December 15, 2011

Defiance



Yet another one in Hell by choice. You cannot cry that we have NOT tried.

Regret = the Atheist's reality in Hell.


Update: Some think I hate Hitch in some way, and that I am glad that he is in Hell. Nothing can be further from the truth. I am frustrated and angry at his defiance. He is my favorite of the four horsemem. I want nothing more then for all Atheists to stop the denial, and this post is a plea.

Again, I beg you to repent and turn from rejecting the God you know exists, and accept the free gift of Jesus Christ's payment for your sins, so that you might be saved from Hell, spend an eternity with God, AND have a firm foundation for your reasoning NOW.

166 comments:

  1.      But, Dan, you haven't tried. Trying would be an attempt to convince. And you openly admit that you don't do that. If (for the sake of argument) your god is real, your "efforts" are like trying to "warn" someone of a collapsed bridge by donning a jester's costume doing a silly dance, falling down a lot, and saying "A snake is swallowing the sun, the mountains are turning into giant stone warriors, killer rabbits are invading the city, the bridge is out, gophers are killing people with the lasers in their eyes, and space aliens are kidnapping thousands." You have not tried. You only want to create a condition by which you can say "we told you so."

    ReplyDelete
  2. What a pathetic and shallow troll you are. Hope for a god because in reality, no one should forgive such a jerk.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hitchens was an intellectual giant. You are a brainwashed lackey.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If Hitchens is in Hell I'd gladly pay for a seat at that table, than spend an eternity with the people that run this "loving" page.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Heaven for the climate, hell for the company - Samuel Clements

    ReplyDelete
  6. You seem quite gleeful about that D.A.N.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I set up this blog so i could spread hatred and lies in the name of my delusion." Great job of already getting the wheels of intolerance rolling, loser.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I see the casting of some aspersions, but I see no debunking. It's a pity that when Christians say "debunking atheists" they mean "asserting our belief system without a shred of evidence whilst simultaneously asserting that atheists are evil jerks."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Your comments about a mythical Hell and how non-believers will suffer eternal regret make you appear like an idiot. Really, how can saying that people who do not believe in your fairy tale will suffer the horrible consequences of your fairy tale, be taken seriously? If a Star Trek geek told you that believers of Christ will be visited by Klingons and dealt with violently and suffer dishonorably for eternity plus a day in Gre'Thor unless they obeyed the rules of Stovokor, would you take that seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  10. There you go. Wait until AFTER a man passes to try to refute his point. You surely had no chance to do it while he was alive.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If people like you go to heaven, then I would be happy to go to hell!

    ReplyDelete
  12. prove there is a hell, then we can go about speculating who is there or not.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I fully concur with the above sentiments in reply to the ignorant savage who posted the Hitchens pic.

    Your religion, a vile base confection of bigotry, misogyny, immorality, hate and filth is the epitome of the intolerance only a collection of tribal goatherds could think was 'good'.
    Your hypocrisy knows not the limits of decency to let a man lie at rest.
    If hell were an actual place and Hitchens were there and assuming you are the sort who is going to heaven, the decision is easy for someone with a fully functioning brain.
    Save me a seat Hitch.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You should be ashamed of speaking ill of the dead. Did you even know this man? Who are you to tell me he is going to this MYTHICAL hell? That just shows you how "rotten, false, dishonest, corrupt, humorless and dangerous" you really are. Take a look in the mirror before you post something with such defamation of character.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Very christian thing to do - speaking ill of the recently departed. Where do you get your morals again? Looks like some are lacking.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh, and lets not forget...judgmental. Didn't jesus say "he who has not sinned cast the first stone?" hypocracy at its best.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hell: Failed argumentum ad bacculum.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Strange, you didn't make a big deal about Steve Jobs being in hell when he died. Oh right, you liked him, so I guess you have to pretend he isn't in hell.

    ReplyDelete
  19. D.A.N

    You are the living proof of intolerance, hatred and hipocrisy that your religion is all about.

    It's so rude of you to disrespect someone who just died just because he was an atheist. But - again - intolerance and bigotry towards those who don't believe in your god it's exactly what your religion preaches and what your bible tells you to do.

    ReplyDelete
  20. >>You should be ashamed of speaking ill of the dead.

    Is that WRONG to do? If so are you appealing to a moral standard, or merely your opinion? If its just opinions, is not everyone's opinion just as valid as everyone's else, in your worldview? In other words, HOW can anything be absolutely wrong, according to your worldview?

    ReplyDelete
  21. DAN -
    Yes speaking ill of the dead is morally wrong. Hitch isn't here to tear your head off for being a jerk. It is the same as talking bad about someone behind their back. It has a flavor of dishonesty and low character.

    Every person has a moral standard and their outlook frames their personal standard. In any group (say a church for example) each persons takes the moral instruction differently and to differing degrees or applies it differently.

    I do not believe anyone in this thread tried to push an absolute morality. You may be used to that kind being one of those types and all, but real normal people have no such surety in the morality dictated by a dictator.
    Especially when the dictated morality is evil to begin with.
    Then you have to consider Euthyphro's Dilemma:
    http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Euthyphro

    ReplyDelete
  22. DAN,

    >> "Is that WRONG to do?"

    Yes, Dan...it is. You are disrespecting someone you never met just because he was an atheist.

    How would you feel if a person spoke ill of someone who recently died just because this person was a christian? I bet you wouldn't be very pleased about it...and neither do I.

    It's very mean and disrespectful to wish bad things to someone based on this person's religious beliefs or non - religious ideology or for some worldview you disagree with. And it's even worse to wish bad things on someone who's dead since the person is not here anymore to defend her/himself.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Pvb,

    >>But, Dan, you haven't tried.

    Well, yes you're right, I have not pleaded with Mr. Hitchens personally but plenty of Christians have. Its all we can do. I am grateful that God gave him the opportunity to hear and KNOW the truth and reject it outright. But you cannot say that I have not tried personally with you, that is for sure. I wish daily that you would reject that failed worldview of yours. I will remain hopeful for you.

    >>Trying would be an attempt to convince.

    That is not how I see it at all. I see it as a plea to the person to change their craziness in that failed, absurd, worldview they hold so tightly. Of course convincing is out of our hands and why I, although sad choice it was, honor his decision to want to go to Hell. Free will must allow for choices like that. The best we can do to honor him is say, "I am grateful you received what you wanted."

    >>You only want to create a condition by which you can say "we told you so."

    Absolutely not, and that does not make sense. Granted I applaud God's decisions to grant what Mr. Hitchens wanted all along, eternity without Christ. But the ONLY way I can say "we told you so" is when I meet you in Heaven, where I will be. I doubt I would even say that. I would drop to my face crying and praising God when I will be able to hug you Pvblivs, as a brother in Christ in Heaven, if not sooner. Its a cause for celebration, not gloating.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Maxx,

    >>Strange, you didn't make a big deal about Steve Jobs being in hell when he died. Oh right, you liked him, so I guess you have to pretend he isn't in hell.

    I was a tad bit more respectful to Steve Jobs, granted.

    If you clicked the link that I provided in that post you would have read my plea to him. Here was my advice to Steve Jobs:

    "My advice to Jobs would be twofold: It is not your heart that you should follow because our hearts are deceitfully wicked.(Jeremiah 17:9) Follow that quiet, deeper, inner voice which is what I refer to as your soul of certainty. Your heart will tell you what you may want (desire), but your soul will tell you what you need to do to feel whole as a person. Also, Jobs needs to explore that spiritual side more. His fruit tells me his is not a Christian, because he was uncertain what that "calling" was, yet he kept faithful to it. Maybe someday he will know God with that same faith. Don't "stay foolish" for too long Jobs. (Psalm 14:1, Mark 8:36)"

    Obvious, he made his choices and maybe, because he thought of spiritual matters ALL the time he found God and is with Him. So I am not certain that he is actually in Hell. Especially, reading about his last words he said on his death bed, "Wow, wow, wow."

    I am an eternal optimist after all.

    A thought did flash to me that I must consider. Maybe, to save face in some sort of way, his family did not reveal Mr. Hitchens proclaiming Christ as Lord in his last days to his family.

    I must concede to that very hopeful possibility. I will praise God all the more if Mr. Hitchens is in Heaven and I will be able to meet him someday. Now we must work on that family that kept that great news from us, if that is indeed the case.

    Either way, God is glorified.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Sorry Max, the "FF" threw me in some Freudian way to spell your name "Maxx"

    ReplyDelete
  26. VVArlock,

    >>Yes speaking ill of the dead is morally wrong.

    Are you absolutely certain of that? If so, how?

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

    That being said, don't you think its honoring him, and NOT speaking ill of him, by celebrating his decision? Even though it was the wrong choice, as he now sees, I am honoring that choice he made in truth.

    You cry that its was wrong to say he is in hell but that is where he wanted to be all along. Its is you who is not honoring his choices.

    >>ref: Euthyphro's Dilemma

    There is no dilemma here at all. God does not say lying is wrong "because I said so" but he could say lying is wrong "because I do not lie." Morality is a reflection of the very absolute character and nature of God. Since God is the very standard of ‘good’, He cannot do evil, as this would require Him to contradict His character, which, again, is not possible. Your "dilemma" is reduced to the absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Michelle,

    >>It's very mean and disrespectful to wish bad things to someone based on this person's religious beliefs or non - religious ideology or for some worldview you disagree with. And it's even worse to wish bad things on someone who's dead since the person is not here anymore to defend her/himself.

    I completely disagree. Look at what I said ^above^ to VVArlock as point one. Second, I am honoring his wishes. It would be like someone having a living will for a DNR and you just ignore it and call it wrong to do so. Its honoring the person's wishes by proclaiming he is in hell, because that is what he CHOOSE to be.

    I am just honoring that "DNR" with respect. So you're completely wrong. So I do not have to ask if you're absolutely certain that I am wrong because as I just showed you that would be impossible for you to claim that. I will spare you that public humiliation to say you are absolutely certain that I am wrong, out of compassion towards you.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I agree with the sentiment. Defiance against Religiofascism. He showed how to speak for those who get ignored and trod upon. CH was a man of integity. Defaming his name will not make your position stronger. For a good debate on religion check out REASON podcast! 8pm Sundays and callers are welcome!!!
    http://wnyatheist.org/REASON.php
    (424) 243-9589

    ReplyDelete
  29. darwinseye,

    >>CH was a man of [integrity]

    Wow, marketing and advertising your own garbage on a blog that is talking about Hitch, the way you just did, from someone who proclaims knowing what "integrity" is cannot be taken seriously. You're joking right?

    ReplyDelete
  30. >>Defaming his name will not make your position stronger.

    Do you place ads on caskets too? Wow you're rich with irony Darwinseye. You have no "reason" to gloat about your positions on a podcast. I would ask you to try to be more consistent, but rather I urge you to repent instead.

    Hypocrisy = the Atheists tool for "reason"ing.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dan it IS wrong because you have just hurt a family that is already hurt enough. You are hateful and not taking others feelings into consideration. THAT IS WRONG because you are not even showing the "love of christ" as you preach.

    Again what gives you the right to publicly announce he is wrong long after he died? Does it even matter. Hes gone. And he isn't in hell. If he is PROVE IT. You can't because no proof exists.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Correction:

    *Its honoring the person's wishes by proclaiming he is in hell, because that is where he CHOOSES to be.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Roxy,

    >>Heaven for the climate, hell for the company - Samuel Clements

    I can relate, most all of my family are Atheists. My Dad said something along the same lines of "I am glad I will be in Hell, that is where all my friends are" which is stupid to me.

    Do you think there are reunions in Hell? Do you think it will be a joyous occasion to "meet up" with loved ones? Its called Hell for a reason. It is separation from Love, that is Hell. Isolation, separation, and condemnation describes Hell. Certainly better then "A celebration."

    Silly Atheist logic.

    ReplyDelete
  34. kikai93,

    >>I see the casting of some aspersions, but I see no debunking.

    You're debunked the very second you proclaimed your atheistic worldview. Its being incoherent.

    Question: Do you believe *the God of the Bible* exists?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Any claim made without evidence can be denied without evidence; there's no need to prove to D.A.N. that he's full of shit, he should have realized he is the moment he decided to spew out nonsense he can't actually prove.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Let me make this more child-like for D.A.N.: Can you actually prove, without reasonable doubt, that Hitchens is in hell? If so, I swear I will believe you.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Question: Do you believe *the God of the Bible* exists?


    No, I don't. Why? Because the bible is full of contradictions and I see its fallacy when I have studies other religions on and before that time, it all mirrors itself. The believers of yahweh just took other pagan beliefs of the time and molded it to their own cult following. Lets face the the ancient middle eastern nomads only cared about ruthlessly taking over others land. They wanted it and used god as the excuse. Even christ mirrors other pagan religions. The four gospels can't even get the birth or the resurrection right. You would think they would at least get together and get their stories straight before preaching it as truth.

    ReplyDelete
  38. DAN,

    >>"I completely disagree."

    Of course you disagree, Dan. No surprise there. You are an intolerant religious fundamentalist. You are evil enough to wish people to die and burn in hell and to threaten them with this hell absurdity just because they don't believe in your "oh, so loving/merciful god". People like you sickens me, you have no idea how. Sometimes I think I should feel sorry for you being so delusional and intolerant, but I don't. You are this way because you chose to be; because you chose to follow an imoral/intolerant book as guide for moral conduct.

    I don't wish bad on people because they are theists and have a religion. I'm not some intolerant bastard. I may not agree with their religion but I don't hold any grudge on them because they are religious.

    For the sake of argument, assuming heaven and hell really exist I prefer to be in hell with Mr. Hitchens than in heaven with you. Being in heaven with you for all eternity would be a punishment.



    >> "Its honoring the person's wishes by proclaiming he is in hell, because that is what he CHOOSE to be."

    Do you know what I think about this? You are the one who believes in god, in heaven, in hell and everything. You are the christian one. So, the rules of christianity are for you alone. Your god's punishment is for you. Heaven or hell is for you. Not for us, since we don't believe in it.

    Besides, prove hell exists in the first place and prove - with 100% certainty - that Hitchesn is in hell, then we talk about this "Hitchens' choice to be in hell" thing.

    ReplyDelete
  39. proudmtathiest,

    Question: Do you believe *the God of the Bible* exists?

    >>No, I don't. Why?

    OK now back up your positive claim.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Michelle,

    >>You are evil enough to wish people to die and burn in hell and to threaten them with this hell absurdity just because they don't believe in your "oh, so loving/merciful god".


    You have things backwards YET again. It is YOU who wishes people ill by denying them the truth about Hell. I warn them of that CHOICE. You deny Hell's existence and seek to convince people its not a real place. In truth I give them a plea to reality, you want to hide it.

    >>I'm not some intolerant bastard.

    So you're intolerant of my perceived intolerance? Bwahahaha

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Do you believe *the God of the Bible* exists?"

    No. I have not been given sufficient reason to believe in the existence of said god. Sufficient reason would consist of empirical evidence.

    "You're debunked the very second you proclaimed your atheistic worldview."

    Apparently you need to review the definition of the word "debunked", because your statement above is nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  42. DAN,

    >> Question to proudmtathiest: Do you believe *the God of the Bible* exists?

    >>proudmtathiest answers: No, I don't. Why?

    >> DAN: "OK now back up your positive claim."

    Oh, boy...positive claim? Where did you get that, DAN? What part of "NO, I DON'T" that proudmtathiest answered you didn't understand? It's a negative claim, not a positive one...my goodness!!!

    And - you should know by now 3 things:

    1st - proudmtathiest says "not to believe in the biblegod", not that "I know the bible doesn't exist". Your question shows exactly that: "Do you believe *the God of the Bible* exists?"...Saw the word "believe" there?

    2nd - It's not possible to prove a negative.

    3rd - The burden of proof is on you, since you are the believer one and you are the one who claims that your god is real.

    ReplyDelete
  43. ">>No, I don't. Why?
    OK now back up your positive claim."

    This is not a positive claim. You should probably go back to debate school while you're reviewing the definition of debunked.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Ricardo,

    >>Can you actually prove, without reasonable doubt, that Hitchens is in hell?

    I know it for certain because of revelation IF, Howard Huge IF, he died denying Christ as Lord. Like I said I cannot say that he did not do that and his family may have hid that from the public to save his legacy. So for now I cannot say with absolute certainty he specifically is currently in Hell. All his fruit pointed to that. But, as you know, I believe in miracles. So I will remain that eternal optimist and look forward to giving him a warm hug.

    ReplyDelete
  45. kikai93,

    Question: Do you believe *the God of the Bible* exists?

    >>This is not a positive claim.

    It certainly is an implicitly positive claim.

    Listen to the argument:

    God claims that everyone knows he exists. He claims that he created the world. He claims that his existence is necessary for knowledge, ethics, aesthetics, etc. In short, he makes a bold claim about everyone’s ability to reason, weigh evidence, draw conclusions, etc. He claims that none of those actions that we all do on a daily basis would be possible unless he existed as described in the Bible.

    So that opens up an interesting challenge to the atheist. They aren’t explicitly denying the existence of God when they say “I don’t believe he exists”, but they most definitely are *implicitly* denying his existence. Why is this? Well, it is because they are doing all these things that the God of the Bible claims ownership to, while at the same time they are saying “I don’t believe he exists.” They are relying upon all these basic beliefs that the God of the Bible claims *only* make sense if he exists.

    To say they don’t believe he exists is to say that it is *possible* to do these things (reason, weigh evidence, etc.) without him existing. But God says it is not possible to do them without him existing. Therefore (by implication) they are saying “This kind of God *does not* exist”.

    It isn’t an explicitly positive claim that God does not exist, but is rather an implicitly positive claim. Either way, it is a positive claim, and therefore they own a burden of proof.

    ReplyDelete
  46. kikai93,

    Question: Do you believe *the God of the Bible* exists?

    ">>No, I don't. Why?

    I asked: "OK now back up your positive claim."

    >>This is not a positive claim.

    It certainly is an implicitly positive claim.

    Listen to the argument:

    God claims that everyone knows he exists. He claims that he created the world. He claims that his existence is necessary for knowledge, ethics, aesthetics, etc. In short, he makes a bold claim about everyone’s ability to reason, weigh evidence, draw conclusions, etc. He claims that none of those actions that we all do on a daily basis would be possible unless he existed as described in the Bible.

    So that opens up an interesting challenge to the atheist. They aren’t explicitly denying the existence of God when they say “I don’t believe he exists”, but they most definitely are *implicitly* denying his existence. Why is this? Well, it is because they are doing all these things that the God of the Bible claims ownership to, while at the same time they are saying “I don’t believe he exists.” They are relying upon all these basic beliefs that the God of the Bible claims *only* make sense if he exists.

    To say they don’t believe he exists is to say that it is *possible* to do these things (reason, weigh evidence, etc.) without him existing. But God says it is not possible to do them without him existing. Therefore (by implication) they are saying “This kind of God *does not* exist”.

    It isn’t an explicitly positive claim that God does not exist, but is rather an implicitly positive claim. Either way, it is a positive claim, and therefore they own a burden of proof.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please tell me, without a lot of gobbledegook, where God says that everyone knows he exists, and who was he telling that to? a couple of people at the start of his world who he allowed to be evil? I certainly didn't know it as a child, and I've been fairly alert as an adult and I can't remember this nugget of know;edge coming to me then. You are wrong when you say I am actively suppressing my knowledge of him; I have no knowledge of him any more than I have knowledge of fairies, unicorns (oops, I think unicorns are mentioned in the bible so perhaps they are real...)

      Delete
    2. God revealed it through both natural and special revelations. You cannot escape the revelation. He spelled in out in one of the special revelations, the Bible, in Romans 1:18-23

      THAT’S why we send missionaries, because they are going to hell, for their sin against the God they know exists. If they didn’t know, sending missionaries would be the worst thing we can do for them. We should be sending wall building teams, to build walls around these communities. But the Bible says that everyone knows that God exists and that they are without excuse for the sin against Him. Even the people who profess another god, know the true God… Cause they are not going to be able to say, ‘Oh, I thought it was Allah. Uh, I guess I was wrong.’ No! They KNOW the true God that exists… Even you.

      God does not send people to Hell for denying what they do not know, but for sin against the God that they do know. Hell's gates will be locked from the inside, as CS Lewis pointed out.

      Because you have railed against God your entire life and not have God's will be done, i.e. repent and placing your entire trust in Jesus Christ for your Salvation with your heart, mind, and soul, then God will have your will be done and that is separation from Him. We call it despair.

      Delete
  47. Christianity is a death cult, and you are a ghoul.

    ReplyDelete
  48. That which can be asserted
    without evidence, can be dismissed
    without evidence.

    Christopher Hitchens

    ReplyDelete
  49. Rufus ,

    >>Christianity is a death cult, and you are a ghoul.

    Are you absolutely certain of that? IF so, HOW?

    ReplyDelete
  50. proudmtathiest,

    >>"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." ~Christopher Hitchens

    I agree as we have seen here:

    Question: Do you believe *the God of the Bible* exists?

    >>No, I don't.

    OK now back up your positive claim.

    So far we hear crickets

    ReplyDelete
  51. How can I prove a negative?? You are the one making the positive claim. The burden of proof lies with you. I am saying god DOESN'T exist, and you are saying he DOES! I have the negative stance. Does NOT! You on the other hand says he DOES...100% positive. PROVE it!

    ReplyDelete
  52. I gave you my reason for NOT believing in your god.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Proudmtathiest,

    Again by saying you do not believe the God of the Bible exists makes it an implicitly positive claim. The burden of proof is on you. Care to try, or one again is the Atheists position reduced to the absurd?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps a better phrase would be 'There is no god for me to believe in'

      Delete
  54. Proudmtathiest,

    >>I gave you my reason for NOT believing in your god.

    No, all you gave was gripes and complaints. Again, you made an implicitly positive claim to God's existence. Please provide some evidence for that.

    ReplyDelete
  55. You have made the claim that something that only exists in YOUR MIND is 100% undeniable truth. I cannot prove your imaginary friend exists just like you cannot prove my imaginary friend existed when I was a child. Grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  56. proudmtathiest,

    So your response to my question is with a Tu quoque fallacy? Please try again.

    If you wish to claim that your worldview, at this point, is reduced to the absurd as you attempted to admit with your "I cannot prove your imaginary friend exists ..." comment, I would welcome that.

    Otherwise, the record as it stands reveals that already. Thanks for playing along.

    ReplyDelete
  57. proudmtathiest,

    >>You have made the claim that something that only exists in YOUR MIND is 100% undeniable truth.

    This is getting better as you try. Please understand that your claim of "something that only exists in YOUR MIND" is a POSITIVE claim that you have to provide evidence for. Care to try?

    (resume ducking)

    ReplyDelete
  58. D.A.N., I don't think you understood what I was asking for.

    I want undeniable evidence that Hitchens is in hell, all you did was provide me with your bias... bias is not evidence.

    You said so yourself, "I cannot say with absolute certainty he specifically is currently in Hell." You clearly have no clue whether he's in heaven or hell, you're just saying he's in hell out of personal spite for atheists' beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Reading through.....wow, Dan, I previously thought you were a cunt, now I KNOW you're a cunt.

    Cunt.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Ricardo,

    >>You clearly have no clue whether he's in heaven or hell, you're just saying he's in hell out of personal spite for atheists' beliefs

    WRONG! I am saying he is in Hell based on the current evidence at hand. More evidence may come into light in the future, as his family may reveal him proclaiming Christ as Lord in repentance, but until then it is a fact he is in hell. I would love to be wrong, but that is not what the evidence reveals.

    Does science, or you, have "undeniable evidence" for anything you claim? Otherwise, its a relativist fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Dan, evidence that hell exists, or shut the fuck up.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Ok, Dan...let me try to spell it out for you even though many others here have tried:

    You said: D.A.N. said...

    Correction:

    *Its honoring the person's wishes by proclaiming he is in hell, because that is where he CHOOSES to be.


    WRONG! One cannot CHOOSE hell if one does not BELIEVE in hell! Simple as that, got it? Hitchens and every other non-deluded person in the world does not believe in any heaven or any hell.

    How would you feel if a Muslim told you that you had "chosen" the Muslim "hell" by not worshipping Allah?

    It is precisely that kind of arrogance inherent in religion that many sane people find so damned irritating.

    Now, to your weirder claim:
    There is no dilemma here at all. God does not say lying is wrong "because I said so" but he could say lying is wrong "because I do not lie."
    Bullshit. I brought up an example in my debate with Dustin of biblegod telling Samueal to lie.

    Morality is a reflection of the very absolute character and nature of God. Since God is the very standard of ‘good’, He cannot do evil, as this would require Him to contradict His character, which, again, is not possible. Your "dilemma" is reduced to the absurd.
    So then genocide is "good"? Enforced rape (of the virgin Midianite virgins is "good"? All that shit is "good" when biblegod does it?

    Shouldn't "absolute" morality at least be consistent??

    Those are the same actions that the WORST of humans do, yet when your god does it, it's "good"! You can not have a god who acts like that and then claim that he is "the standard of good" when it's considered to be evil when humans do those very same actions.

    ReplyDelete
  63. dan said

    Do you think there are reunions in Hell? Do you think it will be a joyous occasion to "meet up" with loved ones? Its called Hell for a reason. It is separation from Love, that is Hell. Isolation, separation, and condemnation describes Hell. Certainly better then "A celebration."

    ========================
    No, because I don't think hell or heaven exists. The quote is funny and smart, as was Mr. Clements (I personally prefer his style to Mr. Hitchens'.)

    If they did exist I can't imagine being much happier in heaven than in hell. What do you do after the first year? after the first decade? after the first century? after the first millennium? I get bored if there's not enough action in a 2-hour film!

    Plus, in heaven you are apparently aware of the people in hell (rich man & lazarus.) I know I could not be happy living with the knowledge that people like me, or Mr. Clements (an atheist) were being tortured for all eternity.

    ReplyDelete
  64. You know Alex: I originally thought that you were going too far when you were calling Dan that...I was actually tempted to ask you to maybe moderate your tone...

    After reading this page, that temptation is now gone.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Dan is a vile excuse for a human being. He should be fucking ashamed.

    ReplyDelete
  66. So dan....Let's say you're wrong and the muslims are right? If you kill yourself in the name of allah you have 72 virgins waiting for you. If you deny the existence of allah you face the same exact torture you are claiming Christopher Hitchens is possibly going through. Prove to me they are wrong and you are right. They believe it as strongly as you do. Whose right?

    ReplyDelete
  67. and don't use the bible as your "proof" because a muslim could use the quran as "proof'

    ReplyDelete
  68. Hi Dan,

    Would you say that hell is a blessing?

    Ydemoc

    ReplyDelete
  69. Dan:
    WRONG! I am saying he is in Hell based on the current evidence at hand. More evidence may come into light in the future, as his family may reveal him proclaiming Christ as Lord in repentance, but until then it is a fact he is in hell. I would love to be wrong, but that is not what the evidence reveals.

    Does science, or you, have "undeniable evidence" for anything you claim? Otherwise, its a relativist fallacy.

    What evidence, Dan? The claims you made about scientific foreknowledge in the bible fell apart (for those who were wondering, that is the Dan that one was once able to actually talk to, before the bugger Sye came along) the prophecy claims similarly fell, now you're reduced to this idiotic presup bullshit where all you do is make baseless assertions that are nothing but circular reasoning, yet you're calling others out on "fallacies"??

    ReplyDelete
  70. Reynold,

    Read the last thing in that first post of mine you offer:

    "I am sure your presuppositions are still in place."

    It was a post about Presupps silly. I do admit that in talking to Sye, and reading Scripture, I understood that I was bringing evidence for you to place God on trial many times. That is unbiblical and helped me change my approach on many things here.

    Are you proclaiming you do NOT change your Dogma? That IS understandable if you do.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I just want to know if hell is a blessing. Dan? Anybody?

    Ydemoc

    ReplyDelete
  72. hell is neither a blessing or a curse because it doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Dan:

         Truth is happy to present evidence. Lies use the claim that evidence is "unbiblical." So, I ask you flat out. Is your god a lie? Your answer is in your actions. If you continue to use Presuppositional Baloney, you are asserting (by deed) that your god is a lie.
         Incidentally, if you don't want your god on trial, close up your religion. Any claim you make for your god, your heaven, or your hell, automaticly places the ideas on trial. You, presumably, want us to believe. Then we must pass judgement. Even if we were to come to the conclusion that you want, it would still be passing judgement. PB is the ultimate in saying that christianity is a lie. Unless you correct your ways, I will be required to assume that you believe christianity to be a lie and, as such, hostile to evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  74. proudmtathiest said: "hell is neither a blessing or a curse because it doesn't exist."

    Thanks for your response, prudmtathiest! Dan, what do you think, is hell a blessing?

    Ydemoc

    ReplyDelete
  75. So, dan, are you not allowed to question your faith? Are you not allowed to put god on trial? Why not? If you don't question what you are told you are a mindless sheep following the assumption of the christian god, while denying allah...just like muslims are mindless sheep following the assumption of allah, and denying the christian god. Both are imaginary, and both play on fears of a supposed afterlife. That's why they lasted so long. And that's why I refuse to fall into your scare tactics. I am not mindless, and I sure as hell am not spineless.

    ReplyDelete
  76. "Are you absolutely certain of that? IF so, HOW?"

    Because of the actions and words of Christians like you.

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

    ReplyDelete
  78. Reynold,

    >>WRONG! One cannot CHOOSE hell if one does not BELIEVE in hell! Simple as that, got it?

    Wrong! You choose to die if you jump out a window proclaiming NOT to believe in gravity. You're silly, once again, in your logic.

    >>Hitchens and every other non-deluded person in the world does not believe in any heaven or any hell.

    Does that alone make it not exist? That false argument should be obvious to you at this point.

    >>How would you feel if a Muslim told you that you had "chosen" the Muslim "hell" by not [worshiping] Allah?

    Would not bother me at all, in the least. That is like saying why am I not upset that the FSM doesn't exist. I, and you, know the truth and anything else is just bare assertions that are not justified true beliefs.

    >>It is precisely that kind of arrogance inherent in religion that many sane people find so damned irritating.

    How ironic dork. You have been spouting your dogma for years now.

    >>Shouldn't "absolute" morality at least be consistent??

    You may have a rescuing device that says otherwise, but that is for you to work out.

    ReplyDelete
  79. That was a very good question Ydemoc. And obviously something that dan just doesn't want to answer. Sad really. Hypothetically speaking I would much rather live a full life and go to hell then be murdered at such a young age. There is so much life has to offer and I wouldn't trade it for anything.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Maybe I should ask it another way: If someone ends up in hell at the end of a long life, wouldn't it have been better for that person if they would have been murdered before the age of accountability? Or is living a full, yet hell-bound life considered better for that person than being murdered before the age of accountability, i.e., a premature death which would have guaranteed entrance into heaven?

    Ydemoc

    ReplyDelete
  81. proudmtathiest said...
    So, dan, are you not allowed to question your faith? Are you not allowed to put god on trial? Why not? If you don't question what you are told you are a mindless sheep following the assumption of the christian god, while denying allah...just like muslims are mindless sheep following the assumption of allah, and denying the christian god. Both are imaginary, and both play on fears of a supposed afterlife. That's why they lasted so long. And that's why I refuse to fall into your scare tactics. I am not mindless, and I sure as hell am not spineless.

    ReplyDelete
  82. proudmtathiest wrote: "That was a very good question Ydemoc."

    Thanks, proudmtathiest. The question now comes after your compliment, since I deleted it and then edited it for clarity. But at least now you will look like a prophet.

    Ydemoc

    ReplyDelete
  83. lol It's supernatural! I had divine intervention! LMAO

    ReplyDelete
  84. "It certainly is an implicitly positive claim."

    No, it isn't. Google the definition of implicit, and while you're at it refresh yourself on the definition of a positive claim.

    "Listen to the argument:"

    You're typing, not speaking.

    "God claims that everyone knows he exists. [snipped for brevity, you assert your god makes several claims on his own behalf]"

    Shiva, Allah, Ra-Hoor-Khuit,Osirus, Amaterasu and the Purple Unicorn all claim to exist. They all make similar claims to supreme deity and similar claims as to an all-pervasive nature. Your god is not unique. Why do you not believe the claims of Shiva, Allah, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Osirus, Amaterasu, and the Purple Unicorn? Please answer each in turn.


    "So that opens up an interesting challenge to the atheist."

    No, it doesn't. There is no evidence of a god making claims. There is no evidence for the existence of a god. There is no reason to believe in either.

    "They aren’t explicitly denying the existence of God when they say “I don’t believe he exists”, but they most definitely are *implicitly* denying his existence."

    No, that simply isn't true.

    "Why is this? Well, it is because they are doing all these things that the God of the Bible claims ownership to, while at the same time they are saying “I don’t believe he exists.”"

    Why should I believe a god has claimed anything, when there is no evidence for the existence of said god? You're putting the cart before the horse.

    Also, you disbelieve the claims of Shiva, Allah, Amaterasu, and the Purple Unicorn. Why is that?
    You can't apply my reasoning, because there is a god claim you accept. Why are you willing to accept some propositions without evidence, but not others?

    "To say they don’t believe he exists is to say that it is *possible* to do these things (reason, weigh evidence, etc.) without him existing."

    There is no reason to believe otherwise.

    "But God says it is not possible to do them without him existing. Therefore (by implication) they are saying “This kind of God *does not* exist”."

    No, we're saying there's no reason to believe that your god exists, and there is thusly no reason to concern ourselves with the further claims of your religion.

    "It isn’t an explicitly positive claim that God does not exist, but is rather an implicitly positive claim. Either way, it is a positive claim, and therefore they own a burden of proof."

    This was a very long and obfuscatory rant on your part attempting and failing to shift the burden of proof, well accepted by theist and atheist alike on the matter for centuries, from the theist, where it belongs, to the atheist, which makes no sense. It seems you're more interested in "scoring points" and "winning the internets" than in the truth, which is sad.

    ReplyDelete
  85. "Wrong! You choose to die if you jump out a window proclaiming NOT to believe in gravity. You're silly, once again, in your logic."

    Whereas there is ample evidence for gravity, there is no evidence for the existence of your god. Given the evidence, it is foolish NOT to believe in gravity. Given the lack of evidence, it is foolish to believe in your god.

    ReplyDelete
  86. "Does that alone make it not exist? That false argument should be obvious to you at this point."

    You're approaching this from the wrong direction. What reason is there to believe that hell exists? If I've no reason to believe it exists, then it is foolish to believe that it exists.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Pvb,

    >> Is your god a lie?

    Of course not. The real rub is that you know that also.

    >> If you continue to use Presuppositional Baloney, you are asserting (by deed) that your god is a lie.

    Because you say so? Oh that is understandable because you want your god to be "self"

    >> Any claim you make for your god, your heaven, or your hell, [automatically] places the ideas on trial.

    No proclaiming the good news is not giving evidence for others to evaluate God's existence. In Acts 17, Paul proclaimed it as fact while preaching to philosophers. He PRESUPPOSED God's existence. Its a Biblical position.

    >>Then we must pass judgement.

    Or stop denying it, is more like it.

    >>Even if we were to come to the conclusion that you want, it would still be passing judgement.

    Not so. Its admitting to the facts. You're not "passing judgement" on gravity are you? You accept gravity as a fact.

    >>PB is the ultimate in saying that christianity is a lie.

    Is this you barely asserting or proclaiming without evidence? Either way, you're wrong.

    >> Unless you correct your ways, I will be required to assume that you believe [Christianity] to be a lie and, as such, hostile to evidence.

    What "evidence" is that? I have yet to see any.

    ReplyDelete
  88. And yet again you refuse to answer my questions. Whose right? and Why can't you question your faith? Why can't you put god on trial?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Oh and I accept gravity as fact because if I drop a bowling ball out my apt window it's not going to float away. The law of gravity says it will fall to the ground. That is proof that gravity works. I can experiment with it all day and still get the same results. If on the other hand the bowling ball does float away (very unlikely) the the scientific community will experiment and write a new law explaining the new changes. Faith on the other hand does NOT change. God is real because you say so and that is the end of it. No experiments, no proof, just blind and mindless faith in your words. I can't take your word as "gospel" (pun intended) because you lack the proof. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  90. ProudmtAthiest,

    >>and don't use the bible as your "proof" because a muslim could use the quran as "proof'

    I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Ydemoc,

    >>Would you say that hell is a blessing?

    Hmm, wow Good question. I would say it glorifies God. I guess I can say its a blessing to those that wish not to be with God for all of eternity. They detest God as it is. It would crawl their skin to see God daily. So for an Atheist, it might be a blessing. For me, Hell would be my deserved punishment for my transgressions. That is me though.

    ReplyDelete
  92. ProudmtAthiest,

    >>Are you not allowed to put god on trial? Why not?

    Are you, as a criminal, allowed to place a judge on trial? Nope.

    >>Both are imaginary, and both play on fears of a supposed afterlife. That's why they lasted so long.

    And yet ANOTHER knowledge claim for us to examine. You speak as if you are certain about this. Are you? If so, HOW?

    >>I am not mindless, and I sure as hell am not spineless.

    Are you trying to convince me or you? :7)

    ReplyDelete
  93. Not at all. The quran claims allah is omniscient and omnipotent. Same story different gods. Well kind of. They both came out of the same region at the same time. And both were pretty ruthless and nasty. Luckily, christians no longer follow the ot laws. Although it's extremely hypocritical especially when jesus himself said "he didn't come to abolish the old laws but to fulfill them."

    I am saying they both make that claim, so why is it your convinced god is the truth, the way and the light?

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

    ReplyDelete
  95. D.A.N., that wasn't evidence. You have not...

    1. Proven hell exists
    2. Proven that what Hitchens did, or didn't do, would condemn him to hell
    3. Proven Hitchens's soul is there in actuality

    All you did was speculate on whether or not he was based on what you believe would cause him to go to hell. No hard evidence has been provided.

    "Does science, or you, have "undeniable evidence" for anything you claim? Otherwise, its a relativist fallacy."

    I haven't made any claims in regard to science, nor have I said that science doesn't need to provide undeniable evidence. I don't see how a relativist fallacy is possible in this situation. You're making a straw man.

    Edit

    ReplyDelete
  96. Ydemoc,

    >>If someone ends up in hell at the end of a long life, wouldn't it have been better for them if they would have been murdered before the age of accountability?

    That would be birth. Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3

    >>Or is living a full, yet hell-bound life, considered better for them than them being murdered before the age of accountability and, therefore, ending up in heaven?

    We are all hell bound. Its by the saving grace of Christ, our Lord, we are saved. You are making WILD assumptions about who goes to Hell, or not.

    Also, that reminded me of something said:

    "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." ~Ronald Reagan

    I digress.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I actually haven't made any arguments at all, I'm only asking you to extrapolate on the baseless claims you've made so far, but you're obviously trying to avoid doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  98. D.A.N. said...

    Reynold,

    >>WRONG! One cannot CHOOSE hell if one does not BELIEVE in hell! Simple as that, got it?

    Wrong! You choose to die if you jump out a window proclaiming NOT to believe in gravity. You're silly, once again, in your logic.
    Someone already pointed out to you that the evidence for gravity is easily seen and demonstrated. Not so for biblegod.

    Or would you like to take the poison test as described in Mark?

    Hitchens and every other non-deluded person in the world does not believe in any heaven or any hell.
    Does that alone make it not exist? That false argument should be obvious to you at this point.
    I was simply pointing out that they didn't believe in hell, therefore they can't actually CHOOSE it.

    How would you feel if a Muslim told you that you had "chosen" the Muslim "hell" by not [worshiping] Allah?
    Would not bother me at all, in the least. That is like saying why am I not upset that the FSM doesn't exist.
    Just as your god doesn't. Though if it's said over and over and over again in lieu of having an intelligent conversation, I wager you'd get annoyed eventually too.

    I, and you, know the truth and anything else is just bare assertions that are not justified true beliefs.
    That religious arrogance again. Sorry Dan, just asserting something does not make it true. Think: If we all already knew that biblegod existed, then what the fuck are missionaries for? Why would biblegod "reveal" to everyone his existence BUT withhold the "solution" until the missionaries came?

    It is precisely that kind of arrogance inherent in religion that many sane people find so damned irritating.
    How ironic dork. You have been spouting your dogma for years now.
    Uh, dumbass...have I ever gone around saying that you actually KNOW that there is no god? That would be the atheist equivalent of your constantly saying that we all "know" that your god exists! Grow a brain, idiot.


    Shouldn't "absolute" morality at least be consistent??
    You may have a rescuing device that says otherwise, but that is for you to work out.
    No, it's for YOU to work out. YOU are the one who claims that his god is the standard of morality yet that same god orders genocide many times. Dustin and I got into that in our debate, but unfortunately I didn't think of this point in time: If god was "justified" in ordering the slaughter of the Amelekite babies because they'd somehow "corrupt" Israel, then how much more likely would teenage Midianite virgin women be able to? Yet THEY were spared.

    Care to explain?

    ReplyDelete
  99. kikai93,

    >>You're typing, not speaking.

    Ohh snarky! Touché

    >>Shiva, Allah, Ra-Hoor-Khuit,Osirus, Amaterasu and the Purple Unicorn all claim to exist. They all make similar claims to supreme deity and similar claims as to an all-pervasive nature. Your god is not unique. Why do you not believe the claims of Shiva, Allah, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Osirus, Amaterasu, and the Purple Unicorn? Please answer each in turn.

    CCongratulations, you've just given up your atheism to defend your atheism, and (2) you've provided us no predictive prophecy grounded in historical events, etc., (3) and thus given us no good reason to believe in your god over a uniplural Flying Spaghetti monster.

    >>There is no evidence of a god making claims.

    You mean like the Bible? Because, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.

    >>There is no evidence for the existence of a god.

    Your ability to reason is evidence for God. I don't expect you to like what I write. 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.

    >>You're putting the cart before the horse.

    Actually you are now.

    >>This was a very long and obfuscatory rant on your part attempting and failing to shift the burden of proof,...

    How you people can be so blind never ceases to amaze me. The way that a transcendental claim is refuted is to demonstrate that claim is not the necessary precondition for the thing claimed, i.e. to demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic. You cannot show evidence for the necessary precondition of evidence, cause then it wouldn't be the necessary precondition of evidence!

    (Alright, this is where you say AHA, so there is no evidence that God is the necessary precondition for evidence - I win!)(And then I become even more amazed at how blind you really are).

    The God of Scripture is the only God that exists, by the impossibility of the contrary.

    Just because you do not understand what is necessary to defeat a transcendental argument, does not change the fact that you cannot defeat it.

    ReplyDelete
  100. ProudmtAthiest,

    >>Not at all. The quran claims allah is omniscient and omnipotent. Same story different gods.

    *sigh So NOW you're defending your worldview with a Muslims worldview? Congratulations, you've just given up your atheism to defend your atheism. *pshaw

    ReplyDelete
  101. Reynold,

    >>Someone already pointed out to you that the evidence for gravity is easily seen and demonstrated. Not so for biblegod.

    Insert Cartoon HERE. You knew that was coming.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Reynold cont'd,

    >>If god was "justified" in ordering the slaughter of the Amelekite babies because they'd somehow "corrupt" Israel, then how much more likely would teenage Midianite virgin women be able to? Yet THEY were spared.

    >>Care to explain?

    God has a morally sufficient reason for all of this. I suggest you ask Him. John 14:26, 1 John 2:27

    Its already been pointed out the fact that many have been trying to show you the truth so that you can repent, but that's wrong, you will not be able to see the truth UNTIL you repent. Huge difference.

    ReplyDelete
  103. >>Not at all. The quran claims allah is omniscient and omnipotent. Same story different gods.

    *sigh So NOW you're defending your worldview with a Muslims worldview? Congratulations, you've just given up your atheism to defend your atheism. *pshaw







    ****facepalm*****No I just refuse to be ignorant about what the world thinks and believes. If you both claim to be right, I want to know WHY you think you are. DEFEND YOUR GOD and QUIT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT I SAID OR WHY!!! ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  104. Also, that reminded me of something said:

    "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." ~Ronald Reagan


    And anyone who can claim with certainty that heaven or hell exists is already dead. The living evaluate evidence (or the lack of it).

    ReplyDelete
  105. But I probably won't get the answer because I have to repent first. Muslims would say the same thing....I am not buying either story because I am not convinced. You've got your head shoved so far up your ass, you couldn't give a logical answer if your life depended on it. You are just an ignorant fool.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Dan quoting me:
    >>If god was "justified" in ordering the slaughter of the Amelekite babies because they'd somehow "corrupt" Israel, then how much more likely would teenage Midianite virgin women be able to? Yet THEY were spared.

    >>Care to explain?


    God has a morally sufficient reason for all of this. I suggest you ask Him.Why? Aren't you the one who's recieving "divine revelation" from him? Isn't that how you "justify belief in your senses" and shit? So come on, answer the question.

    John 14:26, 1 John 2:27
    Uh, those verses don't even deal with this topic.

    In other words, shut the fuck up and don't question biblgod. Right...with that attitude, anyone can have a "morally sufficient" reason to do anything. So, when the double-standard of morality is pointed out, you just evade.

    Its already been pointed out the fact that many have been trying to show you the truth so that you can repent, but that's wrong, you will not be able to see the truth UNTIL you repent. Huge difference.
    Classic xian circular reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  107. >>ANSWER THE F... QUESTION!!!!

    Become a Muslim and we can have THAT debate. Since this is "Debunking Atheists" I will stick with that for the moment.

    >>Muslims would say the same thing....I am not buying either story because I am not convinced. You've got your head shoved so far up your ass, you couldn't give a logical answer if your life depended on it. You are just an ignorant fool.

    What you're doing is called moving the goal posts. Just stick with your professed worldview and try to defend it. I perfectly understand why you wish to move off of it though.

    This is like an unarmed criminal mocking a policeman for not giving up his gun. The reason for the mockery is obvious, but surely it would be foolish for the cop to hand over his gun?

    ReplyDelete
  108. >>And anyone who can claim with certainty that heaven or hell exists is already dead.

    HOW are you absolutely certain of this POSITIVE claim of yours? If the "living evaluate evidence" then provide some so we can.

    **rests chin on fists

    ReplyDelete
  109. Yes, I knew you'd post that cartoon...sigh

    In real life, it was looking at nature closely that SHOT DOWN young earth creationism, as pointed out in the book The Creationists by Ronald Numbers. I also know that I've posted material from personal testimonies of people who converted from YECism. Note especially Steve Robertson's story.

    It was looking closely at nature that made people like him give up YECism and almost made the man loose his faith.

    Besides, even if one were to ignore all of the above: where in ANY of that is there a sign saying: "biblegod made this" as opposed to "(any other god one can name) made this"?

    ReplyDelete
  110. You are still not defending your reason for believing...lets say (hypothetically) I am on the fence post about which religion to turn to. I am an atheist looking for more meaning in my life...(lol, not likely but this IS hypothetical after all) You want to make sure I make the right choice because lets face it. My eternal life depends on it. You want to have this blog to convince atheists to sway to your side. So sway me! What is it? Why should I believe you and not the muslim?

    ReplyDelete
  111. Dan
    The God of Scripture is the only God that exists, by the impossibility of the contrary.
    Right...and ANY memeber of ANY other religion can say the exact same thing and how would you deal with that?

    That's why this circular reasoning is so useless. All it does is cement one in their beliefs, no matter how baseless, no matter what the evidence is either way.

    Just because you do not understand what is necessary to defeat a transcendental argument, does not change the fact that you cannot defeat it.
    It's the reason that one supposedly "cannot defeat a so-called transcendental argument" is the point here. See what I said above.

    For an example: "All presupper christians are fucked in the head, due to the impossibility of the contrary".

    ReplyDelete
  112. Dipshit Dan missing the point again...
    D.A.N. said, quoting proudmtatheist

    >>ANSWER THE F... QUESTION!!!!

    Become a Muslim and we can have THAT debate. Since this is "Debunking Atheists" I will stick with that for the moment.

    Muslims would say the same thing....I am not buying either story because I am not convinced. You've got your head shoved so far up your ass, you couldn't give a logical answer if your life depended on it. You are just an ignorant fool.
    What you're doing is called moving the goal posts. Just stick with your professed worldview and try to defend it. I perfectly understand why you wish to move off of it though.

    Wrong. No goalposts are being moved...it's just being pointed out to you that the "logic" you use to defend your faith would work just as well with any other religion. Therefore, it's useless to use that kind of thinking to "prove" your god, since any religion can use that same kind of reasoning to "prove" their god.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Dan: circular reasoning: god is real, I believe it, the bible says it, that settles it, which goes back to god is real. Circular reasoning. Stop running around in circles, your making me dizzy.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Hi again, Dan,

    Thanks for your interesting response. Just to review, I had written: "If someone ends up in hell at the end of a long life, wouldn't it have been better for them if they would have been murdered before the age of accountability?"

    You responded: "That would be birth. Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3"

    Fair enough. From what I can tell by your response, you don't subscribe to a post-birth, pre age-of-accountability (or infant salvation) doctrine. As I'm sure you're aware, many fundamentalists would differ with you on this point, if I have understood you and them correctly. For instance, at the memorial service for the Oklahoma City bombing victims, Billy Graham remarked:

    “Someday there will be a glorious reunion with those who have died and gone to heaven before us, and that includes all those innocent children that are lost. They’re not lost from God because any child that young is automatically in heaven and in God’s arms.”

    And I understand R.C. Sproul chided Graham for this comment.

    Yet even John MacArthur, when talking on Larry King about the death of a two year-old in the World Trade Center attacks, remarked: "Instant salvation." And he goes on to give biblical support for his position.

    So maybe I should be seeking my answers from them and not you. But since you're here and I'm here, I might as well ask you, if you don't mind.

    Perhaps it would help me understand your particular position better if we moved the so-called "murder" of a person, back a few months from birth to, say, sometime in the 2nd trimester. With this in mind, the question would then be:

    -- If someone ends up in hell at the end of a long life, wouldn't it have been better for them if they would have been murdered before they were born, say, if they were murdered in the second trimester? --

    Moving on, I had followed my original question with this: "Or is living a full, yet hell-bound life, considered better for them than them being murdered before the age of accountability and, therefore, ending up in heaven?"

    You responded: "We are all hell bound. Its by the saving grace of Christ, our Lord, we are saved."

    Fair enough. But with your response in mind, I would like to ask a different question:

    -- In your biblically informed opinion, is living a full, yet hell-bound life (i.e., without saving grace), considered better for a person than if that very same person was murdered at birth (again, without saving grace)? --

    Maybe, as you pointed out, my new questions still contain some "WILD assumptions." If they do, would you mind pointing out to me what those assumptions are?

    One last question: Would you advise a pastor presiding over a funeral for a dead child to tell the parents and mourners, that there is the very distinct possibility that the child is in, in fact, in hell?

    Thanks.

    Ydemoc

    ReplyDelete
  115. >>You want to have this blog to convince atheists to sway to your side.

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

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

    But thar's the rub, you do presuppose God, but "suppress the truth in unrighteousness."

    Romans 1:18-21, 1 Corinthians 1:18-20, Ephesians 4:17-19, Hebrews 11:1

    Your argument is not with me, it is with God of Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  116. ProudmtAthiest,

    >>Dan: circular reasoning: god is real, I believe it, the bible says it, that settles it, which goes back to god is real. Circular reasoning. Stop running around in circles, your making me dizzy.

    Never said it wasn’t circular, just that it is not viciously circular, as your view is. (you use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular) Intellectual honesty would force you to admit that God could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain. You, on the other hand, have no avenue to certainty.

    ReplyDelete
  117. "BZZZT!!! Wrong! My argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands."

    So basically, you just created this blog to libel atheists and dead people; you're corrupt and pathetic man.

    By definition to debunk something you need to be convincing-- to debunk means to expose something as false; you're not exposing anything if you can't convince anyone you know the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Ydemoc, I grew up christian and the age of accountability was when the child was old enough to understand jesus died for their sins, and pray to accept christ as their savior. (which is complete and total indoctrination and brainwashing) Now to an atheist, that just proves god's love is not innately ingrained and it has to be taught. So Dan's argument that we all automatically KNOW god is ludicrous. It's the same with any child of any religion, in any part of the world. Going back to my muslim analogy, children have no concept of jesus or god they are taught about allah and mahomed. Ask a muslim child and a christian child who their god is and they will give you 2 completely different answers. Unless of course they are too young to understand the diety concept. All children, including those in atheist countries, have to be taught one way or the other or none at all. It is wrong to consider any child of any age in eternal torment.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Hi again, Dan,

    Sorry to keep asking you things, but I just reviewed some of the comments (not in depth), and noticed there was a rather heated discussion about God possibly being evil, or something like that. I'm just curious, do you think evil is ever morally justifiable?

    Also, can you please me through the process of how you formed (or how you validate) the concept "existence."

    Thanks again.

    Ydemoc

    ReplyDelete
  120. Ydemoc, he's not going to provide any justification other than cherry-picked Bible quotes. This man does not know how to make a logical argument-- I doubt there's any value in asking him such a question.

    ReplyDelete
  121. dan, once again....even though I have no idea WHY I am wasting my time repeating myself...
    You are still not defending your reason for believing...lets say (hypothetically) I am on the fence post about which religion to turn to. I am an atheist looking for more meaning in my life...(lol, not likely but this IS hypothetical after all) You want to make sure I make the right choice because lets face it. My eternal life depends on it. You want to have this blog to convince atheists to sway to your side. So sway me! What is it? Why should I believe you and not the muslim?...........allah could be just as convincing.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Hi again, proudmtathiest,

    Thanks for your comment. You mention your understanding of the age of accountability; that's the way I understood it, too. But now I'm a little confused by Dan's initial response. But perhaps he can clarify things for me when he addresses it again.

    Ydemoc

    ReplyDelete
  123. Hi Ricardo,

    Thanks for your response. You mention Dan just quoting bible verses in response to my questions. That's okay, because I am curious what those verses might be and how they might apply to the questions I've asked. Besides, I enjoyed formulating (and in one case, borrowing) my question(s), and that in itself is quite rewarding.

    Ydemoc

    ReplyDelete
  124. Ydemoc,

    In honor of the time and ability to think rationally in the late hour of such a long day as this, I will refer to the following post for the subject of Children:

    tinyurl.com/ChildrengotoHeaven

    And

    tinyurl.com/bornevil

    >>Also, can you please me through the process of how you formed (or how you validate) the concept "existence."

    Certainly, although its been taken from Sye.

    It follows from the aseity and necessity of the transcendent God who creates and sustains reality—without whom nothing would even exist, much less humans and their acts of cognition. "For all things in heaven and on earth were created by him—all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers—all things were created through him and for him. He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him" (Col 1:16-17); see also Heb 1:1–3 ("through whom he made the universe ... sustaining all things by his powerful word"), Acts 17:28 ("in him we live and move and have our being"), Rev 4:11 ("by your will [all things] were created and have their being"), and so forth.

    A more pointed example, the existence of logic is intuitively grasped by anyone whose cognitive faculties are functioning properly; what the presuppositionalism of Reformed theology and Van Til et al. does is expose the necessary preconditions thereof, providing an account of the nature and intelligibility of logic, the fundamental principles of which express analogously the curious fact that reality is non contra se. (1) As a divine attribute (original), logic is coterminous with the nature and character of God, understood in terms of divine necessity and simplicity and constituting the coherence and consistency of his nature and unchanging character; as such, logical order is manifest everywhere that the sovereign and sustaining power of God is, which is everywhere. (2) As a human attribute (derivative), given our nature as imago Dei, logic is contingent insofar as we are creatures whose existence is distinct from and sustained by God; at this level, logic is understood analogously as conceptual formulations expressing the logical order of creation and the self-consistent coherence of God's immutable being. The fact that logical principles (e.g., the law of contradiction) are necessarily true, absolute, and universal is accounted for by their analogical relationship to the divine attribute of logic that is coterminous with the very nature and character of the covenant God of promise.

    Sweet dreams.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Dan, actually allah can be pretty damn convincing...Especially if I like my head attached. I like my head where its at. But you are not giving me any reason to be on your side. So you just lost a soul. My soul is damned. Thank you for your "convincing"(ha, now thats laughable) arguments. And you will be held accountable when judgement comes. You had the opurtunity. I begged for it. But you can't be convincing for christ. How does it feel to know you couldn't "save" me?

    ReplyDelete
  126. dan said... "For all things in heaven and on earth were created by him—all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers—all things were created through him and for him. He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him" (Col 1:16-17)


    Really? Didn't we have this creation discussion on another blog?

    proudmtathiest said...
    Let's take a look at the science in Genesis shall we? Genesis 1:1-5 earth was formless and void...and god created light and dark on the first DAY...now how is it if the earth is formless and void how can you tell what a day is? Science rule number 1 broken. And what is this light? Where did it come from? Its not the sun, the sun hasn't been CREATED yet. It also states that there was only water, now in space water freezes on contact. But who would know that in the ancient middle east? Science rule 2 busted Ok, the mysteries of god, maybe? Day 2 Genesis 1:6-8 god created the sky to separate the waters...ok was the water floating around in this bubble? Without the sun to warm it up wouldn't it be pure ice? How could this bubble be controlled without any force of gravity or magnetism? Science rule number 3 annihilated. End of day 2...Still the question plaques my mind, how on earth is that considered a day? But faith is all I need so lets move on...Day three Genesis 1:9-13 god separates the (still frozen???) water and land..............Wait a minute. The earth couldn't be all water, could it? Wouldn't there HAVE to be a molten core for land to even appear? Science rule 4 crushed. So ummmm, contradiction? NO, I have to keep my faith even if it doesn't make sense!!! Lets move on. God then creates plants and trees. Have you seen the sun yet? How on earth can plants and trees survive without uv light, warmth and liquid water? science rule 5 shattered!! End of day 3. Day? how is that determined again? I am confused, but god's ways are mysterious so I refuse to question such things. My faith shall carry me through. Moving on. Day 4, hey we can actually call this a day now! god made the sun and the moon!! I knew god knew what he was doing!!! Even though the plants are all dead and frozen solid but god did it!!! My faith has carried me through!!
    Day 5 god fills the sky birds and the still frozen seas (What you can't expect the seas to magically melt in a day can you?) with fish...god is good!! science rule 6 demolished. Day 6 god creates all the animals of the land and he creates humans to cultivate the still dead plants and trees. science rule 7 trashed (can they be regenerated in a day? Sure when gods behind this crazy mess!)
    Day 7 PHEW!!!!! It's so hard to create a world that goes against every scientific law imaginable!!! Its time for bed!!!

    D.A.N. said...
    ProudmAtheist,

    This was an older post so I would refer you to a newer post to answer this.

    I respond now with, I don't discuss Scripture with those that don't hold it as authoritative.

    You see, we all have rescuing devices. We're going to interpret Scripture with the revelation that God does not lie. You will interpret it with your "subjective" view of logic. I can reconcile certain things the Bible says to a Christian, and we do. I am not going to reconcile with non Christians because you are going to bring your assumptions that God doesn't exist, that God can lie...

    ...If you are not entering with the assumptions that God cannot lie then you are entering with an incorrect assumption and there is no reason to discuss anything about God or the Bible with you.

    You're going to come in with your interpretation, just as I am going to come in with my interpretation based on God's revelations.

    You are simply unable to UNDERSTAND or know the truth UNTIL you repent. Repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26


    Dan...telling me I am not authoritative enough for you killed it then and there.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Hitchens wound up at the gates of heaven and convinced God He doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Love it debunkey!

    Dan, I said this earlier in the post and I had no idea you would prove me right on so many levels so I will say it again.

    proudmtathiest said...
    You should be ashamed of speaking ill of the dead. Did you even know this man? Who are you to tell me he is going to this MYTHICAL hell? That just shows you how "rotten, false, dishonest, corrupt, humorless and dangerous" you really are. Take a look in the mirror before you post something with such defamation of character.

    ReplyDelete
  129. "CCongratulations, you've just given up your atheism to defend your atheism,"

    No, I'm pointing out that your claims are no better than those of any other religion that makes similar claims. They're all equally absurd.

    "(2) you've provided us no predictive prophecy grounded in historical events, etc.,"

    Your religion's claims of prophecy are no more or less substantiated than the claims of prophecy of the other religions cited.

    "(3) and thus given us no good reason to believe in your god over a uniplural Flying Spaghetti monster."

    I don't have a god, otherwise agreed. There is not sufficient evidence to believe in any god.


    "mean like the Bible?"

    The Bible is not evidence for God.

    "Because, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging."

    Luckily for us both we can neatly avoid your stupid assumptions when I say "that's not why I don't consider the Bible evidence for your god."

    "Your ability to reason is evidence for God."

    No, it isn't.

    "I don't expect you to like what I write."

    Irrelevant.

    "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."

    That's probably the seventh stupidest thing I've ever read. Possibly the eighth. The ability to reason is not evidence of any god because there is no reason to believe that any god is the source of the ability to reason. If you would like to make a case for your god being the source of reason and present evidence to back it, I'll happily review it and let you know what I think of it.

    "Actually you are now. [putting the cart before the horse]"

    Perhaps you didn't understand. To start talking of a god as though it existed, prior to providing sufficient evidence for the belief in its existence, is in my opinion putting the cart before the horse. If your god does not exist, and I have no reason to believe that it does, then I have no reason to discuss that god as though it did.

    "you people can be so blind never ceases to amaze me."

    Odd, I was just thinking the same thing about you.

    "The way that a transcendental claim is refuted is to demonstrate that claim is not the necessary precondition for the thing claimed, i.e. to demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic."

    I don't need to refute any transcendental claims you made concerning your god beyond "there is no reason to believe your god exists." Your god's existence is a necessary precondition to your claims. Without sufficient evidence to believe that claim, all of your other claims are moot.
    Go back to logic class. I'm going to ignore the rest of your horrible misunderstanding of how logic works.

    "The God of Scripture is the only God that exists, by the impossibility of the contrary."

    It is neither impossible that no god exists, nor impossible that some other god exists. Your statement is useless.

    "Just because you do not understand what is necessary to defeat a transcendental argument, does not change the fact that you cannot defeat it."

    This is the stupidest thing you've yet written, and that's saying quite a bit. You say bring your "A" game, but then you respond with drivel.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Dan,

    Thanks for your response. A lot of interesting stuff in there. It's late for me too, so I'll only be responding to tiny bit of what you posted right now. Perhaps I'll respond to more later.

    Anyway, in answer to my question about how you would form (or validate) the concept "existence," you offered this passage from the bible:

    "He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him" (Col 1:16-17)"

    I'm curious, what would an immaterial being (i.e., God, or for that matter any being said to possess consciousness) be conscious or aware of prior to things to be aware of? Doesn't the concept "consciousness" presuppose something to be conscious of? Doesn't positing a consciousness prior to something to be conscious of ignore that which serves as the basis for the concept "consciousness" to even be formed?

    And if God, (an immaterial being with no body) is said to be conscious, by what means is it "conscious"? Wouldn't positing such a notion (consciousness without the means to be conscious) undermine the very concept "consciousness" since consciousness is biological in nature (i.e. consciousness requires a brain, central nervous system, brain, sensory organs?) Or does our concept of consciousness not apply to God? If it doesn't apply to God, doesn't that mean many, many other concepts wouldn't apply either?

    Ydemoc

    ReplyDelete
  131. Dan, have you got that evidence that hell exists yet?

    ReplyDelete
  132.      "Wrong! You choose to die if you jump out a window proclaiming NOT to believe in gravity. You're silly, once again, in your logic."
         If someone really didn't believe in gravity, he wouldn't be choosing to die by jumping out a window. In a similar manner, someone wouldn't be choosing to die by jumping out a window if he thought it was at ground level. But there is no PB needed because we have evidence for gravity.
         "Would not bother me at all, in the least. That is like saying why am I not upset that the FSM doesn't exist. I, and you, know the truth and anything else is just bare assertions that are not justified true beliefs."
         So you know that your god is a lie. (I told you that I would only listen to your answer in deeds. Your answer in words is irrelevant.) All you present for your god is a bare assertion. Justification would require evidence. As you claim evidence is unbiblical, you regard your god as a lie.
         "No proclaiming the good news is not giving evidence for others to evaluate God's existence."
         No, proclaiming the "good news" is only presenting the claim which carries the implicit demand that we evaluate it. It does not present any evidence in its favor. If you unprepared to present any evidence, we must judge it to be false.
         "Not so. Its admitting to the facts. You're not 'passing judgement' on gravity are you? You accept gravity as a fact."
         As a matter of fact, I do pass judgement on gravity. But I judge it to be real based on the evidence. I don't take it on faith.
         "What 'evidence' is that? I have yet to see any."
         It is the evidence of your actions. If you really believed your god existed, you would present evidence to that effect. Either that, or (if the evidence was so personal that it cannot be reproduced) you would accept that we have reason not to believe. You would not insist that we already believe your god exists and are just "suppressing it."

    ReplyDelete
  133. Good morning, Dan,

    I read your blog entry on infant salvation, and I must confess that your admonition -- "Don't seek to trip me up, seek the knowledge that there possibly is a God and you may have missed something important" -- is a little puzzling. Wouldn't you welcome all questions, whether they were designed to "trip [you] up" or not, since such questions posed to you would have to be a part of God's plan? Granted, I suppose you could always say that your admonition and/or you're refusal to answer any silly or "trip-up" question, would also be a part of God's plan, also. But you don't really know either way, do you, how someone's salvation will be achieved? I mean, couldn't someone's heart could be softened, blinders removed, and salvation granted, all from one of your responses (or even non-responses, I suppose) to that person's silly or "trip-up" question.

    In any case, I must confess that my questions were designed, not so much to trip you up, for that would only be a gotcha-game. Instead, I'm more interested in your responses to my questions because I have yet to see anyone with your worldview answer them with anything that comes close to what I would consider a satisfactory response. And, despite your admonition about such questions, you seem like you take on all-comers and might succeed in responding with a consistency and coherency where others have failed.

    Anyway, the article you pointed me to gives me the impression that you *do* subscribe to a doctrine of infant salvation. If my assessment of your position is correct, then I would re-ask my questions again, with slight modifications (and there's a new one in there, too!):

    "If someone ends up in hell at the end of a long life, wouldn't you say it would have been better for them if they would have died (by any means, including murder) while they were in infancy?"

    "If someone's heart is softened, their blinders removed, and saving grace is granted because they asked for and received forgiveness from God after murdering someone, could one then say that the murder they committed was actually a blessing, even though the person they murdered may be in hell?"

    And...

    "In your opinion, would living a full, yet hell-bound life (i.e., with no saving grace) be considered better for that person than that person being murdered in infancy and, therefore, ending up in heaven?"

    And if it's not too much trouble, (and if you don't consider them "trip-up" questions) would you mind answering these questions, too:

    Is evil ever morally justifiable?

    What would an immaterial being (i.e., God, or for that matter any being said to possess consciousness) be conscious or aware of prior to things to be aware of? Doesn't the concept "consciousness" presuppose something to be conscious of? Doesn't positing a consciousness prior to something to be conscious of ignore that which serves as the basis for the concept "consciousness" to even be formed?

    And if God, (an immaterial being with no body) is said to be conscious, by what means is it "conscious"? Wouldn't positing such a notion (consciousness without the means to be conscious) undermine the very concept "consciousness" since consciousness is biological in nature (i.e. consciousness requires a brain, central nervous system, brain, sensory organs?) Or does our concept of consciousness not apply to God? If it doesn't apply to God, doesn't that mean many, many other concepts wouldn't apply either?

    Thanks, Dan.

    Ydemoc

    ReplyDelete
  134. Pvb,

    >>But there is no PB needed because we have evidence for gravity.

    Once again, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.

    >>As you claim evidence is unbiblical, you regard your god as a lie.

    Presenting evidence for the purpose of putting God on trial, as a criminal, is unbiblical. Indeed I do not decry evidence. In fact the presuppositionalist is more of an evidentialist than the evidentialist. We say that all evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence.

    >>No, proclaiming the "good news" is only presenting the claim which carries the implicit demand that we evaluate it.

    Are you absolutely certain of that?

    >> If you really believed your god existed, you would present evidence to that effect.

    So you demand I be unbiblical?

    "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." ~Proverbs 26:4-5

    >>You would not insist that we already believe your god exists and are just "suppressing it."

    I don't expect you to like what I write. 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.

    Revelation is self authenticating. God is innate.

    In order to know something it has to be true. Knowledge is defined as justified true belief. Is truth objective and knowable? Are there things that are true for all places, all things, and all times?

    ReplyDelete
  135. ProudmtAthiest,

    >>But you can't be convincing for christ.

    Nope, that is not what I am commanded to do.

    You have not accounted for your knowledge, you're illogical in your arguments, you're lost. You cannot account for knowledge what so ever. You are suppressing the truth about the only possible source for the logic YOU ARE USING.

    Out of love, I will lay it out for you as a second attempt to warn you. Salvation is not just for the next life ProudmtAthiest - Not only did Christ's death and resurrection save souls for eternity, it saves our reasoning now. Again, I beg you to repent and turn from rejecting the God you know exists, and accept the free gift of Jesus Christ's payment for your sins, so that you might be saved from Hell, spend an eternity with God, AND have a firm foundation for your reasoning NOW.

    ReplyDelete
  136. >>As you claim evidence is unbiblical, you regard your god as a lie.

    dan said.....Presenting evidence for the purpose of putting God on trial, as a criminal, is unbiblical. Indeed I do not decry evidence. In fact the presuppositionalist is more of an evidentialist than the evidentialist. We say that all evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence.


    Jesus said in Mark 16:14-18 14Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

    15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

    16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

    17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

    18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.


    If you do this, dan, I will fall on my knees and confess god is real and I don't have to lose my head (speaking of converting to the muslim religion) because I know god will protect me as he protected you from the deadly snakes and poison....rofl like that will happen

    ReplyDelete
  137. Stand by your convictions, dan and stop being such a coward. You talk a big game, but when it comes to walking, you can't even get up off the floor.

    ReplyDelete
  138. "Revelation is self authenticating. God is innate."

    Circular reasoning is circular.

    ReplyDelete
  139. What I don't understand is why does Dan keep asking whether something he does is wrong or not? Shouldn't he already know that and refrain from doing such things?

    ReplyDelete
  140. DAN,

    >> "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." ~Ronald Reagan

    And everyone who claims to be sure there is a heaven and a hell are people who never died before and therefore can't know for certain if there's a heaven/hell or not.

    >> "You mean like the Bible? Because, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging. "

    That thing again? Dan, assuming the bible is evidence for god because you believe god exists is also question begging. No one here is going to accept as evidence for your god's existence the lame explanation "god exists because the bible says so."

    ReplyDelete
  141. Kazeite,

    DAN does this thing to avoid answers our questions.

    He's not able to answers some of our questions, so he dodges, he changes the subject, he shifts the burden on us...it's how Dan is and he thinks he's being bright and smart by doing that.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Dan
    In response to what you said here (which I didn't notice till now):
    Reynold,

    Read the last thing in that first post of mine you offer:

    "I am sure your presuppositions are still in place."

    It was a post about Presupps silly.

    Yes, it was but back then you at least made actual testable claims about the bible.

    Like this: We don't show evidence of the Bible with science because that would render science the authority. The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. There is even scientific truths in the Bible that would be impossible to know back when it was written..... which were refuted by the link I give in that site to the bibleandscience.com site.

    I do admit that in talking to Sye, and reading Scripture, I understood that I was bringing evidence for you to place God on trial many times.
    "place god on trial"? Crap....What ever happened to "test all things, hold that which is good"?

    If the bible was scientifically accurate and had "scientific foreknowledge" as you claim, then it should stand up to scrutiny. It didn't.

    That is unbiblical and helped me change my approach on many things here.

    Are you proclaiming you do NOT change your Dogma? That IS understandable if you do.

    If given evidence to show that I was wrong, I would. Would you?


    Once again, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
    Nope, it's because of the scientific errors, false prophecies, and contradictions within it.

    The only people question begging around here are the presuppers.


    Presenting evidence for the purpose of putting God on trial, as a criminal, is unbiblical.
    So what if it is? Your own bible, if it was actually "his word", amounts to a confession of many many crimes against humanity.

    Tough. If he claims to be morally perfect, then his actions should show it, instead of having a bunch of lickspittles come along and excuse everything he does. That's not morality; that is the propogation of a double-standard.

    Indeed I do not decry evidence.
    Bullshit. You once did not decry evidence, now you just dodge the need for evidence

    In fact the presuppositionalist is more of an evidentalist than the evidentalist. We say that all evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence.
    No Dan, it is not. Presuppositionalism is giving up when all the evidence has fallen apart. Now all you do is run around claiming that "even the even one's ability to reason about evidence is evidence of god".

    All presuppositionalism is is just claiming that "god exists, therefore I win!" without having to give an iota of evidence for that.

    Bullshit. One's ability to reason about evidence came about through the evolution of the human brain.

    For a source I don't care for as much

    ReplyDelete
  143. The influence of Hitchens: Angry atheists use his material in lieu of actual thought. He encouraged anger and intolerance. It is indeed unfortunate that so few of his followers are able to articulate arguments of their own.

    Note the influence of this "great man" in comments sections here, at Atheist Central and at Stone the Preacher, among others.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Right...and people like you and the people who write stuff like this (scroll on down for actual twitter pictures) are of course, the very ideal of calm and tolerance!

    ReplyDelete
  145. And just as a point: Xians like Dan, Sye, Eric, etc. use their circular reasoning presupp nonsense in lieu of actual evidence and thought.

    ReplyDelete
  146.      "Once again, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging."
         Dan, I have responded to that many times. The bible is not evidence for your god whether he exists or not. The fact that you keep repeating your mantra every time someone correctly points out that the bible is not evidence for your god is evidence that you do not really believe. If you really believe that your god exists, you will never repeat that line to me again, ever.
         "Presenting evidence for the purpose of putting God on trial, as a criminal, is unbiblical."
         If that is so, then the bible is evidence against your god. Truth does not decry evidence.
         "We [liars for Jesus] say that all evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence."
         You may say that. But, as it is self-evidently false, making that claim in favor of your god is evidence against your god.
         "So you demand I be unbiblical?"
         If you consider honesty to be unbiblical, then I do so demand.
         "I don't expect you to like what I write."
         Whether I like it is immaterial. The fact that you write blatent lies, however, speaks ill of your god.
         "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."
         My reasoning is a necessary starting point. As such, it is not evidence for anything else. And I do not presuppose that your god does not exist. There are conditions that, if they became real, would convince me that your god was real. They just haven't happened. Furthermore, your god is portrayed as a meddler. If he existed, he should be evident. He is not. This leads me to conclude that he does not exist.
         "Nope, that is not what I am commanded to do."
         So, you essentially admit that you are trying not to be taken seriously, just as my example above of a "warning" of a collapsed bridge carefully engineered to have people disregard it.

    ReplyDelete
  147. From what I can gather from Dan is that his god has not told him to actually convince us, but to just preach at us. Thing is: "debunking" means that he has to actually refute us, show us that we're wrong. In other words; to convince us.

    ReplyDelete
  148. And then Jesus came upon his disciples and said,"What's this shit I've been hearing about a human sacrifice for sins!!!!? What kind of goddamn Neanderthal bullshit is that!!!? Blood sacrifice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????? Listen, you can take that sadistic, vile, wicked pile of Stone Age donkey shit and shove it straight up your goddamn asses!!!!!"-Jesus Christ, the Lost Gospel

    ReplyDelete
  149. May this message from our Lord bless you at this special time of the year.

    http://flipthatbird.com/random/jesus-christ-velvet-painting-finger/

    ReplyDelete
  150. "The influence of Hitchens: Angry atheists use his material in lieu of actual thought. He encouraged anger and intolerance. It is indeed unfortunate that so few of his followers are able to articulate arguments of their own.

    Note the influence of this "great man" in comments sections here, at Atheist Central and at Stone the Preacher, among others."

    Oh, hello Bob Sorensen! Wondered when you'd grace us with your completely incorrect opinion! Still accusing atheists of not reading the articles you post on your risible blog, even though those same atheists then write articles ABOUT those articles, debunking them point by point? Still doing that? Don't worry about answering, because I know you are!

    ReplyDelete
  151. This blog entry is a succinct example of what Dan's theology has been reduced to: taunt people who disagree with (Dan's interpretation of) the Bible, and feign piety.

    You're pathetic, Dan, and the thing that keeps me occasionally reading this blog is that deep down, I'm pretty sure you know it.

    ReplyDelete
  152. i'm waiting for the day Dan finally cracks under the strain of being so useless.

    ReplyDelete
  153. For the uh, "hell" of it, I found a xian site that apparently disbelieves in a literal hell which has stocked up on quotes on how many famous xians throughout the ages have felt about people burning in hell.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Religion: the sickly lie to sooth our horror of death.

    Hitch: stared down reality with courage and grace.
    A god amongst men.

    ReplyDelete
  155.      And Dan updagtes with a lie. He is quite aware that his critics (including myself) believe that his god does not exist.

    ReplyDelete
  156. I feel that if a man chooses that broad road, so be it. We were all given free will for a reason. That being said,..I find
    this new crop of atheists to be deeply troubled individuals and with a particularly venomous intent. They are not content to
    just live their own lives, these 'enlightened' and 'advanced' thinkers seek to destroy the religion of others. These new atheists for the most part, seem to be empty and desolate people, who live to spread their misery.

    'New atheists' are far more oppressive than any religion could ever be. They have aspirations for a new age-socialism
    that is devoid of any religion, especially Christianity.It should not be surprising, socialists have always tried to destroy any concept of God, in order to assume all authority over mankind. But I can't ever recall a time when atheists were ever as vociferous, violent and beligerent. They are seething with a blasphemous sort of rage and hate, they appear to have an allergic reaction to any kind Christian spirituality, word or
    symbolism. One can see a physiologic transformation descend upon them, just at the mention of God. At times I sense that
    they somehow fear themselves. It is at once disgusting, troubling and sad. Perhaps I'm reading more into it than I should, so I shall quit this line of thought,.. for now.

    As hip, edgy and original as all atheists think they are - they are all just carbon copies. They all say the same things, in the
    same ways and quote the same horrible kind of men like Bertrand Russell. For all of their new age enlightenment few know
    how perverse and demonic that Bertrand Russell truly was,..and the few who do know, have no problem with Mr. Russell's
    dreams of state sponsored genocide,..and that is dangerous.

    We are in a new time. Many people have turned away from Christ. Certain people are possessed with an uncontrollable and
    visceral hate for Christianity. Atheism is becoming the 'state de-ligion'. Surely our faith will be tested, and we will be
    persecuted for our beliefs and we shall overcome the enemy. This was all told in the book that they despise and fear,..that's
    some 'coincidence',..eh?

    My apologies for running so long. I know this page is rather dated, but I needed to say it, perhaps some need to hear it. You
    have a good site here. I can only hope it inspired more to follow.

    Best regards

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone on twitter even has a term for them, "Hatetheists". My Facebook group has attracted quite a few of them. Blessings.

      Delete
  157. Burt Zerker
    I feel that if a man chooses that broad road, so be it. We were all given free will for a reason. That being said,..I find
    this new crop of atheists to be deeply troubled individuals and with a particularly venomous intent. They are not content to
    just live their own lives, these 'enlightened' and 'advanced' thinkers seek to destroy the religion of others. These new atheists for the most part, seem to be empty and desolate people, who live to spread their misery.

    No, it's just that we don't like you people corrupting science, rewriting history and denying people their civil liberties based upon your baseless beliefs.

    'New atheists' are far more oppressive than any religion could ever be. They have aspirations for a new age-socialism
    that is devoid of any religion, especially Christianity

    The delusion and projection is strong in this one...again, we are not the ones seeking to deny others their civil rights. We are not the ones calling for those who don't believe as we do to leave the country.

    Us "new atheists" have not had anyone imprisoned, ostracized, or burned at the stake for the crime of non-belief as xians and muslims have had done in the past.

    Would you like to correct your claim about how "oppressive" the new atheists are now?

    ReplyDelete
  158. Wait a second, many of the atheists believe Dan is getting something out of this. Is that true? Most of the insults on here I've seen come from atheists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, it is not enjoyable, I just preach the messages. But to those to whom the gospel message is uncomfortable, it is received quite differently. When Jesus preached in His hometown at first they were amazed at His Words, but by the end of His sermon they tried to throw Him off a cliff (Luke 4: 14-30)

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

      Delete

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