Pharyngula

Atheists now rule most of the world

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.

Comments

  1. #1 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    February 28, 2009

    WooHoo, does this mean as one of the ilk I get a cyber pistol, jack boots, and a pirate name?

  2. #2 PZ Myers
    February 28, 2009

    Yes! And ice cream!

  3. #3 386sx
    February 28, 2009

    I think that’s spelled “James van Praaaaaggghpphh”. Well… it should be.

  4. #4 tony
    February 28, 2009

    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!

  5. #5 Menyambal
    February 28, 2009

    The colors! Oh, wow, man.

    If you reject Jesus Christ as Almighty God, then you are an atheist without a God, because “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me…” (Isaiah 45:5).

    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”?

  6. #6 Matthew
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  7. #7 'Tis Himself
    February 28, 2009

    The Pope didn’t die for your sins, Jesus did.

    Catlicks are atheists too. Won’t that come as a surprise to Bill Donahue?

  8. #8 Cruithne
    February 28, 2009

    I could have designed a better layout with a blindfold on.

    Pshaww
    The self respecting kook wears blinkers, as any fule kno…

  9. #9 Patricia, OM
    February 28, 2009

    Yuck! That’s awfully close to the drek I used to hear every Sunday. I need a sinful drink.

  10. #10 clinteas
    February 28, 2009

    See,that site actually supports the theory that religious fanatics are just too stupid to find the free porn on the net…..;)

  11. #11 Kendo
    February 28, 2009

    Ha!

    “…all Islamic Muslims are atheists…”

    Yeah but what about the non-islamic Muslims. Well!

  12. #12 me
    February 28, 2009

    PZ you hardcore bastard, eating ice cream in the depths of winter. Mmm, ice cream!

  13. #13 MikeG
    February 28, 2009

    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!

  14. #14 www.10ch.org
    February 28, 2009

    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?

  15. #15 arachnophilia
    February 28, 2009

    i don’t believe in ice cream. only cake. even if it is a lie.

  16. #16 Ryogam
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  17. #17 'Tis Himself
    February 28, 2009

    i don’t believe in ice cream.

    Have you ever had a really good ice cream, like Ben & Jerry’s Cherry Garcia or Cold Stone Creamery’s mocha coffee?

  18. #18 CalGeorge
    February 28, 2009

    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_case.htm

    Go, Dave, go!

  19. #19 Andrés Diplotti
    February 28, 2009

    Judaism is of the Devil, and worships a false god.

    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?

  20. #20 Wowbagger
    February 28, 2009

    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?

  21. #21 Andrés Diplotti
    February 28, 2009

    Funnily enough, he mentions a lot of people who he claims are atheists… and leaves real atheists out. What a crackpot.

  22. #22 Masks of Eris
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  23. #23 icecreambeliever
    February 28, 2009

    #15 ice cream cake?

  24. #24 Elwoof Herrong
    February 28, 2009

    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…

  25. #25 TheVirginian
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  26. #26 Andrés Diplotti
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  27. #27 Wowbagger
    February 28, 2009

    These people really need to be more specific, since what they really mean is a-My-theism, rather than just atheism.

  28. #28 'Tis Himself
    February 28, 2009

    The guy really doesn’t like Martin Luther King.

    Martin Luther King was a Communist!
    Some people claim that Martin Luther King Jr. was not a Communist, even though he did everything possible to promote the Communist’s agenda. That’s like saying that Hitler was not a murderer because he didn’t actually do the killing. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Communist! Martin Luther King was affiliated with 60 Communist Fronts. He openly incited violence under the banner of “nonviolence.” King led a bizarre sex life which included acts of shocking perversion. On Jan. 31, 1977 Coretta Scott King obtained a federal court order sealing for 50 years 845 pages of FBI records about her husband, “because its release would destroy his reputation!” Still a cowardly, spineless Congress voted to make King’s birthday a national holiday. This is should be an outrage to all Christians. The King Holiday act must be repealed!

  29. #29 Ryan
    February 28, 2009

    WTF is an “Islamic Muslim”?

  30. #30 Rick R
    February 28, 2009

    #23- “#15 ice cream cake?”

    You commie lib heathen. I’ll bet you believe in interracial marriage, too.

  31. #31 Rick R
    February 28, 2009

    BTW, I’m currently gathering signatures for a proposed ballot initiative “protecting the sanctity of Ice Cream” and opposing the redefinition of cake.

  32. #32 Elwood Herring
    February 28, 2009

    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…

  33. #33 Zombie
    February 28, 2009

    This site has a serious case of Time Cube.

  34. #34 John Morales
    February 28, 2009

    Ryan @29,

    WTF is an “Islamic Muslim”?

    That’d be like a Christian Christian.

  35. #35 Somnolent Aphid
    February 28, 2009

    I like ice cream, but what kind does an atheist eat?

    Unitarian Ice Cream –
    Lisa: There’s nothing there.
    Lovejoy: Exactly.

  36. #36 AnthonyK
    February 28, 2009

    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?

  37. #37 Scott
    February 28, 2009

    Is it ironic that I read that “Rock and Roll is the Devil” article while listening to thew Dead Kennedys?

  38. #38 www.10ch.org
    February 28, 2009

    Okay, this must be a poe. Reading through this:
    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%20Witchcraft/signs_of_satan.htm

    convinces me so.

  39. #39 Slugsie
    February 28, 2009

    Oh dear gawd, it’s great that we’ve taken over, but why are there still so many loonies?

    Anyway, about this icecream?

  40. #40 John Morales
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  41. #41 Paper Hand
    February 28, 2009

    #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.

  42. #42 MikeG
    February 28, 2009

    Ummm…is there really any point in linking to yet another crazy christainist site?

    ‘cuz it’s funny?

  43. #43 Rick Santorum
    February 28, 2009

    An “Islamic Muslim” is one who speaks Islamic.

  44. #44 Ryogam
    February 28, 2009

    #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.

  45. #45 www.10ch.org
    February 28, 2009

    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

  46. #46 Rallymodeller
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  47. #47 Slugsie
    February 28, 2009

    @#38

    Blimey, apparently they’ll let just about anyone into the Illuminati nowadays. My membership papers must have been mislaid in the post.

  48. #48 Michelle Bell
    February 28, 2009

    Ah, you underestimate how far some people will go to Poe us.

    Also, pass the ice cream. Do we have any Peppermint flavoured goodness?

  49. #49 MikeG
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  50. #50 RamblinDude
    February 28, 2009

    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 déjŕ vu all over again.

    Blech,

    ptoooie

  51. #51 gypsytag
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  52. #52 gypsytag
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  53. #53 Hank Bones
    February 28, 2009

    #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!

  54. #54 Sgt. Obvious
    February 28, 2009

    @ 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.

  55. #55 Aquaria
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  56. #56 www.10ch.org
    February 28, 2009

    Apparently, this guy believes that dollar bills are satanic:
    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/Federal%20Reserve%20Scam/satan_on_our_dollar.htm

    So, how does he… ?

  57. #57 Tom Woolf
    February 28, 2009

    “David J. Stewart”….

    What a nucking futjob…

  58. #58 NewEnglandBob
    February 28, 2009

    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

  59. #59 Aquaria
    February 28, 2009

    Ooh! Ice cream!

    I wasn’t going to have any this evening, but now the Blue Bell Mocha Madness is calling to me…

    BRB

  60. #60 John Marley
    February 28, 2009

    Dylan Moran’s technique for writing a better song than “Funk Soul Brother” applies equally well to that site.

  61. #61 Quartane
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  62. #62 JFK, hypercharismatic telepathical knight
    February 28, 2009

    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

  63. #63 co
    February 28, 2009

    http://www.av1611.org/666/barcode.html

    We’re all bringing about the Apocalypse by buying products with UPC barcodes on them! Yeep!

  64. #64 senecasam
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  65. #65 Evolving Squid
    February 28, 2009

    That site is only 125 milliTimeCubes, tops PZ.

  66. #66 Andrew
    February 28, 2009

    Ah. David J. Stewart. He is a favourite source of material over at FSTDT…

  67. #67 Carlie
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  68. #68 Noni Mausa
    February 28, 2009

    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

  69. #69 AnthonyK
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  70. #70 Todd
    February 28, 2009

    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 http://www.cuttingedge.org, where they purposely set out to make Dave Stewart look sane.

  71. #71 Caymen Paolo
    February 28, 2009

    Could anyone determine physically where this guy is? Like what state in the US? Is he in the south?

  72. #72 Chris
    February 28, 2009

    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

  73. #73 Karey
    February 28, 2009

    Yeah, that’s basically the same thought process muslims use when they call everybody else in the world infidels, isn’t it?

  74. #74 Todd
    February 28, 2009

    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

  75. #75 Andyo
    February 28, 2009

    Trebuchet MS is the new Comic Sans! Aaargh, must these people ruin all the fun silly fonts?

  76. #76 Donovan
    February 28, 2009

    Not to call Poe, but isn’t that little logo the preacher man from Landover Baptist?

  77. #77 Philosopher Plebian
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  78. #78 Bone Oboe
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  79. #79 James
    February 28, 2009

    @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

  80. #80 Carlie
    February 28, 2009

    If we’re having ice cream, shouldn’t it be made with squid ink?

  81. #81 Valor Phoenix
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  82. #82 melinda
    February 28, 2009

    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!

  83. #83 John Marley
    February 28, 2009

    @Bone Oboe:

    No, No. This is Haagen-Dazs true masterpiece.

  84. #84 The Biologista
    February 28, 2009

    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-the-atheism

    Tongue firmly in cheek there I suspect, though she fooled plenty of faithy types.

  85. #85 sparkomatic
    February 28, 2009

    #37
    “Frankenchrist”? That would be classic!

  86. #86 Robert
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  87. #87 Aquaria
    February 28, 2009

    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…

  88. #88 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    February 28, 2009

    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

  89. #89 wrpd
    February 28, 2009

    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?

  90. #90 MS
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  91. #91 Ryogam
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  92. #92 Ghost of Minnesota
    February 28, 2009

    I especially like that site’s use of the term “Islamic Muslims,” as opposed to the other kind.

  93. #93 Lu
    February 28, 2009

    Caramel Coyote ice cream with caramel sauce, pecans, whipped cream and NO cherry….

  94. #94 Terilynn
    February 28, 2009

    @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.

  95. #95 sparkomatic
    February 28, 2009

    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…

  96. #96 Rey Fox
    February 28, 2009

    “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.

  97. #97 MOI
    February 28, 2009

    This made me laugh. Thanks!

  98. #98 'Tis Himself
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  99. #99 bc23.5
    February 28, 2009

    It’s so hard to see, look away, look away. Ahhhhhhhhhh!
    Makes me want some B & J’s Phish Food, though.

  100. #100 Lance
    February 28, 2009

    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?

  101. #101 Sven DiMilo
    February 28, 2009

    ‘course Jerry himself would have skipped the ice cream and gone straight to the heroin. Alas.

  102. #102 Jeeves
    February 28, 2009

    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_170642.html

  103. #103 Rodger T NZ
    February 28, 2009

    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

  104. #104 george.w
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  105. #105 Darwin
    February 28, 2009

    Heh, in his loony write-up about music, he even states that Crowley was a Satanist. Can this guy get anything right?

  106. #106 pdferguson
    February 28, 2009

    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…

  107. #107 Ryogam
    February 28, 2009

    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.

  108. #108 Menyambal
    March 1, 2009

    *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.

  109. #109 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 1, 2009

    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.

    I love Cherry Garcia. But

    I remember when I heard Jerry died. i was in Jackson Hole in the Kitchen of the restaurant i was running.

    I didn’t really eat ice cream to remember him…

  110. #110 Hairy Doctor Professor
    March 1, 2009

    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).

  111. #111 Graham
    March 1, 2009

    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.

  112. #112 ShadowWalkyr
    March 1, 2009

    . . .the person who invented, or created, the hand sign system for the deaf, Helen Keller. . . .

    Thomas Gallaudet doesn’t even get a mention?

  113. #113 gypsytag
    March 1, 2009

    #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

  114. #114 gypsytag
    March 1, 2009

    And the best ice cream is Toscaninis.

    Anyone else know what LSC does?

  115. #115 Blaidd Drwg
    March 1, 2009

    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.

  116. #116 Joe
    March 1, 2009

    The bottom line is this… if you reject Jesus Christ as Almighty God, then you are an atheist without a God, because “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me…” (Isaiah 45:5). You need to believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved (Acts 16:31), i.e., to have your sins washed away by Jesus’ precious blood (1st Peter 1:18,19).

    Ergo QED.

    Joe

  117. #117 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 1, 2009

    You can try mathetically, scientifically and mentaly to disprove God.

    burden

    of

    proof

  118. #118 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 1, 2009

    mathetically

    I’m sorry.

    Huh?

  119. #119 blf
    March 1, 2009

    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?

  120. #120 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 1, 2009

    Posted by: Graham | March 1, 2009

    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.

    Graham, you’re crackers.

  121. #121 Ragutis
    March 1, 2009

    Posted by: Graham | March 1, 2009 12:57 AM

    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.

    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.

  122. #122 bootsy
    March 1, 2009

    @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.]

  123. #123 c7
    March 1, 2009

    “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.

  124. #124 Knockgoats
    March 1, 2009

    “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!

  125. #125 quasarpulse
    March 1, 2009

    #32:

    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”?

    So…we’re arguing over whether the hypothetical nonexistent gods are discrete or continuous?

  126. #126 Azkyroth
    March 1, 2009

    But…

    But I like red, white, or green text on a black background. :(

    Those bastards!

  127. #127 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 1, 2009

    And all this time, I thought that Helen Keller was a socialist.

  128. #128 ChunkyMonkey
    March 1, 2009

    Happy Monkey would be a good name for an ice cream flavor…

  129. #129 Psychodigger
    March 1, 2009

    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.

  130. #130 Stu
    March 1, 2009

    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.

  131. #131 Raft
    March 1, 2009

    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?

  132. #132 eddie
    March 1, 2009

    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.

  133. #133 HalfMooner
    March 1, 2009

    “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.

  134. #134 Benoit
    March 1, 2009

    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.

  135. #135 Noni Mausa
    March 1, 2009

    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

  136. #136 bubbaj30
    March 1, 2009

    Woohoo!!! I guess this means all the free parking we could ever want!!

  137. #137 Eclogite
    March 1, 2009

    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…

  138. #138 simon
    March 1, 2009

    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.

  139. #139 Walton
    March 1, 2009

    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.

  140. #140 Knockgoats
    March 1, 2009

    simon@138,
    What a contemptible coward you are, basing your conclusions simply on wishful thinking. Grow up.

  141. #141 simon
    March 1, 2009

    @walton,
    contemplate

  142. #142 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 1, 2009

    Simon, garbage in garbage out. Your logic is garbage.

  143. #143 Arnold Facepalmer
    March 1, 2009

    # 18

    Stewart almost had me until he messed with Neko Case. A Neko Case sex sandwich minus Madonna sounds mighty good to me.

  144. #144 blf
    March 1, 2009

    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?

  145. #145 Walton
    March 1, 2009

    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.

  146. #146 Carlie
    March 1, 2009

    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.

  147. #147 Notagod
    March 1, 2009

    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?

  148. #148 KI
    March 1, 2009

    I got old and lactose-intolerant, and all this talk of ice cream is just making me sad.

  149. #149 Ryogam
    March 1, 2009

    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.

  150. #150 simon
    March 1, 2009

    @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.

  151. #151 spurge
    March 1, 2009

    Pascals wager is crap.

    How do you know you picked the correct god and worshiped in an appropriate way?

  152. #152 Ryogam
    March 1, 2009

    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.

  153. #153 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 1, 2009

    Simon, more garbage. All proofs of god are garbage, as is Pascal’s wager.

  154. #154 Ryogam
    March 1, 2009

    #113

    Thanks for that. Clearly, I’ve got some reading to do. That is a brilliant and cutting argument.

  155. #155 Ryogam
    March 1, 2009

    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.

  156. #156 BlueIndependent
    March 1, 2009

    “…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.

  157. #157 Danio
    March 1, 2009

    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.

  158. #158 cpsmith
    March 1, 2009

    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.

  159. #159 BlueIndependent
    March 1, 2009

    “…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.

  160. #160 BlueIndependent
    March 1, 2009

    @ 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…

  161. #161 Paco
    March 1, 2009

    SCANDANAVIAN NONBELIEVERS, WHICH IS NOT TO SAY ATHEISTS (NYT)
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html

  162. #162 BlueIndependent
    March 1, 2009

    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.

  163. #163 strengthofmind
    March 1, 2009

    Now you;ve reminded me that fstdt exists and I’m going to lose my life again…

  164. #164 tim Rowledge
    March 1, 2009

    That’s what wacking great pirate swords are for! What’s the best way of washing blood off the liberated French Vanilla?

    Why would you do that? Just fold it in carefully and enjoy an especially tasty analogue of Raspberry RIpple.

  165. #165 Benzion N. Chinn
    March 1, 2009

    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.

  166. #166 Benzion N. Chinn
    March 1, 2009

    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.

  167. #167 Walton
    March 1, 2009

    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

  168. #168 eddie
    March 1, 2009

    “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!

  169. #169 eddie
    March 1, 2009

    Also, the Susan Jacoby op-ed is interesting.

  170. #170 JFK, hypercharismatic telepathical knight
    March 1, 2009

    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

    Wow, almost word for word, too. Except Simon spelled “vale” correctly, and the godless geeks did not. Double wow.

  171. #171 DLC
    March 1, 2009

    Ice cream or chocolate or chocolate ice cream.
    I say we teach the controversy.

  172. #172 Menyambal
    March 1, 2009

    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.

  173. #173 DBN
    March 1, 2009

    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.

  174. #174 Wm
    March 1, 2009

    If only more atheists were to join Ron Paul’s

    http://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 http://www.mises.com and http://www.cafehayek.com
    individual freedom limited govt no tax on income, sound money backed by gold or silver with no inflation.

    check it out.

  175. #175 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 1, 2009

    Ron Paul, no thanks.

  176. #176 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 1, 2009

    If only more atheists were to join Ron Paul’s

    http://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 http://www.mises.com and http://www.cafehayek.com
    individual freedom limited govt no tax on income, sound money backed by gold or silver with no inflation.

    check it out.

    No thanks.

  177. #177 Kadin
    March 1, 2009

    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.

  178. #178 bastion of sass
    March 1, 2009

    At #164 tim Rowledge wrote:

    That’s what wacking great pirate swords are for! What’s the best way of washing blood off the liberated French Vanilla?

    Why would you do that? Just fold it in carefully and enjoy an especially tasty analogue of Raspberry RIpple.

    I think you might be looking for the mosquito thread.

  179. #179 Ichthyic
    March 1, 2009

    WM = another Ayn Rand wannabe.

    *yawn*

  180. #180 'Tis Himself
    March 1, 2009

    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.

  181. #181 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  182. #182 Bone Oboe
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  183. #183 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  184. #184 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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 :)

  185. #185 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  186. #186 Knockgoats
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  187. #187 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    You MUST see yourselves as always right, always invincible,and that God is powerless in the face of your denial of Him

    Cleanup on aisle dumb

  188. #188 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    Thank you, gentlemen, you inadvertently bear out what I say.

  189. #189 SC, OM
    March 2, 2009

    Leave aside the Christian argument for the existence of God.

    OK, how about the Christian evidence for the existence of their god?

    There denunciation of God is based on a need to be grandiose

    Says someone who believes the entire cosmos was created for us – a single, recently-appearing animal species on one tiny planet.

    (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

    Bacteria are forces “way way beyond us”? Are we to worship them?

    :)

    :)

  190. #190 Knockgoats
    March 2, 2009

    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?

  191. #191 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    Thank you, gentlemen, you inadvertently bear out what I say.

    Frankly James I don’t think you really said anything.

    Well, nothing of any substance.

  192. #192 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  193. #193 SC, OM
    March 2, 2009

    There denunciation of God is based on a need to be grandiose…Now all the robotic atheists can cry out in one voice. WHO IS JIM BAUER to tell us how we are?

    Delusions of grandeur, projected.

  194. #194 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    James

    and if you look into the proofs for the existence of God and actually find them

    How about you provide them for us?

  195. #195 Klokwurk
    March 2, 2009

    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?

    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?

  196. #196 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    Why do all the “messengers” like Jim L. Bauer sound like raving lunatics? (Punch line in 3…2…1)

  197. #197 Carlie
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  198. #198 Bobber
    March 2, 2009

    James L Bauer said:

    But who dies for a lie?

    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.

  199. #199 Menyambal
    March 2, 2009

    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?

  200. #200 SteveM
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  201. #201 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    Ahh, as I suspected, no physical proof whatsoever. Sigh. These godbots are so wordy, say nothing, and are so boring.

  202. #202 Menyambal
    March 2, 2009

    All they had to do was deny it, and they would have lived, would have walked away.

    “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. ”

  203. #203 BlueIndependent
    March 2, 2009

    “…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.

  204. #204 astrounit
    March 2, 2009

    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?

  205. #205 astrounit
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  206. #206 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    Two sister sites run by a former atheist
    http://www.gotquestions.org and http://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.

  207. #207 Sven DiMilo
    March 2, 2009

    How come there are many more former atheists than former Christians?

    da plane, Boss, da plane!

  208. #208 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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?

  209. #209 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    How come there are many more former atheists than former Christians?

    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.

  210. #210 Tulse
    March 2, 2009

    How come there are many more former atheists than former Christians?

    Data? Or do you just take that claim on “faith”?

