God Is Love—Does that Make any Sense? (2 of 2)

sunset lovers

Let’s wrap up our look at the popular Christian platitude “God is love.” In part 1, Christian apologist Peter Kreeft handwaved a clever yet ridiculous argument about how God being love made the Trinity mandatory.

Let’s continue with more of Kreeft’s groundless speculation of what God’s love is all about.

God is like a father

Imagine the progression in wisdom from a fool, to an ordinary human, to a sage, to God. Along this progression, positive qualities are amplified—patience, consideration, kindness, thoughtfulness—and negative qualities reduced—impatience, anger, jealousy, ego. “My way or the highway” is replaced by a yielding, selfless, whatever’s-best-for-you approach.

Peter Kreeft gave his insights about what the God end of the spectrum looks like as he spoke about God’s love (“God’s Existence” @1:05:45). He gave the example of a child who didn’t want to show his bad report card to his father. Why not, since the father loves him? Because he’s afraid that the father will get mad at how the child fell short of his potential.

Now dial up that relationship from father/child to God/us. When we adults show our report card to God, does he respond in a patient and considerate way, trying to work with our limitations to find what’s best for us? Apparently not. Kreeft says that God’s perception of our failings is far more acute than the father’s and God gets into a justifiable rage when we make a mistake. So, you see, God’s throwing us into hell forever for the smallest sin is not petty vindictiveness but Deep Love. (And the inmates of hell get to feel the warmth of God’s love for a long, long time.)

Kreeft is our Virgil as he guides us through the afterlife. You might think that injuring or offending God would be as likely as injuring Superman. You might think that God is far more sage-like than any human sage.

Nope. Kreeft tells us that “Love makes God more formidable, not less,” and “Infinite love is utterly intolerant in any imperfection in the beloved.” Gee—who’d’ve guessed? Heaven sounds like George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four where War is Peace and Love is Hate.

(Christians: when you puzzle over what atheists could possibly find troubling about your philosophy, this kind of groundless handwaving is part of the problem.)


See also: Why is God Hidden?


Does the Bible show us that God is loving?

“Love” is not the punch line of the Job story. Job was the pawn in a wager between Yahweh and Satan, and Job’s life was destroyed (but in the end God gave him another set of children to replace the ones that were killed, so it’s all good). Job complained about his undeserved bad fortune, and God made clear to Job that he (God) could do whatever the heck he wanted, and Job could just shut the hell up.

“God is love” isn’t the takeaway from the Old Testament. It isn’t interested in showcasing God’s love but rather his majesty and power in cases like drowning the Egyptian army or burning Sodom and Gomorrah. The lesson from the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac was not love but obedience. “ ‘Should you not fear me?’ declares the Lord. ‘Should you not tremble in my presence?’ ” (Jeremiah 5:22).

Christian children can be introduced to Old Testament stories with toys, but they omit the full story. The Noah’s Ark playset contains a handful of toy animals and people that survived, not the millions who drowned. The David action figure doesn’t come with a bag of 200 Philistine foreskins, Samson doesn’t come with the jawbone of an ass (with which he killed a thousand men), and Joshua doesn’t come with the corpses of any of the millions killed in the conquest of Palestine.

The New Testament isn’t much better, and it invented hell for most of us. Jesus makes this clear: “Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matthew 7:13–14).

Love isn’t the obvious theme in individual human lives around the world today, but as love-poor as the earth is, the empty space that composes almost all the universe contains none.

Former pastor Rob Bell wrote Love Wins, in which he argued for a kinder, gentler afterlife than the traditional Christian view. That was a little too much love for one traditionalist who spoke for many when he said, “Adjusting the gospel to placate human rebellion against God transforms the good news into a compromise with worldliness, something we should earnestly avoid.”

Let me close with a fragment from a modern hymn.

Scorned by the ones He came to save.
Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied.

This portrait of God was so unpleasant that the hymn was finally removed from a hymnal.

There’s not a lot of love happening here. When listing God’s attributes, love isn’t on the short list.

Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
— Benjamin Franklin

Image credit: Bcow, flickr, CC

"You haven't confronted them, you've either ignored them or you've whined that "Adam is a ..."

Daniel’s End Times Prediction: a Skeptical ..."
"Ed, all you've done since you started posting on this blog is proselytizing. You're trying ..."

Daniel’s End Times Prediction: a Skeptical ..."
"On a totally unrelated note, how are house prices in your area?"

Computing the Probability of God
"Yippie, something to look forward to!"

Computing the Probability of God

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • watcher_b

    So the way I dealt with this, back in the day as a Calvinist Evangelical, was that the statement “God is Love” is a definition not a description. So when God told the Israelites to commit genocide, that BY DEFINITION is loving because God did it.

    The problem with my previous way of thinking is that then there are no loving actions. If God does it, it is loving. If I do it, it is not. Love loses all meaning at that point.

    • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

      Yes, that seems to be the means some use, but as you say it makes “love” an empty word.

      • Luvin’ it

        But if “love” means whatever than it’s meangless

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          Right, that’s what I’m saying, and also watcher_b.

        • Luvin’ it

          If it’s meanimeaningless you cannot complain about how the God of the bible acts. If you start to complain about then you’ve introduced meaning.

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          That isn’t what I said. If you read my comment, it’s that claiming whatever God does was good no matter what makes the word meaningless.

        • Luvin’ it

          Not exactly. If we agree that every situation has a best case scenario and that God knows how to get there and wants to get there it would also be true that whatever action he chooses is the most loving because it produces the best outcome

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          “If”, yes. That is exactly what I dispute though.

        • Luvin’ it

          On what grounds?

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          Well, many. One is simply that there’s no good evidence for God. More specifically here, that the world isn’t one a loving deity would create.

        • Luvin’ it

          The moral argument?

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          No, that’s an argument used in favor of God’s existence. This would be the argument from evil, against God’s existence.

        • Luvin’ it

          If there’s evil isn’t there good?

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          Yes. The argument is that there’s more evil than is compatible with the supposed all-good, all-loving God.

        • Luvin’ it

          And who is measuring?

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          We don’t have to “measure”, this is a reduction ad absurdum toward the properties God is described as having.

        • Luvin’ it

          In order to say that good is outweighed but evil what is your standard of good?

        • adam
        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          It’s your standard we’re concerned with. What does it mean to call God “good”?

        • adam
        • Giauz Ragnarock

          It definitely doesn’t mean NOT supervising your employees raping children while not so much as unmiraculously dialing 911.

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          You’d think so. Apparently free will though… or something?

        • katiehippie

          Oh, I see now. You are just JAQing off.

        • adam
        • adam

          ” If we agree that every situation has a best case scenario and that God
          knows how to get there and wants to get there it would also be true that
          whatever action he chooses is the most loving because it produces the
          best outcome”

          We could only agree IF God was not IMAGINARY…

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/38a372d179f379b51cdb5f1c227e4a5bd6dd543347d09566c2aedd943b72e754.jpg But to YOUR point:

        • Luvin’ it

          Doesn’t disprove God so sorry for you Adumb

        • adam

          “Doesn’t disprove God”

          http://www.godisimaginary.com

          God disproves itself

        • Luvin’ it

          You mean atheism and subjective morals?

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          Which atheism has historically used to its advantage

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          No it just has no respect for human life

        • adam
        • Kodie

          That makes no sense.

        • MNb

          If a god committing mass murder is a good thing and Staling doing the same is evil it’s your morals that are subjective.
          IDiot.

        • Kodie

          If I do something and god does the same thing and it’s bad when I do it but loving when god does it, that’s subjective morality. If what you do depends on who you are, what your relative position to someone else is, whatever reason you could excuse one person for doing the same thing as another person, because they live in different countries, or pray to different gods, while condemning the other, you are completely subjective. If sex is a sin, its a sin, and we have lots of laws about sex, murder, etc., that excuses sex when it’s consensual, but condemns it when it is not, while Christian assholes don’t comprehend the idea of marital rape while saying two men can’t consensually have sex because what next llamas? but you don’t want them to be allowed to commit to each other via legal marriage, even, but the marriage age in some states is as young as 13, you don’t have objective morality, you have subjective morality. Your “subject” is god, and whether you are him or obeying him, or obeying laws you heard about at church amid society that sets you apart from society but with which you hope to order everyone else around what you consider “objective” is really just your opinion of what’s good and what’s bad. It’s not grounded in god, it’s grounded in your particular denomination and varies depending what denomination you attend, or what your prior beliefs were. I have heard plenty of people decide which god they’re going to believe in based on what they feel like god would or wouldn’t want, like Christians who go to an inclusive kind of house of worship that allows, condones, supports marriage equality reject the god who wants them to hate and ban gay marriage. It really is whatever people want to believe, and the people they can find who agree.

        • katiehippie

          Then god is an asshole.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          We can’t disprove EVERY SINGLE unevidenced thing one can imagine, either. One could be right by accident after all. Your bar for “proof” is quite low.

        • Kodie

          What possible outcome could god be working toward by killing lots and lots of people in the most painful and torturous ways?

    • Luvin’ it

      God as the author of life is able to take life as he sees fit we however cannot. Dan Barker says that it would be good and moral if he raped a little girl to save 6 billion people. Why can’t God be the supreme situational ethicist?

      • adam

        “God as the author of life is able to take life as he sees fit we however cannot.”

        Sure we can, Stalin did
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ef887e6e83b503832604b125b86f6981094b30bf8c5f08c62b314eb30f6a053c.jpg

        You just need to be CRUEL
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bc3d2f2cc6d56454300f773d819a6ad3a142b9a220646a2efef4b5414944542b.jpg

        ” Why can’t God be the supreme situational ethicist?”

        Then why call it God?

        • Luvin’ it

          Stalin wasn’t God

        • adam

          He was able to take life as he saw fit, contrary to your claim.

        • Luvin’ it

          Not contrary he wasn’t God therefore it’s a poor parallel on you’re part

        • adam

          I wasnt drawing a parallel

          “God as the author of life is able to take life as he sees fit we however cannot.”

          Stalin took like as he saw fit.

          Your statement is in error.

        • Luvin’ it

          He is not God they’re not on the same playing field

        • adam

          I wasnt drawing a parallel

          “God as the author of life is able to take life as he sees fit we however cannot.”

          Stalin took like as he saw fit.

          Your statement is in error.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/49a0c32d34d03acc446ec009ee1ac4cb1eab59d923ac380ea760fa51a583f64f.png

        • adam

          “He is not God they’re not on the same playing field”

          Stalin wasnt IMAGINARY.

        • Luvin’ it

          Stalin also wasnt God Adumb

        • adam

          Stalin wasnt IMAGINARY.

        • Luvin’ it

          K Adumb

        • adam

          K STupid

        • Kodie

          I don’t think you’re getting this.

        • adam

          Stalin wasnt IMAGINARY.

          So you are correct.

        • Luvin’ it

          You forgot an apostrophe might want to learn how to type there bucko

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yeah, Stalin’s power to do harm was limited. Not so God’s.

        • Luvin’ it

          Death to God is the equivalent of turning off the light switch. We look on in horror when all he’s doing is saving electricity.

        • Pofarmer

          Uhm, no. Death to God, at least the NT variant, is eternal torment.

        • Luvin’ it

          By our choice not his.

        • Pofarmer

          That doesn’t even make sense. Are you saying God couldn’t chose to not make hell?

        • Luvin’ it

          Not if he is a just God. If he is unjust there wouldn’t be a hell

        • Pofarmer

          What is just about assigning people to burn for eternity simply for not believing?

        • Kodie

          Are you saying god doesn’t care, he’s blase’, he’s nonchalant? I mean, he occasionally puts the equivalent of a bug bomb and doesn’t seem to need to sift the good from the bad. Everyone gets fucked over and you’re saying that’s like turning off a light switch to save energy. You’re a monster.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The horror is when we understand the torment of hell. Thanks, Jesus.

        • Luvin’ it

          That’s like when a criminal says “thanks justice system” when he knows he’s headed to tent city.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Which clumsily avoids the point.

          You said, “Death to God is the equivalent of turning off the light switch. We look on in horror when all he’s doing is saving electricity.” And I reminded you that annihilation is not at all how God rolls. The unpleasant truth is that God created the universe’s most extreme torture chamber.

        • Luvin’ it

          Well no we wouldn’t have prisons were it not for criminals. So my point stands. Do we blame the justice system for having them? No unless of course you enjoy lawlessness and no justice

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          God doesn’t do annihilation. God fries people in hell. So my point stands.

        • Luvin’ it

          That’s like saying the justice system is bad for injecting criminals with poison but its actually the other way around. In other words you commit a certain crime and you’re essentially WANTING to be punished. People want to go to hell just like criminals that want to murder and steal etc.

        • Greg G.

          Are you drinking or doing drugs? You are making even less sense that usual.

          Most crimes are not committed with a wish to be punished.

        • Luvin’ it

          Every convicted crime is otherwise the person wouldn’t commit it.

        • Luvin’ it

          Then what is their motive? They innocently commited a crime?

        • adam

          “Then what is their motive?”

          To get away with it, to avoid the responsibility of their actions like christians want to do with Jesus.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b7a05ecb937e0cbec525ced92dbab15d3bbf30824d7c53116f3ece09dcaff384.jpg

        • Luvin’ it

          And also annihilation mught be the most biblical position. Greg Boyd is a huge proponent of this in fact

        • Greg G.

          That’s what the ancient Egyptians believed as well.

          How will annihilated people wail and gnash their annihilated teeth?

          That Christianity cannot get the punishment figured out still make Jesus the greatest prayer failure of all time.

          John 17:20-23 (NRSV)20 “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

          The unity of Christians is supposed to great as to impress the rest of the world into believing. We see Christians disagreeing before the Gospel of John was written.

        • Luvin’ it

          Disagreeing about what? Subtleties?

        • Greg G.

          It doesn’t matter what the disagreement is, the problem is that the level of unity is insufficient to impress the rest of the world “so that the world may believe that you have sent me”. Since the whole world does not believe, the prayer is a failure. Even if Christians agreed to every detail, if the rest of the world didn’t believe, the prayer would be a failure.

        • Luvin’ it

          Unity as defined by Greg G. Do you complain about the unity between NFL teams?

        • Kodie

          If you can tell, we don’t have much faith in god to serve out justice in a timely manner. If morality were a law like gravity, wouldn’t there be instant and consistent consequences for violating laws? We have to live in a society, so of course we set up justice systems to keep criminals out of free society. It’s not perfect, and neither do criminals receive the same natural consequences for committing a crime. A murderer might get shot to death by a cop, or they might get convicted and sent to jail for a term, or they might stay in jail until they die or get parole, or never go to jail because they escaped or there was a loophole or the jury didn’t find them guilty – many different possible consequences for the same crime. You’re counting on god to take his damn sweet time and eventually sort that fucker out and send them to hell, but not if they find Jesus first, meaning there is no certain natural or supernatural consequence for committing any identical crime. That you seem to think if they die and there’s no god, they “get away with it” is so dumb. In your plan, they might get away with it. Everyone has to die, and nobody said life was fair, so what if they are dead and they didn’t get caught? They are dead!

        • TheNuszAbides

          when he knows he’s headed to tent city.

          holy crap, what are the odds you aren’t cognitively equipped to unpack that one …

        • adam

          “Death to God is the equivalent of turning off the light switch.”

          WOW, look how cold and heartless faith has made you.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bc3d2f2cc6d56454300f773d819a6ad3a142b9a220646a2efef4b5414944542b.jpg

        • Luvin’ it

          Nope it just means life and death aren’t as simple as atheist simpletons wish it to be

        • TheNuszAbides

          and what about the atheists who can run circles around your cut-rate ‘complexity’?

        • Kodie

          You’re horrifying!

        • MNb

          Which means your morals are subjective.
          Mass murder is OK when your god does it, but not when Stalin does it.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          How easy it is to get authoritarian followers to say such things. What horrifying implications :-(

      • watcher_b

        I’m not talking morality. I’m talking “Love”.

        • Luvin’ it

          Which you define as??

        • watcher_b

          Are you asking me “what is Love?”…. cause there is a joke in there somewhere.

          But seriously, the context of this conversation is over a critique of the idea that “God is Love”. So are you asking me that since I do not agree with that definition how do I define “Love”?

      • Cozmo the Magician

        “Why can’t God be the supreme situational ethicist?” Well, to start with is the fact that ‘god’ does not exist. Thats a good place to start.

        • Luvin’ it

          “Does not” huh? What makes you so sure?

        • Cozmo the Magician

          complete lack of evidence. logic. history. science. lots of reasons.

      • katiehippie

        Why would god have to do that? Your all powerful god can do anything right? Seems he could save 6 billion people without doing something reprehensible. Puny god.

        • Luvin’ it

          Death comes to everyone at some point I thought you atheists embraced that like a warm whittle bwanky

        • adam

          “Death comes to everyone at some point I thought you atheists embraced that like a warm whittle bwanky”

          No, we understand that you get one life.

          It is those ‘thesists’ who think they can avoid being responsible for their own actions

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c5445e273728092c84dc583a4e5d5b4272a1e62c42654b930aa001a7c5c86900.png

        • Luvin’ it

          That’s funny cause being a theist makes me MORE responsible not less

        • adam

          “That’s funny cause being a theist makes me MORE responsible not less”

          That’s funny, because facts dont support your claim

          Atheists Are 0.07% of the Federal Prison Population, Threatening Fact for Christian Fundamentalistshttp://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/why-atheists-make-85-percent-americas-scientists-and-07-percent-its-prison

        • katiehippie

          What for? You have a get our of jail free card with god.

        • adam

          “That’s funny cause being a theist makes me MORE responsible not less”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a406e8e7638782e1b66e63e676aac2dcf5332cd922c7f846c877b7d29c5d82b0.jpg

        • adam

          “That’s funny cause being a theist makes me MORE responsible not less”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f891bfb4934b62927d8fa4cf8b6feef95c445c8fbd3cf44aba1256bb97d8489b.jpg

        • adam

          “That’s funny cause being a theist makes me MORE responsible not less”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c7c540786b83c1a7f16529fbc116998cfda8fa8948ac1342a6416b282d9ad215.jpg

        • adam

          “That’s funny cause being a theist makes me MORE responsible not less”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b6b5240f53deb4a0141b0d9196de29540d1f8931a4c8d5713b9547eca65cbd2f.jpg

        • adam

          “That’s funny cause being a theist makes me MORE responsible not less”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/576b5354eb99d2993f45ae1c298d7ea1beb6be63a081a92e69a99632f9b856b3.jpg

        • adam

          “That’s funny cause being a theist makes me MORE responsible not less”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d2604d74a3602b9a653ca3bde07f9b615e04ef5423e93efc36252eaded367c6a.jpg

        • Luvin’ it

          By the numbers atheistic systems have killed more people throughout history so sorry for you

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          Oh okay

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          Passage and translation please?

        • adam

          It in the image
          Leviticus 25:44-46

          When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at
          the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who
          bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not
          allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the
          contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to
          marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must
          treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes
          another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep
          with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may
          leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

        • Luvin’ it

          First of all us a more scholary translation not a dynamic translation like the NLT. If you want more accurate try the NASB or RSV or ESV

        • adam

          Leviticus 25:44-46New American Standard Bible (NASB)

          44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have [a]produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your [b]countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

        • adam

          Leviticus 25:44-46Revised Standard Version (RSV)

          44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession
          for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness.

        • Luvin’ it

          Yes and that’s all in the context of bondservanthood

        • adam

          Nope SLAVERY, you are thinking:

          If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set
          him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his
          freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

          Or maybe you arent thinking at all, but being dishonest.

        • Luvin’ it

          Notice it says if the slave WANTS to remain a slave

        • adam

          ” But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be
          freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and
          they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh
          year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. ”

          You mean to stay with his CHILDREN who are the PROPERTY of the SLAVEHOLDER?

          Where do you get all this CRUELTY from?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/42360417ff1086c29b3ee54033123b66ad2b1288895a813b827de4eb733d4751.jpg

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          “I can be free if only I abandon my family captured by human traffickers? Fuck the little fuckers and the bitch I fucked them out of! I choose Jesus God’s totally not sadistic offer of freedom!”

          That actually explains a lot!

        • Kodie

          You say it’s just like turning off a light switch to save energy, so those people are on god’s side. If you believe god exists, god planted the idea even if those atheists didn’t recognize the voice. To you, he was doing god a favor because god needed those people to die. That’s according to you. That’s how horrifying you are.

        • Kodie

          Than who?

        • katiehippie

          “Death comes to everyone at some point”
          Yes, I agree. So? Seems your god can’t save you from that either. Puny god.

        • Luvin’ it

          Well the resurrection says otherwise. Let me guess you think Jesus didn’t exist?

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          HAHAHAHAHA David Fitzgerald

        • adam

          HAHAHAHAHA A Jesus nobody wrote about when he was alive because he was so UNimportant.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b8e21f4f245797969c0947a765da8794c812826b9b5e6d1a040a884b1ee550af.jpg

        • Luvin’ it

          There are 18 sources outside the NT that talk about him or do you dismiss those too?

        • adam

          NONE within his supposed lifetime.

          But bring up all your ‘sources’, the people here will demonstrate how unreliable they ALL are.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/240e76b809830834292884152c7c7a48f8ec22c813ae1f56a7ed4223ab63de54.jpg

        • Luvin’ it

          You mean the followers of Bob Seidersphinkter?

        • dorcheat

          Is this really all you can manage, Luvin? Ad hominen name calling Bob S.

        • adam

          So where are these ‘sources’?

          You’re not afraid of honesty are you?

        • Luvin’ it
        • Pofarmer

          Not this stupid shit.

        • adam

          I dont see any from the time Jesus was supposed to be alive.

        • Lark62

          Your pathetic immaturity is showing.

        • Pofarmer

          Oh fuckin hell.

        • Bob Jase

          I know, its like those cryptid blogs where noobs keep saying the Loch Ness monster is a pleisiosaur – how many hundreds of times do we have to debunk this crap?

        • Pofarmer

          There’s just this seemingly endless stream of the same dumbass.

        • Greg G.

          None of them were born in the first 33 years of the first century.

        • Bob Jase

          Which is fine because there is no evidence that Jesus H. Christ was either.

        • adam
        • adam

          Yes, I dismiss them as well.

          And you should too.

          AGAIN, nothing in supposed Jesus’s lifetime.

        • Luvin’ it

          I will dismiss if there are good grounds to do so for example some of the additions to Josephus

        • adam

          there are good grounds to dismiss them all.

          AGAIN, nothing in supposed Jesus’s lifetime. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c0ded0c20f62b9d1996f93afe9c98e20dc6bf1035eaa16eb5acf23323c3cb09f.jpg

        • katiehippie

          He may have existed, but there’s no proof that he was a god.

        • Luvin’ it

          If he rose from the dead that would be a vindication of his claims to divinity

        • katiehippie

          That’s a big if. Very doubtful.

        • adam

          “If he rose from the dead that would be a vindication of his claims to divinity”

          If my aunt had a dick he would be my uncle.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/240e76b809830834292884152c7c7a48f8ec22c813ae1f56a7ed4223ab63de54.jpg

        • Bob Jase

          Can’t rise from the dead unless you’ve been alive first.

        • Luvin’ it

          Another mythicist hack

        • Bob Jase

          Let’s see the birth certificate.

          How about the census form (remember the whole census bit from the bible)?

          Maybe the death certificate?

          Anything contemporary?

          Bueller?

        • TheNuszAbides

          how about the mythicist non-hacks? how do you pretend to torpedo their cases?

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          Too bad he conveniently disappeared like a made up deity.

        • Kodie

          No, death is still the end. You’re calmly defending god’s mysterious loving reasons to get to his favored outcome by subjecting people to cruel suffering deaths by thousands and thousands of different means. Like a psychopath, discovering how neat this new way to die is, and playing with his dollhouse and how shall I kill this one today, I know, fire, I know, fall off a mountain, I know, cancer, I know DVT, I know, mosquito bite, I know, random shooter, I know, fraternity hazing. You think it’s his loving way to leave parents childless, children parentless, schoolmates with an empty chair in their classroom. Whatever his outcome is, this is the most loving way possible to get there, so he just has to purge some people in the most painful ways he can think of, and so his outcome is served, and this delights you. So what could possibly be the outcome necessary to go this way instead of something less cruel?

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        Because he doesn’t exist? Or is this a trick question?

        • Luvin’ it

          No in theory what’s wrong with God being the supreme situational ethicist?

        • epeeist

          No in theory what’s wrong with God being the supreme situational ethicist?

          Because if it was the case that the god of the bible existed then it would be the case that it is, as Richard Dawkins put it, “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.”

        • Luvin’ it

          That’s cute though if you’ve ever been happily married you’d understand jealousy in the sense that you desire your spouse’s attention

        • epeeist

          You mean your god desires my attention, so add insecurity to the list of attributes that Dawkins gives.

        • Bob Jase

          Well first it means he is inconsistant so who knows what he will consider good in any given situation.

          Second it means his judgments are unfair as a result of this inconsistancy.

          Third it destroys your claim that objective morality exists and is dependant on god.

          But other than blowing away your claims for a good god there’s nothing wrong with it.

        • Luvin’ it

          He will consider good whatever is best

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gbNc37mPybM

          By that standard Hades didn’t deceive Faust.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Because the ethics he displays in the Bible are of a very recognizable and unpleasant sort. It’s not like they’re so enlightened that we have a hard time wrapping our heads around them (“Civil rights for all? No slavery? Don’t eat animals? Wow–that’s pretty strange.”) We see them in people like Stalin and Saddam Hussein.

          God’s morality is supernatural? Sure doesn’t look like it.

        • Luvin’ it

          Gotta love situational ethics huh? Like when your friend Dan Barker says he would rape girls to save people. Absolute filth of a human being

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I dunno what Barker said, but I guess you’re saying that rape is less bad than the deaths of many people.

          But you disagree? How interesting. Defend yourself.

        • Luvin’ it

          Rape is always wrong it’s not a situational ethic

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          That’s nice.

          Now, back to the issue. Someone has said that rape is less bad than the deaths of many people. And you disagree?

        • Luvin’ it

          That’s correct and Dan Barker does not. In fact he said he would rape two motion girls to save 6 billion and we would all “thank him for it still being alive.” That’s from his debate with Kyle Butt

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Back to the issue: Barker said that rape is less bad than the deaths of billions of people. You disagree?

        • Luvin’ it

          Correct rape is categorically wrong do you agree?

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          Yep there was a penalty therefore it was wrong if there had not been a penalty you’d have something so sorry for you

        • TheNuszAbides

          wow – most of the confused Chess Pigeons are at least either consistent or coherent in some limited fashion. you’re neither.

        • Greg G.

          Would you kill 2 million to save 6 billion? Would you allow 6 billion to die to save two million lives?

          I think your main objection to thought experiments is that they require thought.

        • Luvin’ it

          That’s correct and Dan Barker said he would rape 2 million girls to save 6 billion and that we would thank him for it still being alive (from his debate with Kyle Butt)

        • Luvin’ it

          Barker said it in a debate with Kyle Butt

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          ?? That’s nice.

          Perhaps now you’d like to address my point. Let me repeat it for you: you’re apparently saying that Barker said that rape is less bad than the deaths of many people. But you disagree? How interesting. Defend yourself.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          What if he said he would do it because he didn’t want to disobey Jesus?

        • adam
      • MNb

        Ah. I make something for you.
        I give it to you.
        I can take it back as I see fit.
        Not.

      • Giauz Ragnarock

        You see “author of life” and “take life as sees fit” as related. In effect, you argue “perfect/objective/absolute morality” are meaningless phrases as anyone many consider immoral can be perfectly moral without change in their behavior simply because “well, who are you to complain?”/AKA Jesus God gaslighting Job.

