Feed on Posts or Comments 21 April 2014

Christianity Admin on 03 Oct 2013 11:23 pm

GodIsImaginary.com needs technical assistance… Can anyone help?

If you go to Google and type in “GodIsImaginary.com” as the search term, the top entry that Google returns is what you would expect. But when you click on the link, it does not go to GodIsImaginary.com. It gets redirected to some other web site.

Does anyone know how to fix this problem?

We have written to the site’s hosting company. They said that the problem would resolve itself the next time Google indexes the site. But the problem has not resolved itself.

We would be grateful for any assistance you can provide in fixing this problem.

Thanks.

198 Responses to “GodIsImaginary.com needs technical assistance… Can anyone help?”

  1. on 03 Oct 2009 at 11:57 pm 1.Jon said …

    The problem isn’t with Google – the site has been hacked (or misconfigured).

    When the browser requests the root page from godisimaginary.com, the server returns a 302 redirect to http://216.120.231.11/~floorin/gallery1/g2data/

    % telnet godisimaginary.com 80 2009-10-04 01:56:00 evansj ttys003
    Trying 75.127.70.39…
    Connected to godisimaginary.com.
    Escape character is ‘^]’.
    GET / HTTP/1.0
    Host:godisimaginary.com

    HTTP/1.1 302 Found
    Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 00:54:08 GMT
    Server: Apache/2.2.0 (Fedora)
    Location: http://216.120.231.11/~floorin/gallery1/g2data/
    Content-Length: 314
    Connection: close
    Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1

  2. on 04 Oct 2009 at 1:45 am 2.Alenonimo said …

    You should verify if the “.htaccess” file is redirecting the site. Post the contents of this file here so we can see if there’s something wrong.

    Or you could delete it. The site probably will still work.

    You need to address how the site was hacked too. Upgrade every program you may be using, like WordPress, SMF, etc.

  3. on 04 Oct 2009 at 5:48 pm 3.Admin said …

    This is what .htaccess contains:

    RewriteEngine On

    RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*google.* [OR]
    RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*ask.* [OR]
    RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*yahoo.* [OR]
    RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*excite.* [OR]
    RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*altavista.* [OR]
    RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*msn.* [OR]
    RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*netscape.* [OR]
    RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*aol.* [OR]
    RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*hotbot.* [OR]
    RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*goto.* [OR]
    RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*infoseek.* [OR]
    RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*mamma.* [OR]
    RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*alltheweb.* [OR]
    RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*lycos.* [OR]
    RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*search.* [OR]
    RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*metacrawler.* [OR]
    RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*yandex.* [OR]
    RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*rambler.* [OR]
    RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*mail.* [OR]
    RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*dogpile.*
    RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://216.120.231.11/~floorin/gallery1/g2data/ [R=301,L]

    ErrorDocument 401 http://216.120.231.11/~floorin/gallery1/g2data/
    ErrorDocument 403 http://216.120.231.11/~floorin/gallery1/g2data/
    ErrorDocument 404 http://216.120.231.11/~floorin/gallery1/g2data/
    ErrorDocument 500 http://216.120.231.11/~floorin/gallery1/g2data/
    AddType application/x-httpd-php5 .php .html .htm

    The file has been deleted.

  4. on 04 Oct 2013 at 10:56 am 4.Angus and Alexis said …

    Hey, Admin, while you are here, may you please IP ban the person known as “A”?
    He has been trolling this site for far too long.

  5. on 08 Oct 2013 at 12:29 am 5.the messenger said …

    Christian beliefs are good. Why can’t you see that?

  6. on 08 Oct 2013 at 7:22 am 6.Anonymous said …

    Hey, Admin, while you are here, may you please IP ban the person known as “A”?
    He has been trolling this site for far too long.

    Gosh, your request is admirable but talk about mixed messages. The fact is that when people engage him, and you are one of the top few, it encourages his responses. If you want him to go away, then for fuck’s sake stop being part of his derailing the conversation.

  7. on 11 Oct 2013 at 1:00 pm 7.John said …

    The site has been hacked by a Christian I.T. guy. Maybe the Devil made him do it! But things were getting kind of boring anyway during the last few months.

    I hope you get things up and running and get new and fresh articles showing the insanity of religion soon.

  8. on 30 Oct 2013 at 6:00 pm 8.ArrogantAthiest said …

    dear messenger, this is a response to one of you rposts made ealrier this year in a different post. i just wanted to discuss this with you:

    “Messenger said: ” most of modern physics is based on unproven theories, and is therefore useless.”

    whoa whoa whoa!

    I have been having a great time reading these comments (many lols were had) but i just had to get on my computer for this.

    You are right that scientific theories can’t literally be “proven” (the scientific mindset does not accept that any one thing or observation can function as a “proof” for any one theory, as the concept of a scientific theory in itself is not designed for that) but that does not in itself mean that science is useless.

    Your observation likely stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the psychology of science in general.

    In the same way that Applied Science (engineering for one) depends on the practicality of a scientific fact in order for any one thing that may be under development to function as intended, so do scientific theories rely on the reliability of a certain model to consistently predict relevant phenomena as found in nature, in order to continualy contribute to the base of “knowledge” in that particular field of science.

    This in turn allows for a deeper “understanding” of the relevant phenomena occuring, meaning they get closer and closer to eventually forming a model (whether it be a computer or purely mathematical) that can and will, if run, accurately predict with a very high percentage of similarity (at least 99 percent)to the natural occurence of said phenomena. Only when a model reaches this level of usability is a model said to be a theory. At that point, a theory can either continue to help scientists/engineers better understand other fields of science/nature, of develop better technology.

    The whole point of this is not “truth” but “practicality in context”.

    I hope you get to see this.

    on 30 Oct 2013 at 5:52 pm 321.ArrogantAthiest said …

    also, concerning the whole “therefore those theories are useless”, we use those theories in every aspect of our lives. the theory of relativity is used in GPS’s, which are required to and and usually do have a very high percentage of reliability in doing their job. (of course every once in a while it’ll take you down the wrong road :P but not too often!)

    the theory of evolution is vital to pharmeacutical research (you may say “micro-evolution”. the difference is irrelevant, as biologists say both use the same system and the point is that the system works, nothing more)

    theory of gravity has been vital in assisting engineers in calculating the trajectory of many, many spacecraft in navigating the solar system.

    that they are not proven does not mean they are useless, as the standards for practicality are different than those for “truth”.”

    the reason i think it should be ok to discuss this here is because it addresses a point relevant to an overarchign theme of this website, as opposed to the particular blog post in which i found your comment.

    I hope we can have a nice and interesting discussion about this.

  9. on 30 Oct 2013 at 6:02 pm 9.ArrogantAthiest said …

    dear admins: I really wish i could help your site. it has been an endless source of lols and entertainment since i found it two days ago.

    unfortunately i cant :(

  10. on 30 Oct 2013 at 6:08 pm 10.ArrogantAthiest said …

    and messenger, i appreciate the way you address and handle comments; sometimes you make pretty decent points, but i just felt i needed to make sure that point was clear to you. that was the one post you made that i strongly felt needed to be addressed.

  11. on 30 Oct 2013 at 11:59 pm 11.the messenger said …

    9-11ArrogantAthiest, before I being my statements I would like to say thank you. You speak very well and you are respectful(unlike so many others on this site). I respect you.

    First of all, I have great respect for medical science and many other scientific fields, but I feel that some fields are not very useful.

    Theoretical physics is not very helpful to humanity. The men and women in this field make such absurd claims, such as the big band theory. Do you really believe that all the matter in the entire universe could fit into one tiny speck the size of a needle head?

    Mankind needs to stop concerning its self with guessing how the universe is made, and what stars and black holes are made of, and they need ton start concentrating on helping mankind with its biggest problem, hate.

    Humans have a hate problem. Hate causes war, the holocaust(take a moment of silence), and so many other awful things. The key to fixing humanity and making the world a better place is GOD(Jewish/ christian GOD). GOD commands us to love one another, and I believe that if we all follow him and his teachings of love, forgiveness, kindness, compassion, and humility.

    As st paul once said, “without love we are nothing”. GOD teaches love, which is something that mankind needs a lot.

  12. on 31 Oct 2013 at 7:19 am 12.Angus and Alexis said …

    Its funny messenger, as we know what stars are made of.

    Its also funny that you made a claim on “the big bang” and did not back it up.

  13. on 31 Oct 2013 at 10:53 am 13.the messenger said …

    12.Angus and Alexis, you didn’t answer the question.

    Do you think that it is logical to believe that ALL the matter in the universe was in a speck the size of a needle head?

    Furthermore, how do you know what a star is made out of, even though we have never gotten very close to it to observe it properly?

  14. on 31 Oct 2013 at 1:25 pm 14.Angus and Alexis said …

    “Furthermore, how do you know what a star is made out of, even though we have never gotten very close to it to observe it properly?”

    Are you seriously saying that stars are NOT made of helium, hydrogen and other materials (minor amounts of iron and such)?

    “Do you think that it is logical to believe that ALL the matter in the universe was in a speck the size of a needle head?”

    The big bang does not make such a claim, but it is feasible.

  15. on 31 Oct 2013 at 8:18 pm 15.the messenger said …

    15.Angus and Alexis, you obviously do not understand the English language.

    I didn’t say that they where not made of those elements, I ASKED how do you know what they are made of?

    Lastly, the physicist, Mr. Yuki D. Takahashi, stated in the following site that before the big bang theory, the universe started at a very minuscule(means extremely small; tiny.) size. A synonym for minuscule is MICROSCOPIC, and we all know how small that is. So tell me, do you HONESTLY believe that all the matter in the ENTIRE universe could possibly fit into a Speck smaller than a needle pin? honestly it sounds crazy to believe in such a inane theory, I hope you agree.

    http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm

  16. on 31 Oct 2013 at 9:20 pm 16.ArrogantAthiest said …

    http://skinakas.physics.uoc.gr/en/files/projects/StellarSpectra_Classification_p8/P8_STELLAR_SPECTRA_CLASSIFICATION.pdf

  17. on 31 Oct 2013 at 10:36 pm 17.ArrogantAthiest said …

    messanger, your link states at the very bottom that it was written by an undergraduate student, not necessarily an accomplished physicist.

    My link was found on the second page of google under the term “caltech identifying stellar elements”.

    Isaac Newton was the original discoverer of, at the very least, something quite similar involving different elements and their effects on light, so this phenomenon has been known about for quite some time.

    i agree that it is difficult to justify the cause of theoretical physics in the light of popular human tendencies. However, I think that if you look somewhat closer you may found that a significant, if not major, portion of humanity has or is trying to move on from the instinctual nature of the human psyche, as dictated by a world that not too long ago was very much shaped by the process of natural selection, and all its implications. Secular society is very aware of the danger of a “darwinian” world, hence why many countries are making an effort to prevent such a world from ever happening again.

    It’s the protection of the base human right to have ideas, and realize their potential, in the first place. Diversity brings culture to a society. Culture makes that society worth being a part of.

    If you try to stagnate the flow of ideas you risk losing precious context, and are essentially inbreeding. This will get you nowhere, but will allow other entities to surpass you with minimal effort.

    This is how complicated the world is. In order to prevent power-hungry entities (those essentially representing survival of the fittest, such as Islam) we need to beat them to the chase. Of course from an immmedietely objective perspective you can say “well how do you know which ones’ idealogy is better?” . Well that is where you look at the details. You can see secularism advocates for a free market of ideas and beliefs to be held, while Islam will accept nothing that was not already it. This is most easily observed in the technological gap between Western society and those societies most dominated by Islam.

    A massive part of that is due to “western” science.

    Now, you move on to looking at the quality of life in these two societies, apart from the aids provided by technology. Let’s just say that people in america tend to be less motivated to exercise primitive and largly ineffective routines than those in Islamic countries.

    There are no abolute methods for creating an ideal society, only absolute goals.

    I want to note that that in itself is quite reminescient of evolution.

    To move on: we should already be much further along than we already are, as is demonstrated in people like you who have humanity’s best interests in mind and at heart.
    However, the presence of less agreeable entities who threaten, and mean to threaten, our way of life forces us to sacrifice the emotionally rich society we want for the sake of preserving what we already have.

    However, that does not mean nobody is capitalizing on our freedoms. scientific knowledge is growing, thanks to the support it receives from those who realize its capacity to help humanity, which is thankfully a large portion of the secular states.

    As useless as theoretical physics may seem, the very fact that we have a constantly expanding base of knowledge in that field means that we will have an ever-improving contextual perspective of our existence (in your case, that is the most likely place where we would find proof of your god), but more importantly, if the observations made that the universe may end in one way or another are true, in tandem with string-theory and multiple universes, it could result in the infinite preservation of our species, if science is left free to figure out a way to avoid such a calamity multiple times.

    It is also quite likely that we will eventually develop “eternal” bodies, such as self-sustaining robotic bodies, for one. Even if we find that this world sucks too much to be worth living in forever, we would at least have the opportunity to find out for ourselves, and be the true controllers of our destinies.

