July 20, 2008

Atheists Eat Babies!

debunking atheistsLet's just say, you know for a fact that eating children is wrong. A great number of people believe as you do and we all acknowledge it in unity. Then there is a website that says that eating babies is fine that you don't need to "buy into it" and believe that eating babies is wrong. There are a couple of blogs that talk all day how liberating and fantastic eating children are. Now whoever listens to them think they are crazy and very wrong but a few listen to the intellect behind the reasoning, they listen to the argument. Let's say the argument says it's natural for many animals eat their young in nature, and people are just a part of the natural process or something like that. Some people buy into it and start doing it.

You struggle everyday as to why people think like that, they all must be crazy, what do they know that you don't? This goes on and on but after a while you get curious. You then start to go around thinking why you don't get to eat babies as others do and how some people demand that you don't, like your parents. Then one day you get an opportunity to do it but everything in your soul KNOWS it is wrong. You shake at the thought of eating that very young child. It's agonizing to you for quite a while, you cuss at yourself for having such insane thoughts!

One day you see a little 5 month old at some playground and you convince yourself that you have to know what it's like. You seize the moment and kidnap the child. You keep that child isolated for days agonizing whether you should do it or not. You almost feel yourself slipping away into insanity to the point you can't take it. So you get the nerve somehow, and do it. Then afterwords you say to yourself that it was too quick that you need to try it again to see if the feelings you had during were genuine. So flash ahead a month and you have done it many times and you now frequent places that do it and go online to websites that also do it and you feel a sense of a warm community. You struggle with the nightmares until they pass and you feel OK. You embrace the fact that you are now a baby eater and you and your new friends are OK with it. The struggle get's a little easier to accept the notion that eating babies is fine for the natural process. You teach you own kids that it is perfectly natural to eat babies. You start your own website that is called "Atheists eat Babies!" and you showcase your work.

WIC, NWA, drunken_angel_3, National WIC Association
Is this what an atheist goes through when they start to deny God? The stories of struggles, that I have heard, turning away from God are similar to this scenario. Many authors talk about the struggle they go through from belief to non belief. The agonizing pain it causes themselves as well as their families. Could atheists talk themselves into anything? The methodical erosion of ones values and morals can be so damaging, to the point that it's acceptable that "Atheists eat babies."

An atheist may still be moral and say murder, rape, and eating babies are wrong; but when asked why, they will not have a final reason, or authority, to which they can appeal to, besides their own subjectivity. So it is merely a personal choice not to.

bit.ly/eatbabies

208 comments:

  1. You are a sick man. I've unsubscribed from this feed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's interesting that of all the information in the excellent post you linked to, you chose to focus on the remarkably sarcastic title.

    I applaud Ætlas for his post.


    Humans have evolved emotions and morals to help them survive in society. We instinctivly recognise some things as 'evil': Murderers, rapists and other criminals are detrimental to society, so our emotions reflect this.

    Here's a way to test this theory: Evolution works with whatever it can grab, so it associates the repulsion emotion with features that we recognise as human, rather than actual human beings.

    How repeled are you by the concept of eating a:
    human?
    chimpanzee?
    monkey?
    lemur?
    shrew?
    lizard?
    chicken?
    fish?

    Note that the further away the subject is from humanity on the evolutionary tree, the less qualms most people have about causing harm to it.

    Of course, there are a lot of other variables, but the trend is there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "An atheist may still be moral and say murder and rape are wrong: but when asked why, they will not have a final reason or authority to which they can appeal."

    We have a conscience that is both individual and can be shared. The combination of our conscience in a specific grouping (say a nation) leads to a majority consensus on what is right and wrong. This is the entire basis for our justice systems. People were forming justice systems before religion even had the dominating hold it has on people today.

    I'd also like to note the contradictions the Bible seems to have with "morality". It says everyone is equal but then says homosexuals are evil, and that you are welcome to sell your daughter into slavery, as well as kill her if she does something wrong. "Thou shalt not commit murder" is the most ironic statement in the entire religion, given the extraordinary amount of murder done in the Christian God's name...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Let me ask you, Dan, would you want to be raped? Murdered? Well, most people don't, and the foundation for morals and ethics lies in introspection and recognizing what type of society one would want to live in...not being good because there is an ever watchful eye. This suggests that you are only good because you believe God is watching. This is no basis for a system of morals.

    Hope you get help with the whole baby-eating fetish. If heaven is a place of pure indulgence, then possibly you will have all the babies you want ;)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Welcome Adrian,

    You missed some points. Do you believe there are absolute morals? Is raping babies for fun morally sound even if a society condoned it? God burned His Law into your brain (conscience means 'with knowledge')

    For example, it's a proven fact that with ALL people, across all genders and races, the consequences / telltales of when a person lies, are that;

    They experience sweaty palms.

    They experience induced swallowing.

    Their heart rate increases.

    Their faces turn red.

    They avoid eye contact.

    They speak more quickly, etc. etc. (The same old, same old with everyone human being on the planet. Except of course for sociopaths and those who have perfected evil deception.

    O.k., ... so these are physical reactions (that cross all humanity), that occur when people lie, keeping in mind that none of them are at all based upon comfort, self esteem, or integrity, why is that?

    Here's a hint, Lying is a spiritual event. It's not merely a physical action. Lying is an offense against God. When His creations lie, He is ashamed of His creation and simply separates Himself. Therefore He has constructed us with built in sensors that perhaps we just might someday, in our blind little, self seeking minds, finally get the big picture.

    "It says everyone is equal but then says homosexuals are evil"

    Where does it say that? I remember it says everyone is wicked is that what you mean?

    "This is the entire basis for our justice systems"

    Would you really like to have a conversation on what basis our justice system is derived from?

    "Thou shalt not commit murder" is the most ironic statement in the entire religion, given the extraordinary amount of murder done in the Christian God's name...

    Murder is wrong, yes true, Jesus talks about turning the other cheek and things. Back with the Old Covenant they stoned people for evil infractions of the Law, just like here in America. If you rape and murder a baby the likelihood that you will be 'gassed' is very great. Capitol punishment is how a society deals with the wicked crimes committed.

    "According to University of Hawaii political scientist Rudolph J. Rummel,[1] <#_ftn1> the total number killed in all of human history is estimated to be about 284,638,000. Of that number, 151,491,000 were killed during the past 100 years. The single largest killer in all of human history is, by far, atheistic Communism with a total of 110,000,000 … over 1/3 of all people ever killed! If we add to that number just two other regimes where religion of any sort was strongly discouraged, Nazi Germany and Nationalist China, the number rises to 141,160,000. Almost 50% of all the killings in human history were committed in the past 100 years by regimes that either actively promoted atheism or strongly discouraged religion. We have not considered the over one billion abortions, where Christianity seems to be particularly unwelcome. When the murders of history are tallied up, it is very clear that atheism is the most dangerous philosophy ever embraced by humanity. The most effective restraint on mankind's inherently evil tendencies is faith in God through Jesus Christ, a faith that actually follows the teachings and commands of Jesus Christ as a daily way of life." (emphasis added)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Clostridiophile,

    "This suggests that you are only good because you believe God is watching"

    Not just watching but He burned it into your conscience so you hate it also, because we are made in His image. We all hate liars because He does.

    Some evil people feel they can get away with raping children, but if they understood the wrath that will come down upon them they would reconsider. Michael Jackson may be set free by our flawed system but he will not get away with it on Judgement Day.

    Thanks for making my argument though.

    Now a different question, if you were to ask me if I would be afraid of being murdered I would answer no.

    I just wanted to point out that I am not afraid of anyone or anything on this earth. Matthew 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

    I don't know who to give credit to for this but it is worth repeating.

    "If I lie to a child, I'll get away with it.
    If I lie to my wife, I'll be sleeping on the couch.
    If I lie to a police officer, I'm obstructing justice and I'll go to jail.
    If I lie to a judge, it's called perjury, and I'll go to prison.
    If I lie to the government, it's called treason, and the punishment is death.

    So how much more egregious is a lie to God?

    The offense hasn't changed, only the one offended.

    An offense against an infinite God requires an infinite retribution."

    ReplyDelete
  7. "the total number killed in all of human history is estimated to be about 284,638,000. Of that number, 151,491,000 were killed during the past 100 years. The single largest killer in all of human history is, by far, atheistic Communism "

    As you've been told before, the keyword here isn't atheistic. Plus, I severely

    And I feel you should be informed that using Nazi Germany as an anti-religous example is the heighest form of hipocrisy, as shown by these quotes:

    "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord" (Hitler 1943, 65).

    "A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces" (Associated Press 1933).

    Please don't do it again.

    Finally, your claims don't match the statistics. As of 1997 (sorry I couldn't find more recent statistics), Atheists comprised 0.2% of all inmates. In comparison, the various secs of christianity comprised 83.7% of all inmates.

    http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

    Please note: I'm in no way implying a link between christianity and criminality. Christians comprise 76.5% of the population, whilst atheists and agnostics comprise .4% and .5% respectively (2001).

    http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/key_findings.htm

    What this means is that christians are slightly over-represented in prisons, while atheists are slightly under-represented. This trend is probably a result of other factors: for example, highly educated people are more likely to be atheist, and highly educated people are also underrepresented in prisons.

    In short, there is no correlation between religous status and criminality.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Quasar you are cracking me up,

    Be careful of your accusations, dude. "[highest] form of [hypocrisy]"

    In a memorandum submitted to Hitler on June 4, 1936, the German Evangelical Church questioned whether the Chancellor was trying "to dechristianize the German people." (Hitler had little place in his heart for a religion that worshipped a Jew.) Of even more significance is the statement:

    "When, within the compass of the National Socialist view of life, an anti-Semitism is forced on the Christian that binds him to hatred of the Jew, the Christian injunction to love one's neighbor still stands, for him, opposed to it."

    The world today, for the most part, despises Hitler-Stalin, also. Both rejected the ethics of loving neighbors as set forth in the Bible, and both slaughtered millions. Stalin self-consciously chose Darwin. Hitler tried to ram survival-of-the-fittest down the world's throat. Entomologist Vernon L. Kellogg, mentioned by Gould, summarized the position held, "That human group which is in the most advanced evolutionary state...should win in the struggle for existence..."

    Please don't make that mistake again.

    "Please note: I'm in no way implying a link between christianity and criminality. Christians comprise 76.5% of the population, whilst atheists and agnostics comprise .4% and .5% respectively (2001)."

    That is what my Dad would call, creative accounting. I could argue the correlation between false converts and true converts as in the 'Parable of the Sower'. That saved Christians are far less in prisons then professing false christians. If we add all the wicked unsaved (people going to hell, including atheists) vs the wicked saved (people going to heaven, Chrsitians) then the numbers would be quite different. If your presupposition is that atheists are smart and all around good people then your chart would prove that. If your presupposition is that atheists are going to hell with all the other unsaved people that chart would look quite different. With the same exact data I might add.

    "highly educated people are more likely to be atheist," Now your bias and prejudices is showing. Is that claim implied superiority or is that begging the question? Even if that is true, what good is it to gain the world only to lose your soul? If there is a direct correlation between retardation and Salvation then where do I get fitted for my helmet? Duh

    "In short, there is no correlation between [religious] status and criminality." Based on what? Atheists condone abortions more then Christians. Your statement proved wrong.

    Nice attempt but without Christ you will perish. Why talk yourself into hell? Is that logical to you?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Quasar,

    I almost forgot what Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges said about Hitler:

    Hedges later added in the interview "That's what leads Hitler to try and breed humans and apes to try to create an oversized warrior or to send expeditions to Tibet to find a pure, Aryan race. I mean, that's not science. It's the cult of science, and I think the New Atheists also make that leap from science into the cult of science, and that's a problem."

    Maybe you should get his new book. Available now in our DA book store.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Doubting Foo,

    "You are a sick man. I've unsubscribed from this feed."

    I guess you answered one of my questions. Enjoy your life.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Regarding Hitler:

    I wasn't trying to claim that Hitler was a christian: merely that he was highly religous man and justified his actions with a devine-right philosophy, which is continually shown in his speeches.

    He promoted eugenics not because of some misreading of the theory of evolution, but because he believe that the Nazi-Germans were God's chosen race.

    Once again, I'm not trying to accuse your beliefs of anything here: the man was evil, and would have misused anything to support his position. So please stop pretending that Atheism and Evolution were somehow responsible for Nazi Germany. It's insulting.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html

    And please keep in mind that social Darwinism, racism and eugenics have nothing to do with the biological theory of evolution. The links at the bottom of the above page refer to that.

    "If your presupposition is that atheists are going to hell with all the other unsaved people that chart would look quite different. With the same exact data I might add."
    Please: enlighten me. How can you use the data which demonstrates that the percentage of christians and percentage of atheists in the population who commit crime are roughly equal to show anything other than "religous status doesn't make any difference to crime."

    "Now your bias and prejudices is showing. Is that claim implied superiority or is that begging the question?"

    No, actually. My claim that highly educated people are more likely to be atheists is based off of the fact that among the general population there is a far lower percentage of atheists than among colledge and university graduates. Period. Would you like me to provide the surveys, or are your google skills good enough to find them?

    "If there is a direct correlation between retardation and Salvation then where do I get fitted for my helmet?"

    Once again, I do not make a correlation between mental disease and religon. My statement refered to the other end of the spectrum, and is demonstratably true. For whatever reason, people who have gone through University have a greater change of being an atheist.

    "Based on what? Atheists condone abortions more then Christians. Your statement proved wrong."

    More accurately, Christians condemn abortions more than atheists, and are louder about it. Most atheists I've met are not for abortion, but rather believe that there is the occasional extreme situation where it is better for everyone involved that the mother doesn't have a child.

    "Nice attempt but without Christ you will perish. Why talk yourself into hell? Is that logical to you?"

    No. Not if hell exists.

    In fact, occasionally when I've read or heard the spiels about eternal torture, I've had a moment of... not doubt, but fear. "What if they're right?" But I can't believe something based on fear alone. Is a belief like that even worth having? I need evidence.

    And as much as it may seem otherwise to you, I'm completely open to it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I've had a moment of... not doubt, but fear."

    You know Quasar that is the healthiest, most logical thing I have heard from you yet. It is the beginning of wisdom. I am encouraged and have great joy. You are not lost yet, the clay is still pliable. This is great news.

    Of course you, as well as all of us, should be concerned. If the Bible is true we all have something to do. You should make searching for truth of the Bible your goal for your entire life. You need to use whatever time you have left on this earth to find the validity of the Bible. You shouldn't take a skeptics approach though, change that presupposition and understand what the purpose is. Take it for face value as truth and prove, to yourself with evidence, it's truth. This is the most important task you will ever go through. If you come out of it with a skeptics mind, and your wrong, then you will have a terrible eternal life. If you come out a believer then you will understand and TRUST God that He will do as it says He will do, and you shall live in peace and understanding. Can you think of anything else on this earth that is more important than this?

    You will just have to take the Bible's word at face value, to start with, though. You will have to trust God and do it "His" way. If chosen you will "see the light" but you must be receptive to His messages to you. Find proof for yourself through Him.

    So many atheists look for negatives or disproof of the Bible instead of finding the positive or seeking truth/proof. Logically this is just the wrong way to approach things. Let's say you stand in a room of a thousand people with the instructions to find the red head. An atheistic approach would be to interview all the people around them asking for the validity of the red head (man's intellect), because some people around them haven't seen the red head they get discouraged and say there is no red head. A seeker of truth would do whatever it took and "Search" for that red head himself. He would stand on the shoulders of the other to scour the landscape to "seek" that red head. Don't read into this, you atheists, that I am claiming Jesus is a red head either.

    Nothing is more important then your Salvation, this is why you were placed here on earth, to find God! Don't listen to other people concerning "your" fate for eternity! Don't run away to find truth, run to Him and you will find Him. Do it God's way, not some advice from some atheists blog.

    Wouldn't it be frustrating if every time you told me something true I folded my arms and said "I don't believe you" over and over again no matter what you said or tried to prove? Don't treat God like that. Paraphrased from Contact the movie "Do you love your parents? ...Prove it"

    He will manifest Himself to you as promised in John 14:21. You can't approach our Holy God with folded arms and a smacking gum attitude. You must humble yourself to Him and approach Him with absolute humility and being receptive to Him.

    You can take this advice I am offering anyway you want. I was a skeptic for my entire life, but I must say in reflection God was with me all along. He brought me to Him. Don't get me wrong, the ones that get to heaven are chosen by Him from the beginning. All I am asking is to give him a chance to show that you were chosen like I was. All doubt has been removed for me, I hope the same for you. Just my small advice.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dan,

    You said, "Clostridiophile,

    "This suggests that you are only good because you believe God is watching"

    Not just watching but He burned it into your conscience so you hate it also, because we are made in His image. We all hate liars because He does."

    How do you know that the Christian God "burned" anything into your conscience? Why not Lord Brahma, or Aman Ra or the other ten thousand gods that humans have made up? Also, game theory applied to evolutionary theory suggests a better reason why we don't do the things we know today are wrong....we wouldn't be here if we had. Mathematically, social organisms who work together-but punish cheats-tend to survive better and pass more genes than if they don't socially cohere. This is testable, it makes more sense of morality, and it doesn't require defending a book claimed to written by a cloud man-god-spirit.

    "Some evil people feel they can get away with raping children, but if they understood the wrath that will come down upon them they would reconsider. Michael Jackson may be set free by our flawed system but he will not get away with it on Judgement Day."

    Uhhhmmm, people don't need to understand the "wrath" that you are talking about, they need only fear being caught by authorities. I mean, presumably, your god, who is claimed to be everywhere, all knowing and all powerful and all loving COULD and SHOULD stop child rape, but chooses not to....or maybe he just doesn't exist, or doesn't give a damn.

    "Thanks for making my argument though."

    What, your weak argument that I don't have a big spooky "authority" in the sky that tortures a chosen few after death?? Good argument, its not disprovable. However, it also is not very moral because all the argument we actually need to be moral is thinking about how we want to be treated and treat others accordingly. We also set up laws for those sociopaths who deviate from normal behavior, evolved as it were, not "burned".

    "Now a different question, if you were to ask me if I would be afraid of being murdered I would answer no."

    Ok.....

    "I just wanted to point out that I am not afraid of anyone or anything on this earth."

    Ok.....

    "Matthew 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

    So what is your evidence that this book had divine inspiration, and further that if jesus existed, which he probably did, that he was in fact divine, that he rose from the dead, and is now everywhere doing nothing as a child is raped and killed somewhere today?

    "I don't know who to give credit to for this but it is worth repeating.

    "If I lie to a child, I'll get away with it.
    If I lie to my wife, I'll be sleeping on the couch.
    If I lie to a police officer, I'm obstructing justice and I'll go to jail.
    If I lie to a judge, it's called perjury, and I'll go to prison.
    If I lie to the government, it's called treason, and the punishment is death.

    So how much more egregious is a lie to God?"

    Much less. It would be like lying to Santa. I'd rather lie to god than the government, that's for damn sure. Also, which God? You have the difficult position of providing evidence for your positive claim. Not only do you claim god exists, but claim to know his name and what he expects of you. How can you be so sure in your belief? You claim to be debunking me. To do so, you must use reason and logic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you actually want to debunk me, and show the error of my ways, demonstrate that your god exists...not just a god, but the one that presumably you just by chance happened to be brought up believing either by your parents of this society. thanks.

    "The offense hasn't changed, only the one offended.

    An offense against an infinite God requires an infinite retribution."

    Not if he is both omniscient and omnipotent because free-will is impossible, therefore, you have no choice in your actions if your god exists.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dan,

    Sorry, this isn't about eating babies, I'm not hungry just yet, I was wondering if you were going to try to debunk me about my reply to your comment where you tried to stump me with a partial abstract from Nature which you misunderstood (easy to do not being up on evolutionary theory and all, only us practicing scientists seem to have the need to read such esoteric literature)

    Anyways, still waiting to be "debunked"

    https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7771612431511732960&postID=6974593376195175093

    ReplyDelete
  15. Clostridiophile,

    "Why not Lord Brahma, or Aman Ra or the other ten thousand gods that humans have made up? "

    You answered it in the way you asked the question. Humans have made up many gods for themselves, Satanists and atheists under the umbrella religion of Secular Humanist choose to worship "self." There is only one Creator and that is who I worship. I suggest you do the same.

    "game theory applied to evolutionary theory suggests a better reason"

    I perfectly understand your point. There is something wrong with your theory though. Do you worship John Nash or God. Nash was a 'brilliant mind' who created the Nash equilibrium, God created mathematics. I prefer to place honor in the manufacturer not the tool produced by that manufacturer but that is the difference between you and I. Psst, God created music also but I bet you place all the honor with Beethoven to Led Zepplin and everyone in between. You choose to break the 2nd Commandment willingly.

    [on the subject of raping children]

    "Uhhhmmm, people don't need to understand the "wrath" that you are talking about, they need only fear being caught by authorities." So you would do it if it were legal? Turn this whole baby eating scenario to raping children it would be the same thing. You know raping babies for fun is wrong no matter what society says differently about it. Wake up!

    "all loving COULD and SHOULD stop child rape" he has. When Jesus died on that cross the clock started for the wicked to stop, since they won't they will be dealt with for eternity. Glory to Jesus!

    "and further that if jesus existed, which he probably did, that he was in fact divine"

    This might possibly help you, although you would have to change your presupposition first.

    "because free-will is impossible, therefore, you have no choice in your actions if your god exists." Oh pity pity...Man up, dude. We have laws that say no drinking and driving but you have the free will to do so, just be ready for the consequences.

    A proud unrepentant man needs the milk of hell and damnation and lake of fire talk. After you grow up understanding the Lord and you are 'born again' you don't fear the punishment anymore because it isn't for you, it's for the sinners. Do you fear going to jail for a DUI when you sit at home drinking a glass of water? Of course not that is absurd, but if you were drinking scotch all day and then get behind the wheel then yes be afraid be very afraid.

    "Sorry, this isn't about eating babies" Your right, but no I haven't addressed it yet. You seem to be confused as to what was said but I will try to simplify it for you on the other post.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dan,

    I notice that you were very selective in what you addressed, and your answers are even easier to expose than what I addressed. I will post a link to my response...this belongs on my blog.

    Debunking atheists????? HA!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dan: you say

    Satanists and atheists under the umbrella religion of Secular Humanist choose to worship "self."

    I can't speak for all atheists, much less for satanists (if there are any), but I don't worship the "self". I don't worship anything. And how is Secular Humanism a "religion"? It's just a system of ethics, with no gods or worship, which doesn't qualify as a religion in my book. Or is collecting stamps a religion too?

    Psst, God created music also but I bet you place all the honor with Beethoven to Led Zepplin and everyone in between. You choose to break the 2nd Commandment willingly.

    I can't speak for clostridiophile, but which 2nd Commandment are you talking about here? The one that says "Thou shalt honor only pre-Beethoven and post-Led Zeppelin music"? I don't know about you guys, but I personally honor many kinds of music, from the Seikilos Hymnos (about two thousand years old) to Webern (between Beethoven and L.Z.) to The Cure (post L.Z.). What commandments have I broken here?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Atheism - it's like eating zero calorie babies!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Wow, after reading that post, all I can say is...

    Congratulations on completing your slide into total insanity.

    ReplyDelete
  20. DI,

    No I didn't get a kick out it. Real and joking are two different things. Your post picture disturbed me even if it were fake.

    ReplyDelete
  21. DI,

    I was posing it as an example. Not outright saying you eat babies. To call you baby eaters is very different the a hyperbole. Besides I didn't say you eat babies but Richard Dawkins did. Mine was satire your was disturbingly real and creepy. Huge difference in my opinion. That is your free will though isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Why are you deleting my comments?"

    Because I can, my question would be why do you care?

    "Just use some proper decorum, please." is what I request right?

    "What if I were to make the argument that Christianity is the ultimate license to be immoral?"

    You already have in that blog. Were you serious or joking?

    ReplyDelete
  23. What is proper decorum? Making a post that atheists eat babies? If so, then mine falls under that as mine was also a post that atheists eat babies.

    But why do I care that you're deleting my comments? My question is, why don't you care? You have the following quote on the side:

    "If sinners be dammed, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for." C.H. Spurgeon

    Is that really what this blog is about? If so, censoring atheist commenters is probably a good way to deter them, not attract them.

    Perhaps I would have continued reading your blog, had you not decided to start censoring comments for no reason. But then again, I am coming to see that that is the hallmark of a Christian blog or anything trying to debunk reason or science. You make your arguments, and then you delete the comments of those who would engage you.


    I've unsubscribed from this feed and will no longer link to you, unless you issue some sort of apology or retraction for your censoring.

    Normally I would never unsubscribe from an anti-atheist site, as I subscribe to many. I feel that I can always learn something from them and also add to them. However, it's apparent by your actions that you don't care about the truth or discussion. You merely want your soapbox... and you can have it.

    Nice way to have your arms about my knees.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Your image was detestable and downright creepy in the most horrific manner. My post is a "what if" people actually eat babies would you just go along, post. Many atheists have complimented on it. Frankly you are starting to sound like Patrick Greene now, which can't be a good thing.

    I am not censoring your comments I am censoring your very distasteful picture you call art. I have the right to censor, if you feel you are singled out please understand that is not what I am doing. I don't apologize you are just mistaken. I still love you. Please don't be mistaken my "soapbox" as you call it, is still MY blog, I am playing in my yard but you don't "have" to. Your eternal salvation doesn't count on it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The entire "eating babies" argument is filled with rhetorical falacies. It is, as the kids say today, an argument "made of fail."

    Consider:

    Let's just say, you know for a fact that attending christian churches is wrong. A great number of people believe as you do and we all acknowledge it in unity. Then there is a website that says that attending christian churches is fine -- even required for salvation! -- and that you don't need to "buy into it" and believe that attending christian churches is wrong. There is a couple of blogs that talk all day how liberating and fantastic attending christian chruchs are. Now whoever listens to them think they are crazy and very wrong (after all, they are talking about the worship of an invisible man in the sky that will burn you in hell if you do not obey him, and he loves you), but a few listen to the intellect behind the reasoning, they listen to the argument. Let's say the argument says it's the invisible man's will that human beings attend church and gain some sort of ritualistic spiritual cleansing as a part of some sort of natural process or something like that. Some people buy into it and start doing it.

    You struggle everyday as to why people think like that, they all must be crazy to believe in invisible men that are omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. What do they know that you don't? This goes on and on but after a while you get curious. You then start to go around thinking why you don't get to receive this salvation as others do, and how some people have demonstrated that the belief in sky-spirits is akin to being delusional and borderline insanity. Then one day you get an opportunity to do it but everything in your rational thought process KNOWS it is wrong. You shake at the thought of relinquishing rational thought and allowing moral choices to be removed from your reason and calculation and placed into the hands of a clergy that has a tough time keeping their hands off the choir boys. It's agonizing to you for quite a while, you cuss at yourself for having such insane thoughts!

    One day you see a seemingly happy and normal family entering a church. You convince yourself that you have to know what it's like. You seize the moment and follow them in. You keep that words of the pastor in the forfront of your thinking as he speaks elequently about the glory of the invisible sky-spirit. You almost feel yourself slipping into the thought processes that strip the ability to question or modify the words to allow them greater applicability to your life and situation. After all, these are not facts or scientific discoveries -- they are immutable truths presented to the world by an all-knowing God. So you get the nerve somehow, and you become baptised. Then afterwords you say to yourself that the truths you are being indoctrinated with are applicable. They can be viewed in such a way as to provide guidance some two-thousand years after they were written. Despite the logic and reason that permiates your thoughts, providing doubt in the dictated truth of a book written for a different population dealing with a very different world, you manage to squelch those doubts and convince yourself that the feelings you had during the services are genuine.

    So flash ahead a few months of attending Sunday services, and Wednesday Bible study meetings, and you have become a cog in the wheel of the mechanism, working to convert the next unbeliever to the truth of your faith. You now frequent places that do not dare to question the faith, and so by constant repitition your own doubts sink away to the faintest of whispers in the far reaches of your mind. You feel a sense of a warm community. You struggle with the nagging "facts" that sometimes crop up and contradict the dictated truth of the millinial-aged book, but they are discounted and are passed by and you feel OK. You embrace the fact that you are now a christian and you and your new friends are OK with it -- even celebratory. The struggle get's a little easier to accept the notion that donating 10% of your money to a group of people that profess belief in the supernatural, but debunk the supernatural in all other areas of life is fine for the natural process. You teach you own kids that it is perfectly natural to attend christian churches. You start your own website that is called "Debunking Athiests" and you showcase your work.

    A christian may be moral and say murder and rape are wrong: but when asked why, they will tell you it is because God said so. In other words, it is not wrong on a fundamental level because each individual has value in and of themselves (all persons are to be treates as an end unto themselves, not a means to an end)... no, they say it is wrong because something external told them it was wrong. Had God said something as rediculous as eating babies was alright, they would dive in with glee and serve up Rack of Baby at the annual picnic.

    ReplyDelete
  26. So I'm confused... Now Christianity is like eating babies? Hmm... If that's the case those crazy Christians just might convince me to convert.

    ReplyDelete
  27. K. David Ladage,

    "A christian may be moral and say murder and rape are wrong: but when asked why, they will tell you it is because God said so."

    The problem with your argument/point is that it just isn't true. For example, is raping and killing a 5 year old wrong? Of course it is we all know this. It is burned into our conscience as well as all of the Ten Commandments. Where we go wrong is when we deny that little voice deep inside that says what we are doing is wrong.

    It's a proven fact that with ALL people, across all genders and races, the consequences / telltales of when a person lies, are that;

    They experience sweaty palms.

    They experience induced swallowing.

    Their heart rate increases.

    Their faces turn red.

    They avoid eye contact.

    They speak more quickly, etc. etc. (The same old, same old with everyone human being on the planet. Except of course for sociopaths and those who have perfected evil deception.

    O.k., ... so these are physical reactions (that cross all humanity), that occur when people lie, keeping in mind that none of them are at all based upon comfort, self esteem, or integrity, why is that?

    Here's a hint, Lying is a spiritual event. It's not merely a physical action. Lying is an offense against God. When His creations lie, He is ashamed of His creation and simply separates Himself. Therefore He has constructed us with built in sensors that perhaps we just might someday, in our blind little, self seeking minds, finally get the big picture.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dan wrote:
    K. David Ladage,

    "A christian may be moral and say murder and rape are wrong: but when asked why, they will tell you it is because God said so."

    The problem with your argument/point is that it just isn't true.
    Like your satire on baby eating, my points were all satirical in nature. Your argument is amazingly flawed and filled with rhetorical tools that are, well, less than convincing to those that have studied such things.

    For example, is raping and killing a 5 year old wrong? Yes it is. And this is not relevant to the argument you propose.

    Also, just curious: why limit this to 5-year olds? Rape and murder are both wrong. Not because God said so. Not because of some etherial command given to us by an imaginary friend that threatens to burn us in hell for all eturnity because we dared to question his authority. It is wrong because logic states that if large chunks of society (meaning a significant portion of that population, without consequence) engaged in this bahavior, then society as a whole would colapse.

    It's a proven fact that with ALL people, across all genders and races, the consequences / telltales of when a person lies, are that... Again, immaterial. This has many explinations that do not require the supernatural. From the enforcement of social norms on the psyche, to the evolutionary need for truse within populations... nothing needs to be explained by "and the invisible man in the sky wired you this way."

    Please keep in mind, I am not an Antheist. I am not even an Agnostic. I am a Lutheran (ELCA), raised by a Catholic father and a Baptist mother. I am struggling with my faith at the moment and I was pointed in this direction. To be honest, I have had conversations with Atheists attempting to convince me that there is no God that were not nearly as effective at accomplishing that goal as your arguments here: you may be helping me to accept that there is no God. And for that, someday, I may thank you. For now, when I need reassurance of the existance of God, I will stick with the writings of C. S. Lewis.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Lying is a spiritual event? That explains why I abhor it so much. Are raping and murdering spiritual events as well? Because I really, really hate those. Wow, that explaination explains so much without actually explaining a thing. I love it.

    Oh, and an atheist group I'm in have a contest where you could win a microwave for converting a theist to an atheist. We've been working on K. David Ladage forever - I'm talking college professors have debated him in an attempt to win. And so far, everyone has failed. Looks like you may actually win. KDL said he'd let me know if you win the microwave.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Oh! And before I forget -- where is the study that conclusively determined that lies are universally reacted to by all people across the globe?

    I want to read this. Sounds like an interesting study. I ask because I have never heard of such a study being conducted. Several Google searches have been unfruitful.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mr. Ladage,

    "my points were all satirical in nature."

    Well I misread then, I thought the last paragraph was your conclusion in truth.

    "Also, just curious: why limit this to 5-year olds?"

    For shock value and dramatic purposes, that's all. To also show there are absolute truths within absolute morality.

    "Please keep in mind, I am not an [Atheist]. I am not even an Agnostic. I am a Lutheran (ELCA), raised by a Catholic father and a Baptist mother. "

    I absolutely disagree with this statement. God says to test something by the fruit, good tree=good fruit and the following comment you made would of never have been said by a truly saved Christian.

    "nothing needs to be explained by "and the invisible man in the sky wired you this way."

    Let me explain myself, the religions you named were all man made and not of God. (Lutheran, Catholic Baptist) The mere fact there are different denominations negates the one true way as talked about in Jeremiah 32:38-40. They are simply false religions and it is perfectly understandable that you are questioning your faith. Now don't get me wrong, I believe that there are truly regenerate Christians in even the Roman Catholic church. But, they are truly Christians in spite of official RCC theology and in spite of the ritualistic offerings of this ancient church which has had too many hands meddling in it through the centuries, gradually moving it away from orthodoxy and into apostasy. Yes, apostasy. The Roman Catholic Church is no longer representing true Christianity. Baptist teaches things that are contrary to Biblical teachings also, (believe only) but that doesn't mean there are not any people truly saved in the Baptist church. I did a post about the modern churches such as Lutheran at a post called Have you put Jesus on like a parachute? Now please visit these posts that I am giving you because it is very important that I get these points across to you.

    We (please, allow me to join you on this journey) are in a very dangerous situation as I pointed out in this post called Doubt itself, the Catalyst for Atheism

    "To be honest, I have had conversations with Atheists attempting to convince me that there is no God that were not nearly as effective at accomplishing that goal as your arguments here: you may be helping me to accept that there is no God."

    Are you serious? Even you admitted the post being "satirical in nature". If you lose faith because of that then you just had no faith in the first place. You can't place it on me, unless you are being evil and purposely trying to discourage me.

    This link may also be helpful because it describes the evidence of a stony ground hearer who are people that never were saved yet. True and False Converts

    There is some of my advice I have seen your type many times before and you are not alone because wide is the gate that leads to destruction. Please for your sake don't give up searching because nothing can be more important then your souls salvation. You will not be able to sit on a fence of any kind the Day of Judgment so please chose wisely.

    Spherical said recently "I think therein lies a major difference between us. I am willing to accept things as they are, accept that I have a limited understanding of it all, but trust that there is more to it than meets the eye."

    Spherical also pointed out "If I were to die tomorrow and God were not real, I would not for a moment regret the choices I have made, because in them I have found freedom."

    I couldn't agree more.

    ReplyDelete
  32. David,

    "where is the study that conclusively determined that lies are universally reacted to by all people across the globe?"

    There are plenty of books out there and the library probably have many. The reason why polygraphs are so effective are from these indicators. A better search might be searching for polygraphs and their realities. I did find something doing a real quick search, called MIS professor discovers lying cues

    We all know though that it is common knowledge to these indicators. Do you have children? If you do you have seen most of these indicators.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dan, I'm new to your blog, so I am (I hope justifiably) curious.....

    In your response to KDL, you stated:

    Let me explain myself, the religions you named were all man made and not of God. (Lutheran, Catholic Baptist) The mere fact there are different denominations negates the one true way as talked about in Jeremiah 32:38-40.

    So, to which brand of Christianity do you subscribe? As you cite Bible verses quite often, it would be helpful to know which version of the Bible you are using. You may have stated this somewhere else in your blog, but I haven't had the time to read through it in its entirety yet.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  34. TheDalaiPython,

    Welcome.

    So, to which brand of Christianity do you subscribe?

    None of them. Denominations, I feel, are a detriment to the body of Christ. If you area a Christian then you are of the body there is no need for mankind to pollute God's perfection. (Proverbs 3:5-6,1 John 2:27) Everything is spelled out plainly.

    As far as the different translations, there is a sliding scale so I take all of them into account and not trust any 'one' thing that man has done. I stay close to literal and conservative as possible. The translations start from very conservative and literal translations like Young's Literal, Darby then to KJV then on up to the top of the more modern and liberal translations like NLT, NASB, and the most liberal New Jerusalem Bible (NJB). You might want to read a more conservative translation to understand God's Word, but that is just my advice.

    ReplyDelete
  35. [i]Are you serious? Even you admitted the post being "satirical in nature". If you lose faith because of that then you just had no faith in the first place. You can't place it on me, unless you are being evil and purposely trying to discourage me.[/i]

    I think he's losing faith because he is realizing how illogical christian arguments are. It's amazing how as an atheist my friends and I have talked to KDL many times and pointed out flaws in christian arguments. Somehow, it wasn't until he saw you making the same arguments that he realized how irrational they are.

    And while KDL attends a Lutheran church, I'm not certain he follows the docturines of the church. In my experience with him, he actually has read the bible and really has felt it speak to him. From what I gather, which could easily be incorrect, to him church is more of a gathering for people to celebrate the way the bible speaks to them. He simply found a home in the Lutheran church based on the way the bible spoke to him. He didn't just up and decide to become Lutheran for a good time and subscribe to whatever the person at the alter said to him.

    I find the "not a real christian" thing to be very condesending and unreasonable. Believing that a magical sky fairy did not wire you a certain way and believing that jesus is the son of god and offers wonderful answers on how to be moral and reach salvation are not mutually exclusive.

    If you get to make the "not a real christian" argument with KDL, I get to say the Kirk Cameron was never a true atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Xena,

    "I find the "not a real christian" thing to be very [condescending] and unreasonable."

    Of course you feel that way. Isn't that very understandable, you are an atheist after all? The "not a real christian" is prevalent throughout the Bible in many parables including "Parable of the Sower." You don't have to like it but it is truth and not everyone that get's to Heaven that says Lord, Lord will make it there. (Matthew 7:23)

    The power justice and righteousness of the Lord is real and everyone will know Him very soon. I just wish for all of your sake you get out of that burning building before it overtakes you.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Did the bible also give you the power and/or right to decide who's a real christian and who isn't? I seem to remember a judge not thing being in there at some point. Seems to me you should be taking KDL at his word when he says he's a christian.

    I only find it annoying because it's only a scapegoat. Basically, accuse 'em of being liars and proclaim victory. Congrats on the win.

    I actually find my burning building quite warm and cozy. And it's really easy to cook the baby meat. Speaking of which, it's almost done so I can take it our atheist potluck this evening. I'll have to catch up with next week.

    ReplyDelete
  38. First, Xena is correct when she explains what I meant when I said: "To be honest, I have had conversations with Atheists attempting to convince me that there is no God that were not nearly as effective at accomplishing that goal as your arguments here: you may be helping me to accept that there is no God." Thus, I wil leave that one at that.

    Second, you suggest (I will say suggest here to give you the benefit of the doubt, as I really want to say "state") that my father is a member of a false religion. Catholics would say the same of you, sir. Neither of you has a real leg to stand on to claim the other is preaching false doctrine. In fact, if either of you were to claim authority over these things, the Catholics have a stronger claim on this based on the decree of Jesus Christ as he gave the authority to the Catholic Church. I assume you have an argument against this. I have a good friend of mine (Mike G; a Catholic and, second only to my father, the most morally grounded man I have ever known -- just for sake of argument and clarity, in the top 10 morally grounded people I know, there are four Catholics, two Lutherans, two Atheists, one Agnostic, and one Islamic). In other words claiming an unverifiable high-ground over others claiming unverifiable high-grounds over you... is exactly the form of argument that is strengthening my resolve that the whole thing is bunk.

    Third, I have faith. It is tested daily, and I am holding onto it. But I have watched as various Churches in my hometown have effectively abandoned and/or isolated me. My family is supportive, and this helps. But the group that is most supportive of my journey -- and even encouraging my belief in God -- is the Secularists group that Xena introduced me to. They are great, wonderful, supportive, encouraging, and non-assuming people. They are humble, and do not pressure me. I have had some great debates with them. They provide logical, reasoned debates. They are intellectually stimulating.

    Last: I wrote a satire based entirelty on your satire to prove a point. That the argument made that equates (I *think*) to "Losing faith is like eating babies" -- which I do not claim to "get" by any means -- can be resolved to "X is like Y"; and additionally, that it takes little effort to substitute any X and any Y to this equation. I find the argument -- the post -- unsatisfying (and a bit gross) in that it is a whole slew of rhetorical tools misused for obvious purposes.

    I wish you well. I applaud you your faith. But I will hold to the concept that faith is a personal thing and should not be judged by others as "superior" or "inferior" to others.

    You *believe* you have found the "one truth" in all of this. You suggest that other faiths -- all denominations even -- have it wrong. This is *faith* to you; it looks a lot like *arrogance* to me. Especially as it insults some of the most faithful people I have ever known.

    ReplyDelete
  39. David,

    "This is *faith* to you; it looks a lot like *arrogance* to me. "

    Wow that was judgmental. So let me get this straight, You are judging me because I am judging people? Um, OK.

    Jesus says to judge righteous judgment, you know to determine if it is of the devil or not. Are we not even to judge ourselves to determine whether good or bad. We are to even rebuke our neighbors (Leviticus 19:17-18)that are being evil. Are you saying we are not to judge child rapists?

    Does not God say to judge by their fruit. BTW the RCC's cover up of the single largest gathering of pedophiles in the entire world would be a good judgment. These types of things should be exposed for what they are.

    "In fact, if either of you were to claim authority over these things, the Catholics have a stronger claim on this based on the decree of Jesus Christ as he gave the authority to the Catholic Church."

    Sorry buddy, that is just plain false, and I can expound if you wish.

    "I have a good friend of mine (Mike G; a Catholic and, second only to my father, the most morally grounded man I have ever known -- just for sake of argument and clarity, in the top 10 morally grounded people I know, there are four Catholics, two Lutherans, two Atheists, one Agnostic, and one Islamic)."

    Reminds me of John 12:43. Well of course you do if we gauge each other by man's standards, I know a great deal of good people but if we gauge them by God's standards (the one that matters) we are wretched sinners.

    Ray put it best when he said: "A little girl was once watching a sheep eat grass and thought how white it looked against the green background. But when it began to snow she thought, "That sheep now looks dirty against the white snow!" It was the same sheep, but with a different background. When we compare ourselves to man's standard we look pretty clean, but when we compare ourselves to the pure snow-white righteousness of God's standard—His Law, we can see ourselves in truth, that we are unclean in His sight. That Law is the holy standard by which humanity will be judged on Judgment Day."

    "Losing faith is like eating babies?"

    Nope you missed the point. Close to the end was the point of the analogy

    "Could atheists talk themselves into anything? The methodical erosion of ones values and morals can be so damaging,..."

    "unsatisfying (and a bit gross)" I would consider that fair but it was the atheists themselves all over the internet as an on going joke and they say atheists eat babies. They even provided the pictures. So don't get offended it wasn't towards you.

    I have said before that atheists found it funny.

    "You *believe* you have found the "one truth" in all of this."

    Are you claiming that there are more then one truth?

    "You suggest that other faiths -- all denominations even -- have it wrong."

    Yes, my claims can be backed up Biblically.

    "Especially as it insults some of the most faithful people I have ever known."

    But once again, I am not claiming individuals cannot be saved in those churches. There are plenty that are saved IN SPITE of the various church doctrines.

    You never commented on the links I have provided did you read any of them? I have some questions to ask but if you haven't...

    ReplyDelete
  40. Wow that was judgmental.

    No more so than the things you have written in this thread. And I am not claiming a moral high-ground. And, as I will explain in a moment, I am judging the actions, not you. You on the other hand, appear to be judging the person, not their actions.

    ---
    So let me get this straight, You are judging me because I am judging people? Um, OK.

    No, you miss the point. You are judging people. You are judging people and claiming authority to do so from a source that states, quite clearly, that you are not to do that. I am not judging you at all. I am calling into question your authority to claim righteousness as you violate the very standards you claim to be using as the backdrop of your judgement.

    ---
    Jesus says to judge righteous judgment, you know to determine if it is of the devil or not. Are we not even to judge ourselves to determine whether good or bad. We are to even rebuke our neighbors (Leviticus 19:17-18)that are being evil. Are you saying we are not to judge child rapists?

    Again, you use rhetorical tools -- twisting them even -- to suit you, but your point is empty. Let me explain:

    We can, as a society and as individuals, judge actions. We should. This is the basis of a lawful and just society.

    We cannot, as a society and as individuals, judge the heart. We shouldn't, and the Bible is quite clear on this.

    My point is is that you are (apparently) judging the hearts of Atheists -- and even Christians that believe differently than you do. You are claiming, for example (in a satirical way) that those that fail to believe in Christ have no basis for moral behavior; no yardstick with which to measure the ethical nature of behavior. This is not only false, it is demonstratably false.

    I have then (based on my perception of this taking place), have judged your actions (your judging of these people).

    So, in summary: I have not judged you, sir. I have judged your actions on this board. You are judging people's hearts and motivations. And this is not something you are allowed to do by virtue of the standard you aree judginig people against.


    ---
    Does not God say to judge by their fruit. BTW the RCC's cover up of the single largest gathering of pedophiles in the entire world would be a good judgment. These types of things should be exposed for what they are.

    So let me get this straight: you would claim to judge Catholocism (as a whole) because of a small percentage of them that engaged in immoral behaviors?

    ---
    Reminds me of John 12:43. Well of course you do if we gauge each other by man's standards, I know a great deal of good people but if we gauge them by God's standards (the one that matters) we are wretched sinners.

    You claim to have God's standardards and can judge by those? I am sure all of the denominations of the world of Christiandom would love to hear your insights on this. But let's get past that for a moment.

    You are claiming above, I believe, that are are all sinners. "Wretched sinners" even. Why then should you, a wretched sinner, be judging the hearts of other "wretched sinners?"

    (Also, a few posts earlier, you claimed that hell was not for you, but for sinners... meaning you had excluded yourself from that group. Not sure how to read that, honestly).

    ---
    {white sheep}

    This is wonderful rhetoric. But given that every Christian denomination claims a different shade of white (to use your analogy) and have, over 2000+ years, failed to agree on what the law is actually saying, I find it rather difficult to believe that you have found the one true shade of white.

    ---
    "Could atheists talk themselves into anything? The methodical erosion of ones values and morals can be so damaging,..."

    And my point was that anything can be self-delusional. Including the belief that you have found the one true meaning to God's word.

    ---
    I would consider that fair but it was the atheists themselves all over the internet as an on going joke and they say atheists eat babies. They even provided the pictures. So don't get offended it wasn't towards you.

    It was my understanding that this story was what promopted the jokes. I am coming into this debate late, so I don't know who started what on this one. But it is gross.

    ---
    "You *believe* you have found the "one truth" in all of this."

    Are you claiming that there are more then one truth?


    No. Just that you have no more authority over this claim of having found the "one truth" in all of this than the Jewish, the Catholics, the Islamics, the Lutherans, the Jahova's Witnesses, the Quakers, the Mormons, the Hindu, the Buddhists, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Moonies, the Christian Scientists, the Scientologists, etc.

    You have no more authority to make this claim (and some might even say far less) than the reigning Pope, the previous Pope, any of the College of Cardinals, the pastors of any of the 100+ churches in my home city, any of the rabis and holy men of the other religious institutions of the world.

    One can go on and claim youo have no more authority than Jim Jones, David Koresh, and so on. But that starts to get insulting. But I will point out that, in many ways, you have no more claim to having found the "one truth" in all of this than the Atheists.

    ---
    "You suggest that other faiths -- all denominations even -- have it wrong."

    Yes, my claims can be backed up Biblically.


    So... let me simply state that you can back up a claim of "one truth" of the nature and will of God by backing it up by a book written by men? A book that must be seen as "a collection of parables" as it unabashedly contradicts itself in its first few chapters?

    ---
    You never commented on the links I have provided did you read any of them? I have some questions to ask but if you haven't...

    I have skimmed them. I will give them a closer reading once I get a few more moments to look at them.

    Please understand, I am not trying to be difficult. I am simply seeking answers. And I am a willing canvas. But I will require more than "trust me" in this. This is a part of my life than means far too much to be left to such a chance.

    ReplyDelete
  41. OK... I have read the links a little more closely. The parachute parable is cute, but ineffective (again, using some rather obvious rhetorical falacies). One has to wonder why, when discussing something so important as salvation, those that report upon it must used such tools. Jesus taught in parable, but he never (as far as I can recall) used falacies to back himself up.

    Now the "doubt" issue is an interesting read. But it appears to be one that breaks down to "doubt causes one to raise questions; when those questions are not answered, this fosters more questions" and I can see this.

    Faith is a wonderful thing. But should faith be maintained in the face of contrarian evidence?

    In other words, should an atheist believe that there is an All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Present, All-Loving God when the world that this God (supposedly) created continues to tell him or her in the evidence they can see, and feel, and taste, and smell, and hear each and every day that this is not the case?

    Science tells us that having doubts about things is a good thing. And thank goodness!

    The ancient view of the world is one that had a dome over a flat world; that the sun revolved around the earth... doubting men learned that these "facts" were wrong. The Biblical view was simply incorrect.

    Biblical Scholars have attempted to date creation. The two prominant theories place it at either 5500 BC or 4000 BC depending upon the version of Genesis that is being used (the Greek Septuagint, or the Hebrew Masoretic version). Which one is the source of the "one truth" in this debate?

    Many things that great and learned men have said were backed up by the Bible, have been debunked. Debunked not by looking deeper into the book that spawned those doubts (be that the Bible, a text-book, or what-have-you), but by observing the world, and fueling their own doubts with questions that needed to be answered.

    So the question remains: was a false convert? I do not know. I know that I went through a crisis of faith at 14 and read all I could. I did not accept the word then (I read six different translations of the Bible, as well as other religious texts). I put religion on the back burner for many years. It was about 11 years ago when a friend in San Diego asked me to join him one Sunday that I found something that felt like it was real to me. I re-read the Bible (I prefer the King James, but keep a copy of the New King James handy for comparison) and for the first time, it seemed to speak to me in something other than superficial ways. Over time, I was Baptised in a Lutheran Church in Iowa. I attended and watched...

    ...and noted that the single most intollerant people in the world are those that are filled with their own sense of self-righteousness. I watched as a beloved pastor was kicked out of the Church. I watched as a pastor with no love in his heart too command over the church I was baptised in. I watched as we moved to a new church and patters of self-serving righteousness repeated themselves, leaving me with no since of community.

    So in the analogy of the false convert, I am a man that sought the waters of faith and had them taken from me by those that claimed at first to love me. I looked for comfort from others within the body of Christ and was asked to leave because I showed compassion to the pastor that was being ran out of the church. I looked in a new church and watched as the administrators kept asking for help from the congregation (we did a Spiritual Gifts series)... and they told me that my gifts as identified were not valuable to them in any way.

    I am drying up as I am seeking help to restore mine. All I hear are falacies as those that claim to know ignore logic; all I hear are condemnations, calling into question my faith (I find this one the most intersting -- a man comes to ask for help in restoring his faith and is told that his problem is that he has no faith. This is akin to a man going into a bank to ask for help restoring his finances and being told that his problem is that he lacks a firm financial foundation).

    So here I am. Still seeking.

    ReplyDelete
  42. David,

    "We cannot, as a society and as individuals, judge the heart. We shouldn't, and the Bible is quite clear on this."

    I will concede to that, to a point. We are not to judge motives of people but evil is very apparent when sensitive to it. We are not to judge other saved Christians also as in "I am a better Christian then you" attitude. We are to judge the lost and I do my very best to explain this in my post called Should Christians judge Atheists?

    "Just that you have no more authority over this claim of having found the "one truth" in all of this than the "

    We can agree to disagree. The authority is never mine but God's and the Bible is abundantly clear. There is only one truth, that we both can agree on. Plainly reading the Bible I see no back up of the RCC doctrine and the Pope or any other things they claim. I can, in perfect confidence, say they are incorrect in their doctrine. Proven by the fruit of the horrible and shameful cover up. If the RCC is the true doctrine then I simply want to go to hell. I just cannot sign up to that club. I can say this with confidence because they are false and if you read the Bible plainly you would understand this to be true.

    "let me simply state that you can back up a claim of "one truth" of the nature and will of God by backing it up by a book written by men?"

    That is just it it wasn't written by man. It was only penned by man, huge difference.

    "A book that must be seen as "a collection of parables" as it unabashedly contradicts itself in its first few chapters?"

    That is just not true, go see Contradictions everywhere!

    I don't read the Bible literally, I read the Bible plainly. It is quite clear when the Bible is using a Parable, Hyperbole or literal. How can I tell you ask? There is always Hermeneutics that will be quite helpful. I stay clear of an eisegesis approach because that just makes a God to suite myself. It is best to use a exegesis method of interpretation to be consistent.

    "And I am a willing canvas."

    That is great news, and I believe you. Seek God more for answers, instead of looking to man (1 John 4:6, John 14:26)

    God will point you in the right direction.

    You wrote more (to be con't)

    ReplyDelete
  43. David,

    "But should faith be maintained in the face of contrarian evidence?"

    If that contrarian evidence is from man then sure.

    "The Biblical view was simply incorrect" (about a flat world).

    No, you are simply incorrect about the Bible being incorrect. I did a post about that also, called: Earth, Flat or Sphere?

    David I do appreciate your search because that mean there still is a glimmer of hope for you, but it also appears that you are depending on men instead of God for your salvation. I looked far ans wide to search for a wholesome church for our family, a church that was actually for real to no avail. We went to one church that we had to wait for the Pastor to finish his cigarette to start the service. One church we could actually feel the dead, evil presence of something terrible. Another that kept their hand out, it appeared, the whole time and yet another that every child of ours got violently ill while there, my child cried the entire time and he was never really prone to that type of behavior. We concluded to start the Church of Marvin to go along with the School of Marvin, we have a great time no one gets sick and everyone is safe. We have our own mission to feed the needy and my daughter loves helping to make sandwiches and is quite creative gathering things they need for the bags we assemble.

    I am certainly not bragging here I am showing you the alternative for depending on PEOPLE for your salvation. I depend (at all possible) on God alone for our needs. I have, in a sense, put Him on like a parachute. I cannot tell you what you need to do, I cannot tell you the fix, all I am saying is don't stop seeking and stop doubting God.

    Personally I would get very angry if everything I said to you, that you would come back with a "I don't believe you" or "I doubt that is true" I would get furious very quickly and write you off as a loss. But that would be me and I am not God and God has much more patience then I do. I am just saying, from one guy to another, stop doubting that God exists. I totally agree with doubting what man is offering as truth i.e. denominations, that is healthy, but God Himself, I would never doubt Him. You know the drill Repent (turn away) from sinning (name them to God even.) and TRUST Jesus with your entire life even when the storms are very strong, you must pick up that cross for Him. Read your Bible every day without fail, that is our spiritual food "no read, no feed" read the Bible before you even eat a meal. Get to know Him. It only takes a moment to become a Christian, but a lifetime to live as one. Don't give up

    Remember what I posted: God's Word simply declares that this is God's plan of salvation; 1. Hear the WORD of God. 2. Believe that Jesus is the Messiah. 3. Repent of your ways that are contrary to God's will. 4. Be Baptized INTO Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 5. Remain faithful to the Covenant you have made with God.

    Don't fail #2 or #5 that is just my advice.

    ReplyDelete
  44. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

    Psalm 24:2 (for example): "the world and all that is in it belong to the Lord; the earth and all who live on it are his. He built it on the deep waters beneath the earth and laid its foundations in the ocean depths"

    This is a passage that makes no sense until you view it in the ancient Hebrew worldview:

    http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/ThreeTieredUniverse.htm

    Again... not being a Biblical literalist, this is not a big deal. But the Biblical View of the world is one that does not allow for a spherical ball of earth and stne hurling around a giant ball of nuclear fire.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Thanks for the dialog. Thanks for (what I assume is) your honest concern.

    I have some "soul searching" to do. And so I will go do that, and leave you to your ministry.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Surely you must realize that the athiests talking about eating babies are just having a bit of fun, because for reasons I don't know, athiests are called by some 'baby eaters'.

    ReplyDelete
  47. toadaly,

    You must realize I am just playing around also.

    And don't call me Shirlee

    ReplyDelete
  48. Dan, you are definitely trying to make your point about non-believers with an extreme and sensational example. I believe in "God" or as I prefer in my mind, a Supreme Being. The term God is simply shorthand for something far greater than you or I will ever comprehend. What I don't believe in is.....Religion. My main objection to it is those who vociferously foist it's moral principles upon others are the most likely to violate those principles. What is worse is they don't even see the hypocrisy. Hypocrites seldom do. I'm not suggesting you are a hypocrite by simply practicing religion Dan, but you are a sensationalist and think you're clever. I did chuckle a bit at that ubiquitous poster turned to this end. Imposing ones belief system upon someone else is morally wrong in my book. I also know that book you read is read often quite selectively and its passages are often cited in this same sensationalist manner to put fear into the hearts and minds of a vulnerable audience. We must allow people make up their own minds about the nature of The Supreme Being. Making it up for them does not make their faith suddenly appear. I don't believe in arguing faith. One can not and must not argue faith. It is impossible.

    Post edited for clarity and grammar by the author

    ReplyDelete
  49. PA Systems,

    First welcome.

    "What I don't believe in is.....Religion."

    Most religions like Catholicism, Mormonism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Muslims are all false religions. God says that there is nothing that we can do to earn our way to heaven and that is what all these religions are about, that if you follow that 5 pillars or confess your sins to a man or if you say hail to Mary, fast, meditate and do good works enough that it will get you to heaven. Nothing can be further from the truth.

    I had a hang up about the word "religion" also, how we were linked with all the false religions out there. I believe religion destroys and keeps people away from God; I hated to be called religious, then someone wrote to me, which summed it up perhaps better then I could of said.

    "That is, our religion is from the Creator. It is a result of our hope and trust in God. It is the natural fruit. False religions have stolen from God and not the other way around. False religions have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term "Justification." They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation.

    A religion that is pure in the sight of God is a "discipline" which results and originates, from God. We do these things as a result of being justified. We do these things because God has declared us "not guilty" because of the passive/active obedience of the Messiah being given to us as a gift. His works are what save us. In contrast, the religions of the world who deny justification seek to bring their "religious" efforts to God to "save" them.

    Don't let that word religion, be a hindrance. We as believers have a beautiful religion because it is a fruit which comes from God. It starts with him and ends with him. Like I said; the religion we show is a result of what God did. It is an external response. For example, we love because he first loved us right? The false religions out there have a completely different gospel. As a result they bring their filthy rags and present then to God thinking they are working their way to God. We have been made clean by the word. The false religions make themselves clean." (Moshe, carm.org)

    "My main objection to it is those who vociferously foist it's moral principles upon others are the most likely to violate those principles."

    Are you claiming perfection?

    Remember that we, as Christians, are not perfect, just forgiven. We all fall short and none of us are good (Romans 3:12)

    "I also know that book you read is read often quite selectively and its passages are often cited in this same sensationalist manner to put fear into the hearts and minds of a vulnerable audience. We must allow people make up their own minds about the nature of The Supreme Being. Making it up for them does not make their faith suddenly appear. I don't believe in arguing faith. One can not and must not argue faith. It is impossible."

    That book you read? You mean the Word of God? (John 1:1,14)

    What do you mean by this? Are you saying we are not to judge people? If so I disagree, the entire Bible is about judging. We judge to see if it is of God, we judge to see if it is a false prophet, we even judge ourselves to see if we are sinning. I did a post about it. (tinyurl.com/Judgepeople)

    Plus the "I don't believe in arguing faith. One can not and must not argue faith. It is impossible." comment confused me. Are you saying we are not to argue that my faith is stronger then yours? If that is the case then I completely agree. (Matthew 7:1)

    Also, we are not to judge motives, that is for God to judge. We are all the body of Christ and we all serve a purpose. (Galatians 3:28)

    Your ambiguous comment made me question if you are indeed a Christian, are you? Thanks for stopping by and getting the sick humor.

    ReplyDelete
  50. No Dan. I would be the last to claim perfection. I will not be a hypocrite. We are all human. But I refuse to get my hopes constantly dashed by hypocrites, liars and fear mongers. Those people could never offer me peace or "salvation". One must, I believe, find salvation in doing no harm and trying ones best to stay sane and calm.

    Too many people that practice "organized religion" believe their faith and their doctrine is the only "true" faith. More wars and blood has been spilled over these arguments of faith. That's why it is impossible to argue it because it is faith and it can not be proven that one faith is "better" or more "true" than another. I feel it's better for those who have their faith to keep it as long as they are content, are at peace and don't instigate actions on behalf of that faith that do harm. The most spiritual person I ever knew was never a proselytist. That person deserved my respect more than any of the preachers, ministers, rabbis or priests I've heard or known.

    ReplyDelete
  51. To add to my previous comment.

    There was only one perfect person and look what they did to him.

    If he were to come back today we'd do the same thing.

    A lot of people would like Him to come back again so they can do it right this time.

    ReplyDelete
  52. PA,

    "Too many people that practice "organized religion" believe their faith and their doctrine is the only "true" faith."

    Jesus even had the harshest words for the scribes and Pharisees. The mere fact there are different denominations negates the one true way as talked about in Jeremiah 32:38-40.

    Do not be mistaken though. I guess I should ask if you believe that Jesus is the Messiah? He is the only path to God. There is indeed only one way to Salvation. How else can you account for your sins? (Matt 12:30)

    It is explained at (tinyurl.com/WelcomeIloveyou)

    Let me guess, are you more spiritual then religious? If so, then I have something that I want you to watch. It is the first video on my sidebar (towards the bottom) here that you may find interesting. I placed it there because I hear that term "more spiritual then religious" all the time. This video addresses that point.

    "The most spiritual person I ever knew was never a proselytist. That person deserved my respect more than any of the preachers, ministers, rabbis or priests I've heard or known."

    Hmmm, Let me ask you something. Do you believe that "Christian love" is to coddle people in their wickedness?

    Do you remember what it says in Matthew 22:39 "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"

    But what does this truly mean? Does that mean we are to love them no matter what they do because we are sinners also? Do we coddle them in their sins, tell them God loves them no matter what? Nope Jesus was clear when he said this. He was telling us what the standard was. The way to show your love to your neighbor is to warn them and their sins will take them to hell.

    The only way you can show your love to your neighbor was outlined in Leviticus 19:17-18 "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD." (emphasis added)

    If you believe coddling is love then you are delusional. You must confront to show love to someone. Would you let a friend go and drink and drive? We will take the keys and get into your face if necessary to show that you are wrong. Get offended if you wish but I will not accept the evil wickedness of unrepentant sinning. I do not condone sin and if you shall perish because of your wickedness then so be it, without any grudge, you deserve everything coming to you.

    ReplyDelete
  53. dan, I believe you are assuming Gods Power here. Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord. No others claim it and judge and ye shall be judged dan. The first shall be last and the last shall be first.

    "Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness for their's is the Kingdom Of Heaven"
    Matthew 5:10

    ReplyDelete
  54. PA,

    "I believe you are assuming Gods Power here."

    O'rly, do tell. How so?

    "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord. No others claim it and judge and ye shall be judged dan. The first shall be last and the last shall be first."

    I agree completely, what's your point?

    Are you going to answer my questions?

    ReplyDelete
  55. @ Author -
    This is horrible. You really are some mindless zombie who just spews out nonsense without having a clue what you're talking about.

    Infarct, I think this post demonstrates how retarded and closed minded religion makes people. Am going to link this ever so enlightening post to my friends.

    And Dan - this might be hard for you to understand, but am an atheist and I have morals and ethics which are not tied to or dictated by religion. Being a humanist is enough to know eating babies is wrong.

    These kind of posts do you no credit

    ReplyDelete
  56. A,

    First of all "welcome" and thanks so much for your visit. We do have a fun time here and you would know that if you joined in the conversations so please do in the future.

    Second, thanks for answering one of my posted questions that I had with a resounding no. :7)

    Third how did you even get here? You must have been searching for eating baby recipes or something. You sick, sick individual. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  57. Oh and one more thing A,

    What makes eating babies so wrong according to your worldview?

    For more info on that question go here. Enjoy!

    ReplyDelete
  58. eating babies is wrong because our race never would have propagated if we always ate our offspring. If you fear no man then you dont know what a man can do, i can do far more than kill you i can keep you alive and hating life for as long as i want keeping you hoping for death as long as i chose ah but this would be an abuse of my skills as an interrogator but your book has no rules against it and only my ethics stops me

    ReplyDelete
  59. Your logic is flawed, full of ignorant stereotypes, and just plain stupid. You are a poor deluded human being.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Punisher,

    Your logic is void of substance, just bare assertions...

    How about explaining yourself next time. Have a question? I may have an answer.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Congratulation, you made it to
    FSTDT, currently at an impressive 150 points.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Sorry, above link broken. It's actually here.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Hugo,

    Thanks, I appreciate things like that. After rereading it again, it still stands true.

    ReplyDelete
  64. You seem to be arguing against the Argument from Nature. Yes you are right the argument from nature is not a very good one.

    The problem with applying it to Atheism is that you can't actually point to any examples of it in nature. I am yet to encounter the rare and illusive atheist Squirrel. Granted I never thought to ask a Squirrel if it believed in God.

    More to the point I have never ever heard anyone attempt to make an argument from nature in support of Atheism. For Homosexuality yes, as it is quite prevalent in some species, but not for Atheism. So you do seem to be building a straw man here.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Let's just say, you know for a fact that dashing children against the rocks is wrong. A great number of people believe as you do and we all acknowledge it in unity. Then there is an old book that says that dashing babies against the rocks is fine because an all-powerful being said so. There are a couple of blogs that talk all day how liberating and fantastic following this being's command to dash children against the rocks is. Now whoever listens to them think they are crazy and very wrong but a few listen to their apologetics. Let's say the argument says it's an all-powerful being that is the supreme authority of the universe. Some people buy into it and start doing it.

    You struggle everyday as to why people think like that, they all must be crazy, what do they know that you don't? This goes on and on but after a while you get curious. You then start to go around thinking why you don't get to dash babies against the rocks as others do and how some people demand that you don't. Then one day you get an opportunity to do it but everything in your brain KNOWS it is wrong. You shake at the thought of dashing that very young child against the rocks. It's agonizing to you for quite a while, you cuss at yourself for having such insane thoughts!

    One day you see a little 5 year old at some playground and you convince yourself that you have to know what it's like. You seize the moment and kidnap the child. You keep that child tied up for days agonizing whether you should do it or not. You almost feel yourself slipping away into insanity to the point you can't take it. So you get the nerve somehow, and do it. Then afterwords you say to yourself that it was too quick that you need to try it again to see if the feelings you had during were genuine. So flash ahead a month and you have done it many times and you now frequent places that do it and go online to websites that also do it and you feel a sense of a warm community. You struggle with the nightmares until they pass and you feel OK. You embrace the fact that you are now God's servant and you and your new friends are OK with it. The struggle get's a little easier to accept the notion that dashing babies against the rocks is fine. You teach you own kids that it is perfectly fine to dash babies against the rocks if God says so. You start your own website that is called "servantofgod.com" and you showcase your work.

    Fixed.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Let's just say, you know for a fact that dashing children against the rocks is wrong. A great number of people believe as you do and we all acknowledge it in unity. Then there is an old book that says that dashing babies against the rocks is fine because an all-powerful being said so. There are a couple of blogs that talk all day how liberating and fantastic following this being's command to dash children against the rocks is. Now whoever listens to them think they are crazy and very wrong but a few listen to their apologetics. Let's say the argument says it's an all-powerful being that is the supreme authority of the universe. Some people buy into it and start doing it.

    You struggle everyday as to why people think like that, they all must be crazy, what do they know that you don't? This goes on and on but after a while you get curious. You then start to go around thinking why you don't get to dash babies against the rocks as others do and how some people demand that you don't. Then one day you get an opportunity to do it but everything in your brain KNOWS it is wrong. You shake at the thought of dashing that very young child against the rocks. It's agonizing to you for quite a while, you cuss at yourself for having such insane thoughts!

    One day you see a little 5 year old at some playground and you convince yourself that you have to know what it's like. You seize the moment and kidnap the child. You keep that child tied up for days agonizing whether you should do it or not. You almost feel yourself slipping away into insanity to the point you can't take it. So you get the nerve somehow, and do it. Then afterwords you say to yourself that it was too quick that you need to try it again to see if the feelings you had during were genuine. So flash ahead a month and you have done it many times and you now frequent places that do it and go online to websites that also do it and you feel a sense of a warm community. You struggle with the nightmares until they pass and you feel OK. You embrace the fact that you are now God's servant and you and your new friends are OK with it. The struggle get's a little easier to accept the notion that dashing babies against the rocks is fine. You teach you own kids that it is perfectly fine to dash babies against the rocks if God says so. You start your own website that is called "servantofgod.com" and you showcase your work.

    I'm a Christian, but I'm just saying, these kinds of arguments don't work as you can just replace subject X with subject Y....

    ReplyDelete
  67. Touché Michael,

    Well played

    But what do we do with Leviticus 26:27-29?

    ReplyDelete
  68. oooook umm you say all other religions are false that is so condesending and arrogant (PRIDE) look at catholics for example they believe in JESUS CHRIST and the CHRISTian god and also protestants sort of branched off from them so you cant even distinguish another SECT of the same religion as you and then theres hinduism which actually acknowledges Jesus and prays to him and how is having one god but alot of seperate versions of that ONE god evil and having one god and believing that it has 3 seperate entities as christians do not? If you knew of the legends of say Rama and his virtues I mean he followed his parents instuctions (to the letter) he was kind HUMBLE and loyal to his brothers whom he adored would you say that he is the devil hmmm? he was a kind decent *man* you say you cannot learn from the love compassion humility loyalty and respect to ones parents as nothing to learn from hmmm? and then theres karma which at a very basic level thats what you believe do good obey your lord have pure thoughts and actions this will lead you to paradise same said about karma except you will have a fantastic life after the one your living and before you say its just an endless wheel with no escape you are wrong one can achieve spiritual enlightment of sorts and your soul will forever escape karma and have paradise forever (of course you must be very spiritual to do so) and i will admit at the start it was responsible for the classes of people (kinda like the middle ages in europe) but people twisted it so it was far more rigid and degrading than was originally intended
    and about this baby eating thing thats exactly what the romans said about christians in the ancient times
    (also sorry if it sounds judgemental but I do not like to hear when a TOLERANT religion is INTOLERANT of others beliefs and also im not sure which religion I wish to follow but you are kinda turning me away from christianty and before you spout biblical versus ive heard many and alot of people can find one to back up them up for just about anything)

    ReplyDelete
  69. What are you trying to say by quoting Leviticus 26:27-29? Frankly, I don't see how it's relevant to the content of this article...

    If I understand it correctly, that passage is about the punishment of being a non-believer, not what they are capable of doing or how they justify themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Connie,

    Welcome, you said a lot so let me address each point.

    >>look at catholics for example

    Mormons also believe in Christ but does that matter? What matters if they are Christian or not. Who determines who is, and who is not a Christian? Christ that's who.

    In the past I did a post about the false religion of the RCC if you want to take a look. (http://tinyurl.com/falsercchurch)

    >>Hinduism

    Hindus believe that there are 3 supreme gods: Brahma, the creator; Vishnu, the preserver; and Siva, the destroyer. Some sects, emphasize one or the other as being higher in status than the others (although still recognizing the others), but in general they are recognized as equal. Avatars are incarnations of these gods who have come to earth as men. (Rama and Krishna). Dead ancestors and religious teachers are also worshiped.

    For man to be God is Satan's original lie! Man CANNOT earn or "realize" salvation through any works, meditation, or worship of created images. There is one God.

    >>karma

    That is the problem personified. You cannot justify yourself to God. There is nothing you can do to forgive your sins. Can a child molester wash away those horrible sins by doing some community work, or building houses for the poor? Can he approach a judge and say " I know I did those wrongs, but look at the good I did" The judge would say you should do good, now go to jail. That is the problem with ALL religions, without Christ they must justify themselves. No one can do "works" to be forgiven. Salvation is through Christ alone.

    >>but I do not like to hear when a TOLERANT religion is INTOLERANT of others beliefs and also im not sure which religion I wish to follow but you are kinda turning me away from christianty [sic]

    First, who told you Christianity is a tolerant religion? Perfect love is a constant confronter, not coddling. It certainly is not, we are at war after all. Second, you are giving me far too much power (maybe a Hinduism thing :) there is nothing I can do to remove you from God's grasp ( John 10:28-30). If I were you, I would be worried why you rejected Jesus Christ in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  71. interesting comments i never said anything about molesters (from what i recall there was alot of slavery including children in the old testament at least hinted at for example dont know the exact scripture but something like go forth into the town kill all who reside there including women and children except those who have not known a mans touch keep them for yourselves)but said molester cannot redeem himself thru karma he will be punished and hopefully do better next time who told me christians were tolerant? all those I know who call themselves christian especially at my school when they taught it (went to public school in aus they teach it anyway) and I never said I rejected christ in fact i think his teachings are very valid you know judge not lest ye be judged love towards your fellow man even your enemy humility compassion and so forth but then again there could be exceptions to those teachings that noone told me out of curiosity are there teachings in the bible that imply sumthing defferent to what christ said? I also merely said that hinduism in fact embraces christ and reguards him as a valid god and yet you say they are evil? and I was always taught to be very tolerant all through life (many a detention for harmless joke which was not in any way meant as a insult)websters dictionary defines a christian those who believe and follow christs teachings forgive me if im wrong but I was always taught that christs message was of tolerance and compassion towards your fellow man as well as other things but that could be the bible that my RE teachers were reading??? :O i personally see alot of contradictions in bibles I still have not made up my mind as to which religion best fits myself i personally think that religion should make you a better person ie more compasssionate towards your fellow man not sure which scripture christ says that but im sure its in there sumwhere I do not think that one religion has totally nailed that yet as since I have looked at some religions and they all have something valid to share and there is also alot of bad associated with all of them for example the message of christ I have heard telling someone that they are going to hell for rejecting christ even though they believe in christ and yet share different beliefs means that in said preachers eyes they are going reguardless is bad and certainly not in the bible I was taught you say we are only saved through christ? how about a selfless man (lets say he is for example catholic)he is kind toward his fellow man tolerant accepting compassionate gives to charity as often as he can and downright just lives to help others (I know people like this) and though also has very minor *sins*tries to get his said sins forgiven in a confessional and therefore asks CHRIST for forgivnes because of a simple different belief structure he will go to hell doesnt seem very good to keep a decent kind honerable human being out of heaven seems kinda mean and id much rather be with people like that then people who think just because they believe in christ they are automatically morally superior to those who do not (not saying you think like this just sayin this is the vibe i got from your blog) had to shorten my answer :(

    ReplyDelete
  72. now sorry but let me elaborate on karmic teachings cos i had to shorten my answer you say one cannot be redeemed through good works ok so does that mean we should not give to others as christ done or be kind to others as christ done (i no people who reason that cos they did this it will get them in gods good books so to speak)about this well i did good therefore it washes away my sins ok fair enuf what about a molester who does the same through christ how is this diefferent cos its in the bible?!? hmmmm if one who is in the pure motivation of redeeming him self can theoretically achieve enlightenment or at least get a lesser punishment if he does so out of greed to say well i deserve good cos i did good karma will still punish him
    now out of curiosity who in your errm bible/s is going to hell? cos i no christians who believe in evolution but also christ is the one tru redeemer your thoughts?
    sorry bout the long comments!!!

    ReplyDelete
  73. one last point (REALLY SORRY) you say man cannot be god was christ not a man??? a resurected one who did amazing feats (as did rama krishna and such) but a man nonetheless

    ReplyDelete
  74. Connie,

    I do find it rich, with irony, that you are intolerant of my intolerance.

    Please stay a while and poke around at some of the posts I have here. God hates sin and hates unrepentant sinning. He is a Judge that will judge us all. As far as your claim "judge not lest ye be judged" I sure hope we all are judged righteously, don't you?

    I did a post about judging others that you might like.

    Tolerance is certainly not love in the least. Tolerance of evil is simply evil.

    Now, if you were warned of your impending doom in hell forever, and ever, and ever that is not hurting but loving you, enough to warn you.

    So if coddle is love to you then yes, Christians will not "love" you in your subjective eyes. But truth is that its love. We are not here to make friends but to preach and warn others of their unrepentant sinning. (Ezekiel 3:20)

    I fully understand that truth always is confrontational, there is always someone on the wrong side of truth. This is a very serious and real subject for you and I. If I didn't love you enough to tell you the truth, then I wouldn't. Truth hurts, I understand.

    I hope for the day when we will all be in Heaven having a lemon-aid and laughing about these times, but without Christ you will not, please reconsider your choices (freely given to you) to ignore Jesus Christ in your life.

    Take care of yourself and please do me a huge favor and do not die before figuring all these things out. We still have a chance.

    ReplyDelete
  75. ok i get your point of intolerance of your intolerance however you still did not answer some of my questions.... i never have explicitly said i rejected or even ignored christ sure i may be questioning some of the things he allowed to happen to me and still a little angry at some of these things but a little undecided
    if man cannot be god why must a women (scripturely speaking) be submissive and obey her husband as if he were? surely you do not think that just because she is a woman that she must not have any say over her OWN life? that is tyranny no matter what and definitely not love and if you say it is then what about respect??? we have to have mutual respect in relationships do we not? and why is a husband seen as holy so to speak he is still a man and still fallable and capable of sin whereas god is infallable..
    hypethectically speaking if I were to accept christ while following another religion (through buddhism which you have said is evil cos it isnt christianity and without christ) then will i not be accepted into heaven?
    are you suggesting that my religion teachers that occasionally came to preach to us got it wrong about the tolerance message?? thats what i dont get about the bible if god is infallable could he not have been a little bit more clearer on his message?!?
    i saw some of your war message cant argue your politics (in australia we have our own issues such as our current female prime minister while i do like to see this how she got there I do not agree with) but with evolution survival of the fittest means to you tough or strongest partly correct see if a animal of a species develops sumthing to allow it to better adapt (ie longer beak for a bird if worms tunnel deeper) than that animal has a greater chance at survival and therefore passes on the trait to its young
    and it might interest you to know that there are actual documented "gay" animals in said animal kingdom and as for your crack at england yes they is a little wussy haha but at least the healthcare is free and topknotch
    wish it was like that here and as for your video re taxes i had no idea that god wants or even needs money isnt that a man made invention?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Connie,

    >>if man cannot be god why must a women (scripturely speaking) be submissive and obey her husband as if he were?

    I addressed those points in two posts that I liked. One is called Woman Bosses? and the other follow up post is called Christians are Misogynistic?. I believe you will be thoroughly satisfied by the answers that I give that are Biblically sound.

    Please don't take the pointing you to posts as a brush off, but these questions and issues have been addressed already and I am comfortable with those answers that I gave. I am merely avoiding being redundant, which is often here because new atheists come here all the time with almost the same questions.

    All these answers though were addressed already in the Bible and all it took is reading it cover to cover to understand God and our universe and lives. Its all there.

    What if someone wrote you love letters and then you never read them? How would that make them feel? God wrote you 66 love letters, called the Bible, and He wants you to read them.

    >>if I were to accept christ [sic] while following another religion then will i not be accepted into heaven?

    That depends on some things. Do you turn away from the other religion? Do you repent (turn away) your sinning? Do you place your whole faith, trust, and life into Christ to Save you? If the answer is yes to ALL of those then you are saved right now forever. Its that undeserved gift that is offered to you for the taking.

    Someone very wise said to me once, It only takes but a moment to become a Christian, but it takes a lifetime to be the Christian one becomes. It is vital to study God’s Word on a daily basis, to learn from it, and to grow in it.

    >>are you suggesting that my religion teachers that occasionally came to preach to us got it wrong about the tolerance message??

    I am not suggesting, I am directly telling you that the trust, faith, you are giving to man is completely wrong. How do you tolerate someone like Ted Bundy? If you tolerate his "opinions" then you are just as evil.

    >> it might interest you to know that there are actual documented "gay" animals in said animal kingdom

    Seals are raped everyday also, is rape acceptable like the animal kingdom? And is it OK to be Gay?

    Please take the time, stay and comment on these posts of mine. I have no problem explaining my position on matters. The blog is not moderated and I am a howard huge fan of free speech, and I love to answer real questions. Email me if you wish. Again, the answers are right there for us in the Bible.

    Keep asking and seeking,

    Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  77. look ok for arguments sake im a believer according to god my friends and family as well as my personal hero arent in heaven even tho they were kind decent people why does god keep out people who are kind decent because thats just the way they are and only those who accept him and are decent because he tells them to be or they are afraid of hell? and as for the 66 bibles ok but there are im not implying that the "holy" book has errors but it is a real possibility retranslated and reinterpreted over and over the english language isnt exactly perfect and many languages have words that do not have english equivelents so it could be very possible that some words were just given the closest word to it so maybe some sins were meant to be seen a different way
    as for the rape this book was written before people knew anything about the phsycology of human beings plus in the animal kingdom they have special times during the year where the female is mentally and more physically ready to accept sexual advances the behaviour changes which basically means alot of the time they mate because they are biologically driven to do so
    futhurmore in the animal kingdom alot of the time there is no courtship "ritual" or means of consent there is a lot of "rape" in the animal kingdom since our phsycology is different and we have courtship rituals and actual means of consent which is not in the animal kingdom then it is far more detrimental to us (not trying to be mean to the animals i love em and alot of mating is violent for them poor things :( but the phsycology is different) therefore gays cannot be compared to rape as we humans have the cognitive ability to consent whereas animals have no means for actually consenting whatsoever (unless there is a hieriachy then the female will probly go for the top dog so to speak)

    ReplyDelete
  78. Connie,

    Connie, Connie, Connie. (to be read tisk, tisk ,tisk)

    You are completely conflicted in many ways. First you are intolerant of my intolerance. Then you have this little gem about the animal kingdom.

    First you smartly say

    >>it might interest you to know that there are actual documented "gay" animals in said animal kingdom

    Then in the very next post you claim:

    >>in the animal kingdom since our phsycology is different and we have courtship rituals and actual means of consent.

    So which is it? Are animals the same as people, or not? Or, as you claim, they are the same when it is convenient for your beliefs and different if it conflicts with what you believe? Is that about right?

    If a male monkey hops on another male monkeys back to "dominate it" you say hey "gay monkeys" if you see a rape of an animal you say:

    >>"whereas animals have no means for actually consenting whatsoever."

    You have too conflicting of a worldview to comprehend at the moment. Keep searching.

    Please read some of the posts that I have made. Bible being 'textually impure' is a rich one that I addressed already.

    Also, I think you are completely confused as to the process to translate the Bible. I think you are insinuating, or at least that is how its worded, that the Bible is translated from one language to another and then another to, in a sense, "muddy up" the original text.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bible was translated from the original languages (Hebrew, Greek) to the respecting language whether it be German, French, Latin, English. Not from Hebrew to German to French to Latin to English. In electronic, engineering, or geek terms the analogy is like parallel vs. serial. It was a parallel translation (For example, from Hebrew to English), not a serial one.

    The Bible is 98.5% textually pure and the Dead Sea Scrolls was concrete evidence of that.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940's, the oldest extant copy of any Old Testament writings were the Masoretic Text dated around 916 AD. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, a complete copy of Isaiah was found. Its date was 125 BC. The difference in dates between the oldest copy and the newly discovered Isaiah document was 1000 years. This provided a pristine opportunity to judge the copying accuracy of the Old Testament documents since it would be easily discernible which errors crept in over 1000 years. The documents proved to be 95% textually identical. The 5 percent that was different were mainly misspellings of words and did not constitute any threat to the content or reliability of the text. This shows how accurately it was transmitted. (carm)

    ReplyDelete
  80. ok i might not have been thorough enuf SOME animals such as monkeys (which we share a COMMON ancestor) therefore we are alike and share some traits with them such as a diffecientcy in vitamin C which we and primates alike get from our diet as well as other difficiencies AND courtship rituals mating a social nature and hierichy we are simply MORE evolved than they are although they are quite smart animals who use tools ect im not completely sure about the phsycology but as they are our CLOSEST relative in the animal kingdom (notice the word closest and not the same)then it is quite plausable for them to be gay then there are OTHER spicies which in the animal kingdom are in DIFFERENT classes its been a while since yr 10 biology so please forgive me if i dont no all of them they are generally mamals fish birds ect we are classed as primates because we are alike in important ways now the animals in said classes arent exactly the same but share many traits its just a bit easier for scientist to group them like this so as to study them you honestly dont expect us to be like all the different animals in this world do you? they all have different natures (social creatures such as wolves which is partly why dogs are so loyal and bears which are generally a loner animal) it all depends on the environment and what will help the animal to survive which is why some animals are social while others are not we are of course social creatures because thats the environment we live in we stand a better chance at survival if we are social get me now? look i wont pretend that i know all the answers in evolution i might need a bit of studying because over here it is not taught although science is in our schools but thats basically the general idea of it now many of my christian/religious friends accept this (mostly cos of the differences in genesis 1 and 2) i personally dont no but aparently it conflicts with itself on the first page
    now while i dont find anything wrong with christianity itself heres what i dont get about the saved mentality we are all born sinful right? so what if say a toddler tragically dies said toddler doesnt know jesus yet let alone has accepted him so will said toddler be in heaven or hell? and what about say a 10 year old in south africa no one has preached the message to said child so if he dies and does not get a chance to hear the "truth" of the gospel and therefore hasnt gotten a chance to embrace christ as his one tru saviour will he still be sent to hell? a answer to this one might help me to understand more of gods nature
    now out of pure curioosity if i were to accept darwins erm theory of evolution but still accept christ will i be saved? (i say this because many people say the 2 cannot go together) now i am open to the possibility of christ and god yet i am still on the fence if i accept him i will be saved but then heaven for me wont be blissful as my hero would not be there(he was someone close)because using your logic as well as gods written word he would be in hell (i just cant imagine him wicked in any way shape or form so i kinda see this as unfair) i mean its delemer for me why should i be saved and not my family (who have already passed on) i mean i committed more sins then them i was generally rebelious all through my life why should i be saved and not them it just doesnt seem right to me

    ReplyDelete
  81. Connie,

    >>so what if say a toddler tragically dies said toddler doesnt know [J]esus yet let alone has accepted him so will said toddler be in heaven or hell?

    Heaven

    >>and what about say a 10 year old in south africa no one has preached the message to said child so if he dies and does not get a chance to hear the "truth" of the gospel and therefore hasnt gotten a chance to embrace [C]hrist as his one tru saviour will he still be sent to hell?

    Has that person ever sinned? If so then the penalty is death. Now I would be as bold to say that every single human, of age, on this planet has heard of Jesus Christ. I could be wrong but I doubt it. Besides, from what I read, Two-thirds of South Africans are Christian now.

    >>i mean its delemer for me why should i be saved and not my family (who have already passed on) i mean i committed more sins then them i was generally [rebellious] all through my life why should i be saved and not them it just doesnt seem right to me

    I can relate, most all of my family are Atheists. So I guess it depends what is important to you. My Dad said "I am glad I will be in Hell, that is where all my friends are" which is stupid to me. Do you think there are reunions in Hell? Do you think it will be a joyous occasion to "meet up" with loved ones? Its called Hell for a reason. It is separation from Love, that is hell. Isolation, separation, and condemnation describe Hell, certainly better then celebration.

    The thing is trust, faith, I trust God to do the right thing to make things right again. There is a chance my own kids will end up in Hell, if they reject Jesus they certainly will. Does that mean I do not want to be with Christ. Nope. That is why I bow to Christ and pray for my kids. As Martin Luther said ”Prayer is not overcoming God's reluctance, but laying hold of His willingness.”

    ReplyDelete
  82. ok the 10 year old was a hypothetical situation so lets assume for a moment that he dies without people telling him or him knowing christ will he go to hell or heaven? and sin causes death really cmon? your saying all your sins are forgiven but then you die because of sin? i dont get that
    and no alot of people actually dont know about christ which is why i asked just cos a country is 2 thirds christian doesnt mean they all know who christ is i mean what about wartorn countries in africa there knida more concerned about escaping the violence (asylum seeker or immagrants)then people preaching christ to them and in your view them coming to a errm "christian" nation then they will hear the "truth" so it would be good then right? so whats your stance on this issue over here its pretty tough to get in as a asylum seeker but its more for security reasons dont really know about america
    i dont know about you but i would give anything to see my family and if there not in heaven i just dont see myself being there you say hell will be without love if my familys not in heaven then theres no love for me either just saying

    ReplyDelete
  83. There is something that you don't seem to have considered.
    Sure, there are much evil in the world, and a lot of evil men do not belive in god.
    But a lot of good men are not under the rule of god either, and there are people under god who do great evil as well.
    It is because the bible, aside from good deeds, also condones evil.

    First, we look at evil men.
    The evil atheist does not fear divine retribution, only the law and his fellow man. So he does what he thinks he can get away with. Witch is quite a lot...

    The evil Christian, on the other hand, fear the law, but fear the law of the heavens more. He does what he can get away with in the eyes of the lord. He does the evil that the bible condones. He gives in to weakness, striking his children and his wife, and other evil deeds.


    The following examples do not concern evil men, only good men. atheist or otherwise.

    A good atheist might not have the same moral compass as a Christian man, so he builds his own.
    Thus, if he is a good man, it is not because he fears retribution, but because he believes evil to be wrong.

    Then look at the good Christian man. His moral compass is the bible. His life is simpler,as he does not have to doubt himself.

    But therein lies the tradgedy, for as a good atheist does evil, he doubts himself, to do evil is to fall, to fail in maintainig his morality. If he does evil, he is likely to feel guilt.

    The good chrisitian man, however, can do evil without guilt, as his moral compass alws evil, and since he does not doubt himself, he does not doubt his morality.

    So in the end, it is easier for a Christian to be a good man, but the atheist has the potential to be a perfect man.

    The following quote was written by a man more wise than me, but I feel it to be relevant:

    "Religion does not turn good men evil, but it may make good men do evil things."

    (Do excuse, and try to look past my awful english, as I have yet to master it.)

    ReplyDelete
  84. Regret,

    There is a huge flaw in your logic that destroys your entire argument.

    We do not get our morals from a book at all. We get those morals from the place that God burned the Commandments into, and that is our conscience.

    It's a proven fact that with ALL people, across all genders and races, the consequences / telltales of when a person lies, are that;

    They experience sweaty palms; They experience induced swallowing; Their heart rate increases; Their faces turn red; They avoid eye contact; They speak more quickly, etc. etc. This is with everyone human being on the planet no matter where they grew up or was raised. Except, of course, for sociopaths and those who have perfected evil deception. So these are physical reactions (that cross all humanity), that occur when people lie, keeping in mind that none of them are at all based upon comfort, self esteem, or integrity, why is that?

    Lying is a spiritual event. It's not merely a physical action. Lying is an offense against God. When His creations lie, He is ashamed of His creation and simply separates Himself. Therefore He has constructed us with built in sensors that perhaps we just might someday, in our blind little, self seeking minds, finally get the big picture.

    When we lie we are violating our conscience so the question is how did it get there if not God? Why do you care what is right or wrong if there is no God. If its an evolutionary trait then gain is good, rape is good, lying for gain is good. It isn't though because its not that God says in a book "because I said so." Lying is wrong because God doesn't lie, we are made in His image.

    God is the necessary precondition for all reasoning. Without presupposing God, one (you) cannot make sense of reasoning itself.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I tried to pay attention to your words. Lord knows I tried. But with all those pictures of tasty-looking babies, I got hungry.

    Just as soon as my microwavable newborn is finished cooking, I will come back and read this.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Mmmmmm babies...... time to fire up the grill.

    Seriously though, the process of deconversion involves much more fear than guilt. Also, one can learn to feel guilty about things for which they shouldn't just the same as they can learn to not feel guilty about things for which they should.

    There is no ultimate moral authority. As social beings, we have an innate sense of right and wrong that allows us to live in large groups. This sense of right and wrong is molded by the culture we live in.

    If any one is interested in first hand deconversion experiences, check out the deconversion stories at ex-christian.net.

    http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/forum/5-testimonies-of-former-christians/

    ReplyDelete
  87. Magick Monkey,

    Thanks for the input.

    >>As social beings, we have an innate sense of right and wrong that allows us to live in large groups.

    Are you certain of this? If so, how are you certain of this?

    >>If any one is interested in first hand deconversion experiences, check out the deconversion stories at ex-christian.net.

    Bear in mind there is no such a thing as an Ex-Christian because Christians don't Fall Away.

    ReplyDelete
  88. "Magick Monkey,

    >>Thanks for the input.

    >>>>As social beings, we have an innate sense of right and wrong that allows us to live in large groups.

    >>Are you certain of this? If so, how are you certain of this?

    It's rare that I know anything with 100% certainty. But, given what I know, this explanation makes the most sense. One can look at history and see how the progress from simple moral codes to more sophisticated ones have allowed for larger groups of people to coexist. One may observe other social species and see how different rules allow them to coexist.

    >>>>If any one is interested in first hand deconversion experiences, check out the deconversion stories at ex-christian.net.

    >>Bear in mind there is no such a thing as an Ex-Christian because Christians don't Fall Away. "

    That depends on how narrowly one defines the term christian. I guess if you believe the "once saved always saved" doctrine, then your species of the christian meme will not allow you to believe anyone can cease to be a christian. After I stopped believing in god, the various definitions of "true christians" became meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Magick Monkey,

    Are you certain of this? If so, how are you certain of this?

    >>It's rare that I know anything with 100% certainty. But, given what I know, this explanation makes the most sense...

    Ignoratio elenchi. Magick Monkey, you are not justifying your ability to reason, you are telling us where you learned things or what you learned. For the sake of this argument, I could not care less where or what you learned. I want to know how you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING is valid?

    >>That depends on how narrowly one defines the term christian.

    Not at all. Its as narrow as the Bible defines a Christian. Truth is not a subjective thing. It depends on the authority that defines Christianity, and that "authority" is Christ Himself.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Look, it's purely economical. We eat babies to save money for more important things in life. They are delicious and nutritious. Have you ever read "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift? His ideas on this issue were brilliant.

    Here's a copy if you have not:
    http://emotionalliteracyeducation.com/classic_books_online/mdprp10.htm

    ReplyDelete
  91. Dan--

    To address your original point in more detail--I have had years to adjust my own moral compass, with input from my former Catholic beliefs and my own life experiences. At this point, my beliefs are basically, "As long as you do not willingly and knowingly inflict harm or death upon any life, no matter their innocence or sins, I will let you live as you wish. If you've done any of this, though, I will see to it you are punished."

    Is it perfect? Of course not. I'm a product of my time, and as I learn new things, I change--I am a work in progress. Things that seem acceptable now will seem shockingly appalling even a hundred years from this moment--kind of like how I found it appalling that Lot offered his own daughters up to be raped by the sodomites in the place of angels, and the angels didn't speak up and say "dude, uh, you're not going to score any points from Him with that". You want me to believe that God loves women? It's a bit hard when the Bible contains overwhelming stories of their subjugation, domination, and rape.

    While Connie's points weren't entirely refined, it doesn't mean they're illegitimate. I don't think she should have taken the "animals can't consent the same way as people do." It destroyed her argument, because it gave you an opening to claim we were higher than animals, and therefore being gay was "above us."

    What she SHOULD have done was point out that there was a case study done on a pair of gay penguins that ended up actually adopting and raising a baby penguin chick. Yes. Those degenerate homosexual birds daring to raise a baby and demonstrate family dynamics. (I'm refusing to use the word "traditional" here because "tradition" denotes that older ways of thinking are better when, in fact, it only shuts out creativity and innovation.)

    These penguins also denote that sexuality is far more fluid than just the black-and-white dynamics that mar the heterosexual/homosexual debate. I remember reading once that the pair of gay penguins was broken up when one of the penguins mated with a female. While I find more evidence for gay penguins forming those life bonds and staying together, the fact that one group of gay penguins broke up doesn't justify that "straight is better." Maybe the penguin was bisexual. And it's not unheard of for gay people to sleep with the opposite sex.

    The point is this: If you try to classify one or two parts of sexuality as "all their is" and denote that one sexual orientation is "right", then you immediately shut out all other possibilities and exploration.

    ReplyDelete
  92. halflight007,

    >>You want me to believe that God loves women?

    Yes He in fact does.

    >>If you try to classify one or two parts of sexuality as "all their is" and denote that one sexual orientation is "right", then you immediately shut out all other possibilities and exploration.

    First, is that a bad thing? Second, even making love to children? I am sure pedophiles will agree with you, in that, "don't knock it until you try it". So be proud that your arguments are the same as a pedophile's but I will stick to trusting God. You do understand that evolution is anti-gay don't you? Nature would NEVER survive if the largest portion of the populations were gay. So blame nature and evolution for hostility towards gay if you wish. Sorry to say, its not OK to be gay. (Hey, that rhymed)

    Thanks for stopping by.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I found this very amusing. The sarcastic style held my interest. Your analogy is flawed by only one trivial point, it's incorrect. You assume the default position is theistic. The truth is not given in your analogy. The truth is, atheism is the default position. All humans are born atheists. They are not born religious, then "...turn away from god" as you indicate. Religion is a learned behavior. There are many tribes in remote locations who have never heard of any god, yet they have morals. Postulating that morals come from a god does not provide evidence for a god. You must first convince people that it is your god, from the over 2800 deities that have ever resided in the human psyche. You can't even prove there is a god with empirical evidence, let alone one specific god. Showing empirical evidence has never been done in 4,500 years of documentation. There are only writings in a book and personal feelings, which could be achieved through the use of recreational drugs.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Jim,

    Welcome, and yes that was the goal. I have some questions for you though.

    >>The truth is, atheism is the default position. All humans are born atheists.

    Of course I disagree but this appears to be a knowledge claim. How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    >>Religion is a learned behavior.

    Not at all. Do you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

    >>There are many tribes in remote locations who have never heard of any god, yet they have morals.

    Imagine that? You do know what the word "conscience" is derived from right? (Gk. syneidēsis, lit. "with-knowledge")

    >>Postulating that morals come from a god does not provide evidence for a god.

    On the contrary. All evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence.

    BTW, did you use your reasoning to test your reasoning? If so that is viciously circular.

    >>You must first convince people that it is your god, from the over 2800 deities that have ever resided in the human psyche.

    My argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands.

    >>You can't even prove there is a god with empirical evidence, let alone one specific god. Showing empirical evidence has never been done in 4,500 years of documentation.

    You see, that is the problem in itself. Understand that God is the Authority, not us. If we are evaluating God to see if He is worthy of our following, or His existence, then we placing our authority over God's. Van Til said it this way "If God's authority must be authorized or validated by the authority of human reasoning and assessment, then human thinking is more authoritative the God Himself-in which case God would not have final authority, and indeed would no longer be God."

    You have created a god to suite yourself (breaking the 2nd Commandment) and the name of your god is "self". You are placing God in the defendant chair and placing yourself in the judges chair. What you don't realize is that you are the criminal, and God is the Judge. Once you realize that in light of God's Word then you begin to understand Him.

    >>There are only writings in a book and personal feelings, which could be achieved through the use of recreational drugs.

    Thanks for sharing about your past but that is mere ignoratio elenchi.

    Are you certain of what you are barely asserting here? If so, how are you certain about this, or anything?

    Thanks,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  95. Dan,
    If you could only hear yourself from a rational standpoint. But I guess that's the nature of delusion, you can only hear the voices in your head. All your information comes from scripture which was written by men. You have absolutely no substance. When you can show proof that there is a god, only then can we discuss it.

    I propose that if there were a god, there would be no debates over his existence, as everyone would know it empirically and everyone would be of the same religion. Many are merely the product of demographics.

    BTW, if your god were real, I would never worship him. He condones slavery and rape. He kills or has had killed millions of innocent people. He is, as is documented in your HOLY scripture, the most immoral being to ever be conceived by man. You worship a fictitious monster and want others to do the same. This monster of your does not exist, and that my friend, is a blessing to mankind!

    ReplyDelete
  96. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Here's a video that answers 10 of the most asked questions or arguments against atheism.
    Click Here
    This will be my answer to your questions, as it speaks volumes, where words would need to be voluminous.

    ReplyDelete
  98. :)
    Thanks for proving my point Dan.
    You have twice removed my last post, because you can't refute it and it is too powerful for your audience to see. Embarrassing isn't it?
    You may remove this post as well, but remember, your god sees into your heart, and I have seen into your delusion. You now have no choice but to allow my seed to grow within you.
    Good Day my Friend

    ReplyDelete
  99. Jim,

    >>You have twice removed my last post, because you can't refute it and it is too powerful for your audience to see.

    Are you absolutely certain of that? If so how are you certain of that, or ANYTHING?

    No, truth is that Blogger has this new thing that throws people into spam (that are new I guess) so I have to take them out of spam. They all go through to my email though. So I do get them and I do answer them. So your bigotry against Christians is quite telling.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Jim,

    >>BTW, if your god were real, I would never worship him.

    And Bingo was his name-o!

    It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

    Also, your comments reveals a belief in the existence of knowledge, which is certain by definition. How is this possible in an "atheistic" worldview?

    The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.

    Now, your turn. How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?

    ReplyDelete
  101. It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is.

    Well, since it isn't true that all mankind are certain who He is - Christianity must be false.

    ReplyDelete
  102. JC,

    >>Well, since it isn't true that all mankind are certain who He is - Christianity must be false.

    You're confusing not certain with denial. Its a common mistake. Much the same as a child denying that he broke the vase to avoid punishment, he knows the truth. God does not send people to Hell for denying something they are not certain about.

    ReplyDelete
  103. So the thesis of your argument is that the only way to prevent a person from eating a baby is by convincing him that an invisible space wizard that loves him will destroy him if he does it, rather than just relying on his own inborn genetic sense of empathy and natural reflexive disgust at the notion of killing another human being as his moral compass? 75% of criminals in prison are Christians while 0.2% of prisoners are Atheists. It doesn't seem like the "Good Book" is as much of an antidote against evil deeds as you would like to think.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Pulling back a little from your odd fixation on eating babies (c'mon, really, do you actually believe anyone is condoning that?), how in the world can you 'debunk' atheism? Atheism is simply saying that there's no god(s). Period. 'Debunking' is a term more properly used when discussing the myths that religions reference to promote their ideology.

    In other words, if you can't actually prove that there's a Christian god, then, really, isn't Christianity debunked? If you want to console yourself, realize that that also wipes out Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca and pretty much anything else that relies on ghosts and spirits.

    If you want to believe in something that is fundamentally unprovable, have at it and enjoy yourself, but don't try to foist your beliefs on everyone else. People will always find something to believe in.

    And don't spend a lot of time trying to convince atheists that we're wrong. Most of us have come out of a religious background and know exactly why we feel the way we do. And, sadly, zealots like yourself are a large part of that.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Heywood,

    >>rather than just relying on his own inborn genetic sense of empathy and natural reflexive disgust at the notion of killing another human being as his moral compass?

    Oops, you just invoked a moral standard, on top of that bare assertion, that does not comport with the atheistic worldview. I am sure you would concede that there are cannibalistic tribes that do not have the same feelings that you do.

    So, before we address anything that you addressed, you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. Like Razi Zacharias said that I highlight in one of my posts, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard, in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Billyhank,

    >>how in the world can you 'debunk' atheism?

    If I was debunking Atheism, I would name my blog that.

    >>'Debunking' is a term more properly used when discussing the myths that religions reference to promote their ideology.

    Good point, maybe then I should name my blog "Debunking Atheists" as in the individual's worldview instead of a common ideology. Death,Hell, and Judgment are very personal things here. I care about the individual, not the religion. As we all know Atheism is indeed a religion.

    >>In other words, if you can't actually prove that there's a Christian god, then, really, isn't Christianity debunked?

    Are you certain that I can't? If so, how can you be certain of that, or anything, within your worldview?

    >>If you want to believe in something that is fundamentally unprovable, have at it and enjoy yourself, but don't try to foist your beliefs on everyone else.

    Erm...God is provable and you already KNOW Him. It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

    >> Most of us have come out of a religious background and know exactly why we feel the way we do.

    There are so many false religions out there, including Atheism. But its the individual that makes that choice to defy God. You cannot blame anyone for your rejecting of God. Also, God does not send people to Hell for denying something they are not certain about. You know who God is.

    >>And, sadly, zealots like yourself are a large part of that.

    You are wrong to believe that I have any power to convince people either way. If that were the case there would be no such thing as an Atheist. Keep in mind, there is no such thing as an Ex-Christian because Christians don't Fall Away.

    My argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Yes, because someone holding a different belief than yours is comparable to someone eating babies.

    At least when atheists do the right thing, it's because they genuinely believe that it's right, not because they're afraid a man in the sky will punish them for not doing it.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Emily,

    >>At least when atheists do the right thing, it's because they genuinely believe that it's right, not because they're afraid a man in the sky will punish them for not doing it.

    So you have NO ARGUMENT against someone that wants to eat babies.

    "it's because they genuinely believe that it's right"

    Same for pedophilia or bestiality. So, when an atheist does the right thing, like bestiality, its right because "it's because they genuinely believe that it's right" and that is OK with YOU. You CANNOT invoke a moral STANDARD without God. You are OK if someone eats, or is a pedophile with, your little brother or son.

    Now, hopefully you do not believe this is true. But, if you don't, then you MUST borrow from my worldview to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  109. You have it backwards. If you need to appeal to a supernatural authority to justify your actions than you are not moral.

    I don't murder, rape or eat babies because I have empathy. I'm a social animal and I know that those actions have real world consequences on the individuals involved. Add that societal influences and pressures and voila you have morality.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Titen-Sxull,

    >>If you need to appeal to a supernatural authority to justify your actions than you are not moral.

    How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    >>I don't murder, rape or eat babies because I have empathy.

    You never hated or lusted? (1 John 3:15, Matthew 5:28) Who are you fooling? You think your "good" by your own subjectivity. You do have an opportunity to help your wickedness though.

    >>I'm a social animal and I know that those actions have real world consequences on the individuals involved.

    How do you know? You have no avenue to what is right or wrong. Is it wrong to consider "consequences" not important? If so, how can anything be "wrong" in your worldview and how do you "know" that to be valid?

    >> Add that societal influences and pressures and voila you have morality.

    Is morality good? If so, how can you certain of that?

    ReplyDelete
  111. ‎"There are a couple of blogs that talk all day how liberating and fantastic eating children are"

    Are you, sir, implying that children who eat are neither liberating nor fantastic?

    If so, then you is heartless bastard.

    Also, you might want to run your posts through a word processor before updating.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Aaron,

    >>If so, then you is heartless bastard.

    I cannot tell if you are serious or not. Poe! You chastise me with >>"you might want to run your posts through a word processor before updating" and then say >>"then you is heartless bastard."

    That was hilarious! Anyway, please point me in the right direction if I have made a mistake somewhere. Perfect love is a constant confronter.

    ReplyDelete
  113. sanman199,

    Thanks for bringing your "A" Game.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with morality. Religions attempt to explain the mysteries of the universe. If a person listens to these explanations and doesn't think they hold water, it does not make them any more or less 'moral'. It simply means that they do not accept the explanations given by religions.

    As to how you can be decent and kind without God or religion, it's simple: these traits come from empathy and experience, not divine inspiration. While there are many good and decent people who accept the lore of religions as truth, there are an equal number of decent people who do not. This is, in fact, the lesson taught in Jesus' 'good Samaritan' parable... that anyone, Jew, Christian, heathen, or atheist, is capable of either walking past the injured victim or stopping to help. As the parable explained, it is not always the 'holy' person that stops and salves the wounds of those in need.
    (See heathensguide.com for more.)

    ReplyDelete
  115. . Is it O.K. for this god to lie? Is it O.K. for the Christian Devil Gods (Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub, etc..) to tell the truth? How do you distinguish between them?

    ReplyDelete
  116. As a psychologist I can attest that people do NOT react in the same way across cultures, or even within nations, when lying.

    People do not even agree on what a "lie" is, or whether lying is always immoral.

    Human’s reactions to lying change as they mature. In the early stages children believe that all failure to tell the truth is wrong, even when the person is not aware that what they are saying is incorrect.

    The morally mature person knows that some lies are socially desirable (otherwise known as “tact”) whereas the truth is cruel and a sign of socialy ineptitude. The morally mature person knows that some lies are extremely moral while the truth would result in serious injustice, crime or death. Some people tell the truth when a lie would be far more moral, but feel pride rather than shame about it. They do not react in any of the ways you incorrectly assert to be universal.

    The Bible reports that the Yahweh (the actual name for the Jewish/Christian god) god lied and commanded his people to lie at various times

    Yahweh told Adam and Eve that they would die on the very day that they ate fruit from the tree which imparted the knowledge of the difference between good and evil. The snake told Eve that she would not die. Eve ate the fruit and discovered that the snake was telling the truth and the god had lied. She did not drop dead on the spot. How did the Yahweh god react to being found out? Do you think that he showed any of the signs that you list happen to humans, given that the Bible says that god looks like a human?

    Was it wrong for this god to tell a lie? . Is it O.K. for the Christian Devil Gods (Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub, etc..) to tell the truth? How do you distinguish between them?

    The Bible reports that this god instructed his people to tell lies to their enemies. Is this moral? When the Bible god’s behavior and example does not match what he commands in other parts of the Bible how do you know when to do as he says in one part of the Scriptures and when to do as he does in another? How can you tell the difference between what is “good” and “evil” when the Bible is so unclear?

    If you take your cue from your “inner voice” or your interpretation of Scripcture, why is your belief about what is right more correct than the millions of Christians who have other incompatible ideas? Why is the version of god that you happen to believe exists so inconsistent in what he/it leads True Believers to think is moral?

    You are not naïve enough to believe that all sincerely practicing Christians have compatible moral codes, do you?

    ReplyDelete
  117. William,

    >>Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with morality.

    How do you account for ANY absolutes in your worldview? How can you know ANYTHING to be absolutely true?

    >> Religions attempt to explain the mysteries of the universe.

    Even the dogma of the Atheists. Right? Although, its not scientific, because 'Atheistic Naturalism' artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. You simply decry evidence within their worldview.

    >> If a person listens to these explanations and doesn't think they hold water, it does not make them any more or less 'moral'. It simply means that they do not accept the explanations given by religions.

    That goes for your religion too. You see, many posts of mine shows evidence that Atheism is a religion. You adhere to your own dogma.

    >>As to how you can be decent and kind without God or religion, it's simple: these traits come from empathy and experience, not divine inspiration. While there are many good and decent people who accept the lore of religions as truth, there are an equal number of decent people who do not.

    From one of my posts, Meister states, "By arguing for a belief in or knowledge of morality without providing a justification for morality, atheists confuse moral epistemology (moral knowledge) with moral ontology (foundation existence of morality)."

    That is what you are doing here. How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  118. Rosemary,

    >>Is it O.K. for this god to lie?

    No, that would be impossible. God, who does not lie is not a man (Titus 1:2, Num 23:19)

    >>Is it O.K. for the Christian Devil Gods (Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub, etc..) to tell the truth?

    OK? Does your god, the same god as Satanists, tell you the truth? (John 8:44)

    >>How do you distinguish between them?

    Creator/creation.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Rosemary,

    >>As a psychologist I can attest that people do NOT react in the same way across cultures, or even within nations, when lying.

    Uh oh, this sounds like its going to be a fallacious argument. This appeal to authority is irrelevant. As a professor in clownology, I say they DO, who is right?

    >>People do not even agree on what a "lie" is, or whether lying is always immoral.

    Sure, from your worldview that is. In your atheistic worldview there is no such a thing as absolute or objective anything. Ted Bundy sure would agree with you, be glad for that.

    >>Yahweh told Adam and Eve that they would die on the very day that they ate fruit from the tree which imparted the knowledge of the difference between good and evil.

    BZZZT!!! Any evidence for that bare assertion eisegesis? Your arguments falls apart from here.

    >> How can you tell the difference between what is “good” and “evil” when the Bible is so unclear?

    God. Do you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

    Follow up: How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    >>You are not naïve enough to believe that all sincerely practicing Christians have compatible moral codes, do you?

    That depends on who their authority is. It all comes down to the Absolute Authority of God.

    It was quite telling how you MUST pose things as questions for morality because your atheistic worldview cannot make a stance on any morality. Your worldview cannot claim something that is right or wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral.

    Is it wrong to rape your child, sibling, or parent? If so, how?

    ReplyDelete
  120. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  121. DAN:

    As a searching being, I know that Absolutes usually lack information. That said, I won’t walk off a building because gravity isn't an 'absolute'. All we can really do is accept the facts as we see them, but temper our acceptance with the knowledge that they may in fact be absolutely wrong.

    >> Even the dogma of the Atheists. Right?

    No.

    You refer here to 'born-again atheists', as I call them. People who feel duped by religions, and newly escape the shroud of it and rebel.

    'Atheism' simply means 'I do not believe in a god or gods.' Anything that comes after that simple statement is irrelevant. For me (and most atheists) it's not about ignorance of the facts; it's about fundamentally disbelieving them.

    >> You adhere to your own dogma.

    I don't claim to understand the workings and origins of the universe. As an atheist, I am simply saying "I don't have the answers, but having listened to religions, I know that they don't have the answers either."

    >> That is what you are doing here. How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    Normally, I avoid using the word 'morality', and did so here to my detriment. I prefer to say 'decency'. I definitely have not explained this well enough here, but in brief my thoughts are as follows:

    I don't believe in morality. It’s an invention of religions to take credit for basic human decency.

    ‘Decency’, as I said before, is the product of empathy and understanding. While there may be ambiguities to the role of the individual in society, I know that being a decent person generally creates better outcomes, and usually produces potential for more safety and enjoyment for both me and my peers.

    This, in reality, is how the vast majority of people live their lives. Christians call this 'morality', when in truth it's a conscious decision to opt for the easier, more productive long-term path.

    Is this a 'Truth'? No. But it serves to keep my world healthy and happy.

    As to how I know that my 'reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid'

    Simple: I don't.

    I only have assumptions based on the same mercurial information that you and any other being on this planet is hobbled by. Everything we know is finite and fallible.

    For some reason, though, religious people claim to find Ultimate Truths in all the same fallible information that we've all read. (Much of it coming third-and-forth hand from goat-herders and zealots).

    Logically, nothing teleological [be it theist or atheist] can be truly ‘Valid’.

    The difference is, the atheist is aware that he may be wrong— even about God or Gravity. Science may eventually prove any theology true. So far, though, this has not happened. We've all heard the facts, and none of them conclusively prove the existence of a God.

    However, while atheist struggle with the fundamental questions of the universe, theists preach 'Ultimate Truth' based on old folklore that everyone's already heard and known.

    It doesn’t take a 'religious' response to this to say “No thanks, I don’t buy it.”

    ReplyDelete
  122. And, for the record... The word RELIGION comes from RE(God) and LIGIO (Contract or bond). So, a 'religion' is a contract or bond with a God.

    I think we can safely assume that atheists do not have a contract or bond with a god.]

    ReplyDelete
  123. Rosemary,
    >>As a psychologist I can attest that people do NOT react in the same way across cultures, or even within nations, when lying.
    Uh oh, this sounds like its going to be a fallacious argument. This appeal to authority is irrelevant. As a professor in clownology, I say they DO, who is right?

    Your self-inflicted professorship may make you feel justified in writing a viciously silly article that makes you sound like a poorly educated religiously brain-washed teenager or some angry fundamentalist fanatic whose cognitive abilities have stalled at this level. But it does not give you any ground for arguing that you have legitimate clinical experience or expertise in the realm of psychological science. I have a legally-approved license to make pronouncements in this area; you don’t. While almost any fool could figure that one out, I admit that clowns may have difficulty.
    Here is an example of the knowledge and authority that you lack in this area.
    Bella DePaulo, a visiting professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, writes that “lying is not a distinct psychological process with its own unique behavioral indicators. It does matter how liars feel and how they think.” He explains that many of the tell-tale signs common to liars, like fidgeting and sweating, can also be signs of ordinary anxiety. It’s tough to tell the difference between a liar and an honest person who happens to be under a lot of stress..

    So stop fooling around.

    ReplyDelete
  124. >>People do not even agree on what a "lie" is, or whether lying is always immoral.
    >Sure, from your worldview that is. In your atheistic worldview there is no such a thing as absolute or objective anything.

    Nor in yours.
    I think all your readers would agree that you lied about being a professor of clownology, yet doubt that you felt the slightest bit of guilt while you did so. I also doubt that you exhibited even one of the features you claim are the god-given effects of breaking “god’s laws”.

    So apparently you don’t believe that lying is always wrong, even if you think that god said you must not do it. This is a comforting sign that you are maturing, as believing in moral absolutes is usually outgrown by the age of 12.

    The classic demonstration of the immorality of holding on to moral absolutes is the Gestapo dilemma.
    You are standing in the street when you see by a frightened looking Jewish man who is running hard in your direction. As he passes you he pants that the Gestapo are after him and begs you to lie about the direction he is taking. He then turns a corner. Shortly after this a couple of men in SS uniforms arrive on the scene and ask you if you saw a man running away and, if so, which direction he took. In this case is it moral to tell a lie?

    The morally mature answer is that it would be immoral to tell the truth as a man’s life and well-being are at risk if you do. If you stick to the “absolute” value that lying is always wrong then you fail to treat this human as you would want to be treated in similar circumstances. This breaks a greater moral rule.

    Even the golden rule is not absolute.
    If you are a masochist it is not moral for you to whip someone else because it would be what you would like them to do to you.
    A better rule would be to do to others what you believe that they would like you to do to them. But even that rule is not absolute.
    If you are immature, cognitively challenged, mentally ill, emotionally distraught or in terrible pain what you want others to do to you may not be in your best interests or the interests of those around you.
    A child may not want to be given an innoculation and a paranoid schizophrenic may not wish to be forcibly medicated. If their wishes are met then the consequences to them and their family and contacts may be dire. Uninnoculated children may die from a preventable disease or upset the herd immunity effect and cause others to die from it. Unmedicated schizophrenics will continue to live in a hellish mental world and will cause distress, even death, to those around them.

    People derive their sense of morality from the community in which they are socialized. When this is secular they are free to make decisions based on what is best for humanity. When it is contaminated with religious dogma a person is free to ignore what society considers to be right or wrong and interpret their holy scriptures or their religious leader’s words in a manner that supports any prejudice they may have. They then give false authority to these desires by deluding themselves that they are being guided by a divine power rather than by the moral consensus of their society. The reality is that “divine inspiration” has a long track record of moral inconsistency and contradiction. The gods are clearly not skilled in communication skills.
    The Christian Bible is a Big Book of Muliple Choice Morality. If it makes you feel good to hurt people you will find plenty of “god given” commandments and divine examples to support this trait. Take a look at Leviticus chapter 13 for examples. If you do not like hurting people then you can ignore the commands and blood-thirsty behavior of the tyrannical Old Testament god and model your behavior on the opposing pacifist position of the Sermon on the Mount.

    ReplyDelete
  125. >>Yahweh told Adam and Eve that they would die on the very day that they ate fruit from the tree which imparted the knowledge of the difference between good and evil.
    BZZZT!!! Any evidence for that bare assertion eisegesis?.

    Of course!
    According to http://www.creationists.org/definition-of-eisegesis.html, “eisegesis” is the approach to Bible interpretation where the interpreter tries to "force" the Bible to mean something that fits their existing belief or understanding of a particular issue or doctrine. The site uses the example where someone tries to argue that god meant that a “day” was really a thousand or a million years, when in reality the first chapter of Genesis makes it very clear that it was 24 hours. The literal translation of the relevant text is as follows.
    Genesis 1: 5and God (the North Israel and Babylonian God, El) calleth to the light `Day,' and to the darkness He hath called `Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one. (Young’s Literal Translation).
    In the next chapter the literally translated text says:
    Gensis 2: 16And Jehovah God (the South Israel and desert War God, Yahweh) layeth a charge on the man, saying, `Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat; :17and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.' (Young’s Literal Translation).
    The New International Version rewords this in a way that allows ignorant or deliberately deceiving apologists to argue that Yahweh did not intend to say that Adam would die on the same day that he ate the fruit from this tree. This is an example of translators eisegesis.
    16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
    The New American Standard Bible is not so accommodating of this view.
    "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
    17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it (R)you will surely die." (NASB)
    As others have intimated on this site, it is not that “converted” atheists are ignorant of the Christian message, it is that they generally know far more about it than continuing Believers. (See the Pew Reports for confirmation of this fact. ) Many of us trained to be clergy.
    When we thoroughally investigated the claims made by people such as yourself we found that they did not hold up under honest and rigorous intellectually scrutiny. In order to continue to believe in a Christian style god we would have to lie to ourselves. We chose not to do that as we saw that as an intellectually immoral, unethical, irresponsible, and offensively deceptive reponse. Most of us went further and admitted that we had to reason to believe in any other style of supernatural power, either. That seems to be the honest if uncomfortable thing to do, in a situation where honesty is an undisputed virtue.
    What argument do you have for suggesting that the more moral approach is to indulge in intellectual deception and the deliberate avoidance of pursuing conflicting evidence no matter where it leads?

    ReplyDelete
  126. > Do you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?


    I concede that it is possible to imagine such a thing, but this is only speculation. There is no valid evidence that it has ever happened or that it is ever likely to happen in reality.


    There is no doubt that fanatics of all types (religious, political, ideological) are steadfastly certain that what they believe is Absolute Truth. Nor is there doubt that many Theists believe that they have been personally led to The Truth by whatever version of the supernatural their significant community believes in.

    The delusional nature of this self-aggrandizing conviction is obvious when it is acknowledged that all these individuals and groups have disparate belief sets that are often irreconcilable, incompatible and contradictory. They conflict in ways that mean that it is very unlikely that any one of them is right, but very probable that they are all wrong. If any one of them did happen to be right, there is no way to be certain of that.


    Unfortunately, no delusional person ever believes that they are deluded, no matter how obvious it is to the outsider. The human mind is extremely good at confabulation (= involuntarily making up plausible stories and explanations to fit gaps in one’s memory, perception or understanding).


    This is the compromised brain’s way of making sense of the world. It is not lying, because the victim believes that they are telling the truth and that they have really experienced the things they perceive, recall or are describing. A physical example is the blind spot in each eye that no-one is aware of without special tests that catch it out.



    > How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    In the last 30 years, neuro-scientists (such as Persinger, D’Aquili, Newberg and others) have studied those who have profound experiences that are transcendental, “spiritual”, “religious”, ecstatic, or hallucinatory. Such experiences can be self-induced or produced by meditation, contemplative prayer, chanting, religious frenzy, seizure, oxygen deprivation (altitude and near-death) or specific brain injury.

    In almost all cases, the subject is strongly convinced that their paranormal experience is based in reality but brain scans reveal that the reality checking parts of the brain are impaired, missing or temporarily off-line.

    In other words, without objective external confirmatory evidence a person cannot be sure that any of their personal experiences or beliefs are based in reality.

    Science has overcome this inherent human failing by insisting on evidence-based observation, repeated testing, skeptical thinking and peer review. Law courts rate raw human testimony as the weakest of allowable evidence. Unfortunately this is often the only evidence that people use to justify their religious beliefs.

    I am not foolish or arrogant enough to claim that I am absolutely certain about anything much at all, although I think the probability of some things is so high that they are certain enough for almost all intents and purposes, For example, I am very confident that my version of reasoning makes a great more sense than yours because I back up my statements with valid empirical and logical evidence; while you simply assert, shout, repeat or resort to logical fallacies, obfuscations, “god”-inspired threats, personal attacks and social rudeness.

    If Heaven were real, and I had to spend an eternity with people like you, it would be Hell. In any case, what kind of "abundant life" would it be in the company of a Heavenly Mafia Boss who makes sure that his guests are within permanent ear shot of people being eternally tortured and promises to dull their human senses so that this no longer bothers them.

    Have you given this much thought? Are you content to exchange a physical Torture chamber for a psychological Hell or a Matrix-like State of Mindless Bliss?

    ReplyDelete
  127. William,

    >> And, for the record... The word RELIGION comes from RE(God) and LIGIO (Contract or bond). So, a 'religion' is a contract or bond with a God.

    And what record is that? Let me guess you are going to wiki again for your info? Do you have a source for that info?

    According to a source for etymology, "From the 1200's "according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300."

    I am sure you will concede that you found yourself "binded fast" to Atheism once you took a hold of it.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Rosemary,

    >>Your self-inflicted professorship may make you feel justified in writing a viciously silly article that makes you sound like a poorly educated religiously brain-washed teenager or some angry fundamentalist fanatic whose cognitive abilities have stalled at this level.

    To that I would say touché. Need a mirror?

    >>But it does not give you any ground for arguing that you have legitimate clinical experience or expertise in the realm of psychological science.

    Argument from authority. Wow, I am a prophet to boot.

    >> I have a legally-approved license to make pronouncements in this area; you don’t.

    Do you feel because of you extensive education,degrees, and experience renders that you are right? If so, you are sadly mistaken besides fallacious.

    >>Here is an example of the knowledge and authority that you lack in this area.
    Bella DePaulo, a visiting professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, writes that “lying is not a distinct psychological process with its own unique behavioral indicators. It does matter how liars feel and how they think.”

    Are you claiming that because of who he is, makes his claim right? Silly, fallacious, Atheist.

    >>It’s tough to tell the difference between a liar and an honest person who happens to be under a lot of stress

    You must be under stress then. Got it.

    >>So stop fooling around.

    Stop being foolish. "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding but only in expressing [her] opinion."~ Proverbs 18:2

    ReplyDelete
  129. Rosemary,

    >>I think all your readers would agree that you lied about being a professor of clownology, yet doubt that you felt the slightest bit of guilt while you did so.

    It was an obvious hyperbole point being made. If you did not see that then we can say the same about your professed education. You're lacking. Oh and thanks for showing my point made that because I had less of what you perceived as "better" education then yourself, proves that I am wrong. Did your schooling teach you that kind of fallacious argumentation? If so, I'm sorry for your loss.

    >>A child may not want to be given an innoculation and a paranoid schizophrenic may not wish to be forcibly medicated.

    You must be hungry, that is a beautiful red herring you have there. Did that "education" of yours teach you how to spell inoculation? *pshaw

    >>People derive their sense of morality from the community in which they are socialized.

    So raping babies and eating babies for fun IS INDEED moral in your worldview. Thanks for admitting that.

    >>When this is secular they are free to make decisions based on what is best for humanity.

    Sure. We have heard all the Atheistic justifications for the mass murders of Stalin, Mao, Pot, Ill, Castro, and 53 million unborn and counting, and other atheist regimes.

    >>When it is contaminated with religious dogma a person is free to ignore what society considers to be right or wrong and interpret their holy scriptures or their religious leader’s words in a manner that supports any prejudice they may have.

    We all have our AUTHORITY, now don't we? If said society says that raping babies for fun is acceptable, at least we have grounds for saying "No, that is wrong", you do not.

    >>The reality is that “divine inspiration” has a long track record of moral inconsistency and contradiction.

    YAWN! Spare us your gripes and complaints.

    >>The gods are clearly not skilled in communication skills.

    Said the criminal trying to sit in the judges chair.

    >>The Christian Bible is a Big Book of Muliple Choice Morality. If it makes you feel good to hurt people you will find plenty of “god given” commandments and divine examples to support this trait.

    Could you be wrong about this claim or understanding?

    ReplyDelete
  130. Rosemary,

    Do you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

    >>I concede that it is possible to imagine such a thing, but this is only speculation. There is no valid evidence that it has ever happened or that it is ever likely to happen in reality.

    Avoidance is noted. So its impossible then? Or its possible?

    >>In other words, without objective external confirmatory evidence a person cannot be sure that any of their personal experiences or beliefs are based in reality.

    Does this include the conclusions that you are coming up with? Remember the question was, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid? If personal experiences or beliefs cannot be determined if they are based in reality. How is collective personal experiences any better to determine that?

    >>I am not foolish or arrogant enough to claim that I am absolutely certain about anything much at all, although I think the probability of some things is so high that they are certain enough for almost all intents and purposes

    But you CANNOT be even certain of that claim of "certain enough". In other words, are you certain of this Rosemary? If so, how are you certain of it? If not, you have no argument.

    >>For example, I am very confident that my version of reasoning makes a great more sense than yours because I back up my statements with valid empirical and logical evidence; while you simply assert, shout, repeat or resort to logical fallacies, obfuscations, “god”-inspired threats, personal attacks and social rudeness.

    For your continued "education," what you just did is called a 'hasty generalization fallacy'. Also, assuming that you have nothing else to go on, also commits the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Even if there is no evidence to the contrary, that is not grounds for you to assume the validity of your reasoning. Please try again.

    BTW, you bring up logical fallacies as if you thought logic was absolute. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.

    >>If Heaven were real, and I had to spend an eternity with people like you, it would be Hell. In any case, what kind of "abundant life" would it be in the company of a Heavenly Mafia Boss who makes sure that his guests are within permanent ear shot of people being eternally tortured and promises to dull their human senses so that this no longer bothers them.


    Thanks for sharing your tree felling about God. I take no offense to what you have said, “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Corinthians 1: 18-20)

    “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2: 14)

    Your argument is with Scripture, not me.

    But to those to whom the gospel message is uncomfortable, it is received quite differently. When Jesus preached in His hometown at first they were amazed at His Words, but by the end of His sermon they tried to throw Him off a cliff (Luke 4: 14-30)

    The truth sometimes moves people to want to throw us off cliffs, but if we withhold the truth due to the reaction we might receive, then we are not teaching like our Lord. I wish the best for you, Rosemary.

    ReplyDelete
  131. >> And what record is that? Let me guess you are going to wiki again for your info? Do you have a source for that info?

    Yes, I have a source... Five years of university studying religions, and taking greek, hebrew, and latin classes.

    >>According to a source for etymology, "From the 1200's "according to Cicero

    Well, acording to anyone teaching Latin at university, this definition (attributed to Cicero) is wrong. Your citation comes from 1200, so I suspect it's apocraphal. Cicero died in 43 BCE.

    And no, I am not 'binded fast' to atheism. Life would have been a lot nicer for me had religion turned out to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  132. William,

    >>Yes, I have a source... Five years of university studying religions, and taking greek, hebrew, and latin classes.

    So the source is...self? Erm...ok. Is it possible that your "source" is wrong? How do you know that your reasoning about this "source" or ANYTHING is valid?

    >>Life would have been a lot nicer for me had religion turned out to be true.


    Are you certain Christianity is not true? If so, how are you certain?

    ReplyDelete
  133. >>How do you know that your reasoning about this "source" or ANYTHING is valid?


    How do YOU know that your reasoning and interpretation of your sources or ANYTHING is valid?


    I have not seen any indication, so far, that you are infallible. Do you think that you are?


    Why should anyone believe that YOU have the only real Truth?


    >> For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Corinthians 1: 18-20)

    You have reinforced my point: this god that you believe exists is described in language that indicates that he/it is a nasty piece of work. He deliberately harms people and then punishes them for it. I hope you are not so religiously indoctrinated that you think that this kind of behavior is exemplary and fit to be emulated. That would make you a monster, also.

    While it is fortunate that such a horrid god is extremely unlikely to exist it is extremely unfortunate that people like yourself have had their moral values so hideously disturbed by the delusional system that has been built up around it. You continue to display unwarranted anger and rudeness to all of us who have dared to challenge your self-attributed authority on these pages. Shame on you!

    ReplyDelete
  134. >>So the source is...self? Erm...ok. Is it possible that your "source" is wrong? How do you know that your reasoning about this "source" or ANYTHING is valid?

    My 'source' is common knowledge. If you want, I think I could probably source it with Ninian Smart. [And if you don't know Smart, you probably should.]
    >> Are you certain Christianity is not true? If so, how are you certain?

    Many atheists have been where you're at; so sure that you faith is true, and hoping to do the right thing by defending it. Keep going. Sooner or later, the reality of your religion starts to sink in.
    You seem to want to paint this as a 'good against evil' battle. It’s not. Truth is, many atheist are just like you... exactly like you. Only difference is, they've walked one step further along the path you're on.

    Keep going.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Rosemary,

    >>How do YOU know that your reasoning and interpretation of your sources or ANYTHING is valid?

    What I think is that its unfair for me to ask you a question and you ask the same question expecting an answer without addressing the question at all. Is rude part of that "education" of yours.

    But to be respectful, and answer the question, I appeal to a different plane then you do which is one that is viciously circular. Do your use your reasoning when you reason about the past 'success' of your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular. And again, assuming that you have nothing else to go on, begs the question AND commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

    Greg Bahnsen writes: ”In the Christian worldview, however, the Christian is not engaged in viciously circular argument, a circular argument on the same plane. We appeal above and beyond the temporal realm. God’s self-revelation in nature and in Scripture informs us of the two-level universe. God is not a fact like other facts in the world. He is the Creator and Establisher of all else. His existence alone makes the universe, and reason, and human experience possible… … The “circularity” of a transcendental argument is not at all the same as the fallacious ‘circularity’ of an argument in which the conclusion is a restatement (in one form or another) of one of its premises.” ~ (Pushing the Antithesis pg.) 124.

    >>Why should anyone believe that YOU have the only real Truth?

    Again, I am not saying that atheists do not reason, all I am saying is that they have no basis for assuming that their reasoning is valid, yet they make that assumption. Without presupposing God, the position of the atheist is reduced to absurdity.

    >>That would make you a monster, also.

    Is that a mere opinion of yours (which is irrelevant) or would that be objectively true? If objective, how is that possible within your atheistic worldview?

    >>You continue to display unwarranted anger and rudeness to all of us who have dared to challenge your self-attributed authority on these pages. Shame on you!

    You came to MY house (yard) spouting your dogma and I am merely defending my position. It is actually YOU who is rude and obnoxious. Who are you to spout your OPINION in my world? Besides, if things are subjective how can you argue against something or anything that you disagree with? In your worldview these "differences" are healthy and expected!

    ReplyDelete
  136. Dan, I answered your question. I am not responsible for your failure to notice or understand it. It seems that your cognitive filter system causes you to miss information. Perhaps the problem is that I did not say what you expected and so you did not recognize it as an “answer”.

    To reiterate briefly, I try to use methods that have proved to be the most effective in getting to the heart of matters. I prefer objective methods that produce valid, testable, repeatable and predictive results. I avoid subjective methods wherever possible because there is overwhelming evidence that they are extremely unreliable. I am pragmatic, not dogmatic. I work with probability levels, not certainties. The evidence indicates that there are very few certainties in life apart from death.

    I will accept authorities if they are speaking on topics on which they have legitimate expertise that is widely recognized by unbiased sources. If I am able to understand the reasoning that brought them to their conclusion then I prefer to check their work for myself.

    OTOH, your claim to “know” is based on sources for which I have little or no respect. They are subjective and partisan. You make flat assertions but supply no proof other than your “feelings” that they are correct. You quote documents that are written and/or interpreted by fallible humans.

    Your grasp of logical reasoning is quite flawed. You frequently misuse the terms, wielding them as a kind of ad holmium weapon. Ironically, you fail to notice when you fall into their clutches yourself – for real.

    For example, you accuse me of falsely arguing from my legitimate authority as a trained and experienced professional neuro-psychologist but you see nothing wrong with quoting written authorities that are not accepted outside the small circle of those who have a particular parochial view of the Christian god. Bahson merely asserts that people who do not accept his religious viewpoint are engaged in “viciously circular arguments”; he offers no legitimate argument, nor does not offer any valid proof. There is nothing significantly circular about using the logical tools that are the best that we know of for discovering repeatable, testable and reliable truths. It is, however, “viciously circular” to argue that a particular cannon of the Christian Bible is the infallible word of your version of the Christian god because a passage within it appears to say that it is, and then to arrogantly imply that you and your significant others are the only people who can infallibly interpret the meaning of this set of books.

    You assert that you follow logic that is not required to conform to the rules of the natural world. You see no need to justify this. This is Special Pleading at its worst.


    Contrary to your rather odd view, yelling libelous public obscenities over your fence does not exempt you from censure. Nor does it give you the right to gag other people’s free speech in response to this hate mongering. Of course, there is nothing to prevent you closing your site to comments, but it will not earn you any respect or Brownie points from normally socialized people.


    I am a member of a highly ethical profession that is concerned with making life a better place for humans, regardless of their beliefs about the existence of supernatural beings. It is a very serious allegation to suggest that I am so lacking in moral integrity that there is nothing preventing me from causing harm to another human being, simply because I have no belief in the elements of your religion. If your assertions and arguments were valid, rather than demonstrably delusional, then most of my profession would be barred from practicing. I can understand why you would want to make this vicious attack from the cowardly safety of anonymity.


    The hate that seethes from your writing is frightening. You can almost cut it with a knife. In a different age I think you would have made a good Inquisitor or witch burner.

    ReplyDelete
  137. It is slanderous to accuse caring and law abiding citizens of having no moral code that would prevent them from engaging in behavior that this society considers to be an atrocity. It suggests that your own moral code and reasoning ability is terribly warped. It is clear for all to see that the average person with no belief in your particular god, or in any other supernatural phenomena, does not engage in behavior that is considered inferior to those who subscribe to your variety of religious dogma. In fact, there is valid evidence from many sources that crime and other indications of societal ill-health is positively correlated with religious communities and negatively correlated with secular communities. That is, the less religious a community the lower the rates of murder, abortion, teen pregnancies, divorce, and so on.

    A secular society is a haven, not a magnet for evil. The usually quoted exceptions are actually religiously motivated (the Third Reich was based on Catholic and Lutheran generated anti-Semitism) or the result of ideologies that suppressed any opposition, regardless of religious component (Russian politics in general: including Christian Stalinism and Communist Leninism, Pol Pot, who was an exceptionally evil man out of a whole country of otherwise relatively socialized atheists).

    ReplyDelete
  138. The Yahweh god of the Old Testament is depicted as ordering or condoning psychological torture of one’s children (the near-sac rife of Isaac by Abraham), the murder of innocent women, the slaughter of innocent cattle, cruelty and the brutal killing of animals, wholesale genocide of neighboring nations, enslavement of other races, enslavement of one’s daughters, brutal beatings and murder of one’s slaves, torture of one’s slaves (awl in the ear), wholesale drowning of almost entire generations, brutal “testing” of loyal followers (Job), sex slavery of girls from conquered nations for priests and others, vicarious punishment, guilt by descent, stoning of disobedient children, subservience of women, stoning of adulterers, enforced marriage of women to their rapist, infanticide, abortion, polygamy, mistresses, sexual penetration of one’s female servants, hate crimes against homosexual males, sexual penetration and enforced pregnancy of the surviving wives of one’s dead relatives, entrapment (the garden of Eden’s orchard), favoritism (Jacob), punishment that is way out of proportion to the severity of the crime, punishment of people who could not be reasonably held responsible for their behavior and many, many more instances of behavior deemed monstrous by today’s culturally defined moral standards.

    A system that spends its time coming up with semantically twisted “reasons” for defining the anti-social and criminal behavior of its god as supremely moral cannot be a good system for the development of behavior that ennobles and succors humanity.

    According to my developmental stage of moral reasoning, and the influence of my cultural heritage, it is clear that if you behave in the same monstrous way that the Yahweh god is described as behaving in your version of the Christian Bible then your nature is similarly monstrous.

    I make no claim to this being completely “objective”. What I do not accept, however, is that your moral views are any more “objective” than mine. If anything, they appear to be more subjective. They do not seem to be in tune with the moral stance of other Christians who have visited your site and recoiled in horror. This indicates that you follow a supernatural standard that is either non-existent or fickle.

    When your self-perceived “standards” cause you to behave in ways that the average civilized person considers to be disgraceful then your system of determining “goodness” is clearly not working very well. The society in which I was socialized does not condone the hate-mongering behavior that you are exhibiting on your site. The fact that your preferred god is described as engaging in or commanding behavior that this society condemns is a seriously twisted excuse for you to emulate this behavior or act on those commands in this culture.

    During the time that I was involved with the Christian religion I was fortunate enough not to come into contact with someone as insidiously and potentially evil as you appear to be. I am grateful for that.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Dan, I answered your question. I am not responsible for your failure to notice or understand it. It seems that your cognitive filter system causes you to miss information. Perhaps the problem is that I did not say what you expected and so you did not recognize it as an “answer”.

    To reiterate briefly, I try to use methods that have proved to be the most effective in getting to the heart of matters. I prefer objective methods that produce valid, testable, repeatable and predictive results. I avoid subjective methods wherever possible because there is overwhelming evidence that they are extremely unreliable. I am pragmatic, not dogmatic. I work with probability levels, not certainties. The evidence indicates that there are very few certainties in life apart from death.

    I will accept authorities if they are speaking on topics on which they have legitimate expertise that is widely recognized by unbiased sources. If I am able to understand the reasoning that brought them to their conclusion then I prefer to check their work for myself.

    OTOH, your claim to “know” is based on sources for which I have little or no respect. They are subjective and partisan. You make flat assertions but supply no proof other than your “feelings” that they are correct. You quote documents that are written and/or interpreted by fallible humans.

    Your grasp of logical reasoning is quite flawed. You frequently misuse the terms, wielding them as a kind of ad holmium weapon. Ironically, you fail to notice when you fall into their clutches yourself – for real.

    For example, you accuse me of falsely arguing from my legitimate authority as a trained and experienced professional neuro-psychologist but you see nothing wrong with quoting written authorities that are not accepted outside the small circle of those who have a particular parochial view of the Christian god. Bahson merely asserts that people who do not accept his religious viewpoint are engaged in “viciously circular arguments”; he offers no legitimate argument, nor does not offer any valid proof. There is nothing significantly circular about using the logical tools that are the best that we know of for discovering repeatable, testable and reliable truths. It is, however, “viciously circular” to argue that a particular cannon of the Christian Bible is the infallible word of your version of the Christian god because a passage within it appears to say that it is, and then to arrogantly imply that you and your significant others are the only people who can infallibly interpret the meaning of this set of books.

    You assert that you follow logic that is not required to conform to the rules of the natural world. You see no need to justify this. This is Special Pleading at its worst.


    Contrary to your rather odd view, yelling libelous public obscenities over your fence does not exempt you from censure. Nor does it give you the right to gag other people’s free speech in response to this hate mongering. Of course, there is nothing to prevent you closing your site to comments, but it will not earn you any respect or Brownie points from normally socialized people.


    I am a member of a highly ethical profession that is concerned with making life a better place for humans, regardless of their beliefs about the existence of supernatural beings. It is a very serious allegation to suggest that I am so lacking in moral integrity that there is nothing preventing me from causing harm to another human being, simply because I have no belief in the elements of your religion. If your assertions and arguments were valid, rather than demonstrably delusional, then most of my profession would be barred from practicing. I can understand why you would want to make this vicious attack from the cowardly safety of anonymity.


    The hate that seethes from your writing is frightening. You can almost cut it with a knife. In a different age I think you would have made a good Inquisitor or witch burner.

    ReplyDelete
  140. I see that we are censoring again. How dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Rosemary,

    Do you even see the irony here? Its quite ironically telling that you said:

    >>It suggests that your own moral code and reasoning ability is terribly warped.

    When the thing you said right before this was:

    >>It is slanderous to accuse caring and law abiding citizens of having no moral code that would prevent them from engaging in behavior that this society considers to be an atrocity.

    So I guess, by your own admission, you're slanderous. Thanks for that.

    >>I see that we are censoring again. How dishonest.

    What are you talking about now? First explain your paranoia, and second are you certain that I am dishonest, if so how? If not, again you have no argument.

    Is this what you mean by being a member of a highly ethical profession that is concerned with making life a better place for humans? Could have fooled this human.

    Besides, speaking of censoring, was it not you who sent the attorneys of WIC after me? You do know I have a right to face my accusers. If not, carry on.

    All the playful banter aside Rosemary, I do care about you enough to speak the truth to you. I do not moderate comments and I welcome all viewpoints. If you look above the place where you write the comments, the only rule I have is "Bring your "A" game" If this is yours, I feel sorry for you. Its just painful to watch so many people jump off that proverbial cliff and you merely sit and coach them how to do it "with style" instead of warning them.

    I am sure you mean well but you know God exists, at least that is my position, and you are making yourself an enemy with God. You can sugar coat it all you wish, you can instruct your clients that "everything is going to be alright" but that will be a lie. Please repent.

    You still have not addressed how you're certain there is no God. If you're not certain how can you call yourself part of a "highly ethical" profession at all? If that "profession" does not address the subject that is the MOST IMPORTANT in everyone's lives then it is anything but ethical. If you are certain then you must be omniscient. Since you're are not omniscient, then you are in a quandary. I wish you well.

    ReplyDelete
  142. >>was it not you who sent the attorneys of WIC after me?


    huh??? What is WIC??

    ReplyDelete
  143. WIC is a federally-funded health and nutrition program for women, infants, and children. WIC helps families by providing checks for buying healthy supplemental foods from WIC-authorized vendors, nutrition education, and help finding healthcare and other community services. Participants must meet income guidelines and be pregnant women, new mothers, infants or children under age five.

    What could the "attorneys of WIC" want with you? What have you done?

    ReplyDelete
  144. Dan wrote:

    ..you know God exists, at least that is my position.


    This is arrogant.

    You are not a mind reader. You do not know what I am thinking.


    This is perverse.

    I have stated that I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to believe in a supernatural being. In other words, I do _not_ know that your god, or any god, exists.

    This is insulting.

    You are implying that I am a liar.

    ReplyDelete
  145. >>You still have not addressed how you're certain there is no God.


    As I have already said, I am a scientist who deals in probabilities, not certainties. Since I am not omniscient there is a remote possibility that a supernatural being exists that is identical to the one that you and your significant others believe in. There is an equally remote possibility that Santa, Vishnu, Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist.

    In the absence of compelling evidence, it is sensible to assume that none of these conjectured or mythologized entities exist and practical to act accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  146. I see that you have re-instated the postings that you removed, but not before being called out for removing them. That type of "honesty" is not something I can applaud.

    ReplyDelete
  147. >>If you're not certain how can you call yourself part of a "highly ethical" profession at all?

    The need for certainty and absolute authority is a stage of moral reasoning that is normally outgrown by the average Western-educated human before the teenage years. Kohlberg refers to this stage as Preconventional Morality because children at this level do not speak as members of society but see morality as a set of external rules that are unquestionably “right”. http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm

    If you still operate from this viewpoint then it explains why you are having so much difficulty understanding me. The problem with both moral and cognitive stages is that the reasoning implicit in stages beyond one’s current level is unfathomable.

    Kohlberg states that stages emerge as the result of thinking about moral problems, not directly from maturation or socialization. Social experiences promote development by providing discussions and debates with others that stimulate our mental processes. When our views are questioned and challenged we are motivated to come up with new, more comprehensive positions.

    While it seems that you are stuck in an immature stage of moral reasoning by virtue of your intellectually sheltered background, the good news is that progression to higher Moral Stages can be facilitated by challenges to your current beliefs. Carefully considering the material that is posted in opposition to your current stance will provide the means necessary to move up the developmental ladder. The bad news is that you will then be beyond the comprehension capacity of your current religious cronies and you may have to make more morally mature friends at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  148. >>If that "profession" does not address the subject that is the MOST IMPORTANT in everyone's lives then it is anything but ethical.

    My profession believes that the most important things in people’s lives is the reduction of unnecessary suffering and the maximization of happiness and well-being in the only life for which we have incontrovertible proof. There is no universal acceptance of what your particular religious group believes to be “MOST IMPORTANT in everyone’s lives”. The codes of most helping professions state that it is unethical to proselyze or force personal views on clients. Practitioners who do so stand to lose their license.

    This is another instance where specific injunctions in your preferred set of holy books goes against the general moral consensus and where it is necessary for those who practice ethics-bound professions to “interpret” or ignore passages in these books in order to conform to their society’s current stage of moral enlightenment.

    You appear to see nothing wrong with the rudeness of proselytizing behavior or to identify it as a self-serving means of obtaining affirming social support for authoritarian beliefs that cannot be empirically supported.

    On the other hand, even at your current stage of moral development, the force of public opinion has probably resulted in you “interpreting” passages in your preferred version of the Bible (which I presume to be an evangelically sympathetic translation of the non-Lutheran Protestant Canon) to support the remarriage of divorced people, to ban stoning disobedient children, to stop enforcing the marriage of unwed women to their rapists, to condemn people whose servants die as the result of a serious beating, to punish fathers who sell their daughters into slavery and to prevent the torture and slaughter of witches and atheists (although I am not too sure about this last one). Unless you reinterpret it, the books in all versions of the Christian canonical scriptures allow or command the opposite of these things.

    That makes your version of morality subject to your level of moral maturity, your social prejudices and your cognitive ability to semantically twist texts to support them.

    The most dangerous people on earth are the religious fanatics who are poorly socialized, cognitively well-developed and morally immature.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Rosemary,

    >>You are implying that I am a liar.

    As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

    If you are "lying" its probably to yourself, but I don't feel that you are trying to lie to me. Of course I cannot be certain that you are not.

    >>There is an equally remote possibility that Santa, Vishnu, Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist.

    If those are your beliefs then let's discuss them. To quote Van Til, "We shall limit our discussion, then, to the "God of Christianity." I believe, while you do not believe or are not sure that you do believe, in this particular kind of God. That will give point to our discussion. For surely there is no sense in talking about the existence of God, without knowing what kind of God it is who may or may not exist.

    So much then we have gained. We at least know in general what sort of God we are going to make the subject for our conversation. If now we can come to a similar preliminary agreement as to the standard or test by which to prove or disprove God's existence, we can proceed." ~ Why I Believe in God

    Like I, and an atheistic friend, stated before "In actual common usage, atheism means the specific belief that there is no God. Simply put, some people want to broaden the category of atheism so as to make the category to which people want to refer in such discussions too cumbersome to specify. If, for some reason, one wishes to identify himself only as not a theist, the term non-theist will suffice. But the term is not often used, as the category is useless to discussion. And that is why I regard the attempt to broaden "atheist" to be synonymous with "non-theist" to be dishonest. "

    You tell me if that is not what you just did with your FSM, Santa injection.

    >>I see that you have re-instated the postings that you removed, but not before being called out for removing them. That type of "honesty" is not something I can applaud.

    You directly accused me of doing something that was unfounded. If you knew Blogger at all, you would understand that it has a failed spam filter that they created and its done automatically. So every few days, I go into the spam folder and select all and click the "not spam" link and that restores all posts. All posts, whether filtered into spam or not, gets to my email and I address them. Nothing is ever left in Spam. If yours go into spam, have patience and set accusations aside, you will see your post show up again. Thanks for the vote of confidence though. *pshaw :7)

    ReplyDelete
  150. Rosemary,

    >> Kohlberg refers to this stage as Preconventional Morality because children at this level do not speak as members of society but see morality as a set of external rules that are unquestionably “right”.

    So is it truth because its claimed by Kohlberg? If not, you have no argument, just opinions. If so, you're being fallacious again.

    >> The problem with both moral and cognitive stages is that the reasoning implicit in stages beyond one’s current level is unfathomable.

    Would that include your ability to understand the notion of God, and His existence?

    >>When our views are questioned and challenged we are motivated to come up with new, more comprehensive positions.

    So ultimately, you could indeed be reasoned into eating babies then? Thanks for that. After all if "social experiences promote development", and its accepted that eating babies is the norm, then you can indeed go along and move towards eating babies? If not, why not? If so, you just argued my point of this post.

    BTW, is the straw man of "immature stage of moral reasoning" merely a Ad hominem attack? A claim of someone having a "immature stage of moral reasoning" is itself a immature statement in an attempt to lift one's position above what it actually is. Bullies do this all the time, they belittle others as an insecurity on their part. Its an immature stage in itself. Thanks for pointing out Kohlberg's insecurities in your appeal to the elite fallacy. Moving on.

    Again I ask, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  151. Rosemary,

    >>My profession believes that the most important things in people’s lives is the reduction of unnecessary suffering and the maximization of happiness and well-being in the only life for which we have incontrovertible proof.

    Maximization of happiness to a pedophile is unthinkable to me. Its appalling that your profession encourages that behavior. Shame on you.

    >> There is no universal acceptance of what your particular religious group believes to be “MOST IMPORTANT in everyone’s lives”.

    Yes there is. I am sure Satanists believe there is no devil either, but that does not mean there isn't. If Christianity is right you, and your chosen profession, are the most evil. How are you certain that you are right? How do you know that you are? If you don't, wouldn't it be imperative that you do know with certainty as to what you are preaching/teaching to unsuspecting individuals seeking help? Otherwise, you are doing the most damage to that individual that you perceive as helpful. There is a huge difference between doing right or wrong and justifying right and wrong.

    Meister states, "By arguing for a belief in or knowledge of morality without providing a justification for morality, atheists confuse moral epistemology (moral knowledge) with moral ontology (foundation existence of morality)."

    What grounds the atheists' moral position? What makes their moral views more then mere hunches, inklings, or subjective opinions?

    Remember what Ted Bundy said? The question to you is simply:

    On what moral grounds can you provide a response to Bundy?

    >>The most dangerous people on earth are the religious fanatics who are poorly socialized, cognitively well-developed and morally immature.

    Even if I agreed, which I do not, don't be so hard on the Atheists, they are in the dark after all. We just need to help them find the light.

    ReplyDelete
  152. This author has to be the most idiototic human I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

    He makes up points to validate his notion of god and his belief in this false god. He stumbles on numbers and states that atheism is the cause of more deaths than his imaginary freind. The Spanish Inquisition lasted 800 years and killed millions and thats just one example. Add to that the people who burned and where tortured in other religious cleansings.

    Then lets add deaths to the polytheistic notion of many gods. THe notion of god or gods is nothing but an excuse to kill in the name of an imaginary buddy.

    I feel sorry for people who have such an empty life that they need to make up an imaginary friend to make their lives FEEL full. Very sad.

    ReplyDelete
  153. >> its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is.

    If there were any truth in your contention then there would be no need for biblical prophets, sacred texts, or Christian missionaries. Furthermore, China and Vietnam would be full of theists and there would be no remote South American tribe whose language prevents them from believing in the existence of an after life.


    >>Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God. If you are "lying" its probably to yourself

    Now you are making the grandiose claim to know my unconscious mind as well as my conscious mind - and not just my mind, but the unconscious mind of everyone on the planet. Since your claim is completely untestable and unfalsifiable, you can make up anything you like and assert that people really believe it without them being aware that they do. It is impossible to prove otherwise. This is a trick that has been used by torturers and mind-breakers for centuries. It was also used by Freud and Adler before the advent of biological- and evidence-based treatments for mental disorders. Modern day mental health professionals consider this to be a form of “mind rape”.

    This type of tactic is insidiously evil. It gives you permission to make up stuff that demonizes people who do not share your religious point of view. This may be where you get the barely contolled hatred that you express towards atheists on your site. What a lovely man you are continuing to prove that you aren’t! Your theistic beliefs appear to be destroying your humanity.

    The Third Reich did the same thing with the Jews, fueled by a couple of centuries of vitriolic racist propaganda promulgated by the Protestant Martin Luther and the clergy of the Catholic Church. Both of these opposing religious factions were united in demonizing Jews as wicked and detestable people because they rejected Jesus as the promised Messiah. Jews were illogically asserted to be vicariously responsible for his crucifixtion.

    The Nazi death camps were religiously motivated. The SS belt buckles read: Got Mit Uns: - God with us. Devout Germans who attended churchs that openly supported Hitler’s regime, tortured Jews because they believed that Jews were less than animals in the sight of their Christian God. Hitler was a Catholic Christian who was merely reinforcing the religious prejudices of his era. As well as eradicating Christ’s enemies (Jews), he forbade abortion, vilified atheists and insisted on religious education in schools. He seems to be on your side.

    ReplyDelete
  154. >> "We shall limit our discussion, then, to the "God of Christianity." . . . We at least know in general what sort of God we are going to make the subject for our conversation.


    There is no consistently agreed upon “god of christianity”. There are thousands and thousands of Christian denominations and sects in existence right now, and there is two million years of history showing that no version of christianity has held an unchanging view of their god or his wishes over time. The only thing we can talk about is your particular beliefs about the nature of the jewish/christian god at this point in your existence.


    >> "In actual common usage, atheism means the specific belief that there is no God. - - - some people want to broaden the category of atheism. - - - I regard the attempt to broaden "atheist" to be synonymous with "non-theist" to be dishonest. "

    You have given the term “atheist” a definition which has been coined by apologists for evangelical christianity and is not in common useage among others, especially among those who use the term to describe themselves. If you insist on using the wrong definition you will inevitably make all kinds of errors of attribution when talking with those who refer to themselves by this term. The silliest assertions assume that atheists really believe in god. Without an actual belief in god it is not possible to “lie about the existence of god”, “deny god”, “turn your back on god”, “elect to live an immoral life free of the rules of god”, “be angry with god”, “rebell against god” and so on.

    The term “atheist” was used in the first few centuries to describe early Christians, who did not believe in the Roman gods. These days, its common useage means someone who does not believe in the existence of any gods, including the Christian god. In common useage, the term simply means someone who lacks a belief in gods. It does not mean someone who is certain that there is no god.

    In my experience, most atheists who describe themselves with this term are “agnostic atheists”, that is, they see no reason to believe in the existence of gods but do not claim that it is absolutely certain that no god exists. Most, like me, are probabalistic atheists: given, the extraordinary nature of the claims, the fatastical, nonsensical and contradictory stories told about gods, the lack of compelling evidence and the significant failure of all scientifically valid investigations of the testable claims made about gods by believers, it is highly improbable that gods exist and prudent good sense to assume that no such things exist until distinctly better evidence is available.

    In other words, on the basis of currently available evidence, it quite unlikely that gods exist and it would be silly to behave as if they do.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Oh and Rosemary,

    You are not justifying your ability to reason, you are telling us where you learned things. For the sake of this argument, I could not care less where you learned anything. I want to know how you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING is valid? Could you, for instance, be wrong about EVERYTHING that you know?

    ReplyDelete
  156. > So is it truth because its (sic) claimed by Kohlberg?

    Of course not! Science does not work from bald assertions, opinions and conjectures, as theists do.

    The stages of moral reasoning are accepted scientific knowledge because Kohlberg provided compelling evidence for the universal existence of these stages. This work has been replicated by a hoard of other researchers in the area over several decades. Science works from evidence obtained from carefully controlled studies. If you understand the methodology you can try to undermine it, but I strongly suspect that you do not.


    >> The problem with both moral and cognitive stages is that the reasoning implicit in stages beyond one’s current level is unfathomable.

    > Would that include your ability to understand the notion of God, and His existence?

    The scale is concerned with the different stages of moral reasoning as humans develop. Since the underlying structure relies on the parallel development of cognitive abilities and brain cell maturation it does provide a matrix which tempers how a developing human can make sense of any information, including that provided by indoctrination. It provides a structure for understanding how ancient people’s ideas of supernatural beings developed and matured over the centuries. The earliest pages of the Christian Old Testament contain the most morally immature material while the pages of the New Testament contain material that is several levels more advanced.

    But that is not what I was referring to here. The logic involved in each stage of moral reasoning is dependent on the mastery of the elements of previous levels. The Pre-Conventional "rule-orientated" child cannot conceive of moral reasoning that includes breaking generally accepted rules for a higher good. It makes no sense to them because they do not have the tools to work with.

    Jean Piaget’s stages of cognitive reasoning show similar phenomena. A four year old believes that there is the same amount of soda in a short wide cup and a tall thin cup if the levels are identical. No matter how an adult or an eleven year old tries to explain why this thinking is wrong the four year old child will not understand because cells in certain areas of the brain have not sufficiently developed AND they have not yet had enough practical experience to develop the concept of conservation of liquids.

    My criteria for what is moral are a lot more complex than your simple rule-based authoritarian system. I consider a wide range of factors, with the ultimate rule being trying to do what is best and the most compassionate for humans in general and those I love and am responsible for in particular.

    ReplyDelete
  157. >So ultimately, you could indeed be reasoned into eating babies then?

    Only if it were in the best interests of humankind.

    I am sure that you would have immense difficulty conceding that there could be some unusual circumstance where eating babies is in the best interests of mankind. (Frankly, I cannot think of one, but I am willing to accept that such a circumstance could exist. I just hope I never have to deal with the horrible conflicts that it would undoubtedly create.) You are also unable to consider such a strange circumstance as distinct from people eating babies for the fun of it, or for some other amoral or immoral reason. To you it would, by definition, have to be immoral in any possible circumstance. OTOH you see no problem with defining the OT god’s hideous behavior as “moral” because, and only because, you have defined him as “perfect”. You have defined one set of rules for this “god” and one set for you, but you see no problem with that!!!

    What concerns me about your approach is that you could be persuaded to dash babies against rocks or rip them from their mother’s wombs simply by virtue of the fact that the Christian Bible describes these things as pleasing to the god of Abraham and Moses at some point in time. What is stopping you from killing babies, atheists and anyone else you can convince yourself are “wicked” or “enemies of god”? I contend that the only thing stopping you from engaging in many the brutal acts condoned, ordered or displayed by the god of the OT is your internalization of what your family, friends, culture and nation considers to be moral behavior in this particular society. Since your moral values are not universally accepted by devout theists, especially those who live in other cultures or centuries, these values cannot come from a consistent, all-powerful supernatural being. That makes society’s opinion your ultimate standard.

    Fortunately for this society, your cognitive abilities are sufficiently developed to allow you to “interpret” biblical passages of a barbaric nature in such a way that they can be made to support your cultural learning’s. Fortunately for your children, you will not stone them for disobeying you (although this was commanded by the god of Moses at the same time as the Big Ten). Nor will you truss them up, throw them on your outside Bar-B-Q and terrify them by standing over them with a knife while you decide whether your version of god wants you to plunge it in as a test of your religious loyalty. OTOH, you may well consider it is godly and justifiable to beat your children with rod in order not to “spoil” them. You would have good Christian company on that one. If you follow this Biblical advice then you will be unmoved by human rights advocates, child protection agents, health professionals and legal authorities who argue that you have behaved in a way which this society considers to be deeply immoral.

    At this point I could take a leaf out of your array of rhetorical dirty tricks and claim that you are lying to yourself and that you are really sub-consciously aware that the god you are defending is nasty piece of work. Then I could claim that you are therefore criminally responsible for knowingly passing these horrific beliefs on to others. I won’t, because I consider you to be the unwitting victim of a delusional system that protects itself via the operation of a variety of psychological defense mechanisms, such as the “cognitive dissonance” paradigm. For that reason I will also avoid echoing any of your collection of rude expressions of dismissive contempt.

    ReplyDelete
  158. > BTW, is the straw man of "immature stage of moral reasoning" merely a Ad hominem attack?

    This does not meet the accepted criteria for identification as either a “straw man” argument or an “ad hominem” attack. Please try to stick to the common definition of terms.

    A straw man argument paints a picture of the topic that is simplistic and stereotypical rather than complex and real. An example of such an argument would be the way you define the term “atheist”.

    An ad hominem attack draws attention to negative personal attributes of the opponent that do not impinge on the integrity of their argument or their understanding or knowledge of the essential elements. Arguing or implying that someone is immoral or incapable of rationally discussing morality simply because they are black-skinned, Russian, Catholic or an atheist is an ad hominem attack. Attacking my professional status, professional expertise and implying that my profession itself in unethical are other examples.

    When what you writer clearly demonstrates that you do not have requisite knowledge, expertise, logical capacity or moral maturity then consideration of these things are relevant to the matter under discussion and your capacity to argue it successfully. When we are discussing the superiority of your moral behavior and values vis a vis non-theists, any moral lapse or failure of moral reasoning on your part is legitimate grist for the discussion mill.

    If you cannot understand my reasoning then there is no hope of you understanding what I am saying, why I do not find your arguments convincing and why I get frustrated when you keep repeating questions that have already been answered several times.

    The way to answer my diagnostic speculation on your stage of moral reasoning is not to tell me that I am immature (the 3 year old’s response), but to make a statement or do something that demonstrates that you can, indeed, respond in a morally mature manner.


    > Again I ask, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    What? Not this question again!

    This has been answered over and over again. Either pay attention - or accept that you have not yet reached a stage of cognitive and moral reasoning where you can understand, or perhaps even notice, the answer.


    This discussion is clearly getting nowhere.

    You are more interested in telling me what I “really” think instead of finding out and accepting what I actually think. You do not notice when I answer your questions. What you do notice, you do not seem to understand.

    Furthermore, for someone who pretends to have a superior understanding of moral values, you are never-the-less consistently rude and supercilious. Instead of behaving graciously, you respond like a bad-tempered child to reasonable criticism of your points of view.

    If you had been a student in one of my classes you would have tempted me to provide you with a permanent position outside the Principle’s Office.

    On second thoughts, a better response would be to send you to the school library to find 100 examples of what the OT god implied was good behavior that would get you charged with a crime in this society. Since you are so resistant to the idea that the OT god was anything short of perfect, cognitive dissonance would ensure that it took you all year to notice the examples, even if you had internet access to The Evil Bible. At the end of it you might, however, be more in touch with reality, and probably more thoughtfully moral.

    We are done here.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Rosemary,

    >>Furthermore, China and Vietnam would be full of theists and there would be no remote South American tribe whose language prevents them from believing in the existence of an after life.

    This fallacious argument, called Appeal to Belief, does not make any sense. I am sure you are not saying there are no Christians in, or born in, China, Russia, Middle East, India, Iraq, Iran, Israel, etc. If there are, you're wrong and your argument self destructs. Please try again.

    >>Modern day mental health professionals consider this to be a form of “mind rape”.

    That must make it true then... *pshaw Look up 'negative proof fallacy' to show the fallacious logic of your "modern day mental health professionals"

    I will ask you this directly to avoid the smokescreen. Rosemary, is it possible that you are wrong about everything you claim to know?

    >>This type of tactic is insidiously evil.

    Before we address that you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. Like Razi Zacharias said that I highlight in one of my posts, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.

    >> It gives you permission to make up stuff that demonizes people who do not share your religious point of view.

    Pot meet Kettle. Like saying, "This type of tactic is insidiously evil", is that what you are talking about?

    >>This may be where you get the barely contolled hatred that you express towards atheists on your site.

    So love is hatred to you? What do you call love? Perfect love is a constant confronter, it takes far more love to confront then to ignore the situation. If my beliefs are true then my rebuke is love, not hate. If my beliefs are true then it is you who holds that "hatred" that you are claiming. I seek to stop people from jumping off that proverbial cliff, you seek to blind them beforehand.

    >> Jews were illogically asserted to be vicariously responsible for his [crucifixion].

    That reminds me of a good movie, if you haven't seen "Constantine's Sword" its worth doing so.

    >>The Nazi death camps were religiously motivated.

    So was the pedophilia of the false religion of the RCC. What's your point? Its just more evidence that as the Bible claims, if its of God it will bear good fruit. A bad tree cannot bear good fruit. False religions and beliefs exists.

    >> As well as eradicating Christ’s enemies (Jews), he forbade abortion, vilified atheists and insisted on religious education in schools. He seems to be on your side.

    Hardly. I am sure Ted Haggard thought he was a Christian when he was doing lines off a male hookers butt, but we ALL know better. That means nothing of truth. They knew they were wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Actually I didn't know any atheists at the time. I never gave the subject much thought actually. What made me realise I was atheist was when I started to learn a lot more of the natural world. In particular cosmology. It goes back to the saying, "The more you know of the natural world, the less room there is for the super-natural"

    ReplyDelete
  161. Scott,

    >>It goes back to the saying, "The more you know of the natural world, the less room there is for the super-natural"

    I have another one for you:

    "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" ~Mark 8:36

    Nevertheless, Scott. How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  162. "Perfect love is a constant confronter, it takes far more love to confront then to ignore the situation. If my beliefs are true then my rebuke is love, not hate.."

    That is a really sick definition of "love". There are other interpretations of the biblical passage that you probably use to justify this belief. For example:
    http://www.rpmministries.org/2010/08/speaking-the-truth-in-love-biblical-confrontation/
    What ever makes you think that your judgment about what is "right" and how texts should be interpreted is perfectly correct and superior to everyone who does not agree with you? Why are you infallible?

    ReplyDelete
  163. Rosemary,

    >> Why are you infallible?

    You're right. I am (we are) wrong many times. (Proverbs 3:5-6, 1 John 2:27) I do not have the answers. I am fallible. I am also a jerk sometimes. I apologize for that. I am a work in progress, God needs to work overtime for my sanctification that is for sure. I will say, He humbles me often.

    That is why we MUST rely on HIM alone. Mankind is too fallible.

    I fail to glorify God.

    "What's going on inside of me? I despise my own behavior and this only serves to confirm my suspicions that I'm still a man in need of a Savior! I wanna be in the Light, as He is in the Light. I wanna shine like the stars in the heavens Oh, Lord be my Light and be my salvation. Cause all I want is to be in the Light. All I want is to be in the Light!" (DC Talk)

    A couple of days my Father in Law died. The last words he said to me years ago was " Don't throw that religious crap at me" and hung up on me. His brother died the exact same day a year before he did. Patty's Mom said he started to realize how short life was near the end and softened that hard shell. I am certain there were conversations with God in those times. I hope he will be there to greet me when I pass. It will be a very glorious time.

    Thanks Rosemary for your patience with me.

    ReplyDelete
  164. You Christians, and your retribution and punishment one dimensional thinking, how quaint. To concern tour self with good and evil. How foolish. Your way is out of balance.
    Abandon morality, reject honor and disgrace.

    ReplyDelete
  165. @andrewsp

    Those sentiments mark you as a Christian troll. In spite of what your Pastor may have told you, atheists have no wish to be immoral. There is no reason, except stupidity, illness, immaturity or genetic defect, why anyone would or should abandon morality. It is what glues society together.

    The problem with Christian morality is that it is based on codes that are grossly out of date and need to be "interpreted" in order to bring them up to the standard of today's scientifically enlightened understanding of what produces good and socially healthy societies.

    It is the "interpreting" that causes the problems. The Big Books of Religious Multiple Choice can be interpreted to support just about any moral point of view. People who are poorly socialized (for whatever reason) can find biblical or koranic passages that support, or appear to support, their particular moral or intellectual impairment.

    This leads to human atrocities, such as parents who substitute biblical prescriptions for dealing with illness instead of taking their child to a qualified medical practitioner. These people are following what the Bible teaches; they just have not learned the socialized trick of "interpreting" the passages to make them religiously "irrelevant" to this society.

    Unfortunately there are sufficient people like this to cause a statistically significant impairment in the social health of nations and communites with high levels of belief in the Christian god compared with nations and communities with low levels of belief in gods. The more Christian the community, the higher the level of murder, rape, abortion, teen-pregnancy, and so on. It's the exact opposite of what would be expected if belief in the Christian god improved morality and society. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

    ReplyDelete
  166. Dan, I am sorry to learn of your loss. The death of a family member is always a difficult thing for survivors to manage, even if they are not close to the particular individual. It reminds us of our mortality, something that almost every sentient human fears.

    Please convey my sympathy to Patty who will, of course, be most affected by this man’s death.

    It is hard to know quite what to say to you that will be of some comfort. It is clear that the death caused you some pain and I would like to lessen that for you.

    I think it is a source of considerable discomfort to you that your father-in-law was offended by your attempts to convert him (which I think you sincerely although mistakenly believe is the same as trying to “help” him) and that his pain was so great that he shunned you because of your behavior towards him. It also pains you that your father-in-law did not affirm what you believe to be important in life and that he did not accept your offer of spiritual help. I think you would see that as a rejection of the person you believe you are. Disconfirmation of one’s self always hurts. I suspect you also have at least a guilty suspicion that your father-in-law felt that _you_ had rejected or under-valued the person that he was, which included his different beliefs about religion and its role.

    Unfortunately your religious beliefs are the root of even more distress here. You have some very strong beliefs about what happens after someone dies, which include some pretty horrific events if a person does not believe and act in a particular way before their death. I hear you clutching at straws in the imagined hope that your father-in-law’s sobering state when faced with knowledge of his impending death led him to talk to your version of god in such a way that he would meet your criteria for exemption from permanent post-death agony.

    You are now left trying to comfort your wife when you have a nasty feeling that her father is now being eternally tortured. That task must be incredibly difficult and I would not wish it on anyone who really loved their wife, as I presume you do.


    While I appreciate the distress that you must be feeling I can’t offer you the type of comfort you crave because I just do not share your conceptual framework. I don’t believe in heaven or hell or your version of god. While this makes the death of family members easier for me to deal with it does not help you at this point in your development. I can only feel sad that you are caught up in such mental anguish.

    If you have not already done so, I suggest that you talk over your concerns with someone who does share your particular world view. Someone like that would be your best hope for finding ways to reinterpret the situation in a manner that makes you feel a lot better about the situation, and a lot better about yourself, too. You need to take care of yourself and increase your feelings of self-worth so that you can more effectively help your wife through her pain. This is not the time to indulge your sense of worthlessness.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  167. I'll call your conclusion.

    No person or group is metaphysically superior to any other person or group. Therefore, no person or group has any right that does not belong to all people and groups. Therefore, any interaction between people must be based on mutual consent of all involved people. Murder, rape, and eating babies are wrong because they violate the equality which inherently exists between the perpetrator and the victim.

    There, one philosophical basis for morality. I think it works much better than "I say God said that it must be this way." or "He says that God said it must be this way." You may like morality by fiat, but what will you do when you realize that the Bible was partially forged by Satan, in a cunning plot that deceived every Christian ever until God inspired you, through the internet, to realize that cunning errors were planted, in order for the faithful to fall from grace by committing heinous acts, like stoning innocent people.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Dan,

    >>Murder, rape, and eating babies are wrong because they violate the equality which inherently exists between the perpetrator and the victim.

    You cannot say that inequality is wrong in an evolutionary natural worldview. How can inequality be wrong in a no morality world? Does a lion feel that a Zebra is equal? How about a Sea Lion that rapes every female to spread his seed? You are reaching past nature to say something is "wrong" You cannot account for such things as wrong in a subjective atheistic worldview.

    >>You may like morality by fiat, but what will you do when you realize that the Bible was partially forged by Satan, in a cunning plot that deceived every Christian ever until God inspired you, through the internet, to realize that cunning errors were planted, in order for the faithful to fall from grace by committing heinous acts, like stoning innocent people.

    Do you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them? If not, why not? If so, it pretty much squashes your point.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Morality isn't a human trait. The end. If we held some sort of moral code that existed outside of nature, then I would say, ok maybe that was created or given to us.
    The burden of proof then rests, with, whence doth the morals of nature cometh from?

    ReplyDelete
  170. Jesus was a homo, Mary was a whore and God is a fag..... The bible is a book of fables... And all of you Christians are fucking idiots...

    ReplyDelete
  171. Prophet Jephri ,

    >>Morality isn't a human trait.

    Said the man without a conscience. The clinical term is sociopath.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Thanks Sam, nice to meet you. How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  173. @Sam
    There is no need to be crude. Start behaving like a grown up.

    @Prophet Jephri
    Those whose job it is to study human and animal behavior would disagree. Humans are not the only species that shows a sense of morality. Many animals also show aspects of morality.

    There is overwhelming evidence that the basis of morality (mirror neurons) is built into all higher mammals and that the specifics are culturally taught. This applies to Christians along with everyone else.

    There is also overwhelming evidence that their is no static morality: it changes from century to century, county to country, and culture to culture. What Christians thought to be moral last century is not what they think to be moral today. What Christians in Africa think to be moral is not what is considered moral in the U.S.A. What conservative Christians think to be moral today is not what liberal Christians think to be moral. And so on and on. In the middle of last century it was only Catholics who were against abortion for any reason. Now Prostestant evangelicals agree.

    If specific morals are not dictated by group consensus then the Christian god is extremely fickle or his communication skills are poor

    ReplyDelete
  174. Let me ask you this; if good behaviour and morality can only come from your God, then how come religious people have committed and keep committing some of the worst atrocities?

    Rape, murder, physical and psychological torture, child abuse. The Inquisition, the witch-hunts, the Holocaust. When such things are done in the name of God, how can you still say God is a source for morals?

    And why don't we see atheists beating their children in public, crying 'you must believe as I do!'?

    ReplyDelete
  175. Let me ask you this; if good behaviour and morality can only come from your God, then how come religious people have committed and keep committing some of the worst atrocities?

    Winter said:

    = = =

    Rape, murder, physical and psychological torture, child abuse. The Inquisition, the witch-hunts, the Holocaust. When such things are done in the name of God, how can you still say God is a source for morals?

    And why don't we see atheists beating their children in public, crying 'you must believe as I do!'?

    = = = =

    Theists usually get around these facts by retrospectively disowning any devout Christian whose behavior does not fit the current moral norms and values of the community in which the Christian doing the evaluating lives.

    The only personalities that are not retrospectively disowned for unacceptable behavior are the biblically defined characters of the Yahweh god and the Jesus god. No matter how horrific the behavior of these two it is defined as necessarily good, even if it appears not to be.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Rosemary ,

    Before we address that you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. Like Razi Zacharias said that I highlight in one of my posts, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.

    You cannot say ANYTHING is wrong in your worldview because your worldview cannot appeal to anything other then opinion or popularity, in other words, a fallacious argument.

    ReplyDelete
  177. D.A.N.: I am not making the argument; Winter is making the argument.
    For some reason, the editing program on this site placed his first sentence before the "Winter says" phrase. Weird.
    Winter's comment got sent to my email address but did not turn up on this site, hence the reproduction in full in my posting. Also weird.

    I'll answer your comments, anyway.

    The argument from Ravi Zacharias is flawed (as are most of his other arguments.) Human moral development is genetically based and tied to the evolutionary processes that select for characteristics that enable humans (and other animals) to live harmoniously in groups and thus increase their chances of survival. No god required.

    The development of moral reasoning follows the same stages in all parts of the world and, like other cognitive skills, not everyone reaches the top levels.

    The details of a specific moral code are influenced by environment and shared moral history (memes) which is why it develops and evolves over time and with education. This also explains why the rules of primitive societies, like those existing and developing in the time covered by the biblical writings, are barbaric when compared with modern educated societies. No god required for this phenomena either - but is does explain why the Old Testament god is described as such a jerk.

    The underlying moral imperative is to facilitate helpful group cohesion (socialization), something which changes according to the needs of the evolving culture and is modified by knowledge and education. It is well known (at least among behavioral scientists) that what is considered to be "moral" varies widely with level of education and rural-urban exposure. There is far more difference in moral codes between the least educated and the best educated sections of the same society than there is between theists and non-theists, or Christians and non-Christians.

    Likewise, the moral views of educated Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Christians, Atheists, Agnostics and Apatheists have a lot in common. They tend to cluster at the opposite end of the moral spectrum from those with poor education and rural background, again, regardless of their religious belief or lack there-of. Likewise, those from sophisticated modern societies have a very different brand of moral understanding than those from primitive and ancient societies.

    In other words, there is little or no moral consistency within any branch of any religion over time, between regions, across nations or across educational levels. If there were a consistent "god derived" absolute moral code then this would not be the observed case. It is, so there is not. Instead, the situation suggests that moral codes are "educationally derived".

    ReplyDelete
  178. Bwahahahaha! My irony meter just exploded.

    You cannot make this truth up.

    I just read this:

    >>This also explains why the rules of primitive societies, like those existing and developing in the time covered by the biblical writings, are barbaric when compared with modern educated societies.

    And moved on to check my email and read this in my inbox: http://goo.gl/8gY2u

    Here is a simple question for both of you to nail it all down.

    How are you absolutely certain your reasoning is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  179. D.A.N.: Being "absolutely certain" about things of this nature is a sign of an immature or authoritarian personality.

    I am about 90 percent certain, with a range of + or - 10, that I have the best understanding that is available to us at this point in our knowledge, of how things are and how they work. If new evidence arrives I will almost certainly modify my views or change my mind.

    On the other hand, I think there is a 99 percent probability that you could not modify or change any of your ideas and the same probability that you consider this inflexibility to be a "good" rather than a "bad" thing. We disagree on that.

    ReplyDelete
  180. D.A.N.

    The article reports on a very immature and inappropriate question on a survey distributed to members of a U.S. fraternity club. It has been a source of embarrassment to the U.S. that several of these clubs have been reported to express attitudes and to engage in behavior that is socially unacceptable to most adults living in modern Western communities.

    Spokespeople for concerned citizens who petitioned the university to respond appropriately to the behavior expressed by this Chapter of the particular Fraternity described it as an example of the "systematic sexism" that they believe is endemic to the administration and students of this particular university. The petition lists the nature of problems that have been evident on this particular campus in recent times. It states: “The past year alone has witnessed rape, multiple sexual assaults, and anti-abortion chalking in public spaces."

    I doubt that you will be happy having anti-abortion lobbying lumped in with rape and sexual assault as examples of grossly unacceptable behavior.

    The problem with your idea of morality is that it is warped by the teachings of the leaders of your particular brand of your particular religion. Ironically, anti-abortion used to be restricted to Catholics until an evangelical preacher with an agenda succeeded in having it become part of the Fundamentalist Christian belief set as well. {Check the history of your church's teachings on this issue. If you go far enough back you will find that it was at least neutral on this issue around the 1960s.}

    It is ironic that Fundies have jumped on board with Catholic teachings on this issue because Fundies are frequently violently anti-Catholic. Of course, this has not stopped them from worshiping a set of books that were voted into doctrine as "divinely inspired" by a bunch of early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church. Those Christians who disagreed (the elite academics of the day) were cruelly slaughtered and all their books were destroyed. So the less educated won the toss and voted that their views be asserted by the faithful to be "god inspired" on pain of excommunication, torture and death. THEY said, that "god" said that their choice of books was divine. And you uncritically accept that, don't you? Now, how certain did you say you were that your belief in the infallibility of scripture is absolutely correct?

    ReplyDelete
  181. Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM: Good post. I'd like to add to it that this whole infallibility idea gets even weirder when you consider that ever the 319 bishops who put the bible together didn't like Revelations or Song of Songs. These books were originally rejected from the bible, and were only added back in much later. (Council of Toledo I think it was) .They also had the apocrypha; books that didn't openly disagree with their views, but were 'suspect'. The Catholics put these books between the old and new testaments, while protestants just reject them entirely. So exactly how could this book be infallible? See 'The Heathen's Guide to World Religions' for more. (It's on Amazon et al)

    ReplyDelete
  182. @ D.A.N : That Sigma Phi Epsilon article is so damn ironic.

    Sigma Phi Epsilon was founded in a Baptist college by the son of a minister. The fraternity is based in "Virtue, Diligence, and Brotherly Love", after the founders wanted it to have a biblical foundation.

    In fact, the only reason Sigma Phi Epsilon was allowed to exists at Richmond in the first place is because they promised to uphold biblical standards.

    ReplyDelete
  183. 1. If morality came from a perfect God - then this morality would be changing. A flawless God would be consistent, if he needed to change, then he would not be perfect

    2. What humans have viewed as immoral has changed immensely. Just as much so in Christian, (or pretty much any religious) culture as secular culture. (if you disagree with me, I would remind you of how it was seen as morally ok to own and beat slaves in the Old Testament, and God even gave the ok on near death beatings of slaves)

    If perfect morals dont change, and religious morals do change, then these morals are not God given.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Mike,

    >>If morality came from a perfect God - then this morality would be changing.

    I think you mean "unchanging," which it is. Raping babies for fun will never be morally correct.

    >>A flawless God would be consistent, if he needed to change, then he would not be perfect

    We agree! God's character is unchanging, who says otherwise? As an example, the fact that logical principles (e.g., the law of contradiction) are necessarily true, absolute, and universal is accounted for by their analogical relationship to the divine attribute of logic that is coterminous with the very nature and character of the covenant God of promise.

    The laws of logic are universal, how can an atheist know anything to be universally true? The laws of logic are invariant, how do unchanging entities make sense in a constantly changing universe? The laws of logic are not made of matter, how do things which are not made of matter make sense in ANY atheistic worldview?

    >>What humans have viewed as immoral has changed immensely.

    So what? Pedophiles believe raping children is possibly the right thing to do. Does that make it right? Do you understand what absolute truth is? Outside sources cannot color the findings of truth. Truth is absolute and truth is narrow.

    >>if you disagree with me, I would remind you of how it was seen as morally ok to own and beat slaves in the Old Testament, and God even gave the ok on near death beatings of slaves

    This is an equivocation fallacy. They did not have bankruptcy laws, slavery back then was a way to pay off their debt. It was an agreement. Its not at all the same as America Slavery. Now that was immoral and we had to go to war over it. The wrongs were righted.

    >>If perfect morals dont change, and religious morals do change, then these morals are not God given.

    We are in perfect agreement. False religions have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term "Justification." Once again this is an equivocation error. When you use the term "religion" you're lumping all of them together. There is a difference. There are false religions and then Christianity, the true religion. We as believers have a beautiful religion because it is a fruit which comes from God. It starts with him and ends with him.

    The Bible says to evaluate everything to see if it is of God by its fruit, good tree = good fruit; a bad tree can never bear good fruit. We don’t even have to address the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and the mass pedophiles, and the crusades to determine the fruit, it is obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  185. This is just about THE most ridiculous statement I have ever heard.... Here is my "final reason, authority." COMMON SENSE, AND SOMETHING CALLED INTELLECT....

    But thanks for confessing that you would eat babies if you ever stopped believing in God, I guess. Bravo for saying more about YOUR morality, than anyone else you intended to, sicko.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could you be wrong ever? How do you know your reasoning is valid though? Do you reason your reasoning is valid?

      Your worldview only allows for time and chance acting on matter, that its just the material universe, that its just random, there is no guidance, there is no governance, no sovereign, no purpose or plan over the universe. Right?

      So how do you know? Is it viciously circular to reason your reasoning is valid? If not, why not?

      Delete
  186. DAN, your ignorance is showing again.

    People who use methods of reasoning and truth determination that have the a good track record for producing accurate unbiased results are a much greater liklihood of arriving at correct conclusions that people who use inferior methods. In the academic world it is generally considered a mark of poor scholarship to claim absolute certainty about any information that is not absolutely finite because no human is infallible and omniscient.

    You, on the other hand, have a long track record of using methods of truth determination that have overwhelmingly shown themselves to be very unreliable means of arriving at valid truths. In spite of that you claim to have an infallible ability to determine truth by these faulty methods and to be absolutely certain of the conclusions. You top this off with the arrogant implication that people who do not claim to be infallible are somehow less likely to be correct than you.

    Until you start using equally reliable methods of truth determination your assertions cannot be given the same value as those who do use the best methods we know about.

    While it might be logical to claim that you have superior methods of determining truths about invisible things and supernatural physics it is completely illogical to claim that these methods work for any instances where these invisible supernatural entities interact with the physical world. That includes all claims that the supernatural has worked miracles, answered prayer, created universes, worlds, animals and other concrete things, walked the earth,turned into a half caste god-man and interacted with humans in any way. Yet you seem to think that it is quite legitimate to use poor methods of truth determination to evaluate these claimed manifestations in the natural world.

    Logically, you must restrict yourself to making untestable and unverifiable claims about the non-material world. If you wish to claim that your version of the supernatural interacts with the material world in any way then you must use the same rigorous methods that other clear thinking people use to determine whether the claims are legitimate or not.

    In other words, the questions you ask of those who oppose your logical are embarrassingly naive nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But obviously that's not absolutely true is it Rosemary? See when you reject absolute truth, not only do you refute yourself, all you are left with is arbitrary opinion, and sorry, but for the purposes of this discussion, I really don't care about your opinion.

      Delete
  187. The "arbitrary opinion" comes from religious doctrine, not secular approaches to collective moral reasoning. Worse, religions such as yours, have never been consistent in what they consider to be "absolute" morals. They either do not exist or Christians have no way of reliably discovering them. That should concern you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is not "arbitrary opinion" a posit of the secular Atheists?

      If "collective moral reasoning" were true, then "morality" is a relative term. Moral relativism is illogical. Also, is "collective moral reasoning" true and if true, is that absolutely true? Here, I will demonstrate by taking this point through its logical course.

      Of course you cannot agree to absolute truth, because of your worldview not allowing it, but is it absolutely false that there is no absolute truth?

      Something to think about.

      >>They either do not exist or Christians have no way of reliably discovering them.

      Are you absolutely certain of that? If so, how? (considering what you just claimed)

      BTW, that is called a false dilemma fallacy. There are more options.

      So, since you are all over the map here. Get a cohesive thought and get back to us. Oh that's right, your worldview does not allow cohesive thought. :7p

      Delete
  188. How about providing some actual content to your claims?

    1. What do you consider to be examples of "absolute morals"?

    2.How can you be sure that your are right and that other devout Christians with different ideas are wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you even look at my last comment and watch the link? Apparently not, since you continue to ask the first question.

      As for the second question, I can answer it two ways:

      1. I am not talking to other Christians here. I am talking to you, an Atheist. Hence the name of the Blog.

      OR

      2. Same way I can be certain of anything REVELATION.

      How am I certain that the revelation is valid? Because God has revealed it such that WE can be certain of it.

      Delete
    2. So you are a retard Dan? Because i take it you get information from invisible people in the universe?

      Delete
    3. So you are a retard Dan? Because i take it you get information from invisible people in the universe?

      Delete
    4. So you repeat yourself? :7)

      >>Because i take it you get information from invisible people in the universe?

      Equivocation? Does "invisible" equate to non-existent? If so, how are you absolutely certain of that?

      Delete
  189. Regardless of whether it supports your religious doctrines or so-called "atheist world views", the evidence supports the notion that moral thinking is
    (a) part of normal human development and varies depending on the maturity and experience of the individual, (b) is an emergent property of social groups and
    (c) is not consistent across communities or time or religion.

    These conclusions are the result of applying the methods of truth discovery to the issue that have a record for being the most reliable methods we know. Why would your less reliable methods be more valid?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, let's see if you can back up your claim. What is truth or falsehood according to your worldview, and how are you able to know ANYTHING to be true or false? (without being viciously circular)

      Delete
  190. If the bible is any indication: Happy is the man who dashes the little ones on the rocks. Why don't you christians get with the program and start dashing kids on the rocks? Oh wait, we know why, you are more moral than your god.

    ReplyDelete
  191. Atheist's do not eat babies due to a variety of reasons, and evolution plays a part in this. Any society which allowed such behavior among its population would swiftly become extinct and other more socially benevolent ones would take its place.

    But if you really wish to make this a moral issue; atheists do not eat babies due to empathy and a sense of right and wrong. They make a moral choice. How then do morals play a part in a theist's decision making when scripture may tell them to engage in aberrant behavior? As Scarlet Letter addressed above, there are instances in the Bible which condone highly immoral acts, some of which are directly condoned by the Biblical god. To follow that god's commands may mean choosing between morality and divine mandate, so we cannot assume that morality is derived from any god.

    Morality is independent of religion, and if we consider the reasons for moral behavior such as fear of divine retribution which many theists fear, then it can be argued that only non-believers are truly moral, as they are not following their morality out of fear and coercion, but rather out of a genuine desire to do what they believe to be the right thing.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>