    • Pofarmer

      One of the last Homilies I ever listened to in a Catholic Church was on one on “God, is infinitely good.” The Cognitive dissonance hit me so hard I just couldn’t do it any more.

      • Luvin’ it

        Why because he doesn’t deal with pain and suffering the way you’d like him to? Good thing you’re not God.

        • Pofarmer

          If God is omnipotent, pain and suffering are unnecessary.

        • Luvin’ it

          Not exactly considering God would know what is best in the long run.

        • Pofarmer

          Lol. Read Greg G’s post

        • TheNuszAbides

          and you think you can tell when an atheist is a simpleton. please try not borrowing those big tough words until you get some skill at using them to communicate coherent ideas.

          oh, and that needs to come after the part where you have actually grasped some coherent ideas.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Agreed. The dictionary defines words, and that definition isn’t in the dictionary.

    • David Cromie

      Wonderful point

  • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

    It is odd that God being infinite makes him less loving rather than more, according to Kreeft (not that he’d admit this).

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      No, I’m sure that Kreeft would say that God’s savage attitude toward sinners is actually pure love. I dunno how he squares that with it looking exactly like hate here on earth.

      • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

        Yes, they seem to have an idiosyncratic definition of the word.

  • Bob Jase

    God is love but its a narcissistic kind, god loves god and you had better too or else.

    • adam

      Why does this sound much like Trump?

      • Luvin’ it

        You mean Hillary

        Wha Wha Wha What haaaaapenned

        • adam
        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          Didn’t Crooked Hillary lose?

        • adam

          Duh

        • Luvin’ it

          He’s making a point that no one is going to take our second amendment rights away by using hyperbole. Liberals always take words literally and cant seem to understand conversational genres or contexts

        • adam

          “He’s making a point that no one is going to take our second amendment rights away by using hyperbole”

          No he is not.

          ” Liberals always take words literally and cant seem to understand conversational genres or contexts”

          I understand Trumps IGNORANCE very well.

        • Luvin’ it

          Let’s look at ANTIFA and BLM as examples of violence shall we?

        • adam

          Ok

          Show us what you’ve got.

        • Luvin’ it

          Ummm how about the Berkley riots or throwing pee bags at police officers over free speech?

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          Old testament slavery wasn’t man stealing you dunce it was offered as a means to pay off your debt.

        • adam

          “Old testament slavery wasn’t man stealing you dunce”

          I didnt say it was

          “it was offered as a means to pay off your debt.”

          Nope, OT slavery is very clear:

          It is about OWNING people as PROPERTY

          Leviticus 25:44-46New American Standard Bible (NASB)

          44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have [a]produced in your land; they also may become
          your possession. 46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. ……

        • Lark62

          Read your f’ing book before spewing lies.

        • Luvin’ it

          Just so we’re clear Democrats were the ones who favored slavery in the United States during the Civil War

        • adam

          Yep.
          They were responsible for the Jim Crow Laws too.
          Just so we’re clear, I am not a Democrat.

          However, it is not Democrats NOW:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/819dd400156ed12785f52499dcf2ce585fdadb88d1e8e3f8ece9b478ac2c5eb3.jpg

        • Luvin’ it

          Right because democrats had two old white people as their candidates this time around whereas Republicans had Cubans, African Americans etc.

        • Luvin’ it

          Democrats must hate African Americans which is why they support Planned Parenthood a eugenics organization that exists primarily in poor black neighborhood s

        • adam
        • Michael Neville

          Citation needed.

        • Luvin’ it
        • Michael Neville

          The conservative website The Federalist is biased against organizations it deems pro-abortion. So, do you have a citation from a non-partial website?

        • Luvin’ it

          Oh you mean like one that loves abortion?

        • Bob Jase

          Well if a right wing nut job says it then it must be true.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          Because people of color NEVER have kids, babies don’t cost ANYTHING, they don’t have a long history of being mistreated and disadvantaged, and PP doesn’t provide a variety of services they would have use for just like white people, right?

          Hail Jesus God, the Prince of Lies!

        • Kodie

          So you pretend to care about black people when they have access to abortions or birth control, and call it “eugenics” when women have a choice – nobody is hunting down poor pregnant women and stealing their choice overtly – they are taking away choice by not paying for sex education or giving out birth control like candy, and then have the fucking nerve to call everyone a welfare queen (never heard of a welfare king, have you?) because she keeps having babies to get more benefits, like, to keep them fed and alive.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          And the Cleveland Browns are a great football team. Also, that shit is still pizza.

        • TheNuszAbides

          get over your Only Two Sides pre-school schtick and you could actually start figuring out how humanity works (and doesn’t work) instead of how your sheltering elders (or hoodwinking Chick tracts, or whatever) tradition’d you into parroting.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Crooked Hillary and crooked Donald both lost.
          More people voted for Hillary than voted for Donald.

        • Luvin’ it

          Thank God for the electoral college or NYC, Chicago and LA would decide every election. Good thing the founders were smarter than modern day Democrats

      • Cozmo the Magician

        Beat me to it.

      • Kodie

        Have you seen where his staff meetings start with a round of ass-kissing?

        • adam

          I suspect that this is the same kind of staff meetings Kim Jun-Un has.

  • RichardSRussell

    Anybody who’s having a hard time with the concept of love should read this beautifully written essay from a grieving mother posted elsewhere on Patheos:
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/09/17/the-day-atheism-saved-my-life/

    • Luvin’ it

      Very moving but it has no bearing on whether or not God exists.

      • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          A counterfeit belief system such as atheism doesn’t disprove theism

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          Do you believe it’s correct?

        • adam

          Belief what is correct?

        • Luvin’ it

          Atheism do you believe atheism is correct?

        • adam

          I am an atheist.
          So atheism is true.
          No belief required.

        • Luvin’ it

          What’s your evidence that it’s true other than asserting it.

        • adam

          I am an atheist
          I am proof of atheism

        • Luvin’ it

          Which is defined as what?

        • adam

          Definition of atheism

          1 a

          :a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

          I lack belief in the existence of Gods

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fe4f85db4759e41e6b97a929743f5278be0c5c5b4ac46c7d4849a954219e949c.jpg

        • Luvin’ it

          And what leads to your “lack of belief?”

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          Again counterfits don’t disprove the actual thing Adumb

        • adam

          ” How did you rationaly arrive there?”

          By studying religion.

          What actual thing are you talking about?

        • Luvin’ it

          What evidence leads you to believe there isn’t a God? For example, Bart Ehrman says it’s the problem of evil.

        • adam

          “What evidence leads you to bekieve there isn’t a God?”

          No evidence to belief in MAGIC.
          No evidence of MAGIC.

          Plus there is all this inanity in the Bible

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fe3b6e666be78e0d82aa897b20a788edbe62268deabf9959680627ca7a98d270.jpg

        • Luvin’ it

          Actually Pharaoh killed his son when you think about it.

        • adam

          Actually when you think about it, it is just a made up story.

          No account in HISTORY of any of this happening.

          Mythology

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cec86c13ff651044ebf846246f7b360fb2d8a3eccf42e97c497a2d680eb4b44d.jpg

        • Luvin’ it

          That’s because of where many people are looking in Egyptian history not to mention it was S.O.P. For Egyptian historians to write out anything embarrassing

        • adam

          Wow, all the first born die and NOBODY, NOBODY records it.

          How AMAZING…

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/90a6aeced5e556ad6fcec3ba42057269b937079dfe55eb5ac142a8425ed18adb.jpg

        • Luvin’ it

          All the first born of Egypt and they customarily wrote embarrassing material out

        • adam

          Source needed.

        • adam

          What’s embarrassing about all your first born dying?

        • Luvin’ it

          Umm because of their idiocy probably

        • adam

          More likely your idiocy in claiming something you cant demonstrate with facts.

        • Luvin’ it

          You forgot an apostrophe again wiz kid

        • adam

          You forgot honesty, again.

        • Michael Neville

          Luvin’ it is following the honored Christian tradition of Lying for Jesus. Among evangelicals it’s almost a sacrament.

        • Michael Neville

          Actually the Egyptians were “warts and all” historians. They went into great detail about their defeat by the Sea Peoples. Sorry, try selling your lies and fables to people who don’t know any history, you’ll have better luck.

        • Luvin’ it

          And there’s no proof that you’re not an avatar of Bob S

        • adam

          Bob can save you from your own stupidity.

          All you need to do is let go of MAGICAL wishes and seek Truth.

        • Luvin’ it

          Oh okay

        • adam
        • TheNuszAbides

          sock puppetry is utterly irrelevant to your magnificently uninformed talking points getting refuted time and time again.

        • adam

          “Actually Pharaoh killed his son when you think about it.”

          Only for psychopathic thinking.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a18a3237d360e002dbdd901e4a3f5688a3463b7d939dbc595090ceadb5ae4faa.png

        • MNb

          1. God is an incoherent concept (if you disagree, please provide a definition).
          2. God explains everything and hence nothing. So claims about your god aren’t testable.
          3. God doesn’t add anything to our understanding.
          Technically these are no evidence but logical arguments related to epistemology, but an IDiot like doesn’t understand the difference, I suppose.

        • katiehippie

          Said the atheist to the Christian.

        • Luvin’ it

          That he has no evidence? Yes I agree.

        • adam
        • katiehippie

          What’s your evidence? And answering with another question isn’t proof of anything.

        • Luvin’ it

          How about the resurrection of Jesus?

        • Michael Neville

          Got any evidence that Jesus even existed? Once that’s been settled then we can discuss whether or not he was resurrected.

        • Luvin’ it

          Yeah about 18 sources outside the NT

        • Lark62

          The sources are known forgeries, and several writers who basically said “There are these people who call themselves christians.” Newsflash, the existence of christians does not prove the existence of a person named Jesus 100 years earlier, anymore that the existence of Star Wars fans proves the existence of Anakin Skywalker.

          My personal favorite of the “sources outside the NT” is Lucien of Samosata who is said to provide proof of the existence of Jesus with a text written around 160 CE. This passage from The Passing of Peregrinus says in effect “Those christians are so gullible. They get fleeced by every conman who comes among them.” Yeppers. That is one of the proofs of the existence of a real Jesus pointed to by (very desperate) christians.

        • Luvin’ it

          Well no your saying the antagonistic Jewish sources are forgeries? Wow that’s desperate of you for sure.

        • Lark62

          Oh puhleeze. Yes, when christian scribes intentionally or unintentionally inserted material into texts that was not there originally, that is considered a forgery. The attitude and beliefs of the writer whose work was changed makes no difference.

        • Michael Neville

          So trot them out. Like your hero, Rush Limbaugh would say: “We’re waiting.”

          What am I bet this guy brings out Josephus, Pliny and Tacitus first?

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          And whats your explanation for the empty tomb? Let me guess Jesus never existed right?

        • adam

          “And whats your explanation for the empty tomb?”

          What empty tomb?

          How do you explain that Spiderman can sling webs and crawl walls?

          ” Let me guess Jesus never existed right?”

          Jesus was a VERY popular name at the time,
          So there have been LOTS of Jesi.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c0ded0c20f62b9d1996f93afe9c98e20dc6bf1035eaa16eb5acf23323c3cb09f.jpg

        • Luvin’ it

          The empty tomb of Jesus that even atheist NT scholars agree about

        • adam

          Nope they dont.

          Science doesnt recognize MAGIC.

        • Chuck Johnson

          The ancient religionists concocted false stories about tombs.
          Luvin’ it concocts false stories about atheist scholars.
          A time-honored tradition of fraud.

        • Luvin’ it

          Gerd Ludemann or Bart Ehrman don’t count?

        • MNb

          IDiot Luvin’it displays his/her ignorance once again.

          Nope. They agree that that empty tomb is possible.

          Tesis unus testis nullus.

          http://www.livius.org/articles/theory/testis-unus-testis-nullus/

        • Kodie

          What’s your explanation for being so gullible?

        • Chuck Johnson

          How about the story of the resurrection of Jesus ?

        • Luvin’ it

          Did Jesus exist?

        • Dus10

          Even if he did, why assume the gospels are biographies and not fiction or propaganda? And if you assume they are biographical, why assume they contain no hyperbole.

        • Luvin’ it

          I didn’t say no hyperbole but even atheist scholars agree to the fact that Jesus of Nazareth existed

        • Dus10

          Ok. But so what? Myth can have a basis in reality. That doesn’t give the myth portion any credence

        • Luvin’ it

          True but Jesus was buried in a tomb and the tomb was found empty even the Jewish Talmud admits that. Why was it empty?

        • Dus10

          Same reason john henry was a steel driving man, cause it made for better storytelling. Why isn’t the mundane explanation good enough? That its part of a story, told because humans like their tall tales.

        • Luvin’ it

          Umm because the tomb is empty and no natural explanation explains it for one

        • Dus10

          Really? You can’t think of anything? So, well shit, it had to be ghosts then.

        • Luvin’ it

          Well no eventually you have to infer the best explanation when all of the natural ones have been exhausted

        • Otto

          Except the natural explanations have not been exhausted except in the minds of people who need it to prop up their mythology.

        • Luvin’ it

          What’s your explanation of the empty tomb oh great scholar?

        • Otto

          Well first the assumption has to be made that there was a tomb. No one knows where this supposed tomb is. At this point it is a story, a story that some people have accepted as being true. But there is no evidence for a tomb or that the tomb was filled with a dead body, or that it later went missing. A story is not evidence, it is a claim, nothing more.

          But regardless, any natural explanation is by definition more plausible than the supernatural explanation.

        • Luvin’ it

          It’s testimony. Scholars agree today that the Gospels and Acts are in the ancient genre of Roman biographies.

        • Otto

          Most of those ‘scholars’ are Christians. The ones that are not Christians do not accept the supernatural claims of the Gospels.

          Do you accept the story of Joseph Smith and the Golden Plates? I bet not…even though there were more known people that supposedly witnessed them. I think you need to ask yourself why you don’t accept that story, and when you figure out the answer you will probably be pretty close to why we don’t accept the Resurrection story.

        • Luvin’ it

          Well no for good reasons. The accounts were drawn up by family members and the only non family member later wrote a newspaper article denying any involvement

        • Otto

          So you are saying the people writing the stories were biased…hmm.

        • Luvin’ it

          They were obviously biased even Richard Dawkins admits the Book of Mormon is a forgery it doesn’t compacompare even a lick to the historicity of the New Testament

        • Otto

          They have a comparable amount of evidence for their supernatural claims

        • Luvin’ it

          Not really when you consider their forged accounts and their collusion. In contrast all of the disciples deserted Jesus before the cross and then following the resurrection they went to their deaths proclaiming he had risen. Even the combative Jewish sources acknowledge Jesus worked miracles but they said that the source of his power was Satan.

        • Otto

          Yes, that is what the story says. And the Bible is choke full of forgeries.

        • Luvin’ it

          Actually textual criticism by non-believing scholars says otherwise

        • Otto

          Well since you are such a fan of Ehrman you must be familiar with his book Forged…which is in line with both believing and non-believing scholars

        • Lark62

          You are supporting the myth using tales from the myth. That is nonsensical. One cannot prove the legend of King Arthur by saying Sir Gawain believed Arthur was king. Sir Gawain was noble and courteous, so we know he told the truth. Right? Mordred was Arthur’s enemy. So if Mordred says Arthur is real, he must be real. Right?

          The Sheriff of Nottingham hated Robin Hood. Nottingham is a real place, therefore Robin Hood was a real person and the myths are true. Bovine Hockey Pucks.

          If Jesus is myth, the 12 zodiac inspired disciples, including Gemini Thomas the Twin are also myth. Duh on steriods.

        • MNb

          Yeah, a bit more than zero is an infinite times more than zero. So that says zilch about the Resurrection.

        • Luvin’ it

          But the point I’m making is that the Gospels aren’t just stories they are historical and even atheistic scholars agree with that

        • Otto

          No they don’t

        • Luvin’ it

          Want to bet? Here’s Ehrman acknowledging they are considered ancient biographies https://ehrmanblog.org/gospels-biographies-members/

        • Otto

          Ehrman does not believe the supernatural claims of the Gospels are historical…You make Baby Jesus cry when you lie.

        • Luvin’ it

          That’s not what I said. Ehrman confirms that the Gospels are ancient biographie thats all I wanted to show and I succeeded wow you guys are wrong a lot tonight

        • Otto

          I don’t care, the only parts that are relevant to the Christian claims are the supernatural parts. Take out the supernatural and there isn’t much left of the story.

        • MNb

          They are partly historical and partly fiction, like all written stuff from Antiquity (and also the Middle Ages).

        • Lark62

          The gospels are fan fiction written by people in Greece. A Palestinian wandering preacher made a good starting point for the story. The stories mention some historical places. They mention some historical people. But this does not make them “history.”

          I could write a story here in 2017 that turned Crazy Horse into a deity who performed miracles. I could mention real places. I could mention real people. I could make up quotes and miracles, borrowing heavily from similar myths. I could say he was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. Several centuries from now people, could find evidence that Crazy Horse was a real person and the places mentioned in the story were real places. My story would still be nothing but make believe.

          The stories about Jesus are make believe.

        • TheNuszAbides

          But the point I’m making is that …

          hold up there, sparky – that moment right before the “But”? that was you scrambling to quell your cognitive dissonance instead of honestly conceding the point Otto just made (well, over a week ago). breezing past that is childish, petty and disrespectful at best – that’s if you don’t realize you’re doing it. if you understand the concept and you do it anyway, it’s dishonest and cowardly as well.

        • MNb

          They also agree that the ancient genre of Roman biographies is full of fiction. For instance the biography of Saint Nicholas (whose birthday is celebrated in The Netherlands every year, even by protestants and non-believers) claims that he was capable of bilocation.

        • Luvin’ it

          Besides the crucifixion of Jesus the burial is one of the most established facts in the ancient world

        • Otto

          Only in your delusional mind

        • MNb

          Crucifixion plus burial doesn’t equal resurrection, oh IDiot.

        • TheNuszAbides

          you can turn in your Has A Leg To Stand On Criticizing Others’ Punctuation card now.

        • Dus10

          That it is all a story explains it all in a natural way. Stories can say any fantastic thing they want. You just want it to be more than a story.

        • Luvin’ it

          It is a story that’s true. Are you saying Jesus didn’t exist?

        • MNb

          The divine Jesus didn’t exist, just like the divine Luvin’it doesn’t exist. Still Luvin’it exists.
          You’re a genuine IDiot.

        • MNb

          See above. They haven’t been exhausted; there are too many.

        • TheNuszAbides

          it’s a pity you obviously don’t “have to”.

        • Bob Jase

          Show me the tomb and the evidence that Jesus was ever buried there. You’d think if someone rose from the dead it would have been noticed but apparently the zombie apocalyse mentioned in the bible went unnoticed too. Odd how believers ‘lost’ the location until three hundred years later Constantine’s mother paid for it to be ‘found’.

        • TheNuszAbides

          oops, back to credulityland.

        • MNb

          Yes, a non-divine Jesus. The Resurrection does not follow, rather the opposite.

        • Lark62

          Harry Potter from London exists, hundreds of them, but that doesn’t turn Ms. Rowling’s fictional stories into fact.

        • TheNuszAbides

          wow, one point of coherence! maybe you’ll pull out of that abyss yet.

        • Chuck Johnson

          A scientific examination shows us maybe “mundane Jesus” existed.
          A scientific examination shows us that “magical Jesus” did not exist.

        • Luvin’ it

          How do you explain the empty tomb then?

        • Chuck Johnson

          The empty tomb is part of a story.
          The ancients loved to tell stories.
          You could spend the rest of your life examining ancient stories and end up with little in the way of fact to show for it.

          Religionists have gotten a lot of mileage out of false facts.
          Do not mistake the Bible stories for any kind of scientific history.

        • MNb

          The problem is that there are too many possible natural explanation. “Myth” is just one of them.

          http://www.religioustolerance.org/resurrec9.htm

          They all have one thing in common: it didn’t literally happen.

        • Lark62

          As soon as you explain how Dorothy’s house could fly from Kansas to Oz and land on a witch, I will explain how an imaginary tomb can be empty of imaginary god-man-zombies.

        • katiehippie

          You have proof of that? And no, one book saying it’s true doesn’t constitute proof.

        • Luvin’ it

          One book? Try four ancient biographies the Book of Acts and the creedal statements in Pauls letters that according to atheist New Testament scholars go back to within 2 years of the cross.

        • katiehippie

          Still doesn’t mean it happened. Just means there is a story about it.

        • adam
        • TheNuszAbides

          lol “the Book of Acts”, when did they get that whopper written down again? you know what “read back into” means, i hope?

        • Bob Jase

          What resurrection of Jesus? No where in the bible does anyone see Jesus rise from the dead. Later when ‘Jesus’ appears to his former followers they don’t even recognise him – looks like anyone could have come along and claimed to be the Jeez.

        • Luvin’ it

          The guards did

        • Bob Jase

          The guards that don’t appear in most gospel accounts? You’d think they would have reported the whole earthquake/eclipse/zombie rising and that the government would have known about it all.

          Right, fictional people are convenient because they can be placed anywhere.

        • james

          but they are liars. they get paid to spread a lie. if they lied about the body, they could have lied about seeing the angel come down and floor them.
          the guards easily lied.
          the guards and neither the women see jesus pop out of the tomb.

        • Luvin’ it

          They’re Roman guards not Jews

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          And there were many appearances afterwords

        • Luvin’ it

          Yeah cuz Bill Murray is who I want to be like when I grow up.

        • Chuck Johnson

          A scientific examination of our universe disproves the existence of magical God.
          Science also proves the existence of God-the-fictional-character.

        • Luvin’ it

          Not really more scientists are joining in on the rationality of intelligent design over chance

        • Chuck Johnson

          Your lies are an indication of your credibility.

        • Luvin’ it
        • Chuck Johnson

          In spite of the fact that there is no direct evidence that natural selection can explain anything other than very minor adaptations. . .-Powerful Conservative Voices

          Your lies and their lies are in agreement.

        • Luvin’ it

          Did you read the entire article…it’s increasing in popularity that’s all I needed to prove

        • Chuck Johnson

          That’s all that they needed to prove, too.
          But they showed themselves to be liars from the outset.

          So, no, I was not interested in reading more of the same unreliable reporting.

        • Luvin’ it

          Theres no debate to be had youre just cherrypicking your facts

        • Chuck Johnson

          I am a scientist.
          I cherrypick my facts.

          You are a religionist.
          You cherrypick your fantasies.

        • Luvin’ it

          So Stephen Meyers book reaching number 7 on the NYTimes best seller list isn’t evidence for ID’s growing popularity?

        • Chuck Johnson

          Yes, it’s not such evidence.

        • Luvin’ it

          But if it’s growing in popularity that’s not so good for you huh?

        • Chuck Johnson

          Meyer’s book is popular because it (apparently) contains a lot of well-explained science.

          That’s beneficial for the public and for the progress of science.

          His book also (apparently) contains conclusions about the necessity of God for the guidance of evolution. That’s the Intelligent Design part.

          So the book is educational, but amusingly superstitious at the same time. It’s a sign of the declining credibility of superstition in the USA.

          God previously created humans with a Genesis miracle.
          Now, he did it using DNA.
          God is on His way out, as science is taking over, even for the religious folks.

        • Luvin’ it

          Not exactly what’s actually happening is the opposite. Scientists are realizing how stupid it is to tell people that all of the complexity in the universe exists for undesigned reasons. In other words, if macro evolution is true it requires a designer

        • Chuck Johnson

          In other words, if macro evolution is true it requires a designer.-Luvin’ it

          There is more than one designer involved.
          Mutation is one designer, selection pressure is another designer.

          These two designers have no brainpower.
          “Brainpower” or “no brainpower” seems to be the difference between a naturalistic explanation of evolution or a supernatural explanation.

          The ancient storytellers were not well-informed and sophisticated enough to imagine natural evolution.

        • Luvin’ it

          You dunce natural processes CAN’T PRODUCE ANYTHING

        • Susan

          natural processes CAN’T PRODUCE ANYTHING.

          Why not?

        • Luvin’ it

          Well Tornadoes have blown through trailer parks and never assembled anything in fact it’s just the opposite

        • Susan

          Tornadoes…

          By “natural forces”, you mean tornadoes?

          Why not just say so? You haven’t shown that natural forces CAN’T PRODUCE ANYTHING.

          never assembled anything

          The results of tornadoes are what result from tornadoes.

          No assembly required.

        • Luvin’ it

          No I mean random processes forming meaningful systems

        • Otto

          You mean like how the planets and the solar system formed into a meaningful system…

        • Luvin’ it

          Yes or a human body

        • Otto

          It’s always fun to see someone wear their ignorance like a badge of honor

        • Luvin’ it

          Talking to yourself eh?

        • Otto

          Wow…the 3rd graders must be impressed with your snappy comebacks

        • MNb

          Evolution is not a random process.

          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

          They gives the correct presentation of your false analogy and explains why it’s false.
          They were written 20 years ago and still you produce this clunker. Even most IDiots tend to avoid it these days.

        • Michael Neville
        • Dus10

          Ever been in a cave? Studied chemistry? Made ice cubes? Cooked food? Seen fire? Saw a storm? Taken a shit? Saying natural processes can’t produce anything has to be one of the dumbest things ever uttered

        • Luvin’ it

          You’re not understanding. How did the system of a human body come about naturally? It’s impossible

        • Michael Neville

          Your ignorance and incredulity aren’t evidence for creationism, they’re just evidence of your ignorance and incredulity.

        • Bob Jase

          How did god come about?

          Human imagination works best – look at all the thousands of gods we’ve created.

        • TheNuszAbides

          You’re not understanding.

          the unintentional irony is strong with you, child.

        • MNb

          Babies (see above) aren’t produced by tornadoes. Neither are new species.
          You even manage to get this false analogy wrong. And no, two wrong don’t make a right here.

        • Lark62

          Sigh. Natural selection is a combination of random factors – genetic variation AND natural selection working in organisms that pass on their genetic material to offspring.

          When trailers have genetic material and produce offspring, the debunked tornado analogy will be meaningful. Until then, it is just plain stoopID.

        • Luvin’ it

          Keep believing in magic that’s fine

        • Lark62

          Nope. Evolution is not magic. It is natural and intuitive, aside from being supported by mountains of evidence.

          For a more realistic analogy, assume a herd of 10,000 antelope. Some are slightly faster than average, some are slightly slower than average. Some are slightly better than average at digesting food source A, others are slightly better than average at digesting food source B. Some are more lightly colored, blending in with some plant species, others are darker, blending in with different plants.

          A drought causes food source B and light colored plants to die out. The Plant A digesters and darker colored individuals will, on average, produce more offspring. Thus the next generation will on average have slightly darker coats and will contain more individuals who favor Plant A. Rinse and Repeat. About 1,000,000 times. This is not magic.

          When offspring differ genetically from parents and environmental conditions change, evolution must happen. Mutation doesn’t mean three heads. It just means genetic changes. If environmental conditions change more rapidly that genetic changes, the species will most likely go extinct, like over 99% of the species that have ever lived on earth.

        • Luvin’ it

          Thats micro evolution I don’t dispute that. Macro evolution however is magic pure and simple

        • Lark62

          Sorry dude. There is no difference whatsoever between micro evolution and macro evolution, except time.

          Are horses and donkeys one species or two? They diverged several hundred thousand years ago. A horse and donkey are genetically similar enough that they produce live offspring, but genetically different enough that the offspring are infertile. Maybe 200,000 years ago, the ancestor of the horse and the ancestor of the donkey might have produced fertile offspring. In another 200,000 or 300,000 years, maybe descendants of the horse and donkey will have diverged to a degree that no offspring are possible.

          These and other species that can still breed but produce infertile offspring show evolution at a “moment” in time, bearing in mind that in evolution, moments are about 100,000 years.