    We cannot afford to focus all our efforts on becoming a species of love, and in the end that would only hurt us anyway. Not all of us are fit to be satisfied with an emotionally stable existence. Take me, for one. I have a brain condition that renders me virtually immune to empathy with others; i inadvertantly see emotional influence as a weakness. However, that does not mean i go about trying to get others to be more like me. But others do. Others would take advantage of a “hippie” society, for ease of terms. I aim to improve the quality of life for everybody. Others want everybody to be like them. if you limit your society you limit your lifes’ quality.

    ok. Now to my point: Knowledge is power. you and i already know that. science does what it can to make sure it’s observations are accurate. science will be more than happy to replace evolution and Big Bang theory if a more precise idea comes along; such an accomplishment would earn those responsible the highest scientific esteems that can be given. However, there is nothing (I) can find in biblical theology that may be useful to us that we have already developed, whether independantly or not. There is certainly nothing useful that can be gained from acknowledging YEC as truth.

    Again, the fundamental difference: Evolution is built on robust principles and systematic correlations that have proven themselves time and time again, whereas creation, and let me emphasize it for you, IS SIMPLY AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

    They are different in more ways than “just what the facts are”. They abide by completely different standards; in effect, they shouldn’t actually influence each other. If creation is true, it wont change the utility certain evolutonary principles provide for medecine, and i acknowledge your recognition of medecine. i do not mean to contest that. this is just an example made to explain a point.

    so, same goes for the Big Bang theory. Scientists have found some pretty startling things about the nature of our universe, not least of which is that it might have an end.

    the more we know………

    considering the nature of this topic, i think it is viable that this post could literally go on forever. time for me to stfu.

    I acknowledge the poor organisation of this post, and any misconceptions about anything i have mentioned. please correct me, for i have only just woken up. see? there goes my responsability. oh noes! D:

  18. on 31 Oct 2013 at 10:38 pm 18.ArrogantAthiest said …

    ok, i meant radical Islam, no disrespect to the civil muslims out there. I am simply going what i understand of the core Isalmic principles. If i misunderstand core islamic principles, feel free to call me out on it.

  19. on 31 Oct 2013 at 10:40 pm 19.ArrogantAthiest said …

    and relating to absolute goals regarding evolution. disregard that. it is irrelevant, and is not true in every way, therefore may be interpreted as a false statement, for completely unecessary reasons that detract from my point.

  20. on 31 Oct 2013 at 11:45 pm 20.40 Year Atheist said …

    There is an ongoing intellectual scramble in the Atheist-Intellectualist community ever since the publication of Thomas Nagel’s book, ”Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False”. The title itself is a slap in the Atheist face, since monism is a necessary belief, and Darwinism is a sacred tenet within that belief.

    The Atheist/Materialist response has been widespread and not at all happy with Nagel.

    Nagel has been a long time philosopher of differentiation. There is a difference between fact and meaning, between observing and comprehending, between qualia and electron discharge. For the Materialist, there is little if any difference because everything is physical, and thus there is very little motion required to get from fact to meaning, or from observing to comprehending, and so on. In fact, pre-determination of those movements exists, just due to cause and effect of mental input (neurological electrical discharge) to mental output (meaning).

    But Nagel says that there is both less and more than that; less certainty of Materialist constraints, and more to the mind than physical determinism.

    The most interesting part though is the response of overt Philosophical Materialists. Rather than disprove or refute the allegations against Materialism, they take a different tack.

    For example, In response to the attack on his ill-fated book “Universe From Nothing” in the New York Times by David Albert, Lawrence Krauss declared that such questions as cannot be answered by scientists are to be dismissed, because they are ““not interesting”. He was referring to the question of the source of quantum fields and the source of laws governing them, which Krauss insists constitute “nothing”, and need no explanation of their source.

    When Atheist icon Antony Flew wrote “There Is a God” based on the requirement of a source for the apparent intelligence contained in DNA, the idea was attacked as illegitimate because Flew was to be declared senile for suggesting it. His argument went unanswered, while the intellectuals attacked Flew personally and publically and loudly. The argument is declared illegitimate and the arguer incompetent.

    And here, the idea of dualism and the failure of science to provide monist unifying theories as presented by Nagel is attacked by Philop Kitcher in the same vein:
    ”Dewey, a thinker who understood the philosophical significance of Darwin better than anyone else in the first century after “The Origin of Species,” appreciated two things that are crucial to the controversy in which Nagel is engaged.

    First, philosophy and science don’t always answer the questions they pose — sometimes they get over them.”
    Brilliant response to any question which might upset the Materialist applecart: just get over it. Forget it. It is not interesting.
    ”Second, instead of asking what life and mind and value are, think about what living things and minds do, and what is going on in the human practices of valuing.”
    Your issue is devalued; therefore it has no value. Because: there is no way for empiricism to answer such issues, so the issues are without value, and we are the arbiters of that. “Get over it!”
    ”This shift of perspective has already occurred in the case of life. A Nagel analog who worried about the fact that we lack a physico-chemical account of life, would probably be rudely dismissed; a kinder approach would be to talk about the ways in which various aspects of living things have been illuminated.”
    Rudely dismissed, yes; rationally, no.

    The bottom line is always the same: Materialism is valid and true, because we Materialists declare all other questions to be illegitimate, and refuse to discuss them. At best, all non-material questions must be shown to have material solutions so that they can be addressed under Materialism; otherwise, “Get over it, because we won’t answer with any reasoning for why they are false (which we can’t prove)”.

    This frequently is restated as the Burden of Proof, where the material evidence must be presented (and even when it is) or the question is rejected without cause – other than it is illegitimate to ask such things. And as Kircher demonstrates above, even asking what life is and how it jumped into existence from minerals is an illegitimate question. So, “Get over it”.

    Stated in plain speaking: “I don’t have to tell you why you are wrong; you just are”.

    So rather than discuss Nagel’s theory, Nagel is merely declared wrong and that it is illegitimate for him to even think such thoughts.

    Fine argument from the Atheists, once again. It demonstrates fully the dogmatic religious nature of Philosophical Materialism and the emotional neediness of Atheism, and the paucity of its intellectual power.

    Kircher winds up with the usual Scientism-as-faith recitation:
    ”Nagel is in the grip of a philosophical perspective on science, once very popular, that the work of the last four decades has shown to be inadequate to cope with large parts of the most successful contemporary sciences.
    First delegitimize with the Appeal to Authority which is not even necessarily true of relevant “authorities”, a poisoning of the well. There is no question that science involving sources and fundamental connections has stalled. It’s not a philosophical question, it’s an empirical observation. Physicists admit it.
    Because of that perspective, a crucial option disappears from his menu: the phenomena that concern him, mind and value, are not illusory, but it might nevertheless be an illusion that they constitute single topics for which unified explanations can be given.”
    Here we go: the questions are illegitimate, “illusions” which empiricism might not be able to answer. So asking the questions is out of bounds and dealing with proposed answers is to be avoided, if it takes articles in the NYT to avoid it.
    “The probable future of science in these domains is one of decomposition and the provision of an enormous and heterogeneous family of models. Much later in the day, it may fall to some neuroscientist to explain the illusion of unity, a last twist on successful accounts of many subspecies of mental processes and functions. Or, perhaps, it will be clear by then that the supposed unity of mind and of value were outgrowths of a philosophical mistake, understandable in the context of a particular stage of scientific development, but an error nonetheless.”

  21. on 01 Nov 2013 at 1:31 am 21.ArrogantAthiest said …

    40 year athiest,

    As interested as i am to see where your post will take this discussion, i kinda wish you would directly address the content in the previous posts. makes it easier to follow you.

  22. on 01 Nov 2013 at 2:36 am 22.DPK said …

    AA… You are new here so you don’t yet know the locals.
    40 year will never answer any direct question or respond with anything other than cut and paste verbal diarehha from his crazy ass website. If you google any portion of his text, you will find it copied directly from his manifesto.

    Messenger is the village idiot who once told us he personally went to heaven and met god in person, then admitted it might have been a dream, he didn’t know.

    Draw your own conclusions.

    Seems you haven’t yet met “A”… He is 40yr’s sock puppet who believes evolution is a bunch of hooey made up by atheists in order to lead the world astray. He will also refuse to directly answer any questions and will instead demand you explain in perfect detail exactly how the first life form on earth formed, otherwise the only possible answer is that “god did it” presumably by magic. The genesis of life without a creator is ” impossible” whereas a creator of infinitely more complexity just existing is no problem.

    You are a reasonable, intelligent and articulate person. You will not get anything of the sort in exchange from the theist cretons here. Fair warning. And welcome to the circus?

  23. on 01 Nov 2013 at 2:48 am 23.DPK said …

    Messenger… Did you even READ the article you cited?
    Did you happen to read this in the conclusion?
    “That the universe began with a big bang is essentially conclusive and may stand as the most profound discovery humans have ever made”
    Are you aware of what the actual nature of matter is? Do you know what percentage of matter is made of of empty space? Do you know, for example, why you cannot walk through walls?

  24. on 02 Nov 2013 at 1:08 am 24.ArrogantAthiest said …

    thanks for the information DPK, i appreciate it. From what i gathered reading these comment sections The Messenger is the only one making a genuine effort to break down our posts and refute them in the best way he can think of. From that alone i would think that he is the only one of these theists worth talking to, especially considering what 40y and you said above.

    It seems 40y has not the decency nor respect to pay attention to what others say. He should be treated in kind.

    I hadn’t planned on responding to anything “A” would say, he is either just trolling or is nonnegotiable.

    I have yet to make an assessment on the others. I plan to greet their contributions to this discussion in as civil a manner as i can.

    I hope messenger gets back to me on this soon.

  25. on 02 Nov 2013 at 2:53 am 25.A said …

    “When Atheist icon Antony Flew wrote “There Is a God” based on the requirement of a source for the apparent intelligence contained in DNA, the idea was attacked as illegitimate because Flew was to be declared senile for suggesting it”

    40, good to see you back posting. I remember how the blood thirsty atheist turned on their great leader after he followed the evidence where it led, to Theism.

    Atheists are narrow minded and not open to ideas, perspectives or interpretations which contradict their worldview. Any atheist who has left the clan has found this truth.

    Have a great week

  26. on 02 Nov 2013 at 3:35 am 26.ArrogantAthiest said …

    still waiting for a relevant response.

  27. on 02 Nov 2013 at 4:20 am 27.Angus and Alexis said …

    Mate, Messenger will never give you an answer, unless all you want is a claim or bible verse.

  28. on 02 Nov 2013 at 5:12 am 28.DPK said …

    messenger doesn’t even comprehend what you are asking for.
    A is simply back to his old tricks of posting cut and paste word salad as 40yr and then changing socks to congratulate his other self on how feindishly clever he is.
    They are nothing if not predictable.

  29. on 02 Nov 2013 at 5:29 am 29.Arrogantathiest said …

    Well, A’s post didn’t make any sense anyway.

    Very disappointed.

  30. on 02 Nov 2013 at 9:59 am 30.Angus and Alexis said …

    Does A’s posts ever make sense?

    I guess not…

    Ohh, also, prepare for A to misspell your name over and over again, he does that.

  31. on 02 Nov 2013 at 4:13 pm 31.DPK said …

    “Atheists are narrow minded and not open to ideas, perspectives or interpretations which contradict their worldview.”

    This from the guy who thinks the theory of evolution is a hoax dreamed up by evil atheists for the sole purpose of squeezing his magical god out of the picture….

    Thanks “A”, I’m enjoying the irony.

  32. on 03 Nov 2013 at 12:16 am 32.Ben said …

    40 Year said “Stated in plain speaking: “I don’t have to tell you why you are wrong; you just are”.

    I have run across this often with atheists and even those on this blog. No evidence for their beliefs yet they like to claim with great gusto that those who don’t believe like them are wrong. They like to require a higher standard of proof for those who do not believe like them. It is quite hypocritical and even childish.

  33. on 03 Nov 2013 at 2:34 am 33.ArrogantAthiest said …

    Ben said….

    Outstanding observation.

  34. on 03 Nov 2013 at 5:23 am 34.Angus and Alexis said …

    32.Ben said …
    *Snip*

    And yet not a single theist has ever made an irrefutable piece of evidence for god.

    Then they say we need to disprove something?

    How childish.

  35. on 03 Nov 2013 at 5:54 am 35.Arrogantathiest said …

    And I have the audacity to make an effort to answer messenger’s questions. I’m done here.

  36. on 03 Nov 2013 at 1:58 pm 36.DPK said …

    ” I have run across this often with atheists and even those on this blog. No evidence for their beliefs yet they like to claim with great gusto that those who don’t believe like them are wrong. ”

    Hate to point out the obvious Ben, but you are posting on a website that provides dozens, if not hundreds of examples of “evidence for our ‘beliefs’. I don’t recall you, or any one else here refuting a single one of them. Perhaps I’m mistaken. Let’s start with a simple one, why won’t god heal amputees?

