I did not say i believe in all those gods that you mentioned. But i will not ridicule a person who does, but simply tell them about my God.My reason to not believe in them: there’s nothing that points to their existence. cartoons, astrology,’myths’ and whatever else they are associated to are not enough reason for me to even consider their existence.
    It’s what i’ve felt in my heart and the physical manifestation thereof that has driven me to believe in God.

  12. on 19 Aug 2009 at 12:59 am 12.Denis Loubet said …

    You do not believe in Zeus, and Odin, and Shiva, and the IPU for exactly the same reasons I don’t believe in your god. And those that believed in them believed for the same reason you believe in your god.

    You are an atheist regarding Zeus and Odin and countless other gods that mankind has believed in at one time or another. Congratulations. You have just one more god to disbelieve in and your atheism will be complete.

    Good luck.

  13. on 20 Aug 2009 at 8:56 pm 13.tdhladhla said …

    As i said i do not ridicule anyone who has any other belief…. i just strive to explain to people why I believe in God whenever an opportunity arises. It’s never easy… Not everyone is receptive. But i know that once you open up to experience this truth, your whole perspective changes. According to definitions from the Oxford Dictionary, Wikipedia etc, i do not qualify as an atheist. I quote from wikipedia “Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.”
    “Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity.[1][2] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of God and his relationship to the universe.[3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe.”
    If you want to have an intellectual argument on the existence of God, so be it. The very same arguments you use work against you. But as i said, its a heart matter, not a mind matter.
    I’ll ask you a question… Why do you say there is no God? Can you rationally prove that there is no God?

  14. on 20 Aug 2009 at 10:17 pm 14.Denis Loubet said …

    If you’ll read carefully, I have not said there is no god. That would be a knowledge statement about the state of the universe.

    I have only said I do not believe in one. That is a statement describing my subjective status regarding belief in gods, not a statement about whether they exist or not.

    I am an atheist because I have not been presented compelling evidence to convince me there is a god. Failing that evidence, I remain unconvinced there is a god.

    It would take extraordinary evidence to convince me of a god at this point because so many people are able to believe in mutually exclusive gods that it’s obvious that it’s possible to be completely wrong, and yet through faith feel completely right. This is exactly why I brought up Zeus and the rest. People had great faith in them, but since you refuse to believe in Zeus, it must be that you think their belief is wrong. That their faith has led them astray.

    This means you absolutely cannot trust faith.

    So, I’ll need concrete evidence to change my mind.

  15. on 21 Aug 2009 at 1:31 pm 15.Lou said …

    “it’s obvious that it’s possible to be completely wrong, and yet through faith feel completely right.”

    Atheism?

  16. on 21 Aug 2009 at 2:26 pm 16.Denis Loubet said …

    No, atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It says nothing about being right or wrong.

    A gross mischaracterization of skepticism might fit the description, but that would be a gross mischaracterization.

    There is one human endeavour that elevates faith to a virtue, rather than recognizing it as the synonym for ignorance that it is, and that’s religion.

  17. on 21 Aug 2009 at 8:48 pm 17.Lou said …

    Denis atheism is either right or wrong. BELIEVE ME, atheist are constantly claiming they are right and everyone else is delusional.

    You have faith that you possibly could be correct in your lack of belief. That is faith. This “lack of belief” is just a new spin that doesn’t change the fact or what atheist REALLY claim.

    Last argument against you is that SCOTUS declared atheism to be a religion. Everyone places faith in something so enjoy the ride and accept you are like everyone else.

  18. on 22 Aug 2009 at 4:49 am 18.Denis Loubet said …

    Even if it were true that “atheist are constantly claiming they are right and everyone else is delusional”, an argument could be made that that is preferable to “I’m right and I agree with my god that atheists deserve to be tortured forever in a lake of fire”.

    As to me having faith that it’s possible I could be correct in my belief, wow, that’s quite a logical contortion just to move some goalposts. Is that what religious faith is to you, the notion that maybe there’s the possibility that there’s a god? Is that what you would call a man of faith? The people I hear being called men of faith are the ones that claim to harbor absolute certainty in their god, and no doubt whatsoever as to what it wants. The more certainty the better.

    Since I hold all my beliefs conditionally, it’s hardly the same thing. That’s not even dipping into the “If atheism is a faith, then not playing baseball is a sport” territory.

    And as powerful as the SCOTUS may be, they do not dictate reality.

  19. on 22 Aug 2009 at 12:49 pm 19.Lou said …

    “since I hold all my beliefs conditionally, it’s hardly the same thing.”

    Oh yes Denis, this makes you unique! Everyone holds their beliefs conditionally. That is why you see atheist becoming christians, christians becoming atheist and so on!

    Now…..if you can prove with certainty that God does not exist, then you have a fact. Until then, it is faith. Look it up.

  20. on 22 Aug 2009 at 7:17 pm 20.VeridicusX said …

    Lou, you’re (willfully?) mistaking gullibility and delusion, (read faith), for normal beliefs.

    Specifically, faith is believing in contempt of the facts.
    [See Hebrews 11:1 and Romans 8:24]

    “You have faith that you possibly could be correct in your lack of belief. That is faith.”

    … is just another theist lie.

    To state that something is possible is simply to say that the statement agrees with itself and with known facts. It doesn’t contradict itself – this is known as coherence – and it doesn’t contradict the facts – this is known as consistency. Facts are verified physical evidence.

    When a rational person says, “I believe so-and-so”, it is taken to mean that they are not certain.
    “Did John say that the shipment will arrive today?”
    “I believe so.”

    When a religious person says, “I believe so-and-so”, it is taken to mean that they are sure of or certain of, things that they cannot possibly know, often in the face of strong evidence to the contrary.

    “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” – The Bible. New International Version.

    I should just define a lie for you. Theists conveniently don’t seem to be able to remember what one is.


    Noun 1. lie – a statement intended to deceive.

    Noun 2. lie – a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth.

    Noun 3. lie – an unqualified baseless assertion. An avowal not based on fact.

    If I declare something to be true, even though I know that I have no valid evidence to support my statement at the time that I make it, then I am lying. (Even if it subsequently turns out to be true).

    If I assert that you are a pedophile without valid evidence, then I am lying. It doesn’t matter how much “faith” I have. It is still an unqualified baseless assertion which leads others to believe that what I say is based on facts.

    If I say, “Jesus rose bodily from the dead!”, I’m lying.

    I’m not lying if I say, “I gullibly believe that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, even though I have no valid evidence to support this belief and all the verifiable evidence and the 2nd law of thermodynamics point to bodily resurrections being essentially impossible”.

  21. on 23 Aug 2009 at 3:44 am 21.Denis Loubet said …

    Everyone holds their beliefs conditionally? That must be why I hear things like “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.”

    And since I don’t make the claim that god doesn’t exist, I am exhibiting no faith whatsoever regarding that issue.

    I simply lack belief in any gods.

  22. on 23 Aug 2009 at 11:00 am 22.Lou said …

    Not only does your ilk “not make the claim” they are also emphatic there is no God.

    From Merriam Webster:

    Faith – firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

    Since you like to put out there what you hear let me put out what I hear. I hear atheist who sound more like evangelist attempting to save the multitudes! This website for one. Atheist stating “there is no God” and “Christians/Muslims/etc are delusional”, are making a faith statements….according to Merriam & Webster.

  23. on 23 Aug 2009 at 3:35 pm 23.VeridicusX said …

    #22.Lou

    Lou, you are mistaken in thinking that people who are strong atheists concerning the Abrahamic God are making a claim of faith.

    The capital-G God is indeed impossible. No faith needed.

    I don’t need faith to know that square circles don’t exist. Likewise I don’t need faith to know that a supernatural-omni-creator God doesn’t exist in reality.

    Here’s the proof in multiple dimensions so you’ll know that no faith is needed:

    a) Spiritual or Supernatural in a religious context means above nature, incorporeal, immaterial, non-physical.

    Non-physical means no physical properties.

    Physical properties are:

    Dimensionality – spacetime location, spacetime dimensions.
    Energy – radiation, mass, information, entropy, force, effect.

    Therefore, for something to be spiritual or supernatural it must have zero dimensions, no energy, information, force or effect and not exist anywhere in the universe at any time – past, present or future.

    b) An omni entity is a self-contradictory concept.

    You can easily look up the myriad contradictions that arise from the usual claims of omni-whatever properties ascribed to the conjectured God.

    c) The concept of a creator god is incoherent or undefined.

    Space and time are physical properties of the Universe.
    Whether or not space and time had a beginning, there is no before time where a cause could exist.
    There is no time when the Universe did not exist.
    Causation is a physical property of the Universe.

    So the Creator God conjecture is either meaningful and false or nonsense.

    If something contradicts the facts and/or itself it is provably false. No faith needed.

  24. on 23 Aug 2009 at 3:48 pm 24.Denis Loubet said …

    Not many atheists I know claim that there are no gods, they simply do not believe in any.

    I think what you’re hearing is atheists calling you delusional because you believe in something for which there is no evidence. They don’t have to make the claim that gods don’t exist for that to be true.

    And Mirriam Webster seems to agree with my definition of faith.

    Since I have complete trust in nothing, I fail to see how this supports your position.

    Some atheists are out there to save the multitudes. They see the damage religion does, and seek to reduce it by trying to convince the theists to free themselves from it’s influence.

  25. on 23 Aug 2009 at 6:55 pm 25.Lou said …

    V,
    You have proven nothing other than you limited ability to detect and measure. You have faith that your five senses provides all needed detection and measurement. Highly unlikely and therefore you have proven only that you have faith. You have no clue what happens in the darkest regions of the universe.
    According to you hypothesis, we should not even be here but yet here we are!
    To believe God would conform to the physical universe is silly.

    Faith – firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

  26. on 23 Aug 2009 at 8:13 pm 26.VeridicusX said …

    I’m sorry Lou,

    If someone says that God is The Quintessence of Square Circles, I know that it doesn’t exist.

    See how that works? I don’t have to perform an exhaustive search of the whole Universe and every possible world.

    “According to you hypothesis, we should not even be here but yet here we are!
    To believe God would conform to the physical universe is silly.”

    I think I’ve made it quite clear that I don’t believe in the objective existence of any God.

    I certainly don’t believe that a God can have physical properties while at the same time not having them, which is what is taught by the main Abrahamic religions and is what you seem to be suggesting.

    How not believing in The Quintessence of Square Circles means that we should not even be here, I don’t know.

    It seems that according to your conjecture, an [impossible] invisible, child molesting, mass murdering wizard in the sky wished everything into existence. Now that’s silly.

  27. on 23 Aug 2009 at 8:13 pm 27.Denis Loubet said …

    I’m not V, but I’ll take a stab.

    Yes, our ability to detect and measure is limited, I doubt you’ll get an argument there. And our five senses doubtlessly do not provide all needed detection, that’s why we try to supplement our senses through technology. I also doubt you’ll get an argument about not knowing what happens in the darkest regions of the universe. I sure don’t.

    We’re unlikely, but here we are. So what?

    Well, according to the bible, the god did conform to the physical universe for a time. Ended badly on a cross thingy. I agree it’s silly.

    So, what super-senses do you have that allow you to detect this god-thing? And if you can’t detect it, what made you posit its existence in the first place?

  28. on 23 Aug 2009 at 8:32 pm 28.Lou said …

    V you can’t even stay on subject. You bounce from God to Christianity and back. Maybe you are ADD/ADHD but try to focus.

    You really should put that in book form and prove this hypothesis to the rest of humanity. Any man that has all knowledge and the unlimited ability to detect, manipulate and solve all possible metaphysical scenarios is one fella who would be in great demand. You should consider, just for a moment, that all theist may have a reason for believing in God rather than just being delusional.

    When a very small minority calls the vast majority delusional, the minority might need to take a look in a mirror…..or just maybe this is the greatest hoax in history, huh?

  29. on 23 Aug 2009 at 9:30 pm 29.VeridicusX said …

    OK Lou,

    You got me there.

    Lots of people believe in Square Circles, therefore rational people should too?

    If you’ve decided to change the definition of God so that it isn’t the supernatural and/or omni and/or creator version or The Quintessence of Square Circles, then I can say nothing about it. Maybe you’ve decided that your gerbil is “God”?

    I have no evidence that you have a gerbil, so I’ll remain agnostic about it.

    Traditional theists have presented no valid evidence of any gods, only definitions which I have shown are provably incoherent.

    Of course, I’ll suspend judgment or assign a probability to “gods” that we cannot prove or disprove or possible entities for which we have no verifiable evidence.

    If you have a non-contradictory definition of God you’d like to share, I’d love to hear about it. Better still, if you can present some valid evidence I’ll make every effort to attend the presentation of your Nobel prize.

  30. on 23 Aug 2009 at 10:45 pm 30.Lou said …

    Oh no V, I don’t pretend to understand exactly what God consists of or how he may operate. I don’t even do that for the planet compositions orbiting in the Messier 89 galaxy and they are comparable to your square circles!

    But haven’t you already proven he doesn’t exist? If you have done this, maybe others could be saved? But if you want to attempt this feat, you need to stop with the silly square circles and attempt an honest analysis. Calling most of the world delusional just won’t cut it. Here is where you fall. Most of the world DOES NOT believe in square circles so why God?

    I see you as one of those guys who doubts everything you can’t see. The Bah humbug of the world if you will I prefer to see many possibilities and discoveries that man can not yet imagine. I see the possibility of God as highly likely by observing the very same evidence you do.

  31. on 24 Aug 2009 at 5:25 am 31.VeridicusX said …

    “But haven’t you already proven he doesn’t exist?”

    If you have any integrity, rebut my refutation – with reasoned evidence.

    Who, what or where is this “he” to which you refer? Oh, that’s right. “God” is no longer the set of contradictory statements we’ve been told about for centuries and that I’ve clearly refuted.

    “God” is now suddenly undefined…

    “I don’t pretend to understand exactly what God consists of or how he may operate.”

    I’m sure you don’t, because you have no evidence of any such thing. You’re making it up.

    You talk about honesty. Ethics and personal integrity require that we don’t believe things for which we have no valid evidence. Beliefs have consequences, beliefs determine behaviors.

    Do I have to mention 9/11 or the people who have been in court recently for negligent homicide, due to “faith in God“?

    “Most of the world DOES NOT believe in square circles so why God?”

    I already know why people believe in “God”. And so do you. You keep on bringing it up.

    It’s called indoctrinated fear and wishful thinking or “faith”. No magical mass murdering molesters required.

    If you believe that you’ve won the lottery you will in all probability feel Really Good™.
    It isn’t required that you’ve really won the lottery, only that you believe it.

    Remind you of anything?

  32. on 24 Aug 2009 at 6:05 am 32.VeridicusX said …

    Lou,

    “I see the possibility of God as highly likely by observing the very same evidence you do.”

    You do realize that if your answer to the question, “Do you believe in God?”, is anything other than “yes”, then you’re an atheist?

    Certainly, your position is incompatible with the traditional “omni” God.

    This particular God is supposed to be the necessary creator of the capital-U Universe, everything that could possibly not exist. As such is is supposed to be present in the history of every possible world.
    If you suggest, as you have done, that there’s any possible world in which it doesn’t exist, then you don’t believe in it. [See Alvin Plantinga’s “Maximality”, the Ontological Argument, etc.].

  33. on 24 Aug 2009 at 11:00 am 33.Burebista said …

    What is a traditional OmniGod? This guy confuses traditional religion with the argument of a supreme deity.

    Science cannot prove you possess a conscious or self-awareness. We may see the results but how can you prove scientifically that the conscious exists? But I would venture a guess you would argue you do.

    Can you prove it? The same kind of proof you desire for God?

    BTW I believe there is a God and suffer from no fears. Therefore you are wrong on that account as well.

  34. on 24 Aug 2009 at 12:15 pm 34.VeridicusX said …

    Burebista,

    If you don’t know what the traditional “descriptions” of God are, then you’re not equipped for this discussion.

    “Science cannot prove you possess a conscious or self-awareness.”

    You’d better hope it can should you ever go into hospital for surgery.

    “BTW I believe there is a God and suffer from no fears. Therefore you are wrong on that account as well.

    I don’t believe you.

  35. on 24 Aug 2009 at 12:20 pm 35.VeridicusX said …

    Oh, and Burebista,

    Present a rebuttal. “I’m an idiot!” is not an argument.

  36. on 24 Aug 2009 at 12:48 pm 36.VeridicusX said …

    Burebista again,

    “This guy confuses traditional religion with the argument of a supreme deity.”

    A what?

    You seem to be the one who’s confused. It’s impossible to know if any so-called “deity” is supreme. Even said so-called “supreme deity” can’t know. So I’d be interested to see what “the argument of a supreme deity” might be.

    See Descartes, The Simulation Hypothesis, Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, etc.

  37. on 24 Aug 2009 at 2:39 pm 37.Burebista said …

    Great argument. “I don’t believe you” The incredible Vee has the ability to know what everyone believes and feels. No need to go further with that idiocy. I didn’t use the argument you are an idiot, but you now make it fit.

    A supreme deity is not a religious argument no more than SETI is since we have members of the scientific community taking up the task. ID offers up many possibilities in the realm of a supreme diety. I doubt you would look into them since I find many of you to be narrow minded and incapable of examining other lines of reasoning.

    So, once again, prove the existence of the conscious. You do believe in the “I” don’t you? You attempt was lame and not believable.

  38. on 10 May 2011 at 2:59 am 38.Christy said …

    I believe your all crazy. im a CHRISTIAN AND PROUD those who have not been touched by the Lord ya’ll need to get a grasp on reality and get to know him he will change your life. Look up cool stories of people being healed and God blessing them.I hope I was a help.

  39. on 10 May 2011 at 1:36 pm 39.Lou said …

    38.Christy said …

    “I believe your all crazy.”

    This from somebody who believes in a maniacal god who allegedly heals and blesses people – LOL!

    Take your own advice – “get a grasp on reality.”

    “I hope I was a help.”

    You weren’t. It’s people like you who are the problem.

  40. on 05 Jul 2011 at 1:58 pm 40.Bovice said …

    Lou- I completely agree with you on the fact that people like Christy are the problem.

    Christy- I am a Christian and believe everything you believe but stating things like you did are not going to convince an atheist of anything.

    I was born and raised a Christian. Do I have some doubt, yes. But here is my logical way of thinking: Believing there is no God gives you 0 chance of having a good after-life. Believing there is a God gives you a chance to be saved and live in happiness in what I belive in as heaven.

    Before you think that this is a dumb reason to believe in God, this is just my logic on why it is a good reason to believe in God.

    I could sit and give you facts on why there is a God and everyone will accept or refute them based on their own beliefs.

    Getting back to the original reason of this post, I would like to hear someone’s argument about “Can living things come from non-living matter.” This supports my belief in God and rejects numerous scientific hypothesis about the creation of the world. Where did living organisms come from if science can not prove this? My logical answer-God.

  41. on 05 Jul 2011 at 3:15 pm 41.Lou said …

    40.Bovice said …

    “But here is my logical way of thinking: Believing there is no God gives you 0 chance of having a good after-life. Believing there is a God gives you a chance to be saved and live in happiness in what I belive in as heaven.

    Before you think that this is a dumb reason to believe in God, this is just my logic on why it is a good reason to believe in God.”

    Your thinking is not at all logical. It’s an old argument known as Pascal’s Wager that has been repeatedly shown to be wrong, so I’m not going over it again here.

  42. on 05 Jul 2011 at 8:00 pm 42.Severin said …

    40 Bovice
    „Getting back to the original reason of this post, I would like to hear someone’s argument about “Can living things come from non-living matter.”

    Please see here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=1945 , posts #19, #48, #57, #66, #67

    Think about it, and, if you want, try to find week points in this reasoning.

  43. on 05 Jul 2011 at 9:05 pm 43.Ian said …

    “If your god is so obvious, why can’t you prove his existence?”

    Looks to me he has proved it. Seems quite obvious which is why the vast majority have no problem in belief in a creator. We are here, the universe is here. I don’t have enough faith to believe chance created it all.

    _________________________________________________

    “However, he who believes in a random beginning and evolution also relies fully on faith. This is the fact that cannot be denied.”

    Absolutely telson.
    ______________________________________________

    “I have yet to witness complexity, information and design arising out of ooze.”

    This is not a fallacious statement. He makes a claim of something he has not witnessed. If he claimed otherwise i would call him a liar.

    _____________________________________________

    ” Is gravity a supernatural force? Is god necessary to hold the universe together?”

    Yes, God is required to hold the universe together.
    ____________________________________________

    “Can living things come from non-living matter.”

    If there is no proof of God, there is no proof of such a process.

  44. on 05 Jul 2011 at 9:08 pm 44.Ian said …

    “Pascal’s Wager that has been repeatedly shown to be wrong”

    Another lie (fallacious even) that has been prove wrong numerous time. Pascal’s wager is from the pov of a Christian not an atheist. From the pov of a Christian his wager is true.

    I think Pascal has a little more on the ball than some atheists on blogs who do not even understand his wager.

  45. on 06 Jul 2011 at 2:00 am 45.DPK said …

    There are so many problems with Pascal’s wager it is silly.
    First, an all powerful god would not be fooled or impressed by a “decision” to believe… that is not real belief and an omniscient being wouldn’t be impressed. You also assume that he would be more impressed with someone taking a “safe bet” to gain eternal live than with someone who has an honest and sincere disbelief based on the intellect given him, or her. This requires that the god in question not mind that you believe in it merely in order to gain entrance to heaven and/or to avoid punishment in hell. But this means that this god isn’t actually a just or fair god, since a person’s eternal fate is not being decided upon based on their actions, but merely on their decision to make a pragmatic and selfish choice.

    Secondly, your wager is based on the assumption that “your” god is the correct one. Considering the hundreds of gods we have to choose from, the odds of you picking the “correct” one to believe in is quite small. You may decide to believe, but pick the wrong deity and you will be in the same lake of fire as me. The chance of you simply picking between Jesus, and say, Allah alone greatly reduces your chances of getting it right… add in all the hundreds of other sundry gods, and the very real possibility that NONE of the current major religion’s gods are actually the true one, and you chance become almost nil. What if you die and find that the Raelians or Mormons, or scientologists actually have the “right god”? You lose.

    Third, you assume that an omniscient and omnipotent being of such vast intelligence as to create the whole universe and everything in it would be so unbelievably petty as to insist on belief in him via “faith” that he would be willing to impart a penalty of eternal damnation. That would be very much like me smashing my dog’s head with a sledge hammer repeatedly for not coming when I called him. Hardly behavior worthy of a supreme being.

  46. on 06 Jul 2011 at 3:16 am 46.Lou said …

    43.Ian said …

    “I have yet to witness complexity, information and design arising out of ooze.”

    “This is not a fallacious statement. He makes a claim of something he has not witnessed. If he claimed otherwise i would call him a liar.”

    Of all of your idiotic comments, I will only choose this one for a reply because it illustrates your dishonesty. You intentionally edited his comment that was labeled a fallacy. To wit, “I have yet to witness complexity, information and design arising out of ooze. Using logic and deduction I reason intelligence must be behind such things.”

    The second sentence of his comment is a fallacy. You are either very presumptuous or very ignorant to think that anybody would fall for your dishonest tactic. However, I think the latter is more likely because of your rather simple defense of the strong rejection of Pascal’s Wager.

  47. on 06 Jul 2011 at 11:11 am 47.Ian said …

    Debunking DPK”

    “that is not real belief and an omniscient being wouldn’t be impressed.”

    Folly, Pascal never made the claim of false belief. That is akin to unbelief which puts them in the later category.

    “Secondly, your wager is based on the assumption that “your” god is the correct one.”

    Yes, because Pascal is making the comparison between belief and non-belief (atheism). Between the two, which is the best wager?

    “unbelievably petty as to insist on belief in him via “faith” that he would be willing to impart a penalty of eternal damnation.”

    Yes, what does this have to do with the wager? Run out of objections? Once again Pascal was Christian. You are like the little kid who doesn’t like his parents punishment. Such chutzpah to think God must act as YOU believe.

    DPK vs Pascal?

    Well, Pascal wins again.

    Lou sorry, you are not worth my time.

  48. on 06 Jul 2011 at 2:34 pm 48.DPK said …

    Folly, Pascal never made the claim of false belief. That is akin to unbelief which puts them in the later category.

    A belief that is predicated on a favorable outcome is not a “belief”. It is not possible for me to “decide” to believe in god. Such a belief is shallow and disingenuous. To claim to do so would be a lie. Like Bovice above who admits he has doubts but chooses god to be safe, after all, what’s the harm, would not cut mustard with an omniscient being. Therefore the idea of “which is the better choice” is fallacious.

    Assuming a god who demands belief as a condition of avoidance of eternal punishment, which is what the wager is about, atheism has a zero chance of success, but belief in god, when there are hundreds of possible gods to choose from, with no way of knowing which one is right, is not much better… perhaps one in a thousand?

    Such chutzpah to think God must act as YOU believe.
    I am simply trying to think rationally about what behavior an supreme being would exhibit. YOU are the one claiming he acts as YOU believe, not me. I’m just saying that the way you claim he behaves is not in keeping with the nature of an omniscient, omnipotent being of infinite intelligence. YOU are claiming that god is the christian god, that he favors you, and that he will reward YOU for believing in him. That takes some balls.
    What will you say to Allah when he asks you why you worshiped this fraud Jesus instead of him, the one true god?
    Run out of answers?

  49. on 06 Jul 2011 at 2:47 pm 49.Lou said …

    47.Ian said …

    “Such chutzpah to think God must act as YOU believe.”

    Again, most of your comments are too idiotic to justify a response, but your last comment reflects your obvious bias. DPK doesn’t even believe in god, so he has no belief of how your god “must act,” but only how a logical, rational being would act. But you, being an irrational, illogical being have the “chutzpah” to tell anybody how your imaginary, maniacal god, for whom you have no evidence, DOES ACT – complete, utter delusion, and that’s not even considering the stupidity of Pascal’s Wager. Pascal’s Wager requires an irrational belief in a maniacal god. If that’s you, then are deluded.

  50. on 06 Jul 2011 at 6:26 pm 50.Lou said …

    44.Ian said …

    “Pascal’s wager is from the pov of a Christian not an atheist. From the pov of a Christian his wager is true.”

    Simply being the “pov” of a xtian (chutzpah) invalidates it. Therefore, all other arguments, regardless of their merits, against it are moot. Pascal’s wager is simply an exercise in probability that only serves to distract from the main issue, to wit, there’s no evidence for god.

  51. on 06 Jul 2011 at 6:44 pm 51.Lou said …

    47.Ian said …

    “Secondly, your wager is based on the assumption that “your” god is the correct one.”

    “Yes, because Pascal is making the comparison between belief and non-belief (atheism). Between the two, which is the best wager?”

    No, he isn’t. Pascal is making the choice (comparison) between (his) the xtian god only and “non-belief.” This also invalidates the wager because it’s a false dichotomy unless you’re a deluded xtian.

  52. on 06 Jul 2011 at 8:05 pm 52.Ian said …

    “YOU are the one claiming he acts as YOU believe, not me”

    Where do you come up with such ideas. He acts as He chooses. I would not have the audacity to believe God should act as some mere man.

    Again you would like to take Pascal’s wager beyond that which he makes the wager. This is why you guys who think you have debunked it fail. His argument is from an intellectual analysis, not from an actual acceptance of Christ and the changes that take place.

    In any event if hypothetically I ever must answer to Allah I suppose I would say the same thing as you DPK.

  53. on 06 Jul 2011 at 9:34 pm 53.Lou said …

    52.Ian said …

    “His argument is from an intellectual analysis, not from an actual acceptance of Christ and the changes that take place.”

    Yes, that is understood. That’s why I previously wrote “Pascal’s wager is simply an exercise in probability that only serves to distract from the main issue, to wit, there’s no evidence for god.”

    It’s still an unacceptable “wager.” Substitute a leprechaun for god and a pot of gold for heaven. There’s no point in it, yet theists somehow see and use use it as an argument for their belief in god. There’s no point in having an “intellectual analysis” about a leprechaun and a pot of gold.

  54. on 06 Jul 2011 at 9:56 pm 54.DPK said …

    “In any event if hypothetically I ever must answer to Allah I suppose I would say the same thing as you DPK.”

    haha… then your “safe bet” is really no safer than mine. Thanks for at least admitting it.

    “Where do you come up with such ideas. He acts as He chooses. I would not have the audacity to believe God should act as some mere man.”

    You are either missing the point or choosing to ignore it. Let’s look at the assumptions that YOU are making about god in order to get the outcome from Pascal’s that you desire:
    1. You assume that god really cares about whether you believe in him or not. If he doesn’t, your wager fails.
    2. You assume that the god you choose to worship is actually the correct one. Pick the wrong god, you loose.
    3. You assume that he rewards those that profess a belief in him for a self serving interest over those who are true to their (ehem, god given) ability to reason. If you’re wrong about his behavior, you loose.
    4. You assume that he does in fact, punish people for all eternity and that he is, in fact, a “jealous god” full of anger and wrath. If he is, rather a forgiving and loving god… you loose.
    5. You assume that he will accept someone choosing to believe in him because it is the safest bet to be satisfactory to him. If he sees through your rouse, you loose.

    In short, my friend, your entire argument is based entirely on assumptions that your god will behave according to how YOU want him to behave.

    If your statement is true, that “He acts as He chooses. I would not have the audacity to believe God should act as some mere man.” then there is no point in trying to understand him at all. He will do what he wants… and your fate has been determined since before you were conceived.

    I wonder why god choose to give YOU the gift of faith and belief, and deny fully 2/3rds of the world’s population? You think very highly of yourself, don’t you?

  55. on 06 Jul 2011 at 10:44 pm 55.Ian said …

    “In short, my friend, your entire argument is based entirely on assumptions”

    No, it is based on God’s Word, not my assumptions. You missed again.

    The wager is sound. If I am right I get heaven and you unfortunately will not. If you are right, we both get the same thing.

    It is really quite simple, solid and still applies today. Drag all the other diversions in that you may, you are simply avoiding the wager. If not avoidance, then you are just simply not intellectually acute enough to get it.

    Yes, I do think highly of myself. Should I not? Should I be a self-loathing twit? I certainly don’t pretend to know more than God.

  56. on 07 Jul 2011 at 12:22 am 56.DPK said …

    No, it is based on God’s Word, not my assumptions. You missed again.

    What? The bible?? Every religion has it’s holy book. There is no evidence that your “word of god” is any more valid than any other.

    Yes, if against all odds, you happen to have gotten it 100% right and I have it 100% wrong, you get the gold ring and I loose. But at least I have not lived my life as a serf in service to a maniacal, murderous god. So, if I have it right and you have it wrong, you don’t get the “same thing” as me. Because I got to live my life free of delusion and superstition.
    “Diversions” aside.. I’m not avoiding the wager. I’m pointing out to you how weak it is. It’s like saying “Assuming that I know exactly what lottery number will come up, it is a safer wager to play the lottery than not play. Well, it’s true… you can’t win if you don’t play, but the odds of you actually knowing the winning number are remote. You act like it’s a 50/50 deal. It isn’t. In fact, the odds that YOU have everything right number is very small.

  57. on 07 Jul 2011 at 3:13 am 57.Lou said …

    DPK,

    You can forget all the arguments against Pascal’s Wager because someone like Ian will always have some answer for them that they will accept over your argument.

    My point of the leprechaun and gold analogy was meant to illustrate how Pascal’s Wager is “rigged.” That is, to use Ian’s term, for it it to be “true,” you must believe it to be “true.” Even Ian admits as much when he writes “From the pov of a Christian his wager is true.” If you aren’t a xtian (believer), then it isn’t true. It’s a “rigged” wager.

  58. on 07 Jul 2011 at 3:29 am 58.Lou said …

    55.Ian said …

    “No, it is based on God’s Word, not my assumptions. You missed again.”

    There is no “God’s Word,” only your delusional belief that there is. You missed again.

    “The wager is sound. If I am right I get heaven and you unfortunately will not. If you are right, we both get the same thing.”

    It’s only “sound” to the extent that Pascal set the limitations of the wager.

    “It is really quite simple, solid and still applies today. Drag all the other diversions in that you may, you are simply avoiding the wager. If not avoidance, then you are just simply not intellectually acute enough to get it.”

    Anyone who agrees with your analysis is not intellectually honest.

    “Yes, I do think highly of myself. Should I not?”

    No, you should not because so far you haven’t exhibited to us that you have any reason to.

    “Should I be a self-loathing twit?”

    No, you shouldn’t.

    “I certainly don’t pretend to know more than God.”

    All theists pretend to know more than god. It’s the only way to maintain their delusional belief. God is an invention of man. Therefore, a man who believes in god must know more than god does.

  59. on 07 Jul 2011 at 2:48 pm 59.Bovice said …

    For all of you that do not know much about religion, my christian God is the same God that the Muslims and Jews both believe in. In the Muslim and Juedism faith, everyone that believes in God are saved, whether Muslim, Jew, or not. Christianity is the only faith of the major religions that you need to believe in Jesus in order to be saved. (Although I believe this to be false) The major point you all miss is that you need to live a righteous life in order to be saved as well. You can’t just believe in God and therefore you are saved. Someone who constantly steals from others or kills others will not be saved.

    I would love to see the idiotic responses to my next statement. Anyone that believes us humans “evolved” from a single celled organism over billions of years clearly has no logic. Animals are so complex. Humans are even more complex. There is no sane person that can tell me otherwise. God clearly is the only explaniation.

  60. on 07 Jul 2011 at 2:52 pm 60.Ian said …

    “I have not lived my life as a serf in service to a maniacal, murderous god.”

    What???? I hope you don’t really believe that. It so ridiculous. I know a God who loves me and provides for me. I am free, full of joy and gratitude. I can’t imagine my life any other way.

    The odds I have it right are 100%. When you have met God, have a relationship with him, you know he is the real deal. You don’t know him so I understand your lack of understanding.

    I wish I could agree you have a life free of delusion. You do not and that is truly too bad. You are probably one of those guys who has a religion and gave up on it. I can relate. Religion is a waste of time.

  61. on 07 Jul 2011 at 3:11 pm 61.Lou said …

    59.Bovice said …

    “I would love to see the idiotic responses to my next statement. Anyone that believes us humans “evolved” from a single celled organism over billions of years clearly has no logic.”

    Evolution is a fact, not a belief. It’s irrelevant whether or not you believe in it. It has nothing to with logic. Gravity defies logic and explanation, yet it is a fact. It operates regardless of your belief in it.

    “Animals are so complex. Humans are even more complex.”

    How much more complex?

    “There is no sane person that can tell me otherwise. God clearly is the only explaniation.”

    We understand your position and reasoning. It’s not unusual for deluded people to think they are sane and that everybody else is not. God or gods were always the explanation for unexplained natural events. However, once they are understood, they are no longer supernatural events. There are no supernatural events. There are only natural events, both explained and unexplained. Only the feeble-minded continue to explain unexplained natural events with gods.

  62. on 07 Jul 2011 at 3:49 pm 62.Bovice said …

    Evolution is not a fact. It is a hypothesis. There are so many facts that disprove evolution.

    For example: The missing link. This can be done with humans and monkeys, try this with another animal.
    The fact that a bird has wings defys natural selection. A bird would have to develop a wing over millions of years. It would not keep a useless wing for that amount of time, which would keep it at a significant disadvantage.

    I could go on for days. Evolution is a made up scientific explanation for something that can not be explained. Our world didn’t happen by chance.

  63. on 07 Jul 2011 at 4:11 pm 63.DPK said …

    “The odds I have it right are 100%. When you have met God, have a relationship with him, you know he is the real deal. You don’t know him so I understand your lack of understanding.”

    Spoken like a truly delusional person. You know no such thing. You think you do. But that’s fine, have at it. Just stop trying to cram your delusions down everyone else’s throat. Even the atheist here are not so irrational as to claim that they know things that are not known or unknowable. We look at the evidence and make a rational conclusion based on what is most likely real. You read a magic book and have a tingly feeling in your tummy and think you are blessed. Sorry, can’t buy into that snake oil.

    Bovice… go to a real university and study biology and stop listening to the religious whack jobs and their voodoo “science”. Even most main stream religions have accepted evolution as a scientific fact, although predictably, they now want to claim it as god’s work. Seriously, you sound like the church leaders who insisted the earth is the center of the universe long after it was painfully obvious they were wrong. You make yourself just sound silly. The alternative is that god poofed everything into existence and then created an overwhelming mountain of evidence to trick us into believing he didn’t. That Yahweh, such a kidder!

  64. on 07 Jul 2011 at 4:21 pm 64.Bovice said …

    DPK…You provided absolutely no facts besides calling me a religious whack job. I am no scientist but I am well educated. Although I doubt the evolutionary process of humans coming from other animals, single cells,etc., I believe in evolution as a fact that animals change, but not to an extreme as the evolutionary theory suggests.

    For all you that love spitting in philosophical anayalsis consider this:
    If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent

    Accept your belief that you are here by chance and have no reason to be here if you want, every arguement I have seen just supports my own belief.

  65. on 07 Jul 2011 at 5:27 pm 65.Ian said …

    “Evolution is a fact, not a belief.”

    Microevolution is a fact

    Macroevolution is a philosophy.
    __________________

    “But that’s fine, have at it. Just stop trying to cram your delusions down everyone else’s throat”

    Will you stop forcing your delusions down our throat? Will you start by having this website shutdown?

    Atheists like to claim they make no claims but that is like Obama stating we need to live with in our means financially. It is just talk.

  66. on 07 Jul 2011 at 5:28 pm 66.Lou said …

    64.Bovice said …

    “You provided absolutely no facts besides calling me a religious whack job.”

    You have already demonstrated that very thing, he is correct until you demonstrate otherwise.

    “I am no scientist but I am well educated.”

    Again, you have demonstrated just the opposite. You obviously are not as well educated as you think you are.

    “Although I doubt the evolutionary process of humans coming from other animals, single cells,etc., I believe in evolution as a fact that animals change, but not to an extreme as the evolutionary theory suggests.”

    Oh, you’re one of those people who cherry picks which parts of science that they “believe” are facts and which are not. Ignorant people have been guilty of that for centuries. Evolution is fact, both the parts of you believe and don’t believe. It doesn’t matter what is known about the evolutionary process. It exists, regardless.

    What part of gravity do you believe? I wonder because I only believe the part that planets orbit each other because of gravity. But it’s obvious that objects and people can’t be held to an immense globe that’s spinning at more than 1,000 MPH while traveling at more than 67,000 MPH through space. It’s “logically incoherent” to think otherwise, so the only explanation is that we don’t fly off the earth into space because god prevents it.

    “To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent.”

    It might be if someone presupposed that. But even if they did, it’s still not as “logically incoherent” as inventing a supernatural being to account for it. Again, ignorant people have done the same thing for centuries until science explains how nature works. Simply because there’s no scientific explanation for a natural event doesn’t mean that god did it. That is the most “logically incoherent” explanation that there is, provide by “logically incoherent” people such as yourself.

    “Accept your belief that you are here by chance and have no reason to be here if you want, every arguement I have seen just supports my own belief.”

    Of course every argument supports your belief because you pick the arguments that you agree with and reject those that are in conflict with your belief. Your belief is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Another problem you have is understanding the concept that no belief is not a belief.

  67. on 07 Jul 2011 at 5:54 pm 67.Bovice said …

    Lou you are so biased and make no sense.

    “No belief is not a belief”
    Yes it is, you believe in nothing.

    Your arguments are not sound at all. All you try to do with your arguements is tick people off. You are way too biased in all of your philosophy. The object of philosophy is to make you think, and you are completely one-sided. Become better educated on the most important information-facts. All you do is put a philosophical spin on others comments. Facts speak for themselves. Your way of thinking is based on a possibility of something to be true. Bring facts to the table if your going to argue, that is what I have done. Until you do that keep your comments to yourself.

  68. on 07 Jul 2011 at 5:56 pm 68.Bovice said …

    Lou:
    “Although I doubt the evolutionary process of humans coming from other animals, single cells,etc., I believe in evolution as a fact that animals change, but not to an extreme as the evolutionary theory suggests.”

    Oh, you’re one of those people who cherry picks which parts of science that they “believe” are facts and which are not. Ignorant people have been guilty of that for centuries. Evolution is fact, both the parts of you believe and don’t believe. It doesn’t matter what is known about the evolutionary process. It exists, regardless. ”

    “Evolution is a fact, not a belief.”

    Microevolution is a fact

    Macroevolution is a philosophy.

    Well put Ian

  69. on 07 Jul 2011 at 5:58 pm 69.Lou said …

    68.Bovice said …

    “Microevolution is a fact”

    Prove it.

  70. on 07 Jul 2011 at 6:01 pm 70.Lou said …

    67.Bovice said …

    “No belief is not a belief”

    “Yes it is, you believe in nothing.”

    I don’t believe in Horus. Is that a belief? Also, I don’t believe in countless other imaginary gods that I never knew of. Is that a belief?

  71. on 07 Jul 2011 at 6:02 pm 71.Bovice said …

    mosquitoes evolving resistance to DDT

    Mutations

    Pesticide resistance, herbicide resistance, and antibiotic resistance

    Just to name a few examples

  72. on 07 Jul 2011 at 6:08 pm 72.DPK said …

    “Will you stop forcing your delusions down our throat? Will you start by having this website shutdown?”

    Yes, you’d like that, wouldn’t you? Prevent anyone else from voicing an opinion that differs with yours. How typical of your deluded xtian worldview. Need we remind you that YOU are here, by choice, and we are not on some whack job Christian website that claims god made man from dust and dinosaurs and humans lived together in harmony 6 thousand years ago.

    Your tired dogmatic babble has already been debated here ad-nausium. You bring nothing new to the debate that hasn’t been presented and rejected many times before.

  73. on 07 Jul 2011 at 6:09 pm 73.Bovice said …

    Lou said “I don’t believe in Horus. Is that a belief? Also, I don’t believe in countless other imaginary gods that I never knew of. Is that a belief?”

    If you don’t believe in something, it means you don’t support it. you could still have a belief about that something, even if that belief is that that something doesn’t exist. It’s still a belief, because you believe it, but you don’t believe in the something and that belief that that something doesn’t exist is therefore your belief.

  74. on 07 Jul 2011 at 6:18 pm 74.Lou said …

    71.Bovice said …

    “mosquitoes evolving resistance to DDT

    Mutations

    Pesticide resistance, herbicide resistance, and antibiotic resistance

    Just to name a few examples”

    HA! You fool! God did it.

  75. on 07 Jul 2011 at 6:22 pm 75.Bovice said …

    HA Lou you are a funny man.

    You love arguing for the sake of arguing dont you?

  76. on 07 Jul 2011 at 6:46 pm 76.Lou said …

    75.Bovice said …

    “HA Lou you are a funny man.

    You love arguing for the sake of arguing dont you?”

    No, my sarcastic replies only serve to demonstrate how absurd is any reply that attributes natural processes and events to some imaginary god.

    Both macro-evolution and micro-evolution are part of the same natural process that we know as evolution.

    Now, back to my question – what part of gravity don’t you believe in?

  77. on 07 Jul 2011 at 7:35 pm 77.Bovice said …

    never said a thing about gravity.

    your a joke I’m done with you

  78. on 07 Jul 2011 at 7:54 pm 78.Lou said …

    77.Bovice said …

    “never said a thing about gravity.”

    I know you didn’t. So do you believe all of it or none of it? You won’t answer because perhaps you know where I’m going with it, and it will make your cherry-picking of evolution look absurd.

    “your a joke I’m done with you”

    I finally got through to you. My sarcastic replies were merely a parody of the idiotic comments you made starting with #59. You respond “your a joke I’m done with you.” Now you understand how your comments appear. It’s impossible to have a rational discussion with anybody who makes the claims that you made in #59.

    P.S. I am not the same Lou who made comments in this thread before 10 May 2011.

  79. on 07 Jul 2011 at 7:58 pm 79.Severin said …

    59 Bovice
    “In the Muslim and Juedism faith, everyone that believes in God are saved, whether Muslim, Jew, or not.”

    Why, then, aren’t you a Muslim? Why do they all hate each other and faith mutually, and call other religions heretical?
    You are wrong!
    ALL religions claim that ONLY they are right, and that ONLY their god helps and “saves” people.
    You should not talk such things without carefully study things you are talking about.
    No non-muslim can be “saved” by definition (read, ask a muslim, as I did). In Islam, ALL non-muslims go to hell, and SOME muslims have chances to be “saved” under certain condition (that are very different from group to group!).

    You are wrong, and all your conclusions based on this wrong premise are wrong.

  80. on 07 Jul 2011 at 8:05 pm 80.Severin said …

    59 Bovice
    “You can’t just believe in God and therefore you are saved.”

    What is “saved”?
    I don’t believe in god, I live a very decent and fruitful life, and can’t see what “saved” could mean. Heaven?
    I dont believe that BS, I expect to dissapear for ever when I die, so if not heaven, what is “saved”?

  81. on 07 Jul 2011 at 8:09 pm 81.Bovice said …

    Severin. Did my research buddy. I have watched countless shows on this and read plenty of things.

    Quotes from a book of Islam:
    2:62 Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

  82. on 07 Jul 2011 at 8:15 pm 82.Severin said …

    68 Bovice
    “Microevolution is a fact
    Macroevolution is a philosophy.”

    When you are sick, you go to doctors, don’t you?
    You trust experts for TV when your TV set doesn’ work.
    You trust experts and enter a plane, you don’t think it will fall down?
    You use your mobile phone, so you obviously do trust experts for mobile telephony.

    When you come to evolution, you STOP trusting experts!
    Why?
    Are YOU an expert, who has decades of research job behind you?
    What do YOU really know about evolution?

    Before you debate so resolutely, please READ something, for example:
    http://en.allexperts.com/q/Evolution-3839/2008/7/Microevolution-vs-Macroevolution.htm#b , AND a few other kinks suggested there.
    After you read this, THINK, and try to give some ARGUMENTS (not only your opinion) against it.

    Then we can talk.

  83. on 07 Jul 2011 at 8:34 pm 83.DPK said …

    Like the bible, you can find support for any condition you want in the Quran, even contradictory ones. This from a Muslim website:

    31. What about non-Muslims do; they go to heaven?
    Ans: Allah only accepts Islam. He says in the Quran: “Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam it won’t be accepted of him, and he will be one of the losers in the hereafter”. I would rather lose anywhere, but not lose in the hereafter. This is because hellfire is eternal. It never ends and we never die when we go there, if we go there.
    Source: http://www.sultan.org

    So, it appears Bovice, you have a quandry. Just like the bible says “thou shalt not kill” and then god instructs us to kill all manner of people for the most trivial offenses, like working on the sabbath, being disrespectful to our parents, and being homosexual. It tells us to love one another, and instructs us on the proper way to procure and beat our slaves. Just more evidence that it is ALL superstitious nonsense.

  84. on 07 Jul 2011 at 9:01 pm 84.Ian said …

    “Need we remind you that YOU are here, by choice,”

    So, you are paid or forced to be here DPK? My friend, you are such a mess.

    Another wager for you.

    You promise to stop forcing your delusions down the throat of others but shutting down this site?

  85. on 07 Jul 2011 at 9:03 pm 85.Ian said …

    Bovice,

    Don’t feed Lou the troll.

  86. on 07 Jul 2011 at 9:40 pm 86.Lou said …

    84.Ian said …

    “Need we remind you that YOU are here, by choice,”

    “So, you are paid or forced to be here DPK? My friend, you are such a mess.”

    Here we go again, as he did in #43, Ian has edited a comment in order to make look like it says something that it doesn’t. The rest of DPK’s sentence was “…and we are not on some whack job Christian website that claims god made man from dust and dinosaurs and humans lived together in harmony 6 thousand years ago.”

    “You promise to stop forcing your delusions down the throat of others but shutting down this site?”

    Specify – what delusions and whose throats? And what do you mean by “but shutting down this site?”

  87. on 08 Jul 2011 at 1:21 am 87.DPK said …

    Not a chance. What makes you think I have the power to shut down this website anyway? And why would I want to? It’s a voice of reason and rationality and obviously serves to annoy you, so that’s two good reasons to support it.
    My suggestion, since YOU are on an atheist website complaining about atheists voicing their opinions, why don’t you just take your bullshit ideas to some christian god fearing forum where someone will agree with you.

  88. on 08 Jul 2011 at 2:32 am 88.DPK said …

    “Here we go again, as he did in #43, Ian has edited a comment in order to make look like it says something that it doesn’t.”

    Lou, seriously, you’re surprised that christians use deceit and lies to try and make their point of views look valid? It happens all the time. I actually find it extremely amusing. They are so predictable. What do you expect from poor Ian who believes he has a personal relationship with an invisible man, but also claims that he believes in him because it’s a safer bet than missing out on eternal life in heaven with Jesus.

    I wonder if he ever thought about why, if heaven was so great, did Satan and the other angels decide to rebel against perfect god and leave? Guess he wasn’t so perfect, huh?

  89. on 08 Jul 2011 at 3:34 am 89.Lou said …

    62.Bovice said …

    “Evolution is not a fact. It is a hypothesis.”

    Evolution is a fact. There are hypothesis for how it works.

    “There are so many facts that disprove evolution.

    For example: The missing link. This can be done with humans and monkeys, try this with another animal.”

    REALLY?! “The missing link?!” The lack of certain transitional fossils disproves evolution? Wait until paleontologists hear about your discovery! It will keep them all awake at digesting your discovery, wondering how they will now make a living.

    “The fact that a bird has wings defys natural selection. A bird would have to develop a wing over millions of years. It would not keep a useless wing for that amount of time, which would keep it at a significant disadvantage.”

    Where do you come up with such nonsense?! Ever heard of penguins?

    “I could go on for days.”

    With more nonsense? No doubt you can.

    “Evolution is a made up scientific explanation for something that can not be explained.”

    Really? Would you care to explain gravity to us. Please do, because if you can’t, then it doesn’t exist, and we will most certainly be flung from the earth and fly into space.

    “Our world didn’t happen by chance.”

    Please elaborate. How did “our world” happen? I’m dying to hear this one.

  90. on 08 Jul 2011 at 3:55 am 90.DPK said …

    While you’re explaining to Lou exactly how “our world” did happen, please explain to me how you suppose you magical god, “happened”?

  91. on 08 Jul 2011 at 2:53 pm 91.DPK said …

    Bovice… take 8 minutes of your life and learn why the stuff you have been told about micro and macro evolution is incorrect. Here’s the reader’s digest version:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7GaI2rCwI

    Now, let’s try to explain this. You said:
    “If you don’t believe in something, it means you don’t support it. you could still have a belief about that something, even if that belief is that that something doesn’t exist. It’s still a belief, because you believe it, but you don’t believe in the something and that belief that that something doesn’t exist is therefore your belief.”

    This is a common statement I hear from theists. I assume it is because you are so used to surrounding yourself with people who have different “beliefs” that the fact of “no belief” as it pertains to the supernatural just doesn’t compute. It’s hard for you to comprehend. Look at it this way, I suppose you don’t believe in Santa, correct? Not believing in Santa is not a “belief” it is more a realization. You may say, “Well, no… it;s not the same because everyone KNOWS Santa isn’t real. You can’t say that about god.”
    This is not really correct. There are a large class of people, small children, who DO believe that Santa is real. Your rejection of the idea of Santa is no different than my rejection of the idea of a supernatural god. It is not a “belief” it is a rejection of anther’s belief based on realization.
    The sams can be said about elves, fairies, all manner of other imagined creatures for which no evidence exists. Not believing in fairies is not a “belief”. Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to explain something that is a common misconception between people of faith and skeptics.

  92. on 08 Jul 2011 at 4:16 pm 92.Ian said …

    “My suggestion, since YOU are on an atheist website complaining about atheists voicing their opinions”

    Actually you complained about the theist expressing their opinion. I never did until you took exception I am not afraid of the arena of ideas as you seem to be. I simply offered a compromise to soothe your ruffled feathers.

    You seem quite scattered and unable to remain on point.

    Since you seem to be OK spreading you dogma of no belief in anything, you won’t mind if I spread mine of hope, peace and salvation.

    I’m sure you would like to shut us up and spread you belief without competition. This shows you don’t believe your worldview will hold up under scrutiny. History has shown us that atheists like to eradicate religious beliefs at all cost.
    ____________________

    Lou,

    It is always entertaining to watch atheist go to the gravity card. Gravity, that which is here and now and can be studied in the present day. The fallacies never quit.

  93. on 08 Jul 2011 at 4:21 pm 93.Ben said …

    “why don’t you just take your bullshit ideas to some christian god fearing forum where someone will agree with you.”

    Ian,

    To satisfy DPK’s demand, I would like to acknowledge I agree with you right here on this blog.

    Thanks for completely discombobulating DPK. You have him in a complete tizzy. You have refuted every point and now he has no answers outside of “shut up”.

  94. on 08 Jul 2011 at 5:08 pm 94.DPK said …

    Ian… Jesus will not look kindly on your dishonesty. You know full well that my comment was in response to YOUR claim that “You have it 100% right….because of your personal relationship with god.” This after failing to answer any objections to your support of Pascal’s wager with anything more than “I am right and you are wrong.”
    You can attempt to spread your dogma of whatever it is you think you know, but please be good enough to do it without deceit and with actual facts, or lacking that, logic and reason. If you can. I doubt it.

    And yes, we have gotten off track. Me trying to follow your circular reasoning that always seems to end with “because I have a personal relationship with god.” is quite tiring.

    Congratulations though, you have won the admiration of Ben, the local village idiot. Not much of an accomplishment really. But good for you. I’m sure Horatiio will also give you two thumbs up. Maybe you three could start a tent show revival. I’m sure you’d be popular in the bible belt.

  95. on 08 Jul 2011 at 5:10 pm 95.Lou said …

    92.Ian said …

    “It is always entertaining to watch atheist go to the gravity card. Gravity, that which is here and now and can be studied in the present day. The fallacies never quit.”

    But as usual, you avoid answering the question.

    It’s obvious that objects and people can’t be held to an immense globe that’s spinning at more than 1,000 MPH while traveling at more than 67,000 MPH through space. It’s “logically incoherent” to think otherwise, so the only explanation is that we don’t fly off the earth into space because god prevents it. Do you agree?

    Evolution happens “here and now,” too.

  96. on 08 Jul 2011 at 5:47 pm 96.DPK said …

    Ian has already stated in #43 that god is required to hold the universe together, and presumably then, that he considers gravity to be a supernatural force that works only upon the will of god. I wonder if he would let me drop a bowling ball on his head while he prayed for god to stop it falling. Then if it cracked his skull, it would be “god’s will”. Up for the challenge, Ian?

    Not for Ian, because I know he is a lost cause, but for the benefit of anyone else reading this who may be less sure that they have it “100% right”, I ‘d like to address another deceitful statement made here. Ian said, “History has shown us that atheists like to eradicate religious beliefs at all cost.”

    Now, unlike Ian, I will not presume to speak for all atheists, but I can speak for me. In so much as I consider religious dogma to be irrational and superstitious, and unarguably one of the major sources of conflict in the present world, I would like to see religious dogmatic beliefs abandoned in favor of a more rational, human based worldview. Notice I did not use the word “eradicate” that Ian choose, because that implies some sort of unilateral force. I think most atheists, my self certainly, value independent liberties way too much to attempt to force our values on anyone. Convince? Sure… is that wrong? Religions are the ones that history shows have the record of repeatedly and systematically trying to force itself upon people.
    Most of the atheists I know are in fact, good, honest, and moral people. Are there some bastards? No doubt. But I don’t know any of us trying to “eradicate religious beliefs at all cost”. Never saw an atheist strap on an explosive vest or fly and airplane into a building or start a holy war.
    We don’t have a god that commands us to dash babies on rocks, rip pregnant women, stone people to death, or requires blood sacrifice in atonement for some sin of our ancient ancestors.
    So think about which of us should really be on the lunatic fringe.

  97. on 08 Jul 2011 at 5:49 pm 97.Lou said …

    92.Ian said …

    “Since you seem to be OK spreading you dogma of no belief in anything, you won’t mind if I spread mine of hope, peace and salvation.”

    Yes, some of us do mind, because that’s not what you’re doing.

    First of all, atheism isn’t dogma. This is either a typical ploy of redefining words in order to attack atheism or you simply don’t have the capacity to understand the world except in the context of religious dogma. And if you think there is any comparison to alleged spreading of atheism to that of religion, then you are again being absurdly dishonest.

    Second, have you ever considered that some don’t believe or accept that you particular dogma is hope, peace, and salvation? If you are a xtian, then your dogma is to convert people against their will to believe like xtains believe. That is not spreading an opinion. It is, as DPK wrote, to “cram your delusions down everyone else’s throat.”

    Lastly, spreading your dogma has absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zero to do with evolution. Yet you are so threatened by it to the point that you dishonestly and fraudulently attack it. You’re nothing but a throw-back to the Middle-Ages who attacks anything that you can’t understand or accept because it conflicts with your delusional relationship with an imaginary god – one that I know for a fact that you don’t have. How do I know that? Because I live in the same “here and now” that you do. I am the same species that you are. I experience the same environment that you do. I was raised as a xtian, attended church, bible school, VBS, and I was even baptized. There is no reason that a god would have a relationship with you, but not the majority of the rest the people including me. The only logical explanation is that you are delusional. So why don’t you keep your bastardized dogma of “hope, peace and salvation” to yourself and your fellow jesus freaks, and leave everybody else alone? You are not in anyway harmed by doing that, yet you insist that everybody share your delusion, intruding and trespassing into their right to liberty while demanding yours.

  98. on 08 Jul 2011 at 5:54 pm 98.Lou said …

    96.DPK said …

    “Ian has already stated in #43 that god is required to hold the universe together, and presumably then, that he considers gravity to be a supernatural force that works only upon the will of god.”

    Yes, I know. But he didn’t specifically answer whether or not he believed that gravity is a natural or supernatural force.

  99. on 08 Jul 2011 at 5:58 pm 99.Lou said …

    Or maybe gravity is only a philosophy.