        • Luvin’ it

          Actually variation within species is undebated. Next time something macro evolves let me know Okay? Appreciate it.

        • Lark62

          The gradual evolution of equine animals from animals that can interbreed to animals that cannot is “macro” evolution.
          The thoroughly documented evolution of the whale from hippopotamus-like land animals is “macro” evolution.
          The evolution of felines into lions, tigers, ocelots and house cats is “macro” evolution.
          The evolution of birds from therapod dinosaurs is “macro” evolution.

          Since “macro” evolution takes 100s of thousands to millions of years, only the truly ignorant would expect to see the complete process in a single human lifetime. However, we are surrounded by evolution in process, including the European Blackcap that began to split into different species a mere 50 years ago.

          Your “I see nothing” Sgt Schultz impersonation only reveals your ignorance and unwillingness to learn. And like a teacher explained to my kid in a social skills workshop “funny once” means exactly that. Just because you got a laugh the first time you said “puffy poop burgers” does not mean it is funny to continue saying it. Your ignorance is getting tiresome.

        • MNb

          Thanks for confirming that you’re a liar.
          You calling something magic doesn’t make it so.
          You being an IDiot something will be rather the opposite of magic when you call it so.

          One definition of magic:

          “Magic or sorcery is the use of rituals, symbols, actions, gestures, and language with the aim of utilizing supernatural forces.”
          None of these terms apply to Evolution Theory.

        • Luvin’ it

          The point is that you believe in something that is nonsensical and somehow over millions of years we go from pond sum to the human brain? You’re a textbook definition of a fool in that case

        • Lark62

          You aren’t a fool if you believe a couple of turn of the century bicycle enthusiasts could build an object weighing several hundred pounds, get the object airborne and accomplish manned, powered flight. Because evidence.

          There is nothing nonsensical about accepting a process for which there is extensive evidence.

          As for believing a deity knocked up a virgin, who subsequently gave birth to the deity who wandered around performing a few magic tricks and speaking deepities. Then the deity died temporarily so that the deity could forgive humans for being exactly how it created them to be…. Well, that’s another matter.

        • Luvin’ it

          Virgin birth is easy. Take a virgin and artificially iseminate her and the baby would technically be born of a virgin.

        • Lark62

          Virgin birth is easy. Take two people who got it on before the magic words were spoken, realized the lady was preggers and who didn’t feel like being stoned to death this week. Have them agree to a story and stick to it. Voila. Virgin birth. For the record, that same type of virgin birth continues to this very day.

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          Haha

        • Lark62

          A study a few years back indicated that 0.5% of pregnancies in the US were to women who claimed they were virgins (and did not get fertility treatment). These women tended to be from religious families and were more likely to have signed purity pledges. Shocking. :)

          https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131217210542.htm

        • Luvin’ it

          Haha that’s terrible

        • adam
        • Bob Jase

          Luvin is one of those folks who would have said that if god wanted men to fly they’d have been born with wings. Then he’d have shuffled back into his cave because he doesn’t believe in technological evolution.

        • TheNuszAbides

          i dunno, could be off the mark, but my masculine intuition is telling me it’s a she.

        • Greg G.

          Luvin’ It is another sock of Murph, Woo, and one or two other socks. This sock has also been banned.

        • TheNuszAbides

          yeah, i just caught up, my antennae need recalibrating.

        • MNb

          The point is that you’re a liar so that the thumbrule is that anything you bring up is false until shown otherwise. Add to this that you don’t even try anymore but are beginning to issue insults instead of arguments (never mind evidence – that’s simply a concept beyond your cognitive skills) and the only appropriate to your comment is: shrug.

        • adam

          “The point is that you believe in something that is nonsensical and
          somehow over millions of years we go from pond sum to the human brain?”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cb49f25b842aef4e0a6e36dccd4c0d86c43e6e95e934f6a511dc718c5fd1fac3.jpg

        • Luvin’ it

          Macro evolution IS magic.

          “Keep your eyes on this pond sum folks and in 1 million years it will turn into, you guessed it–a sea horse!”

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          Funny how most of the great scientists were theists

        • adam
        • TheNuszAbides

          Funny* how you don’t betray the slightest understanding of compartmentalizing

          *(not actually funny)

        • adam

          “You’re a textbook definition of a fool in that case”

          but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

        • TheNuszAbides

          calling it nonsensical won’t actually make it nonsensical – it’ll only protect your petulant refusal to even attempt to comprehend the concepts.

          You’re a textbook definition of a fool in that case

          and the proposition that you might be handy with any kind of textbook (at least involving communication or science, or not involving “cdesign proponentists”) is devoid of supporting evidence, if the taunts and jeers you’ve misfired on this page are anything to go by.

        • Luvin’ it

          Random factors produced the human brain, consciousness, DNA, bones, ligaments, etc.? Takes more faith to believe in that than positing a designer as the most reasonable inference

        • Lark62

          Since scientists can trace the lineage of most living things, they understand the changes that took place during the evolution of various species, how rapidly these changes occurred and what the transitional species looked like. DNA evidence likewise confirms the evolution of various species and the features of those species. Scientists understand how bones, shells, ligaments, teeth, eyes and ears evolved. They understand how DNA works. They have more to learn on consciousness, but that doesn’t mean “goddidit”.

          One person’s lack of knowledge and unwillingness to learn does not in any way reflect on the accuracy of the Theory of Evolution.

        • Luvin’ it

          Umm no they draw pictures in books but believe in magic over millions of years. Out of sight out of mind I guess for them, huh? Takes more faith to believe in that crap.

        • MNb

          Natural selection is the opposite of randomness, liar.
          How do you measure faith?

        • Luvin’ it

          Nope it’s random which means you csnt trust you’re own thoughts. Remember “Darwin’s doubt” about if we descended from apes and pond scum how can we trust our reasoning ability. Big problem for you folks I’m afraid.

        • MNb

          “Nope it’s random”
          Merely repeating your lie doesn’t make it any better, it just confirms how christianity can encourage violating its own Ninth Commandment.

          “which means you csnt trust you’re own thoughts. Remember “Darwin’s doubt” about if we descended from apes and pond scum how can we trust our reasoning ability. Big problem for you folks I’m afraid.”
          Good to read that you can’t represent Plantinga’s EAAN either.
          How we can trust our reasoning ability is a problem that philosophy and science have solved more than 200 years ago. Thanks to that solution you are capable of communicating with unknown people all over the world; that solution resulted ao in your computer and in internet. That simple fact already refutes your claim. Every time you turn your computer on and every time you post a comment here you confirm that.
          The other thing is how sentient beings developed reasoning ability. But that’s not a problem for atheists, it’s a problem for scientists and especially evolutionary biologists (several of them happen to be christians, btw, which is rather a huge problem for you, I’m not afraid).
          How again did you measure faith? Not answering implies admitting that your claim “takes more faith” is void.

        • Luvin’ it

          Faith is simply reasoning from the best inference of the facts. No one can be 100 percent about anything but we can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt which is faith

        • adam
        • adam
        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          You excellently mixed up three totally different things. I can’t remember seeing a bigger category error.
          Faith: accepting something without using deduction or induction.
          Reasoning: using deduction (ie logic, beginning from some axiomata, presuppositions, assumptions or whatever you like to call them to arrive at conclusions)
          Facts: collecting them, finding patterns, ordening them and using induction (ie logic, to arrive at conclusions).
          My dear IDiot, you have no clue what you’re talking about. The quacking of a duck contains more meaning than this comment of yours.

        • Kodie

          Faith is simply believing a fairy tale myth for emotional reasons. You are just gullible, that’s how they get you to consider bullshit as facts and then arrive at what would seem to be a reasonable conclusion if they were facts. We are atheists because there’s no good reason, no evidence, nothing of any substance, to consider the events of the NT to be facts. Maybe even Jesus wasn’t a real person, but that’s no biggie, real people can exist. That doesn’t make them sons of god. Real people can be preachers, that makes them cult leaders, not sons of god. Real people can get in a huge amount of trouble with the local authorities and get executed by the popular method of the time, that’s not even unusual to ponder such a possibility. When you insert the magical bits, the unnatural parts, and forget what planet you live on and disregard science because you are brainwashed by liars, yes, of course, you arrive at the conclusion they want you to arrive at, to believe what they want you to believe, and to rely on them for their interpretations, their sermons, their spaghetti breakfast, whatever. You have it all conflated as though it’s impossible to analyze it any other way. You want to believe Jesus can save you, so you bury yourself in this myth so you don’t have to live in reality. That’s what faith is.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Faith is simply reasoning from the best inference of the facts.

          LMFAO
          which apologist hack taught you that line?

          it reeks of fantasy.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Faith is simply reasoning from the best inference of the facts.

          What does it say that Christians have to eviscerate such an important word as “faith” to convince themselves that they deserve to be 21st-century thinkers?

          The popular apologetics book I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist makes clear in its very title that “faith” is indeed belief not based on facts.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Natural processes have created your dishonesty and your ignorance.
          Those processes began over four billion years ago.
          You are truly a wonder of nature.

        • MNb

          Yes they can, my dear IDiot. Two people procreating is a natural process. Quite often after nine months one of them produces a baby.

        • Michael Neville

          Are you that stupid or do you think that we’re that stupid?

        • TheNuszAbides

          i’ve found that people who drink Revealed-Wisdom-ade are constitutionally incapable of giving that kind of question a straight answer. though perhaps in another month or two Luv will have fabricated a playground taunt ‘comeback’ loosely based on it.

        • epeeist

          Scientists are realizing how stupid it is to tell people that all of the complexity in the universe exists for undesigned reasons. In other words, if macro evolution is true it requires a designer

          Given that this is Stephen Meyer you are talking about you might care to look at Project Steve, which consists of actual scientists who accept the theory of evolution.

          If you want to keep it at a popular level then have a look at Amazon’s best sellers on the subject or perhaps the Royal Society Science Book Prize. Neither seems to support your claims.

        • Luvin’ it

          So your saying lay audiences aren’t very intelligent?

        • MNb

          Liar.
          He says that they haven’t the necessary education and training.

        • Luvin’ it

          Haha

        • MNb

          That’s the best argument you provided thus far. Go figure how bad all the others are.

        • TheNuszAbides

          but Meyer and Wallace use them and they sell books so how can they be bad arguments? #Luvin’it

        • epeeist

          So your saying lay audiences aren’t very intelligent?

          There are a number of studies that show religion is negatively correlated with intelligence, but this isn’t what I was referring to.

          What I am saying is that popular books necessarily have to simplify explanations so that lay readers will understand them and that lay readers will not necessarily have the background to appreciate the detail in, say, the papers in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology.

          I should also add, the papers in the above journal (and other journals) are peer reviewed. Popular books are not subject to peer review.

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          A bygone actor mined for intellectual depth how cute

        • adam

          He’s not bygone by anymeans.

          And it wasnt his intellectual depth, but the lack of yours.

        • TheNuszAbides

          seriously, kid, if you can’t even grasp the motivation of the person you disagree with, get your foot out of your mouth and take a breath. doubling down on unwarranted putdowns ’til the insecurity goes away isn’t the smart play.

        • Lark62

          How many people showed up at Joel Osteen’s “church” the sunday after he had to be shamed into opening his doors to flood victims?

          After watching as Osteen hit up storm survivors for money, after they had lost everything they owned, how many people showed up in his “church” again the following week?

          Yepper bits. “Not very intelligent” is among the kinder things one could say.

        • Luvin’ it

          I don’t think highly of Osteen either so that makes two of us. I think he’s a sham

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          Sad but true too bad that’s not me

        • adam

          You sure sound like it, in your ignorance of it.

        • MNb

          You’re getting incoherent. IDiocy usually rejects macro evolution.

        • adam

          ” In other words, if macro evolution is true it requires a designer”

          Why?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a63d19539181ef83c5c9b26f2051c404fb109c69260954c83cf22c3c5572b371.jpg

        • TheNuszAbides

          no, see, to argue against something you have to demonstrate that you understand it. using a phrase like “exists for undesigned reasons” is a massive failure to demonstrate anything helpful to the case you pretend Meyer has informed your choir about.

        • TheNuszAbides

          if macro evolution is true it requires a designer

          how do you call it “nonsensical” with such swaggering confidence and yet posit “if it is true”? it’s merely what the evidence points to – nothing more and especially (despite your wishful whining) nothing less. “requiring a designer” has never been based on evidence, it’s always been based on shoehorning the crudest traditions of cosmology into the scientific discoveries of the past 300 years or so to keep young-earth creationists from getting all upset over challenges to their precious just-so stories. Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy is actual nonsense, and “irreducible complexity” is hot air with no evidence. please get up to speed before you go over the edge and start arguing about DNA and “information” or some other PRATT.

        • MNb

          If.

        • Greg G.

          It’s popularity isn’t a big deal. It’s the supporting evidence for his claims that matter. Meyer doesn’t have that.

        • adam
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Stephen Meyers is aiming at a lay audience because he knows that he’s already lost with a scientifically literate one.

          Fail.

        • Luvin’ it

          So lay people aren’t smart enough to “get it” like Mr. M.I.T.?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Wow. Do your arguments even make sense in your head?

          Mr. MIT is saying that he’s too stupid to overrule the scientific consensus in a field in which he’s not an expert. How hard is this?

        • Luvin’ it

          And yet you’re smarter than all of the people “below” you? What a conceted was wipe

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m a “conceted was wipe” because why now?

          I’m pretty sure my previous comment said nothing about how much smarter I am than . . . well, than anyone.

        • Luvin’ it

          And you’ryou’re smarter than all the people “below” you who don’t agree with your Scientism? What a conceded ass wipe.

        • Kodie

          You mean conceited? Because you can’t even spell and don’t understand that’s a different word than conceded?

        • adam
        • MNb

          No. You can’t conclude growth or decline from one number. You need at least two.
          That’s why I call your ilk IDiots.
          Among the lay folk creacrap has been pretty stable in the USA.

          http://news.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

          I remember some decline since 2014, but can’t find a source right now (not that I’ve tried hard).

        • Greg G.

          Where was it on the NYT best seller list the week before and the week after? What category was it list in?

          Sometimes a book with an organization behind it will buy books in bulk to increase the sales for a week so it can tout that it made the list. In a small-enough category, not a lot of books have to be purchased to make the list.

        • adam
        • Susan

          it’s increasing in popularity that’s all I needed to prove

          Your original claim was that more scientists are joining in on the “rationality of intelligent design over chance” (which is vague, an appeal to authority and a strawman all at once.

          That is, even if it were true, it contains all of those problems at once and a few more. So, it wouldn’t be slightly persuasive.

          But the only support you provided was an appeal to the NYT bestsellers list.

          Unless the only people who buy books are scientists, that is not support for your original mess of a claim.

        • Luvin’ it

          All it is is support that ID is growing in popularity that is all contrary to what some of you people think

        • Susan

          ID is growing in popularity

          Technically, so is scientology.

          You didn’t say it was growing in popularity.

          If that’s all you have, we can ignore you like you ignore scientology and mormonism.

          We can add argumentum ad populum to your attemtpts to support your claim

          We can note that you appealed to expertise and could show nothing but the NY Times bestseller list.

          .

        • Luvin’ it

          I’m just doing this for entertainment I’m not actually trying

        • Susan

          I’m just doing this for entertainment I’m not actually trying

          I know, Fred.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Omigawsh! What if he actually started trying?! He’d bring out the good arguments.

        • Lark62

          Yeah the ones debunked on Talk Origins 10 years ago instead of the ones debunked on Talk Origins 20 years ago. :)

        • TheNuszAbides

          yeah, you keep that light under a bushel, dumbshit.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          When it becomes the scientific consensus, wake me up. Until that point, your religiously driven agenda isn’t science.

        • Luvin’ it

          It has nothing to do with religion per se. I.D. proponents are necessarily theists

        • Greg G.

          I.D. proponents are necessarily theists

          Even that isn’t true. Cdesign proponentsists sometimes say that it could have been aliens.

        • Pofarmer

          Aliens is much more likely.

        • Luvin’ it

          But then who designed the aliens? You need a self existing 1st cause.

        • Greg G.

          Who says the aliens are designed? Maybe they have better evidence for their arising.

          A cause acting on nothing can have no effect in our sense of time. So the first cause argument flops, too.

          Trying praying for a good argument. Theists don’t seem to think of that, or if they do, it never works. Fancy that.

        • Luvin’ it

          Right so you believe aliens would be self existent? So you DO believe in gods, wow!!!

        • Greg G.

          No, I don’t believe aliens designed us. Those are claims made by cdesign proponentsists.

          Stop and think about the context of the post you are replying to so you don’t appear to be one of those silly people who don’t stop to think about the context of the post they are replying to.

        • TheNuszAbides

          lol, boy did that ship already sail.

        • MNb

          If your god can be self existing then aliens can as well.
          And quantum fields of course.

        • Luvin’ it

          Nope has to be non-material you loose

        • MNb

          And now I just have to accept it because what? Your pretty blue eyes?
          Of course the way you formulate it it becomes a circular argument.
          “The designer of our material reality has to be immaterial so that proves there is an immaterial reality in which an immaterial entity resides that designed our material reality.”
          Not valid.

        • Luvin’ it

          Well an infinite universe is nonsense (Hilberts hotel) and the multi-verse is crap.

        • MNb

          As so often your reaction totally irrelevant for my comment.
          You being a liar are not the one who gets to decide what’s nonsense and crap.
          You are too big an idiot to understand what Hilberts Hotel and the Multi-verse are about and why they would or would not require an immaterial first designer.
          Quantum fields very well can be infinite, whatever that means in this context.
          So can aliens, as long as I carefully avoid what I mean with that term.
          No need for an immaterial self designed designer with all kind of made up features. You don’t even try to argue for one, because a lying IDiot like you can’t.

        • adam
        • MNb

          “ID is growing in popularity”
          It remains a lie (which is why you don’t back it up) as I’ve shown above (with backing up).

        • Lark62

          The funny thing about science is that it is true no matter who believes it.

          The earth orbited the sun for 4.54 bilion years before man existed, much less understood the heliocentric solar system. And the earth will continue to orbit the sun when mankind goes extinct until the sun reaches the end of its life.

          Life on earth evolved before mankind existed. Life on earth will continue to evolve as long as life exists.

          Reality is true no matter how many IDiots there are.

        • Kodie

          What has popularity to do with truth? ID doesn’t provide any scientific findings, they make up stories and rally all the idiots to hate science and not understand it. That’s what you get when you think your teachermom is better qualified to teach than an actual teacher with a degree in education.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Powerful conservative voices talking about evolution? I’m becoming a bit suspect.

          When the scientific consensus changes, let me know.

        • MNb

          That link does not mention any numbers, let alone how such numbers were found. So it doesn’t back up “more scientists are joining in ….”
          Thanks for confirming that you’re a liar. Nobody is surprised.

          In 2001 the IDiots from Seattle organized “A scientific Dissent from Darwinism”.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

          More than 750 names in 2008.

          Apologies for clicking to an IDiot site:

          https://dissentfromdarwin.org/about/

          Click the list. It says it was updated in November 2016. Count the names.
          It has remained about the same.
          That “more scientists are joining ….” of yours is a lie.

          Now compare the Steve list:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

          It’s steadily growing and by now twice as long.
          But hey, you’re a creacrapper. You don’t care about facts.

        • Susan

          A counterfeit belief system such as atheism doesn’t disprove theism.

          “I don’t believe you.” is not a belief system. It’s a position on a claim.

          I don’t believe people when they claim alien abductions, the magical healing powers of snake oil or the existence of unevidenced agents. . Those are just a few examples.

          I don’t have to disprove that someone was abducted by aliens, nor that snake oil cures cancer, nor that unevidenced agents exist in order to not believe them.

          I only have to note that they don’t carry their burden.

          Their claim, their burden.

        • Luvin’ it

          I do believe this blog aserts atheism affirmatively therefore it’s your burden of proof

        • Susan

          I do believe this blog asserts atheism affirmatively

          But you just created a profile on Disqus today. This blog examines christian claims. That’s why it’s called “Cross Examined”. Your belief, considering you seem to have done little reading, and a LOT of commenting is not my concern.

          therefore it’s your burden of proof.

          No. Now, on top of many other claims you have made, you have to support the claim that “this blog asserts atheism” affirmatively.

          Based on a misinterpretation and/or ignorance of what atheism is. (i.e. “I don’t believe you.”)

          .

        • Luvin’ it

          And I love trolling

        • Susan

          And I love trolling.

          I know, Fred.

        • Luvin’ it

          Who dat?

        • Susan

          Who dat?

          Why, you “Fred”.

          A lazy ass troll who never even tries and loves to troll.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I can solve that problem quickly. Add to the conversation or get banned.

        • BlackMamba44

          I vote for “get banned”.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The sand is trickling out of his hourglass.

        • Greg G.

          I do believe this blog aserts atheism affirmatively therefore it’s your burden of proof

          Nope. Don’t feel bad. It’s a common misconception among theists. It seems that they tell each other that.

          Atheism is the position that there is insufficient evidence to sustain a belief in any number of gods.

        • Luvin’ it

          Fine, prove it.

        • Greg G.

          I have been asking theists for evidence for gods for a few decades. I have read ancient literature on the subject. So far, nothing.

          Theists are making a claim that one or more gods exist. The onus of proof is on them. All you need to do is provide unambiguous evidence for a god.

          Many theist claims have been shown to be false, such as all the angry lightning bolt hurlers. Surviving gods are indistinguishable from imagination. That seems to be the design of humans to protect religious claims from scrutiny.

        • Luvin’ it

          Please provide unambiguous evidence that God does not exist. Most people in the world believe in some type of God many of them in light of nature.

        • BlackMamba44
        • Luvin’ it

          Right because a pink unicorn is a reasonable inference for a designer

        • Greg G.

          We know they are invisible because we cannot see them. We know they are pink by faith.

          Incredulity is not a reasonable inference for a designer.

        • Pofarmer

          Your faith is strong, brother.

        • Luvin’ it

          But there’s no historicity like there is for Jesus. So sorry for you.

        • Greg G.

          There is no early mid-first century evidence for Jesus. The gospels are fiction and we can identify many of the sources used by the gospel authors and none of them are about a first century Jesus. The epistles only talk about Jesus through Old Testament references, not first century knowledge, except for two of the epistles that were written after the gospels. So even there you have nothing but wishful imagination.

        • MNb

          There is exactly as much evidence for an unobservable Pink Unicorn as for a divine Jesus.
          Exactly zilch.
          Because there can’t be.
          By definition.

        • Luvin’ it

          Nope no manuscripts or historicity so sorry for you and your pink unicorn theory

        • Greg G.

          Nope no manuscripts or historicity so sorry for you and your pink unicorn theory

          But we have electronic files about the IPU, which are better than manuscripts, even pictures from its earliest manifestations to humans.

        • MNb

          There are no manuscripts and historicity for a divine Jesus either. Even better: there can’t be.
          Btw, liar, the Pink Unicorn Theory is not mine.

        • Luvin’ it

          There are actually even atheist scholars agree numb nuts

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Someone who thinks that there are manuscripts and historicity for a divine Jesus by definition is not an atheist. Those scholars agree that people back then believed that Jesus was divine, which is not nearly the same.
          It’s predictable but remains funny how stupid creationists become when they get cornered.
          But hey, show me an atheist scholar who confirms that manuscripts show the historicity of a divine Jesus, with quote and source. I already can tell you that Bart Ehrmann is not one of them. He defends the theory of a human Jesus and no matter how often you try to push the idea that that’s the same, you remain a sad liar.

        • BlackMamba44
        • Luvin’ it

          That’s cute. Got any interaction in history to prove it like we do for Jesus Christ? Didn’t think so

        • BlackMamba44

          There’s evidence for a Jesus Christ? Where?

        • Luvin’ it

          Let me guess you’re a mythicist? You’re in the less than half a percent of people who believe Jesus never existed. Is that right and you think Richard Carrier, Bob Price and good ol’ Bob S are “scholars?”

        • BlackMamba44

          Again. There’s evidence for a Jesus Christ? Where?

        • Luvin’ it

          18 sources outside the New Testament plus four ancient biographies the Book of Acts and the creedal material from Paul’s letters that according to atheist New Testament scholars dates to within 2 years of the cross.

        • BlackMamba44

          Wow, that was quick. You have links to the 18 sources outside the NT? You know exactly how many so I’m sure you have them on hand and can provide them.

          The Bible isn’t evidence of anything.

          EDIT: atheist New Testament scholars dates to within 2 years of the cross.

          who are these atheist NT scholars? (Within 2 years of the cross? Haha!!)

        • Luvin’ it

          Before the Bible was “the Bible” they were just ancient biographies and letters.

        • BlackMamba44

          Again.

          You have links to the 18 sources outside the NT? You know exactly how many so I’m sure you have them on hand and can provide them.

          The Bible isn’t evidence of anything.

          EDIT: atheist New Testament scholars dates to within 2 years of the cross.

          who are these atheist NT scholars? (Within 2 years of the cross? Haha!!)

        • Luvin’ it

          Here Ludemann and Bart Ehrman are two examples

        • Luvin’ it

          Gerd Ludemann and Bart Ehrman are two examples and they are some of the top minds in their field

        • BlackMamba44

          They have actual evidence that a Jesus Christ existed?

          Or do they just have arguments and assertions? And do they argue for a Jesus Christ that performed miracles and died and was resurrected?

          Or do they argue for a human Jesus (without the supernatural)?

        • Luvin’ it

          They believe there’s unquestionable evidence he existed for starters

        • Greg G.

          They believe there’s unquestionable evidence he existed for starters

          That may be their problem. They should question the evidence because it is questionable.

        • BlackMamba44

          Who? Jesus the Christ? or Jesus the man?

          What’s their “unquestionable evidence”?

        • Greg G.

          I hoped that Ehrman would lay out the scholarly reasons why most NT scholars know that Jesus existed. He had to rely on imaginary evidence. It convinced me that the scholarly consensus is based on the scholarly consensus, not on the basis of evidence. The scholarly consensus is based on what they were told as uneducated children, not from actual scholarly evidence and argumentation.

        • Luvin’ it

          Huh? So you’re now a superior source to Ehrman? I can’t believe a theist is defending him and an atheist is prosecuting him. Wow.

        • Greg G.

          No, I don’t think anyone is completely right about everything. I think Ehrman is wrong in his argument. I gave him the benefit of the doubt until he tried to show his reasoning.

        • Luvin’ it

          And Ludemann too?

        • Greg G.

          I don’t know. Can you present his argument?

        • MNb

          At least the latter doesn’t think Jesus was divine.
          You’re lying.

        • Luvin’ it

          Both don’t think he was but they aren’t so stupid as to assert like Bob S. Or his fan club That he didn’t exist

        • Greg G.

          Bob S. doesn’t make the claim. He only asks you to back up your claim.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Where did I say that?

          Read more slower next time.

        • Luvin’ it

          You seem to think highly of Bob P given that you appreciate his positive book review

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And so I accept everything he says? Wrong again.

          He is politically quite conservative. I’m not. There are loads of things I disagree with him on.

          Here’s a tip: think a little more before you click “Post” next time.

        • MNb

          Then you have shifted the goal post from a divine Jesus to a human Jesus. You do that because as a liar you are dishonest, realize you can’t argue for the Resurrection and instead start arguing for something that’s actually irrelevant for that event.

        • Luvin’ it

          It’s just to be clear that Jesus DID exist unless you’re a fool of course?

        • adam
        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          Taking your placebo again I see

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          Thats not the faith I subscribe too

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          “Sure” and “certain” in other words solid evidence

        • adam

          hope
          (hōp)

          v.

          To wish for something with expectation of its fulfillment.

          You lose, AGAIN

        • Luvin’ it

          Sure and certain hope you dunce

        • adam

          hope
          (hōp)

          v.

          To wish for something with expectation of its fulfillment.

          Sure and certain wishful thinking,

          You love, AGAIN

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d2604d74a3602b9a653ca3bde07f9b615e04ef5423e93efc36252eaded367c6a.jpg

        • MNb

          It’s just to be clear that a human Jesus does not lead you to a divine Jesus. How many more times I have to make this clear to you? A gazillion times, I suppose, given that you’re a lying IDiot.

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it
        • BlackMamba44

          A Christian website (Cold Case Christianity) claims there is evidence for a Jesus Christ?

          I did a bit of a skim through it. That’s not evidence a Jesus Christ existed.

          And another Christian website (Reasons for Jesus)? Holy shit, Batman!

          What about those atheist NT scholars that date within 2 years of the cross? Who are they?

        • Luvin’ it

          Bart Ehrman, Gerd Ludemann, Michael Goulder, Thomas Sheehan. Here’s a direct quote from Sheehan concerning the 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 creed, “probably goes back to at least 32-34 C.E., that is, to within two to four years of the crucifixion.”

        • Bob Jase

          WOw, a RC who teaches religion believes in religious claims!

        • Lark62

          Yep Again. A carefully quote mined Lucien made the cut. What a shock. These sources only indicate that christians existed decades and more after Jesus supposedly lived. They prove nothing about whether Jesus was a real person.

          Since Paul treats Jesus as a mythical figure – he obtained knowledge of the last supper “from the Lord” and not from any actual people, for example – it is likely the gospels are fan fiction written to fill in the gaps of the Greek mystery religion created by Paul.

        • Luvin’ it

          Riiight which is why Paul believes in a physical bodily resurrection

        • Greg G.

          Riiight which is why Paul believes in a physical bodily resurrection

          Paul thought the physical body was perishable and had to be changed. The dead would be raised in an imperishable body.

          1 Corinthians 15:42-44
          42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.

          1 Corinthians 15:50-54
          50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled:

          “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

          Philippians 3:20-21
          20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. 21 He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself.

        • Bob Jase

          “The dead would be raised in an imperishable body.”

          Great, people in Heaven are made of plastic.

        • TheNuszAbides

          oh, Luv is some kind of vampire, fled before your brandishing of scripture. i did wonder …

        • Luvin’ it
        • Lark62

          Yep. Good ole Lucien and careful quote mining of his “these people who call themselves christians are so gullible” passage made the cut. Between that and the careful quote mining of the other sources I am familiar with and failure to address known forgeries, I think we can safely toss that list into the dung head. Next.

        • Luvin’ it

          What a poor historian you are

        • Lark62

          Google Lucien and read the entire passage unedited.

          Read the other texts and note whether the author states “Jesus lived in this place at this time” or “these people call themselves christians.” In almost every case, the quoted source merely confirms that people who call themselves christians exist. Check out the sources yourself.

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          Haha if you understood what Bart means this is actually funny

        • Greg G.

          1. Josephus Flavius (95 AD)

          The Testimonium Flavianum was forged by Eusebius. Origen wrote about the James passage and the John the Baptist passage but never mentioned the TF. Many scholars want to believe that some of it was authentic but agree that it has Christian fingerprints on it.

          The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus by Gary J. Goldberg, Ph.D. shows that what is left after removing the embellishments is something that matches phrase for phrase with the Emmaus Road story in Luke. Goldberg thinks the coincidences are too specific and dense to be coincidence. He is incredulous that anybody back then could imitate Josephus’ style that well. So he concludes that there was a common source. But the Emmaus Road story is just a summary of the story of Luke, which is mostly based on Mark.

          The Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius, and Consensus by Ken Olson shows that Eusebius, who was the first person to notice the TF, used many Josephus-like words and phrases in his own writings, including phrases from the embellishments and from the base that many assume was original. So Goldberg’s incredulity was wrong. One person was capable of using Josephus’ style and he was the first person to write about the TF.

          2. The Jewish Talmud (400 – 700 AD)

          The Talmud mentions a first century BC Yeshua and a second century teacher named Yeshua. But no first century Yeshua.

          3. Historian Cornelius Tacitus (116 AD)

          Tacitus mentions that Pilate was a procurator. Pilate was actually a prefect, not a procurator, which shows that Tacitus was not getting his information from official records. He also uses the word “Christ”, not Jesus, so he was getting his information from Christians.

          4. Historian Gaius Suetonius (121 AD)

          He mentions a Chrestus in Rome about three decades too late to be your Jesus.

          5. Philosopher Mara Serapion (73 – 200 AD)

          This could be as late as 256 AD but it talks about a wise king of the Jews who was murdered and the kingdom driven away from them. But that was around the time of Plato, not the first century.

          6. Governor Pliny the Younger (112 AD)

          He wrote about Christians that existed, not about Jesus.

          7. The Gnostic Gospels (2nd – 4th centuries)

          The article says:

          The Gnostics evidently tried to reconfigure and distort the Jesus of history to suit their own theological agendas.

          That is assuming there was a story to distort. They may have just been writing about a myth.

          8. The Gospel of Thomas (+- 110 – 180 AD)

          The Gospel of Thomas is a bunch of quotes with a “Jesus said” stuck on them by people who weren’t around in the first century. Some of them appear to be derived from the New Testament gospels, so the others might be derived from fictional gospels that are lost to history.

          9. Clement of Rome (95-97 AD)

          It appears to me that 1 Clement was forged by Irenaeus to look like Clement quoted from all the books that Irenaeus was claiming were authoritative. That it quotes from Luke, Acts, 1 Timothy and 2 Peter, which were probably not written until after Clement was allegedly martyred.

          10. Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD +)

          It is claimed that Ignatius was a disciple of John, the disciple of Jesus. There are seven letters considered to be authentic from him. I do not recall him saying anything he learned from John that is not in the New Testament. Paul tells us that John existed and that he was a pillar in the Jerusalem bunch.

          11. Hypothetical Q (40-70 AD)

          Q is imagined to explain the similarities between Matthew and Luke without having to explain the differences. Luke used Mark and rejected some. We see Luke made some errors due to editorial fatigue in Mark and the same type of errors with Matthew’s text. Why souldn’t Luke reject parts of Matthew, too?

          12. Luke’ Unique Material, L (40-70 AD)

          Luke used Josephus and Deuteronomy to create many new stories.

          13. Mathews Unique Material, M (30-50 AD)

          Matthew created his nativity story from Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews. The topics of Jesus’ words have a frequent resemblance to the Epistle of James, which never quotes Jesus.

          14. Pre-Markan Passion Narrative (33 AD +)

          There is no such thing. Mark created the Passion Narrative from the Death of Hector scene from the Iliad and a few of the Psalms.

          15. Pre-John Signs Gospel (prior to 95 AD)

          The Signs Gospel is another imaginary document to avoid admitting that John used Mark.

          16. Creeds (35 AD)

          The creeds in Paul’s letters are derived from Old Testament verses, just like everything else Paul ever said about Jesus.

          17. Thallus (50 AD)

          Thallus mentioned a solar eclipse. He never mentions Jesus. Silly Christians want to assume he was referring to the darkness in the crucifixion accounts. But solar eclipses can only happen just before the new moon while Jesus was said to have been crucified during the passover, which must occur at the full moon.

          18. Phlegon (140 AD)

          Phlegon once wrote about an earthquake and an eclipse in Turkey. He never mentioned Jesus. Origen thought he was referring to Matthew 28:2.

          19. Lucian of Samosata (120 – 180 AD)

          He does no more than tell what Christian believed in the second century.

        • Greg G.

          I notice that there were two by-lines for the article
          By Steven Bancarz
          By James Bishop

          Is one guy trying to steal credit for the page or trying to blame the other one for the atrocious spelling and homonym errors?

        • Michael Neville

          The Testamonium Flavium is most likely a 4th Century forgery. Try again.

        • Greg G.

          None of the extrabiblical evidence is from the first century. They appear to have relied on stories from people who got their information from the fictional gospels. The Testimonium Flavianum was forged by Eusebius around the turn of the fourth century. The so-called creeds of Paul are derived from Old Testament passages. You have nothing.

        • Luvin’ it

          Huh? You’re drunk. So it’s all a conspiracy? Wow.

        • Greg G.

          No, not a conspiracy. Just a bunch of sincere believers trying to comfort themselves that there would be a nice place to go. The early believers just thought the Messiah would come to rescue them from the foreign powers eventually but hoped it would be during their own lifetime. Then some adopted the idea that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah was a real person who suffered and died for the sins of the people and was resurrected to be an intercessory, as seen in Isaiah 53, but was still coming as a Messiah. The generation who invented that idea thought it was a revelation and that meant it would be fulfilled while that generation was still alive. That’s why Paul used the first person plural for the living and the third person plural for the dead who would rise.

          Remember that these people were as innately intelligent as we are but they still didn’t know where the sun went at night.

        • Luvin’ it

          Right because that’s worth dying for. You’re all mixed up.

        • Greg G.

          The early Christians didn’t believe what you think they believed. Those who may have died for their beliefs believed the fictional gospels because they were in no position to know whether they were true.

        • MNb

          That’s all evidence for a human Jesus, not for a divine one.
          It’s also evidence for a bunch of fans who thought that Jesus was divine.
          But when fans of Eric Clapton claim that he is God it doesn’t follow that he is one.
          You fail.

        • Luvin’ it

          You’d have to have evidence that Clapton made those claims etc. which you don’t have. Doesn’t it suck when your analogy fails?

        • MNb

          Sure. Unfortunately it doesn’t fail. The NT was not written by Jesus himself but by his fans. There is no evidence that Jesus himself made those claims. Worse – whether Jesus and Clapton did is irrelevant for the analogy. It is about the fans, not about the guys themselves.
          Doesn’t it suck that you suck in about every single respect?

        • Luvin’ it

          Actually they’re called ancienct biographies and creedal statements that even atheist scholars believe are accurate

        • MNb

          What you prefer to call them has exactly zero relevance and still totally irrelevant for the analogy.
          Just another aspect you suck at.

        • adam

          “You’d have to have evidence that Clapton made those claims etc”

          Not the claim

          Plenty of evidence of his fan’s claims though.

        • Luvin’ it

          That he’s God?

        • adam

          Not the claim

          Plenty of evidence of his fan’s claims though.

        • Luvin’ it

          His fans claim E.C. is God?

        • adam

          Yep, just J.C. fans claimed he was God,
          but E.C. witnesses claim so while he is still alive and kicking.

          J.C. had to wait decades to be deified, by people who never met J.C.

        • Luvin’ it

          Nope try 2-4 years the creedal statements in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 according to atheist scholars

        • adam

          J.C. had to wait decades to be deified, by people who never met J.C.

        • Luvin’ it

          Wrong again

        • adam

          Nope, youre wrong again

        • Luvin’ it

          You lose

        • adam

          Nope, you lose

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          Nobody has ever died a martyr for Spider-Man you lose

        • adam

          Jim Jones
          Heavens Gate
          etc,etc

          You’re an IDiot

        • Luvin’ it

          None for Spider-Man you lose

        • adam

          Only because Spider-Man doesnt cater to mindless idiots;

          You lose

        • Luvin’ it

          Y l

        • Luvin’ it

          Spider-Man was created by comic book writers want to ask them if he’s real? What a fool

        • adam
        • TheNuszAbides

          no, try reading what you quoted, Sheehan’s no atheist.

        • MNb

          There is evidence for a human Jesus interacting with our natural reality.
          There is no evidence for a divine Jesus doing so.
          In fact by definition that’s impossible. As Domela Nieuwenhuis said at the end of the 19th Century:
          Deriving a divine world from our concrete one requires a salto mortale.
          You make those salto mortales like a frog on a hot plate.

        • Luvin’ it

          It begs the question as Bob Price has stated if Jesus was merely human why would anyone wrote about him? In other words, if he wasn’t “superman” and instead just Clark Kent we wouldn’t have the Gospels, etc. Price is by the way a mythicist mythical and he’s correct in saying Jesus was either a myth or he was who the Gospels say he was. There is no in between answer

        • Greg G.

          We have historical accounts about real humans. We have fictional stories about fictional people and beings. Why would you bring up Clark Kent if people didn’t write about fictional beings. Why bring up Price if people didn’t write about merely human people?

        • Luvin’ it

          Price’s point is that Jesus must not have existed because he is antisupernatural. However, as he concedes if Jesus did exist he would be the person in the Gospels.

        • Greg G.

          You will have to show me the citation where Price makes that argument.

          In the meantime, New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash by Robert M. Price is where he shows that the gospels are fictions based on fictional stories.

          PS: That is, he compiles the work of other scholars for most of the passages of the gospels.

        • Lark62

          There was likely a powerful and successful war lord in Britain around 500 CE with a name something like Arthur.

          Are you saying that if we accept that this war lord existed, we must also accept Merlin, the holy grail, the fisher king and the lady of the lake? Seriously?

          There are people living in London right now named Harry Potter. There were wandering preachers in palestine around the year 30 CE, and one or more of them might have been named something like Jesus.

          Myth is still myth. Fiction is still fiction. Nonsense is still nonsense.

          And people still get rich selling tall tales.

        • MNb

          What exactly begs the question? I don’t understand what you mean.

          “if Jesus was merely human why would anyone wrote about him?”
          If you can’t answer that question yourself you’re even a bigger IDiot than I already thought. If you confirm that’s the case I’ll answer it for you.

          “There is no in between answer.”
          If a white supremacist like Bob P postulates a dilemma it very well can be a false one.
          Not to mention that your answer applies to Clark Kent as well. If CK wasn’t “superman” we wouldn’t have all those comics. Good job undermining your own pseudo-argument.

        • Luvin’ it

          Wow you really can’t read can you?

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          From the guy who said he would rape little girls to save people

        • BlackMamba44

          Quote:
          “You stated that there are no actions that are absolutely wrong (such as lying, etc.), that there is always an exception. When then is rape considered okay? What is the exception to this action?”

          Quote:
          Here’s a hypothetical. And I just said it’s hypothetical. You know how some species like cats like to play with mice before they kill them. I mean they have this weird thing about exaggerating the harm before they eat their meal. Suppose there was some advanced, powerful species outside of our solar system that came to earth and it was like that. And it was torturing people. And raping women. We thought how horrible, this is really bad. And suppose this culture for the fun of it said, “We’re gonna kill the whole species. We’re gonna kill all of you. We’re gonna show how powerful we are.” We think, “Boy, what an amoral group” right? We’d be afraid of them. But what if they said to you, “Before we’re gonna kill everybody off, we just wanna have more fun here, if you will rape a woman, then we will let the rest of the species go, okay? We’ll just leave. If you’ll just do that one thing, and let us watch, because we’re sickos, right? Then we’ll save the rest of the planet.” Now, I know that’s not likely to happen but hypothetically something like that could happen. Nature is weird, right? In that weird case, which you and I would never see in our life time, you can make an argument – although it wouldn’t be pleasant, and you wouldn’t like it, and you would feel really bad about yourself, you would consider that to be the moral choice.

          This is all I could find. It would be great if you could provide a link where he said that he “would rape little girls to save people”.

        • Luvin’ it

          Okay give me a second he has said it on at least two debates one of which was the debate with Kyle Butt

        • BlackMamba44

          Yes, I also saw a quote about that one, too.

          And the quote didn’t say that he “would rape little girls to save people”.

          “Kyle asked about rape. Would be it be okay to rape a woman to save the human race? Could you rape 2 girls, 2000, 2,000,000 to save all of humanity? Barker defended the necessity to do that which minimizes harm. (Debate with Kyle Butt on “Does the God of the Bible exist? Feb. 12, 2009, 1:02:00)”

          No need to post the link. I found it.

          Here’s a hypothetical:
          Assume I am a powerful alien/superhuman.

          Rape a woman or I will kill all 7 billion people on this planet.
          Would you let 7 billion people die?

          And by the time I actually posted this comment, you provided the link. (I got sidetracked at work).

          EDIT: removed pointless wording.

        • BlackMamba44

          I guess I’m not not going to get my hypothetical question answered.

          Dan Barker had no problem answering the question honestly.

        • Luvin’ it

          https://youtu.be/hR_awitKdKQ

          From 59:36 to 1:01:35

        • BlackMamba44

          Actually, it goes past the 1:01:35 mark.

        • Luvin’ it

          Okay

        • adam

          If she doesnt cry out loud enough, she must be killed

          (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

          If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed,
          and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of
          the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not
          cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he
          violated his neighbors wife.

        • adam
        • adam

          So?

          Rape is nothing to the bible God

          (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)

          If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not
          engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must
          marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be
          allowed to divorce her.

        • adam

          So?

          God is good with rape, what is your problem with it?

          They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel
          or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera’s spoil, an ornate
          shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)

        • Luvin’ it

          Hes not “good” with it Hillary

        • adam

          God is good with rape, he even uses it as a threat:

          (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)

          Thus says the Lord: ‘I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.’

        • MNb

          Ah, christian love a la creacrap in full action. Ask a sincere question and you’ll get an insult as an answer.
          Jesus would be proud of your arrogance.
          Oops – no, he preached humility, something IDiots like you seriously lack.
          But hey, unlike creationist eggheads like you I’m all for second chances.

          What exactly begs the question? I don’t understand what you mean.
          Of course do me a favour and refuse to answer it again, demonstrating what creationist piece of shit you are.

        • Bob Jase

          Jesus is said to have preached humility sometimes but he boasted at other times – Jesus just couldn’t keep his stories straight.

        • Bob Jase

          ” if Jesus was merely human why would anyone wrote about him?”

          Go to a library or bookstore, even online, and you will find a section called biographies which is books written by humans about other humans and sometimes even themselve.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Proof? History? for Jesus?? Show me.

          Didn’t think so.

        • Lark62

          Lucien of Samosata wrote around 160 CE that christians are so gullible that they will believe anything and be taken in by any conman who comes among them.

          Now if that isn’t proof of a real physical Jesus living around 30 CE, what evidence would you accept? /snark.

          And yes, Lucien of Samosata appears on just about every list of “non biblical evidence for Jesus” put out by christians. At least after 1,860 years, the fundamentals of chrisitanity remain constant.

        • Luvin’ it

          So you are a mythicist then?

        • adam

          ” Got any interaction in history to prove it like we do for Jesus Christ?”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3da7f08a3390ef2111a626073dd7132a22b19bc1ce34ac9d4883c5e2d74a0eb8.jpg

        • Luvin’ it

          There’s no evidence other than your assertion. Provide some credibal testimony etc. and we’ll talk

        • adam

          What assertion have I made?

          You provide some ‘credibal’ testimoney of Jesus

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/58c98177e9a1a7ae07e001d683408f75f5baca0b8a84815ce64907c32b1e4a03.png

        • Luvin’ it

          And I’ll mock Osteen right along with you

        • adam

          A MAN of GOD like Joel?

          God made him rich and can make you rich as well.

          All you need is ‘faith’

        • Luvin’ it

          Haha total crap he’s a con artist I can’t stand him or his speeching

        • adam

          He’s a worshiper of God JUST LIKE YOU.

        • MNb

          As reasonable as your favourite god.

        • Luvin’ it

          Not really unicorns aren’t real and they can’t create anything. You lose.

        • Greg G.

          Not really unicorns aren’t real and they can’t create anything.

          Then where do marshmallows come from? You lose.

        • BlackMamba44
        • BlackMamba44
        • MNb

          Not really, your god (even if it’s the “best” one) isn’t real and hence create anything.
          If I lose you lose as well.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Not real? Can’t create anything?

          Crazy, right? But there’s a lot of that going around. There’s another guy–he’s new–who’s making the same mistake about some nutty Mesopotamian god.

        • Luvin’ it

          Accept his creator is ration because he’s a being not an animal and a fictional animal at that. Nice try

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Did the pink unicorn drown millions in a global flood? No? Then I guess she’s a better candidate for the loving god Christians keep talking about than Yahweh.

        • Luvin’ it

          It was judgement and as God that is something he is allowed to do

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          If I build a sand castle, I can destroy it. But a sand castle isn’t alive. No, God can’t genocide people.

        • Luvin’ it

          But he can judge them. Should we do away with judges?

        • Luvin’ it

          Do you dislike judges or??

        • adam

          the Flying Invisible Pink Unicorn exists beyond time and colour.

          Science proves it invisible
          We know it is pink by faith.

        • Luvin’ it

          It hasn’t interacted in history. You’re starting to sound like a Hindu apologist haha

        • adam

          “It hasn’t interacted in history.”

          How not?
          It created all you see.

        • Luvin’ it

          Only human like beings can create things silly

        • adam

          Then how do you explain the Universe?

        • Luvin’ it

          A being like humans yet supremely more powerful created the universe

        • adam

          Nope, Unicorns

        • Luvin’ it

          Horses can’t create

        • adam

          Nope, Unicorns

        • Bob Jase

          What does god look like?

          For that matter, what did your Jesus look like? There are no descriptions in the bible.

        • Greg G.

          The burden of proof is yours. I can show that there is no omnipotent, benevolent being, though.

          Suffering exists.
          Suffering is either necessary or unnecessary.
          To be necessary, it must achieve some purpose.
          If suffering achieves some purpose, then the purpose is logically possible to achieve.
          If an omnipotence exists, then it could achieve the logical possible purpose without the suffering.
          That means that suffering that can achieve a purpose is also unnecessary therefore all suffering is unnecessary if there is an omnipotent being.
          If an omnipotent being exists, it chooses that suffering exists unnecessarily, which is sadistic.
          A sadistic being is not a benevolent being.

          Therefore, it is not the case that an omnipotent benevolence exists. An omnipotent being would be a sadist. A benevolent being is impotent against suffering, not much better than we humans, so why call it a god?

          Do you want to spend eternity with an omnipotent sadist?

        • Luvin’ it

          Not unecessarily but necessarily for good reasons which means he is not a sadist nice try though

        • Greg G.

          What good reason can suffering do that an omnipotence cannot do? Name anything, good or bad, that suffering can do that an omnipotence cannot do. If there is anything, then you have proved that omnipotence is impossible.

        • Luvin’ it

          Human freedom is evidently important to God

        • Greg G.

          If God cannot prevent suffering without infringing on freedom, then he is not omnipotent.

        • Luvin’ it

          Huh? Why is that? Do you want to be less free is that it?

        • Greg G.

          Do you not understand the meaning of the word “omnipotent” either?

        • MNb

          I did underneath.

        • adam

          “Most people in the world believe in some type of God many of them in light of nature.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ec831d9facb36edd9b3ffe2e278ad5365e6a7e6a8e7c7ef5a0c29f4a0708f64b.jpg

          Take yourself as an example

        • Greg G.

          Way less than half are stupider than Murph/Woo/Luvi nitwit.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Luvintwit! thanks for the creative boost, you’ll get 9% of the royalties.

        • TheNuszAbides

          double non sequitur. leave and never come back.

        • Luvin’ it

          I think you missed this in Part 1. If you have 5 guys in a room and they all fight eventually one will be the winner. In the same way, there can only be one God. In other words if there are multiple gods which one is omniscient, omnipotent, etc.? That God would be in fact, God.

        • Greg G.

          Missing that would be giving you the benefit of the doubt toward intelligence; If I can beat up four people, does not mean I am invincible nor omnipotent. Before you get to omnipotent beings, you have to show there is a least one god. If you can show that there are five gods, you still can’t determine that the most powerful is omnipotent.

          Logic is not one of your strong suits.

        • Luvin’ it

          If you had a million gods one of them still has to be “the best” and that one would be “the best.”

        • Greg G.

          We have more than seven billion people. One of them has to be the best. The best does not mean omnipotent.

          If you have a million arguments for god, one of them has to be “the best”. Why don’t you use that one? Or was it still dumb?

        • Luvin’ it

          We’re talking about gods in theory. If there are “gods” then one of them is “the best”most powerful, etc. Only one god can be God by default.

        • Greg G.

          “Most powerful” does not imply omnipotence. If there was a real non-omnipotent god, it would still be more powerful than an imaginary omnipotent god.

        • MNb

          The best god still will suck badly.

        • Luvin’ it

          Whatever he would still be “the best” and therefore, God

        • Greg G.

          He would have to exist, though.

        • MNb

          There is a better thing than your “best” god.
          Not believing.
          Every single comment of yours provides plenty of evidence for this conclusion.

        • Luvin’ it

          Not bellieving in God and instead believing in magic that complex life can arise by natural processes?

        • MNb

          I already told you: merely repeating your lie only confirms you’re a liar – and a stupid one.
          Complex life arising by natural processes doesn’t require any belief in magic.
          Your god poofing life into existence totally does as confirmed from Genesis 1:1 on.
          Man, are you stupid. Next comment I’ll even have to explain the first verses of your favourite Holy Book to you. At the other hand, given that you wipe your sorry creationist ass with the 9th Commandment means nobody should be surprised.

        • adam

          You mean like Zeus was the ‘the best’ Greek God
          Shiva ‘the best’ Hindu God
          Allah ‘the best Muslim God’
          Jehovah ‘the best Jewish God’
          Jehovah ‘the best’ christian God.

        • Luvin’ it

          Well the God of the bible is better than all of those petty gods

        • adam

          The slave loving eternal torture monster?

        • Luvin’ it

          But at least you’re narrowing the pool that’s a good sign

        • adam

          There are literally millions of gods.

          I believe in one less than you, three less if you believe the trinity.

        • Susan

          I think you missed this in Part 1. If you have 5 guys in a room…

          You mean when you were “Murph”?

          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/crossexamined/god_is_lovedoes_that_make_any_sense/#comment-3519852838

        • Greg G.

          That’s what I thought but I couldn’t remember the handle.

        • BlackMamba44

          Yes, I thought so!! Doug/Murph/Woo.

          I remember the “so sorry for you”.

        • MNb

          If five guys fight in a room eventually all might be losers. As World War 1 showed.

        • Luvin’ it

          Try again

        • MNb

          Why would I? You rejected evidence the first time, so you will reject whatever I bring up the next time as well.

        • Luvin’ it

          Ditto

        • MNb

          Apparently the less words your comments contain the less they suck.

        • Luvin’ it

          Haha

        • MNb

          No, the amount of letters doesn’t make any difference.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          there can only be one God

          Don’t tell us; tell those nuts who keep talking about the Trinity.

        • adam

          ” If you have 5 guys in a room and they all fight eventually one will be the winner. In the same way, there can only be one God.”

          So 5 real guys does not equal one imaginary god.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0a534c2021bc73169e9c10f64e398654f51c2ef83711258fb53a5bf8679a4423.jpg

        • Bob Jase

          No but 5 guys does equal some really great burgers & fries.

        • Kodie

          Then you’re illiterate.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Atheism is the default position. You got evidence? Show it.

        • Luvin’ it

          Actually according to Alvin Plantiga the current winner of the Templeton prize, theism is the default.

        • Greg G.

          Plantinga has “two dozen or so” proofs for the existence of God, though none of them actually work. William Lane Craig says the combined weight of the arguments favor the existence of God. If just one of them worked, they would tout that one argument. The combined weight of all of the failed arguments for gods favor the non-existence of gods.

        • MNb

          Atheism is not a belief system because it does not make use of faith and rejects revelation as a source of knowledge.

        • epeeist

          Have you got an image for this Thomas Paine quotation:

          The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum.

        • adam
      • RichardSRussell

        Absolutely correct! It no more shows that God does not exist than “I know he’s in a better place now” shows that God does exist. But it does serve to demonstrate that consolatory beliefs and attitudes are not the sole monopoly of religious people.

        • Luvin’ it

          100 percent agree

  • Luvin’ it

    True love is not divine enablement Bob. In fact, the “whatever I think is best for me approach” fails in that the “the best” is irrational due to its subjective underpinnings.

    • Chuck Johnson

      “The best” that Christianity can supply is subjective.
      God is a human invention.
      He is a dummy and the religionists are the ventriloquists.

      • Luvin’ it

        Right because complex natural organisms can form all by themselves with a a little magic (macro evolutionary theories)

        • Michael Neville

          Okay, folks, we’ve got another creationist wackaloon here. Nothing more to see, let’s just move along and talk to rational people who don’t reject reality in favor of some 2500 year old myths made up by priests who didn’t know where the Sun went at night.

        • Max Doubt

          “Okay, folks, we’ve got another creationist wackaloon here.”

          Yep. Their entire shtick is to jump up and down squealing about how they don’t understand biology and daring anyone to try to help them understand. I’m always willing to accept their acknowledgment that they don’t get it. I’m also usually willing to let them win their challenge, “Nobody is gonna teach me science, I’m not going to learn it, no way, no how, nuh-uh.” Obviously it hasn’t happened yet, and that’s plenty of evidence for me to accept that it’s not going to happen.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Mutation and selection pressure.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Evolution is the scientific consensus. You lose.

        • Chuck Johnson

          But they have their own scientists.
          They have their own lab coats and microscopes.
          They have their own museum in Kentucky.
          And we have ours.

          http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

        • Luvin’ it

          Truth isn’t determined by majority. If it is than Christianity must be true given that it’s still the world’s largest religion. You lose.

        • Lark62

          Scientific consensus =/= popularity or popular vote.

          If 1000 people selling stuff on the internet promised wearing a tin foil hat would prevent cavities and one dentist told your to brush your teeth, who would you go with?

          If 1000 people gave a restaurant glowing reviews and 1 health inspector said he found rat poop in the hamburger meat, would you eat there?

        • Greg G.

          Christianity isn’t the consensus. It is not even the majority. Then it breaks down into 45,000+ denominations that find enough fault with the other 44,999+ denominations that they can’t unite.

          Most of them claim there is an omnipotent, benevolent being which is refuted by the existence of suffering.

        • Luvin’ it

          But it is the consensus on that it has the most adherents. I proved my point by your way of thinking that majority somehow determines truth. You lose.

        • Greg G.

          You do not understand the word “consensus”.

          by your way of thinking that majority somehow determines truth. You lose.

          Sproing! Another irony meter bites the dust. A theist accusing an atheist of that after making that very argument all over the place.

          Don’t you have an omniscience that can provide you with intelligent arguments by revelation if you ask? Apparently, your God doesn’t like you, either.

        • Luvin’ it

          Well by consensus most people in the world DO believe in a higher power

        • epeeist

          Well by consensus most people in the world DO believe in a higher power

          Not in the UK they don’t, most people don’t have a religion and only 6% of the population are religiously active.

          But as usual your claims is undermined by the fact that the majority of people in the world don’t believe in your god.

        • Luvin’ it

          I said “the world” try reading pee-wee

        • epeeist

          I said “the world” try reading pee-wee

          My reading comprehension is fine thanks very much.

          But it is still true that the majority of people in the world don’t believe in your god.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker
        • Luvin’ it

          Ba du du da daaaa….

        • Luvin’ it

          None the less they believe in a higher power. How does feel to be in the minority?

        • Greg G.

          Everybody is in some minority or the other. The fact that theists believe in incompatible gods means that most of them are incorrect and maybe all of them. You think everybody else is wrong but your concept of God is impossible so we can rule you out as a correct one, too.

        • Luvin’ it

          Well no I believe in that which no greater can be conceived which would be God

        • Greg G.

          That would be me but I am not a god.

        • Greg G.

          Well by consensus most people

          Cue Inigo Montoya.

          http://i.lvme.me/nzxi36p.jpg

          They have contradictory beliefs about gods, so they cannot all be right. All that tells us is that most people are wrong about the existence of gods. If humans have a tendency toward incorrect beliefs about gods, it would be better to withhold belief until there is sufficient evidence for a god or gods.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Big deal. World religions can’t even agree on the number of god(s) or their names.

          we’ve learned nothing about reality from religion.

        • Luvin’ it

          Says the man in a western society built on Christianity

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Democracy, civil rights, no slavery, freedom of religion and speech–uh, yeah. That’s all pretty much verbatim from the Bible.

        • Luvin’ it

          Well the slavery during the Civil civil war was an invention of Democrats let’s not forget that and their ignorance concerning the Bible

        • Greg G.

          You are a liar. Slavery came before there was a United States and it was modeled on the laws in the Old Testament. The Civil War was over the issue of slavery. Many will claim that it was over states rights but the only state right it was over was slavery.

        • Luvin’ it

          And the slavery version of “man stealing” did not come from the Bible but a misconstrued reading of the bible by uninformed Democrats who hatedhates blacks

        • Greg G.

          Slavery started hundreds of years before that. Your ignorance of history is astounding. Are you getting history from right wing web sites or church? Neither are reliable sources of information.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Lev. 25:44-46 is one of the few verses I ever remember. Look it up.

          The Bible makes clear that God luvs him some slavery.

          Still luvin’ it?

        • Luvin’ it

          And all of the founding fathers were Christian in some form
          Religious Affiliation
          of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
          Founding
          Fathers % of
          Founding
          Fathers
          Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
          Presbyterian 30 18.6%
          Congregationalist 27 16.8%
          Quaker 7 4.3%
          Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
          Lutheran 5 3.1%
          Catholic 3 1.9%
          Huguenot 3 1.9%
          Unitarian 3 1.9%
          Methodist 2 1.2%
          Calvinist 1 0.6%
          TOTAL 204

        • Luvin’ it

          Nearly all of the founding fathers were Christians
          Religious Affiliation
          of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
          Founding
          Fathers % of
          Founding
          Fathers
          Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
          Presbyterian 30 18.6%
          Congregationalist 27 16.8%
          Quaker 7 4.3%
          Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
          Lutheran 5 3.1%
          Catholic 3 1.9%
          Huguenot 3 1.9%
          Unitarian 3 1.9%
          Methodist 2 1.2%
          Calvinist 1 0.6%
          TOTAL 204

        • Luvin’ it

          Religious Affiliation
          of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
          Founding
          Fathers % of
          Founding
          Fathers
          Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
          Presbyterian 30 18.6%
          Congregationalist 27 16.8%
          Quaker 7 4.3%
          Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
          Lutheran 5 3.1%
          Catholic 3 1.9%
          Huguenot 3 1.9%
          Unitarian 3 1.9%
          Methodist 2 1.2%
          Calvinist 1 0.6%
          TOTAL 204

        • Luvin’ it

          Religious Affiliatio
          of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
          Founding
          Fathers % of
          Founding
          Fathers
          Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
          Presbyterian 30 18.6%
          Congregationalist 27 16.8%
          Quaker 7 4.3%
          Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
          Lutheran 5 3.1%
          Catholic 3 1.9%
          Huguenot 3 1.9%
          Unitarian 3 1.9%
          Methodist 2 1.2%
          Calvinist 1 0.6%
          TOTAL 204

        • Luvin’ it

          Religious Affiliation
          of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
          Founding
          Fathers % of
          Founding
          Fathers
          Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
          Presbyterian 30 18.6%
          Congregationalist 27 16.8%
          Quaker 7 4.3%
          Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
          Lutheran 5 3.1%
          Catholic 3 1.9%
          Huguenot 3 1.9%
          Unitarian 3 1.9%
          Methodist 2 1.2%
          Calvinist 1 0.6%
          TOTAL 204

        • Luvin’ it

          eligious Affiliation
          of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
          Founding
          Fathers % of
          Founding
          Fathers
          Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
          Presbyterian 30 18.6%
          Congregationalist 27 16.8%
          Quaker 7 4.3%
          Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
          Lutheran 5 3.1%
          Catholic 3 1.9%
          Huguenot 3 1.9%
          Unitarian 3 1.9%
          Methodist 2 1.2%
          Calvinist 1 0.6%
          TOTAL 204

        • Luvin’ it

          Religious Affiliation
          of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
          Founding
          Fathers % of
          Founding
          Fathers
          Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
          Presbyterian 30 18.6%
          Congregationalist 27 16.8%
          Quaker 7 4.3%
          Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
          Lutheran 5 3.1%
          Catholic 3 1.9%
          Huguenot 3 1.9%
          Unitarian 3 1.9%
          Methodist 2 1.2%
          Calvinist 1 0.6%
          TOTAL 204

        • Luvin’ it

          Religious uhffiliation
          of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
          Founding
          Fathers % of
          Founding
          Fathers
          Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
          Presbyterian 30 18.6%
          Congregationalist 27 16.8%
          Quaker 7 4.3%
          Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
          Lutheran 5 3.1%
          Catholic 3 1.9%
          Huguenot 3 1.9%
          Unitarian 3 1.9%
          Methodist 2 1.2%
          Calvinist 1 0.6%
          TOTAL 204

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You mean those Founding Fathers who gave us a secular constitution?

          Uh, yeah–their religious affiliation is irrelevant. Read the Constitution they gave us and give it a little respect.

        • Luvin’ it

          Religious Affiliation
          of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
          Founding
          Fathers % of
          Founding
          Fathers
          Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
          Presbyterian 30 18.6%
          Congregationalist 27 16.8%
          Quaker 7 4.3%
          Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
          Lutheran 5 3.1%
          Catholic 3 1.9%
          Huguenot 3 1.9%
          Unitarian 3 1.9%
          Methodist 2 1.2%
          Calvinist 1 0.6%
          TOTAL 204

        • Greg G.

          What’s with all the spam?

        • Luvin’ it

          Bob says religion hasn’t given us anything of value

        • Greg G.

          Like what? Do you mean the things humans figured out before religion or the things humans figured out after they stopped try to put God into everything? Even chimpanzees have a sense of fairness, they cooperate with one another in their groups, they shun thieves, they punish those who give false warnings.

        • Luvin’ it

          Religious Affiliation
          of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
          Founding
          Fathers % of
          Founding
          Fathers
          Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
          Presbyterian 30 18.6%
          Congregationalist 27 16.8%
          Quaker 7 4.3%
          Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
          Lutheran 5 3.1%
          Catholic 3 1.9%
          Huguenot 3 1.9%
          Unitarian 3 1.9%
          Methodist 2 1.2%
          Calvinist 1 0.6%
          TOTAL 204

        • Greg G.

          That means nothing. They debated putting religion into the Constitution but emphatically left it out. It is spelled out explicitly in the Treaty of Tripoli.

        • Susan

          Bob says religion hasn’t given us anything of value.

          No Fred/Murph/Luvin’ it/ whatever.

          He didn’t.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You make the cutest errors.

          “You should be a Christian since it’s the biggest religion” is the ad populum fallacy. Just because it’s the biggest doesn’t mean it’s the best (or right, in our case). Sounds like we’re on the same page here.

          “Truth isn’t determined by majority” is something we all understand.

          But the actual issue is something else: we laymen look to scientific consensus as a proxy for truth. We all know that it’s not guaranteed to be correct, but it’s our best bet. A laymen has no better option.

        • Luvin’ it

          Then you commit the ad populam fallacy with your “macro evolution is the consensus” nice try though at blatant deception

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Not a deception and not a fallacy.

          Wrong again.

        • Luvin’ it

          It is when you base your conclusions on consensus

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What conclusions have I based on a consensus? Be specific.

        • Luvin’ it

          Macro evolutionary thinking

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Clumsily worded, but you’re right. I do accept evolution, solely because it’s the scientific consensus.

          Now, where’s the problem? It sounds like you’re equating accepting the scientific consensus with the ad populum fallacy? Nope–not at all the same thing.

        • Luvin’ it

          It is the same in the sense of it happens to be the consensus AND you also accept it and you defend it BECAUSE it’s the consensus

      • Luvin’ it

        Well no even in theory God is a better explanation for “the best” simply for rational reasons ol’ Chucky poo

        • Chuck Johnson

          I have seen what passes for rational reasons with you.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Does objective morality exist in the William Lane Craig sense (“moral values that are valid and binding whether anybody believes in them or not”)? I’ve never seen any evidence for that. Show me.

      • Luvin’ it

        The worship of God would be one. As for the rest WLC might be wrong considering God acts based on the situation

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Huh? The worship of God is objectively morally good? Show me.

          If you want to show objective moral truth, give me some objective moral truths. Then show that they’re objectively true, not just widely accepted. Then show that objective moral truth is reliably accessible (if it exists but we can’t access it, it isn’t good for anything).

  • Dus10

    “God is love” taken at face value is a tautology. It doesn’t inform us as to what god is or love is. We have no more knowledge from saying it or hearing it. It’s a deepity.

    • Luvin’ it

      It means God is the embodiment of love

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        If that’s what it means then you could, y’know, say that.

      • Greg G.

        God creates evil/calamity/disaster or however you want to translate it. That is not the embodiment of love.

        • Luvin’ it

          You mean he allowes it

        • Pofarmer

          Read yer bible.

        • Luvin’ it

          Do and he ALLOWS evil he didn’t create evil

        • MNb

          Your favourite Holy Book says otherwise, as shown by BlackMamba just above.

        • james

          yes, if evil created itself, yhwh would have a competitor. then it is logical satan is not only krist killer but he takes christian life everyday.

          so theologically not only did satan have the power to de-virginize adams mind , he even put god in a coma for 6 hours.

          satan is the lord of luvin

        • james

          did evil create itself? if evil created it self then how many creators are there?

        • Luvin’ it

          No God allowed for the angels to rebel and some chose to

        • Greg G.

          Why would angels have any desire to rebel? Where would that come from if it was not from their creation?

        • Luvin’ it

          Well theologians bieve angels have sort of a one way free will like one opportunity to change and that’s it this the reason why Tolkien modeled his elves after angels

        • Greg G.

          What evidence do theologians rely on?

        • james

          did god ALLOW evil to create itself ?
          how is your god sovereign when there are independent things which bring things into existence by themselves?

          this would also means god does not have control of everything. and if god does not have control of everything, then god does not have power.

          i am definitely an evil god and a good god besides your god.

        • Luvin’ it

          Controlling every facet of reality would mean no free will do you prefer no free will? In other words a divine dictator?

        • james

          god did not create their wish, they created their own wishes. they created their own will. it is not gods will, it is angels will.

        • Luvin’ it

          Angelic free will yes. Are you a Muslim?

        • Lark62

          Wow. You are saying the bible is wrong. You are calling god a liar.

        • BlackMamba44
        • MadScientist1023

          If he wrote the laws of nature, he wrote them such that calamity and disaster would inevitably occur. If he’s all knowing, he knew that this would be the case before he did it. He chose to do it regardless. QED, he created all evil, calamity, and disaster in the world.

        • Luvin’ it

          I agree accept for he didn’t create evil he ALLOWED evil, calamity and disaster in the world

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Why do the atheists always know the Bible better than the Christian?

        • Lark62

          For the simple reason that people who actually read the bible tend to become atheists shortly thereafter.

        • Greg G.

          Some Christians read the Bible for inspiration and not for content. When they start reading for comprehension, all hell breaks loose, so to speak. It happened to yours truly.

        • Lark62

          Same here. The phrases “This is nuts. How could I believe this shit?” kept repeating in my brain.

          After rejecting christianity, I spent a short period of time thinking there might be some wishy washy loving deity out there. Then I learned about evolution and realized that pretty much every living thing on earth did or will die painfully of slow starvation or being eaten alive. So much for a loving god.

          Reality is much better than any of that tripe.

        • Greg G.

          It was a combination of some of the Bible passages, especially Isaiah 35:7, and reading books on evolution looking for quotemines that made me realize the people in the church didn’t know what they were talking about. Then I felt like a deist until I realized that didn’t make sense either.

        • Luvin’ it

          It’s all in their tiny heads

        • adam
        • MadScientist1023

          Are you contending there are things in the universe he didn’t create?

        • Luvin’ it

          Yes he created the possibility but did not “pull the trigger”

        • Greg G.

          You have been shown Isaiah 45:7 over and over. Why not read the verse? Isaiah has God bragging about creating evil.

        • james

          clarify what you are saying. does god will tomorrow into existence and everything that takes place in tomorrow? is willing the same as bringing into being?
          did god create a possibility for evil to generate all by itself?

        • Luvin’ it

          God created the possibility for evil to occur yes.

        • Michael Neville

          And he doesn’t stop the evil, which means he’s a sadistic asshole.

        • Luvin’ it

          Why don’t you stop some of it give most of your money away to alleviate suffering is that what you do?

        • Greg G.

          All humans combined do not have the resources to do that. An omnipotent being could do it as easily as not doing it.

        • Luvin’ it

          But the point is how selfless are you?

        • Greg G.

          I am not selfless enough to give away everything I have, the way Jesus said one should to inherit eternal life in:

          Mark 10:21 (NRSV)21 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”

          You obviously have not done so.

          But the point is whether there is an omnipotent God who creates evil instead of preventing it.

        • Bob Jase

          Not fair, everyone knows that god always needs money.

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          Just think how beautiful a sunset could be if God had enough money that he didn’t need beggars behind pulpits.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Will Rogers? Woody Guthrie?

        • Greg G.

          I heard Willie Nelson talking about when he and Roger Miller were starting out and traveled to venues by car. Driving across Texas, they saw an awesomely beautiful sunset and Roger said, “Just think what God could do if he had money!”

          I stole that part. I don’t have a guilty conscience about the “beggars behind pulpits”, so either I made it up or forgot that I stole it.

        • TheNuszAbides

          that’s the one! i scrambled Miller and turned his M upside down.

        • Greg G.

          A man of means by no means.

        • TheNuszAbides

          a karaoke favorite of mine.

        • Michael Neville

          I do give money to alleviate suffering. What does that have to do with you worshiping a sadistic asshole?

        • Luvin’ it

          He’s sadistic for allowing hurricanes?

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          Okay but where does it end? Paper cuts, toe stubbing, headaches, etc.?

        • Greg G.

          It would end with the complete elimination of all pain and suffering if there was an omnipotent benevolence.

        • Luvin’ it

          Well in Scripture God promises to do that in time

        • Greg G.

          Promises, promises. Scripture was written by people who didn’t know where the sun went at night. It is fairy tales.

          Suffering has happened. That cannot be undone. More suffering will happen and then it will be impossible to undo that. It all could have been prevented if there was an omnipotent being, though.

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          Lewis was an “armchair” theologian even he would say that from time to time just a lay theologian. Obviously nobody is perfect in their theology. Martin Luther said some stupid things as well.

        • adam

          Verily I say unto you, This generation shall
          not pass away, till all things be accomplished Heaven and earth shall
          pass away: but my words shall not pass away.- attributed to Jesus in Luke

          That generation has already passed away, but earth has not.

          So your wishful thinking that you believe God promises, is JUST wishful thinking. You know blind stupid faith.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/29b314f025bcc3e969733cf06ef46aa679fbdc22541c27af6c393d341ecefe66.jpg

        • Luvin’ it

          And that place is called heaven

        • Greg G.

          If God is incapable of preventing suffering in the few billion years of life on this planet, why would you think he could prevent suffering for eternity? You claim that angels weren’t satisfied.

        • adam

          What is “Heaven”?

        • Michael Neville

          If he were omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent then he wouldn’t allow suffering. This is called the Problem of Suffering and is a big problem for Christians who believe their favorite deity has those three attributes. Now if you believe your god doesn’t have one or more of those attributes then the Problem of Suffering and the related problem of evil goes away. But if you believe he does allow hurricanes while being omnipotent and omniscience then he’s a sadistic asshole.

          According to your own propaganda your god is a sadistic asshole. Your Bible says that your god kills people just because he can, he orders genocide and rape, and he condones slavery.

        • Greg G.

          He would be sadistic for allowing any suffering if he existed.

          Atheists don’t accuse God of doing anything, including existing. That’s what theists do.

        • Luvin’ it

          Wrong philosophers over and over again have shown that you’ryou’re way off Grug

        • Greg G.

          I have shown over and over that if there is an omnipotence, then suffering is unnecessary, so all suffering is unnecessary. That implies that the omnipotence has chosen for unnecessary suffering to exist which implies that it is sadistic.

          If there is no omnipotence, then pain has a purpose to prevent creatures from excessive harm in order to allow reproduction. Excessive suffering may happen as a result of the necessity for pain.

          But your need to believe in a magic sky daddy makes suffering unexplainable, which shows that it is just in your imagination.

        • Luvin’ it

          You’re not in a position to say it isn’t necessary unless you dislike human freedom

        • Greg G.

          Think about omnipotence and its implications. An omnipotent being could prevent all suffering without infringing on free will at all. That’s just a poor excuse to keep believing in a super Santa Claus.

          We could have more free will if there was no suffering. We could make a hobby of sky-diving without a parachute instead of only be able to do it once. That is a severe limitation on free will.

          When I decide to do something, I do not choose to do things that will result in suffering, so my free will is reduced. If there were no suffering, my free will would be unlimited.

          The free will justification for suffering is absurd.

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          Freedom must have boundaries for it to be worthwhile. Basketball can’t be played if their aren’t rules.

        • adam

          “Freedom must have boundaries for it to be worthwhile.”

          Then it is not freedom

          Basketball is a GAME

          game
          A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules: the game of basketball; the game of gin rummy.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/66f99a24f11ff6634c1a735c6aed6dba2376e2b8df3a74c0b1d19a1c9bc737fd.jpg

        • Luvin’ it

          Compatabilism is a version of free will that is compatible with determinism

          And life is essentially a game

        • adam

          “Compatabilism is a version of free will that is compatible with determinism”

          So you HAVE to redefine ‘free will’ to make your point, how dishonest.

          “And life is essentially a game”
          Not even essentially.

          You lose.

        • Luvin’ it

          No not redefine but make sense of the dichotomy of free will and determinism

        • adam

          THAT makes no sense, if you are honest.

        • Luvin’ it

          Freedom without boundaries is lawlessness and boundaries without freedom is tyranny. I prefer freedom with boundaries

        • adam

          So you dont prefer freedom.

        • Luvin’ it

          So you prefer lawlessness?

        • Greg G.

          I remember having lots of fun playing basketball before I knew the rules. We had a basket on a tree with no out of bounds.

          I had lots of fun playing basketball when I abided by the rules, too.

        • Luvin’ it

          But there’s no way to win without rules is there even in the simplest of games?

        • Greg G.

          So what? My four year-old nephew likes to have squirt gun battles with me because I play more enthusiastically that his other aunts and uncles and I am older than all of them. We have no rules. Nobody wins or loses. But we have fun!

          I used to be pretty good at basketball. I could hold my own against future and former NBA players in pick-up games. I enjoyed the challenge of playing better players and better teams even if we lost more than if I dominated lesser talents. I played sports to win but it was the playing well that I enjoyed the most.

        • Luvin’ it

          But what’s ironic are the unsaid rules in your “No rules.” If he grabbed a rock and pelted you in the head with it that wouldn’t be so fun would it?

        • Greg G.

          No, not even if we weren’t playing a game.

        • epeeist

          The majority of philosophers tend towards atheism (look for the question: “God: theism or atheism?”).

        • Luvin’ it

          And yet Christian philosophy is incredibly popular in the academy. Alvin Plantiga was awarded this year the prestigious Templeton prize and he is a theist

        • Greg G.

          The Templeton Prize is a religious award that is for anybody. The fact that the award went to a philosopher is incidental. It is not an award just for philosophy.

          Are you a Poe who is trying to make Christianity look silly?

        • Luvin’ it

          It’s a prestigious award

        • Greg G.

          In religious circles.

          From http://www.templetonprize.org/purpose.html

          The Templeton Prize honors a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works.

          and

          What these remarkable previous Laureates have shared is a commitment to exploring one or more of the Big Questions at the core of the John Templeton Foundation’s mandate for breakthroughs in discovery and outreach with direct or indirect relevance to “Spiritual Progress.”

          The Wikipedia page reports:

          The prize has been criticized: British biologist Richard Dawkins said in his book The God Delusion that the prize was given “usually to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion”.[14] Sean M. Carroll, a research associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology, criticized his colleagues for taking Templeton research grants when they did not support Templeton’s beliefs.[15] Martinus J. G. Veltman, the 1999 Nobel laureate in physics, suggested the prize “bridg[ed] the gap between sense and nonsense”.[16]

        • Luvin’ it

          Martin Rees accepted it and he has no religious beliefs whatsoever is tgat still a problem for you ?

        • Greg G.

          From http://www.templetonprize.org/abouttheprize.html

          The Prize is a monetary award in the amount of £1,100,000 sterling.

          Hell, I would take it.

          Are you dropping your claim that it is associated with some academy?

        • Luvin’ it

          They do not award the prize to non academy members

        • Greg G.

          You are an idiot.

          From http://www.templetonprize.org/abouttheprize.html

          Men and women of any creed, profession, or national origin may be nominated for the Templeton Prize. The distinguished roster of previous winners includes representatives of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, but also others as well. The Prize has been awarded to scientists, philosophers, theologians, members of the clergy, philanthropists, writers, and reformers, for work that has ranged from the creation of new religious orders and social-spiritual movements to human sciences scholarship, to research about the fundamental questions of existence, purpose and the origins of the universe.

        • Luvin’ it

          No they only award people from the academy

        • MNb

          If the Templeton Price goes to atheists as well that kind of contradicts what you wrote above: that “the christian philosophy is incredibly popular in the academy”. Apparently they couldn’t find themselves a christian to do the work done by those atheists ……

        • epeeist

          And yet Christian philosophy is incredibly popular in the academy.

          Is it? How many ivy league universities offer “Christian philosophy” as part of their philosophy syllabus. Here in the UK not all universities offer it and for those that do it is an optional module.

          Oh and you do realise that the survey I linked to is of academic philosophers…

          the prestigious Templeton prize

          Has naff all to do with the academy.

        • MNb

          The Templeton Foundation is not the academy.
          IDiot.

        • Luvin’ it

          It’s associated with it

        • Greg G.

          What academy? The award winners are associated with many academies but the award was founded by a private citizen, the late Sir John Templeton.

        • MNb

          Liar.
          It’s associated with a very small part of the academy. Moreover that association is very onesided.

        • MNb

          Ah, once again we are supposed to accept what lying IDiot Luvin’it decrees because of his pretty blue eyes..

        • Luvin’ it

          Wrong philosophers over and over again have shown that you’ryou’re way off

        • Lark62

          Duh

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          The context is Israel’s disobedience so let’s make that clear

        • adam

          the context is what God claims to create, so let’s make that clear.

        • Luvin’ it

          …in light of Israel’s disobedience

        • adam

          the context is what God claims to create evil, so let’s make that clear.

        • Greg G.

          That doesn’t change the fact that God’s boast is that he creates evil. The context is irrelevant. Let’s make that clear.

        • james

          God created possibility but not the evil ? I still don’t get it. I will try to explain. Your god said “let there be light and there was light” wouldn’t he have to have been speaking via his brain and voice to keep the causes going on in the light? In the bible yhwh spoke so much he had to take a breather. if yhwh is the cause , then he has to be doing “let there be…” For every event which take places tommorow .

        • Greg G.

          No, no. God only created the possibility of light. We can only see if we do something right. Night comes because somebody exercised their free will.

        • Luvin’ it

          If a couple decides to have a child that also includes the possibility that the child might commit suicide. If their child does commit suicide are they to blame? No.

        • Greg G.

          Suicide is seldom done because the person doesn’t want to live. It is usually done because they see no way to end their suffering.

          If their child does commit suicide are they to blame? No.

          You are always wrong, it seems, no matter what the topic. Children who happen to be gay children of Christian parents who reject the child instead of supporting him/her. Many suicides happen under these suicides and a more enlightened attitude by the parents would help them.

        • Luvin’ it

          Wow you’re reading into the analogy waaaaay too much.

          Consider a family that chooses to have a child knowing that the child might one day maliciously and sanely hurt an innocent human being. Now if the child does that are the parents to blame. No.

        • Greg G.

          Your analogies suck. If the parents are abusive to the child so that is all he knows, then, yes, the parents would be to blame for the mayhem the child caused. If God creates people with needs, desires, and tendencies to minimize energy expenditures to cope in a world with limited resources, then God is to blame for when those tendencies are exercised. How can you blame people for doing what they are programmed to do? You have to hold the malicious programmer responsible.

        • Luvin’ it

          Stop reading into the analogy every time just take it at face value for once

        • Greg G.

          Why make analogies that rely on the inabilities and fallibilities of humans that could not apply to omnipotent beings, real or hypothetical?

        • Luvin’ it

          You’re missing the primary point being that the parent can’t be blamed that’s it that’s all. We could change the analogy ad absurdum but that would be unhelpful

        • Greg G.

          But the parents’ role in the formation of the kid is mostly biology and parental guidance and they cannot control all of the influences because they are just human. That’s why they are not necessarily to blame. But you also claim that God is the creator of the kid, the parents, and the ancestry of the parents all the way back to creation. God is responsible for every step in the process, not the parents. But you still won’t blame the thing you imagined caused it all. Are you afraid your imaginary friend will get mad at you?

        • james

          did I ask anything about blame? say I go out now and rape someone, did I create the act of rape or did God will it into existence? am I the creator of my choice or is God? I didn’t say anything about blame.

        • Luvin’ it

          God allowed it you created it

        • james

          I am a creator besides your God lol

        • Luvin’ it

          Well autonomous human beings create situations yes do they not?

        • james

          i thought everything happens because of the will of god? you seem to be saying that humans can will their evil into existence so god then is not creator of everything that exists. he can only permit, but then we have power to create by ourselves and he has NO control of that . god could then create other gods who can probably do SIMILAR things to god as long as he permits them. permission and bringing into existence are two different things.

        • Luvin’ it

          Well allowing is a FORM of control is it not?

        • james

          allowing a thing to do things ALL by itself independent of god. when it does its thing, there is no god in it. there is no causes from god . there is no will of god. your “form of control” is like a man allowing a child to draw a picture. it(the child) gets it abilities INDEPENDENT of the man.
          this implies the child is its own controller, willer and CREATOR.
          you have independent beings.

        • Greg G.

          Are you trying to tell us that your god made a perfect world with free will for its inhabitants, but any exercise of that free will in a way your god doesn’t like triggers booby traps that cause evil and suffering and we are supposed to believe it’s not your god’s fault?

        • james

          God is not the creator of all that exists in your beliefs.

        • Luvin’ it

          God is the creator of the material world and sometimes the possible world but not always the possible world if that makes sense

        • Lark62

          God is the creator of everything Luvin thinks god should be the creator of. God is not the creator of anything Luvin thinks should not be god’s responsibility. Isn’t it amazing how god is exactly what Luvin thinks god should be. Almost like Luvin created his god himself.

        • james

          god allowed me to go and do a crime.
          god did not will or create the crime
          god does not will and create everything that happens in a 24 hour day

          god does not bring into existence evils

          not everything is under gods control once evil comes into being.

          your god is not sovereign.

        • Luvin’ it

          He is sovereign because he plans to eventually judge evil actions in the end. In the meantime he has intervened in the cross and through the resurrection indicating his willingness to enter into our suffering. As Paul says “o death where is your victory?”

        • Greg G.

          That is Paul misquoting Hosea 13:14.

        • Luvin’ it

          Pretty sure Paul is widely considered one of the greatest philosophical minds of the ancient world he wouldn’t misquote something you probably just don’t understand what hes saying which wouldn’t be out of the norm for your tiny brain

        • Greg G.

          In the previous verse, Paul says he is quoting a saying, then quotes “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” from Isaiah 25:8, immediately followed by “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” The “where is your sting” is verbatim from the Septuagint version of Hosea 13:14 but the first part is not “victory”. Paul quoted from Isaiah and Hosea together in other places, but added “victory” to both verses, but that word is not found in the OT passages.

          It was probably not easy to look up quotes that easily back then. They didn’t even put spaces between words, let alone chapter and verse divisions. He probably quoted from memory, which was fallible, since he was human and didn’t have any divine help.

        • epeeist

          Pretty sure Paul is widely considered one of the greatest philosophical minds of the ancient world

          Well obviously greater than such people as Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Plato or Aristotle. He makes people like the Buddha or Confucius look like mere tyros.

        • Greg G.

          Wasn’t it Paul who said, “Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? Morons.”

        • Bob Jase

          Now is that Paul as in the seven generally accepted ‘authentic’ letters that were edited & redacted into the versions we have now or the seven pseudo-Pauline letters in the bible?

          And why, since we know that at least seven are forgeries, don’t churches remove those forgeries?

        • Luvin’ it

          Good question but fortunately 1 corinthians according to Bart Ehrman is “undisputed” which is where we find the also undisputed creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

        • Bob Jase

          Show me the original, not a copy, not a translation, show me the original.

        • MadScientist1023

          Uh-huh. So who did pull the trigger on disease? Cancer? AIDS? The Black Death? Pick your pestilence. They’re all caused by organisms God made. How is he not responsible for that?
          How about earthquakes? Tornadoes? Tsunamis? Just about every natural disaster that’s killed people. Who “pulled the trigger” there?

        • Greg G.

          Being omniscient, God would have known exactly what would happen when the possibility was created.

        • Luvin’ it

          That’s correct yes and what’s your point?

        • Greg G.

          Then God creating a possibility is creating a certainty, which refutes your desperate claim of it being just a possibility.

          God brags about creating evil/disaster/calamity in Isaiah 45:7.

        • Luvin’ it

          Are you that stupid?

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          Maybe. Explain why I am stupid if that is the case. Isaiah 45:7 is God boasting about making light and darkness, good and bad. You are trying to make an exception for the bad when it is clearly about the pairs.

        • Luvin’ it

          Theres no dillema btween a good God and the existence of evil

        • Greg G.

          There is a dilemma between an omnipotent good god and suffering. But the question under consideration is whether God creates evil. The Bible says he brags about it. A good god would not create evil. It makes the adjective “good” inapplicable. That is certainly a dilemma for your claims.

          You still haven’t explained why I am stupid.

        • Luvin’ it

          Evil is loosely translated read other translations it can also mean “calamity” or “disaster” moreover the context is Israel’s disobedience

        • Greg G.

          What? Are you trying to say that causing calamity and disaster is not evil? Ha ha ha! The verse is stating contrasts, so if God creates good, then he also creates bad.

          If may only sins were creating calamities and disasters, would I be able to go to heaven?

        • adam

          “”calamity””

          Definition of calamity

          plural calamities

          1

          :a state of deep distress or misery caused by major misfortune or loss

          2

          :a disastrous event marked by great loss and lasting distress and suffering

          You lose AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN

        • Luvin’ it

          Nope not when you consider the context of the passage Israel’s lawlessness

        • adam

          Yep, even then.

        • adam
        • adam
        • Michael Neville

          But if he were loving the way that loving is understood by normal people, i.e., people besides you, then he wouldn’t allow it. So you’re saying that your god is an asshole.

        • Bob Jase

          And Luvin’ is created in that image.

        • Greg G.

          Going around setting booby traps in populated areas is causing them to happen, especially if one is omniscient.

        • Luvin’ it

          Well in the case of Irma and Harvey and now Maria it’s not God’s fault people are too stupid to build their houses somewhere safer

        • Greg G.

          Those would be ideal places if there was a God who refused to send hurricanes and earthquakes to the places people live. An omnipotence could prevent that. A benevolence would prevent it. It is more like we live in a universe that is completely indifferent to what is good for us.

        • adam

          ” it’s not God’s fault people are too stupid ”

          Who created them so stupid?

        • Otto

          The Bible says otherwise

        • MNb

          Which means that he’s also the embodiment of evil.

        • Luvin’ it

          Or Love if he has good reasons for allowing evil and suffering

        • adam
        • MNb

          Please pay close attention to the word “also”. I understand it’s hard for someone like you, but just try.

        • Greg G.

          No. I mean “creates” and “causes”, like the Bible says:

          New International Version
          I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

          New Living Translation
          I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the LORD, am the one who does these things.

          English Standard Version
          I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things.

          New American Standard Bible
          The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.

          King James Bible
          I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

          Holman Christian Standard Bible
          I form light and create darkness, I make success and create disaster; I, Yahweh, do all these things.”

          International Standard Version
          “I form light and create darkness, I make goodness and create disaster. I am the LORD, who does all these things.

          NET Bible
          I am the one who forms light and creates darkness; the one who brings about peace and creates calamity. I am the LORD, who accomplishes all these things.

          New Heart English Bible
          I form the light, and create darkness. I make peace, and create calamity. I am the LORD, who does all these things.

          GOD’S WORD® Translation
          I make light and create darkness. I make blessings and create disasters. I, the LORD, do all these things.

          JPS Tanakh 1917
          I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

          New American Standard 1977
          The One forming light and creating darkness,
          Causing well-being and creating calamity;
          I am the LORD who does all these.

          Jubilee Bible 2000
          I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil: I am the LORD that does all this.

          King James 2000 Bible
          I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create calamity: I the LORD do all these things.

          American King James Version
          I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

          American Standard Version
          I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

          Douay-Rheims Bible
          I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

          Darby Bible Translation
          forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil: I, Jehovah, do all these things.

          English Revised Version
          I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

          Webster’s Bible Translation
          I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

          World English Bible
          I form the light, and create darkness. I make peace, and create calamity. I am Yahweh, who does all these things.

          Young’s Literal Translation
          Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I am Jehovah, doing all these things.’

        • james

          otherwise evil creates itself which would mean competition for yhwh.

      • adam
    • Kevin K

      Category error.

  • skl

    Maybe bible believers have blinders on, because while the
    bible says “God is love”, it elsewhere says he is “a jealous God”, who “takes
    vengeance” by doing “terrible things.”

  • Sophia Sadek

    “Confess to a belief in the bogus doctrine of the Trinity or our love will so overwhelm you that you will burn at the stake.”

  • skl

    Based on the number of comments on this OP (parts 1 & 2)
    compared to other OPs, it would seem the nonreligious here are even more
    concerned about a god allowing, or even causing, bad things than they are concerned
    about the evidence for a god’s existence. In other words, more concerned about
    critiquing the god of the bible than about critiquing the idea or existence of a god.

    • Michael Neville

      If you were paying attention, which obviously you aren’t or else you wouldn’t have made such an asinine comment, you’ll notice that most of the comments by the atheists are in response to one particular Christian who’s trying and failing to show that his sadistic bully of a god is actually a “loving god.”

      • skl

        Essentially the same thing. More concerned about critiquing
        the god of the bible as a sadistic bully of a god than about critiquing the
        idea or existence of a god.

        • adam

          “More concerned about critiquing the god of the bible as a sadistic bully of a god than about critiquing the idea or existence of a god.”

          The bible is a real book of mythology, god is IMAGINARY

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cec86c13ff651044ebf846246f7b360fb2d8a3eccf42e97c497a2d680eb4b44d.jpg

        • Greg G.

          If god is omnipotent, then the existence of suffering means he is a sadistic bully. That means the benevolent, omnipotent Christian God does not exist.

          Now, what were you saying?

        • skl

          “If god is omnipotent, then the existence of suffering means
          he is a sadistic bully. That means the benevolent, omnipotent Christian God does not exist.”

          Maybe. Or maybe the god is an omnipotent
          sadistic bully, and “sadistic” could be added to “benevolent, omnipotent.” à la Michael Corleone, the godfather.

        • Greg G.

          The Christian God is said to be tri-omni: omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. One sadistic moment is incompatible with omnibenevolence.

        • skl

          As I just posted to Michael,

          That would depend on what is meant by “omnibenevolence.”
          Oxford dictionary defines omnibenevolence as “(with reference to a deity) perfect or unlimited goodness.” Which depends further on what “goodness” means, especially in an objective/divine sense, if there is one.

        • Greg G.

          “Good” is a word invented by humans. It’s the same with “benevolence”. You attach the “omni” to get “all good”, not “good most of the time”. Trying to make “goodness” means something else regarding the divine is just playing word games with an invented deity.

        • skl

          “”Good” is a word invented by humans. It’s the same with “benevolence”.

          So are “all”, “invented”, “divine” and “deity”.
          One can wonder, though, why one spends so much time trying
          to disprove what doesn’t exist. Or more specifically, why one uses something which he believes doesn’t exist (i.e. “goodness”) as evidence against another thing he believes doesn’t exist (i.e. god of the bible).

        • Susan

          One can wonder, though, why one spends so much time trying
          to disprove what doesn’t exist.

          I don’t. I am just happy to live in a world where in some places, in some cases, we are allowed to ask people who make empty claims to support those claims.

          They are in our houses, in our schools, in our political systems and on billboards everywhere.

          It used to be fatal to ask them to support their claims. Then, it became socially detrimental. Now, it’s just rude.

          In many parts of the world, it’s still fatal.

          The claims are empty at their centre. There is no there there. It’s taken a very long time to even be able to examine them objectively.

          Or more specifically, why one uses something which he believes doesn’t exist (i.e. “goodness”) as evidence against another thing he believes doesn’t exist (i.e. god of the bible).

          I have no idea what you mean. No one says “goodness” doesn’t exist. Just that “goodness” is a shorthand description for real-life scenarios humans can describe as “good” or “not good”.

          That’s why theologians have to go directly to “raping babies for fun” as an argument from consequences if there is no absolute morality. .

          Also, “the god of the bible” is a meaningless term. It can mean anything anyone wants it to mean.

          And Euthyphro’s dilemma has never been resolved. So, appealing to an unevidenced deity doesn’t give us goodness, but neither would appealing to an evidenced deity.

          (Don’t mistake that last statement as suggesting I have more concern about the moral properties of Yahwehjesus than the fact that there is no evidence for it. You would be,as you often have, missing the point.)

        • Greg G.

          The most powerful country in the world is a democracy full of voters who believe in religious superstitions. They vote in congressmen who control agencies controlling science. Are enjoying the hurricanes? Thank the global warming deniers for delaying action.

          Secondly, when we rank states by religiosity and by any number of lifestyle factors, such as crime, divorce, income, etc., the religious states are at the wrong end of the lists while the good end is dominated by the least religious states. You can do the same with nations or counties.

          We have entered a post-Christian world and we’re better off because of it.

        • skl

          Your post apparently was meant for someone else on another topic.

        • Susan

          Your post apparently was meant for someone else on another topic.

          No. It’s completely on point

          As much as you misframed the reason that atheists engage the claims of theists (by saying “One can wonder why one spends so much time trying to disprove something that doesn’t exist”), Greg G. gave you perfectly good explanations for why people go to all the trouble of investigating the claims that theists make.

          No one has to “disprove” these claims.

          But we have all kinds of good reasons to investigate them.

          When we investigate them, we find that there is no there there.

        • MNb

          “One can wonder, though, why one spends so much time trying to disprove what doesn’t exist.”
          Because there are so many people who try to prove something that doesn’t exist. Personally I can add because those theists can be very, very funny.

        • Michael Neville

          One of the attributes of the Christian god is omnibenevolence. If it can be shown that this god does not have that attribute, then it can be shown that god does not exist.

          NOTE: I see Greg G. already made this point.

        • Greg G.

          I had to specify “omnibenevolent for skl at http://disq.us/p/1mb2ogz 20 minutes after you made your post, though I just saw yours a minute after I did.

        • skl

          “One of the attributes of the Christian god is omnibenevolence. If it can be shown that this god does not have that attribute, then it can be shown that god does not exist.”

          That would depend on what is meant by “omnibenevolence.”
          Oxford dictionary defines omnibenevolence as “(with reference to a deity) perfect or unlimited goodness.” Which depends further on what “goodness” means, especially in an objective/divine sense, if there is one.

        • Michael Neville

          So you’re saying the “all-loving” god is actually just “part-loving”?

        • skl

          As with “goodness”, depends what “loving” means.

        • MNb

          Agreed. Sex killers also claim they love their victims.

        • Luvin’ it

          I personally think he’s not the type of love that many naive Christians think he is.

        • MNb

          No, those many naive christians don’t claim that genocide is a form of love when committed by their god. You do.

        • Luvin’ it

          It’s not genocide when God takes life considering he is the author of life and that he also knows what’s best in every situation.

        • MNb

          Thanks for confirming what I wrote.
          When humans do X it’s genocide.
          When your god does X it’s love.
          Not only your morals are subjective, so is your terminology.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Demonstrate that this ‘god’ is more than just a twisted figment of your imagination before you try using it to conjure fell and malign magicks.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOUR KIND redefine ‘love’ as what *normal* people call ‘authoritarian abuse and gaslighting’

        • Luvin’ it

          He’s more like the supreme situational ethicist. Still loving just very complex love

        • Susan

          the supreme situational ethicist.

          Then, (s)he didn’t create it all from metaphysical nothingness?

          (S)he has no choice but to respond to situations? Then, all the omnis are out the window.

          If we’re going to talk about imaginary beings, can you at least be consistent?

        • Greg G.

          That’s a code word for abusive.

        • Luvin’ it

          So Dan Barker is abusive if he saves 6 billion people for raping one girl?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Show me when it happened.

          Meanwhile, “Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations?”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Pretty complex for a delusion that you carry around in your head to excuse your bad behavior.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          ‘goodness’ is up there with ‘pornography’ as defined by the US Supreme Court: “…I know it when I see it…”

          If your definition of goodness conflicts with another, how, where and why?

        • Susan

          Essentially the same thing.

          Of course it isn’t. It is (as has been pointed out to you rmore than once) a response to the claim that an agent exists who is all-loving and that that agent is Yahwehjesus.

          Of course, that always depends on how people define Yahwehjesus (or more frustratingly, “God”) which is in a thousand shape-shifting ways.

          There is no evidence for an agent. That’s basic. All we are given are stories and beliefs.

          So sometimes, we are left explainng how those stories and beliefs don’t add up.

          The evidence doesn’t support the story, the story is not logical and it ‘s not moral.

          It’s a crappy story.

          It’s not a story of love.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          What PEOPLE do in the name of their ‘god’ is the point.

          Actions, not thoughts, are what’s important.

          So correcting lies can lead to more factual thought, and hopefully to better behavior.

    • Otto

      Christians claim God = Love. That is what Bob wrote about and that is what people here have addressed.

    • adam
    • Greg G.

      If you read the comments, you would know what was being argued. Look at how many of the comments are by the sock puppet Luvin it that are nothing but a single sentence and often the same thing over and over.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Not the ‘gods’, the asshole things PEOPLE do and blame on their ‘gods’

  • Luvin’ it

    Religious Affil.
    of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
    Founding
    Fathers % of
    Founding
    Fathers
    Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
    Presbyterian 30 18.6%
    Congregationalist 27 16.8%
    Quaker 7 4.3%
    Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
    Lutheran 5 3.1%
    Catholic 3 1.9%
    Huguenot 3 1.9%
    Unitarian 3 1.9%
    Methodist 2 1.2%
    Calvinist 1 0.6%
    TOTAL 204

    • Luvin’ it

      So much freedom and yet so little respect for how we got here

      • Greg G.

        We got here because some religious people didn’t like being controlled by other religious people in Europe. We want the same freedom from religion that the early settlers wanted.

        • Luvin’ it

          “…endowed by our Creator…”

        • Greg G.

          They didn’t know back then that we were created by evolution.

        • Luvin’ it

          Your smarter than the founders wow how prideful is that

        • Bob Jase

          Degrees in the sciences

          of U.S. Founding Fathers # of

          Founding

          Fathers % of

          Founding

          Fathers

          Cosmology – 0%
          Astronomy – 0%
          Geology – 0%
          Archeology – 0%
          Physics – 0%
          Chemistry – 0%
          Biology – 0%

          Yeah, actually we have gotten a lot smarter than the founding fathers, at least some of us have.

        • epeeist

          Let’s look at the positive side, none of them had an MBA either…

        • Luvin’ it

          As far as the writing of the Constitution is concerned which does not depend on science an iota you’re flat wrong

        • adam

          Well some of us, have gotten a lot smarter than the founding fathers……….

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/166da38535352bee6c63fc0de8e2b074b89b5ae6e175df81b5bbe8556fc098df.jpg

        • Luvin’ it
        • adam

          A famous “quotation: by George Washington:

          According to about 580 web sites, George Washington stated:

          “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” 7

          According to Wikipedia:

          “Washington is known to have made some official statements of public piety, but this is not one of them. Though this assertion is very widely reported to have been said in

          Washington’s Farewell Address (17 September 1796), this is not actually the case, as any search of the documents would reveal

        • Greg G.

          I already showed that he Washington quote was written by a lawmaker, not by Washington. He merely signed the bill to make Thanksgiving a legal holiday once.

          The Jefferson quote is not found in his writings and was attributed to him much later. ( https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/bible-source-liberty-spurious-quotation )

          The Jackson quote is attributed to him as a deathbed quote. Christians are known to make up deathbed quotes.
          ( https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson )

          The Grant quote is authentic. One out of four is pretty lousy.

        • adam

          Quotation: “The Bible is the source of liberty.”

          Comments: This quotation has not been found in the
          writings of Thomas Jefferson. The first sentence appears to date from
          the twentieth century.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Bunch of Barton lies, as mentioned upthread.

          Why do you keep attempting PRATTs (that’s Points Refuted A Thousand Times).

          Your lies don’t become truth by repetition in here, regardless of the Goebbels’ tactics YOUR KIND is trying in meatspace.

        • Liya

          Constitution is a living breathing document.We changing it, adjusting understanding of it and will keep amending it with societal progress. As it was mentioned , in many ways founding fathers were very unenlightened ! Rights of minorities? Slavery being wrong? Women voting ? They couldn’t have even imagined all that.

        • smrnda

          That’s one of its deficiencies.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Wrong.

          It was based on the science of philosophy, which proposed, by inspection, that the societies with the most freedom of conscience lasted longest.

        • Liya

          (raises hand)
          IT – 0%
          You are making great points, Bob, just giving you a nice sincere upvote, stay on track!

        • Greg G.

          Thank you, but I do not claim to be smarter than the founding fathers. Or is your inability to punctuate distorting your meaning?

          The inalienable rights articulated are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We still have the death penalty which alienates life. We have prisons which alienate liberty and sharply curtails the pursuit of happiness.

          The Declaration of Independence was written before this nation existed. It is inspirational. It is not law.

        • Luvin’ it
        • Greg G.

          You seem to be mentally enslaved to the Bible because you have not read it carefully with comprehension.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          pi=3, shellfish is verboten, ditto wearing mixed fabrics, can’t talk to a menstruating woman….SUUUUUURE….

          /sarc

          Really, not so much.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I’ve heard the Declaration of Independence described as the ‘promotional brochure’

        • smrnda

          In terms of ‘having accurate factual knowledge’ I think many people today are smarter than the founders. The standards for ‘education’ have increased, back in their day only a tiny number of people got educated, and since ‘education’ was only available to the elites, the standard for being ‘educated’ was pretty low.

          And morally, I think your average person today is considerably better. At least few people today talk about liberty while actually owing slaves.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Smarter than you and your lies, poor spelling and out of context interpretations.

        • Kodie

          You’re pretty fucking stupid to not understand how this works.

        • Luvin’ it

          But to your point where would inalienable rights come from if not from a Creator?

        • Otto

          They certainly don’t come from the God of the Bible…

        • Luvin’ it

          Where then?

        • adam
        • Lark62

          We the People of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union.

          The Constitution is the basis of our laws and our rights.

          The Declaration of Independence was a press release needed to get financial support from France. It is pretty but it has no force of law.

        • Greg G.

          What does “more perfect” mean anyway?

        • Lark62

          Good question. Tho just abt anything was better than European theocratic monarchies.

        • Kodie

          It’s asymptotic.

        • Luvin’ it

          But those documents were birthed from Christians

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’re the king of irrelevant observations, aren’t you?

          When you lean on the Declaration of Independence instead of the Constitution, you’ve lost the argument. That’s what Lark62 is trying to explain to you.

        • Luvin’ it

          All of those documents were invented by Christians that’s my point.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          They weren’t all Christians. But I guess your point is, Isn’t it grand that Christians were determined to create a secular society here in America?

          Yes, I agree.

        • Luvin’ it

          Secular is another Christian term to my knowledge but hete is a list of the flu ders and their Christianity overwhelmingly Christian
          Religious Affiliation
          of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
          Founding
          Fathers % of
          Founding
          Fathers
          Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
          Presbyterian 30 18.6%
          Congregationalist 27 16.8%
          Quaker 7 4.3%
          Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
          Lutheran 5 3.1%
          Catholic 3 1.9%
          Huguenot 3 1.9%
          Unitarian 3 1.9%
          Methodist 2 1.2%
          Calvinist 1 0.6%
          TOTAL 204

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          And they ALL agreed, and signed a document defining a government, that NEITHER forbade NOR RESPECTED any establishment of religion.

          What does that tell you?

        • Luvin’ it

          Only because that’s the best place for a religious society contrary to a theocracy

        • Greg G.

          Their basic ideas came from pre-Christian Greeks.

        • Luvin’ it

          Wrong again if anything they were influenced by the thinking of the Protestant Reformation on one side and the Enlightenment on the other

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          Problem is, the quote is cherry-picked to imply something that Jefferson never meant. The quote comes from Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, published in the early 1780s. Jefferson believed that religion had value and, more importantly, that the free exercise of religion had civic and societal value. Here is the quote, in context:

          “Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.”

          Jefferson is dismissing coercion, to be sure, but not only religious coercion. In fact, if you read the entire Query XVII (the context from whence the quote was extracted), you find that Jefferson is finding fault with “coercion of the laws,” specifically laws that dictate the proscribed practice of a specific religion.

        • adam

          Well of course.

          He recognized the abuses of organized religion, especially with government.

          But by no means did he believe in a Divine Jesus.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1d2b9d794876068b66f40eca522d1e3e0046e6e012d7833ab2f039ace3789b9b.jpg

          So not a fan of organized religion.

        • Luvin’ it

          That’s taken from a later written to Horatio Spafford you dunce! The word “priest” is in the context of those who “adhere to England and monarchy” to use Jefferson’s words. Do yourself a favor and please stop posting out of context memes

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So you’re a Jefferson mind-reader now?

          Most people are more honest in their private conversations than those in public.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          And YOUR KIND is blatantly obvious about taking over and IMPLEMENTING coercion in religion.

          Do you *really* believe we don’t see that?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Also by men, and english-speakers.

          Doesn’t help your argument.

        • Kodie

          When someone is Christian, why do you think that means they can’t be secular? I mean, this is the full problem with Christians like you – you think if someone has a belief, that means their belief is the source…. and so fucking what?

          1. If a child has a belief in Santa Claus, does that make them incapable of doing their math homework or picking out an outfit to wear to a birthday party for their friend? Does it make their math ho-ho-homework? Does it make them dress like a jolly old elf in a red suit with white fur trim all the time?

          2. If a child believing in Santa Claus happens to draft the Constitution of the United States, are we obligated to believe in Santa Claus and make sure the government operates in a Santa Claus Nation?

          You are motherfucking stupid.

        • Lark62

          The authors also wore knee breeches, rode horses and shit in an outhouse. None of which I plan to do.

          They documents were written by people who thought religion and secular authority should be kept separate.

        • Luvin’ it

          But we’re talking about the inner workings of their deepest held beliefs not how they go to the bathroom moron

        • Lark62

          Their deepest belief system was that government should be free of religious influence, and that the Constitution should have no mention of god except to specify that their be no religious test for public office.

          Whether they played lip service to christian nonsense is no more relevant than where and how often they shit.