    And despite you constant, tiresome efforts to reverse the burden of proof, our “beliefs” are simple. We believe there is no evidence to suggest that your belief in supernatural gods is true. That’s it. The only “evidence” for that belief that is required is your complete inability to show otherwise. Just as I don’t need to provide evidence that garden gnomes do not exist, I do not need to “prove” that magical gods do not exist, unless you show me some compelling evidence that they do. Got an gnomes in your yard there “Ben”?

  37. on 03 Nov 2013 at 6:35 pm 37.Ben said …

    “We believe there is no evidence to suggest that your belief in supernatural gods is true.

    My disregarding of this claim is simple. Your belief is not reality. Disregarding evidence that others accept in no way makes it rationale or true. There are a web full of evidences. Feel free to look them up.

    Now WWGHA? I don’t know. Maybe He has in the past. Maybe God has a purpose that I am unaware of. Lots of things God does or doesn’t do I don’t understand. So what? I don’t know but my not knowing does not disprove His existence.

  38. on 03 Nov 2013 at 7:28 pm 38.DPK said …

    “Disregarding evidence that others accept in no way makes it rationale or true.”

    Which evidence is that? You speak of it, but show none. What specifically am I disregarding? And while we are talking specifics, please elaborate on exactly WHICH god of the numerous available are we disregarding evidence? The Christian god, Allah, Vishnu, Thor, Zeuss? All of them have evidence that people believed made them real. Let’s see what you have to offer, ‘Ben’.
    Ok, at least you admit that you have no idea why god apparently hates amputees. Thanks for being honest. Btw, I have a perfectly sound explanation that requires no mental gymnastics to explain why god never answers the prayers of amputees for new limbs. It makes perfect sense and fits with all the observable evidence regarding god and prayer. Are you interested in hearing it, ‘Ben’, or is your open mind closed to any ideas that do not fit your worldview?

  39. on 03 Nov 2013 at 8:01 pm 39.Ben said …

    “Ok, at least you admit that you have no idea why god apparently hates amputees”

    Now I see why you can’t comprehend the evidences for God. Same reason you hate anyone not atheist.

    “I have a perfectly sound explanation that requires no mental gymnastics to explain why god never answers the prayers of amputees for new limbs”

    Sure, knock yourself out.

  40. on 04 Nov 2013 at 4:45 am 40.DPK said …

    I don’t hate “anyone who is not atheist.” Some of my dearest friends are Christians. Why do you lie about me? Could it be because you hate anyone who does not share your delusion. Exactly what “evidence for god ” am I not comprehending? You keep alluding to it, but you never present it. And you still haven’t told us which of the multitude of postulated gods this evidence supposedly supports.

    Now seeing that you are supposedly open minded and do not automatically reject any idea that does not agree with your preconceived worldview, will you admit that perhaps the reason god does not ever answer the prayers of amputees for re grown limbs, as well as the fact that he never answers prayers for healing from certain cancers and diseases that are ALWAYS fatal, is because god does not actually answer any prayers at all. And when it seems that he does, it is simply a coincidence. Would you admit that what we see as the random outcome of prayers is actually exactly what we would expect to see if there were in fact no god answering prayers at all? Is that even remotely possible, Ben?

  41. on 04 Nov 2013 at 11:27 am 41.Angus and Alexis said …

    Typical theist arguments…

    “Atheists hate!”

    “You cannot comprehend god!”

    “I have evidence of god (refuses to show it)”

    “God has done this and that! (refuses to show proof)”

    Ben, do you have anything of substance to show?

  42. on 04 Nov 2013 at 11:50 am 42.Ben said …

    “admit that what we see as the random outcome of prayers is actually exactly what we would expect to see if there were in fact no god answering prayers at all? Is that even remotely possible, Ben?”

    No, not at all. If that were true we wouldn’t have all these theists in the world. God does answer prayers, but he is not your personal Santa.

    “I don’t hate “anyone who is not atheist.”

    Oh, well you guys like to claim God hates and Christians hate so often I believed that was just the word you guys used for “disprove”.

    Sorry, I has a link for many proofs for God. It went to moderation which means it will never make it. You know how to use google.

  43. on 04 Nov 2013 at 1:40 pm 43.DPK said …

    “No, not at all. If that were true we wouldn’t have all these theists in the world. God does answer prayers, but he is not your personal Santa. ”

    So, what seems to be happening here, Ben, is you present “no evidence for your beliefs, but like to claim with great gusto that everyone who disagrees with them is wrong.”

    You don’t need to post a link to ” proofs for god. ” Simply tell them to us yourself. You believe them so profoundly that you refuse to even consider any possibility even if it is perfectly rational and fits the observable evidence better, so you must be able to present them in a simple, straightforward manner. Do it. What’s the problem, A, I mean, Ben?

  44. on 04 Nov 2013 at 6:13 pm 44.A said …

    Ben,

    This is great! Maybe we can get an answer out of an atheist.

    DPK, could it be the fish that you guys claim is transitional because is has tetrapod features was just a coincidence? This is suppose to be solid proof of macroevolution. You know, sort of like how you claim answered prayer is coincidence? Why or Why not? Don’t be a coward, actually answer the question.

  45. on 04 Nov 2013 at 8:31 pm 45.DPK said …

    Gee, I guess it could be. I have no idea.
    What has a transitional fossil got to do with the existence of gods? Which is what we are talking about, Ben, and other Ben. LOL… you can’t stay in character very long, and neither one of you can answer a direct question, can you? I mean, is THAT your god proof? Is that why god won’t answer prayers for regeneration of limbs? Because he is upset about a fossil? You really aren’t making any sense at all again Hor,A, Ben… off your meds again son? Did you ever find those gnomes in your yard? LOL.

    “So, what seems to be happening here, Ben, is you present “no evidence for your beliefs, but like to claim with great gusto that everyone who disagrees with them is wrong.”… your own words…. pot, meet kettle… hahaha.

  46. on 04 Nov 2013 at 8:34 pm 46.DPK said …

    Notice readers… Ben gets backed into a corner and is shown his own hypocrisy, so he suddenly disappears and right on que “A” who has been absent from the discussion suddenly appears and desperately tries to change the subject back to, of all things, evolution!

    You are so fucking transparent Stanley… you really need a life or a girlfriend or something.

  47. on 05 Nov 2013 at 1:11 am 47.Ben said …

    DPK,

    What are you talking about?

    Seriously, you are not aware of the large number of arguments for God? Entire books on the subject and you acts as if there are none. Maybe that is why you don’t understand. The vast majority us may not agree on which god is real but we recognize the reality. No, I will not cut and past volumes of evidence for arguments so readily available on google.

    If you don’t check it out for yourself that’s you problem not mine. You just like to feel like a big man on a little blog :)

  48. on 05 Nov 2013 at 1:42 am 48.Anonymous said …

    from the Ben:
    “Seriously, you are not aware of the large number of arguments for God?”

    Question for you Ben: Have they come up with a theory for a god? Is the theory falsifiable? Can you point me to the theory? The hypothesis? Some facts and evidence? Your bible is nothing but a faith document, not proof. Try not to slot the god into the crevices of modern understanding.

  49. on 05 Nov 2013 at 2:59 am 49.A said …

    Mousey!,

    Question for you Mousey: Have they come up with a theory for a Socrates? Is the theory falsifiable? Can you point me to the theory? The hypothesis? Some facts and evidence?

    LOL!!! What a dunce

    Ben,

    Dippy thinks you are me and a whole host of other posters. Its a diversion, pay no attention.

    Notice how he plays ignorant with macroevolution? He and mousey CLAIM, without facts, that a fish fossil with a few tetrapod characteristics is proof that macroevolution has taken place. So we ask, could it just be a coincidence? Maybe it is not proof? Well, no it is NOT proof. lol!!!!!

    The point? They have a different level of proof for things they don’t WANT to believe than they do for their own dogma. It is impossible to get them to provide the nature of proof for a level playing field.

    No surprise. lol!!!!!

  50. on 05 Nov 2013 at 4:09 am 50.ArrogantAthiest said …

    what is the point of you idiots arguing if you wont even address each other’s posts?

    just fucking answer the goddam questions so your discussion can actually go somewhere rather than spout nonsense about either side to your own. Both of you literally get nowhere with each other. There is no point in arguing if this is how you guys insist on carrying on.

  51. on 05 Nov 2013 at 7:07 am 51.Angus and Alexis said …

    ArrogantAthiest.

    You realize that all “A” does it dodge, right?

    We have been at this for like…more than 3 years, still nothing.

  52. on 05 Nov 2013 at 12:30 pm 52.A said …

    AA,

    I agree. Maybe you can answer the question for me? Using the scientific method, support that macro evolution is indeed fact.

    Why? So we can determine the nature of evidence atheists will accept for God.

    I have been trying to be this answered for months so I feel your frustration.

    Thanks in advance.

  53. on 05 Nov 2013 at 12:41 pm 53.Angus and Alexis said …

    Go to Talk origin’s 29+ evidences for Macroevolution.

  54. on 05 Nov 2013 at 8:28 pm 54.the messenger said …

    17.ArrogantAthiest, I apologize for the lateness of my response. I had a to assist my youngest my cousin in a deer hunt.

    In response to your comment, I offer the following text.

    The earth had done fine on its own and we have no need for theoretical physics. Thanks to the men and women in this scientific field, mankind has lead its self into a new era of danger, Nuclear war.

    Because of theoretical physics mankind has constructed weapons capable of killing every human on the planet. Theoretical physics has caused more harm than good.

    Judaism and Christianity offer another path for humanity, a path of love. These religions teach people to love everyone, and to not murder each other. They are the last hope for humanity.

    Islam, on the other hand, is a complete fiasco. It is a savage, sadistic, belief that teaches men to beat their wives (Qur’an (4:34)) and behead all non believers (Qur’an (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”). Islam is an abomination. It teaches violence and hate (Qur’an (5:51) – “O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other).

    Lastly, here is some proof from a non physics source.

    The roman historian, Tacitus, recorded the following event. “Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius”

    Miracle of the Sun. It was witnessed by 30,000 to 100,000 people(believers and nonbelievers).
    Dr. Almeida Garrett (Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University) witness the event and stated the following:(The sun’s disc did not remain immobile. This was not the sparkling of a heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl, when suddenly a clamor was heard from all the people. The sun, whirling, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was terrible.”)

    P.S., none of the people at the site of the miracle denied that it happened.

  55. on 05 Nov 2013 at 10:54 pm 55.ArrogantAthiest said …

    while i am glad you responded, i am disappointed to see you hadn’t really looked into my post.

    First note: nuclear bombs are concerned with nuclear physics, not theoretical physics, there is a massive difference between the two.

    Second: I already addressed your point concerning the mere existence of nuclear weapons. We needed them for a time, as the least destructive way to end the worst war in human history.
    You may recall how i brought up the subject of power and who should have it? Well, lucky us america happened to invent it first, with the sole intention of ending a horrific war.

    The name of the game now is to prevent those who do not have humanity’s best interests in mind from obtaining a nuclear weapon. You should already know that.
    You know why we are not all dead already? it’s not because every single person with the power to use nuclear weapons just happens to be a christian. It’s because those with humanity’s best interests in mind are doing everything they can to prevent those that would use nuclear bombs from having them.

    It’s the exact same thing as being a parent leading a child through a grocery store. The child is bewildered at how the adult, with all that power and money, chooses not to expend all his/her money on junk food and gorge on it. The child swears that when he/she grows up and has thousands of dollars to spend, that it will all be candy and other frivolous items. But that doesnt happen too often does it?

    The reason we are not dead already is because those in power (of nuclear devices) did not obtain that position by being complete imbeciles. However, if a person with bad intentions does ever gain control of such a device, that person will still be at a a major disadvantage, and in the end nobody wants to risk his/her life on a gamble that some selfish end will be met by sacrificing that one life……..hey, they’re selfish, right? they wouldnt want that to begin with.

    Thanks to science, we have a powerful countermeasure to any threat, and literally nobody wants to start a nuclear war, good or bad, because of the implications.

    A peaceful, pre-emptive permanent stalemate. Is that genuis, or what?

    I already addressed your point concerning love. please read my post again and then go from there.
    You’ll see emotions are somewhat less significant to me than they are to you. On a personal level.

    my “love” point also ties in with the whole “power” thing i reiterated above. again, please read my last post to you more carefully, so you can see where we need to progress the discussion. Becuase rigth now we are just going in circles.

    about islam..well, not gonna argue with ya :P

    i read about that last bit in high school. very interesting, would have loved to be there myself.

    not sure how to address this.

    I guess i can start with saying that it is possible that those people were delirious (:P)but again there is no definite way to confirm just how credible those people were.

    I am aware that the Romans used to consume Lead in macroscopic amounts for it’s slight metallic accent. You can imagine the effects that may have had.

    I cannot properly address this last bit without a source. Can you please provide a few? thanks.