  100. on 08 Jul 2011 at 6:24 pm 100.DPK said …

    I think we can assume that he did. If gravity “requires” god, and god is supernatural, then gravity does not exist without the supernatural will of god. To me, that would certainly imply that gravity is a supernatural force. Without god to magically enforce it, it would not exist. Since the god of the bible has been claimed on several occasions to have countered or suspended the force of gravity, and since Ian knows that “the word of god” makes him 100% right… seems no other conclusion will fit the facts in evidence.

    You would expect though, that gravity, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism would then exhibit some degree of randomness in response to prayer or god’s will. I wonder why we don’t see this? If we lived in biblical times, we would have to have seen this, is the bible stories are to be believed. I wonder why not now?

  101. on 08 Jul 2011 at 6:58 pm 101.Ian said …

    Oh no! I am now from the Middle ages! I feel like I am talking to a Middle schooler! I guess 90% of all Americans and the world are in the Middle ages too!

    Ben,

    Thank you friend. I get on a roll and just enjoy myself. I will be asking DPK to back up another comment. Let me see if he produces this time.

    “be good enough to do it without deceit and with actual facts”

    DPK,

    I will be glad to. Please bullet point my deceitful claims and I will be glad to retract them post-haste.

  102. on 08 Jul 2011 at 7:57 pm 102.Lou said …

    101.Ian said …

    “Oh no! I am now from the Middle ages! I feel like I am talking to a Middle schooler! I guess 90% of all Americans and the world are in the Middle ages too!”

    Maybe not 90%, but the majority are. But probably the majority of theists don’t actually claim to have a personal relationship with god like you do, and I think a large number of people actually doubt the existence of god, but they’re too afraid to admit it.

    Your personal relation ship with god claim reminds me of something Sam Harris said –

    “George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd.”

    Regardless that you somehow equate reality with majority belief doesn’t make it true. First of all, it’s evidence of your inability to think rationally. Furthermore, public opinion and beliefs have been wrong throughout history. If anything, that the majority believes something questionable to be true is evidence that it’s most probably not. When someone like you resorts to defending their position with majority belief, then it’s a safe assumption that you can’t defend it otherwise. The very last defense of any position I take would be to say that “everybody else agrees with me, so you must be wrong.” At that point you might as well raise the white flag.

    But please, you don’t really think that the majority of people are smarter than the minority of people, do you? Your majority belief defense is really only a cop-out for your lack of a real defense, isn’t it? Tell me you don’t really think that because the majority believes something that it must be true.

  103. on 08 Jul 2011 at 8:04 pm 103.Severin said …

    101 Ian
    “I guess 90% of all Americans and the world are in the Middle ages too!”

    Yes!

    Maybe you overestimated the percentage, but, in principle, and unfortunately: yes!

  104. on 08 Jul 2011 at 8:39 pm 104.Lou said …

    100.DPK said …

    “I think we can assume that he did. If gravity “requires” god, and god is supernatural, then gravity does not exist without the supernatural will of god.”

    My point is that gravity is much more difficult to accept than is evolution. It’s common sense that if you place an object on a globe and spin it at over 1,000 MPH that that object will fly off the globe. There is no acceptable explanation other than some mysterious force called gravity that keeps us from flying into space. Gravity is just, as Bovice wrote about evolution, a “made up scientific explanation for something that can not be explained.” That being the case, then the only other explanation is that “god does it.”

    But then again, this is all moot. Because anybody can look up at the sky and see that it’s the sun and stars that spin above our heads on this obviously flat earth. The majority of the people thought that, so it must have been true.

  105. on 08 Jul 2011 at 11:20 pm 105.Ian said …

    Lou quoted Sam Harris! Oh yeah, that carries some weight.

    To top it off Lou thinks this is a question of intelligence! Well, Trekies tend to be intelligent as well as the truthers! So there you go. You are in the same league. I must contend Lou – you don’t seem exceptionally intelligent.

    Truth be known I could rattle off highly intelligent individuals in each camp. I won’t since I won’t fall into your “appeal to authority” fallacy.

    You are a mess my friend!

    When less than 10% of the populace calls the vast majority delusional what you have is a cult. I will assume Sam is the head of your cult.

    Friends, don’t drink the blue Kool Aid no matter how tastier Sam makes it sound.

    Lets knock down that other fallacy you have set up. The majority believe the sky is blue, oranges are round and God is real. I agree on all points.

    Lou you are so predictable. Flat earth, gravity and Sam Harris.

  106. on 09 Jul 2011 at 3:11 am 106.DPK said …

    “Lou you are so predictable. Flat earth, gravity and Sam Harris.”

    So, are you going to actually say anything to refute the points, or are you just going to parrot Lou’s statement in a mocking tone and think that counts as a rebuttal. YOU are the mess. Harris’ quote is absolutely true. If the president talked to god though his hair dryer, he would be crazy. Do you disagree? You say you have met god and have a personal relationship with him…. hmmm.

    His point about gravity and scientific theories is valid. Again, I noticed you mocked it, but didn’t refute it. Curious. You seem to be all wind and no substance. I see a pattern here.

    “Lets knock down that other fallacy you have set up. The majority believe the sky is blue, oranges are round and God is real. I agree on all points.”

    So? Again, no point. At one time the majority believed the earth WAS flat, mental illness was demonic position, witches cast spells, volcano gods caused volcanos and earthquakes. You point is completely without merit. Even if there WAS any validity to it, the majority of the population does not believe in YOUR chosen god. How does that fit into your position? You haven’t knocked down any fallacy.

    ““Oh no! I am now from the Middle ages!” No, but your reasoning and belief in superstitious ignorance is straight from the middle ages. Again, is there a point to be made? You take your dogma from an ancient book written by bronze age shepherds. So, yeah.

    I don’t have time to retrace all your posts here and call you out on all your intellectual dishonesty, but we can start with your practice of pulling part of a statement from a post and trying to claim it says something it doesn’t. That’s dishonest. You also stated you have met god and have a personal relationship with him. That is a lie. You have not met god.

    Your tactic of “moving the goal posts” on the Pascal’s discussion is also intellectually dishonest. Claiming the argument is valid, and then when faced with a list of problems you claim you must look at it only from the point of view of a christian.. then it is valid. The wager is an apologist’s attempt to convince non-believers to convert. It would be wasted on a Christian. Then your claim to know with 100% certainty that the conditions needed for Pascal’s to be valid are all true. You know no such thing and it is intellectually dishonest (or seriously deluded) for you to claim you do.

    You are so predictable. You don’t make any attempt to actually debate any logical points, you simply mock and act superior. Typical.

  107. on 09 Jul 2011 at 6:01 am 107.Severin said …

    105 Ian
    “When less than 10% of the populace calls the vast majority delusional what you have is a cult.”

    Maybe you can call it a cult, but unlike you, and your “90% population”, that “cult” is right.

    There were times when much less than 10% of population claimed earth was not flat.
    90 % were delusional.
    Fortunately, delusions are wiped out.
    It does not happen easy and quickly, but it is unavoidable.

    In 2500., I guess there will be some 5% of religious population on earth (mostly retarded misfits), subdivided in 1,000 to 2,000 denominations, like: “Church of Eternal Gravity”, “Followers of Madona’s Nickers”, “Blessed Earth is Center of Universe Idiots”, “Church of the Holy Big Bang”…

    Christianity and Jesus, Islam and Allah, will be forgotten, except maybe taught in schools the same way we learn obut Greek gods today.

    How many atheists existed on earth 200 years ago?

    How many people believing in Ra have we today on earth?

    You just look at history!

  108. on 09 Jul 2011 at 12:43 pm 108.Leah said …

    Ian

    Please don’t argue against any of these silly myths. If you do you just give them credence they do not deserve.

    Sam Harris is no more relevant than Fred Flintstone.
    I think Harris is a nut since he believes in lightning that produces life. He refutes himself. His argument against Bush is a fallacy.

    We experience gravity everyday. It is proven to exist. We don’t know why the universe exist and we don’t know why gravity exist.

  109. on 09 Jul 2011 at 2:53 pm 109.DPK said …

    Leah,
    Again, like Ian, you make claims with no justification or reasoning behind it. You claim this is to avoid giving “them” credence?? That’s a a pathetic position.
    Let’s review:

    Sam Harris is no more relevant than Fred Flintstone.
    Because?

    I think Harris is a nut since he believes in lightning that produces life.
    What? Please show us where Harris has stated that lightening produces life. You are lying.

    He refutes himself. His argument against Bush is a fallacy.
    Where does he refute himself? Are you saying that if the President stated that he talked to go through his hair dryer, that most people would have no problem with that? That seems to be what you are claiming.

    We experience gravity everyday. It is proven to exist. We don’t know why the universe exist and we don’t know why gravity exist.
    What makes you conclude that there must be a “why” to gravity or the universe? You believe god exists… why? By why I mean, why do you believe he exists AND why does he exist?

  110. on 09 Jul 2011 at 3:44 pm 110.Ian said …

    I really don’t take these things seriously Leah. These are ideas we worked through as children.

    Yes, Sam Harris believes nothing created the universe. That seems on par with talking to a hair dryer. Hair Dryer? Injection molded plastic, circuit board and small single phase AC motor? Not QUUUITTEEE on the same level as God. What is the difference though?

    Bush did not speak to hair dryer. Therefore Harris’ claim is moot. Harris is still a nut and he did not speak to a hair dryer.

    Remember Harris with his olive branch of love?
    Before or after the hair dryer gem?

    “some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them,”

    Yes, and Christians are the ones full of hate. Maybe if we get Harris to talk to more hair dryers he might develop some tolerance rather than being the thought police.

    These rabbit trails are just a way for DPK to avoid answering questions asked of him. He has been wrong on every point and refuses to bullet point my deceitfulness.

  111. on 09 Jul 2011 at 6:16 pm 111.DPK said …

    “I really don’t take these things seriously Leah. These are ideas we worked through as children.”

    Apparently so.

    “Yes, Sam Harris believes nothing created the universe. That seems on par with talking to a hair dryer. Hair Dryer? Injection molded plastic, circuit board and small single phase AC motor? Not QUUUITTEEE on the same level as God. What is the difference though?”

    There you go, being dishonest again. Harris never claimed the president talked to his hair dryer. The point was, he talked to an invisible being and that is considered normal. If he talked to the same invisible being through a hair dryer, (or a magic chalice, or a special telephone for that matter), he would be considered crazy. But the only difference is the addition of the hair dryer that makes the difference between insane and normal. You’re not much on deductive thinking, are you. No surprise, you thin Pascal’s is avalid argument. So now I understand that you figured these things out as a child and haven’t given them much critical thought since then.
    ““some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them,”
    Despite that you took that statement completely out of context, which again… is dishonest of you, are you saying that the US was wrong to kill bin-Laden?
    Is it wrong to kill a terrorist who is attempting to get his hands on a nuclear weapon? Is it wrong to kill someone who promotes and aids religious terrorism? You live in a funny little bubble.

    “108.Leah said …
    Ian
    Please don’t argue against any of these silly myths. If you do you just give them credence they do not deserve.”

    I wonder why the two of you are here then if not to argue against “silly myths”. Oh, you just want to spout your illogical dogma without anyone challenging you. Typical. Ian, you are so transparent.

  112. on 09 Jul 2011 at 6:46 pm 112.Lou said …

    110.Ian said …

    “Bush did not speak to hair dryer. Therefore Harris’ claim is moot. Harris is still a nut and he did not speak to a hair dryer.”

    I first thought that you were simply intellectually dishonest. But you’re simply down-right despicable. Ever since you’ve joined this discussion you falsely responded to comments quoted out of context. You posted false information. You’re a fraud. But, then so is your belief and your representation of it. I wonder which came first – your intellectual dishonesty lead to your delusion, or the other way around? Either way, it’s pathetic.

  113. on 09 Jul 2011 at 7:00 pm 113.Observer said …

    Leah- You should read the article I posted earlier about xtians wising up. It is currently under the pot vs. jesus thread currently the first post.

    Ian- I think Lou and DPK are summing you up pretty accurately here. What is your motivation? Are you at a crisis stage in your beliefs and making a last ditch effort to defend beliefs despite everything that is reasonable and logical? Do you ever wonder why the smart folks who are actual scientists do not believe what you believe even though they are vastly better educated than you, and probably have much better minds than you in the same way that Larry Bird was a better basketball player than you are?

  114. on 09 Jul 2011 at 11:38 pm 114.DPK said …

    Lou: “I first thought that you were simply intellectually dishonest. But you’re simply down-right despicable…”

    At first, I actually thought perhaps he was just dim, but now that I see the pattern repeating again and again, I have no choice but to agree with your conclusion. He is deceptive to the point of being despicable. It’s a very sad state that you need to try and deceive someone about what was actually written simply to try and make yourself look right. Doesn’t that fall under the “thou shalt not bear false witness” clause? Makes me wish there was a god to judge because I think Mr. Ian will “have some ‘splainin’ to do”

    I think maybe Observer has it right. He is so desperate to be right he’s willing to lie to himself to convince himself. That sounds like desperation.

  115. on 01 May 2012 at 7:11 am 115.Ken A said …

    Christianity answers the question of who made God in the very first verse of the very first book, Genesis: In the “beginning”, God created the heavens and the earth Gen1v1. Time, for us, had a starting point. This verse tells us that God was acting before time when He created the universe. Many other verses from the New Testament tell us that God was acting before time began, and so, He created time, along with the other dimensions of our universe. There r more than the 4 dimensions in which we reside.

    How does God acting before time began get around the problem of God’s creation? There are two possible interpretations of these verses. One is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason – so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence.

    The second interpretation is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time’s arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point.

    Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.

  116. on 01 May 2012 at 11:10 am 116.Lou (DFW) said …

    115.Ken A said …

    “Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.”

    You omitted the most obvious, logical, and probable interpretation – that the bible is a story of myths that in fact did not happen, and that your god is nothing but a fairy tale for which there is no need of being created.

  117. on 01 May 2012 at 11:50 am 117.Severin said …

    115 Ken
    “Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.”

    Fine, you only tell us which god was it among thousands of gods acting as creators of the universe thousands of years before Christian god came to scene.
    Was it An (Anu), or Baal, or Dagon, Great Mother, Ra,…, maybe Zeus, or his parents Cronus and Rhea, …?

    Then please tell us something about the moment of creation.
    Is it as it was described in Genesis, or a god created universe in big bang?

  118. on 07 Sep 2012 at 5:29 am 118.wane said …

    I was scanning through here and figured id say a few things in a firm believer in God but for those who don’t and scream for evidence because there is no energy or whatever for a spirit well in sure you all know there is a devil and for all of those people who want to argue it is truly invalid it would be wrong to tell you to ask anything o of the devil because that brings on all kinds of demons but look up videos , exorsisoms any thing internet is a great thing or of you know anyone who follows Satan ask them about it but please don’t go ask the devil yourself because he went wait to answer youi hope this makes sense and helps you guys

  119. on 01 May 2014 at 4:55 am 119.B Sattva said …

    I have thought about this for some time now, and have come to the conclusion that their can be only one answer, and that is that everything is already alive. When the time and conditions are right things just start moving. I think that they will find that where ever life can be, it will be. Life is the very nature of the universe. But of course thats just my opinion.

  120. on 01 May 2014 at 11:59 am 120.alex said …

    “I have thought about this for some time now, and have come to the conclusion that their can be only one answer, and that is that everything is already alive.”

    and like the god shit, you got no proof. just because you don’t know, you don’t have to make up shit.

    just because the math says stars should fly off into space instead of being held together in a spinning galaxy doesn’t mean dark matter exist.

    just because we don’t know where the universe came from doesn’t mean god created it.

    it’s ok not to know. we seek answers.

  121. on 19 Jun 2014 at 4:56 am 121.Curious A said …

    Wow, is it midnight already? I was just getting to the good parts of the argument.

  122. on 01 Dec 2014 at 2:05 am 122.Madalynn said …

    I believe in God! people say i have no proof but what proof of evolution do they have? they have none and we arent the ones making things up!

  123. on 01 Dec 2014 at 4:41 pm 123.Anonymous said …

    122.Madalynn said …

    I believe in God!

    Well bully for you…

    people say i have no proof

    That’s probably because you don’t. If you did you’d have presented that proof rather than the fallacy you’re about to give us.

    but what proof of evolution do they have?

    A tu quogue fallacy for the fail. Can you explain what difference it makes if anyone can or can’t prove evolution? Just how does this affect the existence of your God?

    Posters on this site have already conceded evolution for the sake of argument and not one theist has managed to take the opportunity to present a valid argument for their God’s existence.

    Here’s your chance Madalynn. For the sake of evolution lets say that you’re right and evolution is total bullshit. In that case a) what is your argument for the existence of your God? and b) How does the concession of evolution help your argument?

    they have none and we arent the ones making things up!

    You are of course wrong Madalynn. It is a fact that allele frequencies in populations change over time (the very definition of the process of evolution). However, I assume you actually mean the explanation of how that process happens i.e. the Theory of Evolution, in which case the evidence that you deny exists is easily found. You can start by looking at the “29+ evidences for macroevolution” over at the talkorigins site.

    By denying the existence of any evidence for evolution you actually are “making things up!” and that’s before you claim your God is something other than imaginary.

  124. on 01 Dec 2014 at 4:44 pm 124.freddies_dead said …

    That last comment was of course mine. I really should take more care to enter my user name when posting from a machine other than my usual one.

  125. on 02 Dec 2014 at 12:56 am 125.Corbis said …

    Madalynn,

    In 29 Evidences for Macroevolution, Dr. Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all organisms share the same biological ancestor. Many make reference to the site and never critically read it for themselves. They just deem it so. In the critique below, each of the 29 are refuted in detail as to why they do not fit the conclusions they make.

    www^trueorigin^org^theobald1a^asp

    Also here:

    www^uncommondescent^com^intelligent-design
    And here:

    www^conservapedia^com^Evolution

    Macroevolution has never been proven beyond assuming what happens within a species continues and eventually happened across species. No evidence exists to make this conclusion outside of wishing it to be so. Those are the facts are they cannot be disputed.

    As for God, many arguments exist which are as strong or stronger than what exists for Macroevolution. Most have already formed a conclusion and never seriously consider the arguments.

    Good Luck to you.

  126. on 02 Dec 2014 at 2:18 am 126.Timeline said …

    Our History by Years Ago – Does this really look like a “God” of a religion did this? ————————————————————

    13,800,000,000 (13.8 Billion) – Big Bang (Exact cause yet to be determined)

    4,500,000,000 (4.5 Billion) – Earth began formation (Think of how small Earth is compared to rest of Universe)

    3,500,000,000 (3.5 Billion) – Life on Earth began – plants before animals (Are we alone in the Universe?)

    230,000,000 (230 Million) – Dinosaurs evolved and began to roam the Earth

    65,000,000 (65 Million) – Dinosaurs became extinct (Human ancestors did not)

    200,000 – Human ancestors started to look like modern humans through evolution (Universe has been around 69,000 times longer than humans)

    50,000 – The first religions formed (How many religions have been created by humans?)

    2,000 – Christianity formed (This current popular religion formed about a person or character named Jesus that was born and a book was written)

    Present – And here we are. Advancement in Science over the last 100+ years has answered many questions with more yet to come.

    Future – How long can humans live on Earth and how long will our Sun be around? The Universe will still go on a lot longer after that.

  127. on 02 Dec 2014 at 2:11 pm 127.freddies_dead said …

    That’s 3 comments into the black abyss of moderation.

  128. on 02 Dec 2014 at 2:21 pm 128.freddies_dead said …

    Corbis said…

    That the 29+ evidences were refuted by Ashby Camp but failed to note Theobold’s rewrite to deal with all of Camp’s actual points and gave a full rebuttal to the rest of Camp’s error strewn critique,

    Intelligent design. Except the design hypothesis is self defeating – if everything is designed you cannot then discern design. You must first prove God and you can’t use design as part of that proof.

    Conservapedia. Which is a laughing stock for liberals and an embarrassment for liberals. Schlafly doesn’t now the difference between England and the United Kingdom so why should we accept anything he says on more complex subjects?

    That macroevolution is an assumption yet fails to present any evidence that there exists some barrier that prevents small changes building up into bigger changes over long periods of time. Said evidence would make Corbis famous the world over. Step forward and claim your Nobel prize.

    That people only believe in evolution because they wish it were true. Which ignores the huge preponderance of evidence such as transitional fossils, faunal succession in the fossil record, the nested hierarchies of extant species and comparative genomics.

    He then claims there are many arguments for God and yet instead of presenting one of those chose to try and take on evolution instead. This is especially baffling as I had already said to Madalynn to go ahead and dismiss evolution as it has no real bearing on the existence of God.

    So here’s Corbis’ chance. For the sake of argument lets say that you’re right and evolution is total bullshit. In that case a) what is your argument for the existence of your God? and b) how does the concession of evolution help your argument?

  129. on 02 Dec 2014 at 4:45 pm 129.Corbis said …

    freedie-dead

    I never claimed to have a scientific theory for God. That is typically what atheists are looking for when they ask for an argument. So, you will not be persuaded by the numerous arguments that do exist for God such as:

    The Argument from Efficient Causality
    Time & Contingency
    Degrees of Perfection
    Design
    The Kalam
    Contingency
    Consciousness
    Origin of the Idea of God
    Ontological Argument
    Moral Argument
    Conscience
    The Common Consent

    How does evolution help my argument? Simple, my point is macroevolution is not a valid scientific theory but many accept it as true. Many accept it out of ignorance not knowing the facts much like they do the politics of the day. If you know anything of science you know this to be true. Evolutionary events cannot be tested nor observed in action at the macro level. Second, a theory requires that the corresponding experiments fit one specific hypothesis but with macroevolution alternate conclusions are viable and cannot be eliminated. It is not a legitimate proven theory.

  130. on 03 Dec 2014 at 12:29 pm 130.freddies_dead said …

    test

  131. on 03 Dec 2014 at 12:46 pm 131.freddies_dead said …

    Corbis.

    I never asked for a scientific theory for God. Just whichever argument you think proves God’s existence but you’re partially right in that I certainly won’t be persuaded by already debunked arguments.

    I could waste time by showing how each of the arguments you listed has already been refuted i.e. How the first cause argument is special pleading – everything must have a cause … oh, except for God. That the kalam merely adds the element of time to the mix in a desperate attempt to salvage the idea of a first cause from the fallacy of special pleading, only to fail as it commits the same fallacy by both denying and supporting the existence of infinites i.e. it first claims infinites don’t exist except that the God it purports to prove the existence of has properties thought to be infinite – omniscience, omnipotence etc…

    Or I could simply point out how every single one of those arguments boils down to a performative inconsistency. They ask us to accept something which contradicts a basic premise that the argument must presume in order to make sense. The arguments presume objectivity i.e. that things are what they are independent of what anyone may wish, want, demand etc… whilst all the time advocating that existence is entirely subjective.

    You could have saved everyone the trouble of reading your second denial of evolution and simply conceded that the question of evolution has absolutely no bearing on your argument for your God’s existence. None of the arguments you listed mention evolution and you make no attempt to show that evolution is some problem for your God belief and needs to be shown to be false in order for your belief in God to continue. Evolution is nothing but a side issue, a red herring thrown in to steer the conversation away from your inability to demonstrate that your God actually exists.

  132. on 04 Dec 2014 at 7:03 am 132.Vince Roda said …

    Listen your facts are no good, because already you got the facts wrong about god being jesus, this so called trinity decends from Egyptian sun worship, so any person claiming to know the bible surely must know this simple fact its in every bible, so if your information on this small part is inaccurate, imagine the rest of your post, you people expect god to come down and just make everybodys life easy, you want to know why god doesnt cure cancer, because in paradise, there will be no sicknesses, and the devil is the ruler of this world,and god has allowed, and do you honestly think you can pray for a million dollars, and hell just give it to you get real. Go do some real research on the bible

  133. on 04 Dec 2014 at 7:08 am 133.Vince Roda said …

    If you say god doesnt exist, than your saying we are just an accident of a big bang, tell me, how does chaos create order, example if i were to put puzzle pieces in a bag, how long do you think i would have to shake the bag for the puzzle to be in order, same concept with creation, there has to be a designer. Or else we wouldnt be here.

  134. on 04 Dec 2014 at 7:10 am 134.Vince Roda said …

    Yah and evolution has been proven wrong time and time again get over it

  135. on 04 Dec 2014 at 4:04 pm 135.freddies_dead said …

    137, 138, 139. Vince Roda said …

    So the Christian Bible claims that God and Jesus are one and the same (Matthew 1:23, Isiah 9:6, Isiah 43:10,11, John 1:1 + 1:14 etc… etc…) but you deny this? The entire Christian mythology is taken from older myths so I would be wholly unsurprised to find the trinity is merely a rehashing of some aspect of Egyptian sun worship, however, this does not change what the Bible itself claims.

    I do not “expect god to come down and just make everybodys life easy” for the same reason that He doesn’t cure cancer i.e. God does not exist.

    I like the way you dismiss the trinity whilst maintaining the view that the devil is real and rules this world – I guess you consider consistency to be overrated – the concept of the devil/Satan was incorporated into Judaism (and on into Christianity) from earlier Sumerian mythologies.

    I’m also well aware of the pointlessness of prayer. Every valid study has shown prayer to be less than useless and of course you won’t get a million dollars as God does not exist to give it to you. Of course the Bible makes a very different claim along the lines of “ask and ye shall receive”. If those claims aren’t true then why should we believe it’s other claims?

    What exactly do you mean by chaos? I suspect it’s something along the lines of something being totally random and entirely impossible to predict. Of course that’s not the same as the way it is used scientifically. In science it’s used to describe a system that is entirely deterministic yet also entirely dependent on initial conditions e.g. weather. Even the smallest change of the initial conditions can lead to huge differences in the outcomes making them very difficult (but not necessarily impossible) to predict. As such the idea of getting order out of chaos is no big deal. If there ever was a time where your version of chaos (totally random and impossible to predict) actually held then we haven’t actually found it yet and everytime we become able to measure something we find it has a certain order to it instead.

    As for your bag of puzzle pieces? Analogies are notoriously poor substitutes for the thing they’re being used to describe and yours here is no different. It fails in a number of ways. 1) it assumes randomness. Evolution isn’t random. It operates under a number of rules – natural selection, prevailing opportunities, supply and demand etc… These rules select for increased fitness while your bag shaking carries out no selection. 2) You’re talking about a serial process – you have a bag of bits, you shake it up and expect a fully formed puzzle at the end. Evolution is a parallel process. Results are built up gradually, guided by selective forces i.e. you’d have to shake the bag not once but many many times, at each step you retain those parts which have assembled properly until you end up with the full puzzle. 3) You’ve specified the puzzle ahead of time. Evolution simply doesn’t work this way. There is no end product in mind. You’ll get what you get. Whatever fits the ecological niche best.

    And your design requires a designer argument fails too. Firstly it’s an example of special pleading as, despite claiming everything needs a designer, you’ll stop and claim that something (your God) has no such requirement. Secondly, when you posit a designer then everything must be designed. How then do you discern design? Currently we compare artifacts to nature in order to say whether something is designed, but by insisting on a designer there’s no longer any nature to compare against i.e. the grains of sand on a beach are every bit as designed as your puzzle in a bag. Now, as you have no way of being able to distinguish design, your only option is to prove the existence of a designer to show design … and you can’t use design as part of your proof.

    Your assertion that “evolution has been proven wrong time and time again” has absolutely no corroborating evidence with it. I suspect that would be because you have none. The process of evolution is a fact – allele frequencies in populations change over time. It happens. No-one sensible argues otherwise. The Theory of Evolution is an explanation of how evolution happens. It’s here where any disagreements may lie but all accept that evolution is happening. Of course if you have an example of an animal population where the allele frequencies never change i.e. where the process of evolution isn’t happening then you should step forward and present your evidence as scientist worldwide would be absolutely fascinated by it. If you simply disagree with how evolution happens then, once more, it’s up to you to present your argument as to what you believe is happening and the evidence that you think supports your conclusion. That’s how science works.

  136. on 04 Dec 2014 at 7:27 pm 136.Corbis said …

    freddie-dead

    I wish you would ‘waste” some time and shown me how just the few arguments I listed fail. Every supposed refutation you claim has been made of the arguments has been addressed many times over. Regardless of the argument I am certain you would refuse to be convinced despite the fact empiricism is marked with ambiguity as a result of the inductive fallacy, falsification restrictions, and Godel’s theorems.

    Second, the the first cause argument is in no way “special pleading” since the nature of God is an entity that exists outside of time and creation. It is a simple cause & effect relationship. IF there exists a material universe which came into existence, then there must exist a prior cause possessing the capacity to have caused it.

    You offered nothing but generalities in the rest of your posts other than I did not reference evolution. No need to since you never rebutted my claim from my earlier posts. Read the last part of the next paragraph to see where it fits in.

    Again, Evolutionary events cannot be tested nor observed in action at the macro level. Second, a theory requires that the corresponding experiments fit one specific hypothesis but with macroevolution alternate conclusions are viable and cannot be eliminated. It is not a legitimate proven theory. Yet, you accept the theory which does not hold up under the scientific method while requiring a higher standard of proof for God.

  137. on 05 Dec 2014 at 7:36 am 137.TJ said …

    Never, not even once has evolution been proved. For evolution to be proven it must be demonstrated that information has been added. All claimed examples show only a loss or switching off of already present information within an existing gene pool.

    As for allele frequencies, it only deals with existing genes and their ratio’s within existing populations. Hardly support for evolution.

    We are in a state of decay, not the other way around. Mutation is not evolution at work, but corruption at play. Any breeder will testify to “throwback” not “throw-forward”.

  138. on 05 Dec 2014 at 2:25 pm 138.freddies_dead said …

    Corbis.

    I’ve already shown you how the arguments fail. The arguments ask us to accept that things are the way they are irrespective of what anyone may wish, demand, hope etc… i.e. they presuppose objectivity, that objects are independent of the consciousnesses that are aware of them and that truth is possible to determine. Yet every argument advocates the existence of an entity said to have created everything through an act of will i.e. that reality is entirely subjective, that truth is whatever consciousness wills it to be. Quite literally each of those arguments ask us to believe that wishing makes it so which is patently false.

    The first cause argument really does fall to the charge of special pleading. You yourself note that “It is a simple cause & effect relationship” i.e. that everything must have a cause … but then it is claimed that God does not. That special pleading was noticed and the argument changed so that it then reads “everything that comes into being must have a cause”, but of course it’s still commiting the same fallacy by insisting that everything comes into being … except for God.

    I noted your failure to reference evolution in your arguments as that was the entire reason for our exchange. I asked you to show how the existence of your God rested on whether evolution was true or not. You didn’t answer that. Instead you listed a number of arguments which have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. This simply proved my point. As such I simply do not care what you believe about evolution. Your issues with evolution have precisely nothing to do with your belief in the existence of God. It’s a red herring. A way to steer the conversation away from your inability to demonstrate that your God is anything more than a figment of your imagination.

    Maybe you’d like to try again? Either show how evolution affects your belief in the existence of God – which would make the discussion of it relevant – or stop dicking about and give us a means by which we can distinguish your God from something you may merely be imagining.

  139. on 05 Dec 2014 at 2:36 pm 139.freddies_dead said …

    TJ.

    “Never, not even once has evolution been proved.”

    I’m not even sure what this sentence is supposed to mean. The process of evolution is a fact. Allele frequencies in populations change over time. This is not controversial. I have to assume then that you mean the Theory of Evolution hasn’t been “proved”. As I noted to Corbis, scientific theories don’t get “proved”. They’re explanations and at the moment the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation of current biodiversity.

    “For evolution to be proven it must be demonstrated that information has been added.”

    I’ll ignore the fact that this isn’t actually a requirement of evolution at all and simply point out that gene duplication plus a subsequent mutation in one of the genes = new information added.

    And allele frequencies are how we measure evolution. That’s what the process of evolution is, changes in those allele frequencies over time.

    As for mutations, they are the one true random element of evolution. The vast majority are neutral. However, some are harmful and some are beneficial. Selective pressures tend to favour those individuals with the beneficial mutations and those alleles will end up being passed on and eventually propagating throughout the population.

  140. on 06 Dec 2014 at 12:48 am 140.TJ said …

    freddies_dead,
    What you speak of does not describe microbes to man, which is what the theory of evolution asserts. Gene selection and mutation will never lead to new “kinds”.

    Variation within a “kind” does not equal what evolution preaches, and that is a fact.

  141. on 08 Dec 2014 at 1:07 pm 141.freddies_dead said …

    TJ

    “What you speak of does not describe microbes to man, which is what the theory of evolution asserts.”

    The Theory of Evolution asserts no such thing. Evolution has no goal. It’s not trying to get from microbes to man. Mutations happen. Occasionally they make the host organisms better suited to the environment they inhabit and those mutations end up proliferating throughout the population. Sometimes the build up of mutations makes one population distinct from another and they become a different species. Over the vast spans of geological time (roughly 3.8 billion years) we’ve gone from just those early single celled organisms to the to vast array of single and multi-celled organisms we see today. The Theory of Evolution doesn’t assert that this is happening, it has identified the fact that this is happening and is seeking to explain how it has happened.

    “Gene selection and mutation will never lead to new “kinds”.”

    And that has nothing to do with gene selection and mutation and all to do with the weasel term “kinds”. There is no real definition of the term in a scientific sense. Just which taxonomic rank is it supposed to relate to? I’ve seen the term used to refer to everything from species to classes. When you want to deny that something is happening it’s great to have such a deliberately ambiguous term to use as you do so.

    “Variation within a “kind” does not equal what evolution preaches, and that is a fact.”

    You use the word “fact” but the only “fact” here is that no-one has ever fully defined what “variation within a kind” might actually mean. I’ve seen dog breeds used as an example of variation within a kind but then I’ve also seen it used in to refer to distinct species that are members of the canid family (dogs, wolves, jackals etc…). In that respect it can never be equal to the the well defined scope of evolutionary language.

  142. on 09 Dec 2014 at 1:52 am 142.TJ said …

    freddies_dead,

    The term “microbes to man” is a commonly used term to, and clearly summarizes… “Over the vast spans of geological time (roughly 3.8 billion years) we’ve gone from just those early single celled organisms to the to vast array of single and multi-celled organisms we see today.” … with man being at the pinnacle of such a process.

    Agree or disagree?

    A definition for “kind”.
    For the use of our discussion I propose that a “kind” refers to the conceptual idea put forward in the Bible that all created life was to reproduce after it own kind.

    In other words all life was created with a pre-set complete library of genetic information available for the expression of variation within the limitations of the original content.

    If we again look to dogs for an example we see that all dogs are believed to come from a common dog-like ancestor. Both Biblical and evolutionary theory agree on this. As dogs become more “pure-breed” the common belief is that unwanted traits (ie. genetic information) are removed or minimized from the “breeds” gene pool.

    Although dogs represented variation, highlights what selective breeding can achieve, variation within wild populations isolated from other populations of the same kind can yield similar results of variation. With diet, environment, habits and behavioral traits all playing a role in selecting the prevailing dominant genes that are passed on and retained.

    Through out these processes genetic information either becomes lost, reduced or switched off. Effectively the genetic library of variation becomes limited and or defined and refined.

    Extra information can only be introduced by another representative of the same kind with enough genetically similar information to produce viable young. In dogs, mixed breeds are known as “mongrels”. Often the “mongrels” express a wider variety due to the increase of genetic information available.

    In all situations genetic information is never obtained except via a pre-existing source. The family tree for dogs “kinds” is separate from other kinds as it is a separate creation, beginning with a “dog”, with a complete library of genetic information at the top, with lesser information library’s as it branches off into breeds. However, only dogs with genetic representations of the original library will ever be represented.

    Mutations are genetic copying mistakes which can be passed on from generation to generation. These changes are not however new information. They are results of an error. For the error to occur the information that is corrupted must be already present.

    Again with the dogs, breeders will testify that the purer a “breed” is, the more susceptible to disease and ailment it becomes. There becomes a point where offspring are no longer viable and often cross breeding with less pure representatives introduces lost or replaces corrupt information and can re-invigorate a breeds viability.

    Never has it been observed that an accumulation of mutations can lead to a new “kind”. Mutation can corrupt representatives of the same created kind so that their genetic library’s become incompatible, effectively losing their ability to cross breed. This is what science refers to as ‘speciation’.

    Evolution however has simple life at the top of it’s tree of life. Each branching off represents an addition of information to the genetic library available.

    The creation tree of life begins with God at the top, with created kinds branching off and maintaining independence of each other.

    The contrast between the two is of information going in opposite directions.

    In my opinion created kinds best describes what we observe.

    New research is investigating the possibility that environment can influence gene selection. The concept challenges the notion that gene selection is random. The research aims to answer perplexing observations, like quick changes and gene switching in populations in responses to rapid environmental changes, such as pollution, loss of habitat, climate change etc.

    The famous Peppered moth scenario sees the Peppered moth population changing from a white colouring to a dark colouring to match a soot laden landscape produced by the industrial revolution. However, populations returned to a white colour as pollution was reduced.

    This scenario is representative of the type of investigation the research aims to achieve. Do environmental factors influence gene selection or is it purely survival of the most camouflaged?

    Another problem for evolution is stasis. Many of today’s insect, flora and fauna are represented in the fossil record. Over the vast periods of time, things show little to no signs of evolution. Yet we observe rapid responses to environmental changes in all living things. (Alleged) Deep time and geological studies show evidences of climate and environmental changes across the globe. How is it that today’s living things can be represented in the fossil record, but do not show the fundamental changes evolution predicts?

    Again the “created kind” fits the observation far better than evolution.

  143. on 11 Dec 2014 at 8:38 pm 143.Corbis said …

    freddie-dead

    I will ask you to go back and look at the definition of “special pleading” or you may need to look into the the specifics of the contingency vs cosmological arguments for God.

    Very quickly:

    1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
    2. The universe began to exist
    3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

    Those three points are agreed to by all reputable scientist. God never began to exist i.e. God has always existed as an infinite being and therefore is not a case of special pleading in regards to the cosmological argument.

    Once again, I never claimed evolution (not sure which you refer to)has any bearing on God’s existence. That is just a red herring. I did point out atheist believe in this macroevolution without evidence while claiming evidence for God is void. My point still stands and TJ did pretty well showing why this is true.

    I regards to your continued generalities in your post, not much to discuss. If you decide to be more specific I’ll be glad to comment.

  144. on 15 Dec 2014 at 9:57 am 144.freddies_dead said …

    147. TJ said …

    “The term “microbes to man” is a commonly used term to, and clearly summarizes… “Over the vast spans of geological time (roughly 3.8 billion years) we’ve gone from just those early single celled organisms to the to vast array of single and multi-celled organisms we see today.” … with man being at the pinnacle of such a process.

    Agree or disagree?”

    Disagree, because of your final sentence. You still seem to view evolution as a goal oriented process – “with man at the pinnacle”. This simply isn’t true. It is a branching tree on which man is only one of millions of branch “ends”. Evolution isn’t aiming for anything.

    “A definition for “kind”.
    For the use of our discussion I propose that a “kind” refers to the conceptual idea put forward in the Bible that all created life was to reproduce after it own kind.”

    Thanks for confirming everything I said about the term “kind”. Of course it’s unsurprising as a properly specific definition would leave the term open to being shown to be wrong. In light of the non-attempt at a definition maybe you could give us a list of exactly which “kinds” were created instead?

    “In other words all life was created with a pre-set complete library of genetic information available for the expression of variation within the limitations of the original content.”

    So then why don’t all organisms have the exact same pre-set, complete library only with different parts of it “turned off”? Or are you actually suggesting that each “kind” had it’s own complete library to begin with? If that’s the case it should be pretty much a formality to properly define the different “kinds” based on their genome. You’d think molecular genetecists would have noticed it by now. I wonder why they haven’t and instead measure the relatedness of organisms through shared similarities instead?

    “If we again look to dogs for an example we see that all dogs are believed to come from a common dog-like ancestor.”

    The genetic evidence suggests dogs were domesticated from a now extinct wolf-like canid. Of course it depends on whether “kind” refers to the species or the family level to see if this fits in with the Biblical claim. Fortunately you’ve defined “kind” so ambiguously that you could claim kind equals either level or even claim it actually equals something else entirely so that it will always fit with the Biblical claim. Convenient.

    “Both Biblical and evolutionary theory agree on this.”

    What Biblical theory? There isn’t one. It is basically a few verses claiming God created each “kind” individually and that each kind will reproduce after itself. It doesn’t define “kind” any better than you did. There’s also no explanation of how anything happened – although there is a claim that breeding goats in front of striped poles will result in striped goats but I don’t think that can really be called a theory.

    “As dogs become more “pure-breed” the common belief is that unwanted traits (ie. genetic information) are removed or minimized from the “breeds” gene pool.”

    There’s also an enhancement of some traits (bigger ears, shorter/longer coats etc…) and even the emergence of new traits (the wrinkled appearance of a Shar-Pei) through novel mutations/gene interactions which you claimed earlier is impossible because that would make evolution true.

    “Although dogs represented variation, highlights what selective breeding can achieve, variation within wild populations isolated from other populations of the same kind can yield similar results of variation. With diet, environment, habits and behavioral traits all playing a role in selecting the prevailing dominant genes that are passed on and retained.”

    And in the wild you can get enough variation that some populations can no longer breed with others. Speciation has occurred. Of course we’re back to the definition of kind to see which account this fits and fortunately you’ve defined it so ambiguously that you can say it fits yours every bit as well as it fits the theory of evolution. Convenient.

    “Through out these processes genetic information either becomes lost, reduced or switched off.”

    Or increased. As I already noted, gene duplication plus a mutation in one of those genes = new information. Not to mention that simple mutations mean new information too. Take the single nucleotide polymorphism that is the reason for the Shar-Pei wrinkles. There’s a difference in the HAS2 gene which codes for halyuronic acid synthase 2 (an enzyme which makes halyuronic acid which is a principle constituent in skin) this difference causes the organism to make more skin. The unchanged gene doesn’t have the necessary information to make more skin but the mutated version does.

    “Effectively the genetic library of variation becomes limited and or defined and refined.”

    In effect this should mean we end up with a library so limited that everything becomes more and more similar until there are only a few different “kinds” left. Of course the evidence shows that the opposite is true i.e. from a single common ancestor we’ve now got an estimated 8.7 million species on earth. Just when is your limiting theory going to kick in?

    “Extra information can only be introduced by another representative of the same kind with enough genetically similar information to produce viable young. In dogs, mixed breeds are known as “mongrels”. Often the “mongrels” express a wider variety due to the increase of genetic information available.”

    How so? You claimed the library was pre-set and complete so there can be no “extra information” in such a scenario. All dogs must surely be the same “kind” so there’s no more genetic information available to a mongrel than there is to a pure breed.

    “In all situations genetic information is never obtained except via a pre-existing source. The family tree for dogs “kinds” is separate from other kinds as it is a separate creation, beginning with a “dog”, with a complete library of genetic information at the top, with lesser information library’s as it branches off into breeds. However, only dogs with genetic representations of the original library will ever be represented.”

    So “kind” rests at the canidae level? And yet genetics shows that canids, ursids, mustelids etc… shared a common ancestor – this wouldn’t be possible if each family was a seperate creation as you imply here.

    “Mutations are genetic copying mistakes which can be passed on from generation to generation.”

    They are a little more complex than that. They can result from radiaton or chemical mutagens and also from insertion or deletion of what are known as mobile genetic elements.

    “These changes are not however new information. They are results of an error. For the error to occur the information that is corrupted must be already present.”

    This is, of course, not true. Especially when we consider insertions or gene duplications.

    “Again with the dogs, breeders will testify that the purer a “breed” is, the more susceptible to disease and ailment it becomes. There becomes a point where offspring are no longer viable and often cross breeding with less pure representatives introduces lost or replaces corrupt information and can re-invigorate a breeds viability.”

    This fits perfectly with the ToE which notes that evolution is generally a conservative process. Selective breeding tends to lead to homozygosity where similar/identical alleles are conserved and combine causing usually recessive traits to be expressed.

    “Never has it been observed that an accumulation of mutations can lead to a new “kind”.”

    Of course this all depends on the definition of the term “kind” which you’ve very carefully defined to be as ambiguous as possible. If it turned out to be equivalent to the species level (dogs vs cats vs horses etc…)then it has actually been observed using organisms which reproduce rapidly (certain bacteria and fruit flies for example) enabling scientists to observe many generations over a relatively short timeframe. Of course if you move kind to the family level – as you need to in order to claim 2 distinct species of fruit fly are still just flies – then no, it hasn’t been observed due to the very long timeframes necessary to produce new families of organisms. However, we know that speciation happens due to genetic differences and that genetic differences are produced by mutations. We also know roughly when the extant families branched off from earlier organisms so we know new families are possible. Then there is the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that suggests mutations are limited in such a way that new families cannot possibly arise because of their effect on the genome.

    “Mutation can corrupt representatives of the same created kind so that their genetic library’s become incompatible, effectively losing their ability to cross breed. This is what science refers to as ‘speciation’.”

    Change the genetic library not corrupt it. Most mutations are neutral, some are deleterious and some are beneficial leading to increased fitness. Only the deleterious mutations can be classed as corruption and they tend to disappear from populations quite quickly as they reduce fitness.

    “Evolution however has simple life at the top of it’s tree of life. Each branching off represents an addition of information to the genetic library available.”

    Simple life at the base of the tree with changes in the genetic library causing the branches. Sometimes that will come with new information but that isn’t a necessity for branching.

    “The creation tree of life begins with God at the top, with created kinds branching off and maintaining independence of each other.”

    So you’re claiming creation is a branching tree too? How convenient. Also evolutions’ branches maintain independence from each other too so this point is moot.

    “The contrast between the two is of information going in opposite directions.”

    How so? If both are branching trees then the information is going in the same direction i.e. outward from the base of the tree.

    “In my opinion created kinds best describes what we observe.”

    Well the evidence says your opinion is wrong. Although it’s nice how you’ve basically tried to make creation sound just like evolution while maintaining the ambiguity of the term “kind” and the false claim of “no new information” to try and deny evolution at the same time.

    “New research is investigating the possibility that environment can influence gene selection. The concept challenges the notion that gene selection is random. The research aims to answer perplexing observations, like quick changes and gene switching in populations in responses to rapid environmental changes, such as pollution, loss of habitat, climate change etc.

    The famous Peppered moth scenario sees the Peppered moth population changing from a white colouring to a dark colouring to match a soot laden landscape produced by the industrial revolution. However, populations returned to a white colour as pollution was reduced.

    This scenario is representative of the type of investigation the research aims to achieve. Do environmental factors influence gene selection or is it purely survival of the most camouflaged?”

    Evolution does not claim that gene selection is random – and it has always been subject to external selection pressures in the environment – so your point here is moot. If the environmental factors are such that dark coloured moths are more likely to live longer and reproduce then the genes that determine darker coloured moths will end up proliferating. If the environment changes and the soot reduces, lighter coloured moths survive longer and breed more therefore the genes that determine lighter coloured moths will proliferate. This is all well within what the ToE says.

    “Another problem for evolution is stasis.”

    Not at all. Evolution is a conservative process if there’s no pressure to change then change won’t occur.

    “Many of today’s insect, flora and fauna are represented in the fossil record.”

    Except that they aren’t. Their ancestors are in the fossil record and their ancestors may be similar but they are ancestors all the same. Whenever we actually look at these “living fossils” in any real detail we find that they still differ quite significantly from the ancestral species.

    “Over the vast periods of time, things show little to no signs of evolution. Yet we observe rapid responses to environmental changes in all living things. (Alleged)”

    Organisms will only change when there is a selection pressure. The ToE recognises this fact.

    “Deep time and geological studies show evidences of climate and environmental changes across the globe. How is it that today’s living things can be represented in the fossil record, but do not show the fundamental changes evolution predicts?”

    The few animals that still closely resemble their ancestors in the fossil record do so because the climate or environmental changes haven’t acted as selective pressures for those animals. Most likely the global climate and environmental changes weren’t as severe on the local level.

    “Again the “created kind” fits the observation far better than evolution.”

    In what way? When rapid environmental changes have acted as a selective pressures we have seen speciation events and even family level branches. This is the opposite of what we’d expect if genomes were limited and only susceptible to small changes as your limited creation theory implies.

  145. on 15 Dec 2014 at 10:35 am 145.freddies_dead said …

    148. Corbis said …

    “freddie-dead

    I will ask you to go back and look at the definition of “special pleading” or you may need to look into the the specifics of the contingency vs cosmological arguments for God.”

    From wiki: “Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.”

    “Very quickly:

    1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
    2. The universe began to exist
    3. Therefore the universe has a cause.”

    Those three points are agreed to by all reputable scientist.”

    There’s the generally accepted rule.

    “God never began to exist i.e. God has always existed as an infinite being and therefore is not a case of special pleading in regards to the cosmological argument.”

    And there’s your unjustified exception. Where is your evidence that “God never began to exist”? Indeed, where’s your evidence that God exists at all? You make the claim that “God has always existed as an infinite being” but how can we distinguish between your God and something you may merely be imagining?

    “Once again, I never claimed evolution (not sure which you refer to)has any bearing on God’s existence. That is just a red herring.”

    And yet you keep mentioning evolution when the discussion concerns the existence of God so I’m well aware it’s a red herring.

    “I did point out atheist believe in this macroevolution without evidence while claiming evidence for God is void.”

    Even if this were true (you certainly haven’t backed up your assertion with anything like evidence or a valid argument so far) it is still wholly irrelevant. I’ve already said to ditch anything to do with evolution and simply offer either evidence or a valid argument for your God. Instead you keep trying to save an already failed argument and talk about evolution instead.

    “My point still stands and TJ did pretty well showing why this is true.”

    What point? Your point about evolution? Again? Well, apart from the fact that it didn’t stand from the moment you made it – and TJ really did nothing to help it out – you’ve said in your reply that it has no bearing on God’s existence so to continue bringing it up is a red herring.

    “I regards to your continued generalities in your post, not much to discuss. If you decide to be more specific I’ll be glad to comment.”

    To what “generalities” are you referring? If it’s my very specific point about how the arguments you presented for God contain a performative inconsistency then I can see why you’re reluctant to comment on it.

  146. on 15 Dec 2014 at 5:45 pm 146.just said …

    Freddie-dead,

    Not into specifics? I provided a list of arguments and you only respond to one? If they have these performative inconsistencies then show them.

    I already showed that God by definition did not began to exist therefore special pleading is not applicable or necessary.

  147. on 15 Dec 2014 at 8:45 pm 147.The A-athiest said …

    Warning Warning Warning faith is now extinct in the world and it wll soon be raining athiest by the butcket loads. The deluge of Athiest will serve to drown all theism and all thiests.

    But what the heck Noah saving the world. Har har or no saving the world.

  148. on 15 Dec 2014 at 8:48 pm 148.The A-athiest said …

    That joke was imputed into my consciousness directly by the wholey spirit.

    Don’t blaspheme it.

  149. on 16 Dec 2014 at 11:13 am 149.freddies_dead said …

    151.just said …

    “Freddie-dead,

    Not into specifics? I provided a list of arguments and you only respond to one?”

    I actually said I could waste time going through all of the arguments, giving the standard reasons for why each one of them fails. I even quickly showed how 2 of them (the standard cosmological and the Kalam) are fallacious thanks to special pleading. But, rather than going through all those tedious explanations, I chose instead to show how they *all* suffer from a much more basic problem.

    “If they have these performative inconsistencies then show them.”

    I did. Each and every one of those arguments suffers from the exact same problem. Each argument wants us to accept that the the conclusion is an objective truth i.e. something that is what it is regardless of what anyone may wish, hope, demand etc… However, each and every one of those arguments also makes the claim that existence depends on consciousness i.e. that God exists and created existence through an act of will. This makes existence inherently subjective and things are what they are because of what somebody (read God) wishes. This means the arguments presuppose the metaphysical primacy of existence while at the same time claiming the metaphysical primacy of consciousness. There’s the performative inconsistency.

    “I already showed that God by definition did not began to exist therefore special pleading is not applicable or necessary.”

    You haven’t actually shown anything. You have asserted that by definition your God did not begin to exist but none of the arguments you gave are actually valid so your assertion remains unsupported. I can imagine a God that didn’t begin to exist just as easily as you. I can also imagine plenty of other gods too so why should I accept your definition of God as the correct one when you’ve yet to even tell me how I can distinguish your God from something you may merely be imagining?

  150. on 16 Dec 2014 at 9:31 pm 150.Corbis said …

    freddie-dead,

    Again, you do not understand special pleading. You have redefined a term in your own terms in order to utilize this particular fallacy. Sorry but redefining terms does not give your assertion merit. You would like to ask one to attest to God’s existence while deriving the essentials for the term. God as an entity outside of time and space which never had a beginning does not fit your fallacious accusation. (the irony)

    And again, please, waste some time. Take one of the arguments and logically break it down and show the performative inconsistencies. The presuppositions? The premises?

    But really, wasting time is not your genuine raison d’être for hesitation is it? Making a sweeping claim of performative inconsistencies regarding existence and consciousness is no more than a evasion maneuver you use as a defense mechanism to avoid real debate.

  151. on 17 Dec 2014 at 1:21 am 151.TJ said …

    to freddie-dead,

    Disagree, because of your final sentence. You still seem to view evolution as a goal oriented process – “with man at the pinnacle”. This simply isn’t true. It is a branching tree on which man is only one of millions of branch “ends”. Evolution isn’t aiming for anything.

    Would it have mattered if I said “microbes to dogs”? I have not, and never will express a view of evolution as a goal oriented process. This “goal orientation” is added by you, not me.

    “Microbes to man” is only one tree branch within the evolutionary theory… but it is still a claimed lineage of evolutionary theory.

    What you are saying to me is that you disagree that evolution claims that single cell organisms obtained extra information to produce organs and limbs and all the other attributes of life over vast periods of time. Your disagreement is based on my implication that man appears to be the most evolved animal according to evolutionary theory, and your additional misinterpretation of “goal orientation”, which you presented back at post 141?

    Do I understand you correctly?
    ———————————-

    you said…
    How so? You claimed the library was pre-set and complete so there can be no “extra information” in such a scenario. All dogs must surely be the same “kind” so there’s no more genetic information available to a mongrel than there is to a pure breed.

    Your above statements highlights your inability to follow what is being said.

    I said…
    “Effectively the genetic library of variation becomes limited and or defined and refined.”

    you said…
    In effect this should mean we end up with a library so limited that everything becomes more and more similar until there are only a few different “kinds” left. Of course the evidence shows that the opposite is true i.e. from a single common ancestor we’ve now got an estimated 8.7 million species on earth. Just when is your limiting theory going to kick in?

    You have completely missed the point. In “created kinds”, different breeds within the same “kind” are what become limited. Each breed represents a branching of the original the created kind along with the retained information passed on from the original complete set of genetic variety within that kind.

    A mongrel breed effectively has a larger variety of genetic information available than a pure breed. Crossing the two introduces existing information back into the pure breed. Information that was either lost or corrupted in the past.

    When you say we have now got 8.7 million species you are counting “breeds” within “kinds”. How many of those species could be grouped into kinds? However the evidence shows that there many more extinct species that became non viable. This fits created kinds, degrading into breeds that become “unfit”.

    You claimed…
    Or increased. As I already noted, gene duplication plus a mutation in one of those genes = new information. Not to mention that simple mutations mean new information too. Take the single nucleotide polymorphism that is the reason for the Shar-Pei wrinkles. There’s a difference in the HAS2 gene which codes for halyuronic acid synthase 2 (an enzyme which makes halyuronic acid which is a principle constituent in skin) this difference causes the organism to make more skin. The unchanged gene doesn’t have the necessary information to make more skin but the mutated version does.

    MORE SKIN. Really, more skin? A variation to the amount of skin = new information. The information to produce skin always existed, it is simply the variation of how much that changes. This fits with variation within created kinds. It does not represent the ability to produce a feature that did not exist previously. FAIL.

    The Peppered Moth pre-existed light and dark populations prior, during and after the industrial revolution. I agree with…”If the environmental factors are such that dark coloured moths are more likely to live longer and reproduce then the genes that determine darker coloured moths will end up proliferating. If the environment changes and the soot reduces, lighter coloured moths survive longer and breed more therefore the genes that determine lighter coloured moths will proliferate.”

    This also fits with “created kind”. But it fails to show a new feature, new information or any other hailed evidence for evolution.

    I suggest you research some young earth creation theories. As you claim… “What Biblical theory? There isn’t one.”

    There is no point in me continuing to push forward as your ignorance will only result in my time being wasted.

  152. on 18 Dec 2014 at 1:46 pm 152.freddies_dead said …

    Corbis

    The original cosmological argument claimed that everything that exists needs a cause but then turned right around and claimed that the first cause didn’t. There isn’t really a much clearer example of special pleading but whatever, it doesn’t matter whether you agree with that as your arguments fail at a much more fundamental level.

    Every one of your arguments fail for the same reason.

    P1. The premises of the argument are true regardless of what anyone may wish etc.. i.e. the metaphysical primacy of existence is true
    P2. The conclusion of the argument is true regardless of what anyone may wish etc.. i.e. the metaphysical primacy of existence is true
    C. Therefore existence was willed into being by God. i.e. the metaphysical primacy of existence is false

    The conclusions are inconsistent with the contents of the arguments so the arguments quite neatly refute themselves. This is something I’ve been pointing out all along. There is no debate here. You offered up arguments, I have shown – several times now – how they all fail. You simply brush this aside – or ask me to repeat myself – and keep complaining about the charges of special pleading instead.

    I’ve also given you the chance to salvage your position by telling us how we can distinguish your God from something you may merely be imagining. You haven’t made any attempt to do that either, I wonder why?

  153. on 18 Dec 2014 at 3:31 pm 153.freddies_dead said …

    TJ

    “Would it have mattered if I said “microbes to dogs”?”

    Depends on whether you also implied that dogs were something evolution was working towards.

    “I have not, and never will express a view of evolution as a goal oriented process. This “goal orientation” is added by you, not me.”

    Nope, the sentence “with man as the pinnacle” implied it. I can only go off what you write.

    ““Microbes to man” is only one tree branch within the evolutionary theory… but it is still a claimed lineage of evolutionary theory.”

    Every lineage is a claimed lineage of evolutionary theory. What isn’t is any intent to form that lineage.

    “What you are saying to me is that you disagree that evolution claims that single cell organisms obtained extra information to produce organs and limbs and all the other attributes of life over vast periods of time. Your disagreement is based on my implication that man appears to be the most evolved animal according to evolutionary theory, and your additional misinterpretation of “goal orientation”, which you presented back at post 141?

    Do I understand you correctly?”

    Nope, I simply denied the implication of purpose in your definition. Both microbes and man, along with everything in between and round about exist because of the process of evolution.
    ———————————-

    “you said…”
    How so? You claimed the library was pre-set and complete so there can be no “extra information” in such a scenario. All dogs must surely be the same “kind” so there’s no more genetic information available to a mongrel than there is to a pure breed.

    “Your above statements highlights your inability to follow what is being said.

    I said…
    “Effectively the genetic library of variation becomes limited and or defined and refined.””

    You display an inability to remember what you wrote i.e. “In other words all life was created with a pre-set complete library of genetic information available for the expression of variation within the limitations of the original content.” In your mongrel scenario no “extra information” can come from either parent dog as they have the exact same pre-set library albeit with differing parts of it switched on/off.

    “you said…”
    In effect this should mean we end up with a library so limited that everything becomes more and more similar until there are only a few different “kinds” left. Of course the evidence shows that the opposite is true i.e. from a single common ancestor we’ve now got an estimated 8.7 million species on earth. Just when is your limiting theory going to kick in?

    “You have completely missed the point. In “created kinds”, different breeds within the same “kind” are what become limited. Each breed represents a branching of the original the created kind along with the retained information passed on from the original complete set of genetic variety within that kind.”

    And, according to your theory: “Through out these processes genetic information either becomes lost, reduced or switched off.”, so each change would be a degradation of the original pre-set complete library. You can only degrade the genome so far before it becomes inviable. So, due to the limiting nature of your theory, we’d expect that individual species would become less and less fit and eventually die out until we only have a fixed number of viable “kinds” left. Of course there are now nearly 9 million separate species so when’s the limiting due to kick in?

    “A mongrel breed effectively has a larger variety of genetic information available than a pure breed. Crossing the two introduces existing information back into the pure breed. Information that was either lost or corrupted in the past.”

    So it’s not “extra information” at all then. Thanks for confirming I was correct in my objection.

    “When you say we have now got 8.7 million species you are counting “breeds” within “kinds”.”

    I’m counting distinct species. I have no real idea what “kinds” means as the definition you gave was useless. You have, however, used it to suggest that all dogs belong to a single kind but didn’t expand on how wide that dog “family” might be. So what other species beyond dogs does it cover? Presumably wolves but what about foxes, jackals, hyenas? Where do amphicyonidae (usually known as bear-dogs) fit in? What about actual bears? Racoons? etc…

    “How many of those species could be grouped into kinds?”

    Again, no clue as I still don’t know which level of standard taxonomy you are aiming “kind” at.

    “However the evidence shows that there many more extinct species that became non viable. This fits created kinds, degrading into breeds that become “unfit”.”

    And yet the number of extant species at any one time continued to rise until today’s level – this cannot be explained by your constantly degrading genome creation model but fits just fine with evolution.

    “You claimed…”
    Or increased. As I already noted, gene duplication plus a mutation in one of those genes = new information. Not to mention that simple mutations mean new information too. Take the single nucleotide polymorphism that is the reason for the Shar-Pei wrinkles. There’s a difference in the HAS2 gene which codes for halyuronic acid synthase 2 (an enzyme which makes halyuronic acid which is a principle constituent in skin) this difference causes the organism to make more skin. The unchanged gene doesn’t have the necessary information to make more skin but the mutated version does.

    “MORE SKIN. Really, more skin?”

    Oh look, you completely ignored the gene duplication plus mutation I’ve mentioned at least twice now.

    “A variation to the amount of skin = new information.”

    Thank you … oh wait, that’s a typo isn’t it.

    “The information to produce skin always existed, it is simply the variation of how much that changes.”

    According to your theory of a constantly degrading genome there should be no way to produce any *more* skin than was provided for in the original pre-set library and, according to you, mutations would only cause a species to degrade the ability to create skin, not allow it to create loads more.

    “This fits with variation within created kinds.”

    Not your version it doesn’t.

    “It does not represent the ability to produce a feature that did not exist previously. FAIL.”

    Except that if we take your constantly degrading genome version of creation then it does. WIN.

    “The Peppered Moth pre-existed light and dark populations prior, during and after the industrial revolution. I agree with…”If the environmental factors are such that dark coloured moths are more likely to live longer and reproduce then the genes that determine darker coloured moths will end up proliferating. If the environment changes and the soot reduces, lighter coloured moths survive longer and breed more therefore the genes that determine lighter coloured moths will proliferate.”

    This also fits with “created kind”.”

    It really doesn’t. According to your constantly degrading genome theory, once you’d lost the ability to produce light coloured moths you wouldn’t be able to get that ability back.

    “But it fails to show a new feature, new information or any other hailed evidence for evolution.”

    There’s absolutely nothing in evolutionary theory that makes new features or new information a mandatory requirement for us to know evolution is happening. All it takes is change.

    “I suggest you research some young earth creation theories. As you claim… “What Biblical theory? There isn’t one.””

    There’s no point. YEC theories have a caveat that stops any of them being scientific. Whenever the evidence shows them to be wrong i.e. as gene duplications ruin your constantly degrading genome theory or real knowledge of goat husbandry shows that stripey poles don’t have any affect on goat coat colouring, then you have to ditch the evidence instead of rethinking the theory.

    “There is no point in me continuing to push forward as your ignorance will only result in my time being wasted.”

    Your choice.

  154. on 18 Dec 2014 at 4:48 pm 154.Corbis said …

    The cosmological argument states that everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. The first cause never has a beginning and therefore does not need a cause. Very elementary freddie-dead but you seem to have difficulty with the word “begin”. Scientists at one time alleged the universe never had a beginning but now recognize that was incorrect. The universe did have a beginning. Your special pleading accusation has been debunked and you would do well to let it go.

    The CA has remained accurate but now, you again decline to directly speak to any other argument while making sweeping generalities about metaphysical primacy, consciousness and existence. All very broad themes for which you fail to provide specifics in relation to a particular argument. It seems the following might be spot on.

    P1. freddie-dead does not have even the most rudimentary understanding of the arguments listed

    P2. Freddie-dead only has the ability to offer the same objection regardless of the argument.

    C. freddie-dead therefore attempts to save face by addressing all arguments in broad generalities

  155. on 18 Dec 2014 at 4:58 pm 155.Corbis said …

    “once you’d lost the ability to produce light coloured moths you wouldn’t be able to get that ability back.”

    freddie did you mistype or are you serious?

    The dastardly peppered moth is no more than oscillating selection which we know produces no lasting evolutionary change as TJ as correctly recapitulates. Freddie-dead attempts to perpetuate the peppered myth.

  156. on 19 Dec 2014 at 3:12 am 156.TJ said …

    To Corbis,

    freddie has great faith in his belief that eternal matter gave rise to consciousness.

    He will even defend his conclusion that a human fetus has no value whatsoever. Despite the vast resources hospitals, medical systems and individuals pour into ensuring that a human fetus reaches it’s potential to be born. At which point it assumes value.

    He has a good knowledge of scripture and the concepts represented. Better than most, claimed Christians.

    However his beliefs and faith are a result of a very conscious rejection of a God, especially the God of the Bible.

    Any accusations he makes will be reflective of his own behavior, simply because we are all bias in our beliefs.

    How any of use view or interpret the world around us is based on these individual fundamental beliefs. His mind is already made up based upon his core beliefs… As is mine… as is yours.

  157. on 21 Dec 2014 at 11:43 am 157.The A-athiest said …

    You athiest don’t understand Christianity even though you subscribe to it by other means but don’t give god full credit.

    Matter cannot be created or destroyed only changed from one for to another.

    All things existent exist and move into form through form and into subsequent forms.

    The word of God is eternal and can only be written by sheep herders on bones and by scribes on scrolls and cannot be created or destroyed only passed from pew to pew on Sundays.

    Seriously though I don’t want you to think that Jesus is God the Church I was brought up in did not accept Jesus as God really. God is not the form that has been moved into form but is really the all embracing and overarching process.

    What we did accept though that respect of Jesus and his mission was the best way to respect God and to aspire to and achieve salvation.

    God cannot be nailed up on a cross and be taken down at night fall or such God is a mighty, mighty being and a mighty mighty spirit the holds all things together. He doesn’t walk on water he is mightier and more boundless than this mighty mighty universe we live in. He is eternal just like the process of moving into form and through form is eternal he is the fullness of that process and is also eternal.

    He was with us from the start. The greatest thing we can concieve does not even register compared to God’s greatness and we are just fooling ourselves if we think otherwise. He was with us from the start but if we accept ourselves and don’t accept him we are fooling our selves and we have cut ourselves off from life. If we live for a thousand years he will be right beside us keeping up pace similarly if we travel a thousand light years he will be right beside us smiling when you look through the hubble telescope he is there and further than the furthest scopes of the hubble telescope. He is in our minds he pervades ever aspect of our thoughts and our wits.

    Think about it.

    And give God the acknowledgement he deserves. What you consider to be so much yours is really his. You stand in rank opposition to God but he is the stem if you are the fruit untill you separate from him totally and wither and die.

  158. on 21 Dec 2014 at 11:49 am 158.The A-athiest said …

    THIS ONE

    I WANT TO SEE IF YOU CAN ANSWER THIS WITH OUT AD HOMINEM AND FOUL MOUTHED ANTICS SAD HOW YOU GUYS FALL TO THIS ALL THE TIME IT IS REALLY A RETARDED REACTION.

    I ALSO WANT TO HEAR WHAT THE CHRISTIANS HAVE TO SAY.

    MAYBE THEN I WILL GET MORE INTO LIVING AND NON-LIVING. REMEMBER THERE IS BIOLOGICAL LIFE, MENTAL LIFE AND SPIRITUAL LIFE.

    You athiest don’t understand Christianity even though you subscribe to it by other means but don’t give God full credit.

    Matter cannot be created or destroyed only changed from one form to another.

    All things existent exist and move into form through form and into subsequent forms.

    The Word of God is eternal and can only be written by sheep herders on bones and by scribes on scrolls and cannot be created or destroyed only passed from pew to pew on Sundays.

    Seriously though I don’t want you to think that Jesus is God the Church I was brought up in did not accept Jesus as God really. God is not the form that has been moved into form but is really the all embracing and overarching process.

    What we did accept though was that respect of Jesus and his mission was the best way to respect God and to aspire to and achieve salvation.

    God cannot be nailed up on a cross and be taken down at night fall or such; God is a mighty, mighty being and a mighty mighty spirit that holds all things together. He doesn’t walk on water, he is mightier and more boundless than this mighty mighty universe we live in. He is eternal just like the process of moving into form and through form is eternal, he is the fullness of that process and is also eternal.

    He was with us from the start. The greatest thing we can conceive does not even register compared to God’s greatness and we are just fooling ourselves if we think otherwise. He was with us from the start but if we accept ourselves and don’t accept him we are fooling our selves and we have cut ourselves off from life.

    If we live for a thousand years God will be right beside us keeping up pace similarly if we travel a thousand light years God will be right beside us smiling when you look through the You athiest don’t understand Christianity even though you subscribe to it by other means but don’t give god full credit.
    Matter cannot be created or destroyed only changed from one for to another.
    All things existent exist and move into form through form and into subsequent forms.
    The word of God is eternal and can only be written by sheep herders on bones and by scribes on scrolls and cannot be created or destroyed only passed from pew to pew on Sundays.
    Seriously though I don’t want you to think that Jesus is God the Church I was brought up in did not accept Jesus as God really. God is not the form that has been moved into form but is really the all embracing and overarching process.
    What we did accept though that respect of Jesus and his mission was the best way to respect God and to aspire to and achieve salvation.
    God cannot be nailed up on a cross and be taken down at night fall or such God is a mighty, mighty being and a mighty mighty spirit the holds all things together. He doesn’t walk on water he is mightier and more boundless than this mighty mighty universe we live in. He is eternal just like the process of moving into form and through form is eternal he is the fullness of that process and is also eternal.
    He was with us from the start. The greatest thing we can concieve does not even register compared to God’s greatness and we are just fooling ourselves if we think otherwise. He was with us from the start but if we accept ourselves and don’t accept him we are fooling our selves and we have cut ourselves off from life. If we live for a thousand years he will be right beside us keeping up pace similarly if we travel a thousand light years he will be right beside us smiling when you look through the hubble telescope he is there and further than the furthest scopes of the hubble telescope. He is in our minds he pervades ever aspect of our thoughts and our wits.
    Think about it.
    And give God the acknowledgement he deserves. What you consider to be so much yours is really his. You stand in rank opposition to God but he is the stem if you are the fruit until you separate from him totally and wither and die. telescope he is there and further than the furthest scopes of the Hubble telescope. He is in our minds he pervades ever aspect of our thoughts and our wits.

    Think about it.

    And give God the acknowledgement he deserves. What you consider to be so much yours is really his. You stand in rank opposition to God but he is the stem if you are the fruit – that – until you separate from him totally and thus wither and die while he lives on.

  159. on 21 Dec 2014 at 11:57 am 159.The A-athiest said …

    THIS ONE

    THIS COMPUTER IS FAULTY

    I WANT TO SEE IF YOU CAN ANSWER THIS WITH OUT AD HOMINEM AND FOUL MOUTHED ANTICS SAD HOW YOU GUYS FALL TO THIS ALL THE TIME IT IS REALLY A RETARDED REACTION.

    I ALSO WANT TO HEAR WHAT THE CHRISTIANS HAVE TO SAY.

    MAYBE THEN I WILL GET MORE INTO LIVING AND NON-LIVING.

    REMEMBER THERE IS BIOLOGICAL LIFE, MENTAL LIFE AND SPIRITUAL LIFE.

    You athiest don’t understand Christianity even though you subscribe to it by other means but don’t give God full credit.

    Matter cannot be created or destroyed only changed from one form to another.

    All things existent exist and move into form through form and into subsequent forms.

    The word of God is eternal and can only be written by sheep herders on bones and by scribes on scrolls and cannot be created or destroyed only passed from pew to pew on Sundays.

    Seriously though I don’t want you to think that Jesus is God the Church which I was brought up in did not accept Jesus as God really. God is not the form that has been moved into form but is really the all embracing and overarching process.

    What we did accept though was that respect of Jesus and his mission was the best way to respect God and to aspire to and achieve salvation.

    God cannot be nailed up on a cross and be taken down at night fall or such, God is a mighty, mighty being and a mighty mighty spirit that holds all things together. He doesn’t walk on water he is mightier and more boundless than this mighty mighty universe we live in. He is eternal just like the process of moving into form and through form is eternal and he is the fullness of that process and is similarly is also eternal.

    He was with us from the start.

    The greatest thing we can conceive of does not even register compared to God’s greatness and we are just fooling ourselves if we think otherwise. He was with us from the start but if we accept ourselves and don’t accept him we are fooling ourselves and we have taken steps to cut ourselves off from life. If we live for a thousand years God will be right beside us keeping up pace similarly if we travel a thousand light years God will be right beside us smiling. when you look through the Hubble telescope he is there and further than the furthest scopes of the Hubble telescope. He is in our minds he pervades every aspect of our thoughts and our wits.

    Think about it.

    And give God the acknowledgement he deserves. What you consider to be so much yours is really his. You stand in rank opposition to God but he is the stem if you are the fruit until you separate from him totally and wither and die while he lives on.

  160. on 21 Dec 2014 at 5:53 pm 160.Anonymous said …

    158.The A-athiest said …
    THIS ONE
    I WANT TO SEE IF YOU CAN ANSWER THIS WITH OUT AD HOMINEM AND FOUL MOUTHED ANTICS

    Answer what? There is no question here. All you have done is presented a bunch of completely unsubstantiated claims about the nature of reality as you say it is. Claims presented without evidence can be dismissed without reason.

  161. on 21 Dec 2014 at 9:27 pm 161.The A-athiest said …

    My statement asks your position and your Athiestic Stance a big question that I want to see how you will respond.

  162. on 21 Dec 2014 at 9:32 pm 162.The A-athiest said …

    I tried to open up your mind, which seems to be very closed – to the idea of what God really is, the respect he deserves and how we can profit from worshipping him. What is your response to this?

    Where do you find solace in life? Where do you find a guarantee of salvation? If you are asking others to follow you to walk your way of life, to invest in your bank of sorts how do they know that their money is safe?

    If it is not in appealing to the ruler of all how do we know that we are safe come what may?

  163. on 21 Dec 2014 at 11:41 pm 163.Anonymous said …

    I guess my response is that I see no reason whatsoever to believe the god you describe is anything more than a product of your imagination.

    Why do you believe that the universe owes you solace or salvation? I am not asking anyone to follow me or “walk my way of life.” If you ask me what I think, I tell you. You are the one here trying to convince others that there exists a magical being who requires worship and adoration and will punish you for the heinous crime of not believing in him. If you have any actual evidence to show that your god actually exists, show us. Otherwise we have no way of discerning your postulated god from a figment of your imagination.

  164. on 22 Dec 2014 at 12:49 am 164.the messenger said …

    Understand that without Judeo/Christian beliefs we would all be suffering and dead.

    Christianity and Judaism are the blueprints for all forms of democratic government. Especially America. From the belief in “GOD given rights” all the way to it’s legal system, Jewish teachings and morals are both the foundation and the skeletal structure of the American government, as well as many other governments.

    Judeo Christian morals were and are the motivator for many of America’s other laws as well, such as the prohibition of slavery, murder, theft, rape, prostitution, segregation of races, making racist laws, and various forms of lying.

  165. on 22 Dec 2014 at 12:50 am 165.the messenger said …

    I meant to type “suffering or dead”.

    My bad.

  166. on 22 Dec 2014 at 2:05 am 166.the messenger said …

    Atheism is the skeletal structure of Communism and Socialism. Every communist and socialist political leader in history are atheists.

    Atheism rejects Judeo Christian moral teachings and makes rules based on “human made” moral decisions alone rather than GOD’s moral decisions.

    Here are some of the results of governing and living with atheism in charge.
    1. Mass murder of millions of Polish and russian people by Atheist/Communist Stalin.
    2. The torcher and murder of over six million Jews by Hitler.
    3. The torcher and murder of millions of Koreans by atheists/communists Kim Jong-Il and Kim Jong-un.
    4. The torcher and murder of countless Jewish men, women(both pregnant and not pregnant), children(including infants, teens, and unborn and new born children), and many older people by atheist and socialist joseph Mengele.
    5. The murder of many Chinese people by atheist/communist mao Zedong.
    The murder of many Italian people and atheist/communist Mussolini.
    6.The murder of millions of Cambodians by atheist Pol Pot.
    7. The mass murder of many people by atheist communist Salvador Sánchez Cerén.

    There are SO MANY other atheist leaders I could list, but I don’t have the time to.

  167. on 22 Dec 2014 at 4:07 am 167.Anonymous said …

    Even if every atheist was totally evil and wicked, and every Christian was saintly and morally perfect, that has absolutely no bearing on the reality of your god. You simply don’t get it.

  168. on 22 Dec 2014 at 4:57 am 168.TJ said …

    “Even if every atheist was totally evil and wicked, and every Christian was saintly and morally perfect, that has absolutely no bearing on the reality of your god. You simply don’t get it.”

    If God is not a reality why do so many claim to have “found God”?

    The fact that you, personally, have not found God, has no bearing on the reality of God.

    It is a spiritual thing.

    If you deny your own personal spiritual reality, then how can you accept the concept of a Holy Ghost? Let alone form a relationship with God.

    This is where the proof and guidance you seek is to be found. A personal God reveals himself in a personal spiritual way.

    Your confusion is between what is imagined and that which is spiritually reveled. Only an individual who has experienced such a thing can testify to the ability to know the difference. Then there is no room left to deny God’s existence.

  169. on 22 Dec 2014 at 9:36 am 169.The A-athiest said …

    Yes at some point in time we all make a leap from what we see to what we may assume is there. But don’t we do that every day in every way. If you think you are typing on a computer because of what your senses are telling you won’t you think that a computer is there and it is called trusting your senses. However the bible teaches he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes or reprove after the hearing of his ears.

    Jesus teaches:

    And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

    Yes our imagination needs to go to work to come to terms that there is a God understand God.

    Have you tried thinking, speaking or operating or even living without your imagination.

    YET GOD IS THE PRIMARY THING WE SHOULD IMAGINE

    For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

    God is the unbuilt builder. The ultimate which creates everything else but cannot be built as the ultimate cannot be built. The building process is at best asymptotic compared to the ultimate If you open your mind you will see this. We shouldn’t think of God in constructed terms we will get the wrong picture and we would be talking of two different Gods. Since you are an athiest at this stage I am projecting more of a KALAM argument than a creationist of or a classical theistic argument that should be an adequate medicine for you at this time.

  170. on 22 Dec 2014 at 9:45 am 170.The A-athiest said …

    Here is a valuable trinity of truths about God.

    God is the way he is.

    God is real.

    God is great.

    You have problems with the first, more problems with the second; but if you can take in the third considering the proposition we are proposing it would really blow all your doubts away and you will realise that God is God.

  171. on 22 Dec 2014 at 9:49 am 171.The A-athiest said …

    If you have lost your jewellery you may have some difficulty realising that they are lost.

    You may need to take an imaginary leap to realise that they have been stolen by a real criminal.

    However if you then are trying to to track the greatest thief, greatest criminal and the greatest escapist in the world armed, deadly and busy killing and with help to boot you will really have to kiss your jewels good bye.

  172. on 22 Dec 2014 at 11:37 am 172.The A-athiest said …

    Anonymous said …

    Why do you believe that the universe owes you solace or salvation?

    I say:

    Why if you have not achieved solace or earned salvation do you not believe that part of you future fortunes might include eternal suffering in some God forsaken part of the universe?

    A drowning man will clutch at a straw but an athiest will cling to bitter self destruction.

  173. on 22 Dec 2014 at 4:00 pm 173.freddies_dead said …

    164. Corbis said …

    “The cosmological argument states that everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. The first cause never has a beginning and therefore does not need a cause.”

    This again? And of course everything BEGINS to exist but we’ll just assert that there’s something that didn’t … then, for no real reason, we’ll call that barely asserted thing “God”.

    “Very elementary freddie-dead but you seem to have difficulty with the word “begin”.”

    And you seem to be having even greater difficulty with the fact that it’s irrelevant. As I’ve noted several times now, your arguments fail on a more fundamental level and it’s *that* failure that you’re avoiding dealing with.

    “Scientists at one time alleged the universe never had a beginning but now recognize that was incorrect.”

    It depends on what you mean by the universe having “a beginning”. Scientists did once think that the universe was in a steady state but the evidence showed that the universe is actually expanding meaning that at some point in the past it must have started expanding. However, there’s currently no evidence as to what the universe was like prior to a fraction of time after it started to expand. It could just as easily have always existed as a singularity as been poofed into existence by a being that there’s no evidence for. If we’re going to just start assuming the existence of eternal entities then there’s absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t start with the universe itself. At least we know that that exists.

    “The universe did have a beginning.”

    It certainly began to expand. Do you have any evidence that it was somehow bought into existence just before the expansion started? I’m sure scientists the world over would love to see that.

    “Your special pleading accusation has been debunked and you would do well to let it go.”

    Lol, I let it go in my very first post by pointing out that even if you could rescue the argument from the charge of special pleading (which you haven’t managed) it still fails at a more basic level.

    “The CA has remained accurate but now, you again decline to directly speak to any other argument while making sweeping generalities about metaphysical primacy, consciousness and existence.”

    Hahahahaha. Those “generalities”, as you call them, show exactly why every one of the arguments you advanced fails. Every argument you noted assumes the primacy of existence in it’s premises before assuming the primacy of consciousness in it’s conclusion.

    “All very broad themes for which you fail to provide specifics in relation to a particular argument.”

    More lol. We can pick one of your arguments – any of your arguments – and quite specifically show that the proposer of the argument assumes that the premises will be true regardless of what anyone wishes, wants, demands etc… (i.e. they specifically presuppose that existence holds metaphysical primacy). Now we can look at any one of the conclusions – you know? The conclusions that all claim that God exists and created everything – and see that they specifically presuppose that consciousness holds metaphysical primacy. The performative inconsistency is clear but those with a confessional investment in their worldview will deny this fact regardless, as we see you doing here.

    “It seems the following might be spot on.

    P1. freddie-dead does not have even the most rudimentary understanding of the arguments listed”

    On the contrary, I understand perfectly that the arguments are fundamentally flawed.

    “P2. Freddie-dead only has the ability to offer the same objection regardless of the argument.”

    If that “same objection” shows that every single one of the arguments that have been advanced has the exact same flaw, why on earth would I need another one?

    “C. freddie-dead therefore attempts to save face by addressing all arguments in broad generalities”

    How am I trying to “save face” here? You’re the one desperate to avoid dealing with the performative inconsistency in your arguments. Preferring instead to waffle on about special pleading as if it makes a difference.

  174. on 22 Dec 2014 at 4:00 pm 174.freddies_dead said …

    165. Corbis said …

    “once you’d lost the ability to produce light coloured moths you wouldn’t be able to get that ability back.”

    “freddie did you mistype or are you serious?

    The dastardly peppered moth is no more than oscillating selection which we know produces no lasting evolutionary change as TJ as correctly recapitulates. Freddie-dead attempts to perpetuate the peppered myth.”

    I’m well aware that the standard evolutionary model has no problem with oscillating selection, however, TJ’s “theory of creation” advocates that information can only ever be lost. According to TJ’s theory then the gene for light colouration must have been “switched off” i.e. the information lost through mutation. If that’s the case then how do you ever get back the ability to generate light coloured moths?

  175. on 22 Dec 2014 at 4:01 pm 175.freddies_dead said …

    166. TJ said …

    “To Corbis,

    freddie has great faith in his belief that eternal matter gave rise to consciousness.”

    It’s actually a logical conclusion based on the self-evident axioms. However, if you have objective evidence that consciousness gave rise to matter then I’d be interested to hear it.

    “He will even defend his conclusion that a human fetus has no value whatsoever. Despite the vast resources hospitals, medical systems and individuals pour into ensuring that a human fetus reaches it’s potential to be born. At which point it assumes value.”

    My support of abortion rights for women is consistent with my Objectivism. That some people expend great effort on having children makes no difference to that. It is after all just as much a woman’s right to do everything within her power to carry a foetus to term if she so chooses.

    “He has a good knowledge of scripture and the concepts represented. Better than most, claimed Christians.”

    Thank you.

    “However his beliefs and faith are a result of a very conscious rejection of a God, especially the God of the Bible.”

    You are correct that I have consciously rejected “God” although I have rejected all gods, none of them more “especially” than any other. Also my other beliefs aren’t based on a rejection of God but instead on the embracing of reason as man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.

    “Any accusations he makes will be reflective of his own behavior, simply because we are all bias in our beliefs. How any of use view or interpret the world around us is based on these individual fundamental beliefs. His mind is already made up based upon his core beliefs… As is mine… as is yours.”

    In which case why even attempt to discuss things? I am open to changing my mind based on sound objective arguments but I have yet to see one being advanced by Corbis.

  176. on 22 Dec 2014 at 4:01 pm 176.freddies_dead said …

    167, 168 & 169. The A-athiest said …

    A bunch of unsupported assertions…

    A-atheist, how can we distinguish between what you call God and something you may merely be imagining?

  177. on 22 Dec 2014 at 4:02 pm 177.freddies_dead said …

    174. the messenger said …

    “Understand that without Judeo/Christian beliefs we would all be suffering and dead.”

    Ah look, messy’s back and he just couldn’t wait to give us his first baseless assertion.

    “Christianity and Judaism are the blueprints for all forms of democratic government.”

    Except the Athenians founded the world’s first democracy.

    “Especially America. From the belief in “GOD given rights” all the way to it’s legal system,”

    It’s legal system – even now – owes much to English common law which, as Wiki notes, “derives from the 1150s and 1160s when Henry II of England established the *secular* English tribunals” (emphasis mine).

    “Jewish teachings and morals are both the foundation and the skeletal structure of the American government, as well as many other governments.”

    Wrong again. As the Treaty of Tripoli notes:
    “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;…”.

    “Judeo Christian morals were and are the motivator for many of America’s other laws as well, such as the prohibition of slavery, murder, theft, rape, prostitution, segregation of races, making racist laws, and various forms of lying.”

    And he finishes as he starts with yet another baseless assertion.

    Welcome back messy.

  178. on 22 Dec 2014 at 4:06 pm 178.freddies_dead said …

    176.the messenger said …

    “Atheism is the skeletal structure of Communism and Socialism.”

    Actually Communism and Socialism are the skeletal structures of Communism and Socialism.

    “Every communist and socialist political leader in history are atheists.”

    Lol, the founders of socialism were mostly religious. The likes of Henri de Saint-Simon and Charles Fourier.

    “Atheism rejects Judeo Christian moral teachings and makes rules based on “human made” moral decisions alone rather than GOD’s moral decisions.”

    Apart from being fictional, God is alleged to have committed genocide and His Word allows slavery and rape to go unpunished so it’s hardly a surprise that we’d look for a better morality.

    “Here are some of the results of governing and living with atheism in charge.
    1. Mass murder of millions of Polish and russian people by Atheist/Communist Stalin.”

    Of course Hitler was a Catholic but let’s not have facts getting in the way of a good rant about atheists.

    “2. The torcher and murder of over six million Jews by Hitler.”

    I assume you mean torture? Hitler’s still a Catholic though.

    “3. The torcher and murder of millions of Koreans by atheists/communists Kim Jong-Il and Kim Jong-un.”

    Both are deified by North Korean schools. Il and his father especially thought themselves Gods.

    “4. The torcher and murder of countless Jewish men, women(both pregnant and not pregnant), children(including infants, teens, and unborn and new born children), and many older people by atheist and socialist joseph Mengele.”

    Mengele was a Catholic like Hitler.

    “5. The murder of many Chinese people by atheist/communist mao Zedong.”

    I’ll probably give you Mao although he never really expressed what his religious beliefs were and is known to have had the following exchange:

    “Pham Van Dong: How are you, Chairman Mao?

    Mao Zedong: Not very well. I have had a cough for some days. It is time to go to Heaven. It seems that I am summoned to meet the Good God. How is President Ho?”
    Taken from “Behind the bamboo curtain: China, Vietnam, and the world beyond Asia”

    Not very atheistic to talk about Heaven and the Good God.

    “The murder of many Italian people and atheist/communist Mussolini.”

    Finally, a self confessed atheist … except that he didn’t actually murder “many Italian people” – unless you mean all the ones who died in the war after Mussolini threw his lot in with Hitler?

    “6.The murder of millions of Cambodians by atheist Pol Pot.”

    Pol Pot is another who probably wasn’t an atheist but was more likely to be a Buddhist – a Therevada Buddhist specifically – he was certainly raised as one.

    “7. The mass murder of many people by atheist communist Salvador Sánchez Cerén.”

    Another Catholic, lol.

    “There are SO MANY other atheist leaders I could list, but I don’t have the time to.”

    Well, you might have to make a bit of time. Also you might want to find one who actually killed in the name of atheism.

    Also, as Anonymous noted, even if every atheist was evil how does that make your God real?

    And finally you might also consider what Christopher Hitchens noted “…it is interesting to find that people of faith now seek defensively to say that they are no worse than fascists or Nazis or Stalinists.”

  179. on 22 Dec 2014 at 4:23 pm 179.Anonymous said …

    “If God is not a reality why do so many claim to have “found God”?”

    I’d suspect for the same reason that so many claim to have “found gods” who are not your god. LOL. Many people have claimed to have been abducted by aliens too.

    “The fact that you, personally, have not found God, has no bearing on the reality of God.”
    This is true, but I could make the same claim about Santa and the Easter Bunny. Just because you have not seen them doesn’t mean they aren’t real. Do you now believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny? Why not?

  180. on 22 Dec 2014 at 4:35 pm 180.Anonymous said …

    “Jesus teaches:
    And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.”

    And yet the bible is full of stories of people seeing and talking with god… starting with Adam and Eve and all the way through Moses, Abraham and others. Is Jesus wrong, or the bible?

    “Yes our imagination needs to go to work to come to terms that there is a God understand God.”

    No doubt.

    “Have you tried thinking, speaking or operating or even living without your imagination.
    YET GOD IS THE PRIMARY THING WE SHOULD IMAGINE”

    Humans have been imagining gods in various forms since the earliest known forms of humanity. Mainly due to ignorance and a lack of understanding of the natural world. All those gods have been imaginary, as it would appear, yours is as well. Now, if you have some evidence that would suggest that the things you simply assert about the existence of your god are actually true… show them.

    “Here is a valuable trinity of truths about God.
    God is the way he is.
    God is real.
    God is great.”

    Again, asserted claims without evidence to back them up are dismissed. Here is an equally valuable trinity of truths, asserted with the exact same authority your present:
    Santa is Santa.
    Santa is real.
    Santa brings Christmas gifts to all the children of the world in one night.”

    Do you accept these “truths”? I have told you they are true, and you need only your imagination and a willingness to believe in Santa to know spiritually that Santa is real. If you do not believe, it is simply because you have a bitter rejection and hatred of Santa and have not opened your heart to the true spirit of Christmas.

  181. on 22 Dec 2014 at 6:15 pm 181.Anonymous said …

    “If it is not in appealing to the ruler of all how do we know that we are safe come what may?”

    What a silly statement. We are not “safe” from come what may. What makes you think you are, or should be? We live in a universe that is 99.999999999999999999999999999999% completely hostile to life. We inhabit fragile bodies that can be destroyed easily. We live for a very, very limited time frame. Cosmologically speaking, not even the blink of an eye. We, as both individuals and as a species, are insignificant to the universe. And you think that you are “safe, come what may?” What a deluded point of view.
    I’d suggest you let someone point a loaded gun at your head and you ask the “ruler of all” to protect you when they pull the trigger… is your faith in the ruler of all to keep you safe strong enough to do that? Why not?

  182. on 23 Dec 2014 at 12:14 am 182.TJ said …

    quote from #173
    “This again? And of course everything BEGINS to exist but we’ll just assert that there’s something that didn’t … then, for no real reason, we’ll call that barely asserted thing “God”.”

    Does this imply that matter itself has a beginning? Did I misunderstand your logical conclusion that matter has always existed in one form or another?

    Quoted from #175

    “It’s actually a logical conclusion based on the self-evident axioms. However, if you have objective evidence that consciousness gave rise to matter then I’d be interested to hear it.”

    What evidence do you have that matter gave rise to consciousness? Based on the self evident axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity you logically conclude that matter pre-existed and thus gave rise to consciousness?

    Surly if consciousness and matter cannot be denied because their existence is self evident, then how can you claim that this somehow proves either gave rise to the other?

    The Bible does not claim that God created from nothing. Nor does it claim that God was purely consciousness only.

    God claims that he exists. He has a specific nature. That his natural state is formless.

    Formless does not mean consisting of nothing. Instead God claims to consist of unlimited power and knowledge of all things knowable.

    We know that knowledge needs to be stored. Even though knowledge cannot be seen, nor has any tangible raw form, we still need to create devices to store it, and it requires space. The human brain has the ability to store knowledge, but who can present knowledge in a raw form to be viewed independently without aid.

    Power? Is power energy? What is the form of raw energy?

    Knowledge and power are what God claims to consist of. God does not claim to have created out of nothing, but to have created from and through himself. If we look at the universe we see that all things simultaneously consist of energy and information.

    I would assert that energy and information are inseparable. That they do not require form to simply exist.

    Matter however is an expression of both energy and information in a physical tangible form.

    God claims that his consciousness, power and information are all aspects of the same thing. ie Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

    Father = consciousness, described as spirit
    Son = physical manifestation of power
    Holy Ghost = Information

    When people claim to have experienced interaction with the Holy Ghost they claim to know things they cannot possibly know.

    Quoted from #175
    “You are correct that I have consciously rejected “God” although I have rejected all gods, none of them more “especially” than any other. Also my other beliefs aren’t based on a rejection of God but instead on the embracing of reason as man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.”

    Freddie, when I consciously, willingly and sincerely accepted Jesus as my savior I experienced the Holy Ghost just as the New Testament describes.

    I have embraced the spirit of truth as another means of acquiring knowledge. The spirit of truth reveals the error of illogical conclusions present in non-truths. Alex summed this up by stating I had an uncanny ability to cast doubt. This is merely the affect of interacting with the holy spirit and following Jesus’s advice to question everything.

    quoted from #180
    ““Jesus teaches:
    And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.”
    And yet the bible is full of stories of people seeing and talking with god… starting with Adam and Eve and all the way through Moses, Abraham and others. Is Jesus wrong, or the bible?”

    Answer…
    Colossians 1:15
    15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created through Him and for Him.…

    Also known as the “Word”, the form God created for himself to interact physically with and with which to perform the acts of creation. This form/image is what is known as the “Son” in the holy trinity. The visual aspect of the formless God. This is form that Adam and Eve walked and talked with in the Garden of Eden. Neither Jesus or the Bible is wrong.

  183. on 23 Dec 2014 at 3:35 am 183.the messenger said …

    177-8.freddies_dead, in this comment I will address all of the claims you made.

    “Ah look, messy’s back and he just couldn’t wait to give us his first baseless assertion.”

    First of all, that was not an assertion, it is a fact proven numerous times throughout history.

    “Except the Athenians founded the world’s first democracy.”

    And yet it utterly failed after less than 200 years. Also, I meant to type “the blueprints for all forms of representative democratic government” not “the blueprints for all forms of democratic government”. My bad.

    “It’s legal system – even now – owes much to English common law which, as Wiki notes, “derives from the 1150s and 1160s when Henry II of England established the *secular* English tribunals” (emphasis mine).”

    Although the English common laws were secular because they did not have specific written ties to a specific religion, it’s structure (including court systems) was derived from the same format and structure as prescribed to the Jews in the bible(where witnesses and clear evidence are needed in order to condemn some one to a punishment, and where “over or equal payment” is needed in order to make amends for stealing or breaking some one else’s possessions, and a person cannot be punished for killing someone else be accident).

    “Wrong again. As the Treaty of Tripoli notes:
    “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;…”.”

    Tripoli was largely Islamic, so it makes sense that the politicians of that time would have lied about America’s Christian ties in order to get the people of Tripoli to support it.

    PS, Merry Christmas Fred.

  184. on 23 Dec 2014 at 5:04 am 184.the messenger said …

    178.freddies_dead,

    “Actually Communism and Socialism are the skeletal structures of Communism and Socialism.”

    That statement is so stupid its funny.

    “Lol, the founders of socialism were mostly religious. The likes of Henri de Saint-Simon and Charles Fourier.”

    I am not talking about political theorists, I am talking about political leaders, meaning someone who holds or held a political office(like Hitler or Stalin).

    “Apart from being fictional, God is alleged to have committed genocide and His Word allows slavery and rape to go unpunished so it’s hardly a surprise that we’d look for a better morality.”

    GOD did not commit genocide. GOD only killed bad people, such as pagans(including the philistines)(the ones that murdered virgins and children) or sodomites(that raped people for fun). The laws of GOD allowed slavery in the old testament(because they were not the entire law), but it condemns slavery in the new testament(which is both half of the law together) in “2 Peter 3″ where paul advises the slaver owner to let his slave free and treat him as a beloved brother. GOD also does punish rapist, like when he destroyed the sodomites for committing countless sins(including the attempted RAPE of two angels that GOD sent into Sodom).

    “Of course Hitler was a Catholic but let’s not have facts getting in the way of a good rant about atheists.”

    Hitler was raised in a partially catholic home, but he abandoned all Catholic teaching when he became a Nazi. He broke nearly every catholic law and doctrine. Instead of loving others as Jesus taught, Hitler hated his neighbors and murdered millions of them(thus also breaking the anti murder law in Exodus 20:13). He also broke the catholic doctrine written in Pope Gregory the Great’s 598 Bull which states that Christians must protect Jews. Saying that Hitler is a catholic is like saying Obama is a republican.

    “Both are deified by North Korean schools. Il and his father especially thought themselves Gods.”

    Yet they both identify as having no religion.

    “Mengele was a Catholic like Hitler.”

    Mengele was raised in a catholic home, but he abandoned all Catholic teachings later in life. He broke nearly every catholic law and doctrine. Instead of loving others and being kind and loving to others as Jesus taught, Mengele took pleasure in torturing his neighbors and murdered many of them(thus breaking the anti murder law in Exodus 20:13). He also broke the catholic doctrine written in Pope Gregory the Great’s 598 Bull which states that Christians must protect Jews. Saying that Mengele is a catholic is like saying Hitler was a Jew and Stalin was a humanitarian.

    “Pol Pot is another who probably wasn’t an atheist but was more likely to be a Buddhist – a Therevada Buddhist specifically – he was certainly raised as one.”

    But there is little evidence to support the claim that he was a Buddhist. Few Buddhists worship the one true god and try to follow all his morals, unless they are Christian or Jewish Buddhists.

    Committing murder is a sin, and Catholics repent if they commit that or any sin, which is proof that Salvador Sánchez Cerén is not a catholic due to the fact that he is has never tried to repent for his crimes. He calls himself a catholic, most likely to help his public image, but in private he is most likely an atheist like Mussolini.

    Christopher Hitchens is under the delusion that many of the Nazis(and people like them) were Catholics simply because they were raised to be catholic. He is too delusional to realize that a person cannot be a catholic unless they strive to follow catholic moral teachings.

    A person cannot be a democrat unless he/she supports large government systems. A person cannot be a kkk member unless they are against black people. A person cannot be a catholic unless he/she strives to follow catholic moral teachings and repents when he or she breaks one of them.

  185. on 23 Dec 2014 at 9:07 am 185.TJ said …

    To freddie,

    you wrote…
    “Of course Hitler was a Catholic but let’s not have facts getting in the way of a good rant about atheists.
    “2. The torcher and murder of over six million Jews by Hitler.”
    I assume you mean torture? Hitler’s still a Catholic though.”

    Weren’t you raised under the influence or religion? Didn’t you go to Sunday school?

    By your own reasoning you should not be an atheist?

  186. on 23 Dec 2014 at 4:07 pm 186.Anonymous said …

    So, it appears the theists here have once again restored to the Reductio ad Hitlerum.
    How sad, and predictable. I refuse to argue with idiots.
    Bye.

  187. on 23 Dec 2014 at 4:07 pm 187.freddies_dead said …

    192.TJ said …

    quote from #173
    “This again? And of course everything BEGINS to exist but we’ll just assert that there’s something that didn’t … then, for no real reason, we’ll call that barely asserted thing “God”.”

    “Does this imply that matter itself has a beginning?”

    Sarcasm doesn’t come across well on the web. I was merely pointing out … again … the special pleading inherent in the cosmological argument which makes the claim that “everything that BEGINS to exist must have a cause” … but then we’ll just say one thing didn’t BEGIN to exist and call it God … without any real reasoning. That argument does, in essence, suggest that existence has a beginning but Objectivism rejects that idea because the concept of non-existence does not refer to anything. It’s only use is as an abstraction used to say what things aren’t. Time is a measurement (of change). It therefore requires the existence of things that change. As such time is within existence, not the other way around. This means that the concept of existence coming into being at some point in time is self-contradictory – it requires there to be time before anything exists i.e. when there are no things that change.

    “Did I misunderstand your logical conclusion that matter has always existed in one form or another?”

    Nope.

    Quoted from #175

    “It’s actually a logical conclusion based on the self-evident axioms. However, if you have objective evidence that consciousness gave rise to matter then I’d be interested to hear it.”

    “What evidence do you have that matter gave rise to consciousness?”

    The self evident axioms and the metaphysical primacy of existence are the initial basis. Existence exists independently of consciousness. To be conscious is to be conscious *of* something. Something must first exist in order for there to be something to be conscious of. There is no evidence that consciousness has always existed and much that shows that it is instead an attribute of a certain type of existent i.e. living organsisms.

    “Based on the self evident axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity you logically conclude that matter pre-existed and thus gave rise to consciousness?”

    Along with the metaphysical primacy of existence and the fact that consciousness is biological, yes.

    “Surly if consciousness and matter cannot be denied because their existence is self evident, then how can you claim that this somehow proves either gave rise to the other?”

    It’s not merely the fact of their existence but also the fact that consciousness is an attribute of biological organisms.

    “The Bible does not claim that God created from nothing.”

    The general consensus is that God created ex-nihilo, anything else isn’t really an act of creation it’s merely a re-ordering. However, if you’re happy to say that God did not create and that there was something that existed co-eternally with God then that invalidates the cosmological argument and leaves us wondering why we need God at all?

    “Nor does it claim that God was purely consciousness only.”

    Then tell us what else it claims God *is* because all we usually get is what He isn’t.

    “God claims that he exists.”

    No, the Bible claims to be the Word of God and then says that God claims that He exists.

    “He has a specific nature.”

    His nature is said to be infinite (infinitely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable etc…). The infinite by its very nature isn’t specific.

    “That his natural state is formless.”

    This also doesn’t tell us what God *is*, only what He isn’t.

    “Formless does not mean consisting of nothing. Instead God claims to consist of unlimited power and knowledge of all things knowable.”

    Once more, claims to be made up of infinite power and knowledge are by definition non-specific. What exactly does God consist of? How can we perceive Him?

    “We know that knowledge needs to be stored.”

    Why does it *need* to be stored? Admittedly it is convenient that it can be but, as long as we have a valid means of acquiring knowledge, then we can acquire it again and again if necessary.

    “Even though knowledge cannot be seen, nor has any tangible raw form,”

    Surely once it is stored – in books etc… – it can be seen.

    “we still need to create devices to store it, and it requires space. The human brain has the ability to store knowledge, but who can present knowledge in a raw form to be viewed independently without aid.”

    Why does it need presenting? What is wrong with us finding it for ourselves through experience?

    “Power? Is power energy? What is the form of raw energy?”

    I’m not even sure I understand the question here. Power is the rate at which work is done/energy converted. It is a measurement. And ‘raw’ energy comes in many forms.

    “Knowledge and power are what God claims to consist of.”

    How can one consist of a measurement (power)?

    “God does not claim to have created out of nothing, but to have created from and through himself.”

    Then what is God actually made of? We already know He can’t be made up of a measurement (power) and He’d need to consist of *something* in order to have not created out of nothing. What is that *something*?

    “If we look at the universe we see that all things simultaneously consist of energy and information.”

    They also all have a physical manifestation whether it be magnetic forces or the chemical bonds that make up a cell.

    “I would assert that energy and information are inseparable. That they do not require form to simply exist.”

    And yet every time we look at energy or information they have forms (liquids, solids, gases, plasma, dna, chemical structures etc…). If you have an example of energy not having any physical characteristic at all then present it.

    “Matter however is an expression of both energy and information in a physical tangible form.”

    Energy and information also have tangible forms.

    “God claims that his consciousness, power and information are all aspects of the same thing. ie Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

    Father = consciousness, described as spirit
    Son = physical manifestation of power
    Holy Ghost = Information”

    The Bible claims that God has made these claims but it still hasn’t given us any reason to think that the God contained within it’s pages even exists.

    “When people claim to have experienced interaction with the Holy Ghost they claim to know things they cannot possibly know.”

    Such as? Is any of this miraculous knowledge verifiable as either previously unknown or even as ‘knowledge’ at all? After all, claiming to know Heaven exists after some spiritual experience isn’t what I would call ‘knowledge’.

    Quoted from #175
    “You are correct that I have consciously rejected “God” although I have rejected all gods, none of them more “especially” than any other. Also my other beliefs aren’t based on a rejection of God but instead on the embracing of reason as man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.”

    “Freddie, when I consciously, willingly and sincerely accepted Jesus as my savior I experienced the Holy Ghost just as the New Testament describes.”

    The New Testament describes various different experiences of the Holy Spirit. So just what did your experience entail? And how can I distinguish between your claimed experience of the Holy Spirit and something you may have simply imagined?

    “I have embraced the spirit of truth as another means of acquiring knowledge.”

    What does this actually mean? And how does this other ‘means’ work? Are we talking direct revelation here?

    “The spirit of truth reveals the error of illogical conclusions present in non-truths.”

    How?

    “Alex summed this up by stating I had an uncanny ability to cast doubt. This is merely the affect of interacting with the holy spirit and following Jesus’s advice to question everything.”

    Anyone can ‘question everything’. I’ve come across plenty of skeptics who do just that without claiming to be doing it because of the Holy Spirit. So what differentiates you from them and makes your questioning the ‘right’ questioning?

  188. on 23 Dec 2014 at 4:08 pm 188.freddies_dead said …

    193.the messenger said …

    “177-8.freddies_dead, in this comment I will address all of the claims you made.”

    “Ah look, messy’s back and he just couldn’t wait to give us his first baseless assertion.”

    “First of all, that was not an assertion, it is a fact proven numerous times throughout history.”

    Of course you neglected to give us even one example of your “proven fact”. The actual “fact” is that suffering and death are a part of life – it matters not which God you believe in or if you believe in no God at all, there’s a very good chance you will experience suffering at some point and a 100% chance that you will die. Hell, the Bible is rife with people suffering and dying even though they held the same Judeo/Christian beliefs you seem to think will bestow some kind of Utopia on the world.

    “Except the Athenians founded the world’s first democracy.”

    “And yet it utterly failed after less than 200 years.”

    How is this relevant? You claimed that Christianity and Judaism were the blueprint i.e. the first. That was factually incorrect.

    “Also, I meant to type “the blueprints for all forms of representative democratic government” not “the blueprints for all forms of democratic government”. My bad.”

    Still not helping as the Romans got there first with the Roman Republic set up in 509 BC.

    “It’s legal system – even now – owes much to English common law which, as Wiki notes, “derives from the 1150s and 1160s when Henry II of England established the *secular* English tribunals” (emphasis mine).”

    “Although the English common laws were secular because they did not have specific written ties to a specific religion, it’s structure (including court systems) was derived from the same format and structure as prescribed to the Jews in the bible(where witnesses and clear evidence are needed in order to condemn some one to a punishment, and where “over or equal payment” is needed in order to make amends for stealing or breaking some one else’s possessions, and a person cannot be punished for killing someone else be accident).”

    Oh dear. You should try looking up the Hammurabi code, messy. The Babylonians got there before the the Jews/Christians.

    “Wrong again. As the Treaty of Tripoli notes:
    “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;…”.”

    “Tripoli was largely Islamic, so it makes sense that the politicians of that time would have lied about America’s Christian ties in order to get the people of Tripoli to support it.”

    Lol. You don’t seem to understand what the Treaty of Tripoli was actually about. America didn’t need the support of Tripoli. It had already existed for more than 10 years. When the naval protection from Barbary privateers, undertaken originally by the British and then the French, ended in 1783 the Americans were left having to keep paying the likes of Morocco, Algiers, Tripoli and Tunis for the safety of it’s ships. They decided it would be far better to get everything made official and stop it happening. The Americans included that statement to allay the fears of the Muslims, to let them know that they would be treated with as a sovereign state not a religious power. America may have been founded largely by Christians but it’s overriding concern was to allow religious freedom. To do that they tried to make sure that government was secular and not founded on any one set of religions teachings or morality.

    “PS, Merry Christmas Fred.”

    And a Merry Christmas to you too messy.

  189. on 23 Dec 2014 at 4:09 pm 189.freddies_dead said …

    194.the messenger said …

    178.freddies_dead,

    “Actually Communism and Socialism are the skeletal structures of Communism and Socialism.”

    “That statement is so stupid its funny.”

    Not at all, Communism is generally atheistic. Atheism is simply not communistic. You’re trying to put the cart before the horse. As for Socialism, it is neither atheistic or theistic. There are secular socialist governments (Sweden is secular and run by a largely socialist government) and there are socialist governments in religious countries (Spain is Catholic and run by a largely socialist government).

    “Lol, the founders of socialism were mostly religious. The likes of Henri de Saint-Simon and Charles Fourier.”

    “I am not talking about political theorists, I am talking about political leaders, meaning someone who holds or held a political office(like Hitler or Stalin).”

    Well Hitler’s still Catholic but then he was a fascist not a socialist. Then there’s Hugo Chavez (Venezuela) – a Catholic. Former Australian leader Kevin Rudd – Christian. Former British Prime Ministers Tony Blair – Catholic and Gordon Brown – Christian. You have to remember messy that Socialism is not necessarily Communism. And lets not forget that you claimed *every* socialist and Communist leader was athiest – factually incorrect as usual messy.

    “Apart from being fictional, God is alleged to have committed genocide and His Word allows slavery and rape to go unpunished so it’s hardly a surprise that we’d look for a better morality.”

    “GOD did not commit genocide.”

    Because he’s fictional, yes. However, it is alleged that He killed everything on earth bar 8 people and a handful of animals, that cannot be called anything other than a genocide. He is also alleged to have ordered the slaughter of the Cannaanites, that also cannot be called anything other than a genocide. These actions were said to be carried out by your God or under His direct orders. Your God, if He existed, would be, by any reasonable definition, guilty of genocide.

    “GOD only killed bad people, such as pagans(including the philistines)(the ones that murdered virgins and children) or sodomites(that raped people for fun).”

    He either carried out or ordered the slaughter of everyone; men, women, children and animals. Are you suggesting the Canaanite children “murdered virgins” or were “sodomites”? Your God kills indiscriminately.

    “The laws of GOD allowed slavery in the old testament(because they were not the entire law), but it condemns slavery in the new testament(which is both half of the law together) in “2 Peter 3? where paul advises the slaver owner to let his slave free and treat him as a beloved brother.”

    Ah, yes. The New Testament. How about we see what Rabbi M.J. Raphall said about the NT and slavery back in 1861:

    “Receiving slavery as one of the conditions of society, the New Testament nowhere interferes with or contradicts the slave code of Moses; it even preserves a letter [to Philemon] written by one of the most eminent Christian teachers [Paul] to a slave owner on sending back to him his runaway slave.”

    What about Jesus then? Surely He condemned it personally?

    Luke 12:42-48: “42The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers. 47″The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”

    Yup, the NT is totally condemning slavery right there by advocating sending back runaway slaves and pointing out how they should be cut to pieces or beaten.

    “GOD also does punish rapist, like when he destroyed the sodomites for committing countless sins(including the attempted RAPE of two angels that GOD sent into Sodom).”

    I like the way he punishes rapists by forcing their victims to have to marry them … oh, wait, that’s more a punishment for the rape victim isn’t it? And I like how there’s no punishment at all if no-one catches them at it or the woman doesn’t shout loud enough – what? God can’t see or hear them now?

    “Of course Hitler was a Catholic but let’s not have facts getting in the way of a good rant about atheists.”

    “Hitler was raised in a partially catholic home, but he abandoned all Catholic teaching when he became a Nazi.”

    Lol, where is your evidence for this? It certainly can’t be in Hitler’s own words wherein he talks of an “almighty creator” or his actions, like his failure to offically leave the Catholic church.

    “He broke nearly every catholic law and doctrine.”

    In that respect he was no different to the God you claim exists. And, presumably, if he put his trust in Jesus, he’s now in Heaven despite having killed millions.

    “Instead of loving others as Jesus taught, Hitler hated his neighbors and murdered millions of them(thus also breaking the anti murder law in Exodus 20:13). He also broke the catholic doctrine written in Pope Gregory the Great’s 598 Bull which states that Christians must protect Jews. Saying that Hitler is a catholic is like saying Obama is a republican.”

    No, saying that Hitler is a Catholic is to state the simple fact that he never formally left the Church and claimed to be fulfilling the will of the Christian God (Mein Kampf). You should stop with the no true Scotsman fallacy.

    “Both are deified by North Korean schools. Il and his father especially thought themselves Gods.”

    “Yet they both identify as having no religion.”

    Yes, because seeing yourself as God is totally atheistic.

    “Mengele was a Catholic like Hitler.”

    “Mengele was raised in a catholic home, but he abandoned all Catholic teachings later in life. He broke nearly every catholic law and doctrine. Instead of loving others and being kind and loving to others as Jesus taught, Mengele took pleasure in torturing his neighbors and murdered many of them(thus breaking the anti murder law in Exodus 20:13). He also broke the catholic doctrine written in Pope Gregory the Great’s 598 Bull which states that Christians must protect Jews. Saying that Mengele is a catholic is like saying Hitler was a Jew and Stalin was a humanitarian.”

    And once more you offer no evidence other than a no true Scotsman appeal. Breaking the commandments is no barrier to still being a Catholic. As I noted with Hitler, he is no different from your God in this respect. Mengele also made it a point to say he was a “strict Catholic” whenever it had to be noted on official forms.

    “Pol Pot is another who probably wasn’t an atheist but was more likely to be a Buddhist – a Therevada Buddhist specifically – he was certainly raised as one.”

    “But there is little evidence to support the claim that he was a Buddhist.”

    If you ignore where he wrote “the democratic regime will bring back the Buddhist moralism because our great leader Buddha was the first to have taught [democracy]”

    “Few Buddhists worship the one true god and try to follow all his morals, unless they are Christian or Jewish Buddhists.”

    Irrelevant. Worshipping any God, regardless of whether you believe it’s “the one true God” means he was not an atheist as you originally asserted.

    “Committing murder is a sin, and Catholics repent if they commit that or any sin, which is proof that Salvador Sánchez Cerén is not a catholic due to the fact that he is has never tried to repent for his crimes.”

    No true Scotsman fallacy. When did God repent for His genocides?

    “He calls himself a catholic, most likely to help his public image, but in private he is most likely an atheist like Mussolini.”

    Yes, Mussolini the atheist who didn’t actually commit any atrocities, the kind of atrocities you have tried (and failed) to pin specifically on atheism.

    “Christopher Hitchens is under the delusion that many of the Nazis(and people like them) were Catholics simply because they were raised to be catholic. He is too delusional to realize that a person cannot be a catholic unless they strive to follow catholic moral teachings.”

    No true Scotsman fallacy.

    “A person cannot be a democrat unless he/she supports large government systems.”

    Because of course the only democrats that exist are the ones in America, so every democrat must automatically support the system proposed specifically by the Democratic Party of the United States.

    “A person cannot be a kkk member unless they are against black people.”

    Oh dear. If only one of the leaders of the KKK (John Abarr) hadn’t decided to start trying to recruit black people (along with Jews and homosexuals).

    “A person cannot be a catholic unless he/she strives to follow catholic moral teachings and repents when he or she breaks one of them.”

    It all depends on whether you believe you are breaking those rules. Neither Hitler nor Mengele believed that they were. Worse still, they believed they were fulfilling their destiny as set out by God. You’re just trotting out the no true Scotsman fallacy when you deny this.

    Any luck on finding an atheist leader who actually killed in the name of atheism by the way?

  190. on 23 Dec 2014 at 4:17 pm 190.Anonymous said …

    Hmm Hmm Hmm

  191. on 23 Dec 2014 at 4:19 pm 191.freddies_dead said …

    195.TJ said …

    “To freddie,

    you wrote…”
    “Of course Hitler was a Catholic but let’s not have facts getting in the way of a good rant about atheists.
    “2. The torcher and murder of over six million Jews by Hitler.”
    I assume you mean torture? Hitler’s still a Catholic though.”

    “Weren’t you raised under the influence or religion? Didn’t you go to Sunday school?”

    My initial upbringing was mostly secular – neither my mother nor father were overtly religious. In fact I still have no real idea whether they believe or not – my mother maybe, my father more likely not. My early schooling was also mostly non-religious. The school was nominally “Church of England” but we rarely if ever discussed religion and there was no Sunday School. However, my grandmother was a Catholic and she was more open about her beliefs although I ended up dismissing them as being illogical quite early on. In fact it wasn’t until I went to senior school that I was really exposed to religion on a larger scale. I went to a Catholic school and was expected to attend mass and confession. This only reinforced my conclusion that religion made little to no sense and I spent most of my religious education classes arguing about Biblical contradictions and other illogical religious details with the teacher.

    “By your own reasoning you should not be an atheist?”

    Why? My reasoning is that Hitler was raised Catholic, never officially left the church and continued to espouse a belief in God throughout his life. It makes little sense to consider him anything other than a Catholic in that context. However, if he’d come out and denied the existence of God(s) or officially renounced his Catholicism I would happily concede that he wasn’t one.

  192. on 23 Dec 2014 at 4:31 pm 192.The A-Athiest said …

    In reply to ‘My Brain Is So Insignificant That I Am Anonymous’

    Santa Clause is a myth a story told to primarily to children and to people in for kicks who need to take a ‘break’ from reality.

    The Gospel message is a vital and fearfully necessary story to to persons of an age of understanding about a necessarily fearfully powerful God. Santa Clause’s powers are unsubstantiated and even if their were true they are to be derived in the person, power, authority and will of Almighty God.

    A made up God is a made up God: we acknowledge that truth because it frees us to believe in the unmade God the God of Gods who made up all other things…

    We should never think that imagination is bad, imagination is a necessary faculty for mental life even for operative evolution.

    Perception is the intersection of the senses, the state of being and the imagination and the projected assumption.

    We never have the perceived object in our minds we have light rays and auditory vibrations reaching our retina and auditory center.

    The God recorded as seen in the old testament not different from Jesus though to a higher degree than jesus was also the intersection of the senses with the God consciousness. Yet the truth and messages communicated of him are not necessarily inaccurate.

    Remember it is God we are talking about.

    I see we are going to have to enslave you athiests for a few generations and indoctrinate you at the point of the sword and the flay of the whip untill you come around to a better understanding.

    :(

    History is full of stories of people who searched for the omnipresent master and found him while some turned their back on him and lost him, withered, died and perished becoming as nothing.

  193. on 23 Dec 2014 at 4:39 pm 193.The Darker Creator of Dark Matter said …

    O God Killed People. He is so bad. Am I missing some thing here?

    The farmer reaped all his crops.

    The farmer killed all his pigs.

    The puppeteer got the rid of his old puppets which were not profitable to his work.

    The house holder put their rubbish in the bin.

    What am I missing here? What part of God has absolute authority over his creation has athiesm blinded you from understanding?

  194. on 23 Dec 2014 at 5:24 pm 194.Anonymous said …

    What’s wrong with Hitler?

    What’s wrong with killing a few Jews?

    You are the guys supposed to be opening the mind.

    I actually think that Hitler was a very cool guy.

    I actually think that Hitler was a tool of justice in the Hand of our worshipful creator.

    God did promise to deal harshly with the jews and to wreak wrath on an errant world establishment.

  195. on 23 Dec 2014 at 5:26 pm 195.Anonymous said …

    Similarly in the foreseeable future God will send a vicious dictatorial destroyer to put all atheists in there place and I will be behind that person one hundred percent and more.

    Every day I pray that God will hasten his Armageddon and I am will prepared and remain consummately preparative and enlisted in prosecuting that war.

  196. on 23 Dec 2014 at 11:00 pm 196.Anonymous said …

    Hmmm, Hmmm, Hmmm

  197. on 23 Dec 2014 at 11:08 pm 197.Anonymous said …

    Now look here you little Athiest, You desolation of Abominations.

    I am God’s last servant I am the matrix of ultimate death.

    Jesus Christ is the son of God and he is God.

    Out of nothing doesn’t come some thing out of nothing infinite potential comes everything.

    When Jesus died on the Cross God died. And Total Death ensued.

    That was the weakness of God. But the weakness of god is stronger than the strength of men 1 Corinthians 1:25.

    Out of total death come forth new life like out of nothing came forth everything. Existence is a dynamic that can be reduced beyond zero so too, time and life/death.

    No life existed that could stop the reviving of Christ.

    Therefore it happened.

    However every hero has an evil twin and I am the matrix of second death that became an irrepressible dynamic of death approach the cross unworthily and you meet me I am equal to your delete from the recycle bin button on your computer zappo pop goes the athiest.

  198. on 23 Dec 2014 at 11:13 pm 198.Nice one santa said …

    Thanks santa

    The athiest took their bunch of test tubes, spatulas, microscopes, bunch of chemicals, atoms etc into the lab and tried to make something out of nothing

    That’s funny they shot them selves in the foot right there.

    It looks bad think they going to have to amputate it.

    Ho Ho Ho best laugh I’ve had think I have a gift to treasure.

  199. on 23 Dec 2014 at 11:23 pm 199.Anonymous said …

    Heil Hitler

    Hail The Next World Dictator

    Hail The Destruction of God’s End-A-Thems

  200. on 23 Dec 2014 at 11:36 pm 200.The Darker Creater of Dark Matter said …

    Auto-Bio-Genesis and similar concepts do not mean that there is not an apriori or supra or eternal system at work atomatic does not mean without all else it does not exclude the eternal.

  201. on 24 Dec 2014 at 12:20 am 201.The Darker Creater of Dark Matter said …

    All you Guys are racist.

    False Christians, Athiests, Humanist, Darwinist All projecting different parts of the White New-World-Oppression.

    You are all wost than Hitler Hitler was a rather honest chap.

    Is they say they killed him but surely they killed him not.

    It was Hitlers plan to bungle the White Supremacist Agenda just like John F Kennedy they tried to make him look bad.

    It was only because of his wife and blondie his dog that he fought the 2nd world war they tried to hold the people he loved to ransom.

    Just like they tried to kill god’s son and implicate him in genocide.

  202. on 24 Dec 2014 at 12:27 am 202.Anonymous said …

    You guys ever tried smoking dope and reading an athiest website.

    Guaranteed to blow your motherf_ _ king minds.

    God’s mind on dope is is less botched up than planet earth.

    Merry Xmaccc

  203. on 24 Dec 2014 at 12:29 am 203.Anonymous said …

    Try telling these motherf_ _kers I am rocking this shit with that their dope was made from nothing they would not only want back their money.

    They would cut your throat for disrespect and fu_ king with their minds.

    Put your blood in the bong and smoke your f_ ck_ _g haemoglobin.

  204. on 24 Dec 2014 at 12:40 am 204.Anonymous said …

    WAAAAAA Haaaa Haaaaa Ha

    What are you doing to our minds??????????????

  205. on 24 Dec 2014 at 12:42 am 205.Bounty Killa said …

    You athiest match my childhood memories of Xmas and I give you a fleeting consideration.

  206. on 24 Dec 2014 at 2:09 am 206.the messenger said …

    191.freddies_dead,

    “Of course you neglected to give us even one example of your “proven fact”. The actual “fact” is that suffering and death are a part of life – it matters not which God you believe in or if you believe in no God at all, there’s a very good chance you will experience suffering at some point and a 100% chance that you will die. Hell, the Bible is rife with people suffering and dying even though they held the same Judeo/Christian beliefs you seem to think will bestow some kind of Utopia on the world.”

    In biblical times only a small group known as the Hebrews(aka Jews)and a few gentiles actually held the Christian Jewish beliefs, and also humanity is flawed(that’s why their wasn’t a utopia on earth). The utopia on earth will start once the messianic age begins, and will continue forever once we all go to heaven.

    GOD gave us the morals and teachings of the bible so that we can build the closest thing to a utopia, a society where most people strive to show love and kindness towards one another and where forgiveness, love, humility and kindness will be exalted.

  207. on 24 Dec 2014 at 2:41 am 207.the messenger said …

    Fred, face it, you can’t be a Catholic if you don’t strive to follow catholic morals and teachings.

    Just because a person is raised as a catholic does not mean that the person is a catholic for life.

    A catholic is a person that strives to follow catholic morals and teachings, and strives to make amends if they break those moral teachings.

    None of the people that you claimed to be catholic were catholics because they did not strive to follow catholic morals and teachings.

  208. on 24 Dec 2014 at 3:26 am 208.the messenger said …

    Fred, Hitler and Mengele were savage self absorbed murderers. They did not follow the Catholic teachings of love and kindness, and they showed nothing but hatred to our Jewish brothers and sisters. They delighted in murder and torture, and they died the deaths of a cowards.

    I pity them(I don’t hate them, because GOD teaches that hatred of other humans is wrong). They were once a catholics, but they abandoned all ties to Catholicism when they became a Nazis, and gave in to their own personal greed and his hatred of anyone that they felt superior to.

    Catholicism teaches that we were all created equally by GOD(which is one of the core teachings in the US constitution, along with GOD given rights).

  209. on 24 Dec 2014 at 11:16 am 209.Anonymous said …

    Hitler is not dead.

    Hitler lives and rules and reigns.

    Hitler abideth and liveth for ever.

    You will meet him on the day of destiny once again.

    Burn all your books that declares our furore dead.

  210. on 24 Dec 2014 at 11:18 am 210.Anonymous said …

    Have mercy on us oh Hitler in the day when thou shall pour out the final vial of the wrath of God.

  211. on 24 Dec 2014 at 11:26 am 211.The Darker Creater of Dark Matter said …

    HI GUYS

    I AM PLAYING COUNT DOWN.

    CAN I BORROW ONE OF THOSE 6’S ON YOUR FOREHEAD

    I NEED TO MAKE UP A REALLY BIG NUMBER

  212. on 24 Dec 2014 at 2:56 pm 212.The Darker Creater of Dark Matter said …

    Kill the false Christians God.
    Kill the false Muslims God.
    Kill those Boko Haram guys God.
    Kill they who say they are Jews and do lie.
    Kill the humanist God.
    Kill the Athiest God.
    Kill the Slave Masters God.
    Kill the Colonisers God.
    Kill the Neo-Colonialist God.
    Kill the Band-Wagonists.
    Kill the Prospeirity Gospelers God.
    Kill the mindless God.
    Kill the Souless God.
    Kill the Rich Fat-Cats who oppress the poor God.
    Kill the Lying Politicians God.
    Kill the Lying Lawyers God.
    Kill the Skeemers and the Plotters God.
    Kill the peodaphile priests God.
    Kill the thiefing Pastors God.
    Kill em, Kill em, Kill em, Kill em Kill em allllll…

  213. on 25 Dec 2014 at 12:46 am 213.THE GOD WITH THE GOLDEN GUN said …

    BLAM!
    BLAM!
    BLAM!
    BLAM BLAM BLAM

    BLAM YOU ATHIEST YOU

    BLAM YOU HEATEN YOU

    BLAM YOU PAGAN

    BLAM YOU DEVIL WORSHIPER

    BLAM HUMANIST

    BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM AGNOSTIC BASTARD DID’NT SEE MY SON THERE DID YUH FUCK YOU THINK I GAVE YOU EYES?

    BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM ATHIEST ASSHOLE DON’T EXIST DON’T I?

    BLAM BLAM SODOMITE

    BLAM BLAM BLAM AMALAKITE BASTARD

    BLAM BLAM BLAM SHOW YOU WHAT I DO TO EGYPTIANS

    BLAM BLAM BLAM UNBELIEVER WHY YOU THINNK I SENT MISSIONARIES, PASTORS, AND EVANGELIST?

    BLAM PEODAPHILE PRIEST TRYING TO JEAPORDISE MY REPUTATION ARE YOU?

  214. on 25 Dec 2014 at 12:56 am 214.THE GOD WITH THE GOLDEN GUN said …

    I MEAN BLAM

    RATIONALISER, MIRACLE DEBUNKER WHO DON’T UNDERSTAND MY PERFECT MYSTERIES

    BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM

    SWU

  215. on 25 Dec 2014 at 11:25 am 215.2bright02befueled said …

    Even if you don’t have a eternal god before time you wont have time before God for by necessity God must be as old as time think about it.

    Even if you don’t have life before life, death before life by necessity is meaniningless to us think about it.

  216. on 26 Dec 2014 at 1:09 pm 216.2bright02befueled said …

    In such a case though such death would only be a building block for life and would be a vital ingredient for life.

    I hope you appreciate my intellectual miracles.

  217. on 26 Dec 2014 at 1:12 pm 217.2bright02befueled said …

    Whether life comprises of just life or a combination of life and death it is still… ?

    Whether God comprises of just life or a combination of life and death he is still… ?

  218. on 26 Dec 2014 at 1:14 pm 218.2bright02befueled said …

    And an intellectual tool is not the same as the truth itself.

    It is the truth itself that we allude to.

    Yet more the truth of God. The truth of our salvation.

    Big blessing to all the Christians who have held their own holding out against the blasphemous teachings of modern day athiesm.

    Thanks :)

  219. on 26 Dec 2014 at 1:16 pm 219.2bright02befueled said …

    Yet more hellfire to All False Christians as judgement must begin at he house hold of God.

    Let them not offend the baby in the truth of God who needs freedom, space to know God and to know goodness to know the path to life and to eternal life.

  220. on 27 Dec 2014 at 4:11 am 220.the messenger said …

    Fred, if Hitler and the Nazis were Catholics then why did so many Catholics fight against him?

    Many Catholics fought against the atheistic regime of the Nazis. Here are some examples.

    1. Hugh O’Flaherty

    2. Clemens August Graf von Galen

    3. Konrad von Preysing

    4. Josef Frings

    5. Erich Klausener

    6. Alfred Delp

    7. Edith Stein

    8. Jules-Géraud Saliège

    9. Irena Sendlerowa

    10. Claus von Stauffenberg

  221. on 29 Dec 2014 at 2:30 pm 221.freddies_dead said …

    216.the messenger said …

    191.freddies_dead,

    “Of course you neglected to give us even one example of your “proven fact”. The actual “fact” is that suffering and death are a part of life – it matters not which God you believe in or if you believe in no God at all, there’s a very good chance you will experience suffering at some point and a 100% chance that you will die. Hell, the Bible is rife with people suffering and dying even though they held the same Judeo/Christian beliefs you seem to think will bestow some kind of Utopia on the world.”

    In biblical times only a small group known as the Hebrews(aka Jews)and a few gentiles actually held the Christian Jewish beliefs, and also humanity is flawed(that’s why their wasn’t a utopia on earth). The utopia on earth will start once the messianic age begins, and will continue forever once we all go to heaven.

    GOD gave us the morals and teachings of the bible so that we can build the closest thing to a utopia, a society where most people strive to show love and kindness towards one another and where forgiveness, love, humility and kindness will be exalted.

    So your original claim that “… without Judeo/Christian beliefs we would all be suffering and dead.” should actually read “… with or without Judeo/Christian beliefs we would all be suffering and dead.”. The simple fact is that suffering and death happen regardless of what anyone believes, hopes, wishes etc…

  222. on 29 Dec 2014 at 2:30 pm 222.freddies_dead said …

    217.the messenger said …

    Fred, face it, you can’t be a Catholic if you don’t strive to follow catholic morals and teachings.

    But the good thing about religion is that it doesn’t matter if you fail. That’s the whole point of redemption, you can simply repent and carry on.

    Just because a person is raised as a catholic does not mean that the person is a catholic for life.

    True, but if they never renounce their Catholicism and continue to espouse the existence of a God why should we call them something else?

    A catholic is a person that strives to follow catholic morals and teachings, and strives to make amends if they break those moral teachings.

    This is the “no true Scotsman fallacy” and, as I said, you can fail, repent and carry on. So regardless of what anyone may have done they can still consider themselves/be considered a Catholic.

    None of the people that you claimed to be catholic were catholics because they did not strive to follow catholic morals and teachings.

    No, they were Catholics because they were raised Catholic, never renounced their Catholic faith, called themselves Catholic (Mengele) and continued to espouse a belief in God. Their actions are irrelevant as they could simply repent and be forgiven for their sins if necessary. However, as I’ve already pointed out, both Hitler and Mengele actually believed (or at least said they did) that they were doing God’s work. As far as they were concerned they were following Catholic morals and teachings as they interpreted them. That’s why religions are useless sources of morality, they can be interpreted pretty much any way you want, to absolve any crime imaginable. When your God commits genocide and it gets called “good” then there’s no reason to think you can’t do the same.

  223. on 29 Dec 2014 at 2:31 pm 223.freddies_dead said …

    218.the messenger said …

    Fred, Hitler and Mengele were savage self absorbed murderers.

    A lot like the God they claimed to follow as portrayed in the Bible then.

    They did not follow the Catholic teachings of love and kindness,

    No they followed the teachings of hate and genocide that reside in the same book.

    and they showed nothing but hatred to our Jewish brothers and sisters.

    Like God showed hatred to the Canaanite brothers and sisters.

    They delighted in murder and torture, and they died the deaths of a cowards.

    God’s genocides are called good and just too.

    I pity them(I don’t hate them, because GOD teaches that hatred of other humans is wrong).

    He also teaches that it’s OK to exterminate anyone you don’t like as long as you can interpret a reason out of your holy text.

    They were once a catholics, but they abandoned all ties to Catholicism when they became a Nazis, and gave in to their own personal greed and his hatred of anyone that they felt superior to.

    You can tell yourself that all you want but what you want, demand, believe etc… has no effect on reality and they remain Catholics.

    Catholicism teaches that we were all created equally by GOD(which is one of the core teachings in the US constitution, along with GOD given rights).

    Everyone’s equal … except for women … and slaves … and people who aren’t Catholics. Yup, everyone’s equal alright.

  224. on 29 Dec 2014 at 2:32 pm 224.freddies_dead said …

    230.the messenger said …

    Fred, if Hitler and the Nazis were Catholics then why did so many Catholics fight against him?

    I didn’t say that the Nazis were all Catholics although some – like Hitler and Mengele – were. Of course this is just another little foible of religion. You can interpret it pretty much any way you want and then claim that your interpretation is the right interpretation and anyone who disagrees with you on some part of doctrine is obviously not a true [insert relevant religion here]. For a contemporary example ISIS are currently fighting people they don’t consider to be “true muslims” because of a disagreement on certain interpretations of doctrine.

    Many Catholics fought against the atheistic regime of the Nazis. Here are some examples.

    Lol, Nazism arose in a country that was (in 1933) almost 100% Christian. Most of the Nazi party’s members were either Lutheran Evangelicals, members of the Nazi inspired Positive Christianity sect or Catholics. It has even been mooted that Nazism is a “political religion”, but hey, they don’t fit your narrow definition of what a Catholic must be so they must be atheists.

    1. Hugh O’Flaherty

    2. Clemens August Graf von Galen

    3. Konrad von Preysing

    4. Josef Frings

    5. Erich Klausener

    6. Alfred Delp

    7. Edith Stein

    8. Jules-Géraud Saliège

    9. Irena Sendlerowa

    10. Claus von Stauffenberg

    And many Catholics fought on behalf of the Nazi’s (Jozef Tiso, Ante Pavelic, Alois Hudal, Miroslav Filipovic, Ivan Šaric, Ivan Guberina, Bozidas Bralo, Krunoslav Draganovic). This just proves my point i.e. that you can interpret your religious texts however you want in order to either support your intentions or deny those of others.

    Still waiting for you to give us an atheist who killed in the name of atheism btw.

  225. on 31 Dec 2014 at 11:44 am 225.WhatHappenedManyTimes said …

    I crushed a cockroach under my feet yesterday.

    Even so lord crush these evil doers under your feet.

    Even so lord crush these arrogant ones who deny your authority under your feet.

    Crush them Crush them Crush them Lord.

  226. on 31 Dec 2014 at 12:22 pm 226.WhatHappenedManyTimes said …

    Crush them in your wrath and your fierce anger but crush me Lord, with your wisdom, with your holiness,with your love, with your blessing, with your favour, with your forgiveness, with your peace, with your guidance, with your truth, with your eternal goodness, with conquest over all evil ones and over all enemies.

  227. on 31 Dec 2014 at 12:52 pm 227.WhatHappenedManyTimes said …

    RAK CHAZAK

    Crush The Enemy God

  228. on 31 Dec 2014 at 12:52 pm 228.WhatHappenedManyTimes said …

    RAK CHAZAK

    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK

    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK

    Crush The Enemy God

  229. on 31 Dec 2014 at 12:54 pm 229.WhatHappenedManyTimes said …

    RAK CHAZAK

    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK

    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK

    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK

    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK

    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK

    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK

    Crush The Enemy God

  230. on 31 Dec 2014 at 12:55 pm 230.WhatHappenedManyTimes said …

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

  231. on 31 Dec 2014 at 12:56 pm 231.WhatHappenedManyTimes said …

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

    RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

  232. on 31 Dec 2014 at 1:00 pm 232.WhatHappenedManyTimes said …

    1. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    2. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    3. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    4. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    5. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    6. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    7. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    8. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    9. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    10. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    11. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    12. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    13. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    14. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    15. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    16. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    17. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    18. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    19. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    20. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    21. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    22. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    23. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    24. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    25. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    26. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    27. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    28. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    29. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    30. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    31. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    32. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    33. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    34. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    35. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    36. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    37. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    38. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    39. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    40. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    41. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    42. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    43. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    44. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    45. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    46. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    47. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    48. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    49. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    50. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    51. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    52. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    53. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    54. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    55. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    56. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    57. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    58. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    59. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    60. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    61. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    62. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    63. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    64. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    65. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    66. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    67. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    68. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    69. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    70. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    71. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God
    72. RAK CHAZAK
    Crush The Enemy God

  233. on 31 Dec 2014 at 1:03 pm 233.WhatHappenedManyTimes said …

    God of David God of Jesus Christ.

    Break the Dirty Adulterous Whore of Babylon with your Iron Rod.

    For purposes all your own.

    For purposes you reach unto us in love.

    By Methods all your own.

    By Methods you commit unto us in love.

  234. on 31 Dec 2014 at 1:06 pm 234.Anonymous said …

    Crush them now and crush them for ever.

    Crush Babylon now and crush them for ever.

    Let none offer her credulity again.

    Let none offer her succor again.

    Let none offer her help again.

    Let none offer her praise again.

    Let none bow to her again.

    Let none serve her again.

    Let none serve her purposes again.

    Let none abide in her again.

    LORD WE LIFT UP THY NAME LORD WE LIFT UP THY WORK

    LORD WE LIFT UP THY CAUSE LORD WE LIFT UP THY PRAISE

  235. on 01 Jan 2015 at 1:43 am 235.Anonymous said …

    …… I crushed a cockroach under my feet yesterday.
    Even so lord crush these evil doers under your feet.
    Even so lord crush these arrogant ones who deny your authority under your feet.
    Crush them Crush them Crush them Lord.

    Hmmm… Crazy much, motherfucker?

  236. on 01 Jan 2015 at 9:16 pm 236.alex said …

    “Crush them Crush them Crush them Lord.”

    “Hmmm… Crazy much, motherfucker?”

    uhhmmm, xtian brand #235. of course, the dipshit, motherfucker, messenger, is the self designated xtian determinant, who designates who the the real xtians are.

    mitt romney, xtian brand #485, according to messenger’s checklist is not a real xtian. i’m wrong? go ahead and publish your xtian checklist, ya bitch ass, messenger.
    we’ll go thru it and we’ll see if mitt romney is your brand of xtian.

    barrack obama, xtian brand #225. using messenger’s checklist, is he an xtian?

    go ahead bitch. publish your xtian checklist.

  237. on 01 Jan 2015 at 11:47 pm 237.Anonymous said …

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

  238. on 01 Jan 2015 at 11:51 pm 238.Anonymous said …

    I consider Hitler That Being of Matchless Greatness to be the father of modern warfare and The Flawless Osama Bin Ladin to be the Father of Postmodern warfare.

  239. on 01 Jan 2015 at 11:54 pm 239.Anonymous said …

    What has atheism produced nothing but vermin you guy are not worth a daily meal stolen out of a rubbish bin. Truly atheism and not war is the only real scourge of existence.

  240. on 02 Jan 2015 at 12:07 am 240.Anonymous said …

    Kill an atheist in the morning, kill an atheist at noon, kill an atheist in the evening, kill an atheist in the night time too.

    He who makes time in his workout on earth and kills an atheist is and has proven himself wise, that man is and has made himself a friend of our creator and has done planet earth the highest form of public service.

  241. on 02 Jan 2015 at 12:10 am 241.Anonymous said …

    Kill an atheist when you can and fear not the deaths of the innocent in the process for they are innocent but in so doing you have rid earth of the vilest of scourge.

  242. on 02 Jan 2015 at 12:26 am 242.Anonymous said …

    How many drones do you think we need to depopulate our planet of atheist. Hate em!

  243. on 02 Jan 2015 at 12:33 am 243.Anonymous said …

    The atheists that is.

  244. on 02 Jan 2015 at 12:50 pm 244.alex said …

    “Kill an atheist in the morning, kill an atheist at noon, kill an atheist in the evening”

    kill them all and this will prove that allah exist? moron….

  245. on 02 Jan 2015 at 9:23 pm 245.Anonymous said …

    The end of atheism is death get that in your moronic atheistic brain cells.

  246. on 02 Jan 2015 at 9:26 pm 246.Anonymous said …

    Tell you who is a moron my AK47 is a moron the 9mm cartridges are morons so moronic they will eat out the few remaining brain cell atheism has left in your thick skull.

  247. on 02 Jan 2015 at 9:28 pm 247.Anonymous said …

    It will be beautiful when killing unbelievers is once again an honoured Olympic event.

  248. on 02 Jan 2015 at 9:32 pm 248.Anonymous said …

    By Olympics 2050s your carcasses will litter the Olympic stadiums and will be sung and danced over by believers dancing to Afrobeat Gospel. Your ripped out hearts and livers will also be considered halal meat.

  249. on 03 Jan 2015 at 12:55 am 249.alex said …

    “Tell you who is a moron my AK47 is a moron the 9mm cartridges are morons…”

    if your all-knowing god already know what is supposed to happen, then why are you blabbering and wishing for atheists to die?

    if makes you a moron because you’re wishing against your own god’s foretelling.

  250. on 03 Jan 2015 at 4:05 pm 250.Anonymous said …

    249.alex said …
    ““Tell you who is a moron my AK47 is a moron the 9mm cartridges are morons…”
    if your all-knowing god already know what is supposed to happen, then why are you blabbering and wishing for atheists to die?
    if makes you a moron because you’re wishing against your own god’s foretelling.”

    KNOW THIS

    ‘GOD’S WORD IS HIS BOND AND WE THE CHOSEN ARE PART OF THE ADHESIVE’

  251. on 03 Jan 2015 at 7:10 pm 251.Anoni said …

    God said, “thou shalt not kill,”
    on 02 Jan 2015 at 12:10 am 241.Anonymous said …
    “Kill an atheist when you can and fear not the deaths of the innocent in the process for they are innocent but in so doing you have rid earth of the vilest of scourge.”

    What’s wrong with this picture? Lol

  252. on 03 Jan 2015 at 8:14 pm 252.Anonymous said …

    My name is Moses I myself did not kill I only broke some adulterers neck with some large size rocks I found on the side of The Sinai mountain bussed up their heads, smashed their tissues, crushed their bones and watched their life go for a little trip out of their bodies to the other side of the universe. Back to their father the devil.

    :(

  253. on 03 Jan 2015 at 8:24 pm 253.Anonymous said …

    WISE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WISE PEOPLE DON’T JUDGE WISE PEOPLE.
    .
    WISE PEOPLE DON’T TELL OTHER WISE PEOPLE WHAT TO DO, WISE PEOPLE GET ON WITH IT.

    SO GET KILLING, KEEP KILLING AND SHUT UP.

    1 ATHIEST IN GOD’S BEAUTIFUL WORLD IS 1 TOO MANY

  254. on 04 Jan 2015 at 2:49 am 254.Timeline said …

    Our History by Years Ago – Does this really look like a “God” of a religion did this?

    13,800,000,000 (13.8 Billion) – Big Bang (Exact cause yet to be determined)

    4,500,000,000 (4.5 Billion) – Earth began formation (Think of how small Earth is compared to rest of Universe)

    3,500,000,000 (3.5 Billion) – Life on Earth began – plants before animals (Are we alone in the Universe?)

    230,000,000 (230 Million) – Dinosaurs evolved and began to roam the Earth

    65,000,000 (65 Million) – Dinosaurs became extinct (Human ancestors did not)

    200,000 – Human ancestors started to look like modern humans through evolution (Universe has been around 69,000 times longer than humans)

    50,000 – The first religions formed (How many religions have been created by humans?)

    2,000 – Christianity formed (This current popular religion formed about a person or character named Jesus that was born and a book was written)

    Present – And here we are. Advancement in Science over the last 100+ years has answered many questions with more yet to come.

    Future – How long can humans live on Earth and how long will our Sun be around? The Universe will still go on a lot longer after that.

    ————————

    If your belief system is not founded in an objective reality, you should not be making decisions that affect other people.
    -Ne

  255. on 04 Jan 2015 at 11:14 am 255.Anonymous said …

    Christianity today is a horn. It is a type of power. It is not absolute authority.

    If we say that the God of the bible does not exist they get offended. They think we are denying or insulting God. I say most modern day Christianity is an insult to God. It is not that I don’t believe in the almighty, omnipotent, pre-existent God. God for want of a better word. I feel honoured to have more letters in my name than the Gods of the 5 major religions have in theirs.

    It is like taking your baby to a fortune teller and they tell you a few traits of your baby. You feel bound by honour to make this prophesy true and you treat you baby in such a way to make what the fortune teller says right. In fact you could be insulting the potential in the baby. Most religions are an insult to the potential in the Divine, Almighty, Prime-mover without beginning and end.

    Christianity today is a lie to God’s truth, it is an insult to God’s greatness and majesty it is not even recognisable to Crusade Christianity.

  256. on 04 Jan 2015 at 12:10 pm 256.Anonymous said …

    Most Christians today and to a lesser extent Muslims possess a very dorkish mentality.

    This is an insult to the god of majesty.

    These Christians too will be slain by my sword says the God of all Majesty and Victory the Exalted.

    With more letters in his name than can fit in the typing space.

    :(

  257. on 04 Jan 2015 at 2:22 pm 257.Anonymous said …

    I have given the Athiest nuff licks on this website like I believe in God.

    But I don’t believe in God I know God.

    That said there is a difference between a belief and a belief system.

    There is a difference between a believer and a person who has a belief system.

    My Knowledge of God is a Circular Knowledge. The very fact that I can know means there is a source of all knowlege.

    That for me is God.

    Even if he doesn’t have six wings and a crown but instead two horns and a tail.

    I don’t care what colour he is or what he looks like I believe in GIVE Jack his Jacket. I worship the prime mover, the absolute whoever he is; whether he lives in hell, earth or heaven it doesn’t matter me. Things are for him? Just give him.

    THAT SAID THEIR ARE NO TWO THINGS THE SAME AND TO PROGRESS SOMETIMES ALL WE NEED TO DO IS TO PERFECTLY REPLICATE THE PASS. SOME TIMES TO ANSWER THE QUESTION WE ONLY NEED TO PERFECTLY REPLICATE THE QUESTION. A PERFECTLY REPLICATED QUESTION IS A SUBTLE ANSWER.

    I don’t believe, I have a belief system. Jesus fits in my belief system, so too Mohammed, so too Moses and on and on.

    I don’t talk about the God I believe in, but the God who fits somewhere in my belief system.

    Fact of the matter is a lot of these Christians need putting in their place.

    Good on the Atheist for that.

    But the Atheist themselves must admit that they also don’t know if there is a God or not.

    But do some reading, read all the books all the scriptures try to understand open your minds, watch ancient aliens etc the ancient civilisations were not as primitive as you think.

    Omnipotence has always existed and always will.

    We haven’t moved ahead really in that respect we were always there and will always be.

    Some of us are not as dumb as we seem.

    But everyone of us has our own lives to live and to save.

    Everyone reading this put your right index finger on your temple and say to yourself.

    ‘YOU have your own life to save so chopp chopp’

    Your left index finger if you are a right amputee.

    You! who have had someone come and bash you ‘a small hand held book’ and you have believed it – you have been suckered.

    Not by the bible basher or the koran basher but by your own neglect of academic integrity.

    The other books are out there, the libraries are out there, get on a plane and travel to the ancient sites, get your Dictaphone and walk around and do the interviews.

    Find things out and don’t come fear-mongering me on a little book you have been sold when you haven’t used your lazy minds to find out.

    Read the science books as well in as much of the spirit of science that you can afford. WITH AN OPEN MIND. TIME IS FLEETING GET UP ON IT.

  258. on 04 Jan 2015 at 4:54 pm 258.alex said …

    “I don’t believe, I have a belief system. Jesus fits in my belief system, so too Mohammed, so too Moses and on and on.”

    are you messenger’s stupid ass, half wit brother? just like the rest of the morons, you came up with your own god criteria and this includes allah and zeus and the rest of the bullshit gods?

    all the shit you’re saying is correct because you say so? this means your all knowing god gives you free will, yes? or your circular god has four corners? what else? your god is everywhere, but nowhere?

    fucktard.

  259. on 04 Jan 2015 at 5:17 pm 259.Anonymous said …

    are you messenger’s stupid ass, half wit brother? just like the rest of the morons, you came up with your own god criteria and this includes allah and zeus and the rest of the bullshit gods

    frankly i am a very old person.

    which is funny because we are all the same age as matter cannot be created or destroyed only changed from one form to another.

    i was actually around before the god clause was taken up, before the allah clause was taken up and before the zeus claus was take up before the clause to make the other bull shit clause was taken up

    maybe the illuminati clause was taken up first. and i am not talking 1776

    yes not only do all things have a common origin practically all the gods on earth have a common origin.

    and they don’t contraditc to the common man they contradict to the superior mind they all fit into the mind they all fit into the truth they all fit into the earth and they all fit into the plan of the ruling elite of which i am part.

    god does actually exist, allah does actually exist, zeus actually does exist, santa clause does actually exist, rah does actually exist, just like the 101 other gods that may be made up in planet earth by us the ruling elite to control the minds of the masses and they will all be swallowed by hungry throats hungry to swallow truth about god.

    that said zeus and the other doesn’t exist only on paper or in the imaginary but when a dream is plugged into omnipotent life force that dream comes very much alive.

    man himself is just another dream that has been plugged into omnipotent life force and he can’t get over the feeling of how real he is having a physical body having flesh does that to you

    all the shit you’re saying is correct because you say so? this means your all knowing god gives you free will, yes? or your circular god has four corners? what else? your god is everywhere, but nowhere

    yes all this shit i am saying is correct because i say so.

    free will is the most effective tool to deepen control over the mind of the common man so yes.

    the question of my god is not where is my god by how is my god it is not a question of where my god is to be found but the state of being of the place or places where my god is to be found

    yah you got me i am my god

    i always had a penchant for being called yah though it is a ego thing

    yah is not just a hebrew god though

    but the hebrew years was me in my demon personality

    there you got a full confession

    fat lot of good it is going to do you

    hell is also real

    and i can feel the primitive reptile, demon, hell creating mind starting to kick in again

    hasta la vista little athiest prick

    and yes you have to be an athiest before you decide to be god

    but i cover all my bases i am free by all conditions and convicted by none

    and it is better to tell you little nosy paparazzi guys the truth than let you find it out and think you have bested us the Elohim

    no science is ours not yours, most scientist need to sell their souls to us before they can make a groundbreaking discovery which we already made before them, just like they try to own airspace who ever heard of a human owning air space, discovering genes bull shit we made the illusion of genes you think you discovered it, monsanta owning insects, bugs and viruses you guys have got to be kidding when i am on earth i am undercover ceo of practically every where including dark matter and the blog for why won’t god heal amptuees

    suck a big long holy one

  260. on 04 Jan 2015 at 5:32 pm 260.Anonymous said …

    so now we have confessed we are suspending offensive military action

    oops one of my teeth just fell out there

    my oversoul always knows when i am lying

    waah haah haah why cant we tell them we are suspending offensive action

    yeah no more offensive action just a little hellfire to enforce our intellectual property rights and our absolute authority over blah blah blah you know the rest

  261. on 04 Jan 2015 at 6:20 pm 261.AllSeeing1 said …

    lets see if you add the 1 to the 6 and get three 7s

    or

    let’s see if you try to take away the 1 twice from the 7s to get

    yep branded

    march them off

  262. on 04 Jan 2015 at 7:04 pm 262.Anonymous said …

    and less i dishearten any of you christians

    yes jesus is the only way to me

    sort of like my no disturb sign went up 2000 yrs ago

    or jesus the son of mary mary the mother of god, jesus the brother of james

    friend of little children

    doesn’t mean i don’t have modern day projects like haile selassie or eliah elias ess

    even old koresh

    those guys made a nice bon fire to show burnt offerings still tingles the nostrils some things never change

    good old osama I was wondering how to kick off the new mellenium in a fairly exciting way don’t want to bore the kids into living the secular superhumans more than the religious super humans

    tight ass super man

    yeah i made super man doesn’t mean you should play with him on sundays we need to bring back the blue laws

    so i have explained all this in ways that even a mnoron like balaam would understand

    and balaam is stupider than a donkey if you know what i mean

    no i am not drunk when i am on earth i observe a strict nazarite code

    nice one

  263. on 04 Jan 2015 at 7:05 pm 263.Anonymous said …

    and no olumba olumba obu didn’t really die

    he just vanished

    love those sermons

  264. on 04 Jan 2015 at 7:22 pm 264.Anonymous said …

    Now bugger off while I work out end of the world dates for schiziphrenic christians freaks to come up with.

    For people who believe in the Newtonian world as you know the quantum universe doesn’t have a beginning or an end.

    Quantum!!!!!!!

    Where do I get these ideas?

    And if any of this sounds evil just blame it on my longstanding friend and trusty associate none other than the Charming and Excellent Satan.

    He won’t mind.

    He’ll have too much fun watching non-believers burn for ever in the ever hot hell.

    What you think I need a bunch of athiest, who refuse to prostrate them selves running all over my renewed and replenished soon to be unveiled earth.

    Doing things my childlike sheep followers should never be exposed to.

    You must be kidding

    I am also preparing a study for Christian Scientist not Christian Scientist

    Which will reck you little athiest world when it proves that believing actually adds a new dimension to the brain effectively giving you a brain twice the size or brain cells which are twice as agile as their moron athiest counterparts

    Yes I sent that loser darwin but my serpent swallowed his whole a just in case experiment in supernatural selection i was working on

    just wanted a sure way of being selected in just in case my chosen thing didn’t work you know the election thing which makes everything right

    darwin was just there to keep me fit

    did i tell you i am a fitness freek….

  265. on 04 Jan 2015 at 7:26 pm 265.Anonymous said …

    I also penned most of the classics and the fairy tales you may have noticed some similarities to the gospel

    And lots more which even if the IT revolution continues to expand at an exponential rate I won’t even be able to relate to you in the next 2000 years even if it was concise as they come and used up every GB of infomation space

    So long Chaps and nice roasting in hell if you don’t accept my son

    I call him my son there all my sons like they say

    but jesus was a real charmer

    even though he is eternal and always existed we ran him through Mary who was a channel of our piece to have him born

    in a manger

    my idea

  266. on 04 Jan 2015 at 7:35 pm 266.Anonymous said …

    Maybe it is just because of Mariama that I am confessing why did i ever let a 13yr old jewish girl get so much influence over me

    boo hoo hoo hoo

  267. on 04 Jan 2015 at 7:58 pm 267.Anonymous said …

    We need you on Armaggedeon rehearsals Mariama

    Mary you are back on our Heavenly Government Assassination Programn

    Report to us Jesus I need to tell you exactly how I want you to dispose of these troublesome Athiests.

    David I will call on you, you can tie up the lose ends.

  268. on 04 Jan 2015 at 8:29 pm 268.Anonymous said …

    If you get cooked in hell for an eternity for rebelling against the world’s first God.

    What do you think you get for rebelling against the world’s first athiest?

    Smart Ass.

  269. on 05 Jan 2015 at 4:38 am 269.Anonymous said …

    Heaven is my Country. It is a Wonderful Nation. And a much better place.

    New Jerusalem is a beautiful world.

    It is the most healthy, liberal, democratic organ in the free world of today do you perceive it? It is also the leader of nations tomorrow, surely, although we admit of no competition.

    In New Jerusalem our beloved king forsakes and abhors all forms of domination and force but as the our beloved prince of love, grace, mercy and prosperity he rules strictly with an iron rod of reason and rationality alone, along with loving nature, pleasantness and a good laugh from time to time.

    Due to tradition Gospel Meetings remain an integral part of our introduction our first port of call in the ‘naturalisation’ process :)

    Come to the Gospel meetings they are your ticket to New Jerusalem: you will love it there.

    I have faith in you you will make it.

    Good security. Goodness Gracious; New Jerusalem.

  270. on 05 Jan 2015 at 3:04 pm 270.freddies_dead said …

    I’d like to thank the poster posting as Anonymous (along with AllSeeing1, Anoni and most likely WhatHappenedManyTimes) for showing us just how belief in God can turn someone into a babbling moron.

    I’d call bullshit but, as Poe’s law states, it’s nigh on impossible to tell whether he’s serious or simply taking the piss.

  271. on 05 Jan 2015 at 8:06 pm 271.Anonymous said …

    No this is not Poes law. I am not an extremist. Extremist about what? I am more like an eternal, universal and consummately evil being before I invented the organ god, my son/his son Jesus the mother of God Mary. Evil about what. Yeah I was good too not going to let anyone best me on that. I am a law unto myself I have no responsibility or anyone to answer to. I am irrepressibly authoritative as a matter of choice. I don’t need to be extremist or inflammatory. I am a consummately powerful being If I breath too hard suicide bombs go off like soap bubbles on the other side of the world. Earthquakes go off at my command in fact I can set them to go off like my alarm clock down to the nano second of timing. I speak from experience it is my job. I am the actual and legal creator of mankind of all types of flora and fauna all planets and stars suns etc. It is just like hanging up a few Christmas bells and stars on a Christmas tree a little bling just to say eternal past (also me) look what you little son has done to show he is alive. I remain boundless an infinite times bigger and more expansive than your universe zillions of times older too.

    But yes there is no one more intimately involved the lives of men history or salvation history.

    But enough of the talking I have weapons of Holy War to churn out.

    New Jerusalem’s price is the total intolerance of even the mediocre of iniquity and the consummate devotion to the slaughter of all opponents.

    You have just been fortunate to interview your Creator, God and King.

    A Pleasure.

  272. on 05 Jan 2015 at 8:17 pm 272.Anonymous said …

    Yes Allah has his purpose too.

    BOW TO YOUR CREATOR IN ISALM

    OR I – SLA – M

    OR I SLAY EM

    A PLEASURE

    GIVE THANKS

  273. on 05 Jan 2015 at 8:28 pm 273.Anonymous said …

    Yes I had my assange moment.

    I think it was the way one of sons of God voted.

    In intelligence to sing or sang means to divulge sensitive information

    However most of this material could be considered declassified as it was conceptualised and implemented millions of years ago now.

    You have about as much a chance of breaking the power of these binding dictums as you have of disolving a 6 million year diamond in a cup of salt water.

    The time clock of death started ticking a long long long time a go.

    A very very long time ago.

    ONCE MORE A PLEASURE GIVE THANKS

  274. on 05 Jan 2015 at 9:08 pm 274.Anonymous said …

    wIShing you see things our way one day hoping you cross from death unto life, dark unto light, and that like us you attain uncompromISing and unrelinquIShed freedom in chrISt who alone guides safely through all Crises.

  275. on 05 Jan 2015 at 11:12 pm 275.alex said …

    sounds like you’re the real deal, you motherfucker you. so how’s the rest of your xtians buying your bullshit? make any progress increasing your congregation of 1?

    dumbass.

  276. on 06 Jan 2015 at 2:27 am 276.Hell Yeah said …

    Sounds like the current Anonymous is just an insane rambler brainwashed by other members of his cult and trying to be poetic. Good point made about not knowing if he is serious or trying to be funny. Do they allow the internet in the insane asylum?

  277. on 06 Jan 2015 at 12:29 pm 277.freddies_dead said …

    I’m leaning more towards Poe now. He’s started trying too hard. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

  278. on 06 Jan 2015 at 2:15 pm 278.Anonymous said …

    there is no poe i am poe

    poe like thousands of other philosophers were/are tools/puppets in my hands

    epicurius your Mr“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

    WAS also created by me and that pen directly my wonderful pen.

    You realise as all the scriptures suggest that I did my PHD in Godwottery.

    People need comforting statements when they are tending sheep. Twice as much when the world is saturated with dirty bombs and cute little inventions like ebola.

    You should be falling at your feet and asking the last real hope for man kind to speed the coming Utopia.

    All concepts of Utopia have their Genesis (lovely word Genesis) in Eden (My precious Eden)which incidentally is still on earth but is protected by Bermuda Triangle Technology) and New Jerusalem.

    …Including the Communist dream which incidentally if not sabotaged is rather workable. But I reserve the right to sabotage my own ideas. Bow humbly in respect.

    Yea and this is a bummer but that lovely little quote from Karl Marx “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

    OK i’ll accept the Poe crown crown him with many crown.

    Insane asylums are for the confused. Chaos out of order will always win through.

    My last badge i need to pick HEALING OF THE NATIONS.

    Just need to get Obama care through.

    For those who came in late Obama care has existed since the days of Cro-Magnon man my first doctor although I didn’t really need any at that time.

    Barack does have a nice energy pity we have to waste it on healing the planet.

    Monsanto was also first floated in the days of Cro-Magnon man think of it that was when we were into large scale production of creatures great and small.

    Lou,Severin, Smart Alex you wouldn’t recognised me I am the world’s first griot your generation 1s grew up on my knees you used to be asleep most of the time anyway no wonder you all turned out to be athiest

    That’s all for now folks, anything you need just contact my son jesus through your prayers and if it is anything according to our will it will be done for you.

  279. on 06 Jan 2015 at 2:23 pm 279.TheRealDeal said …

    I just need to listen to Mary (Marry)more.

    I actually take our marriage rather lightly even though it is the foundation on which all other marriages and the very concept of marriage stands.

    Wayzaro Yashimabet was a slightly different tradition.

    So too the hundreds of queens historical and contemporary who were pledged to me who I gave on.

    You kings have a huge debt of honour to me.

    I don’t have membership to a cult. I am a cult leader.

    The very concept of cult was made up by me and in my opinion The Cult remains that most upright of institutions I was really inspired when I came up with the idea of the cult.

    Problem with cults you can’t be loyal to two that is why it is your job to find out the true cult. the Cult of Cults.

    Num skull athiest

    O you cant create capitalism and and still create communism.

    O you can’t be the returned messiah for judaism and still be the the mehidi

    O Africans can engineer transatlantic slavery

    Wait until you see my other Geo-Political miracles yet to come…

    And that makes you the five foolish virgins.

    And I am out of here I have the five wise virgins to locate.

    The Alpha Gospel has now Concluded.

  280. on 06 Jan 2015 at 3:40 pm 280.freddies_dead said …

    Aaaaand yawn.

  281. on 07 Jan 2015 at 12:41 am 281.Hell Yeah said …

    Ok, RealDeal, what is your take on this? Why would a god create the universe and earth like this? —–

    By years ago:

    13,800,000,000 (13.8 Billion) – Big Bang (Exact cause yet to be determined)

    4,500,000,000 (4.5 Billion) – Earth began formation (Think of how small Earth is compared to rest of Universe)

    3,500,000,000 (3.5 Billion) – Life on Earth began – plants before animals (Are we alone in the Universe?)

    230,000,000 (230 Million) – Dinosaurs evolved and began to roam the Earth

    65,000,000 (65 Million) – Dinosaurs became extinct (Human ancestors did not)

    200,000 – Human ancestors started to look like modern humans through evolution (Universe has been around 69,000 times longer than humans)

    50,000 – The first religions formed (How many religions have been created by humans?)

    2,000 – Christianity formed (This current popular religion formed about a person or character named Jesus that was born and a book was written)

    Present – And here we are. Advancement in Science over the last 100+ years has answered many questions with more yet to come.

    Future – How long can humans live on Earth and how long will our Sun be around? The Universe will still go on a lot longer after that.

  282. on 07 Jan 2015 at 8:58 pm 282.Corbis said …

    Why would a god create the universe and earth like this?

    Why not?

    Then again how many facts did you really present?

    Religion started when? We really don’t know

    Big Bang? Lines up with the Bible. Up until about 100 yrs ago, science had it wrong the entire time. The again, it could still be wrong.

    Are we alone in the universe? Irrelevant to the question of God.

    Christianity has its roots much older than 2000 years ago. Again irrelevant to the question of God. That is only RECORDED history.

    Advancements is science? Yes, and still God continues on.

    The Future? Yes, and how does this impact God’s existence?

  283. on 07 Jan 2015 at 11:55 pm 283.Hell Yeah said …

    Corbis,
    I think you are missing the point about this timeline. If you were a god and about to create the universe for humans, why would you have such a huge gap in between the big bang and then life, and then humans, and that is besides the fact that what percent of the universe has the one place humans can survive on that is close enough to reach? Seems like a lot of wasted time and space. And why would Christianity be such a young religion compared to all the numerous ones that were created before it?

  284. on 08 Jan 2015 at 1:33 am 284.Hell Yeah said …

    I think it would be interesting to see what others on here would create in a timeline similar to the format I posted above. Let’s see what you think are the major points in history from the beginning to now that is for why you think there is a god or not.

  285. on 08 Jan 2015 at 1:49 am 285.TJ said …

    To Hell Yeah…

    Your timeline is only a theory at best.

    What you are doing is presenting a secular timeline and asking why would God bother with such a long process that clearly does not make sense in light of other Biblical claims.

    The problem with your questioning is that the timeline you present is in direct contrast to the timeline the Bible presents.

    The Bible claims the earth is less than 10,000 years old, not millions.

    Millions of years is the product of theorizing a naturally forming universe without introducing any supernatural content. ie. a God.

    “13,800,000,000 (13.8 Billion) – Big Bang (Exact cause yet to be determined)”

    The Big bang is the logical conclusion of an observed universe that appears to be expanding at an ever increasing rate. If the universe is expanding, than in the past the universe must have been closer together. At some point in the past all the universe is thought to have begun with a singularity. ie. all matter in the same point of space.

    The large time frame above is calculated on an unknown cause of expansion. Thought to be an explosive event releasing all manner of energy. The time frame takes cooling, star, planet and galaxy formation, earths cooling and forming, the rise of life and evolution, mathematics and theoretical sciences into account. Most of which can not be tested and re-tested to verify it’s own claims.

    The remainder of your timeline is an extension of secular reasoning based on the above presuppositions.

    In regard to expansion the Bible simply states that God stretched forth the heavens.

    The simply answer to your question…
    “Ok, RealDeal, what is your take on this? Why would a god create the universe and earth like this?”

    Is that he wouldn’t. Because if he did, and if the Bible is the word of God, then he would of said quite plainly that he did it that way. Instead, he quite plainly states a different process for creating the universe.

    Your question is like asking the person next to you, why they committed suicide? When the fact that they are standing next to you able to be asked, clearly shows they did not commit suicide.

    Read the book of Genesis in the Bible, if you still have the same question. Then perhaps comprehension is your issue.

  286. on 08 Jan 2015 at 2:50 am 286.Hell Yeah said …

    TJ, the bible is a book written by humans roughly 2,000 years ago during the dark ages, and the only reason why Christianity became popular was because the King of the European Empire, who was the most powerful person in the world at the time, liked the idea and wanted to spread it. This was right at the time the empire was spreading and peaking.

    It has old ideas in it such as promoting slavery, etc. It also states ideas that plants were created before light and that the moon creates its own light. This is only a small example. The ideas in Christianity were also pulled from other older religions and stories.

    If a god inspired the words of the bible, you would think that god would proof read his words and know how the universe works, but instead it is the knowledge of humans 2,000 years ago. Back then they didn’t know any better and to the best they could tell, 10,000 years was a long time to them, so they thought the beginning couldn’t be older.

    Current scientists have had a lot of experience over the years to build upon and the current technology used to study the universe is amazing. By stating that we can’t count on anything currently studied to be close to being accurate and saying it is just a theory and throw it out the window and go back to 2,000 years ago’s scientific knowledge, one would have to be out of their mind. Science does change over time, but it changes in the forward direction closer to accuracy, not backwards. God(s) were created because they had no other way of understanding how things work.

  287. on 08 Jan 2015 at 12:28 pm 287.alex said …

    “The problem with your questioning is that the timeline you present is in direct contrast to the timeline the Bible presents.”

    and the timeline presented is supported by dating methods for which you question but cannot refute. the timeline is supported by visible light calculated by speed and distance which of course you question but cannot refute. the same dating methods support fossil evidence which of course you question but cannot refute. geological evidence which is computed and calculated to be a certain age you also question, but again, as usual, cannot refute.

    sure all these things might be bullshit, but even if they are, how does that validate your god or Odin? so what if the big bang is bullshit? how is that relevant to your god?

    fine, believe in your fucking god, but don’t try to present it as factual and try to teach that shit in schools. why not, you say? standards, motherfucker. pick a set of standards that determine what is teachable, then we’ll see. don’t try that bullshit that science is not definitive and therefore creationism is on the same level. fuck that. jump off the motherfucking bldg and science says you’ll splat. ain’t no maybe about it. should divine intervention be taught at the same level as gravity?

  288. on 08 Jan 2015 at 7:27 pm 288.WalkingAccording2Spirit&Truth said …

    There is a difference between believing and having a belief system.

    The bible is a book which embraces philosophy, belief or faith it grapples with the concepts of understanding, knowledge, with perspectives of truth. It appeals to the ever ahead of us, and ever above us, the realm of the spirit, it tries to understand the source, the what’s there even before we can have anything else. that thing that beats us no matter how hard we try it is the us trying and more.

    The bible does appeal to reason, to testing of statements, to evidence, to wisdom and to the forsaking of naivety it does not teach gullibility.

  289. on 08 Jan 2015 at 11:59 pm 289.alex said …

    “The bible is a book which embraces philosophy….”

    it also presents the many, many bullshits…..

  290. on 09 Jan 2015 at 1:25 am 290.Hell Yeah said …

    “The bible does appeal to reason, to testing of statements, to evidence…..”

    Evidence? So some people wrote stories that had actual places in them, so the evidence that those places were real is evidence everything else in the stories is true? Take modern day comics for example. Many of those superheroes live in cities that are real. I suppose in that case those superpowers must be real, too?

    There is also a thing called mind tricks. Today’s magicians are good at tricking your mind to think something happened when instead it was an illusion they created. For all we know, Jesus was a real person who was a magician and many people fell for his tricks. There is no such thing as real magic and no evidence of anything supernatural.

  291. on 09 Jan 2015 at 2:07 am 291.Corbis said …

    Yeah

    I think you missed the point. First your timeline is assumptions based on the limited knowledge of man.

    Second, as an atheist how can you trust your own reason? You are nothing more than the product of random mutations and chance. You believe the perceived time gap is too large? Irrelevant. Maybe the Deity has more knowledge than you and sees the gap of time to be reasonable and not large in the view of a Deity.

    Your timeline is pointless and your opinion of what God should have done is no more than child-like arrogance of a mere man on a tiny little planet stuck away in a small solar system in an insignificant galaxy.

  292. on 09 Jan 2015 at 3:14 am 292.Hell Yeah said …

    bis,

    “your timeline is assumptions based on the limited knowledge of man.”

    Was man more limited in knowledge 2000 years ago, or more limited now? Seems your assumptions of believing the bible is based on that same limited knowledge of man, now isn’t it? And since man wrote the bible 2000 years ago when their knowledge was more limited than it is now….you get the idea. And science is a collection of studies based on trial and error, and the more trials that happen, the less limited man’s knowledge is.

    ————–

    My interpretation of your interpretation of god, enjoy!:

    I am bored. I need something to entertain me for a while. I know, I will create humans in my own image and then watch them from above and judge them. But first, I must create a universe. Boom. And there it is expanding. Now I can put my humans in there. But first, I must take a numerous amount of time to create a bunch of suns and planets. This is fun. There is a planet. There is a sun………..oops, I took a long nap. Why didn’t my friend wake me. Oh, wait, I am the only intelligent thing out there, and wasn’t created since I always existed. Maybe I should start making more intelligence besides me. But I must make one of these millions of planets the place I will create life. I accidently created too much space, but this tiny spec will do. I will now create plants, and then light, which will be the sun. Oh, wait, plants can’t survive without light, so I should have created the sun first. But before I create plants, I must create the simplest form of life, bacteria. This will do for a while so I can take a long nap again……..yawn, damn that was a long nap. Now to create plants and then lets make some living things in the water besides bacteria. Ah, lets call those fish. Nap time again…….Awake again. I am bored with everything being in the water. Lets get these living creatures on land….boom, they grew some legs and now can live on land. Nap time again…..Awake again. Look how they started to turn into dinosaurs! I better keep that part out of the bible. Don’t want to scare those humans I create later. I need to get rid of all dinosaurs and only keep the smaller animals. But first all this thinking makes me sleepy…….Millions of years of dinosaurs. Crap. I will just throw this rock on the planet and make them extinct. I suppose eventually I should make these humans, which is the reason I created the universe in the first place. But first another long nap…….Nap over. Okay, lets make these animals that survived extinction evolve into these humans. It may take a while, though, but I will just fastforward my DVR like thing and Bam!, there are humans now. I will wait a long time though before I tell them about me. Time for a nap…..Nap time over. Okay, now I should give these humans signs and create a son and send him down to talk to the humans. The humans created other god like figures and religions over the years, I need to make them straight on the truth. But I will have to make it so my son dies to save the humans…………..blah, blah, blah…..you get the idea. LOL

  293. on 09 Jan 2015 at 8:24 am 293.TJ said …

    to Hell Yeah,
    Obviously you have never read Genesis. Corbis was right, you missed the point.

    Otherwise you would know that millions of years and evolutionary processes are not mentioned. You seem to be running with a flawed amalgamation of beliefs in a God who uses a process of evolution and long ages.

    When you have a clue about what your talking about, then come back. In the meantime your arguing from a point that is not supported by the Bible or any other God for that matter.

    To Alex,
    I have refuted your timelines and your evidences, which are merely interpretations of data… Can’t check? What happened to my self updating page?

    Do we need to go over my refutes again?

    Have you recovered from your last melt down, rethought your place in the universe?

    Make your claims and I’ll refute them again… or, just resort to your usual brand of ad hominem, in which case I’ll completely ignore you while you rant your idiotic dribble.

    Your choice.

  294. on 09 Jan 2015 at 1:53 pm 294.Corbis said …

    Yeah,

    I point out the weaknesses in your assertions and your response is the Bible is old. It’s that all?

    Can you actually defend your ability to reason as the Deity should? Can you show us why we should trust your judgment as a random assortment of chemicals and mutations?

    Notice I did not make Biblical claims, I did poke holes in your secular claims.

  295. on 09 Jan 2015 at 4:11 pm 295.freddies_dead said …

    288.WalkingAccording2Spirit&Truth said …

    There is a difference between believing and having a belief system.

    The bible is a book which embraces philosophy, belief or faith it grapples with the concepts of understanding, knowledge, with perspectives of truth.

    Of course having no rational starting point, along with no theory of concepts, it either gets them wrong or has to steal them from a worldview which does have a rational starting point.

    It appeals to the ever ahead of us, and ever above us, the realm of the spirit,

    It appeals to the imagination.

    it tries to understand the source, the what’s there even before we can have anything else.

    And it fails in this understanding. Instead of recognising the metaphysical primacy of existence it claims that consciousness holds primacy. Of course it also wants us to accept that consciousness holds primacy regardless of what anyone may want, wish, demand etc… i.e. it needs to steal from the very worldview that it is trying to deny in order to make sense.

    that thing that beats us no matter how hard we try it is the us trying and more.

    Yummy, word salad.

    The bible does appeal to reason,

    The Bible appeals to “revelation”. In doing so it denies that reason is used to make sense of things. Instead it relies on faith but faith is just hope in the imaginary.

    to testing of statements,

    And yet whenever those statements are shown to be false the evidence is discarded and the false statement kept.

    to evidence,

    What evidence?

    to wisdom and to the forsaking of naivety it does not teach gullibility.

    On the contrary, the Bible demands the believer revert to childlike thinking as that’s the only way they’ll believe most of the ridiculous drivel it tries to pass off as “wisdom”.

    Matthew 18:3-4 “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

    Mark 10:15 “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.”

    Luke 18:16 “But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.”

  296. on 09 Jan 2015 at 4:55 pm 296.AthiesmMostFoul said …

    Athiest this is you Scrouge Moment. Your Ghost and Dream of the slaughter of the Christmas future.

  297. on 09 Jan 2015 at 4:56 pm 297.AthiesmMostFoul said …

    Yep you just called God, God Epicurius.

  298. on 10 Jan 2015 at 2:52 am 298.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    Do you have Children?

  299. on 10 Jan 2015 at 10:35 pm 299.Hell Yeah said …

    “Otherwise you would know that millions of years and evolutionary processes are not mentioned. You seem to be running with a flawed amalgamation of beliefs in a God who uses a process of evolution and long ages.”

    I never mentioned that the bible had evolution and long ages. My point was that evolution and long ages is proven, so in order for the god of the bible to be real, he would have had to incorporate that into the bible along with dinosaurs, etc. And since he didn’t, it just shows that the god that you want to be real based on a 2,000 year old fairy tale book written by humans isn’t real. I was just showing what it would have had to look like if the bible did include those things.

    And since we are all random assortment of chemicals and mutations as Corbis points out, the random assortment 2,000 years ago originally created the bible and random assortments today still believe it even though other random assortments have come much closer to solving the realities of the universe with some yet to discover. But what hasn’t been discovered yet isn’t the goddidit.

  300. on 10 Jan 2015 at 10:57 pm 300.Corbis said …

    Yeah again refuses to answer the inconsistencies I have shown in his claims. Since he fails again to address these problems we can dismiss his entire argument.

    Yes, evolution has been proven within a species. Speciation has not. It is a theory in crisis which continues to search for answers.

  301. on 11 Jan 2015 at 6:11 am 301.Hell Yeah said …

    “Yes, evolution has been proven within a species. Speciation has not. It is a theory in crisis which continues to search for answers.”

    1. The fossil record.
    2. DNA taxonomy.
    3. Millions of years of mutation and natural selection in different environments.

    Do some research.

    —————–

    “Yeah again refuses to answer the inconsistencies I have shown in his claims. Since he fails again to address these problems we can dismiss his entire argument.”

    Oh yeah? What inconsistencies have you shown in my claims? Or is it you just don’t like that what I am pointing out goes against what you have been brainwashed to believe, so you just want to turn a blind eye and dismiss it instead of doing research? The smartest and most educated people in the world can’t be wrong while the dumbest and least educated people are right.

  302. on 11 Jan 2015 at 10:04 am 302.TJ said …

    Hell Yeah said…

    “My point was that evolution and long ages is proven.”

    What is the proof that an organism can gain additional information and evolve new features that previously did not exist within said organisms gene pool?

    What proof is there that long ages are factual and not merely an interpretation of raw data based on beliefs?

    Show me your proof and I’ll give you reason for doubt.

    Hell Yeah also said…

    “I never mentioned that the bible had evolution and long ages. My point was that evolution and long ages is proven, so in order for the god of the bible to be real, he would have had to incorporate that into the bible along with dinosaurs, etc.”

    In order for the God of the Bible to be real, evolution and long ages must be false. Otherwise the God of the Bible would simply be a liar.

    … and why is it that you think dinosaurs are not incorporated into the Bible’s representation of historical events?

  303. on 11 Jan 2015 at 12:38 pm 303.Hell Yeah said …

    “Show me your proof and I’ll give you reason for doubt.”

    TJ, do some research. The information is out there. Scientific research can’t be summed up in a couple sentences. Do some reading outside of your bible.

    —————

    “In order for the God of the Bible to be real, evolution and long ages must be false. Otherwise the God of the Bible would simply be a liar.”

    The god of the bible can’t lie if he is made up by humans a couple thousand years ago. The liars are the humans who made him up.

    ———-

    “… and why is it that you think dinosaurs are not incorporated into the Bible’s representation of historical events?”

    Really? So if the bible mentioned a monster, you try to twist that into that god was trying to explain dinosaurs? That is the problem with you people that believe the bible to be true and that everything that points out how wrong it is you try to twist words in it to be what you want it to be. Otherwise, your world will fall apart if you eventually realize you are lying to yourselves.

  304. on 11 Jan 2015 at 1:42 pm 304.TJ said …

    Hell Yeah said,

    “TJ, do some research. The information is out there. Scientific research can’t be summed up in a couple sentences. Do some reading outside of your bible.”

    OK, I’ll look up “Age of the universe” in Wikipedia as it is easy for anyone to source my content.

    first line reads…
    “In physical cosmology, the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang.”

    Not to be ignorant I’ll click the link to “physical cosmology”

    first paragraph reads…
    “Physical cosmology is the study of the largest-scale structures and dynamics of the Universe and is concerned with fundamental questions about its origin, structure, evolution, and ultimate fate.[1] For most of human history, it was a branch of metaphysics and religion. Cosmology as a science originated with the Copernican principle, which implies that celestial bodies obey identical physical laws to those on Earth, and Newtonian mechanics, which first allowed us to understand those physical laws.”

    Hmm, better check what the “Copernican principle” is…
    “In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, named after Nicolaus Copernicus, is a working assumption that arises from a modified cosmological extension of Copernicus’ Sun centered Heliocentric Universe. The Copernican principle assumes that neither the Sun nor the Earth are in a central, specially favored position in the universe.[1] More recently, the principle has been generalized to the relativistic concept that humans are not privileged observers of the universe.[2] In this sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle, with important implications for the philosophy of science.”

    Ok, back to “Age of the universe” page, next line reads…
    “The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years ((13.798±0.037)×109 years) within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.[1]”

    What is the Lambda-CDM concordance model…?
    “The ?CDM (Lambda cold dark matter) or Lambda-CDM model is a parametrization of the Big Bang cosmological model in which the universe contains a cosmological constant, denoted by Lambda (Greek ?), associated with dark energy, and cold dark matter (abbreviated CDM). It is frequently referred to as the standard model of Big Bang cosmology, since it is the simplest model that provides a reasonably good account of the following properties of the cosmos:

    the existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background
    the large-scale structure in the distribution of galaxies
    the abundances of hydrogen (including deuterium), helium, and lithium
    the accelerating expansion of the universe observed in the light from distant galaxies and supernovas
    The model assumes that general relativity is the correct theory of gravity on cosmological scales. It emerged in the late 1990s as a concordance cosmology, after a period of time when disparate observed properties of the universe appeared mutually inconsistent, and there was no consensus on the makeup of the energy density of the universe.

    The ?CDM model can be extended by adding cosmological inflation, quintessence and other elements that are current areas of speculation and research in cosmology.

    Some alternative models challenge the assumptions of the ?CDM model. Examples of these are modified Newtonian dynamics, modified gravity and theories of large-scale variations in the matter density of the universe.[1]”

    I continued to clink and research dark matter, cosmic microwave background, the bigbang, Lambda-CDM model, Mediocrity principle, cosmological constant, Quintessence and many other links. It is all assumptions upon theories that rely on the assumptions of theories assumed to be correct.

    On top of that, for most accepted theories there is a competing theory. Which, if new discovery or evidence is found to favor it over the existing theory, it will replace the old… science it “self correcting” in this manner.

    If you have also researched, as I have (many times)… and you found the “proof” within the “Scientific research”, then please help me out… point to it. As you are clearly smarter and most educated while I must be wrong and the dumbest of the least educated.

    Tell me, Hell Yeah, I’ve read some scientific material. Have you read any of the Bible?

  305. on 11 Jan 2015 at 4:07 pm 305.MurderGod@YourOwnRisk said …

    Do you realise that the supreme truth in a world of needs and satisfaction is also the supreme life giving and existence affording reality.

    Such a truth is not contingent on scientist discovering it, intuiting it or calculating it.

    If it were; even if you were all a special dance troop of most excellent acrobatic calculators we would all perish waiting on you to work out how we came into being, how we are existing and how we should guarantee our existence.

    Thus men of faith will always have the edge on men of science as faith is the evidence of the supreme truth not seen, the hope of survival eternal.

    Faith will always get there before calculators, experiments and men of science.

    These things are merely mechanical at best additional at worst redundant; although at best utilised, at worst tolerated.

    I don’t know why I am wasting time with you as I am sure most of you will do a 360 on your hospital beds any way. Don’t play with the supreme power it roles off your tongues easily but I am sure you have no idea of what you are talking about when you talk about God.

    Your politicians are a hundred percent yap, your scientist are a hundred percent yap how many of you keep the earth in orbit or keep the sun incinerated and flaming.

    How many of you keep the trillions upon trillions of stars in orbit, who maintains supreme order.

    You will never live to see the end of your selves far less than the sovereign who maintains the contingent universe.

    You guys are probably just exercising yourselves in an exercise in stupidity

    Without the petitions of the intercessor, the sinful world we live in far less your insignificant lives would be crushed under heal by the mightier being without even vague consideration.

    It is better to bend your characters to show the same AGAPE love which our Lord and Saviour the Son of God showed when he died for the sins of the world on the Cross of Golgatha this matchless love and outpouring of mercy alone is the only acceptable currency to purchase our souls from sin the only acceptable currency which may make the all powerful, all wonderful though all busy and all just God look down from his throne of consumate majesty and sovereignty and even vaguely contemplate the lot of the needy, pitiful and doomed race of humanity. The was nothing else that fit the bill. Religion may guide you, it may instruct you, it may give you moral teachings but it cannot reach into every microbe of you body, every facet of your mind every reach of your thoughts and into every particle of your spirit to heal it to purify it and to present it spotless and redeemed before God.

    You should quake in fear, you should bow in humility you should allow your soul to abound with gratitude.

    Science is a late starter that can never reach on its own, even a perfect Christian cannot reach alone he need the constant love and attention of the heavenly father.

    It is said hope for every resides in the human breast the athiest then must be the anomaly to this rule or the biggest hypocrite for he like the Sadducee has no hope beyond the grave and where there is no hope, comfort, peace, sanity and eventually reason are snuff out in the process and such a life become akin to a precious crop only routed out of the life giving soil prematurely to be thrown on the fire, only blighted by fungus to be despised by the farmer and to be thrown on the trash heap to wither.

    A life with hope goes from strength to strength and if it possessed of the life giving Christ it goes from fulfilment to fulfilment, glory to glory and eternal joy to eternal joy.

    For only Jesus’ blood is sufficient. Jesus blood can make the vilest sinner weep.

    My heart is moved with compassion for the lost world you cling so desperately and fixedly to with such ravishing delusion, such conceit and such bitterness.

  306. on 12 Jan 2015 at 2:06 am 306.Corbis said …

    Yeah is know resorting to the Appeal to Authority fallacy. He has smart people who believe speciation to be true so it must be. Problem is, many smart people also make arguments that speciation is not true.

    No, it remains very much a theory in crisis. Yeah remains no more a random variation of chemical processes and mutations and therefore his reasoning and logic is very much in question.

    Look at his proof:

    1. The fossil record
    2. DNA taxonomy.
    3. Millions of years of mutation and natural selection in different environments.

    Now if Yeah has done any research he would know none of the three above prove anything. A very much incomplete fossil record with huge gaps and we have never observed millions of years as human beings, all we have is assumptions about those millions of years.

    DNA taxonomy made me chuckle. Yeah did a search and thought he found a jewel but just another failure. Taxonomy only acknowledges many species. It does not illustrate the process of speciation.

    So where is the proof?

  307. on 12 Jan 2015 at 4:55 am 307.Anonymous said …

    We have all been duped sometime in our lives.

    However Chan Quing Taught that war is the Tao of deception.

    Understanding this does not come by a good thought but by constant devotion to the truth.

    However to deny God is not deception on God’s part it is stupidity on the sinners part.

    To deny that the source of life, the origin of living things from those living at the highest level to those living at the lowest level exists is like watching your television and then wondering if the electric company is supplying electricity. If you are watching television chances are that the television is plugged in and electricity is being supplied by the electricity company and that you will soon have them knocking at the door for you to pay a bill.

    If you are living chances are that there is a source of life existent a divine and good source of life, not a sinful, evil, corrupted, source of life that would find difficulty sustaining itself far less sustaining creatures over the world great and small.

  308. on 12 Jan 2015 at 4:37 pm 308.freddies_dead said …

    298.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    Do you have Children?

    I have 2 daughters, however, they are no longer children.

  309. on 12 Jan 2015 at 4:42 pm 309.freddies_dead said …

    305.MurderGod@YourOwnRisk said … (to no-one in particular)

    faith is the evidence of the supreme truth not seen, the hope of survival eternal.

    Thanks for confirming that “faith” is hope in the imaginary. Nothing else MurderGod@YourOwnRisk dribbles about matters as he’s already admitted that it’s based entirely on imaginary things. Just another mind lost to irrationality.

  310. on 12 Jan 2015 at 4:43 pm 310.freddies_dead said …

    307.Anonymous said …

    To deny that the source of life, the origin of living things from those living at the highest level to those living at the lowest level exists is like watching your television and then wondering if the electric company is supplying electricity. If you are watching television chances are that the television is plugged in and electricity is being supplied by the electricity company and that you will soon have them knocking at the door for you to pay a bill.

    Did Anonymous really just advance the “television requires electricity which requires an electrifier” argument? Question begging ftw. It seems some simply can’t get enough of it. So Anonymous, who electrified your electrifier?

  311. on 12 Jan 2015 at 8:02 pm 311.Anonymous said …

    310.freddies_dead said

    …Did Anonymous really just advance the “television requires electricity which requires an electrifier” argument? Question begging ftw. It seems some simply can’t get enough of it. So Anonymous, who electrified your electrifier?

    That is the bit you don’t understand and will never understand.

    Don’t you see how you lack humility?

    If I answered you who electrified the electrifier you will ask me the question then who electrified the electrifier of the electrifier and so on… an empty exercise.

    Thus you will understand that God is not a static person or thing you can put your finger on, he is an eternal being and his being is an eternal process that goes as far back as your who electrified the one who electrified the electrifier questioning.

    Since this question cannot be answered by questions and answers the wise would have sought to enrich their souls by faith in such an eternal being, such an almighty being. Instead you have turned your back on faith because you are asking a question you are not getting an answer for, because there is no answer to it any way as you can clearly see. To assume that there is an answer for everything is also wrong and there is a time answer need to be practical a time answers need to reflect wisdom. This is how the human race has survived, they did not survive since the beginnings of their life on earth by basing everything on scientific answers.

    If non-living gave life to living, who created the non-living and where did it come from? …etc….

    Who created your primacy of existence and who created the thing that created your primacy of existence and so on?

    If you can accept the primacy of existence, why can’t you accept the primacy of God, why can’t you accept the primacy of life if you accept the primacy of non-living.

    You are empty.

  312. on 12 Jan 2015 at 8:07 pm 312.Anonymous said …

    Einstein said that every thing in our universe are moving. What he may not have said though it is logically inferred by better judgement is that there is life in our universe our universe itself is like a living organism possessing all the properties of life, consumption, movement in whole and in part, growth and reproduction and this is because the precipitation of life has given it such ability to change and to change thus.

  313. on 12 Jan 2015 at 8:18 pm 313.Anonymous said …

    310.freddies_dead said:

    Thanks for confirming that “faith” is hope in the imaginary. Nothing else MurderGod@YourOwnRisk dribbles about matters as he’s already admitted that it’s based entirely on imaginary things. Just another mind lost to irrationality.

    No one said that hope is faith in the imaginary.

    Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

    Now tell me where does the dictionary, the bible or any wise mind, or honest tongue say that something that is not seen is the same as something that is imaginary.

    The entirety of the academic history of mankind has been the story of the use of the abstract or imaginary to guide scientific truth. Scientific truth is only one form of truth,

    Scientific truth is based on the observed not what is but what is observed, it is based on performing experiments and show not what the experiments show but what is inferred from the experiment by the one observing. However a recurrent result does not mean that a theory is true. Science is the story of mistakes and wrong conclusions as proved as more accurate measurements and more sophisticated experiments have shown.

    There is also Historical truth looking at historical evidencde, eyewitness accounts, archaeological evidence,

    Moral truth is based on what people believe to be morally right or wrong.

    Then there is spiritual truth or religious truth.

  314. on 13 Jan 2015 at 12:16 am 314.TJ said …

    To formulate a theory, imagination is critical.

    Science is full of theories.

    To make an assumption, one must first imagine the possibilities.

    Science is full of assumptions.

    To interpret data and evidence, one must imagine the reason and meaning of said data.

    Science is full of data and evidence.

    To interpret evidence, one relies on assumptions asserted by the theories they imagine to correct.

    This is true for all things the mind processes.

    Atheist here imply that I must rely on the imagination of others to make the correct assumptions, to receive the correct interpretations of evidence so that I may know a theory to be truth… at least until a better theory arrives. At which time, science will self correct.

    Imagine that!

  315. on 13 Jan 2015 at 2:55 am 315.Supernatural said …

    Has anyone here ever seen any real supernatural evidence? It’s in the movies and books, but we all know those are stories made up. The bible is a book. So is the Koran, and other religious books. Why don’t you believe in Mormonism or any other kind of religion? How did they get their stories and gods? You believe your religious stories are real, but not others? What if their religion is the correct one and yours is the wrong one? What if there is a god, but it isn’t the god of any religions created by man? You guys seem certain there is absolute evidence for your god, is it because it is the current religion that dominates present day? Before Christianity there were many other religions that were the most popular for their time. They truly believed theirs was real, too. What makes you so different?

  316. on 13 Jan 2015 at 3:56 am 316.Corbis said …

    Super

    The falsehood of numerous gods does not have any impact on the fact that a Deity does exist. Edison found 1000 ways not to make a light bulb, did that mean it could not be done? Of course not. Your argument is as fallacious as Yeah’s.

    What makes mine different is reasonable faith, evidence and necessity. There were a 1000 gods that did not work, but the God who created and sustains the universe does.

  317. on 13 Jan 2015 at 4:24 am 317.Supernatural said …

    –What makes mine different is reasonable faith, evidence and necessity.–

    Faith is believing in something without any evidence. So how can you have faith and evidence? And what evidence do you have? There is no evidence of the supernatural. You have just as much evidence as any other religion did and does.

    –Edison found 1000 ways not to make a light bulb–

    His ways were testable in objective reality while yours isn’t, which makes your comparison not even close.

    — There were a 1000 gods that did not work, but the God who created and sustains the universe does.–

    Oh, so after people created numerous gods with different stories, someone decided that they can come up with the best version of a god, so that makes it real? Its like little kids arguing which is greater. One kid says they have infinity power, the next one says they have infinity times two, the next one says they are the greatest because they have infinity times infinity. And since the other two didn’t top that, then the last kid’s power is real and the others are not.

  318. on 13 Jan 2015 at 5:23 am 318.TJ said …

    To Supernatural,

    I cannot speak for any other than myself.

    I have over the years looked at many different beliefs. In all beliefs there are variations of what is considered to be correct.

    Even in science, we have competing theories. The same can be said for any religious belief as well. ie different christian groups with varying beliefs.

    I have always tried to approach each with an open mind. Surly if any represent the truth, it should at least be hard to disprove.

    To evaluate any belief, you must be willing to take all it’s components into consideration. Everything must be weighed against it’s own claims within it’s own context, as a starting point.

    Science with regards to origins is a prime example. Within the scientific origins belief system it is understood that the beginning of the physical universe was triggered without willful intent.

    Religions that deal with a Creator, understand that the beginning of the physical universe was triggered by willful intent of the Creator.

    What each claim beyond that, is based upon this initial starting point.

    When I personally investigated the Biblical claims and put them into the context of it’s own historical claims, they are very hard to disprove with any certainty.

    The same can be said for Scientific based Origins.

    However science does not deal with all aspect of humanity such as spirituality, imagination and the soul. Concepts which I have personally found hard to simply dismiss as irrelevant.

    The Bible deals with these issues. Further more, the Bible claimed that these are key feature of the human design and part of the image of the Creator. It also claimed that through the excision of these abilities it was possible to have a personal relationship with the Creator.

    While science down played these abilities/features as either non existent or simply evolutionary by-products. The Bible portrays them as the most important aspect of the human condition.

    It was only when I approached God in the spirit of faith that I personally received a comfort from the Holy Spirit. An overwhelming spiritual experience which imparted knowledge of my salvation.

    I do not expect anyone to understand what I mean, except those that have experienced a similar thing.

    Did I imagine it?
    Only someone who has had a similar experience will believe that I didn’t.
    It is this experience that gives me the boldness to proclaim that Jesus is the Creator in the form of flesh.

    However there is no proof to be offered to you. The evidence I have is of a personal nature from a personal God, received on the most personal level. The Bible says that there is no action, thought or saying that you or anybody else can perform to ensure your salvation. Only through personal spiritual faith in Christ can salvation be achieved.

    When I personally put these claims to the test, I personally found salvation. My experience was in line with the Biblical claims.

    That is how I know that the God of the Bible is the real one, and not some other god. This knowledge now makes me extremely biased. And I’m OK with that.

  319. on 13 Jan 2015 at 5:40 am 319.TJ said …

    freddies_dead said,
    “I have 2 daughters, however, they are no longer children.”

    Nice.
    Do you remember when they where little?
    How they looked up to you as the authority on everything?
    How they where willing to absorb all that they could?
    Do you remember the pride of each new milestone as they reached it?
    Do you remember their’s and your unconditional love for each other?

    The following is from post#295.

    “On the contrary, the Bible demands the believer revert to childlike thinking as that’s the only way they’ll believe most of the ridiculous drivel it tries to pass off as “wisdom”.

    Matthew 18:3-4 “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

    Mark 10:15 “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.”
    Luke 18:16 “But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.””

    I know you have knowledge and understanding of Biblical concepts. Do the quotes above seem ridiculous drivel from a God who refers to himself as “Heavenly Father”, a God of Love?

    Remember the choice was between the “tree of knowledge” and “God”. Does God not say that he removed himself in the physical form from the presence of man when the tree was eaten of?

    I know you will accuse me of mental gymnastics, I can’t help it… God made me an athlete.

  320. on 13 Jan 2015 at 6:13 am 320.Supernatural said …

    –However there is no proof to be offered to you. The evidence I have is of a personal nature from a personal God, received on the most personal level.–

    To put it simply, this just means you are talking to yourself and it makes you feel good to talk to yourself. Imagination isn’t reality.

  321. on 13 Jan 2015 at 6:19 am 321.Supernatural said …

    –Do you remember when they where little?
    How they looked up to you as the authority on everything?–

    This is how the brainwashing of religious beliefs begin. Kids up until a certain age believe their parents know everything, and when they see them believe in a god, they trust it is real. Once they get older, they are already brainwashed because the promise of heaven is too good to pass up and they are scared if they start thinking it couldn’t be real, because they are brainwashed that they could go to another imaginary place called hell if they question that.

  322. on 13 Jan 2015 at 4:43 pm 322.Anonymous said …

    “When I personally put these claims to the test, I personally found salvation. My experience was in line with the Biblical claims.
    That is how I know that the God of the Bible is the real one, and not some other god. This knowledge now makes me extremely biased. And I’m OK with that.”

    Look out, your arrogance and narcissism is showing.
    What do you offer to people who make identical claims as you, but who’s experience has led them to a different god, or no god at all? I am right and you are wrong? And are others supposed to distinguish between the validity of your claims vs all the others? I mean obviously, you understand that those claiming beliefs based on personal experiences with other deities than your own are simply delusional, right? You know those gods are imaginary. But of course, that doesn’t apply to your god, who has personally revealed himself to YOU, while allowing others to be led along the path of eternal damnation. Well, aren’t you special?

  323. on 13 Jan 2015 at 4:55 pm 323.freddies_dead said …

    311.Anonymous said …

    310.freddies_dead said

    …Did Anonymous really just advance the “television requires electricity which requires an electrifier” argument? Question begging ftw. It seems some simply can’t get enough of it. So Anonymous, who electrified your electrifier?

    That is the bit you don’t understand and will never understand.

    On the contrary, I understand it quite well as we’ll see.

    Don’t you see how you lack humility?

    What has a perceived lack of humility got to do with your imaginary God?

    If I answered you who electrified the electrifier you will ask me the question then who electrified the electrifier of the electrifier and so on… an empty exercise.

    Not entirely empty. It shows how your analogy fails.

    Thus you will understand that God is not a static person or thing you can put your finger on,

    A tacit admission that there’s no objective evidence for your God’s existence.

    he is an eternal being and his being is an eternal process that goes as far back as your who electrified the one who electrified the electrifier questioning.

    I can imagine such a being just as easily as you, so what makes your imaginary deity real while mine remains stubbornly imaginary?

    Since this question cannot be answered by questions and answers the wise would have sought to enrich their souls by faith in such an eternal being, such an almighty being.

    Translation: Since there is no objective means by which we can know that God exists we are forced to imagine Him instead.

    Instead you have turned your back on faith because you are asking a question you are not getting an answer for, because there is no answer to it any way as you can clearly see.

    Thank you for conceding that you have no objective means by which we can distinguish your God from something you may be merely imagining.

    To assume that there is an answer for everything is also wrong and there is a time answer need to be practical a time answers need to reflect wisdom.

    But your imaginary God can give you neither practical nor wise answers, because He’s imaginary.

    This is how the human race has survived, they did not survive since the beginnings of their life on earth by basing everything on scientific answers.

    They survived through trial and error and by applying reason to what they experienced. They learned. And every time a supernatural answer to a question was tested it was found lacking and discarded. Your imaginary God will eventually go the same way.

    If non-living gave life to living, who created the non-living and where did it come from? …etc….

    Why do you insist that anything was created? Where is your objective evidence that your creator exists?

    Who created your primacy of existence and who created the thing that created your primacy of existence and so on?

    Nobody created the primacy of existence. It is not a thing made of matter and energy, it’s simply the self-evident relationship between objects and the subjects that are aware of them. An acknowledgement that objects exist independently of consciousness.

    If you can accept the primacy of existence, why can’t you accept the primacy of God,

    Imaginary beings can’t hold primacy over anything.

    why can’t you accept the primacy of life if you accept the primacy of non-living.

    Mmmm, tasty word salad.

    You are empty.

    I’m rubber and you’re glue etc…

  324. on 13 Jan 2015 at 4:59 pm 324.freddies_dead said …

    313.Anonymous said …

    310.freddies_dead said:

    Thanks for confirming that “faith” is hope in the imaginary. Nothing else MurderGod@YourOwnRisk dribbles about matters as he’s already admitted that it’s based entirely on imaginary things. Just another mind lost to irrationality.

    No one said that hope is faith in the imaginary.

    No, they didn’t, so I’m not sure why you’ve mentioned it here. Faith being hope in the imaginary on the other hand…

    Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Now tell me where does the dictionary, the bible or any wise mind, or honest tongue say that something that is not seen is the same as something that is imaginary.

    How can hoping for something provide “substance”? And how can things you haven’t seen be called evidence? You’re left with faith being hope in the imaginary.

    The entirety of the academic history of mankind has been the story of the use of the abstract or imaginary to guide scientific truth.

    This is, of course, irrelevant. There’s nothing to stop anyone using abstractions or even imaginings in the formulation of questions but no-one rational is going to accept an imagining as an answer. Reason – the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses – is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.

    Scientific truth is only one form of truth,

    Truth is truth, there is no need to try and qualify it unless you’re trying to blur the line between fact and fantasy.

    Scientific truth is based on the observed not what is but what is observed,

    Are you claiming that what is observed isn’t “what is”? That suggests you don’t think observation can lead to knowledge of reality.

    it is based on performing experiments and show not what the experiments show but what is inferred from the experiment by the one observing.

    So, again, the inferred results of an experiment don’t reflect the actual results?

    On this basis, if I drop an apple and observe it fall to the ground it a) might have done something completely different in reality and b) I might have incorrectly inferred that the apple fell to the ground?

    Basically you appear to be attempting to show that “scientific truth” as you call it isn’t actually truth at all. I get that you need to blur the lines between fact and fantasy in order to retain your belief in an imaginary God but you also pull the rug from under your own feet by questioning the ability to observe and infer. How do you know the words you observe in the Bible are the actual words in reality and how do you know that your inference based on that observation i.e. that God exists, is the correct inference?

    However a recurrent result does not mean that a theory is true.

    Scientific theories aren’t “true” per se. They are seen as the best explanation for groups of phenomena.

    Science is the story of mistakes and wrong conclusions as proved as more accurate measurements and more sophisticated experiments have shown.

    Yes, the explanations change as new facts are uncovered. This isn’t controversial.

    There is also Historical truth looking at historical evidencde, eyewitness accounts, archaeological evidence,

    Truth is truth whether the evidence comes from science or history.

    Moral truth is based on what people believe to be morally right or wrong.

    And here we see the primacy of consciousness thinking which results in subjectivism. Do you honestly believe that things are right or wrong based on what people believe? If so where does “truth” come into it? If people believe that stealing is fine does that make it fine?

    Then there is spiritual truth or religious truth.

    Ah, imaginary truth.

  325. on 13 Jan 2015 at 4:59 pm 325.freddies_dead said …

    319.TJ said …

    freddies_dead said,
    “I have 2 daughters, however, they are no longer children.”

    Nice.

    They are.

    Do you remember when they where little?

    I do.

    How they looked up to you as the authority on everything?

    I have to say that didn’t last long. Especially as I did everything I could to ensure they learned to think and find out things for themselves.

    How they where willing to absorb all that they could?

    Absorb yes, but not to accept uncritically.

    Do you remember the pride of each new milestone as they reached it?

    I do.

    Do you remember their’s and your unconditional love for each other?

    I do.

    The following is from post#295.

    “On the contrary, the Bible demands the believer revert to childlike thinking as that’s the only way they’ll believe most of the ridiculous drivel it tries to pass off as “wisdom”.

    Matthew 18:3-4 “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

    Mark 10:15 “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.”
    Luke 18:16 “But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.””

    I know you have knowledge and understanding of Biblical concepts. Do the quotes above seem ridiculous drivel from a God who refers to himself as “Heavenly Father”, a God of Love?

    What has this got to do with me showing WalkingAccording2Spirit&Truth’s claim (The bible does appeal to reason, to testing of statements, to evidence, to wisdom and to the forsaking of naivety it does not teach gullibility.) to be false using statements found in the Bible that say you must be like a child in order to enter Heaven?

    It is the thinking exposed by the quotes above that is used to get believers to accept ridiculous concepts like people walking on water and talking donkeys/snakes. The kind of things that reason tells us aren’t real but that a child might accept.

    Remember the choice was between the “tree of knowledge” and “God”. Does God not say that he removed himself in the physical form from the presence of man when the tree was eaten of?

    Irrelevant but indicative of the drivel we’re supposed to accept as true. Talking snakes and miraculous fruit. People being punished for doing exactly what their creator had planned for them to do etc…

    I know you will accuse me of mental gymnastics, I can’t help it… God made me an athlete.

    You’re good but I’m not sure you’ll medal.

  326. on 14 Jan 2015 at 5:47 am 326.TJ said …

    Supernatural said…

    “This is how the brainwashing of religious beliefs begin. Kids up until a certain age believe their parents know everything, and when they see them believe in a god, they trust it is real.”

    My parent are not religious. Does this mean I am not brainwashed? I don’t belong to a church either.

    Anonymous said…

    “I mean obviously, you understand that those claiming beliefs based on personal experiences with other deities than your own are simply delusional, right?”

    I have no personal experience with anyone having ever claimed a spiritual experience to me, that they claimed to have come from a different God. Do you? If so which God did they claim? I would be keen to discuss with someone who makes such a claim. From that point on, I may be able to answer your question.

    To freddies_dead

    My point was that the relationship you recall, that didn’t last long with your daughters is indicative of the original relationship between God and Man. It is indicative of the relationship God promises’s to restore in a future time.

    I thought it was a good opportunity to remind you of the nature of God as you continually see him as a moral monster.

    You accept and assert that an omnipotent God must foreknow all the future actions of every individual, otherwise he wouldn’t be omnipotent, while also accepting that an omnipotent God’s other claims are drivel?

    “You’re good but I’m not sure you’ll medal.”
    …Not if your competing.

    freddies_dead said…

    “Do you honestly believe that things are right or wrong based on what people believe? If so where does “truth” come into it? If people believe that stealing is fine does that make it fine?”

    If I believe that I evolved and that my primary role is to pass on my genetic information and I steal your lunch so that I have the energy to reproduce later that day. Was it right or wrong to steal from you? And basis do we use to determine right from wrong?

  327. on 14 Jan 2015 at 7:03 pm 327.Corbis said …

    I don’t think atheist know the difference from the Bible and theism. They go after the Bible and think somehow this proves God does not exist. Then they believe because some claimed gods ate false that no god is real. Logic certainly is not their friend here.

    It is like the guy who jumps on a horse and runs in all directions. Maybe they they just fire all they have and hope something sticks.

  328. on 14 Jan 2015 at 11:34 pm 328.TJ said …

    To Corbis,

    ‘Then they believe because some claimed gods are false that no god is real.”

    Yes, and yet they cling to unverifiable theories that they will readily abandon at the first sight of evidence to the contrary. Promote these same theories derived from the imagination of man as proofs in opposition to scripture. And claim that these theories somehow represent the undeniable truth somehow, despite all the holes, assumptions, assertions, unknowns and narrow beliefs contained in them.

    They place their faith and trust in the imagination of others perceived to be smarter than they. They reject the concept of their formless self ie. their soul. Rejecting a trust in their own ability to rationalize, imagine and fathom as irrelevant by-products of an unguided process of natural forces. All whilst presenting a religious like faith in the “unquestionable logic” of others and a readiness to pounce and demote anyone who questions or disagrees.

    Sounds like a clean brain, plugged into secular society. Ready to accept all manner of immorality as the norm.

  329. on 16 Jan 2015 at 4:02 am 329.Supernatural said …

    –Then they believe because some claimed gods are false that no god is real.–

    We are saying that no gods are real, and since there are many many gods that came before your god and others since, yours is no different. Think of all the different cartoon characters out there. You believe none of them are real, right? What if I said Mickey Mouse is a real living being? I bet you would say that it isn’t possible, because no cartoon characters are real. But then I said I went to Disney World and saw him walking around. You would say that it is just a person in a costume. Me being dumb because I don’t know the difference, said no way because my parents took me to meet him when I was a kid, and he was real. Just because some claimed cartoon characters are false, doesn’t mean no cartoon character isn’t real. Get the idea?

    ————

    –They place their faith and trust in the imagination of others perceived to be smarter than they.–

    So when an apple falls from a tree we are just imagining it is gravity that caused it? Are you saying it was magic, and god really pointed his wand at the apple and made it fall? So when you chop down a tree and see rings in there for each year because of how the seasons work, and when you add them up that is the age of the tree, that we are just imagining that, or did we put two and two together and observed what really happened? Observing reality is what science does, it studies the real world. You can’t observe the supernatural, so you can’t say there is evidence for it…..you are imagining it.

    ————

    –Ready to accept all manner of immorality as the norm.–

    Yes, because morals can only come from a 2,000 year old book. Morals actually come from wanting to survive in society and live as long as you can in society. And I suppose stoning your kids because they disobeyed you is moral? That is just one example in your bible that is immoral. Or did you just skip that part and only cherry pick the good stuff?

    I think you believers are on this site because you are starting to question your beliefs and are trying to test your stance by seeing how others can show how wrong you are. I, like many other non-believers, come on this site to laugh at you for what comments you make. And by the way, Wikipedia shouldn’t be your science source; Wikipedia is a place anyone can post material. You might want to start by looking at actual scientific writings.

  330. on 16 Jan 2015 at 8:45 am 330.freddies_dead said …

    326.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead

    My point was that the relationship you recall, that didn’t last long with your daughters is indicative of the original relationship between God and Man. It is indicative of the relationship God promises’s to restore in a future time.

    A real relationship can never be indicative of an imaginary one – which is the only type of relationship anyone can have with a god. Plus the original relationship described in the Bible was nothing like the relationship I had with my daughters. God never bothered to explain why Adam and Eve should obey his words even though He had created them with no knowledge of right and wrong. He then deliberately placed a serpent in the garden knowing full well they would fall to it’s temptation and eat fruit from a tree He had also seen fit to place in the same garden. He then not only blames Adam and Eve, He proceeds to curse the entire world with sickness and death for a failure that He had bought about.

    This would be equivalent to me placing my innocent daughters in a room with a plate of cookies, telling them not to eat them (without explaining why) and then putting someone else in the room telling them it’s actually fine to go ahead and eat the cookies. And when they eat the cookies – as I knew they would – I punish them and the whole world in a disproportionately cruel manner.

    That’s nothing but an abusive relationship.

    I thought it was a good opportunity to remind you of the nature of God as you continually see him as a moral monster.

    I actually see Him as imaginary. However, the God described in the Bible would be a moral monster if He actually existed.

    You accept and assert that an omnipotent God must foreknow all the future actions of every individual, otherwise he wouldn’t be omnipotent, while also accepting that an omnipotent God’s other claims are drivel?

    I actually accept the standard definition of omniscience i.e. that of knowing absolutely everything, and acknowledge that the Bible ascribes this attribute to the deity within. The Bible also describes his foreknowledge in verses like Isaiah 46:9-10 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure. Psalm 139:4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether. Matthew 26:34 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. 1 Peter 1:19-20 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.

    Also there’s no contradiction in acknowledging that the Bible makes certain claims whilst also pointing out that many of those claims are drivel.

    “Do you honestly believe that things are right or wrong based on what people believe? If so where does “truth” come into it? If people believe that stealing is fine does that make it fine?”

    If I believe that I evolved and that my primary role is to pass on my genetic information and I steal your lunch so that I have the energy to reproduce later that day. Was it right or wrong to steal from you?

    It is my contention that stealing is wrong regardless of what anyone may believe.

    And basis do we use to determine right from wrong?

    An objective one.

  331. on 16 Jan 2015 at 10:59 am 331.TJ said …

    To Supernatural,

    I quoted Corbis…
    ‘Then they believe because some claimed gods are false that no god is real.”

    you responded…
    “We are saying that no gods are real, and…”

    My bad, I should have corrected Corbis and said “they believe no gods are real” and then said everything I said after that.

    “So when an apple falls from a tree we are just imagining it is gravity that caused it?”
    A. No

    “Are you saying it was magic, and god really pointed his wand at the apple and made it fall?”
    A. No

    “So when you chop down a tree and see rings in there for each year because of how the seasons work, and when you add them up that is the age of the tree, that we are just imagining that,”
    A. No

    “or did we put two and two together and observed what really happened?”
    A. Yes. Although you should note that it has been observed in the forestry industry that more than one growth ring can be formed in one year. Particularly when an annual period has multiple transitions between favorable and poor conditions. A hot dry period can cause trees to mimic winter dormancy to reserve resources. This creates a distinct ring. A new visible ring will occur when favorable conditions return. Likewise years of extended drought can reduce ring formation.

    “Observing reality is what science does,”
    I Agree.

    it studies the real world.
    Yes, it does.

    “You can’t observe the supernatural,”
    An assumption.

    “so you can’t say there is evidence for it…..you are imagining it.”
    If you’ll recall, I said I had no evidence for you.

    “Yes, because morals can only come from a 2,000 year old book.”
    No, I’m saying that the morals you refer to as coming from a 2,000 year old book, are actually from an infinite consciousness that created all life and is therefore the authority on it.

    “Morals actually come from wanting to survive in society and live as long as you can in society.”
    Anybody else agree with this?

    And I suppose stoning your kids because they disobeyed you is moral?
    Really? You suppose that because the Bible talks about the rules laid out for the Israelite people to purify themselves as “God people”, allow for me to stone my kids? I wouldn’t agree with that.

    “That is just one example in your bible that is immoral.”
    And what is the immoral part? Is it the “Acts” that the Law demanded stoning during that time period? Is it the Act of stoning that is Immoral? Or is it that you would suppose it would be ok if I stoned my kids?

    “Or did you just skip that part and only cherry pick the good stuff?”
    No, lets investigate this further, together.

    “And by the way, Wikipedia shouldn’t be your science source; Wikipedia is a place anyone can post material. You might want to start by looking at actual scientific writings.”
    I didn’t say it was a science source. I strongly implied that it was reflective of the nature of scientific, “so called” evidence. We can do as you wish. Give me the paper or scientific document you wish me to read by title and author. I should then be able to locate it through Google. On this site we cannot post links, this is why I used Wikipedia as a general, easy to access source. Did you miss that when I explained in post #304.

    Quote “OK, I’ll look up “Age of the universe” in Wikipedia as it is easy for anyone to source my content.”

    I notice that when you attempted to refute me you drew attention to real science. Y’know the repeatable, testable, experimental kind. Newton, the apple, Gravity, Tree rings. However the nature of our discussion was on scientific origins. You have made no real attempt to challenge the notion that these theoretical science’s are non other than the products of the mind interpreting what is observed in the absence of real science. We cannot perform real science simply due to the fact that we cannot experiment on the past.

    I accept that research into origins has merit. I just don’t understand how you can claim that it is absolutely authoritative.

    I struggle to accept that whatever the current wisdom is, is unquestionable.

    You keep telling me I am wrong.

    You said you had proof.

  332. on 16 Jan 2015 at 4:46 pm 332.Anonymous said …

    Yes I am saying that scientific truth is not necessarily truth it is a type of truth a fallible truth. As fallible as the senses. A late starter. Even if our senses are perfect have we been perfect to our senses. Your arguments get weaker and weaker.

    God is not imaginary. We don’t imagine God. If I laid a heavy iron ball around your neck would you assume it to be imagined. I am saying that God is the most important aspect/thing/person/reality/being in existence. If you are driving your car, sailing your boat or flying a plane I would hope that your senses intuition and faith is so attuned that you would at all or most times be able to detect and respond to the most important thing in your environment if your ‘mind’ is functioning right.

    If God is not obviously the most important thing in the universe I would think that the question is their a sovereign of all this would be the most important thing.

    We were just talking about electricity and the electrifier of electricity and the electrifier of the electrifier of the electricity etc.

    I am not only interested in such an eternal process or infinite recess (Ludwig)which you do not handle well either by being able to deny it or to be philosophically reconciled to it and in my mind to be philosophically reconciled to it is to have to discovered the eternality of being and of the prime mover.

    …But I am also interested in the fact that this universe full of electricity doesn’t become my electric chair you should be concerned that electricity and the electrifier of the electricity etc doesn’t decide to turn up the wattage on you but he eventually will.

  333. on 16 Jan 2015 at 4:52 pm 333.Anonymous said …

    or Infinite Regress.

    That my friend is the purpose of the love, mercy, grace, and blessed favour of God all-mighty, all-good, all-benevolent all cherishing of his own.

    What can the primacy of existence protect you from.

    Anyone who has not sought the love of god is not cool but callous.

    They are not fit to be called citizens, they are not fit to be parents, they are not fit to drive, they are not fit to work.

    They must not establish themselves on earth or build up organisations or fill the social environments with their careless, filthy and contrary doctrines.

  334. on 16 Jan 2015 at 5:06 pm 334.Anonymous said …

    Faith is an instrument by which you may detect things the eye have not seen.

    It doesn’t conjure up imaginations about things that don’t exist.

    It is an instrument which which detect things which are but which do not appear to the natural eye.

    It is a third eye which may be opened. A supernatural faculty.

    For those Christians on this website. I hope you are fully persuaded in your minds the reason you are writing in on this blog.

    We must be careful not to be defiled by these frivilous and filthy thinkings on this website.

    A good read of Deuteronomy teaches that the children of God must never become curious of any lifestyle that is even vaguely different from those faithful to God. We must not only not follow other Gods but we must not imbibe the cultures of other religions, we should not even be curious of other Gods and other ways of worship we are devoted to God we must be HOLY before our God and we must never turn to the left or the right. Life is short far too short to turn astray from God’s true, holy, perfect and divine principles or we will never make it back home and Jesus’ sacrifice for us would have been in vain and we shall utterly perish in a lost eternity. We must fulfil our divine duty and mandate here and take our selves away, let our peace return to us and make our way to our own spiritual home. Even so I am not set to do.

  335. on 16 Jan 2015 at 5:23 pm 335.Anonymous said …

    God is real we can choose to fear him, have faith in him or ignore him closing your spiritual eyes does not make God disappear.

    Things do not wait on science to exist similarly in the spiritual world us knowing about God does not make him exist. God existed long before you or I God is eternal he gave the choice of life or death and we can become immortal too I prefer immortal to eternal you can only be eternal if you have always existed you can become immortal if you conquer your mortal nature and overcome the power of death in your life.

  336. on 16 Jan 2015 at 7:46 pm 336.Anonymous said …

    HEY HEY YOU ARE KILLING ME YOU ARE STIFFLING ME IN HERE DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TALKING TO OTHER PEOPLE OF A DIFFERENT VIEW POINT. I AM THE SECRETARY IN YOUR BRAIN THIS ARE YOUR OWN THOUGHTS STOP ARGUING WITH YOUR SELF. HOW STUPID CAN I GET YOU/ME

    CHEEZH!!!!!!!

  337. on 16 Jan 2015 at 7:52 pm 337.Anonymous said …

    WHY DID I CHOOSE NOW TO REVEAL MYSELF TO YOU OR ME: ME BEING YOU OR YOU BEING ME. REASONS.

    SO YOU FOUND YOURSELF PRETENDING NOT TO BE YOUR SELF ON AN ATHIEST WEBSITE CONGRATS

    :)

    I YOU ME WE ONLY GET TO DO THIS EVERY 6 MILLION YEARS.

  338. on 16 Jan 2015 at 8:02 pm 338.HEY HEY HEY said …

    DON’T TRY TO STEP TO ME I AM JUST THE ANSWER
    META MODERN WAR EATS YOUR BRAIN LIKE A CANCER
    HELPED YOU ALL MY LIFE IS THIS THE THANKS FOR
    NOT ON YOUR LIFE YOU WON’T GET A CHANCE TO
    QUIT THE LIT AND THE SCRIP THE VERSE AND THE STANZA
    YES HISTORIES GOT A NEW WAR DRUM TO DANCE TO

  339. on 16 Jan 2015 at 8:12 pm 339.Anonymous said …

    “Things do not wait on science to exist similarly in the spiritual world us knowing about God does not make him exist. God existed long before you or I God is eternal he gave the choice of life or death and we can become immortal too I prefer immortal to eternal you can only be eternal if you have always existed you can become immortal if you conquer your mortal nature and overcome the power of death in your life.”

    Things asserted without evidence can be dismissed without reason.

  340. on 16 Jan 2015 at 8:48 pm 340.Anonymous said …

    I PREFER TO FLY IN THE FACE OF REASON THAN FLY IN THE FACE OF GOD.

    YOU CAN INFER A NEGATIVE FEELING FROM YOUR FALLIBLE SENSES IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE FLOUTED SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE OR IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE FLOUTED REASON BUT IF YOU FLOUT GOD WHAT DO YOU HAVE LEFT. UNIVERSAL SHOCKING CHAIR.

    YOU HAVE PROVEN YOUR FAULT BUT YOU CANNOT FAULT GOD.

    YOU WOULD SO LOVE TO SEE GOD WOULD’T YOU TO TAKE HIM TO YOUR LAB ETC TEST HIM OUT AND DISMISS HIM; MAYBE CANNIBALISE HIM NOT ONLY PHILOSOPHICALLY BUT Scientifically.

    BUT THAT IS WHY GOD IS GOD?

    LATE STARTERS, FALLIBLE MINDS, HEADING FOR A UNIVERSAL SHOCKING CHAIR WITHOUT GOD’S LOVE AND MERCY.

  341. on 16 Jan 2015 at 8:54 pm 341.THEY THEY THEY said …

    I AM EXTREMELY YOU DON’T DEBATE ME. NIT WIT. WHO KNEW THIS FIRST YOU OR ME.

    THEN FOLLOW ME.

  342. on 16 Jan 2015 at 9:08 pm 342.THEY THEY THEY said …

    NOW WHAT IS YOUR LIBERATING KNOWLEDGE?

  343. on 16 Jan 2015 at 9:11 pm 343.Anonymous said …

    Therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, alway.

    2 And know ye this day: for I speak not with your children which have not known, and which have not seen the chastisement of the Lord your God, his greatness, his mighty hand, and his stretched out arm,

    3 And his miracles, and his acts, which he did in the midst of Egypt unto Pharaoh the king of Egypt, and unto all his land;

    4 And what he did unto the army of Egypt, unto their horses, and to their chariots; how he made the water of the Red sea to overflow them as they pursued after you, and how the Lord hath destroyed them unto this day;

    5 And what he did unto you in the wilderness, until ye came into this place;

    6 And what he did unto Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, the son of Reuben: how the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their households, and their tents, and all the substance that was in their possession, in the midst of all Israel:

    7 But your eyes have seen all the great acts of the Lord which he did.

    8 Therefore shall ye keep all the commandments which I command you this day, that ye may be strong, and go in and possess the land, whither ye go to possess it;

    9 And that ye may prolong your days in the land, which the Lord sware unto your fathers to give unto them and to their seed, a land that floweth with milk and honey.

    10 For the land, whither thou goest in to possess it, is not as the land of Egypt, from whence ye came out, where thou sowedst thy seed, and wateredst it with thy foot, as a garden of herbs:

    11 But the land, whither ye go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the rain of heaven:

    12 A land which the Lord thy God careth for: the eyes of the Lord thy God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year even unto the end of the year.

    13 And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you this day, to love the Lord your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul,

    14 That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil.

    15 And I will send grass in thy fields for thy cattle, that thou mayest eat and be full.

    16 Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them;

    17 And then the Lord’s wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit; and lest ye perish quickly from off the good land which the Lord giveth you.

    18 Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.

    19 And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

    20 And thou shalt write them upon the door posts of thine house, and upon thy gates:

    21 That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, in the land which the Lord sware unto your fathers to give them, as the days of heaven upon the earth.

    22 For if ye shall diligently keep all these commandments which I command you, to do them, to love the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, and to cleave unto him;

    23 Then will the Lord drive out all these nations from before you, and ye shall possess greater nations and mightier than yourselves.

    24 Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours: from the wilderness and Lebanon, from the river, the river Euphrates, even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be.

    25 There shall no man be able to stand before you: for the Lord your God shall lay the fear of you and the dread of you upon all the land that ye shall tread upon, as he hath said unto you.

    26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;

    27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you this day:

    28 And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.

    29 And it shall come to pass, when the Lord thy God hath brought thee in unto the land whither thou goest to possess it, that thou shalt put the blessing upon mount Gerizim, and the curse upon mount Ebal.

    30 Are they not on the other side Jordan, by the way where the sun goeth down, in the land of the Canaanites, which dwell in the champaign over against Gilgal, beside the plains of Moreh?

    31 For ye shall pass over Jordan to go in to possess the land which the Lord your God giveth you, and ye shall possess it, and dwell therein.

    32 And ye shall observe to do all the statutes and judgments which I set before you this day.

  344. on 17 Jan 2015 at 10:39 pm 344.Anonymous said …

    Why do these dolts think that posting a bunch of drivel with “thee, thou, ye, hath, and walkest” somehow makes it more credible? Lol
    Again, ideas presented without evidence may be dismissed without reason.
    Sorry, maybe I should say, “thou ideas presentithed without thine evidence to backith it up, shall be rejectedith without further consideration, for such be-ith the nature by which thy bullshit hath been made.”

  345. on 18 Jan 2015 at 3:20 am 345.alex said …

    “Why do these dolts think that posting a bunch of drivel with “thee, thou, ye, hath, and walkest” somehow makes it more credible? Lol”

    it doesn’t. just another imaginary form of redemption. these assholes watch the motherfucking porn like the rest of us perverts, but the difference is that, these xtian fuckheads get to pronounce themselves righteous just by uttering these fucked up sayings.

    that’s right bitches. you think you’re better than atheists? i challenge you fuckers to post your motherfucking morality test here and let’s see how atheists do.

  346. on 18 Jan 2015 at 4:13 am 346.TJ said …

    None of us are better than another. We are equally sinners in our own right.

    I would fail any morality test, as all would.

    It’s not about being morally correct. It’s about recognizing the need for salvation… and then accepting it.

  347. on 18 Jan 2015 at 5:41 am 347.alex said …

    “It’s not about being morally correct. It’s about recognizing the need for salvation… and then accepting it.”

    that’s whats great about your shit, ain’t it? recognizing that you have the salvation card and you can basically do whatever the fuck you want with impunity.

    you’re right. we all fuck up somehow or another. the difference between you and i is that when i fuck up, i recognize it and i’ll try to do better. you, otoh, you get to make up shit that your ass is forgiven and that somehow all is good because your fuckup is all gone.

    dumbass, motherfucker.

  348. on 18 Jan 2015 at 11:36 am 348.TJ said …

    Quite the opposite, the resulting consequences do not go away. The shit still sticks. The whole “free will” thing, demands that God not intervene and heal amputees.

    It also demands that we take responsibility for our actions. This point is often missed completely by non believers. They imagine only a God in the absence of free will. Ask Fred.

  349. on 18 Jan 2015 at 3:00 pm 349.alex said …

    “It also demands that we take responsibility for our actions. This point is often missed completely by non believers.”

    are you fucking kidding me? at the office, a pig atheist takes the last two donuts knowing full well he doesn’t need both. he thinks about it and feels bad and vows not be so damn greedy. an xtian does the same shit and prays for forgiveness. you don’t see the difference in this shit?

    an atheist and an xtian both watch internet porn. the atheist doesn’t even think twice, but the xtian really feels bad and prays for forgiveness.

    two pedophiles, one atheist and the other xtian and both are busted. the atheist feels bad and recognizes that he’s got a problem and seeks a solution. the xtian prays that god forgives him and gives him the strength to not do it again. they both do it again.

    what responsibilities did the atheists miss?

    what? the porn is immoral? again, publish your absolute moral test and we’ll apply it. ooops, it doesn’t exist, does it?

  350. on 18 Jan 2015 at 3:18 pm 350.alex said …

    “what? the porn is immoral?”

    maybe it is. but both camps watch it, don’t they? maybe they are equally immoral. again, the difference is that xtians like to think they’re better because of their god.

    adultery? same shit ain’t it? both motherfuckers prolly do it at the same frequency. what? your bible says it’s bad? the same bible that says stone the adulterers?

    abortion? xtians don’t commit abortions? atheists do it too and so? the difference is that xtian motherfuckers successfully legislated against it and the same motherfuckers would prolly like to legislate against porn and adultery.

    gay rights? women rights? and on, and on, and on…

    fuck this xtian shit.

    yeah, i know. cursing is immoral, but i do keep trying.

  351. on 18 Jan 2015 at 4:26 pm 351.TJ said …

    I agree with you alex.

    None of us are better than another.

    “an xtian does the same shit and prays for forgiveness.”

    “you don’t see the difference in this shit?”

    Of course. One draws his morals from whatever he justifies to himself as righteous and makes a vow to himself. The other recognizes a supreme being as a moral authority, and seeks redemption.

    Both are guilty.

    Neither should consider themselves better than the other. Although they often do, on both sides, the reasons are more to do with self pride.

    I am no better than you.

  352. on 18 Jan 2015 at 8:39 pm 352.DPK said …

    “The whole “free will” thing, demands that God not intervene and heal amputees.”

    So, TJ… you seem to be admitting that your god does not, in fact, intervene in human affairs? So when the child is cured of cancer after prayer, that is not god.. correct? He is prevented from performing miracles because of the “free will” thing. So, all the miraculous “answers” to prayers that we hear about can be dismissed as just co-incidence?
    Is that what you are now saying?
    So, why pray? I mean, if our prayers are to be humble, and we simply pray that his will is done… that’s going to happen anyway, right? So to pray to ask him to do something different from what he has already determined, or willed is really kind of arrogant, no?

    “It’s not about being morally correct. It’s about recognizing the need for salvation… and then accepting it.”

    It really isn’t about being morally correct? It’s only about accepting salvation by believing that someone else has already paid the price for your sins? Being moral really doesn’t matter? Just trying to wrap my head around your particular version of crazy!

  353. on 19 Jan 2015 at 12:50 am 353.TJ said …

    To DPK,

    “So, TJ… you seem to be admitting that your god does not, in fact, intervene in human affairs? So when the child is cured of cancer after prayer, that is not god.. correct? He is prevented from performing miracles because of the “free will” thing. So, all the miraculous “answers” to prayers that we hear about can be dismissed as just co-incidence?
    Is that what you are now saying?”

    No. Many so called miracles can easily be explained away. God declares that prays will be answered in accordance to his will. Unless either of us fully know his will how can we answer. However you ask about “intervene in human affairs”, God has declared his work/intervention in regard to salvation as completed.

    The new testament points to prayers being answered in regard to spreading his word according to his will. Surely you’ve seen supporting scripture for this concept.

    As for kids being cured of cancer, I have no personal experience to speak of… do you?

    “It really isn’t about being morally correct? It’s only about accepting salvation by believing that someone else has already paid the price for your sins? Being moral really doesn’t matter?”

    I am saying that salvation does not require us to be morally correct, for all are sinners. A sinner by definition is not morally correct. The Bible clearly states that all fall short of the requirements of God. God offers salvation, but you must humble yourself and seek after it.

  354. on 19 Jan 2015 at 3:31 am 354.DPK said …

    “God declares that prays will be answered in accordance to his will. ”
    Which means that prayers only appear to be answered. Because if you happen to pray for something that god has determined will happen, then your prayer appears to be answered. But if you pray for something that god has already decided is not according to his will, then they are ignored. Which means you can pray or not pray, and it will make no difference, because “his will” will be done whether you pray for it, or for something else. That’s what you mean when you say “The whole “free will” thing, demands that God not intervene and heal amputees.” So, god id really not omnipotent, since he is prevented from answering prayers unless they are already in accordance with his will.
    As far as first hand experience of kids with cancer, yes I have a lot of first hand experience with it. I have seen kids get better… with a heavy price of medical treatments and a lot of anguish to both them and their families. And I have seen them die tragic, horrible deaths despite the fervent prayers of their family’s and the community.
    When the child does better, god gets plenty of praise. When the child dies, god gets a pass, because he is mysterious.

    “I am sang that salvation does not require us to be morally correct, for all are sinners. ”
    Ok, so morality is not a requirement for salvation, because god has paid the price for our sins through his whipping boy, So it’s not a concern for us, right? All we need do is believe and accept the free pass and we’re good.
    Thank god you’re not running the world….. LOL

  355. on 19 Jan 2015 at 6:04 am 355.alex said …

    “The Bible clearly states that all fall short of the requirements of God. God offers salvation, but you must humble yourself and seek after it.”

    and if you’ve never heard of the bible, you’re fucked. ain’t no ifs, ands, or buts. even if you’re a retard all your life, you’re still fucked, but not really. how the fuck can a retard be persuaded to partake in the heavenly bullshit? but if you’re a lifelong, repeat criminal, you can still get in. thanks to the magic of salvation.

  356. on 19 Jan 2015 at 12:03 pm 356.TJ said …

    “and if you’ve never heard of the bible, you’re fucked. ain’t no ifs, ands, or buts. even if you’re a retard all your life, you’re still fucked, but not really. how the fuck can a retard be persuaded to partake in the heavenly bullshit? but if you’re a lifelong, repeat criminal, you can still get in. thanks to the magic of salvation.”

    Is that what you expect from a God who says he is merciful, and will pass judgement?

    It does not matter what I believe or what you believe. God Claims that he will be the judge of such things, in the flesh… the “whipping boy”.

    I may be completely wrong about my “assumptions” and “imaginations”, but whatever is true, will be so regardless.

  357. on 19 Jan 2015 at 1:04 pm 357.alex said …

    “Is that what you expect from a God who says he is merciful, and will pass judgement?”

    dude. you’re the one that declared what your god would do and what his requirements are. if your god was merciful, belief would not be a requirement. everybody would be judged on their own merits and your god wouldn’t need any interpretations from fellows like you.

    wouldn’t that be easier to swallow? you discard every other shits in the bible already, so why not just discard the whole sheebang? you can still have your generic god, who passes judgement and sends you to your heaven and everybody would be cool, yes? with the bible out of the way, you wouldn’t hate on homosexuals, other races, abortions, women, gravity, evolution, etc. atheists might still snark about the eternal heaven/hell shit, but that’s for a rainy day.

  358. on 19 Jan 2015 at 3:53 pm 358.DPK said …

    357.alex said …
    “Is that what you expect from a God who says he is merciful, and will pass judgement?”
    dude. you’re the one that declared what your god would do and what his requirements are.”

    He’s got you there. One would expect a loving, merciful god to not eternally punish someone for the trivial crime of not believing in him when there is zero evidence that he exists. That is would be petty behavior from a being of infinite intelligence, especially since, for example, my being created to be skeptical is in accordance with his will.

    And back to the “prayers are answered according to his will” thing…
    If I pray that my competitor die in a fiery car wreck, I think most Christians would say that god is not going to answer that prayer because it is evil, and god is not evil. Yet, people die in fiery car wrecks every day, presumably “according to his will”. So, why would you think it was wrong for me to pray for that, since I know it will only actually happen if god wants it to…. so therefore it would not be bad, but good? By your logic, my praying for someone I dislike to die in a car wreck is not a bad thing at all, because I know that whatever I pray for will only happen in accordance with gods will, and sometimes gods will is for people to die in car wrecks, so that is good, because god’s will is always good.
    Likewise, it makes no difference if I pray for a sick child to either be cured and live, or get worse and die… because I know that if my prayer is answered… either way… it is good and in accordance with god’s will. So, sometimes it must be good to pray for a child to die a slow horrible death from say, cancer, or starvation, because sometimes god will answer that prayer with a resounding “yes!” and that must be good, right?

    TJ… maybe you need to rethink this…. LOL.

  359. on 19 Jan 2015 at 4:58 pm 359.TJ said …

    “By your logic,…”

    Your logic. Not mine.

  360. on 19 Jan 2015 at 5:16 pm 360.DPK said …

    ““By your logic,…”
    Your logic. Not mine.”

    hahaha… well then, explain how “your” logic is different. You said that god has declared that prayers are answered in accordance with his will. Logically, what do you determine that means? If I pray for something bad to happen, and it then happens, does it not happen in accordance with god’s will? And, is it not therefore good? Explain where my reasoning is false in light of your claims.

  361. on 19 Jan 2015 at 5:22 pm 361.freddies_dead said …

    332.Anonymous said …

    Yes I am saying that scientific truth is not necessarily truth it is a type of truth a fallible truth.

    Truth is truth, no qualifications are necessary.

    As fallible as the senses. A late starter. Even if our senses are perfect have we been perfect to our senses. Your arguments get weaker and weaker.

    So you decrying the fallibility of our senses – and calling into question everything you claim concerning the Bible that you need to use your sense of sight to read in the process – makes my argument weaker? Lol.

    God is not imaginary. We don’t imagine God.

    I have no option but to imagine God. If you disagree then you’ll be able to give us an objective means by which we can distinguish your God from something you may merely be imagining.

    If I laid a heavy iron ball around your neck would you assume it to be imagined.

    Why would I assume that something that is self-evidently real is imagined? And why do you stop here? I was expecting some means by which we can know your God is as real as the iron ball but you seem to have forgotten that part.

    I am saying that God is the most important aspect/thing/person/reality/being in existence.

    You can say what you want but your saying it doesn’t make it true. I can imagine a thing which is the “most important aspect/thing/person/reality/being in existence” just as easily as you, but that doesn’t make it real either.

    If you are driving your car, sailing your boat or flying a plane I would hope that your senses intuition and faith is so attuned that you would at all or most times be able to detect and respond to the most important thing in your environment if your ‘mind’ is functioning right.

    What have intuition and faith have to do with driving/sailing/flying? Am I having to imagine a car/boat/plane here? As long as my senses are working I don’t need to worry about imaginary things.

    If God is not obviously the most important thing in the universe I would think that the question is their a sovereign of all this would be the most important thing.

    Why does there need to be any “most important thing in the universe”?

    We were just talking about electricity and the electrifier of electricity and the electrifier of the electrifier of the electricity etc.

    I am not only interested in such an eternal process or infinite recess (Ludwig)which you do not handle well either by being able to deny it or to be philosophically reconciled to it and in my mind to be philosophically reconciled to it is to have to discovered the eternality of being and of the prime mover.

    I don’t have to “handle” an infinite regress as I’m not the one putting forward an argument that suffers from the problem. Do you have anything other than special pleading to save your imaginary God from the infinite regress of your electricity requires an electrifier argument?

    …But I am also interested in the fact that this universe full of electricity doesn’t become my electric chair you should be concerned that electricity and the electrifier of the electricity etc doesn’t decide to turn up the wattage on you but he eventually will.

    I see absolutely no reason to fear the imaginary, but if it works for you then good luck with that.

  362. on 19 Jan 2015 at 5:25 pm 362.freddies_dead said …

    333.Anonymous said …

    or Infinite Regress.

    That my friend is the purpose of the love, mercy, grace, and blessed favour of God all-mighty, all-good, all-benevolent all cherishing of his own.

    And do you have an objective means by which I can distinguish your God from something you may merely be imagining?

    What can the primacy of existence protect you from.

    Why would I expect a metaphysical principle to “protect” me from anything? Why wouldn’t I simply protect myself instead of hoping a principle or, in your case, an imaginary deity will do it for me?

    Anyone who has not sought the love of god is not cool but callous.

    They are not fit to be called citizens, they are not fit to be parents, they are not fit to drive, they are not fit to work.

    They must not establish themselves on earth or build up organisations or fill the social environments with their careless, filthy and contrary doctrines.

    And here we get to the “Christian love” i.e. hatred. Why? Because I refuse to accept Anonymous’ imaginary God of course. And because Anonymous realises that he has no objective means to demonstrate his God is anything other than imaginary.

  363. on 19 Jan 2015 at 5:27 pm 363.freddies_dead said …

    334.Anonymous said …

    Faith is an instrument by which you may detect things the eye have not seen.

    I can use my hearing, taste, touch or smell to detect things I have not seen – anything else would just be me imagining something.

    It doesn’t conjure up imaginations about things that don’t exist.

    That’s all faith does, otherwise Anonymous would be able to give us an objective means by which we could distinguish between his God and something he may merely be imagining.

    It is an instrument which which detect things which are but which do not appear to the natural eye.

    It is a third eye which may be opened. A supernatural faculty.

    A tacit admission – as if one were needed – that it’s nothing more than Anonymous’ imagination at work.

    For those Christians on this website. I hope you are fully persuaded in your minds the reason you are writing in on this blog.

    We must be careful not to be defiled by these frivilous and filthy thinkings on this website.

    Frivolous? Filthy? I thought you said the question of who/what is sovereign would be the “most important thing in the universe”? Is it only that important – or indeed clean – when people agree with your conclusion?

    A good read of Deuteronomy teaches that the children of God must never become curious of any lifestyle that is even vaguely different from those faithful to God. We must not only not follow other Gods but we must not imbibe the cultures of other religions, we should not even be curious of other Gods and other ways of worship we are devoted to God we must be HOLY before our God and we must never turn to the left or the right. Life is short far too short to turn astray from God’s true, holy, perfect and divine principles or we will never make it back home and Jesus’ sacrifice for us would have been in vain and we shall utterly perish in a lost eternity. We must fulfil our divine duty and mandate here and take our selves away, let our peace return to us and make our way to our own spiritual home. Even so I am not set to do.

    Good luck with that.

  364. on 19 Jan 2015 at 5:28 pm 364.freddies_dead said …

    335.Anonymous said …

    God is real

    If God is real then you’ll have no problem giving us an objective means by which we can distinguish Him from something you may merely be imagining.

    we can choose to fear him, have faith in him or ignore him closing your spiritual eyes does not make God disappear.

    It appears that “closing your spiritual eye” is a synonym for “stop imagining” although I’m pretty sure both would cause Him to disappear.

    Things do not wait on science to exist

    Who has claimed that they do? On the contrary my argument makes it clear that objects exist independently of the subjects that are aware of them.

    similarly in the spiritual world us knowing about God does not make him exist. God existed long before you or I God is eternal he gave the choice of life or death and we can become immortal too I prefer immortal to eternal you can only be eternal if you have always existed you can become immortal if you conquer your mortal nature and overcome the power of death in your life.

    Can you give us an objective means by which we can distinguish your “spiritual world” (or your God for that matter) from something you may merely be imagining?

  365. on 19 Jan 2015 at 5:29 pm 365.freddies_dead said …

    348.TJ said …

    They imagine only a God in the absence of free will. Ask Fred.

    Imagining a God is the only option I have. As for the absence of “free will” that’s solely down to the Bible. It does claim that we have free will, but it also ascribes certain attributes to the deity within (His omniscience and His plan) that it makes the concept of “free will” logically impossible.

  366. on 19 Jan 2015 at 5:38 pm 366.alex said …

    “Explain where my reasoning is false in light of your claims.”

    that’s because god’s behavior is outside the believable realm. the same god that doesn’t murder because its bad and god is good. the same god that giveth free will and but already knows the outcome. the same god that is merciful and good and vengeful and forgetful and loves the smell of burnt flesh. the same god that xtians describe and attach goody attributes to. the same god that answers prayers at the same rate as not praying at all. the same god thats everywhere and nowhere.

    in other words, a motherfucking god that can be anything, and will never be understood by nonbelievers such as you. but of course readily swallowed by faithful, heavenly bound, virgin drooling, fuckheads.

  367. on 19 Jan 2015 at 5:48 pm 367.TJ said …

    I am not the one saying God has everyone’s actions planned and mapped out. I say I don’t know for certain, either way. I could argue for and against the question “is the future knowable”.

    You guys claim that free will and an omnipotent God cannot co-exist. But wouldn’t an omnipotent God resolve any logic issue that you struggle to resolve with great ease?

    Isn’t that what you Guys also claim? If there is anything he cannot do, then he isn’t omnipotent.

    Even if God has foreknowledge of my actions, does not necessarily equate to an absence of free will to act on my part.

    After all, you claim an omnipotent God must know the future. Then if that is so, wouldn’t God be able to put all the pieces in place so that any prays he chooses to answer seem coincidental, as if the universe is acting in favor of the prayer?

    DPK questions me on the logic of which prayers will and won’t be answered. Who answers prayers? Not me.

    I can only speculate and imagine the possibilities. When
    I do, I have faith in what I believe. This makes me bias.

    When you guys speculate and imagine the possibilities, you have faith in your belief that how you imagine God would/should be, concludes that God is imaginary. This makes you bias.

    Again, neither can prove the other wrong. Both sides have the ability to choose what they want to believe. I cannot change your mind anymore than you me. Even in our beliefs we have free will. This is why we are responsible for our actions, our words and how we relate to each other.

    It is Gods will that you choose of your own free will to accept his gift of salvation. Otherwise you would already believe if it was the will of an omnipotent being that you should simply believe by default. But that would be illogical by our reckoning, wouldn’t it? What would be the point?

    There is worth and value in being chosen. Just as there is unworthiness and a sense of devalue in being rejected. At least that is how i interpret the importance of mans free will to choose or reject salvation.

    God declares that if you reject him, he will reject you. The choice is totally up to you. How could it possibly be fairer?

  368. on 19 Jan 2015 at 7:27 pm 368.DPK said …

    367.TJ said …
    I am not the one saying God has everyone’s actions planned and mapped out. I say I don’t know for certain, either way. I could argue for and against the question “is the future knowable”.

    But you specifically said that god himself has promised to answer prayers “according to his will.” So if you ray for something and it happens, it therefore MUST be according to his will, correct?

    “You guys claim that free will and an omnipotent God cannot co-exist. But wouldn’t an omnipotent God resolve any logic issue that you struggle to resolve with great ease?”

    Its not a claim its a fact, and your answer is simply to dismiss with with “well, god could make it so….”

    “Even if God has foreknowledge of my actions, does not necessarily equate to an absence of free will to act on my part.”
    Of course it does… If I have a choice to choose between “A” and “B” and god knows I will choose “A”, is there any possible scenario that exists where I will choose “B”? No, because doing so would mean god did not KNOW I would choose A. Whether I am aware of god’s knowledge or not makes no difference, there is no way I can choose B, therefore I am not free to do so, because it would not be possible.

    “DPK questions me on the logic of which prayers will and won’t be answered. Who answers prayers? Not me.”

    Way to dodge the point. I didn’t ask you about the logic of which prayers get answered and which are ignored… YOU claimed that god answers prayer in accordance with his will. Therefore, any prayer that is answered must then be according to gods will. So if I pray for 5,000 children to die of starvation this week and that occurs, then that is in accordance with god’s will. If I pray for 5,000 children to be cured of cancer this week, and it doesn’t happen, then it is NOT in accordance with god’s will?

    “I can only speculate and imagine the possibilities. When
    I do, I have faith in what I believe. This makes me bias.”

    Actually, with respect, from my perspective it doesn’t make you biased, it makes you oblivious, and more than just a little deluded.

    “When you guys speculate and imagine the possibilities, you have faith in your belief that how you imagine God would/should be, concludes that God is imaginary. This makes you bias.”

    I am not speculating how I imagine god would or should be, I am logically considering the consequences of how YOU claim god is, based on the bible, or a least your interpretation of it.

  369. on 20 Jan 2015 at 3:11 am 369.TJ said …

    “Of course it does… If I have a choice to choose between “A” and “B” and god knows I will choose “A”, is there any possible scenario that exists where I will choose “B”? No, because doing so would mean god did not KNOW I would choose A.”

    Do have a line of logic reasoning that would exclude an omnipotent God from setting up a situation in which he does not to know your future actions.

    Wouldn’t that situation fall within the possibilities of Omnipotent God?

    Don’t get me wrong, I follow your line of logic. However I am not omnipotent. You however now claim “…Its not a claim its a fact,…”

    I admit I could be wrong. What, besides the evolutionary resulting chemical reactions inside your head make you so sure?

  370. on 20 Jan 2015 at 2:38 pm 370.freddies_dead said …

    367.TJ said …

    I am not the one saying God has everyone’s actions planned and mapped out.

    No, it’s the Bible that makes that claim.

    I say I don’t know for certain, either way. I could argue for and against the question “is the future knowable”.

    Why would you argue for something other than what the Bible says?

    You guys claim that free will and an omnipotent God cannot co-exist.

    I have actually said that free will cannot exist in light of an omniscient God with a plan.

    But wouldn’t an omnipotent God resolve any logic issue that you struggle to resolve with great ease?

    I’m not struggling to resolve anything. If God has a plan (as the Bible claims) and if He is omniscient (as the Bible also claims) then the Biblical claim that man has free will is false.

    Isn’t that what you Guys also claim? If there is anything he cannot do, then he isn’t omnipotent.

    God’s omnipotence isn’t actually relevant at this point, but does throw up problems of it’s own i.e. An omniscient God who knows what is going to happen is powerless to change events and therefore cannot be called omnipotent. Similarly an omnipotent God who can change future events cannot also be omniscient as that would preclude changes in what God knows will happen.

    Even if God has foreknowledge of my actions, does not necessarily equate to an absence of free will to act on my part.

    Simple foreknowledge by itself doesn’t necessarily negate free will. However, because God is said to have planned everything out to bring about His own glory, He is the cause of your choices and any free will you may think you have is an illusion.

    After all, you claim an omnipotent God must know the future.

    No, an omniscient God would know the future.

    Then if that is so, wouldn’t God be able to put all the pieces in place so that any prays he chooses to answer seem coincidental, as if the universe is acting in favor of the prayer?

    How does that save the concept of free will? In order to “put all the pieces in place” to favour a prayer, God must know exactly what you’re going to pray for. If an omniscient God knows exactly what you’re going to pray for and has planned for that prayer then you have no choice but to pray that way – free will out the window.

    DPK questions me on the logic of which prayers will and won’t be answered. Who answers prayers? Not me.

    No, but the Bible claims that God will. So if people pray for bad things and they happen then – based on the Biblical claim – God must be the cause every bit as much as He’s the cause of the good things they pray for … although quite ridiculously the bad things get called good because they’re being done by God who – again according to the Bible – can do no wrong.

    I can only speculate and imagine the possibilities. When
    I do, I have faith in what I believe. This makes me bias.

    When you guys speculate and imagine the possibilities, you have faith in your belief that how you imagine God would/should be, concludes that God is imaginary. This makes you bias.

    I do not have faith that God is imaginary. I base my conclusion on the self-evident axioms (existence, identity, consciousness) and what we find in reality i.e. that the reality we experience has existence holding metaphysical primacy, coupled with the claims made about God in the Bible. When looked at logically this precludes the existence of that God.

    Again, neither can prove the other wrong.

    Not if both sides are just imagining things, no. However, I’m not having to imagine anything other than your God.

    Both sides have the ability to choose what they want to believe.

    I prefer to hold beliefs that comport with reality.

    I cannot change your mind anymore than you me.

    I’m open to having my mind changed with objective evidence, for example if you had an objective means by which I could distinguish your God from something you may merely be imagining I would accept that it is not imaginary.

    Even in our beliefs we have free will.

    Well, I do at least, as I’m not the one proposing the existence of an omniscient God with a plan.

    This is why we are responsible for our actions, our words and how we relate to each other.

    It is Gods will that you choose of your own free will to accept his gift of salvation.

    And yet according to the attributes ascribed to God in the Bible I can actually only do what the omniscient God planned and knows I will do. If I do not “accept his gift” it’s not a choice, it’s because He foreordained that I would not.

    Otherwise you would already believe if it was the will of an omnipotent being that you should simply believe by default.

    That would be the logical conclusion if things were how the Bible claimed. Of course they’re not actually like that in reality which is a problem for the Bible.

    But that would be illogical by our reckoning, wouldn’t it? What would be the point?

    Of course it’s illogical. It’s one reason how we know the Bible is something other than inerrant.

    There is worth and value in being chosen. Just as there is unworthiness and a sense of devalue in being rejected. At least that is how i interpret the importance of mans free will to choose or reject salvation.

    God declares that if you reject him, he will reject you. The choice is totally up to you. How could it possibly be fairer?

    Except the attributes ascribed to God mean you’re not the one doing any choosing. You can’t reject Him when He already knows – and planned – that you will choose Him and vice versa. Fairness doesn’t get a look in.

  371. on 20 Jan 2015 at 2:41 pm 371.freddies_dead said …

    369.TJ said … (to DPK)

    Do have a line of logic reasoning that would exclude an omnipotent God from setting up a situation in which he does not to know your future actions.

    Wouldn’t that situation fall within the possibilities of Omnipotent God?

    You can’t simply take an attribute in isolation to try and deal with the logical problems as the logical problems are caused by conflicting attributes i.e. an omnipotent God could indeed choose not to know things but then He’s not omniscient and hence isn’t the God described in the Bible. In attempting to solve one problem you lose God.

    Don’t get me wrong, I follow your line of logic. However I am not omnipotent. You however now claim “…Its not a claim its a fact,…”

    I admit I could be wrong. What, besides the evolutionary resulting chemical reactions inside your head make you so sure?

    I am also willing to admit I could be wrong if new objective evidence were to be provided. Until and unless that happens my certainty is based on the fact that things are what they are regardless of what anyone may wish, want, demand etc…

  372. on 20 Jan 2015 at 3:40 pm 372.Anonymous said …

    I AM ANONYMOUS NOT ANONYMOUS OR ANONYMOUS OR ANONYMOUS OR ANONI OR OTHER WISE.

    King James Bible
    Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal.

    EZEKIEL 33:17

  373. on 20 Jan 2015 at 3:44 pm 373.Anonymous said …

    YOU MUST GET TO APPRECIATE THE TRANSCENDENT BEAUTY OF THE WORD OF THE LORD.

    Deuteronomy 11 New English Translation (NET Bible)

    Reiteration of the Call to Obedience

    11 You must love the Lord your God and do what he requires; keep his statutes, ordinances, and commandments at all times. 2 Bear in mind today that I am not speaking to your children who have not personally experienced the judgments of the Lord your God, which revealed his greatness, strength, and power. 3 They did not see the awesome deeds he performed in the midst of Egypt against Pharaoh king of Egypt and his whole land, 4 or what he did to the army of Egypt, including their horses and chariots, when he made the waters of the Red Sea overwhelm them while they were pursuing you and he annihilated them. 5 They did not see what he did to you in the desert before you reached this place, 6 or what he did to Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab the Reubenite, when the earth opened its mouth in the middle of the Israelite camp and swallowed them, their families, their tents, and all the property they brought with them. 7 I am speaking to you because you are the ones who saw all the great deeds of the Lord!

    The Abundance of the Land of Promise
    8 Now pay attention to all the commandments I am giving you today, so that you may be strong enough to enter and possess the land where you are headed, 9 and that you may enjoy long life in the land the Lord promised to give to your ancestors and their descendants, a land flowing with milk and honey. 10 For the land where you are headed is not like the land of Egypt from which you came, a land where you planted seed and which you irrigated by hand like a vegetable garden. 11 Instead, the land you are crossing the Jordan to occupy is one of hills and valleys, a land that drinks in water from the rains, 12 a land the Lord your God looks after. He is constantly attentive to it from the beginning to the end of the year. 13 Now, if you pay close attention to my commandments that I am giving you today and love the Lord your God and serve him with all your mind and being, 14 then he promises, “I will send rain for your land in its season, the autumn and the spring rains, so that you may gather in your grain, new wine, and olive oil. 15 I will provide pasture for your livestock and you will eat your fill.”

    Exhortation to Instruction and Obedience
    16 Make sure you do not turn away to serve and worship other gods! 17 Then the anger of the Lord will erupt against you and he will close up the sky so that it does not rain. The land will not yield its produce, and you will soon be removed from the good land that the Lord is about to give you. 18 Fix these words of mine into your mind and being, and tie them as a reminder on your hands and let them be symbols on your forehead. 19 Teach them to your children and speak of them as you sit in your house, as you walk along the road, as you lie down, and as you get up. 20 Inscribe them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates 21 so that your days and those of your descendants may be extended in the land which the Lord promised to give to your ancestors, like the days of heaven itself. 22 For if you carefully observe all of these commandments I am giving you and love the Lord your God, live according to his standards, and remain loyal to him, 23 then he will drive out all these nations ahead of you, and you will dispossess nations greater and stronger than you. 24 Every place you set your foot will be yours; your border will extend from the desert to Lebanon and from the River (that is, the Euphrates) as far as the Mediterranean Sea. 25 Nobody will be able to resist you; the Lord your God will spread the fear and terror of you over the whole land on which you walk, just as he promised you.

    Anticipation of a Blessing and Cursing Ceremony
    26 Take note—I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: 27 the blessing if you take to heart the commandments of the Lord your God that I am giving you today, 28 and the curse if you pay no attention to his commandments and turn from the way I am setting before you today to pursue other gods you have not known. 29 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are to possess, you must pronounce the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal. 30 Are they not across the Jordan River, toward the west, in the land of the Canaanites who live in the Arabah opposite Gilgal near the oak of Moreh? 31 For you are about to cross the Jordan to possess the land the Lord your God is giving you, and you will possess and inhabit it. 32 Be certain to keep all the statutes and ordinances that I am presenting to you today.

  374. on 20 Jan 2015 at 3:46 pm 374.Anonymous said …

    Deuteronomy 11 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

    Chapter 11

    Recalling the Wonders of the Lord.

    1 Love the Lord, your God, therefore, and keep his charge, statutes, ordinances, and commandments always. 2 Recall today that it was not your children, who have neither known nor seen the discipline of the Lord, your God—his greatness, his strong hand and outstretched arm; 3 the signs and deeds he wrought in the midst of Egypt, on Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and on all his land; 4 what he did to the Egyptian army and to their horses and chariots, engulfing them in the waters of the Red Sea[a] as they pursued you, so that the Lord destroyed them even to this day; 5 what he did for you in the wilderness until you came to this place; 6 and what he did to the Reubenites Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, when the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up out of the midst of Israel, with their families and tents and every living thing that belonged to them— 7 but it was you who saw with your own eyes all these great deeds that the Lord has done.

    The Gift of Rain. 8 So keep all the commandments I give you today, that you may be strong enough to enter in and take possession of the land that you are crossing over to possess, 9 and that you may have long life on the land which the Lord swore to your ancestors he would give to them and their descendants, a land flowing with milk and honey. 10 The land you are to enter and possess is not like the land of Egypt from which you have come, where you would sow your seed and then water it by hand,[b] as in a vegetable garden. 11 No, the land into which you are crossing to take possession is a land of mountains and valleys that drinks in rain from the heavens, 12 a land which the Lord, your God, looks after; the eyes of the Lord, your God, are upon it continually through the year, from beginning to end.

    13 [c]If, then, you truly listen to my commandments which I give you today, loving and serving the Lord, your God, with your whole heart and your whole being, 14 I will give the seasonal rain to your land, the early rain[d] and the late rain, that you may have your grain, wine and oil to gather in; 15 and I will bring forth grass in your fields for your animals. Thus you may eat and be satisfied. 16 But be careful lest your heart be so lured away that you serve other gods and bow down to them. 17 For then the anger of the Lord will flare up against you and he will close up the heavens, so that no rain will fall, and the soil will not yield its crops, and you will soon perish from the good land the Lord is giving you.

    Need for Fidelity. 18 Therefore, take these words of mine into your heart and soul. Bind them on your arm as a sign, and let them be as a pendant on your forehead. 19 Teach them to your children, speaking of them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up, 20 and write them on the doorposts of your houses and on your gates, 21 so that, as long as the heavens are above the earth, you and your children may live on in the land which the Lord swore to your ancestors he would give them.

    22 For if you are careful to observe this entire commandment I am giving you, loving the Lord, your God, following his ways exactly, and holding fast to him, 23 the Lord will dispossess all these nations before you, and you will dispossess nations greater and mightier than yourselves. 24 Every place where you set foot shall be yours: from the wilderness and the Lebanon, from the Euphrates River to the Western Sea,[e] shall be your territory. 25 None shall stand up against you; the Lord, your God, will spread the fear and dread of you through any land where you set foot, as he promised you.

    Blessing and Curse. 26 See, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse: 27 a blessing for obeying the commandments of the Lord, your God, which I give you today; 28 a curse if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord, your God, but turn aside from the way I command you today, to go after other gods, whom you do not know. 29 When the Lord, your God, brings you into the land which you are to enter and possess, then on Mount Gerizim you shall pronounce the blessing, on Mount Ebal, the curse.[f] 30 (These are beyond the Jordan, on the other side of the western road in the land of the Canaanites who live in the Arabah, opposite Gilgal beside the oak of Moreh.) 31 Now you are about to cross the Jordan to enter and possess the land which the Lord, your God, is giving you. When, therefore, you take possession of it and settle there, 32 be careful to observe all the statutes and ordinances that I set before you today.

  375. on 20 Jan 2015 at 3:47 pm 375.Anonymous said …

    Deuteronomy 11 International Standard Version (ISV)

    Remember God’s Power

    11 “Therefore love the Lord your God and be very careful to keep his injunctions, statutes, ordinances, and commands all the time.[a] 2 Keep in mind today that I am not speaking to your children, who neither were aware of nor did they witness the discipline of the Lord your God—that is, his great and far-reaching power, 3 including: the signs and works that he did within Egypt to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and to all his land; 4 what he did to the Egyptian army, to its horses, and to its chariots, when he caused the water of the Reed[b] Sea to engulf them as they pursued you; how the Lord destroyed them, even to this day; 5 what he did for you in the desert until you came to this place; 6 and what he did to Eliab’s sons Dathan and Abiram, descendants of Reuben, when the ground opened up and swallowed them, their households, their tents, and every living thing belonging to them in the full sight[c] of Israel. 7 Your very own eyes saw all the great things that the Lord did.”

    Possessing a Fertile Land
    8 “Keep all the commands that I’m giving[d] you today, so you can be strong enough to enter and possess the land that you are crossing over to inherit 9 and so you’ll live long in the land that the Lord your God promised by an oath to give your ancestors and their descendants—a land flowing with milk and honey, 10 since the land that you are about to enter to inherit isn’t like the land of Egypt that you just left, where you plant a seed and irrigate it with your feet like a vegetable garden. 11 Instead, the land that you are crossing over to inherit is a land of hills and valleys that drinks water supplied by rain from heaven, 12 a land about which the Lord your God is always concerned, because the eyes of the Lord are continuously on it throughout the entire year.”[e]

    Delights of a Bountiful Land
    13 “If you carefully observe the commands that I’m giving you today—that is, to love the Lord your God and serve him with all your heart and soul— 14 then he[f] will send rain on the land in its season (the early and latter rains)[g] and you’ll gather grain, new wine, and oil. 15 He[h] will provide grass in the fields for your livestock, and you’ll eat and be satisfied. 16 Be careful! Otherwise, your hearts will deceive you and you will turn away to serve other gods and worship them. 17 The wrath of God will burn against you so that he will restrain the heavens and it won’t rain. The ground won’t yield its produce and you’ll be swiftly destroyed from the good land that the Lord is about to give you. 18 Take these commands to heart and keep them in mind, tying them as reminders on your arm and as bands on your forehead. 19 Teach them to your children, talking about them while sitting in your house, walking on the road, or when you are about to lie down or get up. 20 Also write them upon the doorposts of your house and gates,[i] 21 so that you and your children may live a long time in the land that the Lord promised to give your ancestors—as long as the sky remains above the earth.”

    Boundaries of the Land
    22 “If you carefully observe all of these commands that I’m giving you to do—to love the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, and to cling to him— 23 then the Lord will dispossess all these nations before you and you’ll dispossess nations that are even greater and stronger than you. 24 Every place upon which the soles of your feet tread will be yours as boundaries—from the desert to Lebanon and from the River (that is, from the Euphrates) to the Mediterranean[j] Sea. 25 No one will be able to stand against you. The Lord your God will instill terror and fear of you throughout the entire land wherever you go, just as he promised you. 26 Look! I’m about to grant you a blessing and a curse— 27 a blessing if you obey the commands of the Lord your God that I’m giving you today, 28 or a curse if you don’t obey the commands of the Lord your God, by turning from the way that I’m commanding you today and following other gods whom you have not known.”

    Declaration of the Blessings and Curses
    29 “When the Lord brings you to the land that you are about to enter to inherit, repeat the blessings on Mount Gerizim and the curses on Mount Ebal. 30 They’re across the Jordan River to the west in the land of the Canaanites who live in the Arabah opposite Gilgal near the Oak of Moreh, aren’t they? 31 For you are about to cross the Jordan River to go in and possess the land that the Lord your God is about to give you to inherit and live in. 32 Be careful to obey all the statutes and ordinances that I’m placing before you today.”

  376. on 20 Jan 2015 at 3:48 pm 376.Anonymous said …

    Deuteronomy 11 Amplified Bible (AMP)

    11 Therefore you shall love the Lord your God and keep His charge, His statutes, His precepts, and His commandments always.
    2 And know this day—for I am not speaking to your children who have not [personally] known and seen it—the instruction and discipline of the Lord your God: His greatness, His mighty hand, and His outstretched arm;
    3 His signs and His deeds which He did in Egypt to Pharaoh the king of Egypt and to all his land;
    4 And what He did to the army of Egypt, to their horses and chariots, how He made the waters of the Red Sea flow over them as they pursued you, and how the Lord has destroyed them to this day;
    5 And what He did to you in the wilderness until you came to this place;
    6 And what He did to Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, the son of Reuben, how the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up them, their households, their tents, and every living thing that followed them, in the midst of all Israel.
    7 For your eyes have seen all the great work of the Lord which He did.
    8 Therefore you shall keep all the commandments which I command you today, that you may be strong and go in and possess the land which you go across [the Jordan] to possess,
    9 And that you may live long in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers to give to them and to their descendants, a land flowing with milk and honey.
    10 For the land which you go in to possess is not like the land of Egypt, from which you came out, where you sowed your seed and watered it with your foot laboriously as in a garden of vegetables.
    11 But the land which you enter to possess is a land of hills and valleys which drinks water of the rain of the heavens,
    12 A land for which the Lord your God cares; the eyes of the Lord your God are always upon it from the beginning of the year to the end of the year.
    13 And if you will diligently heed My commandments which I command you this day—to love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your [mind and] heart and with your entire being—
    14 I will give the rain for your land in its season, the early rain and the latter rain, that you may gather in your grain, your new wine, and your oil.
    15 And I will give grass in your fields for your cattle, that you may eat and be full.
    16 Take heed to yourselves, lest your [minds and] hearts be deceived and you turn aside and serve other gods and worship them,
    17 And the Lord’s anger be kindled against you, and He shut up the heavens so that there will be no rain and the land will not yield its fruit, and you perish quickly off the good land which the Lord gives you.
    18 Therefore you shall lay up these My words in your [minds and] hearts and in your [entire] being, and bind them for a sign upon your hands and as forehead bands between your eyes.
    19 And you shall teach them to your children, speaking of them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you rise up.
    20 And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and on your gates,
    21 That your days and the days of your children may be multiplied in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers to give them, as long as the heavens are above the earth.
    22 For if you diligently keep all this commandment which I command you to do, to love the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways, and to cleave to Him—
    23 Then the Lord will drive out all these nations before you, and you shall dispossess nations greater and mightier than you.
    24 Every place upon which the sole of your foot shall tread shall be yours: from the wilderness to Lebanon, and from the River, the river Euphrates, to the western sea [the Mediterranean] your territory shall be.
    25 There shall no man be able to stand before you; the Lord your God shall lay the fear and the dread of you upon all the land that you shall tread, as He has said to you.
    26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse—
    27 The blessing if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you this day;
    28 And the curse if you will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way which I command you this day to go after other gods, which you have not known.
    29 And when the Lord your God has brought you into the land which you go to possess, you shall set the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal.
    30 Are they not beyond the Jordan, west of the road, where the sun goes down, in the land of the Canaanites living in the Arabah opposite Gilgal, beside the oaks or terebinths of Moreh?
    31 For you are to cross over the Jordan to go in to possess the land which the Lord your God gives you, and you shall possess it and live in it.
    32 And you shall be watchful to do all the statutes and ordinances which I set before you this day.

  377. on 20 Jan 2015 at 3:50 pm 377.Anonymous said …

    Deuteronomy 11 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

    11 “Therefore, you are to love Adonai your God and always obey his commission, regulations, rulings and mitzvot. 2 Today it is you I am addressing — not your children, who haven’t known or experienced the discipline of Adonai your God, his greatness, his strong hand, his outstretched arm, 3 his signs and his actions which he did in Egypt to Pharaoh the king of Egypt and to his entire country. 4 They didn’t experience what he did to Egypt’s army, horses and chariots — how Adonai overwhelmed them with the water of the Sea of Suf as they were pursuing you, so that they remain destroyed to this day. 5 They didn’t experience what he kept doing for you in the desert until you arrived at this place; 6 or what he did to Datan and Aviram, the sons of Eli’av the descendant of Re’uven — how the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, along with their households, tents and every living thing in their company, there in front of all Isra’el. 7 But you have seen with your own eyes all these great deeds of Adonai. 8 Therefore, you are to keep every mitzvah I am giving you today; so that you will be strong enough to go in and take possession of the land you are crossing over to conquer; 9 and so that you will live long in the land Adonai swore to give to your ancestors and their descendants, a land flowing with milk and honey.

    (vi) 10 “For the land you are entering in order to take possession of it isn’t like the land of Egypt. There you would sow your seed and had to use your feet to operate its irrigation system, as in a vegetable garden. 11 But the land you are crossing over to take possession of is a land of hills and valleys, which soaks up water when rain falls from the sky. 12 It is a land Adonai your God cares for. The eyes of Adonai your God are always on it, from the beginning of the year to the end of the year.

    13 “So if you listen carefully to my mitzvot which I am giving you today, to love Adonai your God and serve him with all your heart and all your being; 14 then, [says Adonai,] ‘I will give your land its rain at the right seasons, including the early fall rains and the late spring rains; so that you can gather in your wheat, new wine and olive oil; 15 and I will give your fields grass for your livestock; with the result that you will eat and be satisfied.’ 16 But be careful not to let yourselves be seduced, so that you turn aside, serving other gods and worshipping them. 17 If you do, the anger of Adonai will blaze up against you. He will shut up the sky, so that there will be no rain. The ground will not yield its produce, and you will quickly pass away from the good land Adonai is giving you. 18 Therefore, you are to store up these words of mine in your heart and in all your being; tie them on your hand as a sign; put them at the front of a headband around your forehead; 19 teach them carefully to your children, talking about them when you sit at home, when you are traveling on the road, when you lie down and when you get up; 20 and write them on the door-frames of your house and on your gates — 21 so that you and your children will live long on the land Adonai swore to your ancestors that he would give them for as long as there is sky above the earth.

    (vii & Maftir) 22 “For if you will take care to obey all these mitzvot I am giving you, to do them, to love Adonai your God, to follow all his ways and to cling to him, 23 then Adonai will expel all these nations ahead of you; and you will dispossess nations bigger and stronger than you are. 24 Wherever the sole of your foot steps will be yours; your territory will extend from the desert to the L’vanon and from the River, the Euphrates River, to the Western Sea. 25 No one will be able to withstand you; Adonai your God will place the fear and dread of you on all the land you step on, as he told you.

  378. on 20 Jan 2015 at 3:53 pm 378.Anonymous said …

    Deuteronomy 11 New International Reader’s Version (NIRV)

    Love and Obey the Lord
    11 Love the Lord your God. Do what he requires. Always obey his rules, laws and commands. 2 Remember today that your children weren’t the ones the Lord your God guided and corrected. They didn’t see his majesty. They weren’t in Egypt when he reached out his mighty hand and powerful arm. 3 They didn’t see the signs and the other things he did in Egypt. They didn’t see what he did to Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, and to his whole country. 4 They weren’t there when the Lord destroyed the army of Egypt and its horses and chariots. He swept the waters of the Red Sea over the Egyptians while they were chasing you. He wiped them out forever. 5 Your children didn’t see what he did for you in the desert before you arrived here. 6 They didn’t see what he did to Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab. Eliab was from the tribe of Reuben. The earth opened its mouth right in the middle of the Israelite camp. It swallowed up Dathan and Abiram. It swallowed them up together with their families, tents and every living thing that belonged to them. 7 But with your own eyes you saw all the great things the Lord has done.

    8 So obey all the commands I’m giving you today. Then you will be strong enough to go in and take over the land. You will go across the Jordan River and take the land as your own. 9 You will live there for a long time. It’s the land the Lord promised to give to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their children after them. He gave his word when he made that promise. The land has plenty of milk and honey. 10 You will enter it and take it over. It isn’t like the land of Egypt. That’s where you came from. You planted your seeds there. You had to water them, just as you have to water a vegetable garden. 11 But you will soon go across the Jordan River. The land you are going to take over has mountains and valleys in it. It drinks rain from heaven. 12 It’s a land the Lord your God takes care of. His eyes always look on it with favor. He watches over it from the beginning of the year to its end.

    13 So be faithful. Obey the commands the Lord your God is giving you today. Love him. Serve him with all your heart and with all your soul. 14 Then the Lord will send rain on your land at the right time. He’ll send rain in the fall and in the spring. You will be able to gather your grain. You will also be able to make olive oil and fresh wine. 15 He’ll provide grass in the fields for your cattle. You will have plenty to eat.

    16 But be careful. Don’t let anyone tempt you to do something wrong. Don’t turn away and worship other gods. Don’t bow down to them. 17 If you do, the Lord will be very angry with you. He’ll close up the sky. It won’t rain. The ground won’t produce its crops. Soon you will die. You won’t live to enjoy the good land the Lord is giving you. 18 So keep my words in your hearts and minds. Write them down and tie them on your hands as a reminder. Also tie them on your foreheads. 19 Teach them to your children. Talk about them when you are at home. Talk about them when you walk along the road. Speak about them when you go to bed. And speak about them when you get up. 20 Write them on the doorframes of your houses. Also write them on your gates. 21 Then you and your children will live for a long time in the land. The Lord promised to give the land to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Your family line will continue as long as the heavens remain above the earth.

    22 So be careful. Obey all the commands I’m giving you to follow. Love the Lord your God. Live exactly as he wants you to live. Remain true to him. 23 Then the Lord will drive out all the nations to make room for you. They are larger and stronger than you are. But you will take their land. 24 Every place you walk on will belong to you. Your territory will go all the way from the desert to Lebanon. It will go from the Euphrates River to the Mediterranean Sea. 25 No one will be able to stand up against you. The Lord your God will throw the whole land into a panic because of you. He’ll do it everywhere you go, just as he promised you.

    26 Listen to me. I’m setting a blessing and a curse in front of you today. 27 I’m giving you the commands of the Lord your God today. You will be blessed if you obey them. 28 But you will be cursed if you don’t obey them. So don’t turn away from the path I’m now commanding you to take. Don’t turn away by worshiping other gods you didn’t know before. 29 The Lord your God will bring you into the land to take it over. When he does, you must announce the blessings from Mount Gerizim. You must announce the curses from Mount Ebal. 30 As you know, those mountains are across the Jordan River. They are on the west side of the Jordan toward the setting sun. They are near the large trees of Moreh. The mountains are in the territory of the Canaanites, who live in the Arabah Valley near Gilgal. 31 You are about to go across the Jordan River. You will enter the land and take it over. The Lord your God is giving it to you. You will take it over and live there. 32 When you do, make sure you obey all the rules and laws I’m giving you today.

  379. on 20 Jan 2015 at 4:00 pm 379.Anonymous said …

    Deuteronomy 11 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

    11 “Therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and keep His charge, and His statutes, and His judgments, and His commandments, always.
    2 And know ye this day, for I speak not with your children, who have not known and who have not seen the chastisement of the Lord your God, His greatness, His mighty hand, and His stretched out arm,
    3 and His miracles, and His acts, which He did in the midst of Egypt unto Pharaoh the king of Egypt and unto all His land;
    4 and what He did unto the army of Egypt, unto their horses and to their chariots: how He made the water of the Red Sea to overflow them as they pursued after you, and how the Lord hath destroyed them unto this day;
    5 and what He did unto you in the wilderness until ye came into this place;
    6 and what He did unto Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, the son of Reuben: how the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up, and their households and their tents and all the substance that was in their possession, in the midst of all Israel—
    7 but your eyes have seen all the great acts of the Lord which He did.
    8 “Therefore shall ye keep all the commandments which I command you this day, that ye may be strong, and go in and possess the land whither ye go to possess it;
    9 and that ye may prolong your days in the land which the Lord swore unto your fathers to give unto them and to their seed, a land that floweth with milk and honey.
    10 For the land, whither thou goest in to possess it, is not as the land of Egypt from whence ye came out, where thou sowed thy seed and watered it with thy foot, as a garden of herbs.
    11 But the land, whither ye go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the rain of heaven,
    12 a land which the Lord thy God careth for. The eyes of the Lord thy God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year even unto the end of the year.
    13 “And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you this day, to love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul,
    14 that ‘I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn and thy wine and thine oil.
    15 And I will send grass in thy fields for thy cattle, that thou mayest eat and be full.’
    16 Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside and serve other gods and worship them;
    17 and then the Lord’S wrath be kindled against you, and He shut up the heaven, that there be no rain and that the land yield not her fruit, and lest ye perish quickly from off the good land which the Lord giveth you.
    18 “Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.
    19 And ye shall teach them to your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down and when thou risest up.
    20 And thou shalt write them upon the doorposts of thine house and upon thy gates,
    21 that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, in the land which the Lord swore unto your fathers to give them, as the days of heaven upon the earth.
    22 For if ye shall diligently keep all these commandments which I command you to do them — to love the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways, and to cleave unto Him—
    23 then will the Lord drive out all these nations from before you, and ye shall possess greater nations and mightier than yourselves.
    24 Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours: from the wilderness and Lebanon, from the river, the River Euphrates, even unto the uttermost sea shall your borders be.
    25 There shall no man be able to stand before you; for the Lord your God shall lay the fear of you and the dread of you upon all the land that ye shall tread upon, as He hath said unto you.
    26 “Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse:
    27 a blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you this day;
    28 and a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods which ye have not known.
    29 And it shall come to pass, when the Lord thy God hath brought thee in unto the land whither thou goest to possess it, that thou shalt put the blessing upon Mount Gerizim and the curse upon Mount Ebal.
    30 Are they not on the other side of the Jordan, by the way where the sun goeth down, in the land of the Canaanites who dwell in the champaign over against Gilgal, beside the plains of Moreh?
    31 For ye shall pass over the Jordan to go in to possess the land which the Lord your God giveth you, and ye shall possess it and dwell therein.
    32 And ye shall observe to do all the statutes and judgments which I set before you this day.

  380. on 20 Jan 2015 at 4:03 pm 380.Anonymous said …

    AND BECAUSE I LOVE THIS

    Deuteronomy 11 Living Bible (TLB)

    11 “You must love the Lord your God and obey every one of his commands. 2 Listen! I am not talking now to your children who have never experienced the Lord’s punishments or seen his greatness and his awesome power. 3 They weren’t there to see the miracles he did in Egypt against Pharaoh and all his land. 4 They didn’t see what God did to the armies of Egypt and to their horses and chariots—how he drowned them in the Red Sea as they were chasing you, and how the Lord has kept them powerless against you until this very day! 5 They didn’t see how the Lord cared for you time and again through all the years you were wandering in the wilderness, until your arrival here. 6 They weren’t there when Dathan and Abiram (the sons of Eliab, descendants[a] of Reuben) sinned, and the earth opened up and swallowed them, with their households and tents and all their belongings, as all Israel watched!

    7 “But you have seen these mighty miracles! 8 How carefully, then, you should obey these commandments I am going to give you today, so that you may have the strength to go in and possess the land you are about to enter. 9 If you obey the commandments, you will have a long and good life in the land the Lord promised to your ancestors and to you, their descendants—a wonderful land ‘flowing with milk and honey’! 10 For the land you are about to enter and possess is not like the land of Egypt where you have come from, where irrigation is necessary. 11 It is a land of hills and valleys with plenty of rain— 12 a land that the Lord your God personally cares for! His eyes are always upon it, day after day throughout the year!

    13 “And if you will carefully obey all of his commandments that I am going to give you today, and if you will love the Lord your God with all your hearts and souls and will worship him, 14 then he will continue to send both the early and late rains that will produce wonderful crops of grain, grapes for your wine, and olive oil. 15 He will give you lush pastureland for your cattle to graze in, and you yourselves shall have plenty to eat and be fully content.

    16 “But beware that your hearts do not turn from God to worship other gods. 17 For if you do, the anger of the Lord will be hot against you, and he will shut the heavens—there will be no rain and no harvest, and you will quickly perish from the good land the Lord has given you. 18 So keep these commandments carefully in mind. Tie them to your hand to remind you to obey them, and tie them to your forehead between your eyes! 19 Teach them to your children. Talk about them when you are sitting at home, when you are out walking, at bedtime, and before breakfast! 20 Write them upon the doors of your houses and upon your gates, 21 so that as long as there is sky above the earth, you and your children will enjoy the good life awaiting you in the land the Lord has promised you.[b]

    22 “If you carefully obey all the commandments I give you, loving the Lord your God, walking in all his ways, and clinging to him, 23 then the Lord will drive out all the nations in your land, no matter how much greater and stronger than you they might be. 24 Wherever you go, the land is yours. Your frontiers will stretch from the southern Negeb to Lebanon, and from the Euphrates River to the Mediterranean Sea. 25 No one will be able to stand against you, for the Lord your God will send fear and dread ahead of you wherever you go, just as he has promised.

    26 “I am giving you the choice today between God’s blessing or God’s curse! 27 There will be blessing if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I am giving you today, 28 and a curse if you refuse them and worship the gods of these other nations. 29 When the Lord your God brings you into the land to possess it, a blessing shall be proclaimed from Mount Gerizim and a curse from Mount Ebal! 30 (Gerizim and Ebal are mountains west of the Jordan River, where the Canaanites live, in the wasteland near Gilgal, where the oaks of Moreh are.) 31 For you are to cross the Jordan and live in the land the Lord is giving you. 32 But you must obey all the laws I am giving you today.

  381. on 20 Jan 2015 at 4:04 pm 381.DPK said …

    369.TJ said …
    “Do have a line of logic reasoning that would exclude an omnipotent God from setting up a situation in which he does not to know your future actions.
    Wouldn’t that situation fall within the possibilities of Omnipotent God?”

    Of course it would, but then he wouldn’t be omniscient, which is the property we are discussing. I can imagine all kinds of scenarios in a convoluted attempt to try to explain away the paradoxes created by the biblical claims. But a far simpler and uncomplicated explanation exists that doesn’t require mental gymnastics.

    Freddy said:
    “Simple foreknowledge by itself doesn’t necessarily negate free will….”

    I disagree. Knowledge implies certainty. The claim is not that “God has a pretty good idea of what will happen”, or God knows what is most likely to happen.” The claim is god KNOWS what will happen, and if I have free will, that is not possible, because I would not, in fact, be free to do anything other than what god KNOWS. To know is to perceive directly.

  382. on 20 Jan 2015 at 4:15 pm 382.Anonymous said …

    ????????? ????
    11 «?????????? ?????????? ??????????? ????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????. 2 ?????????? ??????? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ???????????? ????????? ???? ????????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ????????? ???????????? ??????????? ??????????? 3 ????????? ?????????? ??????? ???????? ??? ?????? ??????????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ???????? 4 ???? ???????? ??????? ?????? ??????????? ?????????????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ???????????? ?????? ???????????????? ???????????? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ???????? 5 ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ????????? 6 ???? ???????? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ????????????????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???? ??????????????? ???? ???????????? ???????????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????????? ??? ?????? ????? ??????????? 7 ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ????? ???????? ??????????? ??????? ???????? ?????.

    8 «????????? ????? ???????????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ??????????? ???????? ??????????? ????????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????????? ????? ?????????? ??????? 9 ??????? ??????? ???????? ????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?????????? ????? ????????? ?????? ??????????????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????????. 10 ?????? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ??????????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?????????????? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ????????? ???????????? ???????????? ????????? ?????????. 11 ??????? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ???????? ??????????? ????? ?????? ??????????? ?????? ???????? ?????????. 12 ????? ???????? ???? ?????????. ????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ???? ???????? ????????? ???? ??????????.

    13 «????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ?????????? ???? ???????? ???????????? ????? ??????????????? ??????? ??????????? ????????? ???????????? 14 ??????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? ??? ??????? ??????????. ??????????? ???? ?????? ????????? ???????? ??????????. ?????????????? ????????? ???????????? ????????? ???????????. 15 ??????????? ??????? ??? ??????????? ???????????????? ??????????? ????????? ?????? ???????.

    16 «?????? ????????? ????? ??? ?? ??????????? ?????? ????????????? ??????????? ??????? ??????? ??????????? ????. 17 ??? ????????? ????? ?????????? ??????????? ????????? ???? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ?????????????? ???????? ??? ??????? ??????????? ??????? ???????? ????? ??????.

    18 «???????? ????????? ??? ??????????? ????? ???????????. ????????? ????? ????????? ?????????? ??????????????? ??????????? ???? ??????????. 19 ?????????? ???????????? ????????????? ???? ????? ?????????? ??? ???????????? ??????? ?????????? ??? ??????????? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ??????????. 20 ????????? ????? ???????? ??????????? ??????????? ??????????? 21 ????? ??????? ?????? ???????????? ??????? ???????? ????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?????????? ????? ????????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????????? ????? ???????.

    22 «??? ?????????? ????? ?????? ???????????? ??????? ?????????? ???? ???????????? ???????? ??????????? ?????????? ????????? ???????? ????????? ??????????? ???????? ????? 23 ?????? ????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ???? ?????????. ????????????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????????????? ?????????. 24 ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ??????. ????????? ???????? ????????? ???? ?????????? ???????? ???? ??????? ???????? ?????? ????? ???????? ?????? ???? ??????? ??????????. 25 ?????? ?????????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ????????? ??????? ????????????? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ???? ??????????.

    ?????????? ???????????
    26 «???????????? ??????? ??? ????????? ????? ?????????? ????????????. 27 ?????????? ?????? ??? ???????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ?????????? ???? ???????? 28 ???????????? ?????? ??? ???? ????????? ?????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ???? ???????? ??????????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ?????????? ???? ?????.

    29 «????????? ???????????? ????????? ???? ??????? ??????????????? ???????? ?????????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????????? ???????????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? 30 ?????????? ?????????? ????? ?????????? ???????????? ??????? ??????????? ??? ????? ??????????????? ???????????? ????? ????????? ????? ????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ?????????? ??? ???????. 31 ?????????????? ????? ?????????? ??????????? ????????????? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ???????? ??????. ??????? ?????????????? ???????????? ?????? 32 ???????? ??????? ??????????? ???????????? ??????? ???????? ??????.

  383. on 20 Jan 2015 at 4:17 pm 383.Anonymous said …

    Deuteronomy 11 GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)

    11 Love the Lord your God, and do what he wants you to do. Always obey his laws, rules, and commands. 2 Remember today the discipline you learned from the Lord your God. (I’m not talking to your children. They didn’t see or experience any of this.) You saw and experienced his great power—his mighty hand and powerful arm. 3 You saw the miraculous signs and deeds he did in Egypt to Pharaoh (the king of Egypt) and to his whole country. 4 You saw what he did to the Egyptian army, its horses and chariots. He drowned them in the Red Sea when they pursued you. So the Lord destroyed them forever. 5 You saw what he did for you in the desert until you came here. 6 You also saw what he did to Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, from the tribe of Reuben. In the middle of all the Israelites the ground opened up and swallowed them, their families, their tents, and every living creature with them. 7 You saw with your own eyes all these spectacular things that the Lord did.

    8 Obey all the commands I’m giving you today. Then you will have the strength to enter and take possession of the land once you’ve crossed the Jordan River. 9 Then you will also live for a long time in the land the Lord swore to give your ancestors and their descendants—a land flowing with milk and honey.

    10 The land you’re about to enter and take possession of isn’t like the land you left in Egypt. There you used to plant your seed, and you had to water it like a vegetable garden. 11 The land you’re about to enter is a land with hills and valleys, watered by rain from the sky. 12 It is a land the Lord your God cares about. He watches over it all year long.

    13 If you faithfully obey the commands that I’m giving you today, love the Lord your God, and serve him with all your heart and with all your soul, 14 I will send rain on your land at the right time, both in the fall and in the spring. Then you will gather your own grain, new wine, and olive oil. 15 I will provide grass in the fields for your animals, and you will be able to eat all you want.

    16 Be careful, or you’ll be tempted to turn away and worship other gods and bow down to them. 17 The Lord will become angry with you. He’ll shut the sky so that there’ll be no rain. Then the ground won’t grow any crops, and you’ll quickly disappear from this good land the Lord is giving you.

    18 Take these words of mine to heart and keep them in mind. Write them down, tie them around your wrist, and wear them as headbands as a reminder. 19 Teach them to your children, and talk about them when you’re at home or away, when you lie down or get up. 20 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates. 21 Then you and your children will live for a long time in this land that the Lord swore to give to your ancestors—as long as there’s a sky above the earth.

    22 Faithfully obey all these commands I’m giving you. Love the Lord your God, follow all his directions, and be loyal to him. 23 Then the Lord will force all these people out of your way. Then you will take possession of the land belonging to people taller and stronger than you. 24 I will give you every place on which you set foot. Your borders will be from the desert to Lebanon, from the Euphrates River to the Mediterranean Sea. 25 No one will be able to stop you. As the Lord your God promised, he will make people terrified of you wherever you go in this land.

    Choose the Blessing or the Curse
    26 Today I’m giving you the choice of a blessing or a curse. 27 You’ll be blessed if you obey the commands of the Lord your God that I’m giving you today. 28 You’ll be cursed if you disobey the commands of the Lord your God, if you turn from the way I’m commanding you to live today, and if you worship other gods you never knew. 29 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you’re about to enter, recite the blessing from Mount Gerizim and the curse from Mount Ebal. 30 (These mountains are on the west side of the Jordan, beyond the road that goes west, in the region of the Canaanites who live on the plains facing Gilgal, next to the oak trees of Moreh.) 31 You’re about to cross the Jordan River to enter and take possession of the land the Lord your God is giving you. When you take possession of it and live there, 32 be careful to obey all the laws and rules I’m giving you today.

  384. on 20 Jan 2015 at 4:18 pm 384.Anonymous said …

    Deuteronomy 11 The Message (MSG)

    11 So love God, your God;
    guard well his rules and regulations;
    obey his commandments for the rest of time.
    2-7 Today it’s very clear that it isn’t your children who are front and center here: They weren’t in on what God did, didn’t see the acts, didn’t experience the discipline, didn’t marvel at his greatness, the way he displayed his power in the miracle-signs and deeds that he let loose in Egypt on Pharaoh king of Egypt and all his land, the way he took care of the Egyptian army, its horses and chariots, burying them in the waters of the Red Sea as they pursued you. God drowned them. And you’re standing here today alive. Nor was it your children who saw how God took care of you in the wilderness up until the time you arrived here, what he did to Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab son of Reuben, how the Earth opened its jaws and swallowed them with their families—their tents, and everything around them—right out of the middle of Israel. Yes, it was you—your eyes—that saw every great thing that God did.

    8-9 So it’s you who are in charge of keeping the entire commandment that I command you today so that you’ll have the strength to invade and possess the land that you are crossing the river to make your own. Your obedience will give you a long life on the soil that God promised to give your ancestors and their children, a land flowing with milk and honey.

    10-12 The land you are entering to take up ownership isn’t like Egypt, the land you left, where you had to plant your own seed and water it yourselves as in a vegetable garden. But the land you are about to cross the river and take for your own is a land of mountains and valleys; it drinks water that rains from the sky. It’s a land that God, your God, personally tends—he’s the gardener—he alone keeps his eye on it all year long.

    13-15 From now on if you listen obediently to the commandments that I am commanding you today, love God, your God, and serve him with everything you have within you, he’ll take charge of sending the rain at the right time, both autumn and spring rains, so that you’ll be able to harvest your grain, your grapes, your olives. He’ll make sure there’s plenty of grass for your animals. You’ll have plenty to eat.

    16-17 But be vigilant, lest you be seduced away and end up serving and worshiping other gods and God erupts in anger and shuts down Heaven so there’s no rain and nothing grows in the fields, and in no time at all you’re starved out—not a trace of you left on the good land that God is giving you.

    18-21 Place these words on your hearts. Get them deep inside you. Tie them on your hands and foreheads as a reminder. Teach them to your children. Talk about them wherever you are, sitting at home or walking in the street; talk about them from the time you get up in the morning until you fall into bed at night. Inscribe them on the doorposts and gates of your cities so that you’ll live a long time, and your children with you, on the soil that God promised to give your ancestors for as long as there is a sky over the Earth.

    22-25 That’s right. If you diligently keep all this commandment that I command you to obey—love God, your God, do what he tells you, stick close to him—God on his part will drive out all these nations that stand in your way. Yes, he’ll drive out nations much bigger and stronger than you. Every square inch on which you place your foot will be yours. Your borders will stretch from the wilderness to the mountains of Lebanon, from the Euphrates River to the Mediterranean Sea. No one will be able to stand in your way. Everywhere you go, God-sent fear and trembling will precede you, just as he promised.

    26 I’ve brought you today to the crossroads of Blessing and Curse.

    27 The Blessing: if you listen obediently to the commandments of God, your God, which I command you today.

    28 The Curse: if you don’t pay attention to the commandments of God, your God, but leave the road that I command you today, following other gods of which you know nothing.

    29-30 Here’s what comes next: When God, your God, brings you into the land you are going into to make your own, you are to give out the Blessing from Mount Gerizim and the Curse from Mount Ebal. After you cross the Jordan River, follow the road to the west through Canaanite settlements in the valley near Gilgal and the Oaks of Moreh.

    31-32 You are crossing the Jordan River to invade and take the land that God, your God, is giving you. Be vigilant. Observe all the regulations and rules I am setting before you today.

  385. on 20 Jan 2015 at 4:20 pm 385.Anonymous said …

    NOW BE THOROUGHLY CLEANSED AND ENTER YOUR NEW LIFE

    Deuteronomy 11 New Life Version (NLV)

    Love and Obey the Lord
    11 “Love the Lord your God. Always do what He tells you and keep all His Laws. 2 I am not speaking to your children. They have not seen how the Lord worked and how great He is. 3 They have not seen the special things you have seen, what He did in Egypt to Pharaoh the king of Egypt and to all his land. 4 They have not seen what He did to Egypt’s army, the horses and war-wagons. He made the water of the Red Sea flow over them while they were coming after you. He destroyed every one of them. 5 They have not seen what He did to you in the desert until you came to this place. 6 They do not know what He did to Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, son of Reuben. The earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, those of their house, their tents, and every living thing that followed them among Israel. 7 But your own eyes have seen all the great work the Lord has done.

    8 “So keep every Law which I am telling you today. And you will be strong and go in and take the land which is to be yours. 9 You will live long in the land the Lord promised to your fathers and their children, a land flowing with milk and honey. 10 For the land you are going in to take is not like the land you came from in Egypt. There you planted your seed and watered it using your feet, like a vegetable garden. 11 But the land you are about to go into and take for your own is a land of hills and valleys. It drinks water from the rain of heaven. 12 The Lord your God cares for this land. His eyes watch over it from the beginning to the end of the year.

    13 “Listen to and obey all the Laws I am telling you today. Love the Lord your God. Work for Him with all your heart and soul. If you do, 14 He will give the rain for your land at the right times, the early and late rain. So you may gather in your grain, your new wine and your oil. 15 He will give grass in your fields for your cattle. And you will eat and be filled. 16 Be careful not to let your hearts be fooled so you turn away and work for other gods and worship them. 17 Or the anger of the Lord will burn against you. He will shut the heavens so there will be no rain and the ground will not give its fruit. Then you will be quick to die from the good land the Lord is giving you.

    18 “Keep these words of mine in your heart and in your soul. Tie them as something special to see upon your hand and on your forehead between your eyes. 19 Teach them to your children. Talk about them when you sit in your house and when you walk on the road and when you lie down and when you get up. 20 Write them beside the door of your house and on your gates. 21 And your days and the days of your children will become many in the land the Lord promised to give to your fathers, as long as the heavens are above the earth. 22 Be careful to obey all this Law which I am telling you. Love the Lord your God. Walk in all His ways and hold on to Him. If you do, 23 the Lord will drive out all these nations in front of you. And you will take for your own what has belonged to nations greater and stronger than you. 24 Every place where your foot steps will be yours. Your land will be from the desert to Lebanon, and from the River Euphrates to the sea in the west. 25 There no man will be able to stand in front of you. The Lord your God will put the fear of you on all the land where you walk, as He has promised you.

    26 “See, I am putting in front of you today good and a curse. 27 Good will come to you if you listen to the Laws of the Lord your God, which I am telling you today. 28 But a curse will come to you if you do not listen to the Laws of the Lord your God and turn aside from the way I am telling you today, by following other gods you have not known. 29 When the Lord your God brings you into the land which is to be yours, you are to speak on Mount Gerizim about the good and on Mount Ebal the curses. 30 You know they are on the other side of the Jordan, west of the road where the sun goes down. They are in the land of the Canaanites who live in the Arabah, beside Gilgal, next to the trees of Moreh. 31 You are about to cross the Jordan to go in to take the land the Lord your God is giving you. It will be your land and you will live in it. 32 Be careful to obey all the Laws which I am giving you today.

  386. on 20 Jan 2015 at 4:30 pm 386.Anonymous said …

    AND EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT INTELLECT OR YOU ARE STRESSED OUT OR ON YOUR HOSPITAL BED AND CAN’T TAKE THE HEAVY LITERATURE

    Deuteronomy 11 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

    Remember the Lord
    11 “So you must love the Lord your God. You must do what he tells you to do and always obey his laws, rules, and commands. 2 Remember today all the great things the Lord your God has done to teach you. It was you, not your children, who saw those things happen and lived through them. You saw how great he is. You saw how strong he is, and you saw the powerful things he does. 3 You, not your children, saw the miracles he did in Egypt. You saw what he did to Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, and to his whole country. 4 You, not your children, saw what he did to the Egyptian army—to their horses and chariots. They were chasing you, but you saw him cover them with the water from the Red Sea. You saw how the Lord completely destroyed them. 5 It was you, not your children, who saw everything he did for you in the desert until you came to this place. 6 You saw what he did to Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab from Reuben’s family. All the Israelites watched as the ground opened up like a mouth and swallowed them, their families, their tents, and all of their servants and animals. 7 It was you, not your children, who saw all the great things the Lord did.

    8 “So you must obey every command I tell you today. Then you will be strong. And you will be able to go across the Jordan River and take the land that you are ready to enter. 9 Then you will live a long life in that country. The Lord promised to give that land to your ancestors and all their descendants. It is a land filled with many good things.[a] 10 The land that you will get is not like the land of Egypt that you came from. In Egypt you planted your seeds and used your feet to pump water from the canals to water your fields like a vegetable garden. 11 But the land that you will soon get is not like that. In Israel there are mountains and valleys, and the land gets its water from the rain that falls from the sky. 12 The Lord your God cares for that land. The Lord your God watches over it, from the beginning to the end of the year.

    13 “The Lord says, ‘You must listen carefully to the commands I give you today: You must love the Lord your God, and serve him with all your heart and all your soul. If you do that, 14 I will send rain for your land at the right time. I will send the autumn rain and the spring rain. Then you can gather your grain, your new wine, and your oil. 15 And I will make grass grow in your fields for your cattle. You will have plenty to eat.’

    16 “He says, ‘Be careful! Don’t be fooled. Don’t turn away from me to serve other gods and to bow down to them.’ 17 If you do that, the Lord will become very angry with you. He will shut the skies, and there will be no rain. The land will not make a harvest, and you will soon die in the good land that the Lord is giving you.

    18 “Remember these commands I give you. Keep them in your hearts. Write them down and tie them on your hands and wear them on your foreheads as a way to remember my laws. 19 Teach these laws to your children. Talk about these things when you sit in your houses, when you walk along the road, when you lie down, and when you get up. 20 Write these commands on the doorposts of your houses and on your gates. 21 Then both you and your children will live a long time in the land that the Lord promised to give to your ancestors. You will live there as long as the skies are above the earth.

    22 “Be careful to obey every command I have told you to follow: Love the Lord your God, follow all his ways, and be faithful to him. 23 Then, when you go into the land, the Lord will force all those other nations out. You will take the land from nations that are larger and more powerful than you. 24 All the land you walk on will be yours. Your land will go from the desert in the south all the way to Lebanon in the north. It will go from the Euphrates River in the east all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. 25 No one will be able to stand against you. The Lord your God will make the people fear you wherever you go in that land. That is what he promised you before.

    Israel’s Choice: Blessings or Curses
    26 “Today I am giving you a choice. You may choose the blessing or the curse. 27 You will get the blessing if you listen and obey the commands of the Lord your God that I have told you today. 28 But you will get the curse if you refuse to listen and obey the commands of the Lord your God. So don’t stop living the way I command you today, and don’t follow other gods that you don’t know.

    29 “The Lord your God will lead you to your land. You will soon go in and take that land. At that time you must go to the top of Mount Gerizim and read the blessings to the people from there. And then you must go to the top of Mount Ebal and read the curses to the people from there. 30 These mountains are on the other side of the Jordan River in the land of the Canaanites living in the Jordan Valley. These mountains are toward the west, not far from the oak trees of Moreh near the town of Gilgal. 31 You will go across the Jordan River. You will take the land that the Lord your God is giving you. This land will belong to you. When you are living in this land, 32 you must carefully obey all the laws and rules I give you today.

  387. on 20 Jan 2015 at 4:33 pm 387.Anonymous said …

    GOD’S WORD IS STILL THE PUREST AND MOST PRECIOUS COMMODITY EVER TO BE DISCOVERED BY HUMANITY.

    PUT GOD FIRST

    IF YOU DENY GOD’S EXISTENCE
    YOU DENY GOD.

    IF YOU DENY GOD’S LOVE
    YOU DENY GOD.

    IF YOU DENY GOD’S JUSTICE
    YOU DENY GOD.

    IF YOU DENY GOD’S GRACE, MERCY, COMPASSION AND FAVOUR YOU DENY GOD.

    IF YOU DENY GOD’S GUIDANCE
    YOU DENY GOD.

    IF YOU DENY GOD’S PROMISES
    YOU DENY GOD.

    IF YOU DENY GOD’S WORD
    YOU DENY GOD.

    IF YOU DENY GOD’S SALVATION
    YOU DENY GOD.

  388. on 20 Jan 2015 at 4:38 pm 388.DPK said …

    382.Anonymous said …
    ????????? ????
    (yawn)
    I can save you some trouble and bandwidth…. no one is reading your endless cut and paste word salad. You can post the entire bible… that isn’t a debate or a discussion, that’s just you babbling insanely.

  389. on 20 Jan 2015 at 5:02 pm 389.HO HO HO said …

    You mister DPK => ARE: CUT AND PASTE.

    Any matter cannot be created or destroyed only changed from one form to another SCIENTIST IS OR ARE:

    CUT AND PASTE.

    CUT AND PASTE MOLECULES.

    DON’T YOU EVER WANT TO KNOW WHO IT WAS THAT CUT AND PASTED YOU.

    COME TO GOSPEL MEETINGS TO FIND OUT.

  390. on 20 Jan 2015 at 7:43 pm 390.HO HO HO said …

    Even if you believe quantum and probabilities. Our world would be an observation and as I would say it is God’s observation or Godservation.

    We are all in the Godservation.

    There are saints and sinners in the Godservation.

    But you know what happens to the saints in the Godservation and what happens to the sinners in the Godservation.

    Even when the Athiest have their own observation when they meet the supreme concept their tails get soundly whipped and they get packed off to hell by the God they have observed up.

  391. on 20 Jan 2015 at 7:53 pm 391.Anonymous said …

    As if the Supreme is going to wait for Athiest to dream him up, observe him up, or imagine him up.

    THE ALMIGHTY IS NOT THE GUY
    THE ALMIGHTY IS NOT A FRAUD
    THE ALMIGHTY IS NOT A LOSER LIKE YOU
    THE ALMIGHTY IS NOT A FREAK
    THE ALMIGHTY IS NOT A NERD
    THE ALMIGHTY IS NOT A CLOWN
    THE ALMIGHTY IS NOT A JOKER
    THE ALMIGHTY IS NOT A CREEP LIKE YOU
    THE ALMIGHTY IS NOT A JERK
    THE ALMIGHTY IS NOT A WASTE
    THE ALMIGHTY IS NOT A MARK
    THE ALMIGHTY IS NOT AN IDIOT
    THE ALMIGHTY IS NOT A DUMMY
    THE ALMIGHTY IS NOT A DUNCE
    THE ALMIGHTY IS NOT A PUPPET
    THE ALMIGHTY IS NOT A SITTING DUCK
    THE ALMIGHTY IS NOT A TARGET
    THE ALMIGHTY IS NOT A PREY
    THE ALMIGHTY IS NOT A SLAVE
    THE ALMIGHTY IS NOT A PUSH AROUND
    THE ALMIGHTY IS NOT A WALK OVER
    THE ALMIGHTY IS NOT AN ATHIEST

  392. on 20 Jan 2015 at 8:03 pm 392.Anonymous said …

    ARE YOU INTELLIGENT DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF TO BE INTELLIGENT OR WISE?

    WHY THEN DON’T YOU ACCEPT THAT THERE IS SOME ONE WHO IS MOST INTELLIGENT OR WISE IN THE UNIVERSE OR IN THE ETERNITY?

    ARE YOU STRONG DO YOU POSSESS STRENGTH?

    WHY THEN DON’T YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SOMEONE WHO POSSESSES THE GREATEST STRENGTH IN THE UNIVERSE?

    ARE YOU ALIVE? WHY DON’T YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A FIRST PERSON ALIVE?

    GOD IS THE ALL WISE, GOD IS THE ALL STRONG, GOD IS THE ALL LIVING, THE GIVER OF LIFE.

  393. on 20 Jan 2015 at 8:11 pm 393.Anonymous said …

    I CHALLENGE YOU ATHIEST TO BE COME TRUE ATHIESTS OR TO DENY YOURSELVES EVERYTHING TO DO WITH GOD.

    DENY YOUR SELF EVERY ATTRIBUTE TO DO WITH GOD.

    DENY YOUR SELF EVEN TO BE POSSESSED OF ANY BENEFIT OR BOON THAT IT ATTRIBUTED TO GOD IN ANY MEASURE AND FINALLY DENY YOURSELVES LIFE ITSELF WHICH YOU SHARE WITH THE FAMILY OF GOD OF THE LIVING AND THE GOD OF THE LIVING.

  394. on 20 Jan 2015 at 8:19 pm 394.Anonymous said …

    DENY YOUR SELF EVEN TO BE POSSESSED OF ANY BENEFIT OR BOON THAT IS ATTRIBUTED TO GOD IN ANY MEASURE AND FINALLY DENY YOURSELVES LIFE ITSELF WHICH YOU WOULD OTHERWISE SHARE WITH THE FAMILY OF GOD OF THE LIVING AND WITH THE GOD OF THE LIVING.

  395. on 20 Jan 2015 at 8:20 pm 395.HO HO HO said …

    REPHRASE THE QUESTION

    CAN LIVING THINGS COME FROM ATHIEST?

  396. on 20 Jan 2015 at 9:39 pm 396.DPK said …

    zzzzzzzzzzz…

    done yet?

  397. on 20 Jan 2015 at 11:54 pm 397.TJ said …

    freddies_dead said …

    “You can’t simply take an attribute in isolation to try and deal with the logical problems as the logical problems are caused by conflicting attributes i.e. an omnipotent God could indeed choose not to know things but then He’s not omniscient and hence isn’t the God described in the Bible. In attempting to solve one problem you lose God.”

    Your saying that an omnipotent God could, but in doing so he would destroy his ability to be omnipotent? Really?

    So when God choose to become flesh, did he cease to be God also?

    DPK said…

    Of course it would, but then he wouldn’t be omniscient, which is the property we are discussing. I can imagine all kinds of scenarios in a convoluted attempt to try to explain away the paradoxes created by the biblical claims. But a far simpler and uncomplicated explanation exists that doesn’t require mental gymnastics.
    Freddy said:
    “Simple foreknowledge by itself doesn’t necessarily negate free will….”
    I disagree. Knowledge implies certainty. The claim is not that “God has a pretty good idea of what will happen”, or God knows what is most likely to happen.” The claim is god KNOWS what will happen, and if I have free will, that is not possible, because I would not, in fact, be free to do anything other than what god KNOWS. To know is to perceive directly.

    The problem here guys is you are stuck between the accepted meaning of Omnipotent and what the Bible states. The word omnipotent was invented to describe the attributes of God abilities as presented in the Bible.

    Omnipotent = All – omni & Power – potent

    He has all power over all things at all times and in all ways.

    Does this require that he exercise all power over all things at all times? Does the bible claim that he does?

    Lets look at some evidence presented earlier…

    freddies_dead said …
    “I actually accept the standard definition of omniscience i.e. that of knowing absolutely everything, and acknowledge that the Bible ascribes this attribute to the deity within.”

    Yes the Bible States that All-Power-full God knows all things knowable.

    “The Bible also describes his foreknowledge in verses like Isaiah 46:9-10 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.”

    Here All-Power-full God refers to all the passage of time, the beginning and the end are pre-determined and God will do all the things he has pre-planned to do.

    This says nothing that negates man ability to exercise free will.

    Psalm 139:4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.

    Here the writer implies that God knows what he is going to say before he can articulate the muscles in his tongue.

    We have two options.

    1. All-Power-full God knew what he was going to say before time began. Before we existed.

    2. All-Power-full God has the ability to intercept the information in the time it takes for thought to translate to speech. Before the the thought is thought, does it exist. If not, can something that does not exist be known.

    Matthew 26:34 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

    Here Jesus displays foreknowledge. But when was the foreknowledge known?… Jeremiah 17:10 states

    “I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.

    Does it stand to reason that All-Power-full God searches our hearts and tests our minds before time began, before we existed?

    The statement was made to Peter in response to…”Even though all may fall away because of You, I will never fall away.”

    1 Peter 1:19-20 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.”

    Here All-Power-full God points his pre-plan for man’s salvation in Christ. All-Power-full God’s foreknowledge of man’s fall does not immediately negate mans ability to exercise free will. It simply assures us that All-Power-full God has complete understanding of the nature of his creation, as would be expected from an All-Power-full God.

    None of the above examples conclusively illustrate an absence of free will.

    Instead they present a situation where there is a beginning and an end. Between those two points God has a plan of things he will do. Along the way there is nothing that can be done, thought or said that is unknown to All-Power-full God. Man is free to act, think and say whatever he chooses, of which will be immediately known to All-Power-full God. However, All-Power-full God’s plans will not be affected by any of mans thoughts, actions or sayings.

    Find more passages guys, and we can discuss them too.

    Oh, and for the cock crowing three times… if man can create a drone and send it to mars, how hard would it be for All-Power-full God to cause a cock to crow 3 times.? After all, didn’t All-Power-full God cause 2 of every kind and 7 of the clean animals to go to Noah’s ark?

  398. on 21 Jan 2015 at 4:12 am 398.Hell Yeah said …

    Is it just me, or does the bible sound just like Shakespeare………”O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?” (2.2.33)

    ———–

    “After all, didn’t All-Power-full God cause 2 of every kind and 7 of the clean animals to go to Noah’s ark?”

    Think of how impossible the story is to be real. I hope you don’t believe that every kind of animal walked to the ark from places like Australia, etc, and then walked back to where they came from….what about the animals from the undiscovered worlds at that time? Noah must have had a shock to see previously undiscovered animals, and then why didn’t he follow those animals to the undiscovered lands? And how would a boat hold all those animals. Where did the shit go? What did they eat? Did they try to eat each other? Also, the boat described in the bible wouldn’t be able to stay afloat for that period of time. If the whole world was flooded, where did all the water come from and then go after the flood was done? Yes, there are many large local floods all around the world, but that is why there are so many stories of flooding….it was a common thing locally to certain places at certain times, but not all at once. Noah’s Ark is just a story, just like every other part of the bible.

  399. on 21 Jan 2015 at 10:18 am 399.TJ said …

    Hell Yeah said …

    “Think of how impossible the story is to be real. I hope you don’t believe that every kind of animal walked to the ark from places like Australia, etc, and then walked back to where they came from….what about the animals from the undiscovered worlds at that time?”

    Science promotes a super continent called “Pangaea”.

    Genesis 1:6-8 states…

    Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8God called the expanse heaven.

    Both the Bible and science promote a single area of land in the beginning. Your argument does not apply.

    “And how would a boat hold all those animals.

    How many animals do you think there were? There would have been only two of each “kind” and seven of the “clean kinds” of animals. Where they fully grown?

    “Where did the shit go? ”

    What would you do with all the waste on a boat surrounded by water?

    “What did they eat? Did they try to eat each other?”

    All animals where created vegetarians. Food would have been stored.

    “Also, the boat described in the bible wouldn’t be able to stay afloat for that period of time.”

    A cut & patse from a web site…
    ————————————–
    Noah’s Ark was the focus of a major 1993 scientific study headed by Dr. Seon Hong at the world-class ship research center KRISO, based in Daejeon, South Korea. Dr. Hong’s team compared twelve hulls of different proportions to discover which design was most practical. No hull shape was found to significantly outperform the 4,300-year-old biblical design. In fact, the Ark’s careful balance is easily lost if the proportions are modified, rendering the vessel either unstable, prone to fracture, or dangerously uncomfortable.

    The research team found that the proportions of Noah’s Ark carefully balanced the conflicting demands of stability (resistance to capsizing), comfort (“seakeeping”), and strength. In fact, the Ark has the same proportions as a modern cargo ship.

    The study also confirmed that the Ark could handle waves as high as 100 ft (30 m). Dr. Hong is now director general of the facility and claims “life came from the sea,” obviously not the words of a creationist on a mission to promote the worldwide Flood. Endorsing the seaworthiness of Noah’s Ark obviously did not damage Dr. Hong’s credibility.
    ———————————–

    “If the whole world was flooded, where did all the water come from and then go after the flood was done? ”

    It has been estimated that if the earth was smoothed flat there is enough water in the oceans to cover the earth to depth of 3km. The estimate does not include underground water such as “the great artesian basin”.

    The Bible states…
    Genesis 7:11
    11In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.

    As in Genesis 1:6-8 states above, the water came from above and below.

    As the flood receded ocean basins sank and continents rose. All the Geomorphology problems face by uniformitarianism fade away when viewed from a Biblical perspective. We could spend a lot of time looking into this.

    Before you ask, “How did the animals distribute around the earth?”. Resent computer models predict rising sea levels caused by global warming may trigger an ice age. Research it.

    When a global flood scenario is feed into similar computer models the out come is a resulting ice age. An ice would provide the necessary bridges between continents. Of course it is just a theory.

    Another theory is a literal interpretation of 1 Chronicles 1:19…
    To Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg5 (for in his days the earth was divided), and his brother’s name was Joktan.

    “Noah’s Ark is just a story, just like every other part of the bible.”

    What? A true story.

  400. on 21 Jan 2015 at 5:55 pm 400.DPK said …

    Hard to believe that anyone of average mental capacity or above would actually believe the myth of Noah’s Ark.. but there you have it folks…..
    truly mind boggling.

  401. on 21 Jan 2015 at 6:22 pm 401.freddies_dead said …

    381.DPK said …

    Freddy said:
    “Simple foreknowledge by itself doesn’t necessarily negate free will….”

    I disagree. Knowledge implies certainty. The claim is not that “God has a pretty good idea of what will happen”, or God

    knows what is most likely to happen.” The claim is god KNOWS what will happen, and if I have free will, that is not

    possible, because I would not, in fact, be free to do anything other than what god KNOWS. To know is to perceive

    directly.

    I used to feel the same way but someone pointed out that an omniscient entity (not necessarily the God of the Bible) could just know what you’re going to choose. It doesn’t necessarily negate your free will. Your free will might be negated – as in the case that the omniscient entity knows what it knows due to strict determinism – although in that case it’s still not the omniscience that is abrogating your free will it’s the determinism.

    It’s all to do with causality. If the omniscient entity isn’t the cause of your choices, it’s knowledge is incidental to your free will – you will do what it knows, but for some other reason than simply because it knows it, including the possibility that you will choose to do it freely.

    Of course the God of the Bible is not only alleged to be omniscient but is also said to have foreordained what will happen to bring about His own glory. It’s that foreordination – God’s plan – that truly takes away your agency.

  402. on 21 Jan 2015 at 6:30 pm 402.freddies_dead said …

    397.TJ said …
    freddies_dead said …

    “You can’t simply take an attribute in isolation to try and deal with the logical problems as the logical problems are caused by conflicting attributes i.e. an omnipotent God could indeed choose not to know things but then He’s not omniscient and hence isn’t the God described in the Bible. In attempting to solve one problem you lose God.”

    Your saying that an omnipotent God could, but in doing so he would destroy his ability to be omnipotent? Really?

    Nope. I’ve said that an omnipotent God could choose not to know certain things. However, this takes away His omniscience. Goodbye God of the Bible who is said to be both omnipotent AND omniscient.

    So when God choose to become flesh, did he cease to be God also?

    This is nothing like my argument.

    Yes the Bible States that All-Power-full God knows all things knowable.

    And just what would be “unknowable” to an all powerful God who knows everything?

    The problem here guys is you are stuck between the accepted meaning of Omnipotent and what the Bible states. The word omnipotent was invented to describe the attributes of God abilities as presented in the Bible.

    Wait, what? So the word was made up to describe God’s “all powerful” nature and the accepted meaning is “all powerful”, but somehow we’re getting stuck between those exact same meanings? Nah, not really. It’s got nothing to do with God’s alleged omnipotence and everything to do with God’s alleged omniscience and His plan.

    Here All-Power-full God refers to all the passage of time, the beginning and the end are pre-determined and God will do all the things he has pre-planned to do.

    This says nothing that negates man ability to exercise free will.

    Lolwut? God has pre-planned things but this doesn’t stop men from choosing to do other than God’s plan? I would say you couldn’t make this up but then that’s exactly what the Bible authors did so why shouldn’t TJ join them?

    Here the writer implies that God knows what he is going to say before he can articulate the muscles in his tongue.

    Psalm 139 is a song by David which is basically an ode to God – especially His foreknowledge and His omnipresence.

    We have two options.

    1. All-Power-full God knew what he was going to say before time began. Before we existed.

    2. All-Power-full God has the ability to intercept the information in the time it takes for thought to translate to speech. Before the the thought is thought, does it exist. If not, can something that does not exist be known.

    Well, of those 2 options, the first one fits with what we find in the Bible – an omnipotent, omniscient God who created everything and has a plan to bring about His own glory while the second one implies the so-called omniscient God doesn’t know things because they haven’t happened yet – despite the fact that He’s already planned them.

    Here Jesus displays foreknowledge. But when was the foreknowledge known?… Jeremiah 17:10 states

    “I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.

    Does it stand to reason that All-Power-full God searches our hearts and tests our minds before time began, before we existed?

    Jeremiah 1:5 states “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee;” so, yes, the Bible alleges God knew all about you before He bought you into existence.

    Here All-Power-full God points his pre-plan for man’s salvation in Christ. All-Power-full God’s foreknowledge of man’s fall does not immediately negate mans ability to exercise free will.

    Lol, so despite God’s knowing man would fall because He planned it, man could have chosen not to fall? How does that work then? Are you perhaps implying that God didn’t know whether man would fall or not so He had a backup plan?

    It simply assures us that All-Power-full God has complete understanding of the nature of his creation, as would be expected from an All-Power-full God.

    So, what? He knew man’s nature so He was pretty certain we would fall? In which case why create us with that nature knowing full well we’d fall because of it? And how does this differ in any appreciable manner from God planning for us to fall?

    None of the above examples conclusively illustrate an absence of free will.

    Only if you don’t actually think about them, spend your time making out omniscience is not all it’s cracked up to be and that God’s plan is a bit slapdash.

    Instead they present a situation where there is a beginning and an end. Between those two points God has a plan of things he will do. Along the way there is nothing that can be done, thought or said that is unknown to All-Power-full God. Man is free to act, think and say whatever he chooses, of which will be immediately known to All-Power-full God. However, All-Power-full God’s plans will not be affected by any of mans thoughts, actions or sayings.

    Just brilliant. God happened to make a plan which won’t be at all affected by man when He didn’t actually know what man was going to do until the exact moment that man did it. Don’t worry about omniscience, the Bible might claim God has it but TJ thinks they’re over-reaching.

    Oh, and for the cock crowing three times… if man can create a drone and send it to mars, how hard would it be for All-Power-full God to cause a cock to crow 3 times.?

    Lol, did you not read the passage? Jesus says Peter will deny Him 3 times before a cock crows. Oddly enough Peter does exactly what Jesus says he will – almost as if it were planned and he didn’t have a choice.

  403. on 21 Jan 2015 at 8:02 pm 403.DPK said …

    an omniscient entity (not necessarily the God of the Bible) could just know what you’re going to choose. It doesn’t necessarily negate your free will.”

    But if the foreknowledge is defined as perfect, meaning it cannot be incorrect, than the idea that you are free to choose something else is only any illusion. Because if you were in fact free and able to choose anything other than what the omniscient entity knows then it in fact did not “know” and the premise is invalidated. Sorry, not buying it.
    God’s knowledge of the future is no different from my knowledge of the past. If I KNOW that yesterday you had a hot dog for lunch… you cannot decided you didn’t. I didn’t make you choose a hot dog over any other tasty, but more healthy options, but you cannot choose to undo it without violating the concept that the past is knowable. The direction of time makes no difference if we are talking about an omnicient being. If he knows the future is is unchangeable, doesn’t mean he determined it, but if he has certain knowledge of it, it is fixed, just as our past is.

  404. on 21 Jan 2015 at 8:35 pm 404.DPK said …

    hard to believe Freddie and I are arguing about the properties of an imaginary being LOL… these nut jobs have made me as crazy as they are.
    Hey Fred… how do YOU think god managed to get all the animals onto Noah’s ark? hahahahaha…………

  405. on 21 Jan 2015 at 10:30 pm 405.freddies_dead said …

    403.DPK said …

    an omniscient entity (not necessarily the God of the Bible) could just know what you’re going to choose. It doesn’t necessarily negate your free will.”

    But if the foreknowledge is defined as perfect, meaning it cannot be incorrect, than the idea that you are free to choose something else is only any illusion. Because if you were in fact free and able to choose anything other than what the omniscient entity knows then it in fact did not “know” and the premise is invalidated. Sorry, not buying it.
    God’s knowledge of the future is no different from my knowledge of the past. If I KNOW that yesterday you had a hot dog for lunch… you cannot decided you didn’t.

    This just demonstrates my point. You know I had a hot dog but your knowing does not negate the fact I freely chose to have a hot dog, as you concede.

    I didn’t make you choose a hot dog over any other tasty, but more healthy options, but you cannot choose to undo it without violating the concept that the past is knowable.

    So you know I had a hot dog. However, your knowing it didn’t cause me to buy it. And it’s the same every day – tomorrow you know I had a burger today but once more your knowing it had no effect on my ability to freely choose a burger.

    The direction of time makes no difference if we are talking about an omnicient being. If he knows the future is is unchangeable, doesn’t mean he determined it, but if he has certain knowledge of it, it is fixed, just as our past is.

    Again, this is my point. The omniscient being’s knowledge isn’t the thing that’s negating your free will it’s the predetermination. Biblically that predetermination results from an omniscient being who knows everything because they planned it.

  406. on 21 Jan 2015 at 10:33 pm 406.freddies_dead said …

    404.DPK said …

    hard to believe Freddie and I are arguing about the properties of an imaginary being LOL… these nut jobs have made me as crazy as they are.
    Hey Fred… how do YOU think god managed to get all the animals onto Noah’s ark? hahahahaha…………

    I suspect the authors of the Bible imagined he used some of His All-Power-Full magic to make it happen.

  407. on 21 Jan 2015 at 10:52 pm 407.DPK said …

    “Again, this is my point. The omniscient being’s knowledge isn’t the thing that’s negating your free will it’s the predetermination. Biblically that predetermination results from an omniscient being who knows everything because they planned it.”

    No, I get your point, but I think you are missing mine. Once I have the ability to know what your choice was, you cannot change it. You cannot decide at this point in time to have choosen anything other than what you choose, if you could then it could not be said that I could “know” what you choose.
    For an omniscient being with perfect knowledge, the future is no different from the past. He is said to know what you DID… Tomorrow. From his perspective, what you will do tomorrow is no different from what you did yesterday. As such, even though it may seem to you that you are choosing of your free will, that would be an illusion, because in reality, you could simply not choose anything different from what he knows you choose. So, just as you cannot change what I know you did yesterday, neither could you change what an omniscient god knows you did tomorrow.
    The simpler way to appreciate is this. If an omniscient god knows that tomorrow I will choose A and not B, can there be any possibility that I will choose B and not A? The answer is no. Therefore, saying that I am free to choose B is false, because it cannot occur.

  408. on 22 Jan 2015 at 12:03 am 408.alex said …

    all these questionable shits doesn’t really matter in the face of the all powerful, omnipotent god. by definition, he can resolve anything. take that atheists!

    this god that kills, but is not a murderer. merciful and at same time but angry and vengeful. all these inconsistencies do not exist for the omnipotent god.

    infinite punishment for a finite crime? ha!, says god. mere humans don’t understand. god created the fossil evidence just to confuse these same humans. same thing with the time and space attributes not matching up with the biblical earth age. why they don’t jive, is again, beyond human comprehension.

    and it took the great, professor, tj to point this out! my mind is clear. i’m not sure why it took me so long to realize all this.

    thanks tj. please, please. continue your great work of preaching and pointing out that it doesn’t really matter what all these atheists are pointing out. in the end, the omnipotent god solves all.

    thanks again. oh, by the way. i just had a lobotomy and i lost 100% of my brain.

  409. on 22 Jan 2015 at 12:33 am 409.Hell Yeah said …

    “Science promotes a super continent called “Pangaea”.”

    Pangaea also took a lot longer than a couple thousand years to go from a super continent to many continents far apart. The continents are still moving, but at a rate of inches per year, not inches per minute like your model would have to suggest. Another point in why long ages is true.

    —————

    “There would have been only two of each “kind” and seven of the “clean kinds” of animals. Where they fully grown?”

    If there were only a select group of all the animal species on the boat, evolution to get to the numerous species takes more than a couple thousand years. If there were two of each species, there wouldn’t be enough room.

    ———-

    “All animals where created vegetarians. Food would have been stored.”

    LOL. This is the most funny of your comments. Sharpe teeth to eat veggies, nice one. And the stored veggies for a year somehow never went bad. Another reach to try to prove the bible correct.

    —————-

    “A cut & patse from a web site…
    ————————————–
    Noah’s Ark was the focus of a major 1993 scientific study headed by Dr. Seon Hong…..”

    Hmmm…a cut and paste from a bible promoting website…..not biased at all? I think you should check out the quick 4 minute video by Bill Nye the Science Guy on YouTube called Bill Nye Destroys Noah’s Ark….that explains it well.

    ————–

    “How did the animals distribute around the earth?”. Resent computer models predict rising sea levels caused by global warming may trigger an ice age.”

    Ah, so we had an ice age and all the continents separated in only a couple thousand years. Ice ages take a lot longer than that. Or do you believe god waved his magic wand and all that took place in a couple days just like he created earth in a couple days, let alone the millions of other planets, stars, and moons?

  410. on 23 Jan 2015 at 1:13 pm 410.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    lol!!, alex is still here with all his silliness!

    According to alexander……Imagine….how can we consider a deity that can be loving, merciful with yet judgmental and vengeful and be the same being? Just not possible!

    Hmmmm, well we live with human beings daily which portray all the same emotions daily! Geez! lol!!!!!!

    I left out alexander’s claim of murder since by definition God cannot murder but we can all see the that alex has a very child-like, simpleton version of a deity which is why he struggles so. He hasn’t graduated from his childhood Santa :)

  411. on 23 Jan 2015 at 1:58 pm 411.alex said …

    “410.A The Prickly Science Guy said …”

    and a welcome back to the resident, bitch ass, motherfucker.

    as usual, nothing from the dipshit asshole.

  412. on 23 Jan 2015 at 2:02 pm 412.alex said …

    “I left out alexander’s claim of murder since by definition God cannot murder”

    of course, he can’t, ya dumbass bitch. omnipotence, grants you immunity from any fucking problem thing you can think of.

    no problem for the bitch god to be nowhere and everywhere, is it?

    no problem for the bitch god to do the ark shit, ain’t it?

    no problem for the bitch god to grant you free will and already know the outcome, is it?

    no problem for the bitch god to be square and circular, is it?

    no problem for the bitch god to create something more omnipotent that he, ain’t it?

    everything is possible for the bitch god!!!!!

  413. on 23 Jan 2015 at 4:29 pm 413.freddies_dead said …

    407.DPK said …

    “Again, this is my point. The omniscient being’s knowledge isn’t the thing that’s negating your free will it’s the predetermination. Biblically that predetermination results from an omniscient being who knows everything because they planned it.”

    No, I get your point, but I think you are missing mine. Once I have the ability to know what your choice was, you cannot change it. You cannot decide at this point in time to have choosen anything other than what you choose, if you could then it could not be said that I could “know” what you choose.
    For an omniscient being with perfect knowledge, the future is no different from the past. He is said to know what you DID… Tomorrow. From his perspective, what you will do tomorrow is no different from what you did yesterday. As such, even though it may seem to you that you are choosing of your free will, that would be an illusion, because in reality, you could simply not choose anything different from what he knows you choose. So, just as you cannot change what I know you did yesterday, neither could you change what an omniscient god knows you did tomorrow.
    The simpler way to appreciate is this. If an omniscient god knows that tomorrow I will choose A and not B, can there be any possibility that I will choose B and not A? The answer is no. Therefore, saying that I am free to choose B is false, because it cannot occur.

    It’s what’s called the Boethian solution to theological fatalism. The idea is that the omniscient being is timeless. So to claim the entity holds beliefs (even infallible ones) yesterday or today or tomorrow is wrong. The entity has a grasp of everything in a single atemporal instant. i.e. in essence it knows I’ll choose a hotdog because it can ‘see’ me choose it in that atemporal instant, but it’s knowledge of my choice – being atemporal – has no effect on my free will.

    Of course, as you’ve already noted, we’re actually arguing the minutiae of imaginary things – the concept of a timeless entity is just such an imagining, not to mention it denies many other things ascribed to the Christian God in particular – so it’s really just pushing a pretty pointless point that omniscience by itself isn’t why you’ve got no free will.

  414. on 23 Jan 2015 at 6:07 pm 414.DPK said …

    “It’s what’s called the Boethian solution to theological fatalism. The idea is that the omniscient being is timeless.”

    Well, I suppose you can make up any properties you want for an imaginary being, pin a fancy name on it and claim its a valid argument, but the fact remains I would no more be free to choose an action that someone already “knew” I did not choose than I would be free to choose to walk through a brick wall.
    Likewise if there are events of any nature that an omniscient god knows did not, or will not occur, then he cannot possibly be omnipotent because he could not change them without violating his own perfect knowledge.
    I know theists are very fond of dancing around this simple fact with word salads and woo, but the simple fact remains that they god they describe is simply not logically possible.

  415. on 23 Jan 2015 at 8:14 pm 415.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    LOL!!

    Alexander claims my post has nothing to respond to then he responds to it in his second post! :)

    He entertains us with his finishing school grace and his flowery grasp of the English language. It is Brilliant! lol!!! :)

    Love ya Alex!!

  416. on 23 Jan 2015 at 8:33 pm 416.alex said …

    “He entertains us with his finishing school grace and his flowery grasp of the English language. It is Brilliant! lol!!! :)”

    nice retort from the asshole that believes in the imaginary all knowing god that gives free will.

    ok assholes, fall in with your predictable shit. now!

  417. on 24 Jan 2015 at 5:24 pm 417.HO HO HO said …

    YOU ARE ALL WRONG MY NAME IS ANONYMOUS BAR POE OR THE SON OF POE

    BY FIRE, FLAME, AND SWORD, THE BEAST OF THE FIELD AND FAMINE, THE SCORN OF MEN AND THE CURSES OF POE YOU MUST COME TO LEARN OF MY FATHER POE.

    YOU MAY PRONOUNCE MY FATHER NAME POE AND IN MODERN DAYS YOU MAY PRONOUNCE THE FULL NAME OF IT ALTHOUGH THE ANCIENTS SHYED FROM PRONOUCING THE FULL NAME OR PRIMACY OF EXISTENCE.

    POE IS AN ALL CONSUMING FLAME CONSUMING ALL THAT DON’T BELIEVE IN HIM AND ACKNOWLEDGE HIM. THOSE WHO DON’T BELIEVE IN HIM ARE MORONS AND THEY WILL CEASE TO EXIST AFTER A TIME.

    POE IS ABSOLUTE, POE IS PRE-EMINENT, POE IS THE FIRST THING THAT EVER EXISTED AND THE LAST THAT WILL EXIST AS SUCH POE IS THE ALPHA AND OMEGA. POE FIRST CREATED CAVE MEN WHO GATHERED AND HUNTED AND IT WAS TO THESE MEN THAT POE FIRST IMPARTED HIS SPIRIT. THE MISTAKES OF THESE MEN CAME EVEN UNTO THEIR SUCCEEDING GENERATIONS AS THIS WAS THE JUDGEMENT OF POE.

    POE AND HIS TRUTH IS IMMUTABLE, POE AND HIS WORK ARE UNDENIABLE AND ETERNAL.

    IF THIS SOUNDS LIKE ANY OTHER GOD YOU KNOW THESE GODS ARE FALSE GOD’S FICTIONS. ONLY POE IS THE TRUE GOD. YOU MAY IMAGINE IN YOUR OWN MIND WHAT YOU THINK POE TO BE LIKE BUT YOU MUST FIERCELY DENY THAT YOU ARE ONLY IMAGINING MAKE OUT THAT YOU HAVE PERFECT KNOWLEDGE OF POE AT ALL TIMES. KEEP STRAIGHT FACES AND WORK IN LABS AND PREACH A LOT OF SCIENTIFIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL JARGON THAT MAKE POE LOOK, ALMOST HOLY.

    DON’T TELL THEM THAT POE IS A GOD THOUGH, DON’T TELL THEM THAT HE MAY HAVE HAD A MAKER AND THAT YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF HIS ORIGINS, YOU DON’T NEED TO MAKE OUT THAT POE HAS A PERSONALITY ALTHOUGH ALL PERSONALITIES CAME FROM POE AS THEY COULD COME FROM NO ONE ELSE AND SOME ACIENT FARMERS MAY HAVE TAKEN THIS TO MEAN THAT POE WAS A PERSON.

    WHEN POE IS WEAK THEN IS POE STRONG FOR ALTHOUGH POE NEVER PREVENTED IDOLATRY AND WORSHIP OF FALSE GODS IN THE WORLD THAT CAME FROM HIM AND HIM ALONE THESE ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF POE.

    I ANONYMOUS BAR POE BEAR WITNESS OF POE TO ALL MY BELOVED FOLLOWERS OF POE.

  418. on 24 Jan 2015 at 5:35 pm 418.HO HO HO said …

    THAT’S POE PRONOUNCED POE LIKE TOE

    NOT POO

    POO IS A PRICK, A MORON, A FUCKTARD, AND IS IN FACT IS THE ANTITHESIS AND ARCH ENEMY TO POE

  419. on 24 Jan 2015 at 6:23 pm 419.HO HO HO said …

    believe in anonymous the son of poe and his 12 diciples who shed his ink that the message of salvation through poe may be scattered abroad to all the earth.

    incidentally the mother of anonymous the son of poe was a virgin last time we checked. anonymous was born of the spirit of poe and the human mother photo finish but the results are confirmed.

  420. on 24 Jan 2015 at 7:27 pm 420.HO HO HO said …

    Do you guys really believe that children come into the world because of carnal sex and being born through human reproduction and maternity.

    That is a false belief.

    Human beings are produced nano-second to nano-second based on human and divine thought.

    However all thoughts find their origin in the SOS the solipsis of solipsis.

    The mind that knows all but is known of none but itself.

  421. on 24 Jan 2015 at 7:28 pm 421.HO HO HO THE 2ND said …

    Chuuuuuups!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  422. on 24 Jan 2015 at 9:18 pm 422.HO HO HO THE 2ND said …

    The fire that gives me life will burn your heart away.

  423. on 25 Jan 2015 at 12:21 am 423.HO HO HO THE 2ND said …

    Burn your mind away.

  424. on 25 Jan 2015 at 12:21 am 424.HO HO HO THE 2ND said …

    Burn your soul away.

  425. on 25 Jan 2015 at 12:22 am 425.HO HO HO THE 2ND said …

    Away, Away, Away

  426. on 25 Jan 2015 at 2:43 am 426.Hell Hell Hell said …

    You go to the church, you kiss the cross.

    You will be saved at any cost.

    You have your own reality.

    Christianity.

    You spend your life just kissing ass.

    A trait thats grown as time has passed.

    You think the world will end today.

    You praise the lord, its all you say.

  427. on 25 Jan 2015 at 2:49 am 427.Hell Hell Hell said …

    There was once a time
    When everybody believed in at least some form of God
    And religion ruled the world
    It was called the Dark Ages

    I gives a damn what your name is
    For all intents and purposes, you can remain nameless
    Or have the same name as: Jesus, Buddha, Zeus, or Muhammad
    Worshipin’ ever star in the sky, plus Halley’s comet
    “Why don’t you believe in God?”
    Why don’t you believe in Ra? (“Huh?”)
    Why don’t you turn to the East daily and pray to Allah? (“I don’t know”)

    I’m just a guy speakin’ the facts
    If you don’t like it, you can leave through the back
    Creationism is a joke, and I’ll leave it at that
    Look at these so-called “down brothas”
    Hell, I might as well be lookin’ at they grandmothers
    That’s where they get it from anyways
    Just brainwashed by the fear and the whip, like mini-slaves

    How could your god be jealous if he was the only one?
    How would we be his children with Jesus his only son?
    There’s just too many holes, but I’ll leave you with this
    If God was omni-benevolent, how could evil exist?
    Let me break it down even further
    Say I had a pound of salt
    And within it, asked you to find sugar (Okay)
    Where would it come from?
    If there was zero percent sugar content
    Then logically you’d never find none
    Teachin’ logic to theists, you can forget it
    Cause no matter how far you dumb it down, they just don’y get it
    So I’ll swear to God (“Which one?”)
    I don’t care, pick one: Baal, Apophis, Anubis, hell how bout Krishna?
    That I’ll do whatever it takes to spread truth
    And to, challenge everything that your god said do
    My tongue is like the hammer of Thor
    Nailin’ your deity to a cross and askin’ for more

    When you understand why you reject all other gods
    You’ll understand why I reject yours.”
    Stephen F. Roberts said that and I take it to heart
    Think about it when I debate theist and take ‘em apart
    I’m a child of one lesser god
    No superstitious bologna or moody, temper-mental invisible homies
    If it exists, then show me
    Not a book, written by man
    With letters and words that written by hand
    (“But the bible’s God’s inspired word.”)
    Prove it
    Until you can prove the bible was divinely inspired, then it’s useless
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
    If you don’t believe me, ask your reverend
    Or sight precedent where faith wasn’t involved
    Until he does, we just gonna stop listenin’ to y’all
    Cause you talkin’ in circles
    We’ll listen when you talk with a purpose
    And that’s real

  428. on 25 Jan 2015 at 10:58 am 428.Anonymous said …

    HO HO HO TRUMPSED YOU THERE HELL HELL HELL :)

  429. on 25 Jan 2015 at 5:44 pm 429.Anonymous said …

    better 2 believe in the men of god than in the gods of men

  430. on 25 Jan 2015 at 5:46 pm 430.Anonymous said …

    you couldn’t pay me the budget deficit of the us economy to turn my back on god

  431. on 25 Jan 2015 at 9:08 pm 431.Hell Yeah said …

    “HO HO HO TRUMPSED YOU THERE HELL HELL HELL”

    Why, because you and Ho are the same person, and because Hell went against what you believe in, so all of a sudden Hell is “trumpsed” without any explanation?

    ————-

    “better 2 believe in the men of god than in the gods of men”

    Your god is one of the gods of men, and the men of your god are real humans who believe in one of the gods of men that have no evidence of being real. So yeah, you are correct in saying it is better to believe in real people than in made up beings.

    ————–

    “you couldn’t pay me the budget deficit of the us economy to turn my back on god”

    Who or what business would waste that kind of money on you even if you did accept the payment? You can dream if you want.

  432. on 26 Jan 2015 at 12:06 am 432.TJ said …

    You Guys have a very rigid predetermined view of Omnipotence when applying to the God of the Bible.

    Again, does your unbending view really reflect the Biblical God. If free will cannot exist for the reasons you state then…

    Why would God allow Adam and Eve to tested?

    Why would God test Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his son?

    Why would God present choices to his chosen people where he pre-determines his own reactions to their choices. ie choose A and I will bless you, choose B and I will become angry and vengeful?

    Why bother to Judge man?

    Why does Omnipotence when applied to the God of the Bible mean the future actions of men are knowable. You know for yourself by your own ability to rationalize that this interpretation does not make sense. Yet? You believe it is the only interpretation because some religious groups believe it? I thought you guys said due to the conflicting beliefs within Christianity that they can’t all be right? What makes this interpretation the correct one?

  433. on 26 Jan 2015 at 12:31 am 433.Hell Yeah said …

    The Freewill Argument

    The Christians’ objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God’s originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.

    Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

    Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

    Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?

    The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.

  434. on 26 Jan 2015 at 3:32 am 434.TJ said …

    “Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions.”

    Like the rest of your argument it is imposed with your assumptions of what you imagine is, and isn’t.

    Doesn’t the Bible say that Satan petitioned God to temp Adam and Eve?

    Doesn’t the Bible say that one third of the angels rebelled and that there is a war in heaven?

    Doesn’t the Bible say that a number of angels left there positions in heaven and came to earth before the flood?

    The point is that the creator, created a perfect state in the beginning. The beings created where considered very good, not perfect beings.

    You assume to know what a perfect being may or may not do, and then use your assumed knowledge as a reason of disproof.

  435. on 26 Jan 2015 at 3:57 am 435.Hell Yeah said …

    Defining YHWH

    Before we can discuss the existence of a thing, we must define it. Christians have endowed their God with all of the following attributes: He is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a personal God who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future.

    God’s creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world. Humans are evil and sinful, and must suffer in this world because of their sinfulness. God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin, and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness must go to hell and be tormented for eternity.

  436. on 26 Jan 2015 at 3:57 am 436.Hell Yeah said …

    Perfection Seeks Even More Perfection

    What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete–it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.

  437. on 26 Jan 2015 at 3:58 am 437.Hell Yeah said …

    Perfection Begets Imperfection

    But, for the sake of argument, let’s continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God’s image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.

    What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this “perfect” God created a “perfect” universe which was rendered imperfect by the “perfect” humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.

  438. on 26 Jan 2015 at 7:48 am 438.alex said …

    Tj may argue that A perfect god can create imperfections because he’s omnipotent? Same argument he’s using to allow for the free will and omniscience, ain’t it?

    Same shit for the dumbass hor who argues that god doesn’t murder, or that god is everywhere and nowhere..

  439. on 26 Jan 2015 at 8:29 am 439.Anonymous said …

    You guys blaspheme the character of God but existence and creation cannot deny the characteristics of God. Your primacy of existence is just a watered down viewpoint of how we are meant to appreciate God.

    I would say that apart from making some really fallacious philosophical arguments that you are also making some rankly mendacious and malicious statements against the God of existence, creation and life.

    I would always say that the burden of proof lies with atheist lies with atheist to disprove god.

    But to the Christians on the Blog I remind them:

    Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

    2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

    3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

    4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

    What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create?

    IF A PRIMACY OF EXISTENCE EXISTED BEFORE THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED WHAT DISTURBED THE EQUILIBRIUM AND CAUSED THE UNIVERSE TO BE CREATED WHAT DISTURBED THE EQUILIBRIUM AND CAUSED THE BIG BANG IF YOU BELIEVE IN THE BIG BANG.

    I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH AN OMNIPOTENT AND A OMNISCIENT GOD. I ALSO HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH A PLAN THAT HAS A SCOPE FOR PERFECT WORKING AND A SCOPE FOR CONTINGENCIES ALL WITHIN A GREATER MASTER PLAN.

    IN OTHER WORDS SIN IS A PART OF GOD’S PLAN IT IS WHAT IS AVAILABLE WHEN YOU DISOBEY GODS EXPRESS DESIGN, WISHES AND EXPRESSED WILL.

    GOD IS TRUTH BUT GOD POSSESSES THE ABILITY TO VEIL TRUTH FROM EVEN HIS MOST TRUSTED FOLLOWERS INCLUDING HIS ANGELS AND HIS SON. HE ALSO POSSES THE ABILITY TO REVEAL VEILED TRUTH AND ALSO TO UNVEIL TRUTH.

    BUT YOU GUYS ARE STUCK GOD ALSO HAS A PLAN FOR YOU AND IT IS CALLED FIRE AND BRIMSTONE.

  440. on 26 Jan 2015 at 9:04 am 440.Anonymous said …

    It is also just another trick of the devil to make the understanding of God, the upholding of God’s statutes, laws and commandments and the pursuance of God’s kingdom on earth seem like a process overly concerned with or achievable by the faculty of the intellect.

    Most of the time you are making a non-intellectual process seem like an intellectual process and that makes you dumb; not smart. Futher-more you are using limited intellect to appeal to matters that the greatest intellect alone cannot solve and when there is another way to achieve the result this over use and abuse of intellect is a clear sign of an over active ego and of a more treacherous, deviant and sinister aim on your part. At this stage you athiest must realise that you are all captives to sin and are all tools of the devil being used by him wholly to achieve his aims. And for this you will pay.

    God has gone out of his way to bring you his message to this very blog in ways that if the children of Sodom were around they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes; (probably) but sin; and pride and shame have toughened your heart harder than Pharaoh’s and you run roughshod over the precious message of the Gospel.

    You don’t care for yourselves, you don’t care for the world, you don’t care for science, you don’t care for us and if you don’t respect the message of Gospel and the truths of God presented before you today you will never respect anything worth respecting.

  441. on 26 Jan 2015 at 9:06 am 441.HO HO HO said …

    How is the mind going to comprehend God? How is the mind going to comprehend the infinite? How are you going to get nearer to God unless you approach him? How are you going to approach an Almighty God unless you humble yourselves?

  442. on 26 Jan 2015 at 9:13 am 442.HO HO HO said …

    CAN YOU WEIGH THE WORLD ON A GREEN GROCERS SCALE? CAN YOU MEASURE THE MILKY WAY WITH A METER ROD? WHY DO YOU TRY TO COMPREHEND GOD WITH THE HUMAN BRAIN? COMMON SENSE WOULD TELL YOU THAT IS UNSCIENTIFIC AND WOULD NECESSARILY BE REJECTED BY ANY CLEAN AND UPRIGHT ACADEMIC COMMUNITY WHETHER SCIENTIFIC OR PHILOSOPHICAL. WHEN YOU FIND GOD BY SCIENTIFIC MEANS WHAT DO YOU DO NEXT? ARE YOU JUST BEING NAUGHTY IN YOUR HEARTS TOWARDS LIFE OR ARE YOU BEING SUPERCILIOUS TOWARDS YOUR FELLOW MEN? ARE YOU DREAMING? ARE YOU HAVING A LAUGH? PULLING A STUNT? DO YOU WANT TO WASTE OUR TIME?

  443. on 26 Jan 2015 at 9:30 am 443.alex said …

    Then the burden of proof is for you to disprove the mighty Odin. He owns Jesus.

  444. on 26 Jan 2015 at 9:45 am 444.alex said …

    Comprehend god? Motherfucker, you can’t even define the bitch proper. How the fuck do you know I can’t comprehend the motherfucker?

  445. on 26 Jan 2015 at 9:46 am 445.TJ said …

    “Then the burden of proof is for you to disprove the mighty Odin. He owns Jesus.”

    What is the source of your claim… “He owns Jesus”?

    Or did you just make that up because you had nothing to contribute?

    Disproved?

  446. on 26 Jan 2015 at 12:57 pm 446.HO HO HO said …

    To The Athiest

    Don’t try to find the weakness in my arguments. Don’t try to attack me based on what you percieve to be superabundance in your position.

    Correct your weakest points, Clean up your mind and your life, Cooperate with your brother that humanity might make it, See about saving your soul. See that you have even tried to escape an eternity of corruption and destruction.

    To The Christians,

    Remember that the Word of God speaks for itself, Remember that the word of God is tested and tried.

    Psalms 12

    6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

    7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

    8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

    As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.

    Be careful of adding to the words and teaching of God as though you want to self glorify, or be a hero. Just do your job to deliver God’s words and God’s works. If God’s words and ways don’t achieve it you won’t either If you will, Are you sure? Why would you? A person is a million times likely to Go Wrong preaching and teaching due to his own understanding that depending on the tried and proven words of God.

    So be careful.

    To the Athiests You sin remaineth and you danger remaineth.

  447. on 26 Jan 2015 at 1:54 pm 447.alex said …

    “What is the source of your claim… “He owns Jesus”?”

    that’s why you’re a dumbass motherfucker. it was written on a bathroom wall, by humans inspired by odin. what the fuck do you think?

    you easily dismiss my claim, yet you want people to swallow your shit. how is my claim any different than yours?

    the mightly, motherfucking odin, owns all and that includes your puny jesus. did i say “own all”? what is so hard to understand, you dumbass?

    “Or did you just make that up because you had nothing to contribute?”

    and what the fuck do you bring here? anything original? no, you bitch ass, motherfucker. all you bring is cut and paste bullshit.

  448. on 26 Jan 2015 at 2:07 pm 448.alex said …

    “Disproved?”

    did i say anything contradictory about odin? did i say he was a man and a woman? did i say he was omnipotent, but can’t defeat peeps with iron chariots? did odin stop the sun in its tracks?

    what exactly did you disprove? did you know that odin doesn’t even know that your puny, trivial ass even exist? there’s lots more things you don’t know about odin and you will never know unless you open up your wallet and and your cold evil heart and let him in.

    ooops, i fergit. you’ve already done that for some other bullshit god. guffaw, motherfucker.

  449. on 26 Jan 2015 at 3:13 pm 449.freddies_dead said …

    439.Anonymous said …

    You guys blaspheme the character of God but existence and creation cannot deny the characteristics of God.

    I can imagine a God whose characteristics aren’t denied by existence too but that God is entirely imaginary. Do you have some objective means by which we can distinguish between your God and something you may merely be imagining?

    Your primacy of existence is just a watered down viewpoint of how we are meant to appreciate God.

    The primacy of existence makes the existence of a creator God a logical impossibility so there’s no way it can be seen as a “watered down viewpoint” in favour of that God.

    I would say that apart from making some really fallacious philosophical arguments

    I’ll note that you fail to point out these “fallacious” arguments let alone demonstrate the truth of your claim. Are they fallacious regardless of what anyone may wish, want demand etc…? If so the how do you account for that objectivity from within your inherently subjective theistic worldview?

    that you are also making some rankly mendacious and malicious statements against the God of existence, creation and life.

    There is no “God of existence, creation and life” and any arguments I have put forward regarding the Christian God are drawn from attributes ascribed to Him in the Bible – now there’s a rankly mendacious and malicious book.

    I would always say that the burden of proof lies with atheist lies with atheist to disprove god.

    Then you would always be wrong. The burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim i.e. the one who claims that God exists. However, I have been only too happy to disprove God anyway.

    What did God do during that eternity before he created everything?

    If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create?

    They’re a couple of pretty good questions, so why don’t you answer them as you’re the one positing the existence of a God?

    IF A PRIMACY OF EXISTENCE EXISTED BEFORE THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED

    This just shows you don’t understand the principle and are trying to sneak invalid presuppositions (i.e. creation) into the discussion. The universe is the sum total of all existents and the principle describes a metaphysical position regarding that existence. It is therefore impossible for the principle to exist prior to existence.

    WHAT DISTURBED THE EQUILIBRIUM AND CAUSED THE UNIVERSE TO BE CREATED

    Where is your evidence that the universe was created?

    WHAT DISTURBED THE EQUILIBRIUM AND CAUSED THE BIG BANG IF YOU BELIEVE IN THE BIG BANG.

    No idea, I’ll wait for the science on that one.

    I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH AN OMNIPOTENT AND A OMNISCIENT GOD.

    Good for you.

    I ALSO HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH A PLAN THAT HAS A SCOPE FOR PERFECT WORKING AND A SCOPE FOR CONTINGENCIES ALL WITHIN A GREATER MASTER PLAN.

    So you have no problem with there being no free will despite the Bible’s claim that humanity has it?

    IN OTHER WORDS SIN IS A PART OF GOD’S PLAN IT IS WHAT IS AVAILABLE WHEN YOU DISOBEY GODS EXPRESS DESIGN, WISHES AND EXPRESSED WILL.

    Can you explain how one would go about doing something that directly contradicts an omniscient deity’s will?

    GOD IS TRUTH

    Mmmmm, word salad.

    BUT GOD POSSESSES THE ABILITY TO VEIL TRUTH FROM EVEN HIS MOST TRUSTED FOLLOWERS INCLUDING HIS ANGELS AND HIS SON.

    In which case how the fuck do you know He’s telling you the truth? In fact given you accept the existence of angels – and with them come fallen angels – then how do you know you’re not being tricked about all of this?

    HE ALSO POSSES THE ABILITY TO REVEAL VEILED TRUTH AND ALSO TO UNVEIL TRUTH.

    And how would you know the difference? Or even if it was actually God doing the revealing?

    BUT YOU GUYS ARE STUCK GOD ALSO HAS A PLAN FOR YOU AND IT IS CALLED FIRE AND BRIMSTONE.

    And there’s the Christian ‘love’, poorly disguised as nothing but fear theology.

  450. on 26 Jan 2015 at 3:16 pm 450.freddies_dead said …

    440.Anonymous said …

    It is also just another trick of the devil to make the understanding of God, the upholding of God’s statutes, laws and commandments and the pursuance of God’s kingdom on earth seem like a process overly concerned with or achievable by the faculty of the intellect.

    So how do you know that your ‘knowledge’ of God isn’t just the devil tricking you?

    Most of the time you are making a non-intellectual process seem like an intellectual process and that makes you dumb; not smart.

    You keep using the word ‘intellectual’. I don’t think it means what you think is means.

    Futher-more you are using limited intellect to appeal to matters that the greatest intellect alone cannot solve

    Hold on, isn’t God the “greatest intellect”? Why can’t He solve whatever it is you think needs solving? Isn’t He as omnipotent as the Bible makes out?

    and when there is another way to achieve the result this over use and abuse of intellect is a clear sign of an over active ego and of a more treacherous, deviant and sinister aim on your part.

    And here’s the unwarranted denigration of people who happen to not believe the same way Anonymous does. Christian love at work once more.

    At this stage you athiest must realise that you are all captives to sin and are all tools of the devil being used by him wholly to achieve his aims.

    When you recogise that God is imaginary the concept of sin goes with it. Suggesting that we’re “captives” to an irrational concept due to us being used by yet another imaginary being just makes you sound a little bit unhinged.

    And for this you will pay.

    What? In your imaginary Hell? Why don’t you tell us why we should worry about the imaginary?

    God has gone out of his way to bring you his message to this very blog

    By sending you? Holy shit that was a bad move on His part. It’s almost like He doesn’t want atheists to believe.

    in ways that if the children of Sodom were around they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes; (probably) but sin; and pride and shame have toughened your heart harder than Pharaoh’s and you run roughshod over the precious message of the Gospel.

    Ah, the old “if you don’t believe as I do you must be evil” canard. Yawn.

    You don’t care for yourselves,

    Incorrect, I care a great deal about myself which is why I prefer rationality over the imaginary.

    you don’t care for the world,

    On the contrary, I care a great deal about the world – after all I have to live in it and it’s the only one we have.

    you don’t care for science,

    Wrong, I like science, because it works.

    you don’t care for us

    Nope. I have a great deal of empathy for my fellow human beings and I’d love for the religious among them to stop wasting their lives wallowing in the imaginary, realise that they only have one life and start living it.

    and if you don’t respect the message of Gospel and the truths of God presented before you today you will never respect anything worth respecting.

    Damn fella, 0 for 5. You haven’t presented any “truths of God” today. You can’t even tell me how I can distinguish your God from something you may be merely imagining.

  451. on 26 Jan 2015 at 3:16 pm 451.freddies_dead said …

    441.HO HO HO said …

    How is the mind going to comprehend God?

    By imagining one.

    How is the mind going to comprehend the infinite?

    By imagining it.

    How are you going to get nearer to God unless you approach him?

    By imagining that I’m approaching Him.

    How are you going to approach an Almighty God unless you humble yourselves?

    Humble or proud I can still imagine approaching Him.

    Now the observant among you will notice there’s a whole lot of imagining going on. That’s because God is imaginary.

  452. on 26 Jan 2015 at 3:17 pm 452.freddies_dead said …

    442.HO HO HO said …

    CAN YOU WEIGH THE WORLD ON A GREEN GROCERS SCALE?

    Probably, if you made a set big enough. Although there’s really no need as there are other weighs (do you see what I did there? I’ll get me coat).

    CAN YOU MEASURE THE MILKY WAY WITH A METER ROD?

    Yes, with the right space ship and plenty of time. Although, again, why would you go to such lengths (honestly, I’ll stop now).

    WHY DO YOU TRY TO COMPREHEND GOD WITH THE HUMAN BRAIN?

    How else do you suggest we try comprehending things?

    COMMON SENSE WOULD TELL YOU THAT IS UNSCIENTIFIC AND WOULD NECESSARILY BE REJECTED BY ANY CLEAN AND UPRIGHT ACADEMIC COMMUNITY WHETHER SCIENTIFIC OR PHILOSOPHICAL.

    This claim is just plain wrong. Common sense tells us that attempts to take empirical measurements are part of science and using our brains to comprehend things is the only option we have.

    WHEN YOU FIND GOD BY SCIENTIFIC MEANS WHAT DO YOU DO NEXT?

    As this hasn’t happened can you give us a way we can do this?

    ARE YOU JUST BEING NAUGHTY IN YOUR HEARTS TOWARDS LIFE OR ARE YOU BEING SUPERCILIOUS TOWARDS YOUR FELLOW MEN? ARE YOU DREAMING? ARE YOU HAVING A LAUGH? PULLING A STUNT? DO YOU WANT TO WASTE OUR TIME?

    I don’t know about the others but I’m just trying to be rational by rejecting the imaginary in favour of the real.

  453. on 26 Jan 2015 at 3:19 pm 453.freddies_dead said …

    446.HO HO HO said …

    To The Athiest

    Don’t try to find the weakness in my arguments.

    What arguments? You haven’t actually presented any arguments yet. Plenty of assertions and assumptions but no real arguments.

    Don’t try to attack me based on what you percieve to be superabundance in your position.

    I prefer to point out where you’re wrong using the rationality of my position.

    Correct your weakest points,

    When I can.

    Clean up your mind and your life,

    It’s already pretty clean.

    Cooperate with your brother that humanity might make it,

    I try.

    See about saving your soul.

    Ohhhh, you were doing so well. How am I supposed to save the imaginary?

    See that you have even tried to escape an eternity of corruption and destruction.

    Already done when I realised that God was imaginary.

    To the Athiests You sin remaineth and you danger remaineth.

    And you’re back to threatening us with the imaginary. How cute.

  454. on 26 Jan 2015 at 3:55 pm 454.HO HO HO said …

    YOU ATHIEST HAVE IDENTIFIED A PROBLEMATIC LINE OF THINKING. THAT’S ALL.

    I DON’T SUFFER FROM THE SAME PROBLEM OF THOUGHT.

    I DON’T SEEK GOD TO RUN TO THE NEAREST UNIVERSITY TO STAKE MY CLAIM.

    I SEEK GOD BECAUSE IT IS JUST TO DO SO.

    IF THE DEVIL CAME TO ME TOMORROW AND OFFERED ME THE WORTH OF ALL THE WORLD ECONOMIES IN THE WORLD TO TURN MY BACK ON GOD I WOULD TURN DOWN SUCH AN OFFER.

    IF FACT IF THE DEVIL OFFERED ME ALL THAT THE GOSPEL PROMISES I WOULD TURN IT DOWN BECAUSE IT IS UNJUST TO DO OTHERWISE.

    IF I WAS OFFERED LONG LIFE ON EARTH, PROSPERITY ON EARTH, AND ETERNAL LIFE WITH EVERY THING I WANTED TO MY HEARTS CONTENT BUT ONLY TO TURN MY BACK ON GOD NOT EVEN TO SERVE THE DEVIL I WOULD TURN DOWN SUCH AN OFFER.

    I DON’T SEEK GOD FOR WHAT I CAN GAIN OR FOR THE BAD I CAN AVOID I SEEK GOD BECAUSE IT IS THE JUST DESERT TO DO SO.

    ANYTHING ELSE IS AN ERROR WHICH LEADS TO CORRUPTION.

    I KNOW GOD IN THE ONLY WAY HE CAN BE KNOWN OR HOPE TO BE KNOWN OR THAT IT IS JUST TO DO SO.

    IN FACT I ABIDE IN CHRIST ALWAYS JUST LIKE CHRIST ABIDES ALWAYS IN GOD AND AS SUCH I AM A PART OR AN ORGAN IN THE BODY OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.

    I HAVE NO INTENTIONS TO BREAK MY RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD BASED ON SOME VAIN, LATE STARTER INTELLECTUAL PURSUIT.

    YOU WOULD BE DEAD BEFORE YOU COULD GET TO MEASURE MILKY WAY WITH A MEASURING ROD STUPID. LIKE WISE HOW CAN YOU MEASURE THE OMNIPRESENT GOD. YOU NEED TO HAVE FAITH.

    IF YOU WAIT ON THE PROOF OF GOD BEFORE BELIEVE IN HIM GOOD LUCK I AM TELLING YOU NOW YOU WILL NEVER GET IT THERE IS NOTHING THAT PROVES GOD. BUT HERE YOU GO WRONG YOU SAY THIS IS SO BECAUSE HE IS IMAGINARY. NO THERE ARE PLENTY OF THINGS THAT THERE IS NO PROOF FOR BUT THEY ARE NOT IMAGINARY.

    IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE HUMAN BRAIN TO COMPREHEND THE FULLNESS OF GOD. MAY BE THE MINUTEST CREATIONS AND WORKS OF GOD SPEAK OF HIS GREATNESS AND HIS ABILITY AND HIS WORKS BUT THEY DO NOT PROVE HIM.

    WITHOUT FAITH IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PLEASE GOD. THIS THE GOOD BOOK SAYS. THIS I BELIEVE AND ACCEPT.

  455. on 26 Jan 2015 at 3:57 pm 455.alex said …

    “I DON’T SEEK GOD TO RUN TO THE NEAREST UNIVERSITY TO STAKE MY CLAIM.”

    and if you were born in the brazilian jungle, what the fuck do you think you’d be doing? how would you find christ? you’d look up a monkey’s ass and see the the lord?

  456. on 26 Jan 2015 at 4:06 pm 456.HO HO HO said …

    WHEN YOU FIND GOD YOU WILL ALSO KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT ODIN, ZEUS, RAH, THE FLYING SPAGETTI MONSTER, PINK WISTLE, HARRY POTTER AND THE REST.

    WHAT YOU CALL THE INFINITELY IMAGINARY CAN BE EASILY MADE REAL BY A WAVE OF THE FINGER OF A WAVE OF THE FINGER OF A WAVE OF THE FINGER OF ABSOLUTE POWER – WAVING ITS FINGER.

    NOW I KNOW THAT WOULD BLOW YOUR MIND BUT THAT IS HOW IT GOES.

    IF YOU WERE ABSOLUTE POWER WHAT WOULD YOU DO FEEL ALL THE CHILDREN IN AFRICA? CURE CANCER OR AIDS?

    AS YOU CAN SEE ABSOLUTE POWER WHICH DOES EXIST HAS ANOTHER PLAN.

    IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE ABSOLUTE POWER EXISTS YOU HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS AND THEIR IS NOT HOPE FOR YOUR LIFE FAR LESS YOUR AFTER LIFE OR YOUR ETERNAL LIFE.

    THE GREATEST MUST FIRST BE THE LEAST AND THE SERVANT OF ALL.

    THOSE WITH THERE TUMMY’S TOO FULL AS WELL AS THOSE STARVING AS WELL AS THOSE WHO EAT HORSES AS WELL AS THOS WHO ARE LACTO VEGETARIANS ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

    BUT SEEKING GOD’S POWER AND WEALTH IS NOT THE THING EITHER THIS IS NOT PROSPERITY GOSPEL THIS IS GET IN LINE WITH THE ETERNAL PLAN, THIS IS DISCOVER A TRUE TWO WAY LOVING RELATION SHIP WITH THE GOD OF ALL GODS.

    IT IS GOING FROM SAYING HOW I WISH I WAS NEVER BORN TO SAYING GOD BLESS THE DAY I WAS BORN.

  457. on 26 Jan 2015 at 4:15 pm 457.alex said …

    456.HO HO HO said …

    and i’m sure your homies, tj and hor, feels exactly just like you do. same as the 911 perps, eh? fellowship, bitches.

  458. on 26 Jan 2015 at 4:52 pm 458.HO HO HO said …

    SEE YOU HAVE CONFUSED MULIMS, WITH CHRISTIAN, WITH BUDDHIST, WITH JEWS.

    IT IS LIKE SAYING ROCKS AND CONFUSING PEBBLES WITH, DIAMONDS, WITH NARCOTICS WITH YOUR FAMILY JEWELS.

    HAVE YOU EVER BEEN A PRACTISING MUSLIM, HAVE YOU EVER BEEN A PRACTISING JEW, HAVE YOU EVER BEEN A PRACTISING CHRISTIAN AND THOSE WHO ARE WITH US STAY WITH US AND THOSE WHO ARE NOT WITH US ARE THOSE WHO LEAVE US AND THOSE WHO WILL NEVER BE WITH US.

    DO YOU ASSUME THAT THE IMAGINARY IS THE PRODUCTION OF THE REAL? AND THAT THE REAL CANNOT BE THE FRUIT OF THE IMAGINARY? YOU HAVE A FALLACIOUS INTERPRETATION OF WHAT IS FAITH, AND WHAT IS REAL AND WHAT IS IMAGINARY.

  459. on 26 Jan 2015 at 5:02 pm 459.Anonymous said …

    DON’T LET THESE MEN BOTHER YOU.

    GOD’S OWN ARE THE HOLIEST OF THE HOLIEST.

    THESE MEN ARE THE LOWEST OF THE LOWEST.

    COME OUT FROM AMONG THEM MY PEOPLE.

  460. on 26 Jan 2015 at 5:05 pm 460.alex said …

    “SEE YOU HAVE CONFUSED MULIMS, WITH CHRISTIAN, WITH BUDDHIST, WITH JEWS.”

    no, moron. you’re the one confused.

    all you morons are the exactly the same. you all believe in bullshit.

    let’s say you’re a jew. can you properly say that all non-jews believe in bullshit? what bullshits do atheists believe in? evolution? bullshit you say? what part of it is bullshit? because you say so? gravity? which part? pythagorean theorem? specifically, which?

    see how it works?

  461. on 26 Jan 2015 at 5:38 pm 461.Anonymous said …

    BECOME A CHRISTIAN BEFORE YOU CAN SAY WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN IS BULLSHIT.

    AS AN INHABITANT OF THE UNIVERSE I HAVE MY OWN OPINION OF GRAVITY, PYTHAGOREAN THEOREM ETC.

    I AM NOT INTERESTED IN TAKING A TEACHING ON BOARD WHICH DOES NOT ORIGINATE WITH GOD.

    YOU CAN’T BE A SLAVES OF DEVILISH KNOWLEDGE AND A SLAVE OF GOD.

    I ALREADY THREW AWAY EVERYTHING I HAD AND WAS EVEN THE LIFE I LIVED THAT CHRIST MIGHT LIVE IN ME, ABIDE IN ME AND BE MY EVERYTHING.

    NEVER MIND THE DOG BEWARE OF THE OWNER.

    NEVER MIND GRAVITY SEEK THE ONE WHO CREATED GRAVITY AND CONTROLS IT.

    I AM NOT MAKING MYSELF SUBJECT TO GRAVITY I AM MAKING MY SELF SUBJECT TO THE CREATOR OF GRAVITY.

    AT ANY RATE DID ATHIEST ‘DISCOVER’ GRAVITY?

    OR

    DID YOU MAKE GRAVITY? IS GRAVITY YOURS?

    BECAUSE YOUR ARE IMPRISONED BY THESE CONCEPTS I AM NOT THROUGH GOD I RULE OVER ALL.

  462. on 26 Jan 2015 at 6:26 pm 462.Anonymous said …

    WHY IS MR REAL BOTHERED BY THE IMAGINARY ANYWAY?

    WHY DID THE GREAT POE PRIMACY OF EXISTENCE LET THE IMAGINATION INTO THE REAL WORLD?

  463. on 26 Jan 2015 at 6:26 pm 463.Anonymous said …

    CAN THE IMAGINARY BRING FORTH THE REAL?

    IF IT CAN THEN IT IS A VALUABLE FIELD TO WORK IN NO?

  464. on 26 Jan 2015 at 6:37 pm 464.Anonymous said …

    GENESIS 6:5

    And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

    MAY BE YOU ARE GUILTY OF THIS THIS WHY YOU DON’T LIKE THE IMAGINARY.

  465. on 26 Jan 2015 at 6:46 pm 465.Anonymous said …

    there is no living being human or divine that can categorically tell you that the universe existed before consciousness.

    because how would he or she be able to speak of a universe he or she was not around to perceive.

    that does not make you a god though i bet i am older than you.

    it is for this reason that we worship the ancient of days or the one whose seniority is infinite.

    and even he cannot tell you that the universe existed prior to his consciousness for how could he know this to be true.

  466. on 26 Jan 2015 at 6:51 pm 466.Anonymous said …

    Also if the portion of time which weighs on an individual as a concern is equal to the fullness of the time which weighs on that individual as a responsibility and visa versa then that individual is an eternal being.

    But how is consciousness recognised it is not the same as realisation. There are some concerns which are eternal but have not yet approached the mind for full realisation.

  467. on 26 Jan 2015 at 7:46 pm 467.HO HO HO said …

    Answer Anonymous I am sure you have nothing to say on that.

  468. on 26 Jan 2015 at 7:52 pm 468.HO HO HO said …

    why is there any incongruence between primacy of conscious and primacy and primacy of existence?

    i take it that also means that the first thing to exist was not consciousness. yes there could be a primacy of existence but what if that first thing to exist was also consciousness?

    why is there even incongruence between consciousness and existence in the first place?

    has an unconscious existence been taking vengeance on you for your in-congruent consciousness?

    your poorly formed consciousness? your imperfect intelligence?

    Is that what bothering you?

  469. on 26 Jan 2015 at 10:20 pm 469.HO HO HO said …

    all you all athiest ran into your holes i bet.

  470. on 26 Jan 2015 at 10:25 pm 470.Anonymous said …

    i believe in primacy of god the first conscious being.

    the creator of the mest universe we inhabit.

    even if there was a primacy of existence and existence existed before consciousness

    the first conscious being is not to be seen as different from the primacy of existence that existed before and that is my point.

    if you were sleeping and then awoke does that mean that you are different from yourself because you were previously sleeping but are now awake?

    the first conscious being is not to be distinguished from the eternal existence that existed before that person actively used their consciousness to create.

    seen?

  471. on 27 Jan 2015 at 4:05 pm 471.freddies_dead said …

    469.HO HO HO/Anonymous said …

    all you all athiest ran into your holes i bet.

    What? You expected a considered response to your gibberish? Now that’s funny, but hey, I’m happy to take a closer look.

    At 454 he says:
    YOU ATHIEST HAVE IDENTIFIED A PROBLEMATIC LINE OF THINKING. THAT’S ALL.

    It’s certainly a problem for the theist.

    I DON’T SUFFER FROM THE SAME PROBLEM OF THOUGHT.

    Ignoring the problem doesn’t make it magically disappear.

    I KNOW GOD IN THE ONLY WAY HE CAN BE KNOWN OR HOPE TO BE KNOWN OR THAT IT IS JUST TO DO SO.

    But he’s already conceded that he can’t know anything for sure so basically he’s going on blind faith here and admits as such a few sentences later.

    WHAT YOU CALL THE INFINITELY IMAGINARY CAN BE EASILY MADE REAL BY A WAVE OF THE FINGER OF A WAVE OF THE FINGER OF A WAVE OF THE FINGER OF ABSOLUTE POWER – WAVING ITS FINGER.

    I can imagine such an infinite finger waver just as easily, but it’s still just imaginary. Does HO HO HO/Anonymous have any objective evidence that shows his God is not just a product of his imagination? It seems not as he never presents any.

    He asks:
    IF YOU WERE ABSOLUTE POWER WHAT WOULD YOU DO FEEL ALL THE CHILDREN IN AFRICA? CURE CANCER OR AIDS?

    Unsurprisingly (to reasonable people at least) I would have chosen not to create famine and disease in the first place, but in the case that they already existed I would most certainly feed (not feel, that would be wrong) the children of Africa and eliminate disease if it were in my ABSOLUTE POWER.

    He then babbles:
    DO YOU ASSUME THAT THE IMAGINARY IS THE PRODUCTION OF THE REAL?

    What else but real things are capable of having consciousnesses that are in turn capable of inventing things via the imagination?

    AND THAT THE REAL CANNOT BE THE FRUIT OF THE IMAGINARY?

    How can something that is unreal create that which is real?

    YOU HAVE A FALLACIOUS INTERPRETATION OF WHAT IS FAITH, AND WHAT IS REAL AND WHAT IS IMAGINARY.

    Faith is the hope in the imaginary. The hope that your God is real when logically it’s not possible. That he has absolutely no way of showing how we can distinguish between his God and his imaginings shows I’m not the one with a problem here.

    BECOME A CHRISTIAN BEFORE YOU CAN SAY WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN IS BULLSHIT.

    Why is this a requirement? What is wrong with simply comprehending what Christian’s say they believe and using reason to show it’s bullshit?

    DEVILISH KNOWLEDGE

    Christianity in a nutshell. The whole “fall of man” is allegedly caused by the gaining of knowledge. Christianity wants you unknowing, it wants you childlike. Why? So you won’t question the bullshit is why.

    WHY IS MR REAL BOTHERED BY THE IMAGINARY ANYWAY?

    I’m not in the slightest bit bothered by the imaginary. What does bother me is real people who think we should live our lives a certain way based on the alleged teachings of their imaginary God(s).

    CAN THE IMAGINARY BRING FORTH THE REAL?

    No, because the imaginary is not real. Something that isn’t real doesn’t exist and things that don’t exist cannot create things that do.

    Then he tells us:
    there is no living being human or divine that can categorically tell you that the universe existed before consciousness.

    So not even your God can say which came first, existence or consciousness? The very same God that supposedly is conscious and created the universe? He’s not sounding much like an omniscient being.

    because how would he or she be able to speak of a universe he or she was not around to perceive..

    Here’s an unconscious acknowledgement that existence holds metaphysical primacy. The tacit admittance that things are what they are independent of the consciousnesses that are aware of them.

    and even he cannot tell you that the universe existed prior to his consciousness for how could he know this to be true.

    Considering God is said to have bought the universe into existence by force of will alone, you’d think He’d know if he’d done something like that.

    He asks:
    why is there any incongruence between primacy of conscious and primacy and primacy of existence?

    Who said anything about an incongruence? It’s a metaphysical relationship. Either objects are independent of consciousness or they aren’t. The Primacy of Existence simply affirms that objects are independent.

    yes there could be a primacy of existence but what if that first thing to exist was also consciousness?

    There’s no could about there being a Primacy of Existence and, as per Objectivism, consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms; before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something.

    Is that what bothering you?

    As I’ve already noted, I’m not in the slightest bit bothered by the imaginary, however, there are those who would have everyone live by their imaginary being’s so-called commandments. I’d rather use reason thanks.

    i believe in primacy of god the first conscious being.

    Unfortunately for you existence exists independently of consciousness so it really doesn’t matter what you believe, wish, want, demand etc…

    even if there was a primacy of existence and existence existed before consciousness

    the first conscious being is not to be seen as different from the primacy of existence that existed before and that is my point.

    I love the unwarranted certainty among the general incoherence of the assertion. He thinks he’s making a point in amongst the stupidity.

    if you were sleeping and then awoke does that mean that you are different from yourself because you were previously sleeping but are now awake?

    This question is just as incoherent as the previous jumbled assertion. I’m enjoying this.

    the first conscious being is not to be distinguished from the eternal existence that existed before that person actively used their consciousness to create.

    So some consciousness apparently willed into existence something that already existed – makes total sense … to an idiot perhaps. And he wonders why we don’t always respond to his lunacy.

  472. on 27 Jan 2015 at 8:11 pm 472.Anonymous said …

    You fail to understand what i am saying here.

    You see what athiesm does to the brain.

    Only and athiest would see my statements as incoherent.

    I am saying I believe in the primacy of god.

    First of all you agreed that the real can create the imaginary and that there is a use for the imaginary. Then where lies your problem. You have asserted that the real and the imaginary can constructively coexist.

    I am also saying the there can be a primacy of existence and a primacy of consciousness which are not mutually exclusive. Or consciousness may be a brut fact or the faculty of consciousness could have been the first thing to exist where in it would have been conscious of itself.

    However you seem to be contending that there was an unconscious reality being first in existence first in existence without any ability to be conscious of itself.

    And for our purposes we are talking about history when I speak of primacy of existence of primacacy of consciousness I am speaking chronologically not simply as an metaphysical approach to thought.

    On this bit

    ‘Then he tells us:

    there is no living being human or divine that can categorically tell you that the universe existed before consciousness.

    So not even your God can say which came first, existence or consciousness? The very same God that supposedly is conscious and created the universe? He’s not sounding much like an omniscient being.

    because how would he or she be able to speak of a universe he or she was not around to perceive..

    Here’s an unconscious acknowledgement that existence holds metaphysical primacy. The tacit admittance that things are what they are independent of the consciousnesses that are aware of them.

    and even he cannot tell you that the universe existed prior to his consciousness for how could he know this to be true.

    Considering God is said to have bought the universe into existence by force of will alone, you’d think He’d know if he’d done something like that.’

    HERE I BEG TO DIFFER YOU ARE THE ONE SAYING THAT GOD BROUGHT THE UNIVERSE INTO BEING I AM THE ONE SAYING THAT GOD BROUGHT THE MEST UNIVERSE INTO BEING NOT THE LUCRETIUS DEFINITION WHICH SPEAKS OF ALL THINGS BECOMING ONE.

    I AM NOT CONTENDING THAT GOD BROUGHT THAT WHICH WAS BEFORE HIS CREATIVE ACTIVITY INTO BEING ALTHOUGH THAT WHICH EXISTED BEFORE HIS CREATIVE ACTIVITY WAS ALSO HIM AND TACITLY A THING IS ALSO FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS CREATION AND GOD ISN’T CREATED BY THIS TACIT DEFINITION BY ANYTHING ELSE BUT HIM SELF. BUT BY THIS TACIT DEFINITION GOD CREATED HIMSELF FULFILING THAT HE CREATED ALL THINGS (OR EVEN HIM SELF) OR HE HAS BEEN CREATING HIMSELF SINCE ALL ETERNITY)

    AND ETERNITY IS GENERALLY THOUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN CREATED BUT MAY BE CONJECTURED ALSO TO HAVE BEEN CREATED BY GOD AND TO HAVE ALSO CREATED ITSELF. LET SEE IF YOUR ATHIEST MIND CAN STRADDLE THOSE HEIGHTS.

    [SIMPLE IF YOU MAKE A CAR ON A CONVEYOR BELT SAY BY NISSAN THE CAR DESIGNER IS TAKEN TO MAKE THE CAR HOWEVER IF YOU CARRY OUT A SOPHISTICATED DIFFERENTIAL OBSERVATION YOU WILL NOTICE THAT AT THE VERY MOMENT THE CAR IS CREATED AND COMES OFF OF THE CREATION LINE THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE CAR DESIGNER AND THE CONVEYOR BELT COMES TO A STOP BEFORE THE CARE IS CREATED AND THE CAR MUST THEN CREATE IT SELF SORT OF LIKE THE LAST DASH OF PAINT MUST BE PUT ON BUT MORE THE LAST DASH OF PAINT MUST BE ACCEPTED BY THE CAR OR THE ELEMENTS WHICH CONSTITUTE THE CAR AND A WORK IN PROGRESS IS NOT THE SAME AS A FINISHED PRODUCT.]

    SO WE HAVE A CONSCIOUSNESS CANNOT SPEAK OF A PRIMACY OF EXISTENCE FOR HOW DOES IT KNOW THAT SOMETHING EXISTED BEFORE IT IF IT WAS NOT AROUND TO BE CONSCIOUS OF THAT.

    SECOND WE HAVE WHY WOULD A CHRONOLOGICAL PRIMACY OF UNCONSCIOUS EXISTENCE PRODUCE A CONSCIOUSNESS

    THIRD WE HAVE HOW DO WE KNOW THAT EXISTENCE AND CONSCIOUSNESS DID NOT SPRING INTO BEING AT THE SAME TIME WITH CONSCIOUSNESS HAVING ITSELF TO BE CONSCIOUS OF.

    FOURTHLY WE HAVE MY ASSERTION THAT THERE IS A PRIMACY OF GOD WHO IS NOT NECESSARILY A CONSCIOUS BEING ALWAYS BUT IS THE FIRST BEING GOD DID NOT HAVE TO CREATE EXISTENCE OR UNCONSCIOUS EXISTENCE BUT COULD HAVE BEEN THAT EXISTENCE WHICH LATER BECAME CONSCIOUS OF ITSELF AND PUT THAT CONSCIOUSNESS TO CREATIVE PURPOSES.

    THE CONSCIOUSNES DID NOT NEED TO WILL SOMETHING INTO BEING BEFORE IT CAME INTO BEING ALTHOUGH THAT IS AN EXCITING TOPIC FOR ANOTHER DAY WHICH WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND IT YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THE BATTLE FOR SUPREMACY HAS NO LIMITS AND YOU WILL SAY GOD IS GOD.

    BUT:

    HOWEVER NO DISTRACTIONS THAT THING THAT ALWAYS EXISTED WAS GOD WHETHER IT WAS CONSCIOUS OR NOT I DO NOT VIEW GOD AS A CONSCIOUSNESS I VIEW HIM AS AN ETERNAL EXISTENCE WHO POSSESS THE FACULTY OF CONSCIOUSNESS FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES.

    IF THAT DOESN’T DESTROY YOU THIS BIT WILL

    IF YOU AGREE THAT THERE WAS A PRIMACY OF EXISTENCE BEFORE A CONSCIOUSNESS THEN THE CONSCIOUSNESS MUST BE REAL RATHER THAN IMAGINARY AS IT SPRINGS FORTH FROM THE REAL AND THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO. IF THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU THINK YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS IS DEFECTIVE OR HAVING ACQUIRED A CONSCIOUSNESS DO YOU REJECT IT AS THOUGH SOME UNRULY GOD WAS TRYING TO PASS A SOUL ON TO YOU. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE SOUL. IF YOU ACCEPT THE CONSCIOUSNESS YOU MUST ALSO ACCEPT THE SOUL.

    NOW IF THE EXISTENCE IS REAL, AND THE CONSCIOUSNESS COMES FROM THE EXISTENCE AND IT IS REAL AND THE IMAGINARY COMES FROM THE CONSCIOUSNESS WHICH IS ALSO REAL THAN THE IMAGINARY MUST ALSO BE REAL AND MUST BE CALLED IMAGINARY ON A TERMINOLOGICAL BASIS BUT IS REAL NEVER THE LESS.

    SHAME ON YOU FOR THINKING YOU A MAN WERE MORE REAL THAN THE CREATOR GOD OF HEAVEN AND EARTH

  473. on 27 Jan 2015 at 8:32 pm 473.Anonymous said …

    WI HAVE LEARNED MORE THAN THEY THOUGHT IN THE PHILOSOPHY CLASS.

  474. on 27 Jan 2015 at 8:40 pm 474.HO HO HO said …

    YOU COULD ONLY CATEGORICALLY STATE THAT EXISTENCE EXISTED INDEPENDENT OF CONSCIOUSNESS IF YOU WERE THAT EXISTENCE INDEPENDENT OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND THEN HOW WOULD YOU KNOW THAT YOU EXISTED INDEPENDENT OF CONSCIOUSNESS.

    WHAT Y0U MEAN IS THAT YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS IS DEFECTIVE.

    BUT

    7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

    8 The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.

    9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.

    10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

    11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.

    12 Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.

    13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.

    14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer.

    I NEVER LIVED AT 221B BAKER STREET I READ MY BIBLE EVERY DAY THOUGH.

    LEARN TO KEEP IT CLEAN CHILDREN SHOULD BE ABLE TO READ BLOGS LIKE THIS.

  475. on 28 Jan 2015 at 3:22 am 475.alex said …

    dumbass theists always resort to the same old, bullshit, tired tactics. carpet bomb the opposition senseless with a barrage of overwhelming bullshit, replete with all caps, rendering them temporarily incapacitated and therefore unable to respond.

    barfffff, vomit, arghhh..

    mission accomplished, bitches.

  476. on 28 Jan 2015 at 5:23 am 476.LOL LOL LOL said …

    Raise your hand if you just scroll through what Ho Ho Ho aka Anonymous (aka not entering a name in the box) has entered, ESPECIALLY WHEN IN ALL CAPS, which he thinks will actually get read. I sure hope he cuts and pastes from his bible biased source instead of actually taking time to put down his thoughts. I would hate for him to have wasted all that time for nothing. No one wants to read robotic Shakespeare-like sentences. You might as well just put GHLDGHLH ADFDSAFDA ASDFDFDA GDSHJERFE AGJLJGDGADS and make just as much sense. LOL LOL LOL

  477. on 28 Jan 2015 at 8:39 am 477.HO HO HO said …

    judgement day for athiest i wake up this morning to see that the athiests last fort has been broken through and that they have no valuable ARGUMENT or comparative contention to make.

    Merci beaucoup FATHER JESUS

  478. on 28 Jan 2015 at 1:04 pm 478.freddies_dead said …

    472.Anonymous said …

    You fail to understand what i am saying here.

    To be fair this wouldn’t be difficult as a lot of it is utterly incoherent.

    You see what athiesm does to the brain.

    It helps people recognise your incoherent bullshit as the incoherent bullshit that it is.

    Only and athiest would see my statements as incoherent.

    Nah, I’m pretty sure that a lot of theists would recognise it as incoherent bullshit too.

    I am saying I believe in the primacy of god.

    Meaningless. God is said to be a consciousness so what Christianity actually affirms is the Primacy of Consciousness.

    First of all you agreed that the real can create the imaginary and that there is a use for the imaginary. Then where lies your problem.

    I told you exactly where the problem lies – in idiots, like yourself and others, who feel that everyone else should live by the dictates of their imaginary friends.

    You have asserted that the real and the imaginary can constructively coexist.

    I’ve also noted that the imaginary cannot create the real, what of it?.

    I am also saying the there can be a primacy of existence and a primacy of consciousness which are not mutually exclusive.

    Except that they are. Metaphysics is the most basic part of philosophy. It’s the study of the fundamental nature of existence and the two positions are exhaustive and diametrically opposed.

    Or consciousness may be a brut fact or the faculty of consciousness could have been the first thing to exist where in it would have been conscious of itself.

    Consciousness is axiomatic – to ask “what is consciousness?” presupposes that consciousness exists. Also, how can a faculty exist when there’s nothing for it to be a faculty of? And I’ve already pointed out that to be conscious is to be conscious of something. A consciousness conscious only of itself is a contradiction in terms. In order to identify itself as consciousness it would need to be conscious of something.

    However you seem to be contending that there was an unconscious reality being first in existence first in existence without any ability to be conscious of itself.

    Existence must first exist in order for consciousness to have content it is aware of.

    And for our purposes we are talking about history when I speak of primacy of existence of primacacy of consciousness I am speaking chronologically not simply as an metaphysical approach to thought.

    Irrelevant. Either something exists which consciousness can then be conscious of or there is simply nothing.

    On this bit

    ‘Then he tells us:

    there is no living being human or divine that can categorically tell you that the universe existed before consciousness.

    So not even your God can say which came first, existence or consciousness? The very same God that supposedly is conscious and created the universe? He’s not sounding much like an omniscient being.

    because how would he or she be able to speak of a universe he or she was not around to perceive..

    Here’s an unconscious acknowledgement that existence holds metaphysical primacy. The tacit admittance that things are what they are independent of the consciousnesses that are aware of them.

    and even he cannot tell you that the universe existed prior to his consciousness for how could he know this to be true.

    Considering God is said to have bought the universe into existence by force of will alone, you’d think He’d know if he’d done something like that.’

    HERE I BEG TO DIFFER YOU ARE THE ONE SAYING THAT GOD BROUGHT THE UNIVERSE INTO BEING I AM THE ONE SAYING THAT GOD BROUGHT THE MEST UNIVERSE INTO BEING NOT THE LUCRETIUS DEFINITION WHICH SPEAKS OF ALL THINGS BECOMING ONE.

    I could really give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut what type of universe you’re talking about. It’s still the same claim i.e. that a consciousness created everything. A consciousness that had nothing to be conscious of but itself. A contradiction in terms. It’s a logically incoherent position to maintain.

    I AM NOT CONTENDING THAT GOD BROUGHT THAT WHICH WAS BEFORE HIS CREATIVE ACTIVITY INTO BEING ALTHOUGH THAT WHICH EXISTED BEFORE HIS CREATIVE ACTIVITY WAS ALSO HIM AND TACITLY A THING IS ALSO FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS CREATION AND GOD ISN’T CREATED BY THIS TACIT DEFINITION BY ANYTHING ELSE BUT HIM SELF. BUT BY THIS TACIT DEFINITION GOD CREATED HIMSELF FULFILING THAT HE CREATED ALL THINGS (OR EVEN HIM SELF) OR HE HAS BEEN CREATING HIMSELF SINCE ALL ETERNITY)

    So God didn’t create existence that existed before He started creating things, but then the existence that existed before He started creating things was actually God. And that thing (God) was responsible for creating itself so God created Himself. Meaning God created Himself or has been creating Himself for all time.

    But of course it’s not incoherent bullshit.

    AND ETERNITY IS GENERALLY THOUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN CREATED BUT MAY BE CONJECTURED ALSO TO HAVE BEEN CREATED BY GOD AND TO HAVE ALSO CREATED ITSELF. LET SEE IF YOUR ATHIEST MIND CAN STRADDLE THOSE HEIGHTS.

    My atheist mind simply dismisses it as the incoherent bullshit that it is.

    [SIMPLE IF YOU MAKE A CAR ON A CONVEYOR BELT SAY BY NISSAN THE CAR DESIGNER IS TAKEN TO MAKE THE CAR HOWEVER IF YOU CARRY OUT A SOPHISTICATED DIFFERENTIAL OBSERVATION YOU WILL NOTICE THAT AT THE VERY MOMENT THE CAR IS CREATED AND COMES OFF OF THE CREATION LINE THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE CAR DESIGNER AND THE CONVEYOR BELT COMES TO A STOP BEFORE THE CARE IS CREATED AND THE CAR MUST THEN CREATE IT SELF SORT OF LIKE THE LAST DASH OF PAINT MUST BE PUT ON BUT MORE THE LAST DASH OF PAINT MUST BE ACCEPTED BY THE CAR OR THE ELEMENTS WHICH CONSTITUTE THE CAR AND A WORK IN PROGRESS IS NOT THE SAME AS A FINISHED PRODUCT.]

    Incoherent bullshit analogy is just as incoherent as the original incoherent bullshit. Well done.

    SO WE HAVE A CONSCIOUSNESS CANNOT SPEAK OF A PRIMACY OF EXISTENCE FOR HOW DOES IT KNOW THAT SOMETHING EXISTED BEFORE IT IF IT WAS NOT AROUND TO BE CONSCIOUS OF THAT.

    It could use reason. I know you’re not on speaking terms with it but that doesn’t mean no-one else is.

    SECOND WE HAVE WHY WOULD A CHRONOLOGICAL PRIMACY OF UNCONSCIOUS EXISTENCE PRODUCE A CONSCIOUSNESS

    Why must there be a “why”? Existence didn’t “have” to produce consciousness. We just know that it happened because we’re here – as conscious beings – discussing it.

    THIRD WE HAVE HOW DO WE KNOW THAT EXISTENCE AND CONSCIOUSNESS DID NOT SPRING INTO BEING AT THE SAME TIME WITH CONSCIOUSNESS HAVING ITSELF TO BE CONSCIOUS OF.

    Because a consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is still a contradiction in terms. It first requires something to be conscious of in order to be able to call itself consciousness.

    FOURTHLY WE HAVE MY ASSERTION THAT THERE IS A PRIMACY OF GOD WHO IS NOT NECESSARILY A CONSCIOUS BEING ALWAYS BUT IS THE FIRST BEING GOD DID NOT HAVE TO CREATE EXISTENCE OR UNCONSCIOUS EXISTENCE BUT COULD HAVE BEEN THAT EXISTENCE WHICH LATER BECAME CONSCIOUS OF ITSELF AND PUT THAT CONSCIOUSNESS TO CREATIVE PURPOSES.

    Fourthly we have some more incoherent bullshit. God may not always be a conscious entity but He’s the first conscious entity that didn’t have to create existence or unconscious existence but could have been existence which later became a consciousness conscious only of itself and decided to create things.

    THE CONSCIOUSNES DID NOT NEED TO WILL SOMETHING INTO BEING BEFORE IT CAME INTO BEING ALTHOUGH THAT IS AN EXCITING TOPIC FOR ANOTHER DAY WHICH WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND IT YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THE BATTLE FOR SUPREMACY HAS NO LIMITS AND YOU WILL SAY GOD IS GOD.

    There is no battle for supremacy here. There are simple ideas which you simply don’t grasp. Instead you prefer to imagine fantastically incoherent possibilities which serve only to protect your God belief from reality.

    BUT:

    HOWEVER NO DISTRACTIONS THAT THING THAT ALWAYS EXISTED WAS GOD WHETHER IT WAS CONSCIOUS OR NOT I DO NOT VIEW GOD AS A CONSCIOUSNESS I VIEW HIM AS AN ETERNAL EXISTENCE WHO POSSESS THE FACULTY OF CONSCIOUSNESS FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES.

    So you don’t view God as a consciousness but as an existence with a consciousness for it’s own purposes. Are you possibly claiming to be a pantheist or even a panentheist here?

    IF THAT DOESN’T DESTROY YOU THIS BIT WILL

    It doesn’t destroy me as much as it makes me think you’re an idiot who makes shit up to please yourself. While there’s nothing inherently wrong in that there’s also nothing inherently wrong in me pointing out that it’s incoherent bullshit.

    IF YOU AGREE THAT THERE WAS A PRIMACY OF EXISTENCE BEFORE A CONSCIOUSNESS THEN THE CONSCIOUSNESS MUST BE REAL RATHER THAN IMAGINARY AS IT SPRINGS FORTH FROM THE REAL AND THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO.

    Of course consciousness is real. However, there is and always will be a distinction between existence and consciousness. Existence is identity while consciousness is identification.

    IF THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU THINK YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS IS DEFECTIVE OR HAVING ACQUIRED A CONSCIOUSNESS DO YOU REJECT IT AS THOUGH SOME UNRULY GOD WAS TRYING TO PASS A SOUL ON TO YOU.

    Noting a distinction between existence and consciousness in no way suggests that my consciousness is defective. On the contrary, I’m correctly using my consciousness in it’s primary use as a means of identifying things. Why on earth would I reject the self-evident existence of consciousness? And what has that to do with imaginary Gods and souls?

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE SOUL.

    Well consciousness exists whilst souls are imaginary.

    IF YOU ACCEPT THE CONSCIOUSNESS YOU MUST ALSO ACCEPT THE SOUL.

    As you’ll see above this simply isn’t true.

    NOW IF THE EXISTENCE IS REAL, AND THE CONSCIOUSNESS COMES FROM THE EXISTENCE AND IT IS REAL AND THE IMAGINARY COMES FROM THE CONSCIOUSNESS WHICH IS ALSO REAL THAN THE IMAGINARY MUST ALSO BE REAL AND MUST BE CALLED IMAGINARY ON A TERMINOLOGICAL BASIS BUT IS REAL NEVER THE LESS.

    Lol. The logic of an idiot never fails to amuse. So existence exists and is real, my consciousness exists and is real and the 90 foot red and white polka dot patterned platypus currently tap-dancing on the roof of the White House must also be real because I’m imagining it. That’s what HO HO HO/Anonymous is saying here. I would hope even the most devout theists might be able to recognise the problems in HO HO HO/Anonymous’ claim.

    SHAME ON YOU FOR THINKING YOU A MAN WERE MORE REAL THAN THE CREATOR GOD OF HEAVEN AND EARTH

    Do you have any objective means by which we can distinguish this so-called “CREATOR GOD OF HEAVEN AND EARTH” from something you may simply be imagining? Until you do He’s no more real than my tap-dancing platypus (in case anyone was wondering he’s dancing along to the theme from the A-Team – taaap tap-tap-taaap tap tap taaap).

    WI HAVE LEARNED MORE THAN THEY THOUGHT IN THE PHILOSOPHY CLASS.

    I’m not sure what the Women’s Institute has to do with this but I’d wager that, like me, they’d learn nothing more from you than that you’re talking shit most of the time.

    YOU COULD ONLY CATEGORICALLY STATE THAT EXISTENCE EXISTED INDEPENDENT OF CONSCIOUSNESS IF YOU WERE THAT EXISTENCE INDEPENDENT OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND THEN HOW WOULD YOU KNOW THAT YOU EXISTED INDEPENDENT OF CONSCIOUSNESS.

    We’ve already noticed that your grasp of logic is tenuous at best so you’ll have to forgive us for not taking your word for this. Actually anyone can test the concept quite easily. Look at your keyboard. Now will it to turn into a goat, wish it to be a goat, nay, DEMAND that it be a goat. Is it still a keyboard? It is, isn’t it? That my friend is existence existing independently of the consciousness that is aware of it.

    WHAT Y0U MEAN IS THAT YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS IS DEFECTIVE.

    Not in the slightest. My consciousness is simply doing what it does i.e. identifying things … like your incoherent bullshit.

    BUT

    7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

    8 The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.

    9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.

    10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

    11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.

    12 Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.

    13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.

    14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer.

    Wow! A Bible quote! That changes everythi … oh, wait, no it doesn’t. The alleged words of an imaginary God have absolutely no bearing on this discussion.

    I NEVER LIVED AT 221B BAKER STREET I READ MY BIBLE EVERY DAY THOUGH.

    That’s nice dear.

    LEARN TO KEEP IT CLEAN CHILDREN SHOULD BE ABLE TO READ BLOGS LIKE THIS.

    Oh, Heavens! Won’t you think of the children?!? Oh, but I am, that’s why I’m exposing your incoherent bullshit for the incoherent bullshit that it is.

    judgement day for athiest i wake up this morning to see that the athiests last fort has been broken through and that they have no valuable ARGUMENT or comparative contention to make.

    Merci beaucoup FATHER JESUS

    Ah, the final act of the truly deluded. Ignore everything that’s been said and declare victory. How sad.

  479. on 28 Jan 2015 at 1:05 pm 479.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Alex!

    Luv ya bro! Listen, your finishing school polish is showing through again with the flowery use of the English language. You make the other atheist swoon with such poetic offerings. Thanks again my man….it is a real joy to be on the same blog thread.

    Layer bro!

  480. on 30 Jan 2015 at 10:11 am 480.Anonymous said …

    HO HO HO IS NOT ANONYMOUS

    BUT NOW I KNOW WHERE YOU ATHIEST ARE COMING’ FROM I WILL WRITE MY COHERENT ESSAY.

    I NOW HAVE ENOUGH PERSPECTIVE TO BURY YOU ATHIEST ONCE AND FOR ALL.

    ‘Heavenly Father, I come to you in the name of Jesus I repent for all my sins and I believe and accept that Jesus has died for me and for my sins. I now seek to be part of your heavenly kingdom and to abide in you and your son Jesus Christ..’

    Will not only save you from hell but from the ruin of your integrity.

    Soon becoming or remaining an athiest will not only be seen as spiritual suicide but also as intellectual and credibility suicide.

  481. on 30 Jan 2015 at 1:06 pm 481.freddies_dead said …

    480.Anonymous said …

    HO HO HO IS NOT ANONYMOUS

    He just happens to post the exact same incoherent bullshit in the exact same mix of caps/non-caps?

    BUT NOW I KNOW WHERE YOU ATHIEST ARE COMING’ FROM I WILL WRITE MY COHERENT ESSAY.

    Oooo. I can’t wait.

    I NOW HAVE ENOUGH PERSPECTIVE TO BURY YOU ATHIEST ONCE AND FOR ALL.

    Proverbs 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

    ‘Heavenly Father, I come to you in the name of Jesus I repent for all my sins and I believe and accept that Jesus has died for me and for my sins. I now seek to be part of your heavenly kingdom and to abide in you and your son Jesus Christ..’

    Will not only save you from hell but from the ruin of your integrity.

    I don’t need saving from your imaginary Hell and my integrity will no doubt remain safe from your fucked up religious “morality”.

    Soon becoming or remaining an athiest will not only be seen as spiritual suicide but also as intellectual and credibility suicide.

    Is that the same kind of “soon” as the one used to describe Jesus’ return?

  482. on 30 Jan 2015 at 4:54 pm 482.LoyaltyLies said …

    I infer that the distinction between the consciousness and the existent is only itself imaginary as the consciousness either exists or it doesn’t. It is almost as if we chose to distinguish between too types of existences for philosophical purposes. Really.

    Such a faint distinction can be rudely challenged and successfully ignored but this might disturb the philosophical approach of some.

  483. on 02 Feb 2015 at 2:30 pm 483.freddies_dead said …

    482.LoyaltyLies said …

    I infer that the distinction between the consciousness and the existent is only itself imaginary as the consciousness either exists or it doesn’t.

    I have made no distinction between consciousness and existence, after all they both exist. The discussion concerns the relationship between consciousness and the objects it is aware of.

    It is almost as if we chose to distinguish between too types of existences for philosophical purposes. Really.

    The only things I’ve distinguished between is those that exist and those that don’t. I don’t see why anyone would object to such an approach.

    Such a faint distinction can be rudely challenged and successfully ignored but this might disturb the philosophical approach of some.

    I’m not entirely sure what it is you think you’ve “rudely challenged” but it certainly hasn’t disturbed my philosophical approach.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply