Who knew that all you had to do is change the definition of "atheist"? Put on your sunglasses and visit this site—the color scheme is classic fluorescent kook—and you will discover that atheists are people who deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. Period. Which means…
- James van Praagh, loopy psychic medium and newager, is an atheist!
- All Jews…atheists!
- Muslims…atheists!
- Martin Luther King…atheist! (Wait, what?)
I like this game. Atheists also deny the divinity of Thor, which means…Christians are atheists!
There. Now that we've taken over the world, I think I deserve to go have some ice cream.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
It is finished.
I wonder how many of our Catholic friends have heard of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215? This is the event where many of their important dogmas were codified, including the ideas of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, that the Eucharist was the sacrament that only properly ordained…
Remember Melinda Barton and that awful piece on the Raw Story? It was taken down, and now it's back up with a few changes, I think. The editors asked me to submit a rebuttal. It's online at the Raw Story now, along with that lovely icon to the right ("Secular Horror"?). You can read it there, or…
Apparently, Barack Obama did well in the recent primaries, increasing the chances that he'll be the Democratic candidate for president. Right away, we're seeing an old video of an Obama speech (transcript here) being refloated. This is the same speech that prompted me to say I would never vote for…
Our fevered friends at StopTheACLU have issued a "Code Red Alert" because the ACLU is trying to get the courts to allow people of different religions to be able to swear on something other than the Bible when taking an oath in court (they don't have specific links, so you'll have to scroll about…
WooHoo, does this mean as one of the ilk I get a cyber pistol, jack boots, and a pirate name?
Yes! And ice cream!
I think that's spelled "James van Praaaaaggghpphh". Well... it should be.
You can have the chocolate - I'll keep the butter pecan, strawberry, and pistachio. Also the French Vanilla. If you want my French Vanilla, you'll need to pry it out of my (very) cold, dead hands!
The colors! Oh, wow, man.
That doesn't track at all. If Yahweh is THE god, Jeebus seems kind of redundant. And if there is no god besides HIM, why is that "God" capitalized?
But, as they say, atheists just believe in one less god than everyone else. Or should that be "fewer"?
Intriguing. They're anti-abortion crusaders, conspiracy theorists, religious nutcases, and utterly moronic individuals that love to preach from their elevate pedestal. I could have designed a better layout with a blindfold on.
Catlicks are atheists too. Won't that come as a surprise to Bill Donahue?
I could have designed a better layout with a blindfold on.
Pshaww
The self respecting kook wears blinkers, as any fule kno...
Yuck! That's awfully close to the drek I used to hear every Sunday. I need a sinful drink.
See,that site actually supports the theory that religious fanatics are just too stupid to find the free porn on the net.....;)
Ha!
"...all Islamic Muslims are atheists..."
Yeah but what about the non-islamic Muslims. Well!
PZ you hardcore bastard, eating ice cream in the depths of winter. Mmm, ice cream!
Wow, I'm going to have to break it to Amar when I get to work on Monday.
Then I'll take him our for formerly-sacred hamburgers!
Too bad those people that that website considers "atheists" are still irrational dogmatists. It would be nice, though, if most people were truly atheists, wouldn't it?
i don't believe in ice cream. only cake. even if it is a lie.
Wow, their homepage is chock-full of stupid. 9/11 Truthers, King James Bible Only-ists, Armageddon boosters, Prohibitionists, and on and on and on.
Someone over there needs some serious medication.
Have you ever had a really good ice cream, like Ben & Jerry's Cherry Garcia or Cold Stone Creamery's mocha coffee?
A true loon. He hates Rock 'n' Roll, too.
"I'm writing this article, as a series of articles, exposing the Satanism and immorality inherent to rock-n-roll music. Few people fully realize the Satanic roots of rock-n-roll. It was the Rolling Stones who produced an album in 1967 titled, Their Satanic Majesties' Request. In 1968, the Rolling Stones produced a song, as a tribute to the newly founded Church of Satan (1966), titled Sympathy for the Devil, in which Mick Jagger sings..."
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Rock-n-Roll/neko_ca…
Go, Dave, go!
Wait... What? Isn't that supposed to be the same god that sired a son/had an earthly avatar named Jesus? So, Yahweh was real until Jesus was born, and then he stopped being real? WTF?
Their argument comes down to this: 'My god (or interpretation thereof) is the only god because my book - written by people who also worship my god* - says so'.
Objectivity FAIL.
*A freakish coincidence?
Funnily enough, he mentions a lot of people who he claims are atheists... and leaves real atheists out. What a crackpot.
Oh, the obsessive mindset required to collect something like this:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%20Witchcraft/signs_of_satan.htm
Mano cornuto after mano cornuto.
#15 ice cream cake?
Pleade excude amy tuping errots, vut I fo;;owed thar lonk to tjat site amd mow O've git s[pts im fromt of mu eyes...
I have not bothered to check the site because this is the historical Christian definition of atheism. All non-Christians traditionally were considered atheists. Refusing to convert to Christianity (in effect, denying the divinity of Jesus) was atheism. Church-state separation was atheism.
When Hitler and other fascist leaders and followers attacked "atheism" or 'godlessness" before and during WWII, those were the definitions they were using: Atheism was church-state separation, political liberalism (which promoted separation), leftwing socialism, the "godless" movement (as they called communism), and the uber-atheists who were deemed responsible for all of the other forms of atheism - Jews. The primary reason millions of Christians slaughtered millions of Jews was because of the belief that they were atheists and therefore servants of Satan, thus inherently immoral.
BTW, slavery defenders in the U.S. routinely denounced abolitionists as atheists because they were denying the Bible, which specifically allows slavery. Of course, the original theoretical and legal justification for enslaving pagan Africans - and forbidding them to marry English Christians - was because of this belief that pagans were atheists, Satan worshipers, etc.
Christianity is love, except when it comes to atheism, i.e., most of the people on this planet, past and present.
Oh, and ice cream? Thou shalt have a scoop of vanilla and a scoop of chocolate. Thou shalt not have two scoops of the same flavour; it is abomination.
These people really need to be more specific, since what they really mean is a-My-theism, rather than just atheism.
The guy really doesn't like Martin Luther King.
WTF is an "Islamic Muslim"?
#23- "#15 ice cream cake?"
You commie lib heathen. I'll bet you believe in interracial marriage, too.
BTW, I'm currently gathering signatures for a proposed ballot initiative "protecting the sanctity of Ice Cream" and opposing the redefinition of cake.
Menyambal #5: Did you know that there has been a recent split within the Atheist community, between those of us that believe in one god "less" than everyone else, and those believing in one god "fewer"?
There will be blood spilt...
This site has a serious case of Time Cube.
Ryan @29,
That'd be like a Christian Christian.
I like ice cream, but what kind does an atheist eat?
Unitarian Ice Cream -
Lisa: There's nothing there.
Lovejoy: Exactly.
Ummm...is there really any point in linking to yet another crazy christainist site?
What about some more science posts instead? Loved the barrel-eyed fish and the ancient footprints.
But this shite?
Why?
Is it ironic that I read that "Rock and Roll is the Devil" article while listening to thew Dead Kennedys?
Okay, this must be a poe. Reading through this:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%20Witchcraft…
convinces me so.
Oh dear gawd, it's great that we've taken over, but why are there still so many loonies?
Anyway, about this icecream?
AnthonyK @36, you have high expectations.
Me, I'm happy to see new posts, and grateful for the time PZ puts into the blog. Can't expect heavyweight posts all the time.
#38
Hard to tell. It's certainly very bizarre. (I especially love the idea that the ASL sign for "I love you" is derived from the "Satan" gesture - of course, in reality, it's simply the finger-spelling I L Y combined into a single hand-shape) However, it wouldn't surprise me if people really did believe all that stuff.
The Kerry-666 thing is pretty amusing, too.
'cuz it's funny?
An "Islamic Muslim" is one who speaks Islamic.
#22
He truly is special.
"Some of my web visitors have e-mailed me, claiming that the deaf signal (i.e., a hand sign with the thumb extended) is sign language for 'I love you.' This sign is displayed above by Elizabeth Taylor. However, the inventor of the deaf hand sign, Helen Keller, was herself an occultist and Theosophist as mentioned earlier."
What a tool.
Okay, I take that back.
This person has apparently written a 39-chapter online book:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/salvation_webpages/00-introduction.htm
Too much effort to be a poe.
As for Martin Luther King Jr:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/mlk_jr-exposed.htm
Oh, David J. Stewart. A frequent star at Fundies Say The Darndest Things. He is a pervert of the highest order -- I think he spends more time obsessing about girls' clothing than Oscar De La Renta.
That, and somewhere on the site is him calling all kilt-wearing men "sissies". That was great.
@#38
Blimey, apparently they'll let just about anyone into the Illuminati nowadays. My membership papers must have been mislaid in the post.
Ah, you underestimate how far some people will go to Poe us.
Also, pass the ice cream. Do we have any Peppermint flavoured goodness?
Oh, and I'll have a scoop of coffee and a scoop of mint chocolate chip, please.
Don't worry about my choice of ice cream flavors, it's a great combo. Besides, as Ralleymodeller pointed out, I'm a sissy, according to David J. Stewart.
Patricia, OM #9
Yuck! That's awfully close to the drek I used to hear every Sunday. I need a sinful drink.
You and me both. Creepy déjà vu all over again.
Blech,
ptoooie
i think we're going to find more and more of this as the depression smacks the country around. There's going to be a lot of people with way too much free time, just like these people.
oh and i would like a large belgium chocolate with reese's peanut butter cups mixed in and whipped cream on the top.
and BTW Northeasterners eat ice cream all year round, the way its supposed to be, we're not just fair weather ice cream eaters.
#18 CalGeorge
man, David sure has an intimate knowledge of Neko Case's lyrics for someone who claims that all rock 'n' roll is Satanic and Evil. How did he fall on a relatively obscure alt-country artist when he could have just stuck w/ the usual Marilyn Manson fodder? I think this guy is a closet indie-rocker!
@ Hank Bones(#53)
I assure you, this guy's a closet many things. You haven't lived until you've read a few of his many, many obsessive posts on sexuality and teen girls. He's quite a legend over at FSTDT.
I've been saying for the longest time that you cannot take the "I used to be an atheist" line at face value from any of these fundie twats.
The fundaloons use this as a catch-all term. How catchall depends on how stupid and crazy they are.That's why I always demand that any fundie claiming to be a former atheist to define it.
Most of the time, what you'll hear is, "I didn't go to church." And I always say, that only means you didn't go to church, and doesn't indicate what you believed.
For another group of them, it's not just lacking the love of Jeebus that makes you an atheist, it's not going to the same damned church, never mind another sect of Protestantism.
And then some of them will have some experience arguing with atheists. These twits flat-out lie that they really were atheists, and provide the correct definition. But it's still a lie. I've actually had fundies try to pull this one on me. When I ask when they were an atheist, they'll name off an age range. I tuck it away for future reference, because it's almost always exposed as a lie. They give themselves away, every single time.
The numbers who were actually ever atheists probably aren't that high. Certainly not nearly as high as the number of claims made about it from theists.
Too many of them are liars and distorters.
Apparently, this guy believes that dollar bills are satanic:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/Federal%20Reserv…
So, how does he... ?
"David J. Stewart"....
What a nucking futjob...
Click on the fucktards links, his numbnutinesss goes on and on and on.
He has pages of nonsense 'disproving' evolution.
This guy is seriously mental...LOL
Ooh! Ice cream!
I wasn't going to have any this evening, but now the Blue Bell Mocha Madness is calling to me...
BRB
Dylan Moran's technique for writing a better song than "Funk Soul Brother" applies equally well to that site.
Hey, I used to be a non-vegan but I returned to my omnivorous ways by the miracle of broiling. After that personal experience with the one truth I have recited the culinary secrets to others by the altar of nourishment. My congregation is drooling, praise to the mixed diet.
It's not as exciting as one might hope, but for those curious about the extent of Martin Luther King Jr.'s overlapping associations with the Communist Party:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200207/garrow
http://www.av1611.org/666/barcode.html
We're all bringing about the Apocalypse by buying products with UPC barcodes on them! Yeep!
All David J. Stewarts godbotting hasn't done him a bit of good.
Deeper in his website, he tells that, while for 7 years he was able to answer emails, his health has deteriorated and he no longer can do.
Maybe god is punishing him for being such an asshat.
That site is only 125 milliTimeCubes, tops PZ.
Ah. David J. Stewart. He is a favourite source of material over at FSTDT...
Ah, FSTDT. I had to quit going there a year or two ago because I just couldn't handle the concentrated ignorance. More power to the ones who have enough strength to wade in.
Aquaria said: I've been saying for the longest time that you cannot take the "I used to be an atheist" line at face value from any of these fundie twats. The fundaloons use this as a catch-all term.
We pagans have the same prob. A fair number of "ex-Wiccans" make a good living traveling around the world telling exciting stories about the Evils of Wicca. Dang, I seem to have missed all the wild parties and sex. Phooey. We do, however, have sinfully caloricious pot luck dinners -- trifle a specialty.
Speaking of sinful, gypsytag said "..oh and i would like a large belgium chocolate with reese's peanut butter cups mixed in and whipped cream on the top..."
Nah nah nah. Try this, guys. Scoop out very cold vanilla ice cream and cut it into chunks roughly marshmallow sized. Mix it with dark chocolate pudding and serve at once. The mix of textures, tastes and temperatures is a delight.
Noni
eenie meanie jelly-beanie...the spirits are about to speak
MikeG @42. Yes, I guess you're right.
It's my own fault - I've spent too much time here lately.
Anyone - but anyone - who complains about the content of this blog, or any of the comments on it, should shut the fuck up and go and do something else instead.
I'll do that then.
I cannot believe none of you have crossed paths with Jesus-is-savior before. Just sit back, click away and bask in the glowing luminescence of bad HTML and raging insanity. Don't forget to hop on over to his friends at www.cuttingedge.org, where they purposely set out to make Dave Stewart look sane.
Could anyone determine physically where this guy is? Like what state in the US? Is he in the south?
Definitely a poe- the white man in the upper right corner is the logo for landoverbaptist.com
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/2009/january/boslaw.html
Yeah, that's basically the same thought process muslims use when they call everybody else in the world infidels, isn't it?
Actually, the logo is very popular with street preachers on the Internet. It's a silhouette of Billy Sunday. Many of your finer batshit insane sites will feature it.
http://www.soulwinning.info/sp/billy_sunday.jpg
Trebuchet MS is the new Comic Sans! Aaargh, must these people ruin all the fun silly fonts?
Not to call Poe, but isn't that little logo the preacher man from Landover Baptist?
Of course, my coming to atheism was a complicated process...but if I had to thank someone for it, it would probably be jesus-is-savior.com and, of course, Jack Chick.
If there be ice cream to be had, I think I'll have a pint of this: http://www.haagen-dazs.com/reserve/fds.aspx
One of the more marvelous things that comes in pints to be sure.
@17 you have not had ice cream until you can try Greaters, google them, ship it if needed.
Mmmmm, ice cream, not chocolate chip but chocolate chunk!
Pity it's nowhere near where I am at. :(
James
If we're having ice cream, shouldn't it be made with squid ink?
Registrant:
Domain Privacy Group, Inc.
c/o jesus-is-savior.com,
7030 Woodbine Ave. Suite 800
Markham, ON L3R 6G2
CA
Tis all I know.
Thought you atheists would enjoy this sketch comedy video about Jesus returning to live in the modern world and being used by Corporate America to sell their products
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVqaSjia5xY
Good n blasphemous, funny and with a point too!
@Bone Oboe:
No, No. This is Haagen-Dazs true masterpiece.
Atheists. They're everywhere, and they look just like people.
I'm sure this has been posted before, but it turns out that they're actually contagious to boot:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Don-t-let-your-kids-become-infected-with…
Tongue firmly in cheek there I suspect, though she fooled plenty of faithy types.
#37
"Frankenchrist"? That would be classic!
I'm kind of lost in this guy's non-logic... he keeps referring to Isaiah 45:5. Now, I believe this is part of the Old Testament - and the Torah is more or less equivalent to the Old Testament (but better written, with more detail). Certainly, the people referred to in Isaiah 45:5 are Jews. So Jews didn't _use_ to be atheists.
So... God spends all this time convincing early Jews that he's the only real God (9 times in Isaiah 45 alone!), but that there were false gods and pretenders out there. Then, when they pay attention to that, and diss this silly rebellious rabbi called Jesus, God gets all pissed off?
His evidence? Jesus "came to this earth ... Jesus accepted worship as only God is entitled to". Um, run that by me again? That's exactly what God said earlier was a big no-no!
Meh - logic and sense aren't exactly what fundies are known for.
Sorry, I'll stick with my Blue Bell. Someone here was lamenting how nobody used real marshmallows in their Rocky Road anymore. Guess who does?
Now if they'll come out with a mango flavored ice cream...
Sadly it seems that the Jewish atheists, Muslim atheists and atheist atheists all disagree with how to not believe in god.
On of my favorite stops on this site is The Premature Deaths Of Rock Stars. His argument is that god so hates rock stars that he kills them at an young age. Ike Turner must have been a very devout christian.
The song that Hank Bones at #53 is talking about is Hold On, Hold On. I love that song. The opening lines kill me.
The most tender place in my heart is for strangers
I know it's unkind but my own blood is much too dangerous
No one had mentioned the maraschino cherry on top of the whipped cream (hi Patricia) on top of the ice cream. Aren't maraschino cherries a major cause of death?
Re 79: You're right about the ice cream, but it's Graeter's. Not a spelling flame, just an FYI.
http://www.graeters.com/
My wife has a definite thing for the black raspberry chip. I love the apple cider sorbet (seasonal). The peach ice cream in the summer is very good, too.
I think the best ice cream I've ever had, though, is from Persico in Buenos Aires, even better than the fabled Berthillon in Paris. The various flavors with dulce de leche were just amazing.
Robert at 86,
I've never heard that argument before, is it original to you? It's quite good and expect I'll have to steal it.
I've always believed that the bible is the greatest tool for the atheist to use against god-blotters.
I especially like that site's use of the term "Islamic Muslims," as opposed to the other kind.
Caramel Coyote ice cream with caramel sauce, pecans, whipped cream and NO cherry....
@Oboe....I have just sent that link to a LOT of friends I have...that and chocolate covered pretzels? Schweet! Thanks!
You know - trying to read that site burned my retinas.
What is it with you guys and food lately? A couple of threads ago it was on about bacon and maple syrup and I had to get up and make pancakes (chocolate chip no less) and now ice cream (Lopez Island Creamery bittersweet chocolate). I was just trying for a little distraction, maybe some intellectual stimulation, from this damn grant proposal and I'm gaining weight...sheesh...Atheism is supposed to be lo cal cause you don't have to swallow everything thrown at you...
"Is it ironic that I read that "Rock and Roll is the Devil" article while listening to thew Dead Kennedys?"
Not really. Jello Biafra pointed out that the guys who started the whole rock 'n' roll-Satan story were the Ku Klux Klan.
"I'm writing this article, as a series of articles, exposing the Satanism and immorality inherent to rock-n-roll music. Few people fully realize the Satanic roots of rock-n-roll. It was the Rolling Stones who produced an album in 1967 titled, Their Satanic Majesties' Request. In 1968, the Rolling Stones produced a song, as a tribute to the newly founded Church of Satan (1966), titled Sympathy for the Devil, in which Mick Jagger sings..."
Uh, guy? Rock 'n' roll was pretty far along in its development by the time the Rolling Stones did the Satan stuff. Of course, seeing as how he spends the rest of the page picking on the New Pornographers (really?!), one can't really expect him to be much of a music historian.
This made me laugh. Thanks!
The best readily available ice cream is Ben & Jerry's Cherry Garcia. I love it not only for the flavor but also for the name. When Jerry Garcia died I bought a pint of Cherry Garcia and ate it while listening to Skeletons From the Closet. I'm sure Jerry would have approved.
It's so hard to see, look away, look away. Ahhhhhhhhhh!
Makes me want some B & J's Phish Food, though.
This isn't news to me. I learned all this long ago by reading the "Faith Matters" blog in the Kansas City Star. That, and if the Atheists (sic) ever get in control, they will kill all the Christians.
I can haz ice cream nao?
'course Jerry himself would have skipped the ice cream and gone straight to the heroin. Alas.
I realize this is a a complete threadjack but the following news must be known. At the CPAC conference today, a 13 year old named Jonathan Krohn was one of the guest speakers. He is homeschooled (surprise!) and the author of "Define Conservatism". I know when I want to understand the nuances of political theory, I always look at the available middle school literature. The Republicans are now taking notes from an adolescent. And a child shall lead them indeed! Seriously, though, first that no talent assclown Ben Shapiro (who had a national column at 17) and now this? I am beginning to feel sorry for the archetypal reasonable conservative who has to be pulling at their hair right now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vz1TVpwme0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/27/jonathan-krohn-13-year-ol_n_17…
I am the lord, there are no other gods but me(pass me the fucking cash).RodgerT verse one chapter one.
Send me all your money ,or burn in hell for ever and ever. amen bitches
Aiiieee! My eyes!!1!!!
@ryogam@91, I noted several extraordinarily brutal bible verses to a minister friend of mine. He responded with a bunch of arguments as to why they didn't say what they so clearly said. Maybe scripture means "put to death" in a good way.
Heh, in his loony write-up about music, he even states that Crowley was a Satanist. Can this guy get anything right?
Yet another example of religionists' love of non-compete clauses. Christianity, Islam, they're all the same and of course, they're all good for a laugh: My god is the only REAL god! He IS! He IS!
Oh, and someone should tell this Christard that 1995 called and wants its web pages back...
In the O.T., god always seems to be striking people down...in his mercy.
Anyone who thinks the bible is a biography of an all-knowing, all-loving god, haven't read the book.
*I* will accept worship as only God is entitled to, and I'll accept it on Thursday evenings so as to not mess up your weekends.
Herrell's Ice Cream, Northampton, MA. Taught Ben and Jerry how to do it, but still does it better. The chocolate fudge sauce is as close to a spiritual experience as I ever want to get (except perhaps for the time I was served fresh fried fish off a cart on an island 12 miles out in the Atlantic by a drunken fisherman who was arguing politics with an equally drunken retired appellate court judge - now that was spiritual).
You could also have it another way around like, atheists were created by God, Just like christians, jews etc.
Therefore that means all atheist were created in the image of God and subjected to his will in hteir lives.
You can try mathetically, scientifically and mentaly to disprove God.
You are just too stubborn adn arrogant to test Him out in your life.
Try, then if God does not work in your life then you can say what you want to say.
Thomas Gallaudet doesn't even get a mention?
#91
I've seen that argument also written thusly...
Suppose, however, that God did give this law to the Jews, and did tell them that whenever a man preached a heresy, or proposed to worship any other God that they should kill him; and suppose that afterward this same God took upon himself flesh, and came to this very chosen people and taught a different religion, and that thereupon the Jews crucified him; I ask you, did he not reap exactly what he had sown? What right would this god have to complain of a crucifixion suffered in accordance with his own command?
-Robert G. Ingersoll
And the best ice cream is Toscaninis.
Anyone else know what LSC does?
Ohhhh, my aching head. I spent 1/2 hour at that site, and it's basically Art Bell/George Noory on LSD meet Fred Phelps after his wife put extra starch in his underpants.
Ergo QED.
Joe
burden
of
proof
I'm sorry.
Huh?
No, no, no. The best ice cream is Rocombe Organic. The vanilla is worth killing for. Seriously. ;-) B&J, H-D, and the others are all fecking amateurs in comparison.
Amazingly, it's English. Well, actually, the lady who makes is, I understand, a 'Merkin. So it's not really counter-evidence to the usual characterization of English “food”.
If you want my French Vanilla, you'll need to pry it out of my (very) cold, dead hands!
That's what wacking great pirate swords are for! What's the best way of washing blood off the liberated French Vanilla?
Graham, you're crackers.
Do you really think that nobody here is a former believer? Do you think all of us were raised atheist or something? Do you really think that none of us ever read or studied a bible, prayed, asked for a revelation or sign? None of us was troubled, even despairing that reality did not support religion's claims before abandoning gods and faiths?
Been there, done that. Over it.
@Graham: Here, I'll try:
"There is no god. And if I'm wrong, may he strike this audience (Graham) dead."
(With apologies to George Carlin. Especially because he now burns in hell :-> LOL!!!!!!!!!!)
[Note: Not really. But it does suck that he's gone.]
"capitals added for emphasis"
Yes, because unlike SOME, WE have never heard of ITALICS, and some of our fellow loonies also like to capitalise Random Words like Atheist and Evolution, in the hope that it'll make them sound like Homogenous Groups and therefore make GENERALISING about them easier.
"However, the inventor of the deaf hand sign, Helen Keller, was herself an occultist and Theosophist as mentioned earlier."
Isn't it obvious Helen Keller was a Satanist? After all, God benevolently struck her blind and deaf, and then the ungrateful woman went and acquired skills and knowledge and had a productive life anyway!
#32:
So...we're arguing over whether the hypothetical nonexistent gods are discrete or continuous?
But...
But I like red, white, or green text on a black background. :(
Those bastards!
And all this time, I thought that Helen Keller was a socialist.
Happy Monkey would be a good name for an ice cream flavor...
Good grief,
the colours, I´m blind! Never got to read past the first three lines, but apparently we MUST be saved by believing in Jesus. Wll, that´s me scuppered.
Re: 64 "All David J. Stewarts godbotting hasn't done him a bit of good.
Deeper in his website, he tells that, while for 7 years he was able to answer emails, his health has deteriorated and he no longer can do.
Maybe god is punishing him for being such an asshat."
I lolled at the last sentence!
I'm a Christian and people like this asshat (great description) really don't have a clue about the faith they'd supposedly defend to the death, or preferably to them, someone else's death. Christian blogs all over condemn his words and actions. How many people forget that the two most important commands of Christianity are love God and love your neighbour? It's so damn depressing I sometimes actually want to cry.
Well....following a Fundamentalist line of Reasoning:
if so many people appear to worship Satan, shouldn't they be considering the Fact that he might be the One?
Ah, the barcodes thing again.
Y'know that, by their own logic, barcodes prove the non-existence of god.
- Everything has a barcode.
- Barcodes = 666 = santa
- santa != god
- Therefore god does not exist.
Hey, I didn't say they were any good at logic.
"This is the heart of Judaism... CHRIST REJECTION!"
Makes sense. Just as the fundamental principle of Hinduism is the rejection of the teachings of Joseph Smith.
Those are very hurtful words on that site. In the sense that they really hurt my eyes. Heck, "I love you" written in those colors would hurt my eyes.
if so many people appear to worship Satan, shouldn't they be considering the Fact that he might be the One?
Teach the controversy.
So...we're arguing over whether the hypothetical nonexistent gods are discrete or continuous?
Both. Wave AND godical, depending on which third eye you choose to observe himherthem with.
Noni
Woohoo!!! I guess this means all the free parking we could ever want!!
I can't deny the divinity of Thor so I guess I'm not an atheist anymore. Guess I better brush up on my Asatru rituals and find that dang hammer...
Who knew that all you had to do is change the definition of "atheist"? Put on your sunglasses and visit this site—the color scheme is classic fluorescent kook—and you will discover that atheists are people who deny the divinity of Jesus Christ.
that guy has received bad Christian education like you and most of protestant. Visit this Site
and contemplate this argument :
Assume there is no God: then this world, and happiness in it, is extremely important. Indeed, it is all there is. So it is a great tragedy whenever anyone does not have a long and happy life here. The death of a child, or a painful life in a third-world country, is an unimaginable tragedy, which nothing can mitigate.
If you have seen your own grandchild killed by a car, or have traveled in poor countries and have seen the misery of people starving slowly to death, your own sense of justice demands that there be more to life than the vale of tears we experience in this life. It is just not fair that the only life a small girl knows should end almost before it is begun, in an agony of injuries. It is just not fair that so many millions of people be born into circumstances that they have no control over, and that condemn them to unimaginable suffering every day of their lives.
Are we ready to say that this beautiful universe, which is so incredibly orderly, is also diabolically unfair? That would make us only a great cosmic joke. That is not acceptable.
Our sense of justice demands that these wrongs be righted. But by whom? Not by us, that's impossible: only by a Supreme Being.
Visit this SITE
Take a retreat and contemplate, prof.
Simon @138: I looked at your site.
As I understand it, the main argument you're making is this:
1) There is undeserved suffering in the world.
2) If there is no God and no afterlife, then this world is all that exists, and therefore people who suffer undeservedly cannot have any reward in the afterlife.
3) If (2) is true, the universe is unjust.
4) The universe has to be just.
5) Therefore, there must be a God and an afterlife.
The problem with this is, of course, point (4). If there is no God, there's no reason to suppose that there should be any moral order or ultimate justice to the universe. You are assuming what you need to prove.
simon@138,
What a contemptible coward you are, basing your conclusions simply on wishful thinking. Grow up.
@walton,
contemplate
Simon, garbage in garbage out. Your logic is garbage.
# 18
Stewart almost had me until he messed with Neko Case. A Neko Case sex sandwich minus Madonna sounds mighty good to me.
Assume there is no God: then this world, and happiness in it, is extremely important.
Non-sequitur. The world is a physical object, happiness is a state of mind, and importance is a value judgement. They would continue to be a physical object, state of mind, and value judgement if there were gods. Or even flying pigs. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Indeed, it is all there is.
I'm unsure what the “it” is referring to: The myth, the planet, the mental state, or the value judgement? Ignoring that… No, that certainly is not “all there is”. For instance, there are many other myths, seven other planets in this star system and an unknown number in other star systems, mirth and other states of mind, and a very large number of values judged. And that's just restricting myself to the four entities originally mentioned.
Look out the window. You'll see objects that are neither mythical nor a planet. Listen to children laugh. And for another example of values, go read some history, like about nice pious believers selling kids into slavery. There's a fecking lot more than those four entities. Geesh.
So it is a great tragedy whenever anyone does not have a long and happy life here.
Another non-sequi… Aw, I give up. How do people who are this obtuse manage to breathe and, presumably, walk?
Simon: @walton, contemplate
Simon, I already spend a great deal of my life "contemplating". It doesn't change objective reality.
The reason I am not a Christian is because, simply put, Christianity makes an extraordinary claim - that God came to Earth in human form, was killed and was physically resurrected from the dead (in order to appease himself for our wrongdoing) and continues to intervene in our lives today - and does not adduce sufficient empirical evidence to support this claim. All we have in support of the claims of Christianity are four pseudonymous accounts of uncertain date and provenance, and centuries of oral tradition (which, as we all know, can be drastically distorted).
Yes, one can accept things on faith without evidence - but then where do you draw the line? How do you know Catholics are right and Protestants, or Mormons, or Moonies, or Muslims, or Jews, or Hindus are wrong? If there is no clear evidence supporting any of their positions, then how can you claim to know that your own religious tradition represents the truth?
Sigh. I feel like I'm having to say the same things over and over on every thread.
Simon,
So you don't want the world to be uncaringly unfair? To me, that's a much more comforting proposition than to think that the world is unfair because there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god who wants it to be that way. The death of a child is easier to swallow if it's senseless than if there is a puppetmaster who makes/allows it to happen, and who we have to slavishly adore lest something bad happen to us, too.
Simon, if I were a god and had the opportunity to create a universe I certainly wouldn't create what you imagine your godidea created. You list just a small fraction of the disorder and tragedy and then claim that it is "incredibly orderly". Are you experiencing a brain fart?
I got old and lactose-intolerant, and all this talk of ice cream is just making me sad.
Walton has demolished your logic sufficiently that I will move on to critiques not based on your logical fallacies.
You could and should have stopped after:
Assume there is no God: then this world, and happiness in it, is extremely important. Indeed, it is all there is. So it is a great tragedy whenever anyone does not have a long and happy life here. The death of a child, or a painful life in a third-world country, is an unimaginable tragedy, which nothing can mitigate.
Instead, your sense of justice/compassion/ commands justice for these downtrodden folks, in the "afterlife."
Baloney.
First, unless you are some sort of Christian I've never heard about, all those poor, suffering people you have so much compassion for, those poor people in third-world countries, crying out for justice in the afterlife, well, the Christian god would cast those people into hell, for eternity, to suffer forever, because many of those third-world people are the wrong religion. Not christian. Ooops.
Second, from a humanist perspective, your outlook is a prescription for inertia. It tells people that there is no reason to care or do anything about the suffering of anyone, anywhere, at anytime. God's got it covered. Relax. A kid is raped and murdered? So what? That child is now in heaven! Hip Hip Ho Ray! Cancer strike your daughter down at 20? Well, you could work to find a cure for cancer so no one else has to suffer as you have. Or, instead, don't worry, your daughter is in heaven, which is a much better place than here anyway. Awesome! Let's have more cancer so more young people can get to heaven faster! Poor children with bloated bellies on your TV making it hard for you to watch "Idol?" You could work to end global poverty and disease,(like Bill Gates), or sit in your 5000 square foot home, with a 70in plasma, with 300 channels of cable TV (like Pat Robertson), knowing god's got it all under control.
So, let's go back to your almost true statement and correct it:
There are no gods: this world, and happiness in it, is extremely important. Indeed, it is all there is. So it is a great tragedy whenever anyone does not have a long and happy life here. The death of a child, or a painful life in a third-world country, is an unimaginable tragedy. As human beings with compassion we should do our best to mitigate all human suffering, knowing that we would wish others to mitigate our suffering if the positions were reversed and knowing there are no gods and no afterlife in which that suffering will ever be made acceptable.
@walton,
Do not start with religions, but with Moral Argument, read more the articles on the Sites I recommended. The Pascal Wager strongly recommended as last argument.
It's a long journey.
Pascals wager is crap.
How do you know you picked the correct god and worshiped in an appropriate way?
Never mind. I've just visited Simon's site. He's so far down the rabbit hole that he'll never escape.
As for his views on hell, his special pleading is so special it deserves its own Olympics.
Simon, more garbage. All proofs of god are garbage, as is Pascal's wager.
#113
Thanks for that. Clearly, I've got some reading to do. That is a brilliant and cutting argument.
Cripes on a cracker.
This guy is a 'catholic' who doesn't believe in Papal Infallibility?
This made me laugh though.
”When I was young fellow, the Catholic Church had a policy that said that only Catholics can enter the kingdom of heaven. Does it still maintain this belief? I recently learned that the Muslims have a similar belief. In both cases it seems like an arrogant stance.”
What you were taught was an incomplete interpretation, even if technically correct. But it must come with lots of explanation.
He then goes on for three more paragraphs which explain...nothing.
"...The Pascal Wager strongly recommended as last argument..."
We already know about Pascal's Wager, and it has one major flaw that reveals a bit of true human nature, and nothing about the existence of Pascal's, or any other's, god. Pascal's Wager is flawed because it makes a case that one should believe in god for what amount to economic reasons based solely in self-preservation, those reasons being that god-belief will get you into an afterlife if a god exists, or get you a happier life if you believe in a god that doesn't exist. The economic self-interest is the problem with the Wager: Every religion, especially Christianity, demands fealty to the god or gods it is based around. The religions demand you love and/or unquestioningly accept the god/gods in question, not simply ally yourself with them so you can obtain passage into heaven. This is why Pascal's Wager utterly fails: Religious doctrine doesn't support it. The Wager is yet another simple admonishment from a believer to unbelievers that they had better believe in a god, prefereably Pascal's, or else. It is not some grand takedown of atheism, and as I mentioned earlier it highlights that part of human nature that we see quite frequently and throughout history, the need for self-preservation and economic opportunism.
And of course the Wager also makes some wild assumptions about the lives of atheists to make its case. It assumes atheists inevitably become nihilists, or live exceedingly empty lives and see little value in the lives of themselves or others. Pascal is making the common mistake that religious people even today make in taking the idea that atheists are hollow shells of human beings with nothing to live for. Pascal's Wager is yet another microcosm of this insistence that anything beyond one's particular religion, or the lack of religion itself, it the problem that must by dealt with.
And lastly, but certainly not least, Pascal's Wager does absolutely nothing toward answering the question about which god truly exists, if one does. Sadly, Pascal is unable to provide us with the kind of answer that might actually be earth-shattering and relevant for all humankind. Pascal is content to simply default to his own religious context, and leave it at that.
Pascal's Wager is very far from divine inspiration.
Uh Oh, Walton, Simon's got you in his sights and...*gasp* He's just unlimbered Pascal's Wager! Run!!!!
Holy crap, Simon, do you think you are revealing some shiny new truth to us? Pascal's Wager is not the silver bullet you seem to think it is, and it has been handily refuted
numerous times.
Similarly, an argument from 'Moral Authority' is pathetically easy to dismantle. Religion is one way with which to instill moral values. It is not the only way, nor even the best way, and the morals are neither consistent nor absolute.
Alas, these and any other arguments you may have in your arsenal only work if you already believe them... or if you desperately want it to be true. I don't think you'll find anyone of that description here, and if you think you're addressing people who haven't contemplated these subjects deeply, for years, you are sorely mistaken. The' journey' you speak of frequently leads to non-belief if one undertakes it critically and honestly for the long haul.
Any god worthy of worship would be more pleased with an honest athiest than with a coward hedging their bets. Pascal's wager is an appeal to cowardice (sp?) and I find it very difficult to believe that God would be impressed by anyone who worshiped for that reason.
"...and if you think you're addressing people who haven't contemplated these subjects deeply, for years, you are sorely mistaken..."
Witness the cardinal mistake theists routinely make without thinking before they post. If we atheists are making the cases we're making, we couldn't possibly know all the arguments out there! Those unbelievers need to be taught a lesson! They need to know theological arguments for god's existence!
Simon, do not make the further mistake of thinking you are the first godbotter to post such supposedly unassailable arguments here. I will say it again: We've dealt with all religious comers thousands of times. You are not the first, you are not the last, and you are presenting *nothing* new. Absolutely zero. You claim to have read so much, but seem utterly unaware of the counter-arguments to the items you say led you on your "journey", whatever that is. And the "journey" is actually quite a bit shorter than you think. Ask Occam why.
@ 113
I'd say something like "Ouch" or "Oh snap", but then, I don't think those exclamations would succinctly capture what Ingersoll just did...
SCANDANAVIAN NONBELIEVERS, WHICH IS NOT TO SAY ATHEISTS (NYT)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html
Paco, what exactly are you trying to say? That religion is needed? That nonbelievers in Scandinavia don't call themselves atheist? That the definition of atheism is supposedly inconsistent? What?
The article doesn't prove religiosity, if that's what you're going for. All it describes is a group of people who follow some religious traditions without intertwining religiosity. Which basically means they're following things that are completely fine on their face, and would be fine with or without the religion in question.
Now you;ve reminded me that fstdt exists and I'm going to lose my life again...
Why would you do that? Just fold it in carefully and enjoy an especially tasty analogue of Raspberry RIpple.
Historically it was common to toss the label “atheist” around as a put down against anyone who did not believe in your particular deity. For example Jews and Christians were labeled atheists for denying the traditional Greco-Roman deities. Medieval and early modern Christian polemical literature throws atheist around for anyone who denies Jesus and the Trinity. This was not too serious a matter as before modern times there were few if any actual atheists. In a pre Newton, pre Darwin world it was not intellectually plausible to do without a deity. Now that we do have real atheists it is not helpful to use it simply as a catch phrase. An atheist means someone who denies the existence of an ultimate power outside of the natural world and the laws of physics.
This site attacks Aish HaTorah for being atheists. And I have spent much of my life attacking them for not supporting evolution and for trying to sell their cultish version of Orthodox Judaism to impressionable youths.
I've just realised that Simon's argument is not novel; it appears at number 546-547 on this webpage:
http://godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
"Non-believers, which is not to say atheists", and then they quote a guy sayimg "I'm an atheist"
teh cog-dis, it burns!
Yet another reason that newspapers are dying; The article was reasonably well written but no better than many blogs. Importantly they don't invite a conversation.
"It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier."
And the nasty atheists are trying to make us like them!
Also, the Susan Jacoby op-ed is interesting.
Wow, almost word for word, too. Except Simon spelled "vale" correctly, and the godless geeks did not. Double wow.
Ice cream or chocolate or chocolate ice cream.
I say we teach the controversy.
Simon, you aren't original or right. You've let someone else tell you what is right, logical and clever, and you believe them. You cannot see the errors in your arguments, or understand that most atheists have seen it all before, reasoned their way through it, and moved on. You are parroting something that is not true, useful or wise, and you do not understand that. You don't understand why your arguments do not prevail.
Simon, your presentation of your arguments is a perfect analogy for your religious belief. You don't understand it, but you've been told it's a truthful problem solver, and you don't understand when others don't cower before the nonsense that intimidates you. Your religion is false, what it has taught you is wrong, and what you think it has done isn't the case.
Simon, that "contemplate" instruction was hysterically funny. You need to do some serious thinking, son, not just contemplating about how right you must be. Learning how to think clearly and rationally is hard, but it is surely fun. Try it. Do it.
Really, Dr. Meyers, this is like shooting squid in a barrel. I realize that the uneducated fundies are more entertaining, but there are more worthy opponents out there.
If only more atheists were to join Ron Paul's
www.campaignforliberty.com
whose members now number 105280
we could influence this profreedom movement in our direction regarding porn, keep it free of govt intrusions, and support a woman's right to choose.
Join us and tell your friends to join and pass the torch.
Oh, our economics is free market, so called Austrian school which means www.mises.com and www.cafehayek.com
individual freedom limited govt no tax on income, sound money backed by gold or silver with no inflation.
check it out.
Ron Paul, no thanks.
No thanks.
Based on what the website says about MLK, apparently anyone who could be described as remotely left-wing is an atheist. Because God is a Republican.
At #164 tim Rowledge wrote:
WM = another Ayn Rand wannabe.
*yawn*
Ron Paul is a racist.
And don't get me started on the gold standard unless you really want to get a lecture on monetary policy. Incidentally, the total amount of gold that has ever been mined has been estimated at around 142,000 tonnes. Assuming a gold price of US$1,000 per ounce, or $32,500 per kilogram, the total value of all the gold ever mined would be around $4.5 trillion. This is less than the value of circulating money in the US alone, where more than $7.6 trillion is in circulation or in deposit.
Well, gosh Wm, I would just love to join up with Ron Paul but I do not think he would like me. I accept that evolution is true, he does not. I am a lesbian, he really don't like GLBT people. I have done volunteer work with african-american organizations, he don't much like teh blacks. I am glad my ancestors lost their plantation as a result of the Civil War, he thinks that it was an honorable cause.
If we could get pass these little disagreements, I am sure we could make a mighty force for good.
Should anyone want to spend some time wondering what the holy hell is wrong with the people mentioned in the article linked to by 'Tis Himself, specifically this Alex Jones cat, "who's recent 'documentary' details the plans of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, among others, to exterminate most of humanity and develop themselves into "superhuman" computer hybrids able to travel throughout the cosmos." SOunds like someone's been hitting the Herbert/Anderson Dune books a bit too hard.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261
Nutters, absolutely nutters.
Hi. 2 comments. Have you ever heard of anyone talking about a square triangle? No, because there is no such thing. From your own point of view, why would you even talk about God, since for you He does not exist? Isn't it rather pointless, like a two year old stomping his feet and saying Oh look at Me, look at Me? And the media gives you all the attention you crave. I hope you enjoy your time on Earth, as this is the only heaven you will ever know. For Christians, this is the only hell we will ever know :) Thanks for your unoriginal views on atheism and your oh so profound insights :) I know we will never meet on the other side, that is for sure, because there is a place reserved just for you, and just think, when you are there, you can say truthfully that you entered strictly on your own volition. God does not send anyone to Hell, they send themselves there. Oh, I forgot, there IS no God :) Oh well.
Now, here is what interests me. Leave aside the Christian argument for the existence of God. Let's turn to the atheist argument for the nonexistence of God. How would atheists KNOW anything about that either way? It would all be mere opinion and conjecture, would it not? I mean, how old are you? What happened before you were born would not be accessible to you except through books, would it? So where comes the KNOWLEDGE, not opinion, that there is no God? From others? From the viewpoints of others? Who among the atheists knows for sure that there is no God? There denunciation of God is based on a need to be grandiose, to have perceived and illusory control over their own lives (which they do not)(a little bacteria lays them low for days and a disease that causes death or severe illness prostrates them in spite of their willingness to be well or to live) So we are at the mercy of forces way way beyond us, and the atheist has ears but does not hear, has eyes but does not see, and there is nothing so pathetic as someone who is blind as a matter of choice. Now all the robotic atheists can cry out in one voice. WHO IS JIM BAUER to tell us how we are? Well, folks, you already know, deep inside of yourselves, that you do not have the last say in anything in this life. But the illusion is important to you. You MUST see yourselves as always right, always invincible,and that God is powerless in the face of your denial of Him. That is perhaps the most pathetic part of it all :)
Jim Bauer, please show us the physical evidence for your imaginary deity that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, not natural, origin. Until you do that, you have your answer as to why atheists exist. That is because your imaginary god likes to hide, and is so hidden he can't be found except by a person, like yourself, deluding themselves.
Well, folks, you already know, deep inside of yourselves, that you do not have the last say in anything in this life. But the illusion is important to you. - Jim Bauer
Pathetic. Surely you can do better than that? Of course I know I "don't have the last say" - and this knowledge is not "deep inside myself", but there whenever I happen to think about it. So I'm not maintaining an illusion otherwise, and your claim is revealed as complete crap.
Cleanup on aisle dumb
Thank you, gentlemen, you inadvertently bear out what I say.
OK, how about the Christian evidence for the existence of their god?
Says someone who believes the entire cosmos was created for us - a single, recently-appearing animal species on one tiny planet.
Bacteria are forces "way way beyond us"? Are we to worship them?
:)
James L. Bauer@188,
You're a liar, and not even a very good one. I have explicitly said that I do not believe I "have the last say" - so how can that possibly bear out what you say, when you have asserted exactly the opposite of all atheists?
Frankly James I don't think you really said anything.
Well, nothing of any substance.
When I read your posts I think of a man being swept down a raging river, desperately flailing his arms trying to find a branch, a log, anything, a rock, anything that will stop him from being destroyed, but the river of ignorance is much much stronger and the current is not that easily defeated. But I see your struggle and God sees your struggle, and if you look into the proofs for the existence of God and actually find them, instead of deriding God, you may make progress toward truth. To rail against God is shaking a puny fist at the entire universe, declaring yourselves not subject to its laws at the same time being whirled around on the planet at 25,000 mph, but declaring yourselves independent of the universe around you, as if you had all the answers necessary to establish yourselves as your own gods, which I fear is just what has happened. How can you ever find the true God, when you have made yourselves into gods? But I will pray for you, that you do not choose to remain blind til the end of your days, that you climb down off of the pedestals of your own making, and develop or find humility, and realize that in the face of the immense universe, you are just another person, just another soul, just another mind, seeking its way among the mysteries of life. But when you set yourselves up as your own gods to be self-worshipped, of course there is no room for the True God. What else would you expect? People do not willingly arrive at the truth. No one comes to God on his or her own, ever. They have to be called. And even then, there is constant rebellion. True Christians are in constant rebellion in one form or another, against God, and for Christians this is a daily struggle, to let go of our own will and desires and 1) Find out what God wants us to do, and 2) do it. This does not come easy.
When I was a much younger person, I did not have time for all this stuff about God. I ranted and raved against the universe as I saw it. Key words "as I saw it" :) When Christians spoke to me about God, I didn't want to hear it. They sent me tracts in the mail, which infuriated me even more. Then when my sister called me up and asked if I was saved, I said "from WHAT?" and she said "Oh Boy" And it went from there. It went from that to thinking about that, then looking at the world differently, from the point of view of "How did all this come about, in order and harmony, you have got to be kidding me that it is all random. Look at cells, how one step must be done before the next step kicks in or the cell dies and a million complexities and how the cell is more complicated than the world's most complicated computer, then investigating the Bible's CLAIMS, not dogmas but claims, to see if it is all true or so much BS. But seeing that science, at every turn, supports the Bible, bears it out, certifies even minor facts in the Bible itself, but most of all, the disciples died horrible deaths, one crucified upside down at his own request, rather than just say, hey, there is nothing to this story of Jesus Christ, even though we were there for three and a half years walking around with Him, we now deny what He said and did. All they had to do was deny it, and they would have lived, would have walked away. But who dies for a lie? Who among us would be killed, when asked if Charles Dickens was a British author, and all we had to say was no I never heard of the guy. But we did hear of Dickens and so we say no, we will not say it, and then we are executed? When ALL WE HAD TO DO WAS DENY IT? I don't think so. I don't think any of us would choose execution for a lie when by denying what was asked, we would live. But this is what happened with the disciples, all except John, who lived to be an old man. All others met violent deaths rather than deny what they witnessed.
Now look at Paul, Saul of Tarsus, who executed Christians left and right until he was on the road to Damascus and was struck down and blinded, and this was witnessed by many and was not a dream. Has anyone ever been converted by a dream? But Paul became THE most ardent champion of Jesus Christ who ever lived. Because of a dream? Or because of an experience? He was converted forever, on the spot, right on the road to Damascus. In one second his attitude changed from persecutor and executor of Christians, to their most dedicated apostle. How could this happen?
So you see, you should investigate the CLAIMS of the Bible and test them, look into them, rather than shake your fist at Love itself. Love that loves even you, who rail against Him :) If you will only come to him, acknowledge that you have no idea what you are doing, you just want guidance. But you have to climb down off of the atheistic pedestal first and dethrone yourself as the false god that you are, stop worshipping yourself, and see truth.
But of course this will not be done. Jim Bauer will be vilified instead :) Just for asking you to look into things. But Bauer gafs. To proclaim the message to you is my job. The investigation is for you to conduct.
Delusions of grandeur, projected.
James
How about you provide them for us?
Please give us your argument for the existence of god! We get the occasional poster claiming to have proof and we'd all like to actually hear it for once. Oh and please don't fall back on "You wouldn't believe it anyway!" that just means you were lying when you said you had proof. Then please give us your arguments for the nonexistence of Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Horus, Raven, Shiva, Black Annis, etc.
See you believe in your god to the exclusion of others meaning you must have a compelling argument for their nonexistence right, RIGHT?
Why do all the "messengers" like Jim L. Bauer sound like raving lunatics? (Punch line in 3...2...1)
From your own point of view, why would you even talk about God, since for you He does not exist?
Frankly, we would rather not. There are many more interesting things to discuss. However, we keep getting these "god" ideas shoved into our faces, into our laws, and into our societies by people who just can't keep their mouths shut about this god thing. If other people's belief in this god wasn't threatening our educational and healthcare systems, along with our basic civil rights, we'd certainly stop talking about it.
James L Bauer said:
Every so often this line is broken out: no one would die such a horrible death in service to a lie, so the Christian martyrs must have believed in something that was true, therefore the Jesus story is true, therefore God exists and the Bible is true.
Even the simplest examination of history will provide evidence for the fact that not only will people die for the most ridiculous of beliefs, they will also (and more likely) kill for them.
For example, I will make a bet that you, Mr. Bauer, would consider Communism to be a nefarious and murderous boondoggle. Yet true believers suffered torture, murder, and oppression in the cause of Communism, and when they came into power, they turned the tables and used torture, murder and oppression. Does this make Communism "true"?
Some Central American civilizations approved of voluntarily torture through ceremonial self-mutilation to advertise individual status, and sacrificed untold human beings to their gods. A significant percentage of those sacrificial victims likely went willingly to the altar. Do these practices speak to the "truth" of the Central Americans' belief systems?
And people certainly can die for the worst of reasons. Millions of German soldiers killed and died for the errors of Nazism; about 200,000 people in the U.S. south died defending (if you bring it back down to the basics) the evils of slavery; there were Protestant martyrs after there were Catholic martyrs. Do the horrifying deaths of Giordano Bruno or Hypatia of Alexandria "prove" that they were right? Or is it just that human beings are capable of suffering for ANY belief they hold to be more important than their lives? And can't many beliefs simply be in error?
That people suffered and died for their beliefs doesn't say anything about those beliefs other than that those people, at that time, chose to suffer and die for them. The validity of those beliefs stands or falls on its own, regardless of the choices and actions of their adherents.
James L Bauer, we've heard everything that you say before, many a time and oft. We also know that you won't understand what we say to you--the gap in understanding is too great. In short, though, you have been taught that your religion makes sense, that your arguments make sense, and that your thoughts make sense. But they don't. You are befuddled, befogged, in a dream state, babbling like a drunk. You think that you are making sense, but you aren't. Wake up, man. Sober up. See the light, seek the truth. Stop giving your life to priests and preachers who take your money and corrupt your soul. Walk upright in the day, don't cringe in the darkness.
We atheists can talk about God, even though He does not exist, just like we can talk about Superman, even though he does not exist. Yes, it is kind of pointless, as it what we say cannot affect someone as lost as you. And, no, the media does not give us all the attention that we crave. Atheists are largely ignored in this country and this world, which is why we hang out at this blog. For you to invade this blog to bitch at us is rather strange, but not surprising from a person who expects the creator of the universe to lend an ear every time you flop down on your knees to pray, saying, "Look at James L Bauer, Lord, look at me, and change your ineffable plans to fit my petty whims."
BTW, the big-G God is insulted when you refer to this Earth as Hell, as he put a lot of work into it, and it is the place that you point to when you claim evidence of a perfect designer. Which is it, James L Bauer, is this Earth a sordid hell, or God's good creation?
Well, James L, I've a life to enjoy, so I'll not preach into your emptiness any longer. I'll just ask you to look up "psychological projection", which is what you do when you ascribe motives to atheists. I'll also point out that the main reason that I know that there is no God is YOU, yes, you, James L Bauer, and people just like you. You try to tell me that there is a God, and I do listen to you, as there is no other reason in the world to think that God exists, and I would like for there to be a God, and would love to be a part of God's divine plan--really I would. But then you, yes, you, James L Bauer, through your actions, convince me that there is no God. Your hatred, your pettiness, your stupidity and your blindness, all show me that your assertion of God is baseless, and that there is no love in your heart or light in your life. You claim God exists, but you prove that He doesn't. You, yes, you, James L Bauer, prove that there is not God. Thank you.
And, in a strange twist, James L Bauer, your holy book says that if your actions drive anyone away from God, you, yes, you, James L Bauer, will be punished for it. If there is a Hell, James L Bauer, you are headed for it. You have sent yourself there.
Pathetic, aint it?
James Bauer, you are projecting so hard they could use you at a drive-in movie. Atheists do not deny God, we just ask for evidence. We do not shake our fists at the universe, we understand that the universe is what it is and live our lives in it instead of fantasizing about an afterlife. And as for being swept down the "river of ignorance", that is what we see the theists doing. Being swept along in their ignorance of the world, praying for salvation from an imaginary deity. What you call flailing and grasping at twigs is taking action and responsibility for one's own life and not allowing oneself to be passively swept away.
Ahh, as I suspected, no physical proof whatsoever. Sigh. These godbots are so wordy, say nothing, and are so boring.
"67 And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.
68 But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.
69 And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them.
70 And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto.
71 But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak. "
"...check it out."
We have Wm, we have. We are not impressed.
"...From your own point of view, why would you even talk about God, since for you He does not exist?..."
Because you guys insist on talking about such a thing, and because you incessantly bore us with talk of things you yourself cannot nor have ever personally experienced. If you would be so inclined as to provide us evidence that can be tested, verified, and used upon large groups of people for the betterment of mankind (and not the same stupid sales job you guys try pulling ALL the time), then we will listen. Until said time, feel free to stay, but don't feel entitled to respect.
"...Thanks for your unoriginal views on atheism and your oh so profound insights :) I know we will never meet on the other side, that is for sure, because there is a place reserved just for you, and just think, when you are there, you can say truthfully that you entered strictly on your own volition. God does not send anyone to Hell, they send themselves there..."
Thanks for the unoriginal views on theism, which you seem to share with every other religion out there, but seeing fit to be atheist about all other gods but your own. Odd how that works. You're actually a pretty good atheist James, you just need to go one step farther. Are you up to it, or is your fear of being alienated from your family for simply asking a few pointed but entirely valid questions too much to overcome? You're right: we will never meet on the "other side". I 'm not sure what side you are talking about, but I do know to what you allude. Perhaps your god would be so kind as to come to each one of us bad atheists and explain why he/she/it deserves any respect or admiration from us. We don't spend such currency as easily and frivolously as you apparently do.
"Thank you, gentlemen, you inadvertently bear out what I say."
Blah-buh-tee-blah blah. As is the self-righteous claim of every other idiot like you. What makes you think you're such a novel entrant around here? This is the kind of cop-out statement every ignorant theist makes the nanosecond they're engaged critically and forcefully on their claims. You guys clam up, assume victory, continue to post nothing of intellectual value, and eventually slink away. Congratulations James: You act exactly like all the other defeated theists and hide behind your keboard.
James L. Bauer (#184): "What happened before you were born would not be accessible to you except through books, would it? So where comes the KNOWLEDGE, not opinion, that there is no God? From others?"
Nope. I got my first information about what happened before I was born from my parents, as I imagine even you have from yours. (They also taught me how to read - you know, books. OTHER than the Bible).
Whence comes the 'knowledge' OR the 'opinion' that there's no God? From others. Yes indeed, from the viewpoints of OTHERS. Where the heck else might it arrive to a child who doesn't know jack shit about God in the first place? The same is true of the idea that some mysterious and invisible being is calling all the shots. WHATEVER the tale, kids are ALWAYS first introduced to an idea by the culture they happen to be born into. Or can't you wrap your mind around that idea? I would have thought so, since you claim to be able to so circumferentially wrap it around the idea of a God which is by your own definition totally incomprehensible to any of us mere mortals.
You know what makes me think ("for sure") there is no God? The existence of people exactly like you.
How do I come to such a conclusion? Well, people like you keep insisting that God is this thing which is omniscient, all-powerful and totally in control of every situation you can wrap your feeble wits around. You have no evidence whatsoever to offer for the existence of God, yet you are absolutely 100% positively certain that He exists.
Then you have the temerity to turn it around and suggest that atheists are somehow not aware of forces (IN NATURE) that are "way way beyond us", that we have "eyes but don't see", and have "ears but don't hear". What's that supposed to mean? Isn't that also potentially equivalent to bragging that you see and hear things that really aren't there? THINK about it, if you have any brains at all left over.
Like all God-bots you exercise the god-like audacity that comes with the belief, and proclaim that atheists are full of illusion and do not have "the last say in anything in this life". You insist something there that is completely antithetical to the principles upon which this country was founded...only you are completely ignorant or in complete denial of that conceptual train-wreck.
You impart to atheists an "illusion" which is "important" to us, declare that we "MUST see [ourselves] as always right, always invincible, and that God is powerless in the face of [our] denial of Him"...which you characterize as "the most pathetic part of all".
You know what's really pathetic? Anytime anybody like you attempts to make a case based on no evidence whatsoever, and in the same breath accuses others of building worldviews that are not based on evidence that isn't there. Which is it? Are you prepared to tell us what evidence you have in mind? If you've got it, why don't you flaunt the hell out of it? Can it be there isn't any? Can it possibly be that you haven't the foggiest idea what you pretend to be talking about? Can it be that you see and hear things that aren't actually there?
Know what I think? I think you are worried that you may in fact be totally wrong. Why else would you go through all the trouble of bothering over what atheists think? Did you forget? You are supposed to be all-knowing, remember? You've got GOD on your side! You MUST as a result have it all in the bag. What the hell else do you need? Faith? What's your problem?
J.L. Bauer: "When I read your posts I think of a man being swept down a raging river, desperately flailing his arms trying to find a branch, a log, anything, a rock, anything that will stop him from being destroyed, but the river of ignorance is much much stronger and the current is not that easily defeated."
Well, as long as you accept the existence of raging rivers with currents NOT preordained by God, you have a small chance of seeing where your whole premise gets goofed up.
Unless, of course, you figure that God predetermines the exact course of every poor sap who flails his arms desperately about down that raging river...in which case no amount of struggling to reach for any branch, log, rock or anything else that will avail him and STOP HIM FROM BEING DESTROYED (YOUR WORDS, YOUR ANALOGY) unless God decides he will survive. WITHOUT ANY EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE FELLOW WHO IS STREAMING DOWN THE RAGING RIVER ATTEMPTING TO GRAB AHOLD OF ANYTHING THAT WILL STOP HIS DESTRUCTION.
Thus you stupidly provide an analogy based entirely on natural chaotic processes over which you seek a proof of the exact opposite. You haven't much of any clue to the 'mystery', do you?
So which is it, bright guy? Are there REALLY such avenues in life that are completely exempt from the control of that God guy, or not? And if there are avenues that are specially smoothed over by that guy, (you know, for people who hold an insufferablly superior estimation of themselves, like you) why is it that countless numbers of innocent people have met their doom by circumstances beyond their control (indeed, no matter how strongly they held their religious convictions) while the population of assholes continues to grow exponentially?
If you are in any slightest way correct, I would consider this 'controlled design' of your God-guy deplorable even if I DID accept the existence of it.
Two sister sites run by a former atheist
www.gotquestions.org and www.allaboutGod.com
How come there are many more former atheists than former Christians? These two sites don't answer that question, and of course it is a rhetorical one, yet interesting to contemplate.
But re proofs and all the usual arguments for and against God etc just check out those two sites.
da plane, Boss, da plane!
I just read over the comments posted prior to my posting the two former atheist's websites, and I am interested in the hatred that comes through. I find it fascinating that atheists are not able to objectively evaluate any other information other than their own. And that they must hate, as a matter of course, being without charity or compassion, hatefully denouncing those who are believers. But this leads only in a dismal circle. Why not check out the two websites run by a former atheist like yourselves?
First of all, where the hell do you get that? Show me solid credible evidence for that statement. Yet even if the statement is completely false and there a more former Christians than former atheists, you're using the "bandwagon fallacy". There are several atheist sites from former Christian and jewish clergy also. Yours is not a legitimate argument Moron Leon.
Data? Or do you just take that claim on "faith"?
JLB, post the physical evidence for god here. You do the work if you want to convince us. Otherwise, STFU.
What is your point James?
.
We hate the foolishness, not the fool.
And quit whining. You're only here because you're Witnessing, and you want to feel scorned and rejected, just as your christ was.
Why not go the whole hog and crucify yourself?
Or, better, learn to think. Go to "exchristian.net" and find out what happens when christians think for themselves. Now there's charity and compassion for you!
Where the hell did you think I came from? You want to know a little secret Leon? The seminaries have significant numbers of dropouts. These dropouts were fervent believers until they went to the seminary. They usually end up identifying as agnostic and drop out, but several usually lose the wishy-washy mask and admit to becoming atheists. It's all a bullshit con game Leon. There are no magical deities, no Sky Daddy with Santa Clause-like powers to catch you masturbating or shoplifting. But you're so invested in believing this noble lie of religion that you can't back down. Fine. You have to be a person who is good for the sake of being good and not because you fear some (nonexistent) eternal punishment. Just shut up and move on, you have nothing new to offer that most of us didn't already know.
James I just went to your sites.
Pitiful. The standard of proof there is woefully low.
Just look here and here.
That is proof?
Seriously that is the standard for proof that you think is sufficient?
No wonder.
Oops, I'm getting Leon and James confused. You can't tell your zealots apart without a program...
oooohhhh how the tempers flare at mere discussion. This is what I said earlier, that hatred comes through even in discussions. But I love you guys, I mean, I have learned so much here, especially from the ones with answers :)
EV is especially upset. Is he like this all the time or just during the day and night?
Astrounit does not like any kind of discussion either, as that temper flares up right away. That constant anger and hatred is no good for your health.
Oh holy shit. Those two links above were bad but this is just laughable.
This is considered proof?
And then this list. The last point being particularly hilarious.
Seriously James. You need to raise your standards because if that is what you accept as evidence, they are currently residing a snake belly levels.
James, you're so late to the game. You're the hundredth religiotard with the same idiotic irrational tract. We're peevish because we're tired of ignorant self-righteous asses like you who bring nothing new to the discussion. Read the archives, oh pompous one, you might learn... no, nevermind, you have to be able to think to learn.
We'll see. The thread is still young.
Proof of god? Or proof of delusional thinking. I prefer the latter. God doesn't exist until I see the physical evidence proving otherwise. Why are idiot godbots so shy about showing real physical evidence. Oh yes, maybe they don't have any. Time to pony up the real evidence JLB. Or be seen as a liar and bullshitter. Of course, you can always fade into the bandwidth.
Trolis pozemyje!
You are not here for a discussion. You are here to testify and get us evil atheists to change our degenerate ways. Big difference.
Has anyone ever pointed out how long winded you are?
science, at every turn, supports the Bible, bears it out, certifies even minor facts in the Bible itself - Pathetic liar James L. Bauer
Sure it does. Bats are birds, and rabbits chew the cud. Right.
Thanks for the giggle, Sven (@224).
Watch out for Jim Bauer, guys--he's a man on the edge. He's done more than pull a few fingernails in all his years at the Counter Atheist Unit, and now that he's discovered our plot to take over the world there's no telling how far he'll go.
Jim Bauer will be vilified instead - Jim Bauer the pathetic liar
Jim, referring to yourself in the third person is a recognised sign of grandiosity, often indicating a psychopathology such as narcissistic personality disorder.
Straight out of DSM-IV.
I Kings 7:23-26 (II Chronicles 4:2-5) - π = 3 fail
Leviticus 11: 20-23 - six legged fail
Matthew 13:31-32 NRSV Fail - epiphytic orchids have the smallest seeds
Genesis 30:37-39 - Just looking at a stripped rod will cause the "flock" to have stripped offspring.
Yes all very scientific it is.
We have psychological evals, we have plenty of hatred, we have personal attacks, and most of all the underlying current of anger, and this interests me the most, as I find that atheists cannot talk about issues without becoming heated.Just because you have heard this time and time again, does not mean it is not true. It means that you don't think it is true, which is natural, given your positions on life. But have you ever examined your own beliefs closely? Or are you just on the bandwagon with others?
JLB, Yawn you bore. Have you examined your beliefs, and checked for delusional thinking? Obviously you haven't since you are a godbot. The only rational position is atheism, since god doesn't exist, and the bible is a work of fiction. Until you prove otherwise, you are a liar and bullshitter.
James your continued appeal to emotion does nothing to back up your assertions.
Please provide substance rather than running around flapping your arms claiming you can fly yet staying firmly tethered to the earth.
most of all, the disciples died horrible deaths, one crucified upside down at his own request, rather than just say, hey, there is nothing to this story of Jesus Christ, even though we were there for three and a half years walking around with Him, we now deny what He said and did. All they had to do was deny it, and they would have lived, would have walked away. But who dies for a lie?
Lots of people have, and not according to me, but to you. Did you think Christians invented or have a monopoly on martyrdom? Hell, the very concept in Christianity was born of an amalgamation of the idea of the suffering servant (cf. Isaiah) from Jewish literature and the Greco-Roman idea of the righteous death (Socrates as an exemplar). Everyone, ever, who died for beliefs you do not personally hold, according to you, "died for a lie."
Also, why are you citing apocryphal sources? Nowhere in the Bible does it say Peter was crucified upside down.
As for "three and a half years," funny you should mention it. Interesting discrepancy between John and the Synoptics, wouldn't you say? Given your entirely uncritical approach to sources, though, I'd be surprised if you ever noticed.
But this is what happened with the disciples, all except John, who lived to be an old man. All others met violent deaths rather than deny what they witnessed.
Interesting. Can you list these "disciples" and enumerate the grisly ends to which they came, without citing a bunch of lurid second and third century apocryphal sources?
Now look at Paul, Saul of Tarsus, who executed Christians left and right until he was on the road to Damascus and was struck down and blinded, and this was witnessed by many and was not a dream. Has anyone ever been converted by a dream? But Paul became THE most ardent champion of Jesus Christ who ever lived. Because of a dream? Or because of an experience? He was converted forever, on the spot, right on the road to Damascus. In one second his attitude changed from persecutor and executor of Christians, to their most dedicated apostle. How could this happen?
Where does it say Paul ever executed anyone? Persecuted, yes. Executed, no. And the road to Damascus is a Lukan invention. Paul says nothing about being "struck down and blinded" when he discusses his conversion. Why the difference? or did you never notice that one either?
Your proofs are worthless, your comprehension of your very own scripture is haphazard at best, and your arguments are based on bald assertions that you've given us no reason to to take seriously. Fail.
What is the common denominator? YOU! Could it be that you're incapable of rational thought when it comes to the supernatural and are infuriatingly dense intellectually?
You think everyone else in the world is deaf because no one answers you. You don't hear any answers because you're the one who's deaf, paradigm-shift -boy.
You and Barb should find one another, you'd make a splendid couple (though you won't get much nookie from Barb).
I'm sure somebody's already mentioned this, but the Romans described early Christians as "atheists". I guess people are more bothered by a rejection of their particular god than the rejection of all gods.
JLB - don't confuse our utter scorn with respect.
There is nothing about you, as presented here, which would encourage respect.
1) You write badly - even to express bad ideas.
2) Your courage is a sham. Sky Daddy is controlling you.
3) Your motives in posting here are utterly selfish
4) You are deeply ignorant and deluded that you are wise
5) You like the idea of us all burning in hell. Ha ha.
On the other hand:
You give the pharyngulites the chance to show off their wit.
So...on balance?
Nah. Fuck off.
James, you are flailing badly, and as I said before, showing that you don't know what you are talking about.
You say that we are showing hate. We aren't the ones intruding on a blog to tell everyone there that they are wrong. We aren't the ones who expect everyone who disagrees with us to burn in Hell forever.
Think about Hell for a bit, James, and ask yourself how you personally can save everyone who ever existed from burning in Hell. Figured it out yet? Here's the answer--give up believing in Hell. If you won't do that, you are directly condemning all those people, and have no room to talk about hate. Do it, man, give up your chance at Heaven to save everyone else from Hell. What would Jesus do?
The hatred you imagine is coming from within you, James. You are filled with hate and anger and condemnation. I certainly do not hate you--others here might, as you are acting in a manner sure to bring out frustration in any sane person.
Yes, you are annoying. You spout hatred, and assume that the nonsense that persuaded you will serve as indisputable proof to the adults here. What would you do if a spoiled child interrupted a Bible-study session, spouting filth, nonsense and rudeness? That is you, James. And like a spoiled child, you start snivelling that nobody likes you.
Don't expect us to go off and read some silly site, when you can't even provide us a clickable link, when the site is mish-mashed tripe, and when we've been telling you that we've seen and heard it all before. Well, we did read some of your sites, despite the bother, because we are not close-minded. It's old nonsense, James, just like your arguments, just like your religion, just like your behavior.
And lay off the crap about ex-atheists. You know not what you do. There are very few people who have given up on thoughtful, reasoned atheism. There are many Christians claiming to be ex-atheists, but upon examination, they are either lying, or were at most raised outside a church, or flighty folks who thought of atheism in their lurch through a dozen spiritual experiments.
I was raised in a church-going family which hosted bible studies and revivals, and my journey to atheism was slow, thoughtful and direct. It was scary at times, and depressing at times (such as when I realized that every Christian that I had been brought up to respect was actually a raving nutter, and again when I realized that my own mother prays for me to burn in Hell). But many others have independently made the same journey, and have arrived at the truth. That journey, and that arrival, is one of the many evidences that we have the truth.
Despite what you may think, James, the folks here have not been indoctrinated by the equivalent of a fat-ass preacher man out for our money. We each, individually, sought the truth and we each found it--there is no God. We deal with that each in our own way, and we almost all continue to seek the truth, still, not to rest in snug seclusion.
I, for one, would very happily go back to the loving God that I believed in as a child. To be wrapped in the loving arms of Jesus, Heaven-bound and happy, would far outweigh any attraction of this Earth, or any ego issues that I could possibly imagine. But you, James, think that I reject all that just to puff myself up. Who, as you ask, would die for a lie? Who, on this world, would deny God for anything on this world? I only deny God because he does not exist.
You, James, reveal your own reasons in what you accuse us of. If you mention egos, check your own. If you mention reasons, examine your own. There's a thing called Identicals and Opposites--either you are doing the identical same thing you accuse us of, or the very opposite (with the twist that sometimes it is both identical, such as denying truth for personal reasons, and opposite, such as you accusing us of wanting to feel big when you want to feel small).
As we said, we've seen you and your nonsense before. Some of us write back at you for practice, or to get our own thoughts in order a bit better, but none of us expect you to understand, even though we offer you logic, proof and truth. You write nonsense that you've been persuaded is good, and expect us to believe you, even though all you offer is the same old slop that we've waded through many a time, yet you expect us to be overwhelmed and to convert, over-awed by the majesty of James L.
Hate? No. Pity, changing to contempt as you flail on in your hatred.
Burn in hell, James, and I mean that in the most loving and Christian way.
Well, I guess I owe all of you an apology. I thought rational discussion could be had here, but alas, I only receive venomous replies. My feelings could not be assuaged in a hundred years, so hurt do I feel by the attacks :) Wait, I am already over it!
Just a suggestion, guys, but you really ought to just come out and SAY what is on your mind instead of beating around the bush. :) I think that in perhaps fifty years I could learn to like you folks.
James...you won't change my mind. I became an atheist while sitting in church one Easter Sunday, listening to the gospel and realizing for the first time in my life that the whole story was bullshit. I walked out of church a non-believer. Why should I believe in some sadistic bully who kills his (human/god) son who only dies because he knows he'll be resurrected in 3 days? Most people would be willing to die if they knew they'd come back to life.
I was an agnostic for a long time. I took my children to church really only because first, family expectations, and to expose them to the stories as I knew it would help them in school (art, literature, etc). They dropped away from the church at an early age, which was fine with me. Then I read books by Bishop John Shelby Spong, Hector Avalos and others, and really began to question the stories I believed in. It became worse as I grew older. Why would a loving god condemn people to hell for never having heard of him? No parent would do that to a child, so why should this supposed loving god?
I've been happier, more productive, and more loving since I quit believing. Since this is the only life I've got, I'm making the most of it.
Can't answer my questions, eh, James?
What did the 9/11 hijackers die for?
James appealing to emotion instead of backing his assertions
James you are so transparent it is ridiculous. You are conveniently ignoring the comments and parts of comments actually addressing your unsupported claims. All you are doing is crying about how mean people are.
If you want to convince us start providing evidence to back your claims and quit crying at the teacher about the meanies.
James you are a lying troll. You did not come here for rational discourse. Your first posting here (#183) is itself a venomous diatribe that deserved no more than venomous replies, yet was given many considered thoughtful replies that you conveniently ignore or characterize as hateful. GFY (sideways)
Supercilious, arrogant, moron.
You have grave personality flaws, JLB. What are you doing to sort them out?
If Christ were anything like you, I'd crucify the fucker.
Actually, scratch that. I'd forgive him.
Not you though.
I was raised without any formal religion, and now consider myself an ex-Transcendentalist. I suppose this puts me in rebellion against the concept of God as a force of energy and love permeating the universe, that Fundamental Existence from which we all come, and to which we will all return. It's hard to work up much anger over that sort of God, though. And I still cannot manage to hate Ralph Waldo Emerson. He didn't really screw my life up or anything.
JLB definition of rational discussion: We agree with him and are converted.
Pharyngula idea of rational discussion: We look at your evidence and comment on it. If it is feeble, we will mock it.
JLB, this is our site and we define what is rational and what is not. Your evidence is not rational, so it will be mocked. Deal with it.
Apologies. That should have read:
If Christ were anything like you, I'd crucify the fucker.
I'd like to get in as much quality blasphemy as possible before they make it illegal.
AHA!
That would explain that whole wise and patient Earth-Mother vibe.: )
Oh, I guess you were playing devil's advocate and providing the irrational side of the argument. Bravo, well done!
James, just to try dislodge you from the whinny 6 year old impression you are currently working
Which claims do you suggest?
I'm about done playing with James, the little troll. He probably thinks he's pissing us off, or putting us through the labor of writing. Like I said, I am not mad at the child, I am just sad for him. What a waste of alleged sentience.
I do like writing, and really need the practice. I find getting my thoughts into words helps me to be sure they are clear, and very often leads me into new associations and new areas. So thanks, James, you venomous little delusional--I really only reject God so that I won't have to spend eternity with people like you.
James, you really are hurting your alleged case here. We just went through a big discussion about how atheists should act all nice so as to not put folks off, and here you are, acting like a religious fanatic.
Speaking of blasphemy:
"People crucified Jesus because that was the only part of God that they could get their hands on."
Steve M., "Lying troll" is excellent. and Anthony K, you really have to get ahold of yourself. You just cannot discuss anything without becoming so angry, and it still interests me.
JLB, you can't discuss anything because you offer nothing. What an ignorant godbot.
James quit dodging and playing games, you are becoming a bore.
Address my post #230 in relation to your claim that
Answer the questions, James. What are you afraid of?
JLB, were you in the seminary? Are you an ordained minister? Are you a scientist? Do you have a Masters degree in any discipline? A Ph.D. perhaps? Do you know the difference between meiosis and mitosis without googling? How about a Hox1 gene? How about pharungula? Do you understand the meaning of Dunning-Kruger effect?
(Do you like gladiator movies? wait, what?)
I thought I already apologized for being a bore, a lying troll (my favorite) a delusional little something or other, I forget now.and EV is quite impressive in post number 258, of COURSE I don't know all those things you know, EV, you know that. CJO: What am I afraid of? That is such a broad question, CJO. And Rev, I am sorry to be a bore. I know there are more out there that I have not apologized to directly, so just let me know what it is I have done to offend you and I will come up with the requisite apology.
You claim you want to have a rational discussion and all you are doing is spinning in a circle saying nothing.
Adresss post #230 in reference to your statement
No, wait. That is much too much work, to sit here and apologize piecemeal. I hereby apologize to all of you for everything you said I did, or was, or am, or feel, or believe. For any offense I have caused, for any anger I have kindled or rekindled, for everything I have posted. There, that should cover everything.
JLB, either answer the questions or shut up. They type of trolling you are doing at the moment where you do not engage in real dialog has resulted in people being plonked into the dungeon (being banned). Either engage or go away.
Oh, no, I tried dialogue but it was met with anger, so now I am apologizing to everyone.
even the guy's apologies for being boring are boring
--> killfile!
Am I some kind of masturbation fantasy for you, you sick fuck?
No, that was a joke;)
Yes, James, it does make me angry - but pleasurably so. Temporarily, you represent all the hateful stupidity of the world. And I'm not keen on that.
The only thing that detracts a little is the knowledge that you, too, are enjoying it.
Not, however, as much as I am.
Um, JLB. I'm not a scientist, just a lowly artist with a B.A. and a penchant for being an autodidact when it comes to science, and I'm learning more each day. BTW, those few terms I mentioned are high school level terms. You have no excuse but willful ignorance.
Oh for fuck's sake.
PZ please. If there has ever been one that meets this criteria for trolling, wanking, godbotting and most importantly Insipidity, he meets it.
Refuses to actually address anything of substance.
I don't ask for this often but damn, plonkhammer ho!
JLB, you really haven't tried dialog. You want monolog, with us listening to you. That won't happen. Here is what you need to do: Really dialog and answer questions, or just fade into the bandwidth. Make up your mind and live with the consequences. Continued presence without a dialog is trollish behavior.
No you didn't. From the get go you have steadfastly refused to actually address any of the points brought before you.
Don't apologize Jimmy-boy. Learn something beyond the dogma you spout. No one here can teach you, you have to open your mind and find it yourself.
RevBDC:
Oh there is another more deserving... Alan has come back to awe us with his insipidness.
Curse you JLB, and your God of Formatting!
Yeah Alan is an idiot, but at least he presents some form of argument complete with points than can (and are) refuted.
JLB is just standing in the middle of the room wetting his pants.
Interesting dungeon, Rev. Care to share - or is it where you keep....John Denver?
That is such a broad question, CJO.
But you won't answer the specific ones, either. Why not?
Sadly no. I only have memories. And I keep them right here in my heart.
Interesting posts. Not substantive, but interesting in their own way. E.g. the anger issue. Don't any of you wonder why you have hair-trigger tempers? Set off by people like me?
Sweet crucified Myers, that is gross!
JLB - this isn't anger - this isfun!
Regarding James L. Bauer, and not addressing the little troll directly, I have a question for the group regarding his behavior. Is it possible that he is repeating directly the actions of whoever converted him to Christianity?
I think he is acting out a few frustrations and delusions, true, and doing some poor-quality trolling for his own sick jollies, as well. But my suggestion is that his approach to changing our minds is the very same as the technique that worked ON him.
This idea comes after a few other idiots have tried the same general approach, and it resonates with the styles of many preachers that I have heard. And, in addition, it is very compatible with religion in general. The technique that I speak of is this:
Scream nonsense at someone until their head is in a whirl, convince them that they are stupid and wrong, providing as evidence of their inadequacy the "fact" that they aren't capable of understanding what is being said, bully and humiliate them, call them names, confuse them, ridicule them, insult them, avoid all questions, bitch at them for asking questions, tell them their confusion is sinful anger, tell them of their flaws, exaggerate their flaws, extrapolate from their flaws, make up sins to accuse them of, berate them, ascribe false motives to them, slander their ideals, dismiss their lives, ridicule their hopes, promise to fulfill their hopes, get them to perform a humiliating act for use in later emotional blackmail, take their money . . ..
Okay, I've convinced myself that standard brainwashing techniques apply to religious conversions that I have seen. Sorry, that last paragraph left what James L. Bauer is doing in places, but as I said, writing helps me think. And in this case, makes me mad--DAMN those bastards!
Anyhow, back to my point/question . . ..
Is James L. Bauer using the same techniques that led him into the loving arms of insanity?
Don't any of you wonder why you have hair-trigger tempers?
I'm not in the least angry. Just curious as to why you won't answer direct, reasonable questions in response to what you've written.
Still dodging.
Comment #230 is still up there.
We aren't angry, but you are, since we are calling you on your dodgy behavior. Now, either answer our questions or fade into the bandwidth. Any other behavior on your part is pure troll, and also boring, which is PZ's prime offence to get you banned.
Manyambal and others can say anything and my own "dodgy behavior" can get me banned? And being boring can get me banned? Now that seems very very unfair.
Oh I see, it's talk absolute drivel day.
Not to mention all the posts about ice cream? Are those people in danger of being banned because they did not discuss theological issues?
Yes,Kel. Drivel is anything you yourself disagree with.
I think his religious mania is very strong right now, and it is no doubt never far from the surface. He's in a little fantasy, about how he is like Christ, hell that he is Christ. (He isn't)
I wonder if, in real life, he, say, holds down a job? And I don't consider "work with computers" to be a real...err, no I'd better not say that.
What interests me is what motivates him to come here to be eviscerated so completely? I mean is it anything more than itchy stigmata? Or, as I suspect, a psycho-sexual masturbation session?
I don't really care. For me, he just represents all the attitudes that make humanity so stupid and nauseating. And I get to tell them to fuck off. Yay!
JBL, boring is PZ's worst crime, and since you are saying nothing, presenting nothing, defending nothing, you are boring. Quit apologizing and throw an idea out with some physical evidence to back it up. Or fade into the bandwidth. But just staying here for the sake of staying here is boring, trollish, and bannable.
Answer the questions posed to you child.
It is obvious you can not.
Oh ye of little faith in your own faith.
That's "Menyambal" to you, please. "Manyambal" has an entirely different meaning, which might fulfill some of your fantasies, but not mine, thanks. Isn't it odd that God didn't stop you from making that hilariously obscene mistake?
No, drivel is making statements that go against the evidence. I've only ever done amateur astronomy, but I'm pretty sure that the sun and a whole host of other stars came before the earth. I'm pretty sure that the world is not flat nor is it static. I'm pretty sure that bats are mammals and not birds. I'm pretty sure that humans are not made out of dirt / clay, but evolved. And I'm almost certain snakes can't talk. If you want to say those mistakes are because the stories are allegories, fine. But don't say that at every turn science supports the bible because quite clearly from both a historical and scientific perspective, it does not. You can't have it both ways.
Typo, Menyambal. Kel, whatever you say. Nerd, I see you are an expert on banning, thank you. Anthony K, aren't you ever going to get ahold of that anger and defeat it somehow? Therapy might be a start.
JLB, how about you getting therapy for coming to an atheist blog, posting theist crap, and expecting a polite welcome. You are a troll and a toad. Go away.
Thank you, Nerd of Redhead.
blockquote>Therapy might be a start.
Sigh. You may be right. Can you recommend one - though clearly not your own?
Listen, dickwad, the fact that you are getting tortured and murdered here, and will - alas - come back (because "stupid" is not just for Christmas!) is the only similarity you have with christ.
Now, go off on a wank on a crucifix.
Moron.
I do hope I'm not offending the more sentient among you...
AnthonyK, no one can be tortured and murdered by words alone, so don't worry about that. Thank you, though. And the "moron" is a nice touch. It seems as though you are finally getting in touch with your angry feelings after all, and this is good for you, to act out, so to speak.
Hey, I feel that too! We have something in common! And the pity is, if you weren't tediously posting here it would all be sublmiminated :(
Excellent comeback, AnthonyK, seriously. That was good.
If you are going to talk shit, expect to be called out on it. If you don't want to be called out on it, what the fuck are you doing on the internet?
Remember James, you can end it all now. Just go off and do something else. Read a book - the Bble, say, or even some non-fiction - "The Origin of Species" aprings to mind.
You ever been in a cockpit before?
You ever seen a grown man naked?
Jimmy, have you ever been in a...in a Turkish prison?
Thank you James. Perhaps, when you stop being a tedious, god-bothering troll, you have the DNA of a fine human being. Though, I have to say, I am far from convinced.
In all seriousness, I am just yanking your chains ever since you busted my chops over what I originally posted. But you are right, and I am serious now, that I should not expect to go to an atheist blog or site and expect to mention to you stuff you have all heard before and for whatever reason, rejected. I did not come here with anything else in mind but to just throw out proofs for the existence of God, I really did not. What caused me to come here in the first place is an incident I read about on the internet about PZ requesting or gathering communion hosts so he could put a nail through them etc so that is what led me here, and I figured as long as I was here, I might as well throw out what I considered to be, not unassailable proofs, but things to think about, and I really should have thought a little bit about it before my initial post.
So there you have it in a nutshell.
I mean, imagine someone going to a Shakespeare site and railing about drama in general. Wrong forum and format etc. There is a time and a place for everything and I guess I lost sight of that.
Transubstantiation = super cereal science.
A touch of christlike humility. But is it real, James, or is it prideful....
"...What caused me to come here in the first place is an incident I read about on the internet about PZ requesting or gathering communion hosts so he could put a nail through them etc so that is what led me here..."
Your story is not exactly correct. It was not multiple hosts, it was one. PZ was not asking people to go out and find bags of the things so he put nails through all of them. It was one "unconsecrated host".
Hey, you've just had a bit of "railing" drama! When you come back, if you come back, ditch the proselytising shit and only say something if it's worth saying, or even if it's merely entertaining.
But beware, in either case, the standards are high..
James. That is lame. Very very lame.
So what do you think about the story you heard about CrackerGate?
I'm interested what distorted version you are working from.
AnthonyK, it would not really be a source of pride to admit our mistakes to others, would it? So it is not prideful. And BlueIndependent, I got the story wrong or someone else did, so thanks for that clarification.
Rev, at this point I have no idea where I read it, it was a short article somewhere on the internet, and right now I have no idea where.
James,
One important thing that you should realize about most atheists is that we don't have a need for god. You're communicating with people who do not believe what you are sharing with them exists. You're asking us to buy on faith the fact that spending time in church, telling other people about this belief and living a life based on it may one day reward us. That's difficult enough. When you add to this the fact that you are not only selling us something you can't prove exists, but that we don't even want, things turn from difficult to impossible.
Atheists assert that the foundation for our actions and deeds lie in proven methods related to science and the establishment of undeniable fact. In this, we believe that they have everything we need to live a healthy, rewarding life.
We're not wrong - no more than you are in asserting that your faith in the tenets of Christianity are all you need to live your life. And that's the point. It's hard to convince a man with two working legs that he needs to buy a third, or worse, get rid of his and try the ones you have on. And when he looks for your version and cannot see, feel, touch or otherwise prove that they actually exist, he's going to completely dismiss you. It's not personal, it's just how we work as people.
It's crazy to buy something you can't prove exists, isn't it?
So you can converse about the quartos versus folios, the differences between extant copies of Julius Caesar, the myriad of authors who supposedly ghost wrote for ol Billy, etc? Or were you going to talk about Fletcher & Beaumont or Restoration Comedy and Lady Barry or perhaps Absurdism - Ionesco, Theater of Alienation -Chekov? no,no, I've got it -Pump Boys & Dinettes... or Godspell.
Yeah, tell us about the relevance of Godspell to King Lear or A Winter's Tale.
Let me run something by everyone, and this is neither a proof for the existence of God or for anything else.
What exists in reality is not dependent upon what you or I or anyone else BELIEVES. It is either real or not, it either exists in objective reality or it does not. This is irregardless of what we happen to think about it, whether we are dead sure of something or whether we are dead set against it.
Reality is not dependent upon what we think of it, i.e. whether it exists or not.
There may be stars in the universe that give off rainbow light instead of just light. I have no idea. What I think about it has no effect on whether there IS such a type of star. There may be 12 planets in our solar system. My belief that there are 9, has no bearing whatsoever on reality. Regardless of what I think or claim, there may in reality, in fact, be 12 planets.
I have always found this to be very interesting, that our beliefs are seen by us to actually determine what is objectively real or not.
And some will say that the only ultimate reality is what we can experience ourselves, i.e. subjective reality and that everything is relative to everything else. But that is a separate question.
And neither is this a question of epistemology, how we can know anything.
It is just this: That our opinions do not confer reality or unreality on any object or entity outside of our own mind.
James go back and read your first posts - in particular @192, and hang your head in shame.
The voices seem to have left your head now, so go back and read it again, as a stupid post on a clever atheist blog.
Get it?
Tis Himself, that is a very profound and true insight.
No, AnthonyK, not in shame but in realization of not remembering who I am talking with, as Tis Himself just pointed out. It is not a stupid post, it is an inappropriate post on THIS blog, but no more and no less. The fact that the blog is atheist does not make it clever.
But my post was not appropriate given the forum I am now in, as I said.
Correct. It is not the fact that this is an atheist blog that makes it clever.
To make it clearer that I am not talking about God, let me posit a square-shaped star, or anything else that might seem unlikely, or that we are completely unfamiliar with here on Earth.
Our opinion regarding the square-shaped star's existence has nothing to do with its existence. We do not think it into existence as objective reality.
But we do this all the time. We self-authenticate.
"Thus and so is true".
"How do you know?"
"Because I believe it to be true"
AAAARGH! Now I am angry!
Here's what dictionary.com says about "irregardless".
@#316
WTF?
Wow, except for the word epistemology, that sounded like an 8th grader's attempt at being deep.
For your personal edification JLB: Dunning-Kruger effect
"Not talking about God" is, um, talking about God.
Listen, if your God exist, he is responsible for all the suffering in the world ever - a considerable amount, as I'm sure you agree. This is an absurd idea.
Just like your God.
James at 318:
AnthonyK. is right: this is a clever atheist blog.
The blog is not smart because it is atheist: it is atheist because it is smart.
Being intelligent leads to atheism. That does not mean that all intelligent people are atheists, nor does it mean that all atheists are intelligent. However, it is true that being credulous leads to religion, and intelligent people often start questioning and demanding evidence. And quite simply, as far as religion goes, the evidence is simply not there.
When I typed "irregardless" I wondered if this was correct or not but I let it go, figuring that people would substitute a better word (which would not be difficult).
EV, thanks for promoting me to the 8th grade, I thought you were going to put me at a much lower level.
SC:
Peter Graves fan? or are you just being saucy?
Not at all. After so many years of Christians repeating Pascal's Wager at me, I realised I was playing with fire, not just in the next lifetime, but in this one as well. Ever since that fateful day, I've been faithfully sacrificing to Xipe Totec every Tlacaxipehualiztli to ensure bountiful crops, not just for my benefit, but for all people, everywhere.
Of course, when selecting potential sacrificees, if you pair off believers from the other major religions in a sudden death (heh-heh) tournament you gain the added benefit of sussing out which other god(s) are likely to be true ones based on rounds survived.
Fuck me mate, now you've upset 'Tis. Shall I fetch the police?
Yes but there is a way to mitigate this. By requiring evidence of things before we believe in them.
True because it's true, or true because you believe it to be so?
Quick James - the door's over there behind the curtain - no, not that one, the other one - yes that one. Leave now, dear heart!
God speed!
God speed! So my very first post convinced you after all, and here you were holding out all this time!
Good lord man! Stop groveling and get up! Put your "belief" in neutral and go and learn about how things actually work as to our best understanding. I'm not telling you to "cast aside God" just don't automatically put in "Goddidit" mode every time you come across questions you can't answer. Science is not about proving or disproving a deity, once you understand that you will realize that there is no cabal of Satanic scientists unitedly trying to destroy religion. If you have to believe there's an afterlife to just get through your current life, so be it, just don't push religious texts as proof of anything other than people like to believe in myths from bronze age scripture.
EV, if I could only learn as much as you about how things work, or even half as much, I would be content.
It's an interesting thought experiment. Even without one to observe gravity, gravity obviously still exists. The universe is objective in that sense where we are limited by many things including our observation point. Take your belief in 9 planets, why 9 and not 6? Surely it comes down to the best evidence at hand. We can and have observed 8 other celestial bodies that appear like ours to be orbiting the sun.
So can we apply this to God. What is the best evidence available to support that there's an omnipotent, omniscient consciousness that willed the universe into existence and that consciousness takes an active interest in the lives of humanity? Can these evidences only be explained by the Christian construct of God, or any construct of God, or as part of the functionality of the natural world? Is it anything more than an expression of the unknown, or an anthropomorphic representation of the universe? Or is there something more?
James, in order to learn, you must first seek knowledge.
And conversing is now "groveling". I just can't keep up with the self-imposed definitions anymore. Now I have to go out into the world and learn about how things actually work, as if I have no idea now.
Our gaff, our definitions.
And no, you're not managing to keep up. You need a rest, you've had too much to think.
It's a problem I admit. But if you tell your silly imaginary god to fuck off out of your head, it will get much easier, that I guarantee.
Why? Ain't that what God's for? It seems he's willing to whisper any old bullshit in Kent Hovind's ear, so how come you gotta all your learnin' on your own?
Kel, another question comes into play here, and that is the idea that no matter what "proof" is offered, if one is not inclined to consider it seriously, it is not a proof to that person.
No matter how convincing, it will fail to convince, because the whole discussion begins with people at polar opposites. I don't think anyone has ever been convinced by argument, no matter how cogent. There have been evidences presented in the field of science, BY scientists, and these ideas were rejected by the majority of other scientists. Every revolutionary idea, as all of you know far far more than I do, met with resistance precisely because of an entrenched viewpoint. So presenting proofs is not really to the point, because the other person is already determined to not accept them. I can never convince you of the truth of Christianity and you could never convince me of the truth of atheism. So this is the issue, to me, at least. That presenting any number of proofs, do not prove anything to the other person. The only place I can see where this is done successfully is with scientific experiments whose results are unequivocal.
That wasn't groveling? Oh, it was a stab at snarky humor. I get it, your wit is weaker than your knowledge. Dunning-Kruger effect, JLB, Dunning-Kruger effect . And the pissy ankle bite routine is just sad. Were all your mother's children delivered anally or was it just you?
JBL, you have no revolutionary idea. Just the same of shit. God doesn't exist, and the bible is a collection of fiction. So you are wasting your time here. Go troll elsewhere.
Hmmm. I'm still not convinced. Are there any bible verses you could quote to prove your point?
Jokes!
That's why I didn't ask for proof (unless you are mathematically showing God) I asked for evidence. It's not about presenting proofs at all, just trying to grasp what you think are good reasons to believe in God. Evidence is a far better word for we are evidence-based creatures. We make a conjecture, and try to get confirming evidence in order to show the conjecture has validity. Likewise I added some means of falsification in order to critically analyse the positive evidence. i.e. what is your argument? What evidence supports this? What are the strengths of the power of explanation? What are the weaknesses?
Yet in science we don't prove, only disprove. You can never prove by example, which is why science is a tentative endeavour prone to change as more evidence comes to light. I see the question of proof as irrelevant, it's a word that is not and should not be included in any discussion beyond mathematics or philosophy. That's why I asked for evidence, I'm curious as to what you see is the best evidence for your position and what are the drawbacks of such an explanation.
EV, I think you are the most hateful little fuck of all, aren't you? Nerd is a little better but take a lesson from Kel and AnthonyK and wise up
Meh, Anthony K, Nerd, Brownian, RevBDC & Kel won't leave enough on the bones to merit putting on a bib.
>Deep, ethereal voice:
James, this is God, I do not exist, I am only your imagination....James...go out and kill prostitutes... (oh sorry, wrong guy)...James go and live your life without me...for it is written....somewhere....love others...love yourself...and fuck off and leave Pharyngula...for it is most unwelcoming to fools....that is all...
JLB, say something intelligent. Same of idiotic blather. Why are godbots such pointless run-on drones? [/rhetorical]
JBL. Blow me you worthless sack of shit. You know-nothing, Jesus sucking, God licking ass crack of a human being. You're much stupider than anyone thought. Cross Kell and AnthonyK and they'll make me sound like a choir boy, you fat cumswilling fuck.
James L Bauer #341 wrote:
I don't think that it's generally true that people on different sides of a divide -- whether it be scientific, political, or even religious -- cannot be convinced or persuaded to change their minds given reasonable evidence or argument. Resistant, sure -- but there are a lot of people who have changed their minds, and it was on the basis of considering the evidence and reasoning their way to a conclusion. Atheists have become Christians, and Christians have become atheists: not on whim, but for reasons.
I'm an atheist, but I can think of things which could theoretically happen which would force me to seriously reconsider. I have to be prepared to do that, because I could be wrong. So, of course, could you. And that means we need to recognize how we can recognize our errors.
There are dogmatists out there, but I don't think that entails that there are nothing but dogmatists.
Sadly, no. Persistent little fucker, ain't he though?
Oops. I meant to say, "Good Day to you , sir."
Yes, Sastra, it's a dogmatist eat dogmatist world all right.
No, I will tell you EV, no disrespect to anyone else on here, you are just a malicious little fuck. Okay? Now, look at Kel and look at AnthonyK, for the most part, and certainly look at Sastra. These are the people you would be well advised to emulate. You are just a hateful little fuck, what else can be said, I mean, really, EV?
I know it's a silly question, but is anyone enjoying this as much as I am? James is right on so many vital points, but particularly that playing whack-a-fundie is great for dealing with anger issues. Why it's as if I don't even know what anger is anymore!
No, no, no! In scientific circles, revolutionary ideas meet with resistance because they are offered without supporting evidence, not because of some pseudo-religious blockheadedness. Your religion is showing.
Religious people ARE blinded by an entrenched viewpoint, James L, but scientists try hard to avoid such things. That's one of the crucial differences between science and religion. That's why we kept asking you for supporting evidence all day, you troll chain-yanker.
Folks like you truly cannot understand the difference in ways of thought between science and religion. Religious fundamentalists are persuaded that scientists just believe in evolution, as if it were some goofy Albion-island religion. You've been acting like you can shout us out of our positions, just like you got shouted into yours.
It's different, James L, it's more different than you can imagine. We aren't just marching to the beat of a different drummer, we are building instruments, forming a band, playing the music and dancing to it. We are alive, aware and fully human. It isn't always easy, but it sure is fun.
We are also fully aware of your day's trollery, and that you were being dishonest all along. Folks here have been remarkably patient with you--far more patient than you deserve. Remember that, and endeavor to be worthy.
Good luck.
Ooooh EV! That's a nasty wound. Can I put something on it for you?
JBL, you are a hateful little fuck because you won't go away. You have no business posting for your silly imaginary god, and even more fictional bible. Neither of which are you offering any physical evidence for. Take your show on the road like a good little xian.
Hey, I resent that!
Or what?
You can't intimidate me physically (trust me). So what are you going to do? Call my mom?
Tell PZ how hateful and mean I am? (he reads the blog comments, If I'm out of line he'll tell me)
I've got plenty of friends of many different faiths as well as non-faith. We get along (except for that whole Sara Palin thing, but I digress.)
You sidled in here like a bad John Wayne imitator and vomited garbage we've heard many times before and pointed out to you it i is simply dogma that you are spouting. You really have no idea about how much you don't know.
There are people here that can make your head spin with what they know and I'm nowhere near that level, so what does that make you, little fucker?
Sorry, AnthonyK, I didn't mean to dismiss your excellent efforts. Admirable work, truly. But still better treatment than James L deserved, and far better than you'd get if you were standing at the Pearly Gates with him in charge.
Calm down now. EV. You did call him a "fat cumswilling fuck", and we're not at home to Mr Pottymouth. Are we? Mmmm?
The one thing that always amazes me about the proselytizing goddists like James L. Bauer is their belief that we've never been exposed to their arguments before. Their assumption apparently is that we've been living in a cave and raised by wolves who let us out into the world ten minutes ago. "Je-sus? Who is this Je-sus you mention? My pack leaders never mentioned Je-sus when we were baying at the moon."
Wahahahahahahahahahahah!
Oh behalf of James L. Bauer, I will admit that he is slightly less stupid than facilis.
That still isn't saying much. If he was as smart as he thinks he is, he would have stopped post two hours ago.
Only if you write their IQs in binary.
Thanks everyone, that was fun.
God bless, James, may He remove himself from your life.
I'm off to drown some kittens.
xxxx
Dammit, I missed the chance to use the term "perfidious Albion" up there. Fixed as "Religious fundamentalists are persuaded that scientists just believe in evolution, as if it were some goofy religion from perfidious Albion."
Speaking of classical terms, I'll give points for "fat cumswilling fuck". Beauty!
In the book _Robinson_Crusoe_, there is a good discussion of the fact that Christianity could not be deduced from available evidence. It has to be passed on from pack leaders (another good image). Science, on the other hand, is all about evidence.
proselytizing goddists
I was always fond of "god-bothering tub-thumpers" myself.
:P
NoROM: That still isn't saying much.
I was trying to be charitable.
I've been guilty of that too.
After consulting with his christian god-idea James L Bauer wrote:
And James L Bauer was correct in writing it, too.
James L. Bauer said:
Actually, this is half right. If two people start with totally different fundamental assumptions, one will never convince the other. I mean truly fundamental assumptions, such as assumptions about what even counts as evidence.
But the situation isn't symmetrical. In our everyday lives, we have standards of evidence that most people - theists and atheists - accept. E.g. the fact that I can see no hippopotamus in my study when I look around is good evidence that there is no such hippopotamus in my study. If my lovely Significant Other pops in here in a minute, I can ask her if she sees one, but she'll think I've gone nuts. Outside of religion, we have no trouble reaching consensus on most everyday issues because we have common standards of evidence and similar powers of observation.
Science typically deals with things that can't be observed directly with our unaugmented senses - often because these things are very small or very far away or no longer in existence. But it uses methods that are continuous with our usual methods for inquiring rationally into the world around us. Over the past four hundred years, science has been able to tell us much about the world beyond observation by our unaugmented senses. It delivers reliable knowledge by using such methods as scientific instruments, highly precise modelling, conducting experiments that control for extraneous variables, and using convergence of results from many lines of inquiry. Most of these are methods that we use in everyday life, but outside of science we don't always need to be so rigorous because everyday questions can often be resolved just by observing.
Applying ordinary kinds of reasoning from everyday life and from scientific inquiry, we can in fact answer lots of questions. People who disagree can be brought to change their minds if the evidence is brought to them. Over time, science tends to converge on answers and to develop well-corroborated theoretical knowledge that is unlikely ever to be overturned, such as the knowledge that life on Earth evolved over hundreds of millions of years. That doesn't mean that the scientific image of the world is ever complete; there's always new stuff to find out.
The people who can't be argued out of their position are people who have certain substantive beliefs about the world that go psychologically deeper than their commitment to ordinary standards of evidence. If someone believes doctrine X in that way, and is then confronted with good evidence (by ordinary standards) for ~X, she has many options including the option of claiming that ordinary standards of evidence are wrong or inapplicable. Someone like that can have a nice hermetically-sealed worldview. No argument based on evidence can ever penetrate it.
Most atheists are open to evidence that God exists if ordinary evidence is supplied. In fact, there'd probably be no atheists around in Western countries if diluvian geology had turned out to be correct - i.e. if dating methods pointed an age of the Earth of 6000 years and the fossil record and the facts about rock formation turned out to be consistent with a mass extinction in Noah's flood and the formation of the rocks and the fossil record at the time. Even now, there is probably evidence that could come in to persuade an atheist to change her mind, though the record of the religionists so far is so dreadful that it will now take something pretty damn compelling.
But true faith-head religionists are immune to evidence. Since they are more committed to substantive theological claims more deeply than they are to ordinary standards of evidence, they will even develop revised evidentiary standards if that is the only way out. In between, they'll clutch at all sorts of propositions that seem crazy by ordinary standards. E.g. we get YEC Christians committed to a 6000-year-old Earth who will admit that the Earth sure looks 4 to 5 billion years old (using various dating methods) but of course God had His reasons for making it look that way when He created it 6000 years ago. I can't disprove that, but when it's viewed from outside it's plainly crazy.
There's no arguing with such people. All you can do is point out how they think and why that kind of thinking shouldn't be given any credibility or respect by anyone who isn't already infected with it. You can also point out how arbitrary the deep assumptions that these people make really are and how baroque their worldview eventually becomes when they are pressed. But, in the end, they either see how unsatisfactory the entire picture is ... or they don't. No one argument can penetrate their sealed-off view of the world.
So, James, I won't even try to persuade you to abandon your theological position, whatever it is. I just point out that no one who isn't already committed to it has a reason to adopt it. That in itself might give you pause - why should the existence of God not be a lot more apparent? - but I suspect it won't.
#374
To which I replied...
Oh James, you flatter me although you still haven't elucidated your thinly veiled threat. "Wise up" or what...?
JLB in the third person is always wrong. When will he get that through his thick skull?
JBL is Bob Dole.
What I don't get is that JBL is there commending the attitude in the posts, while ignoring what was in the posts - instead choosing to go on about how hateful E.V. and NoR are. It seems like nothing more than a way chastise others when the questions posed within are ignored.
JBL has nothing and he knows it. The only way in his perverted mind to legitimately stick around is to comment on the posts/posters. But, that is exactly the boring/trolling behavior that gets one banned by PZ. So JBL, some friendly advice. Say something of substance in response to our questions, or say nothing at all. If you have no satisfactory response, then just fade into the bandwidth.
Gack, copied from Kel/E.V. and got the initials wrong. JLB, not JBL. *headdesk*
@all atheists,
what is your rule of life ?
what is your standard to justify good or bad ?
if live in US, do you obey the rule and law ?
if you vow, you vow to whom ? to yourself ?
if you have a blind son or daughter, what are you going to tell him/her about his/her blindness ?
One day, all of you suffer, today you still can laugh with your small meat in your head which does not invent anything for humankind except to mock other.
SOP for people like Barb and JLB. Proselytize, snark, claim intellectual superiority, get offended, point out how rude everyone is, claim no one is civil, avoid all pertinent questions, snark again, avoid questions, claim the high road because of belief in god, spout scripture, avoid question, express how offended you are and how mean people are to you, avoid questions, repeat until people really attack you, snark then flounce away in a huff while claiming moral victory...
I'm not sure the small meat in my head is big enough to grok that message. The relevance of the blindness thing is...?
Just Bush League/ JBL. What's the problem?
Simon, Yawn. Study our threads. Your stupidity has been answered over and over. Are you too besotted with godbotting idiocy to read?
Simon, I presume you're an atheist about Odin. Why exactly is that?
Simon, what is your objective standard for good and bad? The hope of heaven and the fear of hell? The desire to please your master? Or could it be that you don't have an objective standard?
Simon: I'm going to type this very slowly just for you.
No atheist is blind, deaf, or an amputee. Remember that. Although I enjoy telling blind people God did that to them.
I never obey the law. I eat puppies and kitties. I never help people or return lost wallets with the money inside. I lie, cheat and steal. I perform abortions in the streets. I kick old ladies and punch old men. I'm currently doing time in the Texas State Penitentiary in Huntsville.
Simon, I go by ethics. Really.
Wasn't there a long discussion about morality in another thread simon has been in? Do you have a reading comprehension boy? How many times does it need to be said that morality is an evolved trait - a feature of social creatures and an inevitibility from social interaction. In other words, we are hard wired to be moral. As for what exactly is moral and what isn't, that changes as a society changes. What we deem good and bad, right and wrong, these are passed on either through our genes, passed on through memes, or learnt through experience. Your parents, your friends, your teachers, influential people in the community, the media, and finally your own experience - all these contribute towards what you would call your standard for good and bad. If you believe otherwise, please show evidence to back it up. Otherwise, quit posting your inane questions that merely add to our knowledge of your lack there-of.
What the hell does that even mean?
The same thing everyone else uses. Social constructs that have been and are being tuned since the beginning of mankind.
Mostly yes. I have broken the speed limit and there have been times when I've partaken in some substances that aren't necessarily considered legal.
I'm not sure what you are getting at but I'll run with my wedding vows. I "vowed" to my wife. I have kept those vows and honestly have had to temptation to break them.
I would find out the cause and tell him/her about it. Is that so hard?
And Pascal shoots! and it's wide right.
Thank you. You make it so easy.
What about the meat ON my head?
Yeah all that sciency stuff and medicine and technology.
Pffft who needs it.
um. Freudian fail?
Link o' the day!!! Literally LOL.
E.V., I'm much more immoral than you. I have shredded baby on my breakfast Cheerios. I buy subprime mortgages from lending companies so I can foreclose and force elderly cripples to live on the street. I bugger sheep and don't say "thank you" to the shepherd. I watch pornography and don't pay for it! And I escaped from the ADMAX prison in Florence, Colorado.
E.V. I am so jealous of you. I am oh so tempted to steal either "malicious little fuck" or "hateful little fuck" for my new title.
Oh can I? Can I? Can I? Can I? Can I?
@'Tis Himself #396
But do you leave the toilet seat down when you pee?
Boy oh boy. It just keeps coming back to the same thing with these people. They don't know how to conduct themselves unless somebody claiming to speak for an all-powerful spook writes it all out for them. Seriously guys, go masturbate somewhere else.
Janine, how can I deny any request from you!
@simon
"if you have a blind son or daughter, what are you going to tell him/her about his/her blindness ?"
Ever heard of Helen Keller?
I hang my head in shame Tis Himself. You are more immoral than I. *whimpers*
Get a room, you two.
#393
The same thing everyone else uses
which one ? who do you mean by "everyone" ? are they atheist like you ?
You still obey the rule and law of US ? why do you obey a higher authority if you can justify yourself ?
Good, you vowed to your wive, not to do bad thing to her. So you know good and bad, who can justify your action ?
Sven's jealous. His immorality consists of mooning himself in the mirror and farting in elevators.
It means that being human has moral traits that are associated with it, that you learn exactly the same way about good and bad as everyone else - through genes, memes and experience. Religious doctrine is just one meme that goes into the great mix that determines social behaviours.
Why do goddists like Simon think that god and/or religion is required to be moral?
Tell me Simon, and this is an honest question, are you (a) stupid; (b) really stupid; or (c) incredibly, irredeemably stupid?
well, yeah, but sometimes they're really stinky ones! I mean, PU! Seriously!
#407
Why do goddists like Simon think that god and/or religion is required to be moral?
fact, today human civilization caused by religions.
Tell me the history of atheist civilization, can you ?
Caused by religions?
Fact, what is done by religion only proves that religion exists. The fact that multiple religions have all led to civilisations, each with their own moral guidelines, only shows that what causes morality isn't the god of the religion. Rather religions, like morality and law are again a social construct.
So, you worship all the gods from all the religions, do you? That must take some time - not to mention that almost all of them are terribly jealous and have given strict instructions not to do that.
Simon understands not. Simon, men made civilization. Men made morals. Men invented religion as a means to control other people. Men invented gods to help the religion control people. Gods are constructs of men.
Heh. I had just assumed it was "and honestly have had no temptation to break them" with a typo.
Then you got all confessional. :)
Yes - last week's "Radio Reminder" thread. Last I checked, Eric hadn't yet returned.
(By the way, Harold Varmus is on The Daily Show in about 15 minutes. It just featured an even younger Walton. Yikes.)
All that gooey typo goodness really screwed my message.
"I haven't really had any temptation to break my vows."
ok I think it's time to jump in the sack with Mrs. BigDumbChimp and finish watching the daily show.
Varmus on now.
To Simon's civilisation argument:When the Egyptians built their civilisation, was it because the Egyptian gods?When the Greeks built their civilisation was it because of the Greek gods? When Rome expanded and made a civilisation out of half the known world, was it because of the Roman gods? (which were really the Greek gods with new names) When Europe was in dark ages and Islam developed a civilisation, was that because of Allah? Was the civilisations that the ancient Aztecs and Incas made in central and South America because of their gods? What about the Japanese gods being responsible for civilisation in Japan? And the Chinese spirits being responsible for civilisation in China?Or is the Judeo-Christian god responsible for all civilisation?
Simon, just do the opposite of the christian George bush and you will at least be pointing in the right direction.
It could be atheists are able to figure out the answers to your questions because we don't eat putrefied human flesh. The fact that you have such questions is a testament to the harmful effects of the brainwashing you have received at the hand of the christian. Are you such an awful person that but for your god-idea you would be involved in all manner of crime?
You are also suggesting that christianity is the answer to criminal actions however, most criminals in the United States are christians.
Christianity isn't the answer it is the problem.
I'm glad National Serious Response to Teasing Day will be over soon.
Kel:
And it leaves only two responses to posts like Russell Blackford's:
a) ignore them (so far, this has been it)
b) ignore the substance while complimenting the commenter on substance and civility
Since I've predicted that Bauer will respond in one of these evasive ways to Russell Blackford's post, the only way he can show himself to be intellectually honest is to address the substance.
"fact, today human civilization caused by religions..."
Well apparently not, since you seem to still be communicating in caveman-speak.
"...Tell me the history of atheist civilization, can you ?"
First, I must know why you insist on putting a space between the last word of every sentence and its punctuation. Secondly, we've gone over this a baker's dozen times with you already. If you haven't learned and considered our positions by now, you're not really here to learn, but simply to try to make a mess of things. We give you answers to questions, yet you keep restating the questions as if that alone is your proof.
@Kel #417
If you are a citizen of USA you should know this :
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"
and this : "In God We Trust"
If you are an English, you should know this : "God and my right" and "God save the Queen"
It's a fact you live in a civilization where God is always mentioned. Are you going to erase the history and the foundation of your country ?
If I were you, I'd rather live in North Korea, where God is not allowed to be mentioned. So, I were not a hypocrite
Think with the jelly meat in your head, guy.
Simon, I live in God's own country - Australia. It was founded by Judeo-Christian British colonists. Though it's quite irrelevant. You said civilisation was the result of religion, which I would disagree with - civilisation was an inevitability in any agricultural society where there was sufficient resources in order to house a larger population. The examples I used above where to demonstrate that if you are going to say that religious involvement is to do with the deity of that civilisation, then you must attribute the respective deities of all civilisations to their respective civilisation. Of course that would go against the modern Jewish concept of one single universal monotheistic deity, and thus your argument is flawed.
@Kel
Religion And Civilization
A certain tension between religion and society marks the highest stages of every civilization. Religion begins by offering magical aid to harassed and bewildered men; it culminates by giving to a people that unity of morals and belief which seems so favorable to statesmanship and art; it ends by fighting suicidally in the lost cause of the past. For as knowledge grows or alters continually, it clashes with mythology and theology, which change with geological leisureliness. Priestly control of arts and letters is then felt as a galling shackle or hateful barrier, and intellectual history takes on the character of a "conflict between science and religion" Institutions which were at first in the hands of the clergy, like law and punishment, education and morals, marriage and divorce, tend to escape from ecclesiastical control and become secular, perhaps profane. The intellectual classes abandon the ancient theology and -- after some hesitation -- the moral code allied with it; literature and philosophy become anticlerical. The movement of liberation rises to an exuberant worship of reason, and falls to a paralyzing disillusionment with every dogma and every idea. Conduct, deprived of its religious supports, deteriorates into epicurean chaos; and life itself, shorn of consoling faith, becomes a burden alike, to conscious poverty and to weary wealth. In the end, a society and its religion tend to fall together, like body and soul, in a harmonious death. Meanwhile, among the oppressed, another myth arises, gives new form to human hope, new courage to human effort, and after centuries of chaos builds another civilization. (Will Durant)
Again, you've missed my point. Though that's to be expected. You haven't comprehended a single thing anyone has said to you on here, and instead asked the same asinine questions with no intention of ever considering that you could be wrong. I'll spell it out to you. Religion is a social construct. It's an organisation of people. It doesn't make the gods of those religions any more true. If you want to argue that religion as a whole has a place in society, go ahead. But don't confuse religion existing and being a force in the universe with there being the god of that religion being a force in the universe.
Simon, your god doesn't exist, your bible is a work of fiction, and all constructs, such as religion, god, and morals were invented by men. Show otherwise you brain damaged idiot.
Simon wrote:
I'm not your guy, friend.
You want to play who has the better quotes? That's easy; we do.
Many people do simply awful things out of sincere religious belief, not using religion as a cover the way that Saddam Hussein may have done, but really because they believe that this is what God wants them to do, going all the way back to Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac because God told him to do that. Putting God ahead of humanity is a terrible thing. - Stephen Weinberg
We must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it. - Sam Harris.
Along with Islam and Christianity, Judaism does insist that some turgid and contradictory and sometimes evil and mad texts, obviously written by fairly unexceptional humans, are in fact the Word of God. I think that the indispensible condition of any intellectual liberty is the realisation that there is no such thing. - Christopher Hitchens.
If we go back to the beginning, we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them and that custom, respect and tyranny support them in order to make the blindness of men serve their own interests. If the ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, the knowledge of nature is calculated to destroy them. - Baron D'Holbach.
Your move, creep.
simon if you believe what you wrote at 423, you should want to be part of a solution not be an instigator of the problem. The solution isn't to prop up the false hope that religion offers because false hopes are destine to failure as the truth becomes evident. The solution is to eliminate the distortions that allow the problems to fester. Religion is used as both a whip and a justification for oppression. There is no morality in forcing or causing anyone to live their only life under false pretenses, life is far to precious to be given in servitude to a mythological master. What you are promoting is enslavement by mind control.
@Notagod
What you are promoting is enslavement by mind control.
sounds like spirituality, Buddhism ?
Simon, still being a dunderhead. Get with it. Your god doesn't exist except between your ears. The bible is a work of fiction. Your haven't show either to be untrue.
Well, then certainly you agree that christianity is, so stop promoting it. Otherwise, I don't mind treating you as you seem to prefer - attention troll.
So simon is not only ignorant about his very own religion, he is also historically ignorant.
Simon, who penned the declaration?
Simon, when was "In God We Trust" added to our currency?
And more importantly, what on earth do you think that has anything to do with supporting your argument?
Okay, in defense of JLB, I must say I know why his little run in with cognitive dissonance resulted in a tantrum.
I left "Bible U." and attended a local University. My councilor at the University put me in a chemistry class for science majors. I was a liberal arts major but I had two years of chem in high school, so no big deal I thought. I passed the first semester. I assumed I could pass the second semester and would be done with my science requirements. Imagine my surprise when the equations began to require knowledge of natural log.( I knew the basic concept of alogorhythmwas, or so I thought) and other nonbasic math terms . It seems I was supposed to have taken calculous as well, which was ridiculous - I wasn't a Science Major, I was a Liberal Arts Major and had already completed my Math for Dummies courses for my degree plan. (I stayed in Chem2 past the drop date and failed the class - actually I just stopped going).
I was out of my league and was humbled by the experience. That's when it dawned on me there was an entire world of thought/knowledge that I hadn't considered beyond some vague rudimentary concept; a form of SEP blindness perhaps. I knew about music, theater, art and religion but science kicked my ass.
JLB walked into a intermediate level class where he hadn't taken basic prerequisite courses in science or critical thinking. He thought he could wing it and was shocked to learn that he isn't prepared to discuss science vs. religion with anyone other than those with the same level of *sigh* "knowledge", and that people get "cranky" when they have to rehash the same rudimentary arguments for the umpteenth time to people unclear of the concept.
He is now aware he isn't aware.
Are you drunk?
No RevBDC, Simon is not drunk, heavens no! Simon is special (as in: "rides the short bus" special)
If only, EV. Sigh. That was interesting, though if you pursue self-knowledge too far you might neglect the educational utility of such epithets as "fat cumswilling fuck". So please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - at least not without eating it first.
Remember AnthonyK: The chronology was JLBs thinly veiled threat:
My "fat cumswilling fuck" riposte @#350 was the result of his former thrust, as it were. He expected me to be venomously rude - who am I to deny him his "SEE?!! 'told you so!" moment of victimhood?
I think, E.V. that we could pass many pleasant hours debating how, and in what ways, JLB is a "fat cumswilling fuck", how appropriate that is for the even more covered-in-sticky-cumminess that is Simon, and other theological questions.
Please don't take my remarks as criticism, although, as I remarked earlier, "We are not at home to Mr Pottymouth". I personally avoid cuss words wherever possible, but then I am a particularly saintly human being.
Actually I doubt there's much of a debate. JBL thought he had all the answers, came charging in and then slowly discovered he was clueless, but there was no graceful way for him to bow out, so he resorted to lame bluster and projection with a little profanity thrown in to preserve his masculinity and self respect. So he probably isn't a fat cumswilling fuck, just some poor indoctrinated schmuck with his tail tucked between his legs but still yapping like a chihuahua who thinks he's a rottweiler.
He's probably a fairly nice guy with the odd tendency for ass-holiness on occasion. Will he abandon his willfully ignorant ways and slog on searching for empirical knowledge? Nah, he'll take the easiest route and go on the Bible's supernatural highway comforted in the knowledge that God has all the answers, so why bother?
Ditto Barb to a degree. Simon? Now he's fucked up.
Just to make it clear - go man go. Any criticism of you is simply my fault. I have a bad case of meta-snarkiness. Apologies. And I did think the original insult was funny, though as now becomes clear, JLB perhaps deserved it less than some others. Also, the word "fat" might have been unjustified ;)
This is what happens. Someone comes on here, you disagree with his or her views, then you make your attacks, but when someone does it back to you, as I did, you are outraged and still talking about it today even though it is already over with.
But you attack people just because you want to. So you have got to learn to accept attacks back.
So, I followed your behaviors exactly, and attacked, and whoa, JLB this and JLB that. But you folks began the verbal attacks, and you are so much more knowledgeable than others. Whence comes this superiority complex? I think you have it because you are inferior.
EV, try to be nice, now :) Take what is due to you like a man, will you? You attack, I attack, very simple.
JLB, still nothing cogent to say. Yawn.
Read post 438 and see if it doesn't sound like a five year old. And I am not going to answer any questions at all, about anything, and I am not going to debate atheists about the existence of God. You never answer anything of substance here, so why should I waste my time? You live your lives and I will live mine. One of us is right. We can't both be right.
But do you KNOW that there is no God? I don't think any of you can say for sure that you know there is no God. That ends the argument. The possibility of the the existence of God, exists. And if it turns out to be true, then what?
Can any of you say, for sure, that God does not exist?
Now, look at Kel and Sastra and some others, and try to abstain from verbal attacks, or as I already told you, I give as good as I get.
It's not just disagreeing with your views James. We asked you to engage in actually discussing the points you threw out in the beginning and you acted like a child. Your "view" is rooted in at the least ignorance and at worst rank dishonesty.
Now how about addressing my posts #220 and #230 while we are at it and stop with the playground games of who is the meaniest.
JLB - you're a christianist trolling on an atheist site. Sorry, but that's the truth. If you have anything interesting to say, then say it. Unfortuantely, you haven't - same old tired follow-jesus-and-he-will-give-you-eternal-life shit. But for fuck's sake don't show up and complain because you are a)comprehensively outargued on theological issues (often by ex-christians who have managed to overcome their programming); b) told real science, by real experts (your pastor is not one such, btw) and c)insulted for being an idiot.
Maybe, in real life, you aren't an idiot, but the evidence you have presented here leaves that sorely in doubt.
If you don't like being insulted here then, as has been pointed out many times, fuck off.
And I mean that with all the force of a loving, yet oddly non-existent, god.
JLB If you don't answer our questions, we don't have to answer yours. Dialog or shut. Also, grow a pair of gonads so you aren't so offended.
Ah, went with choice b (of my #419). Always a favorite.
Thanks, Nerd, going off to grow some now.
And Sastra effortlessly slides the stiletto home.
JLB wrote:
How do you know there is no Odin, James? How do you KNOW it? You can believe it the core of your being. How do you PROVE it? How do you guarantee it?
JLB: remember - don't come back 'til they've dropped. It's no fun ganging up on squeaky voiced adolescents.
Errr no. No you don't.
Look, your whole reason for being here is dishonest. You aren't seeking after truth, you're proselytising, and for me that is the single worst thing about proseletysing christainasts.
If you were really here on a quest for truth you would do it entirely differently. Now here's a more interesting, and alas, scarcer-than-hens-teeth (except in fossils!) argument, which might, just might, get you some civil replies:
"I am a Christian. (Do NOT insert bible verses, theological quotes etc at this point) I don't understand how some people manage without this worldview. Why don't you believe in God, and how do you manage without the hope and moral instruction my god provides?"
See? Short, and asking after truth. Try to understand peoples' replies and don't argue with an assumed position of moral superiority.
You might consider, also, reading ex-christian.net. This might make alarming reading as it details some of the personal stories of how utterly cruel christianists are if you dare to question the faith, but it might open your eyes up to just how utterly destructive total belief can be. see that big cliff - be careful not to step over it.
Thanks, AnthonyK, for the script of what I'm supposed to say here.
*E.V. sits back and watches the fur fly *
And JLB still says nothing. What a troll. What a bore.
I went to the blogs PZ started and read through them and I come across descriptions of people he and others disgree with:
Idiot, moron, stupid, hasn't got a clue. etc
So it is not just on this particular part of the blog, it is everywhere on it. Is there something about the atheist viewpoint that requires ad hominem attacks on others?
It really cheapens what you have to say.
My remarks about EV were made after he became nastier and nastier as the afternoon wore on. And he did not like being talked to like that, although he finds great enjoyment in talking like that TO others.
But back to this way of talking to people who don't agree with atheism. I have noticed that ad hominem attacks are the norm, e.g. when Simon came on here again, last night.
Nerd, what shall I say to you? Are you going to script it for me like AnthonyK? What do you have to say to me besides ad hominem attacks? Besides your superior worldview?
Well if you will depart from it...We atheists can't think for ourselves, you know, and are unbearably upset by difficult questions from god's beloved minions. Ha!
Seriously though, you are just proselytizing, aren't you?
se
Comments #220 and #230 James.
Seriously, no, I am not, AnthonyK. I did in my initial post but did not pursue it anymore.
Rev, you want me to respond to all of 220 and 230?
Why would I sit here and try to answer all of that? That would be no different than me asking you to "respond" to the book of Exodus.
Because, oh virginal one, we non-godists have a higly developed seventh-sense when it comes to fundagelical fuckwittery. It was instantly obvious where Simon came on the scale - Simon is grade A, while you are merely a snivelling F-grader (though I am prepared to be shot down and my ancestry questions by others on this site for my categorisations - oh, and if EV is inclined for a go, please note I am a little on the fat side, and don't like jokes about it)
#376, James.
James, well then okay, how about my question in #450?
JLB, Say something signicant and I will respond in kind. Say things about tone and/or abuse and you will get abuse. I, and the rest of the ilk, are still waiting for you answer signficant questions that have been raised by Rev. BDC. Do so or shut up.
376 is not a question, it is a treatise; a very well thought out one, but not a question.
450 is different, but it answers my question WITH a question, so to the question, for instance, tell me the capital of Utah, you ask me the question what is the capital of South Dakota. How is that any different from post 450?
To answer a question with an unrelated question, doesn't call for a response to the question asked by you, does it? I should just ask you, how can you prove the nonexistence of UFOS and that is just as responsive as your question to me in 450
James L Bauer, you lunkhead, are you still engaged in futile nonsensical babbling? Yeah, you are religious.
Listen! I'm going to try this one more time.
We do not have to prove to you that there is no God, nor even explain our reasons for not thinking that there is a god. Notice that I say "not thinking there is", not "thinking that there is no", because that's what atheism is--a simple lack of something that you do. We do NOT DO something that you do. We do not think that God exists.
Really, the ONLY reason that I can think of to suppose that there is a God is because you, James L Bauer, say so. All my reading, all my work, all my life, all get along fine without invoking a god. But you, James L Bauer, and people like you, say that there is a God. And, despite what you think and say about atheists, I want to hear what you have to say, to understand your logic and follow your reasoning. That's what I do--I am a nice guy, and rather curious.
But you, James L Bauer, won't share your reasons, your logic or your story. You just act like a jerk, or a chain-yanking troll. You don't answer questions, or address issues. You provoke bad behavior, then act worse. In short, you give religion a bad name.
You, James L Bauer, are acting like a drunk telling stupid stories about aliens. I'm certainly not going to trust you or believe anything you say. As this rolls on, I get to the point of assuming that anything you say cannot possibly be true. Then, thanks to your actions, the stage of assuming that the opposite of what you say MUST be true.
Because you, James L Bauer, tell me that there is a God, I can state with confidence that there is NOT one. And, as I said far above, the Bible says that you will go to Hell for that.
Enjoy.
Because James, you provided the link to the website in comment #206 that contains all of comment #220 claiming it contains
Previous to that in post #192 you said
To which i provided some examples in comment #230 that I'd like you to address.
If you are truly interested in conversing, then I've answered some of your points. Time to respond.
Can you back up your assertions?
In post 443 I asked the question Do you KNOW for sure that there is no God? not opinions, not conjecture, not beliefs etc but
can you honestly say that you KNOW there is no God? And the answer is "no". No one can say that. They can say it but not logically say it.
Because regardless of our beliefs, it is still an open question and always will be.
AnthonyK:
Forgive me,"fat" was just the first near-antonym for "little". I'm not deprived for meals myself.
I'm over doofus though, no more snipe for me, thanks.
JLB, you are still avoiding a dialog. Now say something of interest or shut up. Only trolls, liars, and bullshitters cannot put up or shut up.
Now in view of 443 and 469 why was 467 posted?
The fact that it doesn't include questions formulated as such does not mean you cannot or don't have to respond. It contains arguments directly engaging with what you were saying, and it deserves a response. If you have a shred of intellectual honesty, you will answer him.
It's so simple. We are a bunch of atheists. We do not believe in any gods, and think them merely a human cultural artefact with no existence in the observable world. You come here to try to convince us of the truth of yours. It is therefore a not unreasonable question to ask, first, why yours and not all the others? In telling us why you are an unbeliever with respect to all the other gods you might gain insight into why we reject your own.
SC.OM, it is too much to respond to. There is no "answer" to a long post like that. Whereas my question in 443 has not been answered.
To rephrase it
Unless you can KNOW that there is no God, of what weight are your own beliefs that God does not exist? They amount to beliefs, nothing more. But if you cannot say for sure that God does NOT exist, then what assurance do you have that you are on the right side of the question?
What the...?
You're not up to the standards of this forum, James - even the troll standards.
James, do you know that there is no Loki?
How about actually answering a question posed to you instead of dancing around?
Start with addressing what I said in comment #468
Anthony, just read 443. And the second paragraph of 475. It does not seek to convince anyone of anything at all. It is legitimate question. It is not trying to convince anyone for or against. It is a question. I disagree that all questions MUST be answered, so I am not insisting that it be answered. But it is a legitimate question that is not talking about religion in general. Again, if you cannot say for sure that God does not exist, then do your beliefs about it provide adequate reassurance that God does not exist, as we said, beliefs are fine, but they do not determine whether something exists or not. They are opinions, maybe strong opinions, maybe based on a lot of evidence and consideration.
But if you cannot say for sure that God does not exist, doesn't that make your own opinions about the subject suspect or at least shaky?
E.g. I don't believe in God. But yet I cannot say with absolute certainty that there is no God. Therefore, my beliefs may not be correct.
But if you CAN say for sure that God does not exist, then on what do you base that except opinions?
JLB, equivication, but not any strong statements. We don't answer questions until you answer ours to our satisfaction, not yours.
Agnosticism and Pascal's Wager? That's all you've got?
Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.
*wipes tears from eyes* Oh you win!
"But if you cannot say for sure that God does NOT exist, then what assurance do you have that you are on the right side of the question?"
*yawn* someone wake me when theists finally stop using the tired, well defeated Pascal's wager.
Jimmie, hon, what if the god you meet after you die is not the god you've been kowtowing to your whole life, but another one you spent your life denouncing? Ooooppsie! See ya in hell!
What does post 476 mean about "standards"? Because a simple question was asked instead of a half page one?
James, can you say for certain that Odin does not exist?
What about Allah or Quetzlcoatl or Pangu?
What about magic fairies and pink unicorns? Leprechauns?
*sigh* Read #474 again.
Because a) you don't recognize that 467 comes before 469, and b) you don't recognize that 467 was explicitly addressing your "argument." You're merely repeating it, again, lamely.
I didn't say that you have nothing to lose by believing in God. I did not invoke Pascal's Wager. I did not try to convince you to believe in God. I said nothing of the kind. My question was a question based on logic, on proof, on what you can truly tell me about your own beliefs.
I asked a question. Can you say for sure that there is definitely NO God? And the answer has to be "no". If the answer is no, then what does that do to your beliefs, convictions, opinions etc that there is no God?
Jimmie, you're a bad liar.
This:
"But if you cannot say for sure that God does NOT exist, then what assurance do you have that you are on the right side of the question?"
Is just Pascal's Wager redux.
Can you say for sure that there is definitely NO Easter Bunny? And the answer has to be "no". If the answer is no, then what does that do to your beliefs, convictions, opinions etc that there is NO aster Bunny?
JLB, until you stop avoiding our questions, yours will remain unanswered. This is PZ's blog and we will control the discussion, not you. So, answer the questions in full or shut up.
Can you say for sure that there is a God?
I base my view that there is no god on the fact that there is exactly zero empirical reason to think that there is one.
If someone were to provide some real actual evidence I would be open to it but I see no reason to assume that there might be a god or gods despite the utter lack of evidence. In the same way that I do not believe that there is a pink unicorn in the forest. No evidence of one.
Do you believe in pink unicorns?
James, you're not listening. You're just repeating yourself. Atheists and (mono)theists are in the same boat in that regard.
If the answer is no (to Odin, Zeus, Osiris), then what does that do to your beliefs, convictions, opinions etc that there is no Odin, Zeus or Osiris?
We're pointing out that you are in the ridiculous position of saying, yeah, every other god that humanity has ever come up with is false, but MY god is the true one, whereas we're in the fully consistent position that they're all a load of bullocks, every one of 'em.
Go here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/fleas_flock_to_dawkins_lectu…
Read #4.
Let's recap Jack Bauer:
Posts #184,#192 and #208.
And yes you invoked Pascal's Wager with this quote:"But if you cannot say for sure that God does NOT exist, then what assurance do you have that you are on the right side of the question?"
It's not a question about why we don't believe in god, it's a question for me of why should believe in one. I can see no evidence for one at all, far less your own.
But if god does exist (and I'm wrong), and if it's your god, then why should I worship such a being?
I mean he has, after all, been responsible for the death of all life on this planet - and our own - and permits terrible, terrible things to happen to inocent people.
As you are reading these words, it is an unfortunate fact that, somewhere in the world, a child is being brutally raped and will be murdered. Where is god there?
If such a god exists I will resist him with every base in my DNA sequence.
Does that answer your question?
AnthonyK - Everybody knows where god is. This is his day of rest time. He's on vacation. Silly monkey.
Actually, if he does exist, he'll be behind the grinning face of the rapist.
Oh, dear. Now I'm getting all cross. With no-god! I give up. Off to join the buddhists - as long as they promise there's no god.
Endor "bad liar"
Nerd "This is PZs blog and WE control the discussion, not you"
Rev answers a question with a question.
and CJO, "you are not listening"
Do you hear yourselves criticizing someone who asks a question?
But no one answered the question in 443.
Can you say, for sure, that there is no God?
No, you cannot say that.
So----does that make your beliefs and opinions less tenable?
Sure it does.
Don't be so defensive about someone asking a simple question. Can you say for sure that there is NO God?
Nerd, you are not PZ and so you really don't control any discussion, sorry.
If no one is going to answer the question, except with attacks or comments or other questions, I leave you to yourselves to see whether your beliefs are not a house of cards :) Let me leave very quietly so the slightest rustle of movement does not make them crash down!
"Do you hear yourselves criticizing someone who asks a question?"
Do you see yourself cowardly evading ever question posed to you and the way that reveals your motives to be dishonest, at best?
"Don't be so defensive about someone asking a simple question"
Don't be such a dishonest coward - answer the questions posed to you.
"Can you say for sure that there is NO God?"
Can you be sure sure there is NO easter bunny?
"Let me leave very quietly so the slightest rustle of movement does not make them crash down!"
IOW, James L. Bauer is a dishonest coward.
So I cannot prove for certainly sure that there is no god; therefore all my beliefs are but a house of cards.
You cannot prove for certainly sure that there is a god, let alone the One True God your particular sect envisages; therefore your beliefs are A Mighty Fortress, built on a foundation of rock-solid Truth.
That's your argument?
If it'll make you shut up, I'll answer the question in #443.
You shouldn't waste your time or ours. You may leave now.
"That's your argument?"
It's pretty clear at this point that he's got and empty arsenal and needs the see the wizard for some courage, stat! :)