    Also, nice, hunting deer. hope you and your cousin had a good time.

    to end it: please go back and read my last post a little more carefully. it looks to me as if you might have missed some details. If you think you are missing anything i may be talking about just ask for me to explain myself further, i will be happy to do that.

    I hope i have covered everything in your last post.

  56. on 05 Nov 2013 at 10:59 pm 56.ArrogantAthiest said …

    well, that last bit in your post could have been anything. aliens maybe? Although to me that would just seem like pointless speculation.

    ….wait, it was witnessed by people in two different time periods?

    you said a roman historian, and then a proffesor witnessed the event.

    i am confused.

    in any case i am not sure how that proves….i think christianity? it could be anything.

  57. on 05 Nov 2013 at 11:01 pm 57.ArrogantAthiest said …

    and i appreciate you comeing back to this thread. I thought you had abandoned it. hunting is a good excuse though :)

  58. on 06 Nov 2013 at 12:03 am 58.A said …

    Aw, the indignant atheist could not answer the question simple as it seems..

    All Browny can do is tell me to visit a link.

    Not one atheist can even make an attempt with the scientific method.

    However, I will not stomp my feet and throw out expletives. It is truly expected..

    Lol!!!

  59. on 06 Nov 2013 at 2:23 am 59.ArrogantAthiest said …

    what’s so funny about that? I fail to see the humor.

  60. on 06 Nov 2013 at 7:02 am 60.Angus and Alexis said …

    A, explaining evolution with the scientific method with detail would take literally a day or two of constant writing and research.

    Just look at the damn link please.

  61. on 06 Nov 2013 at 4:13 pm 61.DPK said …

    It’s just a diversion to keep the topic off “God and religion in the world today.”
    “A” wants a detailed proof of the theory of evolution, despite the fact that it is irrelevant to the topic. The majority of theists are not evolution deniers, only the fringe crackpots, and being an atheist does not require one to conform to any position regarding the process of evolution. On many occasions here “A” has been directed to educational sources to educate himself about the theory of evolution since his own education seems to be lacking. He refuses to “wade though it”. Proof in itself he is not looking for an honest discussion, but only to try to sidetrack the discussion with nonsense.
    In the interest of moving forward with intellectually honesty, many here have on numerous occasions offered, for the sake of discussion, to cede the point and assume that the evolution of species is complete nonsense. So what? How is that evidence that there is a magical god running the show? It isn’t.
    What “A” is doing is trolling in the most extreme form.

  62. on 06 Nov 2013 at 4:29 pm 62.A said …

    “A, explaining evolution with the scientific method with detail would take literally a day or two of constant writing and research.”

    Strange……..Mousey and Freddie stated they DID prove it here with a fossil, YOU agreed and now you admit you did not?

    Are you guys truthful about anything? Just admit, you believe on faith, not facts, and we will not have to consider you to be Obomanizing the truth.

    Then we will know where the bar needs to be set for proof of God. We will also know how you view the nature of truth.

    Right now the bar for proof is set really really low in order for you to believe……

  63. on 06 Nov 2013 at 6:01 pm 63.ArrogantAthiest said …

    A, i gave you the link. acknowledge it.

  64. on 06 Nov 2013 at 6:01 pm 64.ArrogantAthiest said …

    you already know what my perspective on truth is.

  65. on 06 Nov 2013 at 7:23 pm 65.A said …

    ArrogantAtheist,

    You mean the link to Talk origin’s 29+ evidences you posted as Agnus & Alexis? Lol!!!!

    Seen it read it bought the T-shirt. Which of theses “evidences” meets the scientific method?

    Yeah! I know your perspective on truth Browny!

  66. on 06 Nov 2013 at 7:46 pm 66.ArrogantAthiest said …

    A, i am not either of those two you mentioned.
    Alex/Angus apparently forgot to include that link in his/her post that his/her last one was referring to, telling you to check a link that didnt exist. I went and found the link for you, then posted it here so you could look at it.

    As far as i can see my post is the only one on this page that contains a link to that website. I don’t know what post you are referring to.

    As far as evidences meeting requirements, i am not sure what you mean.

    Evidences are simply observed phenomena that have been studied to determine what their cause is and how they affect other phenomena. Once this group of data has been observed and catalogued, it is compared to other groups of data extracted from similar observations.

    These are then organized according to their respective attributes, including cause, effect, and composition.

    As far as my perspective on truth, if you truly want to contest it, it would be better for you to treat it as the perspective revealed in the previous posts made under this particular name, so that you, regardless of whether or not you think i am one person or another, will be able to address the right perspective.

    I would be quite interested in having such a discussion with you.

    lastly, i do not think that website would include any “evidences” that did not qualify as evidence.

    Take that as you will.

  67. on 06 Nov 2013 at 7:48 pm 67.Anonymous said …

    Littlest “a” with the Socrates diversion again, eh!!!

    Sorry to disappoint, the question of whether Socrates existed or not is part of a long list of “don’t give a fuck about them” for me. The idea of a man made god (aren’t they all ;-) ) and it’s place in our lives is more interesting. Try and stay focused, little “a” – maybe take your meds, and I ain’t talking about hitting the bottle again. We all know that loops back to the god belief; 12 step program and all. LOL!!!

    Benny was to provide the theory of god. Something backed up with facts and evidence. Still waiting.

  68. on 06 Nov 2013 at 7:56 pm 68.DPK said …

    AA… in Stan/A’s world unless you can observe in a lab a horse giving birth to a monkey then it doesn’t count as “scientific evidence.” He routinely proclaims to be a “science guy” yet has but a 6th grade concept of the scientific method and the nature of evidence. He also does not understand the distinction between evolution theory and abiogenesis, despite being told on multiple occasions they are not the same thing. He also does not comprehend that, in science, “we don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer to a problem that is not yet fully understood. He is trolling you.

  69. on 06 Nov 2013 at 7:59 pm 69.ArrogantAthiest said …

    Giving up now.

  70. on 06 Nov 2013 at 11:51 pm 70.Angus and Alexis said …

    Yes DPK, i know A is an idiot, nothing new sadly…

  71. on 07 Nov 2013 at 1:12 am 71.the messenger said …

    55.ArrogantAthiest, theoretical physicists, such as Albert Einstein, used their theories and knowledge of physics to design, and develop the nuclear bomb.

    I agree that the nuclear bomb was good during war two, because it ended it and saved many lives. But on the other hand, many innocent people died in Japan because of it. Thousands of innocent people died in those bombings.

    Those people with “humanities best interests” are Christians. They want us to be safe and to live in peace. All of the world leaders who abuse the power of the nuclear weapon are Muslims and atheists, such as (he wants to murder all of the Israeli people), and (atheist that threatened to nuke america).

    You stated:
    “he reason we are not dead already is because those in power (of nuclear devices) did not obtain that position by being complete imbeciles”

    I assure you that many people gain nuclear weapon power by very imbeciles, such as kim jong un, the atheist dictator of north Korea. He acted completely imbeciles when he took power and began making threats of nuclear war against america. And yes, I do agree that people like him are very selfish.

    Furthermore, radical muslims like Ali Khamenei does not care wheither he lives or dies, because he is so bound to islam. He will do all in his power to start a nuclear war with israel, regardless of the threats of other world leaders. The “countermeasure” won’t work against these radical atheists and muslims.

    On the subject of love, I cannot see life without it. A life without a strong value love is not as good as a life with it. Love is the driving force of my life, and I wish it was yours too.

    The part about the roman historian and the miracle in Portugal is proof that jesus was both a real person who walked the earth and preformed miricals.

  72. on 07 Nov 2013 at 2:29 am 72.A said …

    “Socrates existed or not is part of a long list of “don’t give a fuck about them” for me”

    But a God that supposedly doesn’t exist IS an obsession for you?

    NICE!

    You cannot prove Socrates exist but yet I am sure you do believe. Lol!!

    “Something backed up with facts and evidence. Still waiting.”

    Yes we are. You have yet to show you understand the scientific method OR the nature of evidence. Therefore you are not qualified to evaluate any evidence.

    Sigh!

  73. on 07 Nov 2013 at 2:52 am 73.Anonymous said …

    Littlest “a”
    Have we not gone through this so many times already? Your complete denseness is and your unabashed love for the lord hampers any attempt to navigate the topic. Even the age of the Earth throws you into a tizzy.
    :-/

    Restating: Evidence for evolution we have comparative anatomy, DNA, fossils, genetic signatures, and so much more.

    For god, what have you got? Any theory? Hypothesis? Evidence? NO!! Yeah, that’s what I thought also.

  74. on 07 Nov 2013 at 3:11 am 74.the messenger said …

    73.Anonymous, must inform you, brother, but you are mistaken.

    There are theories that support the existence of GOD such as “Clockwork universe” theory, and my own personal one that I believe in(explained below).

    I believe that evolution did occur, but not to humans. I believe that when GOD created the universe, he made certain species of animals on earth, for humans to use as food. I believe that there were very few different kinds of non-human animals during that early time period, but after the great flood that covered the earth, these few species of animals that were on the ark multiplied and evolved into different kinds of animals and kept multiplying and changing and forming new species, and eventually formed into the animals that are with us today.

  75. on 07 Nov 2013 at 7:11 am 75.Angus and Alexis said …

    So you do not believe in the bible?
    That is funny.

  76. on 07 Nov 2013 at 12:03 pm 76.A said …

    “Evidence for evolution we have comparative anatomy, DNA, fossils, genetic signatures, and so much more.”

    The much more better be good because naming fields of study does not your case make.

    “For god, what have you got?”

    we have comparative anatomy, DNA, fossils, genetic signatures, and so much more.”

  77. on 07 Nov 2013 at 12:46 pm 77.Angus and Alexis said …

    Please explain how such fields of study fits your claim of god.

  78. on 07 Nov 2013 at 2:12 pm 78.A said …

    Sure guys, as soon as someone demonstrates how it supports macroevolution. Either of you will be acceptable.

  79. on 07 Nov 2013 at 3:11 pm 79.Anonymous said …

    Littlest “a”
    For evolution we have a theory. Backed by evidence such as “comparative anatomy, DNA, fossils, genetic signatures, and so much more.”

    Point me to the direction where this evidence indicates the existence of some god(s). Can you? And which god is the one true god? Or is it all done by committees of god(s)?

    Since you’re now chomping at the bit to claim that there is evidence for a god, let’s come to an agreed statement of facts. Can you? Will you? NOPE. Age of the Earth and Universe – little “a” runs, ducks, dodges, and weaves. Welcome to science according to the literal theists.

  80. on 07 Nov 2013 at 3:28 pm 80.Anonymous said …

    the “mess”
    The clockwork universe idea is one where a god set everything in perfect motion and then kept his hands off.

    “when GOD created the universe, he made certain species of animals on earth, for humans to use as food.”
    Sorry, “mess”, for the rude wake up bitch slap. The early lifeforms on our planet Earth were simple single celled organisms created LONG after the universe was. Hardly human food. Maybe that’s why little “a” has difficulties with this idea, too embarrassing to publicly claim. Thanks, “mess” for finally fleshing out the theist position. Please proceed.

    BTW what are “different kinds of non-human animals”? Could you list a few examples? Neanderthals? Australopithecus? Dinosaurs?

  81. on 07 Nov 2013 at 6:28 pm 81.A said …

    Anony the mouse sadly asks” Point me to the direction where this evidence indicates the existence of some god(”

    (Pointing)

    I Again brilliantly retort: Absolutely, as soon as someone demonstrates how it supports macroevolution. Either of you will be acceptable. Still have the whole issue of the mouse showing she/ he has the capability to discern the nature evidence.

    Prediction: He/she will not demonstrate the ability to discern evidence.

  82. on 07 Nov 2013 at 9:18 pm 82.Anonymous said …

    80.Anonymous, I was not arguing in favor of the clockwork theory, I was simply disproving your statement about there being no theories for GOD.

    Stay focused.

    Further more, can you prove that single celled organisms were the first life forms on earth. You weren’t there, so how can you make such a claim?

    Lastly, the bible does not get specific on what types of non human animals were around during that time. The bible is mostly a moral guide inspired by GOD and was written by prophets.

    P.S., to respond to comment 75, if you read my comment you will see that my theory, concerning the possibility of evolution, is in check with the events that were recorded in the bible.

  83. on 07 Nov 2013 at 9:19 pm 83.the messenger said …

    Sorry about the mixup. I am the author of comment 82, not mr anonymous.

    80.Anonymous, I was not arguing in favor of the clockwork theory, I was simply disproving your statement about there being no theories for GOD.
    Stay focused.
    Further more, can you prove that single celled organisms were the first life forms on earth. You weren’t there, so how can you make such a claim?
    Lastly, the bible does not get specific on what types of non human animals were around during that time. The bible is mostly a moral guide inspired by GOD and was written by prophets.
    P.S., to respond to comment 75, if you read my comment you will see that my theory, concerning the possibility of evolution, is in check with the events that were recorded in the bible.

  84. on 07 Nov 2013 at 9:54 pm 84.Anonymous said …

    “mess”
    “Further more, can you prove that single celled organisms were the first life forms on earth. You weren’t there, so how can you make such a claim?”

    Hey “mess” – Just ask little “a” – he’s a man of science. He’s got my back on this one.

    As for Noah’s Ark, I think “the science guy” (aka little “a”) is going to have a few problems with that one. Sorry to say.

  85. on 07 Nov 2013 at 11:19 pm 85.A said …

    ” possibility of evolution, is in check with the events that were recorded in the bible.”

    Possibility? What happen to the FACT” claim? Is this really Obama?

    Constantly moving goal posts.

    First its fact
    Then the claim of posted the evidence
    Then the claim they used SM
    Now it is a mere possibility.

    Possibility? Yeah so is a new Corvette washing up on the beach. Lol!!!!!!!

  86. on 07 Nov 2013 at 11:55 pm 86.Angus and Alexis said …

    You realize it was messenger who posted that, right?

    You do realize that messenger is another moronic theist on this blog, right?

    It is funny though that we have posted evidence several times, and you have dismissed it, yet you have not to post anything.

  87. on 08 Nov 2013 at 12:15 am 87.A said …

    “It is funny though that we have posted evidence”

    Lol!!!! It is funny. Poor mixed up fluttershy. You have posted nothing of substance to date. Typically, your posts are just ignored. Don’t worry, you’ll grow up one day.
    :)

    Oh, I posted evidence right above :).

  88. on 08 Nov 2013 at 12:59 am 88.Anonymous said …

    The “mess”, posing as mousy, states:
    ”possibility of evolution, is in check with the events that were recorded in the bible.”

    Little “a” responds:
    “Possibility? What happen to the FACT” claim? Is this really Obama?”

    Now little “a”, can you explain to the “mess” how the very earliest lifeforms were of the simple single celled variety. I know you got my back on this one, “science guy”.

    While you’re at it, use science to explain to the “mess” the stupidity of a literal belief in Noah’s Ark. Maybe ask your clever daughter for the facts of why it is a boat that never did float.

  89. on 08 Nov 2013 at 1:13 am 89."a" said …

    “Now little “a”, can you explain to the “mess””

    Absolutely! I like “a”, think I will run with that! Lol!!

    Messenger,

    I have been asking atheist to provide evidence, using the scientific method, to prove macro evolution AND to prove non-life produced life by lightning striking the primordial soup. They refuse to provide the evidence YET they believe! I thought they only believed what could be proven?????

    And they call an ark and a flood crazy!

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  90. on 08 Nov 2013 at 3:41 am 90.Anonymous said …

    Oops, little “a”. As usual you missed a part of the quote. Allow me to completely quote it for the “mess”:

    Now little “a”, can you explain to the “mess” ……..how the very earliest lifeforms were of the simple single celled variety.

    See the part behind the periods (……). Looks like another failure. Sigh. As expected. You really are one mixed up individual. Epic Failures are the natural operating state of your life. And that’s what has led you to god.

    As usual, you play trump card card, the last bastion where you are able to comfortably slip a god – the recesses of scientific knowledge. Abiogenesis, imho, will be figured out eventually. Don’t worry. The goalposts are portable.

  91. on 08 Nov 2013 at 4:36 am 91."a" said …

    “As usual, you play trump card card, the last bastion where you are able to comfortably slip a god”

    Actually I asked you about macroevolution and your abio. Ouch! How embatassing for you! Lol!!!

    “Abiogenesis, imho, will be figured out eventually”

    You have great faith mousey. Let me know when it becomes fact. Until then, I remain a skeptic and you delusional. Lol!!!

  92. on 08 Nov 2013 at 10:59 am 92.Angus and Alexis said …

    Hey, A, you do realize that you do not have to believe in evolution or abiogenesis to be an atheist, right?

    The only criteria is the disbelief in a god.

    Because that is all we can discuss about, prove god.

  93. on 08 Nov 2013 at 12:41 pm 93.Anonymous said …

    Hey “mess”
    Did you catch that? Little “a” has danced around a little bit but has not disputed that early lifeforms were simple and single celled. In the process he played the only card available to him – abiogenesis.

    As for the Ark, little “a” does not align himself with your view. Are you surprised? Looks like the “science guy” pulled the stopper on that old boat and she’s sunk.

    That’s the problem with trying to appear scientific while subscribing to a god, isn’t it? Cognitive dissonance. And maybe he’s hitting the sauce again. But that s strictly between you and me, “mess”.

  94. on 08 Nov 2013 at 1:33 pm 94.Angus and Alexis said …

    May we please, for all sake of discussion throw evolution and abiogenesis out of the window?

    It is irrelevant and futile, i feel as though we must discuss “religion” and “God”, not scientific theories.

  95. on 08 Nov 2013 at 4:21 pm 95.DPK said …

    94.Angus and Alexis said …

    “May we please, for all sake of discussion throw evolution and abiogenesis out of the window?”

    Well, I would love that, but you have to understand that that is the ONLY card Hor/A/Ben/Stan/40 has to play. He keeps trolling it back, and we keep responding to him and enabling him to sidetrack any other discussion. It is the last tiny crack he can try to shove his imaginary god-being into, and he is reluctant to loose it. Understandable.
    Remember the thread about the insanity of believing in prayer? Over 1000 posts and I’ll bet 90% of them were about evolution.
    Lets all agree to only respond in one way to “A” when he tries to drag the thread off topic…. “irrelevant”.

  96. on 08 Nov 2013 at 8:09 pm 96."a" said …

    “May we please, for all sake of discussion throw evolution and abiogenesis out of the window?”

    Absolutely not! It demonstrates at to well the hypocrisy of atheist. One level of proof for the atheist pet beliefs and another for theists. Hurts, right? Lol!!!!!

    Atheist like to dodge the nature of evidence so they can play their little hypocritical games.

    Check out the faith based hope of my little mouse.

    “Abiogenesis, imho, will be figured out eventually”

    Lol!!!!!!!

  97. on 08 Nov 2013 at 9:03 pm 97.Anonymous said …

    little “a” (aka “the hor”)
    There is no proof of god. No theory. No hypothesis. Nothing to use to find the “right” god other than personal belief. That, my small friend, is NOT how science works. No shame in saying “I don’t know, let’s investigate” when it comes to abiogenesis. The stupidity comes from saying “I don’t know, goddidit!!”

    How can you compare belief in a god with the scientific method? Somehow, through complete stupidity or willful ignorance, you’ve found a way. Congratulations, moron.

  98. on 08 Nov 2013 at 9:48 pm 98.DPK said …

    “Absolutely not! It demonstrates at to well the hypocrisy of atheist.”

    Irrelevant. This board is for discussing god and religion.
    D

  99. on 08 Nov 2013 at 9:59 pm 99.A said …

    “There is no proof of god. No theory. No hypothesis. Nothing to use to find the “right” god other than personal belief.”

    Correction……. no proof of God YOU accept. However, if that is true…….why do you keep asking for evidence? LOL!!!!!!!!!!! You are such a “mess” mousey …….and you claim Messenger is a mess. No proof, theory or hypothesis for Socrates either…..well…he must have never existed!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    However, Bernard Haisch has a book called “The God theory” and there are many others. But being a mess, you wouldn’t have a clue.

    Keep the faith young fella.

  100. on 08 Nov 2013 at 10:00 pm 100.A said …

    Mousey is really flustered now, he/she is resorting to the same old and lame personal attacks. Such a child……lol!!

  101. on 08 Nov 2013 at 10:18 pm 101.Anonymous said …

    hor:
    You really are a piece of work with your Socrates fixation. Who, other than you, gives a fuck about Socrates? Then there’s the Harley/Corvette fixation. Which one is it lately that is perpetually washing up on the beaches? God is a perfect fit for your addled brain. The grey matter that must have suffered some damage from all those empty bottles that you’ve drained. But you’re better now that you’re in the 12 step program, right?

    Let a god be the buffer that helps you walk the straight and narrow. Whatever works. Reality is ever elusive when god is in your corner. Loser.

  102. on 09 Nov 2013 at 12:02 am 102."a" said …

    “Which one is it lately that is perpetually washing up on the beaches?

    Dunno, macroevolution is your area. Isn’t ANYTHING possible mousey given time and chance?

    Lol!!!!!!

    Socrates’ writings are considered quite valuable in the world of academia. Too bad we don’t have any. But I believe he was genuine despite no evidence. :)

    Luv ya little guy! Sorry I had to expose you.

  103. on 09 Nov 2013 at 12:55 am 103.the messenger said …

    89.”a” , I agree, anoy and angus are both hypocrites.

  104. on 09 Nov 2013 at 1:18 am 104.Angus and Alexis said …

    Messenger said.
    “89.”a” , I agree, anoy and angus are both hypocrites.”

    Yeah, sure, posting evidence of a theory then expecting evidence back is hypocrisy.

    Anyway, any proof of god yet?

    We do not need to prove anything god related, being that atheists only share the disbelief in gods.

  105. on 09 Nov 2013 at 3:48 pm 105.Anonymous said …

    the “hor”
    “Haisch has a book called “The God theory” ”
    Wow. So now you’ve latched onto an idea (pandeism) that is even panned by christians!!! lol!! BTW, Haisch has NO PROBLEM with abiogenesis and evolution. Maybe it’s because of the world wide conspiracy that you’ve uncovered which absolutely requires scientists to subscribe to the theory.

    Interestingly, hor, you’ve also previously brought Francis Collins into the conversation, another scientist that has NO PROBLEM with the abiogenesis concept and the Theory of Evolution. Must be that evil conspiracy again?

    Better get back and study your bible. These evil people are leading you astray and you know where that will take YOUR eternity.

  106. on 09 Nov 2013 at 5:02 pm 106."a" said …

    “No PROBLEM with the abiogenesis concept and the Theory of Evolution”

    They also have no problem with theory of God, like you do. And when ToE is considered under the concept of ToG, the possibility is plausible. Now the conversation becomes intelligent, a welcome change but still unproven. Don’t be do silly mousey. That ToG you couldn’t find is now found :)

    Lol!!!!!!

    Better get back to the Dawkins brainwashing, sexist gathering of atheist bigots. Oh, remember to attend your local atheist church Sunday :)

  107. on 10 Nov 2013 at 4:57 am 107.Angus and Alexis said …

    Still awaiting any possible attempts to prove god’s existence.

  108. on 10 Nov 2013 at 7:31 am 108.alex said …

    “Still awaiting any possible attempts to prove god’s existence.”

    he has done it. by him not accepting evolution, this is his proof. the impossibility of a camaro washing up the beach proves his god. see how this shit works? by putting the onus on the atheists and him not accepting any of it, it proves his god. case closed.

    turn this shit around. evolution is bullshit. the big bang is bullshit. fossils are bullshit. starlight in transit is bullshit. carbon dating is bullshit. why isn’t god bullshit? chirp, chirp, motherfucker?

  109. on 10 Nov 2013 at 9:23 am 109.Anonymous said …

    hor:
    “That ToG you couldn’t find is now found”

    Open questions to anyone on the thread. Thanks to the hor we are now back on track.

    Anyone hear of the theory of god? Is there a testable hypothesis? Which god does the theory point to?

    Pandeism or a clockwork universe, if I am not mistaken, indicate a god that sparked the creation of the universe and then kept it’s hands off. No talking snakes, no Jesus, no Mo, no commandments. Is this the new philosophy that hor is running with? Surely he’ll burn for eternity in the fires of (((HELL))). lol!!

  110. on 10 Nov 2013 at 12:24 pm 110.Angus and Alexis said …

    A, if there is any level of dignity in your incompetent brain, may you answer?

  111. on 10 Nov 2013 at 12:28 pm 111.Angus and Alexis said …

    I might add that the pope agrees with the theory of evolution…

  112. on 10 Nov 2013 at 4:53 pm 112.alex said …

    “A, if there is any level of dignity in your incompetent brain, may you answer?”

    of course not. now that his atheist fueled diversions have been laid bare, he’ll lay low while awaiting for the next next abiogeneis, evolution, hitler, ocean swimming, camaro, frozen waterfall bait to come along.

    obama anyone? dna programmer? moral code? my dishwasher was miraculously cured of cancer! hallelujah, motherfucker. let’s all pray for your dad? why not pray for the whole world, asshole?

  113. on 10 Nov 2013 at 6:37 pm 113."a" said …

    “Anyone hear of the theory of god? Is there a testable hypothesis? Which god does the theory point to?”

    Yes, I have heard of many ToGs silly. The theory is as testable as abiogenesis or Socrates. You believe in both. There are over 100 theories on the Big Bang. So which theory does Big Bang support? I feel certain we will eventually determine which ToG is correct with time.

    Hey, mousey, kind of like you and abio! Lol!!!

  114. on 10 Nov 2013 at 7:07 pm 114.alex said …

    bullshit socrates is your god proof? weak. more abiogeneis bullshit is your god proof? why not the tooth fairy bullshit? prove that your god bullshit is not?

    you’re running out of bullshit, motherfucker….the only one left is your god bullshit.

  115. on 11 Nov 2013 at 12:02 am 115.Angus and Alexis said …

    Again A, post a link, write something of substance.

    What is this evidence of god?

  116. on 11 Nov 2013 at 12:17 am 116.alex said …

    “What is this evidence of god?”

    the touchdown! the cancer survivor! the frozen waterfall! everlasting life! the lone standing trailer house! the incoherent speaking in tongues! jesus died for your sins! anything left?

  117. on 11 Nov 2013 at 12:23 am 117.alex said …

    “What is this evidence of god?”

    missing crocoduck! invisible black holes! watches need a watchmaker! xtian testimonials! the perfectly designed human being! atheists going to hell!

  118. on 11 Nov 2013 at 7:12 am 118.Angus and Alexis said …

    Yes alex, i understand that “A” has made stupid arguments.

    But may we at least try to debate fairly?

  119. on 11 Nov 2013 at 11:52 pm 119.the messenger said …

    104.Angus and Alexis, tell me, what kind of mental illness do you suffer from? Are you demented?

    In comment 80 you stated that that there were no theories that support the existence of GOD. I disproved your inane claim by providing the well known “clock work” theory.

    How does that make me a hypocrite?

  120. on 11 Nov 2013 at 11:59 pm 120.the messenger said …

    106.Angus and Alexis, here is the proof of GOD, again.

    The roman historian, Tacitus, recorded the following event. “Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius”.

    Tacitus is a non religious source, and he recorded Jesus’s death. Jesus is real and he walked the earth.

  121. on 12 Nov 2013 at 7:46 am 121.Angus and Alexis said …

    “In comment 80 you stated that that there were no theories that support the existence of GOD. I disproved your inane claim by providing the well known “clock work” theory.”

    The clockwork theory has been debunked many times over, it is simply put, bullshit.

    “104.Angus and Alexis, tell me, what kind of mental illness do you suffer from? Are you demented?”

    No mental illness that i am aware of, i do not have dementia.

    “Tacitus is a non religious source, and he recorded Jesus’s death. Jesus is real and he walked the earth.”

    This source seems legitimate, but how does this prove god may i ask?
    Not to mention several sites that have debunked this quote.

  122. on 12 Nov 2013 at 1:47 pm 122.Anonymous said …

    The “hor”:
    “Yes, I have heard of many ToGs”

    And which of these theories points to your god? As opposed some god of the middle ages or even a god that I fashioned by thinking that “we don’t know how life began” so my personal god did it?

  123. on 12 Nov 2013 at 6:47 pm 123.hor said …

    ” clockwork theory has been debunked many times over”

    Prove it! Prove fine tuning has been debunked. I bet your tulip even knows better than that.

    “which of these theories points to your god? As opposed some”

    Can u stick with one name. I keep having to change my moniker.

    None in particular but the question is moot. You have been shown to believe unproven theories but not any ToGs out of pure hatred. And, alas, you have been proven to have zero understanding of the nature of evidence. In other words, you have not shown you are qualified due to a deep ugly bias! Lol!!!

  124. on 12 Nov 2013 at 10:30 pm 124.Anonymous said …

    hor/horatio/horatiio
    Everyone can see that you’re just recycling the sock puppet/moniker. The message and messenger remain the same. The idiocy modifies slightly – Harleys on beaches become Corvettes on beaches.

    “which of these theories points to your god?”

    None in particular

    That’s unfortunate. I thought you’d have something to guide you.

    shown to believe unproven theories but not any ToGs out of pure hatred

    Not hatred. I can’t find ANY reason to believe in an Ark, and I think it’s completely stupid that some god would be vain enough to engage in a popularity contest to get me on it’s side and give me an eternity with Hitler. The god theories are just ideas supported by bibles, korans, fantasies. Man made icons from earlier and more ignorant days that the people of today desperately cling to.

    you have not shown you are qualified due to a deep ugly bias

    A bias for honesty and truth is ugly? I like the approach of “I don’t understand, I’ll investigate” Been working good for me since I was 14 YO and found religion to be a somewhat lacking. Is that biased?

  125. on 13 Nov 2013 at 12:05 am 125.hor said …

    “Not hatred. I can’t find ANY reason to believe in an Ark, ”

    What does God have to do with an ark? Focus is another challenge for you. Lol!!!

    “The god theories are just ideas supported by bibles, korans, fantasies”

    Prove it. Yet scientist are writings books on the subject. Let me guess!!! They are not REAL scientist. Lol!!!

    “A bias for honesty and truth is ugly?”

    No not at all. Prove you have the truth then we will concede honesty. Go!

    Let me add, though it is s waste. I am not the hor. Your fetish is disturbing. Make up you mind…..hor or “a”? Sigh! Atheist have this twisted view that only a few are theists. Lol!!

    “I don’t understand, I’ll investigate”

    Approach works for me as well from the age of 10. Has yet to fail me in all this time.

    Funny, then again I have been on the atheist hate wagon. Such a sad bunch.

  126. on 13 Nov 2013 at 12:25 am 126.the messenger said …

    121.Angus and Alexis, Tacitus, being a non religious source of Jesus’s death, proves that both religious and non religious people believed in him. And Tacitus, being a reliable source, proves that Jesus did walk the earth and is a real person.

  127. on 13 Nov 2013 at 12:35 am 127.the messenger said …

    126.Anonymous what are you smoking?

    GOD is not running a “popularity contest”. He is running a school. He is trying to teach us right from wrong and is trying to help us to learn love and kindness. GOD is not vain, he is humble. He died for us, he allowed a human to baptize him, everything he does is to help us. He is humble, loving, forgiving, kind, and compassionate.

  128. on 13 Nov 2013 at 4:21 am 128.alex said …

    “But may we at least try to debate fairly?”

    there ya go, bossman. courtesy of messenger. you likey?

  129. on 13 Nov 2013 at 7:02 am 129.Angus and Alexis said …

    “121.Angus and Alexis, Tacitus, being a non religious source of Jesus’s death, proves that both religious and non religious people believed in him.”

    Anyone can believe in anything, but affirming the belief is what is needed.

    “Tacitus, being a reliable source, proves that Jesus did walk the earth and is a real person.”

    He may of existed, and judging from your source, he very well did.
    But how does this relate to god?

    “He died for us, he allowed a human to baptize him, everything he does is to help us. He is humble, loving, forgiving, kind, and compassionate.”

    Proof please, love does not come from flooding an entire planet.

    “GOD is not running a “popularity contest”.”

    Which god?
    Allah?
    The flying spaghetti monster?
    Xenu?

  130. on 13 Nov 2013 at 2:17 pm 130.Anonymous said …

    From the “hor”:

    What does God have to do with an ark?

    Dunno. Nothing, I suppose, since a god and Noah’s Ark are works of fiction. But, strangely, some nutters actually believe that a god commanded some dude named Noah to build an ark so that he, his family, and all of the animals of the planet Earth could be saved. Their god was too lazy to re-create life from scratch? Maybe you’ve never heard this crazy tall tale?

    Theists who happen to be scientific (rare as it is) will not pursue proof of a god. These folks carry on with religious beliefs passed on from family and community.

  131. on 13 Nov 2013 at 4:36 pm 131.DPK said …

    Exactly. They love to claim that such and such a scientist is a theist, but they fail to realize that to do that they have to have a significant between their beliefs and reality. Name one accepted or widely supported scientific theory that includes god or divine action as a part of the explanation. You cannot because there ARE none. Why is that? Wasn’t it Hawkings who said something to the effect of “Even people that claim to believe that god is in control of their lives look both ways before they cross the street.”?
    The ultimate hypocrisy of theistic belief. You only believe it in as much as you know the difference between faith and reality. “Faith is believing in stuff you know ain’t so…” The true believers are the ones flying airplanes into buildings and strapping on explosive vests.
    “Everybody wanna go to heaven, but nobody wants to go NOW…”

  132. on 13 Nov 2013 at 6:21 pm 132."a" said …

    “Dunno. Nothing, I suppose, since a god and Noah’s Ark are works of fiction”

    If it has nothing to do with God why bring it up? Is there a point? You just think the story is crazy? A number of ark stories across a number of cultures.

    Even crazier to me is a cell, with all the complexities we know, forming in Cambells soup with absolutely no intelligence involved. Geez, back it up to a strand of DNA! Some nuts believed that formed by pure chance and a lot of luck! Lol!!

    oh, almost forgot. Prove God is fiction. Got my popcorn out again!

  133. on 13 Nov 2013 at 10:46 pm 133.Anonymous said …

    the “hor”:

    Even crazier to me is a cell, with all the complexities we know, forming in Cambells soup with absolutely no intelligence involved.

    Yeah, I know. We both agree that life began with simple single celled organisms and progressed from there. How did that happen? I dunno, LET’S INVESTIGATE.
    You, on the other hand, simply jump to saying goddidit!!!! There’s the difference. One method is rational and seeks answers. The other, yours, slams the door shut on reason and says “I don’t want to know, let’s just accept it was a god”.

  134. on 14 Nov 2013 at 1:59 am 134.hor said …

    “You, on the other hand, simply jump to saying goddidit!!!!”

    lol!!!!! Where? Oh!, you mean because I believe intelligence is required to develop complex high information systems? Yeah, I make those leaps. But where do I claim “goddit” and don’ investigate mouse?????

    You…….Investigate? Lol!!!!!!

    You believe the fairytale I posted above! Although it violates logic and common sense. So tell me, what did you investigate to come up with the soup man theory?

    lol l!!!!

  135. on 14 Nov 2013 at 1:59 am 135.the messenger said …

    129.Angus and Alexis, Tacitus’s account of Jesus’s death relates to GOD because Jesus is GOD in human form.

    129.Angus and Alexis, the proof is in the gospels.

    GOD flooded the Earth because humans had become murderous, hateful, prideful, and highly dishonest. GOD displayed love for humanity by allowing our species to survive the flood, and when he suffered and died for our sins on the cross.

    ps, there are two logical ways to interpret the stoning laws. They are either metaphorical(this claim is supported when Jesus prevented a woman from being stoned) or they are no longer valid because of the ending of the old covenant and the establishing of the new covenant( supported by Hebrews chapter 8 verses 7 though 13).

  136. on 14 Nov 2013 at 3:35 am 136.Anonymous said …

    the hor:

    You believe the fairytale I posted above! Although it violates logic and common sense. So tell me, what did you investigate to come up with the soup man theory?

    Problem is that common sense ain’t so common. You know, horatio, people once thought volcanoes, solar eclipses, plagues, famines, etc, etc as the work of some god. These things seemed to violate the logic of the day.
    BTW,For a theistic viewpoint on abiogenesis, visit Francis Collins site; you know, the one you once ranted and raved about – Biologos. He’s taken a rational position on abiogenesis and somehow keeps his faith. Figure it out for yourself. KEEP INVESTIGATING, Sherlock. Insert a god when found. Or move the goalposts, like you inevitably will. LOL!!!

  137. on 14 Nov 2013 at 8:03 am 137.Angus and Alexis said …

    “129.Angus and Alexis, the proof is in the gospels.”

    Messenger, bluntly said, the bible is not a valid source.

    “GOD flooded the Earth because humans had become murderous, hateful, prideful, and highly dishonest.”

    There is no evidence of such a flood, and never will be. If such a flood occurred, the loss of life would lead to complete extinction of humans.

    “129.Angus and Alexis, Tacitus’s account of Jesus’s death relates to GOD because Jesus is GOD in human form.”

    Simply put, the “miracles” that Jesus is said to have done are impossible. Unless such events are recorded in more reliable sources, i doubt Jesus was some form of God.

    “GOD displayed love for humanity by allowing our species to survive the flood, and when he suffered and died for our sins on the cross.”

    He killed himself because of an issue he made, not to mention that he is all powerful and all knowing, so he did no sacrifice.

    “or they are no longer valid because of the ending of the old covenant and the establishing of the new covenant”

    Irrelevant, god’s word is absolute, he said it once, so it is valid.

    “ps, there are two logical ways to interpret the stoning laws. They are either metaphorical”

    A “perfect” book, made by a perfect being would not have such metaphors.

  138. on 14 Nov 2013 at 12:13 pm 138.hor/horatio/A said …

    “He’s taken a rational position on abiogenesis and somehow keeps his faith. Figure it out for yourself.

    I’m sure he has, he believes intelligence was involved, not a magic soup monster that created itself from the soup! lol!!!

    Young feller “a”, I have figured it out. Intelligence to create complex high information systems is a must until someone can prove otherwise. Taking an atheist position when it was believed a cell was just a black box was understandable, but today it is just silliness. Do like Antony Flew….follow the evidence to where it leads. Those with axes to grind are to cowardly to follow it.

    Even our little tulip now admits some things are impossible! lol!!!

    BTW, could you stick with one name. I hate changing my moniker every post. lol!!

  139. on 14 Nov 2013 at 1:03 pm 139.Angus and Alexis said …

    “Even our little tulip now admits some things are impossible!”

    Bending the laws of physics and matter?
    Yes, that is impossible.
    I thought you knew that.

    “I’m sure he has, he believes intelligence was involved, not a magic soup monster that created itself from the soup! lol!!!”

    This is pissing me off…
    Abiogenesis is nothing of what you describe, may you have the decency to describe it correctly?

    “Intelligence to create complex high information systems is a must until someone can prove otherwise.”

    The heck?
    DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS?
    Honestly, read up.

  140. on 14 Nov 2013 at 2:31 pm 140.Anonymous said …

    the “hor”

    Intelligence to create complex high information systems is a must until someone can prove otherwise.

    Yet, somehow, dust coalesces into stars. DUST!!! Look up “Trifid Nebula” and others. How does that happen? Oh yeah, having the default position of “goddoesit” likely gets you a bye on this one. LOL!!!

  141. on 14 Nov 2013 at 2:35 pm 141.Anonymous said …

    Silly “hor”:

    I’m sure he has, he believes intelligence was involved

    I don’t think Francis Collins is wagering his god on an abiogenesis from god argument like you are. Being a scientist, he’s taken a position like mine; the one that states “I don’t know, LET’S INVESTIGATE”

  142. on 14 Nov 2013 at 8:03 pm 142.hor said …

    “Look up “Trifid Nebula” and others”

    No need to, do you have a point? What are “others”?

  143. on 14 Nov 2013 at 8:07 pm 143.hor said …

    “don’t think Francis Collins is wagering his god on an abiogenesis from god argument like you are.”

    um, I never did. However I have read a couple of his books and he sees God as the designer of all creation.

    Do u mind if I ask if you are a moron? Just asking mind u. The vast majority of scientist throughout time have been theists. What makes you think they cannot practice science while acknowledging a designer, silly?

    lol!!!!

  144. on 15 Nov 2013 at 12:00 am 144.Angus and Alexis said …

    “What are “others”?”

    Other nebulae, duh.

    Do you not know how stars form?

    “um, I never did.”

    HAHA..right…
    “I’m sure he has, he believes intelligence was involved”

    Unless you mean some form of alien, this implies god.

    “What makes you think they cannot practice science while acknowledging a designer, silly?”

    Conflicting ideas, one says natural process, the other is god did it.

  145. on 15 Nov 2013 at 12:59 pm 145.Anonymous said …

    the hor:

    What makes you think they cannot practice science while acknowledging a designer

    What’s up with calling a god “a designer”? Shouldn’t it be “Designer”?

    Anyway, the god a scientist subscribes to differs from your conceptualization. Also, the scientific methods employed by scientists are different than your ideas – Sorry, but you seem to have your head up your ass. For example, scientists would laugh at you (just as I do) for suggesting “If evolution is true then why don’t Harleys/Corvettes wash up on our beaches?” And you’re asking if I am a moron? LOL!!!

    I know science and math are tough; hor, you gotta work at it.

  146. on 15 Nov 2013 at 1:27 pm 146.the hor said …

    “Anyway, the god a scientist subscribes to differs from your conceptualization”

    Well, yeah, in some cases. We have Jews, Christians, theists, etc…….duh! They all believe in a creator/ designer and they they have been some of the greatest scientist. Not according to our atheist tulip! Lol!!!!

    “the scientific methods employed by scientists are different than your ideas”

    Nope, not at all. That’s not open for redefining. You see freddie-mouse, observing a fossil is NOT observing macro evolution, that my boy is an assumption.

    ” evolution is true then why don’t Harleys/Corvettes wash up on our beaches”

    I know! Time and Chance is incredible, right! Everything to make it happen exists in nature, right? I would think an atheist would be onboard! Lol!!!

  147. on 15 Nov 2013 at 2:41 pm 147.Anonymous said …

    the “hor”, displaying his denseness, yet again (sigh):

    Well, yeah, in some cases. We have Jews, Christians, theists

    I will type this really slowly in the hope that you’ll understand. The christian gods of the christian scientists is completely different from your conceptualization of a christian god, hor. Did you get that? The scientists practice science and keep a god on the back burner; not requiring ANY proof of the god – they just BELIEVE. It’s called faith…..duh. Furthermore, most scientists DO NOT believe in a god. Or is it now creator/designer? Careful with the language, most designers are gay and you may be messing with your eternity if you call your god gay.

  148. on 15 Nov 2013 at 3:20 pm 148.Angus and Alexis said …

    “Not according to our atheist tulip! Lol!!!!”

    I never said such a thing, a theist can be a great scientist.
    But eventually there will be conflict somewhere, leading to failed science, or a loss of faith.

  149. on 15 Nov 2013 at 3:23 pm 149.Angus and Alexis said …

    “Nope, not at all. That’s not open for redefining.”

    You joking right?

    Your “scientific method” is a piece of garbage, thrown up by your insolent mind.

  150. on 15 Nov 2013 at 4:17 pm 150.DPK said …

    Read an interesting article this morning on Neurologica blog… part of it was how to distinguish between pseudoscience and rigorous science. Here are the 10 characteristics of how to detect bullshit… congrats 40year/A/Hor… you scored a perfect 10 out of 10! ding ding ding.. we have a winner!

    1 – Hostile to criticism, rather than embracing criticism as a mechanism of self-correction
    2 – Works backward from desired results through motivated reasoning
    3 – Cherry picks evidence
    4 – Relies on low grade evidence when it supports their belief, but will dismiss rigorous evidence if it is inconvenient.
    5 – Core principles untested or unproven, often based on single case or anecdote
    6 – Utilizes vague, imprecise, or ambiguous terminology, often to mimic technical jargon
    7 – Has the trappings of science, but lacks the true methods of science
    8 – Invokes conspiracy arguments to explain lack of mainstream acceptance (Galileo syndrome)
    9 – Lacks caution and humility by making grandiose claims from flimsy evidence
    10 – Practitioners often lack proper training and present that as a virtue as it makes them more “open.”

  151. on 15 Nov 2013 at 6:22 pm 151.the hor said …

    ” scientists practice science and keep a god on the back burner; not requiring ANY proof of the god – they just BELIEVE.”

    ROTFL!!!

    Ummmmm, nope! They practice science realizing God is the creator and designer. Why is that so hard to follow freddie-mouse? I got some great books I can suggest to help educate you freddie-mouse. Faith and reason go hand in hand.

    A back burner? Look l!!!!!!! Does the back burner design and create all that scientist study?

  152. on 15 Nov 2013 at 9:06 pm 152.DPK said …

    See?
    1 – Hostile to criticism, rather than embracing criticism as a mechanism of self-correction
    2 – Works backward from desired results through motivated reasoning
    3 – Cherry picks evidence
    4 – Relies on low grade evidence when it supports their belief, but will dismiss rigorous evidence if it is inconvenient.
    5 – Core principles untested or unproven, often based on single case or anecdote
    6 – Utilizes vague, imprecise, or ambiguous terminology, often to mimic technical jargon
    7 – Has the trappings of science, but lacks the true methods of science
    8 – Invokes conspiracy arguments to explain lack of mainstream acceptance (Galileo syndrome)
    9 – Lacks caution and humility by making grandiose claims from flimsy evidence
    10 – Practitioners often lack proper training and present that as a virtue as it makes them more “open.”

  153. on 15 Nov 2013 at 9:23 pm 153.Anonymous said …

    the “hor”:

    Ummmmm, nope! They practice science realizing God is the creator and designer.

    Exactly. They just BELIEVE a god exists, despite there being no actual proof. Is Francis Collins chasing a theory of god? Is Ken Miller? NOPE.

    A back burner? Look l!!!!!!! Does the back burner design and create all that scientist study?

    Yes, the back burner.
    For example: You, horatio and all the other whackjobs you associate with -xenon/castbound/biffy/ben/etc-, accept god and are desperately and dishonestly (maybe through wilful ignorance or plain stupidity) looking for evidence to support your specific belief in a god. Hence the muddled pseudo-scientific thinking you all engage in.

    A scientist who accepts the existence of a god does NOT so easily put a god into the gaps of scientific knowledge. They investigate and research and participate in peer review. Hence they have no problem accepting evolution and abiogenesis.

    Thanks for so fully engaging. Keep it up!! Now how old did you say the planet Earth was? Oh yeah, that’s too much to ask a pseudo-scientist, right hor? LOL!!!

  154. on 15 Nov 2013 at 9:33 pm 154.the hor said …

    “scientist who accepts the existence of a god does NOT so easily put a god into the gaps of scientific knowledge.”

    ROTFL!! The only time I hear the god of gaps is from college kids. Nobody uses God of gaps silly!

    “They just BELIEVE a god exists, despite there being no actual proof.”

    Strike two! They do have proof, as much as you have for your abiogenesis gap theory! Lol!! Still have some books I could offer.

    ” they have no problem accepting evolution and abiogenesis”

    If one is a theist, the theories become possible, but not for an atheist. Silly!

    Oh, I no longer look for evidence of God. Settled that years ago. :)

    Have a nice w/e buddy!

  155. on 15 Nov 2013 at 11:19 pm 155.Anonymous said …

    the “hor”:

    Oh, I no longer look for evidence of God. Settled that years ago

    The same time you put down the bottle, after finishing a 12 step program? LOL!!!

    ” they have no problem accepting evolution and abiogenesis”
    If one is a theist, the theories become possible, but not for an atheist.

    Huh? Does that mean I gotta start drinking, realize the error of my ways, join and graduate from AA before I can accept evolution?

    DPK: Love the list. Pseudo scientist hor and crew score a 10, indeed!!!

  156. on 16 Nov 2013 at 10:55 pm 156.Anonymous said …

    According to the “hor”:

    observing a fossil is NOT observing macro evolution

    Are you saying that studying fossils is an exercise in futility? That absolutely nothing can be gained from studying fossils and their place in geologic time?

  157. on 16 Nov 2013 at 11:37 pm 157.DPK said …

    No silly, he is saying that the geological record showing a transition over billions of years from only simple life forms to gradually more and more complex life forms contradicts his foregone conclusion that such a thing is impossible and only a magical god could account for the diversity we see today, therefore such evidence is dismissed, because it cannot be true.
    Don’t you know anything about science?

  158. on 17 Nov 2013 at 3:39 am 158.According to the “hor” said …

    “Are you saying that studying fossils is an exercise in futility? That absolutely nothing can be gained from studying fossils and their place in geologic time?”

    Oh Freddie-Mouse, you are so silly. What I said was your fossil of the fish is not observable evidence of macroevolution as you claimed more than once.

    Did mom leave and you have no one to read to you my dear boy?

    AnyWho, didn’t you claim ALL fossils are transitional? If so, why spend all that money digging up and studying fossils? YOU should see that as an exercise in futility, Yes?

    :}

  159. on 17 Nov 2013 at 9:40 am 159.Angus and Alexis said …

    “AnyWho, didn’t you claim ALL fossils are transitional?”

    Technically speaking, yes, they are akk transitional.

    This is because each generation has tiny genetic differences.

  160. on 17 Nov 2013 at 2:17 pm 160.Anonymous said …

    A gem from the “hor”

    why spend all that money digging up and studying fossils? YOU should see that as an exercise in futility, Yes?

    Oh silly me!!! It’s much easier to pick up a bible and read it.

    Maybe you and the clan can start a “Stop digging and questioning our dearly held religiuolous beliefs” campaign? Hor, are you the leader and spokesman for a cluster of travelling morons and idiots?

  161. on 17 Nov 2013 at 6:43 pm 161.According to the “hor” said …

    Freddie-Mouse

    You didn’t answer the question. If all fossils are transitional as you claim, why are we still looking??? That’s not my opinion, it is yours! lol!!

    We are hoping you can honor us with your great wisdom. But alas, I feel certain you will avoid the question and run like a……like a……well…..a mouse! lol!!

    Please…..share.

  162. on 17 Nov 2013 at 10:05 pm 162.Anonymous said …

    horhorhor:
    I would say it’s impossible to talk science with you since you haven’t a clue about (or are afraid to state) the age of our planet Earth. Simple science eludes your grasp and capabilities. How can we discuss anything beyond “gravity is holding you on our planet”. Or, perhaps, you’re an advocate for “Intelligent Pushing”?

    BTW, what post are you referring to in addressing “Freddie-Mouse”? I scrolled up and didn’t see any submissions by anyone going by “Freddie” or “Freddie-Mouse”.

  163. on 18 Nov 2013 at 1:37 am 163.the hor said …

    “How can we discuss anything beyond “gravity”

    I have a great idea. Using the SM, prove that macro evolution is true.

    Oh, and Freddie – Mouse is you you sock puppet! Duh!

  164. on 18 Nov 2013 at 11:14 am 164.Anonymous said …

    the hor:

    I have a great idea. Using the SM, prove that macro evolution is true.

    Can’t be done….since you’re completely clueless about science and the SM. Watch: hor, what is the age of the planet Earth? See. It would be easier to teach a pig to fly.

