Feed on Posts or Comments 18 September 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.

848 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.

  199. on 20 May 2014 at 10:00 pm 199.Anonymous said …

    alex, you dont even know what the bible is

  200. on 20 May 2014 at 11:22 pm 200.alex said …

    “you dont even know what the bible is”

    then, test me, bitch motherfucker. fire away with your biblical questions. then while you’re at it, give me the xtian morality test as well. and to top it off, publish the test of what a true xtian is supposed to be.

    typical xtian dumbass you are, with your self righteous proclamation that you, exclusively you, determines what the fuzzy criteria is for everything.

    and predictably, you’ll run off, smug with your self congratulations that you’ve told off the atheist heathens.

    as i’m waiting for my java build, i’ll standing by waiting for your unforthcoming response.

    feel free to horatiofy and sock back with a feeble, fluffy response. asshole.

  201. on 18 Jun 2014 at 3:09 am 201.Angel said …

    Messenger – you forget the teachings of Paul in his first letter to the church in Corinth when he wrote

    Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things that are freely given to us by God. And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but with those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people. The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The one who is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is understood by no one. For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to advise him? But we have the mind of Christ.

    Yes it can be hard for anyone to step aside of their own pride, the own self imposed limits of worldly education, if there is no desire to. I do find it amazing that when one does explore the possibility and put the obvious bias aside and perform a true search for the truth aside from worldly boundaries, men have found there truly exists a spirit being, a presence of omnipotence, far greater in love, power, mercy, forgiveness and especially a true freedom, men such as CS Lewis, Alister McGrath, and many others. But until that time, no amount of debate, arguing, scripture or verse will avail or do what the Spirit of God can do.

  202. on 18 Jun 2014 at 11:44 am 202.alex said …

    “But until that time, no amount of debate, arguing, scripture or verse will avail or do what the Spirit of God can do.”

    ain’t no damn debate, demonstrate. your god, along with the countless others, is bullshit. go ahead and prove me wrong.

  203. on 19 Jun 2014 at 10:28 am 203.freddies_dead said …

    201.Angel said …

    Messenger – you forget the teachings of Paul in his first letter to the church in Corinth when he wrote

    Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things that are freely given to us by God.

    How do you know this “spirit” is from God? What evidence can you adduce to demonstrate a) the existence of the spirit you mention b) the existence of your God and c) how we can know that one is responsible for the other?

    And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but with those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people.

    So you have to have a whole other language to talk about these imaginary things?

    The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him.

    Or it’s because they don’t accept the idea of gaining knowledge through imaginary means.

    And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    I understand them just fine, it’s how I know they’re nonsense. Imaginary beings doing imaginary things isn’t impressive.

    The one who is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is understood by no one. For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to advise him? But we have the mind of Christ.

    What evidence do you have for this “mind of Christ”? What differentiates the “true” Christians from the false? How can we tell a false Christian before they fall away from the faith?

    Yes it can be hard for anyone to step aside of their own pride, the own self imposed limits of worldly education, if there is no desire to.

    Oh goody, here’s where you claim it’s the unbeliever’s fault that your claims are incoherent.

    I do find it amazing that when one does explore the possibility and put the obvious bias aside and perform a true search for the truth aside from worldly boundaries, men have found there truly exists a spirit being, a presence of omnipotence, far greater in love, power, mercy, forgiveness and especially a true freedom, men such as CS Lewis, Alister McGrath, and many others.

    So, because others are credulous fools we should be just like them? Just believe because then you’ll believe. Where’s your evidence Angel?

    But until that time, no amount of debate, arguing, scripture or verse will avail or do what the Spirit of God can do.

    That’s a pitiful excuse for your failure to convince us of the existence of your God. He’s supposed to be omnipotent but He can’t even provide you with a single scrap of evidence or a sound argument to present.

  204. on 20 Jun 2014 at 5:38 pm 204.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “So, because others are credulous fools we should be just like them?”

    We don’t feel like we should be like the atheist cult! Lol!!! Atheism us just plain foolishness like all other cults!

    lol!!!!

  205. on 21 Jun 2014 at 6:19 am 205.alex said …

    “Atheism us just plain foolishness like all other cults!”

    back to your dumbass, motherfuckerness, eh? just like the rest of your shit in your book: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    i guess i belong to the church of no bullshit tolerated incorporated. in case you missed, here’s your bullshit collection once again: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    and miraculously, it includes your latest bullshit about atheist cults. right below your “China is selling fetuses as a delicacy”, dumbass, bitch.

  206. on 22 Jun 2014 at 4:07 am 206.the messenger said …

    220.Angel, I see your point. I respect you, my friend. But my mission is to open the minds of non believers so that they will seek the knowledge of GOD and pursue his spirit.

  207. on 22 Jun 2014 at 4:21 pm 207.alex said …

    “But my mission is to open the minds of non believers…”

    here’s part of his mission charter, quoted from his (messenger’s) manifesto at: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    1. if you have a glass of salt water and you pour more water in(fresh water), it does not change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry

    2. if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage)

    3. Hell does not last forever.

    4. Even though the bible does not state that God created the ansestors of the animals of 2013, it is logical to say that he did infact create the ansestors of the modern day animals, and those animals that God created in the beginning did infact evolve into the modern animals that we know today.

    5. I have also seen heaven my self and it is amazing.

    6. Allah and Yahweh are the same GOD, but the muslim view of GOD is wrong.

    puking yet? …and many more. i ain’t lying. in his book, the original wwgha link is included.

  208. on 23 Jun 2014 at 2:23 am 208.the messenger said …

    226.alex, so you think that if you take a glass of water and pour more water in it that it will cease to be H2O? Dude you are stupid.

    That second quote is out of context.

    The thing about hell was proven by text evidence from the bible.

    I stated that evolution occurred. Are you denying that evolution is true?

    I told you, that vision of heaven was just a dream.

    Yes, islam is false.

  209. on 23 Jun 2014 at 3:49 pm 209.freddies_dead said …

    204.A The Lying Prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “So, because others are credulous fools we should be just like them?”

    We don’t feel like we should be like the atheist cult! Lol!!! Atheism us just plain foolishness like all other cults!

    lol!!!!

    I’d ask you to point out how “not believing in God” qualifies as a cult, but you’re a lying prick and nothing you say can be trusted.

  210. on 23 Jun 2014 at 3:51 pm 210.freddies_dead said …

    208.the messenger said …

    The thing about hell was proven by text evidence from the bible.

    There’s a difference between throwing out a couple of verses from your book of myths and actually proving something.

  211. on 23 Jun 2014 at 4:24 pm 211.alex said …

    “so you think that if you take a glass of water and pour more water in it that it will cease to be H2O?”

    lying bitch motherfucker. this is your entire paragraph:

    637.DPK, if you have a glass of salt water and you pour more water in(fresh water), it does not change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry. So how would a flood change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry of the sea water?

    can’t squirm outta of that one, eh? asshole.

    “That second quote is out of context.”

    again, you lie. your entire paragraph post:

    623.alex, if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage) and serve her for the rest of his life.

    “The thing about hell was proven by text evidence from the bible.”

    that hell is temporary? quote the Catholic stance on this. of course, you can’t, coz you a lyin, bitch, motherfucker.

    your book doesn’t lie, mess motherfucker. it’s all archived here: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

  212. on 24 Jun 2014 at 12:45 am 212.the messenger said …

    231.alex, what I mean is that if you have a glass of water with a teaspoon of salt in it, then you poor some more water(fresh water) into it, there is still a teaspoon of salt in it.

    You are a lying idiot. You clamed ,in comment 226, that this is my full paragraph: “2. if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage)”

    This is my full paragraph(quoted directly from my book.”623.alex, if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage) and serve her for the rest of his life.This is not so much a punishment, but a chance for redemption.”

    This is proof that you are a ridiculous liar.

  213. on 24 Jun 2014 at 12:48 am 213.the messenger said …

    230.freddies_dead, the bible is the key source for information on hell and heaven.

    I found specific verses and passages from the bible that prove my claim that hell is temporary.

  214. on 24 Jun 2014 at 12:55 am 214.the messenger said …

    231.alex, in comment 231 you claimed that this quote “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage)” was not taken out of context. Yet you also claimed that the following quote is the full quote(623.alex, if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage) and serve her for the rest of his life.).

    You took a quote out of context and then claimed that it was not out of context, then immediately displayed the ” entire paragraph ” thus proving that the quote you took was out of context.

    You are not only a liar, but also an extremely stupid liar.

    I pity you.

  215. on 24 Jun 2014 at 1:06 am 215.alex said …

    the motherfucker messenger pities me. he whines that i take his quote out of context. he claims that he represents the catholic church.

    you be the judge. this is entire collection with the original wwgha posting links: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    the bitch is getting desperate. he must be dying of cancer or some shit and he’s afraid, there’s no more. guess what, motherfucker, there ain’t. har!

    “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her (through marrage)…”

    out of context or not, you can’t spin it, you bitch, motherfucker. ain’t nobody here, or anywhere else, buys your bullshit.

  216. on 24 Jun 2014 at 2:29 am 216.the messenger said …

    235.alex, I was not whining. I was simply pointing out that you lied.

    You are the desperate one. Your arguements are so pathetic that you resort to “name calling ” like a child, and randomly bringing up the “salt water thing” in order to distract people from your obvious stupidity.

    lastly, quoting a sentence and leaving out the most important part, is in fact “taking out of context”.

  217. on 24 Jun 2014 at 2:41 am 217.alex said …

    “randomly bringing up the “salt water thing””

    demonstrates what every reader already knows. you’re a dumb motherfucker and your entire collection at http://goo.gl/7fbnA4 validates your stupidity.

    your entire, complete post:
    “623.alex, if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage) and serve her for the rest of his life.
    This is not so much a punishment, but a chance for redemption.”

    …is disgusting. that’s why you can’t find anybody that will support you on the thing. no matter how much you whine about me cutting it, it doesn’t change your vile, caveman view.

    go fuck yourself.

  218. on 24 Jun 2014 at 3:14 pm 218.freddies_dead said …

    213.the messenger said …

    230.freddies_dead, the bible is the key source for information on hell and heaven.

    The Lord of the Rings trilogy is the key source for information on the Shire and Mordor…

    The Harry Potter books are the key source for information on Hogwarts and Diagon Alley…

    Works of fictional that describe imaginary places aren’t sources of truth.

    I found specific verses and passages from the bible that prove my claim that hell is temporary.

    And I presented specific verses and passages from your book of myths that contradict your claim.

    Maybe you could stop begging the question and demonstrate a) that your God exists, b) that He divinely inspired the Bible and c) that Heaven and Hell exist. Only then could we even begin to take the Bible seriously as a key source of information regarding any of your ridiculous claims.

  219. on 25 Jun 2014 at 12:20 am 219.the messenger said …

    238.freddies_dead, the US constitution is the key source for information on how the US government is run. Just as the bible is the key source for information on heaven and hell.

    I provided thousands of eye witness accounts(by both religious and atheist people) of a Christian miracle. Also many documented heaven and hell experiences (also by both atheists and theists). That evidence proves that the Jewish/Christian GOD is real, and therefore the texts containing his teachings(the books of the bible, and some parts of the Talmund) are true.

    Lastly, you claim to have presented verses that contradict the claim that hell is temporary. This your problem; you interpret the bible through individual verses. The true way to interpret it is as a complete text and a complete message. All of the heaven and hell verses as one complete message about them.

  220. on 25 Jun 2014 at 12:26 am 220.alex said …

    221.the messenger said …

    bleh, motherfucker, bleh. same ole shit, from the same ole bullshit, motherfucker. until you come up with some original shit, i will continue to debunk your shit.

    your shit collection grows, yet again: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    go ahead hor, motherfucker. proclaim again that i, alex, don’t have any bullshit to offer.

  221. on 25 Jun 2014 at 2:14 am 221.the messenger said …

    240.alex, to quote you, I will stop “feeding the troll”.

    (Troll aka you.)

  222. on 25 Jun 2014 at 10:40 am 222.freddies_dead said …

    219.the messenger said …

    238.freddies_dead, the US constitution is the key source for information on how the US government is run.

    Because we know the US government exists. We can point out it’s buildings and the people who work there.

    Just as the bible is the key source for information on heaven and hell.

    2 places we can only imagine. Where is Heaven exactly? What about Hell? What’s the decor like? Do they have doors and windows? Carpets? Do they use IKEA furniture?

    I provided thousands of eye witness accounts(by both religious and atheist people) of a Christian miracle.

    Not entirely true. You presented an account of an alleged miracle which claimed that thousands of people experienced the miracle. There’s no actual evidence for the claims made by some of the people who were there and many of those claims actually contradicted each other as to what happened. So once again we’re left imagining what they claim to have seen. This may impress you but I don’t share your level of credulity.

    Also many documented heaven and hell experiences (also by both atheists and theists).

    Once again there’s no verifiable evidence here, just unsubstantiated claims.

    That evidence proves that the Jewish/Christian GOD is real,

    It’s simply not evidence. It’s a bunch of unsubstantiated claims – mostly from people who already believe in a God and are happy to let their confirmation bias rule what they think they experienced.

    and therefore the texts containing his teachings(the books of the bible, and some parts of the Talmund) are true.

    Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your unsubstantiated premises.

    Lastly, you claim to have presented verses that contradict the claim that hell is temporary. This your problem; you interpret the bible through individual verses. The true way to interpret it is as a complete text and a complete message. All of the heaven and hell verses as one complete message about them.

    So the verses that say hell is forever can be reconciled with the one verse you claim says it’s not? This is the “complete” message you’re dealing with here. A contradictory mish-mash of claims which have no referents in the real world. That is your problem not mine.

  223. on 25 Jun 2014 at 3:37 pm 223.the messenger said …

    242.freddies_dead, it is not contradictory. Remember, Matthew 18:8 states
    8 “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than to have two hands or two feet and to be thrown into the eternal fire.”.

    Although that verse says eternal fire(aka hell),it only says that only the bad parts of us will be in the eternal fire.

    Romans 10:13 states “13 For, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”. Thus proving that if we reach out to GOD, even from hell, we will be saved(aka go to heaven and out of hell), and our bad parts(our hate, lust, greed,….) will be felt in hell.

  224. on 25 Jun 2014 at 3:39 pm 224.the messenger said …

    242.freddies_dead, in that last sentence I meant to type “left in hell” not “felt in hell”.

    My Bad.

  225. on 25 Jun 2014 at 4:22 pm 225.freddies_dead said …

    223.the messenger said …

    242.freddies_dead, it is not contradictory.

    Of course it’s not contradictory to have different verses saying the opposite thing. Oh wait, yes it is.

    Remember, Matthew 18:8 states
    8 “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than to have two hands or two feet and to be thrown into the eternal fire.”.

    Although that verse says eternal fire(aka hell),it only says that only the bad parts of us will be in the eternal fire.

    No, it really doesn’t. It says it would be better to cut off your hand or foot in order to enter Heaven rather than keep it and go to Hell. There’s no way a plain reading of that verse gets you to “Your bad parts go to Hell while the rest of you goes to Heaven”.

    Romans 10:13 states “13 For, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”. Thus proving that if we reach out to GOD, even from hell, we will be saved(aka go to heaven and out of hell), and our bad parts(our hate, lust, greed,….) will be felt in hell.

    We’ve been through this bullshit before. Matthew 25:46 – And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 – Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. Mark 9:48 – Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. Even the dead get judged Daniel 12:2 – And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt. Plus God ain’t listening Isaiah 59:2 – But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid [his] face from you, that he will not hear.

    The whole concept of Hell – an eternal separation from God – laughs at your ridiculous claim.

  226. on 25 Jun 2014 at 8:39 pm 226.the messenger said …

    245.freddies_dead, it also is explaining that only the parts of us that cause us to sin (our hate, anger, greed,…) are cast into hell. Hell is often referred to as an “eternal fire” in the bible. Prophets usually used metaphors to explain things to people, much like Jesus’s parables. Therefore we conclude that the “cut off arm or foot” thing is a metaphor that John was using to explain GOD’s message. If the “cut off foot thing” is literal then why aren’t we seeing millions of Christians cutting off their feet?

  227. on 25 Jun 2014 at 9:48 pm 227.alex said …

    “If the “cut off foot thing” is literal then why aren’t we seeing millions of Christians cutting off their feet?”

    your line of thinking says, if millions of xtians aren’t doing it, it’s not to be taken literal?

  228. on 26 Jun 2014 at 10:10 am 228.freddies_dead said …

    226.the messenger said …

    245.freddies_dead, it also is explaining that only the parts of us that cause us to sin (our hate, anger, greed,…) are cast into hell.

    It does no such thing. It simply states that you’d be better off cutting off the parts that cause you sin because they will send the entirety of you to Hell if you let them. It’s an attempt to get you to stop sinning altogether. It doesn’t mean that your dick will go to Hell for fornicating while the rest of you gets to smell it burning while you lounge around in Heaven.

    Hell is often referred to as an “eternal fire” in the bible. Prophets usually used metaphors to explain things to people, much like Jesus’s parables.

    Never! And here I was thinking that the eating and drinking of Christ’s body and blood were a real thing … oh, wait, doesn’t the Catholic Church actually believe exactly that through the transubstantiation? If only we had somebody who could consistently tell us which bits were truly metaphorical (and what those metaphors mean) and which bits we should take literally i.e. that whole bit where they insist on stoning people to death – with real stones and real death – for instance.

    Therefore we conclude that the “cut off arm or foot” thing is a metaphor that John was using to explain GOD’s message. If the “cut off foot thing” is literal then why aren’t we seeing millions of Christians cutting off their feet?

    I’m well aware it’s most likely a metaphor. It’s you that is reading in the bizarre concept that literally only parts of you go to Hell. The reason millions of Christians aren’t cutting off their feet is that, unlike you, they realise that the passage actually says they should cut out sin if they want to go to Heaven instead of spending eternity in Hell.

  229. on 27 Jun 2014 at 6:17 pm 229.the messenger said …

    228.freddies_dead, if the “cutting off foot” verse is metaphorical, then what does it really mean, and why does it mention the fire? What is the purpose of mentioning the fire? The answer if obvious. The fire represents hell, and the removing of the foot(which is not literal) means that the bad qualities of us are cast into the fire(aka hell). Jesus constantly talked about removing bad qualities within us, and therefore it is logical to believe that John was saying the same thing in his “cutting off foot” metaphor.

    In Matthew 3:11 John speaks about fire again, but this time he says that the Messiah will baptize people with it. Jesus never took a tourch or oil and lit someone on fire to remove their sins, so what does john mean when he is talking about fire? It is clear that he is refering to the same fire that was mentioned in the “cutting foot off” verse. Baptism is the washing away of sins, and if the fire(aka hell) is used for baptising then it is obvious that hell is a place where our sins(and sinful qualities) are washed off and condemned while we rise from it and into heaven.

  230. on 27 Jun 2014 at 10:59 pm 230.the messenger said …

    228.freddies_dead, I miss spoke a few times in that comment. Here is the amended version of it.

    228.freddies_dead, if the “cutting off foot” verse is metaphorical, then what does it really mean, and why does it mention the fire? What is the purpose of mentioning the fire? The answer if obvious. The fire represents hell, and the removing of the foot(which is not literal) means that the bad qualities of us are cast into the fire(aka hell). Jesus constantly talked about removing bad qualities within us, and therefore it is logical to believe that he was saying the same thing in his “cutting off foot” metaphor.

    In Matthew 3:11 John speaks about fire, but he says that the Messiah will baptize people with it. Jesus never took a tourch or oil and lit someone on fire to remove their sins, so what does john mean when he is talking about fire? It is clear that he is refering to the same fire that was mentioned in the “cutting foot off” verse. Baptism is the washing away of sins, and if the fire(aka hell) is used for baptising then it is obvious that hell is a place where our sins(and sinful qualities) are washed off and condemned while we rise from it and into heaven.

  231. on 27 Jun 2014 at 11:09 pm 231.the messenger said …

    228.freddies_dead, comment continued….

    Don’t get me wrong, hell is a place of punishment but also of cleansing of sins. Our sins are payed off and our souls are cleansed of evil by our pain in hell, similar to the pain jesus had to go through in order to clean the world of it’s sins.

  232. on 27 Jun 2014 at 11:47 pm 232.alex said …

    “Don’t get me wrong, hell is a place of punishment but also of cleansing of sins.”

    does the pope say this? then, who the fuck are you? what makes you think you know better than the pope?

    does the pope agree with your “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage)”

    does the pope agree with your “Hell does not last forever.”

    does the pope agree with your “Allah and Yahweh are the same GOD”

    i can go on, but your entire collection here is proof of your bs: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    contradicting the pope means you ain’t catholic, but just another loud mouth motherfucker righteously tryna to preach.

    that’s right bitch. your posts have no creds as demonstrated by your previous bullshits.

    as for you hor, motherfucker. i have no bullshits to offer as an alternative to your crap. your entire bullshit collection at: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  233. on 28 Jun 2014 at 12:05 am 233.the messenger said …

    252.alex, I’m no longer debating with you. You would rather throw insult, twist words, and take things out of context than have a logical discussion.

    You sad, strange little man.

  234. on 28 Jun 2014 at 12:26 am 234.alex said …

    “You would rather throw insult, twist words, and take things out of context than have a logical discussion.”

    what a moron. your entire collection at: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    is verbatum, with original wwgha links. how is that twisting words? the internet doesn’t lie, you bitch, motherfucker. even though you masquerade with your little moniker “messenger”, your shits are archived.

    whilst, i do post anonymously, what have i claimed? you on the other hand, had posted countless, stinky, disgusting shits as evidenced by: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    that’s right, bitch. you’re tired of me, but since i’m fortunate enough to job at home, i’ll keep calling out your bullshit.

    even though only few visitors stop by here, you’re still compelled to spew your shit don’t you? that’s ok, i’m still here waiting for my java build.

  235. on 30 Jun 2014 at 1:28 pm 235.freddies_dead said …

    230.the messenger said …

    228.freddies_dead, if the “cutting off foot” verse is metaphorical, then what does it really mean, and why does it mention the fire?>/i>

    From a plain reading it says to stop sinning and that you’d be better off cutting parts of yourself off (if they cause you to sin) if you’d rather go to Heaven than burn for all eternity in Hell. Why fire? Obvious, fire burns, burns hurt and no-one wants to burn forever. It’s a fairly typical religious fear tactic.

    What is the purpose of mentioning the fire? The answer if obvious. The fire represents hell, and the removing of the foot(which is not literal) means that the bad qualities of us are cast into the fire(aka hell).

    Odd. Nowhere in that verse does it mention anything about the parts that you cut off being cast into Hell. Not even metaphorically. You’re having to add to the Bible in order to create your own interpretation.

    Jesus constantly talked about removing bad qualities within us, and therefore it is logical to believe that he was saying the same thing in his “cutting off foot” metaphor.

    Did Jesus ever say anything directly about casting those “bad qualities” into Hell? I certainly don’t recall the chapter/verse if He did.

    In Matthew 3:11 John speaks about fire, but he says that the Messiah will baptize people with it. Jesus never took a tourch or oil and lit someone on fire to remove their sins, so what does john mean when he is talking about fire? It is clear that he is refering to the same fire that was mentioned in the “cutting foot off” verse. Baptism is the washing away of sins, and if the fire(aka hell) is used for baptising then it is obvious that hell is a place where our sins(and sinful qualities) are washed off and condemned while we rise from it and into heaven.

    John was talking to the Pharisees and Sadducees and basically said that Jesus would pass judgement on them regardless, gathering the wheat to him and sending the chaff into the unquenchable fire. Again, a plain reading suggests we’re talking about whole people here, not bad bits and good bits going to different places.

    231.the messenger said …

    Don’t get me wrong, hell is a place of punishment but also of cleansing of sins. Our sins are payed off and our souls are cleansed of evil by our pain in hell, similar to the pain jesus had to go through in order to clean the world of it’s sins.

    There’s nothing in the Bible about getting out of Hell once you’ve been sent there for your sins, instead we read about a place where you do nothing but suffer. There’s no hope and no release.

    You’re performing eisegesis here, not exegesis.

    Not that any of this matters as we’re still just talking about the imaginary. Imaginary Heavens, imaginary Hells, imaginary Gods.

  236. on 30 Jun 2014 at 1:32 pm 236.freddies_dead said …

    Mmmm italics all messed up so I’ll post it again.

    230.the messenger said …

    228.freddies_dead, if the “cutting off foot” verse is metaphorical, then what does it really mean, and why does it mention the fire?

    From a plain reading it says to stop sinning and that you’d be better off cutting parts of yourself off (if they cause you to sin) if you’d rather go to Heaven than burn for all eternity in Hell. Why fire? Obvious, fire burns, burns hurt and no-one wants to burn forever. It’s a fairly typical religious fear tactic.

    What is the purpose of mentioning the fire? The answer if obvious. The fire represents hell, and the removing of the foot(which is not literal) means that the bad qualities of us are cast into the fire(aka hell).

    Odd. Nowhere in that verse does it mention anything about the parts that you cut off being cast into Hell. Not even metaphorically. You’re having to add to the Bible in order to create your own interpretation.

    Jesus constantly talked about removing bad qualities within us, and therefore it is logical to believe that he was saying the same thing in his “cutting off foot” metaphor.

    Did Jesus ever say anything directly about casting those “bad qualities” into Hell? I certainly don’t recall the chapter/verse if He did.

    In Matthew 3:11 John speaks about fire, but he says that the Messiah will baptize people with it. Jesus never took a tourch or oil and lit someone on fire to remove their sins, so what does john mean when he is talking about fire? It is clear that he is refering to the same fire that was mentioned in the “cutting foot off” verse. Baptism is the washing away of sins, and if the fire(aka hell) is used for baptising then it is obvious that hell is a place where our sins(and sinful qualities) are washed off and condemned while we rise from it and into heaven.

    John was talking to the Pharisees and Sadducees and basically said that Jesus would pass judgement on them regardless, gathering the wheat to him and sending the chaff into the unquenchable fire. Again, a plain reading suggests we’re talking about whole people here, not bad bits and good bits going to different places.

    231.the messenger said …

    Don’t get me wrong, hell is a place of punishment but also of cleansing of sins. Our sins are payed off and our souls are cleansed of evil by our pain in hell, similar to the pain jesus had to go through in order to clean the world of it’s sins.

    There’s nothing in the Bible about getting out of Hell once you’ve been sent there for your sins, instead we read about a place where you do nothing but suffer. There’s no hope and no release.

    You’re performing eisegesis here, not exegesis.

    Not that any of this matters as we’re still just talking about the imaginary. Imaginary Heavens, imaginary Hells, imaginary Gods.

  237. on 01 Jul 2014 at 2:50 am 237.the messenger said …

    255.freddies_dead, if the bible truly says that hell is forever then why does it say that GOD will never forsake us (Deuteronomy 31:6, Deuteronomy 31:8, and many other verses)? If hell is eternal then that would mean that he has forsaken us. Therefore hell cannot possibly be eternal.

    You stated:”Nowhere in that verse does it mention anything about the parts that you cut off being cast into Hell. Not even metaphorically. You’re having to add to the Bible in order to create your own interpretation.”

    Tell me, do you deny that hell is often referred to in the bible as a fire? It depends on how it is interpreted. Fire is often associated and referred to as hell in the bible, therefore leading me to believe that Jesus was referring to hell in that statement.

    Psalm 9:10, Romans 10:13, and Acts 2:21 all say that GOD will save us if we call upon him. Hell is not excluded in any of these verses, so therefore it is logical to believe that GOD is offering all sinners a way to escape hell. Jesus came, suffered, and died to save sinners. If anyone went to hell forever then Jesus would have died for nothing, which furthers my belief that Hell is a temporary punishment, and that any verse that says hell is eternal is simply an exaggeration or (as I believe) referring to just our bad qualities burning forever.

    John was talking about how he removed sin and how Jesus would remove sin. He did not make a reference to the temple sacrifices of the calf and other various animals.

  238. on 01 Jul 2014 at 3:05 am 238.the messenger said …

    256.freddies_dead, the following is not an attempt to sway you to my views, it is simply a note of thanks.

    Thank you for being respectful throughout this ongoing debate, unlike Alex who enjoys insulting anyone who disagrees with his views.

    I respect you brother.

  239. on 01 Jul 2014 at 2:38 pm 239.alex said …

    “unlike Alex who enjoys insulting anyone who disagrees with his views.”

    you are a moron as evidenced by: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    i enjoy insulting you as much as i enjoy flushing the toilet. you are shit, no? anybody here jumping up and defending your “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her…”?

    that’s why i keep bring up your bullshit. you try to hide behind your righteous message, but underneath, you’re nothing but a piece of shit.

    go fuck yourself, motherfucker.

  240. on 01 Jul 2014 at 3:13 pm 240.freddies_dead said …

    237.the messenger said …

    255.freddies_dead, if the bible truly says that hell is forever then why does it say that GOD will never forsake us (Deuteronomy 31:6, Deuteronomy 31:8, and many other verses)? If hell is eternal then that would mean that he has forsaken us. Therefore hell cannot possibly be eternal.

    Those passages were spoken to living men, urging them to be faithful and fear not because God would stand by them as they went out into Jordan. The reason Hell is eternal is because you go there after the judgement of God. The whole point of Hell is that it’s a place where you are removed from the presence of God. He hasn’t forsaken you, He has judged that that is where you belong and that is where you will stay … for ever.

    You stated:”Nowhere in that verse does it mention anything about the parts that you cut off being cast into Hell. Not even metaphorically. You’re having to add to the Bible in order to create your own interpretation.”

    Tell me, do you deny that hell is often referred to in the bible as a fire?

    No I don’t.

    It depends on how it is interpreted.

    Agreed. However, my interpretation doesn’t require anything to be added to the text in order to make sense (as much as anything can be said to make sense amid the general incoherence of the Bible).

    Fire is often associated and referred to as hell in the bible, therefore leading me to believe that Jesus was referring to hell in that statement.

    He may well have been but nowhere does he state that only the bad bits go to Hell while the good bits go to Heaven, that’s all you.

    Psalm 9:10, Romans 10:13, and Acts 2:21 all say that GOD will save us if we call upon him. Hell is not excluded in any of these verses, so therefore it is logical to believe that GOD is offering all sinners a way to escape hell.

    Psalm 9 is David praising the Lord for his rebuke of the nations. If you take a quick look at 9:5 you’ll note how God “hast rebuked the heathen”, “hast destroyed the wicked” and “hast put out their name for ever and ever”. Because the judgement from God is an eternity (ever and ever) in Hell.

    Romans 10:13 is part of the Pauline epistles which concern salvation. Every activity mentioned throughout those epistles is an action taken by the living and Paul’s words continually tell how the judgement will come after death. Romans 7:1 “Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?”

    Acts 2:21 (the author is traditionally identified as Luke the Evangelist) talks of what the apostles did as part of Jesus’ commission. Again, they go out and speak to the living, explaining what God will do as the day of judgement nears.

    There’s no need for those verses to exclude Hell as it is excluded implicitly by them being for the living. Hell only comes into it after judgement has taken place i.e. after you’re dead. There are no end of verses that mention that only one man escaped from Hell – Jesus – who did so after a dodgy long weekend being dead.

    Jesus came, suffered, and died to save sinners. If anyone went to hell forever then Jesus would have died for nothing, which furthers my belief that Hell is a temporary punishment, and that any verse that says hell is eternal is simply an exaggeration or (as I believe) referring to just our bad qualities burning forever.

    Of course Jesus died for nothing. His story hasn’t made a blind bit of difference. People continue to sin regardless of what the Bible told us Jesus’ mission was. That’s got nothing to do with Hell being permanent and all to do with the stories being myths. Jesus was an imaginary deity who was alleged to have spent a long weekend in an imaginary place before being whisked off to another imaginary place. If Jesus truly existed and died to end sin we’d be living in a world without sin. We aren’t. So the writers of the Bible made up some shit about how it’ll take some time before the judgement day finally arrives. It’s been 2000+ years and we’re still waiting – despite the Bible claiming that there were some there that day who would still be alive to see the return of Jesus. That it doesn’t make any sense is not my problem as I’m not the one espousing a book of myths as some infallible source of knowledge.

    John was talking about how he removed sin and how Jesus would remove sin. He did not make a reference to the temple sacrifices of the calf and other various animals.

    John was talking about Jesus’ judgement of the Pharisees and Sadducees. According to the myth He’d remove sin alright, by casting the sinners into Hell’s unquenchable flames.

  241. on 01 Jul 2014 at 11:01 pm 241.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Lol!!!!

    Nothing cutier than atheist theologians!!
    It is precious and it is hilarious!! Really! They don”t believe…yet….they take time to do hermeneutics for believers. How absolutely adorable of them :)

    Alex, you sweet talking rascal….you had at the first and hundredth f-bomb!……lol!!!!

  242. on 02 Jul 2014 at 2:17 am 242.alex said …

    “Nothing cutier than atheist theologians!!”

    but it’s ok with you that the same motherfucker who uttered “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her…” is perfectly legit to interpret the bullshit bible? to those who don’t know, it’s the idiot fuckhead otherwise known as “messenger”. here’s his entire bullshit collection again: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    but of course, you’re the proven lying motherfucker, aka, martin, science guy, biff, xenon, little ‘A’, Sweetness, boz, RL Wooten, ‘Everyone’, and of course Horatio. it’s all here http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    “….you had at the first and hundredth f-bomb!……”

    you dumb motherfucker. if i had the millionth, motherfucking, f-bomb, it still doesn’t change your bullshit god, does it?

    asshole.

  243. on 02 Jul 2014 at 2:25 am 243.the messenger said …

    260.freddies_dead, those verses speak of GOD’s loyalty to us, not our faith in him.

    I did not add anything to the text, I simply make a logical conclusion based on text evidence.

    Giving us an eternal punishment is to forsake us. But GOD will never forsake us(according to David and many others), therefore hell cannot be a forever punishment.

    Due to the fact that David states that GOD will not forsake us, and that Jesus’s message is about forgiveness for all sinners, it is logical to believe that David’s statements about “eternal punishment” are simply an exaggeration or a figure of speech representing a long punishment(but not necessarily a eternal one).

    Yes in psalm David thanks GOD for rebuking the other nations, but he also states that GOD will never people who seek him. Therefore if we reach out to GOD in hell he will save us from it.

    Jesus died so that all sins will be washed off the earth, not to stop humans from sinning completely. Yes people still sin, but because of Jesus’s sacrifice the sins are immediately washed clean of them.

    The new covenant is largely about forgiveness. Jesus’s message was all about loving GOD and our neighbors as much as we love our selves and forgiving others. Jesus did not proclaim anything about an eternal punishment, but an eternal love and forgiveness. He did not come to condemn sinners, he came to save them all.

    John was telling the pharressies and saddases about how Jesus would cleans people of sin, but he never said anything about Jesus casting anyone into hell. And nowhere in that entire text is that hinted either.

  244. on 02 Jul 2014 at 2:32 am 244.the messenger said …

    I made some errors. Sorry. Here is the corrected version.

    260.freddies_dead, those verses speak of GOD’s loyalty to us, not our faith in him.

    I did not add anything to the text, I simply made a logical conclusion based on text evidence.

    Giving us an eternal punishment is to forsake us. But GOD will never forsake us(according to David and many others), therefore hell cannot be am eternal punishment.

    Due to the fact that David states that GOD will not forsake us, and that Jesus’s message is about forgiveness for all sinners(1 Timothy 1:15), it is logical to believe that David’s statements about “eternal punishment” are simply an exaggeration or a figure of speech representing a long punishment(but not necessarily a eternal one).

    Yes in Psalm 9 David thanks GOD for rebuking the other nations, but he also states that GOD will never forsake people who seek him. Therefore if we reach out to GOD, in hell or anywhere, he will save us from it.

    Jesus died so that all sins will be washed off the earth, not to stop humans from sinning completely. Yes people still sin, but because of Jesus’s sacrifice we are immediately washed clean of them.

    The new covenant is largely about forgiveness. Jesus’s message was all about loving GOD and our neighbors as much as we love our selves and forgiving others. Jesus did not proclaim anything about an eternal punishment, but an eternal love and forgiveness. He did not come to condemn sinners, he came to save them all.

    John was telling the pharressies and saddases about how Jesus would cleans people of sin, but he never said anything about Jesus casting anyone into hell. And nowhere in that entire text is that hinted either.

  245. on 02 Jul 2014 at 2:35 am 245.alex said …

    “I did not add anything to the text, I simply make a logical conclusion based on text evidence.”

    and where did your motherfucking ass find the text evidence that made you conclude “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her…”?

    and where did your motherfucking ass find the text evidence that made you conclude “if you have a glass of salt water and you pour more water in(fresh water), it does not change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry”?

    cite the verses you dumb motherfucker. do it because your disciple “hor” needs you to live up to your hero status.

  246. on 02 Jul 2014 at 4:12 am 246.the messenger said …

    260.freddies_dead, the following are some reasons and information that leads me to believe in GOD.

    First and foremost, my great-grandfather (and his brother), his son my grandfather, my grandmother, and their son my father. As an early Irish immigrant to America my grandfather grew up very poor and poverty stricken, but at least he had family, but not for long because shortly after their arrival to America his parents died in a car accident. Soon after their deaths my grandfather (at the age of 12) and his younger brother (age 8) were going to be put into a foster home. Fearing for his brother, my grandfather and his brother ran away from the orphanage and lived on the streets for the next 10 years. What got them through it all was their bond as brothers and their faith in the almighty.

    After my Great grandfather earned enough money to buy a house for him and his brother, he got married and had a son(my grandfather). My grandfather got married to a polish woman named Rita(my grandmother), and they had 2 sons(one is my father) and 3 daughters. Life was good for them and their Catholic faith grew. But then my grandmother became very ill with a brain tumor and many other medical issues that was slowly killing her. Both my grandfather and father witnessed her suffering until she became a invalid and they had to unplug all of the devices keeping her alive soon after. Most people would have gone off the deep end and the family would have fallen, but they kept their faith in GOD and it bound them together as a family and now we are stronger than ever.

    To look upon the lives of my father, grandfather and great grandfather and say that the faith that got them through it all is actually false would be completely insane. To hold a family together through all that pain would take more than a human force. I believe that GOD is real and that he got my family through it.

  247. on 02 Jul 2014 at 4:20 am 247.the messenger said …

    comment continued…..

    In 13 October 1917, 30,000 to 100,000 people(theists and atheists alike) gathered near Fátima, Portugal and witnessed a foretold miracle in which a large sphere of light appeared in the sky and crashed down into the ground nearby. None of the witnesses denied that it happened.

  248. on 02 Jul 2014 at 4:38 am 248.the messenger said …

    Comment continued….

    I realize that there is controversy over what was seen in Portugal. Some claimed to see just the light, but others(including atheists that are now converts) claim to have seen Mary, Jesus, joseph, or the entire holy family. I personal believe that what appeared was a combination of all of those things and that some people honed in on the first things that they saw happening.

    Dr. Eben Alexander ( well renowned neurosurgeon ) documented an afterlife experience that he had in which he left his body and saw his body in the hospital and also went to heaven. Here is a quote from him. “Critics have maintained that my near-death experience, like similar experiences others before me have claimed, was a brain-based delusion cobbled together by my synapses only after they had somehow recovered from the blistering weeklong attack. [...] I also experienced that transitional period, when my mind began to regain consciousness: I remember a vivid paranoid nightmare in which my wife and doctors were trying to kill me, and I was only saved from certain death by a ninja couple after being pushed from a 60-story cancer hospital in south Florida. But that period of disorientation and delusion had absolutely nothing to do with what happened to me before my cortex began to recover: the period, that is, when it was shut down and incapable of supporting consciousness at all. During that period, I experienced something very similar to what countless other people who have undergone near-death experiences have witnessed: the transition to a realm beyond the physical, and a vast broadening of my consciousness. The only real difference between my experience and those others is that my brain was, essentially, deader than theirs.”

  249. on 02 Jul 2014 at 4:48 am 249.the messenger said …

    Fred, just incase this comes up in the debate, I do not support the literal interpretation of the creation story or Noah as literal. The catholic church and countless Rabbis also oppose the literal interpretation of those stories.

    P.S., the parts of genesis regarding Abraham(father of the Jews and Samaritans) are literal.

  250. on 02 Jul 2014 at 11:34 am 250.alex said …

    “I do not support the literal interpretation of the creation story or Noah as literal.”

    “the parts of genesis regarding Abraham(father of the Jews and Samaritans) are literal.”

    after all the veneer is stripped away, the messenger’s distilled beliefs lay bare. he and him alone, is the lone interpreter of what parts of the bible are literal. he cites that the catholic church and rabbis oppose the literal interpretation of those stories, but he, the messenger, motherfucker, get’s to say which stories are literal. that’s why none of these motherfuckers can get their interpretation straight. this is literal, this is not, bleh, motherfucking bleh. face it, bitches, the whole story shit is just that, crap. step back even more, messenger’s/hor’s god is the real deal, muslims say allah, scientologists say infinity, what a crock.

    here’s your twin piles of shit: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS – hor’s, http://goo.gl/7fbnA4 – messenger’s

  251. on 02 Jul 2014 at 11:41 am 251.alex said …

    248.the messenger said …

    having messenger’s ass handed to him numerous times, messenger desperately tries one more time, by pathetically posting his testimonial. i did this, this happened to me, i witnessed this, living a lie. please, please, listen to me, wahhh, motherfucking waaah.

    delusional bitch, you’re gonna die. just like the rest of us. quit your shit. not content with your delusion that i’m going to hell? must you keep posting your bullshit here? well, bring it, motherfucker. i will continue to repudiate your motherfucking, ass. let the readers decide.

    here’s your entire pile of shit collection: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    messenger’s favorite quote: “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her”

    despicable bitch, motherfucker.

  252. on 02 Jul 2014 at 2:48 pm 252.freddies_dead said …

    241.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Lol!!!!

    Nothing cutier than atheist theologians!!

    And there’s nothing sadder than a pathetic liar for Jesus such as yourself.

    It is precious and it is hilarious!! Really! They don”t believe…yet….they take time to do hermeneutics for believers. How absolutely adorable of them :)

    I would ask whether you understand that hermeneutics is required to interpret any text – not just your specific book of myths – but you’d probably lie in response.

    And of course you wouldn’t approve of me forming an opinion from a plain reading of the text, because doing so shows the generally incoherent and occasionally horrific nature of your book of myths.

  253. on 02 Jul 2014 at 3:42 pm 253.freddies_dead said …

    244.the messenger said …

    I made some errors. Sorry. Here is the corrected version.

    260.freddies_dead, those verses speak of GOD’s loyalty to us, not our faith in him.

    To which verses are you referring to here?

    I did not add anything to the text, I simply made a logical conclusion based on text evidence.

    Where in the text evidence does it say that only the bad parts of people will be cast into Hell while the good bits get to reside in Heaven? The answer, of course, is nowhere. Instead the text says quite clearly that you get sent to one place or the other and that’s where you stay for the rest of eternity.

    Giving us an eternal punishment is to forsake us. But GOD will never forsake us(according to David and many others), therefore hell cannot be am eternal punishment.

    God hasn’t forsaken you to Hell. He has quite deliberately planned for you to go there and mantains Hell for your eternal punishment.

    Due to the fact that David states that GOD will not forsake us, and that Jesus’s message is about forgiveness for all sinners(1 Timothy 1:15), it is logical to believe that David’s statements about “eternal punishment” are simply an exaggeration or a figure of speech representing a long punishment(but not necessarily a eternal one).

    Your conclusion may fit with your premises but your premises don’t reflect the actual texts that they’re based upon. There’s no exaggeration from David and Jesus’ message is quite plain in that you should repent and trust in God before you face judgement (i.e. before you die) as afterwards is too late. You get judged and you spend the rest of eternity wherever God decides you belong.

    Yes in Psalm 9 David thanks GOD for rebuking the other nations, but he also states that GOD will never forsake people who seek him. Therefore if we reach out to GOD, in hell or anywhere, he will save us from it.

    Day of your judgement, messy, when is it? According to the Bible it’s when you die. That’s when you no longer have to seek God. He’s right there, following His plan and sending you to Heaven or Hell accordingly. What’s the point of seeking God when you’ve already found Him and He’s judged you and found you wanting? Exactly how will you seek God as you spend eternity wailing and gnashing your teeth?

    Jesus died so that all sins will be washed off the earth, not to stop humans from sinning completely. Yes people still sin, but because of Jesus’s sacrifice we are immediately washed clean of them.

    The new covenant is largely about forgiveness. Jesus’s message was all about loving GOD and our neighbors as much as we love our selves and forgiving others. Jesus did not proclaim anything about an eternal punishment, but an eternal love and forgiveness. He did not come to condemn sinners, he came to save them all.

    A get out of Hell free card. How convenient. Of course your “bits to Hell, bits to Heaven” theory doesn’t fit with this claim. If you’re washed clean of sin each time then there’s nothing to go to Hell … not even bits. You don’t appear to have thought this through.

    The part about eternal love and forgiveness only makes sense if no-one goes to Hell since Jesus was crucified. Is that your claim? That no-one goes to Hell any more since Jesus paid the price?

    You also say Jesus never proclaimed anything about eternal punishment and yet, in Matthew 18:8 (one of the verses you’ve relied upon) He states that you’ll be thrown into the eternal fire.

    John was telling the pharressies and saddases about how Jesus would cleans people of sin, but he never said anything about Jesus casting anyone into hell. And nowhere in that entire text is that hinted either.

    Just what do you think a baptism by fire actually is, messy? The context is given in Matthew 3:7-12. The Pharisees and Sadducees had come to avoid God’s wrath only for John to warn them that God would not be fooled by their insincerity. In verse 10 there’s the bad fruit cast into the fire by God and in 12 there’s Jesus purging the floor, gathering the good wheat to Him and throwing the chaff into the unquenchable fire. That’s how Jesus would cleanse the sin – by throwing the sinners (chaff) into Hell.

  254. on 02 Jul 2014 at 3:52 pm 254.freddies_dead said …

    246.the messenger said …

    260.freddies_dead, the following are some reasons and information that leads me to believe in GOD.

    First and foremost, my great-grandfather (and his brother), his son my grandfather, my grandmother, and their son my father. As an early Irish immigrant to America my grandfather grew up very poor and poverty stricken, but at least he had family, but not for long because shortly after their arrival to America his parents died in a car accident. Soon after their deaths my grandfather (at the age of 12) and his younger brother (age 8) were going to be put into a foster home. Fearing for his brother, my grandfather and his brother ran away from the orphanage and lived on the streets for the next 10 years. What got them through it all was their bond as brothers and their faith in the almighty.

    After my Great grandfather earned enough money to buy a house for him and his brother, he got married and had a son(my grandfather). My grandfather got married to a polish woman named Rita(my grandmother), and they had 2 sons(one is my father) and 3 daughters. Life was good for them and their Catholic faith grew. But then my grandmother became very ill with a brain tumor and many other medical issues that was slowly killing her. Both my grandfather and father witnessed her suffering until she became a invalid and they had to unplug all of the devices keeping her alive soon after. Most people would have gone off the deep end and the family would have fallen, but they kept their faith in GOD and it bound them together as a family and now we are stronger than ever.

    To look upon the lives of my father, grandfather and great grandfather and say that the faith that got them through it all is actually false would be completely insane. To hold a family together through all that pain would take more than a human force. I believe that GOD is real and that he got my family through it.

    A loving God wouldn’t have made your family suffer in the first place, messy. What you describe here is exactly what we’d expect if there is no God. Things happen to people. Sometimes they’re good things, sometimes they’re bad things. Sometimes a family deals with it, sometimes they don’t – do you think there aren’t families who have suffered similar but that couldn’t make it through as a family. Guess what, they’ll simply say it was God’s will that they split apart. They’ll make new bonds and claim their God did it all for a reason. Even though, like your story, it’s a story that fits perfectly without a God.

    I’m not going to revisit the so called Fatima miracle, we’ve been through it already. I’m not impressed.

    As for Alexander – his story doesn’t hold water (just look at the criticism and reaction section from Wiki).

  255. on 02 Jul 2014 at 5:52 pm 255.the messenger said …

    270.alex, I am not a lone interpreter. The catholic church does not interpret the noah or adam and eve story as literal either.

    Alex, get you head out of your butt and see the light of day.

  256. on 02 Jul 2014 at 5:54 pm 256.the messenger said …

    271.alex, once again you have taken something out of context in order to deceive people from it’s true meaning.

    I pity you.

  257. on 02 Jul 2014 at 6:53 pm 257.the messenger said …

    273.freddies_dead, my apologies. I should have labeled them. My bad.

    When I said “260.freddies_dead, those verses speak of GOD’s loyalty to us, not our faith in him” I was responding to your statement(“Those passages were spoken to living men, urging them to be faithful and fear not because God would stand by them as they went out into Jordan.”) and I was referring to these verses Deuteronomy 31:6, Deuteronomy 31:8.

    I explained already that since “fire” is often associated with hell, and that GOD will never forsake us, it is logical to conclude that the meaning of Jesus’s “cut off foot and cast into the fire” metaphor means that our sinful parts “the foot” will be cut from us and cast into hell.

    To forsake someone is to leave them. If GOD leaves us to burn forever then he has forsaken us. Since GOD will never forsake us he will never let our punishment be forever.

    I agree that Jesus wants us to repent before we are judged, but in the book of revelations GOD will Judge all of us, and if we seek him he will save us(revelation 3:20), even if we are in hell(due to the fact that hell is not excluded in that verse).

    It is not a “get out of jail free card”. Simply because we are clean of sins doesn’t mean that we won’t get punished(either in this life or the next) for sinning.

    Matthew 18:8 states that our foot(a metaphor for our bad qualities, as I explained) will be cast into the eternal fire.

    In Matthew 3:7-12 John was telling them that they would be put into hell if their repentance was not sincere, but he also explained that Jesus(the calf) would burn( like in the temple sacrifices needed for repentance in the old covenant). It could also mean burning with the holy spirit(which is not a painful fire).

  258. on 02 Jul 2014 at 7:00 pm 258.the messenger said …

    274.freddies_dead, GOD new that those hard times would strengthen my family. He knew in the long run that the suffering was necessary to make my family the strong and loving people that they are today. Without that suffering we would not be as strong as we are now.

    The reason that other families did not stay together is because they did not seek GOD and did not keep the faith. Or they were being punished for their own sins.

    Lastly, I still stand by the “miracle of the sun”.

  259. on 02 Jul 2014 at 7:31 pm 259.alex said …

    “I am not a lone interpreter.”

    then why don’t you cite the church and others instead of righteously, repeatedly saying shit, lika “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her”?

    oops, my bad. this is your original lone interpretation, ain’t it? no? cite it then, you dumb motherfucker.

    call me a liar all you want, but you can’t run away from your archives here: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    if you want to compare notes, here’s hor’s: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  260. on 02 Jul 2014 at 11:54 pm 260.alex said …

    “…you have taken something out of context in order to deceive people from it’s true meaning.”

    which part of this pile of shit of yours http://goo.gl/7fbnA4? did i take out of context?

    this “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her”? you dumbass, no matter how you try to spin it by claiming out of context, your post was and is still, toxic. here’s the entirety:

    “623.alex, if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage) and serve her for the rest of his life.

    This is not so much a punishment, but a chance for redemption.”

    did my quote change its meaning? fuck, motherfucking, no. that’s why you are indeed, the dumb motherfucker.

  261. on 03 Jul 2014 at 12:11 am 261.alex said …

    here’s another gem of your’s that somebody pointed out.

    “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.”

    is this taken out of context? do i need to explain why this stupid ass, post of yours, validates your moniker, “dumbass motherfucker”? i bet you can’t find any arguments against your stoopid ass post, can you? of course, as you’ve demonstrated before, you’re too damn lazy to even try to look it up, hence your previous ignorance on “cubits”, which you looked up after getting embarrassed into doing it.

    any xtian homies here, or anywhere else agree with the dumbass messenger’s post on the ark animals? chirp? chirp?

    see?, that’s why you’re not qualified to interpret anything, you dumb motherfucker.

  262. on 03 Jul 2014 at 12:50 am 262.alex said …

    congrats messenger, more and more people are reading your shit collection at: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    they’re even writing me about their favorite quotes of yours. here’s one that was pointed out.

    “P.S. in the bible, GOD only killed bad people, like in the flood.”

    i won’t even clue you in. you’re so dumb, you can’t even see the the stupid in the quote, can’t you? out of context? don’t think so, here goes the entire post:

    “924.alex, you are so stupid.

    People have to leave the earth so day. Death of the human body is nessessary. P.S. in the bible, GOD only killed bad people, like in the flood.

    The burnt flesh is animal flesh. It is just like the smell of a barbecue. What is bad about that.

    GOD fears no one.”, but the stupid ass can’t solve chariots of iron? har!

    stoopid, dumbass, messenger, spreading his own personal version of his bullshit gospel.

  263. on 03 Jul 2014 at 1:44 am 263.the messenger said …

    279.alex, Dude, I haven’t talked about that quote in quite a while. You are the one that keeps bringing it up you idiot.

  264. on 03 Jul 2014 at 1:46 am 264.the messenger said …

    279.alex, I am not righteously saying anything. I am simply spreading GOD’s teachings.

    You have problems.

  265. on 03 Jul 2014 at 1:48 am 265.the messenger said …

    281.alex, that was simply a theory that some protestants believe. I am a catholic. The catholic church and my self do not support the literal interpretation of Noah or Adam and eve.

  266. on 03 Jul 2014 at 1:53 am 266.the messenger said …

    282.alex, are you on drugs or something?

  267. on 03 Jul 2014 at 2:02 am 267.alex said …

    “The catholic church and my self do not support the literal interpretation….”

    that makes you the self appointed interpreter.
    according to your pile of shit: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    you’re quoted with:

    “..my interpretation is not just somewhat catholic..”

    “My interpretation of the bible is trustworthy…”

    “my interpretation says that salvation can be reached outside of the church…”

    “The true way to interpret it is as a complete text…”

    shall i continue? i ain’t making this up, look it up in your bullshit collection at: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    you, in your own mind, are the annointed one and only interpreter. no? then why not fall in line with the rest of the catholic shit and humbly state that “the catholic church interprets” instead of your “my interpretation” or “the true way to interpret”.

    but you won’t, because you’re a dumbass motherfucker and i will continue to call out your bullshit as long as i work from home and i see your stinky drivel fucking up this blog.

    dumb, motherfucker.

  268. on 03 Jul 2014 at 2:05 am 268.alex said …

    “alex, are you on drugs or something?”

    says, the dumbass motherfucker, that said:

    “I have also seen heaven my self and it is amazing.”

    it’s all here in messenger’s stinky pile of shit: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    if you’re not on drugs, what’s your excuse? shit for brains? dumbass, motherfucker.

  269. on 03 Jul 2014 at 2:09 am 269.alex said …

    “You have problems.”

    says the self professed catholic that even cherry picks from his own religion’s delusional basket. why else would the motherfucker keep referring to his own interpretation?

    this is a big problem:
    “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage)”

    that’s why you’ll never live it down, bitch, motherfucker.

    it’s just typical content from your shit book: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

  270. on 03 Jul 2014 at 2:12 am 270.alex said …

    “Dude, I haven’t talked about that quote in quite a while. You are the one that keeps bringing it up you idiot.”

    and you would love for me to shut up about it and let you wave your righteous bullshit flag all over the place?

    oppositto, mon friendo, motherfucko. here’s your book again: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    check it out. it’s blessed. it magically updates itself with your latest bullshit.

  271. on 03 Jul 2014 at 2:44 am 271.the messenger said …

    287.alex, dude I am a catholic, therefore I share the same interpretation as they do. I did not self interpret any of this you idiot. I am simply spreading the catholic interpretation.

  272. on 03 Jul 2014 at 2:46 am 272.the messenger said …

    287.alex, when I said “..my interpretation is not just somewhat catholic..” I was referring to the corrupt medieval catholic church. I am a part of the modern one, and therefore their interpretation is my interpretation.

  273. on 03 Jul 2014 at 2:48 am 273.the messenger said …

    288.alex, I already told you IT WAS JUST A DREAM, YOU IDIOTIC PARROT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  274. on 03 Jul 2014 at 2:52 am 274.the messenger said …

    289.alex, If a man rapes a woman he must serve her for the rest of his life and bind(marry; as in a joining together, but not in holy matrimony) himself to her.

    She gets to punish the man that wronged her. HOW IS THAT BAD?

  275. on 03 Jul 2014 at 2:53 am 275.the messenger said …

    289.alex, I am not going to feed the troll(alex) any more. Like a rat without food, he will starve from lack of attention.

  276. on 03 Jul 2014 at 3:29 am 276.alex said …

    “I am simply spreading the catholic interpretation.”

    which part of the catholic manifesto says this?

    “289.alex, If a man rapes a woman he must serve her for the rest of his life and bind(marry; as in a joining together, but not in holy matrimony) himself to her.”

    you’re a lying bitch, motherfucker. it’s all here: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

  277. on 03 Jul 2014 at 3:32 am 277.alex said …

    “I am a part of the modern one, and therefore their interpretation is my interpretation.”

    which part of the catholic interpretation says this?
    “289.alex, If a man rapes a woman he must serve her for the rest of his life and bind(marry; as in a joining together, but not in holy matrimony) himself to her.”

    or do you just reserve this for yourself and your sexual fantasies? you can’t spin it can’t you? it’s all part of your collection http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

  278. on 03 Jul 2014 at 3:36 am 278.alex said …

    “288.alex, I already told you IT WAS JUST A DREAM”

    and which parts of your bullshit collection at http://goo.gl/7fbnA4 are supposed to be dreams and which ones are literal?

    you just posted this a few minutes ago and it confirms that you’re a dumbass, motherfucker.

    “289.alex, If a man rapes a woman he must serve her for the rest of his life and bind(marry; as in a joining together, but not in holy matrimony) himself to her.
    She gets to punish the man that wronged her. HOW IS THAT BAD?”

    as usual, your book magically grows. why not, your bullshit is like fertilizer. check it out http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

  279. on 03 Jul 2014 at 3:46 am 279.alex said …

    “289.alex, I am not going to feed the troll(alex) any more.”

    no, motherfucker. you can’t help yourself. you persist in trying to spread your vile. even with the sparse audience, you can’t help it? your intoxicating bullshit religion compels you. why not? it’s all prearranged, set in motion by your omniscient god? yah?

    but as long as i’m working on a computer, my bullshit alert app notifies me whenever you post your crap.

    count on my sharp rebuke to your motherfucking ass.

    your book will always be posted here as a stark reminder that you’re a piece of shit with no credibility whatsoever. here it is again: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

  280. on 03 Jul 2014 at 3:52 am 280.alex said …

    “YOU IDIOTIC PARROT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    the best you can do? you no likey your book: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    it’s a horrible reality check ain’t it? you try and try to be righteous and say all the right things and this little jewel of yours just makes it all bull doesn’t it?

    your words:

    “289.alex, If a man rapes a woman he must serve her for the rest of his life and bind(marry; as in a joining together, but not in holy matrimony) himself to her.
    She gets to punish the man that wronged her.

    HOW IS THAT BAD?”

    ironically, about the rape shit, you still don’t get why nobody is speaking up on your behalf????

  281. on 07 Jul 2014 at 12:37 pm 281.freddies_dead said …

    257.the messenger said …

    273.freddies_dead, my apologies. I should have labeled them. My bad.

    When I said “260.freddies_dead, those verses speak of GOD’s loyalty to us, not our faith in him” I was responding to your statement(“Those passages were spoken to living men, urging them to be faithful and fear not because God would stand by them as they went out into Jordan.”) and I was referring to these verses Deuteronomy 31:6, Deuteronomy 31:8.

    And? You originally touted the verses as evidence that God will never forsake people and I pointed out that the promise was that He would not forsake them in their journey to Jordan – you have to add to the text to extrapolate that out to never. I’ve also pointed out that God doesn’t forsake you to Hell, He sends you there on purpose as punishment for the sins you failed to repent for. He hasn’t forgotten about you. He knows you’re there … forever … and that somehow brings Him glory.

    I explained already that since “fire” is often associated with hell, and that GOD will never forsake us, it is logical to conclude that the meaning of Jesus’s “cut off foot and cast into the fire” metaphor means that our sinful parts “the foot” will be cut from us and cast into hell.

    Again you’re reading into the words something that isn’t there. The verse doesn’t say that the foot (bad part) is cast into Hell. It says that you should cut off that which would cause you to sin – that’s you, the whole of you that’s the sinner – or risk going to Hell … forever.

    To forsake someone is to leave them. If GOD leaves us to burn forever then he has forsaken us. Since GOD will never forsake us he will never let our punishment be forever.

    To forsake is to abandon you. As I’ve said, God hasn’t abandoned you in Hell, He’s judged you as deserving of Hell, placed you there and withheld His presence accordingly.

    I agree that Jesus wants us to repent before we are judged, but in the book of revelations GOD will Judge all of us, and if we seek him he will save us(revelation 3:20), even if we are in hell(due to the fact that hell is not excluded in that verse).

    The reason that Hell isn’t specifically included is because, by that point, it’s painfully obvious that Hell is an eternal punishment. Anyone who has been sent there is automatically precluded. I’ll repeat, explain how you’d be able to seek God whilst being tortured eternally? And explain why you’d do any seeking when you’d know to your eternal cost that when you found Him last time He sent you to Hell?

    It is not a “get out of jail free card”. Simply because we are clean of sins doesn’t mean that we won’t get punished(either in this life or the next) for sinning.

    This makes absolutely no sense. You said that Jesus’ death on the cross meant you were washed clean of sins immediately after sinning. How can anyone who has been washed clean of their sins be judged unworthy of Heaven?

    Matthew 18:8 states that our foot(a metaphor for our bad qualities, as I explained) will be cast into the eternal fire.

    Is simply doesn’t. It says that you should cut off your foot if it causes you to sin – the metaphor is more like “you should stop drinking wine if it causes you to commit adultery”. It is the sin that will stop you going to Heaven but the behaviour itself isn’t cast into Hell – it is after all merely a description of your actions – it either stops and you get to go to Heaven or it continues and you go straight to Hell … forever.

    In Matthew 3:7-12 John was telling them that they would be put into hell if their repentance was not sincere, but he also explained that Jesus(the calf) would burn( like in the temple sacrifices needed for repentance in the old covenant). It could also mean burning with the holy spirit(which is not a painful fire).

    The Holy Spirit reference is the judgement, the fire is the punishment for those that come up short. We see portents of this in Malachi 3 and 4 when the Lord Of Hosts foretells of the prophet who would pave the way for Jesus’ coming. i.e. For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall (Malachi 4:1-2).

  282. on 07 Jul 2014 at 12:38 pm 282.freddies_dead said …

    258.the messenger said …

    274.freddies_dead, GOD new that those hard times would strengthen my family. He knew in the long run that the suffering was necessary to make my family the strong and loving people that they are today. Without that suffering we would not be as strong as we are now.

    The reason that other families did not stay together is because they did not seek GOD and did not keep the faith. Or they were being punished for their own sins.

    And there we have it. It’s God if you suffer and make it through and it’s God if you suffer and don’t make it. I’m sure it’s also God if you don’t suffer and make it through and … surprise, surprise … it’s God if you don’t suffer and still don’t make it through. Just like if there’s no God.

    It also shows your God to be a complete arsehole if, despite Him being omnipotent, He can’t think of a better way to make people strong than making them suffer unimaginable pain. Especially when He seems to be able to do it for others.

    Lastly, I still stand by the “miracle of the sun”.

    You can stand by it all you like but, without any actual evidence to show that something actually happened, you and your imaginary miracle aren’t impressing anyone.

  283. on 07 Jul 2014 at 1:30 pm 283.alex said …

    go ahead, hor. say that atheists have no business interpreting the gospel.

    in your own mind, you’re convinced that to qualify in the business of theological fabrication, one must totally inhale/immerse/believe in the holy bullspirit.

    hor’s sig: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  284. on 07 Jul 2014 at 2:54 pm 284.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    alex

    Hey baby! I luv you man. You are a paradigm of atheist virtue and a lighthouse to which we all should point our kids to emulate! We all swoon at your grasp of the English language and you ability to make it come alive with flowery elegance.

    Freddie-Mouse!

    LOL!!!, I luv you too man.

    So, you have a difficult time with the concept of a God who can create and sustain an entire universe being involved in the everyday lives of human beings, living on a blue dot, tucked away in a small solar system, on an insignificant galaxy in the tremendously huge universe?

    lol!!!!, oh yeah! That is way too difficult….lol!!!!

    Be nice fellas!

  285. on 07 Jul 2014 at 4:34 pm 285.alex said …

    “…a paradigm of atheist virtue and a lighthouse…”

    still trying to stick that atheist flag bearer shit on me? what a crock and of course it doesn’t work. repeat after me, moron. atheist common denominator is your bullshit god.

    “..swoon at your grasp of the English language..”

    the way i curse your motherfucking ass? you likey? welcome very mucho, asshole.

    however, your book at: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS, represents the pinnacle of bullshit. read it while holding your nose.

  286. on 08 Jul 2014 at 1:12 am 286.the messenger said …

    301.freddies_dead, dude you are going round in circles, like a city slicker lost in the woods.

    Deuteronomy 31:6, Deuteronomy 31:8 don’t say anything about a journey to Jordan, as you claim. Those verses are a part of the covenant made between the Jews after their release from Egypt.

    The interpretation of the “foot and fire metaphor” that I present is based on vast amounts of text evidence that I presented on this site. The interpretations that you presented are based on a plane reading of the verse or a rejection or ignoring text evidence.

    Psalm 136 speaks many times of GOD’s love being “steadfast” and “forever”. If GOD loves us forever, and his love is steadfast, then he would never send us to hell forever. He would only send us there for a finite amount of time.

    I agree that his judgment is eternal. When GOD judges us he judges that we have sinned and that we can be forgiven and achieve salvation if we pay for our sins and desire to become better people.

  287. on 08 Jul 2014 at 1:17 am 287.the messenger said …

    302.freddies_dead, everything that happens in our lives, both good and bad, happen in order to bring us to moral perfection and help us achieve salvation.

    No one said that the road to salvation was going to be an easy one. Remember, when a person works to acquire something he treasures it more than if it was simply given to him.

  288. on 08 Jul 2014 at 11:07 am 288.freddies_dead said …

    286.the messenger said …

    301.freddies_dead, dude you are going round in circles, like a city slicker lost in the woods.

    Deuteronomy 31:6, Deuteronomy 31:8 don’t say anything about a journey to Jordan, as you claim. Those verses are a part of the covenant made between the Jews after their release from Egypt.

    Lol, seriously? Have you not read the rest of Deuteronomy? In the very first verse Moses tells them that God has told him he will not cross into Jordan but that they should accept Joshua as their leader to follow God into the promised lands.

    The interpretation of the “foot and fire metaphor” that I present is based on vast amounts of text evidence that I presented on this site.

    To what “vast amounts of text evidence” are you referring? I’ve dealt with the few verses you’ve provided and shown that none of them support your claims unless you add to the texts. If you have a verse that categorically states that only the sinful parts of you go to Hell then why haven’t you presented it? Why do you insist on adding to other verses to try and support your claim?

    The interpretations that you presented are based on a plane reading of the verse or a rejection or ignoring text evidence.

    There is nothing in the texts for me to reject or ignore. Your interpretation requires you to add to the texts. Why should we accept your eisegesis over an exegesis of the texts?

    Psalm 136 speaks many times of GOD’s love being “steadfast” and “forever”.

    Not in the version of Psalm 136 I’m reading – the KJV. That repeats the refrain “for his mercy endureth for ever”. Nothing about love being steadfast.

    If GOD loves us forever, and his love is steadfast, then he would never send us to hell forever. He would only send us there for a finite amount of time.

    A God who loved people for ever would never send them to Hell, even for a moment, in fact a God who loved people would never have created a Hell to send them to in the first place, but we’re not dealing with a coherent narrative here.

    The Bible likes to credit your God with plenty of contradictory attributes – being all merciful and all just for example. An all merciful God wouldn’t send anyone to Hell whilst an all just God would send everyone (as apparently everyone has fallen short). To try and get round this problem the Bible claims God sent Himself in the form of His own Son to be sacrificed back to Himself … and yet, whilst you claim that this means your sins are immediately washed clean, you also claim that you’re still due some punishment when you die.

    It’s logically incoherent from start to finish (just like your argument). It’s the product of ignorance. People who were trying to make sense of the world by assigning some sort of supernatural agency to things they didn’t fully understand.

    I agree that his judgment is eternal.

    Then why do you claim that your sentence to Hell would be any less eternal? The verses you’ve quoted haven’t supported your claim so I get the feeling this is something you want to believe because the alternative is too horrific for you to contemplate. An admirable motive but one doomed by your adherence to a book written, codified and edited by wholly fallible men. You cannot find the verses you need to support your wishes so you add to ones that you think are close enough. It might be enough to fool yourself but it’s not going to pull the wool over any other eyes.

    When GOD judges us he judges that we have sinned and that we can be forgiven and achieve salvation if we pay for our sins and desire to become better people.

    The message in the Bible is that you should repent and find forgiveness to achieve salvation before you die, as it is on that day that you will receive your final judgement – eternal bliss or eternal torment.

  289. on 08 Jul 2014 at 11:10 am 289.freddies_dead said …

    287.the messenger said …

    302.freddies_dead, everything that happens in our lives, both good and bad, happen in order to bring us to moral perfection and help us achieve salvation.

    What about when all those events don’t bring us to moral perfection and salvation isn’t achieved? Were those events still designed to “bring us to moral perfection and help us achieve salvation”? The failure calls your God’s omnipotence into question. Or maybe the events have different purposes for different people? Which gives the lie to your original statement.

    Quite simply shit just happens. You have absolutely no evidence that a supernatural agency exists and is intimately involved in our personal lives. Instead you take every event – no matter how contradictory – and ascribe it to your God. It makes your God meaningless.

    No one said that the road to salvation was going to be an easy one. Remember, when a person works to acquire something he treasures it more than if it was simply given to him.

    So a child given sight (through the removal of cataracts) would treasure it more if they’d had to work for the surgery? Not likely. Once again your oversimplified generalisation is dashed to pieces by the rocks of reality.

  290. on 08 Jul 2014 at 11:14 am 290.freddies_dead said …

    284.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Freddie-Mouse!

    LOL!!!, I luv you too man.

    So, you have a difficult time with the concept of a God who can create and sustain an entire universe being involved in the everyday lives of human beings, living on a blue dot, tucked away in a small solar system, on an insignificant galaxy in the tremendously huge universe?

    lol!!!!, oh yeah! That is way too difficult….lol!!!!

    Be nice fellas!

    Nope, just like you I can imagine such a concept easily enough. However, I recognise that this is just my imagination and that the concept has no referents in reality, whilst you’re a demonstrable liar who will claim to have evidence for your God but then refuse to present it.

  291. on 08 Jul 2014 at 9:22 pm 291.alex said …

    “The interpretation of the “foot and fire metaphor” that I present is based on vast amounts of text evidence that I presented on this site.”

    every other motherfucker like to claim to be the sole biblical interpreter. it’s funny enough that the bullshit bible even needs interpretation, but it’s even funnier that all the dumbass xtians cannot even begin to agree on how to interpret the damn thing.

    that’s why motherfuckers like messenger, love to crow about proclaiming that this is the way it’s supposed to be. even when confronted with contradictory text, they squirm about and excusify the damn thing.

    just like the xtian book of morals, the universal bible interpration doesn’t exist. green light for you, messenger motherfucker. carry on with your bullshit, ya beeeyatch.

    go ahead hor. proclaim again that atheists cannot be bullshit theologians. only xtians need apply.

    this is the vast amounts of text that the dumbass messenger has accumulated: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    difficult to wade thru the bullshit, ain’t it?

  292. on 09 Jul 2014 at 12:57 am 292.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “you I can imagine such a concept easily enough.”

    Of course, even the mentality challenged understand the obvious realty of a Creator. Alcoholics deny they are alcoholics and since help is available at an AA group, you should seek out your own AA.

    “evidence for your God but then refuse to present it.”

    Been there done that bought the T-shirt. Your denial of the obvious facts does not make them any less the reality. Step 3 in the Atheist Anonymous handbook….

    lol!!!!!!!

    Hi Alex, luv ya babe!

  293. on 09 Jul 2014 at 1:46 am 293.the messenger said …

    308.freddies_dead, Deuteronomy 31:6, Deuteronomy 31:8 are part of the covenant between the Jews and GOD. The covenant that is to be used once they get into the land of Judea(aka, the land of Israel, later renamed by the romans as Palestine).

    Find a verse that specifically says that humans will be in hell forever.

    Lastly, you shouldn’t be reading a KJVB. That translation is fill of many mistranslations. The Translations that I use are the GNT, GWT, and NRSVCE.

  294. on 09 Jul 2014 at 1:50 am 294.the messenger said …

    309.freddies_dead, the events meant to bring us to salvation and moral perfection will not end until the final judgment.

  295. on 09 Jul 2014 at 2:09 am 295.the messenger said …

    308.freddies_dead, where in my interpretation did I add to the text?

    I found text evidence that supports that the word “fire” was referring to hell, and I found further evidence that suggests the “foot” was referring to bad qualities within us. I also found evidence that suggests the “cutting off” means to get rid of a part of us.

    Lastly, did it ever occur to you that when it says “Eternal Fire” it means that the fire of hell burns forever, but not referring to our time is hell as forever? Remember, those verses only say that the fire is eternal, but it doesn’t say that our time in the fire is eternal. That fire is probably still burning after we leave it.

  296. on 09 Jul 2014 at 2:11 am 296.the messenger said …

    To everyone. I will not be able to respond for three days starting on Thursday, so do not expect a response on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.

  297. on 09 Jul 2014 at 11:49 am 297.alex said …

    “That translation is fill of many mistranslations. The Translations that I use are the GNT, GWT, and NRSVCE.”

    there you have it, folks. the dumbass messenger designates which translations you should use. self appointed the motherfucker is, indeed.

    “I found text evidence that supports that the word “fire” was referring to hell, and I found further…”

    more proof that the dipshit picks and chooses, just like the rest of the dipshits. text evidence, my ass. why not the jesus likeness on the dog’s ass as evidence?

    “…do not expect a response..”?? when did we ever get a response from you? all you’ve given is bull, crap, and shit, as demonstrated by http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    how would you know a bullshit jesus from the real one?

    you’ll just know!

    see we’re not different!

  298. on 09 Jul 2014 at 1:32 pm 298.freddies_dead said …

    292.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “you I can imagine such a concept easily enough.”

    Of course, even the mentality challenged understand the obvious realty of a Creator.

    What obvious reality are you referring to? Surely if it was so obvious you’d be able to point to it as evidence? Instead you just keep imagining your God and expect everyone to accept your delusions as reality.

    Alcoholics deny they are alcoholics and since help is available at an AA group, you should seek out your own AA.

    Coming from the man so in denial that he can see the pyramids, this is easily recognised as projection on your part.

    “evidence for your God but then refuse to present it.”

    Been there done that bought the T-shirt.

    When and where? Because you sure as Hell haven’t done it on this site. Why won’t you tell us where we can find your majestic demonstration of the Christian God’s existence? Or are we supposed to just imagine that you’ve done that too?

    Your denial of the obvious facts does not make them any less the reality. Step 3 in the Atheist Anonymous handbook….

    lol!!!!!!!

    What makes them less real is their imaginary nature, you have no facts let alone any obvious ones, you just have your delusions.

  299. on 09 Jul 2014 at 1:34 pm 299.freddies_dead said …

    293.the messenger said …

    308.freddies_dead, Deuteronomy 31:6, Deuteronomy 31:8 are part of the covenant between the Jews and GOD. The covenant that is to be used once they get into the land of Judea(aka, the land of Israel, later renamed by the romans as Palestine).

    So you’ve changed your mind about it referring to their travels to the promised lands then? About time. However, this is irrelevant to the discussion. Your original claim was that those verses in Deuteronomy said God would never forsake us. They don’t. Instead they explain that God would not forsake them during their journey to the promised lands. Now, I have little doubt that there are verses in the Bible that actually support your original claim (that God will never forsake us) but they’re not to be found in Deuteronomy. They are, however, also irrelevant, as I’ve said several times already. God does not forsake you to Hell, He judges you as worthy of Hell and sends you there deliberately as He planned from the outset.

    Find a verse that specifically says that humans will be in hell forever.

    Daniel 12:1-2 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

    2′s the kicker there – nothing like a bit of “everlasting contempt” to show Hell is eternal.

    Matthew 25:45-46 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

    Good old “everlasting punishment”.

    How about 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

    Good old “everlasting destruction”.

    They liked “everlasting”, as good a way as any to denote eternal.

    Revelation 14:9-11 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

    Oooh, dark. “for ever and ever” huh? Sounds pretty eternal to me.

    Lastly, you shouldn’t be reading a KJVB. That translation is fill of many mistranslations. The Translations that I use are the GNT, GWT, and NRSVCE.

    How do you know they’re mistranslations? Have you translated them yourself from the original manuscripts? I mean surely you read Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek right? Lol, a Holy book that depends on translations to have its message made clear. Yup, that’s the sign of an omnipotent God divinely inspiring alright. I do wonder what evidence you have that one translation is better than another. Did God tell you which one tells His message best? Or do you just prefer the versions you’ve chosen?

  300. on 09 Jul 2014 at 1:35 pm 300.freddies_dead said …

    294.the messenger said …

    309.freddies_dead, the events meant to bring us to salvation and moral perfection will not end until the final judgment.

    Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.

    No doubt there’s probably a verse that contradicts this one. Which of course is your problem not mine. You wouldn’t expect a divinely inspired text to offer up contradictory messages but then there’s absolutely no evidence that the Bible was divinely inspired. In fact the multiple contradictions, lack of internal consistency and general incoherence suggest it is exactly what it is – a book written by many fallible men over a long period of time, mistranslated, edited and revised over and over by other fallible men.

  301. on 09 Jul 2014 at 1:36 pm 301.freddies_dead said …

    295.the messenger said …

    308.freddies_dead, where in my interpretation did I add to the text?

    The bit where you claimed that only the bad bits go to Hell and the bit where you suggest Hell is only part time.

    I found text evidence that supports that the word “fire” was referring to hell,

    No-one disagreed with that.

    and I found further evidence that suggests the “foot” was referring to bad qualities within us.

    No-one argued that the verse wasn’t metaphorical either.

    I also found evidence that suggests the “cutting off” means to get rid of a part of us.

    Also non-contentious but I note you fail to show where your claims are supported. There was no evidence showing the bad qualities are cast into Hell and there’s nothing there to show that Hell is anything less than an eternal sentence.

    Lastly, did it ever occur to you that when it says “Eternal Fire” it means that the fire of hell burns forever, but not referring to our time is hell as forever?

    It has but then the verses don’t support the theory. There are no verses that show humans are able to escape Hell. Only one person does that and that’s Jesus. The whole purpose is to help mark Jesus out as unique. Jesus ascending out of Hell wouldn’t be much of a message if everyone else can do exactly the same thing.

    Remember, those verses only say that the fire is eternal, but it doesn’t say that our time in the fire is eternal. That fire is probably still burning after we leave it.

    I’ll just refer back to the verses from earlier that do say that our time in Hell will be eternal.

  302. on 09 Jul 2014 at 2:46 pm 302.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    ” you’d be able to point to it as evidence?”

    Yep time and time again here, there, in the past in the present, in books, in lecture, in classrooms through logic, through philosophy, through science and then just good ol’ common sense.

    lol!!!!!!! Then there is your obsession with arguing against something you “claim’ does not exist!!

    lol!!!

    Get in an AA chapter and leave the cult. Oh and get your theology from a reputable source not atheist blogs…. Lol!!!!

  303. on 09 Jul 2014 at 10:38 pm 303.alex said …

    “Then there is your obsession with arguing against something you “claim’ does not exist!!”

    so, you agree that allah, yahweh, rah, and thor can coexist and we should stop arguing against it? why don’t you accept allah into you heart and quit fighting it?

    who’s obsessed? check your book at: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS and do a find on “obsess”. guess what motherfucker? you stated it 29 times. now, who the fuck is obsessed?

    “get your theology from a reputable source”

    in other words, from the countless, more than likely conflicting sources? pick a reputable source that supports your bullshit and if it’s not agreeable, discard it and go on to the next reputable one?

    “..then just good ol’ common sense.”

    touted by the same motherfucker who said “China is selling fetuses as a delicacy”. ooops, my bad. you didn’t say that, martin did. or was it biff? xenon? rl martin? which one of your admitted lying ass alter ego said that?

    dumbass, motherfucker.

  304. on 10 Jul 2014 at 12:47 am 304.the messenger said …

    319.freddies_dead, here are the Deuteronomy 31:6, Deuteronomy 31:8 word for word.

    “6 Be strong and bold; have no fear or dread of them, because it is the Lord your God who goes with you; he will not fail you or forsake you.”

    “8 It is the Lord who goes before you. He will be with you; he will not fail you or forsake you. Do not fear or be dismayed.”

    Neither of those verses mention anything about the journey to the promised land. Moses is saying in these verses that GOD will be with us wherever we go. Although it does mean that GOD was with the Jews and did not forsake them in their journey to Judea, it also applies to every journey we make. Moses didn’t say that the “not forsake us” thing would only be for the journey to the promised land. Hebrews 13:5 proves the “not forsake us” thing also applies in the new covenant.

  305. on 10 Jul 2014 at 12:58 am 305.the messenger said …

    319.freddies_dead, Daniel 12:1-2 talks about he guilty feelings of sinners during the final judgment. It talks about “shame” and “contempt”. It is obviously talking about how sinners will feel about themselves when reminded of their sins during the final judgment, due to the fact that an eternal fire and or place of punishment is not mentioned.

  306. on 10 Jul 2014 at 1:07 am 306.the messenger said …

    319.freddies_dead, Matthew 25:45-46 is referring to the eternal “contempt” and “shame” mentioned in Daniel 12:1-2. Yes everyone will go to heaven, but some of them will fell the emotions “shame” and “contempt” while there.

  307. on 10 Jul 2014 at 1:21 am 307.the messenger said …

    319.freddies_dead, 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 talks about everlasting destruction, but it doesn’t say that we will be in the everlasting destruction forever. 2 Thessalonians 1:5 says that we will suffer for salvation, which proves that our suffering in hell will be temporary and that we will leave it and achieve salvation.

  308. on 10 Jul 2014 at 1:31 am 308.the messenger said …

    Revelation 14:9-11 is talking about Jesus when he sacrificed himself, like the burnt temple sacrifices. It also states that the “forever and ever torment” will only happen to those who worship “beast” aka pagans. If a person stopped worshiping beasts and other false gods they would no longer qualify for the “forever and ever torment” thing.

  309. on 10 Jul 2014 at 1:53 am 309.the messenger said …

    319.freddies_dead, the KJVB leaves out the books of Tobit, 1 Maccabees and 2, Wisdom, Lamentations, and many others.

    It also translates Exodus 20:13 as “thou shall not kill”, but many Jewish rabbis and Hebrew speaking scholars have proven that the more accurate translation is not the word “kill”, but the word “murder”.

    There are many other cases similar to this throughout the KJVB. Some parts of it are accurate, but not all of it.

    Lastly, I do not speak Hebrew or Greek, but I do read books written by world renowned translators, and I listen to speeches and debates by rabbis, Hebrew and Greek scholars, and catholic priests that read Hebrew and Greek.

  310. on 10 Jul 2014 at 1:55 am 310.the messenger said …

    319.freddies_dead, I won’t be able to post for the next three days. Just to let you know.

  311. on 10 Jul 2014 at 2:01 am 311.the messenger said …

    319.freddies_dead, If the foot in the “foot and fire metaphor” is a metaphor for our bad qualities, and Jesus wants us to cast them into the fire(which we agree means hell), it is clear that it means only a part of us will be put into hell forever.

  312. on 10 Jul 2014 at 2:41 am 312.alex said …

    308.the messenger said …

    what a dumbass. the motherfucker continues to torment hisself with his fucked up search in the bullshit bible. he already admitted that the shit is subject to interpretation and even though the biblical crap (not literal, according to him) has been pointed out numerous times he continues with his incoherent babbling in the hopes of what? convincing the blog’s atheists to change their mind? really? if not, then what is the motherfucker trying to accomplish? convince the zero non-committal visitors in this blog?
    anybody here non-committal?

    this is the same motherfucker that has compiled his big pile of posts at: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    that’s right, bitch, motherfucker. your book autoupdates itself.

  313. on 10 Jul 2014 at 2:43 am 313.alex said …

    “I won’t be able to post for the next three days.”

    is that your choice or are you just blindly following your god’s plan? leave your seatbelt off, motherfucker. i’m sure allah will take care of you.

  314. on 10 Jul 2014 at 7:28 am 314.TJ said …

    Just what do you think his Gods plan is?

  315. on 10 Jul 2014 at 12:28 pm 315.alex said …

    “what do you think his Gods plan is”

    everything that happens, just like the absence of a god.

    messenger’s postings arent’t even about ALL gods, are they? it’s all about righteously spouting his xtian brand, and vigorously trying to sell it.

    would my objections be more palatable if messenger was an aborigine who keeps posting his garbage here and i cursed him twice as bad? hooray?

    it aint’t about a theist versus an atheists viewpoint, is it? it’s all about the countless, motherfucking theist permutations pushing their shit, most notably, the loudmouth xtians.

  316. on 10 Jul 2014 at 3:12 pm 316.freddies_dead said …

    302.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    ” you’d be able to point to it as evidence?”

    Yep time and time again here, there, in the past in the present, in books, in lecture, in classrooms through logic, through philosophy, through science and then just good ol’ common sense.

    So you can’t point to any actual instances then? Didn’t think so.

    lol!!!!!!! Then there is your obsession with arguing against something you “claim’ does not exist!!

    lol!!!

    Says the lying prick who can’t show that his God is anything but a product of his imagination but argues for it nonetheless. You’re projecting as usual.

    Get in an AA chapter and leave the cult.

    I don’t belong to your cult, or indeed any cult. More projection on your part.

    Oh and get your theology from a reputable source not atheist blogs…. Lol!!!!

    There’s no such thing as a “reputable source” for theology. All it is is just other people’s opinions on their imaginary God and what it’s alleged to have said and done.

  317. on 10 Jul 2014 at 3:13 pm 317.freddies_dead said …

    304.the messenger said …

    319.freddies_dead, here are the Deuteronomy 31:6, Deuteronomy 31:8 word for word.

    “6 Be strong and bold; have no fear or dread of them, because it is the Lord your God who goes with you; he will not fail you or forsake you.”

    “8 It is the Lord who goes before you. He will be with you; he will not fail you or forsake you. Do not fear or be dismayed.”

    Neither of those verses mention anything about the journey to the promised land.

    No, it’s mentioned in verses 1, 2 and 3 as I said.

    Moses is saying in these verses that GOD will be with us wherever we go.

    Where? The passages only mention God being with them in the journey to the promised lands. Your extrapolation to God being with them everywhere they ever go is your addition to the texts.

    Although it does mean that GOD was with the Jews and did not forsake them in their journey to Judea, it also applies to every journey we make. Moses didn’t say that the “not forsake us” thing would only be for the journey to the promised land. Hebrews 13:5 proves the “not forsake us” thing also applies in the new covenant.

    Oh dear, you get totally screwed in Deuteronomy 31:17 when God tells Moses:

    Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?

    So much for being with them wherever they may go, oh well…

  318. on 10 Jul 2014 at 3:14 pm 318.freddies_dead said …

    305.the messenger said …

    319.freddies_dead, Daniel 12:1-2 talks about he guilty feelings of sinners during the final judgment. It talks about “shame” and “contempt”. It is obviously talking about how sinners will feel about themselves when reminded of their sins during the final judgment, due to the fact that an eternal fire and or place of punishment is not mentioned.

    It’s talking about everlasting contempt – if you think sinners will still feel contempt for themselves once they’re in Heaven then your concept of Heaven seems to differ with that of the Bible. No surprise there though as your conceptualisations of a lot of things run contrary to what the Bible says.

  319. on 10 Jul 2014 at 3:15 pm 319.freddies_dead said …

    306.the messenger said …

    319.freddies_dead, Matthew 25:45-46 is referring to the eternal “contempt” and “shame” mentioned in Daniel 12:1-2. Yes everyone will go to heaven, but some of them will fell the emotions “shame” and “contempt” while there.

    I like the way you’ve totally ignored the words everlasting punishment in order to stick with your failed claims. Unless you think Heaven is as much a place of punishment as Hell is? I suppose you might though as you seem to think a place touted as paradise can contain people who hold themselves in eternal contempt.

  320. on 10 Jul 2014 at 3:16 pm 320.freddies_dead said …

    307.the messenger said …

    319.freddies_dead, 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 talks about everlasting destruction, but it doesn’t say that we will be in the everlasting destruction forever.

    Seriously? So being punished with everlasting destruction isn’t being punished eternally. Words messy, they have meanings. You don’t seem to agree with the common consensus regarding those meanings however. You’re going to need to start defining every word at some point otherwise we’ll always be talking at cross purposes.

    2 Thessalonians 1:5 says that we will suffer for salvation, which proves that our suffering in hell will be temporary and that we will leave it and achieve salvation.

    Does 2 Thessalonians 1:5 say anything about the members of the church at Thessalonica being dead while they suffered? That will be a no.

    It’s one of the main themes of the Bible that you will suffer in this life but have a chance of a better afterlife. If you overcome your troubles and repent of your sins you get everlasting bliss, if you fail … everlasting punishment.

  321. on 10 Jul 2014 at 3:18 pm 321.freddies_dead said …

    308.the messenger said …

    Revelation 14:9-11 is talking about Jesus when he sacrificed himself, like the burnt temple sacrifices.

    Revelation 14 is about the return of Christ on Judgement day. It has quite literally nothing to do with his crucifixion. The verses speak of what will happen when He returns.

    It also states that the “forever and ever torment” will only happen to those who worship “beast” aka pagans.

    So now you admit there really are some people who will go to Hell for all eternity. Not far now.

    If a person stopped worshiping beasts and other false gods they would no longer qualify for the “forever and ever torment” thing.

    And we’re back to my question on how anyone could possibly repent whilst suffering eternal anguish. Suffering so bad that all thought and reason are impossible.

    You seem to be missing almost the entire point of the Bible i.e. to repent and trust in God before you die and it becomes too late.

  322. on 10 Jul 2014 at 3:19 pm 322.freddies_dead said …

    309.the messenger said …

    319.freddies_dead, the KJVB leaves out the books of Tobit, 1 Maccabees and 2, Wisdom, Lamentations, and many others.

    And there are those who call themselves Christians who believe the ESV to be the work of the devil based on perverted manuscripts. Now you can’t both be right, but you can both be wrong. So it’s down to you to demonstrate that the version you’ve chosen is the one true version. Actually providing evidence that your God exists and that the ESV is His word would be a start.

    It also translates Exodus 20:13 as “thou shall not kill”, but many Jewish rabbis and Hebrew speaking scholars have proven that the more accurate translation is not the word “kill”, but the word “murder”.

    And? The main reason for switching from kill to murder was to protect the Bible from the question “Why a command to not kill when God kills?”. It’s irrelevant as there is no way God could kill someone without meaning to do it? Every time God kills someone it’s premeditated – after all God planned it all to happen this way. Whether it’s kill or murder makes no difference when we’re talking about God. He is a murderer … at least He would be if He weren’t imaginary.

    There are many other cases similar to this throughout the KJVB. Some parts of it are accurate, but not all of it.

    And how do you know which is which? Are you being divinely inspired here? If so how can we know you’re being divinely inspired? How can we discern between your God and what you may merely be imagining?

    Lastly, I do not speak Hebrew or Greek, but I do read books written by world renowned translators, and I listen to speeches and debates by rabbis, Hebrew and Greek scholars, and catholic priests that read Hebrew and Greek.

    So you trust fallible men on issues of supposedly divinely inspired texts? Perhaps you believe that the scholars that you agree with are being divinely inspired. In which case how can you discern between scholars who are being divinely inspire and those that aren’t?

  323. on 10 Jul 2014 at 3:20 pm 323.freddies_dead said …

    311.the messenger said …

    319.freddies_dead, If the foot in the “foot and fire metaphor” is a metaphor for our bad qualities, and Jesus wants us to cast them into the fire(which we agree means hell), it is clear that it means only a part of us will be put into hell forever.

    There has been nothing in the verses you have quoted about casting the bad qualities into Hell. Nothing, nada, zip, zero. All we have is verses that tell us to cut out what’s causing us to sin or face being cast into Hell for all eternity. Your conclusion doesn’t fit with what we’ve found. However, I’m sure you’ll keep beating this dead horse for a long time yet. Hell, you’ll probably simply repeat these very same broken claims at some point, as if this conversation never took place. No doubt alex will be around to hold you accountable though.

  324. on 10 Jul 2014 at 4:05 pm 324.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    ND thank you for attending Freddie Mouse’s Bible study. Freddie Mouse will be sill be lecturing weekly on Biblical truths and Systematic Theology. Turn in next week for another action packed adventure with Freddie the Mouse.

    lol!!!!

    But be doesn’t REALLY believe……sshhhh…

  325. on 11 Jul 2014 at 10:48 am 325.freddies_dead said …

    324.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    ND thank you for attending Freddie Mouse’s Bible study. Freddie Mouse will be sill be lecturing weekly on Biblical truths and Systematic Theology. Turn in next week for another action packed adventure with Freddie the Mouse.

    lol!!!!

    I have no problem showing up cafeteria Christians like you and messy so you’re very welcome.

    But be doesn’t REALLY believe……sshhhh…

    Of course I don’t believe. As we’ve seen, the Bible is mostly incoherent and inconsistent bullshit that Christians cherry pick from when they don’t like what it actually says. We’ve also seen that your God is entirely imaginary.

  326. on 11 Jul 2014 at 11:04 am 326.TJ said …

    To the messenger…

    it would seem you need to go back and re-read your bible. freddies_dead is consistent with xtians with most of his interpretation of a literal reading of the same texts.

    I understand you are Catholic?

    1. Do statues of Virgin Mary or Crucified Jesus look at all like Idols or Graven Images to you? Is a small cross around the neck any different?

    2. If Jesus plainly says “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

    Then how does a man in a confession box forgive sins?

    How does the pope represent God?

    ————————————-

    To freddies_dead…

    From your own understanding, which statement is best supported by the biblical texts?

    1. God claims to have control over all things created, including the choices and consequences of man.

    or

    2. God claims to have control over all things created, but has empowered man with free will. Making man accountable for the consequences of his choices.

  327. on 11 Jul 2014 at 3:31 pm 327.freddies_dead said …

    326.TJ asks …

    From your own understanding, which statement is best supported by the biblical texts?

    1. God claims to have control over all things created, including the choices and consequences of man.

    or

    2. God claims to have control over all things created, but has empowered man with free will. Making man accountable for the consequences of his choices.

    From my understanding the Biblical texts support statement 2. However, statement 2 is contradictory to the combined attributes of omniscience and omnipotence coupled with God being said to have a plan. Those attributes and the plan make statement 1 the more logical consequence for humans created by the Christian God.

  328. on 12 Jul 2014 at 12:16 am 328.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead said …

    Ok, so we can agree to say that from the biblical texts no.2 is most consistent.

    Would you then agree or disagree or like to add to…

    God is described in the bible, and self claims to be, all powerful and in possession of all knowledge of all things?

    You earlier stated…
    “You seem to be missing almost the entire point of the Bible i.e. to repent and trust in God before you die and it becomes too late.”

    I agree with your above statement, which was directed at “the messenger”. He seems to have missed a few points in a few key areas.

    In many religious groups, it seems very common for teachings to misrepresent/conflict the source they claim to believe/represent… why this is, could be a long discussion/debate I’m sure.

    From your understanding, what does the Bible say about what Gods plan was/is?

  329. on 12 Jul 2014 at 12:53 am 329.alex said …

    “it seems very common for teachings to misrepresent/conflict the source they claim to believe/represent… why this is, could be a long discussion/debate I’m sure.”

    this is OLD, tired and very obvious. when the source is garbage, strewn with contradictions and bullshit, the teachings become skewed, apologetic, and compared to the source, even more bizarre with their twisted, contorted explanations. ie, the iron chariots or the sun and the moon stopping or jesus cursing the motherfucking fig tree.

    if the source is divine, wouldn’t you expect simple, clear, brilliant directives/wisdom? instead, theists resort to picking thru the garbage and pronouncing them “not literal” or translating them into countless versions. these morons can’t even agree if hell is permanent or not.

    hence, the messenger pile of shit at: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4 and the hor’s at: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  330. on 12 Jul 2014 at 4:39 am 330.TJ said …

    To Alex…

    The source/bible is Garbage, so logically all teachings will be a reflection of this.

    Ok, I can accept that this is your stand point.

    you also added…

    “if the source is divine, wouldn’t you expect simple, clear, brilliant directives/wisdom?”

    Yes, I would expect exactly this.

    instead, theists resort to picking thru the garbage and pronouncing them “not literal” or translating them into countless versions.

    Absolutely true. But not just theists but atheist too. Each can point to their proof/contradictions to support/disprove their statements/claims.

    And it is old, tied and obvious, which is why we should look at what the source claims and disregard what the “idiot xtians” say.

    Neither of us would choose a favourite football team based on their fan base, any more that we should determine any religious claims based on misguided rabble. Do you agree?

    As for…
    these morons can’t even agree if hell is permanent or not.

    freddies_dead’s literal reading of the text nailed the issue… I have nothing to add or detract.

    If you, Alex, have looked objectively at the Bible texts, and determined for yourself that it is all rubbish, than I respect that.

    I will not try to convince you otherwise and I should expect that you don’t expect me to answer to any of messenger’s or hor’ material.

  331. on 12 Jul 2014 at 10:01 am 331.alex said …

    “But not just theists but atheist too. Each can point to their proof/contradictions to support/disprove their statements/claims.”

    what is the atheist statement/claim? there is no personal god, period. i’m also a non believer in ufo visitors. what is my statement/claim? there is nothing i’m interpreting or contradicting. i also don’t believe you can run a 1 minute mile. and?

    you’re saying that theists and atheists do the same thing therefore each position is viable, but it’s not. that’s why creationisms (in many religious flavors) is not taught in public schools.

    if an atheist looks at the evidence and concludes that the earth is flat, it doesn’t make his atheism any less valid. it just makes him a moron.

    science has been wrong on many aspects before, but this has nothing to do with atheism. element decay dated cro magnon fossils from 40,000 years ago. you want to debate dating methods?

    want to debate evolution? dark matter? this is my fav. science cannot explain certain behavior, so they coined dark matter. whether dark matter is legit or not, this has no bearing on me being an atheist. dark matter has been proven, hooray, and damn, i’m still an atheist.

    that’s why hor can’t find anything to stick on me. sure, i curse, and sure, i’ve misspoken before, but it doesn’t make me any less atheist. and it doesn’t validate his god, regardless how many times hor points out my nastiness.

    theists proclaim that if you are an atheist, you will do all these horrible things, but it’s not true. if i say, “i kills you because of my non-belief”, does it make sense? it just makes me a hater, which of course, theists will point out as equivalent to atheist. that’s why the hitler exercise.

  332. on 13 Jul 2014 at 2:22 am 332.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    “you’re saying that theists and atheists do the same thing therefore each position is viable,…”

    No, you missed my point. I implied that atheists and theist both cherry pick passages to either prove or disprove their point. I implied that, commonly the interpretations of said cherry picked passages are out of context, misinterpreted, and just a plain dumb twisting of what is actually written in the biblical text. My point was that commonly neither point was viable, not that either where viable.

    I went on to point out that freddies_dead’s literal reading of the text by contrast, was bang on the money. You cannot judge anything based on what others simply say. Surely you would agree that it is better to look for meaning within what is written, rather than what is thought, regarding what is written?

    –you want to debate dating methods?

    if you want too. I am not an expert but from what I understand, radioactive decay involves obtaining the known half-life of an unstable radioactive element. Often transmutation occurs with the exchange of energy and atoms… effectively a chemical reaction.

    Despite known problems and assumptions with dating methods, test are usually performed to confirm suspected dates. When dates match predictions, methods are heralded as accurate and reliable. When they don’t fit the assumed age then contamination and other factors come into play.

    A problem exists when the assumption is, that half life’s are calculated as constant and yet we are taught that a chemical reaction cane be slowed or speed up by changing the heat, concentration, pressure affecting surface contact, or the presence of a catalyst.

    In a biblical world view we have a global flood, enduring droughts, fire and brimstone from the heavens, changing weather patterns, volcanic eruptions and the dividing of the earth.

    In a Scientific world view we see deep time, an ever changing environment, magnetic pole shifts, many ice ages, meteor impacts, vast localised flooding, global volcanic eruptions, mass extinctions.

    Both pose problems for accurate reliable dating results.

    If you would also like to talk about evolution and dark matter with me, that would be fine, I’m happy to discuss these with you… UFOs too.

    I am a little unfamiliar with the “hitler exercise”. I assume it refers to a xtian argument which aims to bundle all atheist in hell with hitler?

    The Hitler association is unfair, stereotypical nonsense. Much like derogative xtian’s stereotypes.

    Would you agree though?
    That…
    in recent history (last 2000 years), when nations go to war…
    those that claim “holy war” or “war in the name of God”, do so in direct conflict to their claimed beliefs.
    while those that claim nationalism or some other form of racial superiority, do so in direct accordance with their claimed beliefs.

    As I have stated before belief systems have been used for both evil and good, to control, invoke fear and obtain the goals/objectives of those in power. As individuals we owe it to ourselves to assess what we can, determine and discover what we can, question everything and the exercise the right to believe what we will.

  333. on 13 Jul 2014 at 6:16 pm 333.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    TJ,

    The “Hitler Exercise” is simply atheist making the following logic fallacy.

    Hitler was evil
    Hitler was a Christian
    Christians are Evil

    I will allow you to draw from the exercise the inherent fallacies in the conclusions and the corresponding presuppositions. Insert Crusades, Salem witch trials and Abortion MD killings for more such exercises.

    :)

  334. on 13 Jul 2014 at 11:22 pm 334.TJ said …

    Oh ok…
    I had it back to front.

    I have heard nonsense before, that ties evolution to racial superiority regarding Hitler before and mistakenly assumed this may have been the “Hitler exercise”.

    Thanks for clearing that up. I was ignorant to the term’s understood meaning, on this blog.

  335. on 14 Jul 2014 at 11:53 am 335.alex said …

    “…regarding Hitler before and mistakenly assumed this may have been the “Hitler exercise”.

    Thanks for clearing that up.”

    the dipshit, hor, posts his usual bullshit and you swallow it hook, line, and sinker?

    you dumbass, motherfucker. you pontificate about discovery, determination, and questioning and you do exactly the opposite?

    how about you go fuck yourself? here’s his entire bullshit collection, once again: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  336. on 14 Jul 2014 at 1:20 pm 336.freddies_dead said …

    328.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead said …

    Ok, so we can agree to say that from the biblical texts no.2 is most consistent.

    Would you then agree or disagree or like to add to…

    God is described in the bible, and self claims to be, all powerful and in possession of all knowledge of all things?

    I’d agree with that statement although the Bible likes to claim God is also “all ” for many other attributes – merciful, just, benevolent etc… It is within these attributions that we start to see problems. Indeed when considering just omnipotence there’s the paradox of the stone and for omniscience Cantor’s theorem is a bit of a blow. When we start combining those attributes all sorts of contradictions occur.

    You earlier stated…
    “You seem to be missing almost the entire point of the Bible i.e. to repent and trust in God before you die and it becomes too late.”

    I agree with your above statement, which was directed at “the messenger”. He seems to have missed a few points in a few key areas.

    In many religious groups, it seems very common for teachings to misrepresent/conflict the source they claim to believe/represent… why this is, could be a long discussion/debate I’m sure.

    From your understanding, what does the Bible say about what Gods plan was/is?

    His own Glory. Now what “His Glory” might be isn’t ever really explained in the Bible. Instead we get told that manifestations of things like love are exhibitions of God’s glory, nature is a reflection of God’s Glory, so is Heaven etc… We never really get a concrete definition so it’s easy for theists to use everything as a pointer to God’s Glory. Sunrise? … God’s Glory. Hummingbirds? … God’s Glory. Hurricane ripping through a trailer park killing dozens of people? … well, erm, yes apparently that’s God’s Glory too.

  337. on 14 Jul 2014 at 11:20 pm 337.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    you stated…
    “theists proclaim that if you are an atheist, you will do all these horrible things, but it’s not true. if i say, “i kills you because of my non-belief”, does it make sense? it just makes me a hater, which of course, theists will point out as equivalent to atheist. that’s why the hitler exercise.”

    Your statement implied the “Hitler exercise” was a Theist argument.

    I questioned the statement with a summery of your statement, to determine/clarify your meaning.

    …”I am a little unfamiliar with the “hitler exercise”. I assume it refers to a xtian argument which aims to bundle all atheist in hell with hitler?”

    I also presented a personal view point…

    “The Hitler association is unfair, stereotypical nonsense. Much like derogative xtian’s stereotypes.”

    The The Prickly Science Guy offered an alternative meaning to the “Hitler exercise”

    I offered a basis for my interpretation of your statement…

    “I have heard nonsense before, that ties evolution to racial superiority regarding Hitler before and mistakenly assumed this may have been the “Hitler exercise”.”

    I thanked him…
    Thanks for clearing that up. I was ignorant to the term’s understood meaning, on this blog.

    Later I rationalised both your statement vs the Prickly Science Guy’s definition of the “Hitler exercise”.

    I then posted an exercise to illustrate my line of thought.

    I concluded with a question…

    “By what content/context should we assess the Christianity of Hitler?”

    Now, please, Alex I need clarification, please explain your statements…

    “you dumbass, motherfucker. you pontificate about discovery, determination, and questioning and you do exactly the opposite?”

    Then, once again explain the relevance of…

    “how about you go fuck yourself? here’s his entire bullshit collection, once again: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    Help me out buddy, I have trouble discovering your meaning, determining your logic and my questions abound… oh and if you would please, set me straight on the whole “Hitler exercise”.

  338. on 14 Jul 2014 at 11:39 pm 338.TJ said …

    Hi freddies_dead,

    You’ve introduce some great points into our discussion, you’ve also pointed to some related arguments. And you’ve given our investigation into Gods plan some direction. Good stuff.

    I have a busy day ahead and will tonight, give your comments the attention they deserve.

    cheers,

  339. on 15 Jul 2014 at 12:40 am 339.the messenger said …

    335.alex, I am not righteously spouting anything. I simply want to help people see the truth.

  340. on 15 Jul 2014 at 1:25 am 340.the messenger said …

    346.TJ, “it would seem you need to go back and re-read your bible. freddies_dead is consistent with xtians with most of his interpretation of a literal reading of the same texts.”

    Fred uses the KJVB. The KJVB is used by many groups of protestants, but not catholics due to the fact that it contains many mistranslations.

    “I understand you are Catholic?”

    Yes I am a catholic.

    “1. Do statues of Virgin Mary or Crucified Jesus look at all like Idols or Graven Images to you? Is a small cross around the neck any different?”

    Most protestants understand Exodus 20:4 to be a single commandment because they interpret the bible verse by verse. the original biblical texts were not divided into verses; the Christians divided the bible into verses in order to make it easier to find certain parts of the text. But Catholics interpret the bible passage by passage. Exodus 20:4-6 is the full commandment. It means that we should not make idols, it is not a prohibition of all statue making. Making statues and carvings are allowed, due to the fact that the Jews were commanded to make a statue of a snake and also two statues of angels for the ark of the covenant.

    “2. If Jesus plainly says “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”” “Then how does a man in a confession box forgive sins?”

    A priest is a representative of GOD, and therefore has the authority to forgive sin. Also in Luke 5:24 Jesus says that the son of man has the authority to forgive sin.

    “How does the pope represent God?”

    The pope represents GOD as every priest and follower of GOD does. The pope is simply the leader of the catholic church. The first pope was peter, and every pope after him inherits his place as leader of the church.

  341. on 15 Jul 2014 at 1:43 am 341.alex said …

    “… I have trouble discovering your meaning, determining your logic…”

    my hair trigger cursing confuses you? i stated the “hitler exercise”, and the hor moron responded with his predictable bullshit and you thank him for his clarity? and you can’t determine my logic and my disdain for the hor motherfucker?

    as englash is my second language, what is it about my writing that you find unclear? the irrelevance of hor’s collection? with his history of lying and his obvious bullshit comments, you don’t see why?

    the person making the assertion is burdened with the proof. i’m not obligated to investigate alternatives. as with the xtian god, do i need to look at buddism, ufoism, and others? of course, i’ve wondered where we came from and that’s not enough? but i can be convinced. hell, if hesus showed up, levitation would do it for me.

    just to be clear. i don’t claim to represent atheists, buddisst, or any other non xtian group. if i’m a flat earth believer and i call the round earth, a bullshit, isn’t it easy to call me out? go ahead, pick out the bullshits i’ve been spouting and put me in my place.

    if you didn’t really agree with hor on his definition of the “hitler exercise”? then why thank him?

  342. on 15 Jul 2014 at 2:24 am 342.alex said …

    “I simply want to help people see the truth.”

    yeah, along with your fellow dumbasses: buddists, ufonians, baptists, mooslems.

    and you fail again, moron. all you got is the same ole bullshit regurgitation. bullshit readings/interpretations and bullshit miracles.

    go fuck yourself.

  343. on 15 Jul 2014 at 2:47 am 343.DPK said …

    Tj.. A cursory search of past threads here will quickly reveal that the “hitler excercise” in fact always goes like this:
    Theist: “atheists have no morality. One cannot have morality without an absolute code of morality given by a supreme being. That is why mass murderers and genocidal maniacs like Stalin and hitler were atheists.”

    Atheist: “um, excuse me, Hitler was a Christian.”

    Theist: “No true Christian would comitt genocide. Therefore Hitler was not a ‘real’ Christian.”

    Atheist: “who gets to decide who is a real Christian and who isn’t, and where is the absolute moral code you claim exists and was given to us by a perfect omniscient being?”

    Theist: “you can’t prove how life originated.”

    Atheist: “WTF?”

    That’s how logic works here when arguing with people who are proud that they believe what they do on faith, which is, in truth, simply pretending to know things that you do not know.

  344. on 15 Jul 2014 at 12:32 pm 344.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    TJ

    You see above how it works. DP, above illustrates the point. He believes a master propagandist like Hitler was a Christian just because he states so at one time. Many of the atheist here at one time claimed to be Christians as well, so….with their logic we can still call them Christians….Right?

    Never mind Hitler was a master politican and great use of propaganda, never mind he murdered many Christians who dared to resist his Nazi regime. Never mind his many quotes against religion in general lol!!!

    Great Day to All!!

  345. on 15 Jul 2014 at 1:28 pm 345.DPK said …

    See? Exactly what I told you.
    A gets to decide who is a real Christian and who is not. A gets to decide what god “really means” in the bible. A gets to decide which parts of gods supposed words are literal, and which are metaphorical. All decided, of course, on what supports his delusion and what contradicts it.

    As far as theists cherry picking from the bible in order to support their own position, this is not really the same as theist cherry picking, is it? Theists are claiming the bible is the perfect word of a perfect being, and to support that idea it is absolutely necessary to completely ignore many clearly imperfect attributes of both the bible and the god it describes. Atheists, by virtue of the fact that they CAN cherry pick these parts make the point by the simple fact that it can be done. Not what one would expect from the perfect work of a perfect being with infinite power and infinite knowledge. Simple as that.

  346. on 15 Jul 2014 at 1:32 pm 346.DPK said …

    A also conveniently ignores the fact that, according to his worldview, Hitler was created by god and acted completely in accordance with his master plan for the world, and in complete agreement with his will.
    Of course, this dichotomy too will simply be ignored.

  347. on 15 Jul 2014 at 5:01 pm 347.DPK said …

    All things considered, I think the single most compelling reason to conclude that the bible is not the word of a supreme, trancendant being of infinite power and intelligence is the fact that it requires an idiot like Messenger to explain it to the rest of us.

  348. on 15 Jul 2014 at 8:59 pm 348.alex said …

    “..requires an idiot like Messenger to explain…”

    and to righteously point out that the protestants are using the wrong translator (KJVB)..

    “due to the fact that it contains many mistranslations”.

    messenger’s book: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4, read it and puke.

    don’t forget his gem: “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage)”. like+? chirp. chirp.

  349. on 15 Jul 2014 at 11:19 pm 349.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    “if you didn’t really agree with hor on his definition of the “hitler exercise”? then why thank him?”

    Thanks for clearing that up. I was ignorant to the term’s understood meaning, on this blog.

    Re-read my statement above. It says nothing to claim agreement or disagreement.

    If fact I got a different definition from each individual who responded. How do I determine which is the correct? The only one who did not offer me an explanation, is the only person I directly asked, you!.

    Should I thank the others for offering a definition or scorn them for answering on your behalf?

    But then again, I would not expect an answer based on your belief system.

  350. on 15 Jul 2014 at 11:29 pm 350.TJ said …

    To DKP,

    “As far as theists cherry picking from the bible in order to support their own position, this is not really the same as theist cherry picking, is it? Theists are claiming the bible is the perfect word of a perfect being, and to support that idea it is absolutely necessary to completely ignore many clearly imperfect attributes of both the bible and the god it describes. Atheists, by virtue of the fact that they CAN cherry pick these parts make the point by the simple fact that it can be done. Not what one would expect from the perfect work of a perfect being with infinite power and infinite knowledge. Simple as that.”

    If you truly believe this, and it fits with your world view, then there is nothing I, or anybody can say that will make it untrue for you.

  351. on 15 Jul 2014 at 11:35 pm 351.TJ said …

    To All,

    I state:
    What we believe, is determined more so, by what we reject. As opposed to what we can prove or provide evidence for.

  352. on 16 Jul 2014 at 12:01 am 352.TJ said …

    To DPK,

    “Theists are claiming the bible is the perfect word of a perfect being, and to support that idea it is absolutely necessary to completely ignore many clearly imperfect attributes of both the bible and the god it describes.”

    can you clarify for my own curiosity. Should I understand this to mean that…

    a) the bible is wrong because it conflicts with theist.

    b) the theist are wrong because they conflict with the bible.

    c) both are wrong.

    “Not what one would expect from the perfect work of a perfect being with infinite power and infinite knowledge. Simple as that.”

    Personally if I was asked to answer what I would expect from such a being… I would not know where to begin. So in fairness I will not ask you.

  353. on 16 Jul 2014 at 12:09 am 353.alex said …

    “I would not expect an answer based on your belief system.”

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. your pswedo intellecfuck postings ain’t foolin anybody. the bullshit god and the bible ain’t no different than the greek gods/mythology. go ahead and step up, bitch. show the proof and i’ll shut up. no?

  354. on 16 Jul 2014 at 12:12 am 354.alex said …

    “then there is nothing I, or anybody can say that will make it untrue for you.”

    careful. you’re beginning to sound/smell like the hor motherfucker.

    are you saying that everything is true by default?

  355. on 16 Jul 2014 at 12:33 am 355.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    You’ve done it! You’ve WON!

    I cannot compete with your belief system.

  356. on 16 Jul 2014 at 12:38 am 356.TJ said …

    and…

    “are you saying that everything is true by default?”

    No. I am not, and I don’t need to explain.

  357. on 16 Jul 2014 at 3:01 am 357.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    TJ,

    None of use ever carry on a discussion with alex. You see why, just scroll past his posts, chuckle and ignore him. You see the MO, the bitterness and the sickness. He can only be helped when he desires help.

    Its sad, but I throw him a compliment here and there to keep him off the ledge.

    “What we believe, is determined more so, by what we reject. As opposed to what we can prove or provide evidence for.”

    Evidence is a broad term. Define you usage of the term. Empirical? Demonstrative? Documentary? Testimonial?

  358. on 16 Jul 2014 at 3:08 am 358.TJ said …

    To Alex…

    –you asked…

    the bullshit god and the bible ain’t no different than the greek gods/mythology. go ahead and step up, bitch.

    –then claimed…

    show the proof and i’ll shut up. no?

    –When I asked previously…

    “what do you think his Gods plan is”

    –You responded with…

    everything that happens, just like the absence of a god.

    messenger’s postings arent’t even about ALL gods, are they? it’s all about righteously spouting his xtian brand, and vigorously trying to sell it.
    would my objections be more palatable if messenger was an aborigine who keeps posting his garbage here and i cursed him twice as bad? hooray?
    it aint’t about a theist versus an atheists viewpoint, is it? it’s all about the countless, motherfucking theist permutations pushing their shit, most notably, the loudmouth xtians.

    ——————-

    Correct me if I am wrong but don’t you make a distinction the xtian God and ALL gods?

    Has it not been said, that not all Gods can be true… especially one that claims to be “The One and Only”?

    And now you ask me to make a distinction. I will not entertain such folly asked by a fool… and I don’t need to explain.

  359. on 16 Jul 2014 at 4:11 am 359.TJ said …

    To A The Prickly Science Guy…

    “What we believe, is determined more so, by what we reject. As opposed to what we can prove or provide evidence for.”

    Evidence is a broad term. Define you usage of the term. Empirical? Demonstrative? Documentary? Testimonial?

    The very nature of my statement is intended to be broad. Consider this…

    At some point in our lives we all ask ourselves one or all of the three big questions.

    1) How did it all begin?

    2) what is the meaning of life?

    3) What happens when I die?

    How you answer question 1 sets the direction of question 2 and question 3 is a conclusion of 1 and 2.

    Question 1 has only 3 options that I can conceive (someone else may have more). As follows…

    What we call the universe, either…

    a) Burst into existence without an external force or cause.

    b) Burst into existence via an external force or cause.

    c) The universe always has existed in some shape or form.

    Nobody can conclusively point to any of the three options and satisfactorily provide proof. All theory’s, doctrines or otherwise ground themselves in one or more of the three options.
    Choosing any, is often the result of rejecting another.

    Also consider this…
    When confronted with a cross section of the earth’s crust, as in the form of a cut section for a roadway through a hillside. a…

    Evolutionist will see proof and evidence of long ages of layered sedimentary deposits.

    Creationist will see proof and evidence of water born sediments laid during a global flood.

    Logically, both cannot be correct. But both parties consider the proof and evidence based not on the evidence itself, but upon what they have already rejected, which in turn narrows and directs what they will accept/believe.

  360. on 16 Jul 2014 at 4:46 am 360.Anonymous said …

    TJ

    Logically, both cannot be correct. But both parties consider the proof and evidence based not on the evidence itself, but upon what they have already rejected, which in turn narrows and directs what they will accept/believe.

    Some people believe it’s impossible to be a christian and evolutionist. Witness the prick.
    However, it’s possible to accept both, witness Collins (biologos) and Ken Miller as two examples. I am not sure what Miller and Collins had to reject.
    Totally disagree with what you’re saying TJ.

  361. on 16 Jul 2014 at 5:11 am 361.TJ said …

    To Anonymous,

    Totally disagree with what you’re saying TJ.

    That’s cool, curious though. Any particular part or all?

  362. on 16 Jul 2014 at 11:38 am 362.alex said …

    “I cannot compete with your belief system.”

    you dumbass. i don’t have a yeti, god, loch ness monster, ufo, et all, belief systems. quit it, beeyatch.

  363. on 16 Jul 2014 at 11:44 am 363.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    TJ,

    You still never addressed the nature of evidence as I outlined above.

    This is important since we have those who claim they only believe what they claim is ” fact based” when in reality it is faith. They do not understand the nature of evidence. i.e. A fish fossil with a bony protrusion proves macro evolution.

    Second, are you aware of the various types of creationism which are embraced by many? Gap theory, progressive, etc?

    Evolution vs Christianity is not even an issue. Christianity is about accepting Christ and who he claimed to be.

  364. on 16 Jul 2014 at 11:54 am 364.alex said …

    “None of use ever carry on a discussion with alex.”

    because it always ends up with me holding my nose with all the bullshit slung about. no matter how you wrap your god package, your bigfoot package, your leprechaun package, your ufo package, they all end up permeated with the stinky, reekingly obvious bullshit. every single, motherfucking time, i ask. tell me again. why doesn’t your bullshit stink?

    in the end, no matter what diversion you throw around, it always goes back to your lack of proof, doesn’t it. even your ridiculous circular god having four corners, doesn’t faze you one bit, does it?

    let’s say, i’m the bitter motherfucker that you say i am. i need help and i’m about to jump off the ledge. hell, let’s say i jumped off!

    now, how the fuck does that change your bullshit god?

    you chuckle and pity my posts? i’m disgusted at yours, with the proliferation of obvious deceit and lies, among other things. that’s right, motherfucker. it’s all right here: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  365. on 16 Jul 2014 at 3:28 pm 365.freddies_dead said …

    363.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Evolution vs Christianity is not even an issue.

    For once A the lying prick says something that’s true. Of course it’s not true based on the rubbish A the lying prick spouts but because, evolution is a fact based explanation of modern biodiversity whilst Christianity is a faith based story about an imaginary deity. It’s like comparing apples to fairies.

  366. on 16 Jul 2014 at 3:49 pm 366.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    I said…
    “I cannot compete with your belief system.”

    You replied…
    you dumbass. i don’t have a yeti, god, loch ness monster, ufo, et all, belief systems. quit it, beeyatch.

    ———————
    All of the following was said by you, to me…

    BTW “my name is alex and i live in the u.s. i publicly state my nonbelief in bullshit, especially this idiotic statement by the motherfucker, messenger that states that:”
    it’s all right here: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    “i say dark matter is nonsense and i don’t have to discuss shit. bullshit is good enough.”

    “it’s double, bullshit talk. the biblical god is an all knowing god. period. motherfucker. there is no argument there. end of motherfucking story.”

    “i don’t have to justify shit.”

    “try telling me that god is the explanation for planetary motion and of course i will say bullshit. press me to explain it, i would mumble something about gravity. is this “i don’t have to justify shit”?”

    “…because you’re fullashit and you haven’t come up with anything original. that’s why you’re fullashit?”

    “the person making the assertion is burdened with the proof. i’m not obligated to investigate alternatives. as with the xtian god, do i need to look at buddism, ufoism, and others? of course, i’ve wondered where we came from and that’s not enough? but i can be convinced. hell, if hesus showed up, levitation would do it for me.”

    “what is the atheist statement/claim? there is no personal god, period. i’m also a non believer in ufo visitors. what is my statement/claim? there is nothing i’m interpreting or contradicting. i also don’t believe you can run a 1 minute mile. and?”

    “you say your 3 year old son can dunk and i say bullshit and i’m not obligated to present an opposing view point.”

    “want to debate evolution? dark matter? this is my fav. science cannot explain certain behavior, so they coined dark matter. whether dark matter is legit or not, this has no bearing on me being an atheist. dark matter has been proven, hooray, and damn, i’m still an atheist.”

    ————————————–

    I don’t need to explain.

  367. on 16 Jul 2014 at 4:29 pm 367.TJ said …

    To To Anonymous,

    You said…
    Some people believe it’s impossible to be a christian and evolutionist. Witness the prick.
    However, it’s possible to accept both, witness Collins (biologos) and Ken Miller as two examples. I am not sure what Miller and Collins had to reject.

    What did they reject?

    To be a Christian you must accept that Jesus is the Son of God, and that he sacrificed himself to save sinners. And that he rose from the dead and has left to prepare a place for us.

    To accept evolution, you must reject Gods creation process. You must place death and suffering before the fall of man, rejecting God’s claim that the penalty of sin was death. You must also reject the necessity of Jesus’s sacrifice to defeat the last enemy… death.

    Once you begin to reject God’s word… we’re do you stop?

  368. on 16 Jul 2014 at 4:38 pm 368.DPK said …

    At some point in our lives we all ask ourselves one or all of the three big questions.
    1) How did it all begin?
    2) what is the meaning of life?
    3) What happens when I die?

    And here is the difference. A rational person will answer:
    1) How did it all begin? No one knows.
    2) what is the meaning of life? Why do you assume that life has to have a “meaning”. That is a human assumption that assumes facts not in evidence. The universe does not seem to care if I am alive or not. Indeed it has already existed for some 14 billion years without me, so I doubt the idea that it was somehow created for the sole purpose of spawning me.
    3) What happens when I die? When we die the chemical and electrical processes that make you function as an organism stop. That is the only thing we actually know. Why do you assume that something happens to you “after” you die?

    The difference between theists and rational people is that only theists pretend to posses knowledge that they do not have. For a rational person, it is a perfectly acceptable answer to say “I don’t know.” There is only one group here that claims to have all the answers, but sadly, their “answers” are based on one thing. Faith. Faith is the act of pretending to know things you do not know. And what is more, the myriad of different faiths all pretend to know DIFFERENT things that they do not know, and they often directly contradict one another. They cannot all be right, but they can certainly all be wrong. That seem to me to be the most likely probability.

  369. on 16 Jul 2014 at 6:15 pm 369.Anonymous said …

    TJ, just ignore alex. He would rather throw insults like an impudent child than have a logical discussion.

  370. on 16 Jul 2014 at 6:16 pm 370.the messenger said …

    TJ, just ignore alex. He would rather throw insults like an impudent child than have a logical discussion.

  371. on 16 Jul 2014 at 6:18 pm 371.the messenger said …

    346.TJ, “it would seem you need to go back and re-read your bible. freddies_dead is consistent with xtians with most of his interpretation of a literal reading of the same texts.”

    Fred uses the KJVB. The KJVB is used by many groups of protestants, but not catholics due to the fact that it contains many mistranslations.

    “I understand you are Catholic?”

    Yes I am a catholic.

    “1. Do statues of Virgin Mary or Crucified Jesus look at all like Idols or Graven Images to you? Is a small cross around the neck any different?”

    Most protestants understand Exodus 20:4 to be a single commandment because they interpret the bible verse by verse. the original biblical texts were not divided into verses; the Christians divided the bible into verses in order to make it easier to find certain parts of the text. But Catholics interpret the bible passage by passage. Exodus 20:4-6 is the full commandment. It means that we should not make idols, it is not a prohibition of all statue making. Making statues and carvings are allowed, due to the fact that the Jews were commanded to make a statue of a snake and also two statues of angels for the ark of the covenant.

    “2. If Jesus plainly says “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”” “Then how does a man in a confession box forgive sins?”

    A priest is a representative of GOD, and therefore has the authority to forgive sin. Also in Luke 5:24 Jesus says that the son of man has the authority to forgive sin.

    “How does the pope represent God?”

    The pope represents GOD as every priest and follower of GOD does. The pope is simply the leader of the catholic church. The first pope was peter, and every pope after him inherits his place as leader of the church.

  372. on 16 Jul 2014 at 6:32 pm 372.alex said …

    “TJ, just ignore alex”

    i know, right? he keeps bringing up your bullshit book to show how stoopid you really are.

    here it is again: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    “if you have a glass of salt water and you pour more water in(fresh water), it does not change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry.”

    lol that, hor motherfucker.

  373. on 16 Jul 2014 at 8:32 pm 373.DPK said …

    “Fred uses the KJVB. The KJVB is used by many groups of protestants, but not catholics due to the fact that it contains many mistranslations.”

    Messenger, why would an all powerful being with infinite power and infinite wisdom allow his direct communication with his creation to be “mistranslated”? Especially when the distortion of his message created by a “mistranslation” would result in the eternal damnation of those unfortunate enough to have been raised in the wrong faith tradition? Seems an omnipotent being would make sure his words and meaning would be crystal clear and would not allow them to be altered. Or does he purposely want us to be confused?

  374. on 16 Jul 2014 at 9:02 pm 374.alex said …

    “To accept evolution, you must reject Gods creation process.”

    and to accept hesus, you must reject all the other gods creation process.

    to reject gods, you don’t have to accept evolution. alien believers already know this. see how your word bullshit don’t go anywhere?

    the atheist belief system doesn’t exist, you dumb motherfucker. repeating the same shit over and over again doesn’t make it true.

  375. on 17 Jul 2014 at 1:30 am 375.Anonymous said …

    the prick

    Evolution vs Christianity is not even an issue.

    Except for maybe yourself.
    tj

    To accept evolution, you must reject Gods creation process.

    Really? I am guessing you failed to look at anything beyond the tip of your nose. I suppose it depends…literalist, apologist, fundamentalist, realist….which category are you in? try biologos -dot- org. There are more ways to think than the one you presently employ.

  376. on 17 Jul 2014 at 11:21 am 376.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “To accept evolution, you must reject Gods creation process”

    Not necessarily TJ. I do not accept evolution simply because it is not even close to being proven. Micro is used in a lame attempt to support macro and that just does not work. The topper? It is now political and we all know how much truth there is in politics! Lol!!!

    I do agree god haters want it to be true so badly that they will in faith place their trust in evolution. They really have no other alternative.

  377. on 17 Jul 2014 at 11:39 am 377.alex said …

    “Not necessarily TJ. I do not accept evolution simply because it is not even close to being proven.”

    motherfucker, who gives a fuck about evolution. just typical diversionary, drivel from your motherfucker ass.

    you have no god proof, so you resort to your old, tired ass arguing about other irrelevant shit. what, now bitch? yetis? camaros? ocean swimming?

    bring it motherfucker.

  378. on 18 Jul 2014 at 2:17 am 378.TJ said …

    To all,

    “To accept evolution, you must reject Gods creation process”

    To accept anything other than what is written in the bible, is to reject what is written. Just as to accept anything specific regarding anything (aliens, science, theology, mythology, religion or otherwise) , is to reject anything which is in conflict to what you accept.

    Alex is the only one to have nailed it.

    “and to accept hesus, you must reject all the other gods creation process.
    to reject gods, you don’t have to accept evolution. alien believers already know this. see how your word bullshit don’t go anywhere?”

    Even he see how all your evidences and proofs confirm what I stated…

    “What we believe, is determined more so, by what we reject. As opposed to what we can prove or provide evidence for.”

    ….and you ask why I don’t ignore him?

    Each of you focused on the two examples I choose to illustrate my point. Further supporting my point by showing your proofs and evidences to support your rejections within the illustrated examples. All arguments go nowhere in terms of proof and evidence.

    as for…
    “You still never addressed the nature of evidence as I outlined above.”
    Assess your own evidence, because my evidence is your response.

    The point however seems to have been lost.

    ———————————–
    A said…
    Really? I am guessing you failed to look at anything beyond the tip of your nose. I suppose it depends…literalist, apologist, fundamentalist, realist….which category are you in? try biologos -dot- org. There are more ways to think than the one you presently employ.

    As an individual I owe it to myself to assess what I can, determine and discover what I can, question everything and exercise the right to believe what I will.

    Does that clear it up for you?
    By all or any of my words do I fit any of your categories?
    If I do, then it will be by your assessment based on your understanding of what is acceptable based on what you believe to be reject-able.
    If I offer my own answer you will either accept or reject it, and we will still, have moved nowhere.
    ——————————

    To DPK,

    you said…
    And here is the difference. A rational person will answer:
    1) How did it all begin? No one knows.

    a) Burst into existence without an external force or cause.

    Many scientific theory’s attempt to explain the events following this starting point. They profess that the formation of life is a result of the natural processes. Thus giving it meaning.

    b) Burst into existence via an external force or cause.

    Science theory’s abound to explain multiple universe’s or/and the possibility of the interconnectedness of extra dimensional plains. Further theories attempt to explain life in among all this, not limited to including Aliens created us, again giving it meaning.

    Religion… need I explain?

    c) The universe always has existed in some shape or form.

    Again theory’s including re-birthing of the universe, elastic expansion and contraction, reincarnation etc.

    All attempt to give meaning as to understand our place in the great cosmos.

    you also said…

    2) what is the meaning of life? Why do you assume that life has to have a “meaning”.

    Are you a rational person?

  379. on 18 Jul 2014 at 3:41 am 379.DPK said …

    “Again theory’s including re-birthing of the universe, elastic expansion and contraction, reincarnation etc.
    All attempt to give meaning as to understand our place in the great cosmos.”

    You are confusing hypothesizing with knowledge. My statement stands – “no one knows” it is possible one of these hypotheses will one day be supported by enough evidence to be considered very likely, or it is possible we will never know, because there is no evidence available to us from “before” the Big Bang, if there even is such a thing as “before”. The only rational and truthful answer to the question “how did it all begin?” is “we don’t know.”

    “you also said…
    2) what is the meaning of life? Why do you assume that life has to have a “meaning”.
    Are you a rational person?”

    I think I am. There is no reason I have seen to assume that life arising on this planet, or anywhere else it may have, is a directed process that has a “meaning”. That is like asking “what is the meaning of comets?” Because we can look at comets as having played a role in bringing water and essential things to earth, that is no different than the puddle assuming the hole in the ground in which it lives was meant specifically for it, because it fits it’s shape to perfection. Both the hole and the puddle are products of things that happen in accordance with the way the universe works. There is no “meaning” or purpose to it. They simply are.

  380. on 18 Jul 2014 at 6:27 am 380.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    THE thinking is not whether the universe is meaningful or purposeful or not.

    It is whether we want to extrapolate meaning or not it is whether we want to extrapolate purpose or not. Even when we do there is no telling that our meanings or purposes will not conflict or conflict with those of other people and who is to say which would be better.

    It is not whether creation is intelligent or not it is whether it appeals to the intelligent mind. But for this to happen there must have be a first intellect. That first intellect is the son of God. Whatever we want we get it from the Absolute God. All the big bangs whatever come from the Absolute. All your pre-existent nothingness whatever comes from the Absolute. And the Absolute is in the Son and the Son is in the Absolute. Do you think front-way, back-way back to back or belly to belly or in or out you could have something coming second not depending on what came first. Even if the second criticizes the first it depends on the first. And whatever portion of intelligence you have or we all have comes from a pre-existent intelligence. And the eternal is a disgrace to the temporal. Worse when the temporal exhalts itself. What would it all mean?

  381. on 18 Jul 2014 at 6:29 am 381.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    The argument is stale: go and help the sick, the dying, the poor – the ignorant in a real way.

  382. on 18 Jul 2014 at 6:35 am 382.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    To accept a chaotic viewpoint is to cosign an orderly view point as chaos cannot by authority prevent order. But it can ignore it.

  383. on 18 Jul 2014 at 8:36 am 383.TJ said …

    To DPK,
    You concluded with…

    “I think I am. There is no reason I have seen to assume that life arising on this planet, or anywhere else it may have, is a directed process that has a “meaning”. That is like asking “what is the meaning of comets?” Because we can look at comets as having played a role in bringing water and essential things to earth, that is no different than the puddle assuming the hole in the ground in which it lives was meant specifically for it, because it fits it’s shape to perfection. Both the hole and the puddle are products of things that happen in accordance with the way the universe works. There is no “meaning” or purpose to it. They simply are.”

    Purpose implies Function. Meaning is explanatory. An explanation for a comet will give meaning to what we observe.
    A depression filled with water is the meaning/explanation for a puddle, not the “purpose”. Purpose and meaning only co-exist it the context of “made for” or “Created for”.

    I agree that… 1) How did it all begin? No one knows.
    you said…
    “You are confusing hypothesizing with knowledge.”

    I’m not the only one. What knowledge is “long ages” and “millions of years” presented as fact based on?

    Which of the following are hypothesized and which are knowledge?…

    “Not what one would expect from the perfect work of a perfect being with infinite power and infinite knowledge. Simple as that.”

    “the atheist belief system doesn’t exist, you dumb motherfucker. repeating the same shit over and over again doesn’t make it true.”

    “…evolution is a fact based explanation of modern biodiversity whilst Christianity is a faith based story about an imaginary deity.”

    “the gist of the matter is, that an all knowing god giving free will is an impossibility.”

    ———————

    I don’t expect anybody to answer the above, it only invites argument.

    All nonsense aside… do you consider it to be a rational statement?…

    “What we believe, is determined more so, by what we reject. As opposed to what we can prove or provide evidence for.”

  384. on 18 Jul 2014 at 11:14 am 384.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “What we believe, is determined more so, by what we reject. As opposed to what we can prove or provide evidence for.”

    No this is not a rational statement. You refuse to define the nature of evidence as you see it so we cannot speculate any further.

  385. on 18 Jul 2014 at 11:28 am 385.alex said …

    this tj motherfucker thinks he’s clever. he bombards this blog with his shock and awe bullshit, but he’s got nothing to say. tryin to trick people into rejecting shit that don’t exist? it’s old and don’t mean a damn thing.

    i reject the xtian god as much as i reject the mothefucking bigfoot, don’t i? does that make sense? rejecting santa, elves, and shit, that don’t exist? do i reject all the motherfucking gods before yahweh and all future gods?

    “define the nature of evidence…”

    then why don’t you, you dumbass. if hesus showed up, how would you know? oh, you’ll just know, right? i bet you’d ask the mofo for some proof, won’t you?

    i bet if hesus levitated it wouldn’t be enough for you? i’m a fucking skeptic, but a simple levitation would do it for me, praise the lord. what’s in your wallet, motherfucker?

  386. on 18 Jul 2014 at 3:08 pm 386.DPK said …

    Which of the following are hypothesized and which are knowledge?…
    “Not what one would expect from the perfect work of a perfect being with infinite power and infinite knowledge. Simple as that.”

    That depends on your definition of god… something the theist her steadfastly refuse to do. If god is defined as a being omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent than it is knowledge that the god of the bible does not fit that definition.

    “the atheist belief system doesn’t exist, you dumb motherfucker. repeating the same shit over and over again doesn’t make it true.”

    In as much as it can be argued that the lack of acceptance is an unsupported claim does not constitute a “belief system”, this is knowledge. If your concept of a belief system is different, that’s your call. But then I suppose you’d have to classify people who do not believe that the Keebler Elves actually make the cookies in a hallowed out tree as a “belief system”. Have at it.

    “…evolution is a fact based explanation of modern biodiversity whilst Christianity is a faith based story about an imaginary deity.”

    The distinction is evidence. The theory of common decent is supported by mountains of evidence. the theory of god is supported by fables and superstitious nonsense. None the less, evolution and common decent could be disproved, rather easily, in fact… but it has not been. That places it about as close to “knowledge” as we can probably hope to get.

    “the gist of the matter is, that an all knowing god giving free will is an impossibility.”

    This is deduced from simple logic. It is not possible for a god to know with certainty what will occur in the future, and say that we are free to change it. Knowledge implies certainty, and if a god is certain (has knowledge) that I will choose to do “X” and no “y” then there would exist no possible scenario in which I could possibly choose “y”. If “A” represents the set of all possible events, and B represents the subset of things an omniscient know will occur, then A-B equals the set of things that cannot occur. If there exists a set of thing that cannot occur, then god cannot be omnipotent, since he would be unable to do anything which would violate his perfect knowledge.

    Look… I have said this here before… define god and we can talk intelligently about it. Until then, the theist merely move the goalposts around to avoid any real discussion. Ther is no doubt there is an order to the universe, a set of laws that govern absolutely the way things work, and it is elegant and beautiful. If you want to call that underlying order “god” in the sense that Einstein used it, no argument from me. It clearly exists and is undeniable.
    But to make the leap from a set of laws that control the nature of the cosmos, to the idea of a magical personal god who reads your thoughts, requires that you worship him, wants to have a personal relationship with you, answers your prayers, and will ultimately judge you for your acts and reward you with an eternal life of bliss in a magical kingdom or punish you with an eternity of suffering and torment… well, that a pretty big leap that requires more than some ancient legends.

  387. on 18 Jul 2014 at 7:30 pm 387.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    That said just as you can percieve order in the world if you look for it because the absolute provides it. you can also ‘see’ God in the totality of things because the absolute provides it. However you can deny order and so too you can deny God. That until your options run out. The fact that you Guys have this blog tells me there is something you just can’t get over. There is a stake that entictes you draws you in because of awe and you are obligated to this. What do you think is the summit of that thing. Can you approach it any how. Is it just a dead academic thing you are at home with or it a playful lion cub in your life but that it will grow up to be in reality a wrathful lion in your life.

    All this power is it ok with you are you saved. All this swearing and badmouthing you do on this blog do you not have fear or respect a feeling that if you don’t approach life rightly there is a power out there that just might hold you and fold you, crush your or rip you to threads if you don’t align your self with favour.

    I don’t think you guys are neither saved nor safe. Don’t approach the idea of God so sceptically, so arrogantly, so naively. You might do your self a disservice the Conquering Lion of Judah is not a paper lion. He is a loyal responsible lion but like any other lion he must be a conqueror and a killer. Do you think the universe in it majesty stand up on nothing or on something lest than itself. Should a little rodent look at a mighty and armed fighting force and arrogantly declare that it doesn’t exist. This is not about winning an argument you are in grave danger.

  388. on 18 Jul 2014 at 8:07 pm 388.alex said …

    “There is a stake that entictes you draws you in because of awe and you are obligated to this.”

    i know what you mean. i keep getting drawn into this other bullshit santa claus blog because my dumbass cousin really believes in it.

    he goes around preaching that the reason i didn’t get any xmas gifts is because i didn’t believe in the jolly old elf.

    i guess i best believe in the bullshit christ because if i don’t, i won’t go to the bullshit heaven?

  389. on 18 Jul 2014 at 8:58 pm 389.DPK said …

    2Dumb:
    “It is not whether creation is intelligent or not it is whether it appeals to the intelligent mind. But for this to happen there must have be a first intellect. That first intellect is the son of God. Whatever we want we get it from the Absolute God.”

    You need to look up the definition of unsubstantiated claim and non-sequitur.

    Just because you can jumble a bunch of woo woo words together in a sentence doesn’t mean it represents any kind of valid thought process. Show us where you have proved that “for this to happen there must have be a first intellect”, because right now that is an empty claim. Claims presented without evidence can be dismissed without reason. Then, assuming you can prove the necessity of this first intelligence, show us how that came to be with a prior intelligence to create it… if you can’t you have just violated your own premise. Then, when you are done with that, show us how you know “That first intellect is the son of God.”? Indeed this would seem to be a problem for you if for no other reason, if the first intelligence is the SON of god, then where does god fit in the picture? Presumably he would have had to be first in order to spawn a son?? And why should anyone accept your particular version of the truth over the thousands of other god claims that have been presented throughout history?
    Your Nobel Prize awaits… don’t forget to show your sources… go!

  390. on 19 Jul 2014 at 1:16 am 390.TJ said …

    To 2Dumb4WordsofGod,

    They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.

    These guys deny the existence of their own spirit/soul. They believe that only the material world exists, because it is the only thing that can be measured and perceived and corroborated by their fellow man.

    They deny that the spirit and the flesh are bound together to produce what we call life… and that death is of the flesh, a result of man’s fall from grace.

    They can perceive…
    “There is no doubt there is an order to the universe, a set of laws that govern absolutely the way things work, and it is elegant and beautiful. If you want to call that underlying order “god” in the sense that Einstein used it, no argument from me. It clearly exists and is undeniable.”

    But cannot perceive an author of those laws.

    They place great faith in man made terms like omnipotent, but ignore and dismiss the words of god these terms attempt to explain. They ignore that Gods is creator, author and owner of all that is made and that it is all made according to his will and not according to our will or understanding. They believe that in their short life times they can perceive the vastness of the creation. That man and his ever changing theory’s and facts provides the answers.

    They make statements like…
    ““That first intellect is the son of God.”? Indeed this would seem to be a problem for you if for no other reason, if the first intelligence is the SON of god, then where does god fit in the picture? Presumably he would have had to be first in order to spawn a son?? ”

    They either have not read or are unaware of Colossians 1:15…
    He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.…

    They cannot conceive that the first thing the formless God did was give himself an image. Of all the hosts of the heavens and earth, man was the only thing created in Gods image, that we were created for him, by him.

    They cannot comprehend the concept of being born again in the spirit, when they deny their own spirit.

    They cannot conceive a God who sacrificed his eternal heavenly body for a earthly fleshly body. They cannot perceive a spiritual comforter. Or why a fleshly God who says he has left to prepare a place for us, will not appear on command when prayed to, to do so.

    They cannot understand faith, claiming it baseless and yet confess they don’t have any beliefs. But when pointed out to them that they don’t have faith based on what they reject and not what they can prove or provide evidence for, they then ask you to define and categorize their own evidences.

    They cannot perceive a god with a plan and their own free will to follow it or not. So they say a god of the bible could not be loving and allow man to be wicked. They site the suffering of the young and innocent as evidence claiming, by their own judgement these to be unworthy of eternal damnation, clearly ignoring God’s claim to be “merciful and just” and…

    Matthew 19:14
    Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

    And yet, when I say to them…
    “If you truly believe this, and it fits with your world view, then there is nothing I, or anybody can say that will make it untrue for you.”

    They do not realise that if they remain lost in Christ, that ultimately when they say “there is no God”. That it will be become all too true when they are eternally separated from him. They have been warned.

    But they are not yet dead, and still have time. They should try praying for God to reveal himself to their spirit in a way that only they would personally perceive… after all, he is a personal saviour.

    But watch as they mock me as I confess to them.
    I TJ bare witness, on the 8th May 2014 at age 38 my eyes were opened and I became born again in the holy spirit. After 27 years of soul searching and perusing an absolute truth, I found it in the God of the Bible. There is no physical proof to show for it is not the physical body that is saved but the spirit.

    When they look inward and can only perceive chemical and electrical effects from a physical cause. How can they conceive when they deny their own spirit?

  391. on 19 Jul 2014 at 1:56 am 391.alex said …

    “But watch as they mock me as I confess to them.”

    confessing when your motherfucking, all knowing god already knew? wtf?

    i don’t mock you, motherfucker. i don’t like motherfuckers like you, righteously spewing your shit because you think you’re entitled. i don’t give a fuck if you’re a mooslim, a scientologist, or even that other dumbass named messenger. try telling me to be nicer without the theist righteousness and i’ll prolly take you up on it.

    right away, i smelled your bullshit, but you still insisted on broadcasting your righteous confession didn’t you?

    occur to you that your god has a plan for all the atheists and you’re fucking with the same god? don’t do it.

  392. on 19 Jul 2014 at 6:50 am 392.TJ said …

    Ha ha ha ha!
    So your entitled to spew your shit? You been doing it here for several years from what I can tell.

    Why? If you don’t like it, why troll a site for religious discussion… that just sounds insane… almost religious.

    All the bullshit you been sniffing for so long it’s now the only thing you can smell.

    But don’t worry Alex, I’ve had my fill of your non-belief in bullshit. You’ve still got what you had at the beginning… nothing. And you can be sure there will be no God for you if you choose so.

    Amazing how a few words on a screen can have such a physical impact on your chemical and electrical brain function.

    “try telling me to be nicer without the theist righteousness and i’ll prolly take you up on it.”

    I wouldn’t expect you to change just for me…

    Good bye Alex, as requested, I won’t bother you any more.

    Oh! If I decide to post again just ignore it, like the ones you dislike, ignore yours.

  393. on 19 Jul 2014 at 8:45 am 393.alex said …

    “If you don’t like it, why troll a site for religious discussion”

    should i stop trolling my family gatherings because i pointed out their bullshit? should i stop buying the the random lunch for the bum because i told him to stop the “god bless” shit?

    “Amazing how a few words on a screen can have such a physical impact on your chemical and electrical brain function.”

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. you’re amazed at nothing shit. why would you be amazed if you found out that i do all the good shit that you’d expect from an xtian? why would you be amazed at the beautiful sunset? not enough to enjoy it? isn’t skin cancer marvelous?

    but you’re not truly amazed. it’s the xtian variation of the sour grapes. i don’t buy your bullshit, so to you, sarcastically, you’re amazed.

    “I wouldn’t expect you to change just for me..”

    if i changed for you and believed in hesus and turned around and changed as to believed in allah, ra, and zeus, would that make sense?

    as demonstrated, you’re fulla shit. go fuck thyself.

  394. on 19 Jul 2014 at 3:14 pm 394.DPK said …

    390.TJ said …
    To 2Dumb4WordsofGod,
    They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.

    So, TJ finally shows his colors, abandons his attempt at an approach to reason and resorts to the ultimate last resort of the completely deluded, quoting biblical deep-isms! How sad.

    TJ.. I can quote your bible too.
    But you won’t like my cherry picked verses.

  395. on 19 Jul 2014 at 5:51 pm 395.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Good bye Alex, as requested, I won’t bother you any more”

    ROTFL!!!!!!! can’t blame you TJ . He gets boring fast eh? I think alexander is just a robot posting…lol!!!. I have seen this so many times but yet the Obamamanaics claim the theist run off the posters!!!

    lol!!!!

    No TJ this is not a site for discussion as claimed. It is, however comic relief. Just poke alex with a stick occasionally for fun! But hey, remain reasonable, continue learning and engage in conversation with the open minded individuals.

    peace

  396. on 19 Jul 2014 at 6:00 pm 396.DPK said …

    ” continue learning and engage in conversation with the open minded individuals.”

    ROTFLOL… yeah that’s why TJ and the Dummy had to resort to bible thumping hellfire and damnation… LOL.. yes, “engage in conversation”… that’s rich, especially coming from YOU of all people.
    Time to change your socks, Hor… they’re filled with the piss running down your leg.

  397. on 19 Jul 2014 at 6:01 pm 397.alex said …

    “Obama”

    back to diversions, eh? what happened to TOE? macro? soup? programmer? obsess? chevy? moral? ocean swimming?

    what about the rest of your personas? got tired of getting your ass busted as: martin, science guy, biff, xenon, little ‘A’, Sweetness, boz, RL Wooten, ‘Everyone’, and of course Horatio?

    i bet you’re tired of me posting your pile of shit? http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    “It is, however comic relief.”

    not as funny as your “China is selling fetuses as a delicacy”. or when you posted as Martin and commented with: “Martin, Good one!”

    lol, motherfucker?

  398. on 19 Jul 2014 at 7:09 pm 398.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    Like I said you guys are in Grave Danger. You are defying power at its greatest,er a power more real and greater than voodoo, a power more real and greater than black magic, a power more real and greater than the Mob, a power more real and greater than the Secret Services, a power more real and greater than the armies of the world put together, a power more real and greater than any to be found in earth, hell or heaven. A power greater than that the nuclear fusion that powers our sun or any other son or star. A power greater than the universe it self as logic would testify and dictate.

    I don’t care about a Nobel Prize; a Noble Prize is insignificant.

    A vain pursuit compare to the might and majesty of God. Salvation is the prize I keep my eyes fixed on.

    If I was offered $1, 000, 000, 000 to spend just to give up salvation. I would take it but I wouldn’t spend it because I would have for use as toilet paper for life.

    The reason I said that the Son of God is the first intellect is because I don’t consider God himself to be an intellect. It is given to creature to concern themselves with being an intellect. And so Jesus Christ The First as the Creature which represents the infinite God is invariable the first intellect.

    To say someone is possess of intellect is to describe someone God himself is beyond description he is infinite and his greatness is mind-boggling and his grandness is all surpassing.

    The intellect is used in the pursuit of knowledge God doesn’t need to pursue anything he is the embodiment of perfect knowledge.

    In fact intellect or intelligence is something that is built up we speak of someone developing their intellect. Now does an almighty, infinite and omnipresent absolute have to build up any thing to have for himself as an attribute?

    Intelligence itself must bow to God.

    The brightest intellect of man is dark. And the intellect of the sinner is an abomination.

  399. on 19 Jul 2014 at 7:24 pm 399.alex said …

    2Dumb4WordsofGod = dumbass, motherfucker.

  400. on 19 Jul 2014 at 7:27 pm 400.DPK said …

    2Dumb says:
    “God himself is beyond description..”
    And then goes on for 3 paragraphs describing god..

    “he is infinite and his greatness is mind-boggling and his grandness is all surpassing.”

    Now if you are done with your hellfire and damnation speech, answer an even simpler question… why should I believe you?
    I mean messenger says he talks to god himself and has been to heaven, and he says god is all merciful and even hell doesn’t last forever, in fact, only the “bad” parts of us go to hell, and the good parts go to heaven. I’m basically a good person… why should I believe you and not him?
    There was a Muslim maniac on here a while ago that said we were all going to burn unless we rejected Jesus, the false profit, and accepted Allah, the only true god. Why not believe him?
    I mean, if all you have is threats and word salad, what make you any different?
    Put up or shut up. Nobody is buying your bullshit.

  401. on 19 Jul 2014 at 7:33 pm 401.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    Like I said you guys are in Grave Danger. You are defying power at its greatest, a power more real and greater than voodoo, a power more real and greater than black magic, a power more real and greater than the Mob, a power more real and greater than the Secret Services, a power more real and greater than the armies of the world put together, a power more real and greater than any to be found in earth, hell or heaven. A power greater than that of the nuclear fusion that powers our sun or any other sun or star. A power greater than the universe itself as logic would testify and dictate.

    I don’t care about a Nobel Prize; a Noble Prize is insignificant.

    A vain pursuit compare to the might and majesty of God. Salvation is the prize I keep my eyes fixed on.

    If I was offered $1, 000, 000, 000 to spend just to give up salvation. I would take it, but I wouldn’t spend it because I would have it for use as toilet paper for life.

    The reason I said that the Son of God is the first intellect is because I don’t consider God himself to be an intellect. It is given to creatures to concern themselves with being intellects. And so Jesus Christ The First as the Creature which represents the infinite God is invariable the first intellect.

    To say someone is possessed of intellect strictly speaking is to describe someone; God himself is beyond description he is infinite and his greatness is mind-boggling and his grandness is all surpassing.

    The intellect is used in the pursuit of knowledge God doesn’t need to pursue anything he is the embodiment of perfect knowledge.

    In fact intellect or intelligence is something that is built up we speak of someone developing their intellect. Now does an almighty, infinite and omnipresent absolute have to build up any thing to have for himself as an attribute?

    Intelligence itself must bow to God.

    The brightest intellect of man is dark. And the intellect of the sinner is an abomination.

    All intelligence of God or of the spiritual world which neglects the adoration and exaltation of JC is not intelligence but dis-intelligence.

    You guys are not in a position to bargain you don’t have any power or wealth of your own to say, ‘this I have even to challenge God’ far less match him. Take God out of the picture and the world lies an empty ruin. No computers, No architecture, No battle ships, No war planes, No medical labs, No farms, No space ships all these things depend on the provisions God provides which men are now trying to steal, criminally treasure and abuse.

    You guys are empty, vain, lost, insane, or 2 Dumb for the Words of God to reach the inward parts or your hearts.

  402. on 19 Jul 2014 at 7:39 pm 402.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    We can offer the best in adjectives when praising God but we must accept their humility and their inadequacy in doing so. No word phrase or adjective adequately Describes God or even comes close to doing so. The best we can do is offer or eternal lives in sacrifice to even become vaguely respected by God. Even if we offered the highest praise to God for the rest of eternity do you think we would be flattering God. Ye if we put on only a couple diamond stones that the Universe Creator, God himself created that would be flattering to us.

  403. on 19 Jul 2014 at 7:41 pm 403.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    But if the whole realm of nature were ours that would be enough as a gift to flatter God.

    Why do you think that statement was made. What thought was going through the saints head when he said that.

    Think on that.

    Where would you have to be mentally and spiritually to realise that truth.

  404. on 19 Jul 2014 at 7:42 pm 404.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    Where the whole realm of nature mine it were a present far too small

    Love so amazing so divine demands my heart and soul my life my all

  405. on 19 Jul 2014 at 7:47 pm 405.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    Even as I say this my hands shake and my eyes sob tears for those of us so lost, so endangered yet so arrogant.

    May God have mercy on us all.

  406. on 19 Jul 2014 at 8:02 pm 406.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    The only way to God is through Jesus Christ the intermediary. You know that only too well why harden your hearts.

  407. on 19 Jul 2014 at 8:02 pm 407.alex said …

    2Dumb4WordsofGod. righteous, predictable, bullshit. business as usual for these motherfuckers.

    oooh, i’m so scared because the motherfucker says i’m in danger. what a fucking moron.

  408. on 19 Jul 2014 at 10:37 pm 408.TJ said …

    To DPK,

    Now that my beliefs are laid to bare, do you still wish to engage in conversation with me?

  409. on 20 Jul 2014 at 1:29 am 409.DPK said …

    Why sure, TJ… But when you preach fire and brimstone at me or try to use the bible to prove the bible, don’t be surprised when I call bullshit on you.
    Wanna answer the question I asked 2dumb?
    Why should I believe your claims?
    If you can’t give me a solid reason as to why I should give credence to anything you say, then you are no different from all the others preaching demands of different gods.

  410. on 20 Jul 2014 at 9:57 am 410.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    Why So Foul Mouthed?

    And what does being a moron mean? Does it mean that I am not who I am? Does it mean that I don’t like myself? Does it mean that I don’t have a happy life? Does it mean that I can eat, drink, sleep and be contented with life? Does it mean that I cannot study, work and excel at sport, recreation and social life? Does it mean that I can’t serve my God freely, happily and with blessings? Does it mean that I will not happily make my way to the higher realm when life on earth expires? Does it mean that I don’t see the hand of God in the things that happen in my life every day blessing me and lifting me above the rest above the stress? Does it mean that I will not live to see the horrible reward of the wicked, the evil, the unrighteous and the unbelievers? Does it mean that believing in God has not given me all the best but prepared me for the worse? Does it mean that I do not have within a joy that passeth all understanding and a peace such as God giveth and that the world could not give if it even tried?

    Do you know why it is so moronic to disbelieve in God. The word Yah or Yahweh means the one who causes to exist. To say there is no God not only means that there is no god but means that there is no one or nothing that causes to exist. And this is contrary to the evidence as something does exist. Any normal person would realize that since something exist, the one or thing who caused it to exist also does exist and he or she would align themselves with that thing or person.

    If you were hired for work in a Fortune 500 company would you look at an intelligently designed company and just decide that it did not have a creator and that you wanted to work for it but did not want to align yourself, your ambitions and your motives with the CEO and the work and wishes and designs of the Entrepreneur? Because in you pea sized brain the company exists but the creator of the company doesn’t exist?

    That is moronic.

    All religions imply worship tell me about one that doesn’t. All imply a higher state of being tell me about one that does not. All imply a return to the source and the peace that existed at the beginning tell me about one that doesn’t? All imply a detachment from the created that the peace of the un-created may enter?

    All religions therfore imply the values of Christianity. And they seek for that which Christianity also seeks for and has.

    The Father is the Absolute who is Greater than all Are. There is only one thing Greater than all are and that is the Absolute in Islam through their wisdom they call that God Allah. Hindus call it Brahma.

    In the Hindu religion there is the trinity Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. The creator, the preserver and the destroyer.

    The trinity does not speak of three Gods but one. In the olden days it was know that all 1s are 3s. The three represented equally the sum, the total, the universe, the father (who is greater than all), the son represented the physical or focal point, and the spirit represented the working that brought the thing, the situation or the time-space coordinate into being.

    It is the same for all things, there is not one thing on earth or heaven that is not a trinity thus viewed. I am a trinity, my computer is a trinity equally physical, and equally spirit or life cycle; and equally part of and inseparable from the sum total otherwise known as the universe the father which is greater than all.

    This is all the ancients said. There is the truth, but if you want to live there is a way this is all Jesus said, I and the father the one greater than all, the unity, the singularity, are one. Yet I am a man, a focal point (or we wouldn’t be having this conversation), yet I show forth a process, a function, a dynamic, a life cycle a spirit and I am inseparable from that and those things are inseparable from me.

    I am the measure of all things attributed and I and the total are one.

    But blaspheme not against the spirit which brings purging, health, cleansing and pruning. Blaspheme not against the ministry (which is of the spirit which works to supply every need). Blaspheme not against spirit which is the life blood and immunity of the body bringing destruction to every threat to the body – that no corruption may persist in the body.

    Do you think Muslims worship the Father and not the son? you are wrong.

    Ask any Muslim they will tell you, we strive in Islam: ie to subject themselves to God but they have never seen or met God, they only have a focus on God and the focus on God is not God. This is what Jesus said focus on me, on my life and my teachings and my example and you will have done your bit to know and worship God. No image mental or otherwise is God, God is the sum total such a focus is only an attempt to communicate with God and to align yourself with God.

    Is Jesus a man? Is Jesus a body of a man? How tall is Jesus. 6 feet? When he was a child how tall was he 4 feet? Contradiction. How can Jesus be 4 feet and still 6 feet? When Jesus was a blood clot in his mother womb how tall was he? Was he still Jesus? No hands, no head, no body, no feet – so not a man as you know it but still Jesus? Therefore the Son is a focal point, not the form of a man struggling to carry a cross up a hill in a village in the middle east.

    Cast out our sin and enter in, if you are a person 4 feet tall are you going to let a man 6 feet tall enter in your body and could he fit?

    Therefore the carnal mind cannot understand spiritual things.

  411. on 20 Jul 2014 at 10:04 am 411.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    If you have a beginning you can have a multifaceted end. However if you are beginning you can only have one beginner and strictly speaking only one first born of creation.

    Only a schizophrenic would think it to be other wise.

  412. on 20 Jul 2014 at 10:18 am 412.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    Do you Scientist think you own the universe. I have a 5 cd set on the universe. Yet the scientist most powerful telescopes haven’t even vaguely peered deeply into space. And this won’t happen in a thousand years. What you call the universe is a few pictures garnered by a telescope and then flung together on a computer to get a better picture.

    Not only is it inaccurate to assume that you have pieced the observable universe together properly but you guys are the proverbial ant trying to make love to an elephant and the proverbial sage trying to drain the ocean with a spatula. Then you get some sort of chemical imbalance in your brains and you attack Christians. You are a cursed lot and the wrath of God abideth on you.

    You should let God alone do it.

    You will call down an intolerable judgement of unbearable proportions down on your selves. If you can’t escape the gravitational pull of the earth; do you think you will escape the grip and gravitational pull of hell? Indeed of your own reprobate and corrupt minds?

  413. on 20 Jul 2014 at 3:04 pm 413.DPK said …

    2dumb ranted:
    A bunch of disjointed, rambling, crazy ass bs like ” How tall is Jesus. 6 feet? When he was a child how tall was he 4 feet? Contradiction. How can Jesus be 4 feet and still 6 feet? When Jesus was a blood clot in his mother womb how tall was he?”

    Do you think your Chorpa-like idiotic attempt at sounding philosophical impresses anyone? Only weak minded dolts like yourself, and they don’t need convincing.

    Want anyone to take you seriously? Answer my question. Why should anyone believe anything you say? Give us valid reasons as to why anyone should accept that the claims you make about gods and the nature of reality are true.

    “Any normal person would realize that since something exist, the one or thing who caused it to exist also does exist…”
    And yet, you claim that god exists without a one, or thing that caused him to exist, no? Is this not your claim? How can that be? You are presenting a premise, then violating your own premise with your very next breath.

  414. on 20 Jul 2014 at 4:41 pm 414.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    Who is Chorpa what did he say about this?

  415. on 20 Jul 2014 at 5:25 pm 415.DPK said …

    Sorry… Auto correct. Deepack Chopra. The master of new age doublespeak and bullshit spewing word salad.

    So, I take your lack of a response as an admission that you actually have no good reason to offer as to why anyone should believe any of your claims?
    I thought as much.
    Come back when you figure it out.

  416. on 20 Jul 2014 at 7:06 pm 416.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    HOW CAN YOU PROVE THAT SOMEONE IS ALMIGHTY WHAT EVIDENCE CAN BE PUT FORWARD AND UNTIL YOU CAN THINK OF SOMETHING HARDER TO DO THAN THE PRODUCTION OF A BOUNDLESS UNIVERSE THE ALMIGHTY HAS ALREADY PUT FORWARD HIS EVIDENCE AND DOES NOT NEED TO DO MORE WHY SHOULD HE NEED TO DO MORE HE HAS ALREADY PUT FORWARD THE UNIVERSE AND YOU CAN GET OVER IT.
    IF SOME ONE RAN A 100 METER RACE IN 9.45 SECONDS FLAT WOULD YOU SAY THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH RUN IT IN 14 SECONDS TO PROVE THAT YOU ARE FAST WHAT MADNESS WOULD THAT BE. DO YOU WANT THE HIMALAYAS REMOVED TO PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS WHEN GOD HAS JUST MADE A BOUNDLESS MAGNIFICENT UNIVERSE A FEAT TRILLIONS OF TIMES GREATER THAN REMOVING THE HYMALAYS MOUNTAINS.

  417. on 20 Jul 2014 at 7:29 pm 417.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Contest’

    Do we believe the claims of 2Dumb4WordsofGod or Dippy?

    One claims God created everything and set creation into motion. Dippy claims everything created itself (chuckle).

    Computing…………

    No contest, a Creator is logical, essential and fits the evidence.

    Case dismissed. DPK, pay your court costs on the way out.

  418. on 20 Jul 2014 at 7:54 pm 418.DPK said …

    Haha.. The only thing really funnier than 2dumb trying to scream at me through a computer screen is A’s complete and total inability to grasp a simple concept.
    Neither I have never claimed to know how the universe began. I have repeatedly said “no one knows.” YOU three, A, 2dumb and Messy, are currently the only ones here claiming to know how the universe began. I just want to know why I should accept your version of events over say, RA the sun god, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus the mighty, Ravi the magical interdimensional sea turtle, or even the Hawkings version of time leading back toward the Big Bang becoming fuzzy?
    So far all I hear is that the universe is here… That only proves that it is here, not that it was created by a creature who was never created.
    Got anything to offer? If not, I stand by my position that while I do not know how the universe was created, neither do you. And that doesn’t mean you can make up some fairy tale and expect people to believe it under threat of eternal damnation.
    I call bullshit!
    Lol. You guys are funny though.

  419. on 20 Jul 2014 at 8:31 pm 419.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    Every religion concerns itself with the beginning but there is no beginning. The Bible speaks of everlasting and the one whose going forth has been from everlasting. It does not claim an absolute beginning however it speaks of a beginning of creation. God did not need to become. But all the things that became are things that Yaweh the one who causes to becomel; caused to become. Creatures are not from everlasting but the absolute is from everlasting. I have never heard of a temporal absolute nor have I heard of an eternal relative nor an eternal creature, nor an eternal man nor an eternal animal or an eternal tree or an eternal…. Athiest?

  420. on 20 Jul 2014 at 9:06 pm 420.DPK said …

    Again, why should I believe you?
    So far you have offered me nothing more than ” because it says so in the bible” a book written by primitives that has contains demonstrable, factual errors and contradictions.
    Do you have anything else?
    If not, then your woo woo words mean nothing.
    Next.

  421. on 20 Jul 2014 at 9:18 pm 421.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    The word of God does not contain factual errors the word of God is the standard of truth.

    Are we to believe that Life, and the Universe was created by what then.

    The primitives were closer to the case, and the evidence than we are why not believe them.

    If we don’t believe God what is the Alternative.

    I always say God is the All in All not the Alternative.

    The big bang is ludicrous.

    Even more so a big bang which set itself off.

  422. on 20 Jul 2014 at 9:19 pm 422.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    Alice in Wonderland had more faith, hope and a better guidance principle than you all.

  423. on 20 Jul 2014 at 9:24 pm 423.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    Further more the universe should not be thought of strictly in terms of Matter, Energy, Space and Time there is also a moral universe and a whole host of spiritual realities which contribute to the totality of things. The big bang doesn’t explain those.

  424. on 20 Jul 2014 at 10:32 pm 424.DPK said …

    As you are so amply demonstrating, faith is nothing more than pretending to know things you do not know. If your claims about god and these mysterious spiritual dimensions of the universe could be shown in any way to actually exist, then I would not need faith to believe them.

    Let’s try an excercise, shall we? Let’s make a list of all the things that were once attributed to gods that later were found to have a natural, no supernatural explanation.
    The sun, the moon, the tides, storms and rain, earthquakes, thunder and lightning, floods, disease, mental illness, epilepsy, birth defects, solar and lunar eclipses, the change of seasons, etc, etc, etc…. Get the idea?
    Now let’s list all the things that were thought to have a natural explanation that later turned out to be caused by supernatural gods:
    ______________________________________________
    Oh yeah…. Nothing.

    You ask, “If we don’t believe God what is the Alternative?”
    Not believing in god, maybe?
    Let me ask you a like question. If we don’t believe in leprechauns, what is the alternative? You can’t explain where the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow comes from, can you? Leprechauns are the only possible answer.

    Now, you have made many claims, based completely on faith…. Pretending you know things you do not in fact know, and I ask you again, WHY should I believe you?
    You must know. You believe it yourself…. Why?

  425. on 20 Jul 2014 at 11:48 pm 425.TJ said …

    To DPK,

    WHY should I believe you?
    You must know. You believe it yourself…. Why?

    You are not required to believe me, it is of course your choice to believe what you will.

    However speaking for myself only. Of all the alternative explanations for origins, I consistently found their roots in the rejection of the biblical texts.
    Why so much effort to discredit it?
    You and I both understand why nobody tries to discredit the Easter bunny, Santa and lepricorns.
    But why does the bible receive so much attention both positive and negative? Were the ancients so primitive, or is this based on a theory who’s logics begins with a rejection of biblical scripture?

    Perhaps we should review the origins of man made theories and measure their worth of acceptance or rejection.

    My faith is based on a will to believe with all my faculties, and not based on it simply is. No other possibility offers or answer for me, to the big three questions. No other possibility encompasses all that I can observe and perceive and put it into a context/framework that I can rationalise.

    Anybody who claims to have no belief system is only fooling themselves. To say something is untrue or that they don’t believe, is to believe it be untrue, a belief within and of itself.

    When I look to anything, I am biased in my belief. I rationalise, make assumptions and speculate. This is no different to anybody else who claims anything to be true or untrue. I have never claimed otherwise.

    …You must know. You believe it yourself…. Why?

    By a process of rationalising, speculating, assuming, rejecting what I choose, accepting what I choose and finally conviction by what I can only describe as an overwhelming personal spiritual experience. And that is all I can offer you as to why I believe.

    From here I can only discuss and offer my interpretation, remaining biased in my belief. I cannot give you the smoking gun you desire.

  426. on 21 Jul 2014 at 12:04 am 426.alex said …

    “…I consistently found their roots in the rejection of the biblical texts.
    Why so much effort to discredit it?
    You and I both understand why nobody tries to discredit the Easter bunny, Santa and lepricorns.”

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. who are the dipshit theists that mostly post in here? surprise, bitch! it’s xtian motherfuckers. pullin out the persecuted shit, eh?

    if the mooslum motherfuckers posted here as much as you assholes did, you thunk they wouldn’t be discredited just as much?

    goddamn right nobody discredits the bunny, santa, or lepricorns. do you see any of them believers posting their shit?

    you keep desperately trying to pin that belief shit on atheists, but you fail bitch. the disbelief in allah, rah, zeus, hesus, yeti and the rest of the bullshit does not constitute belief any more than the disbelief in tarot cards.

    bitch, motherfucker.

  427. on 21 Jul 2014 at 12:11 am 427.alex said …

    “Why So Foul Mouthed?”

    you wave the eternal damnation shit and you complain about cursing?

    “And what does being a moron mean?”

    you complaining about the big bang like it’s relevant and that it’s the only known alternative? alice in wonderland being better than atheists? screaming in CAPS? and posting and reposting your bullshit?

  428. on 21 Jul 2014 at 12:35 am 428.alex said …

    “Do we believe the claims of 2Dumb4WordsofGod or Dippy?”

    are we debating DPK’s claim? you dumbass, motherfucker.

    why not my claim that the earth is flat? does that prove your god? you dumb motherfucker.

  429. on 21 Jul 2014 at 1:49 am 429.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    TJ,

    Great job demolishing DPKs illogical rationalizations while in the process causing Alex to meltdown.

    I dunno seems to be all the atheist have to offer which is why the cult of atheism remains small, irrelevant, without answers and hope.

    The funniest claim by atheist is that when science discovers a new scientific law or truth they believe they have disproved God!!

    lol!!!!

  430. on 21 Jul 2014 at 2:07 am 430.alex said …

    “…I dunno seems to be all the atheist have to offer which is why the cult of atheism…”

    reality check, bitch, motherfucker. here’s your entire m.o. for all to see: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS. oh look, it auto updates itself with your latest bullshit.

    remember your quip? “China is selling fetuses as a delicacy”

    and how you posted as martin and then congratulated yourself with “Martin, Good One!”

    that’s right motherfucker. i’m the constant reminder that you’re a piece of shit and it’s time for your ass to move on to a different moniker. try using “dumbass motherfucker”.

  431. on 21 Jul 2014 at 2:39 am 431.DPK said …

    To DPK,
    WHY should I believe you?
    You must know. You believe it yourself…. Why?

    What is it you think I believe TJ? I have stated that no one actually knows how the universe began. Is that untrue?
    I have stated that the properties commonly assigned to god are impossible, and I have shown you logically why it is not possible for there to be perfect foreknowledge and the free ability to change it. I have shown you logically that if a god has a perfect knowledge of events that will occur, then he cannot be omnipotent because there will be things he then could not do without invalidating his foreknowledge. Is that untrue?
    I have stated that I see no reason to accept your claims about the existence of gods and the supernatural, and that that god or creator is one described in the bible, or any other holy book. You have not presented one single shred of reason or evidence as to why I should. Not one.

    “You and I both understand why nobody tries to discredit the Easter bunny, Santa and lepricorns.” Because no one actually believes they actually exist and do the things the fables say they do. Sadly, the same cannot be said for the various god myths… witness otherwise sane people to this day killing each other daily because one does not pray to the same invisible man the other does.
    No one expends energy on discrediting the Easter Bunny because no one is demanding that the Easter Bunny story be taught as science in school, that colored eggs must be consumed on Easter Sunday, or that laws must be passed in agreement with the will of the Bunny. I really thought you were smarter than making such a silly statement. Rational people discredit silly religious beliefs because they matter in our world.

    “My faith is based on a will to believe with all my faculties,” in other words, wishful thinking. You freely admit that you believe because you want to, not because there is actually any rational reason to do so. Thanks for the admission… that’s your choice, but don’t try to convince me it is based on anything more than that, and don’t get angry with me when I call bullshit… because that’s how I see it.

    “Anybody who claims to have no belief system is only fooling themselves.” True that we all have ideas that we more or less accept, and those that we reject. I believe when I get in my car that the other drivers will stay in the proper lane. I believe when I drop a book it will fall to the floor. I believe when I boil a pot of water it will eventually evaporate. These belief systems are based on evidence and observation. How does that compare to a belief that there is a powerful god who loves us, but allows bad things to happen to good people everyday. A belief that a god answers prayers, when every rational study shows prayer has no effect? A belief that our consciousness somehow survives the death of our brains, and lives eternally in some other magical realm, when there is absolutely no reason to believe that any such thing happens. A belief in a all powerful god who’s feats have regressed along with the ability of humans to document and witness such feats from the likes of parting the Red Sea to occasional appearances on slices of burnt toast?
    Which one of us is fooling themselves, TJ? Really?

    “From here I can only discuss and offer my interpretation, remaining biased in my belief. I cannot give you the smoking gun you desire.”

    I know you can’t. But we disagree on the reason you can’t. You think it is because your beliefs are founded in some transcendent reality beyond the physical world, and I think, more practically, it is simply because they are not true. Ocam’s Razor and all that. But thank you for your honesty and for ceding the point. You appear to be at least an honest and sincere person, unlike most of the others on here, who are without a doubt the most unchristian christians you can imagine. I wish you well.

  432. on 21 Jul 2014 at 7:24 am 432.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    Why were fairy tales written? Because they were true or there was evidence for them? No.

    Was it because man wanted to believe in something? I think not.

    Superstition and fairy tales were written to satisfy man’s need for a little fiction.

    In a world like this it would not be complete unless men and women had a little fiction to believe in or to lighten life up.

    This is not the same reason 3 billion odd Christians and 2 billion odd Muslims visit the church and the Mosque every week.

    There is no perfect evidence for a thing except the thing it self: if we would analyse it.

    And you have an academic fallacy in your minds. You are holding to the fact that if a certain category of evidence for God were produced, that would mean that God would exist.

    Then I believe your next step would be to say if that evidence were produced anyone not believing would be wrong and I supposed you would get foul mouthed on them.

    Yet this is not how evidence works if you look at the rigorous court systems in the world evidence is produced for this and that and the courts take action on this evidence yet not all the evidence is conclusive and many persons are prosecuted wrongly because the courts have come to the wrong conclusion based on evidence (which is incomplete) no matter how convincing.

    I could not produce complete evidence for anything far less that God exists.

    Some people doubt their very eyes and ears far less evidence.

    I have strong evidencial logic.

    Jesus did miracles that people might believe that a person connected to the source of life could do extraordinary things, yet he never said ‘So Judges and Jury I have given you categorical evidence that God exists’.

    Can you give me categorical evidence at this present stage in man’s development that the centre of the earth exist or that the centre of the sun exists.

    NO; but you believe that every spherical object has a centre therefore the centre of the earth exist or that certainly the centre of the sun exist.

    You believe that the universe exist as a total although you have only seen part of the universe and there is no categorical evidence that the furthest reach of the universe exist as no one has real seen it, measured it or come in contact with it.

    Similarly no one has seen the one who has brought this extraordinarily miraculously ordered universe and existence into being yet we believe that that person exists.

    No evidence: but logic.

    A court does not decide by evidence alone. If there was 100 proof there would be no need for a court case.

    But seeing certain realities; logic is used to arrive at a conclusion.

  433. on 21 Jul 2014 at 10:13 am 433.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    I don’t think that believing that God exists is the same as religion.

    There are a lot of people who believe that God exist that are not religious people.

    Just like I don’t have to be a technology freak to believe that the Laptop I am using has a maker.

    How much more complex the Universe we have and we don’t have to be a religious person to take one look at it and come to the logical conclusion that it has been created.

    The Bible says that the even the devils believe in god and tremble.

    This is why I believe that most or all Atheists know deep in their hearts that God exist but they have a demonic agenda. This is why I am so hard on atheist.

    And so demanding that believers are not swayed by this oldest of heresies.

    s

  434. on 21 Jul 2014 at 11:44 am 434.alex said …

    “I have strong evidencial logic.” followed by the unproven… “Jesus did miracles..”

    just like your round god with 4 corners, eh? that’s the equivalent of an all knowing god giving you free will, you dumbass, motherfucker.

    “..give me categorical evidence …that the centre of the earth exist…”

    so using your impeccable logic, if i can’t produce it, then your bullshit god exist? if i can’t produce it, we should teach creationism?

    that’s why your new name is “dumbass motherfucker”. you doubt the same science that produce the computer you’re working on, the same science that produced the medicine/food you’re ingesting, and you doubt the scientific proof for the center of the earth?

    “demonic agenda.” again, that’s why your new name is “dumbass motherfucker”. bibles and demons don’t mean shit here.

  435. on 21 Jul 2014 at 1:05 pm 435.freddies_dead said …

    Well that escalated quickly…

    Holy shit! Where did 2Dumb4Words come from? He’s even more batshit crazy than messy. What the fuck does he mean by “evidencial logic”? Especially when he then brings up Jesus and miracles which are illogical by nature and lack any objective evidence for their existence. The whole ‘believing in God doesn’t make you religious’ schtick and his laptop having a laptop maker are the standard fare of the terminally stupid. It’s so sweet that he thinks he’s ‘hard on atheists’ too. The only thing hard about anything he’s said is the sheer difficulty of reading his diatribes without falling to the floor laughing.

    And I see TJ has given up his cloak of reason in order to start thumping his Bible really, really hard. Feigning ignorance as to why people push back against primitive texts which preach hatred and intolerance in the name of imaginary Gods. When the leprechaunists start pushing for laws that favour their faith over the faiths of others and people of no faith then you can be sure that you’ll see push back against them too. I also have to ask just where and how he perceives his God? Maybe he can point His God out to the rest of us instead of pointing at a whole raft of other things and telling us his God made them – the same God that we have no choice but to imagine. Just how can we differentiate between TJ’s God and something he may merely be imagining?

  436. on 21 Jul 2014 at 2:37 pm 436.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    The evidence of the Universe is strong evidential logic.

    You have a hard time proving that there can be a highly ordered and fruitful universe without a creator of the universe otherwise called God.

    Jesus miracles were about human psychology.

    It was part of the agenda to help the chosen ones believe and to convict other stubborn of the divine.

    I don’t want to provide evidence to you or anyone.

    I love myself but I don’t even want to provide evidence to myself.

    I am satisfied with faith.

    Because anything else would be dumb ass bullshit.

    The idea that we know anything is a fairy tale we don’t, we can’t and it is not possible. Not even Jesus knew anything. The Bible teaches that he who knows, knows not as he ought to know.

    This is why we have faith.

    Faith is the evidence of things not seen the hope of things eternal. Hebrews 11:1

    There is no evidence that the far reaches of the Universe exist yet scientist believe in that anyway.

    It is on discretion AND WITH UNDERSTANDING that we talk about ‘KNOWING’.

    That said there are a lot of scientist who believe in God.

    You don’t want to be religious THAT IS WHAT IT IS WITH YOU; like we said believing that God exist does not make you Religious there are a lot of people out there who do believe that God exist and they are not Religious.

    I am not a technological freak, nor do I need to be to believe that my Laptop has a maker.

    I have evidence that you don’t have because I was born AND raised a Christian and since then I have been born again, I have walked every step of my life with God – and what a miracle filled life that has been.

    If I even begin to express the least of those miracles the atheist begin screaming psyco, illusion, just like the roman soldiers began ‘oh they have stolen Jesus body’ AND ‘he didn’t really resurrect.’

    You don’t have proof for God’ so you say he doesn’t exist. Where is your proof that he doesn’t exist. If you don’t have that you don’t have a point. Whether you like it or not!

    I know what is your standard response are fairies and leprachans real.

    Cool

    But are fairies and leprachans necessary for the creation of the universe?

    Rod of Moses to your backs!!!!!!

    …yet if they were things that only a leprachan could create and I was seeing that stuff all around we would have to begin believing that leprachans existed won’t we?

  437. on 21 Jul 2014 at 2:56 pm 437.alex said …

    “You have a hard time proving that there can be a highly ordered and fruitful universe without a creator of the universe otherwise called God.”

    that’s why you’re a dumb, motherfucker.

    You have a hard time proving that there can be a highly ordered and fruitful universe without a creator of the universe otherwise called Zeus.

  438. on 21 Jul 2014 at 3:08 pm 438.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    I serve ‘Yahweh’ or THE ONE WHO CAUSE TO BECOME. I don’t have a problem worshiping Allah if he were the prime mover who caused to become.

    I don’t have a problem with worshiping Zeus if Zeus is the prime mover who causes to become.

    I don’t care if the creator even has a name.

    I know that no name ever named or to be named can be created with out the prime mover ‘Yahew’ the one who cause to be come.

    When is God equal to a leprechaun.

    A leprechaun is a form.

    The Almighty Prime Move God is formless. In fact the only most formless.

    Since everything else has formed itself around him. And as he preexisted the concept of form.

    I don’t think of my salvation as a play thing.

    If I were to lose my Salvation I personally would be the one to put a Chris Copper Bullet in the brains of the individual or those individuals who were responsible for such a tragedy and victimization.

    I personally would fling them kicking and screaming into the lake of fire.

    Even now I am sending in my application to God.

    God do you need someone to execute the wicked on the judgement day.

    Someone:
    To lock the evil into an eternal hell.
    To throw lost souls into eternal darkness.
    To throw those with the mark of the beast into the lake of fire.
    To throw the lost angels into the bottomless pit.

    To place a noisome pestilence on errant and rebellious sons of men.

  439. on 21 Jul 2014 at 3:39 pm 439.the messenger said …

    397.alex,stop wasting space on this blog with your lies, diversions, and other nonsense.

  440. on 21 Jul 2014 at 3:42 pm 440.alex said …

    “I don’t have a problem with worshiping Zeus”

    so a nameless god, who acts like he doesn’t exist is ok by you? hey! that’s my god.

    but we all know you have a problem with that. because you need your personal god to deliver the virgin goodies and to cast us heathens into hell.

    dumbass.

  441. on 21 Jul 2014 at 3:47 pm 441.alex said …

    “alex,stop wasting space on this blog…”

    oyyy, the other dumbass is missing for attention.

    here’s your automagically updated pile of shit:
    http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    please. bring back your:
    “I have also seen heaven my self and it is amazing.”

    and your universally accepted:
    “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage)”

    bleh!

  442. on 21 Jul 2014 at 3:50 pm 442.the messenger said …

    451.DPK, Santa and other fairy tails are disproven. But GOD cannot be disproven. Also I have provided evidence that suggests that GOD does exist.

    Furthermore, all animals on the earth naturally focus on self protection and self benefit. Therefore kindness and love are against our natural instincts. So where did kindness, generosity, and other moral teaching come from? They had to have come from an intelligence other than that of earth. The answer is clear, it came from GOD.

  443. on 21 Jul 2014 at 3:52 pm 443.the messenger said …

    461.alex, I have told you many times, the heaven vision that I had was just a dream. Secondly you took that quote out of context by leaving out the “in order to serve her” part.

  444. on 21 Jul 2014 at 3:58 pm 444.alex said …

    —–messenger (convicted of raping a virgin):

    your honor, in lieu of punishment for my rape conviction, i would like to propose that i am to bind himself to her(through marrage)…..

    —–judge (cutting off the dumbass, messenger):

    are you out of your motherfucking, mind?

    —–messenger:

    would it help if i added that i have to serve her?

    lol, that, motherfucker.

  445. on 21 Jul 2014 at 4:17 pm 445.DPK said …

    “451.DPK, Santa and other fairy tails are disproven. But GOD cannot be disproven. ”

    Really? Let’s see… disprove Santa. I’ll bet anything you absolutely cannot.

  446. on 21 Jul 2014 at 4:42 pm 446.Anonymous said …

    Good if you know that I need a personal god why are you trying yo Rob me out of him.

    If I.am Individual and unique wont I as formless as I may ever be need to interact with the formless prime mover in a unique way,

    We touched on this in talkhing about the trinity focal point versus totality and relationship.

    Even if you are totally generic and open and non committal every stance or action needs an apex of functionality. Whether leadership comes through dictates, guidance or whether it is communally fostered – unity of decision is inevitable there is no getting away from this.

  447. on 21 Jul 2014 at 4:44 pm 447.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    2 dumb that :)

  448. on 21 Jul 2014 at 4:58 pm 448.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    So glory be to the Triune prime mover who is before and exalted over all.

    The strength of Religion is that it never changes and it never needs to change. In this it gives glory to the one who is over all and before all.

    The only religion that needs to change is religion that itself has changed; other wise known as apostasy or false religion.

  449. on 21 Jul 2014 at 5:03 pm 449.alex said …

    “Good if you know that I need a personal god why are you trying yo Rob me out of him.”

    who the fuck is trying to? what? because, you’re not allowed to teach your creationism shit in school? what? because, your bullshit nativity scene isn’t allowed at city hall? what? because when you show up at my house with your bible shit, i curse the motherfucking shit out of you? you feeling the bullshit persecution? switch gears bitch. do it as a muslim and it’s the exact same shit.

    worship your stupid ass god. can you just keep the shit to yourself?

  450. on 21 Jul 2014 at 5:33 pm 450.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    Who made your schools?

    Who gave you a school?

    If ‘your’ school is made of concrete and steel and wooden benches and glass windows and plastic shutters; where did the original material to make these things come from?

    The students in the school: Who made the blood cells in their brain?

    If you run around teaching them Darwin. Did Darwin make himself?

    God gave the poor creatureslife they lived it and they gave up the Ghost and left their bones and fossils in the rock?

    Nosy Darwin goes around spying and desecrating the dead and scraping together bones, which God and only God originally made and comes up with some apostasy crap.

    Where did you get a house from? You don’t even own the blood in your Satan worshiping veins or the marrow in you devil worshiping bones far less a house.

    You don’t own anything on earth or in the universe.

    May god pluck out the covetous eyes you use to peep into ‘your’ microscopes and ‘your’ telescopes.

    Taking up God’s things pretending they are yours, refusing to acknowledge him, talking baby babble and prattle with your dumbass atheist friends who will not help you in the afterlife.

    You will be scorched for ever. Barbecue Soul.

    Every tongue that rises up against us in judgement we will condemn.

    You will be judged, you will be punished, you will burn.

  451. on 21 Jul 2014 at 5:44 pm 451.alex said …

    “Who made your schools?” prove that zeus didn’t.

    “where did the original material to make these things come from?” prove that zeus didn’t make em.

    “Who made the blood cells in their brain?” prove that zeus didn’t make em.

    see where this shit is headed?

    “You will be scorched for ever. Barbecue Soul.” this is horrible shit and you complain about my cursing? why ain’t i scared of zeus hell?

  452. on 21 Jul 2014 at 5:49 pm 452.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    So nobody made them?
    Nor should a person be interested in finding out?
    A very hot part of hell is reserved for the indifferent.

  453. on 21 Jul 2014 at 5:57 pm 453.alex said …

    “So nobody made them?”

    if you’re asking who made the universe, it’s been answered many times with the “i don’t know”, but it’s not good enough for you.

    you claim to know, but unfortunately for you, your imaginary, baseless god ain’t no different than zeus or ra. would you like to prove otherwise?

    but you’re too dumb to figure this out.

  454. on 21 Jul 2014 at 5:58 pm 454.alex said …

    “Nor should a person be interested in finding out?”

    of course. but you’re not interested, are you?

  455. on 21 Jul 2014 at 6:21 pm 455.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    What about the person who has seen where Zeus is from and where he is going. Where Rah is from and where he is going and so on.

    But may not have seem where the Christian trinity originates only.

    Not everyone is subject to your limitations, ignorance, and paradigms and you should not try to imposed them on us..

    Tell Satan your master that your Calvary is battle weary, has been seen through, is now ineffective against God, as prophesied, and needs to be taken out of action as it is now a liability to his cause.

  456. on 21 Jul 2014 at 6:35 pm 456.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    Most High,

    I take my Leave.

  457. on 21 Jul 2014 at 7:03 pm 457.alex said …

    “the person who has seen where Zeus is from and where he
    is going.”

    but the standup comic, hesus, that cast demons into pigs is believable to you?

    “Not everyone is subject to your limitations…”

    my inability to believe bullshit is a limitation? and you, blindly swallowing the shit, is a good attribute for you?

    “Tell Satan your master…”

    the same inconsequential devil that your bullshit god could not defeat? i’m sorry, i remember now. your omnipotent god had problems with chariots with iron spinners.

    peace out, motherfucker.

  458. on 21 Jul 2014 at 7:54 pm 458.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    You are missing the point you should be begging for a few pigs for Jesus to cast the deamons (that are inhabiting you and doing you such diservice) into.

    You should realize by now that I have a black belt in walking with God and also a black belt in Divine apologetics and that parabolic-ally speaking I will catch your bullets of doubt and wrath with my holy teeth and bend you swords of fury with my bare but righteous hands.

    The ultimate in unarmed combat – unarmed but for the truths of God.

    Just like Jesus drew the forces of darkness, hate and aggression together two thousand years ago and defeated them even with his hands nailed together, his feet nailed together and while bleeding and dying with a Roman sword stuck in his side.

    Yes my lamb style will beat your beast style.

    JEHOVAH KNOWS

    I TAKE MY LEAVE

  459. on 21 Jul 2014 at 8:27 pm 459.DPK said …

    What a nutjob.
    Bet he lives in a van behind the supermarket covered in bible quotes and preaches at people in the parkinglot with a bullhorn! hahahaha.

    Hey 2dumb… nobody is buying you woo woo bullshit. Give it a rest. Even TJ keeps his distance from you… LOL.

  460. on 22 Jul 2014 at 3:28 am 460.DPK said …

    “… there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ? Neil deGrasse Tyson

    And 2 dumb goes phycotic and says:
    “God do you need someone to execute the wicked on the judgement day.
    Someone:
    To lock the evil into an eternal hell.
    To throw lost souls into eternal darkness.
    To throw those with the mark of the beast into the lake of fire.
    To throw the lost angels into the bottomless pit.
    To place a noisome pestilence on errant and rebellious sons of men.”

    TJ… How about you? Are you also anxious to throw us wicked evil doers into the lake of fire? What do you think Jesus would have to say about 2dumbs ravings?

  461. on 22 Jul 2014 at 6:50 am 461.reason said …

    I love machines and I will freely admit that I like them better then people. They are made to do a job and some of them do it better then others. But when I look at nature and compare the machine that a tree is compared to a machine that man has made like a car or even a computer. The tree is far more complex and is beyond our power to reproduce. All man made machines are designed and the machines of nature I would think would have to have an engineer or engineers that made them also. I can not speak on behalf the Creator of this universe. (As far as we know we could be the dream of some alien mind and how could we prove or disprove that we are apart of someone else imagination). When I can take atoms and create a living fish on my own then I might be willing to say their is no God but for now I would not be so quick to rule out God. The arguments for and against God boils down to belief and both sides will have to agree that belief and reality are not always the same thing. The reality of it is that we don’t know because we don’t have all the answers and we never will. What has a Christian lost if he or she is wrong nothing, but if a Christian is right and those deny God are wrong then they have lost everything. Just a thought from an old man.

  462. on 22 Jul 2014 at 8:59 am 462.TJ said …

    “TJ… How about you? Are you also anxious to throw us wicked evil doers into the lake of fire? What do you think Jesus would have to say about 2dumbs ravings?”

    Lol, I’m playing catch up.

    However it’s not my Job to condemn anyone to the lake of fire. That right is Gods alone.

    I would rather share view points… while we both still can.

    As for his ramblings, it’s a reaction. It is hard for unbeliever and believers to relate to each other on these matters. It is far easier and less challenging to digress into rant.

    If Alex is the action, then 2Dumb4WordsofGod is the opposite and equal reaction.

    2Dumb4WordsofGod did point towards something I had been pondering for some time…

    The bible claims that even demons cannot deny Christ.

    I have noticed that Alex consistently uses “hesus” when referring to Christ in a negative, false or derogative manner. He comfortably uses “Jesus” when pointing out biblical claims to believers who say something that conflicts the bible. He also rightly warned me of the consequences of swearing on the Name of Jesus Christ in my claim that I was not Hor. And he also regularly substitutes Ra or Zeus for God in a similar fashion.

    Just my observation, I would ask him to explain but the fact that he has not answered one single question I’ve asked him. Instead continuing to rant and sow his seeds of doubt in response. Further more, I said I would’t bother him any more.

    So we can all read into it what we will.

  463. on 22 Jul 2014 at 9:48 am 463.TJ said …

    To reason,

    You present a rational and balanced view.

    I would only add that creating a fish from atoms would only prove the method used and highlight the intelligence of those involved. It would neither prove or dis-prove the existence of God.

  464. on 22 Jul 2014 at 10:38 am 464.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    Life is large and it is big business.

    I guarantee that on the day of Judgement you will find someone who WILL throw the wicked into the fire.

    Whether it is a machine.

    A computer program.

    A person really hard done by Atheist and the wicked.

    A totally faithful angel.

    Someone scared stiff by God and quite willing.

    Someone who is idiotically faithful to God.

    or even Some one willing to do it for the highest bidder :)

    or By plain bad luck as Islam teaches that as the wicked walk over the valley of fire they will be slipping, falling and being dragged down in to it.

    AND IF THIS DIFFERS IN FORM IT WILL NOT DIFFER IN ESSENCE.

    When God wanted to create the seemingly boundless eternity he didn’t carry on a conference with Atheist before he did it? NO he just did it. When he wants to dispatch the wicked he will not hold a conference he WILL do it.

    Do you guys even understand what is meant by justice.

    This is not religion. This is not idealism. This is practical.

    God will not have anything going against his Authority and Plan.

    Does the President of the US or the Monarch of the UK have their rights and Authority flouted.

    Was God’s word that unreasonable. Did he say I God am going to burn people’s souls because I am a bully or a hater.

    Or did he say I am ridding the world of pollution AND of corruption.

    hell is basically a bad bank. Better to have a few Atheistic souls roasting in a small corner of the universe than have defiance, pollution, entropy and sin and death polluting the world.

    Or

    You either get rid of the few cancer cells or you let the cancer spread body wide… ..Like some have allowed the excrement of ignorance, doubt and satanism to spread into and throughout their Atheistic brains.

  465. on 22 Jul 2014 at 11:41 am 465.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    You guys are very weak, you actually need to take a refresher course in your philosophy, epistemology, ontology and critical thinking again.

    When can you compare God to a leprechaun?

    If A, B, and C are said to exist.

    Do I say that A cannot exist because I am equally ignorant about it as I am about the existence of B and C?

    And is that a definitive logic and conclusion when your soul is at stake?

    I have tried to get you to step out of the Religious sphere to get you to understand the logical, the strong ‘evidential logic’.

    If something is then it must be caused, to deny the cause of something is equal to the denial of a the existence of a thing.

    Think if you want to deny something coming into being in the future what would you do? You would deny it a cause.

    But you have allowed your hatred of God to blur your thinking.

    Or Maybe

    You want also to deny the future ‘barbecue of lost souls’ an existence so you reactionarily seek to deny it a cause even though you are the puniest of creatures and the one you seek to deny is the Almighty Sovereign of All. Then your brain melts down and you say that Yahweh the God to be feared above all Gods doesn’t exist.

    Man is that moronic!!!

  466. on 22 Jul 2014 at 11:54 am 466.alex said …

    “I have noticed that Alex consistently uses “hesus” when referring to Christ in a negative, false or derogative manner.”

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. this is an atheist site. did you also notice that i don’t capitalize allah? how can i be derogatory towards bullshit?

    “regularly substitutes Ra or Zeus for God” that’s because you’re too dumb to get it. using your same argument with the different god, you fail to see that it’s no different.

    “he has not answered one single question I’ve asked him.”

    why the hell should i? tried using my refusal as proof? ooops, i forget. hor consistently tries that and fails. you motherfuckers constantly try that shit and it leads to nowhere. case in point. can you prove the center of the earth? can you prove the big bang? you see why i don’t have to answer shit.

    “continuing to rant..” my postings are a direct response to your bullshit. you otoh, pretend to be all cerebral and shit, but predictably you revert to your bible, hell and brimstone shit, see post 394.

    and then you whine like a little bitch “do you still wish to engage in conversation”. who’s ranting?

    “I said I would’t bother him any more.” then quit the bullshit.

  467. on 22 Jul 2014 at 11:55 am 467.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    TJ

    Do you see how when we are on our knees and praying.

    There are others pursuing their Satanic mission with every breath and every thought. Every action.

    That is not even passive sin

    It is rotten, dirty, mean evil wrapped in delusion, wrapped in illusion, wrapped in propaganda, outright lies and deceptive influence at work.

    Unashamedly at work

  468. on 22 Jul 2014 at 12:00 pm 468.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    They attack us with 7 times the venom of someone who has the evidence that God does not exist.

    or

    Even know what is going on.

    Yet they don’t have a shred of evidence.

    Well God is the Master at the Helm of the ship of my Mind.

    I am not going to allow myself to replace the Master of Masters from this post by dirty, lowdown, rotten Athiest.

    I would never fall for such a trick.

    And I stand watchful for the Elect’s sake.

  469. on 22 Jul 2014 at 12:05 pm 469.alex said …

    “your hatred of God to blur your thinking.”

    wrong, you asshole. my nonexistent hatred of bigfoot doesn’t blur my ability to recognize the bullshit. ditto for your god.

    “barbecue of lost souls” you don’t think atheists know there is nothing more horrible? however it’s bullshit, fantastic, imagined bullshit. should i be scared of the moslem equivalent too? or the monsters in dark version too?

    this is what pisses off you xtian motherfuckers. you’re scared and you don’t understand why atheists aren’t.

    go fuck yourself.

  470. on 22 Jul 2014 at 12:09 pm 470.freddies_dead said …

    436.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    The evidence of the Universe is strong evidential logic.

    For the universe, yes. Planets, stars, comets etc… what’s your evidence that it was a) created? and b) created specifically by your God?

    You have a hard time proving that there can be a highly ordered and fruitful universe without a creator of the universe otherwise called God.

    On the contrary, the universe exists. It’s your job to prove the existence of your “creator”. You’re welcome to try at any point.

    Jesus miracles were about human psychology.

    It was part of the agenda to help the chosen ones believe and to convict other stubborn of the divine.

    So Jesus “miracles” were no more than parlour tricks? I thought you were a Christian?

    I don’t want to provide evidence to you or anyone.

    Correction, you can’t provide evidence to me or anyone because none exists outside of your imagination.

    I love myself but I don’t even want to provide evidence to myself.

    I am satisfied with faith.

    I don’t share your gullibility.

    Because anything else would be dumb ass bullshit.

    You obviously have no use for reason or rationality in which case, why are you here?

    The idea that we know anything is a fairy tale we don’t, we can’t and it is not possible.

    How do you know this? Oh wait, you’ve already said you don’t. Self defeating drivel is self defeating.

    Not even Jesus knew anything.

    How do you know this? Oh wait, you’ve already said you don’t. Self defeating drivel is self defeating.

    The Bible teaches that he who knows, knows not as he ought to know.

    Which is just one of the many reasons why the Bible is absurd.

    This is why we have faith.

    Faith is the evidence of things not seen the hope of things eternal. Hebrews 11:1

    Faith in the imaginary, yes. I’m not impressed.

    There is no evidence that the far reaches of the Universe exist yet scientist believe in that anyway.

    Ignoring, for a moment, the veracity of your claim, what does this have to do with the existence of your God? Are you saying the scientists are wrong to believe as they do? In which case the same can be said of your belief that God exists with it’s attendant lack of evidence for doing so. It seems you’d be better served suggesting the scientists are right to believe as they do as, at least then, you’d be consistent with your own evidence free beliefs.

    It is on discretion AND WITH UNDERSTANDING that we talk about ‘KNOWING’.

    How do you know this? Oh wait, you’ve already said you don’t. Self defeating drivel is self defeating.

    That said there are a lot of scientist who believe in God.

    And as long as they don’t bring their imaginary friend into the work they do then it’s irrelevant.

    You don’t want to be religious THAT IS WHAT IT IS WITH YOU;

    It’s nothing to do with religion and all to do with what is rational, your God is not.

    like we said believing that God exist does not make you Religious there are a lot of people out there who do believe that God exist and they are not Religious.

    Being religious or not has no bearing on the truth of your claims.

    I am not a technological freak, nor do I need to be to believe that my Laptop has a maker.

    And yet you stated that belief right here on this thread. I know why you’re backing away from the claim though. It’s because that way leads only to infinite regress. What created the creator that created your laptop? What created the creator that created the creator that created your laptop? And so on… Your only way out of that is to do a bit of special pleading. Your God is different. He doesn’t need a maker. Which of course just gives us the option that things can exist that aren’t created and we can dispense with your imaginary God.

    I have evidence that you don’t have because I was born AND raised a Christian and since then I have been born again, I have walked every step of my life with God – and what a miracle filled life that has been.

    Then you’ll have no problem presenting this “evidence”? Oh wait, you already said you don’t want to provide evidence. More self defeating bullshit from you.

    If I even begin to express the least of those miracles the atheist begin screaming psyco, illusion, just like the roman soldiers began ‘oh they have stolen Jesus body’ AND ‘he didn’t really resurrect.’

    And you have absolutely no response to either the call for evidence or the naturalistic explanations. Of course, that’s your problem, not mine.

    You don’t have proof for God’ so you say he doesn’t exist.

    The burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim for God’s existence. The onus is on you to prove that He does exist. Care to try?

    Where is your proof that he doesn’t exist. If you don’t have that you don’t have a point. Whether you like it or not!

    My proof is in the metaphysical primacy of existence. The fact that objects exist independently of consciousness. Christianity asserts the opposite – that consciousness holds metaphysical primacy over existence – but that leads to subjectivity and absurdity. No recourse to logic, truth, proof, evidence etc… It’s incoherent.

    I know what is your standard response are fairies and leprachans real.

    Cool

    But are fairies and leprachans necessary for the creation of the universe?

    Gods aren’t necessary either, as we can see from our own universe.

    Rod of Moses to your backs!!!!!!

    Excuse me? Have you forgotten your meds?

    …yet if they were things that only a leprachan could create and I was seeing that stuff all around we would have to begin believing that leprachans existed won’t we?

    Well rainbows, pots and gold all exist so why aren’t you claiming that leprechauns do?

    You’re getting it all backwards as usual. You’re pointing at stuff and saying that “God did it” without ever demonstrating that said God exists and creates that “stuff”. Maybe you’d like to try instead of rambling on like a lunatic?

  471. on 22 Jul 2014 at 12:34 pm 471.freddies_dead said …

    461.reason said …

    I love machines and I will freely admit that I like them better then people. They are made to do a job and some of them do it better then others. But when I look at nature and compare the machine that a tree is compared to a machine that man has made like a car or even a computer. The tree is far more complex and is beyond our power to reproduce.

    But not beyond the trees power to reproduce…

    All man made machines are designed and the machines of nature I would think would have to have an engineer or engineers that made them also.

    If only you could present evidence for the existence of this magical engineer…

    I can not speak on behalf the Creator of this universe.

    Why not, it’s your imaginary being and I’m sure you could whip up a few words for it. Racial hatred, support of slavery, denigration of women. All those have been quite popular so far.

    (As far as we know we could be the dream of some alien mind and how could we prove or disprove that we are apart of someone else imagination).

    Are you the dream of an alien mind? Are you suggesting (as 2Dumb4Words did) that we cannot know anything? If so, how do you know that?

    When I can take atoms and create a living fish on my own then I might be willing to say their is no God but for now I would not be so quick to rule out God.

    As TJ has already pointed out, the Christians aren’t going to be happy until you create those atoms ex nihilo – despite them being totally unable to produce evidence that their God exists and creates things ex nihilo. You’re supposed to ignore their double standard too.

    The arguments for and against God boils down to belief and both sides will have to agree that belief and reality are not always the same thing.

    Actually my argument against boils down to the axioms – existence and consciousness – and the metaphysical primacy of existence i.e. the self-evident, rather than any beliefs.

    The reality of it is that we don’t know because we don’t have all the answers and we never will.

    And we’re back to 2Dumb4Words’ argument that we cannot know anything (in your case this is because we don’t know everything). How do you know this? It’s really silly to make knowledge claims whilst trying to deny our ability to know things.

    What has a Christian lost if he or she is wrong nothing, but if a Christian is right and those deny God are wrong then they have lost everything. Just a thought from an old man.

    Pascal’s wager is just so much bullshit. The false dichotomy – Christianity vs atheism – has been refuted for a long time. What if the Christian picked the wrong God? What if the God hates those who pick the wrong incarnation? What if that God likes those who choose the “no God” option? What then? The Christian loses everything after spending their life worshipping the wrong God whilst the atheist gets Heaven for choosing “no God”.

  472. on 22 Jul 2014 at 12:39 pm 472.freddies_dead said …

    468.2Dumb4WordsofGod said …

    Well God is the Master at the Helm of the ship of my Mind.

    Based on what you’ve posted on this thread I’d argue that it’s more likely to be Class A drugs that are at the helm of the ship of your Mind.

  473. on 22 Jul 2014 at 3:26 pm 473.DPK said …

    463.TJ said …
    “To reason,
    You present a rational and balanced view.”

    Actually, he doesn’t. If your default position is that anything not fully understood is god’s work, then god lives in a constantly shrinking bubble.
    Remember, at one time humans looked at thunder and volcanoes and concluded that gods were the only possible explanation. This “god of the gaps” argument has not served religions well historically, yet the faithful still cling to it as the last resort.
    Actually, science gives us a very clear picture at how the complexity of life arose from simpler forms over the enormity of geologic time without a “designer”. Is it a rare, highly unlikely occurrence? No one really knows. It is a very big universe, and perhaps this is the ONLY place in all that unfathomable space that it has happened, perhaps it is very common and the way nature tend to behave when conditions are right. In any event, the fact that occurred here, at least once allows for the fact that you are here pondering the question. Nothing more.
    The last foothold of god’s domain seems to be abiogensis. But the fact that we do not as yet fully understand the process by which life first originated does not logically resort to a magical god, anymore than it was logical to assume angry volcano gods when no one understood geothermal dynamics, does it?
    ALL of your arguments are based on trying to cram a god into gaps of knowledge. This has never, ever, EVER helped progress human knowledge and understanding, only hindered it. And trying to incite belief based on fear and punishment is really, really despicable human behavior that we should have left behind the last time religions were allowed free reign over knowledge… they called it the Dark Ages, and for good reason.

  474. on 22 Jul 2014 at 3:36 pm 474.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    You got it tough man,

    I wasn’t going to say anything but, as you brought it up…see post 394.

    If its not the xtian wanting to teach creationism at the schools, it’s the politicians sobbing and offering their thoughts and prays to the victims of the latest tragedy. Every day you feel compelled to return here whilst you wait for your Java to build, and look how they try to sell their righteous nonsense to you… is nowhere sacred?

    If that’s not enough they’ll knock on your front door on weekends, the bum on street can’t even accept a gift without some religiously flavoured gratitude. Even at the family gathering. Is no place safe? And what if you sneeze?

    For an imaginary God, he seems to have a very real impact on your life.

  475. on 22 Jul 2014 at 3:40 pm 475.TJ said …

    Oh..and..Alex?

    Save your breath and shut the fuck up… and I don’t need to explain.

  476. on 22 Jul 2014 at 3:47 pm 476.TJ said …

    To DPK,

    Early morning here, and I need to get to bed. You raise good points worthy of discussion, I’ll get back to when time permits.

    Cheers

  477. on 22 Jul 2014 at 3:52 pm 477.DPK said …

    “For an imaginary God, he seems to have a very real impact on your life.”

    Maybe peddle your condescending bullshit to the victims of 911. Imaginary gods sure seemed to have an impact on their lives now didn’t they?

    Tell it to the children in Africa who have been burned alive for being witches… yeah, whats the big deal if some people believe there is a god who want them to do it?

    Maybe tell a child who dies from a simple infection because his parents believe medical intervention is against god’s will and decided to pray for him instead.

    Your attempt to brush off the impact of religious beliefs in the world and play the persecution card is a low for you TJ. Doesn’t say much for your position when you need to resort to distorting facts to support it. What’s next? The lake of fire?

  478. on 22 Jul 2014 at 3:55 pm 478.alex said …

    “Save your breath and shut the fuck up… ”

    the holier than thou motherfucker reverts. case closed, beeyatch. xtian protest? chirp. chirp.

  479. on 22 Jul 2014 at 4:02 pm 479.DPK said …

    Alex, when their delusions are exposed and their arguments dismissed they always resort to either the persecution card, or the anger and hatred emerges.

    Note how neither 2dumb or TJ offered even an attempt to justify their omnipotent and omniscient god claim when I showed clearly that it is not possible. Instead we got bible quotes and dire warnings of eternal damnation to the lake of fire. Last resort stuff indeed.

    No one escapes any type addiction without a lot of denial, resistance and resentment. The fact that you elicit a guttural response means you have struck very close to a nerve.

  480. on 22 Jul 2014 at 4:05 pm 480.DPK said …

    And I’m still waiting for messenger to disprove Santa…. another empty claim, Messy?

  481. on 22 Jul 2014 at 4:32 pm 481.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    Try going for a day on things you know only, not believe or are confident that they are the case but ‘know only’ and be brutally honest.
    Do you know am I male? Female? Young
    or Old? Over 16 that you are using foul language?

    Etc

  482. on 22 Jul 2014 at 4:35 pm 482.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    How do you know that I am not an atheist pretending or even Jesus or God or Zeus or Rah that you are telling me that I do not exist?

  483. on 22 Jul 2014 at 4:52 pm 483.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Alex, when their delusions are exposed and their arguments dismissed they always resort to either the persecution”

    ROTFL!!! Sure they do……..no persecution anywhere especially in the Middle East!! Lol!!!!

    No Santa, been to the North Pole and studied satellite imagery. So stop believing Dippy and Alexander! I also have posted cameras at numerous fireplaces on the Eve……nope no Santa!

    lol!!!!!!!!!

  484. on 22 Jul 2014 at 5:11 pm 484.DPK said …

    Santa’s workshop is invisible to satellite imagery, silly. And Santa can appear down the chimney without ever appearing on camera. He is a Saint, after all.
    Don’t doubt the Clause… how else can you possibly explain the magical appearance of all those toys? Do you think they built, wrapped, and delivered themselves?
    Sorry, I don’t have that much faith… LOL

    “ROTFL!!! Sure they do……..no persecution anywhere especially in the Middle East!! Lol!!!!”
    Who’s doing the persecuting in the middle east their sparky?

  485. on 22 Jul 2014 at 5:15 pm 485.DPK said …

    482.2dumb4wordsofgod said …
    “How do you know that I am not an atheist pretending or even Jesus or God or Zeus or Rah that you are telling me that I do not exist?”

    You are a poster child for the nut jobs of the world.
    How do you know I am not the Flying Spaghetti Monster and you are impudently claiming some false god created the universe when it was me? I could have you cast into the eternal pot of boiling marinara sauce for your arrogance.

    Do I have any volunteers?

  486. on 22 Jul 2014 at 5:17 pm 486.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    Oh I thought Santa left you a universe that creates it self. Not existence that creates itself but stars, galaxies, flora fauna billions of ecosystems with man can’t himself create. He promised me one of those but he hasn’t come through, he also promised me a new grandmother his reindeer ran over her

    He seems like he won’t be able to come through.

    He embarrassed as ever left me a KJV telling me he couldn’t get around the IP rights I think he just doesn’t know how to
    Compete with the master.

    However if you define the creator but say he Is fictitious then I am afraid you are also imaginary and live in an imaginary universe.

  487. on 22 Jul 2014 at 5:19 pm 487.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    Am I only imagining that it would make a difference.

  488. on 22 Jul 2014 at 5:45 pm 488.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Santa’s workshop is invisible to satellite imagery, silly”

    Really? According to all available writings that is not true…..making you……a liar.

    lol!!!!!!!

    Santa disproven silly.

    “Who’s doing the persecuting”

    In China, Cuba and Russia it is atheists. Can you call your dogs off there Dippity?

    lol!!!!!!

  489. on 22 Jul 2014 at 6:11 pm 489.DPK said …

    “He promised me one of those but he hasn’t come through, he also promised me a new grandmother his reindeer ran over her.. He seems like he won’t be able to come through.”

    So, you think asking Santa for something and not receiving it is a valid reason to doubt his existence?

    “Really? According to all available writings that is not true…..making you……a liar.”

    Show me where it is written that Santa’s workshop is visible to satellite imaging. And provide the evidence for such claim. Indeed, the FACT that there are no satellite images of Santa’s workshop, despite the fact that there are numerous written descriptions of Santa’s workshop, and many eyewitness accounts placing it in the vicinity of the north pole, would prove my contention. Why do you think it’s a SECRET workshop, dumbbell?
    You think just because you say it isn’t there, that somehow proves something? Besides, we all know that Santa will never reveal himself to disbelievers. That explains why you don’t believe. Trust me on this, once you open your heart and start to truly believe in Santa, you will find out very quickly that you actually do believe in Santa. Its miraculous how that works.

    “Who’s doing the persecuting in the middle east their sparky?”

    “In China, Cuba and Russia it is atheists.”

    Your concept of the middle east seems to be in line with your claim that Mumbia is a large city in India that used to be called Bangkok. You are just too funny. Been snacking on baby fetuses too much I think..

  490. on 22 Jul 2014 at 6:17 pm 490.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    Who tries to create the eternal and who tries to make the created eternal. Not optimistically but historically.

    …tut tut tut…

  491. on 22 Jul 2014 at 6:45 pm 491.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    The bible holds that God’s going forth from everlasting.

    The universe has a birthdate mate…

  492. on 22 Jul 2014 at 6:51 pm 492.DPK said …

    2 dumb… you need to lay off the acid man… seriously, that shit ain’t good for you. LOL

    Of course, “A” likely thinks your bullshit deepisms are profound, but he also thinks Cuba is in the middle east, so there ya go…. hahaha He is a “science guy” after all.

  493. on 22 Jul 2014 at 9:50 pm 493.alex said …

    “Santa disproven silly.”

    i guess we can’t use the same disproof criteria for your god, eh? since you can’t accept anything that you don’t like about your god, how would you and i know if the real deal, allah showed up?

    speak up, bitch, motherfucker. ask dumb and dumber. they seem to represent all theists.

    i already tolya. for me, it’s cake for a god. none of this complicated, amputee healing shit. just let the motherfucker levitate. i’m easily convinced. obviously, quoting from the koran won’t work for me and you.

    you talk a big theist game, but at the end of the day, you can’t even consider that there could be another god other than your bullshit Jesus.

    are you happy with “Jesus”, tj, motherfucker.

    dichotomy is a bitch though. theists crying even though their relatives are paradise bound? tsk. tsk. you know what the score is.

  494. on 22 Jul 2014 at 10:22 pm 494.alex said …

    “In China, Cuba and Russia it is atheists.”

    and in brazil, america, argentina, spain, italy, nigeria, india, canada, and many more countries, it’s the non-Wandjina believers persecuting lika motherfucker. can you call off the dogs? i guess this is an argument for converting to Wondjinaism?

    “The universe has a birthdate mate…” how many years ago? biblically? 10k is reasonable, ya? dumbass.

  495. on 22 Jul 2014 at 11:28 pm 495.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “So, you think asking Santa for something and not receiving it is a valid reason to doubt his existence”

    Dob’t you. Thats so sad… Um, no not at all. I know the history of Santa, so that really nails it down for me. Not to mention my other evidence.

    But hey, you believe Dippity, lol;!!!. And what I won’t do…..as a Real unbeliever is constantly cuss and hate on you for being a Santian nor will I argue his non-existence with you. REAL unbelievers have no need!

    ROTFL!!!!!!!

    Alex, love ua babe but God has been proven time and time again babe.

    Good day mates

  496. on 22 Jul 2014 at 11:39 pm 496.alex said …

    “Alex, love ua babe but God has been proven time and time again babe.”

    you’re so damn brainwashed, scared, you can’t/won’t even contemplate other gods can you? you know, moslem hell is just as probable as you xtian version.

    that’s why atheists are equally zilch, scared.

  497. on 23 Jul 2014 at 1:33 am 497.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “you can’t/won’t even contemplate other gods”

    Sure I will…….hold on…..
    ………
    ……….
    ……….

    Ok done. I contemplated other Gods……..um no fear there…..is that it Alexis? Thanks for caring bra!

    lol!!!!!! Luv ya Alex! You are a such a great ambassador for the faith bro!

  498. on 23 Jul 2014 at 1:38 am 498.alex said …

    “Ok done. I contemplated other Gods”. no you didn’t, you dismissed them, just like i dismissed your bullshit, Jesus. (tj, you listening, you dumbass).

    so, tell me, motherfucker. how would i be able to tell if allah was the real deal and he shows up?

  499. on 23 Jul 2014 at 1:52 am 499.alex said …

    “You are a such a great ambassador for the faith bro!”

    no such thing, the atheist faith, you lying bitch. but you can’t help yourself can’t you? your posts at: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS, clearly demonstrate your propensity, but it’s understood. you’re blindly following your god’s plan.

    martin, science guy, biff, xenon, little ‘A’, Sweetness, boz, RL Wooten, ‘Everyone’, Horatio.

    how many times do i need to remind you that you’re a proven, recorded, piece of shit, liar.

    check it out again. http://goo.gl/UYo1uS, did allah magically update it?

  500. on 23 Jul 2014 at 2:38 am 500.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    Have you ever considered that science may have taken an early step that led them away from the truth?

    After all man is possessed of imperfect senses. Which of you can answer whether Rubin’s vase is a vase or a pair of faces?

    Of the messiah the bible teaches he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes nor reprove after the hearing of his ears.

    Maybe there was an alien race out there whose correct approach led them to God,

    Think about that if you can trust the cognitions of your brains.

  501. on 23 Jul 2014 at 7:27 am 501.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    I once heard a story of a scientist who left for work but when he got there The lab had burnt down.

    Think he knew or just had faith?

    YET

    MANY scientist get up every day and go to work to find their lab open and up and running.

    Did they have faith or knowledge?.

    I won’t say they are lucky but that like the first group they go to work every day on faith.

    Tomorrow it may be their time to turn up for work to find their lab burnt down.

    Proving it is all faith sometimes fallible faith and not infallible knowledge,

  502. on 23 Jul 2014 at 7:33 am 502.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    Faith in God like scientific knowledge does not make men infallible but it is a good lot better and far more honest.

  503. on 23 Jul 2014 at 7:42 am 503.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    If man as a species persists for another trillion years by means science they will fail to perfect them self in that time.

    Put my word above my very name.

  504. on 23 Jul 2014 at 11:17 am 504.alex said …

    “Think about that if you can trust the cognitions of your brains.”

    another example of a dipshit theist saying stupid shits leading to nowhere. “prove the center of the earth exists”, remember that? you dumb, motherfucker.

    “I once heard a story of a scientist who left for work…”

    heard? reminds you of the Jesus fables? note the caps, tj, motherfucker.

    “Faith in God like scientific knowledge does not make men infallible…”

    who gives a shit. you think people really pay attention to god statement bullshits?

    first there was the s0l0m0n motherfucker, then the dipshit messenger, now we got the third brother motherfucker, 2dumb4wordsofgod. and of course, the head dipshit, motherfucker, hor.

  505. on 23 Jul 2014 at 12:15 pm 505.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    You guys are the sorriest of creatures and it is not just the future barbaque of souls your judgement has already started now. Judgement begins at the house of Those of faith so I cam face my hostility but the weakness of God is stronger than the strength of men not only are your attacks ineffective but your hurt will be 7 fold multiplied when you are paid back in your own
    coin.

  506. on 23 Jul 2014 at 12:19 pm 506.freddies_dead said …

    500.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    Have you ever considered that science may have taken an early step that led them away from the truth?

    That doesn’t make sense in light of the fact that science works. Had science stepped away from the truth (truth is a concept you can’t account for in your inherently subjective Christian worldview btw) then nothing science came up with would work and yet, here you are, on a computer devised by science, claiming that science is somehow faulty.

    Self defeating bullshit is self defeating.

    After all man is possessed of imperfect senses. Which of you can answer whether Rubin’s vase is a vase or a pair of faces?

    It’s a vase – it’s right there in the name – pillock.

    But seriously, how do you get to “imperfect senses” when your eyes are perceiving exactly as they should i.e. the light from the picture is passing into your pupil, your lens focuses that light onto your retina where the photoreceptors convert the light signals into electrical signals. No, it’s not your non-volitional senses that are at issue here, instead it’s the identification of what you’re perceiving that causes the confusion.

    Of the messiah the bible teaches he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes nor reprove after the hearing of his ears.

    So you trust your ‘imperfect’ senses when it comes to the Bible? Why? If your sense are so useless how can you possibly trust what you see in the Bible or hear from the pulpit?

    Self defeating bullshit is, once more, self defeating.

    Maybe there was an alien race out there whose correct approach led them to God,

    Your point? Unless you’re claiming to be one of those aliens? Based on your track record so far I wouldn’t put it past you.

    Think about that if you can trust the cognitions of your brains.

    So you don’t trust your own brain now, but you want us to accept your claims regarding God? Claims that you must have decided are true using your brain?

    Self defeating bullshit is, once again, self defeating.

    This is just too funny.

  507. on 23 Jul 2014 at 12:22 pm 507.freddies_dead said …

    505.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    You guys are the sorriest of creatures and it is not just the future barbaque of souls your judgement has already started now. Judgement begins at the house of Those of faith so I cam face my hostility but the weakness of God is stronger than the strength of men not only are your attacks ineffective but your hurt will be 7 fold multiplied when you are paid back in your own
    coin.

    Your fear theology might be more impressive if you could show how we can distinguish between your fearsome God and something you may merely be imagining.

  508. on 23 Jul 2014 at 12:34 pm 508.alex said …

    “future barbaque of souls”

    dude, there’s nothing worse, but it’s bullshit, so stop it. quit scaring your kids.

    “I cam face my hostility”. you’re trying to dish it out, but you’re getting your ass handed to you.

    “..the weakness of God..” i remember now. he didn’t have much of a ground game. the mma dude, isiah, didn’t he put a beatdown on your god?

  509. on 23 Jul 2014 at 2:46 pm 509.DPK said …

    500.2dumb4wordsofgod said …
    “Have you ever considered that science may have taken an early step that led them away from the truth?”

    Do you even understand what science is? Love to hear your interpretation of it, because it is obviously incorrect.

    “After all man is possessed of imperfect senses. Which of you can answer whether Rubin’s vase is a vase or a pair of faces?”

    Um, actually it is neither. It’s a drawing.

    LOL

    How do you know your senses aren’t deceiving you when you perceive a god interacting in your life? Really, how do you know.
    And why won’t you answer my simple question… tell me why I should accept anything you say as true?
    I explained my reasons to TJ, and no one refuted a single reason. But you ask us to accept your version of reality over any other because………….???

    Your inability to answer this question only leads me to believe you don’t really know.

  510. on 23 Jul 2014 at 5:01 pm 510.DPK said …

    495.The Prickly Science Guy said …
    “So, you think asking Santa for something and not receiving it is a valid reason to doubt his existence”
    Dob’t you. Thats so sad… Um, no not at all.”

    Actually, your comment should be addressed at 2 dumb as he is the one who said he didn’t believe in Santa because Santa failed to come though on something that was promised.
    So, let’s recap, you don’t believe in Santa, but NOT because you asked him for something you didn’t get.. check.
    You don’t believe in Santa because the secret workshop at the North Pole is not visible on satellite photos and “it is written” somewhere that it should be, even though I have told you Santa has a secret invisibility cloak that prevents it from being detected. You seem to dismiss this out of hand for no other reason than you don’t like it. check.
    You don’t believe in Santa because you “know the history” of Santa and because of other secret evidence you won’t disclose… similar to the evidence for your imaginary god. check
    Man, you’re a hot mess…
    Nevertheless, I contend Santa is real and you haven’t disproved him at all. Maybe you could get some Cuban atheists from Middle Eastern Russia to help you sort it out. LOL

    Funny, but I’m not seeing anything you offer that actually disproves Santa….. I guess you actually CAN’T do it, huh?

  511. on 23 Jul 2014 at 11:18 pm 511.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “truth is a concept you can’t account for in your inherently subjective Christian worldview”

    Oh Goodie!

    Freddie, tell us what truth is for an atheist? Can you? Science? Is that it?

    prediction: Freddie runs and refuses to answer even this simple question

    ….sigh…….! Lol!!!

    Dippity spewed:

    “I contend Santa is real”

    lol!!!!!!! OK, I have no need to convince you otherwise. I have all the evidence I need…its all good Santian! Lol!!!!! I allow Santians to live without persecution ????

    ROTFL!!!!!!!

  512. on 24 Jul 2014 at 2:19 am 512.DPK said …

    Oh, how nice of you. Do you mean that I’d be a real asshole if I were to say, troll a website of people like you who don’t believe and continually insist that Santa is real and insist that they don’t know what they are talking about? I guess that would make me a real douche bag, huh? Especially since all I have to offer in way of proof that Santa exists is a bunch of made up bullshit and wishful thinking.
    Your right, only a real asshole would do something like that. Thanks for making that so clear! Lol.
    D

  513. on 24 Jul 2014 at 2:45 am 513.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “if I were to say, troll a website of people like you who don’t believe”

    Hmmmm, are you implying that this blog is only for atheist? So why all the efforts to evangelize and convert theist to atheist? Hmmm?
    lol!!!!!!! Epic fail Dippity!

    For the record I welcome Santians like yourself in all areas of the net. I rather enjoy your kind :)

    “I guess that would make me a real douche bag, huh”

    Well, you said it…lol!!!! But I luv ya babe!

    Respecting the rights of Santians around the world!!

  514. on 24 Jul 2014 at 11:04 am 514.freddies_dead said …

    511.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “truth is a concept you can’t account for in your inherently subjective Christian worldview”

    Oh Goodie!

    Freddie, tell us what truth is for an atheist? Can you? Science? Is that it?

    I can’t tell you what it is for all atheists. I do, however, know what it is for Objectivists (a subset of atheists). Truth is the identification of a fact of reality.

    Now you can tell us what truth is for a Christian.

    prediction: Freddie runs and refuses to answer even this simple question

    ….sigh…….! Lol!!!

    And, as usual, the lying prick predicts wrong.

  515. on 24 Jul 2014 at 2:45 pm 515.DPK said …

    The douchebag said:
    “Hmmmm, are you implying that this blog is only for atheist?”

    No, according to the website statement, this is a place to “explore the existence of God.”

    You don’t explore or discuss anything. Your participation here amounts to nothing more than my insistence that Santa is real because you can’t prove he isn’t. You’re a troll, nothing more. You have zero substance to add, nothing at all meaningful to contribute. The tragedy is you know this, which is why you refuse to even try, and instead play the persecution card….

    Poor TJ at least made an attempt at an honest discussion. Even though he got severely trounced and had to resort to the ultimate retreat of bible thumping and hellfire and damnation, and ultimately disappearing. At least he gave it a shot. He isn’t a coward, like you, hiding behind various aliases in an attempt to fluff yourself up.

  516. on 24 Jul 2014 at 3:03 pm 516.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Oj Freddie you smooth talking rascal. I luv you too buddy!

    “I can’t tell you what it is for all atheists”

    then he comes back with….

    “Truth is the identification of a fact of reality”

    So the implication is all atheists have different truths? Hmmmmm, I though truth did not change?????

    Then Freddie claims to have another variation of truth. First he has reality. He claims his reality is truth. What is that reality?

    His second ingredient of Truth is facts. What are those facts?
    No God? He does nor have the propensity to exhaust every possible scenario therefore this claim is not factual.

    A fish with a bony process proves macro evolution? Lol!!!! No, not a fact proving macro but a very creative assumption…..yes! Lol!!!!!

    So what ate his facts? What his his reality? Freddie?

    Lets watch this unfold……

  517. on 24 Jul 2014 at 3:52 pm 517.TJ said …

    You Guy’s got it out of your systems yet?

    Stop trash talking each other, this ain’t high school.

    Talk about this…

    “Truth is the identification of a fact of reality.”

    discuss relative and absolute truths… give me something interesting to read.

  518. on 24 Jul 2014 at 3:58 pm 518.TJ said …

    … throw in something about the origins of the scientific method and Darwin’s attempt to free the sciences from Moses.

  519. on 24 Jul 2014 at 4:06 pm 519.TJ said …

    … and then analyse weather we are “body and mind” or “body, mind and something more”.

  520. on 24 Jul 2014 at 6:04 pm 520.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    You guys are the typical high school students giving typical high school answrrs. Alex if I were correcting your answer I would understand your effort. And give you points for trying but you don’t understand with God there are no Cs for answers no Bs for answers no As you don’t get points for better attempts it comes down to being saved or not being saved. Your eyes are fallible, science is fallible, your thinking is fallible, you can climb the ladder well but that doesn’t mean it is leaning against the right wall. Only the imputed righteousness of God means anything. A thousand years are a day in God’s eyes the science of man is but a play thing. You will slave for hundred of years to advance science meanwhile God is not amused. You will be weary broken on your scientific failures and you willing come crawling up to God’s boot tired weary and oppressed by your efforts and failures and God having observed the little scientific shenanigans over the past 10000 years will slowly and deliberately crush your science falsely so called under his feet.

  521. on 24 Jul 2014 at 6:14 pm 521.2dumb4wordsofgod said …

    And because it is called Rubin’s Vase does not mean it is a vase. What about the devils tuning fork there are several objects which the senses can’t make sense of.

  522. on 24 Jul 2014 at 6:45 pm 522.DPK said …

    520.2dumb4wordsofgod said …
    “blah blah blah blah blah….”

    And once again I ask you… what reason can you give me, other than the threat of eternal damnation, that anything you say is actually true? Messenger says he has been to heaven and spoken with god and that we do NOT go to hell forever. Indeed, only the “bad” parts of us go to hell and the good parts go to heaven. I could live with loosing my bad parts, so what’s the problem. Is he wrong? He says he’s spoken to god, have you?
    Eban Alexander supposedly died and went to heaven, and the creatures there told him that “you are loved deeply, cherished forever, there is nothing you have to fear, you will always to be loved, and there is nothing you could do wrong.”
    Why should I believe you, and not him?

    If I came up to you on the street and told you that there was a giant invisible rabbit standing next to me and he was going to rip your head off unless you gave me your car keys and wallet… would you just believe it?

  523. on 24 Jul 2014 at 6:51 pm 523.DPK said …

    517.TJ said …
    “Truth is the identification of a fact of reality.”
    discuss relative and absolute truths… give me something interesting to read.”

    Since this board’s purpose is to discuss the existence of god… are you claiming that the existence of god is an absolute, or relative truth?

  524. on 25 Jul 2014 at 12:35 am 524.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Oh Freddie!

    Gave you all day and you couldn’t

    Tell us what are your facts? What is your reality? Why should they be ours? Freddie? Well?

    Lets watch this unfold……

  525. on 25 Jul 2014 at 1:38 am 525.TJ said …

    To DPK,

    In my beliefs, yes, it is accepted as essential, that the existence of a God, is an absolute truth.

    Proving it… not so easy… which is what makes it faith.

    I make no apologies for this.

    For all other alternatives to be true, it is essential to accept that the existence of a God is absolute nonsense.

    Proving it… not so easy…

    Each of us posses an inner space/realm. Inside all our thoughts process, imagination occurs and all the other process commonly attributed to the mind, or by some, the soul/spirit.

    I cannot enter your personal inner realm any more that you can enter mine. Self determining weather we are more than the sum of our parts and their associated chemical and electrical processes is a very individual thing.

    I have personally self determined that I am more than mere biochemistry. Declaring it true to myself via no other external means. This is a bases for my faith that there is more than what we can simply physically measure and understand through materialistic methods. Perhaps my starting point of faith?

    …but that is simply a truth, relative to me personally.

    Do you have any relative truths that are personal to you or perhaps an absolute one?

  526. on 25 Jul 2014 at 3:28 am 526.alex said …

    “Do you have any relative truths that are personal to you or perhaps an absolute one?”

    when i die, that’s it. any morons want to prove otherwise? in an accident, a seatbelt may save my life. why should i substitute your god for a seatbelt? praying to santa to cure cancer, yields similar results if i don’t pray at all. your god can do better? prove it?

    santa claus believers don’t war on nonbelievers. santanians don’t push their views. santanians don’t campaign for preferential treatment. never heard of santanians going to prison. santanians don’t care if you don’t believer in santa. santanians believe in the humanitarian, unwritten, moral code. santanians believe you get random xmas gifts regardless of your behavior. and bleh, and motherfucking bleh.

    why don’t all you fuckers see that? it’s so obvious. should we all be santanians?

    why should santanians be otherwise? hell? prove it?

  527. on 25 Jul 2014 at 7:03 am 527.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    I am neither a santanian or a member of any other organised group, religious or otherwise. I do not push my views, I simply offer them in response to being asked or prompted to do so.

    I will not answer on behalf of those who campaign for preferential treatment or anything else that is not from me.

    I say, I am Christian in the sense of an individual who believes in the existence of one true God.

    I do not align myself with any organised religion. I believe almost all, to be false religions. I base this belief on the teachings, actions, works and the “fruits” they produce, which are in direct conflict with a literal reading of biblical text.

    My church does not have four walls and a cross as a sign post. My Church and my family are one and the same.

    When God declares “I am”.
    I say, “I am too”

    I cannot deny myself. This is an absolute truth for me. Nobody can declare to me that “I am not”. This is a base for my faith.

    I do not require further validation to myself, not from you or anybody else. I do not require proof, I am self validated.

    From this base, I can perceive the existence of your “self” and every other person. Is it really such a stretch to consider the existence of a greater “self” than myself or yourself?

    Or is it presumptuous to rule it out as a possibility, especially as we simply do not have all the facts available to us?

    When you look to the world, Alex. You see a world deprived and devoid of a loving caring God. Concluding God to be imaginary.

    When I look, I see a world that reflects God’s claim to have separated and removed himself from man, so that man could live out the consequence of his choice to reject God’s rule and authority over him. Just as it is written in the bible.

    Neither of these two view points are “so obvious”. For if they were, we would not be discussing it.

  528. on 25 Jul 2014 at 7:17 am 528.TJ said …

    …when i die, that’s it.

    Alex, are you content with this?

    I’m not asking to upset or mock you. I am curious, I have shared this thought in the past. It was for me, personally lacking and difficult to accept. I constantly questioned myself and purpose as to what I should be doing with my limited existence to ensure that I was fulfilled and not just a waste.

    You could easily argue that my faith filled a void, but I would much more appreciate an honest personal response. I will not make issue if you refuse.

    regards,

  529. on 25 Jul 2014 at 10:28 am 529.freddies_dead said …

    516.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Oj Freddie you smooth talking rascal. I luv you too buddy!

    “I can’t tell you what it is for all atheists”

    then he comes back with….

    “Truth is the identification of a fact of reality”

    So the implication is all atheists have different truths? Hmmmmm, I though truth did not change?????

    You really are an idiot. I know you struggle with simple concepts but not all atheists are Objectivists. That’s why I stated that they are a subset. As such I cannot claim to know how every atheist defines truth – just as I would not expect you to claim to know how all Christians define truth but how your specific sect defines it instead. Although, as you’re a dishonest prick, you’ll probably just say that anyone identifying as Christian, who defines truth differently to you, can’t be a Christian.

    I note you fail to give your own definition of truth while you attempt to deny mine. I’m not surprised as you’ve shown yourself to have only a very tenuous link with the truth at the best of times.

    Then Freddie claims to have another variation of truth. First he has reality. He claims his reality is truth. What is that reality?

    What is this drivel? There is no “variation”. Truth depends on reality. The facts of reality inform truth. If you disagree then you’re going to have to give your own definitions; of truth and what informs it etc… while we wait for you to try and find a way to avoid giving any definitions of your own I will note that Objectivism defines reality as that which exists.

    His second ingredient of Truth is facts. What are those facts?

    Facts are those things with actual existence.

    No God? He does nor have the propensity to exhaust every possible scenario therefore this claim is not factual.

    It’s this sort of logic that leaves you so open to mockery via DPK’s insistence on the existence of Santa. You’re essentially requiring omniscience in order to know things. As you’re not omniscient, then, by your own logic, you cannot know that omniscience is a pre-requisite to knowledge. You’re making a knowledge claim that denies the very possibility of knowledge. Self defeating bullshit is self defeating.

    As for God, as I’ve said before, the metaphysical primacy of existence rules out any possibility of a creator God. So, in the same way that I don’t need to “exhaust every possible scenario” to know that square circles do not exist, I can be totally confident that illogical postulates like your God do not exist either.

    A fish with a bony process proves macro evolution? Lol!!!! No, not a fact proving macro but a very creative assumption…..yes! Lol!!!!!

    You already lost the evolution argument. Your red-herring is duly noted … and promptly ignored.

    So what ate his facts? What his his reality? Freddie?

    Lets watch this unfold……

    Yes, let’s watch the lying prick start twisting and turning in a desperate attempt to avoid answering any questions about his God. I wonder how long it will be before he starts making up new personas to throw in bullshit comments so he can pat himself on the back. Will he be as stupid as before; to congratulate his sockpuppet whilst posting as that sockpuppet? I would say it’ll be interesting but this is A the lying prick so it’ll most likely be a tiresome pile of shit.

  530. on 25 Jul 2014 at 10:28 am 530.freddies_dead said …

    524.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Oh Freddie!

    Gave you all day and you couldn’t

    Tell us what are your facts? What is your reality? Why should they be ours? Freddie? Well?

    Lets watch this unfold……

    Hahahahahahaha. I don’t post to your schedule you dumb shit.

  531. on 25 Jul 2014 at 10:30 am 531.freddies_dead said …

    525.TJ said …

    To DPK,

    In my beliefs, yes, it is accepted as essential, that the existence of a God, is an absolute truth.

    According to your beliefs did your God create everything through a conscious action i.e. did He will everything into existence?

  532. on 25 Jul 2014 at 10:51 am 532.alex said …

    “I do not align myself with any organised religion.”

    but you call yourself an xtian and believe in the bible? how original.

    —”direct conflict with a literal reading of biblical text.” compared to messenger, how do you resolve all the contradictions?

    —”Or is it presumptuous to rule it out as a possibility” it’s presumptuous of you to think i (or anyone else) have never considered the possibility of anything.

    “I do not require further validation to myself, not from you or anybody else.” your posted confession suggests otherwise.

    —”You see a world deprived and devoid of a loving caring God. Concluding God to be imaginary.” wrong. that’s not what i see. you’re making up shit.

    —”…his choice to reject God’s rule and authority over him. Just as it is written in the bible.” the bible don’t mean shit. how the fuck can i reject?

    on death. —”Alex, are you content with this?” the sales pitch, eh? yes i’m content. this question is old and it only works on morons. if you’re not content, then you make up shit. why stop at seven heavenly virgins? why not eleven six foot blond virgins? saw two donuts at work and you ate one? why not eat both? oh, i fergit. gluttony is a sin, but it’s ok, coz you can always wipe your ass clean with the best selling Jesus Inc. Redemption toilet paper!

    response personal enough?

  533. on 25 Jul 2014 at 12:01 pm 533.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    ”You see a world deprived and devoid of a loving caring God. Concluding God to be imaginary.” wrong. that’s not what i see. you’re making up shit.

    Fair enough, I read a little too much into this…“what is the atheist statement/claim? there is no personal god, period.

    “I do not require further validation to myself, not from you or anybody else.” your posted confession suggests otherwise.

    Oh? my confession in post #391 suggests something that conflicts with…
    I cannot deny myself. This is an absolute truth for me. Nobody can declare to me that “I am not”. This is a base for my faith.
    or…
    I have personally self determined that I am more than mere biochemistry. Declaring it true to myself via no other external means.

    are you cherry picking from me now?

    and…
    —”…his choice to reject God’s rule and authority over him. Just as it is written in the bible.” the bible don’t mean shit. how the fuck can i reject?

    …the bible don’t mean shit. how the fuck can i reject? Is this not a rejection of the bible? Is it unreasonable to assume a rejection of the bible is also a rejection of God? Unreasonable to assume a rejection of God is also a rejection of God’s rule and authority?

    Just to be clear… not hesus, zeus or ra, but the God of Abraham and the Bible.

    Finally…
    response personal enough?

    Yes it was. Your content with “that’s it”. But if you had the choice it would be 11 six foot blonds, a couple of guilt free donuts and a clean arse.

    …perhaps, I am making shit up again.

  534. on 25 Jul 2014 at 12:09 pm 534.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “You really are an idiot.”

    Diversions…ad homenim

    “I note you fail to give your own definition of truth”

    Attempt to change the subject. I made no truth claim, you did.

    “Truth depends on reality. The facts of reality inform truth.”

    Yet you fail….AGAIN….to define truth and reality.

    “You’re essentially requiring omniscience in order to know things.”

    Actually, no I never did.

    “the metaphysical primacy of existence rules out any possibility of a creator God.”

    How do you know? Based on what? The, show us this truth claim.

  535. on 25 Jul 2014 at 12:19 pm 535.alex said …

    “Is this not a rejection of the bible?” wrong, motherfucker. i do not reject fairies, yetis, and your bible.

    “But if you had the choice it would be 11 six foot blonds, a couple of guilt free donuts and a clean arse.” wrong again, bitch. i said, why stop there….

    “I do not require further validation to myself, not from you or anybody else.” then what the fuck do you want? more cursing. here goes. go fuck yourself?

    “are you cherry picking from me now?” i did say it suggested, didn’t i? now, go fuck yourself?

    “perhaps, I am making shit up again.” demonstrated.

  536. on 25 Jul 2014 at 12:29 pm 536.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    According to your beliefs did your God create everything through a conscious action i.e. did He will everything into existence?

    Hmmm, Jesus claims to be the first begotten son of God. The first born of creation and the image God created for himself. He is also described as the word of God. We are told that through the word of God, all things were created.

    From this it could be argued that the formless God first created an image for himself via a conscious will. Then embodied that image and via the power of his word spoke forth to create everything else. There is also the bit about the spirit of God moving over the waters, but this implies manipulation of what was created and not the act of creating.

    I don’t claim to have understanding of process, just my interpretation of what is written.

  537. on 25 Jul 2014 at 12:34 pm 537.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    Do you get anything from talking to me?

    Because by your own admission you offer me nothing, and you are good to your word.

  538. on 25 Jul 2014 at 1:00 pm 538.alex said …

    “Do you get anything from talking to me?”

    i get bullshit.

  539. on 25 Jul 2014 at 1:02 pm 539.TJ said …

    Y’know your not required to talk me?

  540. on 25 Jul 2014 at 1:31 pm 540.freddies_dead said …

    534.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “You really are an idiot.”

    Diversions…ad homenim

    It’s an observation. You should also look up “ad hominem” – not just for the correct spelling either – it’s a fallacy where you attack the person rather than the argument they present. As you haven’t actually presented an argument there’s no ad hominem here. If you do actually have an argument then you’re welcome to state your premises (along with any evidence for them) and show how they support your conclusion.

    “I note you fail to give your own definition of truth”

    Attempt to change the subject. I made no truth claim, you did.

    Where do I change the subject? We’re discussing “truth”. I simply noted that you’ve so far failed to offer your own definition of the word. As you’re disputing my definition it would be nice to know on what basis you’re calling it wrong. Oh, and you have made many truth claims, including where you just made the truth claim that you made no truth claim. Maybe your definition of truth allows for such contradictions but we wouldn’t know as you haven’t told us what your definition is.

    “Truth depends on reality. The facts of reality inform truth.”

    Yet you fail….AGAIN….to define truth and reality.

    This is simply a lie – not really a surprise as you are well known for your dishonesty. I have given the definitions (as Objectivism states them) and so far you’ve offered us no way of knowing how you’re actually judging those definitions to be insufficient.

    “You’re essentially requiring omniscience in order to know things.”

    Actually, no I never did.

    Actually yes you did. When you said I didn’t have “the propensity to exhaust every possible scenario” meaning I couldn’t claim God’s non-existence as fact. If you didn’t mean omniscience was required then your statement was plainly false i.e. whether I have the propensity to exhaust every possible scenario is irrelevant as I don’t actually have to exhaust every possible scenario in order to know things as fact. It’s your choice, either you hold that knowledge requires omniscience (in which case you’ve denied your own ability to “know” anything) or you concede that your statement is patently false. Either way you’re screwed.

    “the metaphysical primacy of existence rules out any possibility of a creator God.”

    How do you know? Based on what? The, show us this truth claim.

    How do I know? Why, because of the axioms existence, consciousness and identity coupled with the metaphysical primacy of existence of course.

  541. on 25 Jul 2014 at 2:09 pm 541.freddies_dead said …

    536.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    According to your beliefs did your God create everything through a conscious action i.e. did He will everything into existence?

    Hmmm, Jesus claims to be the first begotten son of God. The first born of creation and the image God created for himself. He is also described as the word of God. We are told that through the word of God, all things were created.

    From this it could be argued that the formless God first created an image for himself via a conscious will. Then embodied that image and via the power of his word spoke forth to create everything else. There is also the bit about the spirit of God moving over the waters, but this implies manipulation of what was created and not the act of creating.

    I don’t claim to have understanding of process, just my interpretation of what is written.

    Maybe it’s just me but this comes off as evasive. You self identify (loosely) as a Christian but you don’t seem prepared to say whether you believe the Bible claims concerning your God. I also didn’t ask if you understood how He did it, just whether you believe that He did.

  542. on 25 Jul 2014 at 2:16 pm 542.TJ said …

    “How do I know? Why, because of the axioms existence, consciousness and identity coupled with the metaphysical primacy of existence of course.”

    Now, I got accused of double bullshit talk, just recently.

    I am unashamed to admit that I have no idea what the above quoted sentence is supposed to encompass?

  543. on 25 Jul 2014 at 2:38 pm 543.TJ said …

    “Maybe it’s just me but this comes off as evasive.”
    and
    “I also didn’t ask if you understood how He did it, just whether you believe that He did.”

    You want a yes/no answer, my honest opinion coupled with my rational or something else?

    I don’t have all the answers, any more than you, I’d assume.

    To state anything as an absolute fact is bold in any arena.

    I state myself to be more than just the sum of my physical parts and their associated functions, as a self determined absolute fact. I also state that God exists as an absolute fact based on what I can only describe as an overwhelming personal spiritual experience.

    Other than these two claims, I can only offer you, hopefully, my honest, bias belief based interpretation/opinion…and if it’s too hard or I don’t know, that’s what you’ll get.

    If this seems evasive, I’m sorry, I can give you what I don’t have.

  544. on 25 Jul 2014 at 2:57 pm 544.DPK said …

    525.TJ said …
    “To DPK,
    In my beliefs, yes, it is accepted as essential, that the existence of a God, is an absolute truth.
    Proving it… not so easy… which is what makes it faith. I make no apologies for this.”

    I understand. You accept an absolute truth based on no proof, and no evidence. In other words, you pretend to have knowledge you in fact do not have, and have no problem with that. Curious. You seem to think that this is somehow a virtue. How is this essentially any different from my belief in Santa?
    That’s not mockery… really, where is the distinction between this any ANY other claim I care to make about any other imaginary construct?

    “For all other alternatives to be true, it is essential to accept that the existence of a God is absolute nonsense.”

    I’m not sure what you mean by “all other alternatives”, but I don’t think this is an accurate statement. There could be host of postulated gods who simply do not fit your definition of a god. He could be a disinterested god. He could be an impotent god, powerless to change the events he has already determined will occur. There could be a panel of gods, like Congress, gridlocked in endless self bickering.

    “I have personally self determined that I am more than mere biochemistry. Declaring it true to myself via no other external means. This is a bases for my faith that there is more than what we can simply physically measure and understand through materialistic methods. Perhaps my starting point of faith? …but that is simply a truth, relative to me personally.”

    Truth is that which exists whether you believe it or not. What you are calling “truth” is merely belief. You are certainly aware that many other people have had spiritual experiences just as you have who have “self determined” the existence of DIFFERENT gods, or different “realities” of the supernatural. Is your claim that they are ALL correct… at the same time? Anything we convince ourselves of is therefore true? This seems to be what you are saying, in which case, Santa lives!

    I appreciate that you are earnest in your belief. Many people where earnest in their belief that the world was flat, that demonic possession was real, and that thunder and lighting were caused by angry gods. These people also “self determined” the existence of countless gods who now reside in the trash cans of civilizations.

    If there indeed was an “absolute truth” that could in fact be “self determined” and involved an omniscient, omnipotent, infinite and transcendent being, wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that the SAME absolute truth would be determined by everyone? But it isn’t. There is an absolute mis-mash of thousands of contradictory absolute truths. The only actual truth that remains is that they cannot all be right, but they can certainly all be wrong.

  545. on 25 Jul 2014 at 3:16 pm 545.TJ said …

    That’s not mockery… really, where is the distinction between this any ANY other claim I care to make about any other imaginary construct?

    No, I get it. Your right, it’s a fair question. I guess how do you determine what is imaginary and what isn’t?

    At some point in your analyse you self determine the reality of santa. This is no different to going either way with God. It is simply that we arrived at different conclusions. I can’t account for all your thoughts and analyse along the way that ended with…
    God = nil

    I couldn’t satisfactory recall, let alone pass on to you, all the logic, analyse and imagination I had to use to rationalise all the things I simply don’t understand or know. But in the end I arrived at…
    God = true

  546. on 25 Jul 2014 at 3:30 pm 546.TJ said …

    Read the rest of your post…

    And your right. Y’know I can’t account for how and why anyone else arrives at where they do.

    At some point though you’ve got to believe something. Even if you believe it is impossible to know anything absolutely.

    At the end of the day, you only have your own personal thoughts to reconcile against.

    By self determining my own absolute facts, I make them relative to me.

    This is the conundrum of faith. I’m fully aware and not afraid to admit that my faith is based on my ability to self determine.

    I mean the only other option I have is to say I cannot determine for myself. Who should determine for me then?

    I self determine every other aspect of my life to the best of my abilities, so why not my beliefs too.

  547. on 25 Jul 2014 at 3:44 pm 547.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “You should also look up “ad hominem” – not just for the correct spelling either – it’s a fallacy where you attack the person rather than the argument they present.”

    Yes, which you practice regularly. The tactics of a weaponless man? My sincere apologies for the typo…..another diversion.

    “As you’re disputing my definition it would be nice to know on what basis you’re calling it wrong.”

    Disputing? LOL!! Nothing to dispute, you only use words like “reality” and you define none of them. I might dispute once you define :)

    “When you said I didn’t have “the propensity to exhaust every possible scenario”

    You do not have the propensity to eliminate a majority of scenarios do you? How to you test and eliminate the possibility of God Fred? What % of possible scenarios do you think you CAN eliminate? Hmmm?

    “Why, because of the axioms existence, consciousness and identity coupled with the metaphysical primacy of existence of course.”

    Indeed! So you, as an atheist, have a universal accepted premise of existence that eliminates God!!! Please illuminate on the topic. This one interest me the most. Is THIS your reality? This should be good! I may get my popcorn out.

  548. on 25 Jul 2014 at 3:45 pm 548.DPK said …

    “I can’t account for all your thoughts and analyse along the way that ended with…
    God = nil”

    That isn’t exactly accurate. My conclusion would more correctly be stated god = unsupported and highly unlikely. I have never claimed to “know” there is no god… I just find the idea ridiculous and unsupported.

    “I couldn’t satisfactory recall, let alone pass on to you, all the logic, analyse and imagination I had to use to rationalise all the things I simply don’t understand or know. But in the end I arrived at…
    God = true”

    If your belief system was in fact grounded in reality, it would seem to me that you should be able to demonstrate it to me. If I claim that gravity exists and causes things to fall up, and not down, would it not be reasonable for you to ask me to demonstrate this? I am always amused by theists who insist that god exists in a non-physical world and can therefore not be tested or observed by physical means…. then go on in the next breath to describe how god intercedes in the physical world every day, answering prayers, performing miracles, appearing on toast and cloud formations. Sorry, if god interacts in the physical world, then he can be observed physically.

    You and are just wired differently. I used to be like you. I was raised in a christian household. I was spoon fed the dogma. But for me, no spiritual revelation ever took place… not for lack of trying. So, if your god exists, you can only assume he has a reason for this… no? Why does a god who wants to have a personal relationship with us make it impossible for a great many of us to actually do so? There actually is a very simple explanation for why this is so, but your own confirmation bias won’t allow you to accept what is actually the simplest and most logical answer.
    You have admitted yourself that it required a torturous process of “logic, analysis, and imagination” to “rationalize” your beliefs. Why can’t you accept the fact that there is a simple answer that does not require rationalization? One that fits perfectly with what we actually observe in the world, one that does not require you to pretend to know things you do not know? This is foreign to me, and makes no sense.

  549. on 25 Jul 2014 at 3:56 pm 549.TJ said …

    Why can’t you accept the fact that there is a simple answer that does not require rationalization?

    Simply the fact that I am able rationalise.

  550. on 25 Jul 2014 at 4:09 pm 550.TJ said …

    You have admitted yourself that it required a torturous process of “logic, analysis, and imagination” to “rationalize” your beliefs.

    Oh, you had better believe I was a suborn bastard, and hard of heart. I was the hold up, not God.

    “You and are just wired differently. I used to be like you. I was raised in a christian household. I was spoon fed the dogma. But for me, no spiritual revelation ever took place… not for lack of trying.”

    If you never had a spiritual revelation, then you were never like me. And You still reject God.

    Tell me, have you ever truly asked God to reveal himself to you in Ernest? Honestly without contempt?

  551. on 25 Jul 2014 at 5:18 pm 551.DPK said …

    Tell me, have you ever truly asked God to reveal himself to you in Ernest? Honestly without contempt?

    Yes, many times, truthfully and in earnest, I have. I got nothing. Do you think I’m the only one? That leads me to ask why god has favored you, and not me? Why has god led others to worship a false god, ultimately to their eternal doom, according to the bible?

    “Simply the fact that I am able rationalize.”

    Perhaps we have a different understanding of “rationalize” because that statement sounds like a crazy person talking.
    Rationalize:
    “attempt to explain or justify (one’s own or another’s behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.”

    So you claim that you cannot accept the fact that there is a simpler and more logical explanation that doesn’t require you to rationalize because you have the ability to “attempt to explain or justify (one’s own or another’s behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.”
    So, according to your reasoning, if I have the ability to convince myself that leprechauns exists, despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that leprechauns exist, then THAT is sufficient reason to reject out of hand the idea that leprechauns are actually imaginary?

    Do you really comprehend how entirely crazy that sounds?

  552. on 25 Jul 2014 at 11:45 pm 552.TJ said …

    “Yes, many times, truthfully and in earnest, I have. I got nothing. Do you think I’m the only one? That leads me to ask why god has favored you, and not me? Why has god led others to worship a false god, ultimately to their eternal doom, according to the bible?”

    I don’t know why God appears to have favoured me, perhaps I had given up the fight to resist God, perhaps I had truly accepted Christ on faith the very moment before I had my experience. I really don’t have the answer for you.

    I certainly don’t believe God leads people away from himself towards worship of other Gods. In my acceptance of the bible I have to consider the role of the adversary, the devil. And any role he may play in leading people astray.

    “Do you really comprehend how entirely crazy that sounds?”

    Of course I do. But I’m not ashamed to state my beliefs to you all the same.

    “So, according to your reasoning, if I have the ability to convince myself that leprechauns exists, despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that leprechauns exist, then THAT is sufficient reason to reject out of hand the idea that leprechauns are actually imaginary?”

    According to my reasoning, I reject the existence of leprechauns. If you convince yourself otherwise, that’s on you. Right now I’m only claiming a faith in the God of the bible, by way of my personal way, and process of rationalisation.

    Would it be more sane if I borrowed Neil Degrasse Tyson’s “Ship of the Imagination” and took it for a spin to see what I could determine?

    I mean you rationalise my rationalisation based on your own ability to rationalise. And that’s fine, I wouldn’t expect anything less.

    Just because not everyone reaches the same conclusions merely testifies to exceptional effectiveness of our faculties to imagine and express free self determined will. The same self determined will that God claims to posses. The bible is the only source of information that provides and explain the origins of such a creative imagination, whilst providing a holistic approach to the three big questions. I do not understand it all by a long shot.

    There is no simple answer to complex questions. And most of the answers only provide more questions. Do you think the scientists and engineers who build particle colliders, do so without using their ability to rationalise and imagine first?

    If they didn’t, I’d determine them to be crazy.

  553. on 26 Jul 2014 at 4:37 am 553.DPK said …

    “I don’t know why God appears to have favoured me, perhaps I had given up the fight to resist God, perhaps I had truly accepted Christ on faith the very moment before I had my experience. I really don’t have the answer for you.”

    I can think of one that makes perfect sense, but you are too closed minded to cconsider it. Instead, you will blame me, or gods mysterious ways. Have you heard of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy?

    “I certainly don’t believe God leads people away from himself towards worship of other Gods. In my acceptance of the bible I have to consider the role of the adversary, the devil. And any role he may play in leading people astray.”

    Confused… Doesn’t everything happen according to gods divine will and plan? Or is that only for things you like? You are the one claiming there is an absolute truth, and god wants us to find it. But many earnest and sincere people who seek this truth are deceived by the devil and god doesn’t care? Your rationalization is really talking you down Thea rabbit hole.

    “Do you really comprehend how entirely crazy that sounds?”
    Of course I do. But I’m not ashamed to state my beliefs to you all the same.

    “So you admit it is crazy, and you’re proud of it. And this is a good thing?

    “According to my reasoning, I reject the existence of leprechauns. If you convince yourself otherwise, that’s on you. Right now I’m only claiming a faith in the God of the bible, by way of my personal way, and process of rationalisation.”

    Way to try to intentionally miss the point. What is the arbitrary distinction you make between god and the leprechauns? You are making one… Why? You have already told us proudly your believe is based on rationalization… Convincing yourself of something using evidence that is either not true or not applicable. And you are proud of this? That is the definition of delusion.

    Would it be more sane if I borrowed Neil Degrasse Tyson’s “Ship of the Imagination” and took it for a spin to see what I could determine?

    I haven’t read it, but I would be surprised to find that Dr. Tyson would ask you to believe anything without evidence to back it up. If you are claiming that imagination is essential to the belief in supernatural gods, I wouldn’t disagree. But while a scientific idea may indeed start in the imagination, it never ends there.

    I mean you rationalise my rationalisation based on your own ability to rationalise. And that’s fine, I wouldn’t expect anything less.

    No, I don’t. Tell me exactly how you think I am rationalizing. Everything I am pointing out to you is based on your own statements.

    Just because not everyone reaches the same conclusions merely testifies to exceptional effectiveness of our faculties to imagine and express free self determined will. The same self determined will that God claims to posses. The bible is the only source of information that provides and explain the origins of such a creative imagination, whilst providing a holistic approach to the three big questions. I do not understand it all by a long shot.

    Again, you seem to imply that reality is completely subjective. The fact that not everyone arrives at the same conclusion doesn’t mean everyone is right. With regard to the existence of god, one thing is clear. One of us is right, and one of us is wrong. The fact that people can reach wrong conclusions is not evidence of a god, and you claims about the bible are unsupported none sense.

    There is no simple answer to complex questions. And most of the answers only provide more questions.
    The existence of supernatural gods is not a complex question. They are real, or they are not. Historically, all of them to date have been imaginary. I think yours is no different, and you haven’t given me any reason to think otherwise. Indeed, you admit you have to rationalize in order to convince yourself. I won’t do that. I think if I was created by a god with intelligence, he would frown on rationalization and self delusion as a poor use of his design.

    Do you think the scientists and engineers who build particle colliders, do so without using their ability to rationalise and imagine first?
    If they didn’t, I’d determine them to be crazy.

    But they use that imagination as a basis to test and gather actual evidence, not as a means to self determine. The Higgs particle was imagined before it was discovered, but it was not accepted based on imagination. The evidence had to be discovered.

    Got any?

  554. on 26 Jul 2014 at 8:53 am 554.TJ said …

    To DPK,
    What you are asking me for are spiritual answers. You keep reverting back to scientific methods and analogy. Science rejects the concept of a soul, and therefore does not account for it.

    There are no answers to be found currently in the scientific world. I assume you wouldn’t be here at this site if you were not at some point seriously seeking answers to spiritual questions.

    If you are currently seeking to destroy me with circular logic, chest beating and finger pointing whilst chanting “crazy person”. Then I will happily declare you the winner, leave this site and not return.

    I will not…
    deny my spirit,
    deny God,
    deny my belief in Christ
    or answer for others.

    Otherwise everything else is open for discussion.

    Sincerely TJ

  555. on 26 Jul 2014 at 1:42 pm 555.alex said …

    “Y’know your not required to talk me?”

    here’s why:
    “Science rejects the concept of a soul..” soul is bullshit. no? prove it, motherfucker.

    “There are no answers to be found currently in the scientific world.” none? serious?

    “I assume you wouldn’t be here at this site if you were not at some point seriously seeking answers to spiritual questions.” more bullshit.

    “If you are currently seeking to destroy me with circular logic…” you’re full of shit and nobody’s buying it.

    go fuck yourself.

  556. on 26 Jul 2014 at 2:06 pm 556.DPK said …

    “I will not…
    deny my spirit,
    deny God,
    deny my belief in Christ
    or answer for others.
    Otherwise everything else is open for discussion.”

    In other words, anything is open for discussion except “the existence of god in the world…” the point of the blog.
    You remind me very much of a point in the recent debate on evolution vs creationism between Ken Hamm and Bill Nye. The moderator asked each of them “what would make you change your mind about your position?”
    Nye replied, “evidence”. Hamm said “absolutely nothing”.

    “Science rejects the concept of a soul, and therefore does not account for it.” Incorrect. Science does not “reject” the concept of a soul, science holds there is no evidence for it… big difference. I could use your same justification to say “science rejects the idea of Leprechauns, therefore science can provide no answers relative to the existence of leprechauns. And your implication is that this somehow validates your belief in Leprechauns.

    “If you are currently seeking to destroy me with circular logic…”

    Show me where my logic is circular. Pointing out the contradictions and flat out fallacies in your own reasoning is not “circular logic”.

  557. on 26 Jul 2014 at 2:07 pm 557.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Science rejects the concept of a soul, and therefore does not account for it.”

    Untrue TJ, science only rejects that which it can disprove. Just as science does not reject “little green men”(SETI), Science also does not reject the soul/spirit (Biocentrism).

    I cannot express myself as clearly as alexis (that silver tongued rascal, lol), but I do hope the point is made

  558. on 26 Jul 2014 at 2:24 pm 558.alex said …

    “I cannot express myself as clearly as alexis”

    loud and clear, mon motherfucker. there’s no doubt about your mastery of bullsheeyat. here’s the proof:
    http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    oh, look, it automagically updated itself with your most recent crap. somewhere is a god programmer?

  559. on 26 Jul 2014 at 4:07 pm 559.alex said …

    “Untrue TJ, science only rejects that which it can disprove.”

    but, you swallow the chinese fetus stew rather easily? not surprising since your skydad loves him some burnt flesh.

  560. on 26 Jul 2014 at 5:54 pm 560.DPK said …

    At last “A” and I find something to agree on. Science also does not “reject” the idea of gods, it just finds no evidence to support it. Saying, “well, you can’t explain ___________ (fill in the gap of the day) does not then default to “then god musta did it. If it did we would still be sacrificing virgins at the volcano. Actually, civilization would have longs since collapsed because we would have no doubt run out of virgins before we ran out of gods to which to sacrifice them.

  561. on 26 Jul 2014 at 7:47 pm 561.alex said …

    “…science only rejects…”

    desperate plea for legitimacy. waah! the scientist won’t debate my xtian ass! schools should present creationism side by side with evolution! bleh, motherfucking bleh.

  562. on 26 Jul 2014 at 7:48 pm 562.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    TJ

    what science does reject is that if A is not true, that it follows A’ is also not true. The faulty logic and rhetoric one must, unfortunately, hear from atheist…..volcanos . … Virgins…..Santian religion…….elves, …..blah blah blah…..lol!!!!!

  563. on 26 Jul 2014 at 8:11 pm 563.DPK said …

    Wrong again A-hole. Shame on you for trying to burn this straw man again. You’ve been spanked many times before on it. But you keep trying hoping someone won’t notice the snake oil you are peddling.
    No one says because leprechauns aren’t real, then gods aren’t real.
    We say if the process you use to determine gods exist can equally be used to determine leprechauns exists, then the process is not a valid or reliable one.
    TJ has drawn a very arbitrary, but very real distinction between leprechauns and god. Why? The distinction is he knows leprechauns are not real, but he doesn’t want to consider the possibility that gods are not real. But the process he uses to rationalize his belief in gods can be equally used to rationalize belief in leprechauns, so how can we trust it?

  564. on 26 Jul 2014 at 9:06 pm 564.alex said …

    “what science does reject is that if A is not true, that it follows A’ is also not true.”

    that’s why you’re a lyin, dumbass, motherfucker.

    recorded magically: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  565. on 27 Jul 2014 at 4:45 am 565.Anonymous said …

    tj,

    How did you come to find god? Seems you were a non-believer that has become a christian. The prick posting above was once a drug addict and found salvation (and sobriety) through Christ. Is your story similar? Just out of curiosity.

    Also, how old do you (and your beliefs) say that the planet Earth is?

  566. on 27 Jul 2014 at 3:53 pm 566.TJ said …

    “But they use that imagination as a basis to test and gather actual evidence, not as a means to self determine.”

    Who determines if the evidence supports the imagined basis which is being tested?

    What is the imagined basis for the big bang?

    What is the imagined basis for planetary formation?

    What is the imagined basis for evolutionary theory?

    What is the imagined basis for multiple Ice age theory?

    What is the imagined basis for deep time?

    What is the imagined basis for dark energy/matter?

    What is the imagined basis for dating methods?

    etc…etc

    If science does not reject God or the soul, do they ever factor either of these as variables in any of their tests?

    If lack of evidence to prove or disprove conclusively is the problem, then why are the above theory’s taught as acceptable?

    ——————–

    From what I can personally rationalise, from what some of your are trying to tell me, is this…

    - I cannot trust my own ability to rationalise for my self.

    - I should only consider proven, evidence based “facts”.

    - for “facts”, I should trust only those that imagined a basis, tested it, and determined that the results from the tests they imagined and performed, match their imagined basis. I should accept the imagined basis as a “fact”, especially if others agree that the results from the tests performed show evidence that supports the imagined basis.

    - once I have somehow determined reliable “facts”, I should only consider these “facts” when I try to determine for my self. All the while accepting that I cannot trust my own ability to rationalise for my self.

    I am then asked how can anyone trust anything I say regarding my beliefs? Well, for a start I don’t limit myself by excluding any possibilities in my rationalisation process. But I do, dismiss and reject many things in my conclusions. What you determine for yourself is for you.

    I don’t ask that anyone trust me, change their beliefs or that they must accept mine, I am simply here to discuss the possibility of the existence of a God.

    If I am to limit myself to only considering that which can be proven only. Then how far will I be able to run with it? Like a computer’s logic I will soon come up against a statement without a true, false or stated value. My rational will crash to desktop. I will be left to declare “I don’t know”. And that will always be the case until I accept or imagine a value for the problem statement.

    Unlike a computer, I can imagine, exaggerate, self edit, make corrections, seek wisdom and new information from other sources, fantasize, ponder, compare, relate, associate, create and ultimately rationalise and weigh up the plausibility of all the unknowns from within.

    I say again, if I can’t determine for myself, then who should I trust to determine for me? I certainly don’t suggest that anybody take my word for anything.

    As I claim, nothing I say can change what anyone else believes. Belief happens within the individual. I can add extra information, but I cannot control the individuals rationalisation outcomes.

    To say, “I don’t know” is acceptable.
    To say, “I haven’t yet been able to determine for myself” is acceptable
    To say, “I can’t determine for myself” is selling yourself short.

    When you guys say, “God is imaginary”.

    Is it your personal rationalisation?
    or is it borrowed from some place else?

    …of course, all the above, is only my own rationalisation.

    Within my own rationalisation, I have determined that I can trust my rational. Why?

    Because I have determined that I am more than a mere bio-mechanical machine. I have determined that I am able to be angry, jealous, vengeful, loving, sad, wroth, joyous, creative, imaginative and many other attributes associated to God. And I accept that these attributes constitute the living soul assigned to me in the image of God.

  567. on 27 Jul 2014 at 5:02 pm 567.TJ said …

    “How did you come to find god? Seems you were a non-believer that has become a Christian. The prick posting above was once a drug addict and found salvation (and sobriety) through Christ. Is your story similar? Just out of curiosity.”

    The short version is that I came to a realisation after speaking to my mother about the concept of “being born again” and the promise of the holy spirit as a comforter.
    My mother claimed to believe, yet admitted she had doubts. Both her parents claimed to be born again, as does her sister and daughters(both my sisters).

    My mother stated “I don’t know what I’m waiting for, they all tell me it’s simply about believing”.

    A week or so later I was cleaning the kitchen, washing the dishes listening to the radio. Kids were at school and the missus was laid up in bed with chronic back pain as usual.

    A song came over the radio…”what are you waiting for…” the lyrics went. I got to thinking about my conversation with my mother.

    I asked myself “what the fuck am I waiting for?”
    I though “I’ve looked it all up down and over, this lot say this and those say that. What am I supposed to believe?”
    I spoke quietly, out loud, to God, assuming that if he was real, he would hear me and he would recognise that I was serious in my questioning.
    I do not remember my exact words but they where in line with this tone…
    “Why does a god who wants to have a personal relationship with us make it impossible for a great many of us to actually do so?”
    …”and if all I have to do is have faith and believe…”
    …then I stated to God directly that I’d had enough and that I accepted that he knew what the whole deal was, and that I would never be able to know all that I need to be 100% certain… and before I could conclude it hit me.

    It was as if for a brief moment I had complete access and understanding of all things relating to my personal salvation. I was overwhelmed with emotion and feeling of relief, assurance and eternal security. I sobbed and sobbed like a great big sook.

    I did not breath a word of my experience to anybody for at least a month. To my surprise, my aunty, grandmother and one of my sisters, all claim that they were at the sink doing the dishes when they had their personal experience.

    Since my experience, I feel like the weight of the world has been lifted off my shoulders. I have been able to focus on personal relationships with my family and friends with a greater tolerance, acceptance and calmness. I feel I can be honest and at peace with myself for possibly the first in my life.

    The longer version includes past drugs use, kids to multiple partners, court cases, moral struggles, fluctuating beliefs and one hell of an arrogant, self centred main character ie. me.

    I still have a lot of room for personal improvement, I’m still very much the same, just more aware and willing to make positive changes within my ways.

  568. on 27 Jul 2014 at 5:28 pm 568.TJ said …

    Also, how old do you (and your beliefs) say that the planet Earth is?

    Straight up, the bible doesn’t state the age specificity. Many have sat and poured over the pages and mathematically calculated dates based on biblical content. I personally have not done this.

    The dates associated are on average as follows…

    -creation of the earth is 4045 B.C.
    -global flood 1656 years after creation.
    -total time of the earth just over 6000 years old.

    I often see the 6000 years extended to 6000-10000.
    I’m not entirely sure where the extra 4000 comes from, but I would speculate that it would be an attempt to line biblical text with archaeological dating evidence.

    You can read my personal assessment of dating methods in comment #332 of this post.

    If the dates above truly match up with the biblical text, as I haven’t personally done the maths myself. But if they do, then I would assert that they match my beliefs.

  569. on 27 Jul 2014 at 6:39 pm 569.alex said …

    “What is the……”

    you’re a moron. your attempt to cast doubt on everything is irrelevant. whether or not the big bang happened doesn’t validate your god any more than it validates big foot.

    “do they ever factor either of these as variables in any of their tests?” what is the god test? you already admitted that you have no proof so what the fuck is the test? you’re the one that’s waving the god flag so state your test. oh, that’s right, there’s no test, you just know god exists in your heart/head.

    a simple “How did you come to find god?” and you jumped in with your testimony bullshit. roll on the floor, motherfucker. throw in some tongues shit.

    not trust dating methods? this somehow reconciles your biblical earth age? you’re a fucking moron. the speed of light you doubt? is that why your god did not create stars but instead created the light in transit so that we can see them?

    dumbass, motherfucker.

  570. on 27 Jul 2014 at 9:54 pm 570.Anonymous said …

    tj,

    I thought there might have been pre-existing conditions which aided your search for the lord. The belief of a god seems to be working for you and if it helps you walk the line and be a better person, good for you.

    I think that we can both agree that life is about compromise. When you subscribe to a fundamental belief, you MUST also learn to filter reality so that the belief remains unfettered. And that’s where the problems begin.

    You seem to claim so much of science is “imagined”. Such as: “What is the imagined basis for the big bang?”
    What’s wrong with using honest and objective analytical methods for such work? One must clear the mind of pre-conceived notions and ideals and start with, perhaps, creating a hypothesis. Doing research will yield facts and observations. But what if the initial hypothesis is wrong and the facts don’t fit? Well, the facts remain but a new hypothesis may be formulated. Does that work for a “god hypothesis”? No, god is a faith. Science is based on fact and observation. Science is about, for lack of a better example, shifting the decimal point when calculating the speed of light. God is excluded from such exercises.

  571. on 27 Jul 2014 at 10:06 pm 571.alex said …

    “The belief of a god seems to be working for you and if it helps you walk the line and be a better person, good for you.”

    no doubt. i’m friends with a few of those and they don’t go around yanking anybody’s chain. i thought they were godless heathens like me. and they thought i was xtian!

    surprisingly, they think i’m going to heaven. of course, the resident morons here know they ain’t real xtians. what is the xtian test again?

  572. on 27 Jul 2014 at 10:46 pm 572.Anonymous said …

    Once upon a time persons kept quite while passing a church house.

    Now you guys are using foul language to Christians.

    You will not escape the fire.

  573. on 27 Jul 2014 at 11:01 pm 573.alex said …

    “You will not escape the fire.”

    my cursing is WAY WORSE than you doling out eternal damnation? failed, motherfucker.

  574. on 28 Jul 2014 at 12:52 am 574.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “If I am to limit myself to only considering that which can be proven only. Then how far will I be able to run with it?”

    TJ.

    I think you may be confusing science with truth. Science is an epistemological endeavor and as such makes conclusions that may or may not be true. Consequently, scientist come into the endeavor with their own presuppositions, their biases, and is some instances beliefs they must embrace by their peers. Yes, science in some instances is influenced by politics.

    So what can be proven to be truth? Evolution? Climate Change? God? It all depends on who the inquiry is made to and what they have decided to accept as evidence. The nature of evidence is a crucial point in this process.

    Analytical science is typically straightforward. The gate voltage of a BJT transistor, the Ph of an acidic solution, semiconductor conductivity, etc are just a few examples. However historical sciences lend themselves to untestable assumptions and inherent biases that skew the resulting conclusions. Macroevolution is a great example here.

    Good luck mate and thanks for sharing your experience.

  575. on 28 Jul 2014 at 12:58 am 575.TJ said …

    The God test?

    Tell me how much money has been spent on theorising and development of technology and equipment to produce data or evidence?

    Do you realise the scientific method was developed by God fearing early scientists to provide evidence of a God who claims to have created the universe with unchanging rules, laws and an inherent balance? This was the emergence out of the dark ages of superstition.

    Do you realise that the enlightenment was a movement set out to explain the observed inherent balance, unchanging rules and laws without the presence of a creator? Darwin claimed his goal was to “free the sciences from Moses.”

    Google “hadron particle collider” read the wikipedia page. Read the “Purpose” section, and click on the linked word “early universe”.

    I say that science has rejected the possibility of a God and therefore does not account for it in it’s considerations, and I stand firm.

    I don’t claim to have proof for you, just my rational.

  576. on 28 Jul 2014 at 1:10 am 576.Anonymous said …

    prick claims:

    historical sciences lend themselves to untestable assumptions and inherent biases that skew the resulting conclusions. Macroevolution is a great example here.

    Did you forget about shared DNA and physiology? This information is available to researchers of today. It can be cross referenced to the fossil record. Links can be determined. So much information…so many facts. It ALL points to EVOLUTION. Unless you literally believe the bible to be true….and then you’ve just got to invent shit that fits your safe and comfortable mindset that there’s a sentient being that cares that Tebow got a touchdown, I got a raise, my family survived the car crash (and if they didn’t – they’re in a better place now), etc, etc.

    Prick is someone who CLEARLY demonstrates the necessary detachment from reality to enable a faith (aka belief in a god) to exist. It also helps his sobriety.

  577. on 28 Jul 2014 at 1:18 am 577.Anonymous said …

    tj,

    As a side note, Prick says the universe is Billions of years old. He also, like you, claims to be a Christian. And, what a coincidence, he also had issues with maintaining sobriety.

    As an interesting exercise, Prick should explain to you how it’s possible to believe in a Billions of year old Universe and still have Christ guy as your go to guy. I’ll let him have the floor now. Please proceed, Prick. Popcorns on!!! LOL!!!

  578. on 28 Jul 2014 at 1:21 am 578.TJ said …

    the speed of light you doubt? is that why your god did not create stars but instead created the light in transit so that we can see them?

    I’m not going to do all the thinking for you.
    Speed is the given distance travelled over a measured time frame right?
    According to Einstein and accepted theory of relativity. The passing of time can vary in relation to proximity to gravitational forces… a bending of time and space, as the description goes. GPS and satellite tracking systems are only accurate due to mathematical equations that account for the confirmed slight time variation in satellite orbits.

    Has anyone ever observed a light particles journey from one star to next. Would the passing of time itself vary depending on proximity to and from each star. Does dark matter exist? and does it affect time?

    the speed of light you doubt?

    No I don’t, I believe we can relativity rely on our measurements within our ability to measure. Can I say that what we can measure from here on earth holds true across the vastness of space… I cannot.

    If all else seems to vary depending on how it relates and reacts with what is around it, then why can’t the speed of light vary?

    Also I don’t claim to understand Gods creative process.

  579. on 28 Jul 2014 at 1:40 am 579.TJ said …

    “I think you may be confusing science with truth.”

    No, many here are confusing my rational with claims of truth.

    I offered my 2 “Absolute truths”, but only as truths relative to me personally.

    The rest is research, conjecture, speculation, imagination, and personal conclusive rationalisation.

    You either agree, disagree, accept, reject or otherwise. But ultimately you will personally rationalise all that you read of what I say and reach your own conclusions, even if that means you conclude I’m insane… so be it.

    As for…

    “historical sciences lend themselves to untestable assumptions and inherent biases that skew the resulting conclusions.”

    I absolutely agree. I admit that I am terribly bias in my beliefs when rationalising historical sciences, conjecturing with my own versions of untestable assumptions.

    I only take it personally when I am called a liar, whilst being told of the high standards of objectivity in science.

  580. on 28 Jul 2014 at 1:41 am 580.TJ said …

    Good luck mate and thanks for sharing your experience.

    Thanks mate, your welcome.

  581. on 28 Jul 2014 at 2:06 am 581.alex said …

    “I’m not going to do all the thinking for you.
    Speed is the given distance travelled over a measured time frame right?”

    “why can’t the speed of light vary?”

    that’s why you’re a dumbass, motherfucker. since the andromeda galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away, how in the fuck did its light travel to be visible in your 10,000 year old earth? so to support your bullshit earth age, you’d have to crank up the speed of light by some crazy factor, don’t you? is this the thinking you’re doing for me?

    bullshit, motherfucker.

  582. on 28 Jul 2014 at 2:16 am 582.TJ said …

    “You seem to claim so much of science is “imagined”. Such as: “What is the imagined basis for the big bang?”
    What’s wrong with using honest and objective analytical methods for such work? One must clear the mind of pre-conceived notions and ideals and start with, perhaps, creating a hypothesis. Doing research will yield facts and observations. But what if the initial hypothesis is wrong and the facts don’t fit? Well, the facts remain but a new hypothesis may be formulated. Does that work for a “god hypothesis”? No, god is a faith. Science is based on fact and observation. Science is about, for lack of a better example, shifting the decimal point when calculating the speed of light. God is excluded from such exercises.”

    I see no problem using honest and objective analytical methods for such work.
    However when hypothesis is created. Any objective analytical methods used, are chosen for their potential to investigate the claims of the hypothesis. Not to investigate claims excluded by the hypothesis itself.

    And this is of course the nature of scientific investigation. Again no problem from me.

    The problem is there is more than one hypothesis. I get called narrow minded and a dumbarse motherfucker for not limiting myself to any one realm of hypothesis. Instead I insist on questioning everything to gather raw information from many sources. I then claim to trust my own “(bias) God given” ability to rationalise and determine for my own self. Often coming up with the same conclusions as others… in that truths can be elusive in light of the rationalisations of others and the evidences and proofs that are often presented as fact.

    I am just crazy enough to admit it openly… and still profess faith in something “unproven”.

  583. on 28 Jul 2014 at 2:17 am 583.alex said …

    “Good luck mate and thanks for sharing your experience.”

    and come back with more of your delicious, mind numbing testimonials. just to aggravate the fuck out of these atheists. it really works you know. the aggravation, i mean.

    dumbass, motherfuckers.

  584. on 28 Jul 2014 at 2:21 am 584.Anonymous said …

    tj:

    the speed of light you doubt? is that why your god did not create stars but instead created the light in transit so that we can see them?
    I’m not going to do all the thinking for you.

    You won’t do my thinking for me? Thank Christ ;-) for that, **insert irony**. My god, like yours, is invisible and unresponsive – on that we can agree.

    No, I don’t doubt the speed of light. I think you missed my point. Or tried a dodge and weave. I am saying that the science points to the big bang, evolution, etc, etc. The research won’t do a 180 degree turn without some solid reasoning. Maybe you have the smoking gun to achieve the turn around? I doubt it. The research marches on. It’s why you’re able to communicate with me and others over the internet….thank-you science.

    tj, I don’t think you can comprehend how big the Universe actually is. There are more stars in the Universe than grains of sand on planet Earth. And you claim some god decided that we are so SPECIAL that it wanted to create US in it’s image just for shits and giggles? And we’re to believe in and worship this entity lest we put into peril of our eternal souls? Puhleeeze….Don’t insult my intelligence. Grow the fuck up!!! OR – If this is what you need to stay sober, chive on, mate.

  585. on 28 Jul 2014 at 2:23 am 585.alex said …

    “Instead I insist on questioning everything to gather raw information from many sources.”

    fine. the big bang is bullshit. dark matter is bullshit. light speed can vary. evolution is bullshit. and guess what, motherfucker? your god is still bullshit.

    don’t feel bad. we both believe in seat belts, don’t we? we both believe in aspirin? both believe in pasteurized milk? see, we have a lot in common, yes?

  586. on 28 Jul 2014 at 3:25 am 586.TJ said …

    To Anonymous,
    You said…
    My god, like yours, is invisible and unresponsive – on that we can agree.

    I say…
    “No, I do not agree. I say the invisible God created himself an image/form, before all else. Planned to interact with mankind on planet earth using this image/form, commanding them be fruitfull, multiply and fill the earth. What was to happen after the earth was full is anybody’s guess. But there appears to be a vast limitless universe to explore.

    I say God’s plan was interrupted by another creation of Gods. One who’s jealousy of Man’s special status prompted him to challenge Man ability to wield free will and remain obedient to God.

    God then used his image/form to directly influence the choices of selected men & women up to the point of fulfilling a promise to present himself as a kinsman redeemer sacrificing his original form/image to take on a fleshly form and then sacrificing that only to regain it, all on behalf of man to satisfy whatever the requirements of universal justice may be (I don’t understand why it had to be this way). After this was fulfilled he left in this fleshly form to prepare a new place for us. He left a spiritual comforter for anybody who would sincerely ask for it.

    I claim to have got a response in the form of an overwhelming personal spiritual experience. I conclude that this was the spiritual comforter, and it remains within me.

    You said…
    “I am saying that the science points to the big bang, evolution, etc, etc. The research won’t do a 180 degree turn without some solid reasoning.”

    I say…
    The science is focused on pointing research towards the big bang, evolution etc. It cannot turn in any other direction without accepting an alternative focus.

  587. on 28 Jul 2014 at 3:36 am 587.Anonymous said …

    tj,

    You, like the Prick, have swallowed the Kool-aid. Both seeking salvation from themselves through an external entity. Seems like it works for you both. Maybe you should explain to the Prick why he is wrong in assuming a Billions of years old Earth and Universe.

  588. on 28 Jul 2014 at 5:22 am 588.TJ said …

    To Anonymous,

    Who suggested…

    “Maybe you should explain to the Prick why he is wrong in assuming a Billions of years old Earth and Universe.”

    Are you the same Anonymous, that said this to me?

    “And we’re to believe in and worship this entity lest we put into peril of our eternal souls? Puhleeeze….Don’t insult my intelligence. Grow the fuck up!!!”

    ?

  589. on 28 Jul 2014 at 12:15 pm 589.freddies_dead said …

    547.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “You should also look up “ad hominem” – not just for the correct spelling either – it’s a fallacy where you attack the person rather than the argument they present.”

    Yes, which you practice regularly. The tactics of a weaponless man? My sincere apologies for the typo…..another diversion.

    Wrong as usual. When I note that you’re a lying prick it’s based on your many acts of dishonesty and, as I’ve already pointed out, you’ve yet to present an argument … about anything really, so it’s impossible for me to commit the fallacy you accuse me of. If you do actually have an argument then you’re welcome to state your premises (along with any evidence for them) and show how they support your conclusion.

    “As you’re disputing my definition it would be nice to know on what basis you’re calling it wrong.”

    Disputing? LOL!! Nothing to dispute,

    So you agree that truth is the identification of a fact of reality then? In which case your posturing has what purpose? If you don’t agree then on what basis are you calling it wrong? Just what is your definition of truth?

    you only use words like “reality” and you define none of them.

    And you’re back to lying. I’ve given you the definitions you asked for.
    Truth is the identification of a fact of reality.
    Facts are those things with actual existence.
    Reality is that which exists.

    I might dispute once you define :)

    I have defined already, you’re just dodging as usual.

    “When you said I didn’t have “the propensity to exhaust every possible scenario”

    You do not have the propensity to eliminate a majority of scenarios do you?

    What difference does it make if I can’t eliminate “a majority” of scenarios? Is there a fundamental distinction between that and eliminating “a minority” of scenarios? If I can do one but not the other how does that prove that your God exists? And why does it stop me from knowing that your God isn’t real?

    How to you test and eliminate the possibility of God Fred?

    Easy. As Anton Thorn notes:
    “The claim that a god exists is self-contradictory. To claim that god exists, you must both assume the truth of the primacy of existence and deny it at the same time. When you say “x exists” (where ‘x’ is some entity, attribute or relationship), you are assuming that it exists independently of consciousness, which means: You imply the primacy of existence principle. But when you say what exists is a form of consciousness which creates existence, then you assume explicitly the primacy of consciousness principle, which contradicts the principle of the primacy of existence. In this way, the claim that god exists must be rejected as a falsehood. Either way, existence exists, and your god is out of a job.”

    What % of possible scenarios do you think you CAN eliminate? Hmmm?

    I don’t need to worry about percentages when you’re affirming the impossible.

    “Why, because of the axioms existence, consciousness and identity coupled with the metaphysical primacy of existence of course.”

    Indeed! So you, as an atheist, have a universal accepted premise of existence that eliminates God!!! Please illuminate on the topic. This one interest me the most. Is THIS your reality? This should be good! I may get my popcorn out.

    The Objectivist position eliminates any God said to hold metaphysical primacy over existence. It certainly isn’t “universally accepted” (and I never claimed that it was) as we can all see from the continuing existence of theists who irrationally affirm the metaphysical primacy of consciousness.

  590. on 28 Jul 2014 at 12:17 pm 590.freddies_dead said …

    542.TJ said …

    “How do I know? Why, because of the axioms existence, consciousness and identity coupled with the metaphysical primacy of existence of course.”

    Now, I got accused of double bullshit talk, just recently.

    I am unashamed to admit that I have no idea what the above quoted sentence is supposed to encompass?

    Generally I have found that theists who ask “how do you know?” are utterly disinterested in an actual theory of knowledge and are simply seeking to undermine the atheist’s certainty when disbelieving in their God. As such I’ve given up attempting to explain Objectivist epistemology and instead point to Objectivism’s reliance on the self-evident axioms and the proper subject-object relationship as the foundation upon which our knowledge rests.

  591. on 28 Jul 2014 at 1:36 pm 591.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    TJ,

    Her is a great example of assumptions and biases from Anonymous (aka Freddie).

    “science points to the big bang, evolution, etc”

    Does science really point to these theories or are they based on conclusions ripe with bias and presuppositions?

    The later of course. The Facts do not speak and the creationist and the Evolutionist use the same facts.

  592. on 28 Jul 2014 at 1:55 pm 592.Anonymous said …

    on the question of having souls.

    on how everything is not down to matter energy space and time.

    or molecules and atoms.

    to the athiest

    you may reject the example but try to fathom the meaning.

    if a wizard or even an advanced scientific method could turn your wives and children (men) or your husband and children (women) into a bunch of apples. how many of you would say oh the apples just consist of molecules i will eat it happily.

    you would probably have some sort of a conscience.

    to me the conscience is the closest partner to the soul and indicates that there are other elements of importance beside the matter the space and time.

    do you think you need to believe in god to believe in these elements?

  593. on 28 Jul 2014 at 1:58 pm 593.Anonymous said …

    is a person: and a bunch of thrown together atoms and molecules really on the same one of your indifference curves?

  594. on 28 Jul 2014 at 1:59 pm 594.Anonymous said …

    if so is that right?

  595. on 28 Jul 2014 at 2:03 pm 595.Anonymous said …

    you see i am deep. i search out all viewpoints, ideas faiths and intermingle with all wisdom.

    if i am not thrown by the christian view completely, i am not going to be moved by a few foul mouth rants of a few athiest.

  596. on 28 Jul 2014 at 6:40 pm 596.Anonymous said …

    Mouse:“science points to the big bang, evolution, etc”

    a, The Prick, Wooten (aka the Hor): Does science really point to these theories or are they based on conclusions ripe with bias and presuppositions?

    The bias you speak of was erased in the 1800′s when it was assumed that all species are fixed. The biblical view, for lack of evidence, was the prevailing idea – basically, goddidit. Along comes this Darwin fellow who started investigating. He removed the bias. Where’s the problem? What have you got?

    tj, you really need to discuss the age of the planet Earth with the Prick. How can he say that the Earth is Billions, YES, BILLIONS, of years old and still be a xtian? He has also condemned atheists to the lake of fire if we don’t subscribe to the Christ-guy.

  597. on 28 Jul 2014 at 8:03 pm 597.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Along comes this Darwin fellow”

    and claimed “timediddit”..Nope, that does not provide the evidence to support macroevolution. Lol!!!!

    Time to pull out the fish fossil Anonymous aka Freddie? :)

  598. on 28 Jul 2014 at 10:05 pm 598.Anonymous said …

    The Hor, Wooten, Prick, et al:
    Just as I thought. You subscribe to silly 1850-ish biblical thinking. Congratulations!!! You truly are successfully maintaining the faith. Like numerous other born-again ex-drug addicted xtians you gotta keep running, gotta believe it’s eternal damnation if you slip…. and that’s what keeps the bottle at arms length. Chive on.

  599. on 28 Jul 2014 at 10:44 pm 599.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    ” You subscribe to silly 1850-ish biblical thinking”

    lol!!!! I never said a word about the Bible…..lol!!! Which goes to show you accept it on faith. That’s OK……vling to your fish fossil:)

    I do think for myself and I know for a FACT macro evolution has never been proven……it is simply the dogma of the day based a huge number of assumptions and creative drawings.

  600. on 28 Jul 2014 at 10:59 pm 600.Anonymous said …

    Prick,
    OK Einstein what is the real deal? You have something better than Evolution? Something to explain the biodiversity, common DNA and physiology? I am all ears. Oh yeah, your story has something about an Ark and a flood.

  601. on 29 Jul 2014 at 12:08 am 601.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Freddie Mouse,

    Admission your faith is faulty?

    The jury is still out. I don’t need a competing theory to recognize a bad theory. What I do know is if macroevolution one day IS PROVEN to be true, it will just be more proof of God. Seems HIGHLY unlikely. At the moment, it has nothing other than assumptions and creative drawings. That’s it!! :)

    Sincerely,

    A Recovered Believer

  602. on 29 Jul 2014 at 1:06 am 602.Anonymous said …

    Prick:
    “…if macroevolution one day IS PROVEN to be true, it will just be more proof of God.”

    Of course it will strengthen your belief. Your delusion is unshakable.

  603. on 29 Jul 2014 at 2:16 am 603.TJ said …

    To Anonymous,

    You say,
    “tj, you really need to discuss the age of the planet Earth with the Prick.”

    The Prickly Science Guy says,
    “I do think for myself…”

    The way I see it, you use no name, so as I cannot track your words. You order me attack some else’s rational, using their name as a substitute for your Momma’s skirt.

    You would have me cross the playground, demand his lunch money and tell him his “Momma’s so fat I had to take 3 trains and bus just to get on her good side.

    You asking me to start a fight?

    Or do you wish to question my rational or his?
    If so, ask me or him in your own name… Mr Anonymous.
    ——————————–

    Seeing as you did present this to me, as a show of good faith I entertain you and not reject this. I will try to fathom a meaning, and I will stay to true to my beliefs.

    “if a wizard or even an advanced scientific method could turn your wives and children (men) or your husband and children (women) into a bunch of apples. how many of you would say oh the apples just consist of molecules i will eat it happily.”

    When God god formed Man, he did so from the earth (carbon based). He did the same with the vegetation (carbon based).

    Both the Man and the apple have additional information based coding systems to govern their form and function.

    However it is only when God breathed the breath of life into the Man that he became a living soul. Something extra was added.

    It would seem rational that for the soul to enter, their had to something existing for it to enter. It would seem rational to suggest that the soul only becomes “living” when married to the body created for it.

    In your scenario, the atoms as well as the information would also change. This in effect would be similar to if the body had been destroyed. The soul would not be able to enter the apple because both structurally and code wise it is not set up to accept a living soul.

    If the apple was to be converted back to Man, then could the personal testimonies and eye witness accounts of out of body experiences and those that have clinically died be considered a rational source for insight in our hypothetical scenario?

    The bible claims that all will rise from the dead, and souls will be reunited with their bodies rebuilt without faults in the day of judgement.

    The real question is, what becomes of the soul once detached?

    I enjoyed your question… talk to me in your own name, I’m not out to get you.

  604. on 29 Jul 2014 at 1:39 pm 604.Anonymous said …

    tj

    You asking me to start a fight?
    Or do you wish to question my rational or his?
    If so, ask me or him in your own name… Mr Anonymous.

    A fight? Between two followers of the Christ-guy? Yeah, that would be cool. You can follow the discussion of the Earth’s age with talks about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, how the animals migrated to the Ark, and what life would be like if that bitch Eve had never gotten hungry.

    Chive on, tj.

    BTW, I detect you’re concerned about my anonymity. Well, how about this: you’ll know it’s me when I address you as tj, (lower case) and I will start to ALWAYS use the block quote option to highlight what people write on the blog. OK? I will also refer to your cohort by some of his other aliases such as “little a”, the Prick, Wooten, Horatio. Seems the Prick keeps changing aliases to create distance from what he’s previously written. Can’t blame him for that.

  605. on 29 Jul 2014 at 1:58 pm 605.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    TJ,

    Anonymous aka Freddie is not very creative. The aliases now are posting as another anonymous.

    What is fun is watching Alex attack other atheist because he cannot comprehend when other atheists post!

    lol!!!!

  606. on 29 Jul 2014 at 6:18 pm 606.Anonymous said …

    Prick:

    Anonymous aka Freddie is not very creative.

    Sorry! Maybe also discuss another biblically relevant topic: Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons? I can come up with more!! I would suggest discussing something science related like: we share 98+% of DNA with chimpanzees. But we know how you’ll turn all pissy if we get into those details.

    aka Freddie

    . Don’t make me laugh, Wooten!!! Any idea where that inert gas bag, Xenon, went?

  607. on 29 Jul 2014 at 11:37 pm 607.TJ said …

    To Mr Anonymous,

    You said,
    “I would suggest discussing something science related like: we share 98+% of DNA with chimpanzees.”

    Is 98+% the currently accepted ratio?

    What % is still considered junk DNA?

    What % of change does genetic research claim to cause complete failure?

    And how many base pairs make up 1% of human DNA?

    Investigate and report your findings so that together, we might be able to rationalise the current scientific evidence.

    ————————

    …and, “Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?”
    If God created with purpose in mind, what purpose would there have been for them to have a belly button?
    How old did they physically appear?
    What colour was their skin, hair, eyes?
    We can only speculate.

  608. on 30 Jul 2014 at 12:49 am 608.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “I would suggest discussing something science related like: we share 98+% of DNA with chimpanzees”

    ok, yes and you conclude what? Let me guess, life exploded from the oceans, time and chance, climbs ashore time and chance bacteria becomes a chimp and wallah! A man appears!! Lol!!!! Yes? Who needs s Grand Designer, huh??

    “Don’t make me laugh”

    Too late Freddie mouse!!

    lol!! :)

  609. on 30 Jul 2014 at 1:02 am 609.Anonymous said …

    Anony: “Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?”

    tj:”If God created with purpose in mind, what purpose would there have been for them to have a belly button?
    How old did they physically appear?
    What colour was their skin, hair, eyes?
    We can only speculate.”

    The fact that you appear to be seriously contemplating the existence of Adam/Eve leads to to think that you’re toying with me. Or, maybe, you literally believe that there was a god which created Adam; with Eve springing forth from Adam’s spare rib. And they lived in a magical land with talking evil serpents and forbidden fruit.
    It’s just too bad for you, tj, that this falls into the historical sciences section of the Prick’s classification system of stuff. He’ll tell you nobody was there to take a picture. The fossils of Adam and Eve have not been discovered. There is no proof; you’re right, it’s only speculation. But on the spectrum of speculation this falls close to the batshit crazy end of the scale. At least for evolution there’s hard data and evidence. For the Prick that has to be at least closer to mid-scale.

  610. on 30 Jul 2014 at 2:01 am 610.TJ said …

    Mr Anonymous,

    Is this not the same you? Who said…

    “you see i am deep. i search out all viewpoints, ideas faiths and intermingle with all wisdom.
    if i am not thrown by the christian view completely, i am not going to be moved by a few foul mouth rants of a few athiest.”

    It seems I am either confusing you with someone else, or you are toying with me.

  611. on 30 Jul 2014 at 2:03 am 611.Anonymous said …

    Mousey:“I would suggest discussing something science related like: we share 98+% of DNA with chimpanzees”

    the Hor: “ok, yes and you conclude what?”

    I conclude the same as you do, Prick. We are very similar to the apes. What does that mean? What COULD it mean? Why don’t you look up orangutangs to see how similar they are to humans and maybe we’ll start getting a pattern going? Next look into when Homo habilis became extinct. See how long Homo sapiens have existed (hint: in geologic time it’s not so long). And just keep going. See what you come up with.

    Pssst, Prick. Go easy on tj. He’s into Adam and Eve mythology and probably takes the Ark story as a true historical event.

  612. on 30 Jul 2014 at 2:38 am 612.TJ said …

    Mr Anonymous,

    “We are very similar to the apes. What does that mean? What COULD it mean? ”

    If you were to assess two books written by the same author. Would you expect there to be similarities regarding sentence structure, language usage, punctuation and writing style.
    Would you assume the story to be the same in both books?

    ———————–

    Pssst, Prick. Go easy on tj. He’s into Adam and Eve mythology and probably takes the Ark story as a true historical event.

    What was the meaning of “ad hominem” again?

  613. on 30 Jul 2014 at 3:12 am 613.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “And just keep going. See what you come up with.”

    OK,done!………..So what did you conclude Freddie Mousey?? Time & Chance? Soup? High information systems randomly forming from lifeless soup? That your conclusion?

    lol!!!!

  614. on 30 Jul 2014 at 12:00 pm 614.Anonymous said …

    Mouse:“And just keep going. See what you come up with.”

    Prick: OK,done!

    That took all of, what, 5 minutes? And you still managed to incorrectly make an association of evolution with abiogenesis. Yes, the delusion of a god cannot be questioned or tested by yourself. The faith is strong in this one.

  615. on 30 Jul 2014 at 12:25 pm 615.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “That took all of, what, 5 minutes?”

    lol!!!, oh Freddie Mouse! I have heard this same stuff for 50 years and I bought in. Do you think your snippets are new? Really mate, you are not original here. lol!!!

    “incorrectly make an association of evolution with abiogenesis”

    lol!!! are you really this uninformed? This is like saying orange juice is not associated with the orange!

    sigh………

  616. on 30 Jul 2014 at 12:42 pm 616.Anonymous said …

    Prick: I have heard this same stuff for 50 years and I bought in.

    It just took a battle with addictions issues that made you see the light. I understand.

  617. on 30 Jul 2014 at 3:07 pm 617.TJ said …

    “incorrectly make an association of evolution with abiogenesis”

    What is the alternative…what would be correct?

  618. on 30 Jul 2014 at 5:58 pm 618.Anonymous said …

    Mouse: “incorrectly make an association of evolution with abiogenesis”

    tj: What is the alternative…what would be correct?

    Great question. Why not ask the Prick?

  619. on 30 Jul 2014 at 6:07 pm 619.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “What is the alternative…what would be correct?”

    Great question TJ. Associating the various abio theories with macroevolution is the correct scenario. Macro is dependent on abiogensis. For atheists, the alternatives are so silly they are embarrassed by them. Alien seeding, spontaneous generation, miller-urey, Proteinoid microspheres, etc but none would produce the high information needed for DNA…….unless Anony-Freedie can prove it…..:)

    Remember, for atheists none of these needed intelligence to take place.

    lol!! :)

  620. on 30 Jul 2014 at 11:22 pm 620.the messenger said …

    620.Anonymous, the catholic church and many Jewish groups do not support the literal interpretation of the ark and Adam and eve.

  621. on 30 Jul 2014 at 11:44 pm 621.the messenger said …

    620.Anonymous, all creatures on the earth besides humans focus on one thing and one thing only, self survival. Compassion, kindness, generosity, and love itself are not natural. So how do humans know about Compassion, kindness, generosity, and love? Since humans are the only creatures on earth to possess these traits, and the bible says that GOD only revealed the knowledge of good and evil to humans, then it is logical to believe that GOD was the one that taught humanity about Compassion, kindness, generosity, and love and gave us the ability to understand them.

  622. on 31 Jul 2014 at 1:51 am 622.TJ said …

    Great question. Why not ask the Prick?

    Mr Anonymous, you previously said to The Prickly Science Guy “And you still managed to incorrectly make an association of evolution with abiogenesis.”

    He gave a brief rational and so did the messenger.
    In case I was unclear, I will ask you again more direct.

    Mr Anonymous,
    In my understanding, spontaneous transition from non living chemicals and atoms into the first simple, self replicating life form is the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. This is critical as a base for freeing the sciences from Moses, removing the need for Divine intervention. In effect, to remove the churches bias and influence and to ensure objectivity.

    Whilst science admits it does not have the answers or the proof to directly support abiogenesis. We are assured time and chance could have created now un-replicate-able conditions in the early history of the earths formation. Ironically Uniformitarianism promotes the idea that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. The very theory used to support deep time required for abiogenesis.

    They provide evidence and supporting theory to prop up the abiogenesis claim by promoting the “facts” of Micro and by extension Macro evolution.

    People are abandoning the churches in droves in light of the constant “science has the answers” message which is subtly and constantly reinforced through TV programs especially children’s programming, education, Block buster movies, advertising and almost all sources of current wisdom point their focus towards interpretation through evolutionary lenses.

    Church groups have been eager to jump on the band wagon and adopt a blend of science via God associations. This is a reaction to dwindling church numbers and coffers.

    I admit freely there is little difference between my claim of a self declaring God with no creator for himself and abiogenesis. That in effect both require a portion of faith to accept.

    I have noted a growing trend among Atheists to separate evolution from abiogenesis, calling it a separate and independent issue. Stating a distinction between abiogenesis as dealing with first life, and evolution dealing with what happened after life began.

    I ask you, Mr Anonymous, again…

    “What is the alternative…what would be correct?”

  623. on 31 Jul 2014 at 2:55 am 623.Anonymous said …

    In my understanding, spontaneous transition from non living chemicals and atoms into the first simple, self replicating life form is the cornerstone of evolutionary theory.

    Incorrect. That would be closer to a description of ABIOGENESIS. There is no effort to separate something that is already separated by definition.

    As an example, just for you, of what evolution studies, let’s agree that there were no humans on planet Earth ten million years ago. There were hybrids – creatures with ape and human features. Many such creatures over the previous millions of years. As of 250,000 years or so there were and continue to be humans. I ask you: Is there any value to studying the fossil record for what happened? Is there any value to looking at shared DNA and physiology between humans and other animals? What can we learn? What, to you, makes the most sense? Hey, if you gotta keep believing in god to avoid becoming the drunk clown, then keep the faith. Chive on!!

  624. on 31 Jul 2014 at 10:26 am 624.freddies_dead said …

    622.TJ said (to Anonymous)…

    In my understanding, spontaneous transition from non living chemicals and atoms into the first simple, self replicating life form is the cornerstone of evolutionary theory.

    Then your understanding is wrong. The cornerstone of evolutionary theory is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. The Theory of Evolution simply doesn’t care how life got here, instead it attempts to explain how modern biodiversity came about from the first lifeforms.

    Whilst science admits it does not have the answers or the proof to directly support abiogenesis.

    No need to go any further. This is what intellectual honesty looks like. Scientists don’t claim to know what happened so they freely admit that they do not know. All the rest is just your/A the lying prick’s insistence that they should lump abiogenesis in with evolution when there’s no reason why they should do so. Yes, something had to happen to get to those first self replicating organisms, but scientists don’t need to know what that was in order to try and understand the subsequent evolution of those organisms.

    I have noted a growing trend among Atheists to separate evolution from abiogenesis, calling it a separate and independent issue.

    If it’s even a trend (as far as I’m aware it’s only necessary to make the distinction when uninformed people insist that there isn’t one so maybe if those uninformed people didn’t insist on being wrong others wouldn’t have to keep pointing out their error) it’ll actually be a trend among anyone who actually thinks science is worthwhile. It’s not something that applies to atheists specifically. Atheism is concerned with the existence – or rather the distinct lack of existence – of gods. Scientific theories like the theory of evolution etc… are only tangential subjects for atheists.

    Stating a distinction between abiogenesis as dealing with first life, and evolution dealing with what happened after life began.

    Which is exactly how it is. Why would we ignore such an obvious distinction?

    I ask you, Mr Anonymous, again…

    “What is the alternative…what would be correct?”

    I can’t speak for Anonymous* but not trying to associate an unknown with a known would seem like the best way to go to me. As yet science hasn’t figured out how the first life forms came about but they have overwhelming amounts of evidence that it was evolution all the way once those life forms turned up. I’m happy with that and I’ll wait to see what evidence arises from the research into how life actually began before taking a position on which process actually did the job.

    *Despite A the lying prick’s insistence on projecting his own dishonesty onto others, Anonymous and I aren’t the same person. Unlike A the lying prick and the other sockpuppets he’s created like martin, biff, xenon and Horatio (amongst others).

  625. on 31 Jul 2014 at 11:43 am 625.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “In my understanding, spontaneous transition from non living chemicals and atoms into the first simple, self replicating life form is the cornerstone of evolutionary theory”

    You are correct TJ. This is not just true for Macroevolution but for any concept. The foundation for any concept, like a building, is it’s foundation. In this case, both macro and abio are only speculative at best.

    lol!!!! Freddie mouse posting twice under his separate monikers. NICE!!! Lol!!!!!

  626. on 31 Jul 2014 at 11:55 am 626.TJ said …

    “All the rest is just your/A the lying prick’s insistence that they should lump abiogenesis in with evolution when there’s no reason why they should do so. ”

    lol, I didn’t insist on anything. Just explained my understanding based on observation. Observations you or anybody else can make, as the scientific documentation exists as evidence to it’s own claims.

    Draw your own conclusions from your own observations but don’t put words in my mouth.

    I do not believe in abiogenisis or evolution. I stand by the biblical account, I as yet see no reason to abandon it in light of any man made theory/s. Call me a creationist if you need to label me. I firmly believe that to abandon the biblical account, is the first step to abandoning/rejecting faith.

  627. on 31 Jul 2014 at 1:39 pm 627.Anonymous said …

    Atheists are not trying to separate evolution and abiogenesis. By definition they have two different meanings. It’s Theists who are doing the language shuffle and trying to weld the two terms together. Why? It likely comes down to god of the gaps reasoning and an attempt to sway any fence sitting compadres.

    tj: You agree that humans somehow arrived on planet Earth some 250,000 years ago. I say evolution was the process responsible. I ask you tj ““What is the alternative…what would be correct?”

    tj: Just explained my understanding based on observation.

    Observation? Of what? The bible?

    tj: I do not believe in abiogenisis or evolution. I stand by the biblical account, I as yet see no reason to abandon it in light of any man made theory/s. Call me a creationist if you need to label me. I firmly believe that to abandon the biblical account, is the first step to abandoning/rejecting faith.

    Hate to tell you this, tj, but the bible is also man made. Sorry!!! The only reason to abandon the bible is to use reason. ;-) But I think I see your problem. You need your version of the bible to be true. Maybe something in your past haunts you. Maybe you’re living up to the expectations of the community or relatives, who knows. Try and realize there are many theists that can honestly balance faith and science….but those guys are a lot smarter than you and I. The Prick is NOT one of those guys.

  628. on 31 Jul 2014 at 3:15 pm 628.the messenger said …

    647.Anonymous, the catholic church and many Jewish groups oppose the literal interpretation of the creation story and the ark.

    The bible was written by prophets to, first and foremost, preserve the teachings that they received from GOD, not to take a record of historical events. Having said that, only a small number of historical errors are within the bible.

  629. on 31 Jul 2014 at 3:47 pm 629.freddies_dead said …

    625.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “In my understanding, spontaneous transition from non living chemicals and atoms into the first simple, self replicating life form is the cornerstone of evolutionary theory”

    You are correct TJ.

    How sweet. You and TJ are wrong together.

    This is not just true for Macroevolution but for any concept.

    Go on then, what’s your theory of concepts? And don’t forget to explain how your God fits into it.

    The foundation for any concept, like a building, is it’s foundation.

    So deep. If only it actually meant something.

    In this case, both macro and abio are only speculative at best.

    Macro is well supported by the evidence – you lost that argument a long time ago. And seeing as no-one is making the claim that abiogenesis is anything more than a hypothesis your comments regarding it are, like you, irrelevant.

    lol!!!! Freddie mouse posting twice under his separate monikers. NICE!!! Lol!!!!!

    And, because he has no reasoned argument to present, A the lying prick once more resorts to the projection of his own dishonesty. How utterly predictable.

  630. on 31 Jul 2014 at 3:47 pm 630.TJ said …

    To the messenger,

    You do not believe the creation story, as a summery of the order of creative events during the six days of creation?

  631. on 31 Jul 2014 at 3:54 pm 631.freddies_dead said …

    626.TJ said …

    “All the rest is just your/A the lying prick’s insistence that they should lump abiogenesis in with evolution when there’s no reason why they should do so. ”

    lol, I didn’t insist on anything. Just explained my understanding based on observation.

    On what observation? Where have you observed “spontaneous transition from non living chemicals and atoms into the first simple, self replicating life form” being “the cornerstone of evolutionary theory”?

    Observations you or anybody else can make, as the scientific documentation exists as evidence to it’s own claims.

    I’ve never observed it and scientists don’t seem to have either, which is why the Theory of Evolution doesn’t even try to explain how the original life forms arose and instead only deals with how we got from there to modern biodiversity. The scientific documentation treats abiogenesis and evolution as 2 different areas of investigation.

    Draw your own conclusions from your own observations but don’t put words in my mouth.

    No one’s putting words in your mouth TJ, you’re the one who repeats the question when he doesn’t like the answer. Abiogenesis and evolution are 2 different things. A the lying prick knows this but insists on conflating the 2 in order to claim that because abiogenesis hasn’t been explained evolution can’t be true.

    I do not believe in abiogenisis or evolution.

    Your choice.

    I stand by the biblical account, I as yet see no reason to abandon it in light of any man made theory/s.

    Your choice. Do you have any evidence of spontaneous creation? What about breeding goats in front of stripey or spotted poles – does that determine their colouration?

    Call me a creationist if you need to label me.

    The Biblical account is Creationism, you label yourself.

    I firmly believe that to abandon the biblical account, is the first step to abandoning/rejecting faith.

    A good first step towards reason IMO.

  632. on 31 Jul 2014 at 4:10 pm 632.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead

    What is it in the biblical account you reject?

    Is it based on the bible itself?

    or

    Is it based on what science has to say regarding origins?

  633. on 31 Jul 2014 at 4:25 pm 633.TJ said …

    “On what observation? Where have you observed “spontaneous transition from non living chemicals and atoms into the first simple, self replicating life form” being “the cornerstone of evolutionary theory”?”

    This is exactly how science communicates the message to the masses. I am not saying you as a atheist believe this, or any other atheist. What I am trying to say to you is that if read, watch or learn anything scientific you are told that life began with the random forming of non living to living and a gradual process of molecules to man begins. This is the message the media continuously pumps out.

    Your getting all hot under the collar because you’ve gone off down assumption lane, misinterpreting my meaning.

  634. on 31 Jul 2014 at 4:31 pm 634.TJ said …

    I mean, hey!
    If you can say evolution happens, but not the way its told to have happened… and the messenger can say God did it, but not the way that it is told to have happened… then I guess it really doesn’t matter what I think now does it?

  635. on 31 Jul 2014 at 5:12 pm 635.Anonymous said …

    tj: “What I am trying to say to you is that if read, watch or learn anything scientific you are told that life began with the random forming of non living to living and a gradual process of molecules to man begins. “

    We can observe the fossil record. We see life starting with simple single celled lifeforms. We see mass extinctions. Explosions of lifeforms. We see that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. 99.9% !!!! Do the math – if there’s 50 million species alive today – and see what you get. What has happened, tj? For myself, there’s only one inescapable and logical explanation. I don’t run from the truth. And if I don’t know the answer I don’t mind saying “I don’t know the answer, let’s investigate”. But I will not, for the sake of convenience, insert a god as a substitute; it must be unsettlingly comfortable for those that do.

  636. on 31 Jul 2014 at 8:13 pm 636.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Macro is well supported by the evidence”

    This so awesome!! We are going to finally get some evidence. This is really exciting.

    OK Freddie or Mouse or whoever you want to post as…

    Give us your definition of the nature evidence.

    Second as an atheist your evidence should eliminate God as a possible Creator. Remember, evolution for you, the atheist, is suppose to eliminate God.

    TJ this is big lets get ready foe some astounding revelations!!!

    The popcorn is popping…… :)

  637. on 31 Jul 2014 at 9:45 pm 637.Anonymous said …

    the Prick: ” as an atheist your evidence should eliminate God as a possible Creator. Remember, evolution for you, the atheist, is suppose to eliminate God.

    See tj. The Prick wants to desperately insert a god into the equation. And he skews the definition of evolution in an attempt to include abiogenesis…..again!!! He’s so unstable in his faith that he feels he needs factual reality based validation. You and I both know that faith in god doesn’t work that way – maybe one day the Prick will too.

    I don’t see the fingerprints or smoking gun of a god with how evolution works. For me at least, and theists who follow evolutionary theory, we want the facts. If there is a god, it will be evident. Watch as the Prick will yet again try to desperately insert god into an origins of life position while discussing evolution. So predictable. So lame. So lost.

  638. on 31 Jul 2014 at 11:53 pm 638.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    TJ,

    sigh…..see how atheist work? Ask for evidence and proof for macro evolution and they go off on a rant about God. Disappointment again….lol!!!. They actually talk about God more than the theist…..

    Freedie the Mouse once offered up a bony process on a fish as proof!! Lol!!!

    Oh well………

  639. on 01 Aug 2014 at 12:26 am 639.the messenger said …

    650.TJ, guess it could be interpreted as a summery of GOD creating the earth, but not in an actual six days. Or it could be a metaphor to explain a great moral message to humanity. It all depends on how it is interpreted.

  640. on 01 Aug 2014 at 12:52 am 640.Anonymous said …

    Prick: “Ask for evidence and proof for macro evolution and they go off on a rant about God.”

    How come you NEVER challenged anything I’ve written regarding evolution? Scroll up and re-read. I take it you’ve agreed with what has been written. It’s the Prick’s turn now to bring up abiogenesis as a final dodge to avoid challenging the assertions I’ve made regarding life on planet Earth, speciation, and time frames. I am used to it.

    Prick: “They actually talk about God more than the theist…..”

    Scroll way up. Did you see what this atheist’s blog is about? “Exploring God and religion in our world today”. Yeah, that’s right. God and religion. Nice try….maybe not so much. Another typical attempt at diversion from the lost soul. ;-)

  641. on 01 Aug 2014 at 1:28 am 641.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “How come you NEVER challenged anything I’ve written regarding evolution”

    Nothing to challenge Freedie Mouse. Fish with bony protrusions, similarities, fossils dressed up with artistic dressing does NOT NoT NOT prove evolution. You are uneducated on the subject and you make it so obvious.

    Keep drinking your Kool Aid until you decide to be a freethinker :)

  642. on 01 Aug 2014 at 1:39 am 642.TJ said …

    Mr Anonymous,

    You said…

    We can observe the fossil record. We see life starting with simple single celled lifeforms. We see mass extinctions. Explosions of lifeforms. We see that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. 99.9% !!!! Do the math – if there’s 50 million species alive today – and see what you get. What has happened, tj? For myself, there’s only one inescapable and logical explanation.

    And I think you said this also (@ post #600)… I asked if it was the same you at @ post #615, but you didn’t answer… it was said by an anonymous person…

    “you see i am deep. i search out all viewpoints, ideas faiths and intermingle with all wisdom.
    if i am not thrown by the christian view completely, i am not going to be moved by a few foul mouth rants of a few athiest.”

    You also stated…
    ” “I don’t know the answer, let’s investigate”. But I will not, for the sake of convenience, insert a god as a substitute; it must be unsettlingly comfortable for those that do.”

    You also stated…
    ” Did you see what this atheist’s blog is about? “Exploring God and religion in our world today”. Yeah, that’s right. God and religion. ”

    I say to you, instead of convenience, would you temporarily consider inserting a God into our exploration of God and religion as we search out all viewpoints, ideas faiths and intermingle with all wisdom?

    WE could even explore why evolution and the God of the Bible don’t mix.

  643. on 01 Aug 2014 at 1:41 am 643.TJ said …

    … unless my proposal is too unsettling.

  644. on 01 Aug 2014 at 1:45 am 644.Anonymous said …

    Mouse: “How come you NEVER challenged anything I’ve written regarding evolution”

    Prick: Nothing to challenge

    See tj. Prick/Wooten/”a”/Horatio agrees that the Earth is Billions of years old, Humans have existed for 250,000 years, 99.9% of all species on our planet are extinct, etc, etc. All accepted by the Prick without any challenge whatsoever. Of course there’s much, much more than this to evolution -enough information so that any honest freethinker ;-) should be able to reach a solid conclusion.

    Instead the Prick becomes unhinged and throws a hissy fit jumping up and down with hands covering ears and acts like a typical bratty overtired three year old. Sigh. It’s just his way. We understand.

  645. on 01 Aug 2014 at 2:01 am 645.Anonymous said …

    “you see i am deep. i search out all viewpoints, ideas faiths and intermingle with all wisdom.
    if i am not thrown by the christian view completely, i am not going to be moved by a few foul mouth rants of a few athiest.”

    The above was certainly NOT posted by me. Post #600 was. Note that I call that other fellow “Prick”.

    tj: “WE could even explore why evolution and the God of the Bible don’t mix.”

    Only if you are a fundamentalist/literalist. Somehow the Baptist Francis Collins and Catholic Ken Miller make it work for them. Why don’t you tell me how that’s possible? Their versions of the Christian god will differ from the typical average christians view.

  646. on 01 Aug 2014 at 2:24 am 646.TJ said …

    Ok, but I’ll need some time to research the two names you mention. I’ll then give you my feedback.

    Would it matter if this fundamentalist/literalist label fits me snugly or not? I claim to be a self determining individual.

    I rationalise more like this guy… ” i search out all viewpoints, ideas faiths and intermingle with all wisdom.”… and draw my own conclusions based on what seems reasonable to me.

    I assume you are similar in your approach to such matters, just our conclusions may vary. Would be of no interest if they didn’t right?

  647. on 01 Aug 2014 at 3:38 am 647.Anonymous said …

    “” i search out all viewpoints, ideas faiths and intermingle with all wisdom.”… and draw my own conclusions based on what seems reasonable to me.”

    And yet, this well educated and open minded person has somehow never heard of Francis Collins?
    Enough already.

  648. on 01 Aug 2014 at 5:05 am 648.TJ said …

    Mr Anonymous,

    Lol,

    I am supposed to assume that you have a perfect recollection of all the names of all the material you’ve cast your eye over, and that you do not need to re-visit anything in order to ensure what you write is in line with what you believe.

    or

    do my 8 points of conclusion from a brief look in the direction you pointed leave you with, “argumentum ad hominem” as your only response?

    How many names could anyone rattle off that you or I may not be familiar with their words, statements, beliefs or work, I wonder?

    If you disagree with me, then let your reason be the focus of your rebuttal.

    Unless of course you truly believe that my inability to instantly recall Francis Collins and all he stand for combined with my admittance to needing time to research, somehow conflict with a claim to search out all viewpoints.

    If so, then I guess I have wasted both of our time.

    If you feel I am wasting your time, tell me now, and I will not bother you again. I am sure the messenger and I have much to discuss.

  649. on 01 Aug 2014 at 12:07 pm 649.freddies_dead said …

    632.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead

    What is it in the biblical account you reject?

    Pretty much all of it.

    Is it based on the bible itself?

    or

    Is it based on what science has to say regarding origins?

    Neither, it’s based on the fact that there is a performative contradiction in the statement “God exists”. In order for that claim to be true you need existence to hold metaphysical primacy, however, the claim affirms the metaphysical primacy of consciousness.

  650. on 01 Aug 2014 at 12:08 pm 650.freddies_dead said …

    633.TJ said …

    “On what observation? Where have you observed “spontaneous transition from non living chemicals and atoms into the first simple, self replicating life form” being “the cornerstone of evolutionary theory”?”

    This is exactly how science communicates the message to the masses. I am not saying you as a atheist believe this, or any other atheist. What I am trying to say to you is that if read, watch or learn anything scientific you are told that life began with the random forming of non living to living and a gradual process of molecules to man begins. This is the message the media continuously pumps out.

    An odd claim to make as I’ve never seen science/scientists do this – even a quick look at the Wiki entry on evolution shows that discussion of evolution only starts once there’s lifeforms to evolve; there’s only a very brief note on the origin of life. Note that the media aren’t science/scientists so the way they put things out may not be what science actually says. Maybe you can point us to an example or 2 where you have scientists talking about abiogenesis as part and parcel of evolution (Hint: avoid using actual links as your post will get moderated out and it appears that, while the lights are on, there’s nobody home when it comes to admin/mods on this site).

    Your getting all hot under the collar because you’ve gone off down assumption lane, misinterpreting my meaning.

    What am I misinterpreting? You seem to be saying that abiogenisis and evolution are part of the same package and that science portrays them that way. I’ve simply pointed out that that isn’t the case. Evolution specifically deals with life once it actually exists and, whilst science has some ideas on abiogenesis, there isn’t the data to form any solid conclusions yet. Scientists speak about them as distinct areas of interest.

  651. on 01 Aug 2014 at 12:08 pm 651.freddies_dead said …

    634.TJ said …

    I mean, hey!
    If you can say evolution happens, but not the way its told to have happened… and the messenger can say God did it, but not the way that it is told to have happened… then I guess it really doesn’t matter what I think now does it?

    What is this supposed to mean? I haven’t claimed that “evolution happens, but not the way it’s told to have happened”. It’s not “told to happen” as abiogenesis + evolution as one whole. Evolution and abiogenesis are 2 distinct areas of scientific research. That’s how they’re discussed.

  652. on 01 Aug 2014 at 12:10 pm 652.freddies_dead said …

    636.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Macro is well supported by the evidence”

    This so awesome!! We are going to finally get some evidence. This is really exciting.

    OK Freddie or Mouse or whoever you want to post as…

    Give us your definition of the nature evidence.

    Already done. You refused to “wade through” it so you lost. Suck it up and move on.

    Second as an atheist your evidence should eliminate God as a possible Creator. Remember, evolution for you, the atheist, is suppose to eliminate God.

    Rubbish, I’ve already pointed out on other threads that all evolution does is show Genesis to be a pile of bollocks, which is only a problem if you’re some Bible literalist who also holds the Bible to be an infallible science textbook.

    I don’t actually need any scientific evidence to eliminate your God. As I’ve told TJ, there’s a performative contradiction in the claim “God exists”. I eliminate your God (along with every other alleged creator God) on that basis.

    However, you’ve had others on this site grant the idea (for arguments sake) that you’re right and evolution is all bullshit. Given you the opportunity to present your own argument. Your evidence for the existence of your God. Your evidence that shows that God first created life. Evidence that your God then spends its time constantly tweaking things and every now and then creating a whole new species ex nihilo. You know what happened? You ran away. You couldn’t do it so you stuck with bleating about how evolution isn’t true. You couldn’t even offer a single argument for the existence of your God. You’ve got nothing other than your assertion that you don’t accept evolution therefore God. That’s it. That’s your whole shebang.

    TJ this is big lets get ready foe some astounding revelations!!!

    The popcorn is popping…… :)

    There won’t be any revelations – astounding or otherwise – you lost this argument already. I’m not going to go through it all again with a dishonest prick who refuses to “wade through” any of the evidence presented.

  653. on 01 Aug 2014 at 12:59 pm 653.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “There won’t be any revelations – astounding or otherwise”

    There you have it TJ, a performative contradiction by Anonymous-Freedie.(LOL) He claims macro is true, supported with evidence but provides none! lol!!!

    There was a 5 million year old portion of bone was believed to be a collarbone of a humanlike being which turned out to be in actually part of a dolphin rib. The predicament many anthropologists face is that they desire so much to discover a hominid that any piece of bone to them is a hominid bone. When you spend your life digging up bone fragments and fossils, there is a tremendous desire to heap a lot importance on those fragments…….Thus, the great pretty drawings.

    Just one story among thousands of attempts, not even getting into the dishonest scientist who have falsified findings which lived on for decades as actual “proof”.

  654. on 01 Aug 2014 at 1:47 pm 654.Anonymous said …

    “” i search out all viewpoints, ideas faiths and intermingle with all wisdom.”… and draw my own conclusions based on what seems reasonable to me.”
    And yet, this well educated and open minded person has somehow never heard of Francis Collins?
    Enough already.

    Mr Anonymous,
    Lol,
    I am supposed to assume that you have a perfect recollection of all the names of all the material you’ve cast your eye over

    tj, as I mentioned previously, the REAL Anonymous hilights with the quoting option. See top of THIS post and get with the program.

    Prick: “There was a 5 million year old portion of bone was believed to be a collarbone of a humanlike being which turned out to be in actually part of a dolphin rib.”

    Isn’t it wonderful how science is peer reviewed and self correcting. Piltdown man being another example. This gives me comfort and confidence in the process of scientific inquiry. Peer review is so powerful that when the Prick publishes his book on what’s wrong with evolutionary theory, the entire scientific community will do a face-palm realizing how stupid they’ve been all these years. Popcorn’s on. Waiting.

  655. on 01 Aug 2014 at 2:42 pm 655.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “the REAL Anonymous”

    LOL!! He arrogantly sees himself as the REAL anonymous. I bet the other disagrees.

    “Isn’t it wonderful how science is peer reviewed and self correcting.”

    Yes it is Nebraska man, Haeckle embryos, Hahnhofersand Man, Java Man, Orce Man,Ota Benga, Ramapithecus, Ardi, just to touch the tip of the ice berg. If it is so true why the misinformation? lol!!!

    Have no fear! Science will catch up, and when the the ToE deniers overtake the politically correct crowd we can start teaching the kids real science again. Problem we have is the Fanatical evolutionist do all they can to silent dissenters.

  656. on 01 Aug 2014 at 3:03 pm 656.Anonymous said …

    “Unless of course you truly believe that my inability to instantly recall Francis Collins and all he stand for combined with my admittance to needing time to research, somehow conflict with a claim to search out all viewpoints.
    If so, then I guess I have wasted both of our time.”

    Don’t let your christian persecution complex get your panties in a wad there TJ. YOU are the one claiming to have come to a reasonable decision about the truth of evolution and you’ve never heard of Francis Collins… that’s kind of like saying you’ve thoroughly researched the major religions of the world to determine which one is true, but you never heard of this Mohamed fellow…. and give you time to look it up. That tells me your research and considered opinion is worthless… Sir Francis is a foremost authority on genetics and evolutionary biology, and a devout Christian. He seems to have no real problem compartmentalizing reality with his spiritual beliefs, although I imagine it takes some serious mental gymnastics to do so.
    So, like DPK asked you a while back, and you never answered… why should anyone believe you?

  657. on 01 Aug 2014 at 4:19 pm 657.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Freddie Mouse, why should anyone believe you.

    Lets look at your argument Collins embraces ToE, therefore all theist should?

    Then it follows all evolutionist should embrace Christianity right? Yea? HMMM?

    Lets face it Collins must believe. To not do so would be career suicide. Of course he writes in his books about the “fingerprints of God” being all over Creation. Smart guy seems atheist should embrace God, hmmmm?

    If ToE is true, Collins has the right concept. But it hasn’t yet been proven. All the atheist have here is “this guy believes”. I will not bother to list all who do NOT believe. Lol!!!!

    See ya Freddie aka Mouse.

  658. on 01 Aug 2014 at 4:23 pm 658.the messenger said …

    676.Anonymous, the adam and eve and the ark thing is a metaphor. The catholic church and many Jewish groups have never interpreted it literally.

  659. on 01 Aug 2014 at 6:16 pm 659.Anonymous said …

    Prick: …Ota Benga, Ramapithecus…

    LOL!!! Going back in time for some of these, are we? Ota was an early 1900′s story.

    If it is so true why the misinformation?

    Lots of reasons. Egos is probably the leader. But, like I said, the misinformation does get corrected. Peer review. (Still waiting for your book crushing evolution…YAWN!!!) The body of the work on evolution stands on it’s own merits. The facts, some of which I’ve stated above (go ahead and scroll up), are not in dispute by yourself. It’s the interpretation of the evidence you have trouble with BECAUSE if it does NOT fit with the god centric explanation you want. You’ll do your best to try and square the circle. And you always fail at it….here comes the abiogenesis argument, again. LOL!!

  660. on 01 Aug 2014 at 6:43 pm 660.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “the misinformation does get corrected. Peer review.”

    lol!!!! I know! More to cone anonymous the Freddie boy!

    Now if you have evidence supporting ToE as fact… Come on back and share it buddy!

    love ya Freddie mouse!….oh got some kool aid on your shirt.:) or is that sushi?!! :)

  661. on 01 Aug 2014 at 8:12 pm 661.Anonymous said …

    Wooten/Prick/Horatio: Lets look at your argument Collins embraces ToE, therefore all theist should?

    Collins is a lot smarter than you and I. I think it’s very likely he didn’t find the Jesus-guy at the bottom of a bottle. I doubt that he is looking for a theory of god. I’d bet it’s just something he believes and does not question. He doesn’t even slot a god into the abiogenesis argument. In other words, his god is a lot different than your god-of-the-gaps buffoon. No, you should DEFINITELY stay the course, Horatio. Believe in a god and rail against the theory of evolution. Keep fighting your demons. Of course, if the theory of evolution is ever proven in your feeble mind, it strengthens your faith. WOW!!!

  662. on 01 Aug 2014 at 11:19 pm 662.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “his god is a lot different than your god”

    Lol!!!!!!!!!!! When did I ever offer a god of gaps? Lol!!;;!!!

    Oh Freddie mouse, you so funny. I don’t accept guesses, assumptions, mightofs and coldofs as proof and you get so angry. I have read many of Collins’ books and actually know him and his family from my college days. You know, he is a former atheist just like me? Many theist accept AND many do not buy into to the theory. Too much faith required.

    You are right, he is much smarter than you Freddie mouse so why not believe Freddie boy? Hmmmm? Isn’t that your argument? How about I offer someone else smarter than you who does not accept the theory? You then change ur mind mate?

  663. on 02 Aug 2014 at 12:22 am 663.TJ said …

    To the unreal Anonymous,

    “you’ve never heard of Francis Collins”

    Not what I said. Only that I was pushed for time and needed to refresh my memory.

    I knew I wouldn’t get a chance to respond properly till now. This was evident by my lack of attention, and mix up between you and the “REAL” Anonymous (lol).

    To the “REAL” Anonymous…
    Re. Collins…
    “He seems to have no real problem compartmentalizing reality with his spiritual beliefs, although I imagine it takes some serious mental gymnastics to do so.”

    I imagine Collins has been under all sorts of scrutiny from many sources, his discussion to write about his faith, an explanation to his critics.

    I can’t ask Collins anything, not from here… but hers are three quoted claims derived from Collins’s book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. The 3 claims are a summery by book reviewer Paul Nelson’s.

    1.“Faith that places God in the gaps of current understanding about the natural world may be headed for crisis if advances in science subsequently fill those gaps” (p. 93). We cannot use causal action by a transcendent intelligence to explain puzzling natural phenomena. In short, no God?of-the? gaps allowed.

    2.“Darwin’s framework of variation and natural selection,” but especially Darwin’s picture of a Tree of Life—the common ancestry of all organisms on Earth—“is unquestionably correct” (141). Universal common descent by natural processes is scientifically non?negotiable. The theory of neo?Darwinian evolution cannot rationally be doubted by any educated person.

    3.The best way to reconcile the propositional content of a transcendentally grounded morality with modern evolutionary theory is what Collins calls “BioLogos,” his renaming of “theistic evolution.” BioLogos is “not intended as a scientific theory” (204), but it is “by far the most scientifically consistent and spiritually satisfying”…. ” a reasonable Christian will find herself embracing theistic evolution—BioLogos—if she wishes to be heard in our current culture.”

    It seems Collins needed to account for what he observed in his work. Frustrated with science’s lack of current proof. He took comfort in his patients apparent rigours spiritual faith. He claims a spiritual awakening upon accepting Christ.

    The rest is Collins’s attempt to reconcile the unknowns of God, science, observable data with “Facts” based on theoretical interpretation.

    Mr Anonymous, I will give you that science makes a distinction between “Abiogenisis” and “Evolution”. Treating them as two separate areas of research.

    Evolution is still just a theory, who’s aim lies at separating God from science. Many “evidences” support the theory in their evolutionary interpretations. This however does not rule out by default any other interpretations.

    Nor does it stop Government funded media from presenting evolutionary theory as fact whilst glancing over the abiogenisis issue as a collective truth to an audience that is conditioned to accept whatever is presented to them.

    Are you aware of the apparent “freshness” of dinosaur bones believed to be millions of years old? How many revisited bones in storage, have been cut up and found to appear too fresh.

    Instead of questioning the long age theory of the bones, instead the accepted time-frames for biological breakdown are in question.

    Also this has lead to a greater study of bone density in fossils. Bones long believed to be completely mineralised are being opened up for analysis. This has begun a process to reclassify many dinosaur finds, as evidence continues to emerge suggesting that many of the smaller and medium sized dinosaurs may actually be representatives of developmental age stages. Currently dinosaurs with bony and plated protrusions as adults are presenting the best cases for study.

    What does an apparent freshness of bones mean for long ages? If evolution is correct and requires long ages. Is it the process of fossilisation, accepted time-frames for biological breakdown, long ages or evolutionary theory that needs to be reviewed? Or can we separate then into individual areas of study where one does not impose its findings upon the others?

  664. on 02 Aug 2014 at 12:32 am 664.TJ said …

    To the messenger,

    Even Collins stresses that evolutionary theory does not allow for a God in the gaps of knowledge.

    I do not doubt your belief in God, your personal spiritual experience, nor your born again claim.

    If you are welcoming to a discussion, I would ask how do you manage to reconcile God and evolution?

    I would suggest the premise of evolution cancels out the most fundamental claim of Christianity… that man kind requires a saviour.

  665. on 02 Aug 2014 at 3:38 am 665.alex said …

    to the dumbass, motherfucker, tj

    you posit that because element decay is unreliable (…contamination and other factors come into play..), the 4.5 billion year old earth is suspect. to fit your 10,000 year old earth, you’d have to recalculate and speed up the decay rate rather tremendously, don’t you agree? if you do the math, the decay rate would have to be outrageously high to match your 10,000 year old earth, agree?
    because you think this high speed decay is possible, your biblical, 10,000 year old earth is as probable as any. of course, you can’t replicate this sped up fantasy. you just like it.

    you dumb motherfucker. using this bullshit fantasy of an unproven high speed, element decay to support the bullshit young earth is a dumbfuck as using the bible to support your god. bullshit on top of bullshit.

    still not convinced? annual glacier layers have been counted to over 700,000 years. oh, no! how about bullshit, multiple annual winters? calculate 70 winters in one year and viola!, the 10,000 year old earth is possible. there ya go. bullshit multiple annual winters support the bullshit young earth.

    dumbass, motherfucker. still not convinced? stellar distance calculation you doubt because of the unreliability of the speed of light? using your 10,000 year old earth, light would have to be sped up to fit your young earth. would you care to prove this speedy light? but that doesn’t matter does it? you like your bullshit speedy light to prove your bullshit young earth.

    dumbass, motherfucker.

  666. on 02 Aug 2014 at 3:45 pm 666.Anonymous said …

    tj: Evolution is still just a theory, who’s aim lies at separating God from science. Many “evidences” support the theory in their evolutionary interpretations. This however does not rule out by default any other interpretations.

    JUST A THEORY? Maybe it’s time you looked up a definition of “SCIENTIFIC THEORY”. If there’s JUST a theory of gravity, feel free to test the theory by jumping off of your roof. And NO, it does NOT aim to separate god and religion. I always thought evolution was originally Charles Darwins attempt to explain the biodiversity of life on Earth. Many people in the 1800′s were starting to question the church/bible commonly accepted stance of “fixed species”. The research since Darwins time has put the lock on the hypothesis. Of course, there’s always going to be wacky fringe elements (for lack of a better term) who oppose logic and reason because it impacts their addictions rehab, customs, traditions, etc.

    Science does not deal in comforting absolutes. When done properly, it asks questions/hypothesizes and unrelentingly and dispassionately seeks the answer. Being mere humans, our egos occasionally interfere in the work. But science will always self-correct with peer review and further research. There is no “end goal” in mind other than to understand.

  667. on 02 Aug 2014 at 4:16 pm 667.Anonymous said …

    666.Anonymous said …

    Wow!!! What excellent timing!!!!!

  668. on 02 Aug 2014 at 7:28 pm 668.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “If you are welcoming to a discussion, I would ask how do you manage to reconcile God and evolution? ”

    I don’t see the need. God is the absolute necessary being and macroevolution is man’s attempt to explain how that Being created. The ToE gets weaker by the decade and another 50 years it will be replaced with another theory.

    Don”t confuse microevolution with macro. Micro is a proven theory will macroevolutolution uses micro in a bad attempt to justify the macro theory.

  669. on 02 Aug 2014 at 8:41 pm 669.Anonymous said …

    tj: “If you are welcoming to a discussion, I would ask how do you manage to reconcile God and evolution? ”

    the Prick/Horatio/Wooten: I don’t see the need. God is the absolute necessary being

    You theists have your own flavours of god, your own interpretations of the bible. This shouldn’t surprise you, tj. The Prick might as well give up trying to figure things out. Much safer that way. But, like typical christian reasoning, if evolution is true in his mind, his faith is actually strengthened. By “typical christian reasoning” I am talking about, as an example, praying for safe passage of your relatives during a journey and then, if they die, saying they’re in a better place/it was all part of god’s plan/etc. If it is a better place, wouldn’t you pray for that originally? And if it was all god’s plan, what good were the prayers?

  670. on 02 Aug 2014 at 8:42 pm 670.alex said …

    “The ToE gets weaker by the decade and another 50 years it will be replaced with another theory.”

    even if it did, your bullshit god is still in the fertilizer bin, ain’t it?

    oh, look. you broke your old record. your TOE count is up to 124. again, throw out the TOE and where does that leave your god? in the same shitpile with the ufo alien seeder motherfuckers. waah! they won’t teach creationism in schools!

    here’s your latest tally at: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    TOE:124 macro:119 soup:47 programmer:13 obsess:29 chevy:18 moral:250

    dumbass, bitch.

  671. on 03 Aug 2014 at 12:38 am 671.TJ said …

    “JUST A THEORY? Maybe it’s time you looked up a definition of “SCIENTIFIC THEORY”. If there’s JUST a theory of gravity, feel free to test the theory by jumping off of your roof. ”

    Your right! We say the “Laws of Gravity”, for the very reasons used to define the differences between “hypothesis”, “Theory” and “Law”.

    The following explanation is a cut and paste from a Chemistry wed site…

    A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it’s an accepted hypothesis.

    Repeated observed “variation within species” is abundant with evidence. This process by which one species becomes two that cannot interbreed has also been repeatedly observed.

    This inability to interbreed is always observed as a loss of compatible information. And NOT as a result of extra information…not even once has it been observed that extra information has been added/obtained from a source other intelligent intervention(Man).

    Surly the observations don’t match the theory? Perhaps evolution should have remained a hypothesis as my year 11 chemistry teacher conceded way back in 91 when I had this argument with him.

  672. on 03 Aug 2014 at 12:52 am 672.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    Read the wiki page on “The Little Ice Age”.

    You’ll notice observed historical testimony to rapid glacier growth.

    You’ll read a great variety of “hypothesis” as explanations as to the causes of greatly fluctuating weather phenomenon, including the “Medieval Warm Period”.

    What you won’t find is a single concrete statement that claims anything beyond rational speculation.

    You claim that we can dig up some ice cores and know so much. Does nothing to sway me, any-more than your uninspired attempts at “ad hominem”.

  673. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:12 am 673.alex said …

    “Does nothing to sway me, any-more than your uninspired attempts…”

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. who’s trying to sway your dumbass? your position on 10,000 year old earth is so stupid, many of your homies have given up on it. fossil dating you don’t buy, distance computation and the speed of light you find suspect and glacier core samples you totally ignore. all of these are the basis for your dumbass young earth?

    theory you say? i guess calculating the hypotenuse is still theory to you? but of course you can’t disprove the Pythagorean Theorem, could you? you dumbass motherfucker.

    ad hominem enough for your motherfucking ass? congratulations bitch. you successfully joined the hall of fame idiots. you are now member number three. here’s your own bullshit collection: http://goo.gl/5wWrHF

  674. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:15 am 674.TJ said …

    To The Prickly Science Guy,

    The Biblical God of the Abraham, is this the God you speak of, when you say in response to reconciliation?…

    I don’t see the need. God is the absolute necessary being and macroevolution is man’s attempt to explain how that Being created.

    Sorry if I sound confused. With all the back and forth accusations it can be hard to determine what someone claims to believe.

    Please, correct me if I’m mistaken.

    You consider “micro-evolution” or “variation within species” and “natural selection” to be similar things and well supported theory.

    Macro-evolution however, not well supported theory at best.

    God, you consider to be essential for life to begin with.

    Millions of years or not?

  675. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:25 am 675.TJ said …

    To Mr Anonymous,

    “You theists have your own flavours of god, your own interpretations of the bible. ”

    And you atheists have your own flavours and interpretations of science, theory, the bible, evidence, rational, santa, leprechauns and anything else discussed.

    And why shouldn’t you? We are all individuals looking at the same stuff, trying to make sense of it on a personal level, if we choose to.

    Neither of us allow another’s opinion to be our own, based solely on their claim to “know”.

  676. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:31 am 676.alex said …

    “Macro-evolution however, not well supported theory at best.”

    who cares? whether evolution is bullshit or not, it doesn’t do a damn thing for your god does it? your god ain’t no more valid than the damn space aliens seeding the earth, is it?

    calling into question all of these things is irrelevant. your god and all the other countless gods are all equally bullshit. no? prove it then, bitch, motherfucker.

    what do i believe in? Pythagorean theory, bitch. oh, and seatbelts too.

    look, your bullshit legend grows. http://goo.gl/5wWrHF

  677. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:35 am 677.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    Thanks mate, now it will be easier to check and cross reference what I’ve said previously.

    No more incessant scrolling for me.

    All in one easy to find location.

    Finally the wait is over.

    Cheers

  678. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:36 am 678.alex said …

    “And you atheists have your own flavours and interpretations…”

    and? guess what, you dumbfuck. all atheists do not believe in your bullshit god. stinky, criminal, short, republican, black, women and other atheists all don’t believe in your bullshit god.

    so what does all this other shit got to do with the discussion of your god? nada, nothing, null.

    just like hor and the dipshit messenger, here’s your own pile of shitlist: http://goo.gl/5wWrHF

    congrats dumbass.

  679. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:38 am 679.alex said …

    “Thanks mate, now it will be easier to check and cross reference what I’ve said previously.”

    you finally over that xtian persecution shit?

    nice aint it? feel free to write me, motherfucker. the address is on the header.

  680. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:39 am 680.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    “what do i believe in? Pythagorean theory, bitch. oh, and seatbelts too.”

    If you had your own page, you could just refer people to it. Then you wouldn’t need to keep repeating yourself.

    Luckily I know a guy. Maybe he could hook you up?

  681. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:41 am 681.TJ said …

    lol, I’m pre-empting your responses now.

  682. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:46 am 682.alex said …

    “If you had your own page, you could just refer people to it. Then you wouldn’t need to keep repeating yourself.”

    says the self confessed no proof motherfucker who questions every motherfucking thing. light speed, ice core samples, element decay. all bullshit ain’t it?

    you say theory is bullshit. that’s why you’re getting hammered with the Pythagorean theory and now you’re squirming.

    you realized that there are filters on this blog and that you can’t post links? of course you doubt the veracity of this statement, don’t you? how the fuck am i supposed to refer to my page?

    dumbass bitch. try posting a link, you asshole.

  683. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:48 am 683.alex said …

    “lol, I’m pre-empting your responses now.”

    of course. you can’t help it. san’s free will, you’re following allah’s plan.

    your bullshit xref: http://goo.gl/5wWrHF

  684. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:59 am 684.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    “fossil dating you don’t buy, distance computation and the speed of light you find suspect and glacier core samples you totally ignore. all of these are the basis for your dumbass young earth?”

    No, not at all. My young earth is based on my answer to this question by you in relation to the bible…

    ““if the source is divine, wouldn?t you expect simple, clear, brilliant directives/wisdom?””

    My answer was…
    “Yes, I would expect exactly this.”

    My young earth is derived from a literal reading of the biblical text.

    My arguments above are a defence of my beliefs against supposed proofs against my personal saviour. I have never hid my bias of my beliefs to you or anybody here.

    In fact you can read all about what I’ve said in my personal automated log at http://goo.gl/5wWrHF

    What you will notice however, is your own ability to consistently misinterpret what I’ve said.

  685. on 03 Aug 2014 at 2:10 am 685.alex said …

    “…your own ability to consistently misinterpret what I’ve said….”

    then illuminate my dumbass. you reconcile your 10,000 year old earth by questioning the validity of element decay but all you have are generalities. to support your 10k earth, you’d have to speed up the decay rate. did i misinterpret this?

    you have no proof for this speed up decay. did i misinterpret this? you guess there are certain factors that could bring up this speed up decay. did i misinterpret this?

    your entire stance on this blog is that even though you have no proof, your god claim is just as valid as any other claim. did i misinterpret this?

    speak up bitch.

  686. on 03 Aug 2014 at 2:22 am 686.Anonymous said …

    tj: not even once has it been observed that extra information has been added/obtained from a source other intelligent intervention(Man).

    Well, is there anything we can look at or explore to try and understand our genetic relationship to chimps, our nearest “cousins”? We should be able to learn something from such exercises, yes? I might suggest doing a google search “Ken Miller fused DNA” . Mr Miller is a practicing Catholic who fights against the ID movement because ID is lazy/incorrect thinking. Watch the video, a little more than 4 minutes long.

  687. on 03 Aug 2014 at 6:47 am 687.TJ said …

    I have no problem with science, scientific methods or scientific theory in of themselves.

    What I have an issue with is being told that these are my only options in consideration of my origins.

    I have issue with being told that I can’t see past my own nose, whilst you are all locked in your own world views.

    I have been told not to use biblical text to support my viewpoint, so I have chosen to engage all of you on your terms. Then I am told not to do that too.

    I thought I was honest and up front with all my claims, engaged all query and followed with my rational s. I didn’t ask that anyone should accept my views, I thought I stated a respect for anyone to believe what they will by their own free will, I wished to simply discuss the existence of a God.

    And yet it seems taboo to mention associated written material, claimed to have come from the word of God. It seems taboo to criticize scientific rational and to look a bit deeper for reason and meaning.

    I have issue with being told that my thinking is lazy/incorrect thinking, and being constantly subjected to ad hominem, instead of rational if you don’t agree.

    The attitude displayed here is similar to those received when voicing concerns of compromise within religious circles. It could be argued and indeed has been that science is the new religion with all its theories on origins.

    The stupidity of it all is this, as soon as something is said that is not agreed upon all sides resort to beating their chest and demanding proof for which they themselves cannot provide for their own claims.

    No lessons are learnt, no desire to try a different approach, only perpetual argument. If this is all this blog can produce from the regulars, then what chance is there for a greater audience to engage in conversation.

    We will never know if last guy to leave due to the stupidity of others had the answer someone was looking for, or a query which lead to greater understanding.

    Aren’t we all looking for the same thing? Answers to burning questions? Or at least areas to investigate. None of us have the time required to become experts in all areas of perceived knowledge.

    To say we can’t question those that claim to know or that which is said to be proof is narrow and limited in the truest sense.

    To rule out an entire world-view without scrutinising it’s claims for yourself is something I am not willing to do. But when I scrutinise the claims of science, I have lazy/incorrect thinking?

    Hypocrisy at its finest.

  688. on 03 Aug 2014 at 12:22 pm 688.alex said …

    “What I have an issue with is being told that these are my only options..”

    persecuted? appeal to sympathy? who said anything about your ONLY options? you hang on to your 10k earth just as the other moron hangs on to his rape shit even in the face of many observations and you’re whining? dating methods, erosion rates, and ice deposits you easily dismiss as questionable and at the same time you righteously proclaim that your bullshit viewpoints are just as viable as any scientific considerations?

    “I have been told not to use biblical text to support my viewpoint,…”

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. if a ufo believer pulled out a bullshit alien text and used it to support his belief, would you even consider it?

    “The attitude displayed here is similar to those received…”

    what you get here is rock solid refusal to swallow your shit. all these other crap you bring up is an attempt to discredit and undermine the atheist common denominator, a disbelief in your god. note the “your god”.

    “Aren’t we all looking for the same thing?”

    no we ain’t. xtians fantasize about “more” after death, a big distinction. this fantasy forces xtians to make up shit and when folk bleh, you morons righteously question the atheist lack of fear or that atheists choose to go to hell.

    we observe and doubt similar things, but these things stand on their own. the big bang, abiogenesis and dark energy may all be suspect, but they’re all subject to scrutiny, review and maybe refuted. and you want your creationism to be considered based on your faith alone? and you want atheists to stop the lazy and incorrect thinking?

    “To rule out an entire world-view without scrutinising it’s claims…”

    so you turn the shit around? the atheist due diligence is not enough? your creationism has been discussed to death and you still want consideration? how motherfucker? pray to allah so that i will have this ability to ignore observations.

    go fuck yourself, dumb motherfucker.

  689. on 03 Aug 2014 at 12:52 pm 689.Anonymous said …

    tj: I have issue with being told that my thinking is lazy/incorrect thinking

    Anyone who believes in a god and THEN tries to find said god through science has attached a bias to their work. The individual must then operate so that the god, no matter what the science says, MUST exist. This is lazy/incorrect thinking. You see, tj, there’s a reason it’s called faith. It does not require any proof. I have faith (the other definition) you understand what I am trying to say.

  690. on 03 Aug 2014 at 2:27 pm 690.alex said …

    “The individual must then operate so that the god, no matter what the science says, MUST exist.”

    and the faith is not enough. he wants atheists, like me, who doubt other shits, to share/partake or at the very least consider that on faith alone, his god is just as viable as any.

    and how is this bitch, tj motherfucker any different than the neighborhood bible humpers? or the sign waving assholes? or the kneeling touchdown praying motherfucker? or the morons praising jezebus for saving his cancerous aunt while forsaking countless others because it’s not in god’s will. the not in god’s will is supposed to make the dying cancer motherfucker feel better. oh, i fergit. them’s not real xtians..

    fuck this tj asshole motherfucker.

  691. on 03 Aug 2014 at 7:30 pm 691.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “You consider “micro-evolution” or “variation within species” and “natural selection” to be similar things and well supported theory.”

    Absolutely. Macro has never been observed and is only based on wild assumptions.

    Inconclusive evidence to make the call.

  692. on 03 Aug 2014 at 7:38 pm 692.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “I have been told not to use biblical text to support my viewpoint, so I have chosen to engage all of you on your terms. Then I am told not to do that too.?

    TJ, ignore them mate. They use a faith based belief like macro evolution as evidence of their belief. They cannot define the nature of evidence and consequently provide evidence that supports macroevolution. The do not even understand the difference between historical science and analytical science. They ate not equipped to define ground rules….lol!!!!!!

  693. on 03 Aug 2014 at 7:59 pm 693.alex said …

    “TJ, ignore them mate.”

    yeah and listen to the proven, lying, multiple posting, other bitch motherfucker hor, otherwise known as martin, science guy, biff, xenon, little ‘A’, Sweetness, boz, and ‘RL Wooten’.

    the motherfucker doesn’t agree with your young earth, but you and him he considers contemporhomies.

    look at his two favorite diversions, TOE and macro. they’re running neck and neck! let’s go chevy, go soup. here’s the running count per his fucked up book at: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    TOE:124 macro:122 soup:47 programmer:13 obsess:29 chevy:18 moral:250

    again, throw out evolution, micro/macro/fuckro and what do you got? still the bullshit god. fucking assholes.

  694. on 03 Aug 2014 at 8:56 pm 694.Anonymous said …

    The question and answer (with a small twist): So god is false?

    The Prick’s answer: Absolutely. God has never been observed and is only based on wild assumptions.

    The Prick provided examples (previously in this thread) of how science can go off the rails when egos and pre-conceived notions stand in the way. His examples were “Ota Benga, Ramapithecus, etc”. Then he proceeds to demonstrate exactly how this is accomplished. His insistence of god being an ABSOLUTE is not the way of science but of faith – It is a way of thinking that will inevitably lead to deciding how to interpret the information. Thanks, Prick, for the outstanding demo. LOL!!!

  695. on 04 Aug 2014 at 1:07 am 695.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “It is a way of thinking that will inevitably lead to deciding how to interpret the information.”

    ROTFL!!!!!!

    Well yeah! Its true for all scientist except for most scientific inquiry the question of God never comes into play.

    Lets take macroevolution.

    God does not need to be considered when determining a fish with a bony process does not meet the burden of proof.

    God does not need to be considered when determining that similarity does not equal ancestor (lol!!)

    God does not need to be considered when determining that microevolution is not proof of macoevolution.

    God does not need to be considered when demonstrating through information theory that high information coding does not spring from primordial soup.

    God does not need to be considered when we have scientist smarter than freedie mouse all over the world doubting macroevolution. lol!!!!

    LOL!!! Oh freddie mouse! You tickle me so but your conclusion that GOD is what drives doubt in macroevolution is demonstratively off the rails.

    NEXT!!! lol!!!!!

  696. on 04 Aug 2014 at 2:04 am 696.Anonymous said …

    Prick: God does not need to be considered when we have scientist smarter than freedie mouse all over the world doubting macroevolution. lol!!!!

    OK. Maybe you’e never heard of “Project Steve”. Look it up. LOL!!!

    God does not need to be considered when demonstrating through information theory that high information coding does not spring from primordial soup.

    YAWN…..another reminder of the abiogenesis argument. So predictable and so lame.

    …for most scientific inquiry the question of God never comes into play.
    Lets take macroevolution.
    God does not need to be considered when determining a fish with a bony process does not meet the burden of proof.
    God does not need to be considered when determining that similarity does not equal ancestor

    And how would a god be considered? Like all science, it must be able to be falsifiable. But your god is absolute, according to yourself. How would that work? How could you say it was one god? It could be a committee of gods. How would you determine it was no god? Do you need god for personal reasons….I see the bias creeping in!!!

  697. on 04 Aug 2014 at 2:21 am 697.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    It’s ok to be scared. A fear of God, is a rational fear.

    Simply ignoring and telling yourself he’s not real will only work for so long.

    Remember, He makes it abundantly clear. If you are not willing to accept the purpose that you were created for, then he has no need of you in the future.

  698. on 04 Aug 2014 at 2:53 am 698.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Like all science, it must be able to be falsifiable”

    Hey, you got something right!!!!! Wow!!!

    So……how would you go about falsifying microevolution??? I mean other than it never having been observed??? Lol!!!!

  699. on 04 Aug 2014 at 3:37 am 699.Anonymous said …

    Prick: So……how would you go about falsifying microevolution

    The first step might involve picking a god to believe in so that my vision would narrow. Any suggestions? For a god, that is, just for me.

    Otherwise, look for flaws in the present day reasoning. Propose a hypothesis of how the data SHOULD be interpreted; it must be as bullet proof as possible and have very strong legs because it will need to stand on it’s own. Put it up for peer review and then change the way everyone looks at the data using my rose coloured lenses. TA-DA. Simple.

    Hey, Prick. Did you check out “Project Steve”? LOL!!!!!

  700. on 04 Aug 2014 at 10:59 am 700.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Propose a hypothesis of how the data SHOULD be interpreted”

    Peer Review? ID articles have been Peer reviewed and there are many scientist who believe, do you? Lol!!!

    SO you admit falsification of macroevolution is not possible. I agree which is why it is not science. IF you cannot observe it taking place then how can it be falsified? You just keep adding assumptions and pictures :)

    So how would science prove God exists? That would be step one. Start with a simpler task. We agree Socrates existed, but why? Science cannot prove he existed…..? Right? :)

  701. on 04 Aug 2014 at 11:48 am 701.alex said …

    “It’s ok to be scared. A fear of God, is a rational fear.”

    you’re right and now i welcome allah into my heart. what about you? do i need to summon the righteous sword of muhammad to slay your infidel, motherfucking ass? it will be time indeed when all you motherfuckers will bow down to the one and only real god, allah!

    alamo, akhaber, motherfucker.

    you likey?

  702. on 04 Aug 2014 at 11:49 am 702.freddies_dead said …

    653.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “There won’t be any revelations – astounding or otherwise”

    There you have it TJ, a performative contradiction by Anonymous-Freedie.(LOL)

    I’ll note that the lying prick fails to show any understanding of what a performative contradiction is so it’s amusing to see the accusation. I said there’d be no revelations and there were none. There won’t be any either because the lying prick has already lost this argument several times over. I have no wish to go through it all again just so he can lie about it some more.

    He claims macro is true, supported with evidence but provides none! lol!!!

    I’ve already done so, this is just the lying prick lying about it … as usual.

    There was a 5 million year old portion of bone was believed to be a collarbone of a humanlike being which turned out to be in actually part of a dolphin rib. The predicament many anthropologists face is that they desire so much to discover a hominid that any piece of bone to them is a hominid bone. When you spend your life digging up bone fragments and fossils, there is a tremendous desire to heap a lot importance on those fragments…….Thus, the great pretty drawings.

    Just one story among thousands of attempts, not even getting into the dishonest scientist who have falsified findings which lived on for decades as actual “proof”.

    This is all the lying prick has. A handful of dishonest claims that have been refuted by science. The very same science that the lying prick seeks to discredit. Everyone should note the hypocrisy here.

  703. on 04 Aug 2014 at 11:50 am 703.freddies_dead said …

    698.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said … (to Anonymous)

    “Like all science, it must be able to be falsifiable”

    Hey, you got something right!!!!! Wow!!!

    So……how would you go about falsifying microevolution??? I mean other than it never having been observed??? Lol!!!!

    From the rationalwiki page on disproving evolution:

    “…any of the following would destroy the theory:

    # If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA has different genetic traits.
    # If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
    # If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
    # If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
    …”

  704. on 04 Aug 2014 at 11:52 am 704.freddies_dead said …

    700.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said … (to Anonymous)

    “Propose a hypothesis of how the data SHOULD be interpreted”

    Peer Review? ID articles have been Peer reviewed and there are many scientist who believe, do you? Lol!!!

    ID articles peer reviewed by other cdesign proponentists … people who lie about what they are, reviewing other people lying about who they are … yeah, not interested.

    SO you admit falsification of macroevolution is not possible.

    And so the goalposts move. The lying prick first asks for a falsification of microevolution:
    So……how would you go about falsifying microevolution??? I mean other than it never having been observed??? Lol!!!!
    and now he’s skipped to macro. Typical dishonesty from the lying prick.

    I agree which is why it is not science. IF you cannot observe it taking place then how can it be falsified? You just keep adding assumptions and pictures :)

    The lying prick has been pointed to evidence of observed speciation events – the macroevolution that he claims doesn’t happen and isn’t science. Of course he couldn’t be bothered to “wade through” the evidence so we know he’s dishonestly claiming that such evidence doesn’t exist.

    So how would science prove God exists? That would be step one. Start with a simpler task. We agree Socrates existed, but why? Science cannot prove he existed…..? Right? :)

    So, because the lying prick can’t prove Socrates existed using science he therefore can’t prove God exists using science. Thanks for the admission. Now we know the lying prick simply believes in God through faith alone i.e. (as DPK has noted several times) he pretends to know something he simply doesn’t know.

  705. on 04 Aug 2014 at 12:42 pm 705.the messenger said …

    664.TJ, I believe that GOD made life on earth and set the conditions of the earth so that some of his creatures would evolve into humans. After the creation of humans, GOD made a covenant with them. But they soon broke that covenant, after being tempted by Satan, and fell from grace. After some time GOD found a small tribe of Hebrews, lead by Abraham(the first Jew), and decided to use them to spread his teachings of love, humility, kindness, generosity, compassion and forgiveness to the world.

  706. on 04 Aug 2014 at 1:32 pm 706.Anonymous said …

    Prick: SO you admit falsification of macroevolution is not possible.

    NO!!! That’s incorrect. I said you could interpret the data, propose a hypothesis, and put it out there for peer review. Can you do it? You’ve agreed with any and all of the facts I’ve stated in earlier postings. What’s your interpretation?

    ID articles have been Peer reviewed and there are many scientist who believe

    I wonder if any of those scientists were named Steve? ;-) LOL!!!
    Look up “Project Steve”.

  707. on 04 Aug 2014 at 2:10 pm 707.freddies_dead said …

    705.the messenger said … (to TJ)

    664.TJ, I believe that GOD made life on earth and set the conditions of the earth so that some of his creatures would evolve into humans. After the creation of humans,

    So did humans evolve or were they created? Here you’ve made a claim to both scenarios.

    GOD made a covenant with them. But they soon broke that covenant, after being tempted by Satan, and fell from grace. After some time GOD found a small tribe of Hebrews, lead by Abraham(the first Jew), and decided to use them to spread his teachings of love, humility, kindness, generosity, compassion and forgiveness to the world.

    Why did God create Satan? Why does He allow Satan to continue existing? Why did He allow Satan into the garden of Eden? Why did He not warn Adam and Eve about Satan’s lies? Why did He put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden in the first place? Why not protect it so Adam and Eve couldn’t pick or eat the fruit?

    God supposedly hates sin so much but created it anyway. According to the claims made in the Bible all sin/evil is a direct result of God’s plan for His own glory. What kind of all powerful deity needs to have billions suffer (the majority of them for all eternity) to glorify Himself? If it was anything other than a book of myths that ignores reality it would be terrifying to think such a contemptible idiot was supposedly in charge.

  708. on 04 Aug 2014 at 5:24 pm 708.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “NO!!! That’s incorrect. I said you could interpret the data, propose a hypothesis, and put it out there for peer review”

    No, a competing theory is not necessary to falsify existing work. However there are other theories out there. The questions remains, how is ToE falsified? You can’t observe it????? That is a key to falsification.

    However, so how would this prove macroevolution? I already stated the method(s) the Creator used has not yet been identified by science but will be eventually.

    ID proponents do have some outstanding work but you would never leave your religion yo review the work……and they ate smart Anony-Freddie……lol!!

    You really should stick to one moniker. You look really stupid.!

  709. on 04 Aug 2014 at 5:49 pm 709.Anonymous said …

    Prick: “You really should stick to one moniker. You look really stupid.!”

    I am the REAL anonymous. Accept no imitations, Wooten…errr I mean Horatio, little “a”…. whatever. Sorry to disappoint but Freddie is someone else. Don’t know the fellow. You’re the only one outed as a sock puppeteer.

    Anon: “I said you could interpret the data, propose a hypothesis, and put it out there for peer review”
    Prick: “No, a competing theory is not necessary to falsify existing work. However there are other theories out there.”

    Ummmm…. I believe if your reasoning is strong and persuasive, then the new way of thinking supplants the old way. Much like what Darwin did when he initially suggested that “fixed species” does NOT square with the evidence. If you want to validate your god, science may not be the best approach…just sayin’.

    Prick: The questions remains, how is ToE falsified? You can’t observe it????? That is a key to falsification.
    However, so how would this prove macroevolution?

    If you find enough smoking guns and ALL of the different branches of science are on your side, I’d say it has a pretty decent chance of being verified. Of course, you, Prick, the wacky fringe marginalized elements, will continue to whine and bitch about how god isn’t included. Maybe science isn’t your strong suite. But you asked: How can it be falsified? How about with a coherent analysis of the facts. Something that cuts across all religious and secular camps. At this moment in time, only ToE accomplishes this; witness your christian evolutionists researching evolution beside their secular brothers. Amen!! ;-)

  710. on 04 Aug 2014 at 8:38 pm 710.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “fixed species” does NOT square with the evidence”

    Um, so you have witnessed macro? Lets see Freddie. Lol!!! Plenty of evidence for micro but that will not support macro until you can prove it. Sorry, you fail.

    ” say it has a pretty decent chance of being verified.

    That would be what Freddie?

    “you asked: How can it be falsified? How about with a coherent analysis of the facts”

    Absolutely, as a man of science I follow where the facts lead. They do not lead from lifeless soup, to life and then all life springing from the primordial soup monster…lol!!! No facts support that silly!

    “only ToE accomplishes this”

    Not even close. But unlike you I don’t believe craziness just because others do…:)

    I am a man of science. Bring facts, observations, testing to the table nan! Lol!!!
    Love ya! Freddie..er…I mean mouse:)

  711. on 04 Aug 2014 at 8:56 pm 711.Anonymous said …

    Anon:”“fixed species” does NOT square with the evidence””

    Prick: “Um, so you have witnessed macro?”

    Yes. But I forgot my camera. My bad.

    Prick… “all life springing from the primordial soup monster…lol!!! No facts support that silly!”

    Everyone knows that when Abiogenesis is 100% proven it will strengthen your faith in a god. WOW!!!

    I don’t believe craziness just because others do…:)

    You’re in a class of your own – NOBODY does crazy like you do.

  712. on 04 Aug 2014 at 11:50 pm 712.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    Why did God create Satan?

    Why does He allow Satan to continue existing?

    Why did He allow Satan into the garden of Eden?

    Why did He not warn Adam and Eve about Satan’s lies?

    Why did He put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden in the first place?

    Why not protect it so Adam and Eve couldn’t pick or eat the fruit?

    Would you like my rational based on a bias belief in a literal interpretation of what the bible states regarding these questions?

  713. on 05 Aug 2014 at 2:26 am 713.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “NOBODY does crazy like you do.”

    LOL!!!!!! I know Freddie er, ah….Mouse! Imagine a person who actually believes in a God and believes this God has the ability to create a universe!!

    revolutionary!

    Incredible!

    LOL!!!!!!!!

    Luv ya Freddie Mouse!

  714. on 05 Aug 2014 at 2:26 am 714.alex said …

    “Would you like my rational based on a bias belief…”

    go ahead motherfucker. i’m sure you’ll cut it from the same god inspired cloth. somewhere along the bullshit lines of:

    “It’s ok to be scared. A fear of God, is a rational fear.”.

    “My young earth is derived from a literal reading of the biblical text.”

    “Grow the fuck up”

    your words, motherfucker. go ahead and speak up righteous, bitch.

    while you’re at it, why not the literal stoning of adulterers or sunday workers? it’s only literal when you say it, don’t it?

    dumbass.

  715. on 05 Aug 2014 at 9:17 am 715.freddies_dead said …

    712.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    Why did God create Satan?

    Why does He allow Satan to continue existing?

    Why did He allow Satan into the garden of Eden?

    Why did He not warn Adam and Eve about Satan’s lies?

    Why did He put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden in the first place?

    Why not protect it so Adam and Eve couldn’t pick or eat the fruit?

    Would you like my rational based on a bias belief in a literal interpretation of what the bible states regarding these questions?

    Go ahead. I’d love to see someone try to reconcile the idea of a God that so hates sin He’s willing to torture people for all eternity for it, only for that very same God to go ahead and imbue His glorious creation with sin anyway. I suspect any rationale for that will not include much rationality.

  716. on 06 Aug 2014 at 12:10 am 716.Anonymous said …

    Anon: “NOBODY does crazy like you do.”

    Prick: “LOL!!!!!! I know”

    That’s a good first step, realizing it. And when the “Repent -The end is near” sandwich boards become a little heavy, take a break and get some help.

  717. on 06 Aug 2014 at 12:35 am 717.alex said …

    “….reconcile the idea of a God…”

    hell, i just want to know how these motherfucking theists would know when the real God, Allah were to show up. would they just know? would you ask him to:

    1. summon da bears?
    2. wilt the damn tree?
    3. stop the sun?
    4. feed the multitudes?

    help me out theists. what would you ask Allah? or would you just realize your folly when your flesh melts away from your bones as your scream lika motherfucker, bitch. and then you get to do it all over again for all of eternity. and i was told, you’ll never get used to it because unlike your bullshit god, allah the real deal, is not merciful.

    allah’s a bad motherfu… watch your mouth.

  718. on 06 Aug 2014 at 12:37 am 718.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    ” take a break and get some help”

    ROTFL!!!!!!!

    Nah, I don’t want to be another alex/Freddie-Mouse in the atheist cult!! We have enough of you hatin out there everyday as it is. Then I would need to protest Christmas, steal baby Jesus from mangers and become ill every time I saw lines intersect one another.

    Nah, I’m to busy for all that. Hold down the fort for Freddie Mouse, aight? Now go post as Freddie again…..

    LOL!!!!

  719. on 06 Aug 2014 at 1:39 am 719.alex said …

    “..I don’t want to be another alex/Freddie-Mouse..”

    nope. you’d rather be martin, science guy, biff, xenon, little ‘A’, Sweetness, boz, RL Wooten, ‘Everyone’. dumb motherfucker. congrats martin1 i’m martin! a dipshit talking to himself. and it’s all here: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    what atheist cult? making up more shit? oh, yeah. didn’t you blurt out “China is selling fetuses as a delicacy”. don’t go away mad, just….

    bitch, motherfucker.

  720. on 07 Aug 2014 at 2:33 pm 720.freddies_dead said …

    719.alex said …

    what atheist cult?

    You know. The one that exists like his God does … in his imagination.

  721. on 11 Aug 2014 at 12:17 am 721.the messenger said …

    727.freddies_dead, I will answer all of your questions.

    “So did humans evolve or were they created? Here you’ve made a claim to both scenarios.”

    The flesh and blood bodies of humans evolved, but GOD created the human soul. The flesh and blood is only a vessel in which a human soul resides until it is time for the soul to leave when the flesh and blood dies.

    “Why did God create Satan? Why does He allow Satan to continue existing? Why did He allow Satan into the garden of Eden? Why did He not warn Adam and Eve about Satan’s lies?”

    He created Satan and allowed him to do all of those things so that humanity would see the evil of sin and would learn to oppose it and overcome Satan and his sinful ways, and would thus become better and stronger willed people.

    “God supposedly hates sin so much but created it anyway”

    GOD did not create sin. Sin is not a physical thing, it is a crime against love and kindness and the rest of GOD’s teachings. It is also very painful evil that infects our souls.

    “According to the claims made in the Bible all sin/evil is a direct result of God’s plan for His own glory.”

    Where does it say that? His plan is not for his glory, but for the betterment of mankind. Everything that GOD does is directed to the purpose of helping us become kind and loving people with the will power to overcome evil.

    “What kind of all powerful deity needs to have billions suffer (the majority of them for all eternity) to glorify Himself? If it was anything other than a book of myths that ignores reality it would be terrifying to think such a contemptible idiot was supposedly in charge.”

    First of all, GOD is trying to glorify love. Love is a part of all of us, therefore he is trying to glorify everyone. He does not need the suffering, but we need it in order to become better like in Romans 5:3-5.

  722. on 11 Aug 2014 at 12:24 am 722.the messenger said …

    727.freddies_dead, GOD created Satan, and Satan committed the first sin.

    GOD did not make sin, he made the beings (humans and Satan) that do sin.

  723. on 11 Aug 2014 at 1:46 am 723.the messenger said …

    727.freddies_dead, also, we have been over this already, hell is not a forever punishment.

  724. on 11 Aug 2014 at 1:59 am 724.the messenger said …

    393.DPK, yes, we are meant to have some confusion in order to become familiar with certain kinds of evil so that we will learn to oppose them.

  725. on 11 Aug 2014 at 2:34 am 725.alex said …

    the messenger said…

    reality check, mister bitch motherfucker.

    in lieu of punishment, should a rapist be allowed to marry their virgin victim?

    your credibility is shit, you asshole. no? here’s the proof, ya bitchass: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

  726. on 11 Aug 2014 at 10:41 am 726.freddies_dead said …

    721.the messenger said …

    727.freddies_dead, I will answer all of your questions.

    This should be fun…

    “So did humans evolve or were they created? Here you’ve made a claim to both scenarios.”

    The flesh and blood bodies of humans evolved, but GOD created the human soul. The flesh and blood is only a vessel in which a human soul resides until it is time for the soul to leave when the flesh and blood dies.

    So, what? God didn’t create humans? I know you’re trying to hedge your bets here but it’s not working. Plus you’ll have evidence that the soul exists independently of the human body, yes? What does it look like? How does it survive? Can it sense anything? If so, how? How can we distinguish between this soul and something you may merely be imagining?

    “Why did God create Satan? Why does He allow Satan to continue existing? Why did He allow Satan into the garden of Eden? Why did He not warn Adam and Eve about Satan’s lies?”

    He created Satan and allowed him to do all of those things so that humanity would see the evil of sin and would learn to oppose it and overcome Satan and his sinful ways, and would thus become better and stronger willed people.

    And yet sin continues unabated. According to your Bible God not only knew this would happen, He planned for it to happen – for nothing happens without the will of God. It makes no sense to claim He did it so we’d see and learn to oppose sin when He knew we’d do the opposite i.e. embrace sin.

    “God supposedly hates sin so much but created it anyway”

    GOD did not create sin.

    So there are things that exist that God did not create? Then why do we need your God?

    Sin is not a physical thing, it is a crime against love and kindness and the rest of GOD’s teachings.

    Like forcing rape victims to marry their attackers you mean? Although I’m not seeing any love and kindness in that teaching.

    It is also very painful evil that infects our souls.

    Speak for yourself.

    “According to the claims made in the Bible all sin/evil is a direct result of God’s plan for His own glory.”

    Where does it say that?

    In your Bible.
    “Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth, every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory. (Isaiah 43:6-7)”

    If we’re created for His glory and sin exists because of that, then sin/evil is a direct result of that creation i.e. is a direct result of God’s plan for His own glory.

    His plan is not for his glory, but for the betterment of mankind. Everything that GOD does is directed to the purpose of helping us become kind and loving people with the will power to overcome evil.

    Nope. It’s for His own glory and if He really wanted us to overcome evil He’d have made us capable of doing so instead of planning it so that we’d all fall short. Of course that would mean there was no need for Jesus to come and save everyone but you’re not really bothered about the story making sense, you just want it to sound nice.

    “What kind of all powerful deity needs to have billions suffer (the majority of them for all eternity) to glorify Himself? If it was anything other than a book of myths that ignores reality it would be terrifying to think such a contemptible idiot was supposedly in charge.”

    First of all, GOD is trying to glorify love.

    God is trying to glorify Himself … and seemingly doing a piss awful job of it. So much for his omnipotence.

    Love is a part of all of us, therefore he is trying to glorify everyone. He does not need the suffering, but we need it in order to become better like in Romans 5:3-5.

    How does being tortured for all eternity help anyone become better? It certainly doesn’t help the one suffering and the threat of it doesn’t stop anyone else from sinning. It’s pointless and cruel. Good job your God is only imaginary because, if it did exist, it sure as Hell wouldn’t be worth worshipping.

  727. on 11 Aug 2014 at 10:42 am 727.freddies_dead said …

    722.the messenger said …

    727.freddies_dead, GOD created Satan, and Satan committed the first sin.

    GOD did not make sin, he made the beings (humans and Satan) that do sin.

    You really don’t understand cause and effect, do you?

  728. on 11 Aug 2014 at 10:43 am 728.freddies_dead said …

    23.the messenger said …

    727.freddies_dead, also, we have been over this already, hell is not a forever punishment.

    Yes, we have been over it, your Bible disagrees with you. So why should I take your interpretation over the supposedly divinely inspired word of your God?

  729. on 11 Aug 2014 at 8:31 pm 729.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    You have just enjoyed another hour of The Freddie, ER, uh, Anoumouse Bible hour. Turn in next week when our exalted one will tackle which came first the chicken or the egg…

    lol!!!!!!!

  730. on 11 Aug 2014 at 8:34 pm 730.the messenger said …

    726.freddies_dead, yes GOD created the human soul(the part that lives forever), but he formed the human flesh and blood bodies through the process of evolution.

    True, I do not know the entire anatomy or physiology of a soul. I do know(based on the accounts recorded in this book “heaven is for real”) that in heaven a human soul looks like a young version of the person’s flesh and blood body, and that the soul can see and hear certain things in both heaven and on earth.

    To say that “GOD created sin” is like saying GOD created a log cabin. GOD created the trees and the mud to make the walls of the cabin, but he didn’t take those things and build the cabin himself. Humans did that. GOD created the beings that had the right things to make sin, and the potential to make sin, but he did not go in a force humans to make sin, they did that on their own. Yes, he knew that they would sin, because he knows everything about their personality and he knew that they were weak willed and would sin, he just didn’t stop us.

    GOD let sin be made in order for us to become exposed to evil and so that we would learn to oppose it and become better people.

    GOD does not force rape victims to marry the men that raped them. He forces the rapists to bind themselves to the women that they raped, and serve them serve them as punishment. It is a way to punish the rapists.

  731. on 11 Aug 2014 at 8:43 pm 731.the messenger said …

    726.freddies_dead, GOD is the spirit of love. He is trying to glorify love.

    If he simply wanted to glorify himself, he would have made minions that bow to him every moment of every day.

    Instead, he held our sins on he=is back and suffered for us. EVERYTHING THAT HE DOES IS FOR OUR BENIFFET.

    Every time we show love to some one and do good kind things for others we are overcoming evil. Every time we forgive someone we overcome evil. We are capable of overcoming evil. Yes, we often fall short, but we learn from those wrong actions and we improve and take one more step towards overcoming evil entirely.

  732. on 11 Aug 2014 at 8:48 pm 732.the messenger said …

    748.freddies_dead, i disproved everyone of your “hell is forever” claims by presenting numerous amounts of text evidence.

    If you do not believe me, read psalm 107.

  733. on 12 Aug 2014 at 1:23 am 733.TJ said …

    To the messenger and anyone interested in the Satan issue…

    ———————————————–
    psalm 107 is a reflection of the historical bringing together of the lost/scattered tribes of Israel. It illustrates that despite their rebellious nature, when at their witts-end, they turn to God. And He consistently shows mercy and love in accordance with his promise to do so.

    ————————————————-
    messenger:”If he simply wanted to glorify himself, he would have made minions that bow to him every moment of every day.”

    Revelation 4:8 “Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying: “‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty,’ who was, and is, and is to come.”"
    ———————————————-

    Hell was designed originally for Satan and his demons (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:10).

    Hell will also punish the sin of those who reject Christ (Matthew 13:41,50; Revelation 20:11-15; 21:8).

    “It is appointed unto men once to die and after that the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).

    Revelation 14:11 “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night”

    Isaiah 65:17 “”See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.”

    Only Hell remains for it’s original purpose. The current earth and heavens will be wiped away and a new creation will replace them.

    “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him.” (1 Corinthians 2:9).

    How does Satan fit with God’s plan?

    We can see that God had pre-planned a place for Satan and his angels. If this was planned, then what is Satan’s purpose and how does it relate to God plan?

    What is God’s plan?

    Before all acts of creation God declares that he is alone. He decides that he should not be alone and that he should create a people for himself. For friendship, fellowship and companionship. This is his plan from the beginning.

    He declares to himself that to have true friendship, fellowship and companionship with his people, they must be allowed the choice to reject him in order for their friendship, fellowship and companionship to have real true value. It is only through independent choice obtained via free will that a true choice can be made. For a choice to exist, there needs to be an alternative to choose.

    God declarers that he is truth and that in him can be found no lie. Lucifer/Satan is the created being used to present an alternative choice. This is his created purpose. He is called the “Adversary”.

    The very first act of creation by the formless God is to create an image for himself. This image God creates for himself is the image we are based on. This is also known as the “word”. It is through the “word” that all things are created. John 1:1 . Colossians 1:16

    Satan/Lucifer is created by the “word”. Isaiah 14:12-17 V15: Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

    We are told that Lucifer the Angel of light was so perfect that he himself considered himself a substitute an alternative an “Adversary” to the “word”. Ezekiel 28:12-14 Ezekiel 28:17 Ezekiel 28:6 Isaiah 14:12-14

    Why not protect it so Adam and Eve couldn’t pick or eat the fruit?
    Satan obtains Gods permission to temp Adam and Eve. God grants permission to Satan, but as to not present himself as an Angel of light, so that Adam and Eve might think he came to represent God. But instead as an “Adversary” to Gods instructions. Instructions which Adam and Eve not only knew, but where able to recall.
    If God prevented Adam and Eve from being presented with this choice of an alternative, then it would be in direct contrast to his plan.

    Let’s look again at Gods plan. God wants a people who choose to be his people. God is hardly comparable to man. But the “word”, the first-born of creation. “Jesus” the “word”, manifested in the flesh, the only begotten son of God. Who sacrificed himself, rose from the dead and returned to the father and lives again. Says “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”

    John 1:12 “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

    God tells us that we too can return to the father in death and relive as Jesus does through faith in the grace of God. Also that a new body of perfection will given to us and a new heaven and earth will be created. We will then be as “Jesus”, begotten of the father and a people unto God by choice of our own free will. In accordance with his plan.

    When Jesus stated “For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.” Mark 11:23

    Does Jesus refer to a future state and the abilities of those who have faith?

    He also said… “I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?”

    Satan and his angels have been cast to earth. They continue to present alternatives to the truth. Each on of us is presented with a choice, “God as Truth” or any alternative.

    It is our will to reject God and go with alternatives that are reflected through all the suffering and war we see now and throughout the ages. For every crime, injustice and inflicted suffering can be shown to originate from the ignoring of one or more of the basic Ten commandments, seven of which deal directly with how we should honour one another.

  734. on 12 Aug 2014 at 2:23 am 734.DPK said …

    Hard to believe in this day and age, that otherwise normal, educated and intelligent people actually believe such ridiculous nonsense.

  735. on 12 Aug 2014 at 11:44 am 735.alex said …

    737.TJ said …

    what a dumb motherfucker. you ain’t got shit, so you resort to the old standby, eh. fuck up the blog with your blather. don’t worry asshole, motherfucker. you’d get the same treatment if you’re one of them mooslim motherfuckers spouting off the koran shit.

    dumbass.

  736. on 12 Aug 2014 at 2:16 pm 736.freddies_dead said …

    730.the messenger said …

    726.freddies_dead, yes GOD created the human soul(the part that lives forever), but he formed the human flesh and blood bodies through the process of evolution.

    Still hedging your bets I see. So your God didn’t form Adam from the dust of the Earth as your Bible claims? Is this another one of those bits where you’ve decided that your Bible doesn’t actually mean what it says?

    True, I do not know the entire anatomy or physiology of a soul.

    Which bits do you know about? And how do you know about them? Have you ever seen one?

    I do know(based on the accounts recorded in this book “heaven is for real”) that in heaven a human soul looks like a young version of the person’s flesh and blood body, and that the soul can see and hear certain things in both heaven and on earth.

    Holy fuck. You know based on the alleged NDE of a 4 year old, interpreted by his pastor father? Does Jesus actually ride a rainbow coloured horse then?

    To say that “GOD created sin” is like saying GOD created a log cabin.

    I see the concept of causality still seems to be eluding you.

    GOD created the trees and the mud to make the walls of the cabin, but he didn’t take those things and build the cabin himself. Humans did that. GOD created the beings that had the right things to make sin, and the potential to make sin, but he did not go in a force humans to make sin, they did that on their own. Yes, he knew that they would sin, because he knows everything about their personality and he knew that they were weak willed and would sin, he just didn’t stop us.

    Ah, the old “free will” canard. Please explain how free will can possibly exist given the claim that God is omniscient and has a plan? We’ve been trying to get one of you theists to show how it’s possible to do something … anything … other than what your God has planned will happen. If God knows that I will do X because He planned it, is there any way in which I can actually do Y instead?

    GOD let sin be made in order for us to become exposed to evil and so that we would learn to oppose it and become better people.

    It didn’t work. Your God failed. It’s almost as if He doesn’t exist.

    GOD does not force rape victims to marry the men that raped them. He forces the rapists to bind themselves to the women that they raped, and serve them serve them as punishment. It is a way to punish the rapists.

    Hey look! It’s Humpty Dumpty! “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

  737. on 12 Aug 2014 at 2:20 pm 737.freddies_dead said …

    731.the messenger said …

    726.freddies_dead, GOD is the spirit of love. He is trying to glorify love.

    By torturing people for eternity and forcing rape victims to marry their attackers? Maybe it’s the random genocides which glorify love? Or the ordering of stonings for loving someone of the same sex/being a woman and getting raped but not shouting loud enough about it/failing to honour thy mother and father etc…? Torturing and killing a supposedly perfect human because He screwed up when He created all the other humans perhaps? Which of those “glorify love” exactly?

    If he simply wanted to glorify himself, he would have made minions that bow to him every moment of every day.

    It would beat torturing people for all eternity for simply doing exactly as He planned for them to do.

    Instead, he held our sins on he=is back and suffered for us.

    How does an omnipotent being ‘suffer’ exactly? Is it the long weekend in Hell perhaps? How do you hurt a perfect being? By definition they can’t have any weaknesses.

    EVERYTHING THAT HE DOES IS FOR OUR BENIFFET.

    Then why aren’t we benefitting? Why do thousands die of starvation every day? Why are there still diseases like cancer, AIDS and ebola? Just how do they benefit us? Why are there still wars? What’s with the earthquakes, hurricanes and floods?

    Every time we show love to some one and do good kind things for others we are overcoming evil. Every time we forgive someone we overcome evil. We are capable of overcoming evil. Yes, we often fall short, but we learn from those wrong actions and we improve and take one more step towards overcoming evil entirely.

    Again you speak like we have some sort of say in this. So we’re back to you demonstrating that free will exists in light of an omniscient being with a plan. If God knows that I will do X, is there any situation in which I can actually do Y?

  738. on 12 Aug 2014 at 2:38 pm 738.freddies_dead said …

    732.the messenger said …

    748.freddies_dead, i disproved everyone of your “hell is forever” claims by presenting numerous amounts of text evidence.

    No, you haven’t. You just did your best Humpty Dumpty impression and claimed words mean what you say they mean. You totally failed to disprove all the verses that talk about everlasting suffering.

    If you do not believe me, read psalm 107.

    Read it. I’m not seeing a single thing about rescuing people from Hell or your little pet theory that only the bad parts of people go to Hell. Quite simply you have nothing that disproves the likes of 2 Thessalonians 1 8:9 “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;”.

  739. on 12 Aug 2014 at 5:52 pm 739.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    You have just enjoyed another hour of The Freddie, ER, uh, Anoumouse Bible hour. Turn in next week when our exalted one will tackle Crest or Colgate? Do teeth know the difference?

    lol!!!!!!!

  740. on 13 Aug 2014 at 12:23 am 740.TJ said …

    To The Prickly Science Guy,

    Do you disagree with freddies_dead’s analysis?

    He makes a clear point, that is, if you remove the creation story from the bible you ultimately destroy all that follows. Without direct creation, man dies and suffers for multiple generations. Removing the “penalty of sin is death” concept. Ultimately removing the need of salvation from the last enemy, “death”.

    From here you need to make up all sorts of stories to support you original claim that the bible doesn’t say what it means.

    freddies_dead’s analysis parallels with what I’ve said of science theories being supported by theories which support even more theory. Where does it end?

    I’m still waiting for an other explanation of origins that can stand up to anything other than faith in a theory. My faith also is based on a theory that the bible is the recorded word of God.

    Only difference is, I lay claim to a spiritual confirmation from an ongoing contact with the holy spirit as the writers of the new testament claim to have experienced. Personal proof beyond doubt from a personal saviour. I never felt this way before my initial “overwhelming spiritual experience” earlier this year.

    If, this is hard to believe in this day and age, then so be it. I find it hard to believe many things too. Some of which, that, otherwise normal, educated and intelligent people actually believe such ridiculous theoretical nonsense based on interpretations derived from pre-conceived beliefs that an intelligent force/entity is not required for origins.

    The Prickly Science Guy, (“I am a man of science. Bring facts, observations, testing to the table nan! Lol!!!”)

    I’m still fuzzy on your origin stand point. Which group are you in…

    A. Goddidit
    B. God is imaginary
    c. I don’t know
    D. We currently cannot know because all we have are theories.

    ?

  741. on 13 Aug 2014 at 11:02 am 741.freddies_dead said …

    740.TJ said … (to A the lying prick)

    freddies_dead’s analysis parallels with what I’ve said of science theories being supported by theories which support even more theory. Where does it end?

    I’m still waiting for an other explanation of origins that can stand up to anything other than faith in a theory.

    Science continuously shows that supernatural explanations for natural phenomena simply aren’t necessary. The gaps in which theists have to cram their God are disappearing. So instead they seek to try and denigrate science with the whole “it’s just a theory” canard. Here we see TJ multiplying that to “it’s just a theory on top of another theory”. Scientific theories are well substantiated explanations for certain aspects of nature. There’s no need for religious faith here as the facts support the explanations. Where the facts aren’t known or aren’t yet sufficient to form a theory, as is the case with abiogenesis, science says it doesn’t know. It’s an honesty that theism cannot match. Instead theists continue to claim knowledge they cannot substantiate – as DPK has mentioned, they pretend to know things they simply don’t know.

    My faith also is based on a theory that the bible is the recorded word of God.

    The whole point of religious faith is it requires no evidence, it needs nothing to be “based on”. Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” but, for the sake of argument, just what is your theory? What facts support it? Do you believe those facts to be true independent of what anyone may think, feel, wish etc…? In which case how do you account for such objectivity from within your inherently subjective Christian worldview?

    Only difference is, I lay claim to a spiritual confirmation from an ongoing contact with the holy spirit as the writers of the new testament claim to have experienced. Personal proof beyond doubt from a personal saviour. I never felt this way before my initial “overwhelming spiritual experience” earlier this year.

    And what objective evidence do you have for this “spiritual confirmation”? What facts support it? How can we distinguish between your “overwhelming spiritual experience” and something you may simply be imagining?

    If, this is hard to believe in this day and age, then so be it. I find it hard to believe many things too. Some of which, that, otherwise normal, educated and intelligent people actually believe such ridiculous theoretical nonsense based on interpretations derived from pre-conceived beliefs that an intelligent force/entity is not required for origins.

    And back to the “it’s just a theory” nonsense, which is irrelevant when there is no real theory surrounding abiogenesis (the theory of evolution only picks up once there is life). The sole reason that your “intelligent force/entity” isn’t taken into account is because there’s no evidence that one actually exists and needs to be taken into account.

  742. on 13 Aug 2014 at 3:26 pm 742.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Science continuously shows that supernatural explanations for natural phenomena simply aren’t necessary.”

    lol!!!!!!

    Um, actually is does no such thing. What does that even mean? So silly!

    Lets look at just a few science has zero explanation for in this…….”natural” realm

    1. High information coding without intelligence
    2. Life from nonlife.
    3. Where is this Oort cloud? Lol!!!!

    Oh and just because science has understanding of a process does nor eliminate God! Lol!!!!! We all know God put processes in place silly Freddie the mouse!!

    lol!!!!

  743. on 13 Aug 2014 at 3:36 pm 743.TJ said …

    to freddies_dead…

    And what objective evidence do you have for this “spiritual confirmation”? What facts support it? How can we distinguish between your “overwhelming spiritual experience” and something you may simply be imagining?

    Don’t take my word, don’t even take the word of countless others from all walks of life and countries for the last 2000 years. Instead do your own experiment, you seem to have a grasp of the literalness that the bible demands.

    Read what Jesus says, interpretate for yourself what is required for salvation. Then seek the Lord with an honest heart and a curious mind. That is all I did.

  744. on 13 Aug 2014 at 4:31 pm 744.freddies_dead said …

    742.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Science continuously shows that supernatural explanations for natural phenomena simply aren’t necessary.”

    lol!!!!!!

    Um, actually is does no such thing.

    Actually it does. Almost every process once thought to be the purview of deities – from sunrises to thunder and lightning to modern biodiversity – has been shown to actually be a result of natural processes.

    What does that even mean? So silly!

    So you don’t know what I meant but denied it all the same? Yes, that is silly of you.

    Lets look at just a few science has zero explanation for in this…….”natural” realm

    As I never claimed science has all the answers, making a list of what it doesn’t yet know is utterly pointless.

    1. High information coding without intelligence

    Define information in this context. Also define what you mean by “high information”. Unless we know what you mean we can’t discern whether there’s a natural explanation for it. However, if you have evidence of this intelligence, why don’t you just present that instead? Simply showing that there’s an intelligence responsible for your “high information coding” would sweep away any objections.

    2. Life from nonlife.

    As I’ve pointed out time and again science doesn’t claim to know how this happened yet, so if you have evidence demonstrating it was done supernaturally you’re welcome to present it any time you’re willing. Come on, you could easily get yourself a Nobel prize for conclusively showing how life came about.

    3. Where is this Oort cloud? Lol!!!!

    Why don’t you try asking an astronomer?

    Oh and just because science has understanding of a process does nor eliminate God! Lol!!!!!

    Where did I claim it did?

    We all know God put processes in place silly Freddie the mouse!!

    lol!!!!

    On the contrary, I know no such thing.

    Your claim constitutes a performative contradiction. Knowledge requires objective truth which is not possible in a theistic worldview premised on the metaphysical primacy of consciousness.

  745. on 13 Aug 2014 at 5:37 pm 745.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “As I never claimed science has all the answers,”

    Just as I said, it cannot disprove the supernatural realm proving you wrong…….again and my questions still unanswered, well for you.

    “On the contrary, I know no such thing”

    Added to the list of things you do not know. Check….lol!!!

    “Why don’t you try asking an astronomer”

    I have, lol!!!!! Its only theoretical BUT it must exist silly!

  746. on 13 Aug 2014 at 11:15 pm 746.the messenger said …

    Well said, 745.The Prickly Science Guy.

  747. on 13 Aug 2014 at 11:17 pm 747.the messenger said …

    733.TJ,
    “psalm 107 is a reflection of the historical bringing together of the lost/scattered tribes of Israel. It illustrates that despite their rebellious nature, when at their witts-end, they turn to God. And He consistently shows mercy and love in accordance with his promise to do so.”
    No were is pslam 107 does it say the words “Israel” or “tribe”. I see “psalm 107? as a prophecy of the lost sinners of the world and how they will eventually realize there wrong doings and will turn to GOD, and he will release them from hell and will welcome them into his kingdom. Revelation 3:20 even reveals that is anyone seeks GOD that they will be saved, also that verse does not exclude hell.
    When I spoke about “bowing minions” I was refering to humans. If he wanted us to be “bowing minions” then he would have made bowing minions INSTEAD OF US.
    Also, lucifer is not an agent of GOD. He was, but he became jealous of humanity and decieded that he would try to corupt humanity inorder to get payback. Basicly satin is just a bratty child that is throwing a tantrum. But this was all a part of GOD’s plan for humanity to become exposed to evil and then to eventually overcome it and become better people as a result.

    ,

  748. on 13 Aug 2014 at 11:24 pm 748.the messenger said …

    FRED, tell me, how did that four year old boy know that he had a sister that died in his mother’s womb, even though they never told him about it and did not mention it in front of him or his older sister(not the one that died in the womb?

    Was he a telapath, or did he really see her in heaven?

    I believe he saw her in heaven.

  749. on 14 Aug 2014 at 2:00 am 749.Anonymous said …

    tj asks:

    The Prickly Science Guy, (“I am a man of science. Bring facts, observations, testing to the table nan! Lol!!!”)
    I’m still fuzzy on your origin stand point. Which group are you in…
    A. Goddidit
    B. God is imaginary
    c. I don’t know
    D. We currently cannot know because all we have are theories.
    ?

    I’ll take this one. As near as I can tell, the Prick’s philosophy (for lack of a better term) ALWAYS eventually distills down to putting a god into the niches and recesses of science. Look up “god of the gaps”. Anything that is not completely understood and explained has a god attached.

    He has no problem with a billions of year old Earth, early life being of a relatively simple single celled nature, Humans appearing on Earth about .0003 billion years ago, and human/ape having 99% similar DNA. Of course, there are so many more facts that he agrees with that help to support the theory of evolution. But his interpretation of the data must absolutely involve a god. (BTW, Prick seems to understand how a bias can skew data). So, as I mentioned way up above in this thread, life is about compromise. When necessary, Prick abandons logic and reason to accept and keep his faith alive.

  750. on 14 Aug 2014 at 11:06 am 750.freddies_dead said …

    743.TJ said …

    to freddies_dead…

    And what objective evidence do you have for this “spiritual confirmation”? What facts support it? How can we distinguish between your “overwhelming spiritual experience” and something you may simply be imagining?

    Don’t take my word, don’t even take the word of countless others from all walks of life and countries for the last 2000 years.

    It’s a shame those countless others couldn’t come up with a single piece of objective evidence for the existence of their God(s), then I wouldn’t have to take anyone’s word for it.

    Instead do your own experiment, you seem to have a grasp of the literalness that the bible demands.

    Read what Jesus says, interpretate for yourself what is required for salvation. Then seek the Lord with an honest heart and a curious mind. That is all I did.

    Why do you think I (and others) haven’t already tried this? We can all imagine a God – after all that’s all we can do with this thought experiment of yours – but I don’t see how you go from there to knowing a God exists. Your words here seem to suggest it’s like a big game of hide and seek and if only I look long and hard enough I’ll find it. Why is your God hiding? Why isn’t there any objective evidence of its existence to encourage us in our search? This is all quite apart from the question of how – on the Christian worldview – I can do anything other than what your God has planned for me? i.e. it’s not down to me whether I’ll believe in your God, it’s whether your God planned for me to believe.

  751. on 14 Aug 2014 at 11:08 am 751.freddies_dead said …

    745.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “As I never claimed science has all the answers,”

    Just as I said, it cannot disprove the supernatural realm

    Where did you say that? All you did in your previous post was deny the validity of my claim that science keeps showing that supernatural explanations for natural phenomena aren’t necessary. Note you only denied it, you didn’t actually show it was incorrect. Also why would you say it when no-one has claimed that science can disprove the supernatural realm? This is nothing more than a red herring.

    proving you wrong…….again and my questions still unanswered, well for you.

    How can I be wrong when I never made the claim you say I did you moron?

    “On the contrary, I know no such thing”

    Added to the list of things you do not know. Check….lol!!!

    Which just proves your claim that “We all know God put processes in place …” is just utter bullshit, well done for conceding that point.

    “Why don’t you try asking an astronomer”

    I have, lol!!!!! Its only theoretical BUT it must exist silly!

    Well then, if you don’t agree why don’t you prove that astronomer wrong? Here’s another chance for you to substantiate your position. Let’s have your supernatural explanation for objects like long interval comets.

  752. on 14 Aug 2014 at 11:10 am 752.freddies_dead said …

    748.the messenger said …

    FRED, tell me, how did that four year old boy know that he had a sister that died in his mother’s womb, even though they never told him about it and did not mention it in front of him or his older sister(not the one that died in the womb?

    How do you know he didn’t overhear them talking about it between themselves? Are you saying small boys never listen to conversations they’re not supposed to? How do you know that he didn’t hear other members of the family discussing it? Hell, my mother in law suffered a miscarriage many years ago but she’s never told me about it or discussed it in front of me. I didn’t need to go to Heaven to find out about it though, instead my wife told me all about it. The whole point is that there are a number of every day, mundane possibilities for how he could have come to know of his miscarried sibling but you dismiss them – without any solid grounds – in favour of the supernatural.

    Was he a telapath, or did he really see her in heaven?

    Why does it have to be either of these extraordinary claims? Why should we throw out more mundane – and more likely – possibilities in favour of an explanation that requires extraordinary levels of evidence to support it? Do you have objective evidence that telepathy is real? How about Heaven? Do you have some objective evidence that Heaven actually exists?

    I believe he saw her in heaven.

    Why should I share your credulity in light of more likely answers?

  753. on 14 Aug 2014 at 6:34 pm 753.DPK said …

    or, the even more obvious explanation that his parents made the whole thing up in order to, uh, I don’t know, make a fortune selling books and movie rights?
    Do you think this is the first time the gullible and all too willing believers have been fleeced by people willing to take their money to tell them what they want to hear?
    I’ve got at least a dozen storefront “churches” fortunetellers, psychics, and assorted quacks within a 20 mile radius of me that are more then happy to do that for you?
    What about the “other” guy who supposedly died and went to heaven…. he came back and told us that there is “nothing to fear, there is NOTHING you can do wrong… you are loved.” Why shouldn’t we believe him that there is no hell, no required belief system or behavior, no requirement to worship… there is nothing we can do that is wrong…. I take it you don’t agree with him, right? Why not? Do you think he just imagined it, or made it up to sell some books, or do you think that he is right and you have it all wrong?

  754. on 14 Aug 2014 at 7:59 pm 754.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “eventually distills down to putting a god into the niches and recesses of science”

    oh Freddie! Posting back to back with your multiple personalities is so lame….sigh!!!!

    But OK, uoi take this one! Lol!!!

    Now where do I put a God into a “niche or a “recess”?

    On the contrary, I point out the silliness of atheism. The silliness of highly complex information codes evolving from soup or life popping out on non-life! That is all silliness.

    Now if you believe pointing out that an i7 processor has a designer is slipping in a designer in the the “niches” and “recesses” of the modern day laptop, you are quite silly.

    only difference, information coding in creation is even more complex……you so silly Freddie and mouse…..:)

  755. on 14 Aug 2014 at 8:06 pm 755.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Note you only denied it, you didn’t actually show it was incorrect”

    Sure I did. It does not have the ability to disprove supernatural. No you are done!

    lol!!!!!!

  756. on 14 Aug 2014 at 10:34 pm 756.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Well then, if you don’t agree why don’t you prove that astronomer wrong?”

    lol!!!!!
    ROTFL!!!!

    Don’t agree? With what? One MUST exist? No its not a must, but to maintain other assumptions, well for atheist it is a must. For me, existing or not changes nothing.

    Which astronomer F&M? Now Freddie the Mouse, why don’t you just prove God wrong and settle the entire mater? Hmmm?

    When you are done, I’ll take care of the Oort cloud.

    lol!!!!!! Chow!

    Dippity Dew! You back!

  757. on 14 Aug 2014 at 11:20 pm 757.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    “This is all quite apart from the question of how – on the Christian worldview – I can do anything other than what your God has planned for me? i.e. it’s not down to me whether I’ll believe in your God, it’s whether your God planned for me to believe.”

    The bible clearly states that you, me and everybody else is created with “Free self determining Will”. That we are responsible for our acts.

    Where does this idea of a micro planning God idea that you so cling to, come from? As has been stated here, an “All planning God” and free will cannot co-exist. Why would a God judge people based on what he planned them to do. This logic is inconsistent with the bible itself. You know it, I know it.

    I guess it does describe an imaginary God. But it certainly does not mesh with the bible’s description of God.

    Just because a claimed religious group makes stupid claims does not make them any less fallible than anyone else. As you guys continually point out, they all say different things. So go to the source and see for yourself was my suggestion. Self determine, the bible does not say anyone else can ensure your salvation, only through your own personal faith in Christ, not mine, not anybody else’s.

    “Why do you think I (and others) haven’t already tried this? We can all imagine a God – after all that’s all we can do with this thought experiment of yours – but I don’t see how you go from there to knowing a God exists.”

    It was to be a faith exercise. Not a thought exercise. By faith we are saved, not thoughts. I have perhaps given you too much credit for your knowledge of biblical scripture.

    Knowing of God comes with acceptance through faith. It is obvious you don’t yet have faith, this is evident by your statements throughout this blog. I claim that it took me years to get past my stubbornness to accept this. When I did though, my eyes where opened just like they describe in the New Testament. I was completely stunned and amazed by the instantness, simplicity and magnitude of it all.

    The journey from condemned to saved was long, hard and full of doubt, with faiths in many other worldly theories to assurer myself God didn’t exist. A willing stubborn resistance to God. But in the end I am here hopping that some of you may find what I have found for your own salvation.

    I would have none of you go to hell if it where up to me. But it is up to you and you alone. Alls I can do is testify my own experience to you. If this offends anyone than that’s just too bad.

  758. on 14 Aug 2014 at 11:32 pm 758.TJ said …

    … just so you know, I hated anyone who made claims like I do now. I though why them? “What are they doing different, lord knows I’ve tried.”

    But I swear to you on the name “Jesus Christ” that it is all about faith. Faith is Black and white, Hot or Cold, On or Off, True or False, you either have it or you don’t. And somehow the Holy Spirit knows the difference.

  759. on 15 Aug 2014 at 12:51 am 759.the messenger said …

    774.freddies_dead, they didn’t talk about it, because it was devastating. She just had one of her children die inside her!!!!!!!!! It was a subject that was highly depressing for both of them and I highly doubt that any of the family members would want to bring up those bad memories, so out of courtesy they most likely did not discuss it, and decided to focus on the children that they have now.

  760. on 15 Aug 2014 at 1:09 am 760.the messenger said …

    779.TJ, well said.

  761. on 15 Aug 2014 at 1:21 am 761.the messenger said …

    779.TJ, what you said in that comment reminds me of one of my favorite quotes.

    “Terrible. Unforgiving. That’s how I saw God. Punishing us in this life, and committing us to Purgatory after death. Sentencing sinners to burn in Hell for all eternity. But I was wrong. Those who see God as angry, do not see Him rightly, but look upon a curtain as if a dark storm cloud is being drawn across His face.

    If we truly believe that Christ IS our Savior, then we have a God of love! And to see God in faith is to look upon His friendly heart.

    So when the devil throws your sins in your face and declares that you deserve death and Hell, tell him this: “I admit that I deserve death and Hell, what of it? For I know one who suffered and made satisfaction in my behalf, His name is Jesus Christ, Son of God and where He is there I shall be also!””

    P.S., I am not supporting all of Father Martin’s writings, but only some of his.

    I oppose his hatred of the Jews, but I commend some of his views on faith.

  762. on 15 Aug 2014 at 12:41 pm 762.freddies_dead said …

    754.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said … (to Anonymous)

    “eventually distills down to putting a god into the niches and recesses of science”

    oh Freddie! Posting back to back with your multiple personalities is so lame….sigh!!!!

    Your projection is what is so lame here. You’re the only commenter on here who has been caught red handed posting as different people in order to deceive people e.g. when you posted as Martin while writing “Martin, Good one!”. People can check out some of alex’s posts for the link to the compilation of your lies, obsessions and absurdities.

  763. on 15 Aug 2014 at 12:42 pm 763.freddies_dead said …

    755.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Note you only denied it, you didn’t actually show it was incorrect”

    Sure I did.

    This is an outright lie. Just what we’d expect from you.

    It does not have the ability to disprove supernatural. No you are done!

    A claim no-one here has made. You keep throwing out the red herring and I’ll keep throwing it right back at you.

    lol!!!!!!

    Indeed.

  764. on 15 Aug 2014 at 12:46 pm 764.freddies_dead said …

    756.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Well then, if you don’t agree why don’t you prove that astronomer wrong?”

    lol!!!!!
    ROTFL!!!!

    Simply admitting you can’t would have sufficed.

    Don’t agree? With what? One MUST exist?

    Where does science make the claim that the Oort cloud MUST exist?

    No its not a must, but to maintain other assumptions, well for atheist it is a must.

    This is simply not true. Atheism is not equal to astronomy. Just like atheism is not equal to science which is why your continued attempts to conflate atheism with science will always fail.
    My atheism wouldn’t be at all affected if it turns out that the hypothesised Oort cloud turned out not to exist. The only thing that’s going to affect my atheism is if someone can show that God exists. Care to try at any point?

    For me, existing or not changes nothing.

    Nor for the atheist. So basically you bought up the Oort cloud for nothing. Well done.

    Which astronomer F&M?

    How the fuck would I know which astronomer you’re claiming to have talked to? You didn’t give a name just claimed to have asked one. Are you admitting your claim was just another one of your lies?

    Now Freddie the Mouse, why don’t you just prove God wrong and settle the entire mater? Hmmm?

    Already done. In posts 470, 471, 539, 540, 589, 649 and 652 I gave the Objectivist position which shows creator Gods are impossible.

    When you are done, I’ll take care of the Oort cloud.

    You’re up.

  765. on 15 Aug 2014 at 12:51 pm 765.freddies_dead said …

    757.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    “This is all quite apart from the question of how – on the Christian worldview – I can do anything other than what your God has planned for me? i.e. it’s not down to me whether I’ll believe in your God, it’s whether your God planned for me to believe.”

    The bible clearly states that you, me and everybody else is created with “Free self determining Will”. That we are responsible for our acts.

    I know what it states, however, that statement contradicts the Biblical claims that God is both omniscient and has a plan. As I asked earlier, is there a situation where God knows I will do X that I can actually do Y (where Y is something other than the X that God ‘knows’ I will do)? If the answer is yes then God’s omniscience is called into question (showing the Bible to be wrong). If the answer is no then the claim of free will is shown to be false (again the Bible is wrong).

    Where does this idea of a micro planning God idea that you so cling to, come from?

    It comes from the Bible. You yourself have agreed the Bible shows He has a plan. The Bible itself makes the claim that God knows all. If God knows everything then everything must be part of that plan.

    As has been stated here, an “All planning God” and free will cannot co-exist. Why would a God judge people based on what he planned them to do. This logic is inconsistent with the bible itself. You know it, I know it.

    I guess it does describe an imaginary God. But it certainly does not mesh with the bible’s description of God.

    In what way is it inconsistent? Are you saying that the Bible doesn’t say that God has a plan (despite your earlier admissions that it does)? Or are you saying that the Bible claims there are things that God does not know will happen? I fully understand that there are illogical and inconsistent claims in the Bible but this isn’t my problem.

    Just because a claimed religious group makes stupid claims does not make them any less fallible than anyone else. As you guys continually point out, they all say different things. So go to the source and see for yourself was my suggestion. Self determine, the bible does not say anyone else can ensure your salvation, only through your own personal faith in Christ, not mine, not anybody else’s.

    I am self-determining. I have no other choice and, as the only way I can “go to the source”, as you say, is to imagine one, I am confident that I’ve determined correctly.

    “Why do you think I (and others) haven’t already tried this? We can all imagine a God – after all that’s all we can do with this thought experiment of yours – but I don’t see how you go from there to knowing a God exists.”

    It was to be a faith exercise. Not a thought exercise.

    So it was to be a thoughtless exercise? In which case how was I supposed to do … well, anything?

    By faith we are saved, not thoughts. I have perhaps given you too much credit for your knowledge of biblical scripture.

    I think you’re giving far too much credit to your ‘faith’. I’m so far unable to distinguish anything you say I should have faith in from things that I can only imagine.

    Knowing of God comes with acceptance through faith.

    How? How can I actually know anything through faith? Faith is (according to the Bible – Hebrews 11:1) “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”? How does that equate to something factual? I could hope for a million pounds but there’s nothing there that means I know I’ll get it and how does what I can only imagine (things not seen) be called evidence?

    It is obvious you don’t yet have faith, this is evident by your statements throughout this blog.

    What’s wrong with preferring knowledge instead of faith? What’s so good about believing things without evidence?

    I claim that it took me years to get past my stubbornness to accept this. When I did though, my eyes where opened just like they describe in the New Testament. I was completely stunned and amazed by the instantness, simplicity and magnitude of it all.

    The journey from condemned to saved was long, hard and full of doubt, with faiths in many other worldly theories to assurer myself God didn’t exist. A willing stubborn resistance to God. But in the end I am here hopping that some of you may find what I have found for your own salvation.

    I would have none of you go to hell if it where up to me. But it is up to you and you alone.

    Alls I can do is testify my own experience to you. If this offends anyone than that’s just too bad.

    Your testimony does not offend me. Your choice to embrace the imaginary over reason is not my problem.

  766. on 15 Aug 2014 at 12:58 pm 766.freddies_dead said …

    759.the messenger said …

    774.freddies_dead, they didn’t talk about it, because it was devastating.

    And you know they never talked about it how? Devastating things happen, that doesn’t necessarily stop people discussing them.

    She just had one of her children die inside her!!!!!!!!!

    I’d like to point out that it didn’t ‘just’ happen. There had been at least 4 years between the miscarriage and the 4 year old’s alleged NDE. That’s at least 4 years during which the child could have learned of his mother’s miscarriage.

    It was a subject that was highly depressing for both of them and I highly doubt that any of the family members would want to bring up those bad memories, so out of courtesy they most likely did not discuss it, and decided to focus on the children that they have now.

    Who claimed the family members specifically bought it up in the presence of the woman or her husband? I postulated that they may have discussed it amongst themselves (as my wife and I did regarding her mother’s miscarriage) when the child was in a position to hear their discussions.

    You still haven’t given me any reason to ignore such mundane options in favour of the supernatural option. Your argument seems to boil down to “It was a tragic event that was never ever discussed by them or anyone else because … erm, because I say so because I like the Heaven version better. That’s your choice but I won’t be sharing in your credulity.

  767. on 15 Aug 2014 at 4:57 pm 767.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Freddie Mouse? Four posts in a row? Couldn’t you pull in Anonymouse to break the cycle? Oh well….nevertheless,,,,,

    “once thought to be the purview of deities – from sunrises to thunder and lightning to modern biodiversity”

    Identifying a process does not eliminate God. Never has……I never claimed there was a thunder God or a Lightning God…….You know some F&M? Next!

    “Sure I did.”

    No you didn’t……Next! lol!!!!

    “This is simply not true. Atheism is not equal to astronomy. Just like atheism is not equal to science”

    LOL!!!!! Agreed and where did you get that idea? Science is a pursuit of knowledge of existing processes. Those processes were put in place by God. The problem for the atheist is how to put processes in place that can create all the processes….LOL!!!!!!

    “So basically you bought up the Oort cloud for nothing.”

    LOL!!!, no but your obsession with it is funny. It is an example of…….careful here buddy……FAITH…..used in scientist. We have no proof of Oort actually existing but it is assumed to exist…..Faith :) Don’t obsess over it F&M. Its like macroevolution.

    save the funniest for last……..

    “Already done. In posts 470, 471, 539, 540, 589, 649 and 652 I gave the Objectivist position which shows creator Gods are impossible.”

    ROTFL!!!!! Tada The objectivist position. Let me summarize for our readers, k?

    1. For God to exist, F&M will understand How God exists
    2. F&M cannot understand or comprehend how a God can exist.
    3. Therefore God does not exist.

    ROTFL!!!!!!! Good one F&M! Next!

  768. on 15 Aug 2014 at 5:00 pm 768.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    TJ,

    Don’t you realize what F&M is saying? The family is a bunch of liars! They taught the little boy to lie. Everyone who experiences God is a liar. Only atheist tell the truth!

    lol!!!!

  769. on 15 Aug 2014 at 11:56 pm 769.TJ said …

    To The Prickly Science Guy,

    freddies_dead is saying no such thing. He recognises that a couple of minutes of video do not tell the entire story. He recognises that people are motivated by all sorts of reasons to concoct stories for 15 min of fame. He approaches the topic with a healthy scepticism.

    Christ tells us to question everything, why should the claims of God and heaven be exempt from such query?

    Whilst all participants seem sincere in their claims, we cannot know for sure anything regarding their validity.

    Simply put, your belief is your will. His disbelief is his will… no extra input from God required for exercising free will… just as God planned.

  770. on 16 Aug 2014 at 2:10 am 770.DPK said …

    TJ.. Notice that the lying pick did not answer your question. This is his game. He will not discuss anything with any sort if intellectual honesty. He is a troll?

    As far as the claims, are we to accept the story of the 4 year old son of a baptist minister who never actually died or even arrested, who tells us that Jesus rides around heaven on a rainbow colored horse, everyone has wings, and that the only way you can get to heaven is by accepting Jesus as your savior… Just like his daddy preaches, or should we believe the 40 something Harvard educated doctor who said the spirits of heaven told him there is nothing to fear and nothing you can do wrong?
    They can’t both be right. So if you believe one, it means the other must be either delusional, or lying.
    Which is it?

    And TJ, you seem to be disavowing the commonly held assertion that god is omniscient. Is it your contention that god does not, in fact, know everything that will happen? If so, where do the prophecies in the bible come from?

  771. on 16 Aug 2014 at 3:49 pm 771.TJ said …

    To DPK,

    You are correct, I do not agree with the notions that the word “omniscient” promotes.

    In all of Gods prophecies he outlines his plan and speaks of the actions he will take to ensure his plan is fulfilled. God does not claim that anything will happen due to the perfect execution of a meticulously laid plan.

    In contrast he speaks of the actions he will take to achieve his plan according to his will. He asks us to have faith that his will is stronger than all others, that his will, will be the prevailing one. At least this is what pre-Christ/old testament readers of scripture would have been led to believe regarding prophesy of a saviour.

    New testament readers are told that the saviour is Jesus Christ and that the salvation part of the plan is complete. Time for all things that must come to pass and judgement lay ahead.

    We see references to fallen angels in Genesis, taking wives of the daughters of men. Mention of the Nephilim as well. Legends of old. Egyptians, Greeks, Mayans, Aztecs and many more ancient cultures speak volumes regarding Gods from the Heavens.

    God claims to have bound these fallen angels up in the earth, to be released at some point in the future. Again in revelations God speaks of actions to be taken, vials being poured upon the earth and a need for all things to come to pass.

    Weather God is talking to Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, the Israelites or to the Gentiles. He always speaks of the nature of the situation ahead, his plan for intervention and what he promises to do in order to achieve his will. He never says… “relax, it’s all good. I planned for this.”.

    Instead he says… “Fear not, for I am the Lord. Have faith in me.”

    Omniscient, to be all knowing, of past, present and future. From the smallest instances to the greatest events. This is the commonly held perception, but is it a true summery of what God claims?

    God claims to have perfect knowledge of all that is knowable. If something where to be proven to be un-knowable, then would this detract from God’s claim?

    God claims to be the author of all the natural laws that we do and don’t know about. He is the author of our DNA code. He has the understanding to create the situation that gives rise to our mind perception of our own self’s. Armed with all this knowledge would you expect him to make some pretty accurate predictions about our behaviours, actions, methods of rationalising and all possible long term future consequences?

    Would he lack the power, authority and knowledge base required to push his agenda ahead of all others?

    The only thing I would say that is pre-un-knowable to God with 100% absolute certainty are our choices made exercising free will. Is this not what the notion of free will implies?

    If God could be 100% certain of all our actions he would not need to wait to judge us. The mere mention of judgement dismisses the contention that we follow a pre-ordained micro plan.

  772. on 16 Aug 2014 at 7:58 pm 772.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “freddies_dead is saying no such thing.”

    Really? So his F&M’s quote:

    “There had been at least 4 years between the miscarriage and the 4 year old’s alleged NDE. That’s at least 4 years during which the child could have learned of his mother’s miscarriage.”

    Directly conflicts with what the father and the now teenage boy claim. I heard them being interviewed. So yes, Freddie is calling them a liar. That, TJ, is the definition of the word “liar”.

    Oh, and TJ, I have not read the book or seen the movie. I have no opinion on the claims so you can drop the “your belief is your will. His disbelief is his will”….whatever that is suppose to mean. Does that mean his belief could be my will?????

    Carry on TJ.

  773. on 17 Aug 2014 at 1:30 am 773.the messenger said …

    794.A The Prickly Science Guy, face it, deadfred is oblivious to the truth. I learned that from debating with him.

  774. on 17 Aug 2014 at 2:29 am 774.TJ said …

    To The Prickly Science Guy,

    THIS…
    “There had been at least 4 years between the miscarriage and the 4 year old’s alleged NDE. That’s at least 4 years during which the child could have learned of his mother’s miscarriage.””

    Is not the same as…
    “Don’t you realize what F&M is saying? The family is a bunch of liars! They taught the little boy to lie. Everyone who experiences God is a liar. Only atheist tell the truth!”

    You misrepresent the words of God of the bible in the same manner when you insert millions of years to replace, fully formed creations made to reproduce after their own kind. You then labour to seek evidence for things that simply aren’t stated.

    His choice to dis-believe, and your choice to believe their claims, is what I meant by “your belief is your will.” If both of you where to share the same opinion then it would be safe to say you have a common will to believe the claims made.

  775. on 17 Aug 2014 at 3:40 pm 775.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Is not the same as…”

    Sure thing T, spin it as you like. Mu statement stands.

    “You misrepresent the words of God of the bible in the same manner when you insert millions of years”

    Wham! That came out of no where! Lol!

    ok, now where is my quote for that T? Any clue what you are talking about?

  776. on 18 Aug 2014 at 12:44 am 776.TJ said …

    To The Prickly Science Guy

    You state…
    “Wham! That came out of no where! Lol!”

    Back at comment #747 I asked you directly the following…

    The Prickly Science Guy, (“I am a man of science. Bring facts, observations, testing to the table nan! Lol!!!”)
    I’m still fuzzy on your origin stand point. Which group are you in…
    A. Goddidit
    B. God is imaginary
    c. I don’t know
    D. We currently cannot know because all we have are theories.
    ?

    You either missed my questioning or ignored it.

    #756 Anonymous answered on your behalf…

    “I’ll take this one. As near as I can tell, the Prick’s philosophy (for lack of a better term) ALWAYS eventually distills down to putting a god into the niches and recesses of science. Look up “god of the gaps”. Anything that is not completely understood and explained has a god attached.
    He has no problem with a billions of year old Earth, early life being of a relatively simple single celled nature, Humans appearing on Earth about .0003 billion years ago, and human/ape having 99% similar DNA. Of course, there are so many more facts that he agrees with that help to support the theory of evolution. But his interpretation of the data must absolutely involve a god. (BTW, Prick seems to understand how a bias can skew data). So, as I mentioned way up above in this thread, life is about compromise. When necessary, Prick abandons logic and reason to accept and keep his faith alive.”

    You made no objections to his claims regarding your views so I had no other option but to run with his outline until you provide me with your own. I threw in the comment…

    “You misrepresent the words of God of the bible in the same manner when you insert millions of years”

    …hoping to get your attention on this.

    So… is the Real Anonymous correct?

  777. on 18 Aug 2014 at 1:10 am 777.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “756 Anonymous answered on your behalf…?

    ohhhhhh! You believed F&M as he spoke for me. You missed when I laughed his claims I used God of the gaps huh? F&M has a very elementary understanding not to mention he is an atheist! Lol!!!

    You know TJ, maybe you shouldn’t believe everything you hear. In other words don’t be throwing around accusations around when you don’t know what you are talking about.

    “You made no objections to his claims regarding your views”

    Why? Lol!!!! He claims all sorts of silliness, can’t cover all of it. Only you believed it.

  778. on 18 Aug 2014 at 1:13 am 778.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “So… is the Real Anonymous correct??

    I don’t recognize the name. There is Freddie who also posts as Anonymousr.

    The real Anonymous only has one handle.

  779. on 18 Aug 2014 at 3:49 am 779.TJ said …

    The Prickly Science Guy said…

    “You know TJ, maybe you shouldn’t believe everything you hear. In other words don’t be throwing around accusations around when you don’t know what you are talking about.”

    You are correct, which is why I asked you directly… twice.

    “You missed when I laughed his claims I used God of the gaps huh? ”

    Laughing off his claims is not the same as answering my question.

    “You made no objections to his claims regarding your views”

    What should I object to? My views have been made clear, Have they not? If you feel I missed something, point it out and I’d be happy to comment.

  780. on 18 Aug 2014 at 11:47 am 780.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Laughing off his claims is not the same as answering my question.”

    OK, T, pay attention. I laughed off his claim that I believe in a God of the Gaps. What that means is, I do not believe in a God of the Gaps. Read the second part of the sentence and it becomes clear.

    “”You made no objections to his claims regarding your views””

    So why are you requiting yourself TJ. This is not even my statement it is yours….. To which I responded:

    Why? Lol!!!! He claims all sorts of silliness, can’t cover all of it. Only you believed it.

    Now your question. You are correct I never did see it.
    There is a God who is the designer and creator of the universe. The process and/or mechanism He used I do not know. Many theories exist in the various forms of creationism as well numerous models put forth by science. Regardless, God put the process in place…obviously.

    Have a good week fellers. Chow

  781. on 18 Aug 2014 at 2:19 pm 781.freddies_dead said …

    767.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Freddie Mouse? Four posts in a row? Couldn’t you pull in Anonymouse to break the cycle? Oh well….nevertheless,,,,,

    Back to A the lying prick’s projection … A the lying prick posting as Martin while writing “Martin, Good one!”, now that’s some dumb arsed sockpuppetry.

    “once thought to be the purview of deities – from sunrises to thunder and lightning to modern biodiversity”

    Identifying a process does not eliminate God.

    This is irrelevant as I never claimed it did.

    Never has……I never claimed there was a thunder God or a Lightning God…….You know some F&M? Next!

    This is also irrelevant as I never claimed A the lying prick had.

    “Sure I did.” (I didn’t say this, A the lying prick did.)

    No you didn’t……Next! lol!!!!

    Refuting his own claims. I’d ask why he’s answering himself here but I really don’t care, it’s just funny to see him contradicting himself so blatantly.

    “This is simply not true. Atheism is not equal to astronomy. Just like atheism is not equal to science”

    LOL!!!!! Agreed and where did you get that idea?

    What idea? They’re simple facts.

    Science is a pursuit of knowledge of existing processes. Those processes were put in place by God.

    So he’ll have no trouble demonstrating that his God exists … I won’t be holding my breath as A the lying prick dodges this requirement yet again.

    The problem for the atheist is how to put processes in place that can create all the processes….LOL!!!!!!

    I note A the lying prick fails to demonstrate that this is a problem for atheists, he barely asserts it without any reasoning. This is not uncommon. Why, for example, do the processes have to be created? After all, I’m sure A the lying prick would say his God wasn’t created so we know that not everything needs a creator.

    “So basically you bought up the Oort cloud for nothing.”

    LOL!!!, no but your obsession with it is funny.

    How is A the lying prick bringing up the Oort cloud my obsession? Once more he makes no sense.

    It is an example of…….careful here buddy……FAITH…..used in scientist. We have no proof of Oort actually existing but it is assumed to exist…..Faith :)

    There’s actually no faith here. There are data points (like long interval comets) that can be explained by the assumption of a hypothetical cloud of cometary material far out on the edge of our star system. No-one actually claims that it must exist (despite what A the lying prick keeps saying) and it merely serves as a possible explanation. If new data is found that makes the Oort cloud unlikely, or even impossible, then scientists will abandon the idea and come up with a new explanation that seeks to explain everything the Oort cloud did PLUS the new information. Obviously, if A the lying prick has a better explanation then he’s welcome to present it and the data that it explains. Once more I wouldn’t recommend anyone hold their breath during the wait.

    Don’t obsess over it F&M.

    And yet it’s A the lying prick that keeps on about it.

    Its like macroevolution.

    Another barely asserted claim. Lets see if A the lying prick can actually show how the hypothetical Oort cloud is like the best supported scientific theory we have. If anyone is thinking of holding their breath, please don’t.

    save the funniest for last……..

    “Already done. In posts 470, 471, 539, 540, 589, 649 and 652 I gave the Objectivist position which shows creator Gods are impossible.”

    ROTFL!!!!! Tada The objectivist position. Let me summarize for our readers, k?

    1. For God to exist, F&M will understand How God exists
    2. F&M cannot understand or comprehend how a God can exist.
    3. Therefore God does not exist.

    ROTFL!!!!!!! Good one F&M! Next!

    That really is funny. A the lying prick has now shown that he has absolutely zero understanding of the Objectivist position. Well done. I didn’t think he could get any more dumb but he continues to amaze me with his repeated successes at breaking his own stupidity record. I’m beginning to be surprised at the fact that he continues to live. I wonder if he has an alarm every few seconds to remind him to breathe…

  782. on 18 Aug 2014 at 2:21 pm 782.freddies_dead said …

    768.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said … (to TJ)

    TJ,

    Don’t you realize what F&M is saying? The family is a bunch of liars! They taught the little boy to lie.

    TJ, I’m not sure why the lying prick directed this comment at you as I was having the discussion with messy, however, I hope you realise by now that A the lying prick is fundamentally dishonest, which is why he projects his dishonesty onto everyone else on this blog. Nowhere in my discussions with messy did I say anyone was deliberately lying. The parents claim not to have discussed the miscarriage directly with their children or discussed it in front of them. That leaves perfectly mundane options such as the child overhearing it without his parents realising or overhearing it/being told about it by other family members. All without calling anyone a liar. Except for A the lying prick of course, but then his dishonesty is well documented.

    Everyone who experiences God is a liar.

    Again, not something I’ve ever claimed, however, due to the fact that God doesn’t exist, I will say they are simply failing to identify what they are imagining as purely imaginary.

    Only atheist tell the truth!

    Again, not something I have ever claimed.

    lol!!!!

    It is indeed funny to see A the lying prick being dishonest whilst trying (and failing) to accuse others of dishonesty.

  783. on 18 Aug 2014 at 2:23 pm 783.freddies_dead said …

    772.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said … (to TJ)

    “freddies_dead is saying no such thing.”

    Really? So his F&M’s quote:

    “There had been at least 4 years between the miscarriage and the 4 year old’s alleged NDE. That’s at least 4 years during which the child could have learned of his mother’s miscarriage.”

    Directly conflicts with what the father and the now teenage boy claim.

    Odd, the only claims I’ve seen so far are 1) that the parents say they never directly told the boy or discussed it in front of him. I don’t see how that definitively rules out the possibility that the boy overheard a conversation – either between his parents or other family members. He may even have overheard it and not even consciously realised it, the information only coming to light after his NDE experience and 2) the boy claimed to see Jesus riding a rainbow coloured horse. I’m wondering why no-one is defending this claim as vigourously.

    I heard them being interviewed. So yes, Freddie is calling them a liar. That, TJ, is the definition of the word “liar”.

    Once again A the lying prick is accusing me of doing something I haven’t done. He, on the other hand, is a documented liar. If we were to look up “liar” in the dictionary I wouldn’t be surprised to see “A the lying prick” as one of the synonyms.

    Oh, and TJ, I have not read the book or seen the movie. I have no opinion on the claims so you can drop the “your belief is your will. His disbelief is his will”….whatever that is suppose to mean. Does that mean his belief could be my will?????

    Carry on TJ.

    You’ll probably notice going forward that A the lying prick will claim to “have no opinion” on a wide variety of things – even things he makes direct claims about. He does this in an effort to avoid shouldering his share of the burden of proof evidenced by his routine failure to answer any of the questions asked of him.

  784. on 18 Aug 2014 at 2:23 pm 784.freddies_dead said …

    773.the messenger said …

    794.A The Prickly Science Guy, face it, deadfred is oblivious to the truth.

    To what truth are you referring? And is that truth “true” regardless of what anyone may think, wish, demand etc…? If so how do you account for that objectivity from within your inherently subjective Christian worldview?

    I learned that from debating with him.

    So far you don’t appear to have learned anything from the discussions we’ve had – including the meaning of the words forever, endless and eternal.

  785. on 18 Aug 2014 at 2:25 pm 785.freddies_dead said …

    778.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said … (to TJ)

    “So… is the Real Anonymous correct??

    I don’t recognize the name. There is Freddie who also posts as Anonymousr.

    A the lying prick is, once more, lying … hardly something new. On the thread titled “The insanity of Christianity: Prayer edition” post 1090 explains exactly what happened. It’s easy enough to test out the hypothesis (you know, like a real science guy would do). I even did did the experiment right there on the thread in question (post 1089). Of course A is a lying prick who has been caught more than once posting under different usernames (Martin, 40YA, RL Wootten etc…) so he projects that dishonesty onto others because he doesn’t get that there are honest people out there (because he isn’t one of them). As I said at the time and will probably say again in the future, this isn’t my problem.

  786. on 18 Aug 2014 at 2:26 pm 786.freddies_dead said …

    780.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said … (to TJ)

    There is a God who is the designer and creator of the universe.

    There’s the claim, now where’s the evidence?

    The process and/or mechanism He used I do not know.

    And yet A the lying prick is adamant that one of those processes couldn’t have been evolution. The hypocrisy is almost breathtaking.

    Many theories exist in the various forms of creationism as well numerous models put forth by science. Regardless, God put the process in place…obviously.

    There’s the claim again, now where’s the evidence? Don’t forget everyone, holding your breath as you wait is NOT a good idea.

  787. on 18 Aug 2014 at 5:27 pm 787.DPK said …

    “There is a God who is the designer and creator of the universe. The process and/or mechanism He used I do not know. Many theories exist in the various forms of creationism as well numerous models put forth by science. Regardless, God put the process in place…obviously.”

    Which is, in fact, the very essence of the “god of the gaps” argument.

    This is all you will ever get out of A. Basically a deist position of “well there must be a god because you cannot explain _______________ without one. LOL.
    A sad position because it has been shown to be wrong, historically, time and time and time again.

    You theists all seem to have very different ideas about your imaginary god. Messy thinks Jesus rides around heaven on a rainbow pony. A thinks a god put creation in motion and left. TJ doesn’t believe god is omniscient, and others think you will all burn in the fires of hell for not accepting Allah.

    TJ, you will get nothing more specific from A. The most I ever got from him was an admission of his god as a “somewhat clever, kind of powerful” being. By his definition his “god” could be nothing more than a sufficiently advanced alien. Beyond that he avoids any specific claims outside of the narrow gaps of origins and bio-genesis where his god currently lives. He knows they are indefensible and illogical, so he will avoid them like the plague. That is simply “how he do”. That is why we all laugh at him. He is, quite simply, a complete fraud. At least you have the courage to take a position and defend it. Well done to you and worthy of respect, even if I disagree with you.

    Ask him how he gets from his “obvious” conclusion of a designer god to a personal god who intercedes in the physical world, responds to prayers, loves us, and will judge us for our thoughts and deeds and will punish us with eternal torment or reward us with eternal bliss.
    He will not answer.
    Glad you got to see his true colors as a lying deceitful troll though. It seldom take long. hahaha.

  788. on 18 Aug 2014 at 11:29 pm 788.TJ said …

    “TJ doesn’t believe god is omniscient,”

    Allow me to be clear on this…

    Omniscient definition, having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

    1595-1605; < Neo-Latin omniscient-, stem of omnisci?ns, equivalent to Latin omni- omni- + scient- knowing; see science

    omni-
    Word Origin
    1.
    a combining form meaning “all,” used in the formation of compound words:
    omnifarious; omnipotence; omniscient.

    science – noun
    1.
    a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
    the mathematical sciences.
    2.
    systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
    3.
    any of the branches of natural or physical science.
    4.
    systematized knowledge in general.
    5.
    knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
    6.
    a particular branch of knowledge.
    7.
    skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

    My objection come when this concept, is commonly held to believe that this makes God a planner of our actions relieving us of the ability to exercise free will.

    God defines his Knowledge as perfect of all things knowable. The word Omniscient is commonly used to ascribe traits to God that do not fit the definition of Omniscient or the definition of God according to his own word.

    Many words commonly held meanings change over the course of time, cultures and context.

    My rejection is not of God being Omniscient. My rejection is all the associated extended reasoning that is commonly drawn when people refer to God as Omniscient.

  789. on 19 Aug 2014 at 3:04 am 789.DPK said …

    “God defines his Knowledge as perfect of all things knowable.”
    What is not knowable? Are events in the future knowable? Forget the common claim that god has planned everything. Does god know what will occur in our future?

  790. on 19 Aug 2014 at 11:27 pm 790.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Ask him how he gets from his “obvious” conclusion of a designer god to a personal god who intercedes?

    Dippity Dew!! You are back.

    Unlike TJ, I don’t discuss semiconductor theory with with a first grade child and I don’t discuss theology with an atheist. There are prerequisites and you don’t meet them. Realizing God does exist is step one. Sorry Charlie! Check out Dawkins and his spin on Theology! Lol!!! Hilarious

    What I do is point out the hypocrisy and unreasonable dogma incorporated in atheism. You run from those and change the subject when they come up because they frighten you. I understand nut you need to confront those demons.

    Luv ya Dippity!

  791. on 20 Aug 2014 at 12:32 am 791.TJ said …

    To DPK,

    Does god know what will occur in our future?

    What a great question!

    I admit I struggle with this. Particularly because I find it challenging to define time. I also struggle to differentiate projected forecasting and concrete knowledge of things to come.

    Today for example, I’m off to my parents to repair some playground equipment (my mother does respite care for children with disabilities). I know that I will leave soon, do some work and return home tonight.

    Is this knowledge of the future or a plan I will make into a reality? I understand that there could be some setbacks and my plans could be postponed for a variety of reasons. The plan will still remain even if it takes an extra day, or is postponed for a week.

    When the Job is done, is it applicable to say I knew the future in a broad sense regardless of the time frame required to fulfil all the requirements of the job/plan?

    On a different angle, experiments conducted where participants brain waves are monitored while they are shown a series of conflicting images show some interesting results. The images randomly appear on screen with a slight delay (black/blank screen) between them. Images range from cute animals and scenic landscapes to horror and images of gore an injury.

    Participates consistently show brain wave reactions/patterns that correlate to the types of images displayed. What was found to be of particular interest was that during the blank screen between images, most participates brain waves where shown to have pre-reacted to the negative images a split second before the image was visible. The softer friendlier images showed a split second delayed reaction after the image was shown.

    The researchers put an evolutionary spin on the whole thing and made some correlations to the sub conscious, fight or flight, Déjà vu, fortune telling and the need for further research.

    Does the participants pre-reaction equate to for-knowledge, no matter how small the time frame?

    Man makes prediction on the future all the time. Weather forecasting, business projections, trends etc. We rely on our ability to evaluate all the known variables, guesstimate the rest and plan accordingly. We often get it wrong, brag when we are right and are called lucky/arsy if we are good at it.

    With concern to God knowing the future? He certainly claims to have a perfect knowledge of the creation and how it works. He claims to know the hearts of men. He claims that nobody has the power or authority to prevents his plans from coming to fulfilment and that his will, will prevail over all others.

    When ever prophecy is revealed in the old testament it is presented as Gods intention to make things happen, regardless of man’s will. When ever God reveals his intentions he presents those involved with two options. The first equates to the the easy way, the second outlines what God is prepared to allow to happen and his actions in order to achieve his goals. Each and every time those involved are presented with a choice… work with God or suffer the consequences.

    In the new testament God reveals his future intentions without a specified time frame. Instead he confirms that for his plan to be complete all things required must come to pass.

    It is interesting that all revelations to man are received through spiritual means. Including dreams, visions and being taken in the “spirit”. How does this compare to claims of astral projection and other out of body experiences or those that claim to be able to foresee the future, including the sub-conscious brain patterns in the experiment.

    Combine all this with what we theorise about time space matter and I honestly don’t know if God “knows” the future, or simply has superior knowledge, superior understanding and a superior will and authority to wield the flow of time in the direction of his plan.

    Great question, food for thought.

  792. on 20 Aug 2014 at 1:53 am 792.DPK said …

    Today for example, I’m off to my parents to repair some playground equipment (my mother does respite care for children with disabilities). I know that I will leave soon, do some work and return home tonight.
    Is this knowledge of the future or a plan I will make into a reality? I understand that there could be some setbacks and my plans could be postponed for a variety of reasons. The plan will still remain even if it takes an extra day, or is postponed for a week.”

    No, intent is not “knowledge”. You do not “know” that your plan will ultimately become reality. You could well be hit by a bus or our sun could go supernova and your intent will not become a reality. But god has a “perfect ” knowledge, which means whatever he knows cannot be incorrect, not in the slightest detail. Since god has supposedly foretold events that will occur, and his knowledge is said to be perfect, one can only assume that he would indeed know the future. If the future is knowable then, his knowledge of it must be perfect.
    Since god has a perfect knowledge of what will happen, then we, and he, cannot possibly change it. If we could, then his knowledge could not be perfect, because it could be wrong. Therefore free will is an illusion. God being all powerful is impossible, because there exist an entire set of events that cannot occur because he knows they won’t.
    Gee your idea of a supernatural god just keeps getting sillier.

  793. on 20 Aug 2014 at 12:47 pm 793.freddies_dead said …

    790.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said … (to DPK)

    I don’t discuss semiconductor theory with with a first grade child

    Probably because the first grade child would know more about it, just like everyone here knows more about science than the self professed “science guy”.

    and I don’t discuss theology with an atheist.

    Once again it’s because the atheists know more about it than A the lying prick.

    There are prerequisites and you don’t meet them.

    Well, when one of the prerequisites is to know less than A the lying prick. That’s a bar so low it’s nearly impossible to get under it. You’d have to look long and hard to find someone who fits the bill and as A the lying prick has said, none of us atheists meet that incredibly low standard.

    Realizing God does exist is step one.

    How can we realise something that doesn’t fit with the facts of reality? A the lying prick has never once given a reason that would cause us to realise anything about his God. All we can do is imagine his God with him and, unfortunately for A the lying prick, it stubbornly remains imaginary as it has no basis in reality.

    What I do is point out the hypocrisy and unreasonable dogma incorporated in atheism.

    Now an honest person would actually point to an instance of them “pointing out hypocrisy” they believe is inherent in atheism to prove their claim, but of course A isn’t honest … he is, after all, a documented liar. He also falls short of demonstrating his claim to point out unreasonable dogma, hardly a surprise as A the lying prick never backs up any of his barely asserted nonsense.

    You run from those and change the subject when they come up because they frighten you.

    And once more A the lying prick resorts to projection, obviously not realising that others don’t share his fears. The fact we’re all here to discuss God whilst A the lying prick refuses to is testament to my point.

    I understand nut you need to confront those demons.

    And back to the imaginary. I wonder if A the lying prick is capable of telling us how we can distinguish his demons from something he may be merely imagining? I’d predict the answer to be “no” but it’s more of an inevitability than a prediction.

  794. on 20 Aug 2014 at 3:09 pm 794.TJ said …

    DPK,

    “No, intent is not “knowledge”.”

    I agree.

    “But god has a “perfect ” knowledge,”

    God claims perfect knowledge of all things knowable. You assume the future is knowable. I don’t agree that we can assume this.

    I simply don’t know.

    Is Revelations a revealing of knowledge or a revealing of intent?

    Is Gods promise to Adam and Eve to send a kinsman redeemer a revealing of knowledge or a revealing of intent?

  795. on 20 Aug 2014 at 3:31 pm 795.freddies_dead said …

    It seems TJ thinks it’s possible his omniscient God doesn’t know the future. This seems to contradict the common notion that God exists outside time – indeed that He created time – and can see all of it before Him.

    Exactly what would be the difference between an omnipotent being “intending” something will happen and “knowing” that it will happen? Surely if an omnipotent entity intends something to happen it will happen?

    This God gets less godlike with each passing moment…

  796. on 20 Aug 2014 at 3:43 pm 796.DPK said …

    “This God gets less godlike with each passing moment…”

    Indeed the mental gymnastics and endless rationalizations required to continue belief grows quickly burdensome.
    TJ, there is a far simpler explanation that does not require a need to continually make up excuses for why your god is indistinguishable from one that is completely imaginary.

  797. on 20 Aug 2014 at 3:55 pm 797.TJ said …

    “Surely if an omnipotent entity intends something to happen it will happen?”

    This is the exact claim of God. That we should have faith in what he says he will do and what he has done.

    It is you guys who repeatedly claim that this situation cancels out free will.

    Surly you do not deny free will? Without a God, how do you account for imagination, emotion, and all the other attributes required for expressing and exercising free will?

    You have dismissed my claims, claiming them unreasonable. Please show me what is reasonable.

  798. on 20 Aug 2014 at 4:21 pm 798.TJ said …

    “TJ, there is a far simpler explanation that does not require a need to continually make up excuses for why your god is indistinguishable from one that is completely imaginary.”

    If this true and the issue has been settled to your own satisfaction, then why do you persist to query me?

    Why not just be done with me?

    You would not routinely visit other sites that discuss imaginary claims… or do you?

    What is it that draws you back each time? What is it you seek?

  799. on 20 Aug 2014 at 6:10 pm 799.alex said …

    “Why not just be done with me?”

    read the url, you dumb motherfucker. it’s an obvious atheist site, but you insist on posting your shit and you keep getting your ass handed to you.

    same reason i curse out the bible humping motherfuckers that keep knocking on my door.

    dumbass bitch.

  800. on 20 Aug 2014 at 6:22 pm 800.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “You would not routinely visit other sites that discuss imaginary claims… or do you?”

    lol!!!!!

    Which is what I have pointed out numerous times. They come back because they are hoping to convince themselves that the cultic dogma of no Creator is true.

    why are there so few atheist if the dogma is so obvious? It’s because atheism is illogical, unreasonable and does not fit what human beings observe. Its really quite obvious. As a man of science, I can only follow where the facts lead.
    :)

  801. on 20 Aug 2014 at 6:47 pm 801.alex said …

    “why are there so few atheist if the dogma is so obvious?”

    why are most of the world’s population not xtians?

    figure it out, bitch, motherfucker.

  802. on 20 Aug 2014 at 7:28 pm 802.DPK said …

    “This is the exact claim of God. That we should have faith in what he says he will do and what he has done.
    It is you guys who repeatedly claim that this situation cancels out free will.
    Surly you do not deny free will?”

    I do not deny free will. Do the math.

    “Without a God, how do you account for imagination, emotion, and all the other attributes required for expressing and exercising free will?”

    How is it you see a magical god necessary for the exercise of free will? My dog has free will. When I call him, he can choose to come, or stay on the couch. What requires a god?

    “If this true and the issue has been settled to your own satisfaction, then why do you persist to query me?”

    Uh, you were the one who came here and asked for discussion. You however, are only interested in “discussion” to the point that your arguments fall apart and your delusion is revealed, then you simply want to preach and have others leave you alone. Doesn’t say much for your position when you have to pull the persecution card when things don’t go your way.

  803. on 20 Aug 2014 at 10:34 pm 803.TJ said …

    “Uh, you were the one who came here and asked for discussion. You however, are only interested in “discussion” to the point that your arguments fall apart…”

    So? When I say “I simply don’t know” in relation to the question “can God Know the future?”. You take this as my argument falls apart.

    What was your argument for how did life arose?

    “How is it you see a magical god necessary for the exercise of free will?”

    How is it you see no need for a source of intelligence for the abundant evidence of an information based universe?

    —————————————–
    “one can only assume that he would indeed know the future.”

    “Indeed the mental gymnastics and endless rationalizations required to continue belief grows quickly burdensome.”

    “God being all powerful is impossible, because there exist an entire set of events that cannot occur because he knows they won’t.”

    “Gee your idea of a supernatural god just keeps getting sillier”
    —————————————–

    My idea of God is based on what the bible says. Your ideas of God are based on what? Things you’ve heard? Things read? Read where? Things you’ve imagined? If not your own imagination then who’s? Certainly not mine.

    “Doesn’t say much for your position when you have to pull the persecution card when things don’t go your way.”

    What persecution card? Defending my stance was respectful before. Making a statement and rationalising it is ok, even if you disagree, but Rationalising why I don’t know is now a problem?

    “I do not deny free will. Do the math.”

    I didn’t claim you did. I asked that if the bible doesn’t explain free will… what does?

    What do you offer me as rational to your claim that God is imaginary? Removing God creates a void in my belief. What is reasonable to replace it… what would you offer as rational in regard to origins?

  804. on 20 Aug 2014 at 11:01 pm 804.TJ said …

    “Which is what I have pointed out numerous times. They come back because they are hoping to convince themselves that the cultic dogma of no Creator is true.”

    This seems a sound rational in light of a lack of explanation from any atheist.

    Alex’s claim is that atheist own this site. The invitation for believers and non-believers to discuss the existence of a God, seems to be a trap for theist to stumble into so they can have their arses handed to them. Anyone who is not an atheist and tries to discuss is by default, a “dumbass bitch, motherfucker”. Same goes for those who knock on his front door to discuss God. He curses them and drives them away, yet actively seeks them out online.

    I visit this site to test my faith. If I cannot defend my beliefs and rationalise them to a disbelieving, occasional hostile, atheistic, anonymous environment such as this site. Then what hope do I have of answering my children’s questions when they come home and ask me questions on faith. How can I answer their doubts, or the doubt of others they talk to. Call it preparation if you will.

    I don’t ask questions I am not prepared to answer myself unless I state otherwise. I do this because I believe I should act towards others in a manner that reflects how I would want others to act towards me. I sometimes fail in this.

    I try to be completely honest or at least what I believe to be honest. I am not perfect, nor do I know all the answers.

    In the end I give only the information I choose to share, as does everyone else. We are essentially all anonymous here on this site.

  805. on 21 Aug 2014 at 1:09 am 805.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “What persecution card? Defending my stance was respectful before. Making a statement and rationalising it is ok, even if you disagree, but Rationalising why I don’t know is now a problem?”

    TJ,

    Have you ever taken psychology? Before, you had a common enemy in Dippity Dew’s eyes, namely me. Now you are going one on one with Dippity Dew and you are now the enemy.

    This is how Dippity and F&M operate. The hide behind a fence and take shots while running from their illogical and often hypocritical positions. It is the same song and dance.

    They will throw around words like Delusional, Santa, Elves, fairy tales, etc, etc but provide zero answers. Origins? Source of morality? Information Theory?, Epistemology? Ontology?

    Nothing…..sigh!

  806. on 21 Aug 2014 at 2:28 pm 806.freddies_dead said …

    797.TJ said …

    “Surely if an omnipotent entity intends something to happen it will happen?”

    This is the exact claim of God. That we should have faith in what he says he will do and what he has done.

    It is you guys who repeatedly claim that this situation cancels out free will.

    Because if what the omnipotent entity intends to happen will happen, then my free will is abrogated. There is nothing I could choose to do or say that will stop what that God intends to happen.

    Surly you do not deny free will? Without a God, how do you account for imagination, emotion, and all the other attributes required for expressing and exercising free will?

    Imagination and emotion are simply attributes of some biological organisms. Why should I assume that they are God given without evidence that such a God exists?

    You have dismissed my claims, claiming them unreasonable. Please show me what is reasonable.

    I’ve already said, it is reasonable to say that free will cannot exist in the face of an omnimax deity with a plan, it’s simply impossible for me to freely choose something that goes against what the deity knows/intends will happen. Such a deity is put forward by the Christian Bible and yet it also claims that people have free will. I’m glad this contradiction isn’t my problem.

  807. on 21 Aug 2014 at 2:32 pm 807.freddies_dead said …

    800.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said … (to TJ)

    Which is what I have pointed out numerous times. They come back because they are hoping to convince themselves that the cultic dogma of no Creator is true.

    I don’t need to convince myself of the non-existence of A the lying prick’s God, the facts do that for me. Existence exists, consciousness exists, to exist is to be something specific i.e. identity, the other laws of logic are corollaries of identity. We can then determine the correct relationship between objects that exist and the subjects that are aware of them. We can see that existence holds metaphysical primacy as things are what they are independently of what anyone may think, wish, demand etc… As we now know existence holds primacy we can discard any claims which rely on consciousness holding primacy i.e. any claims that include a creator God.

    why are there so few atheist if the dogma is so obvious?

    Argumentum ad populum fallacy – the truth of something isn’t affected by how many people believe it.

    It’s because atheism is illogical, unreasonable and does not fit what human beings observe.

    On the contrary atheism fits what we observe perfectly. We see a universe where the objects in it are independent of any consciousness that is aware of them – don’t believe me just try turning your keyboard into a goat by willing it. It is this principle – the metaphysical primacy of existence – which means gods are impossible. To claim a god exists is a performative contradiction. A the lying prick affirms the primacy of existence when claiming that “God exists” is true independently of what anyone thinks, wishes, demands. However, he is also affirming the primacy of consciousness – that objects are dependent on any consciousness that is aware of them – when he claims that a God created everything ex nihilo through its will alone.

    Its really quite obvious. As a man of science, I can only follow where the facts lead.
    :)

    If only wishing made it so like A the lying prick’s worldview claims. Those facts just keep stubbornly refusing to fit with the existence of a god.

  808. on 21 Aug 2014 at 5:21 pm 808.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Argumentum ad populum fallacy?

    Actually it was not an argument, just a question. Context is not a wrong suit for you, huh? However majority opinion is also not necessarily wrong

    And you failed to answer. Lol!!

    “On the contrary atheism fits what we observe perfectly”

    Nope not even close. And which is why atheism remains a small cult. We observe design, complexity, high information systems all throughout creation. We observe these systems from cells to galaxies and such order is what we observe with intelligence. The atheist belied system leaves no room for intelligence.

  809. on 22 Aug 2014 at 1:02 am 809.TJ said …

    freddies_dead said,

    “Because if what the omnipotent entity intends to happen will happen, then my free will is abrogated. There is nothing I could choose to do or say that will stop what that God intends to happen.”

    If God’s plan is to accept those who believe in him and reject those that reject him. And if the Bible reveals how and why he intends to make this happen. How is your choice of the two options unable to be made?

    “Imagination and emotion are simply attributes of some biological organisms.”

    Do you believe we can create artificial Imagination and emotion?
    Do you think imagination and emotion are requirements for intelligence?
    To create the holy grail of science, artificial intelligence, do we need to look to biological computing, rather than the current elemental based computing?
    If so, would that be considered artificial?
    If a chimp is 99% the same DNA (biological organism) as humans, then why do we see a vast difference in the output of intelligence?

    ————————————————-
    Ultimately freddies_dead, the differences between your world view and mine is in this origin…

    Yours… existence is the creator of consciousness.

    Mine… consciousness is the creator of existence.

    would you agree?

    This quote from a site titled “Primacy of Existence vs. Primacy of Consciousness”

    “The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity.”

    God as the Primacy of Consciousness.
    God claims that the reality is his formless conscious eternal state was the only thing to have existed. He makes statements regarding his nature, love, power, knowledge etc and maintains “I am what I am”. This is similar to “that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity”. God is very specific to his identity and nature.

    You drew attention to The Prickly Science Guy saying… ” However, he is also affirming the primacy of consciousness – that objects are dependent on any consciousness that is aware of them – when he claims that a God created everything ex nihilo through its will alone.”

    I would add that God states that “the only begotten Son of the Father”, “the first born of creation “, “the Word” is the only thing that was created purely from the power/will of the Prime Formless Consciousness.

    Everything else is created through the existence of this first form, the identity and personification of the Prime Formless Consciousness.

    Ultimately this is one absolute truth that God asks you to accept… by choice, albeit God warns rejecting it and Him will not be without consequence.

  810. on 22 Aug 2014 at 1:19 am 810.TJ said …

    The Prickly Science Guy

    Nothing…..sigh!

    …and don’t forget your faith and mine are baseless… imaginary… lol.

    You and I may not agree on all the details for sure. But according to our belief in God. To reject him is to have one foot in the grave, to have a little faith is to leave the door ajar for Christ to enter. A saying, I’m sure will be lost on them.

  811. on 22 Aug 2014 at 1:23 pm 811.freddies_dead said …

    808.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Argumentum ad populum fallacy?

    Actually it was not an argument, just a question.

    The implication behind the question was quite clear.

    Context is not a wrong suit for you, huh?

    Word salad.

    However majority opinion is also not necessarily wrong

    This is irrelevant as I never claimed that it was.

    And you failed to answer. Lol!!

    A the lying prick’s question wasn’t actually directed at me so I was under no obligation to answer it. Also, when you break the question down, you will note that not only does it commit the argumentum ad populum fallacy, it is also a loaded question i.e. the question presupposes that atheist “dogma” exists, something A the lying prick hasn’t demonstrated.

    “On the contrary atheism fits what we observe perfectly”

    Nope not even close.

    No, not close, perfectly.

    And which is why atheism remains a small cult.

    Note that A the lying prick offers no supporting argument for this barely asserted nonsense. He doesn’t even show how atheism can be called a cult given the standard definitions of the word.

    We observe design,

    George H. Smith says it nicely in his book Atheism: The Case Against God

    “Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning. (p. 268)”

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

    complexity, high information systems

    A the lying prick has failed on several occasions to define what he means by “complexity” or “high information”. They’re just buzzwords that he thinks support his argument. However, his argument is self defeating. If complex, high information systems can only come about from a similarly complex and high information source while that complex and high information source wasn’t created, the argument shows that we don’t actually need a complex and high information source in order to get complexity and high information.

    all throughout creation.

    A the lying prick is yet to demonstrate the existence of any “creation”.

    We observe these systems from cells to galaxies and such order is what we observe with intelligence.

    Back to A the lying prick’s self defeating argument. Trying to infer some sort of designed order from within a system where everything is alleged to be designed giving him nothing to compare “design” against.

    The atheist belied system leaves no room for intelligence.

    Note that A the lying prick offers no supporting argument for this barely asserted nonsense.

  812. on 22 Aug 2014 at 1:37 pm 812.freddies_dead said …

    809.TJ said …

    freddies_dead said,

    “Because if what the omnipotent entity intends to happen will happen, then my free will is abrogated. There is nothing I could choose to do or say that will stop what that God intends to happen.”

    If God’s plan is to accept those who believe in him and reject those that reject him. And if the Bible reveals how and why he intends to make this happen. How is your choice of the two options unable to be made?

    I do love the way you continuously downgrade your God. The Bible speaks of an all knowing, all powerful God with a plan for His own glory. Nothing happens but through the will of this God but hey, despite all those claims, we can apparently still make choices that this all knowing God doesn’t know we’ll make. I get that you have to do these mental gymnastics to try and avoid the absurdity inherent in Christianity but it’s not working. I’m glad it’s not my problem.

    “Imagination and emotion are simply attributes of some biological organisms.”

    Do you believe we can create artificial Imagination and emotion?
    Do you think imagination and emotion are requirements for intelligence?
    To create the holy grail of science, artificial intelligence, do we need to look to biological computing, rather than the current elemental based computing?
    If so, would that be considered artificial?
    If a chimp is 99% the same DNA (biological organism) as humans, then why do we see a vast difference in the output of intelligence?

    Whilst these questions are interesting scientifically I’m wondering what they have to do with this philosophical discussion? I asked why I should accept that imagination and emotion are God given when there’s no evidence that said God exists. Do you have an answer for that or will you resort to more red herrings?

    ————————————————-
    Ultimately freddies_dead, the differences between your world view and mine is in this origin…

    Yours… existence is the creator of consciousness.

    Mine… consciousness is the creator of existence.

    would you agree?

    Not really. The difference comes in recognising the relationship between objects and the subjects that are aware of them. Your worldview affirms that consciousness holds metaphysical primacy over existence whereas I acknowledge that it is existence that holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness. Whilst your view does make the claim that God willed everything into existence, mine makes no similar claim regarding existence “creating” consciousness. Consciousness isn’t necessary just because existence exists, existence would carry on existing even if there were no consciousnesses around to be aware of it. That’s the whole point of objects existing independently of the subjects that may be aware of them.

    This quote from a site titled “Primacy of Existence vs. Primacy of Consciousness”

    “The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity.”

    The rest of that quote:
    “The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness).”

    God as the Primacy of Consciousness.
    God claims that the reality is his formless conscious eternal state was the only thing to have existed.

    And I should accept this claim why? Is it true independent of what anyone may think, wish, demand etc…? In which case you’re stealing concepts from my worldview in order to deny it. I can imagine a “formless conscious eternal state” but how do I distinguish your God from what I am imagining?

    He makes statements regarding his nature, love, power, knowledge etc and maintains “I am what I am”.

    Again you give no reason why I should accept these statements, especially in light of the fact that you must steal concepts – like truth – from my worldview in order to deny my worldview.

    This is similar to “that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity”. God is very specific to his identity and nature.

    Actually the writers of the Bible claim that God was very specific about His identity and nature but they don’t explain how I can distinguish between their God and what they may be imagining either.

    You drew attention to The Prickly Science Guy saying… ” However, he is also affirming the primacy of consciousness – that objects are dependent on any consciousness that is aware of them – when he claims that a God created everything ex nihilo through its will alone.”

    I would add that God states that “the only begotten Son of the Father”, “the first born of creation “, “the Word” is the only thing that was created purely from the power/will of the Prime Formless Consciousness.

    Everything else is created through the existence of this first form, the identity and personification of the Prime Formless Consciousness.

    What is this supposed to mean? Are you trying to claim He only created Jesus and everything else just kind of turned up? That seems to disagree quite considerably with the claims made in Genesis.

    Ultimately this is one absolute truth that God asks you to accept… by choice, albeit God warns rejecting it and Him will not be without consequence.

    Once more, truth only makes sense in a reality where existence holds metaphysical primacy, so your claim here commits the fallacy of the stolen concept by co-opting truth while denying its foundation.

  813. on 22 Aug 2014 at 4:10 pm 813.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    F&M posting as Dead Freddie said:

    “The implication behind the question was quite clear.”

    True, the implication atheism is illogical and unreasonable and thus the primary reason after multiple centuries it remains a small cult.

    “offers no supporting argument”

    Only for those who refuse to recognize the processes, logic and order that surrounds all of us.

    “George H. Smith says it nicely”

    Fallacious, Appeal to a “so-called” authority who is a part of the cult. Dismissed! lol!!

    “if everything is designed you cannot discern design.”

    Completely untrue. I witness the effects of a tornado, hurricane or even an earthquake and recognize an event that brought only chaos, not design. Witness a 150 yr old home that never has a man maintaining the structure and watch what happens after 50 yrs of “Nature the master designer” acting on the structure. You witness deterioration and destruction. Now when I visit the Guggenheim I recognize design. Dismissed!

    “define what he means by “complexity” or “high information””

    I didn’t defined the word “is” either. lol!! The fact you need those words defined says it all!

    “demonstrate the existence of any “creation”.

    ROTFL!!!!!!

    This is the funniest of them all! You know, a chimp doesn’t recognize the existence of a creation either. Is it possible dead Freddie is actually “Talking Chimp”? Something to consider.

  814. on 24 Aug 2014 at 1:23 am 814.TJ said …

    freddies_dead said

    The rest of that quote:
    “The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness).”

    …man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. Then what?

    He doesn’t process and rationalise what he sees from within? When he doesn’t know, he doesn’t look to revelations he receives from another? ie ask someone else.

    Observation does not provide knowledge without interpretation from within.
    —————————————

    “What is this supposed to mean? Are you trying to claim He only created Jesus and everything else just kind of turned up? That seems to disagree quite considerably with the claims made in Genesis.”

    Colossians 1:15-17
    “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”
    —————————————–

    Your statement that I steal from your world-view is stupid and unworthy of comment beyond my initial admit-ion that I was unashamed to admit I didn’t understand your initial statement regarding “Primacy of Existence”… I had to look it up.

    My claims have not changed since I began here, let alone with the knowledge of your world view.
    —————————————-

    “Actually the writers of the Bible claim that God was very specific about His identity and nature but they don’t explain how I can distinguish between their God and what they may be imagining either.”

    Why would they feel the need to distinguish their matter of fact statements, written as scripture to their people, who claim to be “Gods people”?

    Why would I claim that I have faith and believe by choice, that which is written in the Bible. And then attempt to convince you I didn’t imagine God?
    —————————————–

    “I do love the way you continuously downgrade your God. ”

    Downgrading from what? I run with what is written of God.

    You said…
    “I’ve already said, it is reasonable to say that free will cannot exist in the face of an omnimax deity with a plan, it’s simply impossible for me to freely choose something that goes against what the deity knows/intends will happen. Such a deity is put forward by the Christian Bible and yet it also claims that people have free will. I’m glad this contradiction isn’t my problem.”

    The deity could still give us free will, or it wouldn’t be omnipotent. The bible puts forward God’s plan that requires man’s free will as a key factor. Your argument is null.

    The Bible simply does not put forward a Deity according your claim. The issue is not what the Bible says about such a deity, the issue is what you have been led to believe and conclude on what the bible says based on either your own interpretation or the interpretations of others. I’m glad this contradiction isn’t my problem.”

    Unless you can prove your claims from the biblical texts about what they say, why should I believe you and simply not conclude the simplest explanation? That you imagined this God you keep referring to.

    Or are you going to claim I’m stealing your argument again?

  815. on 24 Aug 2014 at 3:50 pm 815.alex said …

    bleh, bleh, motherfucking bleh. hesus, allah and all the rest are just bullshit. “Ambi”, the ambivalent, omniponent One is the real deal.

  816. on 24 Aug 2014 at 11:16 pm 816.TJ said …

    Awww, you feeling neglected Alex?

    Here is a bone for you…

    Quoted from web site titled…

    ——————————————
    From Algae to Oil in Minutes, Not Millions

    Engineers at the Department of Energy‘s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory have devised a way to turn algae into crude oil in less than an hour. That oil can then be refined into gasoline that can run engines.

    “Well, it is a basically simple process that uses temperature, pressure, and time to accomplish the chemical conversions,” Jim explains. “A lot of people think of fossil fuels as, you know, dinosaurs and giant ferns and things. There is some of that, but the bulk of the organic matter was algae. Gradually the organic matter converts into slightly different forms, which make up the material that comes out as crude oil or natural gas.”

    So you’re duplicating that process?

    “Yes. We’re taking organic matter – in this case we’re talking about algae – and we make it into a water slurry so the algae is mixed in water, about 20 percent algae in the water. Then we simply pump that up to a high pressure and heat it. After it’s up at pressure we heat it and we maintain it and hold it at that temperature and keep it moving so it mixes with itself for about 20 to 30 minutes. And during that time the chemical conversions can take place so that the oil is produced in the form of crude oil.”

    This process is almost identical to the natural development of fossil crude oil.

    Does this create crude oil that can be used right away, or does it need to be converted somehow?

    “It can go straight into existing infrastructure. This is something that everybody’s familiar with. We know how to do this. And it’s a very efficient process, so being able to just provide a drop in addition to the fossil fuel supply is obviously interesting and important.”

    Does this work with just one type of algae?

    “It’s all algae, but it’s actually much more than that and much better than that. It’s really anything organic.”

    Wow. So…anything?

    “We could use waste materials. So things that are sort of hard to process, hard to get rid of, like food processing waste or animal waste, like cow manure from dairy or feedlots; waste from human-generated activities, like what’s in the barrels that you put out to the curb or in waste-water solids, which is otherwise known as sewage; and all kinds of things.”
    ———————————————–

    From another site…

    The PNNL team created a continuous process that starts with the wet algae and subjects the entire mass – water, algae, and all – to high temperatures and pressures, in this case, 350ºC (662ºF) and 3,000 psi.

    “It’s a bit like using a pressure cooker, only the pressures and temperatures we use are much higher,” said Laboratory Fellow Douglas Elliott, the leader of the research team. “In a sense, we are duplicating the process in the earth that converted algae into oil over the course of millions of years. We’re just doing it much, much faster.”

    ————————————-

    We know that both temperature and heat can be found in abundance within the earth. We know that the required temp and pressure can be found at the level required and far above those levels. The articles above both attribute the process to nature.

    To make sense of the vast quantities of oil found over the entire globe, we need to account for the vast amounts of organic matter required to be converted. We also need to account for vast amount of water needed to complete the process.

    If you rule out the global flood covering the entire earth, uplifting, overturning and resurfacing the earth destroying all life in order to wipe away all traces of previous man’s activities as described in the Bible and confirmed by Jesus.

    Then how do we explain what we observe and know regarding natural oil deposits?

  817. on 25 Aug 2014 at 12:13 am 817.alex said …

    awww, the tj bitch motherfucker’s porn not loading fast enough? tip. ctrl-t will open up as many porn tabs as you need. see, this will keep your hand busy instead of pasting your bullshit in this site.

    likey?

  818. on 25 Aug 2014 at 2:17 am 818.TJ said …

    lol, wanking tips from Alex.

  819. on 25 Aug 2014 at 2:35 am 819.alex said …

    here’s something to wank on, you dumb motherfucker.

    dating methods prove the earth is more 10,000 years old. how’s that?

    care to even guess/calculate/measure under what conditions these dating methods would be false?

    wank on that.

  820. on 25 Aug 2014 at 11:12 pm 820.TJ said …

    “care to even guess/calculate/measure under what conditions these dating methods would be false?”

    Sure, take the data derived from controlled lab testing and apply varied factors. ie change the heat, pressure, concentration, humidity and any other related factors and find the optimal conditions for elemental decay.

    Just like they did in determining the optimal conditions for creating oil, just like they did for growing diamonds, just like they do for all other processes they wish to obtain the most effect in the shortest time.

    Then we will see if the time requirements associated to dating methods holds strong. Till then, we both only got theory.

    The only reason this isn’t happening is because it is unacceptable to challenge long age dogma. It is unaccepted in the scientific community and it is unaccepted by closed minded individuals like you, who cannot answer any reasonable questions put to them.

    Tell me, why would all the dinosaur bones found in “Death Valley” have a cadaverous odour about them if they are as old as they are assumed to be?

    Why would they appear to have a freshness inside them when they are cut open?

    “dating methods prove the earth is more 10,000 years old. how’s that?”

    There is no proof of your claim, only theory based on calculations based on results from controlled conditions. The controlled conditions ignore all other theory that preach a environment change/conditions over time.

    Rocks created in the Mt St Helens eruption (1986), when tested, gave dates wildly inconsistent with known factors. Instead of questioning the dating method theory, the scientists doing the tests where deemed incompetent.

    Independent testing confirmed the results, but again the theory is not at fault, explanations include… “very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples.”
    followed by…
    “For older samples, which contain more 40Ar, the contamination is diluted and has insignificant effects.”

    Other statements like this… ” A few thousand years are not enough time for 40Ar to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be detected and quantified.”

    Tell me what proof is there to support the above statement? What experiment can be done to show this to be true? Should we place known, newly formed rocks at various locations around the world at different depths and conditions as well controlled lab samples and routinely test them every hundred years or so? How could we avoid contamination in digging them up to test? Who could be trusted to keep the equipment clean?

    Has anything like this been done? How else would we know for sure?

    Alex, you say there is proof of an earth older than 10000 years… show me?

  821. on 25 Aug 2014 at 11:30 pm 821.alex said …

    “…dinosaur bones found in “Death Valley” have a cadaverous odour…”

    your proof for the 10,000 year old earth?

    hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahaklollolololoolol.
    rotfl, lmao. heh. heh. heh. guffaw. ho.hohoho.

    stop it! you’re killing me.

    this post just made the top of your shit list: http://goo.gl/5wWrHF

  822. on 25 Aug 2014 at 11:37 pm 822.alex said …

    even if a dinosaur bone was found that’s only 10 years old, how the fuck does that invalidate million year old fossils?

    i’m still laughing at your cadaverous shit… heh, heh.

    even if all atheists are all full of shit and all science is full of shit, how the fuck does that validate your god? still don’t get it do ya?

    once more. even if the theory of gravity is bogus, your god still doesn’t cause planetary motion. do i need to keep going?

    your diversions are old. now, go fuck yourself.

  823. on 26 Aug 2014 at 3:37 pm 823.TJ said …

    “…dinosaur bones found in “Death Valley” have a cadaverous odour…”

    your proof for the 10,000 year old earth?

    No, one of my reasons for doubting alleged ages of fossils. So…

    “even if a dinosaur bone was found that’s only 10 years old, how the fuck does that invalidate million year old fossils?”

    I’m talking about time frames required for fossilisation to occur and you state the above!?

    Comprehension a challenge?

    I made no claims of proof of anything.

    You however, Alex, you say there is proof of an earth older than 10000 years… show me?

  824. on 26 Aug 2014 at 3:59 pm 824.alex said …

    “You however, Alex, you say there is proof of an earth older than 10000 years… show me?”

    you are an idiot. are you going to ask me to prove that light travels at 186,000mps?

    you’re the idiot that asserted that the earth is 10,000 years old, didn’t you. i’ll just say i’m wrong about the earth being older than 10,000 years old, you happy, ya dumb motherfucker.

    your turn. your 10,000 year old proof?

  825. on 26 Aug 2014 at 11:47 pm 825.TJ said …

    “your turn. your 10,000 year old proof?”

    Never made a claim that I had proof. You’ve seen fit to record all my words. Go to your link, check what I said.

    I only claimed a literal reading of biblical text makes the claim. I claimed that I had faith in the Bible based on an overwhelming personal experience, a spiritual revelation of my own personal salvation through Jesus Christ’s sacrifice. I claimed that this was truth relevant to me because I was the one to experience it. I claimed I had no other proof, besides my personal testimony that would be sufficient.

    I also claimed that all scientific theory regarding origins is unprovable and based solely on a belief that God does not exist.

    We also discussed on this site the differences between scientific theory and scientific law.

    By definition of scientific theory, an ability to show processes/attributes ascribed to said theory as unneeded, are grounds for a revision of that said theory. I claimed that this never happens in the sense of moving away from the assumption of no God required.

    I also claimed that scientific origin theory is a belief system. I claimed that I support scientific methods as reliable and useful, but reject the underlying beliefs that drive scientific direction and focus in regard to origins.

    I also claim that God of the Bible is the creator of all things. I also claim to believe that this is an absolute truth.

    I claim that all theory provided to suggest otherwise is full of assumptions and that the evidence, whether for creation, evolution or otherwise are the same. That it is the interpretation of the same evidences based on pre-conceived ideas that makes the difference… not the evidence itself.

    I also claim to be bias in my beliefs.

    You believe nothing, except God is imaginary… and seat belts.

    What happened Alex?

    What made you feel so strongly about God that you completely reject him?

    What stops you from critically thinking your way through the mountains of theory that try to explain him away into non-existence?

    Remember I also claimed to want to discuss the existence of a God. And don’t forget that you are not required to talk to me.

  826. on 27 Aug 2014 at 12:06 am 826.alex said …

    “You believe nothing, except God is imaginary… and seat belts.”

    you are a typical, lying, xtian. show me where I said that? didn’t i say i believed in gravity? didn’t i say i believe in “Ambi”, the ambivalent god? why is your fucked up god making you lie, ya bitch?

    “What made you feel so strongly about God that you completely reject him?”

    wrong again, beeyatch, motherfucker. i dismissively and trivially reject your own personal god just like the rest. puleeze, using “strongly reject” to try to glorify your fucked up god? what what a dumb motherfucker you truly are.

    ask yourself the same question. why do you completely reject allah? you dumb motherfucker?

    did i say you’re a dumb ass, lying, bitch, piece of shit?

  827. on 27 Aug 2014 at 4:25 am 827.TJ said …

    ““You believe nothing, except God is imaginary… and seat belts.””
    My bad, you mention more beliefs and an ambivalent god named “Ambi”.

    ask yourself the same question. why do you completely reject allah?

    Because I believe in the God of the Bible and salvation through Jesus Christ… I thought this was clear?

  828. on 27 Aug 2014 at 11:39 am 828.alex said …

    “Because I believe in the God of the Bible and salvation through Jesus Christ”

    just keep repeating it, you dumb motherfucker. all this crap about not believing in dating methods, ice layers, erosion patterns, and the speed of light is just a bunch of diversions ain’t it? your christ claim ain’t no different than the zeus claim ain’t it? or the allah claim, ain’t it?

    even though the proof for the old earth is readily available, it doesn’t matter to you does it? you cling to your 10,000 year old shit just like the rest of your morons cling to the ark, genesis and the rest of the crap. proof is everywhere and that’s why it’s taught in academia. you want people to believe your 10,000 year old shit, prove it, ya bitch ass, motherfucker.

    you got nothing. now, go fuck yourself, you dumbass motherfucker.

  829. on 27 Aug 2014 at 12:33 pm 829.freddies_dead said …

    813.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    F&M posting as Dead Freddie said:

    “The implication behind the question was quite clear.”

    True, the implication atheism is illogical and unreasonable and thus the primary reason after multiple centuries it remains a small cult.

    Finally the lying prick confirms using the argumentum ad populum fallacy after previously denying it. We can carry on dismissing his statements regarding the truth of atheism being relative to the number of atheists as the fallacious nonsense they are.

    “offers no supporting argument”

    Only for those who refuse to recognize the processes, logic and order that surrounds all of us.

    I recognise them wholeheartedly but where is the lying prick’s argument that demonstrates said order comes from his God and is why “atheism remains a small cult” (note that he still hasn’t demonstrated that atheism is actually a cult either). Instead he simply asserts it … again and provides no supporting argument … again.

    “George H. Smith says it nicely”

    Fallacious, Appeal to a “so-called” authority who is a part of the cult. Dismissed! lol!!

    And here the lying prick shows his ignorance of the meaning behind certain fallacies. I never claimed that the argument was true because George H. Smith said it. Instead I simply offered up the argument that intelligent design is self-defeating as he presented it, which the lying prick was utterly unable to deal with.

    “if everything is designed you cannot discern design.”

    Completely untrue.

    It’s not but this should be fun…

    I witness the effects of a tornado, hurricane or even an earthquake and recognize an event that brought only chaos, not design.

    Just how does A the lying prick know that those tornadoes, hurricanes or earthquakes bought chaos? He hasn’t yet explained how we can differentiate between what is designed and what isn’t. In fact his worldview states that everything – including these occurrences – were designed by his creator. Or perhaps the lying prick doesn’t think his God has anything to do with tornadoes, hurricanes or earthquakes? If that’s the case why should we accept the need for a creator at all?

    Witness a 150 yr old home that never has a man maintaining the structure and watch what happens after 50 yrs of “Nature the master designer” acting on the structure.

    Here A is still making my point for me. He assumes that nature has actually been designed by his creator but is desperate to retain nature as a reference point from which to discern design. Unfortunately for him he cannot have this cake and eat it too.

    You witness deterioration and destruction. Now when I visit the Guggenheim I recognize design. Dismissed!

    And here A the lying prick simply reasserts his self-defeating argument. Just how does he discern design when apparently everything has been designed by his God? He never answers this question. In fact he singularly fails to show how he can distinguish anything which is designed. His worldview insists that the sand that makes up a beach is every bit as designed as the Chevy he’s found washed up on it.

    “define what he means by “complexity” or “high information””

    I didn’t defined the word “is” either. lol!! The fact you need those words defined says it all!

    This is true hypocrisy at work after he insisted I define my terms earlier in this thread. It’s actually the fact that the lying prick cannot define those words which says it all. He’s read them on some other IDiot’s site and figures they sound good. However, as soon as he’s pressed on what they actually mean he has to back away and try to dodge the question. Just like he’s doing now.

    “demonstrate the existence of any “creation”.

    ROTFL!!!!!!

    This is the funniest of them all! You know, a chimp doesn’t recognize the existence of a creation either. Is it possible dead Freddie is actually “Talking Chimp”? Something to consider.

    Note that the lying prick makes absolutely no effort to actually demonstrate that the existence we experience is a creation. Instead he throws out some red-herring about chimps that doesn’t even address the question let alone answer it. Now that really is something to consider.

  830. on 27 Aug 2014 at 12:47 pm 830.freddies_dead said …

    814.TJ said …

    freddies_dead said

    The rest of that quote:
    “The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness).”

    …man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. Then what?

    He doesn’t process and rationalise what he sees from within?

    True, man needs a process as knowledge isn’t automatic. Objectivism states that man uses reason as a way to understand reality abstractly and logically. He becomes aware of reality through his senses and is able to form abstractions that correspond to multiple items at the same time. The ability to grasp reality this way is the essence of reason. Logic is the “art of non-contradictory identification”. Two contradicting ideas cannot be true and if an idea contradicts what we can observe then it must be false.

    When he doesn’t know, he doesn’t look to revelations he receives from another? ie ask someone else.

    Asking someone else is still looking outward at reality and there’s no requirement to accept what they say unless they can show that they came by their answer by objective and logically reasoned means.

    Observation does not provide knowledge without interpretation from within.

    Which is why we have reason to enable us to integrate our observations in a non-contradictory manner.
    —————————————

    “What is this supposed to mean? Are you trying to claim He only created Jesus and everything else just kind of turned up? That seems to disagree quite considerably with the claims made in Genesis.”

    Colossians 1:15-17
    “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”

    How does this answer my question? Your original claim seemed to be that God only created Jesus, a doctrine which contradicts the rest of the Bible. Even the first verse you give us states he’s the “image of the invisible God” not a creation of God. He is the “firstborn” not the “first created”. Firstborn refers to Jesus’ rank.
    —————————————–

    Your statement that I steal from your world-view is stupid and unworthy of comment beyond my initial admit-ion that I was unashamed to admit I didn’t understand your initial statement regarding “Primacy of Existence”… I had to look it up.

    If that is the case then you’ll have no problem accounting for truth when your worldview affirms that consciousness holds primacy over the objects it’s aware of. Please show how the proposition “grass is green” could possibly be considered “true” given your worldview’s affirmation that consciousness is capable of changing the colour of grass at will?

    My claims have not changed since I began here, let alone with the knowledge of your world view.

    I didn’t expect them to. As the saying goes, you cannot reason a person out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
    —————————————-

    “Actually the writers of the Bible claim that God was very specific about His identity and nature but they don’t explain how I can distinguish between their God and what they may be imagining either.”

    Why would they feel the need to distinguish their matter of fact statements, written as scripture to their people, who claim to be “Gods people”?

    In what way are their statements “matter[s] of fact”? That suggests that they are true irrespective of what anyone may think, feel, wish etc… but, instead, those statements affirm the Primacy of Consciousness meaning the statements aren’t “matter[s] of fact” but subject to the whim of consciousness. If they would like me to accept those statements (which is, I believe, at least partly the point of making them) it would have been a good idea to demonstrate that their God wasn’t just a figment of their imaginations.

    Why would I claim that I have faith and believe by choice, that which is written in the Bible. And then attempt to convince you I didn’t imagine God?

    So you’re not interested in convincing others that you’re not simply imagining the God you believe in? Your choice.
    —————————————–

    “I do love the way you continuously downgrade your God. ”

    Downgrading from what? I run with what is written of God.

    Where is it written that the future is unknowable to your God? A God that is claimed by the Bible to be all knowing.

    You said…
    “I’ve already said, it is reasonable to say that free will cannot exist in the face of an omnimax deity with a plan, it’s simply impossible for me to freely choose something that goes against what the deity knows/intends will happen. Such a deity is put forward by the Christian Bible and yet it also claims that people have free will. I’m glad this contradiction isn’t my problem.”

    The deity could still give us free will, or it wouldn’t be omnipotent.

    I fully understand that the concept of omnipotence contradicts the concept of omniscience in much the same way that omniscience then rules out free will. However, these aren’t my problems. Theoretically God could give up omniscience to enable us to have free will but then He wouldn’t be omniscient and therefore NOT the God described in the Bible.

    The bible puts forward God’s plan that requires man’s free will as a key factor. Your argument is null.

    Just because your Bible makes the claim that we have free will, there’s no onus on me to accept it, especially when it makes other claims that directly contradict that initial claim. My argument still stands, unless you wish to present us with an answer to the original question “Is there a situation where God knows I will do X that I can actually do Y (where Y is something other than the X that God ‘knows’ I will do)?” in a way that doesn’t call either God’s omniscience or our alleged free will into doubt.

    The Bible simply does not put forward a Deity according your claim.

    In what way doesn’t the Bible present an all knowing, all powerful creator of all that exists with a plan?

    The issue is not what the Bible says about such a deity,

    And yet that is where I get my information concerning the Christian God. Is there somewhere else that is a better option?

    the issue is what you have been led to believe and conclude on what the bible says based on either your own interpretation or the interpretations of others.

    On whose interpretations am I supposed to base my conclusions if not my own? Hell, you’ve even said that people should read the Bible for themselves. Now you don’t seem happy with what I’ve found by doing so.

    I’m glad this contradiction isn’t my problem.”

    You’ve failed to show any contradiction in my conclusion so it seems this is not anyone’s problem.

    Unless you can prove your claims from the biblical texts about what they say, why should I believe you and simply not conclude the simplest explanation? That you imagined this God you keep referring to.

    Which claims have I failed to prove?

    That God is all knowing?
    Job 37:15-16 “Do you know how God establishes them, And makes the lightning of His cloud to shine? Do you know about the layers of the thick clouds, The wonders of one perfect in knowledge,”
    Hebrews 4:12-13 “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.”

    That God is all powerful?
    Mark 10:27 “Jesus looked at them and said, ‘With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.’”

    That He is the creator of all things?
    Isaiah 44:24 “This is what the LORD says — your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself.”

    That He has a plan?
    Isaiah 46:10-11 “I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.’ From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that I will bring about; what I have planned, that I will do.”

    If you can tell me how I can distinguish between your God and what you may merely be imagining then I wouldn’t have to imagine that God for myself.

    Or are you going to claim I’m stealing your argument again?

    I never claimed you were stealing my argument, I pointed out that you had to steal concepts – in this case “truth” – from my worldview in order to make your own argument.

  831. on 27 Aug 2014 at 10:09 pm 831.TJ said …

    To Alex,
    Go on then, tell me what I should know about our origins then… what do you believe?

  832. on 27 Aug 2014 at 10:47 pm 832.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    All the Bible quotes you use do not detract from a God of Omniscience. The quotes you use either illustrate Gods full knowledge of the natural laws and workings of the creation, his ability to see all and judge the thoughts and actions of men… not direct them or judge before they happen and his ability to impose his own will regardless.

    Look you nailed it right here…
    “On whose interpretations am I supposed to base my conclusions if not my own? Hell, you’ve even said that people should read the Bible for themselves.”

    Yep. I’ve discussed my interpretation and you’ve discussed yours. I highly respect you on this alone. I don’t ask anything more of you, unless you have a theory on origins you would like to share.

    It’s not easy to express your beliefs, it leaves you vulnerable and exposed.

    I appreciate your ability to show reason and common decency in discussion. We may not agree but who’s to say who’s right and who’s wrong? I have faith in my claims and without a relevant “spiritual” experience I don’t expect anyone to understand the impact of such an experience. I certainly didn’t prior to mine.

    So cheers mate. There’s not much else to it. Everything else would be me speculating and twisting things to suit my statements. Faith is faith and scepticism in all things is healthy. Best of luck and God bless you.

  833. on 28 Aug 2014 at 1:31 am 833.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    F&M posting as Dead Freddie said”

    “Finally the lying prick confirms using the argumentum ad populum fallacy after previously denying it.”

    True…..not the accepted definition but your wrong definition. You don’t recognize argument from an observation. That’s your problem…:)

    “I recognise them wholeheartedly but where is……..argument that demonstrates said order comes from his God”

    Left out F&M ugliness :), but here F&M lies. He does not recognize that order, information and complexity must come from intelligence. This has been demonstrated many times and daily.

    “I never claimed that the argument was true because George H. Smith said it. \”

    Again,,,,I was using your definitions :). Quite funny you took it seriously….lol!!!! Anywho, his observations add nothing.

    “He hasn’t yet explained how we can differentiate between what is designed and what isn’t”

    LOL!!!!!!! Now this is quite funny. F&M are you telling us if you walk into the Guggenheim you would not be able to figure out it was designed? seriously? It’s not obvious to you?

    ROTFL!!!!!!!! You really must be a chimp since they cannot discern that either! DNA is highly complex, like the Guggenheim, it needs a programmer there slick! lol!!!!

    “He assumes that nature has actually been designed by his creator but is desperate to retain nature as a reference point from which to discern design.”

    lol!!!!! huh???

    “apparently everything has been designed by his God?”

    HUH? I never said any such thing. God created the Universe, man created the Guggenheim, Macs, televisions, etc, etc, etc,. Yes, good created most men with the ability to think and produce, accept for talking chimps…lol!!!!

  834. on 28 Aug 2014 at 3:51 pm 834.freddies_dead said …

    833.A the lying reick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    F&M posting as Dead Freddie said”

    “Finally the lying prick confirms using the argumentum ad populum fallacy after previously denying it.”

    True…..not the accepted definition but your wrong definition.

    Note that the lying prick doesn’t actually show my definition is wrong – because it’s not. What I gave is the accepted definition of the argumentum ad populum. Of course he’s using the fallacy backwards i.e. claiming that few people are atheists therefore atheism must be wrong.

    You don’t recognize argument from an observation. That’s your problem…:)

    The lying prick is wrong as usual. His initial argument was that atheism is wrong based on his observation that atheism has relatively few adherents – a classic argument from numbers – although he has since tried to turn it around to say there are few atheists because it’s wrong. Of course he’s not once tried to support this new argument with any objective evidence either so we can dismiss it just as easily as we dismissed his earlier fallacious claim.

    “I recognise them wholeheartedly but where is……..argument that demonstrates said order comes from his God”

    Left out F&M ugliness :), but here F&M lies.

    Not at all.

    He does not recognize that order, information and complexity must come from intelligence.

    Because the lying prick has singularly failed to make any such argument. You’d think he’d realise that simply asserting something isn’t the same as making a reasoned argument for it.

    This has been demonstrated many times and daily.

    Note that the lying prick fails to say where and by whom. If it was that common he’d surely be able to point to one of these demonstrations.

    “I never claimed that the argument was true because George H. Smith said it. \”

    Again,,,,I was using your definitions :) Quite funny you took it seriously….lol!!!!.

    To what definitions is A the lying prick referring to here? The supposedly “wrong” one from earlier that he failed to show was wrong? What does the argumentum ad populum have to do with the lying prick bringing up a fallacy – that of the appeal to authority – that couldn’t actually be levelled at what I said. And whether it was meant in jest or not there’s no reason why I shouldn’t demonstrate that it was flat out wrong, which I did.

    Anywho, his observations add nothing.

    Then why hasn’t A shown us how those observations add nothing? Once more, simply asserting it isn’t the same as presenting an argument. I say it’s because he doesn’t have an argument.

    “He hasn’t yet explained how we can differentiate between what is designed and what isn’t”

    LOL!!!!!!! Now this is quite funny.

    It is isn’t it? You claim intelligent design but can’t show us how to tell if something is designed or not because your worldview takes away the natural world as a reference point. I think the fact that your argument is self-defeating is fucking hilarious.

    F&M are you telling us if you walk into the Guggenheim you would not be able to figure out it was designed? seriously? It’s not obvious to you?

    Of course it’s obvious to me. My worldview allows me to compare the contents of the Guggenheim to things that are the result of natural processes and list observations which show the differences between the two which result in my being able to infer design. A the lying prick doesn’t have that luxury as his worldview insists that the blades of grass outside the Guggenheim are every bit as “designed” as the things contained within. He can claim design all he likes but his worldview has taken away the one thing he could use to demonstrate the truth of that claim.

    ROTFL!!!!!!!! You really must be a chimp since they cannot discern that either! DNA is highly complex, like the Guggenheim, it needs a programmer there slick! lol!!!!

    How does A the lying prick know that the Guggenheim is designed? He lost his “non-designed” reference point when he professed his belief in intelligent design. His worldview insists everything is designed, whether that be the Guggenheim or the grass outside it. So the only way to show that his worldview is actually true would be to present us with the evidence that his designer exists. Of course we’re still waiting for that evidence while the lying prick keeps pointing at things and asserting that they’re designed. He has no way to prove they’re designed of course, because he’s thrown out nature when he brought in his Designer.

    “He assumes that nature has actually been designed by his creator but is desperate to retain nature as a reference point from which to discern design.”

    lol!!!!! huh???

    Is the lying prick feigning ignorance here? He might be as that’s what someone with a documented history of lying might do. However, let’s unpack it for him. You can only point out “design” when you have a “non-designed” (natural) reference point to work from. We infer design only by how an object’s characteristics differ from something natural’s characteristics – A’s Chevy on the sand analogy for e.g. So when A the lying prick states that DNA shares similar design elements so it must be designed he’s using that ability to differentiate between designed/natural as a reference point. He comes to the conclusion that therefore a Designer exists. Of course if a Designer exists then everything is a result of design. The tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes he noted earlier – the ones that he claimed bought only chaos – were actually designed by his Designer. So how can the lying prick say that anything is designed? The “designed” Chevy now has the same characteristics as the “designed” sand it sits upon. He can’t call the Chevy designed as he’s now lost the “natural” elements he was using to differentiate it in the first place. There’s no way to infer design from inside a nature you claim is itself “designed”. Instead you must step outside it and first prove the existence of the Designer … and you can’t use design as part of that proof.

    “apparently everything has been designed by his God?”

    HUH? I never said any such thing.

    So, apparently A’s God didn’t design everything. So, if there are things that exist that do not need a designer then why do we need a designer at all?

    God created the Universe,

    So apparently A’s God did design everything. He seems very confused about what role his God has. I’m not surprised though. This God A is imagining is obviously at the whim of his consciousness so maybe it both did and didn’t create everything. That’s the thing about imaginary gods, they don’t have to conform to logic.

    man created the Guggenheim, Macs, televisions, etc, etc, etc,.

    Did man create the Guggenheim, Macs, televisions, etc, etc, etc, in the same way A’s God created the universe? Ex-nihilo? If so we’re back to why do we need a God at all? If not then how do you distinguish the Guggenheim, Macs, televisions etc, etc, etc, from the sand or grass that God designed?

    Yes, good created most men with the ability to think and produce, accept for talking chimps…lol!!!!

    Oh, the irony.

  835. on 28 Aug 2014 at 5:01 pm 835.alex said …

    i asked “why do you completely reject allah?”

    and the moron responded with: “Because I believe in the God of the Bible and salvation through Jesus Christ… I thought this was clear?”

    yet it didn’t keep the motherfucker from asking the bullshit “What made you feel so strongly about God that you completely reject him?”

    “I appreciate your ability to show reason and common decency in discussion. We may not agree but who’s to say who’s right and who’s wrong?”

    but it didn’t keep your motherfucking ass from posting your testimonial garbage, did it? you ain’t no more entitle to spray your shit everywhere than the moronic muslims or scientologists, so go fuck yourself.

    “Go on then, tell me what I should know about our origins then… what do you believe?”

    i’ll bite. i believe that “Ambi”, the ambivalent god created the universe. unlike your moronic, totalistic viewpoint, i can be convinced otherwise and it’s not even hard for your magician hesus. just let the motherfucker levitate. that’s why david blaine is a god.

    since “Ambi” is ambivalent, notice that his behaviour is exactly like a non existant god.

    dumbass.

  836. on 28 Aug 2014 at 9:40 pm 836.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    F&M posting as the talking chimp bellowed:

    “What I gave is the accepted definition of the argumentum ad populum.”

    Well, you didn’t give a definition and I did not make an argument so you are……Wrong Again! lol!! Imade an observation…..I know its hard Cocoa.

    “Then why hasn’t A shown us how those observations add nothing?”

    The onus is on you to prove your claim. You never did and you fail again. Dismissed! lol!!

    “Worldview allows me to compare the contents of the Guggenheim to things that are the result of natural processes”

    The talking chimp inches closer. He claims he CAN recognize design. Now the Guggenheim cannot even compare in complexity to the workings within a cell. Talking Chimp claims the cell is the result of natural processes? Which ones? Never seen a process that could create the first cell? Is Chimp invoking faith here? And if that is so, why couldn’t the Gug be natural processes? Man is only a natural process, right? We will get no answer……..sigh….

    “How does A the lying prick know that the Guggenheim is designed? He lost his “non-designed” reference point when he professed his belief in intelligent design.”

    I’m not a talking chimp. I recognize design. I lost my “non-designed” reference?
    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!

    “You can only point out “design” when you have a “non-designed” (natural) reference point to work from.”

    Incorrect, you cannot claim something is not designed because you have no proof this is true, a
    AGAIN! lol!! You claim DNA is NOT designed but where is the evidence? How can is be so complex, full of high content coding and be produce from soup? HMMMM? Everything I observe in the world with this amount of complexity IS DESIGNED. Now, prove otherwise.
    If I take a load on lumber and dump it in the backyard, it does not become a house, it is random chaotic and will not produce a house unless a contractor puts plans to the lumber.

    Ouch! You just got used! lol!!!

    “He seems very confused about what role his God has.”

    ROTFL!!!!! Talking chimp again is so confused. OK, follow this Cocoa. God crated the universe, man uses things in that universe to build things like trains, cars, the Gug!

    “Did man create the Guggenheim, Macs, televisions, etc, etc, etc, in the same way A’s God created the universe? Ex-nihilo?”

    That says it all folks, Cocoa cannot find the difference between God creating a universe and man using the resources of that creation to build and create. That is a toughy! lol!!!!

  837. on 28 Aug 2014 at 10:48 pm 837.alex said …

    “I recognize design.”

    lookey here. just like the other dipshit messenger motherfucker, prickface is the self appointed design interpreter. you see some shit? consult the hor and his other brother martin, and the motherfucker will decide if it was designed by god.

    go head readers. post your shit here. the resident hor prickface will respond back and he’ll interpret for you if god designed it.

    what a dumbass.

    even if there was a designer, the god “Ambi” is as much as a designer as the puerto rican god “hesus”, no?

    “You claim DNA is NOT designed but where is the evidence?” you’re right, bitch motherfucker. “Ambi” designed it. so we’re in agreement?

  838. on 29 Aug 2014 at 3:44 pm 838.freddies_dead said …

    836.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    F&M posting as the talking chimp bellowed:

    “What I gave is the accepted definition of the argumentum ad populum.”

    Well, you didn’t give a definition

    And the lying prick has changed his claim again. Now we’ve gone from me giving a wrong definition to not having given one at all. It should be obvious to anyone following along that I must have given a definition in order for A to claim it was “wrong” so the lying prick is either lying about my definition being wrong (post 807 where I said the truth of something isn’t affected by how many people believe it – which is exactly what an argumentum ad populum claims) or he’s lying about me not giving a definition (Hint: it’s both).

    and I did not make an argument so you are……Wrong Again! lol!!

    This is brilliant. The lying prick has already conceded (in post 813) that the question he posed did indeed imply that atheism is wrong because it has few adherents but now he’s back to claiming he never made the argument at all. Typical dishonesty from the lying prick.

    Imade an observation…..I know its hard Cocoa.

    It might be hard for A the lying prick as he’s having to keep all his lies in line – and failing quite spectacularly as usual – but I’m finding this very easy … and hugely amusing.

    “Then why hasn’t A shown us how those observations add nothing?”

    The onus is on you to prove your claim.

    Firstly, I didn’t make the claim that “his observations add nothing” so A the lying prick is patently wrong here. Where is his attempt to prove the argument I posed wrong? Oh, that’s right, he hasn’t presented one. Instead he attempts to shift the burden of proof to me when the argument put forward is the demonstration that the intelligent design argument is self-defeating.

    You never did and you fail again. Dismissed! lol!!

    As already noted above, the argument is the demonstration. If A disagrees with the argument, he should say what he believes is wrong with it and show how it’s wrong. Instead he seeks to dismiss the argument without actually dealing with it. That’s not going to happen.

    “Worldview allows me to compare the contents of the Guggenheim to things that are the result of natural processes”

    The talking chimp inches closer. He claims he CAN recognize design.

    Of course I can, because I haven’t thrown nature under the bus like the lying prick has. I have that reference point with which to differentiate between that which is designed and that which is natural.

    Now the Guggenheim cannot even compare in complexity to the workings within a cell.

    And A resorts to one of his buzzwords, “complexity”. He repeats it as though it means something. When his worldview insists that the cell is as designed as the Guggenheim, what is this “complexity” supposed to represent? He makes no attempt to define this term in any meaningful way. I believe it’s because he can’t. It’s nothing more than a red-herring to try and deflect from his inability to discern design in the first place.

    Talking Chimp claims the cell is the result of natural processes? Which ones?

    We’ve already had this discussion. My answer was chemistry. However, this is an irrelevant red herring. A is still attempting to dodge explaining how he can discern design in the first place. His worldview insists everything is designed so he has no reference point for comparison.

    Never seen a process that could create the first cell?

    Red herring. I’ll be ignoring all of the lying prick’s red herrings while he attempts to dodge explaining how he can discern design in the first place. His worldview insists everything is designed so he has no reference point for comparison.

    Is Chimp invoking faith here?

    Nope. Red herring. I’ll be ignoring all of the lying prick’s red-herrings while he attempts to dodge explaining how he can discern design in the first place. His worldview insists everything is designed so he has no reference point for comparison.

    And if that is so, why couldn’t the Gug be natural processes?

    Because I can compare the Guggenheim to natural processes and differentiate between their characteristics. The prick has ditched those natural processes in favour of an Intelligent Designer. I’m pretty sure the lying prick understands how he’s screwed here but he has to ignore the cognitive dissonance in order to maintain his worldview.

    Man is only a natural process, right?

    Unless the lying prick can demonstrate that man is designed of course. But we’re still waiting for him to show how he can discern design at all when his worldview insists everything is designed. That means he has no reference point from which to discern design in the first place. Phew, I’m glad this isn’t my problem.

    We will get no answer……..sigh….

    This is an autobiographical statement. A tacit acknowledgement of the cognitive dissonance the lying prick is experiencing. He has no answer to my question regarding how he knows anything is designed.

    “How does A the lying prick know that the Guggenheim is designed? He lost his “non-designed” reference point when he professed his belief in intelligent design.”

    I’m not a talking chimp. I recognize design.

    How does A recognise design? He never actually backs up his claim, just barely asserts it and hopes no-one notices how his claim doesn’t fit with the worldview he professes to hold. Just how does A know that something is designed? Just what is he comparing it to? Remember, his worldview holds that an Intelligent Designer exists who designed the universe i.e. the universe is designed and A no longer has anything to compare against. Instead he has to prove the existence of the Intelligent Designer … and he can’t use the design argument as part of his proof.

    I lost my “non-designed” reference?

    Yes, when A presupposed an Intelligent Designer. Boom! There goes nature as everything now is the result of design. So how does A know anything is designed? He’s simply left asserting his Designer exists and that, as a result, everything is designed. Where’s the evidence of this Designer? We know that he can’t use design as an argument so why should we accept the claim that a Designer exists? A offers nothing.

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!

    It is funny watching A twist and turn and refuse to offer up any argument as to how he can discern design.

    “You can only point out “design” when you have a “non-designed” (natural) reference point to work from.”

    Incorrect, you cannot claim something is not designed because you have no proof this is true, a

    This is wonderful. Once more A attempts to shift the burden of proof. It is he that claims an Intelligent Designer exists, based on his claim to be able to recognise design. Of course the existence of an Intelligent Designer means he can no longer discern design in the first place. He keeps using this same self-defeating argument over and over again and I’ll just keep pointing it out.

    AGAIN! lol!! You claim DNA is NOT designed but where is the evidence?

    Existence exists. Consciousness exists. To exist is to be something specific i.e. identity. From identity we have the corollaries non-contradiction and the excluded middle. That, coupled with the metaphysical primacy of existence, rules out the possibility of an Intelligent Designer ergo DNA isn’t designed. Now A will deny this – he will not actually make any argument to back up his denial, he will simply assert it is not “true” at which point he’ll be stealing the concept of truth from my worldview in order to deny my worldview. That will be funny.

    How can is be so complex, full of high content coding and be produce from soup? HMMMM?

    How can it be blurtle, full of blartle and be produce from soup? Makes as much sense when the lying prick refuses to define any of his buzzwords. Also, as the soup in A’s worldview is also designed – Intelligent Designer again – how can A differentiate between the designed soup and the designed DNA. We’re still waiting for him to demonstrate how he can discern design at all.

    Everything I observe in the world with this amount of complexity IS DESIGNED. Now, prove otherwise.

    Attempt to shift the burden of proof … again. How does A know that his buzzword “complexity” is evidence of design. After all everything in his worldview is designed, whether it’s “complex” or not. Exactly what is the difference between the “complex” designed objects and the non “complex” designed objects? A offers no explanation as usual.

    If I take a load on lumber and dump it in the backyard, it does not become a house, it is random chaotic and will not produce a house unless a contractor puts plans to the lumber.

    But the lumber is designed. A’s worldview insists on this. How can something that is designed be considered “random chaotic”? Once more A fails to explain this. Instead he continues to claim to be able to recognise the design of a finished house from the design of his “random chaotic” load of lumber. I want to know how but A keeps dodging the issue.

    Ouch! You just got used! lol!!!

    To show how A has absolutely no way of showing how he discerns design. No wonder he’s hurting.

    “He seems very confused about what role his God has.”

    ROTFL!!!!! Talking chimp again is so confused. OK, follow this Cocoa. God crated the universe, man uses things in that universe to build things like trains, cars, the Gug!

    So everything is designed. In which case how does the lying prick discern design? How can he differentiate between the things his God designed and the things designed by man? They are both designed so how can A tell the difference between a Chevy and a piece of eggshell? He still refuses to tell us.

    “Did man create the Guggenheim, Macs, televisions, etc, etc, etc, in the same way A’s God created the universe? Ex-nihilo?”

    That says it all folks, Cocoa cannot find the difference between God creating a universe and man using the resources of that creation to build and create. That is a toughy! lol!!!!

    It does say it all really. It says that A believes his God designed the universe but that he also believes he’s able to distinguish between the designs of his God and the designs of man. I don’t know about you but I’d really like to know how he does that? Maybe A will stop dodging the question and actually explain it …. yeah, I know, not fucking likely.

  839. on 30 Aug 2014 at 2:19 am 839.the messenger said …

    Fred, tell me, if that four year old boy did hear about his dead sister, prior to his operation, wouldn’t he have asked about it?

    P.S., concerning my absence, I’ve been occupied with family events which consumed most of my time.

  840. on 30 Aug 2014 at 2:28 am 840.the messenger said …

    852.freddies_dead, GOD’s true form cannot be seen by anyone but himself (John 1:18(New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)18 No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son,[a] who is close to the Father’s heart,[b] who has made him known.)) but he takes the form of certain things so that we can speak with him, such as a flaming bush or a Jewish Rabbi (Jesus).

  841. on 30 Aug 2014 at 2:29 am 841.the messenger said …

    852.freddies_dead, GOD’s true form cannot be seen by anyone but himself (John 1:18(New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)18 No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son,[a] who is close to the Father’s heart,[b] who has made him known.)) but he takes the form of certain things so that we can speak and or interact with him, such as a flaming bush or a Jewish Rabbi (Jesus).

  842. on 30 Aug 2014 at 2:38 am 842.the messenger said …

    860.freddies_dead, the bible is not meant to teach us about how GOD did certain things, it is meant to teach us the moral teaching of GOD, and to contain historical information about the prophets and kings and patriarchs of Israel. That is why the prophets wrote it.

    P.S., the Catholic church has never interpreted the Adam and eve and Noah story as literal. It is a story, written by Moses, to teach the early Jews about certain moral teachings, similar to the parables that Jesus made in the new testament to teach GOD’s moral teachings.

  843. on 30 Aug 2014 at 2:40 am 843.the messenger said …

    860.freddies_dead, the bible is not meant to teach us about how GOD did certain things, it is meant to teach us the moral teachings of GOD, and to contain historical information about the prophets and kings and patriarchs of Israel. That is why the prophets wrote it.

    P.S., the Catholic church has never interpreted the Adam and eve and Noah story as literal. It is a story, written by Moses, to teach the early Jews about certain moral teachings, similar to the parables that Jesus made in the new testament to teach GOD’s moral teachings.

  844. on 31 Aug 2014 at 2:32 pm 844.alex said …

    oh, lookey here. the rapist motherfucker is back.

    “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage)..”

    courtesy of messenger. waahhh! out of context! here’s the rest of the dungpile: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    you have no credibility, bitchass, motherfucker. why would you be consumed with your shit when your bitch ass god planned it that way?

  845. on 01 Sep 2014 at 2:54 pm 845.freddies_dead said …

    839.the messenger said …

    Fred, tell me, if that four year old boy did hear about his dead sister, prior to his operation, wouldn’t he have asked about it?

    He might, he might not. Did you talk to your parents about every single thing you heard as a 3 year old, I’m pretty sure I didn’t. There’s simply nothing to suggest that because he didn’t mention it before his NDE he can’t possibly have heard about it. See, this is the crux of the issue. There are a number of utterly mundane ways the boy could have learned of his mother’s miscarriage and you’ve yet to give us any real reason as to why we shouldn’t assume one of them before jumping straight to the conclusion that Jesus told him while riding a rainbow coloured horse through Heaven. Especially when you’ve offered no evidence for the existence of Heaven or of rainbow coloured horses for Jesus to ride.

    P.S., concerning my absence, I’ve been occupied with family events which consumed most of my time.

    No need to explain, we all have real lives. I only hope your family events were happy ones but you have my sympathy if they weren’t.

  846. on 01 Sep 2014 at 2:55 pm 846.freddies_dead said …

    840.the messenger said …

    852.freddies_dead, GOD’s true form cannot be seen by anyone but himself (John 1:18(New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)18 No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son,[a] who is close to the Father’s heart,[b] who has made him known.)) but he takes the form of certain things so that we can speak with him, such as a flaming bush or a Jewish Rabbi (Jesus).

    I’m not sure what this is in response to. The post numbers don’t match up with what I’m seeing i.e. the last post I can see is one from alex numbered 844 starting “oh, lookey here.”. Unless messy can see the future of course…

  847. on 01 Sep 2014 at 2:57 pm 847.freddies_dead said …

    842.the messenger said …

    860.freddies_dead, the bible is not meant to teach us about how GOD did certain things, it is meant to teach us the moral teaching of GOD,

    And what we learn is that “might makes right”. We should do as God says, not as God does and that death is a proper punishment for disobeying your parents or having the temerity to be raped. It’s a pretty horrific moral teaching all things considered.

    and to contain historical information about the prophets and kings and patriarchs of Israel.

    It’s a pretty poor historical text too. Herod never undertook a slaughter of the innocents (Flavius Josephus never mentions it despite chronicling Herod’s abuses quite carefully). Luke puts Jesus’ birth in the reign of Roman governor Quirinius during a census ordered by Augustus, however, both Luke and Matthew claim it was also during the reign of Herod. The problem being that Herod died 10 years before Quirinius’ census took place. Never mind that a universal census of the Roman world under Augustus is unknown outside of the New Testament.

    That is why the prophets wrote it.

    Shame they couldn’t get it right despite alleged divine inspiration.

    P.S., the Catholic church has never interpreted the Adam and eve and Noah story as literal.

    A quick search online turns up “Speaking of the Great flood the Catholic Bible Dictionary says that ‘For much of Christian history, it was accepted unquestioningly as historical’ (The Catholic Bible Dictionary, p.292, Hahn)”. Oh dear.

    It is a story, written by Moses, to teach the early Jews about certain moral teachings, similar to the parables that Jesus made in the new testament to teach GOD’s moral teachings.

    Well the story basically says “Do as I say or I’ll drown you all” it’s a pretty shitty moral teaching to be honest.

  848. on 12 Sep 2014 at 5:05 am 848.JANET MATHER said …

    I WROTE A BIG COMMENT BUT IT DIDN’T GO THROUGH SO I WILL JUST SAY GOD SAVED ME TWICE FROM DROWNING IN THE SNDEHAM RIVER DRESDEN ON AND DETROIT RIVER IN WINDSOR,ON. THAT’S IT PEOPLE, GOD IS REAL(Jesus)
    NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT AND BOOK OF REVELATION IS TRUE TOO. HE DID IT BY MIRACLES AND IN THE SNDEHAM I WENT BACK and forth and not by my own will.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply