A Near Perfect Reply To Creationists

“We are stardust, we are golden. We are billion year old carbon…” – Joni Mitchell

Sitting here in bed with the empty canvas of a blank Word document in front of me, I struggle today to bring you some original thoughts. Why? Well, yesterday my good doctor removed a one-inch section of my sural nerve in a procedure they call a biopsy. The pain wasn’t so bad yesterday, but today it has decided to expose itself and I find it difficult to concentrate on much. So, what I have decided to do is bring you someone else’s words. I’ve had these words sitting on my hard drive for a while now. They were brilliantly written by a Reddit contributor who goes by the moniker of Schmeelkster, and I want to make sure that he gets due credit for it.

It is a fantastic piece of work and if you ever run across the need to answer a creationist argument about there being no meaning to life without god, this has my vote for one of the best replies you can give. So, without further ado, I present to you…

A Way Of Looking At The Universe…

You are a tiny speck of insignificant biological material in an immense universe that probably defies your brain’s ability of understanding. Yet you are remarkable, in innumerable ways. Every second of every day you are a walking ecosystem of life, housing trillions of microbes that continuously interact with you to keep both you and them alive. Your body is constantly building and rebuilding itself, encoding information on simple strains of molecules at the speed of jet engines, in each and every nucleus-possessing cell in your body. You are a walking, talking, living, breathing orchestra of life, a beautiful display of the potential inherent in our particular universe.

You are the remarkable product of an unbroken, let me say that again, UNBROKEN line of descendants stretching all the way back to the very first interactions of seemingly pointless inanimate molecules. You share a common ancestry with every living thing ever, including the estimated 106 billion humans who have ever lived. You are tied to the trees and the birds and the small phytoplankton that gently ride the crests and dips of the oceans of this world. You are part of the vibrant tapestry of what we refer to as life, a piece of art that stretches back billions upon billions of years. Everything this universe has thrown at you and your ancestors has been roundly defeated – from harsh radiation, to extraterrestrial objects, to volcanic eruptions and more. You are a symbol of utter perseverance, of the sheer will to continue onwards. You are a cry in the dark, the voice of one who will not be quiet.

So now you’ve realized that there is no inherent meaning to existence. So what? This doesn’t mean life has suddenly lost meaning – it means there was no meaning in the first place. So you haven’t actually lost anything. Instead, you have gained a wonderful opportunity. Give existence the meaning it is seeking. MAKE a purpose for yourself. Maybe it should be your kids, or maybe it should be giving from the bounty you have (because let us face reality – if you have an internet connection and personal computer, you are in the top 10%, maybe even the top 1%, of humanity). Maybe you should learn a new skill, explore a new facet of creation that you never realized was open to you.

So why do you teach a toddler how to behave? Because maybe that toddler will be the one to find other life, other existence in our so far lonely universe. Or maybe they will be the father, the mother, the close friend, the lover, the supporter of the one who does. Or maybe they will be the person to speak out at just the right moment, the one to stand up and stand out, who will provide the inspiration, or the moment of connection for the person who does. Or maybe that toddler will be the one to protect the life around us from an otherwise inevitable end, from the sucking void of empty existence that we struggle against every second of our being.

Are you just a breeder? Just biology? What an insult to biology! Just?!? I forgive you, because you know not what you say 😀 You are the product of a few basic particles, a few basic forces, yet you are impossibly complex, impossibly intricate. The sheer unlikeliness of your very existence is staggering, and yet here you are. The title of “breeder” is just a single facet of what you are. You can be a teacher, a leader, a thinker, a cook, a scientist, an artist, a musician, a protector, an enlightener, a champion, a peacemaker, a lover, a friend, a companion, a confidant… the list is a vast as the seemingly infinite complexities of neuron interactions in the collection of molecular structures known as cells in your brain.

And let us not end our poetic license there, for if all that is true, than this is also: There is something after death. The part of you that continues to exist in all life around you will never cease to be, not as long as things from this planet continue to live. You will continue on, interminably, from the beginning of life to its end potentially countless aeons from now, if ever. Maybe through some fluke you will be the Eve for humanity in the future, the one woman every human will trace their ancestry back to. Maybe not. But who can tell what the future holds. Rather than collapse under the imagined weight of nothingness, I posit that you should grasp hold of your life, and take it to heights heretofore unseen.

  120 comments for “A Near Perfect Reply To Creationists

  1. MJtheProphet
    February 23, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    Well. I guess I’ve been outdone. I’ll go upvote this, because it’s awesome.

  2. niftyatheist
    February 23, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    Thank you, Al. This is exactly what I needed to read today.
    Feel better soon.

  3. Yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
    February 23, 2012 at 2:59 pm

    Philosophically speaking, yes that is another way to look at the universe, and im completely fine with that (Im a Christian). I would absolutely agree when you say there theres no purpose (objectively). I would just like to comment on a couple things.

    1st.) “MAKE a purpose for yourself.” If there is no God and meaning or value(except what each individual values), then if my neighbor down the street wanted to rape every child he sees and bomb every hospital he can (killing infants, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sick and elderly), he would not be morally wrong. He is giving meaning to his own existence by ending others. Since there is no God, there is nothing absolutely (objectively) wrong with rape and murder. You (and others) might say hes interfering with others lives and infringing on their rights (right to live and pursue their own meaning)and life, but that is presupposing that its wrong (absolutely) to infringe on others rights and life. If there is no God, there can be no absolute set of moral standards. So, there is no such thing as moral right and wrong (objectively).

    2nd.)You say, “…maybe that toddler will be the one to protect the life around us from an otherwise inevitable end, from the sucking void of empty existence that we struggle against every second of our being.” and “There is something after death. The part of you that continues to exist in all life around you will never cease to be, not as long as things from this planet continue to live. You will continue on, interminably, from the beginning of life to its end potentially countless aeons from now, if ever. Maybe through some fluke you will be the Eve for humanity in the future, the one woman every human will trace their ancestry back to.”

    There is no saving life, there is no continuation of life or potentially saving life, and there is no “otherwise”. Cosmologists and astronomers have already pointed out our demise. In about 5 billion years, the earth will be gone off the face of the universe. How? Well we know the Sun is very slowly expanding and getting brighter right now. The reason for this is that as it is burning hydrogen to helium in the core the amount of hydrogen there gradually decreases. In order to keep the energy generation rate the same, the temperature and density in the core must rise. This has the effect that the energy can flow to the surface a little faster and it puffs up the outer layers (as well slightly brightening the Sun).When the Sun runs out of hydrogen in its core completely (which won’t be for another 5 billion years or so, keep that in mind) nuclear reactions will stop there, but they will continue in a shell around the core. The core will contract (since it is not generating energy) and as it contracts it will heat up. Eventually it will get hot enough to start burning helium into carbon (a different nuclear reaction). While the core is contracting the hydrogen burning around it heats will heat up the outer layers which will expand, and while they do that they will cool. The Sun will then become what is called a Red Giant and its radius will be large enough to envelop the Earth(this means the earth will be enveloped by the sun and be utterly destroyed, not damaged, completely eviscerated) and every planet around us. So, there is no hope and no point in trying to save life or help bring peace to the world (aside from some arbitrary sense that we “should” do something). In the end, there will be nothing and any actions we do are pointless and dont hold meaning or weight.

    You say we shouldnt, “collapse under the imagined weight of nothingness”, but why not, we know in the end theres absolute nothingness, no life, hope, happiness, loyalty, or care.

    I dont think atheism is irrational (i do think its irrational when people attach arbitrary and incompatible beliefs and presuppositions to it), i just want atheists to be humble and admit theres no reason to live (aside from the arbitrary will to give some subjective reason to your existence, which is insignificant compared to the vast cosmos and other possible cosmos that string theory, and the multiverse predict)and that there is no such thing as good/right and bad/wrong (aside from the subjective morality that each person makes for themselves. Even then its not really a morality, but preferences.)

    One quick thing, in my opinion, I dont think you have made a near perfect reply to creationists (i hate that word i prefer to be called Jesus freak haha). When they say theres no meaning, they mean objectively. On a atheistic world view, there cannot be such a thing as objective, its logically incompatible and metaphysically impossible. This article is giving a case for subjective meaning, whatever people make of it, but doestnt make an objective case. Now, If objective morals do not exist, then my argument that my neighbor could be the next Jeffery Dahmer and Timothy Mcviegh and there would be nothing wrong with it, is valid. If objective morals do not exist, theres no absolute right and wrong. Now, If atheism is true, then Nietzsche will be right, we will destroy ourselves, because even he realized that when we “kill” God, in the end it leads to nihilism and utter meaningless destruction. Theres no moral law and reason to do “good” so people will be free to do what they please. If that is the other alternative to creationism, ill just drink my Jesus juice.

    Sorry for my long post, just had to throw my two cents.

    Blessings and take care.

    • Scott G
      February 23, 2012 at 6:42 pm

      One thing god believers never do is answer how they came to the conclusion the god hypothesis is the correct explanation.

      1.Do you remember how you came to the conclusion
      that a magical god speaking the universe into existence was the most plausible explanation out of the infinite possible explanations?

      2.What criteria did you use to discern that?

      3. What other possible explanations did you explore, investigate and negate before determining that a magical god was the most reasonable answer?

      4. What did you weigh the god explanation against and how did you compare the possibilities to arrive at a magical god?

      Answer those for us clearly and concisely please.

      • Yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
        February 23, 2012 at 9:11 pm

        Scott G, Hello!

        1.) Actually yes. i became a Christian back in 11th Grade and i have never regreted it. But before that i was a ardent Laveyan Satanist/atheist. I didnt have much belief that such a being existed, especially a Christian one. Around 10th grade i remember asking questions, like how the universe came into being, are there foundations for reality, and such trying to find the best and most reasonable answer to these questions. One day i was in class and a friend was reading the Bible and i asked him for a copy, because i was interested din why people read it and when i started to read it i thought it was a book full of lies and ignorance but the more i read the more it seemed to answer the questions we all ask. I ultimately decided to accept it because it makes the most sense and is the most rational and provides us the frame work to do things such a science. It provides us a a way to look at the world and fits to what we view in the world. Examples would be,

        Genesis Chapter 1, verse 1. It says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,”

        This seems to say there was a beginning to the universe, something which religious people have said since the beginning, and that seems to match up with our current cosmological understanding f the universe. The Big bang model shows us the moment of singularity in which everything that exists and existed came into being, a beginning. Not only that, the fine tuning of the physical constants seem to be so perfect (if even altered by a hares breath, or 10 x 10 to the 600 trillionth, that life and matter would have collapsed). It would fit with the Abrahamic view that God has created and designed the universe to allow the propagation of life.

        Another one would be that cosmologists and astronomers have discovered that the earth will be destroyed in about 5 billion years, consumed in fire by the expanding sun. That also seems to coincide with what Christians have said, specifically in 2 Peter 3:10 when apostle peter says, “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.” The earth will be consumed by fire, the bible said this centuries before science said it and well guess what? lo and behold, the bible was right.

        So one method/criteria would be 1.) to see if the system that seeks to explain the world actually makes sense (is not irrational) and coincides with what science says (how it describes the world.) An example that uses the first criteria would be hinduism.

        Hinduism proclaims that everything we observe is just Maya(illusion) and that we are all just

        • John Morales
          February 24, 2012 at 5:58 am

          I would absolutely agree when you say there theres no purpose (objectively).

          Obviously, you are claiming that whatever this thing you refer to as ‘God’ does, it has no objective purpose any more than this ‘God’-thing itself does.

          (Well done!)

          • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
            February 24, 2012 at 8:00 am

            Hello, John Morales. I apologize if i wasnt making myself entirely clear. When i started my first post, i said that i agree thats a completely valid outlook (his atheistic worldview) on life and added comments to it, like my comment on objective meaning. In the context of what i was saying, the is no objective purpose on that worldview, there never can be one, but on a worldview that recognizes God, there can be objective purpose and meaning.

          • John Morales
            February 24, 2012 at 8:16 am

            I quoted your very words, and they were perfectly clear.

            (So much for your earlier claim to absolute agreement, now that you’ve emended your claim to include a conditional. 😉 )

      • Yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
        February 23, 2012 at 9:53 pm

        Scott G, Hello!

        1.) Actually yes. i became a Christian back in 11th Grade and i have never regreted it. But before that i was a ardent Laveyan Satanist/atheist. I didnt have much belief that such a being existed, especially a Christian one. Around 10th grade i remember asking questions, like how the universe came into being, are there foundations for reality, and such trying to find the best and most reasonable answer to these questions. One day i was in class and a friend was reading the Bible and i asked him for a copy, because i was interested din why people read it and when i started to read it i thought it was a book full of lies and ignorance but the more i read the more it seemed to answer the questions we all ask. I ultimately decided to accept it because it makes the most sense and is the most rational and provides us the frame work to do things such a science. It provides us a a way to look at the world and fits to what we view in the world. Examples would be,

        Genesis Chapter 1, verse 1. It says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,”

        This seems to say there was a beginning to the universe, something which religious people have said since the beginning, and that seems to match up with our current cosmological understanding f the universe. The Big bang model shows us the moment of singularity in which everything that exists and existed came into being, a beginning. Not only that, the fine tuning of the physical constants seem to be so perfect (if even altered by a hares breath, or 10 x 10 to the 600 trillionth, that life and matter would have collapsed). It would fit with the Abrahamic view that God has created and designed the universe to allow the propagation of life.

        Another one would be that cosmologists and astronomers have discovered that the earth will be destroyed in about 5 billion years, consumed in fire by the expanding sun. That also seems to coincide with what Christians have said, specifically in 2 Peter 3:10 when apostle peter says, “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.” The earth will be consumed by fire, the bible said this centuries before science said it and well guess what? lo and behold, the bible was right.

        So one method/criteria would be 1.) to see if the system that seeks to explain the world actually makes sense (is not irrational) and coincides with what science says (how it describes the world.) An example that uses the first criteria would be hinduism.

        Hinduism proclaims that everything we observe is just Maya(illusion) and that we are all just part of the one (Brahman), metaphysical view that says me and a chair are the same. Not only does this invalidate human experience , but human reason.

        An example that uses the second criteria, would be this.

        Early Native American views said that the earth was held on the back of a turtle. Now that we can go in space, we know there is no turtle holding the earth, but gravity.

        2.) To answer your third question. I compared them to atheism, norse mythology, greek mythology, native american views, hinduism, early roman religions (mithra and such). And none of them provide an adequate account of the things we know and none of them describe reality cogently.

        3.)You said, “the most plausible explanation out of the infinite possible explanations?” I dont know every possibility and i dont think anyone in existence knows every possibility. So its impossible to ask me that. I can just answer with all the views we have and the Christian (but ill extend to any of the Abrahamic religions) is/are the most rational and philosophically defensible positions.

        Let me ask you some questions now,

        1.) Do you remember how you came to the conclusion that no God existed, and that the universe came into being by itself without any causal conditions (keep in mind that time and causality came into being at the big bang)?

        2.) If there is no God or any higher power that created the world, how did the universe come into being by itself? Without (i say without because if i said before i would be presupposing time) the universe there is no time and causality. Without the universe, there is nothing(material), no quantum particles or fluctuations or laws of any kind. If i can quote Aristotle, “nothing is what rocks think of.” And seeing as nothing holds no potentiality, nothing could have created anything. Non-existence does no produce existence. Now, I ask this because if you are an atheist you MUST be logically committed to a universe that created itself. So to repeat, how did the universe come into being by itself?

        Answer those for for me clearly and concisely please. Please no insults or red herrings (i say this because you keep saying “magical god” and its been my experience that only those who say that like to insult and not argue rationally.) If there is any illogical statement i made please address my point, i always welcome critiques. Thank you.

        Hoeby,

        You said, “If “God” is the only thing stopping you from raping and killing then all Christians are deeply scary morally devoid individuals.”

        1.)God is not the only thing stopping me from raping and killing.

        2.) “Deeply scary morally devoid” what do you mean? Im going to take it your an atheist. In an atheist worldview, everyone is morally devoid (objectively). I say morally devoid because on atheism there cannot be absolute morals, so you must stick to relative (what people make for themselves) morals, but any systematic moral system must be rational and must solve several issues, most famous is the the is-ought problem and it must overcome Moore’s Naturalistic fallacy. So seeing as no relative moral system satisfies these issues, morals on atheism are illogical and dont make rational sense. So there is no morals. So atheists really dont have morals. So should i be scared of atheists?

        • John Morales
          February 24, 2012 at 6:00 am

          i became a Christian back in 11th Grade and i have never regreted it.

          Bah.

          I became an atheist (note the lack of capitalisation) well before that, and I have never regreted it, either.

          (I trump you!)

    • Hoeby
      February 23, 2012 at 6:52 pm

      If “God” is the only thing stopping you from raping and killing then all Christians are deeply scary morally devoid individuals.

      • Aliasalpha
        February 23, 2012 at 8:13 pm

        And when you consider that almost every single one I’ve encountered over the years uses this ‘god stops me raping’ argument when going on about morality, your blanket suggestion is increasingly valid (gthat or its the same group of people under different usernames)

        • Hoeby
          February 23, 2012 at 9:18 pm

          Well we know a great deal of Christians are lovely people with a deep moral core. If they knew this idiot was speaking on their behalf they would be mortified. They key thing is across the board, is that if every bit of knowledge was wiped clean across the world from the last 5000 years all things in science would gradually reappear but we would never hear from this Jesus dude or his dad again!

          • Yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
            February 23, 2012 at 10:02 pm

            “…this idiot.” Thats not very nice and no conducive to rational thought.

            Also i think you might have read my arguments wrong. Im not saying we need God to be moral, im saying we need God to know whats moral. I think we would all agree that someone who feeds the poor is doing a good thing/right thing. But on atheism, how you know its good? because it helps others? because its nice? Because it brings happiness? None of those provide an adequate rational basis for why feeding the poor is intrinsically good/right. Not only that, even if you solved the epistemological problem, you need to solve the ontological problem of, how do you ground those morals?

            “…that if every bit of knowledge was wiped clean across the world from the last 5000 years all things in science would gradually reappear but we would never hear from this Jesus dude or his dad again!” If all knowledge was wiped clean, then people wouldn’t even know the word science.

          • February 23, 2012 at 10:56 pm

            “Jesus Freak” says …

            “Im not saying we need God to be moral, im saying we need God to know whats moral.”

            Actually, we don’t. Strong scientific evidence is emerging that what we call morality has a firm basis in the biological (and grants the “moral” person an evolutionary advantage). Think about it, if you want to call yourself a freethinker: Virtually anything we agree upon regarding morality involves the peaceful cooperation of members in a society. We are moral creatures because that’s the way we take advantage of our aggregation into societies. A human society that becomes predominantly “immoral” – take whatever you want, whenever you want it – will not last long. A lot of biblical “morality” is about worshipping a deity and only occasionally touches upon the truly functional aspects of morality. Looking to a skydaddy for morality means you have to accept what the clergy dishes out to in the way of an interpretation – or, of course, you can cherry-pick the bible (which condones misogyny, genocide, slavery, etc.) on your own …

          • John Morales
            February 24, 2012 at 6:04 am

            “…this idiot.” Thats not very nice and no conducive to rational thought.

            It’s a referent.

            (It’s plenty obvious to whom it refers, no?)

            O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
            To see oursels as ithers see us!

            (Robert Burns)

    • michaelwg
      February 23, 2012 at 10:01 pm

      Assuming your god exists:
      Jeffery Dahmer did his thing despite God.
      The laws of the land dealing with whackos are man’s laws, not Gods. I cannot recall the last time a judge put someone away for breaking (enter commandment # here)
      So, God, and feel free to open any history book (or bible) on this count, does not deter people from immoral behavior.
      It is much more common for people to invoke “God’s will” to conduct immoral behavior, than when, like me, someone doesn’t feel they have an omnipotent being on their side. I do not slaughter 70+ people in Norway to “Preserve European Christendom” I do not join the prieshood, and rape children and say “This is what God’s love feels like”
      Do Atheists commit crimes? Absolutely. But it is much more rare for them to claim that Atheism guided them to do it; or subjective morality made them do it.
      Immoral behavior comes down to Nature & Nurture, and God is a part of nurture that gives people a pass for bigotry. (Again, I direct you not only to History, but to current events as well)
      Your idea that everything would be chaos and nihilism without god is, though eloquently (and lengthily) stated, simply untrue.

      • Hoeby
        February 23, 2012 at 10:24 pm

        @Yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak. The word science isn’t what’s important you complete and utter moron. The practice of discovery and thoroughly testing theories pre-dates the word. Sigh. Everyone is he really this stupid? It is clear someone will write many more fairy tales but they won’t be about Jesus or your God. The rules of the universe that we know today through what we call science would return. So please stfu until you can form a decent argument.

        • Hoeby
          February 23, 2012 at 10:44 pm

          Oh and how do I know what is good? You know what there are no absolutes. This is why rules written down by anyone thousands of years ago are stupid. The cultural environment changes as does what is acceptable within that culture. Personally I have learnt through the years what works in my own environment. The needs and desires of the many must be taken into account when deciding what is moral. Whether you like it or not this has changed drastically over the years and also is different culture to culture. Yes some things have remained the same, murder still bad, stealing still bad and so on. But Christianity doesn’t prepare us for the nuances of life in modern society. Basically we all have a duty to get to know our environment and do our best to do the right thing to maintain it. When we write down hard and fast rules and expect them to be stuck to for millennia we stop evolving as a race. The rules Christianity laid down were maybe practical back then but they aren’t now. If you ask where the drive to be good comes from? Well I believe that evolved from the instinct to care for the young and the family group a grew over many thousands of years to encompass the village. Look at examples from the wild all around us and you will see evidence of that same drive there.

        • Yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
          February 23, 2012 at 11:43 pm

          Hoeby, thank you for responding! While i dont appreciate your mean words, ill make due and try to respond.

          “The practice of discovery and thoroughly testing theories pre-dates the word.” That presupposes they have knowledge on how to analyze and test things, which presupposes knowledge and you said you want knowledge to be wiped so only science is left (because somehow itll reappear).

          “You know what there are no absolutes.” Is that statement absolute? If not then it is wrong. Its a self contradictory statement, its self-defeating.

          “The cultural environment changes as does what is acceptable within that culture.” So if we were living in Nazi Germany, killing millions of Jews would be right?

