November 22, 2010

Genocide or Capital Punishment?

In a discussion of war ANTZILLA claimed that most atheists feel that "it's wrong to go to war based on holy books of any kind."

Back when I was an Atheist, I probably would agree.

Ant asked: "How is it that you changed your morals? Now that you believe in the [B]ible, why has it became acceptable to you, for people to go to war based on a holy book (as long as it is your book)"

I used the example of the civil war about slavery to highlight what is right in the eyes of God, and what is worth fighting for. It was completely justified. Now, there might be some atheists out there that say it was not justified, but they probably would not want to admit to that publicly.

Also, a great deal has changed since I was born again. I used to think a lot of things were just fine and now I do not. I thought strong drinks were fine, in fact I loved to, literally, gargle tequila. My all time favorite drink was a double Chivas on the rocks. Its been many, many years since I have touched either and I don't miss them at all. I used to love what I called "fornication Fridays" but have turned away from those days long ago and not just because I am married now. I have been changed and I cannot explain it fully. It certainly was not because I wanted to. I loved sin, now I don't.

I just read a great article called "Killing the Canaanites" by Clay Jones in the CRI Journal so this is fresh in my mind. Was killing the Canaanites justified? Yes. Completely. We would be hard pressed not to deliver a verdict of capital punishment on them even in these days. Capital punishment is completely justified and I encourage it as a solution against evil. The Canaanites were a very wicked bunch. From what I read they were rampant incestuous, adulterous, idolatrous, child sacrificing people. Not only did they encourage homosexuality, but bestiality! They deserved to die. Sodom and Gomorrah had a justified fate. It was not divine genocide, it was capital punishment. I cannot see it any other way these days. In the past I would say it was harsh and decry the actions as genocide but it would be only to justify my own sinfulness.

God hates sin, as an Atheist I did not. My authority reference has dramatically changed for the better. Thank the Lord.




bit.ly/CapitalPun

144 comments:

  1. You don't think your "wrong but justified" actually means "right"?

    (Copy and pasted from other thread)

    ReplyDelete
  2. CU,

    >>You don't think your "wrong but justified" actually means "right"?

    Well we are not meting out justice, God is. Sin is not against us, it is against God. Remember we are the criminals in the dock here, God is the Judge. What are you referring to as wrong and by what standard/authority?

    ReplyDelete
  3. It was not divine genocide...

    If it really happened, it was.
    Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

    Was killing the Canaanites justified? Yes. Completely. ... They deserved to die.

    Now. Here's what happens to your brain on religion! It can convince a person that an entire race is bad and must be killed.

    I used the example of the civil war about slavery to highlight what is right in the eyes of God,

    Read the Bible. God was O.K. with slavery. You're even allowed to beat your slaves to death (if it takes them longer than a day to die). Paul disliked slave trading but was fine with slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  4. More nonsense, talked about here.

    To say that everyone, including the children of those people had to die because, among other things, they were sacrificing children, should be self-evidently morally contradictory and self-defeating.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I forgot to say: Read the entire article, starting from where the link is.

    Or even the whole article itself, if you want.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Capital punishment has been abolished in civilized countries. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  7.      "Well we are not meting out justice, God is."
         Ooh, you almost got it right. Such wholesale slaughter is never justice. I am opposed to capital punishment in general. (It is, after all, little more than state-sponsored murder.) But to make the claim even that that is what happened you would need a trial for the defendants. What was their crime? Well, according to the bible, their crime (man, woman, child, infant, and suckling) was inhabiting the land that the biblical god was "giving" to his "chosen people." Anything else thrown in as an excuse is a red herring.
         Face the facts, Dan. Most of your charge against them isn't even supported by the bible. It was invented later by christians to create an emotional state and get people to say that they "deserved to die." It is no different from the antichrist getting people emotionally to believe that christians "deserve to die" -- something I understand many christians think will happen in "the last days."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dan,
    Thankyou for your answer.

    No words I have can describe the disgust I have, at your hypocrisy covering so many levels!

    Atheism debunked? I think not.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ant,

    >>No words I have can describe the disgust I have, at your hypocrisy covering so many levels!

    If an Atheist detests a Christian it means the Christian is doing something right. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dan spews,
    "if an Atheist detests a Christian it means the Christian is doing something right. :7)"

    Right in your relative moral view, you mean.

    Please don't try and kill me based on what you read in your stupid book.

    "they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)"

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dan would have been a good Nazi.

    "From what I've read the Jews were a wicked people. They deserved to die. It wasn't genocide, it was capital punishment!"

    Well we are not meting out justice, God is.

    Genocide is not justice. And YHWH was not the one behind the swords doing the killing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Crap Usher,
    You mean Nazis' made good Christians

    ReplyDelete
  13. You know Dan,BEFORE you post it would probably be wise to remember that most of us have read and studied that holy book of yours and rightly consider it to be crap.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dan,

    I took a moment, and assumed that you are a rational being and attempted a conversation using logic. However your responce to the question has lead me to believe otherwise.

    My question to you is, How can you justify your use of logic since your brain has been addled by alcohlism?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I walked around a bit, wondering if I was being too hard on Dan... but forget it.

    Here is someone saying certain races of people are bad therefore it's right to kill everyone of that race.

    I feel like Dan is trolling us with this obvious racism.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Guys,

    It has nothing to do with race here. It had everything to do with wickedness. Even God's chosen people were punished because of their actions/wickedness. Their fate was not like the Canaanites, but God took the land away from the Isaelites because of their unfaithfulness and gave it to the Babylonians. (586 BC)

    And enacting God's will is very different then God's instructions followed. One is not justified, and one is.

    Besides how can anything be wrong in an atheistic worldview anyway. If evolution dictates survival of the fittest, time and chance acting on matter as a mere series of chemical reactions, then you all should be OK with it. Like Wilson said in the Atheistic worldview "morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain."

    Since you are not acting as if that is true, you are attempting to argue from a Christian's worldview against the Christian's worldview, yet again. Once again, Reductio ad absurdum.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dan:

         It is not the position of anyone here that there mere fact that something happens in nature makes it good. But I must say that the phrasing of your question suggests that you don't have a concept of "good." You only have the dictates of the biggest bully.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Pvb,

    >>But I must say that the phrasing of your question suggests that you don't have a concept of "good." You only have the dictates of the biggest bully.

    Nope, I just didn't care, as all of you, what was good in God's eyes when I was an Atheist. "Fornication Friday's" were perfectly acceptable to me. Now I respect, and honor, God as the Creator. "Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." ~Romans 7:7

    ReplyDelete
  19. So now "Fornication Friday's", whatever that means, is unacceptable but genocide is acceptable?

    And you've proud that it offends people?

    ReplyDelete
  20. CU,

    >>So now "Fornication Friday's", whatever that means, is unacceptable but genocide is acceptable?

    Certainly not. Red herring was obvious. Capitol punishment is not genocide no matter how you want to spin it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. More accurate would be the Bare assertion fallacy, instead of the red herring, but you get the point.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The definition of genocide has already been posted in this thread.

    Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

    It's genocide by definition.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Voltaire: 'As long as we believe in absurdities we shall continue to commit atrocities.'

    You decided it was justified the kill an entire race of people?

    Can't you see the path this is leading you down?

    ReplyDelete
  24. If evolution dictates survival of the fittest, time and chance acting on matter as a mere series of chemical reactions, then you all should be OK with it.

    Dan punches strawman! BAM

    Why should we concider anything you say Dan.

    By your worldview It's prefectly fine for Muslism's to commit genocide Americans based the actions of their Christain government.

    Why should we concider anything you say Dan? After all your brain has been poisoned from alcohol abuse and your brain is that damaged you believe a book, yes a BOOK to be supernatural.

    And your relitive morals have been adjusted accordanly. No supernatual intervention here.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dan

         "[Capital] punishment is not genocide no matter how you want to spin it."
         And killing every man, woman, child, infant, and suckling is genocide, not capital punishment -- no matter how you want to spin it. It really is that simple. If they killed the babies, it was murder. Because the babies cannot have done anything wrong.
         "Nope, I just didn't care, as all of you, what was good in God's eyes when I was an Atheist."
         And now you care only what your god, the biggest bully, dictates. You do not think for yourself what is right and wrong. And you willing to excuse even genocide if the biggest bully commands it. Indeed, that's what the whole post was about.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I'm sure Jesus would have disagreed with you/your bible.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 'Cause of course we all know the children of the Canaanites were guilty as hell too, right?

    It's a sad but true facet of human history that people can be and indeed have been led to believe all kinds of wicked things about those their leaders consider enemies. Check out some WWI propaganda from Britain and France that claimed the German soldiers routinely speared babies with their bayonets and raped nuns. Check out the Nazi propaganda claiming that the Jewish people were guilty of every kind of depravity.

    That's pretty much what you're dealing with regarding the slaughter of the Canaanites (amongst others) - propaganda, this time meant to paint the Hebrews as conquering heroes who were 'justified' because their God told them to kill. After all, when you're in need of a bit of extra lebensraum, it's as well to feel convinced that you're doing it for some other cause than pure avarice...

    ReplyDelete
  28. You're obviously a raving loon.

    Debunking atheism? Give me a break.

    With half-wits like you in its ranks, Christianity hardly needs debunking.

    Thank God for that, then.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Pvb,

    >> And killing every man, woman, child, infant, and suckling is genocide, not capital punishment -- no matter how you want to spin it. It really is that simple. If they killed the babies, it was murder. Because the babies cannot have done anything wrong.

    Are you talking about the Canaanites? Because if so, you are arguing my point. The Canaanites certainly did kill babies and it was murder. They did deserve to die. Get my point yet?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Bullhorn Twotails,

    >>Debunking atheism?

    So you haven't learned how to read, read the blog title again.

    >>With half-wits like you in its ranks, Christianity hardly needs debunking.

    At least half-wits know how to read and you mean Christianity cannot be debunked. Huge difference.

    >>Thank God for that, then.

    So it worked then. You are now thanking God for things. Goal accomplished. Welcome

    ReplyDelete
  31. They were killing children so the Jews had to kill all of them including their children?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dan
    "Are you talking about the Canaanites? Because if so, you are arguing my point. The Canaanites certainly did kill babies and it was murder. They did deserve to die. Get my point yet?"


    SOME Canaanites may have killed babies according to Christain propaganda.

    Then why didn't the Christains only kill the individuals who comminted the crime? Why kill EVERY man woman child?

    Please defend your
    The Canaanites (or insert any other civilisation that Christain came across) killed some babies (insert Christian propaganda), so we killed them all mentality

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dan:

         "Because if so, you are arguing my point. The Canaanites certainly did kill babies and it was murder."
         You have not established to my satisfaction that they did. However, even assuming, for the sake of argument that the adults had done so (even in that case it would likely be few of them) for the Israelis to kill the children was, itself, murder. Got that? Not "capital punishment," murder. The "child sacrifice" claim was an invention to provide an illusion of justification for genocide. Did your god say "spare the little children in the land"? Or did he say "show them no mercy"?
         No, I did not make your point for you, unless your point is that the biblical god required child sacrifice.
         "The [Canaanite babies] certainly did kill babies and it was murder. They did deserve to die. Get my point yet?"
         Somehow, I don't believe the babies killed babies or deserved to die. If you want to argue for the adults, I will need some documentation that does not come from the Israelis who admitted to killing babies but justified it with a "command" from their god.

    ReplyDelete
  34. As I said, not only are you stark raving mad, but, by all appearances, an idiot too. Par for the course, when it comes to the lunatic religious fringe.

    As for your attempt at sardonic humour, it fell flat. But that's again to be expected from semi-literate fools like you.

    You're obviously three sheets to the wind, & beyond recovery.

    And were never an atheist to begin with....

    Now go back to your sandbox & rejoin the other drooling kiddies!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dan said:"The Canannites certainly did kill babies and it was murder.They did deserve to die. Get my point yet?"
    So Dan, the Hebrew god told the Hebrews to kill all the Canannites. And Oh yes by the way. The innocent babies those evil Canannites didn't kill. Kill them too.
    Yes Dan,I get your point. Paththological

    ReplyDelete
  36. Seriously though, Dan can't defend this as moral. All he can do (evinced by the fact that it's all hes done so far) is assert that it was moral because God did it.

    He'll say anything, throw up any weak justification for it - no matter what he's told. Simply put, he's not going to listen to you, nor is he going to consider that he's wrong.

    He presupposes the correctness of his ideas. It's the logical conclusion of an absolutist theology.

    Don't waste your time, folks.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Pvb,

    >>You have not established to my satisfaction that they did.

    Exactly!! If ever, you mean. Certainly historical apocrypha will not suffice.

    >>The "child sacrifice" claim was an invention to provide an illusion of justification for genocide.

    Speaking of evidence, kettle. Any evidence for this bare assertion?

    >>I will need some documentation that does not come from the Israelis...

    Oh say no more, we understand your bigotry.

    Let me make yet another point here. You are still looking as if this is the only realm that exists. You believe that this world is generally good. But, if God and Heaven does exist, then the children who left this realm will be in a much better place. Maybe God didn't want that group to continue to reveal His wrath and showed His mercy when the babies and children showed up at His gate. I am sure they are in a much better place, Heaven, then their parents provided for them. God brought them home where they belong. That is the outcome of failed parenting on earth (losing children). I agree with it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Missed opportunity,

    I should of added 1 Peter 4:19 after that rant.

    ReplyDelete
  39.      "I will need some documentation that does not come from the Israelis who admitted to killing babies but justified it with a 'command' from their god."
         "Oh say no more, we understand your bigotry."
         Apparently I need to say a lot more. I cited a specific subset of Israelis as unreliable -- the ones that admitted killing babies but were justifying it with a "command" from their god. Someone thought it would fruitful to lop off the important qualifier to present a deceptive image.
         "Speaking of evidence, kettle. Any evidence for this bare assertion?"
         How about the fact that Deuteronomy 7 makes no mention of the alleged child sacrifice. It only mentions serving other gods. Clearly the original authors decided that it didn't matter what that service entailed. The "child sacrifice" claim came later when there would be no possibility of verification. That means it was invented. Any relation to reality would be, and I know you don't like this word, coincidence.
         "But, if God and Heaven does exist, then the children who left this realm will be in a much better place."
         On what do you base this? A god who would order the murder of these little children would then magnify his "glory" by sending them to hell. If he chose not to spare them in life, there is no reason to think he would spare them afterward.

    ReplyDelete
  40. PVb,

    >>On what do you base this? A god who would order the murder of these little children would then magnify his "glory" by sending them to hell. If he chose not to spare them in life, there is no reason to think he would spare them afterward.

    Now, I have posted about that already, but children go to hell? No way!

    GotQuestions.org addressed it this way:

    "(1) Children are not innocent (Psalm 51:5; 58:3). (2) These children would have likely grown up as adherents to the evil religions and practices of their parents. (3) By ending their lives as children, God enabled them to have entrance into Heaven. We strongly believe that all children who die are accepted into Heaven by the grace and mercy of God (2 Samuel 12:22-23; Mark 10:14-15; Matthew 18:2-4)."

    Amen Shea.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dan:

         Got questions did not say that, should the evidence point in that direction, they would not shy away from admitting the biblical god as evil. Instead they make excuses -- "his ways are not our ways," "his thoughts are not our thoughts." And you are trying to make your god being good a presupposition. Well, the evidence points the other way.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Whateverman, you're no doubt correct that we're wasting our time if our intention is to have Dan see the error of his ways.

    One must admit, though, to a certain horrid fascination in seeing Dan repeatedly declaring his murderous fanaticism in the face of so much rational objection.

    ReplyDelete
  43. DormantDragon, I tried to give this blog up years ago. Morbid fascination is what keeps me coming back :p

    Dan is wrong on the internet

    ReplyDelete
  44. What do you want me to do? LEAVE?! Then he'll still be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Dan
    Besides how can anything be wrong in an atheistic worldview anyway.
    Easy. Is it something that gives another person grief? Is it something that we'd want done to ourselves? Would such actions help to break down the order of society?

    This isn't rocket science, Dan.

    Empathy, the ideas of consequences, caring for our young, etc. is shown even in the bloody animal kingdom! Why do you people need a "god" to be moral?

    Every single time one of you superstitious yahoos says some shit like that, all you do is show us that it's you how truly have no damned "morality".

    None of our reasons for being moral are ever accepted by you people; you just keep saying that atheists have no basis for morality, or we "borrow" from xian morality or some such shit.

    If evolution dictates survival of the fittest, time and chance acting on matter as a mere series of chemical reactions, then you all should be OK with it.
    Wrong. "survial of the fittest" means a hell of a lot more than "nature red in tooth and claw" jackass.

    Try learning about something for a change? You do know that even primates have cooperative behaviors, right?

    I'm sick of this xian bloody strawman.

    Like Wilson said in the Atheistic worldview "morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain."
    Here's a newsflash, Dan. Even if your beliefs were true, all of our sensations are still caused by chemical reactions in the brain. If that weren't the case, then damage to the brain would have no effect on people, and neither would drugs that alter brain chemistry.

    It's just that those "chemical reactions" in your view are "created" by some "god".

    Since you are not acting as if that is true, you are attempting to argue from a Christian's worldview against the Christian's worldview, yet again.
    No, dimshit...the concept of morality and feelings are far older than your supersition.

    Once again, Reductio ad absurdum.
    No, just more of your typical theistic ignorance, self-righteousness and strawmen.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Let's look at the logical consequences of Dan's belief system now:

    GotQuestions.org addressed it this way:

    "(1) Children are not innocent (Psalm 51:5; 58:3). (2) These children would have likely grown up as adherents to the evil religions and practices of their parents. (3) By ending their lives as children, God enabled them to have entrance into Heaven. We strongly believe that all children who die are accepted into Heaven by the grace and mercy of God (2 Samuel 12:22-23; Mark 10:14-15; Matthew 18:2-4)."

    Amen Shea.

    What does this mean? Those kids were "saved" from going to hell because they would have otherwise have been raised by "sinners". So, the "merciful" thing was to kill them.

    Right...so why isn't the merciful thing now to go and kill the young kids of all non-believers now, Dan? Afterall, they'll get a free ticket to heaven, won't they?

    (ignoring the bible verse where "christ" said that no one goes to heaven except through him, and babies can't exactly "choose" him, now can they?)

    ReplyDelete
  47. I wonder what Dan makes of the order for the Israelites to slaughter all the Midianites...except for the female virgins who were to be kept for their use.

    We could suppose two things, if we were Dan: the Midianites, including the infant boys but excluding virgin women, were all guilty of hideous crimes that required their execution; and further, that the virgin women would be somehow 'rescued' by being kept as receptacles for Israelite seed and bearing children to Israelite fathers.

    If we're rational, however, we would read this as what it was - an order to commit effective genocide, but subsequently to increase the numbers of the conquering tribe. Moses was apparently really, really pissed off when the Israelite men showed a bit of human mercy and spared the infant males.

    ReplyDelete
  48. 'Nebuchadnezzar, after a trial of three puppet kings, carried off the greater part of the people into captivity in Babylon (587-6 BC)...'

    50 years later, auspices of the persian Cyrus allowed the people to return, bringing with them new social and cultural admixtures that formed the idea of righteousness which became the basis of the ideas of moral unity and world peace(something your Jesus was interested in).

    (It's wonderful your God found no fault with the Zoroastrianism prevalent in Persia at the time, etc etc this digression is already too long)

    Your world may be prettier since you gave up the drink and are now repressing your base sexual instincts, but it doesn't change anything. (As in, the Canaanites didn't suffer the brute of this blood feud, it was the Philistines and Medes who had all but replaced the Canaanites(from the land of Canaan, not Judah or Irseal, all separate states fyi) during the Captivity, but shit, God doesn't split hairs, does he?

    I'm not going to address your madness much, just wanted to throw a little jewel in there. You can't change history, context matters, etc. etc.


    Kill all the people you want, but don't say you're not a crazy bastard for doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  49. PVB,

    >>What do you want me to do? LEAVE?! Then he'll still be wrong.

    Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

    ReplyDelete
  50. DAN: Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

    Hmmm...the lack of quotation marks suggests to me that Dan is now attempting to pass himself off as a sage akin to the Jesus of the gospels.

    Can anyone else say, "delusions of grandeur"?

    Einstein is quoted as having said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Perhaps we're all a little guilty of that, but I think Dan's madness shines a little brighter than most, since he seems to think that merely regurgitating biblical one-liners and presuppositionalist sound bites is actually going to swing the argument in his favour.

    But by all means, Dan, continue posting your inane rantings about how the Canaanite children deserved to die. At least while you're divesting yourself of your violent fantasies in an online forum, we can suppose that you're not out in the world, acting them out. As Edward I is reported to have said, upon being presented with the great seal of Scotland and throwing it aside, "A man does good business when he rids himself of a turd."

    ReplyDelete
  51.      To those who noticed that I referenced Whateverman's link, I am quite impressed. To those who noticed that I got the line wrong, you have too much time on your hands.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Dan said,
    "I am sure they are in a much better place, Heaven, then their parents provided for them. God brought them home where they belong. That is the outcome of failed parenting on earth (losing children). I agree"

    So Dan is pro-abortion now?

    ReplyDelete
  53. NEWB2DABLOCK asks,

    So Dan is pro-abortion now?

    You would think so, given his stance on Yahweh-sanctioned infant murder, but then thinking is something that Dan's religion frowns upon. That's why his moral code can be summed up as, "If God says it, it must be right". No thought required. Easy.

    Except that the Bible has pretty much nothing to say on the subject of abortion, even though infanticide was apparently all the rage.

    You can almost catch a glimpse of Dan's human ethic struggling the surface when he tries to justify the slaughter of Canaanites down to the last baby, by supposing that firstly the adults were evil, and secondly that the babies were better off dead. One wonders why he bothers, when all that's required of his morality is to blindly follow his god's orders.

    ReplyDelete
  54.      "One wonders why he bothers, when all that's required of his morality is to blindly follow his god's orders."
         I don't wonder why he bothers. Dan knows he isn't going to get people to come to his "faith" if he openly admits he has no morality but just does what the biggest bully says. So he tries to pretend that there are justifications beyond "the bully said so." Of course, he gets stuck because some of the things he winds up advocating are so putrid that they admit of no justification. Then he has to resort to "god's ways are not our ways."

    ReplyDelete
  55. "(1) Children are not innocent (Psalm 51:5; 58:3). (2) These children would have likely grown up as adherents to the evil religions and practices of their parents. (3) By ending their lives as children, God enabled them to have entrance into Heaven. We strongly believe that all children who die are accepted into Heaven by the grace and mercy of God (2 Samuel 12:22-23; Mark 10:14-15; Matthew 18:2-4)."

    Jesus Fucking Christ! You make me sick. I regret having ever tried to have an actual conversation with the likes of you and your ilk. All I can do is make sure you never have political power.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Once again, Dan proves that the logical conclusion of Christianity is suicide or murder.

    Yay God!

    ReplyDelete
  57. Wem,

    >>Once again, Dan proves that the logical conclusion of Christianity is suicide or murder.

    Like I said: " enacting God's will is very different then God's instructions followed. One is not justified, and one is."

    >>Yay God!

    That is the right path to be on. Keep that up.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Dan says, "enacting God's will is very different then God's instructions followed."

    Anyone else have trouble noticing an actual difference between these things? Not just in practice, but even in theory?

    Oh, well. I guess making shit up and pretending that words mean something other than they do is all part and parcel of Christian apologetics.

    ReplyDelete
  59. What an excellent demonstration of relative morality.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Dan says, "enacting God's will is very different then God's instructions followed."

    I think what he trying to suggests is

    -enacting God's will is done without your concent/knowing, just part of the 'grand plan'

    -instructions followed is action done following certain dogma, magic books etc.

    Still all rubbish gibbourish none the less.

    ReplyDelete
  61. enacting God's will is done without your concent/knowing, just part of the 'grand plan'

    So much for free will, eh? And I thought this was so important to Dan's god...

    ReplyDelete
  62. The problem with using genocide for your outrage is that genocide is still man against man, race against race, religion against religion and nation against nation or some variation thereof. To apply that to Creator against creation is to abuse the term. Would an painter be accused of genocide for destroying all or some of his paintings? And yes, compared to an infinite and transcendant GOD, this is exactly what we are.

    It also does not take into account that the destruction of the Canaanites was a punishment for their sins not because of their ethnicity, race, religious or national identity.

    I find it interesting that there is so much outrage at destruction of the Canaanites and so little concerning the destruction by the Canaanites. GOD spoke His judgement on Canaan 400 years prior to its destruction. He gave them 400 years to change and they only grew worse. Four hundred years of warring on their neighbors, of human/child sacrifices, of deviant sexual practices. Yet, you decry their destruction because of their children for whom they had little regard. "God should have spared the children." Why? Do you know what state the children were in? Have you considered that killing the children of such a people might have been an a act of mercy? Of course not. Because GOD is evil in your mind.

    Your claims of extermination are also false. While some cities were destroyed completely, others were left. And what resulted from that? Exactly what GOD said would happen. The people inter-married, the Israelites were corrupted and practiced the same abominable acts for which the Canaanites were judged.

    ReplyDelete
  63. toddes,
    The issues is a bunch of people read their book, then when around killing people because of that book. No word plays by anyone will change that.

    You could swap the Canaanites for anyother cultures that did conform or agree with Christainity they got killed.

    What the world has learnt form this is that superstions are bullshit and those who believe in them in the extreme are dangerous. and those who just believe in them give power to the extreme nutjobs.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Thanks Toddes for bringing yet another voice of reason to the fray.

    Blessings to you and your family.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "Have you considered that killing the children of such a people might have been an a act of mercy?"

    And there you have it.
    This is why religions are dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  66. "Have you considered that killing the children of such a people might have been an a act of mercy?"

    So it was genocide for the elderly, adults, adolescents and euthanasia for children and babies?

    It makes you wonder if crack pots like Dan and Toddes this say this outaloud to actual people? It's easy to be a crazy bastard on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  67. ANTZILLA,

    >>It makes you wonder if crack pots like Dan and Toddes this say this outaloud to actual people? It's easy to be a crazy bastard on the internet.

    Projecting much? You do understand that you use an avatar of "ANTZILLA" to discuss things here instead of your real name. I, on the other hand, have pictures of me plastered all over this blog and I link to my facebook page that has my real name with real friends and real family. I think we all know which, out of the two of us, is hiding behind something spouting crazy things.

    Truth is liberating and never shameful. Atheism, I perfectly understand, is.

    It is you that hides in the darkness, hoping someone doesn't turn on the lights.

    Prove me wrong, attach a picture and your real name in your next comment...I didn't think so.

    Side note. I do want pics of all of you though, so I recognize the faces of those who I know to hug when I see you in Heaven. That will be a great day.

    ReplyDelete
  68.      "Would an painter be accused of genocide for destroying all or some of his paintings?"
         If those paintings were somehow sentient, then he would be guilty of murder. But is this your assertion? Is your god somehow not cognizant of our sentience?
         "It also does not take into account that the destruction of the Canaanites was a punishment for their sins not because of their ethnicity, race, religious or national identity."
         That's probably because the "punishment" angle was invented later. The reality is that, according to the story, they were slaughtered because they were occupying the land that your god decided to give to his "chosen people." Nothing more. Nothing less.
         "He gave them 400 years to change and they only grew worse. Four hundred years of warring on their neighbors, of human/child sacrifices, of deviant sexual practices."
         Deuteronomy says nothing of your god staying his hand for 400 years. It says nothing of human sacrifices. Your god actually endorses Israel warring with neighbors, promising spoils of victory. But the fact is that none of this is at issue. The only point of it was a variation of "kill the infidel."

    ---------------------------

         "Prove me wrong, attach a picture and your real name in your next comment...I didn't think so."
         I wouldn't advise it. It opens the door for some "crazies" to show up and harass people at home, at work, at the park, while shopping, etc. Yes, there are people out there who will do that.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Pvb,

    >> Yes, there are people out there who will do that.

    Maybe, but we should not be afraid of any man. (Matthew 10:28)

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

    ReplyDelete
  71. As point out by Dan these comments defiantly have a hypocrisy element on my part. For this I apologise.

    As for using my real name, I doubt that will be happening, nice try. I don't want any "Capital Punishment"



    An other point based on the blog.
    If/when the Christian marched in the Canaanites cites and ‘found’ people sacrificing babies to their deity/s. I wonder who in the Canaan society would have done these acts ;7 ? Not the Atheists that’s for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Oh, Dan, off topic so feel free to delete. I posted a nice, easy trivia question on my blog. I think you might like it.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Pvblivs wrote:

    "TIf those paintings were somehow sentient, then he would be guilty of murder. But is this your assertion? Is your god somehow not cognizant of our sentience?"

    No, the assertion was that our sentinence and existence are entirely a gift from our Creator. We are His creation and He has authority over our lives.

    "Deuteronomy says nothing of your god staying his hand for 400 years."

    That's because it's not in Deuteronomy. It's in Genesis.

    "It says nothing of human sacrifices."

    That's because the pronouncement against child sacrifice is in Leviticus not Deuteronomy.

    "That's probably because the "punishment" angle was invented later. The reality is that, according to the story, they were slaughtered because they were occupying the land that your god decided to give to his "chosen people." Nothing more. Nothing less."

    Please take time to read the four books prior to Deuteronomy. The five books form a whole with the earlier events leading into the later events. Doing this will prevent greater confusion on your part in regards to the event in question.

    ReplyDelete
  74. The Bird is the Word wrote:

    "And there you have it.
    This is why religions are dangerous."

    So I'm dangerous because I believe that a Just and Merciful God enacted justice and mercy toward a group of people 3000 years ago.

    I'm dangerous because I believe that I should:

    1) Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind.
    2) Love your neighbor as yourself.

    If this makes me dangerous then you have a weak and warped sense of danger.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Toddes:

         Those prior books say nothing of the Canaanites. There is nothing to say that they were killed for any reason beyond that they were occupying the land. Of course, because this sounds bad, christians are eager to make excuses to "justify" the atrocities.
         If you want to consider yourself a piece of property, go right ahead. But don't complain to me when you find that that is the only thing that gives the tyrant power over you.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Ant,

    >>I wonder who in the Canaan society would have done these acts ;7 ? Not the Atheists that’s for sure.

    Of course not! Atheists are pure and loving. Pshaw. Especially the likes of Stalin, Mao, Pot, Ill, Castro, and other atheist regimes. And most recently that guy from Finland that killed 8.

    "Humanity is Overrated" - Fruits of Darwinism

    Who are you trying to convince? Me or you? Think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  77. "Kill 'em and let God sort 'em out" - Fruits of Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  78. As we all know by now, religious people like to point out that the greatest genocides of the 20th century were committed by atheist regimes, even if those regimes were lead by self-professed Christians, or by radical communists which demanded religious-like devotion from their people. That is a problem in itself, yet perhaps a bigger problem is that, as in most aspects of life, they completely ignore Africa.

    Africa had genocides in the 20th century, too. The worst was in Rwanda, a country which I visited last summer. Rwanda is a very religious country, predominantly Christian, with a few Muslims and very few atheists. Yet in this highly-Christian country of less than 8 million people, one of the worst genocides in the history of humanity took place.

    The death toll of the violence is estimated at about 800,000 people, or about 10% of the population at the time. It lasted a mere 100 days, making an average of 8,000 murders per day. It has therefore been called the most efficient mass-killing since the loving, Christian Americans nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and firebombed the shit out of Tokyo. I guess nobody knows how to kill quite as efficiently as devout Christians. The Nazis, by comparison, were incompetent pussies (despite their Christian leader). Six million killed over roughly 6 years amounts to a mere 2,700 or so murders per day, on average.

    What was especially disturbing about genocide in Rwanda is that it was not merely an organised military committing the violence. Ordinary people, including children, picked up machetes and hacked their neighbours, children included, to death. Basic statistics will tell us that the majority of those murderers were Christian.

    If you go to the genocide museum in Kigali, the capital of Rwanda, you'll find some stories of the great love of Christian priests during all of this violence. When thousands of people fled to churches for what they thought was safety, some priests, perhaps scared for their own lives, or perhaps just hateful monsters, locked the people inside and called in the militia. Up to thousands of people were slaughtered per church, with the priests either actively participating, or just providing guidance to the militias. There are photos in the museum of churches with hundreds of dead bodies visible on the floors and pews.

    The next time a religious person tries to argue that the 20th century's greatest genocides were committed by atheists, remind them of Rwanda and the uncanny knack that the religious have for highly-efficient mass-murder.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Dan:

         It is pretty much a given that anyone (if there even was anyone) who was killing children as a sacrifice to the local gods believed in their reality and thus was not an atheist. No claim of superior morality needs to be made.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Dan:
    "Humanity is Overrated" - Fruits of Darwinism
    Care to justify that claim? Where did Darwin ever imply that?

    That psycho with the shirt, just like you, has no idea of what evolution means if he and you think that.

    ReplyDelete
  81. "Humanity is Overrated" - Fruits of Darwinism

    >>Care to justify that claim? Where did Darwin ever imply that?

    Well that 'fruit' lead Hitler to create a superior race and also lead Dawkins to say:

    "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication. Some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good; nothing but pitiless indifference." ~Richard Dawkins (River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life)

    Also, lets not forget it gave Atheists an avenue, or platform, in suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God.

    >>That psycho with the shirt, just like you, has no idea of what evolution means if he and you think that.

    He and you? Any evidence, or bare assertion? Humanity was created to worship God. We are His children. I certainly do not believe "children" are overrated, So I do not know where you got that. Now, "pitiless indifference" is well in that camp of thought.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Dan, showing his historical ignorance:

    Well that 'fruit' lead Hitler to create a superior race....

    First, I'll deal with the Hitler canard:

    How many times did Hitler say that he admired Darwin? How many times did Hitler mention Darwain in his writings? I've read Mein Kampf, and I can tell you. None.

    This is maybe an indicator of how much Hitler liked Darwin
    In 1935, Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries listed books to reject:

    Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). (Die Bücherei 1935, 279)

    They made an undated "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries" includes the following on a list of literature which "absolutely must be removed":
    c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.
    (Blacklist n.d.)

    from the "Index to Creationist Claims is where I first found this. Check out his source.

    Guess who Hitler did say he admired in his book? Martin Luther. The guy who wrote On the Jews and Their Lies... He's one of your guys, isn't he?

    Here's another guy who admired your Martin Luther...
    Julius Streicher (one of Hitler's top henchmen and publisher of the anti-Semitic Der Sturmer) was asked during the Nuremberg trials if there were any other publications in Germany which treated the Jewish question in an anti-Semitic way., Streicher put it well:
    "Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants' dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution. In the book 'The Jews and Their Lies,' Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent's brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them..."

    Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945-- 1 October 1946, Vol. 12, p.318


    In Mein Kampf, Hitler said that it was some christian preacher, Karl Leuger who first inculated anti-Jewish hatred in him.
    (see Hitler, Mein Kampf: Volume 1, Chapter 2.)

    "I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party ... The man and the movement seemed 'reactionary' in my eyes. My common sense of justice, however, forced me to change this judgment in proportion as I had occasion to become acquainted with the man and his work; and slowly my fair judgment turned to unconcealed admiration. Today, more than ever, I regard this man as the greatest German mayor of all times ... How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement! My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all."

    ReplyDelete
  83. More Hitler fun as he caters to his target audience in his book. Guess who it is, "darwinists" or someone else?
    "Certainly we don't have to discuss these matters with the Jews, the most modern inventors of this cultural perfume. Their whole existence is an embodied protest against the aesthetics of the Lord's image."
    Mein Kampf Volume 1, Chapter 6.

    "What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe."
    Mein Kampf Volume 1, Chapter 9.

    You can say he didn't believe that himself, that he wasn't a true "Christian", but so what? Who do you think he was catering to there?


    Hitler:
    For us, this is not a problem you can turn a blind eye to-one to be solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated. Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst. Speech delivered by Hitler in Salzburg, 7 or 8 August 1920. (NSDAP meeting)

    Do you people go after the guy who came up with the germ theory of disease, since Hitler made use of that theory?
    Read Mein Kampf. There's more of that.

    For similar information, check out GENOCIDE AS IMMUNOLOGY:
    The Psychosomatic Source of Culture
    by Richard Koenigsberg

    ReplyDelete
  84. For some of Darwin's views about "races", check out his "Descent of Man" from 1871

    "But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed. Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory de St-Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them."

    (you do realize that all people thought like the first part of the last sentence above in Darwin’s time, but it’s Darwin’s observations that led him to say: "it is hardly possible to discover distinictive character between them."

    About Darwin's first book,
    On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, when they talk about "races" it's used as an alternative for "varieties" – the first use in the book refers to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage", and Darwin proceeds to discuss "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants".[10]
    From Wikipedia about The Origin of Species. Read the book yourself if you want.

    If you want, try looking up "blood libel" on the net. See how much "darwinism" is in there. The Jewish Encyclopedia may be a good place to look, too.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Time for some reading.
    The Popes Against the Jews: The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism
    by David I. Kertzer

    After Auschwitz: Religion and the Origins of the Death Camps." Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, Ind., 1966

    "Theologian Richard Rubenstein wrote that the Nazis "did not invent a new villain...They took over the 2,000-year-old Christian trdition of the Jew as villain...The roots of the death camps must be sought in the mythic structure of Christianity...Myths concerning the demonological role of the Jews have been operative in Christianity for centuries..."


    Has God Rejected His People? Anti-Judaism in the Christian Church, Abingdon, Nashville, Tenn. 1982

    "Theologian Clark Williamson of Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis, said centuries of Christian hostility to Jews "prepared the way for the Holocaust" he said the Nazis "are inconcievable apart from this Christian tradition. Hitler's pogrom, for all its distinctiveness, is the zenith of a long Christian heritage of teaching and practice against Jews".

    Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism

    Dagobert Runes' books: "The Jew and the Cross" and "The War Against the Jew" by Philosophical Library, New York.
    "Everything Hitler did to the Jews, all the horrible, unspeakable misdeeds, had already been done to the smitten people before by the Christian churches....The isolation of Jews into ghetto camps, the wearing of the yellow spot, the burning of Jewish books, and finally the burning of the people-Hitler learned it all from the church. However, the church burned Jewish women and children alive, while Hitler granted them a quicker death, choking them first with gas."

    Don't believe those sources? Then check out some sources from Judaism who, unlike you, have done research into this.

    Anyhoo...Here’s a Jewish site where they discuss anti-semitism. Oddly enough, evolution is not brought up…guess what is??
    The jewsforjudaism site. Check out the "New Testament Anti-Semitism" section of the Knowledge Base.



    So, yeah...it's all "Darwin's fault". Idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  86. finishing what Dan said:
    and also lead Dawkins to say:

    "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication. Some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good; nothing but pitiless indifference."
    Richard Dawkins (River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life)

    Where did Dawkins ever say that that's how humans should act? If you were honest, you'd know that he said somewhere else that nature is not what we should base our morals on, but that we have the intelligence to resist our selfish genes.

    Also, lets not forget it gave Atheists an avenue, or platform, in suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God.

    We're not suprressing a damn thing. We're trying to expose people to the truth of reality. Ad-hom attacks like that Dan, are just useless, especially if you don't back them up.

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

    Are you claiming that Hitler did no such thing? That his theory of a "pure race" is all a figment of all our imagination? Go ahead and keep, dogmatically, defending Hitler, and Dawkins for that matter, if you wish. Truth hurts though, I perfectly understand. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  88. Anyway Reynold,

    If I found myself defending Hitler, and Dawkins, to help my worldview's position, I would examine, and reconsider, my entire worldview. But that is just me.

    "but that we have the intelligence to resist our selfish genes."

    So now you're saying Hitler was not intelligent? That you read about and study dumb men? Got it.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Yep. Dumb and sociopathic. I'm posting on one's blog right now.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Dan, the word-twisting little...:
    Are you claiming that Hitler did no such thing? That his theory of a "pure race" is all a figment of all our imagination? Go ahead and keep, dogmatically, defending Hitler, and Dawkins for that matter, if you wish. Truth hurts though, I perfectly understand. :7)

    How in hell can can you say that I'm defending hitler? Huh? All I'm doing is pointing out where the guy originally got his antisemitism from, and giving all the facts that you people continually leave out; which shows that it's your religion, not "darwinism" that gave him the idea to go after the Jews.

    Did he try to attach some pseudo-science to that as well? Yes, but it was the caboose. Your religion was the engine of that train, and all of the rest of the cars in it.

    Yeah, the truth does hurt. That's why you people constantly avoid it.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I forgot to mention: Hedges is as ignorant and dishonest as the rest of you apologists. I notice that you people never deal with the facts that I just presented in my previous posts.

    Why would you think that quoting another bullshit artist like yourself would bolster your case?

    I mean for goodness sake, I don't see any "new atheist" pulling any such stunt as stupid as what Hitler was supposed to have tried.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Reynold,

    >>Did he try to attach some pseudo-science to that as well? Yes, but it was the caboose. Your religion was the engine of that train, and all of the rest of the cars in it.

    Christianity, I believe, was the draw for the unsuspecting and trusting. Much like TV evangelists out there, people send in their cash because they 'believe"he may be of God without looking at the "fruit" (the requirement to see if its of God) Its the draw, or salesmanship.

    The ACTUAL reasoning behind Hitler was indeed the Darwinian theory of evolution of races. You cannot deny by reasoning that breeding great apes and humans is certainly not a "christian" concept but an "evolutionary" one. To say otherwise comports to your worldview very well, because it renders the reasoning absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  93. The ACTUAL reasoning behind Hitler was indeed the Darwinian theory of evolution of races.
    Evidence please? That humanzee you're apparently talking about has nothing to do with anti-semitism.

    You cannot deny by reasoning that breeding great apes and humans is certainly not a "christian" concept but an "evolutionary" one.
    Again, what the hell does that have to do with anti-semitism?

    You have YET to refute any of the points that I brought up of the centuries of christian-based anti-semitism which Hitler himself in his "Mein Kampf" admitted got him started on his own views (that xian preacher Karl Leuger).

    So what if it's a distorted version of xianity? It's still not our so-called "philosophy" that's responsible.

    To say otherwise comports to your worldview very well, because it renders the reasoning absurd.
    No, to say otherwise is to point out that you're continually ignoring all the evidence to the contrary that I gave earlier, by xian and Jewish scholars.

    I'm getting sick of this crap from you. Trying to get you to act honestly is just too much work.

    You're not worth it.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Reynold,

    I never said anything about antisemitism. What I said is that the seeding of Hitler's idea to make humanzees is purely from a Darwinian theory, certainly not a Creationism (Christian) theory. Evidenced even by your link Thanks for the term though, as I never heard of it before.

    I do see your point and how the Bible may have, may have, given Hitler's twisted antisemitism. It does not follow that its a Christian thing though, no matter what is claimed, by your fallacious position (argumentum ad verecundiam "by xian and Jewish scholars") . So Hitler's antisemitism was not from Christianity ( to love thy neighbor) but from a twisted sense of power to rule, against the Jew.

    >>You're not worth it.

    Of course not. Atheistic morals revealed once again. Patience, after all, is a fruit of the Christian spirit. I would say that you are worth saving from self deceptions. But hey, that's what makes us different. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  95. Hitler got people to act by claiming the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus.



    By the way, "Darwinian theory" is natural selection. Artificial selection is not natural selection. You are arguing against yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Dan:
    I never said anything about antisemitism.
    Oh, ok. I thought that's what you were getting at. I'll reply then to straighten this out.

    What I said is that the seeding of Hitler's idea to make humanzees is purely from a Darwinian theory, certainly not a Creationism (Christian) theory. Evidenced even by your link Thanks for the term though, as I never heard of it before.
    Too bad you didn't note that the link gives no mention of Hitler supposedly trying to mate humans with apes.

    By the way, how can one make a "pure" race by breeding from two different ones?

    And again, Hedges (and you) show complete ignorance of evolutionary biology. Natural selection works from within a species to create new species, not from having two different genera that would never otherwise mate, mate to produce something else.

    I do see your point and how the Bible may have, may have, given Hitler's twisted antisemitism. It does not follow that its a Christian thing though, no matter what is claimed, by your fallacious position (argumentum ad verecundiam "by xian and Jewish scholars").
    Dan, it's fallacious only if the authority isn't in the relevent field. Historians are.

    So Hitler's antisemitism was not from Christianity ( to love thy neighbor) but from a twisted sense of power to rule, against the Jew.
    Wrong. Do some actual reading. Try the anti-jewish new testament

    Also, try reading any of the sources I gave; they point out the xian tradition of anti-semitism. You can whine all you want about how they were not "true" xians, but it would seem that "true xians" then are a far sight more rare than you'd ever want to believe. Even Martin Luther, who wrote "On the Jews and Their Lies" would not be a "true" xian!

    You want to talk about morality; fine. How about the xian who continually ignores evidence and lies to the people he's trying to convert?

    ReplyDelete
  97. Reynold,

    >>Dan, it's fallacious only if the authority isn't in the relevent field. Historians are.

    Bzzt, wrong once again.

    1. Source A says that p is true.
    2. Source A is authoritative.
    3. Therefore, p is true.

    The "appeal to authority" as truth IS the fallacy. Just because someone, even authoritative or an expert, says something is true does NOT mean that it is. Its the "appeal to" that is fallacious.

    >>then are a far sight more rare than you'd ever want to believe

    Strange and sad that I am noticing that myself. Maybe God is grading on a scale but that is certainly not Biblical. Narrow path indeed.

    >> How about the xian who continually ignores evidence and lies to the people he's trying to convert?

    First, the Christian does not convert. Conversion is not his job. If he is, then that is his problem. Closer to truth, is closer to God.

    *BTW, I knew you were trying to say that was me, but nothing can be further from the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Can we get back onto bugging Dan for his opinion that some races of people are wicked so it's OK to kill everyone of that race... has long as YHWH tells you too.
    'Cos that's pretty nasty.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Dan, quoting me and ignoring most of the points I brought up in my previous posts on this thread:
    Dan, it's fallacious only if the authority isn't in the relevent field. Historians are.


    Bzzt, wrong once again.

    1. Source A says that p is true.
    2. Source A is authoritative.
    3. Therefore, p is true.

    The "appeal to authority" as truth IS the fallacy. Just because someone, even authoritative or an expert, says something is true does NOT mean that it is. Its the "appeal to" that is fallacious.

    Let me help you, Dan:
    This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

    Do you know why they make that distinction about "legitimate authority"? It means that the person has done his homework and studied the subject and has been shown to be reliable when talking about it. In their arguments, they usually provide some of the evidence of what they're talking about.

    As opposed to say, you or your creationist allies when talking about evolution.


    How about the xian who continually ignores evidence and lies to the people he's trying to convert?
    First, the Christian does not convert. Conversion is not his job.
    Then what the hell is this blog for then?

    Also, if "god" is the one who converts, why did he need, say, missionaries?

    If he is, then that is his problem. Closer to truth, is closer to God.
    The same god who:
    1 Kings 22:23
    Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

    2 Chronicles 18:22
    Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.

    Jeremiah 4:10
    Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.

    Jeremiah 20:7
    O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.

    Ezekiel 14:9
    And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.

    2 Thessalonians 2:11
    For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.



    *BTW, I knew you were trying to say that was me, but nothing can be further from the truth.
    Well, I was referring to apologists in general, but ok:

    Some examples. Remember the rough time I had trying to show you that I would NOT turn Jews in to the Nazis while you kept claiming that I would? After I finally broke you on that, you just settled for calling me a coward looking to save my own skin (by lying to them about hiding Jews) when in actuality I was thinking more of the family I was hiding from them.

    You keep baiting people with the same crap over and over again, despite being shot down, your little "confusion" over what vestigial means, your lie that "Darwinists" don't believe that humanity is one race even though it's been pointed out to you that that's not the case, even in Darwin's time?

    ReplyDelete
  100. As an aside, your friend Gary was ignorant as hell in his blatherings on the subject; he should have done more reading, this time from sources that weren't just xian apologeticists, like the ones I listed previously in this thread. He pretended to know history, but was too ignorant to realize that in Darwin's day, everybody in Europe was (by our level) racist!

    ReplyDelete
  101. Roger (a.k.a. Reynold),

    You are fully aware of this, repeating something that many times will assure your comments will get placed into 'automatic' spam.

    I will delete the repeats, next time be patient although I understand its not the fruit of an Atheist. :7)

    Deceit from Reynold? No way!! (read expected)

    ReplyDelete
  102. Rogernold,

    >>Let me help you, Dan:

    Apparently we are at a cross roads here and this needs to be fleshed out. There is a reason why its called an 'appeal to authority'. The clue is in the term itself.

    An appeal to an expert is the fallacy because the appeal assumes the expert is always right.

    "An expert asserts A is true. Therefore A is true."

    Experts can be wrong. Just look at the scientists that believe evolution is truth. No, I believe you're wrong. Even linking to that website is fallacious itself. Since you are literally saying,

    "I'm right because this website agrees with me (this website said so)"

    Its fallacious all over again.

    As for the previous fallacy, you are claiming that all historians are in agreement, and thus true. Nothing can be further from the truth. Please try again.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Let the record show that Reynold called me a liar using another fake name and called himself "Roger" That is so rich! Is it my birthday? Bwaahahahhaha!

    ReplyDelete
  104. So what? It's a username. I keep my email and IP the same so you could tell that it's still me though I had to re-do my account.

    I'm having google problems.

    It may be related to why there were so many repeats. I kept getting error messages whenever I submitted, so I'd wait a few hours, and still nothing.

    So, I chopped up my messages into smaller bits. That lets them get through.

    ===========

    So, Dan goes on:
    Roger (a.k.a. Reynold),

    You are fully aware of this, repeating something that many times will assure your comments will get placed into 'automatic' spam.

    I will delete the repeats, next time be patient although I understand its not the fruit of an Atheist. :7)

    At least not one who uses the internet. Try Steven Hawking for a better example.

    Deceit from Reynold? No way!! (read expected)
    Right....do what I did then. List out my "deceptions" like I did yours.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Rogernold,

    >>Let me help you, Dan:

    Apparently we are at a cross roads here and this needs to be fleshed out. There is a reason why its called an 'appeal to authority'. The clue is in the term itself.

    An appeal to an expert is the fallacy because the appeal assumes the expert is always right.

    Wrong. It assumes that the expert is more likely to be right than someone from outside the field.

    "An expert asserts A is true. Therefore A is true."

    Experts can be wrong. Just look at the scientists that believe evolution is truth.

    Like these guys who have evidence on their side?

    But, you'll swallow what (mostly) non-experts in biology will say about evolution when it's an argument you support?

    For example, lawyer Philip Johnson?


    Ok, let's look at your reasoning: what about the "experts" then who do brain surgery? Should we just chuck them off because it's a "fallacy" to believe what they say about the workings of the brain?

    No, I believe you're wrong. Even linking to that website is fallacious itself. Since you are literally saying,

    "I'm right because this website agrees with me (this website said so)"

    No, because of the peer-reviewed evidence that is available for reading there.


    Its fallacious all over again.

    As for the previous fallacy, you are claiming that all historians are in agreement, and thus true. Nothing can be further from the truth. Please try again.

    Christ, you still don't get it. I do NOT say that "all historians are in agreement". This is the kind of lie that you pull that pisses me off. Go back, and read what I actually wrote.

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

    ReplyDelete
  107. Agh! Censor it! Ok...

    1) Google sucks
    2) You'd think Dan, that when you clicked on Roger's name and saw Reynold in the profile (as you must have done), and the fact that the flow of the argument didn't change from Reynold to Roger would tell you something.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Reynoldger,

    >> It assumes that the expert is more likely to be right than someone from outside the field.

    So you appeal to that authority? Exactly! Your still lost?

    "Experts can be wrong. Just look at the scientists that believe evolution is truth."

    >>Like these guys who have evidence on their side?

    So, once again, you're claiming those perceived "experts" are never wrong? Sure sounds like a fallacious appeal to me.

    >> Should we just chuck them off because it's a "fallacy" to believe what they say about the workings of the brain?

    I guess that depends on what they are saying, but yes they can be wrong. Lobotomies come to mind.

    >>No, because of the peer-reviewed evidence that is available for reading there.

    You have seen the reports on the unreliability of peer reviews.

    "The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities." (http://bit.ly/3gUcsN)"

    So yes, its fallacious to appeal to peer reviews as truth.

    >>you still don't get it. I do NOT say that "all historians are in agreement". This is the kind of lie that you pull that pisses me off. Go back, and read what I actually wrote.

    I get it. You appealed to historians (expert) as your proof. "because Joe said it, its true."

    You actually said "Dan, it's fallacious only if the authority isn't in the relevent field. Historians are."

    The only 'relevant' thing here is that you believe an 'appeal to an expert' for truth is not fallacious.

    >>You can play at guessing which one, if either, is my real name.

    How about Liar? Its fitting.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Reynold,

    >>1) Google sucks
    2) You'd think Dan, that when you clicked on Roger's name and saw Reynold in the profile (as you must have done), and the fact that the flow of the argument didn't change from Reynold to Roger would tell you something.

    1) I agree

    2) Is a complete lie. Your namesake. I did click on Roger after I saw the error on your part. It was locked out, so you MUST HAVE just changed it after the fact. I know what I saw.

    2a) The original "tell" was this:

    Reynold has left a new comment on your post "Genocide or Capital Punishment?":

    Dan, quoting me and ignoring most of the points I brought up in my previous posts on this thread:
    Dan, it's fallacious only if the authority isn't in the relevent field. Historians are.

    And then again:

    Roger has left a new comment on your post "Genocide or Capital Punishment?":

    Dan, quoting me and ignoring most of the points I brought up in my previous posts on this thread:
    Dan, it's fallacious only if the authority isn't in the relevent field. Historians are.

    They both spelled relevant wrong and they talk alike, OR its the same liar that accuses others of lying.

    So I THEN clicked roger and it was hidden from the public. Now it points to you. You're caught and there is NOTHING you can say to prove it otherwise.

    You lied twice now. (9th Commandment)

    And you want to accuse others of lying? *pshaw

    That reminds me of a verse...something to do with motes, beams, and eyes.

    Ah, Biblical wisdom. How did you know about Reynold all those many years ago, enough to give him great advice? Thank you Lord!

    Only an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Like Reynold's character.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Only an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them.

    An omnipotent being could also lie and make you certain that the lie is the truth.

    But, of course, this is all conjecture, there probably are no omnipotent beings.

    ReplyDelete
  111. And even small children can see the omnipotence is self-contradictory.

    "Can YAHWEH make a chilli so hot even He can't eat it? LOL LOL!"

    ReplyDelete
  112. OH NOES!

    Some guy makes a comment with a different user name!

    Is this a hell-worthy offence? Will your god torture Roger for starting another blogger account? Is this how petty your god is?

    ReplyDelete
  113. JC,

    >>An omnipotent being could also lie and make you certain that the lie is the truth.

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

    ReplyDelete
  114. LOL.
    It is abundantly clear that you use this method of having to "account for world-views" (to your satisfaction) as a method of avoiding conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Dan has said

    >>False religions have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term "Justification." <<

    ReplyDelete
  116. Dan, you dumb dipshit...the day that I have to justify myself to you, a serial liar, is the day that pots can call all kettles black.

    Since you're still whining about it and avoiding anything of fucking relevance, the original "tell" was the fact that I had to stick with the "roger" name for all of one post, where I under "roger" quoted what I had previously said as "reynold" and continued the conversation as normal.

    Yep, a clear act of deception that was.

    No attempt at subterfuge on my part, but a whole shitload of whining on yours while continually harping on this instead to avoid addressing all of my points.

    As for being "hidden from the public" all I can say is when I clicked on "roger" it took me to where you can see "reynold" in the profile.

    Ah, Biblical wisdom. How did you know about Reynold all those many years ago, enough to give him great advice? Thank you Lord!

    Only an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Like Reynold's character.

    Look who's talking, Dan.

    I and others continually point out your lies, and you've never given a shit.

    One problem (one fucking post!) with a different username and you yowl to the moon.

    "Mote" and "beams" indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  117. JC, you're new here. This is how Dan operates. Catch him in a lie, and he'll say he was "joking" and the atheists "have no sense of humour".

    If he thinks he's caught YOU lying, you're fucked.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Proof of God Thought Blocker number:346,563,123,578-c

    - God exsist because a bogger used a different name on a post. Amen


    Dan what else has the bible done to affect you? most people are pro abortion. Were you before your special revelation (alchol induced brain damage)?

    How old did you think the universe was before bible?

    Did you know what evolution was before bible?

    Did you feel capable of homeschooling before bible?

    Did you think religion/bible was just a book before revelation?

    What if your revelation is brain damage and you are abusing your kids?

    ReplyDelete
  119. I'm still a little pissed off that he said that I was "defending Hitler".

    ReplyDelete
  120. The difference here is that I have an ACCOUNT for my invoking moral standards, Lying is wrong, where you all do not.

    "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication. Some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good; nothing but pitiless indifference."
    — Richard Dawkins (River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life)



    “[A]n evolving, chance universe cannot account for absolute, unchanging, universal laws of logic. Indeed, absolute law contradicts the notion of incessant change which necessarily involves relativism.” ~Bahnsen GL (2007) Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetics Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen, American Vision, Powder Springs, GA, 207

    "The laws of logic also cannot merely be descriptions of how the human mind works because then we would not need laws to correct faulty human thinking.
    Lisle J (2009) The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 54.

    "[I]f we are products of mechanistic and impersonal natural forces in a closed system, then our thoughts and rules of reasoning are also parts of that system. Any check against false conclusions would still be a part of the system which produced the false conclusions." ~Henry W. Middle | March 1st, 2010 | The Foundation of Logic in the Nature of God

    "If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of Materialism and Astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents. It is like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.” ~ Lewis CS (1970) God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, Wm. B. Eerdmans, Cambridge, 52–53.

    The real kicker for you is this complete argument that you are trying to make here. You cannot be against anything, or any position held. If your worldview is consistent you would welcome religion, God, Jesus et al. But you don't. You argue against it, and other's views. Why? Your worldview is then reduced to the absurd.

    Douglas Wilson put it this way: "If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else."

    ReplyDelete
  121. Dan
    If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else."
    Except for the fact that, god or no god, our brains are arranged in such a way that we are able to think, to percieve our environment, and come up with behavours that can help us survive and build up (and sometimes tear down!) civilizations.

    Almost all of Dan's quotes are from his fellow b.s. artists whose "job" it is to propagate the faith.

    The first quote was from Dawkins, but as before, Dan doesn't note that Dawkins has gone on record as saying that we shouldn't look to the natural world for examples of how to act; because unlike pretty much most animals (some like apes, chimps, etc have some reasoning capacity and primitive ways of getting along) we have developed the intelligence to work with each other.

    Please note that whenever a christian puts forth any version of the old "without god there is no basis or reason for morality or to be moral" what they are doing is admitting that the only reason that they "act moral" is because of their sky-daddy watching them.

    Any secular reason for morality like empathy, thinking of the consequences for yourself, friends, family, etc. does NOT count with those people.

    In trying to show that athiests have no morals, all they do is show that it's the theists who truly have no morals.

    No more than any child who uses the reason "my parents said so" as a basis for morals.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Note that the subject of god-ordained genocide has been swept away.

    Because Dan views that same god as the source of morality, he has no choice but to defend the mass killing of not only adults, but women, children and babies, all because his "god" said so.

    That's xian "morality" in action.

    Yet Dan and other theists like him will rail against abortion and call themselves "pro-life"!

    At least atheists who are also pro-life are more consistent.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Reynold,

    Speaking of Hitler, Ray just chimed in with some truth that I thought you would benefit from. Apparently, Ray speaks more truth, especially about Hitler, then you Reynold. Live with that one.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Ray's quote is from the version of "Hilter's Table Talks" doctored by François Genoud.

    Who later said "But it's just what Hitler would have said, isn't it?"

    ReplyDelete
  125. Let's see: You, like Ray before you, completely ignores all the points I brought up.

    Why am I not surprised?

    You really need to read more than just the parts you want to read.

    If you spent any time at all reading that guy's blog, you'd see that he gets bitch-slapped by the atheist commentators there regularly. Just as happened in the posts I linked to.

    It seems that Ray's the one who's lying about Hitler.

    Big bloody surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Reynoldger,

    >>It seems that Ray's the one who's lying about Hitler.

    I guess these Bibles that Hitler had made, that are currently archived, is not evidence at all.

    You're absurd. Big bloody surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Reynoldger,

    Why Don't you ask Ray himself, right now live.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Were did Christians get the idea that the babies would grow into, and turn adopted society into baby scarifiers themselves?

    Was it like "Childern of the damed"? :7

    ReplyDelete
  129. So Hitler modified the bible...he outright banned Darwin's work.

    Hmmm...changing the bible; just like the many xian denominations out there that have their own versions of your god's "infallible" word...

    Note that even in the altered work that you linked to, it still indicated that nazis were supposed to respect your god:

    Respect God and depend on him entirely; maintain silence before God; refrain from any form of hypocrisy; hold sacred thy body and life; hold sacred goodness and respect; hold sacred truth and loyalty; honor thy mother and thy father; help thy children and become a role model; maintain purity of blood and sanctity of marriage; much wisdom; always be prepared to help and forgive; respect thy Fuhrer; serve in joy thy people through labor and sacrifice – this is what God demands of us."

    So tell me, was Martin Luther, the guy who wrote On the Jews and Their Lies not a real xian either?

    Where do you draw the line exactly between a xian who acts like Luther and a guy who allegedly just uses it like Hitler?

    While your at it, how's about addressing any of the points that I brought up previously? I deal with yours.

    Since you're now on about "reynoldger" allow me to introduce to you another fun word: cdesign proponentsists.

    A concerted incompotent effort to change the words to make everyone think that the authors were not actually talking about creationism while they actually were, vs. ONE post where the text flowed right from the previous post under my original username.

    Of course, then there's your propensity to say that it was just a "joke" whenever you get caught lying.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Oh yeah.

    One, I can't call Comfort because I didn't get back to the computer since this morning, and two: Note that we are still not back on the original topic here.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Reynoldger,

    >>Where do you draw the line exactly between a xian who acts like Luther and a guy who allegedly just uses it like Hitler?

    The line is drawn in front of God, on that great day of Judgment. God gave us a way to determine if things are from God, or not, by their fruit. Bad trees...

    Hitler's tree bears (bore?) bad fruit.

    >>Where do you draw the line exactly between a xian who acts like Luther and a guy who allegedly just uses it like Hitler?

    Again, by the path and fruit.

    >>While your at it, how's about addressing any of the points that I brought up previously? I deal with yours.

    Vague and barely asserted. What points, exactly, do you wish to be addressed?

    >>Since you're now on about "reynoldger" allow me to introduce to you another fun word: cdesign proponentsists.

    Yea, I guess I am old school about that subject. I still say Biblical Creationism, I guess because I am not afraid of the truth. Look where that reasoning got them in the Dover trial, ...bad fruit.

    As for the "Reynoldger" thing. It was YOU who changed the terms so this " cdesign proponentsists" thingy applies to you, more then me. I am merely accommodating your terms, or labels, of yourself. *snicker :7)

    >>Of course, then there's your propensity to say that it was just a "joke" whenever you get caught lying.

    How about next time, instead of linking to bare assertions, linking to something that I actually said as evidence for that claim. It would make your argument, less of a joke and taken more seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  132. This whole post is an example of bad fruit comming from a rotten tree!

    Baby killers >:(

    ReplyDelete
  133. Where do you draw the line exactly between a xian who acts like Luther and a guy who allegedly just uses it like Hitler?
    The line is drawn in front of God, on that great day of Judgment. God gave us a way to determine if things are from God, or not, by their fruit. Bad trees...

    Hitler's tree bears (bore?) bad fruit.

    And the fruits of Martin Luther's book who the nazis admired, then?

    As for the "Reynoldger" thing. It was YOU who changed the terms so this " cdesign proponentsists" thingy applies to you, more then me.
    Those are the guys on your side, who tried to bullshit their way through a court of law.

    I am merely accommodating your terms, or labels, of yourself. *snicker :7)
    You have reading comprehension problems.

    Read what I said again. They tried to hide what they were up to, I did not. Google for a few days didn't accept my first username in my account. I noted that my text flowed from one post to the other so anyone with a brain could tell. I assumed too much of you (again).

    Do you get it yet?

    While your at it, how's about addressing any of the points that I brought up previously? I deal with yours.
    Vague and barely asserted. What points, exactly, do you wish to be addressed?

    Let's see:

    Right here. Books, quotes, etc.

    Here's two examples:
    Anyhoo...Here’s a Jewish site where they discuss anti-semitism. Oddly enough, evolution is not brought up…guess what is??
    The jewsforjudaism site. Check out the "New Testament Anti-Semitism" section of the Knowledge Base.


    You have YET to refute any of the points that I brought up of the centuries of christian-based anti-semitism which Hitler himself in his "Mein Kampf" admitted got him started on his own views (that xian preacher Karl Leuger).

    I went into more detail on Comfort's site.


    You have virtually nothing to link Hitler to Darwin with, I on the other hand provide evidence of centuries of xian anti-semitism that the Nazis used.

    Of course, then there's your propensity to say that it was just a "joke" whenever you get caught lying.
    How about next time, instead of linking to bare assertions, linking to something that I actually said as evidence for that claim. It would make your argument, less of a joke and taken more seriously.

    Lies here, which froggie called you out on, to which you replied:

    Dan +†+ said...

    Froggie,

    The bullet points are lies.

    The bullet points are jokes, you dork.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Reynoldger,

    >>They tried to hide what they were up to, I did not.

    Ok Roger, erm...Reynold or whatever it is today.

    >>Lies here, which froggie called you out on, to which you replied:

    Oh come on those were clearly jokes and you know it! (* Make up tips for that African ape in you) That is a lie? Give me a break, its a joke. You're a dork too.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Right...I have one instance of trouble with my google account and you call it an example of my "expected deceit". (care to back that "expected" remark up? In what "other" alleged cases have I been dishonest?)

    Yet when you get caught lying, it's always a "joke".

    Sure.

    If you want another example of your lying, look at the intro to your blog where you talk about yourself in plural, giving the impression that it's more than just you writing this blog.


    By the way, have you even tried to either refute the points I brought up, or have you ever come up with anything to refute what I said here:

    Note that the subject of god-ordained genocide has been swept away.

    Because Dan views that same god as the source of morality, he has no choice but to defend the mass killing of not only adults, but women, children and babies, all because his "god" said so.

    That's xian "morality" in action.

    Yet Dan and other theists like him will rail against abortion and call themselves "pro-life"!

    At least atheists who are also pro-life are more consistent.


    which is the actual topic of this post of yours, by the way...

    ReplyDelete
  136. While Dan's busy ignoring my last post, here's something else for him to chew on in regards to names:

    A creationist named John Woodmorappe has been caught quoting himself. In a "Revolution Against Evolution" Article entitled "A Hands-on Science Activity that Demonstrates the Atheism and Nihilism of Evolution" He states the following:

    "Illinois high school science teacher Jan Peczkis writes: The misconception that evolution works towards a pre-determined goal is held by many high school and college students. This is understandable because evolution is an abstract and generally non-observable phenomenon, and living things do seem well-designed for their environments."

    He forgot to mention something: He is Jan Peczkis. He quoted himself under his real name (J.W. is his pen name). Why? (For proof see the CreationWiki profile of J.W.)


    It gets better.

    ReplyDelete
  137. While Dan's busy ignoring my last post, here's something else for him to chew on in regards to names:

    A creationist named John Woodmorappe has been caught quoting himself. In a "Revolution Against Evolution" Article entitled "A Hands-on Science Activity that Demonstrates the Atheism and Nihilism of Evolution" He states the following:

    "Illinois high school science teacher Jan Peczkis writes: The misconception that evolution works towards a pre-determined goal is held by many high school and college students. This is understandable because evolution is an abstract and generally non-observable phenomenon, and living things do seem well-designed for their environments."

    He forgot to mention something: He is Jan Peczkis. He quoted himself under his real name (J.W. is his pen name). Why? (For proof see the CreationWiki profile of J.W.)


    It gets better.

    ReplyDelete
  138. The difference? Jan pretended that he was quoting an independent source to back up his claim in the creationist paper that he wrote under his pen-name instead that he was just quoting himself.

    ReplyDelete
  139. To the author, you are a disgusting monster.

    http://www.atheistpropaganda.com/2011/02/theists-justification-for-genocide.html

    ReplyDelete
  140. Atheist propaganda? Now thar's an appropriate name for a blog.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>