June 10, 2009

Death Camps

Reinforcement of the religion 'Atheism' can now be promoted with the help of a camp for children here in California. Let the indoctrination begin.

Join the festivities like:

* Search for that lesbian in you (8-17 yrs)
* Pin the tail on the monkey(human)
* Deny your conscience seminars
* Absolutely nothing is 100% certain, except Darwinian evolution, seminars
* Russian roulette with fully loaded guns
* Make up tips for that African ape in you
* Aliens seeded our planet, the Richard Dawkins theory, story time

bit.ly/Deathcamp

180 comments:

  1. First of all, referencing the Holocaust is not clever, especially on today of all days.

    Secondly, if you had followed the link you yourself provided, you would see that activities include singing around the campfire, drama, arts and crafts, nature hikes, swimming, and other standard camp activities.

    Atheists are people, too. We love our children. We don't let them play with loaded guns, or any other such nonsense. Atheist children are just like any other children, and they enjoy summer camp activities as much as other children as well.

    Considering the horrific acts of violence in our country lately, do you really think that spreading the notion that atheists are inhuman monsters is a good idea?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dan,


    * Search for that lesbian in you (8-17 yrs)
    * Pin the tail on the monkey(human)
    * Deny your conscience seminars
    * Nothing is certain, except Darwinian evolution seminars
    * Russian roulette with fully loaded gun
    * Make up tips for that African ape in you
    * Aliens seeded our planet, the Richard Dawkins theory, story time

    These are lies and you know it.
    You are a liar.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dan has just proved he will stoop to any low.
    Hyperbole and alarmism is his stock in trade, along with lies and fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  4. PersonalFailure,

    Two things, thanks for answering a question that I had with a resounding no!


    ...do you really think that spreading the notion that atheists are inhuman monsters is a good idea?  

    Look, if Christianity is true the Atheists that send their kids to these indoctrination camps are indeed inhuman monsters. Also, if Christianity is true, then teaching of Atheism to children certainly is tantamount to child abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Also PersonalFailure,

    Wow, I didn't even hear the Holocaust museum news until just now. It was a mere coincidence. hmmm

    ReplyDelete
  6. I posted this blog at 11:37:00 AM and the exchange of gunfire at the museum, occurred shortly before 1 p.m

    Wow what timing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dan:

         Failing to laugh at hurtful slander as though it were a joke is not indicative of a lack of a sense of humor. Indeed, that you pretend it is suggests that you knew you were out of line. It is a little like a caught vandal trying to say "it was just a joke."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dan,
    "Look, if Christianity is true the Atheists that send their kids to these indoctrination camps are indeed inhuman monsters."

    I can't speak for this camp but I've sent my kids to countless "camps" over the years; Baseball camps, basketball camps, science camps, one survival camp, and there was no religious connetation to any of them.

    You need to go back and read that they are free from theism, no anti-theism.

    I'm calling bullshit on this whole thread.

    There is nothing in that site that states your bullet points.
    The bullet points are lies.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Wow what timing."

    I suppose you will now fancy yourself as a prophet, following in the footsteps of your friend, Dani.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Froggie,

    The bullet points are lies. 

    The bullet points are jokes, you dork.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dan +†+ said...
    Froggie,

    The bullet points are lies.

    The bullet points are jokes, you dork.

    No Dan, Just NO.
    I can never tell when you're joking and when you're not.
    You would let that pass if no one called you on it.

    Quit with the hyperbole.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Common sense and a sense of humor would not let that pass, still a dork.

    ReplyDelete
  13. On his Web site, "Holy Western Empire," von Brunn [who was the shooter in the museum] said he was "convicted by a Negro jury, Jew/Negro attorneys, and sentenced to prison for eleven years by a Jew judge [for a past weapons violation.]"

    "It's about time the US law enforcement agencies recognized that the real terrorist groups in this country aren't populated by people with funny arabic names: they're homegrown, and they've got European names like von Brunn and McVeigh and Roeder…All Fundamentalist Christians.

    June 10, 2009 2:37 PM

    ReplyDelete
  14. Froggie,

    they're homegrown, and they've got European names like von Brunn and McVeigh and Roeder…All Fundamentalist Christians. 

    FOUL! Your copy and paste from 'pharyngula' with the added "All Fundamentalist Christians" is completely wrong and a biased comment on your part. You misquoted him completely. You replaced "even Terry and O'Reilly" with 'All Fundamentalist Christians'

    Never the less, these people can claim Christianity all day, but that does not mean they are one. One has to meet the criteria of a Christian, as described in God's Word, to be one. Even if these people are professing Christians, it doesn't automatically make them one. Mowing innocent people down in a hail of gunfire is not Christian, even to the most hardened of Atheists. Is you position that a mere claim makes it truth?

    You still are suggesting something no matter the attempt of imperceptibly, so out with it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dan,

    "FOUL! Your copy and paste from 'pharyngula' with the added "All Fundamentalist Christians" is completely wrong and a biased comment on your part. You misquoted him completely. You replaced "even Terry and O'Reilly" with 'All Fundamentalist Christians'"

    No I certainly did not. If you will look, you will see that I did not include the ending quotation mark. :>

    You don't like the taste of your own medicine, I see.
    Dork + 1.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dab:

         "FOUL! Your copy and paste from..."
         So, what you're saying is that you don't have a sense of humor? Or, perhaps more accurately, you don't think such things are humorous, when used against yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dan
    If atheism is true the christian's that send their kids to these indoctrination camps are indeed inhuman monsters.
    Also if atheism is true then the teaching of christianity to children certainly is tantamount to child abuse.
    When it gets to the point where you can't even admit to yourself that blindly following,has replaced thinking for yourself, Dan,you had better take a step back.
    Dax

    ReplyDelete
  18. Man, I hated going to all the Christian camps my parents sent me to.

    Nothing like being ten and being kept awake late at night by adults surrounding me... -

    " He died for you!" "He doesn't want you to go to Hell!" etc

    after another service with low repetitive music and other children crying...

    ReplyDelete
  19. And those movies they used to show! Armageddon! Hell!
    I remember one film they showed us. It was about a car crash and one guy was a Christian and the others weren't. And all the Christian's friends got dragged off to Hell. (Actually they may have got into an elevator) And he was sad not to have told them about Jesus... then he went to Heaven.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jill,

    That does sound horrible but at the very least you were, hopefully lovingly, warned of mankind's deserved fate without a Savior.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dan,
    "Never the less, these people can claim Christianity all day, but that does not mean they are one. One has to meet the criteria of a Christian,..."

    You all "claim" to be "Christian."
    You need to look at "Why" these atrocities can be defended by the bible.
    From what has been discussed here over the last months it should be no surprise.
    Atheists don't have a bible condoning slavery and stoning of gays, etc., so they have no divine inspiration for murder and mayhem.
    Fanatics love their holy books.
    (Dork-2, Dan-0)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Well, since Dan has a sense of humour and figures that atheists don't:

    How about this?
    ---
    Jesus Christ walks into a hotel. He hands the inkeeper three nails and asks...

    "Can you put me up for the night?"
    ----

    Why can't Jesus eat M&M's?

    They keep falling through his hands.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Froggie,

    Atheists don't have a bible condoning slavery and stoning of gays, etc., so they have no divine inspiration for murder and mayhem. 

    Great, neither do Christians. Settled then.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Reynold,

    I did not hear of either of those.

    Why can't Jesus eat M&M's?

    How about: They melt in the blood and go through the hands.

    ReplyDelete
  25. All I know is that the dude in the picture looks tough. I bet he's the athletic director, right?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Why can't Jesus eat M&M's?

    How about: They melt in the blood and go through the hands."

    I normally just lurk, but Dan, please, leave the humor to others.


    no, really

    ReplyDelete
  27. perdita,

    Touché, I did feel icky after posting it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'll let you off with just a warning then. :)

    ReplyDelete
  29. perdita,

    How about

    The Body of Christ, melts in your mouth not in your hand.

    :7)

    ReplyDelete
  30. What's the difference between Jesus, and a picture of Jesus?

    It only takes one nail to hang the picture.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  31. The Pope arrives in heaven, where St. Peter awaites him. St. Peter asks who he is.

    The Pope: "I am the pope."

    St. Peter: "Who? There's no such name in my book."

    The Pope: "I'm the representative of God on Earth."

    St.Peter: "Does God have a representative? He didn't tell me ..."

    The Pope: "But I am the leader of the Catholic Church ..."

    St. Peter: "The Catholic church ... Never heard of it ... Wait, I'll check with the boss."

    St. Peter walks away through Heaven's Gate to talk with God.

    St. Peter: "There's a dude standing outside who claims he's your representative on earth."

    God: "I don't have a representative on earth, not that I know of ... Wait, I'll ask Jesus." (yells for Jesus)

    Jesus: "Yes father, what's up?"

    God and St. Peter explain the situation.

    Jesus: "Wait, I'll go outside and have a little chat with that fellow."

    Ten minutes pass and Jesus reenters the room laughing out loud. After a few minutes St. Peter asks Jesus why he's laughing.

    Jesus: "Remember that fishing club I started 2000 years ago? It still exists!"

    ReplyDelete
  32. "How about

    The Body of Christ, melts in your mouth not in your hand"

    (headdesk) I'm gonna have to cite you now.

    ReplyDelete
  33. BTW Froggie,

    You might want to get the facts straight. That Holocaust Memorial Museum shooter guy hated Christians.

    Darwin-loving museum shooter hates Bible, Christians

    ReplyDelete
  34. Right, Dan. WorldNetDaily and beliefnet are just the places to go for unbiased "facts." Sure.

    Anyway, as to von Brunn's status as "Darwinian" or "Evolutionist," I remember reading something pertinent to this subject...

    Never the less, these people can claim [Evolutionism] all day, but that does not mean they are one. 

    I'll admit that argument is invalid when you do.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  35. OK Stan,

    Never the less, these people can claim [Evolutionism] all day, but that does not mean they are one.

    Touché

    But you need to ponder the pattern (fruit) that the Columbine school shooter, the Finnish school shooter, Jesse Kilgore, who killed himself after reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, understands von Brunn's "evolution."

    It's the usual sicko stuff, but how come it is so commonly associated with Darwinism?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Remember your source, Dan, but if you insist, we can go there...

    It's the usual sicko stuff, but how come it is so commonly associated with Darwinism? 

    Shall we start bringing up child-murdering parents, or parents who intentionally withhold standard medicine, or people who bomb abortion clinics, or people who shoot up churches based on doctrinal differences...?

    You constantly claim that these people are not True Christians™, but do you really have the audacity now to say that evolution-endorsing nutjobs are representative of the "fruits" of Darwinian evolution?

    That's pathetic, Dan, and I think you know it. You don't hear me saying that every crime committed prior to the voyages of Drake and Magellan was indicative of the "fruit" of flat-earthism, do you? Shall we argue that all crimes committed prior to Copernicus are due to geocentric thinking?

    Get real.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  37. I'm pretty sure James von Brunn converted to Christianity.

    His website "Holy Western Empire" was filled with Bible quotes.

    I know the blasphemy of them who say they are the Children of God, but are of the Synagogue of Satan! For ye are of your father the Devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth for there was no truth in him... When he speaketh a lie he speaketh of his own for he is a LIAR and the father of it.
    JESUS, JOHN 8:1

    Under the Pharisees’ direction the Temple had become the Federal Reserve System of its day. Christ drove the usurers from the Temple with a snake whip, indirectly attacking the Pharisees’ purse. That sealed his fate! The Anti-Defamation League of his day acted quickly. Using standard procedures they defamed Jesus (“L'Infamie”) to get the mob on their side — as centuries later they would defame Marie
    Antoinette, the Romanovs, Hitler, Gen. MacArthur, McCarthy, et al). Then, Jesus was framed by the Sanhedrin, who had Him arrested, tried, sentenced, and crucified. (Pope John Paul, 1995 A.D., denied the HOLY WORD, pronouncing that JEWS had no part in the death of Jesus Christ!).

    His blood be on us (JEWS) and upon our children!
    MATTHEW: 27:24-25.

    ReplyDelete
  38. He reminds me of one of my uncles, who, following his stint in Vietnam, was... different.

    He, like this van Brunn fellow, thought all the teachings of Paul were heresy. There must be a whole sect of Christianity which believes this, too, but I'm not sure what they're called (and I'm too lazy to pursue the matter, since I really don't care).

    Anyway, batshit insanity comes in all flavors, eh?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  39. From WingNut Daily:
    Darwin-loving museum shooter hates Bible, Christians
    Suspect in death of security guard defies easy stereotyping

     
    Sure doesn't stop the WingNut Daily people from trying though; Just look at the site that Chris Mackey linked to. Does that sound like someone using "Darwinism" to justify his views?

    Good grief. Darwin never even talked about the Jews at all. He didn't even really believe that one could classify people into different "races" on the basis of skin colour. He didn't even like the practice of slavery He was overall, ahead of most of the people of his culture and time (though not caught up with us yet).

    Hitler didn't even mention Darwin in his book, Mein Kampf. He did admire Martin Luther though...

    ReplyDelete
  40. Darwin never even talked about the Jews at all. He didn't even really believe that one could classify people into different "races" on the basis of skin colour. He didn't even like the practice of slavery

    Well that explains why the subtext of his Origins reads " by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

    At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18.'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. Darwin - The Descent of Man p. 98

    There is no mistaking that he viewed blacks as inferior and lower on the evolutionary scale.

    Darwin was a deceiver and a materialist whose main purpose was to rid science of God. See "The Darwin Myth:The life and lies of Charles Darwin" by Benjamin Wiker.

    Hitler didn't even mention Darwin in his book, Mein Kampf.

    Darwinism is found everywhere within the Nazi mindset.

    Richard Weikart's book "From Darwin to Hitler" ( http://www.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/ ) and "Hitler's Ethic:The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress", more than adequately demonstrates how essential Darwinism was for the Nazi regime to act as they did.

    While visiting a site at which those humans judged as "defective" were slaughtered -a hospital of course, one man asked the curator what most influenced the doctors doing the killing.
    "Darwinism," she said.

    Seeing that atheists live in denial of reality their indoctrinated auto-response to these facts is denial -of course.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Darwin also talked about races of cabbage.
    We only have ONE race - the HUMAN race.

    Hitler used Jesus as an excuse to attack the Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  42. ATVLC said...

    We only have ONE race - the HUMAN race.

    Under polyphyletic Darwinism the races evolved independently of each other - which is what Hitlers scientists believed - and which means, if true, not all races are "fully human".

    You don't know what you're talking about.

    Hitler used Jesus as an excuse to attack the Jews.

    ...Among many other excuses, but his reason for the holocaust, the slaughter of invalids and all were based on the Darwinian struggle for survival and eugenics which were promoted by Darwins' cousin and then later by the Nazis - not to mention many Americans.

    Stalin, Mao and Pot used atheist and evolutionary metaphysics & philosophy to excuse the slaughter 10's of millions of people.

    Over 105 million people perished at the hands of atheist governments in the 20th century alone.

    Got anything better?
    You really don't know beans about this do you?

    ReplyDelete
  43. So Gary... Still wondering, do you still believe that slavery of old was pretty much the same as today's employer/employee relationship?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Adam Nardoli

    So Gary... Still wondering, do you still believe that slavery of old was pretty much the same as today's employer/employee relationship?

    So Adam... do you ever give up?

    You're wording reveals that you did not understand my point.

    And again this is way off topic.
    Is it really anything more than a insidious desire of yours to prove something I said wrong?

    Go look it up in the history books and do your own homework for once.

    ReplyDelete
  45. >>We only have ONE race - the HUMAN race.

    Said the Christian (Adam and Eve) not the evolutionist. Welcome aboard to logic and reality.

    ReplyDelete
  46. 2that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and took themselves wives of all that they chose.
    ...
    4In those days were the giants on the earth, and also afterwards, when the sons of God had come in to the daughters of men, and they had borne [children] to them; these were the heroes, who of old were men of renown
    .

    What about the race of giant heroes after the sons of God slept with human women?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Gary: "there was often little difference between the idea of "slave" and our more modern concept of "employee""

    Adam: quotes Bible verse allowing slaves to be beaten to death if they survive at least one day from the beating.

    Adam "do you still believe that slavery of old was pretty much the same as today's employer/employee relationship?"

    In Gary's defense, he didn't say slavery was ALWAYS the same as employees. Just often. "Often" here is used as a "weasel word" to allow some wiggle room.

    ReplyDelete
  48. ATVLC (whoever that is) said...

    Adam: quotes Bible verse allowing slaves to be beaten to death if they survive at least one day from the beating.

    I knew none of you would bother to look up the facts here. Why am I not surprised? Because none of you atheists have a grain of honesty or sincerity anywhere in your darkened hearts or decaying bodies.

    I also knew Adam Nerdo was posing this question entirely for insidious reasons.

    I also knew he would use the issue in the usual "atheist complaints against the bible" manner -alone -i.e. no other ancient literature, no other nations, no history, no research, no other part of history and of course no historical reference to how atheists treated servants and slaves.

    Hypocrisy and dishonesty embrace each other in every atheist heart.

    Now, for the sake of any honest person (maybe 1% of all atheists) seeking information on both biblical and non biblical slavery:

    Maybe see these sites for more complete answers
    http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html
    and
    http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

    and
    http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Finney/OE/520818_guilt_ignorance.htm

    Some comments on slavery in the US by 19th century evangelist Charles Finney who greatly aided in the abolition of slavery in America.

    Why didn't Adam Nerdo quote the verse below?

    We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
    1 Timothy 1:8–10

    or this:
    "But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,"

    Which implies that some 'slaves' actually preferred to serve good masters and were allowed to stay; so why - if slavery here were like that which Americans etc. practiced - would a slave want to stay a slave (servant)?!

    Or this - "You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you.
    He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him."
    Deut. 23:16

    No, he quotes this - with the intent of finding something to whine over:

    When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

    1. The word means servant or bond slave
    2. It applies to persons who sold themselves as bondslaves under contract and also those captured in warfare

    Nerdo neglected this verse also:
    "If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment." -Exodus 21:2

    ReplyDelete
  49. ...
    ATVLC continued ...
    In Gary's defense, he didn't say slavery was ALWAYS the same as employees. Just often. "Often" here is used as a "weasel word" to allow some wiggle room.

    You are the little weasel here, whoever you are since you hide behind your pseudonym, and also fail to do your own homework.

    Here's what you need to ask yourselves -how did atheists treat slaves historically?

    How many slaves have atheists abused, beaten, raped and murdered over history
    ?

    The answer is -far more than any true Jew and 100's of times more than any true Xian.

    So here's the hypocrite atheist once again hiding his own sorry guilt behind an accusation against others.

    Again, why do none of you willfully blind atheists ever get your own filth and evil, shame filled history under the same microscope you use against Christianity?

    Simple. You either have pitiful intelligence or no honesty worth mention.

    Worse still. Atheists have self-admitted they have "no ultimate foundations for ethics" and thus none for any moral values at all.

    So, as the moral parasites they are, they must borrow from the ethics of others.

    Now this is amazing considering that the Judeo/Christian ethic is almost always the place they borrow from -yet then they have the utterly shameful hypocrisy to use the ethical standards of Judeo/Christian sources to attack Judeo/Xian sources!

    And, any Xian that dares point out what hypocrites they really are, is attacked using the same moral standard that they borrowed yet do not adhere to at all themselves!!

    You atheists are the worlds greatest hypocrites and fools all at once.

    You cannot reason with any degree of clarity. Under atheism, reason itself is like everything else under atheism - useless.
    It too has no absolute foundations and no point of reference other than the usual relativist self-defeating nonsense.

    So ATVLC, keep chasing your tail around all the blogs you chase your tail at, and if you ever decide to become truly open and honest, well maybe you'll finally start to "get it".

    ReplyDelete
  50. "If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment."

    Only applies to the Hebrew people.

    Why didn't Adam Nerdo quote the verse below?

    We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
    ...

    Because it doesn't actually say slavery is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,"

    Read the surround verses.
    The slave master gives the slave a wife and get to keep the wife and children if the slave wants to leave.
    It's pure evil.

    ReplyDelete
  52. You sound angry, Gary.

    I hope you one day come to your senses.

    Have a good day. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  53. ATVLC said...

    Because it doesn't actually say slavery is wrong.

    1. "slavery", as per selling oneself or ones services to work for someone else is indeed not wrong, as you fail to grasp.

    There are forms of servitude that are not the single version you obstinately hold in mind.

    You're just foolishly refusing to understand anything of the history of slavery, servitude - and what we now call employment - so you may obstinately protect your illogical ideas.

    BTW, How much is your master (boss) paying you? How are his conditions? Any benefits?

    2. Worse, your answer is like saying drug dealers are illegal & immoral but taking drugs is ok.
    Duh.

    3. There's only 1 word in Hebrew and only 2 or 3 in Greek for servant, attendant, valet, slave and employee.

    Indeed, our word 'employee' did not exist in ancient times it comes from old french then from the Latin implicare -the words for slave, servant etc covered the whole of human employment.
    ---

    "It's pure evil."

    1. That would explain why the apostles called themselves servants -same Greek word as slave - of God and of others with joy huh?

    In fact, only a about a century ago, people often signed their correspondence with the phrase, "Your humble servant, ..." because they knew the real meanings -you just don't get it and don't want to.

    2. Based on what moral foundation is slavery even in your own subjective view or that of current society?

    3.Prove that slavery - even in your own extremely narrow knowledge of it - is absolutely wrong.

    So much for your "arguments" since you simply do not understand crap about the history or nature of slave/servant/employee.

    Do I indeed sound angry?
    Adults sound angry when having to repeat, ad infinitum ad nauseum, simple instructions and principles that rebellious, hard-headed school children refuse to listen to - um... that's you and pretty much all atheists.

    Your rebuttals fit someone who's primary interest appears to be "Hannah Greenwood washing a ferret".
    8-O

    ReplyDelete
  54. If you had read the rest of the "it's okay to beat your slaves to death" verse, you might have noticed the reason was "for the slave is your property".

    Owning another person is different to renting their services.
    ------
    "It's pure evil"

    Your employer does not get to keep your wife and children if you move jobs. If he did then maybe you could draw such a comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  55. ATVLC said...

    ... "for the slave is his property"
    Owning another person is different to renting their services.

    Sure it is. And?

    However,the word there is כּסף -keseph - meaning 'silver' or 'money' - not 'property'.
    i.e. the boss makes money off the servants work and is obliged by the bond to supply his needs in return.

    You have it all screwed up because you haven't come to your senses yet. You're still fighting God on the inside.

    So - Where is your answer to why is it "pure evil"?

    You're now picking at straws. Straws that, as usual, you don't even understand.

    Its obvious you didn't read or understand the links I pointed to as well.
    -----
    I await your proof that all forms of servitude are evil.

    If you can't provide proof that all forms of servitude are morally wrong (atheists can't prove anything without breaking their own rules) then drop this inane attempt at fighting God by complaining about what you don't want to understand of either God or the bible -or even history for petes sake!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Now I see the problem!

    In your mind, everything YHWH does is good. YHWH allows slavery and beating slaves. Therefore in your mind, the slavery must have been good.

    However,the word there is כּסף -keseph - meaning 'silver' or 'money' - not 'property'.

    keseph
    from kasaph
    Phonetic Spelling: (keh'-sef)
    silver, money, property, purchase price.

    From the NAS Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible with Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Adam Nardoli...

    Now I see the problem!
    everything YHWH does is good. YHWH allows slavery and beating slaves. Therefore in your mind, the slavery must have been good.

    ROTFLMHA AGAIN!

    Someday you may learn how to read and think properly and do something quite unknown to yourself -research, adopting critical thinking skills.

    ...From the NAS Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible with Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries.

    Your ignorance of Hebrew and concordances is shinning through brightly.

    The words written in that concordance indicate the different ways it has been interpreted or translated in various versions -not necessarily the way it should be translated.
    That's why different translations are needed in the 1st place!

    The word still means "silver" - hint - that was what was used as "money" back then.
    It can be translated as
    1. silver
    as metal,
    as ornament,
    as colour
    2. money, shekels, talents

    If had been intended to mean 'property' in this text, the author would have used אחזתם which means a "possession", as per personal property, or, רכוּש meaning property, goods or possessions.

    Look it up if you know anything of Hebrew.

    In the NAS -version you chose- the word is translated as : fine 2x, fine silver 2x, money 100x, pay 1x, price 10x, property 1x, purchase price 1x, silver 284x ...

    Notice that as property occurs only once!

    Sorry Adam but you're a miserable little antichrist.

    You've understood precisely nothing of servants, bond servants or real stereotype oppressed slaves -either in scripture or history- in spite of all I've written here and the references I've given.

    You've also deliberately sought to distort and pervert what scripture, the history books and I have written here.

    Worse -through all of this you're still incapable of providing a single valid argument for atheism!

    You just adopted it the same way all the other sorry atheists here did, by pure blind faith alone, because it fits the desires of your flesh and selfishness.

    Never had anything to do with science or reason - both of which point clearly to a supreme mind.

    Your responses have been just pitiful.
    I give you an F- only because there is nothing lower.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Worse -through all of this you're still incapable of providing a single valid argument for atheism!

    No-one here has asked for one.

    You just adopted it the same way all the other sorry atheists here did, by pure blind faith alone, because it fits the desires of your flesh and selfishness.

    Um... no. (I was born an athiest) If you want to know why I became a Christian and why I became an atheist all you have to do is ask. :-)

    Never had anything to do with science or reason - both of which point clearly to a supreme mind.

    It had everything to do with reason... and leave my supreme mind out of this! :-)

    Your responses have been just pitiful.
    I give you an F- only because there is nothing lower
    .

    Pitiful?
    You're the one who has been defending slavery and believes in magic. (Talking donkeys!)
    I feel sorry for you. Living in your mind must be a nightmare. Look after yourself

    ~Adam

    ReplyDelete
  59. However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

    ReplyDelete
  60. Adam Nardoli

    No-one here has asked for one.

    So all the time you've been spending here is to defend what?
    You're impoverished ideas of slavery in history?
    Are you only here to attack God and Xians?
    Wow.

    Unfortunately, you display your hypocrisy when you will not even accept the valid historic and even linguistic info that's offered!

    Go ahead, let us see your "reasonable" defense of atheism.

    "reasonable" you are not and I expect nothing like reason from you.

    Um... no. (I was born an athiest)

    You really are terribly confused!! Thankfully. No one is born an atheist.

    If you want to know why I became a Christian and why I became an atheist ...

    If you had truly become a Xian you could never become an atheist after.

    It had everything to do with reason...

    I've heard that before - yet never seen a single atheist able to defend that statement with anything near 'reason'.

    Valid Reason cannot even exist in atheism Too bad you can't figure that out.

    Pitiful? You're the one who has been defending slavery and believes in magic. (Talking donkeys!)

    Yet another proof that you don't read, interpret or understand even the simplest statements. Do you have any schooling at all?

    I've said nothing of talking donkeys, except as concerns atheists being willfully dumb asses -in a different thread.

    I still see no explanation as to why "slavery" -even the morally wrong version- is wrong, under atheism.
    Where is it?

    I feel sorry for you... bla bla

    Well I don't feel sorry for you at all, living in your imaginary little materialist world, in moral insanity -it must be a nightmare.
    At any rate it will be far worse than any nightmare you've ever imagined.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBu5V_-M2Dc

    Why don't you stop being such an adamant liar to yourself in your never ending fight against God? Losing your soul is your only other option.

    ReplyDelete
  61. You really are terribly confused!! Thankfully. No one is born an atheist.

    Everyone is born an atheist. Children pick up and are taught religion. Most children do indulge in magical thinking. It's time to grow up.
    Invisible magic friends are for children.



    The material world is real. It's magic, ghosts, invisible friends and monsters that are unlikely to be real.

    Maybe you should give a reasonable defense of Christianity first, Gary.

    I'll tell you how I became an atheist too, if you want. Although it's not that interesting...

    If you had truly become a Xian you could never become an atheist after.

    No true Scotsman.

    I've said nothing of talking donkeys...

    The talking donkey and the talking snake are a part of your favorite book.

    Magic talking animals are for children.

    Why don't you stop being such an adamant liar to yourself in your never ending fight against God?

    He's disagreeing with you. He's not fighting YHWH. You exist. There's no reason to believe YHWH exists.

    Losing your soul is your only other option.

    I've seen no reason to believe that souls exist.

    ReplyDelete
  62. >>Thankfully. No one is born an atheist.

    You're right. Maybe he meant evil. If he equates atheism with evil then I agree. We are all born evil.

    Carry on.

    ReplyDelete
  63. ATVLC,

    If you had truly become a Xian you could never become an atheist after.

    >>No true Scotsman.

    I, and the Bible, agree with Gary. ( Romans 8:38-39, John 10:28-30, 2 Corinthians 5:17, 1John 2:19)

    Allow me to address the "no true Scotsman" claim again, that many atheists droningly follow, that some atheist dude made up.

    Look at the definition of 'nationality': "people having common origins or traditions and often comprising a nation. The status of belonging to a particular nation by birth or naturalization"

    Now that's a true Scotsman, Chinese person, or born again Christian. Plus, to determine what is or is not a Christian you have to reference the authority that says what is a Christian or not, namely Christ Himself. Much like a Scotsman proclaiming others are not Scotsman you are claiming you are a Christian without the authority to do so. As a mere example, I can claim to be Chinese and other people that are Chinese will claim that I am not but they don't have the authority to determine it because, for this example, I was born in China and my mother is Chinese. The naysayers have zero authority. Just like you have zero authority to call yourself an ex Christian. That authority belongs to God Himself.

    Carry on

    ReplyDelete
  64. ATVLC

    Everyone is born an atheist.
    1. Quite wrong. Try to prove it.
    2. You fail to even grasp the nature of atheism

    Children pick up and are taught religion.
    They pick up lots of things, but they have an innate sense that things are designed for a purpose, that life has a purpose and that there is more than just material.
    Children-are-born-believers

    Now go run to google in panic and look up the denials your atheist priests have thought up against the scientists and studies involved.
    Won't change a thing of the reality of inborn senses.

    Most children do indulge in magical thinking. It's time to grow up.

    Most children also indulge in imaginary worlds - time for you to grow up.

    Invisible magic friends are for children.

    The atheist codswallop response. This "argument" assumes there is no such thing as metaphysics, no supernatural, nothing greater than man and ultimately no creation.

    That's where gets easy to demonstrate just how childish a notion it is.

    Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent Power by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single Being, who bestowed existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted all its parts, according to one regular plan or connected system. …All things in the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is adjusted to every thing. One design prevails throughout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one Author. (David Hume, The Natural History of Religion (1757)

    So Hume, (the atheists non-atheist hero!), Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Leibniz, etc. were all foolish little children that needed to grow huh?

    The material world is real.

    How do you prove this? With your brain? You can't test your brain using your brain.
    Thus your only recourse is to assume that your brain is giving you a TRUE picture of reality.

    But then to do that you must explain the origin of rationality.
    In your case, you have to explain and demonstrate how non rational, random processes were able to create rationality.

    Of course this cannot be done under atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  65. ATVLC ...

    It's magic, ghosts, invisible friends and monsters that are unlikely to be real.

    "unlikely"? So, you really admit you don't know!
    But if you don't know you cannot logically be an atheist - only an agnostic.

    Maybe you should give a reasonable defense of Christianity first, Gary.

    No, atheism, being a logical absurdity, is what you need to show is in fact rational.
    Here, I'm not even defending Xianity!

    I'm defending the existence of a supreme being. I've got no where near identifying that being - except as a side issue.
    I'm making perfectly rational, logical inferences to his existence, thats all.

    Thus far, you've offered precious little of anything demonstrating the rationality of atheism.

    I'll tell you how I became an atheist too, if you want. Although it's not that interesting...

    Not really interested, maybe some other time.
    Atheism is a form of insanity, why should I care how you became partially insane?

    The talking donkey and the talking snake are a part of your favorite book.

    I could easily refute this, but once again, seeing your primary tactic, in avoiding having to actually support your position, is changing the subject, no thanks.

    Magic talking animals are for children.

    Right, and frogs gradually turning into princes, dinosaurs into graceful birds and apes turning into to men etc. is not a fairy tale huh? ROTFL again.
    You guys are entertaining but not very reasonable.

    There's no reason to believe YHWH exists.

    Prove it? Of course not.
    There is every reason to believe, as even Hume himself pointed out, and even Voltaire. Today even Anthony Flew.
    You, having been brain washed into post-modern sophistry from your youth and are unable to recognize the fact that you were simply conned into the untenable nonsense of atheism.

    I've seen no reason to believe that souls exist.

    You are a soul, you have a body.
    More denial of evidence (reasons to believe we are more than a quantum accident)is not a rebuttal to the existence of the metaphysical.

    ReplyDelete
  66. ATVLC ...

    No true Scotsman.

    Sorry doesn't quite apply.

    To even be a Xian requires one to have a vital, life-changing encounter with Christ.

    Someone who has experienced this cannot afterward simply deny his existence! Though they may, like Judas, deny him.

    Certainly cant be done without a deep denial of one's own conscious experiences.

    That may happen of course, but the reason I said that is because 99% of atheists I encounter, that pretend to have been Xians, never really were at all, as they never even had such an experience!

    They merely adopted some view of God and claimed to believe some set of specific doctrines and principles.
    Becoming a Xian requires a regeneration of the self -otherwise known as rebirth. Joining a church doesn't make anyone a Xian any more than working at MacDonald's makes you a hamburger.

    Huge difference, but you wouldn't understand.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Dan,
    I don't believe babies are evil. I think it's sad that anyone could look at a baby and describe it as "wretched and evil".

    No True Scotsman is the name of a logical fallacy. It has nothing to do with nationality.

    When the statement "all A are B" is qualified like this to exclude those A which are not B, this is a form of begging the question; the conclusion is assumed by the definition of "true A".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

    ReplyDelete
  68. Hi Gary,

    Children-are-born-believers.
    Thanks for the link that provides evidence for the fact that theism is childish.

    imaginary worlds - time for you to grow up.
    Reality is not imaginary. To think otherwise is ultimately self defeating.

    This "argument" assumes there is no such thing as metaphysics, no supernatural, nothing greater than man and ultimately no creation.
    If you want to prove that there is the supernatural, define it and have at it.
    Materialist explanations have always won out against supernatural explanations. The stars are not small lights guided by angels, rain isn't YHWH opening windows in the firmament, lightening is not from Thor.

    Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Leibniz, etc. were all foolish little children that needed to grow huh?
    Appeal to authority.
    But that said, Einstein wasn't a theist, Newton was an alchemist, etc...

    The material world is real.
    How do you prove this? With your brain
    ?
    Sounds like you're heading towards Solipsism, which I find pointless.

    In your case, you have to explain and demonstrate how non rational, random processes were able to create rationality.

    Of course this cannot be done under atheism
    .
    First up, natural processes are not random. Second, study into the evolution of brains is rocketing forward. Rationality increases our "fitness".

    ReplyDelete
  69. real Christianity is not 'winning' with insulting blog comments.

    a real Christian should have a SOMETHING that the unsaved should want.

    I apologize for Garys behavour and pray that this hateful spirit leaves him.

    ReplyDelete
  70. ATVLC
    ..link that provides evidence for the fact that theism is childish.

    OMG - So all the greatest scientists and the best philosophers in history were childish huh?

    You sound incredibly childish here, sorry.

    You've no idea what you're saying or what it would imply. You seem to have no clue to just how unspeakably arrogant that one statement makes you.

    Reality is not imaginary. To think otherwise is ultimately self defeating.

    Yes like atheism. So how do you know your idea of reality is reality?

    Materialist explanations have always won out against supernatural explanations.

    Oh gee, are you referring to the so-called "scientific method" that was also invented by creationists?

    The stars are not small lights guided by angels, bla bla

    There you go on your incredibly childish interpretations ... again.
    This alone proves just how far away from Xianity you have always been.

    Appeal to authority.
    Indeed. Why don't you just answer the question?
    Oh, because you know any answer you give will undo your own statement. Do you think we are all as blind that can't see through this poor attempt at avoidance?
    Now, what exactly do you appeal to when you attempt to demonstrate the reality of your views?
    Oops, you've made no such attempt, and we may thus suppose that its because you can't.

    But that said, Einstein wasn't a theist, Newton was an alchemist, etc...

    So Newton was childish because, like most of the scientists of his time, thought alchemy had some validity?
    Einstein was deist not an blind atheist precisely because he was so much smarter than atheists.

    In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views. -Einstein

    First up, natural processes are not random.

    Are mutations a natural process? Mutations are touted as random by Darwinists everywhere. Random mutations + selection are supposed to have created all 10 million+ life forms here -so sorry but there's is no way for you to remove the random factor.

    Second, study into the evolution of brains is rocketing forward.

    In fact I find it hard to believe anyone would dare say such an inane thing seeing as just the opposite is true.
    There is not a scientist in the world that has the slightest valid idea on how the human brain came to be.
    Indeed, the brain itself is the most complex organism known.
    Yet Darwinists can't even explain how spiders "evolved" web spinning, nor symbiosis, nor where the first life form came from, nor how a single protein could have evolved via chance and necessity. And you are claiming they now are rocketing towards understanding how the most complex organism of all evolved?!!
    Rotfl is the only possible reaction.

    Who do u read Dawkins, Myers,Coyne ... and all the other atheist fundamentalist religion promoters?

    Rationality increases our "fitness".

    Indeed. So why haven't all the perfectly fit extant organisms evolved rationality?

    You're getting worse and worse as we go.
    And no, I'm not getting any further into the greatest scientific hoax of all time - Darwinism. Not in this thread.

    You obviously rely on "consensus science" (an oxymoron) as your sole source of truth. Pitiful.

    SO, I will await your "rational" explanation of how rationality "evolved" from non rational processes, and your even more rational explanation of why atheism must be true.
    I only wish you could see the inherent contradictions involved in that.
    My hopes of getting any real rationality from you are "rocketing" downward.

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

    ReplyDelete
  72. OMG - So all the greatest scientists and the best philosophers in history were childish huh?

    I don't think all the greatest scientists and the best philosophers in history were/are childish. I think you'll find few of today's greatest scientists are theists.

    why haven't all the perfectly fit extant organisms evolved rationality?

    You misunderstand evolution.


    Are you going to give a defense of Christianity or theism or even deism?
    What reason does one have to accept theism?
    Can you provide any?


    By the way, Flew's mental degradation due to old age was taken advantage of. Creationists wrote the book and attributed it to him. Before Flew died he couldn't remember people in the book or even describe what the book said.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Jesus Will Save said...

    real Christianity is not 'winning' with insulting blog comments.
    a real Christian should have a SOMETHING that the unsaved should want.
    I apologize for Garys behavour and pray that this hateful spirit leaves him.


    Oh gee, a Xian wimp who doesn't understand his own Lord nor his word.

    Duh, while you're at it why don't you apologize for Christs' treatment of Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Lawyers and hypocrites everywhere.

    That was just so "hateful" of him calling them "vipers, hypocrites, whitewashed graves, fools, liars, sons of the devil, unable to escape damnation"... etc.

    And please, dear young brother, don't forget to apologize for him to all those poor souls he violently kicked out of the temple one day with a whip he made with his own hands.

    Then you really should apologize for the apostle Peter for telling Simon the sorcerer to go to hell with his money. Or for Paul for saying he wished the circumcision fanatics would cut their penises right off.

    Then you could also apologize for Elijah's killing over 400 poor misguided sinners, then ... Moses, David, all the Judges...

    Why don't you rather stop your easy believeism, cheap grace, lack of real love (that speaks the truth) and your groveling before the wicked like an obsequious flounder?

    Apparently, your bible does not contain this word,
    "Rebuke publicly all those who commit sins, so that the rest may be afraid."

    or,

    "Whoever teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the true words of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the teaching of our religion is swollen with pride and knows nothing. He has an unhealthy desire to argue and quarrel about words, and this brings on jealousy, disputes, insults, evil suspicions, and constant arguments from people whose minds do not function and who no longer have the truth."

    or,

    "I give you orders, before God and Christ Jesus, who will be the judge of the living and the dead, and by his revelation and his kingdom; Be preaching the word at all times, in every place; make protests, say sharp words, give comfort, with long waiting and teaching; For the time will come when they will not take the true teaching; but, moved by their desires, they will get for themselves a great number of teachers for the pleasure of hearing them; And shutting their ears to what is true, will be turned away to belief in foolish stories."

    All of the above very clearly apply to the God haters and misophists here.

    Guess we should all just give up that since you say so huh?
    Sheesh.

    God help you see through the lies of the fawning, groveling gospel teachers.

    ReplyDelete
  74. you are not Christ-like.
    not at all.

    I pray in the name of Jesus that the spirit of hate is removed from you.

    If you do know Christ everyone should be able to see it.

    ReplyDelete
  75. ATVLC said...

    I think you'll find few of today's greatest scientists are theists.

    So now you have evidence that todays greatest scientists are all atheists? Umm, I'm expecting the usual NAS stats here, but I'd prefer to be spared to waste.

    You misunderstand evolution.

    I'm afraid I understand evolution far more than you ever will.
    This is once again, the atheists ploy - the old you don't understand evolution crap.

    Yes my friends, no one understands "Darwins' simple idea" except Darwinists.

    Are you going to give a defense of Christianity or theism or even deism?
    What reason does one have to accept theism?
    Can you provide any?


    Of course, if you'd understood much of what I've already stated you'd have seen it.

    However, as I keep repeating, and as no atheists ever actually answers, I'm waiting for your rational support for atheism.

    Don't have any huh?

    By the way, Flew's mental degradation due to old age was taken advantage of. Creationists wrote the book and attributed it to him. Before Flew died he couldn't remember people in the book or even describe what the book said.

    Of course, we "fundies" were holding him captive in a church basement, see?
    LOL. Can't you see how paranoid you are?

    Flew stated, "My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my name that I do not 100 percent agree with. I needed someone to do the actual writing because I'm 84 and that was Roy Varghese's role. The idea that someone manipulated me because I'm old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. This is my book and it represents my thinking."

    Yes and if he had then retracted his previous conversion to deism and went back to atheism we'd have to assume - using your uncouth rules - that it too was the result of senility, right?

    FYI, people who are senile tend to confirm their earlier views more strongly, rather than change them decisively. Duh!

    So, you swallowed the propaganda explanation for Flew's change of mind. Why am I not surprised?

    Yes, blame his coming to see the obvious on old age and Xian nastiness!

    Good grief man can you come up with anything worse than that? Hard to imagine.

    What does that say of both your gullibility and honesty?

    I can just barely believe anyone could be so foolish as to bring such a bogus & hypocritical "explanation" to Flew's change up here.

    Now that I think of it, and due to this incredibly hypocritical and just plain stupid response, I see that your mind is on hold so deeply that I'm not interested in continuing any discussion with you at all.

    Go read my blog - HERE if you want more than you can handle.

    Go to www.reasonablefaith.org and try a debate with William Lane Craig - that would be great entertainment seeing you chasing your tail.

    He would no doubt be more patient and lenient towards your adamant hatred of truth.

    ReplyDelete
  76. JWS,

    Serious question:

    Is rebuking an example of love to you?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Dan,

    I'm sorry. I wish I could help you out. I don't have your patience with these patented imbecilic atheists.

    I hope you don't share the erroneous views of the other "Jesus" kid on my participation.

    The Church has almost completely lost its sword in this area anyway.
    She has become almost completely futile in apologetic debates due to groveling before the wicked.

    Anyway blessings on your efforts and God give you patience and grace.
    Don't forget that love isn't some fluffy emo state incapable of rebuke, but tells the truth in no uncertain terms without fear or favor of men. It is also capable of making whips for the backs of fools.

    "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'. They are unclean, they have done evil works; there is not one who does good.."

    ReplyDelete
  78. So now you have evidence that todays greatest scientists are all atheists?

    That's not what I said.

    I'm afraid I understand evolution far more than you ever will.

    Evolution does not say all creatures will become rational. You implying it does, shows that you misunderstand the concept.

    Of course, we "fundies" were holding him captive in a church basement, see?

    I never said that.


    Now. Can you make a defense for Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Interesting how Greg won't defend Christianity, sorry I mean Xianity.

    Greg's too busy to fully write out 'Christianity' so he used the letter Chi. He is THAT busy.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Christ-puncher

    Christ-puncher?

    ROTFLMAO! Wow!

    Interesting how Greg won't defend Christianity, sorry I mean Xianity.

    Greg? Greg who? can you at at least read?

    My but Dan you have attracted the lowest of the low to your blog.
    Any lower and they'd already be where they are going.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Sorry about getting your name wrong, Greg.

    Are you going to try and give anyone a reason to believe in theism? So far - nothing. You just claimed you were right over and over with out providing any reason why we should believe you.

    And you got the definition of Atheism wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  82. http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/whynotbelieve.htm

    ReplyDelete
  83. Christ-Puncher,

    I should do a post about the softball of a link you provided.

    But even to address that link you provided it has made some assumptions of points that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid.

    For these points:

    * Gods and Believers Behave Immorally:

    * Evil in the World:

    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.

    The problem of evil has been addressed, as well as the other points raised.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Christ-puncher said...

    Are you going to try and give anyone a reason to believe in theism?

    The existence of logical absolutes is one among many 1000's of reasons.
    Do you deny the existence of logical absolutes?

    So far - nothing.

    Duh gee, crap-usher, you apparently miss the point here - none of my questions to atheists ever receive an logical answer.

    This of course means that not one of you can answer without betraying your own beliefs as untenable.
    Atheism is irrational by very definition. It's roots are irrational and all its defenses are irrational.

    Q: Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?
    Only answer so far - nothing or "don't know"

    Or, Is is absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?
    Answers - no answer at all or "don't know"

    If you don't know then your atheism is irrational and based on blind faith alone.

    Perhaps you could enlighten the rest of the world with a simple answer to those questions.

    If you can answer without screwing your own position in the process I just might think you have an IQ larger than your shoe size - which is where the scale reads thus far.

    And you got the definition of Atheism wrong.

    No, you did. Most arm-chair, web forum, ignoramus, atheist amateurs -like you- don't even understand your own position.

    That's a real funny thing but true.

    See HERE

    ReplyDelete
  85. LOL.

    Thanks for the new name.

    I love how you love to beat strawmen.

    OK, atheists! Here's what you really think. OK, atheists do that to you too. "Talking animals" and all. Some Christians don't actually believe everything in the Bible but atheists will keep being up the stupid parts.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Here's the thing.
    You complain that no-one has proved there's no gods.
    But the atheists say they've never seen any evidence to prove that there are gods.

    You posting something you don't understand doesn't mean gods exist, it just shows your ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Gary said: "See HERE"

    Wow! A link that makes the same mistakes Gary makes. The same misunderstandings. And the same clumsy language.
    And the same insults.

    I have a feeling Gary wrote it.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Must be crazy living in your world Gary, where your god could decide 2 + 2 = 212 on a whim.
    There are no logical absolutes in a theist world. Miracles do away with the consistency of the natural world.

    ReplyDelete
  89. CrapUsher

    Thanks for the new name.

    U change mine I change yours, simple.

    OK, atheists! Here's what you really think. OK, atheists do that to you too.

    Not quite, but I understand you're misunderstanding - its ubiquitous amongst atheists.

    Atheists, at least the wannabe intellectual types -i.e. the majority of those that hang around debate forums- almost never figure out the the logical implications of their own own position.

    And notice how crap doesn't answer the questions. We all know its because she can't.

    You complain that no-one has proved there's no gods.
    But the atheists say they've never seen any evidence to prove that there are gods.


    The reason atheists never see any evidence for a supreme being is they don't want to.

    Everything that exists is evidence for a creator, nothing that exists points to a conclusion of "no creator".

    Must be crazy living in your world Gary, where your god could decide 2 + 2 = 212 on a whim.

    Sorry, this old "nonsense argument" of yours is just so bad and so old.

    There are no logical absolutes in a theist world. Miracles do away with the consistency of the natural world

    Same as above.
    Sadly you have no clue on what theism actually says.

    Go run along and do your homework kid. Then come back and bring some arguments for atheism, or even against theism, that makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Now, just to set the record straight for the benefit of atheists that don't even understand their own position's logical implications (most), I cite a few popular atheists.

    "[the universe] has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference."-Dawkins

    And "there is no such thing as good and bad, we are all just dancing to our DNA". -Richard Dawkins


    Now compare that to another statement of his, "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." Dawkins

    Wow. There is no good or evil but anyone that refuses to swallow the Darwinian fairy tale may be "wicked".

    "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question..." -Dawkins, the God Delusion (p. 58-59) (2006)

    Of course most atheists, being incapable of understanding this, think quite the contrary, and persistently tell us so.
    Amazing duplicity shown by Dawkins.

    ... 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. -William Provine

    Most amateur atheists get the points 1 and 2 and stop there, some go to point 3 - but never understand it - most the amateurs pretend that point 4 is false even though they may claim it.

    Provine continues,
    "Free will is not hard to give up, because it's a horribly destructive idea to our society. Free will is what we use as an excuse to treat people like pieces of shit when they do something wrong in our society. We say to the person, "you did something wrong out of your free will, and therefore we have the justification for revenge all over your behind." We put people in prison, turning them into lousier individuals than they ever were. This horrible system is based upon this idea of free will.

    Of course you cannot fail to notice, unless your atheist blinders block out the light of reason as well as the vast volumes of evidence for God, that Provine intrinsically is assuming while saying there is no free will, that he is saying this because he has free will and chooses to say so!

    As always all of the illogical nonsense underlying atheism is self-defeating and self-contradictory.

    Yet relativism is the only thing atheists can follow, since there are no logical absolutes and no absolute truths in their strange world. The funniest thing though is that they are absolutely sure there are no absolute truths!

    Ya gotta laugh.

    And of course given that the great majority of mankind, since the beginning, have always believed in something far greater than mere matter and energy, it is astounding that only the minority lot of atheists fail to see the obvious.
    Or rather, deny what is perfectly obvious.
    This is why we know that atheism is nothing more than denial of reality.

    ReplyDelete
  91. To continue my little demonstration that most atheists don't understand the implications of their own position...


    Plato said, "Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding." and of course he was right.

    And even Voltaire stated, "The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability..." -Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary

    It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists. -Mohandas Gandhi

    Yet that's what we witness all over the world wherever atheists gather!

    Well known atheist Darwinist Peter Singer says infants aren't normal human beings with rights to life and liberty: "Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness...make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings."

    How kind of him, n'est-ce pas?
    The amazing thing is that while most atheists, being the moral parasites they are, would reject Singer's views on killing infants for whatever utilitarian reasons an atheist government might come up with.

    Yet Singer is simply taking atheism to its logical conclusions! - just as did Provine and Dawkins (who called Singer the most moral person on earth).

    Peter Singer also proclaimed that inter-species sex (bestiality) is normal too.
    And why not? If atheism is true he is once again simply going where logic obliges him to go.

    What a wonderful atheism creates - anything goes! The only determining point is Darwinian survival.
    But, since there is no purpose in a universe without a creator, why should anything survive at all?

    If there are no absolute moral values and no ultimate purpose, then anything goes and nothing can ever be condemned as evil for evil ceases to exist.

    As Sartre noted, "Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist.... Nor...are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimize our behavior"

    Given the above facts, it is always most amusing and incredible to come to blogs like this, where the atheist defends his meaningless existence and even chides the theist or deist for any insulting word or language he may have used, as thought there really are moral absolutes!

    In short the atheist is a walking contradiction of acute cognitive dissonance, full of darkness and confusion, and for that very reason cannot see it and cannot know himself!

    He has become vain in his mind and bragging to himself to be wise has become a fool.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Have you ever heard of the logical fallacy "argumentum ad consequentiam"?

    ReplyDelete
  93. "argumentum ad consequentiam"?

    That must be Latin for "argument from consequences" because that's all I'm seeing from Gary's last few posts.

    Oh noes! If my god or gods didn't exist, I'd feel like my life was meaningless... therefore theism is correct!

    "the vast volumes of evidence for God"

    If the evidence of your god was so vast then why not share some of it, any of it, instead of asserting that this evidence exists,

    ReplyDelete
  94. In logic, appeal to consequences refers only to arguments which assert a premise's truth value (true or false) based on the consequences; appeal to consequences does not refer to arguments that address a premise's desirability (good or bad, or right or wrong) instead of its truth value. Therefore, an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in ethics, and in fact such arguments are the cornerstones of many moral theories, particularly related to consequentialism.

    Iow, the guy complaining of this "fallacy" doesn't understand where this is a fallacy and where it isn't.

    Atheism - as I demonstrated using popular atheists' own reasoning, has inescapable logical ethical consequences that cannot be ignored.

    Ignoring facts like this is, as always, the way atheists rid themselves of any argument they don't like and cannot answer.

    So the argument against "appeal to consequences" is itself a demonstration of misunderstanding the fallacy. But worse, having brought it up demonstrates that its presenter here - Atvlc - actually does believe in logical absolutes since logical fallacies cannot exist without them.

    Ok guys, keep defeating yourselves in your own arguments as I predicted you

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

    ReplyDelete
  96. Oh noes! If my god or gods didn't exist, I'd feel like my life was meaningless... therefore theism is correct!

    This pseudo-debater, as always, doesn't understand much of any argument ... ever.

    The point is that atheism intrinsically (go look it up Ad) means there is no meaning to life, the universe or anything at all.

    And that means that no matter what imaginary meaning one may invent for oneself, it is still meaningless overall and destined to eternal oblivion.

    If there is a God, then indeed there is intrinsic meaning to life.

    Furthermore, if there is a God, all atheists are in a very precarious position indeed and their lives will only be meaningful in one single sense - as examples of very bad examples and of sheer stupidity.

    To put it another way, "If there be a God and one has never sought him, it will be small consolation to remember that one could not get proof of his existence." - George MacDonald

    ReplyDelete
  97. Look Gary, reality is not based on on what you find emotionally satisfying.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Like you quoted:

    "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question..." -Dawkins, the God Delusion (p. 58-59) (2006)

    It's not an ethical question.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Hey thanks Gary for putting me on to this book, The God Delusion.
    I'm "thumbing" through it in Google Books. It's full of good quotes like:

    If you agree that, in the absence of God, you would commit robbery, rape, and murder, you reveal yourself as an immoral person, and we would be well advised to steer a wide course around you. If, on the other hand, you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under divine surveillance, you have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good.

    Heh. I might have to buy this book.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Adam

    By your own guest

    Read Dawkins all you please.
    He's quite a notorious propagandist for your cause, and a great liar to boot.

    Even the more intelligent atheists think he's an idiot.

    David Berlinski's "The Devils Delusion" totally massacres just about everything Dawkins believes.

    Even Anthony Flew saw Dawkins as an enemy to both atheism and reason.

    Berlinski (not a theist) is so far above Dawkins and his ilk intellectually there is really just no comparison.

    You would no doubt avoid reading "The Dawkins Delusion" -and all the other books that demolish Dawkins ill reasoned diatribe (in order to hang on to your atheist "ideas"), but hey you're responsible before God nevertheless for believing a pack of glaring lies.

    And you'll be held accountable to His law for judgment and not Dawkin's fallacious from a to z fanatical ravings against all religion.

    And above all, never read the bible!!
    All that troublesome God, sin, good and evil, love your neighbor, do as you would be done by, Satan, hell ... and other disturbing (for atheists) stuff!
    Reading that would mean you'd have to genuinely know what you're talking about when attempting to refute it!

    Very very few atheists qualify for that task and many that do become full fledged theists and we know just how terrified amateur atheists are of that!

    ReplyDelete
  101. I've read the Bible. All of it.
    It's part of what made me an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  102. I had read a large chunk of the Bible while I was a Christian. Was studying Greek to understand the New Testament more. The Bible became less and less good the more I studied it.

    I didn't completely read the entire thing until I was an atheist.
    Now I've read several different translations.

    ReplyDelete
  103. One of today's topics on Reddit was "Reading the Bible had more of an impact on me becoming an atheist than reading "The God Delusion""

    The Bible is full of contradictions and support for all kinds of atrocities.

    Read it unquestioningly and you end up like Gary, claiming slavery is moral.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Adam Nardoli

    I've read the Bible. All of it.
    It's part of what made me an atheist.


    ROTFL
    ...you're a funny character Ad.

    I'm not surprised at all given your inability to understand even the most simple logic and reason.

    You yourself said you don't know whether there are absolute truths or not. But you don't seem to see that if you don't know then you cannot be a true atheist because "don't know" is precisely the meaning of the word "agnostic".

    So what are you really? Do you even know? I don't think so.

    And, what is this secret sin of yours? You know the one.
    The one that is your master and has enslaved you and for which you're willing to betray Jesus Christ like the Judas you are.

    Both you and AT err severely in both scripture and logic all across the board.

    Reading it is one thing, understanding what you read is a whole other ball game.

    At any rate the things posted here demonstrate just how badly either of you understands it.

    Which is normal since neither of you were ever a Xian on the one hand and on the other well its pretty clear, "If, however, the meaning of our Good News has been veiled, the veil has been on the hearts of those who are on the way to perdition, in whom the god of this present age has blinded their unbelieving minds so as to shut out the brilliance of the Good News of the glory of the Christ"

    Gee, that means you are both lost.

    And oh, byw, where is the answer to my questions?

    Are there logical absolutes or not?

    Is it absolutely true that there is no absolute truth?

    Still waiting ...

    If there are logical absolutes then you lose, if there are not, then you still lose because nothing can be argued, proved or falsified without them.

    ReplyDelete
  105. You yourself said you don't know whether there are absolute truths or not.

    Please quote where I said that.

    But you don't seem to see that if you don't know then you cannot be a true atheist because "don't know" is precisely the meaning of the word "agnostic".

    Atheist means not a theist. I am not a theist. It's possible to be both agnostic and atheist since 'gnostic' refers to knowledge and 'theism' refers to belief.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Also, you kicked an own goal with your response to you basing your beliefs on a "appeal to consequences".

    In logic, appeal to consequences refers only to arguments which assert a premise's truth value (true or false) based on the consequences;

    If you read your comments, you based the existence of a deity on your dislike of [what you believed were] the consequences of the non-existence of this deity.

    ReplyDelete
  107. And, what is this secret sin of yours? You know the one.
    The one that is your master and has enslaved you and for which you're willing to betray Jesus Christ like the Judas you are
    .

    Sorry, don't know what you're talking about here.

    Which is normal since neither of you were ever a Xian...

    I was a Christian. It's offensive that you disregard such a big part of my life like this.

    ReplyDelete
  108. You seem to think the existence or non-existence of logical absolutes is a reason to believe in your particular god. Why would that be? Are you a big CARM fan?

    ReplyDelete
  109. Adam ...

    Also, you kicked an own goal with your response to you basing your beliefs on a "appeal to consequences".

    Wrong. Like AT, you don't understand logical fallacies and you certainly did not read my response to him.

    What is truly hilarious is that both of you deny the existence of absolute truth and logical absolutes, yet attempt to use them against your opponents as though you actually believe they exist!

    i.e You both exercise glaring duplicity of mind, if not of heart.

    If you read your comments, you based the existence of a deity on your dislike of... bla bla

    If you learn how to interpret what you read, you'd notice that no appeal to consequences was even offered as a argument against atheism, but rather the statement of mere facts on what atheism intrinsically implies according to atheists!

    So, the logical and necessary consequences of atheism - i.e nothing means anything, no one's life has any importance or meaning, no objective morals exist, there is no purpose to anyone's life etc etc. - are all fine with you?

    As always Ad, you understand practically nothing of logic and apparently cannot understand what you read properly.

    Atheist means not a theist. I am not a theist. It's possible to be both agnostic and atheist since 'gnostic' refers to knowledge and 'theism' refers to belief.

    No. It is not possible to be an atheist and also an agnostic on the same subject at the same time.
    You are one or the other.

    Atheism is not mere lack of belief as atheists perpetually pretend (usually because they don't even understand the nature of their own position).

    You either do not believe there is any supreme being, you do believe, or you don't know.
    Which is it then?

    If you don't believe you need to provide reasons why you reject all evidence and what evidence and logic your unbelief is based on.

    If you don't know, then you're not an atheist, just an agnostic.

    Again. What is your answer to my 2 questions?
    You only have 3 options
    1. you don't know
    2. No there are no logical absolutes
    3. Yes there are logical absolutes

    Answer?

    ReplyDelete
  110. If you don't believe you need to provide reasons why you reject all evidence and what evidence and logic your unbelief is based on.

    WHAT EVIDENCE?

    ReplyDelete
  111. No. It is not possible to be an atheist and also an agnostic on the same subject at the same time.

    Many people are agnostic and atheists. 'Gnostic' refers to knowledge and 'theism' refers to belief. There are even agnostic theists; people who believe but don't 'know'.

    On logic; I think logic is part of a description of reality.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Gary, are you agnostic about the existence of magical elves?

    If you don't believe you need to provide reasons and what evidence and logic your unbelief is based on.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Adam

    First off, When are you going to answer my questions?

    I was a Christian. It's offensive that you disregard such a big part of my life like this.

    I don't believe you, period.
    I think you maybe thought you were being a Xian, but don't really know what it means.

    You seem to think the existence or non-existence of logical absolutes is a reason to believe in your particular god.

    Is that what I said? No.

    Logical absolutes necessitate the inference to a cogent being that must have absolute characteristics.

    I said nothing about proving the specific God of the bible.

    Stick to the argument please and answer my questions.


    WHAT EVIDENCE?

    Duh, gee, the existence of logical absolutes for one. You're not following
    The existence objective moral values
    The descriptive, prescriptive and meta-information contained in all living organisms that encode the instructions for their creation.
    Life itself.
    The universe had a beginning, a sufficient power had to start it.
    Your own being here arguing against God!
    ...
    Of course there is virtually no end to evidence that demands a God inference.
    You know this, but you simply deny it all, by blind faith in nothing.

    Atheists living in constant denial of reality and are thus in some sense mentally ill.

    Atheism is a position held by blind faith alone, since even according to atheists, they cannot prove there position nor supply any degree of evidence for it.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Gary, are you agnostic about the existence of magical elves?

    If you don't believe you need to provide reasons and what evidence and logic your unbelief is based on.


    OMG! The old atheist fairy tale challenge!!

    1. Define "elves"
    2. Define "magical"

    Ok, Adam, I'll play your childish little atheists' pathetic entrapment game for a second and we'll see the outcome.

    Indeed I am agnostic with regard to magical elves, and many other things.

    Why?
    *There is no evidence that I am aware of, other than old stories, that such creatures exist.
    *We know, for the most part, who wrote the stories
    *We know they were making them up for children and for entertainment, ergo, it is highly unlikely such creatures actually do exist or existed.

    *I've seen no historical evidence.

    *There's is very little consistency between many of the stories as to appearance, size, character etc.

    But this is not blind unbelief based on denial, as is your atheism, I maintain a simple agnosticism towards "magical elves".

    Furthermore :
    * No one I know of, has ever presented any evidence for such creatures
    * There may indeed be creatures that fulfill such a description somewhere in the universe.
    * To deny there may exist such things implies a) I know everything about the entire universe and know there is no such thing or b) I don't know but deny based on speculation

    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

    That applies very nicely to all atheists.

    Atheism is the death of the soul, the end of reason.

    So, now bring on the invisible pink unicorns! I'll prove they don't exist. LOL.

    But until you answer my questions I'll not answer any more of yours.

    We both know you cannot answer my questions without undoing your groundless atheist nonsense.

    Unfortunately, we also know you have not the candor nor the honor for such admission of your error.

    ReplyDelete
  115. "Long before I believed Theology to be true I had already decided that the popular scientific picture at any rate was false. One absolutely central inconsistency ruins it; it is the one we touched on a fortnight ago. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears. Unless we can be sure that reality in the remotest nebula or the remotest part obeys the thought-laws of the human scientist here and now in his laboratory, in other words, unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based. The difficulty is to me a fatal one; and the fact that when you put it to many scientists, far from having an answer, they seem not even to understand what the difficulty is, assures me that I have not found a mare's nest but detected a radical disease in their whole mode of thought from the very beginning. The man who has once understood the situation is compelled henceforth to regard the scientific cosmology as being, in principle, a myth; though no doubt a great many true particulars have been worked into it." (p.162)
    - LEWIS, C. S. They Asked for a Paper.

    ReplyDelete
  116. "The existence objective moral values"

    Morals are not objective. FAIL.

    "The descriptive, prescriptive and meta-information contained in all living organisms that encode the instructions for their creation."

    Depending on how you define the word 'information' it can not be both descriptive and prescriptive. And making this information is exactly what evolution explains. Saying something is magic because you don't understand it is called an 'argument from ignorance.' FAIL

    "Life itself.
    The universe had a beginning, a sufficient power had to start it."
    Argument from ignorance. FAIL

    "Your own being here arguing against God!"
    oh, this makes sense... wait, no, it doesn't follow that arguing against a believer in something makes that something real. EPIC FAIL!

    "Atheists living in constant denial of reality and are thus in some sense mentally ill. "
    No, YOU'RE mentally ill. Is this really how low you want the conversation to descend?

    "Atheism is a position held by blind faith alone, since even according to atheists, they cannot prove there position nor supply any degree of evidence for it."
    Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. How much evidence do you need that some people don't believe in gods?

    "Indeed I am agnostic with regard to magical elves, and many other things."
    But do you have belief in magical elves? That's the question. You're a liar, you are not agnostic about the existence of magical elves.

    "*There is no evidence that I am aware of, other than old stories, that such creatures exist."
    Applies to the gods too, doesn't it?

    "*We know, for the most part, who wrote the stories"
    Shame we can't say the same for most of your Bible.

    "*We know they were making them up for children and for entertainment, ergo, it is highly unlikely such creatures actually do exist or existed."
    Hold up. HOW do you know this? CAN you prove this?

    "*There's is very little consistency between many of the stories as to appearance, size, character etc."
    Applies to your god.

    "I maintain a simple agnosticism towards "magical elves"."
    Again, I don't believe you.

    Are you agnostic about the god of the Christian Bible?

    ReplyDelete
  117. Andy

    Morals are not objective. FAIL.

    And you're objectively (absolutely) sure about this?
    Sorry, you FAIL.

    Depending on how you define the word 'information' it can not be both descriptive and prescriptive. And making this information is exactly what evolution explains. Saying something is magic because you don't understand it is called an 'argument from ignorance.' FAIL


    LOL. Darwinian evolution explains precisely nothing of the origin of that information.

    I know more about information than you probably ever will.

    DNA contains descriptive, prescriptive and meta-information.
    Meta-information cannot even exist without intelligence.

    Your ignorance of this is no excuse for your foolish & fatuous assertions.

    Sorry again, you FAIL.

    "Life itself.
    The universe had a beginning, a sufficient power had to start it."

    Argument from ignorance. FAIL

    You don't even know what an argument from ignorance is!
    Also - Bare assertion.
    You ignore fundamental evidence.
    You FAIL.

    ...it doesn't follow that arguing against a believer in something makes that something real. EPIC FAIL!

    It does make sense that to argue anything at all you must assume
    1. that human reason is valid - can't be done using materialist premises only
    2. that logical absolutes exist

    You can't validate your brain using a brain.
    Logical absolutes exist -otherwise why are you claiming that I'm absolutely wrong?!

    Ergo, TITANIC FAIL

    No, YOU'RE mentally ill. Is this really how low you want the conversation to descend?

    Atheism is denial of reality.
    Denial of reality is part of most mental illnesses, ergo, atheists, being in denial of absolutes, are mentally ill, to some degree.
    Acute cognitive dissonance is the least form of mental illness I would assign to adepts of atheism.

    One cannot be a logical atheist.

    Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods.

    No it isn't just lack of belief.

    But do you have belief in magical elves? That's the question. You're a liar, you are not agnostic about the existence of magical elves.

    You are an ass hole, I said I'm agnostic to whether elves, magical or other, exist. Read my lips, "I don't know!"

    Applies to the gods too, doesn't it?

    OMG, how old are you anyway, 12?
    No it isn't the same at all.

    Shame we can't say the same for most of your Bible.

    Wrong, EPIC FAIL. We do know.

    Hold up. HOW do you know this? CAN you prove this?

    Duh, that's why they're called fairy tales.

    Applies to your god.

    Wrong again.


    Again, I don't believe you.

    Ask me if I care what you believe.

    Are you agnostic about the god of the Christian Bible?

    Do you mean both the OT Hebrew and Christian NT parts of the bible?
    Fyi, it isn't a book, it is a collection of books.

    Yet another wannabe expert atheist.

    Are there logical absolutes or not?
    Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?

    Can you prove there is no super being behind the creation of the universe?
    Do you even understand the notion and implications involved with a universe that had a distinct beginning?

    Obviously not for either question.

    Little one, you understand far less than even I would have thought, and that ain't much at all.

    EPIC FAIL.
    Back to kindergarten for you.

    ReplyDelete
  118. "Darwinian evolution explains precisely nothing of..."
    Creationism explains precisely nothing.

    "I know more about information than you probably ever will."
    Really? Then why did you make such an obvious mistake? When did you study information and which branch of information theory did you study?

    "Meta-information cannot even exist without intelligence."
    WRONG.
    WRONG.
    WRONG.
    If you thought about it, you yourself could give me a few examples of information being formed without intelligences.
    I have high expectations of you.

    "You don't even know what an argument from ignorance is!"
    FAIL.
    Life did not arise by magic just because you don't understand how it happened.

    Gary said:
    bla, bla, bla... some retarded T.A.G. nonsense.

    "Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods.
    No it isn't just lack of belief."

    YES IT IS. "atheism: Disbelief in the existence of gods." (Oxford Pocket).
    Theism is belief in gods and "A" negates it.
    English - learn it.

    "You are an ass hole, I said I'm agnostic to whether elves, magical or other, exist. Read my lips, "I don't know!"
    And you lied. You don't believe in magical elves.

    "OMG, how old are you anyway, 12?
    No it isn't the same at all."
    Yes, it is.

    "Are you agnostic about the god of the Christian Bible?

    Do you mean both the OT Hebrew and Christian NT parts of the bible?
    Fyi, it isn't a book, it is a collection of books."

    I said "Christian Bible" not book.
    Are you having problems reading.

    Admit it, you HAVE to say you are agnostic about your god. And since you say you can't prove your brain with your brain - YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHETHER YOU EXIST OR NOT!

    "Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?"
    T.A.G. nonsense. FAIL

    "Can you prove there is no super being behind the creation of the universe? "
    What an incredibly stupid question. THE BURDEN OF PROOF DOES NOT LIE WITH ME. Can you prove there's not an invisible pink unicorn?

    "Little one, you understand far less than even I would have thought, and that ain't much at all."
    You're the one who believes in magic. Grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  119. We often call "TAG" style arguments "Presup" arguments on the blogs I read.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:On_Logical_Absolutes

    http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Transcendental_argument

    They're not so great.

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

    ReplyDelete
  121. Andy

    Really? Then why did you make such an obvious mistake?

    You made the obvious mistake.
    Judging by your errors, you don't even understand what information is.

    If you thought about it, you yourself could give me a few examples of information being formed without intelligences.

    Go ahead Andy, make my day. Show us examples.
    I'll be nice and try to point out your faulty views.

    Life did not arise by magic just because you don't understand how it happened.

    Funny how atheists always talk about "magic" whenever they just don't want to understand anything.

    bla, bla, bla... some retarded T.A.G. nonsense.

    ROTFL
    You are truly good at defending yourself with nothing but hot air and vacuous assertions w/o substance or the slightest grain of evidence.

    YES IT IS. ...English - learn it.

    Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. - wikipedia

    Learn it.
    Lack of belief is only the small part of it for most atheists. People like you have made a positive choice not to believe. That isn't a mere lack.
    That's a chosen position.
    My cat lacks belief. Is he an atheist?
    How about rocks?

    And you lied. You don't believe in magical elves.

    The funniest thing about you is your salient belief in objective moral values -all while denying them- visible in everything inane accusation you make.

    I said "Christian Bible" not book.Are you having problems reading.

    No, but you are are having problems understanding simple English.
    You are the poorest debater here.

    Admit it, you HAVE to say you are agnostic about your god.

    Wrong. Prove it.

    And since you say you can't prove your brain with your brain - YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHETHER YOU EXIST OR NOT!

    ROTFL again

    T.A.G. nonsense. FAIL

    Again -another vacuous assertion. Prove it. You can't.
    FAIL MISERABLY


    No atheist has ever been able to refute TAG though many have tried.
    You yourself are proving the tag argument here.
    Indeed, it is impossible to refute the objective moral and the logical absolutes arguments without at the same time both assuming and proving them.

    What an incredibly stupid question.

    Thank you. It was for "an incredibly stupid" person.

    THE BURDEN OF PROOF DOES NOT LIE WITH ME.

    Wrong, and you can't even prove that.

    Can you prove there's not an invisible pink unicorn?

    Easily

    You're the one who believes in magic. Grow up.

    Again the old atheist ref. to "magic", where no theist even brings up the term.
    Oh, maybe except when applying such to the atheist version of creation -"Nothing created everything, with nothing and for nothing"
    That's far worse than "magic" - whatever that is.

    Like all of the "New Atheists", not only do you not understand your own answers, you don't even understand the questions being asked!

    So, is it the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths?
    Are you absolutely sure there are no logical absolutes?

    You atheist whiners are incredibly good at avoiding questions, yet glaringly obvious in that avoidance. We all know why.
    "New Atheism is an intellectual and moral vacuum. It's all sneer, mockery, self-contradiction, and juvenilia."

    ReplyDelete
  122. Here's a great website about TAG.

    http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  123. Judging by your errors, you don't even understand what information is.

    If you believe he doesn't know what information is, why not tell him?

    Go ahead Andy, make my day. Show us examples.

    You need to identify which theory of information you are using first.

    Funny how atheists always talk about "magic" whenever they just don't want to understand anything...
    One of the definitions of magic is "supernatural action". It explains nothing.

    "People like you [Andy] have made a positive choice not to believe."
    Do you think you can make a choice to believe something or not?
    Could you honestly make yourself believe you are a cat?
    Beliefs are not a choice.

    My cat lacks belief. Is he an atheist?
    We usually only use the word to describe people.

    No atheist has ever been able to refute TAG though many have tried.
    Yes, it's been throughly refuted from every angle. link

    ReplyDelete
  124. Adam

    If you believe he doesn't know what information is, why not tell him?

    Why don't you? I'm quickly losing interest in his persistent bs. I'll let him hang himself by trying if he pleases.

    You need to identify which theory of information you are using first.

    The kind of information we're talking about has already been stated.
    It is more than mere Shannon info.

    It is even more than algorithmic. It is prescriptive, descriptive and meta. Biosemiotic researchers know that there is no way for this kind of info to arise w/o intelligence.

    Let the poor kid describe the nature of information itself if he can.

    One of the definitions of magic is "supernatural action". It explains nothing.

    One? And?

    Do you think you can make a choice to believe something or not?


    Duh?!! Just unreal.

    Beliefs are not a choice.

    Logical implications of your inane statement -no atheist, theist, scientist,... etc., ever chooses to believe something or not huh?
    Maybe think that over.

    Yes, it's been throughly refuted from every angle. link


    You point me to Law's blog?!
    He refutes nothing at all, he merely bitches over "Sye"'s, whoever that is, arguments by basically just denying them.

    Are there logical absolutes or not?
    Is there absolute truth or not?

    No one is capable of refuting this and Law doesn't seem to even understand the argument.
    It is mostly just denial once you pick through the rhetoric.

    This is where every atheist loses it, every time.
    Blindness of both heart and mind.
    Ooops, atheists don't believe in mind, just brain.

    It is impossible to prove there are no logic absolutes.
    Yet all are obliged to assume they exist!
    It is impossible to prove there is no absolute truth.

    Sorry, but that's why all of you refuse to answer the questions I asked.

    I would love to see how Law fares in a public debate with William Lane Craig.
    Craig never loses debates with atheists.

    To debate one must assume logical absolutes exist (or abandon all hope of coherence). A supreme intelligent being is the best, if not the only, explanation for their existence.

    This is 1 area where you, Andy and all atheists go wrong. Thus you avoid and/or deny - which proves absolutely nothing.

    2 of Craig's articles:

    http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5175

    http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5344

    ReplyDelete
  125. "his [Andy's] persistent bs"

    He's made three comments on this post.
    Two of which were parodies of your way of responding.

    You use the word "information". You need to explain what theory of information.

    ReplyDelete
  126. I'd like to hear how you think magic is different than supernatural action.

    A supreme intelligent being is the best, if not the only, explanation for their existence.

    Arguments from ignorance don't cut it.
    Sorry.

    By the way, it looks like Craig doesn't want us to read those articles.
    "The page you are trying to access is only available to people who have registered for membership on our site and have logged in"

    ReplyDelete
  127. "Two of which were parodies of your way of responding."

    Here's someone who gets it.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Adam Nardoli

    Two of which were parodies of your way of responding.

    LOL
    My way of responding? Indeed.

    Here are the rules
    "1 Do not answer a fool with his own stupidity, or you will be like him.
    2 Answer a fool with his own stupidity, or he will think he is wise."


    This means that there is no way to answer a fool correctly with much hope of gain.

    If one answers by rule 1, one tends to be like the fool or taken to be for the fool, by the fool.
    If one answers according to rule 2, the fool may eventually stop thinking he is wise, but the chances are slim because he is a fool.

    Now, here's the key:
    An ancient king once wrote, "Godless fools say in their hearts, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt."

    So the atheists are the fools in this whole story.

    And indeed they are always so "wise in their own conceit" or as another wise man stated several hundred years later,
    "What can be known about God is clear to them because he has made it clear to them.
    From the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly observed in what he made. As a result, people have no excuse.
    They knew God but did not praise and thank him for being God. Instead, their thoughts were pointless, and their misguided minds were plunged into darkness.
    While claiming to be wise, they became fools
    ."


    The atheist way of answering questions is 1) avoiding any response beyond denial, 2) loud conceited mockery.

    Both have been abundantly demonstrated by all atheists here - and indeed and every forum I've ever visited. That's all the theist and even the extremely rare "honest atheist" ever gets.

    Personally, I have no qualms in answering atheists in their own preferred language when it fits.

    You should not congratulate yourselves so flippantly over this.

    Andy, like the rest of you atheists, gives no viable answers to anything and, again like you, appears to not even understand the questions.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Adam Nardoli

    I'd like to hear how you think magic is different than supernatural action.

    Supernatural : "not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material;"

    Magic : "The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.
    2.
    a. The practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature.
    b. The charms, spells, and rituals so used.
    3. The exercise of sleight of hand or conjuring for entertainment.
    4. A mysterious quality of enchantment: "For me the names of those men breathed the magic of the past" (Max Beerbohm).
    adj.
    1. Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural: "

    Calling something that exists in a dimension outside material nature "magic", the way you people do, is an error of conflation.

    If magic is "invoking the supernatural" then calling God "magical", whatever your own meaning, is saying that God invokes himself.

    Theism is not "invoking the supernatural" but belief in, based on the abundant evidence of design and purpose all around us.

    To explain this design and purpose requires invoking a super-natural cause, since a) there is no possibility of nothing creating everything, b) there is no other viable explanation as to why there is something instead of nothing

    To deny the existence of anything that exists outside of nature, as atheist must do, is an argument from mere disbelief and ignorance -since you cannot know there is no super-natural.

    And here is one example showing why atheists are being condescendingly foolish in calling a supra natural being "magical":

    A typical God exists argument:
    1 The universe had a beginning.
    2 By the laws of cause and effect, something had to cause it.
    3 Whatever caused it had to be, by very definition, supra-natural or supernatural since it could not itself reside in the, as yet, uncreated nature.
    4 Whatever caused it had to possess infinite power
    5 Whatever caused it had to possess intelligence
    6 Whatever caused it had to possess volition
    7 Thus, whatever caused it had to possess purpose
    ...

    Calling this "magic" is as foolish as calling energy itself or quantum phenomena magic.

    Atheists like to use the word "magic" because it conveys a more mythical, illusory and contrived sense than supra natural does.

    The word magic, as per common use, makes its use in mockery of cosmological arguments for the existence of God utterly childish.

    I.e. its a cheap shot intended to make the opponent feel foolish

    The most rational conclusion is that a thinking being created the universe and that being men have always called "God".

    Atheist merely deny most or all of the above but can they demonstrate any reality behind the denial?
    No. Nothing at all.

    All the atheist has to support his chosen position of disbelief (not mere lack thereof) is denial of all and any evidence.
    The underlying basis for this is their own ignorance and wishful hoping there is no super being to whom they are accountable.

    Arguments from ignorance don't cut it.Sorry.

    Of course you realize that atheism is based on argument from both ignorance and mere willful unbelief?

    By the way, it looks like Craig doesn't want us to read those articles.

    Is that what you say for every other site you have registered on?
    So register, its free!

    Are you too proud to register on a theists site or are you afraid of reading Craig because it may upset your irrational world-view?

    ReplyDelete
  130. To explain this design and purpose requires invoking a super-natural cause,
    Which is the definition of magic.

    since a) there is no possibility of nothing creating everything,
    The more I study physics, the more I think there may be no such thing as "nothing". The deeper you understand physics and the quantum level, the more counter-intiutive physics becomes. I'm not a physics expert so this is difficult to explain but a "nothing" has never been observed. And why should nothing be a more natural state of affairs than something?
    In fact, we can give plausible scientific reasons, based on our current best knowledge of physics and cosmology, that something is more natural than nothing - many simple systems of particles are very unstable, that is, have extremely limited "lifespans" as they undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures of lower energy. Since "nothing" is as simple as it gets, we cannot expect it to be very stable. It would likely undergo a spontaneous phase transition to something more complicated.

    ReplyDelete
  131. A typical God exists argument:
    1 The universe had a beginning.
    2 By the laws of cause and effect, something had to cause it
    .

    "The assumption that every event has a cause, although common in our experience, is not necessarily universal. The apparent lack of cause for some events, such as radioactive decay, suggests that there might be exceptions. There are also hypotheses, such as alternate dimensions of time or an eternally oscillating universe, that allow a universe without a first cause.
    By definition, a cause comes before an event. If time began with the universe, "before" does not even apply to it, and it is logically impossible that the universe be caused. "

    ReplyDelete
  132. 4. Whatever caused it had to possess infinite power...

    That doesn't follow from the first points. Until the word "power" is defined, I will assume you mean energy. In fact, the universe seems to have come into being with almost no energy at all. The amount of negative energy cancels out the positive energy which shows us the "cause"* had to close to "nothing".

    *I use the word "cause" although I am speaking about before time, before causes had effects.

    ReplyDelete
  133. 5 Whatever caused it had to possess intelligence
    6 Whatever caused it had to possess volition
    7 Thus, whatever caused it had to possess purpose
    ...

    These are also non sequitur.

    "Calling this "magic" is as foolish as calling energy itself or quantum phenomena magic."
    Invoking a supernatural explanation is magic.

    The word magic, as per common use, makes its use in mockery of cosmological arguments for the existence of God utterly childish.
    Um, I think most theistic arguments ARE childish.

    The underlying basis for this is their own ignorance and wishful hoping there is no super being to whom they are accountable.
    I'm already accountable for my actions HERE in reality.

    ReplyDelete
  134. ATVLC

    Which is the definition of magic.

    Nice try. Making deliberate (or ignorant) errors of equivocation (conflating terms) won't help you sell your lie.

    By your def anything that can possibly exist outside matter and energy is magic.
    But information is neither matter nor energy. So, according to you, information is magic?

    You guys are not very good philosophers or scientists. You just have a angst against God for underlying reasons that don't have anything to do with science.

    "Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding..." -Plato

    I'm not a physics expert so this is difficult to explain but a "nothing" has never been observed.

    Wow. I wonder why. I hope you realize what you just said makes no sense.

    In fact, we can give plausible scientific reasons, based on our current best knowledge of physics and cosmology, that something is more natural than nothing ... undergo a spontaneous phase transition to something more complicated.

    You do realize that that means nothing?

    This is the atheist way: if you can't get out of a simple logical argument you must deny it, or in this case turn it into nonsense.

    Like I said, whenever atheists start bringing in spurious views of quantum physics to support their position, I know I've already overturned their curious notions.

    You've been reading too much of the Copenhagen interpretations of quantum physics.

    Try looking up the de Broglie-Bohm Theory, also called the pilot-wave theory, Bohmian mechanics, and the causal interpretation.

    Indeed, much of quantum physics these days is more akin to philosophy than science as is almost all of Darwinism.
    i.e no one knows but they all want a piece of the fortune and glory prize.

    The law of cause and effect is necessary. Without it, nothing, including science, works.

    The fact that we don't what caused something, doesn't mean nothing caused it.

    ReplyDelete
  135. "The assumption that every event has a cause, although common in our experience, is not necessarily universal. The apparent lack of cause for some events, such as radioactive decay, suggests that there might be exceptions. There are also hypotheses, such as alternate dimensions of time or an eternally oscillating universe, that allow a universe without a first cause."

    Yes, I've seen this before as well.
    Sorry, it doesn't work.

    Eternal oscillating universe is a failed theory.
    Big Bang theory states the universe had a beginning.

    In fact the metaphysical implications of BB theory are so clear in their logically inferring a supra-natural cause, that A. Eddington refused to accept it because he didn't like those implications! Just like you!

    They did not fit his atheist world-view!
    This is how metaphysics can twist scientists interpretations when the scientists refuses to face facts because it undoes his feeling of security in his world-view.

    Atheists have been striving and sweating their brains out since trying desperately to find flaws in BB or to find some other theory!

    To this day they have not succeeded.

    Go ahead, bang away all you please at BB, won't change the facts. You'll just have to keep up your preferred method - denial.

    By definition, a cause comes before an event. If time began with the universe, "before" does not even apply to it, and it is logically impossible that the universe be caused.

    This, at fist glance seems reasonable. But then falls apart miserably under just a bit of analysis.

    1 It is self-contradictory: "Before time" is the wrong (and nonsensical) expression -atemporal is the correct one
    2 It presupposes that nothing can exist in some other form than that which we humans know in a time/space/matter universe.
    3 It presupposes specifically that nothing atemporal can exist.

    Theists have forever claimed that the God that must have created our universe is an atemporal and indeed eternal self-existent and ergo a necessarily existent being.

    And that's what BB suggests as the only possible prime cause.

    ReplyDelete
  136. ATVLC

    In fact, the universe seems to have come into being with almost no energy at all.

    Sublimely ludicrous. Again, Hawking et al. are way off and even his ex-wife says so.

    "Stephen has the feeling that because everything is reduced to a rational, mathematical formula, that must be the truth. He is delving into realms that really do matter to thinking people and, in a way, that can have a very disturbing effect on people -- and he's not competent."

    *I use the word "cause" although I am speaking about before time, before causes had effects.

    Again, sublimely ludicrous.

    Come on AT! If you would only stop all this "events without causes" etc. nonsense and start reading and analyzing what you write!

    These are also non sequitur.

    Invoking a supernatural explanation is magic.

    Dream on dream on ...


    Um, I think most theistic arguments ARE childish.

    So once again, Newton, Maxwell, Leibniz, Plank, Godel, Heisenberg, Einstein, von Braun, Barton, Townes, and several hundred million other scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, and whatever throughout history, are all childish?

    But believing that nothing creating everything, for nothing, and going nowhere, isn't?!!

    This is precisely the kind of retarded statement that leads truly intelligent people to call atheism "a disease of the soul", "a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God", "morally parasitic", "the worship of self", "the suicide of the soul".....

    I'm already accountable for my actions HERE in reality.

    Indeed, and you will be ultimately accountable to your God for all that no one can even know you've done here. Including all your rage and reason against him.

    ReplyDelete
  137. This is too much! LOL, it's funny that Gary can thinks he can just bluster his way through physics! It's kinda cute in a way.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Andy

    This is too much! LOL, it's funny that Gary can thinks he can just bluster his way through physics! It's kinda cute in a way.


    This is rather obviously a "I can't answer so I'll take a childish cheap shot" response.

    Too much of a coherent information overload for you no doubt.
    Could take you a few weeks to figure out what's been stated, take yer time, do it right, think it through.

    So AT continues to provide nothing more than denial and "nothing" as the most plausible creator of all things.

    Funny? Not nearly as funny as the fact that you don't even understand the basis of the arguments you attempt to use.

    There's nothing cute about folly, yet that's where atheists reign supreme since the whole of it is built upon a spire of misotheism & misology supported by blind faith and denial.

    I only hope you'll come to your senses someday. Thus far you've demonstrated precious little.

    For the rest of you atheists take the hint:
    The potential energy of nothing is nothing. Nothing + nothing = nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  139. So AT continues to provide nothing more than denial and "nothing" as the most plausible creator of all things.
    Did you even read what he said?

    There's nothing cute about folly,
    I still find your bumbling cute.

    I only hope you'll come to your senses someday.
    I hope you come to your senses one day too.

    For the rest of you atheists take the hint:
    The potential energy of nothing is nothing. Nothing + nothing = nothing
    .
    You don't understand what AT said. This proves it.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Andy

    Did you even read what he said?

    I wish I hadn't, it was so bad.

    I still find your bumbling cute.

    Thanks, whenever atheists call their opponents bumblers and cute etc., without supplying a refutation, we all know what it really means.

    I hope you come to your senses one day too.

    That about = "My dad's bigger than yer dad, nya".

    You don't understand what AT said. This proves it.

    You don't know what you're talking about and this comment proves it.
    Indeed, this whole thread proves it.

    Gee I wonder why you curiously omit responding when you're afraid of the answer. -Like his "prove there are no invisible pink unicorns" question.
    Are you afraid of the proof of their non existence?
    Afraid it might make you look "cute", "bumbling" or "clumsy" yourself huh?

    You guys are a riot.

    8-))

    ReplyDelete
  141. It is common when discussing the Invisible Pink Unicorn to point out that because she is invisible, no one can prove that she does not exist (or indeed that she is not pink). This is a parody of similar theistic claims about God—that God, as creator of the universe, is not subject to its laws and thus not physically detecting him tells us nothing about his existence or lack thereof. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is an illustration which attempts to demonstrate the absurdity of citing attributes and a lack of evidence as proof of a deity's existence. Her two defining attributes, invisibility and color (pink), are inconsistent and contradictory; this is part of the satire.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Her two defining attributes, invisibility and color (pink), are inconsistent and contradictory;

    Like an 3-omni god. (Problem of evil)

    ReplyDelete
  143. It is common when discussing the Invisible Pink Unicorn ...

    I'm impressed, you actually looked it up for yourself.

    Atheists discovered that theists easily refuted this all too common challenge and so most don't bring it up anymore.

    I've seen that question posed many times by atheists who thought it was in fact impossible to prove -because they weren't using their own brains.

    Not far off is the FSM, "magical" this or that, which are just as foolish a "challenge", frequently advanced by atheists.

    I have seen more evidence of the super-natural working in this world than you might imagine.

    So, you both learned something.
    Good for you.

    ReplyDelete
  144. My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
    -- ex atheist, C.S. Lewis

    Now there's a man who was not excerebrose, as most atheists I encounter try to prove themselves through endless denial "arguments" and irrational thinking.

    Lux sit.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Atheists discovered that theists easily refuted this all too common challenge and so most don't bring it up anymore.

    Why not provide a link to it being easily refuted?

    ReplyDelete
  146. I have seen more evidence of the super-natural working in this world than you might imagine.

    Evidence? Tell us about it then.


    Lewis quote...

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

    ReplyDelete
  147. Adam

    Why not provide a link to it being easily refuted?

    Why? You already see, I hope, how easily invisible pink things are refuted.

    Evidence? Tell us about it then.

    Soon enough, but 1st:
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”- Epicurus

    Now that is the oldest argument against God around. I'm surprised to see it vented again.

    Well, its a fair question, but in fact simplistic reasoning.

    "Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free-wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself." -CS Lewis, The Problem of Pain

    Think about that.
    Oh, sorry, atheists don't believe in free will.

    No free will means that nothing you type here is of your own volition!

    Now what are the logical implications of that?!

    If you can correctly reason that dilemma through you'll see why all atheists are left either as mere biobots, without any real personality, or being forced to find some other means than mere nature to explain why they have free thought and will.

    Under this standard atheist dogma, the term "free thinkers" becomes an oxymoron!!
    Yet how many of you love to see yourselves as free thinkers, all without ever realizing what a superb walking contradiction this makes you!

    No wonder Vox Day wrote "The Irrational Atheist" and Alvin Plantinga wrote "Theism, Atheism, and Rationality". (Now hurry up and go look up the so-called rebuttals before start feeling insecure in your pathetic world-view).

    If you can't see that this dilemma means atheism sucks then I simply pity you.

    Nihilism is what atheism leads to and nothing better.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Sublimely ludicrous. Again, Hawking et al. are way off and even his ex-wife says so.

    When it comes to physics, I'd rather go with what Hawking says than what his ex-wife says.

    If you would only stop all this "events without causes" etc. nonsense and start reading and analyzing what you write!

    Like I said, the deeper you get into physics, the more counter-intiutive it becomes.

    So once again, Newton, Maxwell, Leibniz, Plank, Godel, Heisenberg, Einstein, von Braun, Barton, Townes, and several hundred million other scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, and whatever throughout history, are all childish?

    Some of those people in your list did not make theistic arguments.
    And as to your claim that several hundred million other scientists, philosophers and mathematicians made theistic arguments; prove it.

    But believing that nothing creating everything, for nothing, and going nowhere, isn't?!!

    That was not what was said, you're arguing against a strawman.

    you will be ultimately accountable to your God for all that no one can even know you've done here. Including all your rage and reason against him.

    I don't believe in gods.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Adam

    Evidence? Tell us about it then.

    There is not room enough in the entire world to hold what can be used as evidence for the super-natural.

    There are several categories of evidence distinguishable:

    1 Good events not explainable by current knowledge of the laws of nature and/or simply contrary to those laws

    2 Bad events falling into the above description

    3 Phenomena in nature that the laws of probability tell us are virtually impossible to occur without super-natural intervention

    4 NDEs - near death experiences, the records of which now number in the millions, and wherein the clinically dead persons are brought back with "out of body" testimony

    5 The testimony of billions of persons throughout history that have claimed personal contact with God in some way

    6 Historical phenomena that are inexplicable without a supernatural source

    7 The witness of consciousness, reason and moral conscience

    Of course atheists merely dismiss all of the above with their ubiquitous denial of reality problem and/or some ill-reasoned rhetoric and sophism.
    As you've seemingly dismissed my previous evidence from DNA's vast store of algorithmic instructions.

    Since I've already raised the issue of DNA I'm going to wait til you address that evidence before going into detail on the rest.

    But I will say this, I've seen impossible things happen with my own eyes, and not on TV or in some "faith healer" meetings. In my own house.
    I've also seen demonic manifestations before my eyes that were anything but explicable under anything we may call "normal". Again outside of any church or any preachers' ability for manipulation.

    I know of WWII veterans that describe "miraculous interventions" that occurred right on the battlefield. Indeed many vets tell of such things.

    Now, tell me how DNA came about without intelligence.

    Go ahead, let the denial begin. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  150. AT

    When it comes to physics, I'd rather go with what Hawking says than what his ex-wife says.

    You didn't get the point.

    Like I said, the deeper you get into physics, the more counter-intiutive it becomes.

    Once again, that isn't an argument for anything at all, just a possible observation - and one that is (and always was) contended in the sci community -like I stated and like you ignore.

    Some of those people in your list did not make theistic arguments.

    They were all theist or deists - most were full blown creationists.

    hundred million other scientists, philosophers and mathematicians made theistic arguments; prove it.

    You should be able to prove that yourself. Again, you're thinking is way too shallow.

    How many billion persons have lived on earth say over the last 2000 years alone?
    How many were scientists, philosophers and mathematicians ... "and whatever"?
    How many were theists?

    Theists and deists have always vastly outnumbered atheists by a factor of about 98% of all populations.

    The number of theistic scientists has always vastly outnumbered the atheist ones (here's where you attempt to rebut this by bringing up the members of the NAS Lol).

    Do you have at least any idea of how many Nobel laureates over the past century were theists, deists or full blown Christian creationists? Obviously not.

    The whole point is your very childish description of theists as childish. YOU are the truly childish thinker in all this!

    That was not what was said, you're arguing against a strawman.


    Sorry but that's exactly what "what was said", means.
    Indeed, what other option do atheists have? None.

    Quantum physics does not support atheism by any means.

    I don't believe in gods.

    ROTFL.
    This is akin to a criminal saying he doesn't believe in judges, merely because he has never seen one himself!

    Do you really believe your own personal unbelief will make reality disappear?

    This is like the story of the baby ducks closing their eyes in fear and thinking that because they cannot see the predator, the predator cannot see them.

    You are like the farmer I met back in the early 70s that refused to believe that men have walked on the moon.
    His unbelief will change the facts right?
    Guess what? Just so will your adamant refusal to believe change the existence of God.

    Sheesh. Get real.

    ReplyDelete
  151. You didn't get the point...

    If you feel I don't understand what you have said, then please explain it.

    "Some of those people in your list did not make theistic arguments."

    They were all theist or deists - most were full blown creationists
    .

    I was speaking of "people who made theistic arguments" you have moved to goalposts to "theists".

    The number of theistic scientists has always vastly outnumbered the atheist ones (here's where you attempt to rebut this by bringing up the members of the NAS Lol).

    Prove that the number of theistic scientists now vastly outnumber the atheist one.

    The whole point is your very childish description of theists as childish. YOU are the truly childish thinker in all this!

    You've descended to "I am rubber, you are glue"?

    "That was not what was said, you're arguing against a strawman."

    Sorry but that's exactly what "what was said", means
    .

    Quantum physics does not support atheism by any means...

    Do you think quantum physics supports theism?

    "I don't believe in gods."

    ROTFL.
    This is akin to a criminal saying he doesn't believe in judges, merely because he has never seen one himself
    !

    You threatened me with your god's wrath. I don't believe in your god so threatening me with his wrath is pointless.

    Sheesh. Get real.

    I believe my worldview is a better description of reality. You are welcome to have all the imaginary friends you want.

    ReplyDelete
  152. ATVLC

    If you feel I don't understand what you have said, then please explain it.

    Hawking's physics may be fine, but his philosophy and logic are abysmal.
    That's what his ex is saying, and who should know him better?

    He's incompetent, or inept to quote her, to comment on metaphysics -like so many other scientists- yet his "universe from nothing" is not science but inane metaphysical interpretations.

    I was speaking of "people who made theistic arguments" you have moved to goalposts to "theists".


    No, you can't deal with the fact that you're a fundamentalist disciple of a very small minority of humans that could not endure the reality of God.
    Pretty much all of the the scientists, philosophers etc., I could name on the believing side have given testimony to their belief in God in some form.

    How many quotes do you want?

    Prove that the number of theistic scientists now vastly outnumber the atheist one.

    It's always been that way.
    You deny this? Then you prove it.

    Only since the post modernist philosophy age can we even count the count ones that are atheists.
    The theistic and deistic ones still greatly outnumber the truly atheist one.
    Atheist propaganda won't change that for you.

    So, prove the contrary.

    There are around 1.5 billion Xians in the world today and 1.2 billion Muslims.
    How many of those are scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, engineers etc.?

    Do the math fer petes sake.

    You've descended to "I am rubber, you are glue"?

    Oh brother! You really don't get it do you.

    My whole point was showing that your anserine declaration that theists are childish, is itself childish and dead wrong. You might try to keep up.

    Do you think quantum physics supports theism?

    Many think so, I don't know whether it should even be involved ... yet.
    Atheists like you are the ones that bring it up as some sort of supposed argument against absolutes. A very foolish move indeed.

    You threatened me with your god's wrath.

    So now you feel "threatened" by me with God's wrath?
    Sheesh. Get real.

    I don't believe in your god so threatening me with his wrath is pointless.

    See previous answer to this first class drivel of yours.

    And um, I don't much care what you believe or not. Your belief and unbelief, in whatever you please, changes absolutely nothing of the reality of God.

    I believe my worldview is a better description of reality.

    Your world-view is tantamount to nihilism.

    Atheism is an idea that doesn't matter since its prime implication is that nothing matters.

    You are welcome to have all the imaginary friends you want.

    I have no imaginary friends, only real ones. You?

    You are alone without Christ in the world and you will be alone forever if you don't change your "evil heart of unbelief".

    That isn't because of "wrath", that's your own stupid obstinacy in misotheism.

    God isn't sending you to hell, but if you choose to go there, nothing he can do will keep you out.

    Someday hopefully, you may decide to put an end to your childish, impossible to win war against God using all these bankrupt reasonings and ragings of yours as weapons.

    ReplyDelete
  153. ATVLC

    If you feel I don't understand what you have said, then please explain it.

    Hawking's physics may be fine, but his philosophy and logic are abysmal.
    That's what his ex is saying, and who should know him better?

    He's incompetent, inept, to quote her, to comment on metaphysics -like so many other scientists- yet his "universe from nothing" is not even science but metaphysical interpretations.

    I was speaking of "people who made theistic arguments" you have moved to goalposts to "theists".

    No, you can't deal with the fact that you're a fundamentalist disciple of a very small minority of humans that could not endure the reality of God.
    Pretty much all of the the scientists, philosophers etc., I could name, on the believing side, have given testimony to their belief in God in some form.

    How many quotes do you want?

    Prove that the number of theistic scientists now vastly outnumber the atheist one.

    It's always been that way.
    You deny this? Then you prove it.

    Only since the post modernist philosophy age can we even count the count ones that are atheists.
    The theistic and deistic ones still greatly outnumber the truly atheist ones.
    Atheist propaganda won't change that for you.

    Now, prove the contrary.

    There are around 1.5 billion Xians in the world today and 1.2 billion Muslims.
    How many of those are scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, engineers etc.?

    Do the math

    You've descended to "I am rubber, you are glue"?

    My whole point was showing that your anserine declaration that theists are childish, is itself childish and dead wrong. You might try to keep up.

    Do you think quantum physics supports theism?

    I don't know whether it should even be involved ... yet.

    Atheists like you are the ones that bring it up as some sort of supposed argument against absolutes.

    You threatened me with your god's wrath.

    Omg, So now you feel "threatened" by me with God's wrath?
    If I tell you'll go yo jail if you rob a bank, do you feel threatened by my governments "wrath"?

    I don't believe in your god so threatening me with his wrath is pointless.

    See previous answer to this first class drivel of yours.

    Your belief and unbelief, in whatever you please, changes absolutely nothing of the reality of God.

    I believe my worldview is a better description of reality.


    Your world-view is tantamount to nihilism.

    Atheism is an idea that doesn't matter since its prime implication is that nothing matters.

    You are welcome to have all the imaginary friends you want.


    I have no imaginary friends, only real ones. You?

    You are alone without Christ in the world and you will be alone forever if you don't change your "evil heart of unbelief".

    That isn't because of "wrath" but because of your own obstinacy in misotheism.

    Someday hopefully, you may decide to put an end to your childish, impossible to win war against God using all these bankrupt reasonings and ragings of yours as weapons.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Hawking's physics may be fine, but his philosophy and logic are abysmal.
    That's what his ex is saying, and who should know him better
    ?

    Hawking's physics fine? Fine?
    I think you are uncomfortable with what physics is discovering.

    Remember regarding his discoveries you said they were "Sublimely ludicrous. Again, Hawking et al. are way off and even his ex-wife says so."

    You dismissed the discoveries of one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, physicists of all time because a student of medieval Spanish poetry divorced him?

    Let me go along with ATVLC here - when it comes to physics- Stephen Hawking probably knows more than a student of medieval Spanish poetry. You can accept these discoveries because they make you uncomfortable.

    ReplyDelete
  155. The last line of my last comment should read "You can not..."

    "...the reality of God."

    There's no proof your god exists so it's a bit early to use phrases like "the reality of God".

    ...
    "You deny this? Then you prove it."
    YOU made the assertion, you prove it.

    "Now, prove the contrary."
    YOU made the assertion, YOU have to prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Andy

    There's no proof your god exists so it's a bit early to use phrases like "the reality of God".


    Of course there is and I've already given some - to which you respond with mere denial or nothing at all. Like the baby ducks again.

    YOU made the assertion, you prove it.

    I did. Too bad you can't figure even that much out!

    YOU made the assertion, YOU have to prove it.

    See above.
    You think my proof is insufficient? Prove it wrong.
    You already know you can't.

    Besides you're still simply avoiding and backpedaling to get out of having to face your own inglorious errors. And that too is childish.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Before I go on I want to get this straight... you honestly believe you proved it?

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

    ReplyDelete
  159. AT:
    And as to your claim that several hundred million other scientists, philosophers and mathematicians made theistic arguments; prove it.


    G:
    "The number of theistic scientists has always vastly outnumbered the atheist ones (here's where you attempt to rebut this by bringing up the members of the NAS Lol)."

    AT:
    Prove that the number of theistic scientists now vastly outnumber the atheist one.

    G:
    It's always been that way.
    You deny this? Then you prove it.

    Only since the post modernist philosophy age can we even count the count ones that are atheists.
    The theistic and deistic ones still greatly outnumber the truly atheist ones.
    Atheist propaganda won't change that for you.

    Now, prove the contrary.

    There are around 1.5 billion Xians in the world today and 1.2 billion Muslims.
    How many of those are scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, engineers etc.?

    Do the math



    ME:
    "Now, prove the contrary."
    YOU made the assertion, YOU have to prove it.


    Gary:
    You think my proof is insufficient? Prove it wrong.
    You already know you can't.


    ME:
    I want to get this straight.
    Your proof that the number of theistic scientists NOW VASTLY outnumber the atheist ones is - there are currently 2.7 billion Christians and Muslims?
    Seriously?
    And is this also your "proof" that "several hundred million other scientists, philosophers and mathematicians made theistic arguments"?

    ReplyDelete
  160. Andy

    Before I go on I want to get this straight... you honestly believe you proved it?

    Before you go on with what? You haven't said anything yet!
    You just whine and deny and avoid -that isn't saying something and its not "going on" but going nowhere -which of course fits the whole of the atheism world-view.

    Q: Why don't you try to prove that atheism is even just logical?
    A: You can't even do that!

    Nevertheless, here's why you should realize that my "proof", given in a nutshell form earlier, is correct:

    Given that there are ± 2 billion Xians and ± 1.2 billion Muslims on earth and that there scientists, philosophers, etc. within those numbers;
    Given that the number scientists in India grows annually among the 1,2 billion population and that they are mostly Hindus & Muslim;
    Given that only 16% of the worlds population is "non-religious" (this includes agnostics so it is not 16% atheist!);
    Given that these figures all by themselves indicate that atheists are the minority I suggest you "do the math" before attempting to prove otherwise.

    Even officially atheist China only has a between 8-14% atheist pop.!

    Here are the stats.

    See the book, "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think". Here is bit from the book jacket:
    In the course of her research, Ecklund surveyed nearly 1,700 scientists and interviewed 275 of them. She finds that most of what we believe about the faith lives of elite scientists is wrong. Nearly 50 percent of them are religious. Many others are what she calls “spiritual entrepreneurs,” seeking creative ways to work with the tensions between science and faith outside the constraints of traditional religion…..only a small minority are actively hostile to religion.

    I seriously suggest you actually do some homework before engaging in your usual vacuous responses.

    In the end, I've already proven you very wrong with your infantile "theism is childish" tripe.

    If by childish we mean immature, irresponsible, puerile, petty, ignorant -Few world-views could be as childish as atheism and atheists.

    You lose.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Here are the stats.

    That's for "people".

    Scientists is a category within the "people".

    "Scientists who have made theistic arguments" is a category within "scientists".

    Do your own homework.

    ReplyDelete
  162. "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

    I have a PDF of the book.

    72% of scientists (including the social sciences) who are explicitly non-theistic in their religious views.

    9% of scientists chose "I have no doubts about God's existence."

    ReplyDelete
  163. The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.

    Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

    Note: Natural sciences only not including social sciences.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Andy

    I knew you'd bring in that specific survey in Nature. I even mentioned the NAS.

    I hope you don't really believe that the NAS is representative of all scientists all over the globe.

    My figures are global, ie international.

    The NAS is not international but national. It represents mostly the USA. "The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates..."

    Hint: there are ± 5.8 million scientists in the world -AAAS 2006

    Sorry but you really need to admit the simple truth, and it isn't on your side.
    Of course, in atheism, there is no real truth, just relativism.

    Maybe you could use the standard relativist backwards logic to convince yourself that the majority of believing scientists across the globe and throughout history were mostly atheists.

    Sorry Andy, but "you been had" by atheist marketing, propaganda and sophism.

    Now would be a good time to repent ie change your mind and heart and let God be God in your life.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Gary is a walking example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
    He goes by the books dust jacket instead of the data in the book!

    People have complained that the information on page 6 and the dust jacket does not seem to match the information in her surveys.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Adam

    Gary is a walking example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
    He goes by the books dust jacket instead of the data in the book!


    So you learned a new term huh.
    One that applies to you very well judging by the evidence seen here.

    You are lame Ad, and getting lamer all the time.

    Still no answers I see, just inane cheap shots.

    I'd bet that even as having a mere B.S.c in informatics with 17 years experience, having an equivalent to a Masters in theology, plus studies in meteorology, navigation, aerodynamics and several other domains in which I've worked and been an instructor, that I have 10x more knowledge than you ever will -until your get your head out of your butt.

    Cheap shots like this, while so typical of brain dead atheists desperate to finding some way to defend themselves, is just laughable.

    People have complained that the information on page 6 and the dust jacket does not seem to match the information in her surveys.

    Ask me if I care. That was a mere example of one person's current research. The global data is overwhelmingly against you.

    Maybe you should read the book yourself rather than copy/pasting from your fave atheist wackaloon site.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Ask me if I care...

    Do you care that the actual survey inside the book is different than what you quoted?

    ReplyDelete
  168. Adam sends me a link to scienceblogs as well.

    Wow, how much worse can it get?

    Precious little science there, but tons of pseudo-scientific verbal diarrhea such as atheists enjoy swallowing whole without question, all while believing themselves at a fine banquet.

    TPT ranter and mathematician Jason Rosenhouse no less, yet another atheist wannabe expert in philosophy, theology and biology.

    He says, "Any argument that requires you to believe that several generations of scientists have overlooked a simple logical fallacy can be dismissed out of hand."

    Well gee, who'd a known that scientists must be trusted without question.

    Can you say "flat earth"? Well how about, AGW? Or a few hundred other bogus claims made by scientists throughout history?

    "Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your
    wallet, because you’re being had."
    ...
    "In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were
    infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence.
    The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually
    eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew,
    ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever
    until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five
    years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the
    world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of
    women.
    There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people,
    mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was
    infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that
    diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger
    demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was
    not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules
    containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. ...
    -M. Crichton.

    And the beat of stupidity in the sci community goes on stronger than ever before in the 21st century -all because of its insistence on materialist religion underlying its principal logic.

    I'll bet Rosenhouse thinks the Drake equation is a scientific marvel that really works.

    Whatever, dream on Adam, sooner or later some small shaft of light is bound to break through your willful barrier of darkness.

    Oh, and you're still avoiding the main questions, and you've still offered nothing but caviling.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Well gee, who'd a known that scientists must be trusted without question.

    NOT what he said.

    ReplyDelete
  170. ...and you're still avoiding the main questions

    You'll have to remind me what these "main questions" are.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Adam

    NOT what he said.

    WHAT he implied.
    Learn to figure out logic implications of statements please.

    Remind you of the main questions?!
    Again?
    Seriously, do you have ADD? Or are you just willfully seeking escape?

    ReplyDelete
  172. Remind you of the main questions?!
    Again?
    Seriously, do you have ADD? Or are you just willfully seeking escape
    ?

    It's a fair question when a conversation is spread of a week.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Well how about, AGW? Or a few hundred other bogus claims made by scientists throughout history

    Oh, go on now! What's so bogus about climate change?

    its insistence on materialist religion underlying its principal logic.

    OH! You want to introduce ~magical~ explanations to science? Supernatural explanations have failed every time.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Reading this thread.

    Note the constant use of "absolute." This is one of those terms philosophically naive people love to throw around. It's very, very unclear what it means. Sometimes it is used just for emphasis "Is this a table? Yes. Yes, absolutely!" Sometimes it is used to mean "unqualified", as in "absolutely no exceptions!" But neither of these fit the way it's used here, and I venture to say that it really doesn't mean anything clear at all.

    ReplyDelete
  175. CrapPusher

    It's a fair question when a conversation is spread of a week.

    You're as bad as Ad if you can't figure out how to use your search functions and are too lazy to look.

    Oh, go on now! What's so bogus about climate change?

    I hoped you'd stick some of your usual crap in here upon seeing that.

    I said AGW, not mere CC.
    If you don't know the difference go look up "climate gate".

    OH! You want to introduce ~magical~ explanations to science?


    Take a long walk off a short bridge Crappy.
    You atheist drones are the ones perpetually bringing up "magic".

    Real science should always go wherever the evidence leads. If the evidence points to an origin outside our universe, which Big Bang theory does very clearly, then a outside of nature as we know it (super-natural) origin is the only explanation that exists. Whatever is outside of our own universe is, by definition, supra natural.

    The universe did not "create itself".
    Nothing creates nothing.
    The universe had a beginning.
    Ero, whatever caused it is not within it, ergo a super-natural cause is the only possible answer.

    Note the constant use of "absolute."

    So here we go again.

    Are there absolute truths are not?
    Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?

    This is one of those terms philosophically naive people love to throw around.

    The philosophically ignorant and naive here are the atheists, who appear to understand nothing of either logic or philosophy either historical or current -like you.

    ...But neither of these fit the way it's used here, and I venture to say that it really doesn't mean anything clear at all.

    This reveals that do indeed know exactly what it means here; otherwise you could not notice that it is not used as per your own examples. What other meaning is left?
    You just don't like the implications. Poor you huh

    As usual, atheists understand nothing of the logical implications or irrational nature of their own position, yet are prepared to lose everything for it.

    "What would be the profit to a man if he gained the world and lost his soul? And what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"

    Given that atheism is tantamount to nihilism, which it necessarily leads to, you're all willing to perish for exactly "nothing".

    "Nothing" describes the atheist answer for everything.

    So, in this thread anyway, you poor truth hating nihilists will get no further posts from me as I'm finished playing your stupid childish little word games.

    ReplyDelete
  176. "climate gate"...

    was nothing but a right-wing stunt.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Supernatural explanations ARE magic, Gary.
    Sorry if the truth upsets you.

    I don't blame you for wanting to run away instead of defining the words you wish to use.

    ReplyDelete
  178. So, in this thread anyway, you poor truth hating nihilists will get no further posts from me as I'm finished playing your stupid childish little word games.

    It's sad that you refuse to examine your own world-view.


    Your evidence: "Good events not explainable by current knowledge of the laws of nature and/or simply contrary to those laws" is simply an argument from ignorance.
    Just because you don't know the explanation does not mean the explanation is supernatural.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Heh.

    Gary was funny.
    He seemed so over-the-top sometimes, I was wondering if he was a poe troll.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>