- The fact is we cannot get away from believing in something, even if that something is nothing. It is a paradox. It’s not a paradox; nothing means non-existence - non-existent). I already said the definition of religion. But in case you forgot: religion is a system of belief that requires the dependency on god(s); rituals and ceremonies are performed in order to have a communion and show commitment to god(s). Atheists don’t have that. Faith means “believing in something even when you don’t have evidence that supports your faith.”
- In its broadest sense, atheism repudiates belief in any sort of deity transcendent to man. “Matter” is all there is. Most atheists don’t believe in god – gods because there’s no evidence for their existence.
- In a more limited aspect, one may contend, “I believe in my own kind of “God”, but I do not believe in the God of the Bible”. The “deist” falls into this category. I can’t say for all the atheists but I don’t believe in my kind of god, I don't have one. I believe in NO god(s) – devil(s), period.
- We are not atheists because of human rebellion or because "we are angry at god" and saying we are not moral because we don’t have god in our lives is plain wrong. If your morality comes from god, what keeps you from raping women, having sex with your relatives and having slaves in your house? God? Really? we all know that your god condones rape, incest and slavery in the bible.
Why you do good to others? To have a piece of heaven all to yourself after you die? So you’re doing for the wrong reason. In fact you’re being very selfish. I do good to others because is the right thing to do, not because some god promised heaven.
- The origin of the universe as we “know it” is the Big Bang. Everything there’s in the universe come from that event. But we don’t know everything there’s to know about it yet; at least scientists are trying to find the answers instead of making things up.
I’ve read that idea the universe always existed. Before the Big Bang, the universe was condensed in a really small space and it was very unstable, until one day the universe expanded (and still is, faster each time). There’s a possible scenario where the expansion of the universe will reverse; it’s called the Big Crunch. That will be the end of everyhting.
Just because something’s creation (universe - earth – life on earth) and evolution of the species are complex doesn’t mean there must have a creator.
If you believe it's impossible from something coming from nothing , so where did your god come from? Who is his designer? After all, god is so complex, right?
- Our existence has purpose; it changes from one person to another. But in general: do good to others for the sake of doing so and try to make life better for every single living being on this planet (not only humans).
- If believing in god makes you complete and gives meaning to your life, ok…but not everyone needs god in their lives to be happy, to have a good life, to feel accomplished, to have a meaningful life, etc… My life is not void just because I don’t believe in god(s). There are a lot of things that gives meaning to my life and none of them has to do with god(s) and I’m happy that way. Now, what happens after we die?Well, we decompose (or we burn in case someone wants to be cremated). George Harrison was right by asking those questions. The purpose of his life - in my opinion – was to make good music and touch people’s hearts with his talent. Now, the other two questions, who knows…I don’t know, you don’t know, nobody knows. Unless you went to heaven/hell and came back, you don’t have evidence to back it up the existence of an afterlife. I don’t worry about where I’m going after I die (if I go somewhere); I worry about the life I have now and I enjoy every minute of it because I might not be here tomorrow.
It's like I say: for some people the idea of having no afterlife is scarier than facing eternity in hell.
Well, there is a joke alright...and it's on Dan. He keeps claiming that it's atheists who can't justify their reasoning yet he's the one who's using logical fallacies here.
Welcome, folks, to the fallback position of the believer who knows he's lost the argument - "Well, at least my faith isn't depressing!"
This despite the stories of nihilistic and suicidal Calvinists who believe they're predestined for damnation, and the fact that it's ultimately far more depressing and pathetic to try to cling to a comforting lie while the evidence continues to pile up against it.
To be fair, I used to think that there had to be more to life than the handful or so of decades we have in our bodies. But the more I see of life in the world and its subtleties and complexities, its beauty and its savagery, the more I'm convinced that what we have is more than enough to supply lifetimes of wonder and inspiration - no imaginary supernatural entities required.
Just because we end in death, it doesn't follow that the time we're alive is meaningless. Of course, it takes a certain amount of courage to create our own purpose and follow it through. If anything, our lives seem all the more precious when we embrace the fact that we are finite beings.
Atheism has been aptly called “the fool's religion”. That descriptive is not meant to be insensitively harsh, rather,it is an affirmation of stark reality.”The fool has said in his heart, there is no God” (Psalm 14 :1). Atheism is “religious” and it is “foolish”.
Wow. She's even stooped to parroting Ray Comfort. Wonder if she learned that in 'phylosohpy' class...
>>Everything there’s in the universe come from that event. But we don’t know everything there’s to know about it yet; at least scientists are trying to find the answers instead of making things up.
You do understand that you just revealed your presuppositions about the truth of the Bible. Don't you?
Besides, assuming that the Bible is not truth from God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging. I hope you can grasp this one point, if nothing else.
>>If your morality comes from god, what keeps you from raping women, having sex with your relatives and having slaves in your house?
God keeps me. Now ask yourself the same thing. If your morality comes from subjective and personal self, what keeps you saying raping women, having sex with your relatives and having slaves in your house is wrong? Is it wrong for others to do it?
>>Why you do good to others? To have a piece of heaven all to yourself after you die?
ALL charity is selfish. If you are honest you feed the poor, as an example, to feel good about yourself. The byproduct is helping others.
>>Now, what happens after we die?Well, we decompose
And you KNOW this how? A flip question for you. What happens to that 21 grams (weight of a soul) after that? Incidentally, I have not seen that movie yet.
>>If you believe it's impossible from something coming from nothing , so where did your god come from?
God is indeed something. In causality, there must be a beginning for the effects. Its not an infinite regress. God initiated that first cause.
>>George Harrison was right by asking those questions. The purpose of his life - in my opinion – was to make good music and touch people’s hearts with his talent.
So are both George Harrison and Ted Bundy right in their, albeit subjective, worldviews? Your worldview cannot stand against Bundy's worldview that is for sure. To do so invokes a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for.
>>Unless you went to heaven/hell and came back, you don’t have evidence to back it up the existence of an afterlife.
Does that mean if that did happen you would believe? My opinion about it aside, have you ever seen "I survived, beyond and back"?
>>It's like I say: for some people the idea of having no afterlife is scarier than facing eternity in hell.
It's like I say: I would rather live a life knowing there is a God, and die to find out there isn't one. ( At the very least, I would still be glad I attempted to conduct myself in a righteous manner, even if it was found to be delusional.) Then to live a life knowing there is no God, only to find out I was horribly wrong. [ And live with that decision for all of eternity.]
>>"You do understand that you just revealed your presuppositions about the truth of the Bible. There’s nothing even remotely close to anything resembling the origin of the universe in the bible. The myth of creation was written in a time people didn't know how the universe and the world was created so they came up with that.
>> If your morality comes from subjective and personal self, what keeps you saying raping women, having sex with your relatives and having slaves in your house is wrong? Is it wrong for others to do it? I will say to you the same thing some christians told me when they found out I was atheist: if your morality comes from a god that allows rape, incest, killing of those who don't believe him, slavery, stoning of disobedient children I don't want to get near you. My morality comes from my conscience. I know rape/murder/salvery/incest are wrong, besides being illegal and of course it's wrong for others to do it.
>>ALL charity is selfish. If you are honest you feed the poor, as an example, to feel good about yourself. If you do charity for feeling good about yourself that's a better reason than doing to go to heaven. But not in my case, I'm altruistic; if I help someone I do it because it's the right thing to do and because I want that person to feel better, not to feel good about myself.
>> A flip question for you. What happens to that 21 grams (weight of a soul) after that? How do I know bodies decompose? I seem decomposed bodies in an anatomy lab. In 1907 Dr. Duncan MacDougall tried to weigh the soul. In his office, he had a special bed built upon very delicately balanced platform beam scales that he claimed were accurate around 5.6 grams. He got six terminally-ill people and he measured a weight loss, which he claimed was associated with the soul leaving the body. As a result, the myth that the soul weights 21 grams made its way into the common knowledge. But only one patient showed a sudden and irreversible weight loss at the moment of death (21 grams). Two results were excluded because of technical difficulties. One patient's death had a drop in weight but it was reversed later. The other 2 patients had an immediate weight loss at the moment of death but then their weight dropped again a few minutes later. I guess this Dr Duncan didn't mention that in his work.
>> God initiated that first cause. But who or what initiated god? Who or what created the creator of god?
>>So are both George Harrison and Ted Bundy right in their, albeit subjective, worldviews? Gorge Harrison was; Ted Bundy wasn't. Ted Bundy was a serial killer who killed women for the kicks. In his twisted mind that was the purpose of his life and in no way I support what Ted Bundy or any other murderer/rapist/pedophile/kidnapper/terrorist/etc... did/do to innocent people.
>>Does that mean if that did happen you would believe? If you went to heaven/hell and came back and have some evidence (not only your testimony) that proofs you were there, yes. If that happened to you, do you have any (photos, videos, some object that only exists in heaven and hell to be sent to a lab to be tested?)
>>It's like I say: I would rather live a life knowing there is a God, and die to find out there isn't one then to live a life knowing there is no God, only to find out I was horribly wrong. If there's a god and I'm his creation, he made me an atheist. He gave me intelligence/rationality for wanting evidence to proof if he's real or not. He also gave me free will to believe or not to believe in anything I want. So he will send me to hell for that? God is a damn hypocrite to condemn me to hell for being who/what he made me. When I die and I see there's a god and he's the same god described in the bible I wouldn't follow him. I would never be on the side of a demanding, selfish, murderer, hypocritical, jealous, homophobe, racist, intolerant, violent god.
Besides, assuming that the Bible is not truth from God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging. I hope you can grasp this one point, if nothing else.
Assuming that the bible is truth from god because you believe god exists is also question begging. I hope you can grasp this one point, if nothing else.
ALL charity is selfish. If you are honest you feed the poor, as an example, to feel good about yourself. The byproduct is helping others.
So why do you need a god to tell you to perform charitable acts? If we instinctively feel good from doing good to others, why is there any need to channel this feeling through some divine agency?
At the very least, I would still be glad I attempted to conduct myself in a righteous manner, even if it was found to be delusional.
So, basically, what you're saying is that you would be content to have lived a good life, by your own standards, regardless of whether there is or is not a god.
>>My morality comes from my conscience. I know rape/murder/salvery/incest are wrong, besides being illegal and of course it's wrong for others to do it.
Bzzzzt. You cannot claim a conscience within your worldview. If subjectivity is all there is then we do NOT have universal knowledge that lying is wrong and raping is wrong. Yet, we do. Your worldview cannot account for such universals as a conscience. That, among other things, is why its [your worldview] reduced to the absurd.
>>if I help someone I do it because it's the right thing to do
Bzzzt. Yet again you cannot claim within your atheistic worldview what is "right" or wrong. You are using another worldview to do so. Its absurd, I know.
>>In his twisted mind that was the purpose of his life and in no way I support what Ted Bundy or any other murderer/rapist/pedophile/ kidnapper/terrorist/etc... did/do to innocent people.
Yet, your worldview cannot claim that such things are wrong to do so. Your worldview can ONLY account for subjectivity, radical skepticism, and moral relativism.
SO, the real point here is, IF you ACTUALLY feel the viewpoints that you expressed here, then maybe you do NOT have an atheistic worldview at all. That God does not view you as foolish in your philosophy and that you understand Him more then you realize. I applaud that.
>>If you went to heaven/hell and came back and have some evidence (not only your testimony) that proofs you were there, yes. If that happened to you, do you have any (photos, videos, some object that only exists in heaven and hell to be sent to a lab to be tested?)
Here is an oldie but a goody. Your presupposition is that there is no God; therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show His existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition: namely, that there is no God. If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect. If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw Him, you'd say it was mass-hysteria. If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies. So, I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it. It is limited.
Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine God's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of His existence. Don't you see? If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.
>>He also gave me free will to believe or not to believe in anything I want. So he will send me to hell for that? God is a damn hypocrite to condemn me to hell for being who/what he made me.
Sorry sister that does not cut it. Three Bzzzts and you're OUT!. I know you will not listen to all 7 parts, but you might want to check out 4:45 of part 7.
>>So why do you need a god to tell you to perform charitable acts?
I don't.
>>If we instinctively feel good from doing good to others, why is there any need to channel this feeling through some divine agency?
First, you cannot account for that "instinct" within your worldview and second Jesus is not here to make the ride feel better. The reason I give Him all the praise is because He deserves it. He saved my reasoning and soul for all of eternity, after all.
>>So, basically, what you're saying is that you would be content to have lived a good life, by your own standards, regardless of whether there is or is not a god.
Nice try but No, the huge thing is IF it were all false. It isn't. IF it were though, I would be satisfied to live a life PRAISING GOD my entire life. That a "good" life is recognizing my own wickedness. That is certainly the opposite of an atheistic worldview.
Dan +†+ >> You cannot claim a conscience within your worldview. If subjectivity is all there is then we do NOT have universal knowledge that lying is wrong and raping is wrong. Yet, we do. Your worldview cannot account for such universals as a conscience. That, among other things, is why its [your worldview] reduced to the absurd. Why can I? Just because I don't have god(s) in my life? Nobody has an universal knowledge when it's about morality. In some countries is permitted to kill people for being homosexuals and most people who live there think it's not immoral to kill a gay man or to give a correctional rape to a lesbian. In other countries try to do that to see what happens to you.
>>Yet again you cannot claim within your atheistic worldview what is "right" or wrong. What I claim to be right or wrong has nothing to do with my atheistic worldview. Atheism is the ideology I have and it doesn't rule everyhting in my life. For example: if I think homophobia is wrong is not because I'm an atheist, is because I already seem/felt what homophobia can do to a person.
>> Yet, your worldview cannot claim that such things are wrong to do so. Your worldview can ONLY account for subjectivity, radical skepticism, and moral relativism.
Pedophile priests have their sense of morality screwed too, so as the terrorists and suicide bombers, so as the evangelical missionaires in Africa who condones the torture and killing of people who are suspected of withcraft and homosexuals. Seriously, if a morality comes from god, so why some priests molest altar boys? They should be the one of the most moral people on the planet and they are not (unless sexual abuse is not immoral in your religious worldview). Here's the thing, because this morality talk is not going anywhere: if your morality comes from god, ok. But you can't expect or demand everybody to share the same worldview as you. Atheists are ok without god and they don't need some mythical creature to give meaning and morality to their lives. If you don't agree with it, it's ok but that doesn't give you the right to try to shove it in our throats the "you are immoral baby eaters atheists" talk.
>> Your presupposition is that there is no God; therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show His existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition: namely, that there is no God. I'm an open-minded person, but it doesn't mean I won't question anything, because I will and a lot. If you come with evidences that there's heaven/hell obviously I'm going to question your evidences. I will put them under a microscope. If I don't find any I won't go out telling people I found real and irrefutable evidence that heaven and hell are ;real I will put it on hold until I can look some other aspect of your evidence. Testimonials are not reliable. A lot of people claimed they were abducted by aliens, but when you look at their testimonies you find inconsistency and none of those claims pass unharmed after a closer and rational examination. What prophecies? According to some batshit crazy religious man the rapture will happen on may, 2011 and the end of the world will be in october. Or the world is going to end in 2012? Or is in 2060? Or it's in the year of 3000? When? How do you know? Who told you? How the world will end? What is the method you used to get to this information? (without turning to the bible - think for yourself at least for once) If you say that there are factual proofs of the god's existence, so what is it? Where are they? I really want you to tell me...
>> I know you will not listen to all 7 parts, but you might want to check out 4:45 of part 7. I'll listen all the 7 and I'll get back to you.
Michelle, You'll have to get used to Dan+++ replying with "NO I'm right,Your wrong because I said so. Because I said so, that means I'm right and your wrong."
It's just a tirade that massacres the English Language. When you keep redefining words and concepts so that they encompass everything, language breaks down and starts to lose its ability to convey meaning.
It does not matter if the author sees religious behavior in the deeds of atheists. It does not matter whether she can draw parallels between her religion and irreligion. The simple fact is that for something to be religious it must have a dogma, and it must have a supernatural component.
She then makes the same mistake with deism (and even her theism!), as if she hasn't butchered the language enough suddenly it is a form of atheism. This sounds more like sectarianism to me, "you don't believe in MY god (or live according to MY dogma), you're an atheist!"
The rest of the page is a spiel against atheism and science that is typical of creationists. Hardly worth commenting upon except that she makes stupid claims like "Atheism cannot account for X" (as if it is supposed to) and misses the point of the philosophical topic by mindlessly quoting scripture on the topic as if it is authoritative on the matter (it isn't authoritative in a discussion with the irreligious, and it isn't authoritative on language).
Bzzzzt. You cannot claim a conscience within your worldview. If subjectivity is all there is then we do NOT have universal knowledge that lying is wrong and raping is wrong. Yet, we do. Your worldview cannot account for such universals as a conscience. That, among other things, is why its [your worldview] reduced to the absurd.
A conscience is a biological and cultural construct. It is not magical. It fits in with the naturalistic view of life.
She also didn't say that her view is that subjectivity is all that exists. I think you're trying to restate the haggard old argument that without objective morality, there is no absolute right or wrong. What you seem unwilling to grasp is that morality does not need objectiveness to function. Also, serial killers have no conscience. It isn't universal.
Bzzzt. Yet again you cannot claim within your atheistic worldview what is "right" or wrong. You are using another worldview to do so. Its absurd, I know.
Actually she can. That is because she uses her judgment to determine what is right and what is wrong. The actual truth is that in your religion you cannot determine right or wrong, you have a book do that for you. You live in a perpetual state of moral ambiguity because you never hone your sense of decency, you just follow an authority's morality.
Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine God's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of His existence. Don't you see? If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.
That's a very roundabout way of saying you have no evidence for your claims. To be honest most of us debate this topic because we feel a need to debunk misinformation and correct others. However what we should be doing is demanding proof, and laughing at those who cannot provide it.
If you make an extraordinary claim like an afterlife existing, or divine revelation, then you BETTER expect to provide proof. If you don't, you should be mocked and humiliated for insulting our intelligence.
I find it hypocritical that Dan and his ilk demand atheists account for logic, morality, and the uniformity of nature when they don't actually accept any of these things.
1. Dan rejects logic when it's inconvenient (ex. claiming that non bivalent logic is 'atheist logic').
2. Dan's morality is ultimately subjective and arbitrary (it's based on a mind).
3. Dan rejects that nature is uniform (miracles occur all the time).
Finally, to put the nail in the coffin, the entire idea that one has to account for a worldview in order for it to be consistent is a test for the presuppositionalists worldview that is internal to their worldview. Why should any other worldview use this as a means to test whether their worldview is true or not?
Prediction: Dan ignores these points, appeals to his belief in divine revelation, and continues his emotional rant against atheism - thus ignoring the plank that is jutting out of his worldview's eye.
Back to this Dan, Ugh! We keep pointing out the problems with your Presupp baloney, you give up on the thread, only to come back with the same baloney and start from square one all over again..
Dan, I just want to remind you that, you the man who speaks of your world view being made or absolute, certain moral standards and then you keep telling us to justify our moral standards, yet you yourself pointed out recently that you can’t even justify the standards of your world view.
In a previous thread, you responded to a question by Trino, : Trino, >>Why shouldn't the Canaanite children be allowed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as well?
Well, you caught me at my bias. God made the choice to take the Canaanite children home. I do not fully understand it, but I trust it. Its done by His hand, so its righteous and good. Abortions, on the other hand, is being done at the had of people, not God. Howard Huge difference.”
So, you admit that the moral standards are not absolute, universal and so certain for all, and you have no idea why. You also admit to just blindly accepting the fact that seems to contradict the claimed absolute, universal, blah, blah, blah standards of your world view and just say that its ok that it makes no sense to you, and can seems unjust, and cruel but you just figure its fine since you believe god did it.
Dan’s flawless absolute logic is, ‘god can do no wrong even if its wrong in my world view, So there!’
Excellent example of logic according to your world view Dan!
>>In some countries is permitted to kill people for being homosexuals and most people who live there think it's not immoral to kill a gay man or to give a correctional rape to a lesbian. In other countries try to do that to see what happens to you.
Are you arguing my point now? Yes, in an atheistic society rape, or eating babies, may be OK. Morality is merely subjective. Thanks for agreeing with me. You still cannot account for universal rights and wrongs. If they ARE subjective you cannot, with good conscience, say rape and eating babies are wrong. For you personally its wrong, but its OK for others that have a conscience that says its OK. So you MUST be OK with it to be consistent with your professed atheistic worldview.
>>if I think homophobia is wrong is not because I'm an atheist, is because I already seem/felt what homophobia can do to a person.
SO its OK to be a homophobic then, according to you. Because you applaud the atheistic worldview that morality is merely subjective. You encourage an atheistic worldview as the right one. So Ted Bundy is right in his values and needs to be defended in that atheistic worldview.
>>Seriously, if a morality comes from god, so why some priests molest altar boys?
Because they are of the Devil and building up the wrath of God. Yes, evil happens here for now. God will stop that VERY shortly.
>>They should be the one of the most moral people on the planet and they are not (unless sexual abuse is not immoral in your religious worldview).
WHY do you say that? The Bible says all men are liars. That our hearts are wicked and should not be trusted. Do you need verses? Yes, people SHOULD do the right thing, but they choose to do evil. Especially in the atheistic indoctrination of the public school system. I digress.
>> Or is in 2060? Or it's in the year of 3000? When?
You should not believe ANY of them. God says not to. He says not even the angels know the date when that day will come. (Matthew 24:36) God says not to FOLLOW MAN!!
>>How do you know?
I don't know.
>>Who told you?
Certainly not God.
>>I'll listen all the 7 and I'll get back to you.
Thanks you Michelle, that means a great deal to me really.
>>You'll have to get used to Dan+++ replying with "NO I'm right,Your wrong because I said so. Because I said so, that means I'm right and your wrong."
Correction, You'll have to get used to "NO I'm right, Your wrong because The Bible told me so. Because The Bible said so, that means I'm right and your wrong."
>>And why does an instinct need accounting for? It's either there or it isn't.
Again I am not claiming they don't exist for you, I am claiming that you cannot 'account' for them in the random, atheistic, and evolutionary worldview that you cling to.
>> Prediction: Dan ignores these points, appeals to his belief in divine revelation, and continues his emotional rant against atheism - thus ignoring the plank that is jutting out of his worldview's eye.
You're a prophet? To show how wrong you are, yet again, I will comment so we do not have to listen to you anymore. (Deuteronomy 18:22)
1. I reject illogical behavior like saying absolutes, absolutely don't exist. Insisting God does not exist is just illogical. I move on and try again another day. Like in sales, "no" is merely no for now, not "no" forever. You're right though, I do tend to see things in a black or white manner. My Dad has said that morality had some gray areas, I could never bring myself to agreeing with that though. I tend to say raping is bad always.
2. My morality is based on God's nature. Its not, don't lie because I said so, its don't lie because I don't lie. There is a difference. Morality is objective.
3. Miracles are very "natural" for God. The universe is only uniform when God makes it so. God’s promises for uniformity in nature are only for as long as the earth endures (Gen 8:22).
>>the entire idea that one has to account for a worldview in order for it to be consistent is a test for the presuppositionalists worldview that is internal to their worldview. Why should any other worldview use this as a means to test whether their worldview is true or not?
Like it was said, all non-Christian worldviews fall on their own merits using the same type of critical assessment.
You are more likely to see the reduction of the naturalistic worldview to absurdity because it goes down with less discussion. The debate ends at the point where the naturalist/atheist cannot adequately account for their own thought process and rationality - within their own worldview.
My worldview comes from the Creator that KNOWS everything. He allows us to know some things as truth. You have no such avenue. You cannot know anything because there might be evidence that contradicts your knowledge in the future that you do not yet know about. Its always changing and updating, much like science does. Its absurd to treat a worldview like science though. How can your worldview, having the totality of one's beliefs about reality, hold when one's beliefs is not fully known?
In your last post, this "atheistic indoctrination" really bugged me. What do you mean by that? Teaching evolution instead of creationism? This is not "atheistic indoctrination" for two reasons:
#1 - evolution has nothing to with atheism. Evolution is a scientific theory and atheism is a pilosophical ideology. Teaching evolution in schools has to do with teaching children something that is scientifically proved instead of messing with their heads by teaching some myth created thousands of years ago. Nobody goes to your church to teach evolution, Big Bang or what is stem cells research and its benefits. So religion should stay away from schools. This is what secularism is about: the state doesn't meddle in religion's business and religion doesn't meddle in the state's business. If religious organizations do that they automatically give the right to the state to do the same thing.
#2 - There's no such thing as "atheistic indoctrination"
In schools we have to teach rational and critical thinking to children. We have to teach the children to question and to think for themselves. That's it. I don't see where is the atheism in that.
Catholic schools are indoctrination, Jesus' camps are indoctrination, teaching religion in school is an indoctrination. You are leading children to follow that particular religion and to believe in that particular god or you're out. This religion education always made me uncomfortable. I had religion education since my first day at school until the last. But they didn't teach all religions, only catholicism. My teacher was a priest. Don't you think this is indoctrination? I asked this teacher why he didn't explained religions in general like judaism, islamism, spiritualism, buddhism, xintoism, pagan religions, etc, and the non-religious ideologies such as agnosticism and atheism. I asked him "what if I'm not catholic and I don't want to have to learn catholicism?" He kicked me out of class!! That shows religion indoctrination doesn't allow questioning that goes against what is preached, doesn't allow critical and rational thought, doesn't allow people to think for themselves. If you do that, you're kicked out and treated like a pariah, like I was.
That only made my atheism and my critical thinking stronger (also made me skip most of religion's classes, lol...I was persona non grata anyway, so the school didn't bother me because of it...thankfully).
Dan said,"Is that absolutely wrong? If no, you have no argument. If so, its contradictory to your worldview."
Dan, My point has nothing to do with my views at all. I was just pointing out how you contradict yourself from thread to thread. I was just holding your statements up to your own claims about absolutes.
When I wrote "god can do no wrong even if its wrong in my world view, So there!", I was summarizing what you said in the quote of yours I pointed out.
Just in case you missed it, I'll post the quote again.
Dan you said responding to Trino,
Trino, >>Why shouldn't the Canaanite children be allowed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as well?
"Well, you caught me at my bias. God made the choice to take the Canaanite children home. I do not fully understand it, but I trust it. Its done by His hand, so its righteous and good. Abortions, on the other hand, is being done at the had of people, not God. Howard Huge difference.”
You then say to me,"Apparently you painted yourself into a conundrum."
God kills innocent children its OK, man kills innocent children its not OK. Dan, that doesn't sound like absolute moral standards.
Dan, once again it is you who have painted yourself in a corner.
Again I am not claiming they don't exist for you, I am claiming that you cannot 'account' for them in the random, atheistic, and evolutionary worldview that you cling to.
Sure I can. We have instincts because our ancestors had them and were successful at passing them on.
Dan +†+ >> Yes, in an atheistic society rape, or eating babies, may be OK. Morality is merely subjective. You still cannot account for universal rights and wrongs. If they ARE subjective you cannot, with good conscience, say rape and eating babies are wrong. For you personally its wrong, but its OK for others that have a conscience that says its OK. So you MUST be OK with it to be consistent with your professed atheistic worldview. Rape happens in every country, despite religions/political system/ideology...it doesn't mean I agree with them, because I don't. In some countries in Africa when there are a lot of evangelical missionaires saying homossexuality a punishable sin (that happens to in some islamic countries). Second: People who think eating babies and rape are not wrong it means their sense of morality is twisted, they have no conscience (at least not a good one) and they have some serious personality disorders and to me that is not ok. I'm an atheist, yes; but I'm a human being (that is above any ideology) and I have respect and empathy (except to those who do evil things)for all living creatures who share this planet with us.
>> SO its OK to be a homophobic then, according to you. I'm bisexual, I've already been a victim of homophobia, so it's not ok being a homophobe and attack gays just because they have a different sexual orientation than you.
>> Because they are of the Devil and building up the wrath of God. Yes, evil happens here for now. God will stop that VERY shortly. Pedophile priests are not of the Devil. They are human and what they do it's twisted and harmful. They ruin the lives of children and their families with their perversion. If we're going to wait for your god to stop that, they will never get what they deserve, which is jail. But that doesn't happen because the Catholic Church think that priests are above human's laws and protect their own by sending them to a different parish where they will abuse more children instead of turning those priests to justice (the human one, which is not perfect but it's the one we have)
>> The Bible says all men are liars. That our hearts are wicked and should not be trusted. Do you need verses? Yes, people SHOULD do the right thing, but they choose to do evil. Especially in the atheistic indoctrination of the public school system. I digress. Human beings are both good and evil, it's part of our nature. If according to the bible all men are liars, wicked and should not be trusted, so why should I believe in the bible? After all they were written by men. What do you mean by atheistic indoctrination of children?
>> You should not believe ANY of them. God says not to. He says not even the angels know the date when that day will come. God says not to FOLLOW MAN!! I already don't believe it, but not because your god says not to; it's because it's non sense and people already told a bunch of dates to the end of the world and we're still here. We can't know how or when the world will end. All I know is the world will end someday (human race and all the other species are not going to last forever, neither this planet). I prefer to follow man (not the religious batshit crazy ones) than some mythical invisible god.
>> I don't know/Certainly not God. Finally you admitted you don't know something! Congratulations Danny!!! I'm so proud of you!!! It didn't hurt, did it? If it wasn't god, so who told you?
Dan,”My morality is based on God's nature.” Lets look at some of the other things Dan has said,
”Miracles are very "natural" for God. The universe is only uniform when God makes it so.”
So the laws of nature and the universe are absolute and universal in Dan's world view, unless god decide to make them not, then they are not too.
The next one I hold close to my heart Dan,
”Its done by His(gods) hand, so its righteous and good. Abortions, on the other hand, is being done at the had of people, not God. Howard Huge difference.
So, according to Dan its absolutely wrong to kill children and take away their right for life and the pursuit of happiness UNLESS, god does it. He scores extra points since this was concerning the Canaanite children where instead of god quietly transporting the innocent children’s souls to heaven, he orders to have them killed by the hands of man in a savage act of war.
Yet again you cannot claim within your atheistic worldview what is "right" or wrong. You are using another worldview to do so. Its absurd, I know.
Seems like its Dan who’s standards are like shifting sand, when claiming wrong is right if god is doing it. Now that’s absurd!
life is recognizing my own wickedness.
Not sure how Dan can do that since he can’t recognize that by his own standards what he admits his god has done is just as wrong. This is only one step away from saying, ‘It was right to do it (fill with immoral act of your choice), since god told me to do it.’
Dan's world view seems like the furthest thing from absolute. It looks more like the standards fit the current mood of Dan or what he claims is his gods. That’s what happens when you use blind faith, & biblical justification instead of rational thinking & evidence to lead you in life.
I think I might start cataloging the best comment you make Dan, so I can keep reminding you of how little sense you make, and that your claims are not only unsupported but also self defeating.
1. I reject illogical behavior like saying absolutes, absolutely don't exist.
Who has said that? I haven't. I'm unsure as to whether absolutes exist and doubt man's ability to perceive them if they do. Can you give us an example (of a truth or a moral) and show how it is absolute Dan? I have asked before, but you've so far been unable to, maybe this time you can manage it?
Insisting God does not exist is just illogical.
Asking for evidence of your God isn't the same as insisting that He does not exist Dan, that's your persecution complex showing.
I move on and try again another day. Like in sales, "no" is merely no for now, not "no" forever. You're right though, I do tend to see things in a black or white manner. My Dad has said that morality had some gray areas, I could never bring myself to agreeing with that though. I tend to say raping is bad always.
It seems your God disagrees, apparently rape is fine if the woman doesn't shout loud enough.
2. My morality is based on God's nature.
As DD has asked on several occasions, how can a supernatural being have a 'nature'. No, this is just a cop out to avoid the question of how you know something is good i.e. it's good because God decrees it (subjective and abitrary) or it's good because it's instrinsically good (which requires no deity).
Its not, don't lie because I said so, its don't lie because I don't lie.
But God does lie, it says so in your Bible, is that not binding anymore?
There is a difference. Morality is objective.
Which no Christian can account for from within their inherently subjective worldview.
3. Miracles are very "natural" for God.
There you go with that supernatural being having a 'nature' nonsense again...
The universe is only uniform when God makes it so. God’s promises for uniformity in nature are only for as long as the earth endures (Gen 8:22).
So then the universe is uniform except when it's not, lol, that's brilliant Dan and you like to call our worldviews absurd.
My worldview comes from the Creator that KNOWS everything.
So you're omniscient now? If not how can you know anything for certain - including the source/veracity of those revelations you like to go on about?
He allows us to know some things as truth. You have no such avenue.
Your avenue appears to just go round in a vicious circle or do you have an explanation for how you could know a true revelation from a false one without being omniscient yourself?
You cannot know anything because there might be evidence that contradicts your knowledge in the future that you do not yet know about. Its always changing and updating, much like science does.
And? We can know things tentatively, without the need for absolute certainty and every time that knowledge is tested by real life experience it becomes either a little more certain or gets falsified.
Its absurd to treat a worldview like science though. How can your worldview, having the totality of one's beliefs about reality, hold when one's beliefs is not fully known?
Dan Wrote: You're a prophet? To show how wrong you are, yet again, I will comment so we do not have to listen to you anymore. (Deuteronomy 18:22)
Yet again?
When was the first time? All you've done since I got here (and surely before, just with other posters) is simply assert your conclusions.
Dan Wrote: 1. I reject illogical behavior like saying absolutes, absolutely don't exist. Insisting God does not exist is just illogical. I move on and try again another day. Like in sales, "no" is merely no for now, not "no" forever. You're right though, I do tend to see things in a black or white manner. My Dad has said that morality had some gray areas, I could never bring myself to agreeing with that though. I tend to say raping is bad always.
?
This doesn't address what I wrote. I pointed out that the principle of bivalence is not universally accepted. That there are other logical systems which do not subscribe to it. I even gave you an example that refuted the law of bivalence. Would you like another crack at it?
This sentence is false.
Is the sentence above true or false. According to your notion of logical laws, it must be one or the other.
So which is it?
Dan Wrote: 2. My morality is based on God's nature. Its not, don't lie because I said so, its don't lie because I don't lie. There is a difference. Morality is objective.
So you admit that your morality is arbitrary and subjective since it's based on a will? You cannot say that morality is both objective AND somehow based on God - the two positions contradict one another, since God is a 'person', is he not?
Dan Wrote: 3. Miracles are very "natural" for God. The universe is only uniform when God makes it so.
Are miracles part of the natural world?
Also, you give the game away here: The universe is only uniform when God makes it so.
1. This admits that you do not hold to the uniformity of nature. 2. Do you have a means of telling when God will intervene into nature?
If the answer to 2 is 'no' then you have no reason at all to assume the future will be the same as the past. You've given up your claim of the uniformity of nature.
Dan Wrote: God’s promises for uniformity in nature are only for as long as the earth endures (Gen 8:22)
Yeah, this verse doesn't say that, which is why you don't quote the verse - you are hoping no one will go check it out.
Here's the verse: While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
This says nothing about the uniformity of nature. Further, this is before God stopped the sun, before the various other miracles in the NT.
All this is referring to is the seasons. "Nature" is more then the seasons of nature and the testament of the bible demonstrates that God has no problem intervening in the laws of nature.
So, again, I've shown that according to the bible you have no reason to assume that nature is uniform.
To go you one better, what reason do you have to suppose that God will honor his promises? Because he has in the past?
Again, your worldview falls on the very sword you mean to impale other worldviews with.
Dan Wrote: Like it was said, all non-Christian worldviews fall on their own merits using the same type of critical assessment.
That type of critical assessment is an internal critique of other worldviews - which means it's a useless critique! Why should any other worldview require to answer to the critique? Because you say so?
Dan Wrote: You are more likely to see the reduction of the naturalistic worldview to absurdity because it goes down with less discussion.
If this is true, you certainly haven't demonstrated it.
Dan Wrote: The debate ends at the point where the naturalist/atheist cannot adequately account for their own thought process and rationality - within their own worldview.
The debate ends when you cannot justify why the naturalist/atheist *HAS* to account for anything.
Please do so, then we can talk of whether the atheist has to do X or Y.
Dan Wrote: My worldview comes from the Creator that KNOWS everything.
Ah, so then, according to your worldview, only God could know anything.
Dan Wrote: He allows us to know some things as truth.
And how do you determine which things these are?
Dan Wrote: You have no such avenue. You cannot know anything because there might be evidence that contradicts your knowledge in the future that you do not yet know about.
Assertion - please prove this.
Further, I've shown that your worldview falls to this same criticism.
Dan Wrote: Its always changing and updating, much like science does. Its absurd to treat a worldview like science though. How can your worldview, having the totality of one's beliefs about reality, hold when one's beliefs is not fully known?
Assertion + Assumption. Science is not my only epistemology.
Further, I don't require absolute certainty. I've made this point clear before.
Its absurd to treat a worldview like science though. How can your worldview, having the totality of one's beliefs about reality, hold when one's beliefs is not fully known?
Um, Dan, are you quite aware of just how ridiculous this sounds?
A worldview is a conceptual tool we use to make sense of our experiences. We don't need to have experienced everything in order to do this, but the picture we construct has to contain at least a workable explanation of what we have experienced.
Building a worldview, for those of us who don't assume we already have all the answers, is a progressive activity. In that sense, it's pretty much exactly like science. For you, it's more like shoring up your mind against any encroachment of new knowledge or understanding.
To paraphrase Buzz Lightyear, you have a sad, strange little worldview, Dan.
>> it means their sense of morality is twisted, they have no conscience (at least not a good one)
The only point AGAIN that I want to make is that IF morality is merely subjective like your worldview DEMANDS, then you cannot postulate any words like "twisted" or "no good" with someone else's morality. You are being inconsistent in your worldview. If you don't agree with morality being subjective then "atheistic" is not part of your worldview.
>>I'm bisexual, I've already been a victim of homophobia, so it's not ok being a homophobe and attack gays/bisexuals/pansexuals/ asexuals/etc just because they have a different sexual orientation than you.
I completely agree that gays should not be attacked. But they certainly should be reasoned with. BTW, do you believe its in line with evolution to be gay? Wouldn't you think that, as a non beneficial trait, that evolution would have nullified it by now? I thought people that believe in evolution believe that only traits, or mutations, that are beneficial for survival continue in the evolutionary process. That bad traits die off. You cannot have it both ways, is my point. Its my theory, correct me if this is not true for you, the reason why Atheists rage against God is because they want to live their own autonomous way, to live anyway they want to, without being accountable to our Creator. Is that true for you?
>>Evolution is a scientific theory and atheism is a pilosophical ideology.
Evolution and atheism are a philosophical ideologies. One without God. But yes, you can believe that aliens created you, and not God, and still be an Atheist. Is that you? If not then you are like the 98% of the rest of the Atheists out there. One that holds, as part of their worldview, anything that does not have God as the Creator, like evolution.
>>Teaching evolution in schools has to do with teaching children something that is scientifically proved instead of messing with their heads by teaching some myth created thousands of years ago.
We need to bear in mind that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" (like evolution) misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method.
>>Nobody goes to your church to teach evolution, Big Bang or what is stem cells research and its benefits.
That is mainly because that is not where the impressionable children are.
Listen to what an American Humanist named John Dunphy said by correctly prophesying about children back in 1983:
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."
>>My teacher was a priest. Don't you think this is indoctrination?
In your specific case? Yes, probably. Just understand it was a priest who discovered and theorized the big bang.
>>Asking for evidence of your God isn't the same as insisting that He does not exist Dan, that's your persecution complex showing.
Atheism is insisting that He does not exist. Its your worldview is it not? Remember that you do not claim to be a non-theist, you claim atheism. Its intellectual dishonesty to claim that atheism is merely wonderment about God and His existence.
>>As DD has asked on several occasions, how can a supernatural being have a 'nature'.
Are you both making a statement that supernatural beings cannot have a "nature"? If so how do you KNOW this? Or are you throwing out the "wonderment" card again? BTW, supernatural beings can have a "nature", evidenced by God. Moving on.org
>>So you're omniscient now?
Again, we have access to some of that omniscience. Are you OK? Comprehension doesn't seem to be your strongest suite in this case. (yea, I said it)
>> We can know things tentatively, without the need for absolute certainty and every time that knowledge is tested by real life experience it becomes either a little more certain or gets falsified.
So you have no knowledge at all. You merely have tentative ignorance? I am sure that understand that is completely fallacious (appeal to ignorance). I cannot even begin to believe that pile of injection.
How can your worldview, having the totality of one's beliefs about reality, hold when one's beliefs is not fully known?
Dan makes baseless and contradictory claims. These things constantly get pointed out to him. Dan just holds his hands over his ears and says, "LA LA LA, I hear nothing!" and just repeats the same flawed and often self refuting routine.
Dan why is it so righteous for your god to do something in a very violent way through the hands of man, that you consider so immoral?
And that is the rub of Dan's delusional world view.
Dan, You go as far as saying, "we have access to some of that omniscience."
How do you know this is true Dan? How can you support you claim and show its not you assuming your personal feeling and opinion are the mind of god, its just a delusional or you're just letting yourself be mindlessly lead along by other people.
Remember, you need to present you support in some objective manor.
Anyway Dan, with your belief that you have access to the mind and spirit of your god and that you believe its righteous for him to call on his people to do immoral and violent things, I find your world view rather frightening.
>> Morality and imorality has nothing to do with atheism, christianity, islamism, judaism, etc. It has to do with people in general. Stalin was an atheist and Hitler was a christian. They were responsible for the killing of millions of innocent people not because of their atheism or christianity and yes because they were dictators who didn't have any respect for human life. According to MY MORALITY is not good to harm people, so I can say that someone who kills people for the sake of it are twisted and have no good conscience (if they have one).
>> I don't need to marry a man to constitute a family. My girlfriend and I can adopt a kid or one of us can have an artificial insemination. Having kids is not only about perpetuate the species; it's about giving love and good life for the child. I don't care what is your sexual orientation as long as you are a good parent. Bisexuality and homosexuality are not only about sex, it’s also about love and they are not genetic mutations, they are sexual orientations, just like heterosexuality. How atheists suppose to rage against an mythical creature? It's like being mad at Santa Claus.
>> Do you know the difference between philosophy and science? Evolution and atheism are not the same thing, evolution is not "godless religion" (neither as atheism for that matter) - it's science. God had nothing to do with my creation, my parents did.
>> Children are impressionable. That's why they believe in Santa Claus, easter bunny, tooth fairy, boogey man. After they grow up they stop believing in those mythical creatures, except in god (unless they realize how ridiculous is the idea of having a sky daddy ruling every aspect of their lives). God is a delusion that is still fed even after a child becomes an adult (in that case, an impressionable adult)
>> That is the same John Dunphy who said this: "If the previous paragraphs [of 'A Religion For A New Age'] prove anything, it is that the Bible is not merely another book, an outmoded and archaic book, or even an extremely influential book; it has been and remains an incredibly dangerous book. It and the various Christian churches which are parasitic upon it have been directly responsible for most of the wars, persecutions and outrages which humankind has perpetrated upon itself over the past two thousand years."? And that: "I steadfastly maintain that only with the complete, irrevocable rejection of God and the supernatural will humankind truly begin to live. Rather than producing a feeling of despair, the decision to embrace atheism should result in an exhilarating, almost intoxicating sense of freedom, something akin to the experience of those American slaves who rejoiced upon hearing news of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Only the atheist is truly free."?
>> Georges Lemaître was also an astronomer and a physics' professor. If schools want to teach (not preach) religion in schools, so be it. But they have to teach other religions and the non-religious ideologies too, not only the dominant religion. Religions are a part of the world's history, so as the non-religion ideologies. You don't see a history teacher teaching only capitalism just because US is a capitalist country. He talks about socialism, communism, anarchism, nazism, capitalism, etc...so why not do the same thing with religion? It won't be indoctrination showing kids different creeds, ideologies and worldviews.
>>To go you one better, what reason do you have to suppose that God will honor his promises? Because he has in the past?
Ouch that was close and almost hurt. I thought for a fraction of a second that you were on to something. But to answer the question, No. Not because He has in the past, but because He said so and He cannot lie. So by faithfully depending on His Word and promises we can know with certainty that He will do as He says. You almost had me though. You almost had game...whew. :7)
You're always asking someone to account for this or that while saying that your account is God. The thing is, neither you nor anyone else can account for some of the simplest aspects of this God:
- How did He bring matter into existence? - What was He doing before He decided to create the universe? - Why did He do it in the first place? Boredom? - Will He make a new race of humans whenever the current one dies out? - Have angels/demons existed for as long as Him? - What will they do once all humans are in either heaven or hell?
These are just a few questions that may or may not have been answered but ultimately every Christian is forced, at some point, to fall back to the old lifevest: "His ways are not our ways". So tell me, how can you claim that God is your account for logic, morality, etc. when you don't have knowledge of His basic characteristics, much less full access to His mind?
You see I told you your worldview is absurd if you believe Hitler was a christian. *pshaw
If homosexuality is mainly, if not entirely, environmental you are being abusive to raise a child in a home that celebrates deviances, like atheism and being gay. To do so, you are DEFYING NATURE also. I don't see animals inseminating to have kids because they are against the natural relation of man and woman. If you are against the relationship of what is natural then why pervert it further by bringing in the results of that natural relationship?
>>Children are impressionable.
Ironic that you admit this and yet you approve and encourage the lifestyle that you wish to force on them. One that is devastatingly rampant with STD's. Be ashamed.
>> He talks about socialism, communism, anarchism, nazism, capitalism, etc...so why not do the same thing with religion?
You do understand that teachers and presidents are pushing a socialist and communistic America. How Ironic they teach about "alternatives" to religion and capitalism. You know, the things that is anti government. We don't need your thoughts control... All in all its just another brick in the wall.
Dan Ouch that was close and almost hurt. I thought for a fraction of a second that you were on to something. But to answer the question, No. Not because He has in the past, but because He said so and He cannot lie. So by faithfully depending on His Word and promises we can know with certainty that He will do as He says. You almost had me though. You almost had game...whew. :7) Examples of god lying:
1 Kings 22:23
2 Chronicles 18:22
2 Thessalonians 2:11
Jeremiah 4:10
And while you're at it, you'd better back up your accusation about teachers with some hard fucking proof.
Or else apologize. Not that it matters; every time you apologize, you go back on it.
>>Have you ever read Hitler's book Mein Kampf? He mentions the name of god a lot of times and there's a lot of "god's will" in that book. To Hitler what he did was god's will.
>>So you prefer a child to be stuck in a orphanage or in an abusive foster home for who knows many years, being totally ignored by a overloaded system than being adopted by a gay couple who will give her a good life? For you, so what if a child is being raised by abusive parents, where she can be victim of physical and psychological abuse, sexual abuse and hurt in so many ways your narrow mind can't possibly imagine - at least she's being raised by an straight couple who "won't infect her with the 'gay disease/sin'?"
>>If my girlfriend and I will have a child we won't force "our gay lifestyle" or "my atheistic indoctrination" on her. We will accept and love this child no matter what his or her sexual orientation or creed/faith/ideology might be.
>>Abuse is to treat a person like shit, like he or she was less than nothing and this is something I will never do - because I know how it is to be treated like you were crap and I don't wish that on anyone.
>>I don't know about your country, but in my country the biggest rates of STD'S are among straight people who got those diseases from their husbands/wives/boyfriends/girlfriends. So that goes against your opinion that STD's are the "gay plague". STD's don't discriminate gender, sexual orientation or relationships. I saw a bumper sticker once saying “God created safe sex and called it marriage”. That is a fucked up statement. I even said that “god might created safe sex and called marriage but men invented the condom and if you don’t use it with your wife or husband or just a “one night stand” and they have some STD you are fucked, maybe for life”.
>>Me - unlike you - don't force my "lifestyle" on other people, I don't try to shove my ideology on other people's throat by threatening them with the "burning in hell for all eternity" if they don’t accept it.
>>I don't know why we bother you so much for being who we are (gays, atheists, transexuals, etc). What have we done to you for you being so bitter with us? I am not ashamed of being an atheist and I'm not ashamed of being bisexual...it's who I am and I'm proud of it. If there's a hell and that's where I'm going because of it, so be it.
>>After that Dan, I don't wanna talk to you. You just showed me how ignorant you are by thinking that all those people who don’t share the same worldview as you are wrong and imoral heathens and what I do with people like you is staying away from the bad smell of ignorance and intolerance that comes out from all your pores, ok?
>>If there's a god and he's so loving like you say I hope he's not on your side.
PS: Seriously, deep down you are a sad little man; that saddens me and I feel sorry for you, really.
Dan is showing his true colors so much lately. For a man who claims to be such a loving Christian, why do you lie and are so hateful to those who aren’t what you’d like them to be. Talk about not wanting people or the government to control you, you just wants it so your religious dogma controls others, others way of life and the government.
Dan, you said, “You do understand that teachers and presidents are pushing a socialist and communistic America.”
That’s right Dan, you love to pull conspiracy theories out of your butt when you can’t come up with anything better. If they aren’t doing what you thinks they should, it’s a big Socio-government conspiracy run by atheists and ‘Not True Christians.’ You need no fact to support this Dan; it just is because you got an instant message from god telling him so.
Dan, I also like how you claim that same sex couples raising a child are abusive and so unnatural. I’d like to see what facts you have to support that. I’ll save you the trouble though. In states & countries where same sex couples have been allowed to foster and adopt children there is no data to support your claim. Actually the data shows just the opposite. Same sex couples have been equal if not better in quality of parenting and the children have shown no negative effect from the experience. That’s right Dan, all the data shows is happy families and happy children. In states & countries that allow same sex marriage there is also nothing to support the claim of ill effects. The only know odd result I am aware of is an great increase of income in the areas in the way of spending on weddings. I think in MA it was an increase in 6 to 7 figures in wedding spending after same sex marriage was legalized.
Dan, you don’t believe in human rights, all you believe in is how you want the world to be. You don’t want government to not control the people of America, you just want them to control the people using you personal agenda. The fact you never have more than baseless assertions and subjective claims of heavenly guidance is very telling. You ranting on this blog shows you to be no more than a hateful selfish man that uses a claim of godly guidance since you have nothing to support your personal opinions. Grow up Dan and join the rest of us in the 21st century.
Last but not least, how can we trust your reasoning and opinions when according to you it so righteous for your god to do something in a very violent way through the hands of man that you consider so immoral?
Simply repeating your assertion doesn't make it true Dan.
>>Asking for evidence of your God isn't the same as insisting that He does not exist Dan, that's your persecution complex showing.
Atheism is insisting that He does not exist.
Redefining atheism to fit your criticism doesn't make it true Dan.
Its your worldview is it not?
It is, so why are you trying to redefine what I've already defined for you?
Remember that you do not claim to be a non-theist, you claim atheism. Its intellectual dishonesty to claim that atheism is merely wonderment about God and His existence.
If you recall I claim 'agnostic atheism', that is, I do not believe in any God(s) but do not claim to know for certain that no God(s) exist. I have stated my position very clearly on several occasions and your continued attempt to redefine my position is what's dishonest here, not to mention irritating.
>>As DD has asked on several occasions, how can a supernatural being have a 'nature'.
Are you both making a statement that supernatural beings cannot have a "nature"?
No, we are asking you to demonstrate the truth of your claim.
If so how do you KNOW this? Or are you throwing out the "wonderment" card again?
How do I know what Dan? I didn't make a claim, I (and DD) asked a question.
BTW, supernatural beings can have a "nature", evidenced by God. Moving on.org
Back to the baseless assertion - God has a nature because God has a nature. Doesn't explain anything, doesn't demonstrate the truth of your claim. You move on if you like, I think it speaks volumes that you're unable to support your claim.
>>So you're omniscient now?
Again, we have access to some of that omniscience.
How so? I ask again how you can know the source or the veracity of your alleged revelation when you freely admit you are not omniscient yourself?
Are you OK? Comprehension doesn't seem to be your strongest suite in this case. (yea, I said it)
You don't seem to know the difference between 'showing' and 'telling' and you're criticising my comprehension skills? Lol, that's just brilliant.
>> We can know things tentatively, without the need for absolute certainty and every time that knowledge is tested by real life experience it becomes either a little more certain or gets falsified.
So you have no knowledge at all. You merely have tentative ignorance?
Is this what you got from my statement? And you have the nerve to judge my comprehension skills? Are you suggesting that all knowledge is absolute? Does this mean your claim that 'absolute certainty requires omniscience' is complete crap and we can have that certainty without it? Note that if all knowledge is absolute, then any knowledge, however gained, is absolute. Great, then I'm absolutely certain that your God doesn't exist - knowledge based upon the evidence, and my knowledge must be absolute. Well done Dan you've just disproved the existence of your God.
I am sure that understand that is completely fallacious (appeal to ignorance). I cannot even begin to believe that pile of injection.
It seems you're no better at writing for comprehension than you are at reading for it.
How can your worldview, having the totality of one's beliefs about reality, hold when one's beliefs is not fully known?
>>Is this supposed to mean something?
More then you KNOW.
Ah, so you admit it means nothing? If it did mean something you'd actually attempt an explanation.
Dan Wrote: Ouch that was close and almost hurt. I thought for a fraction of a second that you were on to something. But to answer the question, No. Not because He has in the past, but because He said so and He cannot lie.
1. And why do you believe that he will not be able to lie in the future?
2. As to 'because he said so', that was unsatisfying when my parents said it, it's even more so now when you say it.
3. The God of the Bible is deceptive at many places - so are you saying that you worship a different God?
Dan Wrote: So by faithfully depending on His Word and promises we can know with certainty that He will do as He says. You almost had me though. You almost had game...whew. :7)
So the only justification you have is 'faith'?
I truly love how you simply ignore the significant holes that I punched in your worldview in my last few posts.
freddies dead: Simply repeating your assertion doesn't make it true Dan.
It is to Dan.... Remember though, he rejects logic (it's atheistic!), so it's not surprising.
freddies dead: How so? I ask again how you can know the source or the veracity of your alleged revelation when you freely admit you are not omniscient yourself?
While Dan might throw an unsupported assertion at this (God can do it because he can do the logically impossible), the reality is this is the sword that skewers his worldview.
Dan's sitting there, like the black knight of the Monty Python Holy Grail, screaming that he's still got some fight left in him, when all the tools for fighting have been cut off from him.
I suppose the only difference is that he's done this to himself.
At the end of the day, Dan believes what he wants to believe - not what reason has compelled him to believe.
I'm thinking that it's a waste of time to talk with him. He either doesn't know his apologetics enough to argue them or he simply cannot argue them rationally and refuses to admit this. In either case, neither is really instructive or useful for learning anything (which is why i initially started participating).
Dan's simply a waste of time. I'll see with his latest batch of responses whether or not he actually addresses the problem with his worldview, but I doubt it.
I completely agree that gays should not be attacked. But they certainly should be reasoned with. BTW, do you believe its in line with evolution to be gay? Wouldn't you think that, as a non beneficial trait, that evolution would have nullified it by now?
Did someone reason with you to make you heterosexual, Dan?
And you're jumping the gun - and revealing your bias - by supposing that homosexuality is a non-beneficial trait. Perhaps on a simplistic understanding of evolutionary processes, it could be seen as such, but there are obviously reasons homosexual behaviours have persisted in animal populations, including humans.
One hypothesis is that offspring raised by more than just a pair of adults would have significant advantages in terms of survival. A pair-bond is one thing, but surely even you can see that a triumvirate, or maybe more adults, tightly bonded through their sexual intimacy, would be able to collectively devote more time, energy and resources to ensuring the survival of any related offspring.
I thought people that believe in evolution believe that only traits, or mutations, that are beneficial for survival continue in the evolutionary process. That bad traits die off. You cannot have it both ways, is my point.
Sure you can, Dan. The other factor to consider is that genetic traits tend not to get passed on in isolation. Homosexuality may be a rider on the backs of one or even several other more straightforwardly beneficial traits.
And again you're showing your inherent bias - 'belief' in demonstrable reality is a very different animal to belief in undemonstrable supernatural entities.
Its my theory, correct me if this is not true for you, the reason why Atheists rage against God is because they want to live their own autonomous way, to live anyway they want to, without being accountable to our Creator. Is that true for you?
I call false dichotomy here. Not wishing to be beholden to the dictates of a particularly nasty fictitious character does not automatically indicate unwillingness to follow reasonable behavioural guidelines or a lack of desire to live in harmony with others.
>>So you prefer a child to be stuck in a orphanage or in an abusive foster home for who knows many years, being totally ignored by a overloaded system who doesn't give a damn about her than being adopted by a gay couple who will give her a good life?
Wow, where do we begin with your fallacious arguments here? How about to aid you we list some of them like Appeal to Fear, Poisoning the Well, Questionable Cause, Slippery Slope, and hasty generalization to name just a few. Just so you understand completely, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Is it any wonder I ask, all the time, how do you know your reasoning is valid? I am just trying to help you see your errors.
Are ALL foster homes abusive? If not, you have no argument.
>>If my girlfriend and me will have a child we won't force "our gay lifestyle" or "my atheistic indoctrination" on this child.
How can you claim this while at the very same time say that children are impressionable? If they are, showing them a perceived "successful" alternate lifestyle to the norm, will be impressionable to say the least.
Is something OK just because you want to do it?
>>Abuse to me is to treat a person (no matter what age they have) like they were shit, like they were less than nothing and this is something I will never do.
How do you know that is wrong? Are you saying that you will make your children feel special and elevate them? You will coddle bad behavior then? Scot Peterson's mom did that. Look up 'self esteem movement' to see where the bullies come from. You see the negative effects of propping kids up on that show American Idol. Where the professionals of the industry say to the girl that she is not that great of a singer and she goes off on them saying how great she really is and runs out to her mom that says how great she is. She is delusional as to reality.
I am going to go on a tangent here. Bear with me. Many claim that homosexuality is "natural" but its obvious it is not.
IN NATURE there isn't examples of same sex authority based family unit on a consistent level. Its a perversion on nature and to God. Lions have an authority based system where the male is the head and the female hunt and gather the food for the families. Dominate male roles are throughout nature. In your homosexual world, not always but usually, there is one that is more dominate then the other. One of the females have a more masculine roll to play in the relationship, hence the term "butch" and "lipstick lesbians". Ellen and Rosie are fine examples of "playing" the males role. They are both playing or emulating the role that nature (God) requires. In gay men there is the feminine partner. These are not in nature that I can think of. Even if a male monkey is mounting another males, its merely to show dominance over the other. Its not love for the same sex at all. Maybe there is an exception that I cannot think of, but certainly not the rule.
What I am saying here is that there is hardly the two feminine males that are a "couple" So even homosexuals try to emulate God's plan of "male and female he created them." ~Genesis 1:27 Homosexuals are merely perverting the natural system of things claiming its natural, but it isn't at all.
IN NATURE there isn't examples of same sex authority based family unit on a consistent level. Its a perversion on nature and to God.
Go read up on bonobos, Dan.
Lions have an authority based system where the male is the head and the female hunt and gather the food for the families. Dominate male roles are throughout nature.
Animals that have such social organisations evolved them because they were conducive to the survival and reproductive success of the groups and individuals in question. You know, of course, that if a dominant male lion takes over a pride, he will generally kill any offspring that aren't his. Do you take moral instruction from this situation? I mean, it's perfectly natural, so why shouldn't you?
What you'll find, if you bother to research the lifestyles of various animals, is that there are a wide variety of strategies that have evolved to meet the demands of survival and reproduction. Dominant masculinity is just one such strategy.
D.A.N., said, ” Lions have an authority based system where the male is the head and the female hunt and gather the food for the families. Dominate male roles are throughout nature.”
You forgot that there are many other systems in nature, including some where the female killing the male after mating. If I were you, I’d avoid trying to use how other living creatures operate as a model for how humans should.
DormantDragon said, ” You know, of course, that if a dominant male lion takes over a pride, he will generally kill any offspring that aren't his.”
I’d guess D.A.N. would be OK with that. Remember, he considers it righteous and morally correct when his god orders that the Canaanite’s innocent children to be slaughtered by the hands of man. Hey, they weren’t the ones chosen for his pride. Animals do it, its perfectly natural!
An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are homosexual and they steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs. More of their cygnets survive to adulthood than those of different-sex pairs, possibly due to their superior ability to defend large portions of land. The same reasoning has been applied to male flamingo pairs raising chicks.
Seems to me that, in nature, homosexuality can actually be a better strategy for the survival of the offspring.
You were partially correct, Dan, in your comments about dominance appearing throughout the animal kingdom. Dominance relationships are ubiquitous amongst social animals - even domestic animals.
But they're not all the kind of patriarchal male-dominance relationships you seem to be favouring.
To pick just a couple of examples, the aforementioned bonobos live in matriarchal groups. Males stay with the group in which they were born, whilst females move to different groups, and form bonds with each other through grooming and sexual interaction. There is a dominant female in each bonobo group, and the position of females in the hierarchy is largely what influences the mating privileges of their sons.
Elephants also congregate in matriarchal herds, consisting of females and young. Adult males are mostly solitary and itinerant, and the head of any herd is always female.
What happens in nature, regardless of the species in question, is what produces the best outcomes in terms of survival and reproduction for the populations involved. For some animals, male dominance serves these interests most effectively. For others, different strategies have evolved. Particularly amongst mammals, it's the females that have the greater investment in producing and raising young - 'cause most males don't tend to stick around, except in highly social species or those that pair bond - so they are the ones who choose mates - a strong male offers the most promising survival prospects for offspring, and the way the strongest male makes his credentials known is most often by competing with other males.
Of course, if a male can win mates through stealth or deception, he can accomplish his reproductive goals without the risk and energy cost of competing with other males - like some species of lizards, where certain males will sneak in to mate with females while the dominant, aggressive male who claims those females is out fighting another male.
I know you like to say that some things are 'natural' for humans to do, or part of the 'order of nature' as prescribed by your god, Dan, but you might want to rethink this rather oversimplified picture. Unless of course you want to say something deeply ridiculous, like claiming that any animal relationships that don't conform to the male-as-head-of-family ideal are a result of the fall, and that all those wandering male elephants would have been at home taking care of their families if not for that unfortunate incident with the apple...
As should be clear from the previous few comments, Dan, there isn't any one social, sexual or family arrangement that trumps all others in terms of effectiveness or 'rightness'. There are many permutations, and all have their inherent advantages, depending upon the circumstances and environments in which animals exist.
So your much-vaunted 'natural system' would appear to be: go with what works.
DormantDragon said, ” You know, of course, that if a dominant male lion takes over a pride, he will generally kill any offspring that aren't his.”
I’d guess D.A.N. would be OK with that. Remember, he considers it righteous and morally correct when his god orders that the Canaanite’s innocent children to be slaughtered by the hands of man. Hey, they weren’t the ones chosen for his pride. Animals do it, its perfectly natural!
You'd think, from Dan's comments about nature and all that we could suppose so.
But of course we all know what's really going on here - the "bad stuff is actually good when god does it" stance is complimented quite neatly by the "stuff I think is good is natural, but everything else isn't, or if it is, it's only because of the fall" stance. It's just another failed attempt to justify arbitrary personal biases.
>> Answer me instead of trying to give me moral lessons: do you prefer a child to be stuck in a orphanage or in an abusive foster home for who knows many years, being totally ignored by a overloaded system than being adopted by a gay couple who will give her a good life?
>> How can you claim this while at the very same time say that children are impressionable? If they are, showing them a perceived "successful" alternate lifestyle to the norm, will be impressionable to say the least.
Kids seeing their two mothers or their two fathers getting along with each other and seeing they are like other straight parents they know - loving and caring towards their children - see homosexuality is not a synonym of bad parenting or negative influence. Kids raised by gay parents learn there are people different from them and to accept and respect those differences. Is that wrong? If you have kids, you are teaching them to be intolerant towards people who have different creeds, ideologies, sexual orientations, etc, of them; is that good? Don't you think you are forcing your "lifestyle" and your belief on your children? You are indoctrinating them. You are not allowing them to think for themselves. What if one of them don't agree with you? And if one of them is gay or a transgender or an atheist in the closet? Do you have any idea of the harm you might be causing to one of your kids by saying atheists go to hell, that homosexuality is not natural and it's a perversion in the eyes of god? That your kid is a bad influence to society in general because he/she is gay? You are abusing them and you will be responsible if one of your kids have some serious psychological and emotional damage because he or she tried to deny their true nature and identity to please their intolerant/hateful daddy.
>>How do you know(abuse)that is wrong? Are you saying that you will make your children feel special and elevate them? You will coddle bad behavior then? I know abuse is wrong for 2 reasons: it hurts those who are abused, not only physically. Some people have severe psychological trauma and never recover. Second: I've been bullied in school for almost 10 years; I've been called nasty names, beaten almost everyday by my so-called classmates - since bullying is form of abuse - so I've been abused. That's how I know how wrong and bad abuse is. I'll make my children feel they are important and special in their uniqueness, but I'll also tell them they are not worse or better than anyone because of that. Bullies are insecure people with a really low self esteem; they think they are not smart/intelligent/beautiful enough/etc so the way they see to make other people feel unworthy is by bullying those they think are better than them. Homosexuality is not natural on your worldview. If you don't like homosexuals, think what they are and do is a sin/bad influence/disease, BE A ADULT and say that to our faces say it's you who thinks that instead of making some invisible god responsible for your bigotry.
Being in a gay relationship it's not about being dominant over the partner, it's about loving one another. I don't have a girlfriend so me or her can be "the leader". Since we are equal (in the gender) we have the same roles, same responsibilities, same rights, etc. We don't try to boss the other one around. When we have an argument about something we don't try to force our way in one another. We sit and talk and find a solution that is good for both of us. If there's a god, he made me bisexual. If he wants to throw me in hell for being what he made me, he's a sadist psychopath. I don't care if in the eyes of god I'm a pervert, a freak, a sinner...I don't believe in him and I won't take the risk of being miserable for the rest of my life by denying who I really am and having "a lifestyle" that goes against my identity to please some spoiled ignorant brat that you call god.
Michelle, D.A.N. has instant communication with an omnipotent and omniscient being. It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that D.A.N. would know less about your relationship with your partner than you would.
>>Kids raised by gay parents learn there are people different from them and to accept and respect those differences. Is that wrong?
This fallacy you are using is called a Lack of Proportion with even a Red Herring. Gay parents are more likely to raise gay kids is the point. Do you need science to show this? Fine HERE IT IS.
>>If you have kids, you are teaching them to be intolerant towards people who have different creeds, ideologies, sexual orientations, etc, of them; is that good?
You seem to think that speaking of truth about something is "intolerant towards" that thing. I know gay people, I am in the advertising industry after all. But I still witness to them. I am tolerant that they want deny God and live a life that does not glorify Him. God gave us that free will after all. I do think that its wrong to raise a child gay or atheist, because its an attempt to lie to a child about the truth. That those things are wrong and there are severe punishments for that behavior. When kids are involved things get personal and I get protective. Its like saying its OK for a heroin addict to raise foster kids. I disagree. Its placing children at risk. We should not strive to place children at risk. LGBTQ, children should not be exposed to such risky lifestyles. ESPECIALLY ones so dedicated to sexuality. Pedophiles want to expose kids to sexuality, and porn, very young too. I know I will catch grief for that comment. Truth hurts, I understand.
There are plenty of bad parents and foster parents out there, gay and straight. That is not the point here.
>>I've been called nasty names, beaten almost everyday by my so-called classmates - since bullying is form of abuse - so I've been abused. That's how I know how wrong and bad abuse is.
Actually that is stating MY case. Here me out, please. I know you are not a evil or bad bully. How? Because you have been bullied. Bullies are not bullied, they are coddled and elevated. Once a bully is stood up they cease to be a bully, they are cowards. I am very hard on my kids so they grow up to be good kids. They are humbled. Telling a kid they can do no wrong raises bullies and ultimately sociopaths. Do the research. Some of the nicest people have had hard lives. As an example, how many rich spoiled kids do you know that are "good" people? They are more of the exception then the rule. The Bible is right as how to raise a child.
>>Since we are equal (in the gender) we have the same roles, same responsibilities, same rights, etc
Until you need to move or have babies, then you will call for a man. :7)
>>If there's a god, he made me bisexual.
Wrong! God doesn't create pedophiles. Its blasphemy to say otherwise. Yes, I go to the extreme to make a point. You CHOOSE to defy God. Just because something feels good, does not make it right. If that were the case robbing banks, and heroin, would be right.
>>If he wants to throw me in hell for being what he made me, he's a sadist psychopath.
Well, its good that is NOT the case then.
>>I don't care if in the eyes of god I'm a pervert, a freak, a sinner...I don't believe in him and I won't take the risk of being miserable for the rest of my life by denying who I really am and having "a lifestyle" that goes against my identity to please some spoiled ignorant brat that you call god.
And thars the rub, now isn't it.
Remember I asked Its my theory, correct me if this is not true for you, the reason why Atheists rage against God is because they want to live their own autonomous way, to live anyway they want to, without being accountable to our Creator. Is that true for you?
I guess that is a resounding yes! I love you Michelle.
"Remember I asked Its my theory, correct me if this is not true for you, the reason why Atheists rage against God is because they want to live their own autonomous way, to live anyway they want to, without being accountable to our Creator. Is that true for you?"
Dan,
There are people in the world gay/straight/bi, theist/atheist that have never heard of your 'version' of god, to rage against.
The reason why I rage against your version of god is because I want to live in my own autonomous way, to live anyway I want to, without being accountable to your concept of a Creator.
Ways I live that are biblically unacceptable.
- I don't kill gay people - I don't expect rappers to marry their victims - I wouldn't go to war based on holy books - I wouldn’t punish anyone for thought crimes - I work sometimes on Sunday and Saturday - I don't think jesus was a demi-god - I think people can have consensual sex with who ever consents - I wouldn’t kill every man, woman, child based on the actions of a few. - I wouldn’t rule out ALL abortion based on the actions of a few people
Look at this document about same-sex parenting. If you don't want to read all the document (which I'm sure you won't read the whole thing) skip to the pages 16, 17 and 18: http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf
A advice Danny boy: if you are intolerant and doesn't like atheists and homosexuals because you think who they are is somehow a negative influence, BE A MATURE MAN and admit it IT'S YOU who thinks that way, not god. Stop using god as an excuse for you bigotry. It's an easy way out to say "I'm not the one who said that; it's god's word". It's like putting the blame on someone you don't even know after you stole something. You are no different from those wackos of The Westboro Baptist Church, in my opinion. You are grown man and you have to learn to be accountable for your own opinions and choices, ok?
Look at this document about same-sex parenting. If you don't want to read all the document (which I'm sure you won't read the whole thing) skip to the pages 16, 17 and 18: http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf
A advice Danny boy: if you are intolerant and doesn't like atheists and homosexuals because you think who they are is somehow a negative influence, BE A MATURE MAN and admit it IT'S YOU who thinks that way, not god. Stop using god as an excuse for you bigotry. It's an easy way out to say "I'm not the one who said that; it's god's word". It's like putting the blame on someone you don't even know after you stole something. You are no different from those wackos of The Westboro Baptist Church, in my opinion. You are grown man and you have to learn to be accountable for your own opinions and choices, ok?
>> This fallacy you are using is called a Lack of Proportion with even a Red Herring. Gay parents are more likely to raise gay kids is the point.
If I have a gay son or daughter is because they were born gay, not because they became gay after being raised by a gay couple. Bisexuality and homosexuality are not a choice; it’s a natural human condition, like being straight. If homosexuality is a choice, so as heterosexuality. Maybe Dan, you were born gay or bisexual but you chose to be straight. Is that your case?
>> I am tolerant that they want deny God and live a life that does not glorify Him. God gave us that free will after all. I do think that its wrong to raise a child gay or atheist, because its an attempt to lie to a child about the truth. That those things are wrong and there are severe punishments for that behavior.
How do you know what you teach them are true? Because you saw in an ancient book written thousands of years ago? What if your kids do or at least one of them – deep down – doesn’t believe in what you teach about god and the bible? I don’t glorify god and I don’t fear his punishment because I don’t believe in them. I won’t deny my true nature just because some christians threaten me by telling me god will make me suffer until judgement day because he doesn’t agree with who I am.
>> You still didn’t answer my question: do you prefer a child to be stuck in a orphanage or in an abusive foster home for who knows many years, being totally ignored by a overloaded system than being adopted by a gay couple who will give her a good life?
>> I am very hard on my kids so they grow up to be good kids . The Bible is right as how to raise a child.
The way I see you are Danny, your children won’t grow up being good adults. They will be intolerant as you are. Unless one of them think that everything you teach them is bullshit and stops listening to you. The bible is right raising children. If one day one of your kids defies you, will you send them to the limits of your town so the elders can stone your child to death?
>> Until you need to move or have babies, then you will call for a man. I won’t marry a man so he can give me babies. I can always adopt one or call a friend of mine to give me his sperm in cup so I can make artificial insemination. Some straight women does that too. It’s not something from the other world.
>> God doesn't create pedophiles. Its blasphemy to say otherwise. Yes, I go to the extreme to make a point. You CHOOSE to defy God.
Homosexuality is different from pedophilia. Definition of pedophilia: “psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children” Homosexuality is sexual and romantic attraction among people of the same gender and homosexuality is not considered a mental disorder or personality disorder since the 1970’s. I never molested or raped a kid in my entire life. How can I defy a god that I don’t believe in? Weird… Blasphemy (which is not the case of being gay and atheist) is a victimless crime.
>> Its my theory, correct me if this is not true for you, the reason why Atheists rage against God is because they want to live their own autonomous way, to live anyway they want to, without being accountable to our Creator. Is that true for you?
I answered you before. The reason I don’t believe in god (s) is not because I “want to live anyway I want to, without being accountable to my Creator”. First, because my parents created me. Second: rage against god is like being mad at Santa Claus, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, Zeus, Anubis, Hades, Thor, Odin, Kali,etc; (any mythical creature you can think of)
Look at this document about same-sex parenting. If you don't want to read all the document (which I'm sure you won't read the whole thing) skip to the pages 16, 17 and 18: http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf
A advice Danny boy: if you are intolerant and doesn't like atheists, pagans and homosexuals because you think who they are is somehow a negative influence, BE A MATURE MAN and admit it that IT'S YOU who thinks that way. Stop using god as an excuse for your bigotry. It's an easy way out to say "I'm not the one who said that; it's god's word". It's like putting the blame on someone else of being guilty of a crime that you committed.
You are no different from those wackos of The Westboro Baptist Church, in my opinion. You are a grown man and you have to learn to be accountable for your own opinions and choices, ok?
According to Gregory M. Herek, a critical review of the Cameron group's sampling techniques, survey methodology, and interpretation of results reveals at least six serious errors in their study. Herek concludes,
"an empirical study manifesting even one of these six weaknesses would be considered seriously flawed. In combination, the multiple methodological problems evident in the Cameron group's surveys mean that their results cannot even be considered a valid description of the specific group of individuals who returned the survey questionnaire. Because the data are essentially meaningless, it is not surprising that they have been virtually ignored by the scientific community."[12]
Herek and others have also said that FRI's research has been published in Psychological Reports. The Boston Globe says that the small journal charges authors to publish their studies, and that it has a non-standard peer-reviewing policy. Herek says that it has a "low rejection rate" and that Cameron's research "would have been rejected by more prestigious scientific journals"[13]
I also find it amusing the way you'll so openly display your confirmation bias - accepting (very poor) science you feel backs up your position while dismissing anything you don't agree with.
God gave us that free will after all.
Wrong, we went over this quite extensively Dan, the attributes (omniscience and purpose) ascribed to the Christian God prohibit free will.
We should not strive to place children at risk.
I couldn't agree more, and with Christian priests regularly molesting children, and being supported in that behaviour by the church officials, we should definitely avoid placing children with Christians who will see that it is OK to molest children placed in their care. See? It's so easy to play the false equivocation game. For someone who likes to shout "fallacy!" so often you sure do commit a lot of them yourself.
Contradicting your own worldview, it is the Christian that believes all humans are vile and depraved.
Wrong! God doesn't create pedophiles. Its blasphemy to say otherwise. Yes, I go to the extreme to make a point. You CHOOSE to defy God.
Totally ignoring your false equivocation of bisexuals with paedophiles, you are contradicting your worldview ... again. It is the Christian position that God created everything, and he did so with a purpose, therefore he most definitely created paedophiles, knowing full well that they would molest children and with no way of doing otherwise. You just think God had a "morally sufficient reason" to do so which is, of course, disgusting.
Just because something feels good, does not make it right.
Like your delusion that God reveals things to you...
Its my theory, correct me if this is not true for you, the reason why Atheists rage against God is because they want to live their own autonomous way, to live anyway they want to, without being accountable to our Creator. Is that true for you?
No, it's not. I do not "rage against God", I do not believe any God(s) exist. I do not even rage against your concept of God, I merely point out where your concept is inherently flawed and actually describes a petulant monster rather than the embodiment of love you would like us all to believe in. For me to even contemplate the need for accountability to a Creator would require you to first demonstrate that one exists, something you've singularly failed to do so far. Until you posit a deity that isn't so contradictory and flawed as to make it's existence a complete absurdity then you will continue to fail ... hard.
In this thread I feel Dan is being: Disgusting And Nasty
Once again you ignored the glaring flaws in your world view I keep pointing out to you. Its very telling for all to see, so thanks!
As for gay parents being more likely to raise gay children, it in no way relevant to the discussion. Even if we were to assume that is true, that still does not validate your view that being gay is morally wrong and should not be allowed. Unless the parents are being bad parents, they have a right to be parents. I already pointed out to you that there is no evidence in stated and countries where same sex couple are allow to foster and/or adopting that shows the children raise by them having any ill effect, or have been subject to poor parenting. There was shown to be no more than found with opposite sex parents. In some places I’ve even seen reports praising same sex couple for what a great service they have provided by fostering and adoption children for that particular community.
All you have Dan is that you think being Gay & same sex couples is wrong and it offends you. That’s no different than how Christians in America’s past felt about interracial couples and children of interracial couples. You just as much of a hateful bigot like those of our past that just wants to take away peoples rights because you don’t like it.
You comment on bullies makes no sense at all. Not sure how it applies to same sex parenting. DO you think that teaching to respect others as equals, or saying its OK to be yourself is being coddled and elevated. I was always taught I was special and it was OK to be me and most of my Christian friends think I am a better all around person than many of the Christians they know at their church. DO I think I’m better? No, I have my flaws but, I always try to make an effort to be the best person I can. I do it not because I have to, nor for a god or someone else. I do it just because I want to.
Anyway Dan, after reading your commentary for years, you are one of the last people I’d ever trust the opinion of concerning child psychology. You world view issues trickles down to your views on parenting, they are over simplified and rely too much on your bias and gut feeling. You make little to know effort to get a true understanding of the subject through evaluating the current information & evidence available, and understanding the situation it applies to. Life and parenting is much too complicated for your bronze age book. Do the research.
Dan you said, ” The Bible is right as how to raise a child”
That’s right,
1) stone them if they speak up to parents. 2) Teach them its no OK to kill children except when god tells you to kill children who are pagans, then its OK! 3) Woman are property. 4) You can beat you slave to death as long as he doesn’t die until a few days later.
ETC, ETC… An excellent source for parenting skill and standard for morals and lifestyle. I could go on but you get the picture.
There is no Atheist rage against god, it against bigots and hateful people in this country and the world who want to subject their personal bias onto others that many Theists & Atheists have issue with.
One last thing Dan, why is it so righteous for your god to do something in a very violent way through the hands of man, that you consider so immoral?
Dan, seeing as how you're into this telling-of-painful-truths business, I'm sure you'll take what follows in the spirit in which it's intended.
Here are a few truths - provisional, of course, though I think it would be worthwhile for you to consider how well they apply to you - based upon my observations.
Please, for your own sake and for that of your children and anyone, really, who is associated with you, grow up and get over your schoolyard prejudices - own your personal biases and stop pretending that you have an imaginary friend who has them, and whose lead you follow. We can all see through this. You are hostile to and afraid of people who are different to you. This is true.
The evidence has been in for centuries - gods are human inventions. For every assertion that yours is the one true god, there are thousands more claiming the same for their gods. Not one, thus far, has ever demonstrated the existence of any gods, let alone the superiority of one such concept to another. This is true.
Humans are social animals. The quality of our lives depends upon our ability to cooperate and live in harmony with our fellows. Morality is an ongoing project of humans just trying to get along with each other and achieve a measure of happiness and fulfilment in our lives.
It's people like you, Dan, who pervert and poison morality, turning your own narrow-minded intolerance and ignorant presumption into the dictates of an imaginary deity, then using them to denounce and condemn others just for being themselves. You invent offences where there are none, but you extend your tolerance and even approval to the very real evils committed in the name of religion.
It's people like you who make a mockery of humanity, pretending to care when you only seek to control. This is true.
And last but not least, I expect you will respond to this, if at all, with a denial of my ability to apprehend any truth at all, because I don't conform to your closed, pig-headed views; only the thing is, all this time you have given us no reason to trust or respect any of your own truth claims, no testable evidence for any god's support of your prejudices, and no indication that you are anything other than a small-minded, deluded individual. This, also, is true.
Are you both making a statement that supernatural beings cannot have a "nature"? If so how do you KNOW this? Or are you throwing out the "wonderment" card again? BTW, supernatural beings can have a "nature", evidenced by God.
Please learn the difference between a statement and a question, Dan.
Anyways, moving on.
The reason we ask how a supernatural being can have a nature is not, as you seem to suppose, a trivial matter of semantics. It's actually a question that cuts to the heart of your entire claimed worldview.
Natural entities are definable, because they have certain discernible limits. They are what they are, and not some other thing, because they have those limits.
Supernatural entities, by contrast, are supernatural because they have no discernible natural limits. Your god is claimed to be all-powerful, all-knowing and everywhere present - its power, knowledge and substance are therefore without any discernible natural limit, beyond natural limits, hence supernatural. Such an entity exhibits no aspect that you could pin down and define as its nature.
Now we come to the point - human reason operates within, indeed because of such natural limits. We can define things based upon what they are, precisely because we can discern what they are not. We can conceive of possibilities and impossibilities, all because of natural limits.
Introduce the possibility of any conceivable or even inconceivable thing happening - say, by positing an all-powerful supernatural (unlimited) entity - and you effectively undermine the entire operation of reason.
That this is so, is demonstrated by the fact that you are repeatedly forced to deny the logical implications of your god's claimed qualities, in order to maintain your worldview - your god is all-powerful and all-knowing, yet somehow not ultimately responsible for all the evils of the world; it is immaterial, yet can somehow still perform physical actions in a physical universe; and it is supernatural, yet somehow still able to be defined as having a 'nature'.
No wonder you are so confused and wrong-headed. Your reasoning, according to you, is 'guaranteed' by a being whose very existence - were it so - would destroy the very foundations on which reason is built.
Isn't that much like marrying a pimp? Besides doesn't Snoop Dog have a wife? I wonder if she considered herself a victim.
>> I wouldn't go to war based on holy books
Erm...if it comes to you, are you saying that you wouldn't defend your country? I guess the terrorist did win then.
>>- I wouldn’t punish anyone for thought crimes
So you would be "OK" with your wife screaming names in passion, other then yours, in bed? Sure.
>>- I work sometimes on Sunday and Saturday
Jesus is our Sabbath Rest...so do I.
>> I don't think jesus was a demi-god
Neither do I. He is fully God, and fully Man. Wheres the problem?
>>- I think people can have consensual sex with who ever consents
So you are OK with someone perusing your girlfriend/wife? Also, I am sure that is the pedophile mantra, but does that even mean bestiality too? You're sick! You don't understand teenagers, obviously, by that comment. I cringe to share a story but, why not, its Friday. As a 22 year old lifeguard a 13 year old flirted with me all the time. She always mooned or flashed me, sat on my lap saying "I know what this does for you" and tried to make me feel real uncomfortable with advances at times. She was perusing me with a vengeance. She consented to any advance that I would give her. She pleaded with me even. My atheist Dad even said he would of if he was me. Not sure if he was joking either. I never did. Incidentally that was the summer that a very kind couple gave me a simple gospel tract and started me on the path to Jesus. No, mere consent is not the only determining factor.
>>I wouldn’t kill every man, woman, child based on the actions of a few.
Neither would I. Obviously, you would attack a straw man though.
>>I wouldn’t rule out ALL abortion based on the actions of a few people
So you wouldn't rule out ALL murder? Got it. A few murders is perfectly fine and justified.
>>If I have a gay son or daughter is because they were born gay, not because they became gay after being raised by a gay couple. Bisexuality and homosexuality are not a choice; it’s a natural human condition, like being straight. If homosexuality is a choice, so as heterosexuality.
Again you are ignoring science and reality. There is no such a thing as a "gay gene" The American Psychological Association (APA) publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" -- meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are born that way.
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..." ~APA
Even you say that you are bi-sexual. Listen to what Peter Tatchell, a gay activist and a member of the queer rights group OutRage!, went as far as to acknowledge the existence of some who have changed their "sexual orientation." "If heterosexuality and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined... how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can't." Sexuality, he wrote, is "far more ambiguous, blurred and overlapping than any theory of genetic causality can allow."
"Examples of sexual flexibility... don't square with genetic theories of rigid erotic predestination."
Ignore the fact is you wish. Denial is the common trait for people claiming there is no God. Its no surprise it spills over into other fascists of their lives.
>>You still didn’t answer my question: do you prefer a child to be stuck in a orphanage or in an abusive foster home for who knows many years, being totally ignored by a overloaded system than being adopted by a gay couple who will give her a good life?
I hope you understand that orphanages do not exist anymore these days. So you lost value in the dramatic terminology. Today they're placed in foster homes. But to directly address that question, the answer is yes. I would rather take the chance with a good foster home, then a gay couple adopting a child as their own. There I said it.
>>You are grown man and you have to learn to be accountable for your own opinions and choices, ok?
I completely agree. I want to reciprocate that same advice back to you. Don't use the cop out that you were "born bi" and have no choice. You have to learn to be accountable for your own opinions and choices. At least you will be forced to on Judgment Day, might want to get used to it.
I know that the causes why someone is gay or bisexual or straight is not fully known. Maybe there’s a psychological, environmental or even some genetic cause. But to be honest, I really don’t waste my time thinking “why I date men and women instead of dating only men or only women?” I accept who I am and I enjoy it. I have only one life and life is too short to be wasted on thinking the reasons on why I am like this and not something else.
It’s the same thing of me asking you: why you date only women and not men? Why don’t you date both? Why are you straight? You don’t know…it’s your nature, your identity. Period.
I never claimed that there’s no god. The reason I don’t believe in any deities is because there are no proof whatsoever that they are real. If I claim that I’m certain that there’s no god I have to bring some evidence that proves what I’m saying is true. The same way if you claim that there’s a god, you have to bring some evidence that proves god is real. The burden of proof lies on the one who’s making the claim and extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence.
For me, gods are mythical creatures until someone comes with really good evidence – that passes unharmed to all the tests – to prove otherwise.
>> I hope you understand that orphanages do not exist anymore these days. So you lost value in the dramatic terminology. Today they're placed in foster homes.
There are orphanages in my country. But that wasn’t what I asked. I will change the question. Consider my country; in one of these orphanages comes a gay man or woman interested in adopting one particular child. This child has 13 years old and had been in this orphanage since the age of 5; because her mother abandoned her and her father died and the social worker didn’t find any relative to take care of this child. What do you prefer: this child continues on this orphanage without the proper care until she reaches the age of 18 and gets kicked out of the orphanage without a good structure to face the world or to be adopted by a gay person who can and will give this child a good life, education, a home and a family who will care about her?
I don’t have to justify who I am, what I do and how I live my life to some god, because who I am, what I do and how I live my life is my business and no one else’s. Dan, if you want to justify everything you do to your god because you are afraid of burning in hell and suffer until the end of times come, fine…it’s your problem. But you can’t expect everyone to do the same. You can expect people to deny who they really are and to have a life that goes against their true identity to please some god or someone else. The result of this is this person will be unhappy and miserable for as long as they deny who they really are. The worse mistake people can make is lying and hiding from themselves who they really are.
Another questions (I really want you to answer me those)
#1: What if one of your children that everything you teach is bullshit and stops listening to you. What if this child is an atheist in the closet and refuses to believe and accept blindly what you say? What if this child is also gay and thinks that everything you say about gay people are lies, after all this child is gay and he or she considers to be a good person? What do you do?
#2: If – according to you – the bible is right when it comes to raising children. If one day one of your kids defies you, will you send your own child to the limits of your town so the elders can stone him or her to death? (Dt. 21: 18-21)
#3: Danny, you think you know why people are gay. You think that somehow they are influenced by gay people (mostly by gay parents) to become gay. Ok, so I have a question for you: My parents are straight; they raised me; so – according to your theory – I was supposed to be straight. But that didn’t happen…I’m bisexual. So – according to your worldview – why am I bisexual, if my parents didn’t influence me in the sexual orientation department?
>>I completely agree. I want to reciprocate that same advice back to you. Don't use the cop out that you were "born bi" and have no choice. You have to learn to be accountable for your own opinions and choices. At least you will be forced to on Judgment Day, might want to get used to it.
I didn't chose to be bisexual, but I chose to accept who I am so I could be a happy and accomplished person instead of a miserable woman who nullified herself and denied her true identity due the fear of being tortured in hell.
I am already accountable for my life, my opinions and choices. I don't use other people to justify the things I do and who I am. If I have to pay for something I did wrong (being bisexual doesn't count because is not wrong), I'll pay it here - on earth by man's justice - and now and I'll accept the consequences. I don't believe in the judgment day. Judgment day is to make highly impressionable people (like you Danny boy) to be afraid of everything, even to breath or fart in way that your god doesn't approve.
Another question (considering that the judgment day will really happen): When the end of times come and all the humans – dead and alive – are about to be judged by god. What if god comes to you and say: “You were a bad person because you didn’t respect those who were different of you; you were an ignorant bigot and chose to follow an ancient book where I was portrayed wrongly by vile and unworthy men. You are bad son for using me as an excuse for treating your brothers and sisters with disrespect and threatened them with eternal torture in the fiery pit. I created them like this (bisexuals, gays, transgender, wiccans, Satanists, etc). I gave men free will so he could chose his own path, even if this path lead to not believing in me. Those who didn’t deny their true selves to please me deserves my sympathy and you – who were stupid enough to not be tolerant to your brothers by forcing your way onto them - deserves not”.
Because that is how we are DESIGNED. Its even an evolutionary point. What is the purpose for man and woman from an evolutionary standpoint? To procreate, right?.
>>I never claimed that there’s no god.
Keep that in mind in light of what you just said. "You are grown [woman] and you have to learn to be accountable for your own opinions and choices, ok?" Honesty would suite you much better. Claiming atheism denotes "No God" Otherwise you would consider yourself a non-theist or agnostic. BTW this blog is not called Debunking Agnostics for that purpose. Back to reality.
>>The burden of proof lies on the one who’s making the claim and extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence.
There is overwhelming evidence, even in a court of law, but atheits will still say there is still no evidence. Its an atheistic denial thingy again. Admit that, even in light of ALL the evidence, you choose to reject it.
>>I don’t have to justify who I am, what I do and how I live my life to some god, because who I am, what I do and how I live my life is my business and no one else’s.
That is my ENTIRE point. You DO have to justify yourself and your rebellion, not that it will do any good but that is all you have without Jesus Christ, and will be held accountable for those choices and actions.
>>What do you prefer: this child continues on this orphanage without the proper care until she reaches the age of 18 and gets kicked out of the orphanage without a good structure to face the world or to be adopted by a gay person who can and will give this child a good life, education, a home and a family who will care about her?
Again this is fallacious arguments. If there is zero proper avenues for the children what does it matter which one? That is like saying the only two choices are a heroin addict and a meth addict. Lesser of two evils is not good at all. I would say arrest everyone in charge of the foster care system, reform it all, and put into place a PROPER method of raising children, i.e. warm and loving foster homes. If I was forced to choose I still say an orphanage is better then a gay couples home. At least an orphanage is not willingly defying God and thumbing their nose at Him. I have to believe that is a better route.
"If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for." ~C.H. Spurgeon
>>#2: I actually used those verses on my oldest (23) as a warning and he said "I am all ears... I don't like getting stoned anymore" Get it? I thought that was a witty double entendre. The OT still stands and will be the law after Christ's second coming. We better get used to them. Sin will not be tolerated when that happens. From my experience, a threat of stoning seems to do the trick, so...
>>#3: There are far more environmental factors to make a kid gay. Most, not all but most, gay people have weak or absent fathers. Do you have a strong and present Dad? Maybe a overly weak Mom? Maybe your Mom rejected you too much and you long for the female embrace. Maybe you were treated badly by men. Or males were a huge disappointment in your life. Many factors, but they're there. I am sure, if we explore it enough, we can pinpoint to the problem. I am not sure if you would air your dirty laundry in public though. You are always welcome to email me to get it more private. If not, I completely understand. We have fun with all the playful banter but I do care about you, and these things. I am a people watcher by nature and love to explore things to see what makes people tick.
>>What would you do?
I would answer like Old Pete, “If God should take me to the very mouth of Hell, and say to me, 'In you go, [Dan]; here’s where you belong,' I would say to Him, 'That’s true, Lord, I do belong there. But if you make me go to Hell, Your dear Son, Jesus Christ, must go with me! He and I are now one, and we cannot be separated anymore."
Did you read that document I sent you about same sex parenting? After all, it's not fair...I heard all the 7 parts of that video that was soooo stupid that I didn't want to waste my time by making comments on so much bullshit and falacies...
>> I have sex (in case of having sex with a man, not only to procreate), but for the pleasure. You can’t deny that having an orgasm is pretty fucking good (when is multiple orgasms, it’s even better!!!).
>> Claiming atheism denotes "No God" Otherwise you would consider yourself a non-theist or agnostic.
Do you know the difference between agnostic, non-theist and atheist? -nontheism: term that covers a range of both religious and nonreligious attitudes characterized by the absence of — or the rejection of — theism or any belief in a personal god or gods. Nontheistic traditions have played roles in Buddhism, Christianity (imagine that!!!), Hinduism, Jainism, and Raelism. - Agnosticism: it has to do with knowledge (the lack of it – but not only about the god subject – someone can be agnostic when it’s about ghosts, reincarnation, etc) “a” means “without” and “gnosis” means “knowledge. When someone is an agnostic it means he doesn’t know if there’s god(s); for an agnostic, knowing if there’s god(s) or not is impossible, since is beyond the capability of men to have that knowledge. - Atheism is about “not believing”. Believe and knowledge are different things. I don’t deny god(s), I just don’t believe in them. According to your train of thought if you don’t believe in fairies and leprechauns you are denying them, right?
>> Again, I ask you. What is the evidence that proves god is real? If you have any, I even give my home address so you can send it to me (I don’t mean by your testimony telling that story about you changing the tire for an old lady). Because, seriously…if you do and your evidence pass 100% unharmed to all the tests, you’ll be famous and you’re going to appear on Oprah!!!
>> You DO have to justify yourself and your rebellion, not that it will do any good but that is all you have without Jesus Christ, and will be held accountable for those choices and actions.
If I have to justify myself to someone else, you have to justify your actions to me and to the entire world. I don’t justify myself even to my parents, imagine to justify myself to god and his alter ego Jesus…
>> From my experience, a threat of stoning seems to do the trick, so...
You did this? I can’t believe it!!! You are a terrible father!!! If I had a husband and I heard him saying that to my child I would kick him out of the house, I would report him to the police and Child Affairs, I would divorce him immediately and I would make sure he would never see my child again.
This is not how you show you care and love your children. Then you have the nerve to say gay parents are a bad influence. You are a very bad influence. Respect has to be earned and the only thing you are getting from your children is fear. They fear you, but don’t respect you. They will never take you seriously. You don’t educate children by threatening them. I can’t believe their mother agree with this.
>>#3Do you have a strong and present Dad? Yes Maybe a overly weak Mom? No Maybe your Mom rejected you too much and you long for the female embrace. No. Maybe you were treated badly by men. No. Or males were a huge disappointment in your life. No. (Did you forget I’m bisexual – meaning I like both men and women? So, in that case who disappointed me?)
Now it’s your turn. Why are you straight? Do you have a strong and present mother? Maybe an overly weak father? Maybe your mother rejected you too much and you long for the female embrace? Maybe you were treated badly by women? (I mean “men” because if women treated you badly you would be gay…according to what you said) Or women were a huge disappointment in your life? (I mean “men” because if women were a huge disappointment in your life you would be gay…according to what you said)
Dan, do you remember what happened in those two links that you posted? You brought up more presupositional bullshit and got shot down in one, and you brought up court procedures in another and got shot down again.
Dan: There is overwhelming evidence, even in a court of law, but atheits will still say there is still no evidence. Its an atheistic denial thingy again. Admit that, even in light of ALL the evidence, you choose to reject it.
By evidence, we're looking for stuff like "prophecies" that have been fulfilled, and not twisted, or made up after the fact. See MessiahTruth for examples of how xians do that with "messianic prophecies".
Scientific facts that actually match up with reality instead of contradicting them. (Ex. the mustard seed problem).
I would answer like Old Pete, “If God should take me to the very mouth of Hell, and say to me, 'In you go, [Dan]; here’s where you belong,' I would say to Him, 'That’s true, Lord, I do belong there. But if you make me go to Hell, Your dear Son, Jesus Christ, must go with me! He and I are now one, and we cannot be separated anymore."
At which point the reply very well might be, "I have no son - that was just a story made up by a bunch of ancient cultists. And because of your facetiousness, I'm ramping up your torments. Begone, strange little man."
If there is zero proper avenues for the children what does it matter which one?
And who are you to say that there is any 'proper' avenue for children beyond being raised by adults who love them and support them and will teach them to respect themselves and others? Do you imagine that such parents are exclusively hetero? Reality would beg to differ.
That is like saying the only two choices are a heroin addict and a meth addict.
Not directly comparable, so irrelevant. The child's safety is at risk with a drug addict, but not - all other things being equal - with a homosexual couple.
Lesser of two evils is not good at all.
So...you would prefer an abusive hetero couple over a loving gay couple, then? Your concept of 'evil' encompasses disobedience to the dictates of an imaginary deity whilst ignoring real human needs. Hence, it is no guide to what is best for children, or anyone, really.
I would say arrest everyone in charge of the foster care system, reform it all, and put into place a PROPER method of raising children, i.e. warm and loving foster homes.
Your worldview precludes "warm and loving" if said warmth and love come from those who don't conform to your fairytale ideals. We've all seen your dominionist tendencies, but we've yet to see any non-fantastical justification therefor.
At least an orphanage is not willingly defying God and thumbing their nose at Him. I have to believe that is a better route.
Have to believe? Why? I've already shown that your god, if it existed, would destroy the foundations of reason. Why, under the rule of such a being, would you have to do anything?
Ignore the fact is you wish. Denial is the common trait for people claiming there is no God. Its no surprise it spills over into other fascists of their lives.
Actually, Dan, denial is the common trait for those who - like you - claim that a being exists who would undermine the foundations of reason. Your belief requires you to deny the reality of the natural universe.
And...other fascists? I think your Freudian slip is showing...
Dan: I've never understood why Christians of your ilk rail soooo hard against homosexuality. You compared it to pedophilia and bestiality numerous times, but I'm sure you know full well that there is a world of difference between having sex with an unwitting child or animal and having sex with a competent adult of the same sex. Many homosexuals simply live their lives just as normally as anyone else, yourself included. They pay their bills, tip their waiters, and give the elderly their seats on public transportation. Their outside life is no different than yours or mine, the only difference being that they lay in bed at night with someone of the same sex.
So my question to you is this: Who are these particular homosexuals harming? I'll ignore the issue of raising kids for now and just focus on childless, adult homosexual couples. Why should they be bothered? Does your God's definition of wrong encompass people who simply go about living their day-to-day lives harming no one? Why should you, I, or anyone else care about what an adult does between the sheets, so long as it's with another consenting adult?
Does your God's definition of wrong encompass people who simply go about living their day-to-day lives harming no one?
Yes, Trino - according to Dan's idea of god and morality, anyone who is not sufficiently servile is suspect. Unadulterated enjoyment of life is not permitted - you have to be constantly aware of your base human nature and the fact that you are scum, and you must behave accordingly. And enjoying sex for pleasure is totally out - you have to be constantly mindful of your duty to ensure a ready supply of godly children to replenish the earth and outnumber the filthy unbelievers.
Why should you, I, or anyone else care about what an adult does between the sheets, so long as it's with another consenting adult?
Because Dan's morality has nothing to do with human welfare and everything to do with control - suppression of normal human desires enables them to be twisted and rechanneled into religious fervour.
>>I've never understood why Christians of your ilk rail soooo hard against homosexuality.
I do not rail against merely gay people. I am an enemy of evil and sin. You just may be spotlighting one thing that is passionate to you possibly. Sin of all sorts a
>>You compared it to pedophilia and bestiality numerous times
Would you prefer I use polygamy? Robing banks? its the same analogy.
>>Their outside life is no different than yours or mine, the only difference being that they lay in bed at night with someone of the same sex.
With a recorded higher STD rate they are polluting society, medically and morally.
>>Does your God's definition of wrong encompass people who simply go about living their day-to-day lives harming no one?
Drug addicts sitting at home is harming others too. The same for gay people. They claim not to be harming others but they do. They are part of a society after all. They strive to break up normal societies by flaunting their sexuality with parades and festivals that celebrate that fact.
>> Why should you, I, or anyone else care about what an adult does between the sheets, so long as it's with another consenting adult?
It certainly looks that way, Michelle. D.A.N. clearly has an issue with homosexuality, and try as he might to hide behind his "it's not just gays, it's sin in general" schtick, it's pretty obvious that he reserves a special level of vitriol for people who are sexually attracted to others of the same sex.
I'm still leaning towards the protests-too-much explanation for this - D.A.N. works so hard at his own sexual repression that he wants to force it on others as well. Misery loves company, so they say.
I notice that most of my comments are being ignored. I was expecting D.A.N. to come out with more of his "my worldview's right and yours is absurd" or some other failure to address my arguments, but I'm guessing he's really got nothing now.
Two monogamous gay lovers won't spread disease any more than two monogamous straight lovers. And a promiscuous gay person who frequently engages in unprotected sex is just as likely to spread STD's as a straight person who does the same. If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.
It's clear that you find the idea of gay people "flaunting" their sexuality in public to be lewd and distasteful. The thing is, not all gay people carry themselves like the ones in the links you provided. Like I said in my previous post, there are plenty of low-key homosexuals who are not "in the streets" as you put it. People who simply work from 9 to 5, watch movies, and enjoy their lives without bothering anyone else. Do you believe that they pollute society just by existing? Honestly, if a gay person bears good fruit (giving to charity, helping the needy, being loving and kind to others, etc.), why should their behavior behind closed doors with a consenting adult matter to you?
You know what it’s said about some homophobes being “gay in the closet struggling not to come out.”
Yesterday I was thinking to myself that the reason of D.A.N made this blog wasn’t to try to debunk atheists only, but also to try to save us – the lost damned souls – to find the way back to god and accept Jesus in our hearts. As he said in one of his comments he’s not trying to scare us with “you’re going to burn in the lake of fire if you don’t embrace god”, he’s trying to warn us.
I kind of feel sorry for D.A.N in a way; it must be really frustrating for him to try debunking us through his fallacies and twisted worldviews and opinions just to see them shattered later in every comment. I think in every post he thinks “now this post will prove atheists wrong for good”. But it doesn’t happen…we don’t share the same opinions as he and we show how flawed, intolerant and non sense his faith is. It’s kind of ironic we understand more about his religion than D.A.N; let’s face it…he doesn’t fully know what his own faith is about. For D.A.N it’s all “god’s will/god did it and that’s it; he doesn’t need to know why/how things happen, he can’t question or doubt because that’s an unforgivable sin and only his god’s mysterious ways matters” I guess this blog should be called “Atheists Debunking D.A.N.”
I thought that maybe I was too harsh on D.A.N by saying he was bad father. But now I think I wasn’t. Some people really need a shock treatment. Threatening your kids of such harsh punishment as death by stoning is not good parenting. I hope is not his case, but someone who takes such violent holy book by the letter it really doesn’t take much to go from threat to action.
You know what it’s said about some homophobes being “gay in the closet struggling not to come out.”
Yesterday I was thinking to myself that the reason of D.A.N made this blog wasn’t to try to debunk atheists only, but also to try to save us – the lost damned souls – to find the way back to god and accept Jesus in our hearts. As he said in one of his comments he’s not trying to scare us with “you’re going to burn in the lake of fire if you don’t embrace god”, he’s trying to warn us.
I kind of feel sorry for D.A.N in a way; it must be really frustrating for him to try debunking us through his fallacies and twisted worldviews and opinions just to see them shattered later in every comment. I think in every post he thinks “now this post will prove atheists wrong for good”. But it doesn’t happen…we don’t share the same opinions as he and we show how flawed, intolerant and non sense his faith is. It’s kind of ironic we understand more about his religion than D.A.N; let’s face it…he doesn’t fully know what his own faith is about. For D.A.N it’s all “god’s will/god did it and that’s it; he doesn’t need to know why/how things happen, he can’t question or doubt because that’s an unforgivable sin and only his god’s mysterious ways matters” I guess this blog should be called “Atheists Debunking D.A.N.”
I thought that maybe I was too harsh on D.A.N by saying he was bad father. But now I think I wasn’t. Some people really need a shock treatment. Threatening your kids of such harsh punishment as death by stoning is not good parenting. I hope is not his case, but someone who takes such violent holy book by the letter it really doesn’t take much to go from threat to action.
>>Yesterday I was thinking to myself that the reason of D.A.N made this blog wasn’t to try to debunk atheists only, but also to try to save us – the lost damned souls – to find the way back to god and accept Jesus in our hearts.
Uh oh, they're on to me. :7)
>>I kind of feel sorry for D.A.N in a way; it must be really frustrating for him to try debunking us through his fallacies and twisted worldviews and opinions just to see them shattered later in every comment.
Oh Puhleeze!! The moment you claim that I am wrong, or you're an Atheist, you already lost the battle because you cannot account for absolutes such as rights and wrongs within your worldview. Its not frustrating, its sad at times though. I have fun here and it keeps my mind working intellectually. I deal with children all day after all.
>>I guess this blog should be called “Atheists Debunking D.A.N.”
That is the running joke here. In that, its a gathering for debunking atheists. I found that pretty funny. I do like when people bring their "A" game.
>>Some people really need a shock treatment.
Hypocrite! Welcome to my world though.
>>Threatening your kids of such harsh punishment as death by stoning is not good parenting.
Lighten up, Francis. First of all, it is good parenting, Do you have kids? IF not you have no argument here. Grow up some and become a parent, then you can comment. My boy is 23 and not even living 1000 miles near me. Second, it was a tongue and cheek comment but he got the message to stop being a drunkard and to do something positive with his life. It worked as 2 Timothy 3:16 said it would.
I also showed him these verses and told him that even our situation has Biblical provisions. I also said that "you get double of my riches...bwahahahha My riches are children so you get two? You're welcome."
It was playful banter. I know I don't have to explain things to you but I just want you to know that I try to do things out of love, not hate. I also fully understand that truth always is confrontational, there is always someone on the wrong side of truth. This is a very serious and real subject for you and I. If I didn't love you enough to tell you the truth, then I wouldn't. Truth hurts, I understand. My Dad always said that only a friend will tell a friend that they stink. An enemy would never tell you that spinach is in between your teeth. I would. Just understand that one thing.
Oh and stop repeating yourself. I get every comment through email and by posting something over and over again may reassure that it gets place into that horrible spam filter that Google implemented recently. I will remove everything in the spam periodically, and it will show up eventually. Don't worry, you will be heard. Every time you repeat yourself I picture you singing that Helen Reddy song. :7)
So the T-shirts I will wear at the gay pride parade will read "Keep it out of the streets, and in between the sheets™" On the same lines as " I didn't ask, so don't tell™"
I wonder if I will get beaten up for that one. Look for the pictures of me with a Bible in one hand yelling and handing out tracts wearing that t-shirt on the news and in the newspaper. Stay tuned!
>> D.A.N the fact I feel sorry for you has nothing to do with the “right/wrong thing”. I feel sorry for you because you are a repressed person; because you think the everybody has to agree with you, do the same things you do and to believe/follow blindly what you tell them. You think you’re right and everybody else is wrong because they don’t share the same worldview as you. Guess, you don’t owe the truth, you don’t owe “absolute morality” – even because there are no absolute truths and absolute morality - you don’t owe anything. Nobody does. You should stop worrying about other people’s lives; let them be who they are and chill out. Go to a beach, drink some margaritas, relax…you have just one life you’re wasting it. >> Why am I hypocrite?
>> I don’t have kids, but I raise my sister. I would never say to sister “shut up or I’ll stone you”/ “Do as I say or else I’ll beat you up”. If she does something wrong I give her a time out in her bedroom and that does the trick and I didn’t even slap her or anything. The way you raise your kids is like this: “I’ll beat the shit out of you if you don’t do as I say, but I love you”. That’s not love to me. But again is how your god works. I don’t see any difference between you and an alcoholic father who spanks his children on a daily basis. The only thing that changes here are the drugs you use: religion and a holy book. There was a couple of JW that bit their kids up and gave them really harsh punishments. Their oldest child reported them to the police, they got arrested, they lost their children’s custody and they were condemned. They say the reason they did this it’s because “it’s in the bible”. For them, they were not wrong and these parents got surprised because they were condemned. Another couple of JW were responsible for their daughter’s death because she needed it blood transfusion and they refuse to let the doctors to do the procedure. They even threatened to sue the hospital if they did the blood transfusion. The girl died and they were charged of homicide. That’s good parenting for you? I know you care about your children, but physical punishments are not the way to show it. They are your kids, not sheeps for you to boss around with the menace of sending them to a slaughterhouse. If the bible say you can stone your children – so if you have a daughter – she can get you drunk and rape you. If your daughter is raped by some prick bastard (I don’t wish that on her) you will have to marry her with her rapist after he pays you.
Now, just a question. How the fact I’m bisexual can be harmful to me, if I’m ok with it? Did you read the same – sex parenting dccument?
The moment you claim that I am wrong, or you're an Atheist, you already lost the battle because you cannot account for absolutes such as rights and wrongs within your worldview.
Gee, DAN, anyone would think you missed my comment demonstrating that belief in god undermines reason.
I try to do things out of love, not hate.
I realise that you think this is the case, DAN, but your words are hateful nonetheless. It may be that your hatred is so deeply embedded that you no longer have to make a conscious choice to reveal it - it just spews forth effortlessly whenever you write about gay people, or atheists, or anyone, really, whose actions or beliefs don't conform to your religious dogma.
I also fully understand that truth always is confrontational, there is always someone on the wrong side of truth. This is a very serious and real subject for you and I. If I didn't love you enough to tell you the truth, then I wouldn't. Truth hurts, I understand.
But only if it's actually true. You've done nothing to demonstrate that gay/bisexual/polyamorous/sexually unrepressed people are actually harming anyone. The truth, apparently too painful for you to contemplate, is that this life is the only one we get, and you're so busy trying not to enjoy it that you can't help but rail against anyone who doesn't do the same.
The moment you claim that I am wrong, or you're an Atheist, you already lost the battle because you cannot account for absolutes such as rights and wrongs within your worldview.
Au contraire, DAN - the minute you invest belief in a supernatural, unlimited entity, you've lost any recourse to reason whatsoever. If anything is possible, nothing logically follows from anything else.
Dan you said, ”I would say arrest everyone in charge of the foster care system, reform it all, and put into place a PROPER method of raising children, i.e. warm and loving foster homes.”
Please show what support you have for you claim that same sex couples or their style of parenting is no the PROPER method of raising children. I’ll save you the trouble to mention that states and countries have shown that same sex couples allowed to Foster or adopt have an excellent track record for parenting the children and providing a greatly needed service to these children. So Dan you bare assertion means nothing.
>>Who are these particular homosexuals harming?
Dan you responded, ”You mean besides themselves and society?”
Though I question what support you might have on that, let’s roll with that method of reasoning. Since the records from the FBI over the past 20+ years have shown that crime, violent crime, teen pregnancy, and drug abuse is the highest in the most religious (Christian in particular) cities and states, we can only conclude that Christianity is harming society.
Dan you said,” With a recorded higher STD rate they are polluting society, medically and morally.”
Let keep going with that. Those (Straight & Gay) who are practicing unprotected sex are the people that are most often the ones putting society at risk. Lets arrest them all . We can raid the bedrooms of those suspected sinners. Also, since the Christian abstinence only education plan implemented in some cities & states only increase the practice of unprotected sex, we should arrest all those involved in this thing that is threatening society.
DormantDragon said, ” I was expecting D.A.N. to come out with more of his "my worldview's right and yours is absurd" or some other failure to address my arguments, but I'm guessing he's really got nothing now.
Yea, he seems to be ignoring the big holes in his argument we keep pointing at and focusing on a point that is base on his personal prejudices.
Dan said,” The moment you claim that I am wrong, or you're an Atheist, you already lost the battle because you cannot account for absolutes such as rights and wrongs within your worldview.”
Dan, I keep pointing out to you that you’re shooting yourself in the foot with that statement. Remember, according to you its righteous and morally correct when his god orders that the Canaanite’s innocent children to be slaughtered by the hands of man, but it not OK for man to kill children. To put its simpler for you to grasp, its not ok to kill babies unless god says its ok to kill babies. That doesn’t seem to be very absolute to me.
Dan, please give me a non religious reason we should take the rights of adults to live their lives in relationships with whichever other adults whom they please to. Please show me the argument and support for this claim. So far all I see is a repeat of the anti-interracial bigotry from Americas past. All the arguments you have put forward so far are the same talking points they used back then.
Hi Dan, remember your comments after the first Presuppositional Apologetics Debate ?
Yet after this Second Debate - not a word. Not an OP, not a comment, not a single triumphant shout.
Why is that ?
It's ok, I understand ;-)
Not bad Paul, I loved the way Sye had to resort to spouting nonsense (well, something even more nonsensical than his normal schtick) when you turned the revelation claim back on him - shame the host cut to a break before we got to hear whether Sye could actually expand on his non-response.
Dan you said, ”I would say arrest everyone in charge of the foster care system, reform it all, and put into place a PROPER method of raising children, i.e. warm and loving foster homes.”
Please show what support you have for you claim that same sex couples or their style of parenting is no the PROPER method of raising children. I’ll save you the trouble to mention that states and countries have shown that same sex couples allowed to Foster or adopt have an excellent track record for parenting the children and providing a greatly needed service to these children. So Dan you bare assertion means nothing.
>>Who are these particular homosexuals harming?
Dan you responded, ”You mean besides themselves and society?”
Though I question what support you might have on that, let’s roll with that method of reasoning. Since the records from the FBI over the past 20+ years have shown that crime, violent crime, teen pregnancy, and drug abuse is the highest in the most religious (Christian in particular) cities and states, we can only conclude that Christianity is harming society.
Dan you said,” With a recorded higher STD rate they are polluting society, medically and morally.”
Let keep going with that. Those (Straight & Gay) who are practicing unprotected sex are the people that are most often the ones putting society at risk. Lets arrest them all . We can raid the bedrooms of those suspected sinners. Also, since the Christian abstinence only education plan implemented in some cities & states only increase the practice of unprotected sex, we should arrest all those involved in this thing that is threatening society.
DormantDragon said, ” I was expecting D.A.N. to come out with more of his "my worldview's right and yours is absurd" or some other failure to address my arguments, but I'm guessing he's really got nothing now.
Yea, he seems to be ignoring the big holes in his argument we keep pointing at and focusing on a point that is base on his personal prejudices.
Dan said,” The moment you claim that I am wrong, or you're an Atheist, you already lost the battle because you cannot account for absolutes such as rights and wrongs within your worldview.”
Dan, I keep pointing out to you that you’re shooting yourself in the foot with that statement. Remember, according to you its righteous and morally correct when his god orders that the Canaanite’s innocent children to be slaughtered by the hands of man, but it
..not OK for man to kill children. To put its simpler for you to grasp, its not ok to kill babies unless god says its ok to kill babies. That doesn’t seem to be very absolute to me.
Dan, please give me a non religious reason we should take the rights of adults to live their lives in relationships with whichever other adults whom they please to. Please show me the argument and support for this claim. So far all I see is a repeat of the anti-interracial bigotry from Americas past. All the arguments you have put forward so far are the same talking points they used back then.
I sent D.A.N a link of a document showing a study made by the Australian Psychological Society about LGBT Parented Families where it shows that same sex couples raising children is not harmful as he thinks it is; the same sex couples raise their children just like straight couples - and in some aspects of parenting - gay parents are more tolerant and patient than straight parents.
Since he didn't post a answer about this study I guess he didn't even bother to read it; D.A.N ignores different points of view and refuses to at least take a look at something that shows how wrong and misleading his impressions/opinions are. He only accepts those claims that supports his twisted world view through interpretations everybody knows are fallacies (but I guess D.A.N doesn't even know they are fallacies even if he was hit in the face by them)
Michelle, D.A.N. doesn't care about any human study (unless he thinks it backs up his point of view). His Bible tells him that homosexuality is an abomination. That fits his own prejudice and so he'll stick with that.
The reason Dan didn’t reply is because if presume his god, then all the data from the studies you shared would somehow support his claims on Same Sex couples and families. I know it doesn’t make much sense but neither does the fact that he thinks its OK to kill innocent babies if god tells you to but not ok if you do it without his permission.
Per Dan if you base our views on his god, no matter how flawed, bad, or absurd they seems, it right and any other views are automatically wrong.
>>Please show what support you have for you claim that same sex couples or their style of parenting is no the PROPER method of raising children.
Biblical support is all I need.
>>I’ll save you the trouble to mention that states and countries have shown that same sex couples allowed to Foster or adopt have an excellent track record for parenting the children and providing a greatly needed service to these children.
You're right, and that may very well be the case on the surface. But that is not the full truth. Of those raised in a gay environment it would be crucial to identify, how many of those kids become Christian and go to Heaven? That is the only thing that matters here. It matters if they are secularized and become good members of society, only to loose their soul in hell. That is what I fight against. That atrocity!
>>Since the records from the FBI over the past 20+ years have shown that crime, violent crime, teen pregnancy, and drug abuse is the highest in the most religious (Christian in particular) cities and states, we can only conclude that Christianity is harming society.
You mean barely assert, not conclude. There are certainly more factors to those asserted figures then just "merely Christian". Its a non sequitur.
>>Lets arrest them all . We can raid the bedrooms of those suspected sinners. Also, since the Christian abstinence only education plan implemented in some cities & states only increase the practice of unprotected sex, we should arrest all those involved in this thing that is threatening society.
That may be your stance on things, and that is your right to say it, but that is not my viewpoints at all. You want to be the judge, I humbly admit that I am not. Apparently, that is the huge difference between us.
>>Dan, please give me a non religious reason we should take the rights of adults to live their lives in relationships with whichever other adults whom they please to.
I cannot, nor did I even suggest that strawman of yours.
Since we are merely human I don't think we should take such drastic measures as to ban lifestyle choices, or at least the current ones. Incidentally, I certainly do not see atheists fighting for polygamy anywhere. I digress. I understand that there are still sodomy laws on the books in some states that I disagree with. I will fight for the rights of humans, any violation of that is worth fighting for. Yes, abortions are a violation of human rights. Marriages are a religious thingy and the government should stay out of such things. To sit idly by and watch gay people being persecuted and arrested for just being gay, is not the Christian way. I would not want that at all, and would fight against it.
In that same breath though, if it were God in charge, as He is, and decreed that being gay is an abomination, as He did, and doing so will get you rejected from Heaven and sent to Hell, as it will, then I would trust that point, as I do.
Humans have no right to do that, God does. I think your confusion, understandably, is that you merely think on the level of this temporal plane. I tend to think only in the eternal plane these days. Like I said, I know gay people, and have had intimate dinners and friendships with a few. That does not mean I am not concerned for their welfare in the afterlife. I still witness to them.
I still will wear the t-shirt that says on the front "Keep it between the sheets, and off my streets" and on the back it would say " I didn't ask, so don't tell"
I still will wear the t-shirt that says on the front "Keep it between the sheets, and off my streets" and on the back it would say " I didn't ask, so don't tell"
Do you have any other T-shirts for other things you consider sins?
Your most recent response sort of highlights one of the issues that I personally have with Christianity, and other organized religions to an extent. Earlier you threw out what seem to be your main "temporal plane" reasons to stand against homosexuality: the spreading of STD's by gays and the lack of homosexuality in nature. The first is absurd and the second is untrue if you do some research. Ultimately, however, both arguments simply serve as cover for your basic argument: "God said its wrong, and that's all that needs to be said".
Most recorded sins have some sort of real-world, concrete impact that is considered by most to be harmful. Rape, lying, murder, cheating, stealing, etc. are seem by most as wrong simply from a human standpoint. So why would God consider something like homosexuality to be such a mortal sin when the only ill-will it breeds comes from the people who don't like it because their holy book says it's bad? It just comes off as arbitrary, much like the veils of Muslim women. It's stuff like this that drives away people who aren't too keen on blindly following orders that aren't based on anything tangible.
I find it fascinating that you make your argument based on quotes from the bible. How can you argue against a world view that does not accept the bible as a document of revealed truth? This position basically excludes any other religious belief like islam or buddhism that would reject the bible as a document of revealed truth. And for that matter, how about all the different Christian sects? Which of them are true believers? How about the Mormons? They believe in Jesus Christ, but definitely in a different way than you do. Are they atheists?
I also find the "bleak worthless ideology" statement offensive. You may want to read Camus to widen your view on the subject a little.
You're right, and that may very well be the case on the surface. But that is not the full truth. Of those raised in a gay environment it would be crucial to identify, how many of those kids become Christian and go to Heaven? That is the only thing that matters here. It matters if they are secularized and become good members of society, only to loose their soul in hell.
So, when Dan thinks that there are imaginary consequences to real-life choices, he's all for making unsupported assertions, and yet, when a claim that disagrees with his worldview is backed up with evidence, he comes out with:
You mean barely assert, not conclude.
A fine example of the cognitive results of "thinking only in the eternal plane", whatever that is - sounds like living in a fantasy land to me.
Marriage is not a religious institution; the proof of that is there are people that only perform the civil marriage (because it's what it counts). All that we – the homosexuals - want is to have their union recognized by the state so they can have the same legal rights - such as inheritance in case of the partner's death; insurance having the partner as a beneficiary, allowance and partition of assets in case of a divorce; having the right of adopting a child in the name of both partners instead of just one; etc - a straight couple have; so we don't need to get married in a church to have that. Weddings in churches have no legal value (at least not in my country; that’s why usually the bride and groom marry twice: first in the register office and next day in the church – if they so choose). We want the civil union and that’s it. I don’t see how that is “damaging” to the “divine/religious institute of heterosexual marriage”
Weddings in churches are only mindless ceremonies where every goes just to see the bride, compare dresses and to have a little souvenir after the ceremony (lol).
If there’s something that is damaging/threatening to the heterosexual marriage; to the family nucleus – and sometimes to the society in general - it’s the heterosexual marriage. The rates of divorce; adultery; physical abuse and even murder between the spouses; abusive parents;etc are higher in heterosexual couples than in gay couples.
I'm heterosexual, yet my partner and I won't be married. We will have a celebration of our love without the requirement of belief in supernatural. A 'civil union' would be the term used.
That’s fairly obvious since your Canaanite comment shows that you only claim absolute logic when what you actually use to support you assertion is neither logic nor absolute.
Me: ”…same sex couples allowed to Foster or adopt have an excellent track record for parenting the children and providing a greatly needed service to these children.”
Dan,”You're right, and that may very well be the case on the surface. But that is not the full truth. Of those raised in a gay environment it would be crucial to identify, how many of those kids become Christian and go to Heaven? That is the only thing that matters here. It matters if they are secularized and become good members of society, only to loose their soul in hell. That is what I fight against. That atrocity!”
That’s good, you agree that the evidence shows your pervious claims to justify your bigotry are incorrect, but if someone does not live and act under your unsupported beliefs or what you think is correct, it is atrocious. Even if a person uses the best current evidence to show the benefit and rationally make a decision, they are still wrong no matter what the evidence says.
ME: “Since the records from the FBI over the past 20+ …. Blah Blah Blah Christianity is harming society.
Dan,”You mean barely assert, not conclude. There are certainly more factors to those asserted figures then just "merely Christian". Its a non sequitur.”
Dan, that was an exaggeration to show how you appear to operate. That’s why I had said before that, “Though I question what support you might have on that, let’s roll with that method of reasoning.” Glad you got the point that your making unsupported assertions and drawing conclusions from them.
Me:”Lets arrest them all …..
Dan, ”That may be your stance on things, and that is your right to say it, but that is not my viewpoints at all. You want to be the judge, I humbly admit that I am not. Apparently, that is the huge difference between us.
It not my stance, I’m again following your line of thought. You don’t like what some people do, you want to punish them by taking away their rights for no other reason than you personal judgment on their lives. The difference between us Dan is I try my best to use evidence, education and discussion to come to conclusions. Also, unless what someone does is harmful, illegal or such, no matter how much I might disagree or not like it, I support their right to do as they wish just as much as those I agree with. You on the other hand want to take away the rights of those who do not lead their life as you wish them to.
ME: ”Dan, please give me a non religious reason we should take the rights of adults to live their lives in relationships with whichever other adults whom they please to.
Dan,”I cannot, nor did I even suggest that strawman of yours.”
Please explain what you your point is. From your words in the post I’m responding to that you believe, based on your personal feelings and justification you find for them in the bible, that same sex couples should not be allowed to marry, foster or adopt children or express themselves publicly. You keep saying it harmful tot children and society but admit you have no evidence to support this. Am I missing something?
Dan,”Since we are merely human I don't think we should take such drastic measures as to ban lifestyle choices, or at least the current ones.”
Current Ones?
Dan:”Incidentally, I certainly do not see atheists fighting for polygamy anywhere.
Dan,”I understand that there are still sodomy laws on the books in some states that I disagree with.
And laws saying many silly and out dated things. It cost to remove them so they are left alone since nobody considers them valid any longer. Example in Arkansas: Car sales are prohibited on Sundays.
Dan,,”I will fight for the rights of humans, any violation of that is worth fighting for…. Marriages are a religious thingy and the government should stay out of such things.
Dan, the institution of marriage pre-date the church’s involvement. Some say it pre-dates written history. Marriage was considered an agreement or contract between a man and woman or families. Just because religion decides to get involve in the game, very late in the game, dose not mean they can pretend to own it now.
Dan,”To sit idly by and watch gay people being persecuted and arrested for just being gay, is not the Christian way. I would not want that at all, and would fight against it.”
Yet you want to take away their rights just as religious people in Americas past wanted to do the same to interracial couples.
Dan,”In that same breath though, if it were God in charge,…”
Thank goodness we live in a secular nation where the dogma of your choice has no power.
Dan, “…then I would trust that point, as I do. “
Just as you trust its ok and feel its actually righteous for people ordered by god to kill innocent children, to do so. Thank goodness the court doesn’t agree with you.
Dan, “Humans have no right to do that, God does.”
Unless god told them to, as you mentioned before. Since you believe you are acting on gods word I often see you suing it to justify forcing you personal feelings and judgments on others.
Dan, you’re the worst enemy for your world view and arguments. You constantly refute your own claims and say one thing and act completely the opposite. You’re the best to illustrate why not to be religious, or at least involved in organized religion. You show why its best to use you own mind and educate yourself on how to, rather than let yourself be indoctrinated into a bronze age state of mind.
Incidentally, I certainly do not see atheists fighting for polygamy anywhere.
That might be because historically, those cultures that have practised polygamy have tended to do so in a very one-sided fashion - it's generally been the men having multiple wives, rather than the other way around. There's also evidence that in societies where polygamy is practised in this manner, there is considerable social dysfunction caused by the fact that those men who are not wealthy or powerful enough to acquire a harem of wives feel rather disenfranchised and inclined to unrest.
There is, however, growing support for polyamory - otherwise known as ethical nonmonogamy (think polygamy but with a more enlightened, egalitarian ethos) - among certain folks in Western society. One day, perhaps, it will be worth fighting for legal recognition for polyamorous relationships, but right now, it's just a bunch of people doing their thing. The reality is that it's happening, so why fight?
>>So why would God consider something like homosexuality to be such a mortal sin when the only ill-will it breeds comes from the people who don't like it because their holy book says it's bad?
The same goes with fornication, lusting, or hatred towards someone, or lying.
Lying, as an example, is a spiritual event. It's not merely a physical action. Lying is an offense against God. When His creations lie, He is ashamed of His creation and simply separates Himself. A lie to an eternal God, deserves eternal punishment.
>>It's stuff like this that drives away people who aren't too keen on blindly following orders that aren't based on anything tangible.
Sounds good on the surface but that is not the truth.
As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
I have no problem being called civilly unioned myself. Like Ant, we do not care what the state calls it or believes. According to God, we are married. From very early on in the Bible (Genesis 2:18, Genesis 2:24) Marriage is a spiritual event.
Its not the States, or anyone else's, business. The gays, at least here, shot down the civil union idea because they want to shove the term "marriage" into the face of the Christians and God. We all understand their agenda. If it were merely love for one another, like Patty and I, they would not care.
I don't care what they call me and my wife. According to the US we have a civil union. Great! I am fine with that. In God's eyes we are married and that to me, and probably the gays, is more important.
The State should get out of the marrying business anyway and that was their mistake in the first place, that is for God alone, and just call EVERYONE civilly unioned. I would be more then happy to support that. Where do I sign?
>>The difference between us Dan is I try my best to use evidence, education and discussion to come to conclusions.
Duh, I guess that means I don't! Whatever. Isn't that called a false allegation fallacy?
>>Dan, the institution of marriage pre-date the church’s involvement. Some say it pre-dates written history.
Yea like all the way to the garden of Eden.
>>Marriage was considered an agreement or contract between a man and woman or families.
Sanctioned by God.
>>Just because religion decides to get involve in the game, very late in the game, dose not mean they can pretend to own it now.
Bare assertions much? I have evidence when it was, before written history, do you? You just cannot stand that marriage is a God thingy, not a State thingy. I understand.
>>Yet you want to take away their rights just as religious people in Americas past wanted to do the same to interracial couples.
You mean the rights that God set the criteria for? Yup! Same with being called a Christian. You want to call everyone Civilly unioned? Great! I will sign that petition and welcome being issued a new license that states that. In God's eyes we are married. You, or anyone, cannot take that away.
>>Thank goodness we live in a secular nation where the dogma of your choice has no power.
Three things, who are you thanking? Second who are you trying to convince? Me or you? Third, Turkey defines itself as a secular nation, even though it is 99% Muslim. Point?
>>You’re the best to illustrate why not to be religious,
>>The same goes with fornication, lusting, or hatred towards someone, or lying.
I think you missed my point, because the things you mentioned can have very tangible, adverse effects that are independent of one's spiritual beliefs. Lying, depending on the situation, can lead to anything from hurt feelings to poverty to death. Similar scenarios can play out with fornication, hatred, lust, etc. Like I was saying, all of these things can cause harm regardless of your personal feelings towards them. Homosexuality doesn't fit that description. The only way you can see harm in it is if you look at it through the lens of religious belief, which says that homosexuality is wrong without giving any real reason as to why. As has been pointed out by some of the previous comments, nature is a poor place to look for support in this regard. I'll put it like this: if all organized religions were to vanish from existence tomorrow, then rape, murder, lying, theft, etc. would still be harmful to society. What harm would come from two men or women loving each other?
>> As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain...
So it's your position to know the hearts and minds of every non-Christian on the planet? No wonder you pound that absolute certainty drum so hard; apparently you're omniscient. I think you're confusing the absolute conviction in your heart with absolute certainty about the outside world. Also, you've revealed another thing that mildly bugs me about some Christians: You believe that the words of your holy book supersede the words from my own mouth when it comes to MY mind.
My contempt is reserved for the people who take their beliefs and use them as an excuse to do horrible things. Truthfully, I'd love for their to be some all-powerful being out there that knows and cares about me. As the expression goes, however, wantin' ain't gettin'. I know what the bible says about non-believers, but believe me when I say that the only strong emotion God arouses in me is curiosity; curiosity about Him and His followers. I didn't rebel against God out of anger. On the contrary, I spent a lot of time praying and reading, trying to firmly root my belief in God. Ultimately, it was the very act of seeking that led me away from the faith, as the more I actually read and processed the more I realized that my belief couldn't coexist with my reasoning. No suppression, no rebellion, no contempt; just cold-hard reality.
Maybe a supernatural creator that cares about humans exists and maybe it doesn't. Either way, the only thing I can do is use my “God-given” faculties as best as I can to determine which concepts of God make sense to me, if any.
>>Ultimately, it was the very act of seeking that led me away from the faith, as the more I actually read and processed the more I realized that my belief couldn't coexist with my reasoning.
and
>>Maybe a supernatural creator that cares about humans exists and maybe it doesn't. Either way, the only thing I can do is use my “God-given” faculties as best as I can to determine which concepts of God make sense to me, if any.
You see, that is the problem. Van Til said it this way "If God's authority must be authorized or validated by the authority of human reasoning and assessment, then human thinking is more authoritative the God Himself-in which case God would not have final authority, and indeed would no longer be God."
When you are weighing the validity of God it is you who is holding the scale. That is not how it works.
You see you have created a god to suite yourself (breaking the 2nd Commandment) and the name of your god is "self". You are placing God in the defendant chair and placing yourself in the judges chair. What you don't realize is that you are the criminal, and God is the Judge. Once you realize that in light of God's Word then you begin to understand Him.
ME:”The difference between us Dan is I try my best to use evidence, education and discussion to come to conclusions.”
Dan,”Duh, I guess that means I don't!”
Dan, its you who pointed out that evidence of real world experiences mean nothing to you and your claims here. All that matters to you is your own personal biases, no matter how much they contradict what we see happening in the real world. No matter how much evidence points to the contrary.
Concerning the history of marriage: Dan,”Yea like all the way to the garden of Eden.”
You have yet to show any support to prove the bible is no more than a book based on stories of Bronze Age mythology. You need objective evidence Dan and the bible is not objective. Anyway, there are many other religions and cultures who claim credit for the creation of marriage with as little of far more evidence to support it. The stories of the old testament, at best, were written between the 12th and 2nd century BC. Since marriage is believed to pre-date written history, you’re out of luck. Last but no least, what about the things concerning marriage in the bible that support Polygamy and other things you have claimed to be morally wrong. Wait, that’s right, if god wills it, its righteous not wrong!
ME: ”Marriage was considered an agreement or contract between a man and woman or families.”
Dan, ”Sanctioned by God.”
Bare assertions mean nothing Dan.
ME:”Just because religion decides to get involve in the game, very late in the game, dose not mean they can pretend to own it now.
”Bare assertions much? I have evidence when it was, before written history, do you?”
Dan, your bible is not evidence no more than the religious text of other religions that believe show their god created the world, along with marriage. My point wasn’t a bare assertion since I CAN produce citation on marriages recorded in history that pre-date Christianity. I think real world history acknowledge by the historical and archeological community trumps a bronze age book of myths written many, many centuries after it.
ME:”Yet you want to take away their rights just as religious people in Americas past wanted to do the same to interracial couples.”
Dan:”You mean the rights that God set the criteria for?
No, the rights set by our secular government.
ME:”Thank goodness we live in a secular nation where the dogma of your choice has no power.”
Dan,”Three things, who are you thanking?
I’m just being thankful Dan that’s it. You can try to read into whatever you want. Here I’ll help with one definition:
I am pleased or happy | thank heavens My husband cleans the barn every day, thank goodness. Usage notes: often used instead of the more offensive idiom thank God
Just reminding you, though we have covered this many times before. The amount of people of any particular belief, ethnicity or political inclination in America does not change that fact the America is a secular nation. Your assumption is no better than the one about Christians and violent crime in America I used to illustrate your flawed logic. If you have a hard time understanding this, I’m not surprised. Remember its you who thinks it OK for god to have man conduct violent acts on innocent children because, its Righteous! Your logic works only to support your wishful thinking. When you finally get all tangled up in the fact its failing, you just fall back on bare assertion and bible quoting.
Dan:”Third, Turkey defines itself as a secular nation, even though it is 99% Muslim. Point?
Non Sequitur
Dan:”Oops, you have an Error. “
Dan, A good education teaches you to question the things you are taught and gives you the tools to do so. These teachers also greatly reward you for doing just that, even when you fail. My professors did that and when I was a teacher I did the same.
Your belief Dan, asks for blind faith and punished those who question it, not matter how well thought out their reasoning is. You conversation on this blog is a great example of exactly that. Even when things in your world view are pointed out that contradict your own moral standards, you throw up your arms and just say, god did it so it must be good. When others don’t agree of follow your world view, their view is a “bleak worthless ideology”, they are sinners, are going to hell. Your only reasoning behind it is you offer in the end is your own purely subjective views and attitudes.
I'm still waiting for you to explain the Canaanite contradiction Dan.
Can you sleep at night knowing that you admitted you're OK with the fact hat god had innocent children killed by man in a violent act of warfare?
I live in Brazil and thankfully Brazil is secular country: the State doesn’t meddle in religious institutes’ business and religious institutes don’t meddle in the State’s business (those religious institutes try, but they never succeed – thankfully – and I hope they never will). By the law here, a religious union alone will be recognized by the State as stable union after 3 years. It works the same for those couples who decide to live together, without getting married in a church and/or in a register office. But this only works for heterosexual couples. If my girlfriend and I decide to live together we won’t have our union recognized by the State, since the civil union and stable union among two people of the same gender are not yet recognized by the State. So we won’t have the same LEGAL rights that a straight couple has.
Now, with the homosexual civil and stable union recognized by the State, we will have the same legal rights that in the present time are only given to straight couples. For example: My girlfriend and get a civil union; therefore our union is now recognized by the State. So both us buy an apartment, a car, furniture,etc in both our names. We decide to have a child and we adopt one in both our names. For example: after 2 years of civil union I die. All the assets we got together automatically go to her and our child. But just in case I can make a will leaving everything for them. Since my wife is also the foster mother, the custody of this child goes automatically to her. Since my wife is now a widow, she can get an allowance too.
Now, our union not being recognized by the State; in case of my death if my parents become greedy and total pricks and decide to open a lawsuit to take the apartment, the car, the furniture and take our child’s custody from her (because only one can be the foster mother and in this case it was only me) and leave her with nothing, they can (if the judge will agree with this or not is another story). Imagine this happening to your wife and kids in case of your death. If your parents decide to leave your wife with nothing at all?
We don’t want the religious union. Just the civil one. You won’t see my girlfriend and I bust into a church (me dressed in a nice tuxedo and my girlfriend in a nice white wedding dress) and me calling the priest: “Hey you, man in a fancy dress! My girlfriend and I love each other and we decided to spend the rest of our lives together, so marry us.” – even if I wanted to get marry in church I can’t because I didn’t have my first communion and I never will).
But there are some churches here that perform same sex weddings. There are two evangelical pastors (they were kicked out of their old church because they were gay and boyfriends and they didn’t want to be “cured” of their homosexuality) who created a church to attend the LGBT community and they perform same sex marriages. I’m not a religious person, but I thought it was cool of them to do that; in my opinion no one should be prohibited to follow their creed because of their homosexuality/bisexuality and gender (in case of transgenders).
In a nutshell: I don’t care what god wants; what most religious institutes in my country wants; their dogmas mean nothing to me. For me, what it counts it’s what I want. What I want is to have the CIVIL UNION of homosexuals legalized, so gays can have the chance to spend the rest of their lives (or at least a very long – and good – time) with the ones their loved ones. That’s it. If straight people can do that, so why can’t we?
There are homosexuals in the bible: 1 – David loved Jonathan more than women (2 Samuel; 1:26) 2- David and Jonathan again: (1 Samuel 18:1-4) (1 Samuel 19:2 (1 Samuel – 20:41) 2 – Ruth loved Naomi just like Adam love Eve (Ruth; 1-11:17 – pay attention more closely to 1:14): if you doubt you can look it up the same passage you gave to me to prove my point (Genesis 2-24) 3 – A gay man was baptized and welcomed by the old church: (Acts 8:36-38) Look it up
>>All that matters to you is your own personal biases, no matter how much they contradict what we see happening in the real world. No matter how much evidence points to the contrary.
I bet you were claiming this in front of a mirror too. If not, pot meet kettle.
>>I'm just speechless.
You're saying quite a bit for this failed claim.
>>Can you sleep at night knowing that you admitted you're OK with the fact hat god had innocent children killed by man in a violent act of warfare?
I sleep real good at night, thanks for asking. As I have already explained many times, the differences between you killing a baby and God killing a baby is that You are getting rid of something. God, on the other hand, is calling someone home to Him. That is perfectly acceptable to me. Is it to you?
"That is perfectly acceptable to me. Is it to you?"
NO!
the babies fucking murderd you asshole! by humans for humans reasons.
If your fucking monster god is real and using humans to kill the Canaanites babies, what's not to say it's using people today in abortion clincs killing fetuses.
[Here's an idea.... if your god hates these things so much, why don't you let IT kill these people? Why does it need YOU and your scumbag kind to help it? Why does this impotent omnipotent being never do anything for itself? If it wants these people to die, let it take care of them. Maybe if they don't all die immediate horrible deaths, it's a sign that either a) your god doesn't mind these things and possibly even endorses them, like slavery, or b) it doesn't exist at all. If a god only acts through the actions of humans, how can we distinguish between those acts and acts which are committed by humans alone?
I'd even argue that if there was such a thing as a god and it was killing people for thought-crimes, etc, that we should do all we can to fight that god, possibly finding a way to neutralise or kill it. I don't care what a god wants, slaughter of entire villages (ie. genocide) is WRONG. I stand against your god, or any other god, which would try to do such a thing.], (source http://www.atheistpropaganda.com/2011/02/theists-justification-for-genocide.html)
I made a comment on how your subjective standards override real world evidence and you respond.
Dan,"I bet you were claiming this in front of a mirror too. If not, pot meet kettle."
No projecting here Dan, just pointing out the obvious. Its obvious because thats what you said.
Dan, it was you who admitted that the evidence I and others offered was correct about same sex couples and adoption. Here is your exact words.
Dan,"You're right, and that may very well be the case on the surface. But that is not the full truth. Of those raised in a gay environment it would be crucial to identify, how many of those kids become Christian and go to Heaven? That is the only thing that matters here."
So as I mentioned. Though the evidence collected over decades from states and other countries contradict your claim, you don't care. You consider evidence in the real world, and opinions of professionals directly involved in the matter are just, 'the surface'.
According to you Dan, real world data means nothing. Only if they follow what you deem as an appropriate world view (Christian view) its wrong. No matter how good a life they have or lead, if they don't do as you think they should, they are bad apples. Also, you then require a head count on something completely impossible, how many go to heaven. Like I said, real world evidence means nothing to you, only your personal bias and dogmas does.
"the differences between you killing a baby and God killing a baby is that You are getting rid of something. God, on the other hand, is calling someone home to Him. That is perfectly acceptable to me. "
But god had man kill them violently in an act of war. How is that morally correct. He's an omnipotent being why didn't he just transport them to heaven and avoid any killing? Why did he have to have man get the blood on his hands? Why were these innocent children no given their right for a life and pursuit of happiness? It seems pretty unfair and cruel to me.
From what you have said so far it appears you're gay, not bi. If you are indeed bi then what does that do to your relationship with the one you supposedly love? Is she fine with it? Do you wish to marry a man also? Do you want polygamy legal too? In the gay community they just call you selfish. :7) Anyway fornication and adultery are sins. You wish to live with both. You wish to live in sin. I got it.
Just a few things, anyone can sue anyone, for anything. Your will is binding no matter who you leave your things to. These are mere excuses.
>>so marry us
What do you care if its called civil unioned or marry? Oh and thanks for revealing that you "wear the pants" in the family. That reminds me, did you see the woman bosses post of mine? Sin is driving your motives. You are a willing slave to sin. To me that's sad, to you its parade time.
>>But there are some churches here that perform same sex weddings.
Does not make it right. Fallacious argument.
>>In a nutshell: I don’t care what god wants
And Bingo was his Name-o.
>>What I want is to have the CIVIL UNION of homosexuals legalized, so gays can have the chance to spend the rest of their lives (or at least a very long – and good – time) with the ones their loved ones.
I cannot argue against that one. I wish we were all civilly unioned, which we are, by the State. It should have been that way from the beginning so this whole mess would not have happened. Marrying is a God thingy, like I said. State has no business usurping their authority over God.
>>There are homosexuals in the bible:
That may be true because it is a historical narrative. Remember, just because something is in the Bible does not mean its condoned in the Bible. Its written history.
1.- 2 Samuel; 1:26, You'll never understand brotherly love I guess. This is not homosexual love at all. That eisegesis will not fly.
2. -Ruth 1:11-17 I cannot believe You believe the passages Ruth 1:11-17 is interpreted as being gay. Just wow! Does your perverted mind go sexual at every hug or kiss? Do you wish to have relations with your girlfriend's mom? Maybe you shouldn't answer that. These were daughters in law of Naomi. It displayed Ruth’s Loyalty to Naomi. Oh BTW the paragraph title in the Bible was "Ruth’s Loyalty to Naomi" So get your head out of the gutter.
3. -Acts 8:36-38 Obviously you do not understand what a eunuch is. eunuch =/= gay. Do you need a dictionary?
>>According to you Dan, real world data means nothing.
No the real world data, for merely this world, is insufficient and asking the wrong questions. Get it?
>>He's an omnipotent being why didn't he just transport them to heaven and avoid any killing?
Here you are judging the Judge, yet again. Keep in mind that you're the criminal here. Your opinion has little value in that court room.
>>Why were these innocent children no given their right for a life and pursuit of happiness?
They're still alive and well and I will be seeing them shortly. I will give your best regards in your absence.
>>It seems pretty unfair and cruel to me.
Reads as " You're wrong Judge!" Yawn, moving on with the case. I am sure you understand, by now, what the ramifications of 'contempt of court' are.
>>You're a sick man Dan.
I know. Insert DC Talk here: "What's going on inside of me? I despise my own behavior and this only serves to confirm my suspicions that I'm still a man in need of a Savior! I wanna be in the Light, as He is in the Light. I wanna shine like the stars in the heavens Oh, Lord be my Light and be my salvation. Cause all I want is to be in the Light. All I want is to be in the Light!"
Now if y'all excuse me, I have to put my cute little apron on and cook dinner.
Dan,"No the real world data, for merely this world, is insufficient and asking the wrong questions. Get it?"
Yea, I already got it. As a matter of fact thats what I've been saying. The real world and real evidence means nothing to you. No mater how you try to say it Dan, its the world in your mind you have no objective evidence to support, that you base your judgment of you, the world and everyone else on. The sad thing is it appears you have convinced yourself that your own bigotry and prejudices is gods mind and you celebrate the justification you feel you get from believing that. You want to punish those who don't agree with your world view.
Dan, Deep down inside I do believe its you who you really feel this hate toward and it just makes you feel better to think you're not alone. It give you some where else to vent you anger.
The rest of your babble just continue to support this. Real world means nothing to Dan. If all attempted by Dan to use logic, reasoning, anything rational or in reality, Dan will resort to non-objective babble Dan thinks means anything to anyone but himself.
If you question anything Dans view is based on, you are a sinner for trying to judge what he considers his god. Even if his own holy text points to vicious things done to people, children, anyone. Even if he even admits he doesn't understand it, he just accepts it no matter how horrific it seems. If you question it, you're a sinner and and will be punished.
Some of this most recent BS from you is top notch Dan. Your entire blog is a case study on a decisional mind.
I’m bisexual but it doesn’t mean “I fuck everything that moves” or that I date men and women at the same time. For the moment, I’m dating a woman. But if it happens – one day – I fall in love with a man and I realize I don’t love my girlfriend as I used to I break up with her and I start dating this man. But I don’t wish to marry a man or a woman. Just living together with the woman I love in the present time is fine by me.
Since you mentioned, I have nothing against polygamy, as long as it happens between consenting adults, I don’t mind. Happiness is not definied only by a man being together to a woman.
Actually it can sued. Some years ago Cassia Eller – a famous singer who was gay and had a stable union with Eugenia for more than 10 years - died. Cassia had a son that Eugenia raised along with Cassia since his birth. Cassia’s parents decided to open a lawsuit asking the custody of Cassia’s son. Meaning, Eugenia had no legal right over Cassia’s son since she wasn’t a legal guardian or a foster mother. By the law here she would never have this child’s custody. But – thankfully – the judge had some sense in his head and said that he wouldn’t take custody of Cassia’s son from Eugenia because she was his mother – not in the legal sense – but because she raised him since he was a baby and he loved her as a mother. Besides, the boy wanted to live with Eugenia and the judge took that in consideration. Now, Eugenia is the legal guardian of Cassia’s son.
Sweet heart, I was born a woman and I feel like a woman. I’m not gender confused. I’m not “the one who wear pants in the family”. The way I dress or don’t dress has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and I have the same roles, same responsibilities and same rights.
I’m not a slave. I don’t see my sexual orientation and the way I live as a burden I have to carry for as long as I live. I’m sure I’m more free than you. I don’t nullify myself over some god, I don’t deny my nature because your god says who I am is a sin. I don’t spend my whole serving some invisible mythical creature.
I don’t care what god wants, because I DON’T BELIEVE IN GODS. I’M AN ATHEIST IN CASE YOU FORGOT!!!!!!!!!!
I don’t know how things work in your country – but in my country no god or religion is above the State. Brazil is the biggest catholic country in the world, but Brazil is a secular nation. We have a lot of religions here: Buddhism, Judaism, Islamism, African-brazilian religions; spiritism, protestant religions, etc. We also have agnostics and atheists…so in here the State doesn’t put one religion or one god above any other religion or gods because we have a lot of different ideologies and religions sharing the same country.
1.- Brotherly love? Yeah, right. Jonathan and David were soul mates. When Jonathan saw David it was love at first sight. Where – in your world - did you ever saw a man giving another man his most precious possessions to show “his brotherly love” at the first time they laid the eyes on each other? Would you give your favourite watch, tie, bracelet, whatever, to a man you saw for the first time?
Another passage in 2 Samuel: 1:23 Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in their death they were not divided: they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions. 1:24 Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet, with other delights, who put on ornaments of gold upon your apparel. 1:25 How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places. 1:26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
2. - First the word “clave is used in Gen 2-24 to describe Adam’s relationship with Eve (Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.) is used also in Ruth 1-14 (And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.) Ruth and Naomi were “one flesh”. Besides the fact Ruth gave up everything so she could be with Naomi; putting her life in danger so she could be with the woman she loves. Even when Ruth married a man, her most important relationship was the one she had with Naomi. It’s a story between to women in love with each other.
3. - One of the definitions of eunuchs are men who were castrated. But the definition of eunuchs used in the bible was that eunuchs were men working in royal palaces where they served and guarded the women in harems. But not all this job wasn’t given to any man, it was a high position where they had to be trusted not to have any sexual affair with those women, since eunuchs had access to all the women in the harens. The one million dollar question: What kind of man a king could trust blindly to safeguard his women and not to fall in temptation of having sex with them, running the risk of messing up the inheritance of the throne? A gay man (we all know working as a bodyguard of lot of beautiful and sexy women wondering around in the harens would not work with a heterosexual man, because soon or later he would have sex with some of those women).
In Acts 8:32-33 when the Ethiopian introduced himself to Philip as a eunuch, Philip would have immediately known he was dealing with a man who was part of a class commonly associated with homosexual desire. When this was wrote, it didn’t have a term like homosexuality to define people who have sex/love relationships with people of the same gender. So eunuch was used to describe those men who didn’t have much of interest in women (just like your dearest David in the chapter of 2 Samuel…) Even Jesus himself said some are born gay in Matthew 19:12 (For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.) PS: don’t forget the definition of eunuch used in the bible. Face it D.A.N, you think homosexuals are second class people who – in your world view – live in sin just because they love someone with the same gender and they don’t deserve the same rights you have. In your worldview, it doesn’t matter if I’m a good person who lives life as happily as I can be do good to others, I’m going to hell because I’m bi and an atheist.
(I wonder if Hitler is in heaven along with suicide bombers, those terrorists who blew up WTC and with pedophile priests – all of them fucked up pretty bad, but since they believed in some god.)
D.A.N should join some religious hate group (The Westboro Baptist Church would welcome him with open arms...)or get a job on Fox, I bet Bill O'Reilly would love to work with D.A.N (lmao)
Lying, as an example, is a spiritual event. It's not merely a physical action. Lying is an offense against God. When His creations lie, He is ashamed of His creation and simply separates Himself. A lie to an eternal God, deserves eternal punishment.
A 'spritual event'? Please explain which parts of a person are spirit and which are not, and how they interact.
Also, if your god is ashamed of his creations, he ought to be likewise ashamed of himself for making them in full knowledge of their capacity for dishonesty and sundry other things that your god finds offensive, when he could have made them differently at no cost to himself or anyone else. To say otherwise is to deny the logical implications of your god's claimed omnipotence and omniscience, which is inconsistent in light of your claim that your god is also an inherently logical being.
Same with gays. You're caught in your own flawed logic.
Oh, I see what you're doing here. You're a bit like those people who think that feminism is no longer necessary because women have achieved a certain measure of social equality, or who think that racism is people shouting hate speeches in the streets or carrying out bashings and lynchings, and because such things are now illegal, you think racism doesn't really happen anymore. You probably don't recognise the subtle and systemic racism and sexism that are still features of modern Western society.
Homosexual people have historically been treated - like women and non-white folks - as less than fully human. It's only very recently, historically speaking, that gay sex acts stopped being a criminal offence in Western nations, and since mainstream medicine stopped considering homosexuality as a psychological condition that required treatment. The history of the gay rights movement is that of an oppressed minority seeking social justice. Fighting for recognition of gay marriage is a means of confronting the social attitudes that have historically kept gay folks from being treated as people with legitimate needs and desires.
Polyamory, on the other hand, is still a grassroots movement. Many of the people who practise it, at least in my experience, are otherwise indistinguishable from what's termed 'normal' heterosexual folks. Some of them are even raising children, with all the benefits inherent in having a household containing more than two adults. The thing is, whilst there is at present no legal recognition of polyamorous unions (and that covers a great deal of varied ground, so it would be a legislator's nightmare, let's be honest), there is likewise no history of oppression, as there is with homosexuality. Most poly folks find that their needs are met quite satisfactorily by current social conditions.
So, actually, no, it's not the 'same with gays'. You only lump them together because of your flawed outlook.
Jonathan to David was a friendship (philic) love. As it says in 1 Samuel 18:4 Jonathan did not strip clothing to him but he removed his his armor and royal robe as a symbol. Also from your logic Judas kissed Jesus, so Jesus is gay. That is how people greet each other, EVEN TO THIS DAY! Also David's love for his wives, (2 Samuel 11), clearly reveals his heterosexual orientation. On and on. Eunuchs have no sexual relations at all. Don't take my word for it though, for your own research (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:10, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 )
>>Would you give your favourite watch, tie, bracelet, whatever, to a man you saw for the first time?
Would you give your two daughters to strangers to have their way with them instead of harming your guests, as in Lot's case? Your hermeneutics is lacking that is all. BTW, I gave my friend something dear to me because I knew he would like it.
>>Ruth and Naomi were “one flesh”
Nope, again your eisegesis is apparent. The word "clave" (Strong's H1692) dabaq דָּבַק means to cling, stick, stay close, cleave, keep close, stick to, stick with, follow closely, join to, overtake, catch 1) to cling, cleave to 2) to stay with.
Nothing to do with being "one flesh" or anything sexual. You're pushing your wishes ahead of Scripture. You are literally breaking commandments here (2nd Commandment) in doing so. You are creating a God to suite yourself.
>>Besides the fact Ruth gave up everything so she could be with Naomi; putting her life in danger so she could be with the woman she loves.
I would too for my mom. OK Mother-in-law may be a stretch personally but people love their In- Laws too.
>>It’s a story between to women in love with each other.
I don't want to appeal to authority here but, don't you find it odd that (almost?) all non gay theologian do not agree with you? Its agenda dogmatic pushing. Don't you see this? You're shielded from the truth. Sad. Do you want the verses to show this? I am sure you know, maybe not, that you cannot cherry pick and quote mine the Bible. You must take things into context. God condemns gay acts. If the Bible is from one God, breathed into 40-50 men over 1500 years then Ruth is not a gay woman. How do I know this? God gave man and woman complementary roles in order to strengthen the family unit. Do we even need to mention Sodom[y] and Gomorrah? You're simply and sadly wrong.
>>What kind of man a king could trust blindly to safeguard his women and not to fall in temptation of having sex with them, running the risk of messing up the inheritance of the throne?
::sigh. A castrated man, that is who. You know, a eunuch, that is literally defined as a castrated man. Don't you get it? I know many homosexuals that feel up woman and have had relations with them also. They often call themselves Bi. So your logic, once again, doesn't hold up.
>>In your worldview, it doesn’t matter if I’m a good person who lives life as happily as I can be do good to others, I’m going to hell because I’m bi and an atheist.
Let me also say that the Gospel proclaims liberation from the bondage of sin, including homosexual sin. Just think about it.
>>Homosexual people have historically been treated - like women and non-white folks - as less than fully human. It's only very recently, historically speaking, that gay sex acts stopped being a criminal offence in Western nations, and since mainstream medicine stopped considering homosexuality as a psychological condition that required treatment.
Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does. Period. Pedophiles, like it or not, are in that same category.
>> I am sure you know, maybe not, that you cannot cherry pick and quote mine the Bible.
HA! D.A.N you said exactly what I wanted you to say! I was cherry-picking the bible on purpose to see if you’re going to complain to me about cherry-picking! And you did! You are officially a hypocrite. I did to you – on purpose – what you do here with us. You cherry-pick passages from the bible to fit your twisted agenda/your misleading worldview. I don’t care if the bible has homosexuals, if Jonathan was fucking David or not; if Ruth was fucking Naomi or not. I picked passages in the bible that could be interpreted in so many ways to prove “my agenda” (I don’t have an agenda, btw – I’m not those militant homosexuals, even though I appreciate what they do to guarantee our rights) You say homosexuals are sinners and don’t respect people who has different worldviews from you, threatening them with the idea of hell and you clearly choose to forget – in those cases – that commandment that says “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” and The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would like to be treated. You don’t treat us with respect, so we treat you the way you treat us. With disrespect.
To end this subject on your what bible says: I don’t give a FLYING FUCK (I just love that word) what your bible says, what your imaginary god says or what you say. Everything that comes out from your mouth is bullshit! Plain and simple. And who I like to date, to hug, to kiss, to fuck, to raise kids and start a family with are my business and nobody else’s. I’m happy for who I am and that’s good for me. If I’m a sinner I am damn happy one. If you think I live in sin and I’m going to hell for it, it’s your problem. Now, go back to your imaginary limited world ruled by your imaginary gawd and his alter ego Jebus and leave me alone. Ok?
PS: If there’s a heaven I don’t want to stay there for 5 minutes. Heaven will be full of terrorists, pedophile priests, suicide bombers, the popes, Bush, you…it will be a really boring place to spend eternity.
Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does. Period. Pedophiles, like it or not, are in that same category.
Gender and sexuality are part of what a person is, Dan. Just like my mild visual impairment is part of what I am. Condemning a gay person for being sexually attracted to someone of the same sex would be like you condemning me for wearing glasses - both are ways of acting that are affected by aspects of what a person is.
Paedophilia is demonstrably harmful, and involves people who can't legally consent to sex. I know you think homosexual sex is demonstrably harmful too, but until you can show (not tell) that there's a god and an eternal afterlife, your claims cut no ice.
As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is.
Your position is untenable. You can't even demonstrate that He's revealed Himself to you let alone everyone else on the planet. More lolgic from D.A.N.
Before you stop, please let me explain myself this one last time. Please.
>>I did to you – on purpose – what you do here with us. You cherry-pick passages from the bible to fit your twisted agenda/your misleading worldview.
Not so! Any evidence to this bare assertion of yours? When the Bible is taken in its entirety, the views that I hold are evidenced by the truth of the ENTIRE Bible. Please show where I am wrong here. Please show where I quote mined so that it is not the THRUST of the entire Word of God.
>>You say homosexuals are sinners and don’t respect people who has different worldviews from you, threatening them with the idea of hell and you clearly choose to forget – in those cases – that commandment that says “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” and The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would like to be treated.
The reason why I tell people like you, gay, that you are sinning is because I care. Now pretty please don't give up just yet. I know you are angry, but let me explain myself. Just read what I am about to write carefully, and do your own research. See for yourself if what I say makes sense. Look it up and do a little Bible study yourself if you wish to see if what I am saying can be refuted. Not by people's opinions of course, but Biblically refuted.
Jesus said in Matthew 22:39 "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"
But what does this truly mean? Does that mean we are to love them no matter what they do because we are sinners also? Do we coddle them in their sins, tell them God loves them no matter what? Nope, Jesus was clear when he said this. He was telling us what the standard was. He was referencing Himself in an Old Testament passage.
The way to show your love to your neighbor is to warn them and their sins will take them to hell.
The only way you can show your love to your neighbor was referenced by Jesus and outlined in Leviticus 19:17-18 "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD."
Matthew 22:39, Leviticus 19:17-18 tells us how to treat people so that is what I do. I am not here to strive for popularity. It takes far more love to confront to ignore the situation. Perfect love is a constant confronter. These are harsh words sometimes, I perfectly understand. But just because it appears that I am being a jerk to you, does not mean that I am one. Only a friend will tell a friend the truth.
To those to whom the gospel message is uncomfortable, it is received quite differently. When Jesus preached in His hometown at first they were amazed at His Words, but by the end of His sermon they tried to throw Him off a cliff (Luke 4: 14-30)
The truth sometimes moves people to want to throw us off cliffs, but if we withhold the truth due to the reaction we might receive, then we are not teaching like our Lord.
Again, its because I love you that I spend time with you to reveal the truth to you. I have a wife and 5 kids and can be doing something with them. I take the time because you need the truth more then them right now.
>>Heaven will be full of terrorists, pedophile priests, suicide bombers, the popes, Bush, you…it will be a really boring place to spend eternity.
Do you really believe Hell is going to be some party with friends? Its separation, its despair, its a nightmare but you are awake. Its the single worse thing that can happen to anyone.
If there is ever a chance to see your partner, or anyone in the afterlife its in Heaven, its not in Hell.
For what does it profit a [wo]man to gain the whole world and forfeit h[er] soul? ~Mark 8:36
I hope you understand that I am here for you if you need anything.
Homosexuality is not about sin, is about love…just like heterosexuality. It’s a natural human condition. If you don’t approve it, your god doesn’t approve it and your bible doesn’t approve it, well…fuck it. I don’t need your approval or this god’s approval on how to live my life. What’s the advantage of me denying my true nature and dedicating my entire life to serve some imaginary petty god if I’m going to be miserable in return? None.
It’s like I said to friend of mine who was going through a rough time some years ago: “the worse mistake you can do is deny to yourself who you really are. What other people think doesn’t matter; the only person who counts here is you. You are different from most of them, so what? Being different is not a bad thing, what is bad is you denying this difference. It’s who you are, it’s part of your nature and personality; it’s what makes you special. You are a good person and nothing is going to change that. You are who are, a special men whose friends care and love you very much; don’t let other people drag you down due to their ignorance and intolerance.”
That is what a real friend does. Real friends support one another instead of giving moral lessons; real friends are not judgmental. Real friends are there each other no matter what. Real friends want nothing but the happiness for each other.
D.A.N - you are very judgmental, you think happiness is to serve unconditionally “your lord” and nothing else; when you try to shove that down to other people’s throats – without considering their lives, opinions, sexual orientations, ideologies, personal experiences, etc – you are not being their friend. You don’t care about them at all. You want what is best for them as long as it agrees with your worldview. But what about what they think is best for them? It doesn’t matter? Do you know about their lives and desires more than them? What if their idea of being happy and having a good life has nothing to do with following jesus, god and the bible? What if you are not able to change their minds? Are you going to throw in their faces they are living in sin and therefore they’re going to hell? What a nice friend you are <---(insert sarcasm here).
I don’t believe in hell; heaven; colonies floating in the clouds; nothing like that. When we die we are buried (or cremated) and that is the end – until proved otherwise. I rather spend and enjoying the life I have now – with my girlfriend or alone – than worrying constantly “what is going to happen with my soul after I die?” thing. It’s a waste of time and energy worrying about some imaginary afterlife that nobody knows it’s real.
I already the bible from cover to cover. You don’t need to give passages from the bible because you’re wasting your time. The bible means nothing to me because is an immoral fairy tale book. Nothing you do is going to make me change my mind or who I am. You know why? I’m happy being who I am. If you don’t accept that, suck it up and move on.
If you chose to bury your head in the sand, living in some very limited little world ruled by some two mythical divine entities (god/jesus and the devil) instead of seeing reality by what it is, fine. Go ahead. The same way I don’t have to justify myself to you, you don’t have to justify yourself to me. Go spend some time with your wife and your 5 kids (without the threat of death by stoning, ok?) instead of trying to show the truth (what is the truth anyway?). I don’t need your truth, your love, your caring, your god; I don’t need and I don’t want anything that comes from you. That includes your so-called friendship.
Unless you're a mindless sheep, you can't submit your all to an authority figure until you've reasoned that it's power is legitimate and/or it's purposes good. You, through your experiences, have reasoned that God is both all-powerful and good. I, through my experiences, have reasoned that God is likely either non-existent or uninterested in the human race. You say that analyzing God is, in essence, putting Him on trial, but that is what people do with anything before they decide to act on it. Even if you say that you made a decision to trust Him without fully understanding Him, you still made that decision after coming to the conclusion that He was trustworthy. Judging a concept on its merits is a part of being human.
>> I, through my experiences, have reasoned that God is likely either non-existent or uninterested in the human race.
Could you be wrong? I want to know how you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING is valid? Could you, for instance, be wrong about EVERYTHING that you know?
>> Even if you say that you made a decision to trust Him without fully understanding Him, you still made that decision after coming to the conclusion that He was trustworthy.
That might not be far off. It is the definition of 'faith' after all.
Previously Dan Said,"Well, you caught me at my bias."
Those are the only two truthful things I've heard you say. Yes these are YOUR views and when you read the bible or source of information you do so Dan Bias goggles.
I completely agree with Michelle, You cherry pick you bible stuff and twist and distort those things you do not agree with to try to make them work with your personal views.
Dan, Sometime you just claim all god does is good, when you even show obvious hints that you feel there is something wrong with what had been pointed out to you. The previous thread with a comment about Killing of the Canaanite children is one Dan.
You responded by saying,"I do not fully understand it, but I trust it. " If its all good why is it difficult to understand. You and I both know why it is difficult for you Dan. We both do.
Admit it Dan, even when you feel it in your gut its not right, you just give up and blindly follow. You then punish yourself for that doubt you felt, because to question is a sin, even when its so obviously wrong to try to justify it.
Dan, I did think again about your comment concerning marriage and Adam and Eve. I don't really remember it ever being spoken of as a marriage. Can you point out where it clearly mentions the wedding? Also while you're at it, were the giants and the unicorns at the wedding? I mean they were around back then per the bible. What about the Dinosaurs? I bet they made pigs of themselves at the reception. Was Adam first woman/wife? invited Lilith his first woman/wife to the wedding? I guess this means god also created divorce.
Sure, I could be wrong about plenty of things. I'm not omniscient after all. My main point was that regardless of our ideas when it comes to God, we all have to judge the validity of the various God concepts we come across before we can decide to believe and trust in any of them. It seems like what you really believe is that reasoning is good when it leads to belief in God, and sinful/faulty if it leads to something different. The business about breaking the 2nd commandment and the Van Til quote are just fancy ways of conveying the same sentiment. Just because someone's experiences have led them to a different conclusion than yours doesn't mean that they are, as you say, “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness”. Some people simply believe in different truths than you. It's one thing to consider them wrong; it's another to say that they are just being rebellious. As long as they live as responsible and productive members of society, why should they be considered repressed, selfish, unrepentant sinners?
The truth sometimes moves people to want to throw us off cliffs, but if we withhold the truth due to the reaction we might receive, then we are not teaching like our Lord.
Dan, you're not great at reading the mood of the people. No-one here wants to throw you off a cliff. We might want to mock and laugh at you from time to time, but mostly we just think you're a small-minded, bigoted man with simplistic views of life and of human nature, and kind of feel sorry for you.
You just don't grasp that appealing to scripture for information about the rest of the world is a non-tactic when dealing with atheists. As far as we're concerned, the Bible is a collection of man-made legends and folklore and politically-motivated rhetoric. Some of it is poetic and sophisticated, sure, but a lot of it is petty and parochial. If it is a holistic, god-breathed document, it doesn't speak to its originator being a particularly coherent, sane being, let alone an almighty power worthy of worship.
I realise you think you're under a mandate to preach 'truth' at people, but your truths are largely irrelevant to our experience of real life in the real world. You might like us to think that you're doing this out of love, and maybe you are, in your own deluded way. But the front you present is that of a sanctimonious, bible-thumping buffoon.
>>I completely agree with Michelle, You cherry pick you bible stuff and twist and distort those things you do not agree with to try to make them work with your personal views.
Pretty please with sugar show my error Biblically. To save time, and not to do an entire Bible study, I do spout single verses to make a point every now and then but extrapolated out the things I claim, mostly, are Biblically sound. The easiest way to refute it is showing me, Biblically, where my error is. I have been wrong before. I will, and have, conceded to valid points. Gripes and complaints have to be backed up with solutions, otherwise they are written off. If I am wrong, show me.
>>If its all good why is it difficult to understand.
I would simply say its much the same as receiving a spanking, or punishment, from a parent. Its all good, though its difficult to understand at the time.
>>Admit it Dan, even when you feel it in your gut its not right, you just give up and blindly follow.
Yes, today in the times I live in I would have difficulty and rejections in doing such acts, to say the very least. But its not "blindly follow", its faithfully trust. There is a world of difference. I trust the Lord, and He doesn't even owe me an explanation, but maybe someday I will know the entire truth of that subject.
>>Can you point out where it clearly mentions the wedding?
Well it certainly was a white wedding but since the *Ahem, in laws and relatives could not make it, obviously they decided to elope. :7)
>>invited Lilith his first woman/wife to the wedding?
How do you KNOW this? Wow, speaking of 'old wives tale'. You watch and believe in the 'History channel' too much. "I er sawz dit om me tv, it mus be tru den!" says Atomic gimp chimp. *pshaw
Just wow! You will not believe the entirety of the Bible at all, but you will believe that a woman committed adultery with Satan and produced a race of evil creatures? [called Atheists maybe?]
I looked up that ONE verse that supposedly mentions it (Isaiah 34:14) Every single translation calls the Hebrew term "lilith" as either screech owl, night monster, night creatures, There is certainly no biblical basis whatsoever for these concepts you claim. Its interesting, in Darby translation kept that name even but the term is used as an adjective (noun?) as in "the lilith shall settle" not a proper noun (name). So obviously, in Hebrew its a term for something like a night owl. Hermeneutics may find that term in common use back then to mean that. "The liliths are out early tonight" In no way does that project as to your meaning (Satan's squeeze).
Anyway, there is no one in the Bible actually named Lilith, like you are trying to say.
>> I guess this means god also created divorce.
Yes, God gave the instructions on and for divorced people too. (Leviticus 21:7, Deuteronomy 24:1, Matthew 5:32)
>>As long as they live as responsible and productive members of society, why should they be considered repressed, selfish, unrepentant sinners?
That is because you are using your scale to weigh what is good or bad. Again, creating a god to suite yourself. Ray had a good analogy for you that simply said, "A little girl was once watching a sheep eat grass and thought how white it looked against the green background. But when it began to snow she thought, "That sheep now looks dirty against the white snow!" It was the same sheep, but with a different background. When we compare ourselves to man's standard we look pretty clean, but when we compare ourselves to the pure snow-white righteousness of God's standard—His Law, we can see ourselves in truth, that we are unclean in His sight. That Law is the holy standard by which humanity will be judged on Judgment Day."
I see that you sidestepped the meat of my post and focused on the one sentence that, in all honesty, was more of a digression than anything.
What I was commenting on was your belief that everyone who was lead by their reasoning to the belief in God's likely nonexistence is “repressing the truth in unrighteousness” and creating a God to “suite” themselves. This sentiment doesn't make much sense in light of the fact that (as you admitted) we all reason about the validity and trustworthiness of any concept of God before believing in it.
I'm sure there are people who, deep down, do actually believe in God's existence yet choose to repress that belief. You seem to think, however, that this is an accurate description of everyone who disagrees with you. I can tell you firsthand how untrue that is. Even if the truth actually is as clearly on your side as you believe it to be, the most you can say about anyone who believes differently (without knowing them) is that they are incorrect.
I know you hold the bible as your ultimate authority, but I know my own heart and mind far better than you ever could. My reasoning has led me to conclude that God does not exist as described in the bible. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. Am I being rebellious just because the bible says so? Absolutely not.
>>Even if the truth actually is as clearly on your side as you believe it to be, the most you can say about anyone who believes differently (without knowing them) is that they are incorrect.
Not true. It's nothing new for people to deny the existence of God or to create false gods to worship so that they can be their own god. It's one of the oldest sins in the book.
Where does knowledge come from? If from God, and God says you are suppressing the truth, then you are doing just that. Period. If it comes from humans then you can never know anything because the future may hold some evidence that was never presented to you in the present about the subject. You can never know anything as you rightly admit that you could be wrong. How do you acquire a justified true belief? God says you are suppressing truth. (Romans 1:18) You can ONLY deny it and Him. You cannot know that with any certainty.
Dan, you missed my point, cherry picking is to find the stuff that agrees with your opinion. You do that often. Twisting is done on the stuff that doesn’t agree, Baby killing, slavery, Killing your slaves, treating woman as property etc etc. We’ve covered many things mentioned in the bible but your twist and distort those things we pint out to fit them in your world view.
Dan, ,”I would simply say its much the same as receiving a spanking, or punishment, from a parent. Its all good, though its difficult to understand at the time.”
Yea, ordering man to slaughter men women and children id just like a spanking Dan. Like I said, you try to twist it to work for you but sometimes you just make it worse.
ME:”Admit it Dan, even when you feel it in your gut its not right, you just give up and blindly follow.”
Dan, Yes, today in the times I live in I would have difficulty and rejections in doing such acts, to say the very least. But its not "blindly follow", its faithfully trust. There is a world of difference.”
Dan, I’ve seen you dig for ways to justify killing children, slavery, misogyny and much more found in the bible. I’ve even seen you squirm in discomfort doing it at times. Blindly following, faithfully trusting, you can try to wordsmith that into sounding acceptable but it’s all the same Dan. No matter how wrong it is you will just follow the masses and praise you god for anything he does, no mater how wrong it seems.
ME:”Can you point out where it clearly mentions the wedding?”
Dan, ”Well it certainly was a white wedding but since the *Ahem, in laws and relatives could not make it, obviously they decided to elope. :7)
No answer. No surprise.
ME:”invited Lilith his first woman/wife to the wedding?”
Dan,”How do you KNOW this? Wow, speaking of 'old wives tale'. You watch and believe in the 'History channel' too much….” ….On and on and on Dan goes about it in many paragraph.
Wow, That’s too funny Dan. I wish you’d answer my serious point with this amount of enthusiasm. I’ve made countless serious inquires and brought up many issue with your babble just in this post and all I get is silence. Its takes me days of poking and prodding you to even get a response to comments that I felt were worthy of discussion. When I make a silly comment about Adam & Eves wedding party, you go on endlessly about it. Is this you’re ‘A’ game Dan? Dan, you also forgot to let me know if the giants, unicorns and dinosaurs were invite or not.
Dan, ”Just wow! You will not believe the entirety of the Bible at all, but you will believe that a woman committed adultery with Satan.”
I think you missed the point where I don’t believe any of it. Its all just mythology and folklore to me thus it all has the same value. They are very interesting and telling of the cultures that they were borne from but nothing more. The fact that you take the mythology of a Bronze Age culture so seriously and literally is very telling Dan.
but let us not digress from the real conversation.
As for cherry picking the bible to suit you personal opinions, we’ve covered many over the years on your blog. You seem to just pretend we didn’t have those conversations in the past. Or as shown on this thread, you just ignore the difficult questions and points people bring up and respond to those that you feel you can navigate. You hope the people who ask those tough questions will go away or just forget that they did. I’ve pointed this out many times and you keep denying it, but yet it happens all over again. Its very telling. When you do finally answer, you try to smooth it over with some failed analogy.
Dan, as for your justification for you god taking a child’s right for life and the pursuit of happiness away from them, you still have failed to give any good reason why you should not think it was morally wrong. Let me illustrate it for you in details.
Your god ordered the men who worship him to kill the innocent children. Close your eye Dan and imagine it. Your god did not magically poof them to heaven he specifically told the men to kill the children. Think of how it must have looked for those innocent children so defenseless to be slaughters in a wave of death and violence. Helpless children killed by the hands of men not by god, but men he order to do this vicious and vulgar thing to them, and your OK with it.
If he gently poofed the children to heaven, you’d think he might have pointed it out so no one would mistakenly think he was a violent god. but he didn’t. His word explicitly directed man to kill them. But…. Its ok because god said so.
Its ok to take peoples rights away because god said so. Its ok to have slaves because god said so. Its ok for your slave to die 3 days after you beat them because god said so. Its ok to treat woman as property because god said so. Its ok….because god said so. That’s you mantra Dan and you say it everyday on your blog. That’s what make you so frightening and entertaining.
I've been reading your comments about atheists "creating their own god to suite themselves". First, atheists don't believe in god(s) and therefore they don't create one to suite themselves.
Second, based on what I saw on your comments and other posts on your blog, you do just that. You create your own god to suite your opinions. Every time someone says something that goes against your worldviews and proves you wrong, you say to them that is not you that said that; it's god who said through the bible and you cherry pick the passages from this so-called holy book to prove you - I mean, god - is right.
If god exists, how can you be sure that your view on god is the right one? Just because a book written by men who lived in the Bronze Age tells is the word of god? What if it isn't?
Get real D.A.N, you're so addicted to god and the bible that you lost the capability to think for yourself. The fact I saw you saying on the comments here that it doesn't matter what you think/want; what matters is what god wants/thinks proves exactly that.
You are nothing more than a puppet in the hands of some imaginary puppeteer...that's sad.
>>His word explicitly directed man to kill them. But…. Its ok because god said so.
I understand it was not a question but...YES!
I will not judge God. I cannot as the criminal. So, I will have to take it on faith that it was the RIGHT thing to do at that time and hope that He will explain it to me someday. Not that He has to. Much like I will be OK if He says that my Mom has to burn in hell forever or, God forbid, my own kid because of his rebellion has to go to hell. I have no idea how Heaven will be at all knowing that my own child is burning in Hell, but I will have to accept it. Why? Because I fully trust God. He knows better then I. Yes, for even for the difficult things such as these. I certainly pray for clarity though.
>>If god exists, how can you be sure that your view on god is the right one?
Same as anything else. Revelation
It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain. You, on the other hand have no such rescuing device for your circularity.
That's where lies the problem. Revelation that god exists is based on personal experiences, not on evidence. Every time I asked someone how they know for sure that god is real, they say: "I had a revelation when I was walking with my dog" or "God spoke to me when I was praying in my room" or "God appeared to me in a dream". That doesn't count as evidence. I already dreamed with fairies flying around in my room, does that mean they exist and they were trying to give me a message showing they are real?
It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that some god exists and that he reveals some things to some people without any evidence that backs up his existence and this revelation.
If god really exists why he doesn't show himself to everybody to shove in the faces of us atheists and other infidels that we are wrong?
Now, D.A.N based on what you said on your last post, man...you are a dangerous person. There's nothing in this world that keeps you from harming someone else who disagrees with your worldview. I would say you have your own conscience, but it's clearly that you imaginary daddy took it away from you.
You seem to feel justified in your beliefs when it comes to people you don't know by saying, “God says it in the bible, so it must be so”. The problem is, your claims of absolute certainty aren't as rock-solid as you believe. I'm sure you'll agree that to possess absolute certainty about something, one must be able to conclusively dismiss every possible alternative. For argument's sake, I'll assume for the moment that the world is governed by some all-powerful, supernatural being.
For example, let's say that the creator is the type of being that loves chaos. It wants to maximize human confusion for its own amusement. To do so, it inspires people very early in human history to create a collection of writings proclaiming its righteousness and power. It gives some people a sense of absolute conviction in these writings, while leaving enough unexplainable items to give others doubt. How would you be able to sniff out this being's true intentions?
As an omnipotent being, it could make you believe anything it wanted you to. It could alter your senses, your mind, everything. Can you really claim that it's impossible for this being to exist? As you might say, it would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that an omnipotent being couldn't make you believe whatever it wanted, regardless of what's true.
Let me make this clear: I don't believe that such a being actually exists, and I'm not making any statement about the likelihood of its existence. My point is that unless you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that such a being can't exist, your claims of absolute certainty are unfounded.
So please add the word LIAR to Sir Richard's distinguished resume'.
Hi Phillip. Yes, Dan has admitted something very much like this. I'll try to find the quote when I have time, but in essence he said he wouldn't like it, but if the order came from God, he'd do it.
Consistent and monstrous.
At the very least, the consistency (from him) was unexpected but refreshing.
Nice that you said 'if'. Could this be the beginnings of a healthy scepticism from DAN?
But anyway, knowledge, as such, doesn't come from anywhere, Dan. It is constructed in the mind from information received via the senses. Since no-one can see, hear, smell, touch, taste or otherwise credibly experience anything about your god, it's safe to say that such a being could not be a 'source' of knowledge or information.
>>Revelation that god exists is based on personal experiences, not on evidence.
While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain He exists.
In contrast, you are stuck in an absurd worldview where you claim to sense the validity of your senses and reason the validity of your reasoning and are certain that we can't know things for certain, like His existence.
>>It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that some god exists and that he reveals some things to some people without any evidence that backs up his existence and this revelation.
I agree. I am glad that is not the case. Non sequitur
>>If god really exists why he doesn't show himself to everybody to shove in the faces of us atheists and other infidels that we are wrong?
Done! You think that Atheists exist only now a days? Atheists have existed since the beginning. Read Psalm 14.
Remember that they crucified Jesus after revealing the evidence that you demand. They were standing right next to Him, saw everything, and still did not believe. This is not an excuse for you at all either. If you really want to believe, you certainly will. God saves ALL those who call to Him in repentance.
>>That's nothing in this world that keeps you from harming someone else who disagrees with your worldview.
This is an argument for you, not me. The thing that holds me back from being evil is certainly out of this world, and that is God. What is your excuse? If you have no such avenue, there is no difference between you and Ted Bundy. Arbitrary morals.
>>I would say you have your own conscience, but it's clearly that you imaginary daddy took it away from you.
Without God there is no conscience, reason, or life.
>>I'm sure you'll agree that to possess absolute certainty about something, one must be able to conclusively dismiss every possible alternative.
I can agree to that.
>> For argument's sake, I'll assume for the moment that the world is governed by some all-powerful, supernatural being.
Please, don't stop there. Keep going on that good path. :7)
>>For example, let's say that the creator is the type of being that loves chaos. It wants to maximize human confusion for its own amusement.
Impossible.
>>To do so, it inspires people very early in human history to create a collection of writings proclaiming its righteousness and power. It gives some people a sense of absolute conviction in these writings, while leaving enough unexplainable items to give others doubt. How would you be able to sniff out this being's true intentions?
Are you speaking of some hypothetical situation or of God. If God this scenario is impossible. If you are trying to inject a what if, like multi-verses, then I am sure our imaginations can conjure up any scenario.
Back to reality. The Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true, proves itself internally, AND denial of the truth of the Bible leads to absurdity. As if that isn't enough, it is, God also reveals the truth of His Word to us directly such that we can be certain of it.
>>Let me make this clear: I don't believe that such a being actually exists, and I'm not making any statement about the likelihood of its existence.
Let me make this clear: As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
>>My point is that unless you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that such a being can't exist, your claims of absolute certainty are unfounded.
>>It is constructed in the mind from information received via the senses.
Hogwash. ALL knowledge is not from the senses. I guess in your world there is no such a thing as intuitions.
>>Since no-one can see, hear, smell, touch, taste or otherwise credibly experience anything about your god, it's safe to say that such a being could not be a 'source' of knowledge or information.
Are you certain of this? If so, how are you certain? No-one can see, hear, smell, touch, taste love either. Does Love exist? If you come back with "You can credibly experience things about love", then I certainly claim the same about God. You lose right there.
Dan Hogwash. ALL knowledge is not from the senses. I guess in your world there is no such a thing as intuitions. "Intuition" is just a guess. Which can be wrong. It is not knowledge, or a way to gain knowledge.
Since no-one can see, hear, smell, touch, taste or otherwise credibly experience anything about your god, it's safe to say that such a being could not be a 'source' of knowledge or information.
Are you certain of this? If so, how are you certain? No-one can see, hear, smell, touch, taste love either. Well, it can be tested with MRI's can it not?
Does Love exist? If you come back with "You can credibly experience things about love", then I certainly claim the same about God. You lose right there. Love in an emotion...a chemical reaction in the brain. Your "god" is supposed to be independent of that, is he not? No comparison at all.
Dan said "What is your excuse. If you had no such avenue there is no difference between you and Ted Bundy. Arbitrary morals" No Dan. If your god told you to kill you would. In Ted Bundys case you say "arbitrary morals", for you,you'd say "divine revelation". The end result would be the same. Dead children and you both would be classified as "sick shits"
A friend we have in common introduce us. After some minutes talking, you begin to talk about Jesus and god and the bible. The you ask me what I believe; I answer you that I’m atheist.
Based on your talk here, you wouldn’t give up on me. You would tell me that is not that I don’t believe in god; deep down I’m angry at god, I’m revolting against him, denying him, etc. You ask me to go to your church and invite me to go to your house so you can show me the bible and show me the word of lord, teach me the bible, tell me what god wants from me so I can accept god as my lord and jesus as my only saviour.
Since I know myself too well, you would fail in the task of converting me.
Then, in you personal “conversation” to your god you would say: “God, I tried everything in my power to convert her; to show her you’re real and you want her to follow you, to accept you. I told her that if she questions you, judges you and denies she’s living in sin and she will go to hell for it, it doesn’t matter the fact she’s a good person. But she still chooses to deny you, to stay away from you and your will; she still persists in the path of evil. She refuses to accept you and Jesus. Since she’s a non-believer and the bible clearly non-believers should be killed and since the bible is your word – well, I have no choice but to kill her”.
Would you kill me because your god says in the bible that non-believers should be killed?
What if your god tells you to kill women just like Ted Bundy did, with the same modus operandi and all?
>> In contrast, you are stuck in an absurd worldview where you claim to sense the validity of your senses and reason the validity of your reasoning and are certain that we can't know things for certain, like His existence.
My senses, reason and the natural world is what we have. If you are so certain that god is real prove it to me. Where is your evidence?
>> Done! You think that Atheists exist only now a days? Atheists have existed since the beginning. Read Psalm 14.
Again, giving some passage in the bible. The bible might be your authority, but is not mine, so giving me passages from your holy book of lies has no effect on me whatsoever. Atheists exist since the time humans got the ability to think and reason about the existence of gods. Some humans created gods and others realized those gods were created by humans and doubted about their existence.
Jesus being crucified has no value as evidence. Besides, it’s not much of sacrifice if god/jesus knew he would die in the cross, to raise from the dead 3 days later and come back to dance around over the clouds in heaven,
>> This is an argument for you, not me. The thing that holds me back from being evil is certainly out of this world, and that is God. What is your excuse? If you have no such avenue, there is no difference between you and Ted Bundy. Arbitrary morals.
The only thing that holds your back is also the only thing that makes you hurt others without thinking twice.
The reason I don’t go out there hurting everyone for the kicks is my own conscience (and also the laws in my country). And that conscience doesn’t come from god, because if it did I would be like you D.A.N.
>> Without God there is no conscience, reason, or life. Only in your worldview, D.A.N, which obviously is not the same worldview I have. I have a conscience, reason and life and I don’t need gods to give me a reason and to justify my acts. I’m responsible for myself. In fact, if your god exists I’m better than him: I have better morals; I don’t hurt other people because “I feel like it”; I’m not some jealous control freak and – the best of all – I exist.
A friend we have in common introduce us. After some minutes talking, you begin to talk about Jesus and god and the bible. The you ask me what I believe; I answer you that I’m atheist.
Based on your talk here, you wouldn’t give up on me. You would tell me that is not that I don’t believe in god; deep down I’m angry at god, I’m revolting against him, denying him, etc. You ask me to go to your church and invite me to go to your house so you can show me the bible and show me the word of lord, teach me the bible, tell me what god wants from me so I can accept god as my lord and jesus as my only saviour.
Since I know myself too well, you would fail in the task of converting me.
Then, in you personal “conversation” to your god you would say: “God, I tried everything in my power to convert her; to show her you’re real and you want her to follow you, to accept you. I told her that if she questions you, judges you and denies she’s living in sin and she will go to hell for it, it doesn’t matter the fact she’s a good person. But she still chooses to deny you, to stay away from you and your will; she still persists in the path of evil. She refuses to accept you and Jesus. Since she’s a non-believer and the bible clearly non-believers should be killed and since the bible is your word – well, I have no choice but to kill her”.
Would you kill me because your god says in the bible that non-believers should be killed?
If your god asks you to, would you kill innocent women just like Ted Bundy did - with the same modus operandi and all?
This is absurd. Do you really claim, as an example, that the Bible does not exist? [insert cartoon here]
>>My senses, reason and the natural world is all we have.
Are you certain of this? if so, how are you certain of this or anything?
>>The bible might be your authority, but is not mine, so giving me passages from your holy book of lies has no effect on me whatsoever.
You do understand that your argument is fallacious don't you? Its called Relativist Fallacy. Yes God is my ultimate authority. What is your authority? Is it you, yourself? Do you really expect me to use YOUR authority for this discussion? Your authority is on the same plane as Ted Bundy's (arbitrary), is that a better authority? *pshaw
>>Jesus being crucified has no value as evidence. I wasn’t there.
Poisoning the Well now?
>>Besides, if god/jesus knew he would die in the cross, to raise from the dead 3 days later and come back to dance around over the clouds in heaven, it’s not much of sacrifice.
Have you ever heard of the legal argument that its better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent be imprisoned? Once we approve and allow the innocent to be imprisoned, the entire judicial system breaks down and becomes worthless. If the penalty for sin is indeed death then the penalty has been paid already. Its yours for the taking. Why would you reject it so harshly? Again, it reduces the Atheist to the absurd.
>>The reason I don’t go out there hurting for the kicks everyone is my own conscience.
Conscience literally means "with knowledge" so how does your worldview account for such things? If arbitrary and subjectivity, how objectivity and absolute which is necessary for a universal conscience?
>>And that conscience doesn’t come from god, because if it did I would be like you D.A.N.
So you believe lying, adultery, and theft are perfectly acceptable then. Fine.
>>I’m responsible for myself. In fact, if your god exists I’m better than him: I have better morals;...
Then you agree what I said to Trino then, "As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God."
- The bible exists but it was written by men who live in the Bronze Age. Some god didn’t incorporated in them and wrote the damn thing. For you, the bible is an undeniable and unquestionable proof that god exists, but not for me. Follow your reasoning: the book of scientology says all that thing about 75 million years ago Xenu bringing a lot of people to Earth in spaceships, putting them in volcanoes and detonating H bombs making the thetan guys stuck in the bodies of the living. Does it mean it really happened just because is written on a book?
Then you are going to think: “But scientology is not a christian religion.”Ok. Joseph Smith said he had a vision of god and Jesus where Jesus told Smith that he would used him to establish the real christian religion on earth. Is it true? Is it also true that Smith found some golden plates on a cave somewhere because is what he says on his book?
- The senses we have are made to perceive the natural world, not the supernatural (if there’s one). If god exists, he is a supernatural being living in a supernatural world where we are not able to see it, so how do you know god is real? Have you ever saw him, heard, him, touched him, talked to him? If you did, do you have some video of this event?
- I am the one who decides what do with my life, I can do whatever I want as long as it doesn’t harm other people and other living creatures and this planet. I am only accountable to myself – and in case I screw up pretty bad (after all I’m not perfect) I have to justify myself to the people who dictates the laws in my country, not to some god. I don’t expect you use “my authority” on this discussion. I – unlike you – don’t try to shove my worldview down your throat with the threat of eternal torture in hell if you don’t accept it.
- Jesus dying on cross means something for you, fine. But it means nothing to me. If Jesus/God decided to play the martyr is because he was a masochist. But there’s a catch. If Jesus/god died in a cross to forgive our – past and future – sins and if according to you being an atheist alone is already a sin, so your threats of us atheists going to hell for not believing in your god are empty. Your god (if he exists) already forgave us.
- My morality is based on how I was raised, in the kind of society I live, my personal experiences, the ideologies I have, the social groups I belong to and – of course – the laws in my country contributes for that too. So, morality is subjective and it’s not universal. I don’t have the same kind of life you do and you don’t have the same kind life I do, so it’s really naïve of you expecting me to have the same moral standards you have. The fact your morality comes from your god and my morality comes from my own conscience already makes morality subjective. For you, slavery, killing of infidels/children/homosexuals/cheaters; stoning of rebellious children, etc is morally correct because your god says is correct.
To me all those things are immoral and wrong because my conscience says so.
- Adultery is wrong, but lying – come on – everybody lies, including you D.A.N. About stealing, depends on the situation. Stealing someone else’s shoes or money just for the sake of it is wrong. Now stealing a fruit or a bread because you or your child is hungry and you don’t have money to buy it because you live in the streets is not wrong.
- I never said I deny the existence of god or that I’m rebelling against him. In don’t personally attack your god because I’m angry at him. According to your train of thought – if I’m angry and rebelling against your god I’m also rebelling and angry at Thor, Shiva, Allah, Anubis, Hades, Zeus, Ogoun, Chukwu, Tupã, etc… It’s not that I don’t believe only in your god in particular. I don’t believe in gods in general – the past and the present ones.
A friend we have in common introduce us. After some minutes talking, you begin to talk about Jesus and god and the bible. The you ask me what I believe; I answer you that I’m atheist.
Based on your talk here, you wouldn’t give up on me. You would tell me that is not that I don’t believe in god; deep down I’m angry at god, I’m revolting against him, denying him, etc. You ask me to go to your church and invite me to go to your house so you can show me the bible and show me the word of lord, teach me the bible, tell me what god wants from me so I can accept god as my lord and jesus as my only saviour.
Since I know myself too well, you would fail in the task of converting me.
Then, in you personal “conversation” to your god you would say: “God, I tried everything in my power to convert her; to show her you’re real and you want her to follow you, to accept you. I told her that if she questions you, judges you and denies she’s living in sin and she will go to hell for it, it doesn’t matter the fact she’s a good person. But she still chooses to deny you, to stay away from you and your will; she still persists in the path of evil. She refuses to accept you and Jesus. Since she’s a non-believer and the bible clearly non-believers should be killed and since the bible is your word – well, I have no choice but to kill her”.
Would you kill me because your god says in the bible that non-believers should be killed?
If your god asks you to, would you kill innocent women just like Ted Bundy did - with the same modus operandi and all?
A friend we have in common introduce us. After some minutes talking, you begin to talk about Jesus and god and the bible. The you ask me what I believe; I answer you that I’m atheist.
Based on your talk here, you wouldn’t give up on me. You would tell me that is not that I don’t believe in god; deep down I’m angry at god, I’m revolting against him, denying him, etc. You ask me to go to your church and invite me to go to your house so you can show me the bible and show me the word of lord, teach me the bible, tell me what god wants from me so I can accept god as my lord and jesus as my only saviour.
Since I know myself too well, you would fail in the task of converting me.
Then, in you personal “conversation” to your god you would say: “God, I tried everything in my power to convert her; to show her you’re real and you want her to follow you, to accept you. I told her that if she questions you, judges you and denies she’s living in sin and she will go to hell for it, it doesn’t matter the fact she’s a good person. But she still chooses to deny you, to stay away from you and your will; she still persists in the path of evil. She refuses to accept you and Jesus. Since she’s a non-believer and the bible clearly non-believers should be killed and since the bible is your word – well, I have no choice but to kill her”.
Would you kill me because your god says in the bible that non-believers should be killed?
If your god asks you to, would you kill innocent women just like Ted Bundy did - with the same modus operandi and all?
This is absurd. Do you really claim, as an example, that the Bible does not exist?
Of course we don't claim that the Bible doesn't exist, Dan. But we also don't claim the Harry Potter books don't exist.
Conscience literally means "with knowledge" so how does your worldview account for such things? If arbitrary and subjectivity, how objectivity and absolute which is necessary for a universal conscience?
And how do you have anything worth calling knowledge when you succumb to what Michael Dowd calls the idolatry of the written word? What use is static scripture in a dynamic world? I'd recommend following the link - you might find Michael Dowd's blog enlightening. As a pantheist, I have a lot of sympathy for his views.
And what are you referring to when you say a "universal conscience"? How could you have any such thing when your worldview is so narrow?
its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God.
Come to think of it, Dan, this form of words you're using has some merit, except that you're referencing the wrong god. The truth of nature is all around us, if we stop trying to look beyond it for a phoney promise of salvation and just embrace it on its own terms.
This is absurd. Do you really claim, as an example, that the Bible does not exist?
Thanks for stating up front that your following words were going to be absurd, however it was a little redundant as their absurdity was quite obvious once they were read.
No-one has said the Bible does not exist, however, we dispute your claim that it is divinely inspired and request that you provide evidence to support your claim.
[insert cartoon here]
Your pointless cartoon again. Man perceiving nature is no evidence of Creation and the Bible verse attached is absurdly contradictory - "invisible attributes" being "clearly seen" lol - although that's no surprise when your entire worldview consists of contradictions and absurd claims.
Are you certain of this? if so, how are you certain of this or anything?
Are you omniscient yet Dan? If not then you suffer the same problem, you just deny the truth in your arrogance.
You do understand that your argument is fallacious don't you? Its called Relativist Fallacy.
I see you don't fully understand the relativist fallacy Dan. It only applies to objective facts and not your subjective claim concerning the existence of the Christian God.
Yes God is my ultimate authority. What is your authority? Is it you, yourself? Do you really expect me to use YOUR authority for this discussion? Your authority is on the same plane as Ted Bundy's (arbitrary), is that a better authority? *pshaw
Double standard. We're supposed to just accept your claimed authority, without you actually demonstrating that said authority even exists, while you freely admit you wouldn't accept any authority we could conceive of.
>>Jesus being crucified has no value as evidence. I wasn’t there.
Poisoning the Well now?
Lol, no, he's not. Yet another fallacy you don't seem to understand. Also where did the "I wasn't there." bit come from as I can't see it on Mhich's original comment?
>>Besides, if god/jesus knew he would die in the cross, to raise from the dead 3 days later and come back to dance around over the clouds in heaven, it’s not much of sacrifice.
Have you ever heard of the legal argument that its better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent be imprisoned? Once we approve and allow the innocent to be imprisoned, the entire judicial system breaks down and becomes worthless. If the penalty for sin is indeed death then the penalty has been paid already. Its yours for the taking. Why would you reject it so harshly? Again, it reduces the Atheist to the absurd.
What's absurd here is you trying to use a legal argument that expressly contradicts your professed worldview. How on earth can you reconcile it being better for a 1000 guilty man to go free rather than 1 innocent man be imprisoned, when you claim that the only innocent man there ever was, was tortured and crucified.
>>The reason I don’t go out there hurting for the kicks everyone is my own conscience.
Conscience literally means "with knowledge" so how does your worldview account for such things?
Actually Dan, your worldview asserts that only God can have knowledge, you then simply believe anything He tells you despite the fact that you cannot even be sure that it's actually the God you think exists doing the revealing.
If arbitrary and subjectivity, how objectivity and absolute which is necessary for a universal conscience?
Please account for objectivity from within your inherently subjective worldview.
>>And that conscience doesn’t come from god, because if it did I would be like you D.A.N.
So you believe lying, adultery, and theft are perfectly acceptable then. Fine.
Hiiiiyah! Dan gives his best Miss Piggy impression whilst demolishing a strawman. Simply awe inspiring /sarcasm
>>I’m responsible for myself. In fact, if your god exists I’m better than him: I have better morals;...
Then you agree what I said to Trino then, "As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God."
I don't see anything in Mhich's statement which 'agrees' with your position. Furthermore your position is untenable as you cannot even demonstrate that God has revealed Himself to you let alone the rest of mankind.
I know that whole evidence thingy is irrelevant for Atheists but Joseph Smith started Mormonism, not Scientology. False religions do get confusing sometimes, I understand. Moving on.
>>For you, the bible is an undeniable and unquestionable proof that god exists, but not for me.
So truth is merely subjective?
>>Does it mean it really happened just because is written on a book?
Was that book written by 40-50 men over the span of 1500 years with ONE cohesive thought and predicted things that came true to the letter and prophecies that are still coming true to this day? No? The Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true, proves itself internally, AND denial of the truth of the Bible leads to absurdity. They even put Jesus in our Courts and the verdict was the same. There is Overwhelming Evidence. But, the real question is, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?
>>The senses we have are made to perceive the natural world, not the supernatural (if there’s one).
Again with a knowledge claim. How do you KNOW this for certain? Are you claiming it is impossible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
>>If god exists, he is a supernatural being living in a supernatural world where we are not able to see it, so how do you know god is real?
Again REVELATION. It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain.
>> I am the one who decides what do with my life, I can do whatever I want as long as it doesn’t harm other people and other living creatures and this planet.
Funny, (read sad) addicts say the same thing. But what they, and you, don't realize when you hurt yourself you hurt the ones that love you too. So you cannot just "do whatever you want". If you are responsible that is. I am not harming anyone driving my motorcycle around town. But if I get into a wreck and die I leave 6 kids and a wife to pick up the (my) pieces. I still have my motorcycles driving licenses though. Come on empty nest! :7)
>>I am only accountable to myself...
Keep telling yourself that lie. Atheists who lie to themselves? Who would of thunk?
>>I – unlike you – don’t try to shove my worldview down your throat with the threat of eternal torture in hell if you don’t accept it.
No threat. Its a promises more then anything. A loving warning more accurately.
>>Jesus dying on cross means something for you, fine. But it means nothing to me.
It means far more then you realize. Especially when you will bow your knee to him, one way or the other.
>>Your god (if he exists) already forgave us.
Absolutely wrong! He hates unrepentant sinners. (, ,, ,) He gives His Grace to those that approach Him with a broken and contrite heart. () You 'know' this though.
>>So, morality is subjective and it’s not universal.
So if they pass laws that say its OK to rape and eat babies that would be OK with you? You would join in? Some countries allow you to marry and have relations with 13 year old girls. Some allow whipping of wives. I guess those are perfectly moral to you?
>>To me all those things are immoral and wrong because my conscience says so.
WRONG! IF the current laws allow it, as you just admitted to, its ACCEPTABLE to you!
>>Adultery is wrong, but lying – come on – everybody lies, including you D.A.N.
Adultery is not wrong according to you because their are no laws against it. You're flipping all over the place here. If morality is subjective then all immoral acts (to you) are moral. Get it?
>>Now stealing a fruit or a bread because you or your child is hungry and you don’t have money to buy it because you live in the streets is not wrong.
O'Rly? Robbing banks is justified as long as you're poor? Sure!! So this whole "not harming others" is thrown out the window because you are not responsible enough to take care of your own children. BTW, all you need to do is go to a church or our home. We are more then happy to help you and your kids out. That is what love is for after all. No Commandment breaking necessary. It just requires some humbling, not being prideful. Like I tell my kids, "Don't take, give"
>>I don’t believe in gods in general – the past and the present ones.
Nice try. We both know better. There is only one Creator that all the evidence points to and that is the one you deny.
>>Then, in you personal “conversation” to your god you would say: “God, I tried everything in my power to convert her...
People do not convert people Mhich. Suggesting that you would be drawn to a different message is clearly unBiblical.
My argument is not even intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands.
>>Would you kill me because your god says in the bible that non-believers should be killed?
No, besides it does not say to do so. God is the Judge, you will have your day with Him soon. No need to rush things. Besides if you die unsaved, you go to hell. I would want you kept alive to have a chance to be saved. After all I am fighting FOR you, not against you. I love you.
>>If your god asks you to, would you kill innocent women just like Ted Bundy did - with the same modus operandi and all?
God does not (would not) say to. Could God make a rock so large He cannot lift it? Nope! Can God lie? Nope!
(if I this same comment appears a lot, I'm sorry...but I don't know why...this one is not being posted)
(cont #2)
>> You are also lying to yourself by believing in some god that you can prove his existence. And the worse of all, you are trying to drag people to believe in it. I’m accountable to myself. If one day I fuck up I won’t blame some god or the bible (just like that guy who stoned a man to death because he was gay and put the blame of his actions in the bible). I will be mature enough to recognize I made a mistake and I’ll face the consequences for it (going to jail or doing community service, depending on what I did)
>> No threat. Its a promises more then anything. A loving warning more accurately.
If a parent tells his kid: “Do what is ay or I’ll beat you to death” is a love warning? No. It’s a bad taste joke when you say your god loves us but he will send us to the lake of fire until the end of times if you do something he doesn’t like, even though he gave us free will to do so. It’s not free will when we can say/think/do whatever we want as long as it doesn’t go against your god’s will. A god who does that is fucking sadist psychopath who tortures humans for his own amusement.
>> It means far more then you realize. Especially when you will bow your knee to him, one way or the other. I don’t bow my knee to some dude who died 2000 years ago. I never did and I never will.
>> So if they pass laws that say its OK to rape and eat babies that would be OK with you? No. Because – according to my conscience – raping and eating babies are wrong and I won’t start doing just because the law says it’s ok. There are things in the constitution I don’t agree with and I don’t do it. For example: voting in here is mandatory. I don’t vote just because the constitution says I have to. It was a personal decision I made and I’m not harming anyone or myself because of it.
Slavery and killing of infidels/children/homosexuals/cheaters; stoning of rebellious children are illegal in my country and even if it was legal I wouldn’t do it because it goes against my moral standards.
>>Adultery is not wrong according to you because there are no laws against it. You're flipping all over the place here. If morality is subjective then all immoral acts (to you) are moral. Get it?
I said adultery is wrong because it hurts people. Adultery is not condoned or prohibited by the laws in my country. Adultery was once prohibited by the laws here, but it’s not anymore because the people who make the constitution realized this is a matter between couples and they can solve the situation for themselves without necessarily taking it to the legal system.
>> People steal banks not because they are poor. People steal banks to have money for the drugs and guns traffic. If I steal an apple I’m not harming anyone. I didn’t get in the market and stole the apple pointing a gun to the clerk. About someone end up living in the streets in doesn’t happen because they want to. There are people living in the streets because they lost everything and didn’t make it to back on their feet again. There are kids living in the streets because their situation at home is so bad they think the streets are safer (there are people there who is going to protect them)
If one day I need help I can go to the city hall and ask the social work to help me. She will gladly do it. And there are lot of non-government organizations that are not linked any religious institutions that can help me better than a church. Do you know why? Because if I go to a church for help and somehow they find out I’m an atheist and gay they will refuse to help me.
Lol! Wow. So that's it, huh? It's impossible for an omnipotent being to be malevolent because... it's impossible. No explanation, no reasons, it's just impossible. Followed by the obligatory copy/pasted thought-blockers you love to toss out. The fact that you can't even begin to address the hypothetical situation speaks volumes about your beliefs. I would press the point and ask you how you can know that such a thing is impossible without being omniscient, but I'm pretty sure you'll just repeat yourself until I give up. I guess your whole "intellectual honesty" spiel doesn't apply to whoever regurgitates it the most.
BTW, for someone who constructed a nice big glass house in saying that they would kill their own son on God's command, you sure do seem to be throwing a lot of stones...
I know Smith founded Mormonism and L. Ron Hubbard founded Scientology.
- There’s no such thing as absolute universal truth.
- Was that book written by 40-50 men over the span of 1500 years with ONE cohesive thought and predicted things that came true to the letter and prophecies that are still coming true to this day? What prophecies? If you mean by the earthquakes, tsunamis, epidemics, wars, etc…well, that happens way before Christianity and way before the bible was written. If those things that’s happening now are prophecies, prove it to me (without turning to the bible).
- The Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true, proves itself internally, AND denial of the truth of the Bible leads to absurdity. They even put Jesus in our Courts and the verdict was the same. But, the real question is, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?
What a waste of time putting a man who died 2000 years ago in courts. If jesus was guilty or innocent doesn’t mean anything and – honestly – doesn’t make any difference. If this really happened, it was thousands of years ago; it doesn’t have any importance and it doesn’t change anything in the modern society. I bet there are lot of people who were innocent and falsely accused thousands and hundreds years ago, but it’s a very far away past.
Saying the bible is the absolute proof of god is the same thing as saying vampires are real because we have Bram Stoker’s Dracula; Interview with the Vampire and the Twilight Series books.
>> Again with a knowledge claim. How do you KNOW this for certain? Are you claiming it is impossible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
I base my knowledge on things I can see, hear, touch, smell and taste. My knowledge is based on what I can experiment on the real world. My senses are 100% infallible? No. Neither does yours. But it doesn’t mean there’s a supernatural world out there waiting for us. If you claim there’s an omniscient and omnipotent being, so prove it. I asked you many times for you to give me some evidence and you didn’t give none. How can you be certain that god is real? Saying that “look all around and will see his creation” doesn’t mean or prove anything.
>> Again REVELATION. It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain.
So, what your god revealed? How do you know those things were revealed by some god? Bring me the evidence. To me intellectual dishonesty is to claim something is real when you don’t have evidence to prove it. Saying this is underrating my intelligence.
>> I don’t see how the way I live my life can be damaging to the people I love. The fact I’m an atheist makes no harm to them. Even my mother – who is evangelical – knows that. She accepts and respects my ideology; she doesn’t try to convert me or keep saying I’m going to hell or something like that. I’m not out there doing things to hurt them or to hurt myself. I don’t see how atheism can be damaged to someone. Atheism it’s “damaging” only to you D.A.N, because it goes against what you believe. For whatever reason, you think atheism itself is already an insult to your christian faith.
>>Nice try. We both know better. There is only one Creator that all the evidence points to and that is the one you deny.
Do you – somehow - know my life and mind better than myself? There’s only a creator according to your beliefs and we don’t share the same worldview and ideologies. You claiming I’m an atheist because deep down I’m denying your god is a false statement. There are lot of beliefs in a lot of gods in this world and I don’t believe in any of them – not because I’m denying those gods or I’m angry at them. It’s because there’s no evidence that shows to me that they are real. To me all those gods are as real as unicorns or fairies.
>> People do not convert people Mhich. Suggesting that you would be drawn to a different message is clearly unBiblical.
So you don’t try to convert people? Really? When you go to someone to preach about the word of god you’re doing exactly that. Unless you respect other people’s faith and ideology and let them be what they want, even if goes against your belief.
.>> No, besides it does not say to do so. God is the Judge, you will have your day with Him soon. No need to rush things. Besides if you die unsaved, you go to hell. I would want you kept alive to have a chance to be saved. After all I am fighting FOR you, not against you. I love you.
Really? That’s not what it says in 2 Chronicles 15:13 (That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.)
I don’t believe in hell, so your threats are empty and worthless. I don’t need you to fight for me, I’m fine on my own and if one day I need help I can go to my family and friends and ask for it. They will be glad to help me. By what I saw here your idea of love is little bit (not to say hugely) twisted.
>> You still didn’t answer the question. I asked you – in the case of god asks you to kill innocent women just like Ted Bundy did – to prove your faith to him, would you do it? It’s a simple yes/no question. This is typical of people like you D.A.N, we ask you something that shows how unmerciful/violent/evil/vengeful your god really is and you dodge the question by saying some non-sense bullshit. I’m a journalist and I know when someone is avoiding to answer a question and you’re doing exactly that.
- The fact is we cannot get away from believing in something, even if that something is nothing. It is a paradox. It’s not a paradox; nothing means non-existence - non-existent).
ReplyDeleteI already said the definition of religion. But in case you forgot: religion is a system of belief that requires the dependency on god(s); rituals and ceremonies are performed in order to have a communion and show commitment to god(s). Atheists don’t have that.
Faith means “believing in something even when you don’t have evidence that supports your faith.”
- In its broadest sense, atheism repudiates belief in any sort of deity transcendent to man. “Matter” is all there is. Most atheists don’t believe in god – gods because there’s no evidence for their existence.
- In a more limited aspect, one may contend, “I believe in my own kind of “God”, but I do not believe in the God of the Bible”. The “deist” falls into this category. I can’t say for all the atheists but I don’t believe in my kind of god, I don't have one. I believe in NO god(s) – devil(s), period.
- We are not atheists because of human rebellion or because "we are angry at god" and saying we are not moral because we don’t have god in our lives is plain wrong.
If your morality comes from god, what keeps you from raping women, having sex with your relatives and having slaves in your house? God? Really? we all know that your god condones rape, incest and slavery in the bible.
Why you do good to others? To have a piece of heaven all to yourself after you die? So you’re doing for the wrong reason. In fact you’re being very selfish. I do good to others because is the right thing to do, not because some god promised heaven.
- The origin of the universe as we “know it” is the Big Bang. Everything there’s in the universe come from that event. But we don’t know everything there’s to know about it yet; at least scientists are trying to find the answers instead of making things up.
I’ve read that idea the universe always existed. Before the Big Bang, the universe was condensed in a really small space and it was very unstable, until one day the universe expanded (and still is, faster each time). There’s a possible scenario where the expansion of the universe will reverse; it’s called the Big Crunch. That will be the end of everyhting.
Just because something’s creation (universe - earth – life on earth) and evolution of the species are complex doesn’t mean there must have a creator.
If you believe it's impossible from something coming from nothing , so where did your god come from? Who is his designer? After all, god is so complex, right?
- Our existence has purpose; it changes from one person to another. But in general: do good to others for the sake of doing so and try to make life better for every single living being on this planet (not only humans).
- If believing in god makes you complete and gives meaning to your life, ok…but not everyone needs god in their lives to be happy, to have a good life, to feel accomplished, to have a meaningful life, etc…
My life is not void just because I don’t believe in god(s). There are a lot of things that gives meaning to my life and none of them has to do with god(s) and I’m happy that way.
Now, what happens after we die?Well, we decompose (or we burn in case someone wants to be cremated). George Harrison was right by asking those questions. The purpose of his life - in my opinion – was to make good music and touch people’s hearts with his talent. Now, the other two questions, who knows…I don’t know, you don’t know, nobody knows. Unless you went to heaven/hell and came back, you don’t have evidence to back it up the existence of an afterlife.
I don’t worry about where I’m going after I die (if I go somewhere); I worry about the life I have now and I enjoy every minute of it because I might not be here tomorrow.
It's like I say: for some people the idea of having no afterlife is scarier than facing eternity in hell.
"We cannot get away from believing in something even if that something is nothing"
ReplyDeleteOh I get it. It's a joke.
Well, there is a joke alright...and it's on Dan. He keeps claiming that it's atheists who can't justify their reasoning yet he's the one who's using logical fallacies here.
ReplyDeleteHe's using the Consequences of Belief fallacy in this post. More specifically, he's using wishful thinking here.
Welcome, folks, to the fallback position of the believer who knows he's lost the argument - "Well, at least my faith isn't depressing!"
ReplyDeleteThis despite the stories of nihilistic and suicidal Calvinists who believe they're predestined for damnation, and the fact that it's ultimately far more depressing and pathetic to try to cling to a comforting lie while the evidence continues to pile up against it.
To be fair, I used to think that there had to be more to life than the handful or so of decades we have in our bodies. But the more I see of life in the world and its subtleties and complexities, its beauty and its savagery, the more I'm convinced that what we have is more than enough to supply lifetimes of wonder and inspiration - no imaginary supernatural entities required.
Just because we end in death, it doesn't follow that the time we're alive is meaningless. Of course, it takes a certain amount of courage to create our own purpose and follow it through. If anything, our lives seem all the more precious when we embrace the fact that we are finite beings.
Atheism has been aptly called “the fool's religion”. That descriptive is not meant to be insensitively harsh, rather,it is an affirmation of stark reality.”The fool has said in his heart, there is no God” (Psalm 14 :1). Atheism is “religious” and it is “foolish”.
ReplyDeleteWow. She's even stooped to parroting Ray Comfort. Wonder if she learned that in 'phylosohpy' class...
Michelle,
ReplyDelete>>Everything there’s in the universe come from that event. But we don’t know everything there’s to know about it yet; at least scientists are trying to find the answers instead of making things up.
You do understand that you just revealed your presuppositions about the truth of the Bible. Don't you?
Besides, assuming that the Bible is not truth from God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging. I hope you can grasp this one point, if nothing else.
>>If your morality comes from god, what keeps you from raping women, having sex with your relatives and having slaves in your house?
God keeps me. Now ask yourself the same thing. If your morality comes from subjective and personal self, what keeps you saying raping women, having sex with your relatives and having slaves in your house is wrong? Is it wrong for others to do it?
>>Why you do good to others? To have a piece of heaven all to yourself after you die?
ALL charity is selfish. If you are honest you feed the poor, as an example, to feel good about yourself. The byproduct is helping others.
>>Now, what happens after we die?Well, we decompose
And you KNOW this how? A flip question for you. What happens to that 21 grams (weight of a soul) after that? Incidentally, I have not seen that movie yet.
>>If you believe it's impossible from something coming from nothing , so where did your god come from?
God is indeed something. In causality, there must be a beginning for the effects. Its not an infinite regress. God initiated that first cause.
>>George Harrison was right by asking those questions. The purpose of his life - in my opinion – was to make good music and touch people’s hearts with his talent.
So are both George Harrison and Ted Bundy right in their, albeit subjective, worldviews? Your worldview cannot stand against Bundy's worldview that is for sure. To do so invokes a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for.
>>Unless you went to heaven/hell and came back, you don’t have evidence to back it up the existence of an afterlife.
Does that mean if that did happen you would believe? My opinion about it aside, have you ever seen "I survived, beyond and back"?
>>It's like I say: for some people the idea of having no afterlife is scarier than facing eternity in hell.
It's like I say: I would rather live a life knowing there is a God, and die to find out there isn't one. ( At the very least, I would still be glad I attempted to conduct myself in a righteous manner, even if it was found to be delusional.) Then to live a life knowing there is no God, only to find out I was horribly wrong. [ And live with that decision for all of eternity.]
Dan +†+
ReplyDelete>>"You do understand that you just revealed your presuppositions about the truth of the Bible.
There’s nothing even remotely close to anything resembling the origin of the universe in the bible. The myth of creation was written in a time people didn't know how the universe and the world was created so they came up with that.
>> If your morality comes from subjective and personal self, what keeps you saying raping women, having sex with your relatives and having slaves in your house is wrong? Is it wrong for others to do it?
I will say to you the same thing some christians told me when they found out I was atheist: if your morality comes from a god that allows rape, incest, killing of those who don't believe him, slavery, stoning of disobedient children I don't want to get near you. My morality comes from my conscience. I know rape/murder/salvery/incest are wrong, besides being illegal and of course it's wrong for others to do it.
>>ALL charity is selfish. If you are honest you feed the poor, as an example, to feel good about yourself.
If you do charity for feeling good about yourself that's a better reason than doing to go to heaven. But not in my case, I'm altruistic; if I help someone I do it because it's the right thing to do and because I want that person to feel better, not to feel good about myself.
>> A flip question for you. What happens to that 21 grams (weight of a soul) after that?
How do I know bodies decompose? I seem decomposed bodies in an anatomy lab.
In 1907 Dr. Duncan MacDougall tried to weigh the soul. In his office, he had a special bed built upon very delicately balanced platform beam scales that he claimed were accurate around 5.6 grams. He got six terminally-ill people and he measured a weight loss, which he claimed was associated with the soul leaving the body. As a result, the myth that the soul weights 21 grams made its way into the common knowledge. But only one patient showed a sudden and irreversible weight loss at the moment of death (21 grams). Two results were excluded because of technical difficulties. One patient's death had a drop in weight but it was reversed later. The other 2 patients had an immediate weight loss at the moment of death but then their weight dropped again a few minutes later. I guess this Dr Duncan didn't mention that in his work.
>> God initiated that first cause.
But who or what initiated god? Who or what created the creator of god?
>>So are both George Harrison and Ted Bundy right in their, albeit subjective, worldviews?
Gorge Harrison was; Ted Bundy wasn't. Ted Bundy was a serial killer who killed women for the kicks. In his twisted mind that was the purpose of his life and in no way I support what Ted Bundy or any other murderer/rapist/pedophile/kidnapper/terrorist/etc... did/do to innocent people.
>>Does that mean if that did happen you would believe?
If you went to heaven/hell and came back and have some evidence (not only your testimony) that proofs you were there, yes. If that happened to you, do you have any (photos, videos, some object that only exists in heaven and hell to be sent to a lab to be tested?)
>>It's like I say: I would rather live a life knowing there is a God, and die to find out there isn't one then to live a life knowing there is no God, only to find out I was horribly wrong.
If there's a god and I'm his creation, he made me an atheist. He gave me intelligence/rationality for wanting evidence to proof if he's real or not. He also gave me free will to believe or not to believe in anything I want. So he will send me to hell for that? God is a damn hypocrite to condemn me to hell for being who/what he made me.
When I die and I see there's a god and he's the same god described in the bible I wouldn't follow him. I would never be on the side of a demanding, selfish, murderer, hypocritical, jealous, homophobe, racist, intolerant, violent god.
Besides, assuming that the Bible is not truth from God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging. I hope you can grasp this one point, if nothing else.
ReplyDeleteAssuming that the bible is truth from god because you believe god exists is also question begging. I hope you can grasp this one point, if nothing else.
But I'm not holding my breath...
ALL charity is selfish. If you are honest you feed the poor, as an example, to feel good about yourself. The byproduct is helping others.
ReplyDeleteSo why do you need a god to tell you to perform charitable acts? If we instinctively feel good from doing good to others, why is there any need to channel this feeling through some divine agency?
At the very least, I would still be glad I attempted to conduct myself in a righteous manner, even if it was found to be delusional.
ReplyDeleteSo, basically, what you're saying is that you would be content to have lived a good life, by your own standards, regardless of whether there is or is not a god.
I think it's time to rest the atheist case.
Michelle,
ReplyDelete>>My morality comes from my conscience. I know rape/murder/salvery/incest are wrong, besides being illegal and of course it's wrong for others to do it.
Bzzzzt. You cannot claim a conscience within your worldview. If subjectivity is all there is then we do NOT have universal knowledge that lying is wrong and raping is wrong. Yet, we do. Your worldview cannot account for such universals as a conscience. That, among other things, is why its [your worldview] reduced to the absurd.
>>if I help someone I do it because it's the right thing to do
Bzzzt. Yet again you cannot claim within your atheistic worldview what is "right" or wrong. You are using another worldview to do so. Its absurd, I know.
>>In his twisted mind that was the purpose of his life and in no way I support what Ted Bundy or any other murderer/rapist/pedophile/
kidnapper/terrorist/etc... did/do to innocent people.
Yet, your worldview cannot claim that such things are wrong to do so. Your worldview can ONLY account for subjectivity, radical skepticism, and moral relativism.
SO, the real point here is, IF you ACTUALLY feel the viewpoints that you expressed here, then maybe you do NOT have an atheistic worldview at all. That God does not view you as foolish in your philosophy and that you understand Him more then you realize. I applaud that.
>>If you went to heaven/hell and came back and have some evidence (not only your testimony) that proofs you were there, yes. If that happened to you, do you have any (photos, videos, some object that only exists in heaven and hell to be sent to a lab to be tested?)
Here is an oldie but a goody. Your presupposition is that there is no God; therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show His existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition: namely, that there is no God. If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect. If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw Him, you'd say it was mass-hysteria. If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies. So, I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it. It is limited.
Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine God's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of His existence. Don't you see? If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.
>>He also gave me free will to believe or not to believe in anything I want. So he will send me to hell for that? God is a damn hypocrite to condemn me to hell for being who/what he made me.
Sorry sister that does not cut it. Three Bzzzts and you're OUT!. I know you will not listen to all 7 parts, but you might want to check out 4:45 of part 7.
DD,
ReplyDelete>>So why do you need a god to tell you to perform charitable acts?
I don't.
>>If we instinctively feel good from doing good to others, why is there any need to channel this feeling through some divine agency?
First, you cannot account for that "instinct" within your worldview and second Jesus is not here to make the ride feel better. The reason I give Him all the praise is because He deserves it. He saved my reasoning and soul for all of eternity, after all.
>>So, basically, what you're saying is that you would be content to have lived a good life, by your own standards, regardless of whether there is or is not a god.
Nice try but No, the huge thing is IF it were all false. It isn't. IF it were though, I would be satisfied to live a life PRAISING GOD my entire life. That a "good" life is recognizing my own wickedness. That is certainly the opposite of an atheistic worldview.
Dan +†+
ReplyDelete>> You cannot claim a conscience within your worldview. If subjectivity is all there is then we do NOT have universal knowledge that lying is wrong and raping is wrong. Yet, we do. Your worldview cannot account for such universals as a conscience. That, among other things, is why its [your worldview] reduced to the absurd.
Why can I? Just because I don't have god(s) in my life?
Nobody has an universal knowledge when it's about morality. In some countries is permitted to kill people for being homosexuals and most people who live there think it's not immoral to kill a gay man or to give a correctional rape to a lesbian. In other countries try to do that to see what happens to you.
>>Yet again you cannot claim within your atheistic worldview what is "right" or wrong.
What I claim to be right or wrong has nothing to do with my atheistic worldview. Atheism is the ideology I have and it doesn't rule everyhting in my life. For example: if I think homophobia is wrong is not because I'm an atheist, is because I already seem/felt what homophobia can do to a person.
>> Yet, your worldview cannot claim that such things are wrong to do so. Your worldview can ONLY account for subjectivity, radical skepticism, and moral relativism.
Pedophile priests have their sense of morality screwed too, so as the terrorists and suicide bombers, so as the evangelical missionaires in Africa who condones the torture and killing of people who are suspected of withcraft and homosexuals. Seriously, if a morality comes from god, so why some priests molest altar boys? They should be the one of the most moral people on the planet and they are not (unless sexual abuse is not immoral in your religious worldview).
Here's the thing, because this morality talk is not going anywhere: if your morality comes from god, ok. But you can't expect or demand everybody to share the same worldview as you. Atheists are ok without god and they don't need some mythical creature to give meaning and morality to their lives. If you don't agree with it, it's ok but that doesn't give you the right to try to shove it in our throats the "you are immoral baby eaters atheists" talk.
>> Your presupposition is that there is no God; therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show His existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition: namely, that there is no God.
I'm an open-minded person, but it doesn't mean I won't question anything, because I will and a lot. If you come with evidences that there's heaven/hell obviously I'm going to question your evidences. I will put them under a microscope. If I don't find any I won't go out telling people I found real and irrefutable evidence that heaven and hell are ;real I will put it on hold until I can look some other aspect of your evidence. Testimonials are not reliable. A lot of people claimed they were abducted by aliens, but when you look at their testimonies you find inconsistency and none of those claims pass unharmed after a closer and rational examination.
What prophecies? According to some batshit crazy religious man the rapture will happen on may, 2011 and the end of the world will be in october. Or the world is going to end in 2012? Or is in 2060? Or it's in the year of 3000? When? How do you know? Who told you? How the world will end? What is the method you used to get to this information? (without turning to the bible - think for yourself at least for once)
If you say that there are factual proofs of the god's existence, so what is it? Where are they? I really want you to tell me...
>> I know you will not listen to all 7 parts, but you might want to check out 4:45 of part 7.
I'll listen all the 7 and I'll get back to you.
Michelle,
ReplyDeleteYou'll have to get used to Dan+++ replying with "NO I'm right,Your wrong because I said so. Because I said so, that means I'm right and your wrong."
http://www.atheistpropaganda.com/2011/03/finally-proof-that-gods-exist-maybe.html
Having fun backpedalling, Dan?
ReplyDeleteAnd why does an instinct need accounting for? It's either there or it isn't.
Nana Yiadom beat the shit out of me this time.
ReplyDeleteOnce again Dan, mistaken on the definition of the word 'knowledge' has completed his 'god of fake gaps' thought blocker.
ReplyDeleteIt's just a tirade that massacres the English Language. When you keep redefining words and concepts so that they encompass everything, language breaks down and starts to lose its ability to convey meaning.
ReplyDeleteIt does not matter if the author sees religious behavior in the deeds of atheists. It does not matter whether she can draw parallels between her religion and irreligion. The simple fact is that for something to be religious it must have a dogma, and it must have a supernatural component.
She then makes the same mistake with deism (and even her theism!), as if she hasn't butchered the language enough suddenly it is a form of atheism. This sounds more like sectarianism to me, "you don't believe in MY god (or live according to MY dogma), you're an atheist!"
The rest of the page is a spiel against atheism and science that is typical of creationists. Hardly worth commenting upon except that she makes stupid claims like "Atheism cannot account for X" (as if it is supposed to) and misses the point of the philosophical topic by mindlessly quoting scripture on the topic as if it is authoritative on the matter (it isn't authoritative in a discussion with the irreligious, and it isn't authoritative on language).
Bzzzzt. You cannot claim a conscience within your worldview. If subjectivity is all there is then we do NOT have universal knowledge that lying is wrong and raping is wrong. Yet, we do. Your worldview cannot account for such universals as a conscience. That, among other things, is why its [your worldview] reduced to the absurd.
ReplyDeleteA conscience is a biological and cultural construct. It is not magical. It fits in with the naturalistic view of life.
She also didn't say that her view is that subjectivity is all that exists. I think you're trying to restate the haggard old argument that without objective morality, there is no absolute right or wrong. What you seem unwilling to grasp is that morality does not need objectiveness to function. Also, serial killers have no conscience. It isn't universal.
Bzzzt. Yet again you cannot claim within your atheistic worldview what is "right" or wrong. You are using another worldview to do so. Its absurd, I know.
Actually she can. That is because she uses her judgment to determine what is right and what is wrong. The actual truth is that in your religion you cannot determine right or wrong, you have a book do that for you. You live in a perpetual state of moral ambiguity because you never hone your sense of decency, you just follow an authority's morality.
Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine God's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of His existence. Don't you see? If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.
That's a very roundabout way of saying you have no evidence for your claims. To be honest most of us debate this topic because we feel a need to debunk misinformation and correct others. However what we should be doing is demanding proof, and laughing at those who cannot provide it.
If you make an extraordinary claim like an afterlife existing, or divine revelation, then you BETTER expect to provide proof. If you don't, you should be mocked and humiliated for insulting our intelligence.
I find it hypocritical that Dan and his ilk demand atheists account for logic, morality, and the uniformity of nature when they don't actually accept any of these things.
ReplyDelete1. Dan rejects logic when it's inconvenient (ex. claiming that non bivalent logic is 'atheist logic').
2. Dan's morality is ultimately subjective and arbitrary (it's based on a mind).
3. Dan rejects that nature is uniform (miracles occur all the time).
Finally, to put the nail in the coffin, the entire idea that one has to account for a worldview in order for it to be consistent is a test for the presuppositionalists worldview that is internal to their worldview. Why should any other worldview use this as a means to test whether their worldview is true or not?
Prediction: Dan ignores these points, appeals to his belief in divine revelation, and continues his emotional rant against atheism - thus ignoring the plank that is jutting out of his worldview's eye.
Back to this Dan, Ugh! We keep pointing out the problems with your Presupp baloney, you give up on the thread, only to come back with the same baloney and start from square one all over again..
ReplyDeleteDan, I just want to remind you that, you the man who speaks of your world view being made or absolute, certain moral standards and then you keep telling us to justify our moral standards, yet you yourself pointed out recently that you can’t even justify the standards of your world view.
In a previous thread, you responded to a question by Trino,
:
Trino,
>>Why shouldn't the Canaanite children be allowed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as well?
Well, you caught me at my bias. God made the choice to take the Canaanite children home. I do not fully understand it, but I trust it. Its done by His hand, so its righteous and good. Abortions, on the other hand, is being done at the had of people, not God. Howard Huge difference.”
So, you admit that the moral standards are not absolute, universal and so certain for all, and you have no idea why. You also admit to just blindly accepting the fact that seems to contradict the claimed absolute, universal, blah, blah, blah standards of your world view and just say that its ok that it makes no sense to you, and can seems unjust, and cruel but you just figure its fine since you believe god did it.
Dan’s flawless absolute logic is, ‘god can do no wrong even if its wrong in my world view, So there!’
Excellent example of logic according to your world view Dan!
~Atomic Chimp
Michelle,
ReplyDelete>>In some countries is permitted to kill people for being homosexuals and most people who live there think it's not immoral to kill a gay man or to give a correctional rape to a lesbian. In other countries try to do that to see what happens to you.
Are you arguing my point now? Yes, in an atheistic society rape, or eating babies, may be OK. Morality is merely subjective. Thanks for agreeing with me. You still cannot account for universal rights and wrongs. If they ARE subjective you cannot, with good conscience, say rape and eating babies are wrong. For you personally its wrong, but its OK for others that have a conscience that says its OK. So you MUST be OK with it to be consistent with your professed atheistic worldview.
>>if I think homophobia is wrong is not because I'm an atheist, is because I already seem/felt what homophobia can do to a person.
SO its OK to be a homophobic then, according to you. Because you applaud the atheistic worldview that morality is merely subjective. You encourage an atheistic worldview as the right one. So Ted Bundy is right in his values and needs to be defended in that atheistic worldview.
>>Seriously, if a morality comes from god, so why some priests molest altar boys?
Because they are of the Devil and building up the wrath of God. Yes, evil happens here for now. God will stop that VERY shortly.
>>They should be the one of the most moral people on the planet and they are not (unless sexual abuse is not immoral in your religious worldview).
WHY do you say that? The Bible says all men are liars. That our hearts are wicked and should not be trusted. Do you need verses? Yes, people SHOULD do the right thing, but they choose to do evil. Especially in the atheistic indoctrination of the public school system. I digress.
>> Or is in 2060? Or it's in the year of 3000? When?
You should not believe ANY of them. God says not to. He says not even the angels know the date when that day will come. (Matthew 24:36) God says not to FOLLOW MAN!!
>>How do you know?
I don't know.
>>Who told you?
Certainly not God.
>>I'll listen all the 7 and I'll get back to you.
Thanks you Michelle, that means a great deal to me really.
Ant,
ReplyDelete>>You'll have to get used to Dan+++ replying with "NO I'm right,Your wrong because I said so. Because I said so, that means I'm right and your wrong."
Correction, You'll have to get used to "NO I'm right, Your wrong because The Bible told me so. Because The Bible said so, that means I'm right and your wrong."
DD,,
ReplyDelete>>And why does an instinct need accounting for? It's either there or it isn't.
Again I am not claiming they don't exist for you, I am claiming that you cannot 'account' for them in the random, atheistic, and evolutionary worldview that you cling to.
Meatros,
ReplyDelete>> Prediction: Dan ignores these points, appeals to his belief in divine revelation, and continues his emotional rant against atheism - thus ignoring the plank that is jutting out of his worldview's eye.
You're a prophet? To show how wrong you are, yet again, I will comment so we do not have to listen to you anymore. (Deuteronomy 18:22)
1. I reject illogical behavior like saying absolutes, absolutely don't exist. Insisting God does not exist is just illogical. I move on and try again another day. Like in sales, "no" is merely no for now, not "no" forever. You're right though, I do tend to see things in a black or white manner. My Dad has said that morality had some gray areas, I could never bring myself to agreeing with that though. I tend to say raping is bad always.
2. My morality is based on God's nature. Its not, don't lie because I said so, its don't lie because I don't lie. There is a difference. Morality is objective.
3. Miracles are very "natural" for God. The universe is only uniform when God makes it so. God’s promises for uniformity in nature are only for as long as the earth endures (Gen 8:22).
>>the entire idea that one has to account for a worldview in order for it to be consistent is a test for the presuppositionalists worldview that is internal to their worldview. Why should any other worldview use this as a means to test whether their worldview is true or not?
Like it was said, all non-Christian worldviews fall on their own merits using the same type of critical assessment.
You are more likely to see the reduction of the naturalistic worldview to absurdity because it goes down with less discussion. The debate ends at the point where the naturalist/atheist cannot adequately account for their own thought process and rationality - within their own worldview.
My worldview comes from the Creator that KNOWS everything. He allows us to know some things as truth. You have no such avenue. You cannot know anything because there might be evidence that contradicts your knowledge in the future that you do not yet know about. Its always changing and updating, much like science does. Its absurd to treat a worldview like science though. How can your worldview, having the totality of one's beliefs about reality, hold when one's beliefs is not fully known?
Atomic Chimp,
ReplyDelete>>Dan’s flawless absolute logic is, ‘god can do no wrong even if its wrong in my world view, So there!’
Yes, that is one way of putting it. Touché
Is that absolutely wrong? If no, you have no argument. If so, its contradictory to your worldview.
Apparently you painted yourself into a conundrum.
"Is that absolutely wrong? If no, you have no argument. If so, its contradictory to your worldview."
ReplyDeleteDan, what is the difference between wrong and "absolutely" wrong?
Dan +†+
ReplyDeleteIn your last post, this "atheistic indoctrination" really bugged me.
What do you mean by that? Teaching evolution instead of creationism? This is not "atheistic indoctrination" for two reasons:
#1 - evolution has nothing to with atheism. Evolution is a scientific theory and atheism is a pilosophical ideology.
Teaching evolution in schools has to do with teaching children something that is scientifically proved instead of messing with their heads by teaching some myth created thousands of years ago. Nobody goes to your church to teach evolution, Big Bang or what is stem cells research and its benefits. So religion should stay away from schools. This is what secularism is about: the state doesn't meddle in religion's business and religion doesn't meddle in the state's business. If religious organizations do that they automatically give the right to the state to do the same thing.
#2 - There's no such thing as "atheistic indoctrination"
In schools we have to teach rational and critical thinking to children. We have to teach the children to question and to think for themselves. That's it. I don't see where is the atheism in that.
Catholic schools are indoctrination, Jesus' camps are indoctrination, teaching religion in school is an indoctrination. You are leading children to follow that particular religion and to believe in that particular god or you're out.
This religion education always made me uncomfortable. I had religion education since my first day at school until the last. But they didn't teach all religions, only catholicism. My teacher was a priest. Don't you think this is indoctrination?
I asked this teacher why he didn't explained religions in general like judaism, islamism, spiritualism, buddhism, xintoism, pagan religions, etc, and the non-religious ideologies such as agnosticism and atheism. I asked him "what if I'm not catholic and I don't want to have to learn catholicism?" He kicked me out of class!! That shows religion indoctrination doesn't allow questioning that goes against what is preached, doesn't allow critical and rational thought, doesn't allow people to think for themselves. If you do that, you're kicked out and treated like a pariah, like I was.
That only made my atheism and my critical thinking stronger (also made me skip most of religion's classes, lol...I was persona non grata anyway, so the school didn't bother me because of it...thankfully).
Dan said,"Is that absolutely wrong? If no, you have no argument. If so, its contradictory to your worldview."
ReplyDeleteDan, My point has nothing to do with my views at all. I was just pointing out how you contradict yourself from thread to thread. I was just holding your statements up to your own claims about absolutes.
When I wrote "god can do no wrong even if its wrong in my world view, So there!", I was summarizing what you said in the quote of yours I pointed out.
Just in case you missed it, I'll post the quote again.
Dan you said responding to Trino,
Trino,
>>Why shouldn't the Canaanite children be allowed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as well?
"Well, you caught me at my bias. God made the choice to take the Canaanite children home. I do not fully understand it, but I trust it. Its done by His hand, so its righteous and good. Abortions, on the other hand, is being done at the had of people, not God. Howard Huge difference.”
You then say to me,"Apparently you painted yourself into a conundrum."
God kills innocent children its OK, man kills innocent children its not OK. Dan, that doesn't sound like absolute moral standards.
Dan, once again it is you who have painted yourself in a corner.
~Atomic Chimp
Again I am not claiming they don't exist for you, I am claiming that you cannot 'account' for them in the random, atheistic, and evolutionary worldview that you cling to.
ReplyDeleteSure I can. We have instincts because our ancestors had them and were successful at passing them on.
Next?
Dan +†+
ReplyDelete>> Yes, in an atheistic society rape, or eating babies, may be OK. Morality is merely subjective. You still cannot account for universal rights and wrongs. If they ARE subjective you cannot, with good conscience, say rape and eating babies are wrong. For you personally its wrong, but its OK for others that have a conscience that says its OK. So you MUST be OK with it to be consistent with your professed atheistic worldview.
Rape happens in every country, despite religions/political system/ideology...it doesn't mean I agree with them, because I don't. In some countries in Africa when there are a lot of evangelical missionaires saying homossexuality a punishable sin (that happens to in some islamic countries).
Second: People who think eating babies and rape are not wrong it means their sense of morality is twisted, they have no conscience (at least not a good one) and they have some serious personality disorders and to me that is not ok. I'm an atheist, yes; but I'm a human being (that is above any ideology) and I have respect and empathy (except to those who do evil things)for all living creatures who share this planet with us.
>> SO its OK to be a homophobic then, according to you.
I'm bisexual, I've already been a victim of homophobia, so it's not ok being a homophobe and attack gays just because they have a different sexual orientation than you.
>> Because they are of the Devil and building up the wrath of God. Yes, evil happens here for now. God will stop that VERY shortly.
Pedophile priests are not of the Devil. They are human and what they do it's twisted and harmful. They ruin the lives of children and their families with their perversion. If we're going to wait for your god to stop that, they will never get what they deserve, which is jail. But that doesn't happen because the Catholic Church think that priests are above human's laws and protect their own by sending them to a different parish where they will abuse more children instead of turning those priests to justice (the human one, which is not perfect but it's the one we have)
>> The Bible says all men are liars. That our hearts are wicked and should not be trusted. Do you need verses? Yes, people SHOULD do the right thing, but they choose to do evil. Especially in the atheistic indoctrination of the public school system. I digress.
Human beings are both good and evil, it's part of our nature.
If according to the bible all men are liars, wicked and should not be trusted, so why should I believe in the bible? After all they were written by men.
What do you mean by atheistic indoctrination of children?
>> You should not believe ANY of them. God says not to. He says not even the angels know the date when that day will come. God says not to FOLLOW MAN!!
I already don't believe it, but not because your god says not to; it's because it's non sense and people already told a bunch of dates to the end of the world and we're still here. We can't know how or when the world will end. All I know is the world will end someday (human race and all the other species are not going to last forever, neither this planet). I prefer to follow man (not the religious batshit crazy ones) than some mythical invisible god.
>> I don't know/Certainly not God.
Finally you admitted you don't know something! Congratulations Danny!!! I'm so proud of you!!! It didn't hurt, did it? If it wasn't god, so who told you?
Dan,”My morality is based on God's nature.”
ReplyDeleteLets look at some of the other things Dan has said,
”Miracles are very "natural" for God. The universe is only uniform when God makes it so.”
So the laws of nature and the universe are absolute and universal in Dan's world view, unless god decide to make them not, then they are not too.
The next one I hold close to my heart Dan,
”Its done by His(gods) hand, so its righteous and good. Abortions, on the other hand, is being done at the had of people, not God. Howard Huge difference.
So, according to Dan its absolutely wrong to kill children and take away their right for life and the pursuit of happiness UNLESS, god does it. He scores extra points since this was concerning the Canaanite children where instead of god quietly transporting the innocent children’s souls to heaven, he orders to have them killed by the hands of man in a savage act of war.
Yet again you cannot claim within your atheistic worldview what is "right" or wrong. You are using another worldview to do so. Its absurd, I know.
Seems like its Dan who’s standards are like shifting sand, when claiming wrong is right if god is doing it. Now that’s absurd!
life is recognizing my own wickedness.
Not sure how Dan can do that since he can’t recognize that by his own standards what he admits his god has done is just as wrong. This is only one step away from saying, ‘It was right to do it (fill with immoral act of your choice), since god told me to do it.’
Dan's world view seems like the furthest thing from absolute. It looks more like the standards fit the current mood of Dan or what he claims is his gods. That’s what happens when you use blind faith, & biblical justification instead of rational thinking & evidence to lead you in life.
I think I might start cataloging the best comment you make Dan, so I can keep reminding you of how little sense you make, and that your claims are not only unsupported but also self defeating.
~Atomic Chimp
Dan +†+ said... (to Meatros)
ReplyDelete1. I reject illogical behavior like saying absolutes, absolutely don't exist.
Who has said that? I haven't. I'm unsure as to whether absolutes exist and doubt man's ability to perceive them if they do. Can you give us an example (of a truth or a moral) and show how it is absolute Dan? I have asked before, but you've so far been unable to, maybe this time you can manage it?
Insisting God does not exist is just illogical.
Asking for evidence of your God isn't the same as insisting that He does not exist Dan, that's your persecution complex showing.
I move on and try again another day. Like in sales, "no" is merely no for now, not "no" forever. You're right though, I do tend to see things in a black or white manner. My Dad has said that morality had some gray areas, I could never bring myself to agreeing with that though. I tend to say raping is bad always.
It seems your God disagrees, apparently rape is fine if the woman doesn't shout loud enough.
2. My morality is based on God's nature.
As DD has asked on several occasions, how can a supernatural being have a 'nature'. No, this is just a cop out to avoid the question of how you know something is good i.e. it's good because God decrees it (subjective and abitrary) or it's good because it's instrinsically good (which requires no deity).
Its not, don't lie because I said so, its don't lie because I don't lie.
But God does lie, it says so in your Bible, is that not binding anymore?
There is a difference. Morality is objective.
Which no Christian can account for from within their inherently subjective worldview.
3. Miracles are very "natural" for God.
There you go with that supernatural being having a 'nature' nonsense again...
The universe is only uniform when God makes it so. God’s promises for uniformity in nature are only for as long as the earth endures (Gen 8:22).
So then the universe is uniform except when it's not, lol, that's brilliant Dan and you like to call our worldviews absurd.
My worldview comes from the Creator that KNOWS everything.
So you're omniscient now? If not how can you know anything for certain - including the source/veracity of those revelations you like to go on about?
He allows us to know some things as truth. You have no such avenue.
Your avenue appears to just go round in a vicious circle or do you have an explanation for how you could know a true revelation from a false one without being omniscient yourself?
You cannot know anything because there might be evidence that contradicts your knowledge in the future that you do not yet know about. Its always changing and updating, much like science does.
And? We can know things tentatively, without the need for absolute certainty and every time that knowledge is tested by real life experience it becomes either a little more certain or gets falsified.
Its absurd to treat a worldview like science though. How can your worldview, having the totality of one's beliefs about reality, hold when one's beliefs is not fully known?
Is this supposed to mean something?
Dan Wrote: You're a prophet? To show how wrong you are, yet again, I will comment so we do not have to listen to you anymore. (Deuteronomy 18:22)
ReplyDeleteYet again?
When was the first time? All you've done since I got here (and surely before, just with other posters) is simply assert your conclusions.
Dan Wrote: 1. I reject illogical behavior like saying absolutes, absolutely don't exist. Insisting God does not exist is just illogical. I move on and try again another day. Like in sales, "no" is merely no for now, not "no" forever. You're right though, I do tend to see things in a black or white manner. My Dad has said that morality had some gray areas, I could never bring myself to agreeing with that though. I tend to say raping is bad always.
?
This doesn't address what I wrote. I pointed out that the principle of bivalence is not universally accepted. That there are other logical systems which do not subscribe to it. I even gave you an example that refuted the law of bivalence. Would you like another crack at it?
This sentence is false.
Is the sentence above true or false. According to your notion of logical laws, it must be one or the other.
So which is it?
Dan Wrote: 2. My morality is based on God's nature. Its not, don't lie because I said so, its don't lie because I don't lie. There is a difference. Morality is objective.
So you admit that your morality is arbitrary and subjective since it's based on a will? You cannot say that morality is both objective AND somehow based on God - the two positions contradict one another, since God is a 'person', is he not?
Dan Wrote: 3. Miracles are very "natural" for God. The universe is only uniform when God makes it so.
Are miracles part of the natural world?
Also, you give the game away here:
The universe is only uniform when God makes it so.
1. This admits that you do not hold to the uniformity of nature.
2. Do you have a means of telling when God will intervene into nature?
If the answer to 2 is 'no' then you have no reason at all to assume the future will be the same as the past. You've given up your claim of the uniformity of nature.
Dan Wrote: God’s promises for uniformity in nature are only for as long as the earth endures (Gen 8:22)
Yeah, this verse doesn't say that, which is why you don't quote the verse - you are hoping no one will go check it out.
Here's the verse: While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
This says nothing about the uniformity of nature. Further, this is before God stopped the sun, before the various other miracles in the NT.
All this is referring to is the seasons. "Nature" is more then the seasons of nature and the testament of the bible demonstrates that God has no problem intervening in the laws of nature.
So, again, I've shown that according to the bible you have no reason to assume that nature is uniform.
To go you one better, what reason do you have to suppose that God will honor his promises? Because he has in the past?
Again, your worldview falls on the very sword you mean to impale other worldviews with.
Dan Wrote: Like it was said, all non-Christian worldviews fall on their own merits using the same type of critical assessment.
ReplyDeleteThat type of critical assessment is an internal critique of other worldviews - which means it's a useless critique! Why should any other worldview require to answer to the critique? Because you say so?
Dan Wrote: You are more likely to see the reduction of the naturalistic worldview to absurdity because it goes down with less discussion.
If this is true, you certainly haven't demonstrated it.
Dan Wrote: The debate ends at the point where the naturalist/atheist cannot adequately account for their own thought process and rationality - within their own worldview.
The debate ends when you cannot justify why the naturalist/atheist *HAS* to account for anything.
Please do so, then we can talk of whether the atheist has to do X or Y.
Dan Wrote: My worldview comes from the Creator that KNOWS everything.
Ah, so then, according to your worldview, only God could know anything.
Dan Wrote: He allows us to know some things as truth.
And how do you determine which things these are?
Dan Wrote: You have no such avenue. You cannot know anything because there might be evidence that contradicts your knowledge in the future that you do not yet know about.
Assertion - please prove this.
Further, I've shown that your worldview falls to this same criticism.
Dan Wrote: Its always changing and updating, much like science does. Its absurd to treat a worldview like science though. How can your worldview, having the totality of one's beliefs about reality, hold when one's beliefs is not fully known?
Assertion + Assumption. Science is not my only epistemology.
Further, I don't require absolute certainty. I've made this point clear before.
Its absurd to treat a worldview like science though. How can your worldview, having the totality of one's beliefs about reality, hold when one's beliefs is not fully known?
ReplyDeleteUm, Dan, are you quite aware of just how ridiculous this sounds?
A worldview is a conceptual tool we use to make sense of our experiences. We don't need to have experienced everything in order to do this, but the picture we construct has to contain at least a workable explanation of what we have experienced.
Building a worldview, for those of us who don't assume we already have all the answers, is a progressive activity. In that sense, it's pretty much exactly like science. For you, it's more like shoring up your mind against any encroachment of new knowledge or understanding.
To paraphrase Buzz Lightyear, you have a sad, strange little worldview, Dan.
Michelle,
ReplyDelete>> it means their sense of morality is twisted, they have no conscience (at least not a good one)
The only point AGAIN that I want to make is that IF morality is merely subjective like your worldview DEMANDS, then you cannot postulate any words like "twisted" or "no good" with someone else's morality. You are being inconsistent in your worldview. If you don't agree with morality being subjective then "atheistic" is not part of your worldview.
>>I'm bisexual, I've already been a victim of homophobia, so it's not ok being a homophobe and attack gays/bisexuals/pansexuals/
asexuals/etc just because they have a different sexual orientation than you.
I completely agree that gays should not be attacked. But they certainly should be reasoned with. BTW, do you believe its in line with evolution to be gay? Wouldn't you think that, as a non beneficial trait, that evolution would have nullified it by now? I thought people that believe in evolution believe that only traits, or mutations, that are beneficial for survival continue in the evolutionary process. That bad traits die off. You cannot have it both ways, is my point. Its my theory, correct me if this is not true for you, the reason why Atheists rage against God is because they want to live their own autonomous way, to live anyway they want to, without being accountable to our Creator. Is that true for you?
>>Evolution is a scientific theory and atheism is a pilosophical ideology.
Evolution and atheism are a philosophical ideologies. One without God. But yes, you can believe that aliens created you, and not God, and still be an Atheist. Is that you? If not then you are like the 98% of the rest of the Atheists out there. One that holds, as part of their worldview, anything that does not have God as the Creator, like evolution.
>>Teaching evolution in schools has to do with teaching children something that is scientifically proved instead of messing with their heads by teaching some myth created thousands of years ago.
We need to bear in mind that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" (like evolution) misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method.
>>Nobody goes to your church to teach evolution, Big Bang or what is stem cells research and its benefits.
That is mainly because that is not where the impressionable children are.
Listen to what an American Humanist named John Dunphy said by correctly prophesying about children back in 1983:
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."
>>My teacher was a priest. Don't you think this is indoctrination?
In your specific case? Yes, probably. Just understand it was a priest who discovered and theorized the big bang.
Freddies Dead,
ReplyDelete>>Insisting God does not exist is just illogical
And that is the rub of atheism.
>>Asking for evidence of your God isn't the same as insisting that He does not exist Dan, that's your persecution complex showing.
Atheism is insisting that He does not exist. Its your worldview is it not? Remember that you do not claim to be a non-theist, you claim atheism. Its intellectual dishonesty to claim that atheism is merely wonderment about God and His existence.
>>As DD has asked on several occasions, how can a supernatural being have a 'nature'.
Are you both making a statement that supernatural beings cannot have a "nature"? If so how do you KNOW this? Or are you throwing out the "wonderment" card again? BTW, supernatural beings can have a "nature", evidenced by God. Moving on.org
>>So you're omniscient now?
Again, we have access to some of that omniscience. Are you OK? Comprehension doesn't seem to be your strongest suite in this case. (yea, I said it)
>> We can know things tentatively, without the need for absolute certainty and every time that knowledge is tested by real life experience it becomes either a little more certain or gets falsified.
So you have no knowledge at all. You merely have tentative ignorance? I am sure that understand that is completely fallacious (appeal to ignorance). I cannot even begin to believe that pile of injection.
How can your worldview, having the totality of one's beliefs about reality, hold when one's beliefs is not fully known?
>>Is this supposed to mean something?
More then you KNOW.
Dan makes baseless and contradictory claims. These things constantly get pointed out to him. Dan just holds his hands over his ears and says, "LA LA LA, I hear nothing!" and just repeats the same flawed and often self refuting routine.
ReplyDeleteDan why is it so righteous for your god to do something in a very violent way through the hands of man, that you consider so immoral?
And that is the rub of Dan's delusional world view.
Dan, You go as far as saying, "we have access to some of that omniscience."
How do you know this is true Dan? How can you support you claim and show its not you assuming your personal feeling and opinion are the mind of god, its just a delusional or you're just letting yourself be mindlessly lead along by other people.
Remember, you need to present you support in some objective manor.
Anyway Dan, with your belief that you have access to the mind and spirit of your god and that you believe its righteous for him to call on his people to do immoral and violent things, I find your world view rather frightening.
~Atomic Chimp
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDan +†+
ReplyDelete>> Morality and imorality has nothing to do with atheism, christianity, islamism, judaism, etc. It has to do with people in general. Stalin was an atheist and Hitler was a christian. They were responsible for the killing of millions of innocent people not because of their atheism or christianity and yes because they were dictators who didn't have any respect for human life. According to MY MORALITY is not good to harm people, so I can say that someone who kills people for the sake of it are twisted and have no good conscience (if they have one).
>> I don't need to marry a man to constitute a family. My girlfriend and I can adopt a kid or one of us can have an artificial insemination. Having kids is not only about perpetuate the species; it's about giving love and good life for the child. I don't care what is your sexual orientation as long as you are a good parent.
Bisexuality and homosexuality are not only about sex, it’s also about love and they are not genetic mutations, they are sexual orientations, just like heterosexuality. How atheists suppose to rage against an mythical creature? It's like being mad at Santa Claus.
>> Do you know the difference between philosophy and science?
Evolution and atheism are not the same thing, evolution is not "godless religion" (neither as atheism for that matter) - it's science.
God had nothing to do with my creation, my parents did.
>> Children are impressionable. That's why they believe in Santa Claus, easter bunny, tooth fairy, boogey man. After they grow up they stop believing in those mythical creatures, except in god (unless they realize how ridiculous is the idea of having a sky daddy ruling every aspect of their lives). God is a delusion that is still fed even after a child becomes an adult (in that case, an impressionable adult)
>> That is the same John Dunphy who said this: "If the previous paragraphs [of 'A Religion For A New Age'] prove anything, it is that the Bible is not merely another book, an outmoded and archaic book, or even an extremely influential book; it has been and remains an incredibly dangerous book. It and the various Christian churches which are parasitic upon it have been directly responsible for most of the wars, persecutions and outrages which humankind has perpetrated upon itself over the past two thousand years."?
And that: "I steadfastly maintain that only with the complete, irrevocable rejection of God and the supernatural will humankind truly begin to live. Rather than producing a feeling of despair, the decision to embrace atheism should result in an exhilarating, almost intoxicating sense of freedom, something akin to the experience of those American slaves who rejoiced upon hearing news of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Only the atheist is truly free."?
>> Georges Lemaître was also an astronomer and a physics' professor.
If schools want to teach (not preach) religion in schools, so be it. But they have to teach other religions and the non-religious ideologies too, not only the dominant religion. Religions are a part of the world's history, so as the non-religion ideologies. You don't see a history teacher teaching only capitalism just because US is a capitalist country. He talks about socialism, communism, anarchism, nazism, capitalism, etc...so why not do the same thing with religion? It won't be indoctrination showing kids different creeds, ideologies and worldviews.
Meatros,
ReplyDelete>>To go you one better, what reason do you have to suppose that God will honor his promises? Because he has in the past?
Ouch that was close and almost hurt. I thought for a fraction of a second that you were on to something. But to answer the question, No. Not because He has in the past, but because He said so and He cannot lie. So by faithfully depending on His Word and promises we can know with certainty that He will do as He says. You almost had me though. You almost had game...whew. :7)
You're always asking someone to account for this or that while saying that your account is God. The thing is, neither you nor anyone else can account for some of the simplest aspects of this God:
ReplyDelete- How did He bring matter into existence?
- What was He doing before He decided to create the universe?
- Why did He do it in the first place? Boredom?
- Will He make a new race of humans whenever the current one dies out?
- Have angels/demons existed for as long as Him?
- What will they do once all humans are in either heaven or hell?
These are just a few questions that may or may not have been answered but ultimately every Christian is forced, at some point, to fall back to the old lifevest: "His ways are not our ways". So tell me, how can you claim that God is your account for logic, morality, etc. when you don't have knowledge of His basic characteristics, much less full access to His mind?
Michelle,
ReplyDeleteYou see I told you your worldview is absurd if you believe Hitler was a christian. *pshaw
If homosexuality is mainly, if not entirely, environmental you are being abusive to raise a child in a home that celebrates deviances, like atheism and being gay. To do so, you are DEFYING NATURE also. I don't see animals inseminating to have kids because they are against the natural relation of man and woman. If you are against the relationship of what is natural then why pervert it further by bringing in the results of that natural relationship?
>>Children are impressionable.
Ironic that you admit this and yet you approve and encourage the lifestyle that you wish to force on them. One that is devastatingly rampant with STD's. Be ashamed.
>> He talks about socialism, communism, anarchism, nazism, capitalism, etc...so why not do the same thing with religion?
You do understand that teachers and presidents are pushing a socialist and communistic America. How Ironic they teach about "alternatives" to religion and capitalism. You know, the things that is anti government. We don't need your thoughts control... All in all its just another brick in the wall.
Dan
ReplyDeleteOuch that was close and almost hurt. I thought for a fraction of a second that you were on to something. But to answer the question, No. Not because He has in the past, but because He said so and He cannot lie. So by faithfully depending on His Word and promises we can know with certainty that He will do as He says. You almost had me though. You almost had game...whew. :7)
Examples of god lying:
1 Kings 22:23
2 Chronicles 18:22
2 Thessalonians 2:11
Jeremiah 4:10
And while you're at it, you'd better back up your accusation about teachers with some hard fucking proof.
Or else apologize. Not that it matters; every time you apologize, you go back on it.
Dan +†+
ReplyDelete>>Have you ever read Hitler's book Mein Kampf? He mentions the name of god a lot of times and there's a lot of "god's will" in that book. To Hitler what he did was god's will.
>>So you prefer a child to be stuck in a orphanage or in an abusive foster home for who knows many years, being totally ignored by a overloaded system than being adopted by a gay couple who will give her a good life? For you, so what if a child is being raised by abusive parents, where she can be victim of physical and psychological abuse, sexual abuse and hurt in so many ways your narrow mind can't possibly imagine - at least she's being raised by an straight couple who "won't infect her with the 'gay disease/sin'?"
>>If my girlfriend and I will have a child we won't force "our gay lifestyle" or "my atheistic indoctrination" on her. We will accept and love this child no matter what his or her sexual orientation or creed/faith/ideology might be.
>>Abuse is to treat a person like shit, like he or she was less than nothing and this is something I will never do - because I know how it is to be treated like you were crap and I don't wish that on anyone.
>>I don't know about your country, but in my country the biggest rates of STD'S are among straight people who got those diseases from their husbands/wives/boyfriends/girlfriends. So that goes against your opinion that STD's are the "gay plague". STD's don't discriminate gender, sexual orientation or relationships. I saw a bumper sticker once saying “God created safe sex and called it marriage”. That is a fucked up statement. I even said that “god might created safe sex and called marriage but men invented the condom and if you don’t use it with your wife or husband or just a “one night stand” and they have some STD you are fucked, maybe for life”.
>>Me - unlike you - don't force my "lifestyle" on other people, I don't try to shove my ideology on other people's throat by threatening them with the "burning in hell for all eternity" if they don’t accept it.
>>I don't know why we bother you so much for being who we are (gays, atheists, transexuals, etc). What have we done to you for you being so bitter with us? I am not ashamed of being an atheist and I'm not ashamed of being bisexual...it's who I am and I'm proud of it. If there's a hell and that's where I'm going because of it, so be it.
>>After that Dan, I don't wanna talk to you. You just showed me how ignorant you are by thinking that all those people who don’t share the same worldview as you are wrong and imoral heathens and what I do with people like you is staying away from the bad smell of ignorance and intolerance that comes out from all your pores, ok?
>>If there's a god and he's so loving like you say I hope he's not on your side.
PS: Seriously, deep down you are a sad little man; that saddens me and I feel sorry for you, really.
Dan is showing his true colors so much lately. For a man who claims to be such a loving Christian, why do you lie and are so hateful to those who aren’t what you’d like them to be. Talk about not wanting people or the government to control you, you just wants it so your religious dogma controls others, others way of life and the government.
ReplyDeleteDan, you said, “You do understand that teachers and presidents are pushing a socialist and communistic America.”
That’s right Dan, you love to pull conspiracy theories out of your butt when you can’t come up with anything better. If they aren’t doing what you thinks they should, it’s a big Socio-government conspiracy run by atheists and ‘Not True Christians.’ You need no fact to support this Dan; it just is because you got an instant message from god telling him so.
Dan, I also like how you claim that same sex couples raising a child are abusive and so unnatural. I’d like to see what facts you have to support that. I’ll save you the trouble though. In states & countries where same sex couples have been allowed to foster and adopt children there is no data to support your claim. Actually the data shows just the opposite. Same sex couples have been equal if not better in quality of parenting and the children have shown no negative effect from the experience. That’s right Dan, all the data shows is happy families and happy children. In states & countries that allow same sex marriage there is also nothing to support the claim of ill effects. The only know odd result I am aware of is an great increase of income in the areas in the way of spending on weddings. I think in MA it was an increase in 6 to 7 figures in wedding spending after same sex marriage was legalized.
Dan, you don’t believe in human rights, all you believe in is how you want the world to be. You don’t want government to not control the people of America, you just want them to control the people using you personal agenda. The fact you never have more than baseless assertions and subjective claims of heavenly guidance is very telling. You ranting on this blog shows you to be no more than a hateful selfish man that uses a claim of godly guidance since you have nothing to support your personal opinions. Grow up Dan and join the rest of us in the 21st century.
Last but not least, how can we trust your reasoning and opinions when according to you it so righteous for your god to do something in a very violent way through the hands of man that you consider so immoral?
~Atomic Chimp
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteFreddies Dead,
>>Insisting God does not exist is just illogical
And that is the rub of atheism.
Simply repeating your assertion doesn't make it true Dan.
>>Asking for evidence of your God isn't the same as insisting that He does not exist Dan, that's your persecution complex showing.
Atheism is insisting that He does not exist.
Redefining atheism to fit your criticism doesn't make it true Dan.
Its your worldview is it not?
It is, so why are you trying to redefine what I've already defined for you?
Remember that you do not claim to be a non-theist, you claim atheism. Its intellectual dishonesty to claim that atheism is merely wonderment about God and His existence.
If you recall I claim 'agnostic atheism', that is, I do not believe in any God(s) but do not claim to know for certain that no God(s) exist. I have stated my position very clearly on several occasions and your continued attempt to redefine my position is what's dishonest here, not to mention irritating.
>>As DD has asked on several occasions, how can a supernatural being have a 'nature'.
Are you both making a statement that supernatural beings cannot have a "nature"?
No, we are asking you to demonstrate the truth of your claim.
If so how do you KNOW this? Or are you throwing out the "wonderment" card again?
How do I know what Dan? I didn't make a claim, I (and DD) asked a question.
BTW, supernatural beings can have a "nature", evidenced by God. Moving on.org
Back to the baseless assertion - God has a nature because God has a nature. Doesn't explain anything, doesn't demonstrate the truth of your claim. You move on if you like, I think it speaks volumes that you're unable to support your claim.
>>So you're omniscient now?
Again, we have access to some of that omniscience.
How so? I ask again how you can know the source or the veracity of your alleged revelation when you freely admit you are not omniscient yourself?
Are you OK? Comprehension doesn't seem to be your strongest suite in this case. (yea, I said it)
You don't seem to know the difference between 'showing' and 'telling' and you're criticising my comprehension skills? Lol, that's just brilliant.
>> We can know things tentatively, without the need for absolute certainty and every time that knowledge is tested by real life experience it becomes either a little more certain or gets falsified.
So you have no knowledge at all. You merely have tentative ignorance?
Is this what you got from my statement? And you have the nerve to judge my comprehension skills? Are you suggesting that all knowledge is absolute? Does this mean your claim that 'absolute certainty requires omniscience' is complete crap and we can have that certainty without it? Note that if all knowledge is absolute, then any knowledge, however gained, is absolute. Great, then I'm absolutely certain that your God doesn't exist - knowledge based upon the evidence, and my knowledge must be absolute. Well done Dan you've just disproved the existence of your God.
I am sure that understand that is completely fallacious (appeal to ignorance). I cannot even begin to believe that pile of injection.
It seems you're no better at writing for comprehension than you are at reading for it.
How can your worldview, having the totality of one's beliefs about reality, hold when one's beliefs is not fully known?
>>Is this supposed to mean something?
More then you KNOW.
Ah, so you admit it means nothing? If it did mean something you'd actually attempt an explanation.
Dan Wrote: Ouch that was close and almost hurt. I thought for a fraction of a second that you were on to something. But to answer the question, No. Not because He has in the past, but because He said so and He cannot lie.
ReplyDelete1. And why do you believe that he will not be able to lie in the future?
2. As to 'because he said so', that was unsatisfying when my parents said it, it's even more so now when you say it.
3. The God of the Bible is deceptive at many places - so are you saying that you worship a different God?
Dan Wrote: So by faithfully depending on His Word and promises we can know with certainty that He will do as He says. You almost had me though. You almost had game...whew. :7)
So the only justification you have is 'faith'?
I truly love how you simply ignore the significant holes that I punched in your worldview in my last few posts.
Good show old bean.
freddies dead: Simply repeating your assertion doesn't make it true Dan.
ReplyDeleteIt is to Dan.... Remember though, he rejects logic (it's atheistic!), so it's not surprising.
freddies dead: How so? I ask again how you can know the source or the veracity of your alleged revelation when you freely admit you are not omniscient yourself?
While Dan might throw an unsupported assertion at this (God can do it because he can do the logically impossible), the reality is this is the sword that skewers his worldview.
Dan's sitting there, like the black knight of the Monty Python Holy Grail, screaming that he's still got some fight left in him, when all the tools for fighting have been cut off from him.
I suppose the only difference is that he's done this to himself.
At the end of the day, Dan believes what he wants to believe - not what reason has compelled him to believe.
I'm thinking that it's a waste of time to talk with him. He either doesn't know his apologetics enough to argue them or he simply cannot argue them rationally and refuses to admit this. In either case, neither is really instructive or useful for learning anything (which is why i initially started participating).
Dan's simply a waste of time. I'll see with his latest batch of responses whether or not he actually addresses the problem with his worldview, but I doubt it.
I completely agree that gays should not be attacked. But they certainly should be reasoned with. BTW, do you believe its in line with evolution to be gay? Wouldn't you think that, as a non beneficial trait, that evolution would have nullified it by now?
ReplyDeleteDid someone reason with you to make you heterosexual, Dan?
And you're jumping the gun - and revealing your bias - by supposing that homosexuality is a non-beneficial trait. Perhaps on a simplistic understanding of evolutionary processes, it could be seen as such, but there are obviously reasons homosexual behaviours have persisted in animal populations, including humans.
One hypothesis is that offspring raised by more than just a pair of adults would have significant advantages in terms of survival. A pair-bond is one thing, but surely even you can see that a triumvirate, or maybe more adults, tightly bonded through their sexual intimacy, would be able to collectively devote more time, energy and resources to ensuring the survival of any related offspring.
I thought people that believe in evolution believe that only traits, or mutations, that are beneficial for survival continue in the evolutionary process. That bad traits die off. You cannot have it both ways, is my point.
Sure you can, Dan. The other factor to consider is that genetic traits tend not to get passed on in isolation. Homosexuality may be a rider on the backs of one or even several other more straightforwardly beneficial traits.
And again you're showing your inherent bias - 'belief' in demonstrable reality is a very different animal to belief in undemonstrable supernatural entities.
Its my theory, correct me if this is not true for you, the reason why Atheists rage against God is because they want to live their own autonomous way, to live anyway they want to, without being accountable to our Creator. Is that true for you?
I call false dichotomy here. Not wishing to be beholden to the dictates of a particularly nasty fictitious character does not automatically indicate unwillingness to follow reasonable behavioural guidelines or a lack of desire to live in harmony with others.
Michelle,
ReplyDelete>>So you prefer a child to be stuck in a orphanage or in an abusive foster home for who knows many years, being totally ignored by a overloaded system who doesn't give a damn about her than being adopted by a gay couple who will give her a good life?
Wow, where do we begin with your fallacious arguments here? How about to aid you we list some of them like Appeal to Fear, Poisoning the Well, Questionable Cause, Slippery Slope, and hasty generalization to name just a few. Just so you understand completely, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Is it any wonder I ask, all the time, how do you know your reasoning is valid? I am just trying to help you see your errors.
Are ALL foster homes abusive? If not, you have no argument.
>>If my girlfriend and me will have a child we won't force "our gay lifestyle" or "my atheistic indoctrination" on this child.
How can you claim this while at the very same time say that children are impressionable? If they are, showing them a perceived "successful" alternate lifestyle to the norm, will be impressionable to say the least.
Is something OK just because you want to do it?
>>Abuse to me is to treat a person (no matter what age they have) like they were shit, like they were less than nothing and this is something I will never do.
How do you know that is wrong? Are you saying that you will make your children feel special and elevate them? You will coddle bad behavior then? Scot Peterson's mom did that. Look up 'self esteem movement' to see where the bullies come from. You see the negative effects of propping kids up on that show American Idol. Where the professionals of the industry say to the girl that she is not that great of a singer and she goes off on them saying how great she really is and runs out to her mom that says how great she is. She is delusional as to reality.
I am going to go on a tangent here. Bear with me. Many claim that homosexuality is "natural" but its obvious it is not.
IN NATURE there isn't examples of same sex authority based family unit on a consistent level. Its a perversion on nature and to God. Lions have an authority based system where the male is the head and the female hunt and gather the food for the families. Dominate male roles are throughout nature. In your homosexual world, not always but usually, there is one that is more dominate then the other. One of the females have a more masculine roll to play in the relationship, hence the term "butch" and "lipstick lesbians". Ellen and Rosie are fine examples of "playing" the males role. They are both playing or emulating the role that nature (God) requires. In gay men there is the feminine partner. These are not in nature that I can think of. Even if a male monkey is mounting another males, its merely to show dominance over the other. Its not love for the same sex at all. Maybe there is an exception that I cannot think of, but certainly not the rule.
What I am saying here is that there is hardly the two feminine males that are a "couple" So even homosexuals try to emulate God's plan of "male and female he created them." ~Genesis 1:27 Homosexuals are merely perverting the natural system of things claiming its natural, but it isn't at all.
I hafta go do things, more later
PS. All comments go through, no need to repost them. Sometimes they go into the filter Spam. I just mark everything as not spam and they do show up.
ReplyDeleteIN NATURE there isn't examples of same sex authority based family unit on a consistent level. Its a perversion on nature and to God.
ReplyDeleteGo read up on bonobos, Dan.
Lions have an authority based system where the male is the head and the female hunt and gather the food for the families. Dominate male roles are throughout nature.
Animals that have such social organisations evolved them because they were conducive to the survival and reproductive success of the groups and individuals in question. You know, of course, that if a dominant male lion takes over a pride, he will generally kill any offspring that aren't his. Do you take moral instruction from this situation? I mean, it's perfectly natural, so why shouldn't you?
What you'll find, if you bother to research the lifestyles of various animals, is that there are a wide variety of strategies that have evolved to meet the demands of survival and reproduction. Dominant masculinity is just one such strategy.
D.A.N., said, ” Lions have an authority based system where the male is the head and the female hunt and gather the food for the families. Dominate male roles are throughout nature.”
ReplyDeleteYou forgot that there are many other systems in nature, including some where the female killing the male after mating. If I were you, I’d avoid trying to use how other living creatures operate as a model for how humans should.
DormantDragon said, ” You know, of course, that if a dominant male lion takes over a pride, he will generally kill any offspring that aren't his.”
I’d guess D.A.N. would be OK with that. Remember, he considers it righteous and morally correct when his god orders that the Canaanite’s innocent children to be slaughtered by the hands of man. Hey, they weren’t the ones chosen for his pride. Animals do it, its perfectly natural!
Dan Wrote: IN NATURE there isn't examples of same sex authority based family unit on a consistent level. Its a perversion on nature and to God.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what kind of moving the goal posts thing you have here, but it seems to me that Black Swans are a counter here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#Black_swans
An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are homosexual and they steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs. More of their cygnets survive to adulthood than those of different-sex pairs, possibly due to their superior ability to defend large portions of land. The same reasoning has been applied to male flamingo pairs raising chicks.
Seems to me that, in nature, homosexuality can actually be a better strategy for the survival of the offspring.
You were partially correct, Dan, in your comments about dominance appearing throughout the animal kingdom. Dominance relationships are ubiquitous amongst social animals - even domestic animals.
ReplyDeleteBut they're not all the kind of patriarchal male-dominance relationships you seem to be favouring.
To pick just a couple of examples, the aforementioned bonobos live in matriarchal groups. Males stay with the group in which they were born, whilst females move to different groups, and form bonds with each other through grooming and sexual interaction. There is a dominant female in each bonobo group, and the position of females in the hierarchy is largely what influences the mating privileges of their sons.
Elephants also congregate in matriarchal herds, consisting of females and young. Adult males are mostly solitary and itinerant, and the head of any herd is always female.
What happens in nature, regardless of the species in question, is what produces the best outcomes in terms of survival and reproduction for the populations involved. For some animals, male dominance serves these interests most effectively. For others, different strategies have evolved. Particularly amongst mammals, it's the females that have the greater investment in producing and raising young - 'cause most males don't tend to stick around, except in highly social species or those that pair bond - so they are the ones who choose mates - a strong male offers the most promising survival prospects for offspring, and the way the strongest male makes his credentials known is most often by competing with other males.
Of course, if a male can win mates through stealth or deception, he can accomplish his reproductive goals without the risk and energy cost of competing with other males - like some species of lizards, where certain males will sneak in to mate with females while the dominant, aggressive male who claims those females is out fighting another male.
I know you like to say that some things are 'natural' for humans to do, or part of the 'order of nature' as prescribed by your god, Dan, but you might want to rethink this rather oversimplified picture. Unless of course you want to say something deeply ridiculous, like claiming that any animal relationships that don't conform to the male-as-head-of-family ideal are a result of the fall, and that all those wandering male elephants would have been at home taking care of their families if not for that unfortunate incident with the apple...
As should be clear from the previous few comments, Dan, there isn't any one social, sexual or family arrangement that trumps all others in terms of effectiveness or 'rightness'. There are many permutations, and all have their inherent advantages, depending upon the circumstances and environments in which animals exist.
ReplyDeleteSo your much-vaunted 'natural system' would appear to be: go with what works.
DormantDragon said, ” You know, of course, that if a dominant male lion takes over a pride, he will generally kill any offspring that aren't his.”
ReplyDeleteI’d guess D.A.N. would be OK with that. Remember, he considers it righteous and morally correct when his god orders that the Canaanite’s innocent children to be slaughtered by the hands of man. Hey, they weren’t the ones chosen for his pride. Animals do it, its perfectly natural!
You'd think, from Dan's comments about nature and all that we could suppose so.
But of course we all know what's really going on here - the "bad stuff is actually good when god does it" stance is complimented quite neatly by the "stuff I think is good is natural, but everything else isn't, or if it is, it's only because of the fall" stance. It's just another failed attempt to justify arbitrary personal biases.
D.A.N
ReplyDelete>> Answer me instead of trying to give me moral lessons: do you prefer a child to be stuck in a orphanage or in an abusive foster home for who knows many years, being totally ignored by a overloaded system than being adopted by a gay couple who will give her a good life?
>> How can you claim this while at the very same time say that children are impressionable? If they are, showing them a perceived "successful" alternate lifestyle to the norm, will be impressionable to say the least.
Kids seeing their two mothers or their two fathers getting along with each other and seeing they are like other straight parents they know - loving and caring towards their children - see homosexuality is not a synonym of bad parenting or negative influence. Kids raised by gay parents learn there are people different from them and to accept and respect those differences. Is that wrong?
If you have kids, you are teaching them to be intolerant towards people who have different creeds, ideologies, sexual orientations, etc, of them; is that good? Don't you think you are forcing your "lifestyle" and your belief on your children? You are indoctrinating them. You are not allowing them to think for themselves. What if one of them don't agree with you? And if one of them is gay or a transgender or an atheist in the closet? Do you have any idea of the harm you might be causing to one of your kids by saying atheists go to hell, that homosexuality is not natural and it's a perversion in the eyes of god? That your kid is a bad influence to society in general because he/she is gay? You are abusing them and you will be responsible if one of your kids have some serious psychological and emotional damage because he or she tried to deny their true nature and identity to please their intolerant/hateful daddy.
>>How do you know(abuse)that is wrong? Are you saying that you will make your children feel special and elevate them? You will coddle bad behavior then?
I know abuse is wrong for 2 reasons: it hurts those who are abused, not only physically. Some people have severe psychological trauma and never recover. Second: I've been bullied in school for almost 10 years; I've been called nasty names, beaten almost everyday by my so-called classmates - since bullying is form of abuse - so I've been abused. That's how I know how wrong and bad abuse is.
I'll make my children feel they are important and special in their uniqueness, but I'll also tell them they are not worse or better than anyone because of that. Bullies are insecure people with a really low self esteem; they think they are not smart/intelligent/beautiful enough/etc so the way they see to make other people feel unworthy is by bullying those they think are better than them.
Homosexuality is not natural on your worldview. If you don't like homosexuals, think what they are and do is a sin/bad influence/disease, BE A ADULT and say that to our faces say it's you who thinks that instead of making some invisible god responsible for your bigotry.
Being in a gay relationship it's not about being dominant over the partner, it's about loving one another. I don't have a girlfriend so me or her can be "the leader". Since we are equal (in the gender) we have the same roles, same responsibilities, same rights, etc. We don't try to boss the other one around. When we have an argument about something we don't try to force our way in one another. We sit and talk and find a solution that is good for both of us.
If there's a god, he made me bisexual. If he wants to throw me in hell for being what he made me, he's a sadist psychopath.
I don't care if in the eyes of god I'm a pervert, a freak, a sinner...I don't believe in him and I won't take the risk of being miserable for the rest of my life by denying who I really am and having "a lifestyle" that goes against my identity to please some spoiled ignorant brat that you call god.
Michelle,
ReplyDeleteD.A.N. has instant communication with an omnipotent and omniscient being. It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that D.A.N. would know less about your relationship with your partner than you would.
What does D.A.N. acronym for
Dan
Assertions
Network
or
Dumb
Accusations
Now
Michelle,
ReplyDelete>>Kids raised by gay parents learn there are people different from them and to accept and respect those differences. Is that wrong?
This fallacy you are using is called a Lack of Proportion with even a Red Herring. Gay parents are more likely to raise gay kids is the point. Do you need science to show this? Fine HERE IT IS.
>>If you have kids, you are teaching them to be intolerant towards people who have different creeds, ideologies, sexual orientations, etc, of them; is that good?
You seem to think that speaking of truth about something is "intolerant towards" that thing. I know gay people, I am in the advertising industry after all. But I still witness to them. I am tolerant that they want deny God and live a life that does not glorify Him. God gave us that free will after all. I do think that its wrong to raise a child gay or atheist, because its an attempt to lie to a child about the truth. That those things are wrong and there are severe punishments for that behavior. When kids are involved things get personal and I get protective. Its like saying its OK for a heroin addict to raise foster kids. I disagree. Its placing children at risk. We should not strive to place children at risk. LGBTQ, children should not be exposed to such risky lifestyles. ESPECIALLY ones so dedicated to sexuality. Pedophiles want to expose kids to sexuality, and porn, very young too. I know I will catch grief for that comment. Truth hurts, I understand.
There are plenty of bad parents and foster parents out there, gay and straight. That is not the point here.
>>I've been called nasty names, beaten almost everyday by my so-called classmates - since bullying is form of abuse - so I've been abused. That's how I know how wrong and bad abuse is.
Actually that is stating MY case. Here me out, please. I know you are not a evil or bad bully. How? Because you have been bullied. Bullies are not bullied, they are coddled and elevated. Once a bully is stood up they cease to be a bully, they are cowards. I am very hard on my kids so they grow up to be good kids. They are humbled. Telling a kid they can do no wrong raises bullies and ultimately sociopaths. Do the research. Some of the nicest people have had hard lives. As an example, how many rich spoiled kids do you know that are "good" people? They are more of the exception then the rule. The Bible is right as how to raise a child.
>>Since we are equal (in the gender) we have the same roles, same responsibilities, same rights, etc
Until you need to move or have babies, then you will call for a man. :7)
>>If there's a god, he made me bisexual.
Wrong! God doesn't create pedophiles. Its blasphemy to say otherwise. Yes, I go to the extreme to make a point. You CHOOSE to defy God. Just because something feels good, does not make it right. If that were the case robbing banks, and heroin, would be right.
>>If he wants to throw me in hell for being what he made me, he's a sadist psychopath.
Well, its good that is NOT the case then.
>>I don't care if in the eyes of god I'm a pervert, a freak, a sinner...I don't believe in him and I won't take the risk of being miserable for the rest of my life by denying who I really am and having "a lifestyle" that goes against my identity to please some spoiled ignorant brat that you call god.
And thars the rub, now isn't it.
Remember I asked Its my theory, correct me if this is not true for you, the reason why Atheists rage against God is because they want to live their own autonomous way, to live anyway they want to, without being accountable to our Creator. Is that true for you?
I guess that is a resounding yes! I love you Michelle.
Ant,
ReplyDelete>>What does D.A.N. acronym for...
No, my daughter thought of it so I changed it in her honor.
We are Debunking Atheists Nation.
"Remember I asked Its my theory, correct me if this is not true for you, the reason why Atheists rage against God is because they want to live their own autonomous way, to live anyway they want to, without being accountable to our Creator. Is that true for you?"
ReplyDeleteDan,
There are people in the world gay/straight/bi, theist/atheist that have never heard of your 'version' of god, to rage against.
The reason why I rage against your version of god is because I want to live in my own autonomous way, to live anyway I want to, without being accountable to your concept of a Creator.
Ways I live that are biblically unacceptable.
- I don't kill gay people
- I don't expect rappers to marry their victims
- I wouldn't go to war based on holy books
- I wouldn’t punish anyone for thought crimes
- I work sometimes on Sunday and Saturday
- I don't think jesus was a demi-god
- I think people can have consensual sex with who ever consents
- I wouldn’t kill every man, woman, child based on the actions of a few.
- I wouldn’t rule out ALL abortion based on the actions of a few people
D.A.N.
ReplyDeleteLook at this document about same-sex parenting. If you don't want to read all the document (which I'm sure you won't read the whole thing) skip to the pages 16, 17 and 18: http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf
A advice Danny boy: if you are intolerant and doesn't like atheists and homosexuals because you think who they are is somehow a negative influence, BE A MATURE MAN and admit it IT'S YOU who thinks that way, not god. Stop using god as an excuse for you bigotry. It's an easy way out to say "I'm not the one who said that; it's god's word". It's like putting the blame on someone you don't even know after you stole something. You are no different from those wackos of The Westboro Baptist Church, in my opinion.
You are grown man and you have to learn to be accountable for your own opinions and choices, ok?
Antzilla wrote the followingDan
ReplyDeleteAssertions
Network
or
Dumb
Accusations
Now
I disagree, Ant. When Dan is asked a question:
Dork
Answers
Nothing
D.A.N.
ReplyDeleteLook at this document about same-sex parenting. If you don't want to read all the document (which I'm sure you won't read the whole thing) skip to the pages 16, 17 and 18: http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf
A advice Danny boy: if you are intolerant and doesn't like atheists and homosexuals because you think who they are is somehow a negative influence, BE A MATURE MAN and admit it IT'S YOU who thinks that way, not god. Stop using god as an excuse for you bigotry. It's an easy way out to say "I'm not the one who said that; it's god's word". It's like putting the blame on someone you don't even know after you stole something. You are no different from those wackos of The Westboro Baptist Church, in my opinion.
You are grown man and you have to learn to be accountable for your own opinions and choices, ok?
D.A.N
ReplyDelete>> This fallacy you are using is called a Lack of Proportion with even a Red Herring. Gay parents are more likely to raise gay kids is the point.
If I have a gay son or daughter is because they were born gay, not because they became gay after being raised by a gay couple. Bisexuality and homosexuality are not a choice; it’s a natural human condition, like being straight. If homosexuality is a choice, so as heterosexuality. Maybe Dan, you were born gay or bisexual but you chose to be straight. Is that your case?
>> I am tolerant that they want deny God and live a life that does not glorify Him. God gave us that free will after all. I do think that its wrong to raise a child gay or atheist, because its an attempt to lie to a child about the truth. That those things are wrong and there are severe punishments for that behavior.
How do you know what you teach them are true? Because you saw in an ancient book written thousands of years ago? What if your kids do or at least one of them – deep down – doesn’t believe in what you teach about god and the bible?
I don’t glorify god and I don’t fear his punishment because I don’t believe in them. I won’t deny my true nature just because some christians threaten me by telling me god will make me suffer until judgement day because he doesn’t agree with who I am.
>> You still didn’t answer my question: do you prefer a child to be stuck in a orphanage or in an abusive foster home for who knows many years, being totally ignored by a overloaded system than being adopted by a gay couple who will give her a good life?
>> I am very hard on my kids so they grow up to be good kids . The Bible is right as how to raise a child.
The way I see you are Danny, your children won’t grow up being good adults. They will be intolerant as you are. Unless one of them think that everything you teach them is bullshit and stops listening to you.
The bible is right raising children. If one day one of your kids defies you, will you send them to the limits of your town so the elders can stone your child to death?
>> Until you need to move or have babies, then you will call for a man.
I won’t marry a man so he can give me babies. I can always adopt one or call a friend of mine to give me his sperm in cup so I can make artificial insemination. Some straight women does that too. It’s not something from the other world.
>> God doesn't create pedophiles. Its blasphemy to say otherwise. Yes, I go to the extreme to make a point. You CHOOSE to defy God.
Homosexuality is different from pedophilia. Definition of pedophilia: “psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children”
Homosexuality is sexual and romantic attraction among people of the same gender and homosexuality is not considered a mental disorder or personality disorder since the 1970’s.
I never molested or raped a kid in my entire life. How can I defy a god that I don’t believe in? Weird… Blasphemy (which is not the case of being gay and atheist) is a victimless crime.
>> Its my theory, correct me if this is not true for you, the reason why Atheists rage against God is because they want to live their own autonomous way, to live anyway they want to, without being accountable to our Creator. Is that true for you?
I answered you before. The reason I don’t believe in god (s) is not because I “want to live anyway I want to, without being accountable to my Creator”. First, because my parents created me. Second: rage against god is like being mad at Santa Claus, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, Zeus, Anubis, Hades, Thor, Odin, Kali,etc; (any mythical creature you can think of)
D.A.N.
ReplyDeleteLook at this document about same-sex parenting. If you don't want to read all the document (which I'm sure you won't read the whole thing) skip to the pages 16, 17 and 18: http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf
A advice Danny boy: if you are intolerant and doesn't like atheists, pagans and homosexuals because you think who they are is somehow a negative influence, BE A MATURE MAN and admit it that IT'S YOU who thinks that way. Stop using god as an excuse for your bigotry. It's an easy way out to say "I'm not the one who said that; it's god's word". It's like putting the blame on someone else of being guilty of a crime that you committed.
You are no different from those wackos of The Westboro Baptist Church, in my opinion.
You are a grown man and you have to learn to be accountable for your own opinions and choices, ok?
D.A.N. said...
ReplyDeleteDo you need science to show this? Fine HERE IT IS.
And promptly links to dubious research from the Family Research Institute - considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre.
According to Gregory M. Herek, a critical review of the Cameron group's sampling techniques, survey methodology, and interpretation of results reveals at least six serious errors in their study. Herek concludes,
"an empirical study manifesting even one of these six weaknesses would be considered seriously flawed. In combination, the multiple methodological problems evident in the Cameron group's surveys mean that their results cannot even be considered a valid description of the specific group of individuals who returned the survey questionnaire. Because the data are essentially meaningless, it is not surprising that they have been virtually ignored by the scientific community."[12]
Herek and others have also said that FRI's research has been published in Psychological Reports. The Boston Globe says that the small journal charges authors to publish their studies, and that it has a non-standard peer-reviewing policy. Herek says that it has a "low rejection rate" and that Cameron's research "would have been rejected by more prestigious scientific journals"[13]
I also find it amusing the way you'll so openly display your confirmation bias - accepting (very poor) science you feel backs up your position while dismissing anything you don't agree with.
God gave us that free will after all.
Wrong, we went over this quite extensively Dan, the attributes (omniscience and purpose) ascribed to the Christian God prohibit free will.
We should not strive to place children at risk.
I couldn't agree more, and with Christian priests regularly molesting children, and being supported in that behaviour by the church officials, we should definitely avoid placing children with Christians who will see that it is OK to molest children placed in their care. See? It's so easy to play the false equivocation game. For someone who likes to shout "fallacy!" so often you sure do commit a lot of them yourself.
cont'd...
cont'd...
ReplyDeleteI know you are not a evil or bad bully.
Contradicting your own worldview, it is the Christian that believes all humans are vile and depraved.
Wrong! God doesn't create pedophiles. Its blasphemy to say otherwise. Yes, I go to the extreme to make a point. You CHOOSE to defy God.
Totally ignoring your false equivocation of bisexuals with paedophiles, you are contradicting your worldview ... again. It is the Christian position that God created everything, and he did so with a purpose, therefore he most definitely created paedophiles, knowing full well that they would molest children and with no way of doing otherwise. You just think God had a "morally sufficient reason" to do so which is, of course, disgusting.
Just because something feels good, does not make it right.
Like your delusion that God reveals things to you...
Its my theory, correct me if this is not true for you, the reason why Atheists rage against God is because they want to live their own autonomous way, to live anyway they want to, without being accountable to our Creator. Is that true for you?
No, it's not. I do not "rage against God", I do not believe any God(s) exist. I do not even rage against your concept of God, I merely point out where your concept is inherently flawed and actually describes a petulant monster rather than the embodiment of love you would like us all to believe in. For me to even contemplate the need for accountability to a Creator would require you to first demonstrate that one exists, something you've singularly failed to do so far. Until you posit a deity that isn't so contradictory and flawed as to make it's existence a complete absurdity then you will continue to fail ... hard.
In this thread I feel Dan is being:
Disgusting
And
Nasty
Dan,
ReplyDeleteOnce again you ignored the glaring flaws in your world view I keep pointing out to you. Its very telling for all to see, so thanks!
As for gay parents being more likely to raise gay children, it in no way relevant to the discussion. Even if we were to assume that is true, that still does not validate your view that being gay is morally wrong and should not be allowed. Unless the parents are being bad parents, they have a right to be parents. I already pointed out to you that there is no evidence in stated and countries where same sex couple are allow to foster and/or adopting that shows the children raise by them having any ill effect, or have been subject to poor parenting. There was shown to be no more than found with opposite sex parents. In some places I’ve even seen reports praising same sex couple for what a great service they have provided by fostering and adoption children for that particular community.
All you have Dan is that you think being Gay & same sex couples is wrong and it offends you. That’s no different than how Christians in America’s past felt about interracial couples and children of interracial couples. You just as much of a hateful bigot like those of our past that just wants to take away peoples rights because you don’t like it.
You comment on bullies makes no sense at all. Not sure how it applies to same sex parenting. DO you think that teaching to respect others as equals, or saying its OK to be yourself is being coddled and elevated. I was always taught I was special and it was OK to be me and most of my Christian friends think I am a better all around person than many of the Christians they know at their church. DO I think I’m better? No, I have my flaws but, I always try to make an effort to be the best person I can. I do it not because I have to, nor for a god or someone else. I do it just because I want to.
Anyway Dan, after reading your commentary for years, you are one of the last people I’d ever trust the opinion of concerning child psychology. You world view issues trickles down to your views on parenting, they are over simplified and rely too much on your bias and gut feeling. You make little to know effort to get a true understanding of the subject through evaluating the current information & evidence available, and understanding the situation it applies to. Life and parenting is much too complicated for your bronze age book. Do the research.
Dan you said, ” The Bible is right as how to raise a child”
That’s right,
1) stone them if they speak up to parents.
2) Teach them its no OK to kill children except when god tells you to kill children who are pagans, then its OK!
3) Woman are property.
4) You can beat you slave to death as long as he doesn’t die until a few days later.
ETC, ETC… An excellent source for parenting skill and standard for morals and lifestyle. I could go on but you get the picture.
There is no Atheist rage against god, it against bigots and hateful people in this country and the world who want to subject their personal bias onto others that many Theists & Atheists have issue with.
One last thing Dan, why is it so righteous for your god to do something in a very violent way through the hands of man, that you consider so immoral?
~Atomic Chimp
Dan, seeing as how you're into this telling-of-painful-truths business, I'm sure you'll take what follows in the spirit in which it's intended.
ReplyDeleteHere are a few truths - provisional, of course, though I think it would be worthwhile for you to consider how well they apply to you - based upon my observations.
Please, for your own sake and for that of your children and anyone, really, who is associated with you, grow up and get over your schoolyard prejudices - own your personal biases and stop pretending that you have an imaginary friend who has them, and whose lead you follow. We can all see through this. You are hostile to and afraid of people who are different to you. This is true.
The evidence has been in for centuries - gods are human inventions. For every assertion that yours is the one true god, there are thousands more claiming the same for their gods. Not one, thus far, has ever demonstrated the existence of any gods, let alone the superiority of one such concept to another. This is true.
Humans are social animals. The quality of our lives depends upon our ability to cooperate and live in harmony with our fellows. Morality is an ongoing project of humans just trying to get along with each other and achieve a measure of happiness and fulfilment in our lives.
It's people like you, Dan, who pervert and poison morality, turning your own narrow-minded intolerance and ignorant presumption into the dictates of an imaginary deity, then using them to denounce and condemn others just for being themselves. You invent offences where there are none, but you extend your tolerance and even approval to the very real evils committed in the name of religion.
It's people like you who make a mockery of humanity, pretending to care when you only seek to control. This is true.
And last but not least, I expect you will respond to this, if at all, with a denial of my ability to apprehend any truth at all, because I don't conform to your closed, pig-headed views; only the thing is, all this time you have given us no reason to trust or respect any of your own truth claims, no testable evidence for any god's support of your prejudices, and no indication that you are anything other than a small-minded, deluded individual. This, also, is true.
Are you both making a statement that supernatural beings cannot have a "nature"? If so how do you KNOW this? Or are you throwing out the "wonderment" card again? BTW, supernatural beings can have a "nature", evidenced by God.
ReplyDeletePlease learn the difference between a statement and a question, Dan.
Anyways, moving on.
The reason we ask how a supernatural being can have a nature is not, as you seem to suppose, a trivial matter of semantics. It's actually a question that cuts to the heart of your entire claimed worldview.
Natural entities are definable, because they have certain discernible limits. They are what they are, and not some other thing, because they have those limits.
Supernatural entities, by contrast, are supernatural because they have no discernible natural limits. Your god is claimed to be all-powerful, all-knowing and everywhere present - its power, knowledge and substance are therefore without any discernible natural limit, beyond natural limits, hence supernatural. Such an entity exhibits no aspect that you could pin down and define as its nature.
Now we come to the point - human reason operates within, indeed because of such natural limits. We can define things based upon what they are, precisely because we can discern what they are not. We can conceive of possibilities and impossibilities, all because of natural limits.
Introduce the possibility of any conceivable or even inconceivable thing happening - say, by positing an all-powerful supernatural (unlimited) entity - and you effectively undermine the entire operation of reason.
That this is so, is demonstrated by the fact that you are repeatedly forced to deny the logical implications of your god's claimed qualities, in order to maintain your worldview - your god is all-powerful and all-knowing, yet somehow not ultimately responsible for all the evils of the world; it is immaterial, yet can somehow still perform physical actions in a physical universe; and it is supernatural, yet somehow still able to be defined as having a 'nature'.
No wonder you are so confused and wrong-headed. Your reasoning, according to you, is 'guaranteed' by a being whose very existence - were it so - would destroy the very foundations on which reason is built.
- I don't expect rappers to marry their victims
ReplyDeleteAnt, I know you didn't intend it this way, but I have to admit, I would personally pity anyone married to a rapper...
Ant,
ReplyDelete>>- I don't kill gay people
We know...you accessorize them!
>>I don't expect rappers to marry their victims
Isn't that much like marrying a pimp? Besides doesn't Snoop Dog have a wife? I wonder if she considered herself a victim.
>> I wouldn't go to war based on holy books
Erm...if it comes to you, are you saying that you wouldn't defend your country? I guess the terrorist did win then.
>>- I wouldn’t punish anyone for thought crimes
So you would be "OK" with your wife screaming names in passion, other then yours, in bed? Sure.
>>- I work sometimes on Sunday and Saturday
Jesus is our Sabbath Rest...so do I.
>> I don't think jesus was a demi-god
Neither do I. He is fully God, and fully Man. Wheres the problem?
>>- I think people can have consensual sex with who ever consents
So you are OK with someone perusing your girlfriend/wife? Also, I am sure that is the pedophile mantra, but does that even mean bestiality too? You're sick! You don't understand teenagers, obviously, by that comment. I cringe to share a story but, why not, its Friday. As a 22 year old lifeguard a 13 year old flirted with me all the time. She always mooned or flashed me, sat on my lap saying "I know what this does for you" and tried to make me feel real uncomfortable with advances at times. She was perusing me with a vengeance. She consented to any advance that I would give her. She pleaded with me even. My atheist Dad even said he would of if he was me. Not sure if he was joking either. I never did. Incidentally that was the summer that a very kind couple gave me a simple gospel tract and started me on the path to Jesus. No, mere consent is not the only determining factor.
>>I wouldn’t kill every man, woman, child based on the actions of a few.
Neither would I. Obviously, you would attack a straw man though.
>>I wouldn’t rule out ALL abortion based on the actions of a few people
So you wouldn't rule out ALL murder? Got it. A few murders is perfectly fine and justified.
Atheistic morality at its finest.
Michelle,
ReplyDelete>>If I have a gay son or daughter is because they were born gay, not because they became gay after being raised by a gay couple. Bisexuality and homosexuality are not a choice; it’s a natural human condition, like being straight. If homosexuality is a choice, so as heterosexuality.
Again you are ignoring science and reality. There is no such a thing as a "gay gene" The American Psychological Association (APA) publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" -- meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are born that way.
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..." ~APA
Even you say that you are bi-sexual. Listen to what Peter Tatchell, a gay activist and a member of the queer rights group OutRage!, went as far as to acknowledge the existence of some who have changed their "sexual orientation." "If heterosexuality and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined... how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can't." Sexuality, he wrote, is "far more ambiguous, blurred and overlapping than any theory of genetic causality can allow."
"Examples of sexual flexibility... don't square with genetic theories of rigid erotic predestination."
Ignore the fact is you wish. Denial is the common trait for people claiming there is no God. Its no surprise it spills over into other fascists of their lives.
>>You still didn’t answer my question: do you prefer a child to be stuck in a orphanage or in an abusive foster home for who knows many years, being totally ignored by a overloaded system than being adopted by a gay couple who will give her a good life?
I hope you understand that orphanages do not exist anymore these days. So you lost value in the dramatic terminology. Today they're placed in foster homes. But to directly address that question, the answer is yes. I would rather take the chance with a good foster home, then a gay couple adopting a child as their own. There I said it.
Michelle,
ReplyDelete>>You are grown man and you have to learn to be accountable for your own opinions and choices, ok?
I completely agree. I want to reciprocate that same advice back to you. Don't use the cop out that you were "born bi" and have no choice. You have to learn to be accountable for your own opinions and choices. At least you will be forced to on Judgment Day, might want to get used to it.
D.A.N;
ReplyDeleteI know that the causes why someone is gay or bisexual or straight is not fully known. Maybe there’s a psychological, environmental or even some genetic cause. But to be honest, I really don’t waste my time thinking “why I date men and women instead of dating only men or only women?” I accept who I am and I enjoy it. I have only one life and life is too short to be wasted on thinking the reasons on why I am like this and not something else.
It’s the same thing of me asking you: why you date only women and not men? Why don’t you date both? Why are you straight? You don’t know…it’s your nature, your identity. Period.
I never claimed that there’s no god. The reason I don’t believe in any deities is because there are no proof whatsoever that they are real. If I claim that I’m certain that there’s no god I have to bring some evidence that proves what I’m saying is true. The same way if you claim that there’s a god, you have to bring some evidence that proves god is real. The burden of proof lies on the one who’s making the claim and extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence.
For me, gods are mythical creatures until someone comes with really good evidence – that passes unharmed to all the tests – to prove otherwise.
>> I hope you understand that orphanages do not exist anymore these days. So you lost value in the dramatic terminology. Today they're placed in foster homes.
There are orphanages in my country. But that wasn’t what I asked. I will change the question. Consider my country; in one of these orphanages comes a gay man or woman interested in adopting one particular child. This child has 13 years old and had been in this orphanage since the age of 5; because her mother abandoned her and her father died and the social worker didn’t find any relative to take care of this child. What do you prefer: this child continues on this orphanage without the proper care until she reaches the age of 18 and gets kicked out of the orphanage without a good structure to face the world or to be adopted by a gay person who can and will give this child a good life, education, a home and a family who will care about her?
I don’t have to justify who I am, what I do and how I live my life to some god, because who I am, what I do and how I live my life is my business and no one else’s. Dan, if you want to justify everything you do to your god because you are afraid of burning in hell and suffer until the end of times come, fine…it’s your problem. But you can’t expect everyone to do the same. You can expect people to deny who they really are and to have a life that goes against their true identity to please some god or someone else. The result of this is this person will be unhappy and miserable for as long as they deny who they really are. The worse mistake people can make is lying and hiding from themselves who they really are.
Another questions (I really want you to answer me those)
#1: What if one of your children that everything you teach is bullshit and stops listening to you. What if this child is an atheist in the closet and refuses to believe and accept blindly what you say? What if this child is also gay and thinks that everything you say about gay people are lies, after all this child is gay and he or she considers to be a good person? What do you do?
#2: If – according to you – the bible is right when it comes to raising children. If one day one of your kids defies you, will you send your own child to the limits of your town so the elders can stone him or her to death? (Dt. 21: 18-21)
#3: Danny, you think you know why people are gay. You think that somehow they are influenced by gay people (mostly by gay parents) to become gay. Ok, so I have a question for you: My parents are straight; they raised me; so – according to your theory – I was supposed to be straight. But that didn’t happen…I’m bisexual. So – according to your worldview – why am I bisexual, if my parents didn’t influence me in the sexual orientation department?
D.A.N
ReplyDelete>>I completely agree. I want to reciprocate that same advice back to you. Don't use the cop out that you were "born bi" and have no choice. You have to learn to be accountable for your own opinions and choices. At least you will be forced to on Judgment Day, might want to get used to it.
I didn't chose to be bisexual, but I chose to accept who I am so I could be a happy and accomplished person instead of a miserable woman who nullified herself and denied her true identity due the fear of being tortured in hell.
I am already accountable for my life, my opinions and choices. I don't use other people to justify the things I do and who I am. If I have to pay for something I did wrong (being bisexual doesn't count because is not wrong), I'll pay it here - on earth by man's justice - and now and I'll accept the consequences.
I don't believe in the judgment day. Judgment day is to make highly impressionable people (like you Danny boy) to be afraid of everything, even to breath or fart in way that your god doesn't approve.
Another question (considering that the judgment day will really happen): When the end of times come and all the humans – dead and alive – are about to be judged by god. What if god comes to you and say: “You were a bad person because you didn’t respect those who were different of you; you were an ignorant bigot and chose to follow an ancient book where I was portrayed wrongly by vile and unworthy men. You are bad son for using me as an excuse for treating your brothers and sisters with disrespect and threatened them with eternal torture in the fiery pit. I created them like this (bisexuals, gays, transgender, wiccans, Satanists, etc). I gave men free will so he could chose his own path, even if this path lead to not believing in me. Those who didn’t deny their true selves to please me deserves my sympathy and you – who were stupid enough to not be tolerant to your brothers by forcing your way onto them - deserves not”.
What would you do?
Michelle,
ReplyDelete>>Why are you straight?
Because that is how we are DESIGNED. Its even an evolutionary point. What is the purpose for man and woman from an evolutionary standpoint? To procreate, right?.
>>I never claimed that there’s no god.
Keep that in mind in light of what you just said. "You are grown [woman] and you have to learn to be accountable for your own opinions and choices, ok?" Honesty would suite you much better. Claiming atheism denotes "No God" Otherwise you would consider yourself a non-theist or agnostic. BTW this blog is not called Debunking Agnostics for that purpose. Back to reality.
>>The burden of proof lies on the one who’s making the claim and extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence.
There is overwhelming evidence, even in a court of law, but atheits will still say there is still no evidence. Its an atheistic denial thingy again. Admit that, even in light of ALL the evidence, you choose to reject it.
>>I don’t have to justify who I am, what I do and how I live my life to some god, because who I am, what I do and how I live my life is my business and no one else’s.
That is my ENTIRE point. You DO have to justify yourself and your rebellion, not that it will do any good but that is all you have without Jesus Christ, and will be held accountable for those choices and actions.
>>What do you prefer: this child continues on this orphanage without the proper care until she reaches the age of 18 and gets kicked out of the orphanage without a good structure to face the world or to be adopted by a gay person who can and will give this child a good life, education, a home and a family who will care about her?
Again this is fallacious arguments. If there is zero proper avenues for the children what does it matter which one? That is like saying the only two choices are a heroin addict and a meth addict. Lesser of two evils is not good at all. I would say arrest everyone in charge of the foster care system, reform it all, and put into place a PROPER method of raising children, i.e. warm and loving foster homes. If I was forced to choose I still say an orphanage is better then a gay couples home. At least an orphanage is not willingly defying God and thumbing their nose at Him. I have to believe that is a better route.
[To be cont'd]
Michelle cont'd,
ReplyDelete>>#1: What do you do?
"If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for." ~C.H. Spurgeon
>>#2: I actually used those verses on my oldest (23) as a warning and he said "I am all ears... I don't like getting stoned anymore" Get it? I thought that was a witty double entendre. The OT still stands and will be the law after Christ's second coming. We better get used to them. Sin will not be tolerated when that happens. From my experience, a threat of stoning seems to do the trick, so...
>>#3: There are far more environmental factors to make a kid gay. Most, not all but most, gay people have weak or absent fathers. Do you have a strong and present Dad? Maybe a overly weak Mom? Maybe your Mom rejected you too much and you long for the female embrace. Maybe you were treated badly by men. Or males were a huge disappointment in your life. Many factors, but they're there. I am sure, if we explore it enough, we can pinpoint to the problem. I am not sure if you would air your dirty laundry in public though. You are always welcome to email me to get it more private. If not, I completely understand. We have fun with all the playful banter but I do care about you, and these things. I am a people watcher by nature and love to explore things to see what makes people tick.
>>What would you do?
I would answer like Old Pete, “If God should take me to the very mouth of Hell, and say to me, 'In you go, [Dan]; here’s where you belong,' I would say to Him, 'That’s true, Lord, I do belong there. But if you make me go to Hell, Your dear Son, Jesus Christ, must go with me! He and I are now one, and we cannot be separated anymore."
D.A.N
ReplyDeleteDid you read that document I sent you about same sex parenting? After all, it's not fair...I heard all the 7 parts of that video that was soooo stupid that I didn't want to waste my time by making comments on so much bullshit and falacies...
D.A.N
ReplyDelete>> I have sex (in case of having sex with a man, not only to procreate), but for the pleasure. You can’t deny that having an orgasm is pretty fucking good (when is multiple orgasms, it’s even better!!!).
>> Claiming atheism denotes "No God" Otherwise you would consider yourself a non-theist or agnostic.
Do you know the difference between agnostic, non-theist and atheist?
-nontheism: term that covers a range of both religious and nonreligious attitudes characterized by the absence of — or the rejection of — theism or any belief in a personal god or gods. Nontheistic traditions have played roles in Buddhism, Christianity (imagine that!!!), Hinduism, Jainism, and Raelism.
- Agnosticism: it has to do with knowledge (the lack of it – but not only about the god subject – someone can be agnostic when it’s about ghosts, reincarnation, etc) “a” means “without” and “gnosis” means “knowledge. When someone is an agnostic it means he doesn’t know if there’s god(s); for an agnostic, knowing if there’s god(s) or not is impossible, since is beyond the capability of men to have that knowledge.
- Atheism is about “not believing”. Believe and knowledge are different things. I don’t deny god(s), I just don’t believe in them. According to your train of thought if you don’t believe in fairies and leprechauns you are denying them, right?
>> Again, I ask you. What is the evidence that proves god is real? If you have any, I even give my home address so you can send it to me (I don’t mean by your testimony telling that story about you changing the tire for an old lady). Because, seriously…if you do and your evidence pass 100% unharmed to all the tests, you’ll be famous and you’re going to appear on Oprah!!!
>> You DO have to justify yourself and your rebellion, not that it will do any good but that is all you have without Jesus Christ, and will be held accountable for those choices and actions.
If I have to justify myself to someone else, you have to justify your actions to me and to the entire world. I don’t justify myself even to my parents, imagine to justify myself to god and his alter ego Jesus…
>> From my experience, a threat of stoning seems to do the trick, so...
You did this? I can’t believe it!!! You are a terrible father!!! If I had a husband and I heard him saying that to my child I would kick him out of the house, I would report him to the police and Child Affairs, I would divorce him immediately and I would make sure he would never see my child again.
This is not how you show you care and love your children. Then you have the nerve to say gay parents are a bad influence. You are a very bad influence. Respect has to be earned and the only thing you are getting from your children is fear. They fear you, but don’t respect you. They will never take you seriously. You don’t educate children by threatening them. I can’t believe their mother agree with this.
>>#3Do you have a strong and present Dad? Yes
Maybe a overly weak Mom? No
Maybe your Mom rejected you too much and you long for the female embrace. No.
Maybe you were treated badly by men. No.
Or males were a huge disappointment in your life. No.
(Did you forget I’m bisexual – meaning I like both men and women? So, in that case who disappointed me?)
Now it’s your turn. Why are you straight?
Do you have a strong and present mother?
Maybe an overly weak father?
Maybe your mother rejected you too much and you long for the female embrace?
Maybe you were treated badly by women? (I mean “men” because if women treated you badly you would be gay…according to what you said)
Or women were a huge disappointment in your life? (I mean “men” because if women were a huge disappointment in your life you would be gay…according to what you said)
Dan, do you remember what happened in those two links that you posted? You brought up more presupositional bullshit and got shot down in one, and you brought up court procedures in another and got shot down again.
ReplyDeleteDan:
There is overwhelming evidence, even in a court of law, but atheits will still say there is still no evidence. Its an atheistic denial thingy again. Admit that, even in light of ALL the evidence, you choose to reject it.
By evidence, we're looking for stuff like "prophecies" that have been fulfilled, and not twisted, or made up after the fact. See MessiahTruth for examples of how xians do that with "messianic prophecies".
Scientific facts that actually match up with reality instead of contradicting them. (Ex. the mustard seed problem).
Dan really has a bee in his bonnet about this homosexuality stuff, huh?
ReplyDeleteWell, you know what they say about he that doth protest too much...
http://patientandpersistant.blogspot.com/2011/03/second-debate-on-presuppositional_19.html
ReplyDeletecontains link to the mp3 and shownotes
I would answer like Old Pete, “If God should take me to the very mouth of Hell, and say to me, 'In you go, [Dan]; here’s where you belong,' I would say to Him, 'That’s true, Lord, I do belong there. But if you make me go to Hell, Your dear Son, Jesus Christ, must go with me! He and I are now one, and we cannot be separated anymore."
ReplyDeleteAt which point the reply very well might be, "I have no son - that was just a story made up by a bunch of ancient cultists. And because of your facetiousness, I'm ramping up your torments. Begone, strange little man."
Wonder what Dan would do then...
If there is zero proper avenues for the children what does it matter which one?
ReplyDeleteAnd who are you to say that there is any 'proper' avenue for children beyond being raised by adults who love them and support them and will teach them to respect themselves and others? Do you imagine that such parents are exclusively hetero? Reality would beg to differ.
That is like saying the only two choices are a heroin addict and a meth addict.
Not directly comparable, so irrelevant. The child's safety is at risk with a drug addict, but not - all other things being equal - with a homosexual couple.
Lesser of two evils is not good at all.
So...you would prefer an abusive hetero couple over a loving gay couple, then? Your concept of 'evil' encompasses disobedience to the dictates of an imaginary deity whilst ignoring real human needs. Hence, it is no guide to what is best for children, or anyone, really.
I would say arrest everyone in charge of the foster care system, reform it all, and put into place a PROPER method of raising children, i.e. warm and loving foster homes.
Your worldview precludes "warm and loving" if said warmth and love come from those who don't conform to your fairytale ideals. We've all seen your dominionist tendencies, but we've yet to see any non-fantastical justification therefor.
At least an orphanage is not willingly defying God and thumbing their nose at Him. I have to believe that is a better route.
Have to believe? Why? I've already shown that your god, if it existed, would destroy the foundations of reason. Why, under the rule of such a being, would you have to do anything?
Ignore the fact is you wish. Denial is the common trait for people claiming there is no God. Its no surprise it spills over into other fascists of their lives.
ReplyDeleteActually, Dan, denial is the common trait for those who - like you - claim that a being exists who would undermine the foundations of reason. Your belief requires you to deny the reality of the natural universe.
And...other fascists? I think your Freudian slip is showing...
DD,
ReplyDelete>>
And...other fascists? I think your Freudian slip is showing...
Oops, in my defense, I think I beautified my "slip" with sparkling facets.
I also am in awe to what my original spelling was for spell correct to arrive at that result. I am once again humbled. Thanks.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteI've never understood why Christians of your ilk rail soooo hard against homosexuality. You compared it to pedophilia and bestiality numerous times, but I'm sure you know full well that there is a world of difference between having sex with an unwitting child or animal and having sex with a competent adult of the same sex. Many homosexuals simply live their lives just as normally as anyone else, yourself included. They pay their bills, tip their waiters, and give the elderly their seats on public transportation. Their outside life is no different than yours or mine, the only difference being that they lay in bed at night with someone of the same sex.
So my question to you is this: Who are these particular homosexuals harming? I'll ignore the issue of raising kids for now and just focus on childless, adult homosexual couples. Why should they be bothered? Does your God's definition of wrong encompass people who simply go about living their day-to-day lives harming no one? Why should you, I, or anyone else care about what an adult does between the sheets, so long as it's with another consenting adult?
Does your God's definition of wrong encompass people who simply go about living their day-to-day lives harming no one?
ReplyDeleteYes, Trino - according to Dan's idea of god and morality, anyone who is not sufficiently servile is suspect. Unadulterated enjoyment of life is not permitted - you have to be constantly aware of your base human nature and the fact that you are scum, and you must behave accordingly. And enjoying sex for pleasure is totally out - you have to be constantly mindful of your duty to ensure a ready supply of godly children to replenish the earth and outnumber the filthy unbelievers.
Why should you, I, or anyone else care about what an adult does between the sheets, so long as it's with another consenting adult?
Because Dan's morality has nothing to do with human welfare and everything to do with control - suppression of normal human desires enables them to be twisted and rechanneled into religious fervour.
Trino,
ReplyDelete>>I've never understood why Christians of your ilk rail soooo hard against homosexuality.
I do not rail against merely gay people. I am an enemy of evil and sin. You just may be spotlighting one thing that is passionate to you possibly. Sin of all sorts a
>>You compared it to pedophilia and bestiality numerous times
Would you prefer I use polygamy? Robing banks? its the same analogy.
>>Who are these particular homosexuals harming?
You mean besides themselves and society?
>>Their outside life is no different than yours or mine, the only difference being that they lay in bed at night with someone of the same sex.
With a recorded higher STD rate they are polluting society, medically and morally.
>>Does your God's definition of wrong encompass people who simply go about living their day-to-day lives harming no one?
Drug addicts sitting at home is harming others too. The same for gay people. They claim not to be harming others but they do. They are part of a society after all. They strive to break up normal societies by flaunting their sexuality with parades and festivals that celebrate that fact.
>> Why should you, I, or anyone else care about what an adult does between the sheets, so long as it's with another consenting adult?
Because, its not "between the sheets" but "in the Streets!
Hey that rhymed! What a great slogan for a t-shirt. I'll work on that.
I guess I touched some D.A.N's raw nerve/weakness...
ReplyDeleteIt certainly looks that way, Michelle. D.A.N. clearly has an issue with homosexuality, and try as he might to hide behind his "it's not just gays, it's sin in general" schtick, it's pretty obvious that he reserves a special level of vitriol for people who are sexually attracted to others of the same sex.
ReplyDeleteI'm still leaning towards the protests-too-much explanation for this - D.A.N. works so hard at his own sexual repression that he wants to force it on others as well. Misery loves company, so they say.
I notice that most of my comments are being ignored. I was expecting D.A.N. to come out with more of his "my worldview's right and yours is absurd" or some other failure to address my arguments, but I'm guessing he's really got nothing now.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteTwo monogamous gay lovers won't spread disease any more than two monogamous straight lovers. And a promiscuous gay person who frequently engages in unprotected sex is just as likely to spread STD's as a straight person who does the same. If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.
It's clear that you find the idea of gay people "flaunting" their sexuality in public to be lewd and distasteful. The thing is, not all gay people carry themselves like the ones in the links you provided. Like I said in my previous post, there are plenty of low-key homosexuals who are not "in the streets" as you put it. People who simply work from 9 to 5, watch movies, and enjoy their lives without bothering anyone else. Do you believe that they pollute society just by existing? Honestly, if a gay person bears good fruit (giving to charity, helping the needy, being loving and kind to others, etc.), why should their behavior behind closed doors with a consenting adult matter to you?
DormantDragon;
ReplyDeleteYou know what it’s said about some homophobes being “gay in the closet struggling not to come out.”
Yesterday I was thinking to myself that the reason of D.A.N made this blog wasn’t to try to debunk atheists only, but also to try to save us – the lost damned souls – to find the way back to god and accept Jesus in our hearts. As he said in one of his comments he’s not trying to scare us with “you’re going to burn in the lake of fire if you don’t embrace god”, he’s trying to warn us.
I kind of feel sorry for D.A.N in a way; it must be really frustrating for him to try debunking us through his fallacies and twisted worldviews and opinions just to see them shattered later in every comment. I think in every post he thinks “now this post will prove atheists wrong for good”. But it doesn’t happen…we don’t share the same opinions as he and we show how flawed, intolerant and non sense his faith is. It’s kind of ironic we understand more about his religion than D.A.N; let’s face it…he doesn’t fully know what his own faith is about. For D.A.N it’s all “god’s will/god did it and that’s it; he doesn’t need to know why/how things happen, he can’t question or doubt because that’s an unforgivable sin and only his god’s mysterious ways matters”
I guess this blog should be called “Atheists Debunking D.A.N.”
I thought that maybe I was too harsh on D.A.N by saying he was bad father. But now I think I wasn’t. Some people really need a shock treatment. Threatening your kids of such harsh punishment as death by stoning is not good parenting. I hope is not his case, but someone who takes such violent holy book by the letter it really doesn’t take much to go from threat to action.
DormantDragon;
ReplyDeleteYou know what it’s said about some homophobes being “gay in the closet struggling not to come out.”
Yesterday I was thinking to myself that the reason of D.A.N made this blog wasn’t to try to debunk atheists only, but also to try to save us – the lost damned souls – to find the way back to god and accept Jesus in our hearts. As he said in one of his comments he’s not trying to scare us with “you’re going to burn in the lake of fire if you don’t embrace god”, he’s trying to warn us.
I kind of feel sorry for D.A.N in a way; it must be really frustrating for him to try debunking us through his fallacies and twisted worldviews and opinions just to see them shattered later in every comment. I think in every post he thinks “now this post will prove atheists wrong for good”. But it doesn’t happen…we don’t share the same opinions as he and we show how flawed, intolerant and non sense his faith is. It’s kind of ironic we understand more about his religion than D.A.N; let’s face it…he doesn’t fully know what his own faith is about. For D.A.N it’s all “god’s will/god did it and that’s it; he doesn’t need to know why/how things happen, he can’t question or doubt because that’s an unforgivable sin and only his god’s mysterious ways matters”
I guess this blog should be called “Atheists Debunking D.A.N.”
I thought that maybe I was too harsh on D.A.N by saying he was bad father. But now I think I wasn’t. Some people really need a shock treatment. Threatening your kids of such harsh punishment as death by stoning is not good parenting. I hope is not his case, but someone who takes such violent holy book by the letter it really doesn’t take much to go from threat to action.
Michelle,
ReplyDeleteI think you and DD should get a room. :7)
>>Yesterday I was thinking to myself that the reason of D.A.N made this blog wasn’t to try to debunk atheists only, but also to try to save us – the lost damned souls – to find the way back to god and accept Jesus in our hearts.
Uh oh, they're on to me. :7)
>>I kind of feel sorry for D.A.N in a way; it must be really frustrating for him to try debunking us through his fallacies and twisted worldviews and opinions just to see them shattered later in every comment.
Oh Puhleeze!! The moment you claim that I am wrong, or you're an Atheist, you already lost the battle because you cannot account for absolutes such as rights and wrongs within your worldview. Its not frustrating, its sad at times though. I have fun here and it keeps my mind working intellectually. I deal with children all day after all.
>>I guess this blog should be called “Atheists Debunking D.A.N.”
That is the running joke here. In that, its a gathering for debunking atheists. I found that pretty funny. I do like when people bring their "A" game.
>>Some people really need a shock treatment.
Hypocrite! Welcome to my world though.
>>Threatening your kids of such harsh punishment as death by stoning is not good parenting.
Lighten up, Francis. First of all, it is good parenting, Do you have kids? IF not you have no argument here. Grow up some and become a parent, then you can comment. My boy is 23 and not even living 1000 miles near me. Second, it was a tongue and cheek comment but he got the message to stop being a drunkard and to do something positive with his life. It worked as 2 Timothy 3:16 said it would.
I also showed him these verses and told him that even our situation has Biblical provisions. I also said that "you get double of my riches...bwahahahha My riches are children so you get two? You're welcome."
It was playful banter. I know I don't have to explain things to you but I just want you to know that I try to do things out of love, not hate. I also fully understand that truth always is confrontational, there is always someone on the wrong side of truth. This is a very serious and real subject for you and I. If I didn't love you enough to tell you the truth, then I wouldn't. Truth hurts, I understand. My Dad always said that only a friend will tell a friend that they stink. An enemy would never tell you that spinach is in between your teeth. I would. Just understand that one thing.
Oh and stop repeating yourself. I get every comment through email and by posting something over and over again may reassure that it gets place into that horrible spam filter that Google implemented recently. I will remove everything in the spam periodically, and it will show up eventually. Don't worry, you will be heard. Every time you repeat yourself I picture you singing that Helen Reddy song. :7)
So the T-shirts I will wear at the gay pride parade will read "Keep it out of the streets, and in between the sheets™" On the same lines as " I didn't ask, so don't tell™"
I wonder if I will get beaten up for that one. Look for the pictures of me with a Bible in one hand yelling and handing out tracts wearing that t-shirt on the news and in the newspaper. Stay tuned!
Hi Dan, remember your comments after the first Presuppositional Apologetics Debate ?
ReplyDeleteYet after this Second Debate - not a word. Not an OP, not a comment, not a single triumphant shout.
Why is that ?
It's ok, I understand ;-)
D.A.N.
ReplyDelete>> D.A.N the fact I feel sorry for you has nothing to do with the “right/wrong thing”. I feel sorry for you because you are a repressed person; because you think the everybody has to agree with you, do the same things you do and to believe/follow blindly what you tell them. You think you’re right and everybody else is wrong because they don’t share the same worldview as you. Guess, you don’t owe the truth, you don’t owe “absolute morality” – even because there are no absolute truths and absolute morality - you don’t owe anything. Nobody does. You should stop worrying about other people’s lives; let them be who they are and chill out. Go to a beach, drink some margaritas, relax…you have just one life you’re wasting it.
>> Why am I hypocrite?
>> I don’t have kids, but I raise my sister. I would never say to sister “shut up or I’ll stone you”/ “Do as I say or else I’ll beat you up”. If she does something wrong I give her a time out in her bedroom and that does the trick and I didn’t even slap her or anything.
The way you raise your kids is like this: “I’ll beat the shit out of you if you don’t do as I say, but I love you”. That’s not love to me. But again is how your god works. I don’t see any difference between you and an alcoholic father who spanks his children on a daily basis. The only thing that changes here are the drugs you use: religion and a holy book.
There was a couple of JW that bit their kids up and gave them really harsh punishments. Their oldest child reported them to the police, they got arrested, they lost their children’s custody and they were condemned. They say the reason they did this it’s because “it’s in the bible”. For them, they were not wrong and these parents got surprised because they were condemned.
Another couple of JW were responsible for their daughter’s death because she needed it blood transfusion and they refuse to let the doctors to do the procedure. They even threatened to sue the hospital if they did the blood transfusion. The girl died and they were charged of homicide.
That’s good parenting for you? I know you care about your children, but physical punishments are not the way to show it.
They are your kids, not sheeps for you to boss around with the menace of sending them to a slaughterhouse.
If the bible say you can stone your children – so if you have a daughter – she can get you drunk and rape you. If your daughter is raped by some prick bastard (I don’t wish that on her) you will have to marry her with her rapist after he pays you.
Now, just a question. How the fact I’m bisexual can be harmful to me, if I’m ok with it?
Did you read the same – sex parenting dccument?
"you're an Atheist, you already lost the battle because you cannot account for absolutes such as rights and wrongs within your worldview"
ReplyDeleteWHEEEEEE!
God of fake gaps again
and again
and again
More religious shouting, foot stomping and hand waving.
If proof of a god only exists if certain words (truth, knowledge, certainty) are skewed.... well you know
;7
The moment you claim that I am wrong, or you're an Atheist, you already lost the battle because you cannot account for absolutes such as rights and wrongs within your worldview.
ReplyDeleteGee, DAN, anyone would think you missed my comment demonstrating that belief in god undermines reason.
I try to do things out of love, not hate.
I realise that you think this is the case, DAN, but your words are hateful nonetheless. It may be that your hatred is so deeply embedded that you no longer have to make a conscious choice to reveal it - it just spews forth effortlessly whenever you write about gay people, or atheists, or anyone, really, whose actions or beliefs don't conform to your religious dogma.
I also fully understand that truth always is confrontational, there is always someone on the wrong side of truth. This is a very serious and real subject for you and I. If I didn't love you enough to tell you the truth, then I wouldn't. Truth hurts, I understand.
But only if it's actually true. You've done nothing to demonstrate that gay/bisexual/polyamorous/sexually unrepressed people are actually harming anyone. The truth, apparently too painful for you to contemplate, is that this life is the only one we get, and you're so busy trying not to enjoy it that you can't help but rail against anyone who doesn't do the same.
The moment you claim that I am wrong, or you're an Atheist, you already lost the battle because you cannot account for absolutes such as rights and wrongs within your worldview.
ReplyDeleteAu contraire, DAN - the minute you invest belief in a supernatural, unlimited entity, you've lost any recourse to reason whatsoever. If anything is possible, nothing logically follows from anything else.
Dan you said, ”I would say arrest everyone in charge of the foster care system, reform it all, and put into place a PROPER method of raising children, i.e. warm and loving foster homes.”
ReplyDeletePlease show what support you have for you claim that same sex couples or their style of parenting is no the PROPER method of raising children. I’ll save you the trouble to mention that states and countries have shown that same sex couples allowed to Foster or adopt have an excellent track record for parenting the children and providing a greatly needed service to these children. So Dan you bare assertion means nothing.
>>Who are these particular homosexuals harming?
Dan you responded, ”You mean besides themselves and society?”
Though I question what support you might have on that, let’s roll with that method of reasoning. Since the records from the FBI over the past 20+ years have shown that crime, violent crime, teen pregnancy, and drug abuse is the highest in the most religious (Christian in particular) cities and states, we can only conclude that Christianity is harming society.
Dan you said,” With a recorded higher STD rate they are polluting society, medically and morally.”
Let keep going with that. Those (Straight & Gay) who are practicing unprotected sex are the people that are most often the ones putting society at risk. Lets arrest them all . We can raid the bedrooms of those suspected sinners. Also, since the Christian abstinence only education plan implemented in some cities & states only increase the practice of unprotected sex, we should arrest all those involved in this thing that is threatening society.
DormantDragon said, ” I was expecting D.A.N. to come out with more of his "my worldview's right and yours is absurd" or some other failure to address my arguments, but I'm guessing he's really got nothing now.
Yea, he seems to be ignoring the big holes in his argument we keep pointing at and focusing on a point that is base on his personal prejudices.
Dan said,” The moment you claim that I am wrong, or you're an Atheist, you already lost the battle because you cannot account for absolutes such as rights and wrongs within your worldview.”
Dan, I keep pointing out to you that you’re shooting yourself in the foot with that statement. Remember, according to you its righteous and morally correct when his god orders that the Canaanite’s innocent children to be slaughtered by the hands of man, but it not OK for man to kill children. To put its simpler for you to grasp, its not ok to kill babies unless god says its ok to kill babies. That doesn’t seem to be very absolute to me.
Dan, please give me a non religious reason we should take the rights of adults to live their lives in relationships with whichever other adults whom they please to. Please show me the argument and support for this claim. So far all I see is a repeat of the anti-interracial bigotry from Americas past. All the arguments you have put forward so far are the same talking points they used back then.
~Atomic Chimp
Paul Baird said...
ReplyDeleteHi Dan, remember your comments after the first Presuppositional Apologetics Debate ?
Yet after this Second Debate - not a word. Not an OP, not a comment, not a single triumphant shout.
Why is that ?
It's ok, I understand ;-)
Not bad Paul, I loved the way Sye had to resort to spouting nonsense (well, something even more nonsensical than his normal schtick) when you turned the revelation claim back on him - shame the host cut to a break before we got to hear whether Sye could actually expand on his non-response.
Dan you said, ”I would say arrest everyone in charge of the foster care system, reform it all, and put into place a PROPER method of raising children, i.e. warm and loving foster homes.”
ReplyDeletePlease show what support you have for you claim that same sex couples or their style of parenting is no the PROPER method of raising children. I’ll save you the trouble to mention that states and countries have shown that same sex couples allowed to Foster or adopt have an excellent track record for parenting the children and providing a greatly needed service to these children. So Dan you bare assertion means nothing.
>>Who are these particular homosexuals harming?
Dan you responded, ”You mean besides themselves and society?”
Though I question what support you might have on that, let’s roll with that method of reasoning. Since the records from the FBI over the past 20+ years have shown that crime, violent crime, teen pregnancy, and drug abuse is the highest in the most religious (Christian in particular) cities and states, we can only conclude that Christianity is harming society.
Dan you said,” With a recorded higher STD rate they are polluting society, medically and morally.”
Let keep going with that. Those (Straight & Gay) who are practicing unprotected sex are the people that are most often the ones putting society at risk. Lets arrest them all . We can raid the bedrooms of those suspected sinners. Also, since the Christian abstinence only education plan implemented in some cities & states only increase the practice of unprotected sex, we should arrest all those involved in this thing that is threatening society.
DormantDragon said, ” I was expecting D.A.N. to come out with more of his "my worldview's right and yours is absurd" or some other failure to address my arguments, but I'm guessing he's really got nothing now.
Yea, he seems to be ignoring the big holes in his argument we keep pointing at and focusing on a point that is base on his personal prejudices.
Dan said,” The moment you claim that I am wrong, or you're an Atheist, you already lost the battle because you cannot account for absolutes such as rights and wrongs within your worldview.”
Dan, I keep pointing out to you that you’re shooting yourself in the foot with that statement. Remember, according to you its righteous and morally correct when his god orders that the Canaanite’s innocent children to be slaughtered by the hands of man, but it
..not OK for man to kill children. To put its simpler for you to grasp, its not ok to kill babies unless god says its ok to kill babies. That doesn’t seem to be very absolute to me.
ReplyDeleteDan, please give me a non religious reason we should take the rights of adults to live their lives in relationships with whichever other adults whom they please to. Please show me the argument and support for this claim. So far all I see is a repeat of the anti-interracial bigotry from Americas past. All the arguments you have put forward so far are the same talking points they used back then.
~Atomic Chimp
Atomic Chimp;
ReplyDeleteI sent D.A.N a link of a document showing a study made by the Australian Psychological Society about LGBT Parented Families where it shows that same sex couples raising children is not harmful as he thinks it is; the same sex couples raise their children just like straight couples - and in some aspects of parenting - gay parents are more tolerant and patient than straight parents.
Since he didn't post a answer about this study I guess he didn't even bother to read it; D.A.N ignores different points of view and refuses to at least take a look at something that shows how wrong and misleading his impressions/opinions are. He only accepts those claims that supports his twisted world view through interpretations everybody knows are fallacies (but I guess D.A.N doesn't even know they are fallacies even if he was hit in the face by them)
Michelle, D.A.N. doesn't care about any human study (unless he thinks it backs up his point of view). His Bible tells him that homosexuality is an abomination. That fits his own prejudice and so he'll stick with that.
ReplyDeletefreddies_dead
ReplyDeleteI know D.A.N only cares about the bible and his invisible "loving" space daddy...
Michelle,
ReplyDeleteThe reason Dan didn’t reply is because if presume his god, then all the data from the studies you shared would somehow support his claims on Same Sex couples and families. I know it doesn’t make much sense but neither does the fact that he thinks its OK to kill innocent babies if god tells you to but not ok if you do it without his permission.
Per Dan if you base our views on his god, no matter how flawed, bad, or absurd they seems, it right and any other views are automatically wrong.
~Atomic Chimp
Atomic Chimp,
ReplyDelete>>Please show what support you have for you claim that same sex couples or their style of parenting is no the PROPER method of raising children.
Biblical support is all I need.
>>I’ll save you the trouble to mention that states and countries have shown that same sex couples allowed to Foster or adopt have an excellent track record for parenting the children and providing a greatly needed service to these children.
You're right, and that may very well be the case on the surface. But that is not the full truth. Of those raised in a gay environment it would be crucial to identify, how many of those kids become Christian and go to Heaven? That is the only thing that matters here. It matters if they are secularized and become good members of society, only to loose their soul in hell. That is what I fight against. That atrocity!
>>Since the records from the FBI over the past 20+ years have shown that crime, violent crime, teen pregnancy, and drug abuse is the highest in the most religious (Christian in particular) cities and states, we can only conclude that Christianity is harming society.
You mean barely assert, not conclude. There are certainly more factors to those asserted figures then just "merely Christian". Its a non sequitur.
>>Lets arrest them all . We can raid the bedrooms of those suspected sinners. Also, since the Christian abstinence only education plan implemented in some cities & states only increase the practice of unprotected sex, we should arrest all those involved in this thing that is threatening society.
That may be your stance on things, and that is your right to say it, but that is not my viewpoints at all. You want to be the judge, I humbly admit that I am not. Apparently, that is the huge difference between us.
>>Dan, please give me a non religious reason we should take the rights of adults to live their lives in relationships with whichever other adults whom they please to.
I cannot, nor did I even suggest that strawman of yours.
Since we are merely human I don't think we should take such drastic measures as to ban lifestyle choices, or at least the current ones. Incidentally, I certainly do not see atheists fighting for polygamy anywhere. I digress. I understand that there are still sodomy laws on the books in some states that I disagree with. I will fight for the rights of humans, any violation of that is worth fighting for. Yes, abortions are a violation of human rights. Marriages are a religious thingy and the government should stay out of such things. To sit idly by and watch gay people being persecuted and arrested for just being gay, is not the Christian way. I would not want that at all, and would fight against it.
In that same breath though, if it were God in charge, as He is, and decreed that being gay is an abomination, as He did, and doing so will get you rejected from Heaven and sent to Hell, as it will, then I would trust that point, as I do.
Humans have no right to do that, God does. I think your confusion, understandably, is that you merely think on the level of this temporal plane. I tend to think only in the eternal plane these days. Like I said, I know gay people, and have had intimate dinners and friendships with a few. That does not mean I am not concerned for their welfare in the afterlife. I still witness to them.
I still will wear the t-shirt that says on the front "Keep it between the sheets, and off my streets" and on the back it would say " I didn't ask, so don't tell"
I still will wear the t-shirt that says on the front "Keep it between the sheets, and off my streets" and on the back it would say " I didn't ask, so don't tell"
ReplyDeleteDo you have any other T-shirts for other things you consider sins?
Dan:
ReplyDeleteYour most recent response sort of highlights one of the issues that I personally have with Christianity, and other organized religions to an extent. Earlier you threw out what seem to be your main "temporal plane" reasons to stand against homosexuality: the spreading of STD's by gays and the lack of homosexuality in nature. The first is absurd and the second is untrue if you do some research. Ultimately, however, both arguments simply serve as cover for your basic argument: "God said its wrong, and that's all that needs to be said".
Most recorded sins have some sort of real-world, concrete impact that is considered by most to be harmful. Rape, lying, murder, cheating, stealing, etc. are seem by most as wrong simply from a human standpoint. So why would God consider something like homosexuality to be such a mortal sin when the only ill-will it breeds comes from the people who don't like it because their holy book says it's bad? It just comes off as arbitrary, much like the veils of Muslim women. It's stuff like this that drives away people who aren't too keen on blindly following orders that aren't based on anything tangible.
I find it fascinating that you make your argument based on quotes from the bible. How can you argue against a world view that does not accept the bible as a document of revealed truth? This position basically excludes any other religious belief like islam or buddhism that would reject the bible as a document of revealed truth. And for that matter, how about all the different Christian sects? Which of them are true believers? How about the Mormons? They believe in Jesus Christ, but definitely in a different way than you do. Are they atheists?
ReplyDeleteI also find the "bleak worthless ideology" statement offensive. You may want to read Camus to widen your view on the subject a little.
You're right, and that may very well be the case on the surface. But that is not the full truth. Of those raised in a gay environment it would be crucial to identify, how many of those kids become Christian and go to Heaven? That is the only thing that matters here. It matters if they are secularized and become good members of society, only to loose their soul in hell.
ReplyDeleteSo, when Dan thinks that there are imaginary consequences to real-life choices, he's all for making unsupported assertions, and yet, when a claim that disagrees with his worldview is backed up with evidence, he comes out with:
You mean barely assert, not conclude.
A fine example of the cognitive results of "thinking only in the eternal plane", whatever that is - sounds like living in a fantasy land to me.
Marriage is not a religious institution; the proof of that is there are people that only perform the civil marriage (because it's what it counts). All that we – the homosexuals - want is to have their union recognized by the state so they can have the same legal rights - such as inheritance in case of the partner's death; insurance having the partner as a beneficiary, allowance and partition of assets in case of a divorce; having the right of adopting a child in the name of both partners instead of just one; etc - a straight couple have; so we don't need to get married in a church to have that. Weddings in churches have no legal value (at least not in my country; that’s why usually the bride and groom marry twice: first in the register office and next day in the church – if they so choose).
ReplyDeleteWe want the civil union and that’s it. I don’t see how that is “damaging” to the “divine/religious institute of heterosexual marriage”
Weddings in churches are only mindless ceremonies where every goes just to see the bride, compare dresses and to have a little souvenir after the ceremony (lol).
If there’s something that is damaging/threatening to the heterosexual marriage; to the family nucleus – and sometimes to the society in general - it’s the heterosexual marriage. The rates of divorce; adultery; physical abuse and even murder between the spouses; abusive parents;etc are higher in heterosexual couples than in gay couples.
I'm heterosexual, yet my partner and I won't be married. We will have a celebration of our love without the requirement of belief in supernatural. A 'civil union' would be the term used.
ReplyDeleteDan,”Biblical support is all I need.”
ReplyDeleteThat’s fairly obvious since your Canaanite comment shows that you only claim absolute logic when what you actually use to support you assertion is neither logic nor absolute.
Me: ”…same sex couples allowed to Foster or adopt have an excellent track record for parenting the children and providing a greatly needed service to these children.”
Dan,”You're right, and that may very well be the case on the surface. But that is not the full truth. Of those raised in a gay environment it would be crucial to identify, how many of those kids become Christian and go to Heaven? That is the only thing that matters here. It matters if they are secularized and become good members of society, only to loose their soul in hell. That is what I fight against. That atrocity!”
That’s good, you agree that the evidence shows your pervious claims to justify your bigotry are incorrect, but if someone does not live and act under your unsupported beliefs or what you think is correct, it is atrocious. Even if a person uses the best current evidence to show the benefit and rationally make a decision, they are still wrong no matter what the evidence says.
ME: “Since the records from the FBI over the past 20+ …. Blah Blah Blah Christianity is harming society.
Dan,”You mean barely assert, not conclude. There are certainly more factors to those asserted figures then just "merely Christian". Its a non sequitur.”
Dan, that was an exaggeration to show how you appear to operate. That’s why I had said before that, “Though I question what support you might have on that, let’s roll with that method of reasoning.” Glad you got the point that your making unsupported assertions and drawing conclusions from them.
Me:”Lets arrest them all …..
Dan, ”That may be your stance on things, and that is your right to say it, but that is not my viewpoints at all. You want to be the judge, I humbly admit that I am not. Apparently, that is the huge difference between us.
It not my stance, I’m again following your line of thought. You don’t like what some people do, you want to punish them by taking away their rights for no other reason than you personal judgment on their lives. The difference between us Dan is I try my best to use evidence, education and discussion to come to conclusions. Also, unless what someone does is harmful, illegal or such, no matter how much I might disagree or not like it, I support their right to do as they wish just as much as those I agree with. You on the other hand want to take away the rights of those who do not lead their life as you wish them to.
ME: ”Dan, please give me a non religious reason we should take the rights of adults to live their lives in relationships with whichever other adults whom they please to.
Dan,”I cannot, nor did I even suggest that strawman of yours.”
Please explain what you your point is. From your words in the post I’m responding to that you believe, based on your personal feelings and justification you find for them in the bible, that same sex couples should not be allowed to marry, foster or adopt children or express themselves publicly. You keep saying it harmful tot children and society but admit you have no evidence to support this. Am I missing something?
Dan,”Since we are merely human I don't think we should take such drastic measures as to ban lifestyle choices, or at least the current ones.”
Current Ones?
Dan:”Incidentally, I certainly do not see atheists fighting for polygamy anywhere.
????
Dan,”I understand that there are still sodomy laws on the books in some states that I disagree with.
ReplyDeleteAnd laws saying many silly and out dated things. It cost to remove them so they are left alone since nobody considers them valid any longer. Example in Arkansas: Car sales are prohibited on Sundays.
Dan,,”I will fight for the rights of humans, any violation of that is worth fighting for…. Marriages are a religious thingy and the government should stay out of such things.
Dan, the institution of marriage pre-date the church’s involvement. Some say it pre-dates written history. Marriage was considered an agreement or contract between a man and woman or families. Just because religion decides to get involve in the game, very late in the game, dose not mean they can pretend to own it now.
Dan,”To sit idly by and watch gay people being persecuted and arrested for just being gay, is not the Christian way. I would not want that at all, and would fight against it.”
Yet you want to take away their rights just as religious people in Americas past wanted to do the same to interracial couples.
Dan,”In that same breath though, if it were God in charge,…”
Thank goodness we live in a secular nation where the dogma of your choice has no power.
Dan, “…then I would trust that point, as I do. “
Just as you trust its ok and feel its actually righteous for people ordered by god to kill innocent children, to do so. Thank goodness the court doesn’t agree with you.
Dan, “Humans have no right to do that, God does.”
Unless god told them to, as you mentioned before. Since you believe you are acting on gods word I often see you suing it to justify forcing you personal feelings and judgments on others.
Dan, you’re the worst enemy for your world view and arguments. You constantly refute your own claims and say one thing and act completely the opposite. You’re the best to illustrate why not to be religious, or at least involved in organized religion. You show why its best to use you own mind and educate yourself on how to, rather than let yourself be indoctrinated into a bronze age state of mind.
Thanks!
~Atomic Chimp
Incidentally, I certainly do not see atheists fighting for polygamy anywhere.
ReplyDeleteThat might be because historically, those cultures that have practised polygamy have tended to do so in a very one-sided fashion - it's generally been the men having multiple wives, rather than the other way around. There's also evidence that in societies where polygamy is practised in this manner, there is considerable social dysfunction caused by the fact that those men who are not wealthy or powerful enough to acquire a harem of wives feel rather disenfranchised and inclined to unrest.
There is, however, growing support for polyamory - otherwise known as ethical nonmonogamy (think polygamy but with a more enlightened, egalitarian ethos) - among certain folks in Western society. One day, perhaps, it will be worth fighting for legal recognition for polyamorous relationships, but right now, it's just a bunch of people doing their thing. The reality is that it's happening, so why fight?
Trino,
ReplyDelete>>So why would God consider something like homosexuality to be such a mortal sin when the only ill-will it breeds comes from the people who don't like it because their holy book says it's bad?
The same goes with fornication, lusting, or hatred towards someone, or lying.
Lying, as an example, is a spiritual event. It's not merely a physical action. Lying is an offense against God. When His creations lie, He is ashamed of His creation and simply separates Himself. A lie to an eternal God, deserves eternal punishment.
>>It's stuff like this that drives away people who aren't too keen on blindly following orders that aren't based on anything tangible.
Sounds good on the surface but that is not the truth.
As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
DD,
ReplyDelete>>The reality is that it's happening, so why fight?
Same with gays. You're caught in your own flawed logic.
Michelle,
ReplyDeleteI have no problem being called civilly unioned myself. Like Ant, we do not care what the state calls it or believes. According to God, we are married. From very early on in the Bible (Genesis 2:18, Genesis 2:24) Marriage is a spiritual event.
Its not the States, or anyone else's, business. The gays, at least here, shot down the civil union idea because they want to shove the term "marriage" into the face of the Christians and God. We all understand their agenda. If it were merely love for one another, like Patty and I, they would not care.
I don't care what they call me and my wife. According to the US we have a civil union. Great! I am fine with that. In God's eyes we are married and that to me, and probably the gays, is more important.
The State should get out of the marrying business anyway and that was their mistake in the first place, that is for God alone, and just call EVERYONE civilly unioned. I would be more then happy to support that. Where do I sign?
Atomic Chimp,
ReplyDelete>>The difference between us Dan is I try my best to use evidence, education and discussion to come to conclusions.
Duh, I guess that means I don't! Whatever. Isn't that called a false allegation fallacy?
>>Dan, the institution of marriage pre-date the church’s involvement. Some say it pre-dates written history.
Yea like all the way to the garden of Eden.
>>Marriage was considered an agreement or contract between a man and woman or families.
Sanctioned by God.
>>Just because religion decides to get involve in the game, very late in the game, dose not mean they can pretend to own it now.
Bare assertions much? I have evidence when it was, before written history, do you? You just cannot stand that marriage is a God thingy, not a State thingy. I understand.
>>Yet you want to take away their rights just as religious people in Americas past wanted to do the same to interracial couples.
You mean the rights that God set the criteria for? Yup! Same with being called a Christian. You want to call everyone Civilly unioned? Great! I will sign that petition and welcome being issued a new license that states that. In God's eyes we are married. You, or anyone, cannot take that away.
>>Thank goodness we live in a secular nation where the dogma of your choice has no power.
Three things, who are you thanking? Second who are you trying to convince? Me or you? Third, Turkey defines itself as a secular nation, even though it is 99% Muslim. Point?
>>You’re the best to illustrate why not to be religious,
Thanks I wear that with pride
>>or at least involved in organized religion.
Good, because I certainly do not.
Oops, you have an Error.
Dan:
ReplyDelete>>The same goes with fornication, lusting, or hatred towards someone, or lying.
I think you missed my point, because the things you mentioned can have very tangible, adverse effects that are independent of one's spiritual beliefs. Lying, depending on the situation, can lead to anything from hurt feelings to poverty to death. Similar scenarios can play out with fornication, hatred, lust, etc. Like I was saying, all of these things can cause harm regardless of your personal feelings towards them. Homosexuality doesn't fit that description. The only way you can see harm in it is if you look at it through the lens of religious belief, which says that homosexuality is wrong without giving any real reason as to why. As has been pointed out by some of the previous comments, nature is a poor place to look for support in this regard. I'll put it like this: if all organized religions were to vanish from existence tomorrow, then rape, murder, lying, theft, etc. would still be harmful to society. What harm would come from two men or women loving each other?
>> As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain...
ReplyDeleteSo it's your position to know the hearts and minds of every non-Christian on the planet? No wonder you pound that absolute certainty drum so hard; apparently you're omniscient. I think you're confusing the absolute conviction in your heart with absolute certainty about the outside world. Also, you've revealed another thing that mildly bugs me about some Christians: You believe that the words of your holy book supersede the words from my own mouth when it comes to MY mind.
My contempt is reserved for the people who take their beliefs and use them as an excuse to do horrible things. Truthfully, I'd love for their to be some all-powerful being out there that knows and cares about me. As the expression goes, however, wantin' ain't gettin'. I know what the bible says about non-believers, but believe me when I say that the only strong emotion God arouses in me is curiosity; curiosity about Him and His followers. I didn't rebel against God out of anger. On the contrary, I spent a lot of time praying and reading, trying to firmly root my belief in God. Ultimately, it was the very act of seeking that led me away from the faith, as the more I actually read and processed the more I realized that my belief couldn't coexist with my reasoning. No suppression, no rebellion, no contempt; just cold-hard reality.
Maybe a supernatural creator that cares about humans exists and maybe it doesn't. Either way, the only thing I can do is use my “God-given” faculties as best as I can to determine which concepts of God make sense to me, if any.
Trino,
ReplyDelete>>Ultimately, it was the very act of seeking that led me away from the faith, as the more I actually read and processed the more I realized that my belief couldn't coexist with my reasoning.
and
>>Maybe a supernatural creator that cares about humans exists and maybe it doesn't. Either way, the only thing I can do is use my “God-given” faculties as best as I can to determine which concepts of God make sense to me, if any.
You see, that is the problem. Van Til said it this way "If God's authority must be authorized or validated by the authority of human reasoning and assessment, then human thinking is more authoritative the God Himself-in which case God would not have final authority, and indeed would no longer be God."
When you are weighing the validity of God it is you who is holding the scale. That is not how it works.
You see you have created a god to suite yourself (breaking the 2nd Commandment) and the name of your god is "self". You are placing God in the defendant chair and placing yourself in the judges chair. What you don't realize is that you are the criminal, and God is the Judge. Once you realize that in light of God's Word then you begin to understand Him.
ME:”The difference between us Dan is I try my best to use evidence, education and discussion to come to conclusions.”
ReplyDeleteDan,”Duh, I guess that means I don't!”
Dan, its you who pointed out that evidence of real world experiences mean nothing to you and your claims here. All that matters to you is your own personal biases, no matter how much they contradict what we see happening in the real world. No matter how much evidence points to the contrary.
Concerning the history of marriage:
Dan,”Yea like all the way to the garden of Eden.”
You have yet to show any support to prove the bible is no more than a book based on stories of Bronze Age mythology. You need objective evidence Dan and the bible is not objective. Anyway, there are many other religions and cultures who claim credit for the creation of marriage with as little of far more evidence to support it.
The stories of the old testament, at best, were written between the 12th and 2nd century BC. Since marriage is believed to pre-date written history, you’re out of luck. Last but no least, what about the things concerning marriage in the bible that support Polygamy and other things you have claimed to be morally wrong. Wait, that’s right, if god wills it, its righteous not wrong!
ME: ”Marriage was considered an agreement or contract between a man and woman or families.”
Dan, ”Sanctioned by God.”
Bare assertions mean nothing Dan.
ME:”Just because religion decides to get involve in the game, very late in the game, dose not mean they can pretend to own it now.
”Bare assertions much? I have evidence when it was, before written history, do you?”
Dan, your bible is not evidence no more than the religious text of other religions that believe show their god created the world, along with marriage. My point wasn’t a bare assertion since I CAN produce citation on marriages recorded in history that pre-date Christianity. I think real world history acknowledge by the historical and archeological community trumps a bronze age book of myths written many, many centuries after it.
ME:”Yet you want to take away their rights just as religious people in Americas past wanted to do the same to interracial couples.”
Dan:”You mean the rights that God set the criteria for?
No, the rights set by our secular government.
ME:”Thank goodness we live in a secular nation where the dogma of your choice has no power.”
Dan,”Three things, who are you thanking?
I’m just being thankful Dan that’s it. You can try to read into whatever you want. Here I’ll help with one definition:
I am pleased or happy | thank heavens
My husband cleans the barn every day, thank goodness.
Usage notes: often used instead of the more offensive idiom thank God
Dan,” Second who are you trying to convince?”
ReplyDeleteJust reminding you, though we have covered this many times before.
The amount of people of any particular belief, ethnicity or political inclination in America does not change that fact the America is a secular nation. Your assumption is no better than the one about Christians and violent crime in America I used to illustrate your flawed logic.
If you have a hard time understanding this, I’m not surprised. Remember its you who thinks it OK for god to have man conduct violent acts on innocent children because, its Righteous! Your logic works only to support your wishful thinking. When you finally get all tangled up in the fact its failing, you just fall back on bare assertion and bible quoting.
Dan:”Third, Turkey defines itself as a secular nation, even though it is 99% Muslim. Point?
Non Sequitur
Dan:”Oops, you have an Error. “
Dan, A good education teaches you to question the things you are taught and gives you the tools to do so. These teachers also greatly reward you for doing just that, even when you fail. My professors did that and when I was a teacher I did the same.
Your belief Dan, asks for blind faith and punished those who question it, not matter how well thought out their reasoning is. You conversation on this blog is a great example of exactly that. Even when things in your world view are pointed out that contradict your own moral standards, you throw up your arms and just say, god did it so it must be good. When others don’t agree of follow your world view, their view is a “bleak worthless ideology”, they are sinners, are going to hell. Your only reasoning behind it is you offer in the end is your own purely subjective views and attitudes.
I'm still waiting for you to explain the Canaanite contradiction Dan.
Can you sleep at night knowing that you admitted you're OK with the fact hat god had innocent children killed by man in a violent act of warfare?
~Atomic Chimp
Dan responds to Trino, "You see you have created a god to suite yourself..."
ReplyDeleteWow, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black!?
I'm just speechless.
~Atomic Chimp
D.A.N.
ReplyDeleteI live in Brazil and thankfully Brazil is secular country: the State doesn’t meddle in religious institutes’ business and religious institutes don’t meddle in the State’s business (those religious institutes try, but they never succeed – thankfully – and I hope they never will). By the law here, a religious union alone will be recognized by the State as stable union after 3 years. It works the same for those couples who decide to live together, without getting married in a church and/or in a register office. But this only works for heterosexual couples. If my girlfriend and I decide to live together we won’t have our union recognized by the State, since the civil union and stable union among two people of the same gender are not yet recognized by the State. So we won’t have the same LEGAL rights that a straight couple has.
Now, with the homosexual civil and stable union recognized by the State, we will have the same legal rights that in the present time are only given to straight couples. For example: My girlfriend and get a civil union; therefore our union is now recognized by the State. So both us buy an apartment, a car, furniture,etc in both our names. We decide to have a child and we adopt one in both our names. For example: after 2 years of civil union I die. All the assets we got together automatically go to her and our child. But just in case I can make a will leaving everything for them. Since my wife is also the foster mother, the custody of this child goes automatically to her. Since my wife is now a widow, she can get an allowance too.
Now, our union not being recognized by the State; in case of my death if my parents become greedy and total pricks and decide to open a lawsuit to take the apartment, the car, the furniture and take our child’s custody from her (because only one can be the foster mother and in this case it was only me) and leave her with nothing, they can (if the judge will agree with this or not is another story). Imagine this happening to your wife and kids in case of your death. If your parents decide to leave your wife with nothing at all?
We don’t want the religious union. Just the civil one. You won’t see my girlfriend and I bust into a church (me dressed in a nice tuxedo and my girlfriend in a nice white wedding dress) and me calling the priest: “Hey you, man in a fancy dress! My girlfriend and I love each other and we decided to spend the rest of our lives together, so marry us.” – even if I wanted to get marry in church I can’t because I didn’t have my first communion and I never will).
But there are some churches here that perform same sex weddings. There are two evangelical pastors (they were kicked out of their old church because they were gay and boyfriends and they didn’t want to be “cured” of their homosexuality) who created a church to attend the LGBT community and they perform same sex marriages. I’m not a religious person, but I thought it was cool of them to do that; in my opinion no one should be prohibited to follow their creed because of their homosexuality/bisexuality and gender (in case of transgenders).
In a nutshell: I don’t care what god wants; what most religious institutes in my country wants; their dogmas mean nothing to me. For me, what it counts it’s what I want. What I want is to have the CIVIL UNION of homosexuals legalized, so gays can have the chance to spend the rest of their lives (or at least a very long – and good – time) with the ones their loved ones. That’s it. If straight people can do that, so why can’t we?
There are homosexuals in the bible:
1 – David loved Jonathan more than women (2 Samuel; 1:26)
2- David and Jonathan again: (1 Samuel 18:1-4) (1 Samuel 19:2 (1 Samuel – 20:41)
2 – Ruth loved Naomi just like Adam love Eve (Ruth; 1-11:17 – pay attention more closely to 1:14): if you doubt you can look it up the same passage you gave to me to prove my point (Genesis 2-24)
3 – A gay man was baptized and welcomed by the old church: (Acts 8:36-38)
Look it up
Atomic Chimp,
ReplyDelete>>All that matters to you is your own personal biases, no matter how much they contradict what we see happening in the real world. No matter how much evidence points to the contrary.
I bet you were claiming this in front of a mirror too. If not, pot meet kettle.
>>I'm just speechless.
You're saying quite a bit for this failed claim.
>>Can you sleep at night knowing that you admitted you're OK with the fact hat god had innocent children killed by man in a violent act of warfare?
I sleep real good at night, thanks for asking. As I have already explained many times, the differences between you killing a baby and God killing a baby is that You are getting rid of something. God, on the other hand, is calling someone home to Him. That is perfectly acceptable to me. Is it to you?
"That is perfectly acceptable to me. Is it to you?"
ReplyDeleteNO!
the babies fucking murderd you asshole! by humans for humans reasons.
If your fucking monster god is real and using humans to kill the Canaanites babies, what's not to say it's using people today in abortion clincs killing fetuses.
[Here's an idea.... if your god hates these things so much, why don't you let IT kill these people? Why does it need YOU and your scumbag kind to help it? Why does this impotent omnipotent being never do anything for itself? If it wants these people to die, let it take care of them. Maybe if they don't all die immediate horrible deaths, it's a sign that either a) your god doesn't mind these things and possibly even endorses them, like slavery, or b) it doesn't exist at all. If a god only acts through the actions of humans, how can we distinguish between those acts and acts which are committed by humans alone?
I'd even argue that if there was such a thing as a god and it was killing people for thought-crimes, etc, that we should do all we can to fight that god, possibly finding a way to neutralise or kill it. I don't care what a god wants, slaughter of entire villages (ie. genocide) is WRONG. I stand against your god, or any other god, which would try to do such a thing.], (source http://www.atheistpropaganda.com/2011/02/theists-justification-for-genocide.html)
I made a comment on how your subjective standards override real world evidence and you respond.
ReplyDeleteDan,"I bet you were claiming this in front of a mirror too. If not, pot meet kettle."
No projecting here Dan, just pointing out the obvious. Its obvious because thats what you said.
Dan, it was you who admitted that the evidence I and others offered was correct about same sex couples and adoption. Here is your exact words.
Dan,"You're right, and that may very well be the case on the surface. But that is not the full truth. Of those raised in a gay environment it would be crucial to identify, how many of those kids become Christian and go to Heaven? That is the only thing that matters here."
So as I mentioned. Though the evidence collected over decades from states and other countries contradict your claim, you don't care. You consider evidence in the real world, and opinions of professionals directly involved in the matter are just, 'the surface'.
According to you Dan, real world data means nothing. Only if they follow what you deem as an appropriate world view (Christian view) its wrong. No matter how good a life they have or lead, if they don't do as you think they should, they are bad apples. Also, you then require a head count on something completely impossible, how many go to heaven. Like I said, real world evidence means nothing to you, only your personal bias and dogmas does.
"the differences between you killing a baby and God killing a baby is that You are getting rid of something. God, on the other hand, is calling someone home to Him. That is perfectly acceptable to me. "
But god had man kill them violently in an act of war. How is that morally correct. He's an omnipotent being why didn't he just transport them to heaven and avoid any killing? Why did he have to have man get the blood on his hands? Why were these innocent children no given their right for a life and pursuit of happiness? It seems pretty unfair and cruel to me.
You're a sick man Dan.
~Atomic Chimp
Michelle,
ReplyDeleteFrom what you have said so far it appears you're gay, not bi. If you are indeed bi then what does that do to your relationship with the one you supposedly love? Is she fine with it? Do you wish to marry a man also? Do you want polygamy legal too? In the gay community they just call you selfish. :7) Anyway fornication and adultery are sins. You wish to live with both. You wish to live in sin. I got it.
Just a few things, anyone can sue anyone, for anything. Your will is binding no matter who you leave your things to. These are mere excuses.
>>so marry us
What do you care if its called civil unioned or marry? Oh and thanks for revealing that you "wear the pants" in the family. That reminds me, did you see the woman bosses post of mine? Sin is driving your motives. You are a willing slave to sin. To me that's sad, to you its parade time.
>>But there are some churches here that perform same sex weddings.
Does not make it right. Fallacious argument.
>>In a nutshell: I don’t care what god wants
And Bingo was his Name-o.
>>What I want is to have the CIVIL UNION of homosexuals legalized, so gays can have the chance to spend the rest of their lives (or at least a very long – and good – time) with the ones their loved ones.
I cannot argue against that one. I wish we were all civilly unioned, which we are, by the State. It should have been that way from the beginning so this whole mess would not have happened. Marrying is a God thingy, like I said. State has no business usurping their authority over God.
>>There are homosexuals in the bible:
That may be true because it is a historical narrative. Remember, just because something is in the Bible does not mean its condoned in the Bible. Its written history.
1.- 2 Samuel; 1:26, You'll never understand brotherly love I guess. This is not homosexual love at all. That eisegesis will not fly.
2. -Ruth 1:11-17 I cannot believe You believe the passages Ruth 1:11-17 is interpreted as being gay. Just wow! Does your perverted mind go sexual at every hug or kiss? Do you wish to have relations with your girlfriend's mom? Maybe you shouldn't answer that. These were daughters in law of Naomi. It displayed Ruth’s Loyalty to Naomi. Oh BTW the paragraph title in the Bible was "Ruth’s Loyalty to Naomi" So get your head out of the gutter.
3. -Acts 8:36-38 Obviously you do not understand what a eunuch is. eunuch =/= gay. Do you need a dictionary?
Look it up...
Atomic Chimp,
ReplyDelete>>According to you Dan, real world data means nothing.
No the real world data, for merely this world, is insufficient and asking the wrong questions. Get it?
>>He's an omnipotent being why didn't he just transport them to heaven and avoid any killing?
Here you are judging the Judge, yet again. Keep in mind that you're the criminal here. Your opinion has little value in that court room.
>>Why were these innocent children no given their right for a life and pursuit of happiness?
They're still alive and well and I will be seeing them shortly. I will give your best regards in your absence.
>>It seems pretty unfair and cruel to me.
Reads as " You're wrong Judge!" Yawn, moving on with the case. I am sure you understand, by now, what the ramifications of 'contempt of court' are.
>>You're a sick man Dan.
I know. Insert DC Talk here: "What's going on inside of me? I despise my own behavior and this only serves to confirm my suspicions that I'm still a man in need of a Savior! I wanna be in the Light, as He is in the Light. I wanna shine like the stars in the heavens Oh, Lord be my Light and be my salvation. Cause all I want is to be in the Light. All I want is to be in the Light!"
Now if y'all excuse me, I have to put my cute little apron on and cook dinner.
Dan,"No the real world data, for merely this world, is insufficient and asking the wrong questions. Get it?"
ReplyDeleteYea, I already got it. As a matter of fact thats what I've been saying. The real world and real evidence means nothing to you. No mater how you try to say it Dan, its the world in your mind you have no objective evidence to support, that you base your judgment of you, the world and everyone else on. The sad thing is it appears you have convinced yourself that your own bigotry and prejudices is gods mind and you celebrate the justification you feel you get from believing that. You want to punish those who don't agree with your world view.
Dan, Deep down inside I do believe its you who you really feel this hate toward and it just makes you feel better to think you're not alone. It give you some where else to vent you anger.
The rest of your babble just continue to support this. Real world means nothing to Dan. If all attempted by Dan to use logic, reasoning, anything rational or in reality, Dan will resort to non-objective babble Dan thinks means anything to anyone but himself.
If you question anything Dans view is based on, you are a sinner for trying to judge what he considers his god. Even if his own holy text points to vicious things done to people, children, anyone. Even if he even admits he doesn't understand it, he just accepts it no matter how horrific it seems. If you question it, you're a sinner and and will be punished.
Some of this most recent BS from you is top notch Dan. Your entire blog is a case study on a decisional mind.
Well done Dan. Well done!
~Atomic Chimp
D.A.N
ReplyDeleteI’m bisexual but it doesn’t mean “I fuck everything that moves” or that I date men and women at the same time. For the moment, I’m dating a woman. But if it happens – one day – I fall in love with a man and I realize I don’t love my girlfriend as I used to I break up with her and I start dating this man. But I don’t wish to marry a man or a woman. Just living together with the woman I love in the present time is fine by me.
Since you mentioned, I have nothing against polygamy, as long as it happens between consenting adults, I don’t mind. Happiness is not definied only by a man being together to a woman.
Actually it can sued. Some years ago Cassia Eller – a famous singer who was gay and had a stable union with Eugenia for more than 10 years - died. Cassia had a son that Eugenia raised along with Cassia since his birth. Cassia’s parents decided to open a lawsuit asking the custody of Cassia’s son. Meaning, Eugenia had no legal right over Cassia’s son since she wasn’t a legal guardian or a foster mother. By the law here she would never have this child’s custody. But – thankfully – the judge had some sense in his head and said that he wouldn’t take custody of Cassia’s son from Eugenia because she was his mother – not in the legal sense – but because she raised him since he was a baby and he loved her as a mother. Besides, the boy wanted to live with Eugenia and the judge took that in consideration. Now, Eugenia is the legal guardian of Cassia’s son.
Sweet heart, I was born a woman and I feel like a woman. I’m not gender confused. I’m not “the one who wear pants in the family”. The way I dress or don’t dress has nothing to do with it. My girlfriend and I have the same roles, same responsibilities and same rights.
I’m not a slave. I don’t see my sexual orientation and the way I live as a burden I have to carry for as long as I live. I’m sure I’m more free than you. I don’t nullify myself over some god, I don’t deny my nature because your god says who I am is a sin. I don’t spend my whole serving some invisible mythical creature.
I don’t care what god wants, because I DON’T BELIEVE IN GODS. I’M AN ATHEIST IN CASE YOU FORGOT!!!!!!!!!!
I don’t know how things work in your country – but in my country no god or religion is above the State. Brazil is the biggest catholic country in the world, but Brazil is a secular nation. We have a lot of religions here: Buddhism, Judaism, Islamism, African-brazilian religions; spiritism, protestant religions, etc. We also have agnostics and atheists…so in here the State doesn’t put one religion or one god above any other religion or gods because we have a lot of different ideologies and religions sharing the same country.
D.A.N
ReplyDelete(cont)
1.- Brotherly love? Yeah, right. Jonathan and David were soul mates. When Jonathan saw David it was love at first sight. Where – in your world - did you ever saw a man giving another man his most precious possessions to show “his brotherly love” at the first time they laid the eyes on each other? Would you give your favourite watch, tie, bracelet, whatever, to a man you saw for the first time?
Another passage in 2 Samuel:
1:23 Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in their death they were not divided: they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions.
1:24 Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet, with other delights, who put on ornaments of gold upon your apparel.
1:25 How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places.
1:26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
2. - First the word “clave is used in Gen 2-24 to describe Adam’s relationship with Eve (Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.) is used also in Ruth 1-14 (And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.)
Ruth and Naomi were “one flesh”.
Besides the fact Ruth gave up everything so she could be with Naomi; putting her life in danger so she could be with the woman she loves. Even when Ruth married a man, her most important relationship was the one she had with Naomi. It’s a story between to women in love with each other.
3. - One of the definitions of eunuchs are men who were castrated. But the definition of eunuchs used in the bible was that eunuchs were men working in royal palaces where they served and guarded the women in harems. But not all this job wasn’t given to any man, it was a high position where they had to be trusted not to have any sexual affair with those women, since eunuchs had access to all the women in the harens. The one million dollar question: What kind of man a king could trust blindly to safeguard his women and not to fall in temptation of having sex with them, running the risk of messing up the inheritance of the throne? A gay man (we all know working as a bodyguard of lot of beautiful and sexy women wondering around in the harens would not work with a heterosexual man, because soon or later he would have sex with some of those women).
In Acts 8:32-33 when the Ethiopian introduced himself to Philip as a eunuch, Philip would have immediately known he was dealing with a man who was part of a class commonly associated with homosexual desire. When this was wrote, it didn’t have a term like homosexuality to define people who have sex/love relationships with people of the same gender. So eunuch was used to describe those men who didn’t have much of interest in women (just like your dearest David in the chapter of 2 Samuel…)
Even Jesus himself said some are born gay in Matthew 19:12 (For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.)
PS: don’t forget the definition of eunuch used in the bible.
Face it D.A.N, you think homosexuals are second class people who – in your world view – live in sin just because they love someone with the same gender and they don’t deserve the same rights you have.
In your worldview, it doesn’t matter if I’m a good person who lives life as happily as I can be do good to others, I’m going to hell because I’m bi and an atheist.
(I wonder if Hitler is in heaven along with suicide bombers, those terrorists who blew up WTC and with pedophile priests – all of them fucked up pretty bad, but since they believed in some god.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAtomic Chimp
ReplyDeleteD.A.N should join some religious hate group (The Westboro Baptist Church would welcome him with open arms...)or get a job on Fox, I bet Bill O'Reilly would love to work with D.A.N (lmao)
Homophobia is correlated with homosexual arousal - The lady doth protest too much, methinks
ReplyDeleteIt's okay, Dan, I accept your attraction to man on man sex. Don't be ashamed.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:lvBhKrujNCUJ:https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf+homophobia+study&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjNg49XoGOE-n_uKsYsiyMKDmIdnwP9_GrFUmcDjKjRORfmN2hDAC8Y-0QaqpmJVyqOn_-UJ_d4UFl0PKFSHrHN6M-d5rbpszaSqAlizrLHkdSZDJcjPCdtDjJRqZfRhn9Vk0dK&sig=AHIEtbRsTMw0vK_SavKjWmcNz170gHQ-9A&pli=1
Lying, as an example, is a spiritual event. It's not merely a physical action. Lying is an offense against God. When His creations lie, He is ashamed of His creation and simply separates Himself. A lie to an eternal God, deserves eternal punishment.
ReplyDeleteA 'spritual event'? Please explain which parts of a person are spirit and which are not, and how they interact.
Also, if your god is ashamed of his creations, he ought to be likewise ashamed of himself for making them in full knowledge of their capacity for dishonesty and sundry other things that your god finds offensive, when he could have made them differently at no cost to himself or anyone else. To say otherwise is to deny the logical implications of your god's claimed omnipotence and omniscience, which is inconsistent in light of your claim that your god is also an inherently logical being.
The reality is that it's happening, so why fight?
ReplyDeleteSame with gays. You're caught in your own flawed logic.
Oh, I see what you're doing here. You're a bit like those people who think that feminism is no longer necessary because women have achieved a certain measure of social equality, or who think that racism is people shouting hate speeches in the streets or carrying out bashings and lynchings, and because such things are now illegal, you think racism doesn't really happen anymore. You probably don't recognise the subtle and systemic racism and sexism that are still features of modern Western society.
Homosexual people have historically been treated - like women and non-white folks - as less than fully human. It's only very recently, historically speaking, that gay sex acts stopped being a criminal offence in Western nations, and since mainstream medicine stopped considering homosexuality as a psychological condition that required treatment. The history of the gay rights movement is that of an oppressed minority seeking social justice. Fighting for recognition of gay marriage is a means of confronting the social attitudes that have historically kept gay folks from being treated as people with legitimate needs and desires.
Polyamory, on the other hand, is still a grassroots movement. Many of the people who practise it, at least in my experience, are otherwise indistinguishable from what's termed 'normal' heterosexual folks. Some of them are even raising children, with all the benefits inherent in having a household containing more than two adults. The thing is, whilst there is at present no legal recognition of polyamorous unions (and that covers a great deal of varied ground, so it would be a legislator's nightmare, let's be honest), there is likewise no history of oppression, as there is with homosexuality. Most poly folks find that their needs are met quite satisfactorily by current social conditions.
So, actually, no, it's not the 'same with gays'. You only lump them together because of your flawed outlook.
Michelle,
ReplyDelete>>Brotherly love? blah ...blah ...blah
Jonathan to David was a friendship (philic) love. As it says in 1 Samuel 18:4 Jonathan did not strip clothing to him but he removed his his armor and royal robe as a symbol. Also from your logic Judas kissed Jesus, so Jesus is gay. That is how people greet each other, EVEN TO THIS DAY! Also David's love for his wives, (2 Samuel 11), clearly reveals his heterosexual orientation. On and on. Eunuchs have no sexual relations at all. Don't take my word for it though, for your own research (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:10, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 )
>>Would you give your favourite watch, tie, bracelet, whatever, to a man you saw for the first time?
Would you give your two daughters to strangers to have their way with them instead of harming your guests, as in Lot's case? Your hermeneutics is lacking that is all. BTW, I gave my friend something dear to me because I knew he would like it.
>>Ruth and Naomi were “one flesh”
Nope, again your eisegesis is apparent. The word "clave" (Strong's H1692) dabaq דָּבַק means to cling, stick, stay close, cleave, keep close, stick to, stick with, follow closely, join to, overtake, catch 1) to cling, cleave to 2) to stay with.
Nothing to do with being "one flesh" or anything sexual. You're pushing your wishes ahead of Scripture. You are literally breaking commandments here (2nd Commandment) in doing so. You are creating a God to suite yourself.
>>Besides the fact Ruth gave up everything so she could be with Naomi; putting her life in danger so she could be with the woman she loves.
I would too for my mom. OK Mother-in-law may be a stretch personally but people love their In- Laws too.
>>It’s a story between to women in love with each other.
I don't want to appeal to authority here but, don't you find it odd that (almost?) all non gay theologian do not agree with you? Its agenda dogmatic pushing. Don't you see this? You're shielded from the truth. Sad. Do you want the verses to show this? I am sure you know, maybe not, that you cannot cherry pick and quote mine the Bible. You must take things into context. God condemns gay acts. If the Bible is from one God, breathed into 40-50 men over 1500 years then Ruth is not a gay woman. How do I know this? God gave man and woman complementary roles in order to strengthen the family unit. Do we even need to mention Sodom[y] and Gomorrah? You're simply and sadly wrong.
>>What kind of man a king could trust blindly to safeguard his women and not to fall in temptation of having sex with them, running the risk of messing up the inheritance of the throne?
::sigh. A castrated man, that is who. You know, a eunuch, that is literally defined as a castrated man. Don't you get it? I know many homosexuals that feel up woman and have had relations with them also. They often call themselves Bi. So your logic, once again, doesn't hold up.
>>In your worldview, it doesn’t matter if I’m a good person who lives life as happily as I can be do good to others, I’m going to hell because I’m bi and an atheist.
Let me also say that the Gospel proclaims liberation from the bondage of sin, including homosexual sin. Just think about it.
DD,
ReplyDelete>>Homosexual people have historically been treated - like women and non-white folks - as less than fully human. It's only very recently, historically speaking, that gay sex acts stopped being a criminal offence in Western nations, and since mainstream medicine stopped considering homosexuality as a psychological condition that required treatment.
Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does. Period. Pedophiles, like it or not, are in that same category.
D.A.N.,
ReplyDelete>> I am sure you know, maybe not, that you cannot cherry pick and quote mine the Bible.
HA! D.A.N you said exactly what I wanted you to say! I was cherry-picking the bible on purpose to see if you’re going to complain to me about cherry-picking! And you did!
You are officially a hypocrite. I did to you – on purpose – what you do here with us. You cherry-pick passages from the bible to fit your twisted agenda/your misleading worldview. I don’t care if the bible has homosexuals, if Jonathan was fucking David or not; if Ruth was fucking Naomi or not. I picked passages in the bible that could be interpreted in so many ways to prove “my agenda” (I don’t have an agenda, btw – I’m not those militant homosexuals, even though I appreciate what they do to guarantee our rights)
You say homosexuals are sinners and don’t respect people who has different worldviews from you, threatening them with the idea of hell and you clearly choose to forget – in those cases – that commandment that says “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” and The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would like to be treated.
You don’t treat us with respect, so we treat you the way you treat us. With disrespect.
To end this subject on your what bible says: I don’t give a FLYING FUCK (I just love that word) what your bible says, what your imaginary god says or what you say. Everything that comes out from your mouth is bullshit! Plain and simple. And who I like to date, to hug, to kiss, to fuck, to raise kids and start a family with are my business and nobody else’s. I’m happy for who I am and that’s good for me. If I’m a sinner I am damn happy one.
If you think I live in sin and I’m going to hell for it, it’s your problem. Now, go back to your imaginary limited world ruled by your imaginary gawd and his alter ego Jebus and leave me alone. Ok?
PS: If there’s a heaven I don’t want to stay there for 5 minutes. Heaven will be full of terrorists, pedophile priests, suicide bombers, the popes, Bush, you…it will be a really boring place to spend eternity.
Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does. Period. Pedophiles, like it or not, are in that same category.
ReplyDeleteGender and sexuality are part of what a person is, Dan. Just like my mild visual impairment is part of what I am. Condemning a gay person for being sexually attracted to someone of the same sex would be like you condemning me for wearing glasses - both are ways of acting that are affected by aspects of what a person is.
Paedophilia is demonstrably harmful, and involves people who can't legally consent to sex. I know you think homosexual sex is demonstrably harmful too, but until you can show (not tell) that there's a god and an eternal afterlife, your claims cut no ice.
D.A.N. said... (to Trino)
ReplyDeleteAs a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is.
Your position is untenable. You can't even demonstrate that He's revealed Himself to you let alone everyone else on the planet. More lolgic from D.A.N.
Michelle,
ReplyDeleteBefore you stop, please let me explain myself this one last time. Please.
>>I did to you – on purpose – what you do here with us. You cherry-pick passages from the bible to fit your twisted agenda/your misleading worldview.
Not so! Any evidence to this bare assertion of yours? When the Bible is taken in its entirety, the views that I hold are evidenced by the truth of the ENTIRE Bible. Please show where I am wrong here. Please show where I quote mined so that it is not the THRUST of the entire Word of God.
>>You say homosexuals are sinners and don’t respect people who has different worldviews from you, threatening them with the idea of hell and you clearly choose to forget – in those cases – that commandment that says “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” and The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would like to be treated.
The reason why I tell people like you, gay, that you are sinning is because I care. Now pretty please don't give up just yet. I know you are angry, but let me explain myself. Just read what I am about to write carefully, and do your own research. See for yourself if what I say makes sense. Look it up and do a little Bible study yourself if you wish to see if what I am saying can be refuted. Not by people's opinions of course, but Biblically refuted.
Jesus said in Matthew 22:39 "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"
But what does this truly mean? Does that mean we are to love them no matter what they do because we are sinners also? Do we coddle them in their sins, tell them God loves them no matter what? Nope, Jesus was clear when he said this. He was telling us what the standard was. He was referencing Himself in an Old Testament passage.
The way to show your love to your neighbor is to warn them and their sins will take them to hell.
The only way you can show your love to your neighbor was referenced by Jesus and outlined in Leviticus 19:17-18 "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD."
Matthew 22:39, Leviticus 19:17-18 tells us how to treat people so that is what I do. I am not here to strive for popularity. It takes far more love to confront to ignore the situation. Perfect love is a constant confronter. These are harsh words sometimes, I perfectly understand. But just because it appears that I am being a jerk to you, does not mean that I am one. Only a friend will tell a friend the truth.
To those to whom the gospel message is uncomfortable, it is received quite differently. When Jesus preached in His hometown at first they were amazed at His Words, but by the end of His sermon they tried to throw Him off a cliff (Luke 4: 14-30)
The truth sometimes moves people to want to throw us off cliffs, but if we withhold the truth due to the reaction we might receive, then we are not teaching like our Lord.
Again, its because I love you that I spend time with you to reveal the truth to you. I have a wife and 5 kids and can be doing something with them. I take the time because you need the truth more then them right now.
>>Heaven will be full of terrorists, pedophile priests, suicide bombers, the popes, Bush, you…it will be a really boring place to spend eternity.
Do you really believe Hell is going to be some party with friends? Its separation, its despair, its a nightmare but you are awake. Its the single worse thing that can happen to anyone.
If there is ever a chance to see your partner, or anyone in the afterlife its in Heaven, its not in Hell.
For what does it profit a [wo]man to gain the whole world and forfeit h[er] soul? ~Mark 8:36
I hope you understand that I am here for you if you need anything.
Freddies Dead,
ReplyDelete>>You can't even demonstrate that He's revealed Himself to you let alone everyone else on the planet.
:: [insert cartoon here] :P
D.A.N.,
ReplyDeleteHomosexuality is not about sin, is about love…just like heterosexuality. It’s a natural human condition. If you don’t approve it, your god doesn’t approve it and your bible doesn’t approve it, well…fuck it. I don’t need your approval or this god’s approval on how to live my life. What’s the advantage of me denying my true nature and dedicating my entire life to serve some imaginary petty god if I’m going to be miserable in return? None.
It’s like I said to friend of mine who was going through a rough time some years ago: “the worse mistake you can do is deny to yourself who you really are. What other people think doesn’t matter; the only person who counts here is you. You are different from most of them, so what? Being different is not a bad thing, what is bad is you denying this difference. It’s who you are, it’s part of your nature and personality; it’s what makes you special. You are a good person and nothing is going to change that. You are who are, a special men whose friends care and love you very much; don’t let other people drag you down due to their ignorance and intolerance.”
That is what a real friend does. Real friends support one another instead of giving moral lessons; real friends are not judgmental. Real friends are there each other no matter what. Real friends want nothing but the happiness for each other.
D.A.N - you are very judgmental, you think happiness is to serve unconditionally “your lord” and nothing else; when you try to shove that down to other people’s throats – without considering their lives, opinions, sexual orientations, ideologies, personal experiences, etc – you are not being their friend. You don’t care about them at all. You want what is best for them as long as it agrees with your worldview. But what about what they think is best for them? It doesn’t matter? Do you know about their lives and desires more than them? What if their idea of being happy and having a good life has nothing to do with following jesus, god and the bible? What if you are not able to change their minds? Are you going to throw in their faces they are living in sin and therefore they’re going to hell? What a nice friend you are <---(insert sarcasm here).
I don’t believe in hell; heaven; colonies floating in the clouds; nothing like that. When we die we are buried (or cremated) and that is the end – until proved otherwise. I rather spend and enjoying the life I have now – with my girlfriend or alone – than worrying constantly “what is going to happen with my soul after I die?” thing. It’s a waste of time and energy worrying about some imaginary afterlife that nobody knows it’s real.
I already the bible from cover to cover. You don’t need to give passages from the bible because you’re wasting your time. The bible means nothing to me because is an immoral fairy tale book. Nothing you do is going to make me change my mind or who I am. You know why? I’m happy being who I am. If you don’t accept that, suck it up and move on.
If you chose to bury your head in the sand, living in some very limited little world ruled by some two mythical divine entities (god/jesus and the devil) instead of seeing reality by what it is, fine. Go ahead. The same way I don’t have to justify myself to you, you don’t have to justify yourself to me. Go spend some time with your wife and your 5 kids (without the threat of death by stoning, ok?) instead of trying to show the truth (what is the truth anyway?). I don’t need your truth, your love, your caring, your god; I don’t need and I don’t want anything that comes from you. That includes your so-called friendship.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteUnless you're a mindless sheep, you can't submit your all to an authority figure until you've reasoned that it's power is legitimate and/or it's purposes good. You, through your experiences, have reasoned that God is both all-powerful and good. I, through my experiences, have reasoned that God is likely either non-existent or uninterested in the human race. You say that analyzing God is, in essence, putting Him on trial, but that is what people do with anything before they decide to act on it. Even if you say that you made a decision to trust Him without fully understanding Him, you still made that decision after coming to the conclusion that He was trustworthy. Judging a concept on its merits is a part of being human.
Trino,
ReplyDelete>> I, through my experiences, have reasoned that God is likely either non-existent or uninterested in the human race.
Could you be wrong? I want to know how you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING is valid? Could you, for instance, be wrong about EVERYTHING that you know?
>> Even if you say that you made a decision to trust Him without fully understanding Him, you still made that decision after coming to the conclusion that He was trustworthy.
That might not be far off. It is the definition of 'faith' after all.
Dan Said, "the views that I hold..."
ReplyDeletePreviously Dan Said,"Well, you caught me at my bias."
Those are the only two truthful things I've heard you say. Yes these are YOUR views and when you read the bible or source of information you do so Dan Bias goggles.
I completely agree with Michelle, You cherry pick you bible stuff and twist and distort those things you do not agree with to try to make them work with your personal views.
Dan, Sometime you just claim all god does is good, when you even show obvious hints that you feel there is something wrong with what had been pointed out to you. The previous thread with a comment about Killing of the Canaanite children is one Dan.
You responded by saying,"I do not fully understand it, but I trust it. " If its all good why is it difficult to understand. You and I both know why it is difficult for you Dan. We both do.
Admit it Dan, even when you feel it in your gut its not right, you just give up and blindly follow. You then punish yourself for that doubt you felt, because to question is a sin, even when its so obviously wrong to try to justify it.
Dan, I did think again about your comment concerning marriage and Adam and Eve. I don't really remember it ever being spoken of as a marriage. Can you point out where it clearly mentions the wedding? Also while you're at it, were the giants and the unicorns at the wedding? I mean they were around back then per the bible. What about the Dinosaurs? I bet they made pigs of themselves at the reception. Was Adam first woman/wife? invited Lilith his first woman/wife to the wedding? I guess this means god also created divorce.
Good luck with that Dan.
~Atomic Chimp
Dan,
ReplyDeleteSure, I could be wrong about plenty of things. I'm not omniscient after all. My main point was that regardless of our ideas when it comes to God, we all have to judge the validity of the various God concepts we come across before we can decide to believe and trust in any of them. It seems like what you really believe is that reasoning is good when it leads to belief in God, and sinful/faulty if it leads to something different. The business about breaking the 2nd commandment and the Van Til quote are just fancy ways of conveying the same sentiment. Just because someone's experiences have led them to a different conclusion than yours doesn't mean that they are, as you say, “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness”. Some people simply believe in different truths than you. It's one thing to consider them wrong; it's another to say that they are just being rebellious. As long as they live as responsible and productive members of society, why should they be considered repressed, selfish, unrepentant sinners?
The truth sometimes moves people to want to throw us off cliffs, but if we withhold the truth due to the reaction we might receive, then we are not teaching like our Lord.
ReplyDeleteDan, you're not great at reading the mood of the people. No-one here wants to throw you off a cliff. We might want to mock and laugh at you from time to time, but mostly we just think you're a small-minded, bigoted man with simplistic views of life and of human nature, and kind of feel sorry for you.
You just don't grasp that appealing to scripture for information about the rest of the world is a non-tactic when dealing with atheists. As far as we're concerned, the Bible is a collection of man-made legends and folklore and politically-motivated rhetoric. Some of it is poetic and sophisticated, sure, but a lot of it is petty and parochial. If it is a holistic, god-breathed document, it doesn't speak to its originator being a particularly coherent, sane being, let alone an almighty power worthy of worship.
I realise you think you're under a mandate to preach 'truth' at people, but your truths are largely irrelevant to our experience of real life in the real world. You might like us to think that you're doing this out of love, and maybe you are, in your own deluded way. But the front you present is that of a sanctimonious, bible-thumping buffoon.
D.A.N. said...
ReplyDelete:: [insert cartoon here] :P
Thanks for proving my point Dan.
Atomic,
ReplyDelete>>I completely agree with Michelle, You cherry pick you bible stuff and twist and distort those things you do not agree with to try to make them work with your personal views.
Pretty please with sugar show my error Biblically. To save time, and not to do an entire Bible study, I do spout single verses to make a point every now and then but extrapolated out the things I claim, mostly, are Biblically sound. The easiest way to refute it is showing me, Biblically, where my error is. I have been wrong before. I will, and have, conceded to valid points. Gripes and complaints have to be backed up with solutions, otherwise they are written off. If I am wrong, show me.
>>If its all good why is it difficult to understand.
I would simply say its much the same as receiving a spanking, or punishment, from a parent. Its all good, though its difficult to understand at the time.
>>Admit it Dan, even when you feel it in your gut its not right, you just give up and blindly follow.
Yes, today in the times I live in I would have difficulty and rejections in doing such acts, to say the very least. But its not "blindly follow", its faithfully trust. There is a world of difference. I trust the Lord, and He doesn't even owe me an explanation, but maybe someday I will know the entire truth of that subject.
>>Can you point out where it clearly mentions the wedding?
Well it certainly was a white wedding but since the *Ahem, in laws and relatives could not make it, obviously they decided to elope. :7)
>>invited Lilith his first woman/wife to the wedding?
How do you KNOW this? Wow, speaking of 'old wives tale'. You watch and believe in the 'History channel' too much. "I er sawz dit om me tv, it mus be tru den!" says Atomic gimp chimp. *pshaw
Just wow! You will not believe the entirety of the Bible at all, but you will believe that a woman committed adultery with Satan and produced a race of evil creatures? [called Atheists maybe?]
I looked up that ONE verse that supposedly mentions it (Isaiah 34:14) Every single translation calls the Hebrew term "lilith" as either screech owl, night monster, night creatures, There is certainly no biblical basis whatsoever for these concepts you claim. Its interesting, in Darby translation kept that name even but the term is used as an adjective (noun?) as in "the lilith shall settle" not a proper noun (name). So obviously, in Hebrew its a term for something like a night owl. Hermeneutics may find that term in common use back then to mean that. "The liliths are out early tonight" In no way does that project as to your meaning (Satan's squeeze).
Anyway, there is no one in the Bible actually named Lilith, like you are trying to say.
>> I guess this means god also created divorce.
Yes, God gave the instructions on and for divorced people too. (Leviticus 21:7, Deuteronomy 24:1, Matthew 5:32)
Trino,
ReplyDelete>>As long as they live as responsible and productive members of society, why should they be considered repressed, selfish, unrepentant sinners?
That is because you are using your scale to weigh what is good or bad. Again, creating a god to suite yourself. Ray had a good analogy for you that simply said, "A little girl was once watching a sheep eat grass and thought how white it looked against the green background. But when it began to snow she thought, "That sheep now looks dirty against the white snow!" It was the same sheep, but with a different background. When we compare ourselves to man's standard we look pretty clean, but when we compare ourselves to the pure snow-white righteousness of God's standard—His Law, we can see ourselves in truth, that we are unclean in His sight. That Law is the holy standard by which humanity will be judged on Judgment Day."
At this point Ray would ask "Are you a good person?"
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI see that you sidestepped the meat of my post and focused on the one sentence that, in all honesty, was more of a digression than anything.
What I was commenting on was your belief that everyone who was lead by their reasoning to the belief in God's likely nonexistence is “repressing the truth in unrighteousness” and creating a God to “suite” themselves. This sentiment doesn't make much sense in light of the fact that (as you admitted) we all reason about the validity and trustworthiness of any concept of God before believing in it.
I'm sure there are people who, deep down, do actually believe in God's existence yet choose to repress that belief. You seem to think, however, that this is an accurate description of everyone who disagrees with you. I can tell you firsthand how untrue that is. Even if the truth actually is as clearly on your side as you believe it to be, the most you can say about anyone who believes differently (without knowing them) is that they are incorrect.
I know you hold the bible as your ultimate authority, but I know my own heart and mind far better than you ever could. My reasoning has led me to conclude that God does not exist as described in the bible. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. Am I being rebellious just because the bible says so? Absolutely not.
Trino,
ReplyDelete>>Even if the truth actually is as clearly on your side as you believe it to be, the most you can say about anyone who believes differently (without knowing them) is that they are incorrect.
Not true. It's nothing new for people to deny the existence of God or to create false gods to worship so that they can be their own god. It's one of the oldest sins in the book.
Where does knowledge come from? If from God, and God says you are suppressing the truth, then you are doing just that. Period. If it comes from humans then you can never know anything because the future may hold some evidence that was never presented to you in the present about the subject. You can never know anything as you rightly admit that you could be wrong. How do you acquire a justified true belief? God says you are suppressing truth. (Romans 1:18) You can ONLY deny it and Him. You cannot know that with any certainty.
Dan, you missed my point, cherry picking is to find the stuff that agrees with your opinion. You do that often. Twisting is done on the stuff that doesn’t agree, Baby killing, slavery, Killing your slaves, treating woman as property etc etc. We’ve covered many things mentioned in the bible but your twist and distort those things we pint out to fit them in your world view.
ReplyDeleteDan, ,”I would simply say its much the same as receiving a spanking, or punishment, from a parent. Its all good, though its difficult to understand at the time.”
Yea, ordering man to slaughter men women and children id just like a spanking Dan. Like I said, you try to twist it to work for you but sometimes you just make it worse.
ME:”Admit it Dan, even when you feel it in your gut its not right, you just give up and blindly follow.”
Dan, Yes, today in the times I live in I would have difficulty and rejections in doing such acts, to say the very least. But its not "blindly follow", its faithfully trust. There is a world of difference.”
Dan, I’ve seen you dig for ways to justify killing children, slavery, misogyny and much more found in the bible. I’ve even seen you squirm in discomfort doing it at times. Blindly following, faithfully trusting, you can try to wordsmith that into sounding acceptable but it’s all the same Dan. No matter how wrong it is you will just follow the masses and praise you god for anything he does, no mater how wrong it seems.
ME:”Can you point out where it clearly mentions the wedding?”
Dan, ”Well it certainly was a white wedding but since the *Ahem, in laws and relatives could not make it, obviously they decided to elope. :7)
No answer. No surprise.
ME:”invited Lilith his first woman/wife to the wedding?”
Dan,”How do you KNOW this? Wow, speaking of 'old wives tale'. You watch and believe in the 'History channel' too much….” ….On and on and on Dan goes about it in many paragraph.
Wow, That’s too funny Dan. I wish you’d answer my serious point with this amount of enthusiasm. I’ve made countless serious inquires and brought up many issue with your babble just in this post and all I get is silence. Its takes me days of poking and prodding you to even get a response to comments that I felt were worthy of discussion. When I make a silly comment about Adam & Eves wedding party, you go on endlessly about it. Is this you’re ‘A’ game Dan?
Dan, you also forgot to let me know if the giants, unicorns and dinosaurs were invite or not.
Dan, ”Just wow! You will not believe the entirety of the Bible at all, but you will believe that a woman committed adultery with Satan.”
I think you missed the point where I don’t believe any of it. Its all just mythology and folklore to me thus it all has the same value. They are very interesting and telling of the cultures that they were borne from but nothing more. The fact that you take the mythology of a Bronze Age culture so seriously and literally is very telling Dan.
but let us not digress from the real conversation.
As for cherry picking the bible to suit you personal opinions, we’ve covered many over the years on your blog. You seem to just pretend we didn’t have those conversations in the past. Or as shown on this thread, you just ignore the difficult questions and points people bring up and respond to those that you feel you can navigate. You hope the people who ask those tough questions will go away or just forget that they did. I’ve pointed this out many times and you keep denying it, but yet it happens all over again. Its very telling. When you do finally answer, you try to smooth it over with some failed analogy.
Dan, as for your justification for you god taking a child’s right for life and the pursuit of happiness away from them, you still have failed to give any good reason why you should not think it was morally wrong. Let me illustrate it for you in details.
ReplyDeleteYour god ordered the men who worship him to kill the innocent children. Close your eye Dan and imagine it. Your god did not magically poof them to heaven he specifically told the men to kill the children. Think of how it must have looked for those innocent children so defenseless to be slaughters in a wave of death and violence. Helpless children killed by the hands of men not by god, but men he order to do this vicious and vulgar thing to them, and your OK with it.
If he gently poofed the children to heaven, you’d think he might have pointed it out so no one would mistakenly think he was a violent god. but he didn’t. His word explicitly directed man to kill them. But…. Its ok because god said so.
Its ok to take peoples rights away because god said so. Its ok to have slaves because god said so. Its ok for your slave to die 3 days after you beat them because god said so. Its ok to treat woman as property because god said so. Its ok….because god said so. That’s you mantra Dan and you say it everyday on your blog. That’s what make you so frightening and entertaining.
~Atomic Chimp
D.A.N
ReplyDeleteI've been reading your comments about atheists "creating their own god to suite themselves". First, atheists don't believe in god(s) and therefore they don't create one to suite themselves.
Second, based on what I saw on your comments and other posts on your blog, you do just that. You create your own god to suite your opinions. Every time someone says something that goes against your worldviews and proves you wrong, you say to them that is not you that said that; it's god who said through the bible and you cherry pick the passages from this so-called holy book to prove you - I mean, god - is right.
If god exists, how can you be sure that your view on god is the right one? Just because a book written by men who lived in the Bronze Age tells is the word of god? What if it isn't?
Get real D.A.N, you're so addicted to god and the bible that you lost the capability to think for yourself. The fact I saw you saying on the comments here that it doesn't matter what you think/want; what matters is what god wants/thinks proves exactly that.
You are nothing more than a puppet in the hands of some imaginary puppeteer...that's sad.
Atomic,
ReplyDelete>>His word explicitly directed man to kill them. But…. Its ok because god said so.
I understand it was not a question but...YES!
I will not judge God. I cannot as the criminal. So, I will have to take it on faith that it was the RIGHT thing to do at that time and hope that He will explain it to me someday. Not that He has to. Much like I will be OK if He says that my Mom has to burn in hell forever or, God forbid, my own kid because of his rebellion has to go to hell. I have no idea how Heaven will be at all knowing that my own child is burning in Hell, but I will have to accept it. Why? Because I fully trust God. He knows better then I. Yes, for even for the difficult things such as these. I certainly pray for clarity though.
Mhich,
ReplyDelete>>If god exists, how can you be sure that your view on god is the right one?
Same as anything else. Revelation
It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain. You, on the other hand have no such rescuing device for your circularity.
D.A.N.
ReplyDelete>>Same as anything else. Revelation
That's where lies the problem. Revelation that god exists is based on personal experiences, not on evidence. Every time I asked someone how they know for sure that god is real, they say: "I had a revelation when I was walking with my dog" or "God spoke to me when I was praying in my room" or "God appeared to me in a dream". That doesn't count as evidence.
I already dreamed with fairies flying around in my room, does that mean they exist and they were trying to give me a message showing they are real?
It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that some god exists and that he reveals some things to some people without any evidence that backs up his existence and this revelation.
If god really exists why he doesn't show himself to everybody to shove in the faces of us atheists and other infidels that we are wrong?
Now, D.A.N based on what you said on your last post, man...you are a dangerous person. There's nothing in this world that keeps you from harming someone else who disagrees with your worldview. I would say you have your own conscience, but it's clearly that you imaginary daddy took it away from you.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to feel justified in your beliefs when it comes to people you don't know by saying, “God says it in the bible, so it must be so”. The problem is, your claims of absolute certainty aren't as rock-solid as you believe. I'm sure you'll agree that to possess absolute certainty about something, one must be able to conclusively dismiss every possible alternative. For argument's sake, I'll assume for the moment that the world is governed by some all-powerful, supernatural being.
For example, let's say that the creator is the type of being that loves chaos. It wants to maximize human confusion for its own amusement. To do so, it inspires people very early in human history to create a collection of writings proclaiming its righteousness and power. It gives some people a sense of absolute conviction in these writings, while leaving enough unexplainable items to give others doubt. How would you be able to sniff out this being's true intentions?
As an omnipotent being, it could make you believe anything it wanted you to. It could alter your senses, your mind, everything. Can you really claim that it's impossible for this being to exist? As you might say, it would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that an omnipotent being couldn't make you believe whatever it wanted, regardless of what's true.
Let me make this clear: I don't believe that such a being actually exists, and I'm not making any statement about the likelihood of its existence. My point is that unless you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that such a being can't exist, your claims of absolute certainty are unfounded.
Dan, if God revealed to you that you must sacrifice your children, would you do it?
ReplyDeletePhilips,
ReplyDeleteDon't even start this with D.A.N, I read in one of his previous comments he threatened his own son with stoning...
So please add the word LIAR to Sir Richard's distinguished resume'.
ReplyDeleteHi Phillip. Yes, Dan has admitted something very much like this. I'll try to find the quote when I have time, but in essence he said he wouldn't like it, but if the order came from God, he'd do it.
Consistent and monstrous.
At the very least, the consistency (from him) was unexpected but refreshing.
Where does knowledge come from? If from God...
ReplyDeleteNice that you said 'if'. Could this be the beginnings of a healthy scepticism from DAN?
But anyway, knowledge, as such, doesn't come from anywhere, Dan. It is constructed in the mind from information received via the senses. Since no-one can see, hear, smell, touch, taste or otherwise credibly experience anything about your god, it's safe to say that such a being could not be a 'source' of knowledge or information.
Mhich,
ReplyDelete>>Revelation that god exists is based on personal experiences, not on evidence.
While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain He exists.
In contrast, you are stuck in an absurd worldview where you claim to sense the validity of your senses and reason the validity of your reasoning and are certain that we can't know things for certain, like His existence.
>>It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that some god exists and that he reveals some things to some people without any evidence that backs up his existence and this revelation.
I agree. I am glad that is not the case. Non sequitur
>>If god really exists why he doesn't show himself to everybody to shove in the faces of us atheists and other infidels that we are wrong?
Done! You think that Atheists exist only now a days? Atheists have existed since the beginning. Read Psalm 14.
Remember that they crucified Jesus after revealing the evidence that you demand. They were standing right next to Him, saw everything, and still did not believe. This is not an excuse for you at all either. If you really want to believe, you certainly will. God saves ALL those who call to Him in repentance.
>>That's nothing in this world that keeps you from harming someone else who disagrees with your worldview.
This is an argument for you, not me. The thing that holds me back from being evil is certainly out of this world, and that is God. What is your excuse? If you have no such avenue, there is no difference between you and Ted Bundy. Arbitrary morals.
>>I would say you have your own conscience, but it's clearly that you imaginary daddy took it away from you.
Without God there is no conscience, reason, or life.
Trino,
ReplyDelete>>I'm sure you'll agree that to possess absolute certainty about something, one must be able to conclusively dismiss every possible alternative.
I can agree to that.
>> For argument's sake, I'll assume for the moment that the world is governed by some all-powerful, supernatural being.
Please, don't stop there. Keep going on that good path. :7)
>>For example, let's say that the creator is the type of being that loves chaos. It wants to maximize human confusion for its own amusement.
Impossible.
>>To do so, it inspires people very early in human history to create a collection of writings proclaiming its righteousness and power. It gives some people a sense of absolute conviction in these writings, while leaving enough unexplainable items to give others doubt. How would you be able to sniff out this being's true intentions?
Are you speaking of some hypothetical situation or of God. If God this scenario is impossible. If you are trying to inject a what if, like multi-verses, then I am sure our imaginations can conjure up any scenario.
Back to reality. The Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true, proves itself internally, AND denial of the truth of the Bible leads to absurdity. As if that isn't enough, it is, God also reveals the truth of His Word to us directly such that we can be certain of it.
>>Let me make this clear: I don't believe that such a being actually exists, and I'm not making any statement about the likelihood of its existence.
Let me make this clear: As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
>>My point is that unless you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that such a being can't exist, your claims of absolute certainty are unfounded.
Great then! I am all good...and certain.
DD,
ReplyDelete>>It is constructed in the mind from information received via the senses.
Hogwash. ALL knowledge is not from the senses. I guess in your world there is no such a thing as intuitions.
>>Since no-one can see, hear, smell, touch, taste or otherwise credibly experience anything about your god, it's safe to say that such a being could not be a 'source' of knowledge or information.
Are you certain of this? If so, how are you certain? No-one can see, hear, smell, touch, taste love either. Does Love exist? If you come back with "You can credibly experience things about love", then I certainly claim the same about God. You lose right there.
Dan
ReplyDeleteHogwash. ALL knowledge is not from the senses. I guess in your world there is no such a thing as intuitions.
"Intuition" is just a guess. Which can be wrong. It is not knowledge, or a way to gain knowledge.
Since no-one can see, hear, smell, touch, taste or otherwise credibly experience anything about your god, it's safe to say that such a being could not be a 'source' of knowledge or information.
Are you certain of this? If so, how are you certain? No-one can see, hear, smell, touch, taste love either.
Well, it can be tested with MRI's can it not?
Does Love exist? If you come back with "You can credibly experience things about love", then I certainly claim the same about God. You lose right there.
Love in an emotion...a chemical reaction in the brain. Your "god" is supposed to be independent of that, is he not? No comparison at all.
Dan said
ReplyDelete"What is your excuse. If you had no such avenue there is no difference between you and Ted Bundy. Arbitrary morals"
No Dan. If your god told you to kill you would.
In Ted Bundys case you say "arbitrary morals", for you,you'd say "divine revelation". The end result would be the same. Dead children and you both would be classified as "sick shits"
D.A.N
ReplyDeleteLet’s think of a situation:
A friend we have in common introduce us. After some minutes talking, you begin to talk about Jesus and god and the bible. The you ask me what I believe; I answer you that I’m atheist.
Based on your talk here, you wouldn’t give up on me. You would tell me that is not that I don’t believe in god; deep down I’m angry at god, I’m revolting against him, denying him, etc. You ask me to go to your church and invite me to go to your house so you can show me the bible and show me the word of lord, teach me the bible, tell me what god wants from me so I can accept god as my lord and jesus as my only saviour.
Since I know myself too well, you would fail in the task of converting me.
Then, in you personal “conversation” to your god you would say: “God, I tried everything in my power to convert her; to show her you’re real and you want her to follow you, to accept you. I told her that if she questions you, judges you and denies she’s living in sin and she will go to hell for it, it doesn’t matter the fact she’s a good person. But she still chooses to deny you, to stay away from you and your will; she still persists in the path of evil. She refuses to accept you and Jesus.
Since she’s a non-believer and the bible clearly non-believers should be killed and since the bible is your word – well, I have no choice but to kill her”.
Would you kill me because your god says in the bible that non-believers should be killed?
What if your god tells you to kill women just like Ted Bundy did, with the same modus operandi and all?
D.A.N.
ReplyDelete>> In contrast, you are stuck in an absurd worldview where you claim to sense the validity of your senses and reason the validity of your reasoning and are certain that we can't know things for certain, like His existence.
My senses, reason and the natural world is what we have. If you are so certain that god is real prove it to me. Where is your evidence?
>> Done! You think that Atheists exist only now a days? Atheists have existed since the beginning. Read Psalm 14.
Again, giving some passage in the bible. The bible might be your authority, but is not mine, so giving me passages from your holy book of lies has no effect on me whatsoever. Atheists exist since the time humans got the ability to think and reason about the existence of gods. Some humans created gods and others realized those gods were created by humans and doubted about their existence.
Jesus being crucified has no value as evidence. Besides, it’s not much of sacrifice if god/jesus knew he would die in the cross, to raise from the dead 3 days later and come back to dance around over the clouds in heaven,
>> This is an argument for you, not me. The thing that holds me back from being evil is certainly out of this world, and that is God. What is your excuse? If you have no such avenue, there is no difference between you and Ted Bundy. Arbitrary morals.
The only thing that holds your back is also the only thing that makes you hurt others without thinking twice.
The reason I don’t go out there hurting everyone for the kicks is my own conscience (and also the laws in my country). And that conscience doesn’t come from god, because if it did I would be like you D.A.N.
>> Without God there is no conscience, reason, or life.
Only in your worldview, D.A.N, which obviously is not the same worldview I have. I have a conscience, reason and life and I don’t need gods to give me a reason and to justify my acts. I’m responsible for myself. In fact, if your god exists I’m better than him: I have better morals; I don’t hurt other people because “I feel like it”; I’m not some jealous control freak and – the best of all – I exist.
D.A.N
ReplyDeleteLet’s think of a situation:
A friend we have in common introduce us. After some minutes talking, you begin to talk about Jesus and god and the bible. The you ask me what I believe; I answer you that I’m atheist.
Based on your talk here, you wouldn’t give up on me. You would tell me that is not that I don’t believe in god; deep down I’m angry at god, I’m revolting against him, denying him, etc. You ask me to go to your church and invite me to go to your house so you can show me the bible and show me the word of lord, teach me the bible, tell me what god wants from me so I can accept god as my lord and jesus as my only saviour.
Since I know myself too well, you would fail in the task of converting me.
Then, in you personal “conversation” to your god you would say: “God, I tried everything in my power to convert her; to show her you’re real and you want her to follow you, to accept you. I told her that if she questions you, judges you and denies she’s living in sin and she will go to hell for it, it doesn’t matter the fact she’s a good person. But she still chooses to deny you, to stay away from you and your will; she still persists in the path of evil. She refuses to accept you and Jesus.
Since she’s a non-believer and the bible clearly non-believers should be killed and since the bible is your word – well, I have no choice but to kill her”.
Would you kill me because your god says in the bible that non-believers should be killed?
If your god asks you to, would you kill innocent women just like Ted Bundy did - with the same modus operandi and all?
Mhich,
ReplyDelete>>Where is your evidence?
This is absurd. Do you really claim, as an example, that the Bible does not exist? [insert cartoon here]
>>My senses, reason and the natural world is all we have.
Are you certain of this? if so, how are you certain of this or anything?
>>The bible might be your authority, but is not mine, so giving me passages from your holy book of lies has no effect on me whatsoever.
You do understand that your argument is fallacious don't you? Its called Relativist Fallacy. Yes God is my ultimate authority. What is your authority? Is it you, yourself? Do you really expect me to use YOUR authority for this discussion? Your authority is on the same plane as Ted Bundy's (arbitrary), is that a better authority? *pshaw
>>Jesus being crucified has no value as evidence. I wasn’t there.
Poisoning the Well now?
>>Besides, if god/jesus knew he would die in the cross, to raise from the dead 3 days later and come back to dance around over the clouds in heaven, it’s not much of sacrifice.
Have you ever heard of the legal argument that its better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent be imprisoned? Once we approve and allow the innocent to be imprisoned, the entire judicial system breaks down and becomes worthless. If the penalty for sin is indeed death then the penalty has been paid already. Its yours for the taking. Why would you reject it so harshly? Again, it reduces the Atheist to the absurd.
>>The reason I don’t go out there hurting for the kicks everyone is my own conscience.
Conscience literally means "with knowledge" so how does your worldview account for such things? If arbitrary and subjectivity, how objectivity and absolute which is necessary for a universal conscience?
>>And that conscience doesn’t come from god, because if it did I would be like you D.A.N.
So you believe lying, adultery, and theft are perfectly acceptable then. Fine.
>>I’m responsible for myself. In fact, if your god exists I’m better than him: I have better morals;...
Then you agree what I said to Trino then, "As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God."
I am glad we cleared that up
D.A.N,
ReplyDelete- The bible exists but it was written by men who live in the Bronze Age. Some god didn’t incorporated in them and wrote the damn thing. For you, the bible is an undeniable and unquestionable proof that god exists, but not for me. Follow your reasoning: the book of scientology says all that thing about 75 million years ago Xenu bringing a lot of people to Earth in spaceships, putting them in volcanoes and detonating H bombs making the thetan guys stuck in the bodies of the living. Does it mean it really happened just because is written on a book?
Then you are going to think: “But scientology is not a christian religion.”Ok.
Joseph Smith said he had a vision of god and Jesus where Jesus told Smith that he would used him to establish the real christian religion on earth. Is it true? Is it also true that Smith found some golden plates on a cave somewhere because is what he says on his book?
- The senses we have are made to perceive the natural world, not the supernatural (if there’s one).
If god exists, he is a supernatural being living in a supernatural world where we are not able to see it, so how do you know god is real? Have you ever saw him, heard, him, touched him, talked to him? If you did, do you have some video of this event?
- I am the one who decides what do with my life, I can do whatever I want as long as it doesn’t harm other people and other living creatures and this planet. I am only accountable to myself – and in case I screw up pretty bad (after all I’m not perfect) I have to justify myself to the people who dictates the laws in my country, not to some god. I don’t expect you use “my authority” on this discussion. I – unlike you – don’t try to shove my worldview down your throat with the threat of eternal torture in hell if you don’t accept it.
- Jesus dying on cross means something for you, fine. But it means nothing to me. If Jesus/God decided to play the martyr is because he was a masochist. But there’s a catch. If Jesus/god died in a cross to forgive our – past and future – sins and if according to you being an atheist alone is already a sin, so your threats of us atheists going to hell for not believing in your god are empty. Your god (if he exists) already forgave us.
- My morality is based on how I was raised, in the kind of society I live, my personal experiences, the ideologies I have, the social groups I belong to and – of course – the laws in my country contributes for that too. So, morality is subjective and it’s not universal. I don’t have the same kind of life you do and you don’t have the same kind life I do, so it’s really naïve of you expecting me to have the same moral standards you have.
The fact your morality comes from your god and my morality comes from my own conscience already makes morality subjective.
For you, slavery, killing of infidels/children/homosexuals/cheaters; stoning of rebellious children, etc is morally correct because your god says is correct.
To me all those things are immoral and wrong because my conscience says so.
- Adultery is wrong, but lying – come on – everybody lies, including you D.A.N.
About stealing, depends on the situation. Stealing someone else’s shoes or money just for the sake of it is wrong. Now stealing a fruit or a bread because you or your child is hungry and you don’t have money to buy it because you live in the streets is not wrong.
- I never said I deny the existence of god or that I’m rebelling against him. In don’t personally attack your god because I’m angry at him. According to your train of thought – if I’m angry and rebelling against your god I’m also rebelling and angry at Thor, Shiva, Allah, Anubis, Hades, Zeus, Ogoun, Chukwu, Tupã, etc…
It’s not that I don’t believe only in your god in particular. I don’t believe in gods in general – the past and the present ones.
D.A.N
ReplyDelete(please, answer me this one)
Let’s think of a situation:
A friend we have in common introduce us. After some minutes talking, you begin to talk about Jesus and god and the bible. The you ask me what I believe; I answer you that I’m atheist.
Based on your talk here, you wouldn’t give up on me. You would tell me that is not that I don’t believe in god; deep down I’m angry at god, I’m revolting against him, denying him, etc. You ask me to go to your church and invite me to go to your house so you can show me the bible and show me the word of lord, teach me the bible, tell me what god wants from me so I can accept god as my lord and jesus as my only saviour.
Since I know myself too well, you would fail in the task of converting me.
Then, in you personal “conversation” to your god you would say: “God, I tried everything in my power to convert her; to show her you’re real and you want her to follow you, to accept you. I told her that if she questions you, judges you and denies she’s living in sin and she will go to hell for it, it doesn’t matter the fact she’s a good person. But she still chooses to deny you, to stay away from you and your will; she still persists in the path of evil. She refuses to accept you and Jesus.
Since she’s a non-believer and the bible clearly non-believers should be killed and since the bible is your word – well, I have no choice but to kill her”.
Would you kill me because your god says in the bible that non-believers should be killed?
If your god asks you to, would you kill innocent women just like Ted Bundy did - with the same modus operandi and all?
D.A.N
ReplyDeleteLet’s think of a situation:
A friend we have in common introduce us. After some minutes talking, you begin to talk about Jesus and god and the bible. The you ask me what I believe; I answer you that I’m atheist.
Based on your talk here, you wouldn’t give up on me. You would tell me that is not that I don’t believe in god; deep down I’m angry at god, I’m revolting against him, denying him, etc. You ask me to go to your church and invite me to go to your house so you can show me the bible and show me the word of lord, teach me the bible, tell me what god wants from me so I can accept god as my lord and jesus as my only saviour.
Since I know myself too well, you would fail in the task of converting me.
Then, in you personal “conversation” to your god you would say: “God, I tried everything in my power to convert her; to show her you’re real and you want her to follow you, to accept you. I told her that if she questions you, judges you and denies she’s living in sin and she will go to hell for it, it doesn’t matter the fact she’s a good person. But she still chooses to deny you, to stay away from you and your will; she still persists in the path of evil. She refuses to accept you and Jesus.
Since she’s a non-believer and the bible clearly non-believers should be killed and since the bible is your word – well, I have no choice but to kill her”.
Would you kill me because your god says in the bible that non-believers should be killed?
If your god asks you to, would you kill innocent women just like Ted Bundy did - with the same modus operandi and all?
This is absurd. Do you really claim, as an example, that the Bible does not exist?
ReplyDeleteOf course we don't claim that the Bible doesn't exist, Dan. But we also don't claim the Harry Potter books don't exist.
Conscience literally means "with knowledge" so how does your worldview account for such things? If arbitrary and subjectivity, how objectivity and absolute which is necessary for a universal conscience?
And how do you have anything worth calling knowledge when you succumb to what Michael Dowd calls the idolatry of the written word? What use is static scripture in a dynamic world? I'd recommend following the link - you might find Michael Dowd's blog enlightening. As a pantheist, I have a lot of sympathy for his views.
And what are you referring to when you say a "universal conscience"? How could you have any such thing when your worldview is so narrow?
its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God.
Come to think of it, Dan, this form of words you're using has some merit, except that you're referencing the wrong god. The truth of nature is all around us, if we stop trying to look beyond it for a phoney promise of salvation and just embrace it on its own terms.
D.A.N. said... (to Mhich),
ReplyDeleteThis is absurd. Do you really claim, as an example, that the Bible does not exist?
Thanks for stating up front that your following words were going to be absurd, however it was a little redundant as their absurdity was quite obvious once they were read.
No-one has said the Bible does not exist, however, we dispute your claim that it is divinely inspired and request that you provide evidence to support your claim.
[insert cartoon here]
Your pointless cartoon again. Man perceiving nature is no evidence of Creation and the Bible verse attached is absurdly contradictory - "invisible attributes" being "clearly seen" lol - although that's no surprise when your entire worldview consists of contradictions and absurd claims.
Are you certain of this? if so, how are you certain of this or anything?
Are you omniscient yet Dan? If not then you suffer the same problem, you just deny the truth in your arrogance.
You do understand that your argument is fallacious don't you? Its called Relativist Fallacy.
I see you don't fully understand the relativist fallacy Dan. It only applies to objective facts and not your subjective claim concerning the existence of the Christian God.
Yes God is my ultimate authority. What is your authority? Is it you, yourself? Do you really expect me to use YOUR authority for this discussion? Your authority is on the same plane as Ted Bundy's (arbitrary), is that a better authority? *pshaw
Double standard. We're supposed to just accept your claimed authority, without you actually demonstrating that said authority even exists, while you freely admit you wouldn't accept any authority we could conceive of.
>>Jesus being crucified has no value as evidence. I wasn’t there.
Poisoning the Well now?
Lol, no, he's not. Yet another fallacy you don't seem to understand. Also where did the "I wasn't there." bit come from as I can't see it on Mhich's original comment?
>>Besides, if god/jesus knew he would die in the cross, to raise from the dead 3 days later and come back to dance around over the clouds in heaven, it’s not much of sacrifice.
Have you ever heard of the legal argument that its better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent be imprisoned? Once we approve and allow the innocent to be imprisoned, the entire judicial system breaks down and becomes worthless. If the penalty for sin is indeed death then the penalty has been paid already. Its yours for the taking. Why would you reject it so harshly? Again, it reduces the Atheist to the absurd.
What's absurd here is you trying to use a legal argument that expressly contradicts your professed worldview. How on earth can you reconcile it being better for a 1000 guilty man to go free rather than 1 innocent man be imprisoned, when you claim that the only innocent man there ever was, was tortured and crucified.
>>The reason I don’t go out there hurting for the kicks everyone is my own conscience.
Conscience literally means "with knowledge" so how does your worldview account for such things?
Actually Dan, your worldview asserts that only God can have knowledge, you then simply believe anything He tells you despite the fact that you cannot even be sure that it's actually the God you think exists doing the revealing.
If arbitrary and subjectivity, how objectivity and absolute which is necessary for a universal conscience?
Please account for objectivity from within your inherently subjective worldview.
cont'd...
cont'd...
ReplyDelete>>And that conscience doesn’t come from god, because if it did I would be like you D.A.N.
So you believe lying, adultery, and theft are perfectly acceptable then. Fine.
Hiiiiyah! Dan gives his best Miss Piggy impression whilst demolishing a strawman. Simply awe inspiring /sarcasm
>>I’m responsible for myself. In fact, if your god exists I’m better than him: I have better morals;...
Then you agree what I said to Trino then, "As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God."
I don't see anything in Mhich's statement which 'agrees' with your position. Furthermore your position is untenable as you cannot even demonstrate that God has revealed Himself to you let alone the rest of mankind.
Mhich,
ReplyDeleteI know that whole evidence thingy is irrelevant for Atheists but Joseph Smith started Mormonism, not Scientology. False religions do get confusing sometimes, I understand. Moving on.
>>For you, the bible is an undeniable and unquestionable proof that god exists, but not for me.
So truth is merely subjective?
>>Does it mean it really happened just because is written on a book?
Was that book written by 40-50 men over the span of 1500 years with ONE cohesive thought and predicted things that came true to the letter and prophecies that are still coming true to this day? No? The Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true, proves itself internally, AND denial of the truth of the Bible leads to absurdity. They even put Jesus in our Courts and the verdict was the same. There is Overwhelming Evidence. But, the real question is, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?
>>The senses we have are made to perceive the natural world, not the supernatural (if there’s one).
Again with a knowledge claim. How do you KNOW this for certain? Are you claiming it is impossible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
>>If god exists, he is a supernatural being living in a supernatural world where we are not able to see it, so how do you know god is real?
Again REVELATION. It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain.
>> I am the one who decides what do with my life, I can do whatever I want as long as it doesn’t harm other people and other living creatures and this planet.
Funny, (read sad) addicts say the same thing. But what they, and you, don't realize when you hurt yourself you hurt the ones that love you too. So you cannot just "do whatever you want". If you are responsible that is. I am not harming anyone driving my motorcycle around town. But if I get into a wreck and die I leave 6 kids and a wife to pick up the (my) pieces. I still have my motorcycles driving licenses though. Come on empty nest! :7)
>>I am only accountable to myself...
Keep telling yourself that lie. Atheists who lie to themselves? Who would of thunk?
>>I – unlike you – don’t try to shove my worldview down your throat with the threat of eternal torture in hell if you don’t accept it.
No threat. Its a promises more then anything. A loving warning more accurately.
>>Jesus dying on cross means something for you, fine. But it means nothing to me.
It means far more then you realize. Especially when you will bow your knee to him, one way or the other.
>>Your god (if he exists) already forgave us.
Absolutely wrong! He hates unrepentant sinners. (, ,, ,) He gives His Grace to those that approach Him with a broken and contrite heart. () You 'know' this though.
>>So, morality is subjective and it’s not universal.
So if they pass laws that say its OK to rape and eat babies that would be OK with you? You would join in? Some countries allow you to marry and have relations with 13 year old girls. Some allow whipping of wives. I guess those are perfectly moral to you?
>>To me all those things are immoral and wrong because my conscience says so.
WRONG! IF the current laws allow it, as you just admitted to, its ACCEPTABLE to you!
[to be cont'd]
[Mhich cont'd]
ReplyDelete>>Adultery is wrong, but lying – come on – everybody lies, including you D.A.N.
Adultery is not wrong according to you because their are no laws against it. You're flipping all over the place here. If morality is subjective then all immoral acts (to you) are moral. Get it?
>>Now stealing a fruit or a bread because you or your child is hungry and you don’t have money to buy it because you live in the streets is not wrong.
O'Rly? Robbing banks is justified as long as you're poor? Sure!! So this whole "not harming others" is thrown out the window because you are not responsible enough to take care of your own children. BTW, all you need to do is go to a church or our home. We are more then happy to help you and your kids out. That is what love is for after all. No Commandment breaking necessary. It just requires some humbling, not being prideful. Like I tell my kids, "Don't take, give"
>>I don’t believe in gods in general – the past and the present ones.
Nice try. We both know better. There is only one Creator that all the evidence points to and that is the one you deny.
Mhich,
ReplyDeleteHere is where your mistake is:
>>Then, in you personal “conversation” to your god you would say: “God, I tried everything in my power to convert her...
People do not convert people Mhich. Suggesting that you would be drawn to a different message is clearly unBiblical.
My argument is not even intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands.
>>Would you kill me because your god says in the bible that non-believers should be killed?
No, besides it does not say to do so. God is the Judge, you will have your day with Him soon. No need to rush things. Besides if you die unsaved, you go to hell. I would want you kept alive to have a chance to be saved. After all I am fighting FOR you, not against you. I love you.
>>If your god asks you to, would you kill innocent women just like Ted Bundy did - with the same modus operandi and all?
God does not (would not) say to. Could God make a rock so large He cannot lift it? Nope! Can God lie? Nope!
DD,
ReplyDelete>>But we also don't claim the Harry Potter books don't exist.
But you're saying there is no evidence that J.K. Rowling exists!
BTW, how do you know that pantheism is the right conclusion? Can you be wrong?
>>The truth of nature is all around us, if we stop trying to look beyond it for a phoney promise of salvation and just embrace it on its own terms.
And how do you KNOW this TRUTH?
D.A.N,
ReplyDelete(if I this same comment appears a lot, I'm sorry...but I don't know why...this one is not being posted)
(cont #2)
>> You are also lying to yourself by believing in some god that you can prove his existence. And the worse of all, you are trying to drag people to believe in it.
I’m accountable to myself. If one day I fuck up I won’t blame some god or the bible (just like that guy who stoned a man to death because he was gay and put the blame of his actions in the bible). I will be mature enough to recognize I made a mistake and I’ll face the consequences for it (going to jail or doing community service, depending on what I did)
>> No threat. Its a promises more then anything. A loving warning more accurately.
If a parent tells his kid: “Do what is ay or I’ll beat you to death” is a love warning? No.
It’s a bad taste joke when you say your god loves us but he will send us to the lake of fire until the end of times if you do something he doesn’t like, even though he gave us free will to do so. It’s not free will when we can say/think/do whatever we want as long as it doesn’t go against your god’s will. A god who does that is fucking sadist psychopath who tortures humans for his own amusement.
>> It means far more then you realize. Especially when you will bow your knee to him, one way or the other.
I don’t bow my knee to some dude who died 2000 years ago. I never did and I never will.
>> So if they pass laws that say its OK to rape and eat babies that would be OK with you?
No. Because – according to my conscience – raping and eating babies are wrong and I won’t start doing just because the law says it’s ok. There are things in the constitution I don’t agree with and I don’t do it. For example: voting in here is mandatory. I don’t vote just because the constitution says I have to. It was a personal decision I made and I’m not harming anyone or myself because of it.
Slavery and killing of infidels/children/homosexuals/cheaters; stoning of rebellious children are illegal in my country and even if it was legal I wouldn’t do it because it goes against my moral standards.
>>Adultery is not wrong according to you because there are no laws against it. You're flipping all over the place here. If morality is subjective then all immoral acts (to you) are moral. Get it?
I said adultery is wrong because it hurts people. Adultery is not condoned or prohibited by the laws in my country. Adultery was once prohibited by the laws here, but it’s not anymore because the people who make the constitution realized this is a matter between couples and they can solve the situation for themselves without necessarily taking it to the legal system.
>> People steal banks not because they are poor. People steal banks to have money for the drugs and guns traffic. If I steal an apple I’m not harming anyone. I didn’t get in the market and stole the apple pointing a gun to the clerk.
About someone end up living in the streets in doesn’t happen because they want to. There are people living in the streets because they lost everything and didn’t make it to back on their feet again. There are kids living in the streets because their situation at home is so bad they think the streets are safer (there are people there who is going to protect them)
If one day I need help I can go to the city hall and ask the social work to help me. She will gladly do it. And there are lot of non-government organizations that are not linked any religious institutions that can help me better than a church. Do you know why? Because if I go to a church for help and somehow they find out I’m an atheist and gay they will refuse to help me.
Dan:
ReplyDelete>> Impossible
Lol! Wow. So that's it, huh? It's impossible for an omnipotent being to be malevolent because... it's impossible. No explanation, no reasons, it's just impossible. Followed by the obligatory copy/pasted thought-blockers you love to toss out. The fact that you can't even begin to address the hypothetical situation speaks volumes about your beliefs. I would press the point and ask you how you can know that such a thing is impossible without being omniscient, but I'm pretty sure you'll just repeat yourself until I give up. I guess your whole "intellectual honesty" spiel doesn't apply to whoever regurgitates it the most.
BTW, for someone who constructed a nice big glass house in saying that they would kill their own son on God's command, you sure do seem to be throwing a lot of stones...
ReplyDeleteD.A.N.,
ReplyDeleteI know Smith founded Mormonism and L. Ron Hubbard founded Scientology.
- There’s no such thing as absolute universal truth.
- Was that book written by 40-50 men over the span of 1500 years with ONE cohesive thought and predicted things that came true to the letter and prophecies that are still coming true to this day?
What prophecies? If you mean by the earthquakes, tsunamis, epidemics, wars, etc…well, that happens way before Christianity and way before the bible was written. If those things that’s happening now are prophecies, prove it to me (without turning to the bible).
- The Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true, proves itself internally, AND denial of the truth of the Bible leads to absurdity. They even put Jesus in our Courts and the verdict was the same. But, the real question is, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?
What a waste of time putting a man who died 2000 years ago in courts. If jesus was guilty or innocent doesn’t mean anything and – honestly – doesn’t make any difference. If this really happened, it was thousands of years ago; it doesn’t have any importance and it doesn’t change anything in the modern society. I bet there are lot of people who were innocent and falsely accused thousands and hundreds years ago, but it’s a very far away past.
Saying the bible is the absolute proof of god is the same thing as saying vampires are real because we have Bram Stoker’s Dracula; Interview with the Vampire and the Twilight Series books.
>> Again with a knowledge claim. How do you KNOW this for certain? Are you claiming it is impossible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
I base my knowledge on things I can see, hear, touch, smell and taste. My knowledge is based on what I can experiment on the real world. My senses are 100% infallible? No. Neither does yours. But it doesn’t mean there’s a supernatural world out there waiting for us. If you claim there’s an omniscient and omnipotent being, so prove it. I asked you many times for you to give me some evidence and you didn’t give none. How can you be certain that god is real? Saying that “look all around and will see his creation” doesn’t mean or prove anything.
>> Again REVELATION. It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain.
So, what your god revealed? How do you know those things were revealed by some god? Bring me the evidence. To me intellectual dishonesty is to claim something is real when you don’t have evidence to prove it. Saying this is underrating my intelligence.
>> I don’t see how the way I live my life can be damaging to the people I love. The fact I’m an atheist makes no harm to them. Even my mother – who is evangelical – knows that. She accepts and respects my ideology; she doesn’t try to convert me or keep saying I’m going to hell or something like that. I’m not out there doing things to hurt them or to hurt myself. I don’t see how atheism can be damaged to someone. Atheism it’s “damaging” only to you D.A.N, because it goes against what you believe. For whatever reason, you think atheism itself is already an insult to your christian faith.
D.A.N
ReplyDelete( cont #3)
>>Nice try. We both know better. There is only one Creator that all the evidence points to and that is the one you deny.
Do you – somehow - know my life and mind better than myself? There’s only a creator according to your beliefs and we don’t share the same worldview and ideologies.
You claiming I’m an atheist because deep down I’m denying your god is a false statement.
There are lot of beliefs in a lot of gods in this world and I don’t believe in any of them – not because I’m denying those gods or I’m angry at them. It’s because there’s no evidence that shows to me that they are real. To me all those gods are as real as unicorns or fairies.
>> People do not convert people Mhich. Suggesting that you would be drawn to a different message is clearly unBiblical.
So you don’t try to convert people? Really? When you go to someone to preach about the word of god you’re doing exactly that. Unless you respect other people’s faith and ideology and let them be what they want, even if goes against your belief.
.>> No, besides it does not say to do so. God is the Judge, you will have your day with Him soon. No need to rush things. Besides if you die unsaved, you go to hell. I would want you kept alive to have a chance to be saved. After all I am fighting FOR you, not against you. I love you.
Really? That’s not what it says in 2 Chronicles 15:13 (That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.)
I don’t believe in hell, so your threats are empty and worthless. I don’t need you to fight for me, I’m fine on my own and if one day I need help I can go to my family and friends and ask for it. They will be glad to help me.
By what I saw here your idea of love is little bit (not to say hugely) twisted.
>> You still didn’t answer the question. I asked you – in the case of god asks you to kill innocent women just like Ted Bundy did – to prove your faith to him, would you do it? It’s a simple yes/no question. This is typical of people like you D.A.N, we ask you something that shows how unmerciful/violent/evil/vengeful your god really is and you dodge the question by saying some non-sense bullshit. I’m a journalist and I know when someone is avoiding to answer a question and you’re doing exactly that.