  211. #211 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    JLB, post the physical evidence for god here. You do the work if you want to convince us. Otherwise, STFU.

  212. #212 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    Why not check out the two websites run by a former atheist like yourselves?

    What is your point James?

  213. #213 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    And that they must hate, as a matter of course, being without charity or compassion

    .
    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!

  214. #214 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    How come there are many more former atheists than former Christians?

    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.

  215. #215 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  216. #216 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    Oops, I’m getting Leon and James confused. You can’t tell your zealots apart without a program…

  217. #217 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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 :)

  218. #218 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    EV is especially upset. Is he like this all the time or just during the day and night?

  219. #219 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  220. #220 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    Oh holy shit. Those two links above were bad but this is just laughable.

    This is considered proof?

    * Causation. God provides the best explanation for the existence of the universe and all that’s in it. (The alternative theory is that “nothing” exploded and resulted in everything that we see.)

    * Order. God provides the best explanation for abstract notions such as numbers, mathematical formulae, chemical-based processes, and natural laws. (The alternative theory is that the chaotic first elements ordered themselves into complex information systems.)

    * Design. God provides the best explanation for the absolute complexity inherent in cosmological, stellar, planetary, chemical and biological systems. (The alternative theory is that random chance engineered apparent design.)

    * Encoded Instructions. God provides the best explanation for the digital DNA code contained in and controlling the functions of all life on earth. (The alternative theory is that complex code, such as binary code running computers, can pop into existence without any kind of programming, testing and debugging process.)

    * Irreducible Complexity. God provides the best explanation for fully functioning biological organisms, systems, and subsystems that couldn?t come about through gradual evolutionary process without totally ceasing to exist at lower, evolutionary levels. (The alternative theory is that biological systems took huge, unseen leaps from simple to complex without any guided process or forward-looking instructions.)

    * Duality. God provides the best explanation for the separate human functions of brain and conscience (matter and mind). (The alternative theory is monism — only matter exists and the human brain only appears to have a separate subconscious ability.)

    * Morality. God provides the best explanation for the existence of love, emotion, altruism, and inherent moral/ethical values throughout the world. (The alternative theory is that unguided materialistic processes evolve higher human consciousness.)

    And then this list. The last point being particularly hilarious.

    * Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation.

    * Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer.

    * Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren’t even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise?

    * The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?

    * Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?

    * People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more?

    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.

  221. #221 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  222. #222 windy
    March 2, 2009

    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.

    We’ll see. The thread is still young.

  223. #223 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  224. #224 Sven DiMilo
    March 2, 2009
  225. #225 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 2, 2009

    Posted by: James L Bauer | March 2, 2009 12:33 PM

    oooohhhh how the tempers flare at mere discussion…

    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?

  226. #226 Knockgoats
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  227. #227 Danio
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  228. #228 Knockgoats
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  229. #229 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    Straight out of DSM-IV.

  230. #230 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    I Kings 7:23-26 (II Chronicles 4:2-5) – ? = 3 fail

    23Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely. 24Under its brim were panels all around it, each of ten cubits, surrounding the sea; there were two rows of panels, cast when it was cast. 25It stood on twelve oxen, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south, and three facing east; the sea was set on them. The hindquarters of each were towards the inside. 26It’s thickness was a handbreadth; its brim was made like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily; it held two thousand baths.

    Leviticus 11: 20-23 – six legged fail

    ?All winged insects that go upon all fours are an abomination to you. Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those who have legs on their feet, with which to leap on the earth. Of them you may eat: the locust according to it?s kind, the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind. But all other winged insects which have four feet are an abomination to you.

    Matthew 13:31-32 NRSV Fail – epiphytic orchids have the smallest seeds

    He [Jesus] put before them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in the field; it is the smallest of all seeds…

    Genesis 30:37-39 – Just looking at a stripped rod will cause the “flock” to have stripped offspring.

    Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the rods. He set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks in the runnels, that is, the watering troughs, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the rods and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.

    Yes all very scientific it is.

  231. #231 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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?

  232. #232 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  233. #233 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  234. #234 CJO
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  235. #235 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    I find that atheists cannot talk about issues without becoming heated.

    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).

  236. #236 Nick
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  237. #237 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  238. #238 Menyambal
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  239. #239 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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!

  240. #240 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  241. #241 Dawn
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  242. #242 CJO
    March 2, 2009

    Can’t answer my questions, eh, James?

  243. #243 windy
    March 2, 2009

    All they had to do was deny it, and they would have lived, would have walked away. But who dies for a lie?

    What did the 9/11 hijackers die for?

  244. #244 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    James appealing to emotion instead of backing his assertions

    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!

    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.

  245. #245 SteveM
    March 2, 2009

    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.

    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)

  246. #246 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    I could learn to like you folks.

    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.

  247. #247 Sastra
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  248. #248 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  249. #249 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  250. #250 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    AHA!

    I was raised without any formal religion, and now consider myself an ex-Transcendentalist.

    That would explain that whole wise and patient Earth-Mother vibe.: )

  251. #251 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    I thought rational discussion could be had here, but alas, I only receive venomous replies.

    Oh, I guess you were playing devil’s advocate and providing the irrational side of the argument. Bravo, well done!

  252. #252 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    James, just to try dislodge you from the whinny 6 year old impression you are currently working

    So you see, you should investigate the CLAIMS of the Bible and test them, look into them

    Which claims do you suggest?

  253. #253 Menyambal
    March 2, 2009

    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.”

  254. #254 James L. Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  255. #255 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    JLB, you can’t discuss anything because you offer nothing. What an ignorant godbot.

  256. #256 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    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.

    James quit dodging and playing games, you are becoming a bore.

    Address my post #230 in relation to your claim that

    But seeing that science, at every turn, supports the Bible, bears it out, certifies even minor facts in the Bible itself

  257. #257 CJO
    March 2, 2009

    Answer the questions, James. What are you afraid of?

  258. #258 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    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?)

  259. #259 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  260. #260 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    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

    But seeing that science, at every turn, supports the Bible, bears it out, certifies even minor facts in the Bible itself

  261. #261 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  262. #262 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  263. #263 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    Oh, no, I tried dialogue but it was met with anger, so now I am apologizing to everyone.

  264. #264 Sven DiMilo
    March 2, 2009

    even the guy’s apologies for being boring are boring
    –> killfile!

  265. #265 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    Anthony K, you really have to get ahold of yourself

    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.

  266. #266 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  267. #267 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    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!

  268. #268 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  269. #269 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    Oh, no, I tried dialogue but it was met with anger, so now I am apologizing to everyone.

    No you didn’t. From the get go you have steadfastly refused to actually address any of the points brought before you.

  270. #270 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  271. #271 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    RevBDC:
    Oh there is another more deserving… Alan has come back to awe us with his insipidness.

  272. #272 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    Curse you JLB, and your God of Formatting!

  273. #273 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    Oh there is another more deserving… Alan has come back to awe us with his insipidness.

    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.

  274. #274 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    Interesting dungeon, Rev. Care to share – or is it where you keep….John Denver?

  275. #275 CJO
    March 2, 2009

    That is such a broad question, CJO.

    But you won’t answer the specific ones, either. Why not?

  276. #276 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    Interesting dungeon, Rev. Care to share – or is it where you keep….John Denver?

    Sadly no. I only have memories. And I keep them right here in my heart.

  277. #277 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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?

  278. #278 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    Sweet crucified Myers, that is gross!

  279. #279 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    JLB – this isn’t anger – this isfun!

  280. #280 Menyambal
    March 2, 2009

    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?

  281. #281 CJO
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  282. #282 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    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?

    Still dodging.

    Comment #230 is still up there.

  283. #283 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  284. #284 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  285. #285 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    But seeing that science, at every turn, supports the Bible, bears it out, certifies even minor facts in the Bible itself

    Oh I see, it’s talk absolute drivel day.

  286. #286 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    Not to mention all the posts about ice cream? Are those people in danger of being banned because they did not discuss theological issues?

  287. #287 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    Yes,Kel. Drivel is anything you yourself disagree with.

  288. #288 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    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!

  289. #289 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  290. #290 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    Yes,Kel. Drivel is anything you yourself disagree with.

    Answer the questions posed to you child.

    It is obvious you can not.

    Oh ye of little faith in your own faith.

  291. #291 Menyambal
    March 2, 2009

    Manyambal

    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?

  292. #292 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    Yes,Kel. Drivel is anything you yourself disagree with.

    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.

  293. #293 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  294. #294 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  295. #295 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    Thank you, Nerd of Redhead.

  296. #296 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  297. #297 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    I do hope I’m not offending the more sentient among you…

  298. #298 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  299. #299 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    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 :(

  300. #300 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    Excellent comeback, AnthonyK, seriously. That was good.

  301. #301 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    Kel, whatever you say

    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?

  302. #302 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  303. #303 SC, OM
    March 2, 2009

    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?)

    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?

  304. #304 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  305. #305 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  306. #306 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  307. #307 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    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

    Transubstantiation = super cereal science.

  308. #308 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    A touch of christlike humility. But is it real, James, or is it prideful….

  309. #309 BlueIndependent
    March 2, 2009

    “…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”.

  310. #310 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    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..

  311. #311 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    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.

    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.

  312. #312 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  313. #313 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  314. #314 'Tis Himself
    March 2, 2009

    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?

  315. #315 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    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.

    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.

  316. #316 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  317. #317 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    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?

  318. #318 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    Tis Himself, that is a very profound and true insight.

  319. #319 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  320. #320 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    Correct. It is not the fact that this is an atheist blog that makes it clever.

  321. #321 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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”

  322. #322 'Tis Himself
    March 2, 2009

    irregardless

    AAAARGH! Now I am angry!

    Here’s what dictionary.com says about “irregardless”.

    [I]t has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

  323. #323 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    @#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

    Dunning-Kruger effect is an example of cognitive bias in which “people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it”. They therefore suffer an illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average.
    Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
    Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
    Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.

  324. #324 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    “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.

  325. #325 echidna
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  326. #326 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  327. #327 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    SC:

    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?

    Peter Graves fan? or are you just being saucy?

  328. #328 Brownian
    March 2, 2009

    It’s crazy to buy something you can’t prove exists, isn’t it?

    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.

  329. #329 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    Fuck me mate, now you’ve upset ‘Tis. Shall I fetch the police?

  330. #330 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    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.

    Yes but there is a way to mitigate this. By requiring evidence of things before we believe in them.

  331. #331 Brownian
    March 2, 2009

    Tis Himself, that is a very profound and true insight.

    True because it’s true, or true because you believe it to be so?

  332. #332 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    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!

  333. #333 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    God speed! So my very first post convinced you after all, and here you were holding out all this time!

  334. #334 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  335. #335 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    EV, if I could only learn as much as you about how things work, or even half as much, I would be content.

  336. #336 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    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.

    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?

  337. #337 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    James, in order to learn, you must first seek knowledge.

  338. #338 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  339. #339 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    I just can’t keep up with the self-imposed definitions anymore

    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.

  340. #340 Brownian
    March 2, 2009

    Now I have to go out into the world and learn about how things actually work, as if I have no idea now.

    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?

  341. #341 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  342. #342 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    EV, thanks for promoting me to the 8th grade, I thought you were going to put me at a much lower level.

    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?

  343. #343 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  344. #344 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    Hmmm. I’m still not convinced. Are there any bible verses you could quote to prove your point?
    Jokes!

  345. #345 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

  346. #346 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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

  347. #347 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    Meh, Anthony K, Nerd, Brownian, RevBDC & Kel won’t leave enough on the bones to merit putting on a bib.

  348. #348 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    >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…

  349. #349 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    JLB, say something intelligent. Same of idiotic blather. Why are godbots such pointless run-on drones? [/rhetorical]

  350. #350 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  351. #351 Sastra
    March 2, 2009

    James L Bauer #341 wrote:

    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.

    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.

  352. #352 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    You’re much stupider than anyone thought

    Sadly, no. Persistent little fucker, ain’t he though?

  353. #353 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    Oops. I meant to say, “Good Day to you , sir.”

  354. #354 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    There are dogmatists out there

    Yes, Sastra, it’s a dogmatist eat dogmatist world all right.

  355. #355 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    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?

  356. #356 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    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!

  357. #357 Menyambal
    March 2, 2009

    Every revolutionary idea, as all of you know far far more than I do, met with resistance precisely because of an entrenched viewpoint.

    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.

  358. #358 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    Ooooh EV! That’s a nasty wound. Can I put something on it for you?

  359. #359 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  360. #360 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    Folks here have been remarkably patient with you

    Hey, I resent that!

  361. #361 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    and wise up.

    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?

  362. #362 Menyambal
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  363. #363 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    Calm down now. EV. You did call him a “fat cumswilling fuck”, and we’re not at home to Mr Pottymouth. Are we? Mmmm?

  364. #364 'Tis Himself
    March 2, 2009

    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.”

  365. #365 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    him in charge.

    Wahahahahahahahahahahah!

  366. #366 Ken Cope
    March 2, 2009

    Oh behalf of James L. Bauer, I will admit that he is slightly less stupid than facilis.

  367. #367 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  368. #368 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    slightly less stupid than facilis

    Only if you write their IQs in binary.

  369. #369 AnthonyK
    March 2, 2009

    Thanks everyone, that was fun.
    God bless, James, may He remove himself from your life.
    I’m off to drown some kittens.
    xxxx

  370. #370 Menyambal
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  371. #371 Ichthyic
    March 2, 2009

    proselytizing goddists

    I was always fond of “god-bothering tub-thumpers” myself.
    :P

  372. #372 Ken Cope
    March 2, 2009

    NoROM: That still isn’t saying much.

    I was trying to be charitable.

  373. #373 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    I was trying to be charitable.

    I’ve been guilty of that too.

  374. #374 Notagod
    March 2, 2009

    After consulting with his christian god-idea James L Bauer wrote:

    EV, I think you are the most hateful little fuck of all, aren’t you?

  375. #375 James L Bauer
    March 2, 2009

    And James L Bauer was correct in writing it, too.

  376. #376 Russell Blackford
    March 2, 2009

    James L. Bauer said:

    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.

    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.

  377. #377 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    #374
    To which I replied…

  378. #378 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    Oh James, you flatter me although you still haven’t elucidated your thinly veiled threat. “Wise up” or what…?

  379. #379 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    JLB in the third person is always wrong. When will he get that through his thick skull?

  380. #380 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    JBL is Bob Dole.

  381. #381 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  382. #382 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  383. #383 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    Gack, copied from Kel/E.V. and got the initials wrong. JLB, not JBL. *headdesk*

  384. #384 simon
    March 2, 2009

    @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.

  385. #385 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    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…

  386. #386 Sven DiMilo
    March 2, 2009

    I’m not sure the small meat in my head is big enough to grok that message. The relevance of the blindness thing is…?

  387. #387 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    Just Bush League/ JBL. What’s the problem?

  388. #388 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    Simon, Yawn. Study our threads. Your stupidity has been answered over and over. Are you too besotted with godbotting idiocy to read?

  389. #389 Josh
    March 2, 2009

    Simon, I presume you’re an atheist about Odin. Why exactly is that?

  390. #390 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    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?

  391. #391 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  392. #392 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  393. #393 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    what is your rule of life ?

    What the hell does that even mean?

    what is your standard to justify good or bad ?

    The same thing everyone else uses. Social constructs that have been and are being tuned since the beginning of mankind.

    if live in US, do you obey the rule and law ?

    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.

    if you vow, you vow to whom ? to yourself ?

    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.

    if you have a blind son or daughter, what are you going to tell him/her about his/her blindness ?

    I would find out the cause and tell him/her about it. Is that so hard?

    One day, all of you suffer,

    And Pascal shoots! and it’s wide right.

    today you still can laugh

    Thank you. You make it so easy.

    with your small meat in your head

    What about the meat ON my head?

    which does not invent anything for humankind except to mock other

    Yeah all that sciency stuff and medicine and technology.

    Pffft who needs it.

  394. #394 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    I have kept those vows and honestly have NOT had to temptation to break them.

    um. Freudian fail?

  395. #395 Sven DiMilo
    March 2, 2009

    What about the meat ON my head?

    Link o’ the day!!! Literally LOL.

  396. #396 'Tis Himself
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  397. #397 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 2, 2009

    Posted by: James L Bauer | March 2, 2009

    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?

    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?

  398. #398 Twin-Skies
    March 2, 2009

    @’Tis Himself #396

    But do you leave the toilet seat down when you pee?

  399. #399 Rey Fox
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  400. #400 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    Janine, how can I deny any request from you!

  401. #401 Twin-Skies
    March 2, 2009

    @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?

  402. #402 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    I hang my head in shame Tis Himself. You are more immoral than I. *whimpers*

  403. #403 Sven DiMilo
    March 2, 2009

    Get a room, you two.

  404. #404 simon
    March 2, 2009

    #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 ?

  405. #405 'Tis Himself
    March 2, 2009

    Sven’s jealous. His immorality consists of mooning himself in the mirror and farting in elevators.

  406. #406 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    which one ? who do you mean by “everyone” ? are they atheist like you ?

    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.

  407. #407 'Tis Himself
    March 2, 2009

    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?

  408. #408 Sven DiMilo
    March 2, 2009

    well, yeah, but sometimes they’re really stinky ones! I mean, PU! Seriously!

  409. #409 simon
    March 2, 2009

    #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 ?

  410. #410 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    fact, today human civilization caused by religions.
    Tell me the history of atheist civilization, can you ?

    Caused by religions?

  411. #411 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    fact, today human civilization 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.

  412. #412 Wowbagger
    March 2, 2009

    fact, today human civilization caused by religions.

    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.

  413. #413 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  414. #414 SC, OM
    March 2, 2009

    um. Freudian fail?

    Heh. I had just assumed it was “and honestly have had no temptation to break them” with a typo.

    Then you got all confessional. :)

    Wasn’t there a long discussion about morality in another thread simon has been in?

    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.)

  415. #415 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  416. #416 SC, OM
    March 2, 2009

    Varmus on now.

  417. #417 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    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?

  418. #418 Notagod
    March 2, 2009

    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.

  419. #419 SC, OM
    March 2, 2009

    All that gooey typo goodness really screwed my message.

    “I haven’t really had any temptation to break my vows.”

    I’m glad National Serious Response to Teasing Day will be over soon.

    Kel:

    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.

    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.

  420. #420 BlueIndependent
    March 3, 2009

    “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.

  421. #421 simon
    March 3, 2009

    @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.

  422. #422 Kel
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  423. #423 simon
    March 3, 2009

    @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)

  424. #424 Kel
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  425. #425 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  426. #426 Wowbagger
    March 3, 2009

    Simon wrote:

    Think with the jelly meat in your head, guy.

    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.

  427. #427 Notagod
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  428. #428 simon
    March 3, 2009

    @Notagod

    What you are promoting is enslavement by mind control.

    sounds like spirituality, Buddhism ?

  429. #429 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  430. #430 Notagod
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  431. #431 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 3, 2009

    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”

    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 ?

    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?

  432. #432 E.V.
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  433. #433 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 3, 2009

    @Notagod

    What you are promoting is enslavement by mind control.

    sounds like spirituality, Buddhism ?

    Are you drunk?

  434. #434 E.V.
    March 3, 2009

    No RevBDC, Simon is not drunk, heavens no! Simon is special (as in: “rides the short bus” special)

  435. #435 AnthonyK
    March 3, 2009

    He is now aware he isn’t aware

    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.

  436. #436 E.V.
    March 3, 2009

    Remember AnthonyK: The chronology was JLBs thinly veiled threat:

    -”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” @#346.

    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?

  437. #437 AnthonyK
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  438. #438 E.V.
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  439. #439 AnthonyK
    March 3, 2009

    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 ;)

  440. #440 James L Bauer
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  441. #441 James L Bauer
    March 3, 2009

    EV, try to be nice, now :) Take what is due to you like a man, will you? You attack, I attack, very simple.

  442. #442 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    JLB, still nothing cogent to say. Yawn.

  443. #443 James L Bauer
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  444. #444 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 3, 2009

    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.

    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.

  445. #445 AnthonyK
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  446. #446 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  447. #447 SC, OM
    March 3, 2009

    Now, look at Kel and Sastra and some others, and try to abstain from verbal attacks,

    Ah, went with choice b (of my #419). Always a favorite.

  448. #448 James L Bauer
    March 3, 2009

    Thanks, Nerd, going off to grow some now.

  449. #449 E.V.
    March 3, 2009

    And Sastra effortlessly slides the stiletto home.

  450. #450 Josh
    March 3, 2009

    JLB wrote:

    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.

    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?

  451. #451 tony
    March 3, 2009

    JLB: remember – don’t come back ’til they’ve dropped. It’s no fun ganging up on squeaky voiced adolescents.

  452. #452 AnthonyK
    March 3, 2009

    I give as good as I get

    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.

  453. #453 James L Bauer
    March 3, 2009

    Thanks, AnthonyK, for the script of what I’m supposed to say here.

  454. #454 E.V.
    March 3, 2009

    *E.V. sits back and watches the fur fly *

  455. #455 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    And JLB still says nothing. What a troll. What a bore.

  456. #456 James L Bauer
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  457. #457 James L Bauer
    March 3, 2009

    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?

  458. #458 AnthonyK
    March 3, 2009

    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

  459. #459 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 3, 2009

    Comments #220 and #230 James.

  460. #460 James L Bauer
    March 3, 2009

    Seriously, no, I am not, AnthonyK. I did in my initial post but did not pursue it anymore.

  461. #461 James L Bauer
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  462. #462 AnthonyK
    March 3, 2009

    ad hominem attacks are the norm, e.g. when Simon came on here again, last night.

    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)

  463. #463 SC, OM
    March 3, 2009

    #376, James.

  464. #464 Josh
    March 3, 2009

    James, well then okay, how about my question in #450?

  465. #465 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  466. #466 James L Bauer
    March 3, 2009

    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

  467. #467 Menyambal
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  468. #468 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 3, 2009

    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 James, you provided the link to the website in comment #206 that contains all of comment #220 claiming it contains

    proofs and all the usual arguments for and against God etc just check out those two sites

    .

    Previous to that in post #192 you said

    But seeing that science, at every turn, supports the Bible, bears it out, certifies even minor facts in the Bible itself

    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?

  469. #469 James L Bauer
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  470. #470 E.V.
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  471. #471 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  472. #472 James L Bauer
    March 3, 2009

    Now in view of 443 and 469 why was 467 posted?

  473. #473 SC, OM
    March 3, 2009

    376 is not a question, it is a treatise; a very well thought out one, but not a question.

    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.

  474. #474 AnthonyK
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  475. #475 James L Bauer
    March 3, 2009

    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?

  476. #476 SC, OM
    March 3, 2009

    Now in view of 443 and 469 why was 467 posted?

    What the…?

    You’re not up to the standards of this forum, James – even the troll standards.

  477. #477 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 3, 2009

    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

  478. #478 James L Bauer
    March 3, 2009

    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?

  479. #479 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    JLB, equivication, but not any strong statements. We don’t answer questions until you answer ours to our satisfaction, not yours.

  480. #480 E.V.
    March 3, 2009

    Agnosticism and Pascal’s Wager? That’s all you’ve got?
    Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.
    *wipes tears from eyes* Oh you win!

  481. #481 Endor
    March 3, 2009

    “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!

  482. #482 James L Bauer
    March 3, 2009

    What does post 476 mean about “standards”? Because a simple question was asked instead of a half page one?

  483. #483 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 3, 2009

    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?

    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?

  484. #484 Josh
    March 3, 2009

    *sigh* Read #474 again.

  485. #485 SC, OM
    March 3, 2009

    What does post 476 mean about “standards”? Because a simple question was asked instead of a half page one?

    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.

  486. #486 James L Bauer
    March 3, 2009

    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?

  487. #487 Endor
    March 3, 2009

    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?

  488. #488 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  489. #489 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 3, 2009

    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?

    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?

  490. #490 CJO
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  491. #492 E.V.
    March 3, 2009

    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?”

  492. #493 AnthonyK
    March 3, 2009

    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?

  493. #494 Patricia, OM
    March 3, 2009

    AnthonyK – Everybody knows where god is. This is his day of rest time. He’s on vacation. Silly monkey.

  494. #495 AnthonyK
    March 3, 2009

    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.

  495. #496 James L Bauer
    March 3, 2009

    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!

  496. #497 Endo
    March 3, 2009

    “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.

  497. #498 Sven DiMilo
    March 3, 2009

    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?

  498. #499 Helfrick
    March 3, 2009

    If it’ll make you shut up, I’ll answer the question in #443.

    why should I waste my time?

    You shouldn’t waste your time or ours. You may leave now.

  499. #500 Endor
    March 3, 2009

    “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! :)

  500. #501 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 3, 2009

    Rev answers a question with a question.

    You’re still dancing.

    No I did not. I answered as well as asking you a question. The fact you ignore the part where I answered you and focused on a question I asked you (and you refused to answer) is telling. You can’t do it. You can not answer. You are too weak minded to deal with questions posed to you.

    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.

    Answer my posts above I linked to. I know why you will not.

    Because you can not. Is your faith that weak?

    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!

    You twerp, you have ignored or sidestepped or tried to shift the burden for nearly every single quesiton posed to you. You can’t claim any sort of victory because you have been exposed. If you need to back out do so knowing you are exposed as a weak minded fool.

    Answer the questions above I asked you.

  501. #502 E.V.
    March 3, 2009

    Don’t worry Mr. Bauer if you’ve accumulated all those altruism travel miles for an nonexistent afterlife destination because any actual good you accomplished is commendable, but the self-indulgent idol worship is just lost time and a waste of effort.
    You don’t have to be a Jebus Crammer to accomplish charitable and worthwhile acts for for your fellow humans. You can be good for the sake of being good, not because you’ll either be eternally punished or get some mythical paradise as a reward.

    You realized Santa, and the Tooth fairy weren’t real, so rid yourself of one more childish belief and get on with life; you haven’t much time to lose.

  502. #503 Josh
    March 3, 2009

    I also cannot prove there isn’t a Mars Bar sitting on the far side of Pluto right now. Can you? No.

    Is there any evidence of said Mars Bar? Well, there is a text, actually; it was referred to in a blog comment on 3 March 2009. So the possibility of it existing has been referred to. Maybe we should worry about the exitence of the Mars Bar?

  503. #504 AnthonyK
    March 3, 2009

    And on the way out don’t slam the – too late.
    Everyone here is so rude.
    Not one of my personal failings.

  504. #505 Menyambal
    March 3, 2009

    James L Bauer, I once read a Christian book asserting that to prove that there is no God, one would have to examine the entire universe, and, that if one were capable of examining the entire universe, one would BE God.

    I laughed at that. All one has to do is to examine any one tiny corner of the universe, and to show that there is no all-pervading God in it. What we have done, over the last few days, is to examine the tiny corner of the universe that is your heart.

    There is no God in your heart, James L Bauer. That is well evident. You are foolish, and call us fools, you are wicked and un-Christ-like (although most Christian). There is no God in the heart of James L Bauer, who claims that there is a God, who claims that God is in him. If, James L Bauer, with all your religiosity, and all your talk, there is no God in you, and no spirit of God speaking through you, there is no God.

    Where else should we look for God, but in the heart of a believer? What need to examine the universe? Where God should be, He is not.

    There is no God.

    And James L Bauer is proof.

  505. #506 Sven DiMilo
    March 3, 2009

    There is a Mars bar, just off the lobby of the Mars Hotel.
    At least, that’s the ugly rumour.

  506. #507 Josh
    March 3, 2009

    Now it’s been mentioned twice…

    I think it’s something to be thinking about…

  507. #508 AnthonyK
    March 3, 2009

    James L Bauer has left the kitchen.
    (I hope)

  508. #509 God
    March 3, 2009

    All this confusion is very worrying to Me.

    Do I exist or not?

    Hey! Head apologist! I need an apologetic, stat!

  509. #510 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 3, 2009

    James, perhaps this forum would be more your speed.

    The questions there won’t be so hard, there’s likely to be little cursing or name calling and I think they encourage dancing.

  510. #511 speedwell
    March 3, 2009

    I don’t know how the rest of you feel, but Menyambal gets my vote for the next Molly award, based on the consistent quality, dignity, rationality, and even poetry of their (sorry, Menyambal, I was not paying attention when you mentioned your sex) postings. Well done.

  511. #512 Satan
    March 3, 2009

    Hey! Head apologist! I need an apologetic, stat!

    You bellowed?

    Let Me see, how about this?:

    The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy was fiction. There is no such thing as a Babel fish. Therefore, the Babel fish disproof of God fails. Therefore, You, God, do exist.

  512. #513 E.V.
    March 3, 2009

    Josh, Iain, Menyamble, Sven (don’t you already have one?), AnthonyK are all good candidates for the Order of Molly this month. I bet PZ forgot.

  513. #514 God
    March 3, 2009

    Therefore, the Babel fish disproof of God fails. Therefore, You, God, do exist.

    Good! I can feel My Self reifying. Got another one?

  514. #515 Satan
    March 3, 2009

    I can feel My Self reifying. Got another one?

    Well, continuing on the theme of faith versus certainty, We might note that since faith works by lacking certainty, and the lack of certainty is the foundation of doubt, then the doubts of believers are in turn absolutely foundational to their faith.

    Indeed, I would go even further, and note that Your own cosmic Self-doubt implies an even greater and more cosmic faith that sustains You. All You need to do is hold on to that faith, with Your omnipotent power, and Your existence is assured.

  515. #516 God
    March 3, 2009

    Indeed, I would go even further, and note that Your own cosmic Self-doubt implies an even greater and more cosmic faith that sustains You. All You need to do is hold on to that faith, with Your omnipotent power, and Your existence is assured.

    That was long, complicated, almost entirely incomprehensible, and ended with the answer I wanted to hear. Brilliant! Well done!

  516. #517 Satan
    March 3, 2009

    That was long, complicated, almost entirely incomprehensible, and ended with the answer I wanted to hear. Brilliant! Well done!

    Just so long as You’re no longer bellowing, I mean happy. Just so long as You’re happy.

    Well, I’m going to watch some more Ed Current videos. I don’t recommend them to You; they are not quite to Your taste.

  517. #518 Menyambal
    March 3, 2009

    Thanks, speedwell, and E.V., for the compliment. That was fun. My compliments to all, as well.

    Speedwell, since you mentioned, my sex is married. My gender is male. Oddly, my appearance is rather like that of PZ Myers. Should I offer to be his double the next time he goes on a secret mission to Atheist Headquarters?

  518. #519 AnthonyK
    March 3, 2009

    @510 – Rev, that’s a brilliant site, just right for James. I went on there briefly and I tell you what those saps don’t know shit about presuppositional apologetics.
    And when I attacked them on the transformers thread, I swear they almost pissed their pants.
    Damn I’m good!

  519. #520 oaksterdam
    March 3, 2009

    Sven (don’t you already have one?)

    I keep voting for him. He keeps saying he doesn’t want it. Fuck him. When he stops typing Molly worthy shit, I’ll stop voting for him. (smirky emoticon goes here)

  520. #521 E.V.
    March 3, 2009

    I love to elect chiefs, but I’m really content with just being an indian. Besides, I would taint the Order of Molly in no time if I ever received one (heh heh, he said t’aint) See what I mean?

  521. #522 AnthonyK
    March 3, 2009

    Perhaps you can advise them. I’d like to get my house tainted, inside and out. Is there anything you can suggest? Unholy water doesn’t seem to work.

  522. #523 speedwell
    March 3, 2009

    I cling to the old fashioned notion that people, and other organisms differentiable into males and females, have sexes. Things that are not like that (words, identities, ships, ideas) have gender. For example, I had a friend once who was male in sex but female in gender. She freely admitted to have been born male.

    Oh, I get it. “Married” was just a way of letting a fan down easy, wasn’t it. :D

  523. #524 Kel
    March 3, 2009

    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?

    And there you’ve stumbled upon what atheism really is. Atheism is not saying that there’s absolutely no god. It’s saying that there’s not enough evidence to believe there is a god.

    Move it away from the Christian construct. Can you say for sure there is no Apollo or Zeus? Of course you can’t. But you have no reason to believe either exists, so you don’t believe in them. Same goes for Odin, Thor, Brahman, Ra, The Giant Rainbow Serpent, Ziltoid The Omniscient, Baal, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Atheism is not saying that all of them don’t exist, it’s saying there’s no reason to believe that any of them exist.

    Do I believe in God? No. Am I absolutely sure of Her non-existence? No. Working in absolutes is only for republicans and sith-lords. Atheism is a matter of belief, not knowledge. Most people are not gnostic atheists, they are agnostic atheists. For without evidence, any ascribing to knowledge is a matter of faith and thus useless. The question of the existence of any god is unknown and quite probably unknowable, an atheist is one who simply won’t believe without evidence.

  524. #525 Ichthyic
    March 3, 2009

    This is PZ’s blog and we will control the discussion

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C_gWy8ksnM

    you, are about to experience a great adventure…

  525. #526 E.V.
    March 3, 2009

    Speedwell:

    “In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were REAL men, women were REAL women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were REAL small furry creatures from Aplha Centauri.’”
    -Douglas Adams

  526. #527 'Tis Himself
    March 3, 2009

    Everybody knows where god is.

    God lives in the bathroom of my parents’ house. Every morning my dad would pound on the bathroom door and yell: “God, are you still in there?”

  527. #528 Notagod
    March 3, 2009

    James L Bauer, there is an invisible stick up your butt, if you don’t acknowledge that it is there, it won’t dislodge, thus preventing you from leaving your body after death. Your invisible stick only asks that you affirm its presence when asked, no worship or other woo such as that required by your god-idea.

    James L Bauer can you prove that you don’t have an invisible stick up your butt?

    James L Bauer do you have a stick up your butt?

  528. #532 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    YAWN

  529. #533 inquirer
    March 3, 2009
  530. #534 inquirer
    March 3, 2009

    http://www.existence-of-god.com/author-information.html
    former atheist, now Christian. Read.

  531. #535 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    former atheist, now Christian. Read.

    Why? God doesn’t exist, and the bible is a work of fiction.

  532. #536 E.V.
    March 3, 2009

    Oh Inquirer, you’re just another not too bright christianist. We’ve read the all the crap you’ve provided long ago and it’s still childishly stupid. Your monosyllabic grunts are hysterical though. Auditioning for Young Frankenstein?

  533. #537 Owlmirror
    March 3, 2009

    LOL. “former atheist”, meaning “didn’t even think about it”.

    Some atheists think quite a lot about it, actually.

    http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

    You read.

  534. #538 inquirer
    March 3, 2009
  535. #539 inquirer
    March 3, 2009

    “inquirer”. The first letter is not capitalized. See post number 536 for the error

  536. #540 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    Why should we believe anything a weak minded delusional godbotter says? If you had some real physical evidence for your imaginary deity that would pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as of divine, not natural, origin, you might have something. Until then, YAWN, you are a bore.

  537. #541 'Tis Himself
    March 3, 2009

    Being an Atheist Makes No Sense by Nicholos Gene Poma B.S. I cannot be too impressed by an author of an article on religion who feels the need to tell me that he graduated from college.

    ‘Tis Himself MA, BA.

    former atheist, now Christian.

    If I had a nickel for ever Christian who claims to have been a former atheist, I’d have a whole bunch of nickels.

  538. #542 E.V.
    March 3, 2009

    inquirer:
    Are you drunk … or incognito? You don’t have to disguise your writing. I can’t hear you…

  539. #543 'Tis Himself
    March 3, 2009

    My last sentence in #541 should read: “If I had a nickel for every Christian who claims to have been a former atheist, I’d have a whole bunch of nickels.”

  540. #544 E.V.
    March 3, 2009

    Um, you..stay…me…go… Night Night.

  541. #545 'Tis Himself
    March 3, 2009

    Good night, E.V. Sleep tight. And don’t worry about the monster in the closet.

  542. #546 Wowbagger
    March 3, 2009

    inquirer, why is it you choose to believe in and worship the particular god of your specific Christian sect? As opposed to the god of all the other Christian sects, or the gods of all the other religions.

    I mean, there are so many to choose from. How long did you spend investigating the others before ‘getting lucky’ with your sect’s concept of Yahweh?

  543. #547 Rey Fox
    March 3, 2009

    “I also cannot prove there isn’t a Mars Bar sitting on the far side of Pluto right now. Can you? No. ”

    The more I read these sorts of arguments, the more I wonder why Mr. “Yahweh” God is the being privileged with being the subject of them. It’s always “Do you believe in God?” Well, what about all the other deities? And celestial teapots and such?

  544. #548 E.V.
    March 3, 2009

    Good night, E.V. Sleep tight. And don’t worry about the monster in the closet.

    Actually the monster’s parents tell him, “Sleep tight. And don’t worry about the man in the bed.

  545. #549 inquirer
    March 4, 2009

    Read, think, learn, in that order.

  546. #550 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 4, 2009

    inquirer, no read since you present trash. No think, since I require physical evidence which you are avoiding presenting. BAWK BAWK BAWK No learn, because I have already read the bible twice on my way to atheism. It is a horrid book describing a mafia godfather, and the morality keeps biting its own tail. Anyone who follows Yahweh is a loser with delusions, just like yourself.

  547. #551 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 4, 2009

    inquirer

    Care to actually present an argument in your own words?

  548. #552 inquirer
    March 4, 2009

    inquirer presents no arguments in his/her own words. Never. inquirer points you to Truth. No interaction whatsoever except to provide answers you all hunger for.

  549. #553 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 4, 2009

    inquirer presents no arguments in his/her own words. Never. inquirer points you to Truth. No interaction whatsoever except to provide answers you all hunger for.

    Truth?

    Is that different than truth or TRUTH or even the rare but exciting TRUTH

  550. #554 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 4, 2009

    inquirer, if you don’t engage you can be banned as a spammer (click on dungeon on the masthead for crimes) and for being boring. So, either present your own words or fade into the bandwidth. And you present no truth, but only delusions.

  551. #555 Helfrick
    March 4, 2009

    Ooh, third person troll. Interesting.

    BTW thanks for the Young Frankenstein and monster talk, now I have that damned song stuck in my head…

    If you’re blue and you don’t know
    where to go to why don’t you go
    where fashion sits

    PYUTHN ONH THA REEETZ

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH2nQHPs4aA

  552. #556 Sven DiMilo
    March 4, 2009

    inquirer gives me the creeps.
    Open the pod-bay doors, inquirer.

  553. #557 E.V.
    March 4, 2009

    I’ve always wondered what Tarzan would sound like as a deluded troll. Now I know.

    inquirer: We learned. Stuff stupid. You goofball. Read archives. Go away

  554. #558 Endor
    March 4, 2009

    “If I had a nickel for every Christian who claims to have been a former atheist, I’d have a whole bunch of nickels.”

    At least of roll of them, surely.

    inquirer, what makes you believe that we *haven’t* read. thought and then subsequently learned that religion is bullshit and god is imaginary?

    I know it’s hard for you to comprehend, but been there, done that, honey. There is no imaginary friend.

  555. #559 Josh
    March 4, 2009

    No interaction whatsoever except to provide answers you all hunger for.

    Oooo! Oooo! Does that mean we get to ask you questions? And that we can expect actual fucking answers? You know, to the same questions that were asked? This would be great, and would seperate you from pretty much every fucking godbot who has ever come in here and blithered. Since it seems like you all learned how to (not)discuss points from the same inept person, I’m gonna go out on a limb and predict that your answer, which of course you won’t give us, is no.

    OR, just maybe, perhaps, you meant QUESTIONS (*cue offstage thunder*).

    Yeah… That’s what you meant, isn’t it? Questions? You know, the big ones? You meant those deep burning philosophical unknowns that keep us up at night, that wake us from shivery restless slumber to the awareness of sweat-soaked sheets, that cause us to stare longingly at the moon, pause thoughtfully, and wonder “why,” why am I here, what is the point, am I a good person, what does it mean to be a good person, where did I come from and what happens when I die? That’s it, isn’t it? Those are the kinds of questions you think you have answers to, right? You’re gonna look deep into our souls?

    *yawn*

    If I had a soul, inquirer, and you were capable of peering into it, the only thing you’d see is napalm.

  556. #560 inquirer
    March 4, 2009

    Read, think, learn.

  557. #561 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 4, 2009

    Read, think, learn.

    I read, I thought about it and I learned that your links suck.

    And you are boring.

  558. #562 E.V.
    March 4, 2009

    inquirer is the type of christian who puts on those Halloween “Hell Houses”. A fundy’s straw man wet dream depicting the evils drugs/alcohol/sex/masturbation/gay/abortion/evil atheism/more evil liberalism versus the milksop sanctity of conservatism and Jebus. No skeletons jumping out at these haunted houses because they’re all back home in these douchebag’s closets. “Holier”” Hornier than thou” is more correct, CYA accordingly.

  559. #563 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 4, 2009

    Inquirer, I read and became a scientist. I thought, and rejected religion of moraly confused and bankrupt. I learned how to live life fully without imaginary deities and fictional holy books. You offer nothing.

    And I will vote for banning you as a spammer.

  560. #564 Helfrick
    March 4, 2009

    How long does it take PZ to ban worthless idiots like unquirer?

  561. #565 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 4, 2009

    Bah, need more coffee. Previeous post second sentence should read:..rejected religion as morally confused and bankrupt.

  562. #566 AnthonyK
    March 4, 2009

    Read. Groan. Ban.

  563. #567 Rey Fox
    March 4, 2009

    Quote, buy, print!

  564. #568 inquirer
    March 4, 2009

    “inquirer” is never capitalized, as it would infer that I am “the” Inquirer, which of course I am not. I am an e pluribus unum inquirer.
    Banning is not the answer. Read, think, learn. Truth is the answer, but to find it you must first seek it. In a spirit of genuine seeking.
    Banning is never the answer. It serves only to make you seem more powerful than you are; witness the power involved in saying God does not exist, as if saying it causes God to not exist! Deluded fools!, who think banning is the answer, and crude language equalizes the intellect of inquirer with themselves. Fools indeed. Read, think, learn. I have so far given you four items to read. Have you done so?

  565. #569 inquirer
    March 4, 2009

    Would PZ ban inquirer for posting four articles of great interest and asking you to read them? Surely that is “substance” is it not? Why the protest against inaction on my part, when you yourselves have not opined on the given material? A double standard typical of atheists, who wish to have it not only both ways but all ways.
    Read, think, learn. In that order.
    By your own posts you have indicated that your pointless ramblings should not be banned, but inquirer’s weighty articles should! Shame on you for your intellectual dishonesty and emptiness.

  566. #570 Sven DiMilo
    March 4, 2009

    open the podbay doors, small-i inquirer

  567. #571 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 4, 2009

    BOOOOOOOOOOOORING

  568. #572 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 4, 2009

    Ah, an actual meaningless comment. We have read all your apologetics, and they are all false. We have thought, and decided religion is for idiots like the inquirer. We have learned that idiots like the inquirer cannot keep their religion to themselves, like they should in a pluralistic society. So we have read, thought, and learned. Just not what you wanted.

