July 11, 2011

I'm Over "The Ledge"

I just heard a movie that is out called "the Ledge" where "This unusual, character-driven thriller follows young hotel manager Gavin (Charlie Hunnam), who steps out onto a high ledge to commit suicide. World-weary police officer Hollis (Terrence Howard) is assigned to talk him down but is tormented by traumatic issues of his own. The men find themselves debating atheism, faith and the meaning of life, and soon are embroiled in a battle of wills that has each man questioning his commitment to his chosen path." ~Netflix

Outspoken Atheist director Matthew Chapman (great-great grandson of Charles Darwin) said he hopes his new film, "The Ledge, will help audiences view atheists in a more positive way."

Wow, huge surprise from this lineage, that a Christian is the villain in the movie huh?

This is no surprise what Hollywood in general does to push their Godless and Liberal agenda. Remember, not too long ago even, all the main characters in Hollywood movies use to smoke to promote smoking. They are doing the same about the subject of God in vilifying, or denying, Him. Like smoking though, they will be horribly wrong and will turn tail. Unfortunately, it may be too late for some by the time they do. Just like smoking.



Those, good old days, when they had positive God movies like the "The Ten Commandments", and many wholesome films are fading. There still are wholesome films out there but times are changing, this much is true. For the better though? Its certainly the argument, but not a very convincing one.

Hollywood used to know right from wrong,


Those days of Hollywood having a conscience, or doing the right thing, are gone for now. Sad.

“Really, The Ledge is at the beginning of a movement toward more open discussion of atheism and agnosticism,”

O'rly? Do people really think there will be only a few people in Hell? Keep drinking that kool-aid of an empty Hell, and poor persecuted Atheists.

“I hope atheists who are still in the closet will take heart from the film and think. I am not alone.”

No, Chapman. You're not alone by any stretch of that imagination of yours. Atheists are "out and proud" these days and in great numbers. You're not fooling anyone here. You're (religion?) soon to be the majority. That is what's expected and predicted.

65 comments:

  1. Come on, D.A.N! There are movies with religious themes by the dozen (The 10 Commandments, Ben Hur, Jesus of Nazareth, The Last Temptation of Christ, movies about a bunch of catholic saints, the Passion of Christ, etc).

    It’s about time of having a movie where it shows atheists are normal people with normal lives and normal jobs like most people.

    I’ve watched the movie (today in fact) and the christian character is not an evil bastard. He’s a very hardcore christian with extreme religious views that treats his wife as his property.

    >> You're not alone by any stretch of that imagination of yours. Atheists are "out and proud" these days and in great numbers.

    What’s the problem with that? I’m proud of being an atheist the same way you’re proud of being a christian. More and more atheists and agnostics are creating the courage to come out of their closets and they simply don’t care the fact some hardcore christians (like you) fear some imaginary eternal punishment in hell just because the number of godless people are increasing.

    Your fear has no reason to be, except in your deluded mind. We are not here to keep you and your church buddies to worship your god and attending your church or to convert god’s believers into atheism like your evangelical friends don’t leave me alone and try to convert me to their religion almost every sunday .

    But we won’t be silent and stay in our closets just because you don’t like us and feel all offended by our lack of belief in gods.

    So what if Hollywood thinks abortion is wrong? I have my own opinions on the matter and the Hollywood industry have theirs. There are one situation I don’t agree with abortion (when a woman had consensual sex and got pregnant by accident and she’s not ready to be a mother there’s adoption. But if she decides to terminate the pregnancy, who am I to judge her?). Yes, I’m pro-choice and I won’t change my opinion just because Hollywood thinks is wrong (since when Hollywood is the ultimate authority at something?) or because some religious people say performing abortions is like shooting someone in the head.

    Besides, your bible is not exactly against abortion, right?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Michelle,

    Two things. I love Atheists, enough to be truthful with them about their fate. (and please don't take that opportunity to call me a liar. I am being sincere.)

    Second, Hollywood, now, agrees with you about abortions. They have changed their mind, once again, like promoting smoking. They're quite fickle that way. Who knows they may disagree with you about God someday. One can hope anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Atheists are "out and proud" these days and in great numbers.

    So are gays, lesbians, pedophiles (well very soon anyway now that pedophilia is just another sexual orientation) and other perverts.

    What a surprise.
    The EU has even subtly legalized pedophilia. Germany is now handing out incestuous literature to parents encouraging them to caress their little girls sexual organs and worse.

    Atheist society in a nutshell?
    "There is no god, so anything goes."
    Oops, except criticizing perverts of any kind in any way, oh and religion is out, except atheism, Darwinism and scientism.

    ReplyDelete
  4. D.A.N,

    >> I love Atheists, enough to be truthful with them about their fate.

    Who are you trying to fool this time (besides yourself)? You may think you love atheists and take that for the truth, but your actions and words show exactly otherwise.

    You feel offended by our lack of belief in gods and you are completely against our freedom of speech because it opposes your beliefs and worldview. We don't do that to people we like/love.

    You said yourself we deserve our "deserve their due reward" aka burning in hell, according to what you said on your blog many times over and over again. But – as I told you before – telling us we’re going to burn in hell is an empty threat. You have to prove hell exists first by bringing reliable, tangible and verifiable evidence or else…give it up on making your usual empty threats.

    Threatening us with eternal punishment in hell is ineffective. It’s like me telling you Santa Claus is going to give you a piece of charcoal instead the present you want so bad if you don’t be a good boy and behave for the whole year.

    Unless something changed in the world I'm not aware of, if you wish people to be punished it only means two things: you don't like them and you'll have a sadistic pleasure to see them suffer.

    >> Second, Hollywood, now, agrees with you about abortions. They have changed their mind, once again, like promoting smoking. They're quite fickle that way.

    I don’t care what Hollywood agrees or not. I have my own convictions and ideas; Hollywood has nothing to do with them.

    I’m pro-choice because I believe women have the right and freedom to decide on making abortions if they so chose. No one should take that right away from them.

    About promoting smoking, they may even do that…but people are not puppets. They are capable of making their own decisions in life, including the ones who are bad for them and their health, such as smoking.

    I’ve used to smoke (thanks to myself, I stopped) until 2 years ago. I didn’t start to smoke because “Hollywood talked me into it by showing all those beautiful and successful actresses and actors smoking – both in movies and in real life”.

    I begin to smoke for curiosity, I wanted to know how was like. I liked and I got addicted to cigarettes. I have no one to blame (neither Hollywood or the tobacco industry) for starting smoking besides myself. I’m accountable to my own actions and decisions and – like a big girl – I assume the responsibility for the mistakes I make.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Gary H.,

    Atheist society in a nutshell? "There is no god, so anything goes."

    I don't consider anything is permitted because I don't have some god as my moral guide. The reason why me and other atheists don't go out there killing, raping, stealing, kidnapping, and doing other despicable things is because we have a conscience, morality and empathy. Besides we have a set of rules (called the legal system) that punishes people if they commit crimes.

    People don't need some god and follow a holly book in order to be good.

    If you think that's true, so answer me this:

    - Why muslin terrorists are blowing themselves up and killing as many innocent people as they can? They practically believe in the same god you do...

    - Why priests are raping children? Considering they are christian/god believers, they should be excellent role model for moral behavior, right?

    - Why the catholic church is trying to cover up and minimize those sexual abuses? Being conivent to rape and sexual abuse is part of the christian morality?

    Oops, except criticizing perverts of any kind in any way, oh and religion is out, except atheism, Darwinism and scientism.

    Atheism, Darwinism and science are not religions. Also Darwinism and science are not mutually exclusive to atheism.

    There are religious people who are scientists who know evolution is a scientific fact and they know the transmutation of species demonstrated by Darwin is a scientific fact.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Michelle,

    I just knew you would try to take things out of context by quote-mining the situation. I was saying Atheists "deserve their due reward" as satire because of the conversation we were having about free speech.

    Look what I actually said, "It doesn't matter what the stats say because all Atheists are liars, weak, and cowards that say that they are afraid of big bad Christians and wear bullet proof vests and such. You can cry about it all you want. You can provide skewed data if you wish. That will never change the fact that all Atheists are cowards and deserve their due reward. "

    I was rubbing your nose in the fact that I can be as slanderous as I wish and have no recourse because of America's free speech. Unlike Brazil. Keep preaching that I hate Atheists if you wish though. It will show your character all the more.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Michelle,

    >>The reason why me and other atheists don't go out there killing, raping, stealing, kidnapping, and doing other despicable things is because we have a conscience, morality and empathy.

    Yet they cannot account for such things as having a conscience, morality and empathy in their matter and motion only worldview.

    >>Besides we have a set of rules (called the legal system) that punishes people if they commit crimes.

    So yea Gary! They're moral because people said not to do those things. Raping children is wrong because there is a law against it. I guess being afraid of jail is a deterrent for them.

    Just wait when they are in Hell (jail) by choice. Hell is not a deterrent, its a goal. *pshaw

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gary H. said... (to no-one in particular)

    >>Atheists are "out and proud" these days and in great numbers.

    So are gays, lesbians, pedophiles (well very soon anyway now that pedophilia is just another sexual orientation) and other perverts.

    What a non-surprise to see a Christian incorrectly conflate homosexuality with paedophilia.

    Given that the most widely reported group of paedophiles is the Christian clergy you'd think there'd be a little more circumspection in these kinds of allegations ... or perhaps this is the Christian's point "Please ignore all the priests who like to molest little boys and girls, LOOK, OVER THERE, IT'S A GAY!!!!"

    What a surprise.
    The EU has even subtly legalized pedophilia.


    It really hasn't. Is your argument so devoid of merit that you have to make shit up to try and support it?

    Germany is now handing out incestuous literature to parents encouraging them to caress their little girls sexual organs and worse.

    Also incorrect. There was a pamphlet in Germany which was aimed at helping parents deal with their children finding out about their bodies and their sexuality. Some parents objected to some of the content and when the issue became heavily publicised parts of the pamphlet were taken out of context to try and claim that the state was condoning paedophilia. They weren't, but to appease those who had swallowed the propaganda whole, they removed the pamphlet in 2007.

    Atheist society in a nutshell?
    "There is no god, so anything goes."


    I see you know just as much about atheism as you do about EU legislation regarding paedophilia i.e. nothing.

    Oops, except criticizing perverts of any kind in any way,

    You think it's wrong to criticise perverts? And how does this jibe with your earlier claim that the EU is legislating in favour of perverts? By your logic then, the EU cannot be atheistic - as it's not critcising perverts - therefore it's the theistic governors of Europe who are legislating in favour of paedophiles. I don't think you thought that through.

    oh and religion is out, except atheism, Darwinism and scientism.

    Neither atheism (lack of belief in God(s)), nor Darwinism (the body of work which deals with Darwinian concepts of evolutionary theory) nor scientism (your word for any science you don't like) are religions, by any standard definition of the word. As you've had to take the most ambiguous and nebulous definition of religion possible it can be attributed to pretty much anything that shares a couple of common characteristics i.e. people who like and collect thimbles are now religious under your definition. Well done, you made the concept useless, especially as a basis for attacking someone's ideology.

    ReplyDelete
  9. D.A.N. said... (to Michelle),

    >>The reason why me and other atheists don't go out there killing, raping, stealing, kidnapping, and doing other despicable things is because we have a conscience, morality and empathy.

    Yet they cannot account for such things as having a conscience, morality and empathy in their matter and motion only worldview.

    Lol, of course we can Dan, you just don't accept our accounting.

    >>Besides we have a set of rules (called the legal system) that punishes people if they commit crimes.

    So yea Gary! They're moral because people said not to do those things. Raping children is wrong because there is a law against it. I guess being afraid of jail is a deterrent for them.

    No Dan, Michelle explained why we are moral (conscience and empathy) and it is that morality that has led to the formation of a legal system. Why have you ignored that and chosen to argue against a strawman?

    What you're actually describing is Bible based morality that mandates that might makes right and, as God is the mightiest, it is His abitrary commandments that we should obey. Of course you don't actually hold God to that same standard you claim is absolute and you're forced to accept genocide as 'good' because your God has committed and ordered genocide in your infallible book. What a wonderful basis for morality ... not.

    Just wait when they are in Hell (jail) by choice.

    Your God's choice, yes.

    Hell is not a deterrent,

    Because we don't believe it exists, anything to support your claim that it does?

    its a goal. *pshaw

    An own goal by your team IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is no surprise what Hollywood in general does to push their Godless and Liberal agenda. Remember, not too long ago even, all the main characters in Hollywood movies use to smoke to promote smoking.

    Yes, smoking: perfect example of a Godless, liberal agenda.

    You're a buffoon.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "They have changed their mind, once again, like promoting smoking. They're quite fickle that way. Who knows they may disagree with you about God someday."

    Yeah, they are quite fickle...always changing their minds...its as if...there are multiple individuals making movies, each pursuing their own agenda! Wow when you think of it as a bunch of individuals rather than a monolithic entity it makes a lot more sense.

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

    ReplyDelete
  13. D.A.N,

    Yet they cannot account for such things as having a conscience, morality and empathy in their matter and motion only worldview. They're moral because people said not to do those things. Raping children is wrong because there is a law against it. I guess being afraid of jail is a deterrent for them.

    Here’s what I said: “The reason why me and other atheists don't go out there killing, raping, stealing, kidnapping, and doing other despicable things is because we have a conscience, morality and empathy. Besides we have a set of rules (called the legal system) that punishes people if they commit crimes.”

    What I said to you before, even if in Brazil homicide, kidnapping, robbery, rape, etc, were legal I wouldn’t agree with it and I wouldn’t decide to kill, to rob, rape or kidnap someone just because the law says I can. Why? Because I have a conscience and a sense of morality. Thanks to them I know those are immoral acts and it’s wrong to hurt people. I don’t need to believe in some god and follow the bible to be good and moral person.

    This is what you refuse to accept. For you, the only thing that keeps people from doing harm to others and to be accountable to morality is your bible/god. We both know that it doesn’t work that way.

    As I pointed out to Gary we have muslin terrorists killing themselves and innocent people in the name of their religion/god; we have pedophile priests raping kids (according to your viewpoint those priests should be a role model for moral behavior, since they consider their god/bible as ultimate and only guide for morality); the catholic church covering up those sexual abuses because she acts like the priests and the catholic institution are above human laws because they believe they are only accountable to their god; not too mention how many people were tortured and killed by christians using the bible as justification for what they did.

    Brazil has the freedom of speech. It’s guaranteed by our constitution. But our constitution also have laws who guarantees brazilian citizens in general to be protected against discrimination, defamation, hate crime and incitation to violence committed against them.

    By our constitution, people have all the freedom in the world to express whatever they want, including discriminatory messages. But they have to be aware of the consequences this will bring them. According to our constitution my freedom/rights end where other people’s freedom/rights begin.

    If I say something discriminatory against someone, I’m taking their rights and freedom to be whoever they are without oppression.

    You saying all violent crimes are done by atheists you’re exercising the freedom of speech guaranteed by brazilian constitution. But you have to be aware of the consequences you will face if someone decides to take legal against you. If you don’t have any concrete evidence to prove that affirmation of yours is true and it’s proved that your claim is based only in your personal bias/opinions/prejudice against atheists (which are not considered to be evidence anywhere, including in brazilian courts) you are committing the crime of slander/defamation and prejudice against atheists.

    Imagine someone saying that all hate crimes against immigrants are done by christians. If that person doesn’t have any evidence whatsoever to back it up that claim and it’s proved – in court – this person has prejudice against christians, this person is committing the crime of slander/defamation and prejudice against christians and therefore legal action will be taken against this person.

    The same way – by brazilian constitution – you have the right to exercise your christianity without being oppressed and discriminated; atheists and agnostics also have the right to exercise their non religious ideologies without being oppressed and discriminated.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mhich said...

    " I don't consider anything is permitted because I don't have some god as my moral guide. The reason why ...is because we have a conscience, morality and empathy."


    Well you're wrong in your underlying assumptions.

    Atheists have morals because they have a conscience - as you admit - that comes from the transcendental moral law. Without which no conscience would be possible. And such a law can only come from God.

    Atheists are obliged to borrow their morals from religion because by their own admission they have "no ultimate foundation for ethics" and many claim that "morals are an illusion".


    " People don't need some god and follow a holly book in order to be good."

    Well yes they do. See this article on Can we be good without God?
    http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5344

    The answer is no.

    "Why muslin terrorists are blowing themselves up and killing as many innocent people as they can? They practically believe in the same god you do..."

    Actually no. Their idea of Allah, a word that simply means "God", is historically, the god of the moon. And one read of the history of their "prophet" is enough to convince any sane person that he was a desert bandit raping, pillaging & murdering and so he invented a new version of Allah to justify it all find followers of like perversions.

    Besides I did not mention anything about my God so you're already presuming too much.

    "- Why priests are raping children? Considering they are christian/god believers, "

    Actually few "children" are involved. Most cases are adolescents. The media generally fail to mention the actual ages in many cases.

    "they should be excellent role model for moral behavior, right?"

    Yes, they should. This is a very poor argument against either God or religion though.

    Who does not know that many sexual predators enter the priesthood with that very goal in mind.
    Pedophiles are notorious for seeking positions of trust to allow them easy contact with kids.

    You may as well attack the school system for every sexual abuse case since they also becomes teachers with the same pernicious goals.

    " Why the catholic church is trying to cover up and minimize those sexual abuses?"

    The Roman Catholic system is and has been corrupt for centuries.

    " Atheism, Darwinism and science are not religions. Also Darwinism and science are not mutually exclusive to atheism."

    Well yes they are religions. But I'm not here for that debate.

    There are precious few facts in Darwinism.
    The whole is founded upon logical fallacies, speculation and lies.

    But I'm not here for that debate either.

    None of your arguments against religion or God are founded, because atheism has no foundational base for any ethics at all.

    Therefore you also have no foundation for a moral critique of any kind whatsoever, against anyone whosoever.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gary,

    I am in awe as to the spot on comments you just made. You certainly came here with game. I could not agree more with these comments of yours. Great job! Blessings.

    ReplyDelete
  16. freddies_dead said...

    " What a non-surprise to see a Christian incorrectly conflate homosexuality with paedophilia."

    Well dead freddy? I see you've learned precisely nothing since the last time I had the displeasure of reading your codswallop.

    No conflation here. Only in your mind do things become conflated to the point of absurdity.
    I see you still can't analyze a simple sentence correctly. I put pedophiles apart from homos. You didn't pay attention to that did you? lol

    " Given that the most widely reported group of paedophiles is the Christian clergy"

    Utter nonsense. You could at least have said "Roman Catholic" clergy, but no, there is no honesty in you.
    You're one of those misguided ones that believes everything the mainstream media says I see. Sad.


    "It really hasn't. Is your argument so devoid of merit that you have to make shit up to try and support it?"

    Not my fault if you're ignorance is so appalling.

    http://www.eutimes.net/2009/06/germany-and-eu-to-legalize-pedophilia-and-with-it-child-pornography-as-well/

    See the sexual orientation discrimination clause in the new treaty.

    You're wrong and it is you that loves feeding on propaganda and lies.

    Atheist society in a nutshell?
    "There is no god, so anything goes."

    " I see you know just as much about atheism as you do about EU legislation regarding paedophilia i.e. nothing."


    You see nothing but what you want to see.
    But I see you know nothing of your own belief systems implications as well as nothing of what's going on.

    "...as it's not critcising perverts - therefore it's the theistic governors of Europe who are legislating in favour of paedophiles. I don't think you thought that through."


    You just don't get it, as always. Given your salient habit of misinterpreting everything, no surprise.
    You believe whatever fits your inane world view and deny everything else. i.e. nothing has changed and you've not become a sliver more intelligent or wise since grade school.

    " Neither atheism (lack of belief in God(s)), nor Darwinism (the body of work which deals with Darwinian concepts of evolutionary theory) nor scientism (your word for any science you don't like) are religions, by any standard definition of the word."

    Wrong again.
    Atheism is not lack of belief.

    See my blog:
    http://reasonstream.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-atheism-mere-lack-of-belief.html

    AND

    http://reasonstream.blogspot.com/2011/05/atheism-is-lack-of-belief.html

    Atheism is a chosen metaphysical position, therefore a religious position.

    Darwinism is founded on metaphysics & materialism and not science, see - "The Darwin Myth: the life and lies of Charles Darwin" - ergo, its religion disguised as science.

    FAIL.
    As always.

    ReplyDelete
  17. D.A.N. said...

    Gary,

    I am in awe as to the spot on comments you just made. You certainly came here with game. I could not agree more with these comments of yours. Great job! Blessings.


    Thanks Dan. I see you're still plugging away and still have many of the same people responding with the same logical errors, non facts and hyperbole.

    I admire your courage and patience.
    I'm afraid I have little when it comes to certain posters with heads harder than rocks.

    Of course you can tell by my response to good 'ol freddy the dreamer.

    Blessings and success to you.

    ReplyDelete
  18. For those,like freddy the dreamer, living in denial of reality (atheism) here's further evidence of what your sick world view leads to:

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pedophilia-a-sexual-orientation-experts-tell-parliament/

    So now pedophilia is just another sexual orientation - like homosexuality.
    Homosexuality came to be viewed as an "orientation" due entirely to gay propaganda and high level marketing and mass brainwashing techniques (see "After the Ball: how America will conquer its fear and hatred of homosexuals in the 90's" - a marketing strategy developed by gay activists in the 70's) - as described in the book, "The Marketing of Evil".

    So now that pedos will most certainly begin their own campaign to market their perversion as a "normal" sexual orientation along side homosexuality, we will see, in the coming years, wide spread use of the Overton Window principle to slowly but surely change the public view. It works every time unless the public is a bible reading and believing public.

    After all, there is no god, so anything goes.
    If there is no God, everything is permitted. - Jean Paul Sartre on Ivan Karamazov

    Indeed, if we know that morality has no objective validity but the rest of society still thinks it is valid, we can take advantage of this to get the most we can. There is no moral reason to refrain from rape, robbery and murder.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Gary H,

    >> Atheists have morals because they have a conscience - as you admit - that comes from the transcendental moral law. Without which no conscience would be possible. And such a law can only come from God.

    The god you believe in is such a moral guy, right? Did you simply ignore that infanticide, mass murder and genocide were made/ordered by your god?

    Thankfully my morality and conscience don’t come from a sadistic bloodthirsty psychopath you call god.

    >> I know some christians in real life who read the bible and worship god everyday and they are not exactly the nicest people you ever going to meet in your life. One of them even beat his wife on a daily basis ((used to, because she divorced him and moved to another town far away from him).

    I don’t follow any religious book and I’m a good person. I don’t commit crimes (violent or not), I don’t go out there hurting living beings.

    Your religion is no good example of morality. I can give you tons of examples: the Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution against jews during the inquisition (because the catholic church accused all jews for killing Jesus and they had two choices: or convert to christianity or die). There are the pedophile priests; evangelical pastors taking advantage of people who are gullible and fragile emotionally, psychologically and sometimes physically by taking their money and saying “the money for Jesus/god to cure you/to give you a job/to make your husband quit the booze/etc”

    >> Actually Allah is an abrahamic god just like the christian god.
    Some christians are not exactly different from muslins about using the bible/god as justifications for their despicable acts.

    >> Actually few "children" are involved. Most cases are adolescents. The media generally fail to mention the actual ages in many cases.

    What does it matter if most cases are adolescents? Rape and sexual abuse are never ok, it doesn’t matter if it happens to a child, a adolescent or an adult. Sexual abuse/rape are punishable crimes and every single rapist should be brought to justice and put in a jail for a very long time, it doesn’t matter how old their victims were!

    It’s disgusting and completely unacceptable the fact the catholic church refuses to bring those pedophile priests to justice and instead send them to a different parish (where they will make more victims, adolescents and/or children) or just suspend them from their services for 18 months.

    >> You may as well attack the school system for every sexual abuse case since they also becomes teachers with the same pernicious goals.
    Do you think I don’t? Do you think I’m only against pedophiles when they are priests? No. I’m always against rape/sexual abuse in general, I’m always against pedophiles, I’m always against rapists; it doesn’t matter what religion/profession they have.

    >> Well yes they are religions. But I'm not here for that debate.
    A system belief to be considered a religion is when it revolves around the belief in one or more supernatural/divine entity (ies); in a religion the followers show commitment, loyalty, trust, obedience to a god (or gods) through religious ceremonies and rituals.

    Since atheism is the lack of belief in supernatural/divine entities; we don’t have a god. We don’t have dogmas; we don’t have ceremonies and rituals (religious or not).

    Darwinism is a set of concepts related to idea of transmutation of species or of evolution, including some ideas with no connection to the work of Darwin.

    Science is a system where it gains knowledge about the world and his phenomenons through testable explanations and tangible/verifiable evidences.

    See? None of them even mentions the worshipping of some god.

    Face it, Gary: your “knowledge” about the world, morality and ethics begins in the genesis and ends in revelations. You ignore everything that is outside the bible and that contradicts your faith. In a nutshell: you are a delusional person living in Lala Land.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Gary said

    "" People don't need some god and follow a holly book in order to be good."

    Well yes they do. See this article on Can we be good without God?"

    Absolute nonsense. Ask me when I last murdered, raped, or stole, go on, I dare you.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Gary,

    I am in awe as to the spot on comments you just made.


    Lube's in the bathroom cabinet, Dan.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Well here we see how poorly atheists understand their own religion.

    Michelle is so far off it isn't funny.

    And Alex, well... not even worth a response, such is his complete lack of understanding of what's being said.

    So Michelle,
    "The god you believe in is such a moral guy, right? Did you simply ignore that infanticide, mass murder and genocide were made/ordered by your god?"

    Upon what foundation do you condemn the actions of God in the bible?
    You have none whatsoever. Its all purely your own subjective opinions.

    Curiously, I never mentioned the bible.

    "Thankfully my morality and conscience don’t come from a sadistic bloodthirsty psychopath you call god."

    Sorry but your morality depends on the existence of God whether you like it or not.

    And the God you describe is one of your own making of course.
    Atheists have to distort any view of God, Xian or other, to fit their own twisted, backwards logic, otherwise they cannot remain psychologically "comfortable" in their deliberate unbelief of all evidence.

    Then you go and on with your logical fallacy - strawman -it isn't even worth addressing its so bad and indeed foolish.

    "Your religion is no good example of morality."

    Your historical knowledge is appalling and what you think you know I suspect comes from Hollywood movies and todays New Atheist priests like Dawkins et al. who themselves are complete ignoramuses on both history AND philosophy AND logic.

    Then you do the worst bit of sophism here:
    "I can give you tons of examples: the Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution against jews during the inquisi...

    Atheist regimes have murdered over 140 million people in the 20th century alone and you dare compare that with what the "church" - the roman catholic institution of course, not the true church - did many centuries ago??!!

    Amazing blindness, ignorance & hatred is in you.

    ReplyDelete
  23. .­. continued ...

    Then you point out what the hypocrite claiming to be a Xian, has done wrong somewhere.
    This is like condemning the whole USA for what some soldiers did in VietNam.

    A real joke & a non-argument there Mich.

    "I’m always against rape/sexual abuse in general, I’m always against pedophiles, I’m always against rapists; it doesn’t matter what religion/profession they have."

    Fine, but you have no reason for this.
    Zero foundations.
    If so, what is your foundation for being against anything?

    A system belief to be considered a religion is when it revolves around the belief in one or more supernatural/divine entity (ies);

    Wrong. Religion doesn't need a specific god at all.
    Secular Humanism is a religion without god, and you are a secular humanist.
    The only gods atheists accept or want is themselves. And that means you.

    in a religion the followers show commitment, loyalty, trust, obedience to a god (or gods) through religious ceremonies and rituals.

    Yes and no one displays these things with such fervent religious devotion than atheists/Darwinists. Easily demonstrated.

    "Since atheism is the lack of belief in supernatural/divine entities; we don’t have a god. We don’t have dogmas; we don’t have ceremonies and rituals (religious or not)."

    Wrong again.

    You're good at picking up the New Atheist catch words and phrases but zero when it comes to understanding your own position. Atheism is far beyond some false pretense to mere lack of belief. Else cats and dogs are atheists.

    Its amazing how shallow you new atheists are. Your lack of understand of your own position is disgusting.

    I also see that you did not have the guts or honesty to go read the article I pointed to. What a surprise.

    Nor did you read my own article on why atheism is NOT mere lack of belief. The "lack of belief" claim is not only bogus but extremely disingenuous as well.

    And this girl believes she is honest!!?

    "Darwinism is a set of concepts related to idea of transmutation of species or of evolution,"

    Not really, but in any case its foundation is materialism.

    Materialism is a metaphysical construct, i.e. it is religious in nature, not being founded on any science of any kind.

    Learn the terms of reference or stop talking nonsense.

    "See? None of them even mentions the worshipping of some god."

    Scientism is one of the major false gods of this age. It is most certainly religious whether you like it or not. And Darwinism being founded in materialism + scientism means its a religion.

    "your “knowledge” about the world, morality and ethics begins in the genesis and ends in revelations."

    Here we go again. The atheist presumes - based on near zero knowledge - to know who I am and what believe.

    Why don't you get real and go look at my profile?

    "You ignore everything that is outside the bible and that contradicts your faith."

    Really? And you know this how exactly?
    But I could easily - and with good reason - turn this very statement on you. You know next to nothing, but you have much and great faith that "there is no god" and perhaps that you are his prophet as well.

    It is impossible for atheists to know there is no god, therefore atheism is a position held entirely by faith. Faith in nothing.

    Under atheism the universe created itself out of nothing!! Wow. Interesting tripe at best.

    The blind atheist is nevertheless obliged to believe this, no matter how illogical, foolish and yes downright stupid it is.
    A more utterly unscientific position has never been conceived.

    And here is my exact certainty about you and all atheists: "In a nutshell: you are a delusional person living in Lala Land."

    I might also add that you've already lost this debate but you can't see it yet because your mind is clearly on hold.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Very disappointing Gary, I'm fairly sure that being insufferably smug is something that your god would consider a sin.

    ReplyDelete
  25. If this "conscience" was given to us by your god, Gary, maybe you should ask just why it's only atheists who are repulsed by the baby killing ordered by your god in the bible.

    Maybe the morals of different cultures wouldn't include such things as ritual murder, cannibalism, etc. Atheists can at least look at the developement of different cultures in different circumstances and come up with some reasons as to how the hell such things can happen. (ie. fear of the eclipses in Meso-American cultures, etc)

    On the other hand, only religion can explain why people like Dan and William Craig don't have any problem with that.

    Dan claims that he'd struggle with it, but in the end....



    As for the claim that atheists borrow their morals from the bible or xians:

    Read a rebuttal or two.

    Should we follow the teachings of jesus as shown here then?


    For the hell of it, here's an example of the consequences application of xian morality. Read the first few paragraphs and see just how moral he sounds, then watch how he uses that actual moral rule to go against the Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Gary,

    >> Upon what foundation do you condemn the actions of God in the bible?
    You have none whatsoever. Its all purely your own subjective opinions.

    I condemn any action that hurts other people, Gary. I don’t suffer from “moral relativism” just like D.A.N does when he says his god’s actions – including the most violent and harmful ones - are justifiable and then he has the nerve to condemn human beings from the same violent and harmful actions his god is responsible.

    I condemn mass murder, genocide, rape, incest, infanticide, death by stoning, sexual abuse, etc, it doesn’t matter if it comes from man or from some god. Why? Because I have a conscience and empathy. I care about people and other living beings and I don’t like to see them getting hurt. I don’t consider a violent act to be moral and immoral based on who does it.

    >> Prove your god exists first, prove my morality comes from him and then we talk.

    >> And the God you describe is one of your own making of course.
    No, it isn’t. Read the bible and you will see your god is exactly what I said. The god you believe in gets off on people getting hurt and suffering. He’s no different from a sadistic psychopath.


    >> Your historical knowledge is appalling and what you think you know I suspect comes from Hollywood movies and todays New Atheist priests like Dawkins et al. who themselves are complete ignoramuses on both history AND philosophy AND logic.

    Sure, because I’m just like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Bill O’Reilly (and other bullshitting american hardcore fundie christians ) who changes historical and scientific facts to fit their delusional agenda. (being sarcastic)

    The Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of jews during the inquisition, the torture and killing of homosexuals and kids accused of witchcraft in African countries thanks to the non sense belief those new born christians missionaries spread among highly gullible people is an invention of Hollywood. (being sarcastic again)


    >> Atheist regimes have murdered over 140 million people in the 20th century alone.

    Please, don’t tell me I know you are mentioning communist dictatorships like the ones from Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. They were atheists, yes. But they didn’t kill millions of people in the name of atheism. They killed millions of people due political reasons. Communism and atheism are different things.

    But – according to your reasoning – I can perfectly say the nazi regime is a christian regime because Hitler was a christian and the official religion of the nazi regime was christianity. I can say Hitler was responsible for millions of deaths because he was a christian doing god’s work (remember your god is not exactly against genocide). In fact, Hitler mentioned many times his work was a divine mission/god’s will.

    The fact is: Hitler was a christian, yes. The official religion of the nazi regime was christianity, yes. Hitler thought his work was god’s will/divine mission, also yes. But reason why he killed millions of people was because he was a christian? No. He did what he did for political reasons.

    ¬But there’s one difference between you, D.A.N and me: I don’t try to sugarcoat Stalin’s, Mao’s and Pol Pot’s killings and try to get them off the hook because they were atheists just like you and D.A.N do by trying to minimize all the bad things in the world done by your religion/god.
    (continues)

    ReplyDelete
  27. (cont)
    >> As I pointed out before I have reason to be against rape/sexual abuse because I have empathy; I don’t like people to get hurt.

    What’s your foundation for being against rape, mass murder, genocide, infanticide, incest, abortion, etc? None. Because the god you believe in endorses/incites all that.

    > > If you are so against “scientism” (where did you get that word from anyway?); the next time you get sick, don’t go to the hospital, don’t see a doctor and don’t take meds and don’t do any kind of medical treatment. Just stay in bed all day praying to god.

    >> Why don't you get real and go look at my profile?
    Why should I be interested in you academic education and in your credentials?

    >> It’s also impossible for you to know there’s a god out there. Your belief is based on faith alone and faith is not evidence for anything. All you have is wishful thinking. You just hope there’s a god out there waiting for you in heaven.

    Me – on the other hand – I can perfectly believe in a god. Bring me tangible and verifiable evidence that your god is real and Ill believe him (which it doesn’t mean I’m going to worship him)

    >> A more utterly unscientific position has never been conceived.
    Actually, it had been conceived: it’s called religion aka mythology.

    PS: I’m not interested in winning the debate, I’m just putting my arguments. This is not a competition.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Gary,

    If my morality come from some god I would have no problem at defending genocide, mass murder, infanticide, rape, incest, death by stoning (of gays, disobedient children, raped women, non believers, etc), and so on. I would suffer from moral relativism just like our friend D.A.N does.

    Guess what? The fact I’m against all those actions and I condemn every single one of them – doesn’t matter who done it or commanded to be done - means only one thing: my morality doesn’t come from the god you believe in, thankfully I might add

    ReplyDelete
  29. Gary's incapable of honest discussion, much like Dan. My humble opinion is that he's not worth the effort, Mhich.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Huh? "Materialism" is not based on science of any kind? What the fuck drugs is Gary on?

    If one were to argue this, one could say that materialism is the inevitable result OF science. What kind of "science" is supernaturalism based on, Gary?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Gary H. said...

    freddies_dead said...

    " What a non-surprise to see a Christian incorrectly conflate homosexuality with paedophilia."

    Well dead freddy? I see you've learned precisely nothing since the last time I had the displeasure of reading your codswallop.

    Since the last time I showed you to be an idiot you mean, I doubt you've learned anything new since then either.

    No conflation here.

    So the sentence which included "gays, lesbians, pedophiles (well very soon anyway now that pedophilia is just another sexual orientation) and other perverts" doesn't conflate homosexuality and paedophilia? You really are an idiot.

    Only in your mind do things become conflated to the point of absurdity.

    It's not my fault you insist on spouting absurdities.

    I see you still can't analyze a simple sentence correctly.

    It would help if you could construct a simple sentence.

    I put pedophiles apart from homos.

    Except you didn't (as highlighted above) when you said "gays, lesbians, pedophiles ... and other perverts".

    You didn't pay attention to that did you? lol

    I paid enough to actually remember what you wrote - it seems you've forgotten already.

    " Given that the most widely reported group of paedophiles is the Christian clergy"

    Utter nonsense.

    Lol, sticking your head in the sand won't change reality.

    You could at least have said "Roman Catholic" clergy,

    I could, but that would have required me to ignore the Protestant abuse cases that are popping up all over the place.

    but no, there is no honesty in you.

    Unlike you who can't even admit to the words you have typed on this very thread?

    You're one of those misguided ones that believes everything the mainstream media says I see.

    I don't.

    Sad.

    You are.

    "It really hasn't. Is your argument so devoid of merit that you have to make shit up to try and support it?"

    Not my fault if you're ignorance is so appalling.

    Your, not you're. If you are going to try and insult someone's lack of knowledge you might want to make sure your own knowledge is up to the task.

    http://www.eutimes.net/2009/06/germany-and-eu-to-legalize-pedophilia-and-with-it-child-pornography-as-well/

    Was that link supposed to support your claim? All it does is confirm my response - "There was a pamphlet in Germany which was aimed at helping parents deal with their children finding out about their bodies and their sexuality. Some parents objected to some of the content and when the issue became heavily publicised parts of the pamphlet were taken out of context to try and claim that the state was condoning paedophilia."

    cont'd...

    ReplyDelete
  32. cont'd...

    See the sexual orientation discrimination clause in the new treaty.

    Title 1, Article 6 of The treaty on the European Union binds the EU to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Chapter III, article 21 is the non-discrimination clause which states that:

    'Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.'

    Now the only way that clause legalises paedophilia is if you consider paedophilia to be a sexual orientation. The only person on this thread that seems to view paedophilia that way is you, when you conflated paedophilia with homosexuality (which actually is a sexual orientation) earlier on.

    You're wrong and it is you that loves feeding on propaganda and lies.

    I'm not and I don't but I'm sure you think it sounded good when you wrote it.

    Atheist society in a nutshell?
    "There is no god, so anything goes."


    " I see you know just as much about atheism as you do about EU legislation regarding paedophilia i.e. nothing."

    You see nothing but what you want to see.

    I see nothing but what is there in front of me.

    But I see you know nothing of your own belief systems implications as well as nothing of what's going on.

    Ah, so here's where you tell me what I think, lol.

    "...as it's not critcising perverts - therefore it's the theistic governors of Europe who are legislating in favour of paedophiles. I don't think you thought that through."

    You just don't get it, as always.

    I got it alright, you just don't like that I did.

    Given your salient habit of misinterpreting everything, no surprise.

    I didn't need to misinterpret anything, that's what your statements boiled down too. You should try thinking before you write if you don't want to come across as an idiot.

    You believe whatever fits your inane world view and deny everything else. i.e. nothing has changed and you've not become a sliver more intelligent or wise since grade school.

    That would be the pot calling the kettle black, except that this kettle is actually bright purple with green stars.

    cont'd...

    ReplyDelete
  33. cont'd...

    " Neither atheism (lack of belief in God(s)), nor Darwinism (the body of work which deals with Darwinian concepts of evolutionary theory) nor scientism (your word for any science you don't like) are religions, by any standard definition of the word."

    Wrong again.

    You probably will be.

    Atheism is not lack of belief.

    See my blog:
    http://reasonstream.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-atheism-mere-lack-of-belief.html

    AND

    http://reasonstream.blogspot.com/2011/05/atheism-is-lack-of-belief.html


    Yup, you're wrong. Athiesm is not lack of belief because you say so on your blog? Quite simply, hilarious.

    From dictionary.com
    a·the·ism
    –noun
    1.
    the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
    2.
    disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

    Maybe you could stop redefining words to suit your argument and instead form an argument from the proper meanings of words? I won't hold my breath.

    Atheism is a chosen metaphysical position, therefore a religious position.

    Your butchery of the English language in an attempt to play a semantic game is quite painful. Atheism is a position about religion, that does not make it a religious position.

    Darwinism is founded on metaphysics & materialism and not science, see - "The Darwin Myth: the life and lies of Charles Darwin" - ergo, its religion disguised as science.

    Good job I didn't hold my breath earlier. Darwinism relates to Darwinian concepts of evolutionary biology namely, evolution, common descent, multiplication of species, gradualism and natural selection - each of which can be investigated empirically using the scientific method and none of which require any theological input whatsoever.

    FAIL.
    As always.


    Why yes, yes you have.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Some more nuggets of insanity from Gary:

    "So now pedophilia is just another sexual orientation"

    This because a couple of phsycologists in Canada said so in a parliamentary session. Of course when 99%+ of biologists say that evolutionary theory is the best explanation for current biodiversity Gary simply has to disagree.

    "Upon what foundation do you condemn the actions of God in the bible?"

    The absolute standard of morality Dan insists exists but then says doesn't apply to God. Not quite as absolute as Dan makes out, but, you know, it's the best he's got.

    "Sorry but your morality depends on the existence of God whether you like it or not."

    Anything to demonstrate the truth of this claim? If you're a presupper like Dan can I pre-empt your response by asking you if you're omniscient? and if the answer to that is 'no' can you explain how you can know the source and veracity of any revelations you'll rely upon for your argument?

    "Atheist regimes have murdered over 140 million people in the 20th century alone and you dare compare that with what the "church" - the roman catholic institution of course, not the true church - did many centuries ago??!!

    No true Scotsman anyone?

    "The only gods atheists accept or want is themselves."

    Of course the definition of atheism disagrees with Gary here, but that doesn't matter, he'll just redefine it to suit himself.

    "The "lack of belief" claim is not only bogus but extremely disingenuous as well."

    Except that it is a commonly accepted definition of atheism according to the dictionary. Are dictionary compilers all 'ebil afeists' now Gary? or are you just upset that we won't just accept your definition of what we believe?

    "Here we go again. The atheist presumes - based on near zero knowledge - to know who I am and what believe."

    Oh, the delicious irony...

    ReplyDelete
  35. freddies_dead,

    >>From dictionary.com

    a·the·ism
    –noun
    1.
    the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
    2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

    From dictionary.com

    disbelief

    dis·be·lief
    –noun
    1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
    2. amazement; astonishment:

    Sure does not sound like Atheism is a "lack of belief" of anything but instead a REFUSAL to accept things as true. Its a positive stance my friend. Its intellectual dishonesty to say otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  36. That should be my new post...it will be. hold that thought.

    ReplyDelete
  37. dis- 1

    — prefix
    1. indicating reversal: disconnect ; disembark
    2. indicating negation, lack, or deprivation: dissimilar ; distrust ; disgrace
    3. indicating removal or release: disembowel ; disburden
    4. expressing intensive force: dissever

    Never mind Dan, I can see you've decided to borrow Gary's propensity to change the generally accepted meanings of words to suit yourself just like you borrowed Sye's presupp argument.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ah the atheist crowd what a bunch of losers.

    They can't answer the questions posed to them without side-stepping the issue, escapists tactics, mere denial and of course the ubiquitous ignorance for which they are so well known.

    Mich is in denial, fred is in denial, alex doesn't have a clue and not one of you is capable of a sane rebuttal.

    Bare assertions, sophism and tripe. That's all. As always.

    The worst is that none of you even seems to understand the questions asked so what does that produce?
    Strawman after straw and vain pretensions based on nothing more than your personal opinions.

    Since there are no absolutes - no logical absolute, no moral absolutes you have nothing but hot air fuming out your mouths at all seasons.

    Its always hilarious when atheists attempt to scold theists for what they pretend are moral infractions.
    Yet, not a single atheist has ever produced a valid foundation for any ethics at all.

    Go on contradicting yourselves poor souls.

    Atheism has zero foundations in either logic or science. Zero foundations for ethics of any kind.

    Yet the proud and foolish atheist still thinks hes being "smart" by being a denier of reality.

    You are all so pathetic, no wonder the rest of the world doesn't like you.

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

    ReplyDelete
  39. Now, given that atheists have no logical foundations for either their beliefs or moral values, it is a position held by bland faith alone.

    Atheism is a position without evidence. It is impossible to know there is no God, therefore atheism is necessarily a position held by faith alone. Faith in nothing creating everything.

    It is also impossible to prove there is no God.
    Does this fact bother the average atheist? Not all. Yet he thinks himself a reasonable being!!

    Atheists are obliged to invent extremely handicapped versions of "reasoning" to convince themselves that nothing created everything.

    Living in constant cognitive dissonance they short circuit their own brains without ever being able to realize how stupid they look to everyone else.

    How impressive.

    You would be pitiable, if not for your ubiquitous, presumptuous yet unwarranted arrogance and salient illogical thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Atheism is not a viable position:
    Why?

    1) It is impossible to prove there is no being having the attributes of power, intellect and morality commonly attributed to the supreme being we call God.

    Atheists themselves admit this. Thus having no possible proof of their position, it requires blind faith alone to sustain it. Incredible arrogance is also within them to assume there is no God.

    2) It is impossible to use anything at all in the known universe as evidence of no God.

    This is self-evident.
    Thus atheism has no evidential foundations and cannot by any artifice of language be logical.

    3) To claim there is no God requires infinite knowledge of all things, or, sufficient knowledge of the entire universe (and/or multiverse, if true) -which is impossible to obtain in one human life time- to be able to point to reasonable proof.

    4) The belief that there is no God is thus based on blind faith alone since no evidence of his non-existence exists.

    Yet atheists refuse to believe all evidence of any kind for his existence, therefore they live in perpetual, willful denial of 10s of 1000s of observed realities.

    5) Atheism claims there are no absolutes, logical or other.

    But they are absolutely sure of this, thus creating an absolute of their own and contradicting themselves henceforth at every turn - as we also see here at every post Dan submits.

    Without logical absolutes, nothing can ever be proved.

    But, we have proof of many things therefore logical absolutes exist.


    "If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved. Similarly if nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligatory at all."
    -The Abolition of Man

    6) Moral absolutes exist.

    Values that are always true transcendent, independent of anyone's opinion and independent of time or place.

    But, atheists are obliged to deny this.

    Yet, in spite of this, they persist, every moment as we have already witnessed here, in assuming the existence of moral absolutes by criticizing things they believe are morally wrong.

    They are, in every case, appealing to a moral law they assume exists, and that they assume is absolutely true every single time they do this.

    7) Atheism thus requires, by default, the denial objective truth.

    They often say, "There is no truth".

    But if the statement, "there is no truth" is true, then it cannot be true!

    For if there is no truth, then nothing anyone ever says or thinks is ever true, including the statement "THERE IS NO TRUTH".

    Thus atheists live in cognitive dissonance believing things that are obligatorily self-contradictory.

    Worse, as we witness here, they are constantly making statements they believe are objectively true! All while denying objective truth. Amazing.

    Relativism is thus the only morality atheists can have. Relativism unfortunately, is self defeating since relativism itself must be relative. Relativism is thus, itself, a position with no meaning.

    Therefore, atheists are indeed "imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly".

    And so, "Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

    Atheism is thus deep foolishness and escapism and nothing more.

    Curiously enough God still loves atheists, despite their utterly insufferable blindness.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Gary that just won the "new post award".

    :7)

    ReplyDelete
  42. Gary H,

    >> Atheism is a position without evidence. It is impossible to know there is no God, therefore atheism is necessarily a position held by faith alone.

    Theism is also a position without evidence. The same way it's impossible to know there are no gods is also impossible to know there are gods.

    Besides, atheism is not about "knowing there are no gods"; it's about "lacking belief in gods". Theism is not about “knowing there is a god; is about “believing there’s a god.

    In case you don’t know Gary, I’ll explain it to you: knowing and believing are two different words; they don’t have the same meaning and they are not mutually exclusive.

    I don’t know if there are divine/supernatural entities out there, but due the lack of evidence about their existence, I don’t believe in them.
    You don’t know if your god exists, you only believe he does. If you say you know your god exists, then you have to prove it.

    PS: I can’t speak for all atheists who post here; I don’t give a damn if there are gods or not. I just don’t believe in them. It’s not telling me “You’re so going to hell” that is going to change my mind. I also don’t believe in an afterlife; I don’t know what’s going to happen to me after I die and I simply don’t care either. I care about the life I have now.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Michelle,

    >>Theism is not about “knowing there is a god; is about “believing there’s a god.

    O'rly? What people believe has absolutely nothing to do with truth. What if I told you that there are many kindergartners who believe that 1+1 equals 6. That doesn't mean that we can't know the right answer.

    People can BELIEVE that something is wrong without knowing why it is wrong, but in order to KNOW that something is wrong, they must know WHY it is wrong.

    I don't think this, or "believe" this, I know it for certain, as it is impossible to know anything absent certainty.

    >>I don’t know if there are divine/supernatural entities out there, but due the lack of evidence about their existence, I don’t believe in them.

    Assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God.

    >>I don’t give a damn if there are gods or not. I just don’t believe in them. It’s not telling me “You’re so going to hell” that is going to change my mind. I also don’t believe in an afterlife; I don’t know what’s going to happen to me after I die and I simply don’t care either. I care about the life I have now.

    Single most truthful thing you have ever said. Thank you for that. So for future reference its NOT a lack of belief but a refusal to believe or to accept something as true. Thanks for confirming RIGHT THERE that your Atheism is a chosen metaphysical position, therefore a religious position.

    Check mate

    ReplyDelete
  44. D.A.N,

    >> I don't think this, or "believe" this, I know it for certain, as it is impossible to know anything absent certainty.

    If you know – for certain – your god is real, prove it he’s real (without viciously circular reasoning, without mentioning the bible, without mentioning your personal experiences/revelations...I want tangible and verifiable evidence (s) )

    >> Assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God.

    Did I ever say anything about my reasoning being or not being the evidence for god? No. All I said was: I don’t know if gods exists, but due the lack of evidence for their existence I don’t believe in them.

    You reasoning is not evidence for the existence of your god either. You think it is; for you, your god exists because you believe he does and you act like you know he does, when in fact you don’t. If you did know your god existed you wouldn’t need faith.

    >> The reason why I don’t care if gods exist or not is because they make no difference for me. Life is too short to be wasted thinking if there’s a god, if there’s a hell and a heaven, demons and angels or if there’s none of that.

    If – tomorrow – the christian god or Thor or Zeus or Vishnu or whatever god appeared to me and told me “I exist” I would say “Ok and I would continue living my life like I always did before finding out their existence.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Michelle,

    >>prove it he’s real (without viciously circular reasoning, without mentioning the bible, without mentioning your personal experiences/revelations

    I am not going to talk to you anymore. You keep screaming that I am not giving evidence. Yet I have time and time again. Do you want the links? I will provide them if I HAVE to but rather not research ALL of them to this point.

    Remember I linked to, and quoted from, Still No Evidence? That was the VERY SAME THING that you are claiming here. Read it.

    Remember when I quoted from The Arrogance of Atheism? That was the VERY SAME THING that you are claiming here. Read it.

    >>Did I ever say anything about my reasoning being or not being the evidence for god?

    YES!!! By claiming there is NO evidence!!! Unless you mean that you have no reasoning, then you give me pause and you may have a point. :7p

    >>You reasoning is not evidence for the existence of your god either.

    Back that up with EVIDENCE. Do you use your reasoning to test your reasoning? Obviously you do, which is viciously circular. With that line of thought, no one's reasoning could be invalid.

    >> If you did know your god existed you wouldn’t need faith.

    Do you even understand the term FAITH? Faith is trust. So how do you get not needing that from knowing God's existence? I still trust Him. Yes I know He exists. It does not follow.

    >>Life is too short to be wasted thinking if there’s a god, if there’s a hell and a heaven, demons and angels or if there’s none of that.

    Then GO AWAY!!!!! Why are you EVEN here then? For the friendly conversations?

    >>If – tomorrow – the christian god or Thor or Zeus or Vishnu or whatever god appeared to me and told me “I exist” I would say “Ok and I would continue living my life like I always did before finding out their existence.

    As you should. At lest you would know where that pretty little conscience came from and you reasoning would be saved. Salvation would ensue.

    Like we have always said, Not only did Christ's death and resurrection save souls for eternity, it saves our reasoning now.

    ReplyDelete
  46. D.AN,

    >> Are you giving me again the same “evidence” for the existence of god you gave me here text, which I refuted here text.?

    Links of your own blog (bias anyone?) is all you have about the evidence of your god? Can you – please – come with something new?


    >> I said there’s no evidence of any divine/supernatural entities whatsoever. Atheism is evidence for the non existence of gods? No. The same way theism is not evidence about the existence of a god (including the christian concept of god). Why? Because atheism and theism have to do with lack of belief and belief respectively; they have nothing to do with having knowledge about the non existence or existence of some god


    >> Do you even understand the term FAITH? Faith is trust. So how do you get not needing that from knowing God's existence? I still trust Him. Yes I know He exists. It does not follow.

    Faith is also (like I showed you before):
    - strong belief in god or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof
    - a system of religious belief: the christian faith

    See? You just “forget” the other definitions of faith to better suit yourself

    If you know your god exists, then prove it.

    >> But I guess you ate your own words; you said “I trust God until evidence will be revealed to me. From what I read, it will. I trust Him, for that glorious day, as a Good God.”

    So, no evidence about god was ever presented to you (or to anyone else for that matter) like you always claimed it was (and I quote you) “You see, as a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is.”

    >> Then GO AWAY!!!!! Why are you EVEN here then? For the friendly conversations?

    What? You got all mad because you finally realized you can’t seek and save “the lost”?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Gary H. said...

    Bare assertions, sophism and tripe. That's all. As always.

    I honestly couldn't have summed up your posts any better myself. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Ok, Gary....

    Atheists deny "objective truth"?
    7) Atheism thus requires, by default, the denial objective truth.
    Huh? Care to explain?

    They often say, "There is no truth".
    Who says that exactly. Examples with context, please. Were they talking about "any" truth, or just the "truth" about a particular subject?

    Why do I ask?

    Look at mathematics and the proofs therein.


    And so, "Atheism turns out to be too simple.
    Occam's Razor, baby.

    If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning;
    Why is that?

    just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."
    And this is evidence FOR your god, how, exactly? Appealing to wishful thinking or something??

    Atheism is thus deep foolishness and escapism and nothing more.
    Ah, no. For "escapism" you want people who expect eternal life after they die. Atheists figure that once this life is over, that's it.


    Screw it, I don't feel like going over this whole bale of straw Gary's set up.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Gary, do some actual reading of Darwin's works besides what the religious right bullshit artists say.

    The man did observations and tests of his theory before he published.

    Anyhow, Gary says:
    Darwinism is founded on metaphysics & materialism and not science, see - "The Darwin Myth: the life and lies of Charles Darwin" - ergo, its religion disguised as science.

    Well, let's see just how accurate that book by the Disco people is, shall we?

    Not very

    One of the lies from that book which the above site quotes:
    ===
    Darwin’s own theory supported natural slavery—an institution he detested

    This is a lie. Darwin’s theory showed that slavery was unnatural.

    Though they were at least right in that he hated it.
    =====

    And of course the old claim that it's evolution that justifies eugenics. Time for a reality check or two.

    Ok...three.

    That third one is a corker!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Smeg. That link about Darwin and slavery no longer works. Meh. Try this instead.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_1.html

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

    ReplyDelete
  52. Reynold said...

    Atheists deny "objective truth"?
    Huh? Care to explain?
    You've obviously never studied philosophy.
    You're not aware that this is standard atheist dogma?

    Who says that exactly.

    Look up the atheist philosophers - they pretty much all say this.
    Atheists right here as well.
    Look up the long debate here with atheist blogger Paul Baird.

    His premises from the start:
    "There is no absolute truth
    There are no logical absolutes
    There are no absolute moral values"

    i.e. no objective truth.

    Occam's Razor, baby.

    Ouch, you missed that one by a long shot Reyn.
    Too simple does not = simple.

    And this is evidence FOR your god, how, exactly? Appealing to wishful thinking or something??

    1) Sorry but atheism is the owner of wishful thinking.
    2) And no this isn't proof of my God - I have yet to mention my God for petes sake.

    Learn to read correctly please, i.e. what is said vs what you read into it yourself.

    This is rather evidence that atheism is wrong. And by the inverse, that either deism or theism are correct.

    Ah, no.

    Bare assertion.

    "Atheists figure that once this life is over, that's it."

    Exactly, atheists hope there will be no judgment of their actions and thus no punishment either - i.e. wishful thinking based on selfishness and mere denial.

    " Gary, do some actual reading of Darwin's works besides what the religious right bullshit artists say."

    ROTFLMHO
    - maybe you should check my blog huh?

    Maybe you should stop assuming things you have no clue on concerning your antagonists.
    Maybe you should stop using the standard atheist presumptuous assertions w/o facts.

    " The man did observations and tests of his theory before he published."


    No. He speculated the whole way through his books - as you would know if you knew anything about it.
    He was a die-hard materialist seeking to rid science of God. See - "The Darwin Myth: the life and lies of Charles Darwin"

    This is a lie. Darwin’s theory showed that slavery was unnatural.

    This is a lie, I see you know nothing of Darwins theory.

    Um gee whats the sub title of his book already?
    Oh ya, "...by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

    Favoured races? No racism there huh?

    "And of course the old claim that it's evolution that justifies eugenics. Time for a reality check or two."

    I only wish you weren't serious, pointing me to that den of idiocy called pandasthumb and its even more inane sister site talkorigins.

    No science there, just diatribe, lies, lies and more lies plus tons of rather suspicious omissions of facts, to more easily fool the gullible.

    Let's see now: Francis Galton, another materialist and C. Darwin's half-cousin, systematized eugenics according his views on the evolution of man and animals provided by the theory of evolution.

    Indeed.
    What scientific theory do you think the Nazis based their whole eugenics program on?
    Oops. What a surprise. Darwinism!

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

    You lose. Do your homework next time.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Gary quoting me:

    "Atheists figure that once this life is over, that's it."
    Exactly, atheists hope there will be no judgment of their actions and thus no punishment either - i.e. wishful thinking based on selfishness and mere denial.
    "Exactly"? Not even close! We don't "hope" anything. We don't believe, period. What you describe is closer to agnosticism than anything.

    And to top it off, you make accusations of "selfishness"?

    Ok, dimshit: You want selfishness? Here's selfishness: Hoping to live forever in paradise where all your needs and wants are met forever more. THAT is selfish! That is "wishful thinking"! At least in comparison to our belief that when one dies, it's over.

    You've obviously never studied philosophy.
    You're not aware that this is standard atheist dogma?

    Right...so Paul Baird said that there is no "objective truth" and you apply that to atheists in general?

    What was the context? What fields did he apply that to? I'll have to check out that debate. Or, I may just to to his blog later and ask. Anyway, I say again: Mathematics has objective truth. I think even he'd agree with that.

    No. He speculated the whole way through his books - as you would know if you knew anything about it.
    Given that you obviously never even read his "Origin" book, you're one to talk. Otherwise you'd know that an example of one of the "favoured races" he was referring to was different races of cabbages!

    He was a die-hard materialist seeking to rid science of God. See - "The Darwin Myth: the life and lies of Charles Darwin"
    Are you serious? I've already shown that the book you're referring me to is bullshit. Including that claim that Darwin wanted to get rid of god from science. Instead you ignore the link, and the points therein and just refer it to me AGAIN?


    Um gee whats the sub title of his book already?
    Oh ya, "...by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

    Favoured races? No racism there huh?


    Hey dumbass! Did you ever read Darwin's book?

    Here's a clue for you. Guess what one of the first examples of "favoured races" was? Cabbages! So, do you have a clue yet? Let me spell it out for you...The meaning of words sometimes change over time.

    "Races" back then ws closer to "varieties". Try reading what you're actually criticizing and maybe you'll bloody learn something.

    ReplyDelete
  54. continued
    Then when it comes to eugenics, you show not only ignorance but willfull ignorance by not even bothering to address the points brought up by those sites, instead you just act like a child and call names:

    I only wish you weren't serious, pointing me to that den of idiocy called pandasthumb and its even more inane sister site talkorigins.

    No science there, just diatribe, lies, lies and more lies plus tons of rather suspicious omissions of facts, to more easily fool the gullible.

    Sounds more like your blog to me, if what you say here is anything to go by.

    Anyway, here's a tip: Name-calling is NOT the same as REFUTING! Got it?

    You brought up Francis Galton. I can point out that Darwin found the idea reprehensible, and that there were creationists like that Dr. Tinkle guy (referrenced in that web site you didn't even bother to look at!) who had no problem with eugenics. Shit, he was one of the founders of ICR, with Gish and Morris.

    Here's another history lesson for you: When the big doo-da was held about evolution in the Dayton trial, guess what? The evolution section was taken out, the eugenics section was left in. The creationists didn't complain about that.

    And here's where you really fuck up: You claim that "Darwinism" is the "scientific theory" where the nazis got their ideas from?

    Why didn't you quote Mein Kampf then for some good material? Here's why: Darwin is not mentioned in that book, not once. Nor is his idea. Hitler credits a CHRISTIAN speaker named Karl Leuger for where he first got his antisemitic ideas from. As for science, if you actually did your own damned homework, you'd find reference after reference to the germ theory of disease. That is the comparison that Hitler used with the jews in his book.

    No mention of "darwinism" in the whole book.


    You want to see some real homework, you stupid little prat?

    Here it is, stored in cache since Comfort wiped out all the comments to that post. Just scroll on down to where my name first appears and you'll get a real history lesson on who really influenced the nazis.

    You really need to learn about eugenics.

    You won't read anything you don't like apparently so allow me to quote something to point it out to you:

    In fact, eugenics is pretty much as old as human society, and pervasive throughout its history. Most cultures of course have prohibitions against incest, and several US States still ban marriage even between third-degree relatives (first cousins). The Talmud explicitly endorses negative eugenics when it forbids marriage for individuals coming from families with perceived hereditary defects (e.g. lepers and epileptics), and positive eugenics by encouraging marriages with members of scholarly families (a bit self-serving from the highly educated Talmudic authors, for sure!). Greeks (not just the notorious Spartans, see also Plato and Aristotle) and Romans routinely and swiftly got rid of their “undesirables”, as many other cultures did (and still do) less officially and openly.

    And you tell me to do my homework??

    Thanks for the laugh, moron.

    ReplyDelete
  55. continued
    Then when it comes to eugenics, you show not only ignorance but willfull ignorance by not even bothering to address the points brought up by those sites, instead you just act like a child and call names:

    I only wish you weren't serious, pointing me to that den of idiocy called pandasthumb and its even more inane sister site talkorigins.

    No science there, just diatribe, lies, lies and more lies plus tons of rather suspicious omissions of facts, to more easily fool the gullible.

    Sounds more like your blog to me, if what you say here is anything to go by.

    Anyway, here's a tip: Name-calling is NOT the same as REFUTING! Got it?

    You brought up Francis Galton. I can point out that Darwin found the idea reprehensible, and that there were creationists like that Dr. Tinkle guy (referrenced in that web site you didn't even bother to look at!) who had no problem with eugenics. Shit, he was one of the founders of ICR, with Gish and Morris.

    Here's another history lesson for you: When the big doo-da was held about evolution in the Dayton trial, guess what? The evolution section was taken out, the eugenics section was left in. The creationists didn't complain about that.

    And here's where you really fuck up: You claim that "Darwinism" is the "scientific theory" where the nazis got their ideas from?

    Why didn't you quote Mein Kampf then for some good material? Here's why: Darwin is not mentioned in that book, not once. Nor is his idea. Hitler credits a CHRISTIAN speaker named Karl Leuger for where he first got his antisemitic ideas from. As for science, if you actually did your own damned homework, you'd find reference after reference to the germ theory of disease. That is the comparison that Hitler used with the jews in his book.

    No mention of "darwinism" in the whole book.


    You want to see some real homework, you stupid little prat?

    Here it is, stored in cache since Comfort wiped out all the comments to that post. Just scroll on down to where my name first appears and you'll get a real history lesson on who really influenced the nazis.

    You really need to learn about eugenics.

    You won't read anything you don't like apparently so allow me to quote something to point it out to you:

    In fact, eugenics is pretty much as old as human society, and pervasive throughout its history. Most cultures of course have prohibitions against incest, and several US States still ban marriage even between third-degree relatives (first cousins). The Talmud explicitly endorses negative eugenics when it forbids marriage for individuals coming from families with perceived hereditary defects (e.g. lepers and epileptics), and positive eugenics by encouraging marriages with members of scholarly families (a bit self-serving from the highly educated Talmudic authors, for sure!). Greeks (not just the notorious Spartans, see also Plato and Aristotle) and Romans routinely and swiftly got rid of their “undesirables”, as many other cultures did (and still do) less officially and openly.

    And you tell me to do my homework??

    Thanks for the laugh, moron.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Well, shit. The second part of my reply keeps disappearing. Oh well, I'll look again tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Reynold said...
    "Exactly"? Not even close! We don't "hope" anything. ...

    Wrong. Its amazing how little you atheists understand of your own position and its logical implications.

    Atheists make claims of being atheists because of :
    "no evidence for any god",
    or because "science has disproved the existence or need for any God",
    or because the god they invent is nasty and cruel,
    or because they got hurt by some religious person(s) and are angry at the non existent god, ... the vain excuses list is long...

    None of the excuses work
    - Science cannot prove there is no god. Indeed it has given us all the evidence we need for God.
    - Evidence for a God exists in everything that exists. Nothing that exists can be used as an argument against the existence of God.
    - Atheists merely deny all evidence, put on opaque blinders and yell, "I see no evidence!".

    Ok, dimshit:
    Thank you for that lame insult.

    Here's selfishness: Hoping to live forever in paradise ...

    Wrong. You don't understand faith or love either.
    And no, it won't ever be just over & then nothing.

    Right...so Paul Baird said that there is no "objective truth" and you apply that to atheists in general?

    Wrong... so you think Paul Baird made this up by himself? Where do you think he got it from?
    Look up the term relativism. Its an atheist invention, part of its implications.

    "..Mathematics has objective truth. I think even he'd agree with that."

    No he would not, as he denied it outrightly and even tried to prove it; using math believe it or not!
    Baird is copying his atheist idols.

    Given that you obviously never even read his "Origin" book, ...

    Duh gee, I have it on my hard drive as well as Decent of Man. You're the one thats clearly not read either.

    ... I've already shown that the book you're referring me to is bullshit.

    Ya right, you've shown nothing but your own gullibility for PT & TO tripe thus far.

    "Including that claim that Darwin wanted to get rid of god from science. ..."

    You link is bull shitting Darwinists trying to squirm out of the historical facts.

    Hey dumbass!
    Thanks again.

    Here's a clue for you. Cabbages!

    Wow. Really bad Rey
    Race does not apply to cabbage, sorry.
    Cabbages are not races. People are.
    TO is bull shitting you and you're swallowing it whole because you want to believe.

    I showed an exact quote wherein Darwin refers to blacks as "anthropomorphous apes".
    He also viewed women as inferior - what a surprise.

    I'm sorry but your ignorance of Darwin's books - not just one - and their meanings is salient.

    You clearly have no knowledge whatsoever of his private notes and letters either.

    Keep up the angst too.
    After 30+ years debating unthinking & incredibly stubborn atheists, I'm used to it and I'll gladly return the favor if you keep it up.

    Check out my blog for more complete answers.

    Go read the Irrational Atheist

    And http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth02.html

    You really need to look up William Lane Craigs site and read his answers to atheists.

    He trounces them in all the debates.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe.
    -Dr. Peter Kreeft, Professor of philosophy, Boston College and at the King's College

    Of course atheists now try to avoid the monkeys with typewriters argument since it is clearly against them. Still the atheist is obliged to believe that nothing created everything.

    A clearly faith-based position and evidently a folly since if science tells us anything it tells us that nothing creates nothing at all.

    ex hihilo nihil fit

    Atheists cannot prove, or even know, there is no God, therefore atheism is a position based entirely upon blind faith.

    Thats it, thats all.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Gary, you don't have a clue about atheism. All you do is make up strawmen and then pretend that it's US who don't understand OUR OWN POSITION.

    That's stupid, even for you. Let's go over this:

    Reynold said...
    "Exactly"? Not even close! We don't "hope" anything. ...

    Wrong. Its amazing how little you atheists understand of your own position and its logical implications.

    It's amazing to ME the amount of straw you can pull out of your ass.

    Atheists make claims of being atheists because of :
    "no evidence for any god",
    or because "science has disproved the existence or need for any God",
    or because the god they invent is nasty and cruel,

    We "invent"? Hey dumbass (again)...ever read the Old Testament lately? Or are you as ignorant of your own holy book as you are of Darwin's work? The behavior of your god is used as evidence that he could ot be the "good" god that your religion claims.

    or because they got hurt by some religious person(s) and are angry at the non existent god, ... the vain excuses list is long...

    None of the excuses work
    - Science cannot prove there is no god. Indeed it has given us all the evidence we need for God.

    Wrong. For an example, check out the size of the mustard seed. It is not the "least of all seeds". For that matter, science has disproved the biblical young earth, archeology has disproved many of the claims in the bible (Read The Bible Unearthed, The View from Nebo, and Out of the Desert--the last one by Steibing for examples.

    Of course you'll do what you did before, throw up names against well-researched and peer-reviewed science and criticize me for my "lame" insults. You are the one who made insults against two websites to which actual scientists contribute, by saying that they have no "science" in them and then refused to back up your rantings.


    Evidence for a God exists in everything that exists. Nothing that exists can be used as an argument against the existence of God.
    Laughter. Great, more presup circular reasoning bullshit. To which I say: Mustard seeds vs. orchid seeds. I'll let you remember the bible verse this shoots down.

    I'll also say: How would you counter a Muslim who claims that "everything is evidence for HIS god"? Then you'll see how useless presup really is.


    Atheists merely deny all evidence, put on opaque blinders and yell, "I see no evidence!".
    Wrong again. We provide counter evidence against. See for instance the list of books I just gave (which you'll never bother to read of course). Though not actually atheistic but just secular they do bring evidence against various biblical claims.

    By the way, if science tells us that "nothig creates nothing at all" where did your "god" come from?


    And you refer me to William pro-genocide and anti-evidence Lane Craig? Yeah.

    I know you show up in the pro-genocide topic defending that anti-human bullshit so don't bother pointing it out.

    Let's look to whether Craig wins because of his arguments or because of his experience as a debater, this guy has links to the answer as well as advice on handling Craig.

    Here's another example of a guy who won all his debates: Samuel Birely Rowbotham. A geocentrist who won all of his debates. Does that mean that he won because of his arguments?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Forgot, Rowbotham was also a flat-earther.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Reynoldo finally reveals, as atheists always do when pressed against the wall of facts, his true misguided and mean wretched self.

    His pure unadulterated codswallop is feverishly blind.

    His level of angst -for fear of the truth- went up about 50 points and he is now in on the verge of apoplectic seizure.

    Nothing worth a rebuttal though, so I'll just say a few obvious things about the inane drone logic of atheism.

    "In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music." R. Dawkins, --Out of Eden, page 133

    What a joyous philosophy huh. "blind pitiless indifference"

    Wow, great reason for living!
    Such feckless emptiness is the end of atheism.

    Atheists rarely know anything about logic or reason, even the highly educated ones - indeed they deny such things really exist by denying logical absolutes, but are too blind to see even this.

    In their darkened minds all thoughts whatsoever are just electro-chemical movements, due to external and internal stimuli. Atoms moving through their brains deterministically.

    If all thoughts are the results of non rational processes, no thoughts are rational. Rationality is an illusion under atheist logic thought they still strangely claim to be rational!

    They also claim there is no good or evil, no purpose, no right or wrong.

    But then not 2 seconds after, they always start accusing God and Christians of being wrong about this or that!!
    Duh!

    And lets not forget they claim there is no free will.

    "Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent." ~ William Provine

    Of course Provine said that out of natural forces at work in his body and brain, and not freely. Right? ;-)

    Don't ask him why, it doesn't matter since there is no purpose or meaning to life at all in the end anyway.
    More standard atheist doctrine.

    Atheisms prime axioms:
    Where do we come from?
    Nothing created everything by accident

    Where are we going?
    Eternal oblivion

    Who are we in the grand scheme of things?
    There is no grand scheme of things.

    Great world view huh. Sounds so exciting!

    I knew from step 1 that this little groveler Reyn was far from any honest desire to know any truth.

    Now its revealed, without his phony masks.
    His pretzel logic -high in fiber- makes great shit, but thats all.

    Sad but true.

    God have mercy on your wretched soul Rey.

    You are as honest a seeker of truth as much as men read playboy just for the articles!

    "The FOOL has said in his heart, 'No god!'. They are corrupt"

    End of File for you, I'm not interested in discussion with willful fools.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Hey Gary, you want to talk about "inane logic"? Guess what? You're relying on the fallacy of consequences of belief here when you do this:
    (big long Dawkins quote):

    What a joyous philosophy huh. "blind pitiless indifference"

    Wow, great reason for living!
    Such feckless emptiness is the end of atheism.

    Oh gee, atheism makes me feel bad. It takes away my feeling of being special. Therefore it must be wrong.

    Tough shit. Deal with it. Look at the examples given in the fallacy files site I gave above. Look familiar?

    What you're doing there could also be an example of appeal to emotion.


    And Gary continues making shit up about atheism, as well as not even understanding what he's talking about:

    In their darkened minds all thoughts whatsoever are just electro-chemical movements, due to external and internal stimuli. Atoms moving through their brains deterministically.
    Uh not quite. Ever hear of quantum mechanics? Ever hear that our brains our full of different neurological pathways that our impulses can follow. The individual paths are NOT rigidly determined.

    Here. Try learning something from my dealing with AIG dipshit Don Batten about this. My reply is the second quote in that post.

    If all thoughts are the results of non rational processes, no thoughts are rational. Rationality is an illusion under atheist logic thought they still strangely claim to be rational!
    Define "illusion" here. We can still feel emotions after all, even though it's just brain firings; how does that make emotions any less "real" to those who feel them?

    Same with rational thought. Does the fact that we came up with the idea that one plus one equals two in our heads as a result of our physical neurological processes mean that all mathematics is therefore bullshit?

    Care to explain this stupidity of yours?

    You know, if there was something else to our minds then our brains then kindly explain just why is it that when our brains are damaged or aged that our thought and emotional processes are messed up? How can that be except that it is those physical processes that enable our minds to work in the first place?

    Besides, that's even how your supposed god has our minds work, otherwise medical science would be pretty much useless, wouldn't it?

    This idea that our "minds/souls/whatever" can live on even after our brains have decomposes into dust has NO basis in medical fact.

    Deal with it.

    They also claim there is no good or evil, no purpose, no right or wrong.
    Uh, who again? We do agree that those things exist, just that we don't have any sky fairy telling us that. Not that it matters, because your god himself has no problem ordering the deaths of babies and pregnant women, yet you assholes pretend to be the ones who have "absolute morality? Take a fucking hike.

    But then not 2 seconds after, they always start accusing God and Christians of being wrong about this or that!!
    Duh!

    Because it's glaringly obvious? Like when "pro-life" people like Dan and Craig go on to defend fucking genocide?


    You claim that I'm not an "honest seeker of truth"?! Are you bloody joking? Did you read ANY of the articles I linked to, or the books I mentioned?

    Did you do ANY reading at all of the link I gave you to Ray Comfort's blog where I fucking demolish (with thorough documentation) the brain-dead idea that it was "darwinism" that led to anti-semitism?

    Yet you call ME the "fool"? Go do some homework, shit for brains and don't come back until you're learned something.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Reynoldo said ...

    "yada yada bowwow woof woof "

    Rey's now having apoplectic fits because his world view has been shown to be as empty of substance as his head is of reason.

    He goes on and on trying to prove that his useless, void of reason world view, is actually worth something -and in such typical, miserable fashion as atheists always do- shooting themselves in the head every time.

    Ray is desperate.

    Appeals to quantum physics are among the most ludicrous attempts of all at scurrying madly to find some scrap of evidence against God.

    Never works for them, but hey they have chosen to be irrational so what do they care!?

    I said EOF for you Rey.

    Would someone explain to Rey what EOF means, he doesn't get it.

    I will not be reading or answering any more of Rays utterly uninformed, equus asinus IQ level "diatribe of the day".
    ----------

    Atheists are very fond of proving, as Rey has here, that they have no support in either logic or facts.

    Indeed, they have a every reason NOT to think their own faculties are reliable.
    But then turn around and claim themselves rational - all while deny rationailty itself.

    Unfortunately most are too brainwashed in postmodernism and relativism to even see the logical links that prove this.

    Exactly as the it was written concerning atheists so long ago:

    "...their thoughts have become complete nonsense, and their empty minds are filled with darkness.
    Pretending to be wise, they became morons."


    Its just 99% of atheists that give a bad reputation to the rest.

    "An atheist is a man who looks through a telescope and tries to explain what he can't see....."
    O.A. Battista

    Atheists, you are very strange.

    You deny God, but spend so much time fighting him on web forums its insane.
    You know you have acute cognitive dissonance -as this fight of yours against allegedly nothing- makes no sense at all.

    Atheism is a world view that doesn't matter.


    So why are atheists always here trying to defend a world view that says there is no ultimate truth and the universe is feckless and indifferent and has no meaning?

    A clear self contradiction ubiquitous among you.

    If atheism were true, then nothing matters, all is permited and none will ever be judged for any actions whatsoever. Morality is as the Darwinian high priests themselves claim "NO MORE THAN A COLLECTIVE ILLUSION FOBBED OFF ON US BY OUR GENES FOR REPRODUCTIVE ENDS?" (Ruse Michael, Taking Darwin Seriously. Oxford: Blackwell; 1986).

    One inane "mind on hold" atheist explains it clearly enough.

    Sadly most atheists are so blinded by their angst against all religion and indeed, all reason, that they never figure that out.

    This is indeed demonstrated every time the blind atheist claims there are no moral absolutes, then turns around and condemns God and Xians for this or that moral offense - thereby assuming a moral absolute!!

    Thanks to Rey, dead fred etc. for proving this to us once again.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Gary says he won't respond any more? He just repeats the same shit over and over.

    He goes on and on trying to prove that his useless, void of reason world view, is actually worth something -and in such typical, miserable fashion as atheists always do- shooting themselves in the head every time.
    Notice his reliance on this fallacy YET AGAIN.

    Ray is desperate.
    Yeah, desperate to get you to actually try to refute or even acknowledge what I say in order to get you to back up your "arguments".

    Appeals to quantum physics are among the most ludicrous attempts of all at scurrying madly to find some scrap of evidence against God.
    Note how he ignored everything else I said, including the books I mentioned that refute claims of the bible agreeing with archeology.

    I brought up quantum mechanics to help show that our thoughts are not "deterministic" as you claim they are. Take a neurology course and learn something. There's a huge number of neurons forming a neural net in our brains, and the pathways are not rigidly defined as you'd like to pretend they are.

    By the way, this complaining about the so-called "deterministic" nature of naturalism, is, once again, a fallacy.

    And yes, it's the same one as before (and later).

    It wasn't a direct argument against biblegod.

    If you truly want determinism, go to your religious beliefs with a god who supposedly knows all that will happen in advance, and according to some sects like Calvinism, make all things happen according to his will.


    Atheism is a world view that doesn't matter.


    So why are atheists always here trying to defend a world view that says there is no ultimate truth and the universe is feckless and indifferent and has no meaning?

    A clear self contradiction ubiquitous among you.

    You still don't get it, do you? Just because there is no ultimate "meaning" does not mean that we can't come up with meanings of our own for ourselves. For some of us that's family. Others it's the continuation of the human race, etc. Do some actual reading of what atheists find important...or actually try asking them instead of cherry-picking and word twisting.

    Something that you're still not getting: You continue to use a logical fallacy when you harp on about atheism being a hopeless etc world view. As I pointed out once before: That has no bearing on whether atheism is true or not.

    We fight your blinkered religion because: It presents an inaccurate view of reality, it impedes scientific understanding of the world around us, it encourages persecution of those who your holy book tells you to, etc.

    In other words your religion (and others) besides being false on the face of it, also degrade the quality (and in the case of Calvinism) the value of human life.

    This is indeed demonstrated every time the blind atheist claims there are no moral absolutes, then turns around and condemns God and Xians for this or that moral offense - thereby assuming a moral absolute!!
    We don't have to claim "moral absolutes" in order to point out ONE example of ONE glaring moral inconsistency. "Moral absolutes" would entail that for possible moral situation there is an exact choice to make.

    That's not the case. However, it doesn't mean that we can't spot something that's so contrary to human well being as your god ordering the killings of babies and pregnant women.

    It's you who should be embarrassed at this point, because you people DO claim "moral absolutes" yet your own god goes against it.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Ah, I forgot to note Gary's further ignorance of Darwin's works.
    Gary
    I said EOF for you Rey.

    Would someone explain to Rey what EOF means, he doesn't get it.

    Look it up yourself. You've "responded" to me even though you said you wouldn't.


    Now, to this:
    Darwin referring to the different "races" of cabbages. Back then, it meant varieties.

    Gary's ignorance is shown here:
    Wow. Really bad Rey
    Race does not apply to cabbage, sorry.
    Cabbages are not races. People are.

    I KNOW that. I'm trying to make a point: He used "races" of "cabbages" because he was referring to their being different VARIETIES of cabbages. Just as he does for people, and other organisms.

    Get the point yet?

    You realize you had to pretend that Darwin did NOT talk about "races" of cabbages in your statement above? Are you that dishonest?

    By the way, it is you who said that "people are races". Guess what? In the modern usage of the term, science would disagree with you. We are all one race, just different varieties.

    Even Darwin came to realize that. Yet you're blaming HIM for racism?

    By the way, you may want to do some reading (in context for a change!) about Darwin's racism.

    He wasn't any more racist then any other englishman, european, etc at the time. Even Lincoln used what we'd now call derogatory remarks about non-white people.

    Darwin was a man of his time just like them. Evolution had nothing to do with it. If you imply differently, guess what? Ad-hominem fallacy.

    You'll notice if you bother to learn anything, that Darwin became less of a racist than he originally was as he gathered the observations which led to his theory.


    TO is bull shitting you and you're swallowing it whole because you want to believe.
    Back up your accusation. Quoting an old book of superstition can't count either.

    Why? I've asked once before: What are the chances of a holy book ever saying anything NICE about unbelievers?

    It's to be expected that it would contain insults against us. And of course the brainless followers just assume that it's true, no matter if they know atheists or not.

    Now, to TO: I've actually read at least some of their source material. By the way, back up your claims of their dishonesty.

    ReplyDelete

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