          “The needs and desires of the many must be taken into account when deciding what is moral.” Why? You just said there no absolutes, but you are making a moral statement that presupposes absolute values.

          The rest of (if not the whole) your argument says basically that as society changes morals change, so murder is wrong today but if we changed and murder became morally good, then it would be morally good.

          Chuck Doswell,

          “Actually, we don’t. Strong scientific evidence is emerging that what we call morality has a firm basis in the biological (and grants the “moral” person an evolutionary advantage). ” So just because it grants an advantage, suddenly it makes morals absolute. Also if morals were just instilled in us, it was only to make sure humanity prospered, not because it cares about human suffering or about values. Natural selection does not care about anything, except making sure species keep going, thats it. Also, even if they have been instilled in us, that does not make them absolute. Also, since the morals evolution has instilled are not absolute we could imagine a logically possible world in which they could have been different.

          “Virtually anything we agree upon regarding morality involves the peaceful cooperation of members in a society. We are moral creatures because that’s the way we take advantage of our aggregation into societies. A human society that becomes predominantly “immoral” – take whatever you want, whenever you want it – will not last long.” Well i agree, but hers were we differ. Just because they are advantageous that does not mean they are absolute or objective. Also, if what your saying is true, then morals are nothing more than an adaption to survival. So when we hear about the man who molested several children and then killed them, we could not say he is morally wrong. We could just say, “well thats not the socially advantageous thing to do” or “thats not socially conducive.”

          “A lot of biblical “morality” is about worshipping a deity and only occasionally touches upon the truly functional aspects of morality.” You are obviously dont know much about Abrahamic theology and morality, specifically christian theology and morality. The purpose is not solely to worship God, but to love our neighbors and spread peace and salvation to the world. In fact, Jesus spoke like 50 times more about helping the poor and going to different communities and looking after the needy and sick than worshiping God. He even emphasized that if you truly love God youll spread his love and help the world.

          “Looking to a skydaddy for morality means you have to accept what the clergy dishes out to in the way of an interpretation – or, of course, you can cherry-pick the bible (which condones misogyny, genocide, slavery, etc.) on your own …” Skydaddy? That makes no sense since God is a transcendent being. The Bible does not condone misogyny, genocide or slavery. The bible nowhere near proclaims hated for women, in fact it speaks highly of women! In the psalms, David speaks about the virtue of women who are humble, loving and caring. When it mentions women badly is when it speaks about women who are morally devoid, who are loose and have no respect for themselves., but not just them, it also speaks of men equally are bad. There is no preference for either, both are created in God’s image and are equally valuable. Genocide? Im supposing you mean the Canaanite “genocide”? Well your wrong, God commanded not to kill but to drive them out of the land. Any one who was killed was soldiers or people who wanted to fight. Also Canaanite people were wicked people who God gave many chances to turn to him, but they rejected him. Also slavery? One thing you need to realize is that the old testament was written about 5-8 thousand years ago. Slavery in our mind is a horrible thing( indeed it is) but thats because our conception of it is derived from what Europeans did to African (taking them AGAINST THEIR WILL). Back in Old testament times, when someone was a slave it was not something forced but something willingly done. Far from condoning it, it forbids it! In the Deuteronomic Code, forbids taking slaves against their will! Bro, learn your Bible.

          • Hoeby
            February 23, 2012 at 11:48 pm

            Already said murder and others remain unchanged. Learn to read and comprehend or don’t bother replying. Sigh.

          • Hoeby
            February 24, 2012 at 12:03 am

            Also well done for being the one to maintain the rule of someone always resorting to mentioning Nazis in these things. Bravo numbnut. You as an individual decide what’s right so yeah a good portion of the population are psychopaths, go figure. Did that make everyone in Nazi Germany morally wrong or perhaps under the regime of another “rule maker”. I won’t reply to you any longer because after that Nazi nonsense I have decided you aren’t worth my time and energy.

          • February 25, 2012 at 2:19 pm

            Your denials of what is in the bible make it abundantly evident that you simply don’t know what’s actually in there. You’re cherry-picking the feel-good parts and ignoring the contradictory content. If it makes you feel good, that’s cool, but it’s simply a sign that you have an intense confirmation bias: you accept only what confirms your beliefs.

            It’s impossible to have a logic conversation with someone who exhibits such strong confirmation bias, so discussing this topic with you is comparable to conversing with the exhaust vent of an air conditioner – an unending stream of hot air. Count me out of further discourse.

        • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
          February 24, 2012 at 12:29 am

          Hoeby, Thanks for replying.

          “Also well done for being the one to maintain the rule of someone always resorting to mentioning Nazis in these things. Bravo numbnut.” You’re welcome.

          “You as an individual decide what’s right so yeah a good portion of the population are psychopaths, go figure.” You say that but previously you said, “The needs and desires of the many must be taken into account when deciding what is moral.” If you the individual decides whats right why take into account other people seeing as a good portion are psychopaths? and if you “must” take into account the needs and desires of the many, im going to bet a good bit of those “many” are psychopaths, as you said, then you must satisfy the psychopaths urges whatever they be. So lets say there is a psychopath that lies to kill, are you going to decide that killing people is okay, only if their a psychopath?

          “Did that make everyone in Nazi Germany morally wrong or perhaps under the regime of another “rule maker”.”

          To answer the first part, yes, because if the culture decides whats acceptable as you said, then killing jews was pretty acceptable (at least in the beginning and middle) and so they are liable and equally guilty as Hitler. The second part doesnt even make sense.

          “I won’t reply to you any longer because after that Nazi nonsense I have decided you aren’t worth my time and energy.” Im sorry you feel that way. Well thanks for talking dude or dudette. I appreciate you responding, God bless.

      • Yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
        February 23, 2012 at 10:58 pm

        michaelwg, hello and thank you for your critique!

        1.) Of course Jeffery Dahmer committed crimes. God never said people would not do bad things, if they knew him or of his existence. God promises! that people will do evil. The only way God could make people not do evil is if he overrode their free will.

        2.) “The laws of the land dealing with whackos are man’s laws, not Gods.” Back in 1660’s when the first colonies were first forming, the only colony that thrived was the Massachusetts bay colony, the most religious colony founded by puritans. Chesapeake and middle colonies were failing and were horrid. The Massachusetts bay colony was so prosperous people from all over the world and colonies came to it. Its fame was know throughout England and Europe. This was a colony EXTREMELY religious, and founded all their laws on God’s laws. Now the colony was so prosperous that it became the model for many cities choose to reform to and strive to be. Side note: Many of the religious colonies served to bring about the greatest universities, like Harvard and Princeton.

        What im trying to get across is that America thrived by following God’s laws. Even the founding fathers, while not Christian, were deists and believed that the laws and rights they set forth reflected God.

        3.) “I cannot recall the last time a judge put someone away for breaking (enter commandment # here)” Commandment number 6, Thou shalt not kill and last time i checked about 15% of our prison population are in there for murder.

        4.) “So, God, and feel free to open any history book (or bible) on this count, does not deter people from immoral behavior.” I never claimed so and never did he. I been arguing for the ontological and epistemological problems with relative morality and the grounding of Christian morals. Nothing i said, even comes close to claiming that or hinting that.

        5.) “It is much more common for people to invoke “God’s will” to conduct immoral behavior, than when, like me, someone doesn’t feel they have an omnipotent being on their side. I do not slaughter 70+ people in Norway to “Preserve European Christendom” I do not join the prieshood, and rape children and say “This is what God’s love feels like”” I totally agree some people in history and now use God for such horrendous things, but that says nothing about God and his law.

        6.) “Do Atheists commit crimes? Absolutely. But it is much more rare for them to claim that Atheism guided them to do it; or subjective morality made them do it.” Im sorry, but that is wrong. All the great tyrants of the 20th century. Kim Il Sung’s Korea, Vietnam under “Uncle Ho” and Cuba under Castro, Ethiopia under Mengistu, Angola under Neto, and Afghanistan under Najibullah, Soviet Russia under Jospeh Stalin, China under Mao Zedong. All atheists who belief in atheism and their atheism was the center piece for everything they did! All their actions came from that belief. Their cruelty amounted in over 100 million deaths. FAR more than any of the holy wars or inquisitions.

        7.) “Your idea that everything would be chaos and nihilism without god is, though eloquently (and lengthily) stated, simply untrue.” Not wrong, just not entirely true yet. Neitzsche spoke of this, having in mind that if humanity accepts atheism, it leads to utter destruction. I also say not entirely true, because its not entirely true just yet. An example of the prevalence of the destruction, just look at this generation! The majority of this generation is morally devoid. There doesnt go a day when i dont hear about some kid at my school or former school who is in prison or died or is in rehab or worse. Why? Because they decided to turn away from God’s laws and follow their own ways, which lead to their destruction. I remember there was this very popular kid at my high school and he was a good kid, but he started to hang out with unsavory characters, two years later i find out he ran away from home with some friends to escape getting arrested (he had warrants for drug dealing), he got drunk and high and went to beach and drowned. It was very sad, i hope he is Christs care now, but this is an example of whats happening in this generation. People who turn away from the good and just think they can go their own way and it leads to true happiness and salvation/liberation. Even atheists i know say what i say (that this generation is morally devoid on a road to destruction).

        Now, I truly hope it Nietzsche is wrong. I want to be wrong because I love everyone and even though they do wrong, i hope God saves them. I hope it doesnt reach to the level Nietzsche speaks of, but all evidence is pointing to it.

        • John Morales
          February 24, 2012 at 6:23 am

          People who turn away from the good and just think they can go their own way and it leads to true happiness and salvation/liberation.

          <snicker>

          Only a Christian would employ such double-think to salve their ego, so as to avoid the cognitive dissonance implicit in the very concepts of “salvation/liberation”.

          (To be saved or liberated from the wrath of their putative deity, this is their supposed reward)

          • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
            February 24, 2012 at 8:07 am

            John Morales,

            “Only a Christian would employ such double-think to salve their ego, so as to avoid the cognitive dissonance implicit in the very concepts of “salvation/liberation”.”

            What cognitive dissonance is implicit in the very concepts of salvation/liberation?

            “(To be saved or liberated from the wrath of their putative deity, this is their supposed reward)” That is the not the only concept or meaning of salvation, it would could refer to he bonds of life or the tedious things that hold doing what we really want or people (like addicts) who are stuck in a problem and want that feeling of liberation. Also, i for one dont believe in God and pray and follow him solely to get into heaven and escape his cosmic spanking. I do it out of love for the God, that created me and saved me.

          • John Morales
            February 24, 2012 at 8:24 am

            What cognitive dissonance is implicit in the very concepts of salvation/liberation?

            I’ve already adumbrated that, and I know you’ve got it, since you allude to it in the subsequent portion of your reply.

            That is the not the only concept or meaning of salvation [from your putative deity’s wrath], it would could refer to he bonds of life or the tedious things that hold doing what we really want or people (like addicts) who are stuck in a problem and want that feeling of liberation.

            Well, it could, O disingenuous one, but does it?

            (Straightforward honesty is not something your religion encourages, is it?)

            Also, i for one dont believe in God and pray and follow him solely to get into heaven and escape his cosmic spanking.

            But I didn’t make that was your specific basis for that belief; I claimed that is the reward you seek.

            (Do you not?)

            I do it out of love for the God, that created me and saved me.

            So, you claim to believe in this deity-construct because you love this deity-construct?

            (Your circular reasoning is somewhat amusing, but not as much as your obliviousness to it)

    • mikelaing
      February 25, 2012 at 12:45 am

      yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak says:
      “1st.) “MAKE a purpose for yourself.” If there is no God and meaning or value(except what each individual values), then if my neighbor down the street wanted to rape every child he sees and bomb every hospital he can (killing infants, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sick and elderly), he would not be morally wrong. He is giving meaning to his own existence by ending others. Since there is no God, there is nothing absolutely (objectively) wrong with rape and murder. You (and others) might say hes interfering with others lives and infringing on their rights (right to live and pursue their own meaning)and life, but that is presupposing that its wrong (absolutely) to infringe on others rights and life. If there is no God, there can be no absolute set of moral standards. So, there is no such thing as moral right and wrong (objectively).”

      Sorry, I beg to differ. There is so an objective morality. Killing and bombing and senseless destruction is a violation of two fundamental principles behind survival of the individual: 1. By being part of human society, I necessarily have to contribute to the well being of that society, for I depend upon that society for my own security and prosperity as an organism that seeks to preserve and multiply it’s propagation of DNA. Any threat to that society is necessarily removed to conserve the integrity of its function, and by becoming a threat to others security and agreed upon right to participate in that society and therefore reap the rewards of increased safety and prosperity, I become a threat to my own short term and long term survivability.
      The fundamental value, or morality, is that your own existence is valuable, and this is the one overriding principle behind evolution. It is innate.
      That is quite enough in itself, but there is more: 2. The fundamental requirement for survival is a non-destructive relationship to the overall ecological environment in order to preserve viability of that environment, and any imbalance in the homeostasis of both the organism and of the ecological system is self correcting by design(innate function), thus a fundamental function and positive value for survivability on two levels of magnitude.
      I give you 2 of many definitions for homeostasis that state;

      a)
      Homeostasis
      | Define Homeostasis at Dictionary.com
      noun . 1. the tendency of a system, especially the physiological system of higher animals, to maintain internal stability, owing to the coordinated response of its parts to any situation or stimulus that would tend to disturb its normal condition or function.

      b).Homeostasis
      Homeostasis: resistance to change … A person threatened by the environment (or informed of an approaching pleasure or danger) prepares for action.

      This extraordinary property of the body has intrigued many physiologists. In 1865 Claude Bernard noticed, in his Introduction to Experimental Medicine. that the “constancy of the internal milieu was the essential condition to a free life.”

      Actually, I am starting to discover that it is quite easy to posit fundamental and scientific reasons behind morality and development of ethics.

      Keep in mind that the above is but a simplified application of fundamental ethics, for I haven’t even touched upon such things as empathy and evolutionary pressure to select for properties of co-operation that enable and facilitate the establishment of complex societies and co-operation between societies(eg tribes) which has become the most relevant selective pressure for survival, and propagation, of life and individual DNA.

      Your thoughts, Dan? (LMAO Assuming my comment is deserving of any) ;]

      • mikelaing
        February 25, 2012 at 1:04 am

        Dammit, I meant Al, not Dan. I see my attempt to explain my error(one of a proliferation of many, I assure you ;] ) shows up later. Ooops!!

      • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
        February 26, 2012 at 5:53 pm

        “There is so an objective morality.”

        If there is none, you cannot absolutely judge Hitler. You could say he isnt doing something that results in the continuation of the human race, but thats presupposing its good to contribute to the continuation of the human race. If there is no objective morality, Hitler was not wrong, regardless if there principles/laws/rules, because again thats presupposing violating principles/laws/rules is wrong.

        “Killing and bombing and senseless destruction is a violation of two fundamental principles behind survival of the individual:”

        If, as you said, “There is so an objective morality.”
        Then theres nothing wrong with me violating the two principles.
        Your assuming we should follow those two principles, which is assuming an absolute morality.

        “1. By being part of human society, I necessarily have to contribute to the well being of that society, for I depend upon that society for my own security and prosperity as an organism that seeks to preserve and multiply it’s propagation of DNA.”

        1.) No one has to necessarily do anything in the absence of objective morals.

        2.) Security? You obviously live in the city, because here in Georgia, people live miles away from civilization with nothing but a Ruger Assault rifle for their protection. Security isnt a good reason why i have to necessarily do anything.

        3.) Prosperity? Just because you seek to preserve does not mean we all have to “necessarily contribute”.What about a women who cant reproduce or a couple that doesnt want to reproduce?

        I understand you feel like you have to contribute, but suppose i dont feel like that? I wouldnt be morally (objectively) wrong.

        “Any threat to that society is necessarily removed to conserve the integrity of its function,”

        Then we should kill murderers and thieves.

        “The fundamental value, or morality, is that your own existence is valuable,”

        But on atheism there can be no intrinsic value. Can you scientifically verify that everyone’s existence is valuable?

        In an atheistic worldview, value doesnt even make sense because you deny God and anything like him (immaterial). What is value nothing more than an immaterial concept? Since there can be no immaterial, basic concepts, terms, and laws dont even make sense in the atheistic worldview because they dont exist in the atheistic worldview!

        “That is quite enough in itself, but there is more: 2. The fundamental requirement for survival is a non-destructive relationship to the overall ecological environment in order to preserve viability of that environment, and any imbalance in the homeostasis of both the organism and of the ecological system is self correcting by design(innate function), thus a fundamental function and positive value for survivability on two levels of magnitude.”

        Just because ending life is counter-evolutionary and to survival, does not make it wrong or absolute. Meaning i should not care about life or its survival. You said that you shown the positive value, but as i said earlier the term/concept “value” (in the sense of intrinsic) is indefinable, because it names a simple, non-natural property/concept. There is no such property or material thing as value in the universe. Im not asking for what people value or a logical reasoning behind it, im asking in your atheistic worldview to show me value, the actual thing. When i ask for a cherry, you bring me a cherry. So similarly you must show me value materially, but thats impossible because value is a concept, but concepts cant even be allowed in a materialistic universe because its not a material.

        “Actually, I am starting to discover that it is quite easy to posit fundamental and scientific reasons behind morality and development of ethics.”

        Its impossible, because you have to solve the problems that scientific moral systems face.

        1.) You cannot describe whats good or valuable simply by whats natural. (Moore’s naturalistic fallacy.)

        2.) You have to show why we should follow such a system.

        3.) You have to show why something actions or things are absolutely bad or good. (Note: Saying something is wrong or bad because its counter-survival or counter-society or counter-evolutionary is presupposing those are in themselves good! and that we should follow them!)

        “Keep in mind that the above is but a simplified application of fundamental ethics, for I haven’t even touched upon such things as empathy and evolutionary pressure to select for properties of co-operation that enable and facilitate the establishment of complex societies and co-operation between societies(eg tribes) which has become the most relevant selective pressure for survival, and propagation, of life and individual DNA. ”

        Empathy is nothing more than an emotion and emotions range from person to person. So you might feel empathy for a dying cancer patient, i might not. That doesnt make me wrong and it doesnt make you right. Emotions cannot provide an adequte foundation for morality. Also if evolution did instill them in us that does not make them objective (thats what you want).

        For example, Evolutionary theory tells us only that altruism is good for the survival of our species, not that the survival of the human species is good. A categorical justification would justify people’s actions regardless of what their goals are.

        As Micheal Ruse put it, “Ethics is illusory…Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” You cannot deduce that because Evolution has programmed it inside us, it must good and we must act out in Evolutions will.

        Now before im done, i just want you to entertain these three quotes i have.

        Micheal Ruse, Philosopher of science.

        “God is dead, so why should I be good? The answer is that there are no grounds whatsoever for being good. There is no celestial headmaster who is going to give you six (or six billion, billion, billion) of the best if you are bad. Morality is flimflam.

        Morality is just a matter of emotions, like liking ice cream and sex and hating toothache and marking student papers. But it is, and has to be, a funny kind of emotion. It has to pretend that it is not that at all! If we thought that morality was no more than liking or not liking spinach, then pretty quickly it would break down.

        So morality has to come across as something that is more than emotion. It has to appear to be objective, even though really it is subjective.

        Now you know that morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator, what’s to stop you behaving like an ancient Roman? Well, nothing in an objective sense.”

        Richard Dawkins. (I dont even have to say anything about him, atheists know him like Christians know Jesus.)

        “The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

        Jeffery Dahmer, (You’re probably thinking im mad for even bringing him up, but just entertain me and read)

        “Then I learned that all moral judgments are “value judgments,” that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either “right” or “wrong”….I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable “value judgment” that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these “others”? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as “moral” or “good” and others as “immoral” or “bad”? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me—after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.”

    • kosk11348
      February 29, 2012 at 4:05 am

      1) There is no such thing as objective morality, whether god exists or not. All morals are subjective. If you are a Christian, you are merely substituting your personal capacity to make subjective moral judgements with God’s subjective judgments.

      2) Honestly, this video should explain why atheism does not lead to nihilism better than I could. I know it can be a pain to watch videos, but I feel this one is exceptional. If you really want to understand why atheism doesn’t have to be a bummer, I urge you to watch it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk

  4. February 23, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    Everybody just HELP one-another rather than hurt n’ everything’ll B fine:)(;DON’T SPREAD BULLSHIT U HEAR ABOUT INVISIBLE FAIRIES!!!

    • Yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
      February 23, 2012 at 3:18 pm

      dr erniepaul izereckt,

      1.)What ontological basis do you have to assert as a absolute moral statement that we should help one another?

      2.) If a fairy is invisible, how do you know its a fairy? Also invisible does not mean immaterial. Being invisible means the pigments on whatever organism do not work and do no reflect light, hence no color, and i would assume would lead to invisibility of some sort because one does not stand out of their environment.

      3.) Invisible fairies would/ and could be scientifically falsifiable. Just because its invisible does not mean its immaterial (no matter or material). As i said, its just not visible. So scientists could use thermal imaging to find invisible fairies because fairies are living beings, they just have magic powers and can fly. If we could not find any, in principal we could falsify them. We couldnt say they absolutely dont exist, but they are very detectable.

      • John Morales
        February 24, 2012 at 6:51 am

        1.)What ontological basis do you have to assert as a absolute moral statement that we should help one another?

        2.) If a fairy is invisible, how do you know its a fairy? Also invisible does not mean immaterial. Being invisible means the pigments on whatever organism do not work and do no reflect light, hence no color, and i would assume would lead to invisibility of some sort because one does not stand out of their environment.

        3.) Invisible fairies would/ and could be scientifically falsifiable. Just because its invisible does not mean its immaterial (no matter or material). As i said, its just not visible. So scientists could use thermal imaging to find invisible fairies because fairies are living beings, they just have magic powers and can fly. If we could not find any, in principal we could falsify them. We couldnt say they absolutely dont exist, but they are very detectable.

        1. It ain’t an ontological issue; any number of ontologies can be created to accomodate such a category.

        It’s an epistemological issue at its most basic, and an ethical one as in that context.