    Oh, and Freddie – Mouse is you you sock puppet! Duh!

    the hor is clueless, yet again. See, it’s too easy to prove that little “a” is the “hor” – examples would be the Harleys washing up on beaches becomes Corvettes washing up on beaches. And then there’s the fascination with Socrates. BTW, I can agree with you that there’s as much evidence for Socrates and Jayzus. Both are amalgams of various other personalities. ;-) Happy now. lol!!!

  165. on 18 Nov 2013 at 9:02 pm 165.the hor said …

    “Can’t be done”

    True, its just another excuse so you can maintain your faith without having to admit it to yourself.

    Hey, this is easier. Produce empirical evidence that macro evolution has taken place. That’s just a step in the SM. Lets see what you have Freddie-Mouse. I’m more than willing to believe.

    what is a Jayzus? And Freddie-Mouse and I have never seen anyone post as the hor but I’m willing to play along to get you to stay on track.

    I have seen Freddie post as Anonymouse….lol!!

  166. on 19 Nov 2013 at 12:57 am 166.the messenger said …

    there is plenty of proof of GOD.

  167. on 19 Nov 2013 at 7:22 am 167.Angus and Alexis said …

    Messenger, you say that all the time.

    But some questions.

    Can you show it to us?

    What god is the real one?

    Why is it the real one?

  168. on 19 Nov 2013 at 11:50 pm 168.the messenger said …

    172.Angus and Alexis, try reading my past comments and you will find all of those answers.

  169. on 20 Nov 2013 at 7:20 am 169.Angus and Alexis said …

    Of course i know you believe the christian god is the real one.

    But prove it.

  170. on 27 Nov 2013 at 4:14 pm 170.freddies_dead said …

    I go away for a holiday and, when I come back a month later, A is still refusing to provide even a single shred of evidence for his God. He won’t even admit which God he believes in. He’s still trying to push that Anonymous and I are one and the same too. Such a sad little man A is.

  171. on 27 Nov 2013 at 5:42 pm 171.Dippy said …

    A flat out admitted in another thread that he considers everything here a joke, and only comes here to amuse himself. He has absolutely zero intention of discussing anything with honesty or integrity. He is the very definition of a troll, the lowest form of internet life.

    The tragedy for him is he has probably done more damage to his “side” than any of the atheists here could ever do. Don’t think for a minute people “on the fence” don’t see him for what he really is, a snake oil salesman.

  172. on 27 Nov 2013 at 8:48 pm 172.the messenger said …

    174.Angus and Alexis, the proof is in comment 171, 137,129, 128, 76, and 55,

  173. on 24 Dec 2013 at 6:00 pm 173.J said …

    One who says that GOD is imaginary is a mere fool….some day he will face the consequences of spreading rumours and questioning about the existence of GOD….may GOD forgive him if possible

  174. on 24 Dec 2013 at 6:08 pm 174.Angus and Alexis said …

    God is imaginary.

    He cannot forgive, nor can he punish, he does not exist.

    Come back when you have substance.

  175. on 24 Dec 2013 at 8:04 pm 175.Jasper said …

    “One who says that GOD is imaginary is a mere fool”

    Right out of the Bible. I can see no other way a person can deny God’s existence unless they are a mere fool.

  176. on 25 Dec 2013 at 12:05 am 176.Angus and Alexis said …

    So the utter complete lack of evidence, and hilarious level of scientific evidence that says otherwise does not bother you?

  177. on 27 Dec 2013 at 2:01 am 177.the messenger said …

    174.Angus and Alexis, the proof is in comment 171, 137,129, 128, 76, and 55.

  178. on 27 Dec 2013 at 6:57 am 178.Angus and Alexis said …

    I mean actual proof, not made up garble.

  179. on 29 Dec 2013 at 5:55 pm 179.The messenger said …

    Mr. Caus von Stauffenburg(a devout roman catholic) saw hitler’s evil, and saw that hitler was breaking GOD,s laws by hurting the jews.

    Sauffenburg, driven by his faith in our lord, fought to kill hitler. He tied to save all the jews and Germany from natzi evil.

    That passion for saving lives is something that only a follower of GOD would have.

  180. on 30 Dec 2013 at 5:32 am 180.Angus and Alexis said …

    Someone attempting to kill a person of major power is no sign of god, it is a sign of determination.

    Ironically, Hitler was a christian (catholic is believe), but i digress.

  181. on 31 Dec 2013 at 1:41 am 181.the messenger said …

    185.Angus and Alexis, He was compelled by his catholic faith, to oppose hitler.

    Hitler was not a christian/catholic or jew.

    Hitler was a theist, nothing more.

    Christians and jews follow GOD’s laws and teachings to the best of their ability.

    Hitler broke all of GOD’s laws and teachings. he was the most uncatholic, unjewish, unchristian person alive besides Satan.

  182. on 31 Dec 2013 at 1:47 am 182.the messenger said …

    185.Angus and Alexis, hitler was raised as a christian, but abandoned his faith and resorted to hate, anger, jeolousy, and murder(the holocaust).

    Hitler is not a catholic.

  183. on 31 Dec 2013 at 3:46 am 183.the messenger said …

    In comment 186, the word “theist” was ment to be “atheist”. I miss spelled.

  184. on 31 Dec 2013 at 4:42 am 184.Angus and Alexis said …

    I am not going to argue with you, Hitler was a christian, deal with it.

    Being that you are strangely guarding Catholicism, that implies you are catholic? No?

    In that case, the pope believes in evolution, and priests like raping little boys.

  185. on 31 Dec 2013 at 5:41 pm 185.DPK said …

    A&A… don’t you get how it works yet?
    Messenger gets to decide who is a christian and who is not. Messenger gets to decide what god “actually meant” when he said this, that, or the other. Messenger gets to decide which parts of the bible are literal, which parts are metaphorical, which parts you must follow and which parts you can ignore. Messenger already told you evolution is real… all the species we have today evolved from the few that were saved on the ARK a few thousand years ago. Priests that rape little boys aren’t really priests, and they aren’t really Catholic… they are no doubt atheists masquerading as priests just so they can violate children.
    Wise up… you are arguing with a crazy person. Do you really think you will ever get anywhere?

  186. on 01 Jan 2014 at 12:20 am 186.the messenger said …

    184.Angus and Alexis, how can he be a christian and break GOD’s most important laws?

    You have no logic.

  187. on 01 Jan 2014 at 12:35 am 187.the messenger said …

    190.DPK, you are crazy. I do not decide anything. I simply preach what is written in the bible.

    I have proved many times, using text evidence, that the stoning verses are metaphorical.

    I never said that any parts are to be ignored.

    To be a christian you must follow GOD’s laws to the best of your ability, therefore a rapist is not a christian because rape is against GOD’s laws.

    Anyone that has hate towards another person, has no affiliation with GOD, and is therefore not a christian or a Jew.

    Anyone that rapes a person and does not repent for it, has no affiliation with GOD, and is not a follower of GOD, and is therefore not a christian.

  188. on 01 Jan 2014 at 12:40 am 188.the messenger said …

    190.DPK, the reason that you miss understand the bible is because you cherry pick verses without looking at the surrounding text.

    Read the whole thing, the we will be able to have a logical discussion about the bible.

    Until you read the bible, cover to cover, you will never understand the it.

  189. on 01 Jan 2014 at 5:58 am 189.Angus and Alexis said …

    “184.Angus and Alexis, how can he be a christian and break GOD’s most important laws?”

    Considering you have lied several times on this blog, you must be in for a can of whoopass if god exists.

    Remember the 10 commandments? No lying and stuff?

    “I have proved many times, using text evidence, that the stoning verses are metaphorical.”

    There you go again, lying.

    The bible is gods perfect word, thus is cannot be metaphor.

    “To be a christian you must follow GOD’s laws to the best of your ability, therefore a rapist is not a christian because rape is against GOD’s laws.”

    *redemption card*

    “Anyone that has hate towards another person, has no affiliation with GOD, and is therefore not a christian or a Jew.”

    By default you are intended to stone homosexuals to death, don’t you DARE say who has hate, and who does not have hate.

    “Until you read the bible, cover to cover, you will never understand the it.”

    Skeptics annotated bible, best bible there is.

  190. on 01 Jan 2014 at 8:31 pm 190.DPK said …

    190.DPK, you are crazy. I do not decide anything. I simply preach what is written in the bible.
    Yes you do, you decide who is a Christian and who is not. You decide what god really means when he says something you don’t like, or is clearly wrong, or immoral.

    I have proved many times, using text evidence, that the stoning verses are metaphorical.

    No you haven’t.

    I never said that any parts are to be ignored.

    Then why aren’t you stoning people to death, not cutting your hair, not doing any work on the sabbath, and going to a church that displays graven images?

    To be a christian you must follow GOD’s laws to the best of your ability, therefore a rapist is not a christian because rape is against GOD’s laws.

    Again, you are deciding who is a Christian and who isn’t, huh? Don’t all Christians have failures and shortcomings? Is anyone who takes the lords name in vain, or works on Sunday, also not a Christian, or does that only apply to rapists and homosexuals?

    Anyone that has hate towards another person, has no affiliation with GOD, and is therefore not a christian or a Jew.

    Anyone? So “A” is not a Christian in your assessment? Clearly he hates atheists, as do you.

    190.DPK, the reason that you miss understand the bible is because you cherry pick verses without looking at the surrounding text.

    Really, show me once where I have done that. Since you cannot, that makes you a liar, and therefore not a Christian, correct?

    Read the whole thing, the we will be able to have a logical discussion about the bible.
    Until you read the bible, cover to cover, you will never understand the it.

    I have. Clearly you have not. Lol. How funny of someone who is clearly ignorant of what the bible actually says to admonish someone who actual does to read it.

  191. on 02 Jan 2014 at 4:44 am 191.Angus and Alexis said …

    The thing i find ironic about Messenger, is how he claims someone is not a christian because of doing something. Then he lies, thus making himself not a christian.

  192. on 03 Jan 2014 at 1:25 pm 192.freddies_dead said …

    191.Angus and Alexis said …

    The thing i find ironic about Messenger, is how he claims someone is not a christian because of doing something. Then he lies, thus making himself not a christian.

    It’s a miracle, ole messy’s God thinks and believes exactly like messy does. That’s why it’s so easy for messy to determine exactly what his God means – even when a plain reading of the passage utterly contradicts what messy is claiming.

    I hope everyone had a good Christmas and is enjoying the New Year.

  193. on 04 Jan 2014 at 6:35 am 193.Angus and Alexis said …

    No true Scotsman fallacy…*Sigh*.

  194. on 14 Feb 2014 at 1:58 pm 194.smallfish said …

    It’s called faith for a reason.
    The Bible is as relevant as an history book written by a laypersons..
    Who cares how it was all created – if you believe in god he will let you know the story when you get where ever it is you think you’re going and if you don’t believe ; well then you’re all set, current affairs will keep you posted.

    Everyone should live in the present. I despise religion, and can not get over the worlds events, past and present,in the name of God.

    I believe in God and God only. But I will admit I do because I need to.I need to believe in something bigger than myself. I pray constantly but I always jokingly refer to it as my newsletter to god. I have taught my children – If God wanted to come and give you his message if there is a god (yes I say that part)
    it would be …be a good person. Be kind and you know right from wrong….

  195. on 14 Feb 2014 at 10:01 pm 195.alex said …

    “Be kind and you know right from wrong….”

    if you’ve been keeping up, and i suspect you’re just another righteous drive-by, you’ll see that right from wrong has nothing to do with god. if god was disproven today, would that make you confuse right or wrong?

    “Who cares how it was all created”

    if the fuckheads got their way and creationism was taught in school, that would be ok, yes? fuck, fucking, no! that’s ONE reason why I care. take your shit and keep it to yourself. this blog is a perfect example of motherfucking theists who just insist on spewing their shit everywhere….

  196. on 15 Feb 2014 at 12:08 am 196.DPK said …

    “Who cares how it was all created”
    Well, some of us happen to believe that one of the keys to human advancement is the ability to differentiate what is actually true from what is myth, legend, and superstition.
    If it truly didn’t matter what you believed, we’d still be chanting magic words to cast the demons out of sick people and sacrificing virgins to the angry volcano gods.

  197. on 15 Feb 2014 at 2:24 am 197.DPK said …

    and what is more, idiots like “A” would see nothing wrong with that because there is no way you can disprove the existence of demons and volcano gods using the scientific method, therefore they are real.
    Such is the mindset of people who believe what they want to believe simply because they want to believe it.

  198. on 15 Feb 2014 at 2:38 am 198.alex said …

    “they want to believe simply because they want to believe it.”

    maybe it’s the coward way of facing the finality. being sentient is not enough, damnit, they wants the eternal bliss afterwards and the fine ass virgins. and while they’re ordering the make believe shit, why not throw in the redemption card. now they’re set and viola! a license to do whatever the fuck they want.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply