13 Of The Most Common Arguments Made By Christians

[C]

Yes, Christians. Not Muslims or any other group, even though there have been other non-Christian theists on the WWGHA forums.

What I did with this is that I briefly compiled the most frequently seen 'arguments' made by Christians regarding the existence of their god on WWGHA aimed toward the atheists/agnostics/agnostic atheists/whoever else on the forums and briefly 'disproved' them.

I am hoping that this thread can serve as a small reference for newcomers on the forum, particularly Christians, so they, if they hope to use these arguments, know the arguments have been made in the past and do not repeat much of the ill history with exasperated, regular posters here (many of who were once Christian) who have read, heard of and refuted these arguments hundreds of times.

In no particular order:

#1 "Without God, there is no morality! We have morals, THUS God exists!"

This is one of the most common arguments made by Christians which is usually accompanied by the citing of the 10 Commandments (Thou shalt not kill, etc), verses from the Bible or quotes from famous people like C.S. Lewis or whatnot. The thought process of the argument goes something like this:

- Humans can love, choose not to kill, be proper in their manner and set up laws. Morality could be innate.
- What is the ultimate standard for which these laws and seemingly innate feelings of morality measure up to?
- The ultimate standard must come from God who created humans!

Without even going into excruciating details on why this whole argument is wrong, only three examples will be given for the sake of preserving your time.

1) The Christian God was not present in every part of the world, before AND after it "revealed" itself through Jesus or Moses or whoever else.

Yet the civilizations of India, Bhutan and Egypt or the nomadic groups of Mongolia and Alaska and so on had/have their own ethical codes, their own laws, their own sense of morality and so forth. They nor you do NOT necessarily need a god, much less the Christian one to set up a functioning society or group made up of moral humans or laws like so:



Yet sometimes, Christians may, in an attempt to defend their faith, declare that they will break laws or say certain actions are a-okay and not be moral anymore if a god and promise of heaven do not exist.

Morality varies from individual to individual, regardless of their religion.

2) You are in a group of 200 people. Would you want to get killed by one of the other 199 people? You also gathered 100 coconuts for the winter over a course of 5 months, would you want all of these to get stolen?

If you said: No to both, congratulations. If you said yes, well, you're beyond masochism or just don't give a damn.

You don't want others to steal your stuff and you don't want to get killed. The rest of the group presumably feels the same and so make up rules such as "don't kill each other", "don't steal each others' shit" and so on to preserve its solidarity as a group and to keep order, otherwise things would get out of hand. Simple as that. No god or "ultimate standard" involved.

3) Even with the Christian God, Christians have committed atrocities like any other group.

The Crusades, the case of the Magadalene Sisters, the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion of Jews and Muslims from Europe, the genocide of Native Americans, enslaving Africans, destroying entire cultures and societies and so much more.

To many outside of Christianity, it would seem that having a god actually JUSTIFIES such cruel acts.

Undoubtedly, if you are a faithful Christian you too are aghast at the actions taken by your fellows. But there is also the chance that you might scoff at other Christians, brush off at least a dozen genocides and say:

#2

This argument is brought up by a lot of Christians whenever atrocities committed by Christians, death threats by Christians toward atheists/non-believers, or the latest dick move by the Westboro Baptist Church are brought to their attention. Many claim that those who do not "love their enemies", aren't charitable, murder others and so on in the name of God are NOT true Christians, just Christian in name only.

This argument falls victim to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy where basically you assert ridiculous or unsubstantiated claims in face of contradictory evidence so as to avoid getting your initial claim disproven. Like so:

Richard: Apple Macs have NEVER crashed or presented a problem.
Head: Funny, my Mac overloaded last night.
Richard: Huh. Your Mac is obviously a fake from China. REAL Macs never have problems.

Extrapolate this onto the Christian-Atheist conversation:

Christian: The Bible says all Christians who believe in God and pray will get their prayers answered!
Atheist: But I was a praying Christian for 34 years and never got help from God.
Christian: You mustn't have been a TRUE Christian then.

After you make the argument, you will then have to explain exactly WHAT a True Christian is. In the process and end though, you will face a range of problems including the few below:

- Dozens of denominations exist and have their own interpretations of heaven and how Christians should act. Which is right?
- How do you know? Where is your evidence?
- Why would an omniscient and omnipotent God not make things clear to idiotic humans?
- And so on.


#3

It is evident that, although atheism and science in general are originally separate things, many, especially in America have come to associate atheists with science, particularly with the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory which are both incredibly misunderstood due to popular culture and the works of Bible-based groups.

Most of the 'serious' arguments concocted by Christians are not arguing against the actual Theory of Evolution itself but in fact a misconception of the Theory of Evolution. In other words, most, if not all, of the theist arguments that claim evolution is false or unable to be proven are actually right because they are disproving their own Theory of Evolution.

There are entire organizations devoted to removing evolution (the "atheist religion") from public schools in the United States or handing out pamphlets that are riddled with quotes such as:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. - Charles Darwin"

"Evolution does not explain how life began..etc. etc."

Few points:

- Humans did NOT evolve from monkeys/chimpanzees or if you took South Park seriously, "retarded fish monkeys/frogs/squirrels":



The actual explanation:




- The Theory of Evolution is not a theory in that it's pure speculation, it is, in scientific terms: "an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."

- The infamous "Darwin eye quote" that is pounced on by many Creationists and "anti-evolutionists" is taken out of context. After the above quote made by Darwin, he then says:

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

Basically he said: "I know it's ridiculous to say that monkeys have their own societies, after all they are stoopid!..BUT evidence shows that they indeed DO have their own societies and even...etc etc."

- And yes, evolution DOES NOT explain how life began. That is abiogenesis. A subject that is often confused by many Christians with the Theory of Evolution. Evolution ONLY explains the PROCESS of how living organisms came to be in their present form and will possibly become later on ever since their common ancestors started out.

The actual Theory of Evolution is very simple to understand and is verifiable through experiments or simple observations. If you DO have some Nobel prize winning evidence or incontrovertible proof proving evolution is false which in turn would make fools out of an overwhelming majority of scientists and intellectuals, then please feel free to share, we are more than willing to accept it


#4

While we're close to the subject, many Christians who make their arguments for their god often point to the Big Bang Theory and laugh at how people could think "nothing exploded into something". Generally these ill-conceived arguments are met by explanations on what exactly the Big Bang Theory is or by shrugs followed by "I don't know how the universe began."

You see, there are, for the most part, three ways to go about this.

1) Claim that a specific diety out of hundreds created the universe and attempt to prove it with an old book made by ignorant humans centuries prior.
2) Humbly just say "I don't know how it all began".
3) Wait, or if you're in the position, work or contribute to find out the answer.

For Option 2, Christians sometimes claim a victory for the existence of their god by argumentum e silentio (argument from silence), presuming that since humans have no satisfactory, concrete evidence concerning the beginning of life, then their "god did it".

Christians who often make the argument based on that atheists "believe" that the universe was "exploded" into existence and that such complexity in life can't possibly have come about without an "eternal" creator often forget that they themselves are claiming that a creator which was somehow not created by another creator and is not part of existence, created the universe thus creating existence.

Clearly, options 2 & 3 are better ways of going about this than Option 1.

But again, if you, a Christian, have actual evidence to bring to the table regarding all of this and in turn proves the existence of a creator that existed before existence, then feel free to bring it.



#5

This is actually a common and silly question put forth by Christians, but speaking from personal experience, a lot of them are actually seriously asked simply because we've been raised our entire lives to just believe and take it at face value. Never to question.

This "argument" is most succinctly put down by the response:
"If (insert fictional character) doesn't exist, then who created the (insert book series/games)?"

Most of the time however, their backup "God inspired the Bible" is always present, which is also pretty far-fetched considering that the authors of the Bible had very little understanding of the actual world, its workings and pretty much fucking everything. Either God is the ultimate troll or it's simply a product of primitive human beings who knew jack-shit about a lot of things.


But you may say:


#6

Christians often argue that the writers of the Bible knew that the Earth wasn't flat, that it accurately gives a timeline of Life itself, contains actual places and people who existed thus making it accurate, or contains an assload of stuff that fits their nilly willy.

Yet the supposedly inerrant Bible and other apocryphal writings are loaded with things that have long been disproven or are just simply too stupid to even be considered something that should be disproven like:

- A global deluge (the story of Noah's Ark) that never happened.
- The walls of Jericho falling down. The real Jericho did not have walls at the time around the supposed attack nor is there any archaeological evidence of the fall.
- Producing striped sheep by placing striped sticks in front of mating sheep.
- A virgin birth.
- Incestuous reproduction ultimately resulting in humanity (could explain a lot of the stupidity, but I digress).
- Pissing off an all powerful and all knowing god by building a phallic tower that represented Man's ego.
- A man living three days in a giant fish.
- The existence of Leviathan.
- Jesus facing down dragons complete with fire breathing, reptilian scales and wings.
- The enslavement of Jews in Egypt that never happened.
- Insects that have four feet.
- Rabbits that chew their cud.
- Talking snakes.
- The bat is mistaken for a bird.
- Snails melt?
- A motionless Earth.
- The moon does not give off its own source of light.
- All stars are not of the same age.
- The crossing of the Red Sea.
- Jesus did not feed hundreds of people and satisfy their hunger with a few loaves of bread and some fish.
- Instantaneous heart attack after touching a god's ark.
- A jealous god.
- Attaching a chopped off ear back on just by attaching it with nothing but your hands.
- And so much more.



Needless to say, the Bible is NOT a book of science nor is it "historically accurate".

#7

When pressed for actual evidence that aren't there, some Christians resort to argumentum ad ignorantiam, in English: argument from ignorance, or in Christ-speak, "Just because you can't see God or his miracles doesn't mean he's not real!!".

Saying that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is a logical fallacy that contains a false dilemma and a convenient escape route from actual discussion that has no place in an actual argument.

It is like saying though we do not have evidence Cthulhu exists it does not mean the Great Water Being is not real and living in R'lyeh. It's stupid. Basically you can't prove it but you believe it to be true and so concluded your quest.

That wouldn't hold up in a research paper much less 8th grade science class.

 

#8

Atheism is not a religion. Being an atheist simply means that you do not believe in any god. Not believing does not require religious faith, otherwise there'd be really no point in the 'a' in 'atheism'.

It's that simple. End of discussion.

As others have pointed out, even if atheism was a religion, what are you trying to point out? Seriously.


#9

Pascal's Wager. One of the most thoughtless 'arguments' ever made. You may recognize it as:

"Why won't you stubborn atheist bastards not believe in God? You have nothing to lose!"

Or

"If God turns out to be real, then I win and you get to go to Hell! But if He's not real, then nothing happens for me, but you still lose!!!"

Pascal's Wager desperately hinges on the presumption that there is only ONE religion and ONE god.

It is not so.

There are literally thousands of known religions out there in the world. And within each of those religions lie various sects, denominations and other factions that teach drastically different things and give their own interpretations on the afterlife, god and so on.

Now apply Pascal's Wager to this situation in reality.

Which one's the real path to "salvation"? Remember, you can't believe in all of them and also if you're wrong, you might end up in hell, just a different version of it!

Take your pick. A potential eternity of paradise or hell or the void awaits you.


#10

When unable to back up their assertions, some Christians often drag the names of renowned intellectuals and scientists into the fray so they can gather them on their side and say, "SEE? (Insert name of genius) believes in God, you're incredibly stupid! This proves it! Or are you saying you're smarter than (insert name of genius)?"

Often times the two most notable names brought up by Christians are either Albert Einstein or Isaac Newton.

Putting aside the fact that Einstein believed in Spinoza's god, that is an impersonal one, there are also atheists, agnostics or non-Christians who have been notable for their achievements in academia, science, philosophy and other areas in human society.

Of course there can be incredibly smart people from the Christian side as well, but when Christians bring this up, they say matter-of-factedly that their God exists partly because one famous person believed in it. Abstractly, that is true, but I digress.

If one was to measure a god's existence simply by the merits of individuals who believed in it, then what's to keep Allah from existing and validating Islam over Christianity? After all, algebra, new styles of architecture, numerous inventions and other innovations came from the Islamic Golden Age. Does this signify that Allah exists?

Of course not.

In the United States, this "argument" goes especially with the Founding Fathers who are claimed by today's Christians to have wanted a "Christian nation". But in reality, most of the Founding Fathers weren't strongly Christian, were deists or actually wanted a secular nation.

In addition, most of the "credible sources" or famous scientists Christians, especially Creationists, cite in favor of advancing their argument on evolution, intelligent design or whatnot will, most of the time, be fake or simply untrue.

An example would be Derek Ager whose name and works have been cited by Creationists for the purpose of advancing their cause or whatever they call it. His response:

"For a century and a half the geological world has been dominated, one might even say brain-washed, by the gradualistic uniformitarianism of Charles Lyell.  Any suggestion of 'catastrophic' events has been rejected as old-fashioned, unscientific and even laughable.  This is partly due to the extremism of some of Cuvier's followers, though not of Cuvier himself.

On that side too were the obviously untenable views of bible-oriented fanatics, obsessed with myths such as Noah's flood, and of classicists thinking of Nemesis. That is why I think it necessary to include the following 'disclaimer': in view of the misuse that my words have been put to in the past, I wish to say that nothing in this book should be taken out of context and thought in any way to support the views of the 'creationists' (who I refuse to call 'scientific')."

#11

Casting aside the fact that Hitler was brought up as Christian and that a combination of Christian and occult elements were evident in Nazi Germany, Christians defame atheists as "evil" or "amoral" simply because there have been detested people who allegedly were or actually were atheists.

But once it gets to Christians who molest children, carry out genocides, abduct infants and so on, this argument is conveniently null and void.

Continuing, this argument is a direct reverse of #10. If Christians want to argue this way, they should consider that:

- Pope Benedict XII enslaved nuns, raped numerous women, sadistically murdered people, carried out ritual murders and so forth.
- The ironically named Pope Innocent III ordered the Crusades resulting in tens of thousands of deaths.
- Christians carried out the witch trials.
- Christians enslaved and put girls up for forced sexual prostitution.
- Christians carried out genocides.
- Andrew Jackson's actions led to the Trail of Tears.
- David Koresh, who was Christian, burned himself and girls he had basically raped and impregnated to death.
- Pat Robertson is a bastard who blames people for incurring God's wrath which results in catastrophes caused by nature.
- Michael Bray tried to bomb abortion clinics.
- And on and on and on.

Of course, there is a HUGE difference between a couple of atheists (Pol Pot & Mao Zedong) and these Christians. These atheists did NOT kill in the name of atheism, they killed in the name of their political ideologies. Christians killed in the names of their God, religion AND their own political ideologies. In many ways, they are worse than the supposedly "evil atheists".


#12 GOD ANSWERED MY PRAYARS!!!


A typical Christian anecdote that proves the power of prayer or the transmission of thoughts to an all-powerful and all-knowing god usually goes something like this:

- Missing X
- Hopes To Find X
- Finds X
- Praises God

or

- Hopes for X
- (Optional) Prays for X
- Gets X
- Praise God

While God is helping you search for your car keys or helping your favorite football team win, he's completely ignoring:



Factor in what you just experienced may have simply been a coincidence, along with attempts to cover all of the suffering in the world as "God's plan that he changes every time he hears a prayer that goes against it", or preaching that every human (from infants to the elderly) deserves hell and this argument falls apart on its own.


#13 God Is Omnipotent/Omniscient/Forgiving!

Some Christians will seek refuge in the Bible and simply state that their god is omnipotent, omniscient and above all, very forgiving; of course, all according to the Bible. The same Bible that says:

"Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against
the rock!" (Psalms 137:9)
 
"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled
against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be
dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." (Hosea 13:16)
 
"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is
joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their
houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."]/b] (Isaiah 13:15,16)
 
"Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they
shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare
children." (Isaiah 13:18)

among other disgusting things. Some Christians will argue that this is all Old Testament stuff and that the New Testament should be focused on more. That's cherry-picking whatever you like and incorporating it into your life. NOT accepting God's ENTIRE word as many Christians vow they do.

Also consider the conflicting properties of omniscience and omnipotence, summed up neatly by Epicurus:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

[fungusdrool]

First, C, great post.  Probably should become a sticky.

However, I read the forum from work, behind a really despised hardware firewall.  I can't download the images that you used for some of the argument titles.  I can infer the topic because I've seen them come around, but a new christian might not have the same context.  And it goes without saying that videos are completely blocked for me.

You might just want to normalize stuff a little bit to better enable everyone to see a great analysis.  Then this could become and awesome primer for the lost.  On the other hand, you might just filter out every christian before they even subscribe because they should realize there's no way around these (settled) points.

[jaimehlers]

Regarding Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears, I just want to point out that this was a natural consequence of American "manifest destiny" coupled with the (justifiable) unwillingness of the native tribes to buckle under and become good Americans.  In other words, if Andrew Jackson hadn't been the one who ordered it, some other president surely would have, Christian or not.  The point is that I don't think the Trail of Tears was the specific result of Christian beliefs as opposed to American exceptionalism.

[C]

@Fungus

Thank you, but I feel that the post isn't really an analysis, I feel that it's more like I listed these recycled arguments and half-assedly refuted them with a few elementary grammar errors and jumping fragments in the process of thought as English is my 3rd language.

I suppose you could say my original post puts the same amount of effort into its rebuttals as much as the amount of effort Christians spent into making the above arguments.

Also can't you turn off the firewall or is it a filter that's blocking you at work?

I chose to put in videos and well, also made these images that are somewhat humorous or just for the sake of being there to ease the eyes of whoever is reading.

I find that reading blocks of text even if the headings are colored, bolded, underlined, or 36 font sized even with a couple of images here and there is incredibly boring and doesn't really stick with people.

Probably explains why there are illustrations in most of the history/science textbooks used in schools

But in all seriousness, people learn or absorb information in different ways which include reading paragraphs accompanied by visuals. And on the Internet, it's really more about images with fewer words explaining the gist of them hence the popularity of image boards and the massive amounts of "TL;DR" responses.

Presently I cannot modify the Original Post, and though I wish to fix a few errors and perhaps expand a little on a few points but, I cannot.

And I sort of doubt that Christians, if they do read this, will hardly be filtered out.

I firmly believe that this will not have Christians avoid the forums and may instead attract them or have them react in any number of ways.

For one thing, humans, regardless of their religion, argue a lot for the sake of self gratification.

Simply put, humans don't like being wrong, especially when it's pointed out by other humans they often sneer at or think nothing of.

And since my post just pointed out the flaws in these arguments, made a few points here and there and didn't exactly provide 'damning' evidence (for example, with Argument #6 when Christians try to argue the Bible contains historical or scientific facts, I just listed ridiculous content in the Bible and for some of them said "never happened" and so forth) Christians believe, I'm sure I would have if I still were a Christian, they will have enough room to maneuver and put in their own version of any of the above arguments with their own found evidence or just simply don't think these arguments are wrong.

Besides, I've also found that there is a huge difference between being told you're wrong and people demonstrating for you that you are wrong while you're all interacting.

So I suspect that posting these common arguments won't really stop the usage of them either. In the end, I assume as always, after all of the points are expanded upon, 'debated' over, and reviewed, the ultimate answer will be the same: Just gotta have faith.



Also, to jaime:

Andrew Jackson never really intended to uphold agreements with the Cherokee people. In fact, the Supreme Court at that time actually recognized Cherokee lands as separate from American ones. Andrew Jackson actually went out of his way, even going against a Supreme Court ruling which was/is illegal, to achieve his ethnic cleansing of Native Americans.

I do agree that it was a combination of Manifest Destiny, his extreme hate towards Native Americans and other reasons.

However, what I was trying to point out in #11 is that the Christians point to Stalin, Pol Pot and others committing crimes and then generalize all atheists as being immoral.

So in turn, we can point to people who committed atrocious crimes against humanity who were Christians (Andrew Jackson was specifically Presbyterian) and generalize them as immoral, even if they didn't do it in the name of their God/religion like Stalin didn't kill in the name of atheism but is still cited as being atheist in Christian arguments (usually concerning morality supposedly given by God) as if that automatically makes all atheists have swirly mustaches and down vodka while throwing people in the Gulag.

[fungusdrool]

English is my 3rd language.

I wouldn't have guessed.  I know a few primary-English speakers whose writing is worse than yours.  Nice job.

Also can't you turn off the firewall or is it a filter that's blocking you at work?

Unfortunately, I can't change our company policy (despite being a partner).  There is a filter.  The product is SonicWall, and it is very effective.

I chose to put in videos and well, also made these images that are somewhat humorous or just for the sake of being there to ease the eyes of whoever is reading.

Good enough.  And you're probably right that no simple summary can change anyone's mind on a topic as entrenched as religion.  Its just that I have seen a few frustrated remarks coming up recently and your post seemed like a great way to reduce that suffering.

Take care.

[C]

^^^^^^ Have you tried using a proxy/proxy sites to get through the filter?

[Samuelxcs]

That is very funny. One reason which proves Christians are not real Christians is that they wear clothes. God did not intend for them to wear clothes, they should be walking around naked! (I do not want to see that but it would prove that they are true Christians). As for other religions, why do they wear clothes if they believe in a God?

[fungusdrool]

That is very funny. One reason which proves Christians are not real Christians is that they wear clothes. God did not intend for them to wear clothes, they should be walking around naked!

Just going out on a limb here as I'm not an expert, but didn't Adam receive the "gift" of shame after the fall, and so wears clothes to cover his teenie-weenie-peenie?

[Samuelxcs]

Just going out on a limb here as I'm not an expert, but didn't Adam receive the "gift" of shame after the fall, and so wears clothes to cover his teenie-weenie-peenie?

He did have to wear clothes after the fall, but I don't think he was made a Christian at any time.

[jaimehlers]

I'm not trying to argue that the Trail of Tears wasn't immoral or that Andrew Jackson wasn't a Christian.  I do, however, contest your assertion that he hated Native Americans.  I don't think it was ever about personal hatred with him, or why would he have adopted a Creek orphan?  I think it was because he felt that the native tribes should either move so they could live under their own laws, or accept living under American laws.  One very important thing to remember is that Jackson was quite moderate compared to a large number of white Americans who would have been just as happy to exterminate the native tribes instead of relocating them (not that relocation was a good solution for anyone, even the United States).

I've read some on this tragic period of history, and it seems evident that the native tribes were pretty well screwed regardless of anything else.  They didn't have the unity to hold back American settlers for the most part.  As a result, it was probably like trying to plug a leaky dike with their fingers.  Anyway, the point is that it was Americans in general who were responsible for the Trail of Tears; Andrew Jackson may have been the one who signed the act into law, but it was as much white American settlers, prospectors, and whatnot who kept pushing and pushing who were as responsible for the relocation as he was, perhaps more so.

[C]

I do, however, contest your assertion that he hated Native Americans.  I don't think it was ever about personal hatred with him, or why would he have adopted a Creek orphan?

I think it was because he felt that the native tribes should either move so they could live under their own laws, or accept living under American laws. One very important thing to remember is that Jackson was quite moderate compared to a large number of white Americans who would have been just as happy to exterminate the native tribes instead of relocating them (not that relocation was a good solution for anyone, even the United States).

I've read some on this tragic period of history, and it seems evident that the native tribes were pretty well screwed regardless of anything else.  They didn't have the unity to hold back American settlers for the most part.  As a result, it was probably like trying to plug a leaky dike with their fingers.  Anyway, the point is that it was Americans in general who were responsible for the Trail of Tears; Andrew Jackson may have been the one who signed the act into law, but it was as much white American settlers, prospectors, and whatnot who kept pushing and pushing who were as responsible for the relocation as he was, perhaps more so.

When you say that it was Andrew Jackson who signed the Indian Removal Act into law, you also forgot to mention he spearheaded most of these efforts himself personally acting as the President of the United States, even negotiating with Indian leaders in person.

Of course, the blame is not entirely on him, I agree.

I should have been a bit more clear on what I meant by his "extreme hatred". This hatred wasn't exactly personal. No, Andrew Jackson did have friendly relations with, in fact, a lot of Indians personally and yes he did adopt an Indian orphan into his family, who tragically died later on. Contemporary sources and even historians today sometimes misleadingly paint this picture of an American war hero, statesman and "moderate"/"Indian friendly" president.

This hatred was political and cultural. He considered Native Americans as inferior to the Americans, he even negotiated with Native American tribes on the changing of their customs and he even believed that he was helping these barbaric peoples by kicking them off their land and killing them.

He was not moderate at all.

Yes he was less cruel than he could have been, yes he adopted an Indian orphan, but the "moderate" attitude even during the early 19th century towards Indians didn't exactly consist of illegally confiscating their land, back stabbing former Indian allies, going against the highest court in the land even though the Indians, particularly Cherokees, who DID adopt much of Western culture such as creating an actual written language, their own constitution and so on stuck by the agreements made between them and the U.S..

Their sovereignty over their own land was, as I mentioned before, actually guaranteed by the Supreme Court.

But Jackson being Jackson didn't believe that restructuring an entire culture's identity was enough and so, when the states started complaining about Native Americans, he grabbed the opportunity, taking upon himself the attitude similar to the white man's burden during the era of imperialism.

He forcibly removed them which resulted in deaths and contributed to the creation of more reservations that face an entire plethora of problems today. This was essentially extermination/genocide. In fact, the Trail of Tears as an event is listed under the Native American genocides.

[jaimehlers]

I don't agree that it was genocide, although I agree that it was despicable by modern standards.  But that's the point, "by modern standards".  We have to be very careful about condemning people who lived in the past because their actions would be utterly reprehensible today.  That's a bit too close to ex post facto^Wiki for my tastes.

Also, I meant "more moderate".  I don't have enough actual knowledge of what happened during that time to be able to definitively state whether Jackson was a moderate or not when it came to Native American affairs.

[C]

The argument of "it was a different time back then"/"modern vs. long ago" doesn't make much sense to me. The way I perceive it is as exactly how I perceive it when Christians tell me that the horrid things people did in the Old Testament are justified because they "lived in a different time".

Of course we're not trying to justify the Trail of Tears or anything like that, but still, I don't understand what the line is between historical figures or events (Andrew Jackson/et cetera, past genocide) that can't be condemned outright and the acts committed by religious extremists one thousand years ago that are condemned?

But then again, we are still using our modern standards for both cases...Gah. Slightly confuzzling.

[jaimehlers]

To justify is to excuse, and I'm no more interested in excusing the atrocities committed against the Native Americans than I am in excusing various other atrocities committed for religious reasons, or any other reasons.  There's no question of shifting or mitigating the responsibility for those atrocities.  But there's a difference between that, and judging (deciding) why the people responsible did what they did based on the standards of the days they lived in.  To me, knowing the reasons why someone did something are very important, because those reasons can serve to explain why they did those things.

Human nature hasn't really changed that much since the first tribes formed.  By knowing the justifications and rationalizations that people in the past used, we can tell when someone today is using them to justify and rationalize something.

[C]

Thanks for clearing that up. 

[12 Monkeys]

I'm not trying to argue that the Trail of Tears wasn't immoral or that Andrew Jackson wasn't a Christian.  I do, however, contest your assertion that he hated Native Americans.  I don't think it was ever about personal hatred with him, or why would he have adopted a Creek orphan?  I think it was because he felt that the native tribes should either move so they could live under their own laws, or accept living under American laws.  One very important thing to remember is that Jackson was quite moderate compared to a large number of white Americans who would have been just as happy to exterminate the native tribes instead of relocating them (not that relocation was a good solution for anyone, even the United States).

I've read some on this tragic period of history, and it seems evident that the native tribes were pretty well screwed regardless of anything else.  They didn't have the unity to hold back American settlers for the most part.  As a result, it was probably like trying to plug a leaky dike with their fingers.  Anyway, the point is that it was Americans in general who were responsible for the Trail of Tears; Andrew Jackson may have been the one who signed the act into law, but it was as much white American settlers, prospectors, and whatnot who kept pushing and pushing who were as responsible for the relocation as he was, perhaps more so.

its 2011 and Indians in Canada and USA are still wards of the state(not really free citizens) the lives of Indians are still under direct control of Governments due to the Indian acts in both USA and Canada.

 Can you think of any other nationality in this day and age under restriction,forced to live in abject poverty on lands that are barley habitable? sure they could assimilate and become wage slaves like you but where is the freedom in that?

 Imagine if the Nazi's had won WW2 and made you wards of the state,stole your lands and put you on reservations....not a nice reality is it.
 For the record,this is not meant as an insult or attack on you Jaim........just letting you know some of the other facts

[C]

Can you think of any other nationality in this day and age under restriction,forced to live in abject poverty on lands that are barley habitable?

Palestinians, people in Swaziland, people in Belarus, Tibetans, and, uh, dozens of other groups of people as well.

[12 Monkeys]

Can you think of any other nationality in this day and age under restriction,forced to live in abject poverty on lands that are barley habitable?

Palestinians, people in Swaziland, people in Belarus, Tibetans, and, uh, dozens of other groups of people as well.

Are these free countries? or does an outside country control them? civil war?

[C]

Each situation is unique and vary from one another. Also, what do you mean by "free countries"?

As for Tibetans and other groups like the Uighurs, yes, China is notorious for controlling and oppressing them. The people of Belarus are subject to dictatorial rule by a "president" who fraudulently won his latest term as are the people of Swaziland. Palestinians, who are currently trying to get their bid for statehood at the United Nations, have their rights abused by the Israeli government. They live on barren land (Gaza Strip) and Israeli settlements are still being built on what is supposed to be their land, or, a part of it.

The people of Kashmir are subject to military curfews and control as Pakistan and India are still fighting over where they live. A lot of indigenous communities down in South America are subject to harmful government policies and are indeed forced to relocate their homes whenever construction projects prop up.

[jaimehlers]

I was mostly trying to point out that it wasn't Christianity that nailed the Native Americans so much as it was American exceptionalism.

C, have you researched the Thirty Years War?

[C]

Christianity though played a large role in destroying Native American cultures and actually mapping the geography of the "New World" due to the traveling missionaries early on soon after the Spanish ravaged the Incas, Aztecs and Mayans. You also have to take into account that part of why Americans viewed Native Americans as inferior was because they weren't Christian.

As for the Thirty Years War, I learned what went on and why briefly on separate occasions, one time partly because I was learning about Cardinal Richelieu's life. Oh that shrewd bastard.

[jaimehlers]

Should have said "American Christians", then.  I don't think it would have mattered if the Cherokees had been Christians, because the white settlers wanted the lands.

Anyway, the reason I mentioned the Thirty Years' War is because it showed the tendency of European Christians to do what they wanted regardless of whether it conflicted with their religious beliefs.

[12 Monkeys]

Christianity though played a large role in destroying Native American cultures and actually mapping the geography of the "New World" due to the traveling missionaries early on soon after the Spanish ravaged the Incas, Aztecs and Mayans. You also have to take into account that part of why Americans viewed Native Americans as inferior was because they weren't Christian.

As for the Thirty Years War, I learned what went on and why briefly on separate occasions, one time partly because I was learning about Cardinal Richelieu's life. Oh that shrewd bastard.

Regardless of what the missionarries did to help map the "new world" hardly excuses what followed,sexual abuse,rape,murder,to genocide. Why was it not ok(we both know its not ok) for Hitler to do what he did to the Jews,but when Christians did it they called it "nation building" and it was somehow OK.

 here is a website that tell you just what one corner of Canandin Aboriginals suffered from the hands of these nation builders

 http://www.hiddenfromhistory.org

 I dont think you are dismissing the crimes,maybe because the history was "whitewashed"you may be unaware of it?

[C]

Monkeys, I don't know how the hell you perceived me reiterating "white washed" history when I said traveling missionaries helped map the New World (which helped future missions, both religious and armed warfare) right after I said Christianity tore down entire cultures and right before I said the Incas, Aztecs and Mayans were mostly exterminated?

[12 Monkeys]

Monkeys, I don't know how the hell you perceived me reiterating "white washed" history when I said traveling missionaries helped map the New World right after I said Christianity tore down entire cultures and right before I said the Incas, Aztecs and Mayans were mostly exterminated?

It was not meant as an insult,I see what you were saying. It is not really common knowledge of what followed,missionaries are responsible for a great number of deaths,as they were helping set up the new world it was government sanctioned extermination of Indians through residential schools in exchange for land.

I was just wanting  to give you infornation,not insult you

[C]

I know it wasn't an insult, I was just curious as to why you perhaps thought I loved the missionaries for mapping parts of the continents out.

[Q]

Allow me to answer some of your arguments?

4# - You still haven't answered the question - how can something come out of nothing? All of that is true, but you still haven't answered the main question. Instead, you point out the supposed unanswerable question of "Who created God?".
I have an answer, but whether it is satisfactory to you or anyone else is your decision.
Now, the same principles of casuality apply - Everything that has a beginning had a cause.
Suppose God exists and He created the universe. With it, He created Time. Now, similar to if you were to make a video game, the laws in what He created do not bind He Himself. I.e. , the concept of time is meaningless to Him. Time is meaningless, so God must have always been; He had no beginning. Therefore, He did not need a cause.

6# - I will go thorugh your list of supposed contradictions. I may miss some - I am only human.

A global deluge - There is plenty of evidence for it. I apologize, this may sound like I'm avoiding it, but there is so much I cannot write about it. I will only talk about rock strata around the world, but there is plenty more evidence. There is abundant evidence that many of the rock strata were laid down quickly, one after the other, without significant time breaks between them. Preservation of animal tracks, ripple marks and even raindrop marks, testifies to rapid covering of these features to enable their preservation. I wish I could show you pictures, but I don't know how (I apologise again if it seems like I'm trying to avoid the question). Polystrate fossils speak for it. The scarcity of erosion, soil formation, animal burrows and roots between layers also shows they must have been deposited in quick succession. The limited geographic extent of unconformities (clear breaks in the sequence of deposition with different tilting of layers, etc.) is also consistent with the reality of the global Flood. And there are many other evidences for the Flood. The Valley of the 3 Sisters in Australia, the Morrison Formation in North America the Bungle Bungles also in Australia and the Grand Canyon in the US, are but 4 examples of this rapid weathering and erosion, and the layers of strata prove that they had all been subjected to it at the same time.

Source: Morris, J.D. 1994. The Young Earth, Master Books, Colorado Springs. and Austin, S. (Ed.), 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA, USA.

The Walls of Jericho – Again, there is evidence. British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon found them in the 1950s. She showed that Jericho was indeed heavily fortified and that it had been burned by fire, or at least in a dramatic way. An in-depth analysis of the evidence reveals that the destruction took place around 1400 B.C. exactly when the Bible says the conquest occurred. The mound, or ‘tell’ of Jericho was surrounded by a great earthen rampart, or embankment, with a stone retaining wall at its base. The retaining wall was some four to five meters high. On top of that was a mudbrick wall two meters  thick and about six to eight meters high. At the crest of the embankment was a similar mudbrick wall whose base was roughly 14 meters  above the ground level outside the retaining wall.

Sources: Kathleen M. Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho, London, Ernest Benn, pp. 261–62, 1957.; Thomas A. Holland, Jericho, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Vol. ; pp. 220–24, ed. Eric. M. Myers, New York, Oxford University Press, p. 223, 1997. ; Bryant G. Wood, Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?, Biblical Archaeology Review 16(2):44–58, March–April 1990. ; Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger, Jericho die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen, Osnabrück, Otto Zeller Verlag, p. 58, 1973 (reprint of the 1913 edition).

The Tower of Babel – According to the biblical account, the tower was not phallus shaped and nor was it the sole reason for God to get angry. They directly disobeyed His command to spread around the world. They then decided that they would stay in one spot and build a tower to reach to heaven to see how great they were. This arrogance topped it all off. Again, this account is supported by evidence. However, since the Tower’s location was not disclosed, the evidence comes from the other aspects of the account – the linguistics and the spreading of mankind. For example, scientists only now just realized that all languages came from a common ancestor. They could trace these modern languages to a period in time when they all split up.

Sources - Ruhlen, M., A guide to the World’s Languages, Edward Arnold, London, 1987. ; Ruhlen, M., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95:13994–13996, 1998, as cited in: Wieland, C., Siberian Links for Amerindians , Creation 21(3):9, 1999.; Trask, R.L., Language, the Basics, Routledge, London, p. 18, 1999. ; O’Grady, M. and Dobrovolsky, M., Contemporary Linguistics, St. Martin’s Press, New York, p. 10, 1989.
Rabbits chewing cud - In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense. However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

Jesus facing dragons: Nowhere in the Bible does it say that

The Leviathan – The leviathan fits a poetic description of a marine parasaurolophus or even a crocodile

Melting snails – try putting salt on them

The Enslavement of Jews in Egypt – I’m getting bored of answering these. See http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture4b.html  or read Whiston, W., Josephus’ Complete Works, Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, chapter VIII, para. 2. Breasted, James A History of Egypt, p. 162, Scribner and Sons, New York, NY, 1954. Or even read Dr. Rosalie David of the Manchester Museum :” It is apparent that the Asiatics (the Egyptian name for the Israelites) were present in the town in some numbers, and this may have reflected the situation elsewhere in Egypt. … It can be stated that these people were loosely classed by Egyptians as ‘Asiatics’, although their exact homeland in Syria or Palestine cannot be determined … The reason for their presence in Egypt remains unclearThe scattered documentation gives no clear answer as to how or why the Asiatics came to Egypt in the Middle Kingdom…There is nevertheless firm literary evidence that Asiatic slaves, women and children were at Gurob”.

10# Allow me to add to your list.
Sir Francis Bacon – founder of scientific method
Gerardus  Mercator – father of modern cartography
Galileo Galilei – Physics, Astronomy
Blasie Pascal – Father of the Barometer and of hydrostatics
Sir William Petty – Father of statistics
Robert  Boyle – Chemistry and Father of Gas Dynamics
Isaac Newton – regarded as Father of Modern Science
William Herschel – Galactic Astronomy, found Uranus
James Joule – Father of Modern Thermodynamics
George Stokes – Father of Fluid Mechanics
Louis Pasteur – Father of Bacteriology, Biochemistry, Sterilization and Immunization
The Lord Kelvin – Absolute zero and Energetics
Joseph Lister – Antiseptic Surgery

[Q]

Now, allow me to ask some questions that Christians actually use.

1.How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? See: creation.com/loopholes.

2.How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? See: creation.com/code.

3.How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: creation.com/meta-information. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate? See: creation.com/train.

4.Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? See: creation.com/defining-terms.

5.How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”3 See: creation.com/motor (includes animation).

6.Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”4 Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5 The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes? See: creation.com/design_legit.

7.How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals? See: creation.com/multicellularity.

8.How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs). See: creation.com/evosex.

9.Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.6 Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem. See: creation.com/pattquote.

10.How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”7 See: creation.com/werner.

11.How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes? See: creation.com/chesterton.

12.Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”8 See: creation.com/sexstories.

13.Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? See: creation.com/science#relevance.

14.Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”12 See: creation.com/notscience#distinction.

15.Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”13 Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”14 If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught? See: creation.com/evo-religious, creation.com/notscience.

[Aaron123]

Allow me to answer some of your arguments?

4# - You still haven't answered the question - how can something come out of nothing?

No one is claiming that "something came from nothing".  That's just a line creationists like to use.

All of that is true, but you still haven't answered the main question. Instead, you point out the supposed unanswerable question of "Who created God?".
I have an answer, but whether it is satisfactory to you or anyone else is your decision.
Now, the same principles of casuality apply - Everything that has a beginning had a cause.
Suppose God exists and He created the universe. With it, He created Time. Now, similar to if you were to make a video game, the laws in what He created do not bind He Himself. I.e. , the concept of time is meaningless to Him. Time is meaningless, so God must have always been; He had no beginning. Therefore, He did not need a cause.

This is nothing more than special pleading.  Even if there were truth to this claim, you still need to demostrate how this could be observed and studied.  Otherwise, all you have are "suppose", "if" and "imagine".



Your second post consists of little more than agruing from incredulity, coupled with the god of the gaps.  If you have so many questions about evolution, then do the research!  This is the information age.  You can look this stuff on the internet, the library, etc.

15.Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”13 Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”14 If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught? See: creation.com/evo-religious, creation.com/notscience.

Another lie.  Declaring something you don't like a religion does not make it so.


How ironic, the same bad arguments that this thread was designed to address is being presented in their full glory.