  569. #573 Josh
    March 4, 2009

    inquirer–do you deny the existence of Odin? If so, then why? What have you read and thought about, concerning Odin, that caused you to deny the existence of Odin?

  570. #574 inquirer
    March 4, 2009

    So, “idiot” is your response to weighty matters, is it? This crude view of the world typifies that of the average atheist, who in reality is unsure of what he or she believes, who actually believes in nothing and yet muddles through life by directing words like “idiot” toward those who advise them to seek Truth. How low can you sink, to avoid any true soul-searching? “Idiot” is your response to any intellectual endeavor.
    Read, think, learn.
    Someone go back to the four articles and digest them and come up with cogent arguments against their theses, and do not continue to behave as errant children.

  571. #575 E.V.
    March 4, 2009

    witness the power involved in saying God does not exist, as if saying it causes God to not exist! Deluded fools!, who think banning is the answer, and crude language equalizes the intellect of inquirer with themselves. Fools indeed. Read, think, learn. I have so far given you four items to read. Have you done so?

    See?!!! THIS is what happens when you read those stupid comic books!!!

    All I can do is point and laugh. This guy rivals Simon for stupidity(Actually, I think it is Simon trying to disguise himself) hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahah

  572. #576 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 4, 2009

    Someone go back to the four articles and digest them and come up with cogent arguments against their theses, and do not continue to behave as errant children

    If your god interacts with the physical world we would be able to measure, detect sense that.

    Tell us why we can not?

  573. #577 inquirer
    March 4, 2009

    BTW, post number 573 is a foolish question and deserves no response from inquirer or from anyone else. Never ever answer an inquiry with another unrelated inquiry. It serves only to show remarkable shallowness of mind, and reveals an inability to concentrate.

  574. #578 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 4, 2009

    inquirer, we have read, thought, and learned. We learned that delusional godbots like yourself lie and bullshit. We have learned you cannot show physical evidence for your imaginary deity. We have learned that morality does not need imaginary deities. We have learned science which has brought so much to humanity compared to religion. We have learned religion is superfluous.

  575. #579 inquirer
    March 4, 2009

    “Point and laugh” is a typical comment of an intellectual inferior who has no desire to digest and comment on useful materials.

  576. #580 KI
    March 4, 2009

    OK folks, another looney has escaped the bin, nothing to see here, move along the proper authorities have been notified.
    Should PZ start linking to some over-the-net psychiatric services? It seems peculiarly nutty here of late.

  577. #581 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 4, 2009

    inquirer, either put up the physical evidence for your deity or shut up. We are waiting for your physical evidence. Words are meaningless, especially from lying and bullshitting godbots.

  578. #582 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 4, 2009

    BTW, post number 573 is a foolish question and deserves no response from inquirer or from anyone else. Never ever answer an inquiry with another unrelated inquiry. It serves only to show remarkable shallowness of mind, and reveals an inability to concentrate.

    Translation: I can’t defend against that line of reasoning.

  579. #583 inquirer
    March 4, 2009

    Concerning post number 578, no, you have not “learned science”, no more than an oceanliner gets into the depths of the ocean. You ride on the surface as well as you are able. For every thing you learn or have learned in science, there are ten thousand things of which you remain ignorant, yet your supercilious viewpoint of yourselves comes from an inane desire to reign superior to those around you, all the while demonstrating, quite ironically, I might add, your base inferiority. You do not even KNOW that you do not know, and my children, this is what I pray for, to God, to enlighten you as to Truth.

  580. #584 E.V.
    March 4, 2009

    inquirer:
    Go to your family doctor and inquire about Risperdal and Depakote.

  581. #585 spurge
    March 4, 2009

    @ inquirer

    Why are you here?

  582. #586 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 4, 2009

    For every thing you learn or have learned in science, there are ten thousand things of which you remain ignorant

    And you are immune to this common human condition how?

  583. #587 E.V.
    March 4, 2009

    inquirer: Projection. Look it up. Read. Learn

  584. #588 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 4, 2009

    inquirer, why are you avoiding showing physical evidence for your deity? Is it because you have none? BAWK BAWK BAWK. Until you show physical evidence for your deity, you can’t say he exists. Get cracking.

  585. #589 Josh
    March 4, 2009

    BTW, post number 573 is a foolish question and deserves no response from inquirer or from anyone else.

    Oh really? Please explain why this question is foolish. You asserted in comment#552 that you were here to provide answers to questions. I commonly ask variations of this question to Christians. Please do inform me, oh wise one, exactly what this is a foolish question. It’s the only way I’ll learn what kind of questions are actually on the table when talking with theists. After all, we wouldn’t want to offend their sensibilities.

    Never ever answer an inquiry with another unrelated inquiry.

    I wasn’t responding to an inquiry. I was asking a question. Surely you know the difference? If not, then you are way out of your league here. Whether or not my question was related to an earlier question of yours shouldn’t be relevant given what you wrote in comment#552, or are you not as concerned about truth as you would like us to believe?

    It serves only to show remarkable shallowness of mind, and reveals an inability to concentrate.

    *wank*

    Given the limited cognitive ability you’ve displayed so far, I guess I’m probably not going to worry too much about your judgements regarding the depth of my intellect.

  586. #590 Josh
    March 4, 2009

    For every thing you learn or have learned in science, there are ten thousand things of which you remain ignorant,…

    10,000? Really? Did they teach you anything about science in school? You theists live in such a sad, tiny, black and white world. Your god is sooo small. Ten thousand? You think that little of the universe? What a depressing and gray little world yours must be. And yet you have the arrogance to accuse us of being supercilious? Wow. You really have nothing to offer this conversation.

    Oh, but–thanks for the giant vote of confidence on how much we’ve learned in science so far. That was nice. I mean, to think that for every fact we uncover, there might be only 10,000 related ones that remain hidden…

  587. #591 Sastra
    March 4, 2009

    inquirer #574 wrote:

    Read, think, learn.
    Someone go back to the four articles and digest them and come up with cogent arguments against their theses, and do not continue to behave as errant children.

    It appears you want a dialogue, a discussion. And yet, earlier, you wrote:

    #552

    inquirer presents no arguments in his/her own words. Never. inquirer points you to Truth. No interaction whatsoever except to provide answers you all hunger for.

    In which case you posted the links, cast the pearls before swine, and should be on your merry way, secure in the knowledge that we are now all without excuse.

    I’m not going to try to interact with someone who, upfront, states that he is not here to interact. At this point, you should be either gone, or lurking in silence.

    If you did not mean that, though (and since you are still throwing out challenges, judgments, and pronouncements that seems to be the case), and would like to talk to the people here, then yes, I am afraid that means you’re going to have to go to those essays, take at least one of the best points, and either quote from it briefly, or state it in your own words. After that, it’s listen and respond, listen and respond.

    That’s pretty much how it’s always done here, and it usually works out so nicely for everyone.

  588. #592 tony
    March 4, 2009

    inquirer is a boring third person pomo Xian apologist.

    For your edification, inquirer:
    read – implies you understand the syntax and semantics of what is written. You seem to have immense trouble with semantics. the words don’t mean what you think they do.

    think – use or exercise the mind or one’s power of reason in order to make inferences, decisions, or arrive at a solution or judgments based on a mental model of a scenario.

    learn – the ability to revise and edit internal models to be consistent with new knowledge discovered via observation or thought.

    Most animals ‘think’ but generally without great depth or analysis – their mental models appear to be fairly simplistic.

    Primates, cetacea, squid, octopi, along with some others, appear to have much richer mental models of the world, and demonstrate planning (in varying degrees of sophistication) and deeper thought processes.

    Humans appear to have particularly rich abilities to think deeply and to construct extremely detailed mental models upon which to test hypotheses. We seem to be fairly unique in our ability to hold multiple contradictory models in our mind simultaneously. Greater variety, flexibility and depth in modeling ability correlates well with intelligence (whatever that is)

    Godbots in general do not appear to be capable of deep thinking, or of understanding generalized or nuanced models. You, specifically, seem excruciatingly superficial.

    Godbots do not, in general, exhibit any willingness (or ability) to revise their internal model(s) based on observational evidence (YEC is a prime example, but any dogma requiring faith in the face of visible physical evidence would do). You appear to be an exceptionally good example of this.

    So – why don’t you go back to your little cube and

    read. think. learn.

  589. #593 Endor
    March 4, 2009

    We have read, thought and learned. We reached a different conclusion than you. We reached the only logical conclusion based on the evidence. You’re still swimming in the sea of self-serving delusion. We’re not coming to your house and forcing you to own up to your delusion, so why are you trying to dirty PZ’s house with your delusion?

  590. #594 Watchman
    March 4, 2009

    your supercilious viewpoint of yourselves comes from an inane desire to reign superior to those around you

    Says the “inquirer” who presumes to teach all, the humble servant of God who claims to have all the answers.

  591. #595 AnthonyK
    March 4, 2009

    Is your delusion idiopathic, or was there a first cause?

  592. #596 Knockgoats
    March 4, 2009

    OK, “inquirer”. I’ve followed three of your links. None of them puts forward anything like an argument for the existence of any god, let alone the Christian version. In short, they are crap. Fuck off.

  593. #597 KI
    March 4, 2009

    I’ve gotta give up on this Zen stuff, I want to be pompously self-important! HEED MY WORDS! when I come up with some.

  594. #598 E.V.
    March 4, 2009

    Oh sure, Knockgoats can come and say it’s crap and the troll leaves, but when I said I read it and declared it to be crap…

    ( I’m guessing Sastra pretty much clarified the best point.)

  595. #599 inquirer
    March 4, 2009

    Post number 592 took the words out of my mouth, so to speak, referring to casting pearls before swine. The swine family is well-represented on this blog, indeed. However, I do not despair, I merely raise issues for you to think about. Read, think, learn, is your new mantra, if you wish to gain insight into Truth.
    You all use United States currency instead of traveler’s cheques, credit cards and debit cards. Why are you so hypocritical? If I were an atheist, I would not use anything with IN GOD WE TRUST on it, lest my mere usage of it mark me unwittingly as one who implicitly believes in God, by using such currency as is marked IN GOD WE TRUST. Deluded fools, using currency with something on it that you disagree with! Shame Shame on you. Read, think, learn, in that order.
    Your other posts are so much pathetic pablum nonsense, spewing forth venomous emotions willy-nilly, it is a wonder you do not veritably burst with hatred. Shame on you all! Shame on you. The virtuous life will never be discovered by you as long as you persist in your wilful blindness. There ae none so blind as those who actively, nay, choose blindness. Shame on all of you, you are indeed a brood of vipers. Not worthy to debate any theological questions with, as your intellect is woefully inadequate. If your brains were made of dynamite, you couldn’t blow your nose.
    Read, think, learn. This is your assignment. Get to it and do it now, and save yourselves from eternal perdition.
    Get rid of your coins that proclaim our Father, in GOD WE TRUST, or be forever hypocritical, getting change out of your pockets and using it, thereby unwittingly subscribing to the inscription contained thereon. Wake up, deluded fools.

  596. #600 E.V.
    March 4, 2009

    Wow, inquirer, after a long line of idiotic trolls, you’re the stupidest troll yet!

  597. #601 Josh
    March 4, 2009

    Why are you so hypocritical? If I were an atheist, I would not use anything with IN GOD WE TRUST on it, lest my mere usage of it mark me unwittingly as one who implicitly believes in God, by using such currency as is marked IN GOD WE TRUST.

    Who are you to call us hypocrites, when you yourself are one? You typed this comment on a computer, did you not? That computer runs on electricity, does it not? Unless you can demonstrate that you know that none of the electrical power that you use is generated by processes that use oil, coal, or uranium, then you are using the fruits of evolution to shout that it doesn’t work. Hypocrite.

    You can argue that evolution isn’t true, but we use the principles of evolution to do biostratigraphy (a good phylogeny being necessary for a good taxonomy). Biostratigraphy plays a part in the search for all three of those substances which I listed above. You might not believe in the theory, but we use it in part, rather successfully I might add, to provide you with petrolum products.

    WHY would you use petroleum, lest your mere usage of it mark you as one who implicitly accepts biological evolution?

  598. #602 E.V.
    March 4, 2009

    If your brains were made of dynamite, you couldn’t blow your nose.

    POE!!! You had us going inquirer. Wow.

  599. #603 tony
    March 4, 2009

    In GOD we trust

    I thought that referred to some weird american banking thingy – a Depositary - like the GOP but more trustworthy (just as the motto says).

    In ‘Grand Old Depositary’ we Trust.

    [/snark]

  600. #604 Sastra
    March 4, 2009

    inquirer #600 wrote:

    If I were an atheist, I would not use anything with IN GOD WE TRUST on it, lest my mere usage of it mark me unwittingly as one who implicitly believes in God, by using such currency as is marked IN GOD WE TRUST.

    No; if you were an atheist, you would realize that words have no magic power to “mark” anyone. We do not think the words belong on the money because they violate certain principles regarding the relationship of government to religion. But there’s no dangerous, evil supernatural forces let asunder by silly words on a piece of paper, nor are we violating some sort of covenant by ignoring them for pragmatic reasons.

    I don’t think you understand us very well. Really.

  601. #605 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 4, 2009

    You all use United States currency instead of traveler’s cheques, credit cards and debit cards. Why are you so hypocritical? If I were an atheist, I would not use anything with IN GOD WE TRUST on it, lest my mere usage of it mark me unwittingly as one who implicitly believes in God, by using such currency as is marked IN GOD WE TRUST. Deluded fools, using currency with something on it that you disagree with! Shame Shame on you.

    You really are a mouthbreathing idiot aren’t you?

    I notice you haven’t answered my responses to your questions or links.

  602. #606 Sven DiMilo
    March 4, 2009

    We have a Poe hypothesis on the table.

  603. #607 inquirer
    March 4, 2009

    I notice that in the face of inescapble logic, your only recourse is to repeat the word “idiot” ad nauseum. You are like wandering foolish sheep, bleating incessantly, thinking you are shepherding the shepherd and not the other way around. Poor deluded sheep. And the tragedy is that the sheep think they are intelligent! Here on the blog they follow each other around bleating “idiot” “idiot” whenever words of wisdom are presented for their edification. Poor poor lost sheep. They think they are more than sheep, and this is truly pathetic.
    When will each of you stand up like a human being and talk with each other with a modicum of decency, sheep who are bleating aimlessly in the meadow?

  604. #608 Endor
    March 4, 2009

    “Get to it and do it now, and save yourselves from eternal perdition.”

    Sweets, if my being in “eternal perdition” means not having to spend eternity with the lying, hypocritical, babblers of nonsense likes of you, bring it on! Sounds like paradise.

  605. #609 Endor
    March 4, 2009

    “When will each of you stand up like a human being and talk with each other with a modicum of decency, sheep who are bleating aimlessly in the meadow?”

    *lol* I second the Poe motion. This is to freaking sublime to be authentic.

  606. #610 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 4, 2009

    If you want decency, then posit your position and show the evidence by citing the peer reviewed primary scientific literature to back it up. If it is a philosophical argument, you can ignore the citing, but show other evidence. But, you need to put something on the table which you have not done to date.
    Otherwise, you need to fade into the bandwidth.

  607. #611 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 4, 2009

    I notice that in the face of inescapble logic, your only recourse is to repeat the word “idiot” ad nauseum. You are like wandering foolish sheep, bleating incessantly, thinking you are shepherding the shepherd and not the other way around. Poor deluded sheep. And the tragedy is that the sheep think they are intelligent! Here on the blog they follow each other around bleating “idiot” “idiot” whenever words of wisdom are presented for their edification. Poor poor lost sheep. They think they are more than sheep, and this is truly pathetic.

    Inescapable logic from you? Where? You haven’t even touched on anything that approaches logic let alone inescapable logic.

    And you, the one who gave us those links are calling us sheep and then complaining that we call you and idiot? Hilarious. When will you toss of the bonds of supernatural thinking and join the rest of the rational people?

    Please come up with better arguments or go away.

    Those links you gave are miserable example of Christian apologetics. And that’s saying a lot as Christian apologetics already occupy a high rating on the miserable logic scale.

  608. #612 inquirer
    March 4, 2009

    inquirer very seldom makes typographical errors but he did in post 608, should be “inescapable”. I point this out prior to the sheep bleating at the top of their lungs “he can’t spell. Look, fellow sheep, the human cannot spell”.
    I now have other activities which demand my attention, so the sheep are now free to roam the meadow at will, until I return with more links for you to study, and remember, above all, what you are to do, sheep. Read, think, learn. Do not follow each other like so many veritable sheep in the meadow, as you have been doing for two days now and perhaps longer. inquirer is here only to guide you, and if I make humans out of any sheep it is not my doing but yours. By choosing to behave correctly with a modicum of elementary courtesy, I think some of you can make the difficult transition from sheep to human beings who show respect. But this specifically excludes Josh and EV, who are beyond such a transformation. Enjoy your evening. inquirer shall return tomorrow. I tell you now, read the materials I have provided, so as not to further waste my time. Your time cannot be wasted, as sheep cannot waste time, as they have no concept of it. Stand up and act like human beings. The next time I come on here, the very next time, I expect all of you to have shed your name calling.

  609. #613 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 4, 2009

    Ugh.

    yeah Poe.

  610. #614 Endor
    March 4, 2009

    “The next time I come on here, the very next time, I expect all of you to have shed your name calling.”

    After calling us sheep that many times? *lol* Weve, douchehound.

  611. #615 Watchman
    March 4, 2009

    If I were an atheist, I would not use anything with IN GOD WE TRUST on it, lest my mere usage of it mark me unwittingly as one who implicitly believes in God, by using such currency as is marked IN GOD WE TRUST.

    What a breathtakingly stupid argument.

    I trust then, dear “inquirer”, that you’ll never resort to reading your Bible by the light of an incandescent bulb.

  612. #616 Owlmirror
    March 4, 2009

    You all use United States currency instead of traveler’s cheques,

    Let me guess: You’re Canadian?

    credit cards and debit cards. Why are you so hypocritical? If I were an atheist, I would not use anything with IN GOD WE TRUST on it, lest my mere usage of it mark me unwittingly as one who implicitly believes in God, by using such currency as is marked IN GOD WE TRUST.

    HAHAHAHAHA! This is the best you can come up with?

    Read; Think; Learn:

    ? http://supreme.justia.com/us/465/668/case.html
    ? Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668
    ? I would suggest that such practices as the designation of “In God We Trust” as our national motto, or the references to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag can best be understood, in Dean Rostow’s apt phrase, as a form a “ceremonial deism,” [Footnote 2/24] protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.

    And of course if the words are indeed truly a religious sentiment, then they are in fact illegal and should be removed from the currency at once.

    Deluded fools, using currency with something on it that you disagree with!

    Speaking of using things that you disagree with…

    That same money, with God’s name and that declaration of “trust” on it, is used for every sort of immoral and illegal transaction there is. It’s been used to pay for drugs, for porn, for stripper tips, for prostitutes, for male prostitutes, for child sex, for every other sort of illegal sex that Christians find disgusting, for illegal weapons, for assassinations and murders, for terrorist funding and weapons deals…

    And of course (less morally and more theologically), that same money is used for donations to every non-Christian religion that there is.

    The very universality of God’s name on money that goes anywhere and everywhere does, indeed, make God’s name utterly profane.

    Deluded fool that you are!

  613. #617 AnthonyK
    March 4, 2009

    Poe. Sigh.

  614. #618 inquirer
    March 4, 2009

    The sheep continue to bleat!

  615. #619 Endor
    March 4, 2009

    “The sheep continue to bleat!”

    This is funny because, christians – like this inquirer douchehound – are Jesus’s flock and he the Shepard?

    *heehee* total poe.

  616. #620 'Tis Himself
    March 4, 2009

    No, I don’t think iNQUIRER is a Poe. The spelling and grammar are good, the condescension is excellent, but the godbotting is mediocre at best. Usually with a Poe the godbotting is strong and the other attributes are weak.

  617. #621 Watchman
    March 4, 2009

    The sheep continue to bleat!

    I’m afraid the smug egomaniac one-trick pony has thrown a shoe.

  618. #622 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 4, 2009

    If inquirer is a Poe, it is time quit. It is becoming unfunny, like any joke dragged out for too long. If not a Poe, we have time to sharpen our naughty language to give him something to think about.

  619. #623 Josh
    March 4, 2009

    Fuck.

    EV, we got a “beyond such a transformation.”

    I might be on board with the Poe, by the way.

  620. #624 Satan
    March 4, 2009

    Actually, since the God of Money is the false God Mammon, and given that it is well known that all false Gods are, in fact, Me, the statement on US currency actually is a profound declaration of obeisance to Me, Satan.

    And all Americans are unknowing Satanists.

  621. #625 God
    March 4, 2009

    And all Americans are unknowing Satanists.

    Wait a minute. You can’t have them all.

    I want some of the clowns too!

  622. #626 inquirer
    March 4, 2009

    I notice that in post number 621, after I gave instructions not to, you capitalized parts of “inquirer”. Sheep do not follow instructions well.
    Good afternoon, sheep, one and all. Especially EV and Josh and please please try to make sense here on the blog, or I will see to it that all of you are banned. Are sheep even allowed on a blog? PZ would know, if he knows anything at all.

  623. #627 DaveL
    March 4, 2009

    You all use United States currency instead of traveler’s cheques, credit cards and debit cards. Why are you so hypocritical? If I were an atheist, I would not use anything with IN GOD WE TRUST on it, lest my mere usage of it mark me unwittingly as one who implicitly believes in God, by using such currency as is marked IN GOD WE TRUST. Deluded fools, using currency with something on it that you disagree with!

    Do you use any of the following words?

    Tuesday (Tiw’s day, a germanic sky god)
    Wednesday (Woden’s day, the Norse father of the gods)
    Thursday (Thor’s day, the Norse thunder god)
    Friday (Frigga’s day, Norse goddess of married love)
    Saturday (Saturn’s day, Roman agricultural god)

    Seriously, though, did you think we hadn’t already heard (and laughed) about that argument?

  624. #628 Sven DiMilo
    March 4, 2009

    Bleats? These ain’t bleats. Now, this is a bleat (though not a sheep).

  625. #629 Josh
    March 4, 2009

    That’s Dr. to you, Inquierer, but good afternoon to you as well. Go take your meds.

  626. #630 Satan
    March 4, 2009

    I want some of the clowns too!

    Oh, nothing can be denied to You.

    Clowns abound. You can have all that You want.

  627. #631 AnthonyK
    March 4, 2009

    Fuck off Satan. You’re just God with bad breath.

  628. #632 Brownian
    March 4, 2009

    inquirer’s “IN GOD WE TRUST” blather reminded me of a conversation I had with a couple of coworkers yesterday. In a discussion about the evolution of language and the problem with literal translations of idioms (specifically, the “Jambo? “Jambo!” greeting exchange of Swahili, which comes from an exchange that originally translated as “You have no problems?” “I have no problems”) one noted that good-bye comes from “God be with you”) and the other half-jokingly asked why atheists would use such a word. In a similar vae, I noted that a Christian such as he should be even more grateful that we don’t take idioms literally as he’d rarely be able to make an appointment without invoking a heathen deity in either the day or the month.

    And I see DaveL made the same point as I was typing. Don’t forget the months of January, March, May, and June!

  629. #633 God
    March 4, 2009

    Clowns abound. You can have all that You want.

    I want this “InQueerer”, for one.

    Although I bet even “inQUEERer” will become boring after a while. Why do clowns go stale so quickly?

    So, “InQUEERER”. You’re getting a bit repetitive. Can you think of anything original to amuse Me, the Lord thy God?

    Go on. Say something funny!

  630. #634 Endor
    March 4, 2009

    “Sheep do not follow instructions well.”

    You’re right. Christians don’t even agree on the rules of their shepard, much less follow them well.

    “Especially EV and Josh and please please try to make sense here on the blog, or I will see to it that all of you are banned.”

    Oh c’mon – this has got to be a poe. Not a funny one, but still a poe.

  631. #635 Owlmirror
    March 4, 2009

    Don’t forget the months of January, March, May, and June!

    Weren’t Julius and Augustus raised to godhood after their respective deaths? If they count as gods, we can add July and August to that list as well…

  632. #636 Brownian
    March 4, 2009

    Especially EV and Josh and please please try to make sense here on the blog, or I will see to it that all of you are banned.

    You must ban them well, and after you are done with them, you may deal with them as you like…and then…ban me. [PZ's ilk] “And me!” “And me too!” “And me!” [/ilk] Yes. Yes, you must give us all a good banning.

    And after the banning, the oral sex.

  633. #637 Knockgoats
    March 4, 2009

    Weren’t Julius and Augustus raised to godhood after their respective deaths? – Owlmirror

    I think Julius only made it to demi-god – bit of an underachiever!

  634. #638 Josh
    March 4, 2009

    +10 for Brownian

    “Can’t I have just a little bit of peril?”

    “No, it’s too perilous.”

  635. #639 inquirer
    March 4, 2009

    To sheep, everything besides bleating is very unintelligible, and must be talked of in terms of deriding the person, a very sad failing indeed. The resort to name-calling is actually indicative of deeply insecure personalities.
    With a little hard work, I feel that most of you, though not all, can make it from sheep to humans, but the hard work is up to you. There are no shortcuts.
    My first lesson to you comes tomorrow, that of being decent to one another and to visitors here on this blog. Elementary manners and lack of rudeness. Those are your short-term twin goals. You must also discard the pitiable bleating. You follow one another blindly, and you virtually deify (pardon the pun) PZ, although in his biography he himself describes himself as a third-rate instructor. Why do you follow him so blindly, sheep? Think for yourselves.
    But, to start with, you can dispense with terms such as “idiot”, “fool” and the like. The use of this invective only serves to display your lack of intelligence and manners. If you are willing to apply yourself diligently to inquirer’s lessons, you may do well. This remains to be seen. Look for my first lesson in basic decency tomorrow. Until then, no bleating!

  636. #640 tony
    March 4, 2009

    will no one rid me of this tiresome priestinquirer?

    better yet – just fuck off.

    with apologies for pseudo-historical accuracy and especially to Thomas Becket who does not deserve the ignominy of sharing a quotation with slime such as inquirer.

  637. #641 Brownian
    March 4, 2009

    Oh fuck, inquirer’s got a lesson for us. Having been [unbuckles and removes belt] raised as a [unbuttons and unzips pants] Christian, having [removes pants, starts removing shoes] attended a [one shoe off, begins to remove the other] Christian school, and [removes shirt, leaving only socks and ginch] having attended and participated in church [slips off ginch] services, I know what [completely nude, bends over nearby table] that includes.

  638. #642 E.V.
    March 4, 2009

    inquirer:
    Blow me. And you can shove your arrogance and your pretension up your retentive ass.

    Oh, I forgot the magic words, please and thank you.

  639. #643 Wowbagger
    March 4, 2009

    inquirer still here? Damn, I feel for you guys without a killfile. It’s designed for dealing with exactly that kind of scumbag turd.

  640. #644 E.V.
    March 4, 2009

    Wouldn’t it be hysterical if PZ locked inquirer out? Tomorrow comes and “Hey! WTF?!! I was going to pontificate!!!!”

    I shall probably vent my spleen on the morrow and mayhaps let loose a few invectives not appropriate for those of delicate constitutions if inquest dare squinny at me. I’ll be forced to feed the hoary swine his own bollocks and heap scorn and mockery about him.

  641. #645 inquirer
    March 4, 2009

    My other obligations being completed, I now turn to the question of decent behavior.
    Post number 641 “fuck off” and “slime”
    642 “fuck” followed by a description of what Tony does best.
    643 “blow me” “ass”
    644 “scumbag turd”

    That is four posts in a row where atheists show their true colors, that they are hateful and beyond redemption, socially speaking. They lack social skills, that evidently were never transmitted to them from their parents or their peers, they see the world as “us against them”, all they talk about is a God they profess not to believe in, their puny minds cannot comprehend the entire universe nor the construction of it, and the pitiable thing, above all, besides their sheeplike behavior around one another, is this constant invective leveled at all outsiders who do not share their dismal and deluded version of reality.
    Name-calling, my friends, is for juveniles who will never grow up, it is for low intelligence levels whose idea of a conversation consists of four letter words, it is for losers of a particularly onerous type, who lash out at the world merely because they are unable to believe in God. They take out this frustration on inquirer, among others, but inquirer only takes pity on them and prays to God to forgive them their abominable behavior.
    They are literally unable to carry on a conversation unless it is replete with insults and verbal abuse. Every single time they use those words they indelibly mark themselves as atheist losers.
    Come on, little sheep, PZ is your shepherd. Let me hear you all bleat! One two three, BLEAT! Ha ha. Little lost deluded sheep, mindless and arrogant beyond belief. I pray for all of you, my children. You will learn, whether at the end of your miserable lives, or before, that there is a God. You are far from Him but draw closer, closer yet, come closer, and you can meet Him and let him reform your miserable little failure lives. He can work miracles, and to turn swine like you into men, is itself a great miracle.

  642. #646 AnthonyK
    March 4, 2009

    Sigh. This one’s a real spunkbrain, isn’t he? Was there one thing he said that made any sense whatsover? It was a kind of extended, unending parsing of the phrase “I wank”, never reaching a climax, without issue, without thought, an ugly combination of hand, penis, mouth and “brain”, an ugly, twisted face at a window which makes the children run off screaming.
    He must be a returnee from the dungeon. Which one?
    Should he try to come again, as it were, could we use the power of censorship available?
    What have sheep ever done to him? Standards too high? Ugh.

  643. #647 E.V.
    March 4, 2009

    Oh inquest, you’re so full of shit offal you must have rimmed and felched half of the religiotards in your congregation. Do you love to linger at the perineum before you open wide to receive your heavenly manna, you pompous zealot?
    The stench of your effluvia is overwhelming, oh gaseous one, so close your mouth before the flies come.

  644. #648 E.V.
    March 4, 2009

    Oh Hooooollbaaaaach! We’ve got a live one for you!!!!

  645. #649 Brownian
    March 4, 2009

    This one’s a real spunkbrain, isn’t he?

    No, most definitely a Poe. Jesus himself told me so.

  646. #650 E.V.
    March 4, 2009

    (A tip o’ the hat to the Rude Pundit)

  647. #651 inquirer
    March 4, 2009

    Atheists are determined to talk dirty, eh? Then no amount of instruction from inquirer about basic social etiquette is of any consequence. I therefore leave you, permanently, to continue to rant and rave and shake your puny fists at the universe all around you, all the while thinking you have life’s answers, when in reality you don’t even have the questions. Adios, ill behaved atheists.

  648. #652 God
    March 4, 2009

    Well, the hypocrisy is amusing… a little…

    You will learn, whether at the end of your miserable lives, or before, that there is a God.

    Of course there is a Me. See? Here I am!

    He can work miracles, and to turn swine like you into men, is itself a great miracle.

    No… I think you, at least, are a lost cause. Squeal and oink some more, why don’t you?

  649. #653 Brownian
    March 4, 2009

    Although he does have the naked assertion patois of the conceited Christian down. “Sheep do this…” “Men are that…” Everything is a statement without support. “Cheese flies upside down!” “Water is greedy!” No wonder theology has never spawned much beyond murder.

  650. #654 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 4, 2009

    Then no amount of instruction from inquirer about basic social etiquette is of any consequence.

    Nor for you. You don’t come to an atheist site, godbot, and expect to be met with total politeness, since you were rude to godbot in the first place. After all, religion/god is one of those things polite people don’t talk about.

  651. #655 E.V.
    March 4, 2009

    You mean all it took was “felch” and “rim” ? And inquest you can shake your little fist right here, Badda boom badda Bing!

  652. #656 Brownian
    March 4, 2009

    Adios, ill behaved atheists.

    Yeah. Heard that one before. Betcha a handjob you won’t be able to leave without one last dig at the fact that I just mentioned a handjob and called you a fuckhead just now.

  653. #657 AnthonyK
    March 4, 2009

    Proof that god doesn’t exist. A spanner without a recess. A smooth screw. An thinkable thought, unthought. It is no more than a posited, rejected, hypothetical, expression of junk DNA.
    And why do I keep thinking “sex offender”?
    And then mentally apologising to them?

  654. #658 Brownian
    March 4, 2009

    Dance, Christian Poe, Dance!

    Where’s your Free Will now?

  655. #659 AnthonyK
    March 4, 2009

    I’d better shut up. I’m sure there will be much more deserving recipients of my insults to come. Though if the standard’s as low as this I worry that the cretin crunch is truly upon us.

  656. #660 Sastra
    March 4, 2009

    Oh come on, guys. Inquirer wasn’t for real. He was having a go at us, and probably an atheist himself (or herself.)

  657. #661 E.V.
    March 4, 2009

    (The irony of all this is I really don’t like scatological references, but I can get much ruder if I have to, witness JLB. The repressive religiotards deserve the best!)

  658. #662 Owlmirror
    March 4, 2009

    Atheists are determined to talk dirty, eh? Then no amount of instruction from inquirer about basic social etiquette is of any consequence.

    True, but it’s not because “Atheists are determined to talk dirty”. It’s because you, yourself, have been a hypocrite from almost the very first post where you made an argument. Remember? “Deluded fools”, you called us, multiple times? Not to mention sheep, then swine, and all the other smears and slams.

    You’re nothing but a foul-mouthed hypocrite yourself. You cannot teach what you don’t know and don’t demonstrate knowledge of.

    Say, who wrote this?

    inquirer presents no arguments in his/her own words. Never.

    Did you change your mind? Maybe Sastra, an atheist, convinced you to. Heh.

    inquirer points you to Truth.

    A huge lie.

    No interaction whatsoever except to provide answers you all hunger for.

    So, we’re masochists who like being insulted, degraded, and lied to? Come on. You’re just projecting. You like it when atheists talk dirty to you.

  659. #663 E.V.
    March 4, 2009

    I’ll defer to you Sastra,but you have to deal with inquirer if he’s not a poe, I don’t because Josh and I are beyond transformation. ; D

  660. #664 E.V.
    March 4, 2009

    AnthonyK:
    I see you’ve been huffing Liquid Wrench again.(#658)

  661. #665 Josh
    March 4, 2009

    I don’t because Josh and I are beyond transformation.

    Yeah!

    *raises fist dramatically*

    And we’re, uhm, proud of that. Yeah.

    *shrugs, takes a drink of this nice Malbec and turns back to the manuscript he’s editing*

  662. #666 AnthonyK
    March 4, 2009

    Seems to me like a rubber suit kind of guy. I did think Poe, but a good Poe – if such a thing exists; oh, of course it does – there’s Edward Current – stops after a while, and has a modicum of wit to it. This one, if it has any wit, is in homeopathic quantities only, like he met a man who’d once seen Blues Brothers through a TV shop window.
    Well you guys know Poes better than I.
    What do you reckon, Poe or pervert?

  663. #667 AnthonyK
    March 4, 2009

    And how dare you accuse me of huffing! That’s it. I’m outta here!
    *slam*

  664. #668 God
    March 4, 2009

    And how dare you accuse me of huffing! That’s it. I’m outta here!
    *slam*

    I See What You Did There…

  665. #669 DaveL
    March 4, 2009

    To sheep, everything besides bleating is very unintelligible, and must be talked of in terms of deriding the person, a very sad failing indeed.

    Straight-faced, outright self-parody like this is the hallmark of a Poe. Unfortunately it’s also not uncommon among sincere religious zealots.

    [Sigh] Such is Poe’s Law.

  666. #670 AnthonyK
    March 4, 2009

    And you can fuck off, God. Satan’s got a much bigger dick – and he’s not gay.

  667. #671 E.V.
    March 4, 2009

    Shhhhhhhhhhh! Keep it down, Lost is coming on in a few minutes.

  668. #672 TROL er TROY (Yeah, thats it!) TROY
    March 4, 2009

    God’s not gay, He just likes men cause He got borned that way.

  669. #673 AnthonyK
    March 4, 2009

    Nah, God’s got a two way pooh-chute all right. And his son was gay too. That’s why gay adoption’s such a risk.

  670. #674 E.V.
    March 4, 2009

    *cricket… cricket*
    Umm… I don’t think I would have gone there.

  671. #675 inquirer
    March 5, 2009

    Baaaaaaaaaa. We are little sheep with little minds. We think we are the shepherd, but we are sheep. inquirer wants to teach us but we are only sheep and have very little minds. Oh what shall we do? Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. I know, we will go to the self-described third rate prof and he will clue us in. After all, he was brave enough to run a nail through a communion Host. Talk about a brave guy. Hurrah!

  672. #676 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 5, 2009

    I see our goat is back. Let’s give it some herbage and let it loose in the back pasture.

  673. #677 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 5, 2009

    Go away child. I read your links and they are the worst kind of apologetic garbage.

  674. #678 AnthonyK
    March 5, 2009

    There’s just nothing there, is there Nerd? I mean at least the rabid godbots make some kind of sense, but this one?
    It has the same insane self-confidence, based on no available evidence, the same psychotic narcissism, the same argumentum ad wankum…but this is oddly unhuman.
    Got it – creationist science fair, Turing test. What do you reckon?

  675. #679 AnthonyK
    March 5, 2009

    Fuck it, made me drop my

  676. #680 Sven DiMilo
    March 5, 2009

    It has the same insane self-confidence, based on no available evidence, the same psychotic narcissism, the same argumentum ad wankum…but this is oddly unhuman.

    Hence my original reaction.

  677. #681 KI
    March 5, 2009

    I don’t know that I have ever read something as self-unaware as Inquirer (who the fuck are you to impose on proper English usage, asshole), such third-person arrogance, such bat-shit crazy sense of importance. Poe or fuckhead, I can’t tell. If not a Poe, woe is us.

  678. #682 inquirer
    March 5, 2009

    My name is PZ and I rant and rail
    I just ran a host through, with a simple nail
    I showed them how simple I really was
    An if they ask me why I did it I just say cuz!

  679. #683 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 5, 2009

    YAWN, Boring.

  680. #685 Josh
    March 5, 2009

    Whatever. Poe or not, it appears incapable or unwilling to answer questions or to post anything interesting. Starve it as though it were a troll.

  681. #686 tony
    March 5, 2009

    with such third person pretension – inquirer is a PoMo Poe.

  682. #687 inquirer
    March 5, 2009

    Listen to KI, will you? What a mind. Sheeplike, but a mind nevertheless, and look when he gets angry, why, he is as profound as the losers anthonyk and ev and the little guy josh. Between the four of them they can’t come up with enough intelligence to unscrew a lightbulb. Poor deluded sheep.
    Watch them spew their venom like so many snakes! Oh it is so impressive. Do you each get an award from PZ for so much venom poured out? or is it only when you pierce a host with a nail that you find your true calling and time on the news stations? Bravery, bravery itself. I am impressed, with all the little sheeplike minds. AnthonyK you are kind of a loser ringleader but I like you. I have a piece of paper you can run a nail through if you like.

  683. #688 AnthonyK
    March 5, 2009

    Incidentally, no reason to allow it just to be an occasion to indulge our nihilistic atheistic anger – do you know how Turing met his death?
    The good man, who played, of course, a central role in the decryption of the Enigma code at Bletchley Park, was hounded for his homosexuality. Forced to undergo hideous aversion therapy (one of the reasons I still fundamentally distrust psychiatrists) and banned from working in any useful capacity whatsoever, he eventually took his life by eating an apple laced with cyanide. It was found by his side, one bite taken.
    The inspiration for this was the film Snow White which Turing had seen before the war, several times, and much admired.
    This, and much else of interest is in Simon Singh’s The Code Book
    As for the twat, my vote is dungeon. It’s just too creepy to be allowed to live.

  684. #689 inquirer
    March 5, 2009

    Anthony, such words of wisdom in post number 689. Really, I am impressed, you did not have a foul mouth in that one, not too badly anyway. What happened?

  685. #690 AnthonyK
    March 5, 2009

    No, I won’t go there – but then, there’s no there there. Just another sticky keyboard merchant.

  686. #691 inquirer
    March 5, 2009

    Reply to 682, I do whatever I feel like doing.

  687. #693 KI
    March 5, 2009

    Back in my Deadhead days, I used to meet folks like this-so besotted on psychedelics that they assumed some sort of self-delusional godhood. Third person references, a sort of monarchical overlording attitude, as if they could just make us disappear with a wave of their almighty scepter.
    So, my question is: where is he getting his LSD? Owsley’s out of business, and Sandoz hasn’t made the stuff for years, do you suppose he kept his stash together all these years and has just found it?

  688. #694 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 5, 2009

    YAWN, still a boring goat.

  689. #695 Endor
    March 5, 2009

    Here’s a link for you inquirer. A little something to remind all of us who truly lacks any shred of decency.

    Have a nice day, honey bunny!

  690. #696 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 5, 2009

    Back in my Deadhead days, I used to meet folks like this-so besotted on psychedelics that they assumed some sort of self-delusional godhood. Third person references, a sort of monarchical overlording attitude, as if they could just make us disappear with a wave of their almighty scepter.
    So, my question is: where is he getting his LSD? Owsley’s out of business, and Sandoz hasn’t made the stuff for years, do you suppose he kept his stash together all these years and has just found it?

    Have we met?

  691. #697 Sven DiMilo
    March 5, 2009

    KI, Weir sez that “Estimated Prophet” was inspired by one of those guys.

  692. #698 AnthonyK
    March 5, 2009

    Well I’ve done acid, man, and it never made me like that.

  693. #699 Sven DiMilo
    March 5, 2009

    viz.:

    Blair Jackson, in Grateful Dead: the Music Never Stopped says:
    “According to Weir, he and Barlow wrote the song from the perspective of a crazy, messianic zealot, a type which one invariably encounters in Deadhead crowds now and again. As Weir explains: ‘The basis of it is this guy I see at nearly every backstage door. There’s always some guy who’s taken a lot of dope and he’s really bug- eyed, and he’s having some kind of vision. He’s got a rave he’s got to deliver.’ In Estimated Prophet, the psychopath claims ‘My time comin’ any day, don’t worry about me,’ and Weir essentially lets him rave.” (p. 180)

  694. #700 KI
    March 5, 2009

    Well, Rev, I’ve been to Charleston a couple of times. Were you the guy at Red Rocks who had to be talked down off the cliff before it got dark?
    Sven- “My word fills the sky with flame”, that guy, indeed!
    AnthonyK-me either, but I was always careful to have a good setting, and be in a stable frame of mind before dosing.

  695. #701 inquirer
    March 5, 2009

    Oh, KI, in 694 you are positively profound.

  696. #702 Sven DiMilo
    March 5, 2009

    Bear may (?) be out of that business, but he does (or did) have a website.

  697. #703 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 5, 2009

    Well, Rev, I’ve been to Charleston a couple of times. Were you the guy at Red Rocks who had to be talked down off the cliff before it got dark?

    At the Dead or Widespread Panic. And which year…

    Nah. I was never the really freaked out acid guy, though I tried a couple bunch of times.

    Oh, KI, in 694 you are positively profound.

    ssssssssssssssssBOOOOOM!!!

    ah fuck. Another Irony Meter for the slag heap.

  698. #704 KI
    March 5, 2009

    Thanks, Sven, I’ve seen that-I wish like hell I could afford that cool dragon pin. I like some of his crazy stuff, and the stuff about climate change causing an ice age got me into a bunch of interesting research about ice ages and how they come about, even if Bear is kinda out-there sometimes (Garcia said “There’s nothing wrong with Bear that the loss of a few billion brain cells wouldn’t cure”).

  699. #705 AnthonyK
    March 5, 2009

    Since this is effectively a dead thread (now, literally!) and there’s no one listening, I thought that we could get back to discussing my list of 100 reasons why PZ Myers is the greatest man who ever lived. We were on about number 32, and his superb personal hygiene. I know that I will be the envy of my fellow PZsychophants in saying that a friend of mine was once in a lift with the great man when He inadvertly broke wind. My friend acted with the greatest promptitude and opened up an empty jam jar he had in his pocket, covering the movement with a deep bow as His Holiness left the elevator. Every year, on the anniversary of the event, and on St Darwin’s birthday, we gather together under a black cloth with a couple of capillary tubes, and carefully imbibe the aroma – which is something between the smell of a newborn baby, freshest Madagascan vanilla, and mountain rose, with just a hint of Las Vegas Whore, to add depth. I think there is about 3 years’ worth left.
    I know you will all be jealous. Does anyone else have a sacred memory they would care to share?

  700. #706 Helfrick
    March 5, 2009
  701. #707 inquirer
    March 5, 2009

    Post 705 is in error, it is Jesus Christ who is the greatest man who ever lived, who created PZ, just to see him turn his back on Him.
    Never too late for salvation. go to http://www.menorah.org/eetract.html one and all.
    Read, think, learn.
    God forgives you, if you come to Him and ask forgiveness, repent (turn from your sins) and believe that He is God and will save you. You will be born again, from above, you will be godly, you will walk with God instead of aimlessly wandering about the meadow.
    one day, who knows when, every knee will bow in front of God. You will actually have to stand in front of God and give an account of everything you have ever done or said or thought. But if you do as I advise, you can avoid all that and be judged right with God ahead of time, before you die. After death, it is too late. Belief is not enough, even the demons believe.
    Ironic that demons believe in God, but you people don’t, eh?
    I heard that all atheists really believe in God, they just want to be in charge so they purport to believe in nothing but themselves, so great is their need to be in charge of everything within sight or hearing. Foolish foolish lost sheep, come to the Shepherd before it is too late. And while you are yet alive, it is never too late.
    Come, come out of the meadow, cease bleating, and follow. You are not in charge, you did not create the universe, you cannot create so much as a dead leaf. What power or real control do you have over your own lives? It is illusory.
    Wake up, and see. Deliver yourselves from blindness. God loves you enough to put up with your daily nonsense. Someday, either this side or the other side of eternity, you will come to know this as a fact.
    Now, rant and rave all you wish, but you remain sheep and always will be, either for or against God, but your personalities have convinced me that all of you on this blog with the exception of Sastra and Kel, are sheep, following each other blindly, the blind leading the blind.
    Read, listen, learn. I know you can do it.

  702. #708 WTFer
    March 5, 2009

    WTF?

  703. #709 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 5, 2009

    Read, God doesn’t exist. Listen, No sound of god. Learn, you can live without imagainary deities.
    Yep, inquirer, I did what you asked.

  704. #710 Ichthyic
    March 5, 2009

    “inquirer”. The first letter is not capitalized. See post number 536 for the error

    Spamming is a tossable offense.

    engage or be destroyed.

  705. #711 Josh
    March 5, 2009

    So I’m a stupid loser little guy sheep that’s beyond a transformation because I asked him questions that he never answered.

    Nice.

    Christian love shows itself once again.

    Funny how none of these guys ever drop the R2 on the curve. They always raise it.

  706. #712 Sven DiMilo
    March 5, 2009

    Ironic that demons believe in God, but you people don’t, eh?

    Hmmm. No, “ironic” is not the word I’d choose.

  707. #713 AnthonyK
    March 5, 2009

    Wank the banner!

  708. #714 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 5, 2009

    Demons, god, both figments of the imagination. One imaginary creature believing in another imaginary creature? Time to call for the men with straightjackets.

  709. #715 'Tis Himself
    March 5, 2009

    I heard that all atheists really believe in God

    Whoever told you this was either completely wrong or a lying sack of shit. Considering your blathers, I’ll go with the second choice.

  710. #716 Kagato
    March 5, 2009

    inquirer sheep de sheep. Sheep de sheepity sheepy sheep. Until one day, the sheepa sheepa sheepasheep. Sheep de sheep, da teedily dumb. From the creators of Der, and Tum Ta Tittaly Tum Ta Too, inquirer is Da Sheep Dee Sheep Da Teetley Sheepee Sheepee Dumb. Rated PG-13.

  711. #717 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 5, 2009

    If I had a hammer
    I’d hammer in the morning
    I’d hammer in the evening
    All over this land
    I’d hammer out danger
    I’d hammer out a warning
    I’d hammer out the plonking of this troll

  712. #718 Josh
    March 5, 2009

    I heard that all atheists really believe in God

    Yeah. I bet you also heard that there are no real atheists in foxholes, either, right?

    Guess what? False statement. I’ve crawled under my share of automatic weapons fire and have never, once, invoked a god, especially not yours.

  713. #719 Watchman
    March 5, 2009

    It’s telling that the “inquirer” only addresses the “rude” posts, as if the more civil criticisms didn’t even exist, and then applies the “rude” characterization to all. This behavior is predictable, and is typical of his godbotly ilk.

    Yawn. Boring. Been there. Seen that. It was moronic the first seven hundred times, my dear egomaniacal “inquirer”. Not that you’ll ever accept that, given that hubris is your constant companion.

    Incidentally, I believe it was Prometheus, not Jesus, who created PZ (if indirectly). Mankind existed prior to the birth if Jesus. I think that’s beyond dispute.

    Yup. Typical godbot. Can’t even get the most basic, obvious facts right.

  714. #720 Ichthyic
    March 5, 2009

    pierce a host with a nail

    Some people just can’t get over the fact that we killed their god with a simple, rusty nail.

    Yeah, I know you thought he was all-powerful, omniscient, ever-present, etc.

    It’s just too bad you had to figure out how to force him into cracker form and make him all vulnerable.

    All we did was take advantage.

    so, what will you do other than gnash your teeth now that your god is dead, eh?

    here’s a suggestion:

    realize he never existed and move on with your fucking lives, so you won’t be considered pathetic fucking losers by everyone else on the planet?

  715. #721 AnthonyK
    March 5, 2009

    Inquirer is what happens if you let the Dolly the sheep near the internet.

  716. #722 'Tis Himself
    March 5, 2009

    You will actually have to stand in front of God and give an account of everything you have ever done or said or thought. But if you do as I advise, you can avoid all that and be judged right with God ahead of time, before you die. After death, it is too late.

    Your “loving, benevolent” god would give me eternal punishment if I don’t properly believe in it? What an asshole it is. Any god that sadistic isn’t worthy of my belief. And if it does exist and does so punish me, I’ll spit in its face because that’s what it deserves. No, Inquirer, I most certainly will not believe in or even pretend to believe in such a god. And it doesn’t say much for you that you feel the need to worship a sadistic bully.

  717. #723 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 5, 2009

    You will actually have to stand in front of God and give an account of everything you have ever done or said or thought. But if you do as I advise, you can avoid all that and be judged right with God ahead of time, before you die. After death, it is too late. Belief is not enough, even the demons believe.
    Ironic that demons believe in God, but you people don’t, eh?

    Inquirer, I didn’t think you could top yourself, but you did.

    That is hands down the dumbest thing I’ve read this week.

    If we don’t believe in a god, why do you think we’d believe in demons?

    And to your sheep comment

    John 10

    11″I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. 14″I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me? 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father?and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life?only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

    Who are the sheep again?

  718. #724 Pb-ft
    March 5, 2009

    I’m incredibly disappointed.
    After following a link concerning the antics of PZ Myer, I began to read these posts..wondering why people didn’t believe in God..I truly expected to be reading some interesting conversations which might have served to help me understand the atheist mind set..

    On the contrary..I’ve seen only sophomoric banter..there is no logic to be found here..no depth of non-belief..apparently just a group of bored, mindless young people who applaud themselves..shades of Animal House IMHO..

  719. #725 CJO
    March 5, 2009

    Mankind existed prior to the birth if Jesus. I think that’s beyond dispute.

    Well, in Paul’s theology, as well as in the Logos theology of Jonn, Jesus represents God’s Wisdom, or the Logos, who preexisted everything except God the Father and was present with God at creation. The gospels got literalized, or historicized, by later generations. But there’s good reason to believe that they were originally understood as midrashic reworking of Jewish Scripture on these lines, and that Paul had no concept that the “earthly Jesus” was a near-contemporary living in the time of Pontius Pilate as the canonical gospels have it, but was this mythic (and unheralded, at the time) figure from the distant past. The urgency of Paul’s gospel is a recognition that what had recently occured in Galilee was post-resurrection appearances to “the elect” warning that he was soon to appear in power and glory as The Son of Man and usher in the Kingdom of God, variously conceived.

    Just sayin’

  720. #726 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 5, 2009

    On the contrary..I’ve seen only sophomoric banter..there is no logic to be found here..no depth of non-belief..apparently just a group of bored, mindless young people who applaud themselves..shades of Animal House IMHO..

    What do you expect when we are responding to the likes of the “inquirer”?

  721. #727 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 5, 2009

    Pb-ft, your opinion. We don’t believe in god. Period. End of story. Nothing further. But, we have lots of godbots who feel we must be presented with their delusions of god. So we mock them and their beliefs until they go away. You will be included if you push imaginary deities at us. Your choice. Choose wisely cricket.

  722. #728 Sven DiMilo
    March 5, 2009

    Sorry to disappoint, leadfoot. Pharyngula is pretty big and sprawling these days, and I can well imagine that it would be difficult to show up and get a feel for what goes on here in a mere hour or two of reading. I can assure you that interesting and intelligent conversations about all manner of things do occur often in these threads, as well as the funniest sophomoric banter on the web.

  723. #729 Sastra
    March 5, 2009

    Pb-ft #724 wrote:

    I truly expected to be reading some interesting conversations which might have served to help me understand the atheist mind set..

    I truly expect you would need to ask specific questions.

  724. #730 Ichthyic
    March 5, 2009

    no depth of non-belief

    congratulations! without even realizing it, apparently, you actually stumbled on the core of atheism!

    there is no “depth” to non-belief. It is the default state of being. All of us who have abandoned, or were never infected with, the religious meme never need to build a house of cards to begin with.

    What you call “depth”, we call piles and piles of completely useless junk and baggage.

    atheism is simplicity itself; it needs no defense of any kind, much like “not stamp collecting” needs no rationalizations.

    clearer?

    It’s only the religious who need to construct apologetics.

  725. #731 Josh
    March 5, 2009

    On the contrary..I’ve seen only sophomoric banter..there is no logic to be found here..no depth of non-belief..apparently just a group of bored, mindless young people who applaud themselves..shades of Animal House IMHO..

    Whatever. If just ONE of you would ever come in here interested in a real discussion, you would receive it. But that never happens. None of you ever want dialog. None of you are ever interesting in actually talking about ideas. What we get are either drive-by posters (you, I suspect), or trolls like Inquirer, who seems to avoid actual dialog with the same zeal that Republicans seem to avoid facts.

    You get sophomoric banter because that’s what you give us. Take a look around, why don’t you? Follow the comments for a bit. See how often our questions are actually answered. See how often the links we provide for folks are actually followed.

    Respect in Pharyngula is earned. We don’t bestow it lightly because the word actually means something to us. Most of you aren’t worth it.

  726. #732 Ichthyic
    March 5, 2009

    shades of Animal House

    you mean like:

    “Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.”

    physician, heal thyself.

    …and why is it that none of these trolls can manage to spell PZ’s name correctly, even though it’s right fucking there at the top of the site?

    Is it some sort of sophmoric conspiracy?

    or is it more likely complete obliviousness?

    I tend to support the latter.

  727. #733 inquirer
    March 5, 2009

    Josh, post 711. WHAT Christian love? There is no such thing, remember, little sheep?
    The rest of you are typical moronic atheists, accusing believers of being unable to engage in discussion, but you yourselves are selfish egotistical little sheep, bleating in the meadow. All you can do is call people names but when they do it to YOU, oh no, you have thin skin. Ha. Little lost sheep, repeating mantras all day and all night. Listen to the sheep bleat!
    If a Christin acts in a way that you think is unchristian, you jump on him or her, but you don’t even believe in Christ, so your mouths should stay reverently shut. Losers. Unreal losers. And Rev the know it all is one of a kind. Sastra is the only decent one on here.
    You make all the rules about engaging and discussion and others have to do what you want, then you threaten BANNING, and spammer, you call them etc all because we have a mind to use. You yawn and do other stupid things, say “boring” etc but you are truly truly losers, in the biggest sense of the world. You lose out on salvation, which is available to all and this is what I would like to tell you.
    You think you know it all, don’t you. You don’t know jack shit, rev and nerd redhead, and josh, three of the biggest losers besides the know it all Anthony……little sheep in the meadow, thinking they are each an Einstein. Makes me want to vomit.

  728. #734 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 5, 2009

    I see our bleating goat is back unable top say anything of substance. YAWN, what a boring troll.

  729. #735 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 5, 2009

    And Rev the know it all is one of a kind.

    John 10:11-18

    What’s that baaahing again sheep?

  730. #736 'Tis Himself
    March 5, 2009

    After following a link concerning the antics of PZ Myer, I began to read these posts..wondering why people didn’t believe in God..I truly expected to be reading some interesting conversations which might have served to help me understand the atheist mind set..

    Right now we’re dealing with a silly goddist who’s proselytizing at us. Since he’s giving us the same “ya gots ta believe or else” bushwah we’ve heard a bazillion times before, we’re playing with him. It’s like a fisherman playing a trout or a cat playing with a mouse.

    If you want to know why we don’t believe in god, then step up and ask. We’ll only get rude if you’re rude or, worse, boring. BTW, boring includes assuming that we know nothing about whatever flavor of goddism you’re in love with.

  731. #737 Sven DiMilo
    March 5, 2009

    You don’t know jack shit, rev and nerd redhead, and josh, three of the biggest losers

    Jack Shit, Rev Redhead, Nerd Redhead, Josh.

    I count 4.

  732. #738 Josh
    March 5, 2009

    All you can do is call people names…

    Seriously? Show me where I called you a name in this thread. I can show you places where you called me names. Show me where I called you one.

  733. #739 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 5, 2009

    Jack Shit, Rev Redhead, Nerd Redhead, Josh.

    I count 4.

    hehehe

    Inquirer. I’ve told you numerous times, I read the links you sent. They are pitiful examples of Christian Apologetics.

    Nothing more. No great enlightenment. No new information. Nothing.

  734. #740 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 5, 2009

    Trolls mangle my monicker. The Redhead is my wife of many years. I’m her electronics guru, all things computer related, so I’m her nerd. Since I’m also a scientist in real life, it fits there too.

  735. #741 'Tis Himself
    March 5, 2009

    You don’t know jack shit, rev and nerd redhead, and josh, three of the biggest losers….

    I’ve never met them in person, but I’ve have discussions with Rev BDC and Nerd of Redhead and have read Josh’s comments often. I will admit I don’t know this Jack Shit person. Is Jack a friend of yours? Incidentally, you mentioned three losers but gave the names of four people. Which one isn’t a loser?

  736. #742 AnthonyK
    March 5, 2009

    On the contrary..I’ve seen only sophomoric banter..there is no logic to be found here..no depth of non-belief..apparently just a group of bored, mindless young people who applaud themselves..shades of Animal House IMHO..,

    Thankyou for your opinion. It is valuable to us but…
    If I may be so bold?
    It shows a certain naivete, a callow inexperience. One might expect that one who sought after truth, or merely to poke at the apparent facade of facile opinions and easily won self-approbation, such as yourself, might be inclined to delve a little further, so as to grasp the inner nettle and find the harsh truths beneath the veneer of jejeune unsophistication.
    In your haste to judge our frequently playful asides, directed at some of the people with ill-disguised psychoses and all encompassing theories of everything (centring, inevitably, on themselves) who inhabit the internet, you may have failed to notice the deep and sincere intent and intellect we put to this service.
    I humbly submit, that should you chose to spend more time you might, rather than merely perceiving atheists as engaging in cartoon antics with shadowy and insubstantial foes, instead understand that this is exactly how we perceive relligion and its ready descent into delusion and murderous paranoia. For, to debate with madmen, you must sip a little of their madness.
    Now, go fuck yourself, you pompous religious prick.

  737. #743 Yeshua
    March 5, 2009

    If a Christin acts in a way that you think is unchristian, you jump on him or her, but you don’t even believe in Christ, so your mouths should stay reverently shut.

    You don’t understand, do you?

    It isn’t necessary to believe that a particular person existed in order to know what that person is supposed to have written.

    And it isn’t necessary to see that someone claiming to be a follower of that person is not behaving in the manner prescribed in the writings of that person.

    So, for example, many people, including atheists, know that it is written in the bible that Jesus said: “Love one another”.

    If someone claiming to be a follower of Jesus then appears, and the first thing this supposed follower of Jesus does is insult and curse, then anyone, even an atheist, can see that the supposed follower of Jesus is not behaving in a loving manner. Because those who love their fellows as themselves do not insult and curse their fellows with arrogant and prideful insults and curses.

    See how simple it is? So simple, even an atheist can see it. And of course, the atheist will then mock and insult the supposed follower of Jesus for not following what they know was written in the bible.

    This is sad, but the supposed followers of Jesus will not receive any better treatment unless their behavior changes.

    Here endeth the sermon. Amen.

  738. #744 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 5, 2009

    Here endeth the sermon. Amen.

    Amen brother.

  739. #745 Josh
    March 5, 2009

    There is no such thing, remember, little sheep?

    And you can also demonstrate where I suggested this?

    You really do enjoy making things up, don’t you? You could be cladist.

  740. #746 Sven DiMilo
    March 5, 2009

    You really do enjoy making things up, don’t you? You could be cladist.

    Huh wha?

  741. #747 Josh
    March 5, 2009

    Huh wha?

    Never mind. It was a way inside joke…poorly delivered.

  742. #748 Sven DiMilo
    March 5, 2009

    OK…I just didn’t want to have to hit you over the head with a synapomorphy.

  743. #749 Josh
    March 5, 2009

    Meh…you’re only waving synapomorphies around because you don’t have the balls to drop the dreaded apomorphy. It’s too close to the nuclear option.

    But it’s okay. I know how to deal with members of plesiomorphic outgroups like you.

  744. #750 AnthonyK
    March 5, 2009

    Calm down Josh, you’re in a clade of your own, even if is just a teensy bit paraphyletic – in a good sense, of course.

  745. #751 inquirer
    March 5, 2009

    Anthony, post 742 is a riot. Did you copy that out of some textbook? You couldn’t think of it on your own.
    Josh, take the xanax, two whole mg, please :)

  746. #752 Josh
    March 5, 2009

    Humpf. I’ll have you know, Anthony, that I’m a very gneiss person. All of my faults are normal.

  747. #753 Ichthyic
    March 5, 2009

    Josh, take the xanax, two whole mg, please :)

    You haven’t the slightest clue what he just said, do you.

    pathetic.

  748. #754 Ichthyic
    March 5, 2009

    Josh, are you a systematist?

    I can only figure someone with great familiarity with cladistics would make a joke like that.

  749. #755 Kel
    March 5, 2009

    If a Christin acts in a way that you think is unchristian, you jump on him or her, but you don’t even believe in Christ, so your mouths should stay reverently shut.

    One thing societies hate is a hypocrite. For all the talk of Christianity being morally superior, we have every right to point out when one acting under the pretense that their view is morally superior when their behaviour does not reflect that standard. Furthermore, morality and behaviour of individuals in a certain religion has consequences on a wider societal base. And since we are all members of society, we have every right (and some would argue a duty) to let people know when their behaviour is out of line.

    If someone is preaching love your enemies while sending out death threats, surely you can’t get more hypocritical behaviour than that.

  750. #756 AnthonyK
    March 5, 2009

    I can’t believe you can run out of taxonomic puns in such a short time, Josh. I had always understood you systematic bods to be a singularly light-hearted and witty bunch – I fear I have misjudged you. It appears that, at heart, you have the morose spirit of a mere phenetician.
    Or am I too narrow in my classification?

  751. #757 Josh
    March 5, 2009

    Nah. I can hold my own in systematics, but I’m not a cladist per se. I know what I’m doing, and I’ll run an analysis when I have to, but I’m usually trying to answer questions that are tangential to those of strict phylogeny.

    You, on the other hand, recognized the secret handshake pretty quick…

  752. #758 Josh
    March 5, 2009

    Phenetician? Ouch.

    I feared we would lose the lurkers completely if we kept on that trend, so I thought some lithological expansion might be in order. Sadly though, it appears I resolved little more than a polytomy. Depressing. It might be time to bust out the node-stem-triplet.

  753. #759 E.V.
    March 5, 2009

    Jack Shit, Rev Redhead, Nerd Redhead, Josh.

    Did someone page me?

  754. #760 Sven DiMilo
    March 5, 2009

    I resolved little more than a polytomy

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  755. #761 oaksterdam
    March 5, 2009

    Hi Inquirer, you typed this:

    I therefore leave you, permanently,

    Another liar for jebus. Yawn.

  756. #762 AnthonyK
    March 5, 2009

    Lithological expansion? Man, you must be living in the stone age. But seriously, go for the whole node. That would be so much more classy.

  757. #763 Josh
    March 5, 2009

    Stone age? Shit, man, I’m in the Miocene.

    Sven +1

  758. #764 AnthonyK
    March 5, 2009

    Never really been miocene. Still, each to his stone.

  759. #765 E.V.
    March 5, 2009

    “…in the biggest sense of the world.”

    inquirer is obviously intellekshullee supeerieer to us all.
    We wish him the best in his personal fight against bulimia.

  760. #766 Josh
    March 5, 2009

    Man. It’s been a long day. Time to get foiliated I think.

  761. #767 inquirer
    March 5, 2009

    Kel, you are very sadly mistaken. When someone attacks me, as did many here, and I give it back to them, I am made out to be the villain, so please, spare me the double-standard. You read the prior posts when inquirer first posted, and then tell me the hatred was not there against me. Which is fine, but let’s not trot out some double-standard and complain that someone is not Christian-like when you don’t even believe in Christ, please please stop that kind of drivel, Kel, I mean, really….oh you are not acting very CHRISTIAN, says the atheist, give me a break.

  762. #768 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 5, 2009

    Josh, take the xanax, two whole mg, please :)

    Sounds like someone knows his daily recommended dosage.

    interesting.

  763. #769 inquirer
    March 5, 2009

    Post 755 is laughable in that it seeks to censure those OTHER than the atheists here, for bad behavior. Give me a break, you hypocrite. Reread the posts. What a mentality.

  764. #770 E.V.
    March 5, 2009

    inquirer can practice relaxing his gag reflex with Ray Comfort’s banana.

    Oh, he’s back? Imagine my shock! What little “nanny nanny boo boo” comeback will you resort to now, inquirer?

  765. #771 Kel
    March 5, 2009

    I saw your early posts, all you did was post a bunch of links and refused to properly engage in discussion.

    Kel, I mean, really….oh you are not acting very CHRISTIAN, says the atheist, give me a break.

    On the countrary, I found your evangelising and being devoid of any real substance to be very CHRISTIAN ;) It took you 15 posts to even begin to attempt to engage others, before then it was posting links, returning spite and espousing ‘Read, think, learn.’

    Post 755 is laughable in that it seeks to censure those OTHER than the atheists here, for bad behavior. Give me a break, you hypocrite. Reread the posts. What a mentality.

    How about you read the post for what it is, rather than complaining about what it isn’t. The post was a direct criticism of your “An atheist can’t criticise a Christian” and had nothing to do with the behaviour of anyone else – only your inane statement.

  766. #772 E.V.
    March 5, 2009

    We’re not persecuting you for being a christian, we’re persecuting for marching in as a total douchebag. You were an asshole from the word go, baby-cakes. So now we just get to laugh at your silly little impotent responses.

  767. #773 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 5, 2009

    I see our goat still hasn’t said anything of substance. That means he has nothing of substance. He and his ideas are just a pale ghost fading into the bandwidth. But the goat has no idea on how to say something of substance. Here is how you do it.

    Your god doesn’t exist since no physical evidence has been presented to make it real. Your bible is work of fiction, since without a god, it cannot be a holy book. QED.

  768. #774 E.V.
    March 5, 2009

    Let’s all laugh mockingly and scornfully at inquirer! hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa

  769. #775 tony
    March 5, 2009

    inquirer you came here and posted some links to crap- that we have all heard & seen before, too many times. the initial responses you refer to simply said – (I paraphrase) – not that shit again – care to offer something new or original, or at the very least something in your own words?

    You then resorted to some half-assed pomo third person sputum, denigrating the quality of all the posters here – other than your own self, of course.

    Since then your contribution to dialog has been zero. zip. nada. niente. nuttin.

    You appear to start a conversation, then ramble off into some strange psuedo-philosophical byway.

    Your humor – isn’t.

    Your only original contributions have been attacks on the quality or tone of previous comments – you never actually get round to answering any of the questions.

    Example: Kel referenced your lack of adherence to christian morals and behaviors as defined, of course, by christians themselves. You chose not to respond with any counter, but simply attacked Kel for daring to use a publicly defined christian behavior-set as a baseline for comparison to your demonstrated behavior.

    You, sir, are a liar, a hypocrite, and a troll.

  770. #776 E.V.
    March 5, 2009

    And Tony laughs at you! Hahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahahaaa

  771. #777 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 5, 2009

    I’ll join in the laughter at our boring goat.
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    I’ll also ask PZ to ban the goats ass if he doesn’t say anything of substance by this time tomorrow. Something of substance is not commenting on our attitudes or attempting to make fun of things. Something of substance is like my second paragraph in #773. You lay out an idea and back it with evidence.

  772. #778 'Tis Himself
    March 5, 2009

    Ha.

    He doesn’t deserve any more than that.

  773. #779 Kel
    March 5, 2009

    Example: Kel referenced your lack of adherence to christian morals and behaviors as defined, of course, by christians themselves. You chose not to respond with any counter, but simply attacked Kel for daring to use a publicly defined christian behavior-set as a baseline for comparison to your demonstrated behavior.

    To go one step further, he attacked me for not applying the Christian-set of behaviours to non-Christians. Why should they apply? Christian principles aren’t a universal code of conduct that all must adhere to, they are just another set of rules that some people preach as a behavioural base. Those who preach that and then fall short of their own standards are hypocrites, it’s that simple.

  774. #780 aratina
    March 6, 2009

    Inquirer’s longer posts remind me of Tool’s Message to Harry Manback. So ya, I think you were all spot-on when you called him out as a maniacal deadhead.

    But thank you all for the laughs, again, even you, Mr. Goat (your bleating post was lolious but I still hope PZ takes the stick to you soon enough). And a hearty HAHAHAHAHA at you-know-who.

  775. #781 Josh
    March 6, 2009

    Inquirer doesn’t deserve my laughter. He isn’t funny.

  776. #782 in
    March 6, 2009

    You people demand this engagement and that discussion and this and that. You don’t deserve anything more than the contempt due vermin, due to your blind obedience to your Oracle PZ, who runs a nail through a communion host like a mindless fool, this causes Christians to follow up on the incident, then they come across this pathetic site with the sheep bleating and complaining, not reading their own posts to see the venom, then accusing the OTHER of being unchristianlike, what a pathetic bunch of assholes.

  777. #783 in
    March 6, 2009

    I can hear it now, baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

  778. #784 Kel
    March 6, 2009

    Judge not lest ye be judged… motherfucker!

  779. #785 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 6, 2009

    Bleat goes the goats of imaginary deities.

  780. #786 in
    March 6, 2009

    YOU people are complaining about people attacking YOU? from the very first, you are nasty, venomous snakes, shamelessly parading your stupid ideas, then you have the audacity to say oh he attacked me, all the while you people attack everyone who comes on here.
    I explained to you vermin why I ended up here. It was not to preach to you, people don’t preach to vermin and garbage. It was to break all your balls for the communion host incident. That was the only reason I “engaged” you in conversation. Your minds are too little to assimilate what little I have imparted to you in the way of knowledge. Bleating at the top of your collective lungs, naturally you are unable to hear what is said. The pathetic part is you complaining because someone is verbally abusive to you, yet you are verbally abusive to all believers, so get it right, vermin, your new name, vermin, including the brave brave PZ, who runs a nail through a host like a moron. A lead sheep if ever there was one. Look at the photo of him on this blog, looks like a typical moron, with a dopey look on his face like he just thought God out of existence all because he is blind as a bat. PZ, who typifies the atheist mindset of duh, look at me, duh, I am a atheist, duh I hate God, duh, there is no God, duh but that is all I can talk about duh duh duh. No god see I did it lower case, I am brave, I talk to god who don’t exist, duh, I ran a fucking nail through a wafer, duh, I am brave eh? Duh, my little friends like EV and other pieces of shit here applaud me duh, I think for myself duh, I think I am right, I am in love with myself, I am EV, in love with myself, EV is extreme vermin….Josh is for Just joshin if you thought I was intelligent. Rev dumb chimp ,what a moronic handle, duh, we all follow PZ with our head up our butts duh unable to think for ourselves, but our hero prof tells us what to eat everyday duh……but we are superior to all who visit this bizarre blog, this center of hate, this sewer of iniquity and double standards, where all must behave except the vermin….what a veritible Animal Farm, only Orwell was not writing about you vermin. duh, I know, I know, inquirer i this or that but you are without blemish……duh, PZ got up at 6 this morning, I wanna do the same. PZ can I run a nail into a harmless wafer WITH ya, huh can I huh? Duh

  781. #787 AnthonyK
    March 6, 2009

    I think Inquirer does have a point guys.
    Not.
    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha etc

  782. #788 Kel
    March 6, 2009

    Got to love how these fundie idiots no matter what will appeal that atheists are part of a cult of personality. We are under Darwin, Dawkins or PZ on any given day. If the discussion is on evolution? We’re Darwinists, blindly following Darwin’s theory that he so recanted on his deathbed. On atheism? Then we are all blindly following Dawkins because it’s cool. But evolution and God aren’t incompatible, just ask Francis Collins! And on this blog? We must all worship PZ, for he is the admin and will flagellate any dissonance among the worshippers here…

    It’s so formulaic that it shows how pathetic these fundies can be.

  783. #789 AnthonyK
    March 6, 2009

    Rats, sheeps, goats…..sometimes I wonder why I came to this funny farm in the first place.

  784. #790 Kel
    March 6, 2009

    Oh, in is just inquirer. Read. Think. Learn… oh wait, that was just your first 15 posts here you condescending little shit.

  785. #791 AnthonyK
    March 6, 2009

    I beg your pardon, there’s only one “sheep” here. I was misled by the loud bleating.

  786. #792 in
    March 6, 2009

    Anthony and Kel, two of the best you’ve got on this blog? Come on now. The usual drivel from atheist double standard vermin. What is PZ going to do? Engage me in some stupid conversation of his? Tell me how he proudly pierced a wafer with a nail? If so, I am not interested in stupid antics like that, showing not only remarkable shallowness of mind but a dopey worldview that plays to the cameras and reporters. I mean, what kind of moron runs a wafer through. What is this, a kid’s tv program? PZ deserves not only utter contempt for his irreverance, but a proverbial kick in the butt, and so does EV, which I would gladly do for him anytime he feels getting one.

  787. #793 AnthonyK
    March 6, 2009

    If PZ does any “flaggelation”, we can be sure it would be intelligently designed.

  788. #794 Wowbagger
    March 6, 2009

    in squealed (like a pig):

    YOU people are complaining about people attacking YOU? from the very first, you are nasty, venomous snakes, shamelessly parading your stupid ideas,

    What someone writes on their personal blog counts as ‘parading’ now? I think not.

    then you have the audacity to say oh he attacked me, all the while you people attack everyone who comes on here.

    Don’t like it? Then feel free to fuck off. No-one’s asking you to stay.

    It was to break all your balls for the communion host incident.

    [Checks balls] Nope, my balls remain unbroken. I guess you failed, huh?

    Your minds are too little to assimilate what little I have imparted to you in the way of knowledge. Bleating at the top of your collective lungs, naturally you are unable to hear what is said.

    [cough]projection![cough]

    A lead sheep if ever there was one. Look at the photo of him on this blog, looks like a typical moron, with a dopey look on his face like he just thought God out of existence all because he is blind as a bat.

    We get a lot of people wailing about ad hominem fallacies, which are almost always just insults. This, on the other hand, is an ad hominem. A piss-poor one written by a barely literate fuckstain, mind you, but one nonetheless.

    PZ, who typifies the atheist mindset of duh, look at me, duh, I am a atheist, duh I hate God, duh, there is no God, duh but that is all I can talk about duh duh duh.

    Either believe there are no gods – they can’t hate what doesn’t exist. Do try to grasp that.

    we all follow PZ with our head up our butts duh unable to think for ourselves,

    No, that’s religious believers. That’s why they have holy books they aren’t allowed to fault. We don’t.

    but we are superior to all who visit this bizarre blog, this center of hate, this sewer of iniquity and double standards

    Is your computer broken? Can you not switch it off or go to another website? Is someone holding a gun to your head, forcing you to be here? No?

    Then fuck off.

    what a veritible Animal Farm, only Orwell was not writing about you vermin. duh, I know, I know, inquirer i this or that but you are without blemish……duh, PZ got up at 6 this morning, I wanna do the same. PZ can I run a nail into a harmless wafer WITH ya, huh can I huh? Duh

    That’s some weapons grade incoherence right there. Step away from the keyboard, dude – all the froth and spittle isn’t good for it.

  789. #795 Kel
    March 6, 2009

    Anthony and Kel, two of the best you’ve got on this blog? Come on now.

    You come on here and simply post links to apologetics sites, then spend the next 10 posts telling people to “read. think. learn.” Do you honestly think that anyone is going to be impressed by those antics?

    Tell me how he proudly pierced a wafer with a nail?

    That explains a lot. Jesus says love your enemies, to turn the other cheek. Did you read the latest Bill Donohue screed? Think that sending a bunch of links is going to actually convert people? How about this, get off your fucking high horse and actually engage people in conversation. Show evidence for your beliefs and make a case for yourself. You did yourself no favours by posting links then condescendingly telling people to “read. think. learn.” Go fuck yourself fundie!

  790. #796 Kel
    March 6, 2009

    It was to break all your balls for the communion host incident.

    Do you actually believe that a priest saying a few magic words turns a cracker into Christ-flesh, then actually partaking in that ritualised cannibalism?

  791. #797 'Tis Himself
    March 6, 2009

    Is that bore still bleating?

  792. #798 Kel
    March 6, 2009

    inquirer, if you want to whine about how you were treated here, go ahead. People weren’t nice to you. But honestly, what kind of reception did you think you’d get? You came on here, posted a bunch of links to apologetic sites and condescendingly said “read. think. learn.” You automatically started talking down to us, and it took you 15 posts to even say anything remotely resembling engaging in dialogue. So if you want to actually get anywhere, drop the arrogance and engage people in dialogue.

    For fucks sake, I make one post – impersonal, in response to a comment you made, and you took it as if I was having a personal attack on you and promoting the actions of others on here. You are looking to take offence so you can dismiss what anyone else has to say without consideration. You’re a pathetic example of your religion.

  793. #799 AnthonyK
    March 6, 2009

    Now, now Kel, he did say we were the best on this blog…I do feel sorry for him, I mean all he did was to gently point out the errors of our ways and engage us in pollite conversation – yet all everyone can do is to criticize the poor zoophile. I do feel, seriously, that everyone here, especially PZ should apologise and start all over again.

  794. #800 AnthonyK
    March 6, 2009

    What would fucking Jesus fucking do, eh?

  795. #801 Kel
    March 6, 2009

    What would fucking Jesus fucking do, eh?

    His apostles?

  796. #802 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 6, 2009

    Poor in, with his delusions caused by his belief in an imaginary deity and a fictional bible, he can’t even put together coherent sentences. Bleat, bleat, bleat, bleat.

    In, you have the freedom to take your silly, inane message elsewhere. Do so. Otherwise, the only sheep here is ewe. You blindly follow an imaginary god like a sheep. Bleat.

    Whereas we respect PZ, but we also disagree with him and each other. No sheep here, just humans who are rational.

  797. #803 AnthonyK
    March 6, 2009

    There is zero historical evidence that Jesus was gay. His dad was, though.

  798. #804 AnthonyK
    March 6, 2009

    It would be good, I think, if Inquirer made like a good shepherd, and got the flock out of here.

  799. #805 'Tis Himself
    March 6, 2009
  800. #806 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 6, 2009

    Rev dumb chimp ,what a moronic handle

    Coming from a sheep like you I’ll take that as a compliment.

    The pathetic part is you complaining because someone is verbally abusive to you, yet you are verbally abusive to all believers, so get it right, vermin, your new name, vermin, including the brave brave PZ, who runs a nail through a host like a moron. A lead sheep if ever there was one. Look at the photo of him on this blog, looks like a typical moron, with a dopey look on his face like he just thought God out of existence all because he is blind as a bat. PZ, who typifies the atheist mindset of duh, look at me, duh, I am a atheist, duh I hate God, duh, there is no God, duh but that is all I can talk about duh duh duh. No god see I did it lower case, I am brave, I talk to god who don’t exist, duh, I ran a fucking nail through a wafer, duh, I am brave eh? Duh, my little friends like EV and other pieces of shit here applaud me duh, I think for myself duh, I think I am right, I am in love with myself, I am EV, in love with myself, EV is extreme vermin….Josh is for Just joshin if you thought I was intelligent. Rev dumb chimp ,what a moronic handle, duh, we all follow PZ with our head up our butts duh unable to think for ourselves, but our hero prof tells us what to eat everyday duh……but we are superior to all who visit this bizarre blog, this center of hate, this sewer of iniquity and double standards, where all must behave except the vermin….what a veritible Animal Farm, only Orwell was not writing about you vermin. duh, I know, I know, inquirer i this or that but you are without blemish……duh, PZ got up at 6 this morning, I wanna do the same. PZ can I run a nail into a harmless wafer WITH ya, huh can I huh? Duh

    Seems like you might have blown a gasket. You might want to calm down before you stroke out.

    Tell us about your amazing Cristian Apologetics links again?

    Like for example this juicy bit of logical fail

    My own first question envisages a meatier interpretation than that. I am asking whether the skeptic is justified in calling into question the truth of ‘God exists.’ Why not put the burden on him? Why not insist that he is attempting to convict of irrationality generations of human beings, rational animals like himself, whole cultures for whom belief in the divine and worship are part of what it is to be a human being? Were all those millions, that silent majority, wrong? Surely to think something against the grain of the whole tradition of human experience is not to be done lightly. It is, need one say it, presumptuous to pit against that past one’s own version of the modern mind. This suggests that the present generation is in agreement on things incompatible with belief in God. Or that all informed people now alive, etc. etc. Meaning, I suppose, that all present day skeptics are skeptics.

    Argumentum ad populam and argumentum ad antiquitatem, anyone?

    Shifting the burden of proof seems to be to popular argument on those sites as well. Sorry. Not going to happen. I’m not requiring you to disprove every other god to prove yours. Though I should.

    I Like this quote I dislike this quote?I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.? — Stephen Roberts

    How about this little tidbit of dumbfuckery

    In order to prove categorically that there is no God at all, one would have to be present in every part of creation at the exact same time. However, if one were able to perform this extraordinary feat, they would be God. God is not constrained by our physical limitations, but instead, he exist outside of our reality and looks in. This is what they just cannot wrap their minds around and quite honestly, I think it makes them intellectually dishonest, or at best ignorant. If they were to be at least honest, they could only claim to be agnostic. Agnostic means that you do not know if there is a God or not. Remember, only a fool has said in his heart that there is no God.

    Yes and in order to prove that there aren’t 20 gods you’d have to do the same. Or actually no you wouldn’t. There are are no traces of God’s “hand” interacting with this world, anywhere. Not once has anyone empirically shown the existence of a supreme being or even a supernatural one for that matter. They haven’t even shown the results of a supreme being (or beings) or a lower supernatural one’s interactions with the physical world. That quoted bit of text from your link above, my little friend with an increasingly problematic blood pressure issue, is one dumb fucking argument.

    You’re trapped in a culture that rewards proud ignorance. Your church doesn’t want you to actually know things. It wants you to fall in line and tow the party line. It wants you to spread its message so it has more bah’ing sheep (remember John 10:11-18?).

    The essence of Christianity is told to us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the Tree of Knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just kept your fucking mouth shut and hadn’t asked any questions.
    – Frank Zappa

  801. #807 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 6, 2009

    Grr, I added a part to the Stephen Robert quote up there from the site I got it from

    Should of course only be

    I Like this quote I dislike this quoteI contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.? — Stephen Roberts

  802. #808 Josh
    March 6, 2009

    Venom? Again In, show me where I’ve been rude to you or called you a name. I can now add “asshole” and “snake” to the list of names, as well as “pathetic” to the list of adjectives, that you’ve applied to me.

    SHOW ME where I’ve called you a name.

    You’re complaining about a standard that you yourself aren’t living up to.

  803. #809 AnthonyK
    March 6, 2009

    He’s just a paraphyletic fuck, if he really wants an erudite insult.
    But, like I said earlier, think man in rubber suit, the sort who has to undo something to speak.
    Zip it, you abuse whore.

  804. #810 Josh
    March 6, 2009

    Josh is for Just joshin if you thought I was intelligent.

    …another nice demonstration of how little attention I should pay to any intellectual judgements that come from you.

    *yawn*

  805. #811 Josh
    March 6, 2009

    That was being rude to you, BTW.

  806. #812 Josh
    March 6, 2009

    But, like I said earlier, think man in rubber suit, the sort who has to undo something to speak.

    *shiver*

    Now I’m gonna have that image in my mind all morning.
    Thanks.

  807. #813 E.V.
    March 6, 2009

    As a former Christian, I must tell you inquirer, you’re hysterical! It must really suck to be you! So impotent, so ignorant, so puny, arrogant and clueless at the same time. Watch your blood pressure or your little head will go “pop” like the little weasel in the song. I, for one can’t wait for your next post, I’m sure it will be as amusing as all your other rants. Don’t worry, we’re laughing with at you, funny guy.

    (IB $20 he goes with his limited repertoire of sheep noises/ ‘smarty-pants’/puny fist shaking, and “you guys don’t know nothin’ and the usual pathetic threats.”)HAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  808. #814 E.V.
    March 6, 2009

    I propose that inquirer shall be known henceforth as the gimp or gimpy. (Cue Dick Dale soundtrack)

  809. #815 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 6, 2009

    But, like I said earlier, think man in rubber suit, the sort who has to undo something to speak.

    You mean like this Reverend?

  810. #816 Knockgoats
    March 6, 2009

    Makes me want to vomit. – inquirer

    As indeed you have. Repeatedly. All over the thread. It stinks.

  811. #817 Notagod
    March 6, 2009

    in[quirer] mumbled:

    oh you are not acting very CHRISTIAN, says the atheist, give me a break.

    The claim of the christian is perfection. If you can’t live up to that standard perhaps you should make up a new god-idea. Apparently any less than average person can do it, so don’t hesitate, let your imagination go wild!

    Incidentally, how many folks do you have living inside your head Inquirer? Just wondering because I note that there is apparent disagreement over which has control of your mind.

  812. #818 Watchman
    March 6, 2009

    Again the “inquirer” shows his true colors, this time by senselessly attacking Josh.

    Be gone, you contemptible fool.

  813. #819 John.St
    March 21, 2009

    In the best preserved, most original christian bible (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia = the Leningrad Manuscript) there are actually 5 (five) named jewish/christian deities: Capo de tutti capi is named El Eljon and the other are Shaddaj, El, Shaitan and a local chap called JHWH (exclusively for jews and Israel).

    Any christian who doesn’t believe in all five is a de facto atheist.

  814. #820 Ron Nobles
    April 29, 2009

    I just came across this and read all the posts and the language is amazing, as is the very shallow reasoning of most of the ones who posted. The level of intelligence of the atheists on this blog is questionable at best. You have attacked fine Christians on here, and in a brutal way worthy of beasts in a forest, certainly not on a level with human beings. Just the way you TALK to people is disgraceful.

  815. #821 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    April 29, 2009

    I just came across this and read all the posts and the language is amazing, as is the very shallow reasoning of most of the ones who posted. The level of intelligence of the atheists on this blog is questionable at best. You have attacked fine Christians on here, and in a brutal way worthy of beasts in a forest, certainly not on a level with human beings. Just the way you TALK to people is disgraceful.

    Go fuck your self.

  816. #822 Ron Nobles
    April 29, 2009

    A perfect example. How utterly manly of you to use that kind of language. I am deeply impressed. Are there any more of your mentality here? I fear so.

  817. #823 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    April 29, 2009

    A perfect example. How utterly manly of you to use that kind of language. I am deeply impressed. Are there any more of your mentality here? I fear so.

    Do you have a point you’d like to argue beyond whining about language?

  818. #824 AJ Milne
    April 29, 2009

    Are there any more of your mentality here? I fear so.

    Oh, no no no. I for one, cannot condone anyone saying ‘Go fuck your self.’… Rev, for shame. I must protest. That’s just so wrong…

    It’s ‘Go fuck yourself.’

    See? Compound. Very important.

    (I mean, fuck. Get it right, man.)

  819. #825 Josh
    April 29, 2009

    You have attacked fine Christians on here,…

    Yes, yes, we know. We’re bad. The Christians are above reproach, even when they LIE. And they of course don’t ever draw first blood. Ever. Of course not.

  820. #826 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    April 29, 2009

    Good point. AJ, my bad.

    I wonder if our virginal eared[eyed] commenter has something he’d like to discuss beyond yelling at the kids to get off his lawn?

    I’ll even promise to to curse so as not to distract him from making a point that is worth something.

  821. #827 El Pedanto
    April 29, 2009

    Just the way you TALK to people is disgraceful.

    Go fuck your self.

    That is disgraceful. Beast!
    I’m sure you meant: Go fuck yourself, please.

  822. #828 AJ Milne
    April 29, 2009

    Good point. AJ, my bad.

    No worries. Typos. What can ya do.

    Oh, also, just checked: Elements of Style also would accept ‘Go fuck yourself sideways with a rusting chainsaw, you vapid, godbotting wank.’…

    With or without exclamation point.

    Carry on.

  823. #829 Ron Nobles
    April 29, 2009

    I see that with the addition of your erstwhile playmates we are up to approximately second grade level now. That is very very good to see.

  824. #830 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 29, 2009

    Oh don’t worry, your attitude Ron is at a kindergarten level, which all that we expect from prudes.

  825. #831 Watchman
    April 29, 2009

    I just came across this and read all the posts and the language is amazing, as is the very shallow reasoning of most of the ones who posted.

    You read 819 comments of a thread that you found not just distasteful, but abhorrent? Why?

    The level of intelligence of the atheists on this blog is questionable at best. You have attacked fine Christians on here, and in a brutal way worthy of beasts in a forest, certainly not on a level with human beings.

    Perhaps you mean “worthy of lions in a Colosseum.”

    The beasts of the forest rip, maim, eviscerate, and consume. I see not even one drop of blood here.

    You need to get out more.

    Who’s the “fine Christian” who was attacked? Surely you can’t mean that passive-aggressive, condescending hypocrite who so pretentiously calls himself the Inquirer?

  826. #832 El Pedanto
    April 29, 2009

    Get thee hence anon and subject thyself to autocoitus.

    What grade are we up to now?

  827. #833 Watchman
    April 29, 2009

    I see that with the addition of your erstwhile playmates…

    I see that we have a very concerned citizen here who will misuse a word like “erstwhile” in a fruitless attempt to sound genteel.

  828. #834 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    April 29, 2009

    I see that with the addition of your erstwhile playmates we are up to approximately second grade level now. That is very very good to see.

    Again I ask. Do you have a point beyond some prudish whining about language?

    Make a point and I’d be happy to discuss it with you. If not please, keep the whining to yourself. You are filling in the all whine no substance stereotype of Christians, and you wouldn’t want to do that would you?

  829. #835 Ron Nobles
    April 29, 2009

    Rev, I do as I please.

  830. #836 AJ Milne
    April 29, 2009

    What grade are we up to now?

    Oh… oh… (jumps up and down in seat)… Let me try:

    Sir or Madam or Beast of Indeterminite Sex, it is the general and stated and well-considered opinion of a large and thoughtful constituency amongst the general populace of this forum of interchange that civility is frequently of considerably less virtue than is directness. Accordingly, the use of language which may or may not be rich in traditional or more creative expletives, and which may or may not strongly imply we are of the opinion that your opinion–assuming we can even discern you have such a thing and that we can reliably determine even what it is–is poorly considered and of little value and would best be flushed into a near and convenient sewer may very well occur frequently. You would be best to accomomdate yourself to this reality, as complaints about this fact are unlikely to receive an especially sympathetic hearing.

    Moreover, as such complaints of incivility as yours are rather regularly levelled against those criticizing a prevailing opinion (such as the notion that deities exist or we should all at least pretend we think they do) and not so much against those upholding such opinions, it is difficult to be especially sympathetic. To quote Mill:

    With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation. Yet whatever mischief arises from their use, is greatest when they are employed against the comparatively defenceless; and whatever unfair advantage can be derived by any opinion from this mode of asserting it, accrues almost exclusively to received opinions…

    … and …

    In general, opinions contrary to those commonly received can only obtain a hearing by studied moderation of language, and the most cautious avoidance of unnecessary offence, from which they hardly ever deviate even in a slight degree without losing ground: while unmeasured vituperation employed on the side of the prevailing opinion, really does deter people from professing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who profess them. For the interest, therefore, of truth and justice, it is far more important to restrain this employment of vituperative language than the other; and, for example, if it were necessary to choose, there would be much more need to discourage offensive attacks on infidelity, than on religion.

    … this last as excerpted by Ophelia Benson in Butterflies and Wheels here.

    (Oh, also: I’m rubber, you’re glue.)

  831. #837 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    April 29, 2009

    Rev, I do as I please.

    As do I. Now again, do you have a point?

  832. #838 Ron Nobles
    April 29, 2009

    Not with you, perhaps with others, at my own discretion, regarding time and content. Then again, perhaps not. As I said, I do as I please.

  833. #839 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    April 29, 2009

    Not with you, perhaps with others, at my own discretion, regarding time and content. Then again, perhaps not. As I said, I do as I please.

    yawn.

  834. #840 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 29, 2009

    Ron is a pointless preschooler.

  835. #841 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    April 29, 2009

    Yeah, I’m thinking my original comment was more appropriate than I realized.

  836. #842 Ron Nobles
    April 29, 2009

    YOU are “thinking”? I doubt that very much.

  837. #843 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    April 29, 2009

    YOU are “thinking”? I doubt that very much.

    Still waiting to see if you have a point beyond typical trolling.

  838. #844 Watchman
    April 29, 2009

    Ron’s point, that he has already made, is that everyone’s rude and that being subjected to strong words is akin to being torn apart by wild dogs or hungry grizzly bears. He ignores questions directed to him, however, because he’s not interested in having an exchange, only in lingering long enough with the intention of annoying someone to the point where they are rude to him, at which point he can cry, “See? See?”

    Of course, you were rude to him immediately, and yet he is still here, so maybe I am wrong about that.

    It’s an inventive and unique approach that has never been tried here before. Let’s see how he does!

  839. #845 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    April 29, 2009

    Pretty obvious Ron can’t make any sort of point beyond some priggish pearl clutching.

  840. #846 Ron Nobles
    April 29, 2009

    Watchman, I commend you. You bring up the level to third grade.

  841. #847 Ichthyic
    April 29, 2009

    shorter Ron:

    Harumph! Harumph I say!

    blah blah blahhitty blah-blah.

  842. #848 Josh
    April 29, 2009

    Watchman, I commend you. You bring up the level to third grade.

    And so, from your numerous insightful comments, am I to conclude, albeit tentatively, that you’re really not interested in discussing anything substantive?

  843. #849 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 29, 2009

    No Ron is just an asshat taking up bandwidth. But he knows that.

  844. #850 Ron Nobles
    April 30, 2009

    In a way it is like watching animals at a zoo, as I watch the atheists demonstrate just how shallow they are, how little their minds are, how they have no self control. Just like watching animals at a zoo, except here there is no admission and the animals talk.
    Who will be the first to retort in a fourth grader way, then we can bring up the level one more notch? You have already worked your way up to third grade! Please don’t stop now. I know your little minds can do it.

  845. #851 Rorschach
    April 30, 2009

    how little their minds are,

    Is that English?

  846. #852 Ron Nobles
    April 30, 2009

    Professor Roschach, the content of any communication is much more important than little discrepancies found within it, but let us just say that it is not German.

  847. #853 Josh
    April 30, 2009

    A little judgemental there, aren’t you, Ron?

  848. #854 Rorschach
    April 30, 2009

    but let us just say that it is not German.

    What isnt? Are you confused or something?

  849. #855 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    April 30, 2009

    Ron you have an amazingly high self image for being someone who comes to a blog complaining only about the language used and when you are asked to tell us your point all you do is waggle your unwarranted maturity cock at us and refuse to get to it.

    If anyone is behaving like a child it is you.

    Now, do you have a point?

    If not I’m done feeding your public masturbatory fantasies.

  850. #856 Ron Nobles
    April 30, 2009

    Professor, you asked if what I posted is English, remember? It was only a little while ago!
    Rev, you are not tired of anything, you are one of the monkeys in the cage where I throw a banana in and they all wreak havoc with each other trying to get to the one banana. Please speak only when you are spoken to, Reverend.
    And you most certainly are NOT done coming on here being childish and using coarse language, not by a long shot, or longshot or however the English experts here term it. This is rather fun, to throw one banana into a zoo cage and watch the animals scramble for it.

  851. #857 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    April 30, 2009

    Yep, no point. Just an attempt to feed your own ego while being laughed at by everyone else.

    Wank yourself all you want. Later moron.

  852. #858 Rorschach
    April 30, 2009

    Ron Nobles,arrogant smug liar for jebus being smug and arrogant @ 856,

    Rev, you are not tired of anything, you are one of the monkeys in the cage where I throw a banana in and they all wreak havoc with each other trying to get to the one banana. Please speak only when you are spoken to, Reverend.

    I havent encountered this troll before,but he sure is impressive.In his brainwashed arrogant smugness,anyway.
    A nice one.Good one to start the day with.

  853. #859 Anonymous
    April 30, 2009

    …you asked if what I posted is English, remember.

    Sad, really. But hey, he was right about one thing. It wasn’t German.

    No, this is German:

    Mach es dir selber.

    … aaand this is French…

    Va t’faire foutre.

    …. and this, in case you should have occasion to use it, is Brazilian Portugese:

    Vai te fuder.

    … as to…

    Ron you have an amazingly high self image…

    (B-movie Sigmund voice on)Herr Doktor Chimp, I find I must disagree vis your analysis. Der Ron Nobles Troll does not to my mind, how you say, have high self-esteem. You vill note his tragic view zat ze bananas in zis cage are his to throw, und, indeed, zat he himzelf is outside ze cage. No, zis ist his vey of overcompensating for ze now painfully clear fact zat heez life is most empty, und ze puerilely und transparent baiting of ze perceived enemies on ze Internet ist his sole remaining strategy of distraction…

    Vell, for siz und ze fact zat he has, how you say, very, very tiny balls…

    (/B-movie Sigmumd voice off.)

  854. #860 Kseniya
    April 30, 2009

    Ron Nobles, is trolling this thread really so important to you that you’d revisit it after having had a good night’s sleep? Why? What’s in it for you?

  855. #861 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 30, 2009

    I see Ron Nobles is stil trying for the Asshat of the year award. But then, thinking isn’t his strong suit, so he might actually get it.

  856. #862 Watchman
    April 30, 2009

    Over-use of the Argument from Elementary School Playground Social Dynamics should be grounds for banning.

    Starve him. He’s really not worth it.

  857. #863 Wowbagger, OM
    April 30, 2009

    Sigh. Boring troll is boring.

  858. #864 Rorschach
    April 30, 2009

    Hey Watchman dude,

    thats my movie,find your own. :-)

    Va t’faire foutre.

    Memories of nights in french pubs,beating the locals at table soccer….*Sigh*

  859. #865 Watchman
    April 30, 2009

    Find my own? No way, Kovacs. I’ve been using this handle for years. :-p

  860. #866 Bill, or Ted, one
    April 30, 2009

    Dude, have you ever really, like, looked at a banana?

    wow

  861. #867 Rorschach
    April 30, 2009

    Watchman dude,you might like this then :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARHGSatB-Sw

  862. #868 Ron Nobles
    April 30, 2009

    Of course he would like it. It is dark, cynical, and full of violence and generally distasteful, so it is right up his alley.
    Now, here is another banana thrown to the monkeys. There is no such thing as an atheist. They all know there is a God but they like to play at rebellion so much that they deny God, knowing all the while that He exists, just so they can make themselves completely unaccountable to anyone for their words and deeds. At the very least, not one atheist says to himself or herself that he or she KNOWS for a fact that there is no God. They are just gambling, like a casino, hoping there is no God but not really believing it, not deep down.
    They disguise their belief very well. They relate to others, particularly Christians, by using foul language, as their only real “weapon” because they are typically very shallow thinkers, BUT they perceive themselves to be veritible Einsteins. Now watch as they all crowd to the zoo cage bars and defend themselves, and you will see the inevitable, predictable foul language.
    But that is part of the picture. They cannot speak without speaking in a very coarse fashion. They just cannot do it. Sit back and watch.

  863. #869 Rorschach
    April 30, 2009

    Ron Nobles,

    you are a particular sickening example of a brainwashed xtian zombie,good to meet you.Please hang around,so as many people as possible can witness your moral bancruptcy.
    You know,this blog gets about 40 hits per minute.We need more of your kind to show the world what religion does to the human brain.

  864. #870 Watchman
    April 30, 2009

    Nice try, Ron. Generalize much?

    I’ve got one for you:

    All Christians, no matter what they profess aloud or in writing, would secretly love to see every atheist stoned to death or burned at the stake for his infidelity to The One True God, his rejection of Jesus Christ their Lord and Savior, and for the most unforgivable sin of all: his denial of the Holy Spirit.

    Go ahead and refute this, if you can. As with your own most recent claim, the proof is built in to the assertion, the question is begged, it’s ironclad and irrefutable.

    Of course he would like it. It is dark, cynical, and full of violence and generally distasteful, so it is right up his alley.

    Nice. Another unsupported assertion. Please review my comments on this thread, and build an argument around what you find, rather than simply talking out of your hat.

    Perhaps what we have here is a simple case of projection. You find this blog and its commenters dark, cynical, full of violence and generally distateful, and yet you keep coming back to stir the pot and watch the reactions. What does that reveal about you? Please show your work.

  865. #871 James L Bauer/Inquirer/Ron Nobles
    April 30, 2009

    Does this triple identify assist you at all?

  866. #872 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 30, 2009

    Yawn, as I said earlier Ron Nobles is of limited intellect and this was shown in his #868 post. He lies. But then, that is expected of those of limited intellect who believe in imaginary beings. Ron, you could convince us of the existence of god if you could show physical evidence that would pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin. But then, you will make no attempt to show any evidence since there isn’t any except the delusion between your ears. Boring, boring troll.

  867. #873 James L Bauer/Inquirer/Ron Nobles
    April 30, 2009

    To be precise, “identify” is typo, it should read “identity” but I am sure you get the point.

  868. #874 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 30, 2009

    No, still an ignorant troll under any name. Show us you physical evidence for your imaginary deity.

  869. #875 Gruesome Janine
    April 30, 2009

    Posted by: Ron Nobles | April 30, 2009

    In a way it is like watching animals at a zoo, as I watch the atheists demonstrate just how shallow they are, how little their minds are, how they have no self control. Just like watching animals at a zoo, except here there is no admission and the animals talk.

    I cannot help but to think that this persona comes from a famously awful movie.

  870. #876 Ron Nobles
    April 30, 2009

    Speaking of awful movies, your own Gruesome Janine handle could qualify as a title, don’t you think so?

  871. #877 Gruesome Janine
    April 30, 2009

    You ignorant little worm, the titles I have used comes from trolls like you.

  872. #878 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 30, 2009

    Don’t worry Ron, you are just as stupid under any nomen. If you have a point, get to it. You are just as boring too.

  873. #879 Ron Nobles
    April 30, 2009

    Ignorant little worm, that must have taken you all of a couple of seconds to invent. Nerd, thanks for your usual lack of insight

  874. #880 Josh
    April 30, 2009

    They all know there is a God…

    Of course they do, and Odin is His name. Did you have a point?

  875. #881 KI
    April 30, 2009

    So what kind of lowlife shows up after a couple months to mouth off? Asshole is pretty much all one can say. “Inquirer”? pffft

  876. #882 Gruesome Janine
    April 30, 2009

    Ignorant little worm, that must have taken you all of a couple of seconds to invent.

    That is all the time you are worth.

  877. #883 Ron Nobles
    April 30, 2009

    Everyone’s looking for a “point”, as if you yourselves have one or have ever had one worth talking about.
    You take yourselves way too seriously. Lighten up. What an uptight bunch of folks, no laughter just darkness, come on people, wake up and smell the roses once in awhile.
    Life is not all about seriousness all the time.

  878. #884 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 30, 2009

    Ron, what is your point? You are a troll and we will treat you as such. Pete Rooke tried to play a regular to no avail. You will find him in the dungeon, your desination if you don’t get to a point. So far, your only point shown is to demonstrate your ignorance.

  879. #885 Josh
    April 30, 2009

    …as if you yourselves have one or have ever had one worth talking about.

    And yet you’re still here. Rather like the kid who doesn’t get invited to the cool kids’ party on a Saturday night and spends the whole weekend loudly proclaiming that he didn’t want to go anyway.

    Life is not all about seriousness all the time.

    And yes, the tiny slice of any one of us that comes through in our comments, on a blog, absolutely captures the full measure of who we are. Again, your reasoning skills are simply astonishing.

    It’s all unimportant though, my friend. Odin will still accept you. It’s simple–just stop worshiping false deities and come to Him.

  880. #886 Watchman
    April 30, 2009

    Does this triple identify assist you at all?

    Yes, it assists me in identifying you as a duplicitous liar, whose sole purpose here is to spread a little venom in a pointless attempt to somehow even the score. Have fun with that.

    Sock-puppetry and Morphing can get you banned here, by the way.

    You still haven’t addressed any of my points, or attempted to justify your amusingly unmindful misuse of “erstwhile”.

    However, I must agree that Gruesome Janine could be the title of a memorably bad movie. I also like it as a band name. It could also be the common name of a medieval instrument of torture, but you’d probably know more about those things than I would, Tomás.

  881. #887 Watchman
    April 30, 2009

    You take yourselves way too seriously. Lighten up. What an uptight bunch of folks, no laughter just darkness, come on people, wake up and smell the roses once in awhile.

    Life is not all about seriousness all the time.

    LOL! Wow.

    *facepalm*

    How could I have missed all the lighthearted humor in all your previous comments?

    I am deeply, deeply sorry.

  882. #888 Ron Nobles
    April 30, 2009

    Apology accepted, Watchman!

  883. #889 Watchman
    May 18, 2009

    Ron’s sarcasm detection gear seems to have malfunctioned.

  884. #890 hery
    January 25, 2010

    This would be great, and would seperate you from pretty much every fucking godbot who has ever come in here and blithered

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.