        2. If a deity differs not from ordinary reality, how do you know it’s a deity?

        3. Ever heard of the IPU? 😉

        • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
          February 24, 2012 at 8:23 am

          “1. It ain’t an ontological issue; any number of ontologies can be created to accomodate such a category.” Yes it is, because any morality that seeks to justify itself needs a foundation for its ethics. The grounding (ontological) is a necessary “component” if ones moral system seeks to answer the moral issues that plague relative morality (is-ought problem and Moores Naturalistic fallacy)

          “It’s an epistemological issue at its most basic, and an ethical one as in that context.” Even if you grant the first, no one has given a proper account as to why we should do anything in an atheistic worldview.

          “2. If a deity differs not from ordinary reality, how do you know it’s a deity?” Well we draw logical inferences from the creation of the universe. The creation of the universe was brought about with some causal force. One must think of the singularity because if everything that ever existed (material) and the big bang model requires a creation out of nothing as to make sense of the model, there are only two things i can think of that could exist independently of time and the universe, abstract objects and minds. Now the logical inference is that while i do think its possible that abstract objects can exist, like the number seven, abstract objects have no potentiality to create, but a mind on the other hand would. So when i say God, im thinking of a being that transcends space and time and while i dont know what he looks like (no one claims to or has ever claimed so) I cant use inferences to deduce what the being or if that being exists. Or another way to answer is this, its simply faith which i have no problem with. We all have certain presuppositions that cannot be scientifically or logically verified, but its rational to hold them. Two brief examples would be, 1.) You could not prove that time wasnt created ago only with the appearance of time and that we werent created as well 5 minutes ago with experience implanted in us. 2.) That there are other minds other than your own. (only if you presuppose that minds and brains are one would you deny this and i would be glad to debate substance dualism.)

          “3. Ever heard of the IPU? ;)” Nope.

          • John Morales
            February 24, 2012 at 8:30 am

            1. That’s a non sequitur, but it still acknowledges that you don’t dispute my correction to your categorisation.

            2. Why do you imagine such an account supposedly necessary?*

            3. Did you read the article to which I linked?

            * Your presuppositionalism is showing. 🙂

  5. February 23, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    So why do you teach a toddler how to behave? Because maybe that toddler will be the one to find other life, other existence in our so far lonely universe. Or maybe they will be the father, the mother, the close friend, the lover, the supporter of the one who does. Or maybe they will be the person to speak out at just the right moment, the one to stand up and stand out, who will provide the inspiration, or the moment of connection for the person who does. Or maybe that toddler will be the one to protect the life around us from an otherwise inevitable end, from the sucking void of empty existence that we struggle against every second of our being.

    Or maybe that toddler will be the next Jeffrey Dahmer.

    Don’t have kids because you want to change the universe. Have them because you really want to have them, and kindly keep in mind that there are already seven billion of us here.

    If you want to change the universe, change it yourself.

    • Yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
      February 23, 2012 at 6:43 pm

      ^ What she said.

  6. Norman Lycan
    February 23, 2012 at 10:15 pm

    Wow, I’ve never seen so many wannabe freethinkers trying to wrap themselves around a simple thing called death. Dream whichever reality you wish, but the reaper is coming for YOU, ready or not. Now here’s a dose of reality while you are still alive, if you cant contemplate your inevitable death, you are inelligible to comment on life. NL

    • Hoeby
      February 23, 2012 at 10:27 pm

      Contemplating your death suddenly.

    • Stacy
      February 24, 2012 at 12:28 am

      Try to stay on topic, Norman.

      • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
        February 24, 2012 at 12:32 am

        ^ What Stacy said. Also chill out with the death thing, Poe.

    • An atheist
      February 24, 2012 at 12:42 am

      @yup,that guy they call a jesus freak
      dude. Give up. Your so called “god” is false. show me him. prove him scientifically. You are sadly misguided by idiot theologists and a book that cannot be verified. Scienece has misproven Jesus. DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS.

  7. Stacy
    February 24, 2012 at 12:31 am

    That was lovely. I would add just one thing: No, the universe from which life arose was not conscious. But it is conscious now, in a small way, because here you are. You are part of the universe, and you are conscious.

    For a little while, anyway. Make the most of it.

  8. Stacy
    February 24, 2012 at 12:45 am

    Im not saying we need God to be moral, im saying we need God to know whats moral. I think we would all agree that someone who feeds the poor is doing a good thing/right thing. But on atheism, how you know its good? because it helps others? because its nice? Because it brings happiness? None of those provide an adequate rational basis for why feeding the poor is intrinsically good/right.

    Just because they are advantageous that does not mean they are absolute or objective.

    But so what? “Absolute” and “objective”, as you’re using the terms, mean “beyond the scope of human existence”. I don’t think morals have meaning outside of human existence, and I’m fine with that. What else should matter to us?

    Also, if what your saying is true, then morals are nothing more than an adaption to survival. So when we hear about the man who molested several children and then killed them, we could not say he is morally wrong. We could just say, “well thats not the socially advantageous thing to do” or “thats not socially conducive.

    No. One of the attributes that has evolved in our very social species is empathy (and you can find the roots of empathy in other mammals as well). We can imagine how others feel, and how we would feel in their place. That is the real root of our morality, IMO.

    Between empathy, and realizing how fucked up life would be without it, we have a very good grounding for our morality, one that is both emotional and rational.

    And please bear in mind that the Golden Rule is found in all cultures, including secular ones. It simply isn’t true that you need god-belief to be moral.

  9. An atheist
    February 24, 2012 at 12:45 am

    @yup,that guy they call a jesus freak
    dude. Give up. Your so called “god” is false. show me him. prove him scientifically. You are sadly misguided by idiot theologists and a book that cannot be verified. Scienece has misproven Jesus.

    DISREGARD THAT. I SUCK COCKS.

  10. yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
    February 24, 2012 at 1:23 am

    Hello Stacy! Thanks for your response.

    “But so what? “Absolute” and “objective”, as you’re using the terms, mean “beyond the scope of human existence”.”

    What? Objective and Absolute in the context of Morals means, morals that are binding even if no one believed in them. Its morals that are absolute and unchanging. If murder is absolutely wrong, then it will forever be absolutely wrong.

    “No. One of the attributes that has evolved in our very social species is empathy (and you can find the roots of empathy in other mammals as well). We can imagine how others feel, and how we would feel in their place. That is the real root of our morality, IMO.”

    Well i would agree to an extant that emotions play a part in morality (God loves the world so his morals will reflect that love.), but pure emotion is not the only source for morality. Its not rational, its emotional (which is fine) but you need a rational reason why something is wrong. Empathy cant answer why stealing is wrong. Emotions cant answer those questions.

    Suppose you say that stealing is taking something thats not yours, so itll hurt that person (thats being stolen from). Lets say stealing is wrong because it’ll hurt that person being stolen from so you decide not to steal their baseball cards. But imagine in the future banks own all the money and everyone is dying because they cant afford food or medicine and you can steal it. Of course you can empathize with the poor and sick and you have the opportunity to steal the money and help people. In that instance, you would have a serious problem because your emotions earlier said stealing was wrong but at the moment in light of the suffering they change. Which would be contradictory and would destroy and “objectiveness” it holds. Your morals wouldnt be really morals, they would just be arbitrary whims that are merely contingent states of affairs.

    Plus not everyone feels the same. Hitler felt nothing (except maybe joy) when he sent the jews to the concentration camps, while i do feel its wrong, am i supposed to condemn him for not feeling like me?

    “It simply isn’t true that you need god-belief to be moral.” Okay, so you quote me earlier in your argument when i say “Im not saying we need God to be moral, im saying we need God to know whats moral.” And you just repeated what i said, as if i stated that?I just said that you dont need God to be moral! I said you need God to know what is moral.

    • Dave The Sandman
      February 24, 2012 at 1:51 am

      “Plus not everyone feels the same. Hitler felt nothing (except maybe joy) when he sent the jews to the concentration camps, while i do feel its wrong, am i supposed to condemn him for not feeling like me?”

      First up sparky I suggest you put down the crystal ball used by Keith Ablow and stop trying to get into the feelngs of a genocidal mass murdering tyrant. You obviously have got your 20C history education off the back of a cerial pack if you think Herr Hitler was emotionless on the matter of the Jews. I suggest you read Mein Kampf for a start, and maybe take in Triumph Of The Will on DVD.

      And as to the “am I supposed to condemn him…” SERIOUSLY? You need to ask whether you need to condemn a mass murdering genocidal tyrant whose actions resulted in over 20 million deaths? How about Joey Stalin? You neutral on him too? Or Pol Pot? The Ottomans in Armenia? Rawanda? The Balkans 1 & 2? Darfur?

      How about normal run of the mill psychopaths and sociopaths? They dont feel like you either. Condemn them (to imprisonment)or let them run around free?

      It seems to me sparky that it is you that is suffering from a lack of a sound moral basis. Still…when Yaweh is your moral touchstone and paragon of good behaviour what can be expected?

      • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
        February 24, 2012 at 2:26 am

        “You obviously have got your 20C history education off the back of a cerial pack if you think Herr Hitler was emotionless on the matter of the Jews. I suggest you read Mein Kampf for a start, and maybe take in Triumph Of The Will on DVD.”

        1.) If he felt anything, it was joy that he was destroying the race which he considered evil.

        2.) Triumph of the will sucked.

        “And as to the “am I supposed to condemn him…” SERIOUSLY? You need to ask whether you need to condemn a mass murdering genocidal tyrant whose actions resulted in over 20 million deaths? How about Joey Stalin? You neutral on him too? Or Pol Pot? The Ottomans in Armenia? Rawanda? The Balkans 1 & 2? Darfur?” I was rhetorically asking stacy in her view, since emotions are the only sort of foundation in her view, how does she account or deal with people with different emotions or who feel differently than me? Which is why i asked rhetorically should i condemn him, not because of his acts, but simply because he doesnt feel the same way as me? You should have read better.

        “How about normal run of the mill psychopaths and sociopaths? They dont feel like you either. Condemn them (to imprisonment)or let them run around free?” I think we should pray for them.

        “It seems to me sparky that it is you that is suffering from a lack of a sound moral basis. Still…when Yaweh is your moral touchstone and paragon of good behaviour what can be expected?” Whats to be expected is that i love everyone and try to be as sincere and helpful as possible.

  11. Dave The Sandman
    February 24, 2012 at 1:37 am

    Picking back up on a point Jesus Freak and Chuck kicked around

    “Im not saying we need God to be moral, im saying we need God to know whats moral.”

    Please, Jesus Freak, explain how that conclusion remains relevant in light of meso-American cultures, the Thugee Kali Cult of 1800s India (which never actually died out), Norse cultures, etc etc all of which while worshipping a god or gods practiced human sacrfice and ritualised murder.

    While you are rationalisng that I will throw into the mix some Abrahamic examples:- from Judaeism the Sicarri Sect, from Islam the Assassins, and from Christianity the Inquisition. Those three groups carried out genocidal acts of murder in their versions of the “Abrahamic God”s name.

    Still on the history topic explain how Gods morality is evidenced by the crusader order, when storming Jerusalem, to kill everyone inside the city walls – “God will know hs own.” Or the Templar battle cry “God Wills It!”.

    Finally, align your argument around needing God to know what is moral with his stated acts during the Old Testament – you know – those highly moral acts that Richard Dawkins described accurately with the following:

    “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” (Richard Dawkins:- “The God Delusion”)

    Tell you what….I will save you the effort of trying to do mental gymnastics and make this REALLY SIMPLE:

    Explain to me why we need to take moral lessons from a book loaded with mistranslations, contradictions and vague Bronze Age lyrical phrasology ANY MORE SERIOUSLY than the much clearer morality evidenced in the Harry Potter series of novels. Explain to me how a book which through modern scientifc research such as archaeology and other technques such as literary analysis is clearly a plagarised collection of foundation myths and cargo cult characters with NO establishable basis in fact should be considered ANY MORE SERIOUSLY as a moral guide than the collected Sherlock Holmes canon of novellas or the collected works of Shakespeare?

    I’ll waddle off and make a coffee while you flounder in that pool of stupid you are sinking into.

    • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
      February 24, 2012 at 2:18 am

      “Please, Jesus Freak, explain how that conclusion remains relevant in light of meso-American cultures, the Thugee Kali Cult of 1800s India (which never actually died out), Norse cultures, etc etc all of which while worshipping a god or gods practiced human sacrfice and ritualised murder.”

      I honestly dont understand how any of this is a critique of any sort to my claim that we dont need God to be moral, we need him to know whats moral.

      “While you are rationalisng that I will throw into the mix some Abrahamic examples:- from Judaeism the Sicarri Sect, from Islam the Assassins, and from Christianity the Inquisition. Those three groups carried out genocidal acts of murder in their versions of the “Abrahamic God”s name.” So because several groups did horrible things in the name of God that invalidates belief in God?

      “Still on the history topic explain how Gods morality is evidenced by the crusader order, when storming Jerusalem, to kill everyone inside the city walls – “God will know hs own.” Or the Templar battle cry “God Wills It!”.

      So a couple of Knights who were bloodthirsty soldiers killed people and proclaimed it as God’s work and you take that as evidence as God’s immorality. Hmmm. Wait, i think i hear Jesus calling.

      “f someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic.” (Luke 6:29) So Christ himself says to be peaceful and turn the other cheek when someone does any wrong doing to you and thats not evidence, but some dudes centuries later who were not theologians or had any sort of theological training, proclaim without knowledge of the bible, ruthless and ignorant statements and somehow that’s evidence for God’s immorality?

      “Explain to me why we need to take moral lessons from a book loaded with mistranslations, contradictions and vague Bronze Age lyrical phrasology ANY MORE SERIOUSLY than the much clearer morality evidenced in the Harry Potter series of novels.” Are you seriously equating the Bible, a book that has centuries of scholarly work done on it (even til this day), that has inspired the greatest minds to grace to the planet like Newton, Mendel, Lematire, Collins, Bacon, Locke, Aquinas and such, that coincides with what science says (Big bang Cosmology, and The Sun destroying the earth) to the Harry Potter books(Keep in mind that the Harry potter books reference Bible Verses. Harry’s parents graves have I Corinthians 15:26 on it and Dumbledore’s family grave has Matthew 6:21 and were written by J.K Rowling, who is a christian)? Also i would like you to point out the mistranslations and contradictions. Im an ignorant christian who has only studied every day Christian theology and the Bible, so im extremely unaware, enlighten me.
      Also, “vague Bronze Age lyrical phrasology” So when Jesus says “Love each other as i have loved you” thats Bronze Age? When he says to the people “If you have two coats,” he replied, “give one to the poor. If you have extra food, give it away to those who are hungry.” thats Bronze Age? When he says “honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself!” thats Bronze age? If thats bronze age, then call Stephen Hawking and ask him is time travel possible yet because im sure im in the wrong century.

      “Explain to me how a book which through modern scientifc research such as archaeology and other technques such as literary analysis is clearly a plagarised collection of foundation myths and cargo cult characters with NO establishable basis in fact should be considered ANY MORE SERIOUSLY as a moral guide than the collected Sherlock Holmes canon of novellas or the collected works of Shakespeare?” Can you please show me how archeology and literary analysis has show the the Bible plagiarized. Merely asserting things with a fiery rhetoric doesnt make them true bro.

      “I’ll waddle off and make a coffee while you flounder in that pool of stupid you are sinking into.” Could you bring me back some coffee? Decaf, please?

      • 'Tis Himself, OM
        February 25, 2012 at 3:55 pm

        We need your god to know what’s moral? That’s obviously bullshit because your god is a sadistic, narcissistic bully with the emotional maturity of a spoiled six year old. According to the propaganda Yahweh kills people just because he can.

        Look at Exodus. Moses pleaded with Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go but why didn’t Pharaoh listen? Because your god “hardened his heart.” (Ex 4:21, 7:3, 7:13) Yahweh set Pharaoh up to fail. Then since Pharaoh wouldn’t listen (because Yahweh arranged for him not to listen), Yahweh killed all the first-born in Egypt. Really nice guy, your asshole god, he killed CHILDREN because of a political decision made by someone these children had no input to.

        But wait, there’s more (as the late Billy Mays would say). Before Yahweh starts killing children he has the Hebrews mark their houses so he’ll know not to kill the kids inside. According to the propaganda Yahweh is omniscient (that’s a 50¢ word meaning “knows everything”). Ol’ Yahweh gets so caught up in his killing spree he needs special reminders not to kill Hebrew children by mistake. Yahweh does like killing folks, that’s why he does it so often. If that’s your basis for knowing what’s moral then I submit you don’t actually have a good basis for recognizing morality. Certainly Yahweh isn’t the most moral guy around.

  12. Stacy
    February 24, 2012 at 1:48 am

    Its not rational, its emotional (which is fine) but you need a rational reason why something is wrong.

    Yes, but I think we both covered the rational reason already:

    You: “We could just say, “well thats not the socially advantageous thing to do” or “thats not socially conducive.”

    Me: “…how fucked up life would be without it [it being empathy; thinking of others’ wellbeing].”

    Of course I’m using shorthand here; I don’t think this is the right place to go into a long philosophical/ethical treatise, but you probably know what I mean.

    In any case, “It says so in my book of rules” is really not a rational reason.

    I just said that you dont need God to be moral! I said you need God to know what is moral

    Well, I think the burden of proof for that one is on you. There isn’t any need for supernatural revelation to show us what is moral. And given the behavior of Yahweh in the Bible, I don’t know how anybody can claim we need him to know what’s moral. In the OT, he was pretty immoral. And much of The Law was given over to stuff about stoning non-virgins and not eating shellfish.

  13. yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
    February 24, 2012 at 2:44 am

    “Yes, but I think we both covered the rational reason already:

    You: “We could just say, “well thats not the socially advantageous thing to do” or “thats not socially conducive.”

    Me: “…how fucked up life would be without it [it being empathy; thinking of others’ wellbeing].”

    So your basically saying that you have a morality simply to combat how shitty life is?

    “Of course I’m using shorthand here; I don’t think this is the right place to go into a long philosophical/ethical treatise, but you probably know what I mean.” I think its the perfect time, im sure you have a very cogent and philosophical reasoning for believing that empathy serves as a basis for morality, but you gotta give me more than a couple of lines and something better than simply because the world sucks.

    “In any case, “It says so in my book of rules” is really not a rational reason.” Yes, because Christians believe it is the holy inspired word of God, so it holds weight. Its a perfectly rational reason, whether its true or not depends on the arguments for and against.

    “Well, I think the burden of proof for that one is on you. There isn’t any need for supernatural revelation to show us what is moral.”

    Yes, because without God how do you know something is good? Because its nice or it brings happiness or helps people? None of that gives a rational basis for why anything is intrinsically good.

    “and given the behavior of Yahweh in the Bible, I don’t know how anybody can claim we need him to know what’s moral. In the OT, he was pretty immoral. And much of The Law was given over to stuff about stoning non-virgins and not eating shellfish.”

    How can you say hes immoral when you dont even know whats moral to begin with? You presuppose absolute values but have no basis aside from thinking that empathy and the fact that life sucks and is hard. Explain to me why murder is intrinsically wrong.

    1.) The whole Virgin thing i dont think we at are at any position to judge. That was 5000-6000 years ago. The mindset is different now than it was then, you cant judge a Civilization simply on what you were raised. Back in the 40’s women couldnt even wear a skirt that was higher than their feet, and now women have no skirt just some cloth that covers their privates. My point is that times change and people 60 years from now will advance and theyll look at us like primates probably.

    2.) As for the shellfish, well Shellfish live on the sea floor where much bacteria and toxins are present. In addition, many shellfish, such as clams and oysters, are Filter feeders and have a tendency to accumulate these chemical substances in their bodies. So the probability of you getting a bacterial or viral disease is very good. Not only that, In addition, there is this thing called paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) and although less common it is still a real and potential danger associated with shelled sea life that can cause paralysis and even death to its victims. So theres a perfectly good reason as to why God said not to eat Shellfish.

    • brianthomas
      February 24, 2012 at 5:33 am

      @Jesus Freak: do YOU judge any of your God’s actions in your bible as being immoral?

      Ordering the wholesale massacre of various tribes simply because they happened to be living on a certain patch of real estate?

      Killing all first-born Egyptian babes simply because, well he was pissed at the Pharaoh? (Why not just knock off the Pharaoh?)

      Enacting various laws such as having people stoned to death for doing something as harmless as gathering firewood on the sabbath? Or stoning children to death for cursing their parents?

      These are just a few of many such examples from your bible that tell me that your god is no font of morality whatsoever.

      My question to you is: if you think that any of these examples are likewise immoral, from where does that judgment come? The same god that you are now also judging as commiting immoral actions?

      And please don’t do what every other christian i’ve asked this question of does and worm your way out of it by starting to talk about Jesus this and Jesus that….just answer the question.

      [P.S:speaking of your Jesus – re the “love your neighbor” stuff…what does the word “neighbor” mean? If you want to interpret that as “everyone”, why didn’t Jesus/god just use that word, and not “neighbor”? Hint: think tribalism….]

      • John Morales
        February 24, 2012 at 6:38 am

        (Why not just knock off the Pharaoh?)

        You’re far too generous.

        The evil protagonist actually hardens Pharaoh’s heart, to keep the plotline going, in that particular mythos.

        (Exodus 4:21)

        • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
          February 24, 2012 at 8:48 am

          John Morales,

          to answer your Exodus 4:21 “problem”,

          The best, most direct, simple answer to the question above is: “In order to demonstrate His power, and in order that His name might be proclaimed throughout the entire earth.”

          The reason that is the best, most direct, simple answer to the question is because it is God’s own answer. See Exodus 9:16 and Romans 9:17.

          God raised up Pharaoh and hardened Pharaoh’s heart in order to promote His own glory.

          “But,” you may say, “that doesn’t sound right to me. It just doesn’t seem to me that God would arrange for a person to actually sin and rebel just to make Himself great.”

          At which point I would ask, “How do you propose that we determine the truth about what motivates the heart of God? Will we base our conclusions on our own feelings about what seems right? Or will we base our conclusions on what God Himself says in the Bible to be true about what motivates Him?”

          Many wise and reputable commentators propose that when the Bible says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, what it really means is that God simply facilitated a process that Pharaoh himself initiated. After all, the Bible repeatedly also states that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, i.e. Exodus 8:15 and 32.