        • Luvin’ it

          They were against a theocracy yes but FOR religious freedom

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          ‘Religious Freedom’ INCLUDES the right to NO religion at all, or it’s logically *incomplete*

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          The ‘inner workings of their deepest beliefs’ led them to rebel against the ‘divine right’ of the British sovereign, in a way that, religiously, would damn them to ‘hell’.

          Not many took up careers in preaching, before or after the CC.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          If we’re tossing out random associations like “they were Christians,” they were also beer drinkers. Maybe they were also aristocrats or rich.

        • Greg G.

          The authors also wore knee breeches, rode horses and shit in an outhouse. None of which I plan to do.

          City folk. They cook outside and shit in the house.

        • adam

          Mostly Deists

        • Luvin’ it

          Wrong again that’s a myth
          Religious Affiliation
          of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
          Founding
          Fathers % of
          Founding
          Fathers
          Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
          Presbyterian 30 18.6%
          Congregationalist 27 16.8%
          Quaker 7 4.3%
          Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
          Lutheran 5 3.1%
          Catholic 3 1.9%
          Huguenot 3 1.9%
          Unitarian 3 1.9%
          Methodist 2 1.2%
          Calvinist 1 0.6%
          TOTAL 204

          Only 3 are confirmed deists

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          That’s a specious argument.

          Denying xtianity in those days was damned dangerous.

          Easier to let the rubes believe what they want…like fundy Repug legislators do when they bellow xtianity while violating every commandment in the book covertly.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Also from caucasians, from men, from the rich, from english speakers.

          I could go on ALL DAY.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Not our problem *where* they come from.

          YOU are advancing the positive claim that ‘god’ exists and is the reason.

          Defend that.

          No shifting the burden of proof.

        • Greg G.

          Technically, the rights are not inalienable. They are asserted in the Declaration of Independence which has no legal status. If those rights were inalienable, there would never be prisons or executions.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          By Enlightenment thought of the ‘rights of Man’

          No superstitious nonsense necessary.

        • Kodie

          They’re inalienable.

        • BlackMamba44

          Wrong.

          http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

          “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

          We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….”

          Please read the rest of the DoI and let me know when you come across anything regarding Christianity, Yahweh, or Jesus.

          And those founding fathers weren’t all that smart. I find it funny that a bunch of slave owners wrote “all men are created equal”.

        • Luvin’ it

          It’s implied given that the founders were 99 percent Christian. Their faith influenced the invention of the United States. No Christianity no United States.

        • Greg G.

          The government was based on Greek history and philosophy, not Christianity.

        • Luvin’ it
        • Greg G.

          Three of those are fake quotes. Why can’t you use actual facts to back your claims? You don’t seem to know the difference between lies and truth nor how to tell the difference.

          Instead of trying to see how many posts you can make, try cutting out the stupid ones. Go for quality over quantity.

        • RichardSRussell

          These quotations were popularized by David Barton of WallBuilders, a fundamentalist Christian-action group in the general camp of Christian Reconstructionism, a movement founded by R. J. Rushdoonie to return the United States to its supposed Christian roots. As reported in the July / August 1996 issue of Church & State magazine (yes, over 20 years ago, way long enuf for even the most self-blinded religiot to have gotten the message), Barton has since admitted that they’re spurious (translation for the hopelessly blinkered: lies).

          Whenever anybody refers to this despicable pseudohistorian, I recommend that they refer to him by his full title, to wit THE LIAR David Barton.

          Sadly, once these lies made it out into cyberspace, they became detached from the name of their true author and now continue to circulate in the fundie echo chamber as if they’re real historical facts.

          There are more as well, ostensibly from such sources as Abraham Lincoln, Daniel Webster, Sam Adams, Alexis de Tocqueville, and even the US Supreme Court (who you’d think he wouldn’t have the gall to cite, because all of their decisions were written down and are readily checkable on line, but apparently THE LIAR David Barton was too arrogant to think anybody would dare to do so if he were the proximate source of the citation).

        • Dannorth

          Barton knows that the public he targets would not research his quotes to save their lives.

        • smrnda

          So, we’ve got 2 slave owners, a slave owner and slave trader and man who led a genocidal campaign praising the Bible, and that’s supposed to be inspiring?

          Seriously we’re better than them now that we’ve ditched the book.

        • Otto

          Name something specific and original to Christianity that without the United States would not exist

        • adam
        • BlackMamba44

          1 million upvotes. :)

        • BlackMamba44
        • Luvin’ it

          Religious Affiliation
          of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
          Founding
          Fathers % of
          Founding
          Fathers
          Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
          Presbyterian 30 18.6%
          Congregationalist 27 16.8%
          Quaker 7 4.3%
          Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
          Lutheran 5 3.1%
          Catholic 3 1.9%
          Huguenot 3 1.9%
          Unitarian 3 1.9%
          Methodist 2 1.2%
          Calvinist 1 0.6%
          TOTAL 204

        • BlackMamba44

          I said I don’t care what their religious beliefs were.

          How does this list support: “No Christianity no United States”?

        • Luvin’ it

          They were all christians so you’re assertion is that their beliefs didn’t I fluency the invention of the United States? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/68a45731d050f368df46069f03ce137b24d6e736e08947e9413cb4bcfc74c9e7.jpg

        • BlackMamba44

          I guess I have to post this again:

          https://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/fake-quotations-patrick-henry-on-religionists/

          Did Patrick Henry say:

          It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!

          ?

          No.

          This is a line from a 1956 piece in The Virginian that was about Patrick Henry, not by him. The text of this item read:

          “I have now disposed of all my property to my family. There is one thing more I wish I could give them, and that is the Christian Religion. If they had that and I had not given them one shilling they would have been rich; and if they had not that and I had given them all the world, they would be poor.”

          Patrick Henry, Virginia,
          His Will

          There is an insidious campaign of false propaganda being waged today, to the effect that our country is not a Christian country but a religious one—that it was not founded on Christianity but on freedom of religion.

          It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by ‘religionists’ but by Christians–not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here.

          In the spoken and written words of our noble founders and forefathers, we find symbolic expressions of their Christian faith. The above quotation from the will of Patrick Henry is a notable example

          How this came to be attributed to Patrick Henry, despite the third-person mention of him as a noble founder and forefather, is not clear. My personal guess is that somebody along the line mistook the “above quotation” as referring to the sentence that immediately preceeded the phrase, rather than to the actual excerpt given at the beginning of the piece. That’s only a guess, however. Mendacity knows no rules. I think it’s entirely possible that somebody just liked the phrase, attributed it to Patrick Henry because the name was handy, and sent it on its merry way.

          Why anybody would accept it as Henry’s is equally puzzling. The language is twentieth-century. The word “religionists,” for example. In Patrick Henry’s time it meant a fanatic, a person obsessed with religion; not as here people of different religions (or something like that). The piece looks back on the founding of “this great nation” (would Patrick Henry really have used that phrase?) as something in the past, and it seems to know that “peoples of other faiths” are going to be “afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship” in it. It’s wrong historically, and it’s wrong linguistically.

          As far as I can determine the first person to attribute this saying to Patrick Henry was minister David Barton in his book The Myth of Separation (1988). (Chris Rodda calls my attention to David Barton’s footnote crediting the quotation to “a 1988 book called ‘God’s Providence in American History’ by Steve C. Dawson.”) Barton has since disavowed it, though he suggested that it was possible that Patrick Henry’s uncle really said it (no evidence for this assertion provided). It continues to be quoted as Henry’s in many books and on innumerable websites.

        • BlackMamba44

          Where did I assert that?

          I asked how the list supports: “No Christianity, No United States”?

        • Luvin’ it

          The United States was birthed from the minds of Christians

        • BlackMamba44

          So what?

          How does that list support: “No Christianity, no United States”?

        • Bob Jase

          Were they TRUE Christians? If so then why so many sects between them when each claims to be the only TRUE Christianity?

        • Luvin’ it

          Why are there so many teams in Major League Baseball?

        • Greg G.

          Baseball is a game of competition. Is Christianity a competition? If it is, you are losing embarrassingly.

        • MR

          Baseball is an interminable game played by overgrown boys who have nothing better to do for the amusement of loafers who have nothing to do at all. –Oxford Essential Guide to Writing

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          MLB doesn’t make a supernatural claim that it will coalesce on ONE TRUE BASEBALL, xtianity DOES claim it will coalesce, and fails.

        • Kodie

          Who would they play?

        • BlackMamba44

          Still doesn’t answer the question, moron.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Try again.

          Progressive Enlightenment thinkers who decried xtianity in their private writings.

        • Luvin’ it

          How does your posting on an atheist blog confirm or deny your beliefs?

        • BlackMamba44

          ???

          Again, how does this list support: “No Christianity, no United States”?

        • Luvin’ it

          There wouldn’t be a United united states without men who were Christians

        • BlackMamba44

          “Because I say there wouldn’t be” is not support and does not answer the question.

          How does the list support: “No Christianity, no United States”?

        • Luvin’ it

          The founders were Christians

        • BlackMamba44

          So what?

          How does “The founders were Christians” support “No Christianity, no United States”?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          The Founders didn’t *deny* being xtians, but what they were, really, was
          – Radicals
          – Deniers of the ‘divine right of kings’
          – Enlightenment thinkers, who would be Deists by temperament.

        • Bob Jase

          Theere wouldn’t have been a Holocaust without men who were Christians too.

        • Luvin’ it

          That’s cute. Dietrich Bonehoffer ring a bell? Cory Ten Boom?

        • Greg G.

          You can’t spell and you can’t be bothered to look up the names when you have the internet at your fingertips. Research your responses before you post them so you don’t look like an idiot continuously.

          You should be very skeptical of Christian websites when you do your research as many of them take THE LIAR David Barton at his word.

        • Bob Jase

          Population of Germany in mid-1030’s was about 72,000,000 of whom 67 % were various Christian Protestants, 33 % were Roman Catholics and 1% was Jews & others.

          Think Hitler did the Holocaust single-handed?

        • Greg G.

          Population of Germany in mid-1030’s was about 72,000,000

          ITYM “in mid-1930’s”.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Gott mit Uns”…ring a bell?

        • Greg G.

          There wouldn’t be a United States without men who drank dihydrogen monoxide.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Non sequitur, and pretty idiotic at that.

        • BlackMamba44

          https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-Deism-and-Christianity-1272214

          Although no examination of history can capture the inner faith of any person, these four indicators can help locate the Founders on the religious spectrum. Ethan Allen, for example, appears clearly to have been a non-Christian Deist. James Monroe, a close friend of Paine, remained officially an Episcopalian but may have stood closer to non-Christian Deism than to Christian Deism. Founders who fall into the category of Christian Deists include Washington (whose dedication to Christianity was clear in his own mind), John Adams, and, with some qualifications, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was more influenced by the reason-centred Enlightenment than either Adams or Washington. Orthodox Christians among the Founders include the staunchly Calvinistic Samuel Adams. John Jay (who served as president of the American Bible Society), Elias Boudinot (who wrote a book on the imminent Second Coming of Jesus), and Patrick Henry (who distributed religious tracts while riding circuit as a lawyer) clearly believed in Evangelical Christianity.

          Although orthodox Christians participated at every stage of the new republic, Deism influenced a majority of the Founders. The movement opposed barriers to moral improvement and to social justice. It stood for rational inquiry, for skepticism about dogma and mystery, and for religious toleration. Many of its adherents advocated universal education, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state. If the nation owes much to the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is also indebted to Deism, a movement of reason and equality that influenced the Founding Fathers to embrace liberal political ideals remarkable for their time.

        • Luvin’ it

          Only 3 of the signers were confirmed deists the rest were members and practicing Christians in local Christian churches

        • BlackMamba44

          So what?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You neglect to mention that being openly irreligious at that time was a handicap, and could be *deadly*, so a lot of pious lying was likely.

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it
        • Otto

          Well nothing screams freedom more than that right…?

        • BlackMamba44

          Wrong again.

          John Knox Witherspoon (February 5, 1723 – November 15, 1794) was a Scots Presbyterian minister and a signatory of the United States Declaration of Independence as a representative of New Jersey. He was president of the College of New Jersey (1768–94; now Princeton University).

          Quotes[edit]
          Mistake me not, my brethren: I am not speaking against learning in itself; it is a precious gift of God, and may be happily improved in the service of the gospel; but I will venture to say, in the spirit of the apostle Paul’s writings in general, and of this passage in particular, Accursed be all that learning which sets itself in opposition to the cross of Christ! Accursed be all that learning which disguises or is ashamed of the cross of Christ! Accursed be all that learning which fills the room that is due to the cross of Christ! and once more, Accursed be all that learning which is not made subservient to the honour and glory of the cross of Christ!

          From the sermon “Glorying in the Cross”, published in 1768. Misquoted since 1845 as “Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ; cursed be all that learning that is not coincident with the cross of Christ; cursed be all that learning that is not subservient to the cross of Christ.” So quoted by S. S. Cox in October 1845, in Permanent Documents of the Society for the Promotion of Collegiate and Theological Education at the West, Volume 1, p. 30.

          https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Witherspoon

          It wasn’t even James Madison.

          You really are a moron.

          EDIT: html

        • Greg G.

          http://recursed.blogspot.com/2011/01/yet-another-christian-fake-quote.html
          Yet Another Christian Fake Quote

          Now, anyone who knows anything about Madison should be very suspicious of this quote. Madison was not a traditional Christian, and said things like “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.” (letter by Madison to William Bradford, April 1, 1774).

          Second, as Chris Rodda has shown, America’s Providential History is thoroughly unreliable when it comes to quotations.

          Third, this quotation is attributed in Popular Science, February 1887, to John Witherspoon, the president of Princeton University, not Madison. I haven’t found it in Witherspoon’s writings, but it sounds much more like Witherspoon than Madison. Confusingly, it has also been attributed to Jonathan Dickinson, another of Princeton’s presidents. It sounds consistent with him, too.

        • adam
        • adam
        • Luvin’ it
        • Greg G.

          From http://www.mountvernon.org/digital-encyclopedia/article/spurious-quotations/

          The quote is frequently misattributed to Washington, particularly in regards to his farewell address of 1796. The origin of the misquote is, perhaps, a mention of a similar statement in a biography of Washington first published in 1835. However, the quote that appeared in the biography has never been proven to have come from Washington.

          Why is it that when you try to present evidence, it is inapplicable, wrong, or doubtful? Why follow a religion that requires that?

        • Luvin’ it
        • Greg G.

          Why don’t you post things that are not dubious? Is it because everything you believe requires credulity?

        • Rudy R

          So it’s the USA’s duty to acknowledge Allah.

        • Bob Jase

          You’re arguing with a religious nutcase who founds his version of reality on quotes written by anonymous authors and attributed to a fictional character. Accuracy & honesty do not apply to Luvin’.

        • MNb

          They can’t apply to him. If accuracy and honest did he would cease to produce creacrap.

        • Greg G.

          I know but I sacrifice for the lurkers. I also learn things by the research.

        • adam

          Fake

          “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

          Paul Boller and John George, who co-wrote They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, & Misleading Attributions,
          indicate that no one’s found any evidence that Washington ever wrote or
          spoke such a thing. And Boller’s written separately on the topic of
          “Washington and Religion” before, so he would know.

        • adam
        • BlackMamba44

          Oops. You already posted!! :)

        • Luvin’ it

          “The wording of the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 was not intended to devalue Christianity’s historical contribution to the founding of America, but rather it was an attempt to negotiate with Muslims using phraseology which would oblige them to honor the treaty.”
          “Noted religious critic and anti-theist Christopher Hitchens admitted in his work “Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates” (2007): “Of course, those secularists like myself who like to cite this Treaty must concede that its conciliatory language was part of America’s attempt to come to terms with Barbary demands.”

          Please stop taking things out of context oh wait you can’t because your stupid

        • Greg G.

          They sold out Christianity for the sake of pragmatism.

        • Luvin’ it

          Well it’s kind of hard to reason with people stuck in the middle ages

        • Greg G.

          Sproing! Another IM bites the dust.

        • MNb

          Yeah, IDiots like you are immune for reason. Their deepest wish is to turn back to that good old time when religious authorities decided what would be science and what not.
          That’s why I never tried to reason with you; I only try to mock you and expose your lies. And you’re a sitting duck.

        • adam
        • Joe

          you can’t because your stupid

          How very ironic.

        • Greg G.

          Dammit, Joe! My irony meter would have missed that one if you hadn’t replied to it. Now I gotta drag the vacuum out of the closet to pick up the shards.

        • Luvin’ it
        • Greg G.

          It was about instituting the Thanksgiving holiday, not about all nations actually becoming religious or anything.

          From https://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/alleged-quotations-washington-and-the-duty-of-nations/

          The proclamation is in the handwriting of William Jackson and signed by Washington.

          So these were not even his words but of somebody not known by anybody but historians.

        • Luvin’ it

          Signing indicates agreement you know how Obama reading a speech he didn’t write says he agrees with it.

        • Greg G.

          So you are ignorant about how legislature works, too. No surprise. The president signs many laws worked out by Congress. The law may have things he agrees with and things he doesn’t agree with but that is politics where there is give and take. He was signing a bill to make a holiday even if he didn’t agree with every word.

        • BlackMamba44
        • Luvin’ it

          “The wording of the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 was not intended to devalue Christianity’s historical contribution to the founding of America, but rather it was an attempt to negotiate with Muslims using phraseology which would oblige them to honor the treaty.”

          “Noted religious critic and anti-theist Christopher Hitchens admitted in his work “Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates” (2007): “Of course, those secularists like myself who like to cite this Treaty must concede that its conciliatory language was part of America’s attempt to come to terms with Barbary demands.”

          Please stop taking things out of context. Thank-you and have a nice day

        • Greg G.

          It shows that they were willing to sell out the pretense of Christianity for worldly reasons.

        • Luvin’ it

          No it shows they were smarter than a bunch of retarded unreasonable Muslim pirates

        • Greg G.

          “No it shows they were smarter than a bunch of retarded unreasonable Muslim pirates” by selling out any Christian ideals they may have held. Or they didn’t actually hold those beliefs and told the truth.

        • Luvin’ it

          Here we go again it’s situational ethics like your friend Dan Barker loves. Or do you only like his brand where it’s okay to rape people in order to save others?

        • Greg G.

          I am not against pragmatism. I detest hypocrisy.

        • Luvin’ it

          So you’re a purists and don’t believe in ethical dilemmas?

        • Greg G.

          We can add “pragmatism” and “hypocrisy” to the list of words you don’t understand.

        • BlackMamba44

          Are you going to answer this?

          Here’s a hypothetical:

          Assume I am a powerful alien/superhuman.

          Rape a woman or I will kill all 7 billion people on this planet.
          What would you do?

        • BlackMamba44

          Since you can’t provide the source link:

          Both quotes comes from (World News Daily?):
          http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/was-america-founded-on-christian-religion/

          Some of the books the author of this article wrote:
          America’s God and Country
          For God and Country
          Miracles in American History
          Prayers and Presidents
          George Washington Carver – His Life and Faith in His Own Words America’s God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations (his best-selling work),
          The Faith of FDR
          The Ten Commandments and Their Influence on American Law
          Three Secular Reasons Why America Should Be Under God

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Federer

          As for the rest of your comment, you can fuck right off. :)

          EDIT: clean up

        • Luvin’ it
        • BlackMamba44

          https://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/fake-quotations-patrick-henry-on-religionists/

          Did Patrick Henry say:

          It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!

          ?

          No.

          This is a line from a 1956 piece in The Virginian that was about Patrick Henry, not by him. The text of this item read:

          “I have now disposed of all my property to my family. There is one thing more I wish I could give them, and that is the Christian Religion. If they had that and I had not given them one shilling they would have been rich; and if they had not that and I had given them all the world, they would be poor.”

          Patrick Henry, Virginia,
          His Will

          There is an insidious campaign of false propaganda being waged today, to the effect that our country is not a Christian country but a religious one—that it was not founded on Christianity but on freedom of religion.

          It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by ‘religionists’ but by Christians–not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here.

          In the spoken and written words of our noble founders and forefathers, we find symbolic expressions of their Christian faith. The above quotation from the will of Patrick Henry is a notable example

          How this came to be attributed to Patrick Henry, despite the third-person mention of him as a noble founder and forefather, is not clear. My personal guess is that somebody along the line mistook the “above quotation” as referring to the sentence that immediately preceeded the phrase, rather than to the actual excerpt given at the beginning of the piece. That’s only a guess, however. Mendacity knows no rules. I think it’s entirely possible that somebody just liked the phrase, attributed it to Patrick Henry because the name was handy, and sent it on its merry way.

          Why anybody would accept it as Henry’s is equally puzzling. The language is twentieth-century. The word “religionists,” for example. In Patrick Henry’s time it meant a fanatic, a person obsessed with religion; not as here people of different religions (or something like that). The piece looks back on the founding of “this great nation” (would Patrick Henry really have used that phrase?) as something in the past, and it seems to know that “peoples of other faiths” are going to be “afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship” in it. It’s wrong historically, and it’s wrong linguistically.

          As far as I can determine the first person to attribute this saying to Patrick Henry was minister David Barton in his book The Myth of Separation (1988). (Chris Rodda calls my attention to David Barton’s footnote crediting the quotation to “a 1988 book called ‘God’s Providence in American History’ by Steve C. Dawson.”) Barton has since disavowed it, though he suggested that it was possible that Patrick Henry’s uncle really said it (no evidence for this assertion provided). It continues to be quoted as Henry’s in many books and on innumerable websites.

          EDIT: note that the three paragraphs in the block quote after the quote from Henry’s will are not Henry’s words.

        • Greg G.

          From “Misquoting Patrick Henry: The Internet and Bogus Sayings of the Founders” at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-s-kidd/patrick-henry-quotes_b_1247107.html

          Finally, and perhaps most notoriously, is the spurious Henry quotation that “it cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!” Again, this is a perplexing case because Henry certainly was a devout Christian, but the quotation itself is of relatively recent origin. The quotation apparently came from a magazine commentary on Henry’s faith in 1956, which later writers took as a quotation from Henry himself. Popular Christian historian David Barton once regularly used this statement in his writings and speeches, but he came under such fierce criticism that he retracted it (and others) as an “unconfirmed” source.

          If a source mentions David Barton, you can be sure it is full of lies.

          Why isn’t it embarrassing for you to post lies?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          WHAT part of the DoI or the Constitution did Patrick Henry write, again?

          HE LOST *every* fight he started in the Constitutional Congress.

        • Philmonomer

          Australia was founded as a penal colony. The desire for England to send its convicts far away. No penal colony, no Australia.

        • Greg G.

          The Christians who came to North America were escaping from Christians in Europe.

        • Chuck Johnson

          The Christians descended from fur-covered apes.
          No fur covering, no Christianity.
          No Christianity, no USA.

          The interconnections range further than you have imagined.

        • Lark62

          According to Carl Sagan, to make an apple pie from scratch, one must first invent the universe.

        • Chuck Johnson

          No, that’s only necessary if you want to bake a universe containing a from-scratch apple pie.

        • Luvin’ it

          Then why do apes still exist? Oh I forgot you believe in MAGIC!

        • Otto

          If we came from dirt…why does dirt still exist?

        • Luvin’ it

          It’s a metaphor but chemically speaking all living things share basic building blocks

        • Otto

          If Americans came from Europe originally why are there still Europeans?

        • Luvin’ it

          That would be micro evolution not macro

        • adam

          Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[3][4]

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

        • Otto

          Coming from the person who doesn’t understand evolution…

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          That would be *travel*, and a hole in your idiocy.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          And your ‘god’ had NOTHING demonstrable to do with our discovering that.

          Read Mark Twain’s “Letters From The Earth” for a thorough exposition on the topic.

        • Chuck Johnson

          I see your understanding of evolutionary biology is pretty much nothing.

          Science is hard.
          Superstition is easy.

        • adam
        • Chuck Johnson

          Coca Cola turned into Cherry Coke.
          Then why does Coca Cola still exist ?

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          Haha

        • Michael Neville

          If you look closely you can see that guy has male-pattern baldness.

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it

          We also share much of our DNA with Fruit Flies, bananas, and cats but does that mean we’re related? It means we’re made of similar “stuff” but it DOES NOT denote common ancestry. If my car is made of metals and so is my toaster does that mean they’re related? No it means they’re made of similar materials

        • Greg G.

          We are not just made from similar materials, we are made from the exact same materials and it’s more like the same patents.

          The same methods that can determine paternity show relationships. Chimpanzees and bonobos are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas. Gorillas are more closely related to humans than the are to orangutans but they are exactly as closely related to humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos.

        • Luvin’ it

          Are you dumb? We share 90 percent of our DNA with certain cats are you saying we’re related to them too?

        • Greg G.

          Yes, all land vertebrates are fish that are specialized for living on land and we all come from Tiktaalik, or something closely related.

        • Luvin’ it

          Nope. We share common building materials and systems indicating a consistent and economic designer

        • Greg G.

          Why would an omnipotence be economic? Do you believe everything they tell you?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Who designed at least 2 different kinds of eye, assigning the inferior version to humanity, made a nerve in giraffes go 10 ft when it only needed to go 6 inches, put a recreation area next to a waste disposal area, etc.

          IF you were right, your ‘designer’ idea would describe a f**king INCOMPETENT.

        • Michael Neville

          We are related to cats. We’re mammals, they’re mammals, that means we’re related. If you knew anything about evolution then you’d know this. But the only thing you know about evolution is it contradicts some religious myths and so you ignore it.

        • Luvin’ it

          So then you’re saying that sports cars evolved from the Model-T?

        • Greg G.

          Cars don’t reproduce, dumb-dumb. Their design plans are not encoded in DNA. DNA replication is not perfect but it is not always worse for the change. Changing a base pair is possible. Duplicating a gene is possible and that gene can have replaced base pairs with the possibility of an improvement.

          Did you know they can put the genes of a firefly into a plant to make it glow in the dark? Did you know that human genes for insulin production has been put into bacteria to produce insulin for diabetics?

        • Michael Neville

          Since sports cars and Model T’s aren’t biological and don’t reproduce, you’re just showing that you don’t even understand automobile design and manufacture, let alone how life forms change over time due to mutation, gene transfer and natural selection.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          They share attributes and a lineage, but aren’t biological.

          Are you so freaking incompetent that THAT is the best challenge you can pathetically attempt?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’re kind of a waste of time, aren’t you?

          If you have honest questions and want to learn, you can stay. Have an open mind and don’t reject the information everyone is giving you. They’re trying to help you.

          Your approach so far is trying to make busywork for people (“Answer this question!”) combined with throwing out Creationist/fundamentalist zingers (“… then why are there still monkeys?!”). You may think that they’re clever, but we’re pretty much heard them all. You’ve done nothing to make a Christian case.

          Ask honest questions and contribute to a healthy discussion or leave. If you need any help leaving, I’m the bouncer and would be delighted to show you the door.

        • Luvin’ it

          Oh so Adam is helpful when he slams me with one of his memes every time I respond? Be consistent ref

        • Greg G.

          If you make a reasonable point, adam will accept it. See http://disq.us/p/1md4uay

          Why don’t you try that?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Well, that’s my bad, I suppose. I thought you were salvageable, so I outlined what I expected of you. And you ignored it, again.

          Bye.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Adam is correcting your BLATANT LIES.

          Why do you have a problem with that?

        • Greg G.

          If you need any help leaving, I’m the bouncer and would be delighted to show you the door.

          He knows that from experience. You have bounced him as Murph and Woo and other names that I haven’t wasted brain cells on.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’ve got far better detective skills than I do. Thanks.

        • Greg G.

          Susan pointed that out right away. She had a third name, too.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Thanks. I’ve not read every comment lately, so I missed that one.

        • Susan

          Susan pointed that out right away.

          That doesn’t exactly make me a master detective.

          The troll part was easy.

          Luvin’ It‘s opening comments were:

          “I”m just doing this for entertainment. I’m not actually trying.”

          and

          “I just love trolling.”

          Add to that that Luvin’ it is his chosen moniker.

          It’s no surprise to see the “Why are there still monkeys?” bit or all the David Barton crap. He can’t help himself and just loves trolling.

          Also, the sockpuppet thing is easy.

          Dan Barker, five guys in a room and major league baseball.

          It’s not like Murph/Luvin’ it is trying to be subtle.

        • Greg G.

          I knew who it was but couldn’t recall the other sock names. I recognized the style and pet phrases.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Cite your sources, or you’re even more useless than you appear.

        • Kodie

          Holy shit, you know nothing, which must be your fish side coming out.

        • Luvin’ it

          65 percent with chickens
          80 percent with cattle
          60 percent with bananas
          Fruit fly 60 percent
          Zebrafish 70 percent

        • MadScientist1023

          Some of those numbers sound a little high. Are you referring to overall number of orthologous genes or actual sequence identity?

          Either way, you are correct that we share a significant amount of DNA with other organisms on Earth. What of it?

        • Greg G.

          I bet you lost him halfway through “orthologous”.

        • Greg G.

          Us and bananas come from the same anaerobic ancestors, too.

          Where are you getting the stats? The percentage depends on how it is measured. Do they count a different base pair as a difference if it doesn’t change the protein it codes for? If a gene is different, do they count the whole gene as different or just the number of base pairs that do not match?

          It’s like comparing two editions of a book. If a chapter is unedited except for correcting a misspelled word, do you count the number of letters changed, by the word, by the sentence, by the paragraph, by the page, by the chapter? It makes a difference if it is one letter out of 120,000, one word out of 20,000, one page out of a hundred, one chapter out of 10, so the percentage measure could be very small or up to 10% for this example.

          If the example you show used the same methods, chickens would share more than zebrafish with us. Did you get the numbers from some creationist site that doesn’t understand math?

        • adam

          “We also share much of our DNA with Fruit Flies, bananas, and cats but
          does that mean we’re related? It means we’re made of similar “stuff”
          but it DOES NOT denote common ancestry.”

          Yes, actually it does.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

        • Luvin’ it

          Funny but stupid and I laugh every time haha

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          That laugh is a ‘supertruth’ laugh. Read ‘Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance’ to get what I mean.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Wrong, as usual.

          IF you bothered to check the patterns of DNA, you’d see how the closer another organism is to us in appearance, the more similar their DNA is to ours.

          Your ignorance is not an escape from the actual data. You’re entitled to your own (idiot) opinion, but not your own (alt-reality) ‘facts’.

        • Kodie

          http://currents.plos.org/treeoflife/files/2011/02/figure2final.jpg
          Cars and toasters are not totally unrelated either. I’d say about close like a cat and a panda.

        • Greg G.

          That graphic is not accurate. We share common ancestors with chimpanzees that we do not share with gorillas. We share common ancestors with gorillas that we do not share with orangutans. We share with common ancestors with orangutans that we do not share with baboons.

          Chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas.

          If we found that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees had not gone extinct, we would call it an ape.

          As Jared Diamond named a book for the statement he made in it: If aliens came to earth, they would consider humans to be The Third Chimpanzee. [paraphrased]

        • adam

          I just see it as a common ancestor for man and gorilla not a chimp

          Am I reading it wrong?

        • Greg G.

          I mostly object to defining “ape” to mean only extant hominoids excluding humans. If chimpanzees go extinct, do they become not apes? I am more of a cladist. We didn’t evolve from apes, we are apes.

        • adam

          Ok, good point!

          Thanks.

        • MadScientist1023

          Wow. You guys are still using that one?

          If you came from your parents, why do your parents still exist?

          Edit: Actually, that’s a bad paraphrasing of what you asked. What you asked is more like asking “If you came from your parents, why do your siblings still exist?”

        • Greg G.

          If we came from dust, why is there still dust?

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Wrong again. Atheism is a “no” answer to “Do you have a god belief?”

          It’s pretty simple, despite your efforts.

        • Luvin’ it
        • Greg G.

          We have evidence for evolution. Show us your evidence for a god thingy.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          We haven’t seen a complete orbit of Pluto yet, either.

          Does that mean we should believe that Pluto will violate the laws of orbital mechanics before it demonstrates actually doing so?

        • BlackMamba44
        • Luvin’ it
        • BlackMamba44

          I’ll second Greg G’s comment to your previous post of this.

        • Greg G.

          I have seen the evidence for evolution. Still waiting for a scintilla of unambiguous evidence for a god of any kind.

        • Michael Neville

          Actually, you stupid twit, evolution has been observed. Google “Lensky e coli” for a famous example.

        • adam

          You dont think.

          That’s obvious.

        • MadScientist1023

          Except that you can see it:
          https://youtu.be/yybsSqcB7mE

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Evolution is the result of an idea being TESTED, rigorously, by multiple disciplines of science, from archaeology, to anthropology, to genetics, all of which converge ON evolution.

          Xtian RELIGION has fragmented into 44,000+ sects because it CAN’T be tested and found true, in direct contradiction of ‘jesus’ in the NT, who said the church would be recognizable by how all other versions coalesced into it.

        • Greg G.

          And you are not supposed to touch the part of the body where your hands naturally rest.

        • adam
        • Luvin’ it
        • adam
        • adam
        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Atheism believes in *science* to get it mostly right, and to be able to back it up with MATH.

          Show me a religion that can do the same, and change when proven wrong, BEFORE society threatens to leave religion behind if it doesn’t straighten out its act.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Hilarious! You make the cutest mistakes! Even Creationist web sites recommend avoiding that one.

        • Luvin’ it

          Only because you tiny brained creatures can’t be reasoned with

        • Greg G.

          You are not mentally equipped to understand that you have been trounced at every turn.

          Why don’t you read some books on evolution written by scientists to see if you can find quotes that are like the ones you find on creationist websites, that seem to be Freudian slips that show that the evolutionists are trying to fool everyone? When you accidentally start understanding what scientists say and see that those quotes do not mean what the creationist imply that they do and then start hearing your preachers preaching about what scientists say when you now know that the scientists don’t say that at all and see if you still want to be a creationist.

        • adam
        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Rigorously *define* & *describe* this so-called ‘magic’ you’re accusing us of.

          Considering that your book sets pi=3, says donkeys can talk, and that a man spent 3 days in the belly of a ‘great fish’

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Try again.

          The fundie xtians when the Constitution was ratified were indignant to apoplexy that it didn’t waste any ink on ‘god’, and fought *fiercely* AGAINST it.

        • Kodie

          No, it’s not implied. What is implied is that you’re a gullible moron.

        • Susan

          What is implied is that you’re a gullible moron.

          Yeah. IF someone believes that. But I don’t know if Murph does.

          What is overt is that Luvin’ It is a sockpuppet of a troll who used to call himself Murph.

          Maybe an honest christian will show up to call him out on that.

        • Lark62

          Yes. Slave owner Francis Scott Key’s third stanza says
          “No refuge could save the hireling and slave
          From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave”

          Right before it says
          “And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,
          O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

          “Land of the free” As Inigo Montoya might say “They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.”

        • Dannorth

          IIRC in the early days of the USA franchise was only granted to folks with a certain level of wealth. Not even every adult males.

          So like about everybody else in the history of humanity they were more sensitive to their situation than to that of others. But they could write!

        • Joe

          “…endowed by our Creator…”

          Some people said it, so it must be true!

        • Luvin’ it

          Well you’re living in the most free society to ever exist so maybe they were on to something huh?

        • Joe

          What’s that got to do with anything? Freedom exists because of man-made laws put in place specifically to enable freedom.

        • Greg G.

          Have you noticed that our freedoms are freedom from most of the commandments of the Bible? Have you noticed that what is illegal in the most free society is also illegal in every other society no matter what the society developed from?

          Remember that the Declaration of Independence and the original constitution allowed slavery that was originally based on Old Testament law.

        • BlackMamba44

          You’re going to have to back that up with a little evidence.

          To ever exist? Really?

        • adam

          “You’re going to have to back that up with a little evidence.”

          Hint: aint gonna happen.

        • adam

          But we are not.

          The United States has the largest prison population in the world,[3][4][5] and the second-highest per-capita incarceration rate,

        • Max Doubt

          “The United States has the largest prison population in the world, and the second-highest per-capita incarceration rate.”

          And the majority of those in prison haven’t done anything to anyone. Their freedom is being revoked because of some people’s sense of moral righteousness, people overwhelmingly aligned with conservatism, which in our current society is overtly integrated with the religious right. It’s not the atheists who want to make people live in cages for having a zip-loc bag of plant material in their pockets.

        • Greg G.

          Now we have Privatized Prisons for Profit.

        • Max Doubt

          “Now we have Privatized Prisons for Profit.”

          Yep, and the inevitable consequence of that, judges and others inside the legal system taking kickbacks to make sure those prisons are filled to capacity.

          If there’s a way to make money by keeping people in cages, there will be a whole lot of people working very hard to put people in cages.

        • adam

          “It’s not the atheists who want to make people live in cages for having a zip-loc bag of plant material in their pockets.”

          Kind of my point exactly!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          DoI, NOT the Constitution.

          Try again.

      • Greg G.

        Just so you know, it was a lack of freedom that caused there to be so many Founding Fathers with religion:

        Office-holding qualifications at all levels—including the Virginia House of Burgesses, to which Jefferson was elected in 1769—required affiliation with the current state religion and a commitment that one would neither express dissent nor do anything that did not conform to church doctrine.

        One couldn’t be a Founding Father without pretending to be a Christian because the law didn’t allow it.

    • RichardSRussell

      Yeah, that looks about right. And helps to underline why they thot that no one of these many options deserved special treatment, either too much support or too much repression. So we have a Constitution that requires the government to be absolutely neutral, so that our individual citizens could be perfectly free to follow their consciences wherever they wanted. IMHO, it’s one of America’s greatest gifts to civilization.

  • smrnda

    ““Infinite love is utterly intolerant in any imperfection in the beloved.”

    That sounds like what a creepy abuser who keeps their ‘beloved’ locked up in the basement would say. Part of what most people mean by ‘love’ is that the other party isn’t trying to change you into something else. A parent who demands that their child must be perfect wouldn’t be described as a ‘loving parent’ – they would be an asshole. And then what is ‘imperfection?’ Does my perfect love demand perfect grooming before I’m allowed out of the house? Must I be on a special diet and exercise plan in case my body ceased to be ‘good enough?’ It might be ‘love’ to caution someone against a substance abuse issue, but getting furious because someone had a beer is not love.

    When a person tries to be that controlling, we recognize it as abuse, not love. If the argument is ‘but this god really, really does know what’s best for you’ – in that case, this still isn’t love. It’s still just control and it’s all about ‘be what I want you to be.’ That’s like parents sending kids to dangerous ‘conversion therapy’ to make them straight. The parent doesn’t love their kid, they want a straight kid like they want a new car or a bigger house.

  • Neo

    I’ve recently been going through a period of loss. As is typical this time of year, children head off to college, but this year it’s different because, as they head off, well, it’s the empty nest situation. And then, yesterday, my kitten, (of 9 years) passed away. He had a tumor next to the liver that was not allowing him to eat and his temperature was 92. Ok, with all that said here’s what I, as a theist, is grappling with this morning and I believe it relates to your post on the topic of “God’s Love”. On the one hand, Jesus taught us that there is an afterlife. On the other hand, remember the passage with Lazarus where Jesus wept and all those around him said (more or less) “see how he loved, Lazarus” – … So what I am wrestling with is, why is that God created a world where love gets all tangled up with mourning. Thanks for listening.

    • Luvin’ it

      Free will is typically one of the reasons as far as humanity is concerned

      • Greg G.

        The free will of humans causes tumors in cats? Children growing up and exercising free will by going out to make a life from themselves is a bad thing? Neo is transitioning from a life he enjoyed very much to one with more loneliness. He knew this time would come but he enjoyed life in the meantime. Now he has empty spaces to fill.

        Your response shows a lack of understanding.

      • Otto

        That is as dumb of a standard Christian ‘explanation’ as any.

        • Pofarmer

          It’s pretty much the stock answer, though.

        • Otto

          It didn’t make complete sense when I was a christian…I just couldn’t put my finger on why at the time. Now I can. One thing I have now realized is any ‘stock answer’ from Christianity is in direct conflict with their other answers…i.e. Christianity is not internally consistent.

      • MNb

        Good job demonstrating how the free will defense leads to a total lack of empathy, even towards cobelievers.
        Ah well, you’re not the first IDiot who appears to be a piece of shit.

      • adam
    • Greg G.

      Sorry for your loss.

      • Neo

        Thank you, Greg.

    • Chuck Johnson

      … So what I am wrestling with is, why is that God created a world
      where love gets all tangled up with mourning. Thanks for listening.-Neo

      God did not create this world of humans and kittens.
      Chemical reactions billions of years ago created life on earth.

      Love is a survival adaptation.

      The ancient superstitions are incorrect, and they cause confusion and paradox.

      Love connects living organisms together. These connections help us to survive and to evolve.
      The comments section here is part of a vast system of connections among humans.
      Thanks for stopping by.

      • Neo

        yes, thank you.

    • Otto

      I am very sorry for your loss Neo.

      • Neo

        thank you, Otto.

        • Otto

          I have not been a cat person. My wife loves them so guess what? Now we have great cats. I had to put our 5 year cat down last year because he had terrible allergies and we tried everything. One of the hardest days I have had.

        • Neo

          if I could upvote you twice I would, thank you.

        • Greg G.

          We didn’t have cats when I was a kid because my parents weren’t into them, though we had a dog. My step-mother and half-sisters had cats and dogs, though. Now one cat has adopted my dad as his pet human.

    • MR

      I lost a cat recently, too. It’s been a couple months now, and I caught myself today still glancing on the front porch as I pulled out of the driveway to see if he was there. Heartfelt condolences.

      For me, as I transitioned to being a non-theist, understanding these moments in life involved a careful unraveling of reality and superstition (I don’t mean that disparagingly, the better word I’m looking for isn’t coming to me). We treat the concept of “love” as if it is a thing. It’s really a complex interplay of beliefs, actions, reactions, intents, expectations…. I mean, too difficult to summarize, but it is definitely not magic. The word “love” is a label, a shortcut to define the intricate and complicated relationships we have with people, and obviously, our pets. We’ve been conditioned from birth, however, to treat “love” as if it is magic, as if it’s a thing in itself. It is not.

      When you say, “Why is it that God created a world where love gets all tangled up with mourning,” and you insert a realistic understanding of what “love” is, you begin to see that the question is really rather nonsensical. That doesn’t mean you have to define love out of existence. For me, anyway, understanding what love actually is and peeling away the mystical layer gives me a deeper appreciation for my relationships. Love is a natural thing (not supernatural), and so is death. None of us should be surprised that love happens, that death happens, that they play on our emotions. It’s all part of life, and understanding this goes a long way to accepting reality for what it is. There is no shame in loving. There is no shame in mourning. Participate in them both. That is life.

      • Neo

        thank you, MR.

      • Pofarmer

        I’m not much of a Cat lover. But, we’ve got an ancient old Fluffy cat here that the boys named Whitey, that’s just tough as hell. I fully plan to have a service for her when she goes, if we find her. Other Cat’s I’ve held no grief for, but this one is, well, special.

        • MR

          – Bien sûr, dit le renard. Tu n’es encore pour moi qu’un petit garçon tout semblable à cent mille petits garçons. Et je n’ai pas besoin de toi. Et tu n’as pas besoin de moi non plus. Je ne suis pour toi qu’un renard semblable à cent mille renards. Mais, si tu m’apprivoises, nous aurons besoin l’un de l’autre. Tu seras pour moi unique au monde. Je serai pour toi unique au monde… Je commence à comprendre, dit le petit prince. Il y a une fleur… je crois qu’elle m’a apprivoisé… –Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

    • Lark62

      Hugs.

      One of my two 16 year old cats died a few months ago. The 2 year rescue we adopted because the other wouldn’t stop crying is just now coming out from under the bed. It’s tough.

      For me, when I was a christian I believed “everything happens for a reason.” So I was constantly trying to figure out the reason for whatever happened. It was frustrating, and on some level I knew it was wrong.

      When I subsequently became an atheist, one of the first benefits was the relief of not having to find reasons for random events. Some things just happen.

      Love is part of life. As are growth and change.

      You might want to Google the poem Desiderata by Max Ehrmann. It is very life affirming. It is theistic but I still love it. – Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.

      • Neo

        thank you.

      • TheNuszAbides

        It is theistic

        that can be fixed even more handily than Jefferson’s attempt to fix the bible!

    • RichardSRussell

      I remember when I was on the union bargaining team and we proposed eliminating the laundry list of different kinds of relatives for whom you could take off different amounts of time for bereavement leave (something like 3 days for a parent or child; 2 days for aunts, uncles, cousins; 1 day for friends; etc.). We proposed to just merge bereavement leave into general time off and let employees figure out for themselves how much to take and when. We were getting pushback from the management team, who thot our proposal was subject to abuse. One of them remarked “Why, last year we had somebody who wanted to take time off because his dog had died! Can you imagine?” We all goggled back and were all thinking (until one of us finally overcame his astonishment to actually ask out loud) “What, you mean you can’t imagine?”!

      My sympathies.

      • Neo

        ty

      • Dannorth

        Not saying this is the case with that boss but it has been noted that psychopaths are attracted to position of autority and these folk do not form real attachment nor can they empathize.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Thanks for your thoughts. I’ve experienced the death of pets and the empty nest thing myself. It can be tough.

      But isn’t the Christian idea of death simply a temporary separation? Won’t you see your loved ones in heaven?

      • Neo

        “Thanks for your thoughts. I’ve experienced the death of pets and the empty nest thing myself. It can be tough.”

        Thank you, Bob.

        “But isn’t the Christian idea of death simply a temporary separation? Won’t you see your loved ones in heaven?”

        This is exactly the problem I am having. The atheist point of view is actually much more simple, you die and that’s it, and, to be honest, I like simple – once you have the idea of the afterlife, you have the questions, well, how old are they, what do they look like..etc, also, with our concept of the afterlife, well then why did Jesus weep when Lazarus died? Also, in the bible, we have the sermon on the mount with “Blessed are those that mourn”, well, if there is an afterlife, shouldn’t the Bible be instructing us not to be mournful? And, if God is love why invent the whole concept of death which then leads to sorrow but then we’re suppose to be sorrowful to show how much we love them… questions, questions…not simple. Perhaps you have a writing or two that may shed light…? (sorry to keep adding edits here, but also, I know at least two priests who said animals don’t have the kind of souls that would take them to the afterlife…-how do they know, anyway?) Thank you again for listening, definitely did not intend to go on this long..

        • Pofarmer

          The first intimate death that I went through as an Atheist was my Grandmother, who was 95 when she died. She was in terrible health. Couldn’t see, bedridden. She was very afraid of dying, and very Christian. “Isn’t the whole afterlife thing supposed to be reassuring?” I kept asking myself. I think deep down, most people don’t actually believe it, or, from a lifetime of conditioning, they are terrified of hell. Mark Twain’s words actually bring me comfort. ” I was dead for billions of years before I was born, I don’t see why I will be inconvenienced by billions more when I die” or something close to that. Does that mean I didn’t mourn my Grandmother? No, I certainly did. Still miss her to this day, and am getting a little lump in my throat thinking about her. As humans we form close family bonds, it’s what we do and what has made us successful as a species. It also means that we feel the pain of loss. Here’s hoping to better days for you and yours.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Perhaps the lesson is, “there’s no good without bad, too.” You can be the tough cowboy (as in “I am a rock” by Simon and Garfunkel), but by cutting out the lows, you’ve lost the highs as well.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Here’s the other half of your reference:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-bwXhts8Zg

        • Cady555

          I suggest that christians do not in any way believe the hell the threaten everyone with.

          Think about it. The children they give birth to have a good chance of being tortured for eternity. Now, assume someone told you that there is a 10 or 20% chance that your child will suffer from unrelenting pain for 50 years. If you believed this were true, how quickly would you get fixed? There is no way on earth I would conceive a child under those conditions. Yet christians breed like rabbits. They don’t believe in hell. Not really. It is just a convenient, undisprovable threat.

        • Neo

          thank you.

        • Pofarmer

          This is an interesting study, Cady555, because I actually live the reality that you describe. Our 3rd child was born with a condition called “Hurlers Syndrome” It’s homozygous recessive, so both my wife and I carry the recessive gene. This means there’s a 1 in 4 chance that any child we have would have it. Our first two boys are fine. Neither one of us knew we carried the gene. I don’t know how old our son was when I decided to get a vasectomy. I thought it was too risky to possibly bring another child into the world with this condition. My wife was conflicted because of her religious convictions (Catholic). She thought God would sort it out. I thought that another child with this condition would financially and emotionally ruin us. I think they do, in fact, believe in Hell, I have other evidence of this as well, within our marriage, and I think their “faith” sometimes leads them to make insanely irrational decisions. I know this is way off topic, and I hope that none of this is in any way offensive to Neo, who started the whole thing off.

          edit

          Our first two children also carry the recessive Gene. I’ve told them that they need to get any prospective wives tested for it, because it would simply be unethical to bring children into the world knowing that they could have this condition as well.

        • Otto

          I cannot fathom what you go through….I have no words

          I can say my father died when I was 12 from Lou Gehrig’s disease. I was in Catholic school at the time, my mother was Catholic and my father was not. My father divorced my mother when I was 7. According to the Catholic church (as I was taught) he died in sin and therefore was most likely in hell. I believed it and it caused me great stress and pain. Of course if this is brought up to a Priest or other Church ‘authority’ they will say only God decides, that is such a bullshit cop out it boils my blood.

        • Pofarmer

          One of the biggest reasons for me to talk with my boys about religion as I was loosing my faith was to disabuse them of their fear of hell. Catholicism is very, very good at instilling fear in kids. My middle son would wake up with night terrors about demons and dying repeatedly. One of my last gasps as a Christian was lying in bed with him trying to sleep and saying out loud “In Jesus name, demons be gone.” Yeah, that didn’t work. So, we started talking about, ya know, reality, and things started getting better. My wife even realizes it, tangentially, in that you can pray for stuff, but nothing actually happens unless you, ya know, do something about it. She’s mad that I took his faith away, but, as a father, I took his fear away, and, together, we understood more about each other and the world around us.

        • adam

          ” I took his fear away, and, together, we understood more about each other and the world around us.”

          And isnt THAT what it should be about.

        • Pofarmer

          Not in the eyes of the religious, no.

        • Otto

          >>>”My middle son would wake up with night terrors about demons and dying repeatedly.”

          I can completely relate to this.

        • epeeist

          Catholicism is very, very good at instilling fear in kids.

          Yes, as I have said before my father’s family were Catholic and my mother’s were not. The thing that gave me the screaming heebies was being told that Catholics went to heaven and non-Catholics went to the “bad place”.

        • Michael Neville

          My brothers and I have a joke: “We were raised as Catholics and had a Jewish mother, that gave us twice the guilt.”

        • Otto

          I like to say I am a recovering Catholic

        • Cady555

          Hugs

        • Pofarmer

          Thanks. It’s all good.

        • Neo

          thank you for those kind words, Pofarmer.

        • Pofarmer

          We’re all Human, Neo.

        • eric

          if there is an afterlife, shouldn’t the Bible be instructing us not to be mournful?

          Afterlife or not, I think mourning is useful for those ‘left behind.’ After all, it is cathartic to be sad when someone you love moves away, or even goes on a long trip. Heck I miss my kid when I don’t see him for several days. So even if you believe your dead loved one is spiritually alive somewhere else, it’s still okay and probably healthy to be sad that you can’t be with them.

        • Neo

          thank you, eric.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Agreed. And I don’t think you get much clarity from Christianity. CS Lewis says that the gates of hell are barred from the inside, but the Bible sure doesn’t say that in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16). Clearly, torment is God’s plan there.

          That’s a great point about death—if there’s everlasting life, then why is there the speed bump of earthly death? Why aren’t we born right into paradise? It can’t be that God has to weed out the good from the bad because he already knows that, since he’s omniscient.

          If you’re stuck with the imperfection of life here on earth, my idea of heaven is this: everyone goes to heaven when they die, but they all get great wisdom so they can properly use their free will. This addresses the problem of why heaven would be any better than just an eternity with the same knuckleheads you don’t much like down here on earth. Someone in heaven could do something wrong, but why would they? With their wisdom, they’d know that that was stupid in the long run.

          And as for reward and punishment, a bad person entering heaven would be enlightened to see what a jerk he’d been all his life and how he squandered his life. He would punish himself, eliminating the need for hell.

          Of course, that raises the question: if we can’t properly use free will without lots of wisdom, why aren’t we given that wisdom here on earth? Why the freak show of human’s imperfect existence on earth? Just for God’s amusement?

          Just some thoughts.

        • Pofarmer

          This is pretty close to what I understand Heinlein’s idea of the universal afterlife to be.

        • Otto

          I agree, those are some tough questions. I know for some (like my wife) it is really hard to give up the idea of an afterlife and I can certainly understand that. For me it was a relief. Every person is different on how these questions affect them.

        • Cady555

          “How do they know, anyway?”

          This is a good question to ask when you are ready. Think about all the various things that are claimed about heaven, and consider whether any of those claims is anything other than someone’s imagination. Is any claim supported by evidence? How could it be? Is it more likely that every person who makes a claim about heaven is using fear of an afterlife to coerce obedience or extract valuables from the audience?

          This may be too lighthearted for someone who is grieving, so ignore if you want. But if animals go to heaven, what happens when you come face to face with last night’s bacon cheeseburger? Awkward.

        • Neo

          ty

  • eric

    Kreeft tells us that…“Infinite love is utterly intolerant in any imperfection in the beloved.”

    Wow, talk about turning an idea on it’s head!

    ‘Do you, God, take humanity, to have and to hold only when they’re perfect, in health but not sickness, only for better but not for worse? ‘

    That doesn’t sound like an omni-merciful God. It sounds more like Ming the Merciless from Flash Gordon.

    • RichardSRussell

      Ming was a pussycat compared to the omnicidal Yahweh, to say nothing of the horrifically sadistic caricature of him proposed by Kreeft.

      But they both have one thing in common: Neither of them is ever going to show up to try to set the record straight.

      • eric

        Ming would not deign to bother with setting the record straight just for a bunch of mere humans, while Yahweh…oh wait, same.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Nice marriage connection. Christians use that themselves when the church is supposed to be the bride of Christ. But since it’s filled with sinners, and the Godhead is “utterly intolerant of any imperfection in the beloved,” why would Jesus be stupid enough to even get engaged?

      • Greg G.

        why would Jesus be stupid enough to even get engaged?

        He is marrying for money.

        • sandy

          Speaking of money. Why would the Catholic church (or any church) keep preaching about god and jesus and embrace that story? Answer is…what’s their net worth!?

      • eric

        Well, because we all know that what Kreeft means is “God is utterly intolerant of the acts I’m intolerant of, but he’s welcoming of those sinners I think are worth welcoming.” Republican Jesus gets engaged with those people the speaker approves of, and rejects those the speaker rejects.

  • Dannorth

    “Why,” said another, “Some there are who tell
    Of one who threatens he will toss to Hell
    The luckless Pots he marr’d in making–Pish!
    He’s a Good Fellow, and ’twill all be well.”

    How can you concile the idea of a loving god with one who condemns for eternity for their imperfection the creature he created imperfect in the first place?

    It makes as much sense as the Trinity.

    (echoing I’m sure hundred of commenters who wrote before me)