          Dr. Norman Geisler, for instance, a scholar whose work we regard highly and frequently cite in this publication, holds that God did not directly harden Pharaoh’s heart (or anyone else’s heart for that matter) contrary to their own free choice, but only indirectly, through their own choice. In their excellent book When Critics Ask, Geisler and Howe say,

          “God in His omniscience foreknew exactly how Pharaoh would respond, and He used it to accomplish His purposes. God ordained the means of Pharaoh’s free but stubborn action…”

    • brianthomas
      February 24, 2012 at 6:02 am

      @Jesus Freak: an, oh, one more question for you: do you think that “salvation” is reserved for only those who “believe in Jesus”? If so,please explain the morality of that.

  14. John Morales
    February 24, 2012 at 5:54 am

    The sheer unlikeliness of your very existence is staggering, and yet here you are.

    Hardly any more staggering than the sheer unlikeliness of the existence of any given bridge hand ever dealt, and yet here they are.

    (Not all that staggering, really)

    • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
      February 24, 2012 at 9:04 am

      John Morales,

      “Hardly any more staggering than the sheer unlikeliness of the existence of any given bridge hand ever dealt, and yet here they are.

      (Not all that staggering, really)”

      Im sorry, but thats wrong. Most physicists have come to an agreement that the universe is fine tuned for life, or more so, it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires. Several examples would be,

      Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:10 to the 37th power
      Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10 to the 40th power
      Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10 to the 55th power
      Mass Density of Universe1 1:10 to the 59th power
      Cosmological Constant 1:10 to the 120th power.

      These are examples of the kind of fine tuning that is in the earth and if you even altered these by a hairs breathe, the universe would have collapsed and life would have never begun, so to say its not staggering is a statement devoid of the knowledge of physics. But you know what? Even if the fine tuning is wrong, id ask what i asked earlier.

      If there is no God or any higher power that created the world, how did the universe come into being by itself? Without (i say without because if i said before i would be presupposing time) the universe there is no time and causality. Without the universe, there is nothing(material), no quantum particles or fluctuations or laws of any kind. If i can quote Aristotle, “nothing is what rocks think of.” And seeing as nothing holds no potentiality, nothing could have created anything. Non-existence does no produce existence. Now, I ask this because if you are an atheist you MUST be logically committed to a universe that created itself, or is eternal. So to repeat, how did the universe come into being by itself? There were no causal conditions for it to even create itself. I expect an answer, iv answered every objection you and your friends have thrown, and if you really want me to question God or deny him, explain to me what i asked you (this doesnt only extend to you, if theres anyone who wants to comment and answer feel free).

  15. yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
    February 24, 2012 at 8:44 am

    Brianthomas, hello!

    “do YOU judge any of your God’s actions in your bible as being immoral?” No. Who am i to judge?

    “Ordering the wholesale massacre of various tribes simply because they happened to be living on a certain patch of real estate?” two things. 1.) Its to drive out not simply massacre. 2.) You seem to be asking as is theres something absolutely wrong with it, do you have an absolute standard as to allow you to make such an objective critique?

    “Killing all first-born Egyptian babes simply because, well he was pissed at the Pharaoh? (Why not just knock off the Pharaoh?” It wasnt because he was pissed at the Pharaoh. The death of the first-born (Exodus 12:29) was not only a final blow to Pharaoh and all of Egypt demonstrating the powerlessness of Pharaoh and the truth of God’s Word, but it was also used as a prophetic typology. In the account of the death of the first-born, all who had the blood of a lamb placed on their door posts would escape the judgment of God on the households. This blood on the doorpost was representative of the actual blood of Christ who is called the Lamb of God. Therefore, God allowed the first-born to be killed as a judgment upon Pharaoh as a proof of God’s superiority and as a prophetic representation of the death of His Son, Jesus. It was a representation of the gospel message that the true firstborn of God who would later die for the sins of the world and that all who are covered by the blood of Christ will be saved from their bondage to sin. It does not indicate that God is mean, especially if we realize that all have sinned (Rom. 3:23). It illustrates that God was arranging history to bear witness of the greatest act of love: the crucifixion.
    Enacting various laws such as having people stoned to death for doing something as harmless as gathering firewood on the sabbath? Or stoning children to death for cursing their parents?

    “These are just a few of many such examples from your bible that tell me that your god is no font of morality whatsoever.” Your presupposing an absolute standard to judge the absolute creator. Thats like saying breathing air is the worst thing ever, but you breathe air while you say that. It makes no sense.

    “My question to you is: if you think that any of these examples are likewise immoral, from where does that judgment come? The same god that you are now also judging as commiting immoral actions?” Judgement comes from heaven and im in no position to judge God.

    “And please don’t do what every other christian i’ve asked this question of does and worm your way out of it by starting to talk about Jesus this and Jesus that….just answer the question.”
    Well im a Christian, so to ask me not to use Jesus would be like asking a Boxer to a fight, but telling him he cant use his fists.

    “[P.S:speaking of your Jesus – re the “love your neighbor” stuff…what does the word “neighbor” mean? If you want to interpret that as “everyone”, why didn’t Jesus/god just use that word, and not “neighbor”? Hint: think tribalism….]” I think he says neighbor because its a word that has universal recognition. Neighbor could be meant as everyone.

    “an, oh, one more question for you: do you think that “salvation” is reserved for only those who “believe in Jesus”? If so,please explain the morality of that.” I actually believe everyone will be saved in the end. I believe that sinners will go to hell, not some fiery dungeon full of nasty demons, but a metaphysical and ontologically distinct reality in which God pours out his love and corrects sinners, not eternally unless they wish so (thats what it means to have free will).

    • brianthomas
      February 24, 2012 at 4:45 pm

      Hello Jesus freak…

      You say:

      Judgement comes from heaven and im in no position to judge God.

      Wow. The streak still lives! You’re 894!! That’s the number of Christians I’ve asked over the years to answer the question I put forth to you.

      …and, like the 893 before you….they REFUSED to answer the question too. Why is that???? I think it’s because, frankly, they’re too cowardly to confront it or they’re embarassed to have to defend it. Either way….they DODGE THE ISSUE.

      I asked you to judge the ACTION.

      Here it is again:

      You see a group of people being murdered wholesale just because they happen to be living on a certain piece of property…you cannot judge that as being morally wrong???

      Now I’m sure you would condemn that action (I would hope anyways) if a Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, or whomever, did THE EXACT SAME THING.

      …but why do you not do the same for your “god”???

      Why do “he” get a pass???

      I’ll leave it at that. I’ve probably wasted enough time already.

      Peace.

      • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
        February 24, 2012 at 5:43 pm

        “Wow. The streak still lives! You’re 894!! That’s the number of Christians I’ve asked over the years to answer the question I put forth to you.” I say it because its logical. Im just a insignificant being, how can i be able to judge the sovereign all powerful and all knowing God of the universe?

        “…and, like the 893 before you….they REFUSED to answer the question too. Why is that???? I think it’s because, frankly, they’re too cowardly to confront it or they’re embarassed to have to defend it. Either way….they DODGE THE ISSUE.” I didnt dodge, i answered. I just didnt answer to your satisfaction. Why should I? I just have to reply with rational reason why i shouldn’t judge God or his actions.

        “I asked you to judge the ACTION.” Fine, then there is no action, i find immoral.

        “You see a group of people being murdered wholesale just because they happen to be living on a certain piece of property…you cannot judge that as being morally wrong???” Murdered implies its unjustified. It was not murder. I already explained the order to was drive them out of the land, not murder or pillage. Holy war was between the Israelites and the other tribes, so when it reached that point the war reached intensity and survival for the Isrealites whats crucial.

        “Now I’m sure you would condemn that action (I would hope anyways) if a Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, or whomever, did THE EXACT SAME THING.” They are not God and have no right to invade other countries.

        “…but why do you not do the same for your “god”??? Why do “he” get a pass???” I would like to think that simply because he is God! He is the creator of the universe and all life and we being simple and sinful creatures should entrust ourselves to him. If he did some event, its possible theres some reason why he did such a thing even if its unknown to us.

  16. yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
    February 24, 2012 at 9:10 am

    John Morales,

    “1. That’s a non sequitur, but it still acknowledges that you don’t dispute my correction to your categorisation.” You said that its not a matter of ontology and i answered that as a matter if fact, it is a matter of ontology and gave reason. I denied your supposed correction.

    “2. Why do you imagine such an account supposedly necessary?*” If you can answer my question about the universe i posted, then youll know.

    “3. Did you read the article to which I linked?”
    No, i dont see a article.

    *” Your presuppositionalism is showing. :)” Hahahahaha.

  17. yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
    February 24, 2012 at 9:16 am

    John Morales, Oh snap, i didnt notice the IPU had a link, my bad. and yes iv heard of Invisible pink unicorns and again, ill respond with a better reply to the invisible fairies.

    Can we determine the existence/non-existence of invisible pink unicorns? Actually, the answer is “yes.” Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light) (Pigments on the skin reflect the light. Example, planets are green because when their pigments are absorbing the light and different colors except green and that was the fun fact of the day) However, in order to be invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, the term “invisible pink unicorn” is self contradictory. Therefore, we know absolutely that they could not exist. I don’t know who invented the term “invisible pink unicorns,” but they were obviously deficient in their physics education.

    • February 24, 2012 at 10:43 am

      I get irritated when non-believers who have no firsthand experience of IPU’s presume to speak with authority on the matter. First of all seeing is primarily a neurological phenomenon. Under most circumstances what we see is dependent upon the physics of optics but those physics aren’t necessary. Ask someone who has had a hallucination or been tricked by an optical illusion. The Invisible Pink Unicorns are pink because they want to be seen as pink. They are invisible from the standpoint of physics, pink from the standpoint of neurobiology. Everyone who uses the physics of vision as disproof of IPU’s is obviously ignorant of neurobiology. It isn’t rocket science. We don’t get into rocket science until we talk about how they fly.

      • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
        February 24, 2012 at 12:18 pm

        John Morales,

        “I quoted your very words, and they were perfectly clear.” You did, you did not understand the context that i was speaking.

        “I’ve already adumbrated that, and I know you’ve got it, since you allude to it in the subsequent portion of your reply.” None of the said definitions are conflicting. Also do you even understand cognitive dissonance? Its a psychological theory, about the conflicting views of someone, which they alter reality or what they view in order to keep consistency. How does any of that relate to the semantics of salvation or liberation?

        “Also, i for one dont believe in God and pray and follow him solely to get into heaven and escape his cosmic spanking.”

        Then you said, “But I didn’t make that was your specific basis for that belief; I claimed that is the reward you seek.

        (Do you not?)” You assumed as i did, when you said “To be saved or liberated from the wrath of their putative deity, this is their supposed reward,” You assume to be saved is to escape some sort of wrath (i like cosmic spanking haha). I addressed what you claimed when i said “get into heaven” and i added the other because of your assumption.

        “Well, it could, O disingenuous one, but does it?

        (Straightforward honesty is not something your religion encourages, is it?)” Of course its a possible definition, but not one i would used in the context of my argument. Im going to guess did not read it in context. Literary and critical analysis is not something atheism encourages, is it?

        “So, you claim to believe in this deity-construct because you love this deity-construct?”

        (Your circular reasoning is somewhat amusing, but not as much as your obliviousness to it)” Its not circular. I was responding to your claim that i believe in God only for the reward and i answered that i do it because since i came to know him, its not a reward i look forward to. I do it because God came in human flesh and died for my sins. He came to save me from my self and teach me the righteous path. He loves me and he loves you.

        I do it out of love for the God, that created me and saved me.

        So, you claim to believe in this deity-construct because you love this deity-construct?

        (Your circular reasoning is somewhat amusing, but not as much as your obliviousness to it)

        • John Morales
          February 24, 2012 at 4:33 pm

          You did, you did not understand the context that i was speaking.

          Heh. If it’s conditional on context, it ain’t absolute.

          (You do know what absolute agreement entails, no?)

          Its a psychological theory, about the conflicting views of someone, which they alter reality or what they view in order to keep consistency. How does any of that relate to the semantics of salvation or liberation?

          Is it not obvious?

          You claim you need to believe in some magical entity to achieve salvation, but you only believe you need salvation because you believe in some magical entity.

          (You don’t want to face you’re proposing an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem)

          You assumed as i did, when you said “To be saved or liberated from the wrath of their putative deity, this is their supposed reward,” You assume to be saved is to escape some sort of wrath (i like cosmic spanking haha).

          That’s a very elliptical way to write ‘yes’.

          Of course its a possible definition, but not one i would used in the context of my argument. Im going to guess did not read it in context. Literary and critical analysis is not something atheism encourages, is it?

          You have avoided my question, and thrown in an unwarranted parallel parallel formation to boot.

          Your squirming is futile, we both know that for a Christian, the concept of salvation involves the appeasement of their cosmic tyrant so as to avoid its wrath.

          Its not circular. I was responding to your claim that i believe in God only for the reward and i answered that i do it because since i came to know him, its not a reward i look forward to.

          Sigh. You appear to not realise that, in this medium, our words are there for anyone to read!

          I do it because God came in human flesh and died for my sins. He came to save me from my self and teach me the righteous path. He loves me and he loves you.

          And here’s your Ouroboros yet again, since by ‘it’ you mean belief in this ‘God’ concept.

          (Also, you’ve just written that God is dead 🙂 )

          • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
            February 24, 2012 at 7:49 pm

            “Heh. If it’s conditional on context, it ain’t absolute.” What your writing is not making any sense. My statement was relative to atheism as a worldview. Its absolute in an atheistic worldview. Its not absolute in general. If atheism is true, there is no meaning. If atheism is false, there is possible meaning. I dont know any argument that invalidates atheism, so its a possible worldview. I accept that and accept that on that worldview there is no meaning. Thats what im affirming

            “(You do know what absolute agreement entails, no?)” No and i dont see how any of this is related to my statement that in an atheistic worldview there is no purpose, which the article says.

            “Is it not obvious?” Nope.

            “You claim you need to believe in some magical entity to achieve salvation, but you only believe you need salvation because you believe in some magical entity.” I did claim that we need God to know the right path, but i knew i needed salvation far before i believed in God. Ask any struggling addict. No one believes in God and says “now i need to be saved”. People seeking salvation (from whoever or whatever), whether its God or alcohol, believe in salvation because they want to be saved, if they believed in God, then they would be saved and hence not be looking.

            “(You don’t want to face you’re proposing an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem)” Then addicts or slaves or people depressed dont need saving. People who are down dont need to be helped. How is a concept as salvation imaginary? Only if you are presupposing the truth of atheism would you claim that.

            “That’s a very elliptical way to write ‘yes’.” Sorry, i wrote that wrong. What i meant to say was that you assume to be saved is to escape some sort of wrath. Just realized that.

            “You have avoided my question, and thrown in an unwarranted parallel parallel formation to boot.” What were you trying to ask? I see no question?

            “Your squirming is futile, we both know that for a Christian, the concept of salvation involves the appeasement of their cosmic tyrant so as to avoid its wrath.” How so? are you God? can you read my thoughts and others? I ask because your arrogant enough to suppose what i think about God and salvation.

            “Sigh. You appear to not realise that, in this medium, our words are there for anyone to read!” I realize that. How does this address any of my specific points?

            “And here’s your Ouroboros yet again, since by ‘it’ you mean belief in this ‘God’ concept.” No when i said it, ‘it’ meant following what he has asked from me. When he tells me to love everyone and to help the needy, i dont do it because i want to escape some “wrath”. (heres where you you tell me im lying to myself im only doing it because i want to get into heaven and no get tortured in hell forever.)

            (Also, you’ve just written that God is dead 🙂

            Actually no, Neitzsche said that.

            “An omniscient entity definitionally knows every thought it will ever have and every action it will ever take — that makes it impotent rather than omnipotent, since it cannot make any choices nor has it any freedom of action — it just does what it has to do.”

            Classically in Christian theism Omnipotence means to bring about any logically possible action/event (being S could bring about any logical state of affairs P in any logical possible world W) and Omniscience is defined as infinite knowledge (Being S is omniscient if for every proposition P, if P is true, then S knows P).

            First on free will and omniscience.

            So because he has knowledge that invalidates his free will? I know later tonight i will sleep and eat, does that mean i dont have free will? I know i will think about God or my biology test next week, is my free will invalidated?

            Suppose God knows action A in advance of event B, what i think would call into question B is if action A was shown to be necessarily true. Meaning in every possible world his action would be the same, so that would mean his free will would be called into question. But suppose its not necessarily true, and actually contingently true, that would mean theres and infinite number of possible actions God could take, and thought he has middle knowledge of those propositions in that case he could freely choose any action.

            So your argument doesnt follow.

            Now omnipotence,

            You say, God cannot be omnipotent “since it cannot make any choices nor has it any freedom of action”.

            The simplest definition of omnipotence would not yield your conclusion. All a basic definition would require would be that God has the power to bring out A.

            Suppose God has foreknowledge of doing A (making ice cream), all omnipotence would require would be for God to be able to bring about A unless there is something inherently contradictory in making ice cream. So i dont see how your argument entails God not being omnipotence.

            (What a pitiful thing it is)

            Not Really.

          • John Morales
            February 24, 2012 at 8:57 pm

            PS Your cargo-cult attempt at philosophy is mildly amusing, to put it as kindly as I can.

            I know later tonight i will sleep and eat, does that mean i dont have free will?

            It means that if you don’t sleep and eat later tonight, you didn’t really know that and conversely, that if you really do know that, you cannot do otherwise than sleep and eat. So, yes. 🙂

            (I can’t help but pity your apparent inability to follow simple implication)

        • John Morales
          February 24, 2012 at 8:43 pm

          What your [sic] writing is not making any sense.

          Your failure is not my problem, but I am not entirely unkind: were you to divest yourself of your conceptual blinkers and otiose presuppositions, you would likely be better-placed to make sense of what I write.

          I accept that and accept that on that worldview there is no meaning. Thats what im affirming

          You seem very confused; ‘meaning’ only makes sense in relation to some intentional agency, so of course there is meaning for people.

          I did claim that we need God to know the right path, but i knew i needed salvation far before i believed in God.

          Why do you use the plural first person?

          Your neediness is irrelevant to me, who has none such.

          Ask any struggling addict. No one believes in God and says “now i need to be saved”. People seeking salvation (from whoever or whatever), whether its God or alcohol, believe in salvation because they want to be saved, if they believed in God, then they would be saved and hence not be looking.

          To believe in things because you want them to be true is childish, not just risible epistemology.

          I see no question?

          <snicker>

          I know damn well you did, since you quoted it: “Well, it could, O disingenuous one, but does it?”

          Again: we both know that for a Christian, the concept of salvation involves the appeasement of their cosmic tyrant so as to avoid its wrath.

          How so? are you God? can you read my thoughts and others? I ask because your [sic] arrogant enough to suppose what i think about God and salvation.

          You think I might be that which you call ‘God’?

          (If I say yes, will you obey my dictates? 🙂 )

          You are a veritable cornucopia of irony, and that accusation of arrogance is a particularly tasty little bit.

          Actually no, Neitzsche said that.

          What someone else said is irrelevant: what you wrote is “God came in human flesh and died for my sins.”

          Now, I truly hope it Nietzsche is wrong.

          He’s dead, so he’s neither right nor wrong.

          (Not that I particularly care what he wrote; I make my own opinions, rather than borrow them from others)

          I want to be wrong because I love everyone and even though they do wrong, i hope God saves them.

          You claim to love me?

          (Do you realise how ridiculous (and creepy) that sounds?)

          Apropos: from what, specifically, is it you hope your imaginary friend will save me? 😉

          • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
            February 24, 2012 at 9:41 pm

            “PS Your cargo-cult attempt at philosophy is mildly amusing, to put it as kindly as I can.” Thanks i do try.

            “It means that if you don’t sleep and eat later tonight, you didn’t really know that and conversely, that if you really do know that, you cannot do otherwise than sleep and eat. So, yes.”
            So because i can tell whats going to happen to me before it happens i have shown that there is no free will? In essence that is what you are saying.

            Also next (which i will also address) you say “I can’t help but pity your apparent inability to follow simple implication” If i cant even follow simple implication what makes you think i can solve the problems or issues dealing with free will that philosophers and scientists who are far more intelligent than me couldnt solve? I mean my cargo-cult attempt at philosophy didnt quite meet your intellectual standards, so how can i solve with one paragraph one of the deepest fields of study?

            “(I can’t help but pity your apparent inability to follow simple implication)” Yeah nice cogent reasoning against my arguments.

            “Your failure is not my problem,”

            I said “make sense”, not understand. Your reply would make sense if i said understand, i said “makes no sense” meaning its incoherent. Its not a problem of understanding.

            “were you to divest yourself of your conceptual blinkers and otiose presuppositions, you would likely be better-placed to make sense of what I write”

            Please forgive me, im not as smart as you are.
            Also, you say my presuppositions arent practical. How so?

            “You seem very confused; ‘meaning’ only makes sense in relation to some intentional agency,” Which is why if God doesnt exist, then there is no ultimate meaning or purpose.

            “so of course there is meaning for people.”

            Only subjective. It holds no real weight, its just an illusion people make for themselves to cope with their lives.

            “Why do you use the plural first person?”

            Because i believe we all need to be saved.

            “To believe in things because you want them to be true is childish, not just risible epistemology.” Who said, i believe or anyone believes in things because i want them to be true?

            “I know damn well you did, since you quoted it: “Well, it could, O disingenuous one, but does it?”

            If thats the question then i already answered it!

            I already said earlier, “Of course its a possible definition, but not one i would used in the context of my argument.” I would add its not one i would use in general.

            “Again: we both know that for a Christian, the concept of salvation involves the appeasement of their cosmic tyrant so as to avoid its wrath.” I would never think of salvation in that way. Also, how do you know i know?

            “You think I might be that which you call ‘God’?”

            No, because God wouldnt be condescending and would use real reasoning to dismantle every one of my arguments. He wouldnt use unheard of words to make himself sound smarter because he cant provide adequate refutations of my arguments aside from insulting my intelligence and presuming to know my beliefs.

            “You are a veritable cornucopia of irony,” Thank you, others have told me i have an adorable smile too, what can i say? People love me.

            “and that accusation of arrogance is a particularly tasty little bit.” You’re welcome, i try to appease everyone.

            “What someone else said is irrelevant: what you wrote is “God came in human flesh and died for my sins.”

            I thought you were referring to another post in which i was talking about Neitzsche. But yes you are right. Christ became flesh and died for our sins and by his own power in heaven (the power of the trinity), was raised again.

            “He’s dead, so he’s neither right nor wrong.” If his predictions come true, then he will be right.

            “You claim to love me?”

            Yes, just as much as everyone else.

            (Do you realise how ridiculous (and creepy) that sounds?)

            Yes.

            Apropos: from what, specifically, is it you hope your imaginary friend will save me? 😉

            If Christianity is true, then from yourself, from all of us, from sin.

          • John Morales
            February 24, 2012 at 11:01 pm

            Thanks i do try.

            That’s where the pathos comes in: for once, I believe you.

            So because i can tell whats going to happen to me before it happens i have shown that there is no free will? In essence that is what you are saying.

            Your semantic shift regarding the source of agency is an obvious stratagem, if futile; before, you were referring to what you would do, now, you’re referring to will happen to you.

            But yes, you are groping after the obvious, and it’s almost in your grasp.

            (Well done!)

            If i cant even follow simple implication what makes you think i can solve the problems or issues dealing with free will that philosophers and scientists who are far more intelligent than me couldnt solve?

            What makes you think I think that? 🙂

            Also, you say my presuppositions arent practical. How so?

            Close; I wrote that they served no useful purpose.

            How so? Occam’s razor.

            Which is why if God doesnt exist, then there is no ultimate meaning or purpose.

            That you refer to “ultimate meaning or purpose” shows that you’ve entirely missed my point.

            (BTW, we humans exist, and we are intentional agents. Yes, even you!)

            Only subjective.

            Ahem. That was my point: “‘meaning’ only makes sense in relation to some intentional agency”.

            Postulating that there exists some mysterious ultimate intentional agency is your presupposition, and utterly unnecessary.

            It holds no real weight, its just an illusion people make for themselves to cope with their lives

            If only you could see my smirk, O paragon of the art of unintentional irony.

            Because i believe we all need to be saved.

            Which is entirely different from the claim that we all need to be saved, inasmuch as (ahem) it’s only subjective.

            Who said, i believe or anyone believes in things because i want them to be true?

            You did: “People seeking salvation (from whoever or whatever), whether its God or alcohol, believe in salvation because they want to be saved”

            If thats the question then i already answered it!

            No, you responded to it, which is a different thing.

            I would never think of salvation in that way. Also, how do you know i know?

            Lemme guess, you’ve failed to note another hyperlink.

            No, because God wouldnt be condescending and would use real reasoning to dismantle every one of my arguments. He wouldnt use unheard of words to make himself sound smarter because he cant provide adequate refutations of my arguments aside from insulting my intelligence and presuming to know my beliefs.

            Methinks a little light bulb is lighting in the dim recesses of some cavernous emptiness.

            (Prometheus, am I)

            Apropos: from what, specifically, is it you hope your imaginary friend will save me? 😉

            If Christianity is true, then from yourself, from all of us, from sin.

            OK, first of all, kudos for your caveat. There is hope for you yet.

            I guess it would be nice to be saved from all of (you), and I wonder whatever makes you imagine I need saving from myself, but do you care to elaborate on what this ‘sin’ thing is from which I need saving?

      • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
        February 24, 2012 at 12:51 pm

        “I get irritated when non-believers who have no firsthand experience of IPU’s presume to speak with authority on the matter.”

        There can be no first hand experience because you never encounter them. Now you probably think you can mirror my argument back at me saying i dont have any first hand experience of God, so he doesnt exist either, but you would be wrong.

        1.) God is an immaterial being that can only be known through experience. Also since hes immaterial, the obviously hes not material and has no biological parts.

        2.) Since you have already defined the being you have had “first hand” experience. Not only that, since its an elephant its a material being, it should be detectable.

        3.) The concept of God is not internally incoherent and contradictory.

        4.) The concept of a invisible pink elephant is.

        “First of all seeing is primarily a neurological phenomenon.” Yeah and if you’re the only one seeing it, its probably because your delusional. Not like seeing Jesus in a tortilla, because thats just imagination, its like in fight club, where he thinks hes seeing it but no one else sees it.

        “Under most circumstances what we see is dependent upon the physics of optics but those physics aren’t necessary.”
        Why wouldnt in this case physics be necessary?

        “Ask someone who has had a hallucination or been tricked by an optical illusion.” Yeah, iv read about events like that. My study of it is crucial when using Plantinga’s Evolutionary argument against naturalism.

        “The Invisible Pink Unicorns are pink because they want to be seen as pink.” This is just a illogical tautology, its pink because its pink? Even thought science says its wrong, its true?

        “They are invisible from the standpoint of physics, pink from the standpoint of neurobiology.” Yes, and when what your seeing doesnt correlate to reality, its called a illusion or delusion.

        “Everyone who uses the physics of vision as disproof of IPU’s is obviously ignorant of neurobiology. ”

        No they arent. They are saying that in the actual world its illogical, unscientific and delusional. Neurobiology says its also delusional.

        “It isn’t rocket science. We don’t get into rocket science until we talk about how they fly.” Rocket science talks about how to fly and how to build things how to fly.

        • February 24, 2012 at 2:09 pm

          Invisible Pink Unicorns are immaterial beings that can only be known through experience. They also have no biological parts. Have you ever seen an actual unicorn with biological parts? We call them unicorns because that is the representative form they take, much like your god takes the form of a human male according to the bible. He has feet and hands and breath. He walks and even wears clothing. The fact that so many of you insist he is male is also telling. What does it mean for an immaterial being with no biological parts to be male? Does he have an immaterial penis? Aside from impregnating the occasional adolescent Jewish girl, what on earth does he use it for? Did he have this human-like form, with hands and feet, before he created objects to grasp and surfaces to walk upon? If so, why?

          The concept of Invisible Pink Unicorns is not internally incoherent nor contradictory, definitely no more so than a god that is simultaneously omniscient and omnipotent. You dragged Invisible Pink Elephant into this, not me. Invisible Pink Elephant is an heretical doctrine, much like satanism might be to you. He roams the earth waiting to devour the faithful and lead us astray. In the final battle the King of Invisible Pink Unicorns will defeat Invisible Pink Elephant and cast him into the eternally crunchy lake of Lucky Charms. I am beginning to suspect that you may unknowingly be working under his influence.

          • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
            February 24, 2012 at 3:17 pm

            Jarreg,

            “Invisible Pink Unicorns are immaterial beings that can only be known through experience.”

            Unicorns are material beings, they are horses with a horn, nothing immaterial about that.

            “They also have no biological parts.”
            They are horses, horses have biological parts.

            “Have you ever seen an actual unicorn with biological parts?” Yes. http://greywolf.critter.net/images/gallery/critters/2007-09-14-happy-pink-unicorn.jpg

            “We call them unicorns because that is the representative form they take”

            Then they are not essentially invisible pink unicorns but take the form of it?

            “much like your god takes the form of a human male according to the bible. He has feet and hands and breath. He walks and even wears clothing.” Yes, but on our view, when is not a walking contradiction. A invisible unicorn is incoherent and contradictory.

            “What does it mean for an immaterial being with no biological parts to be male?” Its just the masculine language that is embedded in human language.

            “Did he have this human-like form, with hands and feet, before he created objects to grasp and surfaces to walk upon? If so, why?” No, without the creation of the universe, he is immaterial and timeless.

            “The concept of Invisible Pink Unicorns is not internally incoherent nor contradictory,”

            It is, a biological organism that does not reflect electromagnetic radiation cannot have color or show color so there is no pink. So to be invisible and pink is contradictory like a square circle.

            “definitely no more so than a god that is simultaneously omniscient and omnipotent.”

            How is being omniscient and omnipotent contradictory?

            “Invisible Pink Elephant is an heretical doctrine, much like satanism might be to you. He roams the earth waiting to devour the faithful and lead us astray. In the final battle the King of Invisible Pink Unicorns will defeat Invisible Pink Elephant and cast him into the eternally crunchy lake of Lucky Charms.” When it happens, youll see me on the side lines with a foam finger screaming “Invisible Pink Elephant is numba ONE! WOOOO!”

            “I am beginning to suspect that you may unknowingly be working under his influence.” Yes, im a servant of the dark lord IPE.
            I sacrifice peeps to his eternal majesty in hopes that his demon spawn, Dumbo, rises and lays waste to all companies that dont make twinkies. I merely part of a organization of evil doers, which include walt disney and hippies, who want to see the dark lord over throw the tyrant IPU. We shall rise in a sea of marshmellows and crush your walmarts and mcdonalds and raise carnage. We will see the day when my little pony will be nothing more ash and waste. We shall play dumbo everyday and sing Bostons ‘More than a feeling’ while we dance on your decayed corpse. We will not stop and will not quit, we are a legion, we are one.

            Two can play at this game.

          • John Morales
            February 24, 2012 at 4:04 pm

            How is being omniscient and omnipotent contradictory?

            Duh. Because they’re mutually exclusive.

            An omniscient entity definitionally knows every thought it will ever have and every action it will ever take — that makes it impotent rather than omnipotent, since it cannot make any choices nor has it any freedom of action — it just does what it has to do.

            (What a pitiful thing it is)

  18. yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
    February 24, 2012 at 9:17 am

    Plants*

  19. Drazn
    February 24, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    To follow up on a topic Jesus freak and others have touched on:

    Morality without god:

    Ignoring all the arguments about skydaddy’s own apparent immorality in the OT, Morality is what is possessed by individuals and is subjective to their own bias and views points.

    There is however a growing standard within humanity called ‘Ethics’ which uses logic, and to a certain extent empathy I suppose, to determine the soundness of an action based on the moral reactions of those involved.

    If there could be an objective standard for behaviour this would be it – even if in a certain society suddenly decided murder was right, the world community would still condemn it, and even assuming the majority of the world accepted this as moral, ethics would not as somewhere down the line someone is being caused serious harm, and since no-one wants to die, Ethics demands that for the greatest good this should not be allowed.

    This is close to what religion demands god is useful for: Objective morality. But by using logic we can define our own rules for guiding individual moralities into a form we can all agree on and/or is mutually benefitial for us all. Its a lofty goal, and unlikely to ever work, but its important that isn’t impossible and we keep moving forward.

    Religion however would demand that we return to ages past where women are mistreated, children are abused, and we all kneel down to the great skydaddy on a sunday and, most importantly, line the churches with our gold.

    I firmly believe in change, and it’s importance in improving life for all concerned on this planet. It is important we keep moving forward in our pursuit for improvement, and are not held back by anything that would have us regress. For that reason i consider religon my mortal enemy as the single largest destroyer of free-thought. But, i digress.

    Objective morality probably doesn’t exist, but im sure we can all agree that there are some things no-one wants to happen to them: Rape, theft, physical and mental abuse, murder… As such we can account for that and provide rules that benefit us all as far as the basics are concerned without looking to a third party.

    After that, the rest becomes individual view-points and opinions which no-one has the right to enforce, but everyone has the right to criticise, like I am now, and sincerely hope you do likewise because honest debate is a solid way of making progress.

    • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
      February 24, 2012 at 2:55 pm

      Hello Drazn!

      “Ignoring all the arguments about skydaddy’s own apparent immorality in the OT” Your presupposing a absolute morality to say God is immoral.

      “Morality is what is possessed by individuals and is subjective to their own bias and views points.” Then Hitler, Dhamer, Gein, Mao, De Sade, Timothy Mcveigh were not morally wrong in their actions.

      “If there could be an objective standard for behaviour this would be it – even if in a certain society suddenly decided murder was right, the world community would still condemn it, and even assuming the majority of the world accepted this as moral, ethics would not as somewhere down the line someone is being caused serious harm, and since no-one wants to die, Ethics demands that for the greatest good this should not be allowed. ”

      1.) How can you absolutely say that what an objective morality would be like? Are you God?

      2.) If i can summarize, youre basically arguing for a Unitarian (what ever brings about the greatest good) morality. One of the things about a moral system would be to answer this question, why should i follow this moral system? Why should i care about the greatest good? Your presupposing bringing the greatest “good”(which you need to define if you want me to accept this as viable system)is good. Why should i want to bring about the greatest good? Marquis De Sade enjoyed torturing women, why should he give up what he views good to what you arbitrarily assumed as good?

      3.) You say, “even if in a certain society suddenly decided murder was right, the world community would still condemn it.” Just because they condemned it would not make it wrong. You say, morality is dependent on individuals because it “is subjective to their own bias and views points”. SO they decide. If there are no absolutes, if i loved to kill, and you think im wrong, that doesnt matter. Neither of us hold any objectivity and so neither of us are truly right or wrong, were just relatively wrong in each others eyes (or me in yours in this case).

      “This is close to what religion demands god is useful for: Objective morality.”

      Also the pre-conditions to logic and laws and the salvation of mankind from itself.

      “But by using logic we can define our own rules for guiding individual moralities into a form we can all agree on and/or is mutually benefitial for us all.”

      1.)If morality is as you said just relative to each individual and what they preference and what they view, then i dont have to agree with what anyone says in the absence of objective morals.

      2.) “we can all agree on and/or is mutually benefitial for us all.” You’re right, we can, but that doesnt mean we have to. So you would be going on faith (nothing wrong with that)if you thought we would.

      3.) “Its a lofty goal, and unlikely to ever work, but its important that isn’t impossible and we keep moving forward.” Its impossible, but maybe not. I mean were leaving in a predominantly democratic world and i think its not implausible to say that, yes, people would be for peaceful cooperation, but you would still have some who dont want it and if they broke the social contract, sure they would be wrong (relatively) in societies eyes, but not morally absolutely wrong.

      “Religion however would demand that we return to ages past where women are mistreated, children are abused, and we all kneel down to the great skydaddy on a sunday and, most importantly, line the churches with our gold.” I would agree with this statement if you meant go back like 800 years ago when the Catholic church was mad with power condemning everyone, taking money and such. But thats Organized religion power mad. What does the bible say about basic, non-organized religion?

      “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless (orphans) and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” (James 1:27)

      “I firmly believe in change, and it’s importance in improving life for all concerned on this planet.” Absolutely.

      “It is important we keep moving forward in our pursuit for improvement, and are not held back by anything that would have us regress.”

      Amen!

      “For that reason i consider religon my mortal enemy as the single largest destroyer of free-thought.” Okay so because organized religion was power mad and morally wrong, religion in general is against free-thought? Even though Religion served as the basis to nurture and let modern science grow? Even thought Religion founded the greatest institutions like Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge, Bologna? Even thought the vatican (one of the few things i commend them for) made the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which the greatest scientists to grace the world worked and advanced science (like Max Planck, Neils Bohr, Ernest Rutherford etc)?

      “Objective morality probably doesn’t exist”
      Then as i said earlier, then “Hitler, Dhamer, Gein, Mao, De Sade, Timothy Mcveigh” were not morally wrong and theres no reason to do anything anyone wants even if we agree on things.

      “, but im sure we can all agree that there are some things no-one wants to happen to them: Rape, theft, physical and mental abuse, murder… ” Agreed, but just because we dont want them doesnt make them wrong or forbidden.

      “As such we can account for that and provide rules that benefit us all as far as the basics are concerned without looking to a third party.” We can, but doesnt mean we have to and thats what you want, a way in which we must act.

      “After that, the rest becomes individual view-points and opinions which no-one has the right to enforce, but everyone has the right to criticise, like I am now, and sincerely hope you do likewise because honest debate is a solid way of making progress.” I dont agree that it rests on individual view points and opinions, but its fine i mean if thats what you want to believe.

      Im 100% positive you would agree with me if i said, we should feed the poor, treat each other with respect and courtesy, help those in need, dont do evil things (murder, rape, abuse etc.). I dont doubt that, but in order to guarantee things like that and have a objective base for morals and not only that, to know whats good and bad. Thats what Christianity grants us, not the pope, or church, or bishop or some theologians in basements. Its Christ sovereign power and knowledge and love that grants us that.

      • brianthomas
        February 24, 2012 at 4:57 pm

        You think there’s an objective morality when, by your own admission (by refusing to answer my question)…god can just do whatever “he” damn well pleases, and whatever that happens to be, that’s “good”?

        Even when it’s murdering and torturing people just because of where they live or what they happen to believe in?

        Sorry, but “whatever goes” is not the basis for anything objective, least of all morality.

        Any objective morality would be something like the Golden Rule or, more philosophically, the “Categorical Imperative.” Your god doesn’t teach that. In fact, your god is a sworn enemy of the Golden Rule/Categorical Imperative….

        Your god orders death to people willy nilly just because of where they live, who they sleep with, what they eat, what they do on a certain day of week, just to name a few. And your god orders people to eternal torture….all because of not having the religiously correct set of beliefs about “his son”.

        • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
          February 24, 2012 at 6:11 pm

          “You think there’s an objective morality when, by your own admission (by refusing to answer my question)…god can just do whatever “he” damn well pleases, and whatever that happens to be, that’s “good”?” He can do as he pleases and no. He does whats consistent with his moral and holy perfect nature.

          “Even when it’s murdering and torturing people just because of where they live or what they happen to believe in?” You keep repeating the same jargon without putting it in context. Canaanite’s were evil and God has foreknowledge of their cruelty and wickedness 400 years prior to the destruction of Canaanites. He says,

          “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. . . . And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites [one of the Canaanite clans] is not yet complete” (Gen. 15. 13, 16).

          Canaanites were wicked people and everything they did was wicked. Canaanite culture was, in fact, debauched and cruel, embracing such practices as ritual prostitution and even child sacrifice. The Canaanites are to be destroyed “that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20.18). God had morally sufficient reasons for His judgement upon Canaan, and Israel was merely the instrument of His justice, just as centuries later God would use the pagan nations of Assyria and Babylon to judge Israel.

          “Sorry, but “whatever goes” is not the basis for anything objective, least of all morality.” You’re right, but Christian morality is based on God’s loving and perfect nature.

          “Any objective morality would be something like the Golden Rule or, more philosophically, the “Categorical Imperative.””

          The Golden rule only makes sense in a world view with an objective morality. Also about the Golden rule, how would you answer to someone who is a sadomasochist?

          Also, You realize Kant’s basis for his moral theory (the categorical imperative) was God?

          “Your god doesn’t teach that. In fact, your god is a sworn enemy of the Golden Rule/Categorical Imperative….”

          “Your god orders death to people willy nilly just because of where they live, who they sleep with, what they eat, what they do on a certain day of week, just to name a few.” Anything that is contrary to God’s will is sin. God does whats best for us and what will maximize our connection and love for him. When we think we can take care of ourselves and we make ourselves gods, thats when God intervenes to end the madness.

          “And your god orders people to eternal torture….all because of not having the religiously correct set of beliefs about “his son”. Thats a extremely primitive view of hell. Hell is a metaphysical and ontologically different reality in which we torture ourselves, its a place where our guilt and sin and regret is more painful than any physical torture. Its not a place God has created, its a place we create for ourselves when we knowingly and absolutely reject God. Let me make a distinction between not believing (due to lack of evidence or you never heard of Christ) and theres conscious willing rejection of Christ. An example would be Christopher Hitchens (God rest his soul), in which he said even if he died and found out that God exists and was invited to heaven, he would rather go to hell. He would willingly reject Christ, instead of embracing him. In my view, eternal suffering is chosen for oneself.

          • Stacy
            February 24, 2012 at 11:00 pm

            Canaanites were wicked people and everything they did was wicked.

            Even the babies?

            And if the babies needed to be destroyed, why did God tell the Israelite soldiers that it was OK to keep the young virgin females alive to rape?

            Seriously, jesus freak, think about it. You claim you’re basing your morality on Iron Age documents that reflect Iron Age values.

            If you really were basing your morality solely on this group of documents, I’d say, you’re not as moral as you think you are.

            In fact, you probably DON’T base your morality solely on it. You probably don’t think people should be put to death for adultery, or having had sex before marriage, or for working on the Sabbath, or for homosexual behavior, or for talking back to their parents, or–etc. (see Leviticus).

            So–if you’ve decided to disregard some of those OT Laws, on what basis do you disregard them?

            And please don’t tell me, on the basis of the NT. Matthew 5:18 and all that.

      • Drazn
        February 24, 2012 at 7:41 pm

        Wow, that was the most spectacular example of missing my point…

        I was talking about how Ethics can be seen as an objective standard by which we can take commonly accepted morals, such as killing, stealing, etc, and reasonably apply them to everyone else in the world for their own good and without much complaint. Human rights are an example of this in action. By this standard morals, which are personal thing, are trumphed by ethics, which is a logical thing based on commonly accepted values, needs and desires all humans have. This is not utilitarian as it actually favors the minority and majority equally, depending on the situation (regardless of how many people doing it and/or enjoying it, killing is still wrong)

        I dont particularly feel the need for a divine standard to base all morality around, I think a well thought-out approach using empathy and logic would ensure a good outcome for all of us

        Also, I dont need an absoloute standard to express my own feelings: I think Skydaddy either doesn’t exist, or is a real bastard I wouldn’t worship if he did. Note also the ‘apparent’ in that sentence, basing it over just about any system of morality, including the one promoted by the bible, Skydaddy is a dick.

        • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
          February 24, 2012 at 8:20 pm

          “Wow, that was the most spectacular example of missing my point…”

          How can you say that when i went point by point on each of your statements in context?

          “I was talking about how Ethics can be seen as an objective standard by which we can take commonly accepted morals, such as killing, stealing, etc, and reasonably apply them to everyone else in the world for their own good and without much complaint. ”

          I already addressed all of what you said in my reply.

          “Human rights are an example of this in action.”

          How so?

          “By this standard morals, which are personal thing, are trumphed by ethics”

          Bro you need to do research. Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. It has been around since the time of the greeks. Ethics cannot “be seen as an objective” because its not a moral system, but a field in which we use to explain and defend moral systems. It itself is not a moral system, so you have no idea what you are talking about.

          “which is a logical thing based on commonly accepted values, needs and desires all humans have.” common accepted values, dont make a moral system objective.

          “This is not utilitarian as it actually favors the minority and majority equally”

          Okay thats cool. So that means that when forming a moral system you need to include the needs of humanitarians and teachers and poor people but equally you need to take into account the needs of serial killers, pedophiles, rapists, arsonists etc.

          “, depending on the situation (regardless of how many people doing it and/or enjoying it, killing is still wrong)”

          Depending on the situation? Then its not absolute or objective because BY DEFINITION objective means unchanging!

          “I dont particularly feel the need for a divine standard to base all morality around, I think a well thought-out approach using empathy and logic would ensure a good outcome for all of us”

          Well thought out and emotional appeals does not make murder absolutely, intrinsically wrong.

          “Also, I dont need an absoloute standard to express my own feelings”

          Never said you did, but you need it if you want to absolutely judge a evil like rape.

          “I think Skydaddy either doesn’t exist, or is a real bastard”

          I dont understand the logic behind this but okay.

          “I wouldn’t worship if he did.”

          What?

          “Note also the ‘apparent’ in that sentence”

          There was no apparent in that sentence only when you said to note it.

          “, basing it over just about any system of morality, including the one promoted by the bible, Skydaddy is a dick.”

          Very cogent reasoning. Im convinced, God doesnt exist.

  20. February 24, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    @ jebus freak

    “Two can play at this game.”

    You are so smart. Two can play at many games. I can’t continue to do so while I’m working, however. I’ll catch you later if I have time.

    • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
      February 24, 2012 at 3:50 pm

      Jarreg!

      “You are so smart.”
      Yes, i know.

      “Two can play at many games.”
      They can, but i was addressing this specific one.

      “I can’t continue to do so while I’m working, however. I’ll catch you later if I have time.” Alright take care dude.

  21. February 24, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    Great Post–thanks for reposting it.

  22. yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
    February 24, 2012 at 11:39 pm

    “Your semantic shift regarding the source of agency is an obvious stratagem, if futile; before, you were referring to what you would do, now, you’re referring to will happen to you.”

    I didnt mean to change what i said, i thought you would get what i was trying to get across. But fine ill stick to my first question.

    “But yes, you are groping after the obvious, and it’s almost in your grasp.”

    (Well done!)

    Thank you.

    If i cant even follow simple implication what makes you think i can solve the problems or issues dealing with free will that philosophers and scientists who are far more intelligent than me couldnt solve?

    What makes you think I think that? 🙂 Its simple inferences. You made fun at my “attempts” at philosophy and told me i couldnt even understand simple implication, if i couldnt even under stand something as simple as that, what makes you think i could solve the issues of free will?

    “Close; I wrote that they served no useful purpose.”

    Well seeing as Otoise has two definitions i dont really know what you mean.

    “How so? Occam’s razor.” Occams Razor says we should tend to lean toward simpler theories, until we can trade simplicity for more explanatory power. My worldview provides the framework and explanatory power. I dont see a violation at all.

    “That you refer to “ultimate meaning or purpose” shows that you’ve entirely missed my point.”

    How so? If only intentional agency brings purpose and God being the highest being and first cause/agent if he acted on the universe, there would be an ultimate meaning or purpose. If thats not what you meant, then clarify?

    (BTW, we humans exist, and we are intentional agents. Yes, even you!)

    Im quite aware, but i have my Descartes moments.

    “Ahem. That was my point: “‘meaning’ only makes sense in relation to some intentional agency”.

    and i agree! So there is no objective purpose or meaning on atheism. Thats what i been saying from the beginning. -_-

    “Postulating that there exists some mysterious ultimate intentional agency is your presupposition, and utterly unnecessary.”

    It explains why there exists a universe instead of nothing, why we have free will, why we exist, it explains the uniformity of nature etc. Its not unnecessary.

    “If only you could see my smirk, O paragon of the art of unintentional irony.”

    I know thats what you think im doing. Its possible that is what im doing, but its not implausible or impossible, so i see no reason to smirk. At least where i put my faith, we have answers.

    It reminds of a quote of William Lane Craig when speaking about the existence of a universe and how it came to be,

    “You could say were just pulling the rabbit (which is the metaphor for the universe out of nothing) out of the hat, but at least we have the magician.”

    “Which is entirely different from the claim that we all need to be saved, inasmuch as (ahem) it’s only subjective.”

    I dont deny that.

    “You did: “People seeking salvation (from whoever or whatever), whether its God or alcohol, believe in salvation because they want to be saved”

    So because i want to be saved that means i believe things just because i want them to be true?

    “No, you responded to it, which is a different thing.”

    Bro, now i know your just messing with me.

    Earlier in regards to that question, you said “You have avoided my question” Then i brought it up and answered it, because its a question your asking so i answered. What the hell do you want me to do with it?

    “Methinks a little light bulb is lighting in the dim recesses of some cavernous emptiness.

    (Prometheus, am I)”

    Im just going to paste what i said last time with some snips. “use real reasoning to dismantle every one of my arguments.” Dont comment if you have no argumentation aside from condescending one liners.

    “OK, first of all, kudos for your caveat. There is hope for you yet.”

    Brother, there is always hope.

    “I guess it would be nice to be saved from all of (you), and I wonder whatever makes you imagine I need saving from myself, but do you care to elaborate on what this ‘sin’ thing is from which I need saving?”

    Separation from God, through rejection of his Son and word.

    Hey add me on facebook (if you have one http://www.facebook.com/thatsexymantheycallayoungelvispresley) im seriously not coming back every single day just to comment on this. Message me and well talk more dude! get to know one another!

    • John Morales
      February 25, 2012 at 12:19 am

      My worldview provides the framework and explanatory power. I dont see a violation at all.

      Because you don’t see that [God + Universe] exceeds [Universe] in cardinality, though the latter is no less explanatory.

      Anyway, I think I’ve tried Al’s patience sufficiently in engaging you.

      (And I thank him for his indulgence)

      • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
        February 25, 2012 at 12:43 pm

        John!

        You say, “Because you don’t see that [God + Universe] exceeds [Universe] in cardinality, though the latter is no less explanatory.” A universe with God would explain why it exists, why we exists, why there is free will, why there is design, why logic correlates to reality, why we all have this sense of objective morals inside, etc, but if you take out God, the universe by itself does not answer any of these. Also, God exist poses no problems, the universe soley existing does. How? Let me reiterate my argument up there, which you completely ignored.

        If there is no God or any higher power that created the world, how did the universe come into being by itself?

        Without (i say without because if i said before i would be presupposing time) the universe there is no time and causality. Without the universe, there is nothing(material), no quantum particles or fluctuations or laws of any kind (a possible way out would be to postulate the multiverse, but realize thats completely unproven and presupposes the truth of string theory(unproven as well). So im fine with you answering with a faith response (the multiverse and string theory), but realize what it is and nothing more but a faith statement).

        So without the universe there is nothing. Now dont bring any fallacious Dawkins or Krauss arguments that say that nothing is just unstable. No, nothing is nothing. If i can quote Aristotle, “nothing is what rocks think of.” And seeing as nothing holds no potentiality, nothing could have created anything.

        Non-existence does no produce existence.

        Not only that, of the four types of causal forces, the only one that you could ascribe to the universe would be a material cause but as there is absolutely nothing material without the universe, it cant even be put into that category, because if you said that it can be put in that category, you would be postulating already pre-existing material!

        So the universe could have not created itself because it holds no potentiality and there were no causal conditions (causality, time) available to even create itself even if it did have the potential!

        So here are the questions i want you to answer if you expect me to believe that God isnt required.

        1.) Since without the universe there is no time or causality, how could the universe come into being?

        (Since there is no causal conditions, how did it come into being? Suppose the universe at point A is not existing, then at point B it is. Going from A to B would be a causal event, because something caused it into being. But theres no causal conditions, so how could this even happen?)

        2.) Since there is nothing material without the universe, how did the universe create itself without material?

        (Now you could say that why suppose it needs material? why couldnt it be simply that its potentiality creates itself? But that would be presupposing the universe be an efficient cause, which presupposes that the universe is intelligent agent. I would argue only intelligent minds (like God) could be efficient causes.)

        3.) Since there is nothing without the universe, where does the universe get its potentiality to create itself?

        4.) Since the universe is material and without the universe there is no material, the only cause that the universe could be would be a material cause, how does it create itself?

        (I realize that this is similar to two, but it points out a good point in that since it could only be a material cause and nothing else, it cant create itself without material unless there is pre-existing material.)

        Before you can even solve the first question (the first one at the beginning of the paragraph, how the universe came into being without a creator?) you need to show how the universe creates without time, causality, potentiality, and material (thats rather difficult so your best bet would be to answer where they came from so that it allowed the universe to create itself, equally as hard). Good luck.

        I expect answers. Iv answered every objection, condescending one liners, arguments you have thrown at me. Explain clear and cohesively and with rigor. Dont answer with *insert condescending one liner* or “insert something that insults my intelligence*. These are clear and simple questions. I will refuse to answer anything you say if you do not give a rational response to each question(i hate to be that d-bag guy who says that, but this is/was a debate, its a two way street, you ask me, i ask you, answer this if you wont answer anything else.)

        Ill be waiting, God bless.

        • John Morales
          February 25, 2012 at 4:48 pm

          I expect answers.

          There is little point; cf. Mark 8:18.

          Whats to be expected is that i love everyone and try to be as sincere and helpful as possible.

          Only a fool would have such an expectation from you, O disingenuous one; you don’t even want to admit what it is Christians mean by ‘salvation’!

          (Thrice have you evaded an honest answer)

  23. yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
    February 24, 2012 at 11:53 pm

    Stacy,

    “Even the babies?”
    There were no babies.

    “And if the babies needed to be destroyed, why did God tell the Israelite soldiers that it was OK to keep the young virgin females alive to rape?”

    Actually no, he told them to drive them out and those who stayed God said to leave no one alive.

    “Seriously, jesus freak, think about it. You claim you’re basing your morality on Iron Age documents that reflect Iron Age values.”

    If loving my God with my all and loving everyone with my all is Iron Age, if helping the poor is Iron age, if helping the sick is Iron age, if obeying my mother and father and serving the community is Iron age, then i hope time travel is possible because im in the wrong century.

    “If you really were basing your morality solely on this group of documents, I’d say, you’re not as moral as you think you are.”

    I dont think im moral at all. Im nothing.

    “In fact, you probably DON’T base your morality solely on it.”

    Yes, i do, but im a failure at keeping it.

    “You probably don’t think people should be put to death for adultery, or having had sex before marriage, or for working on the Sabbath, or for homosexual behavior, or for talking back to their parents, or–etc. (see Leviticus). So–if you’ve decided to disregard some of those OT Laws, on what basis do you disregard them? And please don’t tell me, on the basis of the NT. Matthew 5:18 and all that.”

    Rhe key to answering this issue (why i dont follow the OT and why Christians dont) is knowing that the Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. Some of the laws were to reveal to the Israelites how to obey and please God (the Ten Commandments, for example). Some of the laws were to show the Israelites how to worship God and atone for sin (the sacrificial system). Some of the laws were intended to make the Israelites distinct from other nations (the food and clothing rules). None of the Old Testament law is binding on us today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).

    In place of the Old Testament law, we are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), which is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind…and to love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39). If we obey those two commands, we will be fulfilling all that Christ requires of us: “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:40). Now, this does not mean the Old Testament law is irrelevant today. Many of the commands in the Old Testament law fall into the categories of “loving God” and “loving your neighbor.” The Old Testament law can be a good guidepost for knowing how to love God and knowing what goes into loving your neighbor. At the same time, to say that the Old Testament law applies to Christians today is incorrect. The Old Testament law is a unit (James 2:10). Either all of it applies, or none of it applies. If Christ fulfilled some of it, such as the sacrificial system, He fulfilled all of it.

    “This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). The Ten Commandments were essentially a summary of the entire Old Testament law. Nine of the Ten Commandments are clearly repeated in the New Testament (all except the command to observe the Sabbath day). Obviously, if we are loving God, we will not be worshipping false gods or bowing down before idols. If we are loving our neighbors, we will not be murdering them, lying to them, committing adultery against them, or coveting what belongs to them. The purpose of the Old Testament law is to convict people of our inability to keep the law and point us to our need for Jesus Christ as Savior (Romans 7:7-9; Galatians 3:24). The Old Testament law was never intended by God to be the universal law for all people for all of time. We are to love God and love our neighbors. If we obey those two commands faithfully, we will be upholding all that God requires of us.

    • mikmik
      February 26, 2012 at 3:12 am

      There were no babies.

      Lev. 26:29“You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters.”
      and
      Those born of an illicit union shall not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. (Deut. 23:2)

      No Babies?

      If loving my God with my all and

      Lev. 26: 16.I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.

      17.And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you.

      18.And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.

      and serving the community is Iron age

      Deuteronomy 20:11-14 If [the city] accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you.

      if loving everyone with my all is Iron Age,

      Deuteronomy 16..you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and never again do any such wickedness.

      if obeying my mother and father is Iron age,

      If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid. (Deut. 21:18-21)

      I dont think im moral at all. Im nothing.

      “In fact, you probably DON’T base your morality solely on it.”

      Yes, i do, but im a failure at keeping it.

      In Neurosis and Human Growth, Karen Horney explains how the pride system generates self-hate.

      “Briefly, when an individual shifts his center of gravity to his idealized self, he not only exalts himself but also is bound to look at his actual self — all that he is at a given time, body, mind, healthy and neurotic — from a wrong perspective. The glorified self becomes not only a phantom to be pursued; it also becomes a measuring rod with which to measure his actual being. And this actual being is such an embarrassing sight when viewed from the perspective of a godlike perfection that he cannot but despise it. Moreover, what is dynamically more important, the human being which he actually is keeps interfering — significantly — with his flight to glory, and therefore he is bound to hate it, to hate himself. And since pride and self-hate are actually one entity, I suggest calling the sum total of the factors involved by a common name: the pride system” (Horney, 1950, pp. 110-11).
      “Horney (1950) recognized six major ways in which people express self-hatred. First, self-hatred may result in relentless demands on the self, which are exemplified by the tyranny of the should” (Feist, pg. 256).
      “The second mode of expressing self-hatred is merciless self-accusation” (pg. 256).
      “Third, self-hatred may take the form of self-contempt, which might be expressed as belittling, disparaging, doubting, discrediting, and ridiculing oneself” (pg. 256).

      Number 1,o Jesus freak, you come to us sinning – prideful.

      None of the Old Testament law is binding on us today.

      – Number 2,o Jesus freak, you come to us sinning – bearing false witness.
      Are you telling us that Revelations is not binding?
      Jesus says He comes not in peace, but bearing a sword!

      He tells us to hate our family if they come between us and God. He belittles his mother in front of His disciples by saying that they are his mother!
      He cites the Old Testament “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”
      Ah, you say, He meant ‘turn the other cheek.’
      Jesus also says that God of the Old Testament is:
      From the Sermon on the Mount – “Mathew5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”

      We have a conundrum here, jesusFreak. God’s actions and commands to slaughter people and treat them as possessions are the mark of PERFECTION, according to Jesus. What His, Our, Father did in the Old Testament, are perfect and good, so tell me again that you say the Old Testament isn’t relevant any more???

      So, if the Old Testament doesn’t apply literally, why does…Jesus willingly condones death and suffering (Judas’ betrayal & suicide, His own torture and bloody sacrifice) in order that ‘prophesy be fulfilled’. Where is that prophesy found? Old Testament.
      Here’s a good one – Jesus condones slavery!
      Did Jesus Christ and his disciples condone slavery? Yes, they did, and we must be thankful for it!
      “But why didn’t Jesus stop the oppressive form of slavery? To answer this, we must understand why Jesus came to Earth in the first place. He came down here to fulfill very specific missions in a short span of time. Simply put, he was command-oriented. That means he was set to accomplish only what he was commissioned to do by Jehovah God Almighty.

      Jesus’ coming was to 1) teach people about God’s Kingdom, and 2) die in order to save us.

      But, you might say, the intention of Jesus was to end slavery once and for all.Was it? By peacefully and lovingly condemming people to hell, as it is in the Old Testament?
      Luke 16:19 “22 The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
      27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
      29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
      30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
      31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

      Old Testament: Prov 9:18 But he knoweth not that the dead are there; and that her guests are in the depths of hell.
      Psa 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
      Psa 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
      Ezek 31:16 I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit: and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted in the nether parts of the earth.
      Deut 32:22 For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

      New Testament: Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
      Mark 9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
      Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

      Here’s an even better one – Jesus uses parables so that only those who already understand Him can ‘hear’ He intentionally speaks in riddles in order that common folk can’t understand His message. Jesus bears false witness that ensures most people will be relegated to eternal suffering and torture, for fuck’s sake
      “That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea. And great crowds gathered about Him, so that He got into a boat and sat there; and the whole crowd stood on the beach.”

      “And He told them many things in parables, saying: “A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them. Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they had not much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil, but when the sun rose they were scorched; and since they had no root they withered away. Other seeds fell upon thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. Other seeds fell on good soil and brought forth grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. He who has ears, let him hear.”

      “Then the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”

      “And He answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: ‘You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for Me to heal them.'”
      “But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.” (Matthew 13:1-16 RSV)

      Man, it is endless, the depravity of Jesus.
      But that’s just a book, right? The message of Love is John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.It is because of God’s righteousness and justice that, in order for our sins to be forgiven, Jesus had to experience God’s wrath when our sins were placed upon Him (Exodus 9:27; Matthew 27:45-46). Romans 3:21-26 It is because of God’s righteousness and justice that, in order for our sins to be forgiven, Jesus had to experience God’s wrath when our sins were placed upon Him.

      And why do we have to worship the bloody and ghoulish message of the New Testament? Because God, the perfect Father, set man up to fail, and created all evil to tempt him.
      – God put the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, replete with the cunning serpent, where it would tempt the two people that were constitutionally unequipped to understand right from wrong.
      – Having deployed this psychologically immature and cruel game, God multiplies His vengeance infinitely and unjustly by sentencing Mankind to death, which Jesus conspires to proliferate by proclaiming the Eternal Damnation that Sky Daddy set in place.
      – Mankind was already pure and Holy, so why did God fuck it up, seeing His intention was to share His Pure and Holy Love and thus accomplished that aim already???????????? and thus, artificially manufacturing the need for Salvation so He could condemn His only begotten Son to the minor, relatively, irritant of effectively being in a Coma for 40 hours???????????

      The worst thing, jesusFreak, is that you insist that it is proper that we, who value truth above all else, should get burned and roasted alive for all eternity because we are just as worthless and pitiable as you see yourself.

      Even though it plainly makes no sense any which way you look at it, and is morally bankrupt beyond any extreme of childish petulance, you would have the Bible become our society’s blueprint for morality over our objections.

      Fuck you and everyone that thinks like you. There is so fucking many ways to show how fucked up the Bible is, and how hypocritical you morons are that follow it, that I had severe trouble just trying to limit my responses to every phrase you ‘uttered’ to less than ten thousand words, let alone how many of your points I did, partially, redress.

      Why don’t you read some Bertrand Russel on the principle of first causes for starters, while the rest of us enjoy some of Bible lessons as illustrated at http://www.bricktestament.com/ , I recommend Revelations

  24. yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
    February 25, 2012 at 12:02 am

    Jason, I just opened the hyperlink, yes i missed it.

    It says Salvation is a “phenomenon of being saved from the undesirable condition of bondage or suffering experienced by the psyche or soul that has arisen as a result of unskillful or immoral actions generically referred to as sins” That translates to you as trying to escape a cosmic spanking.

    Also, i know you arent seriously getting all your info from Wikipedia. Seriously? No theological website or Research ministry, but wikipedia?

  25. mikelaing
    February 25, 2012 at 12:58 am

    Sorry, Al Stefanelli, I get mixed up between you and Daniel Fincke sometimes, because you are both brilliant and, I am finding, expressive of ideas that I agree deeply with.

    I meant you, not Dan, in my immediately previous comment!

  26. February 25, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    I was warned by a friend that many christians and even some atheists are nothing more than trolls in message boards and comment threads, spewing out their own particular, usually peculiar, brand of nonsense and utterly impervious to any form of argument whatsoever. The standard advice when encountering trolls is simply to ignore them. Don’t feed them because they will dominate a discussion but in so doing they offer no worthwhile insight or useful information in the process.

    • Herban Cowgirl
      February 27, 2012 at 8:19 am

      (*slow clap*)

      I’ve been scrolling through the comments, skimming here or there and I am amazed. SO much word salad. It seems to go on forever.

      But what’s even more amazing than the incredible flood of words by people who seem to reeeeeeally enjoy their own writing is the fact that I had to scroll through it all just to find the one comment by the one sane person in the room.

  27. yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
    February 26, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    Hello! Mikmik,

    “Lev. 26:29“You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters.”

    How is this relevant to what stacy said about the canaanite war? Also, to me this indicates a strong warning of the destruction and devastation that the Isrealites will bring upon themselves.

    “No Babies?”
    When i said that i meant in relevance to what Stacy was asking.

    “Lev. 26: 16.I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.”

    17.And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you.

    18.And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.”

    So because I turn away from God’s salvation and love and righteous path and he lets me fall into my own destruction, that means im not supposed to love him?

    When my parents tell me not to do something stupid because itll have bad consequences and when i do it and they let me fall so i can learn, i shouldnt love them?

    I dont see how God allow justice on me prevents me from loving him.

    “Deuteronomy 20:11-14 If [the city] accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you.”

    So God giving commands and outlines to Isrealites (not me or anyone aside from them) on how to act in war, that means im not allowed to serve my community?

    “Deuteronomy 16..you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and never again do any such wickedness.”

    1.) Way to copy and paste from some random website. How do i know? Because if you did know the bible and wanted to quote from it, you would know those verses are from Deuteronomy 13

    2.) and in context of that chapter, they are speaking of people who spread wickedness and corruption by claiming false gods and idols and making their own little worlds and destroying the foundation of societies.

    “If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid. (Deut. 21:18-21)

    1.) let me reiterate what i told stacy.

    The Laws were written 5-8 thousand years ago. The mindset of society and ALSO the settings of that time (the circumstances, what the world was like around them, how the world was developing etc) need to be taken into account. Also, i dont think that command was entirely unjustified. The Isrealites were given strict commands so that they may prosper. They couldnt risk have someone destroy that with their own ideologies. Plus i think we can see examples of that today (kids disobeying parents and its consequences).

    Kids growing up doing whatever they want. Whoring themselves out, doing drugs and alcohol, getting killed, getting others killed, going to jail, disrespecting their parents, stealing, murdering and such. I have tons of friends all from different faiths, buddhists, atheists, muslims, hindus. All of them recognize this and say also similar things (kids have gone astray and bring destruction upon themselves and others).

    Now im not for one second saying i havent done some of these, but i am glad God, through Jesus Christ, has saved me before i had completely destroyed myself and everyone around me.

    Also, do i think we should kill me and all these kids? Not at all.

    You might say, “but how can you say no in the face of this verse?” Simple, at the time that it was given, i think its possible and plausible that it was for a greater good and for the propagation of the Isrealites, but after about two to three thousand years after civilization had advanced, Christ comes and fulfills the law and tells us new commandments for a new age.

    “In Neurosis and Human Growth, Karen Horney explains how the pride system generates self-hate.

    “Briefly, when an individual shifts his center of gravity to his idealized self, he not only exalts himself but also is bound to look at his actual self — all that he is at a given time, body, mind, healthy and neurotic — from a wrong perspective. The glorified self becomes not only a phantom to be pursued; it also becomes a measuring rod with which to measure his actual being. And this actual being is such an embarrassing sight when viewed from the perspective of a godlike perfection that he cannot but despise it. Moreover, what is dynamically more important, the human being which he actually is keeps interfering — significantly — with his flight to glory, and therefore he is bound to hate it, to hate himself. And since pride and self-hate are actually one entity, I suggest calling the sum total of the factors involved by a common name: the pride system” (Horney, 1950, pp. 110-11).
    “Horney (1950) recognized six major ways in which people express self-hatred. First, self-hatred may result in relentless demands on the self, which are exemplified by the tyranny of the should” (Feist, pg. 256).
    “The second mode of expressing self-hatred is merciless self-accusation” (pg. 256).
    “Third, self-hatred may take the form of self-contempt, which might be expressed as belittling, disparaging, doubting, discrediting, and ridiculing oneself” (pg. 256).

    I would agree with most of that, but let me comment on a few things.

    1.) What i would comment is when i said nothing, i meant morally and to respond to her question.

    Her question that, “youre not as moral as you think you are?” sounded as if she asking me if i didnt think i was as superior as i thought i was and i am not superior at all.

    Also, i would see Horney’s system and a step towards understanding the road to humility.

    During the course(even to this day) of my walks with Christ, iv gone through several stages and continue to. When coming to grasps with ones pride and coming to understand what God asks of us, the picture Horney paints makes sense. God asks us to become Holy as he is, as revealed through Christ, and i dont think anyone, only if he/she is completely arrogant and ignorant or the world and history , will say they are perfect.

    God shows us the model for perfection and knowing we are imperfect and we fall each day, when we compare ourselves to perfection its obvious we will not like that our “normal” selves and will come to hate it.

    But it doesnt stop there, because once you realize that you are insignificant and are imperfect, you begin to to humble yourself. No one is above anyone, and no one is below anyone.

    Once you have realized your imperfection and realize that God saw past that imperfection, and came down to reedeem you and change you into a better person, a more holier person, you come to love him more. You also, come to love everyone else because they are just like you, fallen, and God to came down for them as well, because he also saw past that imperfection and saw that we can well become holy like him.

    “Number 1,o Jesus freak, you come to us sinning – prideful.”

    I am prideful.

    “None of the Old Testament law is binding on us today.” Not to those in Christ. Read my response to stacy.

    “Number 2,o Jesus freak, you come to us sinning – bearing false witness. Are you telling us that Revelations is not binding?”

    I said no such thing.

    “Jesus says He comes not in peace, but bearing a sword!”

    Not a literal sword, but that his word was like a sword and would divide the peoples. His word is truth, and some will accept and some will deny, so they will be “divided”.

    “He tells us to hate our family if they come between us and God.”

    Not literally hate, but that a disciple of Christ must even be willing to leave his family so that he may proclaim the good word to the world. The purpose of the great commission is to spread the Gospel to save people, thats the disciples task. One cannot be carrying their family everywhere he goes, literally, for obvious reasons (parents health, the dangerous places one will go, etc.). So its not a matter of literally hating but being prepared to leave ones family and home and the ties associated with it to achieve the task of the great commission.

    “He belittles his mother in front of His disciples by saying that they are his mother!”

    I have no idea where you got this from.

    “He cites the Old Testament “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”

    Nice scholarly work, thanks for putting it in context and completely lying.

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. —Matthew 5:38-42”

    “Ah, you say, He meant ‘turn the other cheek Jesus also says that God of the Old Testament is: From the Sermon on the Mount – “Mathew5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”

    He says to be perfect in a qualitative sense as in to be intrinsically perfect and change our nature from sinful and imperfect to holy and perfect.

    “We have a conundrum here, jesusFreak. God’s actions and commands to slaughter people and treat them as possessions are the mark of PERFECTION, according to Jesus.”

    1.) His commands are outlines for how the Isrealites should act in war.

    Do me this, join the marines and serve your duty and go into a insurgent camp, but dont shoot, just talk, and tell me if theyll spare you.

    The verse in context i would put like this. Kill or be killed, in respect to war. If they Isrealites didnt do that, who knows the destruction that would have befallen them?

    “What His, Our, Father did in the Old Testament, are perfect and good, so tell me again that you say the Old Testament isn’t relevant any more???”

    Irrelevant as in guidelines and code wise. It still serves to show us our imperfection and the coming of Christ. But to literally follow the Leviticus code? No.

    “So, if the Old Testament doesn’t apply literally,”

    Romans 7:4

    “why does…Jesus willingly condones death and suffering (Judas’ betrayal & suicide, His own torture and bloody sacrifice) in order that ‘prophesy be fulfilled’.”

    He doesnt condone it, he merely allows it to happen to fulfill prophesy and who are you to question the manner in which he chooses to redeem the world?

    Where is that prophesy found? Old testament”

    Yes. Specifically Isaiah, for example.

    Another one would be this.

    An example of the coming of Christ, can be see in the story of Moses and the plagues. Specifically the last plague, the death of the first born.

    God says to his people, to put the blood of a lamb on their door frames (Exodus 12:22)so as to save themselves from the plague.

    In John 1:29, he refers to Christ as a lamb. So the story of the plagues shows us the coming of Christ in that the blood of the lamb saves Gods people (the jews), so in the coming age of Christ, so too will he blood cover and protect God’s people.

    “Here’s a good one – Jesus condones slavery! Did Jesus Christ and his disciples condone slavery? Yes, they did, and we must be thankful for it!”

    Show me where in the Gospels, Jesus and his disciples condone slavery.

    “But why didn’t Jesus stop the oppressive form of slavery? To answer this, we must understand why Jesus came to Earth in the first place. He came down here to fulfill very specific missions in a short span of time. Simply put, he was command-oriented. That means he was set to accomplish only what he was commissioned to do by Jehovah God Almighty.” Yes, his reason was to save mankind, but merely ending slavery (even though it is very important) would not save mankind. But he tells his disciples and future disciples to act in his name, and surprisingly it would be Christians to bring and end to slavery such as the Quakers in North America and William Wilberforce in Britain.

    “Jesus’ coming was to 1) teach people about God’s Kingdom, and 2) die in order to save us.”

    And how to reach the Kingdom, to spread the good news, to help the poor, the hungry, the sick, the tired, the lonely, the cold, the downtrodden.

    “But, you might say, the intention of Jesus was to end slavery once and for all.”

    Yes, because we are all slaves to sin and his purpose was to come save us.

    Romans 6:20 says, “For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.” Meaning that we are under the control of sin. Its not an influence, but a system, a metaphysical stain that governs our very actions and is the river which sin flows from.

    Also, in John 8:34, “Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.” Again we have a divine confirmation that we are slaves to sin. Its the force in us that causes us to rebel and make ourselves gods.

    “Was it? By peacefully and lovingly condemning people to hell, as it is in the Old Testament?”

    “Luke 16:19 “22 The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
    27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
    29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
    30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
    31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

    Yes, there is a hell. But that doesnt indicate God sends them to hell forever. I think its plausible, if not true, that Humans make their own fate.

    “Old Testament: Prov 9:18 But he knoweth not that the dead are there; and that her guests are in the depths of hell.”
    Psa 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
    Psa 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
    Ezek 31:16 I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit: and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted in the nether parts of the earth.
    Deut 32:22 For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.
    New Testament: Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
    Mark 9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
    Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.”

    The old Testament uses the Hebrew word Sheol, which means world of the dead or grave, hell can be used but hell is not what you think it means.

    Hell is a metaphysical reality in which people who reject God even in the presence of his grace. God does not inflict pain, humans decisions and actions caused them to end up in such a horrid place and the torments its inhabitants feel stems from their rejection of God. In Hell, people are consumed by their guilt and sin.

    You mentioned “Psalm 139:8” Where David says, “If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.”

    EXACTLY! God is everywhere and even when people are in hell by their OWN will, he is down there trying to save them! But they willingly reject him and choose damnation instead. They cling to the past and what they did and what they think they should do instead of accepting God and his love.

    “Here’s an even better one – Jesus uses parables so that only those who already understand Him can ‘hear’ He intentionally speaks in riddles in order that common folk can’t understand His message.”

    I sure would like you to prove that theory.

    “Show mJesus bears false witness that ensures most people will be relegated to eternal suffering and torture, for fuck’s sake
    “That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea. And great crowds gathered about Him, so that He got into a boat and sat there; and the whole crowd stood on the beach.”

    “A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them. Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they had not much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil, but when the sun rose they were scorched; and since they had no root they withered away. Other seeds fell upon thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. Other seeds fell on good soil and brought forth grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. He who has ears, let him hear.”

    This is not an example of eternal torture and suffering, but a parable about listening to God’s word and to not be lead astray because it leads to destruction. Destruction does not mean eternal.

    “Then the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”

    “And He answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: ‘You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for Me to heal them.’”

    “This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.”

    Jesus is not withholding the truth from some; He isn’t saying that only the smart people will understand and be saved. Some people understand spiritual truth and some do not; some have eyes to see and ears to hear, some do not. In the above verses, and through the use of parables, Jesus is making comment on the spiritual condition of people. Through their understanding, or lack thereof, of the teachings of Jesus, we can easily see who has eyes to see and ears to hear the things of God.

    When Jesus had the rapt attention of His audience and the people were humble and anxious to hear, Jesus spoke plainly. But, when His audience contained people who were prideful and resistant to His instruction, He used parables that pierced the hearts of those who were open but were lost on the proud.

    “But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.” (Matthew 13:1-16 RSV)

    EXACTLY! Only those who open their hearts and minds and spirits can understand, so they are blessed!

    “Man, it is endless, the depravity of Jesus.”

    Totally.

    “But that’s just a book, right? The message of Love is John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.It is because of God’s righteousness and justice that, in order for our sins to be forgiven, Jesus had to experience God’s wrath when our sins were placed upon Him (Exodus 9:27; Matthew 27:45-46). Romans 3:21-26 It is because of God’s righteousness and justice that, in order for our sins to be forgiven, Jesus had to experience God’s wrath when our sins were placed upon Him.”

    Not just a book, but the inspired word of God, a guideline on how to be in the world.

    “And why do we have to worship the bloody and ghoulish message of the New Testament?”

    We dont have to worship any message, we should act out the message. We need to be the church, the revival, the light and salt of the earth.

    “Because God, the perfect Father, set man up to fail, and created all evil to tempt him.” He did not, we failed ourselves and we created our own destruction. We created evil, in our disobedience

    “God put the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, replete with the cunning serpent, where it would tempt the two people that were constitutionally unequipped to understand right from wrong.”

    1.) Why is the tree of knowledge of good and evil there? It is not there just to tempt. Perhaps the tree is not there to tempt at all. First, it is beautiful (Gen. 3:6). So it belongs there — for God and humanity to see and appreciate. It is a monument to the unattainable wisdom and knowledge of its Creator. When things get tough, it is a reminder that

    This is my Father’s world, and to my listening ears,
    All nature sings, and round me rings the music of the spheres.
    This is my Father’s world: I rest me in the thought,
    Of rocks and trees, of skies and seas; his hand the wonders wrought.

    This is my Father’s world, the birds their carols raise,
    The morning light, the lily white, declare their maker’s praise.
    This is my Father’s world: he shines in all that’s fair;
    In the rustling grass I hear him pass; he speaks to me everywhere.

    This is my Father’s world. O let me ne’er forget
    That though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet.
    This is my Father’s world: why should my heart be sad?
    The Lord is King; let the heavens ring! God reigns; let the earth be glad!

    Second, the commandment not to eat of it is good. A rule not to touch the stove doesn’t just keep children from burning their fingers. It teaches children to respect parents. It teaches humility, and humility teaches trust — faith.

    Third, the tree’s presence teaches humans that our authority still has limits. We rule the sea and ground and sky, but not the starry host (Gen. 1:26). Our knowledge still admits mystery. Without such a sign, the race will soon be trying to storm the heavens through its own efforts (Gen. 11).

    Sure, the tree’s presence is a convenient opportunity to transgress the limits. But there are already others.

    2.) What of the “Cunning” snake? The story does not tell us it is some fallen angel out to visit the fall upon God’s new humanity that has already come upon the angelic realm. Those details are insertions from other extrabiblical narratives that have become so popular that most of us automatically read them into the story. Try hard to keep Milton out of your head while you read Genesis 2-3, and a different interpretation re-emerges. “Now the serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild beasts [kol chayat hashadeh] that the LORD God had made” (Gen. 3:1). This is no fearsome angelic power the woman is up against. It is one of God’s creatures, one of the beasts the people have already named. It is not sui generis. Other beasts are shrewd too, though less so. Perhaps the people had triumphed over earlier, easier challenges: growing plants, keeping birds away, herding cattle, domesticating cats. Had things not gone so wrong, perhaps other tests would have followed. No one said imaging God in this world would be easy. Eden is a vocation, not a vacation.

    Of course the story doesn’t say all this, because biblical narrative is tantalizingly sparse. These are stories to tell around the campfire. They invite us to imagine details they refuse to supply. They leave us hanging. They beg for midrash. People looking for encyclopedic answers to theological questions will be disappointed, but people who want to be engaged and tranformed will find them a delight.

    The serpent’s statements are slippery and demand to be carefully parsed, but they are not outright falsehoods from “the Father of Lies.” The serpent’s wily question is a test of human authority.

    The serpent resembles two things I know from experience. First, it is like a “strong-willed child,” to use today’s euphemism. The Hebrew ‘shrewd’ or ‘subtle’ (‘arum) echoes the Hebrew ‘naked’ (‘eyrom). Intimidated first-time parents will surely identify with that! This being has an agenda of its own, and if not handled properly its actions will get everyone into trouble, but its resistance to authority does not necessarily rise to the level of sin. The woman and man are up to the task. Both the story and later theological tradition are clear: Sin begins in human actions, not serpentine ones. Second, it is like a demon. Contemporary charismatic demonological literature attests to common behaviors of demons in situations of confrontation and exorcism. They are clever, though not brilliant. They are wily, exploiting whatever rhetorical opportunities their victims and their exorcists leave open to them. Their power lies in suggestion rather than outright authority – unless people have authorized them to act. They are mainly bluster; when isolated and commanded by a true authority, they resist but will not prevail forever.

    The serpent outwits the humans. Or perhaps the humans use the serpent as leverage to break God’s command. For there are signs that things are amiss before the fateful resolution to eat the fruit.

    The serpent’s questions are ambiguous, apparently intentionally. Their Hebrew is too nuanced for perfect English translation. This allows the woman leverage to interpret them self-servingly. “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?'” might also be, “‘You shall not eat of every tree?'”

    As they say in grade school, be careful with claims containing “always”, “never”, “none”, or “every”.

    Joel Rosenberg says that “the serpent thus could be suggesting, incorrectly, that God has prohibited all trees of the garden, or he could be conveying a sense of the seeming unfairness that God should prohibit any one tree. The two-in-one challenge is important to our understanding of the woman’s answer, for she feels compelled to say ‘we may surely eat.'” (“Biblical Narrative” in Barry Holtz, ed., Back to the Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts [New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984], 53-54).

    The woman corrects the serpent by removing the offensive kol from the serpent’s inquiry (and God’s original command in Gen. 2:16): “We may surely eat of the trees of the garden.” (Among my Jewish sources, both Rosenberg and the JPS text spin the translation in unhelpful ways; the NRSV stays closer to the Hebrew.) Then she adds, “It is only about fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat of it or touch it, lest you die.'”

    That was a mistake. And the serpent is not to blame.

    First of all, God did not say not to touch the fruit. That is a rule she has imposed; or perhaps her condescending husband added it when explaining the ground rules to his new mate. Perhaps it is a well intended ‘fence around the Law’ meant to make it harder to break the real commandment. But straining out gnats makes it easier to swallow camels (Matt. 23:24). Once she breaks the little commandment, taking of its fruit (Gen. 3:6), and finds no consequences, it is a lot easier to break the big one. It is not for nothing that Jesus went around tearing down fences like these. The man and woman are setting themselves up to fail.

    Second, God forbade eating from the tree of knowledge, not from the tree in the middle of the garden (Gen. 2:17). It is the tree of life that stands in the middle of God’s landscape (Gen. 2:9). The designer focuses his creation on life. It is the woman, not God or even the serpent, who puts forbidden knowledge at the center of her world. This is not just an unprepared parent. This is someone looking for an excuse.

    Third, her speech softens the commandment. The problem is not that one might die from eating the fruit, but that one shall die from it (Gen. 2:17). Maybe we would get away with it. Maybe we are more than authorities; maybe we are sovereigns. Humanity is treating rebellion as a risk, not a death sentence.

    Augustine was right to say that the fall happened in human hearts before it manifested itself in human actions. Are people really innocent here?

    The serpent responds with a sentence that can go one of two ways. It is either a lie — “you are not going to die” — or a correction — “no, ‘you will die'”.

    The prediction follows, just as ambiguously. “Rather God knows that on the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5). This translation would reinforce the impression that the serpent is lying. Yet it may not be an incentive after all. The sentence can just as well say, “Indeed [ki], God knows that on the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God [elohim], knowing good and evil.” This would reinforce the impression that the serpent is speaking truth, correcting the woman with irony: No, ‘you will die.’ In fact, you will die seeing and knowing the good and evil that God sees and knows. You will die with eyes wide open to what you have done.

    The woman reads both halves of the response in a self-justifying way, and it is downhill from there. They are not ill-prepared parents or victims of demonic manipulation, but officers looking for an excuse to mutiny.

    It is we, not God or even the serpent, who put forbidden knowledge rather than life at the center of our world. It is we, not it, who invent prohibitions where God has not, and it is we, not it, who soften God’s warning of mortal consequences (3:3b, cf. 2:17). With the world at our feet, with life at the center of God’s promises, the world’s earthly governors turn two of our own subjects, a clever animal and a beautiful tree, into excuses to spurn their creator’s incredible grace and usurp his divinity. Humanity exchanges a glorious way to image God for a tragic and self-defeating one. Being already in God’s likeness, we nevertheless seek to be like God in the only way forbidden. Freedom suffers in the exchange: the garden is now off-limits and the way to life closed (Gen. 3:23-24). We are fools, not moral heroes.

    The man’s and woman’s job is as tough as it is glorious, but they can count on vast blessings to help them: unique relationship with God, lifetime employment, power and authority, perfect companionship, the promise of eternal life. Framing the story in terms of human power makes it not a temptation narrative but a shame narrative (Gen. 2:15), a rebellion narrative, a sin narrative, a death narrative. Yet after all this, God offers the further grace of protection for the new way of life they have chosen (Gen. 3:21). (I have a feeling they wear snakeskin.)

    “Mankind was already pure and Holy, so why did God fuck it up,”

    The second we ate from that tree, we condemned ourselves. God never forced us to fall, we fell by our own accord.

    “seeing His intention was to share His Pure and Holy Love and thus accomplished that aim already???????????? and thus, artificially manufacturing the need for Salvation so He could condemn His only begotten Son to the minor, relatively, irritant of effectively being in a Coma for 40 hours???????????”

    1.) He built the world for us and simply asked us to follow his commands. Something so simple as when he says of the tree, “You shall not eat it…” (Gen 3:3), was too hard for us to follow.

    2.) He was dead for three days, which is 72 hours. He wasnt in a Coma for 40 hours (where did you get this from?)

    “The worst thing, jesusFreak, is that you insist that it is proper that we, who value truth above all else, should get burned and roasted alive for all eternity because we are just as worthless and pitiable as you see yourself.”

    1.) I never insisted or hinted that i want you and those like you “burned and roasted alive for all eternity”.

    2.) “we are just as worthless and pitiable as you see yourself.” On atheism, there is no objective worth or value, so compared to the vast cosmos and other possible cosmos there is no value intrinsically (because there can never be anything intrinsic in a atheistic worldview). So we are all worthless in the broad scope of the universe. You might think you have worth, but that is nothing more than an illusion you and others give life so you can live by.

    “Even though it plainly makes no sense any which way you look at it, and is morally bankrupt beyond any extreme of childish petulance, you would have the Bible become our society’s blueprint for morality over our objections.”

    1.) “morally bankrupt” assumes there were morals before or that there are such a things as moral, but on atheism there can be no objective morals.

    2.)”you would have the Bible become our society’s blueprint for morality over our objections.” Yes.

    “Fuck you and everyone that thinks like you.”

    “There is so fucking many ways to show how fucked up the Bible is, and how hypocritical you morons are that follow it,”

    Please show me.

    “that I had severe trouble just trying to limit my responses to every phrase you ‘uttered’ to less than ten thousand words, let alone how many of your points I did, partially, redress.”

    You addressed like 1-2 of my 15-20 points. All you did was try to show how the bible contradicts itself or is evil (which you failed miserably at) and insult me.

    Real cogent arguing, i loved the substance and rigor.

    “Why don’t you read some Bertrand Russel on the principle of first causes for starters, while the rest of us enjoy some of Bible lessons as illustrated at http://www.bricktestament.com/ , I recommend Revelations”

    I have read some Russel, i think hes a brilliant dude! I just disagree with a good bit of what he says.

    Anyways, thanks for your response, God bless!

    • John Morales
      February 27, 2012 at 4:17 am

      On atheism, there is no objective worth or value, so compared to the vast cosmos and other possible cosmos there is no value intrinsically (because there can never be anything intrinsic in a atheistic worldview). So we are all worthless in the broad scope of the universe.

      That you imagine both that the concept of worth is applicable in any world where it’s premised that there is no value intrinsicallyand that your first sentence entails your second is the kindest thing I can think to say; I regret to inform you that you are incorrect on both counts.

      (Your erudition in ontology is showing!)

      • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
        February 27, 2012 at 10:12 am

        Hey John!

        I like your answer to the question i asked you! You are so smart, i am actually thinking of becoming an atheist. You have shown me how its possible for the world to create itself. Bravo.

        “That you imagine both that the concept of worth is applicable in any world where it’s premised,”

        You obviously are not reading me right or reading anything i say at all.

        I Said, “On atheism, there is no objective worth or value….there can never be anything intrinsic in a atheistic worldview…”. Contrary to what you think i said, i do not think intrinsic value is applicable to atheism. Its not even logically or metaphysically possible on atheism. Its possible if its not metaphysically and logically impossible, like theism.

        “so compared to the vast cosmos and other possible cosmos there is no value intrinsically…So we are all worthless in the broad scope of the universe.”

        Im just using the argument and view in this article. On atheism, in the fact of the vast cosmos, we are not special and we dont have value. Reason 1.) Value is a non-natural property, just a concept or term and on atheism any value you give is subjective and really delusional. 2.) Value cant even be possible because concepts and terms dont make sense in a worldview that denies the immaterial! and what is a concept or term nothing more than immaterial? You could say that the ink on the paper that spells love carries the meaning, true, but it isnt the meaning itself.

        Also, how else do i learn if not by books?

        Let me quote Newton, “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

  28. JJ7212
    February 26, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    Jesus freak, dude, you’re just like an abused wife trying to defend her abusive husband. You’re wasting your life by defending your god that doesn’t exist. Put the bible down and step out of the church with your hands up. Everything is going to be OK. Sheesh…

    • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
      February 27, 2012 at 10:17 am

      JJ7212, hello!

      “You’re wasting your life by defending your god that doesn’t exist.”

      Can you absolutely prove that he doesnt exist?

      “Everything is going to be OK.”

      I agree.

      Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4:6-7)

      • February 27, 2012 at 12:28 pm

        Can you absolutely prove the law of gravity? Nope! If you require absolute proof of any physical principle, it simply can’t be done. But I doubt you’re about to hurl yourself off a 100 m cliff just to show a lack of belief in the law of gravity …

        • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
          February 27, 2012 at 12:38 pm

          Hey Chuck!

          “Can you absolutely prove the law of gravity? Nope! If you require absolute proof of any physical principle, it simply can’t be done.”

          1.) If you cant prove the law of gravity, why believe it?

          Personally, I believe its rational to believe something in the absence of empirical evidence, like gravity. Similarly, there is no Empirical (note that word) for God, but its rational to believe in him.

          “But I doubt you’re about to hurl yourself off a 100 m cliff just to show a lack of belief in the law of gravity …”

          1.) Your right i wouldnt.

          2.) Throwing myself off a cliff is a terrible testing method, i could just throw a pencil off my desk. Equally as effective, without having to die.

  29. yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
    February 27, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    Also, i didnt address this earlier, chuck.

    “Your denials of what is in the bible make it abundantly evident that you simply don’t know what’s actually in there.”

    I havent read it all, so i dont know everything in there, but what have i denied that make me ignorant of the bible?

    “You’re cherry-picking the feel-good parts and ignoring the contradictory content. If it makes you feel good, that’s cool, but it’s simply a sign that you have an intense confirmation bias: you accept only what confirms your beliefs.”

    When i read about the destruction of the wicked, i am not feeling good, though i accept it. There is no cherry picking. I may fail at living to that biblical standard laid out, but that doesnt mean im ignorant of it or choose to ignore it. I may find things like “WOW” or “damn thats rough” but i will not ignore, i compare it to the broad scheme of God’s plan laid out and try to make sense of it.

    “It’s impossible to have a logic conversation with someone who exhibits such strong confirmation bias,”

    Of course im biased. Who isnt? Basics of any English class is knowing that everyone is biased, what you need to examine is if the bias affects the reasoning or the results or intentions of the author. You might say my reasoning is affected, but you havent shown that it is in anyway affected by such a bias. All you have done is do the typical atheist comment drive-by by insulting or launching assertions at me without substance.

    “so discussing this topic with you is comparable to conversing with the exhaust vent of an air conditioner – an unending stream of hot air.”

    You havent discussed anything, let me repeat.
    “”All you have done is do the typical atheist comment drive-by by insulting or launching assertions at me without substance.”

    Rational interchange requires substance (evidence philosophically and scientific in this topic) and only if you were blind would you deny i hadnt used logic, reason, scientific evidence. I havent seen that from you, or anyone else, except for Mikaling.

    “Count me out of further discourse.”

    Fine then stop your little drive by comments. If you feel like you want to argue, give me an argument full of rigor and reason no,”GODS FAKE”, “NO EVIDENCE”, “INVISIBLE PINK UNICORN”,”YOUR AN IDIOT” (i used these because the standard argument iv encountered on here are these very arguments), none of that is rational or sound.

    As a matter of fact if you feel like you want to argue anytime, let me start it off by giving you the same argument John Morales refused to answer and ignored.

    If there is no God or any higher power that created the world, how did the universe come into being by itself?

    Without (i say without because if i said before i would be presupposing time) the universe there is no time and causality. Without the universe, there is nothing(material), no quantum particles or fluctuations or laws of any kind.

    A possible way out would be to postulate the multiverse, but realize thats completely unproven and presupposes the truth of string theory(unproven as well). So im fine with you answering with a faith response (the multiverse and string theory), but realize what it is and nothing more but a FAITH response.

    So without the universe there is nothing. Now dont bring any fallacious Dawkins or Krauss arguments that say that nothing is just unstable. No, nothing is nothing. If i can quote Aristotle, “nothing is what rocks think of.” And seeing as nothing holds no potentiality, nothing could have created anything.

    Non-existence does no produce existence.

    Not only that, of the four types of causal forces/causes, the only one that you could ascribe to the universe would be a material cause but as there is absolutely nothing material without the universe, it cant even be put into that category, because if you said that it can be put in that category, you would be postulating already pre-existing material!

    So the universe could have not created itself because it holds no potentiality and there were no causal conditions (causality, time) available to even create itself even if it did have the potential!

    So here are the questions i want you to answer if you expect me to believe that God isnt required.

    1.) Since without the universe there is no time or causality, how could the universe come into being?

    (Since there is no causal conditions, how did it come into being? Suppose the universe at point A is not existing, then at point B it is. Going from A to B would be a causal event, because something caused it into being. But theres no causal conditions, so how could this even happen?)

    2.) Since there is nothing material without the universe, how did the universe create itself without material?

    (Now you could say that why suppose it needs material? why couldnt it be simply that its potentiality creates itself? But that would be presupposing the universe be an efficient cause, which presupposes that the universe is intelligent agent. I would argue only intelligent minds (like God) could be efficient causes.)

    3.) Since there is nothing without the universe, where does the universe get its potentiality to create itself?

    4.) Since the universe is material and without the universe there is no material, the only cause that the universe could be would be a material cause, how does it create itself?

    (I realize that this is similar to two, but it points out a good point in that since it could only be a material cause and nothing else, it cant create itself without material.)

  30. John Morales
    February 27, 2012 at 4:03 pm

    I like your answer to the question i asked you!

    Your purported answer is vacuous.

    On atheism, in the fact of the vast cosmos, we are not special and we dont have value.

    Your argumentum ad consequentiam evinces your insecurity in specific and your irrationality in general.

    • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
      February 27, 2012 at 8:56 pm

      John hello!

      “Your purported answer is vacuous.”

      Not at all. Also, im not saying my answer is the only answer. Im saying and i would argue, that it is possible and equally as plausible that God is the answer. Is it? Well i think so, i couldnt claim to prove it absolutely, but its rational and justifiable to believe in such an answer. I realize its faith, but i have no problem with that. Also, this video doesnt include anything i say or answer any of these. It just ridicules those who fall for the God of the gaps fallacy (GGF). This does not fall for it (the GGF), because science breaks down the closer and closer we get to the moment of creation. In fact, science could never say anything about it. So im justified in proposing my answer.

      Also, So i would agree its possible that we might never know, but just because we dont know doesnt mean there isnt. We dont know there is a maker, but we dont have any defeater for the belief that there is.

      “Your argumentum ad consequentiam evinces your insecurity in specific and your irrationality in general.”

      Now

      1.) Either you are looking up fallacies that i fall for when your responding and didnt understand it

      or

      2.) You are completely ignorant of Argumentum ad conseqeuntiam (AAC) and you just spew whatever makes you sound smart.

      AAC says thats its fallacious to derive the truth of a premise based on its consequences. Meaning i come to judge whats true merely by how appealing it is to me.

      When i said, “On atheism, in the fact of the vast cosmos, we are not special and we dont have value.” I said it because that is what atheism entails. Since there is no design, there can be no purpose because we are merely an accident and in the absence of a creator there is no reason to say there is an objective anything. So there is no reason to say we have intrinsic value. I do not reject atheism because its unappealing, but because it fails to account for logic (a concept or rules or a system of how to think that is immaterial), morality (why we have this sense of objective morality. Why when we see a child who was molested and murdered we say thats morally abominable, not “oh well thats counter-evolutionary or survival.”), why we exist, Why there is something rather then nothing, why we have uniformity in nature etc. In fact, if i had good reason and evidence to reject theism, i would be an nihilist (The logical and consistent version of an atheist. Nihilism rejects meaning, value, morality because it realizes there can be none. Atheists say to make your own meaning but thats illusory, theres no real meaning, in the absence of God, only something you delude yourself.)

      If you can show me (literally argue and dont copy and paste a video that, while funny, is not relevant to the question i asked) that all these make sense in a atheistic worldview and that atheism can account for them, then i will think of it as a viable and plausible alternative. I think its possible, but it lacks any explanatory power, accountability, and plausibility.

      • John Morales
        February 28, 2012 at 3:32 am

        Heh. You presupps are amusing to me.

        For understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that thou mayest understand; since, “except ye believe, ye shall not understand.”
        St. Augustine: Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John; Tractate XXIX on John 7:14-18, §6.

        (Your epistemology essentially the antithesis of that which science employs; its efficacy as compared to science’s is a matter of historical record)

        • mikmik
          February 28, 2012 at 8:04 am

          Yeah, anyone can post links. Here’s a person was Darwinist now explains the Bible:

          Mike Laing 😉

          • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
            February 29, 2012 at 3:00 pm

            Mikmik,

            However funny Rickey Gervais is, i do think he is just joking and not seriously making a refutation on Genesis.

            1.) Evolution says nothing on the origin of life. Funny enough the majority consensus, not saying they are right but they have solid evidence for it, is the eve Theory and common descent. That we all came from a specific location and that humans evolved from a common ancestor. I dont see how Genesis is conflicting with Evolution. I do think if we take it 100% literally then yes there would be a problem, but there is no reason to take a literal,100%, approach to it. The bible is full of stories and events that were written, for example, metaphorical, like Jacob wrestling with God (Genesis 32). He wasnt literally having some WWE cage match, like stone cold and the rock use to do, with God, but that it was a inner fight to believe and trust God.

            Now, I do believe its plausible that we can view it anthropologically, metaphorically and literally in some parts. I would ready affirm that God created the universe and he fine tuned aspects of the universe, like the ratio of electrons to protons, to allow life to form and evolve under his providence and guidance. He could have let life form by evolution and then intervene when it reached the point that man was the next stage of evolution. Its possible the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphorical in that it represents to broken human condition and that once they are put on this earth we see how their lives unravel and reflect many early cultures. Reflecting the aspects of early cultures like family and agriculture. Thats a possible view of many that include evolution. So i dont think there is actual conflict. I do believe that only those who are dead set on trying to find contradictions (things that are contrary to logic or science) by simply giving first glance looks at the bible will find them. You have to go deeper and in context to find the best answers and views.

          • John Morales
            February 29, 2012 at 4:25 pm

            You have to go deeper and in context to find the best answers and views.

            Ah yes, context.

          • mikelaing
            February 29, 2012 at 4:47 pm

            “However funny Rickey Gervais is, i do think he is just joking and not seriously making a refutation on Genesis.”
            You’re not even in touch with reality.

        • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
          February 29, 2012 at 2:30 pm

          “Heh. You presupps are amusing to me.”

          I know.

          “(Your epistemology essentially the antithesis of that which science employs; its efficacy as compared to science’s is a matter of historical record)”

          If you are assuming all Christians, or anyone who believes in God, share that kind of view then and assert that it was wrong and counter science i think im literally going laugh out loud.

          Last time i checked the greatest contributors to Science were Christians or believed in God, in deistic terms, the supreme architect.

          Issac Newton.
          Francis Bacon.
          Johannes Kepler.
          Nicholaus Copernicus.
          Galileo Galilei
          Roger Bacon.
          Max Planck.
          Ernest Rutherford.
          Gregor Mendel.
          Gottfried Leibniz.
          Aristotle
          Louis Pasteur.
          Rene Descartes.
          Balise Pascal.
          Roger Boyle.
          Antoine Lavoisier.
          Micheal Faraday.
          William Kelvin.
          Albert Einstein.
          Neils Bohr.
          Francis Collins.

          I think iv said enough.

          • John Morales
            February 29, 2012 at 4:16 pm

            Without overly quibbling with your list (which has some weird entries in it*), do you think those people applied religious epistemology (Revelation and Gnosis) or scientific epistemology (empiricism and reason) when doing science?

            (Conversely, do you think they applied the scientific method to their putative religious beliefs? 🙂 )

            * Einstein, for example, responded to claims he was religious:

            It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

        • mikmik
          February 29, 2012 at 4:06 pm

          jesusFreak, you are a liar.

          3 Albert Einstein: It is a Lie that I Believe in a Personal God

          It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

          – Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

          Albert Einstein:
          God is a Product of Human Weakness
          The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

          Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954

          “To take those fools in clerical garb seriously is to show them too much honor.”

          “A man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never tolerant. At the least, he is to feel pity for the adherent of another religion but usually it does not stop there. The faithful adherent of a religion will try first of all to convince those that believe in another religion and usually he goes on to hatred if he is not successful. However, hatred then leads to persecution when the might of the majority is behind it. In the case of a Christian clergyman, the tragic-comical is found in this…”

          “I am convinced that some political and social activities and practices of the Catholic organizations are detrimental and even dangerous for the community as a whole, here and everywhere.”

          You fucking christians make me sick when you try to steal the credibility of great men of science, you pathetic bunch of drooling idiots.
          Aristotle said that the highest purpose of a man is to use his mind.

          Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina. In this letter he(Galilao) had argued that, of course, the Bible was an inspired text, yet two truths could not contradict one another. So in cases where it was known that science had achieved a true result, the Bible ought to be interpreted in such a way that makes it compatible with this truth. The Bible, he argued, was an historical document written for common people at an historical time, and it had to be written in language that would make sense to them and lead them towards the true religion.

          Six months before his death a rumour started that Planck had converted to Catholicism, but when questioned what had brought him to make this step, he declared that, although he had always been deeply religious, he did not believe “in a personal God, let alone a Christian God.

          Ernest Rutherford:
          “You should never bet against anything in science at odds of more than about 1012 to 1.”

          I have now accessed my copy of Rutherford, by David Wilson. There is just one reference to his religious beliefs – on page 596 -and here it is:

          “In 1936 Rutherford was appointed to the newly reformed Papal academy of Sciences, a strange distinction for a man who was known to be indifferent to religion of any type. But he accepted the position without demur, because, as he told his Dutch colleague Prof Zeeman, he thought it might do something to ease the strain in “International Relations”

          hey, liarforjesus, “I think iv said enough.”

          You certainly have. I plan to get some research done on christian’s problem with ‘argument from authority’ fallacy being their primary, if not only, reason for believing anything or understanding the world.
          You almost all seem to have a desperate inability to derive truth from facts and critical thinking, and being indoctrinated from childhood to not question the authority of the bible on penalty of eternal vengeance and cruelty from your loving god, you suffered a primary disconnect from normal ability to ascertain reality.

          By having your quite reasonable doubts and questions relentlessly invalidated at the expense of a ‘higher’ and mysterious dominion, and having the acts of worship and reverence for this ‘supremacy’ systematically infused into your psyche, your brain and system of knowledge acquisition have been fundamentally twisted to that of a farm livestock, namely that of sheep.

          The pervasive and insidious nature of your inherent worthlessness and evil inclination, with your redemption hinging on mercy achieved through adoration and unquestioning conformity as your sole purpose for living, is complete and exclusive to alternative rational or emotional dictum.

          You are crippled, jesusfreak, and condemned to a life based on fear and obsequious adoration for eminence.

  31. mercy
    February 28, 2012 at 1:59 am

    I think That the jesus freak is actually reading Ayn Rand . I believe he’s using her idea and philosophy to actually argue some what intellectually against the rational..I can totally understand, It would become overwhelming after a while trying to convince others without intellectual insight. But He contradicts his beliefs completely when he brings Ayn Rands philosophy into the equation.Objectivity…..does not work here …Anymore than biblical verses do .Lets face it as fact . Some people need religion , some people are weak minded ,Some people actually need this god to be right, to have morals to behave normally with the realm of our society.Hence why they constantly argue that how can anyone be moral in this world without a god ..As a child understands the concept of right and wrong , Religion no god teaches you this .You either understand it , or you don’t it’s really that simple ..there’s really bad people out there , and there’s really good people out there.Factually speaking here statistically Most of the good ones in a short list cause I;m in a hurry
    DARWIN
    “EINSTEIN
    Galileo
    Right Brothers
    bad list
    Hitler (was a christian btw)
    Timothy McVeigh
    Osama bin laden
    Ruhollah Khomeini
    , thats just a few but we all know too well the list goes on.

    Concepts as Objective
    Concepts do not pertain to consciousness alone or to existence alone; they are products of a specific kind of relationship between the two. Abstractions are products of man’s faculty of cognition and would not exist without it. But a faculty of cognition is concerned to grasp reality and must, therefore, adhere to reality. Concepts are condensations of data formed by a volitional process in accordance with a human method. They represent reality as processed by a volitional human consciousness.
    Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. Reason is the faculty which begins with facts (sensory data); which organizes these data in accordance with facts (the mathematical relationship among concretes); and which is guided at each step by rules that rest on the fundamental fact (the law of identity). The rules of reason require that each cognition be reduced back to the facts with which one started… you can correctly argue that nothing is

    • yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
      February 29, 2012 at 4:08 pm

      Hell mercy!

      I have never read Ayn Rand, and dont plan to, her deathcult philosophy serves no purpose except selfishness.

      “Some people need religion , some people are weak minded ,Some people actually need this god to be right, to have morals to behave normally with the realm of our society.”

      I never argued and i never heard anyone argue that we need God to be Good, that is beside the point. You need God to know whats Good, thats what im arguing.

      “Hence why they constantly argue that how can anyone be moral in this world without a god”

      Because its impossible. Unless you know absolute murder, then theres no point in saying that we shouldnt do it.

      “As a child understands the concept of right and wrong , Religion no god teaches you this .”

      Just because you understand the concept of right and wrong does not make it objective.

      “You either understand it , or you don’t it’s really that simple”

      Understanding in it that the second part. THe first would be to know that there IS such a thing as right and wrong.

      ” ..there’s really bad people out there , and there’s really good people out there.Factually speaking here statistically Most of the good ones in a short list cause I;m in a hurry”

      I agree with most of those people on the list, but

      1.) Why the hell is the right brothers on there? hahaha. They invented the first airplane. So? Just because you invent something, youre morally good? Then the guy who invented the pet rock is a real Mother Theresa.

      2.) Even if Hitler was a Christian, that says nothing on Christian Ideology and its beliefs. You could say that hes acting on behalf of his beliefs or that his actions are a result from his belief but i would just ask you to read Matthew 5:39 and 1 Peter 3:9 for starters.

      “Concepts do not pertain to consciousness alone or to existence alone;but they they are products of a specific kind of relationship between the two.”

      I can agree.

      “Abstractions are products of man’s faculty of cognition and would not exist without it.”

      A question i would ask is, that while true, why suppose these abstractions are even true or correct to actual reality?

      We know are cognitive faculties are limited and fallible, so what i would say is, in the absence of God’s guarantee of our cognitive faculties, can you say that the concepts, or abstractions or information we receive through our faculties, is true and reliable?

      “But a faculty of cognition is concerned to grasp reality and must, therefore, adhere to reality.”

      I agree, but what reason to you have to suppose the our cognitive faculties are reliable and are able to adhere
      to actual reality? If they are fallible, they could be given us false data.

      “Concepts are condensations of data formed by a volitional process in accordance with a human method.”

      Volitional, but in a materialist worldview, how can there be a volition when we are just products of the universe, determined by our genes and have no soul?

      “They represent reality as processed by a volitional human consciousness.”

      Your presupposing that they are representing reality, when they could be wrong. Also if human consciousness is involved and volitional agents are required to process this, what about if a group of people wanted to delude themselves into a false “reality”? Would they be wrong? Since different people have different consciousness and will react differently and think differently (im allowing free will here), when theres conflicting concepts about reality, how can any concept be objective?

      “Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.”

      I would agree, but i would ask for you to make the distinction between whether this a material faculty or an immaterial faculty.

      “Reason is the faculty which begins with facts (sensory data); ”

      Right, but your are presupposing sensory data is correct and not fallible. Sensory data is just what we get from our cognitive (material) faculties, but since we know our cognitive faculties are fallible and limited, can you say that sensory data is absolute? Can you say sensory data is even true?

      “which organizes these data in accordance with facts (the mathematical relationship among concretes); and which is guided at each step by rules that rest on the fundamental fact (the law of identity).”

      I Agree.

      Just one quick question, even if you can show that concepts in themselves are objective, i would ask you to show if a concept is even possible in a worldview that denies the immaterial. If there is no such thing as immaterial, then we could say that concepts are material, possibly. I would ask you to show me “the sky is blue” in nature. Not look at the sky and draw inferences but literally show me “the sky is blue”.

      If i asked to show me water (material), and you show me the ocean full of water, you have satisfied my demand because you have shown me the thing itself. Similarly you must show me “the sky is blue” (material), the thing itself. This might sound ridiculous, but since a concept cannot be immaterial in X worldview, then in X worldview it would require one to show that concepts are material and the concepts themselves.

